they one anaes
ae Prevent si
ἊΝ hy
le
yA ἣν
ὙΠ aut ὟΝ
Vita rh
exe
vv Py)
en
aan rit
padi
fist
Ph i Hi hi
iy
in) Ὶ
et tat teh j 4
ΤῸΝ
Tash wi Asta
4
y AS i]
4 δ. ΑΝ
ἘΝ
ἢ Waite
fet)
Stitee oe
urs
LY]
ma πᾳ ΣΝ
μετ.
᾿
ee Com it)
niall edtesou laut vats sata
ΓΝ iit WN ere Ibe
Dale
' eta
Vas}
rite ial
Patt
Te ΓΝ
Gli falas
ni Ye yy
tae
Saye) )
ἡ ἢ Las
ehhh
SOLE UE
Wit ale
uA γ
nas
“ee Aer ek ἀν
fatty ye
ΠΩΣ
peberiie un? 4 γε as)
af pices ΤΩΝ
aa ΑΝ
Th} ἘΝ) δ τη 1) (achive
4 ΠῚ a) εν aheyat
‘
ΠΣ"
i
? "
ane iy Ta ghar
swat)
owe ity ἮΝ a
ae
ἮΝ ἢ ΤΑΝ
ei ἘΠῚ ley sane
ire sect uid τὴς
we 6
Hide 40}. ayes
CU Lal HK
ὙΦΎΝΗΝ
wer | ΠῚ
shy
sony
Levee Φ ὙΜ ate
ΠῚ
Mis ΔΝ;
it
ΤῊΣ
ΡΥ εν srl
Pe aoe
Weer
{τ
εὐ Φ ΠΝ) be
ΠΝ Δ A
Attell ἀ 4}
τ
eae fay ΜΝ
Pa A SU asta
Mi fists rans ΩΝ ᾿
heat
ΑΝ tal)
We ily
J ἀφῶ A μόν tnt we ΜΝ
4:
ἀνὰ Φεῦ
vary nas ἢ
ΜΙ i
ΝΗ
ADM ἐν alo) Ani ἡ(4ν 1 δ) ae
Δ ΝΎ δι} δι}. 11} ek Le
‘a piston Ἢ ἐμά τι
ΠΗ
Pn ἐγ μα elo)
ease
erie
te? bie
an
iat ΠῚ
A iG i
ΠῚ
ΗΝ
ΤΠ
Le
i by
oe
thee
pt
i; aes ΠΝ
ἥν τὸ rine) ay ad
re] Meh ne
tats
BY
Nat i ᾿
ἜΜ
ἐφ inti }}}
get aie
ἜΠΗ ΜΝ
ἘΠῚ Prantl i we
ANE ΗΝ ΕῚ ie ‘
ΗΝ ΠΝ ΤΗΝ: ἢ
Ἢ) ᾿ ΤῊΝ ὑπ ηην
ΠΥ eke Le
LET ΗΝ
AT UL
ἜΗΝ ἯΙ
¥
NTRS) Lie
a tt
Outs ti
ΠΟΥ AG) “
La Nab be
ee ORR
bay "ἢ
a A TS
Wisbhen Gk
i} yh Ψ Ἵ } Vig beveal
At ae hi) ti
wy ne 5] ist
AS AqAY) voy
ithe Tha
afte yy {2}
ἜΣ
Sy ΠΝ Hari ΜΔ τ
)
i ἡ Hey
)
+
ΥΩ
of
ii th
ΔῊ
πᾷ.
SS:
i
ἮΝ
hae
Al
ἐν
i
ΜΙ
Υ̓
δ
ip
7
τὸ
ΜΗ} ὙΠ
ΠῚ ΣΉΜ
με
ΕΝ
ἣν ΠΝ mel "
ARE ΠΝ
HORA ΜΆ
ΠΤ ΝΣ ἮΝ
otis rie)
if
CAML A ope ayulsn
any
Per ΠΝ hoy
Part
ΠΗ
bration
ΠῚ
vig) PEE Nay ἢ nual
hve
ΜΗ
ΜΠ i
Ses psy a at
ἢ
ΠΩ
ἀἀ 0 Ὁ}
ΤΗ͂Ι
Hearty
ΠΡ
Waleed ΥΥ ΕΝ,
4
ΗΝ
ΠΗ
SS
iri 2 Ὁ}
it Ἧ aged
sare wl ε)
ἡ φΦ vine si
{SRO ΝΜ
ty
Hadi ap
ΠΗ
nO) L}
ἦν ὙΠ
ay ΡΟΝ sites
VE ak Cx Φδα Ἦν
. a eae fehl
δ ἘΔ Υ Ο κΘΟΝη. i
hte ip 7 yaryiels
ate, nee yi Ἷ
ἜΠΗ Hb ttt ay ν᾿
nv uiees
i
SA AMEE
re ΔΗ
κτλ Ιμ gt Κη Has ay
ον ndial ery Ὁ) pe),
᾿" ἀρ ων [03
Mas sia wt A ethene ΠΗ
thet
Whaat
τ
Patty
ΟΝ
ἘΝ ἡ ives 6
ἜΗΝ i}! ὄν.
at ἢ
Δ heath 4 tied:
! Ὶ
hath
ἌΝ
ν
ΝῊ
ΤῊ ΤΠ ΠΝ,
ΔῊΝ
ΜῊ
ΜῊ
Ἢ
ΩΝ
elite fae
Bae
{
iat ἜΝ
Τρ γα Le ᾿
δ
it Hi ἘΝ
mee 4
JA CAS,
" ὙΠ ἢ Bay ἮΝ
Gihtet heater
(tows
ΓΕ
ἢ ἮΝ “τὴν
SA
aime sent
Hees feet
Ay bond
Ἷ ane
ΝΣ
een ᾿
et 440 te
i { ia Pos
Fey's
bite
st ena Dearadyistay Ti
Py ta Saeed ne A
Ὁ ΠΥ ΚΗ ΜΉ
Pigyetys yi ῃ
FOOT μη δ ἡ hid
07)
if’ Biel ttle
ite ae τη
᾿
τον Δ ΗΝ ¥
Hie sui a
se
mit aan
ital)
A?
Wan
2 ANS
4
erin)
ἢ ΑΔ ΜΝ
eer) hue) Tisha ἢ
ῃ i ant ἬΝ) ἌΝ.
4 ths) i ‘yf ti vayts Ay at p LARA UCU ES IAEE Lat id VER ΠΝ 4
ΓΝ ἼΩΝ PN A ΡΠΉ ΉΡΟ ayy ifn
Pav later ἐν revs ΧΡ A
ry
if
AAT, FO COE ABA
ἢ τ νι"
Pr:
ess)
ar ΘΝ iats
[ Ra | ΠΝ
ἀν ΙΗ
ἢ
ὙΠ ὅ +
δ ἮΝ "
hae
anklet
ΠῚ Lyidiad
Nie
hatin:
ἜΡΙΝ
bide
xi
th ἭΒΗ
ae
ΤῊ
Oy iat
le
ay sy
ibditaie fore
wets
Medi)
᾿
ΜΡ.
γ᾿ ἦν
“ἢ At stay}
1 ae ati)
ἢ
᾿ ἀγα ty
(goa
ee ii
ai
ἡ
Hane
ian
ANA Ἅ 5 Ὲ} Nay)
ἡμὴ: Ὁ
ὯΙ Lith ΤῊ
ΠΡ ΤΙΝ
Cnt
ΤΗΝ ἡ
a
aes
yD Ἢ
ἽΝ,
estat
ϑ
ἡ ᾿
(4 ae
fae
WRN ny
Hh)
Pte
Psi
W is ἵ
Mea
satis) hil
wii
ἡ δι iH
tet
rT by) te Bon
Tye Re hyae if
"
“
ΗΝ
yey
Hols
AME A HIAEE
Welty
ΠΗ ἨΝ
ΠΗ Η
aye
HF δ δύ έν With
Pantani
’ ΟΣ
ἩΥΔΊΝ By dat ΟΝ
Δαν Η
ὙΠ ΔΕΝ
Ὑ Ὁ
Ὁ
deeb at
Leela det
ΜΗ
ἜΦΠΨΥΝ
᾿
ἐφολρ νὰ"
Ha neg abet tt
πὰ tyles oeehel
rere iad
Ἰλία gal ἜΗΝ
ἢ ny Νὴ
sh τ sae 43
tte)
ἣν
a ΜΗ ᾿
ἘΠ ἢ
iad
ἣ
ἘΝ
Ν᾿ ΓΗ
Ἐν ὍΝ
ἐδ} 4
ἂν ἐδ}
ιν
fo ἴον, ΤῊΣ is
ἡ τ νην}
4 pA
bath 09
its
4
ΠΎΘΩΝ
ΠΑΆΜΗ ἢ
ΟΥΤΩΣ
ΔΈΝ Ὰ
ἩΡΗΣΙ et
tt ryt
Neri he
Series parker a the Hw
ΔΎ Ὁ
vahara wigs
ΕἾ nies
saa
Pores meee
She pial
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
HAN D-BOOK
TO THE
EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS.
BY
-
HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, 1η.}.
OBERCONSISTORIALKATH, HANNOVER.
TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY
Rev. Ὁ. DOUGLAS BANNERMAN, M.A.
THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY
WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D.
PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES BY
TALBOT W. CHAMBERS, D.D.
FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY.
NEW YORK AND LONDON.
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1
By FUNK & WAGNALLS,
m the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washingto
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
Tue Epistles to the Corinthians stand almost alone in character and aim
among the writings of the great Apostle. They are not didactic, like Ro-
mans and Galatians : the former a profound discussion of the principles
of Anthropology and Soteriology, the latter an indignant protest against
opinions and practices which threatened to subvert the very foundation
of the Gospel. Nor do they resemble the Epistles written from the im-
prisonment at Rome, two of which, Philippians and Colossians, reassert
a Christology as lofty and far-reaching as John’s, while the other two,
Philippians and Philemon, are the outpouring of a heart filled with
Christian love, and yearning for the spiritual welfare of the parties ad-
dressed. Still less are they like the Apostle’s first written utterances
of which we have record, those to the Thessalonians, bearing in every
page traces of the trials through which these believers had passed, and
animating them to renewed constancy; or his last Epistles, those to
Timothy and Titus, in which he sets forth the qualifications of church
officers. In the Corinthians, on the contrary, we are introduced into a
variety of the phases of ordinary life in an Apostolic church, and a
series of questions is taken up and discussed, not abstractly, but in im-
mediate application to the circumstances of the people at the time. Doc-
trinal themes, with a single important exception, the general resurrec-
tion (I. xv.), are not handled at length, although the existence and va-
lidity of the cardinal features of the system are presupposed throughout,
and upon occasion briefly touched upon with great vigour.
The First Epistle gives us a very clear conception of the actual state
of the ancient churches, their excellences and their defects, the rela-
tions in which their members stood to the unbelievers among whom
they lived, the errors in practice to which they were exposed, their use
and abuse of extraordinary gifts, their methods in worship, their appli-
cation of Christian principles in the affairs of ordinary life, and the
whole movement of events as a society of believers grew and developed
in the midst of a great commercial city which was wealthy and refined,
but at the same time unusually depraved. The conflict between light
and darkness, right and wrong, truth and error, was of course much the
lv PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
same in all parts of the Roman world where the standard of the cross
was raised and its adherents were gathered into a community, but no-.
where was it carried on so intensely or at so many different points as in
Corinth. Hence we are enabled to see here what was the true life of an
apostolic church, to catch the spirit of its important movements and ap-
prehend its mingled good and evil. The many questions of morality
and casuistry which arose in this lively and intelligent population afford
us a very clear insight into the feelings and opinions of the early
Christians. The solution of these questions discloses the extraordinary
versatility of the Apostle’s mind, and his power of dealing with diffi-
cult and complicated matters as well as with unscrupulous opponents.
‘«For every aberration he has a word of severe censure, for every dan-
ger a word of warning, for every weakness a word of cheer and sym-
pathy, for every returning offender a word of pardon and encourage-
ment.’’’ Nor does he ever seem at a loss. Whatever the case, he is
able to meet it. No point is evaded. He solves all questions by an
appeal to Scripture, or to the words of Christ, or to his own immedi-
ate inspiration as an organ of the Holy Ghost. And he solves them for
all places and ages. It is not by expedients or make-shifts, but by
going to first principles, that he settles difficulties about ministerial sup-
port, or a litigious spirit, marriage rights and duties, fellowship with
unbelievers, and the like. So that the directions apply not only to the
specific circumstances that called them forth, but to innumerable others
of asimilar kind. Thus what at first sight is only a book of details,
becomes in fact a book of principles.
The Second Epistle, while partaking in part of the character of the
First, is chiefly remarkable for the degree in which it discloses to us the
personal character and experience of its author. In many parts it is like
an autobiography. A Judaizing party had been at work in Corinth sowing
dissension and undermining the Gospel by impeaching the credentials, the
claims, and the conduct of the Apostle. This puts him on his defence.
He was compelled to vindicate himself, for he was a witness of the res-
urrection, a founder of churches, a channel of inspiration, a chosen ves-
sel to bear the gospel to the Gentiles. Now if in the chief city of
Greece, one connected closely by arts and trade with the East and the
West, Paul’s authority was struck down, and he was shown to be a man of
words and not of deeds, a boaster, an intruder, vacillating in his pur-
poses and selfish in his aims, the consequences could not fail to be disas-
trous. Here the character of the message was bound up with that of the
messenger, If he were aman of mere secular impulses and without divine
τ Schaff.
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Υ͂
authority, all the churches from Antioch to Philippi would be sorely
embarrassed. It was necessary then for the Apostle to discuss the mat-
ter fully and plainly, and establish beyond controversy the soundness of
his claims as a representative of Christ and an organ of the Spirit.
Hence the seemingly petty personal details, to which he refers so often
and at so much length, are by no means to be attributed to an excess of
egotism or self-consciousness, or even to be considered as pardonable
flaws in what otherwise was a career of very great excellence, but are
rather themselves to be highly prized, not simply as illustrations of
character, but as valid proofs of that which is as important to-day as it
was in the years 57, 58 of our era,—viz. the plenary authority of
Paul as a penman of holy Scripture. Our Lord told the Twelve that he
had much to say to them, but they were not able to bear it then (John
xvi. 12) ; and he would therefore send a heavenly Paraclete, who would
guide them into ‘‘all the truth,’’ so that the revelation of God’s mind
and will for human salvation should be complete. It appears that the
greater part of this supplementary disclosure came through Paul. So
the New Testament represents the case. But if he were not what he
professed to be, but were either an impostor or a self-deceiver, then the
thirteen Epistles which bear his name are no guide in doctrine or duty,
and the space they hold in the Scripture is a mere blank or worse. It is
right then that the truth in this respect should be set forth, and the ex-
hibition of it be preserved to our own day as a testimony that our faith
is not in vain, nor are we following a cunningly devised fable.
The Epistle is a portrait of the Apostle, drawn unconsciously by his
own hand. He opens his whole heart, relating his joys and his sorrows,
his fears and his hopes, his labors, his trials, his anxieties, his steadfast
faith and holy love, his disinterestedness, his self-sacrifice, his fidelity,
and his courage. He refers or alludes to much of which we find no
record in the Acts of the Apostles, and hence we get afar more vivid
conception of his character than would otherwise be possible. He was
a great man, measured by any standard we may choose to apply—great in
intellect, in resources, in versatility, in application, in administrative
faculty—but without the least tinge either of pride or vanity. He could
not, of course, be unconscious of his gifts or of the work he was enabled
to perform, but the thought of these things led him only to magnify the
grace by which he came to be what he was. He was a man of energy
and decision, who, if need were, could come with a rod and not spare,
but the element of harshness so conspicuous in his course before conver-
sion was wholly wanting. He pronounced a prompt judgment upon
one who had erred, yet when discipline had wrought its destined pur-
pose, he was urgent that the penitent offender should be restored, lest he
vl PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. His zeal glowed like a torch
through life, yet it never consumed the tenderness which is needed to
make one mindful of the feelings of others. His sympathy was wide
and deep and constant. It took in all classes and conditions and races
of his fellow-men. Carried out as it was in word and act, as we see in
the development of these Epistles, it entitles him justly to be called the
benefactor of our kind, the foremost philanthropist of all time.
Here appropriately may be added a paragraph from Dr. Meyer’s Pref-
ace to the fourth edition of his comment on the First Epistle, for some
reason omitted in the fifth: ‘‘ No apostolic writing transports us so
directly and in such a lively manner into the varied concrete relations of
the Church, as does this Epistle. It represents the peculiar development
of the Christian Church life in one of the most brilliant seats of Grecian
culture and heathen corruption, a development in which the victory of
the cross over men’s wickedness and their folly was more endangered,
and the fulfilment of the apostolic entreaty, Be ye reconciled unto
God, was encumbered with greater difficulties than anywhere else.
But all the serious obstacles with which the world-subduing divine life
had there to contend were met by the Apostle, who was the Lord’s
chosen instrument to convey this divine life, with a clearness and cer-
tainty of judgment, with a humility and elevation of consciousness, with
a tenderness and boldness of utterance, with a never-failing tact, that
make us follow him through the entire letter with a constantly increas-
ing astonishment. And when one considers the Attic elegance, the
Demosthenice force, the almost lyric elevation of his speech in which
yet is heard the beating of the heart of Christ, we feel in truth at each
step, how much more than Demosthenes is here, how much more than
Homer and Pindar who have sung so highly the praises of 6AGia κόριν-
6oc. Ah, her true ὀλβοφόρος was the very man whom the people of
the Areopagus disdained and the philosophers of Athens derided as a
σπερμολόγος."
Dr. Meyer’s treatment of these Epistles resembles his general style
when handling other portions of the New Testament. He shows the
same independence, research, insight, and careful study of the original
text, which have given him his deserved pre-eminence among expositors
of the Word. There appear also his two leading imperfections—viz.
what is called purism, in adhering in all cases to strict grammatical
forms, even when the sense seems to require another view, as for example
in insisting that va always and everywhere is to be considered as having
a telic force, and again in finding a reference to the Parousia in very
many cases where such a reference is not obvious, and tends rather to
perplex than to elucidate the connection. Still there is great satisfaction
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. vil
in following a critic who is so keen and incisive, is so thoroughly ac-
quainted with all the literature, both preceding and contemporary, con-
nected with the matters in hand, and is so honest and fearless in stating
the conclusions to which he has come and the grounds upon which
they rest.
The notes appended to each chapter by the editor have been intended
in a few cases to indicate dissent from the views of the author, but in
the main to present such suggestions concerning the scope and applica-
tion of the Apostle’s words as have been derived from the labors of
other writers. As Dr. Meyer in common with nearly all German critics
omits to refer to English commentators, the editor has taken occasion
to cite at times the opinions of such scholars as Stanley, Hodge, Poor,
Principal Brown, Beet, and others who have given attention to these
Epistles. The English translation has been revised throughout, but it
was so carefully executed as very rarely to need correction. One of the
features of the original work, the frequent and copious citation of Greek
words and ciauses, may render it less acceptable to lay readers, but
ought to enhance its value to clerical students, since the careful study
of these extracts will tend to increase their familiarity with the original
tongue as well as to render them more intelligent and more competent
judges of the merits of the author’s opinions. And there are few
authors in the whole domain of New Testament exegesis whose writings
are so worthy of patient and prolonged study as those of the Obercon-
sistorialrath of Hannover who through a long life steadily grew step
by step with his work, and by his profound study of the divine word
obtained a more perfect experience of the saving grace and truth of the
gospel.
The Topical Index at the end of the volume has been prepared by the
Rev. G. F. Behringer, of Brooklyn, N. Y., who has kindly exercised a
general supervision cf the work while passing through the press.
T. W. CHAMBERS.
New Yors, April 28th, 1884.
ΙΝ ms
4 ΓΝ ie
‘ PEA arene ‘Ne ih.
δναν αν κω atin tr
τὴν ΝΣ Ἰὼ eerie ἤν.
ΜΉΝ ΑΝ ΚΩ͂Ν μον πον
espe ase mat, τὸ ἡ νην de Saal Ase
ese ΤῊ ΠΗ tgliwice εγε ih ee ᾿μδδμην ας th
οὐδ os Matciodie. ἐν δρον ἐνὶ ποθ Meibnlenes ue
οὐ λενεμέ rior ἀμνόν besiege mend: abc ΘΜ ΕΝ wen! Zh
Pee ων eT ee ee ea be
Bitte μὴ Ato Ge Sepa gee La nC iC
fii) pelea με μα λαμ, aaah ei ΒΕ ΣΉΝ, δ
ia i bids aL, ba) Ὁ, alibi! ἐς 9) ἢ lath ite
gy ener patio ule να Led ina ae €
"1 hiuaey tai wT, ; νι wae itt MM Bet + +2. Stee es
ἡ oat ἀπ ϊῊ ον ΔΝ
Ania eM ‘ait "“
; hoes καρ i ]
Pe ate! Mees
“δ ΠΝ τ weed) ca γύνν ee Δ. ἡ nal Sie eae ἢ wiles
thar ἐμῶν mie ὦ whi Oe. ΡΝ De
ἀν ν. εὐῤι ρον Θὰ dpe otha Ἢ
ἜΣ ΤΥ ΝΣ bangs χὰ δὰ πὰ by νυ ἡ σαν αν coer thd i
, a
τ; ᾿ ay os hy ) ‘
+ 7
Bt: ¥ "ΓΝ νι mer suiilal Aye ho δέ avbbadgen aban thay — vhs
>: σιν CGE snp PQ eee ae te wealediaied i neal
ἶ 1 ον ἡ Nive re ty aan
PREFACE.
Arter having been mainly occupied of late years with the historical
books of the New Testament, I have now to turn to the Epistles of Paul,
and to devote renewed labour to their exposition. In the present sadly
distracted age of the church I feel the deep gravity and responsibility of
the task which I have to face all the more strongly, because I cannot
but bear in mind that among all the sacred writings, it was those very
Epistles of Paul which were pre-eminently to the Reformers the con-
quering sword of the Spirit, and which exercised the most powerful
influence in moulding the doctrinal system of our church. The charac-
ters of Paul and Luther form a historical parallel, to which nothing sim-
ilar can be found in the whole series of God’s chosen instruments for
the furtherance of evangelical truth. We possess the divine light which
Paul bore through the world, and in whose radiance the Reformers did
their work ; the whole Scripture, with all its treasures, becomes day by
day more richly opened up to us by the labours of science ; but every-
where, from the extreme right to the extreme left, there is party-strife ;
and, amid the knowledge that puffeth up, the unity of the Spirit is
broken, faith languishes, and love grows cold. It is, in truth, as though
we were giving all diligence to afford the confirmation of increasing ex-
perience to the malicious assertion of the Romanists, that Protestantism
is already in full course of decomposition.
Our wounds will not be healed, but only deepened and widened, by
arrogant boasting about our Confessions, which are after all but the
works of men. Much less will the end be attained by a wanton attenu-
ating, explaining away, or setting aside of the positive teachings of the
N. T., and of the miraculous facts in the history of redemption ; for
these have subdued the world, and must continue to subdue it. Only
in that which is and remains the ‘‘ norma normans’’ for all faith and all .
teaching, and for the Confessions themselves,—only in the living word
of revelation resides the God-given power to heal, which will promote
the restoration to health, and the union of the body of the church, with
surer and more lasting effect, just in proportion as the word is more
clearly and fully understood and more truly and energetically appropri-
x PREFACE.
ated, and as, through such understanding and appropriation of it, the
supremacy of the word and of its high moral forces becomes more abso-
lute and all-controlling. To this sacred supremacy the church herself
with her doctrine must bow as well as the individual. For in laying
down her principle of appeal to Scripture, the church assumed not only
the possibility and allowableness, but also the necessity of a further
development and—where need should be shown—rectification of her
doctrine in accordance with Scripture. In this way the Confession
points to an authority transcending its own ; and the church, built as
she is immovably upon the everlasting Rock, has placed herself under
the law of growth, thereby giving augury of a future, which, according
to the apostle’s promise (Eph. iv. 13 ff.), despite all the sorrows of the
present, will not fail to be realized. To aid in preparing for this bright
future, is what all exposition of Scripture should recognize as its appointed
task, being mindful at the same time that the steps in the development
of the divine kingdom are centuries, and that the ways of Him who
rules over it are not our ways. If, therefore, a thorough and conscien-
tious searching of the Scriptures should arrive, as regards this or that
point of doctrine, at results which are at variance with confessional defi--
nitions, its duty, at the bidding of the exegetical conscience, is not in
an un-Lutheran and unprincipled fashion to disguise such results or to
cloak them with a misty phraseology, but, trusting to the sifting and con-
quering power of divine truth, openly and honestly to hand them over
to the judgment of science and the church. To science and the church,
I repeat ; for it is one of the follies of the day to seek to set these at
variance—to impose limits upon the former which are opposed to its es-
sential nature, and to set aside its voice and relegate it to silence under
an imaginary belief that a service is thereby rendered to the church,
Such a piece of folly is unevangelical, and fit only for the Zridentinum
and the Syllabus of the Bishop of Rome.
Now, if nothing save the pure word of God may or ought to prepare
the way towards a better future for the church, then all expounders of
that word have but one common aim placed before them,—namely, just
to ascertain its pure contents, without addition or subtraction and witha
renouncing of all invention of our own, with simplicity, truth, and clear-
ness, without being prejudiced by, and independent of, dogmatic & priori
postulates, with philological precision, and in strict objectivity as historical
fact. Anything more than this they ought not as expositors to attempt ;
but in this —and it is much—it is required of them that they be found
faithful. The plan of procedure adopted may vary ; one may prefer the
glossematic, another the inductive, method. I attach but little weight
to this question of method in itself, although I cannot ignore the fact,
PREFACE. xi
attested by various works appearing at the present day in the region of
Old and New Testament exegesis, that the inductive mode runs more
risk of giving to subjective exegesis a free play which should be rigor-
ously denied to it. One is very apt, under the influence of this method,
to give something more or less, or other than, the pure contents of the
sacred text. The ingenuity, which in this way has ampler room for manip-
ulating the premisses—how often with the aid of refining sophistry !
—and thinks itself justified in so doing, always miscarries in spite of all
its plausibility and confidence, when it gives to the world expositions that
offend against grammar and linguistic usage, or against the general and
special connection, or against both. Often in such cases the doubtful
recommendation of novelty ' is purchased only by strange strainings of
the text and other violent expedients, while clearness has not unfre-
quently to be sought for beneath the cloak of a laboriously involved
phraseology, which itself in its turn seems to require a commentary.
In preparing this fifth edition, which was preceded by the fourth in
1861, I have not neglected to give due attention to what has since been
done for the criticism and exposition of the apostolic Epistle.* While
thus engaged, I have very frequently, to my regret, found myself unable
1A great many entirely novel expositions of individual passages make their
appearance nowadays, of which I apprehend that hardly a single one will on trial
prove itself correct. Not that I am unduly attached to the traditions of exege-
sis ; but long experience and observation in this field of scientific inquiry have
taught me that—after there have been expended upon the N. T., in far greater
measure even than upon the O. T., the labours of the learning, the acuteness,
the mastery of Scripture, and the pious insight of eighteen centuries—new in-
terpretations, undiscerned hitherto by theminds most conversant with such
studies, are destined as a rule speedily to perish and be deservedly forgotten. I
am distrustful of such exegetical discoveries ; and those of the present day are
not of a kind to lessen my distrust. Apart from these there remain difficulty
and reward enough for the labours of exegesis.
2 Klépper’s Exeg-kritische Untersuchungen tber den zweiten. Korintherbrief, Got-
ting. 1869, with the accompanying dissertation on the “ Christ-party,”’ ap-
peared too late to be taken into consideration along with the other literature of
the subject. But the dissertation in question belongs for the most part to the
sphere of the second Epistle. It is from the second Epistle that it draws, more
thoroughly and consistently than is done by Beyschlag, the characteristics of
the Christ-party, combining these in such a way as to represent it as in funda-
. mental opposition to the apostle’s views and teaching with respect to Christol-
ogy and Soteriology. I cannot, however, but continue to regard the process,
which takes the traits for the delineation of the ‘‘Christ-party’’ from the
second Epistle, as an unwarrantable one.—It was likewise impossible to include
in my examination the just published book of Richard Schmidt, die Paulinische
Christologie in ihrem Zusammenhange mit der Heilslehre des Apostels, Gotting.
1870.
* <1 PREFACE.
to agree with von Hofmann’s work : Die heilige Schrift neuen Testaments
zusammenhingend untersucht.1 1 have nowhere sought this antagonism,
but it was as little my duty to evade or conceal it. Our exegetical natures
are very differently constituted ; our paths diverge widely from each
other, and the means which we have at our disposal, and which we deem
it right to employ, are dissimilar, Possibly out of this very antagonism
some advantage may accrue to the understanding of the New Testa-
ment.
Hannover, 30th November, 1869.
A
1 This work is, for the sake of brevity, referred to merely by ‘‘Hofmann,”
other works of the author being more precisely designated by their title.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE,
[For commentaries and collections of notes embracing the whole New Testa-
tament, see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew ; for
those which treat of the Pauline or Apostolic Epistles generally, see Preface to
the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The following list includes
only those which relate to the Epistles to the Corinthians (together or sepa-
rately), or in which one of these Epistles holds the first place on the title-page.
Works mainly of a popular and practical character have, with a few exceptions,
been excluded, as, however valuable they may be in themselves, they have but
little affinity with the strictly exegetical character of the present work. Mon-
ographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed by Meyer in loc. The
editions quoted are usually the earliest ; al. appended denotes that the book
has been more or less frequently reprinted ; + marks the date of the author's
death ; ο. circa.]
Axerstoor (Theodorus), Reformed Minister in Holland: D’eerste Sendbrief
van Paulus aan die van Korinthen, kortelyk in haar t’samenhang
uytgelegt. 40, Lugd. Bat. 1707.
AupHEN (Hieronymus Simon van), + 1742, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Ontlee-
dende verklaaring van Paullus tweden brief aan die Corinther.
49, Amst. 1708, al.
AmprosrasTER. See Romans.
BaumMearten (Sigmund Jakob), + 1757, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Auslegung der
beiden Briefe Pauli an die Corinther. 4°, Halle, 1761.
Buz0Ts (Johann Gustav Friedrich), + 1836, Prof. at Halle: Commentar zu
den Briefen des Paulus an die Korinther. 8°, Leip. 1833.
[Translated by William Lindsay Alexander, D.D., 2 vols.
12°, Edin. 1837-8. ]
Burcer (Karl Heinrich August von), Oberconsistorialrath at Munich: Der
erste [und der zweite] Brief Pauli an die Korinther deutsch ausgelegt,
2 Bande. 8°, Erlangen, 1859-60.
Coccrrus [Kocu] (Johann), + 1669, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Commentarius in
in Epistolas I. et II. ad Corinthios [Opera].
Contzen (Adam), + 1635, Jesuit at Mentz : Commentaria in Epistolas 5. Pauli
ad Corinthios et ad Galatas. 2°, Colon. 1631.
Crett (Johann), + 1633, Socinian teacher at Racow : Commentarius in priorem
Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam [Opera]. 8°, Racov. 1635.
Emmuertine (Christian August Gottfried), + 1827, Pastor at Probsthaida : Epis-
tola Pauli ad Corinthios posterior, Graece, perpetuo commentario il-
lustrata. 8° Lips. 1823.
Fuarr (Johann Friedrich von), + 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen : Vorlesungen
iiber die Briefe an die Corinther, herausgegeben von C. D. F. ΠΟΙ͂.
mann. 80, Tiibing. 1827.
Frirzscue (Karl Friedrich August), + 1846, Prof. Theol. at Rostock : De non-
nullis posterioris Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolae locis dissertationes
duae, 8°, Lips. 1824.
Gratama (Janus Aafeo): Commentatio in Paulinae Epistolae prioris ad Co-
rinthios caput vii. 8°, Groning. 1846.
xiv EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
Heypenretcn (August Ludwig Christian), + c. 1856, Prof. at Herborn; Com-
mentarius in priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam, 2 voll.
8°, Marb. 1825-7.
Hopes (Charles), D.D., Prof. Theol. at Princeton: An exposition of the First
Epistle to the Corinthians. 8°, Lond. 1857.
An exposition of the Second Epistle. 8°, Lond. 1860.
Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), Prof. Theol. at Erlangen: Die
Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhingend untersucht (II.
2, 3 Briefe an die Korinther), 8°, Nordlingen, 1864-6, al.
JaEGER (C. F. Heinrich): Erkliirung der beiden Briefe des Apostel Paulus
nach Corinth, aus dem Gesichtspunkte der vier Partheien daselbst.
8°, Tibing. 1838.
Kune (Christian Friedrich), Dean of Marbach on the Neckar: Die Korinther-
briefe theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet [Lange’s Bibelwerk, Theil.
VELA 8°, Bielefeld, 1861, al.
[Translated with additions by Daniel W. Poor, D.D., and Conway B.
‘Wing, D.D. 8°, New York [and Edin. ], 1869, al.]
Kiopper (Albrecht), Tutor at Konigsberg : Exegetisch-kritische Untersuchun-
gen tiber den zweiten Brief des Paulus an die Gemeinde zu Korinth.
8°, Gotting. 1869.
Commentar tiber das zweite Sendschreiben. 8°, Berl. 1874.
KravsE (Friedrich August Wilhelm), + 1827, Private Tutor at Vienna: Pauli ad
Corinthios Epistolae Graece. Perpetua annotatione illustravit F. A.
W. Krause. Vol. i. complectens ep. priorem. 8°, Francof. 1791.
ΤΕῸΝ (Johann Georg Friedrich), { 1823, Pastor at Butzbach in Hesse : Pauli ad
Corinthios Epistola secunda Graece perpetua annotatione illustrata.
8°, Lemg. 1804.
Licutroot (John), D.D., Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge : Horae Hebrai-
cae et Talmudicae in Epistolam priorem ad Corinthios.
4°, Cantab. 1664.
Mater (Adalbert), R. C. Prof. Theol. at Freiburg : Commentar tiber den ersten
Brief Pauli an die Korinther. 8°, Freiburg, 1857.
Masor [Mayer] (Georg), { 1574, Prof. Theol. at Wittenburg : Enarratio Epis-
tolarum Pauli ad Corinthios. 8°, Viteb. 1558, al.
Martyr (Peter) [Vermieiri], { 1562, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg: In priorem
D. Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam commentarii. 2°, Tiguri, 1551, al.
MELANCHTHON (Philipp), { 1560, Reformer: Brevis et utilis commentarius in
priorem Epistolam Pauli ad Corinthios et in aliquot capita secundae.
8°, Vitemb. 1561, al.
MoLpENHAUER (Johann Heinrich, Daniel), + 1790, Pastor at Hamburg: Erster
und zweiter Brief an die Corinther nach dem Grundtext iibersetzt mit
Erklarungen. 8°, Hamb. 1771-2.
Morus (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), + 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Erkla-
rung der beiden Briefe an die Corinther. 8°, Leip. 1794.
Mosuem (Johann Lorenz von), + 1755, Chancellor and Professor Theol. at Got-
tingen : Erklirung des ersten Briefes Pauli an die gemeine zu Corin-
thus. 4°, Altona, 1741.
Neue Ausgabe, nebst der Erklirung des zweiten Briefes herausgegeben
von C. E. von Windheim, 2 Binde. 4°, Altona u. Flensburg, 1762.
Muscutus [MeEussiin] (Wolfgang), + 1563, Prof. Theol. at Bonn : Commentarius
in utramque Epistolam ad Corinthios. 2°, Basil, 1559, al.
NEANDER (Johann August Wilhelm), + 1850, Prof. Theol. at Berlin: Auslegung
der beiden Briefe an die Corinther. Herausgegeben von Willib. Bey-
schlag. 8°, Berl. 1859.
OsIANDER (J. Ernst), Dean at Géppingen in Wiirtemberg : Commentar iiber
den ersten Brief Pauli an die Korinthier. 8°, Stuttgart, 1849.
Commentar iiber den zweiten Brief. 8°, Stuttg. 1858.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. xv
Porr (David Julius), + 1838, Prof. Theol. at Gottingen: Pauli Epistolae ad
Corinthios Graece perpetua annotatione illustratae. [Novum Testa-
mentum Koppianum, V. 1.] 8°, Gotting. 1826.
Rouuock (Robert), + 1598, Principal of University of Edinburgh : Commentarius
in utramque Epistolam ad Corinthios, cum notis Jo. Piscatoris.
8°, Herborn. 1600, al.
Rucxert (Leopold Immannuel), + c. 1845, Prof. Theol. at Jena : Commentar
iiber die Briefe an die Corinther. 2 Binde. 8°, Lips. 1836-7.
Sanu (Laurids), + 1805, Prof. of Greek at Copenhagen ; Paraphrasis in priorem
Epistolam ad Corinthios. ... 4°, Hafn. 1778.
ScHARLING (Carl Emil), Prof. Theol. at Copenhagen : Epistolam Pauli ad Corin-
thios posteriorem annotationibus in usum juvenum theolog. studioso-
rum illustravit C. E. Scharling. 8°, Kopenh, 1840.
ScumiD (Sebastian). See Romans.
ScuuuzE (Johann Christoph Friedrich), + 1806, Prof. Theol. at Giessen: Pauli
erster Brief an die Korinther herausgegeben und erklart.—Zweiter
Brief erklart .. . 8°, Halle, 1784-5.
Scuater (William), D.D., + 1626, Vicar of Pitminster : Utriusque Epistolae ad
Corinthios explicatio analyticae, una cum scholiis 49, Oxon. 1633.
SEMLER (Johann Salomon), { 1791, Prof. Theol. at Halle : Paraphrasis in primam
Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam cum notis et Latinarum translationum
excerptis. Et in secundam Epistolam .. . 12°, Hal. 1770-6.
Srantey (Arthur Penrhyn), D.D., Dean of Westminster: The Epistles of St.
Paul to the Corinthians ; with critical notes and dissertations. In two
volumes. 8°, Lond. 1855, al.
Srrvart (Peter), + 1621, Prof. Theol. at Ingolstadt : Commentaria in utramque
Epistolam ad Corinthios, 4°, Ingolstad. 1608.
Srorr (Gottlob Christian), { 1805, Consistorialrath at Stuttgart : Notitiae his-
toricae Epistolarum Pauli ad Corinthios interpretationi servientes.
4°, Tiibing. 1788.
Trt (Salomon van), + 1713, Prof. Theol. at Leyden ; Kortbondige verklaaring
ouer den eersten Brief van Paulus aan die van Korinthen.
40. Amst. 1731.
[See also Romans. ]
Virrinca (Kempe), + 1722, Prof. Theol. at Franeker : Exercitationes in diffi-
ciliora loca prioris Epistolae Pauli ad Corinthios. 4°, Franeq. 1784-9.
WinpHeErm (Christian Ernst von). See Mosnrerm (Johann Lorenz).
Zacwartak (Gotthilf Trangott), + 1777, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Paraphrastische
Erklarung der beiden Briefe an die Corinther, mit vielen Ammerkun-
gen herausgegeben von J. K. Vollborth. 2 Bande.
8°, Gétting. 1784-5,
To the foregoing list may be added :
D. W. Poor, Translation and Enlargement of Kling’s Exposition of the First
Ep., in Lange’s Com. New York, 1868.
C. P. Wine, Translation and Enlargement of Kling’s Exposition of the Second
Ep., in Lange’s Com. Ibid.
Canon Evans, Com. on First Ep. in Bible Com. Lond, 1881.
JosEPH WartTE, Com. on Second Ep. in Bible Com. Lond. 1881.
T. Τὶ SHorg, on First Ep. in Ellicott’s Com. . Lond. 1880.
E. H. Prumprre, on Second in Ellicott’s Com. Lond. 1880.
Davip Brown, on both Epistles in Schaff’s Popular Com. on N. T.
New York, 1882.
JosrrH AGAR Bret, Com. on both Epistles. Lond. 1882.
ABBREVIATIONS.
al, eal, = and others ; and other passages ; and other editions.
ad. or in loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the
particular passage.
comp. = compare. ‘‘Comp. on Matt. iii. 5” refers to Dr. Meyer’s own com-
mentary on the passage. So also ‘‘See on Matt. iii. 5.”’
codd. = codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the
usual letters, the Sinaitic by ὃ. :
min. = codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are
individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals,
as 33, 89.
Rec, or Recepta = Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
l.c. = loco citato or laudato.
ver. = verse, vv. = verses.
f. ff. = and following. Ver. 16f. means verses 16 and 17. vv. 16 ff. means
verses 16 and two or more following.
vss. = versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the
usual abridged forms. Z.g. Syr. = Peshitto Syriac ; Syr. p. = Philox-
enian Syriac.
p. pp. = page, pages.
e.g. = exempli gratia.
sc. = scilicet.
N. T. = New Testament. O. T. = Old Testament.
K.T.A.= καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
The colon (:) is largely employed, as in the German, to mark the point at which
a translation or paraphrase of a passage is introduced, or the transi-
- tion to the statement of another’s opinions.
. . . . indicates that words are omitted.
The books of Scripture and of the Apocrypha are generally quoted by their
usual English names and abbreviations. Ecclus. = Ecclesiasticus. 3
Esd., 4 Esd. (or Esr.) == the books usually termed 1st and 2d Esdras.
The classical authors are quoted in the usual abridged forms by book, chapter,
etc. (as Xen. Anab. vi. 6, 12) or by the paging of the edition generally
used for that purpose (as Plat. Pol. p. 291 B. of the edition of H.
Stephanus). The names of the works quoted are printed in Italics.
Roman numerals in small letters are used to denote books or other
internal divisions (as Thue. iv.) ; Roman numerals in capitals denote
volumes (as Kiihner, IT.).
The references to Winer’s or to Buttmann’s Grammar, given in brackets thus
[E. T. 152], apply to the corresponding pages of Dr. Moulton’s and
Prof. Thayer’s English translations respectively.
THE
FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS.
INTRODUCTION.
SEC. 1.—THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT CORINTH.
SN Corinth (bimaris Corinthus), which, after its destruction by
Ὁ Mummius (146 B.c.), had been rebuilt by Julius Caesar, made
a Roman colony (Pausan. ii. 1. 2), and under the fostering
care of the first emperors had been speedily restored to its an-
cient (see Hom. 71. ii. 570, and especially Pindar, Οἱ. xiii.)
glory and voluptuous luxury (hence the expressions κορινθιάζεσθαι, κορινθιαστής,
and Kopivfia κόρῃ ; see also Dissen, ad Pind. Fragm. p. 640 f.; Ast, ad Plat.
Rep. p. 404 D),—in that great “Ἑλλαδὸς ἄστρον (Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p.
223), that rich commercial city, the seat of the Roman proconsulate, of the
Isthmian games, of the fine arts, and of the learning of the Sophists, but also
of the most shameless worship of Aphrodite carried on by a thousand
consecrated courtesans,—the world-conquering faith of Christ had been
planted by Paul himself (iii. 6). He came thither on his second missionary
journey from Athens, and spent upwards of a year and a half there (see on
Acts xviii. 1-17). He lodged with his fellow-craftsman Aquila, who was
converted by him here (see on Acts xviii. 1, 2), and subsequently with the
proselyte Justus (Acts xviii. 2-7), after his friends Silas and Timotheus had
arrived (Acts xviii. 5), and Jewish opposition had caused him to separate
from the synagogue and turn to the Gentiles (Acts xviii. 6 ff.). This had
the wholesome result of rendering the church, from the very first, a mixed
(though with a majority of Gentile Christians, Acts xii. 2) and avery nu-
merous one (Acts xviii. 4, 8, 10), the most important in Greece, the mother-
church of the province (i. 2), although only a few of the upper and more
cultivated classes (1 Cor. i. 26 ff.) embraced the faith (such as, on the Jew-
ish side, the president of the synagogue, Crispus ; see Acts xviii. 8 ; 1 Cor.
i. 14),—a natural effect, not so much of the simplicity of Paul’s preaching’
1 Riickert, following Neander (comp. also it with Hellenic forms (Acts xvii.), had led
Osiander, p. 6), thinks that the failure of | him to the resolution of giving up every
the apostle’s attempt at Athens to gain en- such attempt, and of proclaiming the gos-
trance for evangelical truth by associating pel among the Greeks also in its entire sim-
% PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(for Apollos also failed to win over the higher classes), as of the intrinsic
character of the gospel itself (i. 22, 23), which, with its preaching of the
cross, did not suit the pretensions of the presumed higher culture among
Jews and Gentiles, especially of their fancied philosophy and of their moral
laxity.’
Some considerable time after the total failure of a public accusation
brought by the Jews against Paul before the mild proconsul Gallio (see on
Acts xviii. 12-17), the apostle departed from Corinth with Aquila and
Priscilla (whom he left in Ephesus), and proceeded to Jerusalem, and thence
through Galatia and Phrygia (Acts xviii. 18-23). While he, however, was
traversing these countries, Apollos—an eloquent and fervid Jew of Alexan-
dria, who, hitherto merely a disciple of John the Baptist, had completed his
Christian training with Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus (Acts xviii. 24 ff.,
and the commentary thereon)—betook himself to Corinth (Acts xix. 1),
where he, as a Pauline Christian, preached no other than Pauline Chris-
tianity (1 Cor. iii. 6), yet presented it in a different form, deviating with
the art of his Alexandrian eloquence and with his employment of Alexan-
drian (Philonian) speculation, from the simple manner of the apostle (i. 17,
ii.), probably also entering further than Paul had done (iii. 1) into several
of the higher doctrines of Christianity. Now, it is easy to understand how
this difference, although certainly not based upon any divergence in doctrine
(iii. 5 f., iv. 6, xvi. 12), nevertheless, from the variety of individual tenden-
cies among the Corinthians, and from the personal respect and love with
which men clung to the old or the new teacher respectively, came to have
the hurtful result that some, amidst mutual jealousy, assigned the higher
place to the former and some to the latter, and that it gradually became a
point of partisanship with them to call themselves adherents of Paul or of
Apollos (i. 12),—which was not carried out without engendering pride and
irritation, to the prejudice of the two teachers in question.
But the matter did not end with this division into two parties. There
arrived at Corinth—taking advantage, perhaps, of the very time of Apollos’
return to Ephesus—Judaizing teachers, Petrine Christians of anti-Pauline
one. Before his mixed audience in Corinth
(and he could not regulate his course by
plicity. But the fact is, that in Athens Paul
was in the quite peculiar position of having
to speak in presence of philosophers by pro-
fession, and, in the first instance, to them
exclusively. In Corinth, on the other hand,
in the house of the proselyte Justus, it was
at all events a very mixed audience (made
up also of Jews and Gentiles, comp. Acts
xviii. 8) that he had before him, one entirely
different from those Stoics and Epicureans
who laid hold of himin the ἀγορά at Athens.
The Athenian address is therefore to be re-
garded as an exception from his usual mode
of teaching, demanded by the special cir-
cumstances of the case. These circum-
stances, however, did not exist at Corinth,
and accordingly he had no occasion there
to teach in any other way than his ordinary
the possible presence of individual philos-
ophers among them) his preaching, simple,
but full of power and fervour, was thor-
oughly fitted to make converts in numbers,
as the result proved. And if these were for
the most part from the humbler ranks,
Paul was the last man to be led by that cir-
cumstance to adopt a higher tone; for he
knew from long experience among what
classes in society Christianity was wont
everywhere to strike its first and firmest
roots.
1 Comp. generally, Semisch, Pawus in
Corinth, in the Jahrb. fiir Deutsche Theol.
1867, p. 198 ff.
INTRODUCTION. 3
leanings, provided with letters of recommendation (2 Cor. iii. 1), perhaps
from Peter himself among others, labouring to lower the authority of Paul
(ix. 2), into whose field of work they intruded, and to exalt the’ authority
of Peter (2 Cor. xi. 5). They seem, indeed, not to have come forward with
any opposition to Paul’s doctrine, for otherwise the apostle would, as in his
Epistle to the Galatians, have controverted their doctrinal errors ; in par-
ticular, they did not insist upon circumcision. But it was natural that,
with their Judaizing tendencies generally, with their legal prejudice re-
garding the use of meats, with their stringency as to the moral law, and
with their exaltation of Peter at the expense of Paul, they should find ac-
ceptance with the Jewish-Christian part of the community, since they were
not slaek in vainglorious assertion of the national privileges (2 Cor. v. 12,
xi, 22, xii. 11), and that against the very man from whom the hereditary
pride of the Jews had everywhere suffered blows which it felt most keenly.
Equally natural was it that their appearance and operations should not in-
duce a union between the two sections that professed Pauline Christianity,
—the adherents of Paul and of Apollos,—seeing that they had to wage war
only against Paul, and not against Apollos, in so far, namely, as apostolic
authority was claimed for the former only, and not for the latter. The de-
clared adherents, whom they met with, named as their head Peter, who, for
that matter, had never himself been in Corinth ; for the statement of
Dionysius of Corinth in Euseb. ii. 25, is either to be referred to a much
later period (Ewald, Gesch. der apost. Zeit. p. 609, 3d ed.), or, as is most
probable, to be regarded simply as an erroneous inference drawn from
1 Cor. i. 19. See Pott, Proleg. p. 20 f. ; Baur in the Tiibing. Zeitschr.
1831, 4, p. 152 ff.
The addition of a third party to the two already existing aroused a deeper
feeling of the need for wholly disregarding that which had brought about
and kept up all this division into parties,—the authority of men,—and for
returning to Him alone who is the Master of all, namely, to Christ.’
ἐς We belong to Christ” became accordingly the watchword, unhappily,
however, not of all, nor yet in its right sense and application, but, on the
contrary, of a section only ; and these followed out their idea,—which was
in itself right, but which should have been combined with the recognition
of the human instruments of Christ (Paul, etc.),—not in the way of them-
selves keeping clear of schismatic proceedings and acknowledging all as,
like themselves, disciples of Christ, but in such a manner that in their pro-
fessed sanctity and lofty abstinence from partisanship they became them-
selves a party (i. 12), and instead of including the whole community—
without prejudice to the estimation due to such servants of Christ as Paul
and others—in their idea, they shut out from it the Pauline, Apollonian,
and Petrine sections. The Christian community at Corinth, then, was in
this state of fourfold division when Paul wrote to them our first Epistle ;
yet it is to be assumed, from xi. 18, xiv. 23, that the evil had not reached
1 Augustine aptly says, De verb. Dom., Pauli, ete. Et alii, qui nolebant aedificari
Serm. 13: ‘‘ Volentes homines aedificari su- super Petrum, sed super petram : Ego au-
per homines, dicebant: Ego quidem sum tem sum, Christi.”
4 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
such a height of schism that the church no longer assembled at one place (in
opposition to Vitringa, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Ewald, and others ; see on i. 2).
What further knowledge we have regarding the condition of the church
at that time, especially as to the moral and ecclesiastical evils that prevailed,
is derived from the contents of the Epistle itself. See § 2.
Remark 1.—For views differing from the above representation of the parties at
Corinth, see oni. 12. To the more recent literature of the subject, besides the
works on Introduction, belong the following: Neander, Ki. Schrift. p. 68 ff.,
and Gesch. d. Pflanzung, ete., I. p. 360 ff., 4th ed. ; Baur in the Tiib. Zeitschr.
1831, p. 61 ff., 1836, 4, p. 1 ff., and in his Paulus, I. p. 290 ff., 2d ed. ; Schar-
ling, De Paulo apost. ejusque adversariis, Kopenh. 1836 ; Jaeger, Erkl. d. Briefe
P. nach Kor. aus d. Gesichtsp. d. vier Parth. ΓᾺΡ. 1838 ; Schenkel, De eccles. Cor.
primaeva factionibus turbata, Basil. 1838 ; Goldhorn in Illgen’s Zeitschr. f. histor.
Theol. 1840, 2, p. 121 ff. ; Dahne, d. Christus-parthei in d. apost. Kirche 2. Kor.,
Halle 1842 (previously in the Journ. f. Pred. 1841); Kniewel, Ecclesiae Cor.
vetustiss. dissensiones et turbae, Gedan. 1841 ; Becker, d. Partheiungen in d. Gem.
z. Kor., Altona 1842; Riabiger, krit. Untersuchungen ib. d. Inhalt d. beid. Br.
and. Kor., Bresl. 1847 ; Lutterbeck, neutest. Lehrbegr. II. p. 45 ff. ; Beyschlag
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 217 ff. ; Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 241
ff. ; Holtzmann in Herzog’s Encykl. XIX. p. 730 ff. ; comp. also Ewald, Gesch.
d. apost. Zeit. p. 505 ff., 3d ed. Among the latest commentaries, see especially
those of Osiander, Stuttg. 1847, Introd. ὃ 4 ; Ewald, p. 102 f. ; Hofmann, 1864.
Remark 2.—Care should be taken not to push the conception of this divi-
sion into parties too far. As it had only recently arisen, it had not yet made
itself felt to such an extent as to induce the church in their letter to Paul (see
§ 2) to write specifically about it (see i. 11). Nor can the dissensions have been
of long continuance ; at least in Clem. 1 Cor. 47, they appear as something long
past and gone, with which Clement compares later quarrels as something worse.
Remark 3.—Only the first part of our Epistle, down to iv. 21, relates to the
topic of the parties as such. Hence it is ἃ very hazardous course, and one that
requires great caution, to refer the further points discussed by Paul to the
different parties respectively, and to characterize these accordingly, as Jaeger
and Rabiger more especially, but also Baur, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Beyschlag, and
others have done to an extent which cannot be made good on historical grounds.
It is purely and grossly arbitrary to trace all the evils combated in both
Epistles to the existence of the party divisions, and to depict these, and more
particularly the Christine section, accordingly. The latter is not once men-
tioned by Clement,—a circumstance which does not tell in favour of the hy-
pothesis that lays so much mischief to its charge.
SEC. 2.—OCCASION, OBJECT, AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
Before the date of our first Epistle there had been a letter—not now
extant —sent from the apostle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 9) ; but when
1 The two quite short Epistles extant in Phil. Massonin Joh. Masson, Hisfoire crit.
Armenian, from the Corinthians to Pauland de la républ. des lettres, vol. X., 1714; then
from Paul to the Corinthians, are wretched by David Wilkins, 1715; by Whiston, 1727,
apocryphal productions (first published by and his sons, 1736; by Carpzov, Lips. 1776;
INTRODUCTION. 5
he wrote it, the party-divisions were not yet known to the apostle. He
received tidings regarding them from ‘‘ those of the household of Chloe”
(i, 11), and on this account commissioned Timothy to visit Corinth (iv. 17),
although our Epistle was to anticipate his arrival there (xvi. 10), since he
had first to journey through Macedonia with Erastus (Acts xix. 22). That
Apollos also (1 Cor. xvi. 12) had brought Paul information about the divi-
sions is—judging from i. 11—not to be assumed ; on the contrary, it seems
probable that they had not perceptibly developed themselves so long
as Apollos himself remained in Corinth. Next to the vexatious party-divi-
sions, however, what gave occasion for the apostle’s letter was the un-
chastity in the church, already spoken of by him in the lost Epistle, and
which had now manifested itself even in a case of incest (v. 1 ff.). Besides
this and other evils that called for his intervention, there was quite a special
and direct occasion for his writing in a letter of the church (vii. 1), brought
to Paul by deputies from Corinth (xvi, 17), and containing various questions
(such as with respect to celibacy, vii. 1 ff., and the eating of flesh offered in
sacrifice, viii. 1 ff.), which demanded an answer from him,‘ so that he made
the messengers—Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus—on their return the
bearers of his own Epistle in reply (xvi. 12, 17).
In accordance with these circumstances giving occasion to the letter, it
was the aim of Paul, first, to counteract the party-divisions and uphoid his
apostolic authority ; secondly, to remove the unchastity which had gained
ground ; thirdly, to give instruction upon the points regarding which
queries had been put to him ; and finally, to communicate various other
instructions, which, in view of the state of things among the Corinthians
which had come to his knowledge, and partly also in view of the express
contents of their letter, seemed to him necessary and useful, such as with
respect to disorder in the public assemblies, with respect to gifts of the Spirit,
with respect to the resurrection, and with respect to a collection that was to be
set on foot.?
The contents of the Epistle are accordingly very diversified. After saluta-
tion and exordium (i. 1-9), the first main section enlarges upon and against
and in Armenian and English by Aucher, p. 287 ff. Regarding the date of the com-
Armenian Grammar, ete., Venet. 1819; position of the lost Epistle, see Wieseler,
see also Fabric. Cod. Apocr. III. p. 667 ff.). Chronologie des apost. Zeitalt. p. 318.
Rinck, indeed, has recently (in opposi- 1 That this letter from the church was
tion to the earlier defence by Whiston, see marked by atone of confidence and pride
the objections urged by Carpzov) sought of knowledge (Hofmann) cannot, with any
to maintain the genuineness of both certainty, be inferred from our Epistle, the
Epistles (das Sendschr. d. Kor. an d. Apost. many humbling rebukes in which bear up-
Paul, u. das adritte Sendschr. Pauli an die on the evils themselves, not upon that letter
Kor.in Armen. Uebersetzung, neu verdeutscht, and its character.
etc., Heidelb. 1823), and that on the footing 2 Observe that, in connection with these
of holding the apostle’s letter not to be different topics, Paul never makes the
the one mentioned in v. 9, but a later third teachers as such responsible, or gives direc-
Epistle. But against this utterly fruitless tions to them,—a proof that he was far from
attempt, see Ullmann, ziber den durch Rinck cherishing the idea of a divinely instituted
bekannt gemachten dritten Brief an d. Kor. order of teachers. Comp. Hofling, Grund
und das kurze Sendschreiben der Kor. in the sitze d, Kirchenverf. p. 279 f., ed. 3.
Tleidelb. Jahrb. 1823; Bengel, Archiv. 1825, ¥
6 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the party-divisions, with a detailed justification of the apostle’s mode of
teaching (i. 10-iv. 21). Then Paul writes regarding the unchastity in the
church (v.), and regarding the bad habit of having their disputes decided
before heathen tribunals, thereafter once more warning them against impu-
rity (vi.). Next he replies to the questions about marriage which had been
sent to him (vii.), and to the inquiry regarding meat used in sacrifice (viii.—
xi. 1), making in connection with his instructions as to the latter point a
digression regarding the unselfish way in which he had discharged his apos-
tolic office (ix.). Then follow censure and admonition as to disorders in
the assemblies of the church, partly with reference to the head-covering of
the women, partly in regard of the love-feasts (xi.) ; then the detailed sec-
tions respecting spiritual gifts (xii.-xiv.), with the magnificent eulogy on
love (xiii.), and respecting the resurrection of the dead (xv.). Lastly:
injunctions about the collection for Jerusalem, miscellaneous remarks, and
greetings (Xvi.).
It is manifest from the salutation, when rightly understood, that the Hpis-
tle was destined for the whole church at Corinth, without excepting any party
whatsoever, but including the rest of the Christians of Achaia.
SEC. 3.—PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION—GENUINENESS
OF THE EPISTLE.
From xvi. 8, 19 it is certain that Paul wrote in Hphesus,' and that towards
the end of his stay in that place, which did not last quite three years (see on
Acts xix. 10), after he had despatched (Acts xix. 22 ; 1 Cor. iv. 17) Timothy
and Erastus to Macedonia (the former to Corinth as well), and had already
resolved to journey through Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem (Acts xix.
21; 1 Cor. xvi. 3 ff.). The time at which he wrote may be gathered from
xvi. 8 (some time before Pentecost) and v. 6-8, from which latter passage
it may be with reason inferred that, when Paul was writing, the feast of
the Passover was nigh at hand. Consequently : a little before Easter in the
year 58 (see Introd. to Acts, § 4).
Remark 1.—The statement in the common subscription ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Φιλίππων is
an old (already in Syr.) and widespread error, arising from xvi. 5. In reply to
the quite untenable grounds urged by Kohler (Abfassungszeil der epistol. Schriften,
p. 74 ff.), who accepts it, and puts the date of composition after the (errone-
ously assumed) liberation from imprisonment at Rome, see Anger, temp. rat.
p. 53 ff. Comp. Riickert, p. 12 ff.; Wurm in the Tib. Zeitschr. 1838, I. p. 63
ff. The correct subscription is found in B**, Copt. Chrys. Euthal. Theodoret,
al. : πρὸς Kop. a ἐγράφη ἀπὸ ᾿Εφέσου.
Remark 2.—The decision of the question, whether Paul, previous to the
writing of our two Epistles, had been only once, or whether he had been twice,
1 Mill and Haenlein strangely took it p. 30) avails himself of this circumstance in
to mean : not in, but near Ephesus, because support of his hypothesis, that the Epistle
Paul, in xvi. 8, did not write ὧδε in place of was written in Southern Achaia. See,
év’Ed.! Béttger also (Beitrdge zur hist. against this, Riickert, Magaz. f. χορ. Τ. p.
krit. Einl. in die Paul. Br., G6tting. 1837, ITT. 132 ff.
INTRODUCTION. γὲ
in Corinth (so rightly Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 614 ff., and in his In-
troduction ; Schrader, I. p. 95 ff. ; Neander, Billroth, Riickert, Anger, Credner,
Schott, Wurm, Olshausen, Wieseler, Reuss, Ewald, and many others, following
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Baronius, ef al.), as also whether we
must assume a second visit between our first and second Epistles, depends on 2
Cor. ii. 1, xii. 14, 21, xiii. 1, 2. See the particulars in the Introd. to 2 Cor. § 2,
As to the genwineness, there is no room for doubt in view of the external
evidences (Polyc. ad Philipp. 11 ; Ignat. ad Eph. 2 ; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. 1.
47, 49, Epist. ad Diogn. 12—Justin M. ὁ. Tryph. pp. 253, 258, 338, Apol. I.
p. 29 are uncertain—Iren. Haer. iii. 11. 9, iv, 27. 3; Athenag. de resurr. Ὁ.
61, ed. Colon. ; Clem. Al. Paedag. p. 96, ed. Sylb. ; Canon Murator. ; Ter-
tull. de praescrip. 33, al.), and from the whole character of the Epistle (see
especially Paley, Horae Paulinae), which, with all the variety of its subject-
matter, bears the most definite impress of the peculiar spirit and tact of
Paul, and displays the full power, art, and subtlety of his eloquence.
Bruno Bauer alone in his wanton fashion has sought to dispute it (Avritik
der Paulin. Briefe, 11., Berl. 1851).
8 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Παύλου πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολὴ πρώτη.
The simplest and probably oldest superscription is that of ἃ Β C D&S, min. :
πρὸς Κορινθίους πρώτη.
CHAPTER I.
Ver. 1. κλητός] is wanting, indeed, in A D E, Clar. Germ. Cyr. (suspected by
Mill and Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Riickert), but was easily
overlooked by those to whom the fact was known and familiar, that Paul in tha
beginning of his Epistles almost invariably styles himself ἀπόστ. "I. X. διὰ θεῖ,
Θεοῦ without κλητός ; 866 2 Cor.i. 1; Eph. 1. 1 ; Col. 1. 1; 2 Tim.i.1. Comp. also
Gal. 1. 1; 1 Tim. 1. 1; Tit. i. 1; only in Rom.i.1 we find κλητός. --- Instead of
*Inoov Χριστοῦ, read, on preponderant evidence, with Lachm. and Tisch. Χριστοῦ
"Inoov. — Ver. 2 τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Kop.] is placed by Β D* E FG, It. after "Inood ; so
Lachm. and Tisch. No doubt rightly, since the common arrangement of the
words is plainly open to the suspicion of transposition on grounds of grammar,
whereas there is no reason why, if it stood so originally, it should have under-
gone alteration. The hypothesis of Fritzsche, de conformal, N. T. Lachm. 1841,
p. 44, that ἡγιασμ. ἐν X. "I. had been left out, and then reinserted in the wrong
place, is an arbitrary one, considering the weight of evidence on Lachmann’s
side and seeing that the right place for the reinsertion would have been so un-
mistakable. — τε καὶ Lachm.: καί, according to BD GS&. But how easily re
might be dropped without its being noticed !— Ver. 14. Riickert has μου after
Θεῷ, in accordance with A, 17, 57, al. and several vss. and Fathers. An addition
from ver. 4. — Ver. 15. ἐβάπτισα] A Β ΟἿ δὲ, min. and several vss. and Fathers
have ἐβαπτίσθητε ; so Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Rightly ; the immediate con-
text in vv. 14, 16 led to the introduction of the active at a very early date (Syr.
Tert.). — Ver. 20. τούτου after κόσμου is wanting in very important witnesses.
Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riickert. A mechanical addition from the forego-
ing. — Ver. 22. σημεῖον] σημεῖα, adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Scholz.
is so decisively attested by ABCDEFG δὲ, min. and many vss. and Fathers,
that we must regard the singular as introduced through the recollection of
Matt. xii. 38 f., xvi. 4, al. The reading ἐπιζήτουσιν in A points in the same di-
rection. See the detailed justification of the plur. in Reiche, Commentar. crit.
I, p, 121 ff. — Ver. 23. ἔθνεσι] Elz. : “Ἕλλησι, against decisive evidence, Noted
on margin, and then adopted in accordance with what goes before and follows,
—Ver. 28. Before ra μὴ ὄντα Elz. has καί, against preponderant testimony, Sus-
pected by Griesb. ; deleted by Lachm, Scholz, Riick. and Tisch. Mechanical
connection. — Ver, 29. roi Θεοῦ] So Griesb. and all later editors, following de-
cisive evidence, Αὐτοῦ in Elz. is an over-hasty correction, due to a failure to
recognize the design of the repetition of τ. Θεοῦ, --- Ver, 30. σοφία ἡμῖν] Approved
by Griesb, adopted also by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Elz, and Scholz, however,
have ἡμῖν σοφία. For the former order are AC DER, min. Vulg. ms. It.
CHAP. τς 9
Harl.** Or, Eus. al., further, B, which has σοφ. ἡμῶν, and F G, which have 7
σοφία ἡμῖν. Ἡμῖν was put first, in order to join σοφία closely to ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ; while
others marked the conception of the true wisdom by the article (F G),
Vv. 1-3. Apostolic address and greeting.
Ver. 1. Κλητὸς ardor. See on Rom. i. 1. A polemical reference (Chrys-
ostom, Theophylact, and many others, including Flatt, Riickert, Olshausen,
Osiander), which would be foreign to the winning tone of the whole exor-
dium, would have been quite otherwise expressed by one so decided as
Paul (comp. Gal. i. 1). — διὰ θελ. Θεοῦ] That his position as an apostle called
by Christ was brought about by the will of God, was a truth so vividly and
firmly implanted in his consciousness, that he commonly includes an expres-
sion of it in the beginning of his Epistles.. See 2 Cor. i. 1; Gal. i. 1 ; Eph. i.
1; Col.i. 1; 1Tim.i.1; 2 Tim.i.1. ‘Sua ipsius voluntate P. nunquam
factus esset apostolus,” Bengel. Regarding διά, see on ver. 9 and Gal. 1. 1. —
καὶ Σωσθένης] Modern interpreters reckon him the amanuensis of the Epistle (see
xvi. 21). But the mere amanuensis as swch has no share in the Epistle itself,
which must, however, be the case with one who holds a place in the intro-
ductory salutation. Since, moreover, in 1 and 2 Thess. we find two others
besides Paul named with him in the superscription (who therefore could
hardly both be mentioned as amanuenses), and even an indefinite number
of ‘‘ brethren” in the Epistle to the Galatians, whereas in that to the Ro-
mans the amanuensis—who is known from xvi. 22—does not appear as in-
cluded in the superscription, we must rather suppose that Paul made his
Epistle run not only in his own name, but also (although, of course, in a sub-
ordinate sense) in the name of Sosthenes, so that the Corinthians were to re-
gard the letter of the apostle as at the same time a letter of Sosthenes, who
thereby signified his desire to impress upon them the same doctrines, admo-
nitions, etc. This presupposes that Paul had previously considered and
discussed with this friend of his the contents of the letter to be issued.
Comp. on Phil. i. 1. Sosthenes himself accordingly appears as a teacher
then present with the apostle and enjoying his confidence, but known to,
and respected among, the Corinthians. There remains, indeed, the possi-
bility that he may have also written the Epistle, but only in so far as we are
in utter ignorance of who the amanuensis was at all. Had Timothy not al-
ready started on his journey (iv. 17, xvi. 10), he would have had a place
along with, or instead of, Sosthenes in the salutation of the Epistle ; comp.
2 Cor. i. 1. —Theodoret and most commentators, including Flatt, Billroth,
Ewald, Maier, Hofmann, indentify Sosthenes with the person so named in
Acts xviii. 17 ; but this is rightly denied by Michaelis, Pott, Riickert, and
de Wette. See on Acts, 7.c. Without due ground, Riickert concludes that
he was a young man trained up by Paul—a view least of all to be-deduced
from the assumption that he was the amanuensis of the letter. The very
absence of any definite information whatever as to Sosthenes shows how
utterly arbitrary is the remark of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, and
Estius, that it was a great proof of modesty in the apostle to name him
along with himself. — ὁ ἀδελφός} denotes nothing more special than Chris
10 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
tian brotherhood (so also 2 Cor. i. 1; Col. i. 1, a/.), not fellowship in the
office of teacher. The particulars of the position of Sosthenes were well
known to the readers. 1
Ver. 2. Ty ἐκκλ. 7. Θεοῦ] Θεοῦ is genitive of the owner. Comp. 17% Sap,
Num. xvi. 3, xx. 4. The expression is with Paul the standing theocratic
designation of the Christian community, in which the theocratic idea of the
Old Testament Sap presents itself as realized ; it is the πλήρωσις of this
ΠΡ. Comp. x. 32, xi. 16, 22, xv. 9; 2Cor. i. 1; Gal. i. 18, al. — ἡγιασμ.
ἐν X. 1.7 adds at once a distinctive definition of quality to τ. ἐκκλ. τ. Θεοῦ
(see the critical remarks), and thereupon follows the local specification of r.
ἐκκλ. τ. Θεοῦ. ‘* To the church of God, men sanctified in Christ Jesus, which is
in Corinth.” How common it is to find a participle in the plural standing
in an attributive relation to a collective singular, may be seen in Kiihner,
Il. p. 43; Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee. 39. Τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Kop., however, is purposely
placed after ἡγιασμ. «.t.4., because the thought is, that the church of God
addressed does in itself and as such (not as Corinthian) consist of those
sanctified in Christ. The ἁγιασμός is to be conceived as consecration to God
in the Christian church (see above, τ. ἐκκλ. τ. Θεοῦ). Comp. on Rom. i. 7.
This belonging to God as His own has its causal ground not out of, but in
Christ—namely, in His redemptive work, of which the Christians have be-
come, and continue to be, partakers (perfect) by means of justifying faith
(Eph. i. 4 ff. ; Heb. x. 10). Comp. Phil. i. 1. Ἔν X. ’I. gives to the #yacu.
its distinctively Christian character.’ ---- κλητοῖς ἁγίοις] added, in order to a
properly exhaustive description of that experienced benefit of God’s grace of
which the readers, as Christians, were assumed to be conscious ; the new ele-
ment introduced here lies in κλητοῖς. The call to the Messianic kingdom (con-
ceived as issued effectually, comp. on Rom. viii. 28, and see Lamping, Pauli
de praedestin. decreta, Leovard. 1858, p. 32 f.) is, according to the constant
conception of the N. T. (Rom. i. 6 ; Gal. i. 6 not excepted), given by “God
(ver. 9, Rom. viii. 30, ix. 24, al. ; Usteri, Lehrbegr. Ὁ. 281) through the
preachers of the gospel (Rom. x. 14; 2 Thess. ii. 14) ; see Weiss, didi.
Theol. p. 386 f. — σὺν πᾶσι x.7.A.] does not belong to κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, so that
the readers were to be made sensible of the greatness of the fellowship in
which they, as called saints, stood (Grotius, Bengel, Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt,
Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Neander, Becker, Hofmann). But
it belongs, as necessarily follows from 2 Cor. i. 1, to the superseription as
part of it (on σύν, comp. Phil. i. 1) ; yet neither so as to mark the Epistle as ὦ
catholic one (Theodoret, Estius, Calovius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, and others ;
comp. Schrader) ; nor so that Paul shall be held, while greeting the Corin-
thians, as greeting in spirit also the universal church (Osiander, comp. Chrys-
ostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Billroth, Heydenreich, and others) ; nor yet
so that by the ἐπικαλ. τ. ὄν. τ. Kup. were meant the separatists, in contrast to
those disposed to adhere to the church (Vitringa, Michaelis), or as if σὺν
πᾶσι x.T.A. were meant to comprehend all Corinthian Christians without dis-
1 [It also shows that the sanctification cording to the standing force of the phrase
comes by virtue of union with Christ, ac- in Christ as used by Paul.—T. W. C.]
CHAP. I.,. 2. Lt
tinction (Eichhorn, Hinleit. III. 1, p. 110, Pott) ; but so that the sense is in
substance just that expressed in 2 Cor. 1. 1 : σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν
ὅλῃ τῇ ᾿Αχαΐᾳ. " See below on αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἡμῶν. The Epistle is primarily
addressed to the Christians in Corinth ; not, however, to them merely, but
at the same time also to the other Achaean Christians, and the latter are de-
noted by πᾶσι... ἡμῶν. A comma is to be put after ἁγίοις. --- τοῖς ἐπικαλ. τ.
ὄν τ. Kup.| confessional designation of the Christians, Rom. x. 12f. ; Acts
ii, 21. Respecting the N. T. idea of the invocation of Christ, which is not
to be held as absolute, but as relative worship ' (of Him as the Mediator and
Lord over all, but under God, Phil. ii. 10 f.), see on Rom. x. 12. — αὐτῶν
τε καὶ ἡμῶν] is joined with τοῦ Κυρίου by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius,
YTheophylact, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Erasmus Schmid, Valckenaer, and
others, including Billroth, Olshausen, Liicke (de invocat. Chr., Gotting.
1843), Wieseler (Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt. p. 324), in such a way as to
make it an epanorthosis or (see Wieseler) epexegesis of the foregoing ἡμῶν.
But apart from the fact that this ἡμῶν in the habitually used Κύριος ἡμῶν em-
braces all Christians, and consequently αὐτῶν te καὶ ἡμῶν (ἡμῶν being re-
ferred to Paul and Sosthenes) would express something quite self-evident,
and that, too, without any special significance of bearing,’ the position of
the words is decisive against this view, and in favour of attaching them to
παντὶ τόπῳ, to which they necessarily belong as a more precise definition.
Comp. Vulg. : ‘‘In omni loco ipsorwm et nostro.” Tf, namely, σὺν πᾶσι...
ἡμῶν must denote the Achaean Christians out of Corinth (see above), then
παντὶ τόπῳ requires a limitation to the geographical district which is intend-
ed. Now, this limitation is not already laid down by ἐν Κορίνθῳ (Liicke,
Wieseler), since it was precisely in the superscription that the need of defi-
_ niteness in designating the readers was obvious, but it is expressly given by
αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἡμῶν, in such a way, namely, that αὐτῶν refers to the Corinthians,
who, however, are indicated not by ὑμῶν, but by αὐτῶν, because from the
point where the widening of the address (σὺν πᾶσι x...) comes in, the Co-
rinthians appear as third parties. Accordingly the Epistle is addressed :
To the Corinthian Christians, and to all who, in every place that belongs to them
(the Corinthians) and to us as well (Paul and Sosthenes), call upon the name
of Christ. Every place in the province, namely, where Christians lived or
a church existed (as e.g. in Cenchree, Rom. xvi. 1), was a place which be-
longed to the Corinthians, a τόπος αὐτῶν, in so far as the church at Corinth
was the mother-church of the Christian body in Achaia ; but each such
place belonged also to Paul (and Sosthenes), in so far as he was the founder
and apostolic head of Christianity in Corinth and all Achaia. It is quite in
accordance with the ingenious subtlety of the apostle to give the designa-
tion of the provincials in such a form, as to make his own authority felt
over against the prerogative of those Jiving in the capital (αὐτῶν). As in
1 [The New Testament knows nothing of αὐτῶν applies to the Corinthians. But in
two kinds of worship.—T. W. C.] fact, according to the view of Liicke and
2 ΤΆ is supposed to conveya polemical Wieseler (see below), it cannot do so, but
reference to the party-divisions. See Wie- must apply to the other Achaeans.
seler, 1.9, This can only be the case if
12 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Rom. xvi. 13 αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐμοῦ Aelicately expresses the community of love (comp.
also 1 Cor. xvi. 18 ; Philem. 11 ; Soph. ΚΕἸ. 417 f.: πατρὸς τοῦ σοῦ τε κἀμοῦ),
so here αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἡμῶν the community of right. The objection that the
sense in which they belonged to the Corinthians was different from that in
which they belonged to Paul and Sosthenes (de Wette), fails to appreciate
the point of the words. The offence which Hofm. takes at the reading re
καί (as though it must be equivalent to εἴτε) arises from a misunderstand-
ing ; it is the usual co-ordinating re καί, which here has not even the appear-
ance (Hartung, Partik. I. p. 100) of standing in place of εἴτε. Comp., on
the contrary, Hartung, p. 101 ; Baeuml., Partik. p. 225. Observe, besides,
that re καί gives more rhetorical emphasis to the association of the two gen-
itives than the simple «ai ; see Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 165. Riibiger,
krit. Unters. Ὁ. 62 f., has assented to our view.’ Comp. also Maier. Those
who join σὺν πᾶσι x.t.A. to κλητοῖς ay. (see above) usually take αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἡμ.
as an analysis of the idea παντί : in every place, where they and where we
(Paul and Sosthenes) are, i.e. elsewhere and here in Ephesus. See Calovius,
Riickert, de Wette, Osiander. But how meaningless this more precise ex-
planation of παντί would be! In fact, it would be absurd ; for, since the
subject is all (πᾶσι «.7.A.), in which the ἡμεῖς are thus already included, an
analysis of it into αὐτοί (which the πάντες are surely already) and ἡμεῖς is
utterly illogical. This applies also in opposition to Becker, by whom the
τόπος ἡμῶν is held to be Corinth, and to refer to the strangers who come to
Corinth. Others have, following Ambrosiaster, referred αὐτῶν to the heathen
lands, and ἡμῶν to Judaea (Erasmus, Semler, Bolten ; similarly Schrader).
Contrary to the text, as is also Wetstein’s opinion : ‘‘ P. swum locum vocat,
ubi ipse per praedicationem evangelii ecclesiam fundaverat. Tacite se at-
que Sosthenem . . . opponit peregrino falso doctori, qui in loewm non swum
irrepserat.” Others refer ἐν ravti . . . ἡμῶν to the different meeting-places
of the parties (Vitringa, Mosheim, Eichhorn, Krause, Pott, Ewald), so that
the τόπος ἡμῶν would be the house of Justus (Acts xviii. 7), or, generally,
" the place where the church had statedly assembled at first under Paul
(Ewald) ; and the τόπ. αὐτῶν the meeting-house of the Petrine party, per-
haps the Jewish synagogue (Pott), or, in general, the other places of assem-
bly of the new sections (Ewald). But the presupposition that the church
was broken up into parties locally separated from each other (see, on the
contrary, xiv. 23, xi. 17 ff.) has not a single passage in the Epistle to justi-
fy it. Béttger, 1.6. p. 25, holds, strangely, that αὐτῶν applies to the Corin-
thian Christians, and ἡμῶν to those of Lower Achaia (among whom Paul is
supposed to have written ; see Introd. ὃ 8) ; and Ziegler, that αὐτῶν applies
to those in Corinth, ἡμῶν to those staying with Paul in Ephesus, Stephanas,
Fortunatus, Achaicus (xvi. 17), and others. Hofmann propounds the pe-
culiar view that καὶ ἡμῶν betokens that Paul was at home, and felt himself
to be so, wherever Christ was invoked. Asif the reader would have been
capable of deducing any such ubiquity of spiritual domicile from the sim-
1 Also Burger in his (popular) Awslegung, Erl. 1859, and Holtzmann, Judenthum κι. Chris-
tenth. p. 749.
OHAP. I., 3-5. 13
ple pronoun, and that, too, in the very address of the Epistle, without the
slightest hint from the connection.
Ver. 3. See on Rom. i. 7.’
Vv. 4-9. Conciliatory preamble, by no means without real praise (Hofmann),
assuredly not ironical (Semler, comp. Mosheim), which would be unwise
and wrong ; and not addressed merely to the party of Paul and that of
Apollos (Flatt), which is at variance with ver. 2 ; but, as is alone in accord-
ance with the character of Paul and with the words themselves, directed
tothe church as a whole under a persuasion of the truth of its contents, —
bringing forward first of all with true affection what was laudable, so faras
it existed, and lovingly leaving out of view for a time what was blame-
worthy, but withal soberly keeping within the bounds of truth and tracirg
all up to God.
Vv. 4, 5. Mov]? asin Rom. i. 8. --- πάντοτε] always, to be measured not
strictly by the literal import of the word, but by the fervour of his constant
love. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 2 f.; 2 Thess. i. 8. --- ἐπί] ground of the thanks,
Phil. i. 5 ; Polyb. xviii. 26.4; Valck. in loc. The grace of God, which had
been bestowed on them, is described more precisely in ver. 5 according to
its effects. — ἐν X. ’I.] 1.6. in your fellowship with Christ. By this is denoted
the specifically Christian nature of the gift, in so far, namely, as it is not
attained apart from Christ, but—otherwise it were a worldly gift—has in
Christ, as the life-element of those who are its subjects, the distinctive
sphere of its manifestation. Just in the same way ver. 5. -- ὅτι) that you,
namely, etc., epexegesis of ἐπὶ τῇ χάρ. K.7.A. — ἐν παντί] without limitation :
in all, in every point ; comp. 2 Cor. ix. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 18 ; Eph. ii. 4; Jas.
ii. 5. To this Paul forthwith, and again with év (comp. 2 Cor. vi. 4), adds
the more precise definition chosen in reference to the state of things at
Corinth : ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ k. πάσῃ γνώσει : in all discourse and all knowledge—that
is to say, so that no kind of Christian aptitude of speech, or of Christian
intelligence, is wanting among you, but both--the former outwardly com-
municative aptitude, in virtue of which aman is δυνατὸς γνῶσιν ἐξειπεῖν (Clem.
Cor. I. 48); and the latter, the inward endowment—are to be found with
you richly in every form. This view, according to which λόγος is sermo,
occurs in substance in the Greek commentators, in Calovius, Riickert,
Neander, Hofmann, and many others, and is confirmed beyond a doubt by
2 Cor. viii. 7, xi. 6. As to the different hinds of Christian utterance, comp.
1 Cor. xii. 8. Λόγος is not therefore to be understood, with Billroth, de
Wette, and Maier, of the doctrine preached to the Corinthians. Beza, Gro-
1 See also the elaborate dissertation on the
apost. benedictory greeting by Otto in the
Jahrb. fiir D. Theol. 1867, p. 678 ff. The origin
of that greeting, however, is hardly to be
traced back, as the author holds, to the
Aaronic blessing, Num. vi. 25f. Otherwise
it would always be tripartite, and, in par-
ticular, would mot omit the characteristic
ἔλεος. Now, the only Epistles in which it
certainly occurs as t7ipartite, and with ἔλεος,
are the (post-Pauline) ones, 1 and 2 Tim.
and 2John 3; also Jude 2(but with a pecul-
iar variation). It wasonlyata later date
that the Aaronic blessing passed over into
Christian liturgic use Constitf. ap. ii. 57. 13) ;
but a free reminiscence of that blessing
may already be contained in the greetings
of those late Epistles.
2 [Westcott & Hort omit this word, but
apparently without reason.—T. W. C.]
14 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
tius, and others take λόγος to be specially the donum linguarum, and γνῶσις
the donum prophetiae, which, however, is not conveyed either in the words
themselves or in the connection, and is, moreover, at variance with the sub-
ordinate importance attached to the γλώσσαις λαλεῖν (chap. xiv.). Lastly, as
to the running together of the two: ἐν πάσῃ γνώσει τοῦ λόγου (Schulz, Morus,
Rosenmiiller), the very repetition of the πάσῃ, and the difference in point of
idea between the two words, should have dissuaded its supporters from such
a view ; for Ady. and γνώσ. can as little be synonyms (Clericus, Pott) as 137
and Nyt. Clement also, 1 Cor. 1, praises the former condition of the church
with respect to τὴν τελείαν καὶ ἀσφαλῆ γνῶσιν.
Ver. 6. Καθώς] According.as, introduces the relation of that happy condi-
tion of things (ἐν παντὶ ἐπλουτίσθητε. . . γνώσει) to its cause. See on John
xiii, 94, xvil. 2; 1 Cor. v.73 Eph. i. 4; Phil. 1. 7%; Matt. wi, 19)> 9
μαρτύριον τοῦ Χ.} characteristic designation of the Gospel, the publishers of
which bear witness of Christ. Comp. 2 Tim.i. 8; Acts i. 8, iii. 15, al.;
2 Thess. 1. 10 ; 1 Pet. v. 1. Comp. apr. τοῦ Θεοῦ, 11. 1. — ἐβεβαιώθη] is ren-
dered by most : is confirmed,’ has been accredited (Mark xvi. 20 ; Rom. xv.
8 ; Heb. ii. 3, al.); comp. also Riickert : ‘‘evinced as true by its effect on
you ;” and Ewald : ‘‘ guaranteed among you by signs of the power of the
Holy Spirit.” So, too, in substance, Hofmann. It is more in keeping, how-
ever, with the logical relation of καθὼς κ.τ.λ. to the foregoing, as well as with
the βεβαιώσει of ver. 8 (comp. 2 Cor. i. 21 ; Col. ii. 7), to explain it of the
gospel becoming firmly established in their souls (by stedfast faith), so that the
opposite is expressed by the Johannine τὸν λόγον οὐκ ἔχετε μένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν
(John v. 38). Comp. Billroth and de Wette. — ἐν ὑμῖν] in animis vestris.
Ver. 7. Result of τὸ μαρτ. τ. X. ἐβεβ. ἐν ὑμῖν, consequently parallel to ἐν
παντὶ ἐπλουτ. ἐν ato. The negative expression μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν is conceived
quite after the analogy of the positive πλουτίζ. ἐν (see on ver. 5), so that ἐν
denotes that in which one is behind (defectively constituted). Hence : 80
that ye in no gift of grace are behind (i.e. less rich than other churches.)
Comp. Plat. Pol. vi. p. 484 D: μηδ᾽ ἐν ἄλλῳ μηδενὶ μέρει ἀρετῆς ὑστηροῦντας.
Ecclus. li. 24. The sense would be different, if the words were μηδενὸς
χαρίσματος (so that no gift of grace is lacking to you.) See Rom. iii. 22 ; Luke
xxii. 35 ; John ii. 38. Ruhnk. ad Tim. p.51. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 237 ;
ad Soph. Aj. 782. Χάρισμα is here to be taken (with Calvin and others, in-
cluding Rosenmiiller, Pott, de Wette, Maier) in the wider sense of the spirit-
ual blessings of Christianity generally, in so far as believers are made partakers
of them by the divine grace through the πνεῦμα ἅγιον (Rom. i. 11 ; 1 Cor.
vii. 7) ; not, with most of the older expositors, as well as Billroth, Rickert,
Olshausen, Hofmann, in the narrower sense of the extraordinary gifts (chap.
xii. ff.). The proof of this is, first, that the immediately following ἀπεκδε-
xou. k.7.2. makes the μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν μηδενὶ χαρίσματι appear as an ethical
endowment ; second, that the significant retrospective reference of the
ἀνεγκλήτους in ver. 8 does not suit the γαρίσματα in the narrower sense,
1“Non de confirmatione externa verbi, Calovius. Chrysostom understood it of
quae fit per miracula, sed de confirmatione doth ; Theodoret, Theophylact, and others,
interna quae fit per testimonium Sp. St.,”’ of the miracles only.
GCHAR? E508: 15
but does suit all the more strikingly the moral character of the Christian
gifts of the Spirit in general. The form of expression in the singular here
stands as little in the way of this view (in opposition to Hofmann) as at
Rom. i. 11, and is, in fact, necessitated by the negative form of the dis-
course. Riickert, indeed, objects: ‘‘ that Paul could not at all mean here
those purely moral blessings, seeing that the Corinthians did not possess
them.” The apostle, however, is not speaking of every individual, but of
the church taken as a whole (comp. already Chrysostom and Theophylact) ;
and, moreover, expresses himself with much caution in a negative way, so
that he only needs to answer for the presence of a sufficienter praeditum esse
to stand comparison with other churches. — a7exde you. x.7.2.] 15. ἃ significant
accompanying definition to what has gone before : as persons, who are not
in any wise afraid of the revelation of Christ (1 Pet. i. 7 ; Col. ili. 3 f.) and
wish it away, but who are waiting for it. This waiting and that afflux of
‘ grace stand in a mutual relation of action and reaction. Bengel says
rightly : ‘‘ Character Christiani veri vel falsi, revelationem Christi vel ex-
pectare vel horrere.” The fact that there were among the Corinthians
deniers of the resurrection (and consequently of the Parousia in its full
idea)—which, we may add, might naturally enough cause this hope to
become all the more vividly prominent in the case of the rest—does not
take away from the truth of the words, which hold good of the church ὦ
potiori. Just as little can they (contrary to the winning tone of the whole
preamble) have it as their design to terrify with the thought of the day of
judgment (Chrysostom), or to censwre the doubters (Grotius, Riickert), or
even to make ironical reference to the fancied perfection of the Corinthians
(Mosheim). The participial clause, which needed neither ὡς nor the article,
is not merely a temporal definition—consequently ‘‘ for the time” of the
waiting (Hofmann)—any more than at Tit. ii. 13; Rom. viii. 23 ; Jude
21. —arexd.] denotes the persevering expectation. See on Rom. viii. 19 ;
Fritzsche in Friteschior. Opusc. Ὁ. 150 ff. The word does not indicate
the element of longing (de Wette). See Rom. viii. 25 ; 1 Pet. iii. 20. For
the subject-matter, comp. Phil. iii. 20 ; Tit. ii. 13 ;2 Tim. iv. 8 ; Luke xii. 36.
Ver. 8. Ὅς] refers to "Ijoov X., not, as Flatt, Pott, Billroth, Schrader,
Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann, with the majority of in-
terpreters, assume, to the far-distant Θεός, ver. 4,—a view to which we are
not compelled either by the Ἰησ. Χριστοῦ which follows (see below), or by
ver. 9, seeing that the working of the exalted Christ is in fact subordinated
to the will of God (iii. 23, xi. 3 ; Rom. viii. 34, a/.). Comp. Winer, p. 149
[E. T. 196]. The apostle, however, is so full of Christ, as he addresses
himself to his Epistle, that throughout the preamble he names Him in
almost every verse, sometimes even twice. Comp. Rom. i. 1-7. — καί] also,
denotes that which corresponds to the ἀπεκδέχεσθαι «.7.2.. What Christ will
do. — βεβαιώσει] στηρίξει, Rom. xvi. 25 ; 1 Thess. iii. 13 ; 2Cor.i. 21. The
future stands here not optatively (Pott), but as expressive of a confident hope
in the gracious working of Christ.’ —éw¢ τέλους] applies not to the end of life
1 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, rect censure ; asa hint that they were oa-
and others, find in this expression an indi- λευόμενοι and ἐγκλημασι viv ὑποκείμενοι. A
16 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(Calovius, Flatt, and others), but, as the foregoing τ. ἀποκάλ. x.r.2. and the
following ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ «7.2. clearly show, to the end of the pre-Messianic
period of the world’s history (the αἰὼν οὗτος, see on Matt. xiii. 32), which is to
be ushered in by the now nearly approaching (vii. 29, xv. 51) Parousia.
Comp. x. 11; 2 Cor. i. 13. It is the συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος, Matt. xiii. 39 f.,
xxiv. 3, xxviii. 20; comp. Heb. ix. 26. — ἀνεγκλήτους x.7.4.] result of the
strengthening : so that ye shall be free from reproach in the day, etc. Comp.
1 Thess. iii. 13. See respecting this proleptic usage generally, on Matt.
xii. 13 ; Phil. 111. 21, and Jacob, Quaest. epic. ii. 4, p. 136 ff. Stallb. ad
Plat. Rep. p. 560 Ὁ. --- τοῦ Κυρίου «.7.2.] The repetition of the noun in-
stead of the mere pronoun is common in the classics also (Ellendt, ad
Arrian. Exp, Al. i. 55 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 6. 1), and elsewhere in the
N. T. (Winer, 1.6. and p. 186 [E. T. 180]). Here (as at 2 Cor. i. 5; Eph.
i. 13 ; Col. i. 13 f., αἴ.) it has solemn emphasis. Comp. ver. 21. — It is to
be noted, moreover, that the blamelessness in the day of Christ (comp.
Rom. viii. 338) is conditioned (2 Tim. iv. 7) by perseverance in the faith
(through which justification is appropriated) and consequently rests on the
imputation of faith (Rom. iv. 4 f.) ; but is nevertheless, in virtue of the
moral character and power of faith, as also in virtue of sanctification through
the Spirit, of a thoroughly moral nature (Rom. vi. 1 ff., viii. 1 ff.), so that
the ἀνέγκλητος at the Parousia appears not, indeed, as ἀναμάρτητος, but as καινὴ
κτίσις ἐν Χριστῷ (2 Cor. v. 17), who, being divinely restored (Eph. ii. 10 ;
Col. iii. 10) and progressively sanctified (1 Thess. v. 23), has worked out
his own salvation (Phil. ii. 12) in the consecration of the moral power of the
new spiritual life (Rom. viii. 2f. ; Phil. i. 10 f., and now receives the βρα-
βεῖον of his calling (Phil. iii. 14), the στέφανος of the δικαιοσύνη (2 Tim. iv. 8),
in the δόξα of everlasting life.
Ver. 9. Ground of this confident hope. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 13 ; 1 Thess.
v. 24 ;-2 Thess. 111. 3 ; Phil. i. 6 ; Rom. xi. 29. Were the βεβαίωσις on the
part of Christ (ver. 8) not to take place, the divine call to the κοινωνία τοῦ
υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Would remain without effect, which would not be compatible with
the faithfulness of God, from whom the call comes, and who, by His call-
ing, gives pledge to us of eternal salvation (Rom. viii. 30).—Riickert finds
in δύ οὗ, because God Himself is the caller, a veritable misuse of the prep-
osition ; and others, as Beza and Rosenmiiller, explain it without cere-
mony by ὑφ᾽ oi, which D* F G in fact read. But Paul is thinking here in a
popular way of the call as mediated through God. It is true, of course, that
God is the causa principalis, but the mediating agency is also God’s, ἐξ οὗ καὶ
δι οὗ τὰ πάντα (Rom. xi. 36) ; hence both modes of representation may oc-
cur, and διά may be used as wellas ὑπό, wherever the context does not make
it of importance to have a definite designation of the primary cause as such.
Comp. Gal. i. 1 ; Plat. Symp. p. 186 E, Pol. ii. p. 379 E. Fritzsche, ad
Rom. I. p. 15 ; Bernhardy, p. 235 f.—The κοινωνία τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ is the fel-
lowship with the Son of God (genitive, as in 2 Cor, xi. 13 ; Phil. ii. 1 ; 2 Pet.
i. 4), 1.6. the participation in the filial relation of Christ, which, however,
view the more inappropriate, when wecon- _ tle was the thought expressed with respect
sider how natural and familiar to the apos- ὀἴο all his churches.
CHAE STs, 10: Lvs
is not to be understood of the temporal relation of sonship, Gal. iii. 26 f.
. (κοινωνίαν yap viov τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἐκάλεσε, Theodoret), nor of ethical fel-
lowship (Grotius, Hofmann, and many others), but, in accordance with the
idea of the καλεῖν which always refers to the Messianic kingdom, of .fellow-
ship of the glory of the Son of God in the eternal Messianic life,'—a fellowship
which will be the glorious completion of the state of υἱοθεσία (Gal. iv. 7). It
is the δόξα τῶν τέκνων τοῦ Θεοῦ (Rom. vili. 21), when they shall be συγκληρονό-
μοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, σύμμορφοι Of His image, συμβασιλεύοντες and συνδοξασθέντες,
Rom. viii. 17 ; comp. vv. 23, 29; 2 Thess. ii. 14 ; Col. iii. 4: Phil. iii. 20
fon eecor, xv. 48 f.;°2 Tim. ii. 12.
Ver. 10-iv. 21. First section of the Epistle: respecting the parties, with a
defence of the apostle’s way of teaching.
Vv. 10-16. Exhortation to unity (ver. 10), statement of the character of their
party-division (vv. 11, 12), and how wrong it was (vv. 18-16).
Ver. 10. ‘‘ Exhortation, however, lest ye miss this end of your calling,
exhortation I give to you,” etc. — ἀδελφοί] winning and tender form of ad-
dress, often introduced by Paul just at the point where he has a serious word
to speak. Ver. 11, vii. 29, x. 1, xiv. 20, al. — διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος κ.τ.}.} by
means of the name, etc., while I point you to the name of Christ, which, in
truth, constitutes the one confession of all His disciples, and thereby βού
before you the motive to follow my exhortation. Comp. Rom. xii. 1, xv. 30 ;
2 Cor. x. 1 ; 2 Thess. iii. 12. Were the meaning ex mandato Christi (Heu-
mann, Semler, Ernesti, and Rosenmiiller), it would be expressed by ἐν τῷ
ὀνόμ. (v. 4 ; 2 Thess. iii. 6, al.).—iva] design, and in this form of concep-
tion, contents of the παρακαλῶ, as in xvi. 12, 153; 2 Cor. viii. 6, ix. 5; 2
Thess. 11. 17, and often in the Synoptic Gospels. — τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε] agreement
of confessional utterance, as opposed to the party-confessions of faith, at vari-
ance with each other, ver. 12. Luther renders it appropriately : ‘‘ einerlei
Rede fiihret.” The consensus animorum is only expressed in the sequel (ἦτε
δὲ κατηρτισμ. k.T.A.) ; in the first instance it is the outstanding manifestation
of the evil that Paul has in view. This in opposition to Erasmus, Grotius,
Estius, Wolf, and many others, including Heydenreich and Billroth, who
explain the phrase of thisinward agreement, which Paul would have known
well how to express by τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν (Rom. xv. 5; Phil. ii. 2 ; 2 Cor. xiii.
11), or in some similar correct way, and which, even in such passages as
Thue. v. 31. 5, Polyb. ii. 62, is not expressed, but presupposed. More expres-
sive still is Polyb. v. 104. 1 : λέγειν ἕν καὶ ταὐτό, to speak one and the same
thing. — καὶ μὴ ἢ ἐν ὑμ. σχίσματα] the same thought in prohibitive form (comp.
Rom. xii. 14, a/.), but designating the evil forbidden more generally, accord-
ing to its category. — ἦτε δὲ κιτ.λ.] δέ, but rather, but onthe contrary (see Har-
tung, Partikell. I. p. 171 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 360; Baeuml. Partik. p.
95), introduces what ought to be the case instead of the forbidden καὶ μὴ
k.T.A. —Katnptiopévor| fully adjusted, established in the right frame (Vulg.
perfecti ; Theophyl. τέλειοι). Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Gal. vi. 1; Heb. xiii.
11; 1 Pet. v. 10 ; Luke vi. 40. When there are divisions in a society, the
1 Comp. Weiss, Diblische Theol. Ὁ. 310,
18 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
κατάρτισις is wanting (2 Cor. xiii. 9 ; comp. καταρτισμός, Eph. iv. 12) ; hence
Greek writers also use καταρτίζειν in speaking of the establishment of right
relations by the removal of disunion (as here), sedition, or the like, Herod.
v. 28. 106 ; Dion. Hal. Antt. 111. 10. Whether any jigurative reference,
however, of κατηρτ. to the original sense of σχίσματα, fissurae, be intended
(to make whole and good again what was broken or rent, comp. Matt. iv.
21; Mark i. 19; Esdr. iv. 12, 13, 16; Herod. v. 106), as Bos, Elsner,
Valckenaer, Pott, Heydenreich, and others think, and as Luther, Calvin
(‘‘ apte cohaereatis”), and Beza, (‘‘coagmentati”) express by their render-
ings, may be doubted, because Paul does not more precisely and definitely
indicate such a conception ; while, on the other hand, it was exceedingly
common to use σχίσμα absolutely, and without special thought of its origi-
nal material reference (Matt. ix. 16), to denote dissidium (John vii. 43, ix.
16, x. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 18, and even xii. 25). — ἐν τᾷ αὐτῷ voix.r.2.] the sphere,
in which they were to be κατηρτ. Comp. Heb. xiii. 21. Νοῦς and γνώμη
differ as understanding and opinion. Through the fact, namely, that Chris-
tians in Corinth thought differently (νοῦς) on important matters, and in con-
sequence of this difference of thinking, formed in a partisan spirit different
opinions and judgments (γνώμη), and fought for these against each other, the
τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν Was wanting-and σχίσματα prevailed. In opposition to this,
the Corinthians were to agree together in Christian thinking ἡ and judging ;
the right state of things was to establish itself among them in ὁμονοεῖν and
ὁμογνωμονεῖν (Thuc. ii. 97 ; Dem. 281. 21; Polyb. xxviii. 6. 2). In ἔριδες,
ver. 11, we have the manifestation of the opposite of both of these, of
Christian sameness of thought and opinion. That sameness, therefore, does
not preclude the friendly discussion of points of difference in thought and
judgment, with a view to mutual better understanding and the promotion
of harmony, but it doubtless does preclude party differences and hostility.
᾿Αμφισβητοῦσι μὲν yap καὶ δι’ εὔνοιαν οἱ φίλοι τοῖς φίλοις, ἐρίζουσι δὲ οἱ διαφοροί
τε καὶ ἐχθροὶ ἀλλήλοις, Plat. Prot. p. 337 B. Many other interpreters take
γνώμη as referring to the practical disposition (to Jove); whereas νοῦς denotes
the theoretical understanding. See Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact,
who says : ὅταν yap τὴν αὐτὴν πίστιν ἔχωμεν, μὴ συναπτώμεθα δὲ κατὰ THY ἀγάπην,
τὰ μὲν αὐτὰ νοοῦμεν, διϊστάμεθα δὲ κατὰ τὴν γνώμην. But this separation
between theory and practice is quite arbitrary ; and γνώμη never means in
the N. T. ‘‘ disposition,” but always (even in Rev. xvii. 13, 17) sententia,
judicium. Comp. the classical τῆς αὐτῆς γνώμης εἶναι, to have one and the same
view, Thuc. i. 113, iii. 70. Eur. Hee. 127 : ἐκ μιᾶς γνώμης, Dem. 147. 1 : διὰ
μιᾶς γνώμης γίνεσθαι, Isocr. Paneg. 38 : τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχειν γνώμην, Plat. Ale. 2, p.
189 A. The converse : ἐγένοντο δίχα ai γνῶμαι, Herod. vi. 109.
Ver. 11. Motive for the foregoing exhortation. — ὑπὸ τῶν X2éy¢] comp.
Rom. xvi. 10; Winer, p. 179 [E. T. 238]. What persons belonging to
Chloe are meant, was as well known to the readers as it is unknown to us,
Grotius and Valckenaer understood ‘‘ mortuae Chloes liberos ;” others gen-
1 The sense of ‘‘ disposition” is wrongly Maier). This is not the case evenin Rom.
attributed to νοῦς (Riickert, Neander, i. 28, xii. 2; Eph. iv. 17; see in loc.
CHAPS I... 1°2. 19
erally, ‘‘ those of her household ;” others, again, ‘‘ slaves,” as undoubtedly
such genitives are sometimes to be explained by δοῦλος (Schaef. ad Bos, Hill.
p- 117 f.) ; comp. Plat. Phaed. p.60 A. Chloe herself is commonly held to
be a Corinthian Christian, members of whose household had come to Eph-
esus. It seems, however, more in accordance with apostolic discretion to
suppose (with Michaelis) that she was an Hphesian well known to the Co-
rinthians, members of whose household had been in Corinth and returned
thence.—The name (familiar as a surname of Demeter) occurs also elsewhere ;
Hor. Od. i. 23, iii. 9. 6 ; Long. Past. 7. We may add that Bengel remarks
well on ἐδηλώθη (comp. Col. i. 8) : ‘‘exemplum delationis bonae nec sine
causa celandae.” It was in fact the fulfilment of a duty of love.
Ver. 12. Now what I mean (by this ἔριδες ἐν ὑμῖν εἰσι) is this (which fol-
lows), that, etc. Regarding the explicative λέγω, common also in Greek
writers, comp. Gal. iii. 17; Rom. xv. 8. Calvin and Beza understand it,
making τοῦτο retrospective : I say this, because, etc. But, not to speak of
the less suitable meaning thus attained, τοῦτο in all parallel passages points
invariably forward (Gal. iii. 17; Eph. iv. 17; 1 Cor. vii. 29, xv. 50), ex-
cept when, as in vii. 35, Col. 11. 4, a clause expressive of design follows. —
éxaotoc] Hach of you speaks in one of the forms following. Comp. xiv. 26.
Chrysostom says aptly : ob γὰρ μέρος, ἀλλὰ τὸ πᾶν ἐπενέμετο τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ φθορά.
— Nothing is to be supplied with the genitive Παύλου κ.τ.}., for εἷναί τινος
means to belong to any one, addictum esse. See Seidl. ad Hur. El. 1098 ;
Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 621 ; Winer, p. 184 [E. T. 243 f.]. —Kyga] The Jewish
name (892) is so usual with Paul (iii. 22, ix. 5, xv. 5, and see the critical
remarks on Gal. i. 18) that it is only in Gal. ii. 7, 8 that we find Πέτρος em-
ployed by him ; hence the less may we regard Κηφᾶ here as taken directly
from the lips of the Jewish Petrine party (Estius).—The order of the four
names is historical, following that in which the parties successively arose.—
For a connected review of them and the relative literature, see Introd. § 1.
The following remarks may be added from the exegetical standpoint: (1) The
Χριστοῦ and ver. 14 ff. invalidate at once the theory held by the Fathers
(Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others, see Riibi-
ger, krit. Unters. p. 9) and many of the older commentators, including
Michaelis, and based principally on iv. 6, that the three first names were
fictitious merely, and used in order to avoid bringing forward by name the
real heads of the parties. (2) There can be no reduction of the number of
the parties below four, although many attempts have been made to bring to-
gether not only the partisans of Paul and of Apollos (as having but a formal
difference), but also the Petrine and the Christine parties (J. E. Chr.
Schmidt, Bibl. f. Krit. u. Hxeg. I. p. 91; Baur in the Tiib. Zeitschr. 1831,
4, p. 61 ff., and in his Paulus, I. p. 291 ff., ed. 2; also Billroth, Lechler,
and others) ; or else—which, however, is merely a drawing of them together
in form—to reduce the four to two main parties, the apostolic and the Chris-
tine (Neander, Jaeger, and Schenkel) ; or, lastly, by exegetical expedients
(Rabiger), either to get rid of the Christ-party altogether (see below), or at
least to take them out, of the list of parties by assuming that they were ap-
proved of by the apostle (Schott, with older interpreters). Paul, in fact;
20 ‘ PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
sets forth quite uniformly four definite diversities of confession standing in
contrast, and then shows in ver. 13 how sad and how preposterous this state
of division was.—In the face of this manifest mode of reckoning and dispos-
ing of the parties by the apostle himself in this passage, several theories,
respecting more particularly (3) the Christ-party, must be dismissed as un-
tenable. Among these is (a) the view repeatedly brought forward from the
days of Chrysostom :* ‘‘Mentionem eorum propterea fecit una cum illis,
quod, cujusnam generis essent dissidia inter Cor. excitata, perspicue explicare
non poterat, nisi ita, ut diceret, alios hunc, alios illum praeferre doctorem,
aliis (recte quidem, 1 Cor. iii. 23) se Christi sectatores simpliciter appellan-
tibus” (Schott, Zsag. 233). With respect to this, it is to be observed that
iii. 23 implies not the justification of those λέγοντες" ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, but the
truth of the idea,* from the abuse of which that fourth party arose which in
the passage before us appears under a precisely similar condemnation to
that of the other three. (0) The theory invented by Baur* in behalf of
the antagonism between Paulinism and Petrinism (comp. also Lechler, p.
386) : that the same party called themselves both τοὺς Kya, because Peter
had the primacy among the apostles of the Jews, and also τοὺς Χριστυῦ, be-
cause they held direct connection with Christ to be the main mark of true
apostleship, and therefore counted Paul far behind the other apostles ;*
that the Christ-party, in fact, were the most thoroughgoing disciples of
Peter (comp. Billroth and Credner, Hinl. sec. 132 ; also Reuss, and especial-
ly Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 25 f.). (ce) The opinion of Becker,
that the Christine party were Jewish-Christians, who had attached them-
selves to the followers of Peter that had come from a distance to Corinth,
but, as having been converted by Paul and Apollos, had called themselves
not after Peter, but after Christ. (d) Riibiger’s view, according to which the
Christ-party is purely a creation of the exegetes, ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ being the ut-
terance common to the three parties ; so that all, indeed, professed allegiance
1 He, however, holds that Paul added _ tine party from its non-mention. Origen
“ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ"" Kai οἴκοθεν (ὁ.6. ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ,
as Theophylact has it), βουλόμενον βαρύτερον
τὸ ἔγκλημα ποιῆσαι Kat Se ac οὕτω Kai τὸν
Χριστὸν εἰς μέρος δοθέντα ἕν, εἰ καὶ μὴ οὕτως
ἐποίουν τοῦτο ἐκεῖνοι. Comp. also Theodoret,
who lays stress on the special wisdom of
this procedure.
2 The rightness of the confession : ἐγὼ δὲ
Χριστοῦ, considered in and by itself’, explains
also why Clement, 1 Cor. 47, mentions only
the other three parties and not the Christ-
party as well. He is speaking against the
attachment to human party-leaders. He
might indeed, in some way suitable to the
connection of his exhortation, have brought
in the Christine party (which he doubtless
would have done, if they had been as bad
as they have been made out to be of late),
but there was no necessity for his doing so,
Hence it is unwarrantable to infer (with
Riibiger) the non-existence of a special Chris-
also does no/ quote the ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ with
the rest of the passage in one instance, al-
though he does in another.
3 See Beyschlag, p. 225 ff.—Hilgenfeld (see
his Zei/schr. 1865, p. 241) calls Baur’s disser-
tation of 1831, “ the ancestral stronghold of
our whole criticism.’ If so, it is a win,
like so many other ancestral strongholds.
It could not so much as stand firm against
the simple words ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, into which
Baur put a meaning as if Paul had written :
The con-
fession ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ necessarily transcends
all apostolic authority, and excludes it.
4 Comp. Hilgenfeld, who holds that they
were immediate disciples of Christ, who
sought to establish the exclusive authority
of the original apostles, denying to Paul
the Χριστοῦ εἶναι. See also Hilgenfeld in his
Zeitschr. 1864, p. 165 f.
ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων Χριστοῦ.
CHAP. £., (12: 21
to Christ, but the strife between them consisted in this, ‘‘ that they made
participation in Christ dependent on different teachers, each holding that
they, inasmuch as they belonged to a particular teacher, had the real and
true Christ,—a better Christ than the others.” This explanation, if we
judge in accordance with the preceding elements in ver. 12, is an exegetical
impossibility. It has been already well said by Calovius : ‘* Et illi, quia
Christo Christianos se dicebant, guatenus ab aliis sese per schisma separabant, illo
nomine sibi solum appropriato, schismatis rei erant.” Since they are ranked,
just as the others, under the category of the σχίσματα and ἔριδες (vv. 10, 11),
and their fault is set before them as before the others, ver. 13, by μεμέρ. ὁ
Χριστός, we cannot even characterize them, with Eichhorn, as neutrals.—To
name Christ as their Head was so extremely natural for a party who, as con-
trasted with the others, wished to keep themselves free from all authority of
human teachers (see Introd. ὃ 1; also Riickert, Bleek, Hin/., Hofm. 16 f.),
that there is no need whatever for any attempt at a different explanation ;
such as Eichhorn’s imagination, that they rested upon the sayings of Jesus
in the Protevangelium ; or the view of Grotius, Witsius, Wetstein, and Zieg-
ler, that they had heard Christ themselves,’ or at least their founder had (if
the former, how disproportionately small must their number needs have
been ! and if the latter, they would surely have named themselves after their
founder, since Peter, too, was a personal disciple of Christ). Equally unde-
serving of acceptance is Storr’s view (Opuse. 11. p. 252 ff.), adopted by
Rosenmiiller, Krause, Hug, Heydenreich, and Flatt (comp. also Bertholdt,
Hinl. VI. p. 3319), that they had called themselves τοῦ Χριστοῦ, as followers
of James the brother of Christ. This is an empty conjecture, not to be sup-
ported by ix. 5, xv. 9; and it has, besides, especially this against it, that
the followers of the venerated James would have had no ground, as distin-
guished from the other parties, for not calling themselves οἱ τοῦ ᾿Ιακώβου or
οἱ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου, and that James also would have been mentioned
with the rest in iii. 22, as well as in Clem. 1 Cor. 47, if the Christ-party had
not referred themselves directly to Christ.—This claim, moreover, of a di-
rect relation to Christ as regards His exclusive authority, found its sufficient
ground and justification in the general acquaintance with the doctrine and
work of Christ, which was owing to the living presence of the gospel tid-
ings in the churches. There is no evidence in the Epistles themselves of any
other and peculiar connection with the Lord being laid claim to by the
Christ-party. This holds especially of Schenkel’s view, that the Christ-party,
consisting of Jewish-Christians from Asia Minor with theosophic training,
had asserted a supernatural connection with Christ through visions and rev-
elations, their spiritual condition consequently having its analogues at a
later date in Cerinthus, Marcion, the Montanists, and the like ; and that
this party had its continuation in those who opposed the presbyters in Clem-
1 This view is taken up again by Thiersch, with Pharisaic views, proud of their Hebrew
ἃ. Kirche im apost. Zeitalter, p. 143 ff. He descent and of their haying known Christ
regards the Christ-party as personal disciples in the flesh, disputing the apostleship of
of Christ, who had come to Corinth from Paul, ete.
Jerusalem and probably also from Rome,
22 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ent’s Epistle. Schenkel’s theory (defended also by Grimm in the Jit. Bl.
eur allg. Kirchenzeit. 1851, No. 82) bases itself especially on the passages ix.
1; 2 Cor. x. 7, xii. 1. To explain these, however, there is no need to sup-
pose any allusion to theosophic opponents, or any reference to the Christ-
party at all, since Paul—more especially if they had been a party standing
in such (fanatical) antagonism in point of principle to himself—would have
combated them directly and in detail, and that in the section of the Epistle
which deals expressly with the party-divisions (down to iv. 21).' And to
connect them with the opponents of the presbyters in Clement is all the
more arbitrary, because that writer, while finding a parallel to the factions
which he blames in the parties of Paul, Apollos, and Peter, makes no ref-
erence whatsoever to the Christ-party,—a silence which is eloquent enough
to make us hesitate in ascribing to them any such extreme and dangerous
character as some have lately imputed to them, and to incline us rather to
the view of their fundamental principle being one in itself sound, but per-
verted in its application by party-spirit. "In addition to de Wette, Lutter-
beck, and Maier, Goldhorn and Dihne agree in substance with Schenkel,
seeking amidst differences in detail to prove the existence of Jewish-Alex-
andrian philosophy in the Christ-party ; just as Kniewel (comp. Grimm)
regards them as forerunners of the Gnostics. According to Ewald, they
are the adherents of some unknown teacher of Hssene views, who, ‘‘ found-
ing, doubtless, on some special evangelic writing, and in accordance there-
with exalting the example of Christ personally above all else, disapproved
of marriage ;” they were, in truth, the first Christian monks and Jesuits.?
But it is very doubtful whether the rejection of marriage in chap. vii. should
be traced precisely to the Christ-party ; and, apart from this, there is not
in the Epistles to the Corinthians a single vestige of the phenomena of Hssene
Christianity, or in particular of Essene asceticism, as at Rome and Colossae ;
while, on the other hand, the rejection of marriage does not appear among
the Romans and Colossians who held Essene views. Comp. on vii. 1.—
Lastly, after this examination of the different views entertained regarding
the Christ-party, the question whether they were Jewish (as commonly held)
or Gentile Christians answers itself to this effect, that they were composed of
both elements, as also were the adherents of Pauland of Apollos. For we have
not the slightest ground for assuming that, when the division in the church
arose upon matters turning on the respect due to individual men, it was
either Jewish Christians alone, or Gentile Christians alone, who gave them-
selves to the idea of renouncing the acknowledgment of any human teacher,
and seeking instead to be τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
1 The force of this argument is doubtless
evaded by the assumption, that the leaders
of the party had probably not developed
their hurtful influence until after the ar-
rivalin Corinth of our first Epistle. But
this is simply an unwarranted evasion.
3 According to Ewald’s Gesch. ἃ. apost.
Zeit. p. 506 f., ed. 8, they readily allowed
themselves to be carried away by the zeal
This holds good in particular against
for the law of their Pharisaic brethren, and
became a support for their position. Those
of the Christ-party with Pharisaic tenden-
cies were joined, too, by some who boasted
that they had once known Christ Himself
familiarly, nay, that they had seen Him
when risen from the dead, so that they laid
claim to apostolic estimation.
CHAP. I., 12. 23
Neander, who makes the Christ-party to be Gentile Christians, of a certain
philosophic culture and of rationalistic tendency, to whom Christ appeared
as a second, perhaps greater, Socrates, but who could not bring themselves
to accept the doctrine of Christ in the form given to it by the apostles, and
sought rather by philosophic criticism, which they exercised also on the
doctrine of the resurrection (chap. xv.), to separate, possibly with the help
of a collection of the sayings of the Lord, the pure teaching of Christ from
the mass of received material. In how totally different a way must Paul
have come forward against any such syncretistic rationalism ! See, besides,
in reply to this, Beyschlag, p. 220 ff. Altogether, there were but few men
of philosophic training who had come over to Christianity at Corinth (ver.
26) ; and those who had at least a philosophic tendency found the food for
which they sought with Apollos. And it isa groundless assumption to
maintain that what Paul says against worldly wisdom (chap. i. 2) is spoken
with a polemic reference to the Christ-party (this in opposition to Schenkel,
Jaeger, Goldhorn, Dihne, Kniewel, and others) ; see, on the contrary, chap.
iii. and iv. 6. In like manner, too, it is arbitrary, and in any case unsafe
to proceed, from the point at which Paul passes from discussing the state
of division in the church to speak of other existing evils (from chap. v. on-
wards), to apportion the latter among the several parties, and by this
method, as well as by means of expressions and details from the second
Epistle, to depict the character more especially of the Christ-party, whom
Jaeger ’ makes in this manner to appear in the most damaging light, while
Osiander * treats them prejudicially in another way, finding in them the orig-
inators of sectarian Ebionitism. Beyschlag, too, in his investigation, pro-
ceeds by the same uncertain path, putting together the characteristics of
the Christ-party especially from the second Epistle. According to him they
were Judaists, although free from Judaistic errors in doctrine, who depre-
ciated the apostle Paul, but prided themselves on their Hebrew origin, their
labours and sufferings for Christ, their more precise historical acquaintance
with and information regarding Christ, whom they had known personally,
as also on their visions and revelations of Him. In connection with this
view, Beyschlag is forced to assume that it was only in the interval between
the first and second Epistle that the Christ-party had developed such keen
and personal antagonism to the apostle,—an assumption made also by Hil-
genfeld. If, notwithstanding this development of hostility, they are to be
taken as Judaists free from Judaistic anti-Pauline doctrine, we stand con-
fronted by a complete anomaly in the history of the antagonism between
the Judaistic and the Pauline currents in the apostolic church, so far as that
_is known to us from other quarters. And it seems the less possible to ex-
1He depicts them as wealthy Jewish
Christians, familiar with Greek science, who
professed attachment to the spirit of Chris-
tianity alone, but concealed under this
mask lawlessness and immorality, and
were deniers of the resurrection.
3 Originating, according to him, from the
Petrine party, they had, while holding fast
to the idea of Christ being the Supreme
teacher, fallen into a one-sided way of con-
sidering only His appearance as a Man on
earth, and more especially His teaching,
and of allowing the theocratic aspect of
the Lord’s life and work to pass more out
of sight.
24 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
plain this anomaly by the supposition of a cunning reticence on the part of
the persons in question, the more we see how bitter and passionate their
opposition to Paul must have been, and the more we find it difficult—con-
sidering their cunning—to perceive why they should not have contented
themselves with making common cause with the Petrine party, instead of
forming a distinct faction of their own. (A)
Ver. 18. Μεμέρισται 6 Χριστός) affirmative (with Lachmann and Kniewel ;
so τινές as early as Theodoret), not interrogatory (as commonly taken), set-
ting forth the tragical result of the aforesaid state of party-division, ver. 12,
and that with arresting emphasis from the absence of any connective parti-
cle : Christ is divided! i.e. in place of being whole and undivided, the One
common Christ of all, He is broken up into different party-Christs! Such,
that is to say, is the actual appearance of things when, of several parties
mutually exclusive of one another, each seems to have its own separate
Christ.1_ The reproach here conveyed suits the Christ-party also (against
Ribiger), just as forming a party, but not them alone (Hofmann). The in-
terrogatory rendering, common since Chrysostom : Js Christ divided ? taken
as a question of surprise, has nothing against it linguistically (see esp.
Valckenaer, II. p. 71 f.), but it is liable to the objection that it is only with
the following μή that the text gives us to recognize the beginning of the
interrogative address.?, Had Paul intended μεμέρ. ὁ X. as a question, it
would have been most natural for him in the flow of his discourse to carry
on the same form of interrogation, and say : ἢ Παῦλος ἐστ. ix. iu. The text,
I may add, gives no warrant for interpreting Χριστός of the corpus Chr.
mysticum, i.e. the church (Estius, Olshausen, and others ; τενές in Theodoret),
or even of the doctrina Chr., which is not varia et multiplex (Grotius, Mos-
heim, Semler, Morus, Rosenmiiller). — μὴ Παῦλος x.7.2.|] Paul surely was not,
ete. From this point on to ver. 16 the incongruous nature of the first party-
confession of faith is specially exposed. Bengel aptly remarks: ‘‘ Crux et
baptismus nos Christo asserit ; relata : redimere, se addicere.” The two
questions correspond to the mutual connection between believing and being
baptized. — ὑπέρ] on behalf of, in the sense of atonement.’ Comp. on Gal. i.
4; Eph. v. 2. — εἰς τὸ ὄνομα] in reference to the name, as the name of him
who is to be henceforth the object of the faith and confession of the indi-
vidual baptized. Comp. on Matt. xxviii. 19 and Rom. vi. 3.—There was no
need of a single word more regarding the jirst of these two questions ; the
1The conception is not that Christ is
broken up into parts or fragments, so that
the one party should possess ¢his, the other
that, part (see Baur, de Wette, Riickert,
Calvin, ete., with Chrysostom and Theo-
phylact) ; for each party gave itself out as
the possessor of the whole Christ, not
simply of a part, He standing to it in the
relation of its Lord and Head. To this
eonception corresponds, too, the ἐγὼ δὲ
Χριστοῦ, instead of which it would not
have been necessary that it should run,
ἐμοῦ ὁ Χριστός, aS Hofmann objects.
2 [But compare the usage in 2 Cor. iii. 1,
where the particle is given only in the
second question.—T. W. C.]
3 Lachm. reads περὶ ὑμῶν, instead of ὑπὲρ
ὑμῶν, following only Β D*; too weakly at-
tested, and deserving of rejection also on
this ground, that Paul always uses ὑπέρ
(even in 1 Thess. v. 10) where the death of
Christ is placed in relation to persons, for
whom He died. Comp. on xv. 8, which is
the only certain passage in Paul’s writings
where ὑπέρ occurs with an abstract term.
See also Wieseler on Gal. i. 4.
CHAP. I., 14-17. 25
answer to it was so self-evident.
remarks to make, vv. 14-16.
Vv. 14, 15. God be thanked, that I baptized only a very few among you !
Accordingly no room has been left for the reproach being brought against
me, as it might otherwise have been, that I had baptized into my own name !
‘‘Providentia divina regnat saepe in rebus, quarum ratio postea cognosci-
tur” (Bengel). Riickert finds fault with the weakness of this proof, since it
was surely the same thing whether Paul had baptized personally or through
his assistants. But unjustly. For, since Paul was not generally in the
habit of baptizing in person, had he himself baptized many in Corinth, this
might undoubtedly have been made use of afterwards by perverse minds for
the possible slander that there was a specialty in the case, that he had bap-
tized with his own hand in Corinth, because he did it into his own name,—a
purpose for which, of course, he could not have employed others. Hofmann
suggests wrongly : they might have interpreted it, as though he had wished
But as to the second, the apostle has some
to place the persons concerned ‘‘ in a peculiar relation” to himself. This
imported indefiniteness is against the definite sense of the words. Just as
he had said before, that it was not he who had been crucified for them in
place of Christ, so he says further, that they had not been baptized into his
name instead of the name of Christ. But the two points just show how
wholly absurd the confession ἐγὼ μέν εἰμι Παύλου is, because it would have
such absurd premisses. — Kpiorov] See Acts xviii. 8. —Tdiov] See on Rom.
Xvi. 23. —iva μή] is never elsewhere, and is not here, to be taken as : 80
that not, but it denotes the design, arranged in the divine providential lead-
ing, of the οὐδένα iu. ἐβάπτισα (comp. ver. 17 ; 2 Cor. 1. 9, al.).
Ver. 16. Another Corinthian family baptized by him occurs to his mind.
He adds it conscientiously, and then cuts off any possibility of his being re-
proached with untruthful omission by λοιπὸν οὐκ οἶδα «.7.2. Regarding
Stephanas, we know nothing save from xvi. 15, 17. — Λοιπόν is the simple
ceterum, otherwise, besides that. Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; 1 Thess. iv. 1 ; fre-
quent in Greek writers also after Polybius.
Vv. 17-31. Paul justifies the simplicity of his way of teaching by the contents
of the gospel. This, like all that follows on to iv. 21, is directed primarily
against the pride of wisdom displayed by the party which certainly threat-
ened most danger in the circumstances of the Corinthian church, —the party,
namely, of Apollos (not that of Christ) ; see iii. 4, iv. 6. As to the Petrine
and the Christine-party, there is no special entering into details ; it is only
in passing that the judgment is extended so as to include them also (see iii.
22).
Ver. 17. Rapid and skilful transition (comp. Rom. i. 16) to this (ov γὰρ...
evayy.),1 and theme of the section (οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ .". . Χριστοῦ). --- οὗ yap k.T.A.]
δ Suggested naturally by what had been
said in vv. 14, 16, and without any ironical
side-glance at those who had prided them-
selves on their daptizers (Calovius) ; in par-
ticular, not levelled at boastings on this
ground on the part of Jewish-Christians
who had been baptized by Peter (Hof-
mann); nor yet against teachers “ qui prae-
textu ceremoniae gloriolam venantur” (Cal-
vin and Osiander). Such polemical refer-
ences are dragged in without warrant in the
text.
26 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
In the assured consciousness that the design of his apostolic mission was
teaching, Paul recognized that baptizing, as an external office and one that
required no special gift, should as a rule be left to others, the apostoli¢ ὑπη-
pérac (Acts xiii. 5), in order to avoid, for his own part, being drawn away
from following ont that higher aim, which was his specific calling. A very
needful and salutary division of duties, considering the multitude of those
converted by him! Peter, too, acted in the same way (Acts x. 48), and
perhaps all the apostles. Nor was this contrary to Christ’s command in
Matt. xxviii. 19, seeing that, according to it also (comp. Luke xxiv. 47 ;
Mark xvi. 15), teaching was the main business of the apostolic office, while
the baptismal command was equally fulfilled by baptism performed by
means of others authorized by the apostles.'— oi . . . ἀλλ} is not here,
any more than elsewhere, to be taken as equivalent to non tam . . . quam
(Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Estius, Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Pott, and others ;
comp. also Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 785), but absolutely (see Winer, p. 461 ff.
[E. T. 621 ff.] ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 9 f.) ; and the absoluteness of the nega-
tion is not at all to be set down to the account of the strong rhetorical
colouring (Riickert, comp. Buttmann, neuvt. Gr. p. 306 [E. T. 356]). To
baptize was really not the purpose for which Christ sent Paul, but to preach
(Acts ix. 15, 20, xxii. 15, xxvi. 16-18) ; in saying which it is not implied
that he was not authorized to administer baptism (εἰς μὲν yap τὸ μεῖζον ἀπεσ-
τάλη, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ Kai τὸ ἔλαττον ἐνεργεῖν οὐκ ἐκωλύθη, Theophylact), but sent in
order to baptize he was not. Comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophy-
lact. —ov« ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου] does not belong to ἀπέστ. (Storr, Flatt), which
would be an involved construction, but links itself closely to εὐαγγελίζεσθαι,
as telling in what element that does not take place. The negation is objec-
tive, attaching to the object (Kiihner, II. ὃ 714. 1; Baeumlein, Purtik. p.
257 ff.), negativing actually the ἐν σοφίᾳ : hence not μή. That σοφία λόγου is
not the same as λόγος σόφος, A. σεσοφισμένος (Erasmus, Grotius, and many
others, including Flatt and Pott), but emphasizes codia as the main concep-
tion, may be seen in Winer, p. 221 f. [E. T. 296 f.] : to preach without wis-
dom of speech, without the discourse having a philosophic character,—as de-
sired by the Hellenic taste. We are not to apply this, however, to the
philosophic contents of the teaching (Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and others),
but to the form, which consists in the clothing of the doctrine in philosophic
garb, in speculative skill, argumentative reasoning, illustration, elaboration
of the matter, and the like, together with the effect which this, from the
nature of the case, may have upon the doctrine itself. For it followed as a
matter of course from Paul’s being sent by Christ, that he was not to preach
a doctrine of this world’s wisdom (as did Plato, Aristotle, the Sophists, etc.) ;
what he had to do was to deliver the substance of the ebvayyeAifec#ac—which
1 According to Ritschl, altkath. Kirche,p. the baptism of those three in ἐλαΐ light,
369, baptism was performed on the others Stephanas would not have occurred to him
by those three, who themselves had been only by way of afterthought. Besides, there
first baptized by Paul, and who had be- must have been baptized converts there be-
come overseers. Against this viewit may fore a presbytery could be erected. Comp.
be at once urged, thatif he had regarded Acts xiy. 23,
CHAP. T., 18. Q7
is in truth given for all cases alike—without casting it in any philosophic
mould ; his speech was not to be ἐν σοφίᾳ, lest its substance should lose its
essential character. This substance was the crucified Christ, about whom he
had to preach, not in the style and mode of presentation used by the wisdom
of this world,—not in such a way that his preaching would have been the
setting forth of a Christian philosophy of religion. Even the dialectic ele-
ment in Paul’s discourses widely differs from anything of this sort. —iva
μὴ κενωθῇ «.7.2.] alm of the evayy. οὐκ ἐν ood. λ.: in order that the cross of
Ohrist might not be emptied (comp. Rom. iv. 14) of its essence divinely effectual
Jor salvation (Rom. i. 16). The eross of Christ—that Christ was crucified
(and thereby won salvation for us),—this fact alone was the pure main swb-
stance (‘‘nucleus et medulla,” Calovius) of the apostolic preaching, and as
such has the essential quality of proving itself in all believers the saving
power of God, and of thereby, in the way of inward living experience,
bringing to nought all human wisdom (vv. 18, 19 ff.). Now, had the cross
of Christ been preached ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου, it would have been emptied of its
divine and essential power to bless, since it would then have made common
cause with man’s wisdom, and therefore, instead of overthrowing the latter,
would have exalted it and made it come, totally alien in nature as it was,
in place of itself. Bengel says well : ‘‘ Sermo autem crucis nil heterogeneum
admittit.””» — With marked emphasis, ὁ σταυρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ is put last.
Ver. 18. Establishment of the foregoing ἵνα μὴ. . . Χριστοῦ. Were,
namely, the doctrine of the cross, although folly to the unbelieving, not a
power of God to believers, it would be impossible to speak of ἃ ἵνα μὴ κενωθῇ
of its substance, the cross of Christ, as the aim of the evayy. οὐκ ἐν σ. 2. —
The ἐστί with the dative expresses the actual relation in which the λόγος
stands to both ; it is for them in fact (not, as might be thought, simply in
their judgment) the one and the other. — τοῖς ἀπολλυμ.} to those who are sub-
ject to (eternal) ἀπώλεια. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 15, iv. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 10. The
present participle’ betokens either the certainty of the future destruction (Bern-
hardy, p. 371), or it brings the being lost before us as a development which
is already taking place in them ; just as τοῖς σωζομ.., those who are saved unto
Messianic bliss. (B) From xv. 2, Rom. v. 9, 10, viii. 24, a/., also Eph. ii. 5-8,
the former mode of conceiving it seems to be the correct one ; comp. ii. 6.
Paul designates in this way the believers and unbelievers, ἀπὸ τοῦ τέλους τὰς
προσηγορίας τιθείς, Theodoret. He has certainly (Riickert) conceived of both
classes as predestinated (ver. 24 ; Rom. viii. 29, ix. 11, 19, 22 f. ; Eph. i. 4
f. ; 2 Thess. ii. 13, al.) ; but this point remains here out of view. — μωρία]
This doctrine is to them (to their conscious experience) an absurdity (μωρία
τε kal, ἀλογία, Plat. Hpin. Ὁ. 983 E; Dem. 397, pen.). Why ? see ver. 22.
Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 8. Billroth’s answer is un-Pauline. — ἡμῖν] is not put last
out of modesty (Billroth), but because the emphasis of the contrast lies on
the idea of τοῖς σωζομ. Comp. Eur. Phoeniss. 1788. Pors. : ἐλαύνειν τὸν
γέροντα μ᾽ ἐκ πάτρας. --- δύναμις Θεοῦ] Comp. on Rom. i. 16. That doctrine is
1Bengel’s ingenious exposition: ‘qui bivio, et nunc aut perit aut salvatur,”’ is
evangelium audire coepit, nec ut perditus wrecked on the word ἡμῖν, which the audire
nec ut salvus habetur, sed est quasi in coepit does not suit.
28 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
to them (to their conscious experience) God’s power, inasmuch, that is to say,
as God works mightily in them through the saving tidings of the Crucified.
The contrast is stronger than if it were σοφία Θεοῦ, and is also logically cor-
rect ; for δύναμις Θεοῦ necessarily presupposes the opposite of μωρία, because
the power of God brings about enlightenment, repentance, sanctification,
love, peace, hope, ete. Comp. Ignat. ad Hph. 18, where it is said of the
cross, that it is to us σωτηρία κ. ζωὴ αἰώνιος.
Ver. 19. Establishment from Scripture of the foregoing τοῖς δὲ σωζομ. K.7.4. :
for were the word of the cross not God’s power for the σωζόμενοι, God could
not say of it in the Scriptures : ‘‘I will destroy,” etc.—In the passage, Isa.
xxix. 14 (a free quotation from the LXX., the difference between which and
the original Hebrew is unessential), Paul, in accordance with the typical sig-
nificance attendant on the historical sense,’ recognizes a prediction of the
powerful working of the doctrine of the cross as that through which God
would bring to nought and do away with the wisdom of man, i.e. empty it
of its estimation. The justification of this way of viewing it lay in the
Messianic character of O. T. prophecy in general, by virtue of which the his-
torical sense does not exhaust the design of the utterances, but leaves open
higher references to the further development of the theocratic relations, and
especially to the Messianic era, which references are to manifest themselves
historically by the corresponding facts of later date, and so be recognized
from the standpoint of their historical fulfilment. See more in detail, on
Matt. i. 22 f. (c) Christ Himself confirms the Messianic reference of the pro-
phetic utterance, Matt. xv. 8.—Regarding the distinction between σοφία and
σύνεσις (intelligence), see on Col. i. 9.
Ver. 20. What this passage of Scripture promises, has occurred : Where is
a wise man, etc. The force of these triumphant questions (comp. xv. 55, and
see on Rom. ili. 27) is : clean gone are all sages, scribes, and disputers of this
world-period (they can no more hold their ground, no longer assert them-
selves, have, as it were, vanished) ; God has made the world’s wisdom to be
manifest folly! Asthe passages, Isa. xix. 12, xxxiii. 18, were perhaps before
the apostle’s mind, the form of expression used rests probably on them. Comp.
Rom. iii, 27, where ἐξεκλείσθη is the answer to the ποῦ ; according to classi-
cal usage, Valckenaer, ad Hur. Phoen. 1662. Ewald holds ver. 20 to bea
citation from a lost book ; but we are not necessarily shut up to this conclu-
sion by the γραμματεῖς. although the term does not occur elsewhere in Paul’s
writings, for this exclamation might easily have been suggested to him by
the γραμματικοί of Isa. xxxiii. 18. The three substantives cannot well be
taken as alluding to the synagogal phrases 190 Son and jw (Lightfoot,
Vitringa), since Paul was not writing to a purely Jewish-Christian commu-
nity. Attempts to explain the distinction between them have been made in
a variety of ways. But it is to be noted that in what immediately follows
1 According to which the reference is not judgment under Sennacherib, in which the
generally to the final catastrophe of the wisdom of the rulers and false prophets
present state of things in Israel before the of Israel was to be confounded and left
dawn of the Messianic period (Hofmann), helpless.
but, as the context shows, to the penal
CHAP, I., -20. 29
τὴν σοφίαν represents all the three ideas put together ; that γραμματεύς, again,
is always (excepting Acts xix. 35) used in the N. T. (even in Matt. xiii. 52,
xxiii. 34, where the idea is only raised to the Christian sphere) of scribes in
the Jewish sense ; that the συζητήτης (Ignat. ad Eph. 18), which is not found
in the Greek writers or in the LXX., is most surely interpreted disputant, in
accordance with the use of συζητέω (Mark viii. 11, ix. 14; Luke xxiv. 15;
Acts vi. 9, ix. 29, al.) and συζήτησις (Acts xv. 2, 7, xxviii. 29) ; and further,
that disputing was especially in vogue among the Sophists (οἱ οἰόμενοι πάντ᾽
εἰδέναι, Xen. Mem. i. 4. 1). And on these grounds we conclude that σοφός
is to be taken of human wisdom in general, as then pursued on the Jewish side
by the scribes, and on the Hellenic side by the sophistical disputers, so that, in
this view, γραμμ. and συζητ. are subordinated. to the general σοφός in respect
to matters of Jewish and Hellenic pursuit. Many exegetes (Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Theophylact, Oceumenius, and others, including Storr, Rosen-
miller, Flatt, Billroth) depart from the view now stated in this respect, that
they would limit σοφός to the heathen philosophers,’ which, however, is pre-
cluded by the σοφίαν embracing all the three elements (comp. also ver. 21).
This holds at the same time against Riickert, who finds here only the three
most outstanding features in the intellectual character of the Hellenes : cley-
erness, erudition, and argumentativeness. But ver, 22 shows that Paul is not
shutting out the Jewish element ; just as his Jewish-Christian readers could
see in γραμμ. nothing else than a name for the σοφοί of their people. Schra-
der, with older expositors (see below), understands by συζητ. an inquirer,
and in a perfectly arbitrary way makes it refer partly to the pupils of the
great training-schools of Alexandria, Athens, Jerusalem, etc. ; partly to the
disciples of the apostles and of Jesus Himself. But συζητ. could only denote
a fellow-inguirer (comp. συζητεῖν in Plat. Men. p. 90 B, Crat. p. 384C ; Diog. -
L. ii. 22), which would be without pertinence here ; while, on the other
hand, according to our view, the civ finds its reference in the notion of dis-
putare. — τοῦ αἰῶν. τούτου] attaches to all the three subjects : who belong to
the pre-Messianic period of the world (‘* quod totum est extra sphaeram verbi
crucis,” Bengel), and are not, like the Christians, set apart by God from the
υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου to be members of the Messianic kingdom, in virtue
whereof they already, ideally considered, belong to the coming αἰών.
Comp. ver. 27 ; Gal. i. 4; Col. i. 13; Phil. 111. 20; Rom. xii. 2. Luther
and many others take τοῦ αἰῶν. τ. as referring simply to συζητ. ; but wrongly,
for it gives an essential characteristic of the first two subjects as well. Of
those who think thus, some keep the true meaning of αἰὼν οὗτος (as Riickert
and Billroth) ; others render : indagator rerum naturae, physical philosopher
(Erasmus, Beza, Drusius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Justiniani, Grotius, Clericus,
and Valckenaer), which is quite contrary to the invariable sense of αἰὼν oir.
— ἐμώρανεν]) emphatically put first : made foolish, i.e. from the context, not :
He has made it into incapacity of knowledge (Hofmann), which would come
in the end to the notion of callousness, but ; He has shown it practically to be
1 ΤῊ consequence of this, συζητητής has and heathen dialecticians. See especially
been regarded as comprising the Jewish | Theodoret.
30 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Jolly, ‘‘insaniens sapientia” (Hor. Od. i. 34. 2), σοφία ἄσοφος (Clem. Protr. V.
p. 56 A), by bringing about, namely, the salvation of believers just through
that which to the wise men of this world seemed foolishness, the preaching
of the cross. See ver. 21. The more foolish, therefore, this preaching is
in their eyes and according to their judgment, the more they themselves are
exhibited as fools (as μωρόσοφοι, Lucian, Alex. 40), and put to shame (ver. 27),
since the κήρυγμα, held by them to be foolish, is that which brings salvation,
not indeed to them, but to those who believe ; ποία yap σοφία, ὅταν τὸ κεφάλαιον
τῶν ἀγαθῶν μὴ εὑρίσκῃ ; Chrysostom, Comp. Isa. xliv. 25, where μωραίνων is to
be taken in precisely the same way as here. — τοῦ; κόσμου] i.e. of profane non-
Christian humanity, the two halves of which are the Jews and the heathen,
Vv. 22-24.
Ver. 21. More detailed explanation as to this éudpavev ὁ Θεὸς k.7.2., Speci-
fying the why in the protasis and the how in the apodosis : since (see Har-
tung, Partikell. II. p. 259), that is to say, in the wisdom of God the world
knew not God through wisdom, it pleased God to save believers through the fool-
ishness of preaching. The wisdom of God was set before the eyes of the
world, even of the heathen part of it, in the works of creation (Rom. i.
19 f. ; comp. also Acts xvii. 26 f., xiv. 15 ff.) ; to the Jews it was presented,
besides, in the revelation of the O. T. In this His manifested wisdom God
might and should have been known by men ; but they did not know Him
therein (ἐν τῇ cod. τ. Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔγνω ὁ κόσμ. τ. Oedv),—did not attain by the
means which they employed, by their wisdom, namely (διὰ τῆς σοφίας), to
this knowledge ; whereupon God adopted the plan of saving (in the Messi-
anic sense) believers through the opposite of wisdom, namely, through the
foolishness of the gospel. — ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ τ. Θεοῦ] is put first emphatically,
because the whole stress of the antithesis in both protasis and apodosis is
meant to fall on the notions of wisdom and folly. By év Paul marks out the
sphere, in which the negative fact of the οὐκ ἔγνω (‘tin media luce,” Calvin)
took place ; τοῦ Θεοῦ again is genitive swbjecti, denoting, however, not the
wisdom shown by God in Christ (Zachariae, Heydenreich, and Maier), nor
Christ Himself even (Schrader and older expositors adduced by Estius),
both of which would be quite unsuitable to the apodosis, but the wisdom
of God manifested before Christianity in nature and Scripture.’ Riickert is
wrong in holding that ἐν τ. 09, τ. Θεοῦ is : ‘in virtue of the wisdom of God,
i.e. under its guidance and arrangement, the world knew not God through
its own wisdom.” Certainly Paul would not be made by this interpreta-
tion to say anything which would in itself be at variance with his view of
the divine relationship to the matter ; for with him the two factors of
human action, the divine causality and the human self-determination, are
so associated, that he may bring now the one and now the other into the
foreground (comp. on Rom. ix.) ; but against it may be urged, partly the
position of the words ἐν. . . Θεοῦ, which on Riickert’s view would lose
their weight and convey a thought here unessential, and partly the signifi-
1 Not simply in the natural revelation ver. 22 proves that the Jews, too, are in-
(Chrysostom, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and cluded with the rest in the notion of the
many others, including Hofmann). For κόσμος.
CHAP. I., 22. 91
cant relation between the protasis and apodosis, according to which the
measure taken by God (εὐδόκησεν x.7.A.) appears as called forth by men’s
lack of knowledge, and hence the οὐκ ἔγνω would in such a passage be most
unsuitably referred to the appointment of God, so as to excuse what is de-
clared in Rom. i. 20 to be inexcusable. —ov« ἔγνω] Seeing that the Jews
also are included, and that anything which would contradict Rom. i. 19-21
is out of the question, this must apply to the true knowledge of God, which
was not attained, and which, if the κόσμος had reached it, would have caused
the preaching of the cross to appear other than foolishness ; comp. ii. 14. —
διὰ τῆς oop. | applies to the heathen world-wisdom and the Jewish school-wisdom,
since it is the means of knowledge employed without result (observe that by
the οὐκ the whole from ἔγνω to Θεόν inclusive is negatived) by the κόσμος for
the knowing God. The prepositional relation cannot differ from that of the
correlative διὰ τ. μωρίας which follows. Hence Theophylact interprets
wrongly : διὰ τῆς ἐν εὐγλωττίᾳ θεωρουμένης σοφίας ἐμποδιζόμενοι. So, too, Bill-
roth : ‘‘their own wisdom was the cause of their not knowing. — ἐυδόκησεν
ὁ Θ.] placuit Deo, He pleased, it was His will, as Rom. xv. 26 ; Gal. i. 15 ;
Col. i. 19 ; 1 Thess. 11. 8. See Fritzsche, ad Rom. 11. p. 370. — διὰ τῆς μωρίας
τοῦ Kypbyu., 1.6. by means of the foolishness which formed the substance of the
preaching (of the gospel). That is the doctrine of the cross, ver. 18, which,
as compared with the wisdom employed by the κόσμος as a means of knowl-
edge, is a foolish doctrine, but in the counsel and work of God the means
of salvation, namely, for the πιστεύοντας, which word, as solving the riddle
of the divinely applied μωρία, stands emphatically at the end. For to the
conscious experience of delievers that resultless wisdom of the world is now
Joolishness, and the foolishness of the κήρυγμα the divine saving wisdom. —
Notice, in conclusion, how the whole verse is a compact and stately co-or-
dination and dovetailing of correlative clauses. Remark, in particular, the
repetition of σοφία and Θεός, ‘‘ quasi aliquod telum saepius perveniat in ean-
dem partem corporis,” «πο. ad Herenn. iv. 28.
Ver. 22 f.? Protasis (ἐπειδὴ) and apodosis (ἡμεῖς dé) parallel to the protasis
and apodosis in ver. 21 : since as well Jews desire signs as Hellenes seek after
wisdom, we, on theother hand, preach, etc. It is to be observed how exactly
the several members of the sentence correspond to what was said in ver. 21;
for ᾿Ιουδαῖοι x. "EAAnvec is just the notion of the κόσμος broken up 3 σημεῖα
αἰτοῦσι and σοφίαν ζητ. is the practical manifestation of the οὐκ ἔγνω. . . τὸν
Θεόν ; and lastly, ἡμεῖς δὲ κηρύσσομεν x.7.A. contains the actual way in which
the εὐδόκησεν ὁ Θεός κ.τ.λ. was carried into effect. And to this carrying into
effect belongs in substance ᾿Τουδαίοις μὲν σκάνδαλον «.7.A. down to σοφίαν, ver.
24,—a consideration which disposes of the logical difficulty raised by Hof-
mann as to the causal relation of protasis and apodosis. — The correlation
kat. . . καί includes not only the two subjects 'Τουδαῖοι and "EAAnvec, but the
two whole affirmations ; as well the one thing, that the Jews demand a
sign, as the other, that the Gentiles desire philosophy, takes place. — ἡμεῖς
1 Ver. 22 f. is the programme of the history dencies of the world’s sensualism and spirit-
of the development of Christianity in its, ualism; ver. 24, the programme of its tri-
conflict with the perverse fundamental ten- umph over both.
32 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
dé] This dé, on the contrary, on the other hand, is the common classical δέ of
the apodosis (Acts xi. 17), which sets it in an antithetic relation correspond-
ing to the protasis. See Hartung, Partikell, I. p. 184 f.; Baeumlein, Partih.
p. 92 f.; Bornem. Act. αρ. 1. p. 77. Examples of this usage after ἐπεί and
ἐπειδή may be seen in Klotz, ad Devar. p. 371 f. The parallel relation, which
the eye at once detects, between ver. 21 and ver. 22 (and in which a rhetorical
emphasis is given by the repetition of the ἐπειδή used by Paul only in xiv. 16,
xv. 21 ; Phil. ii. 26, besides this passage), is opposed not merely to Billroth
and Maier’s interpretation, which makes ἐπειδὴ. . . ζητοῦσιν introduce a
second protasis after εὐδόκ. ὁ Θεός, but also to Hofmann’s, that vv. 22-24 are
meant to explain the emphasis laid on τοὺς πιστεύοντας ; as likewise to the
view of Riickert and de Wette, that there is here added an explanation of
the διὰ τῆς μωρίας κ.τ.λ., in connection with which Riickert arbitrarily
imagines a μέν supplied after ᾿Ιουδαῖοι. --- Τουδαῖοι and “Ἕλληνες without the
article, since the statement is regarding what such as are Jews, etc., are wont,
as arule, to desire. —onueia] Their desire is, that He on whom they are to
believe should manifest Himself by miraculous signs, which would demon-
strate His Messiahship (Matt. xvi. 4). They demand these, therefore, as a
ground of faith ; comp. John iv. 48. That we are not to understand here
miracles of the apostles (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Bengel, and others) is clear, both from the nature of the antithesis, and from
the consideration that, in point of fact, the apostles did actually perform
σημεῖα (Rom. xv. 18 f.; 2 Cor. xii. 12). What the Jews desired in place of
these were miraculous signs by which the erweified, but, according to the
apostles’ teaching, risen and exalted, Jesus, should evince His being the
Messiah, seeing that the miracles of His earthly life had for them lost all
probative power through His crucifixion (Matt. xxvii. 41 f., 63 f.). Comp.
Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 123 f. To take, with Hofmann, the σημεῖα air.
generally, as a universal Jewish characteristic, of the tendency to crave acts
of power that should strike the senses and exclude the possibility of doubt,
is less suitable to the definite reference of the context to Christ, in whom
they were refusing to believe. Were the reading σημεῖον (see the critical
remarks) to be adopted, we should have to understand it of some miracle
specifically accrediting the Messiahship ; not, with Schulz, Valckenaer,
Eichhorn, and Pott, of the illustrious person of an earthly ruler. Any such
personal reference would need to be suggested by the connection, as in
Luke ii. 34 ; but this is not at all the case in view of the parallel σοφίαν, nor
is it soeven by X. éoravp. in ver. 23. See on the latter verse. — αἰτοῦσι] is
the demand actually uttered (that there be given); ζητοῦσι the seeking after
and desiring, anquirere (correlative : εὑρίσκειν). — Χριστὸν éorarp.| Christ as
erneified (ii. 2; Gal. iii. 1), and therefore neither as one who exhibits
miraculous signs, nor as the originator of a new philosophy, such, possibly,
as Socrates or Pythagoras. — σκάνδαλον) in opposition to X. éoravp. As eru-
cified, He is to them an occasion for unbelief and rejection. Gal. v. 11.
For His being put to a shameful death conflicts with the demand to have a
Messiah glorified by miracles. — μωρίαν] because philosophy is what they
desire as a guide to salvation ; therefore to believe in Christ (not as one ο΄
CHAP. 1., 24, 25. 33
the wise of this world, but) as crucified, is to them a folly, an absurdity ;
whereby, indeed, their own σοφία becomes μωρία παρὰ τ. Θεῷ, iii. 19.
Ver. 24. Along with Χριστόν, which is triumphantly repeated, we are men-
tally to supply κηρύσδομεν : but to the called themselves . . . we preach Christ
as God’s power and God's wisdom—i.e. our preaching of Christ as crucified
makes such an impression upon them,’that they come to know in their
experience the manifestation and the whole work of Christ as that whereby
God powerfully works out salvation and reveals His counsel full of wisdom :
comp. ver. 806. Hofmann’s construction, making Χριστόν to be in apposition
to Χριστὸν éoravp., would be logically correct only on one of two suppositions :
either if in ver. 23 there stood merely ἐσταυρωμένον without Χριστόν (““ ἃ eruci-
Jied one . . . who is to them Christ’); or if, in ver. 24, some more precise
definition, such as’ ὄντως or ἀληθῶς, were given along with Χριστόν. --- αὐτοῖς]
isnot the iis pointing back to τοὺς πιστεύοντας, so that τοῖς κλητοῖς would be in
apposition to it (Hofmann) ; for in that case, notwithstanding the harsh and
distant retrospective reference, αὐτοῖς would in fact be entirely superfluous ;
but the words αὐτοῖς δὲ τοῖς KAyroic—the αὐτοῖς being emphatically put first
(2 Cor. xi. 14 ; Heb. ix. 23, al., and very often in Greek writers)—go to-
gether as closely connected, and mean simply : ipsis autem vocatis (Vulg.), to
the called for their part, so far as they are concerned, so that αὐτοῖς denotes
the called themselves (Herm. ad Viger. p. 733), in contrast to those round
about them still remaining in unbelief (Ιουδαίοις... μωρίαν). Instead of
τ. κλητοῖς, we might have had τοῖς πιστεύουσιν» (ver. 21); but how natural it
was that the Θεοῦ δύναμιν x.t.A., Which was present to the apostle’s mind,
should have led to his designating the subjects of his statement according
to the divine qualification which applied to them. Comp. ver. 26. As to
κλητός, see on ver. 2." That Paul did not write ἡμῖν, is to be accounted for
on the ground of its being unsuitable to the κηρύσσ., which is to be here
again understood ; not, as Riickert thinks, because it seemed to him too
hard to oppose ἡμ. to Ἰουδ. and ἔθνεσι. --- Θεοῦ div. x. 6. cog.] To all the κλητοί
Christ is both. But the words are formally parallel to the two former de-
mands in ver. 22 ; hence δύναμιν is put jirst. Respecting σοφίαν, comp. on
ver. 30.
Ver. 25. Confirmation of the Θεοῦ div. κ. Θεοῦ ood. by a general prop-
osition, the first half of which corresponds to the Θεοῦ cogiav, and the sec-
ond to the Θεοῦ δύναμιν. --- τὸ μωρὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ] the foolish thing which comes
From God,* i.e. what God works and orders, and which appears to men ab-
1¥or the preaching is not twofold, but
one and the same, only spoken of in its
respective relations to the two opposite
classes of men. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 16. That
is the crisis, which the gospel brings about,
and its influence on the called is to make
them free (John viii. 33, 36; Rom. vi. 22).
2Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 314 (ed.
Paris. 1641): πάντων ἀνθρώπων κεκλημένων οἱ
ὑπακοῦσαι βουληθέντες κλητοὶ ὠνομάσθησαν.
These also are the σωζόμενοι, ver. 18; the
opposite is the ἀπολλύμενοι.
3 This, according to the well-known use
inGreek of the neuter with the genitive
(Poppo, ad Thue. VI. p. 168; Kiihner, II. p.
122), might also be taken as abstract: the
Joolishness of God—the weakness of God.
So τὸ μωρόν, Ear. Hipp. 966. But Paul had
the concrete conception in his mind; other-
wise he would most nit ucully have used the
abstract μωρία employed just before. The
meaning of the concrete expression, how-
ever, isnot: God Himself, in so far as He is
foolish (Hofmann) ; passages such as 2 Cor.
34 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
surd. Comp. τὸ σωτήριον τ. Θεοῦ, Luke ii. 80. — τῶν ἀνθρώπων] We are not
to amplify this, with the majority of interpreters (including Beza, Grotius,
Valckenaer, Zachariae, Flatt, Pott, Heydenreich, and de Wette), into row
σοφοῦ τῶν avOpor., after a well-known abbreviated mode of comparison
(sec on Matt. v. 20; John v. 36), which Estius rightly censures here as
coactum (comp. Winer, p. 230 [Ε T. 307]), because we should have to
supply with τῶν ἀνθρ. not the last named attribute, but its opposite ; the
true rendering, in fact, is just the simple one : wiser than men; men pos-
sess less wisdom than is contained in the foolish thing of God. — τὸ ἀσθενὲς
τοῦ Θεοῦ} whatever in God’s appointments is, to human estimation, power-
less and resultless. The concrete instance which Paul has in view when
employing the general terms τὸ μωρόν and τὸ ἀσθενὲς τοῦ Θεοῦ, is the death
of Christ on the cross, through which God has fulfilled the counsel of His
eternal wisdom, wrought out with power the redemption of the world, laid
the foundations of everlasting bliss, and overcome all powers antagonistic
to Himself.
Ver. 26. Confirmation of this general proposition from the experience of
the readers. The element of proof lies in the contrast, ver. 27 f. For if
the matter were not as stated in ver. 25, then God would not have chosen
the foolish of the world to put to shame its wise ones. By so doing He
has, indeed, set before your eyes the practical experimental proof, that the
μωρὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ transcends men in wisdom. Otherwise He would have acted
in the reverse way, and have sought out for Himself the wise of the world,
in order, through their wisdom, to help that which now appears as the
μωρὸν τ. Θεοῦ to victory over the foolishness of the world. This holds, too,
as against de Wette, who (comp. also Hofmann) makes γάρ refer to the
whole series of thoughts, vv. 19-25, notwithstanding that the expressions
here used attach themselves so distinctly to ver. 25. — βλέπετε) imperative.
As such it has with logical correctness its hortatory emphasis ;* but not so,
if we take it as indicative (Valla, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Vatablus, Ben-
gel, Rosenmiiller, and Schrader). —7v κλῆσιν ὑμῶν] is not to be taken ar-
bitrarily, with Beza, Estius, Mosheim, Semler, Rosenmiiller, and Pott, pro
concreto, for ὑμᾶς τοὺς κλητούς, but as : your calling (to salvation through the
Messiah) ; see, what was the nature of it as regards the persons whom God,
the caller, had chosen (ver. 27 ff.). Krause and Olshausen run counter to
the specific Christian sense of the word, and even to the general linguistic
usage (see on vil. 20), when they make it mean, like the German word
κε Beruf” (calling), the vitae genus, the outward circumstances. — ὅτε]
equivalent to εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι, in so far, namely, as. Plat. Prot. p. 330 E, Crat.
p. 384 Ὁ; al. John ii. 18, ix. 17, xi. 51; 2 Cor. i. 18, xi. 10; Mark xvi.
14 ; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 248 f. — οὐ πολλοὶ σοφοὶ x. o. | that not many (among
you) are wise in the eyes of men, etc. Itis enough to supply the simple εἰσί,
making ov πολλ., i.e. but few, the subject, and cog. the predicate ; and there is
iv. 17, Rom. i. 19, ii. 4, viii. 3, are no proof of 1The yap is not against our taking it as
this.—As to the different accentuations of imperative; Greek writers, too, use it with
μωρός and μῶρος, see Lipsius, grammat. that mood, as e.g. Soph. Phil. 1043 : ἄφετε yap
Unters. Ὁ. 25; Gottling, Accenti. p. 304. αὐτόν.
CHWP «I: 21) 20. 35
no need for introducing an ἐκλήθησαν (so commonly), according to which οὐ π. o.
together would be the subject. Κατὰ σάρκα, specifying the kind and manner of
the σοφία, marks it out as purely human, and distinguishes it from the Christian
wisdom which proceeds from the Holy Spirit. For σάρξ comprises the sim-
ply human element in man as opposed to the divine principle. Comp. σοφία
σαρκική, 2 Cor. i. 12; σοφία ψυχικ, Jas. 111. 15; and see on Rom. iv. 1 ;
John iii. 6. Estius aptly remarks: ‘‘ Significari vult sapientiam, quae
studio humano absque doctrina Spir. sancti potest acquiri.” In substance,
the σοφία τοῦ κόσμου, ver. 20, and the o. τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, li. 6, are the same.
— δυνατοί] We are not to supply κατὰ σάρκα here again ; for that was essen-
tially requisite only with σοφοί, and Paul otherwise would have coupled it
with the third word (comp. ver. 20). That mighty men of this world are
meant, is self-evident. — εὐγενεῖς} of high descent. Comp. Luke xix. 12; fre-
quent in the classics.—Riickert objects that Paul, instead of proving the
phenomenon recorded in ver. 26 to have proceeded from the divine wisdom,
uses it as an argument for ver. 25, and so reasons ina circle. But this 1s
without foundation. For that the phenomenon in question was a work of
the divine wisdom, was to the Christian consciousness (and Paul was, of
course, writing to Christians, who looked at it in the same light with him-
self) a thing ascertained and settled, which could be employed therefore
directly to establish ver. 25 in conformity with experience.
Vv. 27, 28. Expanded (see τοῦ κόσμου and πᾶσα σάρξ, ver. 29) statement ot
the opposite : No ; the foolish things of the world were what God chose out for
Himself, etc. The calling, ver. 26, was in truth just the result and the proof
of the election. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 4 f.; 2 Thess. ii. 13f.; Rom. viii. 90, ix. 23
f. —ra μωρὰ τοῦ κόσμου] the foolish elements of the world (mankind), i.e. those to
whom earthly wisdom was a quite foreign thing, so that they were the simple
among men. Comp. Matt. xi. 25. Many exegetes (including Theodoret,
Luther, Grotius, Estius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and Billroth) take the gen-
itive as : according to the judgment of theworld. Against this may be urged,
partly, the very fact that when God chose to Himself the persons referred
to, they too had not yet the higher wisdom, and consequently were not un-
wise merely in the eyes of the world ; and partly, as deciding the point, the
following dof. and ἀγεν., for they were, it is plain, really (and not merely
in the eyes of the world) weak and of mean origin. — The neuters (comp. on
the plural, Gal. iii. 22) indicate the category generally, it being evident
from the context that what is meant is the persons included under that cate-
gory. See generally, Winer, p. 167 [E. T. 222], and the same usage among
classical writers in Blomfield, ad Aesch. Pers. Gloss. 101. —ivar. o. καταισχ. |
design. The nothingness and worthlessness of their wisdom were, to their
shame, to be brought practically to light (by God’s choosing not them, but
the unwise, for honour), no matter whether they themselves were conscious
of this putting of them to shame or not. — The thrice-repeated ἐξελ. ὁ Θεός,
beside the three contrasts of σοφοί, δυνατοί, and εὐγενεῖς ver. 26), carries with
it a triumphant emphasis. — τὰ μὴ ὄντα] The contrast to εὐγενεῖς is brought
out by three steps forming ἃ climax. This third phrase is the strongest of
all, and sums up powerfully the two foregoing ones by way of apposition
36 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(hence without καί : the non-evistent, i.e. what was as utterly worth nothing
as if it had not existed at all (Winer, p. 451 [E. T. 608]). Comp. Eur. Hee.
284 : ἦν πότ᾽, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκ εἴμ’ ἔτι. Dem. 248. 25; Plat. Crit. p. 50 B ; and
Stallbaum thereon. The subjective negation μή is quite according to rule
(Baeumlein, Partik. p. 296), since the participle with the article expresses a
generic notion ; and there is no need of importing the idea of an untrue al-
though actual existence (Hofmann). We are not therefore to supply τι to
τὰ ὄντα (as if μηδὲν εἶναι had been used before), but to explain it : the exist-
ent, what through repute, fortune, etc., is regarded as that which is (κατ᾽ ἐξο-
χήν). Comp. Pflugk, ad Hee. 1.6. : ‘‘ipsum verbum εἶναι cam vim habet, ut
significet in aliquo numero esse, rebus secundis florere.” — xatnpy.| Not
καταισχ. again, because the notions μὴ εἶναι and εἶναι required a stronger
word to correspond to them ; one which would convey the idea of bringing
to nought (i.e. making worthless, Rom. iii. 31).
Ver. 29. Final aim, to which is subordinated the mediate aim expressed
by the thrice-repeated iva x.t.2. — ὅπως μὴ Kavy. πᾶσα σάρξ] Hebraistic way of
saying : that no man may boast himself. Its explanation lies in the fact that
the negation belongs to the verb, not to πᾶσα o. (Οὐ 3 -23): that every man
may abstain from boasting himself. Comp. Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Cor, II. p. 24
f. Regarding σάρξ as a designation of man in his weakness and imperfection
as contrasted with God, see on Acts iii. 17. — ἐνώπ. τ. Θεοῦ] Rom. 111. 20 ;
Luke xvi. 15, al. No one isto come forth before God and boast, I am wise,
etc. ; on this account God has, by choosing the unwise, etc., brought to
nought the wisdom and loftiness of men, so that the ground for the asser-
tion of human excellences before God has been cut away.
Ver. 30 f. In contrast (dé) to the ὅπως μὴ Kavy. 7. 6. ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ, We have
now the true relation to God and the true and right καυχᾶσθαι arising out of
it: But truly it is God’s work, that ye are Christians and so partakers of the
greatest divine blessings, that none of you should in any way boast himself save
only in God. Comp. Eph. ii. 8 f. —é& αὐτοῦ] has the principal emphasis :
From no other than God is derived the fact that you are in Christ (as the
element of your life). Ἔξ denotes the causal origination. Comp. Eph. ii.
8: οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον, also in profane writers: ἐκ θεῶν, ἐκ Διός
(Valckenaer, ad Herod. ii. 13) ; and generally, Winer, p. 345 [E. T. 460].
While Hofmann here, too, as in ver. 28, introduces into eiva the notion of
the true existence, which they have from God ‘in virtue of their being
included in Christ,” others again, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and
Theophylact, take ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὲ ὑμεῖς ἐστε by itself in such a way as to make it
express sonship with God (comp. Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 553), and regard ἐν
as conveying the more precise definition of the mode whereby this sonship
is attained : παῖδες αὐτοῦ ἐστε, διὰ To Χριστοῦ τοῦτο γενόμενοι, Chrysostom ;
comp. Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Ewald, and others.
But wrongly ; for the conception ἐκ Θεοῦ εἶναι in the supposed sense is Johan-
nine, but is not in accordance with the Pauline mode of expression (not even
in Gal. iv. 4) : ; and εἶναι ἐν Χριστῷ was a conception so habitually in use
(Rom. xvi. 7, 11 ; 2 Cor. v. 47 ; Gal. i. 22, al.), that it must have occurred
ef itself here also τὰ the reader ; ieee the ἀπὸ Θεοῦ which follows answers
CHAP. I., 30. 37
to the ἐξ αὐτοῦ. This applies, too, against Osiander, who, after ἐξ αὐτοῦ,
mentally supplies γεγενημένοι: ‘‘ being born of God, ye are members of
Christ.” —ieic] with emphasis : ye for your part, ye the chosen out of the
world. — ὃς ἐγενήθη. . . ἀπολύτρωσις] brings home to the heart the high
value of that God-derived εἶναι ἐν Χριστῷ : who has become to us from God
wisdom, righteousness and holiness, and redemption. ᾿Ἐγενήθη is simply a later
(Doric) form for ἐγένετο (Thom. Mag. p. 189 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 108 f.),
not, as Riickert makes it (comp. Luther : ‘‘ gemacht ist”), a true passive in
sense ; comp. Acts iv. 4 ; Col. iv. 11 ; 1 Thess. ii. 14 (Eph. iii. 7, Lachm.).
Christ became to us wisdom, etc., inasmuch as His manifestation and His
whole saving work have procured for believers these blessings ; namely,
first of all_—what was of primary importance in the connection of ver. 19
ff., wisdom, for to believers is revealed the counsel of God, in whom are
all treasures of wisdom and knowledge (see ii. 7 ff. ; Col. ii. 9) ; righteous-
ness, for by means of faith we are through the Lord’s atoning death consti-
tuted righteous before God (Rom. iii. 24f., al. ; see on Rom. i. 17 ; holiness
(see on Rom. vi. 19, 22), for in those who are justified by faith Christ works
continually by His Spirit the new holy life (Rom. viii. 1-11) ; redemp-
tion, for Christ has delivered believers, through His blood paid as their ran-
som (Rom. ili. 24, vi. 20, vii. 23), from the wrath of God, to which they
were subject before the entrance of faith (see on Eph. i. 7, ii. 3). The order
in which these predicates stand is not illogical ; for after the first intellectual
benefit (σοφία) which we have received in Christ, marked out too from the
rest by the position of the word, Paul brings forward the ethical blessedness
of the Christian, and that in the firs€ place positively as dixavocivy and ἁγιασμός,
but then also—as though in triumph that there was now nothing more to
fear from God—megatively as ἀπολύτρωσις, in which is quenched all the wrath
of God against former sin (instead of which with the Christian there are now
righteousness and holiness). Hence in explaining ἀπολύτρ. we should not
(with Chrysostom) abide by the general ἀπήλλαξεν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάντων TOV κακῶν,
which is already contained in what goes before ; nor again should we, with
Grotius, Calovius, Riickert, Osiander, Neander, and others (comp. also
Schmid, ib/. Theol. ΤΙ. p. 325 ; and Lipsius, Paulin. Rechtfertigungslehre, p.
8), make it the final redemption from death and all evils, such as is the object
of ἐλπίς, the redemption perfecting itself beyond our earthly life (Hofmann),
or the definitive acquittal at the last judgment (Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 327).
In the passages alleged to support the interpretation in question, this sense
is given solely by the accessory defining phrases—namely, in Eph. i. 14 by τῆς
περιποιήσεως, in iv. 80 by ἡμέραν, and in Rom. viii. 23 by τοῦ σώματος. Riickert
(comp. Neander) is further of opinion that δικαιοσύνη x.7.2. is merely explana-
tory of how far Christ is to us copia, namely, as δικαιοσύνη, ἁγιασμός, and aro-
λύτρ., and that these three refer to the three essential things in the Christian
life, faith, love, and hope : the ré binding together the last three words and
separating them from the first. But (1) the τέ links closely together only
δικαιοσ. and ἁγίασμ., aid does not include ἀπολ. ; much less does it separate
the three last predicates from σοφία ;+ on the contrary, τε καί embraces δὲκ,
1 With σοφία the τέ has nothing whatever to do. Hofmann makes it serve as a link
88. PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
and ay., as it were, in one, so that then ἀπολύτρωσις comes to be added with
the adjunctive καί as a separate element, and consequently there results the
following division : (#) wisdom, (Ὁ) righteousness and holiness, and (¢)
redemption. See as to this use of te καί. . . καί, Hartung, Partikell. I. p.
102 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 878 f. ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 224f. (9)
Paul would, on this theory, have left his readers without the slightest hint
of the subordinate relation of the three last predicates to the first, although
he could so easily have indicated it by a ὡς or a participle. (8) According
to the correct interpretation, ἀπολύτρ. is not something yet future, but some-
thing which has already taken place in the death of Christ. (Ὁ) Bos (Obs. Mise.
p. 1 ff.), Alethius, Clericus, Nésselt (Opuse. II. p. 127 ff.), Valckenaer, and
Krause interpret in a still more involved way, holding that only the words
from ὃς to Θεοῦ apply to Christ, and these are to be put in a parenthesis ;
while δικαιοσύνη κιτ.}. are abstracta pro coneretis (2 Cor. v. 21), and belong to
ὑμεῖς ἐστε : ‘‘Ejus bencficio vos estis in Christo Jesu δικαιοσυνὴ x.7.A.,”
Valckenaer. How ambiguous and unsuitable would such a statement as d¢
éyev. σοφία k.7.A. be for a mere parenthetical notice !— ἀπὸ Θεοῦ] on God's part,
by God as the author of the fact. Comp. Herod. vi. 125: ἀπὸ δὲ ᾿Αλκμαίω-
νος. . . ἐγένοντο kai κάρτα λαμπροί. See generally, Ellendt, Lex. Soph.
I. p. 194 ; Winer, p. 348 [E. T. 464] ; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 280 [E. T.
325]. That it belongs to ἐγενήθη, and not to σοφία, is proved by the ἡμῖν
which stands between. The latter, however, is not to be understood, with
Riickert, as though it ran ἡ ἡμετέρα σοφία (‘‘ what to the Hellene his σοφία is,
or is merely assumed to be, namely, the ground of confidence,—that Christ
is to us”), else Paul must have written®: ὃς ἡμῖν ἐγενήθη ἡ σοφία With the arti-
cle, and have placed ἡμῖν first with the emphasis of contrast.—Observe
further, that Paul has said ὑμεῖς with his eye still, as in ver. 26, upon the
church to which his readers belonged ; but now, in adducing the blessings
found in Christ, he extends the range of his view to all Christians ; and
hence, instead of the individualizing ὑμεῖς, we have the ἡμῖν including him-
self and others.
Ver. 31. The fact that God is the author of your connection with Christ,
and thereby of the blessings you receive as Christians (ver. 30), should,
according to the divine purpose (iva), determine you to comply with
that word of Scripture which calls for the true lowly καυχᾶσθαι : he that
boasteth himself, let him boast himself in the Lord, praise his own privileges
only as God’s work, boast himself only as the object of His grace.—That
the Κύριος is not Christ (Riickert) but God, and not Christ and God (Hof-
mann), is proved by the emphatic ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ver. 30, and ἐνώπ. τ. Θεοῦ, ver.
29. Comp. on 2 Cor. x. 17.—The apostle quotes Jer. ix. 24, abbreviating
quite freely, after the LXX. The construction, however, is anacoluthiec ; for
Paul purposely retains the scriptural saying unaltered in its strong impera-
tive form, and leaves it to the reader to supply the change from the impera-
tive to the subjunctive, which the syntax, properly speaking, would require.
Comp. on Rom. xv. 3.
of connection to σοφία. In that case, Paul must have written god'a te καὶ δικαιοσ. x.
ay. K. ἀπολ.
NOTES. 39
Notes py American Eprror,
(A) The factions. Vv. 11-13.
On the subject contained in these verses Dean Stanley makes the following
edifying reflections: ‘‘It is by catching a glimpse, however partial, of the
wild dissensions which raged around and beneath the apostolical writings, that
we can best appreciate the unity and repose of those writings themselves ; it is
by seeing how completely these dissensions have been obliterated, that we can
best understand how marked was the difference between their results and
those of analogous divisions in other history. We know how the names of
Plato and Aristotle, of Francis and Dominic, of Luther and Calvin, have con-
tinued as the rallying point of rival schools and systems long after the
decease, and contrary even to the intentions of the respective founders, But
with regard to the factions of the Apostolic age it was not so. The schools of
Paul and Apollos and Kephas, which once waged so bitter a warfare against
each other, were extinguished almost before ecclesiastical history had begun ;
and the utmost diversity of human character and outward style has been un-
able to break the harmony in which their memories are united in the associa-
tions of the Christian world. Partly this arose from the nature of the case,
The Apostles could not have been the founders of systems, even if they would.
Their power was not their own, but another’s : ‘Who made them to differ from
another? What had they which they had not received?’ If once they claimed
an independent authority, their authority was gone. Great philosophers,
great conquerors, great heresiarchs, leave their names even in spite of them-
selves. But such the Apostles could not be without ceasing to be what they
were ; and the total extinction of the parties which were called after them is in
fact a testimony to the divinity of their mission. And it is difficult not to
believe that in the great work of reconciliation, of which the outward volume
of the Sacred Canon is the chief monument, they were themselves not merely
passive instruments, but active agents ; that a lesson is still to be derived from
the record they have left of their own resistance to the claims of the factions
which vainly endeavoured to divide what God had joined together.”
(B) ‘* Being saved.’’ Ver, 18.
The English translator rendered the Greek phrase here, ‘those who
are being saved.’’ But this is not required by the German original, and be-
sides is objectionable in itself. In the first place, it is awkward and to many
persons questionable English. In the next place, it is not required by the
verbal form. The passive participle of the present tense is often used to ex-
press a completed action. (See Acts xx. 9; Heb. vii. 8; 2 Peter ii. 4, and 2
John 7.) In the last mentioned we have the present participle used to express
the very same thing that in 1 John iv. 2 is expressed by a perfect participle.
It is not denied that the present passive participle often denotes a con-
tinued state or a lengthened process (as in the description of the ancient
saints, Heb. xi. 37, as “ destitute, afflicted, evil entreated’’), but it is claimed
that this is not the habitual or necessary meaning. The context or the general
usage of Scripture, or the nature of the subject, must determine the precise
40 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE ἸῸ THE CORINTHIANS.
meaning in any given case. In the LXX. the present passive and the perfect
passive participle of the verb σῶώζω are used as precisely equivalent. (Compare
Jer. xliv. 14 with xlii. 7, and Isaiah xlv. 20 with Ixvi. 19.)
But the chief objection to the proposed rendering is that it introduces a con-
ception which does not belong to the New Testament, and, so far as it can, ob-
literates what is a marked peculiarity of the scriptural mode of conceiving of
salvation, viz. that it is at once present and future. Which of these views is
‘intended depends upon the circumstances in each case. On one hand, salva-
tion is spoken of as to be realized in the day when Christ shall come. So
1 Peteri. 9, ‘‘ Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls”;
Rom. viii. 24, ‘*‘ Weare saved in hope, but hope that is seen is not hope”; 1 Cor.
ν. 5, ‘That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”; Matt. x. 22,
‘«He that endureth to the end shall be sayved.’’ It is therefore quite certain that
salvation in its full meaning, as extending to the body as well as the soul, as in-
‘cluding inward holiness as wellas forensic justification, as putting an end to
sin and sorrow, vicissitude and temptation, tears and death, is experienced
only when Christ shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait
for him unto salvation (Heb. ix. 28). But, on the other hand, it is beyond
doubt that the Scripture frequently speaks of salvation as a present possession
of the believer. Thus in Luke vii. 50 our Lord is represented as saying to the
penitent outcast who bathed his feet with tears and wiped them with the hair
of her head, ‘‘ Thy faith hath saved thee.” So Paul says (Titus iii. 5), ** Ac-
cording to his mercy he saved us” (cf. 2 Tim. i. 9), And Peter (1, iii. 21)
says of baptism, ‘‘ which also after a true likeness doth now save you.” How-
ever men muy explain this variant usage of Scripture writers, the fact of the
variation should not be elided or obscured. Nor should the plain teaching of
the Bible be denied which constantly affirms of men that they are either saved
or lost, no third or intermediate condition being conceivable, any more than a
departed spirit can be one half in heaven and the other half in hell. There
may be gradual approaches to the act of faith, or even along preparation for it,
but the act itself is instantaneous. To speak of salvation, therefore, as a
process, although the term is susceptible of a meaning which is correct, is to
‘run the risk of misleading persons by inducing them to take up an opinion
which is not at all correct, but unscriptural and dangerous.
(c) Quotations. Ver. 19.
The statement here is certainly correct, and is of great importance in ex-
- plaining the method in which the words of the Old Testament are quoted in
the New. It is from forgetfulness of the unity of Scripture and the prepara-
tory character of the earlier economy that so many have charged the Apostle
with wresting the prophetic utterances -—that is, giving them a meaning which
was never intended by the original speaker. It is true in several senses that
“the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.’’ The Bible’s chief and
salient feature is that it is, from first to last, the history of redemption, and all
', 15. parts, however diverse in tone and character, are bound together by their
common relation to the one central and controlling thought, the promise of a
. world-wide deliverer. One of Meyer's great excellences is that he thoroughly
and consistently recognizes this fact.
NOTES. 41
(Ὁ) ‘* Christ made unto us wisdom from God.’ Ver. 30,
The rendering of this verse to which the author objects may be seen by tak-
ing the words of the Revised Version, inserting the margin in the text, thus,
“‘Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, both righteousness
and sanctification and redemption.’’ Dr. Meyer’s objections certainly have
weight, but they do not seem conclusive. The order of the words in the
original, the stress which Paul lays on wisdom throughout the chapter, and the
striking contrast thus gained, confirm the view that the three latter nouns are
epexegetical of the first and are intended to disclose the glorious characteristics
of the wisdom which is from Godas distinguished from the wisdom which is
of human origin. So Dr. Poor (in Lange), Archer Butler (in Sermons), Canon
Evans (in Speaker's Commentary), Principal Brown (in Popular Commentary),
Beet (in Com.), and, substantially, Dean Stanley. Dr. Poor justly insists that
in a collocation of words so peculiar, it is natural to take the last three words
as an afterthought exegetical of the main one — and such an addition was
needed. Wisdom was what Paul had been disparaging throughout this sec-
tion. Butit was the wisdom of man. Now he glories in Christ as having been
made unto us wisdom. It was necessary therefore to difference this from what
he had been condemning. So he adds from God, thus showing whence this
wisdom came. Then to characterize it, to exhibit its distinguishing peculiari-
ties as practical and suited for man’s deepest needs, instead of being merely
speculative, he subjoins the three great points it contemplated. And here is
where the wisdom of the Gospel far surpasses that of secular philosophy. Here,
then, Dr. Poor concludes, we have, 1, an adequate reason for the order of the
words ; 2, nota repetition, but a distinct thought in ἀπὸ Θεοῦ, and soa reason for
the change of the preposition from the one in the first clause ; 3, not a digres-
sion from the main course of thought, as must be supposed in the other interpre-
tation, but a glorious consummation of it, displaying the infinite superiority of
the wisdom from God over all human wisdom ; 4, an epexegesis quite in the
manner of Paul (Rom. i. 12).
42 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
CHAPTER II.
Ver. 1. μαρτύριον] A C &*, min. Syr. Copt. and some Fathers : μυστήριον. Ap-
proved by Griesb,. and Ewald, adopted also by Riickert. A gloss written on the
margin from ver. 7. Had μαρτύριον crept in from i, 6, the witnesses which
have it would read also τοῦ Χριστοῦ instead of τ, Θεοῦ ; but this occurs only in
very few, some of which, besides, have μυστήριον. --- Ver. 2. τὶ εἰδέναι Elz. τοῦ
εἰδέναι τι. But τοῦ is wanting in decisive witnesses; that τὸ should be put
first is rendered certain by Β C, min. Bas. Cyr. Isid. Chrys. Hil. Victorin. Aug.,
also Ὁ Εἰ (which have τὶ ἐν ὑμῖν εἰδέναι) ; and the external attestation must de-
cide here, — Ver. 3. kai ἐγώ] Lachm. and Rickert read κἀγώ, with ΑΒΟΝ,
min. Or, Bas. al. Taken from ver. 1. -- Ver. 4. After πειθοῖς Elz. has ἀνθρω-
πίνης, against preponderating evidence. Addition from vv. 5 and 13. In re-
ply to Heydenreich’s unfounded defence of the word, see Reiche, Comment. crit.
I. p. 134. — The readings which alter πειθοὶς (πειθοῖ : 1, 18*, 48, al. Or. Eus. al. ;
πειθανοῖς, Macar.), and those which either leave out λόγοις (F G, 74, al. Erp.
Boern. Ambrosiast. Sedul.) or alter it (λόγων : Syr. Armen. Or. twice over, and
several others : λόγου), are old shifts resorted to on failure to understand πειθοῖς,
as also the short reading ἐν πειθο σοφίας must be so accounted. See the exegeti-
cal remarks, and Reiche, p. 133. — Ver. 7. The order of the words Θεοῦ σοφίαν
(Elz. and Matth. invert it) is decisively attested, as also the order in ver, 10:
ἀπεκάλ. ὁ Θεός. --- Ver. 9. In place of the second ἅ, Lachm. and Tisch. have ὅσα.
with ABC and some Fathers.' Rightly ; ἅ 15 a mechanical repetition from
what goes before. — Ver. 10. Instead of δέ Tisch. reads γάρ, supported only by
B, min. Copt. Sahid. Clem. — αὐτοῦ] is wanting in A BC 8, Copt. Clem. Bas.
Cyr. It is deleted by Lachm. and Riickert. But considering the independent
τὸ yap πνεῦμα Which follows, it would have been more natural to omit αὐτοῦ or
to add ἁγίου (so Didym.) than to insert αὐτοῦ. --- Ver. 11. ἔγνωκεν is, in ac-
cordance with the vast preponderance of evidence, approved by Griesb. and
adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riickert. Elz., however, Matth. and Scholz, have
οἶδεν, Repetition of the preceding oidev done mechanically or by way of gloss.
In favour of ἔγνωκεν there is also the reading ἔγνω in F G, 23, and Fathers, —
Ver. 13. πνεύματος] Elz. adds ἁγίου, against decisive evidence to the contrary.
A superfluous and weakening definition. — Ver. 15. The μέν after avaxp. in Elz.
and Scholz (deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riick.) is wanting in A C D* FG,
17, and many vss. and Fathers. It has arisen from the δέ which follows. In
&* the whole verse is omitted through Homoioteleuton. S** has μέν. --- τὰ
πάντα͵] so also Riick. and Tisch. ; Lachm. brackets ra; Elz. and Scholz have
simply πάντα. But τά is attested by A C Ὁ, min. Ir. ms. Or. Nyss. Chrys. ;
πάντα is an old correction of the text, with the view of bringing in the mascu-
1 Clement, too, Cor. I. 34, has ὅσα, which mann). A converse proceeding on the part
certainly was not first imported from his of the transcribers might rather seem more
quotation cote tiet of the apostle (ITof- natural.
OMAP: Τα πατῶ: 43
line to correspond with the οὐδενός which comes after ; hence, too, Didym.
and Theodoret have πάντας. -- Ver. 16. Χριστοῦ] Lachm. has Κυρίου, with B D*
F G, Theophyl. Ambrosiast. Aug. Sedul. Mechanical repetition of the preced-
ing Kupiov. Had Κυρίου been the original reading and explained by a gloss,
the substitute for it would have been not Χριστοῦ, but Θεοῦ, seeing that every
marginal annotator must have been aware from Isa. xl. 13 that the preceding
Κυρίου referred to God.
Vv. 1-5. Application of the foregoing section (i. 17-31) to the manner in
which Paul had come forward as a teacher in Corinth.
Ver. 1. Κἀγώ] I too, as is the duty, in accordance with the previous expla-
nation (i. 17-31), of every preacher of the gospel. The construction is such,
that ka? ὑπεροχὴν x.7.A. belongs to katayy., as indicating the mode adopted
in the καταγγέλλειν : I too, when I came to you, brethren, came proclaiming to
you, not upon the footing of ὦ pre-eminence of speech (eloquence) or wisdom (phi-
losophy), the testimony of God. Against connecting the words in this way,’
it is objected that ἐλθὼν ἦλθον gives an intolerable tautology. But this is of
no weight (see the passages in Bernhardy, p. 475 ; Bornemann, ad Cyrop. v.
3. 2; Sauppe, ad Anab. iv. 2. 21 ; comp. on Acts vii. 34), and would, be-
sides, apply to the construction ἦλθον ob . . . σοφίας, καταγγέλλων (Luther,
Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, and others, including Flatt, Riickert, Hofmann) ;
further, it is more natural and more in accordance with the sense to think
in connection with καθ᾽ ὑπεροχὴν κιτ.2. of the manner of the preaching than
of the manner of the coming. For that reason, too, ἦλθον is not placed after
σοφίας. The preposition κατά, again, to express mode (Winer, p. 375 [E. T.
501]), is quite according to rule ; comp. καθ᾽ ὑπερβολήν, κατὰ κράτος, and the
like. — As to ὑπεροχή, eminentia, comp. 1 Tim. 11. 2; Plat. Legg. iv. p. 711
Ὁ ; Def. 416 ; Arist. Pol. iv. 9.5. Also κακῶν ὑπεροχή, 2 Mace. xiii. 6. —
καταγγέλλων] Paul might have used the future, but the present participle
places the thing more vividly before us as already begun with the ἦλθον. So
especially often ἀγγέλλων (Valck. ad Phoen. 1082) ; e.g. Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 29:
ἐς τὰς ᾿Αθήνας ἔπλευσεν, ἀγγέλλουσα τὰ yeyovara, Plat. Phaed. p. 116 C, and
Stallbaum in loc. See, in general, Winer, p. 320 f. [E. T. 429 f.] ; Dissen,
ad Pindar. Ol. vii. 14. — τὸ μαρτύρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ] in substance not different from
τ. μαρτ. τ. Χριστοῦ, i. 6 ; 2 Tim. i. 8. For the preachers of the gospel give
testimony of God, as to what He has done, namely, in Christ for the salvation
of men. Comp. xv. 15. In accordance with i. 6, the genitive is not, with
Calvin, Bengel, Osiander, and Hofmann, to be taken subjectively, as in 1
John v. 9 f. :
Ver. 2. For I did not resolve (did not set it before me as part of my under-
taking) to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and that the crucified,
i.e, to mix up other kinds of knowledge with the proclamation of Jesus
Christ, etc.? Had Paul not disdained this and not put aside all other
1 Which is done also by Castalio, Bengel, the officiwm, and ‘“‘in his duobus totum
and others, Pott, Heydenreich, Schrader, versatur evangelium.’” But the strong
de Wette, Osiander, Ewald. emphasis on the latter point arises from
3 Causaubon remarks well, that "Inc. X. looking back to i. 17-24.
refers to the person, and x. τοῦτ. ἐσταυρ. to
44 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
knowledge, his καταγγέλλειν would not have remained free from ὑπεροχὴ
λόγου ἣ σοφίας. The ordinary reference of the negation to τὰ : I resolved to
know nothing, etc., isin arbitrary opposition to the words (so, however, Pott, _
Flatt, Riickert, Osiander, Ewald). In ἔκρινα Calvin and Grotius find too
much, since the text does not give it : magnum duai ; Hofmann again, too
little, with Luther and others : I judged, was of opinion ; for Paul could
indeed discard and negative in his own case the undertaking to know some-
thing, but not the judgment that he did know something. His se/f-deter-
mination was, not to be directed to know, ete. Comp. vii. 37 ; 2 Cor, ii.
1; Rom, xiv. 18 ; Kpivai τι καὶ προθέσθαι, Polyb. 111. 6. 7 ; Wisd. vill. 9 ; 1
Mace. xi. 33 ; 2 Mace. vi. 14, al. He might have acted otherwise, had he
proposed to himself to do so. — ri εἰδέναι] πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν τῆς ἔξωθεν εἴρηται
σοφίας᾽ ob yap ἦλθον συλλογισμοὺς πλέκων, οὐδὲ σοφίσματα, οὐδ᾽ ἀλλο TL λέγων ὑμῖν,
ἢ ore ὁ Χριστὸς ἐσταυρώθη, Chrysostom. But the giving up of everything else
is far more powerfully expressed by εἰδέναι (comp. Arrian, Hpict. ii, 1) than
if Paul had said λέγειν or λαλεῖν. He was not disposed, when among the
Corinthians, to be conscious of anything else but Christ. The notion of per-
mission (Riickert), which might be conveyed in the relation of the infinitive
to the verb (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 753 ; Kiithner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 1 5
Anab. v. 7. 34), would here only weaken the force of the statement. Were
τοῦ εἰδέναι τι the correct reading (but sce the critical remarks), the right ren-
dering of the genitive would not be : so that (Billroth), but : I made no
resolution, in order to know anything. Comp. on Acts xxvii. 1.—k. τοῦτ.
ἐσταυρ.} notwithstanding the offence therein implied for Jew and Gentile, i.
18, 23. Comp. Gal. vi. 14.
Vv. 3, 4. After the proof given in ver. 2, Paul takes up again the connec-
tion of ver. 1, and that with the simple καί : And I for my part (with others
it may have been different !) fell into weakness and into much fear and trem-
bling among you (πρὸς ip. ; see on John 1. 1). — γίγνεσθαι ἐν, to fall into a
state, etc. (and to be in it) ; so Thue. i. 78. 1 ; Plato, Prot. p. 314 C ; Dem.
p- 179, ult. Comp. Luke xxii. 44 ; 1 Macc. i. 27; 2 Macc. vii. 9; Hist.
Sus. 8. We might also join πρὸς ὑμᾶς to ἐγενόμην, not, indeed, in the way in
which Hofmann interprets it, as if for ἐγενόμην there stood ἤμην (Mark xiv.
49), but in the sense : I arrived among you (2 John 12, and see generally,
Fritzsche, Ind. ad Lucian. Dial. Deor. p. 85 : Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p.
295, ed. 3) ; ver. 4, however, shows that what is here spoken of is not again
(ver. 1) the coming thither, but the state when there. — The three phrases,
ἀσθ., Φόβος, and τρόμος, depict the great timidity with which Paul was in
Corinth, through his humble sense of the disproportion between his own
powers and the great enterprise to which his conscientiousness kept him
bound. In facing it he felt himself very weak, and was in fear and trem-
bling. As for want of natural strength of will and determination, of which
Hofmann speaks, there were no signs of anything of the kind in Paul,
even judging from his experience at Athens ; and no such weakness betrays
itself in Acts xviii. 4-11. The connection forbids us from thinking, with
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Grotius,
and others, of the sufferings and persecutions (ἀσθ.}, and of the apprehen-
CHAP. IL, 3, '4. 45
sion of dangers, which he had to undergo in Corinth ; for the text hints
nothing of persecutions and dangers, and these would not necessarily fur-
nish the motive for simplicity in preaching (vv. 1, 4 f.), nay, might even
excite to the greater rhetorical exertion. The weakness, etc., was of a deep
ethical nature, being based on the entire renunciation of human wisdom
and strength (ver. 5). Other exegetes wrongly understand ἀσθενεία even of
bodily weakness, either generally sickliness (Riickert) or more especially
weakness in the chest and voice (Storr, comp. Rosenmiiller). — φόβος x. τρόμος]
always denote with Paul (comp. also Ps. ii. 11) the deeply vivid and keen
apprehension of humility, lest it should be unable to meet the emergency
concerned. See 2 Cor. vii. 15; Phil. ii. 12; Epb. vi. 5. —6 λόγος μου x. τ.
κήρυγμά μου] are indeed emphatically separated from each other by the repe-
tition of the μου ; but it is an arbitrary distinction to make the former of the
two refer to the form, the latter to the contents (Heydenreich), or the former
to the privata, the latter to the publica institutio (so Riickert and the major-
ity of commentators). The former is the more general expression, the latter
the particular : my speech generally (comp. 2 Cor. x. 10), and especially my
public proclamation. — οὐκ ἐν πειθοῖς ood. λόγοις] 86. ἦν, non versabatur in, did
not move in the element of persuasive words of wisdom, such words as are philo-
sophically arranged and thereby fitted to persuade. Πειθός is found nowhere
else in the whole range of extant Greek literature, πιθανός being the word in
use (Xen.! Cyr. vi. 4.5 ; Thue. iv. 21; Dem. 928. 14 ; Josephus, Angtt. viii.
9; and the passages from Plato in Ast, Ler. III. p. 102. Meineke, Menand.
p. 222). Πειθός, however, is formed from πείθω by correct analogy as
φειδός from φείδομαι, etc. Comp. Salmasius, de ling. Hellenist. Ὁ. 86 ; Reiche,
Comment. crit. I. p. 136 f. It was in all likelihood an adjective belonging
only to the colloquial language of common life. Kypke, indeed ( (dss. I. p.
193), would find some trace of itin Plato, Gorg. p. 493 A ; but what we have
there is a play on the words τὸ πιθανόν and πίθος, a cask, which has no connec-
tion whatever with πειθός. Pasor and Schrader make πειθοῖς to be the dative
plural of πειθώ, swada, and what follows to be in apposition to it : in persua-
sions, in words of wisdom. But the plural of πειθώ also has no existence ;
and how abrupt such an apposition would be, as well as wholly at variance
with the parallel in ver. 13! The following are simply conjectures (comp. the
critical remarks) : Beza and Erasmus Schmid (after Eusebius), ἐν πειθοῖ σοφίας
λόγων ; Grotius, ἐν πιστοῖς x.7.A.; Walckenaer, Klose, and Kiihn (Commentat.
ad 1 Cor. ii. 1-5, Lips. 1784), ἐν πιθανοῖς or πειθανοῖς x.7.2. (comp. also Alberti,
Schediasm. p. 105) ; Alberti, ἐν πειθοῦς (suadae) σ. λόγοις, ΟΥ̓ ἡ ἐν πειθοῖ σοφίας
(without λόγοις). -- ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος κ. δυνάμεως] Without there being any
necessity for explaining the two genitives by ἃ ἕν διὰ δυοῖν as equivalent to
πνεύματος δυνατοῖ; (so still Pott, Flatt, Billroth, Olshausen, Maier, with older
expositors), the meaning may, according to our interpretation of ἀπόδειξις and
to our taking the genitives in an objective or subjective sense, be either : 80
that I evinced Spirit and power (so Vatablus and others, with Pott and Bill-
roth) ; or : so that Spirit and power made themselves known through me ( Calvin :
1 So, too, Semler, Flatt, Rinck, Fritzsche in the Hal. Lit. Zeit. 1840, Nr. 100.
46 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
‘(in Pauli ministerio. . . . quasi nuda Dei manus se proferebat’’) ; or : 80
that Spirit and power gave the proof (Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander,
and Maier, following older commentators). The last is most in keeping with
the purposely chosen expression ἀπόδειξις (found here only in the N. T. ; Dem,
326.4 ; Plato, Phaed. p. 77 C, Theaet. p. 162 E, and often ; 3 Macc. iv. 20),
and with the significant relation to οὐκ ἐν πειϑοῖς o. λόγοις. Paul means the
Holy Spirit (ver. 10 ff.) and the divine power communicating itself therein,
ver. 5 (Rom. i. 16; 2 Cor. iv. 7; 1 Thess. i. 5), which wrought through
his preaching upon the minds of men, persuading them of its truth,—the
testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum.' At variance with the text is the
view of several of the older expositors (following Origen, contra Celsum, 1.
Ρ. 5), who refer πνεύματος to the oracles of the O. T., and δυνάμ. to the mir-
acles of the apostle ; as well as the view of Grotius, that the former applies
to the prophecies, and the latter to the cures, by means of which Paul had
given the ἀπόδειξις. 5
Ver. 5. Aim of the divine leading, the organ of which the apostle knew
himself to be, in what is set forth in ver. 4 : in order that your faith (in
Christ) may be based, have its causal ground (comp. Bernhardy, p. 210), not
on man’s wisdom, but on God’s power (which has brought conviction to you
through my speech and preaching). That ἵνα introduces not his own (Hof-
mann), but the divine purpose, is clear from ἐν ἀποδείξει κιτ.1., in which
Paul has stated how God had wrought through him. Comp. iva ini. 31.
Vv. 6-16. Wisdom, however, we deliver among the perfect ; but it is a higher
wisdom revealed to us by the Spirit, which therefore only those filled with the
Spirit, and not the sensuous, apprehend. — Paul having, in i. 17-31, justified
the simple and non-philosophical method of proclaiming the gospel from
the nature of its contents, and having now, in ii. 1-5, applied this to him-
self and his own preaching among the Corinthians, there might be attrib-
uted to him the view that what the preachers of the gospel set forth was
no σοφία at all,—a supposition which, in writing to the Corinthians above
all, he could not safely leave uncontradicted. He now shows, accordingly,
that among ripened Christians there is certainly a cogia delivered, but not a
philosophy in the common, worldly sense, etc.
Ver. 6. Wisdom, nevertheless (unphilosophical as my discourse among you
was), we deliver among the perfect. — λαλοῦμεν] we speak it out, hold it not
back. That the plural does not refer to Paul alone (so usually), but to the
apostolic teachers in general, is clear from the καὶ ἐγώ in iii. 1, which intro-
duces the particular application of the plural statement here. — ἐν means
nothing else than in, surrounded by, among, coram ; λαλεῖν ἐν corresponds to
the λαλεῖν with the dative in iii. 1. We must therefore reject ‘not only the
rendering for the perfect (Flatt, with older expositors), which is in itself
linguistically untenable (for even in such passages as those cited by Bern-
1Theophylact is right in supposing as ments together, and explains the clause of
regards πνεύματος : ἀῤῥήτῳ τινὶ τρόπῳ πίστιν the ϑαυματουργία τοῦ πνεύματος. So, too, in
ἐνεποίει τοῖς ἀκούουσι. He makes δυνάμεως, substance, Chrysostom, according to whom
however, apply to the miracles, as does it is by πνεύματος that the miracles are
Theodoret also, who takes the two e'e- made to appear as ¢rve miracles.
CHAP. IT: ,)'6, 47
hardy, p. 212, the local force οἵ ἐν should be retained), but also the expla-
nation : according to the judgment of the perfect (Grotius, Tittmann, de Spir.
Dei mysterior. div. interprete, Lips. 1814, in the Syn. N. T. p. 285), which
would have to be referred, with Billroth, to the conception of among, since
the corresponding usage of ἐν ἐμοί, ἐν σοί, in the sense, according to my or thy
view, applies exclusively to these particular phrases (Bernhardy, p. 211). —
The τέλειοι (comp. on Eph. iv. 13), who stand in contrast to the νήπιοι ἐν
Χριστῷ are those who have penetrated beyond the position of beginners in Chris-
tian saving knowledge to the higher sphere of thorough and comprehensive insight.
The σοφία, which is delivered to these, is the Christian analogue to philoso-
phy in the ordinary sense of the word, the higher religious wisdom ‘of Chris-
tianity, the presentation of which (xii. 8) is not yet appropriate for the begin-
ners in the faith (iii. 1, 2). The form of this instruction was that of spir-
itual discourse (ver. 13) framed under the influence of the holy πνεῦμα, but
independent of the teachings of philosophic rhetoric ; and its matter was
the future relations of the Messianic kingdom (vy. 9, 12) in their connection
with the divine counsel of redemption and its fulfilment in Christ, the μυστήρια
τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν (Matt. xiii. 11),—that, which no eye hath seen, etc.
Comp. Bab. Sanhedr. f. xcix. 1: ‘‘Quod ad mundum futurum : oculus
non vidit, O Deus, praeter te.” The definitions now given ' respecting the
σοφία Θεοῦ are the only ones that neither go beyond the text, nor are in the
least degree arbitrary, while they comprehend also the doctrine of the κτίσις
as regards its Messianic final destination, Rom. viii., —that highest analogue
to the philosophy of nature. It may be gathered, however, with certainty
from iii. 1, 2, that we are not to think here of any disciplina arcani. With the
main point in our view as a whole,—namely, that σοφία denotes that high-
er religious wisdom, and τέλειοι those already trained in Christian knowledge,
grown up, as it were, to manhood,—Erasmus, Castalio, Estius, Bengel,
Semler, Stolz, as well as Pott, Usteri, Schrader, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander,
Ewald, Neander, Maier, Hofmann, accord. Chrysostom, however, Theophy-
lact, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Rosenmiiller, and others, in-
1Comp. Riickert, who, as respects the
matter, is of opinion that it includes the
higher views regarding the divine plan of the
world in relation to the development of the
kingdom of God, and especially to the
providential government of the Jewish peo-
ple; regarding the import of the divine
ordinances and appointments before Christ,
for example, of the law in reference to the
highest end contemplated—the kingdom of
God; regarding the way and manner in
which the death and resurrection of Christ
bear upon the salvation of the world; as
wellas regarding the changes yet in the
womb of the future, and, in particular, the
events which are linked with the second
coming of the Lord. Similarly, and still
ore in detail, Estius. According to de
.,ette, portions of this wisdom are to be
_cand in the Epistle to the Romans, in the
discussions on justification, on the contrast
between Christ and Adam, and on predesti-
nation ; inthe Epistles to the Zphesians and
Colossians, in the indications there given as
to the divine plan of redemption and the
person of Christ ; in ovr Epistle, chap. Xv. ;
views of the same kind in Heb. vii-x.,
comp. iv. 11 ff. Osiander makes this σοφία
to consist in the deeper dogmatic develop-
ment of the gospel as regards its historical
foundations and its eternal consequences
reaching on to the consummation of the
kingdom of God. Comp. Ewald, p. 139,
according to whom its contents turn upon
the gospel as the centre and cardinal point
of all divine-human history, and for that
very reason touch all the problems both of
history as a whole, and of the creation.
Hofmann rightly includes also the final
glory of believers.
48 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
cluding Tittmann, Flatt, Billroth, and Olshausen, understand by the τέλειοι
the Christians generally, or the true Christians, to whom the apostle’s doctrine
(σοφίαν λέγει τὸ κήρυγμα Kai τὸν τρόπον τῆς σωτηρίας, τὸ διὰ σταυροῦ σωθῆναι, τελεί-
ove δὲ τοὺς πεπιστευκότας, Chrysostom), appeared as wisdom, not as folly. (Ε)
‘‘ Ba dicimus quae plena esse sapientiae judicabunt veri ac probi Christiani,”
Grotius. But iii. 2 is decisive against this view ; for there γάλα denotes the
instruction of beginners as distinguished from the σοφία (βρῶμα). Comp. the
appropriate remarks of Castalio on this passage. — σοφίαν δὲ οὐ τ. αἰῶν. 7.) wis-
dom, however, which does not belong to this age (δέ, as in Rom. iii. 22, ix. 80 4
Gal. ii. 2; Phil. ii. 8), which is not, like the Jewish and Hellenic philoso-
phy, the product and intellectual property of the pre-Messianic age. Comp.
i. 20. Αἰῶνος τούτου σοφίαν ὀνομάζει τὴν ἔξω, ὡς πρόσκαιρον καὶ τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ συγ-
καταλυομένην, Theophylact. — οὐδέ] also (in particular) πού. --- τῶν apy. τ.
αἰῶν t.] These are the rulers generally (comp. Acts xiii. 27), the dominant
powers (proceres) of the pre-Messianic time among Jews and Gentiles. But to say
that Paul’s meaning is that he does not teach politics (Grotius), is to limit
his words in a way foreign to the connection ; he affirms generally that the
σοφία in question is a wisdom to which holders of temporal power are stran-
gers. Comp. ver. 8. It is a mistake to explain the apy. τ. aiav. τ. as refer-
ring either to influential philosophers and men of learning’ or to the demons,
connecting it with 2 Cor. iv. 4, John xii. 31 (Marcion, Origen, some writ-
ers referred to by Chrysostom and Theophylact, also Ambrosiaster, Estius,
Bertholdt), both of these interpretations being incompatible with the words,
and forbidden by ver. 8 ; or lastly, to the Jewish archontes alone (Cameron,
Hammond, Vorstius, Lightfoot, Locke, Stolz, Rosenmiiller), which is con-
trary to the general character of the expression, and not required by ver.
8 (see on ver. 8). — τῶν katapy.| which are done away with, i.e. cease to sub-
sist (i. 28, xv. 24 ; 2 Thess. ii. 8 ; 2 Tim. i. 10 ; Heb. ii. 14), namely, when
Christ returning establishes His kingdom. Comp. Rev. xvi.-xix. This
reference is implied in the context by the emphatic repetition of τοῦ αἰῶνος
τούτου. The expedient of explaining it into : ‘‘ Whose power and influence
are broken and brought to nought by the gospel,” Billroth (comp. Flatt and
Riickert), rationalizes the apostle’s conception, and does not even accord
with history. —The present participle, as ini, 18. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 7.
Ver. 7. Θεοῦ σοφίαν] God’s philosophy, of which God is the possessor, who
has made it known to those who proclaim it, ver. 10. This Θεοῦ is with
great emphasis prefixed ; the repetition of λαλοῦμεν, too, carries with it a
certain solemnity, comp. Rom. viii. 15; Phil. iv. 17. — ἐν μυστηρίῳ] does
not belong to τὴν ἀποκεκρ. (with which it was connected expressly as early
as Theodoret ; comp. Grotius : ‘‘ quae diu in arcano recondita fuit’’) but to
λαλοῦμεν," not, however, in the sense : ‘‘secreto et apud pauciores” (Estius,
Cornelius ἃ Lapide), since there is no mention of a disciplina arcani (see on
1 These are not even included (in opposi- phylact, and others, including Pott ; comp.
tion to Chrysostom and others, including Neander: ‘‘the intellectual rulers of the
Osiander), although the ἄρχοντες may have ancient world.”’)
accepted their wisdom, played the part of 3 Erasmus, Estius, Riickert, Schrader, de
patrons to them, etc. (Theodoret, Theo- Wette, Osiander, Hofmann.
a
ΘΈΑ ΡΟ ὙΠ, 8. 49
ver. 6), but rather : by means of ὦ secret, i.e. by our delivering what has been
secret (a doctrine hidden from the human understanding, and revealed to
us by God, see on Rom. xi. 25). To this is to be referred also the render-
ing of Riickert and Neander : as a mystery. Most interpreters, however,
join ἐν μυστηρίῳ with σοφίαν, sc. ovcav : God’s secret wisdom (unknown but for
revelation). So also Pott, Heydenreich, Billroth, Tittmann, Usteri, Ewald).
But the article, although after the anarthrous σοφίαν not in itself absolutely
necessary, would be omitted here at the expense of clearness. Paul would
have expressed himself with ambiguity, while he might easily have avoided
it by τὴν ἐν μυστηρίῳ. On the other hand, if he joined ἐν μυστ. to λαλοῦμεν,
he could not, seeing that he wished to prefix Aad. for the sake of emphasis,
write otherwise. — τὴν aroxexp.] as respects its nature, by virtue of which it
not only had been hidden from all preceding generations, but remained
unknown apart from divine revelation. Comp. vv. 9, 10; Rom. xvi. 25.
The word, which in itself might be dispensed with, is added in order to
introduce the following statement with completeness and solemnity. — ἣν
προώρ. ὁ Θεὸς x.t.A.] There is no ground here for supplying (with the major-
ity of expositors, including Pott and Heydenreich) ἀποκαλύπτειν, γνωρίσαι,
or the like, or (with Olshausen) a dative of the person ; or yet for assum-
ing, as do Billroth and Riickert, that Paul meant by ἤν the object of the wis-
dom, the salvation obtained through Christ. For προώρ. has its complete
and logically correct reference in εἰς δόξαν ju. (comp. Eph. i. 5), so that the
thought is : ‘‘to which wisdom God has, before the beginning of the ages of this
world (in eternity), given the predestination that by it we should attain to
glory.” This εἰς δόξ. yu. corresponds significantly to the τῶν καταργ. of ver.
6, and denotes the Messianic glory of the Christians which is to begin with
the Parousia (Rom. viii. 17, 29 f. ; 1 Thess. ii. 12). That wisdom of God
is destined in the eternal divine plan of salvation not to become (Hofmann)
this glory, but to establish and to realizeit. This destination it attains in
virtue of the faith of the subjects (i. 21) ; but the reference to the spiritual
᾿ glorification on earth is not even to be assumed as included with the other (in
opposition to de Wette, Osiander, Neander, and many older expositors), as
also the correlative τῆς δόξης in ver. 8 applies purely to the heavenly glory.
Bengel says well: ‘‘ olim revelandam, tum cum principes mundi destruen-
tur.” It reveals itself then as the wisdom that makes blessed, having at-
tained in the δόξα of believers the end designed for it by God before the
beginning of the world.
Ver. 8. Ἤν] Parallel with the preceding ἦν, and referring to Θεοῦ σοφίαν
(Calvin, Grotius, and most commentators, including Flatt, Riickert, de
Wette, Osiander, Hofmann), not to δόξ. ἡμῶν (Tertullian contra Mare. v. 6,
Camerarius, Pott, Billroth, Maier) ; for the essential point in the whole con-
text is the non-recognition of that wisdom.’ — εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν κ.τ.}.] parenthet-
1 The simple uniform continuation of the Gr. p. 243 [E. T. 282]), and as introducing a
discourse by ἥν hasa solemn emphasis here, new principal sentence. The asyndetic simi-
as in Acts iy. 10, and especially ofteninthe lar co-ordination of several relative clauses
Epistle to the Ephesians. Ailthelessreason ἴδ, from Homer onward (see Ameis on the
is there for taking it, withHofmann,as equiv- Odyss. xxiii. 299, append.), a very common
alent in this verse to ταύτην (Buttmann, neut, usage in the classics also,
50 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ical proof from fact for what has been just asserted ; for the ἀλλά in ver.
9 refers to ἣν οὐδεὶς. . . ἔγνωκεν. The crucifixion of Christ, seeing that it
was effected by Jewish and heathen rulers together, is here considered as
the act of the ἀρχ. τ. αἰῶν. collectively. — τὸν Κύριον τῆς δόξης] Christ is the
Lord, and, inasmuch as His qualitative characteristic condition is that of the
divine glory in heaven, from which He came and to which He has returned
(John xvii. 5 ; Luke xxiv. 26 ; Phil. iii. 20 ἢ. ; Col. ili. 1-4, a/.), the Lord
of glory. Comp. Jas. ii. 1. Ina precisely analogous way God is called, in
Eph. i. 17, ὁ πατὴρ τῆς δόξης. Comp. Acts vii. 2; Ps. xxiv. 7; Heb. ix S:
In all these passages the expression of the adjectival notion by the genitive
has rhetorical emphasis. Comp. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 887. This designa-
tion of Christ, however, is purposely chosen by way of antithesis to ἐσταύρωσαν ;
for ὁ σταυρὸς ἀδοξίας εἶναι δοκεῖ, Chrysostom. Had the ἄρχοντες known that
σοφία Θεοῦ, then they would also have known Christ as what He is, the Κύριος
τῆς δόξης, and would have received and honoured instead of shamefully cruci-
fying Him. But what was to them wisdom was simply nothing more than
selfish worldiy prudence and spiritual foolishness ; in accordance with :t
Annas and Caiaphas, Pilate and Herod, acted. Comp., generally, Luke xxiii.
34; Acts iii. 17.
Ver. 9. ᾿Αλλά] but, antithesis to ἣν οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀρχόντων τ. al. τ. ἔγνωκεν. ---
The passage of Scripture, which Paul now adduces, is to be translated :
ἐς What an eye hath not seen, nor an ear heard, and (what) hath not risen into
the heart of a man (namely :) all that God hath prepared for them that love
Him.” In the connection of our passage these words are still dependent
upon λαλοῦμεν. Paul, that is to say, instead of affirming something further
of the wisdom itself, and so continuing with another ἦν (which none of the
rulers have known, but which), describes now the mysterious contents of this
wisdom, and expresses himself accordingly in the neuter form (by a), to
which he was induced in the flow of his discourse by the similar form of
the language of Scripture which floated before his mind. The construction
therefore is not anacoluthic: (Riickert hesitatingly ; de Wette and Osiander,
both of whom hold that it loses itself in the conception of the mysteries refer-
red to) ; neither is it to be supplemented by γέγονε (Theophylact, Grotius).
The connection with ver. 10, adopted by Lachmann (in his ed. min.), and in
my first and second editions, and again resorted to by Hofmann : what no eye
has seen, etc., God, on the other hand (dé, see on i. 23), has revealed to us, etc.,
is not sufficiently simple, mars the symmetry of the discourse, and is finally
set aside by the consideration that, since the quotation manifestly does not
go beyond ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν, καθὼς γέγραπται logically would need to stand,
not before, but after, ἃ, because in reality this a, and not the καθὼς γέγραπται,
would introduce the object of ἀπεκάλυψεν. ---- καθὼς yéyp.| Chrysostom and
Theophylact are in doubt as to what passage is meant, whether a lost prophecy
(so Theodoret), or Isa. 111, 15. Origen, again, and other Fathers (Fabri-
cius, ad Cod. Apocr. N. T. p. 342 ; Pseudepigr. N. T. 1. p. 1072 ; Liicke,
Finleit. 2. Offend. I. p. 235), with whom Schrader and Ewald agree, assume,
amidst vehement opposition on the part of Jerome, that the citation is from
the Revelation of Elias, in which Zacharias of Chrysopolis avers (Harmonia
CHAP ἘΠ Us 51
Hang. p. 343) that he himself had actually read the words. Grotius re-
gards them as ‘‘e scriptis Rabbinorum, qui ea habuerunt ex traditione vet-
ere.” Most interpreters, however, including Osiander and Hofmann, agree
with Jerome (on Isa. lxiv. and ad Pammach. epist. ci.) in finding here a free
quotation from Isa. lxiv. 4 (some holding that there is, besides, a reference
to lil. 15, Ixv. 17; see especially Surenhusius, καταλλ. Ὁ. 526 ff., also Rig-
genbach in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1855, p. 596 f. But the difference in sense—
not to be got over by forced and artificial interpretation of the passage in
Isaiah (see especially Hofmann)—and the dissimilarity in expression are too
great, hardly presenting even faint resemblances ; which is never elsewhere
the case with Paul, however freely he may make his quotations. There
seems, therefore, to remain no other escape from the difficulty than to give
credit to the assertion—however much repugnance may have been shown to
it in a dogmatic interest from Jerome downwards—made by Origen and
others, that the words were from the Apocalypsis Eliae. So, too, Bleek in
the Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 330. But since it is only passages from the cu-
nonical Scriptures that are ever cited by Paul with καθὼς yéyp., we must at
the same time assume that he intended to do so here also, but by some confu-
sion of memory tock the apocryphal saying for a canonical passage possibly from
the prophecies, to which the passages of kindred sound in Isaiah might easily
give occasion. (F) Comp. also Weiss, biblische Theol. p. 298. — ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς
οὐκ εἶδε x.t.2.] For similar designations in the classics and Rabbins of what
cannot be apprehended by the senses or intellect, see Wetstein and Light-
foot, Horae, p. 162. Comp. Empedocles in Plutarch, Mor. p. 17 E: oi?
ἐπιδερκτὰ τάδ᾽ ἀνδράσιν, οὔτ᾽ ἐπακουστὰ, οὔτε νόῳ περιληπτά. With respect to
ἀναβ. ἐπὶ Kapo., 9 | ν My, to rise up to the heart, that is, become a con-
sciously apprehended object of feeling and thought, so that the thing enters
as a conception into the sphere of activity of the inner life, comp. on Acts
Vii. 23.— ποῖς ἀγαπ. αὐτόν] i.e. in the apostle’s view : 70) the true Chris-
tians.’ See on Rom. viii. 28. What God has prepared for them is the salva-
tion of the Messianic kingdom. Comp. Matt. xxv. 34. Constitt. Apost. vii.
82. 2: οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι πορεύσονται εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομοῦντες
ἐκεῖνα, ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδε κιτ.1Δ. Ὁ
Ver. 10. Having thus set forth the hitherto hidden character of the divine
σοφία, Paul now turns to its wnveiling, as a result of which it was that that
λαλοῦμεν of ver. 6 f. took place. In doing this he puts ἡμῖν emphatically
first in the deep consciousness of the distinction implied in so signal a mark
of divine favour. The odject of ἀπεκάλ. is the immediately preceding ἃ
ἡτοίμασεν x.7.A. -- ἡμῖν] plural, as λαλοῦμεν in ver. 6, and therefore neither to
be referred to the apostle alone (Rosenmiiller, Riickert, and others), nor to
all Christians (Billroth, etc.). — διὰ τοῦ πνεύμ. αὐτοῦ] The Holy Spirit, pro-
1 Clement, ad Cor. I. 34, in quoting this be canonical, which is explained, however,
same passage (with his usual formula for by the fact of his being acquainted with
scriptural quotations, λέγει γάρ), has here our Epistle. The Constitt. apost. too, vii. 32.
τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν αὐτόν, remembering er- 2, have τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. The so-called
faps Isa. Ixiv. 4in the LXX. Clement also, second Epistle of Clement, chap. xi., has
there can be no doubt, held the passage to _ the passage only as far as ἀνέβη.
iy PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ceeding forth from God as the personal principle of Christian enlightenment,
of every Christian endowment, and of the Christian life, 7s the medium, in
His being communicated to men (ver. 12), of the divine revelation ; He is
the bearer of it ; Eph. i. 17, iii. 3,5; 1 Cor. xii, 11, xiv. 6, al. —réd yap
πνεῦμα k.T.A.] Herewith begins the adducing of proof’ for that ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπεκάλ-
vipev κιτ. 1. Which continues on to ver. 12, to this effect, namely: For
the Spirit is familiar with the mysteries of God, because He alone stands in
that unique relation as respects knowledge to God, which corresponds to the re-
lation of the human spirit to man (vv. 10, 11) ; but what we have received is
no other than this Spirit of God, in order that we might know the salvation of
God (ver. 12), so that no doubt remains that we have actually the azoxa/-
υψις in question through the Spirit. That τὸ πνεῦμα means not the human
spirit, but the Holy Spirit, is certain from what goes before and from vv.
11, 12. — ἐρευνᾷ] rightly interpreted by Chrysostom : οὐκ ἀγνοίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἀκριβοῦς
γνώσεως ἐνταῦθα τὸ ἐρευνᾷν ἐνδεικτικόν. Comp. Ps. cxxxix. 1 ; Rom. viii. 27 ;
Rey. ii. 23. The word expresses the activity of this knowledge. But Paul
was not thinking of ‘‘God’s knowing Himself in man” (Billroth, comp.
Baur), or of any other such Hegelian views as they would impute to him.
— πάντα] all things, without limitation. Comp. Wisd. vii. 23 ; Ps. cxxxix.
ἡ. ---- τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ] Comp. Judith viii. 14 : βάθος καρδίας ἀνθρώπου ; see on
Rom. xi. 33, also Plato, Theaet. p. 188 E. The expression: ‘‘ depths of
God,” denotes the whole rich exhaustless fulness which is hidden in God,—
all, therefore, that goes to make up His being, His attributes, His thoughts,
plans, decrees, etc. These last (see vv. 9, 12), the βαθύβουλον (Aeschylus,
Pers. 148) of the Godhead, are included ; but we are not to suppose that
they alone are meant. The opposite is τὰ βαθέα τοῦ Σατανᾶ, Rev. ii. 24.
The depths of God, unsearchable by the cognitive power of created spirits
(comp. Rom. xi. 33), are penetrated by the cognitive activity of His own
immanent principle of life and manifestation, so that this, 1.6. the Holy
Spirit, is the power [Potenz] of the divine self-knowledge. God is the
subject knowing and the object known in the intrinsic divine activity of
the Spirit, who is the substratum of the absolute self-consciousness of the
Godhead, in like manner as the human spirit is the substratum of the
human Ego.
Ver. 11 assigns the reason for the καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ just mentioned, and
that in such a way as to represent the searching of these βάθη as exclusively
pertaining to the Spirit of God, according to the analogy of the relation be-
tween the spirit of man and man himself. — ἀνθρώπων] should neither, with
Grotius, be held superfluous nor, with Tittmann, be suspected (it is wanting
in A, Or. 1, Athan. Cyr. Vigil. taps.) ; on the contrary, it is designed to
carry special emphasis, like τοῦ ἀνθρώπου afterwards (which is wanting in
F G, and some Fathers), hence also the position chosen for it: ἀνθρώπων
Ta τοῦ ἀνθρώπου : no man knows what is man’s, save the spirit of the man which
is in him.’ Comp. Prov. xx. 27. Were what is peculiar to him not known
1 The τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ is an argumentative defini- hence τὸ πνεῦμα, not ἡ ψυχή. Comp. De-
tion.—In the man the subject knowing is litzsch, biblische Psychologie, p. 198; Krumm,
the Ego of the personal self-consciousness, de notionib. psychol. Paul. p. 16 f.
CHAP: IL), 12. 53
to the spirit itself of the man (who is made the object of contemplation), in
that case no man would have this knowledge of the man ; it would not
come within the region of human knowing at all. The man’s own spirit
knows it, but no other man.—We are not, with many expositors, including
Pott and Flatt, to add βάθη by way of supplement to τὰ τοῦ avOp. or to ra
τοῦ Θεοῦ. This would be a purely arbitrary limitation of the universal
statement, to which ra βάθη, as a qualitative expression, is subordinated.
What are meant are the relations in general of God and of man, more es-
pecially, from the context, the inner ones. The illustration adduced by
Grotius serves to bring out the sense more clearly : ‘‘ Principum abditos
sensus quis novit nisi ipse principis animus ?” — ἔγνωκε] cognita habet. See
Bernhardy, p. 378. For the rest, this οὐδεὶς ἔγνωκε is, as a matter of course,
said not as in distinction from the Son (Luke x. 22), but from the creatures.
Remarx.—The comparison in ver. 11 ought not to be pressed beyond the
point compared. We are neither, therefore, to understand it so that the Spirit
of God appears as the soul of the divine substance (Hallet ; see, on the other
hand, Heilmann, Opusc. II.), nor as if He were not distinct from God (see, on
the contrary, ver. 10), but simply so that the Spirit of God, the ground of the
divine personal life, appears in His relation to God as the principle of the divine
self-knowledge, in the same way as the principle of the human self-knowledge is
the πνεῦμα of the man, which constitutes his personal life. Hence God is
known only by His Spirit, as the man is only by his spirit, as the vehicle of his
own self-consciousness, not by another man. With τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, Paul
does not again join τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ, because the man’s spirit indeed is shut up in
the man, but not so the Divine Spirit in God ; the latter, on the contrary, goes
forth also from Him, is communicated, and is τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. See
ver. 12.
Ver. 12. Aé] leading on to the second half of the demonstration which
began with τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα in ver. 10 (see on ver. 10). ---- ἡμεῖς] as ἡμῖν in ver.
10. --- τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου] i.e. the spirit which unbelieving mankind has. This
spirit is the diabolic πνεῦμα, that is, the spirit proceeding forth from the devil,
under whose power the κόσμος lies, and whose sphere of action itis. See
2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. vi. 11, 12, 11. 2. Comp. John xii. 31; 1 John iv. 3, v.
19. Had we received this spirit,—and here Paul glances back at the ἄρχον-
τες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου in vv. 6, 8,—then assuredly the knowledge of the bless-
ings of eternity would have remained closed for us, and (see ver. 13) in-
stead of utterances taught by the Spirit we should use the language of the
human wisdom of the schools, It is indeed the πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης AS CON-
trasted with the πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, 1 Johniv. 6. Most commentators take
τὸ πνεῦμα in the sense of mode of thought and view, so that the meaning would
be: ‘“‘Non sumus instituti sapientia mundana et saeculari,” Estius. So
Theophylact, and after him Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and many others, includ-
ing Morus, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Heydenreich, de Wette, Maier, and simi-
larly Pott.’ But, according to ver. 10, τὸ πνεῦμα must denote, in keeping
1 [So also Stanley and Hodge, but Beet and Principal Brown agree with Meyer, whose
view is clearly correct.—T. W. C.]
>
54 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
with the context, the objective spirit opposed to the Spirit of God ; and that
is, according to the decided dualistic view of the apostle (comp. esp. Eph.
ii. 2), the diabolic πνεῦμα, which has blinded the understanding of the un-
believers, 2 Cor. iv. 4. Billroth’s explanation : that it is the non-absolute
spirit, the finite, in so far as it persists for itself and does not resolve itself
into the divine, is a modern un-Pauline importation ; and this holds, too,
of Hofmann’s exposition : that it is the spirit, in virtue of which the world
is conscious of itself, knowing itself, however, only in that way in which
alone its sinful estrangement from God leaves it possible for it to do so, not
in God, namely, but out of God. If that is not to be taken as the diabolic
spirit, then the conception is simply an un-Pauline fabrication, artificially
worded so as to explain away the diabolic character. Lastly, Riickert’s view,
that Paul meant: ‘‘ we have received our πνεῦμα not from the world, but
from God,” cannot even be reconciled with the words of the passage. — τὸ
ἐκ τ. Θεοῦ] The ἐκ is employed by Paul here not in order to avoid the appear-
ance of making this πνεῦμα the principle that determines the action of God
(so Kling in the Stud. ει. Krit. 1839, p. 485), which were a needless precau-
tion, but because this form of expression has a significant adaptation to the
iva εἰδῶμεν k.T.A.; there can be do doubt about this knowing, if it proceeds
from the Spirit which is from God (which has gone forth upon believers ;
comp. ver. 11, τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ), John xv. 26. — iva εἰδῶμεν x... ] the divine pur-
pose in imparting the Spirit which proceeded forth from God. Thisclause,
expressive of design, containing the object of the ἀπεκάλυψεν in ver. 10,
completely winds up the adducing of proof for the ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπεκάλ. 6 Θ. διὰ τ.
Tv. avt. —Ta ὑπὸ τ. Θεοῦ yap. ἡμῖν] are the blessings of the Messianic king-
dom, the possession of which is bestowed by divine grace on the Christians
(ἡμῖν), not, indeed, before the Parousia as an actual possession, but as an
ideal one to be certainly entered upon hereafter (Rom. viii. 24, 30; Col. iii.
3, 4); comp. Rom. vi. 23; Eph. ii. 8, 9. That to take it ideally in this
way is correct (in opposition to Hofmann), is clear from the consideration
that τὰ χαρισθέντα must be identical with ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ Θεὸς k.7.2. In ver. 9,
and with the δόξα ju. in ver. 7.
Ver. 13. Having thus in vv. 10-12 given the proof of that ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπεκάλ.
k.T.A., the apostle goes on now to the manner in which the things revealed
were proclaimed, passing, therefore, from the εἰδέναι τὰ yap. to the λαλεῖν of
them. The manner, negative and positive, of this λαλεῖν (comp. ver. 4) he
links to what has gone before simply by the relative : which (namely, τὰ. . .
χαρισθ. ju.) we also (in accordance with the fact of our having received the
Spirit, ver. 12) utter not in words learned of human wisdom (dialectics,
rhetoric, etc.), but in those learned of the Spirit. The genitives : ἀνθρωπ. ood.
and πνεύματος, are dependent on διδακτοῖς (John vi. 45). See Winer, pp.182,
178 [E. T. 242, 236]. Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee. 1135. Comp. Pindar, Ol. ix.
153 : πολλοὶ δὲ διδακταῖς ἀνθρώπων ἀρεταῖς κλέος ὥρουσαν ἑλέσθαι" ἄνευ δὲ θεοῦ K.T.A.,
comp. Nem. iii. 71. Sophocles, 1]. 880 : τἀμὰ νουθετήματα κείνης διδακτά. It
istrue that the genitives might also be dependent upon λόγοις (Fritzsche,
Diss. 11. in 2 Cor. p. 27); but the context, having διδακτοῖς πνεύματος, is
against this. To take διδακτοῖς (with Ewald) as meaning, according to the
CHAPS TL, 19. δῦ
common ¢lassicai usage, learnable, quae doceri possunt (see especially Demosth,
1413. 24; Plato, Prot. p. 319 Β : οὐ διδακτὸν εἶναι μηδ᾽ ὑπ’ ἀνθρώπων παρασκευ-
«στὸν ἀνθρώποις), does not agree so well with vv. 4 and 15.—The suggestio
verborum, here asserted, is reduced to its right measure by δεδακτοῖς; for
that word excludes all idea of anything mechanical, and implies the living
self-appropriation of that mode of expression which was specifically suitable
both to the divine inspiration and to its contents (‘‘ verba rem sequuntur,”’
Wetstein),—an appropriation capable of being connected in very different
forms with different given individualities (Peter, Paul, Apollos, James, etc.),
and of presenting itself in each case with a corresponding variety. — πνευμα-
τικοῖς πνευματικὰ CVyKpivovtec] connecting’ spiritual things with spiritual, not
uniting things unlike in nature, which would be the case, were we to give
forth what was revealed by the Holy Spirit in the speech of human wisdom,
in philosophic discourse, but joining to the matters revealed by the Spirit
(πνευματικοῖς) the speech also taught by the Spirit (avevyatica),—things con-
sequently of like nature, ‘‘ spiritualibus spiritualia componentes” (Castalio).
So in substance also Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Balduin, Wolf, Baumgarten,
Kling in the Stud. und Krit. 1839, p. 437, de Wette, Osiander, Maier, etc.,
and rightly, since this sense suits the connection singularly well, and does
not in any degree clash with the classical use of συγκρίνειν (Valckenaer, p.
134 f.; Porson, ad Med. 136). Plato has it frequently in this meaning, and
in contrast to διακρίνειν. See Ast, Lev. Plat. III. p. 290 f. Other commen-
tators, while also taking πνευματ. as neuter, make συγκρίνειν, explicare, namely,
either : explaining the N. T. doctrine from the types of the O. T. (Chrysostom
and his successors”), or: ‘‘exponentes ea, quae prophetae Spiritu Dei acti
dixere, per.ea, quae Christus suo Spiritu nobis aperuit” (Grotius, Krebs),
or: ‘‘spiritualibus verbis spiritualia interpretantes” (Elsner, Mosheim,
Bolten, Neander). But the first two of these renderings are against the
context, and all the three are against the wsws loquendi ; for συγκρίνειν is
never absolutely interpretari, either in profane Greek (in which, among
later writers, as also in2 Cor. x. 12, Wisd. vii. 29, xv. 18, 1 Macc. x. 71, it very
often means to compare ; comp. Vulgate : comparantes, and see Lobeck, ad
Phryn. p. 278) or in the LXX. With the latter it is indeed the common
word for the interpretation of dreams (109, sce Gen. xl. 8, 16, 22, ΧΙ 12,
15; Dan. v. 12); but in such cases (comp. the passages from Philo, where
διακρίνειν occurs, in Loesner, p. 273) we have to trace it back to the literal
signification of judging,® namely, as to what was to be indicated by the
1 Not proving, as Theodore of Mopsuestia
takes it: διὰ τῶν τοῦ πνεύματος ἀποδείξεων
τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος διδασκαλίαν πιστούμεϑα.
3 50, too, Theodoret: ἔχομεν γὰρ τῆς παλ-
αιᾶς διαϑήκης τὴν μαρτυρίαν, καὶ δι ἐκείνης τὴν
καινὴν βεβαιοῦμεν: πνευματικὴ γὰρ κἀκεϊνη
. καὶ διὰ τῶν τύπων δείκνυμεν τὴν ἀλήϑειαν.
Several of the older interpreters follow the
Greeks in substance, including Calovius,
who, on the ground of this passage, declares
himself against the explanation of Scripture
from profane writers !
3 Hence, in Dan. v. 16 (in the history of
the mysterious writing on the wall, which
had to be judged of with respect to its
meaning): δύνασαι κρίματα συγκρῖναι, thou
canst pronounce utterances of judgment.
Comp. the phrase, recurring more than
once in that same story of Belshazzar, in
Dan. ν. : τὴν σύγκρισιν γνωρίζειν, OF: ἀναγγέλ-
dew : to make known or declare the judg-
ment (as to what that marvellous writing
might signify).
56 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
vision in the dream (comp. κρίνειν τὸ σημαινόμενον τῶν ὀνειράτων in Josephus,
Antt. ii. 2. 2, also the Ὀνειροκριτικά of Artemidorus). (6) The meaning, to
judge, however, although instances of it may be established in Greek writers
also (Anthol. vii. 132 ; Polybius, xiv. 3. 7, xii. 10. 1; Lucian. Soloee. 5),
would be unsuitable here, for this reason, that the phrase πνευματικοῖς πνευ-
ματικά, both being taken as neuter, manifestly, according to the context,
expresses the relation of matter and form, not the judging of the one
πνευματικόν by the other (Ewald), notwithstanding that Luther, too, adopts
a similar interpretation : ‘‘ and judge spiritual things spiritually.” Lastly, it
is incorrect to take πνευματικοῖς as masculine, and render : explaining things
revealed by the Spirit to those who are led by the Spirit (the same as τελείοις in
ver. 6; comp. Gal. vi. 1).} To the same class belongs the exposition of
Hofmann, according to whom what is meant is the solution of the problem as
to how the world beyond and hereafter reveals and foreshows itself in what
God’s grace has already bestowed upon us (ver. 12) in a predictive sign as it
were,—a solution which has spiritual things for its object, and takes place
for those who are spiritual. But the text does not contain either a contrast
between the world here and that hereafter, or a problematic relation of the
one to the other ; the contrast is introduced into ra yapiobévra in ver. 12,
and the problem and its predictive sign are imported into συγκρίνοντες.
Again, it is by no means required by the connection with ver. 14 ff. that we
should take πνευματικοῖς as masculine ; for ver. 14 begins a new part of the
discourse, so that ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος only finds its personal contrast in ὁ δὲ
πνευματικός in ver. 15. Tittmann’s explanation (Synon. p. 290 f., and comp.
Baur) comes back to the sense : conveying (conferentes) spiritual things to
spiritual persons, without linguistic precedent for it. — Note the weighty
collocation : πνεύματος, πνευματικοῖς, πνευματικά.
Ver. 14. To receive such teaching, however, in which πνευματικά are united
with πνευματικοῖς, every one has not the capacity ; a psychical man appre-
hends not that which is the Spirit of God, etc. — ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος is the
opposite of the πνευματικός who has received the Holy Spirit (vv. 12 f., 15) ;
he is therefore one πνεῦμα (the Holy Spirit) μὴ ἔχων (Jude 19). Such a
man—who is not essentially different from the σαρκικός (see on iii. 1),
but the mental side of whose nature is here brought forward by the word
ψυχικός ---ἶθ not enlightened and sanctified by the Spirit of God, but is goy-
erned by the ψυχή, the principle of life for the σάρξ, so that the sphere in
which he works and strives is not that of the divine truth and the divine
ζωή, but the purely human activity of the understanding, and, as regards
practical things, the interests of the life of sense, the ἐπιθυμίαι ψυχικαί, 4
Mace. i. 32, the ἐπιθυμίαι ἀνθρώπων, not the θέλημα Θεοῦ, 1 Pet. iv. 2. Comp.
~
generally, Weiss, biblische Theol. p. 270 f. The higher principle of life, the
1 This is the view of Pelagius, Sedulius, χαρισϑέντα ἡμῖν, σημεῖα ὄντα τῶν μεὰλ-
Theophylact (suggested only), Thomas, λόντων, ἃ καὶ ovyKpivomev... mvev-
Estius, Clericus, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Pott, ματικοῖς πνευματικὰ λαλοῦντες. Comp.on
Heydenreich, Flatt, Billroth, Riickert. the latter expression, Maximus Tyrius, xxii.
? Hofmann expounds as if Paul had writ- 4: ovrera συνετοῖς λέγων,
ten in ver. 12 f.: τὰ ἤδη viv ὑπὸ τι Φ,
CHAP. τ. 14. 57
human πνεῦμα," which he has, is not laid hold of and quickened by the Holy
Spirit ; the regeneration by the Holy Spirit, who operates upon the human
spirit and thereby brings about the renewal of the man (comp. John iii. 6),
has not yet taken place with him ; hence the psychical man is really the nat-
ural man, i.e. not yet enlightened and sanctified by the Spirit of God, not
yet born again,’ although, at the same time, ψυχικός means not naturalis (i.e.
φυσικός in contrast to διδακτός, τεχνικός, and the like ; comp. Polyb. vi. 4.
7: φυσικῶς καὶ ἀκατασκεύως), but animalis (Vulgate). Comp. ψυχικὴ σοφία as
contrasted with that ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη, Jas, ili. 15. Many have taken up
the idea in a one-sided way, either in a merely intellectual reference (τὸν
μόνοις τοῖς οἰκείοις ἀρκούμενον λογισμοῖς, Theodoret ; see also Chrysostom, The-
ophylact, Beza, Grotius, Heydenreich, Pott ; comp. too, Wieseler on Gal. p.
451), or in a merely ethical one (a man obedient to sensual desires ; so, and
in some cases, with an exaggerated stress on the sinfulness involved, it is
interpreted by Erasmus, Vitringa, Limborch, Clericus, Rosenmiiller, Valck-
enaer, Krause, and others). The two elements cannot be separated from
each other without quite an arbitrary act of division. — ov δέχεται] The
question whether this means : he is unsusceptible of it, does not understand
(Vulgate, Castalio, Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Riickert, δέ al.) ; or : he does not
accept, respuit (Peshito, Erasmus, and others, including Tittmann, Flatt,
Billroth, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier), is decided in favour of the latter
1 The distinction between ψυχή and πνεῦμα,
as that which separates from each other
the agencies of the lower and the higher
life, answers certainly to the Platonic three-
fold division of man’s nature into body,
soul, and spirit (see, especially, Olshausen,
de naturae humanae trichotomia N. T. scrip-
toribus recepta, in his Opusc. Berol. 1834, p.
148 ff.; and, on the other side, Hahn, Theol.
ad. N. T. 1. p. 391 ff.). Not, however, as if
Paul had borrowed this trichotomy (see,
especially, 1 Thess. v. 23; comp. also Heb.
iv. 12) from the Platonic philosophy, but
this Platonic type of anthropology, current
also with Philo and the Rabbinical writers,
had, like the phrase ὁ ἔσω and ὁ ἔξω ἄνϑρωπος
(see on Eph. iii. 16), become popular (comp.
Josephus, Antt. i. 1. 2, according to which
God breathed τνεῦμα and ψυχήν into man
when first formed, and subsisted alongside
of the twofold conception and the cor-
responding mode of expression (v. 8 f., vii.
Ὁ ΟΣ vil. 1° Rom. Vili: 10) f., αἵ):
Comp. Liinemann on1 Thess. v. 23. Luther,
as early as 1521, has some excellent remarks
on the trichotomy (printed also in De-
litazsch’s bibl. Psychol. p. 392 f.). He likens
the πνεῦμα to the Sanctum sanctorum, the
ψυχή to the Sanctum, and the σῶμα to the
Atrium. Against Hofmann’s arbitrary ex-
plaining away of a real threefold division
(in his Schriftbeweis, I. p. 297 f.), see Krumm,
de notionibus pyschol. Pauli, p. 1 ff.; De-
litzsch, oc. cit. Ὁ. 87 ff. ; Ernesti, Ursprung d.
Stinde, II. Ὁ. 76 f. We may add, that Hof-
mann is wrong in saying, with respect to
this passage, that it has nothing whatever
to do with the question about the dichot-
omy or trichotomy. It has to do with it,
inasmuch as in virtue of the contrast
between ψυχικός and πνευματικός, the ψυχή
cannot be the seat and sphere of operation
of the Divine Spirit, which is to be found
rather in the human πνεῦμα, and conse-
quently must be conceived as specifically
distinct from the latter.
2 Luther’s gloss is: ‘*The na/ural man is
as he is apart from grace, albeit decked out
as bravely as may be with all the reason,
skill, sense, and faculty in the world.”
Comp. Caloyius, who insists with justice
against Grotius, that ψυχικός and σαρκικός
differ only ‘‘ratione jormalis significa-
tionis.” Paul might have used σαρκικός
here too (see on ili. 1); but ψυχικός nat-
urally suggested itself to him as correlative
to δέχεσϑαι ; for the ψυχή cannot be the recep-
taculum of that which is of the Spirit of God.
According to Ewald, the word points to the
Greek philosophers, being a gentle way of des-
ignating them. But the expression is quite
general; and how easy it would have been
for Paul to let it be definitely known that
the reference was to the philosophers (by
σοφός Tov κόσμου. for example, or in some
other way) !
58 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
view by the standing use of δέχεσθαι in the N. T. when referring to doctrine.
See Luke viii. 13 ; Acts viii. 14, xi. 1, xvii. 11 ; 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 13. Comp.
2 Thess. ii. 10 ; 2 Cor. viii. 17. —ra τοῦ πν.] what comes from the Spirit.
This applies both to the matter and form of the teaching. See ver. 138. —
μωρία yap . γνῶναι] ground of this ob δέχεται x.7.2.: It is folly to him,
i.e. (as i, 18) it stands to him in the practical relation of being something
absurd, and he is not in a position to discern it. The latter clause is not
covered by the former (Hofmann), but appends to the relation of the object
to the subject the corresponding relation of the subject to the object.—
The statement of the reason for both of these connected clauses is: ὅτι
πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται : because they (τὰ τοῦ πνεύμ.) are judged of after a
spiritual fashion (iv. 3, xiv. 24), ὁ.6. because the investigative (ava) judgment
of them (the searching into and estimating their nature and meaning) is a
task which, by reason of the nature of the subject-matter to be dealt with,
can be performed in accordance with its own essential character in no other
way than by means of a proving and judging empowered and guided by the Holy
Spirit (a power which is wanting to the ψυχικός). Πνευματικῶς, that is to
say, refers not to the human spirit, but to the Holy Spirit (see ver. 13) who
fills the human spirit, and by the hallowing influence of divine enlighten-
ment and power capacitates it for the avaxpivew of the doctrines of teachers
filled with the Spirit who address it, so that this avaxpivew is an activity
which proceeds in a mode empowered and guided by the Spirit. We may add
that avaxpiv. does not mean : must be judged of (Luther and many others,
among whom are Tittmann, Flatt, and Pott), but it expresses the character-
istic relation, which takes place ; they are subject to spiritual judgment. That
is an aviom. But this very sort of ἀνάκρισις is what is lacking in the ψυχικός.
Ver. 15. He who is spiritual, on the other hand, judges all things, but is for
his own part (αὐτός) judged by no one ; so lofty is his pocition, high above all
the ψυχικοῖς, to whom he is a riddle, not to be read by their unenlightened
powers of judging, to which τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος are folly !— ὁ πνευματικός] he
who stands under the influence of the Holy Spirit, enlightened and led by
Him. Comp. on πνευματικῶς in ver. 14. — τὰ πάντα] (see the critical remarks)!
receives from the context no further limitation than that of the article,
which is not wasuitable (Hofmann), but denotes the totality of what presents
itself’ to his judging, so that it does not apply merely to τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος
(Ewald : ‘‘all the deepest and most salutary divine truths”), the ἀνακρίνειν
of which, on the part of the πνευματικός, is a matter of course, but means a7/
1Jn connection with the reading πάντα,
those who take it as masculine explain the
clause very variously; either; “ Quando
audit alium loquentem vel docentem, illico
dignoscere potest et dijudicare, utrum sit
ex Deo necne” (Bos, Alberti); ον. “ Ego
quidem. . . quemlibet profanum . . . diju-
dicare adeoque a πνευματικοῖς 5. vere collus-
tratis dignoscere possum” (Pott); or:
“Convincere quemlibet profanum erroris
potest’ (N6sselt, Rosenmiiller). Were the
readin genuine. and πάντα masculine, it is
only the first of these renderings that would
be admissible; for, according to ver. 14,
cannot mean erroris convincere
(against Nosselt), and to restrict πάντα to
the profane would be entirely unwarranted
by the context, as is plain from πνευματικῶς
ἀνακρίνεται in ver. 14 (against Nosselt and
Pott). Atthe same time, it would also be
arbitrary in adopting the first view to refer
it only to the dogui or docere, and not also
to deeds and other expressions of the life.
ἀνακρ.
CHAP: 11: 6; 59
objects that come within the sphere of his judgment. To everything that
comes before him he can assign the right estimate in virtue of his power of
judgment, enlightened and upheld by the Holy Spirit. He has the true
critical eye of the δοκιμάζειν (1 Thess. v. 21) for all that offers itself to him
to be judged. How often has Paul himself displayed this ἀνάκρισις πνευματική,
and that, too, in matters not connected with doctrine, under situations the
most varied ! ¢.g. in his wise availing himself of circumstances when perse-
cuted and put on trial, during his last voyage, etc.; in his decisions
concerning matrimonial questions, contendings at law, slavery, collections,
and the like, in regard to which he manages with consummate tact, and
with the most wonderful clearness, precision, and impartiality, to subject
everything to the standard of a higher spiritual point of view ; in his esti-
mate of the different persons with whom he comes into contact ; in the mode
in which he adapts himself to given relations ; in his sublime judgments,
such as iii. 22 ; in his powerful self-witness, 2 Cor. vi. 4 ff. ; in his noble in-
dependence from earthly things, 1 Cor. vii. 29 ff.; Phil. iv. 11 ff.'— ὑπ’
οὐδενός] namely, who is not also πνευματικός. This follows necessarily from
the foregoing ὁ πνευματ. ἀνακρίνει τὰ πάντα. Comp. too, 1 Johniv. 1. The
standpoint of the psychical man is too low, and his mode of thought too
foreign in its presuppositions and principles, for him to be able to under-
stand and judge of the pneumatic. In like manner, the blind (see as early
as Chrysostom and Theophylact) cannot judge of the painter, nor the deaf
of the musician.—How Roman Catholic writers have sought to render ver.
15, standing opposed as it does to the authority claimed by the church, ser-
viceable to their own side, may be seen, ¢.g., in Cornelius ἃ Lapide : ‘‘ Sin
autem nova oriatur quaestio in fide aut moribus, eaque obscura et dubia,
eadem prudentia dictat homini spirituali . . . ejusdem Spiritus judicio
recurrendum esse ad superiores, ad doctores, ad eccelesiam Romanam quasi mat-
ricem,” ete.
Ver. 16. Proof for the αὐτὸς δὲ ὑπ’ οὐδενὸς ἀνάκρινεται. ““ For in order to
judge of the πνευματικός, one would need to have known the mind of Christ, which
we πνευματικοί are in possession of —to be able to act the part of teacher to Christ.”
The form of this proof is an imperfect syllogism, the last proposition in
which, as being self-evident, is not expressed.?. The major proposition is
clothed in the words of Isa. xl. 13 (substantially after the LXX.), comp.
Rom. xi. 84. There, indeed, Κύριος applies to God ; but Paul, appropriat-
ing the words freely for the expression of his own thought, applies it here
to Christ (against Calvin, Grotius, and most older interpreters, also Flatt,
Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann), as the minor proposition ἡμεῖς δὲ κ-τ.}. proves.—
The νοῦς Κυρίου is the understanding of the Lord, embracing His thoughts,
judgments, measures, plans, etc., the νοῦς being the faculty where these
1 [Surely here the author goes beyond — struct Him; but we, we πνευματικοί, are they
the scope of the passage, whichis limited who have the mind of Christ, therefore we
to the things of the Spirit. So Hodge and are they also whom no one can know 80 as to
Poor.—T. W. C.] instruct them, that is, just they who ὑπ᾽ οὐδε:
2 Fully expressed, it would run thus: Vo vos ἀνακρίνονται, ver. 15.
one can know the mind of Christ so as to in-
60 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
originate and are elaborated. The conception is not identical with that of
the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ (against Billroth, Neander, and many others), which
rather, when imparted to man, makes his νοῦς the νοῦς Χριστοῦ, not being itself
the νοῦς X., but that which constitutes its substratum. — 6¢ συμβιβ. αὐτόν] qui
instructurus sit eum, i.e. in order (after thus coming to know him) to instruct
Him. See on this use of ὃς, Matthiae, II. p. 1068 ; Kiihner, II. p. 529 ff.
Regarding συμβιβάζειν, which is frequent in the LXX. in the sense of instruere,
docere, but does not occur with that meaning in Greek writers, see Schleus-
ner, Thes. V. p. 164. This ὃς συμβ. αὐτόν is not ‘ rather superfluously” taken
in along with the rest of the quotation (Riickert), but is included as essen-
tial to the proof of the ὑπ᾽ οὐδενὸς avaxpivera, since the forming a judgment
assumes the capacity to instruct (act as master). This, then, is what he
who would judge the πνευματικοί must be capable of doing with respect to
Christ, since these have the mind of Christ. Chrysostom says well: ὃς
συμβιβάσει αὐτὸν, οὐχ ἁπλῶς προσέθηκεν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ὃ εἶπεν ἤδη, ὅτι τὸν πνευματικὸν
οὐδεὶς avaxpiver’ εἰ γὰρ εἰδέναι οὐδεὶς δύναται τοῦ Θεοῦ (rather Christ's) τὸν νοῦν,
πολλῷ μᾶλλον διδάσκειν καὶ διορθοῦσθαι.---- ΤῸ refer αὐτόν, with Nésselt (Opuse.
Il. p. 157 f.), to the πνευματικός (So, too, Rosenmiiller and Tittmann, 1.6. p.
294), is an involved construction rendered necessary only by failure to
catch the simple course of proof. — ἡμεῖς δὲ νοῦν X . Ey. ] the minor proposition,
with the emphasis on ἡμεῖς, and the explanatory Χριστοῦ in piace of Κυρίου.
Paul includes himself along with the rest among the πνευματικοί. These are
the possessors (ἔχομεν) of the mind of Christ. For, since they have the Spirit
of Christ (Rom. viii. 9, 16), and since Christ is in them (Rom. viii. 10 ; 2
Cor. xiii. 5), their νοῦς, too, can be no mental faculty different in kind from
the νοῦς Χριστοῦ, but must, on the contrary, be as ideally one with it, as it is
true that Christ Himself lives in them (Gal. ii. 20), and the heart of Christ
beats in them (Phil. i. 8), and He speaks in them (2 Cor. xiii. 3). Comp.
respecting this indwelling of Christ in His believers, the idea in Gal. iii. 27 ;
Rom. xiii. 14. Ov yap Πλάτωνος, οὐδὲ Πυθαγόρου, says Chrysostom, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ
Χριστὸς τὰ ἑαυτοῦ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ἐνέθηκε διανοίᾳ. Many commentators (not recog-
nizing the process of proof) have interpreted ἔχομεν as perspectam habemus
(see Tittmann, /.c.), ase.g. Rosenmiiller and Flatt : ‘‘ We know the mean-
ing of the doctrine of Christ ;” or Grotius : ‘‘ Novimus Dei consilia, quae
Christo fuere revelata.”
Norges py American Eprror.
(E) The ‘‘perfect.’’ Ver. 6.
Seeing interpreters are so nearly equally divided between the two views
which may be taken of this text, it may be well to consider the argument for
the opinion which makes ‘‘perfect’’ simply another name for believers, It is
thus presented by Dr. Hodge: ‘1. Those who regarded Paul’s doctrine as
foolishness were not the babes in Christ, but the unrenewed, ‘ the wise of this
world ;’ consequently those to whom it was wisdom were not advanced Chris-
tians, but believers as such. Throughout the whole context, the opposition is
between ‘the called’ or converted and the unconverted, and not between one
NOTES. 61
class of believers and another class. 2. If ‘the perfect’ here means advanced
Christians as distinguished from babes in Christ, then the wisdom which Paul
preached was not the gospel as such, but its higher doctrines. But this cannot
be, because it is the doctrine of the cross, of Christ crucified, which he
declares to be the power of God and the wisdom of God, And the description
given in the following part of this chapter of the wisdom here intended refers
not tothe higher doctrines of the gospel, but to the gospel itself. The contrast
is between the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God, and not between
the rudimental and the higher doctrines of the gospel. Besides, what are these
higher doctrines which Paul preached only to the élite of the church? No one
knows. Some say one thing, and some another. But there are no higher doc-
trines than those taught in this Epistle, and in those to the Romans and Ephe-
sians, all addressed to the mass of the people. The New Testament makes no
distinction between (πίστις and γνῶσις) higher and lower doctrines. It does
indeed speak of a distinction between milk and strong meat, but that is a dis-
tinction, not between kinds of doctrine, but between one mode of instruction
and another. In catechisms designed for children the church pours out all the
treasures of her knowledge, but in the form of milk, i.e. in a form adapted to
the weakest capacities. For all these reasons we conclude that by ‘the per-
fect’ the Apostle means the competent, the people of God as distinguished
from the men of the world ; and by wisdom, not any higher doctrines, but the
simple gospel, which is the wisdom of God as distinguished from the wisdom
of men.’’
(r) No confusion of memory. Ver. 9.
It is impossible to accept the author’s hypothesis of a failure or ‘‘ confusion
of memory”’ in the Apostle. If inspiration has any meaning at all, it must be
supposed sufficient to guard its subjects from such imperfections. Nor is the
hypothesis at all necessary, although it is adopted by Weiss (Bib. Theol. I. 989).
It is quite easy to suppose that the Apostle used scriptural language without
intending to give the sense of the original. This is a very common habit
among all believers, and that Paul shared in it is evident from Romans x. 18,
where he undeniably takes the words of the nineteenth Psalm simply to
express the wide diffusion of the gospel, without any reference to their purport
as originally given. Of coutse in this view we must suppose the phrase As itis
written not tobe a form of quotation, but rather equivalent to our purpose when
we say, “ΤῸ use the language of Scripture.” Or, if this solution be not accept-
able, there is another to fall back upon, viz., that which regards the Apostle as
not intending to quote any one passage of Holy Writ, but rather appealing to
its authority in general to confirm his position that God surpasses His people’s
expectations, that He does for them things unheard of before, such indeed as
could be known only by revelation. That these things are abundantly taught
in the Old Testament requires no argument.
(c) ovykpivorvtec. Ver. 13.
The author’s objection to the view which renders this important and much-
contested word as explaining does not seem to be valid. In all the places
in which the verb in the active voice occurs in the LXX. it means, with
a single exception, to interpret or explain. (It never occurs in the sense of con-
62 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
nect.) And the fact that it is applied to the interpretation of dreams presents
no difficulty, for in any case the Apostle would‘have become familiar with its
useinthissense. The sense too is every way appropriate, ‘‘ explaining spiritual
things in spiritual words’’ (substantially what Meyer gives, although he reaches
it in a different way), and forms a suitable pendant to what precedes. The
Apostle had spoken sufficiently of the things of the spirit : here he touches upon
the suitable words for conveying them. The passage is one of great importance,
as showing the value of a biblical phraseology. The wordingof Holy Writ is
not accidental or capricious, but divinely ordered, and it is in all cases to be
adhered to. A needless change of expression not infrequently makes the life
and efficacy of the things to vanish. Nor is it a valid objection to this view
that it makes inspiration mechanical, for, as Dr. Hodge well asks, ‘‘ If God can
control the thonghts of a man without making him a machine, why cannot he
contro] his language? Why may he not render each writer, polished or rude,
infallible in the use of his characteristic style?’ That He does exercise such
control assures us that in Scripture we have not only divine truth, but that
truth communicated in a form free from the discoloring and distorting in-
fluence of human imperfection.
CHAP. IIL. 63
CHAPTER III.
Ver. 1. καὶ ἐγώ] ABCD EF αὶ δὲ, min. Clem. Or. Chrys. Damase. read κἀγώ,
which Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riickert, Tisch. have adopted, and justly, con-
sidering the decisive testimony in its favour. --- σαρκικοῖς Griesb. Lachm.
Rickert, Tisch. read σαρκίνοις with A Β Οὗ D* δὰ, 67** 71, Clem. Or. Nyss. To
be preferred on like grounds as in Rom, vii. 14. Here the interchange was es-
pecially aided by ver. 3, where, according to the preponderance of evidence,
σαρκικ. is the true reading ; for the fact that D* F G, Or. Nyss. have σάρκιν in
ver. 3 also, is simply to be set down as the result of mechanical repetition from
ver. 1, the difference in the sense not being recognized.! — Ver. 2. οὐδέ] Elz. has
οὔτε, in opposition to all the uncials and most Fathers. The former is neces-
sary here (Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 157), but had οὔτε very often substituted for it
by the transcribers. — ἔτι] is wanting in B; bracketed by Lachm. But how
easily it might fall aside after οὐδέ through similarity in sound, or on the
ground that it might be dispensed with when νῦν followed ! — Ver. 3. καὶ διχοσ-
racial] omitted in A B C 8, some min. and several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by
Lachm. Rickert, and Tisch. Were it genuine, why should it have been left
out? An addition by way of gloss (even in texts used by Irenaeus and Cyprian)
from Gal. v. 20. - Ver. 4. ἄνθρωποι] adopted also by Lachm. Riickert, and
Tisch., followed by Ewald, according to almost all the uncials and several vss.
and Fathers. The Recepta σαρκικοί, although still defended by Fritzsche and
Reiche, is so decidedly condemned by the critical evidence (among the uncials
they have only L and §8**), that it must be regarded as derived from ver. ὃ.
Οὐχί, too, has flowed from the same source, instead of which, οὐκ is to be re-
stored, with Lachm. Riickert, and Tisch., in accordance with ABC &*, 17,
Dam. — Ver. 5. τίς] Lachm. and Riickert read τί, with A B δὲ, min. Vulg. It.
Aeth. and Latin Fathers. The personal names very naturally suggested the
masculine to transcribers.—The order Παῦλος . ᾿Απολλώς (in Elz. and
Scholz) arose from ver. 4 ; compare i. 12.—Before διάκονοι, Elz, and Tisch. have
ἀλλ᾿ 4, which, however, from the decisive weight of testimony against it, must
be regarded as an addition to denote the sense : nil nisi. — Ver. 12. τοῦτον] is
1 Fritzsche, indeed (ad Rom. 11. p. 46, and
de conform. N. T. Lachm. Ὁ. 49), holds that
the form σάρκινος in this passage, Rom. vii.
14, and Heb. vii. 16, is an offspring of the
transcribers. But it was precisely the other
form σαρκικός, so well known and familiar
to them, which thrust itself upon the copy-
ists for involuntary or even deliberate
adoption. Reiche, in his Comment. crit. I. p.
138, has made the most elaborate defence of
the Recepta, and attempted to weaken the
force of the evidence on the other side.
See the same author, too, on Heb. vii. 16.
The most decisive argument from the exter-
nal evidence against the Recepta is, that pre-
cisely the weightiest Codices A BC X, are
equally unanimous in reading σάρκινος in
ver. 1. and σαρκικοί in ver, 3; and we cannot
at all see why the hand of an emendator
should haveinserted the more classical word
only in ver. 1, while leaving the unclassic
σαρκικοί in ver. 3. Besides, we have σαρκίναις
in 2 Cor. iii. 8, entirely without any various
reading σαρκικαῖς, from which we may con-
clude that the distinction in meaning be-
tween the two words was well known to
the transcribers.
64 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
wanting in A Β C* δὲ", Sahid. Ambr. Deleted by Lachm. and Rickert. The
omission, however, was easily occasioned by Homoioteleuton, and was aided by
the fact that the word could be dispensed with. — Ver. 13. τὸ πῦρ] Lachm. Riick-
ert,and Tisch. read τὸ πῦρ αὐτό, with A B C, min. Sahid. and several Fathers.
Rightly ; the airé not being in any way essential was easily disregarded. —
Ver. 17. τοῦτον] Lachm. and Riickert have αὐτόν, which Griesb. too recom-
mended, with AD EF G, min. Syr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Syr. p. (on the margin)
Vulg. and It. (illum), and Latin Fathers. But, after ei τις in the protasis, αὐτόν
offered itself in the apodosis as the more common. — Ver. 22. ἐστίν] has pre-
ponderant evidence against it. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm.
Riickert, and Tisch. A repetition from ver. 21.
Vv. 1-4. Application of the foregoing section (ii. 6-16) to the Apostle’s rela-
tion to the Corinthians.
Ver. 1. Κἀγώ] I also. This also of comparison has its inner ground in
the reproach alluded to, that he ought to have taught in a higher strain,
and so ought to have delivered to the Corinthians that Θεοῦ σοφίαν spoken of
in ver. 6 f. Even as no other could have done this, so I also could not. There
is no reason, therefore, for holding, with de Wette (comp. Billroth), that
καὶ ὑμῖν would have been a more stringent way of putting it. — ἀλλ᾽ ὧς σαρ-
xivorc] namely, had I to speak to you. See Kihner, II. p. 604. Kriiger on
Thue. i, 142. 4, and on Xen. Anab. vii. 2. 28. This brevity of expression
is zeugmatic. Σάρκινος (see the critical remarks) is : fleshy (2 Cor. iii. 3),
not equivalent to σαρκικός, fleshly. See on Rom. vii. 14. Winer, p. 93
[E. T. 122], and Fritzsche, ad Rom. IIL. p. 46. Here, as in Rom. /.c. and
Heb. vii. 16 (see Delitzsch in loc.), the expression is specially chosen in order
to denote more strongly the unspiritual nature : as to fleshy persons, as to
those who have as yet experienced so little of the influence of the Holy
Spirit, that the caps—i.e. the nature of the natural man, which is opposed
since the fall to the Spirit of God, and which, as the seat of the sin-princi-
ple and of lust, gives rise to the incapacity to recognize the sway of the
Divine Spirit (comp. ii. 14) and to follow the drawing of the νοῦς towards
the divine will (Rom. vii. 18, 25), by virtue of the Divine Spirit (see on
Rom. iv. 1, vi. 19, vii. 14, viii. 5 ff.)—seemed to, make up their whole
being. They were still in too great a measure only “flesh born of the
flesh” (John iii. 6), and still lay too much, especially in an intellectual re-
lation, under the ἀσθενεία τῆς σαρκός (Rom. vi. 19), although they might also
be in part φυσιούμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ vode τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτῶν (Col. ii. 18),—so that
Paul, in order strongly to express their condition at that time, could call
ara Jleshy. By σάρκινος, therefore, he indicates the wnspiritual nature of
the Corinthians,—i.e. a nature ruled by the limitations and impulses of the
σάρξ, not yet changed by the Holy Spirit,—the nature which they still had
when at the stage of their first novitiate in the Christian life. At a later date
(see ver. 3) they appear as still at least σαρκικοί (guiding themselves according
to the σάρξ, and disobedient to the πνεῦμα) ; for although, in connection with
continued Christian instruction, they had become more effectually partakers
also of tho influence of the Divine Spirit, nevertheless,—as their sectarian
CHAP. Tit. 1. 65
tendencies (see ver. 3) gave proof,—they had not so followed this divine
principle as to prevent the sensuous nature opposed to it (the σάρξ) from
getting the upper hand with them in a moral and intellectual respect, so
that they were consequently still κατὰ σάρκα and ἐν σαρκί (Rom. viii. 5, 8),
τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς φρονοῦντες (Rom. Vili. 5), κατὰ σάρκα καυχώμενοι (2 Cor. xi. 18),
ἐν σοφίᾳ σαρκικῇ (2 Cor. i. 12), etc. It is therefore with true and delicate
acumen that Paul uses in ver. 1 and ver. 3 these two different expressions
each in its proper place, wpbraiding his readers, not indeed by the former,
but certainly by the latter, with their unspiritual condition.1. The ethical
notions conveyed by the two terms are not the same, but of the same hind ;
hence ἔτε in ver. 3 is logically correct (against the objection of de Wette
and Reiche). :
The difference between σαρκικός (also capxevoc) and ψυχικός is simply this :
ψυχικός is one who has not the Holy Spirit, and stands wholly outside of
the sphere of His influence ; whether it be that he has never yet received
Him and is therefore still inthe natural state without Christ (homo naturalis,
as in ii. 14), or that he has been forsaken again by the Spirit (as in Jude 19).
Σαρκικός, on the other hand, may be affirmed not merely of the ψυχικός, who
is indeed necessarily σαρκικός, but also (comp. Hofmann) of one who has, it
is true, received the Holy Spirit and experiences His influence, but is not
led by His enlightening and sanctifying efficacy in such a measure as to
have overcome the power of sin (Gal. v. 17) which dwells in the σάρξ and
sets itself against the Spirit ; but, on the contrary, instead of being rvev-
ματικός and, in consequence, living ἐν πνεύματι and being disposed κατὰ πνεῦ-
ua, he is still ἐν σαρκί, and still thinks, judges, is minded and acts κατὰ
σάρκα. The ψυχικός is accordingly as such also σαρκικός, but every σαρκικός
is not as such still or once more a ψυχικός, not yet having the Spirit, or
having lost Him again. The expositors commonly do not enter upon any
distinction between σάρκινος and σαρκικός, either (so the majority) reading
σαρκικοῖς in ver. 1 also, or (Riickert, Pott) arbitrarily giving out that the
two words are alike in meaning. The distinction between them and ψυχικός
also is passed over in utter silence by many (such as Rosenmiiller, Flatt,
Billroth), while others, in an arbitrary way, make σάρκεινος and capkix. some-
times to be milder than ψν χικός (Bengel, Riickert, holding that in capk. there
is more of the weakness, in ψυχ. more of the opposition to what is higher),
sometimes to be stronger (Osiander ; while Theophylact holds the former to
be παρὰ φύσιν, the latter κατὰ φύσιν, and the pneumatic ὑπὲρ φύσιν), or some-
times, lastly, refer the latter to the lower intelligence, and the former to the
1 According to Hofmann,—who, for the
rest, defines the two notions with substan-
tial correctness,—the distinction between
σάρκινος and σαρκικός answers to that be-
tween εἶναι ἐν σαρκί and κατὰ σάρκα, Rom.
viii. 5,8. But the latter two phrases differ
from each other, not in their real meaning,
but only in the form of representation.—
Holsten, too, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. Ὁ. 397 f.,
has in substance hit the true distinction
between σάρκινος and σαρκικός.
2 Bwald says truly, that the strict distinc-
tion between spiritual and fleshly came in
first with Christianity itself. But so, too, the
sharply-defined notion of the ψυχίκός could
only be brought out by the contrast of
Christianity, because it is the opposite of
the πνευματικός, and cannot therefore oc-
cupy a middle place between the two for:
mer notions,
66 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
lower moral condition as given up to the desires (Locke, Wolf, and others).
— ὡς νηπίοις ἐν Χριστῷ] statement justifying the foregoing ὡς cap. by setting
forth the character of their Christian condition as it had been at that time
to which οὐκ ἠδυνήθην κιτ.}. looks back. The phrase denotes those who, in
their relation to Christ (in Christianity), are still children under age, i.e.
mere beginners. The opposite is τέλειοι. ἐν X., Col. i. 28. See, regarding
the analogous use in Rabbinical writers of Mp3) (sugentes), Schoettgen
in loc. ; Wetstein on 1 Pet. ii. 2; Lightfoot, Hor. p. 162 ; and for that of
DUP, Wetstein on Matt. x. 42. Before baptism a man is yet without con-
nection with Christ, but through baptism he enters into this fellowship, and
is now, in the first instance, a νήπιος ἐν Χριστῷ, ἴ.6. an infans as yet in re-
lation to Christianity, who as such receives the elementary instruction suit-
able for him (the γάλα of ver. 2). The εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, on the other hand,
which leads on to baptism, is preparatory, giving rise to faith, and forming
the medium through which their calling takes place ; and accordingly it
has not yet to do with νήπιοι ἐν XpiotH. The inference is a mistaken one,
therefore (on the part of Riickert), that Paul has in mind here a second resi-
dence in Corinth not recorded in the Acts. His readers could not under-
stand this passage, any more than ii. 1, otherwise than of the apostle’s jirst
arrival, of the time, consequently, in which he founded the Corinthian
church, when he instructed those who gave ear to his εὐαγγελίζεσθαι in the
elements of Christianity. — By ἐν Χριστῷ is expressed the specific field to
which the notion of νηπιότης is confined ; viewed apart from Christ, he, who
as a new convert is yet a νήπιος, may be an adult, or anold man. Comp. on
Col. i. 28.
Ver. 2. Keeping to the same figure (comp. Heb. v. 12 ; Philo, de agrie.
p- 301), he designates as γάλα : τὴν εἰσαγωγικὴν καὶ ἁπλουστέραν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου
διδασκαλίαν (Basil. Hom. I. p. 403, ed. Paris, 1638), see Heb. v. 12, vi. 1 1.»
and as βρῶμα : the further and higher instruction, the σοφία, which, as dis-
tinguished from the γνῶσιν τὴν ἐκ κατηχήσεως (Clemens Alexandrinus), is
taught among the τέλειοι (ii. 6 ff.). Comp. Suicer, Thes. 1. p. 721, 717.
Wetstein in loc.1— ἐδύνασθε] Ye were not yet strong and vigorous. What
weakness is meant, the context shows : in the figure, that of the body ; in
its application, that of the mind and spirit. Comp. regarding this absolute
use of δύναμαι, δυνατός x.7.2. (which makes any supplementing of it by ἐσθίειν
βρῶμα and the like quite superfluous), Dem. 484, 25, 1187, 8 ; Aesch. p. 40.
39 ; Plato, Men. p. 77 B, Prot. p. 326 C ; Xen. Anab. iv. 5. 11, vii. 6. 37;
1 Mace. v. 41 ; Schaefer, ad Bos. Hil. p. 267 ff. — ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἔτι νῦν δύν.] ἀλλ᾽
οὐδέ, yea, not even. See Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 157. Herm. ad Eurip. Suppl.
121, Add. 975. That Paul, notwithstanding this remark, does give a sec-
tion of the higher wisdom in chap. xv., is to be explained from the apolo-
getic aim of that chapter (xv. 12), which did not allow him to treat the sub-
ject in an elementary style. There is no sclf-contradiction here, but an ex-
ception demanded by the circumstances. For the profound development
1 As regards the zeugma (comp. Homer, Winer, p. 578 [E. T. 777]; Kiihner, ad Xen.
11. viii. 546; Odyssey, xx. 312; Hesiod. Theoq. Anab. iv. 5.8; also Nigelsbach on the Ziad,
640), see Bremi, ad Lys. Exc. III. p. 437 f.; p. 179, ed. 3.
CHAPS ἀπ πη 1. 6%
of the doctrine of the resurrection in chap. xv. belonged really to the βρῶμα
(comp. ii. 9), and rises high above that elementary teaching concerning the
resurrection, with which every Jew was acquainted, and which Paul προς
so often gave without thereby speaking ἐν τελείοις, whence also it is rightly
placed in Heb. vi. 1 among the first rudiments of Christian doctrine.
Ver. 3. Σαρκικοί] see on ver. Ἷ. --- ὅπου] equivalent seemingly to guando-
quidem (see Vigerus, ed. Herm. 431) ; but the conditioning state of things
is locally conceived. Comp. Heb. ix. 16, x. 18 ; 4 Mace. ii. 14, vi. 34, xiv.
11; Plato, Tim. p. 86 E; the passages from Xenophon cited by Sturz.
Il. p. 307 ; Herod. i. 68 ; Thue. viii. 27. 2, viii. 96. 1 ; Isocrates, Paneg.
186. — CijAoc] Jealousy. — κατὰ ἄνθρ.} after the fashion of men. Comp. on
Rom. iii. 5; often, too, in classical writers, e.g. κατ᾽ ἄνθρ. φρονεῖν (Soph. Aj.
747, 764). The contrast here is to the mode of life conformed to the Divine
Spirit ; hence not different from κατὰ σάρκα in Rom. viii. 4. — Respecting
the relation to each other of the three words ζῆλ., ép., diyoor., see Theophy-
Ἰδοῦ : πατὴρ yap ὁ ζῆλος τῆς ἔριδος, αὕτη δὲ τὰς διχοστασίας yevva. — On οἱ; χί,
comp. Bengel : ‘‘nam Spiritus non fert studium partium humanarum.” On
the contrary, ζῆλος κιτ.λ. are ranked expressly among the ἔργα τῆς σαρκός,
Gal. v. 20.
Ver. 4. Tap] explanatory by exhibiting the state of contention in conereto.
- ἄνθρ.] with a pregnant emphasis : are ye not men? 1.6. according to the
context : are ye not persons, who are absorbed in the unspiritual natural
ways of men-—in whose thoughts and strivings the divine element of life is
awanting ? Comp. Xen. Anab. vi. 1. 26 : ἄνθρωπός εἰμι (I am a weak, fal-
lible man). What determines the shade of meaning in such cases is not
anything in the word itself, but the connection. Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 2.
The specific reference here has its basis in the preceding κατὰ ἄνθρωπον repr
πατεῖτε, hence there is no ground for rejecting the reading ἄνθρωποι, with
Fritzsche (de conform. N. T. Lachm. p. 48), as a lectio insulsa (comp. also
Reiche), or for misinterpreting it, with Hofmann, into ‘‘ that they are surely
men at all events and nothing less.” This latter rendering brings in the idea,
quite foreign to this passage, of the dignity of man, and that in such a way as
if the interrogative apodosis were adversative (ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ or ob μέντοι). ---- Τῦ may
be added that Paul names only the two parties: ἐγὼ. . . Παύλου and ἐγὼ
᾿Απολλώ, not giving an imperfect enumeration for the sake of the μετασχημα-
τισμός Which follows (iv. 6—so, arbitrarily, de Wette and others), but be-
cause in this section of the Epistle he has to do just with the antagonism of
the Apollos-party to himself and to those who, against his will, called them-
selves after him ; hence also he makes the μετασχηματισμός, in iv. 6, with
reference to himself and Apollos alone. — ἐγὼ μέν] This μέν does not stand
in a logical relation to the following dé. An inexactitude arising from the
lively way in which thought follows thought, just as in classical writers too,
from a like reason, there is often a want of exactly adjusted correspondence
between μέν and dé (Breitenbach, ad Xen. Hier. i. 9 ; Baeumlein, Partih.
p-. 165 T.).
Vv. 5-15. Discussion of the position occupied by the two teachers :
The two have no independent merit whatsoever (vv. 5-7 ; each will receive his
68 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
reward according to his own work (vv. 8, 9) ; and, more especially, a definitive
recompense in the future, according to the quality of his work, awaits the teacher
who carries on the building upon the foundation already laid (vy. 10-15). The
aim of this discussion is stated in iv. 6.
Ver. 5. Oiv] Now, igitur, introduces the question as an inference from the
state of party-division just referred to, so that the latter is seen to be
the presupposition on which the question proceeds. See Klotz, ad Devar.
p. 719: ‘*Such being the state of things, I am forced to propound the
question,” etc. Riickert thinks that Paul makes his readers ask : But now,
if Paul and Apollos are not our heads, what are they then? Paul, however,
is in the habit of indicating counter-questions expressly as such (xv. 35 ;
Rom. ix. 19, al.).—ri] more significant than τίς ; comp. ver. ἢ. The
question is, what, as respects their position, are they? Comp. Plato, Rep.
p- 3832 E, 341 D.— διάκονοι] They are servants, and therefore not fitted
and destined to be heads of parties ; ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ δεσπότης, ἡμεῖς ἐκείνου
δοῦλοι, Theodoret. —d’ ὧν] ‘per quos, non im quos,” Bengel. Comp.
John i, 7. They are but causae ministeriales in the hand of God. —
éxcotevo.| as in xv. 2, 11 ; Rom. xiii. 11. ---- καί] and that. καὶ... ἔδωκεν is
not to be joined with ver. 6 (Mosheim, Markland, ad Lys. XII. p. 560 f.),
seeing that in ver. 7 no regardis paid to this καὶ... ἔδωκεν. --- ἑκάστῳ ὡς]
the emphasis is on ἑκάστ., as in vii. 17 and Rom. xii. 3. —6 Κύριος] correla-
tive to the διάκονοι, is here God, not Christ (Theophylact ; also Riickert,
who appeals to Eph. iv. 7, 11), as what follows—in particular vv. 9, 10—
proves. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 4. — As respects the ἀλλ᾽ ἢ of the Textus receptus :
nisi (which makes the question continue to the end of the verse ; comp.
Ecclus. xxii. 12) see on Luke xii. 51 ; 2 Cor. 1. 13.
Vv. 6, 7. Statement of the difference in the διακονία of the two, and
of the success of the ministry of both as dependent upon God, so that no
one at all had any independent standing, but only God. Therewith Paul
proceeds to point out the impropriety of the party-relation which men
had taken up towards the two teachers. — ἐφύτευσα k.r.A.] We are not to
suppose the object left indefinite (de Wette) ; on the contrary, it emerges
out of δ' ὧν ἐπιστεύσατε, ver. 5, namely : the faith of the Corinthian com-
munity. This is conceived of as a tree (comp. Plato, Phaedr. p. 276 EB)
which was planted by Paul, inasmuch as he first brought the Corinthians to
believe and founded the church ; but watered* by Apollos, inasmuch as
he had subsequently exerted himself in the way of confirming and devel-
oping the faith of the church, and for the increase of its numbers ; and
lastly, blessed with growth by God, inasmuch as it was under His influence
τῆς yap αὐτοῦ χάριτος τὸ κατόρθωμα, Theodoret) that the work of both had suc-
cess and prospered. This making it to grow is the effect of grace, without
which the ‘‘ granum a primo sationis momento esset instar lapilli,” Bengel.
1 Ye have become believers, which is to be development. Comp. John ii. 11, xi. 15.
understood here in a relative sense, both as 2 Augustine, Zp. 48, and several of the
respected the beginning and the further- Fathers make ἐπότισεν refer in a totally in-
ance of faith. See ver.6. The becoming appropriate way to baptism.
a believer comprehends different stages of
CHAP. I1I., 8-10. 69
Comp. Acts xvi. 14, xiv. 27; 1 Cor. xv. 10. —éori τι] may be taken to
mean : is anything of importance, anything worth speaking of (Acts v. 36 ; Gal.
li. 6, vi. 8. Plato. Phaedr. p. 242 E, Gorg. p. 472 A, Symp. p. 173 B ; Xen.
Mem. ii. 1. 12). It is more in accordance, however, with the decided tone
of hostility to all human estimation which marks the whole context to take
τι in quite a general sense (comp. x. 19), so that of both in and by them-
selves (in comparison with God) it is said : they are nothing. — ἀλλ᾽ ὁ αὐξ.
Θεός] 80. τὰ πάντα ἐστε (1 Cor. xv. 28; Col. 111. 11), which, according to the
apostle’s intention, is to be drawn from what has been already said. An
abbreviated form of the contrast, with which comp. vii. 19, and see
generally Kiihner, II. p. 604 ; Stallbaum, ad Rep. p. 366 Ὁ, 561 Β. Theo-
phylact says well : διδάξας, ὅτι Oe ᾧ δεῖ μόν ῳ προσέχειν, καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἀνατιθέναι
πάντα τὰ συμβαίνοντα ἀγαθά.
Vv. 8, 9. The planter, on the other hand, and the waterer are one: each of
them, however (and here we pass on to the new point of the recompense of the
teachers), will receive his own reward, etc. — ἕν εἰσιν] the one is not some-
thing different from the other, that is to say generically, as respects the rela-
tion defined (xi. 5 ; John x. 30, xvii. 11, 21) here : in so far both have one
and the same official character, namely, as workers in the service of God. Theo-
doret : κατὰ τὴν ὑπουργίαν. ----ἕκαστος δὲ κ.τ.}.] πρὸς γὰρ τὸ Tov Θεοῦ ἔργον
παραβαλλόμενοι ἔν εἰσιν᾽ ἐπεὶ πόνων ἕνεκεν (i.e. in respect of the pains and
labour expended) οὐκ εἰσὶν, ἀλλὰ ἕκαστος «.7.4., Chrysostom. —idiov] both
times with emphasis. Bengel puts it happily : ‘‘ congruens iteratio ; anti-
theton ad wnwm.” The λήψεται, however, refers to the recompense at the
last judgment, ver. 13 ff. — Ver. 9 gives now the proof, not for both halves
of ver. 8, of which the first has been already disposéd of in the preceding
statement (in opposition to Hofmann), but for the new thought ἕκαστος. . .
κόπον introduced by δέ. The emphasis of proof lies wholly on the word
thrice put foremost, Θεοῦ. For since it is God whose helpers we are
(‘‘ eximium elogium ministerii,” Calvin), God whose tillage-field, God whose
building ye are : therefore it cannot be otherwise than that that ἕκαστος... .
κόπον must hold good, and none lack his reward according to his labour
(‘‘ secundum laborem, non propter laborem,” Calovius). — Θεοῦ συνεργοί] for
we, your teachers, labour with God, the supreme Lord and Fosterer of
the church, at one work, which is simply the furtherance of the church.
The explanation : workers who work with each other for God’s cause (Estius
by way of suggestion, Bengel, Flatt, Heydenreich, Olshausen), is linguisti-
cally erroneous (see 1 Thess. iii. 2; Rom. xvi. 3, 9, 21; Phil. ii. 25, iv. 3;
2 Cor. i. 24 ; 2 Macc. xiv. 5; Plato, Def: p. 414 A; Dem. 68. 27, 884. 2;
Plut. Per. 31 ; Bernhardy, p. 171 ; Kiihner, II. p. 172), and fails to appre-
ciate that lofty conception of a δοῦλος Θεοῦ. --- Θεοῦ yedpy. and Θεοῦ oix. set be-
fore us the Corinthian church, in so far as it is the object of the ministerial
service of Christian teachers, under the twofold image of a jield for tillage
(yedpy., Strabo, xiv. p. 671 ; Theag. in Schol. on Pind. Nem. 111. 21 ; Prov.
xxiv. 30, xxxi. 16), which belongs to God and is cultivated, and asa building
belonging to God (Eph. ii. 21), which is being carried up to completion.
Ver. 10. The former of these images (yedpy.) has been the underlying
70 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
thought in what has hitherto been said (vv. 6-8) ; the second and new
figure (oixod.) is now retained in what follows up to ver. 15, the course of
thought being this, that Paul, first of all, states the difference between his
own work and that of others at this building, and then passes on to the
responsibility which he who would build after him takes upon himself. —
The χάρις is not the apostolic office, with which Paul was graced (Rom. xii.
8, xv. 15; Gal. i. 15, al.), for it was not exclusively an apostle who was
required for the founder of a church (Rome, Colossae), but the special endow-
ment of grace, Which he had received from God to fit him for his calling ; and
he wasconscious in himself that he was qualified and destined just for the
right laying of the foundation, Rom. xv. 20. — The significant weight of the
words κατὰ. . . dof. μοι is to express humility in making the utterance which
follows. Comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact. — ὡς σοφὸς apyir. | proceeding
as such an one would, going to work in this capacity. To it belongs the
right laying of the foundation in strict accordance with the design of the build-
ing, the reverse of which would be the part of an wnskilful architect.
Without a foundation no man builds ; without a proper foundation no σοφός,
i.e. no one who understands the art (Ex. xxxv. 10). Comp. Plato, Phil. p.
17 C, de virt. Ὁ. 376 A ; Pind. Pyth. iii. 115, γ΄. 115 ; Soph. Ant. 362. But
Paul by the grace of God was a σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων. --- What he understands by
such a foundation, he himself tells us in ver. 11, namely, Jesus Christ,
without whom (both in an objective sense : without whose appearing and
work, and in a subjective: without appropriating whom in conscious faith ;
see ver. 11) a Christian society could not come into existence at all. This
foundation Paul had laid, inasmuch as he had made Christ to be possessed by
the conscious faith of the Corinthian church. Comp. on Eph. ii. 20. — Seuériov]
The masculine ὁ θεμέλιος (see ver. 11; hence wrongly held by Ewald to be
neuter here), attributed by the old grammarians to the κοινή (see Wetstein
on ver. 11), is commonly found only in the plural, and that as early as Thue.
i. 98. 1. In the singular, 2 Tim. ii. 19 ; Rev. xxi. 19 ; Machon in Athen.
vill. p. 346 A; 8 Esdr. vi. 20. — ἄλλος δὲ ἐποικοῦ. By this is meant not
merely Apollos, but any later teacher of the Corinthians whatever (comp.
ἕκαστος) : ‘* Not my task, however, but that of another, is the building up,
the carrying on the building.” --- πῶς] i.e. here: with what materials.’ See
vv. 12, 18. Without figurative language : ‘‘ Let each take heed what sort of
doctrine (as regards substance and form) he applies, in order to advance
and develop more fully the church, founded upon Jesus Christ, in its saving
knowledge and frame of life.” See on ver. 12. The figure is not changed,
as has been often thought (‘‘ Ante fideles dixerat aedificium Dei, nunc
aedificium vocat ea, quae in ecclesia Christiana a doctoribus docentur,”
Grotius ; comp. Rosenmiiller) ; but the οἰκοδομή is, as before, the church,
which, being founded upon Christ (see above), is further built up, z.e. devel-
oped in the Christian faith and life (which may take place in a right or a
‘1 According to de Wette, the force of the by the opponents of the apostle). But the
ms consists primarily in this, ‘hat they sim- carrying on of the building, so far as that
ply carry on the building, and do not alter is concerned, is presupposed in πῶς ἐποικο-
the foundation (which was probably done Somet,
CHAP tt Ei te. 71
wrong way, see vv. 12, 13), by the teachings of the later teachers. In like
manner is a house built up by the different building-materials upon the
foundation laid for it.
Ver. 11. Tap] justifies the foregoing warning, in so far as it is given exclu-
sively to the upbuilder : for with the layer of the foundation it is quite differ-
ent, he cannot otherwise than, etc. ; but as regards the upbwilder, the case is, as
ver. 12 ff. sets forth. We are not to bring in any intermediate thought to
explain the γάρ, either with Billroth : ‘‘each, however, must bethink him-
self of carrying on the building ;” or, with Hofmann, that in the case of all
others the question simply concerns a right building up. Rather we are to
note that ver. 11 stands only in a preparatory relation to ver. 12, in which the
varying πῶς of the ἐποικοδομεῖν is exhibited. — δύναται] can, not may (Grotius,
Glass, and others, including Storr, Rosenmiiller, Pott, Billroth) ; for it is
the Christian church that is spoken of, whose structure is incapable of having
another foundation. — παρὰ τὸν κείμενον] i.e. different from that, which lies
already there. Respecting παρά after ἄλλος in this sense, see Kriiger, ad
Dion. p. 9 ; Stallbaum, ad Phileb. p. 51; Ast, Ler. Plat. 111. p. 28. The
foundation already lying there, however, is not that which Paul had laid (so
most interpreters, resting on ver. 10 ; including de Wette, Neander, Maier,
Hofmann) ; for his affirmation is universal, and if no one can lay another
foundation than that which lies already there, Paul, of course, could not do
so either, and therefore the κείμενος must have been in its place before the
apostle himself laid his foundation. Hence the κείμενος θεμέλιος is that laid
by God (so, rightly, Riickert and Olshausen), namely, Jesus Christ Himself,
the fundamentum essentiale, He whom God sent, delivered up to death, raised
again, and exalted, thereby making Him to be for us wisdom, righteousness,
etc. (i. 30), or, according to a kindred figure, the corner-stone (Eph. ii. 20 ;
Matt. xxi. 42 ; Acts iv. 10 ἢ ; 1 Pet. ii. 6). Comp. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Thisis
the objective foundation, which lies there for the whole of Christendom. But
this foundation 7s laid (ver. 10) by the founder of a church, inasmuch as he
makes Christ to be appropriated by believers, to be the contents of their con-
scious faith, and thereby establishes them in the character of a Christian
church ; that is the doctrinal laying of the foundation (fundamentum dog-
maticum). — Observe further, that Paul says purposely ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, 80 as
emphatically to designate the personal, historically manifested Christ. This
ὅς ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός is the sum of the fundamental Christian confession of
faith, John xvii. 8; Phil. ii. 11 ; Acts iv. 10 ff.
Ver. 12. Aé] continues the subject by contrasting the position of him who
builds up with that of him who lays the foundation (ver. 11). It is a mis-
take, therefore, to put ver. 11 in parenthesis (Pott, Heydenreich, comp.
Billroth). —In connection with this carrying on of the figure, it is to be
noted—(1) that Paul is not speaking of several buildings,’ as though the
θεμέλιος were that not of a house, but of a city (Billroth) ; against which
ver. 16 (see in loc.) is decisive, as is, further, the consideration that the idea
of Christ’s being the foundation cf a city of God is foreign to the N. T. (2)
1 So also Wetstein: ‘Duo sunt aedificia, domus regia et casa rustici quae distinguuntur.”’
72 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
The figure must not be drawn out beyond what the words convey (as Gro.
tius, e.g., does: ‘‘ Proponit ergo nobis domum, cujus parietes sint ex mar-
more, columnae partim ex auro partim ex argento, trabes ex ligno, fastig-
jum vero ex stramine et culmo”). It sets before us, on the contrary, ὦ
building rearing itself upon the foundation laid by the master-builder, for the
erection of which the different workmen bring their several contributions of
building materials, from the most precious and lasting down to the most mean
and worthless. The various specimens of building materials, set side by side
in vivid asyndeton (Kriiger and Kiihner, ad Xen. Anabd. ii. 4. 28 ; Winer, p.
484 [E. T. 653]), denote the various matters of doctrine propounded by teach-
ers and brought into connection with faith in Christ, in order to develop
and complete the Christian training of the church.’ These are either, like
gold, silver, and costly stones (marble and the like), of high value and im-
perishable duration, or else, like timber, hay, stubble (καλάμη, not equiva-
lent to κάλαμος, a reed ; see Wetstein and Schleusner, Thes.), of little worth
and perishable,” so that they—instead of, like the former, abiding at the
Parousia in their eternal truth—come to nought, 1.6. are shown not to belong
to the ever-enduring ἀλήθεια, and form no part of the perfect knowledge
(xiii. 12) which shall then emerge.* Two things, however, are to be ob-
served in connection with this interpretation—(1) that the several materials
are not meant to point to specific dogmas that could be named, although
we cannot fail to perceive, generally speaking, the graduated diversity of
the constituent elements of the two classes ; (2) that the second class em-
braces in it no absolutely anti-Christian doctrines. To deny the first of
these positions would but give rise to arbitrary definitions without warrant
in the text ; to deny the second would run counter to the fact that the
building was upon the foundation, and to the apostle’s affirmation, αὐτὸς δὲ
σωθήσεται, ver. 15. Billroth makes the strange objection to this interpreta-
1Luther’s gloss is appropriate: ‘ This is
said of preaching and teaching, by which
faith is either strengthened or weakened.”
2Compare Midr. Tillin, 119. 51, of false
teachers: ‘‘ Sicut foenum non durat, ita nec
verba eorum stabunt in saeculum.”
3.50, in substance (explaining it of the
different doctrines), Clemens Alexandrinus,
Ambrosiaster, Sedulius, Lyra, Thomas,
Cajetanus, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin,
Piseator, Justiniani, Grotius, Estius, Calo-
vius, Lightfoot, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt,
Heydenreich, Neander, de Wette, Osiander,
Ewald, Maier. Comp. Theodoret: τινὲς περὶ
δογμάτων ταῦτα εἰρῆσϑαι τῷ ἀποστόλῳ φασίν,
4 Ἐβία5. characterizes the second class
well as ‘‘doctrina minus sincera minusque
solida, veluti si sit humanis ac philosophicis
aut etiam Judaicis opinionibus admixta
plus satis, si curiosa magis quam utilis,” ete.
Comp. the Paraphr. of Erasmus, who refers
specially to the ‘* humanas constitutiunculas
de cultu, de victu, de frigidis ceremoniis.”
They are, generally, all doctrinal deyelop-
ments, speculations, etc., which, although
built into the fabric of doctrine in time,
will not approve themselves at the final
consummation on the day of the Lord, nor
be taken in as elements in the perfect
knowledge, but will then—instead of stand-
ing out under the test of that great catas-
trophe which shall end the history of all
things, like the doctrines compared to gold,
etc.—be shown to be no part of divine and
saving truth, and so will fall away. Such
materials, in greater or less degree, every
Church will find in the system of doctrine
built up for it by human hands. To learn
more and more to recognize these, and to
separate them from the rest in accordance
with Scripture, is the task of that onward
development, against which no church
ought to close itself up till the day of the
final crisis,—least of all the evangelical
Lutheran church with its central principle
regarding Scripture, a principle which de-
termines and regulates its stedfastly Prot-
estant character,
a
CHAP. Ii.,-12. "3
tion as a whole, that χρυσόν x.7.2. cannot apply to the contents of the teach-
ing, because Paul calls the latter the foundation. But that is in fact Christ,
and not the further doctrinal teaching. In reply to the invalid objections
urged by Hollmann (Animadverss. ad cap. 111. et. xiii. Ep. Pauli prim. ad
Cor., Lips. 1819) see Heydenreich.and Riickert. Our exposition is, in fact,
a necessity, because it alone keeps the whole figure in harmony with itself
throughout. For if the fowndation, which is laid, be the contents of the
Jirst preaching of the gospel, namely, Christ, then the material wherewith
the building is carried on must be the contents of the further instruction
given. It is out of keeping, therefore, to explain it, with Origen, Augustine,
Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Photius, and more recently,
Billroth, ‘‘of the frwits called forth in the church by the exercise among
them of the office of teaching” (Billroth), of the morality or immorality of
the hearers (Theodoret : gold, etc., denotes τὰ εἴδη τῆς ἀρετῆς ; Wood, ete.,
τὰ ἐναντία τῆς ἀρετῆς, οἷς ηὐτρέπισται τῆς γεέννης τὸ πῦρ); OY, again, of the
worthy or unworthy members of the church themselves, who would be moulded
by the teachers (Schott in Réhr’s Magaz. fiir christl. Pred. VIII. 1, p. 8 f.,
with Pelagius, Bengel, Hollmann, Pott). So, too, Hofmann in loc., and
previously in his Schriftbeweis, II. 2, p. 124. Both of these interpretations
have, besides, this further consideration against them, that they do not har-
monize in meaning with the figure of the watering formerly employed,
whereas our exposition does. Moreover, if the ἔργον, which shall be burned
up (ver. 15), be the relative portion of the church, it would not accord there-
with that the teacher concerned, who has been the cause of this destruction,
is, notwithstanding, to obtain salvation ; this would be at variance with the
N. T. severity against all causing of offence, and with the responsibility of
the teachers. Riickert gives up the attempt at a definite interpretation,
contenting himself with the general truth : Upon the manner and way, in
which the office of teaching is discharged, does it depend whether the teacher shall
have reward or loss ; he who builds on in right fashion upon a good foundation
(? rather : upon the foundation) has reward therefrom ; he who would add what
is unsuitable and unenduring, only harm and loss. But by this there is simply
nothing explained ; Paul assuredly did not mean anything so vague as this
by his sharply outlined figure ; he must have had before his mind, wherein
consisted the right carrying on of the building, and what were additions un-
suitable and doomed to perish. Olshausen (comp. also Schrader) under-
stands the passage not of the efficiency of the teachers, but of the (right or
misdirected) individual activity of sanctification on each part of each believer in
general. Wrongly so ; because, just as in ver. 6 ff. the planter and waterer,
so here the founder and upbuilder must be teachers, and because the build-
ing is the church (ver. 9), which is being built (vv. 9, 10). And this concep-
tion of the church as a building with a personal foundation (Christ), and
consisting of persons (comp. 2 Tim. ii. 20 ; 1 Pet. ii. 4 f.), remains quite
unimpaired with our exegesis also (against Hofmann’s objection). For the
further building upon the personal foundation laid, partly with gold, etc.,
partly with wood, etc., is just the labour of teaching, through which the
development and enlargement of the church, which is made up of persons,
74 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
receive a character varying in value. The ἐποικοδομεῖν takes place on the
persons through doctrines, which are the building materials.
Ver. 18. Apodosis : So will what each has done on the building (τὸ ἔργον)
not remain hidden (φανερὸν γενήσ.). Then the ground of this assurance is as-
signed : ἡ yap ἡμέρα δηλώσει, 86. ἑκάστου τὸ ἔργον. The day 18 κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the
day of the Parousia (comp. Heb. x. 24), which is obvious from what follows
on to ver. 15. So, rightly, Tertullian, contra Mare. iv. 2 ; Origen, Cyprian,
Ep. iv. 2; Lactantius, Jnst. vii. 21; Hilarius, Ambrosiaster, Sedulius,
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, the Roman Catholics (some of whom,
however, in the interests of purgatory, make it out to be the day of death),
Bengel, and others, including Pott, Heydenreich, Billroth, Schott, Schrader,
Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann. It is un-Pau-
line, and also against the context (for wood, etc., does not apply to the
doctrines of the Judaizers alone), to interpret the phrase, with Hammond,
Lightfoot, Gusset, Schoettgen, of the destruction of Jerusalem, which should
reveal the nullity of the Jewish doctrines. The following expositions are
alien to the succeeding context : of time in general (comp. dies docebit :
χρόνος δίκαιον ἄνδρα δείκνυσιν μόνος, Sophocles, Oed. Rex, 608 ; Stob. Hel. 1.
p. 234,—so Grotius, Wolf, Wetstein, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and others) ;
or of the time of clear knowledge of the gospel (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Vors-
tius') ; or of the dies tribulationis (Augustine, Calovius, and others). — ὅτι
ἐν πυρὶ ἀποκαλ.} We are neither to read here ὅτε" instead of ὅτι (Bos, A!-
berti), nor does the latter stand for the former (Pott), but it has a causative
force : because it is revealed in Jire,—the day, namely,* not τὸ ἔργον, as Luther
and the majority of interpreters (among them Heydenreich, Flatt, Schott,
Neander) hold, following Ambrosiaster and Oecumenius ; for this would
yield a tautology with what comes next. Bengel, joined by Osiander, im-
agines as the subject of the verb ὁ Κύριος, which can be evolved from ἡ ἡμέρα
only by a very arbitrary process, since the whole context never speaks of
Christ Himself. — ἐν πυρί] i.e. encompassed with fire (see Bernhardy, p. 209 ;
Matthiae, p. 1340), so that fire is the element in which the revelation of
that day takes place. For Christ, when His Parousia draws nigh, is to ap-
pear coming from heaven ἐν πυρὶ φλογός (2 Thess. i. 8 ; comp. Dan. vii. 9,
10 ; Mal. iv. 1), 2.6. surrounded by flaming fire (which is not to be ex-
plained away, as is often done : amid lightnings ; rather comp. Ex. iii. 2
ff., xix. 18). This fire, however, is not, as Chrysostom would have it, that
of Gehenna (Matt. vi. 22, 29, al.); for it is in it that Christ appears, and it
seizes upon every ἔργον, even the golden, etc., and proves each, leaving the
one unharmed, but consuming the other. The correct supplying of ἡ ἡμέρα
with ἀποκαλ.. supersedes at once the older Roman Catholic interpretation about
purgatory (against which see, besides, Scaliger and Calovius), as the correct
1 Were this so, the text would need to 2 As regards the fact of the two words
contain an antithetic designation of the being often put the one for the other by
present time as night. And in that case, transcribers, see Schaefer, ad Greg. Cor. p.
too, it would surely be the clear day of the 491; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 4. 2.
Parousia which would be meant, as in Rom. 3 Estius, Pott, Billroth, Riickert, Olshau-
xiii. 12. sen, de Wette, Ewald, Hofmann.
CHAP, Tit. 1 15. 75
view of ἡ ἡμέρα sets aside the explanations of the wrath of God against the Jews
(Lightfoot), of the Holy Spirit, who tries ‘“quae doctrina sit instar auri ct quae
instar stipulae” (Calvin), of the fire of trial and persecution (Rosenmiiller,
Flatt, following Augustine, de civ. Dei, xxi. 26, Erasmus, and many old
commentators ; comp. Isa. xlviii. 10 ; 1 Pet. i. 7, iv. 12 ; Ecclus. ii. 5), and
of a progressive process of purifying the mind of the church (Neander). The
idea rather is: ‘‘ The decision on the day of the Parousia will show how
each has worked as a teacher ; if any one has taught what is excellent and
imperishable, that, as belonging to the divine ἀλήθεια, will stand this de-
cision and survive ; if any one has taught what is worthless and perishable,
that will by the decision of that day cease to have any standing, fall away,
and come to nought” (comp. on ver. 12). This idea Paul, in accordance
with his figure of a building, clothes in this form: ‘‘ At the Parousia the
fire, in which it reveals itself, will seize upon the building ; and then through
this fiery ordeal those parts of the fabric which are of gold, silver, and
precious stones will pass unharmed ; but those consisting of wood, hay,
and stubble will be burnt up.” — ἀποκαλύπτεται)] The result of this act of
revelation is the δηλώσει already spoken of. The present marks the event as
beyond doubt; the sentence is an axiom. —xai ἑκάστου x.t.A.| not to be
connected with ὅτε (Riickert), but with the clause in the future, ἡ yap ju.
δηλώσει. Is ἔργον in the nominative (Theophylact, Oecumenius, and many
others) or accusative (Billroth, Schott, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald)? The
former is more in harmony with the sense of the passage, for so ὁπ. ἐστι is
made to appear not as merely inserted, but in its befitting emphasis. For
the form of the statement advances from the general to the particular : the
day will show it, namely, what each has wrought ; and (now follows the defi-
nite specification of the quality) what is the character of the work of each,—
the fire itself will test. — τὸ πῦρ αὐτό] ignis ipse (see the critical remarks), 7.e.
the fire (in which the ἀποκάλυψις of the day takes place) by its own proper
working, without intervention from any other quarter. Respecting the posi-
tion of αὐτό after πῦρ, see Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 5. 1. Were we to
take it as the object of δοκιμάσει, pointing back to the preceding statement
(Hofmann), it would be superfluous in itself, and less in keeping with the
terse, succinct mode of expression of this whole passage. — δοκιμάσει] ‘‘ pro-
babit, non : purgabit. Hic locus ignem puwrgatorium non modo non fovet,
sed plane extinguit,” Bengel.
Vv. 14, 15. Manner and result of this δοκιμάσει. - μενεῖ] will remain un-
harmed ; not μένει (Text. recept.) for κατακαήσεται, in ver. 15, corresponds to
it. — μισθὸν λήψ.} namely, -for his work at the building Gratont figure :
teacher's recompense), from God, at whose οἰκοδομῇ he has laboured. Riickert
holds that Paul steps decidedly out of his figure here ; for the builder is
not paid only after his work has stood the test of fire uninjured. But the
building is still being worked at until the Parousia, so that before that event
no recompense can be given. The fire of the Parousia seizes upon the build-
ing still in process of being completed, and now he alone receives recompense
whose work, which has been carried on hitherto, shows itself proof against
the fire.—As regards the form κατακαήσεται, shall be burned down (comp.
76 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
2 Pet. iii. 10), instead of the Attic κατακαυθήσεται, see Thom. M. p. 511. —
ζημιωθήσεται] 86. τὸν μισθόν, 1.6. frustrabitur praemio, Comp. on ζημιοῦσθαί τι,
to suffer loss of anything, Matt. xvi. 26; Luke ix. 25; Phil. iii. 8. See
also Valckenaer, ad Herod. vii. 39. The thought is : He will, as a punish-
ment, not receive the recompense which he would otherwise have received
asa teacher. We are not to think of deposition from office (Grotius), seeing
that it is the time of the Parousia that isspoken of. To take the ζημ., with
the Vulgate, et al.: without object, so that the sense would be : ‘‘he shall
have loss from it” (Hofmann), gives too indefinite a conception, and one
which would require first of all to have its meaning defined more precisely
from the antithesis of μισθ. λήψεται. ---- αὐτὸς δὲ σωθήσεται, οὕτω δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός]
In order not to be misunderstood, as if by his ζημιωθήσεται he were denying
to such teachers share in the future Messianic salvation at all, whereas he
is only refusing to assign to them the higher rank of blessedness, blessed-
ness as teachers, Paul adds: Yet he himself shall be saved, but so as through
Jire. Αὐτός refers to the τὸν μισθόν, which is to be supplied as the object of
Cyu.: although he will lose his recompense, yet he himself, etc. Riickert is
wrong in thinking that the builder is now regarded as the inhabitant of the
house. Paul does not handle his figure in this confused way, but has before
his mind the builder as still busied in the house with the work which he has
been carrying on : all at once the fire seizes the house ; he flees and yet
finds safety, but not otherwise than as a man is saved through and from the
midst of fire. Such an escape is wont to be coupled with fear and painful
injury ; hence the idea of this figurative representation is : He himself, how-
ever, shall obtain the Messianic σωτηρία," yet still only in such a way that the
catastrophe of the Parousia will be fraught with the highest anxiety for him, and
will not elapse without sensibly impairing his inheritance of blessing. He shall
obtain the σωτηρία, but only a lower grade of it, so that he will belong to
those whom Jesus calls ‘‘ the last” (Matt. xx. 16; Mark x. 31). The main
point in this interpretation, namely, that σωθήσ. refers to the Messianic
σωτηρία, is accepted by most expositors ; but several, such as Rosenmiiller
and Flatt, take the future as indicating the possibility (a view which the
very fact of the two preceding futures should have sufficed to preclude),
and Grotius? has foisted in a problematical sense into the word (equally
against the definitely assertive sense of those futures) : ‘‘In summo erit sa-
lutis suae periculo. Etsi eam adipiscetur (quod boni ominis causa sperare
mavult apostoius) non fiet id sine gravi moestitia ac dolore.” It is acommon
mistake to understand ὡς διὰ πυρός in the sense of a proverb (by a hair’s-
breadth, see Grotius and Wetstein in loc. ; Valckenaer, p. 157 ; and comp.
Amos iy. 11 ; Zech. iii. 2 ; Jude 23), because the passage, looking back to
ver. 13, really sets before us a conflagration (ὡς, asin John i. 14). It may be
1 For he has after all held to the founda- grade of blessingin the Messiah’s kingdom,
tion. The Messianic salvation is the giftef Comp. Dan. xii. 3; Matt. xix. 28.
grace to those who believe in Christ as 2 So before him Theodore of Mopsuestia :
such ; while the teacher’s blessedness, as ἀλλὰ καὶ ἂν σώζηται διά τινα ἑτέραν αἰτίαν σώζειν
μισϑός (which the general σωτηρία ἴῃ and by αὐτὸν δυναμένην.
itself is ποῖ), must be some specially high
CHAP. III., 16, 17. rere
added that there is no ground for bringing into the conception the fire of
the wrath of God (Hofmann), since, according to the text, it is the selfsame
fire which seizes upon the work of the one and of the other, in the one case
however, proving it to be abiding, and in the other consuming it.
histrates the matter well by the instance of a shipwrecked man : ‘‘ut mer-
cator naufragus amissa merce et lucro servatur per undas.” Other commen-
tators, again (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact), understand it to
mean : He shall be preserved, but so only as one is preserved through the fire of
hell, that is to say, eternally tormented therein. So too of late, in substance,
Maier. But the interpretation is decidedly erroneous ; first, because, ac-
cording to ver. 13, πῦρ cannot be allowed to have any reference to the fire
of hell ; secondly, because σώζεσθαι, which is the standing expression for
being saved with the salvation of the Messiah, can least of all be used to
denote anything else in a picture representing the decision of the Parousia.!
This last consideration tells also against Schott’s explanation (1.6. p. 17) :
“ He himself shall indeed not be utterly destroyed on that account ; he remains,
but it is as one who has passed through flaming fire (seriously injured),” by
which is denoted the divine award of punishment which awaits such a
teacher at the day of judgment. It may also be urged against the view in
question, that the sentence of punishment, since it dooms to the fire, cannot
be depicted in the figure as a having passed through the fire. (H)
Vv. 16-28. Warning address to the readers, comprising—(1) preparatory
statement reminding them of the guilt of sectarian conduct as a destroying
of the temple of God, vv. 16, 17,—-verses which Chrysostom, Theophylact,
and others quite mistakenly refer to the incestuous person ; then (2) exhor-
tation to put a stop to this conduct at its source by renouncing their fancied
wisdom, vy. 18-28, and to give up what formed the most prominent feature
of their sectarianism,—the parading of human authorities, which was,
in truth, utterly opposed to the Christian standpoint.
Vv. 16, 17. Οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι κ.τ.}.1 could be regarded as said in proof
of ver. 15 (Billroth), only if Chrysostom’s interpretation of σωθήσεται.
πυρός, or Schott’s modification of it (see on ver. 15), were correct.? Since
this, however, is not the case, and since the notion of σωθήσεται, although
limited by οὕτω δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός, cannot for a moment be even relatively included
under the φθερεῖ τοῦτον ὁ Θεός of ver. 17, because the φθορά is the very opposite
of the σωτηρία (Gal. vi. 8), this mode of bringing out the connection must be
given up. Were we to assume with other expositors that Paul passes on here
from the teachers who build upon the foundation to such as are anti-
Christian, ‘‘ qui fundamentum evertunt et aedificium destruunt,” * we should
in that case feel the want at once of some express indication of the destroy-
ing of the foundation,—which, for that matter, did not take place in
Bengel
1 Hence, also, it will not do torefer αὐτός,
with Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 144 f., to the ϑεμέ-
λιος, which will remain safe, but covered
over with refuse, ashes, and the like, which
he holds to be indicated by ὡς διὰ πυρός.
2 This holds, too, against Ewald’s way of
apprehending the connection here: Are
any surprised that the lot of such a teacher
should be so hard aone! Let them con-
sider how sacred is the field in which he
works.
3 Estius and others, including Michaelis,
Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Pott, Hofmann.
78 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Corinth,—and also, and more especially, of some indication of the relation
of antithesis subsisting between this passage and what has gone be-
fore. The apostle would have needed at least, in order to be understood, to
have proceeded immediately after ver. 15 somewhat in this way: εἰ δέ
τις φθείρει κιτ.3. No ; in ver. 16 we have a new part of the argument begun ;
and it comes in all the more powerfully without link of connection with the
foregoing. Hitherto, that is to say, Paul has been presenting to his readers
—that he may make them see the wrong character of their proud partisan-
conduct (iv. 6)—the relation of the teachers to the church as an οἰκοδομὴ
Θεοῦ. But he has not yet set before their minds what sort of an oixod. Θεοῦ
they are, namely, the temple of God (hence ναός is emphatic). This he does
now, in order to make them feel yet more deeply the criminality of
their sectarian arrogance, when, after ending the foregoing discussion about
the teachers, he starts afresh : Is it unknown to you’ what is the nature of this
building of God, that ye are God’s temple? etc. The question is one of
amazement (for the state of division among the Corinthians seemed to imply ἢ
such ignorance, comp. v. 6, vi. 15 f., ix. 13, 24) ; and it contains, along
with the next closely connected verse, the sudden, startling preface—arrest-
ing the mind of the readers with its holy solemnity—to the exhortation
which is to follow, ver. 18 ff. —vad¢ Θεοῦ] not : a temple of God, but the
temple of God.2 For Paul’s thought is not (as Theodoret and others
hold) that there are several temples of God (which would be quite alien to
the time-hallowed idea of the one national temple, which the apostle
must haye had, see Philo, de monarch. 2, p. 634), but that each Christian
community is in a spiritual way, sensu mystico, the temple of Jehovah, the
realized idea of that temple, its ἀληθινόν. There are not, therefore, several
temples, but several churches, each one of which is the same true spiritual
temple of God. Comp. Eph. ii. 21 ; Ignatius, ad Eph. 9; 1 Pet. ii. 5;
Barnab. 4 ; also regarding Christian persons individually, as in vi. 19, see
Ignatius, ad Phil. 7. This accordingly is different from the heathen
conception of pious men being temples (in the plural). Valer. Max. iv. 7. 1,
al., in Elsner and Wetstein. — καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα] appends in how far (kai being
the explicative and) they are ναὸς Θεοῦ. God, as He dwelt in the actual
temple by the 2°3¥ (Buxtorf, Ler. Talm. p. 2394), dwells in the ideal
temple of the Christian church by the gracious presence, working and ruling
in it, of His Spirit, in whom God communicates Himself ; for the Spirit
dwells and rules in the hearts of believers (Rom. viii. 9,11; 2 Tim. i. 14).
But we are not on this ground to make ἐν ὑμῖν refer to the individuals
(Riickert and many others) ; for the community as such (ver. 17) is the
temple (2 Cor. vi. 16 f. ; Eph. ii. 21f. ; Ezek. xxxvii. 27). — Ναός did
not need the article, which comes in only retrospectively in ver. 17, just be-
cause there is but one ναὸς Θεοῦ in existence. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph.
li, 21 ; Wisd. 111. 14 ; 2 Macc. xiv. 85 ; Ecclus, li. 44,
1 This lively interrogative turn of the dis- 2 [Here the Canterbury Revision seems to
course, frequent though it is in this Epistle, have erred in using the indefinite article.—
occurs only twice in the rest of Paul’s writ- Wie Cd
ings, namely, in Rom. vi. 16, xi. 2.
CHAP. ΠΤ... 1 7..18. 79
Ver. 17. Ei τις. . . ἀγιός ἐστιν] This is spoken of the real temple ;
the application to the church as the ideal one is not made until the οἵτινές
ἐστε ὑμεῖς Which follows. It is an anticipation of the course of the argument
to understand, as here already meant, the latter New Testament place of the
divine presence (Hofmann). — Every Levitical defilement was considered a
destroying of the temple, as was every injury to the buildings, and even
every act of carelessness in the watching and superintendence of it. See
Maimonides, de domo electa, i. 10, vii. 7. Deyling, Odss, II. p. 505 ff. —
φθερεῖ) placed immediately after φθείρει at the head of the apodosis, to ex-
press with emphasis the adequacy of the recompense. See Kiihner, II.
p- 626. What φθερεῖ denotes is the temporal destruction, the punishment of
death which God will bring upon the destroyer of His temple, as in the
LXX. φθείρω is often used of God as inflicting such destruction. Comp.
Gen. vi. 13; Micah ii. 10; 1 Kings ii. 27, αἱ. --- ἅγιος] as the dwelling
of God, sacred therefore from all injury, and not to be destroyed without in-
curring heavy divine penalty. — oirvvéc ἐστε ὑμεῖς} of which character (namely,
ἅγιοι) are ye. In this we have the minor proposition of the syllogism
contained in vv. 16 and 17: Him who destroys God’s temple God will
destroy, because the temple is holy ; but ye also are holy, as being the
spiritual temple ; consequently, he who destroys you will be destroyed of
God. Paul leaves it to his readers themselves to infer, for their own
behoof, that in this reasoning of his he means by the destruction οὐ the
(ideal) temple the deterioration of the church on the part of the sectarians, and
by the penal destruction which awaits them, their ἀπώλεια at the Messianic
judgment (the φθορά of Gal. vi. 8). It is a mistake (with most commentators,
including Luther) to regard οἵτινες as put for οἱ (see the passages where this
seems to be the case in Struve, Quaest. Herod. I. p. 2 ff.), and to make it re-
fer to ναὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ : which temple ye are. That would rather yield the inap-
propriate (see on ver. 16) plural sense : eujusmodi templa vos estis. See
Porson and Schaefer, ad Hurip. Or. 908. Matthiae, p. 977.
Ver. 18. Μηδεὶς ἑαυτ. ἐξαπ.1 Emphatic warning, setting the following ex-
hortation, as directed against an existing evil which arose out of self-decep-
tion, in that point of view ; comp. vi. 9, xv. 33; Gal. vi. 7. Those who
were proud of their wisdom did not discern that they were destroying the
temple of God with their sectarian proceedings. Theophylact remarks well
upon ἐξαπατ. : νομίζων, ὅτι ἄλλως ἔχει TO πρᾶγμα καὶ οὐχ ὡς εἶπον. --- δοκεῖ]
believes, is of opinion, not appears (Vulgate, Erasmus) ; for it was the former
that was objectionable and dangerous. Comp. viii. 2, xiv. 387 ; Gal. vi. 3.
-- σοφὸς εἶναι... τούτῳ] ἐν ὑμῖν belongs to σόφος εἶναι, and ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ
defines the σόφος εἶναι ἐν ὑμῖν more precisely, to wit, according to his non-
Christian standing and condition (comp. ver. 19) : 17 any one is persuaded
that he is wise among you in this age, i.e. if one claims for himself a being wise
in your community, which belongs to the sphere of this pre-Messianie period. To
the αἰὼν οὗτος, despite of all its philosophy and other wisdom falsely so
called (i. 20, ii. 6), the true wisdom, which is only in Christ (Col. ii. 3), is in
fact a thing foreign and far off ; this αξών is a sphere essentially alien to the
true state of being wise inthe chirc) ; in it aman may have the λόγος σοφίας
80 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(Col. ii. 23), but not the reality. We must not therefore, in defiance of its
place in the sentence, link ἐν τῷ al. τ. merely to σόφος (Erasmus, Grotius,
Riickert, and many others), in doing which ἐν is often taken as equivalent
to κατά. Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Luther, Castalio, Mosheim, Rosen-
miiller, and others, join it to what follows, rendering either generally to this
effect : ‘is a vulgo hominum pro stulto haberi non recuset ;” or with a more
exact development of the meaning, as Hofmann : whoever thinks himself to
be wise in the church, ‘‘ he, just on that account, is not wise, but has yet to
become so, and must to this end become a fool in this present age of the
world, because his wisdom is a wisdom of this world, and as such is fool-
ishness in the eyes of God.” But the emphasis does not lie upon the contrast
between ἐν ὑμῖν and ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τ., but upon σόφος and μωρός, as is plain from
the fact that in the clause expressive of the aim we have the simple σόφος
alone without ἐν ὑμῖν. It may be seen, too, from ver. 19 (cog. τοῦ κόσμου)
that Paul had included ἐν τ. ai. τ. in the protasis. — μωρός γενέσθω] i.e. let him
vid himself of his fancied wisdom, and become (by returning to the pure
and simple gospel unalloyed by any sort of philosophy or speculation)
such ὦ one as now in relation to that illusory wisdom is ὦ fool. — σοφός] with
emphasis : truly wise. See Col. ii. 2, 3. The path of the Christian
sapere aude proceeds from becoming a fool to wisdom, as from becom-
ing blind to seeing (John ix. 39).
Ver. 19. Giving the ground of the μωρὸς γενέσθω demanded in order to the
γίνεσθαι σόφον. ---- τοῦ κόσμου τούτου] i.e. such as is peculiar to the pre-Messianic
world (humanity), like the Hellenic sophistry, rhetoric, ete. ; comp. i. 21,
ii. 6. — παρὰ τ. Θεῷ] judice Deo; Rom. 11. 13 ; Winer, p. 369 [E. T. 493].
How truly that wisdom was its own very opposite, and how utterly to be
given up ! —yéyp. γάρ] Job v. 13, not according to the LXX., but express-
ing the sense of the Hebrew with quite as great fidelity. The passage,
however, serves as proof, not for the warning and admonition in ver. 18
(Hofmann),—to take it thus would be arbitrarily to reach back over what
immediately precedes the yap,—but, as ver. 20 also confirms, for the state-
ment just made, ἡ yap σοφία x.7.2. If, namely, God did not count that wis-
dom to be folly, then He could not be spoken of as He who taketh the wise in
their craftiness, i.e. who brings it to pass that the wise, while they cunningly
pursue their designs, do not attain them, but rather their craftiness turns to
their own destruction. Thus the hand of God comes in upon their doings
and takes them in their craftiness, whereby He just practically proclaims His
judgment regarding their wisdom, that it is foolishness. As respects zavoup-
yia, comp. the Hellenic distinction between it and the true wisdom in Plato,
Menex. p. 247 A: πᾶσά τε ἐπιστήμη χωριζομένη δικαιοσύνης καὶ τῆς ἄλλης ἀρετῆς
πανουργία, ov σοφία, φαίνεται. --- ὁ δρασσόμ. is not ‘‘ex Hebr. pro finito δράσσε-
ται (Pott, following Beza), but the quotation, being taken out of its con-
nection, does not form a complete sentence. Comp. Heb. i. 8 ; Winer, p.
330 [E. T. 443] ; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 250 [E. T. 291]. — On δράσσεσθαι
with the accusative (commonly with the genitive), comp. Herod. iii. 18, LXX.
Lev. v. 12, Num. v. 26,
Ver. 20. Πάλιν] as in Rom. xv. 10; Matt. iv. 7. The passage quoted is
CHAP, LIT, 21. 81
Ps. xciv. 11, and the only variation from the Hebrew and the LXX. is in
putting σοφῶν instead of ἀνθρώπων, and that purposely, but with no violence
to the connection of the original (the reference being to men of pretended
wisdom). — μάταιοι) empty, thoughts (for Paul, at all events, had dvaAoy. not
cog. in view) which are without true substance. Comp. Plato, Soph. p. 231
B: περὶ τὴν μάταιον δοξοσοφίαν. ,
Ver. 21. Ὥστε] Hence, that is to say, because this world’s wisdom, this
source of your καυχᾶσθαι ἐν ἀνθρώποις (see ver. 18), is nothing but folly before
God, vv. 19, 30. According to Hofmann, ὥστε draws its inference from the
whole section, vv. 10-20. But μηδεὶς καυχάσθω κ.τ.}. manifestly corresponds
to the warning μηδεὶς ἑαυτ. ἐξαπ. κιτ.}. in ver. 18, from the discussion of
which (ver. 19 f.) there is now deduced the parallel warning beginning
with ὥστε (ver. 21) ; and this again is finally confirmed by a sublime repre-
sentation of the position held by a Christian (ver. 22 f.). — ἐν ἀνθρώποις] ‘id
pertinet ad extenuandum,” Bengel ; the opposite of ἐν Κυρίῳ, 1. 81. Hu-
man teachers are meant, upon whom the different parties prided themselves
against each other (ver. 5, i. 12). Comp. iv. 6. Billroth renders wrongly:
on account of men, whom he has subjected to himself and formed into a sect.
Hite Παῦλος. . . Κηφᾶς in ver. 22 is decisive against this ; for how strangely
forced it is to make μηδείς refer to the teachers, and ὑμῶν to the church !—
The imperative after ὥστε (comp. iv. 5, x. 12; Phil. ii. 12) is not governed by
that word, but the dependent statement beginning with ὥστε changes to the
direct. Sce Hermann, ad Viger. Ὁ. 852 ; Bremi, ad Dem. Phil. II. p. 276 ;
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 776. — πάντα yap ὑμῶν ἐστιν] with the emphasis on πάντα:
nothing excepted, all belongs to you as your property ; so that to boast your-
selves of men, consequently, who as party leaders are to be your property to
the exclusion of others, is something quite foreign to your high position as
Christians. Observe that we are not to explain as if it ran : ἡμῶν yap πάντα
ἐστιν (‘‘illa vestra sunt, non vos illorum,” Bengel) ; but that the apostle has
in view some form of party-confession, as, for example, ‘‘ Paul is mine,” or
‘‘ Gephas is my man,” and the like. It was thus that some boasted them-
selves of individual personages as their property, in opposition to the πάντα
ig. é. Τὸ may be added that what is conveyed in this πάντα ὑμῶν ἐστιν is not
‘the miraculous nature of the love, which is shed abroad in the hearts of
believers by the Spirit, in virtue of which the man embraces the whole
world, and enjoys as his own possession whatever in it is beautiful and glo-
rious” (πάντα 2), as is the view of Olshausen ; but rather, in accordance with
the diverse character of the objects thereafter enumerated, the twofold idea,
that all things are destined in reality to serve the best interests of the Chris-
tians (comp. Rom. viii. 28 ff.), and consequently to be in an ethical sense
their possession,’ and that the actual κληρονομία τοῦ κόσμου (Rom. iv. 13 f.) is
allotted to them in the Messianic kingdom. Comp. 4 Esdr. ix. 14. The
saying of the philosophers : Omnia sapientis esse” (see Wetstein), is a lower
and imperfect analogue of this Christian idea.
1 Hence Luther in his gloss rightly infers: ‘‘ Therefore no man hath power to make laws
over Christians to bind their consciences.”
82 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Ver. 22. Detailed explication of the πάντα ; then an emphatic repetition
of the great thought πάντα ὑμ., in order to link to it ver. 33. -- Παῦλος. . .
Kno. | for they are designed to labour for the furtherance of the Christian
weal. Paul does not write éyé ; as forming the subject-matter of a partisan
confession, he appears to himself as a third person ; comp. ver. 5. — κόσμος]
generally ; for the world, although as yet only in an ideal sense, is by desti-
nation your possession, inasmuch as, in the coming αἰών, it is to be subjected
to believers by virtue of the participation which they shall then obtain in
the kingly office of Christ (Rom. iv. 13, viii. 17; 1 Cor. vi. 2. Comp. 2
Tim. ii. 12). More specific verbal explanations of κόσμος, as it occurs in this
full triumphant outpouring—such as religui omnes homines (Rosenmiiller and
others), the unbelieving world (comp. also Hofmann), and so forth—are
totally unwarranted by the connection. Bengel says aptly : ‘‘ Repentinus
hic a Petro ad totum mundum saltus orationem facit amplam cum quadam
quasi impatientia enumerandi cetera.” The eye of the apostle thus rises at
once from the concrete and empirical to the most general whole, in point of
matter (κόσμος), condition (ζωὴ, θάνατος), time (ἐνεστῶτα, μέλλοντα). --- Coy. . .
θάνατος] comp. Rom. viii. 38. We are not to refer this, with Chrysostom,
Theophylact, and Grotius, to the teachers: ‘‘si vitam doctoribus protrahit
Deus,” and ‘‘si ob evangel. mortem obeunt” (Grotius, comp. too, Michae-
lis), nor to transform it with Pott into: things living and lifeless ; nor
even is the limitation of it to the readers themselves (‘‘ live ye or die, it is to
you for the best,” Flatt) in any way suggested by the text through the
analogy of the other points. Both should rather be left without any special
reference, life and death being viewed generally as relations occurring in the
world. Both of them are, like all else, destined to serve for your good in
respect of your attainment of salvation. Comp. Phil. i. 21 ; Rom. xiv. 7 ff.;
1 Cor. xv. 19 ff. Theodoret : καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ θάνατος τῆς ὑμετέρας ἕνεκεν ὠφελείας
ἐπηνέχθη Ty φύσει. --- εἴτε ἐνεστῶτα, εἴτε μέλλοντα) Similarly, we are not to re-
strict things existing (what we find to have already entered on a state of sub-
sistence ; see on Gal. i. 4) and things to come to the fortunes of the readers
(Flatt and many others), but to leave them without more precise definition.
Ver. 23. In ver. 22 Paul had stated the active relation of the Christians as
regards ownership, all being made to serve them—a relation which, by its
universality, must preclude all boasting of human authorities. He now
adds to this their passive relation as regards ownership also, which is equally
adverse to the same hurtful tendency, namely : but ye belong to Christ,—so
that in this respect, too, the καυχᾶσθαι ἐν ἀνθρώποις of ver. 21 cannot but be
unseemly. Riickert would make πάντα yap ὑμῶν ἐστι x.7.2. in ver. 22 the
protasis and said by way of concession, so that the leading thought would
lie in ver, 23: ‘ All indeed ‘is yours ; but ye belong to Christ.” We are,
he holds, to supply μέν after πάντα. But, even apart from this erroneous
addition, there may be urged against his view, partly the fact that an inde-
pendent emphasis is laid upon the thought πάντα ὑμῶν, as is clear at a glance
both from its explication in detail and from the repetition of the phrase ;
and partly the internal state of the case, that what Riickert takes as a con-
cession really contains a very pertinent and solid argument against the xavy.
CHAP. III., 23. 83
ἐν ἀνθρώποις. --- Χριστὸς δὲ Θεοῦ] and Christ, again, belongs to God,.is subordi-
nated to God, stands in His service. For κεφαλὴ Χριστοῦ ὁ Θεός, xi. 8. Comp.
Luke ix. 20. The strict monotheism of the N. T. (see on Rom. ix. δ), and
the relation of Christ as the Son to the Father, necessarily give the idea of
the subordination of Christ under God.' As His equality with God and His
divine glory before the incarnation (Phil. ii. 6), although essential, were
still derived (εἰκὼν τ. Θεοῦ, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, Col. i. 15), so also the
divine glory, which He has obtained by His exaltation after His obedience
rendered to God even unto the death of the cross, is again a glory bestowed
upon Him (Phil. ii. 9), and His dominion is destined to be given back to God
(1 Cor. xv. 28). Since, however, this relation of dependence, affirmed by
Χριστὸς δὲ Θεοῦ (comp. on Eph. i. 17), by no means expresses the conception
of Arianism, but leaves untouched the essential equality of Christ with God
(Theodoret aptly remarks : Χριστὸς yap Θεοῦ οὐχ ὡς κτίσμα Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς
υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ), it was all the more a mistake to assume (so Calvin, Estius,
Calovius, and many others, including Flatt and Olshausen) that the state-
ment here refers only to the human nature. It is precisely on the divine side of
His being that Christ is, according to Paul (Rom. i. 4), the Son of God, and
therefore as γέννημα γνήσιον. . . ὡς αὐτὸν αἵτιον ἔχων κατὰ TO πατέρα εἶναι
(Chrysostom) not subordinate to Him simply in respect of His manhood.
But for what reason does Paul add here at all this Χριστὸς δὲ Θεοῦ, seeing it was
not needed for the establishment of the prohibition of the καυχᾶσθαι ἐν av-
θρώποις ? We answer: Had he ended with ὑμεῖς δὲ Χριστοῦ, he would then, in
appearance, have conceded the claim of the Christ-party, who did not boast
themselves ἐν ἀνθρώποις (and hence were not touched by ver. 22), but held to
Christ ; and this, in point of fact, is what Pott and Schott make out that
the apostle here does. But this was not hisintention ; for the confession of
the Christ-party was not, indeed, Ebionitic,—as if the X. δὲ Θεοῦ were aimed
against this (Osiander),—but, although right enough in idea, yet practically
objectionable on the ground of the schismatic misuse made of it. He rises,
therefore, to the highest absolute jurisdiction, that to which even Christ is
subject, in order in this passage, where he rejects the three parties who sup-
ported themselves on human authorities, to make the Christ-party, too, feel
their error : Christ, again, is—not the head of a party, as many among you
would make Him, but—telonging to God, and consequently exalted in the
highest possible degree above all drawing in of His name into party-conten-
tions. In this way, with no little delicacy, Paul sets the relation of the
fourth Corinthian party also—of which ver. 22 did not allow the mention—
in the light of the true Christian perspective ; to do which by no means lay
too far from the path of his exhortation (Hofmann), but was very naturally
suggested by the concrete circumstances which he could not but have in his
eye. (1)
Remarx.—The reference in ver. 22 f. to the party of Peler and of Christ is to
be regarded as simply by the way. The whole section fromi. 13 to iv. 21 is di-
1 See also Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. 1. p. 120 f. Ursprung der Siinde, I. p. 194 ff. Weiss, bibl.
Gess, v. d. Person Chr. p. 157 ff. Ernesti, Theol. p. 306.
im
84 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
rected against the antagonism between the Pauline and the Apollonian parties
(comp. on ver. 4) ; but the idea πάντα ὑμῶν ἐστιν, which Paul holds up to these
two, very naturally leads him to make all the parties sensible of their fault as
well, although to enter further upon the Petrine and the Christ-party did not lie
in the line of his purpose. The theory, so much in favour of late, which refers
the polemic, beginning with i. 17, to the Christ-party (Jaeger, Schenkel, Gold-
horn, Kniewel, etc.), has led to acts of great arbitrariness, as is most conspicu-
ous in the case of Kniewel, who divides chap. iii. among all the four parties,
giving vy. 3-10 to that of Paul and that of Apollos, vv. 12-17 to that of Peter,
and ver. 18 f. to that of Christ ; while in the contrasts of ver. 22 (εἴτε κόσμος...
μέλλοντα] he finds the Christ-party’s doctrine of the harmony of all contrasts
accomplished in Christ as the world-soul.
Norrs By AMERICAN EDITOR.
(ΒΕ) ““ Saved so as by fire.” Ver. 15.
It may well be doubted whether Meyer's view of this clause is correct. He
makes it refer to the grade of salvation which the erring builder is to receive,
and he gains this by eliding the force of the adverb of comparison. It is far
better to retain the full natural meaning of the words, and explain them as =
with difficulty. This is in accordance with the Scriptures quoted by the author.
The man will just escape with his life, as one is rescued from a burning build-
ing. To this, of course, may be added, as a corollary, that his salvation will be
attended with loss, i.e. he will occupy a lower place in the kingdom of heaven
than he would have done. Notwithstanding that the use of this passage in
support of the doctrine of Purgatory has been condemned by the great Roman
Catholic commentator, Estius, it is 5011 so applied by the less informed. The
violence of such an application is obvious on a moment's reflection. The
text does not say that the man is saved by fire as a means of purification, but
so as by fire—that is, scarcely or with difficulty. And the fire is not considered
as preceding the judgment, but as taking place at the time of the judgment it-
self, when the Lord Jesus will appearin His glory. ‘‘The day’’ (ver. 13) can-
not, according to usage, denote anything else than the day of the coming of the
Lord. It is the more important to resist the tenet of purgatorial fire, because it
is the legitimate ontcome of the Romish doctrine of justification, and rests upon
the conviction that, the righteousness that justifies being infused and not imput-
ed, many will be found at death too good to be sent to hell, but not good enough
to enter heaven, and hence there requires to be ἃ state and place in which by
disciplinary fires their righteousness may be made complete.
(1) No boasting in men. Vv. 21-23.
This remarkable passage is an admirable conclusion of the protest against
partisan attachment to individual leaders. The church was not made for the
teachers, but the teachers for the church. Paul and Apollos and Cephas, how-
ever variously gifted and however diverse their spheres or their modes of ac-
tion, were yet united by being the common property of all believers. Then, as
Stanley says, the Apostle proceeds to dilate upon the whole range of God's gifts
to His people. He expands the term world to take in not merely mundane
NOTES. 85
greatness, but the whole created universe, and the utmost contrasts which imagi-
naiion can suggest, whether in life or in death, in the present or the future.
The vast concatenation does not end here. Believers are but part of that
golden chain which must be followed up till it unites them to Christ, and even
further yet, up to the presence of God Himself. The final touch is worthy of
. thegreat Apostle. It represents Christ Himself as subordinate to God, and that,
as Meyer justly says, not merely in His human nature, but His divine. The sub-
ordination is as to the mode of subsistence and operation, which, however, is
entirely consistent with identity of substance and equality in power and glory.
86 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS,
CHAPTER IV.
Ver, 2. ὃ δέ] Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read ὦδε, with A B C D* F G 8, min. Syr.
Erp. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Jerome, Aug. Ambr. Pelag. Sedul. Bede. This vast-_
ly preponderating testimony in favour of ὦδε, and its infrequency with Paul
(only again in Col. iv. 9), make the Recepta seem the result of change or error
on the part of transcribers. — ζητεῖται] A Ο Ὁ E F G8, min. have ζητεῖτε.
Recommended by Griesb. But B L and all the vss. and Fathers are against it.
A copyist’s error. — Ver. 6, Instead of 6, A B C &, 31, Syr. p. Copt. Athan.
Cyril have ἅ ; which is reeommended by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch.
and Riickert. The Latin authorities have supra quam, which leaves their read-
ing doubtful. The preceding ravra naturally suggested &. — φρονεῖν] is want-
ingin AB D* E* FG &, 46, Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers. Rightly deleted by
Lachm. Tisch. and Riickert.' A supplementary addition, in place of which
Athanasius has φυσιοῦσθαι. --- Ver. 9. ὅτε after γάρ has preponderant evidence
against it, and should be deleted, as is done by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Su-
perfluous addition, — Ver. 13, BAacg.] A C δὲ , 17 46, Clem. Origen (twice), Eu-
seb. Cyril, Damasc. have δυσφ. Approved by Griesb., accepted by Riick. and
Tisch. Rightly ; the more familiar (for the verb dvcog. occurs nowhere else in
the N. T., comp. 2 Cor. vi. 8), and at the same time stronger word was inserted.
— Ver. 14. vovfero] A C δὲ, min. Theophylact have νουθετῶν [which is adopted
by Westcott & Hort.—C.]. An assimilation to the foregoing participle.
Vv. 1-5. The right point of view from which to regard Christian teachers
(vv. 1, 2); Paul, nevertheless, for his own part, does not give heed to human
judgment, nay, he does not even judge himself, but his judge is Christ (vv. 3, 4).
Therefore his readers should give up their passing of judgments till the decision
of the Parousia (ver. 5).
Ver. 1. Οὕτως] is commonly taken as preparatory, emphatically paving
the way for the ὡς ὑπηρ. which follows. Comp. iii. 15, ix. 26 ; 2 Cor. ix.
5; Eph. v. 33, al., and often in Greek writers. The xavy. ἐν ἀνθρ. before
repudiated arose, namely, out of a false mode of regarding the matter ; Paul
now states the true mode. Since, however, there is no antithetic particle
added here, and since the following epithets : imp. Χριστοῦ and οἶκον.
Θεοῦ sound significantly like the ὑμεῖς δὲ Χριστοῦ, Χριστὸς δὲ Θεοῦ which
immediately precede them, οὕτως is rather to be regarded as the sie retrospec-
tive (in this way, in such fashion), and ὡς again as stating the objective gual-
1 Φρονεῖν has been defended again by not the case ; and the former consideration
Reiche in his Commentar. crit. I. p. 146 ff.
He urges that the omission is not attested
by the Greek Fathers, and, out of all the
versions, only by the Latin ones, and that
the word is indispensable. But the latter is
cannot turn the scale against the decisive
weight of the chief codices, among which
only C—and even that not certainly—has
φρονεῖν.
CHAP, ΤΥ. Ὡς 87
ity, in which the ἡμεῖς have ἃ claim to the οὕτως ἡμᾶς λογιζ. ἄνθρ. which is
enjoined. Accordingly, we should explain as follows : Under this point of
view, as indicated already in ver. 22 f. (namely, that all is yours ; but that
ye are Christ’s ; and that Christ, again, is God’s), let men form their judg-
ment of us, as of those who are servants of Christ and stewards of divine mys-
teries. Let us but be judged of as servants of Christ, etc., according to
the standard of that lofty Christian mode of view (οὕτως) and how con-
ciusively shut out from this sphere of vision will be the partisan καυχᾶσθαι
ἐν ἀνθρώποις! Men will be lifted high above that. — ἡμᾶς] 1.6. myself and
such as I, by which other apostles also and apostolic teachers (like Apollos)
aremeant. In view of iii. 22, no narrower limitation is allowable. — ἄνθρω-
πος] not a Hebraism (W'S, one; so most interpreters, among whom Luther,
Grotius, and others explain it wrongly every one), but in accordance with
a pure Greek use of the word in the sense of the indefinite one or a man
(Plato, Protag. p. 355 A, Gorg. p. 500 C, al.). So also in xi. 28, Gal. vi.
1. Bengel’s ‘‘homo quivis nostris similis” is an importation. — ὑπηρ. X. x.
οἶκον. μυστ. Θεοῦ] They are servants of Christ, and, as such, are at the same
time stewards of God (the supreme ruler, iii. 23, the Father and Head of the
theocracy, the οἶκος Θεοῦ, 1 Tim. iii. 15), inasmuch as they are entrusted
with His secrets, i.e. entrusted and commissioned to communicate by the
preaching of the gospel the divine decrees for the redemption of men and
their receiving Messianic blessings (see on Rom. xi. 25, xvi. 25 ; Eph. i.
9 ; Matt. xiii. 11),—-decrees in themselves unknown to men, but fulfilled in
Christ, and unveiled by means of revelation. They are to do this just as the
steward of a household (see on Luke xvi. 1) has to administer his master’s
goods. Comp. as regards this idea, ix. 17 ; 1 Tim. i. 4 ; Titus i. 7 ; 1 Pet.
iv. 10. There isno reference whatever here to the sacraments, which Olshau-
sen and Osiander again desire to include. Seei. 17. The whole notion of
a sacrament, as such, was generalized ata later date from the actions to
which men restricted it, sometimes in a wider, sometimes in a narrower
sense. — Observe, moreover : between the Father, the Master of the house,
and the οἰκονόμοι there stands the Son, and He has from the Father the power
of disposal (comp. on John viii. 35 f.; 1 Cor. xv. 25 ff.), so that the οἰκονόμοι
are His servants. Paul uses ὑπηρέτης only in this passage ; but there is no
ground for importing any special design into the word (suchas that it is
humbler than διάκονος). Comp. on Eph. iii. 7.
Ver. 2. If we read ὧδε (see the critical remarks), we must understand the
verse thus : Such being the state of the case, it is, for the rest, required of the
stewards, etc., so that λοιπόν (i. 16) would express something which, in con-
nection with the relationship designed in ver. 1, remained now alone to be
mentioned as pertaining thereto, while ὧδε again, quite in accordance with
the old classical usage (see Lehrs, Arist. p. 84 ff.), would convey the notion
of sic, i.e. ‘‘ eum eo statu res nostrae sint” (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 11. p. 991). We
might paraphrase, therefore, as follows : ‘‘ Such being the nature of our po-
1The word would be singularly super- to treat it as belonging to ver. 1, and te
fluous, and would drag behind in the most _— separate it by a point from λοιπόν.
awkward way, were we, with Lachmann,
4
88 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
sition as servants, the demand to be made upon the stewards of households * of
course takes effect.” If we abide by the Recepta, ὃ δὲ λοιπόν must be render-
ed : But as to what remains, i.e. but as respects what else there is which has
its place in connection with the relationship of service spoken of in ver. 1,
this is the demand, ete.; comp. on Rom. vi. 10. It isa perversion of the
passage to make it refer, as Billroth does, to the preceding depreciation of
the supposed merits of the teachers : ‘but what still remains for them is, that
they can at least strive for the praise of faithfulness.” The rest of the verse
says nothing at all about a being able to strive ; for ζητεῖται ἔν means nothing
else but : it is sought at their hand (requiritur), i.e. demanded of them. Bee
Wetstein, Hofmann’s interpretation, too, is an impossible one. He makes
ὁ δὲ λοιπόν down to εὑρεθῇ to be the protasis ; ἐμοὶ δὲ x.7.4., and that running
on as far as κύριός ἐστιν in ver. 4, to be the apodosis : As respects that, how-
ever, which . . . is further required, namely, that one be found faithful, it
is to me, etc. This interpretation gives us, instead of the simple, clearly
progressive sentences of the apostle, along, obscurely and clumsily involved
period, against which on linguistic grounds there are the two considera-
tions—(1) that ὃ δὲ λοιπὸν ζητεῖται Would presuppose some demand already
conveyed in ver. 1, to which a new one was now added ; and (2) that the
δέ of the apodosis in ver. 3 would require to find its antithetic reference in
the alleged protasis in ver. 2 (comp. Acts xi. 17 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 92
f.), namely, to this effect : to me, on the contrary, not concerned about this
required faithfulness, it is, etc. Now the first is not the case, and the second
would be absurd. Neither the one difficulty nor the other is removed by
the arbitrarily inserted thoughts, which Hofmann seeks to read between the
lines.?—iva] is sought with the design, that there be found. Hence the object
of the seeking is conveyed in the form expressive of design. That εὑρίσκεσθαι
is not equivalent to εἶναι (Wolff, Flatt, Pott, and others) is plain here, espe-
cially from the correlation in which it stands to ζητεῖται. --- τις] 1.6. any one of
them. See Matthiae, p. 1079 ; Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 299, ed. 3. —
πιστός Luke xii. 42, xvi. 10 ff.; Matt. xxv. 21 ff.; Eph. vi. 21, al. The
summing up of the duties of spiritual service.
Ver. 3. I, for my part, however, feel myself in no way made dependent on
your judgment by this ζητεῖται x.7.2. — εἰς ἐλάχιστόν ἐστιν] εἰς, in the sense of
giving the result : it comes to something utterly insignificant, evinces itself as
in the highest degree unimportant. Comp. Pindar, OJ. 1. 122: ἐς χάριν
τέλλεται, Plato, Ale. I. p. 126 A ; Buttmann, neutest. Gramm. p. 181 [E. T.
150]. —iva] does not stand for ὅταν (Pott), nor does it take the place of the
construction with the infinitive (so most interpreters) ; but the conception
of design, which is essential to iva, isin the mind of the writer, and has
1 This ἐν τοῖς οἰκονόμ. is not “uncalled
for and superfluous” after ὧδε (as Hofmann
objects) ; for Paul had, in ver. 1, described
the official service of the teachers by fo
designations, but now desires to attach
what more he has to sayin ver. 2 specially
to the second of these designations, and
hence > he has again to bring in the οἰκονόμοι.
2In λοιπόν he finds: ‘‘ Besides this, that
the stewards act in accordance with their
name.’’ By the antithetic ἐμοὶ δέ, again,
Paul means: ‘‘in contrast to those who
conduct themselves as thovgh he must con-
sider it of importance to him.” By inter-
polations of this sort, everything may be
moulded into what shape one will.
CHAP. IV., 4. 89
given birth to the expression. The thought is : I have an exceedingly slight
interest in the design of receiving your judgment. — ἀνακριθῶ) ‘‘ fidelisne
sim nec ne,” Bengel. — ἢ ὑπὸ ἀνθρ. ἡμ.] or by a human day at all. The day,
i.e. the day of judgment, on which a human sentence is to go forth upon me,
is personified. It forms a contrast with the ἡμέρα Κυρίου, which Paul pro-
ceeds hereafter, not indeed to name, but to describe, see ver. 5. — ἀλλ᾽ οὐδέ]
yea, not even, as in 111. 2. — ἐμαυτόν] Billroth and Riickert think that the
contrast between the persons properly demanded αὐτὸς éuavr. here, which,
however, has been overlooked by Paul. But the active expression ἐμαυτὸν
avaxpivw is surely the complete contrast to the passive ὑφ᾽ iu. avaxp.; hence
αὐτός might, indeed, have been added to strengthen the statement, but there
was no necessity for its being so.—The ἀνακρίνειν in the whole verse is neither
to be understood solely of unfavourable, nor solely of favourable judging,
but of any sort of judging regarding one’s worth in general. See vv. 4, 5.
Ver. 4. Parenthetical statement of the ground of Paul’s not even judging
himself (οὐδὲν. . . dedux.), and then the antithesis (dé : but indeed) to the
above οὐδὲ ἐμαυτ. avaxpivw. — γάρ] The element of proof lies neither in the
first clause alone (Hofmann), nor in the second clause alone, so that the
first would be merely concessive (Baumgarten, Winer, Billroth, Riickert,
who supplies μέν here again, de Wette, Osiander), but in the antithetic rela-
tion of both clauses, wherein ἀλλά has the force of at, not of ‘‘ sondern :” I
judge not my own self, because Tam conscious to myself of nothing, but am not
thereby justified, i.e. because my pure (official, see ver. 2) self-consciousness
(comp. Acts xxiii. 1, xxiv. 16 ; 2 Cor. i. 12) is still not the ground on which
my justification rests. As regards the expression, comp. Plato, Apol. p. 21 B:
οὔτε μέγα οὔτε σμικρὸν ξύνοιδα ἐμαυτῷ σοφὸς ὦν, Rep. p. 331 A ; and Horace, Hp.
1. 1. 61: ‘‘nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa ;” Job xxvii. 0. --- οὐκ ἐν
τούτῳ dedix.| is ordinarily understood wrongly : ‘‘ I do not on that account
look upon myself as guiltless.” For the words οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ, negativing justifi-
cation by a good conscience, make it clear that δεδικ. expresses the cus-
tomary conception of being justified by faith (see on Rom. i. 17 ; so rightly,
Calovius, Billroth, Riickert), since, on the view just referred to, we must
have had ἐν τούτῳ οὐ. The οὐ isas little in its wrong place here as in xv. 51.
Note that the δεδικαίωμαι is to the apostle an undoubted certain fact ;* hence
1 Paul’s thought has run thus :—‘‘ Were I until the judgment. Acdicatwuar, however,
justified by my conscience free of reproach,
then I should be entitled to pass judgment
on myself, namely, just in accordance with
the standard of the said conscience. But
seeing that I am not justified by this con-
science (but by Christ), it cannot even serve
me as a standard for self-judgment, and I
must refrain therefrom, and leave the judg-
ment regarding me to Christ.”” This applies
also against de Wette, who holds our exposi-
tion to be contrary to the context, because
what follows is not ὁ δὲ δικαιῶν, but ὁ δὲ ava-
κρίνων. Moreover, the further imputation
of moral desert is certainly not done away
with by justification, but it remains in force
does not refer to the being found righteous
at the day of judgment (against Lipsius,
Rechtfertiqungsl. p. 48), but,as the perfect
shows, to the righteousness obtained by
faith, which to the consciousness of the
apostle was at all times a present blessing.
—Ohbserve, further, how alien to Paul was
the conception that the conscience is the
expression of the real divine life in the man.
Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 141.
2 So precisely Ignatius, ad Rom. 5: ἀλλ᾽ οὐ
παρὰ τοῦτο δεδικαίωμαι. The certitudo gratiae
is expressed but as not based upon ‘the con-
science void of reproach.
90 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
we may not explain it, with Hofmann : Not thereby am I pronounced
righteous as respects faithfulness in the fulfilment of my office, but only if (Ὁ)
the Lord shall charge me with no neglect of duty. That would plainly
make the δεδικαίωμαι problematic.’ — Κύριος] Christ, ver. 5.
Ver. 5. Therefore judge nothing before the time, namely, with respect tome ;
not as Billroth thinks : one sect regarding another, which is inadmissible in
view of the preceding dvaxp. μὲ and of the whole passage, vv. 3, 4, which all
applies to Paul. The process of thought from ver. 3 onwards is, namely,
this : ‘‘ For my part, you may judge meif you will, I make very little of that ;
but (ver. 4) seeing that I do not even judge myself, but that he that judgeth me
is Christ, I therefore counsel you (ver. 5) not to pass a judgment upon me pre-
maturely.”” —mpd καιροῦ) i.e. before it is the right time, Matt. viii. 29 ;
Eccles. xxx. 24, li. 30; Lucian, Jov. Trag. 47. How long such judging
would continue to be πρὸ καιροῦ, we learn only from what comes after ;
hence we must not by anticipation assign to καιρός the specific sense of
tempus reditus Christi. — τι] t.€. κρίσιν τινά, John vii. 24. — κρίνετε] describes
the passing of the judgment, the consequence of the avaxp., in a manner accord-
ant with the looking forward to the Messianic judgment. Luther, Raphel,
and Wolf render: aliwm alii praeferte ; but this runs counter to the context,
for it must be analogous to the general avaxp. ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ x.] Epexegesis of
πρὸ καιροῦ : judge not before the time (judge not, I say), until the Lord
shall have come. Then only is it a καίριον κρίνειν, because then only can the
judgment be pronounced rightly according to the Lord’s decision. The av
marks out the coming as in 80 far problematical (depending upon circum-
stances; see Hartung, Partikell. p. 291), inasmuch as it was not, indeed,
doubted, and yet at the same time not dependent upon subjective determi-
nation, but an object of expectant faith in the unknown future. Comp.
Matt. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1; Luke ix. 27, xiii. 35; Rev. ii. 25. — ὃς καί] καί is
the also customary with the relative, the effect of which is to bring into
prominence some element in keeping with what has gone before (Baeumlein,
Partik. p. 152 ; Buttmann, nevt. Gr. p. 243 [E. T. 283]). In His function
as Judge, in which He is to come, He will do this also, He will light up, #.e.
make manifest, what is hidden in the darkness. Respecting φωτίσει, comp.
Eccles. xxiv. 32 ; 2 Tim. i. 10; Plut. Mor. p. 931 C, and the passages in
Wetstein. What withdraws itself from the light as its opposite (Hofmann,
who takes καὶ. . . καί as meaning as well, as also) is included here, but not
that alone. Compare rather the general statement in Luke viii. 17. — καὶ
gavep. τ. βουλ. τῶν καρδ.} a special element selected from the foregoing
general affirmation. The significant bearing of what Paul here affirms of
Christ at His coming is the application which the readers were to make of
it to himself and the other teachers ; it was to be understood, namely, that
their true character also would only then become manifest, i.e. be laid open
as an object of knowledge, but now was not yet submitted to jadgment.—
kai τότε... Θεοῦ] so that ye can only then pass judgment on your teachers
1 [Most critics agree that there ishere no question of his fidelity was one not to be
reference to the doctrine of justification, decided by his conscience, but by the Lord.
and that all the Apostle means is thatthe —T. W. C.]
ae
OHAP. TV;, 6: 91
with sure (divine) warrant for what ye do. The chief emphasis is upon the
ἀπὸ τ. Θεοῦ, which is for that reason put at the end (Kiihner, II. p. 625), and
next to it upon what is placed first, ὁ ἔπαινος. This does not mean praemiuwm
(so Flatt, with older expositors, citing wrongly in support of it such pus-
sages as Rom. ii. 29, xiii. 3; 1 Pet. i. 7, 11. 14; Wisd. xv. 19; Polybius,
ii. 58. 11), nor is it a vox media (as, following Casaubon, ad Hpict. 67, Wolf,
Rosenmiiller, Pott, and others assume wholly without proof); but it denotes
simply the praise, the commendation. The apparent incongruity with ἑκάστῳ
is obviated by the article: the praise that appertains to him (Bernhardy,
p- 315) shall be given to each,—so that Paul here puts entirely owt of sight
those who deserve no praise at all. And rightly so. For his readers were
to apply this to him and Apollos ; hence, as Calvin justly remarks : ‘‘haec
vox ex bonae conscientiae fiducia nascitur.” See ver. 4. Theophylact’s view,
although adopted by many, is an arbitrary one : ‘‘ unde et contrarium datur
intelligi, sed mavult εὐφημεῖν," Grotius (so also Bengel, Billroth, Riickert,
Olshausen). —az6 τ. Θεοῦ] not from men, as ye now place and praise the one
above the other, but on the part on God ; for Christ the Judge is God’s
vicegerent and representative, John vy. 27 ff. ; Acts x. 42, xvii. 31; Rom.
ii. 16, al.
Vv. 6-13. Now, what I have hitherto given utterance to in a manner appli-
cable to myself and Apollos, has for its object to wean you from party-pride
(ver. 6). Rebuke of this pride (vv. 7-18).
Ver. 6. Aé] pursuing the subject ; the apostle turns now to the jinal re-
monstrances and rebukes which he has to give in reference to the party-
division among them ; in doing so, he addresses his readers generally (not
the teachers) as ἀδελφοί with a winning warmth of feeling, as in 1. 11. —
ταῦτα] from iii. 5 onwards, where he brings in himself and Apollos specially
and by name, assigning to both their true position and its limits to be ob-
served by them with all humility, and then appending to this the further
instructions which he gives up toiv. 5. Taira isnot to be made to refer back
to i. 12, where Paul and Apollos are not named alone (so Baur, following
older expositors). — μετεσχήμ. εἰς ἐμαυτ. x. ᾿Απολλώ] I have changed the form of
at into myself and Apollos, i.e. I have, instead of directing my discourse to
others, upon whom it might properly have been moulded, written in such
fashion in an altered form, that what has been said applies now to myself
and Apollos. It is on account of the contrast with others which floats before
the apostle’s mind, that he writes not simply εἰς ἐμέ, but eic ἐμαυτόν 5 εἰς,
again, denotes the reference of this change of form to the parties concerned.
Respecting μετασχηματίζειν, to transform, comp. 2 Cor. xi. 14, Phil. iii. 21 ;
Symm. 1 Sam. xxviii. 8; 4 Macc. ix. 21 ; Plato, Legg. x. p. 903 E, 906 C
(ῥῆμα μετεσχηματισμένον) ; Lucian, Imag. 9, Hale. 5 ; Heliodorus, ii. p. 93.
The σχῆμα, to which the word here refers, is the form in which the fore-
going statements have been presented, which has been other than the con-
crete state of the case at Corinth would properly have involved ; for he
has so moulded it as to make that bear upon himself and Apollos, which
more properly should have applied to others. Now, who are those others?
Not the order of teachers generally (Calovius, Billroth, de Wette, Neander,
92 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
et al., also my own former view), for in that case we should have no change
of form, but only a specializing ; but rather: the instigators of parties in
Corinth, with their self-exaltation and jealousy, as is clear from the fol-
lowing clause stating the design in view, and from ver. 7 ff. It was they
who split up the church and infected it with their own evil qualities. But
from Paul and Apollos the readers were to learn to give up all such conduct,
—from those very men, who had respectively founded and built up the
church, but who by these partisans had been stamped with the character
of heads of sects and so misused, to the grievous hurt of the Christian com-
munity. Baur’s explanation is contrary to the notion of μετεσχημ., but in
favour of his own theory about the Christ-party : what has been said of
me and Apollos holds also of the other parties ; this not applying, however,
to τοὺς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Who are to be regarded as forming a peculiar party by
themselves. Lastly, it is also a mistake (see Introd. ὃ 1) to interpret it
with Chrysostom, Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, and others :
‘‘T have put our names as jictitious in place of those of the actual leaders of
parties ;’* or to hold, with Pareus and Mosheim, that μετασχ. refers to the
homely jigures which Paul has used of himself and Apollos (gardeners,
husbandmen, builders, house-stewards), from which the readers were to
learn humility. These figures were surely lofty enough, since they repre-
sented the teachers as Θεοῦ συνεργοίς | Moreover, the figures in themselves
plainly could not teach the Corinthians humility ; the lesson must lie in
the intrinsic tenor of the ideas conveyed. —’A7ro/24] the same form of the
accusative as in Acts xix. 1. A Β x* have ᾿Απολλών. See regarding both
forms, Buttmann’s ausf. Gr. I. p. 207 f. ; Kiihner, § 124, ed. 2. —dv ὑμᾶς]
not in any way for our own sakes. — iva ἐν ἡμῖν x.7.2.| more precise explana-
tion of the dv’ ὑμᾶς (‘‘ instructionis vestrae causa,” Estius) : in order that ye
might learn by us (Winer, p. 361 [E. T. 483]), that is to say, by having us
before you as an example of shunning undue self-exaltation, in accordance
with what I have stated regarding our official position, duty, responsibility,
etc. —r0 μὴ ὑπὲρ ὃ yéyp.| The elliptical : ‘‘ not above what is written,” is made
to rank as a substantive by the τό (Matthiae, ὃ 280) ; for φρονεῖν is spurious
(see the critical remarks). The suppression of the verb after μή in lively
discourse is common in the classics. See Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 153 ;
Kiihner, II. p. 607 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 607. The short, terse μὴ ὑπὲρ ὃ
yéyp. may have been an old and familiar saying of the Rabbins (Ewald) ;
only Paul never quotes such elsewhere. —@ yéyp. is by Luther and most ex-
positors (including Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Heydenreich, Pott, Billroth,
Neander) made to refer to what Paul has written in the preceding section.
But Grotius hits the truth in the matter when he says : γέγραπται in his
libris semper ad libros VY. T. refertur. Only Grotius should not have re-
ferred it to a single passage (Deut. xvii. 20 ; comp. also Olshausen) which
the readers could not be expected to divine. It denotes generally the rule
1 Michaelis: “1 know quite well that no fence,” etc. But, as Calovius justly ob-
sect among you calls itself after myself or _ serves, the μετασχηματισμός is here not “ per
Apollos... ; the true names I ratherre- _fictionis, sed per figurationis modum.”’
frain from giving, in order to avoid of-
le ete tis
CHAP, TV.,°6: 93
written in the O. T., which is not to be transgressed ; and this means here,
according to the context, the rule of humility and modesty, within the bounds
of which a man will not be vainly puffed up, nor will presume to claim
anything that lies beyond the limits of the ethical canon of the Scriptures.
Comp. Riickert, Reiche, Ewald. And Paul could the more readily express
himself in this general way, inasmuch as all the quotations hitherto made
by him from the O. T. (i. 19, 31, iii. 19) exhorted to humility. It is
against the context to suppose, with Cajetanus and Beza, that the reference
is to the dogmatic standard of the O. T., which was not to be transcended
by pretended wisdom. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact went so
far as to refer it to sayings of Christ (such as Mark x. 44 ; Matt. vii. 1;
Theodoret even adds to these (1 Cor. vii. 24), which neither Paul nor his
readers could think of in connection with the habitually used yéyp.—With-
out having the slightest support in the use and wont of the language (for
in passages like Pindar, Nem. vi. 13, Eur. Jon. 446 [455], γράφειν has just
the ordinary force of to write), and wholly in the face of the N. T. usage of
γέγραπται, Hofmann brings in here the general notion of the definite measure
which is ascribed, adjusted to each by God (Rom. xii. 3). Nor is any coun-
tenance lent to this interpretation by γράμμα in Thue. v. 29. 4 ; for that
means a written clause (see Kriiger). What Paul means is the objective
sacred rule of the Scriptures, the presumptuous disregard of which was the
source of the mischief at Corinth ; ‘‘ulews aperit,” Beza. — iva μὴ εἰς ὑπὲρ
k.7.2.] For one another against the other, is a telling description of the parti-
san procedure ! The members of a party plumed themselves to such an ex-
tent on their own advantages, that one did so in behalf of the other (ὑπέρ,
comp. 2 Cor. ix. 2), seeking thereby mutually among themselves to main-
tain and exalt their own reputation (εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνός), and that with hostile
tendency towards the third person, who belonged to another party (κατὰ τοῦ
érépov). Olshausen understands ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνός of their owtbidding each other
in pretensions, which, however, would require the accusative with ὑπέρ ;
and Winer, p. 358 [E. T. 478], renders : ‘‘so that he deems himself exalted
above the other ;” against which—apart from the fact that ὑπέρ with the
genitive does not occur in this sense in the N. T. (see, moreover, Matthiae,
p. 1360)—the immediate context is conclusive, according to which it is he
only who is despised by the φυσιούμενος, who can be the ἕτερος (the different
one) ; and just as εἷς stands in antithetie correlation with τοῦ ἑτέρου, 80 ὑπέρ
also does with κατά ; comp. Rom. viii. 31 ; Mark ix. 40. The ordinary in-
terpretation is: ‘‘ On account of the teacher, whom he has chosen to be his
head,” Riickert ; comp. Reiche, Ewald, Hofmann. But like εἷς, so ὑπὲρ τοῦ
ἑνός also must refer to the collective subject of φυσιοῦσθε, and consequently
both of them together convey the same sense as ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων, only in a more
concrete way. Comp. 1 Thess. v. 11.; Susann. 52 ; Ecclus. xlii. 24 f. ;
1 Mace. xiii. 28; often, too, in Greek writers. — The φυσιοῦσθαι of a εἷς ὑπὲρ
τοῦ ἑνός takes place κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου in the jealous wranglings of mutually op-
posing parties reciprocally, so that each has always full room for the κατὰ τοῦ
ἑτέρου (against Hofmann’s objection). — φυσιοῦσθε] the present indicative after
wa occurs only here and in Gal. iv. 17. The instances of it, wont to be ad-
94 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
duced from classical writers, have been long since given up. See Her-
mann, ad Viger. p. 851 f. ; Schneider, ad Xen. Ath. i. 11. The passages,
again, in Kypke and Valckenaer, where iva is found with the past indicative,
were wholly inapplicable here. Comp. on Gal. iv. 17, note ; Stallbaum,
ad Plat. Symp. p. 181 E. On these grounds Billroth and Riickert assume
that Paul had meant to form the subjunctive, but had formed it wrongly ;
so too, before them, Bengel characterized the form as a ‘‘singularis ratio
contractionis ;” and Reiche also, in his Comment. crit. I. Ὁ. 152, satisfies
himself with the notion of an erroneously formed contraction. As if we
were warranted in taking for granted that the most fluent in language of
the apostles could not be safely trusted with forming the mood of a verb in
ow ! Winer finds here an improper usage of the later Greek.’ But, apart
from the absence of all proof for this usage in the apostolic age (it can only
be proved in much later writings, as also in modern Greek ; see Winer,
p. 272 [E. T. 8027), had Paul adopted it, he would have brought it in
oftener, and not have written correctly in every other case ;* least of all,
too, would he have put the indicative here, when he had just used the cor-
rect subjunctive immediately before it (μάθητε). Fritzsche (ad Matth. p. 836)
took iva as ubi, and explained : ‘‘wbi (i.e. gua conditione, quando demisse
de vobis statuere nostro exemplo didiceritis) minime alter in alterius detri-
mentum extollitur.” At a later date (in Fritzschiorum opuse. p. 186 ff.) he
wished to resort to emendation, namely : iva ’ev ἡμῖν μάθητε τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ὃ yéypar-
ται φρονεῖν, Eva μὴ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθαι κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου (80,
too, very nearly Theodoret). But although it might easily enough have
happened that iva μή should be written by mistake in place of ἕνα μῆ, the
consequence of that mistake would in that case necessarily have been the
alteration of φυσιοῦσθαι," not into φυσιοῦσθε, but into φυσιῶσθε, and the sub-
junetive, not the indicative, must therefore have had the preponderance of
critical evidence in its favour (but it is found, in point of fact, only in 44,
Chrys. ms.). The only explanation of iva which is in accordance with the
laws of the language, and therefore the only admissible one, is that given
by Fritzsche, ad Matth. 1.6. ; iva cannot be the particle of design, because it
is followed by the indicative ; it must, on the contrary, be the local particle,
where, and that in the sense of whereby, under which relation, so that it ex-
presses the position of the case (Homer, Od. vi. 27; Plato, Gorg. p. 484 E ;
Sophocles, Oed. Col. 627, 1239 ; Eur. Hee. ii. 102, 711, Andoc. vi. 9, al. ;
1 So, too, Wieseler on Gal. p. 378; Hof-
mann on Gal. p. 138. Barnab. 7: wa.
δεῖ, is an earlier example than any adduced
by Winer and Wieseler. But how easily δεῖ
might have been written here by mistake
for δῇ, which is so similarin sound! (comp.
Dressel, p. 17). Should δεῖ, however, be the
original reading, then iva may just as well
be πδὲ, as in our passage. The readings
adere and peréxere in Ignatius, ad Eph. 4, are
dubious (Dressel, p. 124).—Buttmann’s con-
jecture (neut. Gr. Ὁ. 202 [E. T. 235]), that the
contracted presents, on account of the
final syllable having the circumflex, repre-
sent the futures, is totally destitute of
proof.
21 Thess. iv. 13 included (against Tischen-
dorf).—In Col. iv. 17, 7Anpots is subjunctive.
—As respects Lachmann’s erroneous read-
ing, 2 Pet. i. 10, Wieseler, p. 379, is right.—
In John xvii. 3, Gal. vi. 12, Tit. ii. 4, Rom.
xiii. 17, the indicative readings are to be re-
jected (in opposition to Tischendorf).
3 The δὲ, too, has φυσιουσϑαι, But how
often does that codex interchange a and εἰ
Immediately before it has γεγραπτε instead
of γεγραπται.
CHAP. IY., 7. 95
also Schaefer, ad Soph. O. C. 621 ; and Baeumlein, Partik. p. 143 f.). What
Paul says then is this : in order that ye may learn the ne ultra quod scriptum
est, whereby (i.e. in the observance of which rule) ye then (φυσιοῦσθε is the future
realized as present) do not puff up yourselves, etc. Suitable though it wauld
be, and in accordance with the apostle’s style (Rem. vii. 13 ; Gal. iii. 14,
iv. 5; 2 Cor. ix. 3), that a second telic iva should follow upon the first,
still the linguistic impossibility here must turn the scale against it. To
put down the indicative to the account of the transcribers has against it the
‘almost unanimous agreement of the critical evidence in excluding the sub-
junctive (which would be inexplicable, on the supposition of the indicative
not being the original). Again, to trace it back to the origin of the Epistle
by assuming that Paul made a slip in dictating, or his amanuensis in taking
down his words, is all the more unwarranted, seeing that the self-same phe-
nomenon recurs in Gal. iv. 17, while the clause here, as it stands, admits of
a rendering which gives a good sense and is grammatically correct.’ The
subjective form of the negation μή, in the relative clause, has arisen from
the design cherished by Paul, and floating before his mind. Comp. e.g.
Sophocles, Trach. 797: μέθες ἐνταῦθ᾽ ὅπου we μή τις ὄψεται βροτῶν ; and see
Baeumlein, wt supra, Ὁ. 290 ; Winer, p. 447 [E. T. 603].
Ver. 7. The words ἵνα μὴ. . . ἑτέρου are now justified by two consider-
ations—(1) No one maketh thee to differ; it is an imaginary difference of
thine own making, which thou settest between thee and others. (2) What
thou possessest thou hast not from thyself, and it is absurd to boast thyself of
it as though it were thine own work. Hofmann holds that Paul in his first
proposition glances at his own difference from others, and in his second at
the gifts of Apollos; but this is neither indicated in the text, nor would it
accord with the fact that he and Apollos are to be examples of humility to
the readers, but not examples to humble them—namely, by high position and
gifts. — σέ] applies to each individual of the preceding ὑμεῖς, not therefore
simply to the sectarian teachers (Pott, following Chrysostom and several of
the old expositors). — The literal sense of διακρίνει is to be retained. The
Vulgate rightly renders : ‘‘ Quis enim te discernit?” Comp. Acts xv. 9;
Homer, Od. iv. 179; Plato, Soph. p. 258 E, Charm. p. 171 C. This of
course refers, in point of fact, to supposed pre-eminence ; but Paul will not
describe it as pre-eminence (contrary to the common rendering : Who maketh
thee to differ for the better ?). —ri δὲ ἔχεις x.t.A.] dé, like that which follows,
heaps question on question. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 169. To what
Paul is pointing in the general : ‘‘ But what possessest thou,” etc., their own
conscience told his readers, and it is clear also from the next question, that,
namely, of which they boasted, their Christian insight, wisdom, eloquence,
and the like. He certainly did not think of himself and the other teachers
as the sowrce (ἔλαβες) of the gifts (Semler, Heydenreich, Pott), which would
be quite contrary to his humble piety, but : οὐδὲν οἴκοθεν ἔχεις, ἀλλὰ παρὰ
τοῦ θεοῦ λαβών, Chrysostom. Comp. iii. 5, xii. 6, xv. 10. — εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐλ.
1 [Still it is better with most critics to take foot says is not unusual in the later writers.
the particle as a conjunction and consider —T. W. C.J
the phrase a solecism, which Bishop Light- .
96 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
again, even if thou hast received, even if thou hast been endowed with gifts,
which I will by no means deny. Εἰ καί is not meant to represent the pos-
session of them as problematical (Riickert), but is concessive. Comp. 2
Cor. iv. 8. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 832 ; comp. Hartung, I. p. 140 f. ;
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 519 f. — τί καυχᾶσαι x.t.A.]| οὐδεὶς ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρίαις παρακαταθή-
Kale μεγαφρονεῖ, ἐπαγρυπνεῖ δὲ ταύταις, iva φυλάξῃ τῷ δεδωκότι, Theodoret.
Ver. 8. The discourse, already in ver. 7 roused to a lively pitch, becomes
now bitterly ironical, heaping stroke on stroke, even as the proud Corinthi-
ans, with their partisan conduct, needed a νουθεσία (ver. 14) to teach them-
humility. The transition, too, from the individualizing singular to the
plural corresponds to the rising emotion. The interrogative way of taking
the passage (Baumgarten) weakens it without reason ; for the disapproval
of such bitter derision (Stolz, Riickert) is, in the first place, over-hasty,
since Paul could not but know best how he had to chastise the Corinthians;
and, in the second, it fails to recognize the fact, that he, just in conse-
quence of the purity of his conscience, could give rein to the indignant
temper amply warranted in him by the actual position of things, without
justifying the suspicion of self-seeking and thirst for power (this in opposi-
tion to Riickert). —In κεκορ. ἐστέ, ἐπλουτ., and ἐβασιλ., we have a vehement
climax : Already sated are ye, already become rich are ye; without our help y-
have attained to dominion! The sarcastic force of this address, which shows
the repulsive shape in which the inflated character and demeanour of the
Corinthians presented itself, is intensified by the emphatically prefixed ἤδη
. ἤδη ANA χωρὶς ἡμῶν : ‘‘ already ye have, what was expected only in the
coming αἰών, fulness of satisfaction and of enrichment in Messianic bless-
ings ; without our help (mine and that of Apollos, ver. 6) are ye arrived at
the highest stage of Messianic power and glory, at the βασιλεία 1” You have
already reached such a pitch of Christian perfection, are become without us
such mightily exalted and dominant personages, and there is presented in
you an anticipation of the future Messianic satisfaction, of the Messianic
fulness of possession and dominion. Ordinarily, κεκορ. and ἐπλουτ. (comp.
Rev. iii. 17) have been taken as referring specially to Christian knowledge
and other endowments (comp. i. 5), and ἐβασιλ. either as referring likewise
to knowledge, the highest degree of it being meant (Vater, Heydenreich),
or to high prosperity and repute in general (Calvin, Justiniani, Lightfoot,
Wetstein, Flatt, Pott), or to the quiet security in which kings live (Grotius),
or to the ‘‘dominium et jus statuendi de rebus Christianis” (Semler), or to
the domination of the one sect over the other (Estius), or of the teacher over
his party (Billroth is undecided between these two views). But all these
interpretations fail to do justice to the sarcastic method of expression, although
they in part correctly enough describe the state of the case, which is here
ironically presented. (s) The right view may be seen in Hofmann also. In
connection with the ἐβασιλ. left without being more precisely defined, ncthing
came so naturally and at once to the Christian consciousness as the thought
of the Messianic βασιλεία. And how well this idea corresponds to the wish
? So rightly also Schrader, Riickert, de mann. Comp. Olshausen (who, however,
Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Neander, Hof- gives a rationalizing view of the ruling).
CHAP. IV., 9. oF
which follows ! If, however, ἐβασ. applies to the Messianic ruling (see on
ili. 22 ; Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 370), and consequently to the συμβασιλεύειν of
2 Tim. ii. 12, comp. Rom. viii. 17, then in that case κεκορ. and ἐπλουτ. also,
to preserve the symmetry of this ironical picture, must be understood in the
sense of the Messianic consummation of all things, and must denote the
being full and rich κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (namely, in the blessings of the Messianic
salvation), which for the Christian consciousness did not need to be partic-
ularly specified. Comp. Matt. v. 6; 2 Cor. viii. 9. The perfect brings
before us the state, the aorists the fact of having entered upon the possession.
See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 18. As to ἤδη, ὁ.6. now already, see on John
iv. 35. — χωρὶς ἡμῶν] without whose work, in fact, you would not be Chris-
tians at all !—xai ὄφελόν ye x.7.A.] and (the thought suddenly striking his
mind) would that ye had indeed attained to dominion! In the later Greek
writers ὄφελον is used as a particle, and joined with the indicative, 2 Cor. xi.
1; Gal. v. 12. See Matthiae, p. 1162. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 185 [E. T.
214 f.]. Τέ strengthens the force of ὄφελον ; see Hartung, Partikell. I. Ὁ.
372 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 55 f. The thought is: ‘‘ Apart from this,
that ye have without us become rulers, would that ye had at least (γέ) become
such! Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 281 f. —iva x. ἡμεῖς ὑμῖν συμβασ. Ye
would doubtless in that case, Paul deems, suffer us also to have some share
(beside you) in your government! The subjunctive is quite according to
rule (in opposition to Riickert), seeing that ἐβασιλ. denotes something com-
pleted from the speaker’s present point of view (have become rulers), and see-
ing that the design appears as one still subsisting in the present. See
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 617 f. ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Crit. p. 43 B. — Observe,
we may add, how the sarcastic climax ends at last with «ai ὄφελόν ye «.7.A. in
a way fitted to put the readers deeply to shame. Comp. Chrysostom.
Ver. 9. Tép] giving the ground of the foregoing wish : Yor the position
of us apostles is to my mind such, that to us the συμβασ. would even be a thing
very desirable! It is precisely the reverse of that !— In δοκῶ we have a pal-
pable point in the statement. Comp. on vii. 40. Without ὅτι following,
see in Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. v. 7. 18. — ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀπ.] does not refer sim-
ply to Paul (Calvin and others, including Schrader and Olshausen), which
is forbidden by τοὺς ἀπ., but to the apostles generally. The designation τοὺς
ἀποστ. is added by way of contrast to their position, in which they, instead
of being at all privileged as apostles, were ἔσχατοι. Observe further, how
in this passage, on to ver. 13, Paul paints his picture of the apostles in col-
ours drawn from his own personal experience. —éoydrovc] Predicate : as
homines infimae sortis. Comp. Mark ix. 35 ; Alciphr. iii. 48 ; Dio Cassius,
xlii. 5 ; Dem. 346, pen. It is joined with ἀποστ. by Erasmus, Castalio,
Beza, and others, including Semler and Pott: ‘‘Deus nos, qui postremi
apostoli facti fuimus, tamquam ἐπίθαν. oculis alior. sistit” (Pott). But in
that case we should require to have τοὺς ἀπ. τοὺς éox., or at least τοὺς ἐσχ.
ἀπ., because ἐσχ. would necessarily be the emphatic word ; and at any rate,
looked at generally, this would give us an inappropriate and unhistorical
contrast between the experiences of the later apostles and those of the first.
-- ἀπέδειξεν] not : fecit, reddidit, but : He has set us forth, presented us as last,
98 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
caused us to appear as such before the eyes of the world (see the following
θέατρον x.7.A.). Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 4; Plat. Conv. p. 179 C ; Dem. 687.
11 ; Xen. Oec. v. 10 ; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 72 C. — ὡς ἐπιθανατ.
as men condemned to death, so that we appear as such. How true in view of
their constant exposure to deadly perils! Comp. xv. 80 f. ; 2 Cor. xi. 23
ff. Tertullian’s rendering (de pudic. 14): ‘‘veluti bestiarios,” although
adopted by Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius 4 Lapide, Michaelis, Schrader,
and others, is an arbitrary limitation of the meaning. The correct expla-
nation is given by Chrysostom and Theophylact. Comp. Dion. Hal. vii. 35.
— bri θέατρον éyev. x.7.4.] serves to make good the statement from δοκῶ to
ἐπιθαν. ; hence it isa mistake to write 6, τε and connect it with 6éarp., as
Hofmann conjectures should be done (‘‘ which spectacle we have in truth
become to the world”). The meaning is: seeing that we have become a spee-
tacle, etc. Θέατρον is here like θέα or θέαμα, as Aesch. Dial. Soer. iii. 20 ;
Ach. Tat. I. p. ὅδ. Comp. θεατρίζεσθαι, Heb. x. 33 ; ἐκθεατρίζεσθαι, Polyb. iii.
91. 10, v. 15. 2. —xai ayy. x. avOp.] specializes the τῷ κόσμῳ : to the whole
world, both angels and men. The inhabitants of heaven and of earth gaze
upon our hardships and persecutions as on a spectacle. — The word ἄγγελοι in
the N. T., standing absolutely, is never used of the good and bad angels taken
together (this against Zeger, Bengel, Olshausen, a/.), nor of the bad alone
(this against Vatablus, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and others, including Flatt
and Neander), but always only of the angels κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, .6. of the good
angels (comp. on Rom. viii. 38). Where it refers to the bad angels, it
always has some addition defining it so (Matt. xxv. 41 ; 2 Cor. xii. 7; 2
Pet. ii. 4; Jude 6). Hahn’s objection is a trifling one (Theol. d. N. T. I.
p. 261) : that the angelic world generally is meant ; comp. also Hofmann.
Yes, but the evil angels are no longer therein ; see on Eph. ii. 2. Some
have thought that we must bring in the dad angels, because θέατρον involves
the idea : a subject of mirth and mockery. But this is purely arbitrary. The
particular interest felt by the spectators in the drama of the apostolic fort-
unes might be very various, and even opposite in its nature ; it is not here
taken into consideration at all. Theodoret says well: πᾶσιν εἰς ϑεωρίαν
πρόκειται τὰ ἡμέτερα᾽ ἄγγελοι μὲν yap τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀνδρίαν ϑαυμάζουσι, τῶν dé
ἀνϑρώπων οἱ μὲν ἐφήδονται τοῖς ἡμετέροις παϑήμασιν, οἱ δὲ συναλγοῦσι μὲν, ἐπαμῦναι
δὲ οὐκ ἰσχύουσιν. The way in which the angels come in here, therefore, must
not be regarded as simply proverbial and figurative (Baur). (Kk)
Ver. 10. What very different sort of people ye are from us / — μωροὶ διὰ X. |
for, because we concern ourselves about nothing else save Christ the cruci-
fied, are bent on knowing Him only, and on having nothing to do with the
world’s wisdom (comp. ii. 2), we are foolish, weak-minded men, for Christ’s
sake. Comp. i. 18, 96. --- φρόνιμοι ἐν X.] wise men are ye in your connection
with Christ, sagacious, enlightened Christians ! Observe, that Paul could
not write again διὰ X. ; the Christian pseudo-wisdom had other motives.
The nature of the irony, ‘‘ plena aeculeis” (Calvin), with which he scourges
the worldly state of things at Corinth, does not allow us to supply anything
else here but ἐσμέν and ἐστέ. ---- ἀσϑενεῖς} weak and powerless. For in trem-
bling and humility they came forward, making little of human agency,
CHAP. Iv., 11-13. 99
trusting for all success to the simple word of Christ. Ye, on the contrary,
are ἰσχυροί, men of power, able to take up an imposing attitude and to carry
through great things. Comp. ii. 3 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 2 ff., x. 10. By an arbi-
trary limitation, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, and Estius refer ἀσϑ.
to their sufferings: ‘‘Quia multa mala patimur, nec resistimus quod est
infirmitatis,” and icy. : ‘‘ Mala, si qua occurrunt, facile repellitis,” Estius.
-- ἔνδοξοι] celebrated, highly honowred personages ; ἄτιμοι : unhonoured, despised,
Matt. xiii. 57; Hom. 11]. i. 516 ; Plato, Legg. vi. p. 774 B, Huthyd. p. 281
C. —In the last clause the jirst person is the subject of the sarcastic an-
tithesis, because Paul means now to speak at more length regarding the
apostles.
Vv. 11-18. Down to the present hour this despised condition of ours
continues uninterruptedly, manifesting itself also (xa/) in all manner of pri-
vations, sufferings, and humiliations. — The assumption that we are not to
understand this ἄχρι τῆς ἄρτι ὥρας, as also ἕως ἄρτι in ver. 13,’ in a strictly
literal sense, is rash, seeing that, even apart from the fact that we have no
other means of knowing the precise position of Paul at that time (comp. 2
Cor. xi. 27), he is speaking here not of himself alone, but of the position of
the apostles in general. — γυμνητεύομεν] i.e. we lack necessary raiment. Comp.
on γυμνός in Matt. xxv. 36 ; Jas. ii. 15; and Theile in loc. The verb, as
used both in this sense and of being lightly armed, belongs to the later
Greek. The form γυμνιτεύομεν (Lachmann and Tischendorf), although
vouched for by a majority of the codd., is nothing but an ancient clerical
error ; see Fritzsche, de conform. Lahem. p. 21. — κολαφιζ.] quite literally :
we are beaten with fists. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 67; 1 Pet. 11. 20; 2 Cor. xii. 7.
A concrete representation of rude maltreatment in general. — doraroipev| we
are unsettled, have no abiding dwelling-place, Rufinus, Hp. 20. Theo-
phylact : ἐλαυνόμεϑα, φεύγομεν. --- κοπιῶμεν x.7.2.] we toil hard, working with
our own hands. Comp. as regards Paul, ix. 6 ff. ; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ff. ; 1 Thess.
ii. 9 ff. ; 2 Thess. iii. 8 ; Acts xx. 84; and who is in a position to deny
that others of the apostles too acted in the same way ? Paul includes this
among the elements of their despised condition, which he adduces ; and
he had a right to do so, for it was such in the eyes of the world, which
could not and would not recognize and honour so noble a self-denial. —
λοιδορ. εὐλογ. k.t-A.] The picture of the ignominious condition of the apos-
tles is continued, and its effect heightened by the contrast of their demean-
our. We are so utterly empty and void of all honour with others, that as
respects those who revile (insult, see Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 294), per-
secute, and slander us (δυσφημ., see the critical remarks, and comp. 1 Macc.
vii. 41 ; Aesch. Ag. 1078 ; Soph. HZ. 1182; Eur. Heracl. 600), we do not
in any wise defend ourselves or seek vengeance against them (as men do
who have honour to vindicate and maintain) ; but, on the contrary, wish
good to our revilers, remain quiet and patient towards our persecutors, and
1 The two expressions are synonymous ; tained by Tittmann, Synon. p. 38 ff., is
hence, too, this passage is a proof that the erroneous. See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p.
distinction between ἄχρι and μέχρι, main- ΞΒ08Β ff.
100 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
give beseeching words to our slanderers.'| Whether Paul says this in remem-
brance of the words of Jesus in Matt. v. 44, Luke vi. 27 f., which became
known to him by tradition (Riickert and others), is very dubious, consider-
ing the difference of expression ; but the disposition required by Jesus lived
in him. — ὡς περικαϑάρματα x.7.2.| Delineation, as a whole, of the condition
hitherto—from ver. 11 onwards—sketched in single traits : We have become
as out-sweepings of the world, i.e. our experience has become such, as though
we were the most utterly worthless of existing things, like dirt which men
have swept off from the face of the world. The κόσμος is the world of men
(Rom. iii. 6, v. 12), corresponding to the πάντων which follows. Περικάϑαρμα
(from περικαϑαίρω, to cleanse round about, on every side) means quisquiliae,
what one removes by cleansing, both in a literal sense and figuratively, like
our offscourings, sewm (Arrian. Diss. Epict. iii. 22. 78). ‘The simple κάϑαρμα
is more common ; and it especially is often found in this figurative sense in
Demosthenes and later writers (see Wetstein, Loesner, Obss. Ὁ. 276 f. ; comp.
also Kiihner, II. .p. 26). With this rendering Erasmus, H. Stephanus,
Beza, Estius, and others, including, Riickert, de Wette, Ewald, Maier,
Neander, Hofmann, are content, following Theodoret, Theophylact, and
Oecumenius. Καϑάρματα, however, is likewise used to denote those who,
in times of plague and other public calamities, were offered up to expiate the
wrath of the gods (see Schol. ad Arist. Plut. 454 ; Bos, Evercitatt. p. 125 ff. ;
Munth. Obss. e Diod. p. 321 f.), and in Prov. xxi. 18, περικάϑαρμα corre-
sponds to the Hebrew 193, while περικαϑαρμός, too, in Plato, Legg. vii. p.
815 C, means lustratio, and περικαϑαρτήριον in Hesychius (sub voce ϑεώματα),
a sacrifice for purification ; and, on these grounds, Luther and many others
(among them Pott, Olshausen, Osiander) assume that Paul refers here to
that Greek sacrificial custom (see especially Photius, Quaest. Amphil. 135),
and means by περικάϑ. expiatory sacrifices,—the idea of ‘‘ reprobate, utterly
worthless men” being at the same time essentially involved, inasmuch as
such men were taken for sacrifices of that nature (see Bos and Grotius).
According to this view, the sense would be : ‘‘ contemnimur ut homines,
qui ad iram Deorum ab omnibus hominibus avertendam sacrificio offerun-
tur,” Pott ; and Olshausen asserts, in spite of the oc, that Paul ascribes a
certain power even to his sufferings. Now the current and constant word
for the expiatory offering is κάϑαρμα (not περικάϑαρμα) ; 5 but, even supposing
that Paul had conceived περικαϑάρματα as piacula, he would in that case
have again used the plural περιψήματα in the next clause, for περίψημα is sy-
nonymous with περικάϑαρμα, and each individual would be a piaculum. Τί,
on the other hand, he conceived περικαϑάρματα as offscourings, castings away,
he could very suitably interchange this phrase afterwards with the collect-
1 Παρακαλοῦμεν : being slandered, we en- Compare rather 2 Macc. xiii. 23: τοὺς Ἰουδα-
treat. See regarding παρακαλ., to entreat, tous παρεκάλεσεν, he gave good words to the
Bleek on Heb, II. 1, p. 454 ff. Theophylact Jews.
puts it happily : mpaorépots λόγοις καὶ μαλακ- ? Hence Valckenaer holds the reading of
τικοῖς ἀμειβόμεϑα. Comp. Acts xvi. 39. Gro- G, min., ὡσπερεὶ καϑάρματα, to be the true
tius explains it: Dewm pro ipsis precamur. one, because Paul “‘ ritus Graecos noverat
But Deum and pro ipsis are unwarrantably οἵ linguam.”
inserted on the ground of Matt. v. 10, 44.
CHAP. Iv., 14, 15. . 101
ive singular (rubbish). —rdvrov περίψ.] The refuse of all. The emphasis
lies on πάντων, and ὡς is to be supplied again before it. Περίψημα (what is
removed by wiping) being substantially the same in meaning with περι-
κάϑαρμα (see Photius, s.o., Tob. v. 18, and Fritzsche im loc.), has been as
variously interpreted by the commentators. —éw¢ ἄρτι] belongs to ἐγενήϑ..,
and repeats with emphatic force at the close of the description the selfsame
thought with which it had began in ver. 11.— The torrent is at an end ;
now again we have the gentle stream of fatherly kindness, which, however,
in ver. 18 once more swells into sternness and threatening. Observe how
Paul at this point abandons the comprehensive plural form (ἡμεῖς), in order
now at the close of the section to make his readers feel again, in the most
impressive way, that personal relation of his to them, which he, as being
the founder of the church, was entitled in truth to urge on their attention,
despite of all the party-strife which had crept in.
Vv. 14-21. Receive this censure (from ver. 7 onwards) not as meant to put
you utterly to shame, but as an admonition from your spiritual father, whom ye
ought to copy (vv.14-16), for which cause I have also sent Timothy to you (ver.
17). But I—this by way of warning to those who are puffed up !—hope soon to
come to you myself ; am Ito come to punish, or in gentleness (vv. 18-21) ?
Ver. 14. οὐκ ἐντρέπων] The common interpretation is the correct one :
not putting you to shame, not in such a way as to shame you, write I this
(vv. 8-13). The participle, however, is not the same as an infinitive, but the
meaning is: I shame you not by what Iam now writing to you. See Heind.
ad Phaed. p. 249 f. ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 495 Ὁ ; Matthiae, p.
1289. Riickert prefers keeping to the general sense of humbling, moving
greatly ; but why should we, when we have in 2 Thess. iii. 14, Titus i.) 8;
1 Cor. vi. 5, xv. 34, the perfectly distinctive Pauline notion of the word ?
Comp. also Diog. L. ii. 29; Ael. V. H. iii. 17. And just because Paul
feels the shaming element in his rebuke for the Corinthians, does he point
out, so as to further the moral effect of his bitter words, what according to
his idea his rebuke essentially is, not a putting to shame, but a fatherly ad-
monition. Bengel says well : ‘‘ Exquisita érteparcia . . . Saepe quendam
quasi leporem apostolus salva gravitate apostolica adhibet.” — νουϑετῶ] The
kindly intention of the admonition is not conveyed in the word by itself (see
on Eph. vi. 4, and comp. 6.5. Plato, Pol. viii. p. 560 A: νουϑετούντων τε
καὶ κακιζόντων, Legg. ix. p. 879 Ὁ ; Dem. 798. 19, al.), but in the context.
Comp. Acts xx. 31. Plato, Huthyd. p. 284 E: νουϑετῶ σ᾽ ἑταῖρον. The
construction is varied so as to give us not the participle again, but the in-
dicative (as the opposite of ἐντρέπων γράφω, taken together), whereby the an-
tithesis is made independent and so more emphatic. See Hermann, ad
Hymn. Hom. p. 125. Kiihner, II. p. 428.
Ver. 15 justifies the ὡς τέκνα μου ἀγαπ. νουθετῶ. --- For suppose ye have ten
thousand tutors in Christ. On pvpiove,* compare Matt. xviii. 24 ; 1 Cor. xi v.
19. — Respecting the paedagogi among the Greeks and Romans (comp. {?28,
1 The distinction drawn by the old gram- without foundation. See Buttmann, aus
marians between μύριοι (a numeral proper) Sihrl. Sprachl. 1. p. 284; Fllendt, Lex. Soph.
and μυρίοι (an indefinitely large number) is II. p. 144.
102 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
2 Chron. xxvii. 32 ; 2 Kings x. 1, 5; Esth. ii. 7; Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. VI.
Ῥ. 272), who, for the most part slaves, had it in charge to educate and give
constant attendance upon boys till they came of age, see Wetstein and
Hermann, Privatalterth. § 34. 15 ff. The name is here given figuratively to
the later workers in the church, the ποτίζοντες (iii. 6-8), the ἐποικοδομοῦντες
(iii. 10 ff.), in respect of their carrying on its further Christian develop-
ment, after Paul (its father) had founded it, had given to it Christian life,
had begotten it spiritually. Since the essential nature of the delineation
here allowed of no other word alongside of πατέρας except waiday., and since,
moreover, Apollos also was reckoned among the παιδαγώγοις, we are not
warranted in finding here expressed the idea of imperious and arrogant lead-
ership on the part of the heads of parties (Beza, Calvin, and others, including
Pott, Heydenreich, de Wette, Osiander). Compare, too, Erasmus : ‘‘ paed-
agogus saevit pro imperio.” It is not even the inferior love of the later
teachers (Chrysostom, Theophylact) that Paul wishes to make his readers
sensible of, but only his rights as a father, which can be in no way impaired
by all who subsequently entered the same field. — ἀλλ᾽ οὐ x. rar.] 86. ἔχετε.
The ἀλλά after a hypothetical protasis is the at of emphatic contrast, on the
other hand (Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 43, ed. 3 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 11;
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 98), and that, too, without a restrictive γέ, in the sense
of at certe ; see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. ἢ. 48. —év γὰρ Χριστῷ x.7.2.] 1.6.
Sor in the life-fellowship of Jesus Christ no other than I myself has begotten you,
through the gospel. Just as ἐν Χριστῷ, in the first half of the verse, conveys
the specific distinction of the παιδαγώγους ἔχειν ; so here, and that with the
emphatic addition of Ἰησοῦ, it conveys that of the moral generation, which
has taken place, not out of Christ, but in Him as the element of its being ;
and διὰ τοῦ evayyeA. (comp. 1 Pet. i. 23) is the means whereby this establish-
ment of their existence in the Christian sphere of life has been brought
about. In both these respects it differs from physical generation. The
antithetic emphasis of the ἐγώ forbids us to refer ἐν X. ’I. to the person of
the apostle: ‘‘in my fellowship with Christ, i.e. as His apostle” (de Wette,
comp. Grotius, Calovius, Flatt, al.). — ἐγέννησα] Comp. ver. 17 ; Philem. 10 ;
Gal. iv. 19. Sanhedr. f. 19. 2: ‘‘ Quicunque filium socii sui docet legem,
ad eum scriptura refert, tanquam si eum genuisset.”
Ver. 16. Οὖν] since I am your father. — pu. μ. yiv.] become imitators of me.
Paul does not add any more precise definition as to the matter (‘‘ in ewra tu-
tandae in ecclesia tum unitatis tum sanctitatis,” Grotius thinks, but without
warrant in the context); but the connection of the passage, after vv. 6-13,
leaves no room for doubt that he has in view the discarding of conceit and
self-seeking, and the putting on of humility and self-denial. — As regards
the phrase pi. yiv., comp. xi. 1 ; 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14 ; Eph. v. 1; Phil.
iii. 17 ; and as regards the idea, Xen. Mem. i. 6. 8 : οἱ διδάσκαλοι τοὺς μαθητὰς
μιμητὰς ἑαυτῶν ἀποδεικνύουσιν.
Ver. 17. Διὰ τοῦτο] namely, in order to further among you this state of
things meant by ju. μ. yiv. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Piscator, Riickert,
Maier, make it refer to ver. 15: ‘‘on this ground, because I am your
father.” But that would convert ver. 16, quite arbitrarily, into a strange
OHAP TY. s 19; 103
parenthetical interpolation. — ἔπεμψα iu. Tyu.] See Introd. § 2. He had
already started upon his journey, but was not to arrive until after this
Epistle had reached Corinth, xvi. 10 ; hence he must not be regarded as
the bearer of it (Bleek). —réxvov μου] comp. 1 Tim. i. 2, 18 ; 2 Tim. i. 2.
The father sends to his children (ver. 14 f.) their brother, specially dear
and faithful to himself, in whom, therefore, they too may have full trust.
From the quite definite reference of τέκνα in ver. 14, comp. ver. 15, we are
warranted in assuming with confidence that Timothy had been converted by
Paul; his conversion, since in all likelihood he was from Lystra (see on Acts
xvi. 1), being probably comprised in the statement in Acts xiv. 6, 7; for
in Acts xvi. 1 he is already a Christian. —év Κυρίῳ] specifies the character-
istic relation in which Timothy is his beloved and faithful child (comp.
Eph. vi. 21); for apart from the fellowship in faith and life with Christ,
there is no relationship of father and son subsisting between Paul and Tim-
othy at all. The expression is therefore not essentially different from ἐν
πίστει, 1 Tim. i. 3. Comp. i. 8. --- ἀναμνήσει] for the Corinthians seemed to
have forgotten it.1— τὰς ὁδούς μου τὰς ἐν X.] 1.6. the paths, which I tread in
Christ (as my sphere of activity), i.e. in the service of Christ. The aim in
view (διὰ τοῦτο) is to lead them to imitate the apostle by reminding them of
the whole way and manner, in which he conducted himself in his calltmg alike
personally and relatively ; for must not the recalling of that conduct vindi-
cate his character, so much misunderstood and depreciated in Corinth, and
place it in such a light as would show it to be worthy of imitation ? more
especially in respect of his self-denial and humility, so far removed from the
arrogance and self-seeking of the Corinthians. — καθώς] is commonly taken as
defining more precisely what has been already stated in a general way, as ὡς
does in Rom. xi. 2, Luke xxiv. 20, Thuc. i. 1, and frequently elsewhere.
See Bornemann in Lue. p. 141. But καθώς means sicut (Vulgate), like the
classical καθά or καθάπερ : even as, in such fashion, as.2 We must therefore
abide by the meaning of the word, and interpret : he will recall to your
memories my official conduct in such fashion, as I teach in all places ; i.e. he
will represent it to you not otherwise than as it is everywhere exemplified in
me by my capacity as a teacher, not otherwise therefore than in correspond-
ence with the invariable method in which I discharge the vocation of my
life, not otherwise, in short, than as it actually is everywhere. In this way
καθώς refers not to the contents of διδάσκω, nor to the mode of preaching
(neither of which would stand in a relation of practical significance to mi.
μ- yiv.), but to the peculiarity of character as ὦ whole, which distinguished
Paul in his work as a teacher. — παντ. ἐν 7. éxxd.] This emphatic state-
ment, with its double description, gives additional weight to the example
to be imitated. Comp. Acts xvii. 30, xxi. 28. ,
Vv. 18. As though now I were not coming to you, some are puffed up. Τὺ is
1 That Paul does not use διδάξει, to avoid αὐτόπται yap ἐγεγόνεισαν τῆς ἀποστολικῆς
giving offence, because Timothy was still ἀρετῆς.
young (Chrysostom, Theophylact), is an 2 Billroth renders it rightly : eodem modo,
imagination pure and simple. Theodoret quo, but inserts quite unwarrantably an
says aptly: λήϑην δὲ αὐτῶν ὁ λόγος κατηγορεῖ: _—ipse after the quo.
104 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
likely that these boasters, who belonged more probably to the Apollonians
than to the Christ-party (ver. 19 f.), believed and affirmed that the apostle
had not the courage to appear againin Corinth (2 Cor. x.1); and itis to pre-
vent their being strengthened in their delusion by the mission of Timothy
that Paul now adds these remarks, vv. 18-20. Hence we are not to make
the new section begin here (Tertullian and Theodoret referred ἐφυσ. τινες
even to the incestuous person, v. 1, and Theophylact makes it include a
reference to him); on the contrary, it breaks upon us suddenly, like a
thunderstorm, in v. 1.— Upon δέ as the fourth word in a sentence, see
Winer, p. 519 [E. T. 699]. — ὡς, as, denotes : on the assumption that ; see
Matthiae, p. 1320. It introduces the ground of the ἐφυσιώθ. from the point
of view of those that were puffed up. Comp. Kiihner, II. p. 374 ; Lobeck,
ad Soph. Aj. 281. —épyou.] not for ἐλευσομένου (Flatt), but indicative of the
subsisting relation. ‘‘ Paul is not coming” was their conception, and this
made them bold and boastful ; φιλαρχίας yap τὸ ἔγκλημα Ty ἐρημίᾳ τοῦ διδασκάλου
εἰς ἀπόνοιαν κεχρῆσθαι, Chrysostom. —rivéc] as in xv. 12.
Ver. 19. ᾿Ελεύσομαι δὲ] the contrast emphatically put first : come, however,
71 will. —rayéwc| Comp. Phil. ii. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 9. As to how long he
thought of still remaining in Ephesus, see xvi. 8. —6é Κύριος] to be under-
stood not of Christ, but of God.’ Sce the critical remarks on Rom. xv. 32.
Comp. Rom. i. 10; Jas. iv. 15. — γνώσομαι] what and how the boasters speak
(τὸν λόγον), Paul will, on his approaching visit, leave wholly without notice ;
but as regards the amount of energy put forth by them in producing results
for the kingdom of God, of that he will take knowledge. — τὴν δύναμ. namely,
their power of working for the advancement of the βασιλ. τ. Θεοῦ, ver. 20.
To explain it as referring to the power of miracles (Chrysostom, Theophylact;
not Grotius), or to the power of their virtues (Theodoret, Pelagius, Justin), is
contrary to the context. Comp. what Paul says of himself in 1 Thess. i. 5.
This practically effective might, which has for its primary condition the
true power of the Spirit (of which de Wette understands it ; we may recall
Paul himself, Luther, etc.), was what the boasters seemed to have, but they
let the matter rest at words, which were altogether lacking in the strength
to effect anything. How wholly otherwise it was with Paul himself !
Comp. ii. 4 ; 2 Cor. vi. 7.
Ver. 20. Justification of the γνώσομαι οὐ τὸν λόγον x.7.A. by an axiom. — ἐν
λόγῳ and ἐν δυνάμει describe wherein the βασιλεία has its causal basis ; it has
the condition of its existence not in speech, but in power (sce on ver. 19).
Comp. on ii. 5. The βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, again, is not here, as it never is else-
where (see on Matt. iii. 2, vi. 10), and in particular never in Paul’s writings
(neither in this passage nor in Rom. xiv. 7; Col. i. 13, iv. 11 ; see on these
verses), the church, or the kingdom of God in the ethical sense (Neander :
‘the fellowship of the divine life, which is brought about by fellowship
with the Redeemer”), but the Messianic kingdom, in which, at its expected
(speedy) manifestation, those only can become members who are truly
1 [But as the Apostle so constantly uses suppose a reference to the will of Christ.—
this word as a distinctive title of theSon TT. W.C.]
(cf. vy. 4, 5), it seems more natural here to
CHAP. I1V., 21. 105
believing and truly sanctified (Col. iii. 3 f. ; Phil. iv. 18-21 ; Eph. v. 5,
al.). (4) But faith and holy living are not established by high-soaring
speech (not by τὰ ἐν τοῖς λόγοις φαντάσματα, Plat. Soph. p. 234 E), but by
δύναμις, Which is able effectively to procure gain for the kingdom (Col. i.
meee 1 Thess, 176 5-1-Cor. 1x. 19 ff. ; 2 Cor. x. 4'f.).
Ver. 21. As the conclusion of the entire section, we have here another
warning useful for the readers as a whole, indicating to them the practical
application which they generally were to make of the assurance of his
speedy coming. Lachmann, followed by Hofmann (after Oecumenius,
Cajetanus, Beza, Calvin), begins the new section with ver. 21. But this
appears hardly admissible, since chap. v. 1 commences without any con-
nective particle (such as ἀλλά, or dé, or yap), and since, too, in v. 1 ff. there
is no further reference to the speedy arrival of the apostle. —7i] in the sense
of πότερον. Comp. Plato, Phil. p. 52D, and Stallbaum in loc. He fears the
first, and wishes the second. ‘‘Una quidem charitas est, sed diversa in di-
versis operatur,” Augustine. — ἐν ῥάβδῳ] witha rod ; but this is no Hebraism,
for ἐν denotes in pure Greek the being provided with. Heb. ix. 25; 1 John
v. 6. See Matthiae, p. 1340; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 284 [E. T. 330].
Comp. Ecclus. xlvii. 4: ἐν λίθῳ, armed with astone. Lucian, 7). M. xxiii.
3: καθικόμενος év τῇ ῥάβδῳ. Themeaning of the figurative phrase, borrowed
as it is from the relation of father, is: ἐν κολάσει, ἐν τιμωρίᾳ, Chrysostom. —
ἔλθω] am I to come? See Winer, p. 268 [E. T. 356]. Chrysostom puts it
happily: ἐν ὑμῖν τὸ πρᾶγμα Keita. — πνεῦματί te πραοτ.}] not: with ‘‘ a gentle
spirit” (Luther, and most interpreters), so that πνεῦμα would be the subjec-
tive principle which should dispose the inner life to this quality ; but: with
the Spirit of gentleness, so that πνεῦμα is to be understood, with Chrysostom
and Theophylact, of the Holy Spirit ; and zpaor. denotes that specific effect
of this πνεῦμα (Gal. v. 22) which from the context is brought peculiarly into
view. So in all the passages of the N. T. where πνεῦμα, meaning the Holy
Spirit, is joined with the genitive of an abstract noun ; and in each of these
cases the connection has indicated which effect of the Spirit was to be
named. Hence He is called πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας (John xv. 26, xvi. 13 ;
1 John iv. 6), υἱοθεσίας (Rom. viii. 15), τῆς πίστεως (2 Cor. iv. 13), σοφίας (Eph.
i. 17), δυνάμεως κ.τ.λ. (2 Tim. i. 7), just according as the one or other effect
of His working is exhibited by the context as characteristic of Him. Re-
specting the present passage, comp. vi. 1. It is to be observed, moreover,
that the apostolic rod of discipline too is wielded in the power of the
Holy Spirit, so that the selfsame Spirit works as a Spirit of gentleness
and of corrective severity : ἔστι yap πνεῦμα πραότητος καὶ πνεῦμα αὐστηρότητος,
Chrysostom. Comp. on Luke ix. 55. — Instead of the form πραότης, Lach-
mann and Tischendorf have, in every passage in which it occurs in Paul’s
writings, the later πραύτης (except that in Gal. vi. 1 Lachmann retains
πραότης ; see regarding both, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 403 f.). The change is
justified by weighty testimony, especially that of A B C (although they are
1 For to regard vy. 1 as an answer which ἴῃ view of τί ϑέλετε alone, is not even logi-
Paul gives to himse/f unto his own question, cally practicable.
as Hofmann does, is a forced devi@s Which,
106 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
not unanimous in the case of all the passages). In the other places in which
it is found, Jas. i. 21, iii. 13, 1 Pet. iii. 15, πραύτης is undoubtedly the true
reading.
Nores py AMERICAN Eprror.
(3) Paul's irony. Ver. 8.
The natural force of this verse is not to be denied or evaded, As Calvin
says, the Apostle, after seriously and without figures of speech repressing the
vain confidence of the Corinthians, proceeds ironically to deride them. Nor
is this the only place in Scripture where such language occurs. It is to be
found in the Old Testament (1 Kings xviii. 27, Job xii. 1, etc.), and also in the
Second Epistle to the Corinthians (xi. 19, 20). And experience seems to show
that there are occasions when no other form of speech will answer, and yet of
course this is not to be lightly assumed. The Bible gives no warrant fora
continuous or even prevailing tone of irony or satire. As Burke said of another
matter, an extreme medicine must not be turned into one’s daily bread. Per-
haps the rule laid down by Hodge (in loc.) is sufficient to answer the purpose.
‘If the thing assailed be both wicked and foolish, and if the motive be, not
the desire ‘to give pain, but to convince and convert,’’ the use of these danger-
ous weapons is justifiable.
(K) The spectacle to the universe. Ver. 9.
The imagery in this striking verse is evidently drawn from the games in the
amphitheatre, so familiar to the Roman world. The phrase ‘appointed to
death” seems naturally to suggest the gladiators who came out into the arena
and saluted the ruler of the spectacle, calling themselves morituri, about to
die. In the writer’s view, he and his fellow-apostles were led forth, not sim-
ply before the gaze of the thousands or tens of thousands gathered under the
open sky ina huge structure of wood or stone, but upon the world’s broad
stage, where all created beings, from men up to angels, gaze with wonder upon
the dreadful death-struggle, while the selfish Corinthians sat by, unconcerned
and unmoved at the awful spectacle. Stanley quotes Seneca’s description
(Provid. iii.) of the wise man struggling with fate : ‘‘ Ecce spectaculum dignum
ad quod respiciat intentus operi suo Deus.” But the Apostle represents God
as the One who appointed the spectacle, and all other beings as lookers-on in
wonder and sympathy.
( The “ Kingdom of God.” Ver. 20.
The author’s restriction of this term to the Messianic Parousia is one of the
few peculiarities (another is his insisting that iva must always be construed as
telic, in order that) which are a drawback to his general excellence. The term
here may just as well denote the existing church as its final manifestation in
' the great day ; nay, it should rather have that meaning, to bring out the full
force of the Apostle’s argument. The best rebuke of the offensive inflation of
his adversaries, who boasted instead of working, was to assure them that the
present administration of God’s cause in the earth was not in profession only,
but attended with divine power. That such would be the case hereafter they
might easily admit, but what was needed was to iender them sensible of its
divine efficacy now and here,
CHAP. V. 107
CHAPTER: ¥.
Ver. 1. After ἔθνεσιν Elz. has ὀνομάζεται, which is defended by Matthaei and
Reiche, but in the face of quite decisive evidence. Supplied, perhaps from
Eph. v. 3. Equally decisive is the evidence against ἐξαρθῇ, ver. 2 (Elz.). From
ver. 13. — Ver. 2. ποιήσας] Riick. and Tisch. read πράξας, which Griesb. too,
recommended, with AC δὲ, min. Οὐ. ἢ Manes (in Epiph.), Epiph. Bas. The
external evidence is pretty evenly balanced. But at all events the phrase ποιεῖν
ἔργον was very familiar to the transcribers from the N. T. ; hence πράξας should
have the preference. — Ver. 3. ἀπών] Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have ὡς ἀπ., against A
BC D* &, min. and several vss. and Fathers. According to the analogy of the
ὡς παρών which follows, ὡς (as embracing the whole drév . . . πνεύμ.) was first
of all written on the margin, and then taken into the text. — Ver. 4. ᾿Ιησοῦ alone
(without Χριστοῦ) is the reading in both cases of A Β D, Aeth. Clar. Lucif., and,
as regards the second, of several other vss. and Fathers. So also Lachm. Riick.
and Tisch. Rightly ; the solemn character of the address gave occasion to the
addition of Χριστοῦ. --- Ver. 5. τοῦ Κυρίου ’Iqjaod] So also δὲ. Riickert reads τοῦ
Kup. ἡμῶν I, Χριστοῦ, with evidence of considerable weight in favour of it, but
probably taken from i. 8. Lachm. brackets ἡμῶν ’I. X.; for B, Or, (thrice)
Tert. (twice) Epiph. Aug. (once) Hilar. Pacian, have simply τοῦ Κυρίου. So
Tisch. But since ᾿Ιησοῦ occurs in all the other witnesses except those few, and
since their discrepancies concern only ἡμῶν and Χριστοῦ, the Rec. τοῦ Κυρίου
Ἰησοῦ should be retained ; for ᾿Ιησοῦ might very easily be overlooked, espe-
cially where four words, one after another, end in OY. — Ver. 6. ζυμο!] The
various readings δολοῖ (D*, Bas. Hesych., recommended by Griesb.) and φθείρει
(Lat. in Cerular. ; corrumpit: Vulg. Clar. and Latin Fathers) are interpretations.
— Ver. 7. After ἐκκαθάρ. Elz. has οὖν, against a great preponderance of evidence.
A connective addition, as are also καί before ov in ver. 10, and καί before ἐξαρ.
in ver. 13. After ἡμῶν Elz. and Scholz read ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, contrary to decisive tes-
timony. An inappropriate (for the apostle is speaking only of the death of
Christ in itself, see Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 161 ff.) dogmatic gloss. — Ver. 10 ἢ
dpr.] ka? ἅρπ. is the reading of almost all the uncials and Clar. Boern. (so Lachm.
Riick. and Tisch.) ; 7 was mechanically taken up from the context. — Ver. 11.
Instead of ἡ before πόρν. Elz. has #, contrary to Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. Vulg. Ir.
Tert. Chrys. and many other Fathers, also some min. The #, which occurs in
B** D δὲ, came in mechanically from the succeeding context. — Ver. 12. καί] is
wanting in ABCFG X, min. and several vss. and Fathers (suspected by
Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Riick.) ; the authorities which omit it are so
decisive, that it must be regarded as an addition in favour of the apostolic
power of discipline as respects those that are within, — Ver. 13. ἐξαρεῖτε] ἐξάρατε,
approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch., has perfectly con
clusive evidence in its favour. The former reading has arisen from Deut. xxiv.
7, a passage which has also given origin to the weakly-attested καί before ἐξαρ.
in Elz,
108 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Vv. 1-8. Reproof and apostolical judgment respecting an incestuous person in
the church.
Ver. 1. The censure of the party-divisions is concluded. Without note
of transition, but after the closing words of iv. 21 with all the more
telling force, the discourse falls with severity at once upon another deep-
seated evil in the church. — ὅλως] means simply in general, in universum, as
in vi. 7, xv. 29, Matt. v. 34, and in Greek writers ; it belongs to ἀκούεται, so
that to the general expression ὅλως ἀκούεται πορν. there corresponds the par-
ticular καὶ τοιαύτη πορν.. 86. ἀκούεται. The latter, however, is something worse
than the former, hence the καί is intensive (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 134 ;
Baeumlein, Partik. p. 147) : One hears generally (speaking broadly) of forni-
cation among you, and even of such fornication one hears among you, as is not
Sound among the heathen themselves. To render it certainly (so as to indicate
that it is no dubius rumor, sed res manifesta ; so Calvin, Beza, Piscator,
Estius, Elsner, Calovius, Wolf, a/.) or universally (Schrader, Ewald) is
against the meaning of the word, which may, indeed, signify prorsus or
omnino (Vulgate), but neither wbique nor certainly.’ Riickert thinks that it
assigns the ground by means of a generalization for the thought which is to be
supplied after iv. 21 : I fear that I shall have to use severity ; and that Paul
would more fittingly have written γοῦν. Thisis arbitrary, and even in point
of logic doubly incorrect, because ὅλως here introduces the report of a quite
special offence, and therefore cannot assign a ground by generalization ; and
because, if the restrictive γοῦν would have been better in this passage, Paul
in using the generalizing ὅλως must have expressed himself ilogically. — ἐν
ὑμῖν] not : as occurring among you (comp. Ewald), for it is a defining state-
ment which belongs to ἀκούεται ; but: one hears talk among you of fornica-
tion, one comes to hear of it in your community. Paul expresses the state
of things as it was perhaps made known to him by Chloe’s people (i. 11) or
others who came from Corinth, and spoke to him in some such way as this :
In the Corinthian church one learns the existence of fornication, etc. ; such
things as these one is forced to hear of there !— ἐν τοῖς ἔθν. ἀεὶ ἀπὸ τῶν
ἐθνικῶν ὀνειδίζει τοῖς πιστοῖς, Chrysostom. Regarding the prohibition among
the Jews: Lev. xviii. 8; Deut. xxii. 30; Philo, de spec. leg. p. 301;
Michaelis, Mos. R. II. p. 206 ; Saalschiitz, Mos. R. p. 766 f. The instances
of such incest among the Greeks and Romans (see Maji Obss. I. p. 184) were
exceptions contrary to law (see Elsner, p. 90 ; Wetstein and Pott in loc.), and
abhorred Pilea l.c.).2 — γυναῖκα τοῦ πατρός] 1.6. IS NWS, stepmother,
Ley. xviii. 8, and the Rabbinical authorities in Lightfoot, p. 166. It was,
no doubt, in view of the prohibition announced in Lev. xviii. 8 that Paul
chose this form of expression (instead of the Greek designation μητρυιά),
ὥστε πολλῷ χαλεπώτερον πλῆξαι, Chrysostom. The departure from the usual
arrangement of the words, too, γυναῖκά τίνα τοῦ; πατρός, puts an emphasis of
ignominy upon γυναῖκα. --- ἔχειν] Many expositors, such as Calvin, Riickert,
Neander, leave it undecided whether this refers to having her in marriage
1 [The R. V. gives the sense happilybythe asacrime incredible, and, with the excep
term “‘actually.”—T. W. C.] tion of the case he is speaking of, unheard
2 [Cicero (pro Cluentio, 5, 6) mentions it of.—T. W. C.)
CHAP. Y., 2. | 109
(Vorstius, Michaelis, Billroth on 2 Cor. vii. 12, Maier) or in concubinage
(Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Cornelius 4 Lapide, Pott, Olshausen, Osiander,
Ewald, Hofmann). But in favour of the former there is, first of all, the fact
that ἔχω is never used in the N. T. in such a sense as that of the well-known
ἔχω Λαΐδα (Diog. Laert. ii. 75 ; Athen. xxii. p. 544 D), or ‘‘ quis heri Chrysi-
dem habuit ?” (Terent. Andr. i. 1. 58), but always of possession in marriage!
(Matt. xiv. 4, xxii. 28 ; Mark vi. 18 ; 1 Cor. vii. 2, 29. Comp. 1 Macc. xi.
9; Hom. Od. iv. 569 ; Herod, iii, 31 ; Thue. ii. 29.1; Xen. Cyr. i. 5.4;
Gregor. Cor. 931, ed. Schaef.; Maetzn. ad Lycurg. p. 121) ; but further,
and more especially, the use of the past tenses ποιήσας, ver. 2, and κατεργασά-
μενον, ver. 3, to designate the matter, which convey not the conception of
illicit intercourse, but that of an incestuous marriage having actually taken
place. Paul ranks this case under the head of πορνεία (see on Matt. v. 32) ;
because, in the first place, he needed this general notion in order to describe
the state of licentiousness subsisting at Corinth generally, and now further
intends to designate definitely by x. τοιαύτῃ πορν. x.7.A. the particular occur-
rence which is included under this general category. Matt. v. 32, xix. 9,
should have sufficed to keep Hofmann from asserting that πορνεία proves the
case not to have been one of adultery. The objection, again, that Paul does
not insist upon a divorce, is of no weight ; for he does insist upon excom-
munication, and, after that had taken place, the criminal marriage—if the
offender were not thereby sufficiently humbled to dissolve the connection of
his own accord—would no longer concern the Christians (see vv. 12, 18).
Another objection: How could the magistrates have tolerated such a
marriage ? is obviated, partly by the consideration that in that large and
morally corrupt city the magisterial eye was doubtless blind enough, espe-
cially on the point of the κορινθιάζεσθαι (see Introd. ὃ 1) ; and partly by re-
membering the possibility that the offender, whether previously a Jew or—
which is more likely—a heathen, having turned Christian, might put for-
ward in his own defence before the tolerant magistracy the Rabbinical axiom
that the becoming a proselyte, as a new birth, did away with the restrictions
of forbidden degrees (Maimonides, Jebhamoth, f. 982; Michaelis, Hinl.
ὃ 178, p. 1221 ; Liibkert in the Stud. τ. Krit. 1835, p. 698 f.). Whether
or not he belonged to one of the four parties (as, for example, to that of
Apollos), we need not attempt to decide. See remark at the end of this
chapter. — As to the wife of the incestuous person, nothing can be affirmed
with certainty, and with probability only this, that she was not a Christian,
else Paul would have censured her conduct also. Her former husband was
still alive (so that she must have been divorced from or have deserted him),
and was probably a Christian ; 2 Cor. vii. 12.
Ver. 2. A question suddenly introduced with and, laying bare the incon-
gruity of this state of things with the attitude previously noticed (see
Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 146 f.). —tyeic emphatic : Ye, the people among
whom so disgraceful a thing can occur ; for κοινὸν πάντων τὸ ἔγκλημα γέγονε,
1 Even in John iy. 18, where, however, longs to the passage, as applied to an irreg-
the word must be kept in the peculiar ular, not real or legal marriage.
significant mode of expression which be-
110 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Chrysostom. —reguo. ἐστέ] What is meant is the spiritual self-conceit
already censured (iv. 6 ff., 18) regarding the lofty degree of Christian wis-
dom and perfection in general, which they supposed themselves to have
reached ; not pride in the incestuous person himself, who is conceived to
have been a highly-esteemed teacher (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius).
-- ἐπενθήσ.] are fallen into distress (penitential mourning), for by reason of
the fellowship between Christians (comp. xii. 26) ἔδει πενθῆσαι, διότι εἰς τὸ
κοινὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ διαβολὴ προεχώρησεν, Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom. —
iva ἀρθῇ κ.τ.2.1 The design which, according to the apostle’s view, the ἐπενθ.
ought to have had, and the attainment of which would have been its result,
had it taken place : in order that he might be removed, etc. It intensifies and
completes the contrast with their conceited self-assurance, and leads appro-
priately to the introduction of his own judicial sentence, which comes in, ver.
8, with ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ κ.τ.λ. ; all the less, therefore, is iva ἀρθῇ x.7.A. to be re-
garded as forming such a judicial utterance (Pott, Hofmann) standing forth
with imperative independence : Away with him, etc. (see on 2 Cor. viii.7).
That does not come in until ver. 13. — ἔργον] facinus, the nature of which is
shown by the context. See Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 671.?
Ver. 3. ᾿Εγὼ μὲν γάρ] introduces the independent resolution already ar-
rived at by himself, and therewith the justification of the iva ἀρθῇ ; for he,
Paul, for his part, has resolved already to inflict a yet heavier punishment upon
him. Comp. also Winer, p. 422 [E. T. 568] ; the contents of vv. 38-5 corre-
spond to the iva ἀρθῇ in itsconnection with kai . . . ἐπενθήσ. The μέν solita-
rium must be taken as meaning: J at least. See Hermann, ad Viger. p.
841 f. ; Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 159 ; Hartung, Partikell. ΤΙ. p. 413. — τῳ
πνεύματι] Comp. ver. 4 : τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος, hence not to be understood, as
Chrysostom and others hold,’ of the Holy Spirit, against which τῷ σώματι
also militates, comp. vii. 34 ; Rom. viii. 10 ; Col. ii. 5. — ἤδη κέκρ. ὡς παρών]
have made up my mind already, as though I were present (personally superin-
tending your community).* — τὸν οὕτω τοῦτο katepy. | belongs to rapad. τῷ Σατ.,
ver. 5, so that, after the intermediate statements which follow, the object
of the sentence is taken up again by τὸν τοιοῦτον in ver. 5 (hune talem in-
quam), comp. 2 Cor. xii. 2. See Matthiae, p. 1045 ; Schaefer, Melet. p. 84.
Bengel says happily : ‘‘Graviter swspensa manet et vibrat oratio usque ad
ver. 5.” Not so happy is Hofmann’s view, that rav . . . xatepy. belongs to
κέκρικα aS an accusative of the object, whereupon παραδοῦναι x.7.2. is then set
down to a mixing up of two constructions, this being coupled with an inap-
propriate comparison of Mark xiv. 64. —oirw| after such fashion, in such a
way. ‘The way and manner thereby referred to as aggravating the offence
were known to the readers, but are unknown to us. Respecting οὕτω in a
1 [This verse is read as a question in the
Syriac version and the Greek Fathers, and
by Canon Evans in Speaker’s Com. The
sense is the same.—T. W. C.]
2 So, too, Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr.
ing it as such, notwithstanding that cod. &,
too, has addedits weight to the side of the
overwhelming contrary testimony,—this ὡς
might be very simply distinguished from
that which stands before παρών in this way,
p. 385.
3 Were the ὡς before ἀπών the genuine
reading,—and Hofmann persists in retain-
that the first ὡς would mean as, and the
second as if.
CHAP. V., 4. 1
bad sense, see on John xviii. 22, and Bremi, ad Dem. Phil. I. p. 190. Pott
and Olshausen explain it wrongly : ‘‘licet Christianus sit,” which is not im-
plied in the text, and would state nothing special, for it was a matter of
course that the person in question was not a non-Christian. — xarepy. | has per-
petrated, more emphatic than ποιήσας, ver. 2. See on Rom. i. 27.
Ver. 4. Four different ways of dividing the verse are possible : either ἐν
τῷ ovou. belongs to συναχθ. and σὺν τῇ δυν. to παραδοῦναι (Beza, Justiniani,
Calovius, Heydenreich, Billroth, Olshausen, Ewald, Hofmann), or both be-
long to συναχθ. (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Calvin, Grotius,
Riickert), or both belong to παραδοῦναι (Mosheim, Pott, Flatt, Schrader,
comp. also Osiander) ; 07 ἐν τ. ὀνόμ. belongs to παραδοῦναι, and σὺν τ. δυνάμ.
to the participial clause. Against the second and third of these views, there
is the fact that the symmetry of the address would be needlessly destroyed
by bringing in the authority of Christ twice over in the one division, and
not at all in the other ; against the first, again, there is this, that ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ.
k.T.A., as a solemn formula of apostolic enactment (2 Thess. iii. 6 ; Acts iii. 6,
xvi. 18), links itself more suitably to the sense with παραδοῦναι κ.τ.}. than
with συνάχθ. «.7.2. (to the latter of which Matt. xviii. 20, εἰς τὸ ὄν., might
seem to offer not exactly a parallel, but still a similar representation).
There remains therefore, as worthy of preference, the fourth method of con-
necting the words (Luther, Castalio, Estius, Bengel, Maier, al. ; Neander
with hesitation).’. Against this, Hofmann objects that ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι κ.τ.λ.
ought not to have come in until after the participial clause ; but quite under
a misapprehension, for it is plainly of set purpose, and with all reason and
propriety, that the apostolic sentence bears, so to speak, on its very front the
seal of his high and plenary authority. —ovvaxfivtov . . . ᾿Ιησοῦ] after yeare
assembled, and my spirit (note the emphatic τ. ἐμοῦ), with the power of Jesus
(‘‘qui nostram sententiam sua potentia reddet efficacem,” Erasmus, Par-
aphr.). The substance of the thought, namely, which this whole statement
sets before us with concrete vividness and solemnity, is the following : I
have already resolved that ye hold an assembly of the church, in which ye shall
consider me as present furnished with the power of Christ, and in this assembly
shall declare: ““ Paul, in the name of Ohrist, with whose power he is here spir-
itually in the midst of us, hereby delivers over the incestuous man unto Satan.”
Φρίκης μεστὸν συνεκρότησε δικαστήριον, Theodoret. — σύν] denotes in efficient con-
nection therewith, that is to say, the spirit of the apostle is present in the as-
sembly, not in virtue of his own independent power (comp. Acts iii. 12),
but clothed with the authority of Christ, Winer, p. 366 [E. T. 458].* Thus
the power of Christ is not conceived as the third party in the assembly, —a
view in behalf of which Matt. xviii. 20, xxviii. 20 are cited ; so Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Estius, and others, including
Riickert and Maier.* For Paul bore this power in himself, being as an apos-
1[So Stanley, Beet, Principal Brown, ee —T. W. C.]
al.—T. W. C.] 3 Chrysostom and Theophylact, however,
2 [It is a serious objection to this view leave the choice open between the two
that it would naturally require the preposi- renderings: ἣ ὅτι ὁ Χριστὸς δύναται τοιαύτην
tion before δυνάμει to be not σὺν but ἐν. ὑμῖν χάριν δοῦναι, ὥστε δύνασϑαι τῷ διαβόλῳ
112 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
tle its official possessor and organ, and could not therefore imagine himself
meeting with other persons and with it in the third place, but τ as being
present in immanent union with it as Christ’s apostle at the eventual act of
judgment. It was just as the depositary of this power that he could give
over the sinner to Satan in the name of the Lord, and be assured that the
sentence would take effect. According to Hofmann, by σὺν τ. δυν. «.7.A.
Paul means only to express this, that he would rely upon the aid of the
power of Christ. Comp. the classic σὺν θεοῖς, deorum ope (Reisig, Enarr. p.
Ixiv. ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 8). But the thought thus yielded,
after the ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι x.7.2. Which has gone before it, would be far too weak.
Ver. 5. Τὸν τοιοῦτον] the so-constituted, comprises in one word the whole
abhorrent character’ of the man. Note.the similar expression in 2 Cor. ii.
7. — παραδοῦναι τῷ Σατανᾷ] is—although the phrase may not occur in Jewish
formulae of excommunication (Lightfoot, Horae, p. 167 ff., but see Pfaff,
Orig. jur. eccles. p. 72 f.)—the characteristic designation of the higher Chris-
tian grade of excommunication, with which there was essentially joined the or-
daining in the power of the apostolic office (not simply the presupposition, as
Billroth’s rationalizing interpretation has it), that Satan should plague the
person delivered over to him with corporeal inflictions. Therein consisted the
difference between this peculiar species of the DJ which had passed over
from the synagogue to the church, and the simple aipew ἐκ μέσου, ver. 2,
comp. ver. 18. The latter could be performed by the church itself, whereas
the παραδοῦναι τῷ Lar. appears in this passage, as in 1 Tim. i. 20, to be
reserved for the plenary authority of an apostle. It pertained to the apos-
tolic ἐξουσία, 2 Cor. xiii. 10. Comp. the analogous penal power in the cases
of Ananias and Elymas, Acts v. 1 ff., xiii. 9 ff. The simple exclusion be-
longed to the church independently, ver. 2; and the apostle calls upon
them in ver. 13 to exercise this right of theirs. To himself, again, in the
power of Christ, belonged the title and the power to inflict the intensified
penalty of excommunication, the delivery to Satan, of which, accordingly,
he does not say that the church ought to execute it, but that he has already
resolved, etc. Observe, too, that παραδοῦναι is active; he does not say
παραδοθῆναι, but he himself will do it. There is no reason to doubt the
fact of this power being the prerogative of the apostleship, as the higher
authority vested with power to punish? (Lipsius Rechtfertigungsl. p. 181,
Hofmann) ; comp. also Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 373. As regards the
special assumption, again, that the thought would be complete in itself
without τῷ Σατανᾷ (Hofmann), 1 Tim. i. 20 should have been enough, even
taken singly, to preclude it ; for, judging from that passage, one might
rather say that εἰς ὄλεθρον τ. σαρκός was obvious of itself. The delivery over
παραδιδόσαι, 7 OTL Kai αὐτός ped’ ὑμῶν
kat’ αὐτοῦ φέρει τὴν ψῆφον. Accord-
ing to Theodoret, Christ is viewed as the
presiding authority. Wad the apostle, how-
ever, represented Christ to himself as form-
ing the third in their meeting, he would
hardly have used so abstract an expression
(Svvauer), but would have written at least
σὺν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ Κυρίου. Comp. Acts xy.
28.
1 Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Il. p. 843.
2 Even if 1 Tim. is not an apostolic
Epistle, 1 Tim. i. 20 is at all events written -
in the belief that the delivery to Satan was
effected not by the church, but by the
apostle.
CHAP. V., 5. 113
to Satan can only be viewed as an express and declaratory act of relegation
from Christian fellowship into the power of the ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου ; not as if
Satan were but he, ‘through whom the evil-doer should come to experience
what was destined for him” (Hofmann), which would not imply an exclusion
from the church at all. Many other expositors, following Chrysostom and
appealing to the case of Job, find here only the handing over to Satan for
bodily chastisement,' and not along with that the excommunication (Lightfoot,
Bochart, Wolf, a/.). But this is against the connection, according to which
(see vv. 2, 13) the rapad. τῷ Σατανᾷ cannot belong toa different category
At the same time it is not quite identical with it,?
not simply a description of the excommunication (Calvin, Beza, and others, in-
cluding Semler, Stolz, Schrader, Maier), seeing that the bodily result is
indicated by εἰς ὄλεθρ. τ. σαρκ. as essential and as explaining itself to the
reader without further interpretation. — εἰς ὄλεθρ. τ. σαρκ.} is that which is
to be effected by Satan on the man delivered over to him : for behoof of
destruction of the flesh, i.e. in order that (ἕλκει πονηρῷ ἢ νόσῳ ἑτέρᾳ, Chrysos-
tom), his sinful fleshly nature, which is turned to account by the indwelling
power of sin as the work-place of his desires and lusts, might be emptied
of its energy of sinful life by the pains of bodily sickness, and might in so
far perish and come to nought.* It is not his σῶμα that is to die, but his
σάρξ (Rom. viii. 13 ; Col. 111. 5). The reason why the word σάρξ is here
purposely selected, and not the ethically indifferent σῶμα, was correctly
discerned by so early an expositor as Chrysostom, although many more
recent interpreters, such as Riickert, have failed to perceive it. Hofmann
also takes, in substance, the right view, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 462. To make,
however, as he does (p. 105), the ὅλεθρ. τ. σαρκ. the same as διαφθείρεται ὁ ἔξω
ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος, 2 Cor. iv. 15, accords neither with the real meaning nor with
the ethical relations of the case. As regards the two telic statements : εἰς
ὄλεθρ. τ. σ. and iva τὸ πνεῦμα κιτ.2. (Which last expresses the final design of
the whole measure of the παραδοῦναι κ.τ.}.), observe that it is with an anti-
Christian purpose that Satan smites the man delivered over to him with
bodily misery, but that against his own will this purpose of his is made to
from the αἴρειν ἐκ μέσου.
1ῷῶ0 also Grotius, who, moreover,—and
in this Billroth follows him,—rationalizes
παραδοῦναι into precari Deum, ut eum tradat.
3.30, too, Theophylact on 1 Tim. Lc.
Comp. Balsamon, ad Can. vii. Basil. p. 938,
where itis said that we term subjects of
Satan: of χωριζόμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς κοινωνίας τῶν
πιστῶν, similarly Theodore of Mopsuestia in
Cram. Cat. p. 92, who explains it of the ea-
communication (the result of which is the
dominion of Satan; and Paul gives the
name here from that result, in order the
more to overawe), and then ὄλεϑρον σαρκός:
τὴν κατὰ Tov παρόντα βίον διὰ τῆς μεταμελείας
συντριβήν. Comp. Ambrosiaster, Augustine,
contr. Parm. iii. 2; Pelagius, Anselm.
3 The expression: ὄλεϑρ. τ. σαρκ., is too
strong and characteristic to allow of its
being understood merely of the pains of
repentance breaking the sinful impulses.
The repentance, too, was, in fact, just as
likely to have remained lacking as to have
set in, had it not been for these bodily pains
intervening after the delivery over to Satan
as a means of humiliation and discipline
(comp. iva παιδευϑῶσι, 1 Tim. i. 20,and Huther
on that verse). Thereby the whole morti-
fication of the old man was to be brought
about, inasmuch as the σάρξ constitutes
the moral essence of the old man in virtue
of the power of sin which dwells in it
(Rom. vii. 18), and which guides and gov-
erns him. The σάρξ is to perish, in order
that the δίκη of ὄλεϑρος αἰώνιος may not be
inflicted at the day of judgment (2 Thess. 1
9; comp. 1 Tim. vi. 9).
114 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
serve God’s aim of salvation. —iva τὸ πνεῦμα κ.τ.}2.} in order that his spirit,
the underlying element of the higher moral life, of the true ζωή, may be saved
(with the Messianic salvation) on the day of the (approaching) Parousia. That
the σῶμα, again,—in which the σάρξ has lost its life, so that it is no longer
the σῶμα τῆς σαρκός, Col. ii. 11,—should then be glorified, was a thing which
did not need to be expressly stated to the Christian eschatological conscious-
ness. See so early an expositor as Chrysostom. Calovius puts it well :
‘‘Non ergo dividit hominem apostolus, quasi eum partim interire, partim
servari velit. Nam nec corpus interire potest sine divulsione ab anima, nec
anima servari absque corporis salute.” Now this Messianic salvation was
to Paul’s mind not merely a possible thing (Olshausen), but he expected it as
a result, which, in virtue of the saving power of Christ, could not fail to
ensue after the slaying of the sinful impulses by the ὄλεθρος τῆς σαρκός in the
case of the man led by this punishment to conviction of sin and true peni-
tence. The παραδοῦναι τῷ Yar. was therefore a paedagogic penal arrange-
ment, a ‘‘ medicinale remedium” (Calovius), as is shown by the whole scope
of this passage and 1 Tim. i. 20 (not by the term παραδοῦναι itself, as Chrys-
ostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact maintain, on the ground of Paul’s not
having written ἐκδοῦναι), ---ἃ measure, in connection with which the πνεῦμα
remained out of Satan’s power and accessible to the gracious influences of
Christ, inasmuch as it retained the vital principle of faith, which was to
develop its supremacy just in proportion as the σάρξ was destroyed. This
may suffice to set aside Riickert’s censure of the apostle’s proceeding, on
the ground that the punishment might easily have led to the utter destruc-
tion of the sinner, and, moreover, that Paul acted ‘‘ imprudently” (comp.
Baur, I. p. 335 f., 2d ed.), since he could not have compelled the Corinthi-
ans to obey him in the matter. He does not, in fact, actually ordain’ the
παραδοῦναι τῷ Sar., but says merely that he, for his part, has already resolved
on this, confining himself, therefore, certainly (against Lipsius and Hof-
mann) to the threat? in the meantime ; and what he desires for the present
is just the simple αἴρειν ἐκ μέσου (comp. ver. 13), which also was done by
the majority, as we learn from 2 Cor. ii. 6, and that with the best results !
Comp. Bengel on ver. 3. Upon the whole, too, we may believe that Paul
knew his own powers of apostolic discipline, and may trust him to have
been satisfied that, to try milder measures first (the omission of which
Riickert blames as arising from passion), would not with the person con-
cerned have had the effect aimed at. (m)
Ver. 6. In face of the necessity for such measures as these—how odious ap-
pears that of which ye make boast! Rather ought ye to consider that a little
leaven, etc., and (ver. 7) sweep out the old leaven! Katbynua is not the same
as καύχησις, but : materies gloriandi (see on Rom. iv. 2) ; and what is meant
1 Baur, however, is of opinion (Pazdus, 1. Cor; xii, 12; 1 Cor. xii: 10, 99.
p. 334) that as it never did come in the in- 2 Hence, too, the idea that the readers
stance before us to the working of an ac- were to let him know of the day fixed for
tual apostolic miracle, so neither did sucha the meeting in question (Hofmann), is not
thing ever take place in any other case. conveyed in the passage, and is, indeed,
See, on the other hand, Rom. xv. 19; 2 quite alien to its scope.
CHAP, V., 7. 115
by it is not the incestuous person (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius) as a
man of high repute for wisdom in Corinth, but the condition of the Corin-
thians as a Christian church, inasmuch as they boasted themselves of this
so confidently, while morally it was foul enough and full of shameful abuses!
αἰσχρὸν κλέος, Eur. Hel. 185. --- οὐκ οἴδατε κ.τ.λ.} Basis of the admonition
which follows in ver. 7. The meaning of the proverbial saying (comp. Gal.
v. 9, and on the figure of the leaven, which is very frequently used else-
where, and that in different senses, Matt. xiii. 33 ; Luke xiii. 21; Matt.
xvi. 6 ; Mark viii. 15 ; Luke xii. 1) is ordinarily defined to be this : that a
corrupt man corrupts the whole church. But ver. 8 proves that Paul was
thinking not of persons, but of abstract qualities in connection with ζύμη
and ἄζυμα. The meaning, therefore, must be : Know ye not that one scan-
dal in the church robs the whole church of its moral and Christian character ?
Comp. also Hofmann. In virtue of their relation as members of a common
society, all become chargeable with guilt by the toleration among them of
a single scandalous offence, and their ἁγιότης is gone !
Ver. 7. ’ExxaOdpate τὴν rad. ζύμ] From what has been already said, the
meaning apart from the figure cannot, it is plain, be : Hxclude from your com-
munion the incestuous person * and other notorious offenders (Rosenmiiller), but:
Empty your church of the sinful habits, which still remain among you from
your pre-Christian condition (as a residuum of the unregenerate παλαιὸς ἄνθρω-
πος, Rom. vi. 6 ; Eph. iv. 22; Col. iii. 9).? Flatt, Pott, and Riickert join
the two ideas together ; but this is unwarranted and against the unity of
sense of the passage.. Respecting τὴν παλαιάν, comp. Ignatius, Magnes. 10 :
τὴν κακὴν ζύμην τὴν παλαιωθείσαν καὶ ἐνοξίσασαν. --- ΓΘ expression ἐκκαθάρ. (comp.
Plato, Huth. p. 3 A ; LXX. Deut. xxvi. 18) is selected in view of the custom,
based on Ex. xii. 15 ff., xiii. 7, and very strictly observed among the Jews,
of removing all leaven from the houses on the day before the Passover (see
as to this, Schoettgen, Hor. p. 598 ; Lund, Jiid. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 1111
f.), which was meant to be a sign of the moral purification of the house
(Ewald, Alterth. p. 475 f.). — νέον φύραμα] a fresh kneaded mass, i.e. figure
apart : ὦ morally new church, freshly restored ‘after the separation from it of
all immoral fermenting elements, its members being νέοι ἄνθρωποι through
Christ (Col. iii. 9, 10). As respects the difference between νέος and καινός,
see on Ool. iii. 10. --- καθώς ἐστε ἀζυμοι] in accordance with your unleavened
character, i.e. in keeping with the ethical nature of the position of a Chris-
tian, which, as such, is separated from sin. For this ἄζυμον εἶναι is the essen-
tial characteristic in the Christian,—who is, it is taken for granted, reconciled
to God, born again, spiritually dead and risen again with Christ (Rom. vi.
2 ff.), and who as a new κτίσις of God (2 Cor. v. 17; Eph. iv. 24 ; Col. iii.
10) in the καινότης πνεύματος (Rom. vii. 6) is free from the law of sin and
death (Rom. viii. 2), and constantly developing the powers of a divine life
towards perfect holiness (vi. 11 ; 2 Cor. vi. 14 ff.), being alive unto God as
His child in whom Christ lives (Gal. ii. 19, 20)—and sin in such an one (the
1 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Cornelius ἃ Osiander, Ewald, Maier, Neander, Hof-
Lapide, Zeger, Estius, Michaelis. mann.
2Comp. Theodoret, Calvin, de Wette,
116 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
being leavened) is abnormal. Hence Christians are—according to this
higher mode of regarding the position of a Christian—aguuo. There is as
little warrant for rendering ἐστέ here by esse debetis (Flatt, Pott, Billroth,
following Chrysostom, Theophylact, a/.) as in Luke ix. 55. Rosenmiiller
holds that ἄζυμ. has here its proper meaning : as ye now ‘‘ vivitis festos dies
azymorum.” But ἄζυμος, in fact, does not mean qui abstinet fermento (as
Grotius would make out, likening it to ἄσιτος, dowoc), but non fermentatus
(comp. ΠῚ. 5). Plato, Tim. p. 74 D ; Athen. iii. p. 109 B; Gen. xix. 3 ;
Ezek. xxix. 2, al. Moreover, Paul could not address these words in that
proper meaning to the church as a whole, even if the Jewish-Christians among
them still kept the Jewish Passover. — καὶ yap τὸ πάσχα x.r.A.] The motive
for ἐκκαθάρατε x.7.2. The emphasis ison τὸ πάσχα,᾽ and καὶ γάρ does not mean
simply for, etenim, but for also (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 137 f.; Stallbaum,
ad Plat. Gorg. p. 467 B), the ‘‘ also” introducing the objective relation of
things corresponding to the exhortation which had just been given. The
paschal lamb slain, and the leaven not purged out—what a contradiction
that is! Paul designates Christ as the Christians’ paschal lamb which had
been slain (Deut. xvi. 6; Mark xiv. 12 ; Luke xxii. 7), because He is the
antitype of the Passover lamb under the law, inasmuch, namely, as His
blood was shed, not by any means merely ‘‘as the beginning of redemption
which made it possible” (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 11. 1, p. 323), but, accord-
ing to the whole N. T., as the atonement for believers, and that, too, on the
very same day (the day before the feast of the Passover, see on John xviii. 28)
on which, from the earliest times, the blood of the paschal lambs had been
shed as an expiation for each family (see Ewald, Alterth. p. 466 f. ; Keil,
δ Ixxxi. 11). Comp. also John xix. 36. In connection with this verse it has
been justly remarked (comp. on John xviii. 28, and Liicke in the Gétt. gel.
Anz. 1834, p. 2020), that Paul could not with propriety have given this title to
Christ, if he had followed the Synoptical account of the day of Jesus’ death.
Comp. Introd. to John, ὃ 2. In point of fact, had he followed the tradition
of the Synoptists, that death-day, as being the 15th Nisan, would, by the
mode of conception necessarily arising from his Jewish nationality, have
hindered his calling Christ antitypically the slain paschal lamb. For a
Passover lamb slain on the first day of the feast would have been, to a Jew-
ish mind moulded according to the ancient and venerated appointment of
the divine law, a ‘‘ contradictio in adjecto , 5 even supposing that the point
of the comparison—which, in accordance with the invariable Pauline mode
of regarding the death of Jesus (comp. also on John i. 29), must of necessity
1 Theodoret renders wrongly, for it is
against the order of the words (asif it were
Kal yap ἡμῶν τ. 7.) : ἔχομεν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀμνὸν
tion also agrees with this. See Gemara
Bab. in Sanhedr. vi. 2: ‘‘ Traditio est, ves-
pera Paschatis suspensum fuisse Jesum.”
Luther and Neander. Erasmus translates
correctly : “ Nam et pascha nostrum.”
3 This passage, too, therefore goes to
establish the position that Jo/n’s narrative,
and not the Synoptic, ig the historically cor-
rect one as regards the day of the death of
Jesus. Observe how the Rabbinical tradi-
It is well known that the 14th Nisan (the
Preparation-day) was called MOD I Vy, ves-
pera Paschatis. The fabulous circumstances
linked with the death of Jesus itself in the
passage of the Talmud referred to, do not
affect the simple statement as to the time
when it took place.
CHAP. Y., 8. 117
be His being slain as a ἱλαστήριον, Rom. iii. 25—were the new divine polity of
the holy people, to which the death of Jesus ‘stands, it is said, just in the
same relation as the slaying of the paschal lamb in Egypt to the deliverance
of Israel out of Egypt (as Hofmann objects). Wieseler, in his chronol.
Synopse, p. 374f. (comp. also his Beitr. 2. Wiirdigung d. Ev. p. 266), urges as
an argument on the other side, that in x. 16, τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας, as a tech-
nical phrase for the cup in the Lord’s Supper, shows that this cup was iden-
tified with that of the Passover. Assuredly ! but it shows also, in necessary
connection therewith, that Christ slain on the 14th Nisan was the Paschal
Lamb of believers. The Supper, therefore, which brought them into fellow-
ship with the body and blood of Christ, could not but present itself to the
Christian consciousness as the paschal meal, corresponding to the eating of
the paschal lamb, and so, too, the ewp in the Supper as the antitype of the
paschal cup. Consequently chap. x. 16, taken in connection with the pas-
sage before us, speaks for and not against the account in John. It is, how-
ever, from the view held by the primitive church respecting the Supper as
the antitype of the paschal meal, that the origin of.the Synoptical tradition
is to be historically understood. See on John xviii. 28.
Ver. 8. The paschal lamb having been slain, there follows the keeping of
the feast, and that not with leaven, but with what is unleavened. Since,
then, Christ has been slain as the Christian’s paschal lamb, they too must
keep their feast in an ethical sense, that is to say, by leading a holy life,
without sinful admixture, with pure and true Christian virtue. Hence the
admonition : let ws therefore keep feast, etc. The ἑορτή implied in ἑορτάζ. is, it
is true, the feast of the Passover, but in such a sense that the keeping of the
Passover is meant to be a figurative representation of the character of the
whole of a Christian’s walk and conversation, because this is to be without
moral leaven, etc. Comp. Philo, de congr. er. qu. gr. Ὁ. 447 D. It may be
added, that Theodore of Mopsuestia says aptly : ὡς yap παρὼν, οὕτω πρὸς
τοὺς παρόντας λοιπὸν διαλέγεται. --- ἐν ζύμῃ παλ.] Precisely asin ver. 7 ; not asa
designation of the incestuous person (Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Heydenreich),
which would, besides, have required the article. Ἔν is used in the sense
of provided with. Comp. on iv. 21. — μηδὲ ἐν ζύμῃ κακ. x. rov.] singles out
something special from the general μὴ ἐν ζ. παλ. : and inparticular not with
the leaven of maliciousness and wickedness (see on Rom. i. 29). The genitives
are genitives appositionis. The apostle must have had ground enough in the
condition of the church, even apart from the case of the incestuous man, for
laying such peculiar stress in the way of warning upon nequitia and malitia.
— ἀζύμοις] from ἄζυμα, what is unleavened, i.e, NS (Ex. xii. 15, 18). There is
nothing (such as ἄρτοις) that needs to be supplied. — Εἰλικριν. and ἀληθ. differ
from each other only in degree ; the former is moral purity (καϑαρότης δια-
νοίας καὶ ἀδολότης οὐδὲν ἔχουσαι συνεσκιασμένον Kai ὕπουλον, Theophylact on 2
Cor. i. 12) ; the latter, moral truth, the essence of actual moral goodness,
See on John iii. 21 ; Eph. v. 9 ; Phil. iv. 8.
Remarx.—This whole allegory, vv. 6-8, would have been unnatural on Paul’s
part, had he been writing this Epistle, which was written before Pentecost
118 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(xvi. 8), after Easter, and so between that feast and Pentecost,—extremely nat-
ural, on the other hand, if the Jewish Passover was then in immediate prospect.
Were that the case, this very allegory, which is taken up by him in no other place,
would offer itself to him unsought, so that the peculiar stamp of his discourse
would be accounted for as bearing the impress of the festal thoughts awakened
within him by the approach of the Passover. The passage before us, there-
fore, compared with xvi. 8, is rightly regarded by Bengel and most of the suc-
ceeding commentators (comp. especially Wieseler, Chronologie d. Apost. Zeitalt. p.
327 ff.) as giving evidence of the fact that Paul was now writing shortly before
Easter. The few expositors who oppose this view (Henke on Paley’s Hor. Paul.
p. 413 ff. ; Eichhorn, Hinl. II. p. 198 ; de Wette, Curtius, de temp. quo prior P.
ad Tim., ete. p. 43; Schrader, II. p. 132; Hofmann) have only this in their
favour, that a demonstrative proof is of course impossible. But it is a misun-
derstanding of the passage to find in it an admonition to celebrate properly the
approaching feast of Easter (see especially Heydenreich). Considering the figu-
rative nature of the expression (see on ver. 8), we must not try to draw any in-
ferences from this passage as to the question whether or how Christians kept the
feast of Easter in those days (against Weitzel, Passahf. p. 183 ff. ; Lechler, p.
350). Theophylact says well: δείκνυσιν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ χρόνος ἑορτῆς ἐστι καιρὸς τοῖς
Χριστιανοῖς διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῶν δοθέντων αὐτοῖς ἀγαθῶν" διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ
Θεοῦ; ἄνθρωπος γέγονε καὶ ἐτύθη, ἵνα σε ἑορτάζειν ποιήσῃ. Comp. Hilgenfeld, Pas-
chastreit, p. 173 f.
Vv. 9-13. Citation and fuller explanation of a passage of the former letter
which had been misinterpreted in Corinth by his malevolent adversaries, The
new section begins without a connective particle, like vi. 1, v. 1.
Ver. 9. Sequence of thought: What I have written to you thus far con-
cerning the exclusion of the incestuous person, and concerning the purging
out of the leaven, leads me now to speak of the passage in my former letter
which has been misunderstood among you, etc. — ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ) 1.6. in the
letter which I wrote to you, and 50 : in my letter, by which Paul means the
letter to the Corinthians, composed before the present one and in the posses-
sion of his readers, but not in ours. So rightly Ambrosiaster, and after him
Calvin, Beza, Estius, Clarius, Zeger, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel, Wetstein,
Mosheim, Semler, and many others, including most modern interpreters.
Chrysostom, again, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cornelius ἃ Lapide,
Fabricius, Wolf, Glass, Baumgarten, Bolten, Stosch (de epp. ap. non deperd.
1753, p. 75 ff.), and Miiller (de trib. Pauli itinerib. Corinth. suscept. de epis-
tolisque ad eosd. non deperdit., Basil. 1831), understand it of the present Epis-
tle, either supposing that a reference is intended to vv. 2 and 6, or even
making éyp. apply to ver. 11. This method of interpretation arises for the
most part from dogmatic prejudices,’ and has against it the following con-
1Grotius aptly remarks: ‘Satis Deo which itself owes its origin to a dogmatic
debemus, quod tot (epistolae) servatae retrospective inference — between canon
sunt, ad quas siet singulorum vita et regi- particularis and universalis, temporalis and
men ecclesiae dirigatur, bene erit.’’ Comp. perpetuus. Divine Providence, he holds, did
Calvin. Calovius, in order to defend the not design the lost Epistle a7 wswm canoni-
integrity of the canon against the Roman cum perpetuum of the whole church, and
Catholics, insists upon the distinction— therefore allowed it to perisb.
CHAP. γα, 10: 119
siderations : first, the parallel passage in 2 Cor. vii. 8 ; secondly, that ἐν τῇ
ἐπ. would in that case be singularly superfluous ; thirdly, the -fact that μὴ
συναναμ. πόρν. Occurs neither in ver. 2 nor ver. 6 ; and finally, that no occa-
sion at all had been given in the preceding statements for any such misap-
prehension as is here corrected. Lange, in his Apostol. Zeitalter, I. p. 205,
pronounces in a peculiarly positive way that the hypothesis of a lost Epistle
is a ‘‘ fiction ;” Paul means the present letter, but distinguishes it as a letter
from the ecstatic act which he had just performed through the medium of
this letter, namely, the transference of himself in spirit into the midst of the
church ; what he wishes to declare is the permanent epistolary significance of
that act. But this itself is quite an empty ‘‘jiction,” since there is not a
trace of an ecstasy here, since Paul would, on this theory, have taken the
very vaguest way possible of expressing his supposed meaning, and since the
parallel statement in 2 Cor. vii. 8 is decisively against any such arbitrary
fancies. (N) It may be added that, when Riickert holds that the article here,
and the absence of any defining adjective, prove the lost Epistle to have been
the only one which Paul had then already sent to Corinth, this, on a com-
parison with 2 Cor. vii. 8, appears to be an over-hasty conclusion, although,
so far as the fact itself is concerned, it may be regarded as correct, seeing
that we have no hint of any other lost letter having also preceded our first
Epistle. — συναναμιγν. } to mix oneself up with, have intercourse with, 2 Thess.
iii. 14; Athen. vi. p. 256 A; Lucian. Cont. xv. Comp. the affirmative
στέλλεσϑαι ἀπό, 2 Thess. iii. 6. — πόρνος, in the N. T. and in Ecclus. xxiii.
16, signifies fornicator.' See also Lennep. Phalar. ep. xi. p. 60. 2.
Ver. 10. More precise negative explanation of the rule laid down in the
said letter, μὴ συναναμ. πόρν., which had been misinterpreted among the
Corinthians (as Paul gathered probably from their letter to him) into a pro-
hibition of association with fornicators among those who were not Christians ;
perhaps from a disposition to connive at the offenders within the bosom of
the church itself. — οὐ πάντως τοῖς πόρν. τ. x. τ.] is dependent on μὴ cvvava-
μιγν. 3 it stands in a relation of opposition to the preceding πόρνοις, and ex-
plains what that πόρνοις did not mean. ‘‘I wrote to you to refrain from
intercourse with fornicators, (i.e.) not absolutely* with the fornicators of this
world.” An entire cessation of intercourse with πόρνοις in that sense of the
word, it would, of course, be impossible to establish, seeing that you can-
not go out of the world ; but what I meant was Christians given to forni-
cation, ver. 11. Comp. Plato, Pol. v. p. 454 C : ob πάντως τὴν αὐτὴν κ. τὴν
ἑτέραν φύσιν ἐτιθέμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνο τὸ εἶδος μόνον κιτ.Δ. The οὐ instead of μή is
correct enough (in opposition to Riickert), because οὐ πάντως τ. πόρν. τ. κ. τ.
conveys something which is objectively denied, a definition of the notion of
πόρνοις, Which does not occur. Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 334 [E. T.
389]. The conception is a different one, e.g., in Plato, Pol. iv. p. 419 A:
ἐὰν τίς σε φῇ μὴ πάνυ τι εὐδαίμονας ποιεῖν τούτους. Commentators often supply
1Tn the classics, mostly of wnnatural vice mon with Greek writers (Lobeck, Paral. p.
(with males). Becker, Charides, I. p. 346 ff. ; 57), would have been still stronger if used
Wermann, Privatalterth. § xxix. 22. in place of πάντως, altogether, absolutely.
2The phrase πάντῃ πάντως, Which iscom- _ See generally on ix. 22.
120 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ἔγραψα after ob ; so, among the rest, Olshausen ; not (wrote I, meant I): with
the fornicators of this world in general. But what an arbitrary separation
this is of the mutually connected words οὐ πάντως | And the interpretation
in question has this, too, against it, that τ. κόσμου τ. does not refer to the
world in general, but to those who were non-Christians (see below), so that
the ‘in general” would be logically incorrect. Riickert takes οὐ πάντως as
an intensified negative like that in Rom. iii. 9 (comp. Luther), and supplies
ἔγραψα after it: “By no means did I write ; i.e., the import of my prohi-
bition was by no means, to have no intercourse with the fornicators of this
world.” But so understood, the words would lend countenance to inter-
course with fornicators not Christian, which cannot be Paul’s meaning.
His intention is merely to set aside the misinterpretation which had been
put upon his words, as if he had meant thereby to enforce an absolute ces-
sation of intercourse with unchaste men outside the Christian society.
Lastly, Billroth is wrong in rendering, after Chrysostom and Theophylact
(τὸ πάντως ὡς ἐπὶ ὡμολογημένου τέθεικε πράγματος) : ‘‘ not, of course, with
the fornicators of this world.” In that case, we should have had at least
πάντως ov, for the sense would be, as Theophylact himself states : καὶ πάντως
ov τοῖς πόρνοις τ. κόσμου συναναμίγνυσθαι ἐκώλυσα, τουτέστι τοῖς τῶν “Ἑλλήνων. ----
τοῦ κόσμου τούτου] who belong to this (ante-Messianic) world, not, like the
Christians, to the Messiah’s kingdom as its future members ; hence it is the
ἀλλότριοι τῆς πίστεως (Theodoret) who are here denoted, whose opposite is
the ἀδελφός in ver. 11. To understand it of mankind in general, Christians
and non-Christians together (Pott, Hofmann, al.), is, seeing that τούτου is
joined with it, contrary to the apostle’s mode of using language (Gal. iv. 3 ;
Col. ii. 8; Eph. ii. 2; 1 Cor. iii. 19, vii. 31; 2 Cor. iv. 4), and contrary
also to the context (vv. 11, 12). Afterwards, when Paul is thinking of the
world of men in general, he purposely omits the τούτου. ---- ἢ τοῖς πλεονέκταις
«.T.2.] We may suppose that Paul, in the passage of his former letter now
alluded to, had warned them not merely against πόρνοις, but also against
those guilty of the other kinds of vice indicated here, and yet more specifi-
cally in ver. 11. Hence: ‘‘with the fornicators of this world, or—not to
overlook the others, with whom also I forbade you to hold intercourse—
with those greedy of gain, and violently grasping at it.” These two, connected
with each other as general, and particular by καί (see the critical remarks),
are conceived of as belonging together to one category. It is otherwise in
ver. 11, where each of these sins is viewed by itself. As to dpz., the essen-
tial characteristic of which is violence, comp. Luke xviii. 11; Soph. Phil.
640 : κλέψαι τε χἀρπάσαι Bia. —T. κόσμου τ. is to be understood again after
apr. and εἰδωλ. See ver. 11. —ére? ὀφείλετε x.7.2.] for so, (were you absolutely
and entirely to break off from the heathen fornicators, etc.) you must needs
go out of the world (ἑτέραν οἰκουμένην ὀφείλετε ζητῆσαι, Theophylact), since no-
where could you be perfectly relieved from casual contact with such non-
Christians. I should thus have demanded what was impossible. As re-
gards the direct ὀφείλετε, comp. vii. 14 ; Rom. iii. 6, xi. 6, 22. It is attested
by B, Chrysostom, and Theodoret. In place of it, Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Riickert, and Hofmann read ὠφείλετε, which has, indeed, the preponderance
CHAP. Vez, 11: 121
of evidence in its favour, but must be considered as an emendation. The
strangeness of the conclusion is not conveyed by the ἄρα (Hofmann, following
the mistake of Hartung), but by the case itself assumed, in which the
apa merely introduces what was indubitably involved in the supposed pro-
tasis (comp. Baeumlein, Partik. p. 19 ff.). See against Hartung, Ellendt,
Lex, Soph. 1. p. 214.
Ver. 11. Nuvi δέ] But thus (see on Rom. iii. 21), in reality as contrasted
with the aforesaid misconstruction, J did write to you. Herewith Paul now
introduces the trwe meaning of the passage from his letter quoted above,
ver. 9. Other expositors make νυνὶ δέ refer to time: but at present (Caje-
tanus, Morus, Pott, Heydenreich). But the whole context is against this ;
according to it, Paul’s design is simply to define more precisely the purport
of that phrase in his former letters : ‘‘ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι répvoc.” He has
done this only negatively in ver. 10, but goes on now to do it positively in
ver. 11. Further, were a contrast drawn between the present and the
former letter, the present γράφω would have been more natural and more
distinct than the epistolary aorist (see on Gal. vi. 11) ; nay, to obviate the
misunderstanding, it would have been a thing of necessity, iv. 14. — ἀδελφὸς
évouatou.| the most important element in the more definite explanation’
which Paul is giving of his misunderstood prohibition : being called a brother,
i.e. bearing the name of Christian. Comp. ὄνομα ἔχειν, Rev. iii. 1. Estius,
following Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Oecumenius, joins ὀνομαζ. with
what comes after, in the sense of: if a brother is a notorious fornicator,
having the name of being such. But ὀνομάζεσθαι means always simply to be
called, without any such pregnancy of significance either in a good or bad
sense (even in Eph. i. 21, v. 3; Rom. xv. 20). Had Paul wished to express
the meaning of : bearing the character and repute of a fornicator, he must
have used the phrase ὀνομάζεσθαι εἷναι πόρνος (Plato, Pol. iv. p. 428 E ; Prot.
p. 811 E). Besides, it is unlikely that he should have expressly limited
the prohibition to notorious fornicators alone, and thereby weakened its
moral force. — λοίδορος] as in vi. 10 ; comp. on iv. 12. — εἰδωλολάτρης] Estius
observes well that this applies to the Christian, who ‘‘sive ex animo, seu
metu, seu placendi voluntate, seu quavis alia ratione inductus, infidelium
sacris se admiscet, ut vel idolum colat, opere saltem externo, vel de idolo-
thytis edat.” Comp. vi. 9, viii. 10, x. 7, xiv. 1; John v. 21; and Diister-
diek in loc. Among the frivolous Corinthians, such reversions to the old
habits and fellowship might not be uncommon. — μέθυσος] used by old
writers only of the female sex ; but of the male also in later Greek, after
Menander. See Wetstein ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 151 f. ; Meineke, Menan-
der, p. 27. — There are no traces discernible of a logical order in the series
of vices here enumerated beyond this, that the three which are of specifi-
cally heathen character are put first, and then three others follow, which
1 This more detailed definition, therefore, ναμίγ. πόρνοις as they had actually done.
cannot have been given expressly in the For there is no indication in the text that
lost Epistle, but must have been taken for the misinterpretation was a wilful and
granted as self-evident. Otherwise they malicious one, arising out of κακία «x. πονηρία,
could not have so misinterpreted the συνα- ver. 8 (Hofmann).
122 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
destroy the peace of the church-life. —ro τ. μηδὲ συνεσθῆ.} parallel, though
by way of climax, to the μὴ συναναμ. ; hence not anacoluthic in point of
construction. As regards the meaning, again, we must not limit it to the
Agapae (Vorstius, Mosheim, Stolz, Heydenreich), which would suit neither
the quite general phrase συνεσῦ. (comp. xi. 20) nor the intensifying μηδέ.
It means ; with one so constituted (comp. ver. 5) not even to have fellowship at
table (neither to ask him to your table, nor sit with him at his). Comp.
Luke xv. 2; Gal. ii. 12. This implies of course of itself, that they ought
also to have no fellowship at the Agapae with such persons. Ei dé κοινῆς
τροφῆς τοῖς τοιούτοις ov δεῖ κοινωνεῖν, ἤπου γε μυστικῆς Te καὶ ϑείας, Theodoret. Re-
specting the distinction between the μὴ συναναμίγν. and excommunication,
see 2 Thess. ili. 15.
Ver. 12f. The reason for his having spoken in reference to the Christians,
and not those without the Christian pale: for it does not at all concern me to
be passing disciplinary judgments upon the latter. — τὶ yap μοι] for what concern
is it of mine? etc. See Wetstein on the passage, and Schaefer, ad Bos. Hill.
p. 598. The emphasis falls so entirely upon τί and τοὺς ἔξω, that we have
not ἐμοί, which is not needed even if the reading καὶ (even, besides) τ. ἔξω be
adopted. — τοὺς ἔξω] was with the Jews the standing name (ὨΣῚΝ ὙΠ) for the
heathen (see Lightfoot, Hor., ad Mare. iv. 11 ; Schoettgen on this verse ;
Kypke, II. p. 198); and so, in like manner, with the Christians it was the
standing appellation for all who were non-Christians, as being outside the
fellowship of the true people of God (Col. iv. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 12; 1 Tim.
111. 7). --- οὐχὶ τοὺς ἔσω ὑμεῖς κρίνετε ;| By this question Paul appeals, in justi-
fication of what he has just said: ‘‘what does it concern me,” etc., to the
exercise of judicial functions by his readers themselves in the administration of
church discipline, in so far, that is to say, as that discipline bore upon their
fellow- Christians, and not upon those outside of the Christian society.
Riickert thinks that Paul means to say : Judging is not my matter at all (see-
ing that the members of the church were judged by their fellow-members
themselves ; while those without, again, God would hereafter judge). But
judging was doubtless his matter (see vv. 4-6, vv. 11, 13), only not re-
specting those ἔξω. What. he means is rather this: “Τὸ judge those who
are not Christians is no concern of mine, any more than you take in hand to
judge any others except your fellow-believers.” ‘‘Ex eo, quod in ecclesia
fieri solet, interpretari debuistis monitum meum, ver. 9: cives judicatis,
non alienos,” Bengel. The simple κρίνετε is altered in meaning by Billroth:
Isit not enough that ye? ete., as well as by Castalio, Grotius, al. : judicare
debetis (we find this interpretation as early as Theophylact). The Corinthi-
ans actually judged, every time that they passed a sentence of ecclesiastical
discipline. Lastly, it is a mistake to render, as is done by τινές in Theo-
phylact, Knatchbull, Hammond, Michaelis, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Flatt,
Heydenreich : No; judge ye your fellow-Christians! Οὐ χί is not a suitable
answer to τί, and would, besides, require ἀλλά after it (Rom. iii. 27 ; Luke
1. 60, xii. 51, xiii. 3, 5, xvi. 30), and that with a clause forming a logically
correct antithesis to the question put.
Ver. 13. But of those that are without Godis judge,—not T and not you.
GHAP. V2, 13: 123
This statement appears more weighty and striking when taken -as a sen-
tence by itself, than as a continuation of the question (and still in depend-
ence upon οὐχί ; so Lachmann, Riickert, Olshausen, Hofmann). The ac-
centuation κρινεῖ 15 to be rejected, because it is clear from the context, that
so far from there being any necessity for the reference to the last judgment
which would give occasion for the future (Rom. iii. 6, 11. 16), on the con-
trary the present κρίνει (Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, al., Pott, de Wette)
corresponds in much the most natural way to the preceding κρίνειν and κρί-
According to this view, then, the future judgment is neither exclu-
sively pointed to by κρίνει, nor is it thereby excluded ; but the judgment of
those who are non-Christians is described generally as a matter for God,
whenever and however it may take place. — Paul has now ended his more
definite explanation and correction as regards that misunderstood statement
in his letter, ver. 9. But for the Corinthians what more direct inference
could be drawn from this explanation, than the duty of expelling the of-
fender already spoken of, whom they should indeed have excluded before
(ver. 2)? Hence the apostle adds, without further preface (note, too, the
aorist), the brief categorical command : ἐξάρατε κ.ιτ.2. This injunction cor-
responds so exactly to the LXX. version of Deut. xxiv. 7, that it must be
set down as simply arbitrary to deny that the form of expression here was
purposely selected from remembrance of that passage.
μαρτυρίαν, ϑείῳ νόμῳ βεβαιώσας τὸν λόγον, Theodoret. Hofmann conjectures
that Paul wrote καὶ ἐξαρεῖ τε, and that this meant : and no less will He ( God)
also take away the wicked one (those who are wicked in general) from the midst
of you ;” but this is neither critically established—since the Recepta καὶ
ἐξαρεῖτε is on critical grounds to be utterly rejected—nor grammatically ad-
missible, for the assumed use of καὶ. . . τέ is foreign both to Attic prose
and to the N. T. ;? nor, finally, isit in accordance with the context, for τὸν
πονηρόν manifestly refers to the specific malefactor of ver. 2, and to his ex-
clusion from church ; comp. Augustine : ‘‘rdv πονηρόν, quod est hune malig-
num.” — ὑμῶν αὐτῶν] ismore expressive than the simple ὑμῶν : from the midst
of yourselves, in which you have hitherto tolerated him. Bengel’s com-
ment hits the mark: ‘‘antitheton ezternos.”
VETE.
Μωσαϊκὴν τέϑεικε
Remarx.—Paul has ended what he had to say against the party-divisions in
chap. iv. That the evils censured in chap. v. (and vi.) had any connection in
point of principle with the party-divisions, is a view which finds no trace of
support in the apostle’s way of speaking of them. Hence, too, it is impossible
to prove that the persons at whom Paul’s censures were levelled belonged to
1 Although preferred by Luther, Grotius,
Iistius, Wetstein, Bengel, Valckenaer, d.,
Lachmann, Scholz, Riickert, Olshausen,
Tischendorf, Ewald, Hofmann (in accord-
ance with Arm. Copt. Vulgate, Chrysostom,
al.).
2The apparent proof - passages from
Greek writers are either founded on cor-
Tupt readings or are deprived of their force
when correctly expiained. See especially
Bornemann, ad Anab. i. 8. 3; Kiihner, ad
Memor. iv. 2.28; Hartung, Par/ikell. 1. p-
113 ff.: also Kriiger on Thue. i. 9. 3. The
atque etiam would have been rendered by
With respect to the occurrence
of καί re and καί... τε, without a corre-
sponding καί after it, in Homer, Herodotus,
etc., see Niigelsbach on the Ziad, p. 176f.,
ed. 3; and on the whole subject, comp.
Matthiae, § 626, p. 1504 f.
kai... dé.
124 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
any one special party, and if so, to which, In particular, we must refrain from
attempting to refer the πορνεία in question, and its odious manifestation, to one
definite party, and to the principles held by it, whether to the Pauline section
(Neander), or the Christ-party (Olshausen, Jaeger, Kniewel), or the Apollonians
(Riibiger), This much only may be regarded as certain, that the misuse of
Christian freedom, so far as that in principle lay at the root of the mischief (vi.
12), cannot be charged upon the Petrine party.
Notrs py AMERICAN EDITOR,
(ἡ Church discipline. Ver. 5.
The case mentioned here is of importance as settling once for all the duty,
the limits, and the object of ecclesiastical discipline. Disorderly conduct is
not to be left simply to the action of the ordinary influence of Christian teach-
ing, but must be dealt with directly by the church in the way of judicial in-
quiry. Immorality is not to be tolerated among the avowed followers of Christ.
This, however, does not involve the infliction of temporal pains and penalties.
Nothing of this kind is even hinted at in the account of the treatment of the
incestuous man. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, and neither requires
nor admits of the secular arm to enforce its decisions. Its whole action is
moral and spiritual, and the extremest infliction it can impose in any case is
exclusion from itsfellowship. The reasons for exercising such discipline are—
first, the honour of Christ, which is sadly impeached when open sin is allowed
among those who confess His name. To make ‘ Christ the minister of sin”
is a grievous offence. Secondly, the welfare of the church requires that trans-
gressors should be dealt with. For sin is a spreading leprosy. It may begin
in a small and obscure place, but unless arrested will increase and diffuse itself
till the whole body is infected. A moral gangrene must be cut out. Thirdly,
the welfare of the offender himself, which, although it is subordinate to the
other considerations mentioned, is never to be lost sight of. The wise, kindly,
deliberate action of the church may save the erring member. And hence, how-
ever summary the exclusion, the door is always left open for return. No act
of excommunication is irrevocable. Its object, so far as the offender is con-
cerned, is his recovery, and if he repent and come to a better mind, nothing
stands in the way of his readmission to the privileges of Christ’s house.
It is obvious, however, that it was the second of these considerations that the
Apostle had in mind, as he adds, ‘A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.”
This does not mean simply that one scandal robs the whole church of its Chris-
tian character, but rather suggests the spreading nature of sin alike in indi-
viduals and communities. A single cherished sin, however secret, diffuses its
corrupting influence over the whole soul ; it depraves the conscience ; it indu-
rates the moral sensibilities ; it cuts off from prayer or renders it formal and
empty ; it paralyzes the usual means of grace ; and it opens the door for other
forms of evil. And all this holds good of a society as well as of a single be-
liever. The only safe rule is to resist at the beginning, and continuously to
purge out the old leaven, and to make the whole life one of perpetual conse-
eration to God.
NOTES. 125
(x) Lost epistles. Ver. 9.
The majority of interpreters agree with Meyer, that the Apostle here refers
to a former epistle which has not been preserved. Some object to this, because
they think it would imply that we have an imperfect Bible. But this conclu-
sion by no means follows. Nothing is more natural than to suppose that the
Apostles wrote many letters, designed simply to serve some local or temporary
purpose, and not intended to serve as part of the rule of faith and conduct for
allages. If so, it was of no consequence whether such writings were preserved
or not. It seems certain that the church has all the inspired epistles which
God designed she should have. Nothing that ever was justly in the Canon has
been lost from it, so far as any evidence on the subject can be gathered from
the records of the early church.
126 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
CHAPTER VI.
Ver. 2. 7] is wanting in Elz., but has decisive evidence in its favour. — Ver. 5.
λέγω] Lachm, has λαλῶ, on the authority of Balone. In the absence of internal
grounds for decision, this is too weakly attested, far weaker than in xv, 34, —
ἔνι] so Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riick. Tisch., following BCL 8, min. Chrys.
Theodoret, al. How easily the familiar ἐστεν (so Elz.) would creep in !— συφὸς
οὐδὲ εἰς] Lachm, and Rick. read οὐδεὶς σοφός, with BC δὲ, min. Copt. Damase.
D* E, Clar. Germ. Aeth. Athan. have simply σοφός ; F and G have οὐδὲ εἰς σοφός.
In A, the whole passage vv. 3-6 is wanting (from the similarity of the two last
syllables ἔστων in vy. 2 and 6). From this it appears that the evidence for οὐδεὶς
σοφός certainly preponderates, against which, however, there must be set the
difficulty of seeing why this reading should have undergone alteration. Were
σοφὸς οὐδὲ εἷς, on the other hand, the original reading (D*** L, most of the
min. Vulg., both Syr. Ar. p. and the majority of the Fathers), we have in the
first place a very natural explanation of the omission of οὐδὲ εἰς (which Griesb.
approves of), inasmuch as copyists went right on from cpgOX to ΟΣ, and the
two other variations would then arise from dissimilar critical restorations of the
text. — Ver. 7. Elz. has ἐν ὑμῖν against decisive evidence. An interpretation.
— Ver. 8. καὶ ταῦτα] Lachm, Riick, and Tisch. have καὶ τοῦτο, following A B C D
E δὲ, min. vss. and Fathers, Rightly ; the plural crept in, because two things
were mentioned (ἀδικ. and azoor.). — Ver. 9. There is conclusive evidence for
reading Θεοῦ Bac. in place of Bac. Θεοῦ. In ver. 10, again, this order is too weak-
ly attested to be received. — Ver. 10. The ov before κληρ. is wanting in A BC Ὁ E
δὲ, min. Copt. Ignat. Method. Athan. Chrys. al. Deleted by Lachm. and Riick.
with justice ; for while the preceding Θεοῦ might in itself just as easily lead to
the omission as (by repetition of the last syllable) to the insertion of the οὐ, the
latter was favoured by ver. 9. — Ver. 14. ἡμᾶς] Elz, has ὑμᾶς, against decisive tes-
timony (perhaps from Rom, viii. 11). — ἐξεγερεῖ] Lachm. and Ewald read é£e-
γείρει, with A D*, Band 67** have ἐξήγειρε. ‘The Recepta should be adhered
to, with Tisch., following Ο D*** E K L δὲ, min. Vulg., both Syr. Copt. Aeth.
Arr. and many Fathers. The connection makes the future necessary as the
correlative of καταργήσει in ver. 13, and the evidence in its favour is prepon-
derant, in view of the divided state of the codd. for the other readings. As to
ἐξήγειρε and ἐξεγείρει, the former looks like a mechanical repetition of the pre-
ceding tense, and the latter a slip of the pen. — ἢ οὐκ (not the simple οὐκ) has
decisive evidence on its side. — Ver. 19. τὸ σῶμα Matth. and Tisch.‘ read τὰ
σώματα upon insufficient evidence, part of which is in favour of the plural in
ver, 20 also. The alteration to the plural was naturally suggested by the con-
nection. -— Ver. 20. καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ὑμῶν, ἅτινά ἐστι τοῦ Θεοῦ is deleted by all
modern editors (except Matth.) since Mill and Griesh., following A Bb C* D* E
FG &, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. Method. Didym. Cyr. Maxim. Daniase, Tert.
1 [Tischendorf returns to the singular in his last edition — T, W. C.]
CHAPS ΠῚ; 127
_ Cypr. Ir. Ambrosiast, and all the Latin Fathers. An ascetic addition, although
a very old one (occurring even in the Syriac), which got into all the wider cir-
culation because achurch-lesson begins with δοξάσατε. Comp. Reiche, Comm.
crit. I, p. 165 ff.
Vv. 1-11. The readers are not to go to law before the heathen (vv. 1-6) ;
and generally, they are, instead of contending with one another, rather to suffer
wrong than to do it, bearing in mind that the unrighteous shall not become par-
takers in the Messianic kingdom (vv. 7-10), and that they, as Christians, have
become pure, holy, and righteous (ver. 11).
Ver. 1. A new section, not connected with what has gone before. Paul
starts at once with a question of lively surprise : Dare’ any one, etc., and so
plunges in mediam rem.? The connections of thought, which some have
traced out, are arbitrary inventions. This applies not only to Baur’s view
(in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 10 f.), that it was the damage done to the Chris-
tian cause in public opinion, both by the immorality discussed in chap. v. and
by the lawsuits carried on before the heathen, that led the apostle thus to
pass from the one subject to the other,—but also to the connection which
Hofmann seeks to establish between this passage and the censure pronounced
upon the insufficient judicial action taken by the church with its members
after the occurrence of the case already adverted to. The judicial proceed-
ings now referred to are plainly of quite another kind, not in the way of
discipline, but of private lawsuits ; and, moreover, as to former judicial
action of the church, not merely was it insufficient, but nothing of the sort
had taken place at all with respect to the πόρνος. Paul does not employ so
much as a dé, or an ἀλλά, or any other form of connection, but goes on with
epistolary freedom, leaping, as it were, from one point of censure to
another. — tic] any one whatever. The quite general treatment of the subject
which follows shows that no specific individual (Semler) is meant, although
it must be left undetermined whether some specially striking case, possibly
that of a rich and powerful man (Ewald), may not have given occasion for
the apostle’s sending these admonitions. — πρᾶγμα] lawsuit, matter of dis-
pute. Comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 9.1; Demosth. 1120. 26 ; Josephus, Antt. xiv.
10. 7. --- κρίνεσθαι] go to law, litigare; see on Rom. iii. 4; Wetstein, ad
Matth. v. 40. — ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων] before (Winer, p. 351 [E. T. 469]) the unright-
eous ; a specially significant designation of the heathen (see on Gal. 11. 5), as
ver. 1 as affirmative (against Lachmann).
Least of all can we agree with Hofmann in
1Bengel says aptly: “grandi verbo
notatur laesa majestas Christianorum.”’
Schrader imports an ironical meaning into
the word, which is irrelevant. The right
interpretation is given by Chrysostom:
τόλμης ἐστι TO πρᾶγμα καὶ παρανομίας. See as
to τολμᾶν, sustinere, non erubescere, Stall-
baum, ad Plat. Phil. Ὁ. 18 D; Jacobs, ad
Athen. addit. p. 309. Comp. the proverbial
phrase πᾶν τολμᾶν.
3 Τῷ is out of the harmony with the fervid
tone of the whole passage, in which ques-
tion is heaped on question, to understand
taking the words down to ἀδίκων affirma-
tively, and then regarding κ. οὐχὶ ἐπ. τ.
ἁγίων asa query that strikes in there: for
ἐπὶ τ. ἀδίκων, καὶ οὐχὶ ἐ. τ. &y., iS plainly just
the ordinary antithesis of assertion and ne-
gation joined together by καὶ ov. To make
Hofmann’s rendering logically tenable, it
would be needful that Paul should, instead
of «. οὐχί, have written : καὶ τὶ οὐχί, and why
not before the saints ?
128 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
contrasted with the Christians, who are dy. (see oni, 2). Chrysostom puts
it well : οὐκ εἶπεν" ἐπὶ τῶν ἀπίστων (as in ver. 6, where the opposite of ἀδελφός
was required), ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων, λέξιν θεὶς ἧς μάλιστα χρείαν εἶχεν εἰς τὴν
προκειμένην ὑπόθεσιν, ὥστε ἀποτρέψαι καὶ ἀπαγαγεῖν. There is indeed ἃ contra-
dictio in adjecto in the κρίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τ. ἀδίκων ! For the Rabbinical prohibi-
tions of going to law before the heathen, see Eisenmenger, Hntdeckt. Judenth.
Il. p. 472 ff. (e.g. Tanchwma, f. 92. 2: ‘‘Statutum est, ad quod omnes Isra-
elitae obligantur, eum, qui litem cum alio habet, non debere eam tractare
coram gentibus”). The tribunal intended by Paul is not merely that of
arbitration, which had passed over from Judaism (see Michaelis, Hinl. II. p.
1221 f.; comp. Lightfoot, Hor. on ver. 4; Vitringa, de Synag. p. 816 ff.)
to Christianity, but his meaning is : instead of carrying on lawsuits against
each other before the heathen, they were to adjust their disputes before
Christians, which could of course be done only in the way of arbitration *
(comp. ver. 5) ; according to this, therefore, different forms of the κρίνεσθαι
are present to the apostle’s mind in speaking of the judgment ἐπὶ τ. ad. and
ἐπὶ τ. dy.; in the former case, that by legal process ; in the latter, that by
arbitration through means of διαιτηταί. ---- Theodoret remarks justly (on ver.
6), that the prohibition of the κρίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων is not at variance with
Rom. xiii. 1 ΕἾ : ob yap ἀντιτείνειν κελεύει τοῖς ἄρχουσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἠδικημένοις
νομοθετεῖ μὴ κεχρῆσθαι τοῖς ἄρχουσι. Τὸ γὰρ αἱρεῖσθαι ἢ ἀδικεῖσθαι ἢ παρὰ τοῖς
ὁμοπίστοις δοκιμάζεσθαι τῆς αὐτῶν ἐξηρτᾶτο γνώμης.
Ver. 2. Ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε κ.τ.λ.} unveils the entire preposterousness of the course
with which his readers were reproached in the indignant question of ver. 1 :
‘‘Dare any of you do that,—or know ye not?” etc. Only on the ground of
this not knowing could you betake yourselves to such unworthy κρίνεσθαι !
Σὺ τοίνυν ὁ μέλλων κρίνειν ἐκείνους τότε, πῶς ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων ἀνέχῃ κρίνεσθαι viv ; Chry-
sostom. — τὸν κόσμον κρινοῦσι] at the last judgment, namely, sitting along with
Christ as judges over all who are not Christians (κόσμος). Comp. as early a
passage as Wisd. iii. 8. We have here the same conception *—only general-
ized with respect to the subjects of judgment—as in Matt. xix. 28 ; Luke
xxii. 30. It stands in essential and logical connection with the participa-
tion in the glory of Christ (iv. 8 ; Rom. viii. 17 ; 2 Tim. ii. 11 f.), which
Christians are to attain after the Parousia, and after they themselves have
been judged (Rom. xiv. 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 10 ; 2 Tim. iv. 1). We must not,
however, refer this (with Hofmann) to the period of the reign of Christ and
His people predicted in Rey. xx. 4 (when the κόσμος, too, shall be subjected
to their judicial authority), especially seeing that Chiliasm is a specifically
Apocalyptic and not a. Pauline conception ; comp. on xv. 24. Chrysostom
again, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Schol. ap Matth., Erasmus,
and others, explain it of an indirect, not literal judging, namely, either
by the faith and life of Christians placing the guilt of the κόσμος in a
clearer light in the day of judgment (Matt. xii. 41), or by their approving
of the judicial sentence of Christ (Estius, Maier), But this (although as-
1 Hence this passage does not at all run 2 Observe that this view necessarily pre
counter to the injunction to obey magis- supposes the resurrection of unbelievers als
trates. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 417. (Acts xvii. 81). Comp. on xy. 24.
OHAP. VIL, 2. 129
sumed by Billroth as the deal truth which underlay the words of the apostle,
unconsciously to himself) is an alteration of the sense which runs counter to
the context ; for the whole argument ὦ majori ad minus is destroyed, if
κρινοῦσι is to be understood in a one-sided way as equivalent to κατακρ., and
if no proper and personal act of judgment is designed.’ It is a mistake
also to hold, with Lightfoot, Vitringa, Baumgarten, Bolten, that Paul means
quod Christian futuri sint magistratus (Lightfoot), which is at variance with
ver. 3, and with the conception of the speedily approaching Parousia.
Mosheim, Ernesti, Noésselt, Rosenmiiller, and Stolz turn the ‘shall judge”
into ‘‘can judge,” comparing ii. 15, 16. But this, too, is to alter the notion
of κρίνειν in a way contrary to the text (judge of) : and the can, since it
would have an emphasis of special significance here, and would denote ‘‘ be
in a position to,” would require to be expressly inserted. Comp. rather the
prophetic basis of the thought in Dan. vil. 22. —xai εἰ ἐν ὑμῖν «.7.4.] The
quick striking in of the καί in the very front of the question is as in ver. 2 ;
see also Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 123. — εἰ ἐν ὑμ. xp. ὁ Kéou.| repeats with em-
phasis, and with an individualizing force (ὑμῖν), the contents of the truth
already stated and established to the believing consciousness (hence the
present κρίνεται). The ἐν ὑμῖν, here emphatically put first, does not mean,
as Chrysostom and Theophylact think,’ in your instance, exemplo vestro (see
above), but among you, i.e. in consessu vestro (see Kypke, II. p. 199), so that
the essential meaning is not different from coram (Ast, ad Plat. Leg. p. 33.
285) ; comp. ἐν δικασταῖς, Thuc. i. 58. 1, ἐν νομοθέταις x.t.A. See, too, the
passages in Wetstein. The ἐν therefore by no means stands for ὑπό (Raphel,
Flatt, al.), although we may gather from the context that the ὑμεῖς are them-
selves the parties judging (vv. 2,4). Nor hasit the force of through (Grotius,
Billroth, a/.), in support of which it is a mistake to appeal to Acts xvii. 31,
where, owing to the connection, ἐν stands in a wholly different relation from
what it denotes here. Here the word ἐν is selected in view of the following
κριτήρια, the Christians, who are in future to judge, being conceived of, in
order to the more vivid representation of the idea, as a judicial assembly. —
ἀνάξ. ἐστε κριτ. ἐλαχ.] κριτήριον does not mean matter of dispute, case at law,
as most expositors (even Pott, Flatt, Rickert, de Wette, Osiander, Maier,
Ewald), wish to take it, with no evidence at all from the usage of the lan-
guage in their favour, but place of judgment (tribunal, seat of justice, Jas, ii.
6; Plato, Legg. vi. p. 767 B; Susanna, 49), or judicial trial which is held
(judicium). Comp. the precept : μὴ ἐρχέσθω ἐπὶ κριτήριον ἐθνικόν, Constitt..
ap. ii. 45. Precisely so with δικαστήριον. The latter sense, judicial trial
(Lucian, bis accus. 25 ; Polybius, ix. 33. 12, xvi. 27. 2; Judg. v. 10; Dan.
vii. 10, 26), is the true one here, as is evident from ver. 4. We render
therefore : Are ye unworthy to hold very trivial trials? i.e. trials in which
judgment is to be given upon very insignificant matters (in comparison with
the lofty and important functions which are to devolve upon you when the
future judgment shall be held). The Vulgate translates freely but correctly
1 Hence, too, it is unsuitable to transform (Flatt, Heydenreich).
the concrete meaning of this question into 2 Comp. too, van Hengel, ad Rom. ii. 27:
a general participation in the reign of Christ “ vita vestra cum vita eorum comparanda.”’
130 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTAIANS.
as to the sense : ‘‘indigni estis, qui de minimis judicctis ?’ According to
Chrysostom and Theophylact, others understand here the heathen courts of
justice, either affirmatively (so, as it appears, Chrysostom and Theophylact
themselves ; so, too, Valckenaer, a.) or interrogatively (Billroth) : and that
it is unworthy of you to be judged before courts of 80 low a kind? Similarly,
Olshausen. But ver. 4 is decisive against this ; for we have there the very
same thing which in ver. 2 is expressed by κριτηρ. éAay., described as βιωτικὰ
κριτήρια.
Vy. 8, 4. Climactic parallels to ver. 2, ver. 3 corresponding to the first half
of the preceding verse, and ver. 4 to the second ; hence ver. 4 also should
be taken as a question. — ἀγγέλους] angels, and that—since no defining epithet
is added—in the good sense, not as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus) Beza, Calovius, Bengel, and most commentators
make it, demons (Jude 6 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4), nor good and bad angels (so Corne-
lius ἃ Lapide, a/.; also, as it would appear, Hofmann). Other expositors,
such as Grotius, Billroth, Riickert, de Wette, leave the point undecided.
But comp. on iv. 9. That angels themselves shall come within the sphere
of the judicial activity of glorified believers, is stated here as a proposition
established to the believing consciousness of the readers,—a proposition, the
ground for which is to be found in the fact that in Christ, whose glorified
saints will reign with Him, is given the absolute truth and the absolute
right, and, consequently, the highest judicial court of resort, even as regards
the world of angels, from the jurisdiction of which not even the loftiest of
created beings can be excepted. There is nothing of a more detailed nature
on this subject in the N. T. ; but comp. in general, Heb. i. 14, according
to which their service must be one for which they are to render an account ;
and Gal. i. 8, according to which, in 9 certain supposed case, they would
incur an ἀνάθεμα.) All modes of explaining away the simple meaning of the
words are just as inadmissible ar in ver. 2 ; as, for example, Chrysostom :
ὅταν γὰρ ai ἀσώματοι δυνάμεις αὗται ἔλαττον Rudi εὑρεϑῶσιν ἔχουσαι τῶν σάρκα περι-
βεβλημένων, χαλεπωτέραν δώσουσι δίκην ; Erasmus : ‘‘ vestra pietas illorum im-
pietatem, vestra innocentia illorum impuritatem condemnabit ;” Calovius :
the judicium is approbativum, making manifest, that is to say, before the
whole world the victory of the saints already in this life over the devil ;
Lightfoot : what is meant is, that the influence of the kingdom of Satan is
to be destroyed by Christianity ; while Nésselt, Ernesti, and Stolz make it
ability to judge, if an angel were to preacha false gospel (Gal. i. 8}. --- μήτιγε
βιωτικά] is not to be included in the question, so that we should have to put
only a comma after κρινοῦμεν (as Tischendorf does). For βιωτικά, things
which belong to the necessities of this life, disputes as to the meum and tuum
(comp. Polybius, xiii. 1. 3: τῶν βιωτικῶν συναλλαγμάτων), will not be among
the subjects of the future judgment, to which κρινοῦμεν refers. We must
retain, therefore, the mark of interrogation after κρινοῦμεν (Lachmann), and
ὩΣ Observe also the different classes of without e/hical grounds, Moreover, the
angels referred to in Rom. viii. 38; Eph. i. angels are not to be regarded as absolutely
21; Col. i.16; 1 Pet. iii. 89. We cannot con- good, Mark x. 18. Comp. on Col. i. 20. (οὐ
ceive these distinctions in rank to exist
ν᾿.
CHAP. VI., 4. 131
put a full stop after βιωτ., so that μήτιγε βιωτ. may be seen to be the con-
densed conclusio : to say nothing then of private disputes ! i.e. How far less can
it be doubtful that we have to judge Buta! Comp. Dem. Ol. i. (ii.) 23, and
Bremi in loc. p. 159. See generally as to μήτιγε (found only here in the
N. T.), nedum sc. dicam ; Herm. ad Viger. p. 803 ; Schaefer, Appar. ad Dem.
I. p. 265 ; Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 154 f. Regarding the relation of
βιωτικός to the later Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 355.—The antithesis
of ἀγγέλους and βιωτικά turns on this, that the former belong to the higher
superterrestrial sphefe of life (ὡς ἂν ἐκείνων ob κατὰ τὸν βίον τοῦτον ὄντων,
Theodore of Mopsuestia). The ἀγγέλ. without the article is qualitative.
Ver. 4. Βιωτικὰ μὲν οὖν x.7.A.] takes up βίωτ. at once again with emphasis.
Comp. Herod. vii. 104 : τὰ ἂν ἐκεῖνος aveyy' ἀνώγει δὲ ταὐτὸ aei.—The sen-
tence may be understood as a question (of astonishment), so de Wette,
Tischendorf, Ewald, a/.; or as a reproachful statement, so Lachmann. The
former, if τ. ἐξουϑ. be correctly explained, corresponds best with the whole
structure of this animated address (see on ver. 3). Μὲν οὖν is the simple
accordingly, thus.’ Kpitjpra are here also not lawsuits, but judicia, as in ver.
2. The meaning therefore is: {7 ye then have courts of trial as to private
matters, i.e. if ye are in such circumstances as to have to hold courts of that
kind. Comp. Dem. 1153. 4 : ἐχόντων τὰς δίκας, qui lites habent administran-
das. Hofmann’s rendering is a most involved one, making βίωτ. κριτ.
predicate to τοὺς ἐξουϑ. ἐν τ. ἐκκλ., and ἐὰν éy. a parenthetical clause, to which we
are to supply as its object ἐξουϑενημένους. ---καϑίζετε] do ye—instead of
taking some from among yourselves for this purpose—set those down, etc. ?
namely, upon the judgment-seat as judges, which follows from κριτήρια.
Comp. Plato, Legg. ix. p. 873 E; Dem. 997. 23; Polyb. ix. 33. 12. It is
the indicative, and the ἐξουϑενήμ. ἐν τ. ἐκκλ. are the heathen. So in substance
Valla, Faber, Castalio, Luther, Calovius, Wolf, a/., including Pott, Flatt,
Heydenreich, Schrader, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Maier,
Neander, Weiss ; Osiander is undecided. To this it is objected that καϑίζ,
does not suit heathen magistrates, and that ἐν τ. ἐκκλ. indicates the ἐξουϑ.
as members of the church (see especially Kypke, II. p. 201). But neither
objection is valid ; for the term καϑίζετε is purposely selected as significant
of the strange audacity shown in making the matter in dispute dependent
on the decision of a heathen court, and that in special keeping with the
contrast (τοὺς ἐξουϑ.), while the text does not give τοὺς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλ. More-
over, by τ. ἐξουϑ., Paul does not mean to describe the contempt for the hez-
then as justifiable (Hofmann’s objection), but simply as evisting, as a fact,
however, the universal existence of which made the ubsurdity of the
procedure here censured very palpable. Other interpreters make καϑίζ
imperative, and the ἐξουϑ. members of the church held in small account :
take (rather) minimos de piorum plebe as arbiters.* But not to speak
1 Introducing the more detailed develop- neutest. Stud. p. 127.
ment of the thought to which expression 3So the Vulgate, Peshito, Chrysostom,
had been given already. See Baeumlein, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza,
Partik. p. 181. Vatablus, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Bengel
2 How meaningless this would be! More- Wetstein, Hofmann, αἰ.
over, see below. Comp. also Laurent.
132 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
of the rather generally supplied from imagination, nor of the fact that
to designate those less capable of judging as τ. ἐξουϑ. ἐν τ. ἐκκλ. would be
far from wise, and likely to lend countenance to the specially Corinthian
conceit of knowledge,—if this were the true sense, Paul would have had
to lay stress upon the church-membership of the despised persons, and must
have written at least τοὺς ἐξουϑ. τοὺς ἐν τ. ἐκκλ. For οἱ ἐξουϑ. ἐν τ. ἐκκλ. are
those who are despised in the church, which leaves it altogether to the context
to decide whether they themselves belong to the church or not. Now, that
the latter is the case here is shown by vv. 1, 2, and» especially by ver. 5:
οὐκ ἔνι ἐν ὑμῖν. Arrangements of words like τοὺς ἐξουϑ. ἐν τῇ ἐκκλ. for τοὺς ἐν
τ. ἐκκλ. ἐξουϑ. are common enough in classical writers also. See Kiihner,
ad Xen. Anab, iv. 2. 18, -- τούτους] with an emphasis of disdain. See Dissen,
ad Dem. de Cor. p. 111. f., 225 ; Kriiger, Aanbd. i. 6. 9 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph.
II. p. 460.
Ver. 5. Πρὸς évtp. ὑμῖν λέγω] is to be referred, as is done by Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Neander, and Hofmann, to ver. 4, comp. xv. 34 (it is com-
monly referred to what comes after), so that the following question wnfolds
the humiliating consideration involved in ver. 4. The address thus acquires
more point and impressiveness. —oirwc] belongs not to λέγω (Hofmann),
but to οὐκ ἔνι «.7.2., and sums up the state of things : sic igitur, rebus ita
comparatis, since you τοὺς ἐξουϑενημένους καϑίζετε. See Bornemann in Rosen-
miiller’s Repert. II. p. 245 ff.; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 933. C. Fr. Her-
mann, ad Lucian. de hist. conser. Ὁ. 161. It is otherwise understood by
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, a@/., including Flatt, Billroth, Riickert,
Olshausen, Ewald, who make it : so much, so completely is there lacking,
etc. But it is only the definition of mode, not of degree, that will suit the
absolute negation of this clause, intensified as it is by οὐδὲ cic. — Regarding
ἔνι, see on Gal. iii. 28. The σοφός carries point against the Corinthian self-
conceit. — οὐδὲ εἰς] ne unus quidem. ‘‘ Quod est vehementius,” as Erasmus
well puts it, ‘‘cum sitis tum multi.” See on John i. 3, and Kriiger, Anabd.
iii. 1. 3; Bornemann and Poppo, ad Cyrop. ii. 1. 21. Comp. non ullus
(Kiihner, ad Cie. Tuse. i. 39. 94) nemo unus (Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 187).
Frequent in Isocr., see Bremi, I. Hire. iii. —é¢ δυνήσεται) purely future in
force : who (as cases shall occur) will be able. — διακρῖναι] to judge, as arbitra-
tor. — ἀνὰ μέσον τ. ad. αὐτοῦ] between (LXX. Gen. xvi. 5; Ex. xi. 7; Ezek.
Xxli. 26; Isa. lvii. 11; Matt. xiii, 25 ; Theocr. xxii. 21; Strabo, xi. 5.
1, p. 503; Polyb. x. 48. 1, v. 55. 7) his (Christian) brother. The ex-
pression τ. ἀδελφοῦ, is meant to put to shame. The singular is used for
this reason, that τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ must mean the plaintiff who brings on the
lawsuit (not the defendant, as Ewald would have it), between whom (and, as
is obvious, the defendant) the arbitrator, called into requisition by the
bringing of the suit, pronounces his decision. Were the plural employed,
that would indicate the two litigants generally, but not the party bringing
on the suit in particular. Hofmann, contrary to the plain meaning of the
words, understands the phrase of the se/f-decision of the individual demand-
ing or refusing, namely, as to the point where his right ceased and his
wrong began. In that case, Paul, if he wished to be intelligible, would
CHAP. VI., 6-8. 133
have required to say something like this : διακρῖναι ἐν ἑαυτῷ πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφὸν
αὐτοῦ. Moreover, οὐδὲ εἷς (or οὐδείς as Hofmann reads) would militate against
this view, seeing that it contains what would be, according to ver. 1, a
disproportionate accusation, if the meaning is not, ‘‘not a single man fitted
to be an arbitrator.” — The reading, τ. ἀδελφοῦ x. τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ (Syr. Arr.),
is an interpretation, although recommended by Grotius and again by
Laurent.
Ver. 6. Quick reply to the preceding question: No (see Hartung,
Partikell. 11. p. 37; Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 10 1.) brother goes to law with
brother, and that (see on Rom. xiii. 11) before unbelievers.’ How then can
there be such a wise man among you? He would assuredly, by his inter-
vention as arbitrator, keep the matter from coming to a lawsuit, which, as
between Christian brethren, and that, too, before a heathen court, is alto-
gether unfitting and unworthy ! Kpivera in precisely the same sense as in
ver. 1, κρίνεσϑαι ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων. (P)
Ver. 7. Μὲν οὖν] as in ver. 4; it now brings under special consideration
the foregoing ἀδελφ. μετὰ ad. kpiverac—namely, as to what the real character
of such a proceeding may be in itself viewed generally (ὅλως being taken as
inv. 1), apart from the special element unhappily added in Corinth, ἐπὶ
ἀπίστων. The μέν corresponds as little (against Hofmann) to the ἀλλά which
follows in ver. 8, as the μέν in ver. 4 to the ἀλλά in ver. 6. The ἤδη is the
logical already (‘‘ already then, viewed generally”), in reference to something
special, by which the case is made yet worse. Comp. Hartung, Partikell, I.
Ῥ. 240 1. ---ἤττημα] a defeat (see on Rom. xi. 12), .6. damage, loss, and that,
according to the context, not moral decay (so commonly), or hurt to the
church (Hofmann), or imperfection (Billroth, Riickert), or weakness (Beza) ;
but, it redounds to your coming short of the Messianic salvation (see ver. 9).—
ἑαυτῶν] like ἀλλήλων, but giving them to feel, more strongly than the latter
would, the impropriety which had a place in their own circle (Kithner, ad Xen.
Mem. ii. 6. 20). -- κρίματα] as in Rom. v. 16, Wisd. xii. 12, legal judgments,
which they had respectively obtained (ἔχετε). --- ἀδικεῖσϑε . . . ἀποστερ.]
middles : to allow wrong and loss to be inflicted on themselves. Comp.
Vulgate. See Bernhardy, p. 346 f. As to the matter itself, see Matt. v.
39 ff. ; example of Jesus, 1 Pet. ii. 23.
Ver. 8. The question beginning with διατί in ver. 7 still continues : Why
do ye not rather allow yourselves to suffer wrong, etc., and not, on your part,
do wrong, etc.? This view, instead of the ordinary one, which makes
yer. 8 an independent sentence like ver. 6, is necessary, because ἢ οὐκ οἵδατε
in ver. 9 has its logical reference in δίατι. The reference, namely, is this :
‘ There is no ground conceivable for your not,” ete. (duati.. . ἀδελφοί),
““ unless that ye knew not,” etc. (ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε). --- καὶ τοῦτο ἀδελφούς] to whom
nevertheless, as your brethren, the very opposite was due from you ! With
respect to the climactic «, τοῦτο, and that, see on Rom, xii. 11, and Baeumlein,
Partik. p. 147.
1 To take the sentence as a reproachful sterner and more telling than the common
assertion (so Luther, Beza, Lachmann, way of viewing it as a question, which is
Osiander, Hofmann), makes the passage adopted also by Tischendorf and Ewald.
134 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Ver. 9. Ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε] See on ver. 8. To supply an unexpressed thought
here (‘Do not regard the matter lightly,” Billroth ; ‘‘ This is a far greater
ἥττημα," Ruckert ; that ἤττημα to the church ‘‘ they could only fail to per-
ceive, if they did not know,” etc., Hofmann) is just as arbitfary as to do so
in ver. 2 — ἄδικοι] the general conception (under which the preceding ἀδικεῖν
and ἀποστ. are included): unrighteous, immoral. See the enumeration which
follows. —OQcov βασιλ.} the Θεοῦ coming close after ἄδικοι, and put first for
emphasis (see the critical remarks). As to the truth itself, that ἀδικία
excludes from the Messiah’s kingdom, see on Gal. v. 21 ; and as regards
what is implied in the Messianic κληρονομία, on Gal. iii. 18 ; Eph. i. 11. — μὴ
πλανᾶσϑε] for that moral fundamental law was more easily, it is plain, flung
to the winds in frivolous Corinth than anywhere else δ Possibly, too, some
might even say openly : φιλάνϑρωπος ὧν ὁ Θεὸς καὶ ayadoc, οὐκ ἐπεξέρχεται τοῖς
πλη“μελήμασι" μὴ δὴ φοβηϑῶμεν ? Chrysostom. Hence : be not mistaken (πλα-
νᾶσϑε, passive, as also inxv. 33 ; Gal. vi. 7; Luke xxi. 8 ; Jas. i. 16; comp.
the active form in 1 John iii. 7), followed by the emphatic repetition of that
fundamental law with a many-sided breaking up of the notion ἄδικοι into
particulars, not, however, arranged systematically, or in couples, nor redu-
cible, save by force, to any logical scheme ;? in this enumeration, owing to
the state of matters in the place, the sins of sensuality are most amply speci-
fied. —xépvo, fornicators in general ; μοιχοί, adulterers, Heb. xiii. 4. —
εἰδωλολ.] see on v. 11. — μαλακοί] effeminates, commonly understood as qui
muliebria patiuntur, but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the
language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do
not prove the point) ; moreover, such catamites (molles) were called πόρνοι
or κίναιδοι. One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be
mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore : effeminate
luxurious livers. Comp. Aristotle, Hth. vii. 7 : μαλακὸς καὶ τρυφῶν, Xen. Mem.
ii. 1, 20, also μαλακῶς, 111. 11. 10: τρυφὴ δὲ καὶ μαλϑακία, Plato, Rep. p. 590
B. — apcevoxoira:| sodomites, who defile themselves with men (1 Tim. i. 10 ;
Eusebius, Praep. evang. p. 276 D). Regarding the wide diffusion of this
vice, see the passages in Wetstein ; comp. on Rom. i. 27, and Hermann,
Privatalterth. § 29, 17 ff.
Ver. 11. How unworthy are such of your new Christian relations [ ---- ταῦτα]
of persons in a contemptuous sense: such trash, such a set. See Bern-
hardy, p. 381. --- τινές] more exact definition of the subject of ἦτε, namely,
that all are not meant. It is the well-known σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος
(Kiihner, IT. p. 150). Comp. Grotius. Valckenaer says well : ‘‘ vocula τινές
dictum paulo durius emollit.” Billroth is wrong in holding (as Vorstius
before him) that ταῦτά twee belong to each other, and are equivalent to
τοιοῦτοι. In that case ταῦτά τινα would be required, or τοῖοΐ τίνες. See Ast,
ad Plat. Legg. p. 71 ; Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. ii. 1. 2 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph.
II. p. 832. — azedotc. x.r.2.] describes from step to step the new relations
established by their reception of Christianity. First of all : ye washed your-
selves clean, namely, by your immersion in the waters of baptism, from the
1 Comp. Ernesti, Ursprung der Siinde, II. p. 29 f.
ORCA 11: 135
moral defilement of the guilt of your sins (you obtained, through means of
baptism, the forgiveness of your sins committed before you became Chris-
tians). (Q) Comp. Acts xxii. 16, 1. 38; Eph. v. 26; 1 Pet. iii. 21. Ob-
serve the use of the middle, arising from the conception of their self-destina-
tion for baptism. Comp. ἐβαπτίσαντο, x. 2. We must not take the middle
here for the passive, as most expositors do, following the Vulgate (so Flatt,
Pott, Billroth, Olshausen, Ewald), which in part arose—as in the case of
Olshausen—from dogmatical preconceptions ; neither is it to be understood,
with Usteri (Lehrbegriff, p. 230) and Riickert (comp. Loesner, p. 278), of
moral purification by laying aside everything sinful, of the putting off the
old man (comp. Rom. vi. 2 ff.), against which the same phrase in Acts xxii.
16, and the analogous one, καθαρίσας, in Eph. v. 26, militate strongly. This
moral regeneration exists in connection with baptism (Tit. iii. 5), but is not
designated by ἀπελούσ., although its subjective conditions, μετάνοια and πίστις
are presupposed in the latter expression. The producing of regeneration,
which is by water and Spirit, is implied in the ἡγεάσθητε which follows : ye
became (from being unholy, as ye were before baptism) holy, inasmuch,
namely, as by receiving the δωρεὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (Acts ii. 388) ye were
translated into that moral frame of life which is Christian and consecrated
to God (John iii. 5 ; Tit. iii. 5 ; Eph. v. 25, ἁγιάσῃ). Riickert and Ols-
hausen take it in the theocratic sense: ‘‘ye became set apart, numbered
among the ayo.” Comp. Osiander, also Hofmann : ‘ incorporated in the
holy church.” But the progression of thought here, which marks its advance
towards a climax by the repetition of the ἀλλά, requires, not a threefold de-
scription of the transaction involved in baptism (Calvin, Hofmann), but
three different characteristic points, dating their commencement from bap-
tism, and forming, as regards their substance, the new moral condition of
life from which those who have become Christians ought not again to fall
back. — ἐδικαεώθητε] ye were made righteous. This, however, cannot mean
the imputative justification of Rom. iii. 21 (de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann,
with older commentators ; because, in the first place, this is already given
in the ἀπελούσασθε ; and secondly, because the ἐδικαιώθητε, if used in this
sense, would have needed not to follow the ἁγιάσθητε, but to precede it, as
in i. 30 ; for to suppose a descending climax (Calovius) is out of the question,
if only on account of the ἀπελούσ., which so manifestly indicates the beginning
"οἵ the Christian state. What is meant, and that by way of contrast to the
notion of ἀδικία which prevails in ver. 9 f., is the actual moral righteousness
of life,? which has been brought about as the result of the operation of the
Spirit which began with baptism, so that now there is seen in the man the
fulfilment of the moral demands or of the δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου (Rom. viii. 4),
and he himself, being dead unto sin, δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας (Rom. vi.
1[Beet says, with justice, ‘‘a solitary
instance, probably, in the New Testament
of this simplest sense.” — Τὶ W. C.]
2 There is therefore no warrant for ad-
ducing this passage, as is done on the Ro-
man Catholic side (even by D6llinger), in
opposition to the distinction between justi-
fication and sanctification. Justification is
comprised already in amedovo. Comp.
Weiss, vidi. Theol. pp. 342, 345 ff. Its sub-
jective basis, however, is one with that of
sanctification, namely, faith.
136 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
7), and ἐδουλώθη τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ (Rom. vi. 18), whose instruments his members
have now become in the καινότης of the spirit and life (Rom. vi. 13). This
δικαιωθῆναι does not stand related to the ἁγιασθῆναι in any sort of tautological
sense, but is the effect and outcome of it, and in so far, certainly, is also
the moral continuatio justificationis (comp. Calovius), Rev. xxii. 11.—The
thrice repeated ἀλλά lays a special emphasis upon each of the three points.
Comp. Xenophon, Anab. v. 8. 4; Aristophanes, Acharn. 402 ff. ; 2 Cor. 11.
17, vii. 11; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 142 ; Bornemann, ad Xen.
Symp. iv. 53; Buttmann, newt. Gramm. p. 341 [E. T. 398]. —év τῷ ὀνόματι
. . ἡμῶν] is by most expositors made to refer to all the three points. But
since ἐν τῷ πνεύματι K.T.A. oes not accord with ἀπελούσ. (for the Spirit is
only received after baptism, Acts 11. 38, xix. 5, 6 ; Tit. iii. 5, 6 ; the case
in Acts x. 47 is exceptional), it is better, with Riickert, to connect ἐν τῷ
ὀνόματι. . . ἡμῶν simply with ἐδικαιώθ., which best harmonizes also with the
significant importance of the ἐδικαιώθητε as the crowning point of the whole
transformation wrought in the Christian. The name of the Lord Jesus, i.e.
what pronouncing the name ‘‘ Κύριος Inoovc” (xii. 3) affirms,—this, as the
contents of the faith and confession, is that in which the becoming morally
righteous had its causal basis (ἐν), and equally had its ground in the Spirit
of our God, since it was He who established it by His sanctifying agency ;
through that name its origin was subjectively conditioned, and through that
Spirit it was objectively realized. Were we, with Hofmann, to bring ἐν τῷ
ὀνόματι. . . Θεοῦ ἡμῶν into connection with the πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν Which fol-
jows, the latter would at once become limited and defined in a way with
which the antitheses ἀλλ᾽ x.r.A. would no longer in that case harmonize.
For it is precisely in the absoluteness of the πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν that these an-
titheses have their ethical correctness and significance, as being the moral
limitation of that axiom, which therefore appears again absolutely in x. 23.
— Observe, further, how, notwithstanding the defective condition of the
church in point of fact, the aorist ἡγιάσθ. and ἐδικαιώθ. have their warrant
as acts of God, and in accordance with the ideal view of what is the specifi-
cally Christian condition, however imperfectly as yet this may have been
realized, or whatever backsliding may have taken place. The ideal way
of speaking, too, corresponds to the design of the apostle, who is seeking to
make his readers feel the contradiction between their conduct and the char-
acter which as Christians they assumed at conversion ; σφόδρα ἐντρεπτικῶς
ἐπήγαγε λέγων: ἐννοήσατε ἡλίκων ὑμᾶς ἐξείλετο κακῶν ὁ Θεός κ.τ.λ., Chrysostom.
And thereby he seeks morally to raise them.
Vv. 12-20. Correction of the misunderstanding of Christian liberty, as though
Sornication, equally with the use of meats, came under the head of things allow-
able (vv. 12-17). Admonitions against fornication (vv. 18-20).
Vv. 12-14. Connection and sequence of thought. Jn this new condition of
life (ver. 11) all things are allowed to us, but they must be for our good,—all
things allowed, but we on our part must remain free (ver. 12). Among these
allowed things is the use of food, as what is in accordance with nature and ap.
pointed by God merely for a time (τὰ βρώματα... Katapy., ver. 13). Wholly
otherwise is it with the use of the body for fornication ; that is anti-Christian
“~
CHAP. VI., 12—14. 137
(τὸ δὲ σῶμα. . « σώματι, ver. 13), and contrary to the eternal destiny fixed by
God for the body (ver. 14). —- Not without reason did Paul, when reckoning
up the different forms of ἀδικία in ver. 9, place πορνεία first. Comp. v. 1 ; 2
Cor. xii. 21. But Corinthian Epicureanism, starting from the Hellenic
mode of viewing this matter, which was altogether very lax (Herm. Privat-
alterth., ὃ 29. 13 ff.), easily found for itself even a certain justification of
fornication, namely, in the doctrine of Christian liberty in adiaphoris, the
maxim of which is : πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν. Now we may infer from the passage
before us that this erroneous justification had actually been brought forward,
that more than one voluptuary in the church had, as Paul was informed,
actually declared that just as satisfying the desire for food was an adia-
phoron, so also was satisfying the desire for sensual pleasure by fornication.
Comp. Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, 1 and 3 ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 420 1.
Olshausen, indeed, thinks that Paul would have given an absolute command
to exclude all such persons from the church, and that therefore it is only
the possibility of so gross an abuse of Christian liberty that is implied here.
But the former is an arbitrary assumption,’ and the latter has these two
considerations against it—first, that in no other Epistle does Paul touch on
this possibility, although the opinion that licentious intercourse was allow-
able was widely spread among the Greeks and Romans ; and secondly, that
the statement of the moral difference between the use of meats and whoredom
is of too special.a kind to be naturally accounted for in the absence of act-
ual occasion. Neander, whose objections lose their force, if we only do not
go the length of assuming that this adiaphoristic view of fornication had
become universal in Corinth, or had been formally published and propa-
gated there as a doctrinal tenet, is of opinion that Paul meant to begin here
upon the theme of meat offered to idols (comp. x. 23), but was led on after
the first half of ver. 13 to draw a contrast (perhaps in order to guard against
a misunderstanding of his words, perhaps also in opposition to those who
denied the resurrection) which conducted him so far away from his theme,
that it was only in chap. viii. that he made his way back to it again from
another point. But how arbitrary this is! And how entirely unexampled
a thing, that the apostle should so far forget himself, and write in a manner
so irregular and open to misconception |! Chap. x. 28 lends no support to
this exposition, for it is obvious that the same maxim could be made to
apply in very many different directions. Rtickert’s exegesis is only a little
less violent ; he supposes that, in the question addressed to the apostle
about the sacrificial meat, the party eating it had adduced the πάντα ἔξεστιν
in their favour, and that Paul had only transferred it here in order to guard
against the abuse of it respecting fornication (in substance, therefore, coincid-
ing with Olshausen). ΤῸ the ordinary interpretation Riickert objects, that
the Corinthians in their letter would certainly not have described the πορνεία
1 Olshausen reasons thus: Since in vi. 9 suffered persons guilty of such abomina-
unnatural vices are named with the rest, tions to remain in the church. But in vv. 13
we should have to conclude that the πάντα _— ff. the apostle is speaking quite distinctly
μοι ἔξεστι Was applied to these also in Cor- and constantly of the πορνεία alone, not of
inth; now Paul would surely never have unnatural sins.
138 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
as prevailing among them, nor would they have undertaken the defence of
it to the apostle whom they knew so well. But this objection is unfounded ;
for from v. 1 we must assume that Paul had come to know of the state of
morals at Corinth through oral reports, and consequently had not learned
the abuse there made of the πάντα ἔξεστιν through expressions in the Corin-
thian Jetter (this against Hofmann also). According to Ewald, there had
been doubts and debates concerning the obligation of the Jewish laws about
food and marriage ; Paul therefore lays down in ver. 12 the principle which
should decide all such cases, and then at once, in ver. 13, disposes shortly
of the first point in dispute, in order, at a later stage (chap. viii.—x.), to
speak of it more at length, and hastens on in ver. 15 ff. to the second point.
Against this we may urge, first, that the first point was surely too impor-
tant to be disposed of by so brief a hint as that in ver. 13 ; secondly, that
the two halves of ver. 18 stand in an antithetic relation to each other, which
gives the first half merely the position of an awailiary clause ; thirdly, that
chap. vili.-x. do not deal with the question of food in general, but with
that of eating sacrificial flesh in particular ; and lastly, that ver. 13 ff. have
likewise quite as their special subject that of fornication. — πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν]
might be regarded as the objection of an opponent (so Pott and Flatt, with
older expositors) ; hence also it is understood by Theodoret as a question.
But this is unnecessary (for surely it is, in point of fact, a Christian, and in-
deed a specially Pauline principle), and arbitrary besides, since there is here
no formula of objection (such as ἐρεῖς οὗν, or the like). Comp. on ver. 13. —
It would be self-evident to the reader that πάντα meant all that was in itself
indifferent (whatever was not anti-Christian). — μοι} spoken in the character
of a Christian in general. Comp. ver. 15. Bengel says well : ‘‘ Saepe Paulus
prima persona singul. eloquitur, quae vim habent gnomes.” Comp. Gal. ii. 18.
— συμφέρει] is profitable. Thismust not be arbitrarily restricted either in the
way of taking it as equivalent to οἰκοδομεῖ (Calvin, al., also Billroth after x.
23), or by confining it to one’s own advantage (Grotius, Heumann, Schulz,
Olshausen). What is meant is moral profitableness generally in every respect,
as.conditioned by the special circumstances of each case as it arises. 80,
too, in x. 23. Theodore of Mopsuestia, it may be added, says rightly :
ἐπειδὴ yap ov πάντα συμφέρει, δῆλον ὡς ov πᾶσι χρηστέον, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ὠφελοῦσι μόνοις.
— οὐκ ἐγώ] not I for my part. ὙΠῸ subjection will not be on my side, but the
things allowed will be what is brought into subjection. This tacit contrast
is indicated both by the position of οὐκ ἐγώ and by ὑπό τινος. The common
interpretation : ‘‘ego sub nullius redigar potestatem” (Vulgate), does not
correspond to the order of the words. — ἐξουσιασθ. purely future in force :
shall be ruled by anything whatever. This result, that on my part moral
freedom should be lost through anything, will not ensue! Otherwise the
thing would plainly be not allowed. I shall preserve thé power of moral
self-determination, so as to do or leave undone, just according to the moral
relations constituted by the circumstances of the case, what in itself would
be allowed to me. Comp. the great thought in iii. 22, and Paul’s own ex-
ample in Phil. iv. 11, 12. Were rivé¢ masculine (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus,
Vatablus, Ewald, a/.), the meaning would then be, that in things indiffer-
“7
CHAPS Ving? 1.9. 139
ent a man should not yield himself to be tutored and dictated to by others
(Ewald). But, in point of fact, it is neuter, being in contrast to the thrice
repeated and emphatic πάντα. --- The paronomasia in ἔξεστιν and ἐξους. was
remarked by expositors as early as Chrysostom and Theophylact. A// is in
my power, yet it is not I who will be overpowered by anything. Regarding ἐξου-
σιάζειν (which is not used in this sense by Greek writers), comp. Eccles. vii.
19, viii. 8, x. 4 f.
Ver. 18. Τῇ κοιλίᾳ] 86. ἔστι, belong to, inasmuch, that is to say, as they are
destined to be received and digested by the belly (the ὑποδοχῇ τῶν σιτίων,
Photius in Oecumenius). Comp. Matt. xv. 17. -- τοῖς βρώμασιν] inasmuch
as it is destined to receive and digest the food. — This reciprocal destina-
tion according to nature is the jirst element, which, in its relation to the
second half of the verse, is intended to call attention to the fact, that the
case of fornication is totally different from that of the use of food,—that
the latter, being in accordance with its destination, belongs to the category of
the adiaphora ; while fornication, on the other hand, which is anti-Chris-
tian, 1s contrary to the relation of the body to Christ. The second element
(which, however, is very closely connected with the first), by which this is
made manifest, consists in what God will hereafter do on the one hand with
the κοιλίᾳ and the βρώμασι, and on the other hand (ver. 14) in respect of the
body’s relation as pertaining to Christ, which latter relation is imperishable,
in contrast to the perishable nature of the things first mentioned. — ὁ δὲ Θεὸς
. καταργ.] i.e. God, however, will (at the Parousia) cause such a change
to take place in the bodily constitution of man and in the world of sense
generally, that neither the organs of digestion as such, nor the meats as
such, will then be existent. To such passing away is this relation destined
by God! With respect to the glorifying of the body here indicated, comp.
Matt. xxii. 30 ; 1 Cor. xv. 44, 51. Melanchthon aptly says : ‘‘ Cibi et ven-
ter... sunt res periturae ;.. . ideo sunt adiaphora ;” and’ Bengel:
‘quae destruentur, per se liberum habent usum, Col. ii. 20 ff.” Comp.
Castalio, and among more modern expositors, Schulz, Krause, Billroth,
Riickert, Schrader, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier, Neander,
Hofmann.! Pott, Flatt, and Heydenreich (and see still earlier writers in
Wolf) approximate to this view, but take τὰ βρώματα. . . καταργ. as words
of an ‘opponent, the premisses of a conclusion as to the allowableness
of fornication, which conclusion is impugned by Paul in the τὸ δὲ
σῶμα x.t.A. which follows. But the apostle has not given the slight-
est hint of this passage being a dialogue ; moreover, had it been so, he
would have begun his reply ver. 13 with ἀλλά again (as in ver. 12, ac-
cording to this dialogistic view). Other interpreters, following Chrysos-
tom and Theophylact, make the design of ὁ δὲ Θεὸς «.7.4. to be a warning
against excess. Comp. Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, al. But this, although
in harmony with the ἀλλά in ver. 12, would stand in no logical relation to
the ὁ δὲ Θεὸς κ.τ.λ. of ver. 14, and thereby the inner connection of the whole
address (see above) would be broken up. — καὶ ταύτην καὶ ταῦτα] Regarding
1 Several of them, however, fall into the to be at death, which καὶ ταῦτα alone shows
mistake of making the date of thexatapy. to be inadmissible.
140 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the use of the double οὗτος for ἐκεῖνος. . . οὗτος, Which is not common, see
Bernhardy, p. 277. Comp. Josh. viii. 22 ; 1 Mace. vii. 46, ix. 17. — τὸ δὲ
σῶμα] Paul cannot nameagain here a single organ ; the whole body is the
organ of fleshly intercourse :* see ver. 16. — τῇ πορνείᾳ] for fornication (con-
ceived of as a personal power), for its disposal and 88. --- τῳ Κυρίῳ] inas-
much as the body isa member of Christ.? See ver. 15. —rwodparc} inas-
much, namely, as Christ is destined (has it as His function) to rule and use
the body as His member. ‘‘ Quanta dignatio !” Bengel. It is a mistake
to make the phrase refer to the raising up and glorifying of the body, which
it is the part of Christ to effect (Ambrosiaster, Anselm, Thomas, Grotius) ;
for this would destroy the unity of mutual reference in the two clauses
(comp. above, τὰ βρώματα x.t.A.), and, besides, the resurrection is brought
forward afterwards as something separate from the preceding, and that,
too, as the work of God (parallel to the ὁ δὲ Θεὸς «.7.A. in ver. 18).
Ver. 14. This is parallel in contents and form to the sentence, ὁ δὲ Θεὸς
. καταργήσει, in ver. 13: Now God has not only raised up the Lord, but will
raise up us also by His power. The body, consequently, has a destiny which
stretches on into the future eternal αἰών ; how wholly different therefore
from the κοιλία, that organ of temporal nourishment, which will cease to be !
-- καὶ τὸν Kip. ἤγειρε] necessary assurance of what follows. See Rom. viii.
11. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 20; Col. i. 18; 2 Cor. iv. 11, 14. -- καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐξεγερεῖ 3
The bodily change in the case of those still alive at the time of the Parousia
(xv. 51; 2 Cor. v. 2-4; 1 Thess. iv. 15 ff.) did not need to be specially
mentioned, since Paul was not here to enter into detail upon the doctrine
of the resurrection. Comp. on Rom. viii. 11. He therefore, in accordance
with the τὸν Kip. ἤγειρε, designates here the consummation of all things only
a potiori, namely, as a raising up, speaking at the same time in the person
of Christians generally (ἡμᾶς), and leaving out of view in this general expres-
sion his own personal hope that he might survive to the Parousia, — The in-
terchange of yy. and éfey. (out of the grave, comp. ἐξανάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν,
Phil. iii. 11) is accidental, without any special design—in opposition to
Bengel and Osiander’s arbitrary opinion that the former word denoted the
Jirst-fruits, and the latter the ‘‘ massa dormientium.” *— αὐτοῦ ]---ποῦ αὑτοῦ,
1 Neither our text nor Luke xx. 35 gives
any support to the assumption that those
partaking in the resurrection will be with-
out sexual distinction. The doing away of
the κοιλία refers simply to the cessation of
SIf ἐξεγείρει were the true reading (but
see the critical remarks), the tense employ-
ed would in that case bring before us as
present what was certain in the future. If
ἐξήγειρε were correct, we should have to
the earthly process of nutrition; it does
not affect the identity of the body, which
Delitzsch (Psychol. p. 459), without warrant
from Scripture, pronounces to be indepen-
dent of the external continuance of distinc-
tion between the sexes. Such assertions
lead to fantastic theories ὑπὲρ ὃ γέγραπται.
2 [‘* Whoever eats food, of whatever kind,
puts it to its designed use: whoever com-
mits fornication uses his body in a way for
which it was never designed." Stanley.—
TW. C.}
interpret this according to the idea of the
resurrection of believers being implied in
that of Christ, comp. Col. ii. 12.
4 Against this view may be urged the
consideration, in itself decisive, that in the
whole of chap. xv. éye(pw is the term con-
stantly used both of Christ’s resurrection
and that of believers ; whereas ἐξεγείρω oc-
curs in all the N. T. only here and Rom. ix.
17 (in the latter passage, however, not of
the rising of the dead).
CHAP Vie, 1d, Τὸ: | 141
because uttered from the standpoint of the writer—applies to God, not to
Jesus (Theodoret) ; and διὰ τῆς δυνάμ. ait. should be referred not to both
the clauses in the sentence (Billroth), but, as its position demands, to ἐξεγε-
pei ; for to the ground of faith which the latter has in καὶ τὸν Κύριον ἤγειρε,
Paul now adds its undoubted possibility (Matt. xxii. 29), perhaps glancing
purposely at the deniers of the resurrection, τῇ ἀξιοπιστίᾳ τῆς τοῦ ποιοῦντος
ἰσχύος τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐπιστομίζων, Chrysostom.
Vv. 15-17. That fornication is not an indifferent thing like the use of
meats, but anti-Christian, Paul has already proved in vv. 13, 14, namely,
from this, that the body belongs to Christ and is destined by God to be
raised up again. How deserving of abhorrence fornication is on that account,
he now brings home to the mind of his readers in a striking and concrete
way. The immorality of fornication is certainly taken for granted in ver.
15 f., yet not in such a manner as to make Paul guilty of a petitio principti
(Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 588 f.), but on the ground of the proof
of this immorality already given in vv. 13, 14. In ver. 15 f. the apostle does
not seek to prove it over again, but to teach the Corinthians to abhor the sin.
— οὐκ οἴδατε κ.τ.2.1 He here takes up once more, and exhibits with greater
fulness, the thought in ver. 18, τὸ σῶμα τῷ Κυρίῳ, as the basis for the follow-
ing warning : ἄρας οὖν x.7.A. —péAn Χριστοῦ] Inasmuch, that is to say, as
Christ, as the Head of the Christian world, stands to it in the closest and
most inward fellowship of organic life (see especially Eph. iv. 16), and forms,
as it were, one moral Person with it ; the bodies of the individual believers,
who in fact belong to the Lord, and He to them for this world and that which
is to come (ver. 13 f.), may be conceived as Christ’s members, just as from
the same point of view the whole church of Christ is His collective organ,
His body (Rom. xii. 5 ; Eph. i. 23 ; Col. i. 18, ii. 19; 1 Cor. xii. 18, αἴ):
— ἄρας] Shall I then take away, take off, the members of Christ, and, etc.
Billroth sees in ἄρας simply minuteness of description, indicative of deliber-
ation, asin NP. But this is to confound it with λαβών. The Vulgate
renders rightly : follens ; Luke vi. 29, xi. 22 ; John xi. 48 ; Plato, Pol. ix.
Ρ. 578 E, Tim. p. 76 Β ; Sophocles, Trach. 796 ; 1 Mace. viii. 18. What
is depicted is daring misappropriation. The plural ra μέλη denotes the cat-
egory, for the matter ‘‘non quanta sit numero, sed qualis genere sit, specta-
tur,” Reisig, Oonjec. in Aristoph. p. 58. Since the Christian’s body is among
the members of Christ, the πορνεύειν is a deed whereby a man takes away
the members of Christ fiom Him whose property they are, and makes them
a harlot’s members. — ποιήσω] future: Shall this case occur with me? shall I
degrade myself to this ? so far forget myself? Rickert and Osiander hold
that it is the aorist subjunctive: should J, etc. (see Herm. ad Viger. p.
742). It is impossible to decide the point.
Ver. 16. Ἤ οὐκ οἴδατε] ‘‘ Or if this μὴ γένοιτο (conveying, as it does, a
negative to that question) still appears to you to admit of doubt, even after
the statement of the nature of the case given in ver. 15, then ye must
be ignorant that,” etc. This ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε cannot correspond with the οὐκ
οἴδατε of ver. 15 (Hofmann: ‘‘either the one or the other they must be
ignorant of,” etc.), for ὅτι ὁ κολλώμ. x.7.A. manifestly refers to the conclusion
142 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
from the preceding expressed in ἄρας οὖν, and therefore is subordinated to
the question answered shudderingly with μὴ γένοιτο. In ver. 19, too, the ἢ
οὐκ οἴδατε refers to what has just before been said. — κολλώμ. who joins him-
self to (P23), indicating the union in licentious intercourse. Comp. Ecclus.
xix. 2; Gen. ii. 24 ; Ezra iv. 20. —rj πόρνῃ] the harlot with whom he deals
(article). — ὃν σῶμά ἐστιν] is a single body ; previous to the κολλᾶσθαι he and
the person concerned were two bodies, but he who is joined to the harlot—
an united subject—is one body. —éoovra: yap κ.τ.}.} Gen. 11. 24 (quoted from
the LXX.) speaks, indeed, of wedded, not unwedded, intercourse ; but
Theodoret rightly points out the paritas rationis: ἕν yap καὶ τοῦτο κἀκεῖνο τῇ
φύσει τοῦ πράγματος. --- φησίν] Who it is that says it, is self-evident, namely,
God ; the utterances of the Scripture being His words, even when they may
be spoken through another, as Gen, ii. 24 was through Adam. Comp. on
Matt. xix. 5. Similarly Gal. iii. 16 ; Eph. iv. 8; Heb. viii. 5; 1 Cor. xv.
27. ‘H γραφή, which is what is usually supplied here, would need to be
suggested by the context, asin Rom. xv. 10. Riickert arbitrarily prefers
τὸ πνεῦμα." --- οἱ dio] the two in question. The words are wanting in the
Hebrew text, but are always quoted with it in the N. T. (Matt. xix. 5 ;
Mark x. 8 ; Eph. v. 31) after the LXX., and also by the Rabbins (e.g. Beresh.
Rabb. 18) ; an addition of later date in the interests of monogamy, which,
although not expressly enjoined in the law, came by degrees to prevail, in
accordance with its adumbration from the first in the history of the creation
(Ewald, Alterth. p. 260 f.). —ei¢ σάρκα μίαν] WS 9, See on Matt. xix. 5.
Ver. 17. Weighty contrast to ὁ κολλώμ. τῇ πόρνῃ ἕν σῶμά ἐστι, NO longer
dependent on ὅτι. --- κολλᾶσθαι τῷ Κυρίῳ, an expression of close attachment to
Jehovah, which is very common in the O. T. (Jer. xiii. 11 ; Deut. x. 20,
xi. 22 ; 2 Kings xviii. 6 ; Ecclus. ii. 8, a/.). It denotes here, inward union
of life with Christ, and is selected to be set against the κολλ. τῇ πόρνῃ in ver.
16, inasmuch as in both cases an intima conjunctio takes place, in the one
Jleshly, in the other spiritual. Weare not to assume that Paul was thinking
here, as in Eph. v. 23 ff. (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 2 ; Rom. v. 4), of the union with
Christ as a marriage (Piscator, Olshausen, comp. also Osiander); for in that
mystical marriage-union Christ is the Bridegroom, filling the man’s place,
and hence the contrast to κολλ. τῇ πόρνῃ would be an unsuitable one.
Olshausen’s additional conjecture, that when the apostle spoke of τῇ πόρνῃ
there floated before his mind a vision of the great whore who sitteth upon
many waters (Rev. xvii. 1), is an empty fancy. —év πνεῦμά ἐστι] conceived
of as the analogue to ἔν σῶμα. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 17. This is the same Unio
mystica which Jesus Himself so often demands in the Gospel of John, and
in which no ethical diversity exists between the πνεῦμα of the believing man
and the πνεῦμα of Christ which fills it ; Christ lives in the believer, Gal. ii.
20, as the believer in Christ, Gal. iii. 27, Col. iii. 17, this being brought
about by Christ’s communicating Himself to the human spirit through the
1 ΤῸ take it impersonally; ‘it is said,” as quotations from Scripture. Comp. Winer,
in 2 Cor. x. 10, according to the well-known Gr. p. 486 [E. T. 656] ; Buttmann, neut. Gr.
usage in the classics, would be without p. 117 [E. T. 184].
warrant from any other instance of Paul’s
©HAP. -VI.,- 18. 143
power of the Holy Spirit, Rom. viii. 9-11. Now, be it observed how, by
fleshly union with a harlot, this high and holy unity is not simply put in
hazard (Hofmann), but excluded altogether as a moral impossibility ! Comp.
the idea of the impossibility of serving two masters (Rom. vi. 16), of fellow-
ship with Christ and Belial, and the like. It is unnecessary to say that this
has no application to union in marriage, seeing that it is ordained of God,
‘ob verbum, quo actus concubialis sanctificatur,” Calovius. Comp. Weiss,
bibl. Theol. p. 421.
Vv. 18-20. Direct prohibition of fornication, strengthened by description
of it asa sin against one’s own body, which is in fact the temple of the Holy
Spirit, etc.
Ver. 18. Φεύγετε τὴν πορν.} Inferred from the foregoing verses (13-17),
but expressed in all the more lively way from not being linked to them by
any connective particle. ‘‘ Severitas cum fastidio,” Bengel. — πᾶν ἁμάρτημα
k.T.A.] asyndetic corroboration of the preceding prohibition. Paul does not
say anything here incapable of being maintained in its full stringency of
meaning (Riickert, de Wette), nor is there any reason for taking πᾶν, with
Michaelis, Flatt, Pott, and others, in a popular sense, as equivalent to
almost all (comp. Theodore of Mopsuestia and Melanchthon : ‘‘ cum quodam
candore accipiatur de iis, quae saepius accidunt”) ; but the truth of his
words is based on the fact that every other sinful act (ἁμάρτημα), if it has to
do at all with the body, works upon it from without, and consequently
holds a position in reference to the body external to the same. The sinner
makes that which is not of the body, but outside of it, as e.g. food and
drink, to be the instrument of his immoral act, whereby the ἁμάρτημα,
viewed in its relation to the body, comes to stand ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος, and has
there the sphere of its occurrence and consummation. This holds true even in
the case of the suicide, whose act is in fact a sinful use of external things,
the instance of a man’s voluntarily starving himself not excepted (against
Hofmann’s objection), for this is accomplished by the abuse of abstinence
from food (which is equally an external relationship), and therefore ἐκτὸς τοῦ
σώματος. How entirely different from the case of all such other sinful acts
stands the state of things with unchasteness, where there is sin, not ἐκτὸς τ.
σώματος, but εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα | See below. In connection with this passage,
expositors indulge in many arbitrary and sometimes very odd interpretations *
The body in its totality, he holds, is meant,
inasmuch as it is one body with the harlot,
1 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, @.,
single out as the characteristic point—con-
trary to the literal tenor of the passage—
the defilement of the whole body by forni-
eation, on which ground a dathis taken
subsequently. This latter point Theodoret
also lays stress upon, explaining, however,
the expression by the fact that the man
who commits other sins οὐ τοσαύτην αἴσϑησιν
λαμβάνει τῆς ἁμαρτίας, while the profligate,
on the other hand, εὐθὺς μετὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν
αἰσϑάνεται τοῦ κακοῦ Kal αὐτὸ TO σῶμα βδελύτ-
τεται. Chrysostom’s interpretation of the
whole body has been taken up again by
Baur (in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 540 f.).
΄
and in virtue of this unity the fornicator
has the object of his sin not without him-
self, but in himself, and sins against the
body identified with his own self. But all
this is not in the text, and no reader could
read it into the text. Hofmann, too, im-
ports what is’ neither expressed in the
words themselves nor suggested by the an-
tithesis, the obscure notion, namely, that,
as in the case of the glutton, after complet-
ing the deed ‘“‘the thing of his sin docs not
remain with him” (?).
144 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS,
and saving clauses. Among these must be reckoned the exposition of
Calvin and others, by way of comparison: ‘secundum plus et minus.”
Neander, too, imports a meaning which is not in the words, that fornication
desecrates the body in its very highest and most enduring significance (namely,
as the sum of the personality). According to Chr. F. Fritzsche (Nova Opusce.
Ῥ. 249 f.), what is meant is that all other sins do not separate the body of
the Christian from the body of Christ, this taking place only through for-
nication (ver. 15). But the general and local expression ἐκτὸς τ. σώματός
éorw does not correspond with this special and ethical reference, nor are we
warranted in attributing to one of such ethical strictness as the apostle the
conception that no other sin separates from the body of Christ, ver. 9 f. ;
Rom. viii. 9, al. —6 ἐὰν x.t.4.] which in any case whatever (Hermann, ad
Viger. p. 819) a man shall have committed. Respecting ἐάν, instead of ἄν,
after relatives, see Winer, p. 291 [E. T. 390]. — ἐκτὸς τ. σώμ. ἐστιν] inasmuch
as the sinful deed done has been one brought about outside of the body. — εἰς τὸ
ἴδιον σῶμα] For his own bodily frame is the immediate object which he
affects in a sinful way, whose moral purity and honour he hurts and wounds
by his action. Comp. on εἰς, Luke xv. 18. He dishonours his own body,
which is the organ and object of his sin. Comp. Beza. The apostle says
nothing at all here of the weakening effect upon the body itself (Athanasius
in Oecumenius, and others).
Ver. 19 justifies the ἁμαρτάνει in respect of the specific description of it
given by εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα. ““ Commits sin,” I say, against his own body ; or,
in case ye doubt that, and think perhaps that it does not matter so much
about the body, know ye not that (1) your body (i.e. the body of each one
among you, see Bernhardy, p. 60) is the temple (not : ὦ temple, see on iii. 16)
of the Holy Spirit which is in you (Rom. viii. 11) ; and that (2) ye belong not
to your own selves (see ver. 20)? Fornication, therefore, so far as it affects
your own body, is a desecration of what is holy, and a selfish rebellion
against God your Lord. — οὗ ἔχετε ἀπὸ Θεοῦ] gives edge to the proof,’ and
leads on to the second point (οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν). Οὗ is under attraction from
ay. rv. (Winer, p. 154 [E. T. 203]). — καὶ οὐκ x.7.A.] still dependent upon ὅτι,
which is to be supplied again after καί, not an independent statement (Hof-
mann, who takes the καί as meaning also), which would needlessly interrupt
the flow of the animated address.
Ver. 20. For (proof of the οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτ.) ye were bought, i.e. redeemed
from the curse of the law, Gal. iii. 13 ; from the wrath of God, Eph. ii. 3 ;
from the bond of the guilt of sin, Rom. iii. 19-21 ; and acquired as God’s
property (Eph. ii. 19, i. 14), for a price, which was paid to God for your
reconciliation with Him, namely, the blood of Christ, Matt. xxvi. 28 ;
Rom. iii. 24f. ; 2 Cor. v. 18 ff. ; Eph. i. 7; 1 Pet. i. 18 f. ; Rev. v. 9.
We have the same conception in Acts xx. 28, although there, as also in
1 Cor, vii. 23, and Tit. ii. 14, the church is represented as the property of
1 Chrysostom: καὶ τὸν δεδωκότα τέϑεικεν, the idea of the body being the temple of the
ὑψηλόν τε ὁμοῦ ποιῶν τὸν ἀκροατὴν, καὶ φοβῶὼν Holy Spirit, in opposition to the abuse of
καὶ τῷ μεγέϑει τῆς παρακαταϑήκης καὶ τῇ φιλο- it in debauchery, comp. Herm. Past. Sim.
~
τιμίᾳ τοῦ παρακαταϑεμένου. Further, as to Waris
NOTES. 145
Christ ; but see John xvii. 9. --- τιμῆς] strengthens the ἠγοράσθ. as the op-
posite of acquiring without an equivalent. Comp. vii. 23. The common
exposition (following the Vulgate) : magno pretio, inserts without warrant
what is not in the text (so, too, Pott, Flatt, Riickert, Osiander, Olshausen,
Ewald).! Comp. Herod. vii. 119, and the passages in Wetstein ; and see
already Valla. — δοξάσατε δὴ κ.τ.}.} Do but glorify, etc. This is the moral
obligation arising out of the two things grasped by faith as certainties,
ver. 19. Regarding the 67 of urgency with imperatives, see on Acts xiii. 2.
—é τῷ σώμ. ὑμ.] not instrumental, nor asin Phil. i. 20 (comp. Rom. xii.
1), but so expressed, because the exhortation proceeds upon the footing of
the whole tenor of ver. 19, in which the body is described as a temple; in
your body, namely, practically by chastity, the opposite of which would be
an ἀτιμάζειν τὸν Θεόν (Rom. ii. 23) in His own sanctuary !
ΝΟΤΕΒ py AMERICAN Eprror.
(0) The Judging of angels. Ver. 3.
The author is undoubtedly correct in saying that here, according to the con-
stant usage of Scripture, good angels are meant ; but he speaks rashly in hold-
ing that the distinctions among them (‘‘ principalities, powers,” etc.) are made
upon ethical grounds. Not a hint of this is given in the Bible, where through-
out the entire body, when described at all, is noted as holy. It is far more
natural to suppose that these creatures of God, like all other intelligent
creatures of whom we have knowledge, differ in capacity, and therefore occupy
different positions and render different services. The difficulty in the passage
which arises to most readers at first blush is obviated by the unity of Christ
with his church triumphant—a thought which is ever present to the Apostle’s
mind when he thinks of the future, In this sense redeemed humanity will be
the judge of the spiritual world and of whatever it contains. This is aided by
the consideration Hodge advances, that to rule and to judge are often in Script-
ure convertible terms. To rule Israel and to judge Israel mean the same
thing. Thus is explained the promise to the apostles in Matt. xix. 18, of
‘sitting upon twelve thrones and judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’’ So in
the present case, ‘“‘ Know ye not that we shall judge angels?” is equivalent
to ‘‘ Know ye not that we are to be exalted above the angels and preside over
them ; shall we not then preside over earthly things ?”’
(Ὁ) Going to law before unbelievers, Ver. 6.
A litigious spirit is known to have characterized the Greek nation from the
time of Aristophanes downwards ; and itis not wonderful that this should have
cropped out in the Christians of Corinth. What the Apostle reproves is that be-
lievers, instead of settling their disputes among themselves, dragged one another
before a heathen tribunal, and so brought discredit upon themselves and the
worthy name by which they were called. That this does not teach that believers
now are never to appeal to a civil court is obvious, because such courts are in no
1 How high a price it was (1 Pet. i. 19) would suggest itself readily to the readers,
but is not implied in the word itself.
146 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
sense heathen, and Paul himself did not hesitate to invoke the protection of the
laws of the land against the injustice of his countrymen. But it does teach
with emphasis the wrongfulness and the meanness of cherishing a litigious
spirit.
(Q) ** Ye were washed.” Ver, 11,
It does not seem at all necessary to interpret this of baptism, as the author
does. It may indeed have an allusion to the rite, but is certainly not formally
identified with it. The figure contained in the word is one often occurring in
Seripture—Ps, li. 7; Isa. i. 16; Rev. xxii. 14 (true text). All three expressions
are to be taken simply as a varied utterance of the same truth, and their force
is well given by Stanley thus: ‘‘Ye were washed, and so cannot be again unclean ;
consecrated, and so cannot be again polluted ; made righteous, and so cannot be
unrighteous.’’ The attempt of Hodge and others to make the last verb mean
forensic justification is inconsistent with its position here, for according to the
Apostle’s doctrine everywhere, sanctification and moral cleansing follow justi-
fication, and are dependent upon it, while here they would be represented as
conditioning it, which is simply impossible.
CHAP. VII. 147
CHAPTER VII.
Ver. 3. ὀφειλήν] Elz. and Matt. read ὀφειλομένην εὔνοιαν, against decisive evi-
dence. Erroneous explanation. — Ver. 5. Τῇ νηστείᾳ καί after σχολάσητε (not
σχολάζητε, Elz.) is an inappropriate addition in the ascetic interest ; and
συνέρχεσθε, in place of ἦτε, is a gloss. — Ver. 7. γάρ] AC D* F α δὲς, min. It.
Copt. Goth. and several Fathers have dé. Approved by Griesb., and adopted
by Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. The ydp was an incorrect gloss upon the dé. —
Instead of ὃς... ὃς, read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following the majority of
the uncials,o... ὁ. In ver. 10 again, Lachm. and Riick. put χωρίζεσθαι in
place of χωρισθῆναι (with A D E F G); but, considering the weight of authority
on the other side, ag:évai must dissuade us from the change. — Ver. 13. οὗτος]
approved also by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. The evidence
against αὐτός (Elz.) is conclusive. But this induces us to read αὕτη in ver. 12
also (with Lachm. Tisch, and Riick.). —avrév] Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. have
τὸν ἄνδρα, approved by Griesb. also, and on conclusive grounds. Αὐτόν has
crept in from uniformity to ver. 12. Had there been a gloss, we should have
found a corresponding variation of αὐτὴν in ver. 12 as well. — Ver. 14. ἀνδρί
The uncials from A to G, &*, Copt. Baschm. It. Jerome, and Augustine, read
ἀδελφῷ. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch.
᾿Ανδρί is an explanatory addition. — Ver. 15. ἡμᾶς] Tisch. has ὑμᾶς, but the evi-
dence for it is weaker ; and ὑμᾶς would easily come in from ver, 14. — Ver. 17.
Κύριος] Elz. and Matt. read Θεός, and, after κέκληκεν : ὁ Κύριος. Against con-
clusive testimony ; Κύριος was glossed and dislodged by Θεός, and then after-
wards reinserted in the wrong place. Hence in G, Boern. we have ὁ Κύριος
. ὁ Κύριος ὁ Θεός. --- Ver. 18. Instead of the second τις ἐκλήθη, Lachm. Tisch,
and Riick. read κέκλεταί τις, with A Β δὲ, min., and additional support from D*
F and G, which have τις κέκλ. The Recepta is a mechanical repetition from the
first clause of the verse. — Ver, 28. γήμῃς] B δὲ have γαμῆσῃς ; and, since in A we
have γαμήσῃ, and in Ὁ E F α λάβῃς γυναῖκα, which is plainly a gloss, the evi-
dence preponderates in favour of γαμῆσῃς (Lachm. Tisch,) ; γήμῃς arose out of
what follows. — Ver. 29.! After ἀδελφοί Elz. has ὅτι, against A B K L δὰ, min.
Baschm. Syr. p. Vulg. Eus. Method. Basil, Theodoret, Hierat. al. An exegetical
addition. —rd λοιπόν ἐστιν] A B δὲ, min. Copt. Syr. p. Arm. Slav. Eus. Ephr.
Basil, Cyr. have ἐστι τὸ λοιπόν. Now, seeing that D* has simply ἐστι λοιπόν,
and F G 67** Boern. Vulg. Method. Tert. Jerome, Ambrosiast. al. have ἐστί,
λοιπόν ἐστιν, the reading of A, etc., is best accredited. That in the Received
text originated in the wish to indicate the fact that τὸ λοιπόν was regarded as
belonging to what had gone before,—a connection. which is expressly set forth
in several codd. vss. and Fathers (see Tisch. and Reiche). As to whether a
comma should be placed between ἐστίν and τὸ λοιπόν, which is done by Lachm.
Tisch. Riick, and Scholz, see the exegetical remarks on the verse, — Ver. 31. τῷ
1 Respecting ver. 29, see Reiche, comment. crit. I. p. 178 ff.
148 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
κοσμῳ τούτῳ] Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. read τὸν κόσμον, with A B δὲ, also D* F
G 17, which, however, add τοῦτον. The dative was a correction to bring it
into accordance with the common usage ; τοῦτον (τούτῳ) again in addition from
what follows. — Vv. 32-34. ἀρέσει] Lachm. and Riick. have ἀρέσῃ, with AB DE
F G δὲ 21 46, Eus. al. But it was very natural that, in place of the future (K
L, almost all the min. Clem. Or. Meth. Ath. Epiph. and many others), the more
usual subjunctive should creep into the text. —— Ver. 34.! μεμέρισται κ.τ.λ.} Καὶ
μεμέρισται occurs in A Β D* δὲ, min. Syr. p. Copt. Vulg. Cyr. Jerome, and
many other Fathers, and is joined to what precedes it by most of the codd.
Copt. Vulg. Cyr. Jerome (who expressly states that this connection is according
to the original), Pel. Bede, al. On the other hand, it is construed with what
follows by Syr. Arr. Arm. It. Chrys. Theodoret, Basil, Oecum. Theophylact,
Tert. Ambr, Aug. Sedul. and Latin codices in Jerome. The καί after pepép.,
which is wanting in Elz., is conclusively attested by A B D*¥** FGKL&,
win. Aeth. Vulg. It. Chrys. al. Going on with the verse, we find ἡ ἄγαμος after
γυνή in A Β &, some min, Vulg. and several Fathers ; while, on the other hand,
there is no ἡ ἄγαμος after παρθένος in Vulg. Jerome, Aug. Euseb. al. We have
the choice left us, therefore, between the following two readings (and modes
of connecting the words): (1) [καὶ] μεμέρισται καὶ ἣ γυνὴ Kai ἡ παρθένος" dya-
μος μεριμνᾷ K.7.A,, and (2) καὶ μεμέρισται. Kai ἣ γυνὴ ἡ ἄγαμος καὶ ἡ παρθένος ἡ
ἄγαμος μεριμνᾷ k.t.2. The latter is adopted by Lachm. and Riick. ; but is not
to be preferred, because it offers no difficulty whatever, and, consequently, no
occasion for any change. The former, on the contrary (found in D*** F GK
L, and many min. It. Slav. Chrys. Theodoret, Dam.), presented a stone of stum-
bling in the μεμέρισται, which was either not understood at all, or misunderstood,
Where not understood, it was left out altogether (so even Cyprian : ‘ uxori.
Sic et mulier et virgo innupta cogitat,’’ etc.); where misunderstood (that
μερίζεσθαι must mean curis distrahi, see Jerome, adv. Jovin. i. 7), it was con-
nected with the preceding clause by καί (which appears, therefore, to be spuri-
ous). This made γυνή be taken as mulier vidua (Aeth.) ; and hence ἡ ἄγαμος
was either pushed forward (Vulg.), or else left in connection with παρθένος,
and the same word added to γυνή as well (A Β δὲ, Lachm.). Scholz, too, has
the words as in our reading,” but spoils it by his quite wrong and abrupt method
of punctuation : τῇ γυναικί" μεμέρισται. Kai ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ἣ παρθένος ἣ ἄγαμος μεριμνᾷ
.t.A, — Ver. 84. τὰ Tov κόσμου] omitted in B alone, which, however, is approved
of by Buttmann (Studien τι. Krit. 1860, p. 370). — Ver. 37. ἑδραῖος" ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ
Lachm. reads ἐν τῇ xapd. αὐτοῦ ἑδραῖος, which has conclusive evidence in its
favour ; on the other hand, there is no sufficient ground for omitting édp. (as
Griesb. does) or αὐτοῦ (deleted by Tisch.). As regards ἑδραῖος in particular,
which is omitted only by F G, It. Aeth., it was very likely to be left out as
being unessential, so far as the sense was concerned, after ἕστηκεν. --- αὐτοῦ Tov]
is deleted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. in accordance with AB δὲ, In place of
it, Tisch., following the same authorities, has ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ καρδίᾳ. The evi-
dence, however, for αὐτοῦ τοῦ (the uncials DEF GK L) is too weighty and
uniform, while τοῦ again was in appearance so cumbrous and superfluous, and
such a natural occasion for writing ἰδίᾳ instead of αὐτοῦ presented itself in the
1 Respecting ver. 34, see Reiche, Comment. ed by Tisch. Elz. varies from it only in
crit. I. p. 184 ff. omitting the καί after μεμέρισται, Which was
2 It isdefended also by Reiche andretain- justly reinserted by Bengel.
CHAP, VII., 1. 149
preceding ἰδίου θελήμ., that our conclusion is to retain the Recepta. — Instead
of ποιεῖ, A B δὲ 6 17 87, Copt. have ποιῆσει (as also where it occurs for the sec-
ond time in ver. 38), which is adopted by Lachm. and Riick. (B 617 37 have
ποιῆσει also the first time in ver. 38). But in default of internal reasons for a
change, these witnesses, having no support from the Fathers, and next to none
from the vss., are too weak to warrant it. — Ver. 38. ὁ ἐκγαμίζων] Lachm. and
Riick. have 6 γωμίζων τὴν παρθένον ἑαυτοῦ. Now it is true that γαμίζων occurs in
ABDE 817 23 31 46, Clem. Method. Basil., and τὴν rupf. éavr. (or τ. ἑαυτ.
παρῇ., so Riick.) in much the same codices and Syr. Erp. Arm. Baschm. Aeth.
Vulg. Clar. Germ. Clem. Basil. al. But the whole reading is manifestly of
the nature of a gloss, ἐκγαμίζων, being explained sometimes by γαμίζων τὴν παρθ.
ἕαυτ., sometimes by the addition to it of τὴν παρθ. éavr. The latter phrase
crept into the text beside éxyau., the former in place of it. — Instead of ὁ de read
kai 0; 80 Griesb. Lachm. Schulz, Riick. Tisch., upon conclusive evidence.
The antithesis gave rise to the ὁ δέ. — Ver. 39. After δέδεται Elz. has νόμῳ,
against A Β D* ἘΠῚ 8**, min. with many vss. and Fathers. Taken from Rom.
vii. 2, although Reiche doubts this. — ἐὰν dé] Tisch. has ἐὰν δὲ καί, wpon
insufficient evidence ; the «ai might easily come in through writing the next
syllable twice over, or by a clerical error such as κεκοιμηθη (so F G).
ContEents.—Instructions regarding marriage, matrimonial intercourse,
and divorce (vv. 1-17) ; then an excursus upon the theme that the reception
of Christianity ought not to alter the outward relations of life (vv. 17-24) ;
lastly, about virgins—as to how far celibacy in general is advisable for both
sexes (vv. 25-34), and whether a father does better to let his daughter re-
main single, or give her away in marriage (vv. 35-38). The same advice,
to remain unmarried, is given to widows (ver. 39 f.). Comp. on this chap-
ter, Harless, die Hhescheidungsfrage, 1861.
Ver. 1. Aé] leads over to the answering of questions put in the letter
from Corinth. — ἐγράψατέ μοι] Differences of opinion must have prevailed
respecting the points discussed in this chapter, and these had been laid
before the apostle by the church. In particular, there must have been at
Corinth opponents of marriage. This is wrongly denied by Baur, who imag-
ines merely an attempt made among the Corinthians to defend fornication
from the analogy of marriage ; of which there is not a trace in the apostle’s
words. Whether, now, the doubts in question, more especially as to the
lawfulness of marriage,? were mixed up with the subsistence of the parties at
Corinth, it is impossible to make out with any certainty, although in itself
it seems likely that a matter of opinion so important practically would be
turned, with other points, to account in the interest of party. Grotius
holds that those who raised such points of debate were ‘‘ sub Christianorum
1 Fragment of a Codex of the 7th century.
See Tisch. Monum. sacr. ined. Ὁ. 460.
21f the opinion that fornication was
lawful (vi. 12 ff.) arose at Corinth out of an
Epicurean libertinism, the doubts regard-
ing the lawfulness of marriage must have
flowed from the opposite source, to wit,
from the perverted moral extravagance of
others, who, because of the intercourse of
sex involved, counted marriage also an im-
pure thing, and would have the maxim:
καλὸν ἀνϑρώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσϑαι, to be of
absolute and universal application.
150 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
nomine philosophi verius quam Christiani.” But such of the Greek philoso-
phers as advocated views adverse to marriage did so upon the ground of
the cares and dangers connected with marriage (see Grotius in loc.), not
from any doubt regarding its morality, as, according to vv. 28, 36, must
have been the case among the Corinthians. Further, it is certain that the
adversaries of marriage could not be of the Petrine party ; for Peter himself
was married (Matt. viii. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5), and the Judaizing tendency,
which cannot be proved to have had an Essene-Ebionitic character in Cor-
inth (Schwegler, I. p. 163 1.2), could be nothing else but favourable to
marriage (see Lightfoot, Horae, Ὁ. 189). Olshausen (comp. also Jaeger,
Kniewel, Goldhorn, Ewald) decides for the Christ-party, in whose idealistic
tendency he considers there were contained the germs both of moral indif-
ference and of false asceticism. But this party’s idealism in general is a
pure hypothesis, which is as little established by proof as their Hssenism
in particular, to which Ewald traces back the rejection of marriage among
the Corinthians.? In the last place, that it was the followers of Paul (Storr,
Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Pott, Neander, Ribiger, Osiander, Maier, Riickert re-
fuses to give a decision), who—in opposition, perhaps, to the Petrine party,
and appealing to the celibacy of Paul himself, he never having been mar-
ried (see on ver. 8)—overvalued celibacy, and pronounced marriage to stand
lower in point of morality and holiness, is the most likely view, for this
reason, that the apostle’s sentiments upon this point were in themselves, as
we see from the chapter before us, quite of a kind to be readily misunder-
stood or misinterpreted by many of his disciples—more especially in parti-
san interests—as being unfavourable to marriage.* It merely required that
men should overlook or wish to overlook the conditional character of the
advantages which he ascribes to single life. The opponents of marriage
referred to in 1 Tim. iv. 3 were of a totally different class. Those with
whom we are now concerned did not forbid marriage and so endanger
Christian liberty (otherwise Paul would have written regarding them in
quite another tone), but simply undervalued it, placing it morally below
celibacy, and advising against it, hence, too, as respects married persons,
favouring a cessation from matrimonial intercourse and even divorce (vv. 3
ff., 10 ff.). — καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ] With respect to what you have written to me
(περὶ x.7.A., absolute, as in xvi. 1, 12 ;. Bernhardy, p. 261 ; Bremi, ad De-
1 One section of the Essenes even declared
itself against celibacy, Josephus, Bell. ii.
8.13; Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 185.
* According to Ewald (comp. too, his
Gesch. der apost. Zeit. p. 503 f.), the Christ-
party appealed to the example of Christ in
regard to this point especially. But had
that been the case, we should surely have
found some traces of it in Paul’s way of
discussing the question, whereas, on the
contrary, the reference which he deems it
due to make is rather to his own example
(ver. 7). Looking at the matter as a whole,
it is prima facie improbable that any one
should have adduced the unwedded life of
Christ as an argument against marriage—
in the first place, because He, as the incar-
nate Son of God, held too lofty a place in
the believing consciousness to present a
standard for such earthly relationships;
and secondly, because He Himself in His
teaching had so strongly upheld the sanc-
tity of marriage.
3 Just as they were often misinterpreted,
as is well known, in after times in the
interests of the celibate system, of nunner-
ies and monasteries.
CHAP. VII.; 2. 151
mosth, Ol. p. 194 ; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 170), it ts good for aman, etc., that
is to say : it is morally salutary * for an (anmarried) man not to touch a woman.
That, in a general theoretical point of view, is the prevailing axiom, which
I hereby enunciate as my decision ; but in a practical point of view, seeing
that few have the gift of continence, the precept must come in : because of
fornication, etc., ver. 2. In Paul’s eyes, therefore, the γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι
is, indeed, something morally salutary in and by itself ; but this affirmation,
made from a general point of view, finds its necessary limitation and restric-
tion in the actual facts of the case, so that just according to circumstances
marriage may be equally a duty. Hence the καλὸν «.7.2. is not appropriate
for the defence of celibacy in general (‘‘ si bonwm est mulierem non tangere,
malum ergo est tangere,” Jerome, ad Jovin. i. 4, and see especially Cornelius
ἃ Lapide in loc.). — ἅπτεσθαι, like tangere in the sense of sexual intercourse
(Gen. xx. 16, xxi. 11; Prov. vi. 29). See Wetstein and Kypke, II. p.
204 f. Marriage is the particular case coming under this general γυναικὸς
ἅπτεσθαι, to be treated of in detail hereafter. Riickert, failing to recognize
this progress in the apostle’s argument (so, too, Kling in the Stud. wu. Krit.
1839, p. 444), holds that the reference is to sexual intercourse in marriages
already formed (and that nothing is said of entering into matrimonial con-
nections). Did Paul, as Kling supposes, here give it as his opinion that
‘‘q@ chaste life, as of brother and sister, was more consonant, on the part of
married persons, with delicacy of moral feeling” (καλόν) ; this would be a
sentimental error, which ought not to be attributed to him, whether consid-
ered in itself, or in view of his high appreciation of marriage as a union of
the sexes (2 Cor. xi. 2 ; Rom. vii. 4; Eph. v. 28 ff.). — The axiom is enun-
ciated without a μέν, because it is, in the first place, conceived simply in itself ;
the limitation which follows is added with dé by way of antithesis. Comp.
on Eph. v. 8, and Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 438. Precisely so, too, in ver. 8.
Ver. 2. In order, however, that offences in the way of fornication (see on this
plural of the abstract, Kithner, II. p. 28 ; Maetzn. ad Lycurg. p. 144 f.)
may be avoided in practice, the rule holds good : Let every man have? a wife of
his own (properly belonging to himself in marriage), ete. On διά, comp.
Winer, p. 372 [E. T. 497]. Riickert, de Wette, and Maier are wrong in
maintaining that ἐχέτω is permissive merely,—Riickert, indeed, making it so
only to the extent of a man’s retaining his wife. The latter is disproved by
vv. 9, 10, and the former by the fact that the immediately following ἀποδι-
δότω in ver. 3 is not to be taken as permissive, any more than the γαμησάτωσαν
which answers to ἐχέτω in ver. 9. It is opposed, further, by the considera-
tion that διὰ τὰς πορνείας is a determining element of a moral kind, which
must therefore necessarily lead not to amere permissibility, but to a positive
1That we have in καλὸν x«.7.A. a moral
axiom, a statement of what is ethically
salutary, not a mere utilitarian principle of
practical prudence, is clear, especially from
the comparison in the last clause of ver. 9,
and from vv. 32-34, where the ethical benefit
of it is explained. [See the limitation of
καλὸν in ver. 26, where the reason is formal-
ly stated.—T. W. C.]
2 This ἔχειν is nothing else but the simple
habere (to possess) ; it does not mean iter-
tercourse in marriage, which ought to be
continued (Kling, Heydenreich, following
Cameron and Estius), Paul comes to that
only in ver. 3.
152 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
obligation (already noted by Erasmus). This injunction, however, is a
moral rule, to which exceptions may occur from higher considerations in
cases where no danger of fornication is apprehended and there is the ‘‘ do-
num continentiae,” as Paul himself had shown by his own example,—in
which, nevertheless, no support whatever is given to any sort of celibacy
enforced by law, a thing which, on the contrary, our text decidedly dis-
countenances. Riickert thinks further that Paul exhibits here a very poor
opinion of marriage ; and Baur (in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 15 ff.) has more
fully developed this idea so as to assert that the apostle’s view of marriage
is at variance with the moral conception of it which now prevails.’ Comp.
also Rothe, Hthik, III. p. 614. But can it be true, then, that ie, who looked
upon the union with Christ itself as the analogue of wedded life, valued
marriage only as a ‘‘ temperamentum contirfentiae” ? No ! what he does is
this : out of all the different grounds on which marriage rested in his mind,
he selects just that one which, in the first place, specially concerned his
readers (remember the κορινθιάζεσθαι), and in the second place, had peculiar
weight in connection with the nearness of the Parousia, That approaching
catastrophe might furnish him with sufficient reasons for leaving unmentioned
those higher ends of marriage which reached forth into a more remote fu-
ture, and confining himself to the immediate practical relations of the brief,
momentous present. See ver. 26 ff. Keeping in view the present ἀνάγκη,
the near approach of the Lord, and the necessity, therefore, of an undivided
surrender to Him, Paul had, wnder these given circumstances, recognized in
the state of single life what in and by itself was καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ, if only no
Sornication and heat were conjoined therewith. It is from this point of view,
which was presented to him by the then existing condition of things (and
hence without at all contradicting Gen. ii. 18), that the apostle handles the
subject, discussing it accordingly in a special aspect and from one particu-
lar side, while the wider and higher moral relations of marriage lie beyond
the limits of what he has now in hand.—Observe, further, how sharply and
decisively the expression in ver. 2 (comp. Eph. v. 22, 25) excludes not only
concubinage and sexual intercourse apart from marriage generally, but also
all polygamy.
Vv. 3, 4. The occasion for this injunction, which otherwise might very
well have been dispensed with, must have been given by the statement in
the letter from Corinth of scruples having arisen on the point. See on ver.
1.— iv ὀφειλήν] the due in the matter (Rom. xiii. 7), i.e. according to the
context, as euphemistically expressed, the debitum tori.2 See ver. 4. The
word does not occur at all in Greek writers ; see Lobeck, a@ Phryn. p. 90.
Nor does it in the LXX. and the Apocrypha. —} γυνὴ τοῦ ἰδίου σώμ. K.7.A.]
1Comp. in opposition to this, Ernesti,
Ethik des Ap. Paulus, Ὁ. 115 f.
2If we adopted the common reading τὴν
ὀφειλομ. εὔνοιαν, We should not take it, with
Grotius, a., in the same sense as given
above, but generally, with Calvin and
others, as benevolentiam. For the expression
for that special idea is not εὔνοια (not even
in Philo, de Abr. p. 584), but φιλότης (Homer).
μίξις, συνουσία. The author of the gloss,
therefore, must either have misunderstood
τὴν ὀφειλήν, Or, understanding it rightly,
have used a wrong expression to explain
it. The reading ὀφειλομένην τιμήν ἴῃ Chrys-
ostom points to the former alternative.
OHAP., Vilz,.0,'10. 153
Explanatory of ver. 3. The wife has no power over her own body, namely, as
regards cohabitation, but the husband has that power ; likewise (ὁμοίως) also,
on the other hand, the converse holds, so that ‘‘ neutri liceat alteri conjugale
debitum poscenti denegare,” Estius. Corresponding statements of the
Rabbins may be seen in Selden, wxor. Hebr. 111. 6. 7. — Bengel says happily
respecting ἰδίου, that it forms with οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει an elegans paradoxon.
Ver. 5. Withhold not yourselves from each other, unless it were perhaps (nisi
Sorte, comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 5 ; Luke ix. 13) that ye did so as occasion emerged
(av), by agreement for a time (supply ἀποστερῆτε ἀλλήλ. ; see on Luke ix. 18).
The obvious meaning is euphemistically expressed by ἀποστερ. ; ἄγαν τοίνυν
ἁρμοδίως τοῦτο τέθεικεν ἐπὶ TOV οὐ συμφώνως τὴν ἐγκράτειαν αἱρουμένων, Theodoret.
— iva σχολάσητε k.t.2.| ἵνα introduces the design of the concession just made ἐκ
συμφών. πρὸς καιρόν : in order that ye may have free leisure for prayer—
may be able to give yourselves to it without being drawn away and dis-
tracted by sensual desire and the pleasures of sense. What Paul means is
not the ordinary praying of the Christian heart, which ought to ascend
ἀδιαλείπτως (1 Thess. v. 17 ; Eph. vi. 18), but such extraordinary exercises
in prayer as they might have determined specially to devote themselves to
for a longer period (a series of days). We are not to assume that such do-
mestic devotions, as the apostle here plainly supposes to be engaged in by
husband and wife in common, had been already then connected with Chris-
tian festivals ; probably they were still entirely dependent upon the wants
and wishes of individuals. But the idea of cohabitation being excluded for
a time by religious exercises, is found both among the Jews (Ex. xix. 15 ;
1 Sam. xxi. 4) and the heathen. See Wetstein and Dougt. Anal. II. p. 111
f. Comp. Test. XI. Patr. p. 673: καιρὸς γὰρ συνουσίας γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ
καιρὸς ἐγκρατείας εἰς προσευχὴν αὐτοῦ. --- καὶ πάλιν ἦτε] still dependent on iva,
indicates σεμνῶς the being together again for matrimonial intercourse. With
respect to ἐπὶ τὸ avtd,1 comp. on Acts i. 15. —iva μὴ πειράζῃ K.7.2.] design of
the καὶ πάλιν. .. ἦτε : in order that Satan may not tempt you to sin (to
breach of the marriage-vow) on account of your incontinency, because ye are
incontinent ; for ‘‘ Satanas vitiorum scintillas excitat,” Grotius. ’Axpacia,
which occurs again in the N. T. in its older form of ἀκράτεια, Matt. xxiii. 25,
comes from ἀκρατής (κρατεῖν), and is the opposite of ἐγκράτεια. See Lobeck,
ad Phryn. p. 524 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 461 B. Riickert conjectures
that the word means : not mingling in matrimonial intercourse (on account of
your non-participation therein). This is quite against usage ; for ἀκρᾶσία
(with the a long, from ἄκρατος), in the Ionic form ἀκρησίη, means bad mixture,
as opposed to εὐκρασία. See Theophrastus, 6. pi. iii. 2.5 ; Dio Cassius,
Ixxvii. 22. Paul had reason enough to affirm incontinency of the Corinthians
generally, and to call their attention in warning to this lack of moral strength,
on which the devil would base his attempts to find access to them with his
temptations. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 11.
Ver. 6. Τοῦτο] does not refer to what follows (J. Cappellus, Rosenmiiller),
which it does not suit ; nor to ver. 2 (Beza, Grotius, de Wette, Gratama,
1 Hrasmus remarks rightly : ‘‘ut intelligas, eos ante fuisse separatos thalamis.”
154 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Baur, Hofmann) ; nor to all that has been said from ver. 2 onwards (Bengel,
Pott, Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Osiander), for vv. 2-4 contain precepts
actually obligatory ; nor to «. πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ire (Origen, Tertullian, Je-
rome, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, a/.), which is but a subordinate portion of the
preceding utterance. It is to this utterance : μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε. . . ἀκρ. ὑμῶν,
which directly precedes the τοῦτο, that it can alone be made to refer without
arbitrariness,—an utterance which might have the appearance of an érirayy,
but is not intended to be such. What Paul means is this: Although I say
that ye should withhold yourselves from each other by mutual agreement only
perhaps for the season of prayer, and then come together again, so as to es-
cape the temptations of Satan ; yet that is not to be understood by way of
command, as if youmight not be abstinent at other times or for a longer period
ἐκ συμφώνου, but by way of indulgence (‘‘ secundum indulgentiam,” Vulgate), so
that thereby concession is made to your lack of continency, it is allowed for.
Theophylact puts it well : συγκαταθαίνων τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ὑμῶν, and Erasmus : ‘‘ con-
sulo vestris periculis.” --- συγγνώμη occurs here only in the N. T. (Ecclus.,
pref. i. and iii. 18), but very often in Greek writers,—not, however, in the
LXX. It means invariably either forgiveness, or, as here, forbearance, indul-
gence, γνώμη κριτικὴ τοῦ ἐπιεικοῦς ὀρθή, Aristotle, Hth. vi. 11. Hammond and
Pott transgress the laws of the language by making it the same as κατὰ τὴν
ἐμὴν γνώμην. So even Valckenaer ; comp. Calovius, Flatt, Heydenreich, a.
Ewald, too, renders without any support from the usage of the language :
“‘apith the best conscience.”
Ver. 7. Ido not say by way ef command that you should withhold your-
selves only for the time of prayer and then be ‘together again ; but indeed
(dé) I wish that every one had the gift of continency, as I myself, and so
could restrain himself, not merely at such isolated periods for some particu-
lar higher end ; still (and that justifies what I said : κατὰ συγγνώμην) this gift
is not vouchsafed to all. There is no more ground for supposing that μέν
should be supplied (after λέγω) in connection with this dé, than there is in
ver. 2 (against Riickert). — ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν] as also I myself, that is to say,
endued with the donum continentiae, ἐν ἐγκρατείᾳ, Chrysostom. See what fol-
lows. He does not mean his state of single life, but its charismatic basis.
The καί is, as for instance in Acts xxvi. 29, the quite commonly used καί of
comparison. — χάρισμα] ὦ special endowment bestowed by divine grace, fitting
him for the purposes of the kingdom of God. Comp. on xii. 1-4 ; Rom. xii.
6. It is of course, and necessarily (because communicated through the
Spirit), conceived as existing within the church. The words πάντας ἀνθρώ-
move do not contradict this ; for Paul could most warrantably wish to ail
men that gracious gift, which he as a Christian was conscious that he pos-
sessed, and as to which he knew that even within the Christian pale it was
vouchsafed to one and withheld from another. — ὁ μὲν οὕτως k.7.2.] is not to
be understood as if the first οὕτως meant the gift of continence, and the
second a man’s suitableness for wedded life (de Wette, with older commen-
tators, beginning with Theodoret and Theophylact), but in a quite general
sense : the one has his peculiar gift of grace after this fashion, the other in
that ; the one 80, the other so. Under this general statement, the possession
7
CHAP. VIL, 8, ὩΣ 155
of continence, or some other gracious endowment in its place, is included.
As to the double οὕτως, comp. LXX. 2 Sam. xi. 25: ποτὲ μὲν οὕτως καὶ ποτὲ
οὕτως καταφάγεται ἡ ῥομφαία, also Judg. xviii. 4 ; 2 Kings v. 4 ; 2Sam. xvii. 15.
It is not so used in Greek writers.
Vv. 8, 9. Λέγω δέ] leads on from what is contained in ver. 7 (from the
subjective wish of the apostle and its objective limitation) to the rules
flowing therefrom, which he has now to enwnciate. Rickert holds that the
transition here made by Paul is from the married to the unmarried. But
were that the case, τοῖς δὲ ἀγάμοις would require to stand first (comp. ver.
10) ; the emphasis is on λέγω. --- τοῖς ἀγάμοις] What is meant is the whole
category, all without distinction, including both sexes, not simply widowers ;'
for the phrase opposed to it, τοῖς γεγαμηκόσι, in ver. 10, embraces both sexes ;
and hence aydu. cannot apply to the wnamarried men alone (Riickert). The
additional clause, «. ταῖς χήραις, by no means justifies a restrictive rendering ;
for in it the καί does not mean also (Hofmann), but, as the connective and,
singles out specially from the general expression something already included
in it : and in particular the widows. The idiom is an ordinary one both in
classical and N. T. Greek (Matt. viii. 33; Mark xvi. 7; and often else-
where) ; see Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 11, 713. Comp. here Soph. 0. &. 1502 :
χέρσους φθαρῆναι κἀγάμους. It was a special wish of Paul’s, therefore, that the
widows should remain unwedded, doubtless in the interests of the church
(Rom. xvi. 1 ; 1 Tim. v. 9 1. --- καλὸν (as in ver. 1) αὐτοῖς, 86. ἐστι 3 Comp.
ver. 40. — ἐὰν μείνωσιν x.7.A.| if they shall have remained as I also (have remain-
ed), i.e. unmarried. The opposite of this is γαμησάτωσαν, ver. 9. The ὡς
κἀγώ therefore receives here from the context a different meaning than in ver.
7. Luther, Grotius, and others infer from this passage that Paul was a
widower ;? so, too, Ewald. But this conclusion rests upon the assumption,
which is linguistically inadmissible, that ἀγάμοις denotes widowers alone
(i.e. yapor) ; and, moreover, would not be a safe inference even were the
assumption sound. Acts vii, 58, moreover, is against this ; for one could
not place Paul’s marriage after the stoning of Stephen. —ovi« ἐγρατεύονται])
to be closely joined together : are incontinent. See Hartung, Partikell. ΤΙ.
p- 122; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 267; Ameis on Hom. Od. ii. 274. The
verb ἐγκρατεύεσθαι (Ecclus. xix. 6) is foreign to the older Greek, although this
precise phrase : οὐκ ἐγκρατ., is sanctioned by Thomas, p. 30, and Phryn. p.
442. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. 1.c. — γαμησάτ. Regarding the later form of
the aorist ἐγάμησα, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 742. — πυροῦσθαι] to be in a
flame, of vehement emotions (2 Cor. xi. 29 ; 2 Mace. iv. 88, x. 35, xiv. 45 ;
of love, Anacreon, x. 13) ; it means here, ‘‘ occulta flamma concupiscentiae
vastari,” Augustine, de sancta virginit. 84. Comp. Suicer, Tes. If. p. 899 ;
from the Rabbins, the history of Amram in Lightfoot, Horae, p. 190 ; from
the classics, Jacobs, Del. Epigr. v. 34. — κρεῖσσον] not because it is the least
1 Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Es- the ancient church was that Paul was never
tius, a/., including Pott, Heydenreich, Bill- married (Tertullian, Jerome, Chrysostom,
roth, Ewald. a.). The contrary is stated in Clem. Alex.
2 The prevalent and correct tradition of (in Eus. H. Z£. iii. 30).
156 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
of two evils (Riickert, Kling ; comp. Estius), but because to marry is no sin
(vv. 28, 36), while to burn is sinful (Matt. v. 28).
Ver. 10. But to those who have married ; this is opposed to the γαμησάτω-
σαν, which referred to futw'e marriages. ‘Accordingly, just as γαμησάτ. ap-
plied only to Christians of both sexes leading a single life, so γεγαμηκόσι,
too, refers exclusively to married persons both of whom were Christians.
It is perfectly correct, therefore, to designate the married persons, where
one party in the union was not a Christian, by τοῖς λοιποῖς, ver. 12 ; for, apart
from the cases discussed down to ver. 12, there are no others remaining to
be spoken of except those living in mixed marriage. Riickert understands
τοῖς γεγαμηκόσι to mean specially the newly married people ; Paul, he holds,
has a particular case in view, in which a single man perhaps had married a
widow, which had been disapproved of by some ; and, because the apostle
had given an opinion in ver. 8 unfavourable to such marriages, he must
now forbid the dissolution of a union of that sort when once formed. But
the fact of the ἀγάμοι and the widows being coupled together in ver. 8 lends
no support whatever to this, for ἀγάμοις applies to both sexes. Moreover,
were the perfect participle, which is the present of the completed action,
meant here to convey the notion of ‘‘newly married,” this would need to
be indicated either by some addition (such as νεωστί), or undoubtedly at
least by the context. The fact, again, that Paul speaks first and chiefly of
the wife (which Riickert explains on the ground of the wife having desired
a separation), may very reasonably be accounted for, without supposing any
special design, in this way, that the cases in which a wife separated herself
from her husband presented to the Christian consciousness the most anoma-
lous phenomenon in this sphere, and notwithstanding might not unfrequent-
ly occur in the wanton city of Corinth even within the Christian society.’
This is quite sufficient, without there being any need for assuming that the
apostle had been questioned about some case of this kind (Hofmann), particu-
larly as the passage itself gives no sign of any such interrogation, but simply
disposes of the point in the evenly course of the discussion regarding mar-
riage, and with a view to its completeness. —oix ἐγὼ, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Κύριος] The negation
is absolute. Paul knew from the living voice of tradition what commands
Christ had given concerning divorce, Matt. v. 81 {., xix. 3-9 ; Mark x. 9-
12; Luke xvi. 18. Hence ὁ Κύριος, 86. παραγγέλλει, for the authority of
Christ lives on in His commands (against Baur, who infers from the pres-
ent, which is to be supplied here, that Paul means the will of Christ made
1 That we are to ascribe the tendency to
such separation precisely to devoul enthusi-
asm on the part of Corinthian wives leading
them to shrink from matrimonial inter-
course (de Wette, comp. Hofmann, p. 146),
is a view which is inadmissible for this
reason, that Paul, having before him such
a mere error of feeling and judgment,
would have made a disproportionate con-
cession to it by saying μενέτω ἄγαμος. The
state of morals at Corinth is explanation
enough, more especially in connection with
the easy and frivolous way in which
divorces took place in Greek social life
generally (Hermann, Privatalterth. ὃ xxx.
14-16), not merely by dismissal on the part
of the husband (ἀποπέμπειν), but also by de-
sertion on the part of the wife (ἀπολείπειν) ;
comp. Bremi, ad Dem. I. p. 92.
CHAP. VII., 11. . 157
known to him by inspiration). It is otherwise in 1 Thess. iv. 15. As re-
gards the ἐγώ, again, Paul was conscious (ver. 40) that his individuality was
under the influence of the Holy Spirit. He distinguishes, therefore, here
and in vv. 12, 25, not between Ais own and inspired commands, but between
those which proceeded from his own (God-inspired) subjectivity and those
which Christ Himself supplied by His objective word. (rR) Since, now, the
πνεῦμα Θεοῦ in no way differs from the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ (Rom. viii. 9-11),
Κυρίου ἐντολαί (xiv. 87 according to the Tezt. recept.) could be predicated of
the former class of precepts also, although neither in the same sense as of
the latter, in which Paul’s own subjectivity had no share whatever, nor with
the same force of absolute obligation ; but, on the contrary, only in so far
as the other party recognizes them as ἐντολὰς Κυρίου (xiv. 37). — μὴ χωρισθῆναι]
let her not be separated, which, however, is not purely passive here (as in
Polybius xxxii. 12. 7), but means : let her not separate herself. Isae. viii.
36, p. 79. For the rest, vv. 13, 15 prove that this phrase and μὴ ἀφιέναι in
ver. 11 are not so different, that the former can be used only of the wife and
the latter only of the husband.
Ver. 11. From ἐάν to καταλλ. is a parenthesis pure and simple, disjoined
from the rest of the sentence which continues with καὶ ἄνδρα. But in case
she should perhaps (ἐὰν δέ) even (καί, i.e. in fact, actually ; see Hartung, Par-
tikell. I. p. 132 f.) be separated (have separated herself) ; in this Paul is not
granting something in the way of exception, as though the preceding in-
junction were not to be taken too strictly (which is set aside at once by οὐκ
ἐγὼ, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Kip., ver. 10), but he supposes a future case, which will possibly
arise notwithstanding the commandment of the Lord’s just adduced. The
ἐὰν καί therefore, with the δέ of antithesis, introduces, as in ver. 28, an oc-
currence which will possibly be realized in the experience of the future (Her-
mann, ad Viger. Ὁ. 834; Winer, p. 275 [E. T. 367]). This in opposition
to Riickert, who maintains that the words refer to that specific case (see on
ver. 10), and mean : if, however, she should perhaps have already separated
herself before receiving this decision ; and likewise to Hofmann, who ren-
ders : if such aseparation has actually already taken place within the church,
thereby presupposing that such a thing will henceforth never take place
there again. — μενέτω ἄγαμος] assumes that her marriage is not to be looked
upon as really dissolved ; hence she would be guilty of adultery should she
contract another union. Comp. Matt. xix. 9.—%] 07 else ; comp. on ix.
15. —xarudAayfro] passive, leaving it undefined as to who was the active
subject in the case (see Buttmann, I. p. 368 ; Winer, p. 245 [E. T. 328]) :
let her be reconciled, be friendly again with her husband. The voluntary sep-
aration of the wife from her husband is, in fact, just the cancelling of her
_ peaceful relation to him, which is to be restored again. — kai ἄνδρα γυν. μὴ
ἀφιέναι] and that a husband put not away a wife, send her from him, separate
himself from her. Comp. Herod. v. 29: ἀπέντα ταύτην τὴν γυναῖκα. This
clause added by Christ (in accordance with Schamai’s doctrine) : παρεκτὸς
λόγου πορνειάς, Matt. v. 32, xix. 9, does not occur in Luke xvi. 18 or Mark
x. 11. We are not warranted in supposing that Paul was not aware of this
exception having been recognized by Christ, or that he had perhaps never
158 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
heard of it at all, for the simple reason, that the validity of this ground of
divorce was self-evident. Comp. on Matt. v. 32.
Ver. 12. The λοιποί are those who, before their conversion, had entered
into marriage with a non-believer, so that one of the two had become a
Christian and the other not. See on ver. 10.—oiy ὁ Kip.] For, as respect-
ed such marriages, Christ had given no command. He had no occasion to
do so. Observe how suitably Paul refrains here from again using zapay-
γέλλω. — συνευδοκεῖ] approves with him (comp. on Rom. i. 82), joins in ap-
proving ; for Paul takes for granted that the Christian partner on his side
approves the continuance of the union.’ It is alien to the scope of the pas-
sage to hold, with Billroth, that in ovvevd. is implied the contempt of the
heathen for the Christians. Regarding οἰκεῖν μετά, to dwell with, of living
together in marriage, see Seidler, ad Hur. El. 99 : ἐν γάμοις ζευχθεῖσαν oixeiv,
comp. 212.—It may be noted, moreover, that ver. 12 f. does not give per-
mission to a Christian to marry a non-believer. ‘‘ Non enim dixit : si quis
ducit, sed: si quis habet infidelem,” Pelagius. περὶ τῶν πρὸ κηρύγματος
συναφθέντων ἔφη, Theodoret.
Ver. 13. Καὶ οὗτος] a common turn of expression (instead of ὃς κ.τ.1.} in
connection with καί. See on Luke x. 8 and Kiihner II. p. 526. —- μὴ ἀφιέτω
τ. ἄνδρα] let her not put away her husband, not send him from her, ΤῸ trans-
late otherwise (let her not Jeave him) is, in view of ver. 12, altogether
arbitrary. The Vulgate renders correctly : ‘‘non dimittat virum.” The
apparent unsuitableness of the expression is happily explained by Bengel
(on ver. 10): ‘‘ Separatur pars ignobilior, mulier ; dimittit nobilior, vir ;
inde conversa ratione etiam mulier fidelis dicitur dimittere, et vir infidelis
separari, VV. 13, 15.” In the mixed marriage Paul regards the Christian
partner, even when it is the wife, as the one who, for the sake of Chris-
tianity, would have to send away the non-believer, were this in accordance
with Christian principles. But these do not permit of it, and so the Chris-
tian wife is not to send away the non-believing husband, if he is willing to
dwell with her ; that would be on her part a presumptuous violation of
duty. Comp. Harless, Hhescheidungsfr. p. 85. This view of the apostle’s
has no connection with the right conceded even to wives among the Greeks
and Romans of divorcing themselves from their husbands (loose principles
on this subject were held also among the Rabbins ; see Lightfoot, Hor. p.
191). But certainly Paul did not regard the Christian partner in a mixed
marriage as the one who was to rule in general (in opposition to Olshausen) ;
the head in every marriage, if it was to continue at all, was, in his view,
according to Gen. iii. 16, the husband. 1 Cor. xi. 8, xiv. 34; Eph. v. 22;
Collin. 18°; 1 Tim. ii. 11 f.
Ver. 14.? Hor—this justifies the injunction given in vy. 12, 18—the unholi-
ness of the non-believing partner is taken away in virtue of his personal connec-
1 Hence the compound συνευδοκεῖ is used εὐδοκεῖ, according to B (in opposition to
rightly and of deliberate purpose in the Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 369).
second part of the statement also, although 3 Comp. on this verse, Otto against Abre-
there the husband is the subject, and it nunciation, 1864.
ought not to be supplanted by the simple
CHAP. VIL, 14. 159
tion with the believer ; he is sanctified—this sanctification having its causal
basis in the person of the Christian consort with whom he stands in married
union, and the possible stumbling-block of self-profanation through con-
tinuing in such a marriage being thereby removed. Paul’s judgment,
therefore, is that the Christian ἁγιότης, the higher analogue of the Jewish
theocratic consecration to God, affects even the non-believing partner in a
marriage, and so passes over to him that he does not remain a profane per-
son, but through the intimate union of wedded life becomes partaker (as if
by a sacred contagion) of the higher divinely consecrated character of his
consort, who belongs to the Israel of God, the holy φύραμα (Gal. vi. 16 ;
Rom. xi. 16). The clause: ἐπεὶ dpa τὰ τέκνα x.t.4., shows that what the
ἄπιστος is here said to have entered upon is not the moral holiness of the
new birth (the subjective condition of which is nothing else but faith), but
the holy consecration of that bond of Christian fellowship which forms the
ἐκκλησία Θεοῦ, of which holiness, as arising out of this fellowship, the non-
believing husband, in virtue of the inner union of life in which he stands to
his Christian consort, has become a partaker (not, of course, without
receiving a blessing morally also). The non-believer is, as it were, affiliated
to the holy order of Christians by his union of married life with a Christian
person, and, so soon as his spouse is converted to Christ and has thereby
become holy, he too on his part participates in his own person (not ‘‘ simply
in his married relationship,” to which Hofmann, following older inter-
preters, unwarrantably restricts the meaning of the text) in his consort’s
holiness, the benefit of which he receives in virtue of his fellowship of life
with her, so that he is no longer ἀκάθαρτος as hitherto, but—although
mediately after the fashion described—a ἡγεασμένος. The manifold misinter-
pretations of the older commentators may be seen in Poole’s Synopsis and
Wolf’s Curae. Observe, moreover, in how totally different a way Paul
regarded the relation of the Christian who had connected himself with a
harlot (vi. 15). In that case the harlot is the preponderating element, and
the members of Christ become unholy, members of an harlot. — With ἐν τῇ
γυν. and ἐν τῷ avd., comp. ἐν σοὶ πᾶσ᾽ ἔγωγε σώζομαι, Soph. Aj. 519 ; ἐν σοί
ἐσμεν, Oed. R. 314, and the like ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 597. --- ἐπεὶ ἄρα
k.t.A.] because according to that (if, namely, that ἡγίασται did not hold good ;
comp. v. 10), i.e. because otherwise your children are unclean, profane. That
Christians’ children are not profane, outside of the theocratic community
and the divine covenant, and belonging to the unholy κόσμος, but, on the
‘contrary, holy, is the conceded point from which Paul proves that the non-
believing husband is sanctified through his believing wife ; for just as in
1In a mixed marriage, therefore, the
Christian ἁγιότης forms, in relation to the
non-Christian unholiness, the preponderating
element, extending the character of sancti-
ty even to what of itself would be profane ;
as Chrysostom expressesit : νικᾷ ἡ καϑαρότης
τῆς γυναικὸς τὴν ἀκαϑαρσίαν. Comp. the
paraphrase of Erasmus: ‘‘ Non inficit dete-
rioris impietas alterius pietatem, quin illud
potius praeponderat quod melius est et
efficacius.”’
2¢.g. Calovius and others hold that ny.
refers to the usus conjugalis as sanctified
per preces fidelis conjugis; Tertullian,
Jerome, Theodoret, Castalio, Estius, αἱ.,
think that it points to his being destined
to be converted afterwards, so that the
meaning would be candidatus fidei est.
160 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the children’s case, that which makes them holy is simply the specific bond
of union with Christians (their parents) ; so, too, in the case of the mixed
marriage, the same bond of union must have the same influence,’— Had the
baptism of Christian children been then in existence, Paul could not have
drawn this inference, because in that case the ἁγιότης of such children would
have had another basis.? That the passage before us does not even contain
an exegetical justification of infant baptism, is shown in the remarks on Acts
xvi. 15 (against de Wette in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1830, p. 669 ff., Neander,
Olshausen, Osiander, and older expositors). Neither is it the point of
departure, from which, almost of necessity, paedobaptism must have
developed itself (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 423) ; such a point is rather to be
found in the gradual development of the doctrine of original sin (s) — ὑμῶν]
should not be restricted, as is done by most expositors, following Chrysos-
tom (so recently, Pott, Flatt, Ewald, Harless), to those involved in mixed mar-
riages ;* but, as Paul himself makes clear by changing the person, referred
to the readers as Christian in general* (de Wette, Schrader, Riickert,
Olshausen, Osiander, Neander, Maier, Hofmann ; Billroth is undecided),
not, however, to the exclusion of the children of a mixed marriage, since it
must be logically inferred that these, too, could not fail to have from their
Christian father or mother at least ‘‘ quandam sanctitatis adsperginem”
(Anselm). In how far the offspring of mixed marriages were counted holy
by the Jews, may be seen in Wetstein and Schoettgen in loc. — viv dé] but
go, as in ver. 11.
Ver. 15. Paul had before enjoined that the Christian partner should not
make a separation if the non-Christian consents to remain. But what, if
1 The essence of this bond of 7nion, as
regards the children, does not lie in their
vital union. It is upon this paritas rationis
that the validity of the argument depends.
being born or begotten of Christian parents ;
for the children, although holy for their
parents’ sakes, might be born or begotten
before the father or mother had embraced
Christianity. Nor are we warranted in
saying, with Hofmann, that the child, as
the gift of God, is holy, for its relation to its
parents, who, so faras that is concerned, do
notregard the sin with which itis born. That
is arbitrarily to limit the apostle’s thought,
and to read all the most essential points of
it from between the lines. On the contrary,
the relationship which Paul here enunciates
simply and without any artificial saving
clause is one which consists in the immedi-
ate close fellowship of life, by virtue of which
the consecration of Christian holiness at-
taching to the parents passes over from
them to their children also, to whom other-
wise, as being still ἀπίστοις, the predicate
axadapta would rightly belong. Equally
close and cordial is the fellowship of life
between husband and wife, while every
other kind of mutual connection is less in-
timate, and forms a more distant degree of
_ 2? Comp. Jebamoth, f. xxviii. 1: “ Si gravi-
da fit proselyta, non opus est, ut baptizetur
infans quando natus fuerit ; baptismus enim
matris ei cedit pro baptismo.”
3 ᾿Ακάϑαρτοι is taken by many as equiva-
lent to spuvii. See Melanchthon in partie-
ular: ‘“‘Si non placeret consuetudo conju-
galis, filii vestri essent spurii et eatenus
immundi, ἀκάϑαρτοι. At filii vestrinon sunt
spurii; ergo consuetudo conjugalis Deo
placet.” He interprets axadapro after TTDI)
in Deut. xxiii. sy
4 Comp. Miiller, v. d. Stinde, ΤΙ. p. 388, ed.
5. Our passage, however, ought not to be
adduced to prove the universal pollution
of men by nature and birth, for axadapra
must denote, not moral, but theocratic un-
cleanness, like the κοινά of Acts x. 28.
This against Ernesti also, Ursprung der
Siinde, ΤΙ. p. 162 ff. The children of Chris-
tians are, it is plain according to this verse,
holy already (without baptism) at a time of
life at which it is as yet inconceivable that
the uncleanness should be removed throug?
Sellowship with the Redeemer by faith.
CHAPS ΤΙ £5. 161
the non-Christian partner seeks separation? In that case they were to let
such an one go without detention (χωριζέσθω, permissive, see Winer, p. 291
[E. T. 390]) ; ‘‘suas sibi res habeat ; frater sororve sit aequo animo,”
Bengel. And the reason for this was: ‘‘ A believer in such circumstances is
not enslaved, nay, surely (δέ after the negative clause) it is in peace that God
has called us,” so that this our calling forbids such a living together as
would be wnpeaceful through constraint. —oi dedobA.] is not enslaved, so,
namely, as still to remain bound in marriage to such a ywpitduevoc.! The
expressiqn brings out the wnworthy character of such a relationship. Comp.
Gal. iv. 3 ; Plato, Pol. ix. p. 589 E; Soph. Trach. 256 ; 4 Macc. iii. 3 f.,
xiii. 2. See, on the other hand, the simple δέδεται in ver. 39. --- ἐν τοῖς τοιού-
τοις] not, as Hofmann takes it : ‘‘ In matters of the natural life,” to which
marriage belongs, but in accordance with the context : wnder such cireum-
stances, i.e. in such a position of things, where the non-believing consort
separates himself. Luther renders well: ‘‘in solehen Féillen.” Comp. ἐν
τοῖσδε, Soph. Oed. Tyr. 892. ἐν τούτοις, Plut. Glor, Ath. p. 350 A ; Phil.
iv. 11; ἐν οἷς, Antiph. i. 6, and Maetzner in loc., Ὁ. 131. Only a comma
should be placed after τοιούτοις. --- ἐν εἰρήνῃ] is not the same as εἰς εἰρήνην
(Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Riickert, following older expositors ; comp. also Bill-
roth), or iva ὦμεν ἐν eip. (de Wette, Osiander, Gratama, Maier) ; for that
which is stated is not to what God has called us (see, on the other hand,
ver. 22; 1 Pet. v. 10), but ὧν what ethical form God’s call has taken place.
He has so called us, namely, to the Messiah’s kingdom, that He therewith
caused peace to be proclaimed to us in respect of our relation to others
(Eph. ii. 14 ff.). Analogous to this is the ἐν in Eph. iv. 4 ; 1 Thess. iv. 7;
comp. also on Gal. i. 6. To understand, however, the εἰρήνη as referring to
the peace of the soul with God (Harless, Hofmann) would be possible only if
dedobA. were to be referred to binding of the conscience. And even in that
case we should expect as correlative rather ἐν or ἐπ’ ἐλευθερίᾳ (Gal. v. 13).
Remarx.—Since desertion (χωρίζεται) appears here as an admissible ground for
divorce, this has been thought to conflict with Matt. v. 32, xix. 9, and various
explanations have been attempted (see Wolf in loc). But the seeming contra-
diction vanishes, if we consider ver. 12, according to which Jesus had given no
judgment upon mixed marriages ; Matt. v. 32, therefore, can only bind the
believing consort, in so far that he may not be the one who leaves. If, however,
he is left by the non-believing partner, then, as this case does not fall under
the utterance of Christ, the marriage may be looked upon as practically dis-
solved, and the believing partner is not bound. ‘But to apply, as is often done,
the permissive χωριζέσθω, also to such marriages as are Christian on both sides
—the χωριζόμενος, that is to say, being an unchristianly -minded Christian
(Harless)—is exegetically inadmissible, seeing that the λοιποί who are here
spoken of (see ver. 12) constitute the specific category of mixed marriages, in
1 Weiss, in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1866, p. Hofmann. But had Paul meant this, he
267 (comp. his bid]. Theol. Ὁ. 423), under- must have indicated it more particularly.
stands δεδούλ, of the burden of the conscience According to the context, οὐ δεδούλ. is the
in view of Christ’s command respecting the opposite of the μὴ ἀφιέτω in vy. 12, 13, denot-
indissolubleness of marriage. Precisely so ing legal necessity, like δέδεται in ver. 39.
΄
᾿
162 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
which, therefore, the one partner in each case falls to be reckoned among τοὺς
ἔξω. So also pref. to 4th ed. p. vii. f. — Our text gives no express information
upon the point, whether Paul would allow the Christian partner in such a union
to marry again. For what οὐ δεδούλωται negatives is not the constraint ‘ ut
caelebs maneat” (Grotius, al.), but the necessity for the marriage being con-
tinued.' It may be inferred, however, that as in Paul’s view mixed marriages
did not come under Christ’s prohibition of divorce, so neither would he have
applied the prohibition of remarriage in Matt. v. 32 to the case of such unions.
Olshausen is wrong in holding a second marriage in such cases unlawful, on
the ground of its being, according to Matthew, l.c., a μοιχεία. Christ Himself
took no account of mixed marriages. Nor would ver. 11, which does not refer
to marriages of that kind, be at variance with the remarriage of the believing
partner (in opposition to Weiss, bibl. Theol. l.c.). (τ)
Ver. 16. Confirmation of the foregoing thought, that the Christian is not
bound in such cases, but, on the contrary, ought, in accordance with his
vocation, to live in peace ; for neither does the (Christian) wife know whether
she, by continuing to live with her (non-believing) husband, shall be the means
of his conversion, nor does the (Christian) husband know, etc. This uncertainty
cannot be the basis of any constraint to the hurt of their peace.? Most ex-
positors, on the other hand, from Chrysostom downwards, take εἰ in the
sense of εἰ μή (see also Tholuck, Bergpredig. p. 251 f.), and hold that ver. 16
enunciates a new reason for not breaking up the marriage, namely, the pos-
sibility of the conversion of the non-believing husband. ᾿Ανάδεξαί φησιν ἐπὶ
χρησταῖς ἐλπίσι τὸν πόνον. ἔχεις τὸν Θεὸν τῆς προθυμίας ἐπίκουρον, Theodoret.
That is to say, they find in ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κιτ.. the thought : yet the Christian
partner should do everything to maintain peace and bear with the heathen
consort,—and either link to this the new reason given in ver. 16 (Flatt,
Rickert, Olshausen, following Calvin and others), or else regard ver. 15 as a
parenthesis (Grotius, al.). But the parenthetic setting aside of ver. 15 is as
arbitrary as the turn given to the idea of ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ x.t.A. is the contrary to
context. With respect again to taking εἰ as equivalent to ei μή, it is per-
fectly true that εἰ, following upon the notion of uncertainty, may answer
in meaning to εἰ μή (Thue. ii. 53. 2 ; Kriiger, ὃ Ixv. 1. 8; Esth. iv. 14; 2
Sam. xii. 22 ; Joel ii. 14 ; Jonah iii. 9) ; but the thought which would thus
emerge does not suit the connection here, because in it the point is the οὐ
δεδούλωται, to which the proposed rendering of the εἰ would run counter.*
Moreover, this use of εἰ is foreign to the N. T., often though it occurs in the
classics (see especially Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 8, Anab. iii. 2. 22). —ri]
precisely as the German: ‘‘ was weisst du, ob,” etc., so that in sense it is
the same as: how, in how far (Ellendt, Ler. Soph. II. p. 828) ; it is not
1 Photius, as cited by Oecumenius, says
very justly: οὐκ ἔχει ἀνάγκην ὁ πιστὸς ἢ ἡ
πιστὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀπίστοις τοιαύτην, οἷα αὐτῷ ἐπίκει-
ται ἐπὶ τῶν πιστῶν" ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ παντὶ τρόπῳ,
χωρὶς λόγου πορνείας οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων
τοὺς συναφϑέντας χωρισϑῆναι' ἐνταῦϑα δὲ, ἂν
μὲν συνευδοκῇ τὸ ἄπιστον μέρος τῷ πιστῷ συνοι-
κεῖν, δεῖ μὴ λύειν τὸ συνοικέσιον" ἂν δὲ στασιάζῃ
καὶ τὴν λύσιν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, οὐ δεδούλωται ὃ πισ-
τὺς εἰς τὸ μὴ χωρισϑῆναι.
2 Comp. de Wette, Osiander, Neander,
Ewald, Maier, Hofmann [Stanley, Alford,
Beet].
3 A limitation of the ov δεδούλωται, and
that, too, of a quite general sort, comes in
only with the εἰ μή «.7.A. in ver. 17.
CHAP. ΤΕΣ 17. 163
therefore the accusative of the object. Comp. τὶ οἴει, τὶ δοκεῖς, Ken. Hier. i.
15. Regarding the future σώσεις comp. Stallbaum, ad Gorg. p. 249 ; Klotz,
ad Devar. p. 508.
Ver. 17. Ei μή] is meant, according to Grotius, to introduce an exception
to the τὶ οἶδας : ‘‘Illud quidem, quod dixi, non scis, sed hoe debes scire ;”
or, more exactly, since εἰ μῇ is not the same as ἀλλά (see on Gal. i. 7) :
Nothing but the duty dost thou know, etc. Comp. my 3d edition. But this
mode of joining on the verse is very harsh and forced in itself, and is,
besides, unsuitable for this reason, that ver. 16 was only a subordinate
thought, to which εἰ μὴ «.r.2. as a newly introduced leading idea stands in
no logical nexus. The logical connection of εἰ μή, nisi, etc., is, on the con-
trary, to be sought in the leading thought of the foregoing passage, which
was ov δεδούλωται k.7.A. This οὐ dedobAwrac . . . Θεός Was enunciated without
any limitation being put upon it hitherto. It was further confirmed in ver.
16. Paul desires now, in order to avert all frivolous and reckless procedure,
to add to it the necessary limitation in the shape of a general principle of a
practical kind, which should never be forgotten in connection with it.! We
may paraphrase accordingly somewhat in this fashion : ‘‘ The believer is not
in bondage in this matter, having, on the contrary, been called in peace, and not
somuch as knowing whether he shall save his non-believing consort ; he is not in
bondage, only? he is not to use this freedom in a light and regardless way, but to
remember that it is limited by the rule that every one ought to abide in a conserv-
ative spirit by the position in which God has placed and called him, and to con-
duct himself accordingly, instead of possibly seeking to break it up without any
very pressing cause.” Comp. as in substance agreeing with this, Olshausen,
de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier. Pott holds that χωρίζεται should be
supplied after ei μή ; but the antithesis would require εἰ δὲ μή, and the rule
which follows would be very superfluous in a case where no separation had
taken place, more especially after ver. 12 f. Vater and Riickert supply
σώσεις : ‘* But even if thou shouldst not, the general rule applies in every
case.” Were that correct, we should of necessity find εἰ δὲ καὶ μή. Lastly,
there is the view of those who would join εἰ μή to the preceding clause
(τινές in Theophylact, Knatchbull, Homberg, Hammond, Olearius, Morus,
and recently Hofmann) : if thou shalt save thy wife, if (or) not?* Now this
is not, indeed, excluded by the μή (as Riickert thinks, who requires οὐ ; but
see Hartung, Partikell. 11. p. 123) ; still the addition would be quite inap-
propriate to the sense of the two questions, for these convey the idea : thow
knowest not at all if, etc., with which the alternative neene does not harmon-
ize,—on which ground, too, Hofmann makes ver. 16 to be the concluding
1 Paul had doubtless ground enough in here gives expression to in a Christian
the rich experience of his career for giving form.
this warning. How often in the cases of 2 Respecting εἰ μή in the sense of πλήν,
conversion to Christianity must the deep see Poppo, ad Thuc. HI. 1, p. 216; and re-
inward change have had linked to it a specting the principal sentence annexed to
yearning after some change of outward re- it, Buttmann, newt. Gram p. 308 [E. T. 359].
lationships !—an offence against the practi- 3 Hence the reading ἢ μή in more recent
calrule: ‘‘ Qua positus fueris, in statione codd. Severianus in Oecumenius, Chrysos-
mane” (Ovid, Fasti, ii. 674), which Paul tom, ms. Syr. p. on the margin.
-
104 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
confirmation of the whole admonition beginning with τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς in ver.
12. This, again, is impossible, for this reason, that the jirst part of the
counsel given to the λοιποί has already received its confirmation in the γάρ
of ver. 14, and in accordance therewith the γάρ of ver. 16 must now refer in
the way of confirmation only to the second part of the said counsel, as con-
tained in ver. 15. Hofmann’s interpretation is in the most complicated op-
position to the plan and development of the apostle’s argument. Rinck, in
his Lucubr. crit. p. 142 f. (and so previously Theodoret), connects from ei μή
on to Κύρως with the preceding passage : ‘‘nescis enim, an salvum eum fac-
turus sis, nisi prout quemque Dominus adjuverit.” But ἑκάστῳ ὡς ἐμέρ. ὁ. K.
and ἕκαστον ὡς κέκλ. 6. 8. are manifestly parallel, and, as such, contain not a
frigid repetition (Rinck), but an earnest exhaustion of the thought. — ἑκάστῳ
ὡς] the same as ὡς éx., but with emphasis on the ἑκάστῳ. Comp. 111. 5, x.
16; Rom. xii. 3. As the Lord (God) hath apportioned to each (has bestowed
his outward lot), as (i.e. ἡ κλήσει, ver. 20) God hath called each (to the
Messiah’s kingdom), so let him walk, i.e. according to the standard of this
outward position (without seeking, therefore, to break with it or step out
from it, vv. 20, 24) let him regulate his conduct, his course of life. ’Eyépicev,
has given his portion (Polybius, xxxi. 18. 8, xi. 28. 9; Eccles. xlv. 20; 2
Macc. viii. 28 ; 4 Macc. xiii. 18), refers to the earthly relations of life, ac-
cording to which, e.g., a man may be married to this person or that (and it
is to this relationship that the primary application is to be made), may be
circumcised or uncircumcised, a slave or free,t etc. See ver. 18 ff. These
relationships of life are here regarded as a whole, out of which each indi-
vidual has received his μέρος from God (τὸ μεμερισμένον, Lucian, D. D. xxiv.
1), in accordance with the varying modes (ὡς) of the divine apportionment.
Comp. the classical ἡ εἱμαρμένη, sors attributa. We have to supply neither
περιπατεῖν (Hofmann), nor anything else. What the Lord has apportioned
is just the μέρος, which each man has. Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 175 ff.,
understands μερίζειν in the theocratic-Messianic sense, and makes ὁ Κύριος
refer to Christ: ‘‘in qua vitae externae sorte ac statu(déc, conf. ver. 18)
cuique Dominus beneficiorum suorum quasi partem tribuit.” According to
this, what would be meant would be the μερὶς τοῦ κλήρου τῶν ἁγίων (Col. 1.
12), which, however, refers to the bliss of the futwre αἰών, and would re-
quire, therefore, to be understood here proleptically. But there are two con-
siderations which put a decided negative upon this view : first, the refer-
ence assumed for the absolute ἐμέρ. is not suggested by the context (see, on
the contrary, ver. 18 ff.) ; and in the second place, logically the calling
must go jirst, since before it there can be no mention of the Messianic μερίζειν
(Rom. viii. 30, x. 14; Col. i. 12). This holds also against the essentially
similar interpretation of Harless, which co-ordinates ἐμέρ. with the calling. —
1 The call of the individuals to salvation
took place in these differently apportioned
positions and relationships in life. Hence
the ὡς ἐμέρισεν takes precedence of the ὡς
κέκληκεν, Hofmann is wrong in holding that
the ὡς ἐμέρισεν might lie on this side or on
that of the calling, and might consist even
ina change of the situation in which they
had been when called. This mistake should
have been precluded even by what follows,
which always starts from those circum-
stances alone which subsisted αὖ the tine
of the calling ; see vv. 18, 21, 24.
CHAP. VIL., 18-20. 165
κέκληκεν] a completed transaction continuing to the present in. its results,
hence the perfect ; the aorist éuép., on the other hand, indicated something
merely which took place as an act of the past, and this act occurred before the
κέκληκεν, at birth, or some other point in life. — καὶ οὕτως κ.τ.λ.} Showing the
importance of this rule, which Paul is not by any means laying down simply
with a view to the special state of things at Corinth, but, etc., wa τῳ ἔχειν καὶ
ἄλλους κοινωνοὺς προθυμότεροι περὶ τὴν ὑπακοὴν διατεθῶσι, Theophylact. — διατάσσ. |
I ordain, appoint, xi. 34, xvi. 1. Observe the evidence here of apostolic
power over the church.
Ver. 18 ff. Further explanation of this injunction by way of example, and
not bearing simply on the case of Christians living in mixed marriage.’— The
protases do not convey a question either here or in ver. 27, being in the rhe-
torically emphatic form of the hypothetic indicative. See Bernhardy, p. 385.
Comp. Kiihner, I. p. 561. — μὴ ἐπισπάσθω] ne sibi attrahat, sc. praeputium.
A surgical operation frequent among the later Jews (1 Macc. i. 15, and
Grimm in loc. ; Josephus, Antt. xii. 5. 1), described in detail by Celsus, vii.
25. 5, or otherwise performed, by which a sort of foreskin was again drawn
over the glans—resorted to not only in cases of perversion to heathenism,
but also from shame or fear of heathen eyes, before which men sought to
avoid appearing (in baths, for example, or otherwise) as circumcised. With
Christians this might especially be occasioned by a shrinking from the eyes
of Gentile converts. See, besides Wetstein, Groddeck in Schoettgen’s Horae,
p. 1159 f. ; Lightfoot, p. 194 ; Liibkert in the Stud. uv. Krit. 1835, p. 657.
Such persons were styled Ὁ Ὁ. See Buxtorf, Ler. Talm. p. 1274. — iv
axpoB.| Comp. Rom. iv. 10.
Ver. 19. Comp. Rom. ii. 25 ff. ; Gal. v. 6. From the Christian point of
view it matters nothing whether a man be circumcised or not ; comp. viil. 8.
— ada τήρησις ἐντολ. Θεοῦ] but keeping of the commands of God, sc. τὰ πάντα ἐστι,
as in iii. 7. According to the Christian idea (Rom. xiii. 8), there is no dif-
ference between this and the faith that worketh by love (Gal. v. 6). Bill-
roth is wrong in taking it as: ‘‘ In themselves circumcision and uncircumci-
sion are alike indifferent ; such things are of importance only iz so far as
they are an observing of the commandments of God ;” for ἡ ἀκροβ. cannot
be included with the other under rfp. ἐντ. Θεοῦ.
Ver. 20. An emphatic repetition of the rule after giving the dlustration of
it. Comp. ver. 24.—év τῇ κλήσει ἢ ἐκλήθη] Since Calvin, expositors have
often understood κλῆσις of the outward position in life, like our calling | Beruf },
and have supplied ἐν before ἡ in accordance with the pure Attic idiom (Stall-
baum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 76 Ὁ ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 32). So, re-
cently, Riickert. But although κλῆσις (Dionys. Hal. Antt. iv. 18) does ex-
pressly correspond to the Latin classis, a division of the burgesses, according
to the true derivation of that technical term from the Greek, yet even pro-
fane writers never use κλῆσις in the sense of avocation [6757 (rank, and the
like) ; and in the whole N, T. the Christian meaning of καλεῖν and κλῆσις *
1 Theodoret says well: εἶτα συνήϑως ἀπὸ τοῦ προκειμένου ε is ἕτερα μεταβαίνει,
πᾶσι νομοϑετῶν τὰ κατάλληλα.
166 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE COKINTHIANS.
that in which they are invariably used, and so here also : in the calling (to
the Messianic kingdom (through which (ἡ being the dat. instrum., as in 2 Tim.
i. 9) he was called. This may have been, that is to say, a κλῆσις going forth
from God to a circumcised manor an uncircumcised, to a slave or a free-
man, etc. If, now, the man, for example, who was called in circumcision
by a vocatio circumeisi thereafter restores the foreskin, so as to give himself
out for an uncircumcised person, he does not abide in the calling through
which he was called. The right interpretation is already given by Chrysos-
tom and Theophylact (ἐν οἵῳ βίῳ καὶ ἐν οἵῳ τάγματι καὶ πολιτεύματι ὧν ἐπίστευσεν,
ἐν τούτῳ μενέτω: κλῆσιν γὰρ τὴν εἰς τὴν πίστιν προσαγωγῆν φησὶ).
Comp. ver. 17 : ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ Θεός. The emphatic ἐν ταύτῃ (vi. 4) points at the
misdirected yearning for another state of matters through which another κλῆσις
would present itself, as e.g. through the ἐπισπᾶσθαι a being called ἐν axpo-
βυστίᾳ, ete.
Ver. 21. Mf σοι μελέτω] let it give thee no concern, let it be all the same to
thee. Hom. 77: ii. 338, x. 92; Plato, Phaed. p. 95B; Tim. p. 24 B;
Wisd. xii. 13 ; Mark iv. 38, al. What it is that ought to give him no con-
cern, is plain from the immediate context, namely, his being called as a slave ;
not, as Hofmann would read into the text, his seeming to be doomed to life-
long slavery. —aaw εἰ καὶ x.7.2.] but, even if thou art in circumstances to become
Sree, use it rather, namely, the having been called asa slave ; make use
rather (instead of becoming free) of thy ‘‘ vocatio servi” by remaining true
to thy position asa slave. Comp. ver. 20. So, in substance, Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Theophylact. Camerarius, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, and many of
the older interpreters ; among more modern expositors, de Wette, Osian-
der, Maier, Ewald,’ Baur (in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 26 ff.), also Vaihinger
in Herzog’s Encykl. XIV. p. 474 f. ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 417 f. The ἀλλά
is nothing else than the German sondern, corresponding tothe preceding μή
σοι wer., and εἰ καί is etsi (Herm. ad Viger. p. 832 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol.
p- 82 A; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 151), so that it conveys the sense: even
although, if even ; and in the conditional clause the emphasis is made by καί
The Syriac, however (‘‘ elige tibi potius quam ut ser-
vias”), and most modern commentators, supply τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ after γρῆσαι,
with Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide,
and many others (a view mentioned, too, by Chrysostom). Paul's advice,
they hold, is rather to avail oneself of the opportunity of becoming free. But
this is grammatically incorrect, because it goes in the face of the καί," and
to fall upon δύνασαι.
1 Who, however, expounds χρῆσϑαι as
meaning ἐ0 let oneself be used,i.e. to be de-
pendent without being able to establish any
precedent for such a rendering. Regard-
ing χρῆσϑαι without adative of the object,
see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. Ὁ. 452 C, 489 B.
2 What devices have been practised of
late with this καί! Billroth thinks that it
indicates an accessory thought : “this, too,
is not to be denied, that if thou canst be
free,” etc. Riickert thinks that it denotes
a climax and properly (?) belongs to ἐλεύϑ. :
“but if thou mayest even be free,” ete. Ols-
hausen holds that spiritual freedom is im-
plied in καλεῖσϑαι, and that, starting from
this idea, Paul goes on: ‘‘ but if in addi-
tion to thy spiritual freedom thou canst
obtain also bodily liberty, avail thyself of
it rather... Even Neander substantially
agrees with this. But upon Billroth’s view
καί would require to come before εἰ ; upon
Riickert’s and Olshausen’s, before ἐλεύϑ. ;
and the turn given to the clause by the
latter is but one proof out of many that
CHAP ΥἹΙ., 20. 16%
contrary also to the connection, for Paul would thus be contravening his own
thrice-repeated injunction : let each man remain, etc. (vu) The ground spe-
cially founded on (in a very unhermeneutical way) by Riickert, that the old
interpretation is against the spirit of the apostle, is untenable ; for the ad-
vice to use the opportunities of obtaining freedom—an advice comparatively
unimportant and paltry in view of the Parousia believed to be at hand—by
no means corresponds with the apostle’s lofty idea that all are one in Christ
(Gal. 111. 28 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13 ; Col. iii. 11) ; that in Christ the slave is free
and the freeman a slave (ver. 22) ; as, indeed, ver. 22 can furnish a confir-
mation of ver. 21 only on the ground of the old exposition, descending from
Chrysostom, al., of μᾶλλον χρῆσαι. It may be added, that that idea of true
Christian equality carries in itself the germ of the abolition of slavery ; the
latter is the ripe fruit of the former. The moral consciousness of Christen-
dom has not in this respect advanced beyond the standpoint of Paul (Baur) ;
it is but a further development of the same principle which he enunciates, the
future influence of which, however, upon the removal of slavery the apostle
himself was not led to consider more closely from his expectation of the
nearness of that great change which was to bring in for all believers the
glorious liberty of the children of God. He left slavery, therefore, unas-
sailed, as he did civil relations in general, not even asking, in his letter to
Philemon, that Onesimus should be set free, but introducing the idea of
Christian love, unity, and equality (xii. 13; Gal. iii, 28; Eph. vi. 8;
Philem. 16 ; Col. iv. 1),—an idea, the consequence of which is necessarily
the cessation of slavery, although just as necessarily it was not natural for
the apostle, with his eye turned to the approaching Parousia, to single out
this consequence and apply it to an age of the world which, in his view,
was on the point of passing away. It maybe further noted that he does not
forbid an exchange of slavery for freedom, which was in itself allowable ;
but he disswades from it as a trifling way of dealing with the position in
question, under the circumstances of the time, when viewed from the height
of the Christian standpoint.
Ver. 22. For the converted slave is Christ’s freedman ; in like manner, too
(ὁμοίως καί introduces the precise reversal of relations which here also takes
place), the freeman who becomes a Christian is the slave of Christ. That moral
freedom (comp. John viii. 36) and this moral slavery are of course essentially
identical (Rom. vi. 16 ff. ; Eph. vi. 6; Col. 111. 24) ; but Paul grounds
here his admonition in ver. 21 by showing that the matter may be looked
at from a twofold point of view: the Christian slave should recognize his
relation to Christ as that of an ἀπελεύθερος Χριστοῦ," and the freeman’s relation
as that of a δοῦλος Χριστοῦ. This will serve in his case this end, not by any
must have written καὶ εἰ. He might have
men may make anything out of every- ;
written either, and would, had it been xat
thing, if they—wil/d. Hofmann considers
that καί lays emphasis on the reality (comp.
on ver. 11) as contrasted with the mere
wish, which wish, however, is only brought
in by an erroneous explanation of μή σοι
μελέτω. He even maintains that, according
to our understanding of the yerse, Paul
εἰ, have meant even in the case that; but he
meant εἰ καί (if thou art even in a position to,
etc.), and therefore wrote it and nothing else.
The latter is as little absurd as the former.
1 So that “ εἰ σῶμα δοῦλον, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ νοῦς ἐλεύ-
depos,” Soph. Fragm. 677, Dindorf.
168 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
means (as Hofmann illogically inserts into the text, despite the μένειν again
required in ver. 24) that he should count it unnecessary to remain in the
position of a slave,’ but, on the contrary, that he should abide content-
edly in his station without coveting freedom. — ὁ ἐν Kupiy «A. δοῦλ.} the
slave who is called in the Lord, i.e. who has received the Christian calling.
That is to say, this κλῆσις has not taken place, as any other might, out of
Christ, but in Him, as being the distinctive element in which it has its
specific character. The ἐν Κυρίῳ, which might have been understood of it-
self, is expressly added here, because it was meant to be an emphatic corre-
late to the Κυρίου which follows. It is wholly foreign to the argument to
imagine a contrast here with the earthly master (Hofmann), as in Eph. vi.
5; Col. iii. 22, iv. 1. -- ἀπελεύθερος with the genitive is not used here in the
common sense of libertus alicujus, some one’s manumitted slave, for the
master hitherto had been sin or Satan (see on vi. 20) ; but simply ὦ freed-
man belonging to Christ (comp. κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ X., Rom. i. 6), after Christ,
namely, has set him free from the service of another (comp. Ignatius, ad Rom.
4). This was self-evident to the consciousness of the reader.
Ver. 23. For a price (see on vi. 20) were ye (my readers in general) bought
(namely, by Christ to be His slaves) ; become not (therefore) servants of men ;
i.e. do not make yourselves dependent upon what men wish and demand of
you, instead of allowing your conduct to be moulded by Christ’s will and
service. Paul designs that this should be applied to the mistaken submis-
sion shown on the part of the church to such as wished that men should
break up or alter their civil relationships and other existing situations to
please them, and in compliance with their solicitations and deceptive sug-
gestions. This more specific reference of the warning, in itself conveyed in
general terms, we may naturally gather from ver. 24. Instigations and
seductions of this kind, arising partly, perhaps, from fanatical excitement,
must plainly have occurred at Corinth in connection with circumstances of
the details of which we are ignorant ; for otherwise the whole of the
minute instructions from ver. 17 to ver. 24 would lack any concrete basis.
The interpretation with which Chrysostom and Theophylact content them-
selves is therefore much too vague : that Paul is forbidding men-pleasing
generally, and compliance with immoral demands. Sa also Theodoret’s
view, that he enjoins μὴ δουλοπρεπὲς ἔχειν φρόνημα. Osiander and Neander’s
rendering is too general also (‘‘every kind of wrong dependence”). It
is altogether alien to the context, vv. 17-24, to suppose that ἀνθρώπων
refers to Paul, Cephas, Apollos, ete. (Riickert), and that the meaning is
substantially the same as had been expressed in iii. 21 by μηδεὶς καυχάσθω
ἐν ἀνθρώποις (Hofmann). Equally out of accordance with the subject in
hand is Billroth’s exposition (given before by Vatablus), that the apostle
exhorts the slaves not to do their service for the sake of men, but for the
Lord’s sake (Col. iii. 22). Heydenreich, on the other hand, holds (with
1 Paulis, in fact, guarding by this grand tianity side by side with all unjust estima-
utterance of hisagainst allunjustcontempt tion of the worth of mere outward free-
for the condition of outward slavery.—a dom.
feeling which vanishes in the light.of Chris-
CHAP. VII., 24, 25. 169
Menochius, Hammond, Knatchbull, Mosheim, Michaelis, Zachariae) that he
is admonishing the freemen not to sell themselves into slavery. But, even
putting out of account the second person plural, which directs the words to
the readers generally, were that the meaning, Paul would undoubtedly have
called attention to a new illustration of his rule, as he does in vv. 18, 21.
And how unlikely a thing that men went into slavery in those days for the
sake of Christianity (for according to the connection it is this motive which
must be presupposed, not : for gain’s sake)!
Ver. 24. To conclude the whole digression, the weighty rule is once more
enunciated (ἐν ᾧ «.7.4. : In whatever relationship, in whatever outward po-
sition, etc.), and now with the strengthening clause παρὰ Θεῷ, which de-
scribes the ἐν τούτῳ μένειν according to its moral and religious character ; that
outward abiding is to be of such a kind that therein the man shall abide
inwardly with God (the caller), which moral relation of fellowship is locally
represented in a concrete way by παρά (‘‘a Deo non recedens,” Estius).
Comp. Theophyiact,—who, however, makes out a special reference to im-
moral obedience to masters, —Schrader, Riickert, Neander, Osiander. De
Wette limits the meaning to the relation of a Christian slave, as in ver. 22,
which, after the general ver. 23, is inadmissible. The common interpretation,
““coram Deo” (Calvin), ‘‘ Deo inspectante’ (Grotius), which would imply:
‘‘nerpetuo memores, vos in ejus conspectu versari’” (Beza, comp. de Wette),
would correspond to the current phrase ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ. Hofmann makes
ἐν ᾧ and ἐν τούτῳ refer to Christ (comp. ver. 22) ; the call took place in
Christ to God, and therefore every one is to have in Christ (on His mediato-
rial foundation) his abiding with God. The perfect conformity of ver. 24
with ver. 20 ought, had it stood alone, to have prevented this misinterpre-
tation. But besides, the call is given from God, not to God, but to eternal
Messianic life (comp. oni. 9).
Ver. 25. Aé] indicating the transition to a new section in the discussion
on marriage. — παρθένων] virgins. We are not to understand this’ of the un-
married of both seves, young men and maidens, which is contrary to the ordi
nary usage of the language (see too, vv. 34, 36, 37) ; for in such passagesas
Rey. xiv. 4, Oecumenius, Quaest. Amphil. 188 ; Nonnus on John xix. 26 ;
Fabricius, Pseudepigr. V. T. Il. pp. 92, 98; also Arist. Hg. 1302, the word
is maidenly ; and that it ever with Greek writers means ὦ single man in the
proper sense, is at least very doubtful. — γνώμην] view, opinion. As regards
γνώμ. δίδωμι (2 Cor. viii. 10), see the examples in Kypke, I. p. 205. — The
sense most in accordance with the context for πιστός is that of credible, i.e.
trustworthy (1 Tim. iv. 9). The more general faithful (in the service of
Christ ; so Billroth, Riickert, Ewald) is less suitable ; and least of all the
simple believing, as Hofmann would have it. Paul’s being an ἀξιόχρεως σύμ-
Bovaoc (Theodoret) he ascribes to the mercy of Christ : for he knows well
in himself that that characteristic would not belong to him without Christ’s
gracious call to the apostleship, and without enlightenment and aid from
Him. Comp. also ver: 40. Hence ὡς (quippe) éAenuévoc k.T.A.
1 With Theodore of Mopsuestia, Bengel, Semler, Zachariae, Schleusner, Schulz, Rosen-
miiller, Flatt, Pott, Olshausen, Ewald.
170 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Ver. 26. In carrying out his theme de virginibus, Paul proceeds as follows:
first, in the passage extending to ver. 35 he gives a general recommenda-
tion of single life to both seves, and only then deals with the subject of vir-
gins exclusively on to ver. 88. — οὖν] therefore, introduces now the γνώμη in
accordance with what was said in ver. 25. — ἀνθρώπῳ] refers, as the more
detailed remarks in ver. 27 ff. prove, not to virgins alone (Hofmann), as
applied to whom, besides, it would be an awkward expression,’ but means:
ὦ person, including both sexes. It is otherwise in ver. 1.—oitwe] 80, as he
is, i.e. unmarried, which follows from τ. παρθένων, ver. 25. To be so Paul
esteems salutary (καλόν, as in ver. 1), not absolutely and in itself, but be-
cause the Parousiais near, and still nearer, therefore, must be the general
calamities which are to precede it, the dolores Messiae, ΤῊ 2 San (see on
Matt. xxiv. 3). These form the instant (111. 23) distress, i.e. a distress
which is impending and has already begun to set in. Comp. Matt. xxiv.
19. The persecutions (Pott, Flatt, Hofmann, after older expositors) are
only a part of it. Matrimonial cares and sufferings, again (Schulz, follow-
ing Theophylact and others), are not meant at all. See ver. 39 ff. — As
little are we to understand ‘‘impending constraint through marriage”
(Cropp in the Jahrb. 7. Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 103), against which θλῖψιν
alone, in ver. 28 and ver. 31, testifies with sufficient clearness. Comp.
rather τῇ ἐνεστώσῃ ἀνάγκῃ, 3 Mace. i. 16, the distress having set in, and see
generally on Gal. 1. 4.—The construction is anacoluthic, so that τοῦτο,
which belongs to νομίζω, prepares for the following κακὸν ὑπάρχειν on to
οὕτως εἶναι (Comp. on Rom, ii. 3 and Kiihner, ὃ 631. 2); but then ὅτε καλὸν
x.T.4., Which states the contents of the νομίζω, instead of ending simply
with ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ οὕτως εἶναι, begins from the beginning again, and that with
a ὅτι, Which comes in in place of the construction with the infinitive
(Kiihner, ὃ 771. 5). A manifest confusion of expression, into which in dic-
tation Paul might be especially likely to fall by forgetting, after the enuncia-
tion of the principal thought διὰ τ. éveor. ἀνάγκ., that he had already said
καλὸν ὑπάρχειν. Hence, too, it is more natural to connect διὰ τ. éveor. avayk.
with what precedes it than hyperbatically with ὅτι «.7.2. (Ewald, Hofmann).?
Translate : My opinion, then, is this, that it is good on account of the impending
distress,—that it is good [I think] for a person to be in such a position.
Heydenreich holds wrongly—as the fact of there being no αὐταῖς added is
enough of itself to show—that 6 τὶ should be read, so that Paul would say
that what is good for the man is good for them, namely, single life. De
Wette takes τοῦτο as equivalent to παρθένον εἶναι, and then renders ὅτι by
because: ‘* because it isin general good for a man to be unmarried.” * But
this ‘‘in general” is not in the text, and yet of necessity it would have
required to de there, for without it the argument emerges as an idem per
1 ἄνϑρωπος as a feminine usually answers 3 This rendering occurs in substance in
in Greek writers, as is well known, to the Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin. Beza, too,
German colloquial phrase “ das Mensch.” agrees with it in his explanation of τοῦτο,
3 Ewald, moreover, takes τὸ οὕτως εἶναι (0 but understands ὅτι καλὸν x.7.A. as resump-
mean “that it should be so,” referring to the tive.
following rule δέδεσαι, «.7.A.
CHAP. VII., 27-31. dirs
idem ; -and in truth, even were the ‘‘ in general” expressed, the main state-
ment would be an inappropriate one, since it would contain nothing to
establish the essential element διὰ τ. éveot. ἀνάγκην. The anacoluthon of the
passage belongs to those in which ‘‘celeritate quadam abrepti novam enun-
tiationem inchoamus priore nondum absoluta,” Bremi, ad Lys. Exc.
V. p. 442.
Ver. 27. Lest the γνώμη in ver. 26 should be misinterpreted as favouring
divorce, he now prefaces his further discussion of the subject with the rule,
which is appropriate here only as a caveat: let not the married desire to be
loosed. The construction is as in ver. 18. — γυναικί] dativus communionis, as
in Rom. vii. 2, and with Greek writers. It is plain, especially from vv. 29
and 34, that déd. γυν. does not mean betrothal (Ewald and Hofmann), but
that γυνή denotes a married wife. — λέλυσαι] does not imply: art thou sepa-
rated from (Mosheim, Semler), but art thou ree from, unentangled with a
wife, single (‘‘ sive uxorem habueris, sive non,” Estius; comp. so early an
interpreter as Photius)? See ver. 28, and comp. Xenophon, Cyr. i. 1. 4,
where λελύσθαι an’ ἀλλήλων is equivalent to αὐτόνομα εἶναι.
Ver. 28. Οὐχ ἥμαρτες] But should it be the case that thou shalt have
married, thou hast not sinned therein. Comp. Matthiae, p. 1203; Buttmann,
neut. Gr. p. 172 [E. T. 199]. Hofmann is wrong here also (comp. on ver.
11)in holding that ἐὰν δὲ καί means : but if already actually, etc. —yhuy ἡ
map0.| Here as in 1 Tim. v. 11 the term γωμεῖν is applied, indeed, to the
woman (see on ver, 39), but without violation of rule, since it is not joined
with an accusative. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Mare. Ὁ. 424.— τῇ σαρκί] not in
the ethical sense, but (comp. Gal. iv. 13) for the material, animal part of
man’s nature. In troublous times the married man is exposed to special
anguish from sufferings of this kind (hunger, nakedness, sickness, misusage,
banishment, etc.). Whether we have here a dative of appropriation
(trouble for the flesh ; see on1 Cor. xii. 7 ; Bernhardy, p. 88), or whether
it belongs to the verb, cannot well be determined. — ἐγὼ δὲ iu. φείδομαι) but
T, for my part, deal tenderly towards you, in advising you rather to remain
unwedded ; for by this advice, if you will follow it, I spare you such
θλίψις.
Vv. 29-31. This, however, I say, i.e. of what follows I assure you. Comp.
xv. 50. Δέ leads over to something wherewith Paul (‘‘as it were prophesy-
ing,” Ewald) designs to secwre the more acceptance for the counsel, which he
has given with the view of sparing his readers. Pott, Flatt, and others
take τοῦτο dé φημι k.T.A. aS a More precise explanation of θλῖψιν... τοιοῦτοι,
and then vv. 32-35 asa more precise explanation of ἐγὼ dé ὑμ. geid. Two
things militate against this—first, the more emphatic import of φημί (comp.
also x. 15, 19 ; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. 11. p. 906), which is stronger than λέγω ;
and secondly, the correct view of συνεσταλμ. (see below). Riickert takes it :
‘Happen, however, what may, marry ye or not, this remark I cannot sup-
press.” ‘But were that the meaning, τοῦτο δέ φ. would require to follow at
once after οὐχ ἥμαρτε. --- ὁ καιρός] the space of time,—subsisting up to the Pa-
rousia,—not owr earthly lifetime in general (Calvin, Vorstius, Estius, a.) ;
neither is it merely the time yet to elapse ere that ἀνάγκη arrives (Reiche),
172 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
which would be more distinctly indicated than by the simple ὁ καιρός ; be-
sides, the ἀνάγκη has already begun to make itself felt, ἐνεστῶσα, ver. 26. —
συνεσταλμένος] is taken by most recent expositors (Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Stolz,
Pott, Heydenreich, Flatt, Riickert, Olshausen, Neander ; Billroth is unde-
cided) as meaning calamitosum. But without warrant of usage ; for in pas-
sages such as 1 Mace. iii. 6 (comp. Polyb. v. 15. 8, xxiv. 5. 18 ; Plato, Lys.
p- 210 E; Isocrates, p. 176 A ; Philo, Quod omn. prob. liber, p. 609), Vv. 3,
2 Mace. vi. 12, 3 Mace. v. 88, συστέλλω means to humble, to overthrow, which
does not suit with καιρός. The correct translation is that of the old inter-
preters (so also de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier, Hofmann, Weiss) : com-
pressed, i.e. brought within narrow limits (Plato, Legg. iii. p. 691 E ; De-
mosth. 309. 2; Lucian, Icar. 12 ; comp. συστολή, abbreviation). The space
of time remaining is only of brief duration. In connection with this, 7d
λοιπόν is generally made to refer to what precedes :' the time is henceforth
(in posterum, see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 777 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 2.
δ) eut short,—a mode of connecting the words, however, which makes τὸ
λοιπόν convey asuperfiluous idea. Others hold that it refers to what follows,’
and that in the sense of ‘‘ ergo agendum, quod sequitur,” Estius ; comp.
Luther : ‘‘ weiter ist das die Meinung.” But how obscure the expression
would thus be! The ¢elic sense of iva, too, would be deprived of its logical
reference to what precedes. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Hofmann, adopt-
ing the reading which puts ἐστί before τὸ λοιπόν (see the critical remarks),
place a comma after the verb: συνεσταλμ. ἐστίν, τὸ λοιπὸν ἵνα K.7.2., ἦ.6. the
time is shortened, in order that in future, ete. Comp. as regards this posi-
tion for iva, on Eph. 111. 18 ; Gal. ii. 10; Rom. xi. 81. This is preferable,
because τὸ λοιπόν is thus put emphatically forward in its essential and im-
portant meaning: in order that henceforward these relationships may be
dealt with in a wholly different way than hitherto. Comp. upon the sub-
ject-matter, Matt. xxiv. 42 ff. —iva introduces the design of συνεσταλμ. ἐστι
in the arrangements of God.? Beza, Billroth, Schrader, Hofmann make it
refer to τοῦτο dé φημ. But we may see from παράγει γὰρ x.7.A. in ver. 31
that Paul was thinking of so great results as the aim, not of his assertion,
but of the thing asserted,—a view which agrees thoroughly with his relig-
ious contemplation of the world, Rom. v. 20, vii. 18, viii. 17, xi. 31; 2
Cor. iv. 7, vii. 9, αἱ. He looks upon everything as fitted into the plan of
moral redemption under the government of God. —iva καὶ οἱ ἔχ. γυν. κ.τ.1.}
The meaning is : In order that each may keep himself inwardly independent of
the relations of his earthly life,—that the husband should not by his married
state lose the moral freedom of his position of a Christian in heart and life ;
that the sorrowful should not do so through his tribulation, nor the joyful
through his good fortune, nor the merchantman through his gain, nor he
1Peshito, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theo- and Riickert.
phylact, Beza, Grotius, a/., including Bill- 3 There is therefore no ground here for
roth, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Reiche, beginning a new sentence with τὸ λοιπὸν
Ewald, Maier, Neander. iva, and taking ἵνα in the imperative sense
2 Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Vulgate, (comp. on y. 2). So Laurent, veut. Stud. Ὁ.
Erasmus, Calvin, αἷ., including Heydenreich 130.
CHAP. VIL., SF, 32. 173
who uses the world through his use of it. We see the reverse of. this inde-
pendent attitude in Luke xiv. 18-20. There the heart cleaves to temporal
things as its treasure, Matt. vi. 21. By giving iva its proper reference, it is
made clear that Paul neither designs to lay down rules here (‘‘ that the mar-
ried ought to be as though unmarried,” etc., Riickert, with many others),
nor to depict the uncertainty of temporal possessions (Grotius and Pott) ; which
latter meaning is what Reiche also brings out : ‘‘ quandoquidem propediem
mutata rerum terrestrium facie, laetitiae et tristitiae causis mox evanidis,
tempus deficiet malis bonisve sensu percipiendis.” — καὶ οἱ ἔχοντες γυν.] Even the
married. This καί singles out the first point for special emphasis, because it
was the one on which the discussion chiefly turned ; καί in the instances
- which follow is the simple and. —oi ἀγοράζ. ὡς μὴ xatéy.] the buyers as not
possessing (2 Cor. vi. 10), that, namely, which they buy. —éc μὴ καταχρ.]
may mean, like the Latin abuti, so far as the word in itself is concerned,
either : as not abusing it,‘ or: as not using it (Vulgate, Calvin, Grotius,
Estius, a@/., including Pott, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander). Comp. ix. 18.
So frequently in Greek writers ; see Krebs, p. 291; Loesner, p. 280 f.
The latter of the two meanings should have the preference here from the -
analogy of the preceding clauses. The compound verb—which ought not
to have the sense of at one’s own pleasure (Hofmann) imported into it—serves
merely to give greater emphasis to the idea ; see Bremi, ad 7800). Panegyr.
§ ix. p. 21; Herodian. viii. 4. 22. Translate : Those who use this (pre-Mes-
sianic) world as not making use of it.. There is no reason either for taking
καταχρ. in the sense of wsing up (Reiche, Ewald), because this meaning, al-
though in itself admissible on linguistic grounds (Diog. Laert. v. 69 ; Lys.
p. 153. 46 ; Isocr. p. 55 D), only weakens the force of the antithesis in a
way contrary to the relation subsisting between all the other antitheses. (v)
— χρῆσθαι in the sense of wti with an accusative (see the critical remarks)
occurs here only in the N. T. ;? in classic Greek not at all (in Xen. Ages.
xi. 11, the true reading is τῷ μεγαλόφρονι), and seldom in later Greek (Schae-
fer, ad Gregor. Cor. p. 691). See also Bornemann, Acta apost. I. p. 222.
Καταχρῆσθαι, however, often occurs in that sense with the accusative (Lucian,
Prom. 4 ; Plut. Demetr. 23), and it may have been occasioned here by the
writer’s thinking of the compound verb. Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr.
p- for f. [H. T. 181].
Vv. 31, 32. Lachmann places only a comma after τούτου, in which he is
followed by Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, and Maier. From παράγει on to
εἶναι would thus form collectively a ground for the preceding καὶ οἱ χρώμενοι
x.t.A. This would be correct, if the foregoing words conveyed an exhorta-
tion, or if iva in ver. 29 were dependent upon τοῦτο dé φημι. Since, how-
ever, what is conveyed in the preceding statement is the design of God, the
full stop after τούτου should be retained ; the words from παράγει on to τού-
του form thus a confirmatory addition to oi χρώμενοι. . . καταχρώμενοι, While
1 Syriac, Tertullian, Theodoret, Theo- Paul givesus here the explanation of his
phylact, Oecumenius, Luther, Beza, Corne- foregoing paradox.
lius ἃ Lapide, a/., including Olshausen and 2 Hence Fritzsche (de conform. Lachm. p.
Billroth, the latter of whom considers that 31) rejects it as an error of the copyists.
174 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
θέλω δέ, again, marks the advance to something new, to what Parl, in view
of this passing away of the fashion of this world, now desires of his readers,
namely, that they should be ἀμέρεμνοι, i.e. without worldly cares (see vv. 33,
84). --- παράγει] is passing away, in accordance with the καιρὸς συνεσταλμ. in
ver. 29. Τὸ σχῆμα, habitus, i.e. status externus. See Wetstein. It is not
the transitory character of earthly things in general that is meant (so most
of the older expositors and Billroth ; comp. also Hofmann), but the expiry
of the αἰὼν οὗτος, the end of which is the world-embracing catastrophe of
the Parousia, the transformation of the form of this world, and therewith
of its whole temporal constitution, into the new heaven and the new earth.
Comp. 1 John ii. 17 ; Rev. xxi. 1 ; Rom. viii. 19 ff. ; 2 Pet. 11, 10 ; Matt.
y. 18. Grotius, Valckenaer, and Flatt are wrong in holding that the mean-
ing is: ‘‘non manebunt, quae nunc sunt, res tranquillae, sed mutabuntur
in turbidas,” and that the expression is taken from the language of the
theatre (changing the scene, Eurip. Jon. 166 ; Lucian, Herm. 86). Our
rendering is demanded by vv. 26, 29, and by the eschatological view of the
N. T. generally. — θέλω δὲ «.7.2.] Comp. ἐγὼ dé bu. φείδομαι in ver. 28. — τὰ
τοῦ Κυρίου (the cause of Christ) is more precisely defined by what follows.
— The reading ἀρέσει, how he shall please, and ἀρέσῃ, how he may please
(see Stallbaum, ad Sympos. Ὁ. 216 C ; Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 350), are equal-
ly suitable so far as the sense is concerned.
Ver. 34. Taking the reading μεμέρ. x. ἡ γυνὴ x. ἡ παρθένος (see the critical
remarks), we have: The wife, too, and the maiden are divided,’ i.e. they are
severed from each other as regards their interests, are separate in what they
care for, personae quae diversae trahuntur. The way in which μερίζεσθαι is
used (see Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 195) to denote division into different
tendencies, views, party-positions, is well known (Matt. xii. 25, 26 ; Mark
iii. 24-26 ; Polybius, viii. 23. 9 ; Herodian, iii. 10. 6, iv. 3. 3) ; but the
expression is selected here in reference to the different kinds of μεριμνᾶν.
Theophylact says well : ob τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχουσι φροντίδα, ἄλλα μεμερισμέναι εἰσὶ ταῖς
σπουδαῖς, καὶ ἡ μὲν περὶ ἄλλα σπουδάζει, ἡ δὲ περὶ ἄλλα. Comp. Theodoret.
The simple rendering : ‘‘ There is a difference” (Chrysostom, Luther, Gro-
tius, Mosheim, Zachariae, Heydenreich, and others), would still conduct
one back to the sense divisa est, but would give too general and meaningless
an idea, — Meyép. is in the singular, because it stands at the head of the
sentence, and ἡ γυνὴ x. ἡ παρθένος embraces the female sex as a whole made
up of two halves. Comp. Kiihner, II. p. 58 f.; Bernhardy, p. 416 ; Butt-
1 Tf we adopt Lachmann’s reading (de- betrothed maiden, in his opinion, is no
fended especially by Hammond among the longer ἄγαμος. But in the whole context
older expositors), which Ewald also follows there is only the simple distinction made
(leaving out, however, the second ἡ ἄγαμος) between married and unmarried persons.
the meaning will be: The married man Betrothed maidens, too, belong to the lat-
cares... how he may please his wife,and is ter class; comp. ver. 36: γαμείτωσαν. [Tre-
divided (in hisinterest). And the unmarried gelles and Westcott & Hort follow Lach-
wife (widowed or divorced) and the unmar- mann, but Tischendorf and the Canterbury
ried maiden cares, etc. Hofmann, too, pre- Revision adhere to the received text.—T.
fers this reading, taking the καί, which it W.C.]
has before ἡ γυνή, in the sense of also.. The
CHAP. VII., 3d. 175
mann, newt. Gr. p. 110 f. [E. T. 126]. —iva 7 ἁγία «.7.A4.] Comp. 2 Cor. vii.
1. This moral consecration to God of her whole personality, which she
strives after, is the πῶς ἀρέσει τῷ Κυρίῳ explicated. One can hardly conceive
that Paul avoided the latter phrase on the ground of possible misconstruc-
tion (Hofmann). This, considering the sacredness of the idea of ἀρέσκειν
τῷ Κυρίῳ, would be a piece of prudery, which is unlike him,
Norr.—There is no ground for inferring from vy. 32-34 that Paul, himself
unwedded, looked ‘‘somewhat askance” upon marriage (Rickert). To assume
any such onesidedness of view on his part would be a very hasty proceeding (see
on ver. 2). On the contrary, what we have here is not his view of how, from
the nature of the case, things must necessarily subsist,! but only his experience of how
in point of fact they usually did subsist. This experience he (ὁ ἄγαμος) had ar-
rived at, on the one hand, by consideration of his own case and that of many
other unmarried persons ; and, on the other, by observing the change of inter-
ests which was wont to set in with those who married. We have here, there-
fore, a purely empirical support for the preference of celibacy,—a preference,
however, which with Paul is simply relative, depending upon the nearness of
the Parousia and the end of the world, and also upon the subjective gift of
being holy in body and spirit (comp. Acts xiv. 4). The expectation of these
events being so near has remained unfulfilled, and thereby is invalidated the
Pauline support which has been often found in our text for celibacy, which, as
a legal requirement, is in principle thoroughly un-Pauline (comp. ver. 35).
The apostle, moreover, is speaking generally, and not to one special class
among his readers.
Ver. 35. Τοῦτο] refers to the recommendation of single life contained in
vv. 26-34. — πρὸς τὸ ὑμ. αὐτῶν συμφ.] for your own advantage. The genitive
with συμφέρον used as a substantive, as in x. 33 ; see Stallbaum, ad Plat.
Rep. p. 338 C. — οὐχ ἵνα κιτ.}.1 explaining more in detail, negatively and
positively, the πρὸς... συμφέρον. To cast a noose upon one is a figurative
expression, originally borrowed from the chase (less probably, from war-
fare), for the idea of depriving of freedom (bringing under binding and lim-
iting relations). Comp. Prov. vii. 21, and see Wetstein and Loesner, i
loc. The sense of ‘‘ giving occasion to scruples” (Billroth, comp. Bengel)
does not correspond so well with the figure and the connection. — ἀλλὰ πρὸς
τὸ evoy. κιτ.}.1 but to promote the habit of comeliness and undivided waiting upon
the Lord (in faithfulness to Christ). For this habit prevailed chiefly, accord-
ing to the apostle’s experience, on the side of the ayayo ; see vv. 32-34,
where, too, he makes it clear beyond doubt what comeliness he means here
—namely, such a manifestation of the inner life in all outward embodiment,
as corresponds with consecration to the Lord. It is not merely chastity in
the narrower sense that is intended, but all moral purity and consecration
in so far as these manifest themselves in demeanour, in speech, gesture,
bearing, etc., as the comely form of Christian life, as the ethical ‘‘ decorum”
5)
1 Paul himself, it is plain, had intercourse were married. This in opposition to Cropp
with numbers of eminent servants and in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 102.
handmaids of the Lord (Priscilla, etc.) who
176 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
of the Christian. Its sacred natwre and the foul contrasts to it are set forth
in Rom. xiii. 13, i4.—The dative of appropriation, τῷ Κυρίῳ and d7epior., are
conjoined with the eizdp., used as a substantive, to make up the unity of the
idea. — εὐπάρεδρος does not occur elsewhere. Hesychius explains it by καλῶς
παραμένον. --- ἀπερισπ.} ‘‘absque distractione, ἐ.6. ἄνευ τοῦ μεριμνᾶν τὰ τοῦ
κόσμου," Kypke, II. p. 307. Comp. περισπᾶσθαι, Luke x. 40. Regarding
the connection of the word with the later Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p.
415. Xenophon, Ages. i. 4, has ἀδιασπάστως. The adverb attaches itself to
εὐπάρ. defining its meaning precisely. See on xii. 28."
Ver. 86. Aé] introduces something opposed to the εὔσχημον. --- ἀσχημονεῖν]
means ἀσχήμονα εἶναι (COMP. εὑὐσχημονεῖν = εὐσχήμονα εἶναι, Plat. Legg. v. p.
732 ΟἿ, and may therefore be explained either in the active sense (to det dis-
honourably, conduct oneself in a dishonourable way, Plato, Pol. vi. p. 506 Ὁ,
Theaet. p. 165 B ; Xen. de re eg. xi. 6 ; Herodian, v. 8. 16 ; Lucian, de saerif.
7), or in the passive sense (to have dishonour, Eur. Hee. 407 ; Herodian, viii. 3.
21; Deut. xxv. 5 ; Ezek. xvi. 7). The former of the two interpretations is the
common and the correct one, namely : if any one thinks that he is acting dishon-
ourably towards his virgin (daughter or ward), i.e. if he thinks that he is bring-
ing disgrace upon her ; which means, however, not the disgrace of old maid-
enhood (see Soph. Ant. 810 ff., O. Rev. 1492 ff. ; Eur. Hel. 291 ; comp. Ecclus.
xlii. 9 ; and Lennep, ad Phalar. p. 362), but the dishonour of seduction,
which the father or guardian fears he may give occasion to by refusing per-
mission to marry ; see the following context (against Theodoret : ὁ dé τὴν
ἀγαμίαν ἀκοσμίαν ὑπολαμβάνων, Theophylact, a/.). Taking it in the passive
sense, we have : if any one thinks to have disgrace in respect of his virgin (from
seduction, or. her being left unwedded). So in substance the Syriac
(‘‘despici”), Grotius, Mosheim, Zachariae, Heydenreich, Pott, Neander ;
comp. Hofmann, who holds that what is here expressed is the matter of fact
of its being the father’s fault that the daughter remains unmarried. But even
apart from the consideration that ἀσχημ. is most commonly found in the ac-
tive meaning (see also xiii. 5), there is this against the second rendering,
that ἐπί with the accusative takes for granted that ἀσχημονεῖν implies activity,
since it states the direction in which it is exerted (comp. ἀσχημονεῖν εἷς τινα,
Dion. Hal. ii. 26). — νομίζει] ‘‘ Si perspecto filiae suae ingenio judicet, coeliba-
tui non esse aptam,” Calvin. —éév ἡ ὑπέρακμ. | is the case, in connection with
which that εἰ dé τις ἀσχημονεῖν, κιτ.}. is supposed : in case she pass her time,
pass the highest point of her youthful bloom. As regards the ἀκμή itself, see
Plato, Rep. p. 460 E: dp’ οὖν σοι ξυνδοκεῖ μέτριος χρόνος ἀκμῆς τὰ εἴκοσιν ἔτη
γυναικί, ἀνδρὶ δὲ τὰ τριάκοντα, and Stallbaum, ad hune loe. ; other definitions
of the age may be seen in Locella, ad. Xen. Eph. p. 145. Paul’s opinion is,
that before the ἀκμή is reached the ἀσχημονεῖν. . . νομίζει is not likely to
take place with the father or guardian of the girl ; but, judging from ex-
perience, he conceived that the maiden who is ὑπέρακμος would be more
ready to yield to a lover, if she is not allowed to marry. Respecting the
1 [The image here and the words are well illustrated by the little narrative Luke x.
39-42 in the original.—T. W. C.]
a
CHAP: ὙΠ θ΄ 177
word ὑπέρακμ., which is not found in ancient Greek, see Eustath, 17. ἱ, p. 11,
31; Od. p. 1915, 29. The classical writers use instead of it the perfect of
παρακμάζειν, as in Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 23; or the adjective παρακμαστικῆ, as in
Galen, VI. p. 312, 14. — καὶ οὕτως ὀφείλει γίνεσθαι] depends on the εἰ :! and
if so (namely, that the virgin marry), it must be. Thus there is added to
the subjective condition of things, expressed in dé τις ἀσχημ. x.t.A., the corre-
sponding (not heterogeneous, as Hofmann objects) objective condition on
the part of the maiden, whose natural temperament makes marriage needful.
It is quite akin to the German phrase : wnd wenn’s nicht anders sein kann
[and if it cannot be otherwise] ; the expression has a somewhat euphemis-
tic turn, as referring to the daughter’s inclination to marriage, which de-
termines the ὀφείλει. According to Riickert, «. οὔτ. og. yiv. depends upon
ἐάν : and she must remain so (i.e. unwedded). But the indicative ὀφείλει is
decisive against this rendering ; and what an amount of straining is needed
to make γίνεσθαι equivalent to remain / for she is unwedded, and, if she so
remains, cannot become so. — ὃ θέλει ποιείτω] not : let him do what pleases him
(so ordinarily ; but this is contrary to the context ; see what follows, and
the preceding ὀφείλει), but : let him do what he intends (to give his virgin in
marriage). Theodoret puts it well : τὸ δοκοῦν πραττέτω. --- γαμείτωσαν] name-
ly, the virgin and he who wishes to have her. It is arbitrary, considering the
general form of the whole discussion (ver. 25), to maintain, as Riickert
does, that the plural refers to a particular couple respecting whom the Co-
rinthians had asked a question. Wolf, Heydenreich, and others adopt a
needlessly harsh assumption, that Paul passes here from the singular to the
plural (the virgins). Billroth again propounds the very unlikely view that
“ἐ the youths” should be supplied here as the subject, and αὐτήν as the object.
Ver. 37. He who, on the other hand, stands stedfast in his heart, is of a
stedfast and unchangeable mind, firm in disposition and resolution. Comp.
xv. 58; Col. i. 23, iv. 12. — μὴ ἔχων ἀνάγκην] without having constraint (ob-
jective necessity), as he, in ver. 36, whom the natural temperament of his
virgin causes to fear the ἀσχημονεῖν before explained. — ἐξουσίαν δὲ ἔχει x... ]
contrasted with the μὴ ἔχ. avdyx. (δέ, but rather) as the correlative positive
state of free disposal in respect of what he himself wills. Strictly speaking,
therefore, we should have the participle here, but instead, there is again a
change in the construction. Comp. on iv, 14; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 327
f. [E. T. 3891. --- τοῦτο] is not explained—though this is the common suppo-
sition—by the infinitive which follows ; were that the case, we should have
τὸ τηρεῖν, or (as in Od. i. 82; 1 Thess. iv. 3; Jas. 1. 27, al.) the simple
infin. (comp. the critical remarks). But Paul leaves the reader to gather
from the connection what is meant by τοῦτο (namely, not giving the maiden
arising from the nature of the case, that he
do what he will.’ Laurent also makes καὶ
οὕτως op. yiv. the apodosis, expounding it
to mean: soit must be in this case also. The
1 Theophylact begins the apodosis with
καὶ οὕτως : γενέσϑω, φησὶ, καὶ οὕτω. πῶς ; ὃ
ϑέλει ποιείτω. In that case κ. οὕτος op. γίν.
would be quite superfluous, the καί deprived
of its reference, and οὐχ ἅμαρτ. would not
suit the obligatory ὀφείλει. Similarly Hof-
mann, who follows the same view, para-
phrasing it thus: ‘* 7his too (Ὁ) is a necessity
clauses which follow he considers explana-
tory ; and xai must go back for its reference
all the way to ver. J: not merely in the case
of the πυροῦσϑαι.
178 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
in marriage). The design of this τοῦτο κέκρικεν (conclusum habet) is then de-
clared by τοῦ τηρεῖν : in order to keep (to preserve in her maidenly state) his
own maiden. And this is-not a mere periphrasis for not giving in marriage
(as de Wette objects), but rather the design which the father or guardian
has in his τοῦτο κέκρικεν, by virtue of his right to dispose of his own child: ob-
serve the emphatic τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παρϑένον. That the maiden’s will should be
left entirely out of account by Paul, can surprise no one who is aware of
the power given to fathers among the Jews (comp. Ewald, Alterth. p. 267)
and Greeks (Herm. Privatalterth. § 30. 2 ff.). — καλῶς ποιεῖ] in the sense of
action, morally right, the positive side of the οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει of ver. 36, and
in so far stronger here ; hence, too, it is represented in ver. 28 by κρεῖσσον
ποιεῖ in relation to the καλῶς ποιεῖ, which is equivalent to οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει.
Ver. 38. Result of vv. 36, 87, cai. . . καί, as well. . . as also. Paul had
thought of saying καλῶς ποιεῖ in the second clause also, but thereupon
strengthens his expression (κρεῖσσον) so as to correspond with the relations of
the two predicates, οὐχ ἁμαρτ. in ver. 36, and καλῶς ποιεῖ in ver. 37.—6
éxyap.| he who marries her (his virgin, ver. 37) out (gives her out of his family
in marriage). This going ‘‘out” is not taken into account in the second
clause. — κρεῖσσον] for see ver. 34. Regarding ἐκγαμ., comp. Matt. xxiv.
38 ; it is not preserved in Greek writers.
Vy. 39, 40. An appended rule respecting second marriage on the part of
women, occasioned probably by questions from the Corinthians. — δέδεται]
sc. τῷ ἀνδρί ; she may not separate herself from him and marry another.
Comp. ver. 27; Rom. vil. 2. — ᾧ ϑέλει γαμηϑῆναι] to whom she desires to be
married. Comp. Mark x. 19. Tapei μὲν yap ὁ ἀνὴρ, γαμεῖται δὲ ἡ γυνή, Schol.
ad Eur. Med. 593. As regards the later form γαμηϑῆναι, instead of the Attic
γαμεϑῆναι, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 742. --- μόνον ἐν Κυρίῳ] only in the Lord,
not apart from Christ as the specifically determining element of the new
union ; only in a Christian way, i.e. only to a Christian, sc. let her be mar-
το." So among the early interpreters, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster,
Jerome, Theodoret, Grotius (who puts it happily : «intra ecclesiam), Estius,
al., also Olshausen and de Wette. This does not run counter to ver. 12
ff., where, in fact, those mixed marriages are meant which date from the pre-
Christian period, and in which only one spouse has become Christian.
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, Calovius, Wolf, and others, includ-
ing Pott, Flatt, Heydenreich, Billroth, Riickert, Osiander, Neander, Maier,
Ewald, all understand the phrase to mean : in ὦ Christian spirit, acting as ὦ
Christian should, in the fear of the Lord, etc. (several of the above-named
interpreters, as Flatt, Riickert, Osiander, Neander, Maier, include also the
point that the husband must be a Christian, or lay the chief stress upon
this, as Hofmann and Weiss). But what we have here is plainly a limita-
tion of the ᾧ ϑέλει so emphatically put first. Moreover, the wider and more
general the meaning ascribed to ἐν Κυρίῳ, the more inappropriate it seems
in connection with the foregoing definite rules, which all take for granted
1 Paul’s view, therefore, is not in accordance with the legislative permission of marriage
between Christians and Jews.
NOTES. 179
that the action is Christian. — paxapior.] more blessed, i.e. not merely more
spared from troubles (vv. 26, 28), but, in accordance with the higher ref-
erence which yaxdp. invariably has in the N. T., enjoying the blessed rela-
tion, which arises out of withdrawal from worldly cares and self-surrender
to Christ. See vv. 32-34. As to greater blessedness in heaven, which some
have dragged in here in the interests of celibacy (Ambrosiaster, Cornelius ἃ
Lapide, a/., including Hirscher, Moral, III. p. 502), there is not a word of
that in the text, even if we should read ἔσται in place of ἐστίν. --- κατὰ τ. ἐμὴν
γνώμην] éugv carries the emphasis of apostolic self-consciousness. — δοκῶ dé
κἀγὼ x.T.A.] so that I therefore may expect you to regard my opinion, not
as a mere individual judgment, but as arrived at under the influence of the
Holy Spirit which is imparted (ἔχειν) to me also, and hence as worthy to be
received and followed.-—Respecting δοκῶ, mihi videor, the note of Estius
may suffice : ‘‘minus dicit, plus volens intelligi.” Comp. iv. 9. — κἀγώ]
like other teachers who have received His gifts.—In the two expressions
coming together—of which δοκῶ has a touch of irony (comp. Dissen, ad Dem.
de Cor. p. 230 f.)—there is implied a side-glance, but whether precisely at
the Petrine party (Neander, Riibiger, αἰ.) may be doubted. It is safer to
say generally : at opponents of his full standing as an apostle in Corinth.
Comp. Calvin. (w)
Notes By AMERICAN EDITor.
(zn) Paul's command and the Lord's. Ver. 10.
It is important to insist upon the author’s explanation of the words, ‘‘ I com-
mand ; yet not I, but the Lord.” This is not a distinction between what is in-
spired and what isnot. What the Apostle means is simply that the Corinthians
had no need to apply to him for instruction on the matter of divorce, because
Christ had already taught that the marriage bond could not be dissolved at the
option of the parties.
(s) ‘* Now are they holy.’’ Ver. 14.
Stanley, while agreeing with the opinion that this verse is against the practice
of infant baptism in Paul’s time, yet says that it asserts the principle upon
which that ordinance is founded, viz. that family ties do in themselves conse-
erate those who are bound by them, and that the children of Christian parents
may therefore be considered as among the people of God, and that from this
would follow the natural consequence that the whole family would participate
in the same rites as belonged properly, and in the highest sense, only to those
members or that member of it who was strictly a believer. Est matrimonium
Christianum est soboles Christiana (Bengel).
(2) Desertion a cause of divorce. Ver. 15.
Hodge’s explanation of this matter is somewhat different and apparently
better: ‘‘Thereis no conflict here’ between Christ’s command and Paul’s in-
structions. Both say, a man cannot put away his wife (nor of course a wife her
husband) on account of difference of religion, or for any other reason but the
one above specified (Matt. ver. 32). The Apostle only adds that if the believ-
180 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ing party be, without just cause, put away, he or she is free.’” The marriage
contract thus wilfully broken no longer binds, Hence wilful desertion is
judged to be a legitimate ground of divorce, ς
(Ὁ) ““ Use itrather.”’ Ver. 21,
No question of scholarship has been more vexed in earlier or later times than
the one whether the Apostle here recommends the slave to choose liberty or a
continuance in bondage. The arguments on both sides are nearly equally
balanced. (See a neat summation in Stanley in loco.) Meyer's reference to the
καί may be turned in this way: ‘‘ Wert thou called, being a slave? Care not
for it; but if also (i.e, in addition to your being called), thou canst become
free, prefer to use the opportunity.’’ So Hodge, Speaker’s Com., Principal
Brown, Beet. Kling (in Lange) and Ellicott’s Com. take the other view,
(v) ““ Using as not abusing.’’ Ver. 30.
On the author’s view of these words it is obvious to remark that if the Apos-
tle meant the same thing in each clause, it is impossible to conceive why in
one case he used the simple verb, and in the other a compound one. The force
of the preposition is usually to make the verb mean using to the full or to
excess = overusing (compare ix. 18, and for the force of the preposition the origi-
nal of xi. 32). The Authorized Version is sufficiently accurate for all practi-
cal purposes. The whole clause is, as Bengel says, a true description of Christian
self-denial.
(w) Celibacy. Ver. 40.
On the whole subject of this chapter it may be justly said that while it
seems to favor celibacy, yet it does not, upon a closer view ; for the preference
for single life is founded expressly upon the impending calamities (26-31), and,
in connection with this, on the greater freedom from worldly cares ; and be-
sides, here the Apostle is meeting a particular case of a special kind, while,
when elsewhere treating largely of relative duties (Eph. vv. 22, 23), so far
from speaking of marriage as an inferior state, he makes it represent the high-
est and holiest fellowship of which man is capable — that of Christ and His
church. There is nothing in all the chapter which indicates or sustains the
ascetic views which prevailed a few centuries later.
It is also justly remarked that it is not often so expressly stated in the New
Testament as it is here, that the practice of the highest duties of Christianity is
compatible with every station and condition of life that is not in itself unlaw-
ful. If even the degraded state of slavery be consistent with the cultivation
of the true spirit of Christian liberty ;if even the great religious divisions of
Jew and Gentile may be regarded as alike compatible with the true service of
God, then in all other states of life equally the spirit of the Apostolic injunc-
tions may be observed where, in the letter, they seem most disregarded. Free-
dom from earthly cares may be maintained in the married as well as in the single
state ; indifference to worldly gain may exist in riches, no less than in pover-
ty ; our nearness to (rod depends not on our desertion of one religious com-
munity for another, but on our keeping His commandments in whatever religious
community His providence has placed us, whether circumcision or uncireum-
cision.
CHAP. VIII. 181
OHAPTER. VIII.
Ver. 2, δέ] is wanting in A Β &, min. several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by
Lachm. Riick. and Tisch., as Griesb., too, had recommended. Added for the
sake of connection, as was also γάρ (after the first οὔτε) in ver. 8, which is omit-
ted likewise in A B 817, al. — εἰδέναι] It is true that AB DEFG κα, min.
Clem. Nyss. Theodoret, Damasc. have ἐγνωκέναι (recommended by Griesb.,
adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch.) ; but what goes before it and what fol-
lows make it clear that éyv. is a gloss. The reading εἶναι, too, in 39, 91, 109, tells
in favour of εἰδέναι. --- οὐδέπω οὐδὲν ἔγνωκε] Lachm. and Riick. have οὔπω ἔγνω,
which was recommended by Griesb. in accordance with testimony of very con-
siderable weight, in substance the same as that in favour of ἐγνωκέναι instead
of εἰδέναι. But the peculiarity of the emphatic Recepta does not show the hand
of a gloss-writer, What has taken place has rather been the reduction of the
original reading to the simple οὔπω ἔγνω, at first, perhaps, by omitting the su-
perfluous οὐδέν, all the more readily that it was preceded by οὐδέπω, whereupon
ἔγνωκε became transformed into ἔγνω, either from the next word beginning with
K, or by the influence of the inf. γνῶναι which follows, while οὐδέπω was dis-
placed, as in many other cases (John vii. 39; Luke xxiii. 53 ; Acts viii. 16), by
the more familiar οὔπω. --- Ver. 4. érepoc] is wanting in AB DEF G &* min.
with several vss. and Fathers. Condemned by Mill and Griesb., deleted by
Lachm. and Riick. But why should any one have added ἕτερος ἢ That it should
be omitted, on the other hand, was all the more likely, because the word seemed
superfluous, and might even appear offensive (‘‘ there is no other God but one”’
might by possibility mean: ‘there is but one other God’’). — Ver. 7. τῇ συνειδήσει]
Lachm. and Riick. read τῇ συνηθείᾳ, with A B δὲ, some min. Copt. Bashm. Aeth.
Syr. p. (on the margin) Damasc. Approved also by Griesb. and Rinck. τῇ
συνειδήσει, however, as the more difficult reading, should be retained. See also
Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 200 ff. It was noted on the margin how the ovvei-
δησις τοῦ εἰδώλου arose, namely, by τῇ συνηθείᾳ, and then this phrase easily crept
into the place of the original τ. cvvesd, — It is preferable, however, to put ἕως
ἄρτι before τοῦ εἰδώλου (Lachm. Riick. and Tisch.), with B DE F G & 31, 37,
116, and several vss. and Fathers ; in the Recepta we have transposition in the
interest of the construction. — Ver. 8. παρίστησι] A B®, min. Copt. Bashm.
Clem. Origen (twice), Athan. Cyr. Damase. have tapaorjce. Recommended by
Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Rightly ; the presents which
follow gave rise to the same tense here. Συνίστησι, which has but weak sup-
port, is a gloss. — There is considerable evidence (especially A B δὰ) in favour
of omitting the ydp, and putting the negative clause first in what follows
(Lachm. Tisch.). The transcriber would have a mechanical inclination to place
the positive half of the statement first. — Ver. 9, There is decisive evidence for
reading ἀσθενέσιν instead of the Recepta ἀσθενοῦσιν. -- Ver. 11. καὶ ἀπολεῖται] In
place of καί, A has οὖν after the verb (so Riick.), while B &* 17, Copt. Bashm.
Goth. Clem. have γάρ, which is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch, The last of the
182 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
three readings is the true one ; γάρ not being understood, was explained in
some cases by καί, in others by οὖν. Instead of ἀπολεῖται, read with Lachm.
Riick. and Tisch. ἀπόλλυται, on the authority of A B D* δὰ, several min. Copt.
Goth, Clem. Bas. Antioch, Chrys. Theodoret, and Damase. The future arises
from a mechanical alteration of the text after οἰκοδομηῇ. — ἀδελφός] Lachm.
Riick. and Tisch. have ὁ ἀδεὴφός after γνώσει, which has conclusive evidence in
its favour. The Recepla originated in ἃ mistaken attempt to help out the con-
struction, — ἐπί] Lachm. Riick, and Tisch. read ἐν, which is supported by de-
cisive testimony.
ContTENnts.—To eat flesh offered to idols is a thing morally indifferent for
all who understand rightly what an idol is (vv. 1-6). Still, for the sake
of those who are more weak, we should refrain from so eating, if it isa
stumbling-block to them (vv. 7-13).
Ver. 1. Aé] marks the transition to a new subject, which the queries from
Corinth led the apostle to discuss. — περὶ τῶν εἰδωλοϑ.} Since this is taken
up again in ver. 4, it is clear that vv. 1-3 cannot form an independent series
of thoughts (Hofmann), but that ver. 3 is the close of a logical parenthesis
(not a grammatical one, because at what is its true beginning the construc-
tion undergoes no interruption). It is not to be made to begin at ὅτε (for)
πάντες, a8 is done by Luther, Bos, Er. Schmid, Raphel, Wolf, Bengel, Valck-
enaer, and others, among whom are Olshausen and Maier ; for the fact
that. ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ stands unconnected with what precedes it, and the sense
of ὅτι in ver. 4 (that), are decisive against this. The true commencement is
only at ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοὶ (80, With older commentators, Pott, Riickert, de Wette,
Osiander, Ewald, Neander ; Billroth is undecided on the point), so that
the preceding γνῶσιν ἔχομεν has very naturally given occasion to the warn-
ings which begin with ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ. ---- εἰδωλόϑυτα, things offered to idols,
κρέα εἰδωλόϑυτα, 4 Macc. v. 1, are those parts of the animals offered in hea-
then sacrifices, which remained over after the priests had received their
share, and which were either consumed in the temple or at home in connec-
tion with sacrificial feasts (Dougt. Anal. I. p. 234 ff.; Hermann, gottesd.
Alterth. § xxviii. 22), or else (by poor or miserly persons) sold in the flesh
market. Comp. on Acts xy. 20.’ The Christians might thus easily come to
eat such meat, either through being invited to a feast by heathen acquaint-
ances (x. 27), or, again, by buying it in the market (x. 25), and thereby
offence would be given to scrupulous consciences ; while, on the other hand,
those of a freer spirit, and with more of Paul’s own mode of thinking, might
be apt to make light of the matter, and withal forget how a Christian ought
to spare the weak. To assign the strong and the weak to one or other of
the four parties respectively, is, to say the least of it, a very uncertain pro-
1 Paul, however, makes no reference to
the decree of the apostles either here or
elsewhere, which is in keeping with his con-
sciousness of his own direct and indepen-
dent apostolic dignity. Comp. on Acts (oc.
cit., and on Gal., Introd. §3. Moreover,
this very chapter, along with chap. x.,
shows plainly that, in virtue of his inde-
pendent position asan apostle, he had early
enough shaken himself clear of all applica-
tions of the temporary agreement come to at
Jerusalem which might conflict, upon points
in themselves indifferent, with the princi-
ples elsewhere enunciated by him, although
coupling this with a wise forbearance
towards those who were weak in the faith.
a —"
OHA PS) Villages & 183
cess, whether we are disposed to find the former in the Christ-party (Ols-
hausen, Jaeger) or in the Apollonians (Riibiger). As regards the weak, see
ver. 7, and the remark subjoined to it. —oidayev] should not be joined di-
rectly with περὶ x.7.2., but the latter clause is to be taken as in vii. 1: Now,
as respects meat offered to idols, we know that, etc. Hofmann, following
Semler, but in the face of all the Versions and Fathers, reads οἶδα μέν (1 know,
indeed, that), by which he gains nothing but a μέν solitarium, which would be
all the more uncalled for, seeing that the corresponding antithetic clause,
where he ought to find ἡ δὲ γνῶσις, follows immediately. There is still less
reason here for writing it as two words than in Rom. vii. 14, where it is, in
point of fact, succeed by a dé. The subject of οἴδαμεν consists of all those,
besides the apostle himself, of whom the γνῶσιν ἔχομεν holds good, that is
to say, of Paul and the (as regards this point) more enlightened Christians :
1 and those like myself in this. Theophylact puts it rightly (comp. Chrysos-
tom); πρὸς τοὺς τελείους διαλέγεται, ἀφεὶς τοὺς ἀτελεστέρους. Since οἴδαμεν and
ἔχομεν must have one and the same subject, Riickert is wrong in taking the
first indefinitely : it is well known. Olshausen understands it of all Chris-
tians, and seeks to remove the contradiction between that and ver. 7 in this
way : he distinguishes γνῶσις and ἡ γνῶσις, making the former to be ὦ certain
ground of knowledge in general ; the latter, the specific knowledge of how the
JSorm and the power of idolatry stand related to each other, But the γνῶσις in
ver. 1, although without the article, has been already defined very exactly
as regards its contents by περὶ τ. eidwA., and still more by ver. 4, so that ἡ
γνῶσις in ver. 7 can mean nothing else but the γνῶσις under discussion ; con-
sequently the contradiction would remain. De Wette’s exposition is better ;
he holds that in ver. 1 Paul is speaking quite generally, and, as it were,
theoretically (comp. also Ewald), while in ver. 7 he refers specially to the
Corinthians. But such a theoretic generality would have needed to be ex-
pressed by the first person alone without πάντες, if the οὐκ ἐν πᾶσιν in ver. 7
were to have any logical pertinence ; while, on the other hand, if we are
to maintain that general meaning in ver. 1 as it stands, we should have ar-
bitrarily to insert into the πάντες there the unexpressed idea, ‘‘ properly
speaking, all Christians as such” (Ewald), or to give to the ἔχομεν the sense
of ‘‘ should have.” Others, following Er. Schmid (‘‘ we at Corinth are all
. wise enough”), regard the Corinthians as the subject, and take (Nésselt,
Opuscula, II. p. 152, Rosenmiiller, Pott, Heydenreich, Flatt) the words περὶ
. . ἔχομεν, and then ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον in ver. 4 on to ver. 6, as quotations
from the Corinthian letter, the refutation of which begins with ver. 7. But
this is unnatural ; for in that case Paul would have brought the passage ἡ
γνῶσις φυσιοῖ K.T.2., On to ver. 8, into his refutation as well. Further, it is
contrary to the apostle’s habitual way of writing, for he always marks out
the words of an opponent as such by some formula ; and lastly, it is quite
unnecessary, seeing that the supposed contradiction between ver. 1 and ver.
ἢ vanishes on considering the change of person (from the jirst in ver. 1 to
the third in ver. 7). —yvacw] have knowledge ; of what? is plain from the
1 So Elwert, Progr., Quaestiones ad philol. sacram. N. T., Tiibing. 1860, p. 17.
184 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
context, namely, of the way in which flesh offered to idols should be regarded.
The contents of the statement are more fully expressed in ver. 4.
Vv. 1-3. Now follows the caveat inserted parenthetically with a view to
γνῶσιν ἔχομεν. --- The article turns the abstract γνῶσις into a noun appellative.
—The knowledge (in and by itself, namely) puffeth up (iv. 6, v. 2); but the
love (to the brethren ; comp. Rom. xiv. 14, 15) edifieth (x. 23), furthers the
progress of the church (viewed as οἰκοδομὴ Θεοῦ, see iii. 9) towards Christian
perfection. It is, indeed, the necessary ἡγεμονικόν to the effectively sympa-
thetic and humble application of the knowledge. Comp. chap. xilii., espe-
cially ver. 4. — Vv. 2 and 3 explain the preceding statement, both from the
wrong nature of the supposed knowledge and from the preciousness of love
to God. — Since the γνῶσις in and by itself, divorced from love, is never a
real knowledge, but only such as a man fancies himself to have (iii. 18),
Paul characterizes here what he before designated by ἡ γνῶσις as a δοκεῖν
εἰδέναι te ; and since the love to the brethren does not essentially differ
from the love to God, but is simply its expression in the fellowship of
believers, he now characterizes the former as ἀγαπᾶν τὸν Θεόν. One can
hardly mistake the impress of deep and pregnant meaning in this whole
passage, so like the manner of John, especially in his Epistles. — τί] anything
whatever, any object of the γνῶσις. Pott and Flatt interpret : something
wonderful ; but this does not correspond so well with the sententious
character of the verse. — οὐδέπω x.7.2.] he knows nothing at all as yet in such
a way as to bring it under the name of knowledge, as that must by moral
necessity be constituted from the Christian standpoint. The conceit of
knowledge is onesided, superficial, partial, false, unpractical, in its character.
In order to the γνῶναι καθὼς dei we must of necessity have love, which regu-
lates the knowledge morally, gives it proper depth, and makes it practically
salutary. Comp. xiii. 2. As regards the repetition of the negative (Luke
xxiii. 53 ; John xix. 41; Acts viii. 16), Schémann, ad Js. p. 469 ; Stall-
baum, ad Plat. Crat. p. 398 E). — Ver. 3. οὗτος] with emphasis : he, to the
exclusion of the other who prides himself on his knowledge. — ἔγνωσται ὑπ’
αὐτοῦ] This is rationalized by Billroth in his usual fashion into: ‘‘ God
recognizes Himself in him ;” but it means simply : thisman is known by Him.
The statement 1s a pregnant one. Instead of making it logically complete
by saying : ‘‘it holds good of such a man not merely that he knows in the
true sense, but also that he is known of God,” the apostle states simply the
latter and greater truth, which of itself implies the former. The ἔγνωσται ὑπ’
αὐτοῦ shows the importance and preciousness of the love spoken of, in accord-
ance with its holiness; for if God knows a man, that implies a relation
between God and him of no indifferent or ineffective kind, but an activity of
God, which passes over to the man, so that he as the object of the divine
knowledge experiences also the efficacy of the disposition in and with which
God knows him, of His love, gracious care, etc. (x) The idea, therefore,
is that of the effective divine knowledge, which becomes part of the inner
evperience of the man, and which is the causa salutis,' so that God in thus
‘Comp. Constit. ap. ν. 16.3: μὴ γιγνώσκοντες Θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κηρύγματος πιστεύσαντες ἔγνωτε
CHAP. VIII., 4,5. 185
knowing the man carries out that saving fellowship with him, which was
purposed in His own counsel, Ps. i. 6; Gal. iv. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 19. Comp.
Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. Ὁ. 258 ff. See also on xiii. 12. Other inter-
preters supply the thought wt swwm discipulum (Erasmus) or inter jilios
(Calvin), and the like. Comp. Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 283. But that is to
insert a meaning not in the text. Others, again, take it as approbatus est
(Piscator, Clericus, Gataker, Grotius, Wolf, Mosheim, Semler, Morus, Vater,
al., following Fathers in Suicer, 7768. I. p. 762). But this is as much
against linguistic usage (see on Rom. vii. 15) as Augustine’s edoctus est (so,
too, Beza, Pareus, Er. Schmid, and others, including Nésselt, Rosenmiiller,
Heydenreich, Pott, Flatt), so that the passive would correspond to a
Hophal. Olshausen’s mysterious fancy is contrary to the whole context,
which demands the simple conception of knowing ; he finds in γινώσκειν (as
in YT, see on Matt. i. 25) the bridal (Ὁ) relation of the soul to God.
Ver. 4. Oiv] igitur, takes up again the interrupted statement (ver. 1) ;
comp. xi. 20, and see on Mark iii. 31, and Baeumlein, Partik. p. 177. — τῆς
Bpéo. τ. cid.] More precise definition of the indefinite τῶν εἰδωλοθ., ver. 1.
There is no reason any more than formerly for writing οἴδαμεν here as oida
μέν with Hofmann. — ὅτι οὐδὲν εἰδωλ. ἐν κόσμῳ] that there is not an idol in the
world. TPaul’s meaning here is not: what the heathen adore as gods is some-
thing absolutely without existence (see, on the contrary, ver. 5 and x. 20) ;
but : no heathen god exists as the being which the heathen supposes him to
be ; and so there is no adequate reality, corresponding to the heathen con-
ception of a god Jupiter, Apollo, etc. (y) Most of the old interpreters,
with the Vulgate, Luther, and Beza (also more recently, Michaelis, Rosen-
miiller, Flatt, Heydenreich), took οὐδέν to mean nihil: ‘that an idol is a
nonentity.” Comp. Jer. x. 3; Isa. xli. 24, al., Addit. to Esth. iv. 8;
Sanhedr. f. 63. 2: ‘‘ Noverant utique Israelitae, idolum nihil esse.” Comp.
also Joseph. Antt. viii. 13. 6. But this must be held incorrect, seeing that
ἐν τ. κόσμῳ Coes not harmonize with it, and because of the parallel expres-
sion οὐδεὶς Θεός. --- καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς K.T.A.| and that there is no other God but one.
The εἰ μή refers simply to οὐδεὶς Θεός, not to ἕτερος. See on Gal. i. 19.
Vv. 5, 6. Confirmatory elucidation of the preceding statement ὅτι οὐδὲν
eldwAov . . « εἰ μὴ εἷς.
Ver. 5. For (yap) even (καί) if really (εἴπερ, see Hartung, Partikell. I. Ὁ.
343 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 202) there exist so-called gods, whether in heaven
or mearth. Heathenism conceived heaven and earth to be filled with beings
whom they called gods (Jupiter, Apollo, and so forth ; gods of the woods
and the rivers, etc.). Paul does not admit the existence of such gods,’ but
merely supposes it, and that with καὶ εἴπερ, 1.6. even in the case that, if there be
in reality, if after all, whereby of course ‘‘ in incerto relinquitur, utrum jure
an injuria sumatur” (Hermann, ad Viger. p. 834), this, however, not being
implied in εἴπερ by itself, but by the connection in which it stands here.
αὐτόν, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐγνώσθητε ὑ π᾿’ αὐτοῦ low that the gods as such existed at all, but
διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος κ. λυτρωτοῦ τῶν held those beings regarded as gods to be
ἐλπιζόντων ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν. demons. Comp. Weiss, δὲδὶ, Theol. p. 279.
1 We know from x. 20 that he did not al-
186 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Comp. Rom. viii. 9, 17, ete.; and see Bacumlein, 1.56. The supposed case—
the reality of which is still left to stand on its own footing—is then estab-
lished, so far as its possibility is concerned, by ὥσπερ x.7.2.: a8 there are,
indeed, gods many and lords many. What is conceded here is the premiss
from which that possibility may be drawn as aconsequence. If there exist,
that is to say, a multitude of superhuman beings, who come under the cate-
gory of θεοί (in the wider sense) and κύριοι, then we must admit that it is
possible that those whom the heathen call gods-—Jupiter, Apollo, and so -
on—have an actual existence.’ The θεοὶ πολλοί and κύριοι πολλοί are, as the
connection necessarily leads us to understand, not human rulers, deified
kings, and the like, but the superhuman powers (angels), of whom it is said
in Deut. x. 17: ὁ yap Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῶν, οὗτος Θεὸς τῶν θεῶν Kai Κύριος τῶν
κυρίων." Comp. Ps. cxxxvi. 2, 8. Most commentators take εἰσί as said ὁ
gentilium persuasione (so Pott, Flatt, Heydenreich, de Wette, Ewald, Nean-
der, Maier), which would give as the sense of the whole: ‘‘if there be in
reality so-called gods among the heathen, as, indeed, they speak of many gods and
lords” (de Wette). But this explanation runs counter to the fact that εἰσί
is put first with emphasis : and the e gentiliwm persuasione is neither express-
ed nor hinted at in the text, but is a pure insertion of the commentators,
and that with the less warrant, seeing that it is the emphatic ἡμῖν in the
apodosis that first introduces a contrast with others. This applies, too,
against the arbitrary distinction made by Billroth, who maintains that only
the first εἰσί denotes real existence (the λεγόμ. θεοί being demons, x. 20,) while
with the second we should supply : ὧν the view of the heathen. Riickert
takes both the first and second εἰσί in the right sense, but makes εἴπερ
mean,—contrary to the rules of the language,—although it must be conceded
that (which is not its meaning even in such passages as those given by
Kiihner, IT. §824, note 2), and supposes that the apostle conceived the
angels and demons to be the realities answering to the λεγόμ. eoi.3—As
regards καὶ ei, etiam, tum, si, which marks the contents of the conditional
clause as wncertain, comp. on Mark xiv. 29 ; and see Hermann, ad Viger. p.
832 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 32 A. It is here the ‘‘etiamsi de re in
cogitatione posita,” Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 884. Examples of καὶ γὰρ εἰ,
Jor even if, may be seen in Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 141.
Ver. 6. Apodosis : yet have we Christians but one God, the Father, ete.
Therefore : The ἐστίν to be supplied after ἡμῖν
is the simple verb substantive. — ἀλ2᾽] as in iv. 15. — Θεὸς ὁ πατήρ] might be
taken together here as forming one conception, like ἹΚύριος ὁ Θεός (Fritzsche, ad
οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον K.T.A.
1The meaning of the verse, therefore, 3 [Hodge, 27 loco, sustains this view strong-
freely rendered, would be: For evenif we
suppose that the gods of the heathen mythology
have a real existence, which is no such absurd
supposition, seeing that there is not merely
One God and One Lord (in the wider sense
of these words), but gods many and lords
many; still for us Christians, ete., ver. 6.
Hofmann agrees substantially with our ex-
position of the passage. See also his Schrift-
bew. I. p. 348.
ly.—T. W. C.]
3 There is no ground whatever for bring-
ing in the demons here from x. 20 (this in
opposition to Olshausen and others). The
second part of the verse, which makes
no further mention of λεγομένοις θεοῖς,
should have sufficed of itself to prevent
this; still more the correlation in which
the many gods and lords stand to the εἷς
Θεός and eis Κύριος in ver. 6.
CHAP VG: 187
Matt. p. 168) : it agrees better, however, with the εἷς Κύριος I. X. which
follows, to understand ὁ πατήρ as in apposition to Θεός and defining it more
precisely. By ὁ πατήρ, and the relative definitions of it which follow, the
εἷς Θεός has its specific character assigned to it, and that in such a way as to
make the reader feel, from the relation of the One God to the world, and
from his own relation to Him, how the Christian, despite that plurality of
gods, comes to rest in the thought of the wnity of God, and how idols are
with him put out of account altogether. Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p.
348. —6 πατήρ] in the Christian sense, according to the idea of the viodecia of
Christians. Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iii. 26. — ἐξ οὗ ra πάντα] as to primary ori-
gin. See on Rom. xi. 80. -- καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν] 1.6. and we Christians are
destined to serve His purposes: He is our End. Here again, after the καί, we
have the deviation from the relative construction, common with the apostle
from his preference for direct address. Comp. on vii. 18. Bernhardy, p.
304. It is arbitrary to take εἰς in such a narrow sense as is given to it by
Piscator, Grotius, Rosenmiiller, al. ᾿ for God’s honour ; but positively incor-
rect to take it for ἐν, with Beza, Calvin, and others ; or for ἐξ, with Schulz,
Heydenreich, and Pott. Billroth interprets it in Hegelian fashion : ‘‘ that
man should be towards God, should return into Him as his First Cause, not
remain for himself.” This has only a seeming likeness to Augustine’s ‘‘ Fe-
cisti me ad te, et inquietum est cor ngstrum, donec requiescat in te,” Conf.
i. 1. Olshausen, following older expositors (Calovius, Estius, a/.), finds the
Trinity here also (comp. on Rom. xi. 36), which is obviously wrong, were
it only for this reason, that we have neither one subject alone named in this
passage (as at least in Rom. loc. cit.), nor three, but two.’ He holds, with
Billroth (comp. also Neander), that the eic refers to the agency of the Holy
Spirit in bringing all back to its primary origin. °— δ οὗ τὰ πάντα] does not
apply to the new moral creation (Grotius, Stolz, Pott), and consequently
cannot include all that is involved in redemption and atonement (Baur, neut.
Theol. p. 193), which is clearly against the sense of the preceding τὰ πάντα ;
but it means that Jesus Christ, in His premundane existence, as the Son of
God (not as the Ideal Man or the like) as πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (in John’s
phrase, as Λόγος), was He through whom * God brought about the creation
of the world. See on Col. i. 15 ff. Comp. John i. 3. Usteri, Lehrbegriff,
p. 315 ff.; Ribiger, Christol. Paul. p. 29 ff.; Hahn, Theol. d. Ν. T. § 85 ;
Lechler, p. 51 f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 318. Philo calls the λόγος the
ὄργανον, δι’ ob κατεσκευάσϑη (ὁ κόσμος). See de Cherub. I. p. 162. In Rom. xi.
36, δ οὗ is said of God, and the reference is therefore of a different kind
to it, and insomuch as it exerts a reflex re-
1 Hence we find, in some of the later codd.
storative influence even upon the κτίσις
and Fathers, additional clauses respecting
the Spirit, namely, καὶ ἕν πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἐν ᾧ
τὰ πάντα κ. ἡμεῖς ἐν αὐτῷ, ANA: καὶ Ev πνεῦμα
ay. δι’ οὗ πάντα. But soearly an expositor
as Chrysostom remarks expressly that the
Spirit is not mentioned here.
2 In order to bring out the “ αἰ" (Rom.
xi. 36), Olshausen affirms: ‘‘ Insomuch as
the church is destined to receive all men in-
(Rom. viii. 19 ff.), those who believe are
equivalent to things asa whole.” An in-
stance—to be taken as a warning—of exe-
getical subjectivity in the interest of dog-
matic preconception.
3 Not ἐξ οὗ which holds only of the Fa-
ther, although eis ov could be said of the
Son also (comp. Col. i. 16).
188 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
than here. — καὶ ἡμεῖς δύ αὐτοῦ] is not to be referred to the physical creation
(Riickert) ; for the idea thus elicited would not only be tame and obvious
of itself, but also out of keeping with what has previously been stated of
God, the second clause in which, x. ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, adds a different, namely,
an ethical relation. The reference here is to the new creation of believers
(Eph. ii. 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 17 ; Gal. vi. 15) ; this is effected by God through
Christ, who, as in the physical creation, is the causa medians. Just as we
Christians have but one God, the true Creator, whose designs we serve ; so,
too, we have but one Lord, the true Mediator, to whom all things owe their
being, and we our Christian existence, that which we are as Christians.
This ‘‘ one God and one Lord” shuts out all the heathen gods as such, so
far as the Christian consciousness is concerned.
Ver. 7. ‘‘ We know that there is no idol, etc. ; however, this γνῶσις that we
speak of (ἡ) is not in all ; but doubtless (the dé as in vii. 37, and very often
—so ver. 9—after a negative clause) there are many who,” etc. — τῇ συνει-
δήσει ἕως ἄρτι τοῦ εἰδώλου] in virtue of their conscience till now regarding the idol,
i.e. through this, that their moral consciousness is still burdened with the
conception of an actual existence of the heathen gods as such. The oppo-
site of the συνείδησις τοῦ εἰδώλου is : οἴδαμεν, ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ, Ver. 4.
Because those who are weak in the faith have not risen to this conviction,
but still remain under the belief that the idols really exist, therefore they
eat the meat offered to idols as meat offered to idols, i.e. their conception in
eating it is, not that it is the same as other meat, and consequently to be
partaken of without scruple and without receiving any idolatrous defilement,
but that it is really meat consecrated to an idol which is assumed to exist, and
hence that to eat of it is sinful.’ — cuveidyorc?] means simply conscience (neither
judicium, as many maintain, nor obsewre conception, as Schulz would have it ;
Billroth’s rendering is better, though still inexact : ‘‘ conviction that there
are εἴδωλα :) so also Reiche, Maier), and τοῦ εἰδώλου is the object of the moral
consciousness, the article indicating the idol in a generic way. As to the
gen. with ovveid., comp. Heb. x. 2; 1 Pet. ii. 19; so also frequently in
Greek writers. The context shows what the relation is as regards meaning
(here it is that which is inherent in the consciousness as its contents). — ἕως
ἄρτι] marks off the time more sharply than ‘‘ always as yet” (Hofmann),
which would be 7 ; it means, ‘‘ up to this very hour” (iv. 18, xv. 6, and in
all other passages). Taking the usual order of the words, it would most
naturally attach itself to ἐσθίουσι ; but since the place which on critical
grounds must be assigned to it is before εἰδώλου (see the critical remarks), it
must be joined to τῇ συνειδήσει. We might have expected τῇ ἕως ἄρτι συνειδήσει
Tov εἰδώλου OY τῇ συνειδήσει τοῦ εἰδώλου TH ἕως ἄρτι ; even in Greek authors,
however, one finds adverbial attributives used in this loose adjectival way
without any connecting article ; and Paul himself in other places employs
1 [The later critical editors all adopt the (Profangrdcit. pp. 52 ff., 75) Kohler, Schrift-
other reading συνηθείᾳ = by familiar inter- gemdsse Lehre vom Gew., 1864; Delitzsch,
course with, or asthe Revised Version has , Psychol. Ὁ. 133 ff.; Lindes, de vi et ratione
it, ‘‘ being used to.”—T. W. C.] συνειδήσεως ex N. T. Lund, 1866; R. Hof-
2See generally, besides yon Zetschwitz mann, Lehre vom Gew., Leipz. 1866.
CHAP. VIII., 8. 189
this mode of expression (see on xii. 28 ; 2 Cor. xi. 38 ; Phil. i. 26; Gal. i.
13). —It is an artificial construction, and without sufficient ground, to
supply a second συνειδήσει (without the article) after τῇ συνειδ., and connect
ἕως ἄρτι τοῦ εἰδώλου With this. — ἀσθενὴς οὖσα] because it is weak ; for were it
strong, it would no longer have suffered itself to be morally bound by the
conception of idols, and hence would not have been defiled (made conscious
of guilt) by eating, because in that case the eating would be ἐκ πίστεως (Rom.
xiv. 23). Μολύνειν (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 1), of ethical defilement ; also in
Ecclus. xxi. 28 ; Porphyr. de Abstin. i. 42 ; Synesius, Hp. 5. Comp. Titus
1. 1ῦ : μιαίνειν. Observe here the two sides of the conscience : it was weak
to begin with, and afterwards it is defiled as well.
Norr.—The ἕως ἄρτι, which points back to their state before conversion, puts
it beyond question that the weak brethren are not to be conceived of as Jewish-
Christians, but as Gentiles, whose conscience was still burdened with the belief,
brought with them from the heathen period of their lives, that the idol was a
divine reality. They must have supposed the idols to be subordinate divine
beings (not demons, as Neander thought, which, according to x. 20, would have
been the correct conception), from whose worship they had been brought to
that of the one Supreme God ; so that they could not look upon the consump-
tion of sacrificial flesh as a mere harmless eating of meat, but had their con-
science always hampered with the thought that by so eating they were brought
into contact with those idol-deities. Theophylact puts it rightly (comp. Chrys-
ostom) : ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοὶ ἐξ εἰδωλολατρίας TH πίστει προσελθόντες οἵ ἕως ἄρτι, τουτέστι
καὶ μετὰ τὸ πιστεῦσαι, τὰ εἰδωλόθυτα ἐσθίουσιν ὡς εἰδωλόθυτα. Theodoret says: οὐχ
ἡ βρῶσις μολύνει, ἀλλὰ ἡ συνείδησις τὴν τελείαν ov δεξαμένη γνῶσιν, ἔτι δὲ τῇ πλάνῃ τῶν
εἰδώλων κατεχομένη. This in opposition to the common view, that the weak
brethren are to be sought among the Petrine party. Schenkel even goes the
length of explaining the name of that party from the abstinence of the members
from sacrificial flesh ; therein they held strictly, he thinks, to the Apostolic
Council, whose decree had been arrived at specially through the influence
of Peter (?). The correct view, that the weak brethren were (entile-Christians,
is advocated also by Hofmann, and finds expression in Lachmann’s reading of
συνηθείᾳ.
Ver. 8 f. This is not an objection urged by the Corinthians in defence of
their eating meat offered to idols, which is then followed, in ver. 9, by the
apostle’s reply (Calvin, Pareus, Mosheim, Zachariae, Pott, Heydenreich,
Billroth) ; for here, too, we have no formula to mark that an objection is
being adduced, and those who ate the sacrificial flesh would in their interest
have required to write : οὔτε ἐὰν μὴ φάγωμεν, περισσεύομεν, οὔτε ἐὰν φάγωμεν,
ὑστερούμεθα. No, Paul is now going on (the advance being indicated by δέ)
to show what regard should be paid to those weaker brethren : ‘‘ Now, food
is not the determining element in the Christian's relation to God ; to abstain
from it does no harm, and to partake of it gives no advantage (see the critical
remarks). Therefore (ver. 9) ye ought not to make yourselves a cause of stumbling
to the weak through your liberty to eat sacrificial flesh.” If food were nota
thing indifferent,—if abstinence from it brought loss, and partaking of it
blessing with God,—then it would be our duty not thus to adapt ourselves
190 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
to the weak. — οὐ παραστήσει] it will not (in any case which may arise ;
future) present us to God ; non exhibebit nos Deo, i.e. it will not affect the posi-
tion of our moral character in the judgment of God, either for the worse or for
the better. We have thus a description of an adiaphoron in its relation to
God. Comp. Bengel, Osiander, Hofmann. Most interpreters take the
word in the sense of commendabit, or, keeping by the Ree. παρίστησι, commen-
dat, as if it were συνιστήσει ΟΥ̓ συνίστησι. This is untenable according to the
rules of the language ; and it is illogical besides, for both the cases which
follow οὔτε. . . οὔτε are included under the collective conception, οὐ παραστ.
τ. Θεῷ. -- ὑστερούμ.] do we come short, do we lack anything in our relation to
God. The opposite of this (comp. Phil. iv. 12) is περισσ. : we have an over-
flowing abundance, something more than mere sufficiency in our relation to
God ; τουτέστιν εὐδοκιμοῦμεν παρὰ TO Θεῷ ὡς ἀγαθόν τι ποιήσαντες καὶ μέγα, Chrys-
ostom. — βλέπετε dé] The δέ, now then, introduces what is their positive
duty, as contrasted with the foregoing negative state of the case. — πρόσκομμα]
stumbling, i.e. occasion to act contrary to conscience. Comp. Rom. xiv. 13.
Ver. 10. Tic] any such weak brother, namely. — τὸν ἔχοντα γνῶσιν] quippe
qui cognitionem habes, in significant apposition to σέ. It is just this, which
the weaker believer knows respecting the stronger, that leads him astray. —
ἐν εἰδωλείῳ κατακείμενον] Their liberal-mindedness went, it seems, so far that
they even reclined at table in idol-temples with those who held the sacrificial
feasts there. The absolute prohibition of this abuse of liberty (which follows
afterwards in x. 14-22) would not have come in suitably here, where the
connection of itself naturally led the apostle simply to point out in the way of
warning the bearing of such conduct upon the weak. — Instances of the use
of eidwAciov—which does not occur in profane writers—from the LXX. and
the Apocrypha, may be scen in Schleusner, 7168. II. p. 246. See also
Eustath. ad Od. vi. p. 263.17. In the Fragm. Soph. 152 (Dind.), the true
reading is ἐδώλια. --- οἰκοδομηθήσεται] is neither a vox media (Clericus, Elsner,
Wolf, al.), nor does it mean impelletur (Castalio, Kypke, Hermann, Stolz,
al.) or confirmabitur (Syr., Grotius, Zachariae, Schulz, Billroth), but as
always in the N. T.: will be built up, advanced in a Christian frame of mind,
so as to eat (εἰς τὸ ἐσθ.). To be brought to eat sacrificial flesh while one is
weak (ἀσθεν. ὄντος, opposite of γνῶσιν ἔχειν), is, as Calvin rightly expresses it,
a ruinosa aedificatio, secing that the foundation which it ought to have, the
πίστις, is wanting. We have here, therefore, an ironically significant anti-
phrasis ; without the ἀσθ. ὄντος it might be a case of a real οἰκοδομεῖσθαι ;
things being as they are, however, it can be so only in appearance, and, in
reality, it is the very opposite.? Egregie aedificabitur! The hypothesis
(Storr. Opuse. II. p. 275 f. ; Rosenmiiller, Flatt, comp. Neander), that Paul
borrows the word from the letter of the Corinthians to him (in which they
1 This holds also against the modification 3 Wetstein compares with this the pas-
which Valckenaer, Riickert, and de Wette sage in Nedarim, f. 40.1: “51 dixerint tibi
have made upon the ordinary view: “ does juniores aedifica, et seniores demolire, audi
not bring us near to God, does not put us seniores et non audi juniores, quia aedifi-
into a position to appear before Him.” catio juniorum est demolitio, et demolitio
Comp. Theophylact : οὐκ οἰκειοῖ ἡμᾶς τῷ Θεῷ. seniorum est aedificatio.”
CHAP. Vit, 11 19: 191
had said that by partaking of sacrificial flesh people edify the weak), and
gives it back to them in an antiphrastic way, cannot be established, and is
unnecessary.
Ver 11. ᾿Απόλλυται (‘‘ terrificum verbum,” Clarius) γάρ unfolds the mean-
ing of the antiphrastic element of the preceding oixod., the γάρ introducing
the answer (Hartung, I. p. 477 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 240 ; Baeumlein, Part.
Ῥ. 72), in which the apostle’s irony loses itself in the deep earnestness which
underlies it : he is in truth utterly ruined, etc. — ἀπόλλυται is meant here, as
in Rom. xiv. 15, of destruction κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the eternal ἀπώλεια to which a
man becomes liable when he falls from the life of faith into that of sin
through violation of his conscience. See on Rom. xiv. 15. Billroth, indeed,
holds the γάρ here to be quite inexplicable, unless we take ἀπόλλ. simply in
the sense of is led astray (but see the critical remarks) ; while Riickert
declares the γάρ utterly useless. Nevertheless, ἀπόλλυται x.7.A. makes it
clear and unmistakable how the case stands with the preceding οἰκοδομηθ.,
so that γάρ is logically correct. —év τῇ σῇ γνώσει] belongs to ἀπολλ. : by
means of thy knowledge, so that it through the use thou hast made of it, has
occasioned this destruction. ᾿Επέ (see the critical remarks) would be : upon
thy knowledge, so that it was the ground of what took place. — ὁ ἀδελφ. dv
ὃν X. ax.]a weighty twofold motive for not bringing about such a result.
Comp. Rom. xiv. 15. The dv ὃν X. ἀπ. is frustrated by the ἀπολλ.! Comp.
ver. 19. Bengel says well in reference to δ ὅν : ‘‘ut doceamur, quid nos
fratrum causa debeamus.” Respecting διά, comp. Rom. iv, 25.
Ver. 12. Οὕτω] When ye sin against the brethren in this way, as described
in vv. 10, 11. -- καί] and especially. — τύπτοντες] in substance the same thing
as μολύνοντες in ver. 7, only expressed by a different metaphor, which makes
the cruelty of the procedure more apparent. What befits a weak conscience
is forbearance, not that it should morally receive blows, should be smitten
through offence done to it as with a wounding weapon (Hom. 7. xix. 125 ;
Herod. iii. 64 ; Xen. Cyr. v. 4. 5 ; Prov. xxvi. 22), so that now, instead of
being but a weak, it becomes a bad conscience. — αὐτῶν] put first because
correlative to the εἰς Χριστόν which follows ; in the latter is finally concen-
trated the whole heinousness of the offence.
Ver. 13. Comp. Rom. xiv. 21. The classic διόπερ, for that very reason
(because the offence in question is such a heinous one), meets us with cer-
tainty in the N. T. only here and x. 14. — βρῶμα] any kind of food, indeti-
nitely. Instead now of saying in the apodosis : ‘‘ then I will never more eat
of it,” ete., he names the special kind of food (κρέα) presenting itself in appli-
cation to the subject discussed, by abstaining from which, at any rate, the
use of sacrificial flesh and the σκάνδαλον thereby given would be excluded. —
ob μὴ φάγω] ““ Accommodat swae personae, ut facilius persuadeat,” Piscator.
The expression is not by way of exhortation, but of asswrance, ‘then I will
certainly not eat,” ete. Τοῦτο ὡς διδάσκαλος ἄριστος τὸ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ παιδεύειν ἃ λέγει,
Chrysostom. — εἰς τ. αἰῶνα] to all eternity, nevermore ; hyperbolical mode of
expressing the most thorough readiness. Comp. as regards the idea, Rom.
xiv. 21. —iva μὴ «.7.2.] For this is what I should bring about, if he holds the
flesh which I eat to be sacrificial flesh (ver. 9). Observe the emphatic repeti-
192 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
tion of the words, and the different order in which σκανδαλ. and τ. ἀδελφ. μ.
are placed.—That the maxim here enunciated cannot be an universal rule in
adiaphoris, had been pointed out already by Erasmus. Comp. Gal. ii. 5 with
1 Cor, ix. 19 ff. and Acts xvi. 3. It does not hold, when the truth of the
gospel comes to be at stake. Comp. Gal. ii. 14. (2)
Notes By AMERICAN Eprror.
(x) “15 known of Him.”’ Ver. 3.
The pregnant meaning of this phrase is well given in Cremer’s Lexicon sub
voce. No lower view will adequately meet the demands of the connection,—
The ‘* knowledge” spoken of in the first verse is well defined by Stanley as not
secular knowledge as distinguished from divine or theological, but knowledge
of divine things without love, knowledge by itself as distinguished from knowl-
edge of divine things with love. The same writer develops the Apostle’s figure
thus : ‘‘ Knowledge may indeed expand and enlarge the mind, but it is by mere
inflation, as of a bubble, which bursts and vanishes away. Love alone succeeds
in building up an edifice, tier above tier, solid alike in its superstructure and in
its basis, so as to last forever. .
(x) An idol is nothing. Ver. 4.
Stanley, in opposition to the opinion stated in the text, says that as the word
idol can hardly be used in an abstract sense in Greek any more than in English,
and as in x. 19 it is not somuch the non-existence as the nothingness of the idol
which is asserted, it is on the whole better to adopt the more common inter-
pretation, viz., that an idol has no strength and no meaning in any part of the
universe ; its existence is confined to the mere image in the temple, and has no
further influence elsewhere. Hodge, on the other hand, insists that in x. 19
Paul says that the idols are demons, and says that the meaning here is that
there are no such beings in the universe as the heathen conceived their gods
to be. (So Kling, Principal Brown, Canon Evans, and Beet.) On the next verse
he remarks that there are two things which the Apostle means to deny: 1. The
existence of such beings as the heathen conceived their gods to be: 2. That
the supernatural beings who do really exist, and who are called gods, are
really divine. They are mere creatures.
(2) The rule of expediency. Ver. 13.
It is impossible to state more strongly than does the Apostle the obligation to
refrain from indulging in things indifferent when the use of them is an occasion
of sin to others. Yet it is never to be forgotten that this by its very nature is a
principle the application of which must be left to every man’s conscience in the
sight of God. No rule of conduct founded on expediency can be enforced by
church discipline. It was right in Paul to refuse to eat flesh for fear of causing
others to offend ; but he could not justly have been subjected to censure, had
he seen fit to eat it. The same principle is illustrated in reference to circum-
cision. The Apostle utterly refused to circumcise Titus, and yet he circumcised
NOTES. 193
Timothy, in both cases acting wisely and conscientiously. Whenever a thing
is right or wrong, according to circumstances, every man must have the right
to judge of those circumstances. Otherwise he is judged of another man’s con-
science, a new rule of duty is introduced, and the eategory of adiaphora,
which has existed in every system of ethics from the beginning, is simply abol-
ished.
194 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLZ Ἰὼ THE CORINTHIANS.
CHAPTER IX.
Ver. 1. οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος ; οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπ. So AB δὲ, min., and most of the vss.,
with Tertullian, Origen, Ambrosiast. Aug. Pelag. Cassiodorus, Bede, Griesb.
Schulz, Lachm. Tisch. Elz. inverts the order of the questions, and is
defended by Pott, Rinck, Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 206 ff., Hofmann. But it
was very natural to transfer οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπ. to the first place as the more important
point, and the one first expounded in detail by the apostle himself (vv. 1-3).
— Ver. 2. τῆς ἐμῆς] Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read μου τῆς, with B δὲ, 17, 31, 46, Or.
Rightly ; the Recepta is a more precise definition of the meaning inserted in
view of ver. 3. Had μου crept in from the τὸ ἔργον pov in ver. 1, it would have
been put after ἀποστολῆς. --- Ver. 6. τοῦ] is wanting, it is true,in AB D* FG &,
17, 46, Isidor., and is deleted consequently by Lachm. and Riick. ; but the
omission was very naturally suggested by vv. 4, 5.— Ver. 7. ἐκ τοῦ καρποῦ]
Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read τὸν καρπόν, with A B Οὗ D* F G δὲ, 17, 46, 137,
Sahid. Boern. Tol. Flor. Harl. Vulg. ms. Bede. The Receptu is an alteration
in accordance with what follows, made without observing the difference in
meaning. — Ver. 8. ἢ οὐχὶ καὶ κιτ.}.1 There is decisive testimony in favour of
ἢ καὶ ὁ νόμος ταῦτα ov λέγει ; approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick.
Tisch. It was altered because not understood. — Ver, 10. ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι τοῦ peré-
xewv] So Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riick. Tisch., with A BC &*, 10, 17, 71, Syr.
utr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. Arm. Or. Eus. Cyr. The Recepta again
(defended by Reiche) is: τῆς ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ μετέχειν ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι. Since, however,
this ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι is omitted also by D* F G, 46, it has such a weight of evidence
against it! that it must be rejected at once ; τῆς ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ μετέχειν, again, 15
so plain as regards its meaning, that had it been the original reading it could
hardly have given rise to any change. If, on the other hand, it was not
observed that we have to supply ἀλοᾶν after ἀλοῶν, the én’ ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετέχειν
remained unintelligible, and τῆς ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ was put in as a gloss to obviate
the difficulty ; then this mistaken gloss in some cases displaced the original
words, in others, got mixed up with them (Elz.).— Ver. 11. Gepicovev] CD EF
GL, min. Vulg. It. Theodoret, have Gepicwuev. So Lachm. on the margin.
Tischendorf is right in receiving it into the text ; grammarians took offence at
the subjunctive after ei.— Ver. 13. There is decisive evidence for reading
mapedp. here with Lachm. Riick. Tisch. (approved also by Griesb.), and in ver.
15 οὐ κέχρημαι οὐδενὶ τι, with Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riick. Tisch. --- Ver. 15.
iva τὶς κενώσῃ] There is great diversity here. B D* δέχ, Sahid. Baschm. have
οὐδεὶς κενώσει (80 Lachm.). A has οὐδεὶς μὴ κενώσει (so Riick.). F G, 26, give us
τις κενώσει. The Recepta, which is specially defended by Reiche, iva τὶς κενώσῃ,
has only a partial support from C D*** ἘΠῚ Καὶ &**, the majority of the min.
and vss., Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl. Oec., because most of these
1 Reiche would attach this addition asstanding first, it would obtrude upon
(which quite mars the sense in the Jecepta) the antithesis something quite foreign to it
to the next verse ; but there, too, especially and unsuitable.
CHAP. Ix, 195
authorities are in favour of κενώσει, which is adopted by Tisch. But the
Received reading, as well as the τὶς κενώσει, seems to be an attempt to amend
the original—but not understood—text in B (which A only intensifies), so
that we ought to read ἢ τὸ καύχημά μου οὐδεὶς κενώσει. See the exeget. remarks
on the verse. — Ver. 16. καύχημα] DEF G δ", It. : χάρις. Not strongly enough
attested ; an old gloss in accordance with Luke vi. 32-34. Instead of yap after
ovai, Elz. has dé, but against conclusive evidence. A false correction. There
are decisive grounds for reading, with Lachm. and Tisch., εὐαγγελίσωμαι in
place of the second εὐαγγελίζωμαι ; the Recepla is a repetition from the first. —
Ver. 18. Elz. and Scholz have τοῦ Χριστοῦ after evayyéA., in opposition to deci-
sive evidence. — Ver. 20. μὴ ὧν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον] omitted in Elz., but given by
almost all the uncials and many vss, and Fathers. Homoeoteleuton. — Ver. 21.
The genitives Θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ (Elz. and Scholz have the datives) have deci-
sive testimony in their favour, as κερδάνω τοὺς ἀν. also has (so Lachm. Riick.
Tisch.) ; the Recepta κερδήσω ἀνόμους was formed upon the model of ver. 20. —
Ver. 22. The ὡς before dof. is wanting in A B δὲν, Vulg. Clar. Germ. Or. Cypr.
Ambrosiast. Aug. Ambr. Bede. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was a
mechanical addition on the plan of the preceding clauses. — The article before
πάντα" (Elz. Scholz) is condemned by a great preponderance of authority. —
Ver. 23. τοῦτο] The most and best of the uncials, with the majority of vss.
and Fathers, have πάντα ; recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick.
Tisch. Τοῦτο is a gloss inserted to define the meaning more precisely ; for the
same reason Sahid. Arm. read ταῦτα δὲ πάντα. --- Ver. 27. ὑπωπιάζω] So Elz.
Lachm. It has such a mass of weighty testimony on its side (A BC D* &,
min. Or. Chrys. Theodoret, Theophyl. Oec.) that the other readings, ὑποπιάζω
(F GK L min. Fathers) and ὑποπιέζω (D*** E, min. Fathers), must be rejected
even on the ground of external evidence alone, all the more that the vss.
castigo (Vulg.), subjicio, macero, affligo, domo, do not show clearly which reading
they follow. Notwithstanding, ὑποπιάζω has been defended of late, especially
by Matth. (““ πιάζειν loco πιέζειν aliquos male habuit’’), Reiche, Hofm., and
adopted by Tisch. It appears to have been simply the production of ignorant
and mechanical transcribers, who were familiar with πεώζω or πιέζω, but took
offence at iw (with Q).
Contents.—That principle of loving self-denial which Paul had just laid
down for himself in respect of the single point in question (viii. 13), he now
confirms by referring to his general demeanour, of which that one resolve was
merely a particular expression, and shows, in a frank, deeply impressive, and
striking elucidation, how he, notwithstanding that he was free and an apos-
tle (vv. 1-3), yet refrained from pressing his well-grounded right to have
_ himself (and a consort as well) supported by the churches (vv. 4-18), and
adapted himself to the needs of all men (vv. 19-23). His readers, therefore,
should be like champions at the games in striving for the everlasting crown,
preparing themselves to this end through the exercise of self-control, even
as he too sought, by self-renunciation, to become worthy of the prize (vv.
24-27). Not until chap. x. does he come back from this digression to the
special topic (of the sacrificial flesh) with which it stands connected, It is
not of the nature of an apology as regards its whole plan and design, but
only incidentally so in some isolated references (vv. 2, 3, 5, 12).
196 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Ver. 1. The first two questions bring out the fact that he was seemingly
exalted far above any such consideration and renunciation on his own part
as he had announced in viii. 13 ; the third question corroborates the full
purport of the second ; and the fourth represents him as proving the point
by a personal appeal to his readers, whom Paul καὶ αὐτοὺς εἰς μαρτυρίαν καλεῖ,
Theodoret. — ἐλεύθερος] free, dependent upon no man. Comp. ver. 19. ---
Ἰησοῦν. . . ἑώρακα] Observe the solemnity of the phrase ; his readers knew
what was implied in it on his lips. The reference here is not to his having
seen Christ in His earthly life, which would have had nothing to do with his
apostleship, and which, moreover, cannot be proved to have taken place in
the case of Paul at all,—certainly not from 2 Cor. v. 16,—but to the sight
of the glorified Jesus, which was first vouchsafed near Damascus to call him
to be an apostle (Acts ix. 17, xxii. 14 f., xxvi. 16 ; 1 Cor. xv. 8), and was
often repeated afterwards, although in different forms (Acts xviii. 9, xxii.
17 f. ; 2 Cor. xii. 1).’ It is an arbitrary thing to exclude those later appear-
ances (Estius, Flatt, Billroth, Olshausen, Osiander, Hofmann), since they, too,
were granted to the apostle as such, and in connection with his apostolic rela-
tion to Christ ; they could only serve to confirm his position of equality in
the apostleship, and in this bearing were doubtless familiar to his readers
from Paul’s own lips. — ἐν Κυρίῳ] does not belong to ἔργον ; just as little
does it to ὑμεῖς (Pott), or to ὑμεῖς ἐστε alone (Riickert), but is meant to bring
out the Christian character of the whole τὸ ἔργον μ. ὑμεῖς ἐστε. For out of
Christ, i7 whom (as the object of faith) the Christian lives and moves, out-
side of this element of the new life and standing, the Corinthians, who owed
their Christian existence to the apostle, were not his work. The rendering :
by the help of the Lord, is arbitrary, and does not suit the context. Some of
those who adopt it understand Κύριος of God (Beza, Piscator, Flatt, Riick-
ert, al., following Chrysostom and Theophylact). Comp. iv. 15.
Vv. 2, 3. Not a parenthesis, but a statement interposed in his own de-
fence, occasioned by οὐ τὸ ἔργον κ.τ.λ., and flowing from a heart deeply
moved. — ἄλλοις] ὁ.6. in relation to others, who, not belonging to your com-
munity,do not own my apostleship as valid for them.* ‘‘ We have no Apostle
1 Baur takes advantage of this stress laid
on the fact of having seen Christ, to sup-
port his hypothesis as to the close connec-
tion of the Petrine and the Christ-party.
See against this Rabiger, p. 128 f. Accord-
ing to Schenkel, the allusion is to the visions
of the Christ-party (the existence of which
he has first of all to assume). The true
view is, that Paul is here indicating how,
in respect of this point also, he stands in no
whit behind the original apostles. ᾿Ἐπειδὴ
μετὰ THY ἀνάληψιν TOD σωτῆρος ἐκλήθη, εἶχον δὲ
δόξαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι παρὰ πᾶσι μεγίστην ὡς τῆς
τοῦ Κυρίου θεάς ἠξιωμένοι, καὶ τοῦτο προστέθ-
ειἰκεν, Theodoret. And it isno lower thing
to have seen Christ in His glory than to
have seen Him in His humiliation upon the
earth. Comp. Calvin. As against the in-
terpretations which make this a visionary
beholding of Christ (Baur, Holstein, a/.), see
Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 220f.
How very distinctly Paul himself describes,
especially in Acts xxii. 14, a bodily appear-
ance! See also Gal. i. 1, comp. with ver. 15.
Nothing contrary to this can be proved
from the words ἑωρακέναι and ὀφθῆναι (xy.
8), since these-do not determine the kind of
seeing and appearing. Comp. 6.0. the use
of the latter term in Acts vii. 26 of a bodily
appearing.
2It was unquestionably by stranger Pe-
trine Christians that the anti-Pauline influ-
ence had been exerted upon the Corinthian
church. So much is clear, but nothing
more. Rabiger thinks that they were the
instigators of the Petrine party in Corinth.
CHAP. IX., 4. 197
Paul,” say they! Comp. as to the relation of the dative, viii. 6. — οὐκ εἰμί]
See Winer, p. 446 [E. T. 601]. ---ἀλλάγε] still at least. See Hermann, ad
Viger. Ὁ. 826. The ye intensifies the ἀλλά of the apodosis (see on iv. 15,
viii. 6) ; see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 24 f. It cannot be said with any critical
certainty that ἀλλάγε ever occurs in the classics undivided (without one or
more words put between the two particles). See Klotz, lc. p. 15, and
Heind. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 86E ; Stallbaum, ad Rep. p. 331 B.—Taking the
reading ἡ yap σφραγ. μου τ. ἀποστ. (see the critical remarks), the meaning is :
my seal of apostleship, with the emphasis on σῴραγ. As to the word itself,
see Rom. iv. 11. Theodoret well remarks: ἀπόδειξιν γὰρ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν
κατορθωμάτων τὴν ὑμετέραν ἔχω μεταβολήν. --- ἐν Κυρίῳ] as in ver. 1; it belongs
to the whole preceding clause : ἡ σφραγίς τ. ἐμ. ἀπ. bu. ἐστε. For out of
Christ the Corinthians were no seal of Paul’s apostleship. See on ver. 1.
They were this seal to him, inasmuch as they had become Christians through
his agency (in general, not through his miracles in particular, as Flatt holds
with older expositors). — ἡ ἐμὴ avoAoy. «.t.A.] statement of what the foregoing
comes to, added without any connective particle, and so all the more em-
phatic; not merely a repetition of the last clause in other words (Hofmann),
which would be an admissible interpretation only if αὕτη ἐστι were absent,
or if ἐστέ occurred again. — τοῖς ἐμὲ avaxp.] to those who institute an inquiry
regarding me (comp. Acts xix. 33 ; 2 Cor. xii. 19), who question my apostle-
ship. Both aoa. and ἀνακρ. are purposely-chosen forensic expressions.
Comp. as to the latter, Luke xxiii. 14 ; Acts iv. 9, xii. 19, xxiv. 8, xxviii.
18. — αὕτη] this, namely, this fact, that you are the seal of mine ἀποστολή. It
does not refer to what follows (Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Grotius, Calovius),
for ver. 4 continues the series of questions begun in ver. 1, and what follows
does not contain any further defence of his apostleship (which, moreover,
would be quite unsuitable here). (a’)—Observe, lastly, the emphasis of ἐμὴ
and ἐμέ, expressive of a well-grounded sense of his own position.
Ver. 4f. Returning from the digression in vv. 2, 3, Paul begins a new
series of questions, with the view of now making good the prerogative arising
out of his apostleship, which in point of fact he declined to exercise. — μὴ οὐκ
ἔχομεν] i.e. we surely are not destitute of the right to lead, etc. ? Comp. Rom.
x. 18; 1 Cor. xi. 22. The plural cannot be restricted in its reference to
Paul alone, secing that it has just been preceded, and is again followed in
ver. 6, by the singular, but must imply that the apostle is thinking both of
himself and of whosoever else acts in like manner. More particularly, ver. 6
shows that he has here in his eye, not his companions in labour generally
(Hofmann), but Barnabas in particular besides himself (for see the μόνος in
ver. 6), and him only. It may be added, that Calovius is right in saying,
against the abuse of this passage in the interests of monasticism, that Paul is
not speaking here of what ‘‘ semper et ubique vitari oporteat sed de eo tantum
Schenkel makes them of the Christ-party. | were notanti-Pauline, and the express con-
Hofmann explains the expression from the _ trast here is with the ὑμεῖς, among whom
difference between the ἀποστολὴ τῆς περ- must beéncluded the Jewish-Christians who
τομῆς and that τῆς ἀκροβυστίας. But that is were in Corinth.
going too far; forall circumcised Christians
198 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
quod in casu novii scandali infirmorum fratrum vitandum est.” — φαγεῖν
x. πιεῖν] i.e, at the cost of the churches. To understand it of non-observance of
the Jewish laws about food (Hunnius, Heydenreich, Billroth, comp. Olshau-
sen), or of sacrificial flesh and wine (Schrader), is contrary to the context. See
ver. 6 ff. The right of eating and drinking, in the sense in ‘which the reader
would naturally understand it as an apostolic prerogative (Luke x. 7), re-
quired nothing to be added to define it. The analogy of Matt. xi. 19 (Hof-
mann) has no bearing on the clause before us, the point of view there being
that of asceticism.—The infinitives are exegetical, and need no τοῦ (Matt. ix.
6; Mark ii. 10, al.). — ἀδελφὴν γυν. περιάγ.] to lead about (along with me on
my official journeys) ὦ sister (a female believer) as a wife. The view taken
by several of the Fathers (see Aug. de op. Monach. iv. 5, Jerome, τινές in
Theodoret, Theophylact ; comp. generally, Suicer, 7168. I. p. 810), that a
serviens matrona is meant (so also Erasmus, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, and Estius,)
is against the plain meaning of the words, without shadow of historical
support in the life of the apostle, supposes a somewhat unseemly relation,
and is contrary to the example of Peter, Matt. viii. 14.} It has, however,
been still defended of late by Roman Catholic writers (Maier) on wholly
insufficient grounds. On περιάγειν, comp. Xen. Oyr. 11. 2. 28; it occurs
oftener in the middle, as Xen. Mem. i. 7. 2; Polyb. xx. 5. 8. — ὡς καὶ οἱ
λοιπ. ἀπ.} It does not follow from this that αὐ the other apostles were mar-
ried, but the majority of them must have been so, otherwise the phrase,
which must be meant to hold at least a potiori, would be unsuitable. (B') —
καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Kupiov]| Now, the brethren of the Lord are in Acts i. 14 ex-
pressly distinguished from the Twelve ; further, in Gal. i, 19, James, the
Lord’s brother, is equally distinguished from those who were apostles in
the narrower and original sense (such as Peter) ; and further still, we have
no trace in any of the lists of the apostles (Matt. x. 2 f. ; Mark iii. 16 f. ;
Luke vi. 14 f.) that there were ‘‘ brethren of the Lord” among the Twelve,
—a supposition which would also be decidedly at variance with John vii.
3; Mark iii. 31. The ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου, therefore, should not be put on a
level with Cephas (Hofmann), and sought within the number of the Twelve,
but are the actual brothers of Jesus, not His half-brothers merely (sons of
Joseph by a former marriage), but His wterine brothers, later-born sons of
Joseph and Mary (Matt. i. 25 ; Lukeii. 7 ; Matt. xii. 46, xiii. 55), who had
become believers and entered upon apostolic work after the resurrection of
Jesus (xv. 7; Acts i. 14), and among whom James, in particular, as presi-
dent of the church in Jerusalem (Acts xv. 13, xxi. 18), had obtained a high
apostolic position (Gal. ii. 9). See on Acts xii. 17; Gal. i. 19. This view?
runs counter to what was formerly the common view, namely, that of Je-
rome, which still prevails with Roman Catholics, and issupported by Hengs-
tenberg and others, that the phrase denotes the sons of Christ’s mother’s sis-
1 Valla perceived rightly ‘‘fuisse aposto- 3 Which is held also by de Wette, Billroth,
los suas wxrores comitatas,” but thinks that Riickert, Osiander, Neander, and Ewald,
they were called sisters, “quod tanquam among the more recent expositors of the
non uxores jam erant.’’ An “ elegans argu- passage before us.
tia”’ (Calvin) !
CHAP. TX., 6. 199
ter, so that James, the Lord’s brother, would be identical with the son of
Alphaeus (but see on John xix. 25), and would bear the name of ‘‘ brother
of the Lord” (ΤΠ in the wider sense) as a title of honour from his near rela-
tionship to Jesus. Comp. on Matt. xii. 46. In like manner Lange, in his
apost. Zeitalter, p. 189, understands the Alphaeidae to be meant ; they were,
he holds, the adopted brothers of Jesus, Joseph having adopted as his own
the children of Alphaeus, who was his brother, after the latter’s death. All
this is nothing but arbitrary imagination, resting simply upon the false as-
sumption that Mary brought forth Jesus, not as her first-born (Matt. 1. 25 ;
Luke ii. 7), but as her only child. Lange is wrong here in making the καί
a proof that the brethren of the Lord were among the Twelve, and are but
singled out from their number in this verse for special mention. What Paul
says is rather : ‘‘as also the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord ;”
and then, having set before us this august circle formed by the Twelve and
those brethren of the Lord closely associated with them since the resurrec-
tion of Jesus (Acts 1. 14), in which, too, he himself, as an apostle, had an
equal place, he singles out in conclusion the most illustrious of them all,
one who was looked upon as the head of the whole circle (Gal. i. 18), by
adding : ‘‘and, i.e. and, to mention him in particular by name, Cephas ;” so
that it is only the last καί, and not the second as well (as Hofmann, too,
maintains), that carries the force of special distinction (Fritzsche, ad Mare.
p- 11) ; comp. Mark xvi. 7. — The design of the whole question, μὴ οὐκ éy.
ἐξουσ. ἀδελῴ. y. π., has no bearing upon scruples (of the Christ-party) as to
marriage being allowed (Olshausen), but is closely connected with the pur-
port of the first question, as is plain from περιάγειν : ‘‘ Am 1 denied, then,
the right to live at the cost of the churches, and to have, like the other
apostles, etc., a consort journeying along with me from place to place ?” in
which latter case a similar support from the churches is, from the nature of
the circumstances, and from the scope of the context (vv. 4, 6), manifestly
assumed as a matter of course.—Peter’s wife is called by tradition some-
times Concordia, sometimes Perpetua. See Grabe, Spicil. Patr. 1. p. 330.
Ver. 6. Ἤ] 07, i.e. unless it were true that, etc. In that case, indeed, the
ἐξουσία, of which I spoke in vv. 4,5, must of course be wanting! We have
therefore no third ἐξσυσία introduced here (Pott, Riickert), but 7 conveys an
argument, as it usually does. — Βαρνάβας] see on Acts iv. 36. He was for-
merly (see on Acts xv. 38) Paul’s companion in his missionary labours,
and as such held a high apostolic position (Gal. 11. 9). --- τοῦ μὴ ἐργάζ.1 Have
we not the right to cease from working? Paul supported himself by tent-
making (Acts xviii. 3) ; in what way Barnabas did so, is unknown. Both
of them, very probably, after mutual consultation, had laid it down as a
principle to maintain themselves by their own independent labour, and
acted upon this rule even when working separately, whereas the rest of the
apostolic teachers (see μόνος) claimed support from the resources of the
churches. ᾿Βργάζεσθαι isthe word constantly used used for working, 2 Thess.
iii. 8 ; Acts xviii. 3; Homer, J/. xviii. 469, Od. xiv. 272 ; Xen. Cyr. i. 6,
11, al. The rendering : hoc operandi (Vulgate and Latin Fathers), arises
from a different reading (without the 4).
200 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Ver. 7. Proof of this apostolic right τοῦ μὴ ἐργάζεσθαι from three analogies
in common life, by applying which to the preachers of the gospel it is made
manifest that these have the right to live from the gospel. ‘‘Pulchre con-
fertur minister evangelii cum milite, vinitore, pastore,” Bengel. Comp. 2
Cor. x. 3 ff.; Matt. xx. 1; John x. 12; Acts xx. 28; Eph. iv. 5. — ἰδίοις
ὀψ.] 1.6. so that he pays his own wages (Luke iii. 14 ; Rom. vi. 23).—The dif-
ference of construction in the two clauses with ἐσθίει (τὸν καρπόν, see the
critical remarks, and then ἐκ), is to be regarded as simply an accidental
change in the form of conception, without diversity in the substance of the
thought. With ἐκ (comp. Ecclus. xi. 17 ; Tob. i. 10, al.) the expression is’
partitive ; in using the acewsative Paul has the fruit (the grapes) in a purely
objective way before his mind. See generally, Kiihner, II. p. 181. The
wages of shepherds in the East consists to this day in a share of the milk.
See Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. VI. p. 97.
Ver. 8. Transition to the proof from Scripture of the above ἐξουσία. --- It
is not supposed surely that I speak this (namely, what I say of that apostolic
prerogative in applying to it the rule of these ordinary analogies) after the
manner of aman (according to mere human judgment, as a purely human
rule, and not a divinely given one) ? or the law too, does it not say this? Is
it silent concerning this principle ? Does it contain no statement of it ---
κατὰ avp.| The opposite of this is κατὰ τὸν νόμον τοῦ Θεοῦ. Comp. on Rom.
iii. 5 ; Gal. iii. 15. Theodoret gives the idea correctly : εἰ dé τινι ἀνθρώπινος
εἶναι ταῦτα δοκεῖ λογισμὸς, ἀκουέτω τοῦ νόμου διαῤῥήδην dtayopebovtoc. — ἢ] aS in
ver. 6. ‘I should not speak this after man’s way of thinking, if it were the
case that the law contained nothing of it.” This is the affirmative sense of
the interrogative phrase. — καί] too ; the law is conceived of as the higher
authority coming in over and above the individual λαλῶ. ---- οὐ] negatives
the λέγει ; see the critical remarks. Comp. ver. 7.— As to the difference
to be noticed between λαλῶ and λέγω, see on Rom. iii. 19 ; John viii. 43.
Ver. 9. Tap] introduces the answer which is to prove that the ταῦτα οὐ λέγει
does not hold good. —ré6 Μωῦσ. νόμῳ] carries a certain solemnity, as coming
after ὁ νόμος in ver. 8. The quotation is from Deut. xxv. 4, given exactly
according to the LXX., where it is forbidden to keep the ox that drew the
thrashing machine from eating by a muzzle (φιμός, κημός), Which used to be
done among heathen nations (Varro, i. 25; Cato, de re rust. 54). See
Michaelis, Mos. R. Ill. ὃ 180. The motive of the prohibition, in accord-
ance with that spirit of tenderness towards the lower creation which breathes
throughout the whole law (see Ewald, Alterth. p. 222), was humanity to
the helpful animals. See Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 21 ; Philo, de Carit. p. 711
F. The same citation is made in 1 Tim. v. 18. Comp. also Constitt. ap. ii.
25. 38. — φιμώσεις]--- κημώσεις, Which B* D* F G, Tisch. actually read, and
which we should accept as genuine, since the former might easily creep
into the text from the LXX. Regarding κημοῦν, to muzzle, comp. Xen. de re
eq. ν. 3; Poll. i. 202. As to the future with the force of an imperative
(thow wilt—that I expect of thee—not muzzle an ox in the thrashing-floor), see
on Matt. i. 21. — Beginning with μὴ τῶν βοῶν, there follows now the inter-
pretation of this law, given in the form of a twofold question which runs on
CHAP. Ix. 10: 201
to λέγει, first of all, negatively : God does not surely concern Himself about
oven? Tomodify this negation by an ‘‘ only” (so Erasmus and many others,
among whom is Riickert : ‘‘for nothing further than”) is unwarrantable,
although even Tholuck’s view in its latest form still amounts to this (das
A. T. im N. T., ed. 6, p. 40). What Paul means is, that this class of creat-
ures, the oxen, are not the objects of the divine solicitude in that provision
of the law ; what expresses the care to be taken for the oxen, is said not for
their sakes, but δ ἡμᾶς. Οὐ yap ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀλόγων ὁ νόμος, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν νοῦν kK.
λόγον ἐχόντων, Philo, de Sacrif. p. 251. Manifestly in this way the apostle sets
aside * the actual historical sense of that prohibition (Josephus, Antt. iv. 8.
21) in behalf of an allegorical sense,’ which, from the standpoint of a purely
historic interpretation, is nothing but an application made ‘‘a minori ad
majus” (comp. Bava Mezia, f. 88). But this need not surprise us, consid-
ering the freedom used in the typico-allegorical method of interpreting
Scripture, which regarded such an application as the reference of the utter-
ance in question designed by God, and which from ¢his standpoint did not
take the historical sense into account along with the other at all. The in-
terpreter, accordingly, who proceeds upon this method with regard to any
particular passage does not call in question its historical meaning as such,
considered in itself, but only (as was self-evident to his readers) as regards
the higher typical destination of the words, inasmuch as he goes to work not
as a historical, but as a typico-allegorical expositor. It is in the typical
destination of the law in general (Col. ii. 17), whereby it pointed men above
and beyond itself, that such a mode of procedure finds its justification, and
on this ground it has both its freedom, according as each special case may
require, and at the same time its ethical limit, in the necessity of being in
harmony with what befitted God. (c’)
Ver. 10. Or—since that cannot be supposed—is this the true state of the
case, that He saith it altogether for our sakes ?— πάντως] in the sense of in any
case, wholly, absolutely, as in v. 10, ix. 22 ; see the remarks there. Comp.
Acts xviii. 21, xxi. 22, xxviii. 4, also Rom. iii. 9. The rendering : of course,
certainly, is equally admissible as in Luke iv. 23, but would suit an affirma-
tive statement better. Theophylact says well (following Chrysostom) : ὡς
ἐπὶ ὁμολογουμένου τέϑεικεν, iva μὴ συγχωρήση μηδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν ἀντειπεῖν τῷ ἀκροατῇ. ---
δὲ ἡμᾶς} cannot mean men in general (so most expositors, Hofmann, too, con-
curring), but must refer to the Christian teachers (Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Estius, Riickert, Neander, al.) ; this necessarily follows both from the whole
connection of the argument and from the ἡμεῖς in ver. 11, since it isan entire-
ly arbitrary assumption to make the latter word have a different subject from
our ἡμᾶς. --- λέγει] 86. ὁ Θεός supplied from the foregoing clause, not ἡ γραφῆ
(Olshausen). — γάρ] as in ver. 9. --- ἐγράφη] namely, the utterance of the law
cited in ver. 9.—ér] cannot have an argumentative force (Luther, Beza,
1 Not simply generalizes (Kling in the Stud. goes astray with a naive simplicity of its
u. K7rit. 1839, p. 834 f.; comp. Neander), nor own: ‘‘God cares for all things; but He
** subordinates the one to the other” (Osiander), does not care that anything should be writ-
nor the like, which run counter to the plain ten for oxen, seeing that they cannot read.”
meaning of the words. Luther’s gloss, too, 2 Comp. also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 296.
202 * PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Calvin, and others, among whom is Neander); nor is it the simple that of
quotation (Riickert, who indeed looks upon what follows as cited from some
apocryphal book, in which Ewald concurs with him), so that ἐγράφη would
refer to the next clause,—but it is explicative merely (Castalio, Pott, de
Wette, Osiander, a/., comp. also Hofmann), setting forth the typico-allegor-
ical contents of these words of the law in so far as they were written dv ἡμᾶς,
that is, for the Christian teachers: namely, that the plougher is bound to plougi.
in hope, and the thrasher (is bound to thrash) in hope of having his share. The
ἀλοῶν and the ἀροτριῶν is thus no other than the gospel teacher, as necessa-
rily follows from δ ἡμᾶς ; the passage of the law now under consideration
gives occasion to his being figuratively designated (see as early expositors
as Chrysostom and Theophylact) in accordance with the idea of the γεώργιον
Θεοῦ (111. 9), without, however, the two words being intended to signify dif-
Jerent departments of teaching,—a notion which receives no countenance
from the context. It is teaching in general that is here represented by two
analogous figures. Figure apart therefore, the meaning is : that the teacher,
namely, is bound? to exercise his office of teaching, in hope to have profit there-
Jrom,. Οὐδὲν οὖν ἕτερον τὸ στόμα akhuwrov ὃν τοῦ ζώου τούτου Boa ἢ ὅτι τοὺς διδασ-
κάλους τοὺς πονοῦντας δεῖ καὶ ἀμοιβῆς ἀπολαύειν, Chrysostom. It is a mistake to
apply the words, as is commonly done, to the Jiteral plougher and thrasher.
Such a maxim of ordinary life would, it is plain, be wholly foreign to the
typico-allegorical character of the argument, and generally to the nature of
the mystical interpretation of Scripture, which Paul follows here ; the re-
sult would be something unsuitably trivial. Nor is it simply an application
of the moral idea of the precept to the spiritual work that the apostle would
have his readers make ; there is not the slightest trace of this in his words,
but the material work serves directly as the foil to the spiritual. Theophy-
lact puts it rightly : 6 διδάσκαλος ὀφείλει ἀροτριᾶν κ. κοπιᾶν ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ἀμοιβῆς K.
ἀντιμισϑίας. ---- ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι) has the chief emphasis, and belongs to ὀφείλει, being
its conditioning basis (as in Rom. iv. 18, viii. 21 ; Titus i. 2). What hope
the plougher is to cherish, is self-evident, namely, to enjoy with others the
fruits of his ploughing ; the reference of the figure is obvious from the con-
text. — τοῦ μετέχειν] to wit, of the grain thrashed. As to the genitive, see
Rom. v. 2, al.
Ver. 11. Application of ver. 10, and that in such a way as to make the
readers feel ὅτι μείζονα λαμβάνουσιν ἢ διδόασιν, Chrysostom ; an argument ὦ
majori ad minus. —ijueic| does not include Barnabas, who cannot be proved
ever to have joined company again with Paul after the separation recorded .
in Acts xv. 39, and who certainly had no share in founding the church at
Corinth. The apostle means himself along with his companions of that
period, when by casting forth the seed of the gospel he founded the church
to which his readers belonged (ἐσπείραμεν), Acts xviii. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 19. —
ἡμεῖς ὑμῖν! An emphatic juxtaposition, the emphasis of which is further
heightened by the ἡμεῖς ὑμῶν which follows. — τὰ πνευματικά] spiritual things,
1 ᾽Οφείλει debet (Vulgate). Hofmann goes the sense of being entitled, as if he read
against linguistic usage in turning it into δίκαιός ἐστι, Or Something to that effect.
»"
GHAPS Txt 12: 203
Christian knowledge, faith, love, etc., inasmuch as these are the blessings
which, proceeding from the Holy Spirit (Gal. v. 22), become the portion of
believers through the sower’s work of preaching the gospel (Matt. xiii. 3 ff.).
Contrasted with these are τὰ σαρκικά, the things which have nothing to do
with the Holy Spirit, but belong to the lower sphere of man’s life, to his
sensuous, corporeal nature, such as food, clothing, money, etc. Comp. as
regards the antithesis, Rom. xv. 97. --- μέγα] res magni momenti, Xen. Cyrop.
vil. 5. 52, Anab. vii. 7. 27. It means here, from the connection : some-
thing disproportionate. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 15. — ϑερίσωμεν] see the critical
remarks. The subjunctive after ei ‘‘respectum comprehendit experientiae”
(Hermann, de partic. ἄν, p. 97) ; see regarding this idiom on Luke ix. 13,
and Hermann, ad Viger. p. 831; it occurs in Homer and the lyric poets,
and, although no certain instance of it can be given from the Attic prose
writers, is frequent again in later Greek.
Ver. 12. Confirmation from the example of others. — ἀλλοι] other teachers
- generally, who came into the church after the apostle and his associates
(comp. iii. 10), and who were still there. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Pott,
and others understand them to be false teachers, so as to obviate any
appearance of collision between Paul and the apostles. But there was,
in fact, no other apostle whatever among the rest of the Corinthian
teachérs. — τῆς ὑμῶν ἐξουισ.] the authority over you,’ i.e. according to the
context : the right (p’) to claim their support from you. ‘Yyév is thus
the genitivus objecti (as in ver. 6, comp. John xvii. 2; Matt. x. 1, a/.),
not subjecti, as if it meant : ‘‘ leave, which you give” (Schrader), which does
not correspond with the conception that Paul had of the case in vv. 4-11.
To understand the word in the sense of means (Schulz, with Castalio, Sal-
meron, Zeltner, Ewald), 7.e. resources, which are at your command, may be
justified by classical usage (Plato, Legg. viii. p. 828 Ὁ ; Thue. i. 38. 3, vi.
31. 4), but not by that of the N. T., and is excluded here by the scope of
what immediately follows. Chrysostom, in accordance with his assumption
that false teachers are meant, makes the reference to be to their tyrannical
power over the Corinthians. Conjectwres (such as that of Olearius : ἡμῶν,
which is actually the reading of 2. 52, and to which Riickert and Neander
too are inclined ; or that of Cappellus and Locke : οὐσίας) are quite super-
fluous. — The second ἀλλά is opposed to the οὐκ ἐχρης. Comp. Hom. i. i.
26 f. ; Plato, Sympos. p. 211 E, and often elsewhere.—paAdov] potius, we
the founders of your church. — πάντα στέγομεν] we endure all things (see Wet-
stein and Kypke, II. p. 213), should be left indefinite : labours, privations
and the like, arising from our not using the right in question. Comp. xiii.
7. —iva μὴ ἐγκοπ. x.t.2.] For how easily, supposing the apostle’s labours
had been less independent, or that some suspicion of self-interest, ambition,
or greed of gain had rested upon him and his companions, might hindrances
have been put in the way of the gospel as regards its reception, effect, and
diffusion ! And how powerfully must that sacred cause have been com-
1 Observe the emphasis conveyed by put- under obligation to me first of all, and not
ting the ὑμῶν first : over you, who aresurely to them.
204 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
mended and furthered by such an example of noble self-denial ἢ Respect-
ing ἐγκοπή, comp. Dion. Hal. de comp. verb. p. 157, 15.
Vv. 18, 14. An additional proof of the above right on the part of the
teachers, drawn now from the sphere of the Israelitish theocracy, namely,
from the example of the priests and the corresponding command of Christ
Himself. Then, in ver. 15, ἐγὼ δὲ. . . τούτων repeats the contrast to this.
—The jirst of the two parallel halves of ver. 13,’ which together describe
the ἱερατεύειν (Luke i. 7), characterizes the priests generally : oi ra ἱερὰ épyat.,
who do the holy things i.e., whose work is to perform divine service ; the
second clause again is more specific: ‘‘ who are constantly busied at the altar.
of sacrifice” (rpocedp. and rapedp., of an official, and especially of a priestly,
assidere, Diod. Sic. i. 40; Josephus, cont. Ap. i. 7; Lucian, Asin. 5 ;
Kypke, II. p. 213). As regards τὰ ἱερά, res sacrae, i.e. what belongs to the
divine cultus, comp. 8 Macc. iii. 21 (according to the true reading) ;
Demosth. 1300. 6 ; and often elsewhere in the classics, They eat from the
sanctuary, inasmuch as they have their support from what is brought into
the temple (sacrifices, shewbread, first-fruits, etc.) ; they have their share
with the altar of sacrifice, inasmuch as they take to themselves their part of
the offerings which belong to the altar. See Num. xviii. 8 ff. Beza puts
it well : ‘Saltaris esse socios in dividenda victima.” It is incorrect to ex-
plain the first clause as referring to the Levites and the second to the priests
(so Chrysostom, Theophylact, Vitringa, Wolf), for the Levites were not ra
ἱερὰ ἐργαζόμενοι, but only ἱερόδουλοι (8 Esdr. i. 3), and therefore, in respect of
their occupations, are no fitting analogues to the preachers of the gospel ;
see rather Rom. xv. 16 ; Phil. ii. 17. On this ground we must refuse even to
inelude the Levites here (against de Wette, Osiander, Maier, a/.). Rickert
understands both clauses to refer to the Jewish and heathen cultus and its
ministers. But in the mind of the apostle, looking at things from the theo-
cratic point of view of his nation, the ἱερόν and the ϑυσίαστ. are simply κατ᾽
ἐξοχήν, those of Israel (Rom. ix. 4) ; and how could he otherwise have said
οὕτω καὶ x.7.4., ver. 14, seeing that the heathen priestly institute was by no
means of divine appointment ? For these reasons we cannot even say, with
Ewald, that the words refer primarily indeed to Num. xviii., but are
couched in such a general form as to apply also to the priests in the heathen
temples. The mention of τῷ ϑυσιαστηρ. is especially opposed to this inter-
pretation, since for Paul there can be but the one altar ; comp. x. 18, —
οὕτω καὶ ὁ Κύριος x.7.2.] 80, 7.e. in accordance with the relation of things
stated in ver. 18, hath the Lord also, etc. Ὁ Κύριος is Christ ; the allusion
is to such sayings of His as Matt. x. 10, Luke x. 8, here referred to as
handed down by living tradition. By the καί, again, the command of
Christ is linked to the foregoing relations under the O. T. economy, with
1The paraphrastic description of the
priests from their employments serves to
make the representation uniform with that
inver. 14. The double designation, however,
brings out the analogy with the Christian
teachers ina more clear and telling way for
the purposes of the argument. The holy
thing at which they labour is the gospel
(Rom. xv. 16), and the offering which they
present is the faith of their converts (Phil.
ii. 17), and, consequently, those converts
themselves (Rom. /.c.).
CHAP. IX.,° 15: 205
which it corresponds (comp. Chrysostom). The order of the words is
enough of itself to show that the reference is not to God, for in that case
we must have had : οὕτω καὶ τοῖς τὸ evayy. καταγγ. ὁ Κύριος διέταξε. --- For ex-
amples of the idiom ζῆν ἐκ, see Kypke.
Ver. 15. Ἐγὼ δὲ] Paul now reverts to the individual way of expressing
himself (ver. 3), effecting thereby a lively climaz in the representation.
From this point onward to the end of the chapter we have a growing torrent
of animated appeal ; and in what the apostle now says regarding his mode
of acting, his desire is that he alone should stand prominent, without con-
cerning himself about others, and how they might act and appear in these
respects. —oidevi τούτων] none of these things ; Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Estius, Riickert, a/., make this refer to the grounds of the ἐξουσία in question
which have been hitherto adduced. But there is no reason why we should
not refer it simply to the immediately preceding statement as to the ordi-
nance of Christ regarding the ἐκ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Cav. Of what belongs to that
ordinance (food, drink, money, clothing, etc., see Acts xx. 33)—of none of
these things (τούτων) had Paul availed himself. How common it is for
Greek writers also to use ταῦτα of a single thing, when considered in its dif-
ferent component elements, may be seenin Kiihner, § 423, note ; Stallbaum,
ad Plat. Apol. Soc. p.19 D. Hofmann holds that the ‘‘ facts from the history
of redemption,” cited in vv. 13, 14, are meant. But οὐδενί implies that what
is referred to is a multitude of things, which is summed up in τούτων. ---
Observe the use of the perfect κέχρημ. to describe a continuous course of
action. It is different with ἐχρησάμ. in ver. 12.—A full stop should be put
after τούτων ; for with οὐκ ἔγραψα δὲ ταῦτα (all from ver. 4 to ver. 15) there
begins a new section in the apostle’s address. — iva οὕτω «.t.2..] in order that
(for the future) the like (according to what I have written, namely, that the
preachers of the gospel should be supported by the churches) showld be done
in my case (comp. Luke xxiii. 31 ; Matt. xvii. 12). — μᾶλλον] potius, namely,
than let myself be supported (not magis, Vulgate). —7 τὸ καύχημα μοῦ οὐδεὶς
κενώσει] (see the critical remarks) expresses what is to take place, if the
ἀποϑανεῖν does not ensue. That is to say, the 7 cannot here be the than of
comparison,’ as it would be were we to adopt the Recepta, which in fact has
just arisen from men failing rightly to understand this 7. It means “‘ aut,”
or otherwise (comp. vii. 11; Acts xxiv. 20), equivalent to εἰ dé μή, and so
specifying ‘‘what will take place, if the thing before named does not happen”
(Baeumlein, Partik. p. 126), so that it is equivalent in sense to alioquin.
See Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 12 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 4. 16 ; Ellendt,
Lex. Soph. I. p. 750 f.; Baeumlein, 1.6.0 What Paul says is: ‘‘ Rather is it
although approved by Winer, p. 532 [E. T.
%15|—as too bold, being without analogy in
1 My own former view (ed. 2) was to this
effect, that instead of saying: ‘“‘ Better for
me to die than to take recompense,’ Paul
made an aposiopesis at 7, breaking off there
to exclaim with triumpkant certainty: My
καύχημα no man will make void! According
to this, we should have to supply a dash
after 7, and take what follows indepen-
dently. I now regard this interpretation—
the N. T., in which, as with classical writers,
the suppression of the apodosis occurs only
after conditional clauses (comp. Rom. ix.
22 f.). Maier has followed this view; as
does Neander, on the supposition that Lach-
mann’s reading were to be adopted.
206 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
good for me to die, i.e. rather is death beneficial for me, or otherwise, if this
ἀποϑανεῖν is not to ensue and I therefore am to remain alive, no one is to make
my glory void. Comp. as to this asseveration, 2 Cor. xi. 10. — τὸ καύχημά μου
x.t.4.] 1.6. No man will ever bring me to give up my principle of preaching
without receiving anything in return, so as to produce the result that I can
no longer have ground for glorying (καύχημα here too means materies glori-
andi, as in ν. 6 and always). Lachmann’s conjecture (Stud. wu. Krit. 1880,
p- 839, and Praef. p. xii.), which is adopted by Billroth : νὴ τὸ καύχημά μου"
οὐδεὶς κενώσει (Comp. Xv. 31), breaks up the passage unnecessarily ; and the
same meaning would be arrived at more easily and simply, were we merely
to write ἢ with the circumflex, in the sense of sane, which is so common in
the classics (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 119 1.0: in truth, no one will make my
glory void. But this use of ἡ does not occur in the N. T. Riickert’s opinion
is, that what we find in the old Mss. gives no sense at all ;* we cannot tell
what Paul actually wrote ; but that the best [how far ?] of what we have to
choose from is the Recepta. Ewald, too, and Hofmann, follow the latter.—
It does not follow from ver. 14 that by ἀποϑανεῖν we are to understand pre-
cisely death by famine (so Billroth, with Theophylact, Erasmus, Piscator,
al.) ; but the thought is generally to this effect : so far from letting myself
be supported by the churches, I will rather be kept by death from this dis-
grace, by which, while I live, I shall let no one rob me of my glory. The
idea is that of ἀντὶ τοῦ ζῇν ἀποϑνήσκειν εὐκλεῶς, Isocr. Hoag. 1. The apostle’s
καύχημα would have been made empty (κενώσει), if he had been brought to a
course of action whereby that in which he gloried would have appeared to
be without reality. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 3. He would thus have been shown
to be κενεαυχής (Homer, IZ. viii. 230). (ΕὉ
Ver. 16. Why Paul has every reason (γάρ) to hold his καύχημα thus fast.
For the preaching of the gospel, taken by itself, does not put him in a position
to boast himself. All the less, therefore, can he afford to give up the only
thing that does place him in such a position, namely, his preaching without
recompense. — ἀνάγκη γάρ μοι évix.] 86. εὐαγγελίζεσϑαι, as is proved by what
goes before. Comp. Homer, 17. vi. 458 : κρατερὴ δ᾽ ἐπικεῖσετ᾽ ἀνάγκη, and the
common phrase in the classics : ἀνάγκην ἐπιϑεῖναι. --οὐαὶ yap μοι ἐστίν] Comp.
LXX. in Hos. ix. 12. Woe betides him, 7.e. God’s threatened judgment
will fulfil itself upon him (in the coming day of judgment), if he shall not
have preached the gospel (εὐαγγελίσωμαι, see the critical remarks) ; from this
is evident (γάρ) how the ἀνάγκη arises, namely, that he must preach ; he can-
not give it up, without incurring eternal destruction.
Ver. 17 f. The sentence immediately preceding this verse, οὐαὶ yap. . .
evayy., Was merely a thought interposed, a logical parenthesis, to the con-
tents of which Paul does not again refer in what follows. In ver. 17 f.,
accordingly, with its γάρ, the reference is not to this preceding sentence
οὐαὶ «.7.A., SO as to establish it by way of dilemma (which was my former
1 The readings of Β D* &* and A give the evacuat’’), give the plain and good sense:
above sense; F Gagain, with their tts κενώ- 7Ὸ it is better for me to die (than that such a
cet, in which it is simplest to take the τις as thing should happen in my case); o7 who
an interrogative (comp. Boerner: “quis will bring my glory to nought ?
CHAP. .IX., 17. 207
interpretation), but to ἀνάγκη μοι ἐπίκειται, ver. 16 (comp. de Wette, Osiander,
Hofmann), and that indeed in 80 far as these latter words were set down to
confirm the previous assertion, ἐὰν εὐαγγελίζωμαι, οὐκ ἐστί μοι καύχημα. The cor-
rectness of this reference of the γάρ which introduces ver. 17 f., is confirmed
by the fact that the leading conceptions in the argument of ver. 17 f., to
wit, ἑκών and ἄκων, are correlative to the conception of ἀνάγκη in ver. 16.
The γάρ in ver. 17 thus serves to justify the second γάρ in ver. 16, as we
often find, both in Greek writers and in the N. T., γάρ repeated in such a
significant correlation as we find here (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 110 f.).
In order to prove that he has rightly established his previous statement ἐὰν
.. . καύχημα by adding ἀνάγκῃ yap μοι ἐπίκειται, the apostle argues, starting
now from the opposite of that ἀνάγκη, and therefore 6 contrario, as follows :
‘* For supposing that I carry on my preaching (τοῦτο πράσσω) of free self-de-
termination, then I have a reward, of which, consequently, I can glory ; but
if Ido it not of my own free will (and this, in point of fact, was the case
with the apostle), then it is a stewardship with which I am entrusted, which
therefore (this is the purport of the interrogatory clause which follows, τίς
οὖν k.T.A.) involves no reward for me.”—From this simple course of thought
—in which the μισθὸν ἔχω refers to the certain possession hereafter of the
Messianic reward,* and is conceived as the more specially defined contents of
the xaiynua in ver. 16,—it will be seen that the apodosis of the second half
of ver. 17 is οἰκονομίαν πεπίστευμαι, that these words, consequently, should
neither be put in a parenthesis nor attached to the protasis (so Knatchbull,
Semler, Hofmann—comp. also his Schriftbeweis, 11. 2, p. 332) by reading εἰ
δὲ ἄκων οἶκον. πεπίστευμαι together, to which τίς οὖν x.r.2. would then become
the apodosis ; *—a view under which the significant bearing of the purpose-
ly chosen phrase οἶκον. πεπίστευμαι is entirely lost sight of. Billroth, failing
to recognize how essential εἰ δὲ ἄκων, olk. πεπίστ. is to the argument, makes
it parenthetical, and understands ἄκων (with Bengel, Zachariae, and Schulz)
as meaning non gratis, which is contrary to the signification of the word.
Many expositors render ἑκών and ἄκων by ‘‘ with joy and gladness” and ‘‘ with
reluctance” (so Calovius, Piscator, Estius, Kypke, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Pott,
al. ; comp. also Ewald); but this runs counter to the fact that, as τίς οὖν
. . . μισθός shows, the apostle’s own case is not the first, but the last of the
two cases supposed by him, and that he found himself indeed in the official
position of a preacher without having chosen it of his own free will,—being
rather apprehended (Phil. ii. 12), and, through his call (Acts ix. 22, 26), as
it were constrained by Christ (ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἄκων, Plato, Legg. v. 784 B),—
1 On μισθὸν ἔχειν, comp. Matt. vi. 1. Itis
the opposite of ovat μοι ἐστίν, and hence
μισθός cannot mean the reward which lies
inthe very action itself, namely, the se/f-
satisfaction to which it gives rise (Hof-
mann).
2 As regards the οὖν of the apodosis, see
on Rom. ii. 17-24. It would have been
exceedingly uncalled for after such a short
and perfectly simple protasis as that in the
text. In Herodotus ix. 48, which Hofmann
adduces (also Hartung, Partik. II. p. 22), it
is otherwise (oi δ᾽ ὧν «.7.A.). Moreover, itis
a special peculiarity of Herodotus to put
οὖν before the apodosis; whereas, with
Paul, it occurs only in Romans Joc. cit.,
where it comes in after an accumulated
series of protases and, as an epanaledsis,
was quite appropriate.
208 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
but, notwithstanding, pursued his work with heart and hand. — οἰκονομίαν
πεπίστ.] οἶκον. has significant emphasis ; as to the construction, comp. Rom.
iii. 2; Gal. ii. 7. If I preach ἄκων, so Paul holds, then the apostleship,
with which I am put in trust, stands in the relation of the stewardship of a
household (iv. 1) ; for that, too, a man receives not from his own free choice,
but by the master’s will, which he has to obey ; and hence it follows (οὖν)
that no reward awaits me (this being the negative sense of τίς. . . μισθός ;
comp. Matt. v. 46 ; Rom. vi. 21 ; 1 Cor. xv. 32) ; for a steward—conceived
of as a slave \—can but do his duty (Luke xvii. 10), whereas one who works
of his own free will does more than he is bound to do, and so labours in a
sense worthy of reward. The meanings which some expositors find in oikx.
wer. are inserted by themselves ; thus Pott explains, ‘‘ nihilosecius peragen-
dum est,” comp. Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Schrader, Neander, and older
interpreters ; while Grotius makes it, ‘‘ratio mihi reddenda est impositi
muneris.” The words convey nothing more than just their simple literal
meaning. What, again, is inferred from them, Paul himself tells us by be-
ginning a new sentence with τίς οὖν. To suppose a middle clause omitted be-
fore this sentence (with Neander, who would insert, ‘‘ How am I am now
to prove that Ido it of my own free will ?”’) is to make a purely arbitrary
interruption in the passage. — ὁ μισϑός] the befitting reward. Neither here
nor in the first clause is μισϑός the same as καύχημα (Pott, Riickert, Ewald,
al.); but it is viewed as standing in the relation of the inducing cause to
that ἐστί μοι καύχημα, Supposing the latter to take place. This also applies
against Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 541 ff., who, moreover, pronounces
the apostle’s argument an unsound one. The distinction which Paul here
makes 15, in his opinion, at variance with the absolute. ground of obligation
in the moral consciousness, and is either purely a piece of dialectics, or has
for its real basis the idea of the opera supererogationis. In point of fact, nei-
ther the one nor the other is the case ; but Paul is speaking of the apostolic
reward hereafter, concerning which he was persuaded that it was not to be
procured for him by his apostolic labour in itself, seeing that he had not, in
truth, come to the apostleship of his own free will ; rather, in his case, must
the element of free self-determination come in in another way, namely, by
his labouring without receiving anything in return. In so far, accordingly,
he must do something more than the other apostles in order that he might
receive the reward, He had recognized this to be his peculiar duty of love,
incumbent upon him also with a view to avert all ground of offence, but not
as implying surplus merit. The latter notion is discovered in the text by
Cornelius ἃ Lapide and others,
Ver. 18. Ἵνα] is taken by Grotius as meaning if, by Luther and most in-
terpreters—among whom are Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald—as
used in place of the exegetical infinitive, so that it gives the answer to the
foregoing question.? The first of these renderings is linguistically incor-
1 This is not an arbitrary assumption (as 3 Wetstein, with whom Baur agrees, re-
Hofmann objects), since it is well enough marks: “ argute dictum, nullum mercedem
known that the οἰκονόμοι were, as a rule, accipere, haec mea merces est.’? But had
slaves. Paul intended any such point, he must have
Va
CHAP. IX., 19-22. 209
rect ; the second would have to be referred to the conception : ‘‘ J ought,”
etc., but yet does not suit the negation: ‘‘ I have therefore no reward,” which
had its animated expression in the question: τίς οὖν x.t.A. It is much
better to interpret ἵνα εὐαγγ. «.7.2. as stating the aim, according to God's
ordination, of this negative condition of things: in order that I should
preach without recompense (which is the: first thing to give me a prospect of
reward, as being something which lies beyond my official obligation).
Hofmann’s view is, that Paul asks, What reward (viz. none) could induce
him to this, to make the gospel message free of cost ? But plainly it was just
his supporting himself in the discharge of his vocation, which went beyond
the obligation of the οἰκονομία, and consequently made him worthy of reward,
which the work of the οἰκονόμος, taken by itself alone, did not do. More-
over, this interpretation of Hofmann’s would require an expression, not of
the design (iva), but of the inducing ground (such as δ ὄν). The iva is
used here, asso often in the N. T., to indicate the divine teleology (Winer, p.
427 [E. T. 6791). ---- εὐαγγελιζ. addr. θήσω τὸ evayy.| ὁ.6. in order that I, by
my preaching, may make the gospel something not connected with any outlay (on
the part of the receivers). As regards this very common use of τίθημι, facio,
see Kypke and Losner in loc. Comp. also on Rom. iv. 17, and Hermann,
ad Viger. p. 761. There is no need of going out of the way to render it,
with Beza: set forth, with Grotius : collocare, like τιθέναι χάριν, or with
Pott : to set before them (as spiritual food). “Ἵνα, with the future indicative,
conveys the idea of continuance. See Matthiae, p. 1186. Among the older
Greek writers ὅπως (also ὄφρα) is ordinarily used in this connection (Matthiae,
lc. ; Kiihner, II. p. 490), while this use of iva is, to say the least, very
doubtful (see against Elmsley, ad Hur. Bacch. Ὁ. 164, Hermann, ad Soph.
Oed. Col. 155 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 629 1.) in the N. T. again, and with
later authors it is certain (Winer, p. 271 [E. T. 361] ; Buttmann, newt. Gr.
p. 202 [E. T. 234]). — εἰς τὸ μὴ xatayp.| aim of his ἀδάπ. τιθέναι τὸ evayy.:
in order not to make use of. To understand xarayp. as meaning to misuse
(comp. on vii. 31), would give a sense much too weak for the connection
(against Beza, Calovius, and others, among whom is Ewald). The right
rendering already’ appears in the Greek Fathers. —év τῷ ebayy.] 1.6. in do-
cendo evangelio.—The ἐξουσία μου is not exclusively that indicated in ver. 4,
but the apostolic prerogative Bencrsly; although in application to this par-
ticular point.
Vv. 19-22. Confirmation of this εἰς τὸ μὴ καταχρ. tT. ἐξ μου by his practical
procedure in other matters, which was such, that not to renounce the use
of that ἐξουσία would simply be to contradict himself ; it would be a gross
inconsistency. — ἐκ πάντων] Mase. It belonged to the apostolic ἐξουσία to put
himself in bondage to no man, but to be independent of all (ver. 1 ; comp.
Gal. i. 10) ; to hold and to make good this position of freedom towards
every one, was a result flowing from, and a constituent part of, his rights
as an apostle (in opposition to Hofmann, who asserts that a position precisely
expressed it by ἄμισθος or ἀμισθί. He would evayy., or something similar, if he had put
possibly have written ἵνα ἄμισθος κηρύξωτο ἵνα αὖ all instead of the infinitive.
210 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the converse of this was the only one logically tenable by the apostle).?
Notwithstanding, Paul had made himself a bondsman to a//, accommodat-
ing himself to their necessities in self-denial to serve them. It is only here
that ἐλεύθερος occurs with ἐκ ; elsewhere (Rom. vii. 3 ; comp. Rom. vi. 18,
22, vill. 2, 21) and in Greek writers with ἀπό. ---- τοὺς πλείονας] ἴ.6. according
to the context : the greater part of the πάντες, not : more than are convert-
ed by others (Hofmann). (F’) Comp. x. 5. By acting otherwise he would
have won, it might be, only individuals here and there. — κερδήσω] namely,
Jor Christ and His kingdom, by their conversion. Riickert explains it as
meaning : to carry off as an advantage for himself, which Hofmann, too,
includes. But the precise sense of the phrase must be determined | by the
context, which speaks in reality of the apostle’s official labours, so that in sub-
stance the meaning is the same as that of σώσω in ver. 22. Comp. Matt.
xviii. 15 ; 1 Pet. iii. 1. Regarding the form éxépdyoa, see Lobeck, ad Phryn.
p. 740.
Ver. 20. Explanation in detail of the preceding verse (καί epexegetical). —
To the Jews Paul became as a Jew, i.e. in his relations to the Jews, whom he
sought to convert, he behaved in Jewish fashion, observing e.g. Jewish
customs (Acts xvi. 8, xxi. 26), availing himself of Jewish methods of teach-
ing, etc., in order to win Jews. Jewish Christians are not included here
(Vorstius, Billroth) ; for these were, as such, already won and saved. —
τοῖς ὑπὸ νόμον] to those under the law ; not really different from τοῖς ᾿Τουδαίοις,
save only that they are designated here from their characteristic religious posi-
tion, into which Paul entered. The universal nature of the expression is
enough of itself to show that Judaizing Christians cannot be intended ; nor
proselytes,—although they are by no means to be excluded from either cate-
gory,—because they, too, would not have their specific characteristic brought
out by ὑπὸ νόμον. The very same reason holds against the supposition that
the rigid Jews, the Pharisees, are meant. The first of these three views is taken
by Theodoret, the second by Theodore of Mopsuestia, Grotius, Mosheim, ai. ;
Theophylact is undecided which of the two to prefer, comp. also Chrysostom ;
Lightfoot and Heydenreich adopt the third. — μὴ ὧν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον] although
I myself (for my own part) am not, etc., a caveat very naturally arising from
his consciousness of the high value of his freedom as regards the law, Gal. ii.
19. There is no proof of any apologetic design here (in reference to such as
might have said : Thou must do so and so, Riickert). Paul did not add
any remark of this kind in connection with the preceding clause, because
in respect of nationality he actually was an "lovdaioc. — τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμ.] The
article denotes the class of men in question.
Ver. 21. Τοῖς ἀνόμοις] ἐ.6. to the heathen, Rom. ii. 12. Comp. Suicer, Thes.
I. p. 866. --- ὡς ἄνομος] by holding intercourse with them, giving up Jewish
observances, teaching in Hellenic form (as at Athens, Acts xvii.). Comp.
1 According to Hofmann, Paul establishes ‘| for the same end for which he refrained
the negative question τίς οὖν μοι ἐστὶν 6 μισ- from claiming support. This view is con-
ϑός by the sentence linked to it with yap, nected with his incorrect rendering of ver.
which states that, so far from receiving 18, and falls with it.
reward, he had given up his freedom, etc.,
CHAP. IX., 22. 211
Isidor. Pelus. ed. Paris, 1638, p. 186. — μὴ dv x.7.4.] must similarly be re-
garded not exactly as a defence of himself (Grotius, Riickert), but as arising
very naturally from the pious feeling of the apostle, who, with all the con-
sciousness of his freedom of position towards the Mosaic law, which allowed
him to be τοῖς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος, always recognized his subjection to the divine
νόμος revealed in Christ. In spite, therefore, of his thus condescending to
the ἀνόμοις, he was by no means one without legal obligation to God (no
ἄνομος Θεοῦ"), but one—and this is precisely what brings out the absolute
character of the opposite--who stood within the sphere of legal obligation
to Christ. And Paul was conscious that he stood thus in virtue of his
faith in Christ, who lived in him (Gal. ii. 20), and in conformity with the
gospel, which ruled him as the νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος καὶ τῆς χάριτος (Chrysos-
tom), and was to him accordingly the higher analogue of the venerated
νόμος (Rom, ili. 27), which has its fulfilment in love (Rom. xiii. 10) ; comp.
Gal. vi. 2. The two genitives Θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ denote simply in relation to,
in my position towards ; they thus give to the two notions ἄνομος and ἔννομος
their definite reference.
Ver. 22. The ἀσθενεῖς are Christians weak as yet in discernment and moral
power (viii. 7 ff.; Rom. xiv. 1, xv. 1; Acts xx. 80 : 1 Thess. v. 14). The
terms κερδήσω and σώσω are not inconsistent with this view, for such weak
believers would, by an inconsiderate conduct towards them, be made to
stumble, and would fall into destruction (viii. 11 ; Rom. xiv. 15). To under-
stand the phrase as denoting non-Christians from their lack of the higher
powers of Christian life, especially of strength of conscience (Riickert, de
Wette, Osiander, Hofmann), is against the formal use of οἱ ἀσθενεῖς, and can-
not be justified by Rom. v. 6. Comp. also 2 Cor. xi. 99. -- ὡς ἀσθενής]
‘‘perinde quasi simili tenerer imbecillitate,” Erasmus, Paraphr. — τοῖς πᾶσι
κιτ.}.} to all (with whom I had to do) I have become all, have suited myself
to them in all ways according to their circumstances. Comp. as regards
πάντα γίνεσθαι," the passages cited in Kypke, II. p. 215 f., and observe the
perfect here at the close ; comp. Col. i. 15.—Paul did not need to say to his
readers that in this whole picture of his συγκατάβασις he is expressing no mere
men-pleasing or anti-Christian connivance at sin, but the practical wisdom
of the truest Christian love and self-denial in the exercise of his apostolic
functions ; he trusts them to understand this from their knowledge of his
character. Comp. also Gal. i. 10, ii. 3-5. This practical wisdom must be
all the more regarded as a fruit of experience under the discipline of the
Spirit, when we consider how fiery and decided his natural temperament
was. And who can estimate how much he achieved by this method of
working ! Comp. Neander in opposition to Riickert’s unfavourable judg-
ment. Augustine puts it well: ‘‘non mentientis actus, sed compatientis
1 Hofmann’s conjecture, that Paul wrote
Θεῷ (following it, however, with Χριστοῦ),
has virtually no critical foundation, and is
wholly devoid of exegetical basis. Hof-
mann explains the passage as if he read
ἔννομος Χριστοῦ οὐκ ὧν ἄνομος Θεῷ, making
Paul say of ‘‘ his being shut upin the law of
Christ, that it made him one who was not
without law in his relation to God.”
2 Not to be confounded with the expres-
sion πάντα γίνεσϑαί τινι, Which means instar
omnium fiert alicui, as in Xen. Eph. ii. 13;
comp. Locella im /oc., p. 209.
212 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
affectus.”” — πάντως} in any case (comp. on ver. 10, and Plato, Phaedr. p.
266 Ὁ ; 2 Macc. iii. 13 ; 3 Mace. i. 15 ; the reverse of οὐδαμῶς, Plato, Soph.
p- 240 E; comp. the frequent phrase πάντῃ πάντως, Stallbaum, ad Plat.
Phaed. p. 78 Ὁ). Should the apostle in every case, in which he adapted
himself as described in vv. 19-22, save some,—that is, in the one case of ac-
commodation these, in the other those, but in all some,—there would result
the πλείονες of ver. 19, whom it was his design to win as there summarily
set forth. — σώσω] make them partakers in the Messianic (salvation, vii. 16,
x. 33; Rom. ix. 27, al. Not different in substance from κερδήσω, but strong-
er and more specific, as was suitable in expressing the jinal result. Comp.
1 Tim. iv. 16.
Ver. 23. Πάντα δὲ ποιῶ] quite general ; now all that I dois done for the
gospel’s sake. — iva συγκοιν. αὐτοῦ yev.] Epexegesis of διὰ τὸ ebayy.: in order
that I may become a fellow-partaker therein. (G*) Comp. on ovyxow., Rom. Xi.
17. Whoever is included as belonging to those in whom the salvation pro-
claimed in the gospel shall be fulfilled (at the day of judgment), enters
along with them when this fulfilment is accomplished into the participa-
tion of the gospel, to wit, through sharing in the common fruition of that
which forms the veal contents of the message of salvation. Hence the mean-
ing in substance is : in order to become one of those in whom the gospel will
realize itself, through their attaining the Messianic salvation. Note the hu-
mility of the expression ; he who laboured more than all others, has yet in
view no higher reward for himself than just the salvation common to all
believers. Flatt and Billroth make it : in order to take part in the spread-
ing of the gospel. But the aim here stated corresponds to the βραβεῖον in ver.
24. The inward salvation of the moral life again (Semler and Pott) is only
the ethical path of development, whereby men ultimately reach the συγκοινω-
via here intended. Comp. Phil. iii. 10 ff.
Ver. 24 ff. Exhortation to his readers to follow his example, clothed in
figures borrowed from the relations of athletic competition among the
Greeks (comp. Phil. iii. 12 ff.).—Doubtless Paul, writing to the Corinthians,
was thinking of the Jsthmian games, which continued to be held even after
the destruction of the city by Mummius (Pausanias, ii. 2). There is no
sufficient ground for supposing the Olympic games to be meant, as those
in which the foot-race formed a peculiarly prominent feature (Spanheim,
Wo't, a/.), for running was not excluded at the other places of competition ;
and it is not necessary to assume that the apostle had a knowledge enabling
him to make nice distinctions between the different kinds of contest at the
different games. — τὸ βραβεῖον] λέγεται δὲ οὕτω τὸ διδόμενον γέρας τῷ νικήσαντι
ἀθλητῇ, ἀπὸ μὲν τῶν διδόντων αὐτὸ βραβευτῶν βραβεῖον, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἀθλούντων
ἀθλον, Scholiast on Pindar, Οἱ. 1. ὅ. Στέφος δέ ἐστι τοῦ ἀγῶνος (the Isthmian)
πίτυς (pine), τὸ δὲ ἀνέκαθεν σέλινα (not ivy, but parsley) καὶ αὐτοῦ ἦν στέφανος,
Scholiast on Pindar, Jsthm. ὑπόϑεσις ; comp. Plutarch, qu. symp. v. 8, ἃπᾷ,
see Boeckh and Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. xiii. 33 ; Hermann, gottesdienstl. Al-
terth. ὃ 50. 27, ed. 3. In the application (iva καταλ.}, we are to understand
the future Messianic salvation which all may reach. Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 12. —
οὕτω τρέχετε, iva] should not be rendered, as it is by most expositors, ‘‘ 80
CHAP. IX., φῆ. 213
run, that,”—which the iva, as a particle expressive of design, makes inad-
missible (comp. vv. 26, 27),—but : in such way run (like the one referred
to), in order that. This does away, too, with the awkwardness which would
otherwise be involved in εἷς with the plural καταλάβητε. Paul exhorts his
readers to run in a way as worthy of the prize (so to shape their inner and
outer life), as the one who, by decision of the judge, receives the crown for
the foot-race, in order that they may attain to it (i.e. the crown of the Mes-
sianic salvation). (u") There is no need for the arbitrary insertion of the
idea : ‘‘ as is necessary, in order that,” etc. (Hofmann).
Ver. 25. Δέ] marks the transition to the course of conduct observed by
any competitor for a prize. —The emphasis is on πᾶς. It is from it that the
conclusion is then drawn in ver, 26, ἐγὼ τοίνυν: --- ὁ ἀγωνιζόμ.} used as a sub-
stantive. The statement is as to what every competitor does to prepare him-
self for his struggle ; in all respects he exercises self-control (ἐγκρατ., see on Vil.
9). The word ἀγωνίζεσϑαι denotes every kind of competition, and includes
therefore the more specific τρέχειν (comp. Herod. v. 22 ; Xen. Anab. iv. 8.
27 : ἀγωνίζεσϑαι στάδιον. Regarding the abstinence (especially from wine,
sexual intercourse, and all heavy food except a good flesh-diet), by which
the competitors had to prepare themselves for the struggle for ten months
previously, see Intpp. ad Hor. Art. Poet. 412 ff. ; Valckenaer, p. 251 ;
Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. VI. p. 97 f. ; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § 50. 16 f. —
πάντα] Accusative of more precise definition. See Lobeck, ad Aj. 1402.
Comp. ix. 25. — ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν x...) ili quidem igitur, to wit, the competi-
tors proper. — ἡμεῖς] we Christians. The πάντα ἐγκρατεύεσϑαι holds of both
the ἀγωνιζομένοι, only with the first it is in the sphere of the body ; with the
second, in the moral domain. That the Christians, as striving in the moral
field, actually πάντα ἐγκρατεύονται, is assumed by Paul, speaking from his ideal
point of view, as a thing of course.
Vv. 26, 27. So run I then, seeing that I, for my part, according +o ver.
25, am prepared by such abstinence to strive for the incorruptible crown, in
such a way as, etc. The apostle thus sets his own ethical mode of striving
(as arunner and combatant) before his readers as a pattern. Respecting
the following τοίνυν, which Paul has only in this passage, comp. Luke xx.
25 ; Heb. xiii. 18 ; Hartung, Partik. 11. p. 349 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 251 1.
--- οὐκ ἀδήλως] sc. τρέχων. The word means wnapparent, not clear, reverse of
πρόδηλος. It may‘ either be applied objectively to an action which is indistinct
and not cognizable to others (Luke xi. 44 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 8); or subjectively,
so that the mam who acts, hopes, etc., is himself not clear, but wncertain and
hesitating as to manner, aim, and result ; comp. 2 Macc. vii. 34; 3 Macc.
iv. 4; Thuc. i. 2. 1; Plato, Symp. p. 181 D; Soph. Trach. 667 ; Dem.
416. 4; Polyb. xxx. 4. 17, viii. 3. 2, vi. 56. 11, iii. 54. 5: ἀδῆλος ἐπίβασις ;
also in Xenoph., Plutarch, etc. So here ; and hence we should render :
not without a clearly conscious assurance and certainty of running so as to reach
the goal. Comp. Vulgate, ‘‘non in incertum ;” Chrysostom : πρὸς σκοπόν
Twa βλέπων, οὐκ εἰκῇ καὶ μάτην, Phil. iii. 14, κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω ἐπὶ τὸ βραβεῖον,
Bengel, ‘‘Scio quod petam et quomodo,” Melanchthon, ‘‘non coeco impetu
sine cogitatione finis.” Hofmann takes it otherwise : ‘‘in whose case it is
214 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
quite apparent whither he would go,” thus bringing out the objective sense ;
comp. also Grotius. But this would convey too little, for as a matter of
course it must be plain in the case of every runner in a race whither he
would go. Homberg’s rendering is better : ‘‘ut non in obscuro sim, sed
potius inter reliquos emineam.” Comp. Ewald: ‘‘not asin the dark, but
as in the sight of all. Still this does not correspond so well with the parallel
ὡς οὐκ ἀέρα dépwv, which implies the conception of the end in view. Alex.
Morus and Billroth (comp. Olshausen) understand it as meaning, not with-
out definite aim (not simply for private exercise). But this runs counter to
the whole context, in which Paul is set forth as an actual runner in a race-
course, so that the negative thus conveyed would be inappropriate. — οὐκ
ἀέρα δέρων] The boxer ought to strike his opponent, and not, missing him,
to beat the air, to deal strokes in air. Comp. the German phrase, ‘‘ in’s
Blaue hinein.” See Eustath. ad Il. p. 663, 17, and the instances given by
Wetstein. Comp. Theophilus, ad Autol. iii. 1. The context (see above on
ἀδήλ.) forbids us to render, with Theodoret, Calovius, Bengel, Zachariae,
Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, Hofmann, and others : not in imaginary com-
bat merely, without a real antagonist (cxcauayia). Respecting the οὐκ in this
passage, see Winer, p. 452 [E. T. 6091. --- ἀλλ᾽ ὑπωπιάζω x.7.2.] but I beat my
body blue,—alteration of the construction, in order to make the thought
stand out in a more independent way ; comp. on vii. 87. The ἀλλά, how-
ever, can have the effect only of presenting what is here stated as the oppo-
site of ἀέρα dépwv, not as that whereby a man simply prepares himself for the
contest (Hofmann, comp. Pott). Paul regards his own body (the σῶμα τῆς
σαρκός, Col. 11. 11, the seat of the nature opposed to God, of the law in his
members, comp. Rom. vi. 6, vii. 23) as the adversary (ἀνταγωνιστής), against
whom he fights with an energetic and successful vehemence, just as a boxer
beats the face of his opponent black and blue (respecting ὑπωπιάζειν, comp.
on Luke xviii. 5, and Bos, Hvercitt. p. 140 ff.), so that those lusts (Gal. v.
17), which war against the regenerate inner man, whose new principle of life
is the Holy Spirit, lose their power and are not fulfilled. It is in substance
the same thing as τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώματος ϑανατοῦν in Rom. viii. 13 ; comp.
Col. iii. 5. The result of the ὑπωπιάζω x.7.2. is, that the body becomes sub-
missive to the moral will,’ yea, the members become weapons of righteous-
ness (Rom. vi. 13). Hence Paul adds further : x. δουλαγωγῶ, I make it a
slave (Diodorus, xii. 24 ; Theophrastus, Zp. 36 ; Theophyl. Simoc. Zp. 4),
which also ‘‘a pyctis desumptum est ; nam qui vicerat, victum trahebat ad-
versarium quasi servum,” Grotius. Against the abuse of this passage to
favour ascetic scourgings of the body, see Deyling, Obss. I. p. 322 ff., ed.
3. — ἄλλοις κηρύξας) after having been a herald to others. The apostle still
keeps to the same figure, comparing his preaching, in which he summoned
and exhorted men to the Christian life, to the office of the herald who made
known the laws of the games and called the champions to the combat.
Riickert, who (with Chrysostom, Grotius, al.) regards «yp. as denoting
1 Comp. the weaker analogies in profane writers, as Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 28; Cicero, Off. i.
23. 79.
NOTES. 215
preaching without reference to the work of a herald, reminds us, in opposi-
tion to the above view (comp. de Wette), that the herald certainly did not
himself join in the combat. But this objection does not hold, for with Paul
the case stood thus: He, in point of fact, was a herald, who joined personally
in the contest ; and he had therefore to carry through his figure upon this
footing, even although he thereby departed from the actually subsisting re-
lations at the combats in the games.' — ἀδόκιμος] rejectaneus, unapproved, i.e.
however, not ‘‘ne dignus quidem, qui ad certamen omnino admittar” (Pott),
—for Paul is, from vv. 26, 27, actually in the midst of the contest,—but
praemio indignus,—pqy τοὺς ἄλλους τὸ δέον διδάξας αὐτὸς τοῦ τέλους τῶν ἀγώνων
παντελῶς διαμάρτω, Theodoret. (1’)
ΝΌΤΕΒ py American ΕἸΡΙΤΟΒ.
(a!) Paul's defence. Ver. 3.
The Revised Version very properly agrees with Meyer in his view of the con-
nection, and puts a period at the end of ver. 3. Obviously what the Apostle
was defending was the fact of his Apostleship, and not his claim to equal rights
with the other apostles. All the recent critics unite in this view.
(B!) ‘* Power to lead about a wife.” Ver. 5.
Stanley says that two things are implied in this verse, viz. 1. That Paul was
unmarried, which agrees with vii. 7; and 2. that the apostles generally were
married, which agrees with the common tradition respecting all of them but
John.
(c!) ““ Doth God care for oxen ?’’ Ver. 9.
The author's remarks on this vexed passage are weighty, and yet there seems
room for further statement. Stanley says: ‘‘ This is one of the many instances
where the lesson which is regarded as subordinate is denied altogether, as in
Hosea vi. 6, ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice.’ God feeds the young ravens
when they cry (Ps. exlvii. 9), and the fowls of the air (Matt. vi. 26), and
therefore Paul could not possibly intend to deny that the primary object of the
precept was to secure just treatment for the laboring animal. What he means
is that it had also a higher reference, viz., to teach the important truth that all
labor should have its due compensation, and that they who by their toil obtain
food for others ought themselves to share it.’’
(Ὁ) The sense of ἐξουσία. Ver. 12.
In this verse is the fifth instance in the present chapter in which this word
occurs. It is rendered in the common version power, for which Greeks usually
employed another word (dunamis). The Revised Version in every case substi-
tutes right (see vv. 4, 5, 6, 12), the sense being not physical, but moral au-
thority. ;
1 [Stanley remarks concerning thiscom- and that sometimes, as in the case of Nero,
plication of the metaphor,thatitisrendered the victor in the games was also selected
less violent by the fact that the office of the as the herald to announce his success. —
herald itself was an object of competition, T. W. C.]
216 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(zn!) Paul's glorying. Ver. 15.
Both the true reading and the correct rendering of this verse are violently dis-
puted, but happily all agree as to its essential meaning, viz. that Paul would
rather die than abandon what was the chief boast of his life. In the next verses
he declares that the preaching of the Gospel is in itself no merit in him, but an
irresistible necessity, a bounden duty. He is simply a servant doing what is
commanded him (Luke xvii. 10), or a steward fulfilling his function (1 Cor.
iv. i). Still, if he did the service willingly, voluntarily, and not merely out of
a sense of obligation, he had a reward. Then in reply to the question, What is
this reward? the answer is, ‘‘ My reward is that I have no reward.” To preach
the Gospel without pay was what he coveted. To be permitted to serve others
gratuitously was an honour and happiness.
(6) ‘* That I might gain the more.” Ver. 19.
Canon Evans well says: ““ It is the more of comparison between a lesser num-
ber gained out of some classes, and a greater number gained out of 811. He
would have greater success through gratuitious preaching attracting all, than
through paid preaching attracting some but repelling others.
(a!) “* That I may become a fellow-partaker.” Ver, 23.
A new thought is here introduced. Up to this point he had been speaking of
his self-denial for the sake of others ; here he begins to speak of it for his own
sake. It is no longer ‘‘that I may save some,” but ‘‘ that I may be partaker of
the Gospel with you,” 1.6. as well as you. Do not think that I do not require
this for myself. In order to do good, we must be good. To extend our Chris-
tian liberty to its utmost range is dangerous, not only for others but for our-
selves. This argument is supported, first, by his own example (ix. 24-27); sec-
ondly, by the warning of the Israelitish history (x. 1-12) (Stanley).
(ΕἸ) “In such way run that ye may obtain.” Ver. 24.
The application of the metaphor of the race to the progress of the Christian
here occurs for the first time. Afterwards it is found in Philip. iii. 12, 14; 2
Tim. iv. 7,8; Heb. xii.1. The argument is, “It is not enough merely to run—
all run ; but as there is only one who is victorious, so you must run, not with
the slowness of the many, but with the energy of the one.’’ This imagery, as
might be expected from discourses delivered in Palestine, never occurs in the
Gospels (Stanley).
(1!) ‘* Lest I myself should be rejected.” Ver. 27.
What an argument and whata reproof is this! The reckless and listless Co-
rinthians thought they could safely indulge themselves to the very verge of sin,
while this devoted apostle considered himself as engaged in a life-struggle for
his salvation. Yet at other times he breaks out in the most joyful assurance of
salvation, and says that he was persuaded that nothing in heaven, earth, or hell
could ever separate him from the love of God (Rom. viii. 38, 39). The one state
of mind is the necessary condition of the other. It is only those who are con-
scious of this constant and deadly struggle with sin to whom this assurance is
given. It is the indolent and self-indulgent Christian who is always in doubt
(Hodge).
be ε..
CHAP. X. 217
CHAPTER X.
Ver. 1. γάρ] Elz. has dé, against decisive evidence. An alteration arising from
failure to understand the connection. — Ver. 2. ἐβαπτίσαντο] ACD EF GR
min. Dial. Bas. Cyr. al. have ἐβαπτίσθησαν. Recommended by Griesb., adopted
by Lachm. and Riickert. It is, however, an alteration to which copyists were
induced by being accustomed to the passive of Burr. ; the middle is sufficient-
ly attested by BK L, Orig. Chrys. al. —Ver. 9. Κύριον] So BC δὲ, min. and
several vss. and Fathers. The readings Θεόν and Χριστόν are interpretations, the
first occurring in A, 2, Slav. ms. Bede, the second adopted by Elz. Scholz, and
Tisch. on the authority of DEF GK L, min. vss. Fathers ; defended also by
Reiche. Epiphanius avers Χριστόν to be a change made by Marcion. — Vy. 9,
10. Elz. adds καί after καθώς ; but this has too powerful testimony against it to
be admissible on the ground of ver. 8. It is deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Riickert.
— Ver. 9. ἀπώλοντο] Riickert, following A (?) B δὲ, reads ἀπώλλυντο, as he does
also in ver. 10 on the authority of A. Rightly in both cases ; the change of tense
was overlooked. — Ver, 11. πάντα] is wanting after déin A B17, Sahid. and sev-
eral Fathers. It comes before it in Ὁ EF α δὲ, 3, Aeth. and some Fathers.
Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Riick. and Tisch.; an addition naturally sug-
gested. —rimo:] Lachm. and Riick. read τυπικῶς, following ABC K δὰ, min.
Syr. p. (on the margin), and many Fathers. Rightly ; the Recepta, defended
by Reiche, is a repetition from ver. 6. As connected with τυπικῶς, how-
ever, and resting on very much the same attestation (including §&), συνέβϑαι-
vev Should be adopted in place of συνέβαινον. --- κατήντησεν] Lachm, and Tisch.
have κατήντηκεν, on the authority of Β D* E* F G δὰ, 39, 46, and some Fathers.
An instance of the frequent transformation of the perfect into the aorist form,
with which the transcribers were more familiar. — Ver. 13. Elz. has ὑμᾶς after
δύνασθαι ; but this is an addition opposed by decisive evidence.— Ver. 19. Lachm.
Riick. and Tisch. invert the order of the two questions, following B C** D E
8**, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Aug. Ambrosiast. Pel. Bede. Rightly. One
of the two queries came to be left out, owing to the similarity in sound (so stiil
in A C* and 83), and was afterwards restored where it seemed to stand most
naturally (according to the order of origin and operation). Reiche, nevertheless,
in his Comm. crit. I. p. 240 f., tries to defend the Recepta (K L, with most of the
min. Syr. utr. Goth. and Greek Fathers). —Ver. 20. ἃ θύει τὰ ἔθνη] Lachm.
Riick. and Tisch. read ἃ θύουσιν, on very preponderant evidence (as also θύουσιν
afterwards). The missing subject τὰ ἔθνη was joined on to θύουσιν (so still in
AC 8), which thereupon drew after it the change to θύει. --- Ver. 23. Elz. has
μοι after πάντα, against decisive evidence. Borrowed from vi. 12. — Ver. 24.
After ἑτέρου Elz. has ἕκαστος, in face of decisive testimony. Supplied, perhaps,
from remembrance of Phil. 11. 4. — Ver. 27. δέ] is wanting in AB D* FG καὶ
and some min. Copt. Vulg. Antioch. Chrys. Aug. Ambrosiast. Pel. al. tachm,
and Riick. are right in rejecting it as a mere connective addition. — Ver. 28.
ἱερόθυτον] approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Elz. and
218 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Scholz. again have εἰδωλόθυτον, contrary to AB Η &, Sahid. and the indirect
witnesses given by Tisch. The commoner word (which is defended by Reiche)
was first written on the margin, and then taken into the text. — After συνείδησιν
Elz. has τοῦ, γὰρ Kupiov ἡ γῆ κ. τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῆς. A repetition of the clause in
ver. 26, which crept from the margin into the text ; it is condemned by deci-
sive testimony, as is also the δέ which Elz. puts after εἰ in ver. 30.
ConTENTS on to xi, 1.—The warnings supplied by the history of our
fathers urge us to this self-conquest (vv. 1-11). Beware, therefore, of a
fall ; the temptation has not yet gone beyond what you are able to bear,
and God’s faithfulness will not suffer it to do so in the future ; flee, then,
from idolatry (vv. 12-14). This exhortation is supported, as regards the
eating of sacrificial meat, by the analogies of the Lord’s Supper and the
Jewish usages in partaking of sacrifices (vv. 15-18). And therewith Paul
returns from the long digression, which has occupied him since ix. 1, to his
main subject, which he is now in a position to wind up and dispose of with
all the more vigour and terseness (vv. 19-xi. 1).
Ver. 1. Tap] Paul had already, in ix. 26 f., set himself before his readers
as an example of se/f-conquest ; he now justifies his special enforcement of
this duty by the warning example of the fathers. Πλεῖον αὐτοὺς δεδίξασθαι
βουληθεὶς τῶν Kata τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ ἀναμιμνήσκει, καὶ ὅσων ἀπήλαυσαν ἀγαθῶν καὶ ὅσαις
περιέπεσαν τιμωρίαις. καὶ καλεῖ τύπους τούτων ἐκεῖνα, διδάσκων ὡς τὰ ὕμοια πείσον-
ται τὴν ὕμοιαν ἀπιστίαν κτησάμενοι, Theodoret. —ov θέλω iu. ayv.| indicating
something of importance. See on Rom. xi. 25.—oi πατέρες ἡμ.} i.e. our
forefathers at the time of the exodus from Egypt. The apostle says ἡμῶν,
speaking, as in Rom. iv."1, from his national consciousness, which was
shared in by his Jewish readers, and well understood by his Gentile ones.
The idea of the spiritual fatherhood of all believers (Rom. iv. 11 ff., de
Wette, al.), or that of the O. T. ancestry of the N. T. church (Hofmann),
would suit only with holy ancestors as being the trve Israel (comp. Rom. ix.
5 ff. ; Gal. vi. 16), but does not harmonize with the fact of the fathers here
referred to being cited as warnings. — πάντες] has strong emphasis,’ and is
four times repeated, the coming contrast of οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν, ver. 5, being
already before the apostle’s mind. A// had the blessing of the divine
presence (ὑπὸ τ. ved. ἦσαν), all that of the passage through the sea ; all re-
ceived the analogue of baptism, a// that of eating, a// that of drinking at the
Lord’s Supper ; but with the majority God was not well pleased. — ὑπὸ τ. ved. ]
The well-known (τήν) pillar of cloud (Ex. xiii. 21 f.), in which God’s pres-
ence was, is conceived as spreading its canopy over (ὑπό) the march of the
people that followed it. Comp. Ps. cv. 39; Wisd. x. 17, xix. 7. — διὰ τῆς
θαλ.} See Ex. xiv.
Ver. 2. The discourse flows on in uninterrupted stream, beginning with
the ὅτε in ver. 1, to the end of ver. 5; then follows the application in
ver. 6. —ei¢ τὸν Μωϊσῆν] in reference to Moses, so that they thereby devoted
themselves to Moses as the deliverer and mediator whom God had sent
them. Comp. on Rom. vi. 3; Matt. xxviii. 19.— ἐβαπτίσαντο] they had
' Grotius : “ἢ tam qui sospites fuere, quam qui perierunt.”’
ΘΈΑ, Xo, 4, | 919
themselves baptized, had the same thing, that is to say, done to them in refer-
ence to Moses as you had done to you in reference to Christ. The middle,
which is not put here for the passive,—comp., on the contrary, what was
said regarding ἀπελούσ., vi. 11,—is purposely chosen, as in Acts xxii. 16, to
denote the receptive sense (see Kiihner, II. p. 18; Valckenaer, p. 256;
Winer, p. 239 [E. T. 319]); foralthough ἐβαπτ., and the subsequent ἔφαγον
and ἔπιον, do not represent any apparent merit, yet they certainly assume the
reception of those wonderful divine manifestations, which nevertheless could
not place the fathers, to whom such high privileges had been vouchsafed,
in a position of safety afterwards, etc. — ἐν τῇ ved.] ἐν is local, as in βαπτίζειν
ἐν ὕδατι, Matt. iii. 11, a/., indicating the element in which, by immersion
and emergence, the baptism was effected. Just as the convert was baptized
tn water with reference to Christ, so also that O. T. analogue of baptism,
which presents itself in the people of Israel at the passage of the Red Sea
with reference to Moses, was effected in the cloud under which they were,
and in the sea through which they passed. So far as the sacred cloud,
familiar to the readers, is concerned, there is no need for the assumption,
based somewhat uncertainly on Ps. Ixviii. 9, of a ‘‘ pluvia ex nube decidua”
(Wolf, comp. Pott); neither, again, isit enough to define the point of com-
parison simply as Grotius does (comp. de Wette) : ‘‘ Nubes impendebat
illorum capiti, sic et aqua iis, qui baptizantur ; mare circumdabat eorum
latera, sic et aqua eos, qui baptizantur.” The cloud and the sea, both being
taken together as a type of the water of baptism, must be regarded as
similar in nature. Comp. Pelagius : ‘‘ Et nubes proprium humo rem portat ;”
so also Bengel : ‘‘ Nubes et mare sunt naturae aqueae (quare etiam Paulus
de columna ignis silet).” (s’) Theodoret, on the other hand, with several
more, among whom are Schrader, Olshausen, and Maier, makes the cloud a
symbol of the Spirit (John iii. 5) ; but this would have against it the fact,
that the baptism in the cloud (answering, according to this view, to the
baptism of the Spirit) had preceded the baptism in the sea (water-baptism) ;
so that we should have an incongruous representation of the baptism with
water and the Holy Ghost. The cloud and the sea do not represent the tio
elements in baptism, the former the heavenly, and the latter the earthly one;
but both together form the undivided type of baptism. The type appro-
priated the subjects to Moses as his ; the antitype appropriates them to
Christ as His redeemed ones ; and in both instances this is done with a view
to their salvation, as in the one case from temporal bondage and ruin, so in
the other from that which is spiritual and eternal. We may add, that there
is room enough for the play of typico-allegorical interpretation, to allow the
circumstance to be kept out of account that the Israelites went dry through
the sea (Ex. xiv. 16 ff.). The most arbitrary working out of the exposition
of details may be seen in Theodoret.
Vv. 3, 4. Just as all received the self-same type of baptism (vv. 1, 2), so
too all were partakers of one and the same analogue of the Christian ordi-
nance of the Supper.?— τὸ αὐτό] so that each one therefore stood on the very
1 Bengel well says: “Si plura essent N. T. sacramenta, ceteris quoque simile quiddam
220 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
same level of apparent certainty ΟἹ not being cast off by God. — The βρῶμα
πνευματικόν is the manna (Ex. xvi. 13 ff.), inasmuch as it was not, like com-
mon food, a product of nature, but came as bread from heaven (Ps. 1xxviii.
24 f.; Wisd. xvi. 20; John vi. 31 f.), the gift of God, who by His Spirit
wrought marvellously for His people. Being vouchsafed by the γάρις πνευ-
ματική of Jehovah, it was, although material in itself, a χάρισμα πνευματικόν, a
food of supernatural, divine, and spiritual origin. Comp. Theodore of
Mopsuestia : πνευματικὸν καλεῖ καὶ τὸ βρῶμα Kai TO πόμα, ὡς av τοῦ πνεύματος
ἄμφω διὰ τοῦ Μωῦσέως κατὰ τὴν ἀπόῤῥητον αὐτοῦ παρασχόντος δύναμιν. οὕτω δὲ καὶ
πνευματικὴν ἐκάλεσεν τὴν πέτραν, ὡς ἂν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος ἐκδοῦσαν τὰ ὕδατα.
What the Rabbins invented about the miraculous qualities of the manna may
be seen in von der Hardt, Ephem. phil. pp. 101, 104 ; Eisenmenger’s entdeckt.
Judenth. Il. p. 876 f., I. pp. 312, 467. Philo explains it as referring to the
Logos, Leg. alleg. ii. p. 82, Quod. deter. pot. insid. sol. p. 213. — πόμα] Ex.
xvii. 1-6 ; Num. xx. 2-11. Regarding the forms πόμα and πῶμα, see Lobeck,
Paral. p. 425 1. -- ἔπινον. . . Χριστός] a parenthetic explanation in detail
as to the quite peculiar and marvellous character of this πόμα. The imper-
fect does not, like the preceding aorist, state the drinking absolutely as a
historical fact, but is the descriptive imperfect, depicting the process of the
ἔπιον according to the peculiar circumstances in which it took place ; it thus
has a modal force, showing how things went on with the πάντες. . . ἔπιον,
while it was taking place. Bengel remarks rightly on the γάρ : ‘‘ qualis
petra, talis aqua.” — ἐκ πνευματ. ἀκολ. πέτρας" ἡ δὲ πέτρα ἣν 6 X.] from a spir-
itual rock that followed them ; the Rock, however (which we speak of here),
was Christ. Πνευματικῆς has the emphasis ; it corresponds to the preceding
πνευματικόν, and is explained more specifically by ἡ δὲ x. ἦν ὁ X. The rela-
tion denoted by ἀκολουθούσης, again, is assumed to be self-evident, and
therefore no further explanation is given of the word. The thoughts, to
which Paul here gives expression, are the following :—(1) To guard and
help the Israelites in their journey through the wilderness, Christ accom-
panied them, namely, in His pre-existent divine nature, and consequently as
the Son of God (=the Λόγος of John), who afterwards appeared as man
(comp. Wisd. x. 15 ff.). (2) The rock, from which the water that they
drank flowed, was not an ordinary natural rock, but a πέτρα πνευματική ; not
the mere appearance or phantasm of a rock, but an actual one, although of
supernatural and heavenly origin, inasmuch as it was the real self-revelation
and manifestation of the Son of God, who invisibly accompanied the host on
its march ; it was, in other words, the very Christ from heaven, as being
His own substantial and efficient presentation of Himself fo men (comp.
Targ. Isa. xvi. 1, and Philo’s view, p. 1103 A, that the rock was the σοφία).
(3) Such being the state of the case as to the rock, it must of necessity be a
rock that followed, that accompanied and went with the children of Israel in
posuisset Paulus.” At the same time, it nances in question. Both, however, are
should be observed that the ecclesiastical equally essential and characteristic ele-
notion of a sacrament does not appear in ments in the fellowship of the Christian
the N. T., but is an abstraction from the life. Comp. Baur, neut. Theol. p. 200; Weiss.
common characteristics of the two ordi- bibl. Theol. p. 353. ᾿ς
CHAP. Χο ον: . 221
their way through the desert ; for Christ in His pre-existent candition, the
heavenly ‘‘substratum,” so to speak, of this rock, went constantly with
them, so that everywhere in the wilderness His essential presence could
manifest itself in their actual experience through the rock with its abun:
dant water ; and, in point of fact, did so manifest itself itself again and
again. In drinking from the rock, they had their thirst quenched by Christ,
who, making the rock His form of manifestation, supplied the water from
Himself, although this marvellous speciality about the way in which their
thirst was met remained hidden from the Israelites. — Since the apostle’s
words thus clearly and completely explain themselves, we have no right to
ascribe to Paul, what was a later invention of the Rabbins, the notion that
the rock rolled along after the marching host (Bammidbar, R. 8. 1; Onkelos on
Num. xxi. 18-20 ; and see Wetstein and Schéttgen, also Lund, Heiligth.,
ed. Wolf, p. 251) ; such fictions as these, when compared with what the
apostle actually says, should certainly be regarded as extravagant after-
growths (in opposition to Riickert and de Wette). It is just as unwarrant-
able, however, to explain away, by any exegetical expedient, this rock which
followed them, and which was Christ. The attempts which have been made
with this view run directly counter to the plain meaning of the words ; 6.0.
the interpretation of Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Drusius, Grotius,
Lightfoot, Billroth, αἰ. (which dates from Theodore of Mopsuestia), that the
rock means here what came from it, the water (!), which, they hold, followed
the people and prefigured Christ (ἦν). That ἦν denotes here significabat (so too
Augustine, Vatablus, Salmasius, Bengel, Loesner, a/.), is a purely arbitrary
assumption, seeing that Paul neither says ἐστί, nor τύπος ἦν, or the like, nor
even indicates in any way in the context a typico-allegorical reference. This
applies also against what Ch. F. Fritzsche has in his Nova Opuse. p. 261:
‘¢ The rock in the wilderness was a rock of blessing, strength, and life-giving
for the Jews, and thusit prefigures Christ,” etc. Paul does not say anything
of the sort ; it is simply his expositors who insert it on their own authority.
Baur, too, does violence to the apostle’s words (comp. his newt. Theol. p.
193), by asserting that Paul speaks of Christ as the rvevu. πέτρα only in so
far as he saw a type which had reference to Christ in the rock that followed
the Israelites, according to the allegoric interpretation which he put upon
it.’ See, in opposition to this, Ribiger, Christol. Paul. p. 31 f. ; Weiss,
bibl. Theol. p. 319. The ordinary exposition comes nearer to the truth, but
fails to reach it in this respect, that it does not keep firm enough hold of
the statement, that ‘that rock was Christ,” and so of its identity with
Him, but takes Christ to be the Rock only in an ideal and figurative sense,
regarding Him as different from the rock from which the water flowed, but
as the author of its supply. So, in substance, Chrysostom,* Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Melanchthon, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, and many others, among
1 Baur is wholly unwarranted in taking φησὶν οὐ yap ἂν καὶ πρὸ τούτου ἀνέβλυξεν, ἀλλ
πνευματικός, ver. 8 f., in the sense of typical ἑτέρα τις πέτρα πνευματικὴ τὸ πᾶν εἰργάζετο,
or allegorically significant. Wis appeal to τουτέστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὃ παρὼν αὐτοῖς πανταχοῖ
Rey. χὶ. 8 and Barnab. 10 is irrelevant. καὶ πάντα ϑαυματουργῶν.
2 οὐ γὰρ ἡ τῆς πέτρας φύσις τὸ ὕδωρ ἠφίει
222 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
whom are Flatt, Kling in the Stud. und Krit. 1839, p. 835 ; Osiander,
Neander, Hofmann.? (x’)
Ver. 5. Οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν] not with the greater part of them.
litotes. Caleb and Joshua alone reached the land of promise. Num. xiv.
80. ---κατεστρώθησαν were struck down. Comp. Num. xiv. 16, 29. Their
dying in the wilderness (some by a violent, some by a natural death) is here
vividly portrayed, in accordance with Num. xiv., as death by the hand of
God (Herod. viii. 53, ix. 76; Xen. Cyr, iii. 8, 64 ; Judith vii. 14 ; 2 Macc.
v. 26). Comp. also Heb. iii. 17.
Ver. 6. The typical reference of what is adduced in vv. 1-5 to the Chris-
tians : These things (while they so fell out) became types of us, i.e. historical
transactions of the O. T., guided and shaped by God, and designed by Him
figuratively to represent the corresponding relation and experience on the
part of Christians. See regarding τύπος, on Rom. v. 14. --- ἐγενήθησαν] The
plural is by attraction from the predicate τύποι. See Kihner, II. p. 53 f.;
Kriiger, ὃ xiii. 6. Hofmann (comp. vi. 11) takes the Israelites as the sub-
ject : ** They became this as types of us ;” but the recurrence of the ταῦτα in
ver. 11 should have been enough of itself to preclude such a view. — ἐπὶ
θυμητ. κακῶν] quite general in its reference : desirers (Herod. vii. 6 ; Dem.
661 wlt., and often in Plato) of evil things (Rom. i. 30). To restrict it to the
‘* Corinthios epulutores” (Grotius) is arbitrary ; for it is equally so to con-
fine the καθὼς κἀκεῖνοι ἐπεθ. which follows solely (Riickert, de Wette,
Osiander, Neander), or particularly (Hofmann), to the desire of the Israelites
Jor flesh (Num. xi. 4), whereas in truth the words refer generally to the
evil lusts which they manifested so often and in so many ways upon their
journey, that particular desire not excluded.
Ver. 7. There: follows now upon this general warning the first of four
special ones against sins, to which the ἐπιθυμεῖν κακῶν might very easily lead.
‘‘Eligit, quod maxime Corinthiis congruebat,” Calvin. — μηδέ] also in par-
ticular do not. Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 314 [E. T. 366]. The rep-
etitions of μηδέ which follow, too, from ver. 8 to ver. 10 are also negatived,
but in continuance of the special prohibitions, — γένεσθε] in the second per-
A tragical
1 Comp. his Schriftbew. I. p. 171: ‘‘ The rock
from which the water flowed was a natu-
cess of thought on the part of the apostle,
which, as such, is not to be measured by
ral one, and stood fast in its own place ;
but the true Rock that really gave the
water was the Os ἫΝ (Isa. xxx. 29),
was Jehovah, who went with Israel.” By
not calling the Rock God, but Christ, the
apostle points forward, as it were (accord-
ing to Hofmann), to the application which
he is about to make of the words, namely,
to the cup which Christ gives us to drink.
But Paul’s words are so simple, clear, and
definite, that it is impossible to get off
by any quid pro quo. For the rest, it is to
be observed that in this passage, as in the
previous one, where the crossing of the sea
is taken as a typical prefiguration of bap-
tism, we have doubtless a Rabbinical pro-
the taste of our day, so that this unvar-
nished exegetical, conception of it might be
set down as something ‘“ absurd,” as is
done by Hofmann. The Rabbinical culture
of his time, under which the apostle grew
up, was not done away with by the fact of
his becoming the vessel of divine grace,
revelation, and power. Comp. Gal iy. 22 ff.
Our passage has nothing whatever to do
with Isa. xxx. 29, where men go up into the
temple to Jehovah, the Rock of Israel. It
is of importance, however, in connection
with Paul’s doctrine regarding the pre-ex-
istence of Christ and its accordance with
the doctrine of the Logos.
3 (Literally, strewed as corpses.—T. W. C.]
CHAP: X., 8,9; 223
son, because of the special danger to which his readers, from their cirewm-
stances, were exposed. Comp. on ver. 10. — εἰδωλολάτραι] What Paul means
is the indirect idolatry involved in partaking of the heathen sacrificial feasts.
Comp. on v. 11. This is clear from the quotation which he goes on to
make (φαγεῖν x. πιεῖν). Comp. vv. 14, 20, 21. The passage cited is Ex.
xxxil. 6 according to the LXX.; it describes the sacrificial feast after the
sacrifice offered to the golden calf. The τινὲς αὐτῶν, four times repeated,
certain of them, notwithstanding there were very many (although not all),
brings out all the more forcibly the offences over-against, the greatness of
the penal judgments. Comp. on Rom. 111. 3. — παίζειν] to be merry. This
comprised dancing, as we may gather from Ex. xxxii. 19, and from ancient
customs generally at sacrificial feasts ; but to make this the thing specially
referred to here (Hom. Od. viii. 251 ; Hesiod, Sewt. 277 ; Pindar, Ol. xiii.
123) does not harmonize with the more general meaning of pny? in the
original text. To understand the phrase as indicating wnchastity (Tertull.
de jejun. 6) is contrary to Ex. xxxii, 18, 19, and Philo, de vit. Mos. 3, pp.
677 D, 694 A.
Ver. 8. ’Exépvevoav] Num. xxv. 1 ff. —eixooe τρεῖς] According to Num.
xxv. 9, there were 24,000. So too Philo, de vit. Mos. 1, p. 694 A; de
fortit. p. 742 Ὁ ; and the Rabbins in Lightfoot, Horae, p. 205 ; also Jose-
phus, Antt. iv. 6. 12. <A slip of memory on the apostle’s part, (1,7) as might
easily take place, so that there is no need of supposing a variation in the
tradition (Bengel, Pott), or an error in his copy of the LXX. (Ewald).
Among the arbitrary attempts at reconciliation which have been made are
the following : that Paul narrates only what happened on one day, Moses
what happened on two (Grotius) ; that Moses gives the maximum, Paul the
minimum (Calvin, Bengel) ; that 23,000 fell οὐ divina, and 1000 gladio ze-
lotarum (Krebs, after Bernard and Havercamp on Josephus, Joc. cit.) ; that
Paul states merely what befell the tribe at Simeon (Michaelis). Cajetanus
and Surenhusius would have us read εἴκοσι τέσσαρες, as, in point of fact, is
given in a few codd., but manifestly by way of correction. Osiander too
leans to this ; comp. Valckenaer.
Ver. 9. ’Exrevp.] Stronger than the simple verb (¢o prove to the full), Matt.
iv. 7; Luke x. 25. Comp. the classic ἐκπειράομαι (Herod. iii. 185 ; Plat.
ep. 18, p. 362 E). To try the Lord,’ ΤΠ ΤΙ ΠΣ 18), means generally, to let it
come to the point whether He will show Himself to be God; in this case :
whether He will punish (*‘ qaousque itura sit ejus patientia,” Grotius). See
in general, Wetstein, ad Matt. iv. 7. What special kind of trying Paul has
here in view, appears from καθὼς «.7.A., where the reference is to the people
after their deliverance losing heart over the contrast between their position
in the wilderness and the pleasures of Egypt. See Num. xxi. 4-6. The
readers therefore could not fail to understand that what the apostle meant
was discontent on their part with their present Christian position, as involv-
ing so much renunciation of sensual pleasures formerly indulged in. How
1The Κύριος is God in Num. xxi. 4 ff. had no reason to refer it to Christ as the
Paul’s readers, whose familiarity with the λόγος ἄσαρκος (from which comes the ecep-
history in question is taken for granted, ἕω Χριστόν).
224 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
many, forgetting the blessings of their spiritual deliverance, might look
back with a discontented longing to the license of the past! It is a
common opinion that Paul designates their participation in the sacrificial
feasts as atempting of God (comp. ver. 22, where, however, the connection
is totally different, and τὸν κύριον does not apply to God at all). So Bill-
roth, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Maier ; but this is quite at variance
with the context, because not in keeping with the historical events indicated
by the καθὼς καὶ x.7.4., and familiar to the readers. The context equally
forbids the interpretations of Chrysostom and Theophylact : the craving for
wonders ; Theodoret, the speaking with tongues; Grotius, the conduct of
the schismatics ; and Michaelis, that of the anti-Pauline party. — ἐπείρασαν]
namely, αὐτόν, not in an absolute sense (Winer, Reiche). — ἀπώλλυντο] see
the critical remarks. The imperfect lays the stress on the continuous devel-
opment of what occurred, and thus places it in the foreground of the his-
toric picture. See Kiihner, 11. p. 74. As to ὑπό with ἀπώλλ., see Valcke-
naer, p. 261. Ellendt, Ler. Soph. 11. p. 880.
Ver. 10. Nor murmur, etc. ; expression of contwmacious discontent (Matt.
xx. 11; Phil. ii. 14), without right ot reason. Against whom ? is discovered
from the narrative, to which Paul here refers us. That this is to be found
not in Num. xiv. (the more common view), but in Num. xvi. 41, 49 (Cal-
vin, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Maier, Ewald), is clear, in the first place,
because ἀπώλλ. ὑπὸ τ. ὀλοθρ. denotes a violent death, which does not tally
with Num. xiv. ; and, in the second, because τινὲς αὐτῶν cannot apply to
the whole people (except Caleb and Joshua), which it would have to do ac-
cording to Num. xiv. If, however, what Paul has here in view is the mur-
muring against Moses and Aaron after the death of Korah and his company
(Num. xvi. 41, 49), then his prohibition must refer not to discontent against
God (which was, moreover, referred to already in ver. 9), but only to mur-
muring against the divinely commissioned teachers (Paul, Apollos, and others),
who, in their position and authoritative exercise of discipline, corresponded
to the type of Moses and Aaron as the theocratic leaders and teachers of the
rebellious people. And it is for this reason that he uses the second person
here, although the first both precedes and follows it. Amidst the self-con-
ceit and frivolity which were so rife at Corinth, and under the influences
of the party-spirit that prevailed, there could not fail to be perverse dispo-
sitions of the kind indicated, which would find abundant expression.
Comp. the evils prevalent in the same community at a later date, against
which Clement contends in his epistle. — ἀπώλλ. ὑπὸ τ. ὀλοθρ.} namely, the
14,700, whose destruction (Num. xvi. 46 ff.) is ascribed to the plague (Π53}2)
of God. Paul defines this more closely as wrought by the Destroyer (Hesy-
chius, λυμεών), who is the executor of the divine plague, just as in Ex. xii.
23 the NW executes the plague (1) of God,—this personal rendering
of NNW (according to others, pernicies), which was the traditional one
from the earliest times among Jews and Christians alike, being followed by
the apostle also. The ὀλοθρευτής (ὁ ὀλοθρεύων, Ex. xii. 23 ; Heb. xi. 28 ; Wisd.
xviii. 25. Comp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 16 ; Isa. xxxvii. 36 ; Job xxxiii. 22, al. ; Acts
xii. 23) is the angel commissioned by God to carry out the slaughter ; and he
CHAP. Xx.) ΤΊ: 225
again is neither to be conceived of as an evil angel (a conception still foreign
to the old Hebrew theology in general ; see also 1 Chron. xxi. 12 ; 2 Chron.
XxXxil. 21; 2 Macc. xv. 22, 23), nor rationalized into a pestilence. The
Rabbinical doctrine of the NINN ae) (see Hisenmenger, entdechktes Judenth.
I. p. 854 ff.) developed itself out of the Hebrew idea. — Ολοθρεύω, and the
words formed from it, belong to the Alexandrian Greek. See Bleek on
Heb. 11. p. 809. But the reading ὀλεθρ., although in itself more correct, is
very weakly attested here.
Ver. 11. Ταῦτα] These facts, referred to in ver. 6 ff. — τυπικῶς] in a typi-
cal fashion,* in such a way that, as they fell out, a typical character, a pre-
dictive reference, impressed itself upon them. Eisenmenger (II. p. 159 f.,
264, 801) gives passages from the Rabbins in support of the principle of the
interconnection of the whole theocratic history : ‘‘ Quicquid evenit patribus,
signum filiis,”—a principle generally correct according to the idea of the
It is only among the Fathers that we find τυπικός and τυπικῶς
used anywhere else in this sense (it is otherwise in Plutarch, Mor. p. 442
C). —ovvéBavov] brings out the progressive development of the events ; the
aorist ἐγράφη simply states the fact.? Comp. on ver. 4, and Matthiae, p.
1117. The δέ contrasts ἐγράφη «.r.A. with what precedes it, expressing
‘“quod novum quid accedit, oppositionem quandam,” Hermann, ad Viger.
p. 845: ‘“‘that it was written, again, was for,” etc. — πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν]
Jor our admonition (comp. on iv. 14). That is to say, when we are tempted
to the same sins, then should the thought of those facts that happened
τυπικῶς, Warn us not to bring down upon ourselves like judgments by like
offences. As to the later form, νουθεσία in place of. νουθέτησις and vovberia,
see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 512. --- εἰς ob¢ κ.τ.}.} is not opposed, as Hofmann
would have it, to the beginning of Israel’s history, to which the transactions
in question belong, which is neither conveyed by the text nor in itself his-
torically correct (for the beginning of that history lies in the days of the
patriarchs) ; but it gives point to the warning by reminding the readers how
nigh at hand the day was of retributive decision. Ta τέλη τῶν αἰώνων is identi-
cal with ἡ συντέλεια τῶν αἰώνων, Heb. ix. 26, the concrete ra τέλη (the ends)
being put here for the abstract συντέλεια (consummation). In other words,
upon the supposition of the Parousia being close at hand, the last times of
the world were now come ; the αἰῶνες, which had their commencement at its
beginning, were now running out their final course. The plural expression
τὰ τέλη, here used, corresponds to the conception of a plurality of periods in
the world’s history, whose common consummation should carry with it the
Jind issues of them all.8 With the Parousia the αἰῶνες ἐπερχόμενοι (See on
θειὰ μοῖρα.
1The Recepta τύποι would mean: These
things happened to them as types ; comp.
ver. 6. Hofmann takes ταῦτα δὲ τύποι as an
independent clause. But whatan arbitrary
disruption of the sentence this would be!
And how thoroughly self-evident and void
of significance the συνέβαινον ἐκείνοις would
in that case be!
2(The former verb (plural) relates to the
events in detail ; the latter (singular) to the
record as a whole.—T. W. C.]
3 Weiss, in his bibl. Theol. p. 301, gives a
different interpretation, making τὰ τέλη the
goals. Each of the past αἰῶνες, according
to his view, served as a preparation for the
time of full maturity. But Paul always uses
τέλος in the sense of end (in1 Tim. i.5 itis
otherwise) ;and this, too, is the most natural
226 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Eph. ii. 7) begin to run. What is implied by the plural is not one thing
running alongside of another, in particular, not the time of Israel and the
time of the Gentiles (Hofmann), but the succession of the world-periods, one
coming after another. So always, where αἰῶνες occurs in a temporal sense.
—arhvrnxev] They have reached to us, i.e. have fallen upon our lifetime, and
are how here. The αἰῶνες are conceived of as stretching themselves out, as
it were, in space. Comp. xiv. 36.
Ver. 12. Ὥστε] Wherefore, warned by these instances from the O. T. —
ἑστάναι] whosoever thinks that he stands, i.e. is firm and secure (Rom. v. 2,
and comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 1) in the Christian life, namely, in strength of
faith, virtue, etc. Comp. Rom. xiv. 4. — βλεπέτω, μὴ πέσῃ] points to the
moral fall, whereby a man comes to live and act in an unchristian way.
The greater, in any case, the self-confidence, the greater the danger of such
a fall. And how much must the moral illusions abroad at Corinth have
made this warning needful! Others understand the continuance in, or
falling from, a state of grace to be meant (see Calvin, Bengel, Osiander).
But all the admonitions, from ver. 6 onwards (see, too, ver. 14), have a
direct reference to falling into sins, the consequence of which is a falling from
grace so as to come under the divine ὀργή (comp. Gal. v. 4).
Ver. 13. Encouragement to this βλεπέτω μὴ πέσῃ. ‘‘ Your temptations, as
you know, have not hitherto gone beyond your strength, neither will they,
through the faithfulness of God, do so in the future.” Riickert follows
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, Bengel, Zachariae, and others,
in his interpretation : ‘‘ You are not yet out of danger ; the temptations
which have hitherto assailed you were only human ones, and you have not
withstood them over-well (7) ; there may come others greater and more
grievous.” Similarly Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald ; so
that, according to this view, Paul seeks first of all to humble, and then,
from πιστός onwards, to encourage,—a connecting thought, however, being
interpolated between the two clauses (‘‘sed nunc major tentatio imminet,”
Bengel). — πειρασμός] The context makes no special mention of sufferings and
persecutions (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Camerarius, Grotius, Ewald, a/.), but
of incitements to sin in general, as things which, if not overcome, instead of
being a discipline to the man exposed to them, will bring about his πέπτειν ;
but suffering is included among the rest in virtue of the moral dangers which
it involves, Pott restricts the reference too much (comp. also Hofmann) :
‘*tentatio quae per invitationem ad convivia illa vobis accidit,” which is
inadmissible in view of the general terms employed in ver. 12 ; the particular
application follows only in ver. 14. — εἴληφεν} marks the continuance of the
fact of its not having taken them. It has not done so, and does not now.
This use of λαμβάνειν, in reference to fortunes, states, etc., which seize upon
men, is very common in the classics (Thue. ii. 42 ; Pind. Οἱ. i. 180 ; Xen.
Symp. i. 15, and often in Homer). Comp. Luke v. 26, vii. 16 ; Wisd. xi.
12; Bar. vi. 5. — ἀνθρώπινος] i.e. viribus humanis accommodatus, οὐχ ὑπὲρ ὃ
meaning here, where he is speaking of the the same as in πλήρωμα τῶν καιρῶν, Eph. i.
lapse of periods of time. The thought is 9 f.
CHAP. X., 14. 227
δύναται ἄνϑρωπος. See Pollux, iii. 131. The fact that in the second clause of
the verse this phrase has ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασϑε and. τοῦ δύνασϑαι ὑπενεγκεῖν corre-
sponding to it, militates against the rendering : ‘‘ not of superhuman origin”
(comp. Plato, Ale. i. p. 103 A; Phaedr. p. 259 Ὁ ; Rep. p. 497 C, 492 BE),
ae. either not from the devil (Melanchthon, Piscator, Vorstius, al.), or not
from God (Olshausen, who finds an allusion in the second clause to the dolo-
res Messiae). Comp. οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνη κακία, Polyb. i. 67. 6, and the like ; Plato,
Prot. p. 344 ©, Orat. p. 488 C ; οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνης δυνάμεως, Thuc. vi. 78. 2 ;
ὅσα ἄνϑρωποι (sc. δύνανται), Plato, Rep. p. 467 C ; μεῖζον ἢ κατ’ ἄνϑρωπον, Soph.
Oed. Col. 604. Chrysostom : ἀνϑρώπινος, τουτέστι μικρὸς, βραχὺς, σύμμετρος. ---
πιστός] for if He allowed them to be tempted beyond their powers, He
would then be unfaithful to them as regards His having called them to the
Messianic salvation, which now, in the case supposed, it would be impossi-
ble for them to reach. (M’)— ὅς] in the sense of ὅτε οὗτος, like the German ‘‘ er
der.” Comp. Bernhardy, p. 291. Ὅσγε would be still more emphatic. —6
δύνασϑε] what you are in a position to bear. The context shows the more
special meaning. Comp. ΟἹ 111. 2. — ἀλλὰ ποιήσει x.t.A.] but will with the (then -
existing) temptation make also the issue, i.e. not the one without the other.
God is therefore conceived of here as He who makes the temptation, 1.6.
brings about the circumstances and situations which give rise to it (comp.
on Matt. vi. 13), but, previously, as He who lets men be tempted. The two
things, according to Paul’s view of the divine agency in the world, are in
substance the same ; the God who allows the thing to be is He also who
brings it to pass. Hence the two modes of conception may be used inter-
changeably, as here, without contradiction. Comp. on Rom. 1. 24.—r.
ἔκβασιν] the issue (egressum, Wisd. ii. 17, viii. 9, xi. 16 ; Hom. Od. v. 410;
Xen. Anab. iv. 1. 20, iv. 2.1; Polyb. iv. 64. 5) from the temptation, so
that one escapes out of it morally free (comp. ἐκ πειρασμοῦ ῥύεσϑαι, 2 Pet. ii.
9) ; similarly Eur. Med. 279, ἔκβασις ἄτης. Theophylact gives the sense with
substantial correctness, τὴν ἀπαλλαγὴν τοῦ πειρασμοῦ ; but it is unsuitable to
make, as he does, the σὺν κ.τ.2. refer to coincidence in time (ἅμα τῷ ἐπελϑεῖν
ὑμῖν τὸν πειρασμόν) ; 80 also Hofmann. Bengel puts it well: ‘‘kai, etiam,
indivulso nexu.” — τοῦ δύνασϑαι ὑπεν.} does not say wherein the issue might
consist (of being able to bear the temptation ; comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p.
844), for the δύνασϑαι ὑπεν. is no ἔκβασις (the taking it so is dlogical) ; but it
is the genitive of design: in order that you may be able to bear it (the tempta-
tion). Were it not that God gave the ἔκβασις along with the πειρασμός, the
latter would be too heavy for you ; you would not be able to bear up under
it, but would be crushed altogether. But that is not His will. That ὑμᾶς
should be supplied to δύν. irev., is clear of itself from what precedes. See
Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 10.
Ver. 14. Διόπερ] for this very reason (viii. 13), to wit, in order that you
may not withdraw from this saving guidance of the faithful God, and de-
prive yourselves of it ; idolatry would separate you from God. Comp. ver.
22. And they would make themselves indirectly guilty of idolatry by par-
taking of the sacrificial feasts, See vv. 7, 20 f. As respects φεύγειν ἀπό,
Sugiendo discedere a, see on Matt. iii. 7. Rickert would draw a distinction
228 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
here to the effect that, had the verb been joined with the accusative (vi. 18),
it would have indicated that the readers were already involved in idolatrous
worship ; but this is untenable (2 Tim. ii. 22 ; Wisd. i. 5 ; Plato, Legg. i.
p. 636 E ; Soph. Phil. 637, Oed. R. pide! being a confusion of the phrase in
question swith φεύγειν ἐκ (Xen. Anabd. i. 2.18 ; Tob. i. 18). The precise meaning
here must be sought in the conteat, ales eats gives us only the idea of
the danger being at hand (ver. 7).
Ver. 15 ff. Paul has just been forbidding his readers to participate in the
sacrificial feasts, on the ground of its being idolatry. This he now explains by
the analogy of the holy fellowship, into which the Lord’s Supper (vv. 15-17),
and participation in the Israelitish sacrifices (ver. 18), respectively brought
those who partook of them. It does not follow from his second illustration
that the idols were gods, but that they were demons, with whom his readers
should have no fellowship ; one could not partake both of Christ’s table and
of the table of demons (vv. 19-22). The former excludes the latter.
Ver. 15. Ὡς φρονίμοις] 1.6. to those of whom I take for granted that they
’ are intelligent ; ὡς indicates the mode of contemplation, the aspect under
which he regards his readers in saying to them, etc. Comp. iii. 1; 2 Cor.
vi. 18, al. See Bernhardy, p. 333. — λέγω refers to κρίνατε iy. 6 ¢. (comp.
vil. 12), and 6 φημι points to what follows in vv. 16-18. ‘‘As to intelligent
men (who can judge aright), 7 say: judge ye what I affirm.” On the differ-
ence between λέγω and φημί, Rae Rom. iii. 8 ; Herod. iii. 35 ; Xen. Apol.
feeAnabn i, 18, vi.)-6) 16, ai. 114; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. IL. p- 906. —
The emphasis is on ὑμεῖς ; your own ταν shall decide.
Ver. 16. Τὸ ποτήριον] It is most natural to take this as in the accusative,
after the analogy of the second clause of the verse (against Riickert).
Respecting the attractio inversa, as in Matt. xxi. 42, see Bornemann, Schol.
in Lue. p. 16 f. ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 247 [E. T. 288] ; Kihner, II. p.
512. This Greek fashion of ᾿ἀνρνηένν is of such common occurrence, ἡ
that it is a piece of pure arbitrariness to infer, with Hofmann, from the
accusative here that the action of blessing and breaking, of which the ele-
ments are the objects, makes them the xovvwvia. — Paul names the eup jirst,
not because at the sacrificial feasts men thought less about food than about
a pleasant meeting primarily for enjoying wine (they came for eating and
drinking), but because he means to speak at more length about the bread,
and in connection with it, especially to discuss the Israelitic partaking of
the sacrifices, as it swited his theme of the meat offered toidols. For this reason
he begins here by disposing briefly of the point concerning the cup. In
chap. xi. he does otherwise, because not regarding the matter there
from this special point of view. — τῆς εὐλογίας] genit. qualit., i.e. the cup over
which the blessing is spoken, namely, when the wine contained in it is
expressly consecrated by prayer to the sacred use of the Lord’s Supper.? It
1 Who had to officiate at thisconsecration? Justin Martyr's time (Apol. i. 65) it fell to the
Every Christian man probably might do so
at that time, when the arrangements of
church-life as regards public worship were
as yet so little reduced to fixed order. In
προεστώς, but so that the president is con
ceived as representing and acting in fellow-
ship with the congregation. See Ritschl,
altkathol, IK. p.365f. The pluralsin the pas-
CHAP: χα 1G; 229
1s a mistake to understand τῆς evdoy. actively : the cup which brings blessing
(Flatt, Olshausen, Kling), as the more detailed explanations which follow
are sufficient of themselves to prove. They equally forbid the explanation
of Schulz : the cup of praise’ (comp. Kahnis, Lehre vom Abendm. p. 128).
Neither should the phrase be viewed as a terminus technicus borrowed from
the Jewish liturgy, and answering to the 72737 2. See on Matt. xxvi.
27, and Riickert, Abendm. p. 219 f. —6 εὐλογοῦμεν] an epexegesis giving
additional solemnity to the statement: which we bless, consecrate with
prayer, when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Comp. Mark viii. 7 ; Luke
ix. 16 ; 1 Sam. ix. 138. Εὐλογ. in its literal sense must not be confounded
with εὐχαριστ. (Erasmus, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Beza : ‘quod cum gratia-
rum actione sumimus”), although the prayer eas, in point of fact, a thanksgiv-
ing prayer in accordance with Christ’s example, xi. 24 f. As to the difference
between the two words, comp. on xiv. 16. — οὐχὶ κοιν. τ. ain. τ. X. ἐστι] This
is aptly explained by Grotius (after Melanchthon and others) : ‘ κοινωνίαν
vocat id, per quod jit ipsa communio.” The cup, 1.6. its contents as these
are presented and partaken of, is the medium of this fellowship ; it is veal-
ized in the partaking.? Comp. i. 30; John xii. 25, xvii. 3; Rodatz in
Rudelbach’s Zeitschrift, 1844, 1, p. 191 ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 31. The
sense therefore is: Js not communion with the blood of Christ established
through partaking of the cup?* ’Eori never means anything else than est
(never significat) ; it is the copula of existence ; whether this, however, be
actual or symbolical (or allegorical) existence, the context alone must decide.
Here it must necessarily have the former sense (against Billroth), for the
mere significance of a participation would go no way towards proving the
proposition that eating meat offered to idols was idolatry ; and as, therefore,
in ver. 18. it is not the significance, but the fact of the participation, that is
expressed (comp. ver. 20), so also must it of necessity be here. What sort
of a participation it might be, was of no importance in the present connec-
sage before us are the utterance of the it, taking κοινωνία as ‘‘ the matter of fact of a
Christian consciousness of fellowship, to which
it makes no difference who, in each sepa-
rate case, may be the ministerial organ of
the fellowship. Kahnis explains them from
the amen of the congregation (Justin, loc.
cit.) ; but that itself was primarily the time-
hallowed expression of that consciousness.
1 With excessive arbitrariness Hofmann
(comp. his Schrifibew. IT. 2, p. 225 f.) insists
on taking εὐλογία otherwise than εὐλογοῦμεν;
the former, in the sense of an ascription of
praise, with God as its subject ; the latter,
in the sense of consecrating the cup. The
consecration, according to him, makes the
difference between it and the Passover cup.
But the said difference could not have been
expressed by Paul in a more unsuitable
or perplexing way than by repeating the
same word.
2 Hofmann too comes to this in substance
after all, although he tries to escape from
joint (2) participancy,” and then opining that
the apostle has in view an eating of the
bread and drinking of the wine, which by
means of this corporeal process, and with-
out its being possible to eat and drink
merely bread and wine, makes us joint-par-
takers of the body and blood of Christ. In
support of the meaning thus assigned to
κοινωνία, Hofmann appeals inappropriately
to 1.9; 2 Cor. xiii. 13; 1 John i. 3. Joint
participancy would be συγκοινωνία ; comp.
συγκοινωνός, ix. 23; Rom. xi. 17; Phil. i. 7.
3 Itis plain from vy. 18, 20, 21, that κοινωνία
is here neither communication, apportioning
(Luther, αἷ., including Kling, Billroth),
which it never means in the N. T. (see on
Rom. xv. 26), nor consortium, societas (Eras-
mus : “ quod pariter sanguine Christi sumus
redemti,” comp. Zwingli). See also Kahnis,
Abendm, Ὁ. 132f.
230 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
tion, for the apostle is dealing here simply with the κοινωνία in itself, not
with its nature, which differed according to the different analogies adduced
(vv. 18, 20). (Χ) It cannot therefore be gathered from this passage
whether he was thinking of some kind of real, possibly even material con-
nection of those eating and drinking in the Supper with the body and blood
of Christ,' or, on the other hand, of an inward union realized in the believing
consciousness, consisting therefore in the spiritual contact whereby the
believer, who partakes of the elements, is conscious to himself in so partak-
ing of being connected by saving appropriation with the body and blood of
reconciliation. But we see clearly from xi. 24 f. that Paul cowld only mean
the latter, since at the institution of the Supper the body of Christ was not
yet slain, and His blood still flowed in His veins.* See, besides, on Matt.
xxvi. 26. Again, if the glorified state of His body, i.e. the σῶμα τῆς δόξης
αὐτοῦ (Phil. iii. 21), set in only with His ascension, and if, when He insti-
tuted the Supper, His body was still but the σῶμα τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, which
soon after died upon the cross for reconciliation (Col. 1. 22), while, never-
theless, the first Lord’s Supper, dispensed by Jesus himself, must have
carried with it the whole specific essence of the sacred ordinance—that essence
depending precisely upon the future crucifixion of the body and outpouring of
the blood,—then the apostle cannot have in view the glorified® σῶμα and
αἷμα as being given and partaken of through the medium of the bread and
wine. Otherwise, we should have to attribute to Paul the extravagant con-
ception, —which is, however, equally out of harmony with the institution
itself and without shadow of warrant in the apostle’s words, nay, at vari-
ance with what he says in xv. 50,—that, at the last Supper, Jesus had His
pneumatic body already at His disposal to dispense as He would (Olshausen,
Hofmann), or that a momentary glorification, like that on the Mount, took
1 For the rest, it is plain enough from the
correlative σῶμα that the αἷμα τ. X. denotes
the dlood—not, as D. Schulz still maintains,
the bloody death—of Christ (which, consid-
ered in itself, it might indeed symbolize, but
could not δὲ called. Fritzsche, ad Rom. I.
p. 274; Kahnis, Avendm. p. 60 f.).
2When Rodatz objects that an ideal
union with the actual body slain and blood
shed is a logical contradiction, he overlooks
the fact that the material sphere is not be-
yond the reach of inward appropriation.
Spiritual communion may have reference
to a material object, without excluding a
symbolic process in which “ signatum non
cum signo sed nobiscum unitur” (Vossius,
de baptismo, p. 11). Comp. Kahnis, Dogmat.
I. 621: ‘“‘Bread and wine form not a mere
symbol, but a sign, which is at the same
time medium ;” see also III. p. 489. The
important alteration in the Latin Confess.
Aug. Art. X. of 1540, points in the same di-
rection.
3 Riickert also (Abendm. p. 224 ff.) holds
that Paul conceived the body and blood in
the Supper as glorified ; that, in virtue of
the consecration, the participant partakes
of the glorified blood, ete. Riickert, of
course, discards all questions as to mode in
connection with this view which he ascribes
to the apostle, but which he himself consid-
ers a baseless one (p. 242). His mistake lies
in deducing too much from πνευματικὸν,
which is neither in ver. 3 nor anywhere
else in the N. T. the opposite of material,
but of natural (1 Pet. ii. 5 not excluded) ;
and the πνεῦμα to Which πνευματικός refers is
always (except Eph. vi. 18, where it is the
diabolic spirit-world that is spoken of) the
Divine πνεῦμα, In the case of gifts which
are πνευματικά, it is this πνεῦμα who is
always the agent; so with the supply of
manna and water in the wilderness,
and so, too, with the bread and wine
received in the Lord’s Supper, inasmuch
as in this βρῶμα and πόμα the commun-
ion of the body and blood of Christ is real-
ized, which does not take place when
bread and wine are partaken of in the ordi-
nary, natural way.
OHAP. Χο ΤΌ: 231
place at the time of instituting the Supper, as Kahnis formerly held ; but
see now his Dogmat. I. p. 622 ; and comp. also, on the other side, Ebrard,
Dogma vom heilig. Abendm. I. p. 109 f. Either, therefore, the apostle re-
garded the κοινωνία of Christ’s body and blood as being different before His
glorification from what it was afterwards, or it was in his eyes, both before
and after, the inward spiritual fellowship realized by the inner man through
the medium of the symbol partaken of, as an appropriation of the work of
atonement consummated through means of His body and blood, and conse-
quently asa real life-fellowship, other than which, indeed, he could not
conceive it as realized when the Supper was instituted. Comp. Keim in the
Jahrb. fiir Deutsche Theol. 1859, p. 90 ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 355. Against
this κοινωνία subjectively realized in the devout feeling of the believer, and
objectively established by the divine institution of the ordinance itself, it is
objected that the phrase, ‘‘ fellowship of the body and blood,” expresses at
any rate an interpenetration of Christ’s body and the bread (according to the
Lutheran synecdoche ; comp. Kahnis’ former view in his Abendm. p. 136,
also Hofmann, p. 219). But this objection asserts too much, and therefore
proves nothing, seeing that the fellowship with Christ’s body and blood
realized by means of the symbol also corresponds to the notion of fellowship,
and that all the more, because this eating and drinking of the elements
essentially is the specific medium of the deep, inward, real, and living κοινωνία ;
hence, too, the ‘‘calix communionis” cannot be possibly a jigurata loquutio.
This last point we maintain against Calvin, who, while insisting that ‘‘non
tollatur jigurae veritas,” and also that the thing itself is there, namely, that
‘‘non minus sanguinis communionem anima percipiat, quam ore vinum
bibimus,” still explains away the κοινωνία of the blood of Christ to the
effect, ‘‘dum simul omnes nos in corpus suum inserit, ut vivat in nobis et
nos in ipso.” — ὃν κλῶμεν] There was no need to repeat here that the bread,
too, was hallowed by a prayer of thanksgiving, after the cup had been
already so carefully described as a cup consecrated for the Supper. Instead
of doing so, Paul enriches his representation by mention of the other essen-
tial symbolic action with the bread ; comp. xi. 24. That the breaking of the
bread, however, was itself the consecration (Riickert), the narrative of the
institution will not allow us to assume. — τοῦ σώματος τ. X.] in the strict,
not in the figurative sense, as Stroth, Rosenmiiller, Schulthess, and, others :
‘‘ declaramus nos esse membra corporis Christi, i.e. societatis Christianae,”
comp. also Baur, nevt. Theol. p. 201. This interpretation is at variance
with the first clause, for which the meaning of the Supper as first instituted
forbids such a figurative explanation (in opposition to Zwingli’) ; nor can
this be justified by ver. 17 ; for
1 Zwingli, in his Respon. ad Bugenh., ex-
plainsit thus:‘‘Poculum gratiarum actio-
nis, quo gratias agimus, guid quaeso, aliud
est quam nos ipsi? Nos enim quid aliud
sumus nisi ipsa communio,ipse coetus et
populus, consortium et sodalitas sanguinis
Christi? h. e. ille ipse populus, qui sanguine
Christi ablutus est.” The most thorough
historical development of Zwingli’s doc-
trine is that given by Dieckhoff in his evang.
Abendmahislehre im Reformationszeitalter, 1.
p. 428 ff. Riickert remarks with justice
that Zwingli has here lost his footing on
evangelical ground altogether. But Cal-
vin, too, has lost it, imasmuch as he makes
everything turn upon the spiritual recep-
232 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Ver. 17 confirms the statement that the bread is acommunion of the body
of Christ. For it is one bread ; one body are we, the many, i.e. for through
one bread being eaten in the Supper, we Christians, although as individuals we
are many, form together one (ethical) body. This union into one body through
participation on the one bread could not take place unless this bread were
κοινωνία of the body of Christ, which is just that which produces the one
body—that which constitutes the many into this unity. The proof advan-
ces ab effectu (which participating in the one bread in and of itself could
not have) ad causam (which can only lie in this, that this bread is the com-
munion of Christ’s body). The argument’ does not imply a logical conver-
sion (as Rodatz objects) ; but either the effect or the cause might be posited
Srom the Christian consciousness as premiss, according as the case required.
See a similar process of reasoning αὖ effectu ad causam in xii. 12. Comp. also
Luke vii. 47. According to this, ὅτε is just the since, because (for), so com-
mon in argument, and there is no need- whatever to substitute γάρ for it
(Hofmann’s objection) ; ἐστί is to be supplied after εἷς ἄρτος ; and the two
clauses are placed side by side asyndetically so as to make the passage
‘‘alacrior et nervosior” (Dissen, ad Pind. Exe. 11. p. 276), and, in particular,
to bring out with more emphasis the idea of wnity (εἰς. . οἕν) (comp. Acts
xxv. 12). The οἱ γὰρ πάντες x.t.A. which follows leaves us 10 room to doubt
how the asyndeton should logically be filled up (and therefore also) ; for
this last clause of the verse excludes the possibility of our assuming a mere
relation of comparison (as there is one bread, so are we one body ; comp.
Heydenreich, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, al.). The oi yap πάντες, too,
forbids our supplying ἐσμέν after ἄρτος (Zwingli, Piscator, Mosheim, Stolz,
Schrader, comp. Ewald) ; for these words indicate the presence of another
conception, inasmuch as, repeating the idea conveyed in εἷς ἄρτος, they
thereby show that that εἷς ἄρτος was said of literal bread. This holds against
Olshausen also, who discovers here the church as being ‘‘ the bread of life for
the world!” Other expositors take ὅτι (comp. xii. 15 f.; Gal. iv. 6) as intro-
ducing a protasis, and ἕν o. «.r.2. as being the apodosis : ‘‘ because it is one
bread, therefore are we, the many, one body.” * In that case either we should
have a further exposition about the bread (Hofmann), no sign of which,
however, follows ; or else this whole thought would be .purely parentheti-
cal, a practical conclusion being drawn in passing from what had just been
stated. But how remote from the connection would such a side-thought
be! And would not Paul have required to interpose an οὖν, or some such
word, after the ὅτι, in order to avoid misunderstanding ? Interpreters would
tion of the glorified body, i.e. upon receiving
the vivifying power which flows from it,
whereas the words of institution have to do
simply with that body, which was to be cru-
cified for the atonement and with its fellow-
ship. As to Calvin's docirine of the Supper,
‘see, besides Henry and Stiihelin, Kahnis, II.
p. 494 ff.
1Comp. Bengel: ‘Probat poculum et
panem esse communionem. Nam panis per
se non facit, ut vescentes sint unum corpus,
sed panis id facit quatenus est communio,”
etc.
2 Flatt, Riickert, Kahnis, Maier, Hofmann,
following the Vulgate, Castalio, Calvin,
Beza, Bengel, a. Riickert, however, has
since assented (Abendm. p. 229 ff.) to the
modifications proposed by Rodatz, of which
mention is presently to be made.
CHAP. “ας 18: Ἴ 239
not have betaken themselves to a device so foreign to the scope of the pas-
sage, had they not too hastily assumed that ver. 17 contained no explana-
tion at all of what preceded it (Riickert). Rodatz agrees with the rest in
rendering : ‘‘because there is one bread, therefore are we, the many, one
body,” but makes this not a subordinate thought brought in by the way,
but an essentially new point in the argument ; he does this, however, by
supplying after ἕν σῶμα, ‘‘ with Christ the Head” (comp. also van Hengel,
Annot. p. 167 f.), and finding the progress of the thought in the words sup-
plied. But in this way the very point on which all turned would be left
to be filled in, which is quite unwarrantable ; Paul would have needed to
write ἕν σῶμα αὐτοῦ τῆς κεφαλῆς, or something to that effect, in order to be
understood. —oi πολλοί] correlative to the ἕν σῶμα (comp. v. 15, 19): the
many, Who are fellow-participants in the Lord’s Supper, the Christian mul-
titude. The very same, viewed, however, in the aspect of their collective
aggregate, not, as here, of their multitudinousness, are οἱ πάντες, the whole ;
comp. Rom. v. 15, 18. The wnity of bread is not to be understood numeri-
cally (Grotius, who, from that point of view, lays stress upon its size), but
qualitatively, as one and the same bread of the Supper. The thought of the
bread having become a unity out of many separate grains of corn is foreign
to the connection, although insisted on by many expositors, such as Chrys-
ostom, Augustine, Erasmus, Calovius, al. —éx τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχ. is inter-
preted by some as if there were no ἐκ : ‘‘ since we are all partakers of one
bread” (Luther). This is contrary to the linguistic usage, for μετέχειν is
joined with the genitive (ver. 21, ix. 12) or accusative (Bernhardy, p. 149),
but never with ἐκ ; and the assumption that Paul, in using ἐκ, was thinking
of the verb ἐσθίειν (xi. 28), is altogether arbitrary. The linguistically cor-
rect rendering is : for we all have a share from the one bread, so that in ana-
lyzing the passage we have to supply, according toa well-known usage
(Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 1388 [E. T. 158]), the indefinite indication of a
part, τί or τινός, before ἐκ τοῦ évdc ἄρτου. Hofmann, too, gives the correct
partitive sense to the expression. The article before ἑνός points back to
what has been already said.
Ver. 18. Another’ analogue to prove that participation in the sacrificial
feasts is idolatry. — κατὰ σάρκα) without the link of the article, because Ἴσρ.
κατὰ σάρκα is regarded as a single idea. Comp. on Rom. ix. 3. Israel after a
purely human sort means the born Israelites, the Jews, as distinguished from
the ’Iop. κατὰ πνεῦμα (Rom. ii. 28 f.; Gal. iv. 29 ; comp. Gal. vi. 16), which
the Christians are, in virtue of their fellowship of life with Christ the prom-
ised σπέρμα of Abraham. It was very natural for the apostle to add κατὰ
σάρκα, seeing that he had just been speaking of the sacred ordinance of the
Christians. — As to the Jewish sacrificial feasts, see Michaelis, Mos. R. IT.
pp. 282, 346 f., IV. § 189. --- κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστ.1 This is the theocratic
bond of participation, whereby the man stands bound to the sacrificial altar,
who eats of the sacrifice belong to it as such. The Israelite who refused to
1 Which does not therefore by any means Gemeindegotiesd. p. 195 ; comp. also Kahnis,
place the Lord’s Supper in the light of a Abendm. p. 30). Seeagainst this view, Hof-
sacrificial feast (Olshausen, Harnack, mann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 232.
234 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
eat of the flesh of the sacrifice as such, would thereby practically declare that
he had nothing to do with the altar, but stood aloof from the sphere of theo-
cratic connection with it. The man, on the other hand, who ate a portion
of the flesh offered upon the altar, gave proof of the religious relation in
which he stood to the altar itself. The question which may be asked, Why did
not Paul write Θεοῦ instead of θυσιαστ. ? is not to be answered by affirming
that he could not ascribe the κοιν. τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰσί to the Ἴσρ. x. σάρκα (Riickert,
Abendm. p. 217, and Neander ; but could he not in truth, according to
Rom. ix. 4 f., xi. 1, say this of the people of God ?), or by asserting that
he could not well have attributed so high an effect to the sacrificial service
(de Wette ; but why should he not, seeing he does not specify any partic-
ular kind of fellowship with God ?). But the true reply is this: the xo-
νωνία Θεοῦ would have been here much too vague and remote a conception;
for that fellowship belonged to the Jew already in his national capacity as
one of the people of God generally, even apart from partaking of the sacri-
fices. It was by the latter that he showed the narrower and more specific
relation of worship in which he stood to God, namely, the peculiarly sacred
κοινωνία (Ex. xx. 21 ff.) τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου. Hence the inappropriateness of the
view taken by Riickert and many others, that Paul leaves the inference
open: ‘‘and hence, too, with God,” and of that of Rodatz, that the altar is
put for the offering.
Vv. 19, 20. By these two analogues, vy. 16-18, the apostle has now jus-
tified his warning given above against the sacrificial feasts as a warning
against idolatry (ver. 14). But from the case of the Jewish sacrificial eating
last adduced, his readers might easily draw the inference : ‘‘ You declare,
then, the idolatrous offerings and the idols to be what the heathen count
them ?” For whereas the apostle adduced the κοινωνία of the Jewish θυσιασ-
τήριον, and that as an analogue of the heathen θυσιαστήρια, he seemed thereby
to recognize the κοινωνία of these too, and consequently also the real divine
existence of the idols thus adored. He therefore himself puts the possible
false inference in the shape of a question (ver. 19), and then annuls it in ver.
20 by adducing the wholly different results to which ver. 18 in reality gives
rise. The inference, namely, is drawn only from ver. 18, not from vv. 16-
18 (de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann, al.), as ver. 20 (θύουσιν, correlative to the
θυσιαστηρίου of ver. 18) shows. —7? οὖν φημι ;] what do EF maintain then ? namely,
in following up ver. 18. Upon this way of exciting attention by a question,
comp. Dissen, ad Demosth. de cor. p. 347. Kriiger, Anab. 1. 4. 14. — ri ἐστιν]
is somethintg, i.e. has reality, namely, as εἰδωλόθυτον, so that it is really flesh
which is consecrated to a god, as the heathen think, and as εἴδωλον, so that
it really is a divine being answering to the conception which the heathen
have of it ; as if, for instance, there were such a being as Jupiter in exist-
ence, who actually possessed the attributes and so forth ascribed to him by
the heathen. To accent the words τὶ éorw (Billroth, Tischendorf, comp.
Ewald) would give the sense : that any idol-sacrifice (and any idol) exists, in
the capacity, that is to say, of idol-sacrifice and of idol. Either rendering
harmonizes with viii. 4. In opposition to the latter of the two, it must not
be said, with Riickert, that ἔστι would need to come immediately after ὅτι,
CHAP? 'X.; 195:20, : 235
for the last place, too, is the stat of emphasis (Kiihner, IT. p. 625) ; nor yet,
with de Wette, that the one half (εἰδωλόθυτον) is not so suitable, for the con-
text surely makes it perfectly plain that Paul is not speaking of absolute ex-
istence. But since both renderings are equally good as regards sense and
expression, we can decide between them only on this ground, that with the
second the τί would be superfluous, whereas with the first—which, follow-
ing the Vulgate, is the common one—it has significance, which should give
it the preference. At the same time, we must not insert any pregnancy of
meaning like that in iii. 7 (ef influence and effect) into the ri, as Hofmann
does without warrant from the context ; but it is the simple aliquid, the op-
posite of the non-real, of the non-ens. — ἀλλ:] refers to the negative sense of
the preceding question. Hence : ‘‘ No; on the contrary, I maintain,” ete.
See Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 37 ; Baeumlein, p. 10 f. — ἃ θύουσιν] see the crit-
ical remarks. The subject is self-evident : the sacrificers (the heathen, who
sacrifice). Kiihner, II. p. 35 f.—The assertion, again, that the heathen sac-
rifices are presented to demons and not toa real God (Θεῷ), follows (οὖν, in ver.
19) from the fellowship in which the Jew who ate of the sacrifices stood to
the altar on which they were offered ; inasmuch as confessedly it was only
the Jewish θυσιαστήριον with its sacrifice that belonged to a real God, and
consequently the heathen θυσιαστήρια and their offerings could not have ref-
erence to a God, but only to beings of an opposite kind, 7.e. demons. —
δαιμονίοις] does not mean idols, false or imaginary gods (Bos, Mosheim,
Valckenaer, Zachariae, Rosenmiiller, Heydenreich, Flatt, Pott, Neander),
which is contrary to the uniform usage of the LXX. and the N. T.,' and
would, moreover, yield a thought quite out of keeping with the context ; for
it was the apostle’s aim to point to a connection with an antichristian reality.
The word means, as always in the N. T., demons, diabolic spirits. That the
heathen worships quoad eventum (of course not quoad intentionem) were
offered to devils, was a view derived by ail the later Jews with strict logi-
cal consistency from the premisses of a pure monotheism and its opposite.
See the LXX. rendering of Deut. xxxii. 17 ; Ps. evi. 87,—a reminiscence
of which we have in Paul’s expression here,—Ps. χον. 5 ; Bar. iv. 7; Tob.
iii. 8, vi. 14, and the Rabbinical writers quoted in Eisenmenger’s entdeckt.
Judenth. 1. pp. 805 ff., 816 ff. So Paul, too, makes the real existences an-
swering to the heathen conceptions of the gods, to be demons, which is es-
sentially connected with the Christian idea that heathendom is the realm of
the devil ; for, according to this idea, the various individual beings re-
garded by the heathen as gods can be nothing else but diabolic spirits, who
collectively make up the whole imperial host of the ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου
(Eph, ii. 2, vi. 12), who is himself the apynyéc.2 Comp. Hahn, Theol. des
1 Acts xvii. 18 is uttered by Greeks accord-
ing to their sense of the word; but in Rev.
ix. 20 we are to understand demons as
meant.
2 Mosheim objects that if Paul held this
belief, he must have pronounced the sacri-
ficial meat to be positively unclean. But
it had surely received no character indelebil-
is through its being set apart for the altar.
If not partaken of in its quality as sacrifi-
cial meat, it had lostits relation to the de-
mons, and had become ordinary meat, just
as Jewish sacrificial flesh, too, retained the
consecration of the altar only for him eho
ate it as such.
236 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
N. Test. I. p. 366 f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 879. The ancient church, too,
followed Paul in remaining true to this idea. See Grotius on this passage.
Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 421 ff. As to the consistency of this view with that ex-
pressed in viii. 4, see the remarks on the latter verse. Riickert therefore
(with Grotius) is wrong in altering the representation to this effect, that ac-
cording to Paul the demons had ‘“‘ given the heathen to believe” that there
were gods to whom men should sacrifice, in order to obtain for themselves
under their name divine worship and offerings, and that in so far the sacri-
fices of the heathen were presented to demons. The LXX. rendering of
Deut. xxxii. 17 and Ps. xev. 5 should of itself have been enough to prevent
any such paraphrase of the direct dative-relation. — οὐ θέλω δὲ K.7.A.] that I,
however, do not wish, still dependent upon ὅτι, the reply to τὶ οὖν φημι being
only thus completed. The κοινωνούς points back to κοίνων. in ver. 18. The
article in τῶν day. denotes this class of beings.
Ver. 21 givesthe ground of the foregoing οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς K.t.2. — οὐ δύνασθε]
of moral impossibility. ‘‘ Nihil convenit inter Christum et impios daemo-
nes ; utrisque serviri simul non potest nisi cum insigni contumelia Christi,”
Erasmus, Paraph. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 15.— ποτήριον Κυρίου] a eup having ref-
erence to the Lord, i.e. according to ver. 16 : a cup which brings into communion
with Christ. Its analogue is a ποτήριον δαιμονίων ; the latter was quoad even-
tum, according to ver. 20, the cup out of which men drank at the sacrificial
feast, inasmuch as the whole feast, and therefore also the wine used at it,
even apart from the libation (which Grotius, Munthe, Michaelis, de Wette,
and others suppose to be meant), made the partakers to be κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμον.
(ver. 90). -- τραπέζης Κυρίου] refers to the whole κυριακὸν δεῖπνον, xi. 20. In-
stances of μετέχειν with τραπέζης, and like expressions, may be seen in Loes-
ner, Obss. p. 288.
Ver. 22. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy ? to prove that He will not
suffer us to set Him on the same level with the demons? The connection is
this : ‘‘ You cannot, etc., ver. 21, unless it were the case that we Christians were
people whose business it isto provoke Christ to jealousy.” Hence the indicative,
which should not be taken as deliberative, with Luther and others, includ-
ing Pott, Flatt, and Riickert (or would we defy the Lord?), but : we occupy
ourselves therewith, are engaged therein. Comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 370.
The phrase, τὸν Κύριον, however, should not be referred to God on the
ground of the allusion undoubtedly made here to Deut. xxxii. 21 (so com-
monly, as by Ewald, Pott, Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen), but (as by de
Wette and Hofmann), on account of ver. 21, to Christ. — μὴ ἰσχυρ. x.7.A.]}
we are not surely stronger than He? i.e. we are not surely persons, whom His
strength, which He would put forth against us to carry out the promptings
of that jealousy,’ cannot get the better of ? Comp. Job xxxvii. 23. Chrys-
1 According to Hofmann, Paul means that tion on their part without becoming jeal-
strength, which men must suppose them-
selves to possess if they are confident that
they can take part with impunity in the
sacrificial feasts, whereas Christ can by no
means endure the sight of such participa-
ous. But the idea, ‘‘ with impunity,” would
be arbitrarily imported into the passage.
The greater strength, upon this view of it,
would be in truth the capacity—not existing
in Christ—to do what was morally impossible
CHAP. X., 23-25. ς 237
ostom already correctly notes the abductio ad absurdum, with which Paul
winds up this part of his polemic against the eating of sacrificial meat.
Ver. 23. In connection, however, with this matter also, as with a former
one, vi. 12, the principle of Christian liberty in things indifferent admitted
of application, and had no doubt been applied in Corinth itself. Paul
therefore now proceeds to treat the subject from this purely ethical side,
introducing the new section without any connective particle (Buttmann,
neut. Gram. p. 345 [E. T. 403], and enunciating in the first place the afore-
said principle itself, coupled, however, with its qualifying condition of love.
Thereafter in ver. 24 he lays down the general maxims arising out of this
qualification ; and then in vv. 25 ff. the special rules bearing upon the eat-
ing of meat offered in sacrifice. -—— οἰκοδομεῖ] promotes the Christian life of
the brethren, viii. 1. Comp. on Rom. xiv. 19. See the counterpart to this
in Rom. xiv. 13, 15, 20. — As to συμφέρει, see on vi. 12.
Ver. 24. Let no one be striving to satisfy his own interest, but, etc. Comp.
ver. 33. We must not impair the ideal, to which this rule gives absolute
expression (otherwise in Phil. ii. 4), by supplying μόνον and καί, as Grotius
and others do, See rather Rom. xv. 1 f. Even the limitation to the ques-
tion in hand about sacrificial feasts (Pott), or to the adiaphora in general
(Billroth, de Wette, Osiander), is unwarranted ; for the special duty of the
οἰκοδομεῖν is included under this quite general rule, the application of which
to the matter in dispute is not to come till afterwards. — After ἀλλά we are
mentally to supply ἕκαστος from the preceding μηδείς. See Bernhardy, p.
458 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 192 E, Rep. p. 366 C ;° Buttmann, newt.
Gr. p. 336 [E. T. 392]. ;
Ver. 25. On μάκελλον, shambles, slaughter-house (Varro, de ling. Lat. 4, p.
35 ; Dio Cass. Ixi. 18), see Kypke, II. p. 219. Comp. Plut. Mor. 7590 :
μακελεῖα. It passed over into the Rabbinical writings also ; see Drus. in loc.
— μηδὲν avaxpiv.| making no investigation (Vulg. interrogantes ; not : condemn-
ing, as Grotius, Ewald, and others take it, contrary to the meaning of the
word), ὁ.6. instituting no inquiry about any of the pieces of meat exposed
for sale, as to whether it had been offered in sacrifice or not. The weaker
Christians, that is to say, were afraid of the possibility (see on viii. 7) of
their buying sacrificial meat at the flesh-market, because they had not yet
risen to see that the flesh of the victims when brought to the public mart
had lost its sacrificial character and had become ordinary meat. They
would probably, therefore, often enough make anxious inquiries over their
purchases whether this or that piece might have been offered at the altar or
not. The stronger believers did not act in this way ; and Paul approves
their conduct, and enjoins all to do the same. —dvad τὴν συνείδησιν] may
be taken as referring either (1) to μηδὲν ἀνακρίνοντες as to the required mode
of the πᾶν ἐσθίειν : eat all without inquiry, in order that your conscience may
(ver. 21). Had this, however, beentheapos- οὐ δύνασϑε in ver. 21. According to the
tle’s meaning, he would have needed, in present order, the meaning of icxvp. is de-
order to be logical and intelligible, to re- termined by παραζηλοῦμεν to be the strength
verse the order of his clauses, so that icxv- which could make head against that of the
ρότεροι should have its sense determined by ζῆλος thus aroused,
238 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
not be troubled, which would be the case if you were told : This is meat of-
fered to idols (so Erasmus, Rosenmiiller, Hofmann, and others, following
Chrysostom) ;1 or (2) simply to ἀνακρίνοντες : without making any inquiry on
grounds of conscience. So Castalio, Calvin, Beza, al., including Billroth and
Ewald (the latter, however, rendering : ‘‘ condemning nothing on account
of conscience”). The second method of connection is preferable, both be-
cause it gives the simplest and most direct sense for διὰ τ. ovveid., and also
because of the τοῦ γὰρ Κυρίου κ.τ.λ. that follows,—words by which Paul de-
signs to show that, as regards such questions about food, there is really no
room for holding a court of conscience to decide upon the lawfulness or
unlawfulness of eating. He means then that his readers should partake
freely of all flesh sold in the flesh-market, without for conscience’ sake en-
tering into an inquiry whether any of it had or had not been sacrificial flesh.
The flesh offered for sale was to be flesh to them, and nothing more ; con-
science had no call whatever to make any inquiry in the matter ; for the
earth is the Lord’s, etc., ver. 26. Other interpreters understand the conscience
of others to be meant : ‘‘ No investigation should be made. . . lest, if it
turned out to be sacrificial flesh, the conscience of any one should be ren-
dered uneasy, or be defiled by participation in the food ;” so Riickert, and
so in substance Vatablus, Bengel, Mosheim, and others, including Flatt,
Pott, Heydenreich, de Wette, Osiander, Maier. Comp. viii. 7, 10. But it
could occur to none of the apostle’s readers to take τὴν cvveid. as referring to
anything but their own individual conscience. It is otherwise in ver. 28,
where dv’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν μηνύσ. prepares us for the transition to the conscience of
another person ; while the οὐχὶ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ in ver. 29 shows that in vv. 25
and 27 it was just the reader’s own conscience that was meant.
Ver. 26 supplies the religious ground for the injunction just given : μηδὲν
ἀνακρίνειν διὰ τ. συνείδησιν, expressed in the words of Ps. xxiv. 1 (comp. Ps.
1. 12), which Paul here makes his own. (0’) If the earth and its fulness
belong to God, how should it be necessary before using somewhat of them
for food to institute an investigation on grounds of conscience, as if such
gifts of God could be in themselves unholy, or involve sin in the use of
them ? Comp. 1Tim. iv. 4. For the rest, the passage affords another proof
that the apostle had now in principle gone beyond the standpoint of the
decree of Acts xv. Comp. on viii. 1, Remark. — As to πλήρωμα, id, quo res
impletur, see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 469 ff. Calvin had already put the
point well: ‘‘Terra enim, si arboribus, herbis, animalibus et aliis rebus
careret, esset tanquam domus. . . vacua.”
Ver. 27. Δὲ] of continuation. In the matter of invitations too the same
principle holds good, only with the incidental limitation adduced in ver. 28.
Note the emphasis conveyed by the wnusual place of the καλεῖ, in contrast to
the τὸ ἐν μακέλλῳ πωλούμ. Which has been already spoken of. Attention is
thus called to the fact that a second and a new situation is now to be dis-
cussed ; before, the reader was in the jlesh-market ; now, he is a guest at a
Feast. —It is plain, at the same time, from ver. 28, that what is meant is not
1“ Vitandum enim est offendiculum, si in his Paraphrase with fine exegetical dis
incidat, non accersendum,”’ Erasmus adds cernment.
CHAP, X., 28. ; 209
the invitation to festivals in express connection with sacrifice, but to other
heathen feasts, at which, however, flesh offered to idols might occur ; for
in the case of a sacrificial feast the ἱερόθυτόν ἐστι was a matter of course. —
καὶ θέλετε πορ.] ‘‘ Admonet tacite, melius forte facturos, si non eant, ire
tamen non prohibet,” Grotius.
Ver. 28. ᾽Εὰν δέ τις x.7.A.] But should it so happen that some one, etc. It
is clear from this that the host (Grotius, Mosheim, Semler) is not meant,
otherwise ric (ver. 27) would not be repeated, and besides, dv ἐκεῖνον. . .
συνείδησιν would not suit ; but a fellow-guest, and that not a heathen (Chrys-
ostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, a/., including de Wette and Maier, according
to whom the thing is done maliciously, or to put the Christian to the test’),
nor a heathen or Christian indifferently (Flatt), nor a Jew (Wetstein), but a
Christian fellow-guest (Osiander, Neander, al.), who, being himself still
under the influence of the ideas about sacrificial flesh, warns his fellow-
believer at the table against defilement ; and, moreover, a Gentile Christian
(see remark on viii. 7), who had somehow learned—perhaps only since
coming to the house—that the flesh from the altar was to form part of the
feast.? According to Reiche, in his Comment. crit., we should not seek to
define the τίς more specially, but leave it quite general. But this is at vari-
ance with the apodosis, which takes for granted that, in the case supposed,
eating of flesh would involve a want of forbearance towards the μήνυσας, as
was obviously implied of necessity in the διά after what had already been
said in viii. 7-13. The ric, therefore, must be one whose conscience re-
quired to be spared, consequently neither a heathen nor a Jew, but, in ac-
cordance with viii. 7 ff., only a brother who was of weak conscience. This
holds against Hofmann also, who assumes that the case supposed in ver. 28
might occur just as well if the seller knew the buyer to be a Christian as if
the host or any of his family knew the guest as such. To leave the τίς thus
indefinite is, besides, the more clearly wrong, seeing that the rule for buy-
ing meat had been finally disposed of in vv. 25, 26, and cannot extend into
ver. 28, because ver. 28 is included under the case of the invitation brought
forward in ver. 27, and this case again is very distinctly separated by the
very order of the words (see on ver. 27) from that of the purchase in the
market, ver. 25. —dv ἐκεῖνον τ. μηνύσ. x. τ. ovveid.| for the sake of him who
made it known, and of conscience, ἐ.6. in order to spare him and not to injure
conscience. The (διὰ) τὴν συνείδησιν is the refrain which serves to give the
motive for the rules laid down since ver. 25. To whose conscience this re-
frain points here, Paul does not yet say (else he would have added αὐτοῦ),
but utters again first of all this moral watchword without any more precise
definition, in order immediately thereafter in ver. 29 to express with the
special emphasis of contrast the particular reference of its meaning designed
1 Ewald, too, holds the τίς to be a heathen 2 De Wette’s objection, that one of such
(‘the host, as most interpreters take it, or tender conscience would hardly have gone
very possibly a companion at the table’’), to aheathen festival at all, carries weight
who gave the hint in a frank and kindly _ only on the supposition of a sacrificial feast
way, as not expecting that a Christian being meant.
would partake of meat of that sort.
240 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
here ;) for in vv. 25, 27, the συνείδησις had a different meaning. This x. τ.
συνείδησιν, therefore (the καί here being the simple and), carries w'th it some-
thing to whet curiosity ; it stands forth in the first place as a sort of riddle,
so to speak, which is to find its solution in ver. 29.—Regarding μηνύσ., see
on Luke xx. 87. If we imagine the μηνύσ. to be a heathen, the x. τ. ovveid.
lands us in an insoluble difficulty. For either (1) we should, with Ewald,
suppose that this heathen’s view of the matter was, that the Christian, being
warned, would not eat, but, on the other hand, if he did, would be still
worse than a Jew, converting liberty into licentiousness ; comp. Erasmus,
Paraphr.? But in that case how very obscurely Paul would have expressed
himself, especially when in the whole context συνείδησις means the Christian
consciousness raising scruples for itself, and that in respect of what was law-
ful or unlawful! Ov (2) we should have, with de Wette, to take τὴν ovvei-
Snow as not the conscience of the μηνύσ. at all, but that of third persons
(weak Christians), which, however, ver. 29 forbids us to do, unless we are
to regard Paul as writing with excessive awkwardness. — ἱερόθυτον] used of
sacrificial flesh also in Plutarch, Mor. p. 729 C. The term is purposely
chosen here instead of εἰδωλόθυτον, as a more honourable expression, because .
the words are spoken at table in the presence of heathen. We may be sure
that this delicate touch is due to no corrector of the text (in opposition to
de Wette and Reiche). As to the usage of the word in Greek, see Lobeck,
ad Phryn. p. 159.
Ver. 29 f. Lest now any one should understand this last διὰ τ. ovveid. as
meaning one’s own conscience, as in vv. 25, 27, and so misunderstand Paul
with his high views of Christian freedom, he adds here this emphatic ex-
planation, and the reason in which it rests (ἱνατί yap. . . ver. 80). --- τὴν
ἑαυτοῦ] his own individual conscience, his, namely, who was warned. — τοῦ
ἑτέρου] of the other in the case, points back to the τὸν μηνύσαντα, whose con-
science, too, is afterwards included under ἄλλης συνειδήσεως. ---- ἱνατί yap K.T.A. |
For why is my liberty, etc., that is : for it is absurd that another man’s con-
science should pronounce sentence (of condemnation) upon my liberty (my moral
freedom from obligation as regards such things, indifferent as they are in
themselves). This is the reason, why Paul does not mean one’s own con-
science when he says that to spare conscience one should abstain from eat-
ing in the case supposed (ver. 28), but the conscience of the other. One’s
own conscience, the distinctive moral element in one’s own self-conscious-
ness, does not need such consideration ; for it remains unaffected by the
judgment passed and slander uttered, seeing that both are without founda-
tion. The only motive for the abstinence, therefore, is the sparing of the
conscience of others, not the danger to one’sown. Similarly Bengel ; comp.
de Wette. The ordinary interpretation ὃ is that of Chrysostom, taking the
1 Hence τ. ovveid. should not be under-
stood of conscience in abstracto (Hofmann :
“conscience as such, no matter whose,”
although in the first place that of the unvic.).
3 Similarly Hofmann also thinks of the
“bad opinion of Christianity” which the
μηνύσ. first of all, but others as well, would
have occasion to form, so that the Chris-
tian’s liberty would be subject to the tribu-
nal of the moral consciousness of others.
3 Adopted by Heydenreich, Flatt, Bill-
roth, Riickert, Olshausen, Neander, Maier,
Ewald, Hofmann ; Osiander is undecided.
CHAD. Kil oee 241
words as the reason for the rule in ver. 28, in the sense of : ‘‘ For why
should I give occasion to others to pass judgment upon me and to speak evil?”
or, ‘‘ There is no reason for letting it come to such a pass, that a Christian’s
liberty should be subjected to that tribunal of the moral consciousness of
others,” Hofmann. But even apart from the fact that the text says nothing
about ‘‘ giving occasion,” or ‘‘ letting it come to such a pass,” it is a very ar-
bitrary proceeding to take a clause standing in such a marked way in the
course of the argument as συνείδησιν. . . ἑτέρου, and to thrust it aside as some-
thing only incidentally appended. The connection, too, of the conditional
protasis with the interrogative τί in the apodosis in ver. 30, makes it clear
enough that Paul wishes to bring out the absurdity of the relation between
the two conceptions. Comp. Rom. iii. 7, αἱ. Vatablus, Schulz, and Pott
find here and in ver. 30 the objection of an opponent ‘‘ad infirmitatem fra-
trum suorum se conformare nolentis.” The γάρ is not inconsistent with this
(see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 807), but the οὖν is (ver. 81). — Observe the dif-
ference between τοῦ ἑτέρου (alterius) and ἄλλης (alius, i.e. alienae), by which
any other conscience whatever is meant. — χάριτι] Dative of the manner :
gratefully, with thanks. Comp. Eph. ii. 5, where, however, the context
shows that the meaning is by grace ; see in general, Bernhardy, p. 100 f.
It refers to the grace at meat. By understanding it as beneficio Dei (Beza,
Grotius, Heydenreich, Hofmann), we bring in Dei entirely without warrant,
and overlook the parallel εὐχαριστῶ, the idea of which is the same with that
of χάριτι. -- The twice-used ἐγώ is emphatic : I for my part. — μετέχω] The
object of the verb is self-evident : food and drink. Comp. ὑπὲρ oi. — ebya-
ριστῶ] ‘*Gratiarum actio cibum omnem sanctificat, auctoritatem idolorum
negat, Dei asserit ; 1 Tim. iv. 3 f.; Rom. xiv. 6,” Bengel.
Vv. 31-33. The section treating expressly of the participation in sacri-
fices has been brought to a close. There now follow, introduced by οὖν
(which here marks the inference of the general from the particular), some
additional admonitions, in which are expressed the leading moral rules for
all right Christian conduct ; ἀπὸ τοῦ προκειμένου ἐπὶ τὸ καθολικὸν ἐξήγαγε τὴν
παραίνεσιν, ἕνα κάλλιστον bpov ἡμῖν δοὺς, τὸ τὸν Θεὸν διὰ πάντων δοξάζεσθαι, Chrys-
ostom. — ἐσθίετε and πίνετε are to be understood ina perfectly general sense,
although the subject which the apostle had been handling hitherto naturally
suggested the words. Riickert is wrong in holding that it would be more
correct if ἐάν stood in place of ei. The εἰ is here also ‘‘particula plane
logica, et quae simpliciter ad cogitationem refertur,” Hermann, ad Viger.
p- 834. Τί, again, does not stand for the Attic ὁτιοῦν (Rickert), but the
emphasis is on ποιεῖτε : be it that ye eat, or drink, or do anything ; so that
the three cases are : eating, drinking, acting. —ravra] without any limita-
tion whatever. ‘‘ Magnum axioma,” Bengel. A Christian’s collective action
should be directed harmoniously towards the one end of redounding fo the
glory of God ; for all truly Christian conduct and work is a practical glori-
fying of God. Comp. vi. 20 ; Eph. i. 12; Phil. i. 11; 1 Pet. iv. 11; John
xy. 8. Theopposite : Rom. ii. 23. (Ὁ ἢ
Ver. 32. ᾿Απρόσκοποι] become inoffensive (by constantly increasing com-
pleteness of Christian virtue). See on Phil. 1. 10. --- καὶ "Iovd. καὶ "EAA. καὶ
242 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
τ. ἐκκλ. Tov Θεοῦ] 1.6. for non-Christians and for Christians. The former are
spoken of under two divisions. It is a mistake to suppose, with Beza, that
the reference is to Jewish and Gentile Christians, which is at variance with
καὶ τῇ ἐκκλ. Tov Θεοῦ, since the three repetitions of καί stand on the same
level. Hence also it will not do to lay all the emphasis, as Billroth does,
upon ry ἐκκλ. τοῦ Θεοῦ, although it is true that it is designated in a signifi-
cant way, as in xi. 22. The rule is clearly quite a general one ; and it
places on the same level the three classes with whom intercourse must be
held without giving any occasion for moral offence.
Ver. 33. Πάντα πᾶσιν dpéoxw| See ix. 19 ff. πάντα, in every respect, ix. 25.
apéoxw, am at the service of. It denotes what takes place on the apostle’s side
through his endeavour, namely, to be the servant of all, and to be all things
to all men (ix. 19 ff.); not the result of his endeavour, as if he actually did
please all (see on Gal. i. 10); for πᾶσιν ἀρέσκειν τὸν συμβουλεύοντα καὶ τὰ κοινὰ
πράττοντα ἀδύνατον, Dem. 1481.4. Comp. Rom. xv. 2; 1 Thess. ii. 4. — τῶν
πολλῶν] of the many, the multitude, opposed to the unity of his own single
person. Comp. on ix. 19; Rom. v. 15 ; and on the idea, Clement, ad Cor.
I. 48 : ζητεῖν τὸ κοινωφελὲς πᾶσιν, καὶ μὴ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ. ---- ἵνα σωθῶσι) ultimate end,
for the sake of which he sought their good : that they might be sharers in
the Messianic salvation. Comp. ix. 22. ‘Ex eo dijudicandum utile,”
Bengel.
Norres py American Epritor.
(3') ‘‘ In the cloud.” Ver. 2.
This view agrees with the representation of the cloud in the Rabbinical
books: ““1ὖ encompassed the camp of the Israelites as a wall encompasses
a city.” It is hardly necessary to make mueh of the typical relation upon
which Meyer insists. The point of similarity which the Apostle makes is that
the display of God’s power in the cloud and in the sea constituted the people
disciples of Moses, ‘‘It inaugurated the congregation, and, as it were, bap-
tized them to him, bound them to serve and follow him.’’ There cannot be
an allusion to the mode of baptism, because, so far as appears, the people were
neither immersed nor sprinkled.
The privileges mentioned in this verse and the one following are such as
correspond most nearly with the two Christian sacraments. This is the only
passage where they are thus brought into juxtaposition. Neander as well as
Bengel views the fact as a testimony in favour of the Protestant doctrine that
there are only two sacraments.
(x!) The Rock was Christ. Ver. 4.
These words seem specially inserted, Stanley says, in order to impress upon
the readers that whatever might be the facts of the history or tradition, the
only rock present to the Apostle’s mind was the Messiah, just as in the case of
‘Christ our passover”’ (ver. 7), for he, in a far higher sense than the rock (tzur)
at Horeb or the cliff (selah) at Kadesh, was the Rock which was always in
view with its waters to refresh them at the end no less than at the beginning
NOTES. 243
of their long wanderings.—The passage not only affirms the pre-existence of
our Lord, but identifies Him with the Jehovah of the Old Testament.
(1) A slip of memory. Ver. 8.
There is no need of assuming any such slip, because Paul’s number is a
thousand less than Moses’s. Hodge remarks, with great force: ‘‘ Both state-
ments are equally correct.’’ Nothing depended upon the precise number,
Any number between the two amounts may, according to common usage, be
stated roundly as either the one or the other. The infallibility of the sacred
writers consists in their saying precisely what the Spirit of God designed they
should say ; and the Spirit designed that they should speak after the manner
of men, that they should call the heavens round and the earth flat, and use
round numbers without intending to be mathematically exact in common
speech.
(a!) ““ God is faithful.’ Ver. 13.
The author hardly gives the exact sense of these words. Stil! less does
Stanley, who says that “they express, what we often find in the Psalms, that
‘the faithfulness or justice of God, rather than His mercy, is the sure ground of
hope.” Alas for the sinner, however penitent, who appeals to justice. Nor is
faithfulness = justice. It means, when used in reference to God, His fidelity to
His promises. He has engaged that those who are given to His Son shall never
perish (John x. 28, 29). This therefore is their security, and not at all any
natural firmness of their own, or even the grace infused into them by regenera-
tion.
(x!) ““ Communion.” Ver. 16.
The word thus rendered (koinonia) is often used by Paul. Thus we read of
participation of His Son, 1 Cor. i. 9; of the Spirit, 2 Cor. xiii. 13 ; of the
ministry, 2 Cor. viii.4; of the Gospel, Phil. i. 5; of sufferings, Phil. iii. 5. Of
course, the nature of the participation depends on the nature of its object.
Hete it cannot mean a literal partaking of the substance of Christ’s body and
blood, since, not to mention other reasons, when the supper was instituted the
body of Christ was not yet broken nor His blood shed. It must mean therefore
the appropriation of the results of His sacrifice, the appropriation being
mediated by this ordinance when there exists faith in the communicant.
(0!) ** The earth is the Lord’s,”’ etc. Ver. 26.
This is said by Wetstein to have been the common Jewish form of acknow!l-
edgment and thanksgiving before meals, and probably was the early Eucha-
ristic blessing. This fact would give the greater weight to the citation of it as
an evidence that nothing is unclean in itself, or can become polluting if used in
obedience to the design of its creation.
(Ὁ) Do all to the glory of God.” Ver. 31.
All the special directions given in the preceding discussion are here summed
up. To make the divine glory the governing motive of our lives introduces
244 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
order and harmony into all our actions. The sun is then the centre of the
system. This securesall other ends (such as our own welfare, the good of
others, etc.) by making them subordinate, while at the same time it exalts the
soul by placing before it an infinite personal object. Between this and mak-
ing being in general the end of our actions, there is all the difference that there
is between the love of Christ and the love of an abstract idea. The one is re-
ligion, the other is morality (Hodge).
CHAP, XI. 245
ΟΗΑΡΤΕᾺΝ ΧΙ.
Ver. 2. ἀδελφοί] is wanting in A Β Ο 8, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Athan.
Cyr. Bas. Chrys. Deleted by Lachm. and Riickert. A natural addition at the
beginning of a new section. Comp. x. 1, xii. 1, where not a single authority
omits it. Had it been in the original text here, there was no inducement to
leave it out. It is otherwise in xv. 31, Rom. xv. 15.—Ver. 5. ἑαυτῆς] αὐτῆς
(Lachm.) occursin AC Ὁ ἘΞ GL 8, min. Chrys. Theodoret, al. This is such
a preponderance of evidence against the Recepta (preferred by Tisch. on the
authority of BE K Or.), that we must suppose the latter to be an exegetical
change for the sake of clearness, — Ver. 7. γυνή] AB D* F G κα, 73, 118, Dial.
Isid. Theodoret read ἡ yvv7, which is adopted by Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Rightly ;
the article was omitted as in the verse before and after. — Ver. 11. Elz. has the
two clauses in inverted order (which Rinck defends), but there is decisive evi-
dence against it. To put the man first seemed more natural. — Ver. 14. 7] is
wanting in witnesses of decisive authority ; deleted by Lach. Riick. Tisch.
Added to mark the question. — αὐτὴ ἡ φύσις A BC DH 8, min. Damasc. have
ἡ φύσις αὐτῇ (so Lachm. and Tisch.); F G Arm. Tert. simply 7 φύσις. In the
absence of grounds of an internal kind, the weight of evidence on the side of
ἡ φ. αὑτῇ Should make it be preferred. — Ver. 17. παραγγέλλων. . . ἐπαινῶ]
Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read rapayyéAdw . . . ἐπαινῶν, on the authority of A B C*
F G min. Syr. utr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Clar. Bérn. Ambrosiast. Aug. Pel.
Bede. This is a preponderance of evidence—all the more that D*, with its
reading of παραγγέλλω, οὐκ ἐπαινῶ, must here remain out of account. Then, too,
ver. 2 compared with ver. 22 made οὐκ ἐπαινῶ come most naturally to the copy-
ist ; so that altogether we must give the preference to Lachmann’s reading,
which is, besides, the more difficult of the two (against Reiche, who defends
the Recepta). — Ver. 21. προλαμβάνει] A, 46, al. have προσλαμβ. So Riickert.
But this is plainly an alteration, because the πρό, prae, was not understood, —
Ver. 22. ἐπωινέσω] So also Lachm. on the margin (but with ἐπαινῶ in the text)
and Tisch., following AC DE KL 8, all min., several vss. Chrys. Theodoret.
The present crept in from its occurrence before and after. — Ver. 24. After εἶπε
Elz. has λάβετε, φάγετε; but in the face of decisive evidence. Taken from
Matt. xxvi. 26. -- κλώμενον] omitted in A B C* &*, 17, 67**, Ath. Cyr. Fulg.
In D* we have θρυπτόμενον ; in Copt. Sahid. Arm, Vulg. al., διδόμενον. Justly
suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Mere supplements.
—Ver. 26. The τοῦτο which stands after ποτήριον in Elz. is condemned by de-
cisive evidence. So, too, the τοῦτον, which Elz. has after ἄρτον in ver. 27, isa
later addition. — Ver. 29. ἀναξίως does not occur in A ΒΟ δὲ ΚΣ, 17, Sahid. Aeth. ;
nor does τοῦ Κυρίου (after σῶμα) in these and some other witnesses. Lachm.
and Tisch. delete them both ; and both are glosses. What reason was there
for omitting them if in the original ? — Ver. 31. There is a great preponderance
of evidence in favour of δέ instead of γάρ. The latter is an explanatory altera-
tion. — Ver. 34. ci] Elz. has εἰ dé; but there is conclusive evidence for reject-
ing it.
246 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ConTENTS.—(1) How requisite it is that women cover their heads in the
public assemblies for the worship of God,’ vv. 2-16. (2) Regarding the
abuses of the Agapae, and the right way of celebrating them, vv. 17-34.
Ver. 1 belongs still to the preceding section.—Become imitators of me.
Become so, Paul writes, for theré was as yet a sad lack of practical evidence
of this imitation ; see also x. 32 (comp. Kiihner, ad Xen. Anabd. i. 7. 4). —
κἀγώ] as I also have become an imitator, namely, ef Christ. Comp. on Matt.
xv. ὃ. Christ as the highest pattern of the spirit described in x. 33. Comp.
Phil. ii: 4 ff.; Rom. xv. 3 ; Eph. v. 2 ; Matt. xx. 28.
Ver. 2. Conciliatory preamble to the sharp correction which follows. —
dé] is simply the autem leading on to a new subject ; hence we are not to
seek any set purpose in the similarity of sound between μεμηταί and μέμνησθε.
— πάντα] because you are in all respects mindful of me. Riickert’s explana-
tion : ‘‘ you think on everything that comes from me” (xvi. 14), is needlessly
far-fetched, seeing that μέμνημαι with the accusative, very frequent in Greek
writers, does not occur in the N. T., and the absolute πάντα is common
enough (ix. 25, x. 32). — καὶ καθὼς x.7.2.] and because you hold fast the tra-
ditions in the way in which I delivered them to you. This is the practical
result of what was stated in the foregoing clause. Παραδόσεις might refer
to doctrine as well as to usages and discipline (comp. Gal. i. 14 ; Col. ii.
8; 2 Thess. ii. 15, iii. 6 ; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 803 A ; Polyb. xi. 8. 2) ; but
the tenor of the following context shows that Paul means here directions
of the latter sort, which he had given to the Corinthians orally (and also
perhaps in bis lost letter, v. 2). He had, at the foundation of the church
and afterwards, made various external regulations, and rejoices that, on the
whole, they had not set these aside, but were holding them fast in accord-
ance with his directions (κατέχετε, comp. xv. 2; 1 Thess. v. 21; Heb. iii.
6, x. 23). As to the connection of παρέδωκα. , . παραδόσεις, see Winer, p.
210 [E. T. 281].
Ver. 3. ‘‘ After this general acknowledgment, however, I have still to
bid you lay to heart the following particular point.” And now, first of all,
the principle of the succeeding admonition. Respecting θέλω. . . εἰδέναι,
comp. on x. 1; Col. ii. 1.— παντὸς avdp.| note the prominent position of
the word, as also the article before κεφ. : of every man the Head. That what
is meant, however, is every Christian man, is self-evident from this first
clause ; consequently, Paul is not thinking of the general order of creation
(Hofmann), according to which Christ is the head of all things (Col. i. 16
f., ii. 10), but -of the organization of Christian fellowship, as it is based
upon the work of redemption. Comp. Eph. v. 21 ff. —xedaa%, from which
we are not (with Hofmann) to dissociate the conception of an organized
whole (this would suit in none of the passages where the word occurs, Col.
ii. 10 included) designates in all the three cases here the proximate, imme-
diate Head, which is to be specially noted in the second instance, for Christ
1 Much fruitless trouble has been taken der), now the Christ-party (Olshausen), and
to connect even the non-veiling of the now the followers of Apollos (Rabiger), who
women with the state of parties at Corinth. have been represented as the opponents of
Now it has been the Pauline party (Nean- _ veiling.
CHAP. XI., 4. 247
as head of the church (Col. i. 18 ; Eph. i. 22, iv. 15) is also head of the
woman (comp. Eph. v. 22 f.). The relation indicated by xed. is that of
organic subordination, even in the last clause : He to whom Christ is subor-
dinate is God (comp. 111. 23, xv. 28, vili. 6 ; Col. i. 15 ; Rom. ix. 5 ; and see
Kahnis, Dogm. III. p. 208 ff.), where the dogmatic explanation resorted to,
that Christ in His hwman nature only is meant (Theodoret, Estius, Calovius,
al.), is un-Pauline. Neither, again, is His voluntary subjection referred to
(Billroth), but—which is exactly what the argument demands, and what
the two first clauses give us—the oljective and, notwithstanding His essen-
tial equality with God (Phil. ii. 6), necessary subordination of the Son to
the Father in the divine economy of redemption.’ Much polemic discus-
sion as to the misuse of this passage by the Arians and others may be found
in Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact. — Gal. iii. 28, indeed, shows
that the distinction of the sexes is done away in Christ (in the spiritual
sphere of the Christian life) ; but this ideal equality of sex as little does
away with the empirical subordination in marriage as with differences of
rank in other earthly relations, e.g. of masters and servants. —xeg. δὲ X. ὁ
Θεός] The gradation of rank rises up to the supreme Head over all, who is
the Head of the man also, mediately, through Christ. This makes it all
the more obvious that, on the one hand, the man who prays or speaks
as a prophet before God in the assembly ought not to have his head covy-
ered, see ver. 7 ; but that, on the other hand, the relation of the women
under discussion is all the more widely to be distinguished from that of
the men.
Ver. 4. First inference from the aforesaid gradation of rank.—This infer-
ence is a plea of privilege for the men, which was but to prepare the way for
the censure next to be passed upon the women. Had Paul meant to cor-
rect the men because they had prayed or preached as prophets at-Corinth
with their heads covered (Chrysostom and many of the older commenta-
tors ; see against this view, Bengel, and especially Storr, Opusc. 11. p. 283),
he would have gone into the matter more in detail, as he does in what fol-
lows respecting the women. —zpocevy.] of praying aloud in the public
assemblies. For that Paul is giving instructions for the sphere of church-life,
not for family worship (Hofmann), is quite clear from the προφητεύειν added
here and in ver. 5, which does not suit the idea of the private devotions of
a husband and wife, like the σχολάζειν τῇ προσευχῇ in vil. 5, but always
means the public use for general edification of the χάρισμα referred to, name-
ly, that of apocalyptic utterance (Acts ii. 17 f., xix. 6, xxi. 9; 1 Cor. xii.
and xiv. ; Matt. vii. 22). Moreover, vv. 5 f. and 10 presuppose publicity ;
as indeed ὦ priori we might assume that Paul would not have prescribed so
earnestly a specific costume for the head with a view only to the family edifi-
cation of a man and his wife. It was precisely in the necessity of avoiding
1 Melanchthon puts it well: ‘‘Deus est arcanae essentiae, sed ministerii.”—Even
caput Christi, non de essentia dicitur,sed the exalted and reigning Christ is engaged
de ministeriis. Filius mediator accipit min- in this ministerium, and finally delivers up
isterium a consilio divinitatis, sicut saepe the kingdom to the Father. See xv. 28.
inquit: Pater misit me. Fit hic mentio non
248 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
public occasion of offence that such precepts could alone find ground enough
to justify them ; they were not designed by the liberal-minded apostle to
infringe upon the freedom of a woman’s dress at home. How can any one
believe that he meant that when a wife desired, in the retirement of her
own house, to pray with her husband (and how often in a moment might
an occasion for doing so arise !), she must on no account satisfy this relig-
ious craving without first of all putting on her περιβόλαιον, and that, if she
failed to do so, she stamped herself as a harlot (ver. 5 f.) !— To take προ-
cevy. as equivalent to γλώσσαις λαλεῖν (Baur) is not justified by xiv. 18,
although speaking with tongues may have occurred in connection with pub-
lic prayer by women. — προφητ.} See on xii. 10. The force of the partici-
ples is : Every man, when he prays or speaks as a prophet, while he has, ete.
-- κατὰ κεφ. ἔχων] se. τί. See Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 36. Buttmann, neut.
Gr. p. 127 [E. T. 146]. Having (something) down from the head, i.e. with a
head covering. The Jewish men prayed with the head covered, nay, even with
a veil (Tallith) before the face. See Lightfoot, Horae, p. 210 f. Michae-
lis, Anm. p. 244 ἢ. Hellenic usage again required that the head should
be bare on sacred occasions (Grotius on ver. 2; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth.
§ 36. 18 f.), while the Romans veiled themselves at sacrifices (Serv. ad Aen.
ili. 407 ; Dougt. Anal. II. p. 116). The Hellenic usage had naturally be-
come the prevalent one in the Hellenic churches, and had also commended
itself to the discriminating eye of the apostle of the Gentiles as so entirely
in accordance with the divinely appointed position of the man (ver. 3), that
for the man to cover his head seemed to him to cast dishonour on that posi-
tion. — καταισχ. τὴν κεφ. αὐτοῦ] So, with the spiritus lenis, αὐτοῦ should be
written, from the standpoint of the speaker, consequently without any re-
flex reference (his own head), which the context does not suggest. The
emphasis of the predicate lies rather on καταισχύνει, as also in ver. 5. Every
man, when he prays, etc., dishonours his head. In what respect he does so,
ver. 3 has already clearly indicated, namely (and this meets Baur’s objec-
tion to the apostle’s argument, that the duty of being veiled should attach
to the man also from his dependence, ver. 3), inasmuch as he cannot repre-
sent any submission to human authority by a veil on his head without there-
by sacrificing its dignity. His head ought to show toall (and its being
uncovered is the sign of this) that no man, but, on the contrary, Christ,
and through Him God Himself, is Head (Lord) of the man. We are to
understand, therefore, τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ quite simply like κατὰ κεφαλῆς, of the
bodily head ;* not, with Oecumenius, Theophylact (doubtful), Calvin, Calo-
vius, and others, including Heydenreich, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander,
Maier, Hofmann, of Christ, which is not required by ver. 3, and is posi-
tively forbidden by vv. 5, 6, 14, which take for granted also, as respects the
man, the similar conception of the κεφαλή, namely, in the Jiteral sense. This
holds also against the double sense which Wolf, Billroth, and Olshausen
assume the passage to bear, understanding it to refer to the literal head and
to Christ as well.
1 Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Flatt, Ewald, Neander.
CHAP. ΧΙ: 5. : 249
Ver. 5. A second inference of an opposite kind from ver. 8, namely, with
respect to the women. — Prayer and prophetic utterances in meetings on the
part of the women are assumed here asallowed. In xiv. 34, on the contrary,
silence is imposed upon them ; comp. also 1 Tim. ii. 12, where they are
forbidden to teach. This seeming contradiction between the passages dis-
appears, however, if we take into account that in chap. xiv. it is the public
assembly of the congregation, the whole ἐκκλησία, that is spoken of (vv. 4, 5, 12,
16, 19, 23, 26 ff., 33). There is no sign of such being the case in the pas-
sage before us. What the apostle therefore has in his eye here, where he:
does not forbid the προσεύχεσθαι ἢ προφητεύειν of the women, and at the same
time cannot mean family worship simply (see on ver. 4), must be smaller
meetings for devotion in the congregation, more limited circles assembled
for worship, such as fall under the category of a church in the house (xvi. 19 ;
Rom. xvi. 5 ; Col. iv. 15 ; Philem. 2). Since the subject here discussed, as
we may infer from its peculiar character, must have been brought under the
notice of the apostle for his decision by the Corinthians themselves in their
letter, his readers would understand both what kind of meetings were
meant as those in which women might pray and speak as prophetesses, and
also that the instruction now given was not abrogated again by the ‘‘ taceat
mulier in ecclesia.” The latter would, however, be the case, and the teach-
ing of this passage would be aimless and groundless, if Paul were here only
postponing for a little the prohibition in xiv. 34, in order, first of all, pro-
visionally to censure and correct a mere external abuse in connection with a
thing which was yet to be treated as wholly unallowable (against my own
former view). It is perfectly arbitrary to say, with Grotius, that in xiv. 34
we must understand as an exception to the rule : ‘‘nisi speciale Dei man-
datum habeant.” — ἀκατακαλύπτῳ)] Polyb. xv. 27. 2. As to the dative, see
Winer, p. 203 [E. T. 2711. -- τὴν κεφαλ. αὐτῆς]---866. the critical remarks—
is, like τ. κεφ. αὐτοῦ in ver. 4, to be understood of the literal head. A woman
when praying was to honour her head by having a sign upon it of the
authority of her husband, which was done by having it covered ; otherwise
she dishonoured her head by dressing not like a married wife, from whose
head-dress one can see that her husband is her head (lord), but like a loose
woman, with whose shorn head the uncovered one is on a par. —év γάρ ἐστι
x.t.4.] for she is nothing else, nothing better, than she who is shorn. As
the long tresses of the head were counted a womanly adornment among Jews
and Gentiles, so the hair shorn off was a sign either of mourning (Deut. xxi.
12; Homer, Od. iv. 198, xxiv. 46 ; Eurip. Or. 458; Hermann, Privatalterth.
ἢ xxxix. 28) or of shamelessness (Elsner, Obss. p. 113), and was even the
penalty of an adulteress (Wetstein in loc.). What Paul means to say then
is: a woman praying with uncovered head stands in the eye of public
opinion, guided as it is by appearances, on just the same level with her who
has the shorn hair of a courtesan. —év κ᾿ τὸ αὐτό] emphatic: wnwm idemque.
See instances in Kypke, II. p. 220. The subject to this is πᾶσα γυνὴ x.7.4.,
not the appearing uncovered, so that strictly it ought to have been ro
ἐξυρῆσθαι (Billroth). And the neuter is used, because the subject is regarded
asa general conception. Comp. iii. 8. Respecting the dative, see Kiihner,
250 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
II. p. 244; Kruger, ὃ xlviii. 14. 9.—The form ξυράω has less authority in
Attic writters than fupéw. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 205.
Remark. —The evil, which Paul here rebukes with such sharpness and de-
cision, must have broken out after the apostle had left Corinth ; had he been
present, he would not have allowed it to emerge. It arose probably from an
unseemly extension of the principle of Christian liberty, occasioned by the
fact of women partaking in the special gifts of the Spirit, ver. 4, and doubtless
under the influence of the greater laxity of Hellenic ideas about female dress.
The letter from the Corinthians, when referring to the way in which the apos-
tle’s instructions were acted upon at Corinth (ver. 2), must have contained an
inquiry put to him upon this particular point (comp. on ver. 5). The fact that
Paul makes no allusion to virgins here proves that they were not involved in the
wrong practice, although Tertullian (de virginib. veland.) unwarrantably applies
our passage to them also.
Ver. 6 gives the ground of ἕν ἐστι «.7.4., ver. 5. That ground is, that the
step from not being covered to being shorn is only what consistency demands,
while the dishonour again implied in being shorn requires that the woman
should be covered; consequently, to be uncovered lies by no means midway
between being shorn and being covered as a thing indifferent, but falls under
the same moral category as being shorn. For when a woman puts on no covering,
when she has once become so shameless, then she should have herself shorn too
(in addition). A demand for logical consistency (Winer, p. 292 [E. T. 391])
serving only to make them feel the absurdity of this unseemly emancipation
from restraint in public prayer and speaking (for ver. 5 shows that these
rules cannot be general ones, against Hofmann). To understand it simply
as a permission, does not suit the conclusion; comp. on the contrary
κατακαλυπτέσθω. --- τὸ κείρ. ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι) ““ Plus est radi (fvp.) quam tonderi,”
Grotius. Comp. Valckenaer. Zvp. means to shave, with the razor (ξυρόν).
The two words occur together in Mic. i. 16, LXX. Note the absence of any
repetition of the article in connection with the double description of the
one unseemly thing. |
Vv. 7-9. Tap] introduces the grounding of the κατακαλυπτέσθω, consequently
a second ground for the proposition under discussion (the first being vv.
3-6). The argument sets out again (comp. ver. 8) 6 contrario. —ovk ὀφείλει]
does not mean: he is not bound, which, as ver. 8 shows, would not be enough;
but: he ought not, etc., in contrast to the woman who ought (vv. 5, 10).
Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 14. —eixdv x. δόξα x.7.2.] The obligation to pray, etc.,
with the head covered would be inconsistent with this high dignity, because
to cover the head is a sign of submission to human power, ver. 10. A man
as such (ἀνήρ) is the image ef God (Gen. i. 26 f.), inasmuch as _ he, being
Adam’s representative, has dominion over the earth. Other elements of
what constitutes the image of God are not, according to the context, taken
into account here, nor are the ecclesiastical definitions of it. He is also the
glory of God, inasmuch as, being the image of God, he, in his appearance as
man, practically represents on earth in ahuman way the majesty of God as
aruler. Riickert, following older interpreters (given in Wolf), holds that
—
DEA PS χα, fO) τ: 251
δόξα is meant here as the rendering of 94, Gen. i. 26; as also. the LXX.,
in Num. xii. 8, Ps. xvii. 15, translates 1239 by δόξα. But had Paul wished
to convey the meaning of D494, a passage so important and so familiar as
Gen. i. 26 would certainly have suggested to him the word used there by
the LXX., ὁμοίωσις. Δόξα corresponds simply to the Hebrew 25. — Paul
describes only the man as being the image and δόξα of God; for he has in his
eye the relation of marriage, in which rule is conferred on the man alone.
The woman accordingly has, in harmony with the whole connection of the
passage, to appear simply as δόξα ἀνδρός, inasmuch, namely, as her whole
wedded dignity, the high position of being spouse of the man, proceeds
from the man and is held in obedience to him; so that the woman does not
carry an independent glory of her own, an ἰδία δόξα, but the majesty of the
man reflects itself in her, passing over to her mediately and, as it were, by
derivation. (9) Grotius compares her happily to the moon as ‘ lumen
minus sole.” This exposition of δόξα ἀνόρός is the only one which suits the
context, and corresponds in conception to the preceding δόξα Θεοῦ, without
at the same time anticipating what is next said in vv. 8, 9. The conception
of the δόξα, which is Θεοῦ in case of the man and ἀνδρός in that of the woman,
is determined by the idea of the ordo conjugulis, not by that of humanity
(Hofmann) originally realized in the man but passing thence into a deriva-
tive realization in the woman. — Paul omits εἰκών in the woman’s case, not
because he refused to recognize the divine image in her (except in an im-
mediate sense), but because he felt rightly that, in view of the distinction of
sex, the word would be unsuitable (comp. de Wette), and would also convey
too much, considering the subordinate position of the woman in marriage.
— Ver. 8. For there is not such a thing as man from woman, etc., but the re-
lation of the two as respects being in the converse. — Ver. 9. The yap here
is subordinate to that in ver. 8: ‘‘for there was not created a man for the
woman’s sake, but conversely.” This is the concrete historical establishment,
from the narrative of their creation, of the relation between the two sexes,
which had been generally stated in ver. 8; in giving it, Paul, with Gen. ii. 18
in his view, does not bring in ἐκ again, but διά, which, however, considering
how familiar the history was, throws no doubt upon the genuineness of the
ἐκ. In καὶ γάρ the καί (which has the force of even indeed, Hartung, I. p.
135) belongs to οὐκ ἐκτίσθη. The present genetic relation of the two sexes,
ver. 8, began as early as the creation of the first pair. (R’)
Ver. 10. Aca τοῦτο] namely, because the relation of the woman to the man
is such as has been indicated in vv. 7-9. — ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφ.] to have
a power, i.e. the sign of a power (to wit, as the context shows, of her husband's
power, under which she stands), wpon her head ; by which the apostle means
a covering for the head. So Chrysostom,? Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophy-
lact, with the majority both of ancient and modern commentators, including
1 Luther’s gloss is: ‘That is the veilor Andon ver.7 he says: As the man ought
covering, by which one may see that she is to pray uncovered in token of his ἀρχή, so
under her husband’s authority, Gen. iii. for the woman it is a mark of presumption
16.” τὸ μὴ ἔχειν τὰ σύμβολα THs ὑποταγῆς.
2”"Apa τὸ καλύπτεσϑαι ὑποταγῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας.
252 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
van Hengel, Annot. p. 175 ff.; Liicke in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1828, p. 571 f.,
Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Neander, Maier,
Weiss, Vilmar in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 465 f.; comp. Diisterdieck in
the Stud. u. Krit. 1863, p. 707 ff. Just as in Diodor. Sic. 1. 47, in the
phrase ἔχουσαν τρεῖς βασιλείας ἐπὶ τῆς Ked., the conteat shows beyond a doubt
that Bac. means symbols of one’s own power (diadems), so here the connection
justifies the use of ἐξουσία to denote the sign of another’s power ; the phrase
thus simply having its proper reference brought out, and by no means being
twisted into an opposite meaning, as Hofmann objects. Comp. also the or-
naments of the Egyptian priests, which, as being symbols of truth, bore the
name of ἀλήθεια, Diod. Sic. 1. 48. 77; Ael. V. H. xiv. 34. Schleusner ex-
plains ἐξουσ. as a token of the honour (of the married women over the single).
But both the. context (ver. 9) and the literal meaning of ἐξουσία are against
this. Bengel and Schrader make it a sign of authority to speak in public.
But the whole connection points to the authority of the husband over the
wife. There is not a word in the whole passage about the potestas orandi,
ete., nor of its being granted by the husband (Schrader). Hagenbach’s view
(Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 401) is also contrary to the context, seeing that we
have previously διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα ; he understands ἐξουσία as a mark of descent.
Paul, he holds, formed the word upon the analogy of παρουσία x.r.2.,—a View
that does not even leave to the term its lexical meaning, which was surely
familiar enough to the apostle and his readers. Other expositors make
ἐξουσία directly to signify a veil (Michaelis, Schulz), to establish which they
have appealed in the most arbitrary way to the help of Hebrew words
(Cappellus, Clericus, Hammond, Semler, Ernesti). Hitzig again, in the
theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 129 ff., gives out the term to be a Jewish-Greek one,
derived from ἐξ ἴσου ; because the veil had, he maintains, two overhanging
halves which balanced each other, in front and behind. But what is fatal
to every attempt of this kind is that ἐξουσία, power, is so very familiar a
word, and suits perfectly well here in this its ordinary sense, while, as the
name of a veil, it would be entirely without trace and without analogy in
Greek. As for the derivation from ἐξ ἴσου, that is simply an etymological
impossibility. Other interpreters still assume that ἐξουσ. means here not a
sign of power, but power itself. So, in various preposterous ways, earlier
commentators cited by Wolf ; and so more recently Kypke and Pott. The
former puts a comma after ἐξουσία, and explains the clause : ‘‘ propterea
mulier potestati obnoxia est, ita ut velamen (comp. ver. 4) in capite habeat.”
But the sense of ὀφείλειν τι would rather have required ὑπακοήν in place of
ἐξουσίαν. Pott again (in the Gétting. Weihnachtsprogr. 1831, p. 22 ff.) ren-
ders it : ‘‘mulierem oportet servare jus seu potestatem in caput suum, sc.
eo, quod illud velo obtegat.” Not inconsistent with linguistic usage (Rev.
xi. 6, xx. 6, xiv. 18 ; comp. Luke xix. 17), but all the more so with the
context, since what ver. 9 states is just that the woman has no power at all
ovet herself, and for that very reason ought to wear a veil. Hofmann, too,
rejects the symbolical explanation of ἐξουσία, and finds the metaphorical ele-
ment simply in the local import of the phrase ἐπὶ κεφαλῆς (comparing it with
such passages as Acts xviii. 6, where, however, the idea is wholly different
CHAP, Χας 10). 253
in kind). He makes the thought to be: the woman must have a power
upon or over her head, because she must be subject to such a power. In
that case what would be meant would be her husband’s power, which she
must have over her. But the question in hand was not at all about anything
so general and self-evident as that, but about the veiling, which she was
bound to observe. . The conjectural interpretations which have been at-
tempted are so far-fetched as not to deserve further mention. ‘We may add
that there is no evidence in antiquity for the symbolism which Paul here con-
nects with the veiling of the women in assemblies (the hints which Baur
founds upon in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 571 ff., are too remote). We have
the more reason, therefore, to agree with Liicke in ascribing it to the inge-
nious apostle himself, however old the custom itself—that married women
should wear veils in public—was in Hebrew usage (Ewald, Alterth. p. 269
f.). — διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους] which Baur uncritically holds to be a gloss—a view
to which Neander also was inclined—is not a formula obsecrandi (Heyden-
reich, who, with Vorstius, Hammond, Bengel, and Zachariae, strangely
assumes a reference to Isa. vi. 2), but a clause adding to the inner ground
(διὰ τοῦτο) an outward one : ‘‘ for the sake of the angels,” in erder to avoid
exciting disapproval among them.’ Τοὺς ἀγγέλους αἰδέσθητι, Chrysostom. Eras-
mus puts it well in his Paraphrase: ‘‘Quodsi mulier eo venit impudentiae,
ut testes hominum oculos non vereatur, saltem ob angelos testes, qui
vestris conventibus intersunt, caput operiat.” That the holy angels are
present at assemblies for worship, is an idea which Paul had retained from
Judaism (LXX. Ps. cxxxviii. 1; Tob. xii. 12 f.; Buxtorf, Synag. 15, p.
306 ; Grotius in loc.; Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. 11. p. 393), and
made an element in his Christian conception,? in accordance with the
ministering destination ascribed to them in Heb. i. 14, but without any of
the Jewish elaborations. It must remain a very doubtful point whether
he had guardian angels (Acts xii. 15 ; Matt. xviii. 10) specially in view
(Jerome, August. de Trin. xii. 7; Theodoret, comp. Theophylact), seeing
that he nowhere says anything definite about them. Other expositors make
the reference to be to the dad angels, who would be incited to wantonness
by the unveiled women (Tert. 6. Mare. v. 8 ; de virg. vel. 7, al.),*° or might
incite the men to it (Schoettgen, Zeltner, Mosheim), or might do harm to
the uncovered women (Wetstein, Semler). Others, again, understand it to
130 Hodge, Lange’s Com., Stanley,
Princ. Brown, Speaker’s Com., Ellicott’s
Com., and Beet.—T. W. C.]
2 Since the apostle is speaking of meet-
that relation to the woman which is assigned
to her husband.” Hilgenfeld too, in his
Zeitschr. 1864, p. 183, makes it refer to the
story in the Book of Enoch, 5 f., about the
ings for worship, it is unsuitable to make
the reference be to the angels as witnesses
of the creation of the first pair ; so van Hen-
gel, Annot. p. 181 f., following a Schol. in
Matthiae. Any allusion to Gen. vi. 1+ (sug-
gested already by Tertullian, al. Comp.
also Kurtz, d. Hhen ad. Séhne Gottes, Ὁ. 177,
and Hofmann) is wholly foreign to the pas-
sage. Hofmann imports into it the idea:
“that the spirits which have sway in the cor-
poreal world might be tempted fo enter into
transgression of the angels with the daugh-
ters of men. What an importing of carnal
lust / And were not the women whom the
apostle here warns in part matrons and
gray-headed dames !
3 Test. XII. Patr. p. 529 should not be ad-
duced here (against Bretschneider). The
passage contains a warning against the
vanity of head-ornament, the seductive
character of which is proved by an argu-
ment ὦ majori ad minus.
254 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
mean pious men (Clem. Alex.), or the Christian prophets (Beza), or those pre-
siding in the congregation (Ambrosiaster), or those deputed to bring about
betrothals (Lightfoot), or unfriendly spies (Heumann, Alethius, Schulz, Morus,
Storr, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Schrader)—all mere attempts at explana-
tion, which are sufficiently disposed of by the single fact that ἄγγελοι;
when standing absolutely in the N. T., always denotes good angels alone. See
on iv. 9. The correct exposition is given also by Diisterdieck, 1.6., who
shows well the fine trait of apostolic mysticism in διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους.
Ver. 11. Paul’s teaching from ver. 7 onward might possibly be misin-
terpreted by the men, so as to lead them to despise the women, and by the
women so as to underrate theirown position. Hence the caveat which now
follows (ἐπάγει τὴν διόρθωσιν, Chrys.) against the possible dislocation of the
Christian relation of the two sexes : nevertheless, neither is the woman with-
out the man, nor the man without the woman in Christ, i.e. nevertheless there
subsists such a relation between the two in the sphere of the Christian life
(ἐν Κυρίῳ), that neither does the woman stand severed from the man, 1.6. in-
dependent of, and without bond of fellowship with, him, nor vice versd.
They are united as Christian spouses (comp. ver. 3) in mutual dependence,
each belonging to the other and supplying what the other lacks ; neither
of the parties being a separate independent person. The ἐν Κυρίῳ thus as-
signs to the relation here expressed the distinctive sphere, in which it sub-
sists. Out of Christ, in a profane marriage of this world, the case would
be different. Were we, with Storr, Heydenreich, Riickert, Hofmann, to
take ἐν Κυρίῳ as predicative definition : ‘‘ neither does the woman stand in
connection with Christ without the man, nor vice versd,” this would resolve
itself either into the meaning given by Grotius : ‘‘ Dominus neque viros
exclusis feminis, neque feminas exclusis viris redemit ;” or into Hofmann’s
interpretation, that in a Christian marriage the relation to the Lord is a
common one, shared in by the two parties alike. But both of these ideas
are far too obvious, general, and commonplace to suit the context. Ols-
hausen (comp. Beza) renders it, ‘‘by the arrangement of God.” But ἐν Κυρίῳ
is the statedly used term for Christ ; the reference to the divine arrangement
comes in afterwards in ver. 12.
Ver. 12. Hor, were this not the case, the Christian system would be clearly at
variance with the divine arrangement in nature. This against Riickert, who
accuses ver. 12 of lending no probative support to ver. 11. — ἡ γυνὴ ἐκ τοῦ
avdp.]| 80. ἐστι, namely, in respect of origination at first. Comp. ver. 8.—é
ἀνὴρ διὰ τῆς γυν.} in respect of origination now. Ἔκ denotes the direct orig-
ination in the way known to all his readers from the history of woman’s
creation in Gen. ii. 21 f. ; διά again the mediate origin by birth, all men
being γεννητοὶ γυναικῶν, Matt. xi. 11 ; Gal. iv. 4. Paul might have repeated
the ἐκ in the second clause also (Matt. i. 16 ; Gal. iv. 4), but he wished to
mark the difference between the first and the continued creation. And in
order to bring out the sacred character of the moral obligation involved in
this genetic relation of mutual dependence, he adds : τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τ. Θεοῦ :
now all this, that we have been treating of (‘‘ vir, mulier et alterius utrius
mutua ab altero dependentia,” Bengel), is from God, proceeding from and
CHAP. XI., 13-15... 255
ordered by Him. As regards this ἐκ, comp. 2 Cor. v. 18 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ;
Rom. xi. 86.
Vv. 13-15. By way of appendix to the discussion, the apostle refers his
readers—as regards especially the praying of the women, which had given
rise to debate—to the voice of nature herself. He asks them : Is it seemly,
—judge within yourselves concerning it,—is it seemly that a woman should
offer up prayers uncovered ? Does not nature herself even (οὐδέ) teach you
the opposite ? — év ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς] without any influence from without ; comp.
x. 15. —r@ Θεῷ] superfluous in itself, but added forthe sake of emphasis, in
order to impress upon them the more deeply the unseemliness of the un-
covered state in which the woman comes forward to deal with the Most High
in prayer. — Regarding the different constructions with πρέπον ἐστι, see Butt-
mann, neut. Gr. Ὁ. 239 [E. T. 278].—The φύσις is the natural relation of the
judgment and feeling to the matter in question,—the native, inborn sense
and perception of what is seemly. This instinctive consciousness of pro-
priety had been, as respected the point in hand, established by eustom and
had become φύσις. Comp. Chrysostom. The manifold discussions, to little
purpose, by the old commentators regarding the meaning of φύσις, may be
seen in Poole’s Synopsis, and in Wolf. It is here, as often in Greek writers
(comp. also Rom. ii. 14), the contrast to education, law, art, and the like.
It cannot in this passage mean, as Hofmann would have it, the arrangement
of things in conformity with their creation—that is to say, the arrangement of
nature in the objective sense (so, frequently in the classics), for the assertion
that this teaches all that is expressed by the ὅτι ἀνὴρ «.r.A. would go much
too far and be unwarranted. Were we, again, to assume that ὅτε does not
depend at all on διδάσκει, but gives the ground for the question, so that
διδάσκει Would require its contents to be supplied out of the first half of
the verse, how awkwardly would Paul have expressed himself, and how
liable must he have been to misapprehension, in putting ὅτε instead of con-
veying his meaning with clearness and precision by γάρ ! And even apart
from this objection as to the form of expression, we cannot surely suppose
that the apostle would find in a fact of aesthetic custom (vv. 14, 15)—that
is to say, a something in its own nature accidental, and subsisting as an
actual fact only for the man accustomed to it—the confirmation of what the
order of things in conformity with their creation teaches. (s') — αὐτή] inde-
pendently of all other instruction.—Upon the matter itself (κόμην dé ἔχειν καὶ
εὔκομον εἶναι γυναικώτερόν ἐστι, Eustath. ad J7. 111. p. 288), see Perizonius, ad
Ael. V. H. ix. 4; Wetstein in loc. In ancient times, among the Hellenes,
the luxuriant, carefully-tended hair of the head was the mark of a free man
(see generally, Hermann, Privatalterth. § xxiii. 13 ff.). Comp. also 2 Sam.
xiv. 25 f. In the church, both by councils and popes, the κομοτροφεῖν was
repeatedly and strictly forbidden to the clergy.’ See Decretal. lib, iii. tit.
1 Τῇ we areto look uponthetonsure, how- ΠΟΙα by the apostle in our text. Long hair
ever, as a symbol of the spiritual life in on the head isa disgrace to a man in his
contradistinction to the vanities of this eyes ; because he regards it as a sign of
world (see Walter, Kirchenr. § 212), then human subjection.
this by no means corresponds to the view
256 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
i. cap. 4. 5. 7. — ore ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβ. δέδ. Ground for long hair being an
ornament to a woman : because it is given to her instead of a veil, to take its
place, to be, as it were, a natural veil. This again implies that to wear a
veil, as in the case in hand, is a decorous thing. For if the κόμη is an hon-
our for a woman because it is given to her in place of ὦ veil, then the veil itself
too must be an honour to her, and to lay it aside in prayer a disgrace.
‘‘ Nuturae debet respondere voluntas,” Bengel. Περιβόλαιον, something thrown
round one, a covering in general (see the Lexicons, and Schleusner, Thes. IV.
Ῥ. 289), has here a special reference to the veil (καλύπτρα, κάλυμμα) spoken of
in the context.
Ver. 16. The apostle has done with the subject ; but one word more of
warning now against all controversy about it.—doxei] Vulg. : ‘‘si quis autem
videtur contentiosus esse.” This would imply that sort of forbearing cour-
tesy in the δοκεῖ, according to which one ‘‘videri aliquid esse, quam vere esse
dicere maluit,” Fritzsche, ad Matth. p.129. Comp. Frotscher, ad Xen. Hier.
p- 92. Sturz, Lew. Xen. I. p. 757 f. So de Wette and Winer, p. 570 [E. T.
766]. But one can see no reason for Paul’s choosing any such special deli-
cacy of phrase. If, again, we understand the words to mean : if any one
likes to be, or has pleasure in being, contentious (Luther, Grotius, Rickert),
that is to confound the expression with the construction δοκεῖ yo." The
simplest explanation, and, at the same time, quite literally faithful, is, as in
Matt. iii. 9, Phil. iii. 4 : if any one és of opinion, if he thinks, or is minded
to be, etc. ; but to import the notion of permission into the infinitive here,
in connection with this rendering (Billroth), would be arbitrary, because
without warrant from the text (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 1). — ἡμεῖς
τοιαύτην K.t.A.| Aeclarative : Let him be told that we, etc. Comp. Rom. xi.
18. See Winer, p. 575 [E. T. 7791]. --- ἡμεῖς} I and those who are like minded
with me. — τοιαύτην συνήθ. such a custom. Interpreters refer this either to
the censured practice of the women being unveiled (Theodoret, Erasmus,
Grotius, Bengel, Michaelis, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Heydenreich, Flatt, Bill-
roth, Olshausen, Ewald, Neander, Maier, Hofmann), or to the custom of
contention (Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Estius, Calo-
vius, and others, including Riickert and de Wette). The latter swits the
immediate context, and is required by ἡμεῖς ; hence we cannot, with The-
ophylact and Osiander, leave it an open’ question which of the two refer-
ences should be preferred. The οὐδὲ ai ἐκκλ. τ. Θεοῦ is not against this
view ; for what is asserted is not that all individual members were free from
the love of strife, but only that the chwrches as awhole were so. These last
are distinguished by οὐδὲ ai ἐκκλ. τ. Θεοῦ from the individuals implied in
ἡμεῖς. Neither does the expression συνήθεια throw any difficulty in the way
of our interpretation ; on the contrary, occurring as it does in this short con-
cluding sentence of deprecation, it lends to it a certain point against the
readers, some of whom seem to have allowed this vice of contentiousness
to grow with them into a habit ; it was their miserable custom / (‘x’) — The
1 So, too, δοκῶ μοι, Zubet, volo. See Ast, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 251. Also δέδοκταί μοι. See
Ast, Lex. Plat. 1. Ὁ. 552.
CHAP, XI., 17-19. 257
abnormal position of isolation, into which their controversial - tendencies
would bring them, should surely suffice to prevent their indulging them !
Ver. 17. Transition to the censure which follows. Now this (what I have
written up to this point about the veiling of the women) 7] enjoin,' while I
do not praise (i.e. while I join with my injunction the censure), that ye, ete.
The ‘‘litotes” οὐκ ἐπαινῶν glances back upon ver. 2. Lachmann’s view, ac-
cording to which the new section begins at ver. 16, so that φιλόνεικος would
relate to the σχίσματα in ver. 18, has this against it, that παραγγέλλω always
means praecipio in the N. T. (vii. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 11; 2 Thess. iii. 4, 6,
10, 12, al.), not I announce, and that no injunction is expressed in ver. 16.
Moreover, we should desiderate some conclusion to the foregoing section,
and, as such, considering especially that the matter in question was such a
purely external one, ver. 16 comes in with peculiar appropriateness. Other
expositors, such as Lyra, Erasmus, Piscator, Grotius, Calovius, Hammond,
Bengel, Rickert, also Ewald and Hofmann (comp. his Schriftbeweis, II. 2,
p- 235 f.), refer τοῦτο, after the example of the Greek Fathers, to what
follows, inasmuch, namely, as the exposition now to begin ends in a command,
and shows the reason why the church deserves no praise in this aspect of its
church-life. Paul has already in his mind, according to these interpreters,
the directions which he is about to give, but lays a foundation for them
first of all by censuring the disorders which had crept in. Upon that view,
however, the τοῦτο rapayy. would come in much too soon; and we must
suppose the apostle, at the very beginning of an important section, so little
master of his own course of thought, as himself to throw his readers into
confusion by leaving them without anything at all answering to the τοῦτο
mapayy. — Ott οὐκ εἰς τὸ κρεῖττον k.t.A.] Goes not give the reason of his not
praising, but—seeing there is no ὑμᾶς with érav., as in ver. 2—states what it
is that he cannot praise. Your coming together is of such a kind that not
the melius but the pejus arises out of it as its result ; that it becomes worse
instead of better with you (with your Christian condition). Theophylact
and Billroth make τὸ κρεῖττ. and τὸ ἦττον refer to the assemblies themselves :
‘“that you hold your assemblies in such a way that they become worse instead
of better.” A tame idea !
Vv. 18, 19. Πρῶτον μὲν γάρ] The second point is found by most expositors
in ver. 20 (so Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, Winer,
p. 586 [E. T. 721]). In that case Paul first of all censures here generally
the divisions which appeared in their assemblies, and then in ver. 20 links
on by οὖν the abuse of the Lord’s Supper as a consequence of those divisions.
But this view has against it the fact that he follows up ver. 18 neither by
censure nor correction of what was amiss, which he would not have omitted
to do, considering the importance of the matter in question, if he had re-
garded ver. 18 as touching upon a distinct point from that in vv. 20, 21.
Moreover, in ver. 22, ἐπαινέσω ὑμᾶς ; ἐν τούτῳ οὐκ ἐπαινῶ, Which has reference
1 Hofmann irrelevantly objects to our enjoined that the women should be veiled
making τοῦτο refer to the preceding pas- (comp. esp. vv. 5, 6, 10), and not simply ex-
sage, that Paul has previously enjoined pressed his opinion upon a custom that
nothing. He has, in fact, very categorically displeased him.
258 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
to the οὐκ ἐπαινῶν of ver. 17, proves that in his mind vv. 18-22 formed not
two rebukes, but one. This serves, too, by way of reply to Hofmann, who
insists on taking πρῶτον, in spite of the μέν that follows it, not as first, but
as before all things, above all. The true view, on the contrary, is (comp. also
Baur in the theol. Jahrbiicher, 1852, p. 558 ; Riibiger, p. 135 ; Osiander),
that οὖν in ver. 20 does not introduce a second point of reprehension, but
takes up again the first point, which had been begun in ver. 18 and inter-
rupted by καὶ μέρος τι κιτ'. (See on viii. 4),—an interpretation which is
strongly supported by the repetition of the same words σννερχομ. ὑμῶν. In
using the term σχίσματα," Paul has already in his mind the separations at the
love-feasts (not the party divisions of i. 12, Theodoret, and many others),
but is kept for a time from explaining himself more fully by the digression
which follows, and does so only in ver. 20. Still, however, the question
remains : Where is the second point, which πρῶτον leads us to expect? Tt com-
mences in xii. 1. Paul censures two kinds of evils in connection with their
assemblies—(1) the degeneration of the Agapae (vv. 18-34), and (2) the
misapplication of the gifts of the Spirit (xii. 1 ff.). The πρῶτον μέν is left
out of account while he pursues the first point, and instead of following it
up with an ἔπειτα dé, after completing his discussion, he passes on in xii. 1
with the continuative δέ to second subject, making no further reference to
that πρῶτον μὲν γάρ in ver. 18. How common it is in classic writers also to
find the πρῶτον followed by no ἔπειτα, or anything of the kind, but another
turn given to the sentence, may be seen in Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 191 ;
Bremi, ad Lys. I. p. 81. Comp. on Acts i. 1, and on Rom. i. 8, 111. 2. —év
ἐκκλ.} ina church-meeting. This is conceived of as alocal sphere (comp. Ben-
gel: ‘‘vergit ad significationem loci’), in which the συνέρχεσθαι takes place
by the arrival of members ; as we also say : ‘‘in einer Gesellschaft zusam-
menkommen.” Comp. Winer, p. 386 [E. T. 515]. Although the apostle
might have written εἰς ἐκκλησίαν (Lucian, Jov. Trag. 6), yet we must neither
take ἐν in the sense of εἰς (Vulgate, Riickert, Schrader), nor impute to the
word ἐκκλ. the meaning : place of assembly (Grotius, Wolf, Heydenreich),
nor understand it adverbially, as with abstract terms : congregationally
(Hofmann). — There should be no comma after ἐκκλ. ; for ovvépy. κ.τ.λ.
connects itself in meaning not with ἀκούω, but with σχίσματα x.t.A. — ἀκούω]
in the sense of ἀκήκοα, denoting continuance. See Ast, ad Plat. Leg.
p. 9 f. ; Bernhardy, p. 370; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 26. — μέρος τι]
Jor a part, partly, Thue. i. 28. 8, ii. 64. 2, iv. 80. 1 ; Isocr. p. 426 Ὁ. He
cannot bring himself to believe αἱ that he has heard of the divisions at
their assemblies. A delicate way of showing the better opinion that he still
has of his readers, not a reference to the uncertainty of the source whence
the news reached him (Hofmann). — dei] according to God’s decree. It is
the ‘‘ necessitas consequentiae” (Melanchthon) ; for the iva which follows
indicates, according to the apostle’s teleological view (comp. Matt. xviii.
7), the end ordained by God, namely, that the tried, those who have not
1 Chrysostom well remarks: ov λέγει" ἀκούω μάλιστα ἱκανὸν ἣν αὐτῶν διασεῖσαι τὴν διάνοιαν,
μὴ κοινῇ ὑμᾶς συνδειπνεῖν, ἀκούω γὰρ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν τοῦτο τέϑεικε τὸ τοῦ σχίσματος ὄνομα, ὃ καὶ τού-
ὑμᾶς ἑστιᾶσϑαι καὶ μὴ μετὰ τῶν πενήτων ἀλλ᾽ ὃ του ἣν αἴτιον.
CHAP. XI.,. 20. 259
suffered themselves to be carried away by party-agitation, should become
manifest. (0*) — καὶ αἱρέσεις] It cannot be proved (although Riickert, Nean-
der, Hofmann, and others hold) that αἱρέσεις is something worse! than cyic-
para (and that καί must mean even), as Pelagius, Estius, and Calovius would
take it ; for καί may be simply also (among other evils also), and in Gal. vy.
20—where, moreover, σχίσματα does not come in at all—Paul does not in-
tend to construct an exact climax, but merely to heap together kindred
things. Now, seeing that our Epistle says nothing of absolute party-sepa-
rations, but always shows us merely party-divisions subsisting along with
outward unity, one cannot well make out wherein the worseness of the
αἱρέσεις consisted ; for to hold, with Riickert, that εἶναι means to ensue, and
points to the future (as Hofmann too maintains), is a perfectly groundless
assumption. The αἱρέσεις were there, were not merely coming ; it will not do
to confound εἶναι with γίνεσθαι or ἐλθεῖν (Matt. xviii. 7; Luke xvii. 1), ἃ
mistake into which J. Miiller also falls, J.c. We must therefore, with
Chrysostom, Grotius, Olshausen, al., regard αἱρέσεις as another form of des-
ignation for the same thing (the σχίσματα). It does not mean heresies in
the sense of false doctrine (2 Pet. ii. 1), as Calvin, Calovius, and others
maintain ; neither does it refer simply to the separations in keeping the
Agapae (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact) ; but—as is clear from the
nature of the sentence as assigning a more general reason for what had been
said—to factious divisions in the church generally * (according as there existed
tendencies and views at variance with each other and destructive of har-
mony). Comp. en Gal. v. 20.
Ver. 20. Oiv] resuming after the parenthesis ; see on ver. 18. —émi τὸ
αὐτό] to the same place. See on Acts i. 1. -- οὐκ ἔστι κυρίακ. deity. gay.
there does not take place an eating of a Lord’s Supper, i.e. one cannot eat a Lord’s
Supper in that way ; it is morally impossible, since things go on in such
fashion as ver. 21 thereupon specifies by way of proof. We have here the
very common and familiar use of ἔστι with the infinitive, in the sense of : at
is possible, one can, as in Heb. ix. 5. Soe.g. the passages from Plato given
by Ast, Ler. I. p. 622; Hom. il. xxi. 198, al. ; Thuc. viii. 53 ; Soph. Phil.
69 ; Aesch. Pers. 414; Polyb. i. 12. 9, v. 98. 4. It occurs in the classics
also for the most part with the negative. See generally, Valckenaer on
Eurip. Hippol. 1326. Beza, Estius, Zachariae, de Wette, Ewald, Maier,
Winer, a/., render it otherwise, as if there were a τοῦτο in the text : this is
not, etc. And even if there were such a τοῦτο, it would have nothing here
to connect itself with. — κυριακὸν δεῖπνον) a meal belonging to the Lord, conse-
crated to Christ ; comp. ver. 27, x. 21. The name was given to the love-
Jeasts (Agapae, Jude 12), at which the Christians ate and drank together
what they severally brought with them, and with which was conjoined the
Lord’s Supper properly so called (x. 16, 21 ; comp. on Acts ii. 42), so that
1 50 also J. Miiller, v. d. Stinde, I. p. 538, αἵρεσις a ‘‘ mollius vocabulum” than σχίσμα.
ed. 5, holds that σχίσμ. denotes the inner 2 Tt is arbitrary to ascribe the disturbance
disunion in the church, which shows itself about the Lord’s Supper to one special
in positive division and faction (αἱρέσεις). party at Corinth, such as the Christ-party
Wetstein, on the contrary, considered (Olshausen), or that of Apollos (Rabiger).
260 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the bread was distributed and partaken of during the meal and the cup
after it, according to the precedent of the original institution. Comp.
Tertullian, Apol. 30. Chrysostom, indeed, and Pelagius held that Lord’s
Supper came first ; but this is contrary to the model of the first institution,
came into vogue only at a later date, and rests purely upon the ascetic idea
that it was unbefitting to take the Eucharist after other food. To under-
stand here, as Hofmann does, not the whole meal, but merely the celebration
of the Lord’s Supper, which was conjoined with it, is not in keeping with
the phrase δεῖπνον, the precise scope of which is determined by the meal so
originally instituted (John xiii. 2) to which it points.
Ver. 21. Προλαμβάνει] takes beforehand his own meal (as contrasted with
κυριακ. δεῖπν., comp. Chrysostom : τὸ yap κυριακὸν ἰδιωτικὸν ποιοῦσιν). Instead
of waiting (ver. 33) till a general distribution be made and others thus
obtain a share (comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 14. 1), and till by this means the meal
assume the form of a κυριακὸν δεῖπνον, he seizes at once for himself alone
upon the portion which he brought with him, and holds therewith his own
private meal in place of the Lord’s Supper. The expression is not “‘in the
highest degree surprising,” as Riickert calls it ; but it is very descriptive of
the existing state of matters. Grotius (comp. de Wette) is wrong in sup-
posing that the rich ate first, and left what remained for the poorer members.
This runs counter to the ἕκαστος, which must mean every one who brought
anything with him. Of course, when the rich acted in the way here
described, the poor also had to eat whatever they might have brought with
them by themselves ; and if they had nothing, then this abuse of the Lord’s
Supper sent them empty away, hungry and put to shame (vv. 22, 33). — ἐν
τῷ φαγεῖν] not ad manducandum (Vulg.), but in the eating, at the holding of
the meal. — πεινᾷ] because, that is to say, he had nothing, or but little, to
bring with him, so that he remained unsatisfied, receiving nothing from the
stores of the wealthier members. — μεθύει} is drunken, not giving the exact
opposite of πεινᾷ, but making the picture all the fuller and more vivid, be-
cause πεινᾷ and μεθύει lead the reader in both cases to imagine for himself
the other extreme corresponding to the one specified. We must not weaken
the natural force of μεθ., as Grotius does, to ‘‘ plus satis bibit.”” See on John
ii. 20. Paul paints the scene in strong colours ; but who would be war-
ranted in saying that the reality fell at all short of the description ?
Ver. 22. In a lively succession of questions the apostle shows how un-
suitable and unworthy this procedure of theirs was. — μὴ yap οἰκίας κ.τ.1.]
yap has inferential force ; see on Matt. xxvii. 23 ; John ix. 30 ; Acts xix.
35 ; and Winer, p. 416 [E. T. 559] ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 3. 10: you
surely are not without houses? The sense of astonishment (Hartung, Partikell.
I. p. 478) is conveyed by the question, not by the γάρ. --- ἢ τῆς ἐκκλησίας...
ἔχοντας] a second counter question, which divides itself into two parts: or,
again, is it the case with you that you are persons whose business it is (1)
generally to despise the church of God (which you show by your not counting
1The underlying dilemmatic conclusion οἵ God, ete.; you have houses, therefore you
is: Persons who act as you do have either — despise, etc.
no houses, etc., 0” they despise the church
CHAP, XI., 23. 261
its members worthy to eat and drink on a common footing with you), and (2)
to cause the poor to be put to shame? The latter could not but feel themselves
slighted, if they were not thought worthy of having a share in what the
wealthier had provided. The main emphasis in the first clause is upon τῆς ἐκκλ.
τ. Θεοῦ (Θεοῦ, ““ dignitas ecclesiae,” Bengel, comp. ver. 16); in the second,
upon kata yivere. — Respecting οὐκ ἔχειν, not to have, to be poor, see Wet-
stein on 2 Cor. viii. 13 ; comp. οἱ ἔχοντες, divites, in Ast, ad Plat. Legg. v.
p. 172; Bornemann, ad Anabd. vi. 6. 38. Here, however, we have μή with
the participle and article, because the class is referred to (Baeumlein, Partik.
Ῥ. 296). — τί ὑμῖν εἴπω x.t.A.] what shall I say to you? ShallI give you
praise? On this point I praise not. If we keep ver. 17 in view, to connect
ἐν τούτῳ With ἐπαινῶ gives a more suitable emphasis for the words than to
link them with the preceding clause (Lachmann, Hofmann, with various
codices and versions). On other points he has already praised them, ver. 2.
The apostle’s deliberative and ceremonious mode of expressing himself, and
the result that he arrives at, could not but make the readers themselves
feel how much they deserved the reverse of praise in this matter.
Ver. 23. Ground of the ἐν τούτῳ οὐκ ἐπαινῶξ For I, for my part, have re-
ceived the following instructions from Christ touching the institution of the Lord’s
Supper,’ which I also delivered to you. How should it be possible then that
your disorder should meet with praise, so far as] am concerned, at variance
as it is with the knowledge of the matter obtained by me from Christ and
communicated to you ?— ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου] Had Paul written rapa τ. x., this
would have denoted that he had received the instructions directly from
Christ (Gal. i. 12 ; 1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. 1 ; 2 Tim. iii. 14; Acts x. 22; John
vi. 45, viii. 40, x. 18) ; ἀπὸ τ. x., on the other hand, means forth from the
Lord, from the Lord’s side as the source, so that the preposition taken by itself
leaves the question open whether the relation referred to be an indirect (so
generally, including Gal. iii. 2 ; Col. iii. 24) or a direct one (as in Col. 1. 7 ;
1 John 1. ὅ ; 8 John 7). And Hofmann does not go further than this in-
definite relation, holding the only idea expressed here to be that of origin
from the Lord ; comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 211. But seeing that,
if what Paul had in view had been an immediate reception, it would have
been natural for him, and of some importance for his argument, to express
this distinctly by using παρά, while yet in point of fact he uses only ἀπό, we
are warranted in assuming that he means a reception, which issued indeed
from Christ as originator, but reached him only mediately through another
channel. (v’) This applies against Calovius, Bengel, Flatt, and others,
including Heydenreich, Olshausen, de Wette (assuming a confirmation by
special revelation of what he had learned from report), Osiander, who all
find here a direct communication from Christ. The argument of Schulz and
de Wette, however, against this latter view, on the ground of the word παρέ-
λαβ. being in itself inappropriate, will not hold, especially when we view
it as correlative to παρέδωκα ; Comp. XV. 3.
1 Not merely regarding its design and re- the special account of the institution itself,
quirements (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 353 f.); for | which follows, goes beyond that.
262 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS,
The question now remains: Does Paul, in asserting that his account of
the institution proceeded from the Lord, mean to say simply that he received
what follows by a tradition descending from Christ,’ or by a revelation
issuing from Christ? The latter alternative, which Riickert also adopts
(Abendm. p. 194 f.), is not to be rejected on the ground of the following
narrative being something with which all were familiar. For it is quite
possible that it was wholly unknown to the apostle at the time of his con-
version ; and even apart from that, it was so important for his apostolic
vocation that he should have a sure and accurate knowledge of these facts,
and to receive it by way of special revelation was so completely in harmony
with Paul’s peculiar ‘position as an apostle, since he had not personally been
a witness of the first Lord’s Supper, that there is nothing to forbid our
assuming that he received his account of the institution of this ordinance,
like his gospel generally, in the way of authentic revelation from Christ.
As to the form of mediate communication through which Christ had caused
these facts to reach Paul, not appearing to him for this purpose Himself, we
must leave that point undecided, since very various kinds of media for
divine revelations are possible and are historically attested. It may have
been by an utterance of the Spirit, by an angel appearing to him, by seeing
and hearing in an ecstatic state. Only the contents of the revelation—from
its essential connection with the gospel, and, in fact, with its fundamental
doctrine of the work of reconciliation—exclude, according to Gal. i. 1, 12,
15, the possibility of human intervention as regards the apostle in the
matter ; so that we should not be justified in supposing that the revelation
reached him through some man (such as Ananias) commissioned to convey
it to him by the Lord. As to the view that we have here a mere tradition,
on the other hand, recounted by Paul as originating with Christ, the
apostle himself decides against it both by his use of the singular (comp.
xv. 3), and also by the significant prominence given to the éyé, whereby he
puts forward with the whole strength of conscious apostolic authority the
communication made to himself, to him personally, by the Lord, over-against
the abuse, contrasting with it, of the Holy Supper among the Corinthians.
Had he meant simply to say : “1 know it through a tradition proceeding
from Christ,” then his ἐγώ would have been on the same level with every
other, and the emphatic prominence which he gives to the ἐγώ, as well as
the sing. παρέλαβον, would be quite unsuitable, because without any
specific historical basis ; he would in that case have written : παρελάβομεν
yap ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου. We have certainly therefore in this passage not merely
the oldest account of the Lord’s Supper, but even “an authentic explanation
given by the risen Christ regarding His sacrament” (Olshausen) ; not one
directly from His lips indeed, but conveyed through some medium of revela-
tion, the precise form of which it is impossible for us now to determine,
whereby we have a guarantee for the essential contents of the narrative inde-
pendently of the Gospels, although not necessarily an absolute ultimate
authority establishing the literal form of the words of institution (even in
1 So Neander and Keim in the Jahrb. fiir Deutsch. Theol. 1859, p. 69.
CHAP. XI., 24. 263
opposition to Matthew and Mark), since a revelation of the history, nature,
and meaning of the institution might be given even without any verbal
communication of the words spoken in connection with it. — 6 καὶ παρέδ.]
which I (not only received, but) also delivered to you. Conversely in xv. 3.
Instances of παραλαμβ. and παραδοῦναι, in the sense of discere and tradere,
may be seen in Kypke. — ὅτι] that, as in xv. 3, not for, as Luther and Hof-
mann render it. The latter translation would leave untold what Paul had
received and delivered, in spite of the importance of the matter in ques-
tion ; and it derives no support from the repetition of the subject, ὁ Κύριος,
since that, with the addition of the sacred name Ἰησοῦς, gives a solemn em-
phasis to the statement. It is the full doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, which
they owe to him, that heis now setting before his readers. — ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ἡ
παρεδίδοτο (imperfectum adumbrativum, see Kiihner, I. p. 78): in the night
in which His betrayal was going on (hence not the aorist). It is a deeply
solemn and arresting thought contrasted with the frivolity displayed
among the Corinthians at the Agapae. The preposition is not repeated
before the relative. Comp. Xen. Anab. v. 7. 17, Mem. ii. 1. 32, with
Kiihner thereon ; Plato, Phaed. p. 76 D, with Heindorf and Stallbaum in
loc. — ἄρτον] bread (a cake of bread), which lay on the table.
Remarx.—The agreement which prevails between Paul’s account of the Sup-
per and that of Luke, is not to be explained by a dependence of Paul upon
Luke (Grotius, comp. also Beza), but conversely. See on Luke xxii. 20, Re-
mark.
Ver. 24. Τοῦτό μου ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα] This is my body (the body of me). The
emphasis lies not on the enclitic μου, but on τὸ σῶμα. See, further, on Matt.
xxvi. 26, and Keim (in the Jahrb. fiir Deutsch. Theol. 1859, p. 73), as against
Strébel (in Rudelbach’s Zeitschr. 1854, pp. 598, 602 ff.), who would have
τοῦτο not to refer to the broken bread at all, but to point forward to what
is to be designated by the predicate. This τοῦτο can mean nothing else
whatever but : this broken bread here, which again necessitates our taking ἐστί
as the copula of the symbolic ‘‘ being.”—Otherwise the identity of the sub-
ject and predicate here expressed would be, alike for the speaker and the
hearers, an impossible conception ; the body of the Lord was still alive,
and His death, which answered to the breaking of the bread, was yet in the
future. When we come, therefore, to define ἐστί more precisely in connec-
tion with that jirst celebration of the Supper, it is to be taken as ‘‘ being”
in the sense of proleptic symbolism ; and thereby the very possibility of the
Lutheran synecdoche (upon which even Mehring falls back, in the Zwuther.
Zeitschrift, 1867, p. 82) is done away. — τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν] κλώμενον is spurious.
We must supply simply ὄν : which is for your behoof, namely, by its being
broken (slain). Christ’s body was not, indeed, literally broken (John xix.
1This more precise explanation of the
absolute τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμ., sc, ov, is to be drawn
from the preceding ἔκλασε ; and hence the
addition of κλώμενον is very correct in point
of interpretation. But the word was not
spoken by Jesus, only the thought was ex-
pressed in the action of breaking the bread.
This si/ent language of lively depicting suits
well with the deep emotion of the moment ;
and there is no ground cither for regarding
264 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
33), but in His violent death our Lord sees that accomplished in His body
which He had just done with the bread. This is the point of what he be-
holds in the broken bread looked upon by Him with such direct creative
vividness of regard ; but in truth the simple τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν is more in keeping
with the deep emotion of the moment than any attempt to expound in a
more detailed way the symbolism which both presents and interprets itself
in the breaking of bread ; and Matthew and Mark have not even this ‘‘ for
you.” -- τοῦτο ποιεῖτε] to wit, what I now do ; not merely the breaking of
the bread joined with a thanksgiving prayer, but also—as the action itself
became the silent commentary on this rovro — the distribution and eating of
the bread ; comp. ver. 26. — εἰς τ. ἐμ. avauv.] in remembrance of me, presup-
poses His absence in body for the future ; see on Luke xxii. 19. We may
add that these words also do not occur in Matthew and Mark, whose simple
τοῦτό ἐστι τ. σῶμά μου Carries it with a presumption of its being the original,
unexpanded by any later explanation or reflection. Generally speaking, a
like preference must be accorded to the narratives of the Supper by Matthew
and Mark (and between those two, again, to that of Mark) over those of
Paul and Luke.
Ver. 25. Ὡσαύτ. κ. τ. ποτ.] 80. ἔλαβε καὶ εὐχαριστῆσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς (this last is
to be taken from ἔκλασε), Vv. 23, 94. --- τὸ ποτήρ.} the cup which stood before
Him. It was the cup which closed the meal, although there is no ground
to connect μετὰ τὸ δειπν. here with τὸ ποτήρ., as Pott does. —éoriv] in the
position which it has here, is decisive against our connecting ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ ai.
with ἡ «. διαθ., as most interpreters do (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, and many
others, including de Wette, Rodatz, Maier, Hofmann), although Luther (in
the gr. Bek.) rightly rejects that connection. What Christ says is, that the
cup is the new covenant in virtue of His blood, which, namely, is in the cup.
For in the wine of the cup the Lord sees nothing else than His blood which
was about to be shed. This vividly concrete, direct, but symbolical mode
of view at that solemn moment stands out in the sharpest contrast with the
strife of the churches on the subject (for the rest, see on Luke xxii. 19 f.).
Christ’s blood became, by its being poured forth, the ἱλαστήριον," whereby
the new covenant " was founded (Rom. iii. 24 f., v. 3), the covenant of grace,
in which were established, on man’s side, faith in Christ,—not, as in the old
covenant, the fulfilling of the law,—and on God’s side forgiveness by the
the reading which admits κλώμενον as probd-
able on internal evidence (Kahnis, Dogmat.
I. p. 616), or for characterizing that which
rejects it as “ vaga et frigida’ (Reiche,
Comm. crit.) ; nor will it do to explain the
omission of the word by John xix. 36 f. (Hof-
mann). Asto Hofmann’s making κλώμ. refer
only to the violent bending and wrench-
ing, as the term isused of men under tort-
ure (see Wetstein) and by physicians, the
very fact that the bread was broken should
have sufficed of itself to forbid the idea.
1The atonement through the death of
Jesus is at any rate the necessary premiss
- of even the symbolical interpretation of the
Lord’s Supper. With every attempt to ex-
plain away the atoning death, the Supper
becomes utterly unintelligible. Comp.
Ebrard, Dogma vom Abendm. II. p. 752 ff.
2 The word covenant is unquestionably
genuine, for it is common to all the narra-
tives; but the designation of the διαϑήκη as
καινὴ dates from Paul, being a later more
precise definition of the phrase. Καινῆς in
Matt. xxvi. 27 and Mark xiv. 24 is spurious.
This applies also in opposition to Baur in
the theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 551,
CHAP. XI., 26. : 265
way of grace, justification, sanctification, and bestowal of eternal Messianic
salvation. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 6. And the Lord looks upon the cup as this
covenant, because He sees in the wine of the cup His covenant - sealing
blood. The cup therefore, in this deeply vivid symbolism of view is to Him
as that which contains the covenant-blood of the covenant. — τοῦτο ποιεῖτε] to
be taken so as to harmonize with ver. 24. Hofmann is wrong in thinking
that Paul lays such special emphasis on this statement of the purpose of the
Supper, because it appeared incompatible with the Corinthian mode of ob-
serving it. The apostle has no intention whatever here of laying emphasis
either on one thing or another ; he wishes only to report, in their simple
objectivity, the sacred words in which the original institution was couched.
What he desires to lay stress upon as against the Corinthians, comes in
afterwards in ver. 26 ff. —dcdxic ἂν πίν.] peculiar to this account of the or-
dinance : as often as ever (quotiescunque, see Kiihner, II. p. 94 ; comp. Ben-
gel) ye drink it ; the context supplies τοῦτο τὸ ποτήρ. as the object of πίν.,
without its having to be represented by a pronoun (αὐτό). See Kriiger,
§ 60. 7 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem.i. 3.4. The will of Jesus, according to this,
is that every time, when they drink the concluding cup at the meal of com-
munion, they should, in remembrance of Him, do with it as has now been
done. Hofmann would make the words mean : as often as ye are together at
a AWD, But how can that be conveyed by the simple rivyre? And it
was certainly not a drinking meal, but a regular δεῖπνον (ver. 25). — Note,
further, as to the ἄν, that it is placed after ὁσάκις, ‘‘ quia in hac voce maxi-
mum sententiae pondus positum est,” Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 16.
Ver. 26. Notstill words of Christ (Ewald),’ in citing which Paul glides in-
voluntarily into the form into which they had by this time become moulded
in the church ; for against this view there is (1) the unsuitableness in itself
of such a ὕστερον πρότερον in the expression (especially after ver. 23) ; (2) the
fact of the words being linked to the preceding by γάρ, which is less in
keeping with the tone and direct form of the words of institution, but, on
the other hand, naturally marks the apostle himself again beginning to
speak ; and (8) the fact that Luke has nothing of a similar kind in his ac-
count of the Supper. The common view is the right one, that Paul proceeds
here in his own person. But what he gives is neither a further reason as-
signed for οὐκ ἐπαινῶ in ver. 22 (so Hofmann, in connection with his incor-
rect interpretation of ὅτι in ver. 23), nor is it an experimental elucidation of
the last words of ver. 25 (the ordinary view), for the contents of ver. 26
stand rather in the logical relation of consequence to the foregoing narrative
of institution. No; γάρ is to be taken here (comp. on ver. 22) in its infer-
ential sense, and made to refer to the whole preceding account of the ori-
gin of the Supper. We may paraphrase thus : Such, then, being the facts of
the original institution, it comes to pass that as often as ye, etc. — τὸν ἄρτον
τοῦτον] the bread prescribed according to this appointment of Christ ; τὸ
ποτήριον : the cup now spoken of, the eucharistic cup. — καταγγέλλετε] ye pro-
1 Τῇ the Constitt. ap. too (viii. 12. 16) they change of τὸν ϑάνατον τὸν ἐμὸν καταγγέλ-
are placed in Christ’s mouth, but With the Acre, ἄχρις ἂν ἔλϑω.
266 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
claim the Lord’s death, i.e. ye declare solemnly in connection with this ordi-
nance, that Christ has died for you. This καταγγέλλειν cannot without arbi-
trariness be taken as merely a declaring by action (so commonly) ; it can only
be taken as actually oral.! How it took place, we do not know. The
Peshito (the Vulgate has annuntiabitis) rightly took καταγγ. as indicative,*
which Grotius and others ought not to have changed into annuntiare debetis ;
for the proclamation in question was an essential thing which took place at
the Supper, and therefore an admonition to it would have been inappropri-
ate. Even in the case of unworthy participation the καταγγέλλειν referred to
was not omitted ; the admonition, therefore, could only have respect to the
worthiness of the participation, with which that καταγγέλλειν was connected ;
and, in point of fact, such an admonition follows accordingly in ver. 27 f.
We must reject therefore the view commonly taken by other interpreters
(and necessarily adopted by Ewald in accordance with his view of the verse
as given above), namely, that xarayy. is imperative. See, besides, Rodatz
in Liicke and Wieseler’s Vierteljahrschr. I. 8, Ὁ». 561. --- ἄχρισ οὗ ἔλθῃ] until
He shall have come ; for the apostle was convinced that the Parousia was
close at hand, and therefore future generations could not have been present
to his mind in writing thus ; but to apply his words to them is historically
necessary and right. — ἄχρις stands without dv (see instances in Lobeck, ad
Phryn. p. 15 £.), because the arrival of the Parousia is conceived as abso-
lutely certain, not as conditioned by any contingencies which might possi-
bly delay it (Hermann, part. av, p. 109 ff.). In Gal. iv. 19 also, Paul, in
the earnestness of his love, conceives the result as equally certain (against
Riickert’s objection). After the Parousia the Lord Himself is again there.
Theodoret : μετὰ yap δὴ τὴν αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν οὐκέτι χρεία TOV συμβόλων TOD
σώματος, αὐτοῦ φαινομένου τοῦ σώματος᾽ Διὰ τοῦτο εἷπεν᾽ ἄχρις οὗ ἂν ἔλθῃ. Τὸ
eat with Him will then be a new thing (Matt. xxvi. 29) ; but until then the
proclamation here spoken of is not to be silenced. How that thought was
fitted to keep constantly before their minds the solemn responsibility of an
unworthy participation in the Supper (see ver. 27) ! In this way Paul links
to the καταγγέλλειν of the communicants the fear and trembling of the Maran
atha, xvi, 22.
Ver. 27. From that καταγγέλλειν x.7.2. it follows how great is the sin of
participating wnworthily. This reference of the ὥστε is sufficiently pointed
and appropriate not to require us to go back further (to all that has been
1 Καταγγέλλειν is always an actual procla-
mation, never a mere giving to be known by
deeds. Were the latter the meaning here,
Paul would be using a poetical expression
(something like ἀναγγέλλειν in Ps. xix. 1 f.),
which would be not at all suitable in view
of the context. I regret that Hofmann has
been so hasty in censuring my assertion of
the necessity of the above interpretation,
asif it carried absurdity on the face of it.
We do not know in what forms a liturgical
element had already developed itself in con-
nection with a rite which had now been ob-
served for some quarter of a century. And
have not the eucharistic liturgies up to this
day, even the oldest that we are acquainted
with (in Daniel, Codex liturg.), as for in-
stance the ‘ Liturgia Jacobi,’ essential
parts, which are a xatayyéAAew of the Lord’s
death? Comp. too the explicit confession
prescribed at the Jewish feast of the Pass-
over, Ex. xii. 27, xiii. 8.
2So also Theophylact, Beza, Bengel, de
Wette, Osiander, Kahnis, Neander, Maier,
Riickert in his Abendm. p. 211, Hofmann.
CHAP. XI., 27. 267
said from ver. 20 onwards), as Riickert would have us do. —7 πίνῃ] ἢ does
not stand for καί (Pott and older expositors) ;’ but the meaning is: if a
man partake of the one or the other unworthily, he is alike guilty ; neither
in the case of the bread nor of the wine should there be an unworthy par-
ticipation. We must remember that the two elements were not partaken of
in immediate succession, but the bread during the meal and the wine after it,
so that the case was quite a possible one that the bread might be partaken
of in a worthy, and the cup in an unworthy frame of spirit, and vice versd.
Comp. also Hofmann. The guilt, however, of the one or the other un-
worthy participation was the same, and was alike complete ; hence 7 is not
repeated in the apodosis. Roman Catholics (see Estius and Cornelius ἃ
Lapide) find in this 7 a support for their ‘‘communio sub una.” See Calo-
vius in opposition to this. — τοῦ Κυρίου] as κυριακόν in ver. 20, x. 21. —
ἀναξίως] in an unworthy manner, i.e. in a way morally out of keeping with the
nature (x. 16) and design of the ordinance (ver. 24 f.). Paul does not define
it more closely ; hence, and because an unworthy participation may, in the
concrete, occur in many different ways, the widely differing definitions of
interpreters,* which are, however, quite out of place here. For the apos-
tle leaves it to his readers to rank for themselves their particular way of
communicating under the general ἀναξίως, and not till ver. 29 does he him-
self characterize the special form of unworthy participation which prevailed
among them by ὁ yap ἐσθίων x. πίνων. See on the verse. — ἔνοχος ἔσται x.7.A. |
ἔνοχος with the dative and genitive (see Matthiae, p. 850) expresses the lia-
bility of guilt (see Bleek on Heb. ii. 15) : he shall be—from the moment he
does so—under guilt to the body and blood of Christ, i.e. erimini et poenae
corporis et sanguinis Christi violati obnoxius erit (comp. Jas. ii. 10, and the
1 To this mistake, too, is to be traced the
reading καί (in A D, some min. vss. and
Fathers), which Fritzsche, σα Rom. III. p.
191, and Riickert approve. It was suggest-
ed by ver. 26, and gained support from the
καί which follows ; but is not necessary, for
there is a change of conception.
2 Theophylact, following Chrysostom,
makes it as περιορῶντας τοὺς πένητας. Theo-
doret holds that Paul hits at those fond of
power in Corinth, the incestuous person,
and those who ate the things offered to
idols, and generally all who receive the
sacrament with bad conscience. Luther:
“*he is worthy who has faith in these words,
‘broken for you, ete.’’’ Grotius: ‘‘ quihoce
aetu curat quae sua sunt, non quae Domini.”
Bengel : ‘“‘qui se non probant.” Flatt: not
with thankful remembrance of the death of
Jesus, not with reverence towards Him.
not with love towards others ; so also in
substance Riickert in his Commentary, and
—with more detail and to some extent dif-
ferently—in his work on the Lord’s Supper,
p. 234. Billroth : with offence to the breth-
ren. Olshausen: what is primarily meant
is want of love, a disposition to judge
others, but with the underlying idea that it
is impenitence that makes an unworthy
communicant. Kahnis: ‘‘ unbelief, which
does not acknowledge a higher intrinsic
worth in the Lord’s Supper.” At all events,
it is the lack of a constantly present, lively,
and active faith in the atonement brought
about by Christ’s death, which is the source
of the various states of moral unworthiness
in which men may partake of the Supper:
as was the case also with the Corinthians
when they degraded it into an ordinary
meal for eating and drinking (and Hofmann
goes no further in his explanation of the
ἀναξίως). The more earnest and powerful
this faith is, the less ean that participation,
by which we are conscious of coming into
communion with the body and blood of the
Lord, and thereby commemorating Him,
take place in a way morally unworthy.
Bengel is right indeed in saying: ‘‘ Alia est
indignitas edentis, alia esus”’ (comp. Rtickert,
Abendm. p. 253) ; but the latter in its differ-
ent moral forms is the necessary conse-
quence of the former.
268 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
classical ἔνοχος νόμοις, Plat. Legg. ix. p. 869 B E) ; inasmuch, namely, as the
proclamation of the Lord’s death at the participation in the bread and the
cup presupposes a moral condition which must be in keeping with this most
sacred act of commemoration ; and if the condition of the communicant
be of an opposite kind, then the holy body and blood, into communion
with which we enter through such participation, can only be abused and
profaned. Comp. ver. 29, μὴ διακρίνων x.7.2. The often repeated interpre-
tation : ‘‘par facit, quasi Christum trucidaret” (Grotius, following Chrys-
ostom and Theophylact), appears once more in Ewald ; but it neither cor-
responds sufficiently with the words themselves (for had Paul meant that,
he would have said distinctly and suitably: ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ Kup.),
nor with the parallel thought in ver. 29. This holds, too, against Ebrard’s
view (Dogma v. Abendm. I. p. 126) ; each man by his sins has a share in
causing the death of Jesus ; if now he communicates unworthily, not only
do his other sins remain unforgiven, but there is added this fresh guilt be-
sides, of having part in nailing Christ to the cross (which, with every other
sin, is forgiven to the man who communicates worthily). But that would
be surely no new guilt, but the continuance of the o/d ; and in this sense
Kahnis explains it, Dogmat. I. p. 620. But to bring out this meaning, the
apostle, if he was not to leave his words open to misunderstanding (comp.
John iii. 36, ix. 41), must have written not évoy. ἔσται, but évoy. μένει Or μενεῖ.
Olshausen again, with older expositors, thinks that our passage implies a
powerful argument against all Zwinglian theories of a merely commemora-
tive ordinance. This, however, is too hasty and uncertain an inference ;
because the profanation of an acknowledged symbol, especially if it be one
recognized in the religious consciousness of the church (suppose, e.g., a eru-
cifix), does injury to the object itself represented by the symbol. Hofmann
is not justified in disputing this. Comp. Oecolampadius, Piscator, and
Scultetus, who adduce, as an analogous case, an injury done to the king’s
seal or picture.’ Riickert, on the other hand, is wrong in supposing that
we have here a proof that the bread and wine are only symbols.?. For, even
granting that they are really the body and blood of Christ, there was ground
enough for the apostle’s warning in the fact that his readers seemed to be
forgetting this relationship. Our conclusion therefore is, that this passage
in itself proves neither the one theory nor the other, as even Hofmann now
acknowledges, although he goes on to infer from ver. 29 that Christ’s real
body and blood are partaken of in the Sacrament. See, however, on ver.
29, and comp. on x. 15 f.
1 Luther's objection to this in the Grosse
Bekenntniss resolves itself, in truth, into
mere hair-splitting. The argument of the
old systematic divines again is : The object
against which we sin must be present ; we
sin against the body and blood of Christ ;
therefore these must be present. This con-
clusion is incorrect, because the major pre-
miss is so. The presence of the object “in
quod delinquimus quodque indigne tracta-
mus” (Quenstedt) is not always necessary,
and need not be a veal presence. Thus a
man sins against the body of Christ, even
when he sins against the sacred symbol of
that body, and against the tlood of Christ,
in like manner. Comp. also Neander.
2 Otherwise in his treatise vom Abendm.
p. 236, where, on the ground of x. 3f., x. 16,
he does not doubt that what is meant is a
direct offence committed against the very
things there present.
CHAPE KE, 26520: -.° 269
Ver. 28. Aé] carrying onward : ‘ now, in order not to incur this guilt, let
a man examine himself, etc. ;” let him search into his frame of mind and
moral condition (τὴν διάνοιαν ἑαυτοῦ, Theodore of Mopsuestia) to see whether
he will not partake unworthily ;* (w’) comp. διακρίνειν, ver. 31. — καὶ οὕτως]
and so, after he has examined himself, and in that case. See on Rom. xi. 26.
Every reader, not addicted to hairsplitting, would understand here of course
that this did not apply to a case in which the result of the self-examination
was to make the man feel himself unworthy. There was no need, therefore,
for Flatt and Riickert (following Lightfoot, Semler, Schulz) to take δοκιμάζ.
as meaning to make qualified, which it never does, not even in Gal. vi. 4 ; 2
Cor. xiii. 5; 1 Thess. ii. 4. — ἄνθρωπος] as iv. 1.
Ver. 29. Since ἀναξίως is spurious (see the critical remarks), ὁ ἐσθίων κ.
πίνων might be understood absolutely : the eater and drinker, who turns the
Supper, as was actually done at Corinth, vv. 22, 34, into a banquet and ca-
rousal. This was the view I held myself formerly, taking μὴ διακρίνων in the
sense : because he does not, etc., as in Rom. iv. 19. But after ver. 28, whose
ἐσθίειν x. πίνειν finds expression here again, it is simpler and most in accord-
ance with the text to render : He who eats and drinks (the bread and the
cup), eats and drinks a judgment to himself, if he does not, etc.,” so that in this
way μὴ διακρίνων κ.τ.. conditions the predicate, and is not a modal definition
of the subject. The apostle might have written simply κρῖμα yap ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει
kK. πίνει, μὴ διακρ. τ. o.; but the circumstantial description of the subject of
the sentence for the second time by 6 yap ἐσθίων k. πίνων carries a certain
solemnity with it, making one feel the risk incurred by going on to eat and
drink. — κρῖμα ἑαυτῷ x.7.A. | aconcrete expression (comp. 2 Cor. ii. 16) of the
thought : he draws down judicial sentence upon himself by his eating and drink-
ing. The power to effect this turns on the ἔνοχος ἔσται κ.τ.}., ver. 27; and
therefore nothing is decided here against the symbolical interpretation of
the words of institution. That the κρῖμα is a penal one, is implied in the
context (Rom. ii. 2, iii. 8, xiii. 2; Gal. v. 10). The absence of the article,
again, denotes not eternal condemnation, but penal judgment in general
without any limiting definition. From vv. 30 and 31 we see that Paul was
thinking, in the first place, of temporal judgments as the penalty of un-
worthy communicating, and that such judgments appeared to him as chas-
tisements employed by God to avert from the offender eternal condemna-
tion. With respect to the dativus incommodi ἑαυτῷ, comp. Rom. xiii. 2. —
μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα] if he does not form a judgment upon (so diaxp., Vulgate,
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Bengel, de Wette, Weiss) the body, i.e. the body
κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the sacred body, into communion with which he enters by par-
taking of the Supper, and respecting which, therefore, he ought to form
a judgment of the most careful kind, such as may bring him into full and
deep consciousness of its sacredness and saving significance (on διίακρ.;
comp. xiv. 29 ; Matt. xvi. 3). Comp. Chrysostom : μὴ ἐξετάζων, μὴ ἐννοῶν,
ὡς χρὴ, τὸ μέγεθος τῶν προκειμένων, μὴ λογιζόμενος τὸν ὄγκον τῆς δωρεᾶς. Usually
1 Confession is an institution of the church, assurance that one does not eat and drink
meant to aidin carrying out this rule of the | unworthily,
apostle’s, in which the absolution gives
270 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(so too Ewald, Kahnis, Hofmann) commentators have taken dcaxp. in the
sense of to distinguish (iv. 7), and have rendered accordingly : ἐγ he (or,
following the reading which puts ἀναξίως after πένων : because he) does not
distinguish the body of Christ from common food.’ Hofmann, again, see-
ing that we have not τοῦ Κυρίου along with τὸ σῶμα holds it more correct to
render : if he does not distinguish the body, which he who eats this bread par-
takes of, from the mere bread itself. Both these ways of explaining the word,
which come in substance to the same thing, proceed upon the supposition
either that the body of Christ is that with which we enter into fellowship by
partaking of the symbol (which is the true view), or that it is partaken of
‘‘in, with, and under” the bread (Lutheran doctrine), or by means of the
transubstantiation of the bread (Roman Catholic doctrine). But in ver. 31,
where dvexpivouev is taken up again from our passage, the word means to
judge, not to distinguish, and we must therefore keep to that meaning * here
also. —It was needless to add καὶ τὸ αἷμα to τὸ σῶμα, because the σῶμα is re-
garded as that which had suffered death by the shedding of its blood ; comp.
ver. 26, also x. 17. The twofoldness of the elements has its rational signifi-
cance only in the equal symbolism of the two ; apart from that symbol-
ism, reference to it would be inappropriate, since, objectively, they cannot
be separated.
Ver. 30. Proof of that κρῖμα ἑαυτῷ... πίνει from the present experience
of the Corinthians themselves. — Paul knew that there were at this time
many cases of “ickness, and not a few of death (κοιμῶνται), among them ; and
he saw in this a divine chastisement for their unworthy use of the Lord’s
Supper. The explanation which refers this to moral weakness and deadness
(Valckenaer, Morus, Krause, Eichhorn) is not to be rejected (as by Riickert)
on the ground that this moral sickness and deadness must have been repre-
sented as the cause of the unworthy participation (for, from the Pauline
standpoint, they might quite as well be regarded as its consequence, see
Rom. i. 24 ff.). But it is to be set aside, because such a sense must have
been suggested by the context, whereas there is not the remotest hint of it,
either by itself or in connection with the physical interpretation (Olshausen).
-- κοιμῶνται] dormiunt, i.e. are dead. Comp., regarding this euphemistic al-
lusion, what is said on xv. 18. Elsewhere in the N. T. we find the perfect
or aorist. But comp. Lachmann’s reading in 1 Thess. iv. 13. — Itis impos-
sible to establish a definite distinction of idea between ἀσθενεῖς and ἄῤῥωστοι.
Grotius and Bengel hold the latter to mean more than the former ; Wetstein
and Tittmann again (Synon. p. 76) differ from them in this. Both words
denote want of strength from sickness.
Vv. 31, 32. If, on the other hand, we judged ourselves (submitted our own
condition to moral criticism ; parallel to δοκιμάζειν ἑαυτόν, ver. 28), then should
we not receive any judgment (judgment of condemnation, ver. 29) ; but when
1So Luther’s gloss: who handles and inver. 31): a judgment... if he does not
deals with Christ’s body as if he cared no Jorm a judgment. Hence there is the less
more for it than for common food. warrant in the text for the meaning ‘ dis-
2 Which stands in significant correspond- tinguish.”
ence with κρίμα (comp. too, the oxymoron
OHAP, XE; 50, 04. '° yall
we do receive a judgment (in point of fact, by temporal sufferings), we are
chastened (punished in a disciplinary way) by the Lord (by God), in order
that we may not be condemned (namely, at the last judgment) with the world
(along with the anti-Christian part of mankind. Note the oxymoron :
διεκρ. κριν. κατακριθ., answering significantly to the mutual relation of κρῖμα
and διακρίνων in ver. 29. In both passages we have the same sort of pointed
alliteration, corresponding to their internal connection (which is plainly
enough marked by the διὰ τοῦτο, ver. 30, and dé, ver. 31, although Hofmann
denies it). — As to the divine chastisement, which lies within the sphere of
the divine redemptive agency (Heb. xii. 6 ; Tit. ii. 12; also 1 Tim. i. 20; 2
Tim. 11. 25), comp. J. Miiller, v. d. Siinde, I. p. 339 f., ed. 5. — The use of
the jirst person gives to the sentence the gentler form of a general statement,
not referring merely to the state of things at Corinth, but of universal
application.
Ver. 33. Conclusion from this proposition, general in its tenor, for the
conduct of the readers at the love-feast, when they came together to keep it
(εἰς τὸ φαγεῖν, not belonging to ἀλλ. évdéy.). — ἀδελφοί μου] ‘‘ perterrefactos
rursum hac blanda compellatione solatur,” Grotius. — ἀλλήλ. ἐκδέχεσθε] wait
Jor one another (‘‘ invicem exspectate,” Vulg.), xvi. 11, so that no one ἴδιον
δεῖπνον προλαμβάνει. This closing admonition corresponds to the censure,
with which the section began in ver. 21, and there is therefore no need for
departing from this rendering, which is adopted by Luther, Erasmus, and
the majority of commentators. Theophylact : δεικνύων, ὅτι κοινά εἰσι τὰ
ἐκεῖσε εἰσφερόμενα, καὶ δεῖ ἀναμένειν τὴν κοινὴν συνέλευσιν. Others translate :
Receive ye one another, namely, convivio, as a contrast to despising the other
guests, and keeping them from sharing in what you yourselves have to
give. So Pott, Riickert, Olshausen, Ewald, Hofmann, following Moshein,
Michaelis, Morus, Schulz, Rosenmiiller. But in the N. T. ἐκδέχεσθαι (xvi.
11) means always exspectare (comp. Soph. Phil. 123 ; Polyb. xx. 4. 5, ili.
45. 6; Apollod. i. 9. 27; also in Plutarch, a/.), although in classical
writers, as well as in the LXX. and Apocrypha, the meaning evxcipere is far’
more frequent. The latter sense Paul would have expressed by the simple
δέχεσθαι, or by προσλαμβάνεσθαι (Rom. xiv. 1).
Ver. 34. To satisfy hunger, is a thing to be done at home. The Agapae
should not be used as meals for such material purposes ; they have a higher
significance. Comp. ver. 22. Others take it: ‘‘If any one has such keen
hunger that he cannot wait for the distribution, let him rather take a pre-
vious meal at home” (Billroth ; comp. Erasmus, Paraph.). But how much
of this is arbitrarily imported into the text !— τὰ δὲ λοιπά] What has not yet
been regulated in this section, vv. 17-34. The reference is to matters con-
nected with the love-feasts ; not indeed of a doctrinal kind, but, as the word
διατάσσεσθαι is enough of itself to show, pertaining to outward order and
arrangements, vii. 17, ix. 14, xvi. 1; Gal. iii. 19 ; Tit.i.5. A passage taken
advantage of by Roman Catholics in support of their doctrine of tradition.
And, no doubt, it does serve to establish in general the possibility of the
existence of apostolic traditions ; but in each particular case in which such
traditions are asserted, the burden of bringing forward the proof lies
292 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
always upon those who make the assertion, and it can never be produced.
— ie av] whensoever I shall have come ; in the temporal sense = simulatque.
See on Phil. ii. 23, and Hartung, 11. p. 289.
Nores spy AMERICAN EpITor.
(Q') ““ The woman is the glory of the man.” Ver. 7.
The sense may be further expanded thus: The woman is ina certain re.
spect subordinate to the man. She is not designed to reflect the glory of God
as a ruler, but that of her husband as head of the household. She receives and
reveals what there is of majesty in him. She always assumes his station ; be-
comes a queen if he is a king, and manifests to others the wealth and honour
which may belong to her husband. Thus understood, the passage is no deroga-
tion to the sex, but rather a precise statement in accordance not only with Scrip-
ture, but with the results of all human experience ; and its position, united
with the other teachings of this pericope, is a sure guarantee for woman's dig-
unity, happiness, and honour.
(zn!) Mosaic account of the creation. Vv. 8, 9.
It is customary to speak of the Old Testament as mythical and fabulous, or at
least allegorical. But the Apostle refers to the Mosaic narrative of man’s ecrea-
tion as being literal fact. How then can any one who believes in the inspira-
tion of the Apostles deny the divine authority of the Pentateuch, or confine that
authority only to its doctrinal and preceptive statements ὃ
(s!) The teaching of nature. Vv. 14, 15.
Some explain the Apostle’s question as referring to the original course of
nature. It has made a visible distinction between the sexes by covering the
woman’s head with more abundant hair. This teaches that the God of nature
designs the sexes to be distinguished in the most conspicuous portion of the
body. Short hair belongs to a man, long hair to a woman ; and it is unnatural
and disgraceful for either sex in this respect to assume the appearance of the
other. Others suppose that the word refers to the instinctive feelings which
arise from nature’s laws, and which are largely determined by education and
habit. In this sense an Eastern woman feels impelled, whenever surprised by
strangers, to cover her face. This to her is an instinctive impulse, yet it would
not be so in a European or American woman. But Paul, writing to women
of his own age and training, was sure of an affirmative response. F. W. Robert-
son well says : ‘‘ Fanaticism defies nature. Christianity refines it and respects
it. Christianity does not destroy our natural instincts, but gives them a high-
er and nobler direction; "ἢ
(Tt!) ‘** We have no such custom.” Ver. 16.
What is thiscustom? Most of the recent critics (Stanley, Kling, Beet, Canon
Evans, etc.) agree with Meyer in referring it to the contentiousness just men-
tioned. But besides the fact that ‘‘if any one be contentious” is not a custom,
there is force in Alford’s statement: ‘‘ Surely it would be very unlikely that,
NOTES. ; 273
after so long a treatment of a particular subject, the Apostle should wind up
all by merely censuring a fault common to their behavior on this’ and on all
the other matters in dispute. Such a rendering seems to me almost to stultify
the conclusion. But for the weighty names on the other side it would seem
hardly to admit of a question, that the custom here disavowed was the practice
of women praying uncovered. He cuts off all further disputation on the mat-
ter by appealing to universal Christian usage.’’—Argument is useless with the
contentious ; they must be silenced by authority. It must be a very clear case
of conscientious duty which will justify a man in departing from the estab-
lished usages of the church.
(u') The use of dissensions. Ver. 19.
It is a great consolation, Hodge says, to know that dissensions, whether in
church or state, are not fortuitous, but are ordered by the providence of God,
and are designed as storms for the purpose of purification. Certain it is that
the prevalence of heresies has been the occasion of bringing out more fully and
plainly the faith of the church from the Apostle’s age to our own.
(v!) “1 received from the Lord.’’ Ver. 23.
Meyer’s reasoning supposes an unusual refinement in Paul’s use of the Greek
prepositions, and, besides, the ἀπό may have been chosen to avoid the triple
repetition of παρά. The form of the revelation cannot be determined, but that
it was directly from the Lord seems certain, and this fact is no small testimony
to the importance of the ordinance, thus specifically made known to the
Apostle.
(w!) The worthy communicant. Ver. 28.
No better or briefer statement of what is required on this point can be found
than is given in the answer of the Heidelberg Catechism to the question (81),
Who ought to come to the table of the Lord? ‘‘Those who are grieved with
themselves on account of their sins, and yet trust that the same are taken away
from them, and their remaining weakness is covered by the suffering and death
of Christ, and who also earnestly desire more and more to strengthen their
faith and better their life.’’ ᾿
274 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
CHAPTER XII.
Ver. 2. ὅτι ὅτε] approved by Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. (who brackets
ore, however), Scholz, Riick. Tisch. with A B C Ὁ E L 8, min. and several vss.
and Fathers. The ὅτι alone (Elz. with F G min. Syr. Erp. Clar. Germ. Oec.
Ambrosiast.), and the weakly attested ore alone (which Billroth and Ewald pre-
fer), are two different attempts to help out the construction, whose difficulty
leads Reiche again to defend the Recepla. — Ver. 3. Instead of the Recepta
*Inoovv and Κύριον Ἰησοῦν, which Reiche upholds, read Ἰησοῦς and Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς,
with Lachm. Riick. and Tisch., following A BC δὰ, min. and several vss. and
Fathers. The accusatives are the work of copyists altering the oratio directa,
which struck them as unusual. — Ver. 9. In place of the second αὐτῷ, A B, min.
Vulg. Clar. Germ. and Latin Fathers read ἑνί. So, rightly, Lachm. Riick. Tisch. ;
αὐτῷ has crept in after the preceding. — After σώματος in ver. 12, Elz. has τοῦ
ἑνός, against greatly preponderating testimony. A gloss. — Ver. 13. εἰς ἕν πνεῦμα]
Many various readings ; the best accredited is ἕν πνεῦμα (B C D* F G 8, 17, 73,
80, with several vss. and Fathers). So Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Reiche. The in-
sertion of the εἰς arose from comparing the clause with the first half of the
verse. Then, according as the words were understood to refer to the Supper
or not, arose the readings πόμα (with or without εἰς) instead of πνεῦμα, and
ἐφωτίσθημεν (said of baptism, as the Greek Fathers were accustomed to use it)
instead of éro7. — Ver. 31. κρείττονα] ABC δὲ, min. Syr. Aeth. Vulg. ms. Or.
{twice) read μείζονα. So Lachm. Riick. Tisch. But while κρείττονα might easily
appear a doubtful expression in itself, and even objectionable as implying the
contrast of ‘‘ worse,’’ μείζονα, on the other hand, was very naturally suggested
by xiii. 13, xiv. 5.
ContTEeNnts.— Concerning the Spirit's gifts. The fundamental character-
istic of speaking in the Spirit is the confession of Jesus as the Lord (ver.
3) ; but the especial utterances of the Spirit, which are given to individu-
1 Baur, in the Stud, wu. γέ. 1838, p. 646 f.,
holds that the abuse of the glossolalia in
Corinth, which has certainly given occasion
to this section of the Epistle, had arisen in
the party-interest of the Petrine Christians
in opposition to the Pauline. The former,
he maintains, had brought the yA. Aad. to
bear against the latter, denying to Paul the
apostolic character and consequently the
possession of the πνεῦμα ἅγιον. But there is
no trace of this whatever in the apostle’s
treatment of the subject; for the word
thrown out at vii. 40, in connection with a
totally different occasion, has no bearing at
all upon this question ; and xiv. 6 and 18
take for granted that his readers admitted
that Paul himself had the gift of the glosso-
Zalia, and that in a high degree. Riabiger,
too, agrees in substance with Baur, assum-
ing, as he does, an opposition between the
Pauline προφητεύοντες and the Petrine γλώσ-
cats λαλοῦντες. But there is not the slightest
support in the text either, in general, for
connecting the subject in hand with the
state of parties at Corinth, or, in particular,
for ascribing the glossolalia to any one
special party (Diihne, ¢.g., regards it as a
piece of Alexandrian fanaticism among the
Christ-party). Van Hengel’s conjecture, also
(Gave d.-telen, p. 111 f.), that Apollos had
brought the glossolalia to Corinth, where it
had been abused and had degenerated,
lacks all definite foundation.
CHAP, X11), 18. : 275
als for the welfare of the community (vv. 7-10), differ one from another
(vv. 4-6). The Giver of all gifts, however, is one and the same Spirit ; for
Christians form an organic whole, like the limbs of one body, so that none
of them ought either to judge himself in a depreciatory spirit (vv. 11-20),
or to ignore the need and worth of those with fewer or lower gifts (vv. 21-
30. Still there ought to be a striving after the more excellent charismata ;
and Paul will show his readers the best kind and mode of thus striving
(ver. 31). —The peculiar difficulty attaching to this whole section is very
truly described by Chrysostom : τοῦτο ἅπαν τὸ χωριόν σφόδρα ἐστὶν ἀσαφές" τὴν
δὲ ἀσάφειαν ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων ἄγνοιά τε καὶ ἔλλειψις ποιεῖ, τῶν τότε
μὲν συμβαινόντων, νῦν δὲ οὐ γινομένων.
Ver. 1. Aé] leads over from the matter previously discussed to another, in
connection with which also abuses had crept into the church (see on xi. 18).
We are warranted in assuming that the discussion of such a subject, so
comprehensive and entering so much into details, was occasioned by ques-
tions put in the letter from Corinth (vii. 1, viii. 1). — τῶν πνευματικῶν] is to
be taken (with Chrysostom, Luther, and most expositors) as neuter, stating
the theme in a quite general way : On the forms of action which proceed from
the Holy Spirit and make manifest His agency in the life of the church. The
speaking with tongues is specially taken up only in chap. xiv., so that it is
a mistake to regard πνευματ. as referring to this alone (Storr, Heydenreich,
Billroth, Baur in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 644, and Wieseler in the same,
p- 711, also Ewald). The πνευματικά are in their nature the same as the
χαρίσματα, ver. 4. Other interpreters make it masculine (Grotius, Ham-
mond, Clericus, Locke, Semler, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Stolz, Heydenreich,
Ewald, Hofmann, also David Schulz, d. Geistesgaben der ersten Christen,
p- 163 ; and Hilgenfeld, die Glossolalie, 1850, p. 16) : ‘‘ concerning the in-
spired, whether genuine or not ; Ewald renders : ‘‘concerning the men of
the Spirit” (speakers with tongues). But in xiv. 1 we have the theme re-
curring as τὰ πνευματικά. --- ob θέλω bu. ἀγνοεῖν] Iwill not leave you in ignorance.
Comp. x. 1 ; 1 Thess. iv. 13. Theodore of Mopsuestia puts it aptly : θέλω
ὑμᾶς καὶ τῶν πνευματικῶν χαρισμάτων εἰδέναι τὴν τάξιν, ὥστε βούλομαί τι καὶ περὶ
τούτων εἰπεῖν.
Ver. 2. Reason (comp. on διό, ver. 8) why he wishes to instruct them con-
cerning the πνευματικά. The pneumatic condition into which they had
entered as Christians was, of course, an entirely new one to men who had
been heathen, entirely without precedent or analogy in the experiences of
their former sad estate,—all the more, therefore, requiring to be subjected
to a trustworthy and correct judgment. — The construction, when we adopt
the reading ὅτι, ὅτε, is simply this : the object-sentence begins indeed with
ὅτι, but instead of ending with ἀπήγεσθε, or repeating ἦτε before ἀπαγόμ., runs
off into the participle,—an anakoluthic use of the ὅτι not uncommon also in
classic writers, after parenthetic clauses, even when but short, have inter-
vened. See Kriiger on Thue. iv. 37; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. 37 By;
Heind. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 481 Ὁ. Translate : Ye know that, at the time when
ye were heathen, ye were led away to the dumb idols, in whatever way people led
you. Buttmann (newt. Gr. p. 329 [E. T. 383]) holds that the sentence after
276 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε passes with ὡς into an indirect question. But ὡς av ἤγεσθε, from
its position between πρὸς τ. eid. τ. ἀφ. and ἀπαγόμ., can only be a parenthetic
clause. In that case, too, ἀπαγ. would be cumbrous and dragging at the
end of the verse ; it must convey a weighty closing thought, to which ὡς ἂν
ἤγεσθε serves as modal definition.
but simply ὅτε with Elz. (which in fact does away of itself with all real
difficulty), has twisted and obscured the whole passage in a very unhappy
way.!— re ἔθνη ἦτε] A reminder to his readers of their sad ποτέ, to which
Paul often turns back their eyes from their happy viv (Eph. ii. 2 f., 11, 13,
vy. 8; Col. i. 21, iii. 7; Rom. xi. 80). --- πρὸς τὰ εἴδωλα] namely, in order to
worship them, sacrifice to them, invoke them, inquire of them, and the ike.
-- τὰ ἄφωνα] (Plat. Pol. I. p. 886 D, and often elsewhere ; Dem. 292. 6, 294.
19 ; 2 Macc. iii. 24) impresses on the readers that idols, which were them-
selves dumb (comp. Hab. ii. 18 ; 3 Macc. iv. 16), could produce no pneu-
matic speaking. Notice the emphatic repetition of the article. —d¢ ἂν
ἤγεσθε] as ye were at any time led. Regarding this ἄν of repetition, see
Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 35; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 186 f. [E. T. 216] ;
comp. on Acts ii. 45. — ἀπαγόμενοι] becoming led away. The force of the ἀπό
is not that of removal from the normal condition of the natural knowledge
of God (Rom. i. 19 ff.), an interpretation which would need to be suggested
by the context ; but it serves vividly to set forth the result. 'The consequence
of the ἄγεσθαι, namely, was the ἀπάγεσθαι, the being involuntarily drawn away
from the surroundings in which they were actually placed to the temples,
statues, altars, etc. of the idols. We may take it for certain, from Paul’s
views of heathenism (x. 20; Eph. ii. 2), that he thought of Satan as the
leading power. Hilgenfeld aptly compares the passage in Athenagoras,
Legat. pro Christ. p. 29, ed. Col.: οἱ μὲν περὶ τὰ εἴδωλα αὐτοὺς ἕλκοντες οἱ
δαίμονές εἰσιν κιτ.Δ. The opposite is πνεύματι ἄγεσθαι, Rom. viii. 14 ; Gal. v.
18 ; Matt. iv. 1. Others make it : ὦ sacerdotibus (Valckenazer, a/.), and the
like. — We may note further both that homoioteleuta, such as οἴδατε, ὅτι ὅτε
. . . ἦτε, occur even in the best writers, showing that the resemblances of
sound were not offensive to them (Lobeck, ad Aj. 61, Paral. p. 53 ff.), and
also that the subject in hand is brought all the more vividly and impres-
sively home by the adnominatio, ἤγεσθε, ἀπαγόμενοι (Bremi, ad Lys. 1. Eve.
vi. p. 209).
1 Hofmann insists, namely (ist), on read-
ing οἶδα τε instead of οἴδατε, and (2d) ὡς
ἀνήγεσθε instead of ws av ἤγεσθε and (3d) on
taking ὅτι ἔθνη τε as: because ye were
heathen, and that as specifying the reason
moreover, doubled! And how strange the
choice of the compound ἀνήγεσθε, since it
does not (as Hofmann supposes) convey the
notion of whither (which is expressed by
πρός), but that of upward, as ἀνάγειν always
Hofmann, although not reading ὅτι, dre,”
for what follows, in which, for the sake of
emphasis, πρὸς... adwvais put before the
But how involved the whole general
structure of the sentence becomes in that
way! How wholly wncalled for, neverthe-
less, and inappropriate would be the invest-
ing of the quite superfluous (quite superflu-
ous, to wit, as specifying a reason) “ decause
ye were heathen,” with all the emphasis of
being put first in a hyperbaton which is,
«
ως.
means to lead τῷ. The τέ, too, after οἶδα,
would not be suitable even in a logical
point of view (see note on ver. 3). Laurent,
in his newt. Stud. p. 132, agrees with Hof-
mann in so far that he also reads ὡς ἀνήγ-
eoGe instead of ὡς av ἤγεσθε. Forthe rest, he
retains οἴδατε, and neither reads ore nor ort,
ὅτε, but simply ὅτε, which is supported by
very slender evidence.
GHAP. XIE; ὁ. ἌΝ
Ver. 3. Δι6] therefore, because the experiences of spiritually gifted men
could not be known to you in your heathen state,’ and you have conse-
quently all the more need of sound instruction on the subject, therefore I
give you to know: the fundamental characteristic of speaking by the Spirit
is, that Jesus is not execrated, but confessed as Lord. Paul expresses this in the
two parallel thoughts : that the former, the ezecration, comes from the lips
of no inspired person ; and that the latter, the confession of the Lord, can
only be uttered by the power of the Holy Spirit. Both the negative and the
positive marks are thereby given ; and it is arbitrary to lay the whole stress,
as Billroth and Riickert do, upon the second half, and to regard the first as
almost superfluous and a mere foil to the second. Paul must, moreover,
have had his own special reasons for placing such a general guiding rule at
the head of his whole discussion in answer to the question, Who in gen-
eral is to be held an inspired speaker? Among all the different forms and
even perversions of the gift of speaking in the Spirit at Corinth, men may
have been divided upon the question, Who was properly to be regarded as
speaking by the Spirit, and who not ? and against all arbitrary, envious,
exclusive judgments on this point the apostle strikes all the more powerfully,
the more he brings out here the width of the specific field of speaking in the
Spirit, and the more simply and definitely he lays down at the same time its
characteristics. To find any special reference here to the speaking with
tongues—and in particular to go so far in that direction as to assume (Hof-
mann, comp. his Schriftbew. I. p. 309) that the first clause guards against
1 Similarly de Wette ; comp. Bengel, and,
yet earlier, Luther’s gloss. Osiander drags
ina contrast between the one Lord of the
assumption that he designs to secure for
the glossolalia the respect due to it as
against the opposition of the Pauline party
Christians and the many κυρίους of heathen-
ism. Moreover, widely differing statements
as to the connection are to be found among
interpreters. Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
and Theophylact trace it back in a perfect-
ly arbitrary way to the contrast between
the unconscious mania of heathen inspira-
tion and the conscious inspiration of Chris-
tians. Comp. Neander: ‘‘because it is
now otherwise with you, and you have
become free organs of the Holy Spirit.”
Kling (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 486)
makes it: ‘‘that you may not suffer your-
selves to be again carried away to blind
worship of an unintelligible phenome-
non” (?). Theodoret holds that what is re-
ferred to is the contrast between the δια-
φωνία of heathenism and the συμφωνία in
Christianity. In like manner Rabiger:
‘“because your heathen cultus did not rest
upon a common Divine Spirit ruling in you
all, I make it known to you that there is
such a principle in Christianity in the
πνεῦμα Θεοῦ." But in this way the essential
point on which the question hinges is only
gained by abstraction out of what Paul actu-
adily says, and that in the interest of the
Paul is here making known to his readers
the criterion of Christian inspiration as re-
gards its confession, and that for this reason
(διό), because they, as formerly serving
dumb idols, had all the more need of this
γνωρίζειν. The words before us yield no
more than this. Ewald also imports too
much into them: You will not surely wish
back your former heathen days;. . it is
in the light of that old state of things that
one first really comes rightly to understand
and feel the value of Christianity, and so
forth. Hofmann shapes the connection in
accordance with his construction of the
text in ver. 2: because Paul does not wish
to leave his readers in the dark περὶ τ.
πνευματικῶν ; and because, on the other
hand, he knows what their old life had
been as respects divine service, therefore
he gives them the following instructions.
This is logically incorrect. For the second
element in this case would not be one
brought forward in addition to the first (τέ),
but one already lying at the root of it ; and
Paul must therefore have written, not οἶδά
τε (as Hofmann reads), but οἶδα yap.
278 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
anxiety in presence of the γλώσσαις λαλεῖν, and the second against undervalu-
ing the zpogyrevecv—comes just to this, that Paul has expressed himself in a
highly unintelligible way, and arbitrarily anticipates the elucidations in
detail which follow. — ἐν πνεύματι Θεοῦ] so that the Holy Spirit is the ele-
ment which pervades his inner life, and in which the λαλεῖν takes place.
Comp. on Rom. viii. 15 ; Matt. xxii. 43. — λαλῶν] uttering himself, speaking ;
λέγει, on the other hand, has reference to the object of the utterance. Comp.
on Rom. iii. 19 ; John viii. 43 ; Schulz, Geistesgaben, Ὁ. 94 ff. — ἀνάθεμα
Ἰησοῦς] se. ἐστῖ, accursed (see on Rom. ix. 8 ; Gal. i. 8), fallen into eternal
perdition is Jesus! This is the anti-Christian (especially the Jewish) con-
fession ; the Christian is : Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς, Jesus is Lord! Comp. Phil. ii.
11. Why did Paul not say Χριστός ? Because, from its original appellative
meaning, it would not have suited the first clause (avd@.); in the second,
again, its appellative meaning is contained in Κύριος ; and in both it was
essential to name the historical Person who was the Messiah of the Chris-
tians’ faith as exalted to be the σύνθρονος of God. It is self-evident, we may
add, that Paul regarded the Κύριος Ἰησοῦς as the constant watchword of the
believing heart, and the keynote of inspired speech. (x') ‘‘ Paulus loquitur
de confessione perseveranti et in tota doctrina,”’ Melanchthon. — Regarding
the confession itself, comp. 1 John iv. 1 f., where the proposition is of sub-
stantially the same import, only still more directly aimed against false
teachers.
Ver. 4. Although the fundamental character of all inspired speaking is not
in any case different : there are, notwithstanding, distributions of grace-gifts
(‘‘ divisiones gratiarum,” Vulg.), but it is the same Spirit (from whom they
proceed). Comp. Heb. ii. 4, and Liinemann upon that passage. Xdpioua,’
a specifically N. T. word, foreign to ordinary Greek, is used here in the
narrower sense (for in the wider sense, every manifestation of divine grace
—in particular, every part of the Christian possession of salvation, and every
activity of the Christian life—is a χάρισμα). It means any extraordinary
faculty, which operated for the furtherance of the welfare of the Christian
community, and which was itself wrought by the grace of God, through the
power of the Holy Spirit, in special individuals, in accordance, respectively,
with the measure of their individual capacities, whether it were that the
Spirit infused entirely new powers, or stimulated those already existing to
higher power and activity, Rom. xii. 6 ff. Regarding διαίρεσις, distribution,
comp. ver. 11; Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 55; Plat. Soph. p. 267 Ὁ, Phaedr. p. 266
B, Polit. p. 275 E ; Polyb. ii. 48. 10 ; Ecclus. xiv. 15; Judithix. 4. The
charismatic endowment is not something undivided ; we do not find a unity
and equality among the gifted, but there are distributiones donorum ; so that
one has this peculiar χάρισμα, and the other that, dealt out to him as hisown
appointed share. If we take διαιρέσεις to mean differences (Beza, and many
others, including de Wette, Ewald), this is equally lawful so far as linguistic
1Comp. Krumm, De notionib. psychol. χαρίσματα and the extraordinary, see Con-
Paulin., Gissae 1858, p. 35 ff. As regards the stitt. ap. viii. 1.1 ff.
difference between the general Christian
CHAP. XII., 5-7. ἷ 279
usage goes (Plat. Soph. p. 267 B, Prot. p. 358 A), but does not correspond
to the correlative purposely chosen by the apostle in ver. 11, διαιροῦν.
Vv. 5, 6. Continuation of the representation of the difference and yet rel-
ative unity of the χαρίσματα, illustrated in two characteristic forms of their
action, in so far, namely, as they present themselves practically as διακονίαι
and as ἐνεργήματα. These are not merely different names for the charismata
(as the Greek Fathers held), nor yet distinct species of them (Estius and
others), but different forms of expression in which they show themselves
and appear to the observer. — And there are distributions of services; but it is
the same Lord (Christ as Lord of the church) who is served thereby. To
make the διακονίαι refer to the specific offices in the church, ver. 28 (Beza,
Grotius, Estius, Olshausen, and many others), is to narrow the meaning too
much ; for in accordance with the first sentence, and in accordance gener-
ally with the comprehensive scope of the whole three sentences, ail
charismata must be meant, in so far, namely, as all, according-to the relation
of their exercise to Christ, manifest themselves as services rendered.—‘‘ And
there wre distributions of workings (deeds of power), but it is the sume God
who works them all (ἐνεργήματα) in all (in all who are acting in the power
of the Spirit).” ἪἜνεργ. is as little to be taken in a special sense here as
διακ. in the previous sentence ; it is neither to be referred to the work-
ing of miracles alone (so most interpreters on the ground of ver. 10,
where, however, it is joined with dvvdu.), nor to the healings of the sick (so
Olshausen, quite arbitrarily). No, αὐ charismata may manifest their oper-
ation in deeds (comp. on ἐνεργήματα, Polyb. ii. 42. 7, iv. 8. 7; Diod. iv. 51),
whether these be miraculous or not.
Remarx.—The Divine Trinity is here indicated in an ascending climax (comp.
on Eph. iv. 6), in such a way that we pass from the Spirit, who bestows the
gifts, to the Lord, who is served by means of them, and finally to God, who, as
the absolute First Cause and Possessor of all Christian powers, works the entire
sum of charismatic deeds in all thus endowed. This passage has always (from
Chrysostom and Theodoret onwards) been rightly adduced in opposition to
anti-Trinitarian error (comp. too Calovius against the Socinians) ; but it is to
be observed also here, that with all the equality of nature and inseparable unity
(2 Cor. xiii. 13) of the Three, still no dogmatic canon can do away with the
relation of subordination which is also manifest. Comp. Gess, v. d. Person
Christi, p. 158 f.; Kahnis, Dogm. III. p. 206 ff.
Ver. 7. Aé] leading on to the like destination of all the gifts. The empha-
sis lies on πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον. This is the aim, which is the same in the case
of every one who receives a gift. Zo each one is the manifestation of the
Spirit (his making known the Holy Spirit to others by charismatic acts)
given with a view to benefit (in order to be of use, see xiv. 12). The genitive
is to be taken in this objective sense (with Billroth, Schulz, Geistseg. p. 164,
and Hofmann), because there exists no reason here for departing from the
similar meaning of φανέρ. τῆς ἄληθ. in 2 Cor. iv. 2; and we have no other
instance of the use of the word except in the Fathers. Calvin, Riickert, de
Wette, and most expositors understand it subjectively: the self-revelation of
«80 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the Spirit. Even on the first interpretation there is not too much concession
to independent human activity (in opposition to de Wette), as is plain from
the very idea of the δίδοται.
Ver. 8 ff. Now one man may receive one, and another another endowment
from the same Spirit. The following nine charismata, enumerated in a
preliminary way up to ver. 10 (besides which, others are afterwards men-
tioned, ver. 28), are divided into three classes, which cannot, however,
correspond to the three διαιρέσεις, VV. 4-6, because there each sentence
comprises all charismata. The erternal division is distinctly marked by
Paul himself in this way, namely, that he notes the transition to a new cate-
gory by érépw’ (while for subdivision within the classes he uses 4/2), thus :
(1) ver. 8, by 6 μέν ; (2) ver. 9, by ἑτέρῳ dé ; (8) ver. 10, by ἑτέρῳ δέ. The
logical division again, although not rigidly carried out, presents itself with-
out constraint as follows :
I. Charismata which have reference to intellectual power :
1. λόγος σοφίας.
2. λόγος γνώσεως.
II. Charismata which depend upon special energy of faith:
1. The πίστις itself.
2. Its agency in deeds, namely,
α. ἰάματα.
b. δυνάμεις.
8. Its agency in words, namely, the προφητεία.
4. Its critical agency, the διάκρισις πνευμ.
1Π. Charismata which have reference to the γλῶσσαι :
1. Speaking with tongues.
2. Interpretation of tongues.?
Ver. 8. "2 μέν] This is followed by ἄλλῳ δέ instead of ᾧ dé An unexact
expression, as in ver. 28. Comp. Xen. Anab, iii. I. 35 ; Hermes in Stob.
Eel. phys. 52, p. 1082. ---- λόγος σοφίας) Discourse of wisdom, discourse the
contents of which are σοφία. The distinction drawn by many (including
Schulz, Neander, Billroth, Olshausen, comp. also Froschammer, von d. Cha-
1 Whether after ἑτέρῳ, vv. 9 and 10, we
read δέ or not (which Lachmann brackets in
ver. 9 and deletes in ver. 10) makes no dif-
ference atall as regards the marking of the
divisions (in opposition to Hofmann); the
divisions mark themselves by the way in
which the ἐτέρῳ stands out from the many
repetitions of ἄλλῳ. In several cases the
δέ too, after ἄλλῳ, is wanting in important
witnesses.
2 Other modes of division may be seen in
Kling, Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 477 ff. ; Engl-
mann, von d. Charismen, 1858, who, how-
ever, divides them into oficial and non-
oficial, which does not correspond with
the conception and nature of the gifts;
Krumm, /.c., who bases his division on the
categories πνεῦμα, καρδία, vods; de Wette
renounces any arrangement; Hofmann
divides according to the categories of the
cognitive faculty (Ady. σοφ., and Ady. γνώσεως)
of the volitional faculty (πίστις, ἰάματα, δυνά-
pets), and of the power of the Holy Spirit
(προφητεία κιτ.λ.). Bengel putsits aptly : “ ᾧ"
ἑτέρῳ: ἑτέρῳ: huic, alteri, alterii—genera
tria.”"—The distinction between II. and III.
arises from the fact that the γλῶσσαι were
an entirely peculiar χάρισμα, in connection
with which the agency of the νοῦς was
absent. In ver. 28 also the glossolalia is
ranked in a class by itself.
CHAP, XIT.;, 9) 281
rismen, 1850, p. 28 ff.) between this and λόγος γνώσεως, according to which
the former is a more practical, the latter a more theoretical method of teach-
ing (Bengel, Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt reverse it, comp. Cornelius ἃ Lapi-
de), is an unlikely one, seeing that the separation between theory and prac-
tice is not in keeping with the nature of inspired discourse. The more
correct view is indicated by ii. 6 f. compared with xili. 2 ; σοφία, namely, is
the higher Christian wisdom (see on 11. 6, comp. Eph. i. 17) in and by itself,
so that discourse, which enunciates its doctrines (mysteries), elucidates,
applies them, etc., is λόγος σοφίας. This, however, does not yet imply the
deep and thorough knowledge of these doctrines, the speculative insight
into, and apprehension and elaboration of, their connéction, of their
grounds, of their deeper ideas, of their proofs, of their ends, etc., and
a discourse which treats of these matters is λόγος γνώσεως.' Accordingly
the σοφία cannot cease at the Parousia, but the γνῶσις ceases, xiii. 8, because
it belongs to the category of imperfect temporal things. (y')_ Others inter-
pret otherwise. Chrysostom,? Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact are
wrong in holding that the possession or the want of the teaching faculty
makes the difference between σοφία and γνῶσις. See, on the contrary, xiii.
8; 2 Cor. xi. 6. Baur makes γνῶσις refer to the unfolding of the deeper
meaning of Scripture chiefly through allegorical exegesis, which is totally
without proof. De Wette gives no explanation : Osiander explains as we
do. Hofmann makes σοφία a property of the subject (see in opposition to
this, 11. 6 : σοφίαν λαλοῦμεν), one, namely, which qualifies for right judgment
in general ; γνῶσις, again, ὦ relation to an object, namely, the thorough mas-
tery of it in the particular instance in hand. But in that case the γνῶσις
would only be the application of the σοφία in concreto, and Paul would thus
not be adducing two χαρίσματα distinct in character from each other.— κατὰ
τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα] according to the same Spirit. Comp. ver. 11, and the classical
κατὰ Θεόν, according to divine destination (Valckenaer, ad Herod. 111. 153).
The prepositions διά, κατά, ἐν, are not equivalent in meaning (Riickert), but
they so express the relation of the Spirit to the divine bestowal (δίδοται), ac-
cording to the different aspects of His participation therein, as to show that
He is medians, normans, or continens, with respect to the different gifts in
question.
Ver. 9. ‘Erépw] not ἄλλῳ again, because introducing another class which
differs in kind from the preceding one. Comp. on Gal. i. 6 ; 2 Cor. xi. 4;
Matt. xvi. 14. — πίστις] cannot be the jides, salvifica in general, seeing that
this is a possession common to all and required of every Christian, not a pe-
culiar charisma of certain individuals. Hence it has been understood by
most commentators, following the Fathers, (see in Suicer, Thes. II. p. 727),
1 According to Ewald, λόγος σοφίας em-
braces more the intelligent explanation and
establishment of recognized truths, with a
view to profit in life ; λόγος γνώσεως, More
the treatment of obscurerand more hidden
portions of knowledge. But ii. 6 ff. shows
that the latter also are included under the
σοφία.
3 Paul and John, he says, had the λόγος
dopias; the λόγος γνώσεως Was possessed by
οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν πιστῶν, γνῶσιν μὲν ἔχοντες, διδάσ-
κειν δὲ οὕτως οὐ δυνάμενοι. In like manner
now Krumm asserts, “γνώσεως, proprieta-
tem in argumentis, σοφίας, in forma positam
esse.”
282 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS,
to refer to the fides miraculosa, Matt. xvii. 20. But this is clearly too narrow
a meaning, since not only the ἰάματα and δυνάμεις are ranked under this head,
but also the προφητεία and the διακρίσεις πνευμ. What is intended, therefore,
must be a high degree of faith in Christ produced by the Holy Spirit, a hero-
ism of faith,’ the effects of which manifested themselves in one in healings,
in another in wonders, in a third in prophecy (Rom, xii. 6), in a fourth in
discernment of spirits. — ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ πν.] in the same Spirit, so that, contained
in this Spirit, the χάρισμα is given, and the Spirit thus includes in Himself
the gift. — χαρίσμ. ἰάμ.} gifts, through means of which healings are effected.
The instances in the Acts of the Apostles show that this does not mean
natural skill, but cures wrought by spiritual power upon bodily maladies
(miraculous cures). Comp. Mark xvi. 18 ; Acts iv. 30. It does not, how-
ever, exclude the application of natural means in connection with the power
that wrought the cure (Mark vii. 33, vill. 23 ; John ix. 6, al.; Jas. v. 14).
The plural χαρίσματα points to the different kinds of sickness, for the healing
of which different gifts were needful.*
Ver. 10. ᾿Ενεργήματα duvau. | workings (ver. 6) which consist in acts of power.
It is a purely arbitrary assumption that by this is meant merely the ‘‘ potes-
tas puniendi sontes, qualis exercita in Ananiam, etc.” (Grotius, following
Chrysostom and Theophylact, comp. also David Schulz), They are in gen-
eral—excluding, however, the cures already assigned to a special gift—mi-
raculous works (comp. Acts iv. 30), which, as the effects of a will endowed
with miraculous power, may be very various according to the different oc-
casions which determined its action (2 Cor. xii. 12 ; Heb. ii. 4 ; also Rom.
xv. 19). Instances of raising the dead belonged likewise to this division.*
—rpooyteia| prophetic speech, i.e. address flowing from revelation and im-
pulse of the Holy Spirit, which, without being bound for that matter to a
specific office, suddenly (xiv. 30) unveils the depth of the human heart
(xiv. 25) and of the divine counsels (iii. 10 ; Eph. iii. 5), and thereby works
with peculiar power for the enlightenment, admonition, and comforting of
the faithful (xiv. 3), and so as to win over the unbelieving (xiv. 24). As
respects the substance of what he utters, the prophet is distinguished from
the speaker with tongues by this, that the latter utters prayers only (see be-
low) ; and as respects form, by the fact that the prophet speaks intelligibly,
not in an ecstatic way, consequently not without the exercise of reflective
thought ; he differs from the διδάσκαλος thus : ὁ μὲν προφητεύων πάντα ἀπὸ τοῦ
πνεύματος φθέγγεται ὁ δὲ διδάσκων ἐστὶν ὅπου Kai ἐξ οἰκείας διανοίας διαλέγεται,
Chrysostom on ver. 28. Comp. generally on Acts xi. 27. Liicke, Hinl. in
1“ Ardentissima et praesentissima appre-
hensio Dei in ipsius potissimum voluntate,
ad effectus vel in naturae vel in gratiae
regno singulariter conspicuos.’’—BENGEL.
2 As Baur rationalizes all these charis-
mata: πίστις being, according to him, a
peculiarly strong faith in Divine Providence ;
the χάρισμα ἰαμάτων being the gift of praying
with special power and ferveney for the
sick, with more or less confdent promise of
recovery, if it please God; and the ἐνεργήμ.
δυνάμ, being proofs of extraordinary men-
tal fortitude and energy in the interests of
Christianity. ν
3 But not instances of the casting out o
demons (Weiss, δὲδὶ, Theol. p. 410), which
are to be placed under the category of the
ἰάματα (comp. Matt. xv. 28; Luke vi. 17, ix.
42; Acts x. 38).
CHAP, XIr., 10; 283
d. Offend. Joh. p. 29. Giider in Herzog’s Hncyklop. XII. p. 210. f. — δια-
κρίσεις πνευμ.} judgments of spirits, i.e. judgments which avail, and that im-
mediately on hearing the utterances, for the preservation of the church
from misleading influences, by informing it from what spirits the utterances
proceeded, and by whom they were carried on in the different cases (hence
the plural διακρίσεις), whether consequently the Holy Spirit, or the human
spirit merely, or even demoniac spirits (1 Tim. iv. 1; 1 John iv. 1) were at
work ; καὶ γὰρ πολλὴ τότε τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν ἦν διαφορὰ, τοῦ διαβόλου φιλονεικοῦντος
παρυποστῆσαι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ τὸ ψεῦδος, Chrysostom. Respecting διάκρισις, comp.
on Rom. xiv. 1. — γένη γλωσσῶν] The γλώσσαις λαλεῖν in Corinth was identical
with that mentioned in Acts x. 46 and xix. 6, identical also with the speak-
ing at Pentecost, Acts ii., according to its historical substance (see on Acts,
loc. cit.), although not according to the form preserved by tradition in
Luke’s account, which had made it a speaking in foreign languages, and so
a miracle of a quite peculiar kind. Most commentators, indeed, following
Origen and the Fathers generally (with exceptions, however, as early as
Irenaeus and Tertullian), have taken γλῶσσαι in this passage also as meaning
Soreign languages (so Storr, Flatt, Heydenreich, Schulthess, Schrader,
Riickert, Ch. F. Fritzsche, Maier), and that, too, in the view of the ma-
jority, wnacquired languages ;’ only a few (among the most recent of whom
are Schulthess, de charismatib. Sp. St., Lips. 1818, and Schrader, also Ch.
Ἐς, Fritzsche in his Nov. Opusc. Ὁ. 302 ff.) regarding them as acquired by
learning.? The former view is held also by Riickert (‘‘ the faculty, in iso-
lated moments of high inspiration, of praising God in languages which
they had not previously learned”) and Baeumlein in the Stud. d. evange-
lischen Greistlichkeit Wiirtemb. VI. 2, 1834, pp. 30-123 ; Osiander ; Kling in
the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 487 ff. ; to some extent Olshausen and Bauer in
the Stud. τ. Krit. 1848, p. 658 ff. ; 1844, p. 708 ff. See, in opposition to it,
especially Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 17 f. ; Bauer in the 7ibing.
Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 104 ff. ; Schulz, Geistesgaben, p. 57 ff. ; Zeller, Apos-
telgesch. p. 89 ff. ; van Hengel, de Gave der talen, Leiden 1864, p. 90 ff.
1 50, too, Zinsler, de charism. τοῦ yA. Aa- that it had been predicted by the prophets
λεῖν, Aug. Vind. 1847,—a Roman Catholic
prize-essay which obtained the prize, but is
destitute of all scientific worth. Ofamuch
more thorough description is another suc-
cessful prize-essay (also Roman Catholic),
by Englmann, von den charismen, etc., Mainz
1848, who explains it in the same way of for-
eign languages; as also Froschammer,
Charismen, 1850; and Maier, Die Glossolalié
des apost. Zeitalt. 1855.
2 Ch. F. Fritzsche’s view is: At Corinth,
as in seaport towns generally, there were
labourers, fishers, ete., who, from their in-
tercourse with foreign sailors, had become
so far acquainted with different languages
as to be able to converse about matters of
ordinary life. Many of these people had
become Christians, and having now learned
that in the Messianic times the Holy Spirit
would bring about a speaking concerning
divine things in strange tongues (Isa. xxviii.
11 f. ; Joel iii.), they had accordingly applied
this oracle to themselves, ‘‘quos pro sua,
licet tenui, exterarum linguarum peritia
prae ceteris idoneos putassent, quos
Spiritus s. barbaris linguis de rebus divinis
disserere juberet.’’ Since, however, most
of the Christians did not understand this
speaking in strange tongues, there had to
be an interpretation into Greek, and the
interpreters in their turn not less than the
speakers, regarded their ability as flowing
from the Holy Spirit. So it all resolves it-
self into naive self-deception and imagina-
tion |
284 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Even putting out of account the singular expression γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν, which is
supposed to refer to a foreign language, and the psychological impossibility ’
of speaking languages which had not been learned, the following consider-
ations tell decidedly against the view of foreign languages.: (1) It would
make xiv. 2 untrue in all cases in which persons were found among the au-
dience who understood the languages spoken. (2) In xiv. 10, 11 we have
the γένη φωνῶν (languages) expressly distinguished from the γένη γλωσσῶν (see
unfounded objections to this in Baeumlein, p. 92, and in Hofmann), and the ᾿
former adduced as an analogue of the latter. (3) What is contrasted with
the glossolalia is not speaking in one’s native tongue, but speaking with
employment of the understanding (xiv. 15) ; and the glossolalia itself is
characterized as λαλεῖν πνεύματι. (4) In xiv. 6 there is contrasted with the
γλῶσσ. λαλεῖν the speaking ἐν ἀποκαλύψει, ἐν γνώσει k.t.A., Which could all, of
course, be done in any language ; hence the unintelligibleness of the glosso-
lalia is not to be sought in the idiom, but in the fact that what was spoken
contained neither ἀποκάλυψις nor γνῶσις, ete. (5) Upon this theory, the case
supposed in xiv. 28 could not have occurred at all, since every speaker
would have been able also to interpret. (6) In xiv. 18 Paul states that he
himself possessed the glossolalia in a high degree, but adds that he did not
exercise it in the church,—from which it would follow that Paul was in the
habit of praying in private, before God, in foreign languages! (7) In xiv.
9, διὰ τῆς γλώσσης plainly means by the tongue, which, however, would be a
quite superfluous addition if the point were not one concerning speaking
with tongues (not with languages). (8) Paul would have discussed the
whole subject of the χάρισμα in question from quite another point of view,
namely, according to the presence or non-presence of those who understood
foreign languages. Billroth therefore is right in opposing, as we do, the
hypothesis of foreign languages ; but he still holds fast the signification
language, and maintains that the glossolalia was ‘‘ the speaking of a mixed
language, which comprised the elements or rudiments of actual historic languages
of the most widely different kinds, and was the type of the universal character
of Christianity.” But to say nothing of the Quixotic arbitrariness of the
conception of such a medley, to say nothing also of the fact that the first
rudiments of languages must have been only very imperfect, unadapted for
supersensuous themes, and wholly unsuitable as a means of expression for
ecstatic inspiration—this view is opposed by almost all the considerations
adduced against the hypothesis of foreign languages applied with the req-
uisite modifications, and in addition by the phrase γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν without
the article ; for the mixed language would surely not have been indefinitely
a language, but the language κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the primeval speech. Rossteuscher,
too (Gabe d. Sprachen im apost. Zeitalter, 1850), explains it as languages, and
infers from xiii. 1 that the glossolalia in 1 Cor. was the speaking in angelic
languages (Acts ii. : in human languages), the designation being formed
with reference to the characteristic of this mysterious language, that it be-
1 This is made only the more evident, if take elements from very different languages
we suppose (comp. 6.0. Kling) that one and join them creatively together in a har-
speaking with tongues could perhaps even monious combination.
CHAP. XII, 10. 285
tokened a converse alone with God, such as the angels have. So also, in
substance, Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 67 f. But this whole con-
ception is shown to be erroneous when we consider that, if the specific
characteristic of the phenomenon had been its angelic nature, the latter
would have found its expression in the very name of the thing, and would
also have been made mention of by Paul in his certainly pretty minute dis-
cussion of the subject ; whereas, on the contrary, in xiii. 1 a speaking ταῖς
γλώσσαις τῶν ἀγγέλων is Only supposed as an imaginary case to heighten the
contrast. Generally, however, the explanations which make it a speaking in
a language or languages, are incompatible with the whole account of it which
follows, even if we try to represent to ourselves the phenomenon and the
designation as Hofmann does. According to him, the question is regarding
languages spoken by the speaker only in virtue of his being carried away
by the Holy Spirit, the distinctions between which, however, were not to
be considered as differences between the language of one nation and an-
other, but arose out of this, that the Holy Spirit gave impulse and power
to the speaker to make his language for himself for what he had to utter at that
very moment, so that the language moulded itself specially in the mouth of
each individual respectively for that which had to be uttered. Those ex-
positors who departed from the signification language entered on the right
path.’ But that by itself was not enough to bring them to what was pos-
itively the right meaning. For Bleek in the Stud. τ. Krit. 1829, pp. 3-79,
1830, p. 43 ff., explains it as glosses, i.e. antique, highly poetic words and
Sormulae to some extent consisting of provincialisms. This view is equally op-
posed by most of the considerations which tell against the foreign lan-
guages, as well as by xiii. 1 ; and further, it has against it the fact that ya.
in the above sense is a terminus technicus which occurs, indeed, after Aris-
totle, although for the most part in grammarians, but which the New Tes-
tament writers probably did not so much as know ; and also the considera-
tion that the singular γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν, γλώσσαν ἔχειν, γλῶσσῃ προσεύχεσθαι, as
well as the expression γλῶσσαι ἀγγέλων, would be quite absurd. See further,
Baur, loc. cit. p. 85 ff. (who, however, in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1838, p. 618 ff.,
has come over in substance to Bleek’s view) ; Schulz, loc. cit. p. 20 ff., and
in the Stud. uw. Krit. 1839, p. 752 ff. ; Wieseler in the Stud. τ. Krit. 1838,
p. 723 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Glossolalie, 1850, p. 28 ff. The result of all this is,
that there is only the signification tongue remaining for γλῶσσα, so that γλώσ-
cate λαλεῖν expresses an uttering oneself with tongues. This is not, however,
to be taken as justifying the extreme view of Bardili (significatus primitiv.
vocis προφητ., etc., Gott. 1786) and Eichhorn (Biblioth. I. pp. 91 ff., 775 ff. ;
Il. p. 755 ff. ; III. p. 322 ff.), according to which what is meant is a lisping
of inarticulate tones ;? for such a strange form of expression for inspiration,
1 Luther too, up to 1528, had “‘ tongues,”
but from that date onwards has ‘“lan-
guages.’’ In chap. xiv., however, he has
still ‘ tongues” in 1545.
2 Wieseler approached nearest to this
view, understanding ‘‘an ecstatic speaking
in unintelligible expressions, i.e. in soft,
scarcely audible, inarticulate words, tones
and sounds, in which inspired pious feeling
Sound vent’ (Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 738).
The same writer, however, has more recent-
ly (see Stud. wu. Krit. 1860, p. 113 ff.) modified
his view to this extent, that he now explains
the ecstatic soft praying as being only one
286 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
for which Paul would hardly have given thanks to God,—such a play of
spiritual utterance as would hardly have made any certain charismatic ex-
position possible,—must have been clearly presented by the text, in order,
despite these considerations, to warrant its assumption. Comp. on Acts ii.
But the text characterizes the speaking in tongues as utterance of prayer
(xiv. 13-17) in which the νοῦς falls into the background, and therefore un-
intelligible without interpretation. There must thus, certainly, have been
a want of connection, since the reflective faculty was absent which regulates
and presents clearly the conceptions ; there may even have been inarticu-
lateness in it, sometimes in a greater, sometimes in a less degree ; but must
it on this account have been a mere babbling? May it not have been a
speaking in ecstatic ejaculations, abrupt ascriptions of praise to God, and
other mysterious outbursts in prayer of the highest strain of inspiration ?
Baur, too, loc. cit., agrees in substance with this ;* as also Steudel in the
Tiib. Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 135 ff. ; Neander ; Kuntze in the theol. Mitarb.
1840, p. 119 ff. ; Olshausen (who, however, takes yA. as languages, and
holds himself obliged, on the ground of Acts ii., to include also the use of
foreign languages) ; de Wette ; Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 362 f. ; Zeller in the
theol. Jahrb. 1849, 1, p. 43, and Apostelgesch. p. 111. Comp. too, Ewald,
Jahrb, ΤΠ. p. 270 ff., who, however, derives from the speaking with tongues
the ἀββὰ ὁ πατήρ, which is in itself so intelligible, and which does not pre-
suppose any high inspiration, and the unutterable sighings, Rom. viii. 26,
which do not belong to the sphere of the λαλεῖν. Similarly van Hengel, p.
105, who, again, conceives the original glossolalia (‘‘ open-hearted and loud
speaking to the glorifying of God in Christ,” see on Acts ii.) to have become
so degenerate and abused by the Corinthians, that it was now ‘‘a spiritless
counterfeit, a product of pride and vanity,” and so no longer to the glory of
God in Christ,—an assumption which leaves it unexplained why Paul
should not have denounced an abuse of this kind in the severest way, and
how he could even place his own speaking with tongues upon the same
level with that of the Corinthians. Hilgenfeld, who understands it to mean
language of immediate divine suggestion (‘‘ divine tongues, spirit-voices
from a higher world”), is not disposed to keep distinct from each other the
two meanings of γλῶσσα, tongue and language (so also Zeller, Delitzsch, and
others), although Paul himself keeps them distinct in xiv. 10 f. Schulz
limits the conception too narrowly to ascriptions of praise to God,? since, in
special γένος γλωσσῶν, no longer making it
the universal form of all speaking with
tongues, and in other respects agreeing in
substance with our interpretation. But
there is nothing in the whole section to
lead to the idea of even a soft kind of glosso-
lalia; on the contrary, the comparisons,
in particular, with the flute, lyre, trumpet,
and cymbal, as well as with foreign lan-
guages, are decidedly against this. A soft
lisping might run along with it, but was
assuredly no special γένος γλωσσῶν.
1 Comp. also Weiss, δὲδι, Theol. p. 410.
2 The result of his investigation is pre-
sented by Schulz, p. 160, as follows: ‘‘ The
extraordinary excitement of mind, which
at times possessed believers in Christ in the
primitive church at the thought of the sai-
vation now manifested in Christ, of the
blessedness of God’s chosen children now
realized after the fulfilment of his earlier
promises, and which, under certain circum-
stances, rose even to ecstasy, was itself re-
garded asa special gracious gift of the God-
head, and since no nearer means of expla-
nation offered itself, as an immediate oper-
CHAP. XII., 10. 287
fact, xiv. 13-17 shows that it included prayer, praise, and thanksgiving.
We are accordingly to understand by γλώσσαις λαλεῖν such an outburst of
prayer in petition, praise, and thanksgiving, as was so ecstatic that in connection
with it the speaker's own conscious intellectual activity was suspended, while the
tongue did not serve as the instrument for the utterance of self-active reflection,
but, independently of it, was involuntarily set in motion by the Holy Spirit, by
whom the man in his deepest nature was seized and borne away.’ As regards
this matter, it is conceivable—(1) that the abeyance of the νοῦς made this
λαλεῖν so disconnected and mysterious for hearers who were bound to the con-
ditions of the νοῦς, that it could not be understood by them without ἑρμηνεία.
Incomprehensible sounds, partly sighing, partly jubilant cries, broken
words, expressions new in their form and connection, in which the deepest
emotion struggled to express itself, and in whatever other ways the tongue
might give utterance to the highest surgings and heavings of the Spirit,—
it remained unfruitful for others, if no interpretation was added, like a for-
eign language not understood. Equally conceivable is it (2) that in such
utterances of prayer, the tongue, because speaking independently of the
νοῦς, apparently spoke of itsel7,? although it was in reality the organ of the
Holy Spirit. It was not the J of the man that spoke, but the tongue,—so
the case seemed to be, and so arose its designation. But (8) because that ec-
static kind of prayer showed itself under very different characteristic modi-
fications (which we doubtless, from want of experience of them, are not in
a position to establish), and the same speaker with tongues must, according
to the varying degrees, impulses, and tendencies of his ecstasy, have ex-
pressed himself in manifold ways which could be easily distinguished from
each other, so that he appeared to speak with different tongues, there arose
both the plural expression γλώσσαις λαλεῖν and the mode of view which led
ation of the Holy Spirit. Every one there-
fore willingly yielded himself to such an ex-
altation of spirit, and had no scruple in
giving vent to his joy of soul by joyous and
jubilant tones, shouting aloud the praises
of God in song, partly in old and familiar
strains, partly in newly formed ones, with-
out any concern for the fact that in this
way he might easily fall into boundless ex-
travagances, improprieties, and troubles.
This singing of praise to God, arising in and
From that condition of ecstasy,—these triumph-
ant, loud-sounding strains of jubilation (not
the condition of ecstasy itself), ave in our
judgment what is denoted by the formulas
γλώσσῃ and γλώσσαις λαλεῖν."
1 Τῇ the ancient church we have, as anal-
ogies to the glossolalia, to some extent
(Ritschl, altkath. K. Ὁ. 473 ff.) the Montanistic
ecstasies (see Schwegler, Montanism, p. 83
ff.; Hilgenfeld, Glossolalie, p. 115 ff.; comp.
Liicke Hinl. in d. Apokal. J. p. 824, ed. 2);
in modern times, the ecstatic discourses
of the French and German inspired ones
(Goebel in the Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol. 1854,
p. 287 ff.), as well as the Zrvingite speaking
with tongues (Hohl, Bruchstiicke aus d. Leben
Trv., St. Gallen 1839, evangel. Kirchenzeit.
1839, No. 54 f. ; 1839, No. 88f.; Reich in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 195 ff.), and ecstatic
incidents at Revivals and among the Ameri-
can Methodists (Fabri, d. newesten Hrweckun-
gen in America, etc., 1860); as likewise glos-
solalic phenomena, which are narrated of
clairvoyants (Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 364 f.).
But earlier still we have another analogue in
Philo’s conception of the divinely inspired
speaking of the prophets ; the prophet only
seems to speak himself, καταχρῆται δὲ ἕτερος
αὐτοῦ τοῖς φωνητηρίοις ὀργάνοις, στόματι καὶ
γλώττῃ πρὸς μήνυσιν ὧν ἂν θέλῃ (Quis rer. div.
haer.1. p. 510, Μ8ηρ.).--Πραγαϊηρ the essen-
tial difference of somnambulist phenomena,
which may be compared with the speaking
with tongues, see Delitzsch, Psychol. loc. cit.
—There is not the remotest ground for
thinking of an ecclesiastical secret language
(Redslob, Apokal. I. 1859).
2The tongue was not γλῶσσα ὑπήκοος τῷ
λογισμῷ, Plut. Mor. p. 908.
288 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
men to distinguish γένη γλωσσῶν." --- ἑρμηνεία yawoo.| Interpretation of tongues,
i.e. a making of tongues intelligible in speaking, a presentation of the sense of
what they βαγ. The condition for this was the capacity of the νοῦς, pro-
duced by the Spirit, to receive what was prayed for in glossolalia. The
man speaking with tongues might himself (xiv. 5-13) have the χάρισμα of
the interpreter (comp. the classical ὑποφήτης), but did not always have it
himself alone, as Wieseler also now admits (Stud. wu. Krit. 1860, p. 117) in
opposition to his own earlier view. (z’)
Ver. 11. Amid all this diversity, however, what unity of the operative
principle ! -- ἐνεργεῖ] namely, as the divine power endowing the different
individuals differently. See what follows. Διάφοροι μὲν οἱ κρουνοὶ, pia δὲ
πάντως πηγή, Theodoret. — ἰδίᾳ] seorsim, severally. See Bernhardy, p. 185.
Comp. Plato, Menex. Ὁ. 249 B: ἅπερ ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ ἴδια γίγνεται. Pind. Nem.
iii. 42 ; and very often in classical writers. Elsewhere in the N. Τὶ. : κατ’
idiav. — καθὼς βούλεται] not : arbitrarily, but (comp. on Matt. i. 19) : im ae-
cordance with the determination of His will, which by no means precludes this
divine self-determining action of the Holy Spirit from proceeding in a man-
ner corresponding to the natural and general Christian capacity, and to the
peculiar disposition and tendency of the minds, of men. Hence, on the
one hand, the possibility that, from the human side, particular charismata
may be obtained by effort, ver. 31, xiv. 1; and also, on the other hand, the
duty of not estimating slightly the gifts of others. Observe, further, in
καθὼς βούλεται the personality of the Spirit.
Ver. 12. Illustration of how one and the same Spirit works all the cha-
rismata as He will ; namely, just as the case stands with the body, that its
many members make up its unity, so also does it stand in like manner with
Christ, whose many members likewise constitute the unity of His body.
1 Baur, in the Stud. τ. Krit. 1838, p. 628 ff.,
professes himself, so far as the plural ex-
pression γλώσσαις λαλεῖν is concerned, an
adherent of Bleek’s theory, which in other
respects he impugns, with two limitations,
however (see p. 636) : (1) that we are not to
connect with γλῶσσαι the conception of a
poetic, inspired mode of speech; and (2)
that Bleek’s explanation is not to be applied
to the passages in the Acts. According to
Baur, it is “a speaking in strange, unusual
phrases which deviate from the prevailing usage
634 f.).—The different explanations of γένη
yA. may be easily known from the different
views of the nature of the χάρισμα in itself.
Those interpreters, ¢.g., who understand
γλῶσσαι of foreign languages, think of the
variety of languages (Chrysostom on ver. 1:
ὁ μὲν τῇ -Περσῶν, ὁ δὲ τῶν Ῥωμαίων, ὃ δὲ τῇ
᾿Ινδῶν, ὁ δὲ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ τινι τοιαύτῃ εὐϑέως ἐφϑέγ-
yeto γλώσσῃ) ; Eichhorn: “all sorts of unin-
telligible tones ;’’ Schulz: ‘‘many various
strains of divinely inspired songs of
praise ;°’ Wieseler (1838): the inarticulate
of the language.” The pressure of the over-
powering feeling, which strove for expres-
sion, called to its aid these forms of speech,
which were partly borrowed from foreign
languages, partly at least not in use in the
ordinary language of common life. These
forms of speech were, according to him, the
γλῶσσαι, and the γλώσσαις λαλεῖν Was an in-
tensified γλώσσῃ Aad. But if γλῶσσα, both
in its singular and plural form, is to mean
tongue (see p. 622), then γλῶσσαι (the plural)
cannot at the same time mean w/terances of
the tongue, peculiarities of language (see p.
lisping itself, with and without its interpreta-
tion; Rossteuscher: “human and angelic
languages,”’ xiii.1; Hilgenfeld: different
kinds of divinely suggested speech; Hof-
mann: all the different sorts of peculiar
forms of the language in the mouth of each
individual.
2 How the ancient interpreters conceived
of this χάρισμα, may be seen, 6... in Theo-
doret: ἀνὴρ yap πολλάκις τὴν Ἑλλάδα γλῶτταν
μόνην εἰδὼς, ἑτέρου τὴν Σκυϑῶν καὶ Θρακῶν
διαλεγομένου, τὴν ἑρμηνείαν προσέφερε τοῖς
ἀκούουσι.
CHAP. XIT. 513; ᾿ 289
Ὁ Χριστός is not the Christian church, but Christ ‘Himself, inasmuch, that is
to say, as He, as the Head of the church, has in its many members His or-
ganic body,’ which receives forth from Him, the Head, the whole harmo-
nious connection and efficiency of all its members and its growth. Christ
is not conceived as the Hgo of the church as His body (Hofmann), but as in
all parallel expressions of the apostle (see especially Eph. iv. 16, 25, v. 30 ;
Rom. xii. 4 f., and above on vi. 15), as the Head of the church, and the
church as the body of the Head. Ver. 21 does not run counter to this ; see
on that passage. — The repetition of τοῦ σώματος, which is superfluous in
itself, or might have been represented by αὐτοῦ (comp. Lobeck, ad Aj. p.
222, ed. 2; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anabd. i. 7. 11), serves here emphatically to
bring out the unity. :
Ver. 13. Confirmation of this unity from the holy inward relation which
conditions it. For even by means of one Spirit were we all baptized into one
body—i.e. for even by this, that we received one and the same Holy Spirit
at our baptism, were we all to be bound together into one ethical body.
Comp. Titus ili. 5. —In καί, which belongs to ἐν ἑνὶ πν., is conveyed the
indication of the relation corresponding to what was spoken of in ver. 12 ;
ἐβαπτίσθ., again, is not to be taken tropically, as is done by Reiche also (‘‘ de
Spiritu sancto largiter nobis collato”), following Venema, Michaelis, Rosen-
miiller, Krause, Flatt, and admitting only an allusion to baptism ; but, as
the word itself must have suggested to the reader, of the actual baptism,
only in such a way that by ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι it was to be brought prominently
before the mind from its spiritual side, according to its materia coelestis, in
so far as it was a baptism of the Spirit. Comp. Hofmann also, now in op-
position to his own Schriftbew. 11. 2, Ὁ. 28. This βαπτισθῆναι ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι
has taken place εἰς év σῶμα, in reference to one body (Matt. xxviii. 19 ; Rom.
vi. 3; 1 Cor. x. 2), ὁ.6. it had as its destination that we should all now
make up one body. Regarding εἴτε "Iovdaior k.7.A., comp. Gal. iii. 28 ; Col.
iii. 11. — The second hemistich does not begin already with εἴτε Iovdaior k.T.A.,
in which case καί before πάντες would be only in the way (comp. also iii.
22; Col. i. 16), but starts only from καὶ πάντες, so that the reception of the
one Spirit at baptism is once again declared with emphasis. The reference
to baptism was correctly made by as early commentators as Chrysostom,’
Oecumenius, Theophylact ; in recent times, by Riickert, Baur, de Wette,
Ewald, Maier, Hofmann : and we were all given to drink of one Spirit (comp.
Ecclus. xv. 3). To represent the communication of the Spirit which took
place at baptism as a giving to drink, followed naturally from the concep-
tion of the pouring out of the Spirit,* John vii. 37 ff. ; Acts ii. 17 ; Rom.
v. 5 ; and is here, after being already mentioned with ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι, brought
forward yet again independently and with peculiar emphasis asthe inward cor-
relate of the ἕν σῶμα. This καὶ π. ἕν rv. ἐποτ. refers neither (Augustine,
1Comp. Ehrenfeuchter, prakt. Theol. I. ἐπιφοίτησιν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος καὶ πρὸ
p. 57 f.; see also Constitt. ap. ii. 59. 1. TOV μυστηρίων ἐγγινομένην ἡμῖν.
2 He gives first the explanation referring 3 Comp. also Isa. xix. 10: πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς
it to the Lord’s Supper, but then goes on: κύριος πνεύματι κατανύξεως.
ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκεῖ νῦν ἐκείνην λέγειν πνεύματος τὴν
290 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Luther, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Calovius, Osiander, Neander, Kahnis,
Kling, and many others) to the Lord’s Supper (most adopting the reading εἰς
ἕν πν., Which would mean : in order to make up one Spirit), nor ‘‘ to the fur-
ther nourishment and training in Christianity through the Divine Spirit, who
constantly renews Himself in every Christian” (Billroth, Olshausen), in con-
nection with which the reference to the Lord’s Supper is not excluded. The
aorist is against both these interpretations, for its temporal significance must
be the same with that of ἐβαπτ., and against the former of them is the read-
ing ἕν πνεῦμα" (without εἰς), by which the reference to the Lord’s Supper
(see, in opposition to this, Theophylact) is debarred in this way, because
the idea that we drink the Holy Spirit in the Lord’s Supper is not biblical,
not even underlying x. 3 f. See, besides, Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 355. Riick-
ert refers correctly καί. . . ἐποτ. to the reception of the Spirit as an event
happening once for all, but takes the relation of the two clauses in such a
way, that what Paul means to say is, ‘‘ we are not simply one body, but
also one spirit.” In that case he would not have written ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι in
the first clause.
Ver. 14 ff. For the further illustration (yap) of this unity, the figure of
the human body is again brought forward in order now to carry it out more
minutely, and to show by it in detail on to ver. 26 how preposterous it is
to be discontented with the gift received, or to despise those differently
gifted. On the whole passage, comp. the speech of Menenius Agrippa in
Livy, ii. 32, also Seneca, de ira, ii. 31 ; Marc. Anton. ii. 1, vii. 13 ; Clem.
Cor. 1. 87. — ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ χείρ] because Iam not hand, I am not of the body, do
not belong to it. — οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο κ.τ.λ.} cannot, with Erasmus,’ be taken as
a question (which Billroth, Riickert, Hofmann, following Bengel and others,
rightly rejects), so that the double negative should strengthen the denial :
num ideo non est corporis? In this case, namely, oi would only be the or-
dinary interrogative, which presupposes an affirmative answer ; but as such
it can by no means warrant or explain an intensifying repetition. And an
anadiplosis of the ov (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 696 f.; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp.
p. 199 A) would be suitable in an earnest declaratory sentence, but not in
such a question as this. We must therefore delete the mark of interroga-
tion, as Lachmann also and Tischendorf have done,* so as to make ov serve
as a negative for the whole sentence, while the succeeding οὐκ applies sim-
ply to the ἔστιν. We render consequently, so is he not on that account (name-
ly, because he asserts it in that discontented expression) no part of the body ;
that peevish declaration does not do away with what he is, namely, a member
of the body. — Regarding παρά with the accusative in the sense of : for
the sake of, in virtue of, on account of, see Klausen, ad Aesch. Choeph. 388 ;
Kriiger on Thue. i. 141. 6 ; so often in Demosthenes. By τοῦτο" cannot be
meant : ,this, that it is not the hand (Billroth and others), but only (comp.
1 [This reading is adopted by all the re- Neander.
eent editors.—T. W. C.] 3 [Also Westcott and Hort, Stanley, Kling,
32 Luther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin,and most and Beet so translate.—T. W. C.]
expositors, including Griesbach, Scholz, 4 Comp. παρὰ τοῦτο, 4 Macc. x. 19; mapa
Flatt, Schulz, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, ταῦτα πάντα, Judith viii. 25.
OHAP. RIT, 17-23. 291
Hofmann), as the logical relation of the protasis and apodosis requires :
this, that it gives vent to such discontent about its position of not being the hand,
as if it could not regard itself in its capacity of foot as belonging at all to
the body. Erasmus in his Paraphrase happily describes the temper of the
member which spoke in this way as : deplorans sortem suam.’ —It may be
added, that as early an interpreter as Chrysostom has appreciated the fact
of Paul’s placing together foot and hand, eye and ear, as analogous mem-
bers : ἐπειδὴ yap ov τοῖς σφόδρα ὑπερέχουσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ὀλίγον ἀναβεβηκόσι φθονεῖν
εἰώθαμεν.
Ver. 17 exposes the preposterous character of the preceding language. —
ὀφθαλμός] sc. ἦν, ver. 19. — ὄσφρησις] Plato, Phaed. p. 111 B, the sense of
smell.
‘Ver. 18. Νυνὶ dé] but so, i.e. but in this way, as the case really stands, has
God given to the members their place (ἔθετο), etc. — ἕν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν] is in
apposition to τὰ μέλη, and defines it more precisely. — ἠθέλησεν] To this sim-
ple will of God each member has to submit itself. The thought in καθὼς
βούλεται, ver. 11, is different.
Ver. 19 f. If, on the contrary, the whole of the members, which make up
the body, were one member,—if they, instead of their variety, formed one
undifferentiated member, —vwhere were the body ?' In that case there would
be no body existent, for its essential nature is just the combination of dif-
ferent organs,—a new abductio ad absurdum. -— But so (as ver. 18) there are
indeed many members, but one body. The antitheses in vv. 18 and 20 mani-
fest, in contradistinction to the perverseness of vain longing after gifts not
received, the necessity of the existing relation to the organic and harmoni-
ous subsistence and life of the church.
Ver. 21. Hitherto, in vv. 15-20, this figure has been used to rebuke those
who were discontented with what they considered their lesser gifts ; we
now come to those who were proud of their higher gifts and contemptuous
towards the less highly gifted. — οὐ δύναται] of the impossibility conditioned
by the indispensableness of the hand for the eye. — πάλιν] as in Matt. iv. 7,
v. 33, again, —since the case belongs to the same category. Comp. on 2 Cor.
x. 7; Rom. xv. 10. —7 κεφαλή) the head, consequently the part of the body
which stands highest, compared with the feet, the members that stand lowest.
That Paul, in his specializing representation, has in view simply the corporeal
members as such, and therefore introduces the head also upon the scene with
the rest, without in any way thereby touching upon the idea of Christ as
the Head of the church (comp. on ver. 12), is plain from the whole picture,
which, in its concrete details, is as far as possible from giving occasion to
allegorical interpretations of the several parts of the body.
Vy. 22, 23. No ; the relationship of the members is, on the contrary, of a
different sort ; those accounted weaker are necessary ; likewise those held to be
less honourable are the more honourably attired; those which are unseemly are
invested with all the greater seemliness. What particular members Paul
specially meant here by the weak (Theodoret, Estius, and several others
1 [That is, what would become of the organization of the body as a whole ?—T. W. C.]
292 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
hold: the brain and inward organs ; Hofmann: ‘‘the delicate inward
parts ;” Bengel : the hands; most commentators, including Billroth : the
eyes and ears) and by the ἀτιμοτέροις (usually: the feet ; Grotius and Calo-
vius : ‘‘venter cum iis quae sub ventre sunt ;” Kypke : the intestines)
cannot be definitely settled in detail, since he only says in a summary way :
‘How contrary it isto the natural relation of the members, if one were to say
to the other (as in the preceding illustration the eye to the hand, or the head
to the feet), I have no need of thee ! Such contemptuous treatment can
find no warrant either in the weakness, or the less honourable character, or
the unseemliness of any member ; for the members which we count weak are
shielded from depreciation by their necessity ; those held less honourable, by
their more honourable dress ; and those which are unseemly, by their seemly
covering.” Since, however, it is of itself undoubted that he reckoned the
pudenda (τὰ αἰδοῖα) and the breech among the ἀσχήμονα, we may further, with-
out arbitrariness, set down the delicate organs of sense, such as the eye and
ear, among the ἀσθενέστερα, and among the ἀτιμότερα again the members spe-
cially cared for in the way of adornment by dress, such as the trunk, hips,
and shoulders. (A?) — πολλῷ μᾶλλον] the logical multo potius. — τὰ δοκοῦντα]
which appear, like ἃ δοκοῦμεν, ver. 23. Chrysostom aptly says, that what is
conveyed is not τῆς φύσεως τῶν πραγμάτων, but τῆς τῶν πολλῶν ὑπονοίας ἡ ψῆφος.
The position is, as in Plato, Rep. p. 572 B, καὶ πάνυ δοκοῦσιν ἡμῶν ἐνίοις μετρίοις
εἶναι. Comp. p. 3384 C. — The first καί in ver. 23 subjoins another category,
the two members of which are put in order of climax (ἀτιμότ., ἀσχήμ.). ----
ἀτιμότερα εἶναι τοῦ σώμ. | tobe more dishonourable parts of the body, than others ;
‘‘comparativus molliens,” Bengel. — τιμὴν repico.| honour in richer measure
than others, namely, by the clothing, which is indicated by περιτίθ. (Matt.
Xxvii. 28 ; Gen. xxvii. 16 ; Esth. i. 20 ; Prov. xii. 9; 2 Macc. xi. 13, xii.
39, xxili. 32; Hom. 71]. 111. 330, xiv. 187).— τὰ ἀσχήμ. ἡμ.} owr unseemly
parts. Theodore of Mopsuestia says well : ἀσχήμονα ὡς πρὸς τὴν κοινὴν ὄψιν
ἀποκαλεῖ. Notice, too, that we have not here again the milder relative com-
parative. — ἔχει] They have greater seemliness than others ; it becomes
their own, namely, through the more seemly covering in which they are at-
tired. On the purport of the verse, Chrysostom remarks rightly : τί γὰρ τῶν
μορίων τῶν γεννητικῶν ἀτιμότερον ἐν ἡμῖν εἶναι δοκεῖ ; ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως πλείονος ἀπολαύει
τιμῆς, καὶ οἱ σφόδρα πένητες, κἂν τὸ λοιπὸν γυμνὸν ἔχωσι σῶμα, οὐκ ἂν ἀνάσχοιντο
ἐκεῖνα τὰ μέλη δεῖξαι γυμνά. According to Hofmann, we are to supply τοῦ
σώματος from what goes before in connection with ra ἀσχήμ. ; the words from
ἡμῶν to ἔχει, again, are to be taken as : they bring with them a greater seemli-
ness (A more seemly demeanour) on owr part. Needlessly artificial, and con-
trary to the τὰ τὲ εὐσχήμ. ἡμῶν which follows.
Ver. 24. Ta δὲ εὐσχήμ. ju. ov yp. ἔχ.} which should be separated from what
precedes it only by a comma, is not designed to set aside an objection (Chrys-
ostom, Theophylact), but it appertains to the completeness of the subject
that, after the ἀσχήμονα have been spoken of, the remark in question should
be added regarding the εὐσχήμονα also, in order to let nothing be wanting
in the exhibition of the adjustment which takes place in connection with
the variety of relation subsisting between the members. Εὐσχημοσύνην repioc.
‘CHAP: XI, 2o-—27. ἡ 293
ἔχειν naturally supplies itself from the foregoing context to οὐ χρείαν ἔχει.
All the less ground is there for connecting ἡμῶν with ov yp. ἔχ. (Hofmann,
comp. Osiander), which would give the thought: they stand in no need of us,
which is too general, and which would still need to be limited again by what
precedes it -— ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Θεὸς x.7.A.] cannot be antithesis to the foregoing neg-
ative (Hofmann), which would bring the special subordinate thought οὐ χρείαν
ἔχει into a connection quite disproportionately grand and far transcending it.
There should, on the contrary, be a full stop placed before ἀλλ᾽, so as to
mark the beginning of a new sentence ; and ἀλλ᾽ rather breaks off (at, see
Baeumlein, Partik. p. 15) the delineation of the mutual relations of the
members, which has been hitherto given, in order now to raise the readers
to the higher point of view from which this relationship is to be regarded,
that of the divine appointment and destination. — συνεκέρασε] He has mingled
together, i.e. united into one whole out of differently constituted parts. — rw
ὑστεροῦντι] to that which stands after, remaining back behind others, i. 7, viii.
δ; Plato, Pol. vii. p. 539 E, Epin. p. 987 Ὁ (see also on Matt. xix. 20), 1.6.
to the part which, according to human estimation, is meaner than others.!
--- περισσ. dove τιμ.] δούς is contemporaneous with ovvexépace: so that He gave,
namely, when He granted to them, according to vv. 22, 23, respectively
their greater necessity and the destination of being clad in a more honourable
and more seemly way.
Ver. 25. Σχίσμα] i.e. disunion, such as is vividly represented by way of ex-
ample in ver. 91. --- ἀλλὰ τὸ αὐτὸ κ.τ.λ.} in order that, on the contrary, there
may be one and the same interest, to which the members mutually direct
their care for each other. Comp. Liv. loc. cit. What Paul has in view in
the τὸ αὐτό, which he so emphatically puts first, may be gathered from the
ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων, namely, the welfare of every other member. Comp. ver. 26.
The plural μεριμνῶσι with the neuter noun is to be explained from the dis-
tributive sense (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 3. 12) ; in ver. 26, on the other
hand, the totality of the members is expressed.
Ver. 26. And how perfectly is this design of God realized in the mutual
sympathy of the members! This happy result of the divine appointment
stands most suitably here at the close of the whole discussion before the ap-
plication ensues in ver. 27, although Hofmann denies the connection of
thought. — δοξάζεται] is glorified, which may take place practically by flour-
ishing growth, by adornment, dress, anointing, and the like, and further by
recognition of its usefulness, beauty, strength, dexterity, and so forth. —In
view of the sympathy of the whole organism, and in consideration of the
personifying style of the description, the concrete literal sense of the verse
ought by no means to be modified.
Ver. 27. Application of all that is said of the human body (vv. 14-26) to
1 Tn how far, is stated in vv. 22, 23. Bya Sor the self-propagation of man. Neither
very arbitrary importation of ideas, Hof- that specific reference in itself, nor this
mann holds that τὸ ὑστεροῦν means the more precise definition of the greater
loins and genitals, a part of the body which, honour referred to,—out of place as it is in
while falling behind the rest in honour, is this connection,—could ever have been
distinguished by the honour of serving guessed by a reader from ver. 22 f.
294 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
his readers : now ye are (in order now to apply to you what has been hither-
to said, you then are) the body of Christ and members proportionately. In
each Christian church the (ideal) body of Christ presents itself, as in each
is presented the (ideal) temple of God ; but each church is not a separate
body of Christ ; hence, just as with the idea of the temple (see on iii. 16),
we must keep entirely away from us the conception of a plurality, as if the
churches were σώματα Χριστοῦ, and understand σῶμα Χριστοῦ not as a body,’
but as body of Christ, the expression without the article being qualitative.
_— Now if the church, asa whole, is Christ’s body, then the individuals in
it are Christ’s members (comp. vi. 15), but this not without distinction, as if
every one could be any member ; but ἐκ μέρους, according to parts, according
as each one respectively has his own definite part in the body of Christ, con-
sequently his especial place and function which have fallen to him pro parte
in the collective organism of the church. Ἔκ betokens the accompanying
circumstance of the fact, Bernhardy, p. 230 ; the expression, however, does
not stand here as in xiii. 9, 10, 12, in contrast to that which is perfect (Hof-
mann), but, as the context shows, in contrast to the united «hole, the κοινόν
comp. ἑκάστου μέρους, Eph. iv. 16. Luther puts it well, as regards the essen-
tial meaning : ‘‘ each one according to his part.” Comp. Calvin. Other
interpreters understand, with Grotius (who explains it like oi κατὰ μέρους) : 8ὲ
ex partibus jit aestimatio, considered as individuals. So Billroth, Riickert,
Ewald, Maier. But what would be the object of this superfluous definition ?
That μέλη refers to individuals, is surely self-evident. Chrysostom held
that the Corinthian church was thereby designated as part of the church
universal. So also Theodoret, Theophylact, Beza, Wolf, Bengel, and others.
But a glance at other churches was entirely alien from the apostle’s purpose
here.
Ver. 28. More precise elucidation of the ἐκ μέρους, and that in respect of
those differently gifted and with extension of the view so as to take in the
whole church ; hence Paul adds ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, and thereby averts (against
Hofmann’s objection) the misunderstanding of καί (which is to be taken as
and indeed), as if there had been Corinthian apostles. — Regarding ἔθετο,
comp. Acts xx. 28. — ος μέν] certain ones. In beginning thus, Paul had it
in mind to make οὖς δέ follow after ; but in the act of writing there occurred
to him the thought of the enumeration according to rank (comp. Eph. iv. 11),
and so οὖς μέν was left without any continuation corresponding to it. After-
wards, too, from ἔπειτα onwards, he again abandons this mode of enumera-
tion. Comp. Winer, p. 528 [E. T. 711]; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 313
[E. T. 365]. According to Hofmann, μὴ πάντες x.7.2., ver. 29, is meant to
form the apodosis of x. οὗς μὲν «.7.A., 80 that the subject of πάντες is con-
tained in οὖς: ‘‘ Those, too, whom God has placed in the church first as
apostles... are they all apostles, all prophets ?” ete. But οῦς μέν can be
nothing else than the quite common distributive expression, and not equiv-
1 Baur, too, founds upon the absence of would be odjecti. But in every place where
the article, and takes it to mean, “ a body the body of Christ is spoken of the genitive
which has the objective ground of its ea- is subjecti; Paul would in that case have
istence in Christ,’ so that the genitive written σῶμα ἐν Χριστῷ (comp. Rom. xii. 4).
CHAP. XII., 28. 295
alent to οὗτοι μὲν, οὕς, as Hofmann would have it (appealing inappropriately
to Isocr., Paneg. 15); and the proposition itself, that those appointed by
God to this or that specific function have not also collectively (?) all other
functions, would be in fact so self-evident, and the opposite conception so
monstrous, that the apostle’s discourse would resolve itself into an absurdity.
— ἐν τῇ éxxA.] The Christian church generally, not simply the Corinthian, is
meant, as is proved by ἀποστ. ; comp. Eph. i. 22 ; Phil. iii. 6, al. — ἀποστό-
λους] in the wider sense, not merely of the Twelve, but also of those messen-
gers of the Messianic kingdom appointed immediately by Christ at a later
time for all nations, such as Paul himself and probably Barnabas as well,
likewise James the Lord’s brother. Comp. on xv. 7. The apostles had
the whole fulness of the Spirit, and could therefore work as prophets, teachers,
healers of the sick, etc., but not conversely could the prophets, teachers,
etc., be also apostles, because they had only the special gifts for the offices
in question. — προφῆτ.] See on ver. 10. — διδασκάλους] These had the gift of
the Holy Spirit for preaching the gospel in the way of intellectual develop-
ment of its teaching. Comp. on ver. 10 and Acts xiii. 1 ; Eph. iv. 11.’—
δυνάμεις] sc. ἔθετο, i.e. He instituted a category of spiritual gifts, which
consists of miraculous powers. Paul does not designate the persons endowed
with such powers (Hofmann, who appeals for support to Acts viii. 10, and
compares the names of the orders of angels), but, as the following par-
ticulars show, his discourse passes here into the abstract form ; by no means,
however, because there were no concrete representatives of the things
referred to (Billroth, Riickert), but probably because variations of this
kind, even without any special occasion for them, are very natural to his
vivid style of representation. Comp. Rom. xii. 6-8, where, in the reverse
way, he passes from abstracts to concretes. — ἀντιλήψεις] services of help (B*)
(2 Mace. viii. 19; 3 Macc. v. 50; Ecclus. xi. 12, li. 7; Ezr. viii. 27, al.; not
.so in Greek writers), is most naturally taken, with Chrysostom and most
interpreters, of the duties of the diaconate, the care of the poor and sick. —
κυβερνήσεις] governments (Pind. Pyth. x. 112 ; Plut. Mor, p. 162 A ; comp.
also Xen. Oyr. i. 1. 5 ; Polyb. vi. 4. 2 ; Hist. Susann. 5), is rightly under-
stood by most commentators, according to the meaning of the word, of the
work of the presbyters (bishops) ; it refers to their functions of rule and
administration, in virtue of which they were the gubernatores ecclesiae, The
(climactic) juxtaposition, too, of ἀντελήψ. and κυβερν. points to this interpre-
tation. — Regarding γένη γλωσσῶν, see on ver, 10.— The classification of all
1 As Eph. iv. 11 speaks only of the emer-
cises of teaching activity, the remaining
charismata which are named here found
no place there. The evangelists specially
mentioned, in addition, in that passage
were assistants of the apostles, and there-
fore did not require to be specially adduced
here, where the point of view extended
further than to the departments of teaching
merely. The ποιμένες καὶ διδάσκαλοι, Eph.
l.c., are as ποιμένες included under the
xuBepvycers. —Observe, further, that the
divine appointment of the persons referred
to took place in the case of the apostles,
indeed, by an immediate call along with
the endowment, but in the case of the rest
by the endowment, the emergence of which,
in the standing services of the church, regu-
lated the choice of the churches under the
influence and indication of the Holy Spirit
(comp. on Acts xx. 28). Comp. also Hofling,
Kirchenverfassung, p. 272 f., ed. 2, and see
on Eph, iv, 11.
296 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the points adduced is as follows : (1) To the gift of teaching, the most im-
portant of all, belong ἀπόστ., προφ., διδάσκ. ; (2) to the gift of miracles :
δυναμ., yapiou., tauat.; (8) to the gift of practical administration τὰς τῶν ἐκκλη-
σιῶυς οἰκονομίας, Theodoret : ἀντιλήψ. and κυβερν. ; (4) to the ecstatic χάρισμα :
the )ένη γλωσσῶν (see on ver. 10). This peculiar character of the last named
gift ‘naturally enough brought with it the position at the end of the list,
without there being any design on Paul’s part thereby to oppose the
overvaluing of the glossolalia (in opposition to Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Theophylact, and many others). It is only the ἀπόστ., the προφῆτ., and the
διδάσκ. Which are expressly adduced in order of rank ; the ἔπειτα and εἶτα
which follow only mark a further succession, and thereafter the enumera-
tion runs off asyndetically, which, as frequently also in classical writers (see
Kriiger, Xen. Anab. ii. 4. 28), takes for granted that completeness is not
aimed at. The two enumerations, here and in vv. 8-10, supplement each
other ; and Rom. xii. 6 ff. also, although the most incomplete, has points
peculiar to itself.’
Vv. 29, 30. None of these functions and gifts is common property of all
(all gifted persons). This Paul expresses in the animated queries : But all
surely are not apostles ? and so on ; whereby, after the same thing had been
done positively in ver, 28, the ἐκ μέρους of ver. 27 is now clearly elucidated
afresh in a negative way—in order to make the readers duly sensible of the
non omnia possumus omnes, and of the preposterousness of envy against other
gifted persons. — δυνάμεις] Accusative depending on ἔχουσιν, not nominative,
as if it denoted wonder-working persons (Bengel, Riickert, de Wette, Osian-
der, Hofmann, and others) ; see on ver. 28. —Paul here passes over the
ἀντιλήψ. and xvBepv., since it was of no importance to make a complete repe-
tition.—With reference to the whole thought, comp. Homer, 71. xiii. 730 f.
Ver. 31. It is not the wish of Paul, by what he has said from ver. 4 up
till now regarding the different gifts of the Spirit, to repress the eager
striving after them. But the important question is as to the nature of the
gifts and the manner of the striving. Hence: But be zealous after the better
gifts of the Spirit,? those which are more essential than others, and have a
more absolute value for the highest welfare of the church (ver. 7). The dé
is the autem marking the transition to a new point. — Ζηλοῦτε, again, does
not conflict with ver. 11, because the will of the communicating Spirit is.
not an arbitrary one, but makes the receptive capacity and the mental ten-
dency of the individual to be the grounds of its own self-determination, The
zealous striving after the better gifts consists therefore negatively in this,
that one makes such χαρίσματα, as are less generally necessary and have less
value for the church (as e.g. the glossolalia, the reception of which was sought
after by many for the sake of show), less the aim towards which he directs
his will and cultivates a susceptibility ; positively, again, it consists in this,
that one makes those better gifts, on the other hand, the object of his ar-
dent desire and the aim of his self-active development, in order to reach in
1 [No one of these seems to be intended attain something, comp. Dem. 500. 2 (ἀρετήν),
to be exhaustive.—T. W. C.] 504. 8 (δωρεάς), 1461. 9 (τὰ ayada) ; Polyb. vi.
3 Regarding ζηλοῦν τι, to seek eagerly to 25. 11 (τὸ βέλτιον) ; Wisd. i. 12 (Savarov),
OHAP: XII, : 91: 297
this way the definite degree of receptivity needful to be the organ of the
agency of the πνεῦμα in question, and thereby to become, by the free will of
the Spirit, partaker of the better gifts.’ It is perfectly plain that in this ζηλοῦν
supplicatory prayer is also included ; but it is arbitrary to limit the concep-
tion to it, as does Grotius : ‘‘agite eum Deo precibus, ut accipiatis” (comp.
Heydenreich, Riickert, Hofmann). Equally arbitrary, too, is every de-
parture from the hitherto invariable sense of χάρισμα ; as e.g. Morus and
Ewald hold faith, hope, and love to be meant ; and Billroth, the fruits aris-
ing from love ; Flatt, again (comp. Osiander), even imports the right wse of
the gifts which should be striven after. Comp. on the contrary, as to the
difference in value of the charismata, xiv. 2 ff. — καὶ ἔτι «.7.2.] and further-
more, yet besides (Luke xiv. 26 ; Heb. xi. 36; Acts ii. 26; often thus in
Greek authors), besides prescribing to you this ζηλοῦτε, 1 show you (now,
from chap. xiii. 1 onwards) @ surpassing way,’ an exceedingly excellent
fashion, according to which this ζηλοῦν of yours must be constituted. By
this he means that the striving after the better gifts must always have love
as its determining and impelling principle, without which, indeed, the gifts
of the Spirit generally would be worthless (xiii. 1 ff.), and the κρείττονα un-
attainable. Love is thus the most excellent way, which that ζηλοῦν ought
to keep. (c?) Riickert (so also Estius) finds here the meaning: ‘‘I show
you a far better way still, in which ye may walk, namely, the way of love,
which far surpasses all possession of charismata ;” and so, too, in substance,
Hofmann : ‘‘even away beyond the goal of the better charismata I show
you a way,” 7.e. a way which brings you still further than the ζηλοῦν τ. yap.
7. kp. But Paul surely did not conceive of the striving after the better
charismata as becoming unnecessary through love, but rather as necessarily
to be connected with love (xiv. 1, 39). Besides, he would logically have
required to attach his statement not by καί, but by ἐγὼ dé or ἀλλά ; but even
ἃ priori it is improbable that he should have merely set down the weighty
ζηλοῦτε δὲ τ. χαρίσμ. τ. κρείττ. in such a naked way, and should have forthwith
forsaken it again with the remark that he would now give instructions away
beyond the better gifts. Grotiusand Billroth connect καθ᾽ ὑπερβ. with the verb.
The former renders: by way of superfluity (so also Ewald) ; the latter :
‘after a fashion which, as being the best, is certain of its success.” But the
meaning, by way of superfluity (ἐκ περιουσίας, ἐκ τοῦ περισσοῦ), Corresponds
neither to the N. T. use of the phrase (Rom. vii. 13 ; 2 Cor. i. 8, iv. 17;
Gal. i. 18 ; comp. 4 Mace. iii. 18), nor to its use elsewhere in Greek (Soph.
Oed. Tyr. 1196; Polyb. iii. 92. 10, ix. 22. 8; Lucian, p. mere. cond.
18 : Dem. 1411. 14). Moreover, Paul could hardly have considered the
following instructions, especially in view of the circumstances of the Corin-
1 Theophylact aptly says (comp. Chrysos-
tom): ἠνίξατο ἡρέμα, ὅτι αὐτοὶ αἴτιοί εἰσι τοῦ
τὰ ἐλάττονα λαβεῖν' διὰ γὰρ τοῦ εἰπεῖν᾽ ζηλοῦτε.
τὴν παρ᾽ ἐκείνων σπουδὴν ἀπαιτεῖ καὶ τὴν πλείω
ἐπιθυμίαν περὶ τὰ πνευματικά. Καὶ οὐκ εἶπε" τὰ
μειζονα, ἀλλὰ τὰ κρειττονα, τουτέστι τὰ ὠφελ’-
μώτερα. Comp. Bengel: ‘Spiritus dat ut
vult, sed fideles tamen libere aliud prae alio
possunt sequi et exercere. Deus operatur
suaviter, non cogit.”” So also de Wette.
2 Paul has not put the article to ὁδόν,
“ svspensos nonnihil tenens Corinthios,” as
sengel says, who also observes with fine
discernment upon the present δείκνυμι,
‘jam ardet Paulus et fertur in amorem.”’ ἢ
298 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
thians, as given ‘‘ further by way of superfluity.” It militates against Bill-
roth, again, that the apostle’s thought could not be to recommend the
manner of his instruction regarding the way, but only the way itself, as ex-
cellent. On the other hand, to take the xa ὑπερβ. ὁδόν together is gram-
matically correct, since it is a genuine Greek usage to attach adverbs of de-
gree to substantives, and that generally by prefixing them. Bernhardy, p.
338 ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 83 f. [E. T. 96] ; comp. on 2 Cor. xi. 23 ;
also on 1 Cor. viii. 7, vii. 35 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phoed. p.93 B. We find
this connection given in the Vulgate, by Chrysostom and Theophylact (καθ᾽
ὑπερβ. τουτέστιν ὑπερέχουσαν), Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, and most
interpreters. Bengel suggestively describes the superlative conception,
which is attached to ὁδόν by καθ᾽ ὑπερβολήν, ‘‘ quasi dicat ; viam maaime
vialem.”
Notes spy AMERICAN EpITor.
(x!) Calling Jesus Lord. Ver. 3.
Of course any man can utter the words, but what the Apostle means is, that
no man can make this confession, truly believing all that it implies, unless he be
enlightened by the Holy Ghost. And this is precisely what our Lord said to
Peter when he made his noble confession, ‘‘ Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the living God.’’ ‘‘ Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath
not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven (Matt. xvi. 16, 17).
(x') The word of wisdom and the word of knowledge. Ver. 8.
A simpler view of the subject states the difference thus: The word of
wisdom is the gift of revealing the truth of the gospel, which belonged only to
the Apostles ; but the word of knowledge is the gift of understanding and ex-
plaining correctly the truth thus received, which belonged to the other teachers.
(z') The gift of tongues. Ver. 10.
The two chief theories on the meaning of this gift are—one, that it was the
power of speaking foreign languages without having learned them ; the other,
that it was an ecstatic utterance in a tongue different from all known languages
of earth, and requiring to be interpreted to be of service to any hearer. The
former view was firmly held by the late Dr. Edward Robinson, who insisted
that the glossolaly recorded in the second chapter of Acts, being the foundation
passage in the whole matter, should control all the other references to the sub-
ject. This view of the case may be found sustained by a masterly array of
arguments in Dr. Hodge’s notes on the text in his First Corinthians. With him
agree Principal Brown and others. The latter view seems to be held by Stan-
ley, Kling, Speaker’s Commentary, Ellicott’s Commentary, Beet, and most of
the more recent writers. The reader will find a very clear and comprehensive
statement of the whole question in the new edition of Schaff’s ‘‘ History of the
Christian Church ”’ vol. i. 234-243.
(a°) ‘* The less honourable parts.’’ Ver. 28.
Stanley justly remarks upon the terms ‘‘ weaker,” ‘‘less honourable,” ‘un-
comely,’’ that they are best left undefined, as the Apostle has left them ; the
NOTES. : 299
words being accumulated and varied designedly, so as to include all parts of
the human frame without particularly specifying any.
(B*) Services of help. Ver. 28.
This word (antilepseis), as used in the LXX., is not (like diakonia) help minis-
tered by an inferior to a superior, but by a superior to an inferior (see Ps.
Ixxxix, 18 ; Eccles. xi. 12, li. 7); and thus, while inapplicable to the ministra-
tions of the deacon to the presbyter, would well express the various helps ren-
dered by those who had the gift of interpretation, to the congregation at large,
or to those who were vainly struggling to express themselves intelligibly in
their strange accents.
(c*) ““ The more excellent way.’’ Ver. 31.
Hodge insists that the original term here is not in itself comparative, and
can get that meaning only from the context. But here no comparison is im-
plied. The idea is not that Paul intends to show them a way that is better
than seeking gifts, but a way par excellence to obtain those gifts. The sense of
the verse is therefore, ‘‘seek the better gifts, and moreover I show you an excel-
lent way to do 10. So Kling and Alford. Shore, in Ellicott’s Commentary,
says, ‘‘the more excellent way is not some gift to be desired to the exclusion
of the other gifts, but a more excellent way of striving for those gifts. You
are not to strive for any one gift because it is more highly esteemed or because
it is more apparently useful, or because it is more easily attained. That which
will consecrate every struggle for attainment and every gift when attained, is
Love.”’
300 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
CHAPTER XIII.
Ver. 3. ψωμίσω] Elz. has ψωμίζω, which is condemned by almost all the uncials.
— καυθήσωμαι] A B &, 17, Codd. in Jerome, Copt. Aeth. Ephr. Hier. have xav-
yiowua.! But iva καυχήσωμαι (given up again even by Lachm.) is a manifest
addition, which was written on the margin to call attention to the loveless mo-
tive, and supplanted the similar and difficull iva καυθήσωμαι (C K, min. vss.
Chrys. Theodoret, and Latin writers). — Instead of the subjunctive, Tisch. has
the future indicative καυθήσομαι (Ὁ) E F GI, min. Mac. Max.), which of course
could be easily changed by ignorant copyists into the subjunctive, anomalous
though it was. — Ver. 8. ἐκπίπτει7 Lachm. reads πίπτει, following A B C* &*,
min. and several Fathers. Rightly ; the simple form was defined more precise-
ly by way of gloss. Comp. Rom. ix. 6. — γνῶσις, καταργηθήσεται) A D** FG RB,
17, 47, Boern. Ambrosiast. have γνώσεις, καταργηθήσονται. So Rickert (Lachm.
on the margin). The plural crept in after the preceding. — Ver. 10. τό] Elz.
Scholz read τότε τό, against decisive testimony.
Contents.—The want of love makes even the greatest charismatic
endowments to be worthless (vv. 1-8) ; excellencies of love (vv. 4-7) ;
eternity of love in contrast to the transient nature of the charismata (vv.
8-13).—This praise of love—almost a psalm of love it might be called—is as
rich in its contents drawn from deep experience as in rhetorical truth, ful-
ness and power, grace and simplicity. ‘‘ Sunt figurae oratoriae, quae hoc
caput illuminant, omnes sua sponte natae in animo heroico, flagrante amore
Christi et huic amori divino omnia postponente,” Valckenaer, p. 299. In
no other passage (comp. especially, Rom. xiii. 8-10) has Paul spoken so
minutely and in such a maaner regarding love. It is interesting to compare
the eulogy of "Epwc—so different in conception and substance—in Plato,
Symp. p. 197 CDE. A Christian eulogy on love, but one far inferior,
indeed, to the apostle’s, may be seen in Clement, Cor. I. 49. (D*)
Ver. 1. ᾽Εάν] is not equivalent to εἰ καί with the optative (Riickert), but it
supposes something, the actual existence of which is left dependent on cir-
cumstances : assuming it to be the case, that I speak, etc. — ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν
ἀνθρ. x. τ. ayy.| To say that γλῶσσαι must mean languages here (Rickert,
Olshausen, Baur, Rossteuscher), is an arbitrary assertion.?
1 [This reading, adopted by Westcott and
Hort, is expressed in the margin of the
Revised New Testament. It is a case in
which the best mss. differ from almost all
the other documents.—T. W. C.]
2 Riickert : ‘If I spoke all languages, not
only those of men, but also—which would
certainly be a higher gift, higher than your
γλώσσαις λαλεῖν Which you esteem so highly
Why may it not
—those of the angels.” So likewise Flatt.
Baur renders strangely: “If I spoke not
simply in isolated expressions taken from
different languages, but in those different
languages themselves ; and not simply in the
languages of men, but also in the languages
of the angels.’ This climactic ascent from
glosses to the languages themselves is surely a
pure importation. Rossteuscher, if his
“OHAP. Xin, ΤΣ 301
be held to mean tongues? The expression is analogous to the well-known
Homeric one—only much stronger : εἴ μοι δέκα μὲν γλῶσσαι, δέκα δὲ στόματ᾽ εἶεν,
11. ii. 489. Comp. Virgil, Aen. vi. 625 ; Theophil. ad Autol. ii. 16 : οὐδὲ εἰ
μυρία στόματα ἔχοι καὶ μυρίας γλώσσας. The meaning is : Supposing that I am
a speaker with tongues, from whom all possible kinds of articulate tongues might
be heard, not simply those of men, but also—far more wonderful and exalted
still—those of the angels. Paul thus describes the very loftiest of all conceiv-
able cases of glossolalia. The tongues of angels here spoken of are certainly
orfly an abstract conception, but one in keeping with the poetic character of
the passage, as must be admitted also with respect to the old interpretation
of angelic languages. Beza says well, that Paul is speaking ‘‘ ὑπερβολικῶς ex
hypothesi, ut plane inepti sint, qui h. 1. disputant de angelorum linguis.”
Comp. Chrysostom : οὐχὶ σῶμα περιτιθεὶς ἀγγέλοις, ἀλλ᾽ ὃ λέγει τοιοῦτόν ἐστι᾿ κἂν
οὕτω φθέγγωμαι ὡς ἀγγέλοις νόμος πρὸς ἀλλήλους διαλέγεσθαι. Others, such as
Calovius, Bengel, and several more, have thought of the languages used by
the angels in their revelations to men ; but these surely took place in the form
of human language. The ἄῤῥητα ῥήματα of 2 Cor. xi. have also been brought
in, where, however, there is nothing said of angels.—Why the apostle begins
with the γλώσσα. Aai., is correctly divined by Theodoret (comp. Chrysostom,
Oecumenius, Theophylact) : πρῶτον ἁπάντων τέθεικε τὴν παρεξέτασιν ποιούμενος
τὸ χάρισμα τῶν γλωσσῶν, ἐπειδὴ τοῦτο παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐδόκει μεῖζον
εἶναι τῶν ἄλλων. It had become the subject of over-estimation and
vanity to the undervaluing of love. — ἀγάπην] i.e. love of one’s neighbor, which
seeks not its own good, but the good of others in a self-forgetting way.
Ver. 4 ff.—A sounding metal and a clanging cymbal, i.e. like these, a mere dead
instrument of a foreign impulse, without any moral worth, γέγονα have I
become (and am so : perfect), namely, in and with the actual realization of
the supposed case. See Buttmann, neut. Gramm. p. 172 [E. T. 199]. To
interpret χαλκός as a brazen musical instrument (Flatt, Olshausen, with many
older commentators), which would otherwise be admissible in itself (comp.
generally, Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. vii. 83), is wrong here, for the simple reason,
that one such is expressly named inaddition. The text does not warrant
our departing from the general metal ; on the contrary, it proceeds from
the indefinite to the definite (cymbal), from the crude to the product of art.
Comp. Plato, Prot. p. 329 A: ὥσπερ τὰ χαλκεῖα πληγέντα μακρὸν ἠχεῖ, Crat. p.
430 A. —xtuBaiov] brazen basins were so called, which were beaten upon, 2
Sam. vi. 5; 1 Chron. xiii. 8, a/.; Judith xvi. 2; 1 Macc. iv. 54 ; Joseph.
Antt. vii. 12. 4 ; Xenophon, de re eq. i. 8 ; Pind. Fr. 48 ; Lucian, Bacch. 4,
Alex. 9 ; Herodian. v. 6. 19. — ἀλαλάζον] screaming, an epithet no doubt
theory of an “ angel’s Janguage,’”’ which was
the Corinthian glossolalia, were correct,
would require, in conformity with the plu-
ral expression, and with his view of the
human languages (the latter being the lan-
guages of the nations spoken in Acts ii.), to
make the passage refer to many different
languages of the angels, which they sought
to speak at Corinth. If γλῶσσαι meant lan-
guages at all, Hofmann would be in the
right in holding that no kind of speaking
should be excluded here from the wonderful
utterances in question, since the angels also
doubtless speak among themselves or to
God, so that Paul would go beyond what
actually took place by including also the
modes of utterance of the angels.
302 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
purposely chosen, which is manifestly at variance with the theory of the soft
and scarcely audible (Wieseler, 1838), nay, noiseless (Jaeger) nature of the
glossolalia. The κύμβαλα were ὀξύφθογγα (Anthol. vi. 61). Comp. ἀλαλαγμός of
cymbals (Ps. cl. 5) and other loud-sounding instruments, Eur. Cyel. 65, Hel.
1368.
Ver. 2. That Paul adduces only two charismata (προφητεία and πίστις) in
the protasis, and consequently uses καὶ εἰδῶ... γνῶσιν to mark out the
degree of προφητεία, is shown plainly by himself in his repeating the καὶ ἐάν.
In the case of these gifts also he is supposing the highest conceivable degree.
--- τὰ μυστήρια πάντα] the whole of the mysteries, i.e. what remains hidden from
human knowledge without revelation, as, in particular, the divine decrees
touching redemption and the future relations of the Messianic kingdom, iv.
1; Matt. xiii. 11 ; Rom. xvi. 25, al. — γνῶσιν] profound knowledge of these
mysteries, as xii. 8. The verb connected with it is εἰδῶ, but in such a way
that the latter is to be taken here zeugmatically in the sense : I am at home
in (Homer, Od. ii. 121 ; Jl. xviii. 363, xv. 412). Observe further, that
before it was μυστήρια, but here πᾶσαν, which has the emphasis ; translate :
“ the mysteries one and all, and all knowledge.” To these two departments
correspond the λόγος σοφίας and the λόγος γνώσεως in xii. 8. — πᾶσαν τ. πίστιν
k.7.4.] the whole heroism of faith (not specially the faith of miracles, see on
xii. 9), so that I displace mountains. — The latter phrase in a proverbial sense
(to realize the seemingly impossible), as Jesus Himself (Matt. xvii. 20, xxi.
21) had already portrayed the omnipotence of faith. But without love,
even in such an instance of the might of faith there would still not be the
Jides salvifica, Matt. vii. 22. —oddév εἰμι] in an ethical respect, without any
significance and value. Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 11 ; Arist. Heel. 144 ; Soph. Qed.
Rex, 56 ; Xen. Anab, vi. 2. 10, al.; Wisd. iii. 17, ix. 6 ; Bornemann, ad Xen.
Cyr. vi. 2. 8; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 216 E ; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. 11.
430.—Notice further, that Paul only swpposes the cases in vv. 1 and 2ina
general way ; but they must be conceived of as possible ; and their possibil-
ity arises from the fact that, in the midst of the charismatic phenomena
which made their appearance as if by contagion in the church, men might
be carried away and rapt into states of exaltation without the presence of
the true ground of the new inward life, the new creature, the true καινότης
ζωῆς and πνεύματος (Rom. vi. 4, vil. 6).
Ver. 3. ‘‘ And supposing that I do outwardly the very highest works of
love, but without really having love as my inward motive, then I have no
advantage therefrom, namely, towards attaining the Messianic salvation”
(1 John 111. 14). Comp. Matt. xvi. 26 ; Gal. v. 3. --- ψωμίζειν τινά τε Means
properly : to feed any one with something in the way of putting it by mor-
sels into his mouth ; then generally, cibare aliquem aliqua re, Rom. xii. 20.
See the LXX. in Schleusner, V. p. 569; Valckenaer, p. 303. Only the
thing is mentioned here in connection with the verb, but who the persons (the
poor) are, is self-evident, as also the meaning : cibando consumsero. Comp.
Poll. vi. 33. — καὶ ἐὰν παραδῷ x.7.2.| a yet higher eternal work of love, surren-
der of the body (Dan. iii. 28), self-sacrifice. — iva καυθήσομαι] (see the critical
remarks) in order to be burned. The reading καυθήσωμαι would be a future
CHAP. XIII, 4, ὃ. ; 909
subjunctive, a barbarism, the introduction of which in pre-New Testament
Greek is due only to copyists. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 720 f.; Buittmann,
neut. Gramm. p. 31 [E. T. 35]. The sense should not be defined more pre-
cisely than : in order to die the death by fire. To refer it, with most inter-
preters since Chrysostom, to the fiery death of the Christian martyrs, is with-
out support from the known history of that period, and without a hint of it in
the text. Probably such martyr-scenes as Dan. iii. 19 ff., 2 Macc. vii., hov-
ered before the apostle’s mind, Comp. Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 20.
Ver. 4. Love is personified ; the living concrete portrait of her character,
in which power to edify (viii. 1) reflects itself, is presented as if in sharply
drawn outline, with nothing but short, definite, isolated traits, positively,
negatively, and then positively again, according to her inexhaustible
nature. — μακροθυμεῖ] she is long-suffering ; in face of provocations control-
ling her anger, repressing it, giving it up, and maintaining her own proper
character. The general frame of mind for this is χρηστεύεται : she is gracious
(comp. Tittmann, Synon. p. 140 ff.), Clem. Cor. i. 14. The verb is found,
besides, only in the Fathers. — Observe here and in what follows the asyndetic
enumeration, and in this ‘‘incitatior orationis cursus ardorem et affectum”
(Dissen, ad Pind. Exc. 11. p. 275). But to write, with Hofmann, following
Lachmann, ἡ ἀγάπη μακροθυμεῖ. Xpyotevera ἡ ἀγάπη, is less suitable, for this
reason, that, according to the traditional division, the long list of negative
predicates which follows is very appropriately headed again by the subject.
— ov ζηλοῖ] negation of all passionate, selfish feelings towards others (envy,
jealousy, and such like). — οὐ περπερεύεται] she boasts not, practises no vaunt-
ing. See Cicero, ad Att. i. 14; Antonin. v. 5, and Gatak. in loc. ; also
Winer, Beitr. zur Verbess. d. neutest. Lexicogr. Ὁ. 5 ff. Comp. πέρπερος in
Polyb. xxxii. 6. 5, xl. 6.2; Arrian. pict. iii, 2. 14.
Ver. 5. Οὐκ aoynuovei| she acts not in an unseemly way. See on vii. 36.
To hold that Paul was thereby alluding to unsuitable attire in the assem-
blies (Flatt), involves an inappropriate petty limitation, as does also the
reference to unseemly conduct on the part of those speaking with tongues
(de Wette). He means generally everything that offends against moral
seemliness. — τὰ ἑαυτῆς] comp. x. 83. — ov παροξύνεται] does not become embit-
tered, does not get into a rage, as selfishness does when offended. This is
the continuance of the μακροθυμία. --- ov λογίζεται τὸ κακόν] she does not bring
the evil, which is done to her, into reckoning (2 Cor. v. 19 ; Rom. iv. 6, al. ;
Ecclus. xxix. 6 ; Dem. 658. 20, 572. 1, al.) Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 8. Theodoret
puts it happily : συγγινώσκει τοῖς ἐπταισμένοις, οὐκ ἐπὶ κακῷ σκοπῷ ταῦτα γεγενῆσθαι
λαμβάνων. Others render: she thinks not evil (Ewald ; Vulgate: ‘‘non
cogitat malum’’). This thought, as being too general in itself, has been more
precisely defined, cither as : ‘‘ she seeks not after mischief” (Luther, Flatt, and
several others ; comp. Jer. xxvi. 3; Nah. i. 9), which, however, serves so
little to describe the character of love, that it may, on the contrary, be said
to be a thing self-evident ; oras : ‘‘ she suspects nothing evil” (Chrysostom,
Melanchthon, Grotius, Heydenreich, and others; comp. also Neander),
which special conception, again, would be much too vaguely expressed by
λογίζεται.
904 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Ver. 6. ᾿Επὶ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ] over immorality (Rom. i. 18, ii. 8), when she sees
this in others. In view of the contrast, Chrysostom and others, including
Hofmann, take this in too narrow a sense : οὐκ ἐφήδεται τοῖς κακῶς πάσχουσιν,
understanding it thus of delight in mischief ; comp. Luther : ‘‘ sie lachet
nicht in die Faust, wenn dem Frommen Gewalt and Unrecht geschieht”
(She does not laugh in her sleeve when the pious suffer violence and wrong).
Theodoret puts it rightly, μισεῖ τὰ παράνομα. It is just the generality of this
thought which specially fits it to form the copestone of all those negative
declarations ; for in it with its significant contrast they are all summed up.
—ovyyaipe δὲ τῇ ἀληθ.1 The ἀλήθεια is personified, and denotes the truth κατ᾽
ἐξοχήν, the divine truth contained in the gospel, Col. i. 5; Eph. i. 13; Gal.
v. 7; 2 Thess. ii. 12, 18; John i. 17, al. Love rejoices with the truth, has
with it one common joy, and this is the most complete contrast to the
χαίρειν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ ; for to make morality prevail, is the ethical aim of the
ἀλήθεια (2 Thess. ii. 12 ; Rom. ii. 8), whose joy it is, therefore, -when she is
obeyed in disposition, speech, and action (1 Pet. 1. 22, ὑπακοὴ τῆς ἀληθείας) ;
and her companion in this joy is Jove. Usually ἀλήθεια has been understood
of moral truth, i.e. morality, as in v. 8 ; either, with Theodoret, Flatt, and
most interpreters : she rejoices over what is good,—a rendering, however, from
which we are debarred by the compound ovyy.; or, with Chrysostom : συνή-
δεται τοῖς εὐδοκιμοῦσι, Billroth: ‘‘she rejoices with those who hold to the
right,” Riickert : ‘‘she rejoices with the man, who is saved to morality,”
Osiander : ‘‘she rejoices with the heart, which is filled with the truth and
with obedience towards it.” Thereby there is made an arbitrary change in
the conception, according to which, in conformity with the antithesis, the
δικαιοσύνη. (the opposite of the ἀδικία) is not the subject, in fellowship with
which love rejoices, but the object of this common joy ; the subject with
which love rejoices is that truth. According to Hofmann, the meaning of
the passage is, that love has her joy withal, when the truth comes to its rights
in that which befalls any one. But so also there is no sufficient justice done
to the compound ovyy., and the more precise definition, ‘‘in that which
befalls any one,” is imported.
Ver. 7. Πάντα] popular hyperbole. Grotius aptly says : ‘‘ Fert, quae ferri
ullo modo possunt.” — στέγει] as in ix. 12: all things she bears, holds out
under them (suffert, Vulgate), without ceasing to love,—all burdens, priva-
tion, trouble, hardship, toil occasioned to her by others. Other interpreters
(Hammond, Estius, Mosheim, Bengel, al. ; Riickert hesitatingly) under-
stand : she covers all up, i.e. excuses all wrong. Equally correct from a
linguistic point of view, according to classical usage ; but why depart from
ix. 12 ἴ --ππάντα πιστ.] Opposite of a distrustful spirit ; bona fides towards
one’s neighbour in all points. — πάντα ἐλπίζει] opposite of that temperament,
which expects no more good at all from one’s neighbour for the future ;
good confidence as to the future attainment of her ends. — πάντα ὑπομένει]
all things she stands out against—all sufferings, persecutions, provocations,
etc., inflicted on her. This is the established conception of ὑπομονή in the
N. T. (Matt. x. 22, al. ; Rom. xii. 12 ; 2 Cor. i. 6, al.), according to which
the endurance is conceived of as a holding of one’s ground, the opposite of
CHAP. XIII., 8-10. ~ 305
φεύγειν (Plato, Tim. p. 49 E, Theaet. p. 177 B). Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 10. —
Note further how the expressions rise as they follow each other in this verse,
which is beautiful in its simplicity : if love encounter from others what may
seem too hard to be endured, all things she bears; if she meet whut may
cause distrust, all things she trusts ; if she meet what may destroy hope in
one’s neighbour, all things she hopes ; if she encounter what may lead to giv-
ing way, against all she holds out.
Ver. 8. Up to this point the characteristics of love have been given ; now
on to ver. 13 her imperishableness is described, in contrast to the purely tem-
porary destination of the gifts of the Spirit. — οὐδέποτε πίπτει] (see the criti-
cal remarks) never does she fall, i.e. she never falls into decay, remains always
stedfast (μένει, ver. 13). The opposite is: καταργηθήσονται, παύσονται.
Comp. Luke xvi. 17 ; Plato, Phil. p. 22 E; Soph. Ant. 474 ; Polyb. x. 33.
4, i. 35.5; Dem. 210. 15. The Recepta ἐκπίπτει (Rom. ix. 6) is to be taken
in precisely the same way. Theodoret puts it well : οὐ διασφάλλεται, GAA det
μένει βεβαία κ. ἀκίνητος, ἐς ἀεὶ διαμένουσα᾽ τοῦτο yap διὰ τῶν ἐπαγομένων ἐδίδαξεν.
— In what follows εἴτε opens out in detail the general conception οἵ yapic-
ματα. Be it again (different kinds of) prophesyings, they shall be done away ;
be it (speaking) tongues, they shall cease, etc. This mode of division and
interpunctuation is demanded by δέ (against Luther and others, including
Heydenreich). Prophecy, speaking with tongues, and deep knowledge,
are only appointed for the good of the church for the time wntil the
Parousia ; afterwards these temporary phenomena fall away. Even the
gnosis will do so ; for then comes in the perfect knowledge (ver. 12), and
that as the common heritage of all, whereby the deep knowledge of gifted
individuals, which is still but imperfect, as it occurs before the Parousia,
will necessarily cease to subsist.
Vv. 9, 10. Proof of the last and of the first of the three preceding points.
The second stood in need of no proof at all. For in part (ἐκ μέρους ; its
opposite is ἐκ τοῦ παντός, Lucian, Dem. enc. 21) we know, imperfect is our
deep knowledge, and in part we speak prophetically, what we prophetically
declare is imperfect. Both contain only fragments of the great whole
which remains hidden from us as such before the Parousia, — ὅταν dé ἔλθῃ
κιτ.}.7 but when that which is perfect shall have appeared (at the Parousia ;
otherwise, Eph. iv. 13), then will that which is in part (the gnosis and the
prophecy therefore also, seeing they belong to the category of the partial)
be done away. The appearance of the perfected condition of things nec-
essarily brings with it the abolition of what is only partial. With the
advent of the absolute the imperfect finite ceases to exist, as the dawn
ceases after the rising of the sun. We are not to supply, with Hofmann,
γινώσκειν and προφητεύειν (as substantival infinitives) to τὸ τέλειον and to τὸ ἐκ
μέρους, by which unprecedented harshness of construction the sense would
be extorted, that only the imperfect γινώσκειν and προφητεύειν will cease to
make room for the perfect. But what Paul means and says is that these
charismata generally, as being designed only for the aeon of the partial,
and not in correspondence with the future aeon οἵ the perfect, will cease to
exist at the Parousia ; their design, which is merely temporary, is then
306 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
~ fulfilled. With the advent of the Parousia the other charismata tco (xii. 8
' ff.) surely cease altogether : not simply that the imperfection of the way in
which they are exercised ceases.
Ver. 11. Illustration of what was said in ver. 10 by an analogy taken from
each man’s own personal experience in life, inasmuch, namely, as our
present condition, when compared with our condition in the αἰὼν μέλλων, is
like that of the child in comparison with that of the man. The man has
given up the practices of the child. (5) —é¢pévowv refers to the interest and
efforts (device and endeavour), éAoy. to the judgment (reflective intellectual
activity). To make ἐλαλ., however, point back to the glossolalia, ἐφρ. to the
prophesying, and ἐλογ. to the gnosis (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Bengel,
Valckenaer, Heydenreich, Olshausen, D. Schulz, Ewald ; Osiander unde-
cided), is all the less warranted an assumption, seeing that é¢p. and ἐλογ.
are no specific correlates of the prophecy and gnosis respectively.
Ver. 12. Justification of this analogy in so far as it served to illustrate the
thought of ver. 10. — ἄρτι] i.e. before the Parousia. — δ ἐσόπτρου] through a
mirror ; popular mode of expression according to the optical appearance,
inasmuch, namely, as what is seen in the mirror appears to stand behind it.
The meaning is : owr knowledge of divine things is, in our present condition, no
immediate knowledge, but one coming through an imperfect medium. We
must think not only of our glass mirrors, but of the imperfectly reflecting
metal mirrors’ of the ancients (Hermann, Privatalterth. § 20. 26). Τὸ ἔσοπτρον
περίστησι τὸ ὁρώμενον ὁπωσδήποτε, Chrysostom. This is enough of itself
to enable us to dispense with the far-fetched expedient (Bos, Schoettgen,
Wolf, Mosheim, Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Stolz, Flatt, Heydenreich, Riickert,
and others) that ἔσοπτρον means speculare, a window made of tale (/apis spec-
ularis, see Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxxvi. 22). In support of this, such Rabbini-
cal passages are adduced as Jevamm. iv. 13, ‘‘Omnes prophetae viderunt
per specular ae ΡΘΟ Nd) obscurum, et Moses, doctor noster, vidit per spec-
ular lucidum.” See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 171 ; Wetstein in loc. But
against this whole explanation is the decisive fact that the assumed meaning
for ἔσοπτρον is quite undemonstrable, and that no expositor has succeeded
in establishing it. It always means mirror, as do also ἔνοπτρον and κάτοπτρον
(Pindar, Wem. vii. 20; Anacreon, xi. 2; Plutarch, Praec. conjug. 11 ; Lue.
Amor, 44, 48 ; Wisd. vii. 26; Ecclus. xii. 11 ; Jas. i. 23); a tale window
is διόπτρα (Strabo, xii. 2, p. 540). — ἐν αἰνίγματι which should not be sepa-
rated from δ ἐσόπτρου by a comma, is usually taken adverbially (Bernhardy,
p- 211), like αἰνιγματικῶς, so that the object of vision shows itself to the eye
in an enigmatic way. Comp. also Hofmann, who holds that what is meant
is an expression of anything conveyed in writing or symbol, of such a kind
that it offers itself to our apprehension and eludes it in quite equal measure.
But αἴνιγμα is a dark saying ; and the idea of the saying should as little be
lost here asin Num. xii. 8. This, too, in opposition to de Wette (comp.
Osiander), who takes it as the dark reflection in the mirror, which one sees,
so that ἐν stands for εἰς in the sense of the sphere of sight. Riickert takes
1 Hence the designation χαλκὸς διαυγής for a mirror. See Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 878,
CHAP? ΧΟΡ 12: 307
ἐν for εἰς on an exceedingly artificial ground, because the seeing here is a
reading, and one cannot read εἰς τὸν λόγον, but only ἐν τῷ λόγῳ. Luther ren-
ders rightly : in a dark word ; which, however, should be explained more
precisely as by means of an enigmatic word, whereby is meant the word of the
gospel-revelation, which capacitates for the βλέπειν in question, however
imperfect it be, and is its medium to us. Τῦ is aivyva, inasmuchas it affords
to us, (although certainty, yet) no full clearness of light upon God’s decrees,
ways of salvation, etc., but keeps its contents sometimes in a greater, some-
times in aless degree (Rom. xi. 33 f.; 1 Cor. ii. 9 ff.) concealed, bound up in
images, similitudes, types, and the like forms of human limitation and human
speech, and consequently is for us of a mysterious and enigmatic nature, ' stand-
ing in need of the future λύσις, and vouchsafing πίστις, indeed, but not εἶδος
(2Cor. v. 7); comp. Num. xii. 8. To take ἐν in the instrumental sense is
simpler, and more in keeping with the conception of the βλέπειν (videre ope
aenigmatis) than my former explanation of it as having a local force, as in
Matt. vi. 4 ; Ecclus. xxxix. 3 (in aenigmate versantes)..— τότε δέ] ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ-
τὸ τέλειον, ver. 10. — πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον] according to the Hebrew 0°39
D'}D-ON (Gen. xxxii. 80 ; comp. Num. xii. 8), face to (coram) face, denotes
the immediate vision. Grammatically πρόσωπον is to be taken as nominative,
in apposition,” namely, to the subject of βλέπομεν, so that πρὸς πρόσωπον applies
to the object seen. And it is God who is conceived of as being this object, as
is evident from the parallel καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην. --- ἄρτι γινώσκω k.T.4. | conse-
quence of the foregoing spoken asyndetically, and again in the first person
with individualizing force, in the victorious certainty of the consummation at
hand. — ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθ.} cannot mean : then shall I know as
also I am known, i.e. as God knows me (so most interpreters), but (observe the
aorist): as also I was known, which points back to the era of conversion to
Christ (for the apostle himself, how great a remembrance !), when the Chris-
tian became the object of the divine knowledge (see on viii. 3) turning to
deal with him effectually. The meaning therefore is : ‘‘but then will my
knowledge of God be so wholly different from a merely partial one, as it is now,
that, on the contrary, it will correspond to the divine knowledge, so far as it once
at my conversion made me its object, namely (opposite of ἐκ μέρους) by complete
knowledge of the divine nature, counsel, will, etc., which present themselves
to me now only in part.” Notice further that the stronger term ἐπεγνώσομαι
is selected in correspondence with the relation to the preceding simple γενώσκω
(Bengel, pernoscam ; see Valckenaer, ad Lue. p. 14 f.), and that καί is the or-
dinary also of equivalence. It may be added, that this likeness of the future
knowledge to the divine is, of course, relative ; the knowledge is ‘‘in suo
genere completa, quanta quidem in creaturam rationalem cadere potest,”
Calovius.
1 The objection, that Paul would hardly
have called the revelation αἴνιγμα (see de
Wette) is sufficiently set aside by the con-
sideration that he calls it so relatively, in
relation to the unveiling stid/ to come. Me-
lanchthon puts it happily . ‘‘ Verbum enim
est velut involucrum illius arcanae et mi-
randae rei, quam in vita coelesti coram as-
piciemus.””
2 As appositio partitiva.
§ 431.3. Fritzsche, ad Matth. iii. 12.
ger, § 57. 10.
See Matthiae,
Krit
308 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Ver. 13. Νυνὶ dé] nune autem, and thus, since, according to ver. 8 to 12,
the present temporary charismata do not continue, but cease in the future
age, continue (into the everlasting life and onward in it) faith, hope, love.’
This explanation of νυνὶ dé in a conclusive sense, as xii. 18, 20, and of μένει
as meaning eternal continuance,’ has been rightly given by Irenaeus, Haer.
ii. p. 47, iv. 25 ; Tertullian, de pat. 12; Photius in Oegumenius, p. 553 ;
Grotius, Billroth, de Wette, Osiander, Lipsius Gaines pp. 98,
210), Ewald, Maier, Hofmann. For, although the majority of interpreters
since Chrysostom (including Flatt, Heydenreich, Riickert, David Schulz,
Neander) have explained νυνὶ δέ in a temporal sense : ‘‘ but for the present,
so long as that glorious state lies still far off from us” (Riickert), and μένει
of continuance in the present age (in the church), this is incorrect for the
simple reason, that Paul, according to ver. 8 ff., expected the charismata to
cease only at the Parousia, and consequently could not have described
merely the triad of faith, hope, and love as what was now remaining ; the
γνῶσις also, prophecy, etc., remain till the Parousia. Hence, too, it was an
erroneous expedient to take μένει in the sense of the swm total, which re-
mains as the result of a reckoning (Calvin, Bengel, and others). — πίστις]
here in the established sense of the jides salvifica. This remains, even in the
world to come, the abiding causa apprehendens of blessedness ; what keeps
the glorified in continued possession of salvation is their abiding trust in the
atonement which took place through the death of Christ. Not as if their
everlasting glory might be lost by them, but it is their assured possession
just through the fact, that to them as συγκληρονομοί of Christ in the very be-
holding and sharing His glory the faith, through which they become blessed,
must remain incapable of being lost. The everlasting fellowship with Christ
in the future αἱών is not conceivable at all without the everlasting continu-
ance of the living grownd and bond of this fellowship, which is none other
than faith. — ἐλπίς] equally in its established N. T. sense, hope of the ever-
lasting glory ; Rom. v. 1, and frequently. This abides for the glorified,
with regard to the everlasting duration and continued development of their glory.
How Paul conceived this continued development and that of the Messianic
kingdom itself to proceed in detail, cannot indeed be proved. But the idea
is not on that account unbiblical, but is necessarily presupposed by the con-
tinuance of hope, which is undoubtedly asserted in our text. Moreover, in
xv. 24, steps in the development of the future βασίλεια are manifestly given,
as indeed the everlasting δόξα generally, according to its essential character
as ζωή, is not conceivable at all without development to ever higher perfec-
1 The three so-called theological virtues.
But faith and hope might also be called
virtues, “quia sunt obedientia, quam pos-
tulat Deus praestari suo mandato,” Me-
lanchthon.
3 Τῇ, again, it be assumed that the con-
ception of μένει differs in reference to its
different subjects, this is nothing but arbi-
trary importation. Osiander (comp. Theo-
phylact before him) holds that the μένειν
has different degrees; in the case of faith
and hope, it lasts on to the Parousia ; in the
case of love, it is absolute, onward beyond
the Parousia. And as distinguished from
the charismata, it denotes in the case of
faith and hope the constant continuance as
opposed to the sporadic. What accumulated
arbitrariness! Lipsius is correct in sub-
stance, but does not define specifically
enough the conception of the πίστις.
CHAP AXIEL, 19: 309
tion for the individual, and therefore also is not conceivable without the
continuance of hope. The conception of this continued development is not
excluded by the notion of the τέλειον, ver. 10, but belongs thereto.’ Bill-
roth is wrong in saying ‘‘ faith and hope remain, in so far as their contents
is eternal.” That is to confound the objective and subjective. De Wette
(comp. Maier) holds that ‘‘ faith and hope, which go directly to their object,
remain by passing over into sight.” Butin that way precisely they would not
remain (Rom. viii. 24 ; Heb. xi. 1), and only love would remain. For all the
three the μένειν must be meant in the same sense. Our interpretation, again,
does not run counter either to 2 Cor. v. 7 (where surely the future seeing of
the salvation does not exclude the continuance of the jides salvifica), or to
Rom. viii. 24, Heb. xi. 1, since in our text also the hope meant is hope of
something future not yet come to manifestation, while the jfides salvifica has
to all eternity a suprasensuous (Heb. Joc. cit.) object (the atoning power of
the sacrifice of Jesus). Hofmann transforms it in his exposition to this, that
it is asserted of the Christian who has believed, hoped, and loved that he
brings thither with him what he is as such, so that he has an abiding heri-
tage in these three things. But that is not what Paul says, but simply that
even in the future aeon, into which the charismata will not continue,
Christians will not cease to believe, to hope, to love. — ra τρία ταῦτα] brings
the whole attention, before anything further is said, earnestly to bear upon
this triad. — μείζων δὲ τούτων] is not to be taken as μείζων δὲ ἢ ταῦτα, for τού-
τῶν must apply to the foregoing τὰ τρία ταῦτα, but as : greater however (comp.
xiv. 5) among these i.e. of higher value (than the two others) among these three,
is love. Regarding μείζων with the gen. partitivus, comp. Matt. xxiii. 11.
Hofmann has no warrant for desiderating the article ; comp. Luke ix. 46.
Why love holds this highest place, has been already explained, vv. 1-7 ;?
because, namely, in relation to faith love, through which it works (comp.
Gal. v. 6), conditions its moral worth (vv. 1-8) and the moral fruitfulness of
the life of Christian fellowship (vv. 4-7); consequently without love (which
is divine life, 1 John iv. 8, 16) faith would be something egotistical, and
therefore spurious and only apparent, not even existing at all as regards its
true ethical nature ;* from which it follows at the same time that in relation
to hope also love must be the greater, because if love fails, the hope of fu-
1 Comp. also Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 473.
2 The interpreters who take νυνὶ δέ to
mean, but for the present, follow for the most
part Chrysostom in stating it as the higher
worth of love, that it alone continues in
eternity, while faith and hope, as they as-
sume, cease. According to de Wette, Paul
seems darkly to indicate the truth that love
is the root of faith and hope. But even
apart from the fact that this is not a Pau-
line thought, the reader could not be ex-
pected after ver. 7 (where nothing of the
kind is even indirectly indicated) to arrive
at such a thought. Baur too imports what
is not in the text when he says that Paul
calls love the greatest, because it is what
it 15. immediately, in an absolute way, and
hence also remains always what it is.
3 Justification, however, would be by love,
only if perfect satisfaction were rendered
to its requirements, which is not possible
(Rom. xiii. 8). Hence the divine economy
of salvation has connected justification
with faith, the necessary fruit and evidence
of which, however, is love. Comp. Me-
lanchthon, “ Aliud est causa justificationis,
aliud est necessarium ut effectus sequens
justificationem ... ut in vivente dicimus
necessario motum esse, qui tamen non est
vitae causa.’’ See also Form. Conc. p. 688 ff.
310 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ture glory—seeing that it can only be cherished by the true faith which
works by love—cannot with reason exist at all (comp. Matt. xxvi. 35 ff.).
(F’)
Notrs By AMERICAN EprtTor.
(02) The description of love.
“The surpassing beauty of this chapter has been felt and expressed wher-
ever it has been read, by persons of the most opposite religious views, and by
those who can appreciate only its literary qualities. In the chapters that go
before there is eloquence too, but of a very different kind—keen, impassioned,
vehement ; the next chapter but one also rises to the height of sublimity ; but
here all is serene. The opening verses are a grand introduction to what fol-
lows, sweeping away as worthless the very best things which want the cardinal
principle of love. This is then defined by no fewer than fifteen characteristics,
eight negative and seven positive. The terse precision and wonderful com-
pleteness of these strike every discerning reader ; while the periods roll on in
rhythmic melody to the end of the chapter, like a strain of richest music dying
away, or a golden sunset ; and everything is seen out but Love, which is found
standing alone as the enduring life of heaven’’ (Principal Brown). — ‘‘ The very
style shows that it rises far above any immediate or local occasion. On each
side of this chapter the tumult of argument and remonstrance still rages ; but
within it, all is calm ; the sentences move in almost rhythmical melody ; the
imagery unfolds itself in almost dramatic propriety ; the language arranges
itself with almost rhetorical accuracy’’ (Dean Stanley).
(Ε2) I spake asa child. Ver. 11.
Upon this verse Hodge well says that the feelings and thoughts of a child
are true and just, in so far as they are the natural impression of the objects to
which they relate. They are neither irrational nor false, but inadequate. In
like manner our views of divine things will hereafter be different from those
which we now have. But it does not thence follow that our present views are
false. They are just, as far as they go; they are only inadequate. It is no
part of the Apostle’s object to unsettle our confidence in what God now com-
municates by His word and Spirit to His children, but simply to prevent our
being satisfied with the partial and imperfect.
(F°*) Love is the greatest. Ver. 13.
The remarks of the author on this verse hardly show his wonted acumen.
The most satisfactory treatment of the question why Love is the greatest is
found in the following citation from Hodge : ‘‘Some say, because it includes,
or isthe root of faith and hope. It is said that we believe those whom we love,
and hope for what we delight in. According to Scripture, however, the reverse
is true. Faith is the root of love. It is the believing apprehension of the
glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, that calls forth love to Him. Others
say, the ground of superiority is in their effects. But we are said to be sancti-
fied, to be made the children of God, to overcome the world, to be saved by
faith. Christ dwells in our hearts by faith ; he that believes hath eternal life,
NOTES. 512
i.e. faith as including knowledge is eternal life. There are no higher effects
than these, so faras we are concerned. Others say that love is superior to faith
and hope, because the latter belong to the present state only, and love is to
continue forever. But, according to the true interpretation of the verse, all these
graces are declared to abide. The true explanation is to be found in the use
which Paul makes of this word greater, or the equivalent term better. In 12, 13,
he exhorts his readers to seek the better gifts, i.e. the more useful ones. And in
xiv. 5 hesays, ‘ Greater is he, that prophesies, than he that speaks with tongues ’;
i.e. he is more useful.
«“Throughout that chapter the ground of preference of one gift to others is
made to consist in its superior usefulness. This is Paul’s standard ; and
judged by this rule, love is greater than either faith or hope, Faith saves our-
selves, but love benefits others.’’
An English writer remarks that the contrast in this verse is not between love
which is imperishable and faith and hope which are perishable, but between
ephemeral gifts and enduring graces. It is strange how completely in popular
thinking this has been lost sight of, and hence we find such words as these :
“ Faith will vanish into sight,
Hope be emptied in delight,
Love in heaven will shine more bright,
Therefore give us love ;”
which express almost the opposite of what the Apostle really wrote. The
same may be said of the close of one of Charles Wesley’s most familiar and
admired hymns :
‘* Where faith is sweetly lost in sight,
And hope in full supreme delight,
And everlasting love.”
»...». τ
312 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
CHAPTER XIV.
Ver. 7. Τοῖς φθόγγοις Lachm. reads τοῦ φθόγγου, with B, Clar. Germ. Tol.
Ambrosiast. Too weakly attested ; and after the preceding φωνὴν διδόντα (giving
from itself) the change of the dative into the genitive (Vulgate, sonituum), and of
the plural into the singular, was very natural. Neither ought we to read,
instead of (6 (Elz. Lachm. Tisch.), the more weakly attested διδῷ (recommended
by Griesb.), which is a repetition from the preceding διδόντα. --- Ver. 10. ἐστίν]
Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read εἰσίν, following AB DEF GX, min. Clem. Dam.
Theophyl. The singular is an emendation, in accordance with the neuter plural.
—airov should be deleted, with Lachm. Riick. Tisch., according to prepon-
derating testimony. A defining addition. — Ver. 13. Instead of διόπερ read διό,
upon decisive evidence. — Ver. 15, δέ] is wanting both times in F G, min.
Vulg. It. Sahid. Syr. Damasc. and Latin Fathers; the first time also in K, the
second time alsoin B; hence Lachm, deletes only the second dé. Probably
Paul did not write either at all, and B contains merely the insertion which was
first made in the first half of the verse. — Ver. 18. Elz, has μου after Θεῶ, which
Reiche defends, in opposition to decisive evidence, Addition from i. 4; Rom.
i. ὃ αἰ. There is preponderating testimony for γλώσσῃ (Lachm. Riick. Tisch.)
in place of γλώσσαις, as, indeed, in this chapter generally the authorities vary
greatly in respect of the singular and plural designation of this charisma, In
this passage the plural was inserted because they ascribed the knowledge of
ever so many languages to the apostle. —”Aaiov] BD EF G X, 17, 67** Copt.
Syr. utr. Vulg. It. Oec. and Latin Fathers have λαλῶ (so Lachm. and Tisch.) ; of
these, however, F G, Copt. Syr. utr. Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers have ὅτι before
πάντων. A omits λαλῶν altogether (which Riick. prefers, as also D, Schulz and
de Wette). The preponderance of attestation is manifestly in favour of λαλῶ,
which is also to be regarded as the original. For the omission (A) is explained
by the fact that the words from εὐχαριστῶ to γλώσσαις were viewed (in accord-
ance with vv. 14-16) as belonging to each other. Other transcribers, who
rightly saw in πάντων ὑμῶν x.7,A, the ground of the εὐχαριστῶ, sought to help
the construction, some of them by ὅτι, some by changing λαλῶ into λαλῶν. The
latter was welcome also to those who sawin πάντων. . λαλῶν, not the ground,
but the mode of the εὐχαριστῶ, such as Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 271, who accord-
ingly defends the Recepta. — Ver. 19. Elz. Tisch. read διὰ τοῦ νοός, running
counter, it is true, to AB DEFGR, vss. and Fathers, which have τῷ vot (80
Lachm. and Riick.), but still to be defended, because τῷ vot has manifestly come
in from ver. 15, The very old transcriber’s error διὰ τὸν νόμον (without μου),
which Marcion followed, tells likewise on the side of the Recepta. — Ver. 21.
ἑτέροις] Lachm, Riick. read ἑτέρων, following A B δὲ, min. Rightly ; the dative
was written mechanically after érepoyAdoooe and γείλεσιν. --- Ver. 25. Elz. has
καὶ οὕτω before τὰ κρυπτά, in opposition to greatly preponderating evidence.
The result seemed to begin at this point, hence the subsequent καὶ οὕτω was
taken in here and the οὕτω following was left out (so still Chrysostom). After-
CHAP. ΣΤΥ: 313
wards this second οὔτω was restored again without deleting the first καὶ οὕτω. ---
Ver. 32. πνεύματα] D E F G and some min, vss. and Fathers have πνεῦμα. But
πνεύματα seemed out of place, seeing that it is the Holy Spirit that impels the
prophets. — Ver. 34. ὑμῶν, which is defended by Reiche and Tisch., is wanting
in A Β δὲ, min. vss. and Fathers (deleted by Lachm. and Riick.), but was very
liable to be Omitted from its being non-essential, and from the generality of
the precept, and is to be retained on the ground of its old (as early as Syr.)
and sufficient attestation. — ἐπιτέτραπται] ἐπιτρέπεται has greatly preponderant
authorities in its favour. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick.
Tisch. Rightly ; the sense of the pertect (permissum est) came more readily to
the mind of the transcribers, both of itself and because of the prevalent refer-
ence to the law. — ὑποτάσσεσθαι] Lachm. Riick. read ὑποτασσέσῃωσαν, following
A Β Ν᾽, and some min, Copt. Bashm, Marcion, Damase. ; an interpretation. —
Ver. 35. γυναικί] Elz. Scholz read γυναιξί, in opposition to A Β &* min. and
several vss. and Fathers. The plural was introduced mechanically after the
foregoing. — Ver. 37. εἰσὶν ἐντολαί] Many various readings. Among the best
attested (by A B &** Copt. Aeth. Aug.) is ἐστὶν ἐντολή. So Lachm. But D* ἘΠ
F G, codd. of It. Or. Hil. Ambrosiast. have simply ἐστίν ; and this is the origi-
nal (so Tisch.), to which ἐντολῇ was added, sometimes before and sometimes
after, by way of supplement. The Recepta εἰσὶν ἐντολαί (defended by Reiche)
arose out of the plural expression ἃ γράφω in the way of a similar gloss. —- Ver.
38. ἀγνοείτω] ἀγνοεῖται occurs in A* (apparently) D* F G &* Copt. Clar. Germ.
Or. So Lachm. and Riick. ; Rinck also defends it. Other vss. and Fathers
have ignorabitur. But in the scriptio continua an Q might easily be be left out
from ἀγνοειτΩΏστε, and then it would be all the more natural to supplement
wrongly the defective ἀγνοειτ by making it ἀγνοεῖται, as it was well known that
Paul is fond of a striking interchange between the active and passive of the
same verb (viii. 2, 3, xiii. 12). One can hardly conceive any ground for ἀγνοεῖται
being changed into the imperative, especially as the imperative gives a sense
which seems not to be in keeping with apostolic strictness and authority.
Offence taken at this might be the very occasion of ἀγνοείτω being purposely
altered into ὠγνοεῖται.
ConTEents.—(1) Regarding the higher value of prophecy in comparison
with the gift of tongues, vy. 1-25. (2) Precepts regarding the application
of the gifts of the Spirit in general, and of the two named in particular, vv.
26-33, with an appended remark on the silence of women, vv. 34,35. (8)
Corroboration of the precepts given, vv. 36-38, and reiteration of the main
practical points, vv. 39, 40.
Ver. 1. Διώκετε τ. ἀγάπην] pursue after love ; asyndetic, but following with
all the greater emphasis upon the praise of love, chap. xiii. ; while the figura-
tive διώκ. (sectamini) corresponds to the conception of the way, xii. 31.
Comp. Phil. iii. 12. And after Paul has thus established this normative
principle as to seeking after the better gifts of the Spirit, he can now enter
upon the latter themselves more in detail. —CyAoire δὲ «.7.2..] With this he
joins on again to xii. 31, yet not so as to make the δέ reswmptive,—in which
case διώκ. τ. ἀγάπ. would be left standing in an isolated position,—but in
such a way that he sets over against the latter the ζηλοῦν τὰ rv. as what is to
take place along with it. ‘‘Let the end which you pursue be love ; in con-
314 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
nection with which, however,—and upon that I will now enter more partic-
ularly,—you are not to omit your zealous seeking after the gifts of the Spirit,
but to direct it especially to prophecy.” Comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret,
and Theophylact. — τὰ πνευματικά] as in xii. 1, the gifts of the Spirit generally,
not merely the glossolalia (Billroth, Ewald, comp. also Riickert), which first
comes in at ver. 2, and that with a definite designation. Μᾶλλον dé wa
mpod., Which is not to be read as a subordinate clause (Hofmann), represents
and defines more closely the phrase τὰ χαρίσματα τὰ κρείττονα, Xi. 31. Μᾶλλον
does not simply compare the longing for prophetic gifts with that for the
glossolalia, —which is only done in the following verses (in opposition to Hof-
mann),—but is to be explained : in a higher degree, however, than for the other
gifts of the Spirit, be zealous that ye may speak prophetically.” The iva thus
states the design of the ζηλοῦτε, which we must again mentally supply (comp.
ver. 5).
Vv. 2, 3 give the ground of the μᾶλλον δὲ iva προφ. by comparing prophecy
with the glossolalia in particular, which was in such high repute among the
Corinthians.—For he who speaks with the tongue (see on xii. 10) speaks not to
men (does not with his discourse stand in the relation of communicating to
men), but to God, who understands the Holy Spirit’s deepest and most fer-
vent movements in prayer (Rom. viii. 26 f.). Comp. ver. 28. — οὐδεὶς γὰρ
ἀκούει] for no one hears it, has an ear for it. Sotoo Porphyr. de Abst. iii. 22 ;
Athen. ix. p. 383 A. What is not understood is as if it were not heard. Comp.
Mark iv. 33 ; Gen. xi. 7, xlii. 48, and see ver. 16: τί λέγεις οὐκ olde.’ Wieseler,
in 1838, took advantage of ἀκούει in support of his theory of the soft and in-
audible character of the speaking with tongues, against which the very ex-
pression λαλεῖν, the whole context (see especially ver. 7 1.) and the analogy
of the event of Pentecost, as well as Acts x. 46 and xix. 6, are conclusive.
See also on xii. 10, xiii. 1. The emphatic οὐκ ἀνθρ. λαλεῖ, ἀλλὰ τ. Θεῷ mili-
tates against Fritzsche, Nov. opuse. pp. 327, 333, who takes οὐδεὶς y. ἀκούει in
a hyperbolic sense (‘‘ nam paucissimé intelligunt, cf. Joh. i. 10, 11”). No one
understands it,—that is the rule, the exceptional case being only, of course,
that some one gifted with the χάρισμα of interpretation is present ; but in
and of itself the speaking with tongues is of such a nature that no one under-
stands it. Had Paul meant the speaking in foreign languages, he could all
the less have laid down that rule, since, according to ver. 23, it was a possible
case that a// the members of the church should speak γλώσσαις, and conse-
quently there would always be some present who would have understood
the foreign language of an address. — πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστ.] dé—not the
German ‘‘ sondern” (Riickert)—is the however or on the other hand frequent
after a negative statement (see Hartung, Partik. I. p. 172 ; Baeumleim, p.
95). Weare not to understand πνεύματε of the objective Holy Spirit, ver.
14 being against this, but of the higher spiritual nature of the man (different
from the ψυχή). This, the seat of his self-consciousness, is filled in the
inspired man by the Holy Spirit (Rom. viii. 16), which, according to the
different degrees of inspiration, may either leave the reflective activity of
1 Comp. also Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. κι. Petr. Ὁ. 382.
CHAP. xIv., 4, 5. 315
the understanding (νοῦς, ver. 14) at work, or suspend it for the time during
which this degree of inspiration continues. The latter is what is meant
here, and πνεύματι λαλεῖν signifies, therefore, to speak through an activity of
the higher organ of the inner life, which directly (without the medium of
the νοῦς) apprehends and contemplates the divine ; so that in πνεύματι is
implied the exclusion of that discursive activity, which could, as in the case
of prophecy, present clearly to itself in thought the movements and sugges-
tions of the Holy Spirit, could work these out, connect them with things
present, and communicate them to others in an intelligible way. — μυστήρια]
secrets, namely, for the hearers, hence what was unintelligible, the sense of
which was shut up from the audience. The mysterious character of the
speaking with tongues did not consist in the things themselves (for the
same subjects might be treated of by other speakers also), but in the mode
of expression, which, as not being brought about and determined by the
intellectual activity of the νοῦς, thereby lacked the condition connecting
it with the intellectual activity of the hearer, for which it was only made
ready by the interpretation. Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 362. — oikod. x.
παρακλ. k. tapau.| The first is the genus, the second and third are species
of it :* edification (Christian perfection generally) and (and in particular)
exhortation (comp. on Phil. ii. 1) and consolation. — παραμυθία, only here in
the N. T., means address in general (Heindorf, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed.
p- 70 B), then comfort in particular ; Plato, Av. p. 365 A ; Aeschin. Dial.
poor) τὰ 3; Γπ|ρίαπ Mort. D. xv. 5: de Dea Syr..22.; Ael..V. A. xi. 1;
Wisd. xix. 12. Comp. on παραμύθιον, Phil. ii. 1.
Ver. 4. Difference between the relations of the two in respect of the
mentioned οἰκοδομῇ. --- ἑαυτόν] in so far, namely, as he not merely believes that
he feels (Wetstein), but really does feel in himself the edifying influence of
what he utters. This does not presuppose such an understanding of what
he utters as could be communicated to others, but it does assume an impres-
sion on the whole of a devout and elevating, although mystical kind, ex-
perienced in his own spirit. —éxkayo.] a church, without the article, an as-
sembly.
Ver. 5. Δέ] ἐπειδὴ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐλάλουν γλώσσαις πολλοὶ, ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ διὰ φθόνον
κατασμικρίνειν τὰς γλώσσας, θέλω, φησὶ, πάντας κ.τ..., Theophylact. Comp. the
δέ, xii, 81. --- μᾶλλον δὲ x.7.4.] rather, however, I wish that ye should speak pro-
phetically. Note here the distinction between the accusative with the infinitive
and iva after θέλω (see on Luke vi. 81). The former puts the thing absolutely
as object ; the latter, as the design of the θέλω to be fulfilled by the
readers (Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 62, ed. 3) ; so that it approaches the
imperative force (Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 859). -- μείζων] preferable, of more
worth, xiii. 13, because more useful for edification, vv. 6, 20. --- ἑκτὸς εἰ μὴ
διερμ.} the case being excepted, if he interpret (what has been spoken with
tongues). ἑκτὸς εἰ μή is a mixing up of two modes of expression, so that μή
1 Ver. 4, where the olxoSouy is named _ significance of the two latter points:
done, testifies to this relation of the three “παράκλησις tollit tarditatem, παραμυθία
words (in opposition to Riickert). Comp. tristitiam.”’
Bengel, who has noted well the edifying
316 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
now seems pleonastic. Comp. xv. 2; 1 Tim. v. 19. Not a Hebraism
(Grotius), but found also in the later Greek writers (Lucian, Dial. Mer. 1;
Soloec. 7). See Wetstein ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 459. — Regarding ei with
the subjunctive, see on ix. 11. The subject of διερμ. is not a τίς to be sup-
plied (Flatt, comp. Ewald), but ὁ λαλῶν y2. The passage shows (comp. ver.
18) that one and the same person might be endowed with glossolalia and
interpretation. (65)
Ver. 6. Νυνὶ δέ] But so, i.e. but in this condition of things, since, namely,
prophecy is greater than the speaking with tongues when left without edi-
fying interpretation, I, if I came to you as a speaker with tongues, would
only then be useful to you when I united with it prophetical or doctrinal
discourse. Hofmann is wrong in wishing to refer νυνὶ dé to the main thought
of ver. 5 ; in that case the second part of ver. 5 is all the more arbitrarily
overlooked, seeing that the ἐὰν μή in ver. 6 is manifestly correlative to the
ἑκτὸς et μή in ver. 5. Others take it otherwise. But the key to the interpre-
tation which is in accordance with the context and logically correct lies in
this, that the two uses of ἐάν are not co-ordinate (which was my own for-
mer view), so as in that way to give to the principal clause, ri ὑμᾶς ὠφελήσω,
two parallel subordinate clauses (comp. on Matt. v. 18) ; but, on the con-
trary, that ἐὰν μή, corresponding to the ἑκτὸς εἰ μή, ver. 5, is subordinated to
the first ἐάν. Paul might, forsooth, instead of ἐὰν μὴ... διδαχῇ have written
simply : ἐὰν μὴ ὑμῖν διερμηνεύσω. Instead of doing so, however, he specifies
the two kinds of discourse in which he might give an interpretation of his
speech in tongues, and says: If I shall have come to you speaking with tongues,
what shall I profit you, if I shall not have spoken to you (for the sake, namely,
of expounding my speech in tongues, ver. 5), either in revelation, etc. The
apostle possessed the gift of glossolalia (ver. 18), but might also be his own
διερμηνευτής, and might apply to the διερμηνεύειν the other apostolic charis-
mata which belonged to him for teaching, prophecy, and διδαχή (xiii. 9 ;
Acts xiii. 1). — ἢ ἐν ἀποκαλ. «.7.2.] not four, but two charismatic modes of
teaching are here designated — prophecy and didascalia. For the former,
the condition is ἀποκάλυψις ; for the latter, γνῶσις. See Estius in loc. The
prophet spoke in an extempore way what was unfolded and furnished to him
by revelation of the Spirit ; the teacher (if he did not simply deliver a λόγος
σοφίας, xii, 8) developed the deep knowledge which he had acquired by in-
vestigation, in which he was himself active, but yet was empowered and
guided by the Spirit. This twofold division is not at variance with xiii. 2,
from which passage, on the contrary, it is plain that there belonged to proph-
ecy γνῶσις and ἀποκάλυψις, the latter of which was not included as a condi-
tion of the didascalia ; so that the characteristic mark of distinction in proph-
ecyis thus the ἀποκάλυψις. Comp. ver. 30. — ἐν denotes the inward (ἀποκαλ..,
γνωσ.) and outward (προφ., J.) form in which the λαλεῖν takes place. Comp.
Matt. xiii. 3. — Note further the use of the jirst person, in which Paul comes
forward himself with all the more convincing force in support of what he
says.
Ver. 7. The wselessness of a discourse remaining in this way unintelligible
is now shown by the analogy of musical instruments. — ὅμως] is paroxytone,
GHAP? XIV., ἢ: 91}
and means nothing else than tamen (Vulgate), but is put first here and in Gal.
iii. 15, although logically it ought to come in only before ἐὰν διαστολήν κ.τ.λ. ;
hence it is to be explained as if the order was : τὰ ἄψυχα, καίπερ φων. διδόντα,
εἶτε αὐλός, εἴτε κιθάρα, ὅμως, ἐὰν διαστολὴν τ. φθ. μὴ δῷ, πῶς γνωσθήσεται K.T.A.
It is rightly taken by Chr. F. Fritzsche, Nov. Opusc. p. 329. Comp. C. F.
A. Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 52: ‘‘instrumenta vitae expertia, etiamsi sonum
edunt, tamen, nisi distincte sonent, qui dignoscas,” etc. So Winer, also, at
last (ed. 6; ed. 7, p. 515 [E. T. 693]), and, in like manner, Buttmann,
neut. Gr. p. 264 [E. T. 308]. To analyze it into τὰ ἄψυχα, καίπερ ἄψυχα,
ὅμως φωνὴν διδόντα κ.τ.λ. (Winer formerly, comp. Riickert), brings out an
antithetic relation which could not be expected from the context. For
what is to be expressed is not that the instruments, although lifeless, never-
theless sound ; but this, that the lifeless instruments, although they sound,
nevertheless give out no intelligible melody, unless, etc. As regards the
hyperbaton, common with classical writers also, by which ὅμως, instead of
following the participle, goes before it,’ see Matthiae, ὃ 566, 3; Kriiger,
§ lvi. 18. 3 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 495 Ὁ ; Ast, Lev. Plat. II. p. 447 ;
Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 232. That ὅμως stands for ὁμοίως, and should be
accented (comp. Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. p. 480, ed. 2) ὁμῶς (Faber, Alberti,
Wetstein, Hoogeveen, and others), is as erroneous (ὅμως means; equally,
together) as Kypke’s assertion that the paroxytone ὅμως means similiter. —
διδόντα] giving forth, as Pind. Nem. v. 93; Judith xiv. 9. Φωνῇ is used of
the voice of musical instruments in Eccles. 1. 16 ; Esdr. v. 64; 1 Mace. v.
31, al. Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 47 C ; μουσικὴ φωνή, Pol. iii. p. 397 A ; Plut.
Mor, p. 713 C ; Eur. Tro. 127. — ἐὰν διαστολὴν κ.τ.}.} If they (the ἄψυχα φωνὴν
διδόντα) shall not have given a distinction to the sounds, if they shall have
sounded without bringing out the sounds in definite, distinctive modulation.
‘* Harmoniam autem ex intervallis sonorum nosse possumus,”’ Cic. Zuse. i. 18.
41. Comp. Plat. Phileb. p. 7 C Ὁ, and Stallbaum in loc. — πῶς γνωσθήσ. τὸ ava.
k.7.4.] how shall that be recognized which is played upon the flute or upon the
cithern? 1.6. how can it then’ possibly happen that one: should recognize a
definite piece of music (a melody) from the sounds of the flute or the
cithern? One is none the wiser from them as to what is played. The
repetition of the article is quite correct: what is played on the flute, or
again, in the other supposed case, what is played upon the cithern. Riickert
takes it as meaning, How is it possible to distinguish between flute and cith-
ern? Inappropriate, in view of the essentially different character of the
two instruments, and seeing that the question in the context (comp. ver. 9)
is not as to distinguishing between the instruments, but as to understand-
ing the melody.—It may be observed, further, that the analogy in ver. 7
would be unsuitable, if Paul had been thinking of foreign languages, since
these would not have lacked the διαστολή of the sounds. This holds also in
opposition to the view of the matter which makes it an utterance of glosses,
as likewise in opposition to Wieseler’s conception of a soft γένος γλωσσῶν,
1 Not always immediately before, as Hof- also Reisig, Hnarr. Oed. Col. p. xlvi. Comp.,
mann opines that Paul must have written : too, 4 Mace. xiii. 26.
τὰ ἄψυχα ὅμως φων. διδόντα, See Jacobs, l.c.;
318 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
seeing that in ver. 7 it is not the strength of the sound, but its distinctness
(comp. Wieseler himself in 1860, p. 114), in virtue of which it expresses a
melody, which is the point of comparison.
Ver. 8. Confirmation of the negative implied in πῶς γνωσθήσεται x.7.4., bY
another yet stronger example : for also in the case of, etc. The emphasis
is upon σάλπιγξ, a trumpet, the simple sounds of which are assuredly far
more easily intelligible as regards their meaning and design than those of
flute and cithern. — ἄδηλον] not clear, uncertain, qui dignosci nequeat, Beza.
‘‘Unius tubae cantus alius ad alia vocat milites,” Bengel. Comp. φωνάς
τινας ἀσήμους, Lucian, Alex. 13. — φωνήν] comp. Il. xviii. 219. — εἰς πόλεμον]
to battle, Hom. 1Π. i. 177, iv. 891 ; Pind. Ol. xii. 5; Plato, Phaed. p. 66 C ;
Eccles. xxxvii. 5, xl. 6; 1 Macc. ii. 41. The signal of attack was given
with the trumpet. See Wetstein and Valckenaer in loc. ; Rosenmiiller,
Morgenl. VI. p. 110.
Ver. 9. Inference from ver. 7 f.: accordingly, if you also, etc. — διὰ τῆς
γλώσσης] for it was by means of the tongue that his readers brought forth so
much unintelligible matter through their glossolalia. The ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς
γλώσσης speaking unintelligibly correspond to those instruments in vv. 7, 8 ;
hence διὰ τ. y2. is put immediately after ὑμεῖς, and before ἐάν (comp. vi. 4).
— εὔσημον λόγον] an easily distinguishable discourse, the meaning of which
comes plainly out by clear and distinct words and connection. Comp.
Soph. Ant. 1008 ; Polyb. x. 44.3; Men. ap. Athen. xiii. p. 571 E. — ἔσεσθε
γὰρ k.t.2.] expressing the unsuitable relation of state, hence not the mere
future (comp. Kiihner, II. p. 40) : for ye shall be people, who, etc. —ei¢ ἀέρα]
palpably illustrates the wselessness (what does not remain with the hearer).
Comp. ix. 26 ; Lucretius, iv. 929 ; Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 334. Philo : aépo-
μυθεῖν, to speak to the wind, and ἀερόμυθος.
Vv. 10, 11. Another example still to induce them to lay aside this way of
speaking. — εἰ τύχοι] if it 80 happens, if it is really the case, i.e. perhaps, just
as the mere absolute τυχόν also is employed (Isocr. Archid. 38 ; De pace, 60 ;
Xen. Mem. vi. 1. 20, and Kiihner in loc.) So in all the passages in Wet-
stein, Loesner, p. 293 ; Viger. ed. Herm. p. 301, which are usually adduced
in support of what is assumed (by Riickert also) to be the meaning here : for
example. The phrase has never this meaning, and merely its approximate
sense can be so expressed,’ and that always but very unexactly, in several
passages (such as xv. 37 ; Lucian, Amor. 27). And in the present case this
sense does not suit at all, partly because it would be very strange if Paul,
after having already adduced flutes, citherns, and trumpets as examples,
should now for the first time come out with a ‘‘for example,” partly and
chiefly because εἰ τύχοι is a defining addition, not to the thing itself (γένη
φωνῶν), but to its quantity (to τοσαῦτα). Comp. Lucian, Jearom. 6 : καὶ πολ-
λάκις, εἰ τύχοι, μηδὲ ὁπόσοι στάδιοι Μεγαρόθεν ᾿Αθήναζέ εἰσιν, ἀκριβῶς ἐπιστάμενοι.
Paul, namely, had conceived to himself under τοσαῦτα a number indefinite,
indeed, but very great ;* and he now takes away from this conception its
1 This also in opposition to Hilgenfeld, indefinite expression by εἰ τύχοι (in opposi-
Glossol. p. 24. tion to Hilgenfeld).
2 For this reason he could limit even the
CHAP XIV, , 12: 319
demonstrative certainty by εἰ τύχοι : in so great multitude, perhaps, there are
different languages in the world. Billroth, too, followed by Olshausen, takes
εἰ τύχοι in itself rightly, but introduces an element of irony, inasmuch as he
quite arbitrarily takes τοσαῦτα. . . καὶ οὐδέν for ὅσα. . . τοσαῦτα, and, in
doing so, makes εἰ τύχοι even reach over to the second clause: ‘‘as many
languages as there are, probably just so many have sense and significance.”
— On εἰ with the optative, expressing the mere conjecture, it may suffice to
refer to Hermann, ad Viger. p. 902. — γένη φωνῶν] i.e. all sorts of different
languages, each individual unit of which is a separate γένος φωνῶν. The op-
posite is φωνὴ μία πᾶσι, Gen. xi. 1. — οὐδέν] namely, γένος φωνῶν. Bleek ren-
ders it, contrary to the context : no rational being. Similarly Grotius and
others, so that αὐτῶν in the Textus receptus would apply to men. Comp. van
Hengel, Annot. p. 194 f., who supplies ἔθνος with οὐδέν. -- ἄφωνον) speechless,
i.e. no language is without the essence of a language (comp. βίος aBiwroc, and
the like, in Lobeck, Paralip. p. 229 f. ; Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee. 612 ; Jacobs,
Del. epigr. i. 33), i.e. unintelligible, and that absolutely, not merely for him,
to whom it is a foreign tongue (ver. 11). — οὖν] therefore, draws its argu-
ment, not from the great multitude of the languages (Hofmann), which, in
truth, is not at all implied in what is contained in ver. 11, but from οὐδέν
ἄφωνον. For were the language spoken to me (τῆς φων.) ἄφωνος, and so un-
intelligible in itself, I could not in that case appear even as a barbarian to
the speaker, because, in fact, what he spoke would be understood by no man.
The barbarian (βαρβαρόφωνος, Herod. vii. 20, ix. 43) speaks only a foreign
language, not one altogether devoid of meaning for others. — τὴν δύναμιν τῆς
φωνῆς] the signification, the sense of the language (which is being spoken).
Polyb. xx. 9, 11; Lucian, Migr. 1,a/. Comp. Herod. ii. 30 ; Plat. Huthyd.
p. 286 C. —év ἐμοί] with me, i.e. in my judgment. See Valckenaer, ad Hur.
Hipp. 324 ; Pflugk, ad Hur. Hel. 996 ; Winer, pp. 362, 204 [E. T. 489, 273].
Remarx.—Paul has chosen φωνή to denote language, because in the whole sec-
tion he has only the meaning tongue in his mind for γλῶσσα. To instruct his
readers regarding the speaking with tongues, he uses the analogy of speaking
languages. Hofmann resorts to the suggestion that Paul must have used φωνῇ
here, because he would not have expressed what καὶ οὐδὲν ἄφωνον was designed
to convey by x. οὐδὲν ἄγλωσσον. That is incorrect ; for ἄγλωσσον would have
conveyed the very same thing (speechless, Poll. ii. 108; Soph, Trach. 1060 ;
Pind. Nem. viii. 41) with the very same point (et nullum elingue), if he had used
γλῶσσὰ instead of φωνή.
Ver. 12. Inference, which the readers have to draw from ver. 10 f.
« Therefore (itaque), seeing, namely, that the unintelligible speaking is,
according to ver. 10 f., something so absurd, seek ye also, since ye are indeed
zealous after spirits, with a view to the edification of the church therein, that ye
may have abundance.” The οὕτω x. ὑμεῖς, which is repeated here, must be
related to ver. 10 f., just as the οὕτω x. ὑμεῖς in ver. 9 is to ver. 7 f., and
may not therefore be made to refer to all that precedes it back as far as ver.
6 (Hofmann). As the former οὕτω κ. ὑμεῖς set forth an inference for warn-
ing, so the present one infers the requisite precept, and for both what in
320 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
each case immediately precedes serves as the premiss. —IIpo¢ τ. οἰκοδ, τ΄
ἐκκλησ. has the emphasis (in opposition to Hofmann). The absurdity re-
ferred to is meant to point the readers, with their zealous striving after gifts
of the Spirit, to the right way, namely, that «with a view to the edification of the
church * they should seek after ever richer endowments. Consequently it is
just as superfluous to isolate οὕτω κ. ὑμεῖς as a sentence by itself (τινές in
Theophylact, Mosheim, Flatt, Heydenreich), which, moreover, would be
quite unsuitable in respect of sense, as it is to assume a suppressed inference
after ver. 11 (Estius, Riickert). — Kai ὑμεῖς} you too ; for the Corinthians
were in fact to form no exception from this general maxim, as in their striv-
ing after higher charismata, and especially after the gift of speaking with
tongues, eet: alas, to be the case !—érel ζηλωταί ἐστε πνευμ.} on which
account you have all the more need of the right regulative ἘΣ A pointed hint
for the readers, the force of which they could doubtless feel for them-
selves. — πνευμάτων] the genitive of the object, to which the zealous striving
relates. The plural expression is purposely chosen κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον (comp,
Hofmann) in keeping with the emulous doings at Corinth. For the specifi-
cally different manifestations, in which the manifold working of the One
Spirit displayed itself, assumed indeed, in presence of such jealous seeking
and striving, such an appearance to the eyes of the observer of this unseemly
state of things, as though not one Spirit, but a plurality of spirits, differing
in kind and importance, were the object of the rivalry. What were διαιρέ-
σεις χαρισμάτων, and hence only different φανερώσεις τοῦ πνευμάτος, presented
themselves, as matters stood at Corinth, to the eye and pen of the apostle
as διαιρέσεις πνευμάτων. Πνευμάτων, therefore, is just as far from standing for
πνευματικῶν (Beza, Piscator, Storr, Flatt, and others) as it is from denoting the
glossolalia (Heydenrich, Billroth).”. To suppose a real plurality of spirits,
after the analogy of the persons possessed by a number of evil spirits (see
Hilgenfeld, p. 52 f.), so that a number of divine spirits would be meant, is
at variance with the N. T. generally, and at variance with xii. 4, 7 ff. — wa
περισσ.] Οὐκ εἶπεν iva κτήσησθε τὰ χαρίσματα, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα περισσεύητε,
τουτέστιν ἵνα καὶ μετὰ δαψιλείας πολλῆς αὑτὰ ἔχητε" τοσοῦτον γὰρ ἀπέχω τοῦ μὴ
βούλεσθαι ἔχειν ὑμᾶς αὐτὰ, ὅτι καὶ περισσεύειν ὑμᾶς ἐν αὐτοὶς βούλομαι, μόνον ἂν εἰς
τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον αὐτὰ μεταχειρίζητε, Chrysostom. — ἵνα] sets before us the
object of the striving as its design, as at ver. 1, iv. 2.— What we are to
conceive as the contents of the περισσεύειν (to have to the full, viii. 8 ; Phil.
1 πρὸς τ. oix, τ. exxA. belongs to ζητεῖτε, not for the appreciation and right pursuit of
to περισσ. (Grotius and many others), be- the charismata (vv. 3,4, 17, 26; Eph. iv. 12,
cause Paul has not written: ζητεῖτε, πρὸς τ. 16). The article before oixod. does not de-
oix τ. ἐκκλ, ἵνα περισσ. That would be the note the edification already otherwise taking
correct way of putting it first with the place, but is simply = πρὸς τὸ οἰκοδομεῖσθαι τ.
emphasis, if it were meant to belong to ἐκκλησίαν. Paul might either put it or leave
περισσ., 2 Cor. ii. 4; Gal. ii. 10; Acts xix. 4. it out (ver. 26; Rom. xv. 2; Eph. iv. 29).
This also in opposition to Hofmann, who 2 The endeavour to be a speaker with
takes mp. τ. οἰκ. τ. éxkxA, as Only asubordinate tongues was rather only a particular mode,
thought (‘“‘ which then comes to be profit- in which the πνεύματα ζηλοῦν, this general
able for the edification of the church’’) be- tendency, came into manifestation espe-
longing to περισσ. The edification of the cially in Corinth.
church is in truth just the normative test
CHAP. XIv., 18, 14. 321
i. 9, iv. 12, al.) is self-evident, namely, what was previously meant by
πνευμάτων, spiritual gifts.
Ver. 13. Προσευχέσθω ἵνα διερμ.} is taken by Chrysostom, Theodoret, The-
ophylact, Castalio, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Wetstein,
Bengel, and others, including Flatt, Bleek, Riickert, Olshausen, Neander,
Hofmann, in the sense of : let him pray for the gift of interpretation. But
against this ver. 14 is decisive, where the προσεύχεσθαι, linked by yap to
what precedes, must have the same reference with our προσεύχεσθαι in ver, 13.
Bleek’s objection, that we find εὐχαριστῶ in ver. 18 standing in a different ref-
erence than previously, does not hold good, since vv. 17 and 18 do not stand
in direct logical connection (as vv. 12 and 14 do), but, on the contrary, with
ver. 18 there begins a section of the discourse distinct from the preceding.
Without taking iva, with Luther, Vorstius, Wolf, Rosenmiiller (comp.
already Photius in Oecumenius), as meaning so that, the right translation
is: let him pray in the design, in order to interpret (afterwards what has
been prayed γλώσσῃ). Comp. Billroth, David Schulz, Winer, de Wette,
Osiander, Ch. F. Fritzsche, Ewald, Maier. The previous general λαλεῖν is
thus represented here by προσεύχεσθαι, i.e. more precisely described as what
it was, as address in prayer see vv. 14-17. It is objected that ver. 27 mili-
tates against this view (see Riickert); that the person praying γλώσσῃ could
not have had-that design, because he did not know whether the interpreta-
tion would be given to him (Hofmann), But our explanation does not in
fact assume that every man who spoke with tongues was capable of inter-
preting ; but, on the contrary, that Paul, in ver. 13, was thinking only of
such speakers with tongues as possessed also the gift of interpretation (ver.
5). The apostle still leaves out of view the case in which the speaker was
not also interpreter (ver. 28); hence we are not to take it with Ewald :
‘‘that people may interpret it.” The subject is the speaker himself (ver. 14
ff.), as in ver. 5.
Ver. 14. Justification of the precept προσευχ. ἵνα διερμ. --- For if I pray
with my tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. It isa
thoroughly arbitrary and mistaken procedure to take the genitive relation
in τὸ πνεῦμά μου otherwise than in ὁ νοῦς μου, and to explain the former, with
Bleek, Billroth, Olshausen, Maier, and Chr. F. Fritzsche, following Chrys-
ostom (τὸ χάρισμα τὸ δοθέν μοι καὶ κινοῦν τὴν γλῶσσαν), Of the Spirit of God, in
so far as He has laid hold of the man and speaks out of him. The Holy Spirit,
although in the man, is never called the spirit of the man, and cannot be so
called, just because He is different from the spirit of the man. See ii. 11 ;
Rom. viii. 16, ix.1. No; τὸ πνεῦμά μου is my spirit, i.e. my individual prin-
ciple of higher life (comp. on ver. 2). If I pray with the tongue, this higher
life-power in me, which plunges immediately (é.e. without the intervention
of the discursive reflective faculty) into the feelings and intuitions of the
divine, is called into activity, because it is filled and moved by the Holy
Spirit as His receptive organ ; but my understanding, my thinking faculty,
Surnishes nothing, ἄκαρπός ἐστι. --τ-- νοῦς in contrast to πνεῦμα, which is’ the
1Namely, to edify the church by the praying; see ver. 12. Chrysostom, Theoph-
322 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
deeper basis of life, the ‘‘penetrale’ (Bengel) of the νοῦς, is the reflective
discursive power through which the making oneself intelligible to those
without is effected, and without the co-operative action of which the human
πνεῦμα cannot with such one-sided development of its energy express the
contents of its converse with the Divine Spirit in such a way as to be intel-
ligible for others who are not specially gifted for thisend. Comp. Krumm,
de notionib. psychol. Paul. p. 64 ff. ; Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 184 ; Ernesti, Urspr.
d. Siinde, Il. p. 87 f. Note how definitely Paul here distinguishes the specific
activities of the mind, and excludes the νοῦς from the glossolalia. And he
speaks thus from experience. But were we to think of foreign languages,
that distinction and exclusion would not be appropriate, or would resolve
themselves into a mere self-deception.
Ver. 15. Τί οὖν ἐστι :] what then takes place? How then does the matter
stand ? namely, in consistency with the foregoing, i.e. what follows then ?
Comp. ver. 26 and Acts xxi. 22, and the classical and N. T. phrases : τί οὖν ;
τί yap; by which we are prepared in a vivid way for what is to follow. See
generally, Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 346 f. — προσεύξομαι] the future denotes
what in consistency will be done by me. The hortatory subjunctive in both
clauses (προσεύξωμαι, A D E FG) is a bad emendation, which in » is carried
out only in the first clause. — προσεύξ. x. τῷ voi] (dative of instrument) is to
be understood, in accordance with ver. 14, of the interpretation following,
which the person speaking with tongues gives of his tongue-prayer (pocevy.
τῷ mv.) in a way suited to the understanding, and by consequence intelligi-
ble. — ψαλῶ] applies to improvised psalms, which in the glossolalia were sung
with the spirit, and after an intelligible manner in the way of interpretation.
Comp. generally on Eph. v. 19.
Ver. 16. Ἐπεί] for, without this ψάλλειν καὶ τῷ voi, i.e. otherwise (xv. 29 ;
Rom. iii. 6, a/.), the layman, in fact, when thou praisest with the spirit,
cannot say the Amen, etc. — εὐλογεῖν and εὐχαριστεῖν denote substantially one
and the same thing, the thanksgiving prayer, the former word referring more
to the form of praise to God (133), the latter more to its contents. Comp.
on x. 16; Matt. xiv. 19. — ἀναπληροῦν τ. τύπον τινός, to fill the place of any
one, is hot a Hebraism ((3 DIP xD), in the sense of in statu et conditione
alicujus esse (see Buxtorf, Ler. Talm. p. 2001), but corresponds to the Greek
expressions : πληροῦν τὴν χώραν, to occupy the place, ἀναπληροῦν τὴν ἕδραν
(Plat. Tim. p. 79 B), and the like, so that τόπος is not to be taken in the
abstract sense of position (in opposition to de Wette, Hofmann), but applies
quite literally to the place’ in the assembly. With this is improperly compar-
ed Josephus, Bell. v. 2. 5, where we have not τόπον, but τάξω. And he who
occupies the place of the layman is, according to the connection, every one in
the assembly who is not endowed with glossolalia or its interpretation. Where
he sits is, in this particular relation (be he himself even a prophet or teach-
er), the place of the layman. Paul speaks vividly, as if he saw the assembly
ylact, Calvin, Estius, and others errone- 1 Even in passages like Clem. ad Cor.
ously hold it to apply to one’s own profit. I. 40. 44, τόπος is not the abstract ‘‘ position,”
Theodoret rightly remarks: καρπὸς tod but the post, the place which a man has in
λέγοντος ἡ ὠφέλεια τῶν ἀκονόντων. the hierarchy or polity of the church.
CHAP. XIv., 17-20. | 929
before his mind’s eye. Regarding ἰδιώτης (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 6), which, like
our layman, obtains its definition from the context in each case, see on Acts
iv. 13. — πῶς ἐρεῖ] how is it (reasonably) possible that he shall say.—The cus-
tom, arising out of the time-hallowed usage in connection with oaths,
imprecations, vows, prayers, etc. (Num. v. 22 ; Deut. xxvii. 15 ff.; Neh.
viii. 6, al.), that the audience at the close of a public prayer should express
their assent, and their faith in its being heard, by amen, was introduced
among the Christians from the synagogues (Buxt. Ler. Tal. sub voce 8 ;
Vitringa, de Synag. p. 1098 ; Schoettgen, Hor. p. 654 ff.; Wetstein), and
has in this passage apostolic confirmation.'— τὸ ἀμήν] the amen to be pro-
nounced by him. — ἐπί] to thy prayer, to which the amen is added. Observe
the of bringing the matter into prominence. (H’)
Ver. 17. For thou indeed (by thyself considered) utterest an excellent
thanksgiving-prayer. This Paul admits, and with reason, since the speaker
prayed ὑπὸ τῆς θείας ἐνεργούμενος χάριτος (Theodoret). — ὁ ἕτερος] ὁ ἀναπληρῶν
τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου, Ver. 16. ((
Vv. 18; 19. Confirmation by the apostle’s own example of what has been
said against the public speaking with tongues. — 7 thank God, more than
you all speak I with the tongue, ina higher degree than you all I have this
charisma. Such direct modes of expression, instead of a connecting ὅτι,
occur likewise in Greek writers ; see Stallbaum, ad Gorg. p. 460 A ; Har-
tung, Partikell. 11. Ὁ. 134 ; Kiihner, ὃ 760 a. Even the Recepta λαλῶν would
have to be taken as stating the ground of the εὐχαρ. τῷ Θεῷ (comp. xi. 29 ;
Acts iv. 21, a/.), not, with Reiche (whom Hofmann follows in his explana-
tion of this reading, which, however, he rightly rejects), as referring to the
manner of it (I make more frequently and more fervently than any of you
thanksgiving prayers in glossolalia to God). There would thus result a
declaration, the tenor of which hardly suits the character of the apostle, as
indeed such an unconditionally expressed assertion could not be upheld by
him. Μᾶλλον can only denote the greater measure of the endowment ; see
already in Chrysostom. — ἐν éxxi.] in the assembled church, opposite of private
devotion. —6é4w ἢ] The preferential will (malle) is implied in the logical re-
lation of the relative verbal notion to the particle, without there being any
need of supplying μᾶλλον. See Hartung, II. p. 72; Klotz, ad Devar. p.
589 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 136.
Ver. 20. Up to this point Paul has been contending against speaking
with tongues in public and without interpretation, on the ground of its use-
lessness. He now adds an animated and winning admonition, well calcu-
lated to meet the conceit of the Corinthians on this point. — ἀδελφοί] ‘‘ suavem
vim habet” (Bengel). — Become not children as respects your power of judg-
ment. His readers were becoming so, inasmuch as, through their increas-
ing craving after glossolalia, they lacked more and more the power of dis-
tinguishing and judging between the useful and the useless ; their speaking
with tongues assumed the character of childishness. As regards malice (v.
1““Vult Deus consensum esse ecclesiae in doctrina, fide, invocatione et petitione,” etc.—
Melanchthon.
324 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
8), on the other hand be children ; have a child-nature in quite another
respect, namely, by being free from all malicious thoughts and actions
(Matt. xviii. 3). Comp. Rom. xvi. 19; Gal. vi. 3 ; Tit. i. 10; Lucian,
Hale. 2 : νηπιότης φρενῶν. --- Regarding νηπιάζειν, to be a child (in Greek writers
also νηπιάχειν and νηπιαχεύειν), comp. Hipp. Ep. p. 1281. 52. — τέλειοι) of
full age, adultus, See Plat. Legg. xi. p. 929 C. Comp. on Eph, iv. 18.
Ver. 21. You go against Scripture with your foolish doings! This is the
theological side of the judgment, which Paul now further brings forward,
before he imparts in ver. 26 ff. the final precepts for the right procedure, —
νόμος] of the O. T. generally. See on Rom. iii. 19 ; John x. 34. —The
passage is Isa, xxviii. 11, 12 in a very free' variation from the LXX. --- ὅτι]
for, 3, belongs, with the rest, to the Scriptural quotation (LXX. :
covet τ λαῷ τούτῳ), and has here therefore no reference in the context. —
The historical sense of the original text (in which Jehovah threatens to send
foreign-speaking men, i.e. barbarians, upon the kingdom of Judah, etc.) is
taken up typically by Paul in such a way that he, looking back from the
phenomenon of the present upon that prophetic utterance, recognizes in it
the Christian glossolalia divinely foreshadowed, as regards its substance,
namely, in the characteristic ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις . . . ἑτέροιος, and, as regards
its destination, in καὶ οὐδ᾽ οὕτως εἰσακ. ---- ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις K.T.A.| in peoples of
another tongue (conceived of as organs of the visiting God, who speaks in
their persons ; hence ἐν, comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 3 ; Heb. i. 2) and in lips of others
(ἑτέρων, see the critical remarks) will I speak to this nation. According to
the original text, the reference is to people who speak a foreign language (the
Assyrian, comp. xxxiii. 19), and to lips of foreigners (other than Israelites) ;
but the similarity of the relation, which presents itself in the type and anti-
type, consists in the extraordinary phenomenon of the strange divine speak-
ing, which becomes perceptible in the case of the type in the foreign lan-
guage, in that of the antitype in the character of the glossolalia, so wholly
different from ordinary intelligible speech. In virtue of this unintelligibil-
ity, the speaking in tongues also was for the hearers a speaking in strange
tongues, and he who spoke was not one like-tongued, i.e. using the like
language (ὁμόγλωσσος, Xen. Cyrop. i. 1. 5 ; Herod. i, 17, viii. 144 ; Lucian,
Scyth. 8, de Salt. 64), but a strange-speaking man (ἑτερόγλωσσος, Polyb. xxiv.
9, 5 ; Strabo, viii. p. 888 : Aq. Ps. exiii. 1), and his lips ἃ stranger’s lips.
What isin the original text : ΠΣ Ww73, Paul renders more freely than the
LXX. (διὰ γλώσσης ἑτέρας), and making it personal, by ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις ;* the
ὅτι λαλή-
1 Hence (and on account of the quite
general ἐν τ. νόμῳ) Ewald derives the words
froma source now unknown to us. Still,
fora typical reference to the speaking with
tongues, Isa. xxviii. 11 f. is characteristic
enough. But if Paulhad this passage in his
eye, he must have understood it of men
speaking foreigniy, not, as Ewald explains
the prophetic words, of the language of the
thunder and of terrible punishment.
3 Wieseler in the Stud. wu. AKrit. 1838, p.
734 ff., infers from our passage that Paul
recognizes a double formula for the gift of
tongues, a shorter one, yA. A., and alonger,
ἑτέρ. yA. A. Certainly too wide an inference,
since in no other place does the apostle
bring forward the characteristic element of
He was using the quotation in
order to prove the destination of the glos-
solalia for unbelievers, but could not use διὰ
φαυλισμὸν χειλέων, Which besides the LXX.
has incorrectly, and therefore altered it in
accordance with the parallel in the passage,
We may infer consequently
ἑτέραις.
διὰ γλ. ἑτέρας.
CHAP. XIV., 22. 325
Hebrew 7) rapda, again (through stammerers of the lip, i.e. through men
speaking unintelligibly, because in a strange tongue, he renders more cor-
rectly as regards the general sense than the LXX. (who have erroneously
διὰ φαυλισμὸν χειλέων, on account of mockery of the lips, comp. Hos. vii. 16) by
ἐν χείλ. érép., putting it, however, impersonally, and reversing the order of
the two clauses. It may be added that it is clear from the parallel χείλεσιν
that Paul conceived of γλῶσσα in ἑτερογλώσσοις as ““ tongue,” as nw also is
conceived of in the original text,—both as instrument of the λαλεῖν. The
tongue is ἄγγελος λόγων, Kur. Suppl. 205. —r¢ Aag τούτῳ] applying in its
historical meaning to the disobedient people of Israel, which, however, is a
type of those who reject the Christian faith, represents therefore the latter
in the view of the apostle. (5°) — Kai οὐδ᾽ οὕτως] and not even so, dealt with
by such a measure, will they hearken tome (obey me, Ecclus. iii. 6, xxxix. 3;
and in classical writers). This second half of the passage is, for the demon-
stration, the main point. See ver. 22.
Ver. 22. Ὥστε] Accordingly, namely, in accordance with this οὐδ᾽ οὕτως
εἰσακούσ. μου. --- εἰς σημεῖον κ.τ..} The phenomenon of the speaking with
tongues is destined for a (divine) sign, not for the believers, but for the unbeliev-
ers, 1.6. tomake those to whom the glossolalia goes forth be recognized as unbelievers.
This view alone corresponds to the express οὐδ᾽ οὕτως eicaxovc. μου from
which the inference is drawn, as well as to what is further inferred in ver.
23. At variance, on the other hand, with both stands the interpretation
which has been the ordinary one since Chrysostom (and which has hitherto
been my own), that the speaking with tongues is called a sign for the un-
believers, because it was intended to arrest and move them so that they should
reflect and become believers. Equally unsuitable is it that Chrysostom, Theo-
phylact, and others, including Hofmann, only half carry out this tradition-
al interpretation, and stop short at the impression of something astounding
and amazing, whereby the γλῶσσαι are to be a σημεῖον to the unbelievers,
which, moreover, in presence of the notion of a divine σημεῖον, could only
appear as a means to an ulterior end. We must keep the οὐδ᾽ οὕτως εἰσακούσ.
μου sharply before us in order to determine accurately the notion of the
σημεῖον κιτ.Δ. Billroth, moreover (comp. Beza, Vatablus, Calovius, Corne-
lius ἃ Lapide, and others), is in error in holding that σημεῖον is a penal sign,
or asign of divine judgment ; comp. also Hilgenfeld, p. 21 ; Rossteuscher,
_p. 77. This, in fact, is not at all implied in ver. 21, where, on the con-
trary, the glossolalia appears as a last extraordinary measure remaining like-
wise without result, which will at length make full exposure of the disobedi-
ence of the persons in question, but not as a sign of wrath. And had Paul
thought of irae signum, he must have expressed the irae too, and, in fact,
brought it emphatically forward.’ Again Storr, Flatt, Baur, and Dav.
from our passage only thus much, that the
glossolalia as regards its nature could be de-
scribed in the way of application by ἐν ére-
ρογλώσσοις and ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέρων λαλεῖν, but
not that yA. λαλ. and ἑτέρ. yA. Aad. Were two
current formulae for denoting the speaking
with tongues. Hencealso we are not, with
Hirzel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, Ὁ. 121 ff., to
infer from this passage the originality of
the designation ἑτέραις γλώσσαις λαλεῖν.
1 According to Billroth’s view, namely,
Paul warns the Corinthians that they should
not thoughtlessly foster among themselves
a thing which is called in the O. T. a sign of
326 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Schulz (Geistesg. pp. 78, 176) are wrong in saying that the prevalence of the
glossolalia in the church was a sign of their unbelief. This is unsuitable for
this reason, that according to vv. 21, 23 we are to conceive as the ἄπιστοι
not those who speak γλώσσαις, but those who are spoken to in yi. — τοῖς ἀπίσ-
τοις] Dative of the reference in view, as is also τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. The con-
ception of the ἄπιστοι, however, is, by virtue of this very antithesis (and
see also vv. 23, 24), simply the non-believing, the unbelievers,—a conception
which is neither to be softened down to that of non-genwine Christians or the
like (Flatt, David Schulz), nor intensified to that of obstinate unbelievers,
those wholly wnsusceptible of faith, infideles privative (Neander, Billroth,
Riickert). Hirzel in the Stud. τι. Krit. 1840, p. 120 ff. (who is followed in
substance by de Wette, Osiander, Maier, Engelmann, and see Bengel’s hints
of earlier date), understands by the ἀπίστοις those who do not wish to believe,
and by the πιστεύουσιν those who wish to believe.’ Comp. de Wette: ‘‘ They
are not heard by such as let themselves be moved thereby to believe, but by such
as remain unbelieving.” This is conclusively negatived by the prevailing use
of οἱ πιστεύοντες and οἱ ἄπιστοι, to Which any such artificial pregnancy of mean-
ing is quite alien (see immediately, vv. 28, 24). — ἡ dé προφητεία κ.τ.1.} ἃ Con-
trast, which is not intended to be inferred from that passage of Scripture, —
which in truth says nothing whatever about the προφητεύειν, ----ἰσαῦ the truth of
which was self-evident to the readers in virtue of an argumentum e contrario.
Weare not, however, to supply the simple ἐστί, so that the meaning would be :
not to the unbelievers, but to the believers, isthe prophetic address to be di-
rected (my own view hitherto), but rather εἰς σημεῖόν ἐστιν, for Paul has not
written ἐστιν at all, and therefore leaves the predicate of the first half of the
verse to operate still in virtue of the antithesis. Consequently : prophecy
is designed to be a sign not for the unbelievers, but for the believers, i.e. in order
to make those to whom the prophetic address is directed known as believers ; see
ver. 24, where this statement of the apostle is verified by the fact that such
as come into the Christian assembly as unbelievers, being won over by the
overpowering impression of the prophetic addresses, submit themselves to
Christianity and declare themselves believers. Erasmus, Grotius, and Bleek
are wrong in holding that oi means non tantum. The negation is absolute,
as in the preceding clause. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 784. Accord-
ing to Hirzel (de Wette and Osiander), the meaning here also is alleged to
be : prophecy is given not for such as do not wish to believe, but for such
as wish to believe.
punishment. Comp. Beza and Cornelius ἃ,
Lapide, also Calovius. Upon this view,
Paul must have absolutely disapproved of the
glossolalia. It would have been a tempt-
in faith and those who are becoming beliey-
ers, and holds that on this account Paul did
not write τοῖς πιστοῖς. As if ot πιστεύοντες
were not with the apostle quite the usual
ing of God by the abuse of a divine sign of
curse.
1 Hofmann also understands by τοῖς ἀπίσ-
tots those indisposed to believe. As if Paul
would not have known how to express this
conception! Hofmann even conceives two
classes to be comprehended under τοῖς
πιστεύουσιν, namely, those already standing
expression for the believers (i. 21; Rom.i.
16, iii. 22, x. 4; Gal. iii. 22; Eph. i. 19, al.),
who ave such, but not for those, or so as to
include those, who are only becoming such.
The πιστεύοντες are not at all different from
the πιστοῖς (2 Cor. vi. 15; Eph. i. 1; Col.
1. 2).
CHAP. XIV., 25. 327
Ver. 23. What, then, will be the effect of the speaking with tongues, which
you all so much desire, upon ungifted persons or unbelievers? [7 such come into
your church when you are assembled together, and get nothing else there to hear
From any of you but glossolalia, so far will they be from declaring themselves as
believers upon your speaking with tongues, that, on the contrary, they will declare
you to be mad. — οὖν] draws an inference from ver. 22 in such a way that
ver. 23 corresponds to the first, and ver. 24 f. to the second half of ver. 22.
— πάντες] Paul does not suppose that all those assembled speak together in
a confused, tumultuous way (Cornelius ἃ Lapide and others ; comp. also
Maier), but that all in succession hold glossolaliae, and only such,—not ad-
dresses of any other kind. For, if all spoke together and confusedly, even
in the case of prophecy it could make no impression (ver. 24). — ἰδιῶται] is
not to be understood otherwise than in ver. 16: Christians who are not
endowed with glossolalia, or with the gift of understanding it. The context,
however, shows by the foregoing éav . . . αὐτό that those meant are un-
gifted persons from any extraneous church, who come into the church at
Corinth when in full assembly. Were the stranger who entered not an un-
gifted person, but one who himself spoke with tongues or interpreted, his
judgment respecting the gift which he himself possessed or understood
would, of course, not take the same form. All explanations which deviate
from the meaning of the word in ver. 16 are on that very account to be
rejected, such as not only that of most of the old interpreters, with Billroth
and Chr. F. Fritzsche: ‘‘such as do not understand foreign languages,”
but also that of Theodoret, David Schulz, Flatt, Olshausen (also Rickert,
although with hesitation): ‘‘ beginners in Christianity ;” comp. Pelagius,
Thomas, Estius: ‘‘nuper credentes, neophyti ;” Melanchthon: ‘‘rudis qui
primum coepit catechismi doctrinam audire,” comp. Neander. Riickert
suggests that Paul is supposing the case that the glossolalia should break
out somewhere suddenly and for the first time, and there should then come
in Christians who knew nothing of it and, not being present, had not been
affected by the paroxysm, and non-Christians. But the suggestion is to be
dismissed, because there is no mention of the ‘‘ suddenly and for the first
time,” which would in that case be the main thing. Hirzel and de Wette
hold erroneously, because in opposition to ver. 16,1 and not to be estab-
lished even by 2 Cor. xi. 6, that the ἰδιῶται. are non-Christians (so, too,
Ulrich in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1843, p. 420, and Hofmann), in which case they
are in various arbitrary ways distinguished from the ἄπιστοι, namely, by
Hirzel? asserting that the ἄπ. are heathen, the id. Jews; by de Wette, that
the former were still more aloof from believing than the latter ; by Ulrich,
that the id. were persons unacquainted with Christianity, the ἀπ. those ac-
quainted with it indeed, but unbelieving and (Hofmann) hostile towards it.
Not the ἰδιῶται, but the ἄπιστοι, are the non-Christians (who are never called
id.), as in ver. 22. We may add that Grotius remarks rightly : ‘‘ Solebant
1 For in ver. 23 and ver.16 the conception opposition to Hirzel, Ulrich, Hofmann, who
of ἰδιῶται is determined by a like contexi— assume that ver. 16 cannot regulate the ex-
namely, by the same contrast to those gifted planation of ἰδιώτης in ver. 23f.
with the glossolalia. This we remark in 2 Comp. van Hengel, Gave d. talen, p. 94.
328 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
enim pagani” (and Jews also) ‘‘ adire Christianorum ecclesias ad videnda
quae ibi agebantur.” Their admission (certainly not to the Agapae, how-
ever) was the less a matter for hesitation, since it might become a means of
their conversion. Comp. generally, Harnack, Gemeindegottesd. p. 143 ff. —
ὅτι μαίνεσθε] that you (Christians in Corinth) are foolish, and out of your
senses, because, namely, you collectively and without exception carry on a
kind of converse so unintelligible and meaningless for the hedrers. Olshau-
sen strangely holds that the verdict expressed is: ‘‘ We see, doubtless, that
you are possessed by a God ; but there is no prophet here ; we do not
understand what the god says to us!” An unwarranted explaining away
of the clear import of the word : μαίνεσθαι means insanire, just as in Acts
xxvi. 24. The verdict of drunkenness passed by the unbelievers in Acts
ii. 13 presents a remarkable analogy. — Observe, further: (1) Here ἰδιῶται is
put first, and ἄπιστοι follows, because the ἰδιῶται, as Christians, and there-
fore acquainted with the uselessness and absurdity of the glossolalia without
interpretation and to the exclusion of all other (intelligible) discourse,
come here into the foreground,’ and may and will be the first to pass the
judgment ὅτι μαίνεσθε; in ver. 24, on the contrary, ἄπιστος stands first,
because conversion is spoken of, and hence ‘‘ praecipue agitur de infideli ;
idiota obiter additur ob rationem ejus non plane disparem” (Bengel). (9)
In ver. 23, since Paul designs to cite the judgment in the form of an utter-
ance (ἐροῦσιν), Which is most naturally conceived of by him as a mutual com-
munication, the plural εἰσέλθωσι x.7.2. presented itself with as much appro-
priateness as the singular εἰσέλθῃ κιτ.}. does in ver. 24, where the apostle
wishes to depict specially the converting work, vv. 24, 25, in its course,
which, from the nature of the case, is done most befittingly in an individu-
alizing representation.
Vv. 24, 25. How wholly different, on the other hand, will the effect of
general prophetic speaking be upon such persons! Arrested and humbled
before God, they will declare themselves believers. — ἐὰν δὲ πάντες pod. ] is
to be completed in accordance with ver. 23 : ἐὰν δὲ συνέλθῃ ἡ ἐκκλ. ὅλη ἐπὶ τὸ
αὐτὸ K. πάντες προφ. --- ἰδιώτης] according to the context : one not prophetically
gitted, and, indeed, coming likewise from an extraneous church. Comp. on
ver. 23. — Prophecy, from its nature, was generally intelligible ; but who-
ever had not its γάρισμα could not speak prophetically, and such a one was
in presence of this gift an idiotes. — ἐλέγχεται ὑπὸ πάντ.] The characteristic
power of prophecy (ver. 22), by which you all mutually edify yourselves,
thus exercises such an overmastering influence upon his mind, that he is
convinced by all, i.e. brought to a consciousness of the guilt of his sins.
Comp. John xvi. 9. All produce this impression upon him, because each
speaks prophetically, and the fundamental character of prophetic address—
the penetrating into the depths of the human heart for wholesome admoni-
tion (comp. ver. 3)—is alike in all. — After the first aggregate impression of
the ἔλεγξις, he experiences and is conscious of the moral sifting and unveil-
1 ἣ ἄπιστοι is omitted in B, because it has crept in from ver. 94. But in that ease
might appear unsuitable. Buttmann in the ἄπιστοι Would have been prefixed (so only
Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 370, believes. that it Ambrosiaster),
CHAP. XIV., 26. } 329
ing of his innermost life. A striking climax. — dvaxpivera:] for in the judg-
ment of the human heart, which the prophets deliver, he hears a judgment
upon his own heart and his own moral condition. — τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας
x.t.4.| ὁ.6. the moving springs, inclinations, plans, etc., of his whole inner
active life, which had been hitherto known to no other, are brought to
light, inasmuch as the prophets depict the hidden thoughts and strivings
of the human spirit, with apocalyptically enlightened depth of insight, so
truly and strikingly, that the listener sees the secrets of his own heart laid
bare before all who are there present. — καὶ οὕτω] result : and in such form,
namely, convinced, judged, and made manifest, as has been just said. —
ἀπαγγέλλων] announcing, i.e. declaring aloud, and not first at home (Beza). —
ὄντως] really, opposite of what is merely pretended or semblance. Comp.
Mark xi. 32 ; Gal. iii. 21, αἱ. --- ἐν ὑμῖν] in animis vestris, in which He works
this enlightenment and spiritual power. ‘‘ Argumentum pro veritate relig-
ionis ex operationibus divinis efficacissimum” (Bengel). Through this pres-
ence of God in the individuals (by means of the Spirit) He dwells in the
church, which thereby is His temple (iii. 16 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph. ii. 20 f.).
Ver. 26 ff. The theoretical part regarding the charismata is closed (vv. 1-
25). There is now added as its sequel the regulative part regarding the
proper application of the charismata, and (1) of the charismata in general
(ver. 26) ; then, in particular, (2) of the glossolalia (vv. 27, 28); and (3)
of the gift of prophecy (vv. 29-33). Upon this follows, as an appendix, (4)
the prohibition of public speaking on the part of women (vv. 34-36). And
by way of conclusion, (5) the assertion of apostolic authority for the whole
teaching now given (vv. 37, 38); and (6) a summary repetition of the chief
points (vv. 39, 40).
Ver. 26. Τί οὖν ἐστιν ;] as in ver. 15. — The apodosis begins with ἕκαστος,
and πάντα on to γινέσθω is a sentence by itself. As often as you come together,
every one (every one gifted with charismatic speech among you) has a psalm
ready, 1.6. he feels himself qualified and constrained to sing aloud such a
spirit-given song. It is not, however, the glossolalia ψάλλειν which is meant,
since afterwards γλῶσσαν ἔχει is specially mentioned in addition, but the in-
telligible singing of praise, which takes place with the νοῦς (comp. ver. 15).
Comp. generally on Eph. v. 19. Grotius compares the improvised hymns
of Deborah, Simeon, etc. — ἔχει is neither interrogative (Grotius) nor : he
may have (David Schula), nor are we to supply in thought with Locke, ‘‘ut
moram ferre non possit ;” but it simply expresses the state of the case : in
promptu habet. Bengel rightly judges of the repetition of the ἔχει : ‘‘ elegan-
ter exprimit divisam donorum copiam.” — διδαχήν] a doctrinal address. See
on xii. 10, 98, --- γλῶσσαν] a tongue, i.e. a spirit-tongue, which seeks utterance.
The matter is so conceived and described as that not every one has the use
of a tongue in the sense of the glossolalia, but only the man gifted with this
charisma, in whom there is present for this purpose a tongue as the organ
of the Spirit. — ἀποκάλυψιν] a revelation, which he wishes to utter by a pro-
phetic address, comp. ver. 29 ἢ, -- ἑρμηνείαν] an interpretation, which he
wishes to give of an address in a tongue already delivered. — The words
ψάλμον to ἑρμ. ἔχει are the separate divisions of the ἕκαστος, as in i. 12. Then
330 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
follows the general rule for all these charismata : all must be done for the
furtherance of Christian perfection (of the church) δ Observe how, accord-
ing to this passage, public teaching was not restricted to one definite
office (k*) See Ritschl, althath. K. p. 350.
Ver. 27. After this general rule come now particular precepts : suppose
that one wishes to speak with a tongue; comp. γλῶσσαν ἔχει, ver. 26. There is
no other εἶτε to correspond to this εἴτε (sive, Vulgate) ; but the plan of sen-
tence first thought of and begun is so disturbed by the apodosis and ver.
28, that it is quite abandoned, and ver. 29, instead of commencing with a
new eire, is not even continued in hypothetic form at all. See Maetzner, ad
Antiph. p. 194. Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 538. According to Hofmann
(who writes ei re separately), τέ is annexive, namely, to πάντα π. oik. y. In
that case ei re would be : in like manner if (Hartung, Partik. I. p. 106 f.),
which, however, would be logically suitable only on the supposition that
γλῶσσα Aid not already occur also in ver. 26. — κατὰ dio x.7.2.] 86. λαλείτωσαν
(comp. 1 Pet. iv. 11), and this is to be taken declaratively (as in xi. 16) :
let him know that they should speak by two, or at most by three ; in each assem-
bly not more than two, or at most three, speakers with tongues should come
forward, As to the supplying of λαλείτ., see Kiihner, II. p. 603 ; Fritzsche
ad Rom, Il. p. 65. —rd πλεῖστον] adverbially. See Matthiae, p. 1000. —
Kai ava pépoc, and that according to order, one after the other, not several
together.. See Valck. ad Phoen. 481 ; Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 380. Doubt-
less—and this seems to have given occasion for this addition—the case had
often occurred in Corinth, that those who spoke with tongues had so little
controlled their impulse that several came to speak together. — Καὶ εἷς διερμ.]
and let one (not several) give the interpretation, of that, namely, which the said
two or three speakers with tongues have spoken in succession. Grotius puts
it rightly : ‘‘ unus aliquis, qui id donum habet ;” and it is plain from vv. 5,
13 (in opposition to Ewald) that the speaker with tongues himself might
also be the interpreter. Paul will not allow several interpreters to speak,
because that would have been unnecessary, and would only have shortened
the time for the more useful prophetic and other addresses.
Ver. 28. Should it be case, however, that there is no interpreter present, let
him be silent in the assembly. This comprises the double possibility that the
speaker with tongues cannot himself interpret, and also that no other, who
possesses the donum interpretandi, is present. Regarding εἶναι as equiva-
lent to παρεῖναι, comp. on Mark viii. 1 ; Luke ii. 36. David Schulz un-
derstands ἡ as the simple copula : ‘‘if, however, he does not know how to
make himself intelligible.” But the interpretation might in fact be given
also by another, who had the charisma of the ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν, xii. 10, 30.
— ory. ἐν ἐκκλ.} Paul takes for granted here—and how easily one can under-
stand it, considering the intimate union subsisting among the Christians of
those days !—that the members of the community mutually “now each other
as regards their special endowments. — éavr@ dé Aad. x. τ. θ.1 in contrast to
addresses given ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, and hence a characteristic designation of the
private devotion carried on by means of glossolalic prayer, where his glosso-
lalia avails for himself and God (ver. 2), not for others also as listeners.
CHAP. XIV., 29-31. 9:
ὧϑ
ἘΞ
Comp. Epict. Diss. iv. 8. 17, and the similar passages in Wetstein. Others
take it to mean : quietly in /is thoughts (Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom,
also Chr. F. Fritzsche), so that it remains on the footing of an inward in-
tercourse between him and his God (Hofmann) ; which, however, is not in
keeping with the essential mark of the λαλεῖν, this being uttered aloud, which
belonged to the matter in hand.’ Observe, further, how, even in this high-
est degree of inspired impulse to speak, a man could control his own will.
Comp. ver. 32.
Ver. 29, Aé] marks the transition to the rule regarding the prophets. —
The ἀνὰ μέρος (ver. 27) is emphasized in a special way, ver. 30; yet Paul
does not add a τὸ πλεῖστον here, thereby limiting the gift of prophecy less
sharply, and tacitly also conceding a plurality of speakers, when the circum-
stances might perhaps involve an exception from the rule. Still we are not
(with Hofmann) to read dio ἢ τρεῖς as Meaning ‘‘ rather three than two.” —
Kai οἱ ἄλλοι διακρ. ] and the other prophets, who do not take part in speaking,
are to judge: whether, namely, what has been said proceeds really from the
Spirit or not. We see from this that the charisma of judging the spirits
was joined with that of prophecy, so that whoever could himself speak pro-
phetically was qualified also for the διάκρισις ; for οἱ ἄλλοι (comp. ἄλλῳ, ver.
30) cannot be taken (with Hofmann) universally, without restriction to the
category of prophets, seeing that in fact the διάκρισις was no universal
χάρισμα. The article is retrospective, so that it is defined by προφήται. At
the same time, however, it must not be overlooked that even such persons
as were not themselves prophets might still be endowed with the διάκρισις
(xii. 10), although not all were so.
Ver. 30. But two prophets were never to speak together. The order
ought, on the contrary, to be this, that if a revelation shall have been im-
parted to another prophet (ἄλλῳ) while he sits listening, the first shall be silent
(not simply soon cease, as Neander, Maier, and others would take it ; comp.,
too, Hofmann) and let the second speak. Paul thus does not enjoin that
the second shall wait until the first is finished, to which meaning Grotius,
Storr, and Flatt twist the words (comp. vv. 28, 34) ; on the contrary, he at-
taches more importance to the fresh undelayed outburst of prophetic in-
spiration, than to the further continuance of the address after the first out-
burst. — καθημ.} for the prophets spoke standing, Luke iv. 17. See Grotius
in loc.
Ver. 31 f. Establishment of this precept by setting forth the possibility
of its observance. The principal emphasis is laid upon δύνασθε, which is for
this reason placed first (not upon πάντες, as Riickert holds), for in it lies the
pith of the proof. Neat to it πάντες has the emphasis. The sense is : ‘‘ For
in my ὁ πρῶτος σιγ. 1 am enjoining nothing which is impossible for you ; on the
contrary, it stands in your power that, one after another, you may all come to
give a prophetic address.” etc. —xaf? ἕνα] always one at a time, singulatim.
Acts xxi, 19; see Ast, Ler, Plat. I. p. 639 f. ; Bernhardy, p. 240. The
1 Besides, it was self-evident that, where be in the first instance remitted to quiet
silence was enjoined, aman did not need to inward fellowship with God.
332 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
4
subject addressed in divacbe is the prophets in the church, not the members of
the church generally (Hofmann), seeing that prophecy was a special γάρισμα *
which did not belong to all (see xii. 29 ; Acts xiii. 1; Eph. iv. 11). The
inspiration of the prophets does not compel them to speak on without a
break, so as not to allow another to take speech at all or to speak alone, but
it is in their power to cease when another begins, so that by degrees all
may come to speak—not, of course, in the same assembly (ver. 29), but in
successive meetings. — And this circumstance, that καθ᾽ ἔνα πάντες tpogytet-
over, has for its design (iva), that all the members of the church (which in-
cludes also other prophets along with the rest) may learn, etc., that none
may remain without instruction and encouragement. For modes of pro-
phetic inspiration, very different from each other in substance and form,
will then find expression, whereby satisfaction will be given to the most
different wants. — μανθάνωσι] what God has revealed to those speaking pro-
phetically. — παρακλ.} be encowraged, aroused. Comp. παράκλησιν, ver. ὃ.
Paul describes here the effects of prophecy from the theoretical (uav6.) and
practical (xapaxa?..) sides. The latter he had already stated more specially in
ver. 8.
Ver. 32. The second part of the establishment of the precept (yap, ver. 31).
And prophets’ spirits are obedient to prophets. The indicative presents the
normal relationship as it is, not as it ought to be (Olshausen and others).
— πνεύματα προφ.] cannot be workings of the Divine Spirit in the prophets
(Chrysostom, Erasmus, Estius, and others, including Flatt, comp. de
Wette), nor does it mean the spirits which the prophets have received, so that
the one πνεῦμα appears as if divided among them (Riickert), or created an-
gelic spirits in the service of the Holy Spirit (Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. p. 307),
or even actually several Holy Spirits (Hilgenfeld ; see, however, on ver.
12) ; but (comp. the genitival relation, ver. 14) it is the prophets’ own spirits,
Jilled, however, by the Holy Spirit. Persons prophetically inspired are, as
such, raised to a higher spiritual potency, and have prophets’ spirits. Comp.
Rev. xxii. 6, and Diisterdieck in Joc. But their free-will is not thereby
taken away, nor does the prophetic address become something involuntary,
like a Bacchantic enthusiasm ; no, prophets’ spirits stand in obedience to
prophets ; he who is a prophet has the power of will over his spirit, which
makes the ὁ πρῶτος σιγάτω in ver. 30? possible ; ἐπὶ τοῖς προφήταις ἐστὶ τὸ σιγᾶν
ἢ λαλεῖν, Theophylact. Comp. Hofmann in loc., and Schriftbew. I. p. 312.
Others, again (Theophylact gives both interpretations alongside of each
other), refer προφήταις to other prophets : τὸ ἔν σοι χάρισμα. . . ὑποτάσσεται τῷ
χαρίσματι τοῦ ἑτέρου τοῦ κινηθέντος εἰς τὸ προφητεύειν, Theophylact. So Theo-
doret, Calvin, Calovius, Estius, Rosenmiiller, and others, including Hey-
1 Τὸ is not correct to say, ‘‘ on the con- communication.
trary, whoever receives a revelation becomes a 2Comp. Luther in the gloss: ‘ They
prophet” (Hofmann) ; for the prophetic en- should and may well give place, since the
dowment is habitual, belonging to one and gifts of the Spirit stand under their control,
not to another. Whoever as it receives not to use them in opposition to unity, so
revelations to be communicated for the that they may not say that the Spirit drives
edification of others; he is the vessel and compels them.”
divinely prepared: for this reception and
a
CHAP. XI1V., 33, 34. ᾿ 399
denreich, Bleek, Riickert, and Ritschl, althath. K. p. 473. But if Paul
had conceived of the prophet’s becoming silent as conditioned’ by the will
of another, and so objectively,—which the expression, taken simply in itself,
might imply,—then plainly his admonition ὁ πρῶτος σιγάτω would be entirely
superfluous. He must, on the contrary, have conceived of it as conditioned
subjectively by the will of the subjects themselves who spoke ; and with this
our view alone accords, which is found in as early expositors as Origen,
Jerome, and Oecumenius. — The absence of the article in the case of all the
three words depends upon the fact that the relation is conceived not in con-
ereto, but generically. — Observe, further, the strict, measured form of ex-
pression, πνεύματα προφητῶν προφήταις, Which is designed not simply for rhe-
torical emphasis, but for definiteness and clearness of meaning, separating
the prophets’ spirits from the subjects who have them. Αὐτοῖς would not
have marked this so strongly.
Ver. 33. Establishment of ver. 32 on religious grounds. ‘‘ For how
could God have appointed it otherwise, seeing that by Him is produced not
confusion (as would be the case if every prophet had to speak on involun-
tarily), but peace /” Comp. Rom. xv. 33, xvi. 20; Phil. iv. 9 ; 1 Thess. v.
23. The antithesis is correct, for the ἀκαταστασία would bring with it a
jealous and unyielding disposition.
Ver. 34. Appendix to the regulative section regarding the gifts of the
Spirit (vv. 26-33) : directed against the public speaking of women. Corin-
thian women, with their freer mood inclined towards emancipation (comp.
xi. 2 ff.), must have presumed on this. — ὡς ἐν rao. τ. ἐκκλ. τ. ἀγ.} is referred
by the Fathers and most of the older expositors, Riickert, Osiander, Nean-
der, Maier, to what precedes (comp. iv. 17, vii. 17, xi. 16). But since the
preceding οὐ γὰρ. . . εἰρήνης is quite general, and hence contains no special
point of reference for ὡς (for which reason this ὡς has been got rid of in
various ways, and even διδάσκω has been added in some codd. and versions) ;
since, on the other hand, the passage which follows offers this point of ref-
erence in the fact of its being a command 70) the Corinthians ; and since
ver. 36 manifestly glances back at the argument implied in ἐν π. τ. ἐκκλ. τ.
ay.,—therefore it is preferable to connect the clause with what follows, as is
done by Cajetanus and most modern expositors : As in all church assemblies
of the saints, your women ought to be silent in the church assemblies. (1,2)
To place a comma, with Lachmann, before τῶν ἁγίων, puts an incongruous
emphasis upon τῶν ay. — Regarding the matter itself (1 Tim. ii. 11), comp.
the parallels from Greek, Roman, and Rabbinical writers in Wetstein in loc. ;
Vitringa, Synag. p. 724; Schoettgen, Horae, p. 658. — οὐ yap ἐπιτρέπεται]
for it is (permanently) not allowed. To take ἐπιτρέπεσθαι as mandari (Reiche)
would be linguistically correct in itself, but against the usage of the whole
N.T. (comp. xvi. 7; 1 Tim. ii. 12). — ἀλλ᾽ ὑποτάσσεσθαι] namely, is incwm-
bent upon them, in accordance with a current Greek brevity of expression.
Comp. 1 Tim. iv. 3 ; see Kithner, II. p. 604 f. ; Dissen, ad Demosth. de Cor.
p- 222 f. The ὑποτάσσεσθαι excludes, in Paul’s view, the speaking in the
assemblies, inasmuch as the latter appears to him as an act of unpomplying
independence. — ὁ νόμος] Gen. iil. 16.
334 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Ver. 35. Even questions for their instruction should not be brought for-
ward by the women in the assemblies. — ἐν οἴκῳ] has the emphasis. At
home, not in the assembly, they are to obtain for themselves by inquiry the
desired instruction, and that from those to whom they, as women, are
naturally referred, from their own husbands.
Ver. 36. ἢ joins on to what is immediately before prescribed, not to the
previous directions in general (de Wette, Osiander, οἵ al.). “Τὸ is dis-
graceful for a woman to speak in public, unless, perhaps, you were the first
or the only Christian church, in which cases then, doubtless, your custom
would show that disgracefulness to be a mistake, and would authorize as
becoming the speaking of women by way of an example for other churches !”
μὴ τοίνυν τοῖς οἰκείοις ἀρκείσθε, ἀλλὰ ταῖς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν νομοθεσίαις ἀκολουθεῖτε,
Theodoret ; but the point of the expression, as against the Corinthian
haughtiness, is very palpable. —aioypév] ἐπειδὴ καλλωπίζεσθαι ἐντεῦθεν
ἐνόμιζον ἐκ τοῦ φθέγγεσθαι δημοσίᾳ, πάλιν εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον περιάγει τὸν λόγον, Chrys-
ostom. Comp. xi. 5 f. Paul is decided against all undue exaltation and
assumption on the part of women in religious things, and it has been the
occasion of much evil in the church.
Ver. 37. He now, after the digression regarding the women, adds the
authority of Christ to the section upon the charismata, which has been already
previously brought to a conclusion, but to which he looks back once more.
— δοκεῖ] If any one represents himself (111. 18, vill. 2, x. 12) to be a prophet,
or spiritually gifted in any way, then let him also prove himself to be such
by his recognizing, etc. Not to acknowledge this would show him to be
not a prophet or not inspired. — πνευματικός] quite general : ‘‘ dotibus Sp. St.
instructus ;” not, as Billroth, David Schulz, Baur, and Wieseler would have
it, equivalent to γλ. λαλῶν (comp. on xii. 1, xiv. 1). Ἤ is: or generally.
Hofmann is wrong in saying that the ἢ is not suited for thus linking ona
general statement. Why not? Comp. iv. 3; Luke xii. 11; Matt. xvi. 14.
There is all the less reason for assuming, with Hofmann, that Paul uses the
expression in the vaguer sense of one going even beyond the prophet, because
he had found it so used in the letter from Corinth. — ἃ γράφω ὑμ.} refers to
the whole section regarding the πνευματικοῖς. ΤῸ refer it, as Billroth and Ols.
hausen do, to the command that the women should keep silence, does not
harmonize with the introduction εἴ τις... πνευματικός, and involves the
awkwardness of only this intervening matter being thus confirmed with
such solemnity, and the principal and far more important section not at all.
— kupiov ἐστίν (see the critical remarks): proceed from the Lord. In his com-
munion of spirit with Christ, Paul was conscious that what he nad been
writing, from chap. x. onwards, regarding spiritual gifts and the right use
of them, was the result not of his own meditation and desire, but of the
working of Christ upon him—that he wrote as an interpres Christi. There
is thus no reason for making κυρίου refer to God (Grotius, Billroth, Olshau-
sen), seeing that Christ had in fact given no rules regarding the charismata,
Paul is affixing here the seal of apostolic authority, and upon that seal we
must read Christ.
Ver, 38, ’Ayvoei] namely, ἃ γράφω ὑμῖν, ὅτι «.7.2., ver. 37. His not being
NOTES. 338
willing to know, or the attitude of wrongly knowing (Hofmann), is not con-
veyed in the word, but is presupposed. — ayvoeitw| permissive, denotes the
renunciation of all endeavours to instruct such an one who lets himself be
puffed up. Itis the opposite of the ἐπιγινώσκειν, ver. 57. Estius puts it
well : ‘‘ Sibi suaeque ignorantiae relinquendos esse censeo.” Comp. xi. 16.
(ἢ) '
Vv. 39, 40. Gathering up (ὥστε, ‘“‘itague, summa,” Bengel) the main
points of the whole discussion, and that (1) of its theoretical (ver. 39), and
(2) of its regulative part (ver. 40). — Paul has aptly indicated the value of
the glossolalia relatively to the prophetical gift by ζηλοῦτε (comp. ver. 12,
xii. 31) and μὴ κωλύετε, without there being any ground, however, for in-
ferring from this an attitude of hostility on the side of the Pauline party
towards those who spoke with tongues (Baur, Riibiger, comp. at an earlier
date Storr). — εὐσχημόνως] in a seemly way (Rom. xiii. 13 ; 1 Thess. iv. 12),
denoting ecclesiastical decorum. — κατὰ τάξιν] in accordance with order (see
Wetstein), so that it is done at the right time, and in the right measure and
limits. (x?) Comp. Clem. ad Cor. I. 40, also what Josephus, Bell. Jud, ii.
8. 5, says of the Essenes : οὔτε κραυγῇ ποτε τὸν οἶκον, οὔτε θόρυβος μολύνει, τὰς
δὲ λαλίας ἐν τάξει παραχωροῦσιν ἀλλήλοις.
ΝΟΤΕΒ py AMERICAN EDITor.
(02) The tongues were edifying. Ver. 5.
It shows also that the contents of the discourses delivered in an unknown
tongue were edifying. They did not consist of ecstatic but unintelligible and
unintelligent outpourings of the heart before God, for if that were the case in-
terpretation would be manifestly impossible.
(n°) How shall he... say the Amen? Ver. 16.
The practice of giving the audible response was borrowed from the synagogue,
in which 411 the worshippers were expected to utter the Amen with such hearti-
ness as to show that they entered fully into what was said. Principal Brown
says justly that those churches have not done well who have dropped out the
audible response, the uttered Amen, of the congregation, by which alone they
have it in their power to express their cordial sympathy with what is uttered in
prayer by the officiating minister.
(12) The unknown is unedifying. Ver. 17.
Many commentators take occasion from this passage to reprove the custom
in the Roman Church of using the Latin language in her public services, For
the very thing here prohibited is praying in public in a language which the
people do not understand. ‘It is indeed said that words may touch the feel-
ings which do not convey any distinct notions to the mind. But we cannot say
Amen to those words any more than we can to a flute. Such blind emotional
worship, if such it can be called, stands at a great remove from the intelligent
service demanded by the apostle’ (Hodge).
545 ‘ PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(3°) ‘*In the law it is written.’ Ver. 21.
It may well be doubted whether it is wise to insist upon interpreting this
quotation typically. It is better, with Stanley, Hodge, and Beet, to take it as a
simple reference to an event in Jewish history from which a useful lesson could
be drawn. As thé Jews had refused to hear the prophets speaking in their own
language, God threatened to bring upon them a people whose language they
could not understand. This was a judgment, a mark of displeasure, designed
as a punishment and not for their conversion. Hence the Apostle wishes the
Corinthians to learn that it was no token of God’s favour to have teachers whose
language they could not understand. Their childish zeal for tongues was sim-
ply turning a blessing into a curse.
(K*) Public teaching not restricted to one definite office. Ver. 26.
This is true, yet the circumstances are to be considered, While the extraor-
dinary gifts of tongues, prophecy, and the like continued, any member present
who experienced the working of the Spirit in these manifestations was author-
ized to exercise his gift. And all that Paul does is to lay down the general rule .
that everything should be done unto edifying. But manifestly, after the gifts
ceased, no one would have the right, simply under the impulse of his own mind,
to rise in the church and take part in its services.
(3) ““ As in all the churches,”’ ete. Ver. 34.
Alford, Principal Brown, Westcott and Hort insist upon the old patristic
usage of connecting this clause with what precedes, but not wisely. So under-
stood, the words have no pertinent sense, for the Apostle would hardly undertake
to uphold a conceded and undeniable truth by an appeal to the authority or
experience of the church. On the other hand, to make such an appeal in fayour
of what he says in the 34th verse is both pertinent in itself and consonant with
the Apostle’s own practice, as stated in xi. 16, ‘‘ we have no such custom,”’ ete.
The Revision of 1881 follows the old practice.
(m*) ‘* Let him be ignorant.” Ver. 38.
The Revised Version givesin the margin, ‘“‘ he is not known,” according to a
reading found in several uncials and read apparently by Origen. But as the
documentary evidence is fairly divided, and the indicative reading would be
very hard to expound, it is better to adhere to the received text, the sense of
which is a contemptuous expression of indifference to the opinion of opposers
or an affirmation that to argue further with such persons would be a waste of
time.
(ΧΑ ‘* Decently and in order.’ Ver. 40.
Decently, i.e. becomingly, in such a way as not to offend against propriety.
Dean Stanley says that this direction, and that given in ver. 26, ‘ Let all things
be done unto edifying,’ are the only rubrics of the primitive church. And
they are of universal and perpetual authority.
CHAP. XV. Ὶ 337
CHAPTER XV.
Ver. 10. ἡ σὺν ἐμοί] Lachm. has merely σὺν ἐμοί, following B D* FG &*
Vulg. It. Or. Ambrosiast. Aug. Rightly ; the article was inserted, doubtless,
in some cases in a mere mechanical way after 7 εἰς ἐμέ, but in others purposely,
in order to have a thoroughly complete contrast to οὐκ ἐγώ, at the suggestion of
dogmatic interest, which also produced the weakly attested reading 7 ἐν ἐμοί.
The ἡ is wanting also before εἰς ἐμέ in D* F G, Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers.
But here there was nothing in the context to occasion the insertion, and the
article could be dispensed with, and was thus overlooked. — Ver. 14. κενὴ καῇ
Elz., Scholz, Tisch. read κενὴ δὲ καί, against greatly preponderating testimony.
— Ver. 19. ἐν Χριστῷ] stands before ἠλπικότες in AB D* EFG δὲ, min. Vulg.
“ΤΌ. Goth. and several Fathers. So Lachm. Riick. Tisch. and rightly, for this
position is not easier than that of the Recepia, and hence the great preponder-
ance of the evidence is all the more decisive. — Ver. 20. After κεκοιμ. Elz. has
ἐγένετο, against decisive evidence ; a supplementary addition. — Ver. 21. ὁ
θάνατος] The article is wanting in A B ΤῈ Καὶ 8, Or. Dial. ὁ. Marc. Cyr. Dam. al.
Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Riick. From Rom. v. 12. — Ver. 24. Instead of
the Recepta παραδῷ, which Reiche defends, B F ἃ have παραδιδοῖ, and A Ὁ E 8,
min. Fathers παραδιδῷ ; the former preferred by Lachm. and Tisch., the latter
by Riick. Παραδιδῷ, or the παραδιδοῖ, which is likewise to be taken as a sub-
junctive form (there is no means of deciding between the two), is correct (see
the exegetical remarks) ; ὅταν καταργήσῃ, however, made the aorist come very
naturally to the transcribers, who did not apprehend the different relations
of the two clauses. — Ver. 25. * ἄν before θῇ (in Elz. and Scholz) is omitted in
preponderant authorities, and has come in from the LXX. Ps cx. 1. — Ver. 29.
αὐτῶν] Elz. reads τῶν νεκρῶν, against decisive evidence ; a correct gloss. — Ver.
31. ὑμετέραν] A, min. Or. have ἡμετέραν. So Riick. But the former not being
understood, the latter appeared to be required by ἣν ἔχω. --- After καύχησιν
Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀδελφοί, on the testimony of A B K δὲ, min. vss. and
Latin Fathers. Rightly ; it is in keeping with the impassioned address, but
was easily overlooked by the transcribers, since no new section of the address
begins here (comp. on xi. 2). — Ver. 36. ἄφρον] Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read
ἄφρων, following ἃ Β Ὁ Εὶ αὶ δὲ, min. The former is a correction. — Ver. 39.
Before ἀνθρώπων Elz. has σάρξ again, which is deleted by Griesb. and the later
editors, in accordance with decisive evidence. — ἰχθύων, ἄλλη δὲ πτηνῶν] A pre-
ponderance οὗ authority—and this alone can decide here—has it in the inverse
order πτηνῶν. .. ἰχθύων. So Riick., also Lachm. and Tisch., who, however,
read σάρξ again before tr7v., which has, it is true, important attestation, but
is a mechanical addition. Paul repeated σάρξ in connection with the first kind
of animals only, and so arranged his enumeration. — Ver. 44. ἔστι σῶμα κ.τ.1.}
εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα p., ἔστιν καὶ πνευματ. occurs in A Β Ο D* F G 8, min., and several
vss. and Fathers. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. Tisch.
And how easily the form of the preceding clauses might occasion the passing
338 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE ἸῸ THE CORINTHIANS.
over of the εἰ, which, besides, was so exposed to omission from the way in
which the following word begins (ΕἸ Ε στιν). --- Ver. 47. After ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρ.
Elz. and Scholz have ὁ κύριος, in opposition te ΒΟ D* E F G &* 17, 67** and
several vss. and Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Riick.
Tisch. A gloss. See Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 294 ff. — Ver. 49. φορέσομεν}
Lachm. reads φορέσωμεν, following AC DEF GKL δὲ, and many min. Copt.
Slav. Vulg. It. Goth. Theodot. Or. (ed. de la Rue) Method. Bas. Chrys. Cyr.
Macar, Epiph. Damasc. Ir. Tert. Cypr. Hilar. Zeno, Ambrosiast. Jer. Pel. al.
A great preponderance of testimony! Nevertheless, the very ancient Recepta
still retains the important attestation of B and many min. Syr. utr. Arr. Aeth.
Arm. Or, ed. Theodoret ; Oec, and Theophyl. give and explain both readings.
The Recepta is to be retained, because it is necessary in the connection (see the
exegetical remarks) ; the subjunctive is unsuitable, but was easily brought into
the text from the fact that σὰρξ κ. αἷμα in ver. 50 was taken in the ethical sense
(see especially Chrys.) ; asin the physical sense, indeed, it would have stood
in opposition to the doctrine of the ‘‘resurrectio carnis.” Φορέσομεν was first
of all interpreted as hortative (which interpretation Theodoret felt it necessary
expressly to reject), and then the hortative form of the verb was inserted in the
text. — Ver. 50. κληρονομεῖ] Lachm. reads κληρονομήσει, following Οὗ D* F G,
Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers, Occasioned by the similarity sf sound of the
preceding κληρονομῆσαι. -- Ver, 51.1 πάντες μὲν. . . ἀλλαγ.} Lachm. reads πάντες
[μὲν] κοιμηθ,, ov πάντες δὲ ἀδλαγ. Altogether there are many variations, but all of
them arose from the offence which was taken, in connection with the reading of
the text, at the idea of Paul and his readers having all of them undergone death.
The Recepta occurs in B (which merely omits μέν) D** E K L almost all min.
eodd. in Jer. al. Goth. Syr. utr. Copt. Aeth. Arr. and many Fathers, an attesta-
tion which, considering how the readings otherwise vary, is a very strong one,
although among the uncials C G δὲ support Lachm. — Ver. 54. Both the omis-
sion of the first part of the protasis (in δὲ also) and the transposition of the
two clauses are insufficiently attested, and are to be explained from the homo-
eoteleuta. — Ver. 55. νῖκος is put first and κέντρον last by B CJ καὶ, 17, 64, 71,
Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. ms. Vulg. and several Fathers. So Lachm. Riick.
But they are evidently transposed, after the EXX. in Hos. xiii. 14. — Instead of
din, BC DEFGJ &* 39, 67** and several vss. and Fathers have θάνατε again.
So Lachm. Riick. Tisch.; and rightly, for ἄδη has come in from the LXX.
ConTENTs.?—Disquisition on the resurrection of the dead, occasioned by
the deniers of it in Corinth (ver. 12). That these deniers had been formerly
Sadducees, and had brought forward again their Sadducean views in connec-
tion with Christianity (so recently Flatt, following Heumann, Michaelis,
Storr, Knapp ; and comp. earlier, Calvin, and Lightfoot, Chron. p. 110) is
not to be assumed, partly because, in general, Sadduceeism and Christianity
1See on the passage Reiche, Comment. cum epistola ad Winerum, Sylvae ducis,
crit. I. p. 297 ff., who defends the Recepta 1851; Krauss, ¢theol. Kommentar z. 1 Kor.
with thoroughness and triumphant success. XYV., Frauenfeld 1864 (who stands, however,
Tischendorf also has retained it, deleting in express antagonism to grammatico-his-
only the μέν (which is certainly open to the torical exegesis). Comp. also Klépper, zur
suspicion of being an addition). paulin. Lehre v. d. Aufersteh. in the Jahrb. 7.
3 See regarding the whole chapter, W. A. 6. Theol. 1862, p. 1 fff. i
van Hengel. Commentar. perpet. in 1 Cor. xv.
CHAP. XV. 339
are too much antagonistic in their nature to mingle with each other, and
also because in that case Paul could not have based his refutation upon the
resurrection of Christ (Acts iv. 2). Nor is it more probable that the oppo-
nents had been Hpicureans, for it is plain from vv. 32-34 that the Epicurean
turn which they had taken was not the ground, but the consequence of their
denial of the resurrection ; as, indeed, Epicureanism in general is such an
antichristian element that, supposing it had been the source of the denial,
Paul would certainly have entered upon a discussion of its principles, in so
far as they were opposed to faith in the resurrection. It is certain at the
same time that the deniers were not Jewish Christians ; for with them the
belief in the Messiah stood in the most necessary connection with the belief
in the resurrection ; comp. Acts xxiii. 6. On the contrary, it must have
been Gentile Christians (Baur, de Wette, van Hengel, Ewald, and many
others) to whom the resurrection seemed impossible, and who therefore (vv.
35, 36) denied it. And it is probable, at all events, that they were persons
of philosophical training (Beza, Grotius, Estius, and others, including
Ziegler, theol. Abh. II. p. 35 f., Neander, Olshausen, Osiander ; Riickert is
undecided), because they must in asserting their thesis, ὅτε ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν
οὐκ ἔστιν, have caused some sensation, which, in such a place as Corinth, is
hardly conceivable on the part of men strangers to any degree of philosophi-
cal education and practice in dialectics ; and because the anti-materialistic
explanation of the matter, which Paul gives to combat the doubts of his
opponents (ver. 35 ff.), makes it probable that the antagonism on the part
of the sceptics was a spiritualistic one, 1.6. an antagonism resting on the
philosophic ground that the restoration of the matter of the body was impos-
sible. That the apostle does not contend at the same time against the world’s
wisdom in general (a doubt expressed by de Wette) is the less strange, as he
has to do now with a special subject, and had also already delivered a general
polemic of this nature, chap. ii. 3. The small number, however, of men philo-
sophically trained (i. 26) permits of no further inference than that the sceptics
in question also were not numerous (rivéc, ver. 12). In Athens, too (Acts xvii.
32), the resurrection of the dead was the stone of stumbling for philosophic
culture ; and how often has it been so since, and even to the present day !
—But to which of the four parties in Corinth did these deniers belong? 'That
they were not of the Petrine or Judaistic party is self-evident. Neither
were they of the Christ-party (as Neander, Olshausen, Jiiger, and Goldhorn
hold them to have been), for Christ had so often and so distinctly taught
the doctrine of resurrection of the body, that the denial of it would have
been at the most palpable variance with the ἐγὼ Χριστοῦ εἶμι. Nor yet were
they of the party of Paul, seeing that the doctrine of the resurrection was a
most essential article of the Pauline Gospel. There remains, therefore, only
the party of Apollos (so also Riibiger and Maier), some of whom having been
converted, doubtless, only after the apostle had ceased to labour in Corinth,
or having come thither subsequently from other quarters, may have found
what he had taught in Corinth regarding the resurrection of the dead not
compatible with their philosophical standpoint, and hence—being the more
incited to it, perhaps, through party variance—altogether denied that there
340 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
was a resurrection of the dead.’ Only we must not take this to mean that
the adherents of Apollos as suech—their party as such—had denied the resur-
rection, and that accordingly this denial formed part of their party prinei-
ples,? but only that the ‘‘ some” (ver. 12) were preponderantly from the
number of those who had attached themselves to Apollos and to the party
named after him. Of the idea that the denial was a party matter, there is
not only no trace whatever in the treatment of the subject, but it would also
conflict with what is a necessary presupposition, namely, that the Christian-
ity of the Apollos-party as such cannot have stood in such an essential and
real contradiction in point of doctrine to that of Paul. We may add that the
denial in question is not to be regarded asa theory, such as we find in 2 Tim.
ii. 17 f., in the case of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who understood the doc-
trine allegorically, and maintained that the resurrection had already taken’
place. So, following Chrysostom, Grotius, Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 362, Billroth,
and Olshausen. The whole elaborate treatment of the subject does not show
the slightest trace of this (see, on the contrary, especially ver. 12), although
the main aim in that case would have been to prove that the resurrection
was not a thing past, but something future.
Vv. 1-11. Foundation for the following argument. The latter enlarges
upon the resurrection étse/f as far as ver. 34, and then upon the manner of it
from ver. 35 to ver. 54, after which triumph and exhortation, vv. 55-58,
form the conclusion. —The certainty of the resurrection of Jesus was not
doubted even by his opponents, who must otherwise have given up the
whole historic basis of Christianity, and must have been treated by the
apostle as apostates (comp. Ziegler, theol. Abh. 11. p. 93 ; Knapp, Ser. var.
arg. p. 316 ; Ribiger, p. 154 f.); for only in this way was that fact capable of
serving him for a firm starting-point for his argument with the view of reduc-
ing the deniers ad absurdum. For this reason he sets forth the resurrection ,
of Jesus in its certainty not polemically, but asa purely positive proposition,
Vv. 1, 2. Aé] forming the transition to a new subject. There is no trace,
however, of a question on the part of the Corinthians, to which Paul is giving
the answer. — γνωρίζω] not, as is commonly held, equivalent to ὑπομιμνήσκω
(Oecumenius), nor yet, as Riickert weakens the force of the word : 7 callyour
attention to; but: I make known to you (xii. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 1; Gal. i. 2;
Eph. i. 9; Col. iv. 7, al.). It is, no doubt, in substance a reminding them
1 That they denied also the continued life
of the spirit after death, which Calvin ex-
pressly leaves undecided, cannot be main-
tained, with Flatt and others, from pas-
sages such as vv. 19, 29, 30-32,58. On the
contrary, these passages show merely this,
that Paul attached no value to the con-
tinued life of the souls in Hades, regarded
in itself,and not ended by the resurrection.
It was to him a vita non vitalis (comp. Kling
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1889, p. 502), and the
true everlasting ζωή was conditioned for
him by the near Parousia and resurrection.
This, at the same time, serves to correct
what is asserted by Riickert and others,
that in Paul’s mind, as in that of the Jews
and Pharisees, the ideas of continued exist-
ence and of resurrection were so blended
into each other, that whoever denied the
one seemed not to be capable of holding
fast the other. According to Phil. i. 21, 23
(comp. also 2 Cor. v. 8; Acts vii. 59), Paul
has the conviction that if he should die as
a martyr, he would pass. not into Hades,
but to Christ in heaven, into a blessed inter-
mediate state until the resurrection of the
body. See on Phil. 1.6.
2 Comp. also Krauss, p. 12.
CHAP XV. , 1,72. 341
of something already known, but the expression is more emphatic, more
arousing, putting to shame a part of the readers, and accordant with the
fundamental importance of what is now to be discussed. — τὸ evayy.]| is not
simply the tidings of the death and resurrection of Jesus (Heydenreich,
Riickert, and others), but the Christian tidings of salvation generally, because
there is here no limiting definition, and as is further in particular clear from
ἐν πρώτοις in ver. 3. —6 καὶ raped. x.t.4.] which you have also received. The
thrice used καί denotes with ever increasing emphasis the element to be
added’ to the preceding one. — Regarding παρελ., comp. John 1. 11 ; Phil.
iv. 9 ; and regarding ἑστήκ., you stand, are firm, x. 12 ; Rom. v. 2; 2 Cor.
i, 24; Eph. vi. 18; 1 Pet. v. 12; John viii. 44. — σώζεσθε] pictures as
present the future, quite certain Messianic salvation. Comp..on i. 18. --- τίνι
λόγῳ . . . κατέχετε] condition to σώζεσθε, in which ri λόγῳ eiyyy. iu. is put
first for the sake of emphasis. Comp. vi. 4, xi. 14, xiv. 7, 9. Comp. also
Plato, Pol. i. p. 347 Ὁ : πόλις ἀνδρῶν ἀγαθῶν ei γένοιτο, Parm. p. 136 A ;
Baruch iii. 13, as indeed in general it is common in the classics (Stallbaum,
ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 238 A) and in the N. T. (Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 334
[E. T. 390]) for such words as ought to follow the conjunctions to precede
them for the sake of emphasis. Hence : through which (by means of faith
in its contents) you also obtain salvation, if you hold fast with what word I
preached it to you. Not without design does he add this condition to the
σώζεσθε ; for his readers were threatened with the danger of being led by
the deniers of the resurrection to become untrue to the specific contents of
his preaching. Others (including Bengel, Heydenreich, Billroth, van Hen-
gel, Ewald) regard rive λόγῳ εὐηγγ. du. as amore precise definition of τὸ εὐαγγ.
ὁ evnyy. ou. in accordance with the common form of attraction oida σε τίς εἰ
(Winer, p. 581 [E. T. 781]). (0) Against this, however, it may be urged :
(1) that the meaning : ‘‘ J make known to you... if you still hold it fast,”
contains in the latter half (which is not to be transmuted, with van Hengel,
into the sense : ‘‘ st curae nobis cordique est quod nunc dico”) a condition
which stands in no logical relation to the first half ; (2) that εἰ κατέχετε would
be at variance with ἐν 6 καὶ ἑστήκατε ; (3) that we should then have to as-
sume for ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῆ ἐπιστ. the inadmissible (see below) reference to
κατέχετε. All these difficulties fall away with the above interpretation, ac-
cording to which παρελάβετε expresses the historical act of reception ; ἑστή-
κατε, the present faithfulness ; σώζεσθε, the certain blessed future ; and εἰ
κατέχετε, the abiding condition of the attainment of this end ; while ἐκτὸς
el μὴ εἰκῆ ἐπιστ. in turn denotes the exaltation above every doubt in respect
of the Messianic salvation really to be attained under this condition. — τίνι
λόγῳ] not as in Acts x. 29, with what ground (Wetstein, Kypke, Heyden-
reich, and others, following Theodorus of Mopsuestia and Pelagius), which
Osiander views as scriptural ground ; for παρέδωκα yap bu. k.t.A., ver. 3, gives,
in fact, not a ground, but the contents of the preaching. Hence also it does
not refer to the ‘‘ manner and method of the proclamation” (Neander), but
1 Calovius says rightly: ‘‘Sequunturhaee — severanti conservatio, perque illud fide sus-
se invicem: evangelit annuntiatio, annun- ceptum et conservatum aeterna salvalio.”
tiati per fidem susceptio, suscepti in fide per-
842 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
means : through what word, i.e. preaching what. As regards τίνι, instead of
a relative, see Buttmann, nevt. Gr. p. 216 [E. T. 251]. How different
from the seductive discourses of the deniers had this Adyoc of the apostle
been ! According to Hofmann, τίνι λόγῳ is meant to be interrogative, and
that in the sense of ‘‘ with what presupposition,” while ei κατέχετε and εἰ μὴ
εἰκῇ ἐπιστ. are the answer to it. Against this it may be urged : (1) that,
since εἰ μὴ elx. ἐπιστ. Would be a second condition, Paul would have marked
the connection in an intelligible way by καί (putting therefore either καὶ εἰ
or καί by itself, but not simply εἰ) ; (2) that λόγος, in the sense of condition
or presupposition, is foreign to the N. T. and peculiar to Herodotus, who,
however, always expresses sub conditione by ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ 5 see Schweighiiuser,
Lex. Herod. V1. p. 79 f. —ei κατέχετε] This implies not merely the not hav-
ing forgotten ; it is the believing firm retention, which does not let go the
doctrine received—the continuance of the ἑστήκατε. Comp. Luke viii. 15 ;
1 Cor. xi. 9. And there is not so much an ‘‘ aculeus ad pungendum” (Calvin)
in this as an admonition of the danger. — ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῆ éxcor.| through
which you are also saved, if you hold fast my word,—wnless that ye have
become believing in vain, without any result. Only in this case, inconceiva-
ble to the Christian consciousness (Beza aptly says: ‘‘argumentatur ab
absurdo”), would ye, in spite of that holding fast, lose the σωτηρία. The
words therefore imply the certainty of the σώζεσθαι to be expected under the
condition of the κατέχειν. On εἰκῇ, comp. Gal. 111. 4, iv. 11 ; and regarding
ἐκτὸς el, μή, except if, see on xiv. 5 ; on émor., comp. 111]. 5; Rom. xiii. 11.
To refer εἰκῆ to κατέχετε (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Theodoret, Luther,
Calvin, Estius, and others, including Billroth and de Wette) is impractica-
ble for this reason, that εἰ κατέχετε itself is a conditional clause, while to
supply such an idea as κατέχετε δὲ πάντως (Theophylact) would be quite an
arbitrary course.
Ver. 3f. More precise explanation of the τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγ. iu. εἰ κατέχετε,
by adducing those main points of that λόγος, which are of decisive impor-
tance for the further discussion which Paul now has in view. Hofmann’s
interpretation of it as specifying the ground of the alleged condition and
reservation in ver. 2, falls with his incorrect exposition of εἰ κατέχετε x.7.A.
—év πρώτοις] neuter : in primis, chiefly, i.e. as doctrinal points of the first
rank. Comp. Plato, Pol. p. 522 Ο : ὃ καὶ παντὶ ἐν πρώτοις ἀνάγκη μανθάνειν.
To take it, with Chrysostom,’ of the time (ἐξ ἀρχῆς), comp. Eccles. iv. 17,
Proy. xx. 21, runs counter to the connection, according to which it is rather
the fundamental significance of the following doctrines that is concerned.
This in opposition also to Riickert’s view of it as masculine : to you among
the first (comp. 1 Macc. vi. 6 ; Eccles. xlv. 20 ; Thuc. vii. 19. 4 : Lucian,
Paras. 49 ; Fritzsche, Quaest. Lue. p. 220), which is, moreover, historically
untrue, unless with Riickert we arbitrarily supply ‘‘in Achaia.” —6 καὶ
παρέλαβον] This conveys the idea : which had been likewise communicated to
1 Who is followed by van Hengel: ‘‘ Re- ostom, Paul adduces the time as witness
censet partem eorum, a quibus proponendis καὶ ὅτι ἐσχάτης ἣν αἰσχύνης, τοσοῦτον χρόνον
Corinthios docere incepit.”” So Hofmann πεισθέντας νῦν μετατίθεσθαι.
also in substance. According to Chrys-
CHAP! XWa, a: 343
me,—nothing therefore new or self-invented. From whom Paul had re-
ceived the contents of vv. 3-5, he does not say ; but for the very reason
that he does not add an ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, as in xi. 23, or words to like effect,
and on account of the correlation in which παρέλαβον stands to παρέδωκα
(comp. also ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε, ver. 1), as well as on account of the reference
extending to the simple historical statements in ver. 5 ff., we are not to
supply : from Christ, through revelation (the common view since Chrysos-
tom), but rather : through historical tradition, as it was living in the church
(comp. van Hengel, Ewald, Hofmann). It is true, indeed, that he has that,
which forms the inner relation of the ἀπέθανεν κ.τ.1. and belongs to the
inner substance of the gospel, from revelation (Gal. i. 12) ; but here it is the
historical element which is predominantly present to his mind. (Pp?) —
ὑπὲρ τῶν duapt. ἡμ.} on account of our sins, i.e. in order to expiate them,
Rom. ili. 23-26; Gal. iii. 13 ff., al. The connection of the preposi-
tion with the abstract noun proves that Paul, in saying elsewhere ὑπὲρ
ἡμῶν (comp. also Eph. v. 25: ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκκλησίας), has not used the prep-
osition in the sense of Joco, not even in 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. iii. 13. The idea
of the satisfactio vicaria lies in the thing itself, not in the preposition. See
on Rom. v. 6; Gal. i. 4 ; Eph. v. 3. It may be added that, except in this
passage, the expression ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ju. occurs nowhere in the writings
of Paul (not even in Gal. i. 4), although it does in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
v. 1, 3 (Ὁ), ix. 7, x. 12. Regarding the distinction between ὑπέρ and περί
the remark holds true: ‘‘id unum interest, quod περί usu frequentissimo
teritur, multo rarius usurpatur izép,' quod ipsum discrimen inter Lat.
praep. de et super locum obtinet,” Buttmann, Ind. ad Mid. p. 188. — κατὰ
τ. ypad.| according to the Scriptures of the O. T. (‘‘quae non impleri non
potuere,” Bengel), in so far as these (as e.g. especially Isa. liii.) contain
prophecies regarding the atoning death of Christ. Comp. Luke xxiv.
2b. ;) John xx, 9, ii. 22; Acts xvii. 3, xxvi. 22 f., viii. 35 ; 1 Pet. i. 11.
—The second x. τ. yp. does not refer to the burial (Isa. 1111. 9) also, as de
Wette and most interpreters assume, following Theodoret and Oecumenius,
but, as isto be deduced from the repetition of the ὕτε before éyyy., only to
the resurrection.? See on John ii. 22. Christ’s death and resurrection are
the great facts of the redemptive work, borne witness to by the Scriptures ;
the burial (comp. Rom. vi. 4 ; Col. ii. 12 ; Acts xiii. 29), being the conse-
quence of the one and the presupposition of the other, lies between as an
historical correlate of the corporeal reality of the resurrection, but not as a
factor of the work of redemption, which as such would require to have been
based upon Scripture testimony. — ἐγήγερται) not the aorist again ; the being
risen is the abiding state, which commenced with the ἐγερθῆναι. Comp. 2
Tim. ii. 8; Winer, p. 255 [E. T. 339].
Ver. 5. ‘‘ Res tanti momenti neque facilis creditu multis egebat testibus,”’
Grotius. — Κηφᾷ] Comp. Luke xxiv. 84. — εἶτα τοις δώδεκα, John xx. 19 ff. ;
1 This holds in the N. T., where the death 3 And that on the third day, which κατὰ τ.
of Christ is spoken of, only of those passages γραφ. must be held to include in its refer-
in which the preposition is not joined with ence. Comp. Matt. xii. 40; Luke xxiv. 46.
persons; of persons Paul constantly uses 3 According to Holsten, 2. Hv. d. Paul.
ὑπέρ. Comp. oni. 138, Remark. u. Petr. p. 115 ff., the appearance made to
344 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Luke xxiv. 36 ff. After the death of the traitor, there were indeed only
eleven (hence several witnesses read fvdexa, comp. Acts i. 26), nay, ac-
cording to John /.c., Thomas also was absent at that time ; but comp.
the official designations decemviri, centumviri, al., where the proper number
also was often not complete. To reckon in Matthias (Chrysostom, Oecu-
menius, Theophylact, Bengel, and others) would make a needless prothys-
teron of the expression. It may be added that under the ὥφθη we are always
to conceive of but one act of appearing, as is especially clear from ver. 8 ;
hence we are not in connection with τοῖς δώδεκα to think of a combination of
John xx. 19 ff. and 26 ff. (Osiander, van Hengel, and others), to which some
have even added John xxi. That Paul narrates the series of appearances
chronologically, should not have been questioned by Wieseler (Synopse der
Evang. p. 420 f.), who assumes only an enumeration of the individual cases
without order of time. It is implied necessarily in the words of historical
continuation themselves (ἔπειτα ὥφθη), as well as in their relation to ἔσχατον
πάντων, ver. 8. Comp. also vv. 23, 24, 46.
Ver. 6 exhibits a change in the construction—which does not continue
further with 6r-—but still belongs to the contents of the παρέδωκα and rapé-
λαβον down to ἀποστ. πᾶσιν (in opposition +o Hofmann) ; for the point of
view of the ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον reaches thus far, and it is only at ver. 8 that per-
sonal experience comes in instead of it. Nor is it to be inferred from the
transition from the dependent to the independent construction (so frequent
also, as we know, in Greek writers), which naturally corresponds with the
concrete vividness of the representation, that Paul had not included this
appearance and those which follow in his preaching at Corinth, but, on the
contrary, was now communicating them to his readers as something new (van
Hengel). Ver. 8 is especially opposed to this view, since Paul, in referring
to the appearances of the Risen One, had certainly not been silent upon
that made to himself (comp. ix. 1). --- ἐπάνω] adverbial, not prepositional,
Mark xiv. 5. Comp. ὑπέρ. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 410. ‘‘ Some” referred
to by Chrysostom, were mistaken in holding it to mean : above, over their
heads. — revraxoc.] Consequently the number of believers in general was
already much greater than that of those who were assembled, Actsi. 15. The
remarks to the contrary by Baur and Zeller, according to whom the small
number 120 is plainly shown by our passage to be incorrect, are not conclu-
sive, since the appearance here mentioned may, without any arbitrariness,
_ be placed at so early a stage that many pilgrims to the Passover may be con-
ceived as still present in Jerusalem when it took place, and among these
many non-Jewish disciples of Jesus, especially Galileans. The 120 who
assembled afterwards were the stock of the congregation of Jerusalem itself.
Comp. on Acts i. 15. On the other hand, it is possible that the Lord
appeared to the 500 brethren also in Galilee in an assembly of so many of
His disciples there (Schleiermacher, Ewald). More precise evidence is
wanting. Matt. xxviii. 16 ff. has nothing to do with our passage (in oppo-
Peter also (like all the following ones) was was the perplexing contradiction between
a vision, the determining occasion of which the once living and the now dead Messiah.
CHAPS RV. 5. fai ὃ: . 945
sition to Lightfoot and Flatt), but applies only to the 6]θνϑῃ. --- ἐφάπαξ] not :
once for all (Bretschneider, comp. Rom. vi. 10 ; Heb. vii. 27, 1χ. 12, x. 10),
but, as it is wsuwally understood : at once, simul (Luc. Dem. enc. 31). The
former sense would need to be given by the context, which, however, from
the largeness of the number, naturally suggests the latter. Van Hengel,
too, wrongly insists upon the meaning semel, holding that this appearance
took place only once, whereas ver. 5 applies to several appearances. The
peculiar importance of this appearance lies precisely in the simul (Vulgate),
ἀνύποπτος δὲ τῶν τοσούτων ἡ μαρτυρία, Theodoret. This ἐφάπαξ and the multi-
tude of the spectators exclude all the more decidedly the idea of a visionary
or ecstatic seeing, although some have ascribed a// the appearances of the
Risen One to this source (see especially, Holsten, zwm Hv. des Paul. τι. Petr.
p. 65 ff.). Here‘we should have upwards of 500 visions occurring at the
same time and place, the same in substance and form, and that, too, as psy-
chological acts of the individual minds. —oi πλείους] the majority, x. 5.
Luther gives it wrongly : ‘‘ many still.” — μένουσιν] superstites sunt. Comp.
on John xxi. 22; Phil. i. 25. Ἔχω μάρτυρασ ἔτι ζῶντας, Chrysostom. It
may be added that the detinite affirmation, οἱ πλέίους μένουσιν, shows how
earnestly the apostolic church concerned itself about the still surviving wit-
nesses to the resurrection of Jesus, and how well it knew them.
Ver. 7. Both of these appearances also are otherwise unknown. — Ἰακώβῳ]
The non-addition of any distinguishing epithet makes it more than probable
that the person meant is he who was then the James κατ᾽ ἐξόχήν, James the
Just,’ not one of the Twelve, but universally known as the brother of the
Lord (see onix. 4). Perhaps it was this appearance which made him become
decided for the cause and service of his divine brother. Comp. Michaelis
on our passage. The apocryphal narrative of the Hoang. sec. Hebr. in Je-
rome, de vir. ill. 2, is, even as regards time, here irrelevant (in opposition to
Grotius). — τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσιν] ἀπόστολοι, since it takes in James also (comp,
Gal. i. 19), must stand here in a wider sense than τοῖς δώδεκα, but includes
them along with others. In the Book of Acts, Barnabas, for instance, is
called an apostle (xiv. 4, 14) ; and in 1 Thess. ii. 7, Timothy and Silvanus
are comprehended under the conception ἀπόστολοι, of whom, of course, Tim-
othy at least cannot be as yet included here. Chrysostom supposes the
Seventy to be included. Comp. on xii. 28. In no case is it simply the
Twelve again who are meant, whom Hofmann conceives to be designated
here in their relation to the church. How arbitrary that is, and how super-
fluous such a designation would be! But πᾶσι stands decidedly opposed to
it ; Paul would have required to write εἶτα πάλιν τοῖς ἀποστ. Notice also the
strict marking off of the original apostles by oi dédexa, an expression which
Paul uses in no other place.
Ver. 8. Appearance at Damascus. Comp. ix. 1. — Regarding the adver-
bial ἔσχατον, comp. Plato, Gorg. p. 473 C ; Soph. Oed. Col. 1547 ; Mark xii.
22 (Lachm.). It concludes the series of bodily appearances, and thereby sep-
arates these from later appearances in visions (Acts xviii. 9), or some other
1 Comp. Plitt in the Zeitschrift f. Luth. Theol. 1864, p. 28 ff.
346 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
apocalyptic way. — πάντων] is not to be understood, as has been usually
done, of all those in general to whom Christ appeared after His resurrec-
tion, but of all apostles, as is the most natural interpretation from the very
foregoing τοῖς ἀποστ. πᾶσι, and is rendered certain by the τῷ ἐκτρώμ. with the
article, which, according to ver. 9, denotes κατ ἐξοχήν the apostolic ‘‘ abor-
tion.”"'—The apostle’s sense of the high privilege of being counted worthy
to see the Risen One awakens in him his deep humility, which was always
fostered by the painful consciousness of having once persecuted the church ;
he therefore expresses his strong sense of unworthiness by saying that he is,
as it were (ὡσπερεί, quasi, only here in the N. T., often in classic writers),
τὸ ἔκτρωμα, the untimely foetus, Arist. Gener. An. iv. 5; LXX. Num. xii.
12; Job iii. 16 ; Eccles. vi. 3; Aq. Ps. lvii. 9. See the passages in Wet-
stein, Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 60 f.; and as regards the standing of the word as
Greek (for which the older Attic writers have ἄμβλωμα), Lobeck, ad Phryn.
p- 209. In opposition to Heydenreich and Schulthess (most recently in Keil
and Tzschirner’s Anal. I. 4, p. 212 f.), who interpret in a way which is lin-
guistically erroneous (adopted, however, already by τινές in Theophylact),
late-born, born afterwards in old age, see Fritzsche, 1.6. The idea of being
late-born, i.e. late in becoming an apostle, is conveyed in ἔσχατον πάντων, not
What Paul meant to indicate in a figurative way by τ. éxrp. is
clearly manifest from ver. 9, namely, that he was inferior to, and less worthy
than, the rest of the apostles, in the proportion in which the abortive child stands
behind that born mature.2 Comp. Bengel : ‘‘ Ut abortus non est dignus hu-
mano nomine, sic apostolus negat se dignum apostoli appellatione.” See
also Ignatius, ad Rom. 9: The distinct explanation which he gives himself
in ver. 9 excludes all the other—some of them very odd—interpretations
which have been given,* along with that of Hofmann : Paul designates
himself so in contrast to those who, when Jesus appeared to them, were
brethren (James too ?) or apostles, and consequently had been ‘‘ bern as ehil-
dren of God into the life of the faith of Christ , whereas with him the matter
had not yet come to a full formation of Christ (Gal. iv. 19), as was the case
with the rest. This artificial interpretation is all the more erroneous, seeing
that Paul, when Christ appeared to him, had not yet made even the first
in ἔκτρωμα.
1The ‘abortion’ in the series of the
apostles. Hofmann is wrong in making
πάντων extend to the whole of the cases
previously adduced. That would surely be
a thing quite self-evident, namely, that in
decet ; forhe cites Klausen, ad Aesch. Agam.
1140, who treats specially of this meaning
of the word, p. 244.
2 The whole passage is entirely misunder-
stood by Kienlen in the Jahrb. f. ἃ. Theol.
a series of cases following after each other,
the last mentioned is just the /ast of all.
No, πάντων is correlative to the preceding
πᾶσιν, and the progress of thought is: “to
the apostles αἰ], last of all, however, to me
also.’ Thereby Paul gives adequate ex-
pression to the deep humility with which
he sees himself added to the circle of the
apostles. Comp. ver. 9: ἀποστόλων, ἀπόστο-
Aos, and then the retrospective τῶν πάντων,
ver. 10, also the ἐκεῖνοι, ver. 11.—Hofmann
seems to take the ὡσπερεί in the sense of ut
1868, p. 316 ff.
38 Among these must be placed Calvin’s
opinion (comp. Osiander): ‘‘Se comparat
abortivo .. . subitae suae conversionis re-
spectu,’’ shared by Grotius and others, in-
cluding Schrader. So, too, with the view
of Baronius, Estius, Cornelius 4 Lapide,
and others, that Paul describes himself as
a supernumerary. And Wetstein even sug-
gests: ‘ Pseudapostoli videntur Paulo sta
turam exiquam objecisse, 2 Cor. x. 10.”
CHAP. XVv., 9, 10. 347
approach to being a Christian embryo, but was the most determined opponent
of the Lord, and was actively engaged in persecuting Him (Acts ix. 4);
won. τ. éxtp. does not describe what Paul was then, when Christ appeared to
him, but what he 7s since that time. — κἀμοί] at the end, with the unaffected
stamp of humility after the expressions of self-abasement put before. — Ob-
serve further, that Paul places the appearance of the Risen One made to
himself in the same series with the others, without mentioning the ascension
which lay between. Certainly, therefore, he did not regard the latter as the
striking, epoch-making event, which it first appears in the narrative of the
Book of Acts, forty days after the resurrection. See generally on Luke xxiv.
51, Remark. But observe also what stress Paul lays here and ix. 1 upon the
outwardly manifested bodily appearance of the Lord, with which Gal. i. 15
does not in any way conflict.'. 2 Cor. xii. 2 ff. is of a different tenor.
Ver. 9. Justification of the expression ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι. Vv. 9 and
10 are not a grammatical, though they may be a logical, parenthesis. — ἐγώ]
has emphasis : just J, no other. Comp. on this confession, Eph. iii. 8 ; 1
Tim. 1. 15. — ὃς οὐκ εἰμὶ x.7.A.] argumentative ; qguippe qui, etc. Comp. Od.
ii. 41, al.; Xen. Mem. ii. 7. 13 ; Matthiae, p. 1067, note 1. — ἱκανός] suffi-
ciently fitted, Matt. iii. 11 ; Luke iii. 16 ; 2Cor. iii. 5. — καλεῖσθαι) to bear the
name of apostle, this high, honourable name.
Ver. 10. The other side of this humility, looking to God. Yet has God’s
grace made me what Tam. Comp. Gal. i. 15. — χάριτι] has the principal em-
phasis, hence again ἡ χάρις avtov.— 6 εἰμι] In this is comprehended the whole
sum of his present being and character, so different from his pre-Christian
condition. — ἡ εἰς ἐμέ] Comp. 1 Pet. i. 10 : towards me. Plato, Pol. v. p.
729 D. —ov κενή] not void of result. Comp. ver. 58 ; Phil. ii. 16 ; 1 Thess.
111. 5. — éyev.] not : has been, but : has practically become. — ἀλλά] introduces
the great contrast to ov κενὴ ἐγεν.. valued highly by Paul, even in the depth
of his humility, as against the impugners of his apostolic position ; and in-
troduces it with logical correctness, for περισσότερον... ἐκοπίασα is the re-
sult of the grace. — repico.| accusative neuter. It is the plus of. the result.
Regarding éxor. of apostolic labowr, comp. Phil. ii. 16 ; Gal. iv. 11, al. —
αὐτῶν πάντων] than they all, which may either mean : than any of them, or :
than they all put together. Since the latter corresponds to the τοῖς ἀποστ.
πᾶσιν, ver. 7, and suits best the design of bringing out the fruitful efficacy
of the divine grace, and also agrees with history so far as known to us, it is
accordingly to be preferred (Osiander and van Hengel) in opposition to the
former interpretation, which is the common one. —oik ἐγὼ δὲ, ἀλλ᾽ K.T.2. |
Correction regarding the subject of ἐκοπίασα, not I however, but. Chrysostom
says well: τῇ συνήθει κεχρημένος ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ τοῦτο (that he laboured
more, etc.) ταχέως παρέδραμε, καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἀνέθηκε τῷ Oe. Paul is conscious in
himself that the relation of the efficacy of God’s grace to his own personal
agency is of such a kind, that what has just been stated belongs not to the
latter, but to the former.?— ἡ χάρις τ. θεοῦ σὺν ἐμοί] 86. ἐκοπίασε περισσ. avr.
1 See Paret in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 2 Augustine, De Grat. et lib. arb. 3, says:
1859, p. 243 ff.; Beyschlag in the Stud. wu. “Non ego autem, i.e. non solus, sed gratia
Avit, 1864, p. 219 f. Dei mecum ; ac per hoc nec gratia Dei sola,
348 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
πάντ. Not I have laboured more, but the grace of God has done it with me (in
efficient fellowship with me, comp. Mark xvi. 20). It is to be observed
that the article before σὺν ἐμοί is not genuine (see the critical remarks), and
so Paul does not disclaim for himself his own self-active share in bringing
about the result, but knows that the. intervention of the divine grace so
outweighs his own activity, that to the alternative, whether he or grace has
wrought such great things, he can only answer, as he has done : not J, but
the grace of God with me. Were the article before σὺν ἐμοί genuine, the
thought would not be: the grace has wrought it with me, but: the grace,
which is with me,’ has wrought it. But Beza’s remark holds true for the case
also of the article being omitted : ‘‘ Paulum ita se ipsum facere gratiae ad-
ministrum, ut illi omnia tribuat.” There is no ground for thinking even re-
motely of a ‘‘not alone, but also,” or the like (see Grotius, Flatt, and
others).
Ver. 11. Οὖν] takes up again the thread of the discourse which had been
interrupted by vv. 9, 10, as in viii. 4, but yet with reference to ver. 9. f. —
ἐκεῖνοι] i.e. the rest of the apostles, vv. 7, 8, 9 f. —oirw] so as was stated
above, namely, that Christ is risen, ver. 4 ff., and see ver. 12. — καὶ οὕτως]
and in this way, in consequence, namely, of this, that the resurrection of
Jesus was proclaimed to you, ye have become believers (émvor. as in ver. 2).
—Observe, further, in εἶτε οὖν ἐγὼ, εἴτε ἐκεῖνοι, the apologetic glance of apos-
tolic self-assertion, which he turns upon those who questioned his rank as
an apostle.
Ver. 12. In what a contrast, however, with this preaching stands the
assertion of certain persons among you that, etc. ! Χριστός has the main
emphasis in the protasis ; hence its position. — πῶς] expression of astonish-
ment ; how is it yet possible, that ; xiv. 7, 16; Rom. iii. 6, vi. 2, viii. 32, x.
14; Gal. ii. 14. The logical justice of the astonishment rests on this, that
the assertion, ‘‘ there is no resurrection of dead persons,” denies also per
consequentiam the resurrection of Christ. Ver. 18. --- τινές] guidam, quos
nominare nolo. See Hermann, ad Viger. Ὁ. 731, also Schoemann, ad 18. p.
250. See, besides, introduction to the chapter. ’Ev ὑμῖν is simply in your
church, without any emphasis of contradistinction to non-Christians (Krauss).
— οὐκ ἔστιν] does not take place, there is not. Comp. Eph. vi. 9; Matt. xxii.
23; Acts xxiii. 8. Comp. also Plato, Phaed. p. 71 E: εἴπερ ἔστι τὸ ἀναβιώσ-
κεσθαι, Aesch. Hum. 639 : ἅπαξ θανόντος οὔτις ἐστ᾽ ἀνάστασις.
Ver. 18. Δὲ] carrying onward, in order by a chain of inferences to reduce
the τινές with their assertion ad absurdum. —oidé] even not. The inference
rests upon the principle : ‘‘ swblato genere tollitur et species” (Grotius). For
Christ had also become a νεκρός, and was, as respects His human nature, not
different from other men (ver. 21). Comp. Theodoret : σῶμα yap καὶ ὁ δεσπό-
της εἶχε Χριστός. This in opposition to the fault which Riickert finds with
the conclusion, that, if Christ be a being of higher nature, the Logos of
nec ipse solus, sed gratia Dei cum illo.” looked.
Therewith, however, the relation of the 1 That is, which stands in helping fellow-
grace to the individuality, as Paul has ex- ship with me. See Kiihner, II. p. 276.
pressed it by οὐκ ἐγὼ. ἀλλά is entirely over-
CHAPS RVs, Fas iD. 349
God, etc., the laws of created men do not hold for Him. It is plain that
the resurrection, as well as the death, related only to the human form of
existence. The σῶμα of Christ (xi. 24; Rom. vii. 4), the σῶμα τῆς σαρκὸς
αὐτοῦ (Col. 1. 22 ; comp. Eph. 11. 15), was put to death and rose again,
which would have been impossible, if ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν (bodily revivification
of those bodily dead) in general were a chimera. Comp. Knapp, Sc’. var.
arg. p. 316 ; Usteri, p. 364f. ; van Hengel, p. 68f. Calvin, following Chrys-
ostom and Theodoret, grounds the apostle’s conclusion thus : ‘‘quia enim
non nisi nostra causa resurgere debuit : nulla ejus resurrectio foret, si nobis
nihil prodesset.” Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. But according to this it
would not follow from the ἀνάστασις vexp. ovk ἔστιν that Christ had not risen,
but only that His resurrection had not fulfilled its aim. The idea, that
Christ is ἀπαρχή of the resurrection is not yet taken for granted here (as an
axiom), but comes in for the first time at ver. 20 (in opposition to Chrysos-
tom, Theophylact, and others, including de Wette and Osiander), after the
argument has already reached the result, that Christ cannot have remained
in the grave, as would yet follow with logical certainty from the proposi-
tion : ἀνάστασις vexp. οὐκ ἔστιν. It is only when it comes to bring forward
the ἀπαρχῆ, that the series of inferences celebrates its victory.
Ver. 14. Aé] continues the series of inferences. Without the resurrection
of Jesus, what are we with our preaching ! what you with your faith! The
former is then dealt with in ver. 15 f., the latter in vv. 17-19. — dpa] is the
simple therefore, thus (rebus ita comparatis). See against Hartung’s view,
that it introduces the wnexpected (this may be implied in the connection, but
not in the particle), Klotz, ad Devar. p. 160 ff. —xevdy and κενή are put first
with lively emphasis. —ov« ἐγήγ.]}] i.e. has remained in the grave. — κενόν]
empty, i.e. without reality (Eph. v. 6; Col. ii. 8), without really existing
contents, inasmuch, namely, as the redemption in Christ and its completion
through the Messianic σωτηρία are the contents of the preaching ; but this
redemption has not taken place and the Messianic salvation is a chimera, if
Christ has not risen. Comp. ver. 17; Rom. i. 4, iv. 25, viii. 34. = καί]
also. Tf it holds of Christ that He is not risen, then it holds also of our
preaching that itis empty. — ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν] your faith in Jesus as the Messiah,"
ver. 11. Christ would, in fact, not be the Redeemer and Atoner, as which,
however, He is the contents of your faith.? Comp. Simonides in Plato,
Prot. p. 345 C : xevedv . . . ἐλπίδα, Soph. Ant. 749 : κενὰς γνώμας, Eur. Lph.
Aul. 987, Hel. 36.
Ver. 15. We should not, with Lachmann, place only a comma after ver.
14 : for ver. 15 carries independently its full confirmation with it, and its
awful thought comes out all the more impressively, when taken indepen-
dently of what precedes it. The emphasis of the verse lies in the God-dis-
honouring ψευδομάρτ. τοῦ θεοῦ. In this phrase τοῦ θεοῦ must, in conformity
with what follows, be genitivus objecti (not subjecti, as Billroth would make
1 The reading ἡμῶν, which Olshausen pre- is amechanical repetition of the preceding
fers from a total misapprehension of the ἡμῶν.
connection, has only the weak attestation 2 Comp. Krauss, p. 74 ff.
of D* min. and some vss. and Fathers, and
900 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
if: ‘‘false witnesses, whom God has,” comp. Osiander, et al.) : persons
who have testified what is false against God. — κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ] is not to be taken,
with Erasmus, Beza, Wolf, Raphel, de Wette, and others, as in respect to
God, of God (Schaefer, ad Dem. I. p. 412 f. ; Valck. ad Phoen. 821;
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 272) ; for the context requires the reference to be as
much in opposition to God as possible, and hence requires the sense :
against, adversus (Vulgate). Comp. Matt. xxvi. 59, 62, xxvii. 13 ; Mark
xiv. 56, 60, xv. 4, al. ; Xen. Apol. 18 : οὐ ψεύδομαι κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, Plato, Gorg.
p. 472 B. Every consciously false giving of testimony that God has done
something, is testimony against God, because an abuse of His name and
injury to His holiness. — ὃν οὐκ ἤγειρεν, εἴπερ ἄρα x.t.2.] whom He has not
raised, if really thus (as is asserted) dead persons are not raised (Q*). Regard-
ing εἰ ἄρα and εἴπερ apa see Klotz, 1.6. pp. 178, 528. Observe here (1) the
identity of the category, in which Paul places the resurrection of Christ and
the bodily resurrection of the dead ; (2) the sacredness of the apostolic testi-
mony for the former ; (3) the fanatical self-deception, to which he would
have been a victim, if the appearances of the Risen One had been psycho-
logical hallucinations, so that the whole transformation of Saul into Paul—
nay, his whole Gospel—would rest upon this self-deception, and this self-
deception upon a mental weakness which would be totally irreconcilable
with his otherwise well-known strength and acuteness of intellect.
Ver. 16. Proof of the ὃν οὐκ ἤγειρεν, εἴπερ κιτ.2. by solemn repetition of
ver. 13 entirely as to purport, and almost entirely as to the words also.
Vv. 17, 18. Solemnly now also the other conclusion from the οὐδὲ Χριστὸς
éyfy., already expressed in ver. 14, is once more exhibited, but in such a
way that its tragical form stands out still more awfully (ματαία and ἔτι ἐστὲ
ἐν τ. du. ὑμ.), and has a new startling feature added to it by reference to the
lot of the departed. — ματαία] vain, fruitless, put first with emphasis, as ἔτι
is afterwards. Comp. ver. 14. The meaning of the word may be the
same as κενῇ in ver. 14 (comp. μάταιος λόγος, Plato, Legg. ii. p. 654 E ;
Herod. iii. 56 ; μάταιος δοξοσοφία, Plato, Soph. p. 231 B ; μάταιος εὐχή, Eur.
Iph. T. 628, and the like, Isa. lix. 4 ; Eccles. xxxi. 5 ; Acts xiv. 15 ; 1 Cor.
iii. 20), to which Hofmann, too, ultimately comes in substance, explaining
the πίστις ματαία of their having comforted themselves groundlessly with
that which has no truth. But what follows shows that resw/tlessness, the
missing of the aim, is denoted here (comp. Tit. iii. 9 ; Plato, Zim. p. 40 Ὁ,
Legg. v. p. 735 B; Polyb. vi. 25. 6 ; 4 Macc. vi. 10). This, namely, has
its character brought out in an awful manner by ἔτι ἐστὲ ἐν τ. ay. ὑμ. : then
ye are still in your sins—i.e. then ye are not yet set free from your (pre-Chris-
tian) sins, not yet delivered from the obligation of their guilt. For if
Christ is not risen, then also the reconciliation with God and justification
have not taken place ; without His resurrection His death would not be a
redemptive death.’ Rom. iv. 25, and see on ver. 14. Regarding the ex-
pression, comp. 3 Esdr. viii. 76; Thuc. i. 78. See also John viii. 21, 24,
ix. 41. — dpa καὶ οἱ κοιμηθ. x.7.2.] a new Consequence of εἰ δὲ X. οὐκ ἐγήγ., but
1 Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 329.
OHAP, XV., 19; 351
further inferred by apa from the immediately preceding ἔτι ἐστὲ ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτ.
iu. : then those also who have fallen asleep are accordingly (since they, too, can
have obtained no propitiation), etc. — οἱ κοιμηθ.} Observe the aorist : who
fell asleep, which expresses the death of the individuals as it took place at
different times. It is otherwise at ver. 20; comp. 1 Thess. iv. 14 f.—é
Χριστῷ] for they died‘ so, that they during their dying were not out of
Christ, but through faith in Him were in living fellowship with Him.
Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16 ; Rev. xiv. 13. We are neither, with Grotius (comp.
as early interpreters as Chryosostom and Theodoret), to think simply of the
martyrs (év = propter), nor, with Calovius, widening the historical meaning
on dogmatic grounds, to include the believers of the Old Testament (even
Adam), for both are without support in the context ; but to think of the
Ohristians deceased. —arddovto| they are destroyed, because in their death
they have become liable to the state of punishment in Hades (see on Luke
xvi. 23), seeing that they have, in fact, died without expiation of their sins.
That this does not mean : they have become annihilated (Menochius, Bengel,
Heydenreich, and others), is clear from ἔτι ἐστὲ ἐν τ. du. ὑμ.,) of which, in
respect of the dead, the ἀπώλεια in Hades is the consequence.
Ver. 19. Sad lot of the Christians (not simply of the apostles, as Grotius
and Rosenmiiller would have it), if this οἱ κοιμηθέντες ἐν X. ἀπώλοντο turn out
to be true! ‘If we are nothing more than such, as in this fe have their
hope in Christ,—not at the same time such, as even when κοιμηθέντες will
hope in Christ,?—then are we more wretched,” etc. In other words: ‘‘If
the hope of the future glory (this object of the Christian hope is obvious of
itself, xiii. 18; Rom. v. 2), which the Christian during his temporal life
places in Christ, comes to nought with this life, inasmuch as death trans-
ports him into a condition through which the Christian hope proves itself
to be a delusion,—namely, into the condition of ἀπώλεια, ---[Π 6 are we
Christians more wretched,” etc.—The correct reading is εἰ ἐν τῇ ζ. ταύτῃ ἐν
See the critical remarks. In ἐν τ. ζωῇ ταύτῃ the main
emphasis falls upon τῇ ζωῇ, as the opposite of κοιμηθέντες (comp. Rom. viii.
38; 1 Cor. 111. 22; Phil. i. 20; Luke xvi. 25), not upon ταύτῃ (so com-
monly) ; and μόνον belongs to the whole ἐν τ. ¢. τ. ἐν X. ἠλπικότες ἐσμέν, 80
that the adverb is put last for emphasis (Kiithner, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 5. 14,
ii. 6. 1), not simply to ἐν τ. ¢. ταύτῃ, as it is usually explained : ‘‘If we are
such as only for this life (‘dum hic vivimus,’ Piscator) have placed their
hope in Christ,” Billroth. This trajection of μόνον would be in the highest
X. Ar. ἐσμ. μόνον.
1 Κοιμᾶσθαι is the habitually used New
Testament euphemism for dying (comp. vv.
6, 11, 30), and in no way justifies the un-
scriptural assumption of asleep of the soul,
in which Paul is held to have believed. See
against this, Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 419 ff. In
the euphemistic character of that expres-
sion, however, which classic writers also
have (Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. viii. 2), lies the
reason why he never uses it of the death of
Christ. This was recognized as early as by
Photius, who aptly remarks, Quaest. Am-
philoch. 187: ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ Χριστοῦ θά ν α-
τον καλεῖ, ἵνα τὸ πάθος πιστώσηται' ἐπὶ δὲ
ἡμῶν κοίμησιν, ἵνα τὴν ὀδύνην παραμυθήση-
ται. Ἔνθα μὲν γὰρ παρεχώρησεν ἡ ἀνάστασις,
θαῤῥῶν καλεῖ θάνατον" ἔνθα δὲ ἐν ἐλπίσιν ἔτι
μένει, κοίμησιν καλεῖ κιτ.λ.
2 ΤῊ 6 conception of the ἐλπίς does not
, so coincide here with that of the πίστις, 88
Lipsius assumes, Fechifertigungsl. p. 209.
352 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
degree violent and irrational. The perfect ἠλπικότες indicates the continued
subsistence during this life of the hope cherished ; 2 Cor. i. 10 ; 1 Tim. iv,
10, al. See Bernhardy, p. 878 ; Ast, ad Plat. Legg. p. 408. Comp. the
ἔολπα so frequent in Homer; Duncan, Ler., ed. Rost, p. 368. That the
hope has an end with the present life, is not implied in the perfect (Hof-
mann), but in the whole statement from εἰ on to μόνον. The participle
again with ἐσμέν does not stand for the tempus finitum, but the predicate is
brought into peculiar relief (Kiihner, II. p. 40), so that it is not said what
we do, but what we are (Hoffer). Comp. as early as Erasmus, Annot. As
regards ἐν Χριστῷ, comp. Eph. i. 12 ; 1 Tim. vi. 17; the hope is in Christo
reposita, rests in Christ. Comp. πιστεύειν ἐν ; see on Gal. iii. 26. Riickert
is wrong in connecting ἐν X. with μόνον (equivalent to ἐν μόνῳ τῷ X.) : ““ΤῇΆ
we in the course of this life have placed our whole confidence on Christ alone,
have (at the end of our life) disdained every other ground of hope and de-
spised every other source of happiness, and yet Christ is not risen. . . is
able to perform nothing of what was promised ; then are we the most un-
happy,” etc. Against this may be decisively urged both the position of
μόνον and the wholly arbitrary way in which the conditioning main idea is
supplied (‘‘and if yet Christ is not risen”). According to Baur, what is
meant to be said is: ‘‘if the whole contents of our life were the mere
hoping,” which, namely, never passes into fulfilment. But in that way a
pregnancy of meaning is made to underlie the ἠλπικότες, which must have
been at least indicated by the arrangement : εἰ ἠλπικότες μόνον ἐσμὲν K.T.2. —
ἐλεεινότεροι πάντ. more worthy of compassion than all men, namely, who are
in existence besides us Christians. Comp. the passages in Wetstein. Re-
garding the form ἐλεεινός, which is current with Plato also (in opposition to
Ast) and others, instead of ἐλεινός, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 87 ; Borne-
mann, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 11, Lips. In how far the Christians—supposing
them to be nothing more than persons who build their hope upon Christ so
long as they live, who therefore after their death will see the hope of their
life concerning the future δόξα vanish away—are the most wretched of all
men, is clear of itself from their distinctive position, inasmuch, namely, as
for the sake of what is hoped for they take upon themselves privation, self-
denial, suffering, and distresses (Rom. viii. 18 ; 2 Cor. iv. 17 f. ; Col. iii.
3), and then in death nothwithstanding fall a prey to the ἀπώλεια. In this
connection of the condition wnti? death with the disappointment after death
would lie the ἐλεεινόν, the tragic nothingness of the Christian moral eudae-
monism, which sees in Christ its historical basis and divine warrant. The
unbelieving, on the contrary, live on carelessly and in the enjoyment of the
moment. Comp. ver. 32, and see Calvin’s exposition. (ΕΒ)
Ver. 20. No, we Christians are not in this unhappy condition ; Christ is
risen, καὶ τὴν Tov ἡμετέρου σωτῆρος ἀνάστασιν éxéyyvov (guarantee) τῆς ἡμετέρας
ἔχομεν ἀναστάσεως, Theodoret. Several interpreters (Flatt, comp. Calvin on
ver. 29) have wrongly regarded vy. 20-28 as an episode. See on ver. 29.
—vovi δὲ] jam vero, but now, as the case really stands, Comp. xiii. 18, xiv. 6,
al. —arapyx7 τῶν κεκοιμ.} as first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep, predica-
tive more precise definition to Χριστός, inasmuch as He is risen from the
CHAP. Xv., 21,22. ὃ 353
dead. Comp. as regards ἀπαρχή used of persons, xvi. 15; Rom. xvi. 5;
Jas. i. 18 ; Plutarch, Thes. 16. The meaning is: ‘‘ Christ is risen, so that
thereby He has made the holy beginning of the general resurrection of those
who have fallen asleep” (comp. ver. 23; Col. i. 18 ; Rev. i. 5 ; Clement,
Cor. I. 24). Whether in connection with ἀπαρχή Paul was thinking pre-
cisely of a definite offering of first-fruits as the concrete foil to his concep.
tion (comp. Rom. xi. 16), in particular of the sheaves of the Paschal feast,
Lev. xxiii. 10 (Bengel, Osiander, and others), must, since he indicates
nothing more minutely, remain undecided. The genitive is partitive. See
on Rom. viii. 23. — That by τῶν κεκοιμ. we are to understand believers, is to
be inferred both from the word itself, which in the New Testament is
always used only of the death of the saints, and also from the fellow-
ship with Christ denoted by ἀπαρχή. And in truth what is conceived of
is the totality of departed believers, including, therefore, those too who
-shall still fall asleep up to the Parousia, and then belong also to the κεκοι-
μήμενοι (the sleeping ; see ver. 23. This does not exclude the fact that
Christ is the raiser of the dead also for the unbelieving ; He is not, however,
their ἀπαρχή ; but see on ver. 22. That those, moreover, who were raised
before Christ and by Christ Himself (as Lazarus), also those raised by apos-
tles, do not make the ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμ. untrue, is clear from the considera-
tion that no one previously was raised to immortal life (to ἀφθαρσία) ; while
Enoch and Elias (Gen. v. 24; 2 Kings ii. 11) did not die at all. Christ
thus remains πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Acts xxvi. 23. But the ἀπαρχή
allows us to look from the dawn of the eschatological order of salvation, as
having taken place already, to the certainty of its future completion. Lu-
thardt says well: ‘‘ The risen Christ is the beginning of the history of the
end.”
Ver. 21. Assigning the ground for the characteristic ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμ.
“For since (seeing that indeed, i. 21 f., xiv. 16; Phil. ii. 26) through a man
death is brought about, so also through a man is resurrection of the dead brought
about.” We must supply simply ἐστί ; but the conclusion is not (Calvin and
many others) e contrariis causis ad contrarios effectus, but, as is shown by the
δ ἀνθρώπου twice prefixed with emphasis : a causa mali effectus ad similem
causam contrarii effectus. The evil which arose through a human author is
by divine arrangement removed also through a human author. How these
different effects are each brought about by a man, Paul assumes to be known
to his readers from the instructions which he must have given them orally,
but reminds them thereof by ver. 9392. --- θάνατος] of physical death, Rom.
v. 19. --- ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν] resurrection of dead persons, abstractly expressed,
designates the matter ideally and in general. So also θάνατος without the
article ; see the critical remarks.
Ver. 22. More precise explanation confirmatory of ver. 21, so that the
first δ ἀνθρώπου is defined in conereto by ἐν τῷ ᾿Αδάμ, likewise θάνατος by
πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν K.t.A. —év τῷ ᾿Αδάμ] In Adam it is causally established that
all die, inasmuch as, namely, through Adam’s sin death has penetrated to
all, Rom. v. 12; to which statement only Christ Himself, who, as the sin-
less One, submitted Himself to death in free obedience toward the Father
354 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(Phil. ii. 8; Rom. v. 19), forms a self-evident exception. —év τᾷ X.] for in
Christ lies the ground and cause, why at the final historical completion of
His redemptive work the death which has come through Adam upon all
shall be removed again, and all shall be made alive through the resurrec-
tion of the dead. In this way, therefore, certainly no one shall be made
alive except in Christ,’ but this will happen to all. Since πάντες, namely,
is not to be restricted to the totality of believers, but to be taken quite
generally (see below), there thus results more specially as the idea of the
apostle : Christ, when He appears in His glory, is not simply the giver of
life for His believing people ; He makes them (through the resurrection,
and relatively through the transformation, ver. 51) alive unto the eternal
Messianic ζωή (Rom. viii. 11 ; but His life-giving power extends also to the
other side, that is, to the unbelievers who must experience the necessary
opposite of the completed redemption ; these He awakes to the resurrection
of condemnation. Paul thus agrees with John v. 28 f. ; Matt. x. 28 ; and
thus his declaration recorded in Acts xxiv. 15 finds its confirmation in our
text (comp. on Phil. iii. 11). — πάντες Gwor.] which is to be understood not
of the new principle of life introduced into the consciousness of humanity
(Baur, neut. Theol. p. 198), but, according to the context and on account of
the future, in the eschatological sense, is by most interpreters (including
Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Osiander, van Hengel, Maier, Ewald, Hofmann,
Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 145 ; Lutterbeck, II. p. 232 ff.) held to refer only to
believers. But ἕκαστος, ver. 23, requires us to think of the resurrection of
all (so also Olshausen, de Wette) ; for otherwise we should have to seek the
πάντες collectively in the second class ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, so that οἱ τοῦ
Χριστοῦ and the πάντες would cover each other, and there could be no men-
tion at all of an ἕκαστος ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι in reference to the πάντες. Accord-
ingly we must not restrict (wor. to blessed life, and perhaps explain (so de
Wette, comp. also Neander in loc. ; Messner, Lehre der Apost. p. 291 f. ;
Stroh, Christus d. Erstl. d. Entschlaf. 1866) its universality (πάντες) from the
(not sanctioned by the N. T.) ἀποκατάστασις πάντων (comp. Weizel in the
Stud. ει. Krit. 1836, p. 978; Kern in the Jib. Zeitschr. 1840, 3, p. 24).
Neither must we so change the literal meaning, as to understand it only of
the destination? of all to the blessed resurrection (J. Miiller in the Stud. wu.
Krit. 1835, p. 751), or as even to add mentally the condition which holds
universally for the partaking in salvation (Hofmann)— which alteration of
what is said categorically into a hypothetical statement is sheer arbitrariness,
On the contrary, ζωοποιηθ. (see also ver. 36), confronted with the quite uni-
versal assertion of the opponents that a resurrection of the dead is a non ens
(vv. 12-16), is in and by itself indifferent (comp. Rom. iv. 17 ; 2 Kings v.
7; Neh. ix. 6; Theod. Isa. xxvi. 14; Lucian, V. H. i. 22), the abstract
opposite of θάνατος (comp. ver. 36), in connection with which the concrete
difference as regards the different subjects is left for the reader himself to
infer. As early interpreters as Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, and Theodoret
1 Von Zezschwitzin the Hrlang. Zeitschr. 2 Comp. Krauss, p. 107 ff., who finds in the
1863, Apr. p. 197. Comp. also Luthardt, v.d. whole chain of thought the ἀποκατάστασις
letzten Dingen, p. 125. TOV πάντων.
OHAPS XV. 205: 909
have rightly understood πάντες ζωοπ. not simply of the blessed resurrection,
but generally of bodily revivification, and without limiting or attaching con-
ditions to the πάντες. It denotes all without exception, as is necessary
from ver. 23, and in keeping with the quite universal πάντες of the first half
of the verse. See, too, on ver. 34. In opposition to the error regarding
the Apokatastasis, see generally Philippi, Glaubenslehre, III. p. 372 ff. ;
Martensen, Dogmat. § 286. (55)
Ver. 23. Hach, however, in his own division, sc. ζωοποιηθήσεται. ---- τάγμα] does
not mean order of succession, but is a military word (division of the army, le-
gion, Xen. Mem. iii. 1. 11, and see the passages in Wetstein and Schweig-
hiiuser, Lev. Polyb. p. 610 f.), so that Paul presents the different divisions of
those that rise under the image of different troops of an army. In Clement
also, Cor. i. 37, 41, this meaning should be retained. — ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός] as
Jirst-fruits Christ, namely, vivificatus est. What will ensue in connection
with the arapy7, after the lapse of the period between it and the Parousia, be-
longs to the future. It would appear, therefore, as though ἀπαρχὴ X. were
not pertinent here, where the design is to exhibit the order of the future
resurrection (ver. 22). But Paul regards the resurrection of all, including
Christ Himself, as one great connected process, only taking place in several
acts, so that thus by far the greater part indeed belongs to the future, but,
in order not simply to the completeness of the whole, but at the same time
for the sure guarantee of what was to come, the arapyf also. may not be left
unmentioned. There is no ground for importing any further special design ;
in particular, Paul cannot have intended to counteract such conceptions, as
that the whole τάγμα must forthwith be made alive along with its leader
(von Zezschwitz), or to explain why those who have fallen asleep in Christ
continue in death and do not arise immediately (Hofmann). For no reader
could expect the actual resurrection of the dead before the Parousia ; that
was the postulate of the Christian hope.'—We may note that, in using ἀπαρχή,
Paul departs again from his military mode of conception as expressed in
τάγμα ; Otherwise he would have written ἀρχός, ἀρχηγός, ἔπαρχος, κορυφαῖος,
or something similar. —oi τοῦ Χριστοῦ] the Christians, Gal. v. 24; 1 Thess.
iv. 16. —év τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ] at His coming to set up the Messianic kingdom,
Matt. xxiv. 3; 1 Thess, ii. 19, iii. 18, iv. 15; Jas. v. 7f.; 1 John il. 285
2 Pet. iii. 4. Paul accordingly describes the τάγμα which rises first after
Christ Himself (as the arapyf) thus : thereafter shall the confessors of Christ
be raised up at His Parousia. It is opposed to this—the only correct—
meaning of the words to restrict oi τοῦ Χριστοῦ to the true Christians (οἱ πιστοὶ
καὶ οἱ εὐδοκιμηκότες, Chrysostom), and thereby to anticipate the judgment (2
Cor. v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10), or to include along with them the godly of the
Old Testament, as Theodoret, and of late Maier, have done. Not less con-
.trary to the words is it to explain away the Parousia, as van Hengel does :
‘‘ qui sectatores Christi fuerunt, guwm ille hac in terra erat.” This is gram-
matically incorrect, for the article would have needed to be repeated ;? in-
1This applies also against the view of no other of them that sleep arisen, seeing
Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 429, that Paul wishes that Christ has truly arisen already?
to anticipate the question, Why, then, has 2 Because ἐν τῇ παρουσ. αὐτοῦ does not
356 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
appropriate as regards expression, for ἡ παρουσία τοῦ X. is in the whole New
Testament the habitual technical designation of the /ast coming of Christ ;
and lastly, missing the mark as to meaning, since it would yield only a non-
essential, accidental difference as to the time of discipleship as the criterion of
distinction (Matt. xx. 16). (?) — ἔπειτα is simply thereafter, thereupon, look-
ing back to the ἀπαρχή, not following next, as Hofman would have it. The
intervening period is the time running on to the Parousia. Hofmann inap-
propriately compares the use of the word in Soph. Ant. 611, where τὸ ἔπειτα
occurs and denotes what follows immediately next ; see Schneidewiin on
Soph. 1.6. ; also Hermann in loc: ‘‘a quo proximum est cum eoque cohaeret.”
Ver. 24. Εἶτα τὸ τέλος] 80. ἔσται. Then shall the end be, namely, as is clear
from the whole context, the end of the resurrection. Bengel puts it aptly :
‘“correlatum primitiarum” (comp. Matt. xxiv. 14, where τὸ τέλος is correla-
tive with ἀρχή in ver. 8, also Mark xiii. 7, 9) ; although Christ is only the
Jirst-fruits of the believers, He is nevertheless at the same time the begin-
ning of all. According to Paul, therefore, the order of the resurrection is
this: (1) it has begun already with Christ Himself ; (2) at Christ’s return
to establish His kingdom the Christians shall be raised up ; (8) thereafter
—how soon, however, or how long after the Parousia, is not said ’—sets in
the last act of the resurrection, its close, which, as is now self-evident after
what has gone before, applies to the non-Christians.* These too shall, it
is plain, be judged (vi. 2, xi. 32), of which their resurrection is the necessary
premiss (in opposition to Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 430 f.). Paul has thus con-
joined the doctrine of Judaism regarding a twofold resurrection (Bertholdt,
Christol. pp. 176 ff., 203 ff.) with the Christian faith, in accordance with
the example of Christ Himself (see on Luke xiv. 14; John v. 29). The
majority of interpreters after Chrysostom (including Reiche, Ewald, Maier)
understand τὸ τέλος of the end of the present age of the world,*® the jinal con-
summation (Weiss), the closing issue of things (Luthardt, v. d. letzten Dingen,
p. 127), which includes also the resurrection of all men. (vu?) In connection
with this Riickert thinks (comp. Kling, p. 505) that εἶτα indicates the im-
mediate following, one upon the other, of the ἀνάστασις and the τέλος ; Ols-
hausen, again, that Paul conceived the thousand years of the Messianic
kingdom to come in between the Parousia, and the τέλος, and the resurrec-
tion of the non-Christians to be joined together with the τέλος. But against
the latter view it may be urged that, according to the constant doctrine of
blend together with oi τοῦ X. into a unity cord with Paul nor with the New Testa-
of conception ; as, for example, τοῖς πλου-
σίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι, 1 Tim. vi. 17, where τοῖς
πλουσ. receives an essential modification of
the conception by the note of time added.
1 Within this intermediate time falls the
continued conquest of Christ over all hos-
tile powers, vv. 24, 25, whose subjugation
will not yet be completed at the Parousia.
This also in opposition to Weiss, ib/. Theol.
p. 427. To import into this period a process
of redemption for the non-Christians and
the wicked (Weizel, Stroh), is neither in ac-
ment generally.
2 Van Hengel, too, takes it rightly of the
closing act of the resurrection, but explains
this in consequence of his incorrect under-
standing of ot rod X. ἐν τῇ παρουσ. αὐτοῦ:
“tum ceteri Christi sectatores, qui mortem
subierant, in vitam restituentur.”
3 Comp. Calvin: ‘‘ finis, i.e. meta cursus
nostri, quietus portus, conditio nullis am-
plius mutationibus obnoxia.’” Erasmus,
Paraphr.; “finis humanarum vicissitudt
num.”
CHAP. XV., 24: 35%
the New Testament (apart from Rev. xx.), with the Parousia there sets in
the jinis hujus saeculi, so that the Parousia itself is the terminal point of
the pre-Messianic, and the commencing-point of the future, world-period
(Matt. xxiv. 3, al.; Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 344). Against the former view it
may be decisively urged, that εἶτα τὸ τέλος in the asswmed sense would be
inappropriate here, where the order of the resurrection is stated and is
begun with ἀπαρχή ; further, that Paul would not have given, in any proper
sense at all, the promised order of succession, whether we take πάντες, ver.
22, simply of believers or correctly of all in general. For in the former case
there could be no mention at all of several τάγματα (see on ver. 22) ; and in
the latter case Paul would have passed over in silence the very greatest
τάγμα of all, that of those who died non-Christians. But how complete
and self-consistent everything is, if ἀπαρχή is the beginning, ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ
Χριστοῦ the second act, and εἶτα τὸ τέλος the last act of the same transaction !
So in substance among the old interpreters, Theodoret and Oecumenius,
later Cajetanus, Bengel, Jehne, de resurrect. carn. Alton. 1788, p. 19 ;
Heydenreich, Osiander, Grimm in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1850, p. 784. In ac-
cordance with what has been said, we must reject also the view of Grotius
and Billroth, that τὸ τέλος is the end of the kingdom of Christ (comp. Kahnis,
Dogm. 1. p. 575) ; in connection with which Billroth leaves it undecided
whether Paul conceived that there would be a thousand years’ reign, but
finds rightly that his conception is different from that of Rev. xx. 1 ff.’
The same considerations militate against this view as against that of Riick-
ert ; moreover, τέλος requires its explanation not from what follows, but
from what precedes it, with which it stands in the closest relation. This
also in opposition to de Wette (so, too, Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeit-
alter, p. 140 ; Neander in loc.), who understands the completion of the
eschatological events (comp. Beza), so that the general resurrection would be
included in the conception (comp. Theophylact : τὸ τέλος τῶν πάντων Kai αὐτῆς
τῆς ἀναστάσεως) ; similarly, therefore, as regards the latter point, with Lu-
thardt and Olshausen. Theodoret is right, in accordance with the Pauline
type of doctrine (comp. Matt. xiii. 39 f.), in remarking already at the pre-
ceding class (οἱ τοῦ X.): κατὰ τὸν τῆς συντελείας καιρόν. For the intervening
period between the ἔπειτα and the εἶτα is by no means to be reckoned to
the αἰὼν οὗτος, but to the αἰὼν μέλλων, of which it is the first stage in time
and development ; the absolute consummation is then the giving over of
the kingdom, which is immediately preceded by the last act of the resurrec-
1 According to the Apocalypse, between
the first and second resurrection there is
the thousand years’ reign, which ends with
Satan’s being again let loose and again over-
come and cast into hell. Olshausen, who
does not admit the variation of the Pauline
doctrine from the Apocalyptic, holds that
the Revelation, which handles the doctrine
ex professo, is only more detailed. But this
plea would only availif Paul had shown
himself to be a Chiliast somewhere else.
This, however, he has never done, often as
he had opportunity for doing so. In sub-
stance like Olshausen’sis the view of de
Wette and of Georgii in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1845,
1, p. 14, who, however, put this difference
between Paul and the author of the Apoc-
alypse, that the former leaves the duration
of the reign indefinite, and places the
Messiah’s conflict not at the end of this reg-
nal period, but throughout the whole time
ofits duration. But these differences are so
essential, that they would do away with
the agreement of the two.
358 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
tion (τὸ τέλος). Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. 11. 2, p. 657) takes
ro τέλὸς adverbially, and then the two clauses commencing with ὅταν as
protases to ἔσχατος, ἐχθρὸς καταργ. ὁ θάνατος, ver. 26, so that in this way δεῖ
yap αὐτὸν x.7.2., ver. 25, falls to the second of those two protases as a reason
assigned, inserted between it and the apodosis ; consequently : then shall
finally, when . . ., when . . ., the last enemy be brought to nought. This
bringing to nought of death, he holds, includes the raising to life of such
as, being ordained to life, did not belong to Christ during their bodily ex-
istence, and thus there is formed of these a second τάγμα, for the possibility
of which Hofmann adduces Rom. ii. 15 1. But in what an involved and
violent way are the simple, clear, and logically flowing sentences of the
apostle thus folded and fenced in, and all for the purpose of getting out of
them at last a second τάγμα, which, however, does not stand there at all,
but is only inserted between the lines ; and that, too, such a τάγμα as is
entirely alien to the New Testament eschatology, and least of all can be
established by Rom. ii. 15 f. (see im loc.) as even barely possible ! And
how unsuitable it is to treat ver. 25, although introduced with solemn words
of Scripture, as a subordinate sentence of confirmation, making the chain of
protases on to the final short principal sentence only the longer and clum-
sier ! In this whole section withal Paul employs only sentences of short
and simple construction, without any involved periods. It may be added
that, from a linguistic point of view, there would be nothing to object
against the adverbial interpretation of τὸ τέλος, considered solely in itself
(comp. 1 Pet. iii. 8) ; but, after the two elements which have gone before,
the substantive explanation is the only one which presents itself as accord-
ant with the context ; nay, the adverbial use would have here, as the whole
exegetical history of the passage shows, only led the understanding astray.
— ὅταν παραδιδῷ k.T.A.| states with what τὸ τέλος will be contemporaneous :
when he gives over the (Messianic) kingdom, ete. The church, or the fellow-
ship of believers (van Hengel), is never designated by ἡ βασιλ., not even vi.
9f.; Eph. v. 5; Col. 1. 18, iv. 11; neither is it so here. The conception,
on the contrary, is: the last act of Christ’s Messianic rule consists in the
close of the resurrection, namely, the raising up of the non-Christians ;'
this He performs when He is about to hand over the rule to God, after
which the last-named wields the government Himself and immediately, and
Christ’s Messianic, and in particular His kingly office—the regency which
had been entrusted to Him by God (Phil. ii. 9 f.)—is accomplished. It
was a purely dogmatic (anti-Arian) explaining away of the clear meaning
of the word to take παραδιδόναι as equivalent to κατορθοῦν (Chrysostom) or
τελειοῦν (Theophylact) ; such, too, was the interpretation of Theodoret,
Ambrosiaster, Cajetanus, Estius, and others, including Storr and Flatt, ac-
cording to which the giving over of the kingdom to the Father denotes the
producing the result, that God shall be universally acknowledged as the su-
preme Ruler, even by those who did not wish to acknowledge Him as such.
1 With which their judgment is necessarily latter as included was not called for by the
bound up; but an express mention of the connection of the passage.
CHAP. XV., 24, 359
Hilary and Augustine (de Trin. i. 8) have another mode of explaining it
away : what is meant is the bringing of the elect to the vision of God ;
similarly van Hengel (comp. Neander): Paul means to say, ‘‘ Christum
sectatores suos facturum peculium Dei, ut ei vivant ;’ and in like manner
Beza, Heydenreich : we are to understand it of the presentation of the citi-
zens of the kingdom, raised from the dead, before God. Another mode is that
of Calovius, Bengel, Osiander, Reiche, al. (comp. also Gess, Pers. Chr. p.
280): itis only the form of the rule of Christ (namely, as the reconciler)
that ceases then ; the regnum gratiae ceases, and the regnum gloriae fol-
lows, which is what Luther’s and Melanchthon’s exposition’ also comes to in
substance. No ; Christ, although by His exaltation to the right hand of
the Father He has become the σίνθρονος of God, is still only He who is in-
vested with the sovereignty by the Father until all hostile powers are over-
come (comp. Phil. ii. 9 ff.; Eph. i. 21; Acts ii. 33 ff.; Heb. i. 3, 13),? so
that the absolute supreme sovereignty, which remains with the Father, is
again immediately exercised after that end has been attained ; the work of
Christ is then completed ; He gives up to the Father the Messianic admin-
istration of the kingdom, which has continued since His ascension.* The
thought is similar in Pirke Elies. 11. ‘‘ Nonus rex est Messias, qui reget
ab extremitate una mundi ad alteram. Decimus Deus S. B.; tune redibit
regnum ad auctorem suum.” We must not mix up the spiritual βασιλεία,
John xviii. 37, here, where the subject is the exalted Lord. —r@ θεᾷ x.
πατρί] God, who is at the same time Father, namely, of Jesus Christ. - Comp.
Rom. xv. 6; 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31; Gal. i. 3; Eph. i. 3, v. 20; Col. i. 3; 1
Pet. i. 3 ; Jas. i. 27, iii. 9. Estius says rightly : ‘‘ unus articulus utrumque
complectens.” See Matthiae, p. 714 f., and on Rom. xv. 6. That Paul,
however, means by πατὴρ Χριστοῦ, not the supernatural bodily generation,
but the metaphysical spiritual derivation, according to which Christ is κατὰ
πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης the Son of God, see on Rom. i. 4.—But this giving over of
the kingdom will not take place sooner than : ὅταν καταργήσῃ «.t.A., when He
shall have done away, etc. Observe the difference of meaning between érav
with the present (παραδιδῷ) and with the aorist (futur. exact.). See Mat-
thiae, p. 1195. And this difference of tense shows of itself that of the two
clauses introduced with érav, this second one is subordinated to the first,
and not co-ordinated with it (Hofmann). Hence, too, we have no καί or τέ
with the second ὅταν. It is the familiar phenomenon of the double protasis,
the one being dependent on the other (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 35 ;
Anab. iii, 2. 91). --- πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν. . . δύναμ. every dominion and every power
and might, is to be understood, as ver. 25 proves clearly, of all hostile powers,
of all influences opposed to God, whose might Christ will bring to nought
1 Luther : Christ is now ruling through the
word, not in visible public fashion, as we
see the sun throughacloud. ‘ There we see
indeed the light, but not the sun itself; but
when the clouds are gone, then we see both light
and sun together in one and the same subsist-
ence.’ Melanchthon: ‘‘Offeret regnum
patri, i.e. ostendct has actiones (namely, of
the mediatorial office), completas esse, et
deinde simul regnabit ut Deus, immediate di-
vinitatem nobis ostendens.”’ “
2 Comp. upon the relation of the dominion
of Christ, as conferred by the supreme Sover-
eign, the parable in Luke xix. 12 ff.
3Comp. yon Zezschwitz, J.c.
Luthardt, /.c. p. 128.
p. 208;
360 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(katapy., comp. ii. 6); consequently we may not explain it simply of de-
moniac powers (Chrysostom, Calovius, and others, including Heydenreich,
Billroth, Usteri, Neander, Luthardt), nor refer it to worldly political powers
as such (Grotius). In opposition to the context on account of τοὺς ἐχθρούς,
ver. 25, Calvin interprets it (comp. Cajetanus) : ‘‘ potestates legitimas a Deo
ordinatas ; and Olshausen understands all rule, good as well as bad, and even
that of the Son also, to be meant. The subject of xatapy. must, it may be
added, be the same with that of παραδιδῷ, consequently not God (Beza,
Grotius, Bengel, Heydenreich, van Hengel, and others).
Vv. 25-28. Establishment of the fact that Christ will not deliver up the
kingdom until after the doing away of every dominion, etc. (vv. 25-27,
down to πόδας αὐτοῦ), but that then this abdication will assuredly follow (vv.
27-28).—For He must (it is necessary in accordance with the divine counsel)
reign (wield the Messianic government) wntil, etc. The emphasis of the
sentence as it advances falls on this wntil, etc.— ἄχρις οὗ x.t.A.] words taken
from Ps. cx. 1,—a Messianic psalm, according to Christ Himself (Matt.
xxii. 43 f.),—which Paul does not quote, but appropriates for himself. The
subject to θῇ is not God (so even Hofmann), but Christ (so Riickert, de
Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald, Maier, comp. already Chrysostom),
which is necessarily required by the preceding αὐτόν, and by καταργήσῃ in
ver. 24, to which θῇ «.7.2. corresponds.’ Not till ver. 27 does God come in
as the subject without violence and in harmony with the context.— ἄχρις οὗ
indicates the terminus ad quem of the dominion of Christ, after which
epoch this dominion will have ceased ; see on ver. 24. The strange shifts
which have been resorted to in order to maintain here the subsequent con-
tinuance of the rule of Christ (οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος Was added to
the Nicene Creed in opposition to Marcellus in the second Oecumenical
Council), may be seen in Estius and Flatt. His kingdom continues, but not
His regency, ver. 24. The seeming contradiction to Luke i. 33 (Dan. vii.
14) is got rid of by the consideration that the government of Christ lasts on
into the αἰὼν μέλλων, and that after its being given over to the Father, the
kingdom itself will have its highest and eternal completion (ver. 28); thus
that prophecy receives its eschatological fulfilment. (v*)
Ver. 26. More precise definition of the ἄχρις οὗ by specification of the
enemy who is last ef all to be brought to nought. As last enemy (whose
removal is dealt with after all the others, so that then none is left remain-
ing) is death done away (by Christ), (w?) inasmuch, namely, as after comple-
tion of the raising of the dead (of the non-Christians also, see on ver. 22)
the might of death shall be taken away, and now there occurs no more any
state of death, or any dying. The present sets it before us as realized.
Olshausen imports arbitrarily the idea that in ἔσχατος there lies a reference
not simply to the time of the victory, but also to the greatness of the resist-
ance. To understand Satan (Heb. ii. 14) to be meant by θάνατος, with
Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 373, and others, following Pelagius, is without warrant
1 Weare not, however, on this account to pronoun has proceeded from the standpoint
write πόδας αὑτοῦ instead of π. αὐτοῦ : the of the writer.
CHAP. XV., 21. 361
from linguistic usage, and without ground from the context. As regards
the personification of the death, which is done away, comp. Rev. xx. 14 ;
Isa. xxv. 8.’
Ver. 27. Πάντα yap... αὐτοῦ] Proof that death also must be done away.
This enemy cannot remain in existence, for otherwise God would not
have all things, etc. The point of the proof lies in πάντα, as in Heb. ii. 8.—
The words are those of Ps. vill. 7, which, as familiar to the reader (comp.
on Rom. ix. 7; Gal. ii. 11), Paul makes his own, and in which he, laying
out of account their historical sense, which refers to the rule of man over
the earth, recognizes, as is clear from ὅταν δὲ εἴπῃ κ.τ.λ., a typical declaration
of God, which has its antitypical fulfilment in the completed rule of the
Messiah (the δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος, ver. 47). Comp. Eph. i. 22; Heb. ii. 8. —
The subject of ὑπέταξε (which expresses the subjection ordained by God in
the word of God) is God, as was obvious of itself to the reader from the
familiar passage of the psalm. If God has in that passage of Ps. viii. sub-
jected all to the might of Christ, then death also must be subdued by Him;
otherwise it is plain that one power would be excepted from that divine
subjection of all things to Christ, and the πάντα would not be warranted. —
ὅταν δὲ εἴπῃ k.T.A.| dé leading on, namely, to the confirmation of the giving
over of the kingdom to God, for which proof is still to be adduced: ‘‘ but,
when He shall have said that the whole is subjected, then without doubt He
will be excepted from this state of subjection, who has subjected the whole
to Him.” The subject of εἴπῃ is not ἡ γραφή (de Wette, al.), but neither is it
Christ (Hofmann), but the same as of ὑπέταξεν, therefore God, whose word
that passage of the psalm adduced is not as regards its historical connec-
tion, but is so simply as a word of Scripture. Comp. on vi. 16. The qorist
eixy is to be taken regularly, not, with Luther and the majority of inter-
preters: when He says, but, like vv. 24, 28, as futurwm exactum : dixerit
(Irenaeus, Hilary). So, too, Hofmann rightly.2 Comp. Luke vi. 26. Plato,
Parm. Ὁ. 148 C; Ion. p. 535 B; also ἐὰν εἴπῃ, x. 28, xii..15. The point of
time of the quando, ὅταν, is that at which the now still unexecuted πάντα
ὑπέταξεν shall be executed and completed ; hence, also, not again the
aorist, but the perfect ὑποτέτακται. The progress of the thought is there-
fore : ‘‘ But when God, who in Ps. viii. 7 has ordained the ὑπόταξις, shall
have once uttered the declaration, that it be accomplished—this ὑπόταξις.""
This form of presenting it was laid to the apostle’s hand by the fact that he
had just expressed himself in the words of a saying of Scripture (a saying of
God). In Heb. i. 6 also the aorist is not to, be understood as a present, but
(πάλιν) as a futurum exactum. See Liinemann in loc. — δῆλον ὅτι] Adverbial,
1 [The meaning of this verse, here correct-
ly given, does not seem to me to be ex-
say: πάντα ὑποτέτακται." But with what
difficulty could a reader light upon the
pressed in the A. V. or in the revision of
1881.—T. W. C.]
2Who, however, with his reference of
εἴπῃ to Christ as its subject gains the con-
ception: ‘‘As Christ at the end of His
obedience on earth said : τετέλεσται, SO Shall
He at the end of His reign within the world
analogy of that τετέλεσται ! How naturally,
on the contrary, would he be led to think
of the subject of ὑπέταξεν, consequently
God, as the speaker also in εἴπῃ This ap-
plies also in opposition to Luthardt, /.c. p.
131.
362 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
in the sense of manifestly, assuredly ; therefore: it (namely, the πάντα ὑποτέ-
τακται) will clearly take place with the exception of Him, who, etc. See regard-
ing this use of δῆλον ὅτι, which has to be analyzed by means of supplying
the preceding predicate, Matthiae, p. 1494 ; Sturz, Lev. Xen. I. p. 661 f.;
Buttmann, ad Plat. Crit. p. 53 A (p. 106).. According to Hofmann, δῆλον
ὅτι is meant as, namely, as it is used likewise in Greek writers, and especially
often in grammarians (not Gal. iii. 11); from δῆλον to πάντα is only an
explanation interposed, after which the former ὅταν δὲ εἴπῃ x.7.2. is shortly
resumed by ὅτων δὲ ὑποταγῇ x.7.2., ver. 28. See regarding δέ after paren-
theses or interruptions, Hartung, Partik. I. p.172 f. But, in the first place,
δῆλον ὅτι k.T.2. 15. a very essential point, no mere parenthetic thought in the
course of the argument ; and, secondly, the resumption after so short and
plain an intercalation would be alike uncalled for, and, through the
change in the mode of expression (not again with εἴπῃ), obscure. — ἐκτὸς τοῦ
ὑποτάξ.] 1.6. with the exception of God; but Paul designates God as the
subjecting subject: ‘* quo clarius in oculos incurreret, rem loqui ipsam,” van
Hengel.
Ver. 28. What Paul had just presented in the, as it were, poetically ele-
vated form ὅταν δὲ εἴπῃ k.t.4., he now sums up in the way of simple state-
ment by ὅταν δὲ ὑποταγῇ «.t.4., in order to make the further element in his
demonstration follow in accordance with the δῆλον ore x.t.2. — καὶ αὐτός] the
Son Himself also shall be subjected,' not of course against His will, but as
willingly yielding compliance to the expiry of His government. The Son
wills what the Father wills; His undertaking is now completed—the be-
coming subject is His ‘‘ last duty” (Ewald). Here, too, especially by the
older interpreters, a great deal of dogmatic theology has been imported, in
order to make the apostle not teach—what, in truth, he does teach with the
greatest distinctness—that there is a cessation of the rule of Christ. The
commonest expedient (so Augustine, de Trin. i. 8, and Jerome, adv. Pelag.
i. 6, and the majority of the older expositors) is that Christ according to His
human nature is meant, in connection with which Estius and Flatt take
iroray. as : it will become very manifest that, etc. Ambrosiaster, Athanasius,
and Theodoret even explained it, like Χριστός in xii. 12, of the corpus Christi
mysticum, the church. Chrysostom also imports the idea (comp. Theophylact
and Photius in Oecumenius) that Paul is describing τὴν πολλὴν πρὸς τὸν
πατέρα ὁμόνοιαν. --- iva ἢ ὁ θεὸς τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν] aim not of ὑποτάξαντι avr. τ. 7.
(Hofmann), but of αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσ. x.t.2., Which is indeed the main
point in the progress of the argument, the addition of its final aim now
placing the reader at the great copestone of the whole development of the
history of salvation. The object aimed at in the Son’s becoming subject
under God is the absolute sovereignty of God: ‘‘in order that God may be
the all in them all,” i.e. in order that God may be the only and the immedi-
ate all-determining principle in the inner life of all the members of the king-
dom hitherto reigned over by Christ.2 Not as though the hitherto
1 ὑποταγήσεται is to be left passive (in op- ἕκων, Comp. ver. 2%.
position to Hofmann). God is the ὑποτάσσων. 2Melanchthon: “Deus. . . immediate
Comp. Rom. viii. 20. But Christ is subject se ostendens, vivificans et effundens {2
CHAP. XV., 29: 363
continued rule of Christ had hindered the attainment of this end (as Hof-
mann objects), but it has served this end as its final destination, the com-
plete fulfilment of which is the complete ‘‘ glory of God the Father” (Phil.
ji. 11) to eternity. ‘‘Significatur hic novum quiddam, sed idem summum
ac perenne...; hic finiset apex ; ultra ne apostolus quidem quo eat habet,”
Bengel. According to Billroth, this expresses the realization of the iden-
tity of the finite and the infinite spirit, which, however, is unbiblical.’ See
in opposition to the pantheistic misunderstanding of the passage, J. Miiller,
υ. d. Siinde, I. p. 158 f. Olshausen (following older interpreters in Wolf)
and de Wette (comp. Weizel and Kern, also Scholten in the Tib. Jahrb.
1840, 3, p. 24) find here the doctrine of restoration favoured also by
Neander, so that ἐν πᾶσι would apply to all creatures, in whom God shall be
the all-determining One. But that would involve the conversion even of
the demons and of Satan, as well as the cessation of the pains of hell, which
is quite contrary to the doctrine of the New Testament, and in particular
to Paul’s doctrine of predestination. The fact was overlooked that ἐν πᾶσι
refers to the members of the kingdom hitherto ruled over by Christ, to whom
the condemned, who on the contrary are outside of this kingdom, do not
belong, and that the continuance of the condemnation is not done away
even with the subjugation of Satan, since, on the contrary, the latter him-
self by his subjugation falls under condemnation. See, moreover, against
the interpretation of restoration, on ver. 22, and Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 431 ;
Georgii in the Tid. Jahrb. 1845, 1, p. 24 ; van Hengel in loc. —év πᾶσιν] is
just as necessarily masculine as in Col. iii. 11. The context demands this
by the correlation with αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς x.7.4., for up to this last consummation the
Son is the regulating governing principle in all, but now gives over His king-
dom to the Father, and becomes Himself subject to the Father, so that then
the /atter is the all-ruling One in al/, and no one apart from Him in any.
This in opposition to Hofmann, who takes ἐν πᾶσιν as neuter, of the world,
namely, with regard to which God will constitute the entire contents of its
being in such a way as to make it wholly the created manifestation of His
nature ; the new heaven and the new earth, 2 Pet. iii. 13, is only another
expression, he holds, for the same thing. This introduction of the palin-
genesis of the universe, which is quite remote from the point here, is a con-
sequence of the incorrect reference of iva (see above). Moreover, if the
meaning was to be : ““ All in the all,” πᾶσι would require the retrospective
article, which πάντα has in ver. 27 and ver. 28a. See a number of examples
of πάντα and τὰ πάντα ἔστι in the specified sense in Wetstein, Locella, ad
Xen. Eph. p. 209. Comp. on Col. iii. 11, and Hermann, ad Viger. Ὁ. 727.
(x’)
Ver. 29.? ’Erei] for, if there is nothing in this eschatological development
beatos suam mirandam lucem, sapientiam,
justitiam et laetitiam.”’
1 Equally unbiblical are the similar inter-
pretations of the perishing (ἀπώλεια) of the
individual existence and the regeneration
of the universe to form an immediate abso-
lute theocracy (Beck, comp. Rothe).
2 See on the passage, Riickert, Hapos. loci
P. 1 Gor. xv. 29, Jena, 1847; Otto in his
dekalog. Unters. 1857; Diestelmann in the
Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1861, p. 522 ff.; Linder in
the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 571 f., and in the
Luther. Zeitschr. 1862, p. 627 ff.; Isenberg in
the Meklenb. Zeitschr. 1864-65, p. 779 ff.;
364 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
onward to the end, when God will be all in all, what shall those do, i.e. how
absurdly in that case will those act, who have themselves baptized for the dead ?
Then plainly the result, which they aim at, is a chimera ! Usually interpret-
ers have referred ἐπεί back to ver. 20, and regarded what lies between as a
disgression ; Olshausen is more moderate, considering only vv. 25-28 in that
light, so also de Wette ; Riickert, again, holds that Paul had perhaps rested
from writing for a little after ver. 28,and had had the sentence ‘‘ the dead arise”
in his mind, but had not expressed it. Pure and superfluous arbitrariness ;
as always, so here too, ἐπεί points to what has immediately preceded. But,
of course, in this connection the final absolute sovereignty of God is con-
ceived as conditioned by the resurrection of the dead, which, after all that had
been previously said from ver. 20 onwards, presented itself to every reader as
a thing self-evident. Hofmann makes ἐπεί refer to the whole paragraph be-
ginning with ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός, as that is construed by him, down to ver. 26,
to which vv. 27, 28 have attached themselves as confirming the final abo-
lition of death. But see on vv. 24, 27.-—- Upon the words which follow all
possible acuteness has been brought into play, in order just to make the
apostle not say that which he says. — τί ποιήσουσιν) makes palpable the sense-
lessness, which would characterize the procedure in the case assumed by επεί.
The future is that of the general proposition,’ and applies to every baptism
of this kind which should occur. Every such baptism will be without any
meaning, if the deniers of the resurrection are in the right. Grotius : ‘‘ quid
efficient” (comp. Flatt). But that a baptism of such a kind effected anything,
was assuredly a thought foreign to the apostle. He wished to point out the
subjective absurdity of the procedure in the case assumed. The interpreta-
tion : ““ nescient quid agendum sit” (van Hengel) does not suit the connection,
into which Ewald also imports too much : ‘‘are they to think, that they
have cherished faith and hope in vain ?” --- ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν] The article is
generic. Every baptism which, as the case occurs, is undertaken for a dead
person, is a baptism for the dead, namely, as regards the category. It must
have been something not wholly unusual in the apostolic church, familiar-
ity with which on the part of the readers is here taken for granted, that
persons had themselves baptized once more for the benefit of (ὑπέρ) people
who had died unbaptized but already believing, in the persuasion that this
would be counted to them as their own baptism, and thus as the supple-
ment of their conversion to Christ which had already taken place inwardly,
and that they would on this account all the more certainly be raised up with
the Christians at the Parousia, and made partakers of the eternal Messianic
salvation.’ This custom propagated and maintained itself afterwards only
among heretical sects, in particular among the Cerinthians (Epiphanius,
Haer. xxviii. 7) and among the Marcionites (Chrysostom ; comp., moreover,
Koster in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1866, p. 15 ff.
Comp. also Elwert, Quaest. et obss. ad philol.
sacram., Tiib. 1860, p. 12 ff. The various in-
terpretations of older expositors may be
seen especially in Wolf.
1 Comp. Kriiger, § liii. 7.1; Elwert, p. 17;
Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 457 ; ad Rom. ΤΙ, Ὁ. 9.
2 Tt is to be noted that Paul does not speak
at allin a self-inclusive way, as if of some-
thing common to all, but as of third persons,
τί ποιήσουσιν κιτιλ. He designates only those
who did it. Comp. already Scaliger.
CHAP. XV., 20: 365
generally Tertullian, de resurr. 48, adv. Mare. v. 10).} Among the great
multitude of interpretations (Calovius, even in his time, counts up twenty-
three), this is the only one which is presented to us by the words. Ambro-
siaster first took them so ;? among the later interpreters, Anselm, Erasmus,
Zeger, Cameron, Calixtus, Grotius, a/.; and recently, Augusti, Denkwirdigh.
IV. p. 119 ; Winer,, p. 165 [E. T. 219]; Billroth, Riickert, de Wette,
Maier, Neander, Grimm, Holtzmann (Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 741) also
Kling and Paret (in Ewald’s Jahrb. IX. p. 247 f.), both of which latter
writers call to their aid, on the ground, it is true, of xi. 30, the assumption
of a pestilence having then prevailed in Corinth. The usual objection, that
Paul would not have employed for his purpose at all, or at least not without
adding some censure, such an abuse founded on the belief in a magical
power of baptism (see especially, Calvin i loc.), is not conclusive, for Paul
may be arguing ev concesso, and hence may allow the relation of the matter to
evangelical truth to remain undetermined in the meantime, seeing that it does
not belong to the proper subject of his present discourse. The abuse in
question must afterwards have been condemned by apostolic teachers (hence
it maintained itself only among heretics), and no doubt Paul too aided in the
work of itsremoval. For to assume, with Baumgarten-Crusius (Dogmengesch.
II. p. 313), that he himself had never at all disapproved of the βαπτίζεσθαι
ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, or to place, with Riickert, the vicarious baptism in the same
line with the vicarious death of Christ, is to stand in the very teeth of the
fundamental doctrine of the Pauline gospel—that of faith as the subjective
ethical ‘‘ causa medians” of salvation. For the rest, Riickert says well :
“‘Usurpari ab eo morem, qui ceteroqui displiceret, ad errorem, in quo im-
pugnando versabatur, radicitus evellendum, ipsius autem reprehendendi
aliud tempus expectari.” The silent disapproval of the apostle is brought
in by Erasmus in his Paraphrase : ‘‘ Fidem probo, factum non probo ; nam
ut ridiculum est, existimare mortuo succurri baptismo alieno, ita recte cre-
dunt resurrectionem futuram.” Epiphanius, Haer. 28, explains it of the
baptism of the clinici, of the catechumens on their deathbed, who πρὸ τῆς
τελευτῆς λουτροῦ καταξιοῦνται. So Calvin, although giving it along with an-
other interpretation equally opposed to the meaning of the words ; also
Flacius, Estius, αἱ. But how can ὑπὲρ τ. vexp. mean jamjam morituri
(Estius) ! or how can the rendering ‘‘ wt mortuis, non vivis prosit” (Calvin)
lead any one to guess that the ‘‘baptismus clinicorum” was intended, eyen
1 Chrysostom says that among the Mar- βάπτισμα μὴ εἰληφότας. Tertullian does not
cionites, when a catechumen died unbap- name the Marcionites, but quotes the ex-
tized, some one hid himself under the bed ; planation of our text as applying to the
then they asked the dead man if he wished __ vicarious baptism, without approving of it.
to be baptized,and on the living one answer- 2“In tantum stabilem et ratam vult
ing affirmatively, they baptized the latter ostendere resurrectionem mortuorum, ut
ἀντι τοῦ ἀπελθόντος. Of the Cerinthians, exemplum det eorum, qui tam securi erant
again, Epiphanius says, /.c. ; καὶ τὶ παραδό- de futura resurrectione, ut etiam pro mor-
σεως πρᾶγμα ηλθεν εἰς ἡμᾶς, ὡς τινῶν μὲν Tap’ tuis baptizarentur, 51 quem mors praeve-
αὐτοῖς προφθανόντων τελευτῆσαι ἄνευ βαπτίσ- nisset, timentes ne aut male aut non resur-
ματος, ἄλλους δὲ ἀντ᾽ αὐτῶν cis ὄνομα ἐκείνων geret, qui baptizatus non fuerat.
βαπτίζεσθαι ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει Exemplo hoc non factum illorum probat, sed
ἀναστάσαντας αὐτοὺς δικὴν δοῦναι τιμωρίας, fidem fixam in resurrectione ostendit.”
366 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
supposing that it had been already customary at that time !’ Chrysostom,
too, runs counter to the words : ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, τουτέστι TOV σωμάτων, Kai yap
ἐπὶ τοῦτο βαπτίζῃ, Tov νεκροῦ σώματος ἀνάστασιν πιστεύων. Paul, he holds, has
in view the article in the baptismal creed (which, however, certainly belongs
only to a later time) : ‘‘I believe in a resurrection of the dead.” So, too,
on the whole, Pelagius, Oecumenius, Photius, Theophylact, Melanchthon
(‘* profitentes de mortuis”), Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Er. ‘Schmid, and others ;
and somewhat to the same effect also Wetstein. Comp. yet earlier, Tertul-
lian : ‘pro mortuis tingi pro corporibus est tingi.” Theodoret gives it a
different turn, but likewise imports a meaning, making the reference to be
to the dead body : ὁ βαπτιζόμενος, φησι, τῷ δεσπότῃ συνθάπτεται, iva τοῦ θανάτου
κοινωνῆσας καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως γένηται κοινωνός" εἰ δὲ νεκρόν ἐστι τὸ σῶμα,
καὶ οὐκ ἀνίσταται, τί δῆποτε καὶ βαπτίζεται. Luther's explana-
tion, adopted again recently by Ewald and others, that ‘‘ to confirm the resur-
rection, the Christians had themselves baptized over the graves of the dead” (so
Glass and many of the older Lutherans ; Calovius leaves us to choose be-
tween this view and that of Ambrosiaster), has against it, apart even from
the fact that ὑπέρ with the genitive in the local sense of over is foreign to
the New Testament, the following considerations : (1) that there is a lack
of any historical trace in the apostolic period of the custom of baptizing
over graves, such as of martyrs (for Eusebius, H. Ε΄. iv. 15, is not speaking
of baptism), often as churches were built, as is well known, in later times
over the graves of saints ; (2) that we can see no reason why just the
baptism at such places should be brought forward, and not the regarding of
these spots as consecrated generally ; (9) that to mark out the burial-places of
pious persons who had fallen asleep, would have been in no way anything
absurd even without the belief in a resurrection. And lastly, baptism took
place at that time not in fonts or vessels of that kind, which could be set
over graves, but in rivers and other natural supplies of water. Other inter-
preters, following Pelagius, refer ὑπὲρ τ. vexp. to Christ, taking Barr. in some
cases of the baptism with water (Olearius, Schrader, Lange, Elwert) ; in
others, of the baptism with blood (Al. Morus, Lightfoot). τῶν vexp. would
thus be the plural of the category (see on Matt. ii. 20). But, putting aside
the consideration that Christ cannot be designated as νεκρός (not even ac-
cording to the view of the opponents), the baptism with water did not take
place ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ," but εἰς Χριστόν ; and the baptism with blood would have
required to be forcibly indicated by the preceding context, or by the addi-
tion of some defining clause. ‘‘ For the benefit of the dead ” remains the right
1 Bengel also understands it of those who
receive baptism, ‘‘quum mortem ante
oculos positam habent” (through age, sick-
ness, or martyrdom). Osiander agrees with
him. But how can ὑπὲρ 7. veep. mean that?
Equally little warrant is there for inserting
what Krauss, p. 130, imports into it, taking
it of baptism in the face of death: ‘‘ Who
caused themselves to receive a consecration
to life, while, notwithstanding, they 2ere
coming not to the living, but to the dead.”
3 Elwert, p. 15, defines the conception of
the βαπτίζεσθαι υπὲρ Χριστοῦ : ‘eo fine et
consilio, ut per baptismum Christo addic-
tus quaecunque suis promisit, tibi propria
facias.”’ But thatis plainly included in the
contents of the Barr. eis X. orév ὀνόματι
Tov κυρίου, and one does not see from this
why Paul should have chosen the peculiar
expression with ὑπέρ,
CHAP. XV., 29. - 367
interpretation. Olshausen holds this also, but expounds it to this effect,
that the baptism took place for the good of the dead, inasmuch as a certain
number, a πλήρωμα of believers, is requisite, which must first be fully made
up before the Parousia and the resurrection can follow. But this idea must
be implied in the connection ; what reader could divine it? Olshausen
himself feels this, and therefore proposes to render, ‘‘ who have themselves
baptized instead of the members removed from the church by death.” So,
too, in substance Isenberg (whose idea, however, is that of a militia Christi
which has to be recruited), and among the older interpreters Clericus on
Hammond, Deyling, Obss. II. p. 519, ed. 3, and Déderlein, Jnstit. I. p. 409.
But in that case ὑπὲρ τ. vexp. would be something not at all essential and
probative for the connection, since it is plain that every entrance of new
believers into the church makes up for the departure of Christians who have
died, but in this relation has nothing to do with the resurrection of the
latter. This at the same time in opposition to van Hengel’s interpretation,
about which he himself, however, has doubts: for the honour of deceased Chris-
tians, ‘‘ quos exteri vituperare vel despicere soleant.” According to Diestel-
mann, ὑπὲρ τ. v. is for the sake of the dead, and means: in order hereafter
united with them in the resurrection to enter into the kingdom of Christ ; while
the νεκροί are Christ and those fallen asleep in Him.’ But it is decisive against
this view, first, that there is thus comprised in the simple preposition, an
extent of meaning which the reader could not discover in it without more
precise indication ; secondly, that every baptism whatsoever would be also in
this assumed sense a βαπτίζεσθαι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, Whereby therefore nothing
distinctive would be said here, such as one could not but expect after the
quite singular expression ; thirdly, that Christ cannot be taken as included
among the vexpoi, seeing that the resurrection of the Lord which had taken
place was not the subject of the denial of resurrection here combated,
but its denial is attributed by Paul to his opponents only per consequen-
tiam, ver. 13. According to Késter, those are meant who have themselves
baptized for the sake of their Christian friends who have fallen asleep, 1.6.
out of yearning after them, in order to remain in connection with them,
and to become partakers with them of the resurrection and _ eternal
life. But in this way also a significance is imported into the simple
ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, which there is nothing whatever to suggest, and which
would have been easily conveyed, at least by some such addition as συγγενῶν
καὶ φίλων. According to Linder, the βαπτιζόμενοι and the νεκροί are held to
be even the same persons, so that the meaning would be : if they do not rise
(in gratiam cinerum), which, however, the article of itself forbids ; merely
ὑπὲρ νεκρῶν (vexp. would be in fact qualitative) must have been made use of,
and even in that case it would be a poetical mode of expression, which no
reader would have had any clue to help him to unriddle. Similarly, but with
a still more arbitrary importing of meaning, Otto holds that oi βαπτιζόμ. are
the deniers of the resurrection, who had themselves baptized in order
(which is said, according to him, ironically) to become dead instead of living
1 Comp., too, Breitschwert in the Wiirtemd. Stud. X. 1, p. 129 ff.
368 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
men. Most of all does Hofmann twist and misinterpret the whole passage
(comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 199 f.), punctuating it thus: ἐπεὶ τί
ποιήσ. οἱ Bart. ὑπὲρ TOV νεκρῶν, εἰ ὅλως νεκρ. οὐκ ἐγείρονται; τί καὶ βαπτίζονται ;
ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν τί καὶ ἡμεῖς κινδυνεύομεν ; the thought being : “Jf those, who by
means of sin lie in death, become subject in their sins to an utter death from which
there is no rising, then will those, who have themselves baptized, find no reason in
their Christian status to do anything for them, that may help them out of the
death in which they lie ;” nay, why do they then have themselves baptized ? and
why do we risk our lives for them? Ὑπὲρ τῶν vexp. thus belongs to τί ποιήσ. ;
the ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, placed for emphasis at the head of the last question, applies to
the βαπτιζόμενοι. Every point in this interpretation is incorrect ; for (1) to
do something for others, i.e. for their good, is an absolute duty, indepen-
dent of the question whether there be a resurrection or not. (2) But to do
something which will help them out of death, is not in the passage at all, but is
imported into it. (8) Those who can and should do something for others
are the Christians ; these, however, cannot have been designated so strangely
as by of βαπτιζόμενοι, but must have been called in an intelligible way oi
πιστεύσαντες perhaps, or at least oi βαπτισθέντες. (4) The vexpor can only, in
accordance with the context, be simply the dead, i.e. those who have died,
as through the whole chapter from ver. 12 to ver. 52. (5) To give to ὑπὲρ
αὐτῶν another reference than ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, is just as violent a shift as the
severance of either of the two from βαπτίζεσθαι, in connection with which
they are symmetrically requisite for more precise definition, and are so
placed. And when (6) ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν is actually made to mean ‘‘in order to in-
duce them to receive baptism,” this just crowns the arbitrariness of inserting
between the lines what the apostle, according to the connection, could
neither say nor think. Moreover, ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν could not have the emphasis,
but only the ἡμεῖς introduced with καί, like the βαπτίζ. previously introduced
with kai. — εἰ ὅλως νεκροὶ οὐκ éyeip.| Parallel to the conditional clause to be
supplied in connection with ἐπεί. For Paul conceives of the resurrection of
the dead as being so necessarily connected with the completion of the
Messianic kingdom that the denial of the one is also the denial of the other.
If universally (as v. 1) dead persons cannot be raised up, why do they have
themselves baptized also for them? since plainly, in that case, they would have
nothing at all to do for the dead. See, generally, on Rom. viii. 24 ; Pflugk,
ad Hee, 515 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 152. This ‘‘ also” betokens the (entirely
useless) superinduced. character of the proceeding. To refer εἰ éyeip. still to
what precedes (Luther and many others, the texts of Elzevir, Griesbach,
Scholz ; not Beza) mars the parallelism ; the addition of the conditional
clause to ἐπεί has nothing objectionable in itself (in opposition to van
Hengel), Plato, Prot. p. 318 B ; Xen. Anab. vi. i. 30, vii. 6. 22 ; 4 Macc.
viii. 8. (¥)
Ver. 30. How preposterously we also are acting in that supposed case ! —
καί] does not, as some fancy, determine the meaning of the preceding Barr.
to be that of a baptism of suffering, but it adds a new subject, whose con-
duct would likewise be aimless. — ἡμεῖς] 1] and my compeers, we apostolic
preachers of the gospel, we apostles and our companions. Paul then, in
CHAP) XV., 31,32. 369
ver. 31 f., adduces himself, his own fortunes, in an individualizing way as a
proof. The argument is, indeed, only for the continuance of the spirit
(comp. Cicero, Tuse. i. 15) ; but this, when hoped for as blessedness, has
with Paul the resurrection as its necessary condition.
Ver. 31. ᾿Αποθνήσκω] I am occupied with dying, am a moribundus. See
Bernhardy, p. 370, and van Hengel. Strong way of denoting the deadly
peril with which he sees himself encompassed daily. Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 11,
xi. 23 ; Rom. viii. 36, and the parallel’ passages in Wetstein. The perfect
as in Eur. Hee. 431, would have been still stronger. —v#]a very frequent
term of asseveration in classical writers (in the New Testament only here),
always with the accusative of the person or thing by which the asseveration
is made (Kiihner, II. p. 396). By your boasting, which I have in Christ, i.e.
as truly as I boast myself of you in my fellowship with Christ, in the service
of Christ. Comp. Rom. xv. 17. The boasting, which takes place on the
part of the apostle, is conceived of by him as a moral activity, which be-
longs to him. Comp. the opposite μομφὴν ἔχειν, μέμψιν ἔχειν, and the like,
Ellendt, Lev. Soph. I. p. 732. — ὑμετέραν] is to be understood objectively
(Matthiae, p. 1032 ; Mitzner, ad Antiph. p. 221 ; Kiihner, 11. ὃ 627, A. 6).
Comp. xi. 24; Rom. xi. 31. The expression brings out more strongly the
reference to the person (as truly as ye are the subject of my boasting). The
Corinthians, whose subsistence as a church is an apostolic boast for Paul.
can testify to himself what deadly perils are connected with his apostolic
work. He thus guards himself against every suspicion of exaggeration and
bragging. The asseveration does not serve to introduce what follows (Hof-
mann), since that does not come in again as an assertive declaration, but in
a conditional form.
Ver. 32. Something of a special nature after the general statement in ver.
31. — If I after the manner of men have fought with beasts in Ephesus, what is
the profit (arising therefrom) to me ?— κατὰ ἄνθρωπον] has the principal em-
phasis, so that it contains the element, from which follows the negative in-
volved in the question of the apodosis : ‘then it is profitless for me.” And
the connection yields from this apodosis as the meaning of κατὰ ἄνθρωπον :
after the manner of ordinary men, i.e. not in divine striving and hoping, but
only in the interest of temporal reward, gain, glory, and the like, whereby
the common, unenlightened man is wont to be moved to undertake great
risks. If Paul has fought in such a spirit, then he has reaped nothing from
it, for he καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἀποθνήσκει. The many varying explanations’ may be seen
in Poole’s Synopsis. Against Riickert, who explains it : ‘‘according to
human ability, with the exertion of the highest power,” it may be decisively
urged that κατὰ ἄνθρ. in all passages does not denote what is human per ev-
cellentiam. Tf, therefore, the context here required that κατὰ ἄνθρ. should ex-
press the measure of power (which reference, however, lies quite remote),
then we must explain it as : with ordinary human power, without divine power.
According to Riickert’s view, moreover, κατὰ ἄνθρ. would not be at all the
1 Chrysostom and Theophylact: ὅσον τὸ doret: κατὰ ἀνθρώπινον λογισμὸν θηρίων
εἰς ἀνθρώπους, as far as a beast-fight can ἐγενόμην Bopa,
take place in reference to men. Theo-
370 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
principal clement of the protasis, which, however, from its position it must
necessarily be. Interpretations such as exempli causa (Semler, Rosenmiiller,
Heydenreich), or ut hominum more loquar (Estius), are impossible, since
λέγω Or λαλῶ does not stand along with it. The conjecture was hazarded :
κατὰ ἀνθρώπων (Scaliger). — ἐθηριομάχησα] Onpiopaxetv, to fight with wild beasts
(Diod. iii. 42 ; Artem. ii. 54, v. 49), is here a significant figurative descrip-
tion of the fight with strong and exasperated enemies. So Tertullian (De resurr.
48: ‘‘depugnavit ad bestias Ephesi, illas sc. bestias Asiaticae pressurae”),
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Pelagius, Sedulius, Beza, Grotius,
Estius, Calovius, Michaelis, Zachariae, Valckenaer, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, as
well as Schrader, Riickert, Olshausen; de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald,
Maier, Hofmann, Krauss. Comp. Appian. B. C. p. 763 (in Wetstein),
where Pompeius says : οἵοις θηρίοις μαχόμεθα. Ignatius, ad Rom. 5 : ἀπὸ Συρίας
μέχρι Ῥώμης θηριομαχῶ διὰ γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης, ad Tars. 1, ad Smyrn. 4. Comp.
Tit. i. 12 ; ὃ Tim. iv. 17 ; Ignatius, ad Eph. 7, as also in classical writers
brutal men are called θηρία ; (Plato, Phaed. p. 240 B ; Aristophanes, Wu). 184 ;
Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. p. 114). See also Valckenaer, p. 332. Paul takes
for granted that his readers were acquainted with what he describes in such
strong language, as he might assume, moreover, that they would of them-
selves understand his expression figuratively, since they knew, in fact, his
privilege of Roman citizenship, which excluded a condemnation ad bestias,
ad leonem. His lost letter also may have already given them more detailed
information. Nothwithstanding, many interpreters, such as Ambrosias-
ter, Theodoret, Cajetanus, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Cornelius ἃ Lapide,
Lightfoot, Wolf, and others, including Flatt and Billroth, have explained
this of an actual fight with beasts, out of which he had been wonderfully de-
livered.' It is objected as regards the privilege of a Roman citizen (see in
particular Flatt), that Paul was in point of fact scourged, etc., Acts xvi.
22f. But in Acts, ἴ.6., Paul did not appeal to his right of citizenship, but
made it known only after he had suffered scourging and imprisonment,
whereupon he was forthwith set free, ver. 37 ff. Before he was thrown to
the beasts, however, he would, in accordance with his duty, have appealed
to his right of citizenship, and thereby have been protected. And would
Luke in the Acts of the Apostles have left unmentioned an incident so en-
tirely unique, which, among all the wonderful deliverances of the apostle,
would have been the most wonderful ? Would not Paul himself have named
it with the rest in 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff., and Clement in 1 Cor. 5 ?— Upon the
non-literal interpretation,? however, it cannot be proved whether a single
1 From this /iteral interpretation arose
the legend in the apocryphal Acta Pauli in
Nicephorus, H. Z. ii. 25 (p. 1%5, ed. Paris,
1630), that he was thown first of all to a
lion, then to other beasts, but was left un-
touched by them all.—Van Hengel (comp.
previously his Annot. p. 208), while likewise
holding fast the literal view, has explained
it only of a supposed case : ‘ Sumamus, me
Ephesi depugnasse cum feris,” etc. But
this would not at all fit into the connection
with the actual dangers and sufferings
which Paul has mentioned before. Ob-
serve, on the contrary, the climax: κινδυ-
νεύομεν, ἀποθνήσκω, ἐθηριομάχησα, which
latter word brings forward a particular in-
cident, which has occurred, as proof of the
general ἀποθνήσκω.
2 Which Krenkel also follows in Hilgen-
feld’s Zeitschr. 1866, p. 868 ff., assuming in
CHAP: KV; 33. 371
event, and if so, which, is meant. Many of the older expositors think, with
Pelagius, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, of the uproar of Demetrius in Acts
xix. But in connection with that Paul himself was not at all in danger ;
moreover, we must assume, in accordance with Acts xx. 1, that he wrote
before the uproar. Perhaps he means no single event at all, but the whole
heavy conflict which he had had to wage in Ephesus up to that time with ex-
asperated Jewish antagonists, and of which he speaks in Acts xx. 19 : μετὰ
. δακρύων κ. πειρασμῶν K.T.A.— Ti μοι τὸ ὄφελος ;] what does it profit me?
The article denotes the definite profit, conceived as resu/t. The self-evident
answer is : nothing! Comp. ix. 17. As the gain, however, which he gets
from his fight waged not κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, he has in view not temporal results,
founding of churches and the like, but the futwre glory, which is conditioved
by the resurrection of the dead (comp. Phil. iii. 10, 11) ; hence he continues :
εἰ νεκροὶ K.T.A. — εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρ.} is referred by the majority of the old
interpreters (not Chrysostom and Theophylact, but from Pelagius and
Theodoret onwards) to the preceding. It would then be a second condi-
tional clause to ri μοι τὸ ὄφελος (See on xiv. 6) ; but it is far more suitable to
the symmetry in the relation of the clauses (comp. ver. 29) to connect it
with what follows (Beza, Bengel, Griesbach, and later expositors). For the
rest, it is to be observed that εἰ vexp. οὐκ ἐγείρ. corresponds to the thought
indicated by κατὰ ἄνθρ. as being in correlative objective relation to it ; fur-
ther, that Paul has not put an οὖν or even a γάρ after εἰ, but has written
asyndetically, and so in all the more vivid and telling a manner ; likewise,
that for the apostle moral life is necessarily based on the belief in eternal
redemption, without which belief—and thus as resting simply on the ab-
stract postulate of duty—it cannot in truth subsist at all ; lastly, that the
form of a challenge is precisely fitted to display the moral sibenrcity of the
premiss in a very glaring light, which is further intensified by the fact that
Paul states the dangerous consequence of the earthly eudaemonism, which
τῇ γαστρὶ μετρεῖ καὶ τοῖς αἱσχίστοις τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν (Dem. 324, 24) in set words
of Scripture (comp. Chrysostom), LXX. Isa. xxii. 13. Analogies to this
Epicurean maxim from profane writers, such as Euripides, Alcest. 798, may
be seen in Wetstein ; Jacobs, Del. epigr. vii. 28; Dissen, ad Pindar. p.
500 ; comp. Nicostr. in Stob. Flor. Ixxiv. 64 : τὸ ζῆν οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἐστὶν ἢ ὅστις
ἂν φάγῃ. See also Wisd. ii. 1 ff. — αὔριον] light-minded concrete expression
for what is to be very soon. Comp. Theocr. xiii. 4. —It is not implied,
however, in αὔριον γὰρ ἀποθνήσι. that εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγ. includes the denial of
life after death absolutely (Flatt, Riickert, a/.), but Paul conceives of death
as the translation of the soul into Hades (comp. however, on Phil. i. 25 f.,
Remark), from which the translation of the righteous (to be found in Para-
dise) into the eternal Messianic life is only possible through the resurrec-
tion.
Ver. 33 f. The immoral consequence of the denial of the resurrection
(ver. 32) gives occasion to the apostle now in conclusion to place over
connection with it a use of language Marki. 13, which resolves itself into a hy-
among the primitive Christians based upon pothesis incapable of proof.
372 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
against that Epicurean maxim yet a word of moral warning, in order thereby
to express that the church should not be led astray, i.e. be seduced into
immorality (πλανᾶσθε, passive, see on vi. 9), by its intercourse with those
deniers who were in its bosom (τινὲς ἐν ὑμῖν, ver. 12 ; comp. ver. 34), —
φθείρουσιν K.t.2.] justification of the admonition μὴ πλανᾶσθε. The words
(forming an Iambic trimeter acatalectic’) are from the Thais of the comic
poet Menander (see his Fragmenta, ed. Meineke, p. 75); although it still
remains a question whether Paul really reeognized them as an utterance of
this comic poet (as a Μενάνδρειος φωνή, Lucian, Am. 43), or only generally
as a common Hellenic saying, which, just as such, may have been taken up
by that poet also. The latter is probable from the proverbial character of
the words, and in the absence of any indication whatsoever that they are the
words of another. Similar classical passages may be seen in Alberti, Obss.
p- 356 ff., and Wetstein. Comp. especially, Theognis 35 f. —%6y χρηστά]
good morals, the opposite being κακά, Soph. 0. R. 610, Antig. 516, and
πονηρά, Plato, Gorg. p. 499 E, Phil. p. 40 E ; Plat. Def. p. 412 ἘΞ: χρηστό-
της ἤθους ἀπλαστία per’ εὐλογιστίας. --- ὁμιλίαι κακαί] Vulgate : colloquia mala.
So Luther, Erasmus, and many, including van Hengel and Krauss. Comp.
Dem. 1468, 27, 1466, 2; Xen. Mem. i. 2.6. But the context does not
justify this restriction of the conception. Comp. Beza. Hence it is rather :
good-for-nothing intercourse, bad company. Regarding the plural, comp.
Plato, Pol. p. 550 B : ὁμιλίαις. .. κακαῖς κεχρῆσθαι, Soph. O. R. 1489 ; Xen.
Mem. iii. 7. 5, Hier. iv. 1. In the application the readers were meant to
think of intercourse with the deniers of the resurrection, to be on their
guard against moral contagion through them. — éxvipare δικαίως, κ. μὴ duapr. |
Parallel to μὴ πλανᾶσθε, but representing the readers as already disturbed in
the moral clearness and soundness of their judgment, already transferred
by the influence of those τινές, ver. 34, into a certain degree of moral bond-
age (intoxication); for the idea of being completely sobered from the con-
dition in which they were before their conversion (Hofmann) is remote from
the text, as, in particular, the very ground assigned, which immediately
follows, points to the hurtful influence of the τινές. He separates the church
from these individuals among her members ; the former is not to let herself
be injured through the latter (v. 6), but to become sober, in so far as she
has already through them experienced loss of moral soberness. Become sober
after the right fashion, properly as it behoves. Comp. Livy, i. 41 : exper-
giscere vere; Homer, Od. xiv. 90 : οὐκ ἐθέλουσι δικαίως μνᾶσθαι, Dem. 1180,
25. Comp. Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 547. As regards ἐκνήφειν, to become sober
in a non-literal respect, comp. Plutarch, Dem. 20; Aret. iv. 3; Joeli. 5.
Bengel, we may add, says well: ““ἐκνήψατε exclamatio plena majestatis
apostolicae.” The aorist imperative denotes the swift, instant realization
of the becoming sober ; μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε," on the contrary, requires the con-
1 The reading χρήσθ᾽ (Lachmann ; Elzevir, all.
with wrong accent : χρῆσθ᾽), which is, how- 3 The context gives no warrant for lend-
ever, almost without support, suits the ing (comp. on Eph. iy. 26) to the imperative
metre. According to the correct reading, vim fuluri (Bengel, Krauss). As regards
χρηστά, Paul has left the metrical form out {Π6 general μὴ ἁμαρτάνειν, comp. the ποιῆσαι,
of account, perhaps was not aware of it at κακὸν μηδέν, 2 Cor. xiii. 7.
CHAP. ΧΥ., 35. 373
tinuous abstinence from sinning. — ἀγνωσίαν γὰρ .t.2.] for some persons have
ignorance of God ; how carefully should you guard yourselves from being
befooled by such! ᾿Αγνωσία (1 Pet. ii. 15) is the opposite of γνῶσις, see
Plato, Pol. v. p. 477 A, Soph. p. 267 B. The τινές are those spoken of in
ver. 12, not, as Billroth arbitrarily assumes, only a small portion of them.
The nature of their unbelief in the resurrection is apprehended as in Matt.
Xxii. 29. The expression ἀγν. ἔχειν, ‘‘ gravior est phrasis quam ignorare,”
Bengel. They are affected with it. Comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 574
E. — πρὸς ἐντρ. iu. λέγω] For it disgraced the church, that such τινές were
within it ; all the more alert should it be. Comp. vi. 5, v. 6. Ὑμῖν be-
longs to λέγω.
Remark on vy. 32-34,—Billroth, followed by Olshausen, is too hasty in in-
ferring from ver. 32 that the opponents of a resurrection would themselves
have abhorred the maxim φάγωμεν x.7.A. Paul assumes of his readers generally
that they abhorred that maxim as anti-Christian ; but the τινές among them,
who denied the resurrection, must, according to the warning and exhortation
vv. 33, 34, have been already carried away in consequence of this denial to a
frivolous tendency of life ; otherwise Paul could not warn against being led
away by their immoral companionship (ver. 33). Nay, several others even
must already have become shaken in their moral principles through the evil
influence of the τινές ; else Paul could not give the exhortations which he does -
in ver. 34. For that, in ver. 33 f., he is not warning against mistaking and neg-
lecting of saving truths, as Hofmann thinks, but against corruption of wholesome
habits, consequently against immorality, is certain from ἤθη in the words of
Menander, and from μὴ dwapr. ; hence, also, the danger of going astray is not
to be conceived of as having arisen through intercourse with heathen fellow-
countrymen (Hofmann), but through association with those τινές in the church,
who had become morally careless by reason of the denial of the resurrection.
This is demanded by the whole connection. The τινές were sick members of
the church-body, whom Paul desires to keep from further diffusion of the evil,
alike in faith and in life.
Ver. 35. The discussion on the point, that the dead arise, is nere closed.
But now begins the discussion regarding the nature of the future bodies.
This is the second, the special part of the apology, directed, namely, against
the grownds upon which they disputed the resurrection. — ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις] but,
notwithstanding of my arguments hitherto adduced, some one will say.
Comp. Jas. ii. 18. ‘‘ Objicit in adversa persona quod doctrinae resurrecti-
onis contrarium prima facie videtur ; neque enim interrogatio ista quae-
rentis est modum cum dubitatione, sed ab impossibili arguentis,” Calvin. -—
πῶς] This general and not yet concretely defined expression is afterwards
fixed more precisely by ποίῳ δὲ σώματι. The oé places πῶς and ποίῳ δὲ σώματι
in such a parallel relation (see Hartung, Partik. I. p. 168 f.; Klotz, ad
Devar. p. 362) that it does not, indeed, mean or again (Hofmann), but sets
over aga.nst the πῶς that which is intended to be properly the scope of the
question : but (I mean) with what kind of a body do they come? Then from
ver. 36 onward there follows the answer to the question, which has been
thus more precisely formulated. — ἔρχονται] namely, to those still alive at the
874 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Parousia, 1 Thess. iv. 16 f. The presents éyeip. and épy. bring what is in
itself future vividly before us as a present object of contemplation. Comp.
Dissen, ad Pind. Nem. iv. 39. So the same tense may bring the past alsa
before us as present (Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p, 253). Erasmus puts it hap-
pily : ‘‘actio rei declaratur absque significatione temporis.”
Vv. 36-41. In the first place, analogies from the experience of nature,’ by
way of preparation for the instruction, which then follows at ver. 42 ff.,
regarding the ποιότης of the resurrection-body inquired about. — ἄφρων] The
deniers have thus, on the assumption of the identity of the resurrection-body
with the body which is buried, found the ποιότης of the former to be incon-
ceivable ; but how /oolish is this assumption ! The nominative is not address,
because without the article, but exclamation ; so that to explain it gram-
matically we must supply εἰ. Comp. Luke xii. 20 (Lachmann, Tischendorf),
and see, generally, Bernhardy, p. 67 ; Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 228] ; Kithner,
II. ὃ 507 6, Remark. — σὺ ὃ σπείρεις] What thou sowest, is not made alive, ete.
The ct has the emphasis of the subsequent contrast with the divine agency
in ver. 38: Thou on thy part; hence we must not take ἄφρων σύ together.
— ζωοποιεῖται] description (suggested by the thing typified) of the springing
up of the seed, which must first of all die ; inasmuch, namely, as the living
principle in it, the germ, grows out thereof, and the grain containing it be-
comes subject to decomposition. Comp. John xii. 24. The ἀποθανεῖν is
therefore, in the case of the seed sown, the analogue of the decay of the body
buried. As the seed-corn in the earth must die by decomposition, in order
to become alive in the springing germ, so must the body decay in the earth
in order to become alive in the resurrection-body arising out of it at the res-
urrection of the dead. That it is not simply the necessity of dying to attain
the resurrection-life (van Hengel ; comp. Riickert and Holsten z. Ho. ἃ.
Paul. u. Petr. p. 374) which is depicted, is clear from this, that in the ex-
planation of the resurrection the being sown necessarily represents the burial,
and consequently the ἀποθανεῖν of the seed-corn, because it follows after the
being sown, must correspond to the decay of the body. (2)
Ver. 37. Kai ὃ σπείρεις)] And what thou sowest,—not the body, which is to be,
sowest thou. Ὃ σπείρεις makes the attention rest upon itself first in general,
independently of what follows, which forms a complete sentence by itself.
See on Matt. vii. 24, x. 14; Luke xxi. 6. What shall spring out of the
grain, the plant, Paul calls τὸσῶμα τὸ γενησόμ., because he has it before
his mind as the analogue of the resurrection-body. The emphasis, however,
lies upon τὸ yevyo. — γυμνὸν κόκκον] a naked grain, which is not yet clothed,
as it were, with a plant-body (see what follows). Comp. 2 Cor. v. 3. To
this future plant-body corresponds the future resurrection-body with which
that, which is buried and decays, is clothed. That it is not the soul or the
πνεῦμα Of the departed which corresponds to the γυμνὸς κόκκος (Holsten), is
shown by ὃ σπείρεις ; comp. with ver. 42 ff. — ei τύχοι σίτου] it may be of
wheat. Here, too, ei τύχοι does not mean, for example, but, if it so happens
(that thou art just sowing wheat). See on xiv. 10. —% τίνος τῶν λοιπῶν] neuter.
1 Comp. Clement, 1 Cor. 24.
CHAP. Xv., 38-41. ; 375
We are tosupply from the connection σπερμάτων. Comp. Niigelsbach on the
Iliad, p. 304, ed. 3.
Ver. 38. Ὁ dé θεός] setting over against the σὺ ὃ σπείρεις, ver. 36, what is
done on God's part with the seed which on man’s part is sowed. — ἠθέλ.] has
willed. It denotes the (already at the creation) completed act of the divine
volition as embodied in the laws of nature. — καί] and indeed, as 111. 5. —
The diversity of the (peculiar, ἴδιον) organisms, which God bestows upon—i.e.
causes to spring forth out of—the different seeds sown, while preserving
the identity of the kinds, exposes all the more the folly of the question :
ποίῳ δὲ σώματι ἔρχονται, in so far as it was meant to support the denial of the
resurrection. As if God, who gives such varied plant-bodies to the sown
grains, each according to its kind, could not also give new resurrection-
bodies to the buried dead! How foolish to think that the same body which is
buried (ase.g. the Pharisees conceived of the matter) must come forth again,
if there is a resurrection! Every stalk of wheat, etc., refutes thee !
Vv. 39-41. In order to make it conceivable that the same body need not
come forth again, further reference is now made to the manifold diversity of
organic forms in nature ; so also faith in the resurrection cannot be bound
up with the assumption of the sameness of the present and the future bodily
organism. Very diverse are, namely : (1) the kinds of animal flesh (ver.
39) ; (2) the heavenly and earthly bodies (ver. 40) ; and (8) the lustre of the
sun, of the moon, and of the stars (ver. 41). — σὰρξ κτηνῶν] flesh of cattle, i.e.
not guadrupedum generally (so de Wette and Osiander, following older
interpreters), but also not simply jwmentorum (van Hengel), but pecorum
(Vulgate), which are kept for household use and for burden-bearing ; Plato,
Cri. p. 109 -B°; Herod. ii. 41; Xen. ποῦ. 11. 1. 19, iv. 7. 17; Luke x.
34; Acts xxiii. 34. -- σώματα ἐπουράνια] heavenly bodies, i.e. bodies to be
found in heaven. Comp. on John iii. 12 ; Phil. ii. 10. The bodies of the
angels are meant by this (Matt. xxii. 30 ; Luke xx. 36; Phil. /.c.). So, too,
de Wette.! Were we to understand by these words, as is wswally done (so,
among others, Hofmann ; Hahn, Theol. d. N. Test. I. p. 265 ; Delitzsch,
Psychol. p. 66 ; Philippi, Glawbensl. 11. p. 292 f.), the heavenly bodies (sun,
moon, and stars), we should be attributing to the apostle either our modern
use of language, or the non-biblical mode of regarding the stars as living
beings (see Galen, de usu part. 17 in Wetstein’), which is not to be proved
even from Job xxxviii. 7. The same holds in opposition to Billroth, who
understands the words as meaning heavenly organisms generally and indefi-
nitely, from which sun, moon, and stars are then named by way of example.
Sun, moon, and stars are not comprehended αὐ all under σώματα ἐπουρ., and are
first adduced in ver. 41 as a third analogue, and that simply in reference to
their manifold δόξα. The whole connection requires that σώματα should be
bodies as actual organs of life, not inorganic things and materials ; as, for
instance, stones (Lucian, vitt. auct. 25), water (Stob. jl. app. ii. 3), and
1Comp. also Kurtz, Bibel τι. Astron. p. ing that σώμ. érovp. denotes the pious, and
157 ; Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. Ὁ. 72 £. σώμ. ἐπίγεια the godless, in spite of the δόξα
2Chrysostom and Theophylact (comp. which is attributed to both.
also Theodoret) go entirely astray, suppos-
376 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
material things generally (Plato, Polit. p. 288 D) are designated in Greek
writers—not, however, in the New Testament—by σῶμα. Had Paul meant
heavenly bodies in the modern sense, he would in that case, by describing
them as bodies, have committed a μετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος ; whereas, on the
contrary, the bodies of the angels, especially when we consider the similar-
ity of those who are raised up to the angels, which was taught by Jesus Him-
self, were essentially included as relevant to the subjectin the list of the
diversities of bodily organization here enumerated (in opposition to Hof-
mann’s objection). He then, ver. 41, brings forward in addition the heay-
enly bodies only in respect of the diversity—not of their bodies, but—of the
lustre of their light. — σώματα ἐπίγεια) bodies to be found on earth, that is, the
bodies of men and beasts. — Both kinds of bodies, the heavenly and earthly,
are of different sorts of peculiar glory,—the former encompassed with a
heavenly radiancy (Matt. xxviii. 3 ; Acts xii. 7, al.), the latter manifesting
strength, grace, beauty, skilful construction, and the like in their outward
appearance. Notice that in ver. 40 érépa is used, because the subjects are
of specifically different kinds and qualities. It is otherwise in ver. 41,
comp. ver. 39. — Ver. 41. Sun-lustre is one thing, and moon-lustre another,
and lustre of stars another (i.e. another than solar and lunar lustre), Paul uses,
however, ἀστέρων, not ἀστέρος, because the stars too among themselves have
not one and the same lustre ; hence he adds by way of explanation : for
star differs from star in lustre. Διαφέρει is thus simply differt (Vulgate),
not excellit (Matt. vi. 26, x. 31, xii. 12), which the context does not sug-
gest. Regarding ἐν with διαφέρει, comp. Plato, Pol. viii. p. 568 A ; Dem.
291, 17; Bremi, ad Isocr. I. p. 169. The accusative or dative of more pre-
cise definition is more usual (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 394). The design of
ver. 4 is not to allude to the different degrees of glory of the bodies of the
saints (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Calovius, Estius, a/.), which is
neither indicated in what precedes nor adverted to in the application ver.
42 ff., and hence has no foundation in the context ; but Calvin rightly
remarks: ‘‘ Non disputat, qualis futura sit conditionis differentia inter
sanctos post resurrectionem, sed quid nunc differant corpora nostra ab iis,
quae olim recipiemus . . . ac si-diceret: nihil in resurrectione futurum
doceo, quod non subjectum sit jam omnium oculis.” Comp. also Krauss.
—Generally, let us beware of forcing upon the individual points in vy.
39-41 different individual references also,’ contrary to the application which
the apostle himself makes in vv. 42-44.
Vv. 42-44. Application of the passage from ver. 80 (σπείρεται) on to ver.
41. — οὕτω καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις τ. νεκρ. 86. ἐστι. So does it hold also with the res-
urrection of the dead, in so far, namely, as the resurrection-body will be quite
otherwise constituted than the present body.*—J¢ is sown in corruption, ete.
1 Tertullian, de resur7. 52, may serve asa Christi ; alia lunae, i.e. ecclesiae ; et alia stel-
warning; he says on ver. 39: “ Alia caro larum, i.e. seminis Abrahae.”
hominis, i.e. servi Dei; alia jumenti, i.e. 2Tt is to be observed that Paul, in his
ethnici ; alia volucrum, 7.6. martyrum ; alia whole discussion regarding the nature of
piscium, i.e. guibus aqua baptismatis sufpficit.” the future bodies, has in view only those of
On ver. 41, again: ‘‘alia solis gloria, i.e. the first resurrection (see on ver. 23), leay-
CHAP. XV., 42-44, 377
What is sown and raised up, is self-evident, and is also distinctly said in
ver. 44, on occasion being given by the adjectival form of expression, into
which the discourse there passes. — On σπείρεται, the remark of Grotius is
sufficient : ‘‘cum posset dicere sepelitur, maluit dicere seritur, ut magis in-
sisteret similitudini supra sumtae de grano.” The apostle falls back on the
image of the matter already familiar to the readers, because it must have
by this time become clear to them in general from this image, that a repro-
duction of the present body at the resurrection was not to be thought of.
The fact, again, that the image of sowing had already gone before in this
sense,—in the sense of interment,—excludes as contrary to the text, not
only van Hengel’s interpretation, according to which σπείρεται is held to
apply to generation and man is to be conceived as the subject, but also Hof-
mann’s view, that the sowing is the giving up of the body to death, without
reference to the point whether it be laid in the earth or not. The sowing
is man’s act, but the ἐγείρεται God’s act, quite corresponding to the antithe-
sis of oi, ver. 36, and ὁ dé θεός, ver. 38. — ἐν φθορᾷ] in corruption, i.e. in the
contition of decay, is the body when it is buried.’ Of a wholly different
nature, however, will be the new body which raises itself at the resurrec-
tion-summons (ver. 52 f.) out of the buried one (as the plant out of the seed-
corn) ; 2 is raised in the condition of incorruptibility. Comp. vv. 50, 52. —
ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ] in the condition of dishonour. Chrysostom (ri γὰρ εἰδεχθέστερον
νεκροῦ διαῤῥυέντος ;), Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Grotius, al.,
including Billroth, have rightly understood this of the foeditas cadaveris ;
for σπείρεται represents the act of burial. Erasmus, Calvin, Vorstius, Esti-
us, Rosenmiiller, a/., including Flatt, (comp. Riickert), hold that it refers
to the ante mortem miseriis et foeditatibus obnoxium esse,” Estius. So also
de Wette (comp. Osiander and Hofmann) in reference to all the three points,
which, according to these expositors, are meant to designate the nature of
the living body as regards its organization, or at least to include it (comp.
Maier) in their scope. But this mode of conception, according to which
the definition of state characterizes the earthly body generally according to
its nature, not specially according to the condition in which it is at its in-
terment, comes in only at the fourth point with σῶμα ψυχικόν in virtue of the
change in the form of expression which is adopted on that very account.
From the way in which Paul has expressed the first three points, he desires
to state in what condition that which is being sown is at its sowing ; in
what condition, therefore, the body to be buried is, when it 2s being buried.
This, too, in opposition to Ewald’s view : ‘‘even the best Christians move
now in corruption, in outward dishonour before the world,” etc. — ἐν δόξῃ] re-
fers to the state of outward glory, which will be peculiar to the resurrection-
bodies ; ver..40. It is the σύμμορφον εἶναι τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης Χριστοῦ, Phil.
ing quite out of account the bodies of those _resurrection-hope was being assailed.
who shall belong to the second resurrec- 1 Not as Hofmann would have it, in con-
tion, and consequently to the τέλος, ver. 24. nection with his inappropriate interpreta-
He has in fact to do with believers, with tion of σπείρεται : up to the point, when it is
future sharers in the resurrection of the given over to death.
righteous (comp. on Phil. iii. 11), whose
378 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
iii, 21. — ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ} not : ‘‘ variis morbis et periculis obnoxium,” Rosen-
miiller and others, comp. Riickert (weakliness) ; for it refers to the already
dead body (σπείρεται), but : in the condition of powerlessness, inasmuch as all
ability, all ἰσχύς (Soph. Oed. Col. 616) all σθένος of the limbs (Pindar, Wem.
v. 72, x. 90) has vanished from the dead body. Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theodoret, Theophylact, a/., narrow the reference too much in an arbitrary
way, applying it simply to the inability to withstand corruption. Ἐν ἀσθ. is
not a superfluous (de Wette), but a characteristic mark which specifically
distinguishes the dead from the living body. — ἐν δυνάμει) in the condition
of strength: the resurrection body will be endowed with fulness of strength
for life and activity. What Grotius adds: ‘‘cum sensibus multis, quos
nunc non intelligimus,” is perhaps true in itself, but is not conveyed in ἐν
dvvauer. —Instead of adducing one by one further qualities of the body as
buried, with their opposites in the resurrection-body, Paul sums up by
naming in addition that which conditions those other qualities, the specific
Sundamental nature of the present body which is buried, and of the future
one which is raised : σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικὸν, éyeip. σ. πνευματικόν, i.e. there is
sown a psychical body, etc. This is not opposed to the identity of the body,
but the one which rises is quite differently qualified ; there is buried a yuyixdr,
there rises a πνευματικόν. That is the new ποιότης τοῦ σώματος in which the
risen man comes (ver. 35); but the expression, which sets forth the differ-
ence as two subjects, is stronger and more significant than if we should
take it with Hofmann : it is sown as a psychical body, etc. —The body which
is buried is ψυχικόν, inasmuch as the ψυχῆ, this power of the sensuous and
perishable life (comp. on ii. 14), was its life-principle and the determining
element of its whole nature (consisting of flesh and blood, ver. 50). The
ψυχή had in it, as Oecumenius and Theophylact say, τὸ κῦρος x. τὴν ἡγεμονίαν.
The resurrection-body, however, will be πνευματικόν, i.e. not an ethereal
body (Origen, comp. Chrysostom),’ which the antithesis of ψυχικόν forbids;
but a spiritual body, inasmuch as the πνεῦμα, the power of the supersensu-
ous, eternal life (the true, imperishable ζω), in which the Holy Spirit
carries on the work of regeneration and sanctification (Rom. viii. 16, 17),
will be its life-principle and the determining element of its whole nature.
In the earthly body the ψυχή, not the πνεῦμα, is that which conditions its
constitution and its qualities, so that it is framed as the organ of the ψυχή; 5
in the resurrection-body the reverse is the case ; the πνεῦμα, for whose life-
activity it is the adequate organ, conditions its nature, and the ψυχή has
ceased to be, as formerly, the ruling and determining element. We are
not, however, on this account to assume, with Riickert, that Paul conceived
the soul as not continuing to subsist for ever,—a conception which would
do away with the essential completeness and thereby with the identity of
the human being. On the contrary, he has conceived of the πνεῦμα in the
1 Or as Zeller in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 2 Luther’s gloss is: ‘‘ which eats, drinks,
297, would have it: ‘‘a@ body composed of _ sleeps, digests, grows larger and smaller,
spirit,” the πνεῦμα being conceived as ma- begets children, ete. Spiritual, which may
terial. Comp. Holsten, zvwm Hv. d. Paul. u. do none of these things, and nevertheless
Petr. Ὁ. 72: ** out of heavenly light-material.” is a true body alive from the spirit.”
CHAP. XV.,)4D.- 379
risen bodies as the absolutely dominant element, to which the psychical
powers and activities shall be completely subordinated. The entire predi-
cates of the resurrection-body, contrasted with the properties of the present
body, are united in the likeness to the angels, which Jesus affirms of the risen,
Matt. xxii. 30, Luke xx. 36, and in their being fashioned like unto the
glorified body of Christ, as is promised by Paul, vv. 48, 49 ; Phil. iii. 21.
How far the doctrine of Paul is exalted above the assertion by the Rabbins
of the (quite crass) identity of the resurrection-body with the present one,
may be seen from the citations in Wetstein on ver. 36, and in Eisenmenger,
entdeckt. Judenth, 11. p. 938 f. — εἰ ἔστι σῶμα woy., ἔστι καὶ «.7.2.] logical
confirmation of the σῶμα πνευματ. just mentioned. It is to be shown, name-
ly, that it is not an air-drawn fancy to speak of the future existence of a
σῶμα πνευματικόν : If it is true that there is a psychical body, then there is also a
spiritual body, then such a body cannot be a non-ens—according to the mu-
tually conditioning relations of the antitheses. The emphasis lies on the
twice-prefixed ἔστι, existit (comp. the Rabbinical NS in Schoettgen, Hor. p.
670). The logical correctness of the sentence, again, depends upon the pre-
supposition (ver. 42 f.) that the present and the future body stand in the
relation of counterparts to each other. If, therefore, there exists a psychical
body (and that is the present one), then a pneumatic body also must be no
mere idea, but really existent (and that is the resurrection-body).
Ver. 45. Scriptural confirmation for the ei ἔστε σῶμα ψ. k.1.2. —ovTw] 80, 1.6.
in this sense, corresponding to what has been said above, it stands written
also, etc. The passage is from Gen. ii. 7 according to the LXX. (x. ἐγένετο
ὁ ἄνθρ. εἰς ψ. ¢.), but with the addition of the more precisely explanatory
words πρῶτος and ’Adau. The citation extends only to ζῶσαν ; the ὁ ἔσχατος
x.T.A. that follow are words of the apostle, in which he gives an explanation
of his οὕτω by calling attention, namely, to the opposite nature of the last
Adam, as that to which the Scripture likewise pointed by its description
of the jirst Adam, in virtue of the typical relation of Adam to Christ. He
joins on these words of his own, however, immediately to the passage of
Scripture, in order to indicate that the ὁ ἔσχατος. . . ζωοποιοῦν follows as
necessarily from it according to its typical reference, as if the words had
been expressed along with it. He thus gives expression to the inference
which is tacitly contained in the statement, by adding forthwith this self-
evident conclusion as if belonging also to the passage of Scripture, because
demanded for it by the inner necessity of the antithesis. When others, such
as Billroth and Riickert, assume that ὁ ἔσχατος x.r.A. is meant really to be a
part of the Scripture-quotation, they in that case charge the apostle with
having made the half of the citation himself and given it out as being Bible
words ; but assuredly no instance is to be found of such an arbitrary proced-
ure, however freely he handles passages from the Old Testament elsewhere.
And would the readers, seeing that ἐγένετο. . . ζῶσαν is such a universally
known statement, have been able to recognize in ὁ ἔσχατος x.t.A. Bible words ?
1 ΠῸ make the relation of the two halves at ζῶσαν, and let then ὁ ἔσχατος x.7.A. follow
discernible in reading, let ἐγένετο... ζῶσαν a little less slowly and loudly.
be read slowly and loud, pause markedly
380 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
According to Hofmann, οὕτω καὶ yéyp. is a completed sentence, which only
states that the distinction between two kinds of human body is scriptural.
In order to demonstrate this scripturalness the apostle then applies the pas-
sage Gen. ii. 7. But against this it may be urged, jirst, that Paul is wont
in general to use the γέγραπται for citing passages of Scripture ; secondly,
that the reader could all the less think here of another use of the word, since
in reality at the moment a passage of Scripture, and that a universally fa-
miliar one, is joined on directly, and without a particle (such as γάρ) to lead
the thoughts aright in another direction. — ἐγένετο] by his creation, by means
of the animation through God’s breath. — εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν] TN wD), comp.
Gen. i. 30, unto a living soul-nature, so that thus the body of Adam must be
formed as the receptacle and organ of the ψυχή, must be a σῶμα ψυχικόν."
Therewith sin itself is not assumed as yet, nor even the necessity of its fu-
ture entrance (comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 133), but the suscepti-
bility for it, which, however, did not fall within the scope of the apostle
here. — ὁ ἔσχατος ᾿Αδάμ] is Christ. Comp. ver. 22; Rom. v. 14; Neve
Schalom, ix. 9: ‘‘ Adamus postremus (7) ὙΠ) est Messias.” He is called,
however, and is the last Adam in reference to the jirst Adam, whose antitype
He is as the head and the beginner of the new humanity justified and re-
deemed through Him ; but at the same time in reference also to the fact,
that after Him no other is to follow with an Adamite vocation. Apart from
this latter reference, He may be called also the second Adam. Comp. ver.
AT. — εἰς πνεῦμα ζωοποι. unto a life-giving spirit-being, sc. ἐγένετο. It is thereby
expressed that the body of Christ became a σῶμα πνευματικόν. But what is
the point of time, at which Christ εἰς πνεῦμα ζωοπ. ἐγένετο ? Not as a created
being, as one of the heavenly forms in the divine retinue before His mission
(Holsten), nor yet in His incarnation,? whether we may supply mentally ὦ
Deitate (Beza, comp. too Riibiger, Christol. Paul. p. 35 ; Baur, Delitzsch,
al.), or take refuge in the communicatio hypostatica (Calovius and others) ;
for during his earthly life Christ had a ψυχικὸν σῶμα (only without sin, Rom.
viii. 3) which ate, drank, slept, consisted of flesh and blood, suffered, died,
etc. The one correct answer in accordance with the context, since the point
in hand has regard to the resurrection (and see especially ver. 44), can only
be : after His death (comp. Hellwag in the Tiibing. theol. Jahrb. 1848, 2, p.
240 ; Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 122 ff. ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 314), and
indeed through His resurrection, Christ became εἰς πνεῦμα Cwor. The body,
doubtless, of the Risen One before His ascension (hence the Socinians think
here of the latter event ; so, too, J. Miiller and Maier) consisted still of flesh
and blood, still ate, drank, etc. ; but it was immortal, and so changed (see
Remark appended to Luke xxiv. 51) that it already appears as πνευματικόν,
although it was only at the ascension that it entered upon its completion in
that respect, and consequently into its δόξα as the σῶμα τῆς δόξης (Phil. iii.
21). The event producing the change, therefore, is the resurrection ; in
virtue of this, the last Adam, who shall appear only at the Parousia in the
1 Not as if he had lacked the higher life- body.
principle (the πνεῦμα) ; but the ψυχή was 2 So, too, Sellin in the Luther. Zeitschr.
that which determined the nature of the 1867, p. 231.
.
OHAPAXY,, 46, 47. 381
whole efficiency of His life-power (ver. 47), became (ἐγένετο) εἰς πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν,"
and that through God, who raised Him up. — ζωοποιοῦν] οὐκ εἶπεν" εἰς πνεῦμα
ζῶν, ἀλλὰ ζωοποιοῦν τὸ μεῖζον εἰπών, Theophylact. The connection shows what
ζωή is meant in ζωοποιοῦν, namely, the reswrrection-life, which Christ, who has
become πνεῦμα ζωοπ., works at His Parousia. Comp. ver. 22 ; Phil. iii. 21 ;
Col. iii. 4 ; 1 Thess. iv. 16 ; John v. 21 ff. This limitation of the reference
of ζωοποιοῦν, made in accordance with the context, shows that we have not
here an argument proving too much (in opposition to Baur, newt. Theol. p. 197).
Ver. 46. After it has been stated and confirmed from Scripture in vv. 44,
45 that there exists not simply a psychical, but also a spiritual body, it isnow
further shown that the latter cannot precede the former, but that the reverse
must be the case. ‘‘ Nevertheless the pneumatic is not first, but the psychical ;
afterwards the pneumatic.” We are not, withthe majority of the older com-
mentators (also Flatt, Osiander, Hofmann), to supply σῶμα (which the
context does not even suggest) ; but Paul states quite generally the law of
development,’ that the pneumatic appears later than the psychical, a grada-
tion from lower to higher forms, which goes through the whole creation.
This general statement he then proves :
Ver. 47, by the concrete phenomena of the two heads of the race of
mankind, Adam and Christ. — The principal emphasis is upon πρῶτος and
δεύτερος, 80 that the former corresponds to the πρῶτον, and the latter to the
ἔπειτα Of ver. 46 ; hence, too, ἔσχατος is not used here again. ‘‘ The jirst
man (not the second) is of earthly origin, earthy (consisting of earth-mate-
rial); the second man (not the first) is of heavenly origin.” — ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός]
Origin and material nature. Comp. Gen. ii. 7, χοῦν λαβὼν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς 3
Eccles. iii. 20, xii. 7 ; 1 Macc. ii. 68. That the article (John iii. 31) was
not required with γῆς (in opposition to van Hengel, who, on account of the
lacking article, explains it, terrenus sc. terram sapiens ; and then χοϊκός ;
humilia spirans) is clear not only in general (see Winer, p. 114 [E. T. 149),
but also from passages such as Wisd. xv. 8, xvii. 1 ; Eccles. xxxvi. 10, xl.
11. It may be added, that since, by the words ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός, Adam’s body is
characterized as ψυχικὸν σῶμα, as in ver. 45, and the psychical corporeity,
again, taken purely in itself (without the intervention of a modifying rela-
tion), includes mortality (ver. 44), it is clear that Paul regards Adam as cre-
ated mortal, but so that he would have become immortal, and would have con-
tinued free from death, if he had not sinned. The protoplasts are accord-
ingly in his eyes such as under an assumed condition potuerunt non mori,
which, however, through the non-fulfilment of this condition, i.e. through
the Fall, came to nothing ; so that now death, and that as a penalty, came
1 There exists no ground for assuming
that Paul had a different conception of the
coporeity of the risen Christ before His res-
urrection from that held by the evange-
lists. It is true that Paul mentions the ap-
pearances of the Risen One, ver. 5 ff., in
such a way that he speaks of the appear-
ance after the ascension, ver. 8, no other-
wise than of those which preceded it. But
he had there no ground for drawing any
such distinction, since it only concerned
him generally to enumerate the appear-
ances of the Risen One, while for his pur-
pose it was all the same which of them had
taken place before and which after the as-
cension.
2 See also Ernesti, Joc. cit. Ὁ. 126.
382 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
to be a reality,—a view which agrees alike with his own doctrinal statement,
Rom. v. 12,’ and also with Genesis. For had the protoplasts not sinned,
they would, according to Genesis, have remained in Paradise, and would
have become immortal (Gen. iii. 22) through the enjoyment of the tree of
life (Gen. ii. 9), which God had not forbidden to them (Gen. ii. 16,17). But
they were driven out of Paradise, before they had yet eaten of this tree
(Gen. iii. 22); and so, certainly, according to Genesis also, through sin
came death into the world as the penalty appointed for them by God (ii. 17).
Comp. Augustin, De pece. meritis et remiss. i. 5: ‘tipsum mortale non est
factum mortuum nisi propter peccatum ;” see, too, Ernesti, /.c. p. 248 f.;
Ewald, Jahrb. II. p. 153 f. --- ἐξ οὐρανοῦ) ef heavenly derivation. This ap-
plies to the glorification of the body of Christ,* originating from heaven, i.e.
wrought by God (comp. 2 Cor. v. 2), in which glorified body He is in
heaven, and will appear at His Parousia (comp. Phil. iii. 20). Comp. on
ver. 45. According to de Wette (comp. also Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit.
1860, p. 487 f., and Christol. pp. 228, 242), it applies to the whole personality
of Jesus, ‘‘ which, through its preponderating spirituality, has also a spirit-
ual body,” or to the heavenly origin characterizing the nature of the
whole person (Beyschlag). But the above-given definite reference is the
only one which corresponds, in accordance with the text, to the contrast of
ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός, which applies to the formation of Adam’s body, as well as to the
whole point of the development (σῶμα πνευματικόν). Van Hengel is wrong
in seeking to conclude from the absence of the article here also, that the_
heavenly dignity of Jesus is meant. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 2; Gal. i. 8. Paul
has the article before οὐρανός or οὐρανοί after ἐκ or ἀπό, only in 1 Thess. i. 10.
—No predicate in the second clause corresponds to the χοϊκός of the first
half of the verse,* because the material of the glorified body of Christ tran-
scends alike conception and expression.
Ver. 48. Application to our present and future bodily nature. We are to
supply simply ἐστί and εἰσί. ---- ὁ χοϊκός] Adam. —oi χοϊκοί] all Adam’s poster-
ity, as such, in so far as they have the same material nature with their first
father. This common nature is the psychical corporeity. — ὁ ἐπουράνιος] He
who is in heaven (comp. the frequent ἐπουράνιοι θεοί in Homer ; Matt. xviii.
1In connection with this, no difficulty
whatever is occasioned by the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες
ἥμαρτον, Rom. y. 12, according to its correct
interpretation, which does not make it re-
fer to the individual sins of the posterity ;
see on Rom. /.c. The Pelagian view, that
Adam,evenif he had not sinned, would have
died, is decidedly against the Pauline doc-
trinal conception. This in opposition to
Schleiermacher, Neander, and others; es-
pecially, also, against Mau, v. 7ode, εἰ. Solde
der Siinde, 1841.
2 Hence Gess (v. d. Person Chr. p. 75) very
irrelevantly objects to the reference to the
body of Christ, that that body was not
from heaven, but from the seed of David.
Delitzsch (Psychol. p. 334 ff.), by referring
ἐξ οὐρανοῦ back to the incarnation, which is
contrary to the context, mixes up things
that differ. Beyschlag (comp. also his
Christol. p. 226) finds in our text a heavenly
humanity of Christ (human pre-existence) ;
but the connection and the contrast lead
us only to the heaven-derived body of the
risen and exalted One. Comp., too, Hof-
mann and J. Miiller, v. d. Stinde, p. 412, ed.
5; Weiss, bibl. Theol. Ὁ. 315 f.
3 Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 836, prefers the
Marcionitic reading: ὁ δεύτερος Kup. ἐξ ovp..
i.e. the second is Lord from heaven. Accord-
ing to the critical evidence, this reading
deserves no consideration. Offence was
taken at ἄνθρωπος.
CHAP. XV., 49. | 383
80 : Phil. ii. 10 ; 2 Macc. iii. 39 ; see also on ver. 40), 1.6. Christ ; not,
however, as the heavenly archetype of humanity, as which He was pre-exist-
ent in God (Beyschlag), but as the exalted to heaven, Phil. ii. 9 ; Eph. iv. 8
ff. οἱ ἐπουράνιοι] These are the risen Christians, inasmuch as they shall be
citizens of the heavenly commonwealth, Phil. iii. 20 ; Heb. xii. 22 ; 2 Tim.
iv. 18. The common nature of the ἐπουράνιος and the ἐπουράνιοι is the pneu-
matic body. Comp. Phil. iii. 21. Instead of referring the twofold resem-
blance in kind to the nature of the body, Hofmann makes it refer to the
nature of the Jife,—on the one side, sinfulness and nothingness ; on the
other side, holiness and glory. But the matter is thus turned to its ethical
side, which Paul cannot have in view here in accordance with the whole
connection, which has to do only with the twofold bodily condition—that
belonging to the first, and that to the last Adam. This also in opposition to
van Hengel.
Ver. 49. The Recepta φορέσομεν is to be retained (see the critical remarks),
for which van Hengel, too, decides, although taking τ. εἰκόνα in the moral
sense. (A°) An exhortation (φορέσωμεν, defended by Hofmann) lies all the more
remote from the connection, seeing that Paul proceeds in his development
of the subject with καί, and itis certainly not the ethical, but the physical
conception of εἰκών which is prepared for by what precedes (see still τοιοῦτοι,
ver. 48); also in what follows, ver. 50, it is not an ethical, but a physiological
relation which is expressed. Beza says well, in opposition to the reading
φορέσωμεν and its interpretation : ‘‘ Hoc plane est detortum, quum res ipsa
clamet, Paulum in proposito argumento pergere.” What, namely, was al-
ready contained in ver. 48, he now expresses in a yet more definite and con-
crete way (hence, too, passing over into the first person), bringing out with
much emphasis the full meaning of the weighty statement, thus: And as
we have borne (before the Parousia) the image of the earthly (of Adam),—.e.
the psychical body which makes us appear as like in kind to Adam,—so
shall we (after the Parousia) bear also the image of the heavenly (of Christ), 1.6.
the pneumatic body. Paul transfers himself and his readers to the turning-
point of the Parousia, from which the aorist dates backward in the αἰὼν
οὗτος, and the futwre forward in the αἰὼν μέλλων. --- To extend the ‘‘ we” to
all men (Krauss) is forbidden by the whole context, and would presuppose
the idea of the ἀποκατάστασις πάντων. --- Regarding φορεῖν, the continuous
φέρειν, see On Rom. xiii. 4.
Remarx.—Adopting the reading φορέσωμεν, we should not, with Bengel, im-
port the idea of a promise, but take it as hortative, with Chrysostom, Theophy-
lact, Erasmus, al., including Hofmann, so that εἰκών would need to be under-
stood ethically. Ἑἰκόνα δὲ χοϊκοῦ τὰς φαύλας πράξεις λέγει" εἰκόνα dé τοῦ
ἐπουρανίου τὰς ἀγαθάς, Theophylact. In connection with this Hofmann takes
καθώς argumentatively (comp. on Phil. i. 7, ii. 12): ‘‘ seeing that we have borne
. . so must we now also be willing to bear. . .”’ But that καθώς is the ordi-
nary as of comparison, is shown by the two comparative clauses in ver. 48, and
by the annexing of the καθώς to them by the simple καί, which continues the
comparison in the way of assertion Moreover, φορέσωμεν would, in fact, not
mean, ‘‘ we must be willing to bear,’’ but, “" Let us bear.”’
384 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS,
Ver. 50. The discussion regarding the nature of the resurrection-body is
now closed with a negative axiom, which serves to confirm the φορέσομεν τ.
eix. τ. éxoup.' But this (in order to add yet this general statement in con-
firmation of what has just been said) 7 asswre you of. Comp. vii. 29. The
sense of a concession (for the spiritualistic opponents, so Usteri, Billroth,
Olshausen) is imported into the context and the simple φημί. According to
van Hengel, Paul writes to obviate a misapprehension ; his readers were not
to think that the φορέσομεν x. τ. εἰκόνα τοῦ ἐπουρανίου consisted in the fellow-
ship of the flesh and blood, which Christ had before and after His resurrec-
tion. But there was no occasion presented for such an opinion, since the
Christian belief was assured that the heavenly Christ has a glorified body
(Phil. iii. 91). Hofmann (following Beza) refers τοῦτο to what precedes, and
takes ὅτι as introducing the ground, why the apostle has uttered vv. 46-49.
But this ground is of a positive nature, and does not lie in the merely
negative thought ver. 50, but much deeper, namely, in the Scriptural (ver.
45) relation of the bodily condition of the earthly and of the heavenly
Adam. — σὰρξ x. αἷμα] i.e, the bodily nature which we have in this temporal
life, the chief constituents of which are flesh and blood,’ the latter as the
seat of life. Τὴν θνητὴν φύσιν καλεῖ ἀδύνατον δὲ ταύτην ἐτι θνητὴν οὖσαν τῆς
ἐπουρανίου βασιλείας τυχεῖν, Theodoret. Comp. vi. 13. Σ. x. αἷμα is just as
little to be taken in the ethical sense, which σάρξ by itself elsewhere has, as
is φθορά afterwards (in opposition to Chrysostom, Theophylact, al.) — οὐδὲ]
and not, still dependent upon ὅτι. This second half of the verse forms with
the first a parallelism, in which the first clause names the concrete mat-
ters, and the second one the general class (the categories in question), to
which the former belong. The φθορά, i.e. according to the context (comp.
ver. 42), the corruption (and to this category flesh and blood belong,
which fall a prey to corruption), inherits not the incorruptibility, to the
realm of which belong the relations of the Messianic kingdom, and in
particular the glorified body of the sharers in the kingdom. The abstract
nouns instead of τὸ φθαρτόν and τὸ ἄφθαρτον have a certain solemnity.
Comp. Dissen, ad Pind. p. 476: ““ Sublimitatem et πάθος adjuvant abstracta
sic posita pro concretis.” Regarding κλήρονομ. of the entrance upon the
Messianic possession, comp. vi. 9; Gal. iii. 29. The present sets what is
sure and certain before us as present.
Ver. 51. After Paul has with the weighty axiom in ver. 50 disposed of
the question ποίῳ δὲ σώματι ἔρχονται, which he has been discussing since ver.
39, a new point, which has likewise a right withal not to be left untouched
1 According to Tischendorf and Ewald, est corpus, non omne corpus est ecaro.”? In
ver. 50 begins already the new section, and
would thus be the introduction toit. Like-
wise suitable ; still at vii. 29 also τοῦτο δὲ
φημί serves to confirm what has preceded it.
3 Tt is not tothe body as such that partici-
pation in the Messianic kingdom is denied,
but to the present body consisting of flesh
and blood. Jerome says well: ‘alia car-
nis, alia corporis definitio est; omnis caro
harmony with our passage we should have
to read in the third article [of the ‘t Apos-
tles’ Creed ’] “‘ resurrection of the body,”
instead of ‘ resurrection of the flesh.” The
conception “ glorified flesh” is for the apos-
tle a contradictio in adjecto, which cannot
even be justified from his doctrine of the
Lord’s Supper.
CHAP, ΧΥ., 51. 385
in this connection, however mysterious it is, now presents itself for eluci-
dation, namely, what shall happen in the case of those who shall be yet alive at
the Parousia. This last, as it were, appended part of his discussion begins
without transition in a direct and lively way (ἰδού), designated too as μυσ-
τήριον, as dogma reconditium, the knowledge of which Paul is conscious that
he possesses by ἀποκάλυψις.' See on Rom. xi. 25. — πάντες μὲν οὐ κοιμ. x.7.A. |
is held by the commentators to mean : we shall indeed not all die, but all shall
be changed. They either assume a transposition of the negation (so the ma-
jority of the older expositors, following Chrysostom, also Heydenreich,
Flatt, Osiander, Reiche, and van Hengel); or they hold that Paul had
ἀλλαγ., upon which all the emphasis lies, already in his mind in connection
with the first πάντες : ‘‘ We all—shall not indeed die until then, but notwith-
standing—all shall be changed,” Billroth, whom Olshausen, de Wette, Maier,
follow ; or (so Riickert) the meaning is : die indeed we shall not all, etc., so
that, according to this view, in pure Greek it would be said : κοιμηθησόμεθα
Three makeshifts, contrary to the construction, and without
proof or precedent, in order to bring out a meaning assumed beforehand to
be necessary, but which is incorrect, for Paul after ver. 52 can only have
applied ἀλλαγησόμεθα to those still living at the Parousia, and not, as according
to that assumed meaning must be the case, to those already dead. The
result of this is, at the same time, that the subject of οὐ κοιμ. and ἀλλαγ. must
be Paul himself, and the whole of those who, like him, shall yet witness the Pa-
rousia (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 17 : ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες), as could not but be clear to
the reader from 4”2ay. Hence we must interpret strictly according to the
order of the words: we shall indeed all not sleep (i.e. shall not have to go
through the experience of dying at the Parousia, in order to become sharers
in the resurrection-body, but shall remain alive then), but shall, doubtless,
all be changed. Regarding the subject-matter, comp. ver. 53; 1 Thess.
iv. 15, 17. This interpretation alone, according to which οὐ, in conformity
with the quite ordinary use of it (comp. immediately οὐ δύναται, ver. 50),
changes the conception of the word before which it stands into its opposite
(Baeumlein, Partik. p. 278), is not merely verbally correct, but also in
keeping with the character of a μυστήριον ; while, according to the usual
way of taking it, the first half at least contains nothing at all mysterious,
but something superfluous and self-evident. Our interpretation is adopted
and defended by Winer since his fifth edition (p. 517, ed. 7 [E. T. 695)),
πάντες μὲν οὐ."
1 Not “ἃ half confession that now there
comes a private opinion” (Krauss, p. 169),
which he only with reluctance gives to the
public. Comp. also, as against this view, 1
Thess. iv. 15: ἐν λόγῳ κυρίον.
2 Comp. Hofmann’s earlier interpretation
(in the Schriftbew. 11. 2, p. 654): ‘* Collec-
tively we shall not sleep, but we shall be
changed collectively.” Now (hei. Schr. d.
N. T.) the same writer follows Lachmann’s
reading, which, however, he punctuates
thus: πάντες μὲν κοιμηθησόμεθα ov, πάντες δὲ
ἀλλαγ., whereby, on the one hand, the uni-
versality of the dying is denied, whereas on
the other the universality of the change is
affirmed. Against this interpretation, apart
from the critical objections, it may be
urged, as regards the sense, that ἀλλαγ. can-
not be predicated of the dead along with
the rest (see ver. 52), and as regards linguis-
tic usage again, that to place the ov after
the conceptions negatived bv it (Baeumlein,
Partik. p. 307 f.) is foreign throughout to the
New Testament, often as there was oppor-
tunity for placing it so.
3 εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν μεταπεσεῖν, Chrysostom.
386 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
comp. Ewald and Kling ;* but it is contested by Fritzsche, de conform.
Lachm. p. 38 ; Reiche, commentar. crit.; de Wette, van Hengel, Hofmann,
Hoelemann, neve Bibelstud. p. 276 ff., who, it may be added, looks upon
the passage as regards text and interpretation as a ‘‘still uncertain” one,
but decidedly denies that there is here or in 1 Thess. iv. an expectation of
the Parousia as nigh at hand. The objections raised against our view are
insufficient ; for (a) something absurd would result from it only on the
supposition of the subject being all Christians or Paul and all his read-
ers; (Ὁ) to make πάντες refer to the whole category of those among whom
Paul reckoned himself, that is, to all who should still live to see the Parousia,
of whom the apostle says that they shall not attain to the new body by the
path of death, is not only not inadmissible, but is established in accordance
with the context by the predicate ἀλλαγησ., which does not include the
process of the resurrection (ver. 52); (ὁ) the LXX. Num. xxiii. 13 cannot be
used to support the reference of οὐ to πάντες, for in the words of that pas-
sage : πάντας δὲ ov μὴ ἴδῃς, the well-known use of οὐ μή testifies irrefragably in
favour of the connection of the negation, not with πάντας, but directly with
the verb. Equally unavailable is the LXX. Josh. xi. 13, where by πάσας
τὰς πόλεις τὰς κεχωματισμένας οὖκ ἐνέπρησεν it is declared of the whole of the
hill-cities that Israel left them unburnt, so that the negation thus belongs
to the verb alongside of which it stands. In Eccles. xvii. 30 also the words
ov δύναται (it is impossible) belong to each other ; in John iii. 16, vi. 29,
again, the mode of expression is quite of another kind (in opposition to
Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 106 [E. T. 121]). In our text the repetition of πάντες
ought to have sufficed of itself to prevent misapprehension of the plain
meaning : all we shall at the return of the Lord, in order to our entering
glorified into His kingdom, not. need first to fall asleep, but shall all be
changed living (ver. 52), so that our ψυχικὸν σῶμα shall become a πνευματικόν.
Θ᾿"
Ver. 52. Ev ἀτόμῳ, ἐν ῥιπῇ ὀφθ. A double, because ἃ thoroughly designed
and extremely exact description of the suddenness of the ἀλλαγησ., which is
meant wholly to exclude even the possibility of those still alive having
first, perhaps, to die at the Parousia, in order to come into the resurrection-
life. — ἄτομον, what is indivisible, an atom (Plato, Soph. p. 229 D), is here
a little indivisible point of time. ἐν ἀτόμῳ" ἐν ῥιπήματι, Hesychius. Comp.
the phrase, current in Greek writers, ἐν ἀκαρεῖ (Lucian, As. 37; Alciphron.
111. 25).— ἐν τῇ toy. σάλπιγγι] at the last trumpet, while it is sounded
(by anarchangel). See Winer, p. 361[E. T. 482]. Comp. ἐν αὐλοῖς, Pindar,
Ol. v. 45. Paul might also have written: ἀπὸ. .. σάλπιγγος, Polyb. iv.
13. 1. Regarding the subject-matter, comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16, and Liinemann
and Ewald on that passage. The last trumpet is that sounding at the
Jinal moment of this age of the world. It does not conflict with this state-
ment, if we suppose that Paul conceived the second resurrection also (ver.
24) to take place with trumpet-sound, for éoy. has its temporal reference
in αἰὼν οὗτος. De Wette (so, too, in the form of a suggestion, Vatablus ;
1 Comp. also Holtzmann, /Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 565.
CHAP. XV., 52. | 387
and comp. previously, Theodoret of Mopsuestia) thinks of the last among
several trumpet-signals, against which, however, is the simple, not more
precisely defined σαλπίσει yap which follows. This, too, in opposition to
Osiander, van Hengel, Maier, and Hofmann. To understand, with Ols-
hausen, who follows older expositors (τινές even already in Theophylact),
the seventh trumpet, Rev. viii. 9, with which, along with the trumpets of
Jericho, Hofmann also compares it, is to place it on the same level with
the visions of the Revelation, for doing which we have no ground, since in
1 Thess. too, /.c., only one trumpet is mentioned, and that one taken for
granted as well known. It is true that the Rabbins also taught that God
will sound the trumpet seven times, and that in such a way that the resurrec-
tion will develop itself in seven acts ;' but this conception, too, was foreign
to the apostle, seeing that he represents the rising as an instantaneous event
without breaks of development. It may be added, that the trwmpet of the
Parousia (see, already, Matt. xxiv. 31) is not to be explained away, either
with Wolf and others : ‘‘cum signa apparebunt judicii jam celebrandi,” or,
with Olshausen (comp. Maier), of a startling work of the Spirit, arousing
mankind fora great end. Comp., too, Theophylact, who understands by
the σάλπιγξ the κέλευσμα and νεῦμα of God τὸ διὰ πάντων φθάνον ; as in substance
also Usteri, p. 356, Billroth, Neander, Hofmann.? As regards the phrase
in itself, we might compare the Homeric ἀμφὶ δὲ σάλπιγξεν μέγας οὐρανός, II.
xxi. 388, where the thunder (as signal for the onset) is meant. But the con-
nection gives us no right whatever to assume a non-literal, imaginative repre-
sentation. On the contrary, Paul has in fact carried with him the concep-
tion of the resurrection trumpet (resting upon Ex. xix. 16) from the popular
sphere of conception, attested also in Matt. 1.6. (comp. 4 Esdr. vi. 24),
into his Christian sphere,* as he then himself adds forthwith by way of con-
firmation and with solemn emphasis: σαλπίσει γὰρ x.7.2.] for the trumpet
shall sound, and the dead (the Christians who have already died up to that
time) shall be raised incorruptible, and we (who are still alive then) shall be
changed. The paratactic expression (instead of ὅτε γάρ, or some other such
form of subordination) should of itself have been sufficient to prevent the
divesting the σαλπ. γάρ. of its emphasis by regarding it simply as an intro-
duction to what follows in connection with ἐν τ. éoy. σάλπ. (Hofmann) ;
comp. Kiihner, ὃ 720, 4 ; Winer, p. 585 [E. T. 785]. A special attention
is to be givento the σαλπίσ. Instead of ἡμεῖς ἀλλαγ., Paul might have written
οἱ ζῶντες ἀλλαγήσονται ; but from his persuasion that he should live to see
the Parousia, he includes himself with the rest.* (c*) Comp. on ver. 51.
1“ Primo sono totus mundus commove- to de Wette, it is generally the apocalyptic
bitur ; secundo pulvis separabitur; tertio figure for solemn, divinely-effected catas-
ossa colligentur . . . tuba septima vivi sta- trophes.
bunt pedibus suis.” See Eisenmenger, 3 The recognition of this form of concep-
entdeckt. Judenth. ΤΙ. p. 929. tion by no means implies that a dogma is to
2 Lange in the Stud. u. Kril. 1836, p- 08, be made out of it.
thinks of a revolution of the earth which will 4 As in 1 Thess. iv. 15 ff., to which pas-
be the signal of the advent of Christ. sage, however, this one does not stand in
Osiander holds that the victory over the last {πὸ relation of a further advance of develop-
enemy (vv. 25, 27) is pointed at. According ment, or more thorough liberation from
388 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Van Hengel is wrong in referring οἱ νεκροί to those now (when Paul wrote)
already dead, and ἡμεῖς to those now still alive, of whom a part will then be
also dead ; ἀλλαγ. can apply only to the change of the living. —cadmicer (se.
ὁ αλπιγκτής) has become in its use just as impersonal as dei, vider, al. See
Elmsl. ad Heracl. 830 ; Kiihner, II. p. 36, and ad Xen. Anab. i. 2.17. The
form σαλπίσω instead of σαλπίγξω is later Greek. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p.
191. ᾿
Ver. 53. Confirmation of what has last been said, x. ἡμεῖς ἀλλαγ., by the
necessity of this change. — dei] denotes, in accordance with ver. 50, the ab-
solute necessity. — τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο] pointing to it ; Paul looks, as he writes,
at his own Ροᾶν. --- ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσ.]} figurative description (2 Cor. ν. 4)
of the process of change to an incorruptible condition of existence ; ἀθανασίας καὶ
ἀφθαρσίας ἐπιούσης αὐτῷ, Chrysostom, The infinitives aorist are purposely
chosen to denote the instantaneous completion.
Ver. 54. Then, however, when this our change has taken place, shall the
dominion of death cease ; no one shall die any more. —érav δὲ. . . ἀθανασ.]
and, as it were, triumphant repetition of the same weighty words. Comp.
Bornemann, Schol. in Lue. p. xxxix. Theodoret calls the passage a song of
victory. All the less is the first clause to be rejected, with Hofmann, on
critical grounds. The first corrector of δὲ has rightly restored it. — γενήσεται]
shall come to pass (in respect of its contents) the word, 7.e. it shall become
actual,—the written word shall become fact. Hofmann wrongly takes it :
Men shall then say so, as it stands written. Where a λόγος or ῥῆμα goes forth,
i.e. is spoken, there stands along with it the preposition of direction (as
John x. 35, Luke iii. 2, and frequently ; comp. Gen. xv. 1, a/.), or whence
the word comes (as Jer. xxvi. 1), or through whom it goes forth (from God ;
as Hagg. i. 3). It may be added, that they are not things simultaneous
which are announced in the protasis and apodosis (as Hofmann objects) ;
but when that which is spoken of in the protasis shall have taken place,
then, because from this time forward no one shall fall any more under the
power of death, shall that be realized, etc. This is the happy consequence
of that,—the complete victory of the life, which will link itself to that
change which shall thus take place in the twinkling of an eye, as to its
signal and prelude. —6 λόγος] effatum, oraculum, 1 Mace. vii. 16 ; Plato,
Phaedy. p. 275 Β ; Pindar, Pyth. iv. 105. Comp. Rom. ix. 9; John xii.
38, xv. 90. --- κατεπόθη x.7.4.] Isa. xxv. 8, not according to the LXX.,’
but according to the original text ; in quoting which, however, pba is
rendered as passive, and ΠΥ) is expressed in the way in which it is often
rendered in other passages, e.g. 2 Sam. ii. 26, Job xxxvi. 7, Jer. iii. 5 (but
not here), by the LXX.: εἰς νῖκος. The meaning is: Death has been com-
pletely done away. Comp. 2 Cor, vy, 4. This being brought to nought is
Rabbinical reminiscences (Krauss, p. 172) ;
for the two passages agree in substance,
and they supplement each other. The
incapacity, too, of the flesh for inheriting
the kingdom forms the necessary presup-
position for 1 Thess. iv. 17. And the resto-
ration of all is not taught even in our pas-
sage, ver. 54 f., where the final] shout of tri-
umph of the redeemed (ver. 26 f.) is heard.
1 Who here translate the words of the
prophet incorrectly: κατέπιεν ὃ θάνατος
ἰσχύσας.
CHAP. XV., δ. 389
represented under the image of being swallowed up (namely, by God ; see
the original text). As regards the event itself, comp. Rev. xxi. 4. — εἰς
νῖκος] unto victory, 1.6. so that thereby victory—namely, of the opposing power
of eternal life in the future Aeon—is established ; εἰς, in the sense of the
result. Comp. Matt. xii. 20. Νῖκος is a later form, in place of the old νίκη.
See Hermann, Diss. de Orph. p. 821. — Since the personified θάνατος is, ac-
cording to the context, bodily death and nothing more, this passage also
(comp. ver. 26) is of no avail for the establishment of the doctrine of res-
toration (in opposition to Olshausen). Comp. on vv. 22, 28. The passages
from the Rabbins, who likewise, upon the ground of Isa. 1.6., teach : ‘‘ in
diebus ejus (Messiac) Deus S. B. deglutiet mortem,” may be seen in Wetstein.
Ver. 55. Exulting exclamation of joy from the apostle (comp. as to ποῦ,
Rom. iii. 27; 1 Cor. i. 20), who transfers himself into that blessed future
of the γενήσεται x.7.2., ver. 54,7 and breaks out, as it were, into an ἐπινίκιον.
In doing so, he makes words from the LXX. Hos. xiii. 14 his own, with
free alteration. This great freedom in availing himself of the passage
almost solely in respect of the assonance of the words, and the whole lyrical
cast of the outburst, make it less likely that ver. 55 is still part of the quo-
tation (the common view ; but see, in opposition to it, van Hengel). — τὸ
κέντρον] Paul images to himself death as a beast with a deadly sting (a scor-
pion, or the like). Billroth, following Schoettgen thinks of a goad, which
death uses in order to cultivate its field. But this conception is not in the
least recalled by the context. Olshausen, too, is wrong in holding that τὸ
κέντρον denotes that which elicits the forthputting of strength : ‘‘ sin awa-
kens the sleeping strength of death, and the law, again, that of sin.” Then,
plainly, τὸ κέντρον τοῦ θανάτου, ver. 56, would be that which stings death,
which is impossible according to ver. 55 !—In the second question, ac-
cording to the Recepta ποῦ cov, ἅδη «.7.2., the (personified) Hades is looked
upon as having lost the victory ; for it has not only had, in virtue of the
resurrection of the bodies, to render up the souls of the departed which lay
under its power, but it receives no other souls into its power any more.
According to the reading :* ποῦ cov, θάνατε x.t.A. (see the critical remarks),
the new element, which comes as a climax, is brought forward in τὸ νῖκος
by way of addition, after a bold repetition of the same address ; so that,
putting aside the interrogative form, the meaning of the triumphant outburst
is’: Thou death stingest no more, for no one dies henceforth ; thou death hast
lost the victory, for the power of eternal life has won it over thee.
1 According to Osiander, εἰς is local; so act. According to van Hengel, Paul is
that νῖκος is presented under the image ofa
wild beast, which swallows up its prey.
Against this view there is, first, the absence
of the article ; secondly, eis (we should have
expected ὑπό, comp. Polyb. ii. 41. 7) ; lastly,
the τὸ νῖκος which follows vy. 55, 57.—
Luther’s gloss puts it happily and graphi-
cally: ‘‘ Death lies undermost, and has now
no strength left; but life lies uppermost,
and says, Victory !”
2 So, rightly, Chrysostom and Theophy-
speaking of the present life, namely, of the
joy of hope. But it is just the boldness of
the flight of thought which is the most
Pauline feature in our passage. The κέντρον
also is taken in too weak a sense by van
Hengel, namely, in that of only a hurting,
not a deadly sting, by which, in his view,
the terrors of death are meant.
3 [This reading is so well sustained as to
be adopted by all modern editors and
critics.—T. W. C.]
390 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
~Ver. 56 f., still retaining the conception of the κέντρον and the νῖκος,
points, by way of happy conclusion (not as introduction to the admonition
which follows, as Hofmann would have it), to the firm dogmatic ground
upon which this certainty of future victory rests in a connected view of
the gospel. ‘‘ Seeing that death slays through sin (Rom. v. 12), and sin,
again, is powerful through the /aw (Rom. vii. 7 ff.), it is thus certain that
God gives us the victory over death through Jesus Christ.” Christ, that is
to say, has indeed blotted out sin through His ἱλαστήριον, has risen for our
righteousness’ sake ; and has thus withdrawn us from the curse of the law,
and withdrawn us by His Spirit from its power to stir up and promote sin
(Rom. viii. 1 ff.). In this proof set forth by the apostle, the summary of
his whole gospel is contained. The form, however, is not argumentative,
but, in correspondence with the elevated and emotional tone of the passage,
such that shadow and light are placed beside each other, but with the light
breaking forth after the darkness, as in Rom. vii. 25, in the shape of a ery
of thanksgiving. —r@ διδόντι] present ; for this future victory of life over
death is for us sure and certain.
Ver. 58. Closing admonition, drawn in the way of inference by éore from
τῷ διδόντι ἡμῖν τὸ νῖκος διὰ K.7.2. (05) “Τ' herefore—because you are sure of the
victory — be stedfast,” etc. ‘The εἰδότες x.7.2., which glances back upon that
sure νῖκος, testifies in favour of this reference of ὥστε ; hence we have no
adequate ground for referring ὥστε to the whole section (de Wette, van
Hengel, al.), nay, even for making it extend to the whole Epistle (Hof-
mann. — édpaior, ἀμετακίν. Comp. Col. i. 23. ΤῸ conceive of the readers as
ethical athletes (Beza), is not suggested by the context. What is expressed is
Christian perseverance in general, under the figure of standing firm, comp.
vil. 37 (opposite : σαλεύεσθαι, comp. Theodoret), in connection with which,
again, ἀμετακίν. presents the perseverance more precisely as wnseduceableness,
both being in opposition to the possible seductions through the deniers
of the resurrection. Comp. on ἀμετακίν., Plato, Hp. vii. p. 343 A ; Dion.
Hal. i. p. 520 ; and on both words, Arist. Hth. ii. 4. 3. — περισσείοντες ἐν τῷ
ἔργῳ τ. k. πάντ. abounding in the work of the Lord, i.e. exceedingly active
and energetic therein, always. This more precise definition of περισσ. is
confirmed by the correlative 6 κόπος ὑμῶν (your pains and labour); ἐν, again,
denotes the definite sphere, wherein, etc. Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 7 ; Phil. i. 26;
Col. i. 7; Rom. xv. 13. The ἔργον τοῦ κυρίου is the work which is carried’ on
in the service of Christ. Comp. xvi. 10. His is the work, in which His
people labour. And they labour therein, each according to his different
calling, by the active fulfilment of His will as servants of the Lord (xii. 5).
The three points, ἑδραῖοι, ἀμετακ., περισσ. k.7.2. form a climax. — εἰδότες] since
‘ ye know (comp. Rom. v. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 7, iv. 14); it introduces the motive,
so significant in this connection, to follow the περισσ. ἐν τ. & τ. κι᾿ ὃ κόπος
ὑμῶν, your painstaking labour, which is devoted to the ἔργον τ. κυρίου. ---- κενός]
in vain, i.e. without result. Comp. ver. 10; 1 Thess. iii. 5. So would the
labour be, if there were no resurrection and no victorious consummation of
eternal life, because then the blessed reward of the labour would remain —
unattained, namely, the salvation of the Messianic kingdom which is des-
NOTES. 391
tined for the labourer. Rom. ii. 7; 2 Tim. ii. 12 ; Jas. i. 12, al. — ἐν κυρίῳ]
is not to be connected with ὁ κόπος ὑμ., but with οὐκ ἔστι κενός. It depends
upon Christ, that your labour is not fruitless ; for in Him the resurrection
(ver. 22) and the Messianic σωτηρία have their causal basis, vv. 17-19 ; Acts
moe; mom, ν. 9f., vi. 22, 23, x. 9, al.
Norres By AMERICAN EDITor.
(0°) ‘* Saved if you hold fast.’’ Ver. 2.
The view which reads, ‘‘I make known... if you still hold fast’’ is fa-
voured by Principal Brown and is adopted in the text of the Revision of 1881,
the other view being put in the margin, which, however, the American Commit-
tee prefer to the text. The weight of the argument appears to be with the old
version. The force of the last clause of the verse is well given by Hodge thus:
‘the gospel secures salvation unless your faith is of no account.”
(Pp?) ** That Christ died for our sins.’’ Ver. 3.
The Apostle begins the account of his Gospel not with the birth or infancy of
Christ, but with his death. This is due not to the subject he was about to
treat, so much as to his general custom of making the crucifixion the first and
great theme of his preaching. (See i. 18, 23, 11, 2.) This agrees with the gen-
eral strain of the Epistles, in which the death and resurrection of our Lord are
the main pointsinsisted upon. Rom. iv. 25 ; Ephes. i. 7-23 ; Col. 1. 14-23; 1.
Tim. iii. 16.
(Q’) ““ If so be that the dead are not raised.’’ Ver. 15.
The principle assumed by the objectors was that the dead could not rise.
Hence the reply of the Apostle is, If the dead cannot rise, then Christ did not
rise ; for Christ was dead.
(Β2) ‘* We are of all men most miserable.”’ Ver. 19.
This is not meant to teach that Christians in this life are more wretched than
other men, for the contrary is the case. But the point is that Christ is all in
all to His people, the source of their present as well as of their future happi-
ness. Without Him they are yet in their sins, under the curse of the law, un-
reconciled to God, having no hope, and without God in the world ; and yet
subject to all the peculiar trials incident to the Christian profession which in
the apostolic age often included the loss of all things.
The argument of vv. 14-19 may be summed up thus: If Christ’s resurrec-
tion be denied, (1) the whole gospel is subverted, v. 14 ; (2) the apostles are
made false witnesses, v. 15 ; (3) believers, instead of being pardoned, are still
in their sins, v. 17; (4) all the dead in Christ are lost, v. 18 ; and (5) the living
are more miserable than other men, v. 19.
(52) ‘* In Christ shall all be made alive.’’ Ver. 22.
Alford and the Speaker’s Commentary agree with Meyer in taking the ‘‘all"’
as meaning the entire race, and confining the ‘‘ making alive” to the mere fact
892 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
of a resurrection, without saying to what. But Stanley, Hodge, Prin. Brown,
and Beet limit the ‘‘all’’ to those who are in Christ, i.e. believers, and give
the verb its full meaning of a resurrection unto life. The wicked are not
thought of at all by the Apostle, and there is no reference to them here. The
latter view seems more in accordance with all that follows to the end of the
chapter.
(12) ‘* They that are Christ’s.”” Ver. 23.
This phrase is used, Gal. ν. 24, as = believers. It is difficult to see any rea-
son why it may not be taken to denote those who belong to Christ, no matter
in what age or country they may have lived.
(05) ‘* Then cometh the end.’’ Ver. 24.
The opinion which regards this phrase as meaning the end of the world is
favoured by the natural meaning of the word, by the analogy of Scripture (Matt.
xxiv. 6, 1. Peter iv. 7), and by the immediate connection which treats of the
completion of Christ’s mediatiorial reign. So Stanley, Alford, Hodge, Princi-
pal Brown, Beet, etc. Meyer's view is rejected by most interpreters.
(v?) ‘* All his enemies.”” Ver. 25.
The next verse seems to show clearly that the ‘‘enemies” here refer not only
to intelligent beings hostile to Christ, but to all forms of evil, physical or
moral,
(w?) ‘* The last enemy.” Ver. 26.
This rendering of Meyer seems to give the sense better than the A. V. or the
Revised Version. Beet translates in much the same way, ‘Asa last enemy
Death is brought to nought,”’
(x?) ‘ Allinall.”” Ver. 28.)
The phrase may be taken as all things in all persons, i.e. according to the con-
nection, the one Being who fills up the whole place in each one’s life, and is
the sole ruler of all interests and events. To attach to it a pantheistic sense is
utterly unreasonable and unscriptural. Stanley’s note on the verse is sugges-
tive.
(x?) ‘* Baptized for the dead.’’ Ver. 29.
All that needs to be added to the thorough discussion of these words in the
text is the remark of Hodge. ‘‘ The darkness which rests upon this passage can
never be entirely cleared away, because the reference is to a custom of which
no account is extant.’’ '
(2) ‘* Is not quickened except it die."’ Ver. 36.
The argument is that death is not annihilation, but disorganization, and this
as preparatory to reorganization, so that there is merely a transition from one
mode of being to another. But it is sometimes objected that while in the case
of the seed the germ remains, so that there is no interruption in the organic
life of the plant, the body on the contrary not only decays but is dis-
NOTES. . 893
persed, its elements often being taken up into new conbinations. The answer
is that the life of the body may be in the soul, which at the proper time gathers
its materials and unfolds itself into a new body. It is certain that sameness
does not require absolute identity of materials. No full-grown man now has a
particle of what constituted his body when a child, yet he is sure of his per-
sonal identity. So will it be with the risen saints. They will know themselves
to be the same persons that died and were buried, and this is enough to sustain
the blessed doctrine of the resurrection. To deny that doctrine because we
are unable to explain it would be the height of folly.
(a’) ** We shall also bear.’’ Ver. 49.
All the recent editors adopt the subjunctive reading, and render Let us also
bear as in the margin of the Revision of 1881, and for this the external evi-
dence greatly preponderates. Yet this seems to be a casein which the de-
mands of the context outweigh all other considerations. Stanley and Beet do
not feel this, yet it would seem to be plain that Paul here is dealing not with
ethics but physiology, Besides, Meyer, in his textual notes prefixed to the chap-
ter, shows very clearly how the vicious reading may have originated.
(B*) ‘‘ We shall not all sleep.’’ Ver. 51,
Dr. Meyer seems to understand the Apostle as affirming a confident expecta-
tion that he and others of that generation would survive till the coming of
Christ. To this there are two objections. First, it is not necessary. The
words simply mean that all (including both the Apostle and his readers) will
not die, but while some will escape death, none will escape a total bodily
change. Secondly, to suppose that the Apostle solemnly, under divine di-
rection, announced to his readers what was not the fact, would be to impeach
his inspiration.
(c?) ‘* We shall be changed.” Ver. 51.
The author’s assumption that the Apostle here states his belief that he should
live to see the Parousia is not necessary, since the words may mean merely ‘all
of us who are alive shall be changed,” and besides is opposed to his own state-
ment to the Thessalonians (II. iv. 15), whom he warns against expecting a
speedy occurrence of the Advent.
(05) ‘‘ Therefore be ye stedfast.’’ Ver. 58.
The sudden subsidence of so impassioned a strain of triumph into so sober a
conclusion is a remarkable instance of the practical character of the New Testa-
ment teaching (Stanley).
804. . PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
CHAPTER XVI.
Ver. 2. σαββάτου] recommended by Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. Riick.
Tisch., following A B CDEFG J 8** 17, Syr. Vulg. Chrys., al. Elz. and
Scholz, however, have σαββάτων, an alteration in accordance with passages
such as Matt. xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 2; Luke xxiv. 1. — Ver. 7. Instead of the
second γάρ, Elzevir has δέ, against decisive evidence. An alteration to express
the antithesis. — ἐπιτρέπῃ] Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read, as approved previously
by Griesb. : ἐπιτρέψῃ, following A BC J δὲ, min. Chrys. Theoph. ms. Rightly ;
comp. Heb. vi. 3. — Ver. 17. ὑμῶν] ὑμέτερον should be adopted, according to
preponderant evidence ; and comp. Phil. ii. 30.— Instead of οὗτοι, A Ὁ E
F G, 64, Vulg. Chrys. Oec. Ambrosiast. have αὐτοί, which is recommended by
Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Riick, Tisch.. Rightly ; the external evidence
is considerable enough, and οὗτοι might easily be written on the margin by
way of gloss. —Ver. 19. In place of Πρίσκιλλα we should write Πρίσκα, with
Tisch., following B δὲ, 17, and several vss. Pel. The former name was taken
from the Acts. — Ver. 22. ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν in Elz. after κύριον (against A Β C*
δὲ * and several min, Aeth. Copt.) is an old, readily-occurring addition.
Vv. 1-9. Regarding the collection for Jerusalem ; doubtless (comp. vii. 1,
viii. 2, xii. 1) occasioned by a question in the Corinthian letter.
Ver. 1.. The construction may be : ὥσπερ περὶ τῆς Aoy. διέτ. ταῖς ἐκκλ. THE
Ταλ., οὕτω x.7.A. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 1; also 1 Cor. xii. 1. Still περὲ - -.
ἁγίους may also be taken by itself (de Wette and others), comp. ver. 12, vii.
1, viii. 1. We cannot, indeed, decide, but the latter is more in harmony
with the inartificial movement of the epistolary style. — Aoyia’ συλλογῇ,
Suidas, comp. Hesychius. Without example elsewhere save in the
Fathers. — εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους] .6. εἰς τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῶν ἁγίων τῶν ἐν “Ἱερουσαλήμ,
Rom. xv. 26. This detail, however, was obvious of itself to the readers ;
the assumption that oi ἅγιοι by itself denoted the mother chwrch (Hofmann) *
is neither necessary nor capable of proof ; they are the ἅγιοι who are known ;
the readers were acquainted with the fact, for whom the apostle made the
collection. — The poverty of the church at Jerusalem explains itself in part
from the community of goods which had formerly ? subsisted there (see on
Acts li. 44 f.). This poverty itself, along with the high interest excited by
what was in truth the mother church of the whole of Christendom, as well
as Gal. ii. 10, and generally Paul’s love for his people (Rom. ix. 3), which
made sacrifices with joy, form a sufficient explanation of his great zeal in
their support, and of his delivering over the sums raised in person, notwith-
1 See in opposition to this explanation of 2 The community of goods cannot by this
oi ἅγιοι, Which was previously proposed by — time have subsisted any longer; otherwise
Wieseler also, Riehm, Lehrbegr. ἃ. Ποὺ». Br. it could not have been said, Rom. /.c., τοὺς
p. xviii. ed. 2. πτωχοὺς τῶν ἁγίων, See Acts iv. 34.
CHAP. XVI., 2. 395
standing the dangers which he saw before him. Riickert’s view (comp.
also Olshausen), that Paul desired to appease the minds of the Jewish
Christians there which were embittered against him, before he journeyed
into the west, has no trace whatever of its existence either in the Acts or
the Epistles. See, on the contrary, Acts xxi. 17-24. Riickert even asserts
that such a reason alone could justify him in undertaking so perilous a
journey. But see Acts xx. 22-24. — rjc Tadar.] whether from Ephesus by
messengers, or in person on the journey mentioned in Acts xviii. 23
(Osiander, Neander, Wieseler), or by letter (so Ewald), must be left unde-
cided. In the Epistle to the Galatians preserved to us there is no mention
of this collection ; for Gal. ii. 10 is of general import, although it is the
basis of the apostolic διατάσσειν, as well as the special warrant for it. For
the rest, Bengel aptly says: ‘‘ Galatarum exemplum Corinthiis, Corinthio-
rum exemplum Macedonibus, et Macedonum Romanis proponit, 2 Cor. ix.
2; Rom. xv. 26. Magna exemplorum vis.” But a proof, too, how Paul
sought to foster the community of life and effort in his churches (comp.
Lechler, p. 364 f.), and how the appointed mode of doing so had already
approved itself.
Ver. 2. Kara μίαν σαββάτου] on each first day of the week. A Hebraism
very common in the New Testament, in accordance with the Jewish custom
of designating the days of the week by D3W3 NS, awd Ww, etc. Light-
foot, Hor. ad Matth. xxviii. 1. (n*) The singular of caf. also means week, as in
Mark xvi. 9 ; Luke xviii. 12. — It does not, indeed, follow from this pas-
sage in itself that the Sunday was already observed at that time by assem-
blies for the worship of God, although this is to be assumed from other
indications (see regarding this on Acts xx. 7) ; for παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ τιθέτω cannot
refer to the laying down of money in the assembly (Estius, Bengel,
Mosheim, al.) ; but no doubt it does show that to the Christian conscious-
ness it was a holy day in whose consecration the appropriateness of such
works of love was felt, ra yap ἀπόῤῥητα ἀγαθὰ καὶ ἡ pila καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς ζωῆς
ἡμετέρας ἐν ταύτῃ γέγονεν, Chrysostom, — παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ τιθέτω κ.τ.}.} let him lay
up in store at home whatever (quodcunque) he succeeds in, i.e. if he has suc-
cess in anything, let him lay it up (i.e. what has been gained thereby), comp.
expressions such as in John xii. 5 ; Matt. xix. 21, etc. Comp. Herod. vi.
73: Κλεομένεϊ εὐωδώθη τὸ πρῆγμα. Eccles. xi. 16, xxxviii. 14, xli. 1 ; Tobit
iv. 19; 3 John 2. To supply θησαυρίζειν after evod. (Hofmann) is superflu-
ous. Explanations such as quod ei placuerit (Vulgate,’ Erasmus, Paraphr.,
Luther, a/.), and that of Billroth and Riickert, following older interpreters :
what is possible for him without burdening himself, are not in accordance with
the literal sense of evodéw (see on Rom. i. 10). παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ : at home, chez lui,
see on Luke xxiv. 12. Loesner, Obss. Ὁ. 297. θησαυρίζων : ‘‘paulatim
cumulum aliquem faciens,” Grotius. —iva μὴ x.t.2.] in order that gatherings
be not made, when I shall have come. The collection was to be then so far
already made, that every one would only have to produce what he had
1 The Vulgate, perhaps, may have read εὐδοκῇ. Comp. the Gothic: “ thatei yili’” (what
he will).
396 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS,
already gathered together week by week out of his profits in trade. By this
whole injunction Paul doubtless had in view both the enlargement and the
acceleration in due season of the collection.
Ver. 3. Οὗς ἐὰν doin. | whomsoever you shall consider jit. Paul thus makes
the appointment of the persons who were to bring the money dependent
upon the choice of his readers ; hence Grotius observes : ‘‘ Vide, quomodo
vir tantus nullam swspicioni rimam aperire voluerit.” It is possible, how-
ever, that he had never thought of that ; for it was quite natural for him,
with his fine practical tact, not to anticipate the givers as respects the trans-
mission of their gifts. — δ ἐπιστολῶν] by means of letters, by my giving them
letters along with them to express their mission. Comp. Winer, p. 356 [E.
T. 476]. The plural might denote the category (by way of letter), and thus
only one letter be meant (Heumann) ; but there is nothing to compel us to
depart from the plural sense, for Paul very reasonably might design to write
different letters to several persons at Jerusalem.’ Av’ ἐπίστ. is to be connected
with what follows (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and the majority of modern
expositors), and it is put first, because Paul has already in his mind the
other possible alternative, that he himself may make the journey. The
majority of the older editors (except Er. Schmid), also Beza, Calvin, Estius,
al., connect it with δοκιμ : ‘‘quos Hierosolymitanis per epistolas commenda-
veritis,” Wetstein. But in that case the πέμψω would surely be somewhat
meaningless ! No; the bearers of the collection are to be chosen by the
givers; but it is Paul, as the originator and apostolically commissioned
steward (Gal. ii. 10) of the collection, who sends the money. —r7v χάριν ip. |
your love-gift, beneficium. Comp. 2 Cor. vill. 4, 6, 7, 19. ‘‘Gratiosa appel-
latio,” Bengel ; comp. Oecumenius ; Xen. Ag. iv. 4 f., Hier. viii. 4; Eccles.
ili, 29, xxx. 6, xxix. 15 ; 4 Mace. v. 8.
Ver. 4. In case, however, of it (what is being spoken of, 1.6. the result of
the collection) being worthy that I too should journey (to Jerusalem),? then
they shall journey with me. The genitive τοῦ πορεύεσθαι depends upon ἄξιον.
Comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. Ὁ. 845; Winer, p. 304 [E. T. 408]. — Paul
makes his own journeying thither dependent upon the issue of the collec-
tion, not, of course, for the sake of safety in its conveyance, nor yet because,
in the event of a considerable sum being realized, he desired to be indepen-
dent in connection with the application of it, but—which alone results from
ἄξιον without arbitrariness—because a scanty sum would have been dispro-
not make the journey at any rate (Hof-
mann), but that he makes it dependent on
1 We see, too, from this passage how com-
mon it was for the apostle, in the course
of his work, to indite letters even to indi-
viduals. Who knows how many of such
writings of his have been lost! The only
letter of the kind which we still have (set-
ting aside the pastoral Epistles), that to
Philemon, owes its preservation perhaps
solely to the circumstance that it was
addressed at the same time to the church in
the house (Philem. 2).
3. Τῷ is clear from καμὲ mop. that he will
the above-named circumstance whether /e
dso stall journey thither. What a strange
state of things, too, would be the result,
if he were resolved to journey at any rate,
but the messengers, in the event of the col-
lection proving a small one, were to make
the journey not in his company, but alone!
Paul assuredly did not contemplate any-
thing so paltry.
CHAP. ΧΥ͂Ι., 5-7. 397
portionate to an extraordinary mission. Consideration for the decorum at-
taching to the apostolic rank underlies his procedure, not the prudential
motive : ‘‘in order, on this opportunity, to fulfil his purpose of going to
Jerusalem (Acts xix. 21), and to prepare for himself there a good reception”
(de Wette), or in order by this journey to heal the breach between the Jew-
ish and Gentile Christians (Baur). Bengel says well: ‘‘ Justa aestimatio
sui non est superbia.” At the same time, he will not undertake this charge
alone ; see 2 Cor. vili. 20.
Ver. 5 f. His arrival, which had not hitherto been specifically determined,
is now defined by him as respects its time. —érav Maxed. διέλθω] According
to 2 Cor. i. 15, it had previously been his plan to proceed from Ephesus by
Corinth to Macedonia, from Macedonia again back to Corinth, and then on-
ward to Jerusalem. This plan, however, he has altered (see 2 Cor. i. 15,
23 ff.), and he now intends to journey first through Macedonia, and then
to Corinth, where he thinks perhaps (τυχόν) to spend some time, or even to
winter. In the second Epistle, too, we see him actually engaged on this
journey in Macedonia (2 Cor. ii. 13, viii. 1, ix. 2, 4), and upon the way to
Corinth (ii. 1, xii. 14, xiii. 1, a/.). Acts xx. 1, 2, agrees with this. — Maxed.
yap διέρχ.]} is not a parenthesis, but the Maxed. put first corresponds to the
πρὸς ὑμᾶς δέ which follows, and the διέρχομαι to the παραμενῶ : for Macedonia
I journey through (without halting), but with you will I perhaps remain. The
present diépy. designates the future as present in conception, 7.e. conceived
as quite certain.’ From the erroneous rendering : 7 am on my journey
through Macedonia, arose the erroneous statement in the subscription, that
the letter was written from Philippi. — παραμενῶ] he remained three months,
Acts xx. 2. —iva ὑμεῖς κ.τ.}.7 ὑμεῖς has the emphasis. Were Paul to remain
in another church, others would give him the escort ; there is something
kindly both in iva and in ὑμεῖς, the unprompted thoughtfulness of love. —
τυχόν] forsan, only here in the New Testament, very common in Greek
writers. —oi] As Luke x. 1. Bornemann, Schol. in loc. ; Kiihner, II. p. 318.
Whither his thoughts, however, were generally turned at that time, see
Acts xix. 21.
Ver. 7. For it is not my will to see you now in passing. Since he does not
say πάλιν ἐν rap., but ἄρτι ἐν rap., no inference can be drawn from this pas-
sage to decide the question (see introduction to 2 Cor. § 2) whether Paul
had been already twice in Corinth before writing our Epistle to the Corin-
thians (in opposition to Schrader, Neander, Wieseler, Otto) ; but he says
simply : it is not his will now to visit the Corinthians only as a passing travel-
ler, which leaves it quite undecided whether he has already previously
visited them once ἐν παρόδῳ (so, too, Hofmann) or not. In order rightly to
understand the passage, observe that the ὑμᾶς, which is put first on that ac-
count, has the emphasis, in contrast to the Macedonians. The Corinthians,
in the journey which he is now about to make, are to have the advantage over
the Macedonians, whom he will only see in journeying through, ver. 5.2 Ac-
1 [That is, J am to pass, not Iam passing, a 2This also against Otto, Pastoralb. p.
sense of the present tense not uncommon 356 f.
in the New Testament.—T. W. C.]
398 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
cording to Billroth and others, the thought is meant to be, that he will not now
see them, as he had formerly intended, on his journey through (to Macedonia).
But in that case he would have written : ἄρτι yap οὐ θέλω x.7.2. Regarding
ἐν παρόδῳ, comp. Thue. i. 126. 7, v. 4. 5, vii. 2. 3; Polyb. v. 68. 8; Lucian,
D. Deor. xxiv. ὃ. ---- ἐλπίζω yap x.7.2.] ground of the οὐ θέλω «.7.2. ; for he
hopes that the Lord will enable him to make a longer visit to the church
than merely ἐν παρόδῳ, and upon the ground of this hope it is not his will,
etc. —6 κύριος] Christ, in whose service the apostle journeys and works
(Acts xvi. 7, 10). ---- ἐπετρέψῃ] shall have allowed, i.e. shall have given signs
of His approval. ‘‘ Pia conditio,” Bengel. Comp. iv. 19,
Vv. 8, 9. Paul now mentions the duration of his present stay in Ephesus,
and the reason of it. — τῆς πεντηκ.] is the immediately impending festival of
Pentecost. See Introduction, § 3. Nothing can be inferred from our text,
which contains simply a statement of time, in support of a Christian cele-
bration of this festival as already by this time subsisting. — θύρα γάρ μοι k.t.A. |
The figurative expression (comp. Wetstein) denotes the opportunity opened
before him for working (otherwise Acts xiv. 27). Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 12, and
see on Col. iv. 8. (Ε Μεγάλη applies to the extent, évepy. to the influence of the
sphere of action offered ; the latter epithet, however, powerful, corresponds
not to the jigure but to the matter, and even to that only in so far as it is
conceived of as immediately connected with the opened 6ipa,—a want of con-
gruity in the animated and versatile mode of representation (comp. Plato,
Phaedr. p. 245 A : Μουσῶν ἐπὶ ποιητικὰς θύρας ἀφίκηται) which occasioned the
reading ἐναργής, evidens (Vulgate, Itala, Pelagius, Ambrosiaster, Beda),
which occurs in Philem. 6, and is approved by Beza, Grotius, Bos, and
Clericus. As regards the later Greek of avéwyev (instead of ἀνέῳκται, as 46,
Theophylact and Oecumenius actually read), see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 157 1.
—k. ἀντικείμ. πολλοί] ‘‘ quibus resistam, Saepe bonum et contra ea malum
simul valde vigent,”” Bengel.
Vy. 10, 11. Recommendation of Timothy (iv. 17) to be well received
and escorted back. He is not the bearer of our Epistle (Bleek), but jour-
neyed through Macedonia (Acts xix. 22), and must arrive in Corinth later
than the Epistle. — ἐὰν δὲ ἔλθῃ] if, indeed, he shall have come. Riickert holds
that ὅταν would have been more correct. Either one or other was correct,
just according to the conception of the writer. He conceives of the arrival
of Timothy as conditioned by the circumstances, and therefore places it
under the hypothetical, not under the temporal (ὅταν), point of view.— ἵνα
x.T.2.] design of the βλέπετε : be careful, in order that he, etc. Paul might
also have written negatively: βλέπετε, μὴ ἐν φόβῳ (ii. 8), Or iva μὴ ἐ. φ. (2
John 8), etc. The positive expression, however, demands more; his going
out and in among the readers is to be free from fear. Comp. on γένεσθαι
with the adverb of the mode of the going out and in, Herod. i. 8, ix. 109 ;
Plut. Alex. 69, Demetr. 11, Mor. Ὁ. 127 A ; also Plato, Prot. 825 B ; Tobit
vil. 9, 11 ; 1 Mace. viii. 29. They are so to conduct themselves towards
him that he shall not be intimidated among them. This peculiar ἀφόβως, as
well as the reason assigned which follows τὸ yap ἔργον x«.7.A., and the con-
clusion again drawn from it: μή τις οὖν ait. ἐξουθενήσῃ, make it probable
CHAP. XVI., 12: 399
that Paul has in view not the il-will of his own opponents, which. his friend
might encounter (Osiander, Neander), with which the τὸ γὰρ... ὡς καὶ
ἐγώ does not well agree, but the youth of Timothy (1 Tim. iv. 12), on
account of which, in a church to some extent of a high-minded tendency,
he might easily be not held in full respect, slighted and intimidated. So
already Chrysostom and the majority of interpreters. The conjecture that
Timothy was of a timid natwre (de Wette) is without a trace of historical
support, and is superfluous. Regarding τὸ ἔργ. τοῦ κυρ., see on xv. 58. — ἔν
εἰρήνῃ] is not to be explained from the formula : πορεύεσθαι ἐν εἰρήνῃ (SO
Calvin : ‘‘salvum ab omni noxa,” comp. Beza, Flatt, Maier), since, on the
contrary, the context would lead us to think, in accordance with ἀφόβως and
μή τις ἐξουθ., of a peaceful escort, a προπέμπειν im peace and concord, χωρὶς
μάχης k. φιλονεικίας (Chrysostom, Theophylact). Flatt and Hofmann refer ἐν
eip. to what follows (that he may come to me safely and without danger). But
the subsequent reason assigned contains nothing referable to ἐν εἰρήνῃ,
which must have been the case, had it been so emphatically put first. Be-
sides, the escort to be given was not for protection, but in testimony of love
and reverence. — iva ἔλθῃ πρός με] There is implied, namely, in προπέμψατε
k.T.A., With its aim as here defined : ‘‘in order that he may come (back) to
me,” the admonition not to detain him too long in Corinth—for Paul is
expecting him. — μετὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν] Several others, therefore, besides Erastus
(Acts xix. 22), had journeyed with Timothy.’
Ver. 12. Aé] marks the transition from Timothy to Apollos. — περὶ dé ’Ar.
τοῦ ad.] stands independently : quod attinet ad Apoll., as ver. 1, vii. 1. —iva
ἔλθῃ x.7.2.] design of the πολλὰ παρεκάλεσα αὐτόν : I have advised him much, in
order that he should come, etc. Paul makes this remark : ‘‘ ne Corinthii sus-
picentur, ab eo fuisse impeditum,” Calvin. Perhaps they had expressly
besought that Apollos might be sent to them. — πολλά is intensive, as in
ver. 19, and often in Greek writers. —yera τῶν ἀδελφῶν] These are the
Corinthian Christians, who journeyed back from Ephesus to Corinth with
this Epistle. See ver. 17. Here also the words are not to be joined with
παρεκάλεσα (Hofmann), but with iva ἔλθῃ «.7.4., beside which they stand. —
καὶ πάντως κ.τ.}.1 And the will was wholly (out and out) lacking (‘‘sermo quasi
impersonalis,” Bengel) that he should come now, comp. Matt. xviii. 14.
The context compels us to understand θέλημα of the will of Apollos, not of
God's will (Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Bengel, Riickert). καί
does not stand for ἀλλά (Beza and others) comp. Rom, 1, 13. — ὅταν εὐκαιρ.]
So soon as he shall have found a convenient time for it. Regarding the late-
ness of the word in Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 125.
RemarxK.—It follows from this passage that Apollos, who by this time must
have been again (Acts xviii. 24 ff.) in Ephesus,’ was neither a faction-maker
1 To refer it to ἐκδέχ. : I with the brethren be sent together on such missions.
who are here (Bengel and de Wette unde- 2 He seems, however, just when this let-
cidedly, older interpreters in Calovius, and ter was written to have been absent fora
again Hofmann), has the analogy of ver. 12 time, since no special greeting is sent from
againstit. It was usual that several should him.
400 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
nor at variance with Paul, for Paul himself plainly regarded his going to Cor-
inth as a thing advantageous and to be desired. Hence, too, the refusal of
Apollos is not to be explained from fear of adding new fuel to the party heats,
but simply from the contents of the ὅταν εὐκαιρήσῃ. He must have found hin-
drances for the present in the relations of his work, by which he saw himself
detained from the desired journey until a more convenient time, so that he did
not yield even to the advice of the apostle. The text tells us nothing further ;
but the Corinthians themselves might learn more details from the bearers of
the Epistle. Van Hengel (Gave d. talen. p. 111 f.) brings the refusal into a too
arbitrarily assumed connection with the Corinthian misuse of the glossolalia.
Ver. 13 f. In conclusion of the whole Epistle, and without connection or
reference to what has immediately preceded, there is now added a concise
exhortation which compresses closely together, in five imperatives following
each other asyndetically, the whole sum of the Christian calling, upon
which are then to follow some personal commendations and greetings, as
well as, lastly, the proper closing greeting and the benediction. — The γρηγο-
ρεῖτε Summons to Christian foresight and soberness, without which stedfast-
ness in the faith (στήκ. ἕν τ. rior.) is not possible ; (G*) ἀνδρίζεσθε and
κραταιοῦσθε, again, to the manly (‘‘muliebris enim omnis inconstantia,”
Pelagius) and vigorous resistance against all dangers, without which that
stedfastness cannot continue. — ἀνδρίζεσθαι] to bear oneself manfully, to be
manly in bearing and action; only here in the New Testament, but often
in classic writers, see Wetstein, and in the LXX. Comp. the Homeric
ἀνέρες ἐστε, Il. v.529 ; and see, also, Valckenaer, ad Herod. vii. 210; Heind.
ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 239 B. Comp. ἀνδρικῶς ὑπομεῖναι μάχεσθαι κ.τ.λ., Ast,
Lex. Plat. I. p. 165. — κραταιοῦσθε] be strong. Comp. Eph. 11. 16: δυνάμει
κραταιωθῆναι διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον. The verbal form
occurs in the LXX. and Apocrypha ; not in Greek writers, who say κρατύ-
νεσθαι. --- ἐν ἀγάπῃ] as in the life-sphere of the whole Christian disposition
and action, chap. xiii., and, in particular, of mutual edification, viii. 1.
Vv. 15-18. Commendation of the three Corinthian delegates who had
brought to the apostle the letter of the church ; first of all (ver, 15 f.) and
chiefly, of Stephanas (i. 16) and his house. The special expression which
Paul gives (ver. 16) to the commendation of Stephanas must have been
grounded in some antagonism unknown to us, which the man had to lament
in his work for the church. —apaxa4@] The question is, Whether the ex-
hortation itself begins at once with oidare (so that the latter would be imper-
ative), or only with iva, so that oidare would be indicative, and the passage
ending with ἑαυτούς would put forward the motive in the first place? The
latter is the ordinary view and the only correct one, for οἴδατε as an imper-
ative form (instead of ἔστε) cannot be pointed out (in opposition to Erasmus,
Wolf, Heydenreich) ; on the supposition of its being imperative, εἰδέναι
would require to be taken as in 1 Thess. y. 12 (‘‘ut jubeat agnosci bene
meritos,” Erasmus) ; on the view of its being indicative, it is the simple
know. The construction is the ordinary attraction οἱδά σε τίς el, and οἴδατε
. ἑαυτούς is an auxiliary thought which interrupts the construction (comp.
Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 346). — ἀπαρχὴ tic’ Ay. | 1.6. the first family which
πο πτῖ,, 1:18... 401
had accepted Christianity in Achaia ; the holy jirst-fruits of the land, in so
far as it was destined to become, and was in process of becoming, Christian,
Comp. Rom. xv. 6. — ἔταξαν] The plural, on account of the collective οἰκία.
They have set themselves (voluntarily devoted themselves and placed them-
selves at the post) for the service of the saints. Instances of τάσσειν ἑαυτόν in this
sense may be seen in Wetstein and Kypke, II. p. 234. Comp. Plato, Rep.
Ῥ. 371 C : ἑαυτοὺς ἐπὶ τὴν διακονίαν τάττουσι ταύτην, Xen. Ages. ii. 25, Mem. 11.
1. 11. Beza denies the emphasis of ἑαυτούς, unwarrantably, but in the inter-
est of the ‘‘ vocatio legitima.”! We have no more precise knowledge of the
historical circumstances here pointed to. Perhaps Stephanas devoted him-
self also especially to journeys, embassies, execution of special commissions,
and the like ; his wife, to the care of the poor and sick. — τοῖς ἁγίοις is an appro-
priating dative to dvax. See, already, Raphel, Xenoph. in loc. ; Bernhardy,
Ῥ. 88. By οἱ ἄγιοι are meant the Christians, as in ver. 1 ; not, however, the
mother church at Jerusalem (Hofmann). A reference to prosecuting the col-
lection (in connection with which people had, it is supposed, been refractory
towards Stephanas) lies wholly remote from the words. — kai ὑμεῖς] You too.
The καί finds its reference, according to the context, in what goes before :
εἰς διακ. τ. dy. érag. éavt. Wetstein is right, therefore, in saying : ‘‘illi vobis
ministrant ; aequum est, ut vos illis vicissim honorem exhibeatis” (rather :
obsequamini). —irotdoc.| namely, to their proposals, exhortations, etc.
Ewald and Ritschl regard Stephanas as one of the overseers of the church ;
a relation which, however, would have required a more precise and definite
designation than the general and qualitative τοῖς τοιούτοις. See, besides, on
1. 17. —roic τοιούτοις] to those who are so affected, indicates, in a generalizing
way, the category to which Stephanas and his house belong. This general-
ization, by which the injunction of obedience towards the concrete persons
comes out in a less strict and immediate form, but in which it is still implied,
is a delicacy of expression. —r6 ovvepy.| The reference of the συν is given by
the context from τοῖς τοιούτοις ; hence : who works with them, i.e. in fellowship
with them, which presupposes harmony in the spirit and purport of the work.
Comp. Chrysostom. While Riickert leaves us our choice between three
supplements contrary to the context : τῷ θεῷ (iv. 9), ἐμοί (so Erasmus), and
ὑμῖν (2 Cor. i. 24), Hofmann adds a fourth arbitrary supplement : helpful to
increase the kingdom of God. This design is of course taken for granted of
itself, but does not explain the συν. --- καὶ κοπιῶντι] and takes pains (therein),
gives himself trouble about it. Comp. xv. 10, iv. 12; Gal. iv. 11; Rom.
Xvi. 6.
Vv. 17, 18. Regarding Fortunatus (probably not different from the per-
son named in Clem. 1 Cor. 59) and Achaicus no particulars are known.
They are not to be included (as de Wette would have it) in the family of
Stephanas, which has been spoken of already. Grotius holds them to be
Chloe’s people ; but see oni. 11. — ὅτι τὸ ὑμέτερον ὑστέρημα αὐτοὶ ἀνεπλ. | because
they for their part have supplied your lack (your absence). Comp. on Phil.
1 Which does not come into consideration here, since there is no mention of entrance
upon an ecclesiastical office.
402 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ii. 30. Ὑμέτ. is thus taken objectively (comp. xv. 31) : the lack of your pres-
ence ; and ὑμέτ. and αὐτοί (see the critical remarks) have the emphasis. Ob-
serve how courteously the expression : the want of you (of your presence), is
chosen. Hofmann, on the contrary, misses this delicate touch by taking it
as: what was lacking in you, in this respect, namely, that you could not
appear with me in person. With still less delicacy Grotius, who adduces in
his support 2 Cor. ix. 12: ‘‘ quod vos omnes facere oportuit, id illi fecerunt ;
certiorem me fecere de vestris morbis.” He is followed by Riickert, who
founds wrongly upon Phil. ii. 80: ‘‘what should have been done by you, that
have they done,” inasmuch, namely, as they had given him joy, which had
not been done by the Corinthians. But we must not decide here by passages
from other Epistles, since linguistically both renderings alike may be cor-
rect, but simply by the connection, according to which the men as ambassa-
dors from the Corinthians were the compensation to the apostle for the lack
of the presence of the latter. Comp. Chrysostom. —avéravoay yap k.t.A.]
reason assigned for the preceding τὸ ὑστέρημα ait. averA.’ Regarding the
phrase, comp. 2 Cor. vii. 13; Philem. 7, 20. —xai τὸ ὑμῶν] for they have
refreshed (by their arrival here, and the communications and assurances con-
nected therewith, comp. 2 Cor. vii. 13) my spirit and yours. The latter,
inasmuch as they had come not in their own name, but as representatives of
the whole church ; their meeting therefore with Paul could not but be refresh-
ing to the consciousness of the whole church. As they by their presence
provided for Paul the joy of ἀνάπαυσις, so they provided it also for the church,
which through them had entered into this fellowship with the apostle, and
thus owed to them the refreshment which it could not but experience in the
consciousness of this living intercourse of love with Paul brought about
through these men. Comp. Chrysostom : οὐ Παύλῳ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκείνοις
αὐτοὺς χαρισαμένους δείκνυσι τῷ τὴν πόλιν ἅπασαν ἐν αὐτοῖς περιφέρειν. Paul thus
expresses not simply reciprocity in general,—that which is presupposed where
there is good-will (de Wette),—but the relation implied in the representation
of the church by their delegates,—a relation, therefore, which for the latter,
in virtue of their acceptance of the embassage, was one of merit. There
lies here, also, in the addition of this second pronoun, a tender delicacy
(comp. on i. 2), which the readers acquainted with the manner of the apos-
tle could well appreciate. Grotius makes the reference to be to the assur-
ances of Paul’s love which those men had brought with them to the Corin-
thians. But τὸ ὑμῶν also, like τὸ ἐμὸν πνεῦμα, must refer to the time of the
presence of the delegates with Paul. — ἐπιγινώσκετε] Attention to the com-
pound verb : recognize them rightly (comp. on xiii. 12), should of itself have
sufficed to prevent alterations of the sense of the word (such as : prize them
highly, so Theophylact, Grotius, Flatt, Neander, and others). The high es-
teem is the consequence of the ἐπίγιν. --- τοὺς τοιούτους] as in ver. 16.
Ver. 19 ἢ. Τῆς ᾿Ασίας] in the narrower sense, comprehending the western
coastlands of Asia Minor’(see on Acts ii. 9), where Ephesus also lay. From
1 Had Paul and his readers met together this refreshment of both parties had now
in person, this would have been refreshing taken place through those delegates.
for both parties (comp. Rom. i. 12); and
CHAP. XVL, et oe 403
the latter, at least, Paul was charged with a greeting, but in the assurance of
a like loving fellowship on the part also of the other Asiatic churches,
with which he was in intercourse from Ephesus, he widens it. — ἐν κυρίῳ]
marks the Christian character of the greeting, inasmuch as it was given
with the feeling of living and moving in Christ. Comp. on Rom. xvi. 22.
The ἐν xvp., which is here added, is taken for granted by the reader in the
case of the other greetings also. But here precisely it is expressed, be-
cause this greeting is a specially fervent one ; hence also πολλά (much, comp.
ver. 19). -- σὺν τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκον avr. ἐκκλ.1 Aquila and Prisca (Priscilla), who
had gone from Corinth (see on Acts xviii. 2) to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18, 26),
had therefore given their dwelling here too, as afterwards at Rome (Rom.
xvi. 3 f.), for the assembly of a portion of the Christians in the place.
Comp. on Rom. 1.6. Probably Paul also lodged with them, so that the
old addition : rap’ οἷς καὶ ξενίζομαι (DE F G, Vulg., etc.), contains a true
statement. —oi ἀδελφοὶ πάντες] the whole of the members of the Ephesian
church—these, still, separately and personally, although already included
collectively in the first greeting. —-év qi. dy.] by means of a holy kiss. See on
Rom. xvi. 16 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 26. It is the kiss which was
the token of Christian, brotherly love (1 Pet. v. 14), and thus had the spe-
cific character of Christian consecration. Comp. Constit. apost. li. 57. 12,
viii. 5. 5 : τὸ ἐν κυρίῳ φίλημα. More special considerations, such as that of
the absence of hypocrisy (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact), are am-
ported. They are to greet each other, mutually (not from Paul), with the holy
kiss after the reading of the Epistle in the assembly, and thereby manifest
their brotherly love to each other respectively.1. Comp. on Rom. xvi. 16.
Vv. 21-24. Conclusion added with his own hand in token, according to 2
Thess. iii. 17, comp. ii. 2, that the Epistle, though not written with his own
hand, was his Epistle. Comp. Col. iv. 18. — ὁ ἀσπασμός] is the greeting κατ᾽
ἐξοχήν, the final salutation to the church. Nothing is to be supplied ; on
the contrary, Paul writes these words, and there is the greeting. — Παύλου]
in apposition to ἐμῇ. See Kiihner, II. p. 145.—JIn ver. 22, looking back
once more, as it were involuntarily, upon the many degenerate forms of
Christian life, and the discords at Corinth, he adds an apostolic utterance of
judgment, full of terrible solemnity, against all those who could not but
feel that it struck at them. — οὐ φιλεῖ τ. κύρ.] is without love to Christ. So he
designates those Christians, who, like so many at Corinth, by factiousness,
self-seeking, strife, a carnal life, etc., practically denied their love to Christ
(John xiv. 23). That the course applied to them, as long as they were impen-
itent, is self-evident. Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 10.—Observe that the more sen-
suous word φιλεῖν is nowhere used by Paul in those Epistles which are un-
doubtedly his (comp., however, Tit. iii. 15), except in this passage so full of
emotion ; elsewhere he uses ἀγαπᾶν (Eph. vi. 34). --- ἤτω ἀνάθ.] i.e. then let
him be one devoted to destruction (to the eternal ἀπώλεια). See on Rom. ix.
8; Gal. 1. 8. --- μαραναθά] energetic reference to the Parousia, at which that
1 We are to conceive of this ἀσπάζεσϑαι the medium instead of words. Comp.
ἀλληλούς as a silent one, in which the kiss is Const. ap. viii. 11. 4.
404 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS,
ἤτω ἀνάθ. shall be realized. The word isthe Aramaic ΝΣ &)V), i.e. our Lord
is come, by which, however, not the coming in the flesh is meant, as Chrys-
ostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Jerome, Erasmus, Castalio, al., assume,’
but, in accordance with the context (see previously ἤτω avdé.), the eschato-
logical coming to judgment. Paul sees the near and certain Parousia as if
already begun (see on this use of the Hebrew praeterite, Ewald, Lehrb. 135.
3), and exclaims, like a prophet beholding it in vision: Our Lord is here!
But it is not ἃ form of putting under ban (see Lighfoot, Hor. p. 260), as indeed
it does not occur in the Rabbinical writings ; Luther (comp. Calvin) has with-
out any warrant made it into Maharam Motha (which would be 8) DIN,
maledictus ad mortem). According to Hofmann, μαραναθά is meant to be
equivalent to 38 V3, Thou art the Lord, whereby the thought is ex-
pressed : ‘‘ He will prove Himself in them to be Lord.” But how needless is
this wholly novel and far Jess characteristic interpretation | The traditional
interpretation,” on the other hand, places the punishment of the judgment di-
rectly before our eyes. Why, we may ask further, did Paul use the Ara-
maean expression ? We do not know. (m*) Perhaps there was implied in it
some reminiscence from the time of the apostle’s presence among them, un-
known to us, but carrying weight for his readers ; perhaps it was only the
prompting of momentary indignation, that, after the sentence of judgment
already pronounced (ἤτω ἀνάθεμα), ‘‘rei gravitate commotus, quasi sibi non
satisfecisset” (Calvin), he desired to clothe in truly solemn language the
threatening reference to the Parousia yet to be added by μαραναθά, instead of
saying ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἥκει. That there was a reference, however, in the
Aramaean expression to the Petrine party who understood Hebrew, is not to
be assumed (in opposition to Hofmann), as the general εἶ τὶς οὐ φιλεῖ τ. κύριον
shows of itself. The two Aramaean words were doubtless intelligible enough
in general in the mixed church, which contained so much of the Jewish
element. Had the Maranatha, however, been as it were the mysterious
watchword in the world of that time (Ewald), there would be in all proba-
bility more traces of it to be found in the New Testament. This also in op-
position to Bengel. The view of Chrysostom and Theophylact is singularly
absurd : Paul wished by the Aramaean to cross the conceit of the Corin-
thians in the Hellenic language and wisdom. Billroth, followed by Riickert,
holds that he had added something in Aramaic also, in order to accredit yet
more strongly the authenticity of the Epistle, but that this had afterwards
been written by the transcribers in Greek letters.
1 Paul, they hold, means thereby to say:
“Quod superfluum sit adversus eum (Chris-
tum) odiis pertinacibus contendere, quem
venisse jam constet,” Jerome, Zp. 137 ad
Marcell. ; or, he means thereby to put them
to shame, because they still continued in
their sins after the Lord had shown such
condescension, Chrysostom ; or, ‘‘ quando-
quidem aversatur eum, a quo solo poterat
consequi salutem, et venisse negat quem
constat venisse magno bono credentium,
But the assumption that
sed magno malo incredulorum,” Erasmus,
Paraphr. ; or, “ quod si quis eum non amat,
frustra alium expectat,” Castalio.
3 Even those codd. which have written
the word in a divided way, have the divi-
sion not map avada, but μαραν ava. So al-
ready B**, And the versions, too (those
which do not with the Vulgate retain it
untranslated), translate according to this
division ; so already the Peshitto : Dominus
noster venit. Cod. It. g.: in adventu Domini.
NOTES. 405
he had not written μαραναθά in Greek letters, although it has passed over so
into all Greek ss. of the text, is equally arbitrary with the presupposition
that he had thought such an extraordinary and peculiar mode of attestation
to be needful precisely in the case of this Epistle, which was already suffi-
ciently accredited without it by the bearers. — Ver. 23. The grace of the Lord,
etc., sc. εἴη, the apostle’s most common closing wish in an epistle, Rom. xvi.
20, 24; Gal. vi. 18 ; Phil. iv. 23 ; 1 Thess. v. 28 ; 2 Thess. iii. 18 ; Philem.
25. — Ver. 24. My love, etc., sc. ἐστι : his heart impels him still to add this
assurance at the very end, all the more because the divisions, immoralities,
and disorders in the church had forced from him such severe rebukes and,
even now, such corrective appeals. He doves them, and loves them all. Τί
taken as optative (Luther, Estius, Ewald), it would be less suitably an indi-
rect admonition, namely, that they might so conduct themselves that, etc. —
ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ] Christ is his whole life-sphere ; in it he loves also. His love
has thus the distinctively Christian character, in contrast to all κοσμικὴ ἀγάπη
(Theophylact).
Norses py AMERICAN EDIToR.
(n°) ‘* The first day of the week.’’ Ver. 2.
This is generally and justly considered the earliest mention of the observance
of the Lord’s day. It does not show that Sunday was then observed by assem-
blies for public worship, for the direction implies that the laying by of money
for charity was to be done individually and in private. But it does show that
the day then had a sacred character which made it eminently suitable for the
discharge of a duty of Christian love. On no other ground can we account for
the mention of a specific day by the Apostle. —-It may be added that if it was
intended, as some say, that the Old Testament obligation of contributing a
tithe of one’s gains should be continued in the New, here was a proper place
to mention it.
(63) «* A great door and effectual,” etc. Ver. 9.
Two inducements for the Apostle to stay in Ephesus are a wide sphere and a
powerful opposition. As Grotius says, what terrifies others attracts Paul.
His reference is, on one hand, to the spread of the Gospel in the neighbourhood
of Ephesus (Acts xix. 20), and on the other, to the opposition of Pagan (xix. 23)
and of Jewish (xix. 33, xx. 29) enemies (Stanley).
(a*) Stand fast in the faith. Ver. 13.
Hodge gives well a certain phase of this injunction: ‘Do rot consider
every point of doctrine anopen question. Matters of faith, doctrines for which
you have a clear revelation of God, such for example as the doctrine of the
resurrection, are to be considered settled, and as among Christians, no longer
matters of dispute. There are doctrines embraced in the creeds of orthodox
churches so clearly taught in Scripture that it is not only useless but hurtful to
be always calling them into question.” —On the whole verse Beet remarks :
‘Note the military tone of these words. We are sentinels on guard, and must
not yield to sleep. In face of the enemy we must maintain our position ; and
406 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
we do so by abiding in faith. We must show moral courage. To this end we
must accept the strength provided for us. This fourfold description of our
attitude towards spiritual foes is followed by a description in one word of our
attitude towards our fellow-Christians and fellow-men. Love must be the one
element of our entire activity.’’
(Ε5) ‘* Anathema, Maran-atha.’’ Ver. 22.
The introduction of the Aramaean phrase may best be explained as giving
additional force to the previous curse, since such seems to be the origin of the
use of the Syriac Abba in Rom. viii. 15, Gal, iv. 6, and of Hebrew words such as
Abaddon and Armageddon in the Apocalypse. The assurance that ‘‘the Lord is
coming” is a solemn reminder that the. anathema is not an idle threat, but a
tremendous reality. —It is vain to deny, as some do (Speaker’s Com. in loc.),
that this isan imprecation. The words can mean nothing else. The explana-
tion is that they express no personal vindictiveness, but only the writer's
absolute sympathy with all holy beings in their opposition to the crowning sin
of men, viz. their insensibility or indifference to Him who unites in himself
all divine and all human excellence, and who so loved our lost race as to stoop
to the cross that we might not perish, but have everlasting life. They who
refuse to recognize such love deserve to be anathema.
PREFACE
TO THE COMMENTARY ON THE SECOND EPISTLE.
Since the year 1862, in which the fourth edition of this Commen-
tary was issued, the only exegetical work calling for mention on the
Second Epistle to the Corinthians (except a Roman Catholic one) is that
of von Hofmann. My relation to this work has already been indicated
in the preface to the Commentary on the First Epistle ; it could not be
different in the exposition of the Second, and it will doubtless remain un-
altered as regards the Pauline writings that are still to follow, as is ap-
parent already in the case of the Epistle to the Galatians, my exposition
of which I likewise am now issuing in a new edition.
The much-discussed questions of Introduction—whether between our
two Epistles to the Corinthians there intervened a letter which has been
lost, and whether the adversaries so sharply portrayed and severely cen-
sured by the apostle in the Second Epistle belonged to the Christ-party
—have recently been handled afresh in special treatises with critical skill
and acumen ; and the general result, although with diversities in detail,
points to an affirmative answer. After careful investigation I have found
myself constrained to abide by the negative view ; and I must still, as
regards the second question, hold the Christine party to be the most
innocent of the four, so that they are wrongly, in my judgment, made
responsible for all the evil which Paul asserts of his opponents in the
Second Epistle. I am at a loss to know how so much that is bad can be
brought into inward ethical connection with the simple confession ἐγὼ
δὲ Χριστοῦ without calling in the aid of hypotheses incapable of being
proved ; or how, moreover, Paul should not already in his First Epistle,
which was followed up by the Second in the very same year, have dis-
covered the thoroughly dangerous springs and movements of this party-
tendency ; or lastly, and most of all, how Clement of Rome, while re-
calling to the recollection of his readers the three other factions, should
not even in a single word have mentioned the Christ-party, although in
looking back on the past he could not but have had before his eyes the
whole historical development of the fourfold division, and in particular
408 ‘ PREFACE.
the mischief for which the Christians were to blame, if there were in
truth anything of the sort. Ihave not met with any real elucidation of
these points among the acute supporters of the opposite view.
In wishing for this new edition a kindly circle of readers, not led
astray either by the presupposition of the dogmatist or by the tendency
to import and educe subjective ideas,—as I may be allowed to do all the
more earnestly on account of the special difficulties that mark the present
letter of the apostle,—I commit all work done for the science which
applies itself soberly, faithfully, and devotedly to the service of the
divine word—desiring and seeking nothing else than a sure historical
understanding of that word—to the protection and the blessing of Him,
who can do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask and understand.
Under this protection we can do nothing against the truth, everything for
the truth.
Hannover, 21st June, 1870.
THE
SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS.
INTRODUCTION.
§ 1.—OCCASION, AIM, AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE!
τῷ EFORE the composition of our first Epistle, Paul had sent
7 Timothy to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17) ; he assumed, in regard
to him, that he would arrive there later than the Epistle (1
Cor. xvi. 10 f.), and he might therefore expect from him
* accounts of the impression which it made, and its result. Cer-
tainly Timothy is again with Paul, while he is composing the second Epistle
(2 Cor. i. 1) ; but there is no mention of news brought by him. Hence
Eichhorn was of opinion (also Ribiger and Hofmann) that he had again left
Corinth even before the arrival of our first Epistle in that city ; others, how-
ever (Ziegler, Bertholdt, Neander, Credner, Riickert, de Wette, Reuss, Maier),
assumed that he had not come to Corinth at all, but had returned from
Macedonia, where he had made too long a stay, to Ephesus (Acts xix. 22).?
But against the latter view may be urged the fact that, according to 1 Cor.
iv. 17, Timothy was quite distinctly delegated to Corinth, i.e. was commis-
sioned to visit Corinth from Macedonia (comp. Acts xix. 22) ; hence we are
not justified in believing that he left this apostolic mission unfulfilled, or
that Paul himself had cancelled it, otherwise we should necessarily expect
the apostle in this second Epistle to have explained to his readers why
Timothy did not come, especially as the anti-Pauline party would not have
failed to turn the non-appearance of Timothy to account for their hostile
ends (comp. i. 17). Eichhorn’s opinion presupposes that the bearers of the
first letter lingered on the journey (1 Cor. xvi. 17), which there is the
less ground to assume as these men presumably had no other aim than to
return from Ephesus to Corinth. In opposition to the opinions that Timothy
1See Klopper, Hxeg. krit. Unters. vib. d.
geweiten Brief. εἴ. Paulus an d. Gemeinde zu
Kor., Gott. 1869.
2 Chap. xii. 17, 18 is also quoted in con-
firmation of this view ; for, it is said, if Tim-
othy had come to Corinth, Paul could not
but have mentioned him here. See espe-
cially, Riickert, p. 409. But Paul may, dur-
ing the time when he was not at Corinth
himself, have sent to the church there
many a one whom he does not here name.
He names only the last, Titus. Besides,
Timothy was in fact joint-writer of our
Epistle.
410 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
did not get so far as Corinth, or that he left it again prematurely, compare,
in general, Klépper, p. 4 ff. It must therefore be held that Paul had
received from Timothy news of the impression which the former Epistle had
made. The fact that he makes no mention of this is explained from the cir-
cumstance that, in i. 1, Timothy himself appears as joint-sender of the
Epistle ; whence not only was it obvious to the reader that Timothy on his
return had made communications to the apostle, but it would have been un-
becoming and awkward if Paul had said that he had received from Timothy
accounts of the result of his Epistle. For these accounts, viz. those of the
Jirst impression made by the letter, must have been by no means tranquilliz-
ing for Paul (ii. 12, vil. 5 ff.). It is true that in Phil. ii. 19 the joint-sender
of the letter is named as a third person, but there the state of the case is
quite different (in opposition to Hofmann), namely, a special ecommendation
of Timothy, just as the relation of the apostle himself to the church in
Philippi with which he was so affectionately intimate was very diverse from
that in which he stood to the Corinthians.
But besides Timothy, Titus also at a later period brought to the apostle,
who meanwhile had travelled by way of Troas to Macedonia, intelligence of
the result of his letter (ii. 12, vii. 5 ff.). Paul had delegated the latter to
Corinth after our first Epistle,’ and after Timothy had again arrived in
Ephesus from the journey mentioned in 1 Cor. xvi. 10 f., comp. iv. 17 ; and
it is natural that from Titus he should have received further (as also more
tranquillizing) intelligence than from Timothy, because the former came later
to Corinth.
The occasion of our Epistle, which Titus was to bear (viii. 6), was there-
fore given by the accounts which first of all Timothy, but mainly Titus, had
brought regarding the effect produced by the previous letter on the dispositions
and relations of the Corinthian church.
Remarx.—The special object that Paul had in sending Titus to Corinth we
do not know ; for viii. 6 does not refer to this journey (see vy. 23, 24), but to
the later, second journey, in which this Epistle itself was entrusted to him.
The supposition of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Neander, de Wette, and some others,
that the apostle had despatched Titus out of anxiety about the impression which
his first Epistle might make on the Corinthians, is a conjecture which receives
some probability from ii. 12, vii. 5 ff., especially if we suppose that, before
Titus was sent off, Timothy had returned with very disquieting news. Bleek
1 Schrader, indeed (I. pp. 137, 262), and
Billroth, to whose view Riickert also in-
clines, have assumed that Titus was sent
to Corinth before our first Epistle, perhaps
with the one now lost, and on account of
the matter of the collection, and that he
was therefore in that city when our first
Epistle arrived there. But in that case Paul
would have mentioned Titus in his first
Epistle (especially xvi. 1 ff.), just as he
mentions Timothy ; and at least a greeting
to him would not have been forgotten.
Billroth thinks that Paul had probably al-
ready in the lost Epistle said enough in ree-
ommendation of Titus. But does this make
a greeting in the Epistle that follows super-
fluous? Riickert says that the bearers of
our first Epistle had perhaps brought with
them a special letter to Titus, or instruc-
tions by word of mouth, which, however,
is a mere conjecture to which he is con-
strained to resort. Miiller also, De trib. Pauli
itineribus Corinth. susceptis, Bas. 1831, agrees
with Schrader, without, however, admit-
ting the loss of an Epistle, at 1 Cor. v. 9.
INTRODUCTION. 411
(in the Stud. u. Krit, 1830, p. 625 ff., and in his Introduction) supposes, and
Credner (Finleit. I. 2, p. 371), Olshausen, Neander, Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. 1864, p.
167), Beyschlag (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 253), and Klopper (/.c. p. 3 ff.)
agree with him, that Paul, after Timothy’s return, sent to the Corinthians by
Titus a letter of very strong reproof (which is now lost). But our first Epistle
contained enough—especially after (Timothy had already brought with him
disquieting news—to excite in Paul apprehensions regarding the severity of
his letter (i. 15 ff., iii. 2, 3, iv. 8, 18-21, v. 1 ff., vi. 8, xi. 17 ff., al.), enough to
be used by the evil-disposed in bringing a charge of boastfulness (ii, 16, iv. 1
ff., ix., xiv. 18, xv. 8, 10, al.); while the second Epistle contains nothing which
required Bleek’s supposition to explain it, as will appear at such passages as
ii. 3, 4 ff., vii. 8, 11, 14, al. see in general, in opposition to Bleek’s hypoth-
esis, Miiller, de tribus Pauli itineribus, p. 34 ff.; Wurm, in the Τὰν. Zeilschr.
1833, 1, p. 66 ff.; Wieseler, Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt. p. 366 ff.; Baur, Hofmann,
and others. According to Ewald, as he has more precisely defined and modi-
fied (Sendschr. des. Ap. Paulus, p. 224 ff.') his earlier hypothetical arrangement
(Jahrb. II. p. 227 f.), the position of things in Corinth after our first Epistle
had in part been aggravated, especially by a Petrine opponent of Paul from
Jerusalem ; Paul had got information of this from Timothy on his return and
otherwise, and had himself made a short journey from Ephesus to Corinth in
order to restore harmony to the church ; after his departure, being calumniated
and slandered anew (especially by a member of very high repute), he then sent
from Ephesus a very severe letter by Titus to Corinth ; and this letter, which
has not been presented to us, brought the church to bethink itself, as he
learned from Titus, who joined him in Macedonia. On this account, and also
because there still remained various evils to be rectified, he at last wrote our
second Epistle to the Corinthians, and had it sent likewise by means of Titus,
A supposition of this kind is necessary, if the person mentioned in ii. 5 ff. can-
not be the one guilty of incest in 1 Cor. v. But see on ii. 5-11 ; and for the
supposed intermediate journey to Corinth, see § 2, Remark.
The aim of the Epistle is stated by Paul himself at xiii. 10, viz. to put the
church before his arrival in person into that frame of mind, which it was
necessary that he should find, in order that he might thereupon set to work
among them, not with stern corrective authority, but for their edification.
But in order to attain this aim, he had to make it his chief task to elucidate,
confirm, and vindicate his apostolic authority, which, in consequence of his
former letter, had been assailed still more vehemently, openly, an” influen-
tially by opponents. For, if that were regained, his whole influence would
be regained ; if the church were again confirmed on this point, and the op-
position defeated, every hindrance to his successful personal labour amongst
them would be removed. With the establishment of his apostolic character
and reputation he is therefore chiefly occupied in the whole Epistle ; every-
thing else is only subordinate, including a detailed appeal respecting the
collection.
As to contents, the whole falls, after the salutation and introduction, into
three parts : I. Paul sets forth his apostolic character and course of life,
1 Comp. also his Gesch. d. Apost. Zeit. p. 520 ff., ed. 3.
412 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
and interweaves with it affectionate outpourings of his heart over the im-
pression produced by his former letter,—an ingenious apology, closing with
expressions of praise and confidence,’ chap. i.—vii. 11. Regarding the collec-
tion, chap. viii. ix. III. Polemical assertion of his apostolic dignity against
its opponents, with some irritation, and even not without sarcasm and bit-
terness, but forcible and triumphant. Conclusion.
Remark 1.—The excitement and varied play of emotion with which Paul
wrote this letter, probably also in haste, certainly make the expression not sel-
dom obscure and the sentences less flexible, but only heighten our admiration
of the great delicacy, skill, and power with which this outpouring of Paul’s
spirit and heart, possessing as a defence of himself a high and peculiar inter-
est, flows and gushes on, till finally, in the last part, wave on wave overwhelms
the hostile resistance. In reference to this, Erasmus aptly says, in the dedica-
tion of his Paraphr.: “Sudatur ab eruditissimis viris in explicandis poetarum
ac rhetorum consiliis, at in hoc rhetore longe plus sudoris est ut deprehendas
quid agat, quo tendat, quid vetet ; adeo stropharum plenus est undique, absit
invidia verbis. Tanta vafricies est, non credas eundem hominem loqui. Nune
ut limpidus quidam fons sensim edullit, mox torrentis in morem ingenti fragore
devolvitur, multa obiter secum rapiens, nunc placide leniterque fluit, nune
late, velut in lacum diffusus, exspatiatur. Rursum alicubi se condit, ac diverso
loco subitus emicat, cum visum est, miris Maeandris nunc has nunc illas lam-
bit ripas, aliquoties procul digressus, reciprocato flexu in sese redit.’’?
Remark 2.—The opponents specially combated from chap. x. onwards, were
at any rate Judaists (xi. 22, Ribiger, p. 191 ff.; Neander), and therefore, from
a party point of view, to be reckoned as belonging to the Petrine section. It is
only the Petrine, and not the Christine party (Schenkel, Goldhorn, Kniewel,
Baur, de Wette, Thiersch, Osiander, Beyschlag, Hilgenfeld, Klopper), that suits
the character of disputing, directly and specially, the apostolic authority of
Paul, whether we regard the Christines as a party by themselves, or, with Baur
(see on 1 Cor. i. 12), as part of the Petrines,
Remark 3.—The division of the Epistle into two halves, separate in point of
time, so that the part up to vii. 1 was written before the arrival of Titus, and the
part from vii. 2 onwards after it (Wieseler, p. 356 ff.), cannot be justified either
exegetically or psychologically on the ground of vii. 6 ; while, on the ground
of ii, 12-14, it can only be regarded as exegetically inadmissible,
§ 2.—PLACE, TIME, GENUINENESS AND UNITY.
When Paul wrote this letter, he was no longer in Ephesus (i. 8), but had
already arrived by way of Troas in Macedonia (ii. 18, vii. 5, viii. 1, ix. 2,
comp. Acts xx. 1), where Titus, whom he had already expected with longing
1 Luther, Preface: ‘In the first Epistle,
St. Paul rebuked the Corinthians severely
on many points, and poured sharp wine in-
to their wounds, and alarmed them. But
now an apostle should be a comforting
preacher, . . . therefore he praises them
anew in this Epistle, and pours oil into the
wounds,” ete.
2 We may confidently apply to our Epis-
tle what Dionysius, De admir. vi. dic.in Dem.
8, says of Demosthenes’ mode of speaking,
which he calls : μεγαλοπρεπῆ, λιτὴν" περιττὴν,
ἀπέριττον" ἐξηλλαγμένην, συνήϑη" πανηγυρικὴν,
ἀληϑινὴν'" αὐστηρὰν, ἱλαρὰν' σύντονον͵ ἀνειμένην"
ἡδεῖαν, πικρὰν' ἐθικὴν, παϑετικήν.
INTRODUCTION. 413
in Troas (ii. 12), returned to him. A more precise specification of the place
(the subscriptions in B and in many later codd., also in the Peshitto, name
Philippi) cannot be made good. The date of composition appears to be the
same year, 58 (yet not before the month Tisri, see on viii. 10), in which,
shortly before Easter, he had written our First Epistle, and after Pentecost
had left Ephesus (see Introd. to 1 Cor. ὃ 3). Paul at that time intended to
come to Corinth for the third time, as he actually did soon after his letter to
his readers (Acts xx. 2).
Remarx.—From ii. 1, xii. 14, 21, xiii. 1, 2, it follows of necessity that Paul
before he wrote his Epistles to the Corinthians, had been in Corinth, not once
only, on the occasion when he founded the church (as Reiche in his Comment.
crit. seeks again to establish), but ¢wice. For in xiii. 1, τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι can-
not mean, “1 am now on the point of coming for the third time:’’ hence also
ΧΙ. 2 must be understood of a second visit which had already taken place ; in
ii. land xii. 21, ἐν λύπῃ and ταπεινώσῃ (which latter is to be connected with
πάλιν) cannot refer to the first visit ; and finally, in xii. 14, τρίτον must belong to
ἐλθεῖν, not to ἑτοίμως ἔχω, aS is made certain by the context (see the commen-
tary on these passages). With justice, therefore, has this view been maintained,
after Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, by Erasmus, Baronius, Mill,
Michaelis, and others, and recently by Schrader, Bleek (in the Stud. u. Kril.
1830, p. 614 ff.), Miiller (Diss. detrib. Pauli. itineribus Corinthum, etc., Basil. 1831)
Schott (Hrért. einiger wicht. chronol. Punkte, p. 51 ff.), Schneckenburger (Beitr. p.
166), Wurm, Anger (rat. temp. p. 70 ff.), Billroth, Credner, Olshausen, Riickert,
Wieseler, Reuss, Osiander, Hofmann, and others. See the commentary in op-
position to the explaining away of these passages, according to which ‘‘the
third journey of Paul to Corinth is a fiction’’ (Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 199 ;
comp. Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1850, 2, p. 139 ff., and in his Paulus, I. p. 339
ff., ed. 2). But it cannot be definitely decided whether the second journey to
Corinth is to be placed in the time of the three years’ stay at Ephesus (Schra-
der, Billroth, Olshausen, Riickert, Wieseler, Reuss, and Hofmann ; Bleek is also
inclined to this), or whether it is to be considered only as the return from a
longer excursion during the eighteen months’ stay in Corinth (Baronius, Mi-
chaelis, Schmidt, Schott, Anger ; favored by Bleek ; comp. Neander on ii. 1);
for iva δευτέραν χάριν ἔχητε, ini. 15, testifies neither fornor against either of
these views (see on this passage). Still by that very circumstance the latter view
loses its support, and has, besides, against it the point that, as the first and
third journeys were special journeys to Corinth, so also his second journey, to
which he refers by τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι and the like, is most naturally to be re-
garded as a special journey, and not asa mere return from a wider excursion.
See, moreover, Wieseler, p. 239. The proposal to place the second journey to
Corinth between our first and alost Epistle which preceded our second (Ewald,
see § 1), finds, apart altogether from the lost letter being an hypothesis, no
sufficient confirmation in the passages concerned, ii. 1, xii. 14, πὶ 1 and
has i. 28 (οὐκέτι) against it ; comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 5 ff. and 2 Cor, i, 15 f.
The genuineness of our Epistle (see, after less certain indications in the
apostolic Fathers and Justin, Irenaeus, Haer. ii. 7. 1, iv. 28. 3; Athena-
goras, de resurr. Ὁ. 61, ed. Col. ; Clement, Strom. iv. p. 514, ed. Sylb. ;
414 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Tertullian, de pudic. 13) is as internally certain and as unanimously attested
and undisputed as that of the first ; in fact, we need hardly notice, even his-
torically, the strange theory invented by Bolten and Bertholdt, that it was
translated (by Timothy) from the Aramaic.
The wnity of the Epistle has been contested by Semler and Weber ; while
it has been most arbitrarily cut up into three letters by Weisse (see his Beitr.
u. Krit. d. Paul. Br., edited by Sulze, p. 9). Semler (see Keggemann, praes.
Semler, de duplici ep. ad Rom. append., Hal. 1767, and Semler, Paraphr.
1776) cuts it up into the following three letters : (1) chap. 1. vill., Rom. xvi.,
and 2 Cor. xiii, 11-13 ; (2) x. 1-xiii. 10 ; (8) chap. ix., as a special leaf
which was intended, not for Corinth, but for the Christians in Achaia. In
opposition to this, see Gabler, de capp. ult. ix.—xiil. poster. ep. P. ad Cor. ab
eadem haud separand., Gott. 1782. Weber (de numero epp. P. ad Cor. rectius
constituendo, 1798) was of opinion that there were originally two letters :—
(1) chap. i.-ix. and xiii. 11-13 ; (2) chap. x. 1-xiii. 10. Similarly, also,
von Greeve (in Royaards de altera P. ad Cor. ep., Traj. ad Rhen. 1818), who,
however, considers as the first letter only chap. i.—viii. In opposition to
these attempts at dismemberment may be urged not only the whole body of
the critical witnesses, but also the certainty that the abruptness of chap. ix.
is only apparent, and that the contrasting tone of chap. x.—xiii. is easily ex-
plained * by the altered mood of the apostle.—With regard to the originality
of vi. 14—vii. 1, see on vi. 12, Remark.
1 Hug, Hinl. IT. § 108, says very pertinent- whereas, in heaping shame and castigation
ly : ** Who would on that account break up οὐ the informer, in the parallel between
the speech of Demosthenes pro Corona into him and Aeschines, words of bitter mock-
two parts, because in the more general ery gush forth impetuously like a thunder-
vindication calm and caution prevail; shower.”
CHAP. I. ἜΣ ΤΩΣ 415
Παύλου πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολὴ δευτέρα.
ABK δὰ, min. have only πρὸς Κορινθίους B., the most simple, and doubtless
the oldest superscription.
CHAPTER I.
Ver. 6. εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῇ ὑμῶν παρακλῆσεως, τῆς ἐνεργουμένης ἐν ὑπο-
μονῇ τῶν αὐτῶν παθημάτων, ὦν καὶ ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν" καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν βεβαία ὑπὲρ
ὑμῶν" εἰδότες k.T.A.] So Beza, ed. 3, 4, 5, Beng. and Griesb., following A C, min.
Syr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Flor. Harl. Vulg. Ephr. Antioch. Ambrosiast. Pel.
Beda. But Elz. (following Erasm. ed. 2 1) : τῆς ἐνεργουμένης ἐν ὑπομονῇ τῶν αὐτῶν
παθημάτων ὧν καὶ ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν" εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως
καὶ σωτηρίας" καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς Hu. BEB. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν: εἰδότες κιτ.. Finally, Lachm. Tisch.
Scholz, and Riick. read, with Matth., after Erasm. δα. 1 : καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς Hu. Bef.
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν immediately after πάσχομεν, but in other respects with Elz., and have
the support of BDEFGKL®, min. Ar. pol. Goth. Syr. p. Slay. It. Chrys.
Theodoret, Damasc. Phot. Theophyl. Oec. The Recepta must be rejected on
account of the want of ancient attestation, and the choice remains only between
Griesbach’s and Lachmann’s reading. The latter is defended most thoroughly
by Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 318 ff. But the former, sufficiently attested,
appears to be the original, in so far as from it the rise of the others is easily
and naturally explained. An immediate transition was made from the first
παρακλ. to the second ; the intermediate words were left out, and brought in
again afterwards at wrong places, so that the corruption of the text proceeded
thus :—1. Original form of ver. 6 as in Griesb. 2. First corruption: εἴτε δὲ 6A130-
μεῆα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως, τῆς ἐνεργουμένης ἐν ὑπομ. τῶν αὐτῶν παθημ. ὧν K,
ἡμεῖς πάσγομεν᾽ καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν βεβαία ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. 3. Erroneous restoration: εἴτε
δὲ θλιβόμεθα. . . ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν" εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλ. Another
erroneous restoration (‘* ex judicio eclectico,’’ Beng. Appar.) is contained in the
Received text. 4. The καὶ σωτηρίας, still wanting, was finally added, in part
rightly only after the first παρακλ., in part wrongly only after the second παρακλ.
(B, 176), in part wrongly after both. — Ver. 8. ὑπὲρ τῆς 0λ.1 AC DEFG 8,
min. Bas. Chrys. Theodoret, Antioch. have περὶ τ. 62. So Lachm, Riick. But
περί offered itself as more current. — ἡμῖν] is wanting in preponderant witness-
es. Suspected by Griesb., rejected by Lachm. Riick. A superfluous gloss on
γενομ. --- Ver. 10. καὶ ῥύεται] is wanting in A D* Syr. Clar. Germ. Vulg. ms.
Chrys. Ambrosiast. So Riick. But BC 8, 73, 93, 211, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slay.
ms. Tol. Boern. Ath. Damasc. have καὶ ῥύσεται. So Lachm., but in brackets.
Thus the Recepla, reverted to even by Tisch., has certainly preponderating
testimony against it ; still it retains the considerable attestation of D*** EF G
1 Luther and Castalio have translated according to this reading.
416 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
K L, and most min. Vulg. Syr. p. Theodoret, Theophylact, Oec. Or. int. Jer.,
and the subsequent ῥύσεται might very easily be written directly after καί in-
stead of ῥύεται, so that subsequently, owing to the erroneous restoration of
what was left out, the spurious καὶ ῥύσεται in some cases remained, but in others
was dropped without the genuine καὶ ῥύεται being put in its place. — Ver, 11.
evyap. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] The reading εὐχαρ. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, though preferred by Beng.,
recommended by Reiche, and adopted by Tisch., has weaker attestation, and
does not suit the sense. — Ver. 12. ἁπλότητι) A BC K &* min. Copt. Arm.
Clem. Or. Damase. have dyiorntt. So Lachm. Riick. Rightly; ἁπλότητι,
though defended by Reiche and Tisch., must be considered as a gloss of more
precise definition ; it was from our very Epistle well known and current,
whereas ἁγίοτης was unfamiliar (only elsewhere in Heb. xii. 10). — Ver. 13. The
first 7 is wanting in A, min. Bracketed by Riick. But appearing superfluous,
and not being understood, it was omitted. — Ver. 16. διελθεῖν] A D* F G, 80,
Copt. Chrys. Damasc.: ἀπελθεῖν. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by
Lachm. and Riick. Rightly ; it was more natural to introduce the reminis-
cence of 1 Cor. xvi. 5 than that of Rom. xv. 28. — Ver. 17. βουλόμενος] Elz. and
Tisch. have βουλεύομενος, against preponderant evidence. Gloss in accordance
with what follows. — Ver. 18. ἐγένετο] Lachm. Scholz, Riick. Tisch. have ἔστιν,
as Griesb. also recommended, in accordance with a great preponderance of
testimony. ἐγένετο, which Reiche defends, came in from ver. 19. — Ver. 20.
καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ) ABCFG δὰ, min. vss. and Fathers have διὸ καὶ δ αὐτοῦ. So
Lachm. Riick. The Recepta arose in this way: διό fell out by an omission of
the copyist (so still D* Clar. Germ.), and was then added to dv’ αὐτοῦ after the
previous ἐν αὐτῷ as a gloss, which accordingly came into the text. This altera-
tion was the more natural, as the two definitions δι᾿ αὐτοῦ and dv’ ἡμῶν might
seem not to accord. The liturgical reference of the ἀμήν does not appear a
sufficient occasion for the insertion of διό, nor for the change from ἐν αὐτῷ into
δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, particularly after the ἐν αὐτῷ which went before and was left unglossed.
This in opposition to Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 56, and Reiche, Comment.
erit. I. 331 ff.
Vv. 1, 2. Address and greeting. — διὰ θελ. Θεοῦ] See on 1 Cor. i. 1. — καὶ
T.u60.] His relation to this Epistle is the same as that of Sosthenes to the
first Epistle : he appears, not as amanuensis, but as (subordinate) joint-sender
of it. See on 1 Cor. 1. 1. —6 ddedg.] as at 1 Cor. 1. 1. — σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσι
x.7.4,] Grotius: ‘Voluit P. exempla hujus epistolae mitti ad alias in
Achaia ecclesias.” So also Rosenmiiller, Emmerling, and others. But, in that
case, would not Paul have rather written σὺν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις πάσαις 2 Comp.
Gal. i. 2. And are the contents of the Epistle suited for an encyclical des-
tination ? No ; he means, in agreement with 1 Cor. i. 2, the Christians
living outside of Corinth, scattered through Achaia, who attached them-
selves to the church-community in Corinth, which must therefore have been
the sole seat of a church — the metropolis of the Christians in the province.
The state of matters in Galatia was different. — Under Achaia we must,
according to the sense then attached to it, understand Hellas and Pelopon-
nesus. This province and that of Macedonia comprehended all Greece. See
on Acts xviii. 12.— Ver. 2. See on Rom. i. 7.
Vv. 3-11. A conciliatory introduction, —an effusion of affectionate emotion
CHAP. 1., 3, 4. 417
(comp. Eph. i. 3) out of the fulness of special and still recent experience.
There is no hint of ὦ set purpose in it ; and it is an arbitrary supposition,
whether the purpose be found in an excuse for the delay of his journey
(Chrysostom, Theophylact), or ina confirmation of his apostolic standing
(Beza, comp. Calovius, Mosheim), or in an attestation of the old love, which
Paul presupposes also on the part of the readers (Billroth), and at the same
time in a slight alienation which had been suggested by his sufferings (Osi-
ander).
Ver. 3. Ὁ Θεὸς x. mat. k.7.2.] God, who is at the same time father of Jesus
Christ. See on 1 Cor. xv. 24 ; Rom. xv. 6. Against the connection of τοῦ
κυρίου «.t.2. also with ὁ Θεός (Hofmann), see on Eph. i. 3. — ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρ-
μῶν] DTV AS, ὁ.6. the Father, whose fatherly frame of mind and disposi-
tion is compassionateness,—the compassionate Father (μάλιστα ἴδιον Θεοῦ καὶ
ἐξαίρετον καὶ τῇ φύσει συγκεκληρωμένον, Chrysostom). Comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 8
and Eph. i. 17. It is the qualitative genitive, such as we find in the lan-
guage of the Greek poets (Seidl. ad Electr. 651 ; Herm. ad Viger. p. 890 f.).
Riickert (comp. before him Theodoret) takes it as the genitivus effecti : ‘‘ The
Father from whom all compassion comes” (comp. xiii. 11 ; Rom. xv. 5, 18,
al.). But, since οἰκτερμοί (comp. Plato, Polit. p. 305 B) is the subjective
compassion (Tittm. Synon. 69 f.), it would have to be explained : ‘‘ The
Father who works in us compassion, sympathy,” and this sense would be alto-
gether unsuitable to the connection. On the contrary, τῶν οἰκτιρμ. is the
specific quality of the Father, which dwells in Him just as the Father of
Christ, and in consequence of which He is also Θεὸς πάσης παρακλ. ; and this
genitive is that of the effect which issues from the Merciful One : ‘‘ The
compassionate Father and God who worketh every consolation.” This render-
ing, differing from that of the first genitive, is demanded by ver. 4 (in
opposition to Hofmann) ; comp. vii. 6 ; Rom. xv. 5. As to οἰκτιρμοί, see
on Rom. xii. 1. Observe that the characteristic appellation of God in this
passage is an artless outflow of the experience, which was still fresh in the
pious heart of the apostle, vv. 8-10. (66)
Ver. 4. Ἡμᾶς} Where Paul in this Epistle does not mean himself exclu-
sively, but wishes to include Timothy also (or others, according to the
context), although often only as quite subordinate, he speaks in the plural.
Iie does not express himself communicativé, but in the singular, where he
gives utterance to his own personal conviction or, in general, to anything
concerning himself individually (vv. 13, 15, 17, 23, 11. 1-10, 12, 13, vii. 4,
7 ff., a/.). Hence the frequent interchange between the singular and plu-
ral forms of expression.’ Chrysostom already gives the force of the present
παρακαλῶν correctly : ὅτι οὐχ ἅπαξ, οὐδὲ dic, ἀλλὰ διηνεκῶς τοῦτο ποιεῖ. .. διὸ
εἶπεν ὁ παρακαλῶν, οὐχ ὁ παρακαλέσας. --- ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ θλίψει] concerning all our
affliction. The collective sufferings are regarded as one whole. Afterwards,
1 Even in the plural mode of expression, he expresses himself singuiariter or com-
however, he has always Himself and hisown municativé. Hence the interchange of the
relations primarily in view ; and, owing to two modes of expression in one sentence,
the versatility of his mode of conception,it 6.0. xi. 6f.
is often quite a matter of accident whether
418 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
on the other hand. ἐν πάσῃ θλ.: in every affliction. ἐπί marks the ethical
foundation, i.e. here the cause, on account of which. See Matthiae, p. 1373.
Comp. 2 Mace. vii. 5 f.; Deut. xxxii. 36. According to Riick., παρακαλ.
denotes the delivering, and hence he takes ἐπί of the circumstances : in.
See Matthiae, p. 1370. But throughout the passage tapax. means to comfort ;
and it is quite an open question, how the comforting takes place, whether by
calming or by delivering. God did both in the apostle’s case. — εἰς τὸ δύνασ-
θαι x.7.4.] in order that we may be able, etc. For he, who for himself receiy-
ed comfort from God, is by his experience placed in the position of being able
to comfort others. And how important was this teleological view of his own
sorrows for the apostolic calling ! ‘‘ Omnia sua P. ad utilitatem ecclesiae
refert,” Grotius. (πη) — τοὺς ἐν πάσῃ θλίψει] is erroneously and arbitrarily taken
as equivalent to πάντας τοὺς ἐν θλίψει (see Emmerling, Flatt, Riickert). It
means : those to be found in every trouble, the all-distressed ; not : those to be
Sound in whatever sort of trouble (Hofmann), but ἐν παντὶ θλιβόμενοι, iv. 8,
vii. 5. — διὰ τῆς παρακλ. K.7.2.] 1.6. through communication of our own comfort,
which we experience from God. This more precise determination of the sense
is demanded both by the preceding mention of the purpose εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι
«.7.4., and by the αὐτοί. Olshausen, it is true, holds that Paul conceives
the comfort to be a real power of the Spirit, which may agdin be conveyed
to others by the receiver. But there is no analogy in the whole N. T. for
this conception ; for Matt. x. 13 is merely a concrete illustration of the effi-
cacy or non-efficacy of the εἰρήνη ὑμῖν. --- 7c] Attracted, as in Eph. i. 6, iv.
1, because one can say παράκλησιν παρακαλεῖν. See Gieseler in Rosenmiiller,
Repert. 11. p. 124 ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 247 [E. T. 287]. The attracted
genitive instead of the dative in other cases is very rare. See Kiihner, ad
Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 5. — αὐτοί] ipsi, for our own selves, in contrast to the others
to be comforted.
Ver. 5. Ground assigned for the ἧς παρακαλούμεθα αὐτοὶ ind τ. Θεοῦ. ---- περισ-
σεύει εἰς ἡμᾶς is abundant in relation to us, i.e. it is imparted to us above measure,
in a very high degree. Comp. Rom. v. 15.—7ra παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ} are
not the sufferings for Christ’s sake (so Pelagius and most), which cannot be
expressed by the simple genitive, but the sufferings of Christ (Winer, Bill-
roth, Olshausen, Neander, Ewald, Hofmann), in so far as every one who
suffers for the gospel suffers the same in category as Christ suffered. (1°) Comp.
Matt. xx. 22 ; Phil. iii, 10; Col. i. 24; Heb. xiii. 15: 1 Pet. ty) Tee
also on Rom. viii. 17. Hence Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Leum, and Riickert
render correctly in substance: quales passus est Christus.” But Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Calovius, and others are wrong, who
render: ‘“‘the sufferings, which Christ endures in His members: comp. de
Wette and Osiander. For the conception of a Christ continuing to suffer in
His members is nowhere found in the N. T., not even in Acts ix. 4, and is
contrary to the idea of His exaltation. See on Col. i. 94. -- διὰ τοῦ X.]
through His indwelling by means of the Spirit. See Rom. viii. 9, 10; Eph.
a, ἘΠ +“ Col, 1.39) al.
Vv. 6, 7. Aé] leading on to the gain, which the two, this affliction and
this comforting, bring to the readers.— Be it that we are afflicted, we are afflicted
CHAP. I... ἃ, ἢ, ; 419
for the sake of your consolation and salvation ; it redounds to this, that you
are to be comforted and advanced in the attainment of Messianic’ salvation.
In how far? According to Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Calovius, Wetstein,
and many, including Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Emmerling, Reiche : through the
example of the apostle in his confidence towards God, etc. But the context
has as little of this as of what is imported by Billroth and Olshausen : ‘‘in
so far as I suffer in the service of the gospel, through which comfort and
salvation come to you;” so also Hofmann. Riickert, without ground,
gives up all attempt at explanation. Paul himself has given the explana-
tion in ver. 4 by εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι ἡμᾶς παρακαλεῖν x.7.2. Hence the sense of the
definition of the aim ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλ. kK. owr.: ‘in order that we may be
enabled to comfort you, when ye come into affliction, and to further your sal-
cation. For this end we are put in a position by experience of suffering, as
well as by that, which is its other side, by our experience of comfort in the
school of suffering (cite παρακαλούμεθα κ.τ.1.}). ---- ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμ. παρακλ. τῆς évepy.
k.7.A.] ὁ.6. in order to be able to give you the comfort, which is efficacious, etc.
Paul does not again add x. σωτηρίας here, because he has still to append to
παρακλήσεως & More precise and detailed explanation, after which it was im-
practicable to bring in καὶ σωτηρίας ; and it could be left out all the more
readily, as it did not belong essentially to the representation. — τῆς ἐνεργουμ.
ἐν bro. «.T.A.] which is efficacious in patient endurance of the same sufferings,
which we also suffer. ἐνεργουμ., aS in the whole N. T. (iv. 12; Rom. vii. 5;
Gal. v. 6 ; Eph. iii. 20; Col. 1. 29; 1 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Thess. il. 7; Jas. v.
16) is middle, not passive (3 Esdr. ii. 20 ; Polyb. i. 13. 5, ix. 12. 8), as it is
here erroneously taken by Oecumenius, Theophylact, Castalio, Piscator, Cal-
vin, Grotius, Estius, and others, including Rosenmiiller, Emmerling, Bill-
roth, Riickert, Ewald.’ For the distinction between active (personal efficacy)
and middle in Paul, see Winer, p. 242 [E. T. 323]. —év ὑπομονῇ) denotes
that by virtue of providing which the παράκλησις is efficacious. It is therefore
the working of the Christian παράκλησις, which we experience when ἡ θλίψις
ὑπομονὴν κατεργάζεται, Rom. v. 8. --- τῶν αὐτῶν παϑημάτων, ὧν κ.τ.}.} In so far,
namely, as they are likewise sufferings of Christ. The sufferings appointed
to the readers are meant, which do not differ in kind from the sufferings of
Paul (and Timothy) (ὧν κ. ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν). Billroth, Olshausen, Neander
understand the sufferings of the apostle himself, in so far as these were jointly
felt by all believers as their own in virtue of their fellowship of love with
him. Compare Chrysostom on ver. 7, also de Wette, who refers it partly
to the foreboding, partly to the sympathetic joint-suffering. But, then,
Paul would have been utterly illogical in placing the καί before ἡμεῖς ; for
it would, in fact, be sufferings which the readers also had suffered (with Paul
through their loving sympathy). How erroneous this exposition is, is shown,
besides, by ver. 4. It does not appear from this passage, we may add, that
at that time the Corinthians had otherwise to endure affliction for the gospel’s
1The passive interpretation would be Matt. x. 22; Jas. i. 12); but nowhere is it
necessary with the reading of Lachmann, conceived and represented as working in
Since salvation is the goal of the state of | patience, and the like, This tells against
grace, and hence is wrought (Phil. ii. 12,13; that reading.
ie
420 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
sake. Paul has rather in view the case of such affliction occurring in the
Suture, as the following καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς x.7.2. proves. Comp. on xiii. 11.—xai ἡ
ἐλπ. hu. βεβ. ὑπ. ὑμ. is not to be placed in a parenthesis, with Griesbach
and others, since εἰδότες is connected not with πάσχομεν, but with ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν.
The contents of ver. 6, namely, is not the expression of a present experience
undergone by the readers, but the expression of good hope as to the readers
for the future, that what is said by eite δὲ ϑλιβόμεϑα. . . πάσχομεν will be
verified in their case in afflictions which would come on them for Christ’s
sake, so that they would in that case obtain from the apostle, out of his ex-
perience of suffering and consolation, the comfort which through patience
is efficacious in such sufferings. Therefore he continues : and our hope is
Jirm on account of you. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν does not belong either simply to ἡ ἐλπ. in.,
or simply to βεβαία (Billroth), but to the whole thought of «ἡ ἐλπ. tu. Bef.
On ὑπέρ, comp. Polyb. xi. 20. 6, xiv. 1. 5, and the contrary expression
φοβεῖσϑαι ὑπέρ τινος, propter aliquem in metu esse. — εἰδότες] refers, according
to a common anacolouthon, to ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμ., in which ἡμεῖς is the logical
subject.’ See Stallbaum, ad. Apol. p. 21 C, Phaedr. p. 241 D, Phaedo, p. 81
A ; Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 49. Comp. on Eph. iv. 2; Col. ii. 9. It in-
troduces the certainty on which rests the hope just expressed : for we know
that you, as you are sharers of the sufferings, are sharers also of the consolation.
To have a share in the sufferings, and also in the consolation, to be excepted
neither from the one nor from the other, is the appointed lot of the Chris-
tian. Paul /nows this in regard to his readers, and he grounds on it the
firm hope for them, that if they shall have their share in bearing sufferings,
they will in that case not lack the effectual consolation ; to impart which
consolation he is himself qualified (ver. 4) and destined (ver. 6) by his own
experience of suffering and consolation, Accordingly, κοινωνοὶ x.7.2. is con-
textually not to be explained of an ideal, sympathetic communion, and that
in the sufferings and consolation of Paul (ὥσπερ yap τὰ παϑήματα τὰ ἡμέτερα
ὑμέτερα εἷναι νομίζετε, οὕτω καὶ THY παράκλησιν τὴν ἡμετέραν ὑμετέραν, Chrysostom.
Comp. Theodoret, Grotius, Billroth, Olshausen, and others), but τὰ παϑήματα
and ἡ παράκλησις are to be taken generically. In both kinds of experience
the Christian has a share ; he must szffer ; but he is not excluded from the
consolation, on the contrary, he partakes also in it. (3°)
Vv. 8-11. Out of his own (and Timothy’s) experience of suffering and
comfort, Paul now informs his readers of something special which had
lately befallen the two in Asia. The fact in itself he assumes as known to
them, but he desires to bring to their knowledge the consoling help of God in
it. There is nothing to indicate a reference to an utterance of the church
(Hofmann) concerning the event.
Ver. 8. Ov y. θέλ. ty. ayv.] See on Rom. i. 18, xi. 25; 1 Cor. xii. 1; 1
Thess. iv. 18. -- ὑπὲρ τῆς θλίψ.} regarding (de) the affliction, concerning the
same. See Bernhardy, p. 244 ; Kiihner, 11. ὃ 547, 2. —év τῇ ’Aoia] as in 1
Cor. xvi. 19. What particular affliction is meant, and at what place it hap-
1 With Lachmann’s reading it is referred by Reiche and Ewald to the Corinthians
(ὑμῶν) : since you know, ete.
CHAPSI 9; 421
pened, we do not know. The readers, who must have known it, may have
learnt it from Titus or otherwise. Perhaps it was the ἀντικείμενοι πολλοί, 1
Cor. xvi. 9, who had prepared for him the extraordinary trial. The tumult
of Demetrius in Ephesus, Acts xix. 23 ff. (Theodoret, Calvin, Estius, Corne-
lius ἃ Lapide, Michaelis, Vater, Schrader, Olshausen, Osiander, Ewald, and
others), is not to be thought of, since Paul was not in personal danger
there, Acts xix. 30, and immediately after the tumult set out on his journey
to Greece, Acts xx. 1. Heumann, Emmerling, Riickert, Bisping, suggest
a severe illness. Against this it may be urged that, according to ver. 5, it
must have been a πάθημα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (for the special experience must be
held as included under the general one previously spoken of), as well as
that Paul speaks in the plural. Both grounds tell at the same time against
Hofmann, who thinks of the shipwreck, xi. 25, to which, in fact, ἐν τ. ᾿Ασίᾳ,
ver. 8, is not suitable, even if we ventured to make a mere stranding on the
coast out of the incident. Besides, the reading ῥύεται, ver. 10, militates
against this. — ὅτε καθ᾽ ὑπερβ. x.7.2.] that we were burdened to the uttermost
beyond strength, a statement of that which, in regard to the affliction men-
tioned, is not to be withheld from the readers. καθ᾽ ὑπερβολήν defines the
degree of éBap. ὑπὲρ δύναμ. See Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 1 f. (‘‘ut calamitates
vires meas egregie superarent”). The view which regards the two expres-
sions as co-ordinate (Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Estius, and many, includ-
ing Flatt, Riickert, Osiander, Hofmann): so heavy that it went beyond our
ability, would place alongside of each other the objective greatness of the
suffering and its disproportion to the subjectivity (see de Wette): still the
position of ἐβαρ., as well as the want of a καί before ὑπέρ, is more favourable
to the view which takes ἐβαρ. ὑπ. div. together ; and this is also confirmed
by the subjectivity of the following ὥστε ἐξαπορ. x.7.2. The suffering made
itself palpable to him as a πειρασμὸς οὐκ ἀνθρώπινος (1 Cor. x. 13). Riickert,
moreover, has no ground for thinking that ἐβαρήθ. is inappropriately used
of persecutions, attempts to murder, and the like, and that ὑπὲρ δύναμιν is
also opposed to it. βαρύς, βαρέω, and βαρύνω are used of all troubles by
which we feel ourselves burdened. See the passages from Homer in Dun-
can, Lez., ed. Rost, p. 202 ; comp. Plat. Crit. p. 43 C ; Soph. Trach. 151 ;
Theocr. xvii. 61, and expressions like βαρύμοχθος, βαρύποτμος, βαρυπενθῆς,
βαρυδαίμων, and the like. —déore ἐξαπορ. K.t.2.] 80 that we became quite per-
plexed even (kai) in regard to life, placed in the highest perplexity even with
regard to the preservation of our life. ἐκ strengthens the simple verb, iv.
8. Polyb. i. 62. 1, 111. 47. 9, 48.4. The genitive (τοῦ ζῇν) is the usual
case in Greek with ἀπορεῖν, in the sense of having lack of something ; seldom
is it found in the sense of being perplexed about something (Dem. 1380, 4:
Plat. Conv. p. 193 E).
Ver. 9. ᾿Αλλά] is the simple but, the contrast of the negation contained in
ἐξαπορηθῆναι, Which contrast, nevertheless, no longer depends on ὥστε : the
‘ndependent position makes it all the weightier. There is therefore the less
ground for taking ἀλλά as nay indeed, with Hofmann, and making it point
to the following clause of purpose, whereby the chief clause αὐτοὶ x.7.A.
would be arbitrarily forced into a position logically subordinate—viz., ‘‘if
422 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
we ourselves, etc., it was to serve to the end, that we,” etc. — αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς]
for our own selves in our own consciousness—i.e. apart from what might take
place from without, through divine interference, to cause a change in our
position. This certainty in their own heart, however, could not but exclude
all self-confidence ; hence iva μὴ πεποιϑότες K.7.2. — ἀπόκριμα)] not equivalent
to κατάκριμα (so most, following Hesychius), but to responsum (Vulgate,
Billroth), the award, decision. Comp. ἀπόκρισις. So in Suidas (see Wetstein)
and Josephus, Antt. xiv. 17 (in Kypke). Chrysostom says well : τὴν ψῆφον,
τὴν κρίσιν, τὴν προσδοκίαν τοιαύτην yap ἠφίει τὰ πράγματα φωνήν᾽ τοιαύτην ἀπό -
κρισιεν ἐδίδου τὰ συμβάντα, ὅτι ἀποϑανούμεϑα πάντως.---ΑΒΒ to ἐσχήκ., Observe
the perfect habuimus, which represents the situation as present. Comp. on
Rom. v. 2. —iva μὴ κ.τ.1.1 divinely appointed aim of the αὐτοὶ. . . ἐσχήκαμεν.
Comp. 1 Cor. i. 15. (K*) --- τᾷ ἐγείροντι τοὺς vexp.] is to be referred not only to
the future awaking of the dead, but to the awaking of the dead in general,
as that which is exclusively God’s doing. This characteristic of God is the
ground of the confidence. For the awaker of the dead must also be able to
vescue from the danger of death (ver. 10). Comp. Rom. iv. 17 ; Heb. xi.
19. See on Rom. /.c. ‘‘ Mira natura fidei in summis difficultatibus nullum
exitum habere visis,” Bengel. Hence Paul, in spite of the human ἐξαπο-
ρηϑῆναι, ver. 8, could yet say of himself, iv. 8 : οὐκ ἐξαπορούμενοι.
Ver. 10. Result of this confidence, as well as the hope grounded thereon
for the future. — ἐκ τηλικ. θανάτου] out of so great death. Paul realizes to him-
self the special so mighty death-power which had threatened him (and Timo-
thy), and by the expression ῥύεσθαι ἐκ θανάτου (see examples in Wetstein, p. 178)
makes death appear as a hostile power by which he had been encompassed.
Θάνατος does not signify peril of death (as most say, even Emmerling and
Flatt), but it represents that sense. Comp. xi. 23. — καὶ ῥύεται) The θλίψις,
which had been survived in Asia, therefore still continued in its after-effects,
which even extended over to Macedonia (perhaps by continued plots against
their lives), and Paul and Timothy were still continuing’ to experience the
rescuing power of God. (L°)— 7Arixayev] have set our hope. See Herm. ad
Viger. p. 148 ; Kithner, ΤΠ}. 71; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 193, 1. Tim. wap
17; John vi. 45.— dre κ᾿ ἔτι ῥύσεται that he will rescue (us) even further,
namely, ἐκ tyAck. θανάτου, in the continuing danger from the Asiatic enemies
which was still to be apprehended in the future. In the fact that Paul
speaks of a present, nay, of a future rescue, Riickert finds a support for his
opinion regarding a dangerous illness (not yet fully overcome) ; see on ver.
8. But could no machinations pass over from Asia to Macedonia? and
1 Hofmann reads the passage : καὶ ῥύσεται,
εἰς ὃν ἠλπίκαμεν, καὶ ἔτι ῥύσεται, According-
ly, he takes the first καὶ as an also, begin-
ning an independent sentenze. With this
expressive reference to the future Paul
looks forward to the wide voyages still be-
fore him. In opposition to this we have,
from a Critical point of view, the facts that
ὅτι before καί ἔτι is wanting only in B D* 64,
and that it is supported by preponderating
witnesses, even by those which have the
reading ῥύσεται for ῥύεται, as Cand δὲ ; and.
from an exegetical point of view, the fact
that the repetition καὶ ἔτι ῥύσεται amounts
to a tautology without strengthening the
thought in the least: for ἔτι follows as a
matter of course from the ῥύσεται already
said. Besides, against the whole reference
to the shipwreck, see on ver. 8.
GCHAR. T., 11. 423
could not these be recognized by Paul as the more dangerous, in so far as
they were more secret ? Comp. Acts xx. 3.
Ver. 11. A trustful and conciliatory mention of the intercessions of the
readers. This is regarded as not so much conditioning (Erasmus, Rosenmiiller,
Riickert, and others), as rather furthering the καὶ ἔτι ῥύσεται : ‘‘ he will also
still save us, since ye also are helpful together for us,” etc. On the idea of the
efficacy of intercession, comp. especially Phil. i. 19; Rom. xv. 30 f.—The
reference of the σὺν in συνυπουργ. is to the apostle’s own work of prayer, with
which that of the readers is joined by way of help : similar help on the part
of other churches is just hinted by the καί before ὑμῶν. --- ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] on our
behalf. A transposition for τῇ δεήσει ὑπὲρ ju. would indeed be grammatically
possible (Bernhardy, p. 461), but is in the highest degree superfluous (in
opposition to Erasmus, Grotius, Schulz, Rosenmiiller). — iva ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ.
κιτ. 1.1 divinely-appointed aim of the συνυπουργ. «.7.2. The correlations are
to be noted : 1. ἐκ πολλῶν προσώπ. and τὸ εἰς ἡμᾶς yap.; 2% διὰ πολλῶν
and ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν; 3. χάρισμα and εὐχαριστηθῇ. Accordingly, there
stand parallel to one another ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ. and then διὰ πολλῶν ; as also τὸ
εἰς ἡμᾶς χάρισμα and then ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. Hence, it is to be connected and taken
thus : that from many countenances for the gift of grace made to us by means of
many thanks may be rendered on our behalf. Paul means that the thanksgiv-
ing for Ais (and Timothy’s) rescue (i.e. τὸ εἰς ἡμ. χάρ.᾽) is not to be offered to
God by himself (and Timothy) alone, but that it is to be a rendering of thanks
made for him by many through the mediation of many. The many are the
same in ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ. as in διὰ πολλῶν ; but there they are conceived of as
those who give thanks, and in διὰ 7. as those who have been the procuring
means of the thanksgiving, in so far as through their prayer they have aided in
obtaining the apostle’s rescue.” πρόσωπον, according to the use of the later
Greek (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 380; Schweigh., Lex. Polyb. p. 540 ;
Wahl, Clav. Apoer. p. 480), is taken as person by Luther and most others
(already in codd. of the Italic version). But it is nowhere used thus in
the N. T., not even in passages like Jude 16; and, if Paul had had
person in mind, there would have been no motive for choosing ἐκ instead of
ὑπό. Hence we must abide by the literal signification, countenance (Billroth,
Ewald, Osiander, Hofmann) : the expression ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ. is pictorial, for
on the merry countenance the feeling of gratitude is displayed (Prov. xv.
30) ; it is mirrored therein, and goes out from it and upward to God in
the utterance of thanksgiving. (μ᾽)
1 Not the apostolic office (Ewald, Osiander),
which here lies far from the context. So
also Hofmann: the gift of God, to preach
Christ to those who do not yet know Him.
In the ordinary interpretation, there was
not the least need of a demonstrative : the
article and eis ἡμᾶς is from the context de-
monstrative enough.
2 Τὸ was quite unsuitable, and contrary
to the construction purposely carried out
by the correlata stated above, to take ἐκ
Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 53, in the
πολλ. προσώπ. Or διὰ πολλ. as neuter, and
either to explain the former, ex multis re-
spectibus (Bengel, comp. Melanchthon—not
even justifiable in the usage of the lan-
guage), or the latter, prolixe (Castalio : ‘‘ in-
gentes gratiae,’”’ Wolf, Clericus, Semler,
Storr, Rosenmiiller). Comp. Luther. So
also Hofmann takes διὰ πολλ. ‘ abundant
thanksgiving.”’ The Vulgate renders right-
ly: ‘per multos.”’
424 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
same way rightly joins ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ. as well as διὰ 7022. with εὐχαρ., but
he takes ἐκ 7024. xp. of those who have besought the rescue and have thereby
become the causers of the thanksgiving, and διὰ πολλῶν of the thanksgivers
themselves. So also Neander. But by this view justice is not done to the
mediating sense of διά, and the pictorial reference of προσώπων (see above)
can, according to the text, be found only in the act of thanksgiving itself.
It is obvious from what has already been said, that neither can διὰ πολλ. be
joined to τὸ εἰς ἡμ. χάρισμα (Theophylact and others, Billroth, Olshausen,
Osiander, Kling), nor can ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ. be connected with τὸ εἰς ἡμ. yap.
as if it stood : τὸ ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ. εἰς ἡμᾶς χάρισμα (Ambrosiaster, Valla, Beza,
Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and many others, including Flatt, Fritzsche, Diss.,
Riickert, de Wette). Only on our view does the simple construction, as
given by the order of the words, remain without dislocation, and the mean-
ing of the words themselves uninjured. Whether, further, in ἐκ 702A. προσώπ.
the πολλῶν is masculine (Hofmann and Vulgate, ‘‘ex multorum facie”) or
neuter, cannot be decided. —izép ἡμῶν] on our behalf, superfluous in itself,
but suitable to the fulness of the representation.—The time in which the
thanksgiving is to happen is after the beginning of the ῥύσεται, not on the
last day (Ewald).—The passive expression εὐχαριστεῖσθαι (comp. Hipp. Ep.
p- 1284, 31) is conceived like ἀχαριστεῖσθαι (Polyp. xxiii. 11. 8), to experience
ingratitude, to be recompensed with ingratitude. Comp. Buttman, newt.
Gr. p. 130 [E. T. 148}.
Ver. 12. The apostle now begins the vindication of himself, at first in
reference to the purity of his walk in general (ver. 12), then in reference to
his honesty in writing (vv. 18, 14), and afterwards specially in reference to
the changing of his plans for the journey (vv. 15-24). — γάρ] Ground as-
signed for the confidence uttered in ver. 11, that the readers would help
him by their intercession in the manner denoted : for we boast, according to the
witness of our conscience, to have made ourselves worthy of your help. — καύχησις
is not equivalent to καύχημα, materies gloriandi (so most, but in no passage
rightly, see on Rom. iv. 2), but we should interpret : Mor this our boasting
(which is contained in ver. 11) is the testimony which our conscience furnishes
that we, etc. In other words: This our boasting is nothing else than the ex-
pression of the testimony of our conscience, that, etc. ; hence no αἰσχύνεσθαι ἀπὸ
καυχήσεως (Isa. xii, 13) can take place. The contents of this testimony (ὅτι
k.T.4.) shows how very much the καύχησις of Paul 15 ἃ καυχᾶσθαι ἐν κυρίῳ
(1 Cor. i. 31). Accordingly, αὕτη is to be taken together with ἡ καύχησις ἡμῶν
(comp. 1 Cor. viii. 9 : ἡ ἐξουσία ὑμῶν αὕτη); τὸ μαρτύριον κ.τ.}. is the predicate,
which is introduced by ἐστί, and ὅτε κ.τ.λ. is the condita of the testimony.
By tne plain simplicity of this explanation we obviously exclude the view
that airy is preparative, and that it is to be referred either to τὸ μαρτύριον.
(Luther and most), or, more harshly, with Hofmann, to ὅτι «.7.4., because in
that case τὸ μαρτύριον κ.τ.}. is made an interpolated apposition. — ἐν ἁγιότητι
(see the critical remarks) καὶ εἰλικρ. Θεοῦ] Θεοῦ is not used superlatively, as
Emmerling would still take it. Further, it neither denotes what is well-
pleasing to God (Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Riickert, Reiche), nor what
avails before God (Calvin, Beza, Estius, Billroth, and others, following
CHAP, 1.,.18. 425
Theophylact, nor what is like God (Pelagius), nor the God-like (Osiander),
which is God’s manner (Hofmann), but the moral holiness and purity estab-
lished by God through the influence of the divine grace, as the following οὐκ
ἐν σοφ. σαρκ., ἀλλ᾽ ἐν χάριτι Θεοῦ proves.’ So also Olshausen, de Wette
Kling, Neander, Winer, p. 991 [E. T. 296]. Comp. δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, Rom. i.
17, εἰρήνη Θεοῦ, Phil. iv. 7, andthe like. The rare word ἁγιότης is found also in
2 Macc. xv. 2; Heb. xii. 10 ; Schol. Arist. Thesm. 301. Regarding εἰλικρ.,
see on 1 Cor. v. 8. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 66 Α. --- οὐκ ἐν ood. σαρκ.
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν yap. Θεοῦ) is not to be placed in a parenthesis, for it is parallel to
the previous ἐν ἁγιότ. x. εἰλικρ. Θεοῦ, and gives negative and positive infor-
mation about it. The σοφία σαρκ. is the merely human wisdom, the wisdom
which is not the work of the divine influence (of the Holy Spirit), but of
human nature itself unenlightened and unimproved, guided by the sinful
lust in the σάρξ. See on 1 Cor. i. 26. —év χάριτι Θεοῦ] is not to be explained
of miracles (Chrysostom), nor yet with Grotius : ‘‘cum multis donis spirit-
ualibus,” but without any limitation of the influence of the divine grace, under
which Paul lived and worked.—The thrice repeated use of év denotes the
spiritual element im which his course of life moved (Eph. ii. 3 ; 2 Pet. ii.
18). —év Tw κόσμῳ] 1.6. among profane humanity. This serves by contrast
to make the holiness of his walk and conversation more prominent. Comp.
Phil. ii. 15. — πρὸς ὑμᾶς] denotes the direction of his association, in inter-
course with you. See Bernhardy, p. 265. More than with others, he had
established such a relation with the Corinthians (hence περισσοτ.).
Ver. 13 f. In order to vindicate the apparently vainglorious (ver. 10)
περισσ. δὲ mp. ὑμᾶς (ver. 12), in so far as it might be suspected as not honour-
ably meant, he asserts his candour in writing, which must have been assailed
by his opponents (comp. x. 10), who probably maintained, ‘‘ His letters to
us are not the expression of his genuine inmost opinion !” — For nothing else
do we write to you than what you (in our letters) read or also understand ; ὁ.6. in
our letters to you we do not hide or disguise our genuine opinion, but it agrees
exactly with what the reading of the same, or your acquaintance with our
mode of thinking and character, says to you. Comp. Theodoret. On ypd-
ge in its reference to the sense of what is written, comp. 1 Cor. v. 11. Ac-
cording to de Wette, the sense amounts to the thought : ‘‘ I cannot do other-
wise, I must write thus.” But Paul is making an appeal to the readers. —
ἀλλ᾽ ἢ] praeterquam, nisi. For examples in which the previous negative sen-
tence has also ἄλλος, see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 45 ; Heindorf, ad Prot.
p. 864 B; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 36 f. ; Baeumlein, Purtik. p. 5. The mode
of expression depends on a blending of the two constructions—ov« ἄλλα.
ἀλλά and οὐκ ἀλλα. . . ἢ ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 81 B ; Kihner, II.
p. 438. — ἃ ἀναγινώσκετε, ἢ x. ἐπιγ.] This latter 7 is in no connection with the
former, in which case it could not but have stood ἃ ἢ avay., ἢ καὶ émcy. This
1 With this fall tothe ground also the difficulty regarding ay.or., that Paul talks
scruples of Riickert against the word of his purity as teacher, is also untenable.
ἁγιότητι, Which he either wishes totake αὖθ -ὀ He certainly speaks of his entire conduct,
sive, like the Latin sancti‘as, integrity, or not merely of his teaching.
conjectures in its stead ἁγνότητι. Reiche’s
426 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
in opposition to Fritzsche’s way of taking it : ‘‘ neque enim alia ad vos per-
scribimus, guam aut ea. . . aut ea quae,” ete. ἀναγινώσκειν is to read, as it is
usually in the Attic authors, and always in the N. T., not to understand, as
Calvin, Estius, Storr,' following the Peshito, wish to take it, though it has this
meaning often in classical Greek (Hom. 171. xiii. 734, Od. xxi. 205, xxii. 206 ;
Xen. “παν. v. 8.6 ; Pind. Jsthm. ii. 35 ; Herodian, vii. 7; comp. also Prayer of
Manass. 12). —# καὶ éxcyw.] or also (without communication by letter) wnder-
stand. Wetstein imports arbitrarily : ‘‘ vel si alicubi haereat, post secundam
aut tertiam lectionem, attento animo factam, sit intellecturus.” Riickert :
‘‘and doubtless also understand.” Quite against ἢ καί, which stands also
opposed to the view of Hofmann : Paul wishes to say that he does not write
in such a way, that they might understand something else than he means in
his words. In this case we should have had καί only, since ἢ καί points to
something else than to the reading, with which what he has written agrees.
—The assimilation of the expressions ἀναγιν. and émyw. (comp. iii, 2) can-
not be imitated in German, but in Latin approximately : legitis aut etiam
intelligitis. Comp. on Acts vill. 30; Plat. Hp. Il. p. 312 Ὁ. -- ἐλπίζω dé
κιτ.λ.1 The object to ἐπιγνώσεσθε is ὅτι καύχημα ὑμῶν ἐσμεν x.7.2., and καθὼς Kai
ἐπεγν. ju. ἀπὸ μέρ. is an inserted clause: ‘‘I hope, however, that you will
understand even to the end,—as you have understood us in part,—that we
are your boast,” etc. We might also consider ὅτε καύχημα x.t.A, aS a nearer
object to ἐπέγνωτε ὑμᾶς (Estius, Rosenmiiller, Billroth, Riickert, de Wette) ;
τ but, since in this way ἐπιγνώσεσθε remains without an object (Billroth sup-
plies: ‘‘that I think the same as I write ;’ comp. Riickert ; Osiander :
‘all my doing and suffering in its purity’), the above mode of connection
is easier and simpler. Ambrosiaster, Luther, Grotius, and others, also Ols-
hausen (Osiander doubtfully), take ὅτι as for, stating the ground for καθὼς x.
ἐπέγν. ἡμ. ἀπὸ μέρ. But in that case the accurate, logical connection is still
more wanting, since from the general καύχημα ὑμῶν ἐσμεν κ.τ.2. nO inference
to the éréyvwre ἡμᾶς restricted by ἀπὸ μέρους is warranted ; the reason assigned
would not be suitable to ἀπὸ μέρους. The connection which runs on simply
is unnecessarily broken up by Ewald holding ver. 13 and ver. 14 on to
μέρους a8 a parenthesis, so that ὅτι, ver. 14 (that), joins on again to ver. 12.
— ἕως τέλους] does not mean till my death (Hofmann), but till the end, i.e. till
the ceasing of this world, till the Parousia. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 8, xv. 51 f. ;
Heb. iii. 6.— Ver. 14. καθὼς x. éxéyv. ἡμᾶς compares the future, regarding
which Paul hopes, with the past, regarding which he knows. And therefore
he adds a limitation in keeping with the truth, ἀπὸ μέρους (comp. Rom. xi.
25) ; for not allthe Corinthians had thus understood him. Hofmann, quite
against the usage of the language, takes ἀπὸ μέρους of time, inasmuch as the
apostle’s intercourse with them up to the present was only a part of what he
had to live with them. In that case Paul would have written ἕως ἄρτι in con-
trast to ἕως τέλους. Calvin, Estius, and Emmerling refer it to the degree of
knowledge, guodammodo (comp. ii. 5), with which Paul reproaches the readers,
1 Calvin thinks avayw. and ἐπιγιν, are dis- makes the difference: ‘‘ et recognoscitis an-
tinguished as agnoscere and recognoscere. tiqua, et insuper etiam cognoscitis recentia.”
So, on the whole, Storr also. But Estius
CHAP.1., 15,16. 427
ὡς μὴ παντελῶς ἀπωσαμένους τὰς κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ γεγενημένας διαβολάς, Theodoret. But
a purpose of reproach is quite foreign to the connection ; and certainly the
readers to whom ἐπέγνωτε applies had not only understood him guodammodoe, but
wholly and decidedly, that, etc. Billroth thinks that Paul wishes to mark his
cordial love, which till now he could only have shown them in part. Comp. Chrys-
ostom, according to whom ἀπὸ μέρους is added from modesty ; also Theophylact,
according to whom Paul is thinking of the imperfect exhibition of his virtue.
But how could the readers conjecture this ! — ὅτε καύχημα k.7.A. | that weredound
for glory (i.e. for the object of καυχᾶσθαι) to you, even as you tous on the day of
the Parousia. It will be to your honour on that day that you have had us
as teachers, and it will be to our honour that we have had you as disciples.
Comp. 1 Thess, ii. 19 f. ; Phil. ii. 16. With how much winning tact the
addition κάθαπερ κ. ὑμεῖς ἡμῶν Suppresses all appearance of self-exaltation !
ὡς μαθηταῖς ὁμοτίμοις διαλεγόμενος οὕτως ἐξισάζει τὸν λόγον, Chrysostom. — ἐν τῇ
ἡμέρᾳ τ. κυρ. ᾿Ιησοῦ] belongs to the whole ὅτι καύχημα. . . ὑμεῖς ἡμῶν, not,
as Riickert arbitrarily thinks, to καθάπερ x. bu. ἡμῶν merely (so Grotius, Ca-
lovius, and others) ; nor yet, as Hofmann would have it, primarily to καύχ.
ὑμῶν ἐσμεν. :
Vv. 15, 16. Καὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πεποιθ.} and in consequence of this confidence, viz.
ὅτι ἕως τέλους ἐπιγν. k.T.A. in vv. 18, 14. πεποἴθησις (iil. 4, Vill. 22, x. 2;
Eph. 111. 12 ; Phil. iii. 4; Joseph. Bell. i. 3. 1) is later Greek. See Eusta-
thius, ad Od. iii. p. 114, 41; Thom. Mag. p. 717 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p.
294 ἴ. -- ἐβουλόμην] Paul entertained the plan for his journey, set down in
ver. 16, before the composition of our first Epistle, and he had communi-
cated it to the Corinthians (whether in the first letter now lost, or other-
wise, we know not). But before or during the composition of our first
Epistle he altered this plan (as we know from 1 Cor. xvi. 5) to this extent,
that he was not now to go first to Corinth, then to Macedonia, and from
thence back to Corinth again (ver. 16), but through Macedonia to Corinth.
The plan of travel, 1 Cor. xvi. 5, was accordingly not the first (Baur) ; comp.
Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 200 f.), but the one already altered, which altera-
tion was ascribed to the apostle as indecision. This is intelligible enough
from the antagonistic irritation of their minds, and does not require us to
presuppose an expression in the alleged intermediate Epistle (Klépper, p.
21 f.). Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Oecumenius make the apostle say : I
had, when I wrote to you 1 Cor. xvi. 5, the unexpressed intention to arrive
still earlier than I promised, and to reach you even sooner (immediately on
the journey towards Macedonia). Quite a mistaken view, since such a
mere thought would not have been known to his opponents, and no excuse
for his fickleness could therefore have been engrafted on it. — πρότερον] be-
longs to πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν :' I intended to come to you jirst of all,—not, as I
afterwards altered my plan, to the Macedonians first, and then from them
to you. Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and others, including Rosenmiiller and
Riickert, connect πρότ. and ἐβουλ., which, however, on the one hand is
1The position of πρότερον immediately and is therefore to be preferred, makes no
after ἀβουλ. (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Riick- difference in this respect.
ert), which has preponderating evidence,
428 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
opposed to the sense (for Paul cannot say, “1 intended formerly to come
to you,” since his intention is still the same), and on the other would not ~
accord with iva deur. yap. ἔχ. ; for not the πρότερον ἐβουλόμην, but the πρό-
τερον πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐλθεῖν, was to bring in its train a δευτέρα yapic.— wa δευτέ-
ραν χάριν ἔχητε] δευτέραν corresponds ingeniously to the πρότερον : in order that
you might have a second benefit of grace. By χάριν is meant a divine bestowal of
grace, with which Paul knew his coming to be connected for the church ; for
to whatever place he came in his official capacity, he came as the imparter of
divine χάρις, Rom. i. 11; comp. xv. 29. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others,
including Kypke, Emmerling, Flatt, and Bleek (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830,
p. 622), hold that χάρις is equivalent to χάρα (and hence this is actually the
reading of B L, sonre min., and Theodoret). Certainly χάρις also means
pleasure, joy, and is, as in Tob. vii. 18, the opposite of λύπη (Eur. Hel. 661,
and more frequently in Pindar ; see Duncan, Lev., ed. Rost, p. 1191 ; also
in Plato, Ast, Lev. UI. p. 538), but never in the N. T. This sense, besides,
would be unsuitable to the apostle’s delicate and modest style of expression
elsewhere. Nor, again, 15 ἃ benefit on the part of the apostle meant (Grotius,
Rosenmiiller, Schrader, Billroth, comp. also Hofmann), because the expres-
sion is only in keeping with his affection and humility (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 10)
if a divine display of grace is meant. The comparison with 1 Cor. xvi. 3 is
therefore not to the point, because there a χάρις is named, of which the
readers were givers. But what does he mean by δευτέραν yap? Many
answer with Estius : ‘‘ut ex secundo meo adventu secundam acciperetis
gratiam, qui dudum accepistis primam, quando primum istuc veniens ad
fidem vos converti.” Comp. Pelagius, Calvin, Wolf, Mosheim, Bengel,
Emmerling. But against this it may be urged : (1) historically, that Paul
certainly had been already twice in Corinth before our two Epistles (see
Introd. ὃ 2) ; and (2) from the connection, that the δευτέρα χάρις in this
sense can by no means appear as an aim conditioned by the πρότερον ; for
even a later coming would have had a δευτέρα χάρις in this sense as its
result. This second reason is decisive, even if, with Schott, Hrérterung,
etc., p. 58 ΕἾ, and Anger, rat. temp. Ὁ. 72 f., we were to set aside the
former by the supposition : ‘‘apostolum intra annum illum cum dimidio,
quem, quum primum Corinthi esset, ibi transegit, per breve aliquod tem-
poris spatium in regiones vicinas discessisse ; sic enim si res se habuit,
Paulus, etsi bis ad Corinthios venerat, ita ut in secunda, quam iis misit,
epistola adventum tertiwm polliceri posset : tamen, quoniam per totum illud
intervallum Corinthi potissimum docuerat, simile beneficium, quod in itinere
seriore in eos collocaturus erat, jure secundum appellavit,” Anger, 1.6. p. 73.
The right solution results from ver. 16, which is joined on by the epexe-
getical καὶ, viz., that the δευτέρα χάρις appears as setting in through the
πάλιν ἀπὸ Maxed. ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. Paul had intended on his projected
journey to visit Corinth tice, and had therefore proposed to himself to
come to the Corinthians jirst of all (not first to the Macedonians), in order
that they in this event might have a second χάρις on his return from Mace-
donia (the first χάρις they were to have on his journey thither). From this
it is at once obvious : (1) how superfluous is the linguistically incorrect
ΘΕ ΡΥ TL 429
supposition that δευτέραν is here equivalent to διπλῆν, as Bleek and Neander,
following Chrysostom and Theodoret,* take it ; (2) how erroneous is the
opinion of Riickert, that iva devr. χάριν ἔχητε is put in a wrong place, and
should properly only come behind ἐλϑεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ver. 16. No ; according
to the epexegetical καί, ver. 16, 0’ ὑμῶν ἀπελϑεῖν εἰς Maxed. serves to give
exact and clear information as parallel to the πρότερον πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλϑεῖν, and
then καὶ πάλιν ἀπὸ Mak. ἐλϑεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς as parallel to the iva devrép. χάριν
ἔχητε. Comp. Baur, I. p. 338, ed. 2.
Ver. 17. Wishing this therefore (according to what has just been said), did
I then behave thoughtlessly ? Was this proposal of mine made without duly
taking thought for its execution ? μήτι supposes a negative answer, as always,
in which case ἄρα (meaning : as the matter stands) makes no alteration, such
as the suggesting, perhaps, a thought of possible affirmation. Sucha sense,
as it were, of a mere tentative nature feeling its way, which is foreign here,
could only be suggested by the context, and would have nothing to Co with
ἄρα (in opposition to Hartung, whom Hofmann follows). See Klotz, ad
Devar. Ὁ. 176 £. —rh ἐλαφρίᾳ] The article marks the thoughtlessness not as
that with which the apostle was reproached by the Corinthians (Billroth,
Olshausen, Riickert, de Wette), which he must have indicated more pre-
cisely, in order that it might be so understood, but thoughtlessness as such in
general, in abstracto: have I then made myself guilty of thoughtlessness ?
ἐλαφρία belongs to the substantives in -pa formed late from adjectives in
-poc. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 343. For the ethical sense (wantonness),
comp. Schol. Aristoph. Av. 195, and ἐλαφρός in Polyb. vi. 56. 11 ; ἐλαφρόνοος,
Phocylides in Stob. Flor. app. iii. 7. ---ἢ ἃ βουλεύομαι, κατὰ σάρκα βουλείομαι]
ἢ is not aut (Billroth, Riickert, Osiander, Hofmann, after the Vulgate and
most expositors) but an ; for without any interrogation the relation of the
two sentences is: My proposal was not thoughtless, unless it should be the case
that I form my resolves κατὰ σάρκα. See Hartung, I. p. 61.— Mark the
difference between ἐχρησάμην as aorist (historical event) and βουλεύομαι as
present (behaviour generally). —xarad σάρκα] according to the flesh, after the
standard of the σάρξ, 7.e. so that I let myself be guided by the impulses of
human nature sinfully determined, Gal. v. 16 ff.—iva ἢ παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ τὸ vai vai
καὶ τὸ οὗ οὔ] By iva is expressed simply the immoral purpose which would be
connected with βουλεύεσθαι κατὰ σάρκα ; in order that with me there may be the
Yea, yea, and the Nay, nay, 1.6. in order that with me affirmation and denial
may exist together ; that I, according as the case stauds, may assent to the
fleshly impulse, and in turn renounce it ; to-day yea, and to-morrow nay,
or yea and nay as it were in one breath. Billroth errs in thinking that in
this explanation καί must be taken as also. That it means and, is proved by
vy. 18, 19. The duplication of the vai and οὔ strengthens the picture of the
untrustworthy man who affirms just as fervently as he afterwards denies.
1 In other respects Theodoret, Bleek,and from Macedonia, But Chrys., quite against
Neander, as also Billroth, Olshausen, and the context, explains the double joy as καὶ
Riickert, agree in thinking that δευτέραν τὴν διὰ τῶν γραμμάτων καὶ τὴν διὰ τῆς παρουσίας.
refers to the repeated visit to Corinth So also Erasmus, Vatalbus, and others.
which had been intended after returning
450 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Failing to discern this, Grotius and Estius wished to prefer the reading of
the Vulgate, τὸ vai καὶ τὸ ob, which has very weak attestation. The arti-
cle marks the vai vai and the od οὔ as well-known and solemn formulae of
affirmative and newative asseveration (as they were also in Jewish usage ;
see Wetstein, ad Matth. v. 87). Comp. on vai vai, Soph. O. C. 1748. As
to the main point, namely, that the vai vai and the oj ob are taken as the
subject of 7, this explanation has the support of Erasmus, Beza, Calvin,
Estius (though conjecturing iva μή instead of ἵνα), Cornelius ἃ Lapide,
Grotius, Mill, Wolf, and others ; also of Rosenmiiller, Emmerling, Flatt,
Schrader, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Maier, and others ; even
Olshausen, who, however, sets up for vai and vi the ‘‘ peculiar” signification
(assumed without any instance of its being so used) of ‘‘ truth” and ‘‘false-
hood.” The diplasiasmus vai vai and οὗ οὔ is not without reason (as Billroth
and Hofmann object), but quite accords with the passionate excitement of
the moral consciousness ; whereas afterwards, in ver. 18, where his words
go on quietly with a glance towards the faithful God, the bare vai καὶ οὔ is
quite in its place. Note, further, that the simple expression of the coevistence
of the yea and nay (to which Hofmann objects) is more striking, than if Paul
had given a more precise explanation of the maxims of yea and nay. The
readers knew him, and even his evil-wishers could not but know that he was
no yea-and-nay man. Others consider the second vai and the second οὗ as
predicates, so that a wholly opposite sense is made out of the words: in
order that with me the Yea may be yea, and the Nay be nay, i.e. in order that
I may stubbornly carry through what I have proposed to myself. Comp.
Jas. v. 12. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus,
Castalio, Bengel, and others, and recently Billroth ; Winer, p. 429 [E. T.
576], gives no decision. The context, however, before (‘‘ levitatis et incon-
stantiae, non autem pertinaciae crimen hic ase depellere studet,” Estius)
and after (vv. 18, 19), is decisive against this view. Hofmann imports into
παρ᾽ ἐμοί ἃ Contrast to παρὰ τῷ Θεᾷ, so that tfic idea would be : to assent to
or refuse anything on grounds taken from one’s own self, without reservation,
because purely as an expression of self-will, with which Jas. iv, 13 is com-
pared.’ Such a contrast could not but be based upon what went before, in
itself as well as in the sense assumed. Besides, to this pretended emphasis
on παρ᾽ ἐμοί the order iva παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ 7 would have been suitable ; and the idea
of speaking no absolute yea or nay, would have demanded not καί but ἢ be-
tween the vai and the οὔ. And was Paul, then, the man in whose resofves
‘‘the yea is always meant with the reservation of a nay”? Luther’s trans-
lation (comp. Ambrosiaster and Erasmus) comes back to the result, that the
mark of interrogation is placed after κατὰ σ. βουλ., and in that case there is
supplied neguaquam, of which negation iva x.r.A. specifies the purpose. This
is intolerably arbitrary. Regarding the erroneous translation of the Peshitto
(Grotius agrees with it), which distorts the meaning from misconception,
see Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 2.
1 Similarly Ewald, but he takes παρ᾽ ἐμοί one or the other ’’), as if, therefore, it were
(with Camerarius) as penes me (‘‘ merely ἐν ἐμοί. Ewald compares Ps. xii. δ,
after my own pleasure to say and to do the
CHAP: I., 18,19. 431
Ver. 18. But according to His faithfulness, God causes our speech to you to be
not yea and nay, not untrustworthy.’ The δέ introduces the contrast (yea rather)
to the state of things denied in the preceding question (Baeumlein, Partik.
p- 95) ; and ὅτι is equivalent to εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι, like John ii. 18, ix. 17, πὶ: Bd 5
1 Cor. i. 26, al. : Faithful is God in reference to this, that our speech, etc., ὁ.6.
God shows Himself faithful by this, that, etc. Beza, Calvin, and others, in-
cluding Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald, Hofmann,
take πιστὸς ὁ Θεός as an asseveration : proh Dei fidem! Against all linguistic
usage, for the ζῶ ἐγὼ . . . ὅτι (see on Rom. xiv. 11), which is compared, is
a habitual formula of swearing, which the πιστὸς ὁ Θεός, very frequent with
the apostle (1 Cor. i. 9, x. 18; 1 Thess. v. 24 ; 2 Thess. iii. 3; 1 Johni.
9), is not. Nor can we compare xi. 10, where a subjective state of things is
asserted as a guarantee of what is uttered. — ὁ λόγος ἡμῶν] is by most under-
stood of the preaching of the gospel, according to which Paul thus, against
the suspicion of untruthfulness in his resolves and assurances, puts forward
the truthfulness of his preaching,—in which there lies a moral argument ὦ
majori ad minus ; for the opinion of Hofmann, that Paul means to say that
his preaching stands in a different position from the conditioned quality of
his yea and nay, falis with his view of ver. 17. From ver. 19, however, it
appears to be beyond doubt that the usual explanation of Adyoc, of the
preaching, not in general of the apostle’s speech (Rickert), or of that unful-
filled promise (Erasmus in the Annot.), is theright one. Olshausen mixes up
the two explanations.
Vv. 19-22. Paul furnishes grounds in ver. 19 f. for the assurance he had
given in ver. 18 ; then refers his veracity to the stedfastness bestowed on
him by God, ver. 21 f.; and finally, ver. 238, makes protestations as to the
reason why he had not yet come to Corinth.
Ver. 19. Ὁ yap τοῦ Θεοῦ υἱός] or, as Lachmann, Riickert, and Tischendorf,
following preponderating testimony, have it rightly : ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ yap υἱός (yap
in the fourth place ; see Fritzsche, Quaest. Lue. p. 100 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph.
I. p. 339 ; Hermann, ad Philoct. 1437), marks the τοῦ Θεοῦ as emphatic, in
order to make what is to be said of Christ, οὐκ ἐγένετο vai x. ob, felt at once in
its divine certainty. To be God’s Son and yet vai x. οὔ would be a contra-
diction. In the whole é .. . ’I. X. there lies a solemn, sacred emphasis. —
ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν dv ἡμῶν κηρυχθείς] reminds the readers of the jirst preaching of Christ
among them, of which Paul could not but remind them, if they were to
become perfectly conscious, from their experience from the beginning, that
Christ had not become vai x. ov. But in order to make this jirst preaching
come home to them with the whole personal weight of the preachers, he
adds, in just consciousness of the services rendered by himself and his
companions as compared with the later workers, a more precise definition of
the dv ἡμῶν, with more weighty circumstantiality : δύ ἐμοῦ x. Σικουανοῦ κ.
Τιμοθέου. For the two latter had been his helpers in his first labours
in Corinth. See Acts xviii. 5. From this it is obvious why he has not
1 Erasmus says aptly, Paraphr.; ‘“‘Sed praedicavimus, non vyacillarit, sed semper
non fallit Deus, cujus praesidio factum est, sui similis fuerit.”’
ut sermo noster, quo vobis illius evangelium
432 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
named others, as Apollos, but simply these (Calvin thinks, that these had
been most calumniated) ; hence also there is no need to suppose any inten-
tion of making his assurance more credible (Chrysostom, Thcophylact, and.
many others). A side glance at the Christ preached by Judaistic opponents
(xi. 4) is here quite foreign to the connection (in opposition to Klépper, p.
86 f.). — Σιλουανοῦ] Universally so with Paul (1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. 1. 1) ;
also in 1 Pet. v. 19. In the Acts of the Apostles only the shortened name
Σίλας appears. Silvanus is here placed before Timothy, because he was an
older apostolic helper than the latter. See Acts xv. 22 ff. — οὐκ ἐγένετο vai
x. ob] He has not become affirmation and negation, has not showed Himself as
untrustworthy, as one who affirms and also denies (the fulfilment of the divine
promises, ver. 20), as one who had exhibited such contradiction in himself.
This Paul says of Christ Himself, in so far as in the personal objective Christ,
by means of his appearance and His whole work, the vai in reference to the
divine promises, the affirmation of their fulfillment, is given as a matter of
fact. Wrongly most expositors (comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophy-
Ἰδοῦ) understand Χριστός as doctrina de Christo (‘‘ our gospel of Christ is not
changeable, sometimes one thing, sometimes another, but it remains ever
the same”), an interpretation here specially precluded by verses 20 and 21.
This may be urged also against the similar interpretation of Hofmann, that,
with the very fact that Christ has come to the readers through preaching,
there has gone forth a Yea (the affirmation of all divine promises), without
any intervention of Nay. Olshausen and Riickert take it rightly of Christ
Himself ; but the former puts in place of the simple meaning of the word
the thought not quite in keeping : ‘‘ Christ is the absolute truth, affirmation
pure and simple ; in Him is the real fulfilment of the divine promises ; in
Him negation is entirely wanting ;” and the latter arbitrarily limits ἐγένετο
merely to the experience of the Corinthians (‘‘ among you He has not shown
Himself untrustworthy”). Paul, however, uses the words οὐκ ἐγένετο ναὶ x.
ov of Christ in general, and by ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν. . . Tiwof. directs the attention of
the Corinthians to the recognition of the truth on their part and out of their
own experience. — ἀλλὰ vai ἐν αὐτῷ γέγονεν) of the two only the former, i.e.
afiirmation (that the divine promises are fulfilled and shall be fulfilled) és es-
tablished in Him: in Christ is actually given the yea, that, etc. In the per-
fect γέγονεν (different from the previous aorist ἐγένετο) is implied the continu-
ance of what has happened. Comp. on Col. i. 16; Johni. 8. Grotius, in
opposition to the context (see ver. 20), referred vai ἐν αὐτῷ yéy. to the mira-
eles, by which Christ confirmed the apostolic preaching. And Beza awk-
wardiy, and, on account of ver. 20, erroneously, took ἐν αὐτῷ of God, whose
Son is ‘‘ constantissima Patris veritas.”
Ver. 20. A more precise explanation and confirmation of vai ἐν airw yéy-
ονεν, running on to the end of the verse. Hence ὅσαι... ἀμήν is not to be
put in a parenthesis, as Griesbach, Scholz, and Ewald.—ré vai and τὸ ἀμήν
cannot be synonymous, as most of the older commentators take them (re-
petit, ut ipsa repetitione rem magis confirmet,” Estius), for this is rendered
impossible by the correct reading διὸ x. δ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀμήν (see the critical re-
marks). Rather must the former be the cause (d:é) of the latter. And here
CHAP, I.,; 215 433
the expression τὸ ἀμήν is without doubt to be explained from the custom in
worship, that in public prayer a general Amen was said as certifying the
general assurance of faith as to its being heard (see on 1 Cor. xiv. 16). Ac-
cordingly τὸ vai and τὸ ἀμήν are here to be distinguished in this way ; τὸ ναί,
as in the whole context, denotes the certainty objectively given (comp. on
that point, Rom. xv. 8), and τὸ ἀμήν, the certainty subjectively existing, the
certainty of faith. Consequently : for, as many promises of God as there are
(in the O. T.), in Him is the yea (in Christ is given the objective guarantee
of their fulfilment) ; therefore through Him also the Amen takes place, there-
fore it comes to pass through Christ, that the Amen is said to God’s prom-
ises ; 1.6. therefore also to Christ, to His work and merit, without which we
should want this certainty, 7s due the subjective certainty of the divine promises,
the faith in their fulfilment. Billroth, indeed (and in the main, de Wette),
thinks the conception to be this: that the preachers of the gospel say the
Amen through their preaching, so that τὸ vai refers to the living working
of God in Christ, in whom He fulfils His promises, and τὸ ἀμήν to the faith-
ful and stedfast preaching of these deeds of God. But the saying of Amen
expressed the assurance of faith, and was done by all ; hence τὸ ἀμήν would
be in the highest degree unsuitable for denoting the praedicatio. Finally,
Riickert is quite arbitrary when he says that τὸ vai relates to the fulfilment
of the prophecies wrought by the appearing of Christ Himself, and τὸ ἀμήν
to the erection of thechurch, which had grown out of that appearing.—The
article before vai and ἀμήν denotes the definite Yea and Amen, which relate
to the ἐπαγγελίαι Θεοῦ and belong to them. The article was not used before
in ver. 19, because no definite reference of the yea was yet specified. — τῷ
Θεῷ πρὸς δόξαν dv ἡμῶν] a teleological definition to δ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀμήν with the
emphatic prefixing of τῷ Θεῷ : to God’s honour through us, i.e. what redounds
to the glorifying of God (viii. 19) through us. — δὲ ἡμῶν] nostro ministerio
(Grotius), in so far, namely, as the ministry of the gospel-preachers brings
about the Amen, the assurance of faith in God’s promises, Rom. x. 14.
Ver. 21 f. Aé] not specifying the ground of τῷ Θεῷ πρὸς δόξαυ (Grotius),
nor confirming the assurance that he had preached without wavering (Bill-
roth), but continuative. Paul has just, with dv ἡμῶν, pointed to the blessed
result which his working (and that of his companions) is bringing about,
namely, that the Amen of faith is said to all God’s promises to the glory of
God. But now he wishes to indicate also the inner divine life-principle,
on which this working and its result are based, namely, the Christian sted-
JFastness, which is due to no other than to God Himself. — On the construc-
tion, comp. v. 5 ; hence Billroth (whom Olshausen follows) has incorrectly
taken ὁ δὲ βεβαιῶν... Θεός as subject, and ὁ καὶ odpay. k.7.2. as predicate.
It is to be translated: ‘‘ And He who makes us stedfast with you toward
Christ, after He has also anointed us, is God; who also,” etc. Since the
anointing precedes the βεβαιοῦν, and is its foundation, and Paul has not
written ὁ δὲ χρίσας ἡμᾶς καὶ βεβαιῶν κ.τ.λ., it is not to be regarded with the
expositors as qui autem confirmat et unvit, but καὶ χρίσας ἡμᾶς is to be taken
as a definition subordinate to the βεβαιῶν, and καί as the also of the corre-
sponding relation ; otherwise, there would be a hysteron-proteron, which
434 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
there isno ground for supposing. —ei¢ Χριστόν in relation to Christ, so
that we remain unshakenly faithful to Christ. Chrysostom well says : ὁ μὴ
ἐῶν ἡμᾶς παρασαλεύεσθαι ἐκ τῆς πίστεως τῆς εἰς τ. Χριστόν. The explanation :
into Christ (Billroth, Olshausen) has against it the present participle. For
the believers are already in Christ ; their continued confirmation (βεβ., see
on 1 Cor. i. 6) therefore could not but take place in Christo, Col. ii. 7, not in
Christum. — σὺν ὑμῖν] Paul adds, in order not to appear as if he were deny-
ing to the readers the βεβαίωσις εἰς Χριστόν. Estius says aptly : ‘‘ut eos in
hac sua defensione benevolos habeat.” This agrees with the whole tone of
the context ; but there is not, as Riickert conjectures, a side glance at those
who had held the apostle to be a wavering reed. — ypicac ἡμᾶς} here, with-
out σὺν ὑμῖν, is a figurative way of denoting the consecration to office (Luke
iv. 18; Acts iv. 27, x. 838; Heb. i. 9), ze. to the office of teacher of the gos-
pel, without, however, pressing the expression so far as Chrysostom and
Theophylact : ὁμοῦ προφήτας καὶ ἱερεῖς x. βασιλέας ἐργασάμενος. Whether, how-
ever, did Paul conceive the consecration as effected by the call (Billroth,
Olshausen, Riickert) or by the communication of the Spirit (Calvin, Grotius,
Estius, Osiander, and many others, following the ancient expositors) ? Ver.
22 is not opposed to the latter view (see below) ; and since the call to the
office is, in point of fact, something quite different from the consecration,
χρίσας is certainly to be referred to the holy consecration of the Spirit (comp.
Acts x. 88). Comp., further, 1 John ii. 20, 27, and Diisterdieck on 1 John
i. p. 355. An allusion to Χριστόν (Bengel, Osiander, Hofmann, and others)
would not be certain, even if there stood καὶ χρίσας καὶ ἡμᾶς, because Χριστόν
is not used appellatively, but purely as a proper name. An anointing of
Christ (as at Luke iv. 18; Acts iv. 27, x. 38; Heb. i. 9) is as little men-
tioned by Paul as by John. If, however, it had been here in his mind, in
order to compare with it the consecration of the ἡμεῖς, he could not but have
added σὺν αὐτῷ, or some similar more precise definition of the relation in-
tended, to make himself intelligible ; comp. the idea of the συζωοποιεῖν σὺν
Χριστῷ, and the like. —6é καὶ σφραγισ. ὑμᾶς x.7.2.] is argumentative. How
could He leave us in the lurch unconfirmed, He, who has also sealed us, etc. !
How would He come into contradiction with Himself! This σφραγισ. ὑμᾶς
does not present the same thing, as was just expressed by χρίσας ἡμ., in
another figurative form ; but by means of καί it adds an accessory new ele-
ment,’ namely, the Messianic sealing conferred, although likewise through
the Holy Spirit (see the sequel), apart from the anointing, ὁ.6. the inner con-
firmation of the Messianic σωτηρία. Comp. on Eph. i. 13, iv. 30. Τῷ is not
added to what the sealing objectively relates (to the Messianic salvation),
because it is regarded as a familiar notion, well known in its reference. — καὶ
δοὺς x.7.A.] is epexegetical of ὁ σφραγισάμ. ἡμᾶς, Winer, p. 407 [E. T. 545]. —
τὸν ἀῤῥαβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος] Comp. v. 5. The genitive is the genitive of ap-
position, as1 Cor. v. 8: the earnest-money, which consists in the Spirit. appaBdv
(also with the Romans arrhabo or arrha) is properly ἡ ἐπὶ ταῖς ὠναῖς παρᾶ τῶν
1 Hence καί is to be taken as also, not with pecially as καὶ ofpay. and καὶ δούς are not
the following καί, as well... cs also; es- two acts essentially different.
CHAP. I., 23, 24. 435
ὠνουμένων διδομένη προκαταβολὴ ὑπὲρ ἀσφαλείας, Etym. M. ; Aristot. Pol. i. 4.
5; Lucian, Rhet. praec. 17, 18. Then it is a figurative expression for the
notion guarantee. See in general Wetstein, and especially Kypke, Obdss.
II. p. 239 f. For what the Holy Spirit is guarantee, Paul does not say, but
he presupposes it as an obvious fact in the consciousness of the readers, just
as he did with σφραγισάμ. The Holy Spirit is in the heart as an earnest-
money given for a guarantee of a future possession, the pledge of the future
Messianic saloation. Comp. v. 5; Eph. i. 14. How? see Rom. viii. 2, 10
f., v. 5, viii. 15 ff. ; Gal. iv. Ὁ f.; Eph. v. 19. In ἀῤῥαβ., therefore, the
climax τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν (Theodoret) is characteristic. — ἐν ταῖς
καρδιαῖς ἡμ.1 The direction is blended with the result, as viii. 1 : He gave the
Spirit, so that this Spirit is now in our hearts. Comp. viii. 16, and on John
iii. 35. :
Ver. 23. After Paul has vindicated himself (vv. 16-22) from the suspicion
of fickleness and negligence raised against him on account of his changing
the plan of his journey, he proceeds in an elevated tone to give, with the
assurance of an oath (xi. 31 ; Rom. i. 9; Gal. i 20), the reason why he had
not come to Corinth. —éyo dé] Hitherto he has spoken communicative, not
talking of himself exclusively. Now, however, to express his own self-de-
termination, he continues : but I for my own part, etc.—For examples of
ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸν Θεὸν μάρτυρα, see Wetstein. Comp. Hom. 11. xxii. 254. Θεοὺς
ἐπιδώμεθα᾽ τοὶ yap ἄριστοι μάρτυροι ἔσσονται, Plat. Legg. 11. p. 664 C. — ἐπὶ τ.
ἐμ. woy.| not : against my soul, in which case it would be necessary arbi-
trarily to supply 8ὲ fallo (Grotius ; comp. Osiander and others, also Ernesti,
Urspr. d. Siinde, Il. p. 102), but, in reference to (for) my soul, ‘‘ in quarerum
mearum mihi conscius sum, quam perimi nolim,” Bengel. It expresses the
moral reference of the invocation, and belongs to ἐπικαλ., in which act Paul
has in view that he thereby stakes the salvation (Heb. x. 39; 1 Pet. i. 9 ;
Jas. 1. 21) or ruin of his soul (Rom. ii. 9). Comp. the second commandment.
— φειδόμενος ὑμ.] exercising forbearance towards you. This was implied in the
very fact of his not coming. Had he come, it must have been ἐν ῥαβδῷ, 1
Cor. iv. 21. Comp. ii. 1. --- οὐκέτι] not again, as would have accorded with
my former plan, ver. 16.’ But since this former plan is altered already in 1
Cor. xvi. 5 f., the ἔτι in οὐκέτι must refer to a visit preceding our first Epistle.
εἰς Κόρινθον] ‘‘eleganter pro ad vos in sermone potestatem ostendente,”
Bengel.
Ver. 24. Guarding against a possible misunderstanding of φειδόμενος.
Theodoret says aptly : τοῦτο dé ὡς ὑφορμοῦν τέθεικεν ; for the expression φειδό-
μενος might be interpreted as a pretension to lordship over faith. — οὐχ ὅτι]
is equivalent to οὐκ ἐρῶ, ὅτι. See on John vi. 46, and Tyrwhitt, ad Arist.
Poet. p. 128. — κυριεύομεν x.t.2.] The apostle knows that no lordship over
Jaith belongs to him ; how the faith in Christ is to be shaped among the
churches as respects contents, vital activity, etc., he has not to command, as
if he were lord over it, but only to teach, to rouse, and entreat (v. 20) there-
1 [The phrase is excellently well rendered in the Revised N. T., “1 forbare to come.’’—
TT, W. C.]
436 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
to, to promote it by praise or blame, etc. The order κυρ. ὑμῶν τ. rior.
depends on the form of conception : we do not lord it over you as to faith.
Comp. on John xi. 32, and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 117 A, Rep. p. 518
C. This prefixing of the pronoun occurs very often in the N. T.; hence it
was the more preposterous to supply a évexa before τῆς πίστ. (Erasmus, Calvin,
Estius, Flatt, and others). — ἀλλὰ συνεργοί] but (it is implied in my φειδόμενος
ὑμῶν) that we are joint helpers of your joy, that it is our business to be helpful
to you, so that you rejoice. To this destined aim an earlier coming would
have been opposed, because it would have caused grief (ii. 1). The συν in
συνεργοί refers to the union of the helping efficacy with the working of the
Corinthians themselves. Contrary to the context, Grotius suggests : ‘‘ cum
Deo et Christo,” which Osiander also imports. The χαρά is not to be taken
of the joy of bdlessedness (Grotius and others), but of the joy of the church
over the improvement and the success of the Christian life amongst them. Only
this agrees with the context, for the want of this success had been the
cause of Paul’s formerly coming ἐν λύπῃ to the Corinthians and of the
necessity for his coming again ἐν ῥάβδῳ (1 Cor. iv. 21). — τῇ yap πίστει ἑστήκατε]
for in respect to faith ye stand ; the point of faith, in respect to which you
are firm and stedfast, is not now under discussion. (P*) Note the emphatic
placing of τῇ zior. first. Theophylact well says : οὐκ οὖν ἐν τούτοις (τοῖς κατὰ
πίστιν) εἶχον τι μέμψασθαι ὑμᾶς" ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ éoarevecbe. On the dative of more
precise definition, comp. Polyb. xxi. 9. 3; Rom. iv. 19, 20; Gal. v. 1
(Elzevir). It does not mean per fidem, Rom. xi. 20, as Bengel and Hofmann
hold (through faith you have an independent and firm Bearing), in which
case we should have for ἑστήκ. a very vague and indefinite conception ; but
it is, in substance, not different from ἐν τῇ πίστει, 1 Cor, xvi, 19,
Norres py AMERICAN EDITOR.
(aa*) “‘ The Father of mercies.” Ver. 3.
On this expression, Stanley makes the unwarrantable remark that it com-
bines the two ideas that God’s essence consists in mercy, and also that He is
the father and the source of mercies. Neither of these ideas is iu the words.
For the genitive is not that of source or effect, but of quality, as Meyer affirms,
so that the phrase gives us the conception of God as a being whose character-
istic is mercy ; but this is a very different thing from the crude and flabby
notion that His essence consists in mercy. For, if that be so, what becomes of
the other perfections which reason and Scripture compel us to attribute to
Him?
(ΒΗ 5) That we may be able to comfort. Ver. 4.
Paul was willing to be afflicted in order to be the bearer of consolation to
others, A life of ease is commonly stagnant. It is those who suffer much and
who experience much of the comfort of the Holy Ghost who live much. Their
life is rich in experience and resources (Hodge),
NOTES. 437
(13) ** The sufferings of Christ in us.”’ Ver. 5.
This means, as Meyer states, not sufferings on account of Christ, nor those
which He endures in His members, but such sufferings as Christ endured, and
which His people are called upon to endure in virtue of their union with Him.
It is not enough simply to say that it is of the very nature of spiritual things
that they cannot be confined within themselves, It is a more specific truth
the Apostle has in view, viz. that as union with Christ was the source of
His afflictions, so it was the source of His abundant consolation.
(3°) The reason of Paul's affliction and his comfort. Vv. 6, 7.
The order of the words in these verses is well given in the Revision of 1881.
The general sense is plain. If the Apostle was afflicted, it was for the salva-
tion of others ; if he was comforted, it was for their comfort. In this twofold
sense they were joint partakers in his joys and his sorrows.
(K°) ‘* The sentence of death.’ Ver. 9.
“The Revised Ν. T. begins this verse with Yea instead of But (so Stanley and
Principal Brown), which certainly seems more vivid. Meyer’s objection is
hardly tenable.—The Revised rendering answer of the first noun, now gener-
ally adopted, is wonderfully expressive and emphatic. It means, ‘‘ Whenever I
have put to myself the question, What will be the issue of this continuous con-
flict? the answer has been, Death.”’
(8) ** And doth deliver.’’ Ver. 10.
Westcott and Hort as well as Tischendorf adopt the future reading, ‘and
will deliver,’’ which is given also in the Revised N. T. This reading is best
sustained externally, but the internal evidence is all the other way. Itisa
precious assurance that God did, does, and will deliver, as the three tenses of
the common reading declare.
(m*) ** From many countenances.’’ Ver. 11.
A graphic picture is given in this phrase, ‘‘from many (upturned) faces,’’ as
of men looking up to God in prayer and praise. Meyer’s view is sustained, as
he shows, by the invariable usage of the New Testament.
(n°) As God is faithful. Ver. 18.
Meyer’s objection to this rendering has weight, yet his ownis far from being
unimpeachable. It paraphrases the passage rather than translates it, and is
certainly constrained and awkward. Whereas the other gives a noble sense :
“ΑΒ God is true, my preaching is true.” Paul's confidence in the truth of the
Gospel as he proclaimed it was one and the same with his confidence in God.
To tell him that it was not to be depended upon was all the same in his mind
with saying that God was not to be believed.
(0?) Anointing, sealing, earnest. Ver. 22.
The first of these words cannot refer to official chrism, but must denote the
unction common to all Christians (1 John, ii. 20). The second denotes the
.
438 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
authentication and preservation of believers, a seal being used both to prove
genuineness and to maintain inviolate. The third is unusually strong, indi-
cating that the indwelling of the Spirit here and now is an instalment, a first-
fruits of what is to come, and so a very special pledge of its certain attainment. _
(68) ** By faith ye stand.’’ Ver. 24.
Stanley gives the sense thus : ‘‘ We are but co-operators with you in produc-
ing not your grief, but your joy : and so far from our being the masters of your
faith, it is by your faith that you stand independently of us.”
- =
Gua Migs a 439
CHAPTER II.
Ver. 1. πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν) Elz, : πάλιν ἐλθεῖν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς,
in opposition to ABC KL &, min. Theodoret, Damasc., also in opposition to
Ὁ E F 6, 14, 120, al., Syr. Arm. Vulg. It. Chrys. Theophyl. and the Latin
Fathers, who have πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς (so Tisch.). The Recepta! is
evidently a transposition to connect πώλιν with ἐλθεῖν, because it was supposed
that Paul had been only once in Corinth. — Ver. 2. ἐστιν after τίς is wanting in
ABC 8, Copt. Syr. Cyr. Dam. Lachm. Tisch. Supplemental addition. — Ver.
3. ὑμῖν] after éyp. is to be struck out as an explanatory addition. So Lachm.
and Tisch., who follow A Β C* δὲ 17, Copt. Arm. Damasc. Ambrosiast. — Ver.
3. λύπην] DE FG, min. Vulg. It. Syr. p. Pel. Beda: λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην. Ampli-
fication, in accordance with ver. 1. —- Ver. 7. μᾶλλον] is wanting in A B, Syr.
Aug. (deleted by Riickert) In DEF ἃ, Theodoret, it stands only after ὑμᾶς.
As it was superfluous, it was sometimes passed over, sometimes transposed. —
Ver. 9. Instead of εἰ, A and B have 7. But how easily might εἰ be dropped
before εἰς (so in 80), and then be variously replaced (109: o¢)!— Ver. 10. ὃ
κεχάρισμαι, εἰ τε κεχάρισμαι] SoA BC FG δὰ, min. Vulg. It. Damasc. Jer. Am-
brosiast. Pacian. Pel. Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Riick. Tisch. But Elz. has εἰ τι
κεχάρισμαι, @ Keydpicuat, defended by Reiche. This reading arose from the
Codd., which read (evidently in accordance with the previous ©) @ κεχάρισμαι,
el τι κεχάρισμαι (so still D*** E, 31, 37). The repetition of κεχάρισμαι caused
the εἴ τε key. to be left out ;? afterwards it was restored at a wrong place. —
Ver. 16. Before θανάτου and before ζωῆς there stands ἐκ in A Β Ο &, min. Copt.
Aeth. Clem. Or. and other Fathers. Rightly; the ἐκ seemed contrary to the
sense, and was therefore omitted. Accepted by Lachm. and Tisch.. rejected
by Reiche. — Ver. 17. οἱ πολλοί] Ὁ E F G L, min. and some versions and
Fathers have οἱ λοιποί, which Mill favoured, Griesbach recommended; and
Reiche defended. But οἱ πολλοί has preponderating evidence ; λοιποί was ἃ
modifying gloss, and displaced the other. —xarevérior] κατέναντι, as well as |
the omission of the following article, has preponderating attestation, and
hence, with Lachm. and Riick., it is to be preferred.
Vv. 1-4. Continuation of what was begun in i. 23.
Ver. 1. "Expiva δὲ ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο] δέ is the usual μεταβατικόν, which leads on
from the assurance given by Paul in i. 23, to the thought that he in his own
interest (ἐμαυτῷ, Aativus commodi ; for see ver. 2) was not willing to come
again to them ἐν λύπῃ. (Q°) — The interpretation apud me (Vulgate, Luther,
Beza, and many others) would require rap’ ἐμαυτῷ or ἐν ἐμ. (1 Cor. vii. 387, xi.
13). Paul, by means of ἐμαυτῷ, gives to the matter an ingenious, affection-
1 Which, perhaps, has 70 authorities at the copyist took place, as still 39, 73, Aeth.
all; see Reiche, Comm. Crit. I. p. 355 f. Ambr. have merely ὃ κεχάρισμαι.
2 Also with the reading ὅ this omission of
440 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ate turn, regarding the truth of which, however, there is no doubt. —éxpwa]
I determined, as 1 Cor. ii. 2, vii. 27. As to the emphatically preparatory
τοῦτο with following infinitive accompanied by the article, comp. on Rom.
xiv. 13, and Kriiger, ὃ li. 7. 4. --- πάλιν] belongs to ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ip. ἐλθεῖν,
taken together, so that Paul had once already (namely, on his second arrival)
come to the Corinthians ἐν λύπῃ. The connection with ἐλθεῖν merely (Pela-
gius, Primasius, Theodoret, and the most ; also Flatt, Baur, Reiche), a con-
sequence of the error that Paul before our Epistles had been only once in
Corinth,! is improbable even with the Recepta (the more suitable order of the
words would be : τὸ μὴ ἐν λύπῃ πάλιν ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς), but is impossible both
with our reading and with that of Tischendorf (see the critical remarks), un-
less we quite arbitrarily suppose, with Grotius (comp. also Reiche), a trajectio,
or, with Baur, I. p. 342, an inaccuracy of epistolary style. — ἐν λύπῃ] provided
with affliction (Bernhardy, p. 109; comp. Rom. xv. 29), bringing affliction
with me, i.e. afflicting you. This explanation (Theodoret, Calvin, Grotius,
and others, including Ewald) is, indeed, held by Hofmann to be impossible
in itself, but is required by the following εἰ yap ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς. Hence Bill-
roth and Hofmann, following Chrysostom and many others, are wrong in
thinking that the apostle’s own sadness is meant ; and so also Bengel, Ols-
hausen, Riickert, de Wette, Reiche, Neander, following Ambrosiaster, and
others, who think that it is also included. That it is not meant at all, is
shown by φειδόμενος, i. 23, and by the coupling of what follows with γάρ.
Comp. ἐν ῥάβδῳ, 1 Cor. iv. 31. The apparent difficulty, that Paul in our
first Epistle makes no mention whatever of the fact and manner of his
former visit to Corinth when he caused affliction, is obviated by the consid-
eration that only after our first Epistle was the change of plan used to the
apostle’s disadvantage, and that only now was he thereby compelled to men-
tion the earlier arrival which had been made ἐν λύπῃ. Hence this passage is
not a proof for the assumption of a journey to Corinth between our two Epis-
tles (see the Introd.).
Ver. 2. As reason for his undertaking not to come to his readers again ἐν
λύπῃ, Paul states that he on his own part could not in this case hope to find
any joy among them. Comp. ver. 3. For if I afflict you, who is there also to
give me joy, except him who is afflicted by me ?—i.e., if I on my part (ἐγώ is em-
phatic*) make you afflicted, then results the contradiction that the very one
who is afflicted by me is the one who should give me joy. Against this view
Billroth and Riickert object that εἰ μὴ. . . ἐμοῦ is superfluous, and even in
the way. No; it discloses the absurdity of the case conditioned by εἰ ἐγὼ
1 This error has compelled many to get
out of the difficulty by conceiving our first
Hpistle as the first coming ἐν λύπῃ. So
Chrysostom, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, and
others. Lange, Apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 204,
believes that he has found another way:
that Paul had the very first time come to
Corinth in affliction (1 Cor. ii. 1 ff.), which
affliction he had brought with him from
Athens. Asif in 1 Cor. ii.1 ff. he isspeaking
of a λύπη! and as if a λύπη brought with
him from Athens, though nowhere proved,
would have anything to do with the Corin-
thians /
3 This emphasis is usually not recognized.
But in the ἐγώ there lies a contrast to others
who do not stand in such an intimate rela-
tion to the readers as Paul. Comp. Osian-
der.
CHAP. II., 3. : 441
λυπῶ ὑμᾶς. Pelagius, Bengel, and others, including Billroth, render : who
yet so much gladdens me as he who lets himself be afflicted by me (which is a
sign of amendment)? Comp. Chrysostom, and Theodoret, Erasmus, and
others. So also Olshausen, who sees here an indirect warning to take the
former censure more to heart. But against this perversion of ὁ λυπούμενος in
a middle sense, we may decisively urge :—(1) that the sense of ver. 2 would
not stand in any relation to ver. 1 as furnishing a reason for it ; and (2) the
οὐχ ἵνα λυπηθῆτε in ver. 4. Riickert sees in ci. . . ὑμᾶς an aposiopesis ; then
begins anew question, which contains the reason why he may not afflict
them, because it would be unloving, nay, ungrateful, to afflict those who
cause him so much joy. Hence the meaning, touchingly expressed, is: “1
might not come to you afflicting you ; forif I had done so, I should have af-
flicted just those who give me joy: this would have been unloving on
my part.” This 15 811 the more arbitrary, since, logically at least, it must have
stood in the converse order : καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ λυπούμενος ἐξ ἐμοῦ εἰ μὴ ὁ εὐφραίνων
με. Hofmann holds still more arbitrarily and oddly that εἰ γάρ is elliptical
protasis, and ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς apodosis : if I come to you again in affliction, I
make you afflicted, and who is there then who gladdens me, except him whom
affliction coming from me befalls? The well-known omission of the verb in
the protasis after εἰ is, in fact, a usage of quite another nature (see Hartung,
Partikell. Tl. p. 213 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 497 ; Kriiger, § Ixv. 5. 11).
Besides, this subtlety falls with Hofmann’s view of ver. 1. —xai] also, ex-
presses after the conditional clause the simultaneousness of what is contained
in the apodosis, consequently without the interrogative form : there is also no
one, etc. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 1380 f. ; Buttmann, newt. Gramm. p.
311 [E. T. 362]. —6 λυπούμενος] does not mean the incestwous person (so,
against the entire connection, Beza, Calovius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Heumann) ;
but the singular of the participle with the article denotes the one who gives
joy, as such, in abstracto. Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 18, al. ; Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 20, al.
Paul might have written τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ x.7.A., but he was not under necessity of
doing so. — ἐξ ἐμοῦ] source of the λυπεῖσθαι. See Bernhardy, p. 227 ; Schoem.
ad Is. p. 348 ; Winer, p. 345 [E. T. 460]. Comp. ἀφ᾽ ὦν, ver. 3; but ἐξ is
‘‘quiddam penitius,” Bengel.
Ver. 3 appends what Paul had done in consequence of the state of things
mentioned in ver. 1 f.: And Ihave written (not reserved till I could commu-
nicate orally) this very thing, i.e. exactly what I have written, in order not,
when I shall have come, to have affliction, etc. —éypapa] placed first with em-
phasis, corresponds to the following ἐλθών, and does not at all refer to
the present Epistle (Chrysostom and his followers, Grotius, and others,
including Olshausen), against which opinion vv. 4, 9 are decisive, but to our
Jirst Epistle, the contents of which in reference to this point are rendered
present by τοῦτο αὐτό ; as indeed οὗτος is used often of what is well known,
which is pointed to as if it were lying before one (Kiihner, I. p. 325).
That Paul is thinking of the passages of censure and rebuke in the first Epis-
tle (especially of chap. v.?), results from the context, and suffices for its ex-
1 Not merely iv. 21, wherein the μὴ ἐν λύπῃ ἐλϑειν is held to be contained (Calovius,
Osiander). iy. 21 was only a casual threat.
442 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
planation, so that the reference to a /ost letter sent along with Titus (Bleek,
Neander, Ewald, Klépper ; see Introd. § 1) is not required. With Theo-
doret, Erasmus, Morus, Flatt, Riickert, Hofmann,’ to take τοῦτο αὐτό as in 2
Pet. i. 5, for this very reason, cannot in itself be objected to (Bernhardy, p.
130 ; Kiithner, § 549, A. 2; Ast, ad Plat. Leg. p. 214 ; and see on Gal. ii.
10 and on Phil. i. 6); but here, where Paul has just written in ver. 1 τοῦτο
as the accusative of the object, and afterwards in ver. 9 expresses the sense
for this reason by εἰς τοῦτο, there isno ground for it in the context. —iva μὴ
«.7.2.] Since his arrival was at that time still impending, and Paul conse-
quently denotes by iva . . . ἔχω a purpose still continuing in the present,
the subjunctive ἔχω (or σχῶ, as Lachmann, Riickert, and Tischendorf, read,
following A B&*, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius) after the pre-
terite ἔγραψα is quite accurate (Matthiae, p. 1180); and Riickert is wrong
when he takes ἐλθών hypothetically (if I had come), and refers σχῶ to the past.
In that case, Paul could not but have used the optative. —a¢’ ὧν] ἀπὸ τούτων,
See Bornem. Schol. in Luc. p. 2. — ἀπό, on the part of. Χαίρειν does
not elsewhere occur with ἀπό, but εὐφραίνεσθαι is similarly joined with ἀπό,
Xen. Hier. iv. 6 ; Judith xii. 20. -— ἐδει] The imperfect indicates what prop-
erly (in the nature of the relation) owght to be, but what, in the case contem-
plated of the λύπην ἔχω, is not. See Matthiae, p. 1138 f. — πεποιθὼς x.7.A. ]
subjective reason assigned for the specified purpose of the ἔγραψα : since I
cherish the confidence towards you all, etc. Paul therefore says that, in order
that he might find no affliction when present among them, he has communi-
cated the matter by letter, because he is convinced that they would find
their own joy in his joy (which, in the present instance, could not but be
produced by the doing away of the existing evils according to the instruc-
tions of his letter). —é7i] of the direction of the confidence towards the
readers. Comp. 2 Thess. iii. 4 ; Matt. xxvii. 43 ; Ps. cxxiv. 1. In classi-
cal authors usually with the dative, as i. 9. — πάντας ὑμᾶς] This, in spite of
the anti-Pauline part of the church, is the language of the love which πάντα
πιστεύει, πάντα ἐλπίζει, 1 Cor. xili. 7. ‘‘ Quodsi Pauli opinioni judicioque
non respondeant Corinthii indigne eum frustrantur,” Calvin.
Ver. 4. Reason assigned for the πεποιθὼς κ.τ.2. For if I in writing the
Epistle had not had that confidence, the Epistle would not have caused me so
much grief and so many tears. In the very contrast of this confidence with
the necessity of having to write in such a manner lay the great pain. — ἐκ
and διά vividly represent the origin of the letter as a going forth and a press-
ing through : owt of much affliction and anwiety of heart I wrote to you through
many tears. And this Paul might say, even if he had not himself held the
pen. — θλίψις and συνοχή (anxiety, Luke xxi. 25 : not so among the Greeks,
but see Schleusner, 7168. V. p. 212) do not refer to outward, but to inward
ἀφ᾽ ὦν.
1 Hofmann, in accordance with his inter-
pretation of τοῦτο αὐτό, “for this very rea-
row of heart. And this is the very reason
why Iwrote to you; I did not wish to have
son,” which serves to point to the following
ἵνα μὴ x.7.A., thus defines the relation of vv.
1and 3: This is what I resolved for myself,
that I would not again come to you in sor-
sorrow of heart onmy arrival, ete. This is
what Paul by the composition of his Epis-
tle had wished to obtain for his sojourn,
when he should come.
CHAP. II., 5. 443
suffering, as both are defined by καρδίας. Riickert concludes from the calm
tone of the first Epistle that Paul ‘‘ had from prudent consideration known
how to impose such restraint on his state of feeling, that the Epistle might
not reflect any faithful picture of it.” But this would have been cunning
dissimulation, not in keeping with the apostle’s character. No ; it was
just his specially tender care for the Corinthians which on the one hand in-
creased his pain that he needed to write such rebukes, and on the other hand
did not allow his vehement emotion to emerge in that Epistle ; hence we
must not say that the quiet character of our first Epistle is not psychologi-
cally in keeping with the utterance of this passage. In particular, 1 Cor. v.
might have caused the apostle anxiety and tears enough, without our needing
to suppose an intermediate letter (see on ver. 3). — δακρύων] Comp. Acts xx.
19, 31. Calvin aptly says : ‘‘mollitiem testantur, sed magis heroicam,
quam fuerit illa ferrea Stoicorum durities.” — οὐχ iva λυπηθῆτε, ἀλλὰ κ.τ.λ.}
This added explanation regarding the purpose of his letter, to him so painful,
is intended also to corroborate the πεποιθὼς κ.τ.1., of Which he has given as-
surance. — τὴν ἀγάπην] placed first for emphasis. — repiocor.| ἢ (εἰς) τοὺς
ἄλλους μαθητάς, Theophylact, who, following Chrysostom, also directs atten-
tion to the winning tenderness of the words (καταγλυκαίνει δὲ τὸν λόγον βουλό-
μενος ἐπισπάσασθαι αὐτούς). Comp. i. 12. The love of the apostle for his
churches has along with its universality its various degrees, just as the love
of a father for his children. The Philippians also were specially dear to
him.
Vv. 5-11. Digression regarding the pardon to be granted to the in-
cestuous person.—That the incestuous person is meant, as even Klépper
maintains in spite of his assumption of a lost intermediate letter, is denied
by Tertullian (de Pudicitid, 13) simply for dogmatic-ascetic reasons. The
exclusion, which Paul demanded in the first Epistle, v. 13, left open the
possibility of a return to the communion of the church by the path of suit-
able penitence and expiation ; as may be gathered also from 1 Cor. v. 5,
where the apostle’s threat of the higher excommunication, of the giving over
to Satan, contemplates in this punishment the conversion and saving of the
offender, and consequently shows clearly that in the apostle’s eyes the penal
procedure of the church, even in the case of so grave a sin, was of a paed-
agogic nature in reference to the person of the evil-doer. The penance of
the latter, however, as well as that of the whole church on his account (vii.
7. ff.), may have really been so deeply and keenly manifested, that Paul, in
accordance with the now changed state of things, might express himself in
such a mild, conciliatory way ashe does here. And there is no sufficient
ground in the passage for the assumption of an intermediate letter, or that
there is here meant, not the unchaste person, but a slanderer rebuked by
Paul in this intermediate letter (see Introd. ὃ 1). Besides, the mild, soft
tone of the present passage, if it referred to such a personal opponent, would
not be in keeping with the quite different way in which, from chap. x.
onwards, he pours forth his apostolic zeal against his personal opponents
and slanderers.
Ver. 5. ‘‘ To cause grief among you was not my intention (ver. 4) ; he,
444 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
however, who has (really) caused grief has not grieved me.” In other
words : “1 did not wish to grieve you ; one of you, however, has with his
afflicting influence, not affected me, but,” etc. Olshausen connects ver. 5
with ver. 3: ‘‘if, however, any one formerly has awakened grief.” But
how arbitrary it is to leap over the natural reference to the immediately
preceding λυπηθῆτε | And if the ‘‘ formerly” made the contrast, it must have
been somehow expressed.—In the hypothetical εἰ, as in the indefinite τις,
there lies a delicate, tender forbearance. — οὐκ ἐμὲ λελύπηκεν, ἀλλ᾽] Paul does
not say οὐ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καί, because as concerns the relation of the matter to
himself he wishes absolutely to deny that he is the injured party. He could
do this, because he did not belong to the church, and he wishes to leave
wholly out of view his position as apostle and founder of the church in the
interest of love and pardon. Olshausen thinks that he wishes indirectly to
refute the erroneous position of some (impenitent) Corinthians towards the
case of the incestuous person ; that many, namely, had lamented much
to the apostle about the solicitude which that unhappy person had caused
to him ; and that, in order to make these turn from him to themselves, he
says that the question is not about him, but about them, that they should
look to their own pain. But of this alleged direction to occupy themselves
with their own pain, there is nothing whatever in what follows ; and the
apostle would have set forth in more precise terms a rebuke so weighty ; it
was not at all fitting here, where the touched heart beats only with mildness
and forgiveness. —AeAiwnxev] Bengel says aptly : ‘‘contristatum habet.”
- ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ μέρους k.t.A.] but in part, that I may not burden him (with greater
guilt), you all. ἀπὸ μέρους, which Paul adds φειδόμενος αὐτοῦ (Chrysostom),
Softens the thought in λελύπηκεν πάντας ὑμᾶς, while it expresses that the grief
is only in a partial degree, not wholly and fully (as on the one immediately
concerned) inflicted on all, i.e. on the whole church by means of moral sympa-
thy ; only guodammodo (see Fritzsche Diss. I. p. 16 ff.), therefore, are the
readers all affected by that grief as sharers in it. The iva μὴ ἐπιβαρῶ (se.
αὐτόν) contains the purpose, for which he had added the softening limitation
ἀπὸ μέρους. Beza, Calvin (in the Commentary), Calovius, Hammond, Hom-
berg, Wolf, Estius, and others, following Chrysostom, agree with this
punctuation and explanation ; also Emmerling, Fritzsche, Riickert, de
Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald. Yet Riibiger explains it is if Paul had
written σχεδόν instead of ἀπὸ μέρους. But others read iva μὴ ἐπιβ. πάντας by.
together : he has not grieved me (alone and truly), but only in part (conse-
quently you also) ; in order that I may not lay something to the charge of you
all ; for, if he had grieved me alone, you would all have been indifferent
towards the crime. So Thomas, Lyra, Luther, Castalio, Zeger, Bengel,
Wetstein, and others, including Flatt. Incorrectly, because οὐκ ἐμέ and ἀλλ᾽
ἀπὸ μέρους cannot be antitheses. Mosheim and Billroth separate πάντας and
ὑμᾶς : he has not grieved me, but in part, that I may not accuse all, you ; for
I will not be unjust, and give you all the blame of having been indifferent
towards that crime. At variance with the words ; for, according to these,
with this punctuation they whom Paul accuses (ἐπεβαρεῖ) must appear to be
not the indifferent, but those grieved by the incest. Olshausen also follows
CHAP, II.,. 6. 445
this punctuation, but finds in ἀπὸ μέρους, iva μὴ ἐπιβ. πάντας a delicate irony
(comp. also Michaelis, who, however, follows our punctuation), in so far
as Paul would have held it as the highest praise of the Corinthians, if he
could have said : he has grieved you without exception. Since he could not
have said this, he wittily turns his words in this way : he has not grieved
me, but, as regards a part, you, in order that I may not burden you all with
this care. But this very wit and irony are quite foreign to the mild tone
and the conciliatory disposition of this part of the Epistle. Hofmann takes
οὐκ ἐμὲ λελύπ. as a question, after which there comes in with ἀλλά the con-
trast (nevertheless) which continues over ver. 5 and includes ver. 6 ; in this
case ἀπὸ μέρους is temporal in meaning (yet is ‘‘jirst enough”); and iva μὴ
ἐπιβαρῶ πάντας ὑμᾶς, which is to be taken together, is meant to say that the
apostle, if he expressed himself dissatisfied with what had been done by the
majority, would burden the whole church with the pain of knowing that
one of their members was under the ban of sin which remained unforgiven
on the part of the apostle ; lastly, the ὑπὸ τῶν πλειόνων stands in opposition
to a minority, which had wished to go beyond the punishment decreed, a
minority which is included in πάντας. But all this involved explanation is
inadmissible, partly because the blunt question οὐκ ἐμὲ λελύπ., bringing
forward so nakedly a sense of personal injury, would be sadly out of unison
with the shrewdly conciliatory tone of the whole context ; partly because
ἀπὸ μέρους, taken of time, is as linguistically incorrect as at i. 14, and would
also furnish the indelicate thought of an ἱκανότης with reservation, and till
something further ; partly because the complexity of thought, which is said to
lie in ἐπιβαρῶ, is just imported into it ; partly because the supposition that
the minority of the church would have gone still further in the punishment
than the resolution of the majority went, is without any ground, nay, is in
the highest degree improbable after the reproach of too great indulgence, 1
Cor. v.—On ἐπιβαρεῖν, comp. 1 Thess. ii. 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8 ; Dion. Hal. iv.
9, viii. 73 ; Appian, B. C. iv. 31. Comp. βάρος of the burden of a feeling
of guilt, Gal. vi. 2. (R°) Ἔ
Ver. 6. ‘Ixavév] something sufficient is, etc. Regarding this substantive
use of the neuter of the predicate adjective, see Matthiae, p. 982 ; Kiihner,
II. p. 45. Comp. Matt. vi. 34. —76 τοιούτῳ] for one of sucha nature ; how
forbearing it is here that no more definite designation is given ! — ἡ ἐπιτιμία
αὕτη] this punishment. What it was, every reader knew. Comp. on ver. 3.
ἡ ἐπιτιμία (Which in classic writers denotes the franchise of a citizen, Demos-
thenes, 230, 10, a/.), in the signification poena, like the Greek τὸ ἐπετίμιον
(Dem. 915, 1; 939, 27, al.), ἡ ἐπιτίμησις (Wisd. xii. 26), and τὸ ἐπιτίμημα
(Inscript.), occurs only here in the N. T., but elsewhere also in Wisd. iii. 10,
in ecclesiastical writers, and in acts of councils (not in Philo). It is not
merely objurgatio (Vulgate; comp. Beza, Calvin, and others. (s*) — ἡ ὑπὸ τῶν
πλειόνων] which by the majority (of the church) has been assigned to him.
That the presbyterium is not meant (Augustine, Beza, Grotius, Valesius, and
others), is shown by the article. There is a further question here, whether
the excommunication enjoined by Paul, 1 Cor. v., was carried out or not
(Beza, Calvin, Morus, Riickert, Hofmann). Most assume the former, so
446 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
that they refer ἱκανόν to the sufficient duration of the excommunication.’ But
an accomplished full excommunication is not to be assumed on account of
the very ὑπὸ τῶν πλειόνων ; but it is probable that the majority of the church
members, in consequence of the ἐξάρατε τὸν πονηρόν (1 Cor. v. 13 ; comp.
ver. 2), had considered the sinner as one excommunicated, and had given
up all fellowship with him. By this the majority had for the present suffi-
ciently complied with the expressed will of the apostle. To the minority
there may have belonged partly the most lax in morals, and partly also
opponents of the apostle, the latter resisting him on principle.—Riickert,
however, supported by Baur and Ribiger, regards Paul’s judgment ἱκανὸν
k.T.2., as a prudent turn given to the matter, by which, in order to avoid an
open rupture, he represents what would have happened even without his
will to be his own wish. But what justifies any one in attributing to him
conduct so untruthful ? The real and great repentance of the sinner (ver. 7)
induced the apostle to overlook the incompleteness in carrying out his
orders for excommunication, and now from real sincere conviction to pro-
nounce the ἱκανόν and desire his pardon. Comp. above on vv. 5-11. Had
Paul not been really convinced that the repentance of the evil-doer had
already begun (as even Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 183, is inclined to
suppose), he would here have pursued a policy of church-discipline quite at
variance with his character. Calvin judges very rightly of this passage :
‘Locus diligenter observandus ; docet enim, qua aequitate et clementia
temperanda sit disciplina ecclesiae, ne rigor modum excedat. Severitate
opus est, ne impunitate (quae peccandi illecebra merito vocatur) mali red-
dantur audaciores ; sed rursus, quia periculum est, ne is qui castigatur
animum despondeat, hic adhibenda est moderatio, nempe ut ecclesia, simu-
latque resipiscentiam illius certo cognoverit, ad dandam veniam sit parata.”
Ver. 7. So that you, on the contrary, rather (potius) pardon and comfort.
This is the consequence which ensued, connected with the utterance of
ἱκανὸν «.t.2. Hence the notion of δεῖν (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 754 ; Kiihner,
ad. Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 1) is not here to be supplied, as Billroth and Olshausen
wish, following the older commentators. Itis not said what ought to happen,
but what, according to the apostle’s conception, ensued as a necessary and
essential consequence of the ἱκανὸν «.7.2. (Kiihner, II. p. 564). The χαρίσασθαι,
however, is not at variance with the reference to the adulterer (because for-
giveness belongs to God—Bleek, Neander), for what is here spoken of in a
general way is only the pardon, which the church imparts in reference to the
offence produced in it, the pardon of Christian brethren (Eph. iv. 32 ; Col.
ili. 20). — τὴ περισσοτέρᾳ λύπῃ] through the higher degree of affliction, which,
namely, would be the consequence of the refusal of pardon, and certainly of
the eventual complete excommunication. — καταποθῃ} Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54;
1 Pet. v. 8. This being swallowed up is explained by some, of dying (Grotius,
according to his view of an illness of the sinner), by others, of suicide, or of
1 Most strange is the judgment of Grotius, Corinthiorum immiserat. Paul had, in fact,
that the apostle is here speaking not de ves- not really ordained the giving over to Sa-
tituenda communione, but de auferendo tanatall. See on1 Cor. v. 5.
morbo, quem ei Satanas ad preces piorum
CHAP. ΤΠ 8; 9. 447
apostasy from Christianity (the latter is held by Theodoret, Pelagius, and
others, also Flatt ; Kypke and Stolz, following Chrysostom, Theophylact,
and others, leave a choice between the two); or as conveying a hint that the
λύπη bordering on despair might drive him into the world, and he might
be devoured by its prince (Olshausen). The latter point : ‘‘ by the prince
of the world,” is quite arbitrarily imported. The sadness (conceived as a
hostile animal) is what swallows up. The context gives nothing more pre-
cise than the notion : to be brought by the sadness to despair, to the aban-
doning of all hope and of all striving after the Christian salvation." Comp.
on καταπίνειν in the sense of destroying, Jacobs, Animadv. in Athen. p. 315.
Ver. 8. Κυρῶσαι εἰς ait. ayar.] to resolve in reference to him love—i.e.
through a resolution of the church to determine regarding him, that he be
regarded and treated as an object of Christian brotherly love. On κυροῦν, of
a resolution valid in law, comp. Herodotus, vi. 86, 126 ; Thuc. viii. 69 ;
πο Πρ L715 Diod. Sic. 0.9; Gal. ii. 15; Gen. xxi. 20;
4 Mace. vii. 9. See Blomfield, ad Aesch. Prom. Gloss. 70, and Pers. 232.
Here also (comp. on ver. 6) Riickert again finds a prudent measure of the
apostle, whereby the form, if not also the thing (the apostolic approval), is
saved. A diplomacy, which would be the opposite of i. 13.
Ver. 9. Vv. 9 and 10 are not to be placed in a parenthesis, nor ver. 9 alone
(Flatt) ; but the discourse proceeds without interruption. Ver. 9, namely,
begins to furnish grounds for the κυρῶσαι εἰς αὐτὸν ἀγάπην, and, first of all,
from the aim of the former Hpistle, which aim (in reference to the relation
to the incestuous person in the case of most of them at least) was attained,
* so that now nothing on this point stood inthe way of the κυρῶσαι k.r.A.
«ἐς Correcta enim eorum segnitie nihil jam obstabat, quominus hominem pros-
tratum et jacentem sua mansuetudine erigerent,” Calvin. -— εἰς τοῦτο] points
to the following iva «.r.2., comp. ver. 1. It is : for this end in order that,
etc. — καὶ ἔγραψα is not to be translated as if it stood : καὶ yap εἰς τοῦτο ἔγραψα
(Flatt), following the older commentators), but as, rightly, in the Vulgate:
‘‘ ideo enim et scripsi.” The καί, however, cannot be intended to mark the
agreement with the present admonition (Hofmann), because Paul does not
quote what he had written ; but it opposes the written to the oral commu-
nication (comp. vii. 12), and rests on the conception : I have not confined
myself merely to oral directions (through your returning delegates), but-—
what should bind you all the more to observance—I have also written.
This ἔγραψα, however, does not apply to the present Epistle (Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Menochius, Wolf, Bengel, Heumann,
Schulz, Morus, Olshausen, and others), but, as the whole context shows
(comp. vv. 3, 4), to our first Epistle.?-—riv δοκιμὴν iu.| your tried quality
(vili. 2, ix. 13, xiii. 3; Rom. v. 4; Phil. ii. 22),—7.e. here, according to
the following epexegesis, si εἰς πάντα ὑπήκ. ἐστε : your assured submissiveness
tome. The aim thus stated of the first Epistle was, among its several aims
(comp. vv. 3, 4), the very one, which presented itself here from the point
1 The ὁ τοιοῦτος repeated at the end, in 2 On the supposition of a lost intermediate
itself superfluous, has the tone of compas- _ Epistle, this must have been the one meant ;
sion. see Ewald. Comp. on ver. 3, vii. 12.
448 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
of view ef the connection. —eic πάντα] in reference to everything, in every
respect, therefore also in regard to my punitive measure against the incestu-
ous man. Comp. phrases such as εἰς πάντα πρῶτον εἶναι (Plato, Charm. p.
158 A), and the like ; εἰς πάντα is here emphatic. (T°)
Ver. 10. A second motive for the κυρῶσαι εἰς αὐτὸν ἀγάπ. And to whomso-
ever (in order to hold before you yet another motive) you give pardon as to
anything, to him I also give pardon. Aé, accordingly, is the simple μετα-
Barixév. Riickert wishes to supply a μέν before γάρ in ver. 9, so that ver. 9
and ver. 10 together may give the sense : ‘‘ Jt was, indeed, my wish to find
perfect obedience among you ; but since you are willing to pardon him, I too am
willing. But here, too, this supplement is altogether groundless ; nay, in
this very case, where ver. 9 is referred by γάρ to what goes before, the ex-
press marking of the mutual relation of the two clauses would have been
logically necessary, and hence μέν must have been used. Further, the mean-
ing contained in Riickert’s explanation would express an indifference and
accommodation so strangely at variance with the apostolic authority, that
the apostle would only have been thereby lowered in the eyes of his read-
ers. —@ δέ τε χαρίζεσθε, καὶ ἐγώ] general assurance (and this general expres-
sion remains also in the reason assigned that follows), to which the present
special case is subordinated. The reader knew to whom the ὃς and to what
the ri were to be applied. — καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ «.r.A.] Reason assigned for what
was just said. ‘‘ For this circumstance, that I also pardon him to whom
you pardon anything, rests on reciprocity : what also Ion my part have par-
doned, if I have pardoned anything, I have pardoned with a regard to you”—
i.e. inorder that my forgiveness may be followed by yours. This definite mean- ἡ
ing of dv ὑμᾶς (not the general : for your benefit, as Flatt, de Wette, Osian-
der, and many others have it) is, according to the context, demanded by
ᾧ τι yap., καὶ ἐγώ, in virtue of the logical relation of the clause containing
the reason to this assurance. Paul, however, has not again written the
present yapifoua, but κεχάρισμαι, because he wishes to hold before his
readers his own example, consequently his own ‘precedent already set in
the pardon in question. Between this κεχάρισμαι, however, and the yapifoua
to be supplied after καὶ ἐγώ, there is no logical contradiction. For in ¢
δέ τι χαρίζεσϑε the act of the sinner is considered as an offence to the church ;
as such, the church is to forgive it, and then the apostle will also forgive
it : but in καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ὁ κεχάρισμαι it is conceived as a veration to the apostle ;
as such, Paul has forgiven it, and that dv ὑμᾶς, for the sake of the church,
in order that it too may now give free course to the pardon which the
offence produced in it needed.1 To this thoughtful combination of the
various references of the act, and to the placable spirit by which the rep-
resentation is pervaded, the intervening clause εἴ rz κεχάρισμαι Corresponds,
which is by no means intended to make the act of pardon problematical
(de Wette), or to designate it only as eventual, turning on the supposition
of the church granting forgiveness (Billroth), but contains a delicate ref-
1 Not: to get rid of the painfulrelation in mann infers, from his incorrect interpreta-
which they stood to that sinner, as Hof- tion of ἵνα μὴ ἐπιβαρῶ πάντας ὑμᾶς, ver. 5.
CHAP. I1., 11, 449
erence back to ver. 5, in this sense, namely : {f—seeing that the sinner,
according to ver. 5, has not in fact grieved me, but you—that which I
designate as κεχάρισμαι is really this ; for the having pardoned presupposes
the pardoner to be the injured party, which Paul, however, ver. 5, denied
himself to be.—Against all versions, Fathers and expositors, Riickert has
taken κεχάρισμαι passively * of the pardoning grace which Paul experienced
through his conversion. The sense would thus be : ‘‘for whatever I have got
pardoned, if I have got anything pardoned, I have got it pardoned for your
sakes (in order as apostle of the Gentiles to lead you to salvation).” See my
third edition. This exposition is incorrect, partly because there is nothing
in the text to suggest an allusion to the apostle’s conversion ; partly because
this pardoning grace was to him so firm and certain, and, in fact, the whole
psychological basis of his working, that he could not, even in the most
humble reminiscence of his pre-Christian conduct (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9, 10),
have presented it as problematical by ei τὶ κεχάρισμαι ; partly because with
this problematical inserted clause the very ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ (explained
by Rickert : ‘‘on the countenance of Christ beaming with God’s grace”)
would be at variance. —év προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ] i.e. in conspectu Christi, comp.
Prov. viii. 30, Ecclus. xxxii. 4, denotes the having pardoned, in so far as it
has taken place δι ὑμᾶς, in its fullest purity and truth. It has taken place
in presence of Christ, so that He was witness of it. (u*) Interpretations at
variance with the words are: in Christ's stead (Vulgate, Ambrosiaster,
Luther, Calovius, Wetstein, and others) : by Christ, as an oath (Emmer-
ling), and others. Hofmann, who without reason maintains that according
to our view it must have run ὡς ἐν προσώπῳ X., attaches the words to what
follows, so that they would precede the iva by way of emphasis, like τ.
ἀγάπην, ver. 4 (see on Rom. xi. 31), and the meaning would be: Christ
should not be obliged to be a spectator of how Satan deprives His church of
one of its members. This interpretation could only be justified if we were
in any way by the context prepared for the ἐν προσώπῳ X., thus taken as a
specially tragic feature of the devil’s guile. Besides, the thought that the
devil injures the church under the eyes of Christ, would be nowhere else
expressed. — Observe, further, how, according to this passage, the peni-
tence of the sinner, just as much as the removal of the offence to the church,
is the aim of church-discipline, and hence its initiation and cessation are to
be measured accordingly ; but the Roman Catholic doctrine of indulgence?
is at variance with this.
Ver. 11. Aim of this pardon imparted δι᾽ ὑμᾶς : that we might not be over-
reached, etc. A being overreached by Satan, the enemy of Christ and of
Christianity, would be the result if that pardon were refused to the sinner,
and thereby his καταποϑῆναι τῇ περισσοτέρᾳ λύπῃ Were brought about ; for
thereby Satan would get a member of the church into his power, and thus
derive advantage to our loss. Onthe passive πλεονεκτεῖσϑαι, comp. Dem, 1035,
1This passive use would in itself be 18; Acts xxvii. 24.
correct as to language. See Kiihner, ad 2 Still Bisping finds its principles clearly
Xen. Mem. i.2.10. The transitive use, how- traced out in this passage.
ever, is the more usual one, as at Gall. iii.
450 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
26. The subject is Paul and the Corinthian church. — ov yap αὐτοῦ x.7.2.]
‘« By Satan, I say, for iis thoughts (what he puts forward as product of his
νοῦς ; comp. on iii. 14, iv. 4, x. 5, xi. 3) are not unknown to us.” νοήματα
ἀγνοοῦμεν forms a paronomasia. These thoughts : 1 Pet. v. 8 ; Eph. vi. 11.
The discerning of them in the individual case is spiritual prudence, which
we have in the possession of the νοῦς of Christ (1 Cor. ii. 16). (v*)
Vv. 12, 13. Since Paul, by mentioning the mood in which he had written
his former Epistle (ver. 4), was led on to discuss the case of the conscious
sinner and the pardon to be bestowed on him (vv. 5-11), he has now only
to carry on the historical thread which he had begun in vv. 4and 5.’ There
he had said with what great grief he wrote our first Epistle. Now, he tells
how, even after his departure from Ephesus, this disquieting anxiety about his
readers did not leave him, but urged him on from Troas to Macedonia with-
out halting. This he introduces by δέ, which after the end of the section,
vv. 5-11, joins on again to ver. 4 (Hartung, Partik. I. p. 173 ; Fritzsche,
Diss. II. p. 21). Billroth attempts to connect it with what immediately
precedes: ‘‘His designs are not unknown to us ; all the more I had no
rest.” Against this may be urged, not that ἀλλά must have stood instead
of dé, as Riickert thinks (see Hartung, 1.6. I. p. 171 f. ; Baeumlein, Partik.
p. 95) ; but rather that between the emphatically prefixed οὐ yap αὐτοῦ, ver.
11, and ἐλϑὼν dé, no logical relation of contrast exists. — εἰς τὴν Τρωάδα] from
Ephesus on the journey which was to take him through Macedonia to Cor-
inth. 1 Cor. xvi. 5-9. — εἰς τὸ evayy. τοῦ X.] Aim of the ἐλϑ. εἰς τ. Τρωάδα :
Sor the sake of the gospel of Christ—i.e. in order to proclaim this message of
salvation (hence τοῦ X. is genitivus objecti, see generally on Mark i. 1). He
might, indeed, have come to Troas without wishing to preach, perhaps only
as a traveller passing through it. All the more groundless is the involved
connection of the εἰς τ. evayy. with the far remote ἄνεσιν (Hofmann). — καὶ
ϑύρας x.t.A.] when also (i.e. although, see Bornem. ad Xen. Symp. iv. 13;
Kiihner, ad Mem. ii. 3. 19) a favourable opportunity for apostolic work was given
tome. Comp. on 1 Cor. xvi. 9. — ἐν κυρίῳ] That is the sphere in which a door
was opened to him : im Christ, in so far as the work opened up to him was
not out of Christ (one outside of Christianity), but Christ was the element
of it : ἐν κυρ. gives the specific quality of Christian to what is said by dip. μ.
ἀν. --- ἔσχηκα] The perfect vividly realizes the past event, as often in the
Greck orators. Comp. i. 9, vii. 5 ; Rom. v. 2. See Bernhardy, p. 379. —
τῷ Tvetuari μου] Dativus commodi. Paul has not put τῇ ψυχῇ μου, because
here (it is different at vii. 5) he wishes to express that his very higher life-
activity, which has its psychological ground and centre in the πνεῦμα as the
organ of the moral self-consciousness (comp. on Luke i. 46 f.), was occupied
by anxious care as to the state of the Corinthians, so that he felt himself
thereby, for the present, incapable of pursuing other official interests, or of
turning his thoughts away from Corinthian concerns. Comp. vii. 13; 1
Cor. xvi. 18, --- τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν] on account of not finding, because I did not find.
‘Laurent regards vv. 12 and 13 as a marginal remark made by the apostle at i. 16, and
wrongly inserted here.
CHAP. It., 14. 451
Comp. Xenophon, Cyr. iv. 5. 9; often inGreek. See Winer, p. 308 [E. T.
344]. — Τίτον] whom he had sent to Corinth, and whose return he impa-
tiently expected, in order to receive from him news of the effect of the
former Epistle. — τὸν ἀδελῴ. μου] By μου the closer relation of fellowship in
office is suggested for adeAd. — αὐτοῖς] the Christians in Troas. As to ἀποταξ.
see on Mark vi. 46. — ἐξήλϑον] from Troas. — εἰς Maxed.] Titus was there-
fore instructed by Paul to travel from Corinth back to Troas through Mace-
donia, and to meet with him again either there or here.
Ver. 14. In Macedonia, however, he had met Titus, and, through him,
received good news of the impression made by his former Epistle. See vii.
6. Therefore he continues : But thanks be to God, etc., placing first not
χάρις, as in most cases (villi. 16, ix. 15), but τῷ Θεῷ, because, in very contrast
to his own weakness, the helping God, whom he has to thank, comes into his
mind. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 57. Others here make a digression go on as far as
vii. 5, and refer the thanks to the spread of the gospel in Troas (Emmerling !)
or Macedonia (Flatt, Osiander). Comp. Calvin and Bengel. Against the
context ; for, after the description of the anxiety and disquiet, the utterance
of thanks must relate to the release from this state (comp. Rom. vii. 24 f.).
The apostle, however, in the fulness of his gratitude to God, includes (and
_ thereby makes known) his special experience of the guidance of divine grace
at that time in the general thanksgiving for the latter, as he experiences it
always in his calling. This also in opposition to Hofmann, who abides by
the general nature of the thanksgiving, and that in contrast to the dec-
laration that the apostle did not preach in Troas in spite of the good oppor-
tunity found there. —76 πάντοτε θριαμβείοντι ἡμᾶς] given rightly by the Vul-
gate : ‘‘qui semper triumphat nos,” is taken by many older expositors
(Luther, Beza, Estius, Grotius, and others) and by some more recent (Em-
merling, Flatt, Riickert, Olshausen, Osiander): who makes us always tri-
umph.' Ttis certainly a current Greek custom to give to neuter verbs ἃ facti-
tive construction and meaning. See in general, Matthaie, p. 1104, 944 ;
Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 250 ; Biihr, ad Ctes. p. 132 ; Lobeck, ad Aj. 40, 869.
Comp. from the N. T., ἀνατέλλειν τὸν ἥλιον, Matt. v. 45; καίειν τι, Matt. v. 15 ;
μαθητεύειν τινά, Matt. xxviii. 19 ; from the LXX., βασιλεύειν τίνα, 1 Sam. viii.
22 ; Isa. vii. 6, αἱ. Comp. 1 Mace. viii. 18. ϑριαμβεύειν τινά is thus taken :
to make any one a triumpher. Comp. ορεύειν τινά to make any one dance—i.e.
to celebrate by means of dancing (Brunck, ad Soph. Ant. 1151 ; comp. Jacobs,
ad Del. epigr. x. 55,90). The suitableness of the sense cannot be denied, but
the actual usage is againstit ; for ϑριαμβεύειν τινά has never that assumed
factitive sense, but always means triumphare de aliquo, to conduct, to present
any one in triumph ; so that the accusative is never the triumphing subject,
but always the object of the triumph, as Plut. hes. ef Rom. 4 : βασιλεῖς
ἐϑριάμβευσε καὶ ἡγεμόνας, also Plut. Mor. p. 318 B, ϑρίαμβ. νίκην. Quite simi-
lar is the Latin triwmphare aliquem. See in general, Wetstein ; Kypke, II. p.
243. Comp. also Hofmann on the passage. Paul himself follows this usage,
1 To this also the expositions of Chrysos- κατὰ Tov διαβόλου τροπαίων περιφανεῖς ποιεῖ.
tom and Theophylact ultimately amount. So in substance Chrys. Comp. Ambrosias-
The latter says: ἡμᾶς οὖν ὃ Θεὸς μετὰ τῶν ter, Anselm, and others.
452 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
see Col. ii. 15. We are thus the less authorized to depart from it. Hence
it isto be translated: who always triumphs over us (apostolic teachers)—.e. who
does not cease to represent us as his vanquished before all the world, as a tri-
umpher celebrates his victories. In this figurative aspect Paul considers
himself and his like as conquered by God through their conversion to Christ.
And after this victory of God his triwmph now consists in all that those con-
quered by their conversion effect as servants and instruments of God for the
Messianic kingdom in the world ; it is by the results of apostolic activity
that God continually, as if in triumph, shows himself to the eyes of all as
the victor, to whom His conquered are subject and serviceable. For the
concrete instance before us, this perpetual triumph of God exhibited itself
in the happy result which He wrought in Corinth through the apostle’s
letter (as Paul learned in Macedonia through Titus, vii. 6). Note further,
how naturally with Paul this very conception of his working, as a continual
triumph of God over him, might proceed from the painful remembrance of
his earlier persecution of the church of God, and how at the same time this
whole conception is an expression of the same humility, in which he, 1 Cor.
xv. 10, gives to God alone the glory of his working. Jerome, ad Hedi. 11,
translates rightly : triwmphat nos or de nobis, but quite alters the sense of
the word again by the interpretation : ‘‘triumphum suum agit per nos.”
Theodoret does not do justice to the notion of the triwmph, when he merely
explains it : ὃς σοφῶς τὰ Ka ἡμᾶς πρυτανεύίων τῷδε κἀκεῖσε περιάγει
δήλους ἡμᾶς ἅπασιν ἀποφαίνων. Wetstein is more exact, but also takes
the element of leading about, and not that of celebrating the victory, as the
point of comparison ; ‘‘ Deus nos tanquam in triumpho circumducit, ut non
maneamus in loco, aut in alium proficiscamur pro lubito nostro, sed ut
placet sapientissimo moderatori. Quem Damasci vicit, non Romae et semel,
sed per totum terrarum orbem, quamdiu vivit, in triumpho ducit.” Comp,
Krause, Opuse. p. 125 f. The conception of antiquity, according to which
the ϑριαμβευόμενος is necessarily the conquered, is quite abandoned by Cal-
vin,’ Elsner, Bengel : ‘‘ qui triumpho nos ostendit, non ut victos, sed ut vie-
toriae suae ministros.’’ So also de Wette, and substantially Ewald : comp.
Erasmus, Annot. (x*) —év Χριστῷ] Christ is the element in which that con-
stant triumph of God takes place : no fact in which that consists has its
sphere out of Christ : each is of specifically Christian quality.— The follow-
ing καὶ τ. ὀσμὴν x.7.A. declares what God effects through His triumphing. That
αὐτοῦ refers not to Ged (so usually, as also Hofmann, following the Vulgate),
but to Christ (Bengel, Osiander), is shown by ver. 15. The genitive τῆς
γνώσ. avr. is the genitive of apposition (comp. 1: 22), so that the knowledge
of Christ is symbolized as an odour which God everywhere makes manifest
through the apostolic working, inasmuch as He by that means brings it to
pass that the knowledge of Christ everywhere exhibits and communicates its
nature and its efficacy. How does Paul come upon this image? Through
1 Τὴ the translation he has ¢riwmphare nos quod esset opera sua acquisitus ; qualiter
Jacit; and in the Commentary it is said: legati currum primarii ducis equis insiden-
“Paulus autem intelligit, se quoque trium- [65 comitabantur tanquam honoris socii.”
phi, quem Deus agebat, fuisse participem,
CHAP: TI. £51 453
the conception of the triwmph ; for such an event took place amid perywmes
of incense : hence to assume no connection between the two images (Osiander)
is arbitrary. To think of ointments (Oecumenius, Grotius), or of these as in-
cluded (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza’), is alien to the first image ; and
is as alien to suppose that a closed vessel, filled with perfume, is meant, and
that the φανεροῦντι points to the opening of the same (Hofmann). Observe,
moreover, that by δὲ ἡμῶν (since the ἡμεῖς are those conducted in the triumph,
οἱ ϑριαμβευόμενοι) the thing itself finds its way into the image, and by this the
latter loses in congruity.
Ver. 15 f. Further confirmatory development of the previous καὶ τ. ὀσμὴν
x.t.4., in which, however, Paul does not keep to the continuity of the fig-
ure, but, with his versatility of view, now represents the apostolic teachers
themselves as odour. — Χριστοῦ evwdia] May mean a perfume produced by
Christ, or one filled with Christ, breathing of Christ. The latter, (Calvin,
Estius, Bengel, Riickert, Osiander, and most expositors ; comp. also Hof-
mann) corresponds better with the previous ὀσμὴ τῆς γνώσεως αὐτοῦ, and is
more in keeping with the emphasis which the prefixed Χριστοῦ has, because
otherwise the εὐωδία would remain quite undefined as regards its essential
quality. The sense of the figurative expression is: for our working stands
in the specific relation to God, as a perfume breathing of Christ. The image
itself is considered by most (comp. Ritschl in the Jahrb. fiir. ἃ. Th. 1863, p.
258) as borrowed from the sacrificial fragrance (so also Billroth, Riickert,
Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald), on which account appeal is made
to the well-known ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας of the LXX., HV] 1, Lev. i. 9, 18, 17, αἱ.
But as Paul, wherever else he uses the image of sacrifice, marks it distinctly,
as Eph. v. 2, Phil. iv. 18, and in the present passage the statedly used
ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας does not stand at all, it is more probable that he was not think-
ing of an odour of sacrifice (which several, like Billroth, Ewald, Ritschl,
find already in ὀσμή, ver. 14), but of the odours of incense that accompanied the
triumphal procession ; these are to God a fragrance, redolent to Him of
Christ. That in this is symbolized the relation of the acceptableness to God
of the apostolic working, is seen from the very word chosen, εὐωδία, which
Hofmann misconstrues by explaining τῷ ϑεῷ to God’s service. — καὶ ἐν τοῖς
ἀπολλ.} and among those, who incur eternal death ; comp. iv. 3. See on 1
Cor. i. 18. Grotius strangely wishes to supply here κακωδία ex οἱ contrario-
rum. It is, in fact, the relation to God that is spoken of, according to
’ which the working of the Apostle is to Him εὐωδία, whether the odour be
exhaled among σωζομένοι or ἀπολλυμένοι. Comp. Chrysostom. To take ἐν in
the sense of operative on (Osiander) anticipates what follows. Comp. iv. 3.
—Ver. 16 specifies now the different relation of this odour to the two
classes. Paul, however, does not again use εὐωδία, but the in itself indif-
ferent ὀσμή, because the former would be unsuitable for the first half, while
the latter suits both halves. — ἐκ ϑανάτου εἰς ϑάνατον] an odour, which arises
Srom death and produces death. The source, namely, of the odour is Christ,
1 Beza, Grotius, and also L. Cappellus, contrary to the context, find an allusion to the
anointing of the priests.
454 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
and He, according to the idea of the λίϑος τοῦ προσκόμματος (Rom. ix. 33; 1
Pet. ii. 8; Acts iv. 11), is for those who refuse the faith the author of
eternal death.’ For them, therefore, in accordance with their inward atti-
tude towards Him, Christ, the source of the odour, 1.6. of the apostolic
activity, is death, and also the effect is death, though Christ in Himself is
and works eternal life. Comp. Matt. xxi. 44 ; Luke ii. 84. Hence Christ,
by means of the κρίσις which He brings with ἘΞῚ is the source respectively
of death and life, according as His preaching is accepted by one to salva-
vation, is rejected by another to destruction. In the latter case the blame
of Christ’s being ϑάνατος, although he is, as respects His nature and destina-
tion, ζωή, lies on the side of man in his resistance and stubbornness. Comp.
1 Cor. i. 23, also John ix. 39, iii. 18 f., xii. 48. ‘‘ Semper ergo distinguen-
dum est proprium evangelii officium ab accidentali (ut ita loquar), quod
hominum pravitati imputandum est, qua fit, ut vita illis vertatur in mortem,”
Calvin. Comp. Diisterdieck on 1 John, I. p. 166. This, at the same time, in
opposition to Riickert, who objects that the apostolic activity and preaching
can in no way be regarded as proceeding from ϑάνατος, and who therefore
prefers the Recepta,’ in which Reiche and Neander agree. Gregory of Nyssa.
remarks aptly in Oecumenius : κατὰ τὴν προσοῦσαν ἑκάστῳ διάϑεσιν ἢ ζωοποιὸς
ἐγένετο, ἢ ϑανατηφόρος ἡ εὔπνοια. Quite similar forms of expression are found —
in the Rabbins, who often speak of an aroma (00, see Buxt. Lex. Talm. p.
1494 ; L. Cappellus on the passage), or odor vitae and mortis, see in Wetstein
and Schoettgen. (z°)—xai πρὸς ταῦτα τίς ἱκανός ;] This no longer depends on
the ὅτε of ver. 15 (Hofmann), a connection to which the interrogatory form
would be so thoroughly unsuitable that no reader could have lighted on it ;
but after Paul has expressed the great, decisive efficacy of his calling, there
comes into his mind the crowd of disingenuous teachers as a contrast to that
exalted destination of the office, and with the quickly interjected καί he
hence asks with emotion : And who is for this (i.e. for the work symbolized
in vv. 15 and 16) fit? Who is qualified for this? The τίς is intentionally
pushed towards the end of the question, in order to arrest reflection at the
important πρὸς ταῦτα, and then to bring in the question itself by surprise.
Comp. Herod. v. 33: σοὶ δὲ καὶ τούτοισι τοῖσι πράγμασι τί ἔστι ; Plat. Conv. p.
204 Ὁ : ὁ ἐρῶν τῶν καλῶν τί ἐρᾷ ; Xen. Cyr. iv. 6, 8; Rom. viii. 24 ; Eph. iv.
95 Acta xi i> (ay
Ver. 17. The answer to the foregoing question is not to be supplied, so
that it should be conceived as negative (εἰ δὲ μὴ ἱκανοὶ, χάριτος τὸ γινόμενον,
Chrysostom, Neander, Hofmann, and others), but it is given, though indi-
1 Θάνατος and ζωή are to be understood
both times of efernal life and death. The
contrast Of σωζομένοι and ἀπολλυμένοι per-
mits no other interpretation: comp. Vii.
10. Ewald takes ἐκ ϑανάτον of temporal
death and ἐκ ζωῆς of temporal life: from the
former we fall into eternal death, and from
the temporal life we come into the eternal.
3 According to the Recepta, which Hof-
mann also follows, ὀσμὴ ζωῆς is life-giving
odour, and ὀσμὴ ϑανάτου is deadly odour ; εἰς
ϑάνατ. and eis ¢. would then be solemn ad-
ditions of the final vesw?t, which actually
ensues from the life-giving deadly power of
the odour. According to Hofmann, the
genitives are intended to mean: in which
they get to smell of death and of life respec-
tively. But comp. expressions like ἄρτος τ.
ζωῆς, φῶς τ. ζωῆς, λόγος ζωῆς ῥήματα wis.
CHAP. I1., 17. 455
rectly, in ver. 17 itself, inasmuch as the expression introduced by γάρ readily
suggests to the reader the conclusion, that the subjects of ἐσμεν, i.e. Paul
and his like, are the ἱκανοί, and that the πολλοί are not so. See Klotz, ad
Devar. p. 240 ; Bauemlein, Partik. p. 83. If Paul had wished to convey in
his question the negative statement, ‘‘ No one is capable of this,” he could
not but have added a limiting ag’ ἑαυτοῦ or the like (comp. iii. 5), in order to
place the reader in the right point of view. — οἱ πολλοί] the known many, the
anti-Pauline teachers.’ Comp. xi. 13 ; Phil. iii. 18. See on οἱ πολλοί ‘‘ de
certis quibusdam et definitis multis,” Ellendt, Ler. Soph. II. p. 603 ; comp.
also Rom. xii. 5. To understand by it the majority of the Christian teachers
in general, is to throw a shadow on the apostolic church, which its history
as known to us at least does not justify. —xaryAebovrec] belongs to ἐσμέν.
The verb means (1) to carry on the business of a κάπηλος, a retailer, partic-
ularly a vintner ; (2) to negotiate ; (8) to practise usury with anything (ri),
in particular, by adulteration, since the κάπηλοι adulterated the wine (LXX.
Isa. i. 25), and in general, had an evil reputation for cheating (κάπηλα τεχνή-
ματα, Aesch. Fragm. 328 Ὁ). In this sense the word is also used by the
’ Greeks of intellectual objects, as Plato, Protag. p. 313 Ὁ : οἱ ra μαθήματα. . .
καπηλεύοντες. Comp. Lucian, Hermot. 59 : φιλόσοφοι ἀποδίδονται τὰ μαθήματα
ὥσπερ οἱ κάπηλοι, κερασάμενοί γε οἱ πολλοὶ καὶ δολώσαντες καὶ κακομετροῦντες.
Philostr. 16: τὴν σοφίαν καπηλεύειν. So also here: comp. the opposite ἐξ
εἰλικρ. and iv. 2. Hence: we practise no deceitful usury with the word of God, as
those do, who, with selfish intention, dress up what they preach as the word of
God palatably and as people wish to hear it,and for that end τὰ αὐτῶν ἀναμιγνίουσι
τοῖς θείοις, Chrysostom. Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 3. Such are named in Ignat. Tall.
(interpol.) 6, comp. 10, χριστέμποροι, and are described as τὸν ἰὸν προσπλέκοντες
τῆς πλάνης TH γλυκείᾳ προσηγορίᾳ. --- ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ eiduxp.] but we speak (λαλοῦμεν)
as one speaks from sincerity of mind (which has no dealings with adulter-
ation), so that what we speak proceeds from an honest heart and thought.
Comp. i. 19. ὡς isas in Johni. 14. On ἐκ, compare John 111. 31, vii. 44 ;
1 John iv. 5. — ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐκ θεοῦ] but as one speaks from God (who is in the
speaker), as θεόπνευστος. Comp. Matt. x. 20; 1 Cor. xiv. 25; 2 Cor. v. 20.
The ἀλλά is repeated in the lively climax of the thought. Comp. vii. 11,
and see on 1 Cor. vi. 11. Riickert strangely wishes to connect it with τὸν
λόγον, and to supply ὄντα. So also Estius (‘‘tanquam profectum et accep-
tum a Deo”), Emmerling, and others. That is, in fact, impossible after ἀλλ᾽
ὡς ἐξ εἰλικρ. -- κατέναντι θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ] Since neither ἀλλά nor ὡς is repeated
before κατέναντι, Paul himself indicates the connection and division : ‘‘ but
as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak before God in Christ,” so that
the commas after the twice occurring θεοῦ are, with Lachmann and Tischen-
dorf, to be deleted. This in opposition to the opinion cherished also by
Hofmann, that κατέναντι θεοῦ and ἐν Χριστῷ are two modal definitions of
λαλοῦμεν, running parallel with the foregoing points. — κατέναντι θεοῦ} before
iNot merely the anti-Pauline Genfile were found whom Paul had to regard as
teachers, a8 Hofmann with the reading oi falsifiers of the word, and who every-
λοιποί arbitrarily limits it. It was amons where pushed themselves into the sphere of
the Jewish-Christians that the most of those _-is labours.
456 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
God, with the consciousness of having Him present as witness. Comp.
Rom. iv. 17. —év Χριστῷ] can neither mean Christi nomine (Grotius, comp.
Luther, Estius, Calovius, Zachariae, Heumann, Schulz, Rosenmiiller), nor
de Christo (Beza, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Morus, Flatt), nor seewndum Christum
(Calvin), but it is the habitually employed expression in Christo. We speak
in Christo, in so far as Christ is the sphere in which our speaking moves.
Comp. xii. 19 ; Rom. ix. 1. In Him we live and move with our speaking,
οὐδὲν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ σοφίᾳ ἀλλὰ τῇ Tap’ ἐκείνου δυνάμει ἐνηχούμενοι, Chrysostom,
Notes ΒΥ AMERICAN Eprror,
(9°) Paul's motive. Ver. 1.
This view of the dative, which is surely correct, is adopted by the Revision
of 1881, which renders the clause thus : ‘‘I determined this for myself.’’
(n°) Paul’s forbearance. Ver. 5d.
The sense of the verse seems to be: ‘‘ The wrong in tne case has been done
not to me personally, but to some extent (for I would not press you too hard)
to you all.” The real injury was inflicted not upon the Apostle, but upon
the whole church as those who tolerated the crime. Stanley says, with justice,
that it is evident that the horror excited by the First Epistle against the offend-
er had been very great.
(s*) Punishment. Ver. 6.
The meaning of the original word is certainly punishment (Wisdom iii. 10),
and its employment by the Apostle sheds light upon the nature and aims of
church discipline. What this punishment actually was, does not appear. But
it was followed by genuine and overwhelming sorrow on the part of the offend-
er, and in view of this fact Paul says that it was sufficient. The whole pas-
sage indicates that Paul was more lenient than the church, for he exhorts
them not to be too severe in the treatment of their offending brother.
(rv) ‘* Obedient in all things.” Ver. 9.
Obedience to legitimate authority is one of the fruits and evidences of Chris-
tian sincerity. A rebellious, self-willed, disobedient spirit is a strong indica-
tion of an unsanctified nature (Hodge),
(u%) ** In the person of Christ.’’ Ver. 10.
As if Christ Himself were present and Jooking on. Nothing could be better
adapted to secure both fidelity and tenderness in administering the discipline
of Christ’s house, than the feeling that the eyes of Christ were fixed upon the
judges.
(v8) Satan’s devices. Ver. 11.
These are, in a matter of this kind, first to corrupt the church by inducing it
to tolerate open sin, and then, when discipline is interposed, to render it so
NOTES. 4δ 7
harsh and severe and protracted that the offender is either hardened in sin or
driven to despair.
(x°) Who leadeth us in triumph. Ver. 14.
Meyer’s view of this clause, though stoutly resisted by Principal Brown (Pop.
Com.), is adopted -by Stanley, Alford, Conybeare, Waite, Beet, and Plumptre,
and is given in the Revised Version. The neuter sense of the verb, ‘‘ to triumph
over’ us, easily passes into the transitive, to lead usin triumph. The causa-
tive sense has, as Meyer says, all New Testament and Hellenistic usage against
it. The Speaker’s Commentary adopts Calvin’s view, and gives the sense thus :
‘‘Thanks be unto God, who at all times makes a triumphal pageant of us, as
His victorious officers or soldiers.”’
(x°) ““ In them that are saved.’ Ver, 15.
See on I. i. 18. Hodge justly says there is no reference to foreordination, as
if the words meant those destined either to be saved or lost. ‘But the two
classes are designated ex eventu. The gospel and those who preach it are well
pleasing to God, whether men receive it and are saved, or reject it and are
lost. The light is inestimably precious, whether the eye rejoices in it or through
disease is destroyed by it.”’
(2 ‘* From death unto death.’’ Ver. 16.
Either a Hebrew superlative, or a combination expressing the quality of the
source, a deadly savour, and the nature of the effect, a savour producing
death. So of the corresponding phrase, ‘‘a savour from life unto life.”
(a4) Who is sufficient for these things? Ver. 16.
The explanation of Meyer is that of nearly all critics. The Apostle meant
that he was sufficient (not of course of himself, for this is plainly denied in the
oth verse of the next chapter: ‘‘our sufficiency is from God’’), and the ground
of the sufficiency is stated in the next verse. There is, as Calvin says, an im-
plied antithesis. The object of preaching is the diffusion of the knowledge of
Christ : the effect of that diffusion is life to some and death to others. Who,
then, is competent to this work? Not your false teachers, who corrupt the word
of God, but I and others who preach the gospel from pure motives.—The words
of all faithful ministers are spoken in the presence of God and in union with
Christ as their encompassing element.
458 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
CHAPTER III.
Ver. 1. ἢ 17] So also Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riick. Tisch., following B C ἢ
E F GX, min. Vulg. It. Syr. Arr. Copt. Slav. Pheodoret, and Latin Fathers.
But εἰ uy (Elz. Reiche) has also considerable attestation (A K L, min. Chrys.
Damase. al.), and since after the interrogation the 7 continuing it occurred to
the copyists more readily than the conditional εἰ, the latter, whose explanation
is also more difficult, is to be preferred.'—The second σνστατικῶν (after ὑμῶν)
is wanting in AB C 8, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Chrys. Theodoret, and several
Fathers, Deleted by Lachm. and Riick. An addition by way of gloss, which
in F G is further increased by ἐπιστολῶν. -— Ver. 3. καρδίας] So Iren. Orig. Vulg.
But ABCDEGL & and many min. have καρδίαις. So Lachm. An error of
the copyist after ver. 2.—Ver. 5. ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν] has its correct position after
λογίσ. τι, as is abundantly attested by A Ὁ E FG, It. Vulg. Goth. and Latin
Fathers (so also Lachm. Tisch. and Ruck.). The Recepta after ἱκανοί ἐσμεν, and
the position before ἱκανοί in BC &, min. Copt. Arm. Bas. Antioch. are to be
regarded as superfluous transpositions to connect the ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν with ἱκανοί
ἐσμεν. --- Ver. 7. ἐν γράμμασιν] Lachm.: ἐν γράμματι, following BD* FG. A
mechanical repetition of the singular from ver, 6. — Before λίθοις, Elz. Scholz
have ἐν. An explanatory addition against decisive evidence. — Ver. 9. ἡ διακο-
via] AC D* FG δὰ, min. Syr. utr. Clar. Germ. Or. Cyr. Ruf. : τῇ διακονίᾳ. So
Lachm. and Riick. An interpretation instead of which Sedul. and Ambrosiast.
have ex or in ministerio, while others applied the interpreting at δόξα, as still
Vulg. Sixtin, Pel. read ἐν δόξῃ. --- ἐν δόξῃ] ἐν is wanting in A BC &* (δόξα), 17,
39, 80, Tol. Vulg. ms. Deleted by Lachm., bracketed by Riick. The ἐν slipped
in easily from ver. 8 ; comp. ver. 11. — Ver. 10. ov] Elz. : οὐδέ, against decisive
evidence. Originated by the first syllable of the dedog. that follows. — Ver. 13.
Instead of ἑαυτοῦ, αὐτοῦ is, according to decisive testimony, to be read with
Lachm. and Tisch.— Ver. 14. ἡμέρας is wanting in Elz., but has decisive
attestation, and was passed over as superfluous (comp. ver. 15). — Ver. 15.
ἀναγινώσκεται] Lachm. and Riick. : dv ἀναγινώσκηται, in accordance with A BC 8,
while D E have the subjunctive, but not ἄν. Since the ἄν before ἀναγ. might
be introduced through a mistake of the copyist just as easily as it might be
left out, we have merely to decide according to the preponderance of the evi-
dence, which proves to be all the more in favour of Lachmann’s reading,
because this is supported also by D E with their retention of the subjunctive
(without av), while they betray the copyist’s omission of the av. — Ver. 17. ἐκεῖ]
is wanting in ABCD 8&* 17, Copt. Syr. Cyr. Nyss. Suspected by Griesb.,
deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. An addition of the copyists, who had in
mind the current use elsewhere of ἐκεῖ after οὐ (Matt. xviii. 20, 24, 28; Jas. iii.
16 al.), an usage not found in Paul. See Rom. iv. 15, v. 20.
1 [The T. R. here is rejected by Westcott and most justly, according to the weight of
and Hort and nearly all the later critics, evidence.—T. W. C.]
CHAP, IIE, 1 459
Contents. '—This, again, is no recommendation of self ; for we need no let-
ters of recommendation, since you yourselves are our letter of recommendation
in the higher sense (vv. 1-3). But with this confidence we wish to ascribe
our ability not to ourselves, but to God, far exalted over the old covenant, who
has made us able as servants of the new covenant, (vv. 4-6). How glorious
is this service compared with the service of Moses (vv. 7-11) ! Hence we
discharge it boldly, not like Moses with his veil over his face (vv. 12,13).
By this veil the Jews were hardened ; for up to the present time they do
not discern that the old covenant has ceased (vv. 14,15). But when they
are converted to Christ, they will come to unhindered discernment ; we
Christians, in fact, all behold without hindrance the glory of Christ, and
become ourselves partakers of it (vv. 16-18).
Ver. 1. Apyoueba] namely, through what was said in ii. 17, regarding
which Paul foresaw that his opponents would describe it as the beginning
of another recommendation of himself. It is interrogative, not to be taken,
with Hofmann, who then reads ἢ μή, as an affirmation, in which case ἃ log-
ical relation to the question that follows could only be brought out by
importing something.* -- πάλιν] belongs to éavr. συνιστ., and refers to expe-
riences, through which Paul must have passed already before, certainly also
in respect to his last Epistle (1 Cor. i.-iv., v., ix., xiv. 17, a/.), when the
charge was made : ἑαυτὸν συνιστάνει |! As to the reason why he regards the
ἑαυτὸν συνιστάνειν to be such a reproach, see x. 18. — In the plural he in this
chapter includes also Timothy, as is clear from expressions such as immedi-
ately occur in ver. 2, ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμ., and ver. 6, ἡμᾶς διακόνους. --- συνισ-
τάνειν] as at Rom. xvi. 1. Hence ἐπιστολαὶ συστατικαί Or γράμματα συστατικά
Arrian. Hpict. ii. 3.1; Diog. L. v. 18, viii. 87), letters of recommendation.
Regarding their use in the ancient Christian church, see Suicer, 7’hes. II. p.
1194 ; Dought. Anal. 11. p. 120. — εἰ μὴ κιτ.1]. nisi, i.e. unless it possibly be, that,
etc. Onlyif this exigency takes place with us, can that ἄρχονται πάλιν ἑαυτοὺς
συνιστάνειν be asserted of us. Such epistolary recommendations, indeed, we
should not have, and hence we should have to resort to self-praise ἢ The
expression is ironical in character, and contains an answer to that question,
which reveals its absurdity. Comp. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 8. Hence εἰ is not to
be taken, with Reiche, as siguidem or quia, and μή as negativing the χρή-
Couev (as if it were εἰ οὐ χρῇζ.). ---- ὡς τινες] as some people (comp. 1 Cor. iv. 18,
xv. 12; Gal. i. 7), certainly a side-glance at anti-Pauline teachers, who had
brought to the Corinthians letters of recommendation, either from teachers
of repute, or from churches,* and had obtained similar letters from Corinth
1 See on chap. iii., Krummel in the Stud.
und Krit. 1859, p. 39 ff.
2The question that follows with 7 μή
would mean: ‘or do we not withal need ?”
ete., which does not fit in with ἀρχόμεϑα
when taken as an affirmation. Hofmann,
however, imports the thoughts : whoever is
offended at this, that Paul has no scruple in
recommending himself, ¢o him he offers to
answer on his part the question, whether he
and his official associates have any need of
letters of recommendation.
3 According to Gal. ii. 7-9 but hardly from
the original apostles or from the church of
Jerusalem under their guidance as such.
This, however, does not exclude the possi-
bility that individual members of the mother-
church may have given such letters. We
do not know anything more precise on the
point: even from τινὲς a π ὃ ᾿Ιακώβου, Gal.
ii. 12 ff., nothing is to be inferred.
460 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS,
at their departure thence. — πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἢ ἐξ ὑμῶν) In the former case, it might
be thought that we wished to supply this need by recommendation of our-
selves ; in the latter case (ἢ ἐξ ὑμῶν), that we, by our self-recommendation,
wished to corrupt your judgment, and to induce you to recommend us to
others. Both would be absurd, but this is just in keeping with the irony.
Ver. 2 f. This ironical excitement, ver. 1, is succeeded by earnestness and
pathos. Paul, as conscious of his deserts in regard to the Corinthians as
he is faithful to his Christian humility (see ver. 3), gives a skilful explana-
tion of the thought contained in ver. 1 : we need no letters of introduction
either to you or from you. --- ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ἡμῶν] i.e. the letter (the letter of
recommendation) which we have, have to show, namely, as well to you as from
you. That we should understand both, is required by ver. 1, and to this vv.
2and 3 are admirably suited, since what is said in them represents every
letter of recommendation as well to the Corinthians as from them as super-
fluous. This in opposition to Flatt, Riickert, Osiander, and others, who
are of opinion that Paul has reference merely to his previous ἐξ ὑμῶν, and
(Riickert) that the πρὸς ὑμᾶς has been said only to hit his opponents. — ὑμεῖς
éore} in so far, namely, as your conversion, and your whole Christian being
and life, is our work, redounding to our commendation. Comp. 1 Cor. ix.
2. — ἐγγεγραμμ. ἐν ταῖς xapd. ἡμ.1 A more precise definition of the manner of
the ἐπιστολὴ ἡμῶν : inscribed in our hearts. This is the mode—adapted to the
image—of conveying the thought : since we have in our own consciousness the cer-
tainty of being recommended to you by yourselves and to others by you. (B*)
That you yourselves are our recommendation (to yourselves and to others)
our own hearts tell us, and it is known by all. Paul did not write ὑμῶν, as
δὲ and a few cursives, also the Ethiopic, have the reading, which Olearius,
Emmerling, Flatt, and especially Rinck (Lueubr. crit. p. 160), recommend
to our adoption : for in that case there would result an incongruity in the
figurative conception, since the Corinthians themselves are the letter. Be-
sides, there were so many malevolents in the church. But the apostle’s own
good consciousness was, as it were, the tablet on which this living Epistle of
the Corinthians stood, and that had to be left unassailed even by the most
malevolent. Of the Jove (comp. vii. 3 ; Phil. i. 7) of which Chrysostom and
others explain ἐν τ. καρ. ju. (comp. Wetstein : ‘‘ quam tenero vos amore
prosequar, omnes norunt”’), there is no mention in the whole context.
Emmerling is wrong, however, also in saying that éyyeyp. ἐν τ. Kapd. ἡμ. is
equivalent to the mere nobis inscriptae, i. 6. quas ubique nobiseum gestamus,
ut cognosci et legi ab omnibus possint. Just because what is written stands
within in the consciousness, ἐν ταῖς καρδ. ἡμ.} is used. — The plural is neither
to be explained, with Billroth, from the analogy of σπλάγχνα (without such
usage existing), nor to be considered with Riickert and de Wette as occa-
1 Olshausen thinks strangely that Paul of himself and other teachers to their spirit-
refers to the official badge which the high πᾶ] children; they bore the names of these
priest wore on his heart, and on whose engraven on their hearts, and brought them
twelve precious stones stood engraven the always in prayer before God.—Sheer fan-
twelve names of the children of Israel. This cifulness, since the context has nothing
arrangement, he holds, Paul takes in a pointing to a reference so entirely peculiar.
spiritual sense, and applies it to the relation
CHAP, ταῖς ὃ. 401
sioned by the plural of the speaking person (to whom, however, -the plural
hearts would not be suitable), but Paul writes in name of himself and of
Timothy. Comp. also iv. 6, vii. 3, and see Calvin, who, however, in an ar-
bitrary way (see i. 1) includes Silvanus also (i. 19). --- γινωσκομένη x.7.2.]
This appears to contradict the previous words, according to which the
Epistle is written ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν ; hence Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 19 f.
«(Billroth follows him), says that Paul ‘‘nonnulla adjicere, in quibus Corin-
thiorum potius, quam epistolae, cam qua eos comparat, memor esse videatur.”
But he rather presents the thing as 7¢ is, and hence cannot otherwise delin-
eate the image of the Epistle in which he presents it, than as it corresponds
to the thing. Inso far, namely, as Paul and Timothy have in their hearts
the certainty of being recommended by the Corinthians themselves, these
are a letter of recommendation which stands inscribed in the hearts of those
teachers ; and yet, since from the whole phenomenon of the Christian life of
the church it cannot remain unknown to any one that the Corinthians re-
dound to the commendation of Paul and Timothy, and how they do so, this
letter is known as what it is, and read’ by all men. The Epistle has therefore
in fact the two qualities, which in a letter proper would be contradictory,
and the image is not confounded with the thing, but is adapted to the thing.
Riickert, who likewise (see above) finds for ἐν τ. xapd. the reference to the
apostle’s Jove, explains it : ‘‘ In his heart they stand written . . . and where
he himself arrives, there he, as it were, reads out this writing, when he from a lov-
ing heart gives forth tidings everywhere, what a prosperous church the Lord
has gathered to Himself in Corinth.” Comp. Chrysostom. But in that case the
πάντες would not in fact be the readers—as yet they ought to be according to
ὑπὸ πάντων avOp.—but Paul ; and the thing would resolve itself into a self-
recommendation, which is yet held to be disclaimed in ver. 1.
Ver. 8. Savepotuevoc] attaches itself in construction to ὑμεῖς ἐστε, to which
it furnishes a more precise definition, and that in elucidative reference to
what has just been said γινωσκομένη . . . ἀνθρώπων : since you are being mani-
fested to be an epistle of Christ, i.e. since it does not remain hid, but becomes
(continually) clear to every one that you, etc. Comp. on the construction,
1 John ii, 19. — ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ] genitivus auctoris (not of the contents—in
opposition to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact) : a letter composed
(dictated) by Christ. Fritzsche, 1.6. p. 23, takes the genitive as possessive, so
that the sense without figure would be: homines Christiani estis. But in
what follows the whole origin of the Epistle is very accurately set forth, and
should the author not be mentioned—not in that case be placed in front ?
Theodoret already gives the right view. —éroro2# is here not again specially
letter of recommendation (ver. 2), but letter in general ; for through the
characteristic : ‘‘you are an epistle of Christ, drawn up by us,” etc., the
statement above : ‘‘ youare our letter of recommendation,” is to be elucidated
and made good. —In the following διακονηθεῖσα . . . σαρκίναις Paul presents
himself and Timothy as the writers of the epistle of Christ (δίακον. ὑφ᾽ ἡμ.),
the Holy Spirit as the means of writing in lieu of ink, and human hearts, 1.6.
1 Grotius: “ prius agnoscitur manus, deinde legitur epistola.” Here ywwox. precedes ;
it is different in i. 13.
462 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
according to the context, the hearts of the Corinthians, asthe material which
is written upon. For Christ was the author of their Christian condition ;
Paul and Timothy were His instruments for their conversion, and by their min-
istry the Holy Spirit became operative in the hearts of the readers. In so far the”
Corinthians, in their Christian character, are as it were a letter which Christ
has caused to be written, through Paul and Timothy, by means of the Holy
Spirit in their hearts. On the passive expression διακονηθ. ὑφ᾽ ju., comp. Vill:
19 ἢ. ; Mark x. 45 ; note also the change of the tenses: διακονηθ. and ἐγγεγραμμ.
(the epistle is there ready) ; likewise the designation of the Holy Spirit as
πνεῦμα θεοῦ ζῶντος, comp. ver. 6. We may add that Paul has not mixed
up heterogeneous traits of the figure of a letter begun in ver. 2 (Riickert and
others), but here, too, he carries out this figure, as it corresponds to the thing
to be figured thereby. The single incongruity is οὐκ ἐν πλαξὶ λιθίναις, in Which
he has not retained the conception of a letter (which is written on tablets of
paper), but has thought generally of a writing to be read. Since, however,
he has conceived of such writing as divinely composed (see above, πνεύματι
θεοῦ ζῶντος), of which nature was the law of Sinai, the usual supposition is
right, that he has been induced to express himself thus by the remembrance
of the tables of the law (Heb. ix. 4 ; comp. Jer. xxxi. 31-83) ; for we have
no reason to deny that the subsequent mention of them (ver. 7) was even
now floating before his mind. Fritzsche, indeed, thinks that ‘‘ accommodate
ad nonnulla V. T. loca (Prov. iii. 3, vii. 3) cordis notionem per tabulas cordis
expressurus erat, quibus tabulis carneis nihil tam commode quam tabulas
lapideas opponere potuerit.” But he might quite as suitably have chosen an
antithesis corresponding to the figure of ὦ Jetter (2 John 12 ; 2 Tim. iv. 18) ;
hence it is rather to be supposed that he came to use the expression tabulae
cordis, just because he had before his mind the idea of the tables of the law.
— The antitheses in our passage are intended to bring out that here an epistle
is composed in quite another and higher sense than an ordinary letter (which
one brings into existence μέλανι σπείρων διὰ καλάμου, Plato, Phaedr. p. 276
C)—a writing, which is not to be compared even with the Mosaic tables of
the law. But the purpose of a contrast with the legalism of his opponents
(Klépper) is not conveyed in the context. — That there is a special purpose
in the use of σαρκίναις as opposed to λιθίναις, cannot be doubted after the pre-
vious antitheses. It must imply the notion of something better (comp. Ezek.
xi. 19, xxxvi. 26), namely, the thought of the living receptivity and suscep-
tibility : δεκτικὰς τοῦ λόγου (Theophylact, Calvin, Stolz, Flatt, de Wette,
Osiander, Ewald, and others). The distinctive sense of σαρκινός is correctly
noted by Erasmus : ‘‘ ut materiam intelligas, non qualitatem.” Comp. on 1
Cor. ili. 1. Καρδίας is also the genitive of material, and the contrast would
have been sufficiently denoted by ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίας : it is, however,
expressed more concretely and vividly by the added σαρκίναις : in fleshy
tablets of the heart.
Ver. 4. Πεποίθησιν is emphatic, and therefore precedes (otherwise in i. 15);
confidence, however, of such a kind as is indicated in vv. 2, 3 ;' for there
΄
1 [Not self-confidence, as is clearly shown by the next two verses.—T. W. C.]
CHAP, III’, 5. 463
Paul has expressed a lofty self-consciousness. Hence there is no reason for
seeking a reference to something earlier instead of to what immediately pre-
cedes, and for connecting it with ii. 17 (Grotius and others, including de
Wette ; comp. Riickert), or with ii. 14-17, as Hofmann has done in conse-
quence of his taking ἀρχόμεθα in ver. 1 as not interrogative. Brief and apt
is Luther’s gloss : ‘‘Confidence, that we have prepared you to form the epistle.”
— διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ] through Christ, who brings it about in us: for in his
official capacity Paul knows himself to be under the constant influence of
Christ, without which he would not have that confidence. Theodoret says
well : τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦτο ἡμῖν δεδώκοτος τὸ θάρσος. --- πρὸς τὸν θεόν] in relation to
God, as bringing about the successful results of the apostolic activity. It
denotes the religious direction, in which he has such confidence (comp. Rom.
iv. 2, v. 1), not the validity before God (de Wette).
Ver. 5. Now comes the caveat, for which ver. 4 has prepared the way,
—the guarding against the possible objection, that Paul considered himself
(and Timothy) as originator of the ability for apostolic working. οὐχ ὅτι is
therefore not to be taken as equivalent to ὅτε οὐχ (Mosheim, Schulz, Em-
merling), nor is πέποιθα to be supplied again after οὐχ (Emmerling); but we
have here the quite common use of οὐχ ὅτι for οὐκ ἐρῶ, ὅτι. See oni. 24.
Riickert finds in οὐχ ὅτι «.r.A. a reason assigned for the πρὸς τὸν ϑεόν, or an
explanation of it: ‘In thus speaking, I would not have it thought that,”
etc. Butifin πρὸς τ. ϑεόν there was meant to be conveyed the same idea
as was further explained in ver. 5, Paul would have expressed himself quite
illogically, and in explaining or assigning a reason for it he must have writ-
ten ὅτε οὐχ. No; the course of thought is: ‘‘ With this πεποίϑησις, how-
ever, I do not wish to be misunderstood or misconstrued : I do not mean
by it, that we are of ourselves sufficient,” etc. With this connection πρὸς
τὸν ϑεόν is not at variance ; for by it God was not yet meant as author of the
adequate ability (ver. 5 shows this very point), but as producer of the result.
-Ολογίσασϑαί τι] to judge anything (censere). The context furnishes the more
precise definition which Paul had in view. Vv. 2-4, 6. He denies, namely, |
that of himself he possesses the ability to settle in his judgment the means
and ways, and, in general, the mode of discharging his apostolic duties. If he
has just been speaking in vv. 2-4 with so much confidence of his prosper-
ous and successful labour in Corinth, yet it is by no means his own ability,
but the divine empowering, which enables him to determine by his own
judgment anything regarding the discharge of his vocation. Accordingly,
we can neither approve the meaning arbitrarily given to τι, aliquid praeclari
(Emmerling ; van Hengel, Annot. p. 219), nor agree with Hofmann, who,
in consistency with his reference of πεποίϑησις to ii. 14-17, makes the apostle
guard against the misconstruction that this, his πεποίϑησις, rests on ideas
which he forms for himself—on an estimate of his official working, accord-
ing toa standard elaborated by his own mind. Even apart from that er-
roneous reference of the πεποίϑησις, the very expression ἱκανοί would be un-
suitable to the meaning adopted by Hofmann, and instead of it a notion of
presumption would rather have been in place ; the prominence given to ixavo-
the by its being used thrice can only concern the ability which regulates the
464 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
official labour itself. The dogmatic exposition, disregarding the context,
finds here the entire inability of the natural man for all good. See Augus-
tine, de dono persev. 13, contra Pelag. 8; Calvin: ‘‘non poterat magis
hominem nudare omni bono.” Comp. Beza, Calovius, and others, including
Olshausen. The reference also of the words to the doctrinal contents of the
preaching, which was not derived from his own reflection (Theodoret, Gro-
tius, de Wette, Neander, and others), is not suggested by the connection,
and is forbidden by the fact that ag’ ἑαυτῶν does not belong to λογίσασϑε at
all (see below). This also in opposition to Osiander, who finds the meaning :
‘*not human, but divine thoughts lie at the root of the whole of my official
work.” — ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν] has its assured place after Aoyic. τι (see the critical re-
marks). The contrast that follows (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ) decides what it belongs to
in sense,—namely, not to λογίσασθαί τι, but to ἱκανοί éopev,—so that ἱκανοί
ἐσμεν λογίσασθαί τι is to be considered as going together, as one idea, Mis-
taking this, Riickert thinks that either Paul has placed the words wrongly,
or the order given by B C » (see the critical remarks) must be preferred. —
On aq’ ἑαυτοῦ, from one’s own means, nemine suppeditante, see Wetstein. — ὡς
ἐξ ἑαυτῶν] 80. ἱκανοὶ ὄντες λογίσ. τι, amore precise definition of the ag’ éavr.
inserted on purpose (making the notice thoroughly exhaustive). The pro-
ceeding from (ἀπό) is still more definitely marked as causal procession (ἐκ):
as from ourselves, i.e. as if our ability to judge anything had its origin from
ourselves. Wolf arbitarily refers ἀπό to the will, and ἐξ to the power ; and
Riickert wrongly connects ἐξ ἑαυτ. with λογίσ. ri ; it is in fact parallel to ag’
éavt. Paul is conscious of the ἱκανὸν εἶναι λογίσασθαί τι, and ascribes it to
himself ; but he denies that he has this ἱκανότης of himself, or from himself.
— ἡ ἱκανότης ἡμῶν] 86. λογίσασθαί τι. ---- Riickert finds in our passage, especially
in ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν, an allusion to some utterances, unknown to us, of opponents,
which, however, cannot be proved from x. 7, and is quite a superfluous
hypothesis.
Ver. 6. Ὃς καὶ ἱκάνωσεν ἡμᾶς} ὅς, he who, in the sense of οὗτος yap. See
Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 64; van Hengel, Annot. 220. And καί is the
also of the corresponding relation (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 152), so that there
is expressed the agreement between what is contained in the relative clause
and what was said before : who also (qui idem, comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p.
636) has made us capable (ἀρκοῦσαν ἐχωρήγησε δύναμιν, Theodoret) as ministers,
ete. According to Bengel, Riickert (comp. also de Wette, Osiander, Hof-
mann), the sense is: ‘‘that God has bestowed on him not only the ability
mentioned in ver. 5, but also the more comprehensive one of a διάκονος k.7.A.”
But in that case the words must have stood thus: ὃς καὶ διακόνους καινῆς
διαθήκης ἱκάνωσεν ἡμᾶς. The notion of ἱκανότης is thrice put in front with the
same emphasis. Of ixavéw (Col. i. 12) only the passive, in the sense of to
have enough, occurs in the (later) Greek writers, such as Dion. Hal. ii. 74,
and in the LXX. — διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκ.Ἴ as ministers of a new covenant
(comp. Eph. 111. 7; Col. i. 23 ; 2 Cor. xi. 15 ; Luke i. 2), 2.6. to be such
as serve a new covenant, as devote to it their activity. Kacy. διαθ., without
the article, is conceived qualitatively. The new covenant (Heb. xii. 24) of
God with men, which is meant, is—in contrast to the one founded by Moses
5
GHAP, IIT.,) 6: 465
—that established by Christ, in which the fulfilling of the law is no. longer
defined as the condition of salvation, but faith in the atonement by Christ,
1 Cor. xi. 25 ; Rom. x. 5 ff. ; Gal. iv. 24 ff. ; Matt. xxvi. 28. — ob γράμμα-
τος, ἀλλὰ πνεύμ. | is Since Heumann usually (also by Billroth, Riickert, Ewald)
regarded as governed by καινῆς διαθήκης (Riickert, ‘‘of a covenant, which
offers not γράμμα, but πνεῦμα"), but without reason, since the sequel, by ἡ
διακονία Tov θανάτου and ἡ διακ. τοῦ πνεύματος (vv. 7, 8), rather points to the
fact that Paul has conceived οὐ yp. ἀλλὰ rv, as dependent on διακόνους (so
also de Wette, Neander, Osiander, Hofmann), as an appositional more pre-
cise definition to the καινῆς διαθήκης : to be ministers not of letter (which we
would be as ministers of the old covenant), but of spirit. Tpdupa character-
izes the Mosaic covenant according to the specific manner in which it oceurs
and subsists, for it is established and fixed in writing (by means of the writ-
ten letter), and thereby—although it is divine, yet without bringing with
it and communicating any principle of inward vital efficacy—settled as ob-
ligatory. On the other hand, πνεῦμα characterizes the Christian covenant,
in so far as its distinctive and essential mode of existence consists in this,
that the divine living power of the Holy Spirit is at work in it ; through
this, and not through a written instrument, it subsists and fulfils itself.
Comp. Rom. ii. 29, vil. 6 ; Heb. x. 29, viii. 7 ff. Not letter therefore, but
spirit, is that to which the teachers of the gospel minister, the power, whose
influence is advanced by their labours ;* od yap τὰ παλαιὰ τοῦ νόμου προσφέ-
pouev γράμματα, ἀλλὰ τὴν καινὴν τοῦ πνεύματος δωρεάν, Theodoret. It is true
that the law also is in its nature πνευματικός (see on Rom. vii. 14), and its
λόγια are ζῶντα (see on Acts vii. 38), but it is misused by the power of sin in
man to his destruction, because it does not furnish the spirit which breaks
this power. —10 yap γράμμα ἀποκτείνει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωοποιεῖ] specifies quite
simply the reason, why God has made them capable of ministering not to
the letter, but to the spirit. It is therefore quite unnecessary to presuppose,
with Fritzsche, Billroth, and Riickert, a suppressed intermediate thought
(namely, that the new covenant is far more excellent). We may add that
the yap does not extend also to what follows (vv. 7, 8), so as to make the
sentence τὸ γράμμα «.7.A. merely introductory to the sequel, and the whole a
vindication of the apostle’s referring his capacity of judgment to God. This
view of Hofmann is connected with his interpretation of λογίσ. τι, ver. 5,
and has besides against it the fact, that the weighty antithesis τὸ y. γράμμα
x.7.A. is neither adapted to be a mere introductory thought, nor betokened
as being such, the more especially as it contains completely in itself the
ground establishing what immediately precedes, and with ver. 7 a new
discussion begins, which runs on to the end of the chapter without a break.
— ἀποκτεῖνει] does not refer to the physical death (Kiiuffer, ζωὴ αἰών. p. 75), in
so far as that is the consequence of sin (Rom. v. 12), and sin is occasioned
and furthered by the law (Rom. vii. 9 ff., vi. 23; 1 Cor. xv. 56, al.).
Against this interpretation it is decisive that according to Rom. v. 12 ff.
1Bengel acutely and justly remarks: in proprio illo officio suo, etiam cum haud
‘Paulus etiam dum haec scripsit, non lit- scripsit, tamen in litera versatus est,”
erae, sed spiritus ministrum egit. Moses
466 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(see in loc.) bodily death is the consequence, extending to all, of Adam’s sin,
and has, since Adam, reigned over all even before the law. Nor yet are we
to understand spiritual (Billroth), ethical (de Wette, Krummel), or spiritual
and bodily death (Riickert), or the mere sensus mortis (Bengel, comp. Nean-
der), but according to Rom. vi. 21, 23, vii. 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 24, eternal
death,’ the opposite of the eternal life, which, by means of the Holy Spirit
becoming operative in the heart through the gospel, is brought about for
man who is liable to eternal death (Rom. viiii. 2, 6, 10, 11)—which here
(comp. John vi. 63) is expressed by τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωοποιεῖ, comp. On il. 16.
How far the law works eternal death, is shown from Rom. vii. 5, 7 ff. ;
comp. 1 Cor. xv. 56. Through its prohibitions, namely, it becomes for the
power of sin in man the occasion of awakening evil desire, and therewith
transgression sets in and the imputing of it for condemnation, whereby
man is liable to eternal death, and that by means of the curse of the law
which heaps up sin and produces the divine anger, see on ver. 9 ; Gal. iii.
10. Comp. Rom. iv. 15, v. 30. After Chrysostom and his followers (also
Ambrosiaster), Grotius explains it as: ‘‘morte violenta punit peccatores,”
and Fritzsche : ‘‘lex supplicia sumit.” This is to be rejected, because in
this way the law would not be the very thing that kills, but only that which
determines death as a punishment ; and consequently no corresponding
contrast to Cworoei would result. Finally, we can only consider as histori-
cally remarkable the interpretation of Origen regarding the literal and mys-
tical sense of Scripture, the former of which is injurious, the latter condu-
cive, to salvation. Something similar is still to be found in Krause and
Royaards. Against the visionaries, who referred γράμμα to the outward and
πνεῦμα to the inward word, see Calovius.
Ver. 7. Aé] leads on to a setting forth of the great glory-of the Christian
ministry, which is proved from the splendour of the ministry of Moses by a
conclusion @ minori ad majus.? — ἡ διακονία τοῦ θανάτου] i.e. the ministry con-
ducing to the rule of death ; for τὸ γράμμα ἀποκτείνει, ver. 6. Itis not the law
itself that is meant, but the ministry of Moses, which he accomplished by
bringing down to the people the tables of the law from Sinai. Riickert
erroneously thinks that the whole ministry of the Levitical priesthood is meant,
against which what follows is clearly decisive. The reason assigned by
? With this is connected certainly moral
death (the negation of the moral life), but
only the eéernal death is here meant, which
is the consequence of the κατάκρισις, ver. 9.
This in opposition to Osiander. Nor is the
ἀποκτείνει meant of the letter conditionally
(“so soon as we abide by it alone and deify
it”), but the killing is the specific operation
of the law; how? see Rom. vii. 9 f. : 1 Cor.
xv. 56. This in opposition to Ewald.—Hof-
mann unites the various meanings of the
death to which the sinner is liable, inasmuch
‘as he defines the notion as “‘ the ewistence of
the whole man shut out from the life of God
and for ever.’ This collective definition of
the notion, however, does not relieve us
from the labor of showing from the vari-
ous contexts in what special sense death and
dying are conceived of in the several
passages.
2 Without doubt this whole comparison of
the ministry of the New Testament with
that of Moses (vy. 7-11), as well as the sub-
sequent shadow which is thrown on the
conduct of Moses (ver. 13), and the digres-
sion on the obstinacy of the Jews (vv. 14-18),
is not put forward without a special pur-
pose, but is an indirect polemic against the
Judaists. Comp. Chrysostom : ὅρα πῶς πάλιν
ὑποτέμνεται TO φρόνημα τὸ ᾿Ιουδαϊκόν.
GHAAP ITE. ἦς 467
Riickert, that Moses as μεσίτης τῆς παλ. διαϑήκης can only be treated as on a
parallel with Christ, and not with the apostles, is not valid, since in the con-
text the prevailing conception is not that of μεσίτης but that of διάκονος, and
as such Moses is certainly parallel to the ministers of the new covenant. — ἐν
γράμμασιν ἐντετυπ. λίϑοις] A comma is not to be put after γράμμ. (Luther,
Beza, Piscator, Estius, and others, including Schrader and Ewald), which
would require the repetition of the article before ἐν yp., and would make
the sentence drag ; but it is: which was imprinted on stones by means of
letters. The death-promoting ministry of Moses was really graven on stones,
in so far as the Decalogue engraven on the two tables was actually the min-
isterial document of Moses, as it were the registration of his office. In this
case ἐν γράμμασιν is not something of an idle addition (in opposition to de
Wette, who defends the reading ἐν γράμματι, and attaches it to τοῦ Vavarov),
but in fact an element emphatically prefixed, in keeping with the process of
argument ὦ minori, and depicting the inferior unspiritual character. Riickert
(forced by his reference to the service of the Levitical priesthood) errone-
ously thinks that Paul means not only the tables of the law, but the whole
Pentateuch, and that he has been not quite so exact in his use of the expres-
sion (ἐντετυπ. λίϑοις 1). ---- ἐγενήϑη ἐν δόξῃ] took place in splendour, was surrounded
by splendour, full of splendour, see Buttmann, newt. Gram. p. 284 [E. T.
330]. Bengel says rightly : ‘‘nacta est gloriam 3; γίνομαι jio, et εἰμὲ sum,
ver. 8. differunt.” Comp. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 284. It relates
to the external radiance, which in the intercourse with God on Sinai passed
from the divine glory (Ex. xxiv. 16) to the countenance of Moses, so that
he descended from the mountain with his face shining (Ex. xxxiv. 29 ff.).
For a Rabbinical fiction that this splendour was from the light created at
the beginning of things, see Eisenmenger, Entdecht. Judenth. I. p. 369 f.
Others (Vatablus, and more recently, Flatt, Billroth, Riickert) take ἐν δόξῃ,
not of that glorious radiance, but of grandeur, glory in general. So also de
Wette and Hofmann. But thisis opposed to the context, for in what follows
it is not merely a visible proof of the δόξα which is adduced (as Riickert
thinks), or a concrete representation of it (Hofmann), but the high degree
(ὥστε) of the very δόξα which is meant by zyev Sn ἐν δόξῃ. It is said, indeed,
that ver. 8, where the glory spoken of is no external one, does not admit of
our reference. But even in ver. 8 the δόξα is an external glory (see on ver.
8) ; and further, we have here an argument a minori ad majus, in which
every reader was historically aware that the minus, the δόξα of Moses, was
an external one, while as to the majus, the δόξα of the ministry of the N.T.,
it was self-evident that it is before the Parousia merely something ideal, a
spiritual possession, and only becomes also an external reality after the
Parousia (and to this ver. 8 applies). —dore μὴ δύνασϑαι x.7.A.] Philo gives
the same account, Vit. Mos. p. 665 A; Ex. xxxiv. has only : ἐφοβήϑησαν
ἐγγίσαι αὐτῷ, Which was more precisely explained by that statement. — διὰ
τὴν δόξαν τοῦ rp. ait.| would have been in itself superfluous, but with the
addition τὴν καταργ. strengthening the conclusion it has a solemn emphasis.
Philo, /.c., calls this δόξα : ἡλιοειδὲς φέγγος. --- τὴν καταργουμένην] ‘ Claritas illa
vultus Mosis transitoria erat et modici temporis,” Estius. Ex. l.c. gives-us
468 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
no express information of this ; but ver. 13 clearly shows that Paul regarded
the radiance which Moses brought down from his converse with God as only
temporary and gradually ceasing, which, indeed, is self-evident and correctly
inferred from the renewal of the radiance on each occasion. In this passing
away of that lustre,—which even during its passing away was yet so great
that the Israelites could not gaze fixedly on him,—Paul undoubtedly (in
opposition to Hofmann) found a type of the ceasing of the Mosaic ministry
(ver. 13); but in our present passage this is only hinted at in a preliminary
way by the historical addition τ. καταργ., without the latter ceasing to belong
to the historical narration. Hence the participle is not to be taken, with
Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, and others, including Riickert, in a purely present
sense : ὁ which yet ceases,” nor in the sense of transient (Ewald), but as the
imperfect participle ; the transitory, which was in the act of passing away.
Ver. 8. The ministry dedicated to the Holy Spirit, i.e. forming the medium
of His operation (the teaching ministry of the gospel), is as such the spe- .
cific opposite of the διακονία τοῦ ϑανάτου ἐν γράμμασιν ἐντετυπ. λίϑοις, Ver. 7.
In τοῦ πνεύματος are contained the elements of contrast. See ver. 6. — ἐσται]
is not the future of the inference (Billroth, Hofmann, and the older commen-
tators) ; nor does it refer to the advancing steady development (Osiander),
but rather to the gloria futuri seculi. Comp. on ver. 12, where the δόξα
which is therefore not to be understood, as it usually is, of inner elevation
and dignity—appears as the object of the ἐλπίς. We cannot therefore say
with Bengel : ‘‘loquitur ex prospectu V. T. in Novum,” but : loquitur ex
prospectu praesentis seculi in futurum.
Ver. 9. Grounding, simply by a characteristic change of the predicates
(κατακρ. and δικαιοσύν.), of What was said in vv. 7, 8. Comp. Rom. ν. 18,
19. -- ἡ διακονία τῆς κατακρίσ. the ministry, which is the medium of condemna-
tion. For the ministry of Moses, which communicated the Decalogue, pro-
moted through the law sin (Rom. vii. 9 ff.),whose power it became (1 Cor.
xv. 56), and thus realized the divine curse against the transgressors of the
law (Gal. iii. 20). Comp. on ver, 6. The article denoted the well-known,
solemn condemnation, Deut. xxvii. 26. — δόξα] se. ἐστι, for the former éye-
νήϑη ἐν δόξῃ is realized as present, regarded as present. Comp., subsequently,
the present περισσεύει. The substantive δόξα (it refers, as in ver. 7, to that
external glory) stands as predicate in the sense of ἔνδοξος, denoting the
notion of the adjective more strongly, according to a current usage in Greek.
Rom. viii. 10; John vi. 63 ; 1 John iv. 8, al. See Abresch, Awectar. Dilue.
p. 275 f. ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. 11. p. 190. --- περισσεύει] The tense realizes as
present what is future ; for the future glory of the teacher is already now an
ideal possession. Note the acewmulated strength of the expression : is in
much higher degree superabundant in glory. On the dative of more precise
definition with περισσεύειν, comp. 1 Thess. iii. 12 ; Acts xvi. 5 ; Polyb. xviii.
18. 5 ; Plut. Mor. p. 708 F. Usually in the N. T. with ἐν, as also here in
Elzevir. — ἡ διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύν. } the ministry, which is the medium of right-
eousness* (comp. xi. 15) ; for it is the office of gospel teaching to preach the
1 Note the contrast of κατάκρισις and δικαιοσύνη. The former is an actus forensis; ΒΦ
CHAP, I11., 10. 469
faith in Jesus Christ, by which we have righteousness before God. See
Rom. i. 17, i. 22 ff., 30, x. 4; Gal. iii. 13. Comp. especially, v. 21.
Ver. 10. A more precise grounding of the previous πολλῷ μᾶλλον περισσεύει
«.7.A. by the highest climax of this relation. or even (καὶ γάρ) that which
is glorious is without glory in this point by reason of the superabundant glory.
—ov δεδόξασται] The chief element is prefixed, and combined into one idea
(Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 122 ; Baeuml. p. 278): gloria destitutum est.
The perfect denotes the continuance of what had taken place ; Kithner, II.
p. 70. -- τὸ δεδοξασμένον] is referred to the Moswie religious economy by Em-
merling and Olshausen, following older expositors, quite against the con-
text. Most refer it to the ministry of Moses, which had been made glorious
through the radiance on his countenance, vv. 7-9. But see below. —év
τούτῳ τῷ μέρει} in this respect (ix. 3; 1 Pet. iv. 16; Col. ii. 16; often in
Greek authors), is joined with τὸ δεδοξασμένον by Fritzsche, 1.6. p. 31 (also
de Wette and Ewald) : ‘‘ quod collustratum fuit hae parte ἢ. e. ita, ut per
splendorem, qui in Mosis facie conspiciebatur, illustre redderetur.” But on the
one hand—supposing that τὸ dedofacu. denotes the ministry of Moses—the
ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει SO taken would be an utterly superfluous addition, since the
reader would already have had full information in accordance with the con-
text through τὸ dedofacu. having the article ; on the other hand, we should
expect τούτῳ to point to something said just before, which, however, is not
the case, since we must go back as far as ver. 7. If, again, with Ewald,
we take ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει as ‘in all that is Jewish, apart from what is Chris-
tian,” and refer it to the then still subsisting state of the temple, syna-
gogue, etc., how enigmatically Paul would have expressed himself, without
any hint of his meaning in the context! Following Chrysostom (κατὰ τὸν
τῆς συγκρίσεως λόγον) and Theodoret (ἀποβλέπων εἰς τούτους, namely, to the
ministers of the N. T.), most commentators (including Billroth, Olshausen,
Osiander, Hofmann) join it with ov δεδόξ., so that it would indicate the
reference in which the sentence οὐ δεδόξ. τὸ dedo&. holds good (see Hofmann),
and consequently would have the meaning: ‘‘ over against the office of
Moses.” But how utterly superfluous, and in fact cumbrous, would this ἐν
τούτῳ τῷ wep. be if so taken, especially seeing that there still follows ἕνεκεν τ.
ὑπερβ. dog., Which serves to throw light upon the relation asserted ! How
surprising would this amplification be at this very point, where the compar-
ison is carried to the highest pitch, and the representation is so forcibly and
pithily begun by the oxymoron οὐ δεδόξ. τὸ δεδοξ. |! Riickert (following
Flatt) connects also with od δεδόξαστι, but explains it : in this respect, that
is, in so far as the first διακονία was the διακονία τῆς κατακρίσεως. At variance
with the connection. For not in so far as the Mosaic διακονία ministered to
condemnation and death, is its splendour darkened, but in so far as its
splendour is outshone by a far greater splendour,—that of the διακονία of
the N. T. Besides, if the assumed reference of ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει were to be
held correct, the κατάκρισις would necessarily be the principal element (pred-
also the latter, constituted by the divine on imputation. Comp. v. 21. This in oppo-
act of the δικαίωσις (Rom. iy. 25, y. 18), rests sition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. 1. p. 627 f.
470 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
icate) in what precedes, not merely an attributive definition of the subject.
On the whole, the following explanation, against which none but quite ir-
relevant objections’ are made, seems to be the right one : ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει
is certainly to be connected with οὗ δεδόξασται ; τὸ δεδοξασμένον, however, is
not to be taken as a designation of the Mosaic διακονία in concreto, but sig-
nifies that which is glorified generally, in abstracto ; so that, in addition to
the οὐ δεδόξασται said of it, there is also given with ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει the ref-
erence to the particular concrete thing of which the apostle is speaking, the
reference to the ministry of Moses, namely, thus: ‘‘for in this respect, 1.6.
in respect of the relation of glory in which the Mosaic διακονία stands to the
Christian (ver. 9), it is even the case that what is glorified is unglorified.”
Analogously, the δόξα of the moon, for instance, is no δόξα, when the δόξα
of the sun beams forth (1 Cor. xv. 14). — ἕνεκεν τῆς ὑπερβαλλ. δόξης] by rea-
son of (Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 329 B) the superabundant glory, which
obscures the δεδοξασμένον, exhibits its δόξα as relatively no δόξα. This ap-
plies to the future glory of the N. T. διακονία, setting in at the αἰὼν μέλλων,
but already conceived as present.
Ver. 11. A justification of the foregoing expression τῆς ὑπερβαλλ. δόξης by
a general proposition, the application of which in conformity with the con-
nection is left to the reader, and the truth of which in this connection lies
in the idea of the completion, which the facts of salvation in the O. T. have
to find in the kingdom of God. ‘‘ For if that which ceases is glorious, much
more is that which abides glorious.”’ — τὸ καταργούμενον] that which is in the act
of passing away. This the reader was to apply to the διακονία of Moses*
spoken of in vv. 7-10, in so far, namely, as this ministry is in the course of
its abolition through the preaching of the gospel by means of the διακονία
' τῆς δικαιοσύνης. Moses ceases to be lawgiver, when the gospel is preached ;
for see Rom. x. 4. That this is the application intended by Paul, is con-
firmed by the contrast τὸ μένον, which the reader was to apply to the teach-
ing ministration of the N. T. (not to the Christian religion, as Emmerling
and Flatt, following older commentators, think), in so far, namely, as that
ministration is not abolished, but continues on to the Parousia (whereupon
its glory sets in). Fritzsche is of opinion that the διακονία of Moses is τὸ
καταργούμενον for the reason : ‘‘ quod ejus fulgor muneris Christiani gloria
superatur, et ita sane καταργεῖται, nullus redditur.” But in that case the
subject of καταργεῖται, would in fact be the splendour, not the διακονία itself.
This applies at the same time in opposition to Billroth, who refers τὸ καταργ.
to the lustre of Moses’ office on each occasion soon disappearing, which is im-
possible on account of διὰ δόξης. --- διὰ δόξης] se. ἐστι. διά Expresses the sit-
uation, condition, and so is a circumlocution for the adjective. Stallbaum,
ad Plat. Phileb. p. 192 ; Bernhardy, p. 235 ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 188.
1 The objection made by Osiander is a di-
lemma logically incorrect. Hofmann urges
that ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει cannot mean: in this
case. Butitisnotatall alleged to have that
meaning, but rather: in this point, i.e. hoc
respectu, in the relation under discussion.
See on this adverbial usage, C. Fr. Herm. ad
Lucian. hist. conser. p. 8.
2 Not to the Mosaic religion in general,
which ceases through Christ (Theodoret,
Theophylact, and many others, including
Emmerling and Flatt),—which is quite at
variance with the context. See vy. 7-10.
CHAP Pin, bees 471
ἐν δόξῃ (ver. 7) is not different in sense ; but the supposition of Estius, Bill-
roth, Olshausen, Osiander, Neander, Hofmann, that διά indicates only what
is transient, and év what is abiding, is mere fancy. Paul is fond of varying
the prepositions in designating the same relation. Comp. Rom. iii. 30, v.
10, xv. 2; Gal. ii. 16; Philem. 5. Comp. also Kihner, II. p. 319.
Ver. 12. Ἔχοντες οὖν τοιαύτ. ἐλπ.] οὖν, accordingly, namely, after what has
just been said πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὸ μένον ἐν δόξῃ, 86. ἐστι. Since the ἐλπίς has its
object necessarily in the future, and not yet in the present (Rom. viii. 24),
τοιαύτη ἐλπίς cannot denote the consciousness of the abiding glory of his office,
which Paul possesses (Hofmann ; comp. Erasmus and others), but it must
be the apostle’s great hope,—a hope based on the future of the Messiah’s king-
dom—that the ministry of the gospel would not fail at the Parousia of its
glory far surpassing the δόξα of the ministry of Moses. This will be the
glorious, superabundant reward of the labour of Christ’s δοῦλοι, as promised
by their Master (Luke xxii. 29 ff. ; John xiv. 3; Matt. xxv. 14 ff., a/.).
Comp, 1 Cor, mi. 14, iv..5.; 2 Cor. i. 14; Phil. ii. 16; 1 Thess. ii. 19 £.
It is the ἄφθαρτος στέφανος of the faithful labour in teaching, 1 Cor. ix. 25 ff. ;
2 Tim. iv. 8; 1 Pet. v. 4. The reference to the contents of the teaching (Em-
merling : ‘‘ tale munus quum habeam tantorum honorum spem ostendens”’),
to which Riickert is also inclined, is opposed to the words used and to the
context. As little are we to assume, with Neander, an equalization of the
ἐλπίς with the πεποίϑησις, ver. 4, and a linking on of the thought to ver. 4.
— πολλῇ παῤῥησίᾳ ypou.| Aenotes the frank unreservedness and openness to-
wards those with whom the teacher has to do : μετ᾽ ἐλευϑερίας πανταχοῦ φϑεγ-
youeda, οὐδὲν ἀποκρυπτόμενοι, οὐδὲν ὑποστελλόμενοι, οὐδὲν ὑφορώμενοι, ἀλλὰ σαφῶς
λέγοντες, Chrysostom. The evidentia (Beza, comp. Mosheim) or perspicuitas
(Castalio) belongs to this, but does not exhaust the idea. On ypou. παῤῥησ.,
comp. Plato, Hp. 8, p. 354 A ; Phaedr. p. 240 E ; χρῶμ. is utimur, not uta-
mur (Erasmus).
Ver. 13. A negative amplification of the πολλῇ παῤῥησίᾳ χρώμεϑα by com-
parison with the opposite conduct of Moses. —xai οὐ] se. τίϑεμεν κάλυμμα ἐπὶ
τὸ πρόσωπον ἡμῶν, according to the Greek way of putting the verb, which
is common to the principal and subordinate clause, in the subordinate
clause, and adapting it to the subject of that clause. See Heindorf, ad Gorg.
p- 592 A; Winer, p. 542 [E. T. 728]: Kiihner, II. p. 609. The meaning
of the allegorical language is: ‘‘and we do not go to work veiling ourselves
(dissembling), as Moses did, veiling his countenance, that the Israelites might
not,” etc. See Ex. xxxiv. 38-35. — πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι x.t.2.] the purpose,
which Moses had in veiling his radiant face while he spoke to the people :
the people were not (as they would otherwise have done) to fix their gaze on
the τέλος τοῦ καταργουμένου (see below). In order to free Moses from a dis-
simulation, Wolf explained it : ‘‘ut indicaretur eos non. posse intueri,”
which, however, is not conveyed in the words, and is not to be supported
by Luke xviii. 1; and Schulz and Flatt, following older commentators,
explain that πρὸς «.r.2. means 80. that, etc., which, however, is wrong both
as to the usage of the words (comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. v. 28, p. 231) and
as to the connection of ideas, since the πολλῇ παῤῥ. xp. of ver. 12 presupposes
472 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the intentional character of the opposite procedure. The latter remark
applies also in opposition to de Wette (comp. before him, Beza and Calvin),
who takes πρὸς «.7.2. not of the intention, but of the divine aim, according
to the well-known Biblical teleology, in which the result is regarded as
aimed at by God, Isa. vi. 9 ; Matt. xiii. 11 ff. ; Luke viii. 10. In this way
a conscious concealment on the part of Moses is removed ; but without suffi-
cient ground, since that concealment must not have been regarded by Paul
as immoral (‘‘fraudulenter,” Fritzsche), and with his reverence for the
holy lawgiver and prophet cannot have been so regarded, but rather, in
keeping with the preparatory destination of the Mosaic system, as a paeda-
gogic measure which Moses adopted according to God’s command, but the
purpose of which falls away with the emergence of that which is abiding,
i.e. of the ministry of the gospel (Gal. iv. 1 ff.). Finally, the argument of
usage is also against de Wette, for in the N. T. by the telic πρὸς τό and infini-
tive there is never expressed the objective, divinely-arranged aim (which is
denoted by iva and ὅπως), but always the subjective purpose, which one has
in an action (Matt. v. 28, vi. 1, xiii. 80, xxiii. 5 ; Mark xiii. 22 ; Eph. vi.
11 ; 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8 ; Jas. iii. 3, Elzevir ; also Matt. xxvi. 12).
The point of comparison is the ‘‘ tecte agere” (Fritzsche), which was done by
Moses with the purpose specified through the veiling of his face (not through
the figures in which he veiled the truth, as de Wette, following Mosheim,
imports), but is not done by the teachers of the gospel, since they go to
work in their ministry freely and frankly (ver. 12). The context furnishes
nothing further than this, not even what Hofmann finds in the κ. ov kadar.
M. «.7.2.2_ As little are we to suppose arbitrarily, with Klépper, that Paul
had in mind not so much Moses himself as his successors (?), the Judaists.—
εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργ.] τὸ τέλος, by its very connection with τοῦ xarapy., is
fixed to the meaning end, and not final aim (Osiander) or completion ;? and
τοῦ καταργ. must be the same as was meant by τὸ καταργούμενον in the applica-
tion intended by Paul of the general proposition in ver. 11. Consequently
it cannot be masculine (Luther, Vatablus ; even Riickert is not disinclined
to this view), nor can it denote the Mosaic religion, the end of which is
Christ [Rom. x. 4], as, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact,
most expositors, including Flatt and Osiander, think, against which, how-
ever, even Moses’ own prophecy (Deut. xviii. 15), according to the Messianic
interpretation then universal, would militate ; but it must be the ministry of
Moses, which is passing away, see on ver. 11. The Israelites were not intend-
ed, in Paul’s opinion, at that time to contemplate the end of this ministry,
1 ΤΡ the apostle had found his calling
only in publishing to others traditional doc-
trines, he would have thought, like Moses,
that he must carefully distinguish between
what he was and what he had to feach, that
he must keep his person in subordination to
his fask, in order not . . . to injure the ef-
fect of what he taught.”
2 So Isenberg in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1867,
p. 240 ff., who, regarding τοῦ carapy. as the
genitive of apposition, brings out the sense :
“the transitory office of the O. T. as the
completion, after which no other institution
could be expected.” Thus there is ascribed
to Moses exactly the opposite of what the
simple words say ; Paul would have written
something like εἰς τὸ καταργούμενον ws τὸ
τέλειον. The genitive of apposition would
here give the meaningless thought: ‘‘the
end, which is the transitory.”
CHAP. III., 14. 473
which was to cease through the ministry of the gospel ; therefore. Moses
veiled his face.’ By what means (according to the apostle’s view), if Moses
had not veiled himself, they would have seen the end of his office, is apparent
from ver. 7, namely, by the disappearance of the splendour, the departure
of which would have typically presented to them the termination of the
διακονία Of Moses.* But not on this account are we to explain (with the
scholiast in Matthaci and others, including Stolz, Billroth, Olshausen, de
Wette, Ewald,* Hofmann) τὸ καταργ. of the transient splendour itself (ver. 7),
which is forbidden by ver. 11, and would be a confusion of the type and
antitype.
Vv. 14-18. Sad contrast which the procedure of the preachers of the
gospel indicated in vy. 12, 13—so wholly different from the procedure of
Moses—meets with in the hardening of Israel. How far off are they to this
day from divine freedom ! how altogether different, however (ver. 18), it
is with us Christians !
Ver. 14. ’AAW ἐπωρώϑη κ.τ.}.1 This ἀλλά does not refer to the thought
implied in the previous πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι x.7.2., that the Jews did not con-
template the end of the Mosaic ministry, for this was made impossible to
them, in fact, by Moses himself and according to his own intention. What
Billroth imports into ἀλλά is therefore also unsuitable : ‘‘but instead thereof
were hardened,” etc. Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, Hofmann (comp. also Ols-
hausen) take the connection rightly, that over against the utterance treating
of the holders of the apostolic office, ver. 12 f. stands, that which speaks of Israel.
Accordingly ἀλλά is at, nevertheless. — πωρῴώϑη] Paul does not here say by
whom this certainly passive (in opposition to Theodorct) hardness of heart *
1 Paul deviates, therefore, from the rep-
resentation of Ex. xxxiv. in not abiding
simply by the statement, that Moses veiled
his face because the eyes of the Israelites
could not endure the radiance—but, in con-
nection with his typological way of regard-
ing the fact, apprehendsit in the sense that
Moses was induced to veil himself by the
subjective motive of keeping out of the peo- .
ple’s sight the end of his ministry of law. (F*)
3 Τῷ might be objected to our whole ex-
planation, that, if Moses had not veiled him-
self, the people would still not have read
the end of the Mosaic ministry from the
departing splendour (Billroth), nay, that
Moses himself did not find anything of the
kind init. But we have not here a supple-
ment of the account in Ex. xxxiv. (Krum-
mel), but a rabbinic-allegorical exposition
(Ww) of the circumstances, which as such
is withdrawn from historical criticism, but
nevertheless is in accordance with the strik-
ing aim which the apostle has in view.
This aim was to make the παῤῥησία of the
stewardship of the gospel-ministry conspic-
uous by contrast, like the light by shadow.
(a4)
3 Who explains it as if not εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ
katapy., but simply εἰς τὸ καταργούμενον, Were
used. Ewald conceives the disappearance
of the splendour as ensuing gradually dur-
ing the age, and finally at the death of
Moses, as Grotius also on ver. 7 represents it.
4 πωροῦσϑαι means fo be made hard (from
the substantive πῶρος) not ἐο be blinded, as
Schleusner (Z/es. ITV. p. 541) and others,
following the Fathers, and also Hofmann
would take it, since there is no trace at all of
the use among the Greeks of an adjective
mwpos, blind, which the etymol. Gud. and
Suidas quote. The Greeks have πῆρος, blind-
ness, and πήρος, blind, but not mwpés. Andif
the LXX. translate m2. Job vii. 7, by πω-
ροῦσϑαι, and Zech. xi. 17 by ἐκτυφλοῦσϑαι (to
which Hofmann makes appeal), this proves
nothing in favour of that explanation of
πωροῦσϑαι, since the LXX. very often, with
exegetical freedom, render the same word
differently according to the context. We
mayadd that Hofmann irrelevantly com-
pares Lucian, Amor. 46, where πηροί does
not mean blind at all, but has its fundamen-
tal meaning maimed. The passage in
Lucian means: “ΤῸ whom are the glances of
474 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS,
has been caused. It may be conceived as produced by God (Rom. xi. ff.,
comp. John xii. 39 f.; Acts xxviii. 26) just as well as by the devil (iv. 4,
comp. Matt. xiii. 19), these two ways of regarding it not being contradic-
tory to each other. The aorist denotes the hardness of heart which set in
later after their intercourse with Moses, but in connection with the insight
then rendered impossible to them. Πεπώρωται would have meant something
else. On νοήματα, thoughts, the products of the νοῦς, of the exercise of the
theoretic and practical reason, which, through the hardness of heart, become
inaccesible to, and insusceptible of, the perception of the divine, comp. on
Phil. iv. 7. —aypu yap x.r.2.] A proof, in accordance with experience, for
what was just said ἐπωρώϑη x.7.2.— τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ἐπὶ x.7.A.] The same veil
is, of course, to be understood, not of material identity, but symbolically
of the likeness of the spiritual hindrance. Without figure the meaning is :
the same incapacity for recognizing the end of the Mosaic ministry, which was
produced among them then by the veil of Moses, remains with them to this day
when the Old Covenant is read. — ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει] Paul conceives the public
reading of the O. T. every Sabbath (Acts xv. 21) as overlaid with the veil
hindering knowledge ; still we need not assume, with Wolf, Michaelis,
Semler, and others, a reference to the mv (see Lakemacher, Obss. III. p.
209 ff.) with which the Jews veiled themselves at the reading of the law
and at prayer, because otherwise Paul must have made the veil fall on the
countenances of the Jews, and not on the public reading. But he has con-
ceived to himself the matter so, that the public reading takes place under
the veil enwrapping this act, so that in this reading the Jews remain shut
out from insight into the new covenant. Vv. 13 and 15 preclude us from
abandoning the local signification of ἐπί, on. The explanation, ‘‘ when there
is public reading” (Hofmann), confuses the meaning with the sensuous, but
in relation to the context appropriate, form of presenting it. —ri¢ παλ.
διαϑήκης)] For when the law of Moses is publicly read, there is read the old
covenant (comp. on ver. 6) therein set forth. This is the contents of the
public reading. Comp. ver. 15: ἀναγινώσκεται Μωῦσῆς. Ἢ rad. dead. does
not mean the books of the O. T., as is here usually supposed. — μὴ ἀνακαλυπ-
τόμενον, ὅτι ἐν Χ. καταργεῖται These words in themselves admit of two ex-
planations ; the first refers the participle and καταργεῖται to τὸ κάλυμμα, and
takes ὅτι in the sense of because, as specifying the ground of the μὴ ἀνακαλ.
(so most of the older expositors, and recently Fritzsche, Billroth, Schrader,
Olshausen, de Wette, Neander, Hofmann, comp. Ewald) : without being
uncovered, because it is annihilated in Christ (the veil), but Christ is not
preached to them. On ἀνακαλύπτειν κάλυμμα, to uncover a veil, comp. LXX.
Deut. xxii. 30 : οὐκ ἀνακαλύψαι συγκάλυμμα τοῦ πατρός. But against this view
(4) καταργεῖται seems decisive, which, according to the context (see vv. 11,
13), cannot apply to the taking away of the veil, but only to the a volition
of the Mosaic ministry, or according to the connection of ver. 14, to the
abolition of the old covenant, which is the object of the Mosaic ministry
the eyes so blind (tuvpdoi), and the thoughts of the understanding so lame (rnpoi)?’ Here
mypo is a figurative expression for weakness.
CHAR. ΠῚ 15. ATS
(comp. also Rom. 111. 31; Eph. ii. 15) ; and hence Paul, ver. 16, does not
use καταργεῖται Of the removal of the veil, but περιαιρεῖται, which signifies the
same thing as ἀνακαλύπτεται. (0) Τῇ μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον were to refer to τὸ αὐτὸ
κάλυμμα, then κάλυμμα in the contrast introduced by ἀλλά in ver. 15 would
necessarily be the same veil, of which μὴ ἀνακαλύπτ. would be here said, and
Paul must therefore at ver. 15 have written τὸ κάλυμμα with the article.
Hence the second method of explanation’ is to be preferred, according to
which the participle is taken absolutely, and ὅτι as that, while καταργεῖται is
referred to the rad. διαθήκη, thus : while it is not disclosed (unveiled), it re-
mains hidden from the Jews, that in Christ the old covenant is done away,
that in Christ-—in His appearance and in His work—the abolition of the
Old Covenant takes place (Rom. x. 4 ; Col. ii. 14). The whole is thus a
more precise practical definition of the previous τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα. . . μένει.
This absolute appositional use of the neuter participle (to be regarded as
accusative, though viewed by Hermann and others as nominative) is a cur-
rent Greek idiom in impersonal phrases. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 769 ;
Bernhardy, p. 471; Kriiger, ὃ lvi. 9. 5; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 176.
Hence Riickert is without reason in referring μὴ ἀνακαλύπτ. to τὸ κάλυμμα, and
yet understanding ὅτε as that and καταργεῖται of the Old Covenant, whereby
the unwarranted importation of a thought becomes necessary, namely, to
this effect : ‘‘the same veil rests on the reading of the O. T. and is not up-
lifted, so that it (the people) might perceive that it (the O. T.) has its end
in Christ.” lLuther’s translation (comp. Erasmus, Beza, and Heumann)
follows the reading 6,7. (Elzevir), which Scholz also has again taken
up. (ΗΠ) This 6,72 would have to be explained as guippe quod (velamen), and
would give from the nature of the veil (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 80)
the information why it remains unlifted,—an interpretation, however, which
would only be compatible with the jirst view given above, and even with
that would be unnecessary. —xarapyeira:] present; for the fact, that in
Christ the Old Covenant is abolished, is laid down in theoretical form as an
article of faith, as a truth which remains veiled from the Jews so long as
they are not converted to Christ (ver. 16).
Ver. 15. ᾿Αλλ] opposite of the μὴ ἀνακαλ., ὅτι ἐν X. καταργ., but no longer
connected with γάρ, ver. 14 (Hofmann), since the apostle does not again mean
the particular veil (that of Moses) to which the confirmatory clause introduced
with yap, ver. 14, referred. It is not disclosed, that, etc. ; till to-day, on the
contrary, there lies a veil, etc. ; till to-day, whenever (av, in whatsoever case)
Moses is publicly read, their insight (comp. previously ἐπωρώθη, etc.) is hin-
dered and prevented. The figurative expression does not again represent the
veil of Moses, for otherwise τὸ κάλυμμα must necessarily (in opposition to Hof-
1So among the older commentators Cas- with the conception of a καλύμμα that re-
talio, and recently Kypke, Flatt, Osiander, mains. The veil remains, since it is not
Maier; comp. also Krummel, who, how- wnveiled that, etc. In this way the explana-
ever, mentally supplies “by all teachers of | tory expression is quite in keeping with the
the law.” figure itself. Besides, ἀνακαλύπτειν was Ccom-
_2 Very naturally and suitably Paul chose mon enough in the sense of to make mani-
the word ἀνακαλ., not ἀποκαλ. (in opposition fest, to make known (Tob. xii. 7,11; Polyb.
to de Wette’s objection), since he has to do ivy. 85. 6):
476 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
mann) have been used, but generally a veil, and that one placed over (ἐπί
with acc.) the heart (here regarded as,the centre of the practical intelli-
gence, comp. iv. 6; Rom. i. 21 ; and see on Eph. i. 18 ; Krumm, de not.
psych. P. p. 50; Delitzsch, Psychol. Ὁ, 248 f. ; Hahn, Theol. ἃ. N. T. 1. p.
460) of the hearers, (1*) The impersonal μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμ. of ver. 14 induced the
apostle very naturally and with logical suitableness, not to use again in the
contrast of ver. 15, with its emphatic stress laid on the point ἕως σήμερον,
that historical image of the veil of Moses, but to express the conception gen-
crally of a veil hindering perception (lying on the heart). The same thing,
therefore, is expressed in two forms of one figure ; the first form gives the
figure historically (the veil of Moses on the ἀνάγνωσις τ. παλ. diab.) ; the
second form, apart from that historical reference, gives it as moulded by the
apostle’s own vivid imagination (a veil upon the heart at the public reading).
Fritzsche (comp. Al. Morus in Wolf) assumes that Paul imagines to him-
self two veils, one on the public reading of the Old Covenant, the other on
the hearers’ own hearts, by which he wishes to mark the high degree of
their inaptitude for perceiving. But, in order to be understood, and in
keeping with a state of things so peculiar, he must have brought this out
definitely and emphatically, and have at least written in ver. 15: ’A2W...
Moiojc, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῶν κάλυμμα κεῖται. ---- ἡνίκα] at the hour when,
quando, after Hom. Od. xxii. 198 frequent in the classic writers, but in the
N. T. only here and at ver. 16. Often used in the Apocrypha and the LXX,
also at Ex. xxxiv. 384 ; and perhaps the word was suggested by the recol-
lection of this passage. — On ἀναγινώσκ. Μωῦσ. comp. Acts xv. 21.
Ver. 16. When, however, it shall have turned to the Lord, shall have come
to believe on Christ, the veil, which lies on their heart (ver. 15), is taken
away ; 7.e., when Moses is read before them, it will no longer remain un-
perceived by them that the Old Covenant ceases in Christ. The subject to
ἐπιστρέψῃ 18 ἡ καρδία αὐτῶν, ver. 15 (Luther in the gloss, Beza, Grotius, Ben-
gel, and several others, including Billroth, Olshausen, de Wette, Hofmann),
not ὁ Ἰσραήλ, (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, and
many others, including Osiander), nor Μωῦσῆς (Calvin, Estius),’ nor the
general τίς (Origen, Storr, Flatt).—The common supposition, that in ver.
16 there is an allegorical reference to Moses, who, returning from the people
to God, conversed unveiled with God (Ex. xxxiv. 34), is in itself probable
from the context, and is confirmed even by the choice of the words (Ex. /.¢. :
ἡνίκα δ᾽ ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο M. ἔναντι κυρίου .... περιῃρεῖτο Td κά λυμμα),
though the same veil with which Moses was veiled (τὸ αὐτὸ κάλ., ver. 14) is
no longer spoken of, but a veil on the hearts of the Jews.— ἡνίκα with ἄν
and the subjunctive aorist? denotes : then, when it shall have turned (Luther
wrongly : when it turned itself), and that as something conceived, thought
1 Calvin thinks that Moses is here tanta-
mount in meaning to the /aw, and that the
sense is: When the law is referred to
says: ‘‘Moses conversus ad Dominum
atque retectam habens faciem, typum
gessit populi Christiani ad Deum conversi
Christ, when Christ is sought in the law by
the Jews, then will the truth dawn upon
them. Estius, who refers κύριον to God,
et revelata cordis facie salutis mysteria
contemplantis.”’
3 See Ellendt, Lea. Soph. I. p. 773.
— —
CHAP. ||. 1: 477
of, not as an unconditioned fact. The πρὸς κύριον, however, does not affirm ;
to God, who is now revealed in the Lord (Hofmann), but, in simple accord-
ance with ἐν Χριστῷ of ver. 15: to Christ. The conversion of Israel which
Paul has in view is, now that it is wholly relegated to the experience of the
future, the conversion as a whole, Rom. xi. 25. It was, however, obvious of
itself that what is affirmed finds its application to all individual cases which
had already occurred and were still to be expected. —repiaip. has the em-
phasis, both of its important position at the head of the clause (removed is the
veil) and of the future realized as present. The passive is all the more to be
retained, seeing that the subject of éxorp. is the heart ; the sense of self-lib-
eration (Hofmann) may not be imported on account of Ex. xxxiv. 34. The
conversion and deliverance of Israel is God’s work. See ver. 17 and Rom.
xi, 26 f. The compound corresponds to the conception of the veil covering
the heart round about. Comp. Plato, Polit. p. 288 E: δέρματα σωμάτων
περιαιροῦσα, Dem. 125, 20 : περιεῖλε τὰ τείχη, 802, 5 : περιῃρηται τοὺς στεφάνους,
Judith x. 8 : τὸν σάκκον, Bar. iv. 34, vi. 58 ; Acts xxvii. 40.
Ver. 17. Remark giving information regarding what is asserted in ver. 16.
— δέ, [the German] aber, appends not something of contrast, i.e. to Moses,
who is the letter (Hofmann), but a clause elucidating what was just said,
περίαιρ. τὸ κάλ... equivalent to namely. See Hermann, ad. Viger. p. 845 ;
Hartung, Partikell. I. Ὁ. 167. Riickert (comp. de Wette) is of a different
opinion, holding that there is here a continued chain of reasoning, so that
Paul in vv. 16, 17 means to say : ‘‘ When the people of Israel shall have
turned to the Lord, then will the κάλυμμα be taken from it ; and when this
shall have happened, it will also attain the freedom (from the yoke of the
law) which is at present wanting to it.” But, because in that case the
ἐλευθερία Would be a more important point than the taking away of the veil,
ver. 18 must have referred back not to the latter, but to the former. Seeing,
however, that ver. 18 refers back to the taking away of the veil, it is clear
that ver. 17 is only an accessory sentence, which is intended to remove every
doubt regarding the περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα." Besides, if Riickert were right,
Paul would have continued his discourse illogically ; the logical continuation
would have been, ver. 17 : οὗ δὲ περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα, TO πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐστίν"
οὗ δὲ τὸ TY. κυρ. K.T.A. — ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμα ἐστιν] ὁ κύριος 18 subject, not (as
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Estius, Schulz held,
partly in the interest of opposition to Arianism) predicate, which would be
possible in itself, but cannot be from the connection with ver. 16.* The
-ὦ Bengel aptly says: ‘‘Particula autem
ostendit, hoc versu declarari praeceden-
tem. Conversio fit ad Dominum ut spiri-
tum.”? Theodoret rightly furnishes the
definition of the δέ as making the transition
to an explanation by the intermediate ques-
tion : τίς δὲ οὗτος πρὸς ὃν Set ἀποβλέψαι ;
32 There is implied, namely, in ver. 17a
syllogism, of which the major premiss is:
οὗ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα Kupiov, ἐλευϑερία, ‘* where
the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty ;”
the minor premiss is: ‘“‘this Spirit he
who is converted to the Lord has, because
the Lord is the Spirit ;’? the conclusion :
“consequently that κάλυμμα can no longer
have a place with the converted but only
freedom.”’
3 For the most complete, historical and
critical conspectus of the many different
interpretations of this passage, see Krum-
mel, p. 58 ff.
478 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
words, however, cannot mean: Dominus significat Spiritum (Wetstein),
because previously the conversion to Christ, to the actual personal Christ,
was spoken of ; they can only mean : the Lord, however, is the Spirit, i.e. the
Lord, however, to whom the heart is converted (note the article) is not differ-
ent from the (Holy) Spirit, who is received, namely, in conversion, and (see
what follows) is the divine life-power that makes free. That this was meant
not of hypostatical identity, but according to the dynamical veconomie point
of view, that the fellowship of Christ, into which we enter through conver-
sion, is the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, was obvious of itself to the believy-
ing consciousness of the readers, and is also put beyond doubt by the follow-
ing τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου, And Christ is the Spirit in so far as at conversion, and
generally in the whole arrangements of salvation, He communicates Himself in
the Holy Spirit, and this Spirit is His Spirit, the living principle of the influ-
ence and indwelling of Christ, —certainly the living ground of life in the church,
and the spirit of its life(Hofmann), but as such just the Holy Spirit, in whom
the Lord reveals Himself as present and savingly active. The same thought
is contained in Rom. viii. 9-11, as is clear especially from vv. 10, 11, where
Χριστός and τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐγείραντος ᾿Ιησοῦν and πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ (ver. 9) appear
to be identical as the indwelling principle of the Christian being and life, so
that there must necessarily lie at the bottom of it the idea : Χριστὸς τὸ πνεῦμα
ἐστι. Comp. Gal. ii. 20, iv. 6, Phil. i. 19, Acts xx. 28, along with Eph. iv.
11. As respects His immanence, therefore, in His people, Christ is the Spirit.
Comp. also Krummel, 1.6. p. 97, who rightly remarks that, if Christ calls
Himself the light, the way, the truth, etc., all this is included in the propo-
sition : ‘‘the Lord is the Spirit.” Fritzsche, Dissert. I. p. 42, takes it :
Dominus est ita Sp. St. perfusus, ut totus quasi τὸ πνεῦμα sit. So also Riickert,
who nevertheless (following Erasmus and Beza) believes it necessary to ex-
plain the article before πνεῦμα by retrospective reference to vv. 6, 8.1 But
in that case the whole expression would be reduced to a mere quasi, with
which the further inference οὗ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου would not be logically in
accord ; besides, according to analogy of Scripture elsewhere, it cannot be
said of the eralted Christ (and yet it is He that is meant), ‘‘ Spiritu sancto
perfusus est,” or ““ Spiritu gaudet divine,” an expression which can only belong
to Christ in His earthly state (Luke i. 35 ; Mark i. 10; Acts i. 2, x. 38);
whereas the glorified Christ is the sender of the Spirit, the possessor and
disposer (comp. also Rev. iii. 1, iv. 5, v. 6), and therewith Lord of the Spirit,
ver. 18. The weakened interpretation: ‘‘ Christ , however, imparts the
Spirit” (Piscator, L. Cappellus, Scultetus, and others, including Emmer-
1 Quite erroneously, since no reader
could hit on this retrospective reference,
and also the following τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου is
said without any such reference. Paul, if
he wished to express himself so as to be
surely intelligible, could not do otherwise
than put the article ; for, if he had written ὁ
δὲ κύριος πνεῦμα ἐστι, he might have given
rise to quite another understanding than he
wished to express, namely: the Lord is
spirit, a spiritual being, as John iv. 94,
πνεῦμα ὃ @eds,—a possible misinterpretation,
which is rejected already by Chrysostom.
Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 45. We may add that τὸ
πνεῦμα is to be explained simply according
to hallowed usage of the Holy Spirit, not,
as Lipsius (Rechtfertigungsl. p. 167) unrea-
sonably presses the article, ‘‘ the whole full
πνεῦμα." So also Ernesti, Uspr. d. Stinde,
I. p. 222.
OMAR Tis De
ling and Flatt), is at variance with the words, and is not to be supported
by passages like John xiv. 6, since in these the predicates are not concretes
but abstracts. In keeping with the view and the expression in the present
passage are those Johannine passages.in which Christ promises the commu-
nication of the Spirit to the disciples as His own return (John xiv. 18, αἰ.).
Others have departed from the simple sense of the words ‘‘ Christ is the
Spirit,” either by importing into τὸ πνεῦμα another meaning than that of the
Holy Spirit, or by not taking ὁ κύριος to signify the personal Christ. The
former course is inadmissible, partly on account of the following οὗ δὲ τὸ
πνεῦμα κυρίου, partly because the absolute τὸ πνεῦμα admits of no other mean-
ing whatever than the habitual one ; the latter is made impossible by ver.
16. Among those adhering to the former view are Morus: ‘‘Quum Dom-
inum dico, intelligo illam divinitus datam religionis scientiam ;” Erasmus
and Calvin : ‘‘that τὸ πνεῦμα is the spirit ef the law, which only becomes
viva et vivifica, si a Christo inspiretur, whereby the spirit comes to the body ;”
also Olshausen: ‘‘the Lord now is just the Spirit, of which there was men-
tion above” (ver. 6) ; by this is to be understood the spiritual institute, the
economy of the Spirit ; Christ, namely, fills His church with Himself ; hence
it is itself Christ. Comp. Ewald, according to whom Christ is designated,
in contrast with the letter and compulsion of law, as the Spirit absolutely (just
as God is, John iv. 24). Similarly Neander. To this class belongs also the
interpretation of Baur, which, in spite of the article in τὸ πνεῦμα, amounts
to this, that Christ in His substantial existence is spirit, i.e. an immaterial
substance composed of light ;' comp. his neut. Theol. p. 187 f. See, on the
contrary, Riibiger, Christol. Paul. p. 36 f ; Krummel, 1.6. p. 79 ff. Among
the adherents of the second mode of interpretation are Vorstius, Mosheim,
Bolten : ‘‘6 κύριος is the doctrine of Jesus ;” also Billroth, who recognizes as
its meaning : ‘‘inthe kingdom of the Lord the Spirit rules ; the essence of
Christianity is the Spirit of the Lord, which He confers on His own.” For
many other erroneous interpretations (among which is included that of
Estius, Calovius, and others, who refer ὁ κύριος to God, and so explain the
words of the divinity of the Holy Spirit), see Pole and Wolf. — ἐλευθερία]
spiritual freedom in general, without special limitation.” To have a veil on
the heart (see ver. 15), and to be spiritually free, are opposite; hence the
statement περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα, Ver. 16, obtains elucidation by our ἐλευθερία.
The veil on the heart hinders the spiritual activity, and makes it fettered ;
where, therefore, there is freedom, the veil must be away ; but freedom
must have its seat, where the Spirit of the Lord is, which Spirit carries on and
governs all the thinking and willing, and removes all barriers external to its
sway. That Paul has regard (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Fritzsche)
to the conception that the veil is an outward sign of subjection (1 Cor. xi.
1 Weiss also, δὲδί. Theol. p. 308, explains it
to the effect, that Christ in His resurrection
received a pneumatic body composed of
light, and therefore became entirely πνεῦμα
(1 Cor. xv. 45). But the article is against
this also. Besides, the body of Christ in
His resurrection was not yet the body of
light, which it is in heaven (Phil. iii. 21).
2 Grotius understands it as libertas a vitiis ;
while Riickert, de Wette, and others, after
Chrysostom, make it the freedom from
the law of Moses. According to Erasmus,
Paraphr., it is free virtue and love.
480 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
10), is to be denied all the more, seeing that here what is spoken of is not a
covering of the head (which would be the sign of a foreign ἐξουσία), as 1 Cor.
L.e., but a veiling of the heart, ver. 15.
Ver. 18. The ἐλευθερία just mentioned is now further confirmed on an
appeal to experience as in triumph, by setting forth the (free, unrestricted)
relation of all Christians to the glory of Christ. The δέ is the simple μετα-
βατικόν, and forms the transition from the thing (ἐλευθερία) to the persons, in
whom the thing presents itself in definite form. For the freedom of him
who has the Spirit of the Lord forms the contents of ver. 18, and not sim-
ply the thought: ‘‘ we, however, bear this Spirit of the Lord in us.” ?
Flatt and Riickert are quite arbitrary in attaching it to ver. 14. — ἡμεῖς]
refers to the Christians in general, as the connection, the added πάντες, and
what is affirmed of ἡμεῖς, clearly prove. Erasmus, Cajetanus, Estius, Ben-
gel, Michaelis, Nésselt, Stolz, Rosenmiiller are wrong in thinking that it
refers merely to the apostles and teachers. -—- The emphasis is not on πάντες (in
«which Theodoret, Theophylact, Bengel find a contrast to the one Moses),
but on ἡμεῖς, in contrast to the Jews, ‘‘ qui fidei carent oculis,’”’ Erasmus, —
ἀνακεκαλ. προσώπῳ] with unveiled countenance ; for through our conversion to
Christ our formerly confined and fettered spiritual intuition (knowledge)
became free and unconfined, ver. 16. After vv. 15, 16 we should expect
ἀνακεκαλυμμένῃ καρδίᾳ, but Paul changes the figure, because he wishes here
to represent the persons not as hearing (as in ver. 15) but as seeing, and
therewith his conception has manifestly returned to the history of Moses,
who appeared before God with the veil removed, Ex. xxxiv. 34. Next to
the subject ἡμεῖς, moreover, the emphasis lies on ἀνακεκαλ. προσώπῳ : ‘* But
we all, with unveiled countenance beholding the glory of the Lord in the mir-
ror, become transformed to the same glory.” For if the beholding of the
glory presented in the mirror should take place with covered face, the re-
flection of this glory (‘‘speculi autem est lumen repercutere,” Emmerling)
could not operate on the beholders to render them glorious, as, indeed, also
in the case of Moses it was the wnveiled countenance that received the radia-
tion of the divine glory. — τὴν δόξαν κυρίου] said quite without limit of the
whole glory of the exalted Christ.2 It is the divine, in so far as Christ is
the bearer and reflection of the divine glory (Col. i. 15, ii. 9; John xvii.
5 ; Heb. i. 3) ; but κυρίου does not (in opposition to Calvin and Estius) apply
to God, on account of vv. 16, 17. — κατοπτριζόμενοι] beholding in the mirror.
For we beheld the glory of Christ in the mirror, inasmuch as we see not
immediately its objective reality, which will only be the case in the future
1So Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. kingly office. Usually τ. δόξαν κυρ. is taken
124 f. as including in its reference the state of
2 They see Him therefore as the σύνϑρονος humiliation (see especially Calovius, de
of the Father (Acts viii. 56), as the head of Wette, Osiander), the moral elevation, the
the church, as the possessor and bestower
of the whole divine fulness of grace, as the
future judge of the world, as the con-
queror of all hostile powers, as the inter-
cessor for His own, in short, as the wearer
of the whole majesty which belongs to His
grace and truth (John i. 14), the lifting up
on the cross, ete, This, however, is con-
trary to the parallel with the history of
Moses, who saw the supernatural glory of
God that might not otherwise be beheld.
Grotius indicates the right view.
e@Ghén? 4.0 ollie
CHAPS TIT; 15. 481
kingdom of God (John xvii. 24; 1 John iii. 2 ; Col. iii. 3 f. ; Rom. viii.
17 f.), but only its representation in the gospel ; for the gospel is τὸ εὐαγγ. τῆς
δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ, iv. 4, consequently, as it were, the mirror, in which the
glory of Christ gives itself to be seen and shines in its very image to the eye
of faith ; hence the believing heart (Osiander), which is rather the organ of
beholding, cannot be conceived as the mirror. Hunnius aptly remarks that
Paul is saying, ‘‘nos non ad modum Judaeorum caecutire, sed retecta facie
gloriam Domini in evangelii speculo relucentem intueri.” Comp. 1 Cor. xiii.
12, where likewise the gospel is conceived of as a mirror, as respects,
however, the still imperfect vision which it brings about. κατοπτρίζω
in the active means to mirror, i.e. to show in the mirror (Plut. Mor. p. 894
D) ; but in the middle it means among the Greeks to look into, to behold
oneself in a mirror. To this head belong Athen. xv. p. 687 C, and all the
passages in Wetstein, also Artemidorus, ii. 7, which passage is erroneously
adduced by Wolf and others for the meaning : ‘‘to see in the mirror.” But
this latter signification, which is that occurring in the passage now before
us, is unquestionably found in Philo (Loesner, Obss. p. 304). See especially
Alleg. p. 79 Ἐ : μηδὲ κατοπτρισαίμην ἐν ἄλλῳ τινὶ τὴν σὴν ἰδέαν ἢ ἐν σοὶ TE θεῷ.
Pelagius (‘‘contemplamur”), Grotius,’ Rickert, and others quite give up
the conception of a mirror, and retain only the notion of beholding ; but this
is mere caprice, which quite overlooks as well the correct position of the
case to which the word aptly corresponds, as also the reference which the
following εἰκόνα has to the conception of the mirror. Chrysostom and his
successors, Luther, Calovius, Bengel, and others, including Billroth and
Olshausen, think that κατοπτρίζεσθαι means to reflect, to beam back the lustre,
so that, in parallel with Moses, the glory of Christ is beaming ; ἡ καθαρὰ
καρδία τῆς θείας δόξης οἷόν τι ἐκμαγεῖον καὶ κάτοπτρον γίνεται, Theodoret. (5)
Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr., and Luther’s gloss: ‘‘as the mirror catches an
image, so our heart catches the knowledge of Christ.” But at variance
with the usage of the language, for the middle never has this meaning ; and
at variance with the context, for ἀνακεκαλ. προσώπῳ must, according to vv.
14-17, refer to the conception of free and unhindered seeing. —riv αὐτὴν
εἰκόνα μεταμορφ.} we become transformed to the same image, i.e. become so
transformed that the same image which we see in the mirror—the image of
the glory of Christ—presents itself on us, 7.6. as regards the substantial
meaning : we are so transformed that we become like to the glorified Christ.
Now, seeing that this transformation appears as caused by and contempo-
raneous with avaxex. προσ. τ. δόξ. k. κατοπτρ., consequently not as a future
sudden act (like the transfiguration at the Parousia, 1 Cor. xv. 51 f. ; comp.
Phil. iii. 21), but as something at present in the course of development, it
can only be the spiritual transformation to the very likeness of the glorified
Christ? that is meant (comp. 2 Pet. i. 4; Gal. iv. 19, ii, 20), and not the
1 “kxatomtp.c., ὃ.6. attente spectantes, quo-
modo et Latini dicunt speculari, nimirum
quia qui speculum consulunt omnia singu-
latim intuentur. Sic Christiani attente
meditantur, quanta sit Christi in coelis reg-
nantis gloria.”
2 Comp. Calovius: ‘‘Tla autem μεταμόρ-
φωσις neutiquam essentialis est, ut fanatici
volunt, quum in substantiam Christi trans-
formari nequeamus, sed mystica et spir-
482 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
future δόξα (Grotius, Fritzsche, Olshausen would have it included).
Against this latter may be urged also the subsequent καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύ-
ματος, Which has its reference precisely to the spiritual transformation, that
takes place in the present αἰών, and the sequel of which is the future
Messianic glory to which we are called (1 Thess. ii. 12 ; Rom. viii. 30) ; so
that the present spiritual process, the καινότης ζωῆς (Rom. vi. 4) and
πνεύματος (Rom. vii. 6)—the spiritual being risen with and living with
Christ (Rom. vi. 5 ff.)—experiences at the Parousia also the corresponding
outward συνδοξασθῆναι with Christ, and is thus completed, Col. 111. 4. — τὴν
αὐτὴν εἰκόνα] is not to be explained either by supplying κατά or εἰς, or by
quoting the analogy of παρακαλεῖσθαι παράκλησιν and the like (Hofmann),
but the construction of μεταμορφοῦν with the accusative is formed quite like
the commonly occurring combination of μεταβάλλειν with the accusative in
the sense : to assume a shape through alteration or transmutation undergone.
See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 424 C. The passive turn given to it, in
which the accusative remains unaltered (Kriiger, ὃ lii. 4. 6; Buttmann,
neut. Gr. p. 164 [E. T. 190]), yields therefore the sense : we are 80 trans-
formed, that we get thereby the same image. — ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν] 1.6. 80 that
this transformation issues from glory (viz. from the glory ef Christ beheld in
the mirror and reflected on us), and has glory as its result (namely, our glory,
see above). Comp. ii. 16, also Rom. i. 17. So in the main the Greek
Fathers (yet referring ἀπὸ δόξης, according to their view of ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύ-
ματος, to the glory of the Holy Spirit), Vatablus, Bengel, Fritzsche, Billroth,
and others, also Hofmann. But most expositors (including Flatt, Riickert,
Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald) explain it of ascending to ever higher
(and at length highest, 1 Cor. xv. 51 ff.) glory. Comp. ἐκ δυνάμεως εἰς δύναμιν,
Ps. Ixxxiv. 7, also Jer. ix. 2. In this way, however, the correlation of this
ἀπό with the following (ἀπὸ κυρ. wv.) is neglected, although for ἀπὸ...
εἰς expressions like ἀπὸ θαλάσσης εἰς θάλασσαν (Xen. Hell. i. 3 4) might be
compared. — καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος] so as from the Lord of the Spirit,
people, namely, are transformed, μεταμόρφωσις γίνεται. In this there lies a
confirmation of the asserted τῇ αὐτὴν. . . δόξαν. Erasmus rightly observes :
«ἐ ὡς hie non sonat similitudinem sed congruentiam.” Comp. ii. 17 ; John
i. 14, al. Lord of the Spirit (κ΄) (the words are rightly so connected by
‘“neoterici quidam” in Estius, Emmerling, Vater, Fritzsche, Billroth,
Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Osiander, Kling, Krummel ; comp. however,
also at an earlier date, Erasmus, Anmnot.) is Christ, in so far as the operation
of the Holy Spirit depends on Christ ; for the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of
Christ (ver. 17; Rom. viii. 9 f. ; Gal. iv. 6), in so far as Christ Himself
rules through the Spirit in the hearts (Rom, viii. 10; Gal. ii. 20; Eph. iii. 16 f.);
the sending of the Spirit,’ is brought about through Christ (Tit. iii. 6), ἡ
itualis ... quum ejusdem et justitiae per 6. According to John (xv. 26, xvi. 7), Christ
fidem, et gloriae per gratiosam communi- also sends the Spirit, though not indepen-
cationem adeoque et divinae ejus naturae dently, but in the way of interceding with
participes reddimur.”’ the Father (xiv. 16); comp. also Acts ii. 23.
1 The sender himself is, according to Paul, Hence there is no contradiction between
not Christ, but God, 1 Cor. ii. 12, vi. 19; 2 Paul and John.
Cor. i. 22; Gal. iv. 6; 1 Thess. iv. 8; Tit. iii.
NOTES. 483
and by His operations service is done to Christ (1 Cor. xii. 5). Here, too,
the relation of subordination in the divine Trinity is most distinctly expressed.*
Why, however, is Christ here named κύριος πνεύματος ? Because that spir-
itual metamorphosis, which proceeds from Christ, cannot take place
otherwise than by the influence of the Holy Spirit on us. The explana-
tions : a Domini spiritu® and a Domino spiritu, i.e. a Domino qui est spir-
itus* agree, indeed, with the doctrine of the Trinity as formulated by the
church, but deviate without reason or warrant from the normal order of
the words (comp. ver. 17, and see Buttmann, newt. Gramm. p. 295 [E. T.
343]), in particular, from the genitive-relation which quite obviously sug-
gests itself. Riickert hesitatingly allows a choice between the two erro-
neous views.
Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR.
Ver. 2.
‘‘Anything of which a man is certain, or of which he has a conviction
founded upon his inward experience, may be said to be written on his heart.
That the Corinthians were his epistle was to the Apostle ἃ matter of conscious-
ness. It was a letter which he could neither misunderstand nor be ignorant
of” (Hodge).
(B*) ““ Written in our hearts.”’
Ver. 4.
Not trust, as in the A. V., but confidence, and such as did not quail even under
the eye of God. That it was as humble as it was strong, that it was in no
sense self-confidence, is shown by the verses that follow.
(ct) ‘* Such confidence.”
Ver. 6.
The adjective here employed (kainos) has more than a temporal force like
neos. The sense is, not an old and worn-out covenant, but one qualitatively
different from all that had gone before, instinct with youth and energy ; nota
written word, but a living spirit.
The letter (the law) kills, (1) by demanding perfect obedience, which no man
can render ; (2) by producing the knowledge of sin and guilt, and so of just
exposure to God's wrath ; (3) by exasperating the soul in holding forth to it
the high standard of duty which it has no power or inclination to obey. The
Spirit (the gospel), on the other hand, gives life, (1) by revealing a perfect and
gratuitous righteousness ; (2) by revealing God’s love and awakening hope in-
(p‘) ** A new covenant.”’
1 The qualitative interpretation of the
genitive, like πατὴρ οἰκτιρμ, i. 8 (de Wette,
‘“ whose whole character or whole efficacy
is spirit’), is inadmissible, because πνεῦμα,
in accordance with the context, must be
the Holy Spirit as respects the notion of
subsistence (the person of the Spirit).
2 Syriac, Vulgate, Augustine, Theophy-
lact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin,
Grotius, Bengel, and others, including
Schrader and Hofmann.
3 Chrysostom: ὅρα πῶς καὶ ἐνταῦϑα τὸ
πνεῦμα κύριον καλεῖ Theodoret, Valla, Luther,
Beza, Calovius, Wolf, Estius, and several
others, including Flatt and Neander.
Comp. also Rich. Schmidt, Pawl. Christol.
p. 125, according to whom Christ is here
designated as κύριος πνεῦμα. But he is pre-
cisely not so designated, but as κύριος mve v-
ματος.
484 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
stead of fear ; (3) by transforming the soul through the Holy Ghost, so that it
reflects the image of God.
(Ε΄) ‘‘ Shall be with glory.’”’ Ver. 8.
Meyer's reference here to the Parousia is wholly uncalled for. The manifest
comparison is between the outward brightness of the temporary old dispensa-
tion and the transcendent inward splendour of the new and lasting economy.
What was a bright cloud overhanging the cherubim to the light of God’s
presence filling the soul?”’—The same remark may be made in reference to
what the author says on ver. 12. There is nothing in the words themselves
or the connection to lead one to think that the Apostle looks forward to the
Parousia. On the contrary, the reference is to the present superiority of the
gospel and its ministry to the law and the ministry of Moses.
(Ὁ The reason of Moses’s veil. Ver 13 (note).
It is not necessary to call Paul’s statement of the reason of Moses’s veiling
his face a deviation from the account in Exodus. It is simply an addition,
and there is no inconsistency in the two accounts. The veiling had both
effects. It calmed the fears of the people, and it prevented their seeing how
fleeting the brightness was,
(a4) Rabbinic-allegorical exposition.. Ver. 13 (note).
There is no necessity of assuming that the Apostle was indebted for his lan-
guage to any such method of interpretation. The words of Exodus xxxiv. 33
are incorrectly rendered in the Authorized Version by inserting till. The true
version as given in the LXX. is, ‘‘And when he had made an end of speaking
with them, he put a veil on his face.’’ The face of Moses was unveiled when
he came fresh from the presence of Jehovah, and veiled only after he had de-
livered God’s commands and the people had seen the glory. Paul declares
that one object of this was that the people might not see the end (termination),
the fading away, of this glory. Who has any right to say that this was not
actually the fact? As Prof. C. A. Briggs says (Presb. Review, 1. 566), ‘The
face of Moses needed a new illumination from the Theophany every time he
addressed the people from Jehovah. But the face of Christ needed no new il-
lumination—the glory abode therein forever. The face of Moses was veiled
that he might not be humiliated and the people might not be discouraged or
rendered irreverent by seeing the glory gradually becoming fainter and fainter
till it disappeared.”’
(a*) ‘* That it is done away in Christ.” Ver. 14.
Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort read ὅτι, which Kling, Hodge, and Waite
render because ; but Conybeare, Alford, Stanley, Beet, Plumptre, and Principal
Brown, that, viz. ‘‘ it not being revealed that,’’ etc., as Meyer and the margin
of the Revised Version. As a veil covered Moses’s face, hiding from Israel
the fact that its glory was fading, so the open page of the Old Covenant, even
while being read, was veiled, since it was not yet made known to the conscious.
ness of these readers that that covenant (not of course as a rule of life, for in
NOTES. _ 485
that sense it is established by the Gospel, Matt. v. 17, but as a basis of ap-
proach to God and acceptance with Him) is done away. In other words, the
book was veiled.
(1*) ““Α veil lieth upon their heart.’ Ver, 15.
The metaphor is changed while the word is kept, in order to show that the
real hindrance is not in the book, but in the hearts of the readers.
(34) ** Reflecting as a mirror.” Ver. 18.
This sense is adopted in the text of the Revised Version, but in the margin
(which is preferred by the American Committee) the better rendering of
A. V., Kling, Hodge, Waite, Beet, and Plumptre is given—beholding as in a mirror.
Stanley’s argument to the contrary, though able, is not convincing.
(K*) “© The Lord of the Spirit.’ Ver. 18.
This rendering, although linguistically possible, is incongruous with New
Testament usage, and therefore not to be adopted without necessity. Whereas,
to translate ‘‘the Lord (who is) the Spirit” (Kling, Stanley, Brown, Plump-
tre) gives the usual sense of two nouns thus placed (Rom. i. 7; Gal, i. 1, 3,
etc.), and is in strict consistency with the immediate context. See ver. 17.
There the Apostle had said, ‘‘ The Lord is the Spirit,”” and here, he says, the
transforming power by which we are made like Christ flows from ‘the Lord
who is the Spirit.” Hodge explains the phrase as meaning the Lord who is
one with the Spirit, the same in substance, equal in power and glory ; who is
where the Spirit is, and does what the Spirit does.
486 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 4. αὐγάσαι] A, 10, 17, 23, 31, and several Fathers have dvavydca ; C Ὁ E,
73, Or. (once) Eus, al. have καταυγάσαι. So Lachm. on the margin. Two more
precise definitions to accord with the context. The αὐτοῖς that follows (in Elz.)
has decisive evidence against it, and is an addition. — Ver. 6. λάμψαι Lachm.
reads λάμψει, following A B D* 8* 67** Aeth. But the evidence of almost all
the Versions and all the Fathers is against it ; and how easily Adupe: might
occur to the copyists through remembrance of the direct address in Gen.
i, 3!—The omission of the following ὅς (D* F G 36, It. Chrys. and several
Fathers), as well as the weakly-supported readings ὡς, οὗτος, and ipse, are cor-
rections arising from not understanding the sense. — τοῦ θεοῦ] Lachm. reads
αὐτοῦ, On no preponderating evidence. A change for the sake of the style ; for
if it had been αὐτοῦ originally, there would have been no uncertainty whatever
about the reference, and so no reason for glossing it by τοῦ θεοῦ. --- ᾽Ιησοῦ] is
to be deleted, according to A B 17, Or. (once) al., with Lachm. Tisch. and
Riick. — Ver. 10. τοῦ Ἰησοῦ] Elz. has τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ, against decisive testi-
mony. — Ver. 12. ὁ Oav.] Elz. has ὁ μὲν θάν., against decisive testimony. — Ver.
14. διὰ ’Inoot] Lachm. Tisch. Riick. and also Reiche (Comm. crit. I. p. 351 f.)
have σὺν ᾿Ιησοῦ, following BC DEF α &* 6,17, 31, Copt. Slav. Vulg. It. Tert.
Ambros. Pel. Rightly ; the σὺν ’Incov appeared unsuitable in point of time to
the resurrection of the dead. — Ver. 16. ὁ ἔσωθεν] Lachm. and Riick. read 6 tow
ἡμῶν, following preponderating evidence, indeed ; but it is evidently a change
in accordance with what goes before. — Ver. 17. After παραυτίκα, D* E F G 31,
Syr. Arr. Arm. Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers have πρόσκαιρον καί. A gloss, which
has crept in, of rupavrixa. Comp. Theodoret : διὰ τοῦ παραυτίκα ἔδειξε τὸ βραχύ
TE καὶ πρόσκαιρον.
Remarx.—In the Codex Alexandrinus all from iv. 18, ἐπίστευσα, xxii. 6
inclusive, is wanting through mutilation.
ConTENTS.—Continuation of the theme begun in iii. 12 f. (vv. 1-6);
relation of the external state, so full of suffering, to the glory of the office
(vv. 7-18).
Ver. 1. Διὰ τοῦτο] Paul now reverts, it is true, to what had been begun in
ili. 12 f., but had, owing to the comparison with Moses and the discussion
thence arising about the hardening of the Jews and the freedom contrasted
with it (iii. 14-18), remained without further elucidation, but reverts in
such a way that he attaches it to what immediately precedes by διὰ τοῦτο.
Therefore, since the Christians are so highly privileged as was specified in
111. 17, 18, we become, in the possession of the office, which ministers to this
Christian freedom and glorification. . . not dejected. — καθὼς ἠλεήθ.] a modal
definition, full of humility (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 10, vii. 25), to ἔχοντες τ. διακ.
ταύτ. : ‘Shaving this ministry in accordance with the (divine) mercy imparted
OHAP. ΤΥ., 2. 487
to us.” The important practical bearing of this addition is aptly indicated
by Bengel : ‘‘ Misericordia Dei, per quam ministerium accipitur, facit stren-
uos et sinceros.”’ —ov« ἐκκακοῦμεν] Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Westcott and
Hort], and Riickert, following A B D* FG δὰ, read ἐγκακοῦμεν (comp. ver.
16 ; Luke xviii. 1 ; Gal. vi. 9; Eph. iii. 18; 2 Thess. iii. 13). But this
appears to be a correction, since only ἐγκακεῖν, and not ἐκκακεῖν (which is
here the reading of C D*** E K L), occurs for certain out of the N. T. and
the Fathers and ancient lexicographers. Polyb. iv. 19. 10 ; Theodotion,
Prov. iii. 11, Symmachus, Gen. xxvii. 46; Num. xxi. 5; Isa. vii. 16.
Comp. ἐγκάκησις, Symmachus, Ps. cxix. 148. Probably ἐκκακεῖν was at that
time only in oral use, and came first through Paul and Luke into the lan-
guage of ecclesiastical writings. It means, however, to become cowardly, to
lose courage. UHesychius, ἠδημόνησεν᾽ ἐξεκάκησεν ; Suidas, ἐξεκάκησα᾽ ἀπηγό-
pevoa. The contrast in ver. 2 is not adverse to this signification ; for the
becoming dejected through any kind of difficulties (with Pelagius, Theo-
doret, Oecumenius, Beza, and others, to think only of sufferings is arbitra-
ry) leads easily to κρυπτὰ τῆς αἰσχύνης, while bold, brave, unweakened cour-
age disdains such things. Comp. the demeanour of Luther. Hence Riickert
is mistaken in holding that, for the sake of the contrast, we must assume
the general signification : to abandon oneself to badness, a signification which
cannot elsewhere be made good for éyxax. or for éxxax. (in Polybius, iv. 19.
10, ἐνεκάκησαν means, ‘‘ they were lazy’). Chrysostom is in substance cor-
rect : ov καταπίπτομεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ χαίρομεν Kai παῤῥησιαζόμεθα. The opposite is
the preservation of the holy ἀνδρία (1 Cor. xvi. 13).
Ver. 2. Contrast to οὐκ ἐκκακοῦμεν in reference to antagonistic teachers. —
ἀπειπάμεθα] we have renounced, we have put away from us. Comp. Homer, 17.
xix. 35, 75 ; Plato, Legg. xi. p. 928 Ὁ ; Polyb. xiv. 9.6 ; and inthe middle,
in this sense, Herod. i. 205, iv. 120, vii. 14 ; often in Polyb. ; also Callim.
Hymn. in Dian. 174: ἀπὸ δ᾽ εἴπατο τέθμια Ταύρων, Aelian, H. N. vi. 1: τὴν
ἀκόλαστον κοίτην ἀπείπατο παντελῶς πᾶσαν. Regarding the aorist middle, ἀπει-
πάμην, see Thomas Μ. p. 57; Moeris, p. 39 ; Kiihner, I. p. 817, ed. 2. —ra
κρυπτὰ τῆς αἰσχύνης] as in 1 Cor. iv. 5, τὰ Kp. τοῦ σκότους, the hidden things of
shame, i.e. what shame (the sense of honour, verecundia) hides,’ does not allow
to come to the light. This is to be left quite general : ‘‘ All that one, because
he is ashamed of it, does not permit to become manifest,” but, on the contrary,
κρυφῇ καλύπτει καρδίᾳ (Soph. Antig. 1239) ; ἃ κρύπτειν δεῖ καὶ συσκιάζειν αἰσχυ-
νομένους καὶ ἐρυθριῶντας, Chrysostom. All special limitations, such as to secret
plans and intrigues (Beza, Grotius, and others, including Emmerling and
Billroth), or to the disfiguring (Calvin) or hiding (de Wette) of the truth, or to
secret fear of men (Ewald), or to hidden, disgraceful arts of jfleshly wisdom
(Neander), or to secret means and ways to which the preacher of Chris-
1 αἰσχύνη in the subjective sense (Plato, Def. iii. 19 (‘‘ which brings disgrace,”’ de Wette ;
Pp. 416: φόβος ἐπὶ προσδοκίᾳ ἀδοξίας). See, Osiander, ‘‘shameful secrecy’’), would
especially, Ecclus. iv. 21, xx. 20f., xli. 16. make it necessary to import the thought :
Comp. Dem. 48, 6: τοῖς ἐλευϑέροις μεγίστην “if it becomes manifest.” Zeger: “quae
ἀνάγκην εἶναι τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν πραγμάτων αἰσχύνην. manifestata probro sunt perpetranti.”
The objective interpretation, disgrace, Phil. ᾿
488 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
tianity, who is ashamed of Christianity, has recourse (Hofmann), or even to
circumeision (Theodoret), or to promises not made good (Chrysostom), or to a
hypocritical habit (Theophylact), or even to obscoenas voluptates (Estrus, Krebs),
are without warrant ; for Paul proceeds from the general to the par-
τ ticular, so that it is only in what follows, when referring more pointedly to
his opponents, that he adduces particular forms of the κρυπτὰ τῆς αἰσχύνης. ----
μὴ περιπ. k.7.2.] 80 that we walk not, etc. The apostle means his demeanour
in the ministry. — δολοῦντες τ. λόγον τ. θεοῦ) adulterating the word of God.
Lucian, Herm. 59 ; LXX. Ps. xv. 8. It is done by alterations and foreign
admixtures. Comp. ii. 17, i. 12. — τῇ φανερώσει τῆς ἀληθ.] through the mani-
Sestation of the truth (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 7), 1.6. by making the truth contained
in the gospel (the truth κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν) public, or, in other words, a clearly pre-
sented object of knowledge. The contrast gives a special occasion here for
designating the contents of the gospel by ἡ ἀλήθεια. On the subject-matter,
comp. Rom. i. 16. — συνειστώντες ἑαυτούς] The emphasis of the contrast lay in
τῇ φανερ. τ. ad. 5 but, on the contrary, through nothing else than through the
proclamation of the truth commending ourselves. But even in this ‘‘ commend-
ing ourselves” there clearly lies a contrasting reference to the antagonistic
teachers, who accused the apostle of self-praise (iii. 1), but on their part not
merely by letters of recommendation, but even by intrigues (ἐν πανουργίᾳ, xi.
8, xii. 16; Eph. iv. 14; Luke xx. 23) and by adulteration of the gospel
(δολοῦντες τὸν 26y. τ. θεοῦ) Sought to make themselves honoured and beloved
among others. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 3, 4. Overlooking this, Riickert recom-
mends for συνίστ. the general meaning of laying down, setting forth, proving
(Rom, v. 8). --- πρὸς πᾶσαν ovveid. ἀνθρώπ. πρός used of the ethical direction.
The essential meaning is, indeed, not different from πρὸς τὴν συνείδησιν πάντων
τῶν ἀνθρώπων (for which it is often taken, even by Riickert), but it is other-
᾿ wise conceived, namely : ‘‘ to every human conscience.” Comp. Rom. ii. 9.
Note how Paul here ascribes to every man the capacity of moral judgment,
and thus also the knowledge of the moral law as the propositio major of the
inference of conscience. If now, however, refractory minds, through per-
verted moral judgment or moral stubbornness, were unwilling to recognize
this de facto self-recommendation made uniformly and without προσωποληψία,
the matter remained the same on the part of the apostle ; hence it is not, with
Grotius, to be explained only of the ‘‘ bonae conscientiae,” against the mean-
ing of the words. — évér. τοῦ θεοῦ) applies to συνιστῶντες . . . ἀνθρώπων ; 80
that this our self-recommendation is made in God’s presence. This denotes
the highest sincerity and honesty in the subjectivity of the person acting,
who knows that God (τὸν τοῦ συνειδότος ἐπόπτην, Theodoret) is present as eye-
witness. Comp. ii. 17, vii. 12 ; Gal. i. 20.
Ver. 3. Against the assertion just made, ἀλλὰ τῇ φανερώσει τῆς ἀληθείας.
θεοῦ, it might be objected : ‘‘and yet your gospel is κεκαλυμμένον | is by so
many not at all known as the ἀλήθεια 5 Wherefore Paul continues, ‘‘ even
if that were the case, still it is so only with regard to the ἀπολλύμενοι Whom
the devil has blinded, and hence cannot be urged against the former asser-
tion.” — εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔστι κεκαλ.} In this admission the placing of ἔστε before
κεκαλ. Conveys the meaning : but if even it is the case that, ete. The figura-
CHAP. 1V., 4. 489
tive κεκαλ. was suggested by the still fresh remembrance of iii. 14. --- τὸ εὐαγγ.
ἡμῶν] the gospel preached by us, the Pauline gospel. —év τοῖς ἀπολλυμ.} 1.6.
among those who (for certain) incur the eternal ἀπώλεια. See on ii. 15 ; 1
Cor. i. 18. évis not nota dativi (Flatt), nor yet quod attinet ad (Bengel),
but inter, in their circle. Riickert takes it : in their hearts, on account of 111.
15. So also Osiander. But against the analogy of ii. 15 ; besides, accord-
ing to iii. 15, it is the heart of the ἀπολλύμενοι, and not the gospel, which
must be represented as the veiled subject. It has not at all reached the
hearts of the persons concerned. (1*)
Ver. 4. A statement to establish the ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμ. ἐστι κεκαλ., so that ἐν
οἷς is equivalent to ὅτε ἐν τούτοις (Comp. On ill. 6): in whom the devil has made
blind, i.e. incapable of the perception of the truth, the thoughts of the un-
believing (νοήματα, as in 111. 14).’ It is his work to make the unbelieving
blind, as respects the bringing forward their power of thought to confront
the light of the gospel ; and this his characteristic ἔργον he has carried out
in the ἀπολλύμενοι ; In their souls he has succeeded in his devilish work of
blinding the thoughts of the unbelieving. Observe, accordingly, that the
conception of the ἀπολλύμενοι is a narrower one than that of the ἄπιστοι. Not
with all ἄπιστοι does the devil gain in presence of the preaching of the gospel
his object of blinding them and making them ἀπολλύμενοι ; Many sO com-
port themselves towards this preaching that they become believing and
σωζόμενοι (1 Cor. xiv. 24 f.; Acts xiii. 48, ii. 40, 47; Matt. xiii. 8, 23). (ar‘)
Hence τῶν ἀπίστων is neither aimless (the objection of Hofmann), nor is it,
with Riickert, to be referred to a negligence of expression, so that Paul would,
in order to round off the sentence and to make his opinion quite clearly
prominent, that the ἀπολλύμενοι are the ἄπιστοι, have appended the apposi-
tional clause ungrammatically and tautologically. Fritzsche, whom Billroth
follows, takes τῶν azior. proleptically : ‘‘ hoe effectu ut nullam haberent fidem.”
But the proleptic use of adjectives (see on 1 Cor. i. 8) is nowhere found
with the genitive of an adjective used substantively ; it must have run
ἐτύφλωσε τὰ νοήματα arora. Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 13 ; Phil. iii. 21. Quite arbi-
trarily, most of the older expositors (also Grotius, Wolf, Emmerling, Flatt)
explain it in such a way that τῶν ἀπίστων fills the place of an apposition to
ἐν otc. Inthat case it must have run : ἐν τοῖς ἀπίστοις (see, especially, Borne-
mann, Schol. in Luc. p. 173). According to Ewald, Paul has inserted the
addition τῶν ἀπίστ., as if he meant thereby merely to say: ‘‘the Gentile
thoughts,” because the Jews regarded the Gentiles only as the unbelievers.
But such a reference would have needed all the more a precise indication,
as the reader had to find in τοῖς ἀπολλυμ. Gentiles and Jews, consequently in
τῶν axior. no special reference to the Gentile character. According to Hof-
mann, ἐν οἷς is intended to be the domain within which, etc., and this do-
1Comp. Homer, Od. xx. 346: μνηστῆρσι
δὲ Παλλὰς ᾿Αϑήνη. . . παρέπλαγξε νόημα,
view, it appears as defectus fidei and the
devil steps in with his blinding, and makes
Pind. Οἱ. vii. 133, xii. 13; Plat. Phaed. p. 96
C; Lucian, Migr. 4.
2 According to Fritzsche, the unbelief ap-
pears as effect of the blinding, consequently
as a refusal of belief, as ἀπείϑειαν IW our
out of the ἄπιστοι the υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειϑείας
(Eph. v.6; Col. iii. 6). As regards the con-
tents of the thought, therefore, the two
views are not contradictory.
490 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
main is in view of the preaching of the apostle the Gentile one, in which
there has taken place that which this relative clause asserts of the unbeliev-
ing. To this the context is opposed, which gives no justification whatever
for limiting the ἀπολλύμενοι to the sphere of the Gentile world ; they form, in
general, a contrast to the σωζόμενοι, as also at ii. 15, 1. 18, and to the ἡμεῖς
πάντες, iii. 18, who are just the σωζόμενοι. Finally, it is to be observed as a
mere historical point, that Irenaeus (Haer. iv. 48), Origen, Tertullian (contra
Mare. iv. 11), Chrysostom, Augustine (6. advers. leg. ii. 7. 8), Oecumenius,
Theodoret, Theophylact (also Knatchbull), with a view to oppose the dual-
ism of the Marcionites and Manichaeans, joined τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου with τῶν
ἀπίστων (infidelium hujus saeculi). —6 θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτ.] the God of this
(running on till the Parousia) period. On the subject-matter, comp. John
viii. 44, xii. 31, xiv. 30; Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12; 2 Thess. ii. 9f. The devil, as
ruling principle, is called god. Comp. Phil. iii. 19. Among the Rabbins,
also, it is said : ‘‘ Deus primus est Deus verus, sed Deus secundus est Samael,”
Jalkut Rubeni, f. 10. 4, ad Gen. i. 27. Comp. the passages in Eisenmenger,
Intdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 827, where he is called the strange god and the other
god. There is not something ironical in the expression here (Olshausen), for
that would be quite alien to the connection ; on the contrary, with the ut-
most earnestness the great anti-Christian power of the devil is intended to
be made palpably evident. Comp. Bengel. (Ν5) - εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι κ.τ.λ.}
Purpose of the devil: in order that the illumination should not shine, ete.
For that which illumines does not shine for the blinded.’ Hence it is quite
unnecessary to explain αὐγάσαι, to see, or to have an eye upon (Luther, Grotius,
Emmerling, Riickert, Ewald, Hofmann), which signification (more exactly,
to direct the light of the eyes to anything) undoubtedly occurs in Greek poets
(Soph. Phil. 217 ; Eur. Rhes. 793 ; more frequently in the middle, as Z/iad,
xxii. 458 ; Elmsley, ad Bacch. 596 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VIII. p. 338), but is
foreign even tothe LXX. (Lev. xiii. 25f., 28, 39, xiv. 56). Besides, the simple
αὐγάζειν does not occur in the classic writers with the neuter meaning fulgere
(though the compounds καταυγάζειν and διαυγάζειν, which are the readings of
several uncials, do so occur), but only in the active sense : irradiate, illumine,
as e.g. Eur. Hee, 637. — φωτισμός] illwmining, is found in Sextus Empiricus, 522.
9; Plut. Mor. 920 D; more often in the LXX., in Aquila, Theodotion, and
Symmachus. Without figure, the meaning is : in order that the enlightening
truth of the gospel might not be known and appropriated by them. — rjc δόξης
τοῦ Χριστοῦ) The glory of the exalted Christ (comp. iii. 18) is here denoted as
the contents of the Messianic preaching ; elsewhere (1 Cor. i. 18) it is the
word of the cross. Both meanings are used according to the requirement
of the context, and both rightly (Rom. iv. 25, v. 10, al.); for the δόξα is the
consequence of the death of the cross, by which it was conditioned (Phil. ii. 6
ff.; Rom. viii. 34, al. ; Luke xxiv. 26 ; often in John), and it conditions the
future completion of the work of the cross (Phil. ii. 10 f.; Rom. viii. 34 ; Heb.
vii. 25; 1 Cor. xv.; Col. iii. 3 f.). — ὃς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τ. ϑεοῦ] for Christ in the state
1 Hofmann very wrongly, since he him- words, objects that this explanation would
self recognizes the lofty poetic turn of the require the (not genuine) αὐτοῖς.
CHAP. IV.5 ὃ. 491
of His exaltation * is again, as He was before His incarnation (comp. John xvii.
5), fully ἐν μορφῇ ϑεοῦ and ica ϑεῷ (Phil. ii. 6), hence in His glorified cor-
poreality (Phil. iii. 21) the visible image of the invisible God. See on Col.
i. 15 ; comp. Heb. i. 3. It is true that in the state of His humiliation He
had likewise the divine δόξα, which He possessed κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης
(Rom. i. 4), which also, as bearer of the divine grace and truth (John i. 14),
and through His miracles (John ii. 11), He made known (John xiv. 9) ; but
its working and revelation were limited by His humiliation to man’s estate,
and He had divested Himself of the divine appearance (Phil. ii.7 f.) till in
the end, furnished through His resurrection with the mighty attestation of
His divine sonship (Rom. i. 4), He entered, through His elevation to the
right hand of God, into the full communion of the glory of the Father, in
which he is now the God-man, the very image and reflection of God, and
will one day come to execute judgment and to establish the kingdom.— Aim
of the addition : ‘‘hine satis intelligi potest, quanta sit gloria Christi,”
Bengel ; it is the highest and holiest of all, and of the knowledge of it Satan
deprives those whom he blinds !
Ver. 5. What his gospel (τὸ εὐαγγ. ἡμῶν) proclaimed, he has just described
as that which is most glorious and sublime, namely, the δόξα τοῦ Χριστοῦ,
ὃς ἐστιν κιτ.Δ. And that nothing else than this is the lofty contents of his
preaching, he now establishes, and that under an antithetic point of view,
which (comp. ili. 1) takes into account hostile calumny. This antithetic
aim so fully justifies the reference of the γάρ to what immediately precedes,
and the emphasis laid on Χριστ. "Ino. as κύριον, as well as the contents of ver.
6, so obviously confirms it, that we have no warrant for going back with γάρ
to ili. 1, even if we include vv. 3-5 (Hofmann). — ἑαυτοὺς κηρύσσ.} In virtue
of the contrast that follows (Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 25), κυρίους might
be supplied (de Wette and others, also my own view hitherto), and with
this i. 24 might be compared. But since it was self-evident that he did
not preach himself as Lord, and this could not be attributed to him even by
his opponents, however much they may have accused him of selfish conduct,
it is better (comp. Hofmann) to let the expression retain its quite general
character : not ourselves, not our own persons, their insight, standing, re-
pute, and other interests, do we make the contents and aim of our preaching.
- κύριον] as Lord. In this lies the whole great confessional contents of his
preaching, which absolutely excludes all desire for self-assertion ; comp.
Phil. 11. 11 ; 1 Cor. xii. 3. This κύριον also is to be left quite in its general-
ity,? so that the following ὑμῶν has no joint reference to it (Hofmann), —
διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦν] This it is by which the relation of service to the readers (δούλους
ὑμῶν) is conditioned. For on His account, not irrespectively of Him, we
are your servants. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 1. Todo the will of Jesus, and to
carry on His work—this it is which determines us to be your servants, 7.¢.
to do our labour for your service; only in this respect, in this relation of
1 For it is the Hvalted One of whom Paul 2 ΠῚ 6 whole majesty of Christ (ver. 4) lies
is thinking. Comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. Stinde, in this one predicate.
p. 9191,
492 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
service to you, do we preach ourselves, which, therefore, is something quite
different from the éavr. κηρυσσ. before denied.
Ver. 6. Confirmation of the above, and not simply of the concluding
words of ver. 5 (ἑαυτοὺς δὲ δούλους x.7.2.), but of the entire ver. 5. For it is
God who has bestowed on us such enlightenment, and for such behoof as is
declared in ver. 6 ; how should we not be far exalted above the preaching of
ourselves instead of Christ as the Lord, and how could we proclaim ourselves
otherwise than simply in the relation of serviceableness to you, serviceableness
for Christ’s sake !—‘‘ For God, who bade light shine out of darkness, it is who
caused it to shine in our hearts, in order that we should make the knowledge of the
divine glory give light in the presence of Christ.” Apart from this figurative
clothing, the sense is : Hor it is God, the creator of light, who bestowed on us the
spiritual light communicated to us, not that we might retain it for ourselves
without further communication, but that we should convey the knowledge of the
divine glory to others in making this knowledge manifest to them in Christ, whom
we teach them to know. As to the construction, ὅς is not to be taken as
equivalent to οὗτος (Vorstius, Mosheim, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Schrader ;
comp. Theodoret and Luther), nor is ὅς to be deleted (Riickert hesitates
between the two), but ἐστί is to be supplied, and supplied before ὃς ἔλαμψεν
(so, rightly, most of the commentators ’), not immediately after ὁ ϑεός (Valla,
Erasmus, Vatablus, Estius, Bengel, Vater, Ewald), because it is only with ὃς
ἔλαμψεν that the important idea is introduced, and because Paul has written
bc and not ὃς καί. On account of the ὃς «.7.4. that follows it is impossible,
with Hofmann, to regard the sentence ὅτε ὁ Sede as far as λάμψαι (‘ for it is
God who... has bidden to shine’’) as a complete and perfect sentence. —
ὁ εἰπὼν ἐκ σκότους φῶς λάμψαι] qui jussit, etc. Reminiscence of Gen. i. 3,? in
order to prepare for the following ὃς ἔλαμψεν x.7.A., which is meant to appear
as analogous to the physical working of God in the creation. ‘‘ Saepe compa-
rantur beneficia creationis veteris et novae,” Grotius. The emergence of
the light of the holy truth in Christ from amid the sinful darkness of un-
truth (Hofmann) is not as yet spoken of ; this spiritual fact only finds its
expression in what follows, and has here merely the way prepared for it by
the corresponding physical creation of light. — ἐκ may doubtless mean im-
mediately after (Emmerling), see Heindorf, ad Prot. p. 463 ; Jacobs, ad Ael.
p. 464 ; but in the N. T. it does not so occur, and here ‘‘forth out of dark-
ness” is far more in keeping with graphic vividness, for such is the position
of the matter when what is dark becomes lighted up ; comp. LXX. Job
XXXvii. 15. — ὃς ἔλαμψεν ἐν τ. xapd. ἡμ. This ὅς cannot be referred to Christ,
with Hofmann, who compares irrelevantly Heb. v. 7 (where Christ is in fact
the chief subject of what immediately precedes), but it applies to God.
Whether ἔλαμψεν is intransitive (Chrysostom and most expositors): he shone,
which would have to be explained from the idea of the indwelling of God
by means of the Holy Spirit (John xiv. 23; 1 Cor. iii. 16, xiv. 25), or
1 Comp. also Buttmann, newtest. Gramm. supposes an allusion to Isa. ΙΧ. 1, Job xii.
p. 338 [K. T. 895]. 22, or to some lost passage.
2 Ewald, following the reading λάμψει,
—_——
CHAP. Iv., 6. 493
whether it is factitive: who made it (namely, φῶς) shine (Grotius, Bengel,
Emmerling, Fritzsche), as ἀνατέλλειν is used in Matt. v. 45, and even Adp-
πεῖν in the poets (Eur. Phoen. 226, and the passages in Matthiae, p. 944 ;
Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 58, VII. p. 378, VIII. p. 199; ad Del. Epigr. p.
62 ; Lobeck, ad Adj. p. 94, ed. 2), is decided from the context by the pre-
ceding physical analogy, which makes the /actitive sense in keeping with
the εἰπὼν λάμψαι most probable. If the progress of thought had been :
‘‘who himself shone” (Chrysostom, Theodoret), the text must have run, ὃς
αὐτὸς ἔλαμψεν. God has wrought in the hearts of the apostolic teachers,
spiritually creating light, just as physically as at the creation He called light
out of the darkness. Hofmann, in consequence of his referring ὅς to Christ,
wrongly explains it: ‘‘ within them has been repeated that which took
place in the word when Christ appeared in it.” On the point itself in refer-
ence to Paul, see Gal. i. 16. — πρὸς φωτισμὸν x.t.A.] for the purpose of lighting
(ver. 4), etc., equivalent to πρὸς τὸ φωτίζειν τὴν γνῶσιν x.7.A., in order that
there may lighten, etc., by which is set forth the thought : ‘‘in order that the
knowledge of the divine glory may be conveyed and diffused from us to
others through the preaching of Christ.” For if the knowledge remains
undiffused, it has not the nature of a thing that lightens, whose light is
received by the eyes of men. —év προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ] belongs to πρὸς φωτισμόν,
but cannot be explained in persona Christi, i.e. in nomine Christi, as Estius
explains it after the Latin Fathers, but it specifies where the knowledge of
the divine glory is to lighten : in the presence of Christ. For Christ is εἰκὼν
τοῦ ϑεοῦ, and Christians see unveiled the glory of Christ, iii. 18. He, there-
fore, who converts others to Christ makes the knowledge of the divine glory
become clear-shining to them, and that in the countenance of the Lord, which
is beheld in the gospel as the reflection of the divine glory, so that in this
seen countenance that clear-shining knowledge has the sowrce of its light (as
it were, its focus). Probably there is in ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ a reminiscence
of iii. 7. The connection of ἐν προσώπῳ Xp. with πρὸς φωτισμόν has been justly
. recognized by Estius, and established as the only right one by Fritzsche
(Dissert. 11. p. 170, and ad Rom. I. p. 188), whom Billroth follows, for the
usual way of connecting it with τῆς δόξης τ. ϑεοῦ (comp. also Hofmann :
‘‘the glory of God visible in Christ”) would of necessity require τῆς repeated
after ϑεοῦ, since δόξα is not a verbal substantive like φωτισμός, and conse-
quently, without repeating the article, Paul would necessarily have written
τῆς τοῦ Seow δόξης ἐν προσωπ. Xp. (see Kriiger, δὲ 50, 9, 9, and 8). The objec-
tion of de Wette against our view—an objection raised substantially by Hof-
mann also—that the γνῶσις is the subjective possession of the apostle, and
cannot therefore become light-giving in the face of Christ, leaves out of
consideration the fact that the γνῶσις is objectivized. Conveyed through
preaching, the γνῶσις of the divine glory gives light (it would not give light
otherwise), and its light-giving has its seat and source of issue on the cownte-
nance of Christ, because it is this, the glory of which is brought to view in
the mirror of preaching (iii. 18).—Note, further, how there is something
clumsy but majestic in the entire mode of expression, πρὸς. . . Χριστοῦ, 68-
pecially in the accumulation of the four genitives, as in ver. 4. (0*)
494 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Ver. 7 ff. The apostle now (on to ver. 10) turns to the relation which
the outward position, seemingly quite incongruous, bears to so glorious a
calling. This pertained to the completeness of his Apologia, and to him—
even without special attacks of opponents on this side—it thus most natu-
rally suggested itself ! We must put aside the supposition that his oppo-
nents had reproached him with his bodily weakness and persecutions (see,
especially, Calvin, Estius, Mosheim, Flatt,’ Emmerling) as testimonies
against genuine apostleship, since such a reproach, which must have affected
not him only, but the apostolic teachers in general, is in itself quite improb-
able, and no trace of it is found in the whole of the following section. Still
this section also is certainly not without indirect polemic bearing ; for Paul,
owing to the peculiarity of his apostolic character, had borne and suffered
far more than the rival Judaistic teachers ; and hence there was in the re-
lation of his afflictions to his working quite a peculiar holy triwmph for him
over his foes. Compare the noble effusion in xii. 23 ff.
Ver. 7. Aé] merely carrying on the train of thought : Now to compare
our outward position with this high vocation, we have, etc. — τὸν ϑησαυρὸν
τοῦτον] is referred either, in accordance with ver. 6, to the light kindled by God
in the heart (Grotius, Flatt, Riickert, and others), or to the ministerium evan-
gelii (Calvin, Estius, Bengel, Emmerling, and others). According to ver.
6, the inward divine enlightening (πρὸς φωτισμὸν k.7.2.) is meant, and this defi-
nition of aim (πρὸς gwr.) embraces in itself the ministeriwm evang. — ἐν oorpa-
κίνοις σκεύεσιν] in vessels of clay. Contrast with ϑησαυρόν, because, for such a
treasure, some more costly and lasting vessel seems suitable. Corp, the
opposite in Arrian, Epict. iii. 9: χρυσᾶ σκεύη, ὀστράκινον δὲ λόγον. We may
add that Paul, who, in fact, speaks here not of himself alone (observe the
plur. σκεύεσιν, and ver. 6, καρδίαις), wishes not to affirm some special weakness
of himself, but to say generally : Though we have so glorious a trust, yet is
our body, the outward organ of our working, subject to the lot of being easily de-
structible. Following Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Theodoret, most com-
mentators have rightly found in σκεύεσιν a figurative designation of the body ;
while Billroth and Riickert, following Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and others,
understand the whole personality. Against the latter view we may urge as
well the characteristic ὀστρακίνοις, which can refer only to the corporeal part
(comp. Gen. ii. 7; 1 Cor. xv. 47), as also ver. 16 and v. 1ff. For examples
of the use of ὀστράκινον σκεῦος ' for the easily destructible corporeality (as Ar-
temidorus, vi. 25 : ϑάνατον μὲν yap εἰκότως ἐσήμαινε τῇ γυναικὶ τὸ εἶναι ἐν ὀστρακίνῳ
σκεύει), sce Wetstein. —iva ἡ ὑπερβολὴ x.t.2.] The design of God in this,
namely, in order that the abundant fulness of power, which comes to be ap-
plied, namely, in our ministry working πρὸς φωτισμὸν x.7.2., ver. 6, in spite
of all sufferings and persecutions (see what follows), may appear as the prop-
erty of God, and not as proceeding from us. The context furnishes that spe-
cial reference of the ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμ. The opposite of the conception of
ὑπερβολή 15 ἔλλειψις (Plato, Protag, 356 A, Def. p. 415 A, al.),— καὶ μὴ ἐξ
1 To this category does not belong Plato, by Osiander, but there the body is figura-
Phaedr. p. 250 C, which passage is compared tively presented as mussel (ὄστρεον).
παν πο
CHAP. Iv., 8-10. 495
ἡμῶν] καὶ μὴ ἡμεῖς νομιζώμεϑα κατορϑοῦν ἐξ ἑαυτῶν τι, ἀλλὰ πάντες οἱ ὁρῶντες τοῦ
ϑεοῦ λέγωσιν εἶναι τὸ πᾶν, Theophylact. — The 7 is to be taken logice of the
being, which presents itself to cognition ; as often with Paul (Rom. iii. 26,
4, 19, vii. 13). Riickert denies this, but comes back himself to the same
view by giving the meaning thus : God wishes to be the One, and fo be ree-
ognized as such, who alone, etc. The explanation of Tertullian, the Vulgate,
Estius, according to which τῆς δυνάμ. is connected with τοῦ ϑεοῦ, is against
the order of the words.
Vv. 8-10. A proof, based on experience, how this abundant power makes
itself known as the power of God in the sufferings of the apostolic calling ;
so that, in spite of the earthen vessels, ver. 7, the apostolic working advances
steadily and successfully. — ἐν παντί] having reference to all the first clauses
of vv. 8 and 9, is neither to be supplemented by Joco (Beza, Rosenmiiller),
nor is it: tall that I do (Hofmann), but is to be left general : in every
way. Comp. vii. 5 ; 1 Cor. i. 5 ; and see on 2 Cor. xi. 6. Comp. the clas-
sic ἐν παντὶ κακοῦ εἶναι, Plat. Rep. p. 579 B ; εἰς πᾶν κακοῦ ἀφικνεῖσϑαι, Herod.
vii. 118, and the like. — ϑλιβόμενοι κ.τ.2.} hard pressed, but not being driv-
en into straits. [Pressed for room, but still having room.—Stanley.] Matters
do not come so far as that, in virtue of the abundance of the power of God !
Kypke rightly says : στενοχωρία angustias hoc loco denotat tales, e quibus
non detur exitus.” For see vi. 4, xii. 10. Comp. Bengel. The reference
of crevoy. to inward oppression and anaiety (Erasmus, Luther, and many
others) anticipates what follows. — ἀπορούμενοι «.7.2.) being brought into doubt
(perplexity, where we cannot help ourselves), but not into despair. Comp.
1.8.
Ver. 9. Being persecuted, but not left (by God) in the lurch (Plato, Conv. p.
179 A : ἐγκαταλιπεῖν καὶ μὴ βοηϑῆσαι). [Stanley explains: ‘‘ Pursued in our
flight, but not left behind as a prey to our pursuers.”] Comp. 2 Tim. iv.
16 ; Heb. xiii. 5. Paul here varies the mode of presentation, since the con-
trast does not again negative an action of enemies. Lydius (Agonistic. 860}.
24, p. 84 ff.), Hammond, and Olshausen think that we have here the figure
of a foot-race, in which the runner overtaken ἐγκαταλείπεται (see the passages
in Lydius); but the figure would be unsuitable, since the runners have a
common goal (1 Cor. ix. 24). Hostile persecution in general is meant.
Comp. διωγμός, xii. 10 ; Rom. viii. 35 ; 2 Thess. i. 4, al. —xataBarrdu. x.7.A. |
Figure of those seized in the act of flight, who are thrown to the ground (Hom.
Odyss. iv. 344, viii. 508 ; Herod. ix. 63), but not deprived of life. This part
thus appears in a most suitable relation of climax to what precedes ; hence
we should not think, as many do, of wrestlers in the games (comp. Plato,
Hipp. min. p. 374 A). (P*)
Ver. 10. Extreme concentration of all suffering, as of all victory through
the power of God. In this πάντοτε, corresponding to the ἐν παντί of ver. 8
and the ἀεί of ver. 11, is with great emphasis placed first. The νέκρωσις is
the putting to death, like the classic ϑανάτωσις (Thucyd. vy. 9. 7). In this
1There is no contradiction between this in a definite relation. Here, however, the
passage and i. 8, where an actual éfamo- mental attitude as a whole is portrayed in
ρεῖσϑαι is affirmed only of a single case, and single, grand strokes.
496 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
case the context decides whether it is to be taken in a literal or, as in Rom.
iv. 19, in a figurative sense. Comp. Astrampsychus in Suidas : νεκροὺς ὁρῶν
νέκρωσιν ἔξεις πραγμάτων, Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. p. 418 ; Aret. pp. 23, 48 ;
also ἀπονέκρωσις in Arrian, Hpict. i. 5. Here it stands, as ver. 11 proves, in
a literal sense ; At all times we bear about the putting to death of Jesus in our
body, i.e. at.all times, in our apostolic movements, our body is exposed to the same
putting to death which Jesus suffered, i.e. to violent deprivation of life for the
gospel’s sake. The constantly imminent danger of this death, and the con-
stant actual persecutions and maltreatments, make the νέκρωσις τοῦ ᾿Τησοῦ, in
the conception of the sufferer as of the observer, appear as something cling-
ing to the body of the person concerned, which he carries about with it, al-
though, till the final actual martyrdom, it remains incomplete and, in so far,
resting on a prolepsis of the conception. On the subject-matter, comp. Rom.
viii. 35 f.; 1 Cor. xv. 31; Phil. iii. 10. The gen. τοῦ ’Ijoov, however, is
“not tobe taken as propter Jesum (Vatablus and others, including Emmerling),
nor ad exemplum Christi (Grotius, Flatt), but quite as in τὰ παθήματα τοῦ
Χριστοῦ, i. 5 ; and it is altogether arbitrary to understand anything more
special than the great danger to life generally involved in the continual persecu-
tions and afflictions (xi. 23 ff.),—as e.g. Eichhorn takes it to refer to wounds
received in the apostolic ministry (Gal. vi. 17), and Riickert, here again (see
on i. 8), to the alleged sickness, from which Paul had not yet fully recovered.
The right view is already given in Chrysostom : οἱ ϑάνατοι οἱ καϑημερινοὶ, δι
ὧν καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις ἐδείκνυτο. Comp. Pelagius. But τ. νέκρωσιν is chosen (not
τ. ϑάνατον), because Paul has ἴῃ mind the course of events leading to the death
suffered by Jesus, which is mirrored in his own sufferings for Christ’s sake.
—iva καὶ ἡ ζωὴ K.7.2.] in order that also the life of Jesus, etc. This is the
blessed relation swpervening according to God’s purpose. Just as, namely,
the continual sufferings and peril of death appear as the νέκρωσις of Jesus in
the body of those persecuted, so, in keeping with that view, .their rescued
life appears as the same ζωή, which, in the case of Jesus, followed after His
dying, through the resurrection from death (Rom. v. 10). The victorious
surmounting of the sufferings and perils of death, from which one emerges
saved as regards the body, is, according to the analogy of the conception of
the νέκρωσις τοῦ "Inoov, resurrection ; and thus there becomes manifest, in the
body of him that is rescued, the same life which Jesus entered on at His
bodily resurrection. If, with Chrysostom, Cajetanus, Estius, Mosheim, and
others (comp. Flatt and also Hofmann), we should regard the preservation
and rescuing as evincing the effectual operation of the bodily glorified Jesus,
there would be unnecessarily introduced a different position of matters in
the two parts of the verse ; as the νέκρωσις itself is thought of in the one
case, we must in the other also understand the ζωή itself (not an effect of it).
According to de Wette and Osiander, the thought of the apostle is, that in
his ineradicable energy of spirit in suffering there is revealed Christ’s power
of suffering, in virtue of which He has risen and lives for ever ; comp.
Beza. In that case a moral revelation of life would be meant, and to this ἐν
τῷ σώματι ἡμῶν (comp. ver. 11) would not be suitable. — Notice, further, how,
in ver. 10 f., Paul names only the name ’Iyooic, and how repeatedly he
CHAP. Τὺ. 1; 497
uses it. ‘‘Singulariter sensit dulcedinem ejus,” Bengel. As bearer of the
dying and living of the Lord in his body, he has before his eyes and in his
heart, with the deepest feeling of fellowship, the concrete human manifesta-
tion, Jesus. Even the exalted One is, and remains to him, Jesus. A con-
trast between the earthly Jesus and the heavenly Christ, for whom the former
is again deprived of life (Holsten), is, as the clause expressive of purpose
shows, not to be thought of.
Ver. 11. An elucidation, and therewith a confirmation of ver. 10. — ἀεί
(comp. vi. 10) is distinguished from πάντοτε as respects the form of the con-
ception, just as always or continually from at all times. Comp. the classical
ἀεὶ διὰ βίου, Heindorf, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 75 D ; also the Homeric οἱ ἀεὶ ϑεοί.
— ἡμεῖς ot ζῶντες) brings out, by way of contrast, the ἀεὶ εἰς ϑάνατον παραδιδόμεϑα:
we who live, so that in this way the constant devotion to death looks all the
more tragic, since the living appear as liable to constant dying. We are con-
tinuously the living prey of death! The reference of Grotius, ‘‘ qui nondum
ex hac vita excessimus, ut multi jam Christianorum,” is alien to the context.
Further, it can neither mean : as long as we live (Calvin, Beza by way of
suggestion, Mosheim, Zachariae, Flatt, de Wette), nor : who still, in spite of
perils of death, remain ever in life (Estius, Bengel, Riickert), which latter
would anticipate the clause of aim, iva x.7.4. Τὴ accordance with his view of
ver. 10, Osiander (comp. Bisping) takes it of the spiritual life in the power
of faith. — rapadidou.] by the persecutors, ver. 8 f. —év τῇ ϑνητῃ σαρκὶ ru. |
designation of the σῶμα (ver. 10) as respects its material weakness and tran-
sitoriness, whereby the φανερωθῆναι of the ζωὴ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ is meant to be
rendered palpable by means of the contrast. In ἐν τῷ σώματι, ver. 10, and
ἐν τῇ ϑνητῇ σαρκί, ver. 11, there is a climax of the terms used. Riickert
thinks, wrongly, that the expression would be highly unsuitable, if in what
precedes he were speaking of nothing but persecutions. It was in fact the
mortal σάρξ, which might so easily have succumbed to such afflictions as are
described, ¢.g., in xi. 23 ff. —iva καὶ x.7.4.] an emphatic repetition of the
clause of aim contained in ver. 10, with a still stronger prominence given
to the element there denoted by ἐν τῷ σώματι ἡμῶν, on account of which ἐν τ.
Sv. σαρκὶ ἡμῶν is here placed at the end. There is implied in it a triumph.
Comp. on the thought of vv. 10, 11, Ignatius, Magnes. 6 : ἐὰν μὴ αὐϑαιρέτως
ἔχωμεν τὸ ἀποϑανεῖν εἰς τὸ αὐτοῦ (Christ’s) πάϑος, ἡ τὸ ζῆν αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν.
Ver. 12. An inference from ver. 11 ; hence the meaning can be no other
than : Accordingly, since we are continually exposed to death, it is death
whose working clings to us ; but since the revelation of the life of Jesus in us
goes to benefit you through our work in our vocation, the power opposed to
death, life, is that which exercises its working on you. ὁ ϑάνατος and ἡ ζωή can,
according to vy. 10 and 11, be nothing else than the bodily death and the
bodily life, both conceived of as personal powers, and consequently the life
not as existent in Jesus (Hofmann). It was death to which Paul and those
like him were ever given up, and it was life which, in spite of all deadly
perils, retained the victory and remained preserved. And this victorious
power of life, presenting in His servants the life of the risen Lord, was active
(comp. Phil. i. 22, 24) through the continuance thereby rendered possible of
498 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the apostolic working among the Christians, and especially among the Corin-
thians (ἐν ὑμῖν), although they were not affected in like manner by that work-
ing of death. Estius (following Lombard) and Grotius (comp. Olshausen) take
ivepy. passively: ‘tin nobis . . . mors agitur et exercetur . . . ut vicissim
. . . per nostra pericula nostramque quotidianam mortem vobis gignitur,
augetur, perficitur vita spiritualis” (Estius). But in the N. T. évepy. never
occurs in a passive sense (see oni. 6), and according to vv. 10, 11, ἡ ζωή
cannot be vita spiritualis, as even Osiander (comp. Ewald) here again inter-
prets it. Calvin, Menochius, and Michaelis find in it something érenical :
we are in continual deadly peril, while you are in comfort. Comp. Chrysos-
tom, who, however, does not expressly signalize the ironical character of
the passage. On ζῆν, vita frui, see Jacobs, ad Anthol. X. p. 70 ; comp.
ζῆν καὶ εἶναι, Dissen, ad Dem. de Oor. p. 239. But the context gives no
suggestion whatever of irony or of any such reference of ἡ ζωή (ὑμεῖς δὲ ἐν
ἀνέσει, THY ἐκ τούτων τῶν κινδύνων καρπούμενοι ζωήν, Chrysostom). As foreign
to it is Riickert’s view, which refers the first half of the verse to Paul’s
alleged sickness, and the second half to the state of health of the Corinthians,
which, as Paul had recently learned through Titus, had considerably im-
proved after a sickness that had been prevalent (1 Cor. xi. 30).—We may
add that the first clause is set down without μέν, because Paul purposely
avoids paving the way for the contrast, in order thereupon to bring it for-
ward by way of surprise. ‘‘Infert particula δέ novam rem cum aliqua oppo-
sitione,” Klotz, ad Devar..p. 356.
Ver. 13. A remark giving information (dé, see on 111. 17) on ἡ δὲ ζωὴ ἐν ὑμῖν.
For through the πιστεύομεν, διὸ καὶ λαλοῦμεν, is that very ἡ ζωὴ ἐν ὑμῖν évepyei-
ται rendered possible and brought about. The connection of ideas is fre-
quently taken thus : ‘‘ Though death works in us and life in you, we have
yet the certain confidence that we too will partake of the life.” Comp.
Estius, Flatt, Riickert. But in that case the relation of the two verses, 13
and 14, would be logically inverted, and the participial clause in ver. 14
would be made the principal clause ; Paul must logically have written :
κε Because, however, we have the same spirit of faith, which David expresses in
the words, etc., we know,” ete. According to Olshausen, Paul wishes to rep-
resent the thought that his career, so full of suffering, is a source of life to
the Corinthians, as a living ‘certainty wrought in him from above. But
apart from the erroneous explanation of ἡ δὲ ζωὴ ἐν ὑμῖν, on which this is
based (see on ver. 12), the very fact—the ἡ ζωὴ ἐν ὑμῖν évepyeirac—was some-
thing consonant to experience, and hence Paul in ver. 13 gives nothing else
than an elucidation consonant to experience. According to de Wette (comp.
before him, Erasmus, Paraphr., who inserts the intermediate thought : nee
tamen ob id nos poenitet evangelii), the course of thought is : ‘‘ But this work-
ing of death hinders us not from preaching the gospel boldly, since the hope of
the resurrection strengthens us.” In this way, however, he arbitrarily passes
over the immediately preceding thought, ἡ δὲ ζωὴ ἐν ὑμῖν, to which, never-
theless, ver. 13 supplies an appropriate elucidation. According to Hofmann,
Paul brings in a modification of the contrast contained in ver. 12, when he
says that he has, while death works in him, still the same spirit as exists in
CHAP. Iv., 14. 499
those in whom life works. But there is no hint of this retrospective refer-
ence of τὸ αὐτό (which would have required a σὺν ὑμῖν or something similar) ;
and not even the thought in itself would be suitable, since his being in pos-
session of the same spirit which his disciples, in whom his life was in fact
at work, possessed, would be self-evident, and not a special point to be
brought into prominence and asserted by the apostle. This also in opposi-
tion to Erasmus, Estius, Bengel, Schrader, and others, who explain τὸ αὐτό :
the same spirit, which you have. — τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πίστεως] t.€. the same Holy
Spirit working faith, not : the believing frame of mind (de Wette, comp.
also Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 176), which is not the meaning of πνεῦμα in
Rom. viii. 15, xi. 8 ; 1 Cor. iv. 21; Gal. vi. 1; Eph. i. 17. τὸ αὐτό is the same
which is made known in the following saying of Scripture, consequently the same
as the Psalmist had. With this hero of faith the apostle knows himself to be
on an equality in faith.’ The πίστις which the Spirit works was with the
Psalmist trust in God, with Paul faith in the salvation in Christ ; with both,
therefore, the same fundamental disposition of pious confidence in God’s
promise (Heb. i. 11). — κατὰ τὸ yeyp.] in conformity, in agreement with what is
written. This belongs to καὶ ἡμεῖς πιστεύομεν, for if it belonged to ἔχοντες
(Calvin, Beza, de Wette, Ewald, and many others), αὐτό would be superflu-
ous. — ἐπίστευσα, διὸ ἐλάλησα] I have become a believer, therefore have I let
myself be heard, Ps. exvi. 10, after the LXX., in which the translation of
ZIS °D “HIND is incorrect, but might be retained by Paul, all the more
seeing that in the original is contained the idea that the speaking proceed-
ed from faith? (I trusted, for I spoke). — καὶ ἡμεῖς] we too, like the Psalmist.
Hofmann, on the other hand, in accordance with his inappropriate view of
τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα τ. T., Understands it : ‘‘in common with those, who have the
same spirit.” — διὸ καὶ λαλοῦμεν] on which account we also let ourselves be heard,
are not silent, but preach the gospel. Through this it happens that ἡ ζωὴ ἐν
ὑμῖν ἐνεργεῖται. Seeon ver.12. The καί before Aad. is the also of the relation
corresponding (to the πιστεύομεν).
Ver. 14. Encouraging assurance accompanying this λαλοῦμεν (not 1ts con-
tents) ; since we are certain that, etc. Comp. Rom. v. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 58. —6é
ἐγείρας τ. Kk. ‘Inc.| Comp. on 1 Cor. vi. 14 ; Rom. viii. 11. This designation
of God contains the ground of faith for the conviction about to be express-
ed. — kai ἡμᾶς σὺν ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐγερεῖ k. παραστ. σὺν ὑμῖν) This is usually understood
of the actual resurrection from the dead, and of the presenting before the
judgment-seat of Christ. And this view is the right one, partly because it
alone is in keeping with the definite expressions, partly because it is in the
highest degree suitable to the connection, when Paul here at the close of
what he says regarding his sufferings and perils of death expresses the cer-
tainty of the /ast and swpreme consummation as the deepest ground of his
all-defying courage of faith. This amid all afflictions is his καυχᾶσϑαι ἐπ’
! There is ground for assuming that Paul 2¥or the very different meanings given to
looked on David as the author of Ps. exvi., the text of the original (Hupfeld, Ewald, Z
which no doubt belongs to a far later time ; have faith, when I speak), see Hupfeld on Ps.
it was customary, in fact, to ascribe to exvi., and Hofmann on this passage.
David the anonymous psalms generally.
500 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης τοῦ ϑεοῦ, Rom. ν. 2. Paul, indeed, expected that he himself
and most of his readers would live to see the Parousia (1 Cor. xv. 51 f., i.
8, xi. 26 ; 2 Cor. i. 13 f.) ; but the possibility of meeting death in the dead-
ly persecutions was always and even now before his mind (1 Cor. xv. 31 f. ;
2 Cor. i. 8, v. 18; Phil. i. 20f., ii. 17 ; Acts xx. 25, 38) ; and out of this
case conceived as possible, which subsequently he for the time being even
posits as a‘certainty (see on Acts xx. 25), he expresses here in presence of
his eventual death his triumphant consciousness ὅτε ὁ ἐγείρας κιτ.2. Hence
there is no ground for explaining it, with Beza (who, however, again aban-
doned this view), Calixtus (‘‘ swscitabit a morte sc. illa guotidiana”’), Schulz,
Riickert, Neander, of the resurrection in a figurative sense, viz. of the over-
coming the constant perils of death (vy. 10-12), which, it is held, is a resur-
rection with Jesus, in so far as through it there arises a fellowship of destiny
with the risen Christ. This interpretation is not demanded by the correct
reading σὺν ᾿Ιησοῦ, as if this σύν (comp. Rom. vi. 4, 8; Eph. ii. 5 f.) presup-
posed the spiritual meaning. It is true that the raising of the dead takes
place διὰ Ἰησοῦ, and has its basis ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ (1 Cor. xv. 21,22) ; but Chris-
tians may be also conceived and designated as one day becoming raised with
Jesus, since they are members of Christ, and Christ is the ἀπαρχή (1 Cor. xv.
23) of all who rise from the dead. The believer, in virtue of his connection
with the Lord, knows himself already in his temporal life as risen with Christ
(see on Col. ii. 12, iii. 1), and what he thus knows in faith emerges at the
last day into objective completion and outward reality. — καὶ παραστήσει σὺν
ὑμῖν] and will present us together with you. This is taken, according to the
previously rejected figurative sense of ἐγερεῖ, to refer to the presentation of
the conquerors over deadly perils, or even in the sense : ‘‘and will bring us
together again with you” (Neander, Riickert). But, according to the con-
text, after the mention of the resurrection, it obviously denotes the presen-
tation before the judgment-seat of Christ (v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10 ; Col. i. 22 ;
Eph. v. 27; Luke xxi. 36), where the righteous receive the eternal δόξα (2
Tim. iv. 8). With Christ they have suffered ; with Him they have risen ;
and now before the throne of the Lord their συνδοξασϑῆναι (Rom. viii. 15)
sets in, which must be the blessed result of their presentation before the
Judge. Hence Hofmann is wrong in thinking that there is no allusion to
the judgment-seat of Christ in παραστ. (R‘) Comp. on Col. i. 22. In the
certainty of this last consummation Paul has the deepest ground of encour-
agement for his undaunted working, and the presentiment of such a glorious
consummation is made still sweeter to him by the glance at the fellowship of
love with his Corinthians, together with whom he will reach the blessed goal
unto eternal union. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19. Hence : σὺν ὑμῖν, which is an
essential part of the inward certainty expressed by εἰδότες x.7.2., Which gives
him high encouragement. We may add that the ὑμεῖς will be partly those
risen, partly those changed alive (1 Cor. xv. 51 ff.; 1 Thess. iv. 14 ff.).
Ver. 15. Σὺν ὑμῖν, which he has just used, is now made good in such a way
as to win their hearts. ‘‘ With you, I say, for all of it is for your sake ;”
there is nothing of all that we have to suffer and that we do, which is not
related to our advantage. Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 10. ἐστί simply is to be sup-
CHAP, Iv., 16. 501
plied ; but πάντα sums up what is contained in vv. 7-13 (not merely ver.
12 ἢ. Christ’s death and resurrection, to which Chrysostom, Theodoret, and
Grotius make reference, did not form the subject-matter of the preceding
context. —iva ἡ χάρις πλεονάσασα K.T.A.| in order that the grace, i.e. not only
the divine grace consisting in the reception of the spirit of faith (Hofmann),
but that which is at work in all our victorious suffering and labouring, in-
creased by the increasing number, i.e. after it has grown in extent and influ-
ence through the increasing number of those who beyond ourselves have
become partakers in it, may make the thanksgiving, which pertains to it,
- abundant (may produce it in an exceedingly high degree) to the honour of
God. There is a similar thought in i. 11 ; but in the present passage the
thanksgiving is, in accordance with ver. 14, conceived as on the day of judg-
ment. Note the correlation of χάρις and εὐχαριστίαν, as well as the climax :
πλεονάσασα διὰ τῶν πλειόνων and περισσεύσῃ (1 Thess. iii. 12).
comp. ix. 8; Eph. i. 8; 1 Thess. iii. 12.—This is the construction adopted
by Chrysostom (?), the Vulgate, Ewald, and others, including Riickert and
Olshausen, who, however, refer διὰ τῶν πλειόνων to the intercession of the
Corinthians, which is not at all suggested by the context. Divergent con-
structions are (1)‘‘ in order that the grace, since it has become so exceeding rich,
may contribute richly to the glory of God on account of the thanksgiving of the
increasing number,” Billroth, following Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza,
Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Krause, Flatt, Osiander, and
others. So, in the main, Hofmann also : (2) in order that the grace, since it
has shown itself so richly, may, through the increasing number, make the thanks-
giving abundant to the honour of God. So Emmerling, de Wette, Neander.
Both are possible ; but since διά with the accusative would express the con-
ception, for the sake of, here unsuitable, the former construction would lead
us to expect διά with the genitive instead of διὰ τ. 7A. τὴν evyap.' (comp. 1.
11, ix. 12) ; and with both we fail to find in πλεονάσασα a more precise defi-
nition of that by which the grace has become more abundant, a thing not
directly involved in the connection (as in Rom. vi. 1). Besides, both are less
in keeping with the symmetry of the discourse, which, in structure and ex-
pression, is carefully chosen and terse—features seen also in the collocation:
increased through the increasing number.” These πλείονες are those who have
been converted by the apostolic ministry, and in particular those advanced in
the Christian life, who were just individualized by dv ὑμᾶς.
Ver. 16. Διό] namely, on account of the certainty expressed in ver. 14
(partly elucidated in ver. 15), in significant keeping with εἰδότες, and hence
not to be referred back to the faith of the preachers, ver. 13 (Hofmann).
--- οὐκ ἐκκακ.} as ver. 1. The opposite of ἐκκακ. is: owr inward man, i.e. our
morally self-conscious personality, with the thinking and willing νοῦς and
;
On περισσεύειν τι,
1 ΤῊ 6. position of the genitive, inverted
for the sake of emphasis, would have occa-
sioned no difficulty according to classical
usage. Thus, e.g. Plato, Rep. p. 523 Ὁ, and
Stallbaum in Joc., also, generally, Kiihner,
II. p. 624. But Paul would hardly have for-
saken the usual order, διὰ τὴν τῶν πλειόνων
evxap., Which would at any rate have like-
wise made the τῶν 7A. emphatic. He would
have had no reason for resorting to that
assumed hyperbaton.
502 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the life-principle of the πνεῦμα (see on Rom. vii. 22 ; Eph. iii. 16 ; comp. 1
Pet. iii. 4), is renewed from day to day, i.e. it receives through the gracious
efficacy of the divine Spirit continually new vigour and elevation, τῇ πίστει,
τῇ ἐλπίδι, τῇ προθυμίᾳ, Chrysostom. But with this there is also the admission:
even if our outward man, our phenomenal existence, our visible bodily nature,
whose immediate condition of life is the ψυχή, is destroyed, i.e. is in process
of being wasted away, of being swept off, namely, through the continual
sufferings and persecutions, μαστιζόμενος, ἐλαυνόμενος, μυρία πάσχων δεινά,
Chrysostom. For though the continual life-rescues reveal the life of Jesus
in the body of the apostle (ver. 11), yet there cannot thereby be done away
the gradually destructive physical influence of suffering on the bodily nature.
There is here a noble testimony to the consciousness that the continuous de-
velopment of spiritual life is not dependent on the condition of the body ;
but the view of Billroth, who finds in ἀνακαιν. the growth of the infinite, the
true resurrection, is just as un-Pauline as is the opinion of an inward invisible
body (Menken), or even of a corporeality of the soul (Tertullian). On the
point whether the inward man includes in itself the germ of the resurrec-
tion of the body (Osiander), the N. T. says nothing. Riickert diverges
wholly from the usual interpretation, and thinks that διὸ οὐκ ἐκκακ. is only an
accessory, half-parenthetical inference from what precedes, and that a new
train of thought does not begin till ἀλλ᾽ : “1 have that hope, and hence do
not become despondent. But even if I did not possess it, supposing even
that my outward man is actually dissolved,” etc. Against this it may be
urged that οὐκ ἐκκακοῦμεν, ἀλλ᾽ x.7.2. could not but present itself obviously to
every reader as closely connected (we faint not, but), and that the whole in-
terpretation is a consequence of Riickert’s erroneous exposition of ver. 14.
Hence Neander also gives a similar interpretation, but hesitatingly. — On
διαφθείρεται, comp. Plato, Ale. i. p. 185 A: διαφθαρῆναι τὸ cua. —The ἀλλ᾽
(at, on the contrary) in the apodosis, after a concessive conditional sentence,
introduces with emphasis the opposite compensating relation ; see Fritzsche,
ad Rom. I. p. 874; Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 43, ed. 2; Baeumlein,
Partik, p. 11. —6 ἔσωθεν] the inward, inner man. Regarding adverbs in dev
with the same meaning as their primitives, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 128 ;
Hartung, Kasus, Ὁ. 173. — ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ] day by day; xa? ἡμέραν, τὸ ἐφ’
ἡμέραν (Eur. Oyel. 336), in point of sense, for ever and ever, without interrup-
tion or standing still. A pure Hebraism, not found once in the LXX.,
formed after 0% DY; comp. OY BY, Esth. iii. 4; Gen. xxxix. 10; Ps.
Ixviii. 30. See Vorst, Hebr. p. 807 ἢ. --- ἀνακαινοῦται Winer aptly remarks
(Progr. de verbor. cum praepos. compos. in N. T. usu, TH. p. 10), that in
ἀνακαινοῦν, to renew, to refresh, the question does not arise, ‘‘utrum ea ipsa
novitas, quae alicui rei conciliatur, jam olim adfuerit neene ;” see on Col. iii.
10. Instead of ἀνακαινοῦν, the Greeks have only ἀνακαινίζειν (Heb. iv. 6), but
the simple form is also classical.—The confession εἰ καὶ ὁ ἔξω «.7.2. became a
watchword of the martyrs. Comp. Cornelius ἃ Lapide.
Ver. 17. Ground for the furtherance of this ὁ ἔσωθεν ἀνακαινοῦται ἡμέρᾳ κ. ἡμ.
from the glorious eternal result of temporal suffering. —7d γὰρ παραυτίκα
κιτ.}.} for the present lightness of our affliction, i.e. our momentary affliction
CHAP: ὙΠ: 503
weighing light, not heavy to be borne. τὸ viv ἐλαφρ. τῆς ϑλίψ. and τὸ παρὸν
ἐλαφρ. τῆς ϑλίψ. would each give a different meaning ; see Hermann, ad
Viger. p. 783. For examples of the very frequent adjectival use of παραυτίκα,
see Wetstein, Heindorf, ad Plat. Protag. § 106, p. 620 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat.
Rep. p. 558 A ; from Xenophon in Raphel. Bengelaptly remarks : ‘‘ notatur
praesens breve.” The near Parousia is conceived as terminus ad quem ; comp.
1 Pet. 1. 6. — 70 ἐλαφρὸν τῆς θλίψ. | like τὸ δεινὸν τοῦ πολέμου, the horrors of war
(Plato, Mener. p. 248 B), χαλεπὸν τοῦ βίου (Rep. p. 328 ΒΕ). Regarding the
substantival use of the neuter adjective, whereby the idea of the adjective
is brought into prominence as the chief idea, see Matthiae, p. 994 ; Kiihner,
Il. p. 122. — καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν εἰς ὑπερβολήν] is definition of manner and degree to
κατεργάζεται ; it works in an abundant way even to abundance an eternal weight
(growth) of glory. In this—and how exuberant is the deeply emotional form
of expression itself !—lies the measureless force and the measureless success
of the κατεργάζεται. (5) If, with Rickert, we sought to find in this an ad-
verbial definition to αἰώνιον βάρος (Rom. vii. 13), it could only refer to αἰώνιον,
and the notion of αἰώνιος would make this appear as unsuitable. Rickert is
further wrong in thinking that the expression does not seem to admit of a
precise verbal explanation. But on καθ᾽ ὑπερβ. see i. 8 ; Rom. vii. 13 ; 1 Cor.
ΧΙ. 31; Gal. i. 13 ; 4 Macc. iii. 18 ; Bernhardy, p. 241 ; and on εἰς ὑπερβ.
comp. passages like x. 15 ; Luke xiii. 11; Eur. Hipp. 939 ; Lucian, 2. ΗΠ.
27.9 5 Gymnas. 28 ; Tor. 12 ; on both expressions Valckenaer, ad Hur. Hipp.
l.c. —aiovov ingeniously corresponds to the previous παραυτίκα, and βάρος to
the ἐλαφρόν (comp. Plato, Timaeus, p. 63 C). There is contained, however, in
βάρος" the quantitative greatness of the δόξα ; comp. βάρος πλούτου, Plut. Alex.
48; Eur. 791. 419; Soph. Ajax. 130, and Lobeck thereon. It is similar to the
German phrase ‘‘ eine schwere Menge.” — κατεργάζεται ἡμῖν] brings about for us.
The δόξα 15 conceived as requital for the ϑλίψις (Matt. v. 12; Luke xvi. 25 ;
Rom. viii. 17 ; 2 Tim. ii. 12, 13), and in so far as its effect, the production
of which is developed in the present suffering. It is not merely a spiritual
and moral δόξα that is meant (Riickert, who irrelevantly appeals to Rom.
111. 23), but the whole glory, the aggregate glorious condition in the Messiah’s
kingdom, Rom. viii. 17, 18 ff. ; Matt. xiii. 43. — μὴ σκοπούντ. ἡμ. K.7.A.] since
we do not direct our aim to that which is seen, i.e. since we have not in view,
as the goal of our striving (Phil. ii. 4), the visible goods, enjoyments, etc.,
which belong to the pre-Messianic period (ra ἐπίγεια, Phil. iii. 19) ; comp.
Rom. viii. 25. Billroth wrongly understands the resurrection-bodies to be
meant, which must have been derived from what precedes, and may not be
inferred from v. 1. The participle is taken as conditioning by Calvin, Riick-
ert, Ewald, Hofmann : it being presupposed that we, etc. ; comp. Chrysostom:
ἂν τῶν ὁρωμένων ἀπαγάγωμεν ἑαυτούς. The μή would accord with this interpre-
tation, but does not require it ; see Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 301 f. [E. T.
351]. The former sense, specifying the reason, is not only more appropriate
1 βάρος is not distinguished from ὄγκος by ὄγκος that of bulk. The idea of burdensome-
the latter having always the idea of burden ness is in both words given solely by the
(Tittmann, Synon. p. 158). The notion of context. Comp. on ὄγκος, used of abundant
weight is always contained in Baépos,andin (fulness; Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 126.
50-4 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
in general to the ideal apostolic way of regarding the Christian life (Rom.
v. 3-5, viii. 1, 9, 25; 2 Cor. iv. 18), but it is also recommended by the fact
that Paul himself is meant first of all in ἡμῶν. On the more strongly em-
phatic genitive absolute (instead of μὴ σκοποῦσι τὰ βλεπ.), even after the
governing clause, comp. Xenophon, Anab. ν. 8. 13, i. 4. 12, and Kihner
thereon ; see also Kriiger, § xlvii. 4. 2; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 183
B; Winer, p. 195 [E. T. 260]. With the Greeks, however, the repetition
of the subject (ἡμῶν) is rare ; comp. Thuc. 111. 22. 1. —7ra μὴ βλεπόμενα] Paul
did not write ra οὐ βλεπόμενα, because the goods and enjoyments of the Mes-
sianic kingdom are to appear from the subjective standpoint of the ἡμεῖς as
something not seen.’ See Hermann, ad Viger. Ὁ. 807 ; Kiihner, II. ὃ 715.
3. Comp. Heb, xi. 7.— τὰ γὰρ βληπόμενα x.t.2.] Reason, why we do not aim,
etc. — πρόσκαιρα] temporary (Matt. xiii. 21; Mark iv. 17; Heb. xi. 25),
namely, lasting only to the near Parousia, 1 Cor. vii. 31; 1 John ii. 17, —
On the whole expression, comp. Seneca, Ep. 59.
Notes py AMERICAN EpIror.
(t4) ‘It is hid to them that are lost.’’ Ver. 3.
Nothing can be plainer than the doctrine of this passage. A man’s faith is
not a matter of indifference. He cannot reject the Gospel and yet go to heaven
when he dies. This is not anarbitrary decision. There isand must be an ade-
quate ground for it. The rejection of the Gospel is as clear a proof of moral
depravity, as inability to see the light of the sun at noon is a proof of blind-
ness. Such is the teaching of the Bible, and such has ever been the faith of
the church (Hodge).
(m*) ‘* Blinded the minds of them that believe not.” Ver. 4.
The view of Meyer that unbelief precedes the blindness, that those who will
not believe Satan blinds so that they cannot see, is scriptural, but is not
taught here. Stanley gives the force of the genitive thus : τῶν ἀπίστων = ὦστε
ἀπίστους εἶναι. Paul had said that the Gospel was hid to the lost. This he ac-
counts for by saying that Satan had blinded their minds. The blindness there-
fore precedes the unbelief, and is the cause of it.—It does not seem necessary
to limit the statement that Christ is the image of God to his state of exaltation,
as the author does. Even in his humiliation he so represented God as that it
could be said he that saw him saw the Father also (John xiv. 9, xii. 45).
(n*) “Τῆς God of this world.” Ver. 4.
Satan is so called because of the power which he exercises over the men of
the world, and because of the servile obedience which they render to him. It
is not necessary, in order that men should serve Satan, and even worship him,
that they should intend to do so, or even that they should know that such a
being exists (1 Cor. x. 20). It is enough that he actually controls them, and
1 Bengel aptly observes: ‘“ Aliud significat ἀόρατα; nam multa, quae non cernuntur,
erunt visidilia, confecto itinere fidei?”’
NOTES. 505
o
that they fulfil his purposes as implicitly as the good fulfil the will of God.
Not to serve God is to serve Satan. There is no help forit, If Jehovah be not
our God, Satan is (Hodge.)
(04) ““ To give the light of the knowledge.” Ver. 6.
According to the author, the intention here is to give a reason for Paul’s be-
ing a servant to the Corinthians, viz. that God shined into his heart that he
might give the light to others. But it agrees better with the context and the
meaning of the words to view the brilliant passage as giving the reason why
Paul preached the Gospel. The outshining of God in creative power so illu-
mined the Apostle’s soul that he saw the divine glory in the face of Christ, and
could not but set forth such majesty, excellence, and grace.
(p*) ““ Troubled on every side,’ etc. Vv. 8, 9.
There is in these verses an evident climax, which reaches its culmination in
the following sentence. Paul compares himself to a combatant: first hardly
pressed, then hemmed in, then pursued, then actually cast down. This was
not an occasional experience, but his life was like that of Christ, an uninter-
rupted succession of indignities and suffering (Hodge).
(Q') Paul's quotation from the Psalter. Ver. 13.
In a footnote the author speaks of Paul as looking upon David as the author
of the 116th Psalm. But, besides the fact that the Apostle does not say so, it
may be insisted that even if he had spoken of it as David’s, it would not prove
anything more than that he referred to it (just as believers have done for ages)
as belonging to a collection which is called David’s, because he was the chief
author of its contents, As for the quotation itself, Paul quotes the incorrect
rendering of the Septuagint ; yet, as the author justly remarks, both the Hebrew
and the Greek contain the idea which led the Apostle to make the quotation,
viz. that speaking is represented as the effect and proof of faith.
(Ὁ ** Shall present us with you.” Ver. 14.
Certainly the idea of the judgment is foreign to the connection. ‘‘Itisa
fearful thing to stand before the tribunal of the final judge, even with the cer-
tainty of acquittal.’’ The reference in rather tothe joyful, blessed presenta-
tion before God, referred to so often elsewhere by the Apostle. See xi. 2; Eph.
v. 27; Col. i. 22; Jude 24.
(s*) ‘© A far more exceeding and elernal.” Ver. 17.
The Revision of 1881 gives this weighty and impressive verse in a rendering
which is exact, and yet faithful to our English idiom. The verse contains the
whole philosophy of the Christian view of affliction. It does not deny the re-
ality of earthly sorrows or underrate their power, as did the Stoics ; but after
allowing them all their force, calmly says that they dwindle into insignificance
when compared with the exceeding and eternal glory to which they lead. But
this applies only to believers, as appears by the next verse, ‘‘ while we look,”’
ete. Afflictions have a salutary operation, provided that we look at the things
which are eternal—look, i.e., fix our attention upon them as an absorping object.
506 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
CHAPTER V. ,
Ver. 3. εἴγε] Lachm. reads eizep, following BD EF G17, 80, and τινές in
Chrys. One of the two is hardly a grammatical correction, but simply an
involuntary alteration of the copyists. Hence the preponderance of testimony
is decisive, and that in favour of εἶγε, which has the support of C Καὶ Τὶ κα among
the uncials, and of almost all the cursives, as well as the strong weight of all
the Greek Fathers. (The testimony of the vss. and Latin Fathers is not avail-
able here.) — ἐνδυσάμενοι] ἐκδυσάμενοι is found in D* F G, Ar. pol. It. codd. in
Chrys. and Oec. Ambrosiast., Tert. Paulin. Primas. Ambros. Marcion. Pre-
ferred by Mill,! Seml. Michael. Ernesti, Schott, Schneckenb. Reiche, Osiander,
and others. Recommended by Griesb. ; not adopted, but declared decidedly
as correct, by Riick., comp. also Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 511;
adopted by Tisch. But ἐκδυσ. is an old alteration, arising from the fact that
ἐνδυσ., ob γυμνοὶ were not regarded as contrasts, and hence the former was found
inappropriate and unintelligible. Lachm. and Ewald also defend the Recepta
ἐνδυσ. — Ver. 4. After oxyver Riick. reads τούτῳ, following DE FG min, and
several vss. and Fathers. A defining addition. — Ver. 5. ὁ δούς] ὁ καὶ δούς is
read by Elz. Scholz, Tisch. against BC D* F G &* min. and several vss. and
Fathers. But comp, i. 22. Ver. 10. κακόν] φαῦλον, favoured by Griesb.,
adopted by Tisch., is here (it is otherwise in Rom. ix. 11) too weakly attested
(only by Cand δὲ among the uncials). — Ver. 12. οὐ] Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have
οὐ yap, but against preponderating evidence. Addition for the sake of connec-
tion. — kai ob] Lachm. reads καὶ μὴ ἐν. But μῇ is only in B δὲ and some cur-
sives, Theodoret ; while ἐν is found in Β D* FG δὲ and some cursives, Copt.
Syr. Vulg. It. Clem. Ambrosiast. Pel., so that μή and ἐν have not equal attesta-
tion. μῇ is an emendation, and ἐν supplementary. - Ver. 15. εἰ εἴς] Lachm.
Riick. read εἷς, following far preponderating testimony. εἰ was inserted for the
sake of a connection assumed to be wanting. — Ver. 16. εἰ δὲ καί] B D* 8* 17,
39 have only εἰ καί. So Lachm. Riick. δέ is only added by way of connection,
just as the change of order καὶ εἰ in F G, Vulg., It. and Latin Fathers has been
made for the sake of the connection, but likewise testifies to the non. genuine-
ness of dé. — Ver. 17. τὰ πάντα] is wanting in important authorities. Deleted
by Lachm. and Riick. [So nearly all recent critics and expositors.] But how
easily it may have been passed over on account of the following ra dé πάντα ἢ
Some versions omit the latter, — Ver. 21. γάρ] is, according to preponderating
testimony, to be deleted, with Lachm. Riick, and Tisch. Instead of γινώμ.,
γενώμ. should be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following BCDEKL ¥,
min. Or, Chrys’al. These witnesses are decisive ; F and Galso suggest the aor.
1 According to whom the attempts to ex- Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 362, quite agrees with
plain ἐνδυσάμ. are alleged to be “‘plerague him in this judgment.
absurda, omnia dura, coacta et incongrua.”
-
CHAP: Vs, 1: 507
Vv. 1-10. Still a continuation of what precedes (see on iv. 7).
Ver. 1. Τάρ] gives a reason for iv. 17. For if we were not certain that,
etc., ver. 1, we could not maintain that our temporal tribulation works for
us an eternal weight of glory. — οἴδαμεν] is here not the general it 7s known
‘Rom. ii. 2, iii. 19, vii. 14, vill. 28), but Paulis speaking (with the inclusion
also of Timothy) of himself, as in the whole context, He is certain of this.
Comp. Job xix. 25. — ἐὰν ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν k.t.2.] in case our earthly house of the
tent (our present body) shall have been Seiten up (comp. Polyb. vi. 40; 2
Esdr. v. 12). Paul here supposes the case, the actual occurrence of which,
however, is left quite indefinite by ἐάν, of his not living to see the Parousia.
It is true that he was convinced for himself that he would live to:see it (1
Cor. xv. 51), (15) but the opposite still remained to him a possible case, and
he posits it here (comp. on iv. 14) as dependent on emergent circumstances
and with an eye to the future decision. This correct view of the use of ἐάν
(see Hermann, ad Viger. pp. 822, 834 f. ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 453) is suffi-
cient to set aside the supposition that it is here equivalent to κἄν, etiamsi
(Grotius, Mosheim, Schulz, Rosenmiiller, also Schneckenburger, Beitr. p.
125), which is not the case even in passages such as Mark viii. 86 ; 1 Cor.
iv. 15, xiii. 1-3 ; 2 Cor. xii. 6. — ἐπίγειος] earthly, i.e. to be found on earth.
Comp. 1-Cor: xv. 40);. Phil. 21) 10. i. 19 ; Jas, 111. 15.5, John iii. 12... But
the special notion of transitoriness only comes to be added through the char-
acteristic τοῦ σκήνους, and is not specially implied in ἐπίγειος (in opposition to
Flatt and many others), for the present body is as ἐπίγειος, in contrast to the
heavenly things, in ὦ general sense temporal. — ἡ οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους} is to be
taken as one conception : the house, which consists in the (known) tent, the tent-
house. It is wrongly translated domum corporis by Mosheim and Kypke
(Rickert also hesitates as to this). For frequently as the profane authors,
especially the Pythagoreans and Platonists, designate the body by σκῆνος
(Grotius in loc. ; Alberti, Obss. p. 360 ; Dougtaeus, Anal. II. p. 122 f. ;
Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. p. 30), and seem withal to have quite abandoned the
conception of the tent (see the passages in Wetstein, and Kypke, II. p. 250),
still that conception always lies at the root of the usage, and remains the
significant element of the expression. Comp. Etym. M. ; σκῆνος καὶ τὸ σῶμα
παρὰ τὸ σκήνωμα Kal σκηνὴν εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς, οἷον οἰκητήριον. Aud since Paul
nowhere else uses σκῆνος of the body, and was led in quite a special way by
figure of οἰκία to do so here, we must keep by the literal meaning of σκῆνος,
tent, by which is set forth the merely temporary destiny of the earthly body.
Comp. 2 Pet. i. 18, 14; Isa. xxxviii. 12; Wisd. ix. 15, and Grimm in loc.
Chrysostom : εἰπὼν οἰκίαν σκήνους καὶ τὸ εὐδιάλυτον Kat πρόσκαιρον δείξας ἐκτεῦϑεν,
ἀντέϑηκε τὴν αἰωνίαν. There is nothing to indicate a particular allusion, such
as to the dwellings of the Israelites in the wilderness (Schneckenburger,
comp. Riickert), or even to the tabernacle (Olshausen).—On the two geni-
tives of different reference dependent on one noun, see Winer, p. 180 [E. T.
239]; and in Latin, Kiihner, ad Cic. Tuse. ii. 15. 35. — οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ ϑεοῦ ὦ
building originating from God, furnished to us by God, by which is meant
the reswrrection-body. The earthly body also is from God (1 Cor. xii. 18,
24), but the resurrection-body will be in a special creative sense (1 Cor, xv.
508 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
38) one, not indeed that has proceeded from God,’ but that is given by God.
Note also the contrast of the transient (ἡ οἰκία tov σκήν.) and the abiding
(οἰκοδομῇ) in the two bodies. ἐκ ϑεοῦ is to be attached to oixed., not to be
connected with ἔχομεν, by which a heterogeneous contrast would be intro-
duced (according to Hofmann, with the earthly body, ‘‘ which is made
each individual’s own within the self-propagation of the human race’). The
present tense, ἔχομεν, is the present of the point of time in which that κατα-
λυϑῆ Shall have taken place. Then he who has died has, from the moment
of the state of death having set in, instead of the destroyed body, the body
proceeding from God, not yet indeed as a real possession, but as an ideal
possession, undoubtedly to be realized at the (near) Parousia. Before this
realization he has it in heaven (ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς belongs to ἔχομεν), just because
the possession is still ideal and proleptic ; at the Parousia the resurrection-
body will be given to him from heaven (comp. ver. 2) by God, and till then
it appears as a possession which is preserved for him fora time in heaven with
a view to being imparted in future—like an estate belonging to him (comp.
the idea ἔχειν ϑησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ, Matt. xix. 21; Mark x. 21; Luke xviii.
22) which God, the future giver, keeps for him in heaven. For a like con-
ception of the eternal ζωή in general, see Col. iii. 3 ἢν ; comp. Weiss, bibl.
Theol. p. 375. The whole of this interpretation is confirmed by τὸ οἰκητήρ.
ju. τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ver. 2, which is correlative to the ἔχομεν.
ver. 1, in which, however, ἐν does not again occur, but ἐκ, because in ver. 2
τὸ οἰκητήριον... ἐπενδύσασθαι expresses the time of the realization of that
possession described in ver. 1. As accordingly ἔχομεν expresses more than
the mere expectancy (‘‘in the event of our death we do not wholly perish,
but have at the resurrection a spiritual body ἕο expect,” Billroth), it is not to
be transformed into accipiemus (Pelagius : ‘‘sumemus”), with Emmerling,
Flatt, and many of the older expositors, nor is it to be said, with de Wette
(comp. Weizel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 967; also Baur, II. p. 292 f.,
ed. 2; and Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 435 f.), that Paul has overleaped the middle
state between death and resurrection, or has let it fall into the background
on account of its shortness (Osiander). The ἔχειν takes place already from
the moment of death and during the continuance of the intervening state,
not simply from the resurrection. Photius, Anselm, Thomas, Lyra, and
others,* including Calovius, Wolf, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Hofmann, compare
John xiv. 2, and on account of the present tense refer this οἰκοδομή to the glo-
rious place of abode of the blessed spirits with God after death on to the
resurrection. So also Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 359 (comp. Schneckenburger, J.c.),
explains it of a life in heaven immediately after death. But against such a
view it may be decisively urged that oixia in the two parts of the verse must
. ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς,
1 Klopper in the Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol.
1862, p. 8 f.
2 Calvin hesitates between the right ex-
planation and this one; he says: ‘‘ Incertum
est, an significet statum beatae immortailitatis,
qui post mortem fideles manet, an vero corpus
incorruptibile et gloriosum, quale post resur-
rectionem erit.”’ Then he wishes to unite the
two views: ‘ Valo ita accipere, ut initinm
hujus aedificit sit beatus animi status post mor-
tem, consummatio autem sit gloria ultimae
resurrvectionis.”” Billroth misunderstands
this, as if Calvin were thinking of two dif-
ferent sorts of bodies, one of which we
have till the resurrection, the other by
means of the resurrection.
CHAPS Vig ae 209
necessarily have the same reference (namely, to the body) ; hence ‘also we
cannot, with Ewald and Hofmann, think of the heavenly Jerusalem, Gal. iv.
- 25 f., Heb. xii. 22, and of the heavenly commonwealth, Phil. iii. 20. See,
on the other hand, τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ver. 2, on which Bengel rightly remarks :
‘“itaque hoc domicilium non est coelum ipsum.” ? (Ὁ) But because the οἰκία
is ἐξ οὐραν οὔ, we can as little think of a pneumatic bodily organ of the inter-
mediate state (Flatt, Auberlen in the Stud. u. Krit. 1852, p. 709, Neander),
of which the N. T. gives no teaching or even hint whatever. Riickert
explains it, yet with much vacillation, of the immediate sequence of the exit
out of the old and entrance on the new body ; but this is against 1 Cor. xy.
51-53, according to which the transfiguration of those who live to see the
Parousia appears not as investiture with a new body after a previous κατάλυσις
of the old, but asa sudden transformation without destruction. This also in
opposition to Olshausen, who likewise seems to understand it of the trans-
figuration of the living. — ἀχειροποίητον] This epithet, denoting the super-
natural origin, suits indeed only the figure (Mark xiv. 58 ; Acts vii. 48), and
not the thing in itself ;? yet it occurred to the apostle the more naturally,
and he could use it with the less scruple and without impropriety, seeing
that he had just before represented the earthly body under the figure of a
σκῆνος, consequently of an οἰκία χειροποίητος, so that now, by virtue of con-
trast, the heavenly body stood before his eyes as an οἰκία ἀχειροποίητος. Con-
versely, an adjective may, without incongruity, correspond to the thing
itself and not to the figure, as in 1 Cor. xvi. 9. — ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) belongs
to éyouev ; see above.— Lastly, it is to be observed that in the two halves
of the verse (1) ἐκ ϑεοῦ and ἐν τοῖς ovpav. correspond with ἐπίγειος, and (2)
ἀχειροπ. and αἰώνιον with τοῦ σκήνους.
Ver. 2. Confirmation of the certainty expressed in ver. 1, not an explana-
tion why he should precisely mention the fact that he has such comfort in
the prospect of death (Hofmann)—as if, instead of οἴδαμεν, λέγομεν or some
similar verbum declarandi had preceded. — καὶ γάρ] does not here any more
than elsewhere mean merely for (see, on the other hand, Hartung, Partikell.
I. p. 138), but it means for also, so that καί is connected with ἐν τούτῳ. Pre-
viously, namely, the case was supposed : ἐὰν... καταλυϑῇ ; to which this
καὶ yap ἐν τούτῳ now corresponds, so that the train of thought is : ‘‘ we know
that, in case our present body shall have one day been destroyed, we have a
body in heaven ; forif this were not so, we should not already in the present
body be sighing after the being clothed upon with the heavenly.’* This
longing is an inward assurance of the fact that, if our earthly house, etc. —
καὶ yap ἐν τούτῳ] The emphasis is on ἐν : for also in this, Not merely perhaps
after the κατάλυσις supposed as possible (ver. 1) shall we long for the heavenly
1 On the way of regarding heaven as dom- 3 Τῇ that οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ ϑεοῦ ἔχομεν Were not
icilium, comp. Cic. de Senect. 23. 84; Tusce. correct, it would be absurd, instead of
3.11, 24: “animos, quum e corporibus ex- being contented with the earthly habita-
cesserint, in coelum quasi in domicilium tion, to be longing already in it after being
suum, pervenire ;” also i. 22, 51. clothed upon with the heavenly habitation.
2“ Metaphoricus sensus in talibus specte- Quite similar is the argument in Rom. viii.
tur, non primarius,” Dissen, ad Pind. Pyth. 22.
iv. 158.
510 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
body, but already now, while we are not yet out of the earthly body but are
still in it, we are sighing to be clothed upon with the heavenly. This is
proved to be the right interpretation by the parallel in ver. 4, where our ἐν is
represented by οἱ ὄντες ἐν. On καί, also, in the sense of already or already also,
see Hartung, /.c. p. 135 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 467 B ; Fritzsche, ad
Lucian. p. 5 ff. With τούτῳ, according to the supposition of Grotius and
others, including Fritzsche and Schrader, σώματι is to be mentally supplied,
so that, as is often the case in the classic writers, the pronoun is referred to
a word which was contained only as regards the sense in what preceded.
See Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 47 ; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 714 ; Seidler, ad Hur.
El. 582. Riickert wrongly thinks that Paul in that case must have written
évaito. This prevalent phenomenon of language applies, in fact, equally
in the case of all demonstrative and relative pronouns ; see the passages in
Matthiae, p, 978 f. Seeing, however, that the following τὸ οἰκητήριον ἡμ. τὸ
ἐξ οὐρανοῦ proves that Paul also, in ἐν τούτῳ, was regarding the body under
the figure of a dwelling, and seeing that he himself in ver. 4 has expressly
written τῷ σκήνει instead of τούτῳ the supplying of τῷ σκήνει is to be preferred
(so Beza and others, including Olshausen, Osiander, Neander, Ewald’).
Others take ἐν τούτῳ as propterea (see on John xvi. 20 ; Acts xxiv. 16), and
refer it partly to what was said in ver. 1, as Hofmann : ‘‘ On account of the
death in prospect” (comp. Estius, Flatt, Lechler, p. 138), or Delitzsch, p.
436: ‘in such position of the case ;” partly to what follows, which would
be the epexegesis of it (Erasmus, Usteri, Billroth, the latter with hesitation).
So also Riickert : in this respect. But the parallel of ver. 4 is decidedly
against all these views, even apart from the fact that that over which we
sigh is in Greek given by ἐπί with the dative or by the accusative, and hence
Hofmann’s view in particular would have required ἐπὶ τούτῳ or τοῦτο. --- τὸ
οἰκητήριον. . . ἐπιποϑοῦντες contains the reason of the sighing : because we
long for, etc. Paul himself gives further particulars in ver. 4. Hofmann
wrongly thinks that Paul explains his sighing from the fact, that his longing
applies to that clothing upon, instead of which death sets in. The latter point
is purely imported in consequence of his erroneous explanation of ἐν τούτῳ.
It is the sighing of the longing to experience the last change by means of
the being clothed upon with the future body. This longing to be clothed upon
with the heavenly body (not, as Bengel and many of the older expositors
would have it : with the glory of the transfigured soul, to which view Hof-
mann also comes in the end, since he thinks of the eternal light in which God
dwells and Christ with Him lives) extorts the sighs. Against the reference of
ἐπενδύσ. to an organ of the intermediate state, see on ver. 3, Remark. Ac-
cording to Fritzsche, the participle is only a continuation of the discourse
by attaching another thought : ‘‘ in hoe corpore male nos habentes suspiramus
et coeleste superinduere gestimus.” But in that case no logical reference would
be furnished for καί ; besides, it seems unwarrantable to supply male nos
habentes, since Paul himself has added quite another participle ; and in gen-
eral, wherever the participle seems only to continue the discourse, there
1 See also Klépper in the Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. 1862, p. 18.
CHAP. V., 9: 511
exists such a relation of the participle to the verb, as forms logically a basis for
the participal connection. Comp. Eph. v. 16. According to Schnecken-
burger, στενάζομεν ἐπιποϑοῦντες stands for ἐπιποϑοῦμεν στενάζοντες, so that
the chief fact is expressed by the participle (Niigelsbach on the Iliad, pp.
234, 280, ed. 3; Seidler, ad Hur. Iph. T. 1411 ; Matthiae, p. 1295 f.). An
arbitrary suggestion, against the usage of the N.T., which is different even
in the passages quoted by Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 275 [E. T. 320], and to be re-
jected also on account of ver. 4, στενάζομεν βαρούμ. --- The distinction between
οἰκία and οἰκητήριον is rightly noted by Bengel : ““ οἰκία est quiddam magis
absolutum, οἰκητήριον respicit incolam,” house—habitation (Jude 6 ; Eur. Or.
1114 ; Plut. Mor. p. 602 Ὁ ; 2 Macc. xi. 2, 3, 11. 15). —- τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ] that
which proceeds from heaven ; for it is ἐκ ϑεοῦ, ver. 1. God furnishes from
heaven the resurrection-body (1 Cor. xv. 38) through Christ (Phil. iii. 21),
in the case of the dead, by means of raising, in the case of the living, by
means of transforming (1 Cor. xv. 51). The latter is what is thought of in
the present passage. —izevdioacda] With this Paul passes to another but
kindred figure, namely, that of a robe, as also among the Rabbins (Schoett-
gen, Hor. p. 693) and the Neo-Platonists (Gataker, ad Anton. Ὁ. 351 ; Bos,
Eeercit. Ὁ. 60 ; Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 127) the body is frequently rep-
resented as the robe of the soul. See also Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. p. 239.
But he does not simply say ἐνδύσασϑαι, but ἐπενδύσασϑαι, to put on over (which
is not to be taken with Schneckenburger of the succession ; see, on the con-
trary, Plut. Pelop. 11 : ἐσθῆτας ἐπενδεδυμένοι γυναικείας τοῖς ϑώραξι, Herod. i.
195 : ἐπὶ τοῦτον ἄλλον εἰρίνεον κιϑῦῶνα ἐπενδύνει), because the longing under dis-
cussion is directed to the living to see the Parousia and the becoming trans-
formed alive. This transformation in the living body, however, is in so far
an ἐπενδύσασϑαι, as this denotes the acquisition of a new body with negation
of the previous death (the ἐκδύσασϑαι). This is not at variance with 1 Cor.
xv. 53, where the simple ἐνδύσασϑαι is used of the same transformation ; for
in that passage τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο is the subject which puts on, and, conse-
quently, τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο évdbera is quite equivalent to ἐπενδυόμεϑα, because in
the latter case, as at the present passage, the self-conscious Ego’ is the sub-
ject. — Regarding ἐπιποϑεῖν, in which ἐπί does not make the meaning
stronger (ardenter cupere), as it is usually taken, but only indicates the
direction of the longing (πόϑον ἔχειν ἐπί τ΄), see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 30 f.
Ver. 3. After ver. 2 a comma only is to be placed, for ver. 3 contains a
supplementary definition to what precedes (comp. Hartung, Partikell. I. pp.
391, 395 f.), inasmuch as the presupposition is stated under which the éev-_
δύσασϑαι ἐπιποϑοῦμεν takes place : in the presupposition, namely, that we shall
be found also clothed, not naked, i.e. that we shall be met with at the Parousia
really clothed with a body, and not bodiless. The apostle’s view is that, while
Christ at the Parousia descends from heaven, the Christians already dead
first rise, then those still alive are transformed, whereupon both are then
caught away into the higher region of the air (εἰς ἀέρα) to meet the Lord, so
1The inward man. He is put on with the earthly body, and sighs full of longing to put
on over it the heavenly body.
512 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
that they thus at their meeting with the Lord shall be found not bodiless (οὗ
γυμνοῖ), but clothed with a corporeal covering * (ἐνδυσάμενοι). (v*) See 1 Thess.
iv. 16, 17, and Liinemann’s note thereon. This belief is here laid down as
certainty by ciye x.7.4., and as such it conditions and justifies the longing
desire expressed in ver. 2, which, on the contrary, would be vain and empty
dreaming, if that belief were erroneous, i.e. if we at the Parousia should be
found as mere spirits without corporeality ; so that thus those still living, in-
stead of being transformed, would have to die, in order to appear as spirits
before the descending Christ. We cannot fail to see in the words an inci-
dental reference to those of the Corinthians who denied the resurrection,
and without the thought of them Paul would have had no occasion for add-
ing ver. 8 ; but the reference is such, as takes for granted that the deniers
are set aside and the denied fact is ¢ertain. As the whole of this explana-
tion is quite in keeping with the context and the conceptions of the apostle,
so is it with the words, regarding which, however, it is to be observed that
the certainty of what is posited by εἴγε, if namely, is not implied in this par-
ticle by itself (in opposition to Hermann’s canon, ad Viger. p. 834), but in
the connection of the conception and discourse. Comp. on Eph. iii. 2, Gal.
iii. 4, and Baeumlein, Partik. p.64f. On καί, also, in the sense of really,
see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 132 ; and on εἴ ye καί, comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 13.
The participle ἐνδυσάμενοι refers, however, to the act of clothing previous to
the εὑρεϑησόμεϑα, so that the aorist is quite in its right place (in opposition
to Hofmann’s objection, that the perfect is required) ; and finally, the asyn-
deton évdvodu., ov γυμνοί makes the contrasts come into more vivid promi-
nence, like γάλα, ob βρῶμα, 1 Cor. 111. 2; Rom. ii. 29; 1 Thess. ii. 17, and
often ; comp. ver. 7. See Kiihner, II. p. 461 ; Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 31;
Hermann, ad Viger. Ὁ. 887. — The most current exposition on the part of
others is : ‘‘ Si nos iste dies deprehendet cum corpore, non exutos a corpore,
si erimus inter mutandos, non inter mortuos,” Grotius. So, following Tertul-
lian (de Resurr. 41, though he reads éxdvo.), Cajetanus, Castalio, Estius,
Wolf, Bengel, Mosheim, Emmerling, Schrader, Rinck, and others, and, in
the main, Billroth also, who, however, decides in favour of the reading
εἴπερ, and deletes the comma after ἐνδυσάμ. : ‘‘ which (¢.e. the being clothed
upon) takes place, if we shall be found (on the day of the Lord) otherwise
than already once clothed (with the earthly body), not naked (like the souls
of the dead),” so that ἐνδυσάμ. οὐ γυμνοὶ εὑρ. together would be : utpote jam
semel induti non nudi inveniemur, Against that common explanation, which
J. Miiller, von der Siinde, ΤΙ. p. 422 f., ed. 5, also follows with the reading
εἴπερ, the aorist participle is decisive (it must have been évdedvuévor).? Bill-
roth, however, quite arbitrarily imports the already once, and, what could
be more unnecessary, nay, vapid, than to give a reason for οὐ γυμνοί by
means of ἐνδυσάμ. in the assumed sense : since we indeed have already once re-
1 That is, with the new body, no longer νϑηΐ appeal to Eph. vi. 14; 1 Thess. v. 8. In
with the old. See, in opposition to both passages, in fact, the having put on is
Klopper, Hofmann, p. 130. longed for, and the aorist is therefore quite
2 Even Miiller acknowledges that the in order.
aorist is anomalous, but makes an irrrele-
CHAP. V., 3. 819
ceived a body ! which would mean nothing else than : since we indeed are not
born bodiless. Against Billroth, besides, see Reiche, p. 357 f. According
to Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 55 ff., ἐνδυσάμ. is held to be in essential meaning
equivalent to ἐπενδυσάμ. : ‘‘ Superinduere (immortale corpus vivi ad nos re-—
cipere) volumus, quandoquidem (quod certo scimus et satis constat, εἴγε) etiam
superinduti (immortali corpore) non nudi sc. hoc immortali corpore, swmus
Suturi h.e. quandoquidem vel sie ad regni Mess, ἀφθαρσίαν perveniemus.” But
while the ἐπενδυσάμενοι may be included as a species among the ἐνδυσάμενοι,
as opposed to the γυμνοί, they cannot be meant exclusively. Besides, the
thought : ‘‘ since we too clothed upon will not be without the immortal body,”
would be without logical import, because the swperinduere is just the assump-
tion of the future body, with which we attain to the ἀφθαρσία of the Messi-
anic kingdom. According to de Wette, Paul says: ‘‘if, namely, also (in
reality) clothed, we shall be found not naked (bodiless), 7.e. as we then certainly
presuppose that that heavenly habitation will be also a body.” So, in the main,
Lechler, Apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 1388 f., Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I.
p- 118, the latter taking εἶγε καί as although indeed. But the whole explana-
tion is absurd, since the ἔνδυσις could not at all be conceived as at the same
time its opposite, as γυμνότης ; and had Paul wished to lay emphasis on the
fact that the clothing would be none other than with a body (which, how-
ever, was quite obvious of itself), he must have used not the simple γυμνοί
(not the simple opposite of ἐνδυσάμ.), but along with it the more precise defi-
nition with which he was concerned, something, therefore, like ob σώματος
γυμνοί (Plato, Crat. p. 403 B, and the passages in Wetstein and Loesner).
According to Delitzsch, l.c. p. 436, εἰ καί is taken as although, and ἐνδυσάμ.
as contrast of ἐπευδυσάμ., so that there results as the meaning : though, in-
deed, we too, having acquired the heavenly body by means of clothing (not
clothing over), shall be found not naked. As if this were not quite obvious
of itself 1 When clothed, one certainly is not naked ! no matter whether
we have drawn the robe on or over. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact,
and Oecumenius take ἐνδυσάμ. as equivalent to σῶμα ἄφθαρτον λαβόντες, but
γυμνοί as equivalent to γυμνοὶ δόξης, for the resurrection is common to all, but
not the δόξα. So also Usteri, Lehrbegr. Ὁ. 892 f.: ‘‘We long after being
clothed upon, which event, however, is desirable for us only under the con-
dition or presupposition that we, though clothed, shall not be found naked
in another sense,” namely, denuded of the garland which we should have
gained. Here also we may place Olshausen (comp. Pelagius, Anselm, Cal-
vin, Calovius, and others), who takes οὐ γυμνοί as epexegetical of évdvoay.,
and interprets the two thus : if we, namely, are found also clothed with the robe
of righteousness, not denuded of it. Comp. also Osiander, who thinks of the
spiritual ornament of justification and sanctification ; further, Hofmann on
the passage and in his Schriftbew. 11. 2, p. 478, who, putting a comma after
εἴγε (‘if we, namely, in consequence of the fact that we also have put on, shall be
found not naked”), understands ἐνδυσάμενοι as a designation of the Christian
status (the having put on Christ), which one must have in order not to stand
forth naked and, therefore, unfitted for being clothed over. But where in
the text is there any suggestion of ἃ garland, a robe, an ornament of right-
514 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
eousness, a putting on of Christ (Gal. iii. 27; Rom. xiii. 14), or of the
Christian status (1 Thess. v. 8; Eph. vi. 14, iv. 24; Col. 111. 10), or any-
thing else, which does not mean simply the clothing with the future body ?
Olshausen, indeed, is of opinion that there lies in καί a hint of a transition
to another figure ; but without reason, as is at once shown by what follows ;
and with equal justice amy change in the figure at our pleasure might be ad-
mitted |! This also in opposition to Ewald’s interpretation : ‘if we at least
being also clothed (after we have had ourselves clothed, i.e. raised again)
be found not naked, namely, guilty, like Adam and Eve, Gen. iii. 11.”
This would point to the resurrection of the wicked, Rey. xx. 12-15 ; if we
belonged to these, we should certainly not have the putting on of glorifica-
tion to hope for. But such a reference was just as remote from the mind of
the apostle, who is speaking of himself and those like him, as the idea of
Adam and Eve, of whom Beza also thinks in γυμνοῖ, must, in the absence of
more precise indication, have remained utterly remote from the mind of the
reader.
Remarx.—Whether the reading éxdvo. or ἐνδυσ. be adopted, it is not to be
explained of an interim body between death and resurrection (Flatt, p. 69 ;
Schneckenburger, l.c. p. 130; Schott ; Auberlen in the Stud. τ. Krit. 1852, p.
709 ; Martensen, § 276; Nitzsch, Géschel, Rinck, and others, including
Reiche,! /.c.), of which conception there is no trace in the New Testament ;?
but rather, since γυμνοί can only refer to the lack of a body : if we, namely, even
1Reiche, p. 364: ‘‘ Quo certior nobis est
gloriosae immortulitatis spes (yap, c. 2), 60 im-
pensiore quidem desiderio, ut morte non inter-
cedente propediem ad summum beatitudinis
fastigium evehamur, flagramus; attamen
vero etiam corpore hoc per mortem exuti senti-
endi agendique instrumento non carebimus.”
εἴγε καί is, in his view, concessive, moderating
the desire to assume the heavenly body
without previously dying (ἐπενδύσασϑαι, ver.
2): ““Siigitur Deus votis (ver. 2) non an-
nuerit, animum haud despondemus anxiive
futura anhelamus, persuasi scilicet, et post
mortem illico mentem nostram immortalem
in statum beatissimum evectum iri,” ete.
It is true that Reiche himself declares
against the view that Paul here speaks of a
body intermediate between death and resur-
rection ; but hisown view amounts to much
the same thing, since Paul, according to it,
is supposed to grant that we, unclothed of
the earthly body by death, will yet “ post
mortem illico’’ be found not naked.
3 The manner also in which the origin of
this corporeality has been conceived, name-
ly, as the soul’s self-embodiment by putting
on the elements of the higher world (see,
especially Giider, Hrsch. Chr. unt. ἃ. Todten,
p. 336, also West. in the Stud. τι. Krit. 1858,
p. 280), has nowhere in Scripture any ba-
sis whatever. See, in opposition to it,
Delitzsch, p. 488; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u.
Werk, III. 2, p. 436, who, however (p. 74 f.),
for his part, answers in the.affirmative the
question, whether we are to think of “a
change of clothing and clothing over of the
new man out of the transfigured corporeality
of the Lord, whose communion is the blessed
bread and the blessed cup.’ In any case
γυμνοί is the negation of corporeality. But
the question remains untouched (comp. the
cautious remarks of J. Miiller, p. 425), what
organ of its activity the soul retains in
death, when itis divested of the body.
On this point we have no instruction in
Scripture, and conjectures (like Weisse’s
conception of the nerve-spirit) lead to noth-
ing. The opinion that the ZLord’s Supper
has a transfiguring power over the body
goes partly against Scripture (because it
presupposes the participation of the ¢7ans-
Jigured body of Christ) and partly beyond
Scripture (because the latter contains noth-
ing regarding any power of the Lord’s Sup-
per over the body). Ultra quod Scriptum
est is also the conception in Delitzsch of the
body-like appearance of. the bodiless soul
itself, or of an outline of the same resem-
bling in form its true inward state. Such
theories bring us into the realm of phantas-
magoric hypotheses.
CHAP: Υ., 4: 515
in the case that we shall be unclothed (shall have died before the Parousia), shail be
found not naked (bodiless), in which the idea would be implied: assuming,
namely, that we in every case, even in the event of our having died before the
Parousia, will not appear before Christ without a body ; hence the wish of
attaining the new body without previous death is all the better founded
(ἐπενδύσασθαι). Similarly Riickert. Kling (in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1839, p. 511)
takes it inaccurately : ‘‘allhough we, even if an unclothing has ensued, will not be
found bare,” by which Paul is held to say: ‘‘even if the severing process of
death has ensued, yet the believers will not appear bodiless on the day of the
Lord, since God gives them the resurrection-body.”! The error of this view
lies in although. No doubt Kling, with Lachmann, reads εἴπερ. But even this
never means quamvis (not even in 1 Cor. viii. 5), and the Homeric use of εἴπερ
in the sense : if also nevertheless, if even ever so much (Odyss.i. 167; Ii. i. 81, and
Niagelsbach’s note thereon, p, 43, ed. 3), especially with a negative apodosis (see
Hartung, I. p. 339 ; Kihner, II. p. 562), passed neither into the Attic writers
nor into the N. T.
Ver. 4. An explanation defining more precisely, and therewith giving a
reason for (γάρ), ver. 3, after a frequent practice of the apostle. Comp. iv.
10, 11. In this καί, even serves to emphasize the οἱ ὄντες ἐν τ. ox., just as
with ἐν τούτῳ in ver. 2. — The ἐν τούτῳ of ver. 2 is here more precisely de-
fined by οἱ ὄντες ἐν τῷ σκήνει, in Which οἱ ὄντες is prefixed with emphasis : for
even as those who are still in the tent, i.e. for even as those whose sojourn in
the tent is not yet at an end ; already while we are still in possession of the bodily
life, which duration of time is opposed to the moment of the possible κατά-
λυσις τοῦ σκήνους, when the tent is left, and when the longing and sighing after
the new body would be still stronger ; comp. on ver. 2. From the very
position of the καί Hofmann is wrong in making its emphasis fall on βαρού-
μενοι, Which extorts sighs from us, and then taking οἱ ὄντες ἐν τ. ox. in anti-
thetic reference to what is afterwards affirmed of these subjects, since they
prefer to remain in the earthly life (comp. οἱ ζῶντες, iv. 11). The οἱ ὄντες ἐν τ.
ox. can only, in fact, be the same as the ἐν τούτῳ of ver. 2, which, however,
Hofmann has already wrongly understood in another way ; the two ex-
pressions explain one another. —r6 σκήνει] The article expresses the tent
which is defined by the connection (the body). — βαρούμενοι] definition as-
signing a reason for στενάζ. : inasmuch as we are depressed ; not, however,
propter calamitates (i. 8), as Piscator, Emmerling, Schneckenburger, Fritzsche
suppose without any ground in the context, but the cause of the pressure
which extorts the sighs is expressed by the following ἐφ᾽ ᾧ οὐ θέλομεν x.7.2.,
so that βαρούμενοι, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ οὐ θέλομεν x.7.2. is a more precise explanation of the
τὸ οἰκητήριον. . . ἐπιποθοῦντες of ver.2. — ἐφ᾽ ᾧ] 1.6. ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὅτι, propterea quod,
as Rom. v. 12 ; see on that passage. Comp. here particularly θυμὸν βαρύνειν
ἐπί τινι, Pind. Pyth. i. 162 f. ; στενάζειν ἐπί rou, Soph. Hl. 1291 ; Xen. Cyr.
iv. 3. 3: δακνόμενος ἐπὶ τούτοις. We feel ourselves as oppressed by a burden,
because we are not willing, i.e. have an antipathy, to unclothe, etc. The oppres-
1 So in the main did Chrysostominterpret comp. Matthaei in loc.): κἂν ἀποθώμεθα τὸ
the reading ἐκδυσάμενοι (for so we are to σῶμα, οὐ χωρὶς σώματος EKEL παραστησόμεθα,
read in the explanation first quoted by him, ἀλλὰ καὶ μετὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀφθάρτου γενομένου.
δ10 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS,
sive part of this οὐ θέλομεν ἐκδύσασθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπενδύσασθαι lies in the ever present
possibility of the ἐκδύσασθαι. Emmerling and Fritzsche take ἐφ᾽ » as quare
(see Elsner, ad Rom. v. 12 ; Matthiae, p. 1373) : ‘‘ Nam in hoc corpore ad
calamitates valde ingemisco (καὶ. . . . yap βαρυν.) et propter hance ipsam
malorum molem (ἐφ᾽ @) nolo quidem, wt haec propulsetur, mortem oppetere
(éxdvc.),” ete. But there is nothing of the malorum moles in the context ;
and if we should wish, as the context allowed, with Osiander and older
commentators, to refer Bapoiu. to the pressure which the body as such (the
σκῆνος) causes to us by its onus peccati et crucis (comp. Wisd. ix. 15), and
then to explain ἐφ᾽ ᾧ : and in order to get rid of this pressure ; this would be
at variance with the parallel in ver. 2, according to which the sighing
must appear to be caused by the special longing (which in ver. 4 is, by
way of more precise definition, designated as an oppressing one), not by
another pressure.’ This, at the same time, in opposition to Usteri and
Schneckenburger, who take it as whereupon (comp. Kiihner Il. p. 298).
According to Beza, it means in quo, sc. tabernaculo, and, according to
Flatt, even although. At variance with linguistic usage. Ewald, taking
βαρούμ. of the burden of the whole earthly existence, explains it : '‘in so far
as we wish not to be unelothed, and so set forth as naked and guilty and
cast into hell, but to be clothed over.” Against this it may be urged that ἐφ᾽ ᾧ
does not mean quatenus (ἐφ᾽ ὅσον), and that the interpretation of ‘being un-—
clothed” in the sense of rewm jieri is not grounded in the text ; see on ver.
ὃ. -- θέλομεν] Out of this we are not, with Grotius, Emmerling, and others,
557
to make malumus ; otherwise ἢ must have stood instead of a/2a, 1 Cor. xiv.
19. The οὐ θέλειν is the nolle, the not being willing (Baeumlein, Partik. p.
278 ; Ameis on Hom. Od. ii. 274), of the disinclination of natural feeling.
— ἀλ}}} 86. θέλομεν. --- ἵνα καταποθῇ κ.τ.}.1 We wish to be clothed over, in
order that, in this desired case, what is mortal in us may be swallowed up (may
be annihilated, comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 54) by life, i.e. by the new, immortal
power of life which is imparted to us in the moment of the change (of the
ἐπενδύσασθαι). “Ὥσπερ avicyov τὸ φῶς φροῦδον τὸ σκότος ποιεῖ, οὕτως ἡ ἀνώλεθρος
ζωὴ τὴν φθορὰν ἀφανίζει, Theodoret. (v*)
Remark.—There is no fear of death in this utterance of the apostle, but
rather the shrinking from death, that pertains to human nature—the shrink-
ing from the process of death as a painful one. His wish was not to die first
before the Parousia and then to be raised up, but to be transformed alive ;
and what man, to whom the nearness of the Parousia was so certain, could
have wished otherwise? His courage in confronting death, which was no
Stoical contempt of death, remained untouched by it.
Ver. 5. Aé] not antithetic (Hofmann), but continuative ; this wish is no
groundless longing, but we are placed by God in a position for the longed-
1 Osiander : ‘‘ wherefore we long to haye __ self-evident that of this explication of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ
ourselves not unclothed, but clothed over, there is nothing in the text: even apart
because in the very act of dying the pressure from the fact, that Osiander explains as if
of the tabernacle becomes heaviest, when it,as the words were ἐφ᾽ ᾧ θέλομεν οὐκ ἐκδύσασϑαι
it were, collapses over its inhabitant.’ Itis κ.οτιλ,
CHAP. V., 6. 517
for change which swallows up death. Now He who has made us ready for
this very thing is God. — εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο] for this very behalf, for this very thing,
Rom. ix. 17, xiii. 6 ; Eph. vi. 18, 22; Col. iv. 8. According to the con-
text, it cannot apply to anything else than to the ἐπενδύσασϑαι, whereby the
mortal will be swallowed up of life. For this precisely Paul knew his indi-
viduality to be disposed by God, namely (see what follows) through the
Holy Spirit, in the possession of which he had the divine guarantee that at
the Parousia he should see his mortal part swallowed up of life, and conse-
quently should not be amongst those liable to eternal destruction. In this
way the usual reference of αὐτὸ τοῦτο to the eternal glory is to be limited
more exactly in accordance with the context ; comp. also Maier. Bengel
wrongly refers it to the sighing, pointing to Rom. viii. 23.1 But how inap-
propriate this is to the context ! And how unsuitable in that case would
be the description of the Holy Spirit as ἀῤῥαβών, since, according to Bengel,
He is to be conceived as ‘‘suspiria operans” ! Quite as unsuitable is the
reference of κατεργ. to the creation (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact,
Beza, and others, also Schneckenburger), which has no place here even as
the beginning of the preparation indicated (in opposition to Ewald); Riick-
ert remains undecided. — ὁ δοὺς ἡμῖν x.7.2.] predicative more precise defini-
tion of the previous ὁ δὲ κατεργ. ἡμᾶς. . . ϑεός ; He who (quippe qui) has
given to us the Spirit as earnest ; see oni. 22. As earnest, namely, of the
fact that we shall not fail to be clothed upon with the heavenly body at the
Parousia (which Paul was convinced he would live to see). Comp. Rom,
viii. 11, andthe Remark thereon. The usual reference of τ. ἀῤῥαβ. : arrham
futurae gloriae, is here too general for the context. The view of Hofmann
regarding ὁ δοὺς ἡμῖν «.7.A., that the possession of the Spirit, etc., cancels
the distinction between being unclothed and being clothed over, and takes
away the natural shrinking from death, falls with his explanation of κατεργασ.
ἡμ. εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ; see the Remark.
Ver. 6. The resulting effect of ver. 5 on the apostle’s tone of mind.—
Estius (comp. Erasmus, Annot.) rightly saw that the participle does not
stand for the finite verb (as Flatt still holds, with most of the older com-
mentators), but that ver. 6 isan anacoluthon, as the construction is quite
17This reference has been in substance
repeated by Hofmann (comp. also his
Schriftbew. 11. 2, p. 475f.). In place of his
former misinterpretation, according to
which he took κατεργάζεσϑαι as to work
down, break the spirit (see, in opposition to
this, my third edition, p. 115, Remark), he
has substituted the other erroneous expla-
nation, that κατεργάζεσϑαι is to be held as
“to bring one to the point of doing something,”
that εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο applies to the disinclina-
tion to. being unclothed, and that the means
by which God brings us to the point of not
wishing to be unclothed is obviously the
terribleness of death. The last point is purely
imported, and the whole explanation is
excluded by its very inconsistency with
the language used in the passage. For
κατεργάζεσϑαι means, with Greek writers, fo
bring one to something, but always only in
the sense ¢o prevail on one for something for
which we wish to get him, to win him for
one’s ends, whether this be effected by per-
suasion or by other influence directed to
the end. So also Judg. xvi. 16; Xen. Mem.
ii. 3. 11. Our expression fo work on a person
is similar. Comp. also Xen. Mem. ii. 3. 16;
Herod. vii. 6 (κατεργάσατο καὶ ἀνέπεισε), ix.
108 ; Strabo, x. 5, p. 483 (πειϑοῖ κατεργάζονται).
In the N. T. the word never means any-
thing else than ¢o set at work, bring about,
and in this sense it occurs frequently in
Paul. Nor is it otherwise used here.
518 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
broken off by ver. 7, but the thought is taken up again with ϑαῤῥοῦμεν dé in
ver. 8. See Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 43 ff.; Winer, p. 533 [E. T. 717 f.];
Buttmann, newt. Gram. p. 252 [E. T. 292]. We must therefore not treat
ver. 7 (Beza and others), nor even vv. 7 and 8 (Olshausen, Ewald), as a
parenthesis. Paul intended to write : ϑαῤῥοῦντες οὖν πάντοτε καὶ εἰδότες...
κυρίου, εὐδοκοῦμεν μᾶλλον x.7.2., but was carried away from this by the inter-
vening thought of ver. 7, and accordingly wrote as he has done. Comp. on
ver. 8. Hofmann’s opinion, that ϑαῤῥοῦμεν δὲ «.7.2. is apodosis to the par-
ticipial protasis ϑαῤῥοῦντες οὖν x.7.2., would only be grammatically tenable
(comp. on Acts xiii. 45) if there were no dé in ver. 8. This dé, as is always
the case with dé of the apodosis, even in the examples in Hartung, I. p. 186,
would be adversative (on the contrary), which is not switable here, and is not
to be logically supported by the added x. εὐδοκ. μᾶλλον (see on ver. 8). —
ϑαῤῥοῦντες] in all afflictions, iv. 17. — πάντοτε] In no time of trouble does
Paul know himself deserted by this confident courage, iv. 8 ff., vi. 4 ff. —
καὶ εἰδότες k.7.2.] This likewise follows from ver. 5, and likewise serves as
_ground for the εὐδοκοῦμεν x.7.2. of ver. 8 ; hence it is not, with Calvin, to be
explained : guia scimus (as giving a reason for the ϑαῤῥοῦντες), nor with
Estius, Rosenmiiller, Emmerling, Flatt, Olshausen, in a limiting sense : while
we yet, or although we know. — ἐνδημοῦντες ἐν τῷ σώμ.} being at home in the
body, i.e. while the body is the place of our home. The body is here also
conceived as οἰκία (not civitas, as Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, and others
hold), and that an οἰκία out of which we have not yet migrated, Erasmus :
‘‘quamdiu domi sumus in hoc corporis habitaculo.” Comp. Plato, Legg.
xii. p. 594 B: ἐὰν δὲ ἀποδημῶν οἰκίας δεσπότης τυγχάνῃ, Aesch. Choeph. 569. —
ἐκδημοῦμεν ἀπὸ τ. kup.| peregre absumus a Domino. For in respect to the future
eternal home with Christ (1 Thess. iv. 17 ; Phil. i. 23, iii. 20; Heb. xi. 13,
xiii. 14), the temporary home in the earthly body isa sojourn abroad, an
ἐκδημία, Which keeps us at a distance from Christ. On ἀπὸ τ. κυρ., comp.
Rom. ix. 3; Ameis on Hom. Od. xiv. 525, appendix.
Ver. 7. Reason assigned for the ἐνδημοῦντες . . . κυρίου. For through faith
we walk, etc.; faith is the sphere through which we walk, i.e. faith is the
element through which our earthly life moves. Tf we walked διὰ εἴδους, seeing
that this presupposes the being together with Christ, we should not be
ἐκδημοῦντες ἀπὸ Tov κυρίου. The object of faith we must from the whole con-
nection conceive to be the Lord in His glory, whose real form (τὸ εἶδος) we
shall only have before us when we are with Him. Comp. Rom. viii. 17; 1
Thess. iv. 17 ; John xvii. 24; 1 Pet. i. 8, al. — διὰ πίστεως] quite in accord-
ance with the Greek phrase διὰ δικαιοσύνης ἰέναι. Comp. περιπατεῖν διὰ τοῦ
φῶτος, Rev. xxi. 24, and the classical expressions πορείεσϑαι διὰ τῶν ἡδονῶν and
the like; see, in general, Valckenaer, ad Phoeniss. 402 ; Heindorf, ad Protag.
p- 323 A; Hermann, ad Oed. Col. 905 ; Bernhardy, p. 235. — οὐ διὰ εἴδους]
1.6. not 80, that we are surrounded by the appearance, not so, that we have
before us Christ, the Exalted One, in His real appearance and form, 1.6. in
His visible δόξα, and that this glorious εἶδος shines round us in our walk.
Comp. John xvii. 24, and the πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. εἶδος
never means, as it is mostly explained, vision (not even in Num. xii. 8), but
CEVADS VieguBs 519
always species. (x*) The Vulgate renders rightly : per speciem. See Luke
iil. 22, ix. 29; John v. 37; 1 Thess. v. 22; Duncan, ZLea., ed. Rost, p.
899 ; Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 607 f.; Tittmann, Synon. p. 119, who, however,
with the assent of Lipsius (Rechtfertigungsl. p. 100), wrongly takes it : exter-
na rerum specie captum vivere, so that the meaning would be: ‘‘ Vita nostra
immortali illa spe, non harum rerum vana specie regitur.” According to
this view, different objects would quite arbitrarily be assumed for πίστις and
εἶδος ; and further, where Paul specifies with περιπατεῖν that by which it is
defined, he uses as a prepositional expression not διά, but κατά (Rom. viii. 4,
xiv. 15, al.), or renders palpable the manner of the walking by ἐν (iv. 2 ;
Rom. vi. 4, a/.), or characterizes it by the dative, as xii. 18; Gal. v. 16.
These reasons tell also in opposition to Hofmann, who explains διά. of the
walk, which has its quality from faith, etc., and εἶδος of an outward form of
the walker himself, in which the latter presents himself as visible.-—Regard-
ing the relation of the διὰ πίστεως to the διὰ εἴδους, observe that in the tem-
poral life we have the πίστις, and not the εἶδος, while in the future world
through the Parousia there is added to the πίστις also the εἶδος, but the for-
mer does not thereby cease, it rather remains eternal (1 Cor. xiii. 13).
Ver. 8. But we have good courage and are well pleased, etc. With this Paul re-
sumes the thought of ver. 6, and carries it on, yet without keeping to the con-
struction there begun. The idea of the ϑαῤῥοῦμεν must in this resumption
be the same as that of the ϑαῤῥοῦντες in ver. 6, namely, the idea of confident
courage in suffering. This in opposition to Hofmann, who takes ϑαῤῥοῦντες
rightly of courage in suffering, but ϑαῤῥοῦμεν of courage in death, making
the infinitive ἐκδημῆσαι depend also on ϑαῤῥοῦμεν (see below). — dé, no doubt,
links on again the discourse interrupted by the parenthesis (Hermann, ad
Viger. p. 847; Pilugk, ad Hurip. Hec. 1211; Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 21),
which may also happen, where no dé has preceded (Klotz, ad Devar. p.
377); since, however, ϑαῤῥοῦντες is not repeated here, we must suppose that
Paul has quite dropped the plan of the discourse begun in ver. 6 and _ bro-
ken off by ver. 7, and returns by the way of contrast to what was said in ver.
6. Accordingly there occurs an adversative reference to the previous διὰ
TOT. περιπατοῦμεν, ov διὰ εἴδους, in so far as this state of things as to the course
of his temporal life does not make the apostle at all,discontented and dis-
couraged, but, on the contrary, leaves his ϑαῤῥεῖν, already expressed in ver.
6, quite untouched, and makes his desire tend rather towards being from
home, ete. Comp. Hartung, I. p. 178. 2; Klotz, 1.6. Thus there is a logi-
calreason why Paul has not written οὖν. Comp. on Eph. ii. 4. — On εὐδοκεῖν
in the sense of being pleased, of Placet mihi, comp. 1 Cor. i. 21 ; Gal. 1. 15 ;
Col. i.19 ; 1 Thess. ii. 8; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 370. — ἐκδημῆσαι ἐκ τοῦ
σώματος] to be-from-home out of the body, is not to be understood of the change
at the Parousia (Kaeuffer, ζωὴ aidv., p. 80f.), but, in accordance with the
context, must be the opposite of ἐνδημοῦντες ἐν τῷ σώματι, Ver. 6 ; Consequent-
ly in substance not different from ἐκδύσασϑαι, ver. 4. Hence the only right
interpretation is the usual one of dying, in consequence of which we are-from-
home out of the body. Comp. Phil. i. 23 ; Plato, Phaed. p. 67, B, C. The
infinitive is dependent only on εὐδοκοῦμεν, NOt also on ϑαῤῥοῦμεν (Hofmann),
520 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
since ϑαῤῥεῖν with the infinitive means to venture something, to undertake to
do something, which would not suit here (comp. Xen. Cyr. viii. 8. 6 ; Hero-
dian, ii. 10. 13),—even apart from the fact that this use of ϑαῤῥεῖν (equiva-
lent to τολμᾶν (is foreign to the N. T. and rare even among Greek writers.
The εὐδοκοῦμεν x.7.A. is something greater than the ϑαῤῥοῦμεν. This pas-
sage stands to ver. 4, where Paul has expressed the desire not to die but to be
transformed alive, in the relation not of contradiction, but of climaw ; the
shrinking from the process of dying is, through the consideration contained
in ver. 5 and in the feeling of the courage which it gives (ver. 6), now over-
come, and in place of it there has now come the inclination rather (μᾶλλον)
to see the present relation of ἐνδημεῖν ἐν τῷ σώματι and ἐκδημεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου
(ver. 6) reversed, rather,’ therefore, ἐκδημῆσαι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος καὶ
ἐνδημῆσαι πρὸς τὸν κύριον, Which will take place through death, if
this should be appointed to him in his apostolic conflicts and sufferings (iv.
7 ff.), for in that case his spirit, having migrated from his body, will not,
separated from Christ, come into Hades, but will be at home with the Lord
in heaven—a state the blessedness of which will later, at the day of the
Parousia, receive the consummation of glory. The certainty of coming by
martyrdom into heaven to Christ is consequently not to be regarded asa
certainty only apprehended subsequently by Paul. See Phil. i. 26, Remark.
Ver. 9. Therefore, because we εὐδοκοῦμεν k.7.2., ver. 8, we exert ourselves
also. Bengel: ‘‘ut assequamur quod optamus.” — φιλοτιμ.1 denotes the
striving, in which the end aimed at is regarded as a matter of honour, See
on Rom. xv. 20. Bengel well says: ‘‘haec una ambitio legitima.” But
there is no hint of a contrast with the ‘‘ honowr-coveting courage of the heathen
in dying” (Hofmann). — cite ἐνδημοῦντες, cite ἐκδημοῦντες] is either connected
with φιλοτιμ. (Calvin and others, including Billroth, Riickert, de Wette,
Ewald, Osiander) or with εὐάρεστοι αὐτῷ εἶναι (so Chrysostom and many
others, including Castalio, Beza, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Emmerling, Flatt,
Hofmann). The decision must depend upon the explanation. Chrysostom,
Calvin, and others, including Flatt and Billroth, supply with ἐνδημ. : πρὸς
In that case it must be connected
with εὐάρεστοι αὐτῷ εἶναι (Chrysostom : τὸ yap ζητούμενον τοῦτό ἐστί φησιν" ἄν τε
τὸν κύριον, and with éxdnu.: ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου.
ἐκεῖ ὦμεν, ἄν τε ἐνταῦϑα, κατὰ γνώμην αὐτοῦ ζῆν), not with φιλοτιμούμεϑα (Calvin :
Paul says, ‘‘ tam mortuis quam vivis hoc inesse studium”) ; for they who are
at home with Christ ave well-pleasing to Him, and, according to Rom. vi.
7, Paul cannot say of them that they strive to be so. The striving refers
merely to the earthly life, and one strives to be well-pleasing to the Lord
as ἐκδημῶν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, not as ἐνδημῶν πρὸς αὐτόν. For in the case of those who
ἐνδημοῦσι πρὸς τὸν κύριον, the continuance of their being well-pleased is a self-
1 μᾶλλον therefore belongs neither to at-home with the Lord. This ‘rather’ no
εὐδοκοῦμεν nor to dapp. x. evdox., as if Paul
would say that he has this courage s/il/
more than that meant in ver. 6 (Hofmann),
but to éxdnujoa . . . κύριον. We wish that,
instead of the present home in the body,
ete., there may rather (potius) set in the
being-from-home out of the body and the being-
more yields an awkward idea here (as Hof-
mann objects) than it does in all other pas-
sages where it is said that one wills, ought
to do, or does, instead of one thing rather
the other. Comp. é.g. 1 Cor. v. 2, vi. 7; Rom.
xiv. 13; John iii. 19,
CHAP: τ 10. 521
evident moral fact. On this account, and because quite an illogical order
of the two clauses would be the result (et tune et nunc 1), the whole of Chrys-
ostom’s explanation, and even its mode of connection, is erroneous. The
right explanation depends on our completing ἐνδημοῦντες by ἐν τῷ σώματι,
and ἐκδημοῦντες by ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ; for that τὸ σῶμα is still the idea which
continues operative from vv. 6, 8, as shown by τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος in ver. 10,
an expression occasioned by the very reference to the body, which is before
the mind in ver. 9. Further, we must clearly maintain that ἐκδημοῦντες, in
contrast to ἐνδημοῦντες, does not mean : migrating, i.e. dying, but : peregre
absentes, being from home (comp. Soph. Oed. R. 114 : ϑεωρὸς ἐκδημῶν, a pil-
grim from home), just as in ver. 6 ἐκδημοῦμεν Was peregre absumus, and in
ver. 8 ἐκδημῆσαι peregre abesse.' Wence we must reject all explanations which
give the meaning : living or dying (Calovius, Bengel, Ewald, Osiander, who
find the totality of life expressed with a bringing into prominence of the
last moment of life), or even: ‘‘sive diutius corport immanendum, sive eo
eveundum sit” (Erasmus, Paraphr., Emmerling), to which Riickert ulti-
mately comes, introducing Paul’s alleged illness ; while de Wette thinks
that Paul includes mention of the departure from life only to show that he
is prepared for everything. We should rather keep strictly to the meaning
of éxdnu., peregre absentes ex corpore (comp. Vulgate : absentes), and explain
it : We exert ourselves to be well-pleasing to the Lord, whether we (at His Pa-
rousia) are still at-home in the body, or are already from-home out of it, con-
sequently, according to the other figure used before, already ἐκδυσάμενοι, i.e.
already dead, so that we come to be judged before Him (more precisely :
before His judgment-seat, ver. 10), not through the being changed, like
the ἐνδημοῦντες, but through the being raised up. It is thus self-evident
that εἴτε ἐνδημοῦντες x.7.A. must be attached not to φιλοτιμούμεθα, but to
εὐάρεστοι αὐτῷ εἶναι, aS was done by Chrysostom, although with an erroneous
explanation.
Ver. 10. Objective motive of this striving. — τοὺς yap πάντας ἡμᾶς] no one
excepted. It applies to all Christians ; comp. Rom. xiv. 10. — dei] a divine
appointment, which is not to be evaded. — φανερωϑῆναι] This does not im-
ply ‘‘the concealment hitherto of the dead” (de Wette), for the living also
are judged, but means : manifestos fieri cum occultis nostris (Bengel, comp.
Beza). Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 5; Rom. ii. 16. Thus it is distinguished from
the mere παραστῆναι, iv. 14, Rom. xiv. 10, for which Grotius takes it ; and
it is arbitrary to declare this distinction unnecessary (Riickert), since that
conception corresponds alike with the word (comp. ver. 11) and the fact.
Comp. Chrysostom and Theodoret. — κομίσηται] Moral actions are, accord-
ing to the idea of adequate requital, conceived as something deposited,
which at the last judgment is carried away, received, and taken with us,
namely, in the equivalent reward and punishment. Comp. Eph. vi. 8 ; Col.
1 Τὴ this case, however, there isnot the is obvious of éése/f. Grotius felt this, and
contrast: et nunc et tunc, in this and in that hence, substituting another meaning in the
life, as Beza, Grotius, and others suppose, second clause, he explains it: ‘‘ 2wne vitam
connecting it with εὐάρεστοι εἶναι. For nostram ipsi probando, tune ab ipso praemi-
with the present well-pleasing th® future «wmaccipiendo.” See, against this, Calovius.
522 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
iii. 25 ; Gal. vi. 7 ; Matt. vi. 20 ; Rev. xiv. 13. — τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος 86. ὄντα,
that which is brought about through the body, that which has been done by
means of the activity of the bodily life (τὸ σῶμα as organic instrument of the
Ego in its moral activity generally ; hence not: τῆς σαρκός). Comp., on
διὰ τοῦ σώματος, expressions like τῶν ἡδονῶν ai διὰ τηῦ σώματός εἰσιν, Plat. Phaed.
Ρ. 65 A ; αἰσϑήσεις αἱ διὰ τοῦ σώματος, Phaedr. p. 250 D, al. ; Kiithner, ad Xen.
Mem. iv. 5. 3.! Instead of Luther’s : in the life of the body (so also de Wette
and many others), through the life of the body would be better. There is no
reason for taking the διά merely of the state (111. 11). The thought of the
resurrection-body, with which the recompense is to be received (to which view
Osiander, following the Fathers and some older commentators, is inclined),
is alien to the context (vv. 6, 8, 9) ; besides, merely διὰ τοῦ σώμ. would be
used without 74. —The πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν contains the standard of righteous-
ness, in accordance with which every one κομίσεται τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος : cor-
responding to what he has done. — εἴτε ἀγαϑὸν, site κακόν] 80. ἔπραξε. The
recompense of the wicked may take place as well by the assigning of a
lower degree of the Messianic salvation (1 Cor. iii. 15 ; 2 Cor. ix. 6) as by
exclusion from the Messianic kingdom (1 Cor. vi. 9 f. ; Gal. v. 21 ; Eph.
Wi δὴ: c(Z")
Remark.—Our passage does not, as Flatt thought, refer to a special judgment
which awaits every man immediately after death (a conception quite foreign to
the apostle), but to the last judgment conceived as near; and it results from
it that, according to Paul, the atonement made through the death of Jesus, in
virtue of which the pre-Christian guilt of those who had become believers was
blotted out, does not do away with the requital of the moral relation estab-
lished in the Christian state. Comp. Rom. xiv. 10, 12; 1 Cor. iv. 5. They
come in reality not simply before the judgment (to receive their graduated re-
ward of grace, as Osiander thinks), but info the judgment ; in John iii. 18, the
last judgment is not spoken of, and as to 1 Cor. vi. 2 f., see on that passage.
Paul, however, does not thereby say that, if the Christian has fallen and turns
back again to faith, the atonement through Christ does not benefit him; on
the contrary, the μετάνοια of the Christian is a repetition of his passing over to
faith, and the effect of the atonement (of the ἱλαστήριον) is repeated, or rather
continues for the Christian individual, so that even the Christian sins are
blotted out, when one returns from the life of sin into that of faith. But the
immoral conduct of Christians, continuing without this μετάνοια, is liable to
the punishment of the judgment, because they in such an event have frustrated
as to themselves the aim of the plan of redemption. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol.
p. 379. This in opposition to Riickert’s opinion, that Paul knows nothing of a
continuing effect of the merit of Christ. This continuing effect is implied not only
in the general Pauline doctrine that eternal life is God’s gift of grace (Rom. vi.
1 The reading τὰ ἴδια τοῦ σώματος (Arm.
Vulg. It. Goth. Or. twice, and many Fa-
thers), which Grotius and Mill approved,
is to be regarded as a gloss, in which ra διά
was meant to be defined more precisely by
τὰ ἴδια, In the Pelagian controversy the
ἴδια acquired importance for combating the
doctrine of original sin, because children
could not have done any ἴδια peccata, and
hence could not be liable to judgment. On
the other hand, Augustine, Zp. 107, laid
stress on the imputation of Adam’s sin, ac-
cording to which it was the moral property
even of children.
CEPAP σιν ΤἹ; 523
23), and in the idea of Christ’s intercession (Rom. viii. 34 ; comp. Heb: vii. 25,
ix. 24; 1 Johnii. 1, 2), but also in passages like 2 Cor. vii. 10, compared with
Rom. v. 9, 10,17. We may add the apt remark of Liicke on 1 John, p. 147:
“ΑΒ a single past and concluded fact, it (Christ’s atoning work) would be just
a mere symbol ; it has full truth only in its continuing efficacy.”
Vy. 11-21. Since we thus fear Christ, we persuade men, but we are mani-
fest to God, and, it is to be hoped, also to you (ver. 11,) by which we never-
theless do not wish to praise ourselves, but to give you occasion to boast of
us against our opponents (ver. 12). For for this you have cause, whether we
may be now mad (as our opponents say) or in possession of reason (ver. 13).
Proof of the latter (vv. 14, 15), from which Paul then infers that he no
longer knows any one after the flesh, as formerly, when he had so known
Christ, and that hence the Christian is a new creature (vv. 16, 17). And
this new creation is the work of God (vv. 18, 19), whence results the exalted
standpoint of the apostolic preaching, which proclaims reconciliation (vv.
20, 21).
Ver. 11. Οὖν] in pursuance of what has just been said, that we all before
the judgment-seat of Christ, etc., ver. 10. —r. φόβον τ. κυρίου] The genitive
is not genitivus subjecti (equivalent to τὸ φοβερὸν τ. κυρ.), aS Emmerling, Flatt,
Billroth, Osiander, and others hold, following Chrysostom and most of the
older commentators (comp. Lobeck, Paralip. p. 513; Klausen, ad <Aesch.
Choeph. 31); for the use of the expression with the genitive taken objectively
is the standing and habitual one in the LXX., the Apocrypha, and the N. T.,
according to the analogy of MW NS) (vii. 1; Eph. v. 21; comp. Acts ix.
31; Rom. iii. 18); and the context does not warrant us in departing from
this. Hence : since we know accordingly the fear of Christ (as judge); since
holy awe before Him is by no means to us a strange and unknown feeling,
but, on the contrary, we know how much and in what way He is to be
feared. The Vulgate renders rightly : timorem Domini ; Beza wrongly ;
terrorem illum Domini, 1.6. formidabile illud judicium.” — ἀνθρώπους
πείϑομεν] we persuade men, but God we do not need to persuade, like men; to
Him we are manifest. The-avdp. revd. has been interpreted of the gaining
ever to Christianity (Beza, Grotius, Er. Schmid, Calovius, Emmerling, and
others) : or of the apostolic working in general (Ewald) ; or of the correction
of erroneous and offensive opinions regarding Paul (Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Theophylact ); or of the striving to make themselves pleasing to men (Erasmus,
Luther, Elsner, Wolf, Hammond, Flatt, and others ;’ or of the persuadere
hominibus nostram integritatem (Estius, Bengel, Semler, Olshausen, de Wette,
Osiander, Neander). Billroth also, with quite arbitrary importation of the
idea, thinks that πείϑομεν is meant of illegitimate, deceitful persuasion: ‘1
can indeed deceive men, but to God withal I am manifest.” Raphel takes
it similarly, but with an interrogative turn. But this assumed meaning of
πείϑω must of necessity have been given by the context (which is not the
1 Luther: “‘ We deal softly with the peo- other wanton injunctions, for we fear God ;
ple, i.e. we do not tyrannize over nor drive but we teach them geutly, so that we dis-
the people with excommunications and gust no one.”
524 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
case even in Gal. iv. 10) ; and the idea of being able would in this view of
the meaning be so essential, that it could not be conveyed in the mere indic-
ative, which, on the contrary, expresses the actually existing state of things,
as well as the following zegavep. Olshausen erroneously attempts to correct
this explanation to the effect of our understanding the expression in refer-
ence to the accusations of the opponents: ‘‘As our opponents say, we
deceitfully persuade men, but before God we are manifest in our purity.”
The ‘‘as our opponents say” is as arbitrarily invented,’ as is the conception
of deceit in πείϑομεν. In defining the object of πείϑομεν, the only course
warranted by the context is to go back to the immediately preceding self-wit-
ness in ver. 9, φιλοτιμ. εὐάρεστοι αὐτῷ εἶναι. (Α Of this we bring men to the con-
viction through our teaching and working, not: of the fact, that we fear
the Lord (Zachariae, Riickert), since εἰδότες τ. 663. τ. κυρ. is only of the
nature of a motive and a subsidiary thought ; hence also not : ‘‘ ewndem
hune timorem hominibus suademus” (Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Clericus, and
others). Comp. Pelagius: ‘‘ut caveant;” and again Hofmann: we convince
others of the duty and the right mode of fearing the Lord. After ἀνϑρώπους
there is no omission of μέν (Riickert); but the putting of the clause ἀνϑρ.
πείϑ. without indicating its relation makes the following contrast appear
surprising and thereby rhetorically more emphatic. —év ταῖς συνειδ. ὑμῶν]
᾿ Calvin aptly says: ‘‘ Conscientia enim longius penetrat, quam carnis judici-
um.” In the syllogism of the conscience (law of God—act of man—moral
judgment on the same) the action of a third party is here the minor premiss.
The individualizing plural of cvveid. is not elsewhere found; yet comp. iv.
2. —redavepooda| the perfect infinitive after ἐλπίζω, which elsewhere in the
N. T. has only the aorist infinitive coupled with it, is here logically necessary
in the connection. For Paul hopes, ὁ.6. holds the opinion under the hope
of its being confirmed, that he has become and is manifest in the conscience
of the readers (present of the completed action). Comp. Hom. J/. xv. 110:
ἤδη yap νῦν ἑλπομ’ "Αρηΐ ye πῆμα τετύχϑαι, Od. vi. 297; Eurip. Suppl. 790.
Ver. 12. Ob πάλιν ἑαυτ. συνιστ. See on iii. 1. The ἑαυτούς (not again self-
praise do we practise) does not stand in contrast with the ὑμῖν following after
6.6. (Fritzsche, Osiander), because otherwise ὑμῖν must have stood imme-
diately after ἀλλά. --- ἀλλὰ ἀφορμ. διδόντες κ.τ.λ.1 We should not, with Beza
and Flatt, supply ἐσμέν, but λέγομεν ταῦτα, which flows from the previous
éavt. ovviot. See Matthiae, p. 1534 ; Kiihner, II. p. 604 ; Buttmann, newt.
Gr. p. 336 [E. T. 5991]. --- καυχήματος ὑπὲρ ju.) Here also καύχημα is not
(comp. Rom. iv. 2; 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 15 ἢ ; 2 Cor. i, 14) equivalent to
καύχησις (de Wette and many others), but is materies gloriandi. The thought
of the apostle is, that he gives the readers occasion for finding matter to
make their boast to his advantage (ὑπέρ, comp. ix. 3, vii. 4, viii. 24, vii. 14,
ix. 2, xii. 5). The whole phrase ἀλλὰ ἀφορμὴν x.t.A. combines with
all the strength of apostolic self-confidence a tender delicacy, in which,
nevertheless, we cannot help seeing a touch of irony (for Paul presents the
cold and adverse disposition towards him, into which a part of the church
1Tt is different with ἐξέστημεν, ver. 13, accusation of the opponents; but this is
where the ditera/ sense in itself points to an not the case with πείϑομεν,
CHAP Υ., 12. 525
had allowed itself to be brought by the hostile teachers, as lack of occasion
to make their boast on his account !). — After ἔχητε there is supplied either
τί (Acts xxiv. 19) : in order that you may have somewhat to oppose to those
who, etc. (so Calvin and the most), or τὶ λέγειν (Theodoret, de Wette,
Osiander), or καύχημα (rather katy. ὑπὲρ ἡμ., for these words go together).
So Camerarius, Zeger, and others, including Riickert and Ewald. But
since give and have are evidently correlative, the context leads us (comp.
Hofmann also) to supply ἀφορμὴν καυχήματος ὑπὲρ ἡμ. : in order that ye may
have this occasion, have it in readiness (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 26) to make use
of it, against those who, etc. πρός, according to the context, denotes the
direction contra, Matthiae, p. 13890. — πρὸς τοὺς ἐν προσώπῳ Kavy., k. οὐ Kapdia. |
against those, who make their boast for the sake of countenance and not of heart.
A very striking description of the opponents as hypocritical boasters, not of
the making a parade of their being immediate disciples of Christ (Hilgen-
feld). The object of their self-boasting is the countenance, the holiness, the
zeal, the love, etc., which present themselves on their countenance, but of
the heart they make no boast ; for of that of which they boast, their heart
is empty.’ ‘‘Ubi autem inanis est ostentatio, illic nulla sinceritas, nulla
animi rectitudo,” Calvin. It is self-evident withal to the reader that this
whole description is expressed according to the true state of the case, and
not according to the design of the persons described themselves ; for these
wished, of course, to pass at all events for persons who with their self-boast-
ing exhibited the virtues of their hearts, and not the semblance of their
faces. Comp. Theophylact (following Chrysostom) : τοιοῦτοι yap ἦσαν εὐλα-
βείας μὲν ἔχοντες προσωπεῖον (mask), ἐν dé καρδίᾳ οὐδὲν φέροντες ἀγαϑόν. Usually
(also by Emmerling, Flatt, Schrader, Riickert, Riibiger, Neander) ἐν προ-
cory is taken in the wider sense: de rebus externis, to which is then opposed
in καρδίᾳ the purity of the disposition. Learning, eloquence, Jewish lineage,
acquaintance with the older apostles, and the like, are held to be included
in ἐν προσώπῳ ; comp. Holsten, who recalls the ‘Efpaio/ εἰσιν x.7.2. in Xi. 22.
But with what warrant from linguistic usage? Even in passages like
1 Sam. xvi. 17, Matt. xxii. 16, πρόσωπον means nothing else than countenance.
Paul must have chosen some such contrast as ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ ob πνεύματι, In order
to be understood. Ewald explains it : ‘‘ who doubtless boast me before the
Jace, when they see myself present, but not in the heart.” But καυχωμένους
cannot mean : who boast me, but only : who boast themselves. In the N. T.,
too, ἐν with καυχᾶσϑαι always denotes the object,? of which one makes boast,
1 προσώπῳ, like καρδίᾳ, must refer to the
persons concerned, and mean their counte-
nance (as even Beyschlag grants). Hence
it may not be taken, in accordance with
‘Luke xiii. 26, of their having boasted that
they had often seen, heard, perhaps even
spoken with, Jesus, while yet they had gained
no relation of the heart to him. This in op-
position to Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit.
1865, p. 266. For in that case it would, in
fact, be the countenance of Jesus, which
they would make it the contents of their
boast that they had seen, etc.
2 In x. 16 the object is denoted dy εἰς,
whereby the reference to the locality is
given for ἐν ἀλλοτρίῳ κανόνι, so that in this
passage the construction is not καυχᾶσϑαι ἐν,
but καυχᾶσϑαι εἰς. On καυχᾶσϑαι ἐν, comp.
the Latin gloriari in; Cic. N. D. iii. 86. 87;
Tusc. i. 21. 49; Catil. ii. 9. 20. The object is
conceived as that, in which the καυχᾶσϑαι is
causally based. In the classics it is joined
with ἐπὶ, εἰς, and with the simple accusa-
tive.
526 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS,
even in Jas. iv. 16. Comp. Ecclus. xxxix. 8, 1. 20. This, at the same
time, in opposition to Hofmann’s view : ‘‘ they make their boast only in
presence of others, and not inwardly before themselves.” Neither προσώπῳ (see
Winer, p. 116 [E. T. 1691) nor καρδίᾳ (1 Thess. ii. 17 ; Rom. vi. 17, es
2 Cor. ii. 4, al.) needed the article ; and there was just as little need for
the self-evident αὐτῶν to be inserted (1 Thess. /.c.). Indeed, if Paul had
meant what Hofmann thinks, he could not but, in order to be intelligible,
have added the different genitival definitions (ἀλλων--ἑαυτῶν). — Bengel
subtly and aptly remarks on καρδίᾳ : ‘‘ Haec Pauli vena erat : ab ejus corde
fulgebat veritas ad conscientias Corinthiorum.”
Ver. 13. And you have reason for making your boast on our behalf over
against the adversaries !—That Paul is here dealing, and that not without
irony, with an odious accusation of his opponents (perhaps of an overseer
of the church, according to Ewald), is evident, since otherwise the peculiar
mode of expression used by him would appear quite uncalled for. It must
have been asserted that he had gone out of his senses, that he had become mad
(observe the aorist),—an assertion for which narrow-mindedness as well as
malice might find cause enough, or seize pretext, in the extraordinary hero-
ism and divine zeal of his working in general, and especially in his sudden
and wonderful conversion, in the ecstasies and visions’ which he had had,
in his anti-Judaism at times unsparing, in his ideal demands on the Chris-
tian life, in the prominence given to his consciousness of apostleship, to
his sufferings, and the like. In reference to this accusation he now says :
‘“* For be it, that we have become mad (as our enemies venture to assert), it is ὦ
madness standing at the service of God (a holy mania, which deserves respect,
not blame !) ; o7 be it, that we are of sound understanding, we are so for your
service (which can only be found by you praiseworthy).” Comp. Aretius,
Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Hilgenfeld (in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 170),
who, however, abides only by the apostle’s assertion, that he had seen
Christ and was a full apostle, as the ground for this opinion of his oppo-
nents. As early as the time of Chrysostom (he quotes an explanation : εἰ
μὲν μαίνεσϑαί τις ἡμᾶς νομίζει κ.τ.}.) it was recognized that a glance at a hos-
tile accusation was contained in ἐξέστημεν, and this is remarked by most of
the older and the modern commentators ; but there should have been the
less hesitation at taking the word in its full sense (see on Mark iii. 21 ;
comp. Acts xxvi. 24), whereas it was often weakened into : ultra modum
agere,’ or into: to be foolish (Chrysostom, Morus, Billroth), to seem to act
JSoolishly (Flatt), and the like, in spite of the following σωφρονοῦμεν, which
is the exact opposite of having become mad (Plato, Phaedr. p. 244 A).
Comp. Acts xxvi. 25. As regards the subject-matter, ἐξέστ. was mostly (as
by Chrysostom and Theodoret) referred to the self-praise,* in which case
1 Grotius limits the reference of ἐξέστ. to
the trances alone; but the word in itself
does not justify this.
2So Bengel; and earlier Luther, who
gives as gloss: “If we do too much, i.e. if
we deal at once sharply with the people,
we still serve God by it; but if we act gen-
tly and moderately with them, we do so for
the people’s good, so that in every way we
do rightly and well.”
3 Comp. Pindar, Ol. ix. 58: τὸ καυχᾶσϑαι
παρὰ καιρὸν μανίαισιν ὑποκρέκει, Plato, Protag.
p. 3935 B: ὃ ἐκεῖ σωφροσύνην ἡγοῦντο εἶναι,
τἀληϑῇ λέγειν, ἐνταῦϑα μανίαν.
CHAP. Vey 14. 527
ϑεῷ was taken as: to the honour of God, and then ὑμῖν was referred either
to the salutary erample (wa μάϑητε ταπεινοφρονεῖν, Chrysostom, Flatt) or to
the salutary condescension. So Erasmus,’ Vatablus, Menochius, Estius, Ben-
gel, Emmerling, Olshausen. Billroth takes it differently : ‘‘ If, however,
you put a rational construction on it (this boasting), in my case, I wish to
have myself boasted of only for your advantage ; I do it only in order that
you may not be deceived by my opponents regarding me.” But the whole
reference to the self-praise is after ver. 12, where Paul: has absolutely neg-
atived the ἑαυτοὺς συνιστάνομεν ὑμῖν, contrary to the context ; and those ref-
erences of ὑμῖν to the example shown, or to the apostolic condescension, or
to a deception of the readers to be prevented, are not in keeping with the
parallel ϑεῷ ; and there is no reason in the context for sacrificing the uni-
formity in compass of meaning of the two datives, so that ὑμῖν is not to be
taken otherwise than with Grotius in the comprehensive sense of in vestros
usus. According to Hofmann, ἐξέστ. is to be referred to the self-testimony
expressed loftily and in the most exalted tone at ii. 14 ff. : ‘‘ If it might there
be said that he had gone out of himself, on the other hand, the succeeding ex-
planation (begun in iii. 1) could only produce the impression of sober ration-
ality.” But in this way there is in fact assumed a retrospective reference
for ἐξέστ., which no reader and, excepting Hofmann, no expositor could
have conjectured, and this all the less that from iii. 1 to the present passage
Paul has been speaking of himself in a tone to εἰ great extent lofty and ex-
alted (e.g. iii. 2 f., 12 ff., the whole of chap. iv., particularly after ver. 7 ;
also v. 1 ff.) ; so that we do not see on what so great a difference of judg-
ment is to be based, as would be yielded by ἐξέστ. and cwdpov. It remains
far from clear, we may add, what more precise conception Hofmann has of
‘gone out of himself” (whether as insanity or merely as extravagance of
emotion). —eite. . . εἴτε] does not here mark off two different conditions
(Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1850, p. 182 ff.) and times, nor the actual change
of moods and modes of behaviour (Osiander) which Paul would scarcely
have designated according to different references of aim (comp. rather ra
πάντα δι’ ὑμᾶς, iv. 15), but two different modes of appearance of the same
state, which are both asswmed as possibly right, but the latter of which is
in ver. 14 proved to be right and the former excluded.
Ver. 14 f. Paul now proves what was implied in ver. 13, that his whole
working was done not in his own interest (comp. μηκέτι ἑαυτοῖς, ver. 15), but
for God and the brethren ; the love of Christ holds him in bounds, so that
he cannot proceed or do otherwise. According to Riickert, Paul wishes to
give a reason for the εἰ ἐξέστημεν Jed. But he thus arbitrarily overleaps the
second half of ver. 13, though this expresses the same thing as the first half.
- ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ) not : the love to Christ (Oecumenius, Beza, Grotius,
Mosheim, Heumann, Hofmann, Maier), but : the love of Christ to men (so
Chrysostom and most others) ; for the death of Christ floating before the
1 Si quid gloriatur P.,id non ad ipsius, Riickert also, who in other respects takes
sed ad Dei gloriam pertinet; si mediocria ἐξέστ. and σωφρ. rightly in their pure and
loquitur, id tribuit infirmioribus, quorum full sense, refers ὑμῖν to accommodation.
affectibus et capacitati se accommodat.”
528 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
apostle’s mind is to him the highest act of love (Rom. v. 6, 7 ; Gal. 11. 20 ;
Eph. iii. 19 ; Rom. viii. 35, 37) ; and with Paul generally (not so with John)
the genitive of a person with ἀγάπη is always the genitivus subjecti (Rom. v.
ὃ, 8, viii. 35, 39 ; 2 Cor. viii. 24, xiii. 138; Eph. ii. 4; Phil. i. 9; also?
Thess. iii. 5 ; 1 Thess. i. 3 is not here relevant), while, when the person is
the object of love, he expresses this by εἰς (Col. i. 4 ; 1 Thess. iii. 12), and
denotes by the genitive only an abstract as object (2 Thess. ii. 10) ; in Rom.
xv. 30, τοῦ πνεύμ. is the genitivus originis. — συνέχει ἡμᾶς] cohibet nos, holds us
in bounds, so as not to go beyond the limits marked by Jed and ὑμῖν, and to
follow, possibly, affections and interests of our own. Comp. Calvin (con-
stringere affectus nostros), Loesner, Billroth, Hofmann, Castalio: ‘‘ tenet
nos.” Most, however, follow the Vulgate (wrget nos): it urges and drives us.*
So Emmerling, Vater, Flatt, Schrader, Riickert, Olshausen, Osiander,
Neander, and others ; also Chrysostom (οὐκ ἀφίησι ἡσυχάζειν με) and Theo-
doret (πυρπολούμεϑα). But contrary to the usage of the word, for συνέχειν
always expresses that which holds together, confines, and the like, and so may
mean press hard, but not wrge and drive (Luke xix. 48, viii. 37, al.; Phil. i.
23 ; also Acts xviii. 5). (B®) Comp. Plato, Polit. Ὁ. 311 Ὁ ; Pind. Pyth. i.
37, al.; Philo, Leg. ad Caj. p. 1016 E ; also LXX. in Biel and Schleusner,
Thes. Ewald : it harasses us, ‘‘so that we have no rest except we do every-
thing in it.” Thus συνέχει would revert to the notion of pressing hard, which
may be a harassing (Luke xii. 50 ; Wisd. xvii. 11, and Grimm’s Handb. in
loc.). But this is not given here by the context, as, indeed, that further de-
velopment of the meaning does not flow from the connection. — κρίναντας
τοῦτο] after we have come to be of the judgment, namely, after our conversion,’
Gal. i. 16. This judgment contains that, in consequence of which that re-
straining influence of the love of Christ takes place—the subjective condi-
tion of this influence. — ὅτι εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων κ.τ.1.] that one for all, etc. Who
is meant by εἷς, is clear from ἡ ἀγάπη τ. Χριστοῦ, and was known to all the
hearts of the readers ; hence there is the less ground for breaking up the
simple sentence, and taking εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων as in apposition : ‘‘ because He,
one for all, died” (Hofmann). As for ὅτι, it is simplest, although εἰ after ὅτι
is not genuine (see the critical remarks), to take it, not as because, but as
that, corresponding, according to the usage elsewhere, to the preparatory
τοῦτο (Rom. ii. 3, vi. 6; 2 Cor. x. 7, 11; Eph. v. 5, al.) ; in such a way,
however, that ἄρα κ.τ.1. is likewise included in the dependence on ὅτι, and
does not form an independent clause (in opposition to Riickert). For the
contents of the judgment as such must lie in dpa οἱ πάντες ἀπέϑανον, of which
the historical fact, εἰς ὑπὲρ πάντ. axéd., is only the actual presupposition serv-
ingas its ground. The way in which the two clauses are marshalled side by
side (without εἰ or because) makes the expression more lively, comp. 1 Cor.
1 Beza: “totos possidet ac regit, ut ejus
afflatu quasi correptiagamus omnia.”
2 Not at, but after conversion. His con-
version took place through Christ seizing
on him and overmastering him, and not by
way of argument ; but subsequently in him
who had become a believer there necessa-
rily set in the discursive exercise of reflec-
tion, guiding the further judgment regard-
ing the new life which he had acquired.
This in opposition to Hofmann’s misconcep-
tion of my explanation, as if I took κρίναντας
as identical with the conversion of the
apostle.
CHAP. V., 14. 529
x. 17. Hence it is to be translated : that one died for all, consequently they
all died, i.e. consequently in this death of the one the death all was accom-
plished, the ethical death, namely, in so far as in the case of all the ceasing
of the fleshly life, of the life in sin (which ethical dying sets in subjectively
through fellowship of faith with the death of Christ), is objectively, as a
matter of fact, contained in the death of the Lord. (c°) When Christ died
the redeeming death for all (comp. v. 21), all died, in.respect of their fleshly
life, with Him (Χριστᾷ συνεσταύρωμαι, Gal. 11. 19 ; ἀπεϑάνετε, Col. iii. 3); this
objective matter of fact which Paul here affirms has its szbjective realization in
the faith of the individuals, through which they have entered into that death-
fellowship with Christ given through His death for all, so that they have
now, by means of baptism, become συνταφέντες αὐτῷ (Col. ii. 12). Comp.
Rom. vi. 4. Here’ also, as inall passages where ὑπέρ is used of the atoning
death (see on Rom. v. 6 ; Gal. iii. 13), it is not equivalent to ἀντί (comp. on
ver. 21), for which it is taken by most commentators, including Flatt,
Emmerling, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Usteri, Osiander, Gess, Baur,
Maier, but : for the sake of, all, for their benefit, to expiate their sins (ver. 19 ;
Rom. iii. 25). Since One has died the redeeming death for the good of all,
so that the death of this One as ἱλαστήριον has come to benefit all, all are dead,
because otherwise the εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων would not be correctly put. The dying
of Christ for the reconciliation of a// necessarily presupposes that death-
fellowship of all, for Christ could not have died effectively, for one who
would not have died with Christ ; unbelieving, such a one, in spite of the
sacrificial death made for all, would still be in his sins.? That ὑπέρ here
cannot be equivalent to ἀντί is shown particularly by ver. 15 : τῷ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν
ἀποϑανόντι καὶ éyepdévre 3 for according to this the resurrection of Jesus
also (since it would be quite arbitrary to refer ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν merely to ἀποϑανόντῷ
must have been substitutionary, which is nowhere taught, since it is rather
the actual proof and confirmation of the atonement (see 1 Cor. xv. 17; Rom.
iv. 25, ix. 34 ; Acts xiil. 37 f.; 1 Pet. i. 3 1.). -- ὑπὲρ πάντων] for all men in
general, so that no one is excluded from the effect of his ἱλαστήριον, and every
one, so soon as he becomes a believer, attains subjectively to the enjoyment
of this effect. This subjective realization, although in the case of those who
refuse belief it is frustrated by their guilt, is, in the divine plan of salvation,
destined for all, and has already taken place in the case of believers ; hence
Paul, who himself belonged to the latter, might justly from this his own
1Comp. Schweizer in the Stud. u. Kvrit.
1858, p. 462 f.; Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p.
324 f. What Baur remarks, on the other
hand, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.
1859, p. 241 (comp. his newt. Theol. p. 158 f.),
that ὑπέρ denotes the ideal substitution, 7.e.
the most intimate, immediate entering into
the other and putting oneself in his place,
is not the contents of the idea of the prep-
osition, but that of the idea of sacrifice, un-
der which the death of Jesus is ranked, in
the consciousness of the apostle and his
readers, aS an ἱλαστήριον, offered for the
salvation of all (ὑπὲρ πᾶντων).
2 Certainly the dying of Christ was the
‘close of the previous sin-tainted life of
mankind” (Hofmann, comp. Rich. Schmidt,
Paul. Christol. Ὁ. 55 f.), but in so far as this
dying blotted out the guilt of mankind.
This expiation becomes appropriated by in-
dividuals through faith, and out of faith
there grows the new life of sanctification,
in which he who has died ethically with
Christ in faith is ethically risen with Him
and lives to God,
530 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
standpoint in the οἱ πάντες ἀπέϑανον, without meaning by πάντες only believers
(in opposition to my previous explanation), prove the restraining influence of
the love of Christ, which he had himself experienced. — oi πάντες] with the
article ; for it applies to all those of whom ὑπὲρ x. ἀπέϑ. was just said, —
ἀπέϑανον) not : they are to die (Thomas, Grotius, Estius, Nésselt, and others) ;
not : they were subjected to death (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza,
and others ; Vatablus : ‘‘ morte digni”) ; nor : they must have died (Ewald) ;
nor: ‘‘ it is just as good as if they had died” (Calovius, Flatt, and others) :
but : ‘‘mors facta in morte Christi” (Bengel), they died, which is to be con-
sidered as a real fact, objectively contained in the fact of the death of Jesus,
and subjectively accomplished in the consciousness of individuals through
faith.
Ver. 15. Continuation or second part of the judgment, in consequence of
which the love of Christ συνέχει ἡμᾶς. -- ὑπέρ has the emphasis, whereas in
ver. 14 the stress lay on εἷς and πάντων. ‘‘ And (that) He died for the benefit
of all (with the purpose) that (because otherwise this ὑπέρ would be frustra-
ted) the living should no more (as before the death they had died with Christ)
live to themselves, i.e. Aedicate their life to selfish ends, but,” etc. Comp.
Rom. xiv. 7 ff. — οἱ ζῶντες] Paul might also have said oi πάντες ; but οἱ ζῶντες
is purposely chosen with retrospective reference to οἱ πάντες ἀπέϑανον, and
that as subject (the living), not as apposition (as the living, Hofmann), in
which view the life meant is held to be the earthly one, which Jesus left
when He died ; but this would furnish only a superfluous and unmeaning
addition (it is otherwise at iv. 11), and so also with de Wette’s interpreta-
tion : so long as we live. No ; it is the life, which has followed on the aréd-
avov. He, namely, who has died with Christ is alive from death, as Christ
Himself has died and become alive (Rom. xiv. 9); He who has become oi-
φυτος with His death, is so also with His resurrection (Rom. vi. 5). Thus
the dead are necessarily the ζῶντες, by sharing ethically the same fate with
Christ, Gal. ii. 19 f. Their ζωή is, consequently, doubtless in substance the
life of regeneration (Erasmus, Beza, Flatt, and others); it is not, however,
regarded under this form of conception, but as καινότης ζωῆς (Rom. vi. 4),
out of death. Comp. Rom. vi. 8-11. Riickert, in accordance with his in-
correct taking of ὑπέρ in the sense of ἀντί (see on ver. 14), explains : ‘‘ those,
for whom He has died, on whom, therefore, death has no more claims.” —
καὶ ἐγερϑέντι] is correlative to the οἱ ζῶντες, in so far as these are just the
living out of death, whose life is to belong to the Living One ; and ὑπὲρ
αὐτῶν belongs also to éyepd., since Christ is raised διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν (Rom.
ιν. 25). Comp. on Phil. iii. 10 ; 1 Cor. xv. 17.—Note, further, that Paul in
ver. 15 writes in the third person (he does not say we), because he lays down
the whole judgment beginning with ὅτι as the great, universally valid and
fundamental doctrine for the collective Christian life, that he may then in
ver. 16 let himself emerge in the ἡμεῖς. He would not have written differently
even if he had meant by ἀγάπη τ. Χριστοῦ his love to the Lord (in opposition
to Hofmann). Much that is significant is implied in this doctrinal, objec-
tive form of confession.
Ver. 16. Inference from vv. 14 and 15 opposed to the hostile way of
΄-- i Ὁ
CHAP. v., 16. 531
judging of his opponents (comp. ver. 13). Hence it is with us quite 6ther-
wise than with our opponents, who judge regarding others κατὰ σάρκα : we
know -hencefor th no one according to flesh-standard. Since all, namely, have
(ethically) died, and every one is destined to live only to Christ, not to him-
self, our knowing of others must be w holly independent of what they are
κατὰ σάρκα. Accordingly, the connection of thought between ver. 16 and
vv. 14 and 15 demands that we take κατὰ σάρκα here not as subjective stand-
ard of the οἴδαμεν, 80 that we should have to_explain it: according to
merely human ki knowledge, without the enlightenment of the _Holy Spirit
(comp. 1. 17; 1 Cor. i. 26): “as one might know Him 7 in a way natural to
man” gelceaann, Osiander, and, earlier, Lyra, Calovius, and others ; comp.
also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 69), but as objective standard (comp. xi.
18 ; John viii. 15 ; Phil. iii. 4), so that εἰδέναι τινὰ κατὰ σάρκα means : to
know any one according to merely human appearance, to know him in sucha way,
that he is judged by what he is in virtue of his natural, material form of
existence, and not by what he is κατὰ πνεῦμα, as a Christian, as καινὴ κτίσις (ver.
17). He who knows no one κατὰ σάρκα has entirely left out of account, e.g.
in the Jew, his Jewish origin ; in the rich man, his riches ; in the scholar,
his learning ; in the slave, his bondage ; and so forth (comp. Gal. iii. 28).
Comp. Bengel: ‘‘secundum carnem : secundum statum veterem ex nobili-
tate, divitiis, opibus, sapientia.” ( It is inaccurate to say that this interpre-
tation requires the article before σάρκα (Osiander). \ It might be used, but
was not necessary, any more than at Phil. iii. 3 ff., Rom. i. 3, ix. 5, al.,
where σάρξ everywhere, without the article, denotes the objective relation.
— ἡμεῖς] 1.6. we on our part, as opposed to the adversaries who judge κατὰ
σάρκα. The taking the plural as general embracing others (Billroth, by way
of suggestion, Schenkel, de Wette), has against it the evidently antithetic
emphasis of the pronoun ; it is only with the further inference in ver. 17
that the discourse becomes general. — ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν] after the present time, i.e.
after our present (Christian) relation, and with it also the κρίναντας κ.τ.Ἅ.,
has begun. Paul has ἀπὸ τοῦ viv only here. Beyond this Luke alone in the
N. T. has it. — οἴδαμεν] not aestimamus (Grotius, Estius, and others, includ-
ing Emmerling and Flatt), but novimus ; no one is to us known κατὰ σάρκα ;
we know nothing of him according to such a standard. Comp. on εἰδέναι
οὐδένα Or οὐδέν in the sense of complete separation, 1 Cor. ii. 2. οἶδα is re-
lated to ἔγνωκα, cognovi, as its lasting sequel: scio, quis et qualis sit. — εἰ καὶ
ἐγνώκαμεν κ. o. Χριστὸν k.t.A.] apologetic application of the assertion just
made, ἀπὸ τοῦ viv οὐδένα οἴδαμεν x. co. This remark is added without dé (see
the critical remarks), which is accounted for by the impetuous liveliness of
the representation. Jf even (as I herewith grant to my opponents, see Her-
mann, ad Viger. p. 832) the case has oceurred that we have known Christ accord-
ing to flesh-standard, this knowing of Him now evists with us no longer. The
emphasis of this concessive clause lies on the praeterite ἐγνώκαμεν, which op-
poses the past to the present relation (οἴδαμεν, and see the following γενώσκο-
μεν). Therefore Χριστόν is not placed immediately after εἰ καί, for Paul
wishes to express that in the past it has been otherwise than now ; that for-
merly the γινώσκειν x. σάρκα had certainly occurred in his case, and that in ref-
—— ὄ.
᾿
532 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
erence to Christ. This in opposition to the wswal interpretation, according to
which Χριστόν is invested with the chief emphasis. So e.g. Billroth: “if we
once regarded even Christ Himself in a fleshly manner, if we quite misjudged
Him and His kingdom ;” Beyschlag similarly : ‘‘even with Christ I make no
exception,” etc. Riickert, without any reason whatever, conjectures that
Paul erroneously inserted Χριστόν, or perhaps did not write it at all. The
right interpretation is found in Osiander, Ewald, Kling, also substantially in
Hofmann, who, however, would attach εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κ.τ.1. to ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν...
σάρκα, and thus separate it only by ἃ comma,—a course by which, owing to the
following contrast ἀλλὰ x.r.2., the sentence is without sufficient ground made
more disjointed.—Paul had known Christ κατὰ σάρκα, so long as the merely
human individuality of Christ, His lower, earthly appearance (comp. Chrys-
ostom and Theodoret), was the limit of his knowledge of Him. At the
time when he himself was still a zealot against Christ, and His persecutor,
he knew Him as a mere man, as a common Jew, not as Messiah, not as the
Son of God ; as_one justly persecuted and crucified, not as the sinless
Reconciler and the transfigured Lord of glory, etc. It was quite different,
however, since God had revealed His Son in Paul (Gal. i. 16), whereby he
had learned to know Christ according to His true, higher, spiritual nature
(κατὰ πνεῦμα, Rom. i. 4).7 Comp. also Holsten, 2. He. d. Paul. und Petr. p.
429, who, however, refers the Χριστόν, which denotes the entire historical
person of the God-man, only to the heavenly, purely pneumatic personality
of the Lord, which had been pre-existent and in this sense was re-established
by the resurrection. Klépper, p. 66, has substantially the right view : the
earthly, human appearance of Christ according to its national, legal, and
particular limitation. The Judaistic conception of the Messianic idea was
the subjective ground of the former erroneous knowledge of Christ, but it is
not on that account to be explained with many (Luther, see his gloss, Ben-
gel, Riickert, and others): according to Jewish ideas of the Messiah ; for, ac-
cording to what precedes, x. c. must be the objective standard of the éyvéxa-
μεν. In that case Χριστόν cannot be appellative, the Messiah (especially
Baur, I. p. 304, ed. 2, and Neander, I. p. 142 f.), but only nomen proprium,
as the following εἰ τις ἐν Χριστῷ shows. Olshausen, who rightly, as to sub-
stance, refers x. c. to the life of Christ before His resurrection, deduces,
however, from εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκ. that Paul even before his conversion had seen
Christ in his visits to Jerusalem, which Beyschlag also, in the Stud. wu. Krit.
1864, p. 248, and 1865, p. 266, gathers from our passage and explains it
1 According to Estius, the meaning is Hammond, and also Storr, Opusc. II. Ὁ. 252,
taken to be: ‘If we once held it as some-
thing great to be fellow-countrymen and
kinsmen of Christ.’’ But the words do not
convey this. Similarly also Wetstein, who
makes the apostle, in opposition to the (al-
leged) boasting of the false apostles that
they were kinsmen and hearers of Christ,
maintain, ‘‘ cognationem solam nihil pro-
desse ;” et Christum non humilem essé, as on
earth, sed exaltatum super omnes. Comp.
according to whom Paul refers to such,
“qui praeter externa ornamenta et Judai-
cam originen et pristinam illam suam cum
apostolis Christo familiaribus conjunctionem
nihil haberent, quo magnifice gloriari pos-
sent.” An allusion to the alleged spiritual-
ism of the Christine party, who had re-
proached the apostle with a fleshly concep-
tion of Christ (Schenkel, Goldhorn), is arbi-
trarily assumed.
CHAP. V.5 11. ' 533
accordingly, and Ewald, Gesch. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 368, ed. 3, thinks cred-
ible. This is in itself possible (though nowhere testified), but does not
follow from our passage ; for ἐγνώκ., in fact, by no means presupposes the
having seen, but refers to the knowledge of Christ obtained by colloquial in-
tercourse, and determined by the Pharisaic fundamental point of view,—a
knowledge which Paul before his conversion had derived from his historical
acquaintance with Christ’s earthly station, influence as a teacher, and fate,
as known to all.’ Besides, the interpretation of a personal acquaintance
with Christ would be quite unsuitable to the following ἀλλὰ νῦν κιτ.. It
would be at variance with the context. See also Klépper, p. 55 ff. Accord-
ing to de Wette, the sense is : ‘‘not yet to have so known Christ as, with a
renouncing of one’s own fleshly selfishness, to live to Him alone,” ver. 15.
But in this way there would result for κατὰ σάρκα the sense of the subjective
standard (against which sce above); further, the signification of κατὰ o.
would not be the same for the two parts of the verse, since in the second
part it would affirm more (namely, according to fleshly selfishness, without
living to Him alone); lastly, this having known Christ would not suit the
time before the conversion of the apostle, to which it nevertheless applies,
because at this time he was even persecutor of Christ. And this he was,
just because he knew him κατὰ σάρκα (taken in our sense), which erroneous
form of having known ceased only when God ἀπεκάλυψε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ
ἐν αὐτῷ (Gal. i. 16). While various expositors fail to give to it a clear and
definite interpretation,’ others have explained it in the linguistically errone-
-ous sense of a merely hypothetical possibility. Thus Erasmus: ‘‘ Nec est,
quod nos posteriores apostolos quisquam hoc nomine minoris faciat, quod
Christum mortali corpore in terris versantem non novimus, quando etiam,
si contigisset novisse, nunc eam notitiam, quae obstabat spiritui, deposuisse-
mus, et spiritualem factum spiritualiter amaremus ;” so in the main also
Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt. For a synopsis of the various old explana-
tions, from Faustus the Manichaean (who proved from our passage that
Christ had no fleshly body) downward, see Calovius, Bibl. ill. p. 463 ff. —
.ἀλλά] in the apodosis, see on iv. 16. — γινώσκομεν] 86. κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν.
Ver. 17. Inference from ver. 16. If, namely, the state of matters is such
as is stated in ver. 16, that now we no longer know any one as respects his
human appearance, and even a knowledge of Christ of that nature, once
cherished, no longer exists with us, it follows that the adherents of Christ, who
are raised above such a knowledge of Christ after a mere sensuous standard,
are quite other than they were before ; the Christian is a new creature, to whom
the standard κατὰ σάρκα is no longer suitable. The apostle might have con-
~~ tinued with γάρ instead of ὥστε ; in which case he would have assigned as
ground of the changed knowledge the changed quality of the objects of
1 Certainly to him also had the cross been 2 Hofmann, ¢.g., describes the knowing
a stumbling-block, since, according to the of Christ κατὰ σάρκα as of such a nature,
Jewish conception, the Messiah was not to that it accommodated itself to the habit of
die at all (John xii. 34); but we must not, the natural man, and therefore Christ was
with Theodoret, limit κατὰ σάρκα to the known only in so far as He was the object of
παϑητὸν σῶμα of Christ. such knowledge.
534 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
knowledge. He might also, with just as much logical accuracy, infer, from
the fact of the knowledge being no longer κατὰ σάρκα, that the objects of
knowledge could no longer be the old ones, to which the old way of know-
ing them would still be applicable, but that they must be found in a quality
wholly new. \He argues not ev causa, but ad causam. The former he would
have done with yap, the latter he does with ὥστε (in opposition to Hofmann’s
objection). —év Χριστῷ] a Christian ; for through faith Christ is the element
in which we live and move. — καινὴ κτίσις] for the pre-Christian condition,
spiritual and moral, is abolished and done away by God through the union
of man with Christ (ver. 18 ; Eph. ii. 10, iv. 21 ; Col. 111, 9, 10 ; Rom. vi.
6), and the spiritual nature and life of the believer are constituted quite
anew (comp. vv. 14, 15), so that Christ Himself lives in him (Gal. ii. 20)
through His Spirit (Rom. viii. 9 f.). See on Gal. vi. 15. ( The form of the
expression (its idea is not different from the παλιγγενεσία, Tit. 111. 5 ; John
iii. 3; James i. 18) is Rabbinical ; for the Rabbins also regarded the man
converted to Judaism as WMH 13.) See Schoettgen, Hor. I. pp. 328,
704 f., and Wetstein. — τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλϑεν x.7.2.] Epexegesis of καινὴ κτίσις ;
the old, the pre-Christian nature and life, the pre-Christian spiritual consti-
tution of man, is passed away ; behold the whole—the whole state of man’s
personal life—has become new.’ There is too slight a resemblance for us to
_ assume for certain a reminiscence of Isa. xliii. 18 f., or Isa. Ixv. 17 ; as even
Chrysostom and his followers give no hint of such an echo. By the ἰδού of
vivid realization, and introduced without connecting particle (‘‘ demonstra-
tivum rei presentis,”” Bengel ; comp. vi. 9), as well as by the emphatically
prefixed γέγονε (comp. xii. 11), a certain element of triumph is brought into
the Serato — The division, according to which the protasis is made
to go on to κτίσις (Vulgate : ‘‘ si qua ergo in Christo nova creatura ;” or τίς
is taken as masculine: ‘‘si quis ergo mecum est in Christo regeneratus,”
Cornelius ἃ Lapide), has against it the fact, that in that case the apodosis
would contain nothing else than was in the protasis ; besides, the prefixing
of ἐν X. would not be adequately accounted for.
Ver. 18. On vv. 18-21, see appropriate remarks in Fritzsche, ad Rom. I.
p. 279 f. —ra δὲ πάντα] leading on from the γέγονε καινὰ τὰ π. to the supreme
source of this change ; hence, contextually, τὰ πάντα is nothing else than :
the whole that has become new. Everything, in which the new state of the
Christian consists, proceeds from God ; and now by τοῦ καταλλάξαντος. ..
καταλλαγῆς is specified the mode in which God has set it into operation, name-
ly, by His having reconciled us with Himself through Christ, and entrusted
to the apostle and his fellow-labourers the ministry of reconciliation. The
reconciliation has taken place with reference to all humanity (hence κόσμον,
1 Not only in reference to sinis the old and will. Chrysostom and Theophylact
passed away and everything become new
(Theodoret: τὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀπεκδυσά-
peda γῆρας), but also—certainly, however,
in consequence of the reconciliation appro-
priated in faith—in relation to the knowl-
edge and consciousness of salvation, as
well as to the whole tendency of disposition
unsuitably mix up objective Judaism as
also included, and in doing so the latter
arbitrarily specializes τὰ πάντα : ἀντὶ τοῦ
νόμον εὐαγγέλιον" ἀντὶ Ἱερουσαλὴμ οὐρανός"
ἀντὶ ναοῦ τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος ἐν ᾧ ἡ
τρίας" ἀντὶ περιτομῆς βάπτισμα κ.τ.λ.
CHAP. ΝΣ; 18: 535
erienced the reconciliation of the world in its subjective realization. This
in opposition to Leun, Ewald, Riickert, Hofmann, who refer it to the apos-
tle and his fellow-workers, Hofmann, indeed, fincing nothing else affirmed
than the conversion, in so far as it was, ‘‘ a change of his relation, and not of
his conduct, towards God.” And that ἡμῖν does not apply to men in general
(Olshausen), but to Paul and the rest of the apostolic teachers, is clear from év
~yuiv, ver. 19, which is evidently (seeing that Paul has not written ἐν αὐτοῖς)
distinguished by a special reference from κόσμος ; besides, the inference, ver.
20, ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ οὖν πρεσβ., manifestly presupposes the special reference of
ἡμῖν and ἐν ἡμῖν in vv. 18, 19. This also in opposition to Héfling. Kirchen-
verf. p. 225, ed. 9. --- τοῦ καταλλάξαντος x.t.2.| who has reconciled us with Him-
self through Christ. For men were, by means of their uneffaced sin, burden-
ed with God’s holy wrath, ἐχϑροὶ ϑεοῦ (Rom. v. 10, xi. 28 ; Eph. ii. 16 ;
comp. Col. i. 20 f.), Deo invisi ; but through God’s causing Christ to die as
idaothpiov,’ He accomplished the effacing of their sins, and by this, therefore,
God’s wrath ceased. The same thought is contained in Rom. v. 10, only
expressed in a passive form. Tittmann’s distinction between διαλλ. and
καταλλ. (Synon. p. 102) is of no value ; see on Rom. v. 10, and Fritzsche, ad
Rom. I. p. 276 f€. —riv diaxov. τῆς καταλλ.} the ministry, which is devoted to
reconciliation, which is the means of reconciliation for men, inasmuch as
through this ministry reconciliation is preached to them, and they are
brought unto faith on the ἱλαστήριον Jesus, which faith is the causa appre-
hendens of the reconciliation, Rom. iii. 25 ; comp. διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης, 111.
9. The opposite : diak. τῆς κατακρίσεως, 111. 9.
"τ nd Paul uses ἡμᾶς in the person of believers, as those who have ex-
Remark.—Riickert erroneously explains the reconciliation from the active
enmity of men against God. God, according to his view, caused Christ to die
for men, that He might, no doubt, on the one hand, be able to accomplish the
μὴ λογίζεσθαι of their sins ; but through this manifest proof of His love He
filled men with thankfulness, and gave them encouragement to accomplish the
reconciliation on their side also, and so (as was Baur’s opinion also) to give up
their enmity towards God. And thus strictly regarded, the death of Jesus, ac-
cording to Paul, has not so much reconciled humanity with God, as it has re-
moved the obstacles to the reconciliation, and given a stimulus to the heart to
enter into the only right and friendly relation with God.—No, the death of
Jesus operated as ἱλαστήριον (Rom. iii. 25 ; Gal. iii. 13), consequently as effac-
ing God's holy enmity (Rom. xi. 28), the ὀργὴ θεοῦ, so that He now did not im-
pute to men their sins (ver. 19), and in this way, actu forensi, reconciled them
with Himself (ver. 21), while simple faith is the subjective condition of appro-
priation on the part of men. Comp. on Col. i. 21. The thankfulness, the new
courage, the holy life, ete., are only a consequence of the reconciliation appro-
priated in faith, not a part of it. Comp. Rom. v. 1 ff., vi. 1 ff., viii. 3, 4, al.
This, at the same time, in opposition to the doctrine of reconciliation set
forth by Hofmann (see on Rom. iii. 25), who at our passage calls in question
the view that rod καταλλάξαντος «7,4. expresses an act of God, which takes
1 ὁ, 6. διὰ Xp. Comp. ver. 21. Pelagius erroneously adds: “‘ per Christi doctrinam pariter
et exemplum.””
536 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
place once for all in and with the history of Christ, and defines the notion of
καταλλ. (in which ἡμᾶς is held to apply to Paul, in whom God had wrought
faith), as amounting to this, that God through Christ, ‘whom He Himself gives
and ordains for the purpose, makes sin cease for Him to be the cause of wrath
against the sinner.’’ Comp. on the clear and correct notion of reconciliation,
according to our passage, Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 325.
Ver. 19. Confirmatory elucidation of the previous ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, τοῦ
καταλλάξαντος. . . καταλλαγῆς. “1 have reason for saying, from God, who
has reconciled us, etc., because, indeed, God in Christ reconciled the world with
Himself,” etc. The recurrence of the same leading expressions, which were
used in ver. 18, gives to this elucidation a solemn emphasis. The ϑεός em-
phatically prefixed, however, looking back to ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ in ver. 18, shows
that the point is not a description of the καταλλαγή (Camerarius, Wolf,
Estius, Billroth, and others), or of the διακονία τῆς καταλλαγῆς (Grotius, Riick-
ert), but the divine self-qctivity in_Christ’s_reconciling work and in the
bestowel ot ee Ὁ ee The two participial clauses, μὴ
λογιζόμενος K.7.A. and καὶ Sépevoc x.7.A., Stand related to ϑεὸς ἦν ἐν X. κόσμ.
καταλλ. éavt. argumentatively, so that the words καὶ ϑέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν K.T.A.,
which serve to elucidate καὶ δόντος ἡμῖν x.t.2., ver. 18, are not co-ordinated to
the καταλλάσσων (as one might expect from ver. 18), but are subordinated to
it,—a change in the form of connecting the conceptions, which cannot sur-
prise us in the case of Paul when we consider his free and lively variety in
the mode of linking together his thoughts. — ὡς ὅτι Sede ἣν ἐν X. κόσμ. καταλλ.
ἑαυτῷ] because, indeed, God in ie) alten 5 a5 world with Himself. On
ὡς ὅτι," utpote quod (to be analyzed : as it is the case, because), see Winer, p.
574 [E. T. 771]. The ἦν καταλλάσσων d go together (see already Chrys-
ostom), and is more e _emphatic than - Seca MAE Paul wishes,
namely, to affirm of 1 God, not simply what He did ζκατήλλασσεὶ), but i in what
activity He was ; in the_person and work of Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ) God was in
world-reconciling activity. \_ The imperfect receives from the context the defi-
nite temporal reference : when Christ died the death of reconciliation, with
which took place that very καταλλάξαντος, ver. 18) See, especially, Rom. iii.
24 ἔς, v. 10. Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Calo-
a Bengel, and many others, including Riickert, Osiander, Neander,
connect ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ together : God was in Christ, while reconciling the world
with Himself. This would only be possible in the event of the two follow-
ing participial clauses expressing the mode of reconciliation, which, however,
on account of the second clause (καὶ ϑέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν T.x.A.), cannot be the
case ; they must, on the contrary, contain the confirmation of ϑεὸς ἦν ἐν X.
κόσμ. καταλλ. éavt>. According to their contents, however, they do not at
all confirm the fact that God was in Christ, but the fact that God in Christ
was reconciling the world ; hence it is at variance with the context to make
1 Τῇ xi. 21, the ὅτι in ὡς ὅτι does not speci- tial and consequently more emphatic intro-
fy a reason, but introduces the contentsof duction of the ground than a simple ὅτι or
λέγω. In 2 Thess. ii. 2, also, ὡς ὅτι is like γάρ would have been. It makes us dinger
that. At our passage it is: in measure of the more over the confirmatory ground assign-
fact, that God was, etc.,—a more circumstan- ed.
CHAP, ‘vV.; 19: 537
the connection ἦν ἐν Χριστῷς Theodoret was right in denying expressly this
connection. Hofmann, after abandoning his earlier (in the Schriftbew. 11.
1, p. 326) misinterpretation (see in opposition to it my fourth edition, p.
147), now explains it by referring ὡς ὅτι «.7.A. merely to x. δόντος ἡμῖν K.T.A. :
because He was a God, who in Christ was reconciling to Himself a world in its
sinful condition without imputation of its sins, and who had laid the word of
reconciliation on him the apostle.” A new misinterpretation. For, first, the
qualitative expression ‘‘a God,” which is held to be predicative, would not
only have been quite superfluous (Paul would have had to write merely ὡς
ὅτι ἦν k.T.A.), but also quite unsuitable, since there is no contrast with other
gods; secondly, the relative tense ἦν must apply to the time in which what
is said in δόντος ἡμῖν x.t.A. took place (in the sense, therefore : because he
was at that time a God, who was reconciling), which would furnish an ab-
surd thought, because, when Paul became an apostle, the reconciliation of
the world had been long accomplished : thirdly, ϑέμενος would be a parti-
ciple logically incorrect, because what it affirms followed on the καταλλάσσων ;
lastly, μὴ λογιζόμ. cannot be taken in the sense of ‘‘ without imputation,”
“since a reconciliation with imputation of sins is unthinkable. — κόσμον] not a
world,, but the world, even without the article (Winer, p. 117 [E. T. 153]),
as Gal. vi. 14; Rom. iv. 13. It applies to the whole human race, not pos-
sibly (in opposition to Augustine, Lyra, Beza, Cajetanus, Estius) merely to
those predestinated. The reconciliation of all men to took nee objectively
ee by the faith of the individual, --ἐμὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς x.7.4.] since
He does not reckon on (present) te to them their sins, and has deposited (aorist) in us
the word of reconciliation. The former is the altered -judicial relation, into
which God has entered and in which He stands to the sins of men ; the
latter is the measure adopted by God, by means of which the former is
made known to men. ) From both it is evident that God in Christ recon-
ciled the world with Himself ; otherwise He would neither have left the
sins of men without imputation, no have imparted to the apostolic teach-
ers the word of reconciliation that they might preach it. If, as is usually
done, the participial definition μὴ λογιζόμενος is taken in the imperfect sense
(Ewald takes it rightly in a present sense) as a more precise explanation of
the modus of the reconciliation, there arises the insoluble difficulty that
ϑέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν also would have to be so viewed, and to be taken conse-
quently as an element of the reconciliation, which is impossible, since it
expresses what God has done after the work of reconciliation, in order to
appropriate it to men. ( ϑέμενος, namely, cannot be connected with Sede ἦν,
against which the aorist participle is itself decisive ; and it is quite arbitrary to
assume (with Billroth and Olshausen) a deviation from the construction, so
1 The question whether and how Paul re- are not included in the notion of κόσμος.
garded the reconciliation of those who
died before the ἱλαστήριον of Christ, and
were not justified like Abraham, remains
unanswered, since he nowhere explains
himself on the point, and since the dead
Still, Rom. x. 7, Phil. ii. 10 presuppose the
descent of Christ into Hades, which is the
necessary correlative of the resurrection
ἐκ νεκρῶν, and it is expressly taught by Paul
in Eph. iv. 9.
538 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
that Paul should have written ἔϑετο instead of ϑέμενος (comp. Vulgate, Cal-
vin and many others, who translate it without ceremony : et poswit). — ἐν ἡμῖν]
The doctrine of reconciliation (comp. on the genitive, 1 Cor. i. 18 ; Acts
xxx. 32) which is to be preached, is regarded as something deposited in the
gouls of the preachers for further communication : ‘‘ sicut interpreti commit-
titur quid loqui debeat,” Bengel. Comp. on ἐν ἡμῖν, which is not to be
taken as among us, the ϑεῖναι ἐν φρεσί, ἐν ϑυμῷ, ἐν στήϑεσσι. XS
Ver. 20. For Christ, therefore, we administer the office of ambassador, just as
if God exhorted through us. This double element of the dignity of the high
calling follows from the previous ϑέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν τ. Ady. τῆς καταλλ. If, name-
ly, it is the word of reconciliation which is committed to us, ‘then in our em-
bassy we conduct Christ’s cause (ὑπὲρ X. xpeo3.), seeing that the reconcilia-
tion has is taken place through Christ ; and because God has entrusted to us
this work, our exhortation is to be regarded as taking pl: 1 place by God through
us (ὡς τ. θ. παρακαλ. δ ἡμ.). y. On ep “with peop. in the sense specified,
comp. Eph. vi. 20 and the passages in Wetstein and Kypke. The opposite :
πρεσβ. κατά τινος, Dem. 400, 12. The wswal interpretation, vice et loco Christi,
which is rightly abandoned even by Hofmann, and is defended on the part
of Baur by mere subtlety, runs counter to the context ; for this sense must
have followed (οὖν) from what precedes, which, however, is not the case,
If the notion of representation were to be inferred from what precedes, it
could only furnish us with a ὑπὲρ deov. — Observe the parallel correlation of
Christ and God in the two parts of the verse. The connecting of ὡς τοῦ
Seo παρακ. δὲ ἡμ. With δεόμεθα ὑπὲρ X. (Hofmann) would only disturb this
symmetry without due ground. — δεόμεθα ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ k.7.4.] specification
of the contents of the πρεσβεία, and that in the form of apostolic humility
and love : we pray for Christ, in His interest, in order that we may not, in
your Case, miss the aim of Hii His divine work of reconciliation : be ye recon-
ciled- to_God ; do not, by refusing faith, frustrate the work of reconciliation
in your case, but through your faith bring about_that the the objectively ac-
complished reconciliation may be accomplished subjectively in in you. Riickert
wrongly holds! that the second aorist passive cannot have a passive mean-
ing and signifies only to reconcile oneself (see, on the contrary, Rom. v. 10;
Col. i. 21) ; that Paul demands the putting away of the φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός,
and the putting on of the φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος ; and that so man reconciles
himself with God. In this view, the moral immediate consequence of the
appropriation of the reconciliation through faith is confounded with this ap-
propriation itself. The reconciliation is necessarily passive ; man cannot rec-
oncile himself, but is able only to become by means of faith a partaker of the
reconciliation which has been effected on the divine side ; he can only be-
come. reconciled, which on his side cannot take place without faith, but is ex-
perienced in faith. This also in opposition to Hofmann, who says that they
are to make their peace with God, in which case what the person so sum-
moned has to do is made to consist in this, that he complies with the sum-
mons and prays God to extend to him also the effect, which the mediation
1 See against this, also Weber, v. Zorne Gottes, p. 302 f.
CHAP, Y., 21. "539
constituted by God Himself exercises on the relation of sinful man toward
Him. — The subject of καταλλάγητε is all those, to whom the loving summons
of the gospel goes forth ; consequently those not yet-reeonciled, i.e. the wn-
believing, who, however, are to be brought, » through Christ’s ambassadors, to
appropriate the reconciliation. The ‘quotidiana remissio which is promised
to Christians (Calvin) is not meant, but the καταλλάγητε is fulfilled by those
who, hitherto still standing aloof from the reconciliation, believingly ac-
cept the λόγος τ. καταλλαγῆς sent to them.?
Ver. 21. This is not the other side of the apostolic preaching (one side of
it being the previous prayer), for this must logically have preceded the
prayer (in τ ai to Hofmann) ; but the inducing motive, belonging to
the δεόμεθα «.7.2., for complying with the καταλλ. τῷ Sed, by luis forth
what has ΤΡ dene on God’s side in order to justify men. This weighty
motive emerges without γάρ, and is all the more urgent. — τὸν μὴ γνόντα
duapr.| description of sinlessness (τὸν αὐτοδικαιοσύνην ὄντα, Chrysostom) ; for
sin had not become known experimentally to the moral consciousness of Jesus ; -
it was to Him, because non-existent in Him, aething unknown from His
own experience. This was the necessary postulate for His accomplish-
ing the work of reconciliation. —The μή with the participle gives at all
events a subjective negation ; yet it may be doubtful whether it means the
judgment ef God (Billroth, Osiander, Hofmann, Winer) or that of the
Christian consciousness (so Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 279: ‘‘ quem talem vi-
rum mente concipimus, qui sceleris notitiam non habuerit’”). The former is
to be preferred, because it makes the motive, which is given in ver. 21, ap-
pear stronger. The sinlessness of Jesus was present to the consciousness of
God, when He made Him to be sin? Riickert, quite without ground, gives
up any explanation of the force of μή by erroneously remarking that between
the article and the participle μή always appears, never ov. See e.g. from the
ΝΕ T., Rom. ix. 25 ; Gal. iv. 27 ; 1 Pet. ii. 10; Eph. v. 4; and from pro-
fane authors, Plat. Rep. p. 427 ἘΣ : τὸ οὐχ εὑρημένον, Plut. de garrul. p. 98,
ed Hutt. : πρὸς τοὺς οὐκ ἀκούοντας, Arist. Heel. 187 : ὁ δ᾽ οὐ λαβών, Lucian,
Charid. 14 : διηγούμενοι τὰ οὐκ ὄντα, adv. Ind. 5, and many other passages. —
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] for our benefit (more precise explanation : iva ἡμεῖς x.7.A.), Is em-
phatically prefixed as that, in which lies mainly the motive for fulfilling the
prayer in ver. 20 ; hence also ἡμεῖς is afterwards repeated. Regarding ὑπέρ,
which no more means instead here than it does in Gal. iii. 13 (in opposition
to Osiander, Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 134, and older commentators), see
on Rom. v. 6. The thought of substitution is only introduced by what fol-
lows. (Ε5) ---- ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησε] abstractum pro conereto (comp. Ajpoc, ὄλεθρος,
and the like in the classic writers, Kiihner, 11. p. 26), denoting more strongly
that which God made Him to be (Dissen, ad Pind. pp. 145, 476), and ἐποίησε
expresses the setting up of the state, in which Christ was actually exhibited
by God as the coneretum of ἁμαρτία, a8 ἁμαρτωλός, in being subjected by Him
to suffer the punishment of death ;* comp. κατάρα, Gal. iii. 13. | Holsten,
1 Thereby is completed in their case the 2 Comp. Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p.
task of the apostolic ministry, which is con- 100.
tained in the μαϑητεύσατε, Matt. xxviii. 19. 3 It isto be ncted, however, that ἁμαρτίαν,
540 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
2. Huang. d. Paul. τι. Petr. p. 437, thinks of Christ’s having with His incarna-
tion received also the principle of sin, although He remained without παρά-
βασις. But this is not contained even in Rom. viii. 3; in the present pas-
sage it can only be imported at variance with the words (au. ἐποίησεν), and the
distinction between ἁμαρτία and παράβασις is quite foreign to the passage.
Even the view, that the death of Jesus has its significance essentially in the
fact that it is a doing away of the definite fleshly quality (Rich. Schmidt, Paulin.
Christol. p. 83 f£.), does not fully meet the sacrificial conception of the apos-
tle, which is not to be explained away. For, taking ἁμαρτίαν as sin-offering
(OWN, OXON), with Augustine, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Oecumenius, Eras-
mus, Vatablus, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Piscator, Hammond, Wolf, Michaelis,
Rosenmiiller, Ewald, and others,’ there is no sure basis laid even in the
language of the LXX. (Lev. vi. 25, 30, v. 9; Num. viii. 8) ; it is at vari-
ance with the constant usage of the N. T., and here, moreover, especially at
variance with the previous ἁμαρτ. --- γενώμεθα] aorist (see the critical remarks),
without reference to the relation of time. The present of the Recepta would
denote that the coming of the ἡμεῖς to be δικαιοσύνη (to be δίκαιοι) still con-
tinues with the progress of the conversions to Christ. Comp. Stallbaum,
ad Crit. p. 43 B: ‘id, quod propositum fuit, nondum perfectum et trans-
actum est, sed adhuc durare cogitatur ;” see also Hermann, ad Viger. p.
850. — δικαιοσύνη ϑεοῦ) t.e. justified by God. See on Rom. i. 17. Not thank-
offering (Michaelis, Schulz) ; not an offering just before God, well-pleasing
to Him, but as duped ϑεοῦ (Rom. v. 17), the opposite of all ἰδία δικαιοσύνη
(Rom. x. 8). They who withstand that apostolic prayer of ver. 20 are then
those, who τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ ϑεοῦ οὐχ ὑπετάγησαν, Rom. x. 3.— év αὐτῷ] for im
Christ, namely, in His death of reconciliation (Rom. iii. 25), as causa meri-
toria, our being made righteous has its originating ground.
just like κατάρα, Gal. iii. 18, necessarily in-
cludes in itself the notion of guilt ; further,
that the guilt of which Christ, made to be sin
and a curse by God, appears as bearer, was
not His own (μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν), and that
hence the guilt of men, who through His
death were to be justified by God, was ¢7-ans-
Jerred to Him; consequently the justifica-
tion of men isimputative. This at the same
time in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew.
II. 1, p. 329, according to whom (comp. his
explanation at our passage) Paul is held
merely to express that God has allowed sin
to realize itself in Christ, as befalling Him,
while it was not in Him as conduct. Cer-
tainly it was not in Him as conduct, but it
lay upon Him as the guilt of mento be aton-
ed for through His sacrifice, Rom. iii. 25;
Col. ii. 14; Heb. ix. 28; 1 Pet. ii. 24; Johni.
29, al. ; for which reason His suffering finds
itself scripturally regarded not under the
point of view of experience befalling Him,
evil, or the like, but only under that of guilt-
atoning and penal suffering. Comp. 1 John
ii. 2.
17Thic interpretation is preferred by
Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1868, p. 249.
for the special reason that, according to the
ordinary interpretation, there is an incon-
gruity between the end aimed at (actual
righteousness of God) and the means (appear-
ing as asinner). But this difficulty is ob-
viated by observing that Christ is conceived
by the apostle as in reality bearer of the
divine κατάρα, and His death as mors vica-
via for the benefit (ὑπέρ) of the sinful men,
to be whose ἱλαστήριον He was accordingly
made by God a sinner. As the yiverdac
δικαιοσύνην deod took place for men imputa-
tively, so also did the ἁμαρτίαν ἐποὶησεν αὐτόν
take place for Christ imputatively. In this
lies the congruity.
NOTES. 541
Norres py ΑΜΈΒΙΟΑΝ Eprror.
(τῇ Paul's expectation of living till the Parousia. Ver. 1.
The strong language of the author on this subject does not appear to be in
harmony with the Apostle’s own declarations to the elders of Ephesus (Acts xx.
22-24) and again to his friends at Cesarea (ibid, xxi. 13), in both of which he
speaks of death as imminent before him, or at least as that which might occur
at any moment.
(v4) ‘A building of God.’ Ver. 1.
That this means the resurrection body, as Meyer says, is the opinion of
almost all the recent expositors. Hodge alone adopts the view that the house
not made with hands is heaven itself, and argues for it very ably, yet not with
success ; for if the earthly house is a body, the heavenly house must be one also,
and a body which is said to be now in heaven and afterwards to come from
heaven can hardly be identical with heaven.
(v*) ‘* Be found naked.’’ Ver. 3.
Paul’s confident expectation that he would not be found without a body when
Christ came is naturally, according to the metaphor of the whole passage,
expressed by saying he would not be found naked. But the term getsea peculiar
propriety from the fact that the Greek writers were accustomed to use this
word in describing disembodied spirits. (See Stanley in loco.)— ““Τ so ὍΘ᾽ ὁ
here is by virtue of the connection equivalent to ‘‘ seeing that.’’
(w) ‘* Not unclothed, but clothed upon.” Ver. 4.
Stanley gives the sense thus: ‘‘ The groans which I utter being in the taber-
nacle of the body, are uttered not so much because of the oppression of this
outward frame (‘being burdened’), not so much from a wish to be entirely
freed from the mortal part of our nature, as from the hope that it will be
absorbed into a better life.’” So Hodge: ‘‘It is not mere exemption from the
burden of life, its duties, its labors, or its sufferings, which is the object of
desire, but to be raised to that higher state of existence in which all that is
mortal, earthly, and corrupt about one shall be absorbed in the life of God, the
divine and eternal life.”’
(x4) ‘* Not by sight.” Ver. 7.
Meyer’s criticism is true and his rendering is exact, yet it is very certain that the
Common Version (and the Revised) gives the idea the Apostle intended, though
not the form in which he expressed it.—‘‘ To walk’ is = versari, ‘‘pass our life.”
(x*) ‘* At home with the Lord.’’ Ver. 8.
The passage sheds light on a matter of which the Bible says little, the state
of the saved between death and resurrection. For Paul evidently thinks of no
alternative except to be at home in the body and at home with the Lord. Therefore
departed believers are with Christ ; and if so, not unconscious (for the uncon-
542 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
scious are practically nowhere) ; and their nearness to Christ is such that com-
pared with it their spiritual presence with Him in this life is absence. And
althongh they have not yet entered their ‘‘ eternal house’’ and put on their
heavenly clothing, yet in the presence of Christ they are af home. And their
eternal intercourse with Him has begun. (See Philip.i. 20.) (Beet.)
(z4) «* Things done in the body.” Ver. 10.
“ΤΕ it is on the deeds done in the body that the judgment is to be held, it fol-
lows that no change effected after men have left the body will be taken into
account in fixing their final state” (Principal Brown). — Meyer's statement
that the wicked may be recompensed by a lower degree of the Messianic salva-
tion is wholly unscriptural. The Bible knows of only two classes—the saved
and the lost. The former have varying degrees of blessedness, but are all
saved. The latter have varying degrees of suffering (many stripes, few stripes,
Luke xii. 47, 48), but all are lost.
(a5) «* We persuade men.” Ver. 11.
Waite (Speaker's Comm.) and Alford agree with Meyer in viewing this as
meaning Paul’s desire to convince men of his integrity (so Hodge apparently).
But Plumptre, Beet, Brown, and others take it in the sense of winning men
to the Gospel. The former sense is more agreeable to the context and to the
antithesis’in this verse.
(B°) ‘* Constraineth us.” Ver. 14.
It is true that the Greek verb does not mean to urge and drive, but it has
the sense of pressing hard, as a crowd does (Luke viii. 45) ; and why may not
this meaning of a strong outward pressure pass over into an inward impulse,
or, as Alford puts it, a forcible compression of energies into one line of action ?
(c’) ““ Therefore all died.’’ Ver. 14.
The simple sense is that the death of one was the death of all. If one died
for all, then all died. The Scriptures teach that the relation between Christ and
His people is analogous to that between Adam and his posterity (Hodge).
This important passage is greatly obscured by a mistranslation in the Author-
ized Version, corrected in the Revision of 1881. The ‘‘all” therefore must
refer to believers, and not to the race, as Meyer thinks.
(05) ‘* Who hath reconciled us unto Himself.” Ver. 18.
Meyer’s exposition of this clause is sound and satisfactory. As Hodge (in
loc.) says, To reconcile is to remove enmity between parties at variance with
each other. In this case God is the reconciler. Man never makes reconcilia-
tion. It is what he experiences or embraces. The enmity between God and
man is removed by the act of God. It is done by the death of Christ, which,
however, is represented as a sacrifice ; but the design and nature of a sacrifice
are to propitiate and not toreform. In Rom. v. 9, 10, « being reconciled by the
death of the Son’’ is interchanged as equivalent with « being justified by his
blood,” which proves that the reconciliation intended consists in the satisfac.
NOTES. 543
tion of divine justice by the sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, here our reconcili-
ation to God is made the source and cause of our new creation, i.e. regenera-
tion. God’s reconciliation to us must precede our reconciliation to Him.-—
Weiss, who certainly has no dogmatic bias, says: ‘‘ The reconciliation cannot
consist in this, that man gives up his hostile disposition towards God. It is
not something mutual, as if man gives up his enmity and God consequently
gives up his ὀργή. By not reckoning unto men their trespasses, God gives up
His enmity to men, which is, as it were, forced upon Him by the sin which
rouses His wrath. It is He alone that changes His hostile disposition into a
gracious one, after He has treated the sinless One as a Sinner in behalf of sin-
ners. (Bib. Theol. Part III. chap. vi. note).
(E>) ‘* Made sin for us.’ Ver. 21.
There is probably no one verse in Scripture which states the doctrines of
atonement and justification more clearly and concisely than this. Dr. Meyer
has treated it carefully and justly.
odd PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
CHAPTER VI.
Ver. 14. ἢ τίς] Elz. : ric δέ, against decisive evidence. — Ver. 15. Instead of
Χριστῷ, Lachm. and Tisch. have Χριστοῦ, following B C δὲ, min. Vulg. Copt.
Fathers. Rightly ; the dative came in from the adjoining words. — Ver. 16.
ὑμεῖς. . . ἐστε] Lachm.: ἡμεῖς... ἐσμεν, following B D* L &* min. Copt. Clar.
Germ. Clem. Didym. Aug. (once). To be preferred, since the Recepta was very
naturally suggested as well by the remembrance of 1 Cor. iii. 16 as by the con-
nection (vv. 14, 17), while there was no ground for putting ἡμεῖς... ἐσμεν in its
stead. — μοι] Lachm.: μου. Attested, no doubt, by BC δὲ, 17, 37, but easily
brought in after αὑτῶν. ] -- Ver. 17. ἐξέλθετε] The form ἐξέλθατε is to be adopted,
with Lachm. Tisch. and Riick., following B C F G 8, 71, al. Damase, See
Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 639.
After Paul has, in vv. 20, 21, expressed by δεόμεθα x.7.2. the first and
most immediate duty of his ministry as ambassador, he now expresses also
his further working as a teacher, and that in reference to the readers, vv.
1, ἢ. And in order to show how important and sacred is this second part
of his working as a joint-labourer with Christ, and certainly at the same
time by way of an example putting his opponents to shame, he thereupon
sets forth (vv. 3-10), in a stream of diction swelling onward with ever in-
creasing grandeur, his own conduct in his hortatory activity. ‘‘ Maxima
est innocentiae contumacia,” Quintil. ii. 4. ‘‘ Verba innocenti reperire
facile est,” Curtius, vi. 10. 37.
Ver. 1. Connection and meaning : ‘‘We do not, however, let the matter
rest merely with that entreaty on Christ’s behalf : be ye reconciled to God,
but, since we are His fellow-workers, and there is thus more laid on us to do
than that entreaty on Christ’s behalf, we also exhort that ye lose not again the
grace of God which you have received (v. 21), that yedo not frustrate it in your
case by an unchristian life.” — συνεργοῦντες] The συν finds its contextual refer-
ence not in the subject of v. 21, where there is only an auxiliary clause
assigning a reason, nor yet in ὡς τοῦ ϑεοῦ παρακαλ. δὲ ἡμῶν, ver. 20, in which
there was given only a modal definition of the πρεσβεύειν ὑπὲρ X., but in
ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, ver. 20: as working together with Christ. It cannot, therefore,
apply to God (Oecumenius, Lyra, Beza, Calvin, Cajetanus, Vorstius, Estius,
Grotius, Calovius, and others, including Riickert, de Wette, Osiander,
Hofmann, in accordance with 1 Cor. iii. 9), or to the fellow-apostles (Heu-
mann, Leun), or to the Corinthian teachers (Schulz, Bolten), or to the
Corinthians in general (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Pelagius, Bengel, Billroth,
1 In the LXX. also, Lev. xxvi. 22, there occurs for μοι the variation μου.
OHAP.- VI. 2 ᾿ς 645
Olshausen '), or to the exhortations, with which his own example co-operates
(Michaelis, Emmerling, Flatt). The apostles are fellow-workers with Christ
just in this, that they are ambassadors ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, and as such have to
represent His cause and prosecute His work. — μὴ εἰς κενὸν κ.τ...] ἐπάγει ταῦτα
τὴν περὶ τὸν βίον σπουδὴν ἀπαιτῶν, Chrysostom. For if he that is reconciled
through faith leads an unchristian life, the reconciliation is in his case frus-
trated. See Rom. vi., vili. 12, 13, al. —eic κενόν] incassum, of no effect, Gal.
mee. Phill i: 16; 1 Thess, iii. ὃ ; Diod. xix. 9; Heliod. x: 30; Jacobs,
ad Anthol. VII. p. 3828. — δέξασθαι) is to be explained as recipiatis. So
Vulgate, Luther, and others, including Riickert, Ewald, Osiander, Hof-
mann. Those, namely, who, like the readers (ὑμᾶς), have become partakers
of the reconciliation through compliance with the entreaty in v. 20, are
placed now under the divine grace (comp. Rom. vi. 14 f.). (f°) And this
they are not to reject, but to receive and accept (δέξασθαι), and that not εἰς
κενόν, ἴ.6., not without the corresponding moral results, which would be
wanting if one reconciled and justified by faith were not to follow the
drawing of grace and the will of the Spirit and to walk in the καινότης τῆς
ζωῆς (Rom. vi. 4) as a new creature, etc. Comp. Theodoret. Pelagius also
is right: ‘‘in vacuum gratiam Dei recipit, qui in novo testamento non
novus est.” Hence it is not (not even in Rom. xv. 9) to be taken in the
sense of the praeterite, as many of the more recent commentators (even de
Wette) take it, contrary to usage, following Erasmus : ‘‘ ne committatis, ut,
semel gratis a peccatis exemti, in pristinam vitam relabentes in vanum rece-
peritis gratiam Dei.” — ὑμᾶς] is now, after the apostolic calling has been
expressed at iv. 20 in its general bearing, added and placed at the end for
emphasis, because now the discourse passes into the direct exhortation to
the readers, that they receive not without effect, etc. If in their case that
apostolic entreaty for reconciliation had not passed without compliance,
they are now also to accept and act on the grace under which they have
been placed.
Ver. 2 does not assign the reason why Paul is concerned about his official
action, because, namely, now is the timein which God would have the
world helped (Hofmann), but gives, as the context requires by the exhorta-
tion brought in at ver. 1, a parenthetic urgent inducement for complying
with this exhortation without delay. —Aéyec γάρ] sc. ὁ ϑεός, from what pre-
cedes. The passage is Isa. xlix. 8, exactly according to the LXX. The
person addressed is the 1 73, whose idea is realized in Christ. He is
regarded as the head of the true people of God ; He is listened to, and He is
helped, when the grace of God conveyed through Him is not received with-
out result. (6) Such is the Messianic fulfilment of that, which in Isaiah is
promised to the servant of God regarding the deliverance and salvation of
1Billroth says: ‘‘he does not simply ποῦ place himself over the Corinthians ; he
preach the gospel and leave the Corinthians —_ wishes only to be their fellow-labourer, to
then to stand alone, but he at the same exhort them in such wise as they ought to
time busies himself with them for their sal- exhort one another.” In that case Paul
vation, inasmuch as he stands by their side ought to have written συνεργοῦντες δὲ ὑμῖν,
with his exhortations as their instructor.” in order to be understood.
Olshausen: ‘‘condescendingly Paul does
546 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the unfortunate people. — καιρῷ δεκτῷ] Thus the LXX. translate }1¥ Ay3,
at a time of favour. Paul was able to retain the expression of the LXX. all
the more, that in the fulfilment of the prophetic word the acceptableness
(dexr@) of the καιρός for the people of God consists in this, that it is the
point of time for the display of divine favour and grace. Chrysostom well
says : καιρὸς . . . ὁ τῆς δωρεᾶς, ὁ τῆς χάριτος, ὅτε οὐκ ἔστιν εὐθύνας ἀπαιτηθῆναι
τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων, οὔτε δίκην δοῦναι, ἀλλὰ μετὰ τῆς ἀπαλλαγῆς καὶ μυρίων ἀπολαῦσαι
ἀγαθῶν, δικαιοσύνης, ἁγιασμοῦ, τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων. In substance the same
thing is indicated by ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σωτηρίας, on the day of deliverance. Τί καιρὸς
δεκτός is taken as the time pleasing to God (Hofmann),’ it is less in keeping
with the parallel ‘‘day of salvation.” The aorists are neither of a future
(Menochius) nor of a present character (Flatt), but the Deity speaking sees
the future as having already happened. See on Luke i. 51. —In the com-
mentary which Paul adds : ἰδοὺ, viv x.7.4., he discloses the element of that
utterance of God, which moves to the use of this welcome salvation-bringing time.
Behold, now is the acceptable time, behold, now is the day of deliverance, which
the prophet has foretold ; now or never may you be successful in obtaining
salvation through a fruitful acceptance and apprehension of the divine
grace! If the viv is past, and you have frustrated in your case the grace
received, then the hearing and help promised by the prophet are no longer
possible ! The duration of this viv was in Paul’s view the brief interval before
the near-approaching Parousia. The stronger εὐπρόσδεκτος (vill. 12 ; Rom.
xv. 16, 31 ; Plut. Mor. p. 801 C), which he has used instead of the simple
form, has proceeded involuntarily from his deep and earnest feeling on the
subject.
Ver. 3. The participle is not connected with ver. 11, but (in opposition to
Hofmann, see on ver. 11) with παρακαλ. in ver. 1, as a qualitative definition
of the subject. Grotius aptly says: ‘‘ ostendit enim, quam serio moneat
qui ut aliquid proficiat nullis terreatur incommodis, nulla non commoda
negligat.” Luther finds here an exhortation (let us give no one any kind of
offence), which, however, is not allowed either by the construction (διδόντας
must have been used) or by the contents of what follows. — ἐν μηδενι} not
masculine (Luther) but neuter: in no respect. Comp. ἐν παντί, ver. 4. The
uf is here used, neither unsuitably to the connection with ver. 1 (Hofmann),
nor instead of οὐ (Ruckert), but from a subjective point of view : ‘‘ we ex-
hort . . . as those, who,” etc. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 33, and see Winer, p. 451
[E. T. 608]. — προσκοπή, only here in the N. T., not found in the LXX. and
Apocr. (Polyb. vi. 6. 8, a/.), is equivalent to πρόσκομμα, σκάνδαλον, ὃ.6. an
occasion for unbelief and unchristian conduct. This is given by a conduct of
the teachers at variance with the doctrine taught. — μωμηθῇ} be blamed ;
comp. vii. 20. Paul is conscious that he represents the honour of the min-
istry entrusted to him. (n°) It cannot be proved that you. denotes only
light blame (Chrysostom and others, Osiander). See even in Homer, JI. iii.
412. It depends on the context, as in Pindar, Pyth. i. 160 ; Lucian, Quom.
hist. 88 : ὃ οὐδεὶς ἂν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὁ Μῶμος μωμήσασθαι δύναιτο.
1 Comp. Calvin, who understands by it the ‘‘ tempus plenitudinis” of Gal. iv. 4.
CHAP. VI., 4-6. . 047
Ver. 4. f. Συνιστῶντες éavt.] Here éavr. is not, as in iii. 1, iv. 12, prefixed,
because συνίστ. is the leading idea. — ὡς ϑεοῦ διάκονοι] different in sense from
ὡς θ. διακόνους (Vulg. : ministros). This would mean : we commend ourselves
as those (accusative), who appear as God’s servants. The former means :
we commend ourselves, as God’s servants commend themselves. Comp. Kiihner,
§ 830, 5. The emphasis is on ϑεοῦ. --- ἐν ὑπομονῇ πολλῇ] This is the first
thing, the passive bearing, through which that ovwor. éavt. ὡς 0. διάκ. takes
place, through much patience ; the further, active side of the bearing follows
in ver. 6, ἐν ἁγνότητι k.t.A., 80 that ἐν θλίψεσιν. . . νηστείαις is that, in which
(ἐν) the much patience, the much endurance is shown.—Bengel aptly classi-
fies ἐν θλίψεσιν. . . νηστείαις : ‘‘ Primus ternarius continet genera, secundus
species adversorum, tertius spontanea.” Comp. Theodoret. — θλίψ., avdayr.,
στενοχ. : climactic designation. On orevoy., comp. iv. 8. It is impractica-
ble, and leads to arbitrariness, to find a climax also in the three points that
follow, the more especially as the very first point is worse and more dis-
graceful than the second. — ἐν πληγαῖς] Comp. xi. 23-25 ; Acts xvi. 23. —
ἐν ἀκαταστασίαις in tumults. Comp. eg. Acts xiii. 50, xiv. 19, xvi. 19 ff.,
xix. 28 ff. The explanation : instabilities, i.e. banishments from one place
to another (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Schulz, Flatt,
Olshausen), is in itself possible (comp. ἀστατοῦμεν 1 Cor. iv. 11) ; but in the
whole of the N. T. axataor. only means either confusion, disorder (1 Cor.
xiv. 82 ; 2 Cor. xii. 20; Jas. iii. 16), or in a special sense twmult (Luke xxi.
9; comp. Ecclus. xxvi. 27). See, regarding the latter signification, the
profane passages in Wetstein, Schweighiuser, Lex. Polyb. p. 17. — ἐν aypurv. |
in sleeplessnesses, for the sake of working with his hands, teaching, travel-
ling, meditating, praying, through cares, etc. Comp. xi. 27 ; Acts xx. 31.
On the plural, comp. Herod. iii. 129. — ἐν κόποις] is not, with Chrysostom,
Theophylact, and others, to be understood only of labowr with the hands (1
Cor. iv. 11 ; 1 Thess. ii. 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8), which limitation is not sug-
gested by the context, but of toilsome labours in general, which the conduct
of the apostolic ministry entailed. Comp. xi. 23, 27. — ἐν νηστείαις] is gen-
erally explained of the endurance of hunger and want (1 Cor. iv. 11 ; Phil.
iv. 12). But since νηστεία is never used of compulsory fasting, and since
Paul himself (xi. 27) distinguishes ἐν νηστείαις from ἐν λιμῷ x. δίψει, we must,
with Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Calvin (comp. also Osiander, Hofmann),
explain it of voluntary fasting, which Paul, using with free spirit the time-
honoured asceticism, imposed on himself. The objections, that this is at
variance with the apostle’s spirit, or is here irrelevant, are arbitrary. See
Matt. vi. 16, ix. 15, xvii. 21; Acts xiv. 23; comp. xiii. 2, 3, ix. 9; also 1
Cor. vii. 5. (1°)
In ver. 6, the series begun with ἐν ὑμομονῇ πολλῇ goes further. — ἐν ἁγνότ-
ητι] through purity, moral sincerity in general. Comp. ἁγνός, Phil. iv. 8 ;
1 Tim. v. 22; 1 Johniii. 3. To understand this as meaning abstinentia a
venere (Grotius and others), or contempt for money (Theodoret), is a limita-
tion without ground in the context, and presents too low a moral standard
fora servant of God. --- ἐν γνώσει] Of the high degree of his evangelical knowl-
edge, in particular of the moral will of God in the gospel, there is evidence
548 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
in every one of his Epistles and in every one of his speeches in the Book of
Acts. Calvin and Morus arbitrarily think that what is meant is recte et
scienter agendi peritia, or (comp. also Riickert and Osiander) true practical
prudence. —év μακροθυμίᾳ] amid offences. —év χρηστότητι] through kindness
(Tittmann, Synon. p. 140 ff.). The two are likewise associated in 1 Cor,
xiii. 4; Gal. v. 22. — ἐν πνεύμ. ἁγίῳ) is not to be limited arbitrarily to the
charismata (Grotius. and others), but : through the Holy Spirit, of whom tes-
timony is given by our whole working and conduct just as the fruit of the
Spirit (comp. Gal. v. 22) and walk according to the Spirit (Gal. v. 25).
The position of this and the following point is determined by the circum-
stance, that Paul, in addition to the points adduced (ἐν ὑπομονῇ. . . ἐν ἁγνό-
τητι k.T.A.), now further mentions their objective divine source, which he
bears in himself (ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ), as well as the fundamental virtue of the
Christian (ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἀνυποκρ., comp. Rom. xii. 9 ; 1 Pet. i. 22 f., iv. 8), which
springs from this source, and without which even those elements already
named would fail him (1 Cor. viii. 1, xiii. 1 ff., xiv. 1). In this way he
brings to completion that portion of his self-attestation which reaches to
this point.
Ver. 7. The enumerations hitherto made related generally to the conduct
and character of God’s servants; now the stream, swelling ever more boldly,
passes over to the province of the teacher’s work, and pours itself forth from
ver. 8 in a succession of contrasts between seeming and being, which are so
many triumphs of the apostle’s clear self-assurance. — ἐν λόγῳ ἀληθ. ] through
discourse of truth, i.e. through doctrine, the character of which is truth. Comp.
ii. 17, iv. 2. It will not do to take, with Riickert, Ady. ἀληθ. objectively, as
equivalent to εὐαγγέλιον, because, as at Eph. i. 13, Col. i. 5, the article could
not have been omitted. — ἐν δυνάμει Yeor| through power of God, which shows
itself efficacious in our work of teaching, iv. 7. Comp, 1 Cor. ii. 4, iv. 20.
The limitation to the miracles is arbitrary (Theophylact, comp. Emmerling
and Flatt). — dia τῶνόπλῶν τῆς δικαιοσ. x.t.A.] is by Grotius connected with
what precedes (Dei virtute nobis arma subministrante, etc.) ; but seeing that
other independent points are afterwards introduced by διά, we must suppose
that Paul, who elsewhere without any special purpose varies in his use ot
equivalent prepositions, passes from the instrumental ἐν to the instrumental
διά, So that we have here also a special point : through the weapons, which
righteousness furnishes. The δικαιοσύνη is to be taken in the usual dogmatic
sense. Comp. τὴν θώρακα τῆς δικαιοσ., Eph. vi. 15. It is the righteousness of
Jaith which makes us strong and victorious in the way of assault or defence
against all opposing powers. See the noble commentary of the apostle him.
self in Rom. viii. 31-39. It has been explained of moral integrity (comp.
Rom. vi. 13, 19 ; Eph. v. 9, vi. 14), the genitive being taken cither as ad
justitiam implendam (Grotius), or as weapons, which the consciousness of in-
tegrity gives (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Billroth), or which are allowed to a moral
man and are at his command (Rickert), or which minister to that which is of
right (Hofmann), and the like ; but the explanation has this against it, that
the context contains absolutely nothing which leads us away from the hab-
itual Pauline conception of δικαιοσύνη, as it was most definitely expressed
CHAP. VI., 8-10. — 649
even at v. 21, whereas the idea of δύναμις θεοῦ stands in quite a Pauline con-
nection with that of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. See Rom. i. 16, 17. Hence there is no
ground for uniting the two conceptions of δικαιοσύνη (Osiander), or for ex-
plaining it of righteousness as a quality of God which works through Paul
(Kling). The explanation : arma justa, legitimate weapons (Flatt, follow-
ing Heumann and Morus), is out of the question. —rév δεξιῶν καὶ apuot. |
right-hand and left-hand arms, an apportioning specification of the whole ar-
mament. The former are the weapons of attack wielded with the right hand,
the latter are the weapons of defence (shield) ; the warrior needs both together.
Hence it was unsuitable to refer the former specially to res prosperas, the
latter to res adversas (Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, and others, follow-
ing the Fathers) : ‘‘ne prosperis elevemur, nec frangamur adversis,” Pelagius.
Comp. rather, on the subject-matter, x. 4 f.
Ver. 8. It is usually supposed that διά here is not again instrumental, but
local: (going) through honour and shame, or in the sense of the accompanying
circumstances (Hofmann): amid honour and shame, we commend ourselves,
namely, as God’s servants, ver. 4. This is arbitrary on the very face of it ;
besides, in this way of taking it there is no mode of the apostolic self-com-
mendation at all expressed. Hence Billroth was right in trying to keep to the
instrumental sense : ‘‘as well honour as shame (the latter, in so far as he bears
it with courage and patience) must contribute to the apostle’s commendation.”
But, on the other hand, it may be urged that, according to the words, it
must be the shame itself (as also the δόξα itself), and not the manner of
bearing it, which commends. Hence it is rather to be taken : through glory,
which we earn for ourselves among the friends of God, and through dis-
honour, which we draw on ourselves among opponents ; through both we
commend ourselves as God’s servants. On the latter idea (καὶ ἀτιμίας), comp.
Matt. v. 11 ; Luke vi. 22; 1 Pet. iv. 14; also Gal. 1. 10. In a correspond-
ing way also what follows is to be taken: through evil report and good re-
port. — ὡς πλάνοι k. ἀληθεῖς] With this there begins a series of modal defini-
tions, which furnish a triumphant commentary on the two previous state-
ments, διὰ δόξης κ. ἀτιμίας, διὰ δυσφημ. K. εὐφημ. In this case the order of the
clauses (the injurious aspect being always put first) corresponds to the order
of δυσφ. x. εὐφημ. The first clause always gives the tenor of the ἀτιμία and
δυσφημία ; the second clause, on the other hand, gives the actual state of the
case, and consequently also the tenor of the δόξα and εὐφημία. Hence: as
deceivers and true, i.e. as people who are both, the former in the opinion and
in the mouth of enemies, the latter in point of fact. Accordingly, καί is not
“ὁ για yet” (Luther and many others), but the simple and. — On the seven
times repeated ὡς, Valla rightly remarks: ‘‘ Paulina oratio sublimis atque
urgens.” Comp. Augustine, de doctr. Ohrist. iv. 20.—On πλάνοι, which
does not mean ‘‘erring” (Ewald), comp. Matt. xxvii. 63; 1 Tim. iv. 1;
John vii. 12 ; and Wetstein.
Vv. 9, 10. ᾿Αγνοούμενοι] not : mistaken or misjudged (Flatt, Hofmann, and
others), nor yet: people, for whom nobody cares (Grotius), but : people,
whom no one is acquainted with (Gal. i. 22) ; obsewre men, of whom no one
knows anything. Comp. ἀγνώς and the contrasted γνώριμος, Plato, Pol. ii.
50 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ou
p. 375 E ; also Demosth. 851. 27. — ἐπιγινωσκ. | becoming well known ; comp,
on 1 Cor. xiii. 12; Matt. xi. 27. By whom? Riickert thinks : by God.
But without ground in the text, which rather demands the reference to men,
as Chrysostom rightly saw : ὡς ayv. κ. ἐπιγινωσκ., τοῦτο ἔστι διὰ δόξης καὶ ἀτιμίας,
τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἧσαν γνώριμοι καὶ περισπούδαστοι, οἱ δὲ οὐδὲ εἰδέναι αὐτοὺς ἠξίουν.
Hence : as people who are unknown (viz. according to the contemptuous
judgment of opponents), and well known (in reality among all true believers).
— ἀποθνήσκοντες] The continual sufferings and deadly perils of the apostle
gave to his opponents occasion to say : he is on the point of death, he is at
his last ἢ Paul considered himself as moribundus (1 Cor. xv. 31), but from
what an entirely different point of view! See 2 Cor. iv. 7-15.—xai ἰδοὺ
ζῶμεν] and, behold, we are in life! We find a commentary on thisin iv. 7 ff.
Comp. i. 10. The construction often varies so, that after the use of the parti-
ciple the discourse passes over to the finite verb (Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 327
f. [E. T. 382f.]); but here, in the variation introduced with a lively surprise by
ἰδού (comp. v. 17), there is implied a joyful feeling of victory. ‘‘ Vides non
per negligentiam veteres hoc genere uti, sed consulto, ubi quae conjuncta
sunt ad vim sententiae simul tamen distinguere volunt paulo expressius,”
Dissen, ad Pind. Isthm. p. 527. — ὡς παιδευόμενοι κ. μὴ Oavat.| a reminiscence,
perhaps, of Ps. exviii. 18 ; zad. is not, however, to be understood of act-
ual chastisements by scourging and the like (Cajetanus, Menochius, Estius,
Flatt). This, judged by the analogy of the other clauses, would be too
much a matter of detail, and it would be specially inappropriate, because in all
the clauses the view of His opponents is placed side by side with the true
state of the case. We must rather think of God as the παιδεύων. The sor-
rowful condition of the apostle gave his opponents occasion for concluding :
he is a chastened man! a man who is under the divine chastening rod! (3°)
— καὶ μὴ θανατ.) In his humble piety he does not deny that he stands under
God’s discipline (hence there is here no opposite of the first clause); but he
knows that God’s discipline will not proceed to extremity, as His opponents
thought ; therefore he adds: and not becoming killed! not sinking under
this chastening.—Ver. 10. In the opinion and judgment of our enemies we
are people full of sorrow, poor, and having nothing (starving and penniless
wretches !) ; and in reality we are <' all times rejoicing (through our Christian
frame of mind, comp. Rom. y. 3, and the χαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, Rom. xiv.
17; 1 Thess. iv. 6), enriching many (with spiritual benefits, 1 Cor. i.5 ; 2
Cor. viii. 9), and having in possession everything (because entrusted with the
store of all divine benefits in order to impart them to others). This πάντα
κατέχ., like the previous πολλοὺς πλουτίζ., is by Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Grotius, Estius, explained in this way, that Paul could have disposed of the
property of the Christians, and have enriched many by instituting collec-
tions. But such an inferior reference is altogether out of keeping with the
lofty tone of the passage, more especially at its close, where it reaches its
acme. Comp. also Gemara Nedarim f. 40. 2 : ‘‘ Recipimus non esse pauperem
nisi in scientia. In Occidente seu terra Israel dixerunt : in quo scientia est,
is est ut ille, in quo omnia sunt; in quo illa deest, quid est in eo ?”
Riickert’s opinion, that in those two clauses Paul was thinking of nothing
CHAP. ΥἹ., 11. 551
definite at all, is unjust towards the apostle. Olshausen, followed by
Neander, wishes to find the explanation of πάντα κατέχ. in 1 Cor. 111. 22.
But this is less suitable to the πολλοὺς πλουτίζ., evidently referring to the
spiritual gifts, to which it is related by way of climax.
Ver. 11-vii. 1. After the episode in vy. 3-10,’ Paul turns with a concil-
iatory transition (vv. 11-13) to a special, and for the Corinthians necessary,
form of the exhortation expressed in ver. 1 (vv. 14-18). This is followed
up in vii. 1 by a general appeal, which embraces the whole moral duty of
the Christian. τ
Ver. 11. Our mouth stands open towards you, Corinthians ; our heart is en-
larged. — τὸ στόμα ἡμῶν avéwye| This expression is in itself nothing further
than a picturesque representation of the thought : to begin to speak, or to
speak. See, especially, Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 97, and the remark on
Matt. v. 2. A qualitative definition may be added simply through the con-
text, as is the case also here partly through the general character of the pre-
vious passage, vv. 3-10, which is a very open, unreserved utterance, partly
by means of the parallel ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν πεπλάτυνται. Thus in accordance with
the context the opposite of reserve is here expressed. Comp. Chrysostom 1.
Had Paul merely written λελαλήκαμεν ὑμῖν, the same thought would, in vir-
tue of the context, have been implied in it (we have not been reserved, but
have let ourselves be openly heard towards you) ; but the picturesque τὸ
στόμα ἡμῶν avéwye is better fitted to convey this meaning, and is therefore
purposely chosen. Comp. Ezek. xxxiii. 22 ; Ecclus, xxii. 22 ; Eph. vi. 19 ;
Aeschylus, Prometh. 612. This at the same time in opposition to Fritzsche,
who adheres to the simple haec ad vos locutus sum, as to which, we may re-
mark, the Aaec is imported. Riickert (comp. Chrysostom 2) finds the sense
to be : ‘‘ see, I have begun to speak with you once, I have not concealed . . . from
you my apostolic sentiments ; I cannot yet close my mouth, I must speak with
you yet further.” But the thought : [must speak with you yet further, is
imported ; how could the reader conjecture it from the simple perfect ?
Just as little is it to be assumed, with Hofmann, that Paul wishes only to
state that he had not been reserved with what he had to say, so that this
expression is only are sumption of the παρακαλοῦμεν μὴ εἰς κενὸν x.T.A. In ver.
1. Only in an arbitrary and violent manner can we reject the reference to
vv. 3-10, where such a luxuriance of holy grandiloquentia has issued from
his mouth. — ἀνέῳγα, in the sense of ἀνέῳγμαι, is frequent in later Greek (in
Tl. xvi. 221, ἀνέῳγεν is imperfect), and is rejected by Phrynichus as a sole-
cism. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 157 £. — Κορίνθιοι] Regarding this particu-
it were, triumphant heroism, would stand
utterly disproportioned to that which he
17The supposition that there is an ab-
normal, and in this respect certainly unex-
ampled construction, under which ver. 11
should be taken as concluding the main
clause along with ‘‘the preceding long-
winded participial clause’? (Hofmann),
ought to have been precluded by the very
consideration that that ‘“‘ long-winded” ac-
eumulation of participles, in which, how-
ever, Paul paints his whole life active and
passive with so much enthusiasm, and, as
says in ver. 11, and which is only a brief,
gentle, kindly remark. What a magnificent
preparation for such alittle quiet sentence
without substantial contents! The exam-
ples cited by Hofmann from Greek writers
and the N. T. (Acts xx. 3; Mark ix. 20) are
too weak analogies. See regarding similar
real anacolutha, Winer, p. 527 f. [E. T.
709 £.J. Comp. on Mark ix. 20.
552 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
lar form of address without article or adjective (it is otherwise in Gal. iii.
1) Chrysostom judges rightly : καὶ ἡ προσθήκη δὲ τοῦ ὀνόματος φιλίας πολλῆς Kat
διαθέσεως καὶ θεριιότητος, καὶ γὰρ εἰώθαμεν τῶν ἀγαπωμένων συνεχῶς γυμνὰ τὰ ὀνόματα
περιστρέφειν. Comp. Phil. ἵν. 15. Bengel: ‘‘rara et praesentissima appella-
tio.” — ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν πεπλάτυνται] cannot here mean either: I feel myself cheered
and comforted (comp. Ps. cxix. 32; Isa. lx. 5), as Luther, Estius, Kypke,
Michaelis, Schleusner, Flatt, Bretschneider, Schrader, and others hold, or :
1 have expressed myself frankly, made a clean breast (Semler, Schulz, Morus,
Rosenmiiller, de Wette, comp. Beza), because vv. 12 and 13 are against both
ways of taking it ; but, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and the
majority, it is to be taken as an expression of the Jove which, by being stirred
up and felt, makes the heart wide, while by the want of love and by hate
the heart is narrowed and contracted. The figurative expression needed no
elucidation from the Hebrew, and least suitable of all is the comparison
with Deut. xi. 16 (Hofmann), where the figurative meaning of 5° is of
quite another kind. See, however, the passages in Wetstein on ver. 12, —
The two parts of the verse stand side by side as parallels without a con-
nective participle (καί), in order that thus the second thought, which out-
weighs the first, might come into more prominent relief,—a relation which
is indicated by the emphatic prefixing of τὸ στόμα and ἡ καρδία. The mean-
ing accordingly is: We have (vv. 8-10) spoken openly to you, Corinthians ;
our heart has therein become right wide in love towards you—which, however,
may not be interpreted of readiness to receive the readers (Hofmann), for
they wre already in his heart (vii. 3 ; comp. Phil. i. 7). The relation of the
two clauses is taken differently by Emmerling, who inserts a because between
them, and by Fritzsche, who says : ‘‘ quod vobis dixi ejusmodi est, wt inde
me vos amare appareat.”” But it may be urged against both that we are not
justified in taking the two perfects as different in temporal import, the one
as a real praeterite, and the other with the force of a present. In πεπλάτυνται
it is rather implied that Paul has felt his love to the Corinthians strengthened,
his heart towards them widened, during his writing of the passage vv. 3-10
(by its contents)—a result, after such an outpouring, intelligible enough,
psychologically true, and turned to account in order to move his readers.
Ver. 12. A negative confirmation of the ἡ καρδία ju. πεπλάτ. just said, an
opposite state of matters on the part of the Corinthians. — Not straitened are
ye in us, but straitened in your innermost part, (or., the seat of love, like
καρδία, ver. 11, to which the expression stands related under the increasing
emotion by way of climax). The meaning of it is: ‘‘valde vos amo, non
item vos me.” (K°) It is impossible, on account of the ov, to take it as an
imperative (Aretius, Luther, Heumann, Morus, Schleusner). — oi orevoy. ἐν
ἡμῖν) non angusto spatio premimini in animis nostris : in this Paul retains the
figure of the previous ἡ apd. ἡμ. πεπλάτ. Chrysostom aptly says : ὁ yap φιλού-
μενος μετὰ πολλῆς ἔνδον ἐν TH καρδίᾳ τοῦ φιλοῦντος βαδίζει τῆς ἀδείας. Comp. Vil.
3; Phil. 1, 7. The negative expression is an affectionate, pathetic litotes,
to be followed by an equally affectionate paternal reproof. This is explana-
tion enough, and dispenses with the hypothesis that Paul is referring to
the opinion of the church, that it had too narrow a space—a smaller place
CRAP! Ὑ1|) 1. 553
than it wished—in his heart (Hofmann). Those who interpret πλατ., ver.
11, as to cheer, take the meaning to be : not through us do ye become troubled,
but through yourselves (Kypke, Flatt ; comp. Elsner, Estius, Wolf, Zacha-
riae, Schrader ; comp. also Luther),—a thought, however, which is foreign
to the whole connection ; hence Flatt also assumes that Paul has vii. 2 ff.
already in his thoughts ; and Schrader explains ver. 14—vii. 1 as an interpo-
lation.’ — orevoy. δὲ ἐν τ. or A. ὑμ.} so that there is in them no right place for
us (comp. 1 John iii. 17). Chrysostom : οὐκ εἶπεν" οὐ φιλεῖτε ἡμᾶς, ἀλλ᾽ ob
Paul did not write στενοχωρούμεθα δὲ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς ord.
jy. because by this the contrast would have passed from the thing to the
persons (for he had not, in fact, written οὐχ ὑμεῖς στενοχωρ. ἐν ἡμῖν), and so
the passage would have lost in fitting concert and sharp force. Riickert
thinks that Paul refers in ver. 12 to an utterance of the Corinthians, who
had said : στενοχωρούμεί)α ἐν αὐτῷ 1 Meaning, we are perplexed at him, and
that now he explains to them how the matter stood with this στενοχωρεῖσθαι,
but takes the word in another sense than they themselves had done. A
strangely arbitrary view, since the use of the στενοχωρεῖσθαι in our passage
was occasioned very naturally and completely by the previous πεπλάτ. Comp.
Chrysostom, Theodoret.
Ver. 13. A demand for the opposite of the said στενοχωρεῖσθε ἐν τοῖς ord.
ὑμ. just said.—The accusative τὴν αὐτὴν ἀντιμισθίαν is not to be supplemented
either by habentes (Vulgate), nor by εἰσενέγκατε (Oecumenius, Theophylact),
nor to be connected with λέγω (Chrysostom, Beza, and others); it is anaco-
luthic (accusative absolute), so that it emphatically sets forth an object of
discourse, without grammatically attaching to it the further construction.
It is otherwise in ili. 18. There is not an interruption, but a rhetorical break-
ing off of the construction. These accusatives, otherwise explained by κατά,
are therefore the beginning of a construction which is not continued. See
Schaefer, ad Dem. V. pp. 314, 482 f.; Matthiae, p. 955. Comp. Bernhardy,
Ρ. 182 f.; Dissen, ad Pind. p. 329, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 407 ; Winer, p. 576
μετὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μέτρου.
1 Emmerling explains this section vi. sages of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Be-
14-vii. 1 to be, not an interpolation, but a
disturbing addition, only inserted by Paul
on reading over the Epistle again, “sen-
tentiis subito in animo exortis.’ And re-
cently Ewald has explained it as an insertea
fragment from another Epistle, proceeding
probably only from some apostolic man,
to a Gentile Christian church. But (1) the
apparent want of fitting in to the connec-
tion, even if it did exist (but see on ver. 14),
would least of all warrant this view in the
cease of an Epistle written under so lively
emotion. (2) The contents are quite Pau-
line, and sufficiently ingenious. (3) The
name βελίαρ, which does not occur else-
where in Scripture, is not evidence against
Paul, since in his Epistles (the Pastoral ones
excepted) even the name διάβολος, sO cur-
rent elsewhere. occurs only at tWO pas-
sides, the συμφών. Χριστῷ πρὸς BeAcap may be
an echo of some apocryphal utterance
known to the readers (comp. Eph. vy. 14).
(4) The expressions μετοχή (Comp. μετέχειν,
1 Cor. ix. 10, al.), μερίς (comp. Col. i. 12), συμ-
φώνησις (COMp. σύμφωνος, 1 Cor. vii. 5),
καϑαρίζω (comp. Eph. v. 26), cannot, any
more than συγμνατάϑεσις which he does not
use elsewhere, excite well-grounded suspi-
cion in the ease of one so rich in handling
the language. (5) The critical evidence
gives not the slightest trace of ground for
assuming that the section did not originally
stand in all the manuscripts. How differ-
ent it is with passages really interpolated,
such as Mark xvi. 9 ff.; John vii. 33 ff.! Yet
Holsten has also, zur. Huang. d. Paul. u.
Petr. p. 387, assented to the condcmnation
of the section.
554 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
[E. T. 774]. — αὐτήν] Paul has blended by way of attraction the two concep-
tions τὸ αὐτό and τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν. See Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 114 ff. Riick-
ert arbitrarily says: Paul wished to write ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς πλατύνθητε,
τὴν ἐμὴν ἀντιμισθίαν, but, by prefixing the latter, he brought the idea of ὡσαύ-
τως also into the first clause, where it necessarily had now to appear as an
adjective. He certainly has not only placed, but also thought τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν
first, but at the same time τὸ αὐτό was also in his mind. — The parenthetic ὡς
τέκνοις λέγω justifies the expression τὴν avr. ἀντιμισθίαν ; for it is the duty of
children to recompense a father’s love by love inreturn. Comp. 1 Tim. v. 4.
Chrysostom : οὐδὲν μέγα αἰτῶ, εἰ πατὴρ ὧν βούλομαι φιλεῖσθαι παρ᾽ ὑμῶν. The
notion of children yet wntrained (Ewald) would be indicated by something
like νηπίοις (1 Cor. 111. 1).
Ver. 14. As a contrast to the desired πλατύν., Paul now forbids their mak-
ing common cause with the heathen, and so has come to the point of stating
what was said generally at ver. 1 (μὴ εἰς κενὸν τ. y. τ. θεοῦ δέξασθαι) More pre-
cisely, in a form needful for the special circumstances of the Corinthians, in
order to warn them more urgently and effectually of the danger of losing
their salvation. — μὴ γίνεσθε érepofvy.| Bengel : ‘‘ ne jiatis, molliter pro : ne
sitis.”” He does not forbid all intercourse with the heathen whatever (see 1
Cor. v. 10, x. 27, vii. 12), but the making common cause with heathen
efforts and aims, the entering into the heathen element of life. There is no
ground for assuming exclusively special references (such as to sacrificial
banquets or to mixed marriages), any more than for excluding such refer-
ences. — érepofvyobvrec] see, in general, Wetstein. It means here : bearing
another (a different kind of) yoke. Comp. ἑτερόζυγος, Lev. xix. 19 ; Schleus-
ner, Thesaur. 11. p. 557. Paul undoubtedly has in mind the figurative con-
ception of two different animals (as ox and ass) which are yoked together in
violation of the law (Deut. xxii. 9),—a conception, in which the heteroge-
neous fellowship of Christians with heathen is aptly portrayed : drawing a
yoke strange to you. In this verse the dative ἀπίστοις denotes a fellowship,
in which the unbelieving partner forms the standard which determines the
mode of thought and action of the Christian partner. For this dative can-
not mean ‘‘ with unbelievers” (the usual explanation), as if συζυγοῦντες had been
used ; but it is not so much dativus commodi (Hofmann : for the pleasure of
unbelievers), a thought which Paul would have doubtless expressed with
more precision, as the dativus ethicus (Kriiger, § 48. 6); so that the words
mean : do not draw for unbelievers a strange yoke. The yoke meant is that
drawn by unbelievers, one of a kind strange to Christians (érepoiov), and the
latter are not to put themselves at the disposal of unbelievers, by sharing the
drawing it. The great danger of the relation against which Paul warns them,
lies in this dative expression. (L°) According to Theophylact (comp. Chrys-
ostom), the sense is : μὴ ἀδικεῖτε τὸ δίκαιον ἐπικλινόμενοι καὶ προσκείμενοι οἷς ov
θέμις, So that the figurative expression is taken from the unequal balance
(Phocylides, 13 : σταθμὸν μὴ κρούειν ἑτερόζυγον, ἀλλ᾽ ἴσον ἕλκειν). But apart
from the circumstance that Paul would in that case have expressed himself
at least very strangely, the reminiscence from the O. T., which the common
view assumes, must still be considered as the most natural for the apos-
CHAP. VI., 15. 555
tle.1— τίς yap μετοχὴ x.7.A.] for how utterly incompatible is the Christian with
the heathen character !_ Observe the impressiveness of the accumulated ques-
tions, and of the accumulated contrasts in these questions. The first four
questions are joined in two pairs ; the fifth, mounting to the highest desig-
nation of Christian holiness, stands alone, and to it are attached, as a forci-
ble conclusion of the discourse, the testimony and injunction of God which
confirm it.* — δικαιοσύνῃ x. ἀνομίᾳ] For the Christian is justified by faith (v.
21, vi. 7), and this condition excludes immoral conduct (ἀνομία, 1 John iii.
4), which is the element of heathen life (Rom. vi. 19). The two life-ele-
ments have nothing in common with each other, Rom. viii. 1 ff.; Gal. ii. 15
ff.—In the second question the Christian life-element appears as φῶς, and the
heathen as σκότος. Comp. Eph. v. 8, 11 f.; Col. i.12f. In the latter is
implied ἡ ἄγνοια καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία, and in φῶς : ἡ γνῶσις Kai ὁ βίος ὁ ἔνθεος (in both,
the intellectual and the ethical element are to be thought of together),
Gregory Naz. Or. 36.—Regarding the two datives, of which the second is
expressed in Latin by cwm, see Matthiae, p. 883 ; and the πρός, in the second
clause, is the expression of social relation, like our with, See Bernhardy, p.
265. Comp. Plato, Conv. p. 209C : κοινωνίαν. . . πρὸς ἀλλήλους, Stobaeus,
S. 28 : εἰ δέ τις ἔστι κοινωνία πρὸς θεοὺς ἡμῖν, Philo. Leg. ad Cai. p. 1007 C : τίς
οὖν κοινωνία πρὸς ᾿Απόλλωνα TO μηδὲν οἰκεῖον ἐπιτετηδευκότι, Ecclus. xiii. 2.
Ver. 15. The five different shades given to the notion of fellowship vouch
for the command which the apostle had over the Greek language. — Regard-
ing the use of dé before a new question with the same word of interrogation,
see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 169. — Βελίαρ] Name of the devil (the Peshitto
has Satan), properly 53 (wickedness, as concrete equivalent to Tovypéc);
hence the reading Βελίαλ (Elzevir, Lachmann) is most probably a correction,
The form βελίαρ, which also occurs frequently in the Test. XII. Patr. (see
Fabricius, Pseudepigr. V. T. 1. pp.539, 587, 619, a/.), in Ignatius as interpo-
lated, in the Canon. Ap., and in the Fathers (see Wetstein, critical remarks),
is to be explained from the not unfrequent interchange of 2 and p in the
common speech of the Greek Jews. In the O. T. the word does not occur
asa name. See, generally, Gesenius, Thesaurus, I. Ὁ. 210. — συμφώνησις,
harmony, accord, only here in the N. T., not in the LXX. The Greeks say
συμφωνία and σύμφωνον (with πρός, Polyb. vi. 36. 5; Plat. Lach. p. 188D); the
simple form φώνησις in Pollux ii. 111. — On μερίς, share, comp. Acts viii. 21.
The two have no partnership with one another, possess nothing in common
with one another. The believer has, in Christ, righteousness, peace, etc.,
all of which the unbeliever has not, and one day will have μερὶς τοῦ κλήρου
τῶν ἁγίων, Col. i. 12. ἀπίστου did not belong
1 Hence our view (comp. Vulgate) is to
be preferred also to that of Theodoret: μὴ
μιμήσησϑε τοὺς ἑτέρως ἐννεύοντας Boas καὶ TOV
ζυγὸν κλίνοντας τὴν τῶν ἀπίστων ἀπάτην
τῆς ἡμετέρας προτιμῶντες διδασκαλίας.
3 Hofmann brings the second and third
questions, as wellas the fourth and fifth,
into closer relation. Neither the particles 7
and δέ, nor the prepositions πρός and μετά,
In strict logic ἢ τίς μερὶς. ..
nor yet the contents of the questions, are
decisive. But it is in favour of our divi-
sion, which Lachmann has also, that only
to the fifth question is there specially
added the great and important scriptural
testimony, vv. 16-18, which is quite in keep-
ing with its isolated and distinctive posi-
tion.
556 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
to this series of elements of proof, since it contains the proposition itself to
be proved, but it has come in amidst the lively, sweeping flow of the dis-
course,
Ver. 16. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 20. What agreement (Polyb. ii. 58. 11, iv. 17. 8)
has the temple of God with idols? how can it reconcile itself with them?
Comp. on ovyxaraé.; also Ex. xxiii. 1; Luke xxiii. 51. (ΗΜ The two are
contraries, which stand negatively related to one another ; if the temple of
God should come into contact with idols (as was the case, e.g., under Ahaz),
it would be desecrated. — ἡμεῖς yap κ.τ.2.1 With this Paul proves that he
was not without reason in using the words τίς δὲ συγκατάθεσις ναῷ θεοῦ K.T..
of the contradiction between the Christian and the heathen character. The
emphasis is on ἡμεῖς : for we Christians are (sensu mystico) the temple of the
living God.'— ζῶντος] in contrast with the dead idols in the heathen temples.
--ο- καθὼς εἶπεν ὁ θεός]. ἔην accordance with the utterance of God: Levy. xxvi. 12,
freely after the LXX., the summary of the divine covenant of promise. —
ἐν αὐτοῖς] among them; see below, ἐμπεριπατήσω, walk about in (Lucian,
adv. Ind. 6; Ach. Tat. i.6; LXX.). The indwelling of God in the body
of Christians as in His temple, and the intercourse of His gracious rule in it
ἐμπεριπ.), take place through the medium of the Spirit. See on 1 Cor. iii. 16 ;
John xiv. 23.
Ver. 17. With the foregoing quotation Paul now combines another in
keeping with his aim (ver. 14), containing the application which God has
made of His previous promise. But this quotation is still freer than the
one before, after the LXX. Isa. lii. 11, and the last words κἀγὼ εἰσδέξομαι
ὑμᾶς, are perhaps joined with it through a reminiscence of Ezek. xx. 34 (comp.
Ezek. xi. 17; Zech. x. 8). Osianderand most expositors find in κἀγὼ eiodéé.
ὑμ. a reproduction approximately as to sense of the words in Isa. lii. 12:
καὶ ὁ ἐπισυνάγων ὑμᾶς κύριος ὁ θεὸς "Iopaga ; but this is, at any rate, far-fetched,
and, considering Paul’s usual freedom in joining different passages of the
O. T., unnecessarily harsh. — αὐτῶν] applies to the heathen. — ἀκαθάρτου μὴ
ἅπτεσθε) Just as ἐξέλθετε «.7.2. had referred (aorist) to the separation to be
accomplished from the fellowship of a heathen life, so this refers, in the
sense of the prophetic fulfilment, to the continuing (present) abstinence from
all heathen habits (not simply from offerings to idols), and κἀγὼ εἰσδέξ. i.
to their reception into sonship, see ver. 18. It is correlative to ἐξέλθατε ;
God wishes to receive those who have gone forth into His paternal house,
ze. into the fellowship of the true theocracy (ver. 18).
Ver. 18. Continuation of the promise begun with κἀγὼ εἰσδέξ. ὑμ., and
holding forth the holy compensation for the enjoined severance from an
unholy intercourse with the heathen.
1So according to the reading ἡμεῖς...
ἐσμεν. See the critical remarks. Accord-
ing to the Pecepta tpeis . . ἐστε (So also
Tisch. [but not in his last edition] defended
by Riickert, Osiander, Hofmann) it would
apply to the Corinthian church, which in
the spiritual sense is the temple of God, as
1 Cor. iii. 16. Ewald has rightly upheld the
The passage is most probably a free
reading ἡμεῖς... ἐσμεν, but has wrongly
used it against the genuineness of the sec-
tion (Jahrb. IX. p. 216). How often in a
connection, where Paul is speaking of him-
self in the first person plural, has he there-
upon expressed also in the same person
the consciousness of Christians generally,
as 6.0. just at v. 21.
NOTES. ο δδγ
and enlarged quotation from 2 Sam. vii. 14. It bears less resemblance to
Jer. xxxi. 9, or even to Isa. xliii. 6. And Jer. xxxi. 33, xxxii. 38, are quite
out of the question, because there the sonship is not mentioned. Cajetanus
conjectured that it was from a writing now lost, just as Ewald finds, from
κἀγώ onwards, a passage now unknown to us ; according to Grotius, the
words are ex hymno aliquo celebri apud Hebraeos. The freedom of the N. T.
writers in using probative passages from the O. T. renders both hypotheses
unnecessary ; of the latter no instance can be shown in Paul, and in itself
it is arbitrary. (N°) --- κύριος παντοκράτωρ] ‘‘ex hac appellatione perspicitur
magnitude promissionum,” Bengel ; rather, on account of the specific con-
tents of ravrox.: the unquestionble certainty of the fulfilment (Rom. iv. 21 ;
2 Cor. ix. 8, a/.), which no power can hinder. Used only here by Paul
(often in the Apocal.), who has, however, taken it from 2 Sam. vii. 8, LXX.,
where λέγει κυρ. παντοκρ. introduces the divine utterance.
Notres py American Eprror.
(F°) ““ Receive the grace of God in vain.” Ver. 1.
Here Dr. Meyer gives the correct idea of ‘the grace of God’’ in the text by
quoting the words in Romans: ‘“‘ We are not under law, but under grace,’’ i.e.,
not under a legal system where salvation is a reward of merit to be earned by
good works, but under a gracious system where it isa gratuitous gift of God.
What then Paul here cautions the Corinthians against 15. ποῦ receiving the rec-
onciliation and then leading an unchristian life, for there is nothing of this in
the context, but it is their rejection of the great salvation. To receive the
grace of God in vain is to have the offer of the great blessing contained in the
gospel, and then by refusal or neglect to frustrate its end and aim.
(a5) The quotation from Isaiah xlix. 8. Ver. 2.
These words of Dr. Meyer explain not only the ground of this quotation
from the Old Testament, but also the reason of many other citations in the
later Scriptures. The ‘servant of the Lord’’ in Isaiah means sometimes
Messiah the head, and sometimes Israel the body, and thus its various appli-
cations are satisfactorily understood.
(Ε5) ‘* That the ministry be not blamed.” Ver. 3.
The moral power of a preacher depends almost entirely upon the conviction
which his hearers have of his sincerity and the purity of his motives. The
lack of this neither learning nor ability can make good (Hodge).
(Ὁ “* Fastings.”” Ver. 5.
Dr. Meyer’s view is confirmed by the fact that the fastings here mentioned
fall into the third class as arranged by Bengel: 1. General, afflictions, etc. ;
2. Special, stripes, ete. ; 3. Voluntary, labours, ete,
558 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(3°) ** Chastened and not killed.”’ Ver. 9.
It is more in consonance with the general strain of the passage to take
chastened as — afflicted, since there is no reference to any disciplinary design of
God in sending the sufferings Paul was called toendure. And this is one of the
Scriptures which show that the distresses of believers are not always chastise-
ments, but often sent as opportunities for them to glorify God by their
patient endurance and steadfast faith.
(x5) ‘* Not straitened in us,” etc. Ver. 12.
The simple meaning, without the figure, is, ‘‘The want of love is on your
side, not on mine.’’ Accordingly, the following verse means, ‘‘Open your
hearts to the same love that I show to you, which love is my reward.”’
(αὖ) ““ Not unequally yoked with unbelievers.’’ Ver. 14.
Many suppose that this precept forbids confessors of Christ to marry those
who do not confess Him in the use of His sacraments, But it does not mean
this. The ‘‘ unbelievers” it refers to were heathen, but there is no reason to
confound with ignorant idolaters persons who have been born in the pale of
the church, baptized and religiously educated. It is the union of incongruous,
uncongenial elements that is forbidden.
(m5) ‘* The temple of God.” Ver. 16.
It seems an unhappy nicety in the Revised Version that it puts the word
temple in both instances of its occurrence in this verse with an indefinite article.
One can hardly doubt that the Apostle had in view the one temple ; and the
omission of the article before a noun followed by a genitive denoting some-
thing belonging to the individual, is common. See Rom. i. 2; 1 Cor. ii. 16,
and also the original of the phrase ‘‘ living God’’ in this verse.
(x5) Paul's method of quoting the Ὁ. T. Ver. 18.
Hodge justly remarks that the N. T. writers often quote according to the
sense and not according to the letter ; they often blend different passages so as
to give the sense, not of one but of several combined ; and sometimes they ex-
press not the meaning of any passages in particular, but the general sense of
Scripture, or what it as a whole certainly teaches. This latter is the case here.
CHAP. VII. 559
CHAPTER VII.
Ver. 3. Forthe order πρὸς κατάκρ. οὐ λέγω (Lachm.) even the testimony of
BO ®& is not sufficient as against all the vss. and most of the Fathers. — Ver.
8. Instead of the second εἰ καί, B has εἰ dé καί, and the γάρ after βλέπω is
omitted by B D* Clar. Germ. (put in brackets by Lachm.); the Vulgate has
read βλέπων (without yap), and Riickert wishes to restore the text accordingly :
εἰ δὲ Kai μετεμελόμην βλέπων ὅτι... ὑμᾶς, viv χαίρω. But the Recepta has far
preponderant attestation, and the variations are easily explained from it. It
was rightly seen that with εἰ καὶ μετεμ. there starts a new portion of the dis-
course (whence in Β δέ was inserted as an adversative conjunction), and either
the apodosis was already begun at βλέπω, whence followed the omission of γάρ,
or it was rightly perceived that the apodosis only began with viv yaipw, and
so βλέπων was substituted as a gloss for βλέπω yap. — Ver. 10. Instead of the
first κατεργάζεται, Lachm. Rick. Tisch. have only ἐργάζεται, following B Ο Ὁ E
8* 37, Justin. Clem. Or. (thrice), Chrys. Dam. Rightly ; the compound has crept
in on account of the one following (comp. also ver. 11) ; it is (in opposition to
Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 48) too rash to conclude from ver. 11 that Paul
wrote xarepy., for there, after the previous xarepy., the compound might pre-
sent itself, naturally and unsought, to the apostle, even if he had used the
simple form in the first half of ver 10.— Ver. 11. ὑμᾶς] is to be deleted as a
supplementary insertion, with Lachm. and Riick., following BCF G δὲ 17,
Boern. Ambrosiast. Aug. — ἐν τῷ πράγματι] The ἐν is wanting in witnesses of
importance ; bracketed by Lachm. and Riick.; deleted by Tisch. An explana-
tory addition to the dative. — Ver. 12. οὐδέ] B &** 37, 73 have ἀλλ᾽ οὐδέ, an
error of the copyist.—t7v σπουδὴν ἡμῶν τὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν] BC D** EKL and
many min., also Syr. Arr. Copt. Aeth. Germ. Damasce. Oec. have τὴν σπ. ὑμῶν]
τ. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Matth. Lachm. and Tisch.
Rejected on account of the sensc by Riick. and Hofm. But it is precisely the
apparent impropriety in the sense of this reading which has given rise to the
Recepta, just as πρὸς ὑμᾶς seemed also unsuitable, and is therefore wanting in Syr.
Erp. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. Ambrosiast. Pel. Lachmann’s reading appears, therefore,
to be the correct one ; it is defended also by Reiche, Comm. crit. I. Ὁ. 367. —
Ver. 13. παρακεκλήμεθα ἐπὶ τῇ παρακλήσει ὑμῶν" περισσοτέρως δὲ μᾶλλον] Lachm.
Tisch. and Riick. read : παρακεκλήμεθα" ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ παρακλήσει ἡμῶν περισσ. μᾶλλον,
according to considerably preponderating attestation. Rightly; the ἐπί,
twice taken in the same sense, caused ἐπὶ τῇ παρακλ. ἡμῶν to be attached to
παρακεκλήμεδα, and hence the position of dé to be changed ; and now the sense
further demanded the change of ἡμῶν into ὑμῶν. The Recepta is defended by
Reiche. — Ver. 14. ἡ καύχησις ἡμῶν ἡ ἐπὶ T.] ὑμῶν for ἡμῶν (Lachm.) is supported
only by B F, with some vss. and Theoph. A mechanical repetition of ὑμῶν
1 So also &, which, however, has ὑμῶν again instead of ἡμῶν, obviously through a
copyist’s error, which is also found in D* F.
560 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
from what precedes. — Ver. 16. The οὖν (Elz.) after χαίρω is deleted, as a con-
nective addition, by Griesb. and the later editors on decisive evidence.
Ver. 1 closes the previous section. — Since we accordingly (according to
vi. 16-18) have these promises (namely, that God will dwell among us, receive
us, be our Father, etc.), we wish not to make them null in our case by an
immoral 1106. -- ταύτας] placed at the head, bears the emphasis of the im-
portance of the promises. — καθαρίσωμεν ἑαυτούς) denotes the morally purifying
activity, which the Christian has to exert on himself, not simply the keepina
himself pure (Olshausen). He who has become a Christian has by his faith
doubtless attained forgiveness of his previous sins (Rom. iii. 23-25), is rec-
onciled with God and sanctified (comp. v. 19 ff., and see on Acts xv. 9) ;
but Paul refers here to the moral stains incurred in the Christian condition,
which the state of grace of the regenerate (1 Pet. i. 22 f.) as much obliges
him to do away with again in reference to himself (Rom. vi. 1 ff., viii. 12
ff.), as by the power of God (Phil. ii. 12, 13) it makes him capable of doing
so (Rom. vi. 14, viii. 9). And no one forms an exception in this respect ;
hence Paul includes himself, with true moral feeling of this need placing
himself on an equality with his readers. —oapxd¢ καὶ πνεύματος] The Chris-
tian is in the jlesh, i.e. in the material-psychical part of his nature, stained
by fornication, intemperance, and such transgressions and vices as directly
pollute the body (which ought to be holy, 1 Cor. vi. 13 ff., vii. 34); and
his spirit, i.e. the substratum of his rational and moral consciousness, the
seat of the operation of the Divine Spirit in him and therewith the bearer
of his higher and eternal life (1 Cor. ii. 11, v. 3; Rom. viii. 16), is stained
by immoral thoughts, desires, etc., which are suggested to him by means
of the power of sin in the flesh, and through which the spirit along with
the νοῦς is sinfully affected, becomes weak and bound, and enslaved to sin
(comp. on Rom. xii. 2; Eph. iv. 23). The two do not exclude, but include
each other. Observe, further, that Paul might have used σώματος instead
of σαρκός ; but he puts σαρκός, because the flesh, in which the principle of
sin has its seat and hence the fomes peccati lies, serves as the element to
which every bodily defilement ethically attaches itself. This is based on
the natural relation of the σάρξ to the power of sin, for which reason it is
never demanded that the σάρξ shall be or become holy, but that the body
(1 Cor. vii. 34) shall be holy through the crucifixion of the flesh, through
putting off the old man, etc. (Col. ii. 11). By these means the Christian
no longer lives ἐν σαρκί (Rom. viii. 8 1.) and κατὰ σάρκα, and is purified from
everything wherewith the flesh is soiled ; comp. 1 Thess. v. 23 ; Rom. viii.
13, xii. 1. The surprising character of the expression, to which Holsten
especially takes objection (see 2. Hvang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 387), is dis-
posed of by the very consideration that Paul is speaking of the regenerate ;
in their case the dusts of the σάρξ in fact remain, and the σάρξ is defiled, if
their lusts are actually gratified. Calovius, we may add, rightly observes :
‘ex illatione etiam apostolica a promissionibus gratiae ad studium novae
obedientiae manifestum est, doctrinam apostolicam de gratuita nostri justi-
ficatione et in filios adoptione non labefactare pictatis et sanctitatis studium,
CHAP. VIL, 2. | 561
sed ad illud excitare atque ad obedientiam Deo praestandam calear addere.”
— On μολυσμός, comp. Jer. xxiii. 15 ; 3 Esdr. viii. 83 ; 2 Mace. v. 27; Plut.
Mor. p. 779 Ο. --- ἐπιτελοῦντες ἁγιωσύνην] This is the positive activity of the
καθαρίζειν ἑαυτούς : while we bring holiness to perfection (viii. 6) in the fear of
God. To establish complete holiness in himself is the continual moral en-
deavour* and work of the Christian purifying himself. Comp. Rom. vi.
22. —év φόβῳ θεοῦ] is the ethical, holy sphere (Eph. v. 21) in which the
ἐπιτελεῖν ἁγιωσ. Must move and proceed. (0°) Comp. Rom. xi. 19-22, and
already Gen. xvii. 1. Thus the apostle closes the whole section with the
same ethical fundamental idea, with which he had begun it at ch. v. 11,
where, however, it was specifically limited to the executor of the divine
judgment.
Vv. 2-16. Regarding the impression made by the former Epistle and its
result. A conciliatory outpouring of love and confidence serves as intro-
duction, vv. 2-4. Then an account how Paul received through Titus the
comforting and cheering news of the impression made by his Epistle, vv.
5-7. True, he had saddened the readers by his Epistle, but he regrets it
no longer, but rejoices now on account of the nature and effect of this sad-
dening, vv. 8-12. Therefore he is calmed, and his joy is still more height-
ened by the joy of Titus, who has returned so much cheered that Paul saw
all his boasts to Titus regarding them justified. He is glad to be of good
courage in everything through them, vv. 13-16.
Ver. 2. Having finished his exhortation, vi. 14—vii. 1, he now repeats the
same request with which in vi. 13 he had introduced that exhortation
(πλατύνθητε ὑμεῖς), using the corresponding expression χωρήσατε ἡμᾶς : take us,
1.€. receive us, give us room in your heart (comp. Mark ii. 2 ; John ii. 6, xxi.
25; 4 Mace. vii. 6 ; Herod. iv. 61; Thue. ii. 17.3; Eurip. Hipp. 941),
and then adds at once (without the medium of a γάρ) in lively emotion the
reason why they had no cause whatever to refuse him this request (orevoyw-
ρεῖσθαι ἐν τοῖς σπλάγχνοις, comp. vi. 12). Chrysostom rightly as to substance
explains the figurative χωρήσατε by φιλήσατε ; and Theophylact : δέξασθε ἡμᾶς
πλατέως, καὶ μὴ στενοχωρώμεθα ἐν ὑμῖν. Comp. Theodoret. So also most of
the later commentators, though the meaning was often limited in an arbi-
trary way (comp. Rosenmiiller, Stolz, Flatt, and Pelagius), e.g. : give ear to
us, and the like. Others take it: wnderstand us rightly (Bengel, Storr,
Bretschneider, Riickert, de Wette). Unobjectionable from a linguistic
point of view (see Wetstein, ad Matt. xix. 11) ; but in the exhortation of
ver. 1 there was nothing to be misunderstood, just as little as for the readers
in the disclosure that follows (to which de Wette refers it) ; and if Paul,
as Riickert thinks, had had it in his mind that the directions of his first
Epistle had been judged unfavourably, he could not have expected any
reader to gather this from the simple χωρήσατε ἡμᾶς, especially as in what
1 Although with this the moral perfection striving towards the goal at which “‘jinis
itself, which the ideal injunction of it re- coronat opus.” Comp. Bengel. The success
quires, is never fully reached. It is ‘‘ non is of God (Phil. i. 6), the fear of whom
viae, sed metae et patriae’ (Calovius); but guides the Christian,
the Christian labours constantly at it,
562 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
follows the idea of the effects of the first Epistle is quite kept at a distance
by οὐδένα éxAeovexrioapuer.’ — οὐδένα ἠδικήσαμεν κ.τ.λ.} This is no doubt aired
at hostile calumniations of the apostle and his companions. Some one must
have said : Z'hey act wrongly towards the people! they ruin them, they enrich
themselves from them! It is impossible to prove that ἐφθείραμεν applies ex-
actly to the corruptela quae jit per falsam doctrinam (Calvin and most, fol-
lowing the Fathers ; just as Hofmann also refers it to the inward injuring
of the persons themselves, 1 Cor. iii. 17) ; the way in which the word is as-
sociated with ἠδικήσ. and ἐπλεονεκτ. is rather in favour of a reference to the
outward position. In how many ways not known to us more precisely may
the apostle and his fellow-labourers have been accused of such a ruining of
others ! How easily might such slanders be based on the strictness of his
moral requirements, his sternness in punishing, his zeal for collections, his
lodging with members of the church, the readiness to make sacrifices which
he demanded, and the like! Probably his prosecution and administration
of the collections would be especially blackened by this reproach of πλεο-
νεκτεῖν. Comp. xii. 17, 18. Riickert refers all three words to the contents
of the former Epistle : ‘‘ with what 1 wrote you, I have done no one wrong,”
etc. ; so that 7dvx. would refer to the severe punishment of the incestuous
person, ἐφθείρ. to his delivery over to Satan, and ἐπλεονεκτ. to the control
which Paul by this discipline seemed desirous to exercise over the trans-
gressor and over the church. But if his readers were to know of this refer-
ence to his former Epistle, he must have expressed it (the reader could not
guess it). Besides, the word ἐπλεονεκτ. is against this view, for in the N. T.
it denotes overreaching for one’s own benefit as an act of covetousness properly
so called, provided the context (as in ii. 11, by ὑπὸ τοῦ Σατανᾶ) does not furnish
a more general reference. And, moreover, those acts of discipline, to
which Paul is supposed to refer, were acts so completely personal on the
part of the apostle, that the plural expression in our passage would be quite
unsuitable. — οὐδένα] in the consciousness of innocence is with great empha-
sis prefixed three times ; but we cannot, with Riickert, infer from this that
the incestuous person is concealed under it. Comp. πάντες and πάντα, 1
Cor, xii. 29, xiii. 7; Buttm. neut. Gram. Ὁ. 841 [E. T. 398).
Ver. 3. Not for the sake of condemning do I say it, namely, what was said in
ver. 2. I do not wish thereby to express any condemnatory judgment, asif,
although we have done wrong to no one, etc., you failed in that love to which
χωρήσατε ἡμᾶς lays claim. Κατάκρισιν was taken of the reproach of covetous-
ness (so Theodoret, and comp. Emmerling and Neander), but this is an ar-
bitrary importation into the word. According to Riickert, πρὸς κατάκρισιν is
not to be supplemented by ὑμῶν, but Paul wishes here to remove the unpleas-
ant impression of ver. 2, in which he confirms the severity of his former
Epistle, so that there is to be regarded as object of κατάκρισις primarily the
incestuous person, and secondarily the whole church, in so far as it has
acted towards this man with unchristian leniency. This explanation falls to
1 This also in opposition to de Wette’s Epistle. For such imputation I have given
way of completing the thought: ‘‘ Impute you no occasion in my apostolic conduct.
no evil designs to me in writing the first Τ have wronged no one,” ete.
CHAP, VII., 4. . 563
the ground with Riickert’s view of ver. 2 ; the ἐστέ that follows puts it be-
yond doubt that ὑμῶν is really to be supplied with πρὸς κατακρ. for its expla-
nation. According to de Wette, οὐ π. κατάκρ. 4. applies in form, no doubt, to
ver. 2, but in substance more tothe censure, of which the expostulatory tone
of ver. 2 had created an expectation ; in other words, it applies to something
not really said, which is arbitrary, since what was said was fitted sufficiently
to appear as κατάκρισις. ---- προείρηκα γάρ] for I have said before (vi. 11 f.), antea
divi, as 3 Macc. vi. 35, 2 Macc. xiv. 8, and often in classical writers. Comp.
Eph, iii. 8. This contains the proof that he οὐ πρὸς κατάκρισιν λέγει ; for, if
he spoke now unto condemnation, he would contradict his former words. —
ὅτι ἐν ταῖς καρὸ. x.T.A.] Comp. Phil. i. 7. In vi. 11 f. he has expressed not
these words, but their sense. By his adding the definition of degree, εἰς τὸ
συναποθ. κ.τ.λ., Paul becomes his own interpreter. — εἰς τὸ συναποθανεῖν καὶ
συζῇν] is usually taken (see still Riickert, de Wette, Ewald, also Osiander,
who, however, mixes up much that is heterogeneous) as : so that I would die
and live with you, and this as ‘‘ vehementissimum amorisindicium, nolle nec
in vita nec in morte ab eo quem ames separari,”’ Estius, on which Grotius
finely remarks : ‘‘ egregius γαρακτὴρ boni pastoris, Joh. x. 12.” Compari-
son is made with the Horatian tecwm vivere amem, tecum obeam lubens (Od. iii.
9. 24), and similar passages in Wetstein. But against this may be urged
not only the position of the two words, of which the συναποθανεῖν must logi-
cally have been put last, but also the perfectly plain construction, according
to which the subject of ἐστε must also be the subject of συναπ. and συζῆν : you
are in our hearts in order to die and to live with (us),’ i.e. in order not to depart
from our hearts (from our love) in death, if it is appointed to us to die, and
in life, if it is appointed to us to remain in life. For he, whom we love,
dies and lives with us, when regarded, namely, from the idea of our heartfelt
love to him, and from our sympathetic point of view feeling this conscious-
ness of love which has him always present to our heart—a consciousness ac-
cording to which we, dying and living, know him in our hearts as sharing
death and life with us. And how natural that Paul, beset with continual
deadly perils (vi. 9), should have put the συναποθανεῖν first / in which case συζῇν
is to be referred to eternal life just as little as ζῶμεν in vi. 9 (Ambrosiaster,
comp. Osiander). Hence the thought can as little surprise us, and as little
appear ‘‘tolerably meaningless” (de Wette), as the conception of alter ego.
Hofmann, too, with his objection (‘‘ since they, nevertheless, in fact do not
die with him,” etc.) mistakes the psychological delicacy and thoughtfulness
of the expression ; and wishes to interpret it—which no reader could have
hit on (especially as προείρ. does not point back further than to vi. 11)—from
vi. 9 and iv. 11 to the effect that the life of the apostle isa continual dying,
in which he yet remains always in life, and that consequently it is his life so
constituted which the readers share, when they are in his heart.
Ver. 4. A further, and that a psychological, proof for the ov mp. κατάκρ.
λέγω. ---- παῤῥησία is the internal frame of mind, the good joyous confidence (see
1 There is no justification for departing in any passage from the f#edic reference of εἰς
with the infinitive. Comp. on viii. 6.
64. PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Cr
on Eph. 111. 12), without which no καύχησις, no self-boasting for the sake of
the readers, would outwardly take place (ὑπέρ, as in v. 12, viii. 24). To
take it of the libertas loquendi (Pelagius, Beza, Luther, Vatablus, Cornelius
ἃ Lapide, and many others, including Schrader and Ewald) is inappropriate,
because by. the παῤῥησία in this sense there would be no negation of πρὸς
κατάκρ. λέγειν. And the taking the καύχησις of inward boasting before God
(Osiander), ought to have been precluded by ver. 14, comp. ix. 8. --- πεπληρ.
x.t.2.] The two clauses form a climax, so that πεπλ. is correlative with
ὑπερπερ. and παρακλ. with χαρᾷ. In the use of the article with παρακλ. and
χαρᾷ Paul already looks to the special comfort and joy, of which he intends
to speak further (ver. 7). The dative of the instrument (as at 2 Mace. vi. 5,
vii. 21; 3 Macc. iv. 10) is used with πληρ. in the N. T. also at Rom. i. 29,
and in classic Greek, though seldom. See Elmsley, ad Soph. Oecd. Col.
16 ; Blomfield, Gloss. Aesch. Agam. 163 ; Bernhardy, p. 168. Comp. also
Jacobs, ad Anthol. XI. p. 309. --- ὑπερπερισσείομαι) Tam exceeding richly pro-
vided with, Mosch. vi. 13 ; comp. the passive in Matt. xiii. 12, xxv. 29. The
present sets forth the thing as still continuously taking place. — ἐπὶ πάσῃ ty
θλίψει ju. | does not belong to τῇ χαρᾷ, but to both the entire statements πεπληρ.
τῇ παρακλ. and ὑπερπερισσ. τῇ χαρᾷ ; and ἐπί is not, as Grotius thought, post,
as in Herod. i. 45: ἐπ’ ἐκείνῃ τῇ συμφορῇ (see, generally, Wurm, ad Dinarch.
p. 39 f.), since (comp. i. 3-11) the tribulation still continues, but in, at. See
Winer, p. 367 [E. T. 490].
Ver. 5. In all our tribulation, I say, for even after we had come to Mace-
donia we had no rest. — In this καί, even, Paul refers back to what was
stated in ii. 12, 13 ; but it does not follow that with Flatt we should regard
what lies between as a digression. —éoyyxev] as in 11. 13. Still BF GK
(not &), Lachmann, have the reading ἔσχεν, which appears to be original
and altered into accordance with ii. 13. —7 σὰρξ ἡμῶν] our flesh, denotes
here, according to the connection, the purely human essence as determined
by its corporeo-psychical nature, in its moral impotence and sensuous ex-
citability, apart from the divine πνεῦμα, without whose influence even the
moral nature of man (the human πνεῦμα with the νοῦς) lacks the capacity
for determining and governing the ethical life. (p*°) Comp. on Rom. iv. 1 ;
John iii. 6. The σάρξ with its life-principle the ψυχή is by itself morally
incapable even in the regenerate man, and stands too much in antagonism
to the divine πνεῦμα (see on Gal. v. 17), not to have unrest, despondency,
etc., occurring even in him when he confronts the impressions of struggle
and suffering. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 41. No doubt the expression in this
passage seems not to agree with the τῷ πνεύματί μου in 11. 12; but there,
where, besides, Paul is speaking simply of himself, he speaks only of inward
unrest, of anxious thoughts in the moral consciousness ; whereas here
(where he includes also Timothy) he speaks of outward (ἔξωθεν μάχαι) and
inward (ἔσωθεν φόβοι) assaults, so that that which lies, as it were, in the
middle and is affected on both sides is the σάρξ.) Riickert brings in here
1 Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 56, has that Paul would have said ἡ ψυχὴ ἡμῶν,
wrongly objected to this interpretation He might have done so, but there was no
‘
CHAP. Vide. Onis 565
also his groundless hypothesis regarding an illness of the apostle. — ἀλλ᾽ ἐν
παντὶ θλιβόμενοι] Paul continues as if he had written previously : οὐκ ἤμεθα
ἄνεσιν ἔχοντες, OF οὐκ ἐν ἀνέσει ἤμεθα, OY οὐχ ἤσυχοι ἤμεθα, or the like. Quite
similar departures from the construction are found also in the classics. See
Matthiae, p. 1298 ; Fritzsche, Dissert. 11. p. 49. Comp. i. 7, εἰδότες, and
the remark on it. It arises from vividness of excitement as the thought
proceeds. Comp. Kiihner, IJ. p. 617. Buttmann, neut. Gram. Ὁ. 256
[E. T. 298]. — ἔξωθεν μάχαι, ἔσωθεν φόβοι] The omission of ἦσαν gives greater
prominence tothe short, concise representation. Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Pelagius, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, and others, also Schrader,
explain ἔξωθεν and ἔσωθεν as extra and intra ecclesiam ; and of this various
interpretations are given ; Chrysostom holding that the former applies to
unbelievers, the latter to the weak brethren ; Theodoret : that the former
applies to the false teachers, the latter to the weak brethren ; and Grotius:
that the former applies to the Jews and heathen, the latter to the false
teachers. But after ἡ σὰρξ ἡμῶν (see above), and on account of φόβοι, it is
more in keeping with the context to refer it to the subject: from without
struggles (with opponents, who may have been Christian or non-Christian),
Jrom within (from our own minds) fears. The latter are not defined more
precisely; butit is in keeping with the contrast of χαρῆναι afterwards in ver. 7
to think of fears regarding the circumstances of the Corinthians, and in par-
ticular regarding the effect of his former Epistle on them (comp. also ii. 12).
Hofmann holds, without any basis in the text, that Paul was apprehensive lest
the conflicts to be undergone by him (probably with the Jews) might de-
generate into persecutions.
Vy. 6, 7. Τοὺς ταπεινούς] the lowly, i.e. the bowed down. This ὁ παρακαλῶν
τοὺς ταπεινοίς is a general designation of God, significant in its practical
bearing (comp. i. 3), so that the suffering ἡμεῖς (In παρεκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς) belong
to the category of the ταπεινοί. ---- ὁ θεός] is brought in later by way of attrac-
tion, because ὁ παρακαλῶν. . . παρεκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς were the chief conceptions.
Comp. Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 1. — ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ] through the arrival.
—Tirov] See Introd. ὃ 1.— οὐ μόνον δὲ x.7.4.] A delicate form of transition.
Not merely through his arrival, not only through the reunion with him did
God comfort us, but also through the comfort, wherewith he was comforted in
regard to you (1 Thess. iii. 7) while he announced to us, etc. When Titus in-
formed us of your desire, etc., this information had so soothing an effect on
himself that we too were soothed. Comp. Ewald. The usual view, that
Paul meant to say : through the comfort which he brought to me, for he related
to me, etc., and thus wrote with logical inaccuracy, is as arbitrary as Hof-
mann’s way of escaping the difficulty—for which he adduces erroneously
1 Thess. iii. 10—that it must have run properly (?) in the form of παρακληθεὶς
ἀνήγγειλεν. Certainly Titus had himself been comforted by what he saw in
Corinth ; but psychologically it was most natural that this ‘‘ being com-
forted ” on the part of Titus should be repeated and renewed by his com-
need for it; the σάρξ rather corresponds with the ἔξωϑεν most naturally as that which 15
first affected from without.
566 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
municating to Paul and Timothy his cheering observations and experiences,
and so they too were comforted with the comfort which was afforded to
Titus himself by the report which he was able to give. This interpreta-
tion—in which there is thus not to be assumed any blending of the comfort
which Titus had felt in perceiving the improved state of matters at Corinth,
and then in communicating it (Osiander)—is neither unnatural (Hofmann)
nor turning on punctilious reflection (de Wette), but founded necessarily on
the words, which Paul has not written otherwise, just because he has not
conceived them otherwise. — ἐπειπόθησιν] longing, namely, to see me again
among you. -- ὀδυρμόν] lamentation, for having saddened me so by the
disorders tolerated in your church, especially in reference to the incest-
uous person. Comp. vv. 11, 12.—rdv ὑμῶν ζῆλον ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ] your eager
interest for me, to soothe me, to obey me, etc. There was no need to
repeat the article here after ζῆλον, since we may say ζηλοῦν or ζῆλον ἔχειν
ὑπέρ τινος (Col. iv. 18), in which case ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ is blended so as to form
one idea with ζῆλον. Comp. on Gal. iii. 26 and Fritzschior. Opuse. Ὁ. 245.—
ὥστε μὲ μᾶλλον χαρῆναι] so that I was all the more glad. The emphasis is on
μᾶλλον (magis in Vulgate) ; on its meaning, all the more, comp. Nigelsbach
on the Iliad, p. 227, ed. 8. The apostle’s joy was made all the greater by
the information longed for and received, since from it he learned how, in
consequence of his letter, the Corinthians had on their part now met him
with so much longing, pain, and zeal. Observe in this the emphatic pre-
fixing, thrice repeated, of the ὑμῶν, which gives the key to this μᾶλλον χαρῆ-
vat. The former Epistle had had its effect. He had previously had for them
longing, pain, zeal ; now, on their part, such longing, etc., had set in for
him. Thus the position of things had happily changed on the part of the
church, which before was so indifferent, and in part even worse, in its mood
towards Paul. Billroth, following Bengel, takes it : so that I rather rejoiced,
i.e. so that my former pain was not merely taken away, but was changed
into joy. Comp. also Hofmann.’ In this case μᾶλλον would be potius. But
the very prefixing of the μᾶλλον, and still more the similarity of ver. 13, are
against this. —Theophylact, we may add, has rightly remarked that Paul
could with truth write as he does in this passage, inasmuch as he wisely
leaves to the readers the distingue personas.
Ver. 8 f. Information regarding this μᾶλλον χαρῆναι, explaining the ground
of it. With εἰ καὶ μετεμελόμην there begins a new protasis, the apodosis of
which is viv χαίρω x.7.2., so that the βλέπω γὰρ x.t.A., Which stands between,
assigns parenthetically the ground of the protasis. For if I have even sad-
dened you in my Epistle, I do not regret it ; if I did regret it (which I have
no wish to deny) formerly (and as I now perceive, not without ground, for
I learn from the accounts of Titus that that Epistle, if even for a short time,
has saddened you), now I am glad, etc. Comp. Luther ; Rinck, Lueubr. crit.
1 Who finds the meaning to be: ‘that The transition to the first person singular
with the apostle for his own person the com- is caused simply by the fact, that Paul now
fort, which he shared with Timothy, rose hasin view the rebuke and pes ὩΣ of
into joy.’ In that case ἐμέ at least must the former Epistle, chap. v.
have been used instead of the enclitic pe.
CHAP. VIL, 8. 567
p. 162, and the punctuation of Lachmann and Tischendorf ; also Kling.
Only in this way of dividing and interpreting this passage does the explan-
atory statement advance in a simple logical way (1, I do not regret ; 2, if
I did previously regret, now I am glad), and the imperfect μετεμελ. stand in
right correlation with the present viv χαίρω, so that μετεμελόμην applies to
the time before the present joyful mood was reached. The common punctua-
tion, adopted also by Osiander and Hofmann, which connects εἰ καὶ μετεμελ.
with the previous words, and begins a new sentence with viv χαίρω, breaks
asunder the logical connection and the correlation of the parts, and leaves
βλέπω yap x.t.2. (which must be the reason assigned for οὐ μεταμέλομαι, as
Hofmann also correctly holds, and not for ἐλύπησα ὑμᾶς, as Olshausen, de
Wette, and others would make it) without any proper reference. Bengel,
indeed, wishes to take εἰ καί before xp. dp. elliptically: ‘‘ Contristavit vos,
inquit, epistola tantummodo ad tempus vel potius ne ad tempus quidem.’
But it is not the bare εἰ καί which is thus used elliptically, but εἰ καὶ apa, or
more often εἴπερ dpa, even εἰ apa (see Vigerus, ed. Herm. p. 514 ; comp.
Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 440 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 521) ; further, πρὸς ὥραν
must have logically stood before εἰ καί ; lastly, the thought itself would be
in the highest degree unsuitable, since Paul could not cast doubt on the
genuine sadness of the readers (comp. ὀδυρμόν, ver. 7, and see ver. 9 ff.).
The meaning would not be, as Bengel thinks, ἤθους apostolict plenissimum, but
in contradiction to the context. Billroth would (and Chrysostom in a
similar way) bring out a logical grounding of οὐ μεταμέλομηι by taking βλέπω
as meaning : J take into consideration , ‘‘I take into consideration that it
has saddened you, though only for a short time, as I had intended ; by al-
lowing yourselves to be saddened, you have shown that you are susceptible
to amendment” (ii. 2). But in this way everything, in which the proba-
tive force is supposed to lie, is imported. Thisis the case also with Hofmann,
who makes (comp. Bengel above) εἰ καί form by itself alone a parenthetic
elliptic sentence, but in a concessive sense, so that the import of the whole
is held to be : ‘‘ Although the Epistle has saddened them, it is a temporary,
not a permanent, sadness with which it has filled them. This the apostle
sees, and he therefore does not regret that he has saddened them by it.”
Paul does not write in this enigmatical fashion ; he would have said intel-
ligibly : ἡ ἐπιστ. ἐκείνη, εἰ καὶ ἐλύπησεν ὑμᾶς, πρὸς ὥραν ἐλύπησεν, or, at any rate,
have added to εἰ καί the appropriate verb (comp. ver. 12). Such an elliptic
εἰ καί is as unexampled as that which is assumed by Bengel, and both serve
only to misconstrue and distort the meaning of the words. Riickert comes
nearest to our view ; he proposes to read βλέπων (as also Lachmann, Praef.
p- xii., would), and to make the meaning : ‘‘ That I have thus saddened you
I do not regret, but although I regretted it (εἰ δὲ καὶ μετεμελόμην) when I sar
that that Epistle had caused you . . . sadness, still Iam glad now,” etc. But
apart from the very weak attestation for the reading βλέπων, and apart also
from the fact that εἰ δὲ καί would be although, however, not but although, βλέπων
1 Camerarius already took it as hocintueor nosco (Rom. vii. 28). Comp. Jacobs, ad
et considero. It is simply animadverto, cog- Anthol. 11. 3, p. 203.
568 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
. ἐλύπησεν ὑμᾶς would only contain a very superfluous and cumbrous
repetition of the thought already expressed in the acknowledgment εἰ καὶ
ἐλύπησα ὑμᾶς, Since βλέπων would not apply to the insight gained from the
news brought by Titus. Ewald has the peculiar view, which is simply an
uncalled for and arbitrary invention, that Paul intended to write : for I see
that that Epistle, though it saddened you for a short time, has yet brought
you toa right repentance ; but feeling this to be unsuitable, he suddenly
changed the train of thought and went on: Iam now glad, etc. Neander
has a view quite similar.—On πρὸς ὥραν, comp. Philem. 15; Gal. ii. 5.
The clause ‘‘ although for a short time” is here a delicately thoughtful addi-
tion of sympathetic love, which has in view the fact that the sadness caused
by it will only last wp to the receipt of the present Epistle, which is intended
to assure the readers of the apostle’s pardon and joy (comp. ii. 4 ff.).
Remarx.—-Some make an alteration in the meaning of εἰ καὶ μετεμελόμην :
eliamsi poenituissel (Erasmus, Castalio, Vatablus, and others, including Flatt) ;
or hold that poenitere is here equivalent to dolorem capere (Calvin, comp.
Grotius) ; or suggest explanations such as: ‘‘Non autem dolere potuit de
eo quod scripserit cum severitate propter schismata ... ; hoc enim omne
factum instinctu divino per θεοπνευστίαν ; sed quod contristati fuerint epistola
sua et illi, quos illa increpatio adeo non tetigit,’’ Calovius (comp. Grotius) ;
or the more ingenious device of Beza;: ‘ut significet apostolus, se ex epistola
ila acerbius scripta nonnullum dolorem cepisse, non quasi quod fecerat
optaret esse infectum, sed quod clementis patris exemplo se ad hanc sever-
itatem coactum esse secum gemens, eventum rei expectaret.” But these are
forced shifts of the conception of mechanical inspiration. The Theopneustia
does not put an end to the spontaneity of the individual with his varying
play of human emotions ; hence Wetstein is so far right in remarking ; “ Inter-
pretes, qui putant, et consilium scribendi epistolam (rather of writing in so hard a
vein of chastisement), et ejus consilii poenitentiam, et poenitentiae poenilentiam ab
afflatu Spir. sancti fuisse profectam, parum consentanea dicere videntur.’’ Not as if
such alternation of moods testified against the existence of inspiration ; but it
attests its dependence on the natural conditions of the individual in the mode
of its working, which was not only different in different subjects, but was not
alike even in individuals where these were differently determined by outer and
inner influences ; so that the divine side of the Scripture does not annul the
human, or make it a mere phantom, nor can it be separated from it mechani-
cally. It is indissolubly blended with it. (Q°)
Ver. 9. Νῦν χαίρω] see on ver. 8. ΤῸ take the νῦν not in a temporal, but
in a causal sense (proinde, jam vero, with Emmerling and Billroth), is quite
at variance with the context, because the thought is implied in the previous
clause : I no longer regret it. — οὐχ ὅτι ἐλυπ.}ὕ not regarding the sadness caused
to you in itself. — κατὰ θεόν] according to God, i.e. in a way in keeping with
the divine will. Seeon Rom. viii. 27. Bengel aptly remarks : ‘‘ Seeundum
hic significat sensum animi Deum spectantis et sequentis.” Not: by God’s
operation, which (in opposition to Hofmann) Paul never expresses by κατά
(nor yet is it so even in 1 Pet. iv. 6) ; with the Greeks, however, κατὰ θεόν
CHAP. ὙΠ 10: 569
means according to divine disposal. — iva ἐν μηδενὶ ζημιωθ. ἐξ ἡμῶν] not : ita ut,
etc. (so Riickert), but the divinely-ordained aim of the previous ἐλυπήθητε
κατὰ θεόν : in order that ye in no point (comp. vi. 3; Phil. i. 28; Jas. i. 4),
in no sort of way (not even in the way of severe, saddening reproof), should
have hurt (injury as to the Messianic salvation) from us, from whom, in fact,
only the furtherance of your true welfare ought to proceed. See ver. 10.
According to Osiander, ἐν μηδενί means: in no part of the Christian life
(neither in the joyfulness of faith nor in purity of morals). At variance with
the context : for to the matters negatived by ἐν μηδενί must belong the λύπη
itself caused by him, which, had it not occurred κατὰ θεόν, would have injured
the σωτηρία of the readers (ver. 10). —The clause of purpose is to be con-
nected with the ἐλυπ. y. κατὰ θεόν immediately preceding, which is no paren-
thetic remark, but is the regulative thought controlling what follows (in
vv. 10, 11) ; wherefore ἵνα x.r.4. is not, with Hofmann, to be attached to
ἐλυπ. εἰς μετάνοιαν.
Ver. 10. Ground assigned for ἵνα ἐν μηδ. ζημιωθ. ἐξ ἡμὼν. for godly sadness
works repentance unto salvation unregretted, i.e. unto the Messianic salvation,
the attainment of which is not regretted. The connection of ἀμεταμέλ. with
σωτηρίαν is held by Augustine and other Latin Fathers, following the Vul-
gate, which has stabilem,’ and among modern expositors by Fritzsche,
Billroth (yet doubtfully), Schrader, de Wette, Ewald ; decidedly by Cas-
talio also, but undecidedly by Erasmus, Annot. The more common connec-
tion is with μετάνοιαν, so as to give the antanaclasis poenitentiam non poeniten-
dam (for similar collocations see Wetstein, comp. Pliny, Hp. vii. 10) ; οὐδεὶς
yap ἑαυτοῦ καταγνώσεται, ἐὰν λυπηθῇ ἐφ’ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἐὰν πενθήσῃ καὶ ἑαυτὸν συντρίψῃ,
Chrysostom. But for such an antanaclasis Paul would not have chosen an
adjective from quite a different root, but ἀμετανόητον (Lucian, Abd. 11, comp.
also Rom. ii. 5), which is also the reading? of some minor authorities.
And if ἀμεταμέλ. were to belong to μετάνοιαν, it would stand immediately by
its side, so as to make εἰς σωτηρίαν appear as the result throwing light upon
ἀμεταμέλ. When placed after εἰς σωτηρίαν, ἀμεταμέλ. is an epithet of μετάνοιαν
no longer suitable, insipid, and halting. Olshausen and Hofmann wrongly .
object that the epithet is not suitable to the idea of salvation, the absolute
good. It expresses by way of litotes the eternal satisfaction of the σωτηρία,
and is selected with a glance back to what was said in ver. 8. (ΒΞ) If the
apostle, namely, has caused a sadness which works a contrition unto a sal-
vation exposed to no regret, it is obvious how this step of his can no longer
give rise to any regret in his case, but can only make him joyful. Comp.
on the expression itself, Rom. xi. 29, and especially Plato, Tim. p. 59D:
ἀμεταμέλητον ἡδονὴν κτᾶται, Legg. ix. p. 866E ; Polyb. xxi. 9. 11 ; Plutarch,
Mor. p. 187 B ; Socrates in Stob. 101, p. 552; Clem. Cor. I. 2. — ἡδὲ τοῦ
κόσμου λύπη] i.e. the sadness, however, which is felt by the world, by the ungod-
ly-minded unbelievers. This is certainly λύπη διὰ χρήματα, διὰ δόξαν, διὰ τὸν
ἀπελθόντα κιτ.λ. (Chrysostom), in so far, namely, as the loss of outward
1 According to the reading ἀμετάβλητον, 2 And which (in opposition to Osiander)
which Origen has (once), but before eis would have expressed the idea of some-
σωτηρ. thing painful quite as well as ἀμεταμέλ,
570 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
advantage in and for itself determines the sadness, but the genitive τοῦ
κόσμου is the genitivus subjecti, and we must retain as the characteristic of
this λύπη that it is not κατὰ θεόν (because it cannot be determined by the
knowledge of God and of His will) ; hence, instead of working repentance
unto salvation, it works despondency, despair, exasperation, obduracy, etc.,
unto death. Even διὰ χρήματα x.7,2. there may be a sadness κατὰ θεόν. ----
θάνατον] i.e. not generally : ‘‘all that is embraced in a state of things not
founded on God” (Hofmann), but, as the opposite of that unregretted
σωτηρία, eternal death, the Messianic ἀπώλεια ; comp. ii. 16. Calovius says
aptly : ‘‘quia mundus dolet, cum affligitur, solatii ex verbo Dei expers ac
fide destitutus.” The exposition of vexing oneself to death (Theodoret), or
the reference made by Grotius, Rosenmiiller, and others to fatal diseases and
suicide, is quite at variance with the context ; and Ecclus. xxxviii. 18 has
no bearing here. Even the ethical view (moral ruin through despair or new
sins, de Wette, comp. Neander) is not in keeping with the contrast to
σωτηρία ; besides, Paul never uses θάνατος of ethical death. See on Rom. v.
12.—Regarding the difference between ἐργάζεται and κατεργάζ. (bring to pass),
see on Rom. i. 27 ; van Hengel, ad Rom. 11. 10.
Ver. 11. What has just been said of the godly sorrow is now proved by
experience from the instance of the readers themselves. For see, this very
thing (nothing else), the having been afilicted with godly sorrow, etc. The
emphatic use of the preparatory τοῦτο before infinitives is very common in
classic writers. See Kiihner, II. p. 330; Breitenb. ad Xen. Oee. 14. 10. —
ὑμῖν] not : among you, but : vobis. —orovdyv] activity, namely, to efface and
make amends for the offence, as opposed to their previous negligence in re-
gard to the incestuous person. —4a/Aa] yea rather, imo, corrective, and
thereby advancing beyond the last idea (comp. 1 Cor. iii. 2 ; John xvi. 2).
Paul feels that he has said too little by using σπουδήν. The co-ordinate rep-
etition of ἀλλά before each point lays on each a special emphasis. Comp.
on 1 Cor. vi. 11. -- ἀπολογίαν] πρὸς ἐμέ, Chrysostom and Theophylact rightly
say ; but we must at the same time observe that they have answered for
themselves in the first instance to Titus, and through him to Paul (that they
were not partakers in the guilt of the incestuous person). Billroth under-
stands the de facto exculpation by the adjudging of punishment to the
transgressor. An arbitrary view, and opposed to the context (ἐκδίκησιν).
Ewald, in accordance with his assumption of a letter in reply now lost, re-
fers it to the latter. — ἀγανάκτησιν] displeasure, veration, that such a disgrace-
ful thing had been carried on in the church. —¢éfov] ‘‘ ne cum virga veni-
rem” (Bengel), namely, in the event of the state of things not being
amended (1 Cor. iv. 21), or even of new transgressions. Comp. Chrysostom
and Theophylact. The explanation : fear ef God's punishments (Pelagius,
Calvin, Flatt, Olshausen), is at variance with the context (ἐπιπόθησ. ). ---
ἐπιπόθ.Ἴ as in ver. 7, longing after the apostle’s coming. — ζῆλον] not as in
ver. 7, where ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ is associated with it, but, as is suggested by the fol-
1 As this would have been the case also Comp. Elwert in the Wiirtemberg. Stud. 1X.
with the Corinthians, if they had grieved 1,.p. 185 ff.
over the reproof only, and not over the sin.
CHAP. VIL. 12. 571
lowing ἐκδίκησιν (punishment of the transgressor) : disciplinary zeal against
the incestuous person, not zeal in general for the honour of Christ, of the
church, and of the apostle (Osiander). The six objects introduced by ἀλλά
go logically in pairs, so that ἀπολογ. and ἀγανάκτ. relate to the disgrace of
the church, φόβον and ἐπιπόθ. to the apostle, and ζῆλον and ἐκδίκησιν to the
incestuous person, the latter, however, without the arbitrary distinction
drawn by Bengel, that ζῆλον refers to the good of his soul, and éxdc«. only to
his punishment for his transgression. ζῆλος is the zeal for both. — ἐν παντὶ
συνεστήσατε k.T.A.] a judgment on the whole matter added asyndetically, and
so with the more weight (Dissen, ad Pind. Eve. II. p. 278) : in every respect
you have proved that you yourselves are innocent as regards the matter in ques-
tion. By this the Corinthians are acquitted from positive participation in
the offence ; they could not be acquitted (comp. 1 Cor. v. 6) of a negative
participation (through toleration and connivance), but this is not further
touched on in accordance with his purpose, which is here throughout con-
ciliatory. — ἑαυτούς] you for your own person, as opposed to the evil-doer. —
On συνίστημι, with the accusative and infinitive, comp. Diod. Sic. i. 96, xiv.
45. Without εἶναι (comp. Gal. ii. 18) the attribute would appear as purely
objective, as the proved fact ; with εἶναι the expression is subjective, denoting
the relation from the standpoint of the readers. Comp. in general, Kriiger,
§ 65, 1. 4.— The dative τῷ πράγματι is that of ethical reference, expressing
the matter with respect to which what is affirmed takes place. See Matthiae,
Ῥ. 876 ; Bernhardy, p. 84. Comp. ἐλεύθεροι. . . τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ, Rom. vi. 20 ;
Matt. v. 8. This, at the same time, in opposition to Riickert’s assertion
that ἐν (see the critical remarks) cannot be dispensed with. On the term
itself, Bengel rightly remarks : ‘‘ indefinite loquitur de re odiosa.” Comp.
aD It.
Ver. 12. ’Apa] therefore, for how natural was it for the readers to think
that Paul had written on account of the ἀδικήσαντος and on account of the
ἀδικηθέντος | And yet the effect which that part of the Epistle had produced
on themselves had showed them by experience that the apostle’s true pur-
pose was quite different. So at least Paul represents the matter in a delicate
and conciliatory way. — εἰ καὶ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν] if 1 have also written to you, 1.9.
have not kept silence, but have expressed myself by letter regarding the
affair in question. Commonly a so, 80 sternly, or the like, is imported quite
arbitrarily. Grotius indicates the right meaning : ‘‘si quid scripsi, nempe
ea de re.” Comp. Osiander. Those who assume an Epistle now lost be-
tween our first and second (Bleek, Neander, Ewald, Beyschlag, Hilgenfeld)
find it here alluded to. Comp. ii. 3, 9. The apodosis already begins at οὐχ
εἵνεκεν x.T.A., and does not follow only at διὰ τοῦτο (as Hofmann complicates
it, without sufficient ground), the more especially as in this construction,
according to Hofmann, διὰ τοῦτο does not apply to ver. 12—to which it must
apply (comp. 1 Thess. 11. 7)—but to ver. 11.—ony. . . ἀλλ} is not non
tam. . . quam (Erasmus, Estius, Flatt, and many others), but non. . . sed.
Paul denies absolutely that he has written that part of the Epistle on account
of the two persons mentioned. In the nature of the case, no doubt, he had
to write against the ἀδικήσας, and so indirectly in favour of the ἀδικηθείς 3 but
572 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the destined purpose of this letter, as Paul from the true light of his apostolic
standpoint is aware, lay not in this aim affecting the two persons primarily
concerned, but in its higher significance as bearing on the church’s relation
to the apostle : ἀλλ᾽ εἵνεκεν τοῦ φανερωθῆναι κ.τ.}. (57) — Regarding the form
eivexev, see on Luke iv. 18, and Kiihner, I. p. 229, ed. 3. The ἀδικήσας is the
incestuous person, and the ἀδικηθείς his father, as the party grievously injured
by the son’s incestuous marriage with the step-mother. Theodoret, how-
ever, is quite arbitrary in supposing from this that he was already dead (καὶ
τεθνεὼς yap ἠδίκητο, τῆς εὐνῆς ὑβρισθείσης). See on‘1 Cor..v. 1. This explana-
tion of the ἀδικηθείς seems from the relation of the two participles active and
passive to be the only natural, and, in fact, necessary one. It is no objec-
tion that, in the first Epistle, nothing was said at length regarding the father
and the wrong dgne to him (see only v. 1), since the censure and ordaining
of chastisement to the transgressor of themselves practically contained the
satisfaction to the injured father. Comp. on the passive adc. in the sense
of infringing marriage-rights, Plut. Anton. 9; Eurip. Med. 267, 314 ; and
see in general on ἀδικεῖν in reference to adultery, Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 468 ;
Abresch, ad Xen. Eph., ed Locella, p. 222. Others (Wolf, Storr, Emmer-
ling, Osiander, Neander, Maier) think that Paul means himself, in so far as
he had been deeply injured in his office by that transgression. But this
mode of designating himself, set down thus without any more precise indi-
cation, would be strangely enigmatical, as well as marked by want of deli-
cate tact (as if the readers were not ἀδικηθέντες, like Paul !), and no longer
suiting what was already said in ii. 5. The reference of τοῦ ἀδικηθέντος to the
apostle himself would only be right on the assumption that allusion is here
made to the state of things discussed by Paul in an intermediate letter now
lest.' Others (Bengel, comp. Wolf also) think that the Corinthians are
meant, but the singular is decisive against this view, even apart from the
unsuitable meaning. Others have even referred τοῦ ἀδικησ. and τοῦ ἀδικηθ. to
the adulterer and the adulteress (Theophylact : ἀμφότεροι yap ἀλλήλους ἠδίκησαν) ;
others, again, have taken τοῦ ἀδικηθ. as neuter (Heinsius, Billroth), equivalent
to τοῦ ἀδικήματος. The last is at variance with linguistic usage ; and what
sort of delicate apostolic tact would it have been, to say that he had not
written on account of the deed !— ἀλλ᾽ εἵνεκεν x.t.2.] According to Lach-
mann’s correct reading, as translated also by Luther (see the critical re-
marks) : but because your zeal for us was to become manifest among you before
God, i.e. but because I wished to bring it about that the zealous interest which you
cherish for us should be brought to light among you before God (a religious ex-
pression of uprightness and sincerity, iv. 2). Comp. on the thought, ii. 9 ;
1 On this assumption Bleek is of opinion
that Paul, in that lost Epistle, had rebuked
the wanton defiance of the incestuous
person towards him (comp. also Neander).
According to Ewald, Paul is the’ ἀδικηϑείς
over against the man of reputation in the
church, who had been endeavouring to de-
prive him of his repute in it by public accu-
sations. Comp. Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr.
1864, p. 169, 1865, p. 252, according to whom
Paul is the ἀδικηϑείς, because things had in
the meanwhile come to a pronounced rejec-
tion of his apostolic repute. According to
Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 254,
Timothy is meant, who was personally in-
sulted by a spokesman in the ranks of the
opponents.
CHAPS Vile, 18. 573
πρὸς ὑμᾶς is the simple with you, among you, in the midst of you, in your
church-life, not exactly in public meeting of the church (Ewald), which would
have been indicated more precisely. Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 7. Riickert, with-
out due ground, finds the meaning of πρὸς ὑμᾶς so ambiguous that he prefers
the Recepta, according to which the meaning is: because our zealous interest
Sor you. was to become manifest upon you before God. Comp. ii. 4. Hoffmann,
who rejects both the Recepta and the reading of Lachmann, and prefers that
of δὲ : τ. σπουδὴν ὑμῶν τὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, takes this πρὸς ὑμᾶς even in a
hostile sense : ‘‘You are to show yourselves diligent jor yourselves and
against yourselves ;” the strict procedure of the church against its adherents
is on the one hand an acting for themselves (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν), and on the other
hand an acting against themselves (πρὸς ὑμᾶς). This artificial interpretation is
wrong, because, if πρὸς could mean contra here, Paul must have written at
least τὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τε καὶ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, and because πρός with σπουδή (Heb. vi. 11;
Herod. iv. 11. 1 ; Diod. xvii. 114) and with σπουδάζειν (Dem. 515. 23, 617. 10)
has not that arbitrarily assumed sense, but the sense of an interest for some
one, though this is more commonly expressed by περί. If the reading of δὲ
were right, it would have to be explained simply : in order that your zeal, in
which you aim at your own good, should become manifest among you before God.
- Had Paul wished to express the singular meaning which Hofmann imports,
he would have known how to write : τὴν σπουδὴν ὑμῶν τὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν Te Kai
Ka? ὑμῶν.
Ver. 13. Wherefore, because I had no other purpose than this (which is
now attained), we are comforted ; and, to our consolation there was further
added a very great increase in joy over the joy of Titus, etc. — ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ παρακλ.
ju. | ἐπί used of supervening on something already in existence.’ See Mat-
thiae, p. 1371 ; Winer, p. 368 [E. T. 490]. — περίσσοτ. μᾶλλον ἐχάρημεν] the
joy of our consolation became still more increased. Comp. on ver. 7. Re-
garding the strengthening of the comparative by μᾶλλον, see Pflugk, ad Eur.
Hee. 377 ; Heind. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 679 E ; Boissonade, ad Aristaen. 450.
— ὅτι ἀναπέπαυται κ.τ.2.] does not specify the reason of Paul’s joy (Rickert,
although with hesitation), for that is contained in ἐπὶ τ. χαρᾷ Titov, but is a
more precise definition confirmatory of τῇ χαρᾷ Τίτου ; since indeed his spirit
(ii. 13) is refreshed by you all. ἀναπέπαυται (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 18 ; Philem.
7, 20) is placed first as the pith of the thought ; ἀπό denotes the proceeding
from, the origin: forth from, from the side of. See Bernhardy, p. 222 ;
Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. vi. 5. 18.
RemarK.—According to the Recepta διὰ τοῦτο παρακεκλήμεθα ἐπὶ τῇ παρακλήσει
ὑμῶν" περισσοτέρως δὲ μᾶλλον k,7.2., the first ἐπὶ is through, properly on account of,
just as in ἐπὶ τῇ χαρᾷ Τίτου, so that the παράκλησις ὑμῶν is that which causes the
παρακεκλήμεθα (Winer, p. 368 [E. T. 4917): but ὑμῶν is not, with Flatt,
de Wette, and many others, to be explained : by the consolation, which you have
afforded to me, but: ““ consolatione vestri’’ (Luther, Beza, Cornelius ἃ Lapide,
Bengel, and most), i.e. by your being comforted over the pain, which my
1 Yet it may also be taken simply of the tion above is more in keeping with the cli-
state; in our consolation. But the explana- mactic character of the discourse.
574 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Epistle caused to you, now by means of the happy change which it has pro-
duced among you (ver. 11). The two genitives, namely ὑμῶν and Τίτου, must
be taken uniformly. On the state of the case delicately denoted by παρακλ. ὑμῶν
Calvin aptly remarks : ‘‘ Nam correctionis acerbitas facile dulcescit, simulatque
gustare incipimus, quam nobis fuerit utilis.’’ Michaelis, on the other hund,
objects that what follows will then be discourteous; but the seeming dis-
courtesy disappears before the reason for Titus’ joy, and is amply outweighed
by ver. 14. According to Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 370, the παράκλησις ὑμῶν
means the admonitio et castigalio given in the first Epistle, for the sharpness
and severity of which Paul is now consoled by the happy result. But after
παρακεκλήμεθα, according to the analogy, moreover, of ἐχάρημεν ἐπὶ τῇ χαρῇ, as
well as in accordance with vy. 4 and 6, παράκλησις cannot be otherwise taken
than as solatium.
Ver. 14 f. Polite statement of the reason why the joy of Titus had re-
joiced him so greatly. —ei τὶ αὐτῷ ὑπὲρ iu. κεκαυχ.} Comp. ix. 2. Who
could deny that Paul, both alone, of which he is thinking here, and in
company with Timothy (at which ἡ καύχησις ἡμῶν then glances), had justly
boasted before Titus (coram Tito) to the advantage of the Corinthians (ὑπὲρ
ὑμῶν, comp. ix. 2)? See 1 Cor. i. 4 ff. He had, in fact, founded the
church and laboured so long in it, and they were in his heart, vii. 3. — οὐ ©
κατῃσχίνθην) This κατῃσχ. would have taken place, if Titus had experienced
among you an opposite state of things, contradicting the truth of my
καύχησις. But when he came to you: διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἐδείξατέ μου τὰ ῥήματα,
Chrysostom. — ἀλλ᾽ ὡς πάντα κ.τ.}.1 Opposite of οὐ κατῃσχ. : ‘‘as we have
spoken everything truly to you, our boasting before Titus has also become
truth.” No doubt Paul is here making a passing allusion to the attack on
his veracity (comp. i. 17 ff.), and that in such a way as emphatically to
confront it with, first, what was said by him (πάντα... ἡ καύχησις ἡμῶν),
and then the persons to whom he spoke (ὑμῖν. .. ἡ ἐπὶ Τίτου). Thus the
first, and next to it the last, place in the arrangement of the sentence
has the emphasis (Kiihner, II. p. 690). --- πάντα] quite general : we have
lied to youin nothing. Chrysostom and Billroth think that it applies to
all the good, which Paul had said of Titus to the Corinthians,—a purely arbi-
trary view, not to be guessed by any reader. —év ἀληθείᾳ] i.e. truthfully.
Comp. Col. i. 6 ; John xvii. 19; Pind. OJ. vii. 127. The adverbial use is
genuine Greek (Matthiae, p. 1342 ; Bernhardy, p. 211), not a Hebraism
(Riickert). See on John xvii. 19. — ἐλαλήσαμεν] locuti sumus, quite general,
and not to be limited, at variance with the context, to doctrine (Emmerling,
Flatt, Hofmann, and others, following Theodoret). — ἐπὶ Titov] coram
Tito. See Schaefer, Melet. p. 105; Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. Ὁ. 139. — ἐγενήθη]
se praestitit ; it has shown itself as truth by experience. Comp. i. 19;
Rom. iii. 4, vii. 13. Often so also in classic writers.
Ver. 15. Kai τὰ σπλάγχνα «.7.A.] joyful result of ἡ καύχησις ἡμῶν ...
ἐγενήθη. A comma only is to be put after ver. 14 : and thus, therefore, his in-
most heart (comp. vi. 12) és attached to you ina still higher degree (than before
his presence there) since he remembers, etc. — εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐστίν] is for you. Comp,
εἰς αὐτόν, 1 Cor. viii. 6; Rom. xi. 36.— ὑπακοῦν) namely, towards him,
NOTES. 575
Titus ; for what follows is epexegetical. —perd φόβου κ. τρόμου] t.e. with a
zeal, which fears lest it should not do enough for its duty. Comp. on 1
Cor. ii. 3.
Ver. 16. Concluding result of the whole section, introduced vividly
(without οὖν, comp. ver. 12) : ‘‘ Zam glad that in every respect I am of good
courage through you. — ἐν ὑμῖν] not as to you, which would have been ex-
pressed prepositionally by περί, ὑπέρ, ἐπί, πρός, ἕνεκα (εἰς, x. 1, is in an ad-
verse sense), but Paul knows his consolation as cleaving to the readers ; that
is the causal nexus, in which his joyous frame of mind depends on them.
Comp. Winer, p. 218 [E. T. 291 f.] ; Soph. Aj. 1294 : ἐν ἐμοὶ θρασύς, 1071 :
ἐν θανοῦσιν ὑβριστὴς γένῃ, Eurip. Or. 754 : ἐν γυναιξὶν ἄλκιμος, Ecclus, xxxviii.
23 ; Matt. 11. 17. (τὉ)
Norres spy American Eprtor.
(0°) ‘* In the fear of God.’ Ver. 1.
This is the motive which is to determine our endeavours to purify ourselves.
It is not regard to the good of others nor our own happiness, but reverence for
God. Weare to be holy because He is holy (Hodge).
(65) ““ Our flesh had no rest.” Ver. 5.
Flesh of course cannot mean his body, for the sufferings referred to were not
corporeal, but mental, The term denotes his whole sensitive nature considered
as frail.
(5) ““ Though I did regret.” Ver. 8.
The fact that Paul says that he regretted sending a letter, which, however,
is universally accepted as canonical and inspired, has been considered as casting
doubt upon the doctrine of plenary inspiration. A satisfactory explanation is
found in the following remarks of Hodge (in loc.): ‘‘ Inspiration rendered its
subject infallible in writing and speaking as the messenger of God. Paul
might doubt whether he had made a wise use of his infallibility, as he might
doubt whether he had wisely exercised his power of working miracles. He
never doubted as to the truth of what he had written. There is another thing
to be taken into consideration. Inspiration did not reveal itself in conscious-
ness. It is perfectly conceivable that a man might be inspired without know-
ing it. Paul was no doubt impelled by the Spirit to write his former epistle
as well as divinely guided in writing : but all he was conscious of was his own
thoughts and feelings. The believer is not conscious of the operations of
grace, neither were the apostles conscious of inspiration. As the believer,
however, may know that he is the subject of divine influence, so the apostles
knew that they were inspired. But as the believer may doubt the wisdom of
some of his holiest acts, so the apostles might doubt the wisdom of acts done
under divine guidance. Such acts are always wise, but the agent may not
always see their wisdom.”’
576 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(R°) ‘* Repentance to salvation not to be repented οὕ. Ver. 10.
The Revised Version (in which this whole chapter is greatly improved) renders
this clause ‘‘repentance unto salvation, a repentance which bringeth no regret.”
This view of the connection of the last word is favoured by Kling, Hodge, Princ.
Brown ; but Beet, Plumptre, and Speaker’s Com. prefer to connect it with salva-
tion. Still one may ask, What kind of a salvation is it thatis or can be attended
with regret ?
(85) ‘* Not for his sake that had done the wrong.” Ver. 12.
The writer speaks of the chief object as if it were the only object, and also
of the object which was effected by Providence, as if it had been his object. He
did desire to have the offender punished and the injured man righted, but the
primary aim was the manifestation to themselves of their regard for his apos-
tolic authority and for himself.—The reading your instead of the our of the
received text is now adopted by all editors, being sustained by greatly prepon-
derating authority.
(t°) End of a discussion. Ver. 16.
Here concludes the Iong discussion carried on in the first seven chapters of
the Epistle. The entire pericope relates to the state of the Corinthian believ-
ers and to Paul’s relation to them. In the course of it he lays bare in the live-
liest form his intense human sympathies, and reveals much of his personal
character and history. The result of his faithful dealings with the church was
the full restoration of confidence. And now he was able to turn to other mat-
ters, as we see he did in the next chapter.
CHAP, VII; 1 δύ]
CHAPTER. VIIt.
Ver. 3. ὑπὲρ δύναμιν] Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. read παρὰ δύναμ., on decisive
evidence ; ὑπέρ isagloss. — Ver. 4. After ἁγίους Elz. has δέξασθαι ὑμᾶς, which, on
decisive evidence, is rightly struck out by Griesb. and the later editors as a
supplementary insertion, though defended by Rinck. — Ver. 5. ἠλπίσαμεν] Only
B and 80 have ἠλπίκαμεν, just as in ver. 6 only B has évypgaro. —Ver. 7.
ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν is attested only by min. and Syr. Arm. Slav. ms. Comp. Orig. :
nostra in vos. Error of transcription, or correction through misunderstanding.
—Ver. 12. After ἔχῃ Elz. and Scholz have rc. An addition in opposition to
decisive evidence. — Ver. 13. dé] is wanting in B C S* min. and Aeth.
Clar. Germ. ; deleted by Lachm., and rightly, since it betrays itself as inserted
to mark the contrast. — Ver. 16. διδόντι] Ὁ E F G L S** and many min.
Chrys. Theophyl. have δόντι. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Scholz, Riick
But the aorist has crept in obviously on account of the aorists that follow. —
Ver. 19. σύν] BC and many min., also several vss. and Fathers, have ἐν.
Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Rightly ; σύν,
though defended by Reiche, is an erroneous gloss. —avrov] is wanting in
BC D* F GL and many min., also in several vss. and Latin Fathers. Sus-
pected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Riick. Considering the great prepon-
derance of the adverse evidence, it is more probable that it has crept in by
writing τοῦ twice, than that it has been left out on account of its being unnec.
essary and seemingly unsuitable (Reiche). —Instead of the last ἡμῶν Elz. has
ὑμῶν, against decisive testimony. Alteration, because ἡμῶν was held to be un-
suitable. — Ver. 21. προνοοῦμεν γάρ] Elz. : προνοούμενοι, only supported by later
codd. and some Fathers. The participle appears to be a mere copyist’s error
occasioned by στελλόμενοι, so that at first even the γάρ remained beside it, as is
the case stiJl in C, min., and some vss. and Fathers, whom Tisch. follows. But
afterwards this ydép had to be dropped on account of the retention of the
participle. — Ver. 24. ἐνδείξασθε] Lachm. and Tisch. read ἐνδεικνύμενοι, following
B D* E* F G 17, It. Goth. The imperative is a gloss.!— Elz., against decisive
testimony, has καί before εἰς πρόσωπον. Added for the sake of connection.
Chap. viii. and ix. The second chief division of the Epistle : regarding
the collection for the poor in Jerusalem (1 Cor. xvi.), coming very fitly after
the praise contained in chap. vii., and having the way appropriately paved
for it in particular by the closing words, vii. 16.
Vv. 1-6. The beneficence of the Macedonians has been shown beyond all
expectation ; hence we have exhorted Titus to complete among you the
work already begun.
Ver. 1. The δέ is the mere μεταβατικόν, leading over to a new topic in the
1 [Westcott and Hort retain the imperative, and the Canterbury Revision follows them.
—T. W. C.]
578 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Epistle. Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 1, viii. 1, xii. 1, xv. 1. -- τὴν χάριν τ. θεοῦ τὴν
δεδομ. K.7.2.] the grace of God, which is given in the churches of Macedonia, i.e.
how graciously God has wrought in the churches of Macedonia, inasmuch as
He (see ver. 2) called forth in them so great liberality. Comp. ix. 14. The
expression rests on the idea, that such excellent dispositions and resolves
are produced and nourished, not by independent spontaneity, but by the
grace of God working on us (operationes gratiae). Comp. Phil. ii. 13.
Paul, therefore, does not think of the grace of God as shown to himself
(Origen, Erasmus, who paraphrases it : ‘‘ quemadmodum adfuerit mihi Deus
in ecclesiis Maced. ;” comp. Zachariae, Emmerling, Billroth, Wieseler,
Chronol. p. 357 ff. ; also Riickert, yet with hesitation),—in which case he
could not but have added ἐμοί or ἡμῖν, in order to make himself understood,
—pbut, on the contrary, as granted to the liberal churches, working in them
the communicative zeal of love, so that the construction with év is quite as
in ver. 16 and i. 22.
Ver. 2. A more precise explanation of τὴν χάριν x.t.2., so that ὅτι (that,
namely) is dependent on γνωρίζομεν. This exposition consists, as was seen
by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, and many others,
of two statements, so that after τῆς χαρᾶς αὐτῶν we must mentally supply the
simple ἐστι. This scheme of the passage, which Osiander and Hofmann
also follow, is indicated by ἡ περισσεία in the one half, and ἐπερίσσευσεν in
the other, whereby two parallel predicative relations are expressed, as well
as by the fact that, if the whole be taken as one sentence, and consequently
ἡ περισσ. τ. χαρᾶς αὐτῶν be taken along with the following καὶ ἡ κατὰ βάθους
πτωχεία αὐτῶν as the subject of ἐπερίσσευσεν (so by most expositors since Beza),
this subject would embrace two very diverse elements, and, besides, there
would result the combination not elsewhere occurring : ἡ περισσεία éxepio-
cevoev. Hence it is to be explained: that, namely, in much testing of
affliction the abundance of their joyfulness is, i.e. that, while they are much
put to the test by sufferings, their joy is plentifully present, and (that) their
deep poverty became abundant unto the riches of their single-heartedness, i.e.
that they, in their deep poverty, plentifully showed how rich their single-
heartedness was. — ἐν πολλῇ δοκιμῇ θλίψεως} Instead of writing simply ἐν
πολλῃ θλίψει, Paul designates this situation according to the wholesome
moral aspect, in which it showed itself amongst the Macedonians to their
praise. δΔοκιμή, namely, is here also not: trial, but, as Paul always uses it,
verification (Rom. v. 4; 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 18, xiii. 3; Phil. ii. 22). Chrysos-
tom aptly says : οὐδὲ yap ἁπλῶς ἐθλίβησαν, ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως ὡς Kai δόκιμοι γενέσθαι διὰ
τῆς ὑπομονῆς. The verification of their Christian character, which the θλέψις
effected in them, was just the moral element, in which the joyfulness πολλὴ
καὶ ἄφατος ἐβλάστησεν ἐν αὐτοις (Chrysostom), and existed among them in spite
of the θλίψις itself, which, moreover, would have been calculated to produce
the opposite of χαρά. Regarding the θλίψις of the Macedonians, see 1 Thess.
i. 6, 11. 14 ff.; Acts xvi. 20 ff., xvii. 5. The χαρά, the virtue of Christian
1 Νοί ἣν ; for the present corresponds to in the happy state of things thus subsisting,
the perfect δεδομ., and that, which fook place ἴδ then subjoined by the aorist ἐπερίσσευσεν.
CHAP. VIII., 3-5. 579
gladness of soul, rising above all afflictions (Gal. v. 22 ; 2 Cor. vi. 10 ; Rom.
xiv. 17 ; comp. on John xv. 11), is not yet defined here more precisely as
regards its special expression, but is already brought into prominence with
a view to the second part of the verse, consequently to the liberality which
gladly distributes (ix. 7; Acts xx. 35).—7 κατὰ βάθους πτωχεία] the deep
poverty,’ literally, that which has gone down to the depth (Winer, p. 357 [E.T.
A77]) ; comp. βάθος κακῶν, Aesch. Pers. 718, Hel. 303 ; ἐς κίνδυνον βαθύν, Pind.
Pyth. iv. 368, and the like ; Blomfield, ad Aesch. Pers. Gloss. 471. (συ The
opposite is βαθύπλουτος, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 1. p. 286. — ἐπερίσσευσεν] became
abundant, i.e. developed an exceedingly great activity, and this εἰς τὸν
πλοῦτον K.T.A.,7 unto the riches of their singleness of heart. (v°) This is the re-
sult (Rom. iii. 7 ; 2 Cor. ix. 8) of the érepioc.; so that their simple, up-
right spirit showed itself as rich, in spite of their poverty, through the
abundance of kind gifts which they distributed. Note the skill and point
of the antithetic correlation purposely marking the expressions in the two
parts of the verse. — The ἁπλότης * is the upright simplicity of heart (Eph.
vi. 5 ; Col. iii. 22); honestly and straightforwardly it contributes what it
can to the work of love without any selfish design or arriére pensée (as e.g.
the widow with her mite). Comp. on xii. 8. And so it is rich, even with
deep poverty on the part of the givers. The genitive is, asin περισσεία τῆς
xap., the genitivus subjecti, not objecti (rich in simplicity), as Hofmann, follow-
ing older commentators, holds. The αὐτῶν is against this latter view, for
either it would have been wanting, or it would have been added to πλοῦτον,
because it would belong to that word.
Vv. 3-5. Ὅτι is not dependent on γνωρίζομεν (Hofmann), but gives the
proof of what was just said : εἰς τὸν πλοῦτον τῆς ἀπλ. ait. — The construction is
plain ; for there is no need to supply an ἦσαν, as many wish, after αὐθαίρετοι
or after δεόμενοι, but, as Bengel aptly remarks : ‘‘édwxav. . . totam periochae
structuram sustinet.” Comp. Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 49 ; Billroth, Ewald,
Osiander, Hofmann. There are, namely (and in accordance therewith the
punctuation is to be fixed), four modal definitions attached to this ἔδωκαν :
They gave (1) according to and beyond their means ; (2) of their own impulse ;
(3) urgently entreating us for the χάρις and κοινωνία x.t.2.; and (4) not as we
hoped, but themselves, etc. This last modal definition is naturally and quite
logically attached by καί (hence καὶ οὐ καθὼς ἠλπίσ.) ; and Riickert (comp. de
Wette and Neander) is arbitrary in holding this καί to prove that Paul al-
lowed the sentence he had begun to drop, and appended a new one, so that
1 Asagrammatical supplement the simple 31, but more decidedly in Eph. i. 7, ii. 7, iii.
οὖσα 15 sufficient ; hence it is not to be taken, 8, 16; Phil. iv. 19; Col. 1. 2%, ii. 2.
with Hofmann, as the poverty sinking deeper 3 Hofmann conjectures that the promi-
and ever deeper, but as the deep-sunk poy- nence given to the ἁπλότης was called forth
erty. On κατά with genitive, comp. the by the want of it among the Achaean Chris-
Homeric κατὰ χϑονός II. iii, 217; κατὰ γαίης, tians. In this case there would be in ita
Tl. xiii. 504; κατὰ σπείους, Od. ix. 330 (down side-allusion, which is not justified in what
into the cave), xii. 98. See in general, Spitz- follows. But the ἁπλότης, which had shown
ner, De vi et usu praepos. ava et κατά ap. itself among the Macedonians in a specially
Homer. 1831, p. 20 ff. high degree, was to serve them as an ex-
2The neuter form, τὸ πλοῦτος (Lachm. ample, by way of stimulating emulation, not
Tisch. Riick.), is attested here by B C δ 17, exactly of putting them to shame.
580 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. -
after ἠλπίσαμεν we should have to supply an ἐγένετο or ἐποίησαν. ---- μαρτυρῶ] L
testify it, a parenthetic assurance. Comp. the Greek use of ἁ οἶμαι and the
like (Bornem. ad Xen. Conv. p. 71,179 ; Stallb. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 460 A). —
παρὰ δύναμιν] 1.6. more amply than was accordant with their resources,
See Homer, J/. xiii. 787 ; Thucyd. i. 70. 2; Lucian. Wig. 28, de Dom. 10.
The same, in substantial meaning, is ὑπὲρ δύναμιν, i. 8; Dem. 292. 25. It
forms, with κατὰ divay., a climactic definition of ἔδωκαν, not of aifaip., to
which it is not suitable. —ai@aipero:] excludes human persuasion or compul-
sion, not the divine influence (see ver. 5, διὰ θελήματος Yeov) ; We must not,
with Riickert, hold it, on account of the remark ix. 2, to be an exaggeration,
since the latter notice does not deny the self-determination of the Macedo-
nians, but, when compared with our passage, exhibits as the real state of the
case this, that Paul had boasted of the readiness of the Achaeans before the
Macedonians, but without exhortation to the latter, and that these thereupon,
of their own accord, without urging, had resolved on making a contribution,
and had given very amply. Comp. Chrysostom on ix. 2. αὐθαίρετος, free-
willed, self-determined, only here and at ver. 17 in the N. T., often in the
classic writers ; seldom of persons (Xen. Anab. v. 7, 29; Lucian. Catapl.
4). Comp. the adverb in 2 Macc. vi. 19 ; 3 Macc. vi. 6. — pera πολλῆς. . .
εἰς τ. ayiovc] to be taken together : with much exhortation entreating us for
the kindness and the participation in the ministering to the saints, i.e. urgently
entreating us that the kindness might be shown them of permitting them to take
active part in the. . . work of collections. Οὐχ ἡμεῖς αὐτῶν ἐδεήθημεν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ
ἡμῶν, Chrysostom ; and in the κοινωνία sought they saw a kindness to be
shown to themselves : they knew how to value the work of love thus highly.
The yapic, namely, here is not grace from God (Hofmann and the older com-
mentators), since it was requested from the apostle, but τὴν χάριν k. τ. κοινων.
is a true ἕν διὰ δυοῖν (the favour, and indeed the partaking, i.e. the favour of
partaking). See Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 854, and generally, Nigelsbach on
11. iii. 100, p. 461, ed. 3. Bengel, who likewise rejects the δέξασθαι ἡμᾶς of
the Recepta, connects τὴν χάριν κ. τὴν κοινωνίαν K.7.A. With ἔδωκαν : but what
a prolix designation of the withal quite self-evident object of ἔδωκαν would
that be, while δεόμενοι ἡμῶν Would remain quite open and void of definition!
On δεῖσθαι, with accusative of the thing and genitive of the person, comp.
Plato, Apol. p. 18 A, p.41 E ; Xen. Cyrop. i. 4.12 ; Anabd. vii. 3. 5 ; 3 Esd.
vill. 53. Yet in the classics the accusative of the object is the neuter of a
pronoun, like τοῦτο ὑμῶν δέομαι; ὕπερ ὑμῶν δέομαι, and the like, or of an ad-
jective (Kviiger on Thue. i. 32. 1). --- τῆς εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους] In this addition
(comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 1), which would in itself be superfluous, there lies a mo-
tive of the δεόμενοι. --- καὶ ob καθὼς ἠλπίσαμεν] for but a little could be expected
from the oppressed and poor Macedonians! Οὐ περὶ τῆς γνώμης λέγει, ἀλλὰ
περὶ τοῦ πλήϑους τῶν χρημάτων, Theodoret. According to Hofmann, the words
are meant only to affirm that the Macedonians had joined in the contribu-
tion quite of their own resolution, which had not been expected by the apostle.
But in this case the remark, which on this interpretation would be no inde-
pendent element, but only the negative expression of what was already said
in αὐϑαίρετοι, would have had its logical position immediately behind αὐϑαί-
CHAP, VIIL., 6. 581
peror ; and it must have run not as it is written by Paul, but : καϑὼς οὐκ
ἠλπίσαμεν. No, the apostle says: and their giving did not remain within
the limits of the hope which we had formed regarding them, but far sur-
passed these (ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς k.t.2.). — ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς x.7.A.| but themselves they gave,
ete. An expression of the highest Christian readiness of sacrifice and liber-
ality, which, by giving up all individual interests, is not only a contribution
of money, but a self-surrender, in the first instance, to the Lord, since in fact
Christ is thereby served, and also to him who conducts the work of collec-
tion, since he is to the giver the organ of Christ. Flatt and Billroth, fol-
lowing Mosheim and Heumann, are wrong in making πρῶτον before in the
sense : before I asked them. This reference is not in the least implied in the
immediate context (οὐ καϑὼς ἠλπίσ.) ; and if it were, πρῶτον must have had
the first place : ἀλλὰ πρῶτον ἑαυτοὺς ἔδωκαν x.t.A. As the words stand, ἑαυτούς
has the emphasis of the contrast with οὐ καϑὼς ἠλπίς. Bengel also (comp.
Schrader) is wrong in thinking that in πρῶτον there is implied prae munere:
the Macedonians, before they made collection, had first given themselves to
the Lord, and then left it to the apostle to determine how large their con-
tribution should be. In that case there must have been inserted καὶ τὰ χρή-
ματα ἡμῖν, or something similar, as a correlative to ἑαυτοὺς πρῶτον τῷ κυρίῳ.
It is wrong to find in ἑαυτούς the idea merely of voluntarily,? without any
summons, because it is object of the verb. It must have run: αὐτοὶ
ἑαυτοὺς k.t.A. (comp. i. 9), or without stress on the self-object, ag’ ἑαυτῶν. ---
καὶ ἡμῖν] Paul does not say ἔπειτα ἡμῖν (in opposition to the wswal opinion that
καί Stands for ἔπειτα ; so also Riickert), because the surrender to the Lord is
not a prius in time, but in degree: to the Lord before all, and to us. So Rom.
i. 16, ii. 9, 10. — διὰ ϑελήμ. ϑεοῦ] not exactly an expression of modesty (Bill-
roth),—for it is only arbitrary to limit it merely to καὶ ἡμῖν (so also Bengel,
Ewald),—but added quite according to the requirement of religious feeling :
for God has, according to His will, so wrought on their dispositions, that
they, etc. Comp. vv. 1, 16.
Ver. 6. In order that we should exhort Titus, etc. Comp. ver. 17. εἰς τό
with the infinitive is here, as in all passages (see on Rom. i. 20), to be taken,
not as so that (so usually, and by Winer), but as ¢elic: inorder that. Comp.
Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 8.20. Certainly the παρακαλέσαι ἡμᾶς Τίτον κ.τ.λ.
was a consequence of the beyond expectation successful course of the matter
in Macedonia, in accordance with which Paul might promise himself no less
a success among the Corinthians ; but delicately and piously he presents
the state of the case, as if this further prosecution of the work of collection,
amidst the self-sacrificing liberality of the Macedonians effected by the di-
vine will, had lain in God’s purpose, and was therefore a consequence that
had been aimed at by God. This flows from the διὰ ϑελήμ. ϑεοῦ immediately
preceding. Comp. Hofmannalso, Paul sees in the fact, that the divinely-
17This also in opposition to Hofmann, not mean ‘‘ without,” but “ before that,” etc.
who, in consistency with his inappropriate 2So Hofmann; whence there would re-
interpretation of «. οὐ καϑ. ἠλπίσ., takes sult even a threefold expression of the vol-
πρῶτον : without such a thought (such a hope) untary act, namely : (1) in αὐϑαίρετοι ; (2) in
having occurred to me. Besides, πρῶτον would κ. ov καϑ. ἠλπίσ. ; and (8) in ἑαυτούς,
582 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
willed success of the collecting work in Macedonia has encouraged him to
the continuance of it expressed in ver. 6, the fulfilment of the divine coun-
sel and will, which he is thereby serving. —iva]. Design in the παρακαλέσαι,
and consequently its contents. — καϑὼς προενήρξατο]) as he formerly has begun,
without doubt during his sojourn in Corinth after our first Epistle ; see
Introd. § 1. The word is indeed without example elsewhere, but it is
formed from ἐνάρχομαι, afterthe analogy of προάρχω and others. —oitw καὶ
ἐπιτελέσῃ εἰς ὑμᾶς] so also might complete it among you. 'The emphasis lies, as
before on προενήρξατο, 50 here on ἐπιτελέσῃ. With the verb of rest εἰς associates
the thought of the previous arrival, so that ἐλϑών may for clearness be sup-
plied. See Kiihner, ὃ 622 ὃ, Jacobs, ad Anthol. XIII. p. 71; Ellendt,
Lex. Soph. 1. p. 587. The correlation of ἐνάρχεσϑαι and ἐπιτελεῖν is simply
as in Phil. i. 6, Gal. ili. 3 ; we should anticipate (ix. 12) by importing the
idea of sacrifice (Osiander). — καὶ τὴν χάριν ταύτην] not hane quoque gratiam
(Beza, Calvin, comp. Castalio), but : etiam gratiam istam (Vulgate). For
also belongs to τὴν χάριν, not to ταύτην. He shall complete among you—in
addition to whatever else he has already begun and has still to complete—
also this benefit. This better suits the context, namely, the connection of the
οὕτω καὶ ἐπιτελ. With καϑὼς προενήρξατο, than the interpretation of Estius :
‘* dicit etiam, ut innuat Titum alia quaedam apud ipsos jam perfecisse.” So
also Flatt. It is quite superfluous to invoke, with Hofmann, an involution
of two sentences in order to explain the double «ai. And since καί refers
to the activity of Titus, Billroth is wrong in explaining it: ‘‘they are to
distinguish themselves in this good deed, as in all things.””» — The work of
collection is designated as yapic, for on the side of the givers it was a show-
ing of kindness, a work of love, an opus charitativum. Observe that here and
in vv. 4, 19, ϑεοῦ is not added, as in ver. 1, ix. 14, according to which
Hofmann and older commentators explain it here also of the divine grace, of
which they are made worthy through the service rendered.
Vv. 7-15. Encouragement to associate with their other Christian excel-
lences distinction also in this work of love, which he says not in the form of
acommand, but to test their love—for they knew indeed the pattern of
love in Christ—and by way of advice (vv. 7-9). For this is serviceable for
them, inasmuch as they had already made the beginning. Now, however,
they were not to fail of completing their work, namely, according to their
means ; for it was not intended that others should be at ease while they
were in want, but that a relation of equality should be established (vv. 10-
15).
Ver. 7. ’A22’] is not equivalent to οὖν (Beza and others, also Flatt), nor to
agedum (Emmerling), but is the Latin at, breaking off the preceding state-
ment, like the German doch. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 812, aptly says:
‘‘Saepe indicat, satis argumentorum allatum esse.” Comp. Baeumlein,
Partik. p. 15. Olshausen has a more far-fetched idea, that it is corrective :
yea rather. And Billroth imports quite arbitrarily : ‘‘ When I entreated
Titus, I knew beforehand that this time also you would not deceive me,
but that, as you are distinguished in all that is good, so also you would ~
zealously further this collection ;” and Riickert also (similarly Calvin) : ‘TI
CHAP. VIIL., 8. 583
have entreated Titus, etc. ; yet let it not happen that he should need first to
encourage you (?), yea rather, etc.” Aceording to Hofmann,444é4 forms the
transition to the οἷ; κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν λέγω which follows in ver. 8 ; but this sup-
poses a very involved construction (comp. afterwards on iva x.7.2.). — ὥσπερ
ἐν παντὶ K.7.2.] a8 you in every relation are abundant (excellitis) through Jaith
(strength, fervour, and efficacy of faith), and discourse (aptitude in speaking),
and knowledge (see regarding both on 1 Cor. i. 5), and every diligence (* stu-
dium ad agendas res bonas,” Grotius), and your love to us, so should you abound
in showing this kindness. Τί πίστει x.7.2. be taken asa specification of ἐν παντί
(Luther, Grotius, and most), the meaning is more uncertain, since év is not
repeated. Comp. vi. 4; 1 Cor. i. 5 ; it comesin again only before ταύτῃ τ.
xap. Grotius aptly remarks: non ignoravit P. artem rhetorum, movere
laudandag.” Amidst the general praise, however, he wisely here also leaves
the distingue personas to the feeling of the readers. — τῇ ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀγάπῃ]
Paul here conceives the active love as something issuing from the disposition
of the person loving, and adhering to the person loved. Thus he felt the
love of the Corinthians to him in his heart ; comp. vii. ὃ. This view alone
suits the context, inasmuch as the other points mentioned are points purely
subjective, belonging to the readers, and serving to recommend them ; hence
we are not to understand it as the love dwelling in the apostle, but owing its
origin to the readers (Hofmann). Calvin aptly remarks : ‘‘Caritatem erga
se commemorat, ut personae quoque suae respectu illis addat animos.” On
the form of the expression, comp. Winer, p. 181 f. [E. T. 241]. — iva καὶ ἐν
ταύτῃ TH χάριτι περισσ.] A periphrasis for the imperative, to be explained by
supplying a verb of summoning, on which iva depends in the conception of
the speakers. See Buttmann, p. 208 [E. T. 241] ; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p.
840, ad Mare. p. 179. In the old Greek ὅπως is used in the very same way
(wa late and seldom, as in Epictetus, Déssert. iv. 1.142). See Matthiae, p.
1187 ; Viger. ed. Herm. pp. 435, 791 f.; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 148.
According to Grotius and Bengel, whom Hofmann follows, the connecting
of iva x.t.A. with the following οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν λέγω Would yield no unsuita-
ble sense (in opposition to Riickert); but the construction of the passage in
vv. 7 and 8, so as to form one period, would be a construction assumed
without sufficient ground, ill-arranged and ambiguous, and would not ac-
cord with the apostle’s way of beginning a new sentence by ov . . . λέγω in
order to guard against an incorrect judgment of the previous one (vii. 3 ; 1
Cor. iv. 14. Comp. 2. Cor. v. 12). —In kai ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ χάριτι, ταύτῃ has the
emphasis (it was otherwise in ver. 6); also in this showing of kindness, as in
other works of beneficence,—which was embraced in ἐν παντί.
Ver. 8. Prudent and yet deeply stirring caveat in reference to what was
said in ver. 7. Not by way of command do I say it, but as, through the dili-
gence of others, testing also the genuine nature of your love. — διά} ““ aliorum
studio vobis commemorato,” Bengel. — ἑτέρων] of members of extraneous
churches. — τὸ γνήσιον] the genuineness. (ΧῚ See Kiihner, I. p. 122 ; Dis-
sen, ad Pind. Mem. p. 452. — δοκιμάζειν] is here, too (comp. on 1 Cor. xi.
28), not probatum reddere (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Estius), but explorare ; for
by the result, which the setting forth of the Macedonian example would
584 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
have on the Corinthians, it had to be shown whether, and how far, their
brotherly love was genuine or not. The participle does not depend on ver.
10 (Bengel), but on λέγω, which is to be supplied again after ἀλλά. λέγω with
the participle: I say it, inasmuch as I thereby, etc. Comp. on 1 Cor. iv. 14.
Ver. 9. Parenthesis which states what holy reason he has for speaking to
them, not κατ᾽ ἐπιταγήν, but in the way just mentioned, that of testing their
love. For you know, indeed (γινώσκετε not imperative, as Chrysostom and
others think), what a high pattern of gracious kindness you have experienced
in yourselves from Jesus Christ. So the testing, which I have in view
among you, will only be imitation of Christ. Olshausen rejects here the
conception of pattern, and finds the proof of possibility: ‘‘ Since Christ by
His becoming poor has made you rich, you also may communicate of your
riches ; He has placed you in a position to do so.” The outward giving, name-
ly, presupposes the disposition to give as an internal motive, without which
it would not take place. But in this view πλουτήσητε would of necessity
apply to riches in loving dispositions, which, however, is not suggested at
all in the context, since in point of fact the consciousness of every believing
reader led him to think of the whole fulness of the Messianic blessings as the
aim of Christ’s humiliation, and to place iz that the riches meant by πλουτή-
onte. — ὅτι δ’ ὑμᾶς κ.τ.λ.} that He for your sakes, etc., epexegetical of τὴν χάριν
τ. Kup. ἡμ. "Incov Χριστοῦ. The emphatic δ ὑμᾶς brings home to the believing
consciousness of the readers individually the aim, which in itself was uni-
versal. — ἐπτώχευσε] inasmuch as He by His humiliation to become incarnate
emptied Himself of the participation, which He had in His pre-existent
state, of God’s glory, dominion, and blessedness (πλούσιος ὧν), Phil. 11, 6.
On the meaning of the word, comp. LXX. Judg. vi. 6, xiv. 15 ; Ps. xxxiv.
10, Ixxix. 8 ; Prov. xxiii. 21 ; Tob. iv. 21; Antiphanes in Becker’s Anecd.
112. 94, The aorist denotes the once-occurring entrance into the condition
of being poor, and therefore certainly the having become poor (although
πτωχεύειν, as also the classical πενέσθαι, does not mean to become poor, but
to be’ poor), and not the whole life led by Christ in poverty and loneliness,
during which He was nevertheless rich in grace, rich in inward blessings ;
so Baur? and Késtlin, Lehrbegr. d. Joh. p. 310, also Beyschlag, Christol. p.
237. On the other hand, see Riibiger, Christol. Panl. p. 38 f.; Neander,
ed. 4, p. 801 f.; Lechler, Apost. Zeit. p. 50 f.; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. pp. 312,
318. — dv] is the imperfect participle : when He was rich, and does not denote
the abiding possession (Estius, Riickert) ; for, according to the context,
the apostle is not speaking of what Christ is, but of what He was,* before
He became man, and ceased to be on His self-exinanition in becoming man
(Gal. iv. 4 ; this also in opposition to Philippi, Glawbensl. IV. p. 447). So
also ὑπάρχων, Phil. ii. 6.—iva ὑμεῖς. . . πλουτήσητε] in order that you
through His poverty might become rich. These riches are the reconciliation,
1 As 6.0. βασιλεύειν, to be king, but ἐβασί- 2 Comp. his neut. Theol. Ὁ. 198: ** though
Aevoa: I have become king. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. in Himself as respects His right rich, He
8 ; andsee in general, Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. lived poor.”
i. 1.18; also Ernesti, Urspr. ἃ. Stinde, I. Ὁ. 3 Comp. Rich. Schmidt, Paw. Christol. p
245. 144.
CHAP, VIIT., 10. 585
justification, illumination, sanctification, peace, joy, certainty of eternal
life, and hereafter its actual possession, in short, the whole sum of spiritual
and heavenly blessings (comp. Chrysostom) which Christ has obtained for
believers by His humiliation even to the death of the cross. Πλουτεῖν means
with the Greek writers, and in the N. T. (Rom. x. 12; Luke xii. 21), to be
rich ; but the aorist (1 Cor. iv. 8) is to be taken as with ἐπτώχευσε. ’Exeivov,
instead of the simple αὐτοῦ (Kriiger, ad Xen. Anabd. iv. 3. 30 ; Dissen, ad
Dem. de cor. p. 276, 148), has great emphasis : ‘‘ magnitudinem Domini in-
nuit,” Bengel. — In opposition to the interpretation of our passage, by which
éxroy. falls into the historical life, so that πλούσιος ὧν is taken potentialiter as
denoting the power to take to Himself riches and dominion, which, however,
Jesus has renounced and has subjected Himself to poverty and self-denial
(so Grotius and de Wette), see on Phil. ii. 6.
Ver. 10. After the parenthesis in ver. 9, a continuation of the ἀλλὰ. . .
δοκιμάζων, ver. 8 : and an opinion I give in this affair. Τνώμην, opinion, has
the emphasis, as contrasting with ἐπιταγήν in ver. 8. Comp. on 1 Cor. vii.
25. — τοῦτο yap ὑμῖν συμφέρει] συμφέρει does not mean decet (Vorstius, Emmer-
ling, who appeals to LXX. Prov. xix. 10, where, however, the translation
is inaccurate), but: it profits. And τοῦτο is not, with most, including
Riickert, de Wette, Ewald, Neander, to be referred to the supplying of chari-
table gifts, in which case συμφέρει is either left without more precise defini-
tion (Riickert : ‘‘like every good deed, bringing advantage”), or is inter-
preted as pointing to the advantage of good repute (Grotius, comp. also
Hofmann), of the divine recompense (Calovius) and the moral advantage
(Flatt), or as useful for salvation (Bisping), and so on. Τοῦτο γὰρ ip. συμφ.
contains, in fact, the ground why Paul proceeds in this matter merely by
way of advising ; hence, with Billroth, Osiander, and Kling, τοῦτο is to be
referred to the previous γνώμην... δίδωμι. It is no objection to this, that
in ἐν τούτῳ immediately before the pronoun referred to the distribution. For
in the previous clause γνώμην δίδωμι contained the whole thought, and ἐν τούτῳ
had no stress laid on it, not even needing to be inserted. Accordingly : for
this—that I do not command you, but only give my opinion in the matter—
is serviceable to you, is fitted to operate in the way of moral improvement on
you, as being persons who have already shown yourselves to be such as need
not command, but only counsel. The emphasis lies primarily on τοῦτο and
next én ὑμῖν. According to Hofmann, who does not take ver. 9 parentheti-
cally, in καὶ γνώμην x.t.A. there is meant to follow something new and
further, so that both ἐν τούτῳ and subsequently τοῦτο point to the advice,
which Paul intends to give (with the following . . . what follows), and this
advice is expressed in the imperative clause ver. 11, to which οἵτινες k.7.A.
belongs as a protasis. Against this confusion it may be decisively urged,
first, that the ἐν τούτῳ emphatically pointing forward must have been: placed
first ; secondly, that after δίδωμι there would come not at all the announced
γνώμη, but in the first instance an argumentative parenthetic clause, which
would again begin with ‘‘ what follows,” —a course which could only lead the
reader astray ; thirdly, that if τοῦτο y. ὑμῖν συμφέρει does not go with οἵτινες
x.7.4., and find its more precise explanation therein, it would interpolate a
586 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
thought altogether indefinite and isolated ; fourthly, that dé after νυνί in ver.
11 most naturally introduces a new sentence ; lastly, that ver. 11 has not in
the least the form of a γνώμη, of an expression of opinion, but a form purely
praeceptive, as, indeed, that which the apostle has put under the considerate
point of view of a testing and a γνώμη in contrast to an ἐπιταγή, was already
contained: in ver. 7 and has nothing more to do with the direct precept of
ver. 11. — οἴτενες] ut gui, includes the specifying of the reason. See on Eph.
ili. 19... ob μόνον τὸ ποιῆσαι, ἀλλὰ Kai τὸ θέλειν] Grotius, following the Peshitto
and Arabic of Erpenius, assumes here a loguendi genus inversum ; but this is
an irrational violence,’ to which also the view of Emmerling (comp. Cas-
talio in the Adnot.) ultimately comes: ‘‘ vos haud mora, uno momento
facere et velle coepistis.” The explanation of others? is at least rational :
not only the doing, but also the being willing, i.e. the doing willingly. But that
θέλειν is not used in the sense of θέλοντας ποιεῖν (see regarding this use of
θέλων, Markl. ad Lys. Reisk. p. 616), or even θέλειν ποιῆσαι (Bremi, ad Dem.
Phil. i. 13, p. 121), is plain from ver. 11, where Paul, if that meaning had
been in his mind, must have continued : νυνὶ dé καὶ ἐπιτελέσατε 76 r. But,
in the form in which he has written ver. 11, the emphasis lies not on ἐπιτελέ-
care, but on τὸ ποιῆσαι, Which is thereby shown to be something not con-
temporaneous with the θέλειν, but following upon it, something which is
still to happen after that θέλειν is already present, so that we have an advance
(1) from the ποιῆσαι to the θέλειν in ver. 10 ; and (2) from the θέλειν to the
further ποιῆσαι in ver. 11. Moreover, in opposition to the former interpre-
tation, we may urge the change of tenses in ver. 10 ; for, if the θέλειν in
ver. 10 were to be something inherent in the previous ποιῆσαι (willingness),
the aorist infinitive must likewise have been used. Lastly, there is opposed
to this interpretation the ὕπως καθάπερ «.7.2. in ver. 11, where evidently the
(future) actual accomplishment is compared with the inclination of the
(present) willing ; hence, in ver. 10 also θέλειν must be conceived of as some-
thing which subsists for itse/f, and not simply as ὦ willingly doing. Others
conceive that τὸ ποιῆσαι denotes the collection-gathering which had already
actually taken place, and τὸ θέλειν the continuing wish to do still more. This is
in the main the view of Hunnius, Hammond, Wetstein,* Mosheim, Bengel,
Michaelis, Fritzsche. The latter says (Dissert. II, p. 9): ‘‘hoe modo non
solum τὸ θέλειν tanquam gravius τῷ ποιεῖν oppositum est (nam qui nova beneficia
veteribus adderevult, plus illo agit, qui in eo quod praestitit, subsistit) sed etiam
0. προενάρξασθαι utrique bene congruit, illi (τῷ ποιῆσαι), quoniam nondum tan-
tum pecuniae erogaverant, quantum ad justam λογίαν sufficere videretur, huie
(τῳ θέλειν) quoniam in hac nova veluntate hue usque aequieverant.” In this way
the change of tenses in ποιῆσαι and θέλειν would be quite appropriate ; both
would apply (this in opposition to Billroth’s objection) to the same fact, to
Zachariae, Storr, Rosen-
17This inversion is followed also by
Luther, not in the translation, but in the
gloss: “ You have been the first, who willed it
and also did it.”
2 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact,
Gregory, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Cornelius
ἃ Lapide, Clericus, Heumann, Bauer, Log.
Paul. Ὁ. 884:
miiller, Flatt, Billroth, Schrader, Olshausen,
Riickert, Osiander, Ewald, and several
others.
3 Who says: “ποιῆσαι est dare; ϑέλειν
ποιῆσαι, 1.6. ποιήσειν vel δώσειν, daturum
esse.”
CHAP. VIII., 10. 587
the work of collecting begun in pursuance of 1 Cor. xvi., which, however,
would be viewed not according to two different sides (Billroth), objective
(ποιῆσαι) and subjective (θέλειν), but according to two different stages, in
respect of the first activity and of the further willing, so that now also the
third stage, the execution of this further willing, must be added to complete
the whole matter, ver. 11. But since there is no indication whatever of the
reference of τὸ θέλειν to a further willing (following on the ποιῆσαι), and that
a willing arrested as to its realization ; and since, on the other hand, the
προ in προενήρξ. permits for the climactic relation οὐ μόνον τὸ ποιῆσαι, ἀλλὰ Kai
τὸ θέλειν only the temporal reference, that the θέλειν must have been earlier
than the ποιῆσαι, and consequently οὐ μόνον. . . ἀλλὰ καί is a climax of time
pointing not forward, but backward : the view of Fritzsche is to be given up
as not accordant with the context. There remainsas the only correct view,
that of Cajetanus and Estius, which de Wette (and after him Winer, p. 521
[E. T. 701 f.], also Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 364) has defended,
that προενήρξ. places the readers in comparison as to time with the Mace-
donians (ver. 1 ff.) : not only the doing (the carrying out of the action of
collecting), but also already the willing has begun earlier among you than
among the Macedonians ; you have anticipated them in both respects. With
this view it is obvious that Paul could not but logically place ποιῆσαι before
θέλειν. The offence, which this arrangement would otherwise occasion,
cannot be got over by the pregnant meaning, which Hofmann puts into the
present θέλειν, viz. that it denotes the steady attitude of mind sustained up to
the execution (comp. Billroth). This would, in fact, be a modal definition
of the willing, which Paul would doubtless have known how to designate,
but could not put into the bare present.’ And such an attitude of mind
would withal have already existed before the ποιῆσαι, and would not simply
have come afterwards. — ἀπὸ πέρυσι] More precise definition of the προ in προ-
ενήρξ. : since the previous year. On πέρυσι, superiore anno, see Plato, Protag. p.
327 C; Gorg. p. 473 E; Aristoph. Vesp. 1044 ; Acharn. 348 ; Lucian, Tim.
59 ; Soloec. 7, al. Comp. ix. 2. Whether did Paul date the beginning of the
year after the Greek (rather Attic and Olympic) reckoning (so Credner, Hinl.
I. 2, p. 372), 1.6. about the time of the summer solstice, or after the Macedonian
fashion (so, on account of ix. 2, Wiescler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 364),
i.e. at the autumnal equinox, or from the month Nisan (Hofmann ; see
Grimm on 1 Mace. x. 21), or from the usual national standpoint of the
Jewish reckoning, according to which the beginning of the civil year was
the month Tisri (in Sept.) ? The last is in itself the most natural, and also
the most probable, considering the great variety as to the times of beginning
the year, to which he would have had to accommodate himself in the
various provinces, and considering not less the acquaintance with the
Jewish calendar which he could take for granted in all his churches. Con-
sequently there lies between the composition of our first and second Epistles
the time from Easter till at least after the beginning of the new year in Tisri.
1The present denotes simply the being the historical doing (ποιῆσαι), through which
disposed asthe habitus of readiness prevail- _ the ϑέλειν became active.
ing in the case, by way of distinction from
588 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Ver. 11. The καί before τὸ ποιῆσαι can only belong to it, and not to ἐπιτελ.
also (de Wette, Hofmann). It is the simple accessory also; as in ver. 10
the thought proceeded backwards from doing to willing, now it proceeds
forwards from willing to doing, so that at the bottom of καὶ τὸ ποιῆσαι there
lies the conception : Now, however, bring not merely the willing, but also the
doing to completion. (25) This isan analysis of the elements, which in reality
coincide (for the ἐπιτελέσαι of the willing is the actwal execution), occasioned,
however, very naturally by the juxtaposition in ver. 10, and giving rise to
no misconception here. — ὅπως καθάπερ x.7.2.] in order that as the inclination
of the willing, so also the completion (of that, which ye will) may be accord-
ing to means, i.e. in order that the actual execution of that, which you will,
may not remain out of proportion to the inclination of your will, but, like the
latter, may be accordant with your means. Asit is the inclination of your
will to contribute according to the standard of your possessing, the execution
of this willingness should take place according to the same standard. --- οὕτω
καὶ τὸ ἐπιτελέσαι] sc. ἡ. The supplying the subjunctive of εἰμι is not linguisti-
cally inadmissible (Riickert), and is found already in Homer (J7. i. 547, and
Niigelsb. in loc.), but it is certainly rare in Greek writers. Comp. ver. 13.
See Bernhardy, p. 330 ἢ ; Buttmann, neut. Gramm. p. 120 [E. T. 187]. —é
τοῦ ἔχειν] belongs to both subjects of the clause of purpose : in purswance of
the having, according to your means. See Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 179 f.
Comp. expressions like ἐκ τῶν παρόντων, ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων, and the like. Ἔκ
is not to be taken in the sense of the origin, as Hofmann wishes ; for it would,
in fact, be an indelicate and bad compliment to the inclination of the readers,
that it had ‘‘ originated” from their possession. Paul himself indicates
afterwards by καθό in what meaning he uses ἐκ.
Ver. 12. Confirmation of the ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν by a general proposition. There
is nothing to be supplied except the simple ἐστί after εὐπρόσδεκτος, so that ἡ
προθυμία remains the subject (Vulg., Erasmus, and others, including Riickert,
Osiander, Ewald). It is quite superfluous mentally to supply the non-genuine
τις after ἔχῃ, and to refer εὐπρόσδ. to it (Billroth), all the more that Paul is
fond of personifying abstractions (ἡ προθυμία). The correct translation is :
For, if the inclination exists (presents itself as existing), it is well-pleasing in
proportion to that which it has, not in proportion to that which it has not, i.e.
God measures His good pleasure according to that which the πρόθυμος (who
is ready to contribute) possesses, not according to that which he does not
possess.’ If, for example, the poor man who is ready to give little, because
he has not much, were less pleasing to God than the rich man, who is will-
ing to give much, God would then determine His good pleasure according to
what the πρόθυμος does not possess. Such an unjust standard God does not
apply to good will! οὐ yap τὴν ποσότητα, ἀλλὰ τῆς γνώμης dpa τὴν ποιότητα,
Theodoret. On πρόκειται in the sense specified, see Kypke, II. p. 259, and
from Philo, Loesner, p. 312. Comp. ταράκειται, Rom. vii. 18. The inter-
pretation prius adest, namely, tanquam boni operis fundamentum (Erasmus,
1 An evangelical commentary on this sentence is the story of the widow’s mite, Mark
xii. 42 ff. ; Luke xxi. 2 ff.
CHAP. VIII., 18. 3 589
-Beza, Estius, and others), is not supported by linguistic usage, and there is
no hint in the context of a reference to time. Flatt imports ‘‘wnpleasing”
into the negative half of the sentence ; and Hofmann goes still further, since
he finds in πρόκειται the realization of the good will, and attaches to this (not
to εὐπρόσδ.) the Kad ἐὰν ἔχῃ, while he thereupon adds the supplementary
words ov καθὸ οὐκ ἔχει So as to form the sentence : ‘‘ that is not the condition
of the acceptableness of the good will, that it is present as realized according to the
measure of what it has not.” In this way we should have mentally to add εἰ
πρόκειται after ov ; and Paul would not only have made use of a fragmentary
mode of expression as unintelligibly as possible, but would withal have sup-
posed an inconceivable case, namely, that the good will is realized accord-
ing to the measure of non-possession, which is tantamount to saying that the
good will gives what it has not. And the assumption that πρόκειται denotes
already the realization of the προϑέμία by the act, is the more erroneous, that
the one before whom the προϑυμία is laid is here God, as is shown by εὐπρόσ-
dextoc. God, however, looks on the heart, and the frame of mind itself Lies
open before Him. — Note further the difference between the conditioned καϑὸ
ἐὰν ἔχῃ, in proportion to what he, under the respective circumstances of each
case (ἐάν = ἄν), may have, and the unconditioned καϑὸ οὐκ ἔχει. Comp. Har-
tung, Partikell. 11. p. 293 f. ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 1438.
Ver. 13. Confirmation of the previous οὐ καϑὸ οὐκ ἔχει from the aim of the
present collection. — The words usually supplied after οὐ yap (Beza, Flatt, and
others : hoc dico; Erasmus and Grotius : sic dandum est ; Rosenmiiller and
Fritzsche, ad Rom. p. 48: volo; comp. Osiander ; Riickert has γίνεται τοῦτο,
comp. Ewald, and previously Luther) are superfluous, and therefore to be
rejected. There is nothing to be supplied but 7 after ϑλίψις and γίνεται (see
ver. 14) at the end of the verse : for not in order that there may be to others re-
Sreshing, to you distress, but on a footing of equality at the present time your
superfluity reaches to the lack of those, is applied to remedy their lack. The
punctuation is to be corrected accordingly. Since the sentence in this way
flows logically and grammatically without any obstacle, there is not to be
placed after ϑλέψις (Beza, Elzevir, Flatt, and many others), or yet even after
ἰσότητος (Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander,
and others), any colon, by which, moreover, ἐν τῴ viv καιρῷ would receive an
emphasis not justified by any contrast, and would come in very abruptly,
having no connecting particle. — ἀλλοις] means the Christians in Jerusalem.
The same are afterwards meant by ἐκείνων. Probably opponents in Corinth
had said : ‘‘he wishes to fleece us and bring us to want, that others may have
good times or the like.”” — On the contrast of ἄνεσις and ϑλίψις, comp. 2 Thess.
i.6f. The asyndeton: ἄλλοις ἄνεσις, ὑμῖν (dé is not genuine) ϑλίψις presents
the contrast more vividly. Paul, however, uses ἄλλοις, not ἑτέροις (as in ver.
8), because he has been thinking of others generally, other persons than the
readers. —&£& ἰσότητος] ἐκ, asin ver. 11, used of the standard. The establishment
of equality (between you and others) is the norm, according to which, etc. —
ἐν τῳ νῦν καιρᾷ | awakens the thought of a future, where the state of the case
might be reversed. See ver. 14. Hofmann thinks that Paul had here in
view the definite inversion of the situation in such wise, that after Israel’s
590 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
conversion (iii. 16) there would be in the Holy Land a Christian church
under more prosperous fortunes than the body of Gentile Christians then
sorely tried. But this is not to be made good by 2 Thess. ii. 3, and it has
against it Rom. xi. 25, according to which, before the conversion of Israel
will ensue, the whole Gentile world must first be converted, and accord-
ingly Paul could hardly have thought of casual collections from Judaea as
then either necessary or effectual for the Gentiles (apart altogether from the
expected nearness of the Parousia). — On γίνεσϑαι εἰς, to come unto, reach to-
wards, be apportioned to (Plato, Tim. p. 57 A ; Luc. Caucas, 19, al.), comp.
on Gal. 111. 14.
Ver. 14. f. In order that (divine purpose), if the circumstances change,
the converse case may also set in, and the superfluity of those be im-
parted to your lack. On account of ver. 13 we must, in accordance with the
context, think also here of something earthly, not (as Jerome, Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, the R. Catholics,’ Bengel, Michaelis, Schra-
der wish) of spiritual blessings—which would be unhistorical, and quite op-
posed to the standpoint of the apostle to the Gentiles. According to Paul,
the participation of the Gentiles in the spiritual blessings of the Jewish
Christians had already taken place through the conversion of the former,
Rom. xv. 97. --- ὅπως γένηται ἰσότης] in order that (according to the divine
purpose equality might set in, since, namely, then they will not have too
much and you too little, if their superfluity shall come to the help of your
lack. (A°) According to Hofmann, ἰσότης amounts here to the idea of the
inversion of the relation, which, however, does not agree with ver. 15, and
has against it the clear reference of the meaning of ἐξ ἰσότ. in ver. 13.
The idea of brotherly equalization, which Paul had expressed by ἐξ ἰσότ. as
regulative for the present case in ver. 13, he repeats also for the eventual
future case in ver. 14: it is to him of so much importance. And so
important was it to the primitive church generally, that it even pro-
duced at first in Jerusalem the community of goods. — καϑὼς γέγραπται] A
confirmation from Scripture of this idea, which is to realize itself in the two
cases, ver. 13 and ver. 14. Τῷ is already typically presented in the gathering
of the manna, Ex. xvi. 18 (freely quoted after the LXX.). The quotation
refers therefore not simply to ver. 14, but to vv. 13 and 14, since in both
there prevails the same fundamental thought. —6 τὸ πολύ] he who much,
namely, had gathered, as in Ex. 1.6... we must supply from the context (ver.
17). Paul presupposes that his readers are aware of the reference and
of the connection of the passage. —ovx ἐπλεόνασε] had not too much, not
more than was appointed by God for his needs ; τὸ yap μέτρον ὁ μεγαλόδωρος
τῷ δώρῳ συνέζευξε, Theodoret. See Ex. xvi. 16 f. In the same way: οὐκ
ἠλαττόνησε, he had not too little. The word, frequent in the LXX., is foreign
to Greek writers. — The articles denote the two definite and well-known
cases which occurred in the gathering.
1 These misused the passage against Prot- See, on the contrary, Calovius. Bisping also
estants in this way: “ Locus hie apostoli thinks of prayers, merits of good works, and
contra nostrae aetatis haereticos ostendit, posse the like, which love may give for temporal
Chrisitanos minus sanctos meritis sanctorum gifts received.
adjucari etiam in futuro saecuo,” Estius.
CHAP. VIII., 16-18. ool
Vv. 16-24. Regarding Titus, already mentioned in ver. 6, and the two
others, who were sent with Titus as delegates to Corinth about the col-
lection.
Ver. 16. Aé] continuative. — χάρις τῷ Bed, τῷ διδόντι κ.τ.λ.} language of
the deeply religious consciousness (1 Cor. xv. 10; Rom. vi. 17; Phil. ii.
13). Comp. ver. 1. The present participle ; for the continuing zeal is con-
tinually given by God. (8°) ---τὴν αὐτὴν orovd.] namely, as in me. This ref-
erence is made necessary by ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, by which Billroth’s explanation :
‘““the same zeal, which you have for the good cause,” is excluded. — ἐν τῇ καρὸ.]
See on ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησ., ver. 1.
Ver. 17. Proof of this σπουδή of Titus. — For the swmmons indeed he re-
ceived ; but, seeing that he was more zealous, of his own accord he set out to you.
Paul has not expressed himself incorrectly, seeing that he can only have had
in his mind a climax (Riickert) ; nor has he used μὲν... dé in the sense of
the climactic ov μόνον. . . ἀλλά (Billroth, also Flatt) ; but the concessive
clause τὴν μὲν παράκλ. ἐδέξ. expresses the delicate modesty and subordination
of Titus, according to which he would not have it appear that he set out on
the journey αὐϑαίρετος ; the second clause, on the other hand, sets forth the
actual state of the case. The swmmons (ver. 6) indeed he received; he did not say
as it were : there is no need of thy summons, I go of my own impulse ; but in
the actual state of the case he was too zealous to have needed a summons,
and set out to you of his own self-determination. — ἐξῆλϑε] The praeterite does
not denote what was resolved on (Billroth), but is that of the epistolary style
(comp. συνεπέμψ., vv. 18, 22; Xen. Anab. 1. 9. 25), used to represent the
point of time at which the letter is read by those receiving it. Comp. Acts
xv. 27, xxiii. 30, also on Gal. vi. 11.
Ver. 18. Recommendation of the first companion of Titus. — συνεπέμψ.
δὲ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ] The σύν refers, like μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, to Titus: we have sent along with
him. Comp. ver. 22. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 354. Comp. Gal. ii. 12 ;
Acts i. 26, xxv. 12 ; Matt. xvii. 3. Bengel takes it incorrectly : ‘‘ una mis-
imus ego et Timotheus,” which is contained in the plural, but not in the
compound. — τὸν ἀδελφὸν κ.τ.}.} is understood by Heumann and Riickert of
an actual brother, viz. a brother of Titus. But ἀδελφοὶ ἡμῶν in ver. 23 shows
that Paul has here and in ver. 22 f. taken ἀδελφός in the sense of Christian
brotherhood. It would not have been in keeping with the prudence of the apos-
tle to send with Titus the very brother of the latter and even his own brother
(according to Riickert’s view of τ. ἀδελφ. yu., ver. 22). Whois meant, remains
quite an open question. Some have conjectured Barnabas (τινές in Chrysos-
tom, and Chrysostom himself, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, and
others) or Silas (Baronius, Estius) ; but the rank of these was not consist-
ent with the position of a companion subordinate to Titus; nor is there
anywhere a trace of Barnabas and Paul having ever united again for com-
mon work after their separation (Acts xv. 39). Others (comp. also the
usual subscription of the Epistle) think that it was Luke.’ But from the
1 So Origen, tives in Chrysostom, Jerome, including Grotius, Emmerling, Schrader,
Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Primasius, Anselm, Olshausen, Kohler (Adfassungszeit, p. 85), of
Cajetanus, Cornelius & Lapide, and others, whom those named before Grotius referred
592 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS,
very brief statement of Acts xx. 1 ff. there is no proof to be drawn either
for (Olshausen) or against (Riickert) ; and Ignatius, ad Ephes. (interpol.)
16, to which Emmerling, after Salmeron and others, has again appealed,
proves nothing further than that this unknown author either referred or
merely applied our passage to Luke. The conjecture which points to Hras-
tus (Ewald, following Acts xix. 22 ; 2 Tim. iv.,20) cannot be made good.
With just as little proof some have thought of Mark (Lightfoot, Chron. p.
118 ; Storr, Opuse. II. p. 339 ; Tobler, Hvangelienfr. p. 12). The result
remains : we do not know who it was. So much only in reference to the two
persons indicated here and in ver. 22, and in opposition to the conjectures
adduced, is clear from ver. 23, that they were not fellow-labourers in the
apostolic work, like Titus, but other Christians of distinction.’ See on ver.
23. Against this non liquet Riickert indeed objects, that in that case the
Corinthians would not have known which of the two was meant to be here
designated, since in ver. 23 both are called ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν, by which all
distinction is precluded. But this first companion is in ver. 19 so distinct-
ively indicated as appointed by ὦ special elective act of the churches concerned,
and appointed just for this particular work, that he could not be unknown
by name to the Corinthians, after Titus had already begun there the work
of collection (ver. 6). Besides, Paul might leave all further information to
Titus. — οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος x.t.2.| 1.6. who possesses his praise (that duly belonging to
him) in the gospel (in the cause of the gospel, in confessing, furthering,
preaching, defending it, and the like), spread through all the churches,
throughout the whole Christian body. He was a Christian worthy of trust
and praised by all.
Ver. 19. As στελλόμενοι in ver. 20 is connected with συνεπέμψαμεν in ver.
18, ver. 19 is a parenthesis (Beza, Lachmann) in which Paul ‘‘ generali tes-
timonio subjungit speciale, quod praesenti negotio congruit,” Calvin. — οὐ
μόνον dé] 86. ἐπαινούμενος (Or ἐπαινός, praised, or ἔνδοξος, or the like) ἐστι ἐν τῷ
evayy. διὰ πασ. τῶν ἐκκλησ.5 Comp. Rom. ix. 10, v. 3, 11, vili. 23. — ἀλλὰ καὶ
χειροτονηϑεὶς x.t.A.] but also having been chosen by the (collecting) churches as
our travelling companion, etc. The yepor. ὑπὸ τ. ἐκκλ. contains a point so
important in its bearing that we may not take τὸ parenthetically, thereby
breaking up the flow of the discourse. So Hofmann, assigning the incor-
rect reason, moreover, that the perfect participle must have been used. The
perfect might be used ; but the aorist expresses the act done, whereby the
person concerned became ἀπόστολος of the churches in this case (ver. 23), and
so Paul has conceived of it here.—The ἐκκλησίαι here meant are, according to
ἐν τῷ evayy. to the Gospel of Luke (at that
time not yet even in existence).
1Hence also we can hardly think of
Trophimus (de Wette, Wieseler), Acts xx. 4,
xxi. 29; nor, with Hofmann, of Avistarchus,
Acts xix. 29, xx. 4.
3 Buttmann, neut. Gr. Ὁ. 252 [E. T. 292],
takes it differently : ‘‘ who standsin repute,
not only on this account (ἐν τῷ evayy., .6.
asa preacher of the gospel), but also as one
elected by the churches.” But from the
general ἐν τῷ evayy. to χειροτονηϑ. there is no
logical climax, as respects the specifying of
areason for the ἔπαινος ; whereas the predi- Ὁ
cation ascends from the universal praise of
the man to his being elected by the churches
—so as to assigna ground for the συνε-
πέμψαμεν. Besides, his being elected was
not the ground, but a consequence of his
general repute, although it was the special
ground for Paul’s sending him to Corinth.
CHAP. VIII., 20. 593
ver. 1 ff., the Macedonian. — yeiporov.| suffragiis designatus. How this elec-
tion was conducted, we do not know. Perhaps by the presbyters as repre-
sentatives of the churches, and on the proposal of the apostle. Comp. on
Acts xiv. 23. —év τῇ χάριτι «.t.4.] a more precise definition of the cuvékd.
ἡμῶν. It does not, however, simply mean : in the bringing over (Billroth ,
this arbitrary limitation was produced by the reading σύν), but in general :
in matters of this χάρις, i.e. in the prosecution, in the whole bringing about,
of this kindness (this work of love), which is ministered by us, is effected
through our ministry (comp. 111. 3). — πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου δόξαν k.t.A. | is con-
nected by most (including Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Billroth, de
Wette, Ewald, Neander) with τῇ δίακον. ὑφ. yu. But since in this way πρός
(which is not, with Ewald, to be taken as according to, comp. i. 20) would
have to combine two quite different relations : ‘‘ in order to promote Christ’s
honour and to prove our good-will ;” and since, moreover, the latter element
would be self-evident, tame, and superfluous,—we ought rather, with Chrys-
ostom (who, however, reads ὑμῶν instead of ἡμῶν) to construe with yerporo-
νηϑεὶς κιτ.1. : elected, etc., in order to further Christ's honour and our good-aiill.
The election of this brother had as its object, that by his co-operation in
this matter Christ should be honoured’ and our desire and love for the
work should not be lessened ‘‘ 0b metum reprehensionis illius, de qua mow lo-
quitur” (Bengel), but should be maintained and advanced by freedom from
such hindering anxiety, and by a fellow-worker thus authorized. The con-
nection with χειροτονηϑεὶς x.7.A., Which Hofmann, attaching it also to cuvexd.
ἡμῶν, declares to be impossible (why ?), places the election, which had pri-
marily a business motive, under the higher ethical point of view.
Ver. 20. Στελλόμενοι τοῦτο] goes along with ovveréuwayev in ver. 18. We
have sent also the brother, who is honoured by all, and in addition has been
chosen by the churches as our associate in this matter, inasmuch as we thereby
avoid this, that no one, etc. Riickert (comp. de Wette) arbitrarily, because
with unnecessary harshness, holds that Paul has abandoned the construc-
tion, and instead of writing στελλόμεϑα yap, has put the participle, because
he had had in his mind the thought: ‘‘I have caused him to be elected.”
Hofmann connects it in an abnormal construction with προϑυμ. ἡμῶν, which
in itself would be admissible (see on i. 7), but cannot suit here, because
πρὸς τ. προϑυμ. yu. Was a definition of the aim contemplated not by Paul,
but by the χειροτονήσαντες ; the connection would be illogical.—According
to linguistic usage, στελλόμενοι τοῦτο (see Kypke, Obss. II. p. 259 f., 344 ;
Schott on 2 Thess. p. 271) may mean : (1) making this arrangemevt? (so, in
1 Riickert, though following likewise our
mode of connection, holds that to the δόξα
κυρίου this companionship could only have
contributed negatively, in so far as it wasa
precaution against any suspicion falling on
the apostle, which suspicion—according to
a mode of view also Pauline—would have
been transferred to Christ. Why, then, not
positively also? The brother had in fact
been chosen as a travelling associate co-
operating in the work of collection, so that
by his election the work might be prose-
cuted more extensively and more success
fully. And thus the choice of this brother
served positively to glorify Christ; hence
also πρὸς... δόξαν is not to be held, with de
Wette, as ‘‘ rather unsuitable.”
2 In this case τοῦτο would not have to be
taken as equivalent to ἐπὶ τοῦτο (preparing
ourselves for this), but as simple accusative
594 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the main, Kypke, Riickert, Hofmann), in which case there is not brought
out any significant bearing of the words, and besides, the qorist participle
could not but be expected ; or (2) inasmuch as we draw back from this,
shrink from and avoid this (Hesychius : στέλλεσθαι φοβεῖσϑαι); so Chrysos-
tom, Theophylact, Luther, and most, following the Itala and Vulgate :
‘* devitantes,” Gothic : ‘‘ bivandjandans.” Comp. LXX. Mal. ii. 5. The
latter is to be preferred as most appropriate in the connection, and agreeing
with 2 Thess. iii. 6. The reading ὑποστελλόμενοι in F G is a correct gloss.
Paul in his humility and practical wisdom did not deem it beneath his dig-
nity to, obviate calumnies. —roiro] would in itself be superfluous, but it
serves as an emphatic preparation for the following μή τις x.7.A. See Winer,
p. 152 [E. T. 200]. — μή τις ἡμᾶς μωμήσ.] μή after the notion of anxiety
(Baeumlein, Partik. p. 288), which lies in στελλόμ. : that no one may reproach
us (as if we were embezzling, not dealing conscientiously with the distribu-
tion, and the like) im this abundance. —év| in puncto of this abundance,
Comp. ἐν τῷ evayy., ver. 18 ; ἐν τῇ χάρ., ver. 19. — ἁδρότης, from ἁδρός, dense,
thick, means in Homer (71. xxii. 263, xvi. 857, xxiv. 6): ‘‘ habitudo corporis
firma et succulenta,” Duncan, Jez., ed. Rost, p. 20. Afterwards it occurs
in all relations of the adjective, as in reference to plants and fruits (The-
ophr., Herod. i. 17), to speech (Diog. Laert. x. 83), to tone (Athen. x. p.
415 A), to snow (Herod. iv. 31); etc. Hence what abundance is meant, is
determined solely by the context. Here : abundance of charitable gifts.
According to Wetstein, Zosimus has it also four times ‘‘ pro ingenti largiti-
one,” Riickert’s proposal to understand it of the great zeal of the contributors,
which was produced through the apostle’s ministry(rj diak. ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν), would
only be admissible in the event of there being anything in the context about
such zeal. As it is, however, ἐν τῇ adp. ταύτῃ is in substance the same as
ἐν TH χάριτι ταύτῃ in ver. 19. Comp. ver. 3.
Ver. 21. Ground of this precautionary measure. For owr anwiety is directed
to what is good, not merely before the Lord, not merely so that we set before
us God in this way (Prov. iii. 4), but also before men. Comp. on Rom. xii.
17. Were it merely the former, we should not need such precautionary
measures, since to God we πεφανερώμεϑα, v. 11 ; but ‘‘propter alios fama
necessaria est,” Augustine. (c°) The misuse of the latter consideration is
guarded against by ἐνώπ. κυρίου. --- προνοεῖν, prospicere, also in the active ;
comp. Plato, Clit. Ὁ. 408 E ; Xen. Mem. ii. 10.3; Aelian, V. H. ii. 21 ;
Wisd. vi. 7 ; Hesych.: προνοεῖ᾿ ἐπιμελεῖται. ---- For analogous Rabbinical say-
ings, see Wetstein.
Ver. 22. Commendatory mention of the second companion. — αὐτοῖς] with
Titus and the brother already spoken of. — τὸν adeAd. ἡμ.} This one, too, we
do not know by name. Ἡμῶν does not point to him as in official relation to
the apostle and Timothy, but denotes him as a Christian brother (see ver. 23),
so that the ἡμῶν embraces also the readers. Conjecture has lighted (but see
previously on ver. 18) on Hpaenetus, Rom. xvi. 5 (Grotius), on Apollos
of the object, as in Polyb. ix. 24. 4: πορείαν Wisd. xiv. 1; 2 Mace. v. 1 Comp. Blom-
ἐπενόει στέλλεσϑαι. Arrian, An. v. 17. 4; field, Gloss. in Aesch. Pers. Ὁ. 157 f.
CHAP. VIII., 23. 595
(Thomas, Lyra, and mentioned already in Theodoret) on Luke (Calvin and
also Estius, who, however, does not discountenance the conjecture of Zenas,
Tit. iii. 18, and Sosthenes), and even on Timothy (Cajetanus) and others.
Wieseler (comp. on ver. 18) understands it of Tychiews, and to this Hof-
mann also is inclined. The very plural ἡμῶν should have precluded Riickert
from thinking of an actual brother of the apostle ; see also on ver, 18. —
ἐν πολλοῖς πολλάκις] goes with édox.: in many things many times. See on
this collocation, Lobeck, Paral. p. 56. — νυνὶ δὲ πολὺ σπουδαιότερον πεποιϑ.
x.T.A.] vvvé stands in contrast with the previous ἐδοκιμ. ἐν πολλοῖς πολλάκις :
now, however, as much more zealous (than in the earlier cases) through the great
confidence which he reposes in you. A high degree of good confidence in you
has now increased very much his zeal. Others understand πεποιϑήσει k.7.2.
of Paul’s confidence, connecting it either with πολὺ σπουδαιότ. (Erasmus, Beza,
Piscator, and others) or with συνεπέμψαμεν (Estius, Emmerling : ‘‘ sperans ut
bene a vobis excipiantur”). The latter is an inappropriate departure from
the order of the words, depriving πολὺ σπουδαιότερον of the ground assigned
for it (and how delicately is its ground assigned by this very πεποιϑ.
x.7.a.!); and the former must necessarily have been denoted by a personal
pronoun added to πεποιϑ.
Ver. 23 f. Summary closing recommendation of all the three delegates. —
εἶτε ὑπὲρ Titov] 86. λέγω or γράφω. Be it that I speak on behalf of Titus, he is
my associate and (especially) in regard to you m, fellow-worker, and my inter-
cession is thus made with good reason. — εἶτε ἀδελφοὶ ἡμῶν] be it that they are
brothers of ours, namely, for whom I speak, they are delegates of churches,' an
honour to Christ, people, whose personal character and working redound to
Christ’s honour. The words to be supplied with εἴτε in both cases would oc-
cur of themselves to the reader of the incomplete passage. Comp. Fritzsche,
ad Rom. 111. p. 47 f. Observe, however, that ἀδελφοὶ ἡμῶν is predicative, and
therewith qualitative ; hence the absence of the article appears to be strictly
regular,” denoting the category to which the subjects meant in this second
half of the verse belong, and therefore neither unsuitable (Riickert) nor yet
erroneous (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 76 [E. T. 87]; comp. Hofmann). — ἡμῶν]
as in ver. 22. The distinguishing of the two others from Titus, who holds
a higher position, by the qualitative ἀδελφοὶ ἡμῶν, shows that ἀδελφοί are not
official associates. Sucha one Titus was ; the two others, however, were only
distinguished church-members—as it were, lay brothers commissioned ad
hoc, the one by the churches, the other by Paul.
1 In so far as they did not come as private
persons, but as agents in the business of the
church, as which they were appointed partly
by destination of the apostle (namely, the
second of the brethren), partly by the choice
of the Macedonian churches (the first of the
brethren, ver. 18 f.).
2 This absence of the article has led Hof-
mann wrongly to take all the nominatives
in ver. 23 as subjects, but ὑπὲρ Τίτου as a
parenthesis (‘‘ which holds true of Titus’),
and then οὖν in yer. 24 as the οὖν of the
apodosis. A groundless artificial construc-
tion, in which the awkward and unprece-
dented parenthesis (Paul would have said
something like Τίτον δὲ λέγω, and that after
συνεργός, comp. 1 Cor. x. 29; John vi. 71)
would be simply superfluous in the highest
degree, since, if κοινωνὸς x.7.A. is the subject,
the person thereby indicated would be self-
evident. Just as uncalled for here after the
short alleged protasis would be the epan-
aleptic οὖν of the apodosis. Comp. on Rom.
ii. 17-24,
596 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Ver. 24. According to the Recepta, ἐνδείξασϑε is here a direct exhortation,
in conformity with the points adduced in ver. 23 (οὖν), to furnish towards
those three (εἰς αὐτούς) the demonstration (τὴν vd.) of their love, etc., which
demonstration of love is shown to the churches that were represented by
them (εἰς πρόσωπ.). Since, however, the Recepta isa gloss (see the critical
remarks), and ἐνδεικνύμενοι is the correct reading, we have here an indirect ex-
hortation, which puts the matter as a point of honour, and so touches the
readers more effectively, without directly making a demand on them.
‘* When you accordingly show towards them the demonstration of your love and
of what we have boasted regarding you, you do it in presence of the churches.”
In this way εἰς αὐτούς and εἰς πρόσωπον τῶν éxx?, emphatically correspond with
each other, and after the participle évdeccv. the second person of the present
indicative of the same verb is to be supplied. Comp. Soph. 0. C. 520; ΕἸ.
1428 (1434): τὰ πρὶν εὖ ϑέμενοι τάδ᾽ ὡς πάλιν, 8c. εὖ ϑῆσϑε. See Schneidewin in
foc., and, in general, Doederl. de brachyl. 1831, p. 10 f.; also Dissen, ad Dem.
de Cor. 190, p. 359. We might also simply supply the imperative ἐστέ with
ἐνδεικν. (See on Rom. xii. 9), so that also with this reading there would be a
direct, stern summons. But with the former interpretation the contextually
appropriate emphasis of εἰς πρόσωπον τῶν ἐκκλ. Comes out more strongly and
more independently. — On points of detail we may further observe—(1) The
οὖν does not draw the inference simply from the second half of ver. 23, but
from both halves, since the exclusion of reference to Titus is not warranted
by εἰς πρόσωπ. τ. ἐκκλ., Which, in fact, suits all three together, and ἡμῶν καυ-
χησέως x.t.2. includes specially a glance at the apostle’s relation to Titus ;
comp. ver. 6, vii. 14. (2) Πρόσωπον is here also not (see oni. 11) person, which
would be against the usage of the N. T., and, besides, in the singular would
be unsuitable here ; but εἰς πρόσωπον means to the face, i.e. coram in the sense
of the direction. 'The conception, namely, which Paul wishes to excite in
the minds of his readers, is this, that in those three men they have to think
of the churches themselves, whose instruments these men are in the matter
of the collection, as present and as witnesses of the demonstrations of love
that fall to the share of the representatives, and to measure their demeanour
towards them accordingly. According to this view, every evidence of love,
which is shown to these men, comes, when it takes place, before the eyes of
the churches (ideally present in the case), The churches stand by and look
on. (3) τῆς ἀγάπης iy. is not the love to Paul (Grotius, Billroth, de Wette,
Ewald, and others, following Chrysostom and Theophylact), but the Chris-
tian brotherly love, which thereupon has its definite object marked out by εἰς
avtovc. —On τὴν ἔνδειξιν ἐνδείκνυσϑαι, comp. Plat. Legg. 12, p. 966 B. The
demonstration of the boasting : namely, how true it was. Comp. vii. 14.
Norres py American Eprror.
(0) ‘Deep poverty.’’ Ver. 2.
That this phrase is not a figure of speech appears from what is said in Ar-
nold’s ‘‘Roman Commonwealth” : ‘‘ The condition of Greece in the time of
Augustus was one of desolation and distress... . It had suffered severely by
NOTES. < 9%
being the seat of the successive civil wars between Cesar and Pompey, between
the Triumvirs and Brutus and Cassius, and lastly, between Augustus and An-
tonius. Besides, the country had never recovered from the long series of mis-
eries which had succeeded and accompanied its conquest by the Romans ; and
between those times and the civil contest between Pompey and Cesar, it had
been again exposed to all the evils of war when Sylla was disputing the pos-
session of it with the general of Mithridates. . . . The provinces of Macedonia
and Achaia, when they petitioned for a diminution of their burdens in the reign
of Tiberius, were considered so deserving of compassion that they were trans-
ferred for a time from the jurisdiction of the Senate to that of the Emperor’
[as involving less heavy taxation].
(v®) ““ Singleness of heart.’’ Ver. 2.
Dr. Meyer adheres to the original and natural meaning of the word, which,
however, both in the A. V. and in the Revision, is rendered “liberality,’’ and
justly, if a single word is to be employed. Doubtless it expresses both the
quality and the quantity of the gifts, or it may be that the generic term is em-
ployed for one of its specific manifestations.
(Ὁ) ‘*(They gave) of their own accord.” Ver. 3.
The Authorized Version renders this clause, ‘‘ they were willing of them-
selves” ; but this is not what the Apostle says. He speaks not of will, but of
deed, and the correct rendering, quoted above and found in the Revision, is
sustained by all authorities.
(x5) ““ The sincerity of your love.’’ Ver. 8.
Almsgiving, in obedience to a command or to satisfy conscience, is not an act
of liberality. What is not spontaneous is not liberal. Paul therefore would
not coerce the Corinthians by a command. The real test of the genuineness of
any inward affection is not so much the character of the feeling as it reveals
itself in our consciousness, as the course of action to which it leads. Many per-
sons, if they judge themselves by their feelings, would regard themselves as
truly compassionate ; but a judgment founded on their acts would lead to the
opposite conclusion (Hodge).
(x5) ** Became poor.” Ver. 9.
Dr. Meyer is undoubtedly right in rendering the verb thus, and in explaining
it to refer not to our Lord’s outward poverty during his earthly life, but to the
kenosis, the self-impoverishment in laying aside the glory of His divine majes-
ty. Indeed, the connection requires this, for what Paul quotes the case for is
not Christ's remaining in the poverty He had on earth, but His relinquishing
the riches He had in heaven, and a similar renunciation was what He asked of
the Corinthians.
(z5) ““ Perform the doing of it.” Ver. 11.
This awkward and tautologous expression is well replaced in the Revision
by the more accurate ‘‘ complete the doing of it.”
598 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(a°) ** That there may be equality.” Ver. 14.
This is not communism. The New Testament teaches (1) that all giving is
voluntary, A man’s property is his own. It is indeed a moral duty for him
to give to the needy, but this is one of those duties which others cannot en-
force as aright belonging to them. (2) The end of giving is to relieve neces-
sities. The equality, therefore, that is aimed at is not an equality as to the
amount of property, but equal relief from the burden of want, as the whole
passage shows. (3) There is a special obligation to relieve fellow-Christians,
because they with us are members of Christ’s body, and because there is no
need to fear that the giving will encourage idleness or vice. (4) The poor
have no right to depend upon the benefactions of the rich. See 2 Thess, iii.
10. Thus the Scriptures avoid the injustice of agrarian communism, and also
the heartless disregard of the poor. Were these principles carried out, there
would be among Christians neither idleness nor want (Hodge).
(B®) ‘* God which putteth the same earnest care.” Ver. 16.
The Apostle attributes the zeal of Titus to God, yet we cannot doubt that
this zeal was the spontaneous effusion of his own heart, and an index and ele-
ment of his character. The instance shows therefore that God can and does
control the inward acts and feelings of men without interfering either with
their liberty or their responsibility.
(c*) Regard for appearances, Ver. 21.
There is great practical wisdom and a very useful lesson in this verse.
There is no sense in trifling with one’s reputation. ‘* We are bound to act in
such a way that not only God, who sees the heart and knows all things, may
approve our conduct, but also so that men may be constrained to recognize
our integrity.” Hence the Apostle prevented all misrepresentation by having
another brother to join in the distribution of the money and audit the accounts.
OHA PIRI, ts - 699
CHAPTER IX.
Ver. 2. ἐξ ὑμῶν] BC &, min. Ambrosiast. Pelag. and several vss. have only
ὑμῶν. So also Lachm. and Rick. But ἐξ was not understood and was found
superfluous. Why should it be added? — Ver. 4. After ταύτῃ Elz. has τῆς
καυχήσεως, in opposition to Β Ο D* F G &* min.‘and several vss. and Fathers.
An addition by way of gloss from xi. 17. — Ver. 5. The readings πρὸς ὑμᾶς and
προεπηγγελμένην (Lachm. Riick.; Tisch. has adopted only the latter) have
preponderant, and the latter through the accession of C δὲ decisive, attestation ;
mpoernyy. is also to be preferred on this account, that tpoxaryyy. might very
easily arise through alliteration after the previous mpoxataptic. Reiche has un-
satisfactorily defended the Recepta εἰς (which crept in easily from viii. 6) and
mpoxatnyy. — Ver. 7. προαιρεῖται] Lachm. Riick. read προήρηται, following
BCFG 831, Chrys. ms. Cypr. Aug. Pel. and several vss. But the sense:
prout destinavit, presented itself to the not further reflecting copyists as so
natural, that with the similarity of the two forms the present might drop out
far more easily than come in.— Ver. 8. δυνατός Lach. and Riick. read δυνατεῖ.
It has, indeed, the attestation of BC* D* FG (Ὁ δὲ; but if δυνατεῖ were
the original reading, the gloss would not have been δυνατός simply, but δυνατός
ἐστι, as in Rom. xiv. 4. or δύναται. --- Ver. 10. σπέρμα] B D* F G 80, have
σπόρον. So Lachm. and Riick. Occasioned by the thought of the σπόρον
following. — χορηγῆσει. . . πληθυνεῖ. . . αὐξήσει] Elz. has χορηγῆσαι...
πληθύναι. . . avéjoat, in opposition to B Ο ἘΞ FG δὲ, min. Syr. Arr. Copt.
Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Cyr. Cypr. Ambrosiast. Aug. The future was wrongly
taken in the sense of wish, and accordingly, aided perhaps by the recollection
of such passages as 1 Thess. iii. 11, 12 ; 2 Thess. ii. 17, iii. 5, was changed into
the optative.' So also in Rom. xvi. 20, instead of συντρίψει, συντρίψαι crept
into A, vss. and Fathers. — Ver. 15. dé after χάρις is, with Lachm. and Tisch.,
to be deleted on preponderating evidence.
ConTEnts.— By a delicate turn in vv. 1 and 2 Paul begins once more from
the work of collection, and impresses on his readers : (1) that they should
make ready the bounty soon, before his arrival, vv. 3-5 : further, (2) that they
should give amply, vv. 5 and 6 ; and (3) that they should give with all will-
ingness, ver. 7 ; Whereupon (4) he points them to the blessing of God,
vv. 8-11, and, finally, brings into prominence the religious consequence
of the thanksgivings towards God, which their beneficence will call forth, vv.
12-14. An utterance of thanks to God forms the conclusion, ver. 15.
Ver. 1. Since the γάρ connects the verse with what precedes, not only does
the opinion of Selmer, that chap. ix: contains a separate Epistle, fall to the
1¥or that these forms are not injinitives, is abundantly shown in Fritzsche, Diss. II.
p. 82 ff.
600 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ground, but also the hypothesis, that Paul writes as if he were beginning a
new topic,—on the basis of which, e.g. Emmerling (comp. Neander) thinks
that between the composition of chap. viii. and that of chap. ix. a consid-
erable time had elapsed. Against this may be urged also the fact that in
new sections he does not begin with περὶ μέν, but with περὶ dé (1 Cor. vii.
1, viii. 1, xii. 1, xvi. 1). Estius is right in saying that the apostle speci-
fies with yap the reason why he, in what goes before (viii. 24), had
exhorted them not to collecting, but to affectionate receiving of the
brethren. Comp. Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 21: ‘‘ Laute excipite fratres, id
moneo (Vill. 24) ; nam praeter rem ad liberalitatem denuo quidem provocarem
ad eam jam propensos homines,” ver. 3. So also Schott, Isag. p. 240 ; Bill-
roth, Riickert, Olshausen, Osiander ; but there is no indication of a contrast
with the Gentile-Christian churches (as if the ἅγιοι were the ἐκκλησία κατ᾽
ἐξοχήν), although Hofmann imports it. — μέν] To this the dé in ver. 3 corre-
sponds. See on that passage. The counter-remark of de Wette (who,
with Osiander and Neander, takes the μέν as solitarium), that dé in ver. 3
makes a contrast with ver. 2, does not hold good, since the contrast is
quite as suitable to ver. 1 (though having respect to what is said in ver.
2). Even in classic writers (often in Thucyd.) the clauses correspond-
ing to each other with μέν and δέ are found separated by intervening
clauses. See Kiihner, II. p. 438. --- τῆς διακονίας τῆς εἰς τ. ἀγ.} aS in vill. 4.
Beza is incorrect (see ver. 2) in saying that the bringing over only is meant.
The word itself corresponds to the idea of Christian fellowship in love, in
which the mutual activity of love is a constant debitum ministerium (Rom.
xiii. 8 ; Heb. vi. 10; 1 Pet. iv. 10), after the example of Christ (Matt. xx.
28 ; Luke xxii. 26 f.). Comp. Gal. v. 13. — περισσὸν poi ἐστι] ἐ.6. I do not
need writing, namely, to effect my object. — τὸ γράφειν] with article, because
the writing is regarded as actual subject.
Remarxk.—Certainly Paul has written of the collection both in chap, vili. and
again in what follows ; and he meant it so, otherwise he would have ended the
section with chap. viii. But he delicately makes a rhetorical turn, so that, in
order to spare the readers’ sense of honour, he seems not to take up the subject
again, but to speak only of the sending of the brethren; and he annexes to
that what he intends still to insert regarding the matter itself. Σοφῶς δὲ τοῦτο
ποιεῖ, ὦστε μᾶλλον αὐτοὺς ἐπισπάσασθαι. Theophylact and Chrysostom. Proba-
bly, when he wrote viii. 24, he meant to close the section with it, but—perhaps
after reading over chap. viii. again—was induced to add something, which he
did in this polite fashion (τῇ τοιαύτῃ τῶν λόγων μεθόδῳ, Theodoret). Hofmann’s
idea—that recommendation of the collection itself was superfluous, but that there
had been delay in carrying it out, ete.—is quite in accordance certainly
with vv. 1-5, but from ver. 5 to the end of the chapter there again follow
instructions and promises, which belong essentially to the recommendation
of the collection itself.
Ver. 2. Τὴν προϑυμ. ὑμῶν] Riickert infers from the whole contents of the
two chapters that the inclination is only asswmed as still existing, and no
longer existed in reality ; but his inference is unjust, and at variance with
COS Wn. ee . 601
the apostle’s character. Already, ἀπὸ πέρυσι (vill. 10) have the readers begun
to collect, and the work of love, in fact, needed only the carrying out,
which Paul intends by chap. viii. and ix. to procure. — jv ὑπὲρ iu. καυχ.
Maxed. | of which I make my boast in your favour (in your recommendation)
to the Macedonians ; for the Corinthians were made by Paul to favour the
collection. On καυχάομαι, with the accusative of the object, comp. vii. 14,
x. 8, xi1.30 ; LXX. Prov. xxvii. 1 ; Lucian, Ocyp. 120 ; Athen. xiv. p. 627C.
On the present Bengel rightly remarks : ‘‘ Adhuc erat P. in Macedonia.” —
ὅτι ᾿Αχαΐα παρεσκ. ἀπὸ πέρυσι] SO ran the καυχῶμαι : that Achaia has been in
readiness (to give pecuniary aid to promote it) since the previous year. Paul
says ’Ayaia, not ὑμεῖς (comp. ver. 3), because he repeats words actually used
by him. These concerned not only Corinth, but the whole province, in
which, however, the Corinthian was the central church. Comp. oni. 1.—
καὶ ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν ζῆλος ' κιτ.λ.} is, by way of attraction, an expression of the
thought : your zeal wrought forth from you as stimulating to them. Comp.
from the N. T. Matt. xxiv. 17 ; Luke xi. 18. See on Matt. 1.6. and Her-
mann, ad Viger. Ὁ. 893 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 1. ὅ. --- τοὺς πλείονας]
the majority of the Macedonians, so that only the minority remained unin-
fluenced.
RemarK.—Paul might with perfect truth stimulate (1) the Macedonians
by the zeal of the Corinthians, because the latter had begun the work earlier
than the former, and were already ἀπὸ πέρυσι in readiness ; and then (2) the
Corinthians, again, by the example ot the Macedonians (viii. 1 ff.), since the
latter, after having followed the Corinthians in the prosecution of the work,
had shown such extraordinary activity as in turn to serve the Corinthians
a model and a stimulus to further beneficence. Is itnot possible that in the
very same affair first A should be held up as a model to B, and then, according
to the measure of the success, conversely B to A? Hence Theodoret and
many (comp. also Chrysostom) have rightly remarked on the wisdom in the
apostle’s conduct ; whereas Riickert declares this conduct of his to be unwise
(of its morality he prefers to be silent), unjustly taking it for granted that his
καυχᾶσθαι regarding the Corinthians was untrue. See vii. 14. De Wette also
thinks that the apostle is not free from human error here. (p°)— That in
αὐθαίρετοι, at vili. 3, there is no contradiction with ix. 2, see on viii. 3.
Ver. 3. Connection: Although in regard to the collection I do not need to
write to you, and that for the reason stated in ver. 2, Ihave yet not been able
to omit the sending of the brethren for this purpose, in order that, etc. Paul
by this would direct attention not to the general object of this mission, but
to the special one of having all things ready before his arrival. See what
follows. Onyév .. . dé, which may often be translated etsi . . . tamen,
comp. Xen. Anab. ii. 3. 10, and Kiihner in loc. The same is more strongly
1 The form τὸ ζῆλος is found here in BN though it really occurs in Clem. Cor. i. 4
(Lachm. ed. min.) ; it has much stronger at- (thrice) and 6, and Ignatius, 77ail. 4 (Dressel),
testation in Phil. iii. 6. Running counter to and hence was doubtless known to the
the usage of the whole N. T., it must be copyists.
considered as an error of the copyists,
602 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
expressed by μὲν... «ὅμως δέ, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 11. p. 76, or pév.. «
μέντοι, Viger. p. 536. — τοὺς ἀδελφούς] Titus and the two others, viii. 17 ff. —
τὸ καύχημα nuav τὸ ὑπὲρ bu.| on account of the following ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ,
which first adds the special reference to the general, is not to be understood
of the special καυχᾶσϑαι described in ver. 2, but is to be taken generally: in
order that that, of which we boast on your behalf (καύχημα is here materies glori-
andi, and not equivalent to καύχησις), might not become empty (1 Cor. ix. 15),
i.e. might not be found without reality in this point, in the matter of the
collection,—if, namely, on our arrival it should be found that your benevo-
lent activity had come to a standstill or become retrograde. See ver. 4. In
the addition ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ (comp. iii. 10) there lies an ‘‘acris cum tacita
laude exhortatio” (Estius) ; for Paul has not a similar anxiety in respect to
other sides of the καύχημα (comp. vii. 4). Billroth considers ἐν τ. μέρει τ. as
pointing to ver. 4, and takes τὸ καύχημα x.7.A. of the special boast in ver. 2 :
‘‘in this respect, namely, inasmuch as, if Macedonians come with me. . . we
. are put to shame.” Involved, because iva cada . . . ἦτε lies between ;
and at variance with the parallel ἑν τῇ ὑποστάσει ταύτῃ of ver. 4. —iva καϑὼς
x.7.4.] forms, with the following μήπως x.7.2., a positive parallel to the
previous negative ἵνα μὴ τὸ καύχημα... τούτῳ. Comp. on iva repeated in
parallel clauses, Rom. vii. 13 ; Gal. iii. 14, iv. 5.
Ver. 4. Lest perhaps, etc.; this is to be guarded against by the παρεσκευασ-
μένοι ἧτε. -- ἐὰν ἔλϑωσι k.t.2.] if there shall have come, etc., namely, as giving
escort after the fashion of the ancient church. See Acts xvii. 14, 15, al.; 2
Cor. i. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 6; Rom. xv. 24. — Μακεδόνες] Macedonians without
the article. — ἀπαρασκευάστους] not in readiness (often in Xen., as Anab. i. 5.
9) ; ἀπαράσκευος is more frequent, and the two words are often interchanged
in the mss.; see Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. i. 1.6. Here it is equivalent
to : so that you are not ready to hand over the money ; the expression is
purposely chosen in reference to ver. 3. ---- ἐμεῖς] see ver. 3. But because this
being put to shame in the case supposed would have involved the Corin-
thians as its originators, Paul with tender delicacy (not serene pleasantry,
as Olshausen thinks), moving the sense of honour of the readers, adds par-
enthetically : iva μὴ λέγωμεν ὑμεῖς. --- ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει ταύτῃ] in respect of this
confidence, according to which we have maintained that you were in readi-
ness. Comp. xi. 17; Heb. iii. 14, xi. 1; LXX. Ps. xxxix. 7; Hzek. max.
δ; Ruth i. 12 ; and passages in Wetstein ; Suicer, Thes. II. p. 1398. So
Calvin, Beza, Erasmus Schmid, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, and
others, including de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann. But others take it as
quite equivalent to ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ, ver. 38 : in hac materia, in hoc argumento
(gloriationis). Comp. Vulgate : in hac substantia. So Chrysostom, Theophy-
lact, Erasmus, Castalio, Estius, Kypke, Munthe, and others, including
Schrader, Riickert, Olshausen, Ewald. Linguistically correct, no doubt
(Polyb. iv. 2. 1; Casaubon, ad Polyb. i. 5. 3, p. 111 ; Diodorus, i. 3 ; comp.
also Heb. i. 8, and Bleek, Heb. Br. Il. 1, p. 61 f.), but here a point quite
unnecessary to be mentioned. And why should we depart from the mean-
ing : confidence, when this is certain in the usage of the N. T., and here, as
at xi. 17, is strikingly appropriate ? The insertion of iva μὴ 4. ὑμεῖς forms
CHAP, ΧΟ 25, Ὁ: ᾿ς 603
no objection (this in opposition to Riickert), since certainly the putting to
shame of the apostle in regard to his confidence would have been laid to
the blame of the Corinthians, because they would have frustrated this con.
fidence ; hence there is not even ground for referring that insertion merely
to καταισχ. exclusive of ἐν τ. ὑποστ. τ. (Hofmann). Lastly, the explanation
of Grotius: in hoe fundamento meae jactationis, has likewise, doubtless,
some support in linguistic usage (Diodor. i. 66, xiii. 82, al. ; LXX. Ps. lxix.
2; Jer. xxiii. 22, al.), but falls to the ground, because τῆς καυχ. is not gen-
uine.
Ver. 5. Οὖν] in pursuance of what was said in ver. 4. —iva] comp. viii.
6. — xpoéA3.] namely, before my arrival and that of the Macedonians pos-
sibly accompanying me. The thrice-repeated xpo- is not used by accident,
but adds point to the instigation to have everything ready before the apos-
tle’s arrival. — rpoxaraprio. | adjusted beforehand, put into complete order before-
hand, Hippocr. p. 24, 10, 18. — τὴν προεπηγγελμένην εὐλογίαν ὑμῶν] your bless-
ing promised beforehand (by me). See vv. 2-4. On προεπ., comp. Rom.
i. 2. Erasmus, Estius, Riickert, and some others at variance with the
context, take it : the blessing formerly promised py you. — εὐλογία is a char-
acteristically conciliatory («ai τῇ προσηγορίᾳ αὐτοὺς ἐπεσπάσατο, Chrysostom)
designation of the collection, inasmuch as it is for the receivers a practical
blessing proceeding from the givers (1.6. πληϑυσμὸς ἀγαϑῶν ἐξ ἑκουσιότητος,
διδόμενος, Phavor.). Comp. on εὐλογία in the sense of good deed, LXX.
Gen. xxxiii. 11 ; Judg. i. 15 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 26 ; Ecclus. xxxix. 22 ; Wisd.
xv. 19; Eph. i. 8. --- ταύτην ἑτοίμην εἶναι οὕτως ὡς x.t.A.] the intended conse-
quence of προκαταρτ. τ. προεπ. evA. ὑμῶν, so that the infinitive in the sense of
ὥστε (Kiihner, II. p. 565, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 5. 3) and ταύτην, which attaches
itself more emphatically to what has to come than to what goes before
(Hofmann), are used anaphorically (Bernhardy, p. 283) : that this may be in
readiness thus like blessing and not like covetousness, in such manner that it
may have the quality of blessing, not of covetousness ; in other words, that
it may be liberal, which is the character of εὐλογία, and not sparing, as οου-
etousness shows itself in giving. Πλεονεξία does not mean here or anywhere
else parsimony (Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, and many others); but Paul con-
ceives of the sparing giver as covetous, in so far as such a man desires him-
self to have that which he contributes, in order to increase his own, and there-
fore gives but very scantily. Following Chrysostom (comp. Erasmus,
Paraphr. and Beza), Billroth refers πλεονεξία to Paul and his colleagues:
‘‘Your gift is to be a free, and not an extorted, one.” Against this may
be urged as well the analogy of ὡς εὐλογίαν, as also ver. 6, where the mean-
ing of ὡς πλεονεξ. is represented by φειδομένως ; hence also we must not, with
Riickert and others, combine the ideas of willingly and wnwillingly (which
are not mentioned till ver. 7) with those of giving liberally and sparingly.
—(E°). On οὕτως after its adjective, see Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 500 A.
Ver. 6. Allusion to the Messianic recompense. Chrysostom aptly remarks :
καὶ σπόρον τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐκάλεσεν, iva εὐϑέως πρὸς τὴν ἀντίδοσιν ἴδῃς Kai τὸν ἀμητὸν
ἐννοήσας μάϑῃς ὅτι πλείονα λαμβάνεις ἢ δίδως. The δέ is continuative, not
restrictive, as Billroth thinks (‘‘ but so much know”), since the subsequen&
604 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ἐπ’ εὐλογίαις proves that in ver. 6 exactly the same two kinds of giving are
expressed as in ver. 5.— τοῦτο δὲ] after Chrysostom and the Vulgate, is
explained by the expositors supplying a λέγω or ἰστέον. But with what
warrant from the context ὃ Beza already made the admission : ‘‘ quamvis
haec ellipsis Graeco sermoni sit inusitata.” Comp. Gal. iii. 17 ; 1 Thess.
iv. 17; 1 Cor. vii. 29, al., where Paul adds the verb of saying. Even the
comparison of Phil. iii, 14, where, in fact, to the ἕν dé its verb is brought
from the context, does not settle the question of the asyndetic τοῦτο (in
opposition to Hofmann). Τοῦτο might be regarded as the object of σπείρων ;
but in that case there would result for τοῦτο an inappropriate emphasis (this
kind of seed), seeing that a σπεῖρειν was not mentioned before, and the figure
here comesinasnew. Hence τοῦτο may be regarded as accusative absolute (see
on vi. 13), taking up again with special weight what was just said, in order
to attach to it something further : Now as concerns this, namely, this ὡς
εὐλογίαν, κ. μὴ ὡς πλεονεξίαν, it is the case that, etc. Lachmann placed ὁ
σπείρων... ἐπ’ evdoy. x. ϑερίσει in a parenthesis. This would require us to
supply faciat after ἕκαστος, or even the more definite det (from δότην in ver.
7). But it would be unsuitable to assign to the important thought of ver. 6
merely the place of a parenthetic idea. — φειδομένως] in a sparing way (Plut.
Al. 25), so that he scatters only parsimoniously, narrowly, and scantily.
But in φειδομένως x. ϑερίσει the one who spares and holds back is the giver εἰ
the harvest, i.e. apart from figure : Christ the bestower of the Messianic salva-
tion, who gives to the man in question only the corresponding lesser degrec
of blessedness. Comp. v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10; Gal. vi. 7. —ém’ εὐλογίαις]
denotes the relation occurring in the case (Matthiae, p. 1370 f. ; Fritzsche,
ad Rom. I. p. 315) : with blessings, which, namely, he, when sowing, imparts,
and in turn receives when reaping, ὁ.6. according to the context, richly.
Comp. ver. 5. In the reaping Christis likewise the distributor of blessings,
bestowing on him, who has sowed in a blessed way, the appropriate great re-
ward in Messianic blessedness. On the whole figure, comp. Prov. xi. 24, xxii.
8; Ps. exii. 9; Gal. vi. 8, 9. The plural strengthens the idea of richness,
denoting its manifold kinds and shapes, etc. Maetzner, ad Lycurg. Ὁ. 144f.).
The juxtaposition also serves as strengthening : ἐπ᾽ εὐλογ., ἐπ’ evaoy. Comp.
on 1 Cor. vi. 4. The fact that the measwre of well-doing is conditioned by
one’s own means, is guarded already at viii. 12. Comp. in general, Matt.
xxv. 20 ff. See Calovius on this passage, in opposition to the misuse of it
by Roman Catholics as regards the merit of good works—the moral measure
of which, however, will, according to the divine saving decree, have as its
consequence merely different degrees of the blessedness won for believers
through Christ. The very nature of good works, which subjectively are the
fruits of faith and objectively the fruits of the divine preparation of grace
(Eph. ii. 10), excludes the idea of merit.’
Ver. 7. But Paul does not desire them to give richly against their will ;
hence the new evhortation : Let every one give freely and willingly ! — ἕκαστος
καϑὼς K.7.A.] as each one purposes it to himself in his heart, namely, let him give,
1 Comp, Weiss, δὲδι. Theol. p. 378 T.
CHAP. IXx., 8. δ;
—a supplement, which readily flows from the previous ὁ σπείρων ; comp. the
subsequent déryv. Let him give according to cordial, free, self-determination.
On τῇ Kapd., comp. τῇ ψυχῇ, Gen. xxxiv. 8. The present is used, because the
προαιρεῖσϑαι is conceived as only now emerging after the foregoing teaching.'
In προαιρέομαι (only here in the N. T., but often in the sense of resolving in
Greek writers ; comp. 2 Macc. vi. 9 ; 3 Macc. ii. 30, vi. 10 ; 4 Macc. ix. 1),
προ has the notion of the preference, which we give to that on which we
resolve, because the simple αἱρεῖσϑαι has the sense of sibi eligere, where it
likewise expresses a resolve or purpose (Xen. vii. 6. 87 ; Ages. ili. 4 ; Soph.
Ajax, 443 ; Isocrates, Panath. 185). Hence μᾶλλον also, though in itself
superfluous, may be added to προαιρεῖσϑαι (Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 2, iii. 5. 16, iv.
2. 9). — ἐκ λύπης ἢ ἐξ ἀνάγκης] The opposite of καϑὼς προαιρ. τ. καρ. : out of
sadness, namely, at having to lose something by the giving, or out of neces-
sity, because one thinks himself forced by circumstances and cannot do
otherwise (comp. Philem. 14). Ἔκ denotes the subjective state, out of which
the action proceeds. To the ἐκ λύπης stands contrasted ἐξ εὐμενῶν στέρνων,
Soph. Oed. C. 488 ; and to the ἐξ ἀνάγκης, the ἐκ θυμοῦ φιλέων, Hom. JI. ix.
486. ἱλαρὸν yap x.t.A.] Motive for complying with this precept. The em-
phasis is on ἱλαρόν, whereby the opposite, as the giving ἐκ λύπης and ἐξ ἀνάγκης,
is excluded from the love of God. Comp. Rom. xii. 8. The saying is from
LXX. Prov. xxii. 8, according to the reading : ἀγαπᾶ instead of εὐλογεῖ. Τύ
is wanting in our present Hebrew text. Comp. also Ecclus. xiv. 16, and
the Rabbinical passages in Wetstein ; Senec. de benef. ii. 1. 2: ‘‘in benefi-
cio jucundissimo est tribuentis voluntas.” Instead of δότης, δοτήρ or δωτήρ
only is found in classical authors ; in Hes. Op. 353, δώτης also. See in gen-
eral, Lobeck, Paralip. p. 428.
Ver. 8 ff. After Paul has aroused them to ample and willing giving, he
adds further the assurance, that God can bestow (vv. 8, 9), and will bestow
(vv. 10, 11) on them the means also for such beneficence. Finally, he sub-
joins the religious gain, which this work of contributing brings, ver. 11,
ἥτις κατεργάζεται x.T.A., On to ver. 14.
Ver. 8. The dé is continuative ; δυνατός, however, is with emphasis pre-
fixed, for the course of thought is : God has the power, and (ver. 10) He will
also doit. The discourse sets out from possibility, and passes over to reality. —
πᾶσαν χάριν] every showing of kindness. This refers to earthly blessing, by which
we have the means for beneficence ; see the sentence of aim, that follows.
Chrysostom correctly says : ἐμπλῆσαι ὑμᾶς τοσούτων ὡς δύνασϑαι περιττεύειν ἐν τῇ
φιλοτιμίᾳ ταύτῃ. 'Theodoret and Wolf, at variance with the context, hold that
it applies to spiritual blessings; Flatt and Osiander blessings of both kinds.—
meptooevoar|transitive : efficere ut largissime redundet in vos. See on iv. 15.—
ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε πᾶσαν] in all points at all times all, an energetic accumulation.
Comp. on Eph. v. 20 ; Phil. i. 8, 4. — πᾶσαν αὐτάρκειαν ἔχοντες] having every,
that is, all possible self-sufficing ; for this is the subjective condition, without
which we cannot, with all blessing of God, have abundance εἰς πᾶν ἔργον
1 The ϑέλειν, not yet taking definiteshape, _give, is conceived by Paul as occurring now,
already existed ἀπὸ πέρυσι ; but the definite after the readers have read ver. 6.
determination how much each desires to
606 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ἀγαϑόν. Hence Paul brings out so emphatically this necessary subjective require-
ment for attaining the purpose, which God connects with his objective blessing :
in order that you, as being in every case always quite self-contented, etc. Αὐτάρ-
xeca is not the sufficienter habere in the sense of external position, in which
no help from others is needed (as it is taken usually ; also by Emmerling,
Flatt, Riickert, Osiander), but rather (comp. Hofmann also) the subjective
frame of mind, in which we feel ourselves so contented with what we
ourselves have that we desire nothing from others,—the inward self-sufficing,
to which stands opposed the προσδεὲς ἄλλων (Plato, Tim. p. 33 D) and ἐπι-
ϑυμεῖν τῶν ἀλλοτρίων. Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 6 ; Phil. iv. 11, and the passages in
Wetstein. It is a moral quality (for which reason Paul could say so ear-
nestly ἐν παντὶ πάντ. rac., Without saying too much), may subsist amidst very
different external circumstances, and is not dependent on these,—which,
indeed, in its very nature, as τελειότης κτήσεως ἀγαϑῶν (Plato, Def. p. 412 B),
it cannot be. Comp. Dem. 450. 14 ; Polyb. vi. 48. 7 : πρὸς πᾶσαν περίστασιν
αὐτάρκης. ---- περισσεύητε εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ayadév| that you may have abundance
(comp. ἐν παντὶ πλουτιζόμενοι, ver. 11) for every good work (work of benefi-
cence ; comp. Acts ix. 36, and see Knapp, Opuse., ed. 1, p. 486 ff.). If
Riickert had not taken αὐτάρκεια in an objective sense at variance with the
notion, he would not have refined so much on zepioo., which he understands
as referring to the growth of the Corinthians themselves: ‘‘in order that you,
having at all times full sufficiency ... may become ever more diligent unto
every good work.” De Wette also refines on the word, taking the participial
clause of that, which in spite of the περισσεῦσαι takes place in the same :
‘* inasmuch as you have withal for yourselves quite enough,” which would pre-
sent a very external and selfish consideration to the reader, and that withal
expressed of set purpose so strongly !
Ver. 9 connects itself with περισσ. εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ayad. This περισσεύειν is
to exhibit the fulfilment of the Scripture saying in your case: LHe scattered,
He gave to the poor ;' His righteousness remains for ever. The quotation is
Ps. cxil. 9 (exactly after the LXX.), where the subject is ἀνὴρ ὁ φοβούμενος
τὸν κύριον. --- ἐσκόρπισεν] figurative description of the beneficent man, who
μετὰ δαψιλείας ἔδωκε, Chrysostom. Comp. Symmachus, Prov. xi. 24. Ben-
gel well says: ‘‘Verbum generosum: Spargere, plena manu, sine anxia
cogitatione, quorsum singula grana cadant.” But that Paul (not the orig-
inal) had in his view the image of strewing seed, is already probable from
ver. 6, and is confirmed by ver. 10 (in opposition to Hofmann). Regard-
ing the use in late Greek of the originally Ionic word, see Lobeck, ad Phryn.
p. 9318. -- ἡ δικαιοσύνη) is not, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Gro-
tius, Estius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Vater, Emmerling, and others, to be
taken as beneficence (Zachariae and Flatt have even : recompense), which it
never means, not even in Matt. vi. 1; but it always means righteousness,
1 Regarding the notion of πένης, which cant poverty, see Arist. Plut. 552f.; Stallb.
does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. (ὃ ἐκ ad Plat. Apol. p. 23 C. Regarding αὖος.
τόνου καὶ ἐνεργείας TO ζῆν ἔχων, Hiym. M.), and egenus, esuriens, see Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX.
its distinction from πτωχός, which among p. 431, XII. p. 465.
the Greeks expresses the notion of mendi-
CHAP. {πὶ 10: 607
which, however, may, according to the context, as here (comp. Tob. xiv.
11), be that which expresses itself by doing good. So also ΠΡῚΝ, which on
this account is often translated by ἐλεημοσύνη in the LXX. (see Gesen. Thes.
Ill. p. 1151 ; Buxt. Ler. Talm. Ὁ. 1890). The Christian moral righteous-
ness is beneficent through the love which comes from faith. Comp. Rom.
xii. 9, x. 13-15 ; Gal. v. 6. —péver εἰς τ. αἰῶνα] is, according to Paul, to be
taken quite in the full sense of the words: remains for ever (comp. Diod.
i. 56 ; Lucian, Philops. 17), never ceases, either before the Parousia, when
his δικαιοσύνη continues to develop its vital activity, as in general, so spe-
cially through beneficent love, or after the Parousia, when, in itself incapa-
ble of being lost, it has its eternal subsistence in love that cannot be lost
(1 Cor. xiii. 8,13). Explanations, such as of a perpetua laus apud homines and
gloriosa merces apud Deum (Estius, comp. Chrysostom, Grotius, Emmerling,
and others), or that it applies merely to the earthly lifetime of the beneficent
one (Beza), are at variance with the words, which affirm the μένειν of the
δικαιοσύνη itself ; and in the N. T. μένειν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is alwaysto be taken
in the definite sense of eternal abiding. See John viii. 34, xii. 34; Heb.
vii. 24 ; 1 Pet. 1. 25; 1 Johnii. 17. Comp. μένειν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, John vi.
27. Hence de Wette also takes it too indefinitely : ‘‘that the beneficence
itself, or the means for it, has enduring subsistence.” Chrysostom and Theo-
doret have, moreover, inverting the matter, found the beneficence here,
which Chrysostom compares to a fire consuming sins, to be the cause of the
justification. It is its consequence and effect, Gal. v. 6, 22, Col. iii. 12 ff.,
al., as is the Christian righteousness of life itself, Rom. vi., viii. 4 ff. (F*)
Ver. 10. The progress of the discourse is this : able is God, etc., ver. 8 ;
but He who gives seed, etc., will also do it. The description of God intro-
duced by dé contains the ground of this promise, which rests on a syllogism
a minori ad majus. — Who supplies seed to the sower and bread for eating, is a
reminiscence of Isa. lv. 10, which is very suitable to the figure prominent in
the context (vv. 6, 9). On βρῶσις actus edendi, differing from βρῶμα, cibus,
see on Rom. xiv. 17 ; 1 Cor. viii. 4; Col. ii. 16. — Chrysostom, Castalio,
Beza, and others, including Hofmann, rightly connect χορηγήσει with what
follows. Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Estius, Elzevir, and others, including
Ewald and Neander, think that καὶ ἄρτον εἰς βρῶσιν χορηγ. should go together.
This would be at variance with Isa. lv. 10, and would destroy the symmet-
rical relation of the two parts of the verse. — yopyyfoe:! x. πληϑυνεῖ τὸν σπόρον
ὑμῶν] i.e. dropping the figure : will give and increase the means, with which
you distribute benefits. What is given away benevolently by the readers, is
the seed which they scatter (ὁ σπόρος αὐτῶν) ; hence Riickert’s idea is arbitrary
and unnecessary, that here two clauses, χορηγήσει ὑμῖν σπόρον and πληϑυνεῖ τὸν
σπόρον ὑμῶν, are blended into one. Riickert also inappropriately thinks that
Paul is not speaking at all of the present, but wholly of the future, of the
blessed consequences of their beneficence now asked, and that ὁ σπόρος,
therefore, does not denote what they were now to give away, but what God
lémcxopny. and χορηγ. are distinguished reichen, dargeben and geben [give forth and
simply like the German darreichen and qive].
608 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
will further bestow on them. At variance with the entire course of the pas-
sage (see on ver. 8 ff.) ; and the very δὲ ἡμῶν in ver. 11 ought to have pre-
vented the excluding of the present time. Paul intends by χορηγήσει. . .
ὑμῶν the means for the present work of collection, and only with καὶ αὐξήσει
does he promise the blessing thence arising for the future. This κ. αὐξ. τὰ
γεννημάτα τῆς δικ. du. Corresponds to the preceding καὶ ἄρτον εἰς βρῶσιν : and
will make the fruits of your righteousness grow (see on ver. 9), 1.6. and will
cause that the blessing, which proceeds from your δικαιοσύνη (what blessing
that is, see ver. 11) may become always larger. Paul abides by the figure.
Just as God causes ἄρτον εἰς βρῶσιν to grow from the natural seed, so from
the oxépoc, which the beneficent scatters through his gifts of love. He like-
wise causes fruits (blessings) to grow ; but because this σπόρος had been
sown by the beneficent man in virtue of his Christian righteousness, the fruits
produced are the γεννήματα τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, just as the bread-fruits, which
the husbandman obtains from his σπόρος, are the γεννήματα of his diligence.
Hence Theodoret rightly remarks: σπόρον μέντοι πάλιν τὴν εὐποίαν ἐκάλεσε.
γεννήματα δὲ δικαιοσύνης τὴν ἐκ ταύτης βλαστάσασαν ὠφέλειαν. ---- γέννημα, in the
sense of vegetable fruit, according to late Greek ; not to be written γένημα.
Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 29. On the figurative expression γεννήμ. τ. δικαιοσ.;
comp. Hos. x. 12.
Ver. 11, The manner in which they will experience in themselves the
αὐξήσει τὰ γεννήματα τ. δικαιοσύνης ὑμῶν just promised. —The participle is
neither to be supplemented by ἐστέ or ἔσεσϑε (Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt),
nor to be attached to ver. 8, so that vv. 9 and 10 would be a parenthesis
(Valla, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Knatchbull, Homberg, Wolf, Bengel, Schulz),
which is forbidden by the portion of the discourse beginning afresh at ver.
10 ; but it is anacoluthic, namely, in such a way that it is attached to the
mentally supplied logical subject of what is promised in ver. 10 (ὑμεῖς), and
indeed of this whole promise, not merely of the portion of it contained in
πληϑυνεῖ τ. σπόρον ὑμῶν (Hofmann) : inasmuch as you become enriched. Comp.
oni. 7. The becoming rich in everything is, according to the connection (see
ver. 10), an earthly enrichment, not, however, in and for itself, but with the
telic ethical reference : εἰς πᾶσαν ἁπλότητα, whereby Riickert’s objection dis-
appears, that it would be unsuitable for the apostle to promise to his readers
riches. Riickert understands it of a spiritual enrichment (viii. 7), and
therefore attaches πλουτιζ. only to τῆς δικαιοσύνης ὑμῶν. This is as arbitrary
as Hofmann’s interpretation of an internal enrichment, which makes the sow-
ing abundant, so that they with small means are able to give more liberally
than otherwise with large, if their growth on all sides in the Christian life
ultimately issues in an increase of entire simplicity and self-devotion. Without
arbitrary restriction and separation, ἐν παντὶ πλουτ. εἰς πᾶσ. ἀπλ. Can only be
a modal definition of the whole promise χορηγήσει on to δικαίοσ. ὑμὼν. --- εἰς
πᾶσαν ἁπλότ.] ἁπλότης does not mean even here (comp. on viii. 2) bountiful-
ness, but singleness, simplicity of heart ; and εἰς expresses not the consequence
of ἐν π. πλουτιζ., but the aim: for every simplicity, i.e. in order to bring it
into exercise, to give it satisfaction (through the corresponding exercise of
beneficence). The emphasis rests, as formerly on ἐν παντί, so here on πᾶσαν
CHAP. ‘IX., 123/18. - 609
whereby attention is directed to the present work of collection and every
one that might be set on foot in future by Paul (ἥτις κατεργ. δι’ ἡμῦν k.T.A.).
— frig κατεργάζεται k.T.2.] quippe quae, etc. With this the discourse makes
the transition to set forth the religious side of this blessing of the collecting
work, ver. 12 ff. — dv ἡμῶν] through our means, in so far as the work of the
ἁπλότης, the collection, διακονεῖται ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, Vili. 19, 20, and the apostle, for
himself and his companions, feels so much that is elevating in this service of
love, that he cannot let pass unmentioned. — The thanksgivers are the re-
ceivers of the gifts of the ἁπλότης. The paraphrase of Grotius : ‘‘ quae causa
est, cur nos gratias Deo agamus,” is incorrect (on account of διά, and of vv.
12, 13). — τῷ θεῷ] might belong to κατεργάζεται, but is better, because in
uniformity with ver. 12, joined to εὐχαριστίαν as an appropriating dative.
(Bernhardy, p. 88), which is quite warranted in view of the construc-
tion εὐχαριστεῖν τινι (comp. Stallb. ad Plat. Huthyphr. p. 13 Ὁ, Apol. S. p. 80
A).
Ver. 12. Confirmation of what was just said ἥτις κατεργάζεται «.7.A. by the
particular circumstances of the present collection.’ — ἡ διακονία τῆς λειτουργ.
ταύτης] 1.6. the service, which you render by this λειτουργία. And the work of
collection is called λειτουργία, in so far as it was to be regarded, according to
its destined consecration to God, as a priestly bringing of offering (going to
the benefit of the receivers). Comp. on Phil. ii. 17, 25; Rom. xiii. 6, xv. 16.
Most others take ἡ διακονία of the service of the apostle, who took charge of
the collection (τὴν λειτουργίαν ταύτην). But this is at variance with ver. 13,
where τῆς διακονίας ταύτης is manifestly equivalent to τῆς διακονίας τῆς λειτ. ταύτ.,
and must be understood of the service rendered by the contributors. Hence
the activity of those conveying it is not even to be understood as included here
(Hofmann). — οὐ μόνον κ.τ.λ.} The emphasis lies on rpocavarAnp. and repioo.,
in which case the expression with ἐστι denotes how the διακονία is as regards
its efficacy, not simply what it effects (this would be the simple present of the
verb). The service, etc., has not only the supplementing quality, in that it
makes up for what the saints lack, but also an abounding, exceedingly bliss-
ful quality, in that it calls forth many thanksgivings towards God. Others,
like Piscator and Flatt, connect περισσεύουσα τῷ θεῷ : ‘Sit contributes much
to glorify God ;”’ comp. Hofmann : ‘‘it makes for God a rich product.”
Against linguistic usage, since περισσεύει μοί τι means : I have abundance or
superfluity in something (Thue. ii. 65. 9 ; Dion. Hal. 11. 11; Tob. iv. 16 ;
John vi. 138; Luke ix. 17; comp. Luke xii. 15; Mark xii. 44). There
must have been used εἰς θεόν or εἰς τὴν δόξαν Tov θεοῦ (Rom. v. 15 ; 2 Cor. iv.
15). — On προσαναπληρόω, to jill by adding to, comp. xi. 9 ; Plat. Men. p. 84
D ; Diod. v. 71 ; Athen. 14, p. 654 D ; Wisd. xix. 4.
Ver. 13 is not to be placed in a parenthesis ; see on ver. 14. The parti-
ciple is again anacoluthic (comp. on ver. 11). Asif he had said before : by
the fact that many give thanks to God, Paul now continues : inasmuch as they,
induced by the tried character of this service, praise God on account of the sub-
1 Nowhere has Paul expressed with so among the Greeks for the Jews was to have
deep fervour and so much fulness as here on the quickening of the religious fellow-
the blissful influence, which his collecting ship between them.
610 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
mission, etc." Hofmann considers ver. 13 as co-ordinated with ver. 11, so that
the δοξάζοντες τ. 6. would be the subjects themselves performing the service,
who by this service prove themselves to be Christians. If so, (1) we should
have to leap over ver. 12 asa merely relative appendage of ver. 11, and to elim-
inate it from the continuity of the chain of thought ; but it does not lend itself
to be so dealt with either in virtue of the position assigned to it by ὅτι, or in
virtue of the important contents of its two clauses ; (2) we should have to
shut our eyes to the fact, that δοξάζοντες τ. 6. is obviously correlative to the
previous διὰ πολλ. εὐχαριστιῶν τῷ θεῷ ; finally, we should have to make the
participial clause afterwards begin, in a very involved fashion, with ἐπὶ
τῇ ὑποταγῇ k.t.A., in spite of the fact that this ἐπί could not but at once pre-
sent itself to, and obtrude itself upon, every reader, as the specification of
the ground of the δοξάζοντες τ. θεόν (comp. ver. 15 ; Luke ii. 20 ; Acts iv.
21 ; Ecclus. iii. 2). — The δοκιμὴ τῆς διακον. τ. is the indoles spectata (see on
viii. 2) of this work of giving, according to which it has shown itself such
as might have been expected in keeping with the Christian standard (es-
pecially of love). So Theophylact : διὰ τῆς δοκίμου ταύτης καὶ μεμαρτυρημένης
ἐπὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ διακονίας. Others take the relation of the genitiveas : the ap-
proved quality, in which this bounty has exhibited you. So Calvin (‘‘ erat enim
specimen idoneum probandae Corinthiorum caritatis, quod erga fratres pro-
cul remotos tam liberales erant”), Estius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Riickert, Ols-
hausen, de Wette, Ewald, Osiander’; comp. also Hofmann, who takes τῆς
διακονίας as eperegetical genitive. But it is only in what follows that the
ground of the praise is introduced as subsisting in the Corinthians, and that
by a different preposition (é7i), and, besides, it is most natural to under-
stand τῆς διακονίας τ. of that which is attested, so that the attested character
of the collecting work appears as the occasion (διά, see Winer, p. 357 [E. T.
476] ; Bernhardy, p. 235) of God’s being praised on account of the obedi-
ence of the Corinthians, etc. Observe, withal, how the actual occasion which
primarily brings about the δοξάζειν τ. 6. (διά), and the deeper ground of this
δοξάζειν (ἐπί), are distinguished. We may add that Riickert arbitrarily finds
here an evidence that Paul in the collection had it as his aim to break down
the repugnance of the Jewish-Christians towards the Gentile-Christians by
this proof of the latter’s love. Comp. on 1 Cor. xvi. 1. The work of col-
lection may have furthered this reconciliation, but this was not its aim. —
— ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποταγῇ. . . πάντας] contains two reasons for their praising God.
The jirst refers to the gospel of Christ (concerning Christ, ii. 12) ; on account
of the compliance with your confession (because you are so obedient in fact to
your Christian confession of faith), they praise God in reference to the gospel
of Christ, which, in fact, produces such compliance of its confessors. The
second reason refers to the persons, namely, to them, the receivers them-
1 Luther and Beza connect διὰ τῆς δοκιμῆς
τῆς διακονίας ταύτης with ver. 12, for which
Beza adduces the reason that otherwise
δοξάζοντες is connected with διά and ἐπί
without copwla,—a reason quite untenable,
considering the diversity of the relations
expressed by the two prepositions! And
how very much the symmetry of the pas-
sage would be disturbed ! As ver. 11 closed
with εὐχαρ. τῷ Seo, so also the confirmatory
clause closes with vxap. τῷ ded, and the
more precise explanation begins with the
following διὰ τῆς Sox, x.7.A,
CHAP. Ix., 14. 611
selves, and all Christians in general : and on account of the simplicity of the
JSellowship (because you held the Christian fellowship in such a sincere and
pure manner) they praise God in reference to themselves and to all, as those
whom this ἁπλότης τ. κοινωνίας goes to benefit. Paulrightly adds. εἰς πάντας;
for by the beneficence towards the Jews the Corinthians showed, in point
of fact, that they excluded no Christians from the sincere fellowship of love.
The expositors connect εἰς ro evayy. τ. X. either with τῆς éuodoy. ὑμῶν, so that
ὁμολογ. εἰς is said, like πίστις εἰς (Erasmus Schmid, Wolf, Flatt, Riickert,
Ewald, Osiander, and others, including Billroth), or with τῇ ὑποταγῇ (Chrys-
ostom, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, and many others), and then εἰς
αὐτοὺς κ. εἰς πάντας With τῆς Kowwviac.' But this view would require the con-
necting link of the article both before εἰς τὸ evayy. and also before εἰς
αὐτούς, since neither ὑποτάσσεσθαι nor ὁμολογεῖν Nor κοινωνεῖν is construed with
εἰς, the last not even in Phil. i. 5 (in opposition to de Wette). The sugges-
tion to which Hofmann has recourse, that the twice used εἰς expresses the
direction in which both—the ὑποταγὴ τῆς ὁμολογίας and the ἁπλότης τῆς κοινωνίας.
—take place, has against it the non-insertion of the connecting article, which
only may be rightly omitted when eic in both cases belongs to the verb
(δοξάζοντες τ. 6.).2 Riickert’s appeal to the inexactness of the language in
this chapter is unfounded and the more to be rejected, that no fault can be
found with the meaning—by no means tame (Osiander), but rich in signifi-
cant reference — which arises from the strictly grammatical construction.
Observe especially the quite Pauline way of exhausting, by different prepo-
sitions, the different characteristic aspects of the subject-matter (here the
δοξάζειν τὸν θεόν), which he does according to the categories of the occasion
(διά), the ground (é7i), and the point of reference (εἰς : with a view to).
Comp. i. 11, Rom. iii. 25, and many other passages. — On ὁμολογία, confession,
comp. 1 Tim. vi. 12, 13; Heb. iii. 1, iv. 14, x. 23; 3 Esr. ix. 8 ; not so in
the Greek writers. The explanation consensus (Erasmus : ‘‘ quod intelligant
vos tanto consensu obedire monitis evangelicis,” comp. Castalio, Vatablus,
and Calvin) accords, no doubt, with the classical usage, but is at once set
aside by the fact that the passage must have run: ἐπὶ τῇ ὁμολογίᾳ τῆς
ὑποταγῆς.
Ver. 14. Καὶ αὐτῶν δεήσει ὑπὲρ ὑμ.1 does not go with περισσεύουσα in ver.
12, so that ver. 13 would be a parenthesis (Beza, Estius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt,
Olshausen, de Wette), because in that case Paul would have written very
enigmatically, and must at least have continued with διά instead of with
1 Riickert and most others interpret: 2 This, indeed, is quite impossible accord-,
**on account of the sincerity of your fellow-
ship with them and with all; but Billroth
and Neander: ‘on account of the liberality
of communication to them and to all,’—
which, however, is quite wrong, for ἁπλότης
does not mean liberality, and of the com-
munication (which, besides, is never the
meaning of κοινωνία at least in the N. T.;
see on Rom. xv. 26, xii. 13, Gal. vi. 6) it could
not be said that it had taken place éo all.
ing to Hofmann’s mistaken construing of
ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποταγή κιτ.λ. aS dependent on the
participial clause καὶ αὐτῶν... ἐπιποϑούντων,
3 Many elder commentators quite arbitra-
Trily took τῆς ὁμολογίας for τῇ ὁμολογουμένῃ.
So Beza: ‘‘de vestra testata subjectione in
evang.” But Erasmus Schmid and Wolf:
“ ob subjectionem vestram, contestatam in
evang.’”’ (so that εἰς τὸ evayy. is held to
belong to τῆς ὁμολογ.).
612 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the dative. Nor yet does it go with δοξάζοντες, in which case the dative is
either made to depend on ἐπί (Luther, Castalio, Bengel), or is taken instru-
mentally (Emmerling, Billroth, Osiander, Neander; Riickert does not
decide), for in the former case there would result an idea strange and desti-
tute of all analogy from the N. T. (Bengel wrongly appeals to 2 Tim. i. 8);
in the latter, καί would be superfluous, and the prefixing of the αὐτῶν would
remain entirely unregarded. We must rather take καὶ αὐτῶν. . . ἐπιποθοῦν-
τῶν together as genitive absolute (comp. the punctuation in Lachmann and
Tischendorf, also Ewald and Hofmann), and καὶ αὐτοί means they too, by
which is meant to be indicated the fact that, and the mode in which, on
their side also the ἁπλότης τῆς κοινωνίας, Which the Corinthians have shown,
is returned. Thus: while they too with prayer for you long after you. The
emergence of the genitive absolute without difference of the subject is a
phenomenon also frequent in classical authors. See Poppo, ad Thucyd. I.
p. 119 f.; Richter, de anacol. § 16 ; Matthiae, p. 1306 ; Bornemann, ad Act.
xill. 6. — δεύσει is not instrumental, but an accompanying accessory defini-
tion of the mode : with prayer, amid prayer for you.’ Comp. Bernhardy,
p- 100 f.— Regarding ézirofew, see on v. 2. It is the longing of pious,
grateful love for personal fellowship with the brethren far distant. It 15 ἃ
sheer fancy that it means mazvimo amore complecti (Beza and many others,
even Billroth). — διὰ τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν x.t.A.] reason of this pious longing :
because the grace of God is abundant towards you. How far this was shown
in the present instance, see ver. 18. Chrysostom well says: ἐπιποθοῦσι yap
τοῦτο οὐ διὰ τὰ χρήματα, ἀλλ᾽ ὥστε θεαταὶ γενέσθαι τῆς δεδομένης ὑμῖν χάριτος. Even
in this δ. τ. ὑπερβάλλ. χάριν, Hofmann finds the contrast between the Jsrael-
itic Christians and the Gentile Christians, who before had lived beyond the
pale of the church of God, and without God in the world. If Paul had
meant this relation, he would have expressed it (comp. Eph. ii. 12). — ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν
belongs to ὑπερβάλλ. Comp. Kiithner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 2. 18. ἐπί denotes
the object, to which the activity has passed over. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p.
290 [E. T. 337]. (@°)
Ver. 15. At the close we have an exclamation of gratitude springing out
of deep piety (comp. Rom. ix. 5, xi. 33 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 57; Gal. 1. 5 ; 1 Tim.
i. 17), without any special purpose (such as to awaken humility, Beza ; comp.
Chrysostom), but issuing out of the fuller craving of the heart, without
being intended (as Hofmann holds) to impress the duty of willingly con-
tributing gifts which are so small in comparison. — The δωρεά is consequence
and evidence of the χάρις, ver. 14. Comp. Rom. v. 15, 17. — ἐπὶ τῇ avexdiny.
αὐτοῦ δωρεᾷ] on account of his indescribable gift. What is meant by this is in-
dicated to the Christian consciousness by dvexdijy. (comp. Rom. xi. 33 ;
Eph. iii. 18 f.), namely, the whole wonderful and inexpressibly blissful work
of redemption. It is for this, and not simply for the grace imparted to the
1Jtis the Christian intercession of thank- keep the Achaean Christians till the time,
fulness for the benefactors, for whom the when Jesus shall bring together the scattered
. praying heart yearns. Hofmann goes be- children of God with those of the Holy Land
yond the text when he imports into this and people. Matt. xxiv. 31 treats of the
prayer the definite contents : that God would _‘ Parousia, and is not at all relevant here.
NOTES. 613
Gentiles (Hofmann), that Paul gives thanks, because it is the gracious foun-
dation of such fellowship in love, and of its blissful working. Others! under-
stand it of the previously discussed happy result of the work of collection
(Calvin, Estius, Bengel, Billroth, Riickert, Osiander ; comp. Ewald, who
takes χάρις x.7.2. as the quoted closing words of the prayer of gratitude on
the part of the church at Jerusalem itself); but in that case ἀνεκδιήγητος ap-
pears to be much too strong an epithet, whereas it is quite suitable to the
highest of all God’s gifts, the δωρεὰ κατ’ ἐξοχήν. Comp. Rom. v. 15 ; Heb.
vi. 4. — On ἀνεκδιηγήτῳ, comp. Arrian, Anab. p. 810 : τὴν ἀνεκδιήγητον τόλμαν.
(B°)
Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR.
(p°) Paul's earnestness. Ver, 2.
There does not seem any ground for the view of Stanley and Plumptre that
the urgency of Paul’s appeal here indicates a latent misgiving whether he had
not unconsciously overstated the fact, and had mistaken ‘‘the will” that had
shown itself for an actual readiness to send off the money whenever it was
called for. What he told the Macedonians was simply that the Corinthians were
prepared —a preparation consisting in alacrity of mind for the work} readiness
of purpose, which had not yet been carried out. Paul’s urgency is due sim-
ply to the desire to have his boasting made good, as the next two verses show.
(85) ““ Not of covetousness.’’? Ver. 5.
The Revised Version renders this ad sensum, if not literally, ‘‘ not of extor-
tion.’ After giving due weight to Dr. Meyer’s words, it still seems that this
thought is necessarily implied in the contrast with a liberal, cheerful giver. To
give scantily and grudgingly because of covetousness is to give because the gift
is felt to be extorted.
(ΘΟ The promise to the liberal. Ver. 9.
An objection may be made to the truth of this promise on the ground that
we do not always see liberality attended by riches. Hodge replies that this and
similar passages in the Old Testament and the New are not to be taken liter-
ally or applied universally. They were intended to teach three truths: 1. The
tendency of things. Righteousness tends to produce blessedness, as evil tends
to produce misery. 2. The general course of divine providence. God does, as
a general rule, prosper the diligent and bless the righteous. Even worldly wis-
dom holds the maxim that honesty is the best policy. 3. Even in this life
righteousness produces a hundred-fold more enjoyment than unrighteousness
does. In sickness, in bereavement, in poverty, the good man is far happier
than the wicked. It is therefore a general law that he that scattereth
increaseth, and he that gives shall have wherewith to give.
1 To these belongs Grotius also, who in ostom and Theophylact quote both ex-
his acute way remarks: ‘‘ Paulus in grati- planations, but incline more to that which
arum actionem se illis in Judaea fratribus we have adopted.
adjungit, et quasi Amen illisaccinit.” Chrys-
614 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(65) ““ The exceeding grace of God in you.’’ Ver. 14.
The grace which had rendered them such cheerful and liberal givers. The
whole section is notable for the light it throws upon Christian morals, There
is no praise of voluntary poverty and no denunciation of property, but an ex-
hortation to the right use of worldly means. It is remarkable, as Stanley says,
how Paul’s inculcation of beneficence differs from the mechanical view of it
entertained by the Pharisees, the Koran, and some of the mediaeval saints.
They have dwelt upon the amount bestowed as in itself drawing down the
divine blessing. The Apostle, even in his undisguised eagerness to obtain the
largest possible contribution, insists with no less eagerness on the spirit in
which it is given.
(Β5) The unspeakable gift. Ver. 15.
Most readers will agree with Dr. Meyer in referring this burst of exalting
praise to the highest of all God’s gifts. Shore thinks that such a reference
makes too wide a deviation from the immediate context. Plumptre cannot
make up his mind as to what the Apostle intended, and thinks that he did not sub-
ject ‘his utterance of praise to a minute analysis.’’ But surely it is most con-
sistent with the natural force of the words, the analogy of Scripture, and the
impetuous fervour of the Apostle, to think that he has in mind the one, great,
supreme, all-comprehending gift of God, in the mission of His own Son. And
so far from there being any impropriety in the sudden change, one may well
say with Principal Brown: ‘ This exquisite and resistless outburst of thanks-,
giving for that gift which not only transcends all our givings, but originates
them all, is as sublime as it is suitable at the close of the whole subject of the
collection for the poor saints of Jerusalem.’’
CHAP. X. 615
CHAPTER X.
Ver. 7. Instead of ἀφ᾽ ἑάυτοῦ read ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ; see the exegetical remarks. —
After ἡμεῖς Elz. has Χριστοῦ. An addition condemned by a great preponder-
ance of evidence. — Ver. 8. re] is wanting in BF G, min. Chrys. Theophyl.
Bracketed by Lachm., and deleted by Riick. But how easily might the omis-
sion of the particle take place, as it might quite well be dispensed with, while
there was no ground whatever for inserting it !— καί before περισσ. has against it
the principal uncials and vss. An addition produced by the sense of climax. —
ἡμῖν] 15, on preponderating evidence, to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch. A
supplementary insertion, instead of which po is also found.— Vv. 12, 13.
The words ov συνιοῦσιν" ἡμεῖς δέ, which follow after ἑαυτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς in the Recepta,
and are defended by Lachm. Rick. Tisch. Reiche, are wanting in D* FG 109,
codd. of the Itala, Ambrosiast. Auct. gr. de singul. cleric. (in Cyprian) Vigil.
taps. Idacius, Sedul. (while in 74** Vulg. Lucif. Pel. Fulg. only ov συνιοῦσιν is
wanting), Condemned by Mill, Bengel, Semler, Morus, Griesb. Rosenm. Flatt,
Fritzsche, Billr., Rinck, Zucubr. crit. Ὁ. 165 f. ; Ewald. But the very fact that
we have only Occidental evidence on the side of the omission makes the latter
suspicious, and the difficulty of the words (which, with the reference of αὐτοί
to Paul so easily suggesting itself after ἀλλά, cannot at all be overcome), while
in the event of their omission the passage runs on smoothly, makes their dele-
tion appear an expedient critically violent and resorted to in the interest of
explanation. Where οὐ συνιοῦσιν only is wanting (see above), ἡμεῖς δέ appears to
be an imperfect restoration of the imperfect text.— The following καυχησόμεθα
also is wanting in D* Clar. Germ., while F G, Boern. Auct. de singul. cler. read
καυχώμενοι. But if the word had not been original, but added by way of gloss,
the makers of the gloss after their mechanical fashion would not have used the
future, but the present, in accordance with the previous τολμῶμεν, to which the
comparison of ver. 15 also might induce them. Hence it is to be assumed that
in the witnesses adduced above καυχησόμεθα has dropped out. By what means we
do not know ; perhaps it is simply due to the similar final letters in duerpA and
κἀυχησόμεθα. The καυχῶμενοι, subsequently introduced instead of καυχησόμεθα,
is to be considered as a critical restoration, made under the influence of ver.
15. — Ver. 14. οὐ yap ὡς μή] Lachm. reads ὡς γὰρ μή, on the authority of B and
two min. only, so that he puts a note of interrogation after ἑαυτούς. Too weakly
attested.
Ch. x.—xiii. contain the third chief section of the Epistle, the apostle’s
polemic vindication of his apostolic dignity and efficiency, and then the conelu-
sion.
Ch. x. 1-18. After the introduction of vv. 1, 2, which plunges at once in
mediam rem, Paul, in the first place, makes good against his opponents the
power of his genuinely apostolic working (Vv. 1-8), in order to repel the
616 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
malicious attack that he was strong only in letters (vv. 9-11). This leads
him to set forth in contradistinction the very different modes of self-judg-
ment, which are followed by him and his arrogant opponents (vv. 12-16),
after which there is further held up to the latter the Christian standard of
self-boasting (vv. 17, 18).
Remarx.—The difference of the subject-matter—with the importance of that
which had now to be decided—and the emotion excited in the high and pure
self-consciousness of the grievously injured Paul, so sufficiently explain the
change of tone which at once sets in, and this tone, calculated for the entire
discomfiture of his enemies, is just in the last part of the Epistle—after the
church as such (as a whole) had been lovingly won over—so suited to its ob-
ject, that there is no ground at all for the hypothesis of ch. x.-xiii. 10 having
formed a separate Epistle (see Introd. § 2). (1°)
Ver. 1. Aé leads over to a new section, and its position lays the emphasis on
αὐτός ; comp. on Rom. vii. 25 : ipse autem ego, I, however, for my own self,
independently and without bias from the action of others among you. See
what follows. With this αὐτὸς ἐγώ, Paul, in the feeling of his elevation
above such action, boldly casts into the scales of his readers the weight of
his own personality over against his calumniators. The expression has
something in it nobly proud and defiant ; but the ἔμφασις τῆς ἀποστολικῆς
ἀξίας" lies not in αὐτός, but in ἐγὼ Παῦλος simply. While many, as Beza and
Olshausen, have left the reference of αὐτός quite unnoticed, and others have
arbitrarily imported what the context does not suggest, such as Erasmus,
Bengel, and also Hofmann ;* Emmerling and Riickert assume that Paul
wrote from x. 1 onward with his own hand, so that the αὐτός was explained
to the readers by the altered handwriting. Comp. Ewald, according to
whom Paul meant only to add a short word of conclusion with his own
hand and therewith to end the letter, but on beginning this concluding
word, felt himself urged to enter on a detailed discussion of the matter
itself in its personal relations. But, seeing that Paul has not added any-
thing like τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί (1 Cor. xvi. 21 ; Col. iv. 18), or at least written γράφω
ὑμῖν instead of παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς, there is no sufficiently certain hint of this
explanation in the words themselves, the more especially as the αὐτὸς ἐγώ is
frequently used by him elsewhere (xii. 13 ; Rom. vii. 25, ix. 3, xv. 14).
Riickert finds a confirmation of that hypothesis in the fact that this Epistle
1 Theodoret, comp. Chrysostom, Theo-
phylact, Oecumenius, and others, including
Billroth.
* Erasmus: “‘ille ipse vobis abunde spec-
tatus P., qui vestrae salutis causa tantum
malorum et passus sum et patior.’’ Bengel,
however, hesitates between (¢hree refer-
ences : ‘‘ipse facit antitheton vel ad Titum
et fratres duos, quos praemisit P., vel ad
Corinthios, quiipsi debebant officium obser-
vare ; vel etiam ad Paulum ipsum majore
coram usurum severitate, ut αὐτός, ipse, de-
notet wlt7o.” Iofmann, still referring to
the collection, makes the apostle lay em-
phasis on the fact that this exhortation
comes from himself, in contradistinction,
namely, from what those others (chap. ix.)
will do in his stead and by his order (comp.
Bengel’s 1st). But the whole matter of the
collection was completely ended at ix. 15.
After the exclamation of thanksgiving in
ix. 15, a παρακαλεῖν of his own in this
matter is no longer suitable; and, besides,
the emphatie vindication of the apostolic
authority in that case would be uncalled
for.
OHAP.X., 2: One
does not, like the First, contain some concluding lines in his own hand.
But most of the apostle’s letters contain nothing of the sort ; and this Epistle
in particular, on account of its whole character and on account also of its
bearer, stood so little in need of any authentication, if there was to be such
a thing, from his own hand, that his enemies would have made themselves
ridiculous by doubting the authenticity of the composition. Apart from this,
it remains very probable that Paul himself wrote the conclusion of the Epis-
tle, possibly from xiii. 11 onward, without mentioning the fact expressly.
— διὰ τῆς πρᾳότητος καὶ ἐπιεικείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ, by means of the meekness and gen-
tleness of Christ ; i.e. assigning a motive for compliance with my exhorta-
tion by pointing to the fact, that Christ, whose example I have to imitate,
is so gentle and meek (Matt. xi. 29, 30 ; Isa. xlii. 2, 8, 111. 4-7). Comp.
Rom. xii. 1; 1 Cor. i. 10. The gentleness and meekness of Christ belong
to the divine love manifested in Him (Rom. viii. 39 ; Tit. iii. 4 ff.), and are
continually shown by Him in His heavenly government, in the working of
His grace, in His intercession, etc. Estius designates rightly the ground of
the motive assigned : ‘‘ quia cupiebat non provocari ad severitatem vindictae”
(which would not be in harmony with Christ’s meekness and gentleness).
On ἐπιείκεια, clementia (Acts xxiv. 4), which is often found in connection
with πρᾳότης (as Plut. Pericl. 39, Caes. 57; Philo, de Vita Mos. p. 112),
comp. Wetstein. It is attributed even to God (2 Macc. x. 4; Bar. 11. 27)
and to Wisdom (Wisd. xii. 18). Bengel gives the distinction of the two
words : ‘‘ πρᾳότης virtus magis absoluta ; ἐπιείκεια magis refertur ad alios.”
It is the opposite of standing on one’s full rights, Plato, Def. p. 412 B:
δικαίων kK. συμφερόντων ἐλάττωσις. ---ὃς κατὰ πρόσωπον μὲν K.T.A.| I who, to the
Face, am indeed humble, of a subdued, unassuming character among you, but
in absence have courage towards you—a malicious opinion of his opponents,
designed to counteract the influence of the apostle’s letters, which he here
appropriates to himself μιμητικῶς. Comp. ver. 10. Κατὰ πρόσωπον, coram,
is not a Hebraism, but see Wetstein on the passage ; Hermann, ad Soph.
Trach. 102 ; Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 612. There is no need to supply any-
thing after ταπεινός, neither εἰμί nor dv. On ταπεινός, comp. Xen. Mem. iii.,
10. 5, where it is connected with ἀνελεύθερος ; Dem. 1312, 2.
Remarxk.—Riickert is wrongly of opinion that the assertion of the opponents
had been true, and just on that account had been so ill taken by Paul ; that
he belonged to those in whom natural impetuosity is not united with per-
sonal courage. Against this there is the testimony of his whole working from
Damascus to Rome ; and outpourings like vi. 4 ff. al. do not lack internal truth.
Comp. besides, passages like Acts xx. 22 ff., xxi, 13, xxiv. 25; 2 Cor. xi, 23 ff.
al. That assertion of his opponents may be explained from the fact that,
though there were not wanting disturbing phenomena even at his second arri-
val in Corinth (ii. 1, xii. 21), it was only subsequently that the evils had be-
come so magnified and multiplied as to necessitate his now writing (in our first
Epistle) far more severely than he had spoken in Corinth.
Ver. 2. After the previous relative clause, the παρακαλῶ is in substance
resumed by means of δέοναι δέν aNd that in such a way that dé has its adver-
618 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
sative reference in the contents of the relative clause (Hartung, Partikell. I.
Ῥ. 174 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 377), and the δέομαι now substituted for rapa- —
καλῶ betrays the increasing earnestness softened by the mention of Christ's
gentleness and meekness. Emmerling and Riickert refer δέομαι not to the
Corinthians, but to God: ‘‘but I pray God that I when present may not
be obliged to act with the confidence and boldness,” etc. So also Ewald
and Hofmann. But how strangely Paul would have written, if he had left
his ταρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς to stand quite abruptly at the very beginning of the new
address ! It is all the more arbitrary not to refer δέομαι also to the readers,
and not to be willing to supply a ὑμῶν with δέομαι from the previous παρακαλῶ
ὑμᾶς. Chrysostom and most expositors rightly give it this reference. And —
how little does what is attached to δέομαι dé (observe especially ἡ λογίζομαι
x.7.4.) sound like the contents of prayer ! --- τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαῤῥῆσαι x.t.2.] I
entreat the not being courageous in presence, i.e. that I may not when present
(this παρών has the emphasis) 6e of brave cowrage with the confidence, etc. The
meaning is : that you may not let it come to this, that I, etc. Comp. Chrysos-
tom : μή με ἀναγκάσητε κιτ.3. On the infinitive with the article, see Buttmann,
neut. Gr, p. 225 [E. T. 261]. The nominative παρὼν with the infinitive is
quite according to Greek usage. See Kiihner, II. p. 344 ; Matthiae, p.
1248. The πεποίθησις is not specially fiducia in Dewm (Grotius, against the
context), but generally the official confidentia, assurance. — 7 λογίζομαι τολμῆ-
σαι] with which I reckon (am minded) to be bold towards certain people, etc.
On λογίζομαι, comp. Herod. vii. 176 ; Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 138 ; 1 Macc. iv. 35,
vi. 19; LXX. 1 Sam. xviii. 25; Jer. xxvi. 3; and on τολμῆσαι, xi. 215
Hom. 171. x. 232 ; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 173. Others, such as the Vulgate,
Anselm, Luther, Beza, Piscator, Estius, Er. Schmid, Calovius, Bengel,
Semler, Schulz, take λογίζομαι passively (qua efferri ducor, Emmerling). In
that case we should have had an ἀπών with τολμῆσαι, because in this lay the
most essential point of the hostile criticism ; besides, the boldness of the
expression, which lies in the correlation of λογίζομαι τοὺς λογιζομένους, would
be obliterated. — ἐπὶ τίνας τοὺς λογιζομ.} against certain, who reckon us, ete., is
to be connected with τολμῆσαι, since only by the erroneous course of taking
the previous λογίζομαι as passive would the connection with θαῤῥῆσαι be re-
quired (Luther, Beza, Estius, Emmerling, also Billroth). — τινάς denotes
quosdam, quos nominare nolo, See on 1 Cor. xv. 12. These are then char-
acterized in their definite quality by τοὺς λογιζομ. See on Luke xviii. 9, and
Doederl. ad Oecd. Col. p. 296. --- ὡς κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦντας) as people who
walk according to the standard of the flesh. ὡς with the participle as the object
of a verb of believing or saying. See Kithner, II. p. 375. Comp. Rom. viii.
36; 1 Cor. iv. 1; LXX. Gen. xxxi. 15, al. The περιπατεῖν κατὰ σάρκα is not
an expression of weakness,’ since περιπατεῖν denotes the moral conduct.
Hence the meaning is : as those, whose way of thinking and of acting follows,
not the influence of the Holy Spirit, but the lusts opposed to God, which have
their seat in the materio-psychical nature of man. Comp. on Rom. viii. 4.
1 Beza: “non alio praesidio freti, quam inem spectes.”’ Comp. Bengel, Mosheim,
quod prae nobis ferimus, qui videlicet hom- Flatt, Emmerling, also Billroth.
ines sumus viles, si nihil aliud quam hom-
CHAP. X., 3, 4. 619
This general interpretation is not at variance with +he context, since, in
fact, a κατὰ σάρκα περιπατεῖν would have shown such a demeanour in the
apostle’s position as his opponents blamed him for,—bold at a distance,
timid when near, full of the fear of men and of the desire to please men.
In that special accusation there was therefore expressed this general one of
the κατὰ σάρκα περιπατεῖν ; διέβαλλον γὰρ αὐτὸν ὡς ὑποκριτῆν, ὡς πονηρὸν, ὡς
ἁλαζόνα, Chrysostom. Thus the expression is to be explained from the im-
mediate context, and not of the reproach made to him by the representatives
of a false spirituality, that he acted on too free principles (Ewald).
Ver. 3 does not introduce the refutation of the previous accusation (so
that, with Estius and Billroth, we should have to supply a quod falswm est),
since γάρ may quite naturally finds its logical reference in what was expressed
before. Nor does it assign the reason for τῇ πεποιθ. ἡ λογίζομαι τολμῆσαι,
since there is nothing whatever against the reference, which first and most
naturally suggests itself, to the chief thought of the previous verse. Hence
it assigns the reason of the dedua δὲ x.t.A. : “1 entreat, let me not become
bold, etc. ; for the position of matters with us is quite different from what
the opponents believe : we do not march to the field κατὰ σάρκα," etc. Do
not therefore run the risk of this !— ἐν σαρκὶ yap repir.] Paul wishes to ex-
press the thought : for it by no means stands with us so as those think, and
hence says : Por, though we walkin the flesh, for although the existent form of
the sinful bodily human nature is the organ, in which our conduct of life has its
course (σάρκα μὲν yap περικείμεθα, Chrysostom), still we do not take the field
according to the flesh, the σάρξ is not the standard, according to which our
official working, which resembles a campaigning, is carried on. Observe
that even in ἐν σαρκί the notion of the σάρξ is not indifferent, expressing the
mere life of the body (comp. Gal. ii. 20 ; Phil. i. 22) : this is forbidden by
what goes-before and follows. If taken in this way, ἐν σαρκὶ περιπ. would
contain something very insignificant, because self-evident, and would form
no adequate contrast to κατὰ cdpxka—a contrast, which only results when the
notion of σάρξ is alike in both clauses. For the stress of this contrast lies in
ἐν and κατά (in the flesh, not according to the flesh) ; instead of περιπατοῦμεν,
however, there comes in στρατευόμεθα, because it was highly appropriate to
the context (vv. 1, 2) to give thus a military character to the apostle’s
περιπατεῖν in presence of his enemies (comp. vi. 7). On the idea, comp.
ΠῚ π|- 1, 18:
Ver. 4. Reason assigned for the assertion just made οὐ x. σ. στρατευόμεθα,
but not @ parenthesis (Griesbach, Lachmann), since ver. 5 is manifestly ἃ
further explanation of the preceding πρὸς καθαίρ. ὄχυρ., so that the participles
in ver. 5 f. are to be referred to the logical subject of the verse before (ἡμεῖς).
Comp. ix. 11, 13. — That the στρατεύεσθαι is not κατὰ σάρκα, is shown from
the fact that the weapons of warfare are not σαρκικά ; for, if the former were
the case, so must the latter also. By the weapons (comp. vi. 7 ; Rom. vi.
18, xili. 12) are to be understood the means, which the apostolic activity
makes use of in the strife with the hostile powers. — σαρκικά] which belong
to the life-sphere of the σάρξ, so that the σάρξ, the sinfully inclined human
nature, is their principium essendi, and they do not proceed from the Holy
620 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Spirit,’ as e.g. σοφία σαρκική, i. 12, the νοῦς τῆς σαρκός, Col. 11. 18, the whole
ἔργα τῆς σαρκ., Gal. v. 19. Now, since fleshly weapons as such are weak
(Matt. xxvi. 41 ; Rom. vi. 19), and not in keeping with the aims of the
apostolic work, the weapons opposed to them are not designated according
to their nature (for it is self-evident that they are ὅπλα πνευματικά), but at
once according to their specific potency (comp. 2 Cor. ii. 4), as δυνατὰ τῷ θεῷ.
By this the passage only gains in pith, since by virtue of the contrast so ex-
pressed in σαρκικά the quality of weakness, and in δυνατὰ τῷ θεῷ the pneu-
matic nature, are understood ex adjuncto. Hence the inference frequently
drawn from δυνατὰ τῷ θεῷ, that σαρκικός here must mean weak, is too hasty. —
δυνατὰ τῷ θεῷ] mighty for God, i.e. passing with God as mighty, which de-
notes the true reality of the being mighty, without, however, being a He-
braistic periphrasis for the superlative (Vorstius, Glass, Emmerling, Vater,
Flatt). See on ἀστεῖος τῷ θεῷ, Acts vil. 20; Bernhardy, p. 83 f. Others,
not following this current genuinely Greek usage (for the corresponding
Hebrew usage, see Gesenius, Thesaur. I. p. 98), have explained it as :
through God, or for God, i.e. so that they are to God a means of showing His
power (Billroth ; comp. Chrysostom and Hofmann). But the former would
be superfluous, since it is self-evident in the case of spiritual weapons, and
the latter would import something into the words, especially as not God,
but Christ (ver. 5), is conceived as the general ; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 3. For
the mighty πανοπλία of the Christian, which, along with the special apostolic
gifts, is also that of the apostles, see Eph. vi. 14 ff. — πρὸς καθαίρεσιν ὄχυρω-
μάτων] that, for which the weapons are mighty : to the pulling down of strong-
holds (Xen. Hell. iii. 2. 3; very frequent in the books of the Maccabees ;
comp. ὀχυρὸς πύργος, τόπος, ὀχυρὰ πόλις, φρουρά, and the like). The rigo¢
“Ἑλληνικός and the ἰσχὺς τῶν σοφισμάτων καὶ τῶν διαλογισμῶν (Chrysostom) are
ineluded in the phrase. It does not, however, mean these alone, nor the
‘old walls of the Jewish legal system” (Kl6pper), but generally everything,
which may be included as belonging to the category of humanly strong and
mighty means of resistance to the gospel. Examples of this jigurative use
may be seen in Wetstein and Kypke, and from Philo in Loesner, p. 317.
The pulling down depicts the making quite powerless and reducing to
nought—the xarapyeiv, 1 Cor. i. 28, and καταισχύνειν, 1 Cor. 1. 27.
Ver. 5. How the πρὸς καθαίρ. ὀχυρωμ. is executed by the ἡμεῖς (the logical
subject in ver. 4): inasmuch as we pulldown thoughts (Rom. ii. 15), i.e. bring
to nothing hostile deliberations, resolutions, plans, calculations, and the
like, raising themselves like fortresses against Christ. More precise defini-
tions (Grotius and many others: ‘‘ ratiocinationes philosophorum,” comp.
Ewald ; ‘‘ subtleties,” Hofmann : ‘‘ thoughts of their own,” behind which
men screen themselves from the urgent knowledge of God) are not warrant-
ed by the context, nor yet by the contrast of yvéore τ. @., since this is meant
objectively (in opposition to de Wette, who understands thoughts of self-con-
1 Chrysostom reckons up such weapons: 2 Beza, Grotius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide,
πλοῦτος, δόξα, δυναστεία, εὐγλωττία, δεινότης, Estius, Er. Schmid, Wolf, Bengel, and
περιδρομκαὶ, κολακεῖαι, ὑποκρίσεις, τὰ ἄλλα Others; Erasmus has aflatu Dei.
τὰ τούτοις ἐοικότα.
CHAP. X., 6. ὙΠ ΟΝ
ceited wisdom). Also against Olshausen’s opinion, that Paul is censuring
specially the pretended wisdom of the Christ-party, it is to be observed that
he is speaking, not simply of the working against Corinthian opponents,
but against enemies in general. The figurative expression of destruction by
war, καθαιροῦντες, was very naturally suggested by the image which had just
gone before, and which is immediately afterwards taken up again by ὕψωμα
(ἐπέμεινε τῇ τροπῇ, iva πλείονα ποιήσῃ τὴν ἔμφασιν, Chrysostom); and the subse-
quent ἐπαιρόμ. emphatically corresponds to it. —xai πᾶν ὕψωμα x.t.A.] and
every exalted thing (rampart, castle, tower, and the like, comp. Aq. Ps. xviii.
34, and see in general, Schleusner, Thes. V. p. 427), which is lifted wp against
the (evangelical) knowledge of God (the knowledge of God κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν), that
this may not become diffused and prevailing. (3°) The real meaning of the
figurative ὕψωμα is equivalent to that of ὀχύρωμα, ver. 4; the relation to
λογισμούς is, however, correctly defined by Bengel : ‘‘ cogitationes species,
altitudo genus.” — The enemy, whois thus vanquished by the destruction of
his high places, is πᾶν νόημα, 1.6. not all reason (Luther ; comp. Vulgate :
‘‘omnem intellectum”), as if πάντα νοῦν were used, but (comp. on iii. 14,
iv. 4) every creation of thought, every product of the human thinking faculty.
The λογισμοί before named belong to this, but Paul here goes on to the
whole general category of that, which as product of the νοῦς takes the field
against Christianity. A// this is by Paul and his companions brought
into captivity, and thereby into subordination to Christ, after the bulwarks
are destroyed, etc. Thus the holy war comes to the goal of complete
victory. — εἰς τὴν ὑπακοὴν τοῦ X.] so that this πᾶν νόημα, which previously
was hostile to Christ, now becomes obedient and subject to Christ. By
this is expressed the conversion to Christ, which is attained through the
apostolic working, consequently a leading captive ἀπὸ δουλείὰς εἰς ἐλευθερίαν,
ἀπὸ θανάτου πρὸς ζωὴν, ἐξ ἀπολείας πρὸς σωτηρίαν, Chrysostom. The condition
ὑπακοὴ τοῦ Xpiorov is conceived of as a local sphere, into which the enemy is
led captive. Comp. Luke xxi. 24; Tob. i. 10; 1 Kings viii. 46 ; 3 Esdr.
vi. 16; Judithv.18. Apart from this conception, Paul would have written
τῇ ὑπακοῇ τοῦ Xprorov, or simply τῷ Xpiorg. Comp. Rom. vii. 23. Kypke,
Zachariae, Flatt, Emmerling, Bretschneider, connect εἰς τ. trax. τ. X. with
πᾶν νόημα, and take εἰς as contra. But in that case Paul would have written
very unintelligibly, and by the change of the preposition (previously κατά)
would have simply led the reader astray ; besides, the αἰχμαλωτίζοντες, with-
out εἰς τ. imax, τ. X., would remain open and incomplete ; finally, ver. 6
shows that he conceived the ὑπακοὴ Χριστοῦ as the goal of the working, conse-
quently as belonging to αἰχμαλ. Comp. also Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26.
Ver. 6. The reverse side of the αἰχμαλωτίζοντες κ.τ.1. just expressed. Al-
though, namely, the αἰχμαλ. πᾶν νόημα εἰς τ. ὑπακ. τοῦ Χριστοῦ is the result of
the apostolic warfare on the whole and in general, yet there remain ezcep-
tions—persons, who do not surrender themselves captive to Christ’s domin-
ion ; there remains παρακοή in contradistinction to the ὑπακοή of others.
Hence it is a part also of the complete work of victory to punish every rapa-
kof. And this, says Paul, we are in readiness to execute, so soon as, etc.
Bengel well says : ‘‘ Zelus jam adest ; prometur, cum tempus erit.” Paul
622 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
does not speak of the action of war-captives at variance with the duty of
obedience, to which they are taken bound (Hofmann). For this the threat,
which would amount, in fact, to the avenging of every sin, would be too
strong, and the fotlowing ὅταν x.7.2. would not be suitable. The rapaxovovrec
must still be enemies who, after the victory, do not submit to the victor. —
ἐν ἑτοίμῳ ἔχοντες} in promptu habentes, also in Polyb. ii. 34. 2, and Philo,
Leg. ad Caj. p. 1011, 1029. See, in general, Wetstein. —bérav πληρωθῇ ὑμῶν
ἡ ὑπακοή] With this he turns to apply what was previously said of a general
tenor (ἐκδικ. πᾶσαν παρακ.) specially to the circumstances of the Corinthians,
so that the conduct of the Judaistic teachers, who had intruded into Corinth
and directed their doings against Paul, appears especially to be included in
πᾶσα παρακοή ; and the Corinthian church, a part of which had been led
astray by those persons, is represented as not yet completely obedient, but
as in the course of developing this complete obedience. When this develop-
. ment shall be completed (which till then makes a claim on my patience, ‘‘ ne
laedantur imbecilliores,” Bengel), that ἐκδίκησις of every disobedience shall—
even as respects the situation of things at Corinth—ensue.’ Thus the
apostle separates the interest of the church from that of the intruding
seducers, and presents his relation to the church as one of forbearance and
confidence, while his relation to his opponents is one of vengeance delaying
its execution only for the sake of the church, which has not yet »ttained to
full obedience—a wise manipulation of the Divide et impera !— How he
means to execute the éxdcxeiv (Rom. xii. 19), he does not say ; he might do
so by ordaining excommunication, by giving them over to Satan (1 Cor.
v. δ), or by other exercise of his miraculous apostolic power. —ipuév] is
placed first with emphasis, to distinguish the church from those whose rapa-
κοή was to be punished. Hofmann, without ground, denies this emphasis,
because ὑμῶν does not stand before πληρωθῆ. The emphasis certainly falls,
in the first instance, on rAnp., and next not on ἡ ὑπακ., but on ὑμῶν.
Ver. 7. Paul feels that the ἐξουσία, just described in vv. 3-6, is not con-
ceded to him by his opponents and those misled by them in the church ;
they judge that he is evidently no right servant of Christ, and that he must
come to shame with his boasting (comp. ver. 8). He at once breaks into
the midst of this course of thought on the part of his opponents with the
disapproving question : Do you look on that which lies before the eyes ? do you
judge according to the appearance ? by which he means this, that they pro-
fess to have seen him weak and cowardly, when he was in Corinth person-
ally (comp. ver. 1). This does not involve any admission of the charge in
ver. 1, but, on the contrary, discloses the error, in accordance with which
the charge was based on the apostle’s outward appearance, which did not
make a display of his boldness. The answer to the question is : If any one
is confident that he belongs to Christ, let him judge this again of himself, that
1 Lachmann, by a full stop, separates ὅταν to what lies before your eyes.” A precept
mAnp. vp. ἡ Umax. Wholly from what goes strangely conditioned! And why should
before, and connects it with what follows, we give up the common punctuation, which
so that the meaning results: ‘‘When your vields a delicate touch quite characteristio
obedience shall have become complete, see of Paul?
GHAR. ΧΙ 623
just as he belongs to Christ, 80 do we. The opposing teachers had certainly
boasted : How utterly different people are we from this Paul, who is bold
only at a distance, and makes a boast of belonging as an apostle to Christ !
We are right servants of Christ !— τὰ κατὰ πρόσωπον βλέπετε] is taken inter-
rogatively by Theodoret ;’ along with which, however, many import into κατὰ
πρόσωπον elements at variance with the text (see vv. 1 and 10), such as
intercourse with Jesus when on earth and other matters. It is taken as not
interrogative (Lachmann and Tischendorf), but also with βλέπετε as indica-
tive, and the sentence, consequently, as a judgment of censure, by Chrysos-
tom, Gennadius, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Schulz, Flatt. Calvin
says : ‘‘ Magni facitis alios, qui magnis ampullis turgent ; me, quia ostenta-
tione et jactantia careo, despicitis ;” while Flatt, following Storr, in spite
of vv. 1 and 10, refers κατὰ πρόσωπον to the kinship of James with Christ, on
which the Christine party had relied. In any case, however, it is more live-
ly and forcible, and therefore more suitable, to take it as interrogative.
Others, again, take βλέπετε as an imperative :* observe withal what lies so clearly
before the eyes! In this view we should not have to explain it with Ewald :
‘‘regard personal matters ;” so that Paul begins to point to the personal ele-
ment which is now to be taken into consideration ; but with Hofmann :
the readers only needed to have their eyes open to what lay before them, in
order to judge rightly. But against this it may be urged that κατὰ πρόσωπον
could not but most naturally explain itself from ver. 1, and that the meaning
itself would have something tame and more calmly argumentative, than
would be suited to the lively emotion of the passage. Besides, it is Paul’s
custom elsewhere to put βλέπετε first, when he summons to an intuemini.
See 1 Cor. i. 26, x. 18 ; Phil. iii. 2. -- εἰτις πέποιθεν ἑαυτῷ Χριστοῦ εἶναι) In
this way is designated the confidence which his opponents (not a single
peculiar false teacher, as Michaelis thinks) arrogantly cherished for them-
selves, but denied to Paul, that they were genuine Christ-people, genuine
servants of Christ. The addition of δοῦλος to Χριστοῦ in D* E* F G, It.
Ambrosiaster, is a correct gloss (comp. xi. 23). For it is not the conjiteor of
the Christine party (1 Cor. i. 12) that is meant here,* but the assertion—to the
exaltation of themselves and the exclusion of Paul—of a true apostolic con-
nection (through calling, gifts, etc.) with Christ * on the part of Judaistic
pseudo-apostles (xi. 5, xiii. 22, 23). Observe that the teachers here meant
were not a party of the church, like the adherents of Christ designated in 1
Cor. i. 12. The very οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς, compared with ver. 8,—to say nothing
1 Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Cajetanus,
Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Hammond,
Bengel, Heumann, Rosenmiiller, Emmer-
ling, Rabiger, Osiander, Kl6épper, and
others.
2 Vulgate, Ambrosiaster, Anselm, Corne-
lius ἃ Lapide, Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen,
de Wette, Bisping, Hofmann.
8 Mosheim, Stolz, Flatt, comp. also Ols-
hausen, Dihne, de Wette, Schenkel, Bey-
schlag, Hilgenfeld, Kl6pper, and others;
see against this, Neander, I. p. 393 ff., and
also Hofmann.
4 Not with His disciples, and in particular
with Peter, as Baur insinuates. See his
Paulus, I. p. 306, ed. 2. It wasin his view the
original apostles as immediate disciples of
the Lord (see also Holsten, z. Hvang. des
Paul. u. Petr. p. 24 ff.), from whose position
the anti-Pauline party in Corinth had bor-
rowed their watchword Χριστοῦ εἶναι. And
in these his opponents Paul was at the
same time combating the original apostles.
624 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
of the fact that there is no hint of any such special reference,—precludes
our explaining it of the continued immediate connection with Christ through
cisions and the like, of which the heads of the Christine party had probably
boasted (de Wette, Diihne, Goldhorn, and others, following Schenkel), —
πάλιν] not : on the contrary, or on the other hand, which it never means in the
N. T. (see on Matt. iv. 7, and Fritzsche, ad Matt. p. 167), but, again, denuo.
It refers to ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, which is correlative to the previous ἑαυτῷς He is con-
fident to himself ; let him then consider once more for himself. In this view
there was no need of the shift to which Fritzsche has recourse, that πεποι-
θέναι and λογίζεσθαι ‘‘ communem continent mente volvendi notionem.” The
verbs might be quite heterogeneous in point of the notion conveyed, since
πάλιν is logically defined by the relation of ἑαυτῷ and éavrov. —The Recepta
ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, instead of which, however, ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ is to be read’ would mean
proprio motu, Luke xii. 57, xxi. 30, 2 Cor. 111, 5, ὁ.6. without any need for
one first to say it tohim. The text gives no warrant for ironical interpretation
(from his own high estimate, Riickert). — οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς] is a litotes from the
apostle’s point of view. οὐ γὰρ βούλεται ἐκ προοιμίων σφοδρὸς γίνεσθαι ἀλλὰ κατὰ
μικρὸν αὔξεται καὶ κορυφοῦται, Chiysostom. .
Ver. 8. Proof of the οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς from his apostolic authority, which was
yet greater than he had already represented it. —ré γάρ] etenim, as in Rom.
i. 26, vii. 7. See on these passages, and Hermann, ad Soph. Trach. 1015 ;
regarding the independent usage frequent in the later Attic, see Klotz, ad
Devar. p. 750 f. — ἐάν] is not used concessively (Riickert ; not even 1 Cor.
iv. 15, xiii. 1 ff.), but puts a case as a conception of the speaker, in which
the realization remains left to experience : for, in case that I shall have boast-
ed myself yet something more (than has been already done by me in vv. 3-6)
of the authority, etc., I shall not be put to shame, it will be apparent that I have
not been practising empty boasting of which I should have to be ashamed.
περισσότ. τι is accusative of object, like ri, vii. 11. See on ix. 2. The ref-
erence of the comparative to what was said in ver. 7 (Osiander, Hofmann,
following older commentators) has against it the fact that Paul, in ver. 7,
has not spoken of an ἐξουσία ; and to take περὶ τ. ἐξουσ. ju. as an element,
added only by way of supplement, would be all the more arbitrary, since,
in fact, what follows is attached to it significantly. It is taken too gener-
ally by Grotius and others: plus guam alii possent,” or as: ‘‘ somewhat
more amply” (Ewald ; comp. Billroth and Olshausen).
comp. xiii. 10. — ἧς ἔδωκεν ὁ κύριος εἰς οἰκοδομὴν κ-τ.1.] significant more precise
definition of the previous ἡμῶν, with a double side-glance at the false apos-
tles, whose power neither was from Christ nor redounded to edification
(perfection of the Christian life), but rather to the destruction of the church.
(K*) Paul conceives of the church as a temple of God, which the apostolic
On τ. ἐξουσίας κ.τ.λ.,
1 ΠῚῚ6 reading ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ (Lachm. ed min.),
supported by BL & 21, is not meaningless
tion apud se in the Vulg. and It. also rests
on this reading, which might easily enough
(Ewald), but isto be taken: with himself, in
quietness for himself—a classic usage since
Homer (71. vii. 195, xix. 255; see Faesi on
these passages) of very frequent occur-
rence ; see Kiihner, II. p. 296. The transla-
be supplanted by the better known ἀφ᾽
ἑαυτοῦ, and hence deserves to be preferred.
There lies in this ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ (secum solo re-
putet) a reproof putting more delicately
to shame than in ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ.
CHAP! 3.519: 625
teachers are building (1 Cor. iii. 16 ; comp. on Rom. xiv. 19); and he is
conscious that he will, in the event of his making a still greater boast of
that, not be put to shame, but see himself justified by the result of his
work. Observe the interchange of plural (ἐξουσ. ju.) and singular. Ols-
hausen, in an arbitrary and involved way, connects εἰς oixod. with καυχήσω-
μαι, holding that there is an anticipation of the thought, so that, according
to the meaning, it ought to have run : οὐκ αἰσχυνθήσομαι, ἐγένετο yap εἰς K.T.A,
— οὐκ αἰσχυνθ.7 when ? in every case of the future generally. There is no in-
dication in the text of a limitation to the last day (Ewald). Even on his
arrival at Corinth he expected that he should experience no cause for
shame.
Ver. 9 is taken by Chrysostom’ as the protasis of ver. 11, so that ver. 10
becomes a parenthesis. But by Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, Grotius,
Bengel, and others, also Billroth and Schrader, it is attached to ver. 8, in
which case, however, some (Beza, Bengel, comp. Billroth) supply before
iva a ““ quod ego idcirco dico,” others (Grotius, comp. Erasmus): ‘‘ non addam
plura ea de re.” The latter is pure invention ; and from the supplement of
Beza there would not at all logically result what is said in ver. 9. No;
let iva μὴ δόξω κ.τ.}. be joined immediately, without assuming any interven-
ing thought, to οὐκ αἰσχυνθήσομαι : I shall not be put to shame (now comes the
definition, in a negative form, of the divine aim with reference to the charge
in question) in order that I may not appear, etc., that the matter may not
remain on the footing of the mere word, but it may be apparent in point of
fact that I am something quite other than the man who wishes to frighten
you by his letters. If in this way the passage proceeds simply and correctly
without logical difficulty, the less simple connection of Chrysostom eé¢ al.
(see above) is superfluous, and is, moreover, not to be accepted, because the
new part of the passage would begin, in a very palpably abrupt way, with
ἵνα without any connecting particle,” and because what Paul says in ver. 11
could not destroy the appearance indicated in ver. 9, to which belonged
matter of fact. — ὡς ἂν ἐκφοβεῖν ὑμᾶς] The Vulgate rightly has: ‘‘tanquam
terrere vos,” and Beza : ‘‘ceu perterrefacere vos.” The ὡς av modestly takes
away from the harsh and strong ἐκφοβεῖν the offensiveness, which in the
feeling of the apostle it would have had, if taken by itself and in its full
sense. It is not modal (‘‘in any way,” Hofmann), but comparative, corre-
sponding quite to our modifying as [German wie]: that I may not appear
to put you as in dread. In later Greek ὡς ἄν certainly has the meaning tan-
quam, quasi, av having lost its specific reference. See Hermann, de part.
av, 4. 3, p. 184; Bornemann, in d. Sdichs. Stud. 1846, p. 61 ; Buttmann,
neut. Gram. Ὁ. 189 [E. T. 219]. To resolve it into ὡς ἂν ἐκφοβοῖμι ὑμᾶς (Ols-
hausen) is arbitrary, as if it were oratio directa, The classical ὡς ἄν with
optative and subjunctive (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 767), as in 1 Thess, ii. 7, is
not to be brought into comparison here, — διὰ τῶν émior.] namely, which I
1 Calvin, Schulz, Morus, Zachariae, Em- crept in after ἵνα a δέ, which we still find in
merling. Vater, Riickert, Olshausen, de Syr. Vulg. Chrys. Theophyl. Pel. Ambro-
Wette, Ewald, Maier, Hofmann. siast. and several cursives,
2 Hence also at a very early time there
626 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
write to you (article); he had already written two. The plural does not
justify the hypothesis of a third letter already written (Bleek). —'The com-
pound ἐκφοβεῖν (comp. ἔκφοβος, Mark ix. ὁ ; Heb. xii. 21) is stronger than
the simple form, Plato, Gorg. p. 483 C ; Hp. 3, p. 318 B ; Thue. iii. 42. 4;
Polyb.- xiv. 10. 3 ; Wisd. xvii. 9, 19; 1 Mace. xiv. 17.
Ver. 10. For his letters, it is said, are weighty and strong ; his bodily pres-
ence, however, is powerless (when present in body, he acts without power
and energy) and his speech despised, his oral teaching, exhortation, etc., find
no respect, are held of little account. Comp. ver. 1. For the apostle’s
own commentary on the second part of this assertion of his opponents, see
1 Cor. ii. 3, 4. Quite at variance with the context, some have found here
also bodily weakness (Witsius in Wolf ; recently, in particular, Holsten, zwm
Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 85), and a weak utterance (Er. Schmid). Besides,
the tradition is very uncertain and late, which pronounces Paul to have
been μικρὸν καὶ συνεσταλμένον τὸ τοῦ σώματος μέγεθος (Niceph. Call. ii. 37).
Comp. on Acts xiv. 12.—The opposite of ἰσχυραί, powerful, is ἀσθενής. ---- On
βαρεῖαι, comp. Wetstein. The gravitas is imposing and instils respect ;
hence the opposite ἐξουθενημ. ---- φησι] it is said, impersonal, as often with the
Greeks. See Bernhardy, p. 419. The reading φασίν (Lachmann, following
B, Vulg.) is a rash correction. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Thesmoph. p. 189 ;
Buttmann, neut. Gram. Ὁ. 119 [E. T. 136]. (2)
Ver. 11. After ver. 10 a full stop is to be put (see on ver. 9), so that now,
without any connecting particle, but with the more striking force, there
follows what is suggested for the consideration of the person judging in
such wise. — τοιοῦτοι καὶ παρόντες τῷ ἔργῳ] 86. ἐσμέν. Such a double part we
do not play.
Ver. 12.’ Reason assigned for this assurance (οἷοί ἐσμεν. . . τῷ ἔργῳ) : for
we are not like our boastful opponents, but, etc. If we were such people as
they are, word and work might doubtless not harmonize in our case. — οὐ
yap τολμῶμεν x.7.A.| for we do not venture to number ourselves among, or compare
ourselves, with certain people among those who commend themselves ; but they,*
measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves with themselves, are
not rational ; we, on the other hand, will not make our boast beyond measure, but,
etc., ver. 13. In οὐ τολμῶμεν is implied an irony which shows the want of
humility in those people. Bengel aptly says : ‘‘ sepem inter se et illos ponit.”
—yxpiva] annumerare, to place in one category ; inserere, as the Vulgate
rightly has it (Hor. Od. i. 1. 85 ; construed with εἰς, μετά, ἐπί with genitive,
and with the simple dative of the persons joined (Apoll. Rhod. i. 48. 227).
See Wetstein and Kypke, II. p. 264. — συγκρῖναι] might mean the same (Morus,
Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Reiche, and several, following the Peshitto), but is defined
by ovyxpivovrec in the contrasting clause as having the meaning comparare
1This passage is most thoroughly dis- αἰτίους ov βουλόμενος.
eussed by Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 33 ff. 2 This emphasized they (αὐτοί, they on their
(whom Billroth has entirely followed), part) is fully justified in contrast to the
and by Reiche, Commentar. crit. I. p. 315 following ἡμεῖς ; hence it is not, with Osi-
ff. Theodoret remarks: ἀσαφῦὶς απαν τὸ ander, to be taken in the sense of soli, in its
χώρημα τοῦτο γέγραφεν, and for this he ad- _ limitation to themselves.
vances as a reason: ἐναργῶς ἐλέγξαι τοὺς
GHAP, χ,, 12: 627
(Vulgate), which it very often has in later Greek, as also in Wisd. vii. 29,
xv. 18, equivalent to παραβάλλειν in Polyb. i. 2. 1, xii. 12. 1.} See, in gen-
eral, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 278. Comp. Loesner, Obss. p. 273. Observe,
moreover, the paronomasia of the two verbs, something like inferre aut con-
Jerre, the German zurechnen oder gleichrechnen ; Ewald : eingleichen oder
vergleichen [reckon to or reckon like]. — τισι] as in ver. 2, not : even the least
of them (Hofmann). —7réyv ἑαυτ. συνιστ.1 This is the class of men, to which
the τινές belong. — ἀλλά] introduces the opposite in such a way that the pro-
cedure of the two parties is placed antithetically in juxtaposition: ‘‘ We do not
venture to reckon ourselves to or compare ourselves with them, but they
proceed thus, we, on the other hand, thus.” We do not venture, etc., but
between them and us there subsists the contrast, which does away with that
ἐγκρῖναι ἢ συγκρῖναι x.t.A., that they, etc., whereas we, etc. — αὐτοί down to οὐ
συνιοῦσιν applies to the hostile τινές, and on this point one half of the expositors
are agreed. But συνιοῦσιν, which is therefore not to be accented συνίουσιν
(comp. on Rom. iii. 11), is not a participle (Chrysostom), so that it would be
definition of quality to éavroic, which would quite unnecessarily make an
anacoluthon, but it is the third person plural (Matt. xiii. 13) for the Attic
συνιᾶσιν, Which is read by Lachmann, following Β x**—so that ἐν ἑαυτοῖς
ἑαυτοὺς μετροῦντες κ. ovyKp. éavt. ἑαυτοῖς is the point, in which the opponents
show their irrationality (inasmuch as they measure themselves by themselves . .
they are irrational), and not the object of οὐ συνιοῦσιν (they do not know that
they measure themselves by themselves), as Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Estius,
Grotius, Er. Schmid, Wolf, and several have held. To this last view, in-
deed, there is no grammatical objection (Valckenaer, ad Herod. 111. 1, and
on the distinction from the infinitive construction, Kiihner, II. p. 357), but
it would yield an inappropriate meaning ; for the contrast ἡμεῖς δὲ «.7.2. Shows
that Paul did not mean to bring into prominence the blindness of his oppo-
nents towards their foolish conduct, but the folly of this procedure itself,
whereas he proceeds quite otherwise. When those people measure them-
selves by themselves, judge themselves by their own personality, and com-
pare themselves with this instead of with persons working more and better,’
they are in this presumption of theirs (comp. Chrysostom 1) irrational, in-
eptiunt, οὐ συνιοῦσι. This, however, is not to be defined more precisely by
arbitrary additions, such as: they do not know how ridiculous they make
themselves (Chrysostom 2, Theophylact), or how arrogant they are (Oecume-
nius), or what they are talking about (Augustine). Comp. rather Rom. iii. 11 ;
1 The objects compared may be of similar 347 E: αὐτοὶ δ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς σύνεισι δι᾿ ἑαυτων. It
or dissimilar nature. On this point the word
does not determine anything.
2 Such an one thinks: what a great man
I am, for how much I know and can do!
how I even excel myself, etc.! His own ego
is thus object and canon of the measuring
and judging. Calvin aptly illustrates this
by the example of the ignorant and yet so
conceited monks. The juxtaposition of
αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἑαυτούς palliates the conceit of
the selfish nature. Comp. Plato, Protag. p.
is well paraphrased by Reiche, p. 380:
‘‘sibi ipsis € vana sua de se opinione virtu-
tum meritorumque modulum constituentes
atque se sibi solis comparantes, non potior-
ibus meliusque meritis, quod si fecerint,
illico quam sint nihil ipsi cognoscerent.”
Hofmann, again, deals in subtleties, refer-
ring ἐν ἑαυτοῖς not only to the first, but also
to the second participle, and (see against
this, below) connecting the concluding
ἑαυτοῖς with the following verb. 4
628 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Matt. xiii. 13, αἱ. Hofmann prefers the reading of 8* 98 : συνίσασιν (comp.
on this Attic form, Acts xxvi. 4, and see Buttmann, Awsf. Sprachl. p. 548
ff.), and attaches ἑαυτοῖς to it : they are not conscious of this, that they only
measure themselves and compare themselves, i.e. that only within their own selves
they form their judgment respecting themselves, how far they are capable of appre-
hending, and to whom they areentitled to rank themselves equal. But the reading
συνίσασιν can only be regarded as a copyist’s error, through which, instead of
συνιᾶσιν (Lachmann), there crept in the word συνίσασιν well known from the
Attic writers (e.g. Soph. #7. 93 ; Xen. Cyrop. iii. 1. 9), and this in turn was at
once amended by the corrector A. And in no case can ἑαυτοῖς be separated from
συγκρίνοντες, Since συγκρίνειν in itself is an incomplete notion, which necessarily
requires a specification of that with which comparison is made. Hofmann’s
view is at once wneritical and illogical, apart from the fact that it very much
disturbs the purposely chosen symmetry of the two participial definitions ;
hence it is also formally unsuitable.— The second half of the expositors
(Chrysostom hesitates between the two views) refer αὐτοὶ... συνιοῦσιν to
Paul, and consider συνιοῦσιν (to be written συνίουσιν) as a participle, so that the
measuring self by self, etc. appears to be the right kind of judgment.’
Comp. Horace, Ep. i. 7. 98 : ‘‘ Metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede verum
est.” In this case either (a) οὐ συνιοῦσιν is considered as in contrast with
ἑαυτοῖς : with ourselves, not with wise people, by which the conceited opponents
would be ironically meant (Bos, Homberg, Schrader). Or (6) ἀλλὰ...
ἑαυτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς is taken as parenthesis, and οὐ συνιοῦσι as One conception in
apposition to τισὶ τῶν ἑαυτ. συνιστ. (Schulz). Or (¢) οὐ συνιοῦσιν is taken as
apposition to the preceding ἑαυτοῖς : ‘‘ neque existimo ex me, homine, ut istis
placet, insipido,” Emmerling, whom Olshausen follows. All these views take
the participles for the finite tenses (or rather as anacoluthic) ; but against
them all the following ἡμεῖς dé is decisive, which makes it logically neces-
sary to refer αὐτοί to the opponents; for it cannot, as Emmerling and Ols-
hausen think, form a logical contrast to the charge whichis alleged to be im-
plied in οὗ συνιοῦσιν, since ἡμεῖς δέ would require to be put in antithesis to the
accusers, and not to the accusation (which, besides, would only be expressed
quite cursorily and indirectly by οὐ συνιοῦσιν). Further, there may be urged
against (a), that it would require οὐ τοῖς συνιοῦσιν with the article ; against
(b), that this interpretation is involved ; against (6), not so much the want
of the article—for οὐ συνιοῦσιν need not be in apposition, but might also be
an accompanying definition of éavroic—as the fact that there is no hint in the
context of any ironical adducing of such a charge, and hence it is not to be
compared with xi. 1, 16, 19, xii. 11. (LL")
Remark 1.—Against our explanation,’ it has been objected (see especially
Fritzsche and Billroth) that ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ κ.τ.2. cannot apply to the opponents,
1 According to Emmerling, μετρ. ἑαυτ. ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἑαυτοὺς μετροῦντες is intended to
éavr. applies to abstinence from promises mean: we measure ourselves by what the
which transcend their powers, and the Lord has imposed on us /
συγκριν. ἑαυτ. ἑαυτοῖς to the “ judicium ferre 2 Which is found in substance also in
de se ad normam virium suarum, factorum Augustine, Chrysostom 1, Theodoret, Theo-
δ meritorum.” According to Olshausen,év phylact, Luther, Calvin, Hammond, Wet-
CHAP. X., 13. 629
because manifestly different modes of dealing, and not different persons, would
be opposed to each other, in which case Paul could not but have written : ἡμεῖς
γὰρ οὐ. . . ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ κιτ.Δ. But by this very contrast of persons first intro-
duced by ἀλλά (ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ. . . ἡμεῖς δέ) the opposite of the mode of action pre-
viously negatived is exhibited in a truly concrete and vivid way, and by no
means illogically, seeing that in fact by the previous ἑαυτοὺς τισί the contrast of
persons introduced with ἀλλά was very naturally suggested. On the other
hand, it would not have been logical, if Paul had written ἡμεῖς yap οὐ τολμῶ-
μὲν. . . ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ x.7.A., since then doubtless the persons, but not that whichis
asserted of the persons, would stand in logical contrast with one another ; for
what is asserted would need to be substantially in both clauses one and the same
thing, which would be denied of the ἡμεῖς, and affirmed of the αὐτοί. It has
been objected to our explanation of οὐ συνιοῦσιν that it is against the context ;
but it is, in point of fact, to be observed, that on the one hand it gives a very
delicate explanation concerning the ironical οὐ τολμῶμεν, and that on the other
hand the following ἡμεῖς δὲ κιτ.λ. with logical accuracy opposes to the previous
ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ ,7.2. the thought : we, however, abide by the measure which God has
imparted to us, so that in κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τοῦ κανόνος, οὗ ἐμέρ. Hu. ὁ θεὸς μέτρου there
lies the contrast to the irrational procedure of the opponents measuring them-
selves by themselves. He who measures himself by himself, seeing that in fact
he lacks an objective standard, falls with his boasting εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα, like
those opponents ; but not he, who knows himself determined by a limit set by
God. Finally, the objection, that by our interpretation οὐ συνιοῦσιν gets a
thought imported into it which its literal tenor does not actually present
(Hofmann), is quite groundless, since ov, by a quite common usage, turns the
συνιοῦσιν into its opposite, consequently οὐ συν. expresses the dovvecia, the
irrationality and folly of those men in their procedure.
Remark 2.—By leaving out οὐ συνιοῦσιν" ἡμεῖς δέ, but retaining καυχησόμεθα,
ver. 13 (see the critical remarks), the meaning results: ‘ sed me ex meo modulo
metiens mihique me conferens, non praeter modum, sed ad modum ita mihi praefiniti
spatii, ut ad vos quoque pervenirem, gloriabor’’ (Fritzsche).! But if καυχησόμεθα
also is left out, as Fritzsche and Billroth approve, Paul in ver. 15 turns back to
οὐκ εὶς τὰ ἄμετρα in ver. 18, and then adds the still necessary verb anacoluthi-
cally in the participle : ‘‘sed me ipse mihi conferens, non praeter modum.. .
ver, 15, non praeter modum inquam me efferens’’ (Fritzsche). The suitableness of
the meaning and of the antithetic character in the several parts, as well as the
unexceptionable warrant of the anacoluthon, have been aptly shown by
Fritzsche, pp. 41, 43 ἢ. But the rejected words cannot thereby be deprived of
their critical title to exist.
Ver, 13. Εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα] so that we with our καυχᾶσθαι go beyond measure, go
into limitless extravagance. This is what is done by the man who measures
stein, Zachariae, and others, including we will not (like those intruders) boast with-
Riickert, Reiche, Neander, Osiander, Kling,
partly also in Hofmann.
1Comp. Ewald : ‘‘du¢ modestly and cau-
tiously measuring ourselves by ourselves and
our abilities, and comparing ourselves with
ourselves and our labours already achieved
and clear before the world and before God,
out measure, but at most will boast accora-
ing to the measure of the standard which God
imparted to us as measure, and which ac-
cordingly among other things authorized
and strengthened us, that we attained even
unto you and founded you.” .
630 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
himself by himself, because in that case no check external to himself is put
on his imagination and self-exaltation. Such a man certainly has an
object of the καυχᾶσθαι, and is not simply aiming at the having one (Hofmann),
which-would yield an absurd idea ; but he has no bounds in the manner and
degree of his καυχᾶσθαι ; he is wanting in μετριότης. Regarding the use of
εἰς With an adjective of degree and the article, see Viger. ed. Herm. p. 596 ;
Matthiae, p. 1349. On the expression itself, comp. Homer, J/. ii. 212,
where Thersites is called ἀμετροεπής. --- καυχησόμεθα] The future asserts that
this case will not occur. Comp. Rom. x. 14, al.; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p.
369. — ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ μέτρον Tov κανόνος, οὗ K.T.A.] 86. καυχησόμεθα : but according to
the measure of the boundary-line, which God (not our own choice) has assigned
to us as measure, to reach even unto you, i.e. but our boasting will restrict and
measure itself according to the limit which God has drawn for us, and by
which He has measured off the sphere of our activity, in order that we
should reach even to you with our working. By this Paul is manifestly
aiming at the vaingloriousness of the false apostles, who decked themselves
with extraneous feathers, inasmuch as they intruded into the provinces of
others, into spheres which had not been assigned to them by God as the
measure of their activity : as, indeed, in particular they had come also to
Corinth, which lay within the boundary-line of Paul’s apostolic action, and
were now boasting as if the church-life in Corinth were chiefly their work.
For, although they could not give themselves out to be the founders of the
church (Baur, Τὰ. Zeitschr. 1832, 4, p. 101), they could still put forward
as their merit the rapid growth of the church and many points of detail, and
thereby presume to put the apostle in the shade. Olshausen thinks that the
false apostles had appropriated to themselves Corinth as their province,
because they had already been at work there before Paul ; but that the latter
had still felt himself at liberty to preach in Corinth, because no apostle had
been there before him. This is an hypothesis quite as superfluous as it is
unhistorical, since neither in the Book of Acts is there found any trace of
Christianity at Corinth before Paul’s arrival, nor in the Epistles, in which,
on the contrary, he states expressly that he was the jirst to preach there (1
Cor. iii. 6, 10), and that all other teachers had entered later into the work
(1 Cor. iv. 15).---- κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τοῦ κανόνος] Here τὸ μέτρον is the measure de-
Jined for the καυχᾶσθαι, as is clear from the previous οὐ χὶεὶς τὰ ἄμετρα xavy.,
—and τοῦ κανόνος is the genitivus subjecti: the measure given by the drawn
measuring-line. And the subsequent μετροῦ" is an apposition to τοῦ κανόνος
not at all unnatural (as Hofmann declares it), but attracted by the relative
clause according to a very frequent Greek usage (see Bernhardy, p. 302 ;
1¥For which Grotius ought not to have
conjectured μέτρον. But the most mistaken
view as regards μέτρον is that lighted on by
Hofmann, who attaches it to ὁ déos: “ the
God of measure,” by which, in his view, it is
affirmed that “ to everything God sets some
sort of measure.”’ As if this singular way
of designating God (altogether different
from such appellations as: the God of
glory, of peace, of love, of hope, and the
like) were even possible without the article
before μέτρου ! In Wisd. ix. 1, πατέρων re-
quired no article, according to the well-
known anarthrous usage of πατήρ in the
singular and plural; and in Ecclus. xxxiii.
1, πάντων without the article is quite accord-
ing to rule.
CHAP. X., 14. ~ 091
Pflugk, ad. Hur. Hee. 771 ; Stallbaum, ad. Plat. Phaed. p. 66 E; Rep. p.
402 C ; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 246 [E. T. 286]) ; consequently not again
the measure of the boasting, but, as appears from the definition of the object
aimed at ἐφικέσθαι ἄχρι k. ὑμῶν, the spatial measure, namely, how far one is to
reach (see what follows), or, dropping the figure: the measure of extent of the
destined working. Paul, namely, conceives of the local extension assigned
to his official working as a space marked out by God with a measuring-line,
in which he takes his stand and is able to reach to all points of it without
unduly stretching or straining himself, ver. 14. Hence : ἐφικέσθαι ἄχρι καὶ
ὑμῶν, which is not simply exegetical (Hofmann), nor does it express the
consequence (Riickert, de Wette), but is, in accordance with the notion of
éuép., to be taken as infinitive of definition of οὗ ἐμέρ. ἡμ. ὁ θεὸς μέτρου. ---- κανών
does not mean sphere of vocation (Flatt and many others), but measuring-rod,
measuring-line. Here the latter. Comp. Gal. vi. 16 ; Aq. Job xxxviii. 5 ;
Ps. xviii. 4. See in general, Duncan, Zev. ed. Rost. p. 587 f. On μερίζειν
τινί τι, to impart something to one, assign as one’s share, comp. Rom. xii. 3 ;
1 Cor. vii. 17 ; Heb. vii. 23 ; Polyb. xi. 28. 9, xxxi. 18. 3. The ἐφικνεῖσθαι is,
in keeping with the figurative representation of the state of the matter (see
especially ver. 14), not to arrive at (Hofmann), which is only expressed
by ἐφθάσαμεν, but to reach to, pertingere, as the Vulgate aptly renders it.
The word is found nowhere else in the N. T., and is here selected for the
sense indicated. Comp. Xen. Cyr. i. 1. 5, v. 5. 8; Plut. Mor. p. 190 E;
Lucian, Jup. conf. 19, al.; also Ecclus. xliii. 27, 30. The Corinthians, be-
cause not to be found beyond the bounds of his κανών, were to the apostle
ἐφικτοί, reachable.
Ver. 14. A parenthetical (see on ver. 15) confirmation of ἐφικέσθαι ἄχρι καὶ
ὑμῶν : for not, as though we were such as do not reach to you, do we overstretch
ourselves, i.e., dropping the figure : for we do not usurp for ourselves any
extension of our working at variance with its destined limit, as would be
the case, if you lay beyond the measured-off province which is divinely
assigned to us. Paul abides by his figure : for if he were not destined to
extend his official working even to Corinth, and yet wished to do so, he
would resemble aman who stretches himself beyond the boundary-line
drawn for him, in order to reach to a point that lies beyond the limits which
he is forbidden to overpass. — ὡς μὴ ἐφικν. εἰς ὑμᾶς] ἐφικν. is to be taken in no
other sense than the previous ἐφικέσθαι. The present, however, denotes : as
though we were persons, in whose case the reaching to you does not occur, 1.6.
whose position within their measured local district implies that you are not
capable of being reached by them, because, forsooth, you lie beyond the
limits of this district. Luther, Beza, and many others, overlooking this
continuation of the figure, and taking ἐφικνούμενοι, in spite of the present
(and in spite of the present ὑπερεκτείνομεν), historically, have explained it :
ut si non pervenissemus, from which error there has sprung the participle of
the second aorist, supported by very weak evidence, and yet preferred by
Billroth. Regarding μή, Winer, p. 442 [E. T. 595], very correctly remarks :
‘a mere conception ; in point of fact, the state of the case is otherwise ,
compare, on the other hand, 1 Cor. ix. 26.” --- ἄχρι yap καὶ ὑμῶν κ.τ.}.} This
632 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
is now the historical position of the case, in confirmation of what was just
Jiguratively expressed by ov yap . . . ἑαυτούς. How fraught with shame must
the sum of recollections, which this simple historical fact embraced, have
been for the misled portion of the church! ἐφθάσαμεν is simply : we have
arrived at (Rom. ix. 31; Phil. iii. 16 ; Matt. xii. 28 ; 1 Thess. ii. 16), ποῦ :
we have arrived before (sooner than the opponents, Osiander, comp. Ewald).
This important point Paul must have denoted by some such expression as
ἐφθάσ. ἐκείνους (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 15). — ἐν τῷ ebayy. τ. X. |] The gospel of Christ
is conceived as the official element in which the ἐφθάσαμεν took place : in
the matter of the gospel, 1.6. in functione evangelica (Bengel). Comp. Rom.
i. 9; 2 Cor. viii. 18 ; Phil. iv. 3; 1 Thess. iii. 2. (1
Ver. 15. As οὐκ εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα καυχ. isevidently intended to resume the οὐχὶ
εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα καυχ. in ver. 13, and as ver. 14 is merely a confirmatory state-
ment occasioned by ἐφικέσθαι ἄχρι x. ὑμῶν, it is most natural and logically
most suitable, with Lachmann, Osiander, Ewald, to place the whole of ver.
14 in a parenthesis (not the second half of the verse merely, as is done by
Griesbach, Scholz, de Wette, Hofmann), so that καυχώμενοι depends on the
καυχησόμεθα to be supplied in the second clause of ver. 13, not on οὐ yap...
ὑπερεκτείν. ἑαυτούς (de Wette, Hofmann). To attach it, with Riickert (comp.
Tischendorf), to ἐφθάσαμεν is quite unsuitable, because the latter contains an
historical remark,—only made, moreover, in passing,—and thus heterogeneous
elements would be combined. — ἐν ἀλλοτρίοις κόποις] object of the negatived
εἰς Ta ἄμετρα καυχᾶσθαι. With his opponents it was the case that their un-
measured boasting referred to labours which were done by others, but were
boasted of by them as their work. —idrida δὲ ? χοντες} but having doubtless
hope, when your faith increases, to become large among you according to our
rule abundantly, i.e. but doubtless hoping, with the growth of your faith,
to attain among you this, that starting from you we may be able still
further abundantly to extend our working according to the measure of our
destination. This meaning Paul expresses figuratively, and that with faith-
ful adherence to the figure used in vv. 13, 14. He, namely, who can work
Sar off, is a man of great stature, who without overstretching himself reach-
esafar ; hence peyadvvOjva.’ Further : because Paul still thinks of working
1peyad. is by most taken as celebrari,
which departs from the figure and hence is
at variance with the context (Luke i. 46;
Acts v. 13, x. 46, xix. 17 ; Phil. i. 20). So Flatt,
Biliroth, and Ewald: “to be exceedingly
praised, instead of being bitterly blamed,”
to which κατὰ τ. κανόνα ἡμῶν is not suitable.
The whole figure demands the explanation
to become large (Matt. xxiii. 5; Luke i. 58),
and only thus does it stand in its right rela-
tion to, and bearing on, αὐξανομ. τ. mor. Up.
Theodoret seems to have understood peyaa.
rightly, since he explains it : περαιτέρω πορευ-
ϑῆναι. Comp. Luther: “proceed further,”
which explains the figurative expression no
doubt, but does not translate it. Osiander
understands under it an actual glorifying
of the office—that its influence, greatness,
and glory shall become advanced. Hof-
mann: that the continuation of the preach-
ing in the far West will make him still
greater, whereby he will have still more
ground for boasting—a view made impossi-
ble by the fact that ἐν ὑμῖν must be joined
with μεγαλ. «x.7.A. With all such interpreta-
tions the bold, concrete figure, which is set
forth in peyaAvvd., is—in opposition to the
connection—abandoned according to a sub-
jective standard of taste, as if it were too
strong and harsh. Erasmus in his Anmnot.
(not in the Paraphr.) aptly says: ‘‘ Significat
se sperare futurum ut in dies crescenie
fide Corinthiorum creseat ipse et major ma-
jorque fiat.”
CHAP. x., 16. 633
forth to distances indefinitely remote, he hopes to become large εἰς περισσείαν
(comp. Prov. xxi. 5). Still he knows that this wide working, on which he
cherishes the hope of being able to enter, will bein keeping with the line
drawn for him by God—i.e. the spatial limit divinely appointed for him—
and thus will be no ὑπερεκτείνειν éavt.; hence κατὰ τὸν κανόνα ἡμῶν;
which Beza ought not to have taken for ἐν τῷ κανόνι ju. (comp. ver. 13).
Further : the possibility of this wider working will not set in, if the faith of
the Corinthians does not grow, namely, intensively, by becoming always purer,
Jirmer, and more living than now, because Paul will not sooner be able to
leave Corinth and travel onward ; hence αὐξανομ. τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν," 850
that thus—and what a wholesome impulse ought this to be to them—it is
the Corinthians themselves, among whom he will see himself brought to the
point of being able to extend his working further ; hence ἐν ipiv* μεγαλυνθ. :
among you to become large in order to further abundant working. — εἰς περισ-
σείαν] for Paul knew that he was destined to preach the gospel among all
nations (Rom. i. 14, 15, and see on Rom. xv. 23, 34; Acts xix. 21); hence
beyond doubt he had already at that time the intention of proceeding by way
of Rome to Spain. Thusin peyadvvOjva . . . εἰς περισσείαν the whole grand
feeling of his apostolic destiny finds earnest and true expression. Rickert,
on the contrary, sees a touch of irony, as if Paul would say : if the Corinthi-
ans would become a church as perfect as he wishes and expects, there will
thence accrue a gain also for him ; he, too, will then grow with them, and
become capable not only of doing in the midst of them what is necessary,
but also of doing yet something more, of growing, as it were, beyond the
proper stature, etc. But both κατὰ τὸν κανόνα ἡμῶν and εἰς περισσείαν are at
variance with the character of irony. If Paul had wished to express him-
self ironically, he would have written possibly ἐν ὑμῖν μεγαλυνθῆναι ὀλίγον or
the like, which would have expressed something different from what he
properly meant.
Ver. 16. Infinitive without a connecting καί, and all the less therefore
dependent in its turn on ἐλπίδα dé ἔχοντες, but rather infinitive of the aim:
1 Riickert, at variance with the context,
understands under κανών here the apostle’s
rule of not working where others had al-
ready wrought. See against this, ver. 13.
2 Bengel rightly remarks on the present
participle : ‘‘ Paulus Corinthios neque ante
tempus omittere voluit, neque alios diutius
differre.” Olshausen erroneously thinks
that Paul was waiting for the completion of
faith among the Corinthians. The apostle
rather means the proportionate increase of
the faith of the readers, which hitherto
had not attained such a degree of develop-
ment as to make it possible for him to with-
draw his working from them and extend
the sphere of his activity further. This
delicate reference of αὐξανομ. τ. πίστ. ὑμῶ,
which appeals to the whole sense of honour
in the readers, and according to which Paul
makes his further working at a distance de-
pend on their Christian progress, is missed
by Hofmann, who explains αὐξανομ. κ.τ.λ.
merely in the sense of coincidence in time
(while faith grows). This is bound up with
his incorrect joining of ἐν ὑμῖν with αὐξανομ.
See the following note.
3 This ἐν ὑμῖν is not, with Luther, Castalio,
Beza, Mosheim, Billroth, de Wette, Hof-
mann, to be joined to αὐξανομ. (whereby
either ὑμῶν or ἐν ὑμῖν at any rate, even with
the meaning imported into it by Hofmann :
“within your own sphere,’’ would seem
very superfluous) ; nor yet is it to be taken
as per vos (Erasmus, Grotius, Flatt), which
only impairs the vividness and complete-
ness of the figure, and in substance is al-
ready contained in αὐξανομ. τ. πίστ. vm.
634 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
we hope to become exceedingly /arge among you, in order to preach the gospel
unto the lands lying beyond you,’ not within the boundary-line of another to
boast of what is already done. This negative part is a side-glance at the
opponents who in Corinth, which lay within the range of the line drawn
for Paul, and so ἐν ἀλλοτρίῳ κανόνι, had boasted in regard to the circumstan-
ces of the church there, which they had, in fact, found already shaped
before they came, consequently εἰς τὰ ἕτοιμα. Comp. Calvin : ‘‘quum Paulus
militasset, illi triumphum agebant.” Beza and Billroth, also de Wette and
Hofmann (who thinks all three infinitives dependent on ἐπ. éy.), take the
infinitive as epexegesis of μεγαλυνθ. by adding an id est ; but this is pre-
cluded by the correct connection of ἐν ὑμῖν with μεγαλυνθ. For, if Paul
hopes to become large among the Corinthians, this cannot mean the same
thing as to preach away beyond Corinth (εἰς τὰ ὑπερέκεινα iu. evayy.). No ;
that μεγαλυνθ. denotes the becoming capable for further extended working,
the being put into a position for it, and accordingly the aim of this is: εἰς τὰ
ὑπερέκεινα ὑμῶν evayy. Ewald would make the infinitives ebayy. and καυχ.
dependent on κατὰ τ. κανόνα ἡμ., 80 that they would explain in what more
precisely this rule consists ; but this is forbidden by the fact that εἰς περισσ.
is not placed before κατὰ τ. κ. ἡμ.--- ΤΠ adverb ὑπερέκεινα, ultra, is bad Greek.
See Thomas Magister, Ὁ. 336 : ἐπέκεινα ῥήτορες λέγουσι. . . ὑπερέκεινα δὲ μόνοι
οἱ σύρφακες (the rabble). Comp. Bos, Hilips., ed. Schaef. pp. 288, 290. ---
εἰς before ὑπερέκ. does stand for ἐν (Flatt and others), but comp. 1 Pet. i.
25 ; John viii. 26 ; 1 Thess. ii. 9. -- οὐκ ἐν ἀλλοτρ. κανόνι] οὐκ, not μή, is here
used quite according to rule (in opposition to Riickert), since the οὐκ ἐν ἀλλ.
καν. is correlative to the εἰς τὰ ὑπερέκεινα ὑμῶν as contrast (Hartung, Partikell.
II. p. 125 f.). And this correlation demands that ἐν be understood not of
the object of καυχᾶσθαι (Hofmann), but locally, to which also the very notion
of κανών (ver. 18) points : within the measuring-line drawn for another, i.e.
as to substance : in the field of activity divinely destined for another. — On
εἰς With xavy., in reference to, comp. Arist. Pol. v. 10.
Ver. 17 ἢ. The ἐν ἀλλ. kav. εἰς τὰ ἕτοιμα xavy. was the way of the oppo-
nents, whose self-glorying was selfish ostentation. Therefore Paul now lays
down the law of the right καυχᾶσθαι, and establishes it in a way (ver. 18),
the application of which to the perversity of the opponents’ boasting could
not but be obvious. —dé] leading over from the previous καυχήσασθαι to the
law of the καυχᾶσθαι. ‘‘But as regards self-glorying, the maxim applies :
Let him that glories glory (not otherwise than) in the Lord,” let him have God
as the object of his καυχᾶσθαι, inasmuch as it is God, by whose grace and
power he has and does everything. Paul himself gives a glorious example
of the ἐν κυρίῳ καυχᾶσθαι in 1 Cor. xv. 10. Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 9, 10.—As ὁ
καυχ. ἕν κυρ. kavy. is an O. T. maxim well known to the reader (Jer. ix. 23
f.; comp. 1 Cor. i. 31), and the context contains nothing at all which would
be at variance with the original reference of the ἐν κυρίῳ to God, viewed as
object of the καυχᾶσθαι, in which this is grounded (see on Rom. ii. 17), it is
1“ Meridiem yersus et occidentem; nam Athenis Corinthum yenerat, Act. xviii. 1,”
Bengel.
NOTES. : Gao
not to be understood of Christ (Erasmus, Estius, Flatt, Riickert, and others),
nor is év to be taken in the sense of communion (Calvin, Bengel, Osiander).
Observe, moreover, what a moral difference there is between this Christian
καυχᾶσθαι ἐν θεῷ (comp. Rom. v. 11) and that of the Jewish particularism,
Rom. ii. 17. — Ver. 18. For not he who acts in the opposite way, not he who,
instead of glorying ἐν κυρίῳ, makes himself’ the object which he commends to
others, is approved, is in the position of attested Christian character, but he,
whom the Lord commends. The latter is—and that in contrast with the oppo-
nents extolling themselves—the practical commendation, which God bestows
on those concerned by His whole gracious aid, by the success and blessing
attending their work, by their rescue from dangers, etc. In this de facto
θεῖα ψῆφος (Theodoret), which is made known before the eyes of the world,
they have at the same time the right de facto self-commendation, vi. 3 ff.,
without being αὐτεπαίνετοι (αὐτεπαινέτους yap μισεῖ ὁ θεός, Clem. 1 Cor. 30). —
Observe, further, the emphatic ἐκεῖνος as well as the unrestricted δόκεμος, the
notion of which is not to be referred merely to hwman recognition (Hof-
mann), as in Rom. xiv. 18, where τοῖς ἀνθρώπ. stands beside it ; comp. rather
1 Cor. xi. 19 ; Rom. xvi. 10 ; Jas. i. 12. (ἐμ
Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR.
(1°) The change of tone and style. Vv. 1-18.
This change, which is obvious to every careful reader, has been explained by
Stanley as due either to the reception of fresh tidings from Corinth of a relapse
of fervour on the part of the church, or to a return on the part of the Apostle to
his former feeling of apprehension (ii. 1), Hodge, on the other hand, says that
in the previous nine chapters Paul was addressing the faithful and obedient
portion of the church, while here he has in view the false teachers and their ad-
herents, who not only made light of his authority, but corrupted the gospel,
and he therefore naturally assumes a tone of authority and severity.
(38) ““ Every high thing that ewalteth itself.” Ver. 5.
The conflict here referred to is that between the wisdom of the world and the
wisdom of God, which has continued from Paul’s day to our own. Scientists
and philosophers exalt their own opinions against ‘‘the knowledge of God,”
which they deem foolishness. Here Paul teaches that they are not to be met
with carnal weapons by turning the gospel into a philosophy. This would make
it a human conflict on both sides, whereas we are to rely not upon power of ar-
gument, but on the demonstration of Spirit, setting in opposition to human
reasonings the testimony of God. This is the weapon that is mighty before
God and at last subdues all opposition.
(K*) ‘* Not for your destruction.’”’ Ver. 8.
The word here used is the same as that employed in ver. 4 of the pulling down
of strongholds. The Revision of 1881 preserves the uniformity of terms by
giving the parenthesis thus: ‘‘ Which the Lord gave for building you up, and
636 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
not for casting you down.” The Apostle’s authority was given to him not for
his own exaltation or for putting down his personal enemies, but for the build-
ing up of the church in holiness and peace.
(L°) ‘* His bodily presence is weak.”’ Ver. 10.
The traditions which represent Paul as short in stature and unattractive in
appearance (Renan calls him “an ugly little Jew”) are, as Dr. Meyer says, of no
value. ‘The comparison of Barnabas to Jupiter and Paul to Mercury by the
people of Lystra (Acts xiv. 12) implies that he was the less commanding of the
two. But his whole history, his unceasing labonrs, his constant journeyings, his
innumerable sufferings, prove that he was not physically a man of feeble con-
stitution,
(1.5) Self-measurement. Ver. 12.
Calvin applies the whole passage to the monks of his day, who while igno-
rant as donkeys, were held to be learned, and if any one had even a tincture of
elegant letters he spread his plumage like a peacock. Yet if one removed the
cowl and examined the facts, he found nothing but emptiness. Why? The
old proverb, Ignorance is bold. But particularly because they measured them-
selves by themselves. And since barbarism prevailed in their cloisters, it is no
wonder that the one-eyed is king among the blind.
(m*) Paul's province. Ver. 14.
By this term the Revised Version renders the word given in the A, VY. as
rule (ver. 13), There is no ground for the notion that the Apostles portioned
out the world amongst them with a peculiar province for each, which could not
be, since their authority arose not from election or appointment to a particular
place, but from their plenary knowledge, infallibility, and supernatural power,
and was therefore the same everywhere and in relation to all the churches.
Yet it is plain from Galatians ii. 9, that in the great divisions of Jew and Gen-
tile, the former belonged to the original Apostles James, Peter, and John, the
latter to Paul and his companions, It was also the Apostle’s maxim never to
make a permanent stay where the gospel had already been preached, so much
so that his visit to Rome was regarded by him as taken merely on his way to
Spain, which was still open to a new teacher (Rom. xv. 18-24).
mm*) The rule of true boasting. Vv. 17, 18.
) J
This is furnished by the Apostle in the words of Jeremiah, which he recites
without naming their author. There are occasions when it is necessary for a
Christian to assert his character and works and claims before men, but when
these occur, the whole praise should be ascribed to God, who is the sole source
of all success. This rule was binding both upon Paul and upon his oppo-
nents ; the difference between them was that he observed the rule, but they
did not.
CHAP. XI. 637
CHAPTER XI.
Ver. 1. ἀνείχεσθε] Elz. : ἠνείχεσθε, following min. Chrys. Theophyl. But the
former is decisively attested by Β Ὁ E G L Μ (δὲ has ἀνάσχεσθε) and many
min., also Chrys. ms. Damase. Theoph. ms. K and several min., as also
Theodoret, have ἀνέχεσθε, which appears to be a corruption of the original
ἀνείχεσθε, easily arising from the ἀνέχεσθε that soon follows. — τῇ ἀφροσύνῃ]
So Mill, Beng. Matth. Griesb. Scholz, Reiche, following K L and many min.
Copt. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Oec. Theophylact, ms. But there is far more
support for the reading of Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. : τὶ ἀφροσύνης, following
BDE 8, min. (Elz. has τιτῆς dgp., following F G, min. vss. Fathers), This rv
ἀφροσύνης is to be held as the original, not, however, as if Griesbach’s reading
had arisen only from a copyist’s error of itacism (τῇ for tz, as Rinck holds,
Lucubr. crit. p. 167, and Riick.), but on account of the relatively preponderant
attestation, and because the following ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀνέχεσθέ μου most naturally sug-
gested to the copyists to regard μου as the object of ἀνείχεσθε, to which then the
genitive ἀφροσύνης was no longer suitable. Τῇ ἀφροσύνῃ had to be made out
of it (in regard to folly), and thereupon the superfluous τὸ easily disappeared
through the following τῇς The reading μικρὸν τῆς ἀφροσύνης μου (F G, It. Vulg.)
is explained partly from imperfect critical restoration (of the genitive), partly
as an indication of the right construction. — Ver. 3. οὕτω] is wanting in B D*
FG &, It. Copt. Goth. Arm. Clem. Epiph. Lucif. Gaud. ; deleted by Lachm.
and Rick. An addition. — After ἁπλότητος B F G, & min. Syr. p. (with
asterisk), Aeth. Copt. Goth. Boern. Pol. Aug. Beda have καὶ τῆς ἁγνότητος (so
Lachm.); D E, Clar. Germ. Epiph. (once) change the order of the two
parts ; Epiph. (once) has ἁγνείας instead of ἁγνότητος. After ver. 2 (ἁγνήν)
ἁγνότητος was written alongside as a gloss on ἁπλότητος, and was already at an
early date incorporated in the text, partly behind, partly before ἁπλότ. — Ver.
4. ἀνείχεσθε] The form ἠνείχεσθε (Elz.) is condemned here also by decisive
evidence. Comp. ver. 1. Lachm. reads ἀνέχεσθε, but only supported by B,
where it has arisen from the apparent grammatical necessity of the present.
Fritzsche also, on account of this necessity, declares for the present ; but see
the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 6. φανερωθέντες] Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. [also
Tregelles and Westcott and Hort] read φανερώσαντες, supported by BF G &* 17.
φανερωθέντες was explained by the gloss φανερώσαντες ἑαυτούς, as is actually the
reading in M, 108** Arm., and thus the active participle came into the text,
where it was the more easily retained, as it could be referred without difficulty
to τὴν γνῶσιν. --- Ver. 14. θαυμαστόν] Β D* F ἃ ἐς, 17, 39, 67** 74, Or. have
θαῦμα. So Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. The former is a gloss. — Ver. 16. The
order κἀγὼ μικρ. τι καυχ. (Elz. has μικρ. τ. κἀγὼ kavy.) has decisive attestation.
— Ver. 21. ἠσθενήναμεν] Lachm. has the perfect, but follows only by B δὲ, 80. —
Ver. 27. ἐν before κόπῳ is on decisive evidence, with Lachm. Tisch. and Ruck.,
to be deleted as an addition. — Ver. 28, ἐπισύστασίς μου] BF G &*: ἐπίστασίς
638 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
μοι; so Lachm. Ruck. ᾿Επίστασις is supported also by Ὁ E &** 39, al., which
have the reading ἐπίστασίς μου. Comp. also instantia mea in Vulg. Boern.
Ambrosiast. Pel. The word ἐπισύστασις has crept in from Acts xxiv. 12, be-
cause ἐπίστασις Was not understood, and μου is a hasty correction. — Ver. 32.
θέλων is wanting in important witnesses, deleted by Lachm. Ruck. and Tisch.
An exegetical addition.
Contents.— The apostle’s self-glorying against his opponents. (1) Intro-
duction, vv. 1-4. (2) Theme of the self-praise, ver. 5 f. (8) Vindication
of the special boast that he had preached to his readers gratuitously (vv.
7-9), a practice which he will continue to observe on account of his oppo-
nents (vv. 10-15). Then, (4) after a repeated entreaty for patience towards
the folly of his self-glorying, which entreaty he accompanies with bitter re-
marks (vv. 16-20), he compares himself with his enemies (@) in general, ver.
21 ; (0) specially as a Jew, ver. 22; (c) asa servant of Christ, ver. 23 ff.,
in which latter relation he vindicates his sufferings, toils, and dangers, as
things of which he will glory (vv. 23-30). Lastly, (5) after a solemn assur-
ance that he does not lie, he begins an account of his experiences of suffer-
ing (vv. 31-33), which, however, is not continued.
Ver. 1. Would that ye would bear from me a little bit of folly! The con-
nection of thought is this : after the principle just expressed in x. 18, I am
indeed acting foolishly when I boast of myself ; but would that you became
not angry on that account ! Jrony ; the apostle’s περιαυτολογία was not, like
that of his opponents, idle self-exaltation, but a vindication enjoined by the
circumstances and accordant with his duty, in order to drive the refractory
boasters at length quite out of the field. Flatt and Baur would insert an
also (from me also as from mine enemies), but quite arbitrarily. — ὄφελον]
see on 1 Cor. iv. 8. -- ἀνείχεσθε] Hellenistic form with the simple augment
(Piers. ad Moer. p. 176) instead of the common ἠνείχ. in the older writers
(Buttmann, Ausfiihrl. Sprachl. 11. p. 189 1. ; Blomfield, ad Aesch. Choeph.
735) : The imperfect is not : have borne (Erasmus, Calvin, and others), but :
ferretis, would bear. Comp. eife with imperfect : ‘‘ubi optamus,eam rerum
conditionem quam non esse sentimus,” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 516 ; Ellendt,
Lex. Soph. I. p. 499; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 185 [E. T. 215]. — μου] does
not belong to ἀφροσύνης (Hofmann), so that its position standing apart and
prefixed would be emphatic,—which, however, does not at all suit the en-
clitic form,—but, as genitivus subjecti, to μικρόν τι adpoo., 80 that μικρ. te has
two genitives with it. Comp. LXX. Job vi. 26 : οὐδὲ yap ὑμῶν φθέγμα ῥήμα-
roc ἀνέξομαι. See in general, Kiihner, ὃ 542. 3 ; Lobeck, ad Aj. 309 ; Stall-
baum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 329 B. With the reading μικρὸν τῇ ἀφροσύνῃ (see the
critical remarks) it would have to be attached to aveiy. (would that ye en-
dured me a little as to folly), not to τῇ ἀφροσύνῃ, as Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 53
f., contrary to the simple order of the words, prefers, and μικρόν would have
to be taken either of time, or, with Reiche, of degree : paulisper, ‘‘ non
nimio fastidio.” — ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀνέχεσθέ μου] corrective : yet this wish is not
needed, ye really bear patiently with me. The imperative interpretation of
ἀνέχεσθε (Vulgate, Pelagius, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Bengel,
OHAPS XI.5.21 639
Hofmann), according to which Paul would proceed from wish to entreaty,
would be quite tame on account of the preceding wish, and in the corrective
form unsuitable. — καί] also, i.e. in reality. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p.
132. — μου] ἀνέχεσθε governs either the accusative, as in the case of μικρόν τι be-
fore (and this is the more common construction in Greek authors), or, as here,
the genitive (so usually in the N. T.), which is also found in Greek authors
when the object is a thing (Hom. Od. xxii. 423, and later authors, such as
Herodian, viii. 5. 9, i. 17. 10), but very seldom with persons (Plat. Protag.
Ῥ. 323 A), without a participle standing alongside, as Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 1;
Plat. Pol. ii. p. 367 D, or without a simple participle, as Plat. Pol. viii. p.
564 Ὁ, Apol. p. 31 B ; Herod. v. 89, vii. 159.
Ver. 2. Ground of the ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀνέχεσθέ μου : My jealousy for you is, in
fact, a divine jealousy ; how can you then refuse to me the ἀνέχεσθαι ' Riick-
ert refers γάρ to ὄφελον. . . ἀφροσύνης, but in this way ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀνέχεσθέ μου is
overleaped all the more violently, seeing that it is a correction of what goes
before. Calvin (comp. Chrysostom and Bengel) : ‘‘en cur desipiat, nam
hominem zelotypia quasi transversum rapit.” Against this may be urged
the emphatic θεοῦ, in which lies the very point of the reason assigned. —
ζηλῶ yap ὑμᾶς x.t.A.] As Paul, in what follows, represents himself as a mar-
riage-friend (comp. John iii. 29) who has betrothed the bride to the bride-
groom, and is now anxious that she may not let herself be led astray by an-
other, ζηλῶ is to be taken in the narrowest sense as equivalent to ζηλοτυπῶ :
Tam jealous concerning you (comp. Num. v. 14 ; Ecclus. ix. 1), for the mar-
riage-friend very naturally takes the bridegroom’s part. The more indefinite
interpretation : I am zealous concerning you (Flatt and others), is therefore,
according to the context, too general, and the explanation : vehementer amo
vos (Rosenmiiller, comp. Fritzsche), is at variance with the context. — θεοῦ
ζήλῳ] with a jealousy, which God has ; which is no human passion, but an
emotion belonging to God, which I therefore have in common with Him.
Paul consequently conceives of God as likewise jealous concerning the Co-
rinthian church (ὑμᾶς), that she might not, as the bride of Christ, suffer her-
self to be led astray. God appears in the O. T. as the spouse of His people,
and therefore jealous regarding it (Isa. liv. 5, lxii. 5; Jer. 111. 1 ff. ; Ezek.
xvi. 8 ff., xxiii. ; Hos. ii. 18, 19). Now, as the representative of God in
the theocracy of the N. T. is Christ, with whom, therefore, the church ap-
pears connected, partly as spouse (see on Rom. vii. 4), partly as betrothed
(with reference to the completion of the marriage at the Parousia), as here
(comp. Eph. v. 25 ff.) ; the falling away from Christ must therefore be the
object of divine jealousy, and so Paul knows his ζηλος, the ζῆλος of the mar.
riage-friend, as the ζῆλος of God. θεοῦ has been taken as genitivus auctoris
(Wolf and others, comp. Flatt, de Wette), or as : zeal for God (Rom. x. 2, so
Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Semler, Schulz), or as: zeal pleasing to God (Bill-
roth, comp. Flatt), or as: zeal extraordinarily great (Emmerling, so also
Fritzsche ; comp. Bengel : ‘‘zelo sancto et magno”) ; but art these inter-
pretations lie beyond the necessary definite reference to what follows, in
which a reason is given for the very predicate θεοῦ. (N°) — ἡρμοσάμην yap K.T.A. |
Sor I have betrothed you. . . but I fear, etc., ver. 3, so that, with Lachmann,
640 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS,
only a comma is to be put after ver. 2. ἁρμόζειν, adaptare, then specially in
the sense of betroth ; see Wetstein. The more Attic form is ἁρμόττειν. See
Gregor. p. 154, Schaef. ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 241. That Paul has ex-
pressed himself contrary to the Greek usage (according to which ἁρμόζεσθαί
τινα means: to betroth oneself to a woman, Herod. v. 32, 47, vi. 65), is
only to be said, in so far as a classical writer would certainly have used the
active (Herod. ix. 108; Pind. Pyth. ix. 207), although in late writers the
middle also occurs in the active sense (see the passages from Philo in Loes-
ner, p. 320, ¢.g. de Abr. p. 364 B: γάμος dv ἁρμόζεται ἡδονῇ), and here the
following ἑνὶ ἀνδρί leaves no doubt of the reference : 7 have joined (i.e. ac-
cording to the context, betrothed) you to one husband. Paul regards himself
as a marriage-friend (προμνήστωρ ὑμῶν ἐγενόμην καὶ τοῦ γάμου μεσίτης, Theodoret),
by whose intervention the betrothal of the Corinthians with Christ was
brought to pass. Chrysostom aptly says on the figurative representation of
the matter : μνηστείας γάρ ἐστι καιρὸς ὁ παρὼν καιρός" ὁ δὲ τῶν παστάδων ἕτερος,
ὅταν λέγωσιν" ἀνέστη ὁ νυμφίος. .. Ὃ μάλιστα τούτοις (to the readers) ἔφερεν
ἀξίωμα, τοῦτο τίθησιν, ἑαυτὸν μὲν ἐν χώρᾳ τῆς προμνηστρίας, ἐκείνους δὲ ἐν τάξει τῆς
νύμφης στήσας. Pelagius, Elsner, Mosheim, Emmerling wrongly hold that
he conceives himself as father of the Corinthians ; their father (but this fig-
ure is here quite out of place) he has, in fact, only come to be through their
conversion to Christ (1 Cor. iv. 17 ; 2 Cor. xii. 14 ; comp. Tit. i. 4) ; he had
not been so already before. Regarding the marriage-friend of the Jews, [3
παρανύμφιος, Who not only wooed the bride for the bridegroom, but who was
the constant medium between the two, and at the wedding itself was regu-
lator of the feast, see Schédttgen, Hor. ad Joh. iii. 29. With the Rabbins,
Moses is represented as such a marriage-friend. See Rab. Sal. ad Ezod.
xxxiv. 1, al. —évi ἀνδρί] to one husband, to belong to no one further. — rap-
θένον ἁγνὴν κ.τ.2.1 Aim, with which he had betrothed the Corinthians to a
single husband : in order to present 4 pure virgin to Christ (rapaor., comp.
iv. 14), namely, at the Parousia, when Christ appears as bridegroom, to
fetch home the bride, Matt. xxv. 1 ff. ; Eph. v. 27; Rev. xix. 7-9. The
church in its entirety, asa moral person, is this virgin. On ἁγνήν, comp.
Dem. 1371. 23; Plut. Mor. p. 268 E, 488 C; Plat. Legg. viii. p. 840 Ὁ.
The whole emphasis is on παρθένον ἁγνήν. When this is attended to, there
disappears the semblance of εἷς ἀνήρ and ὁ Χριστός being different persons, —
a semblance for which Riickert blames the apostle. Fritzsche regards τᾷ
Χριστῷ as apposition to ἑνὲ ἀνδρί (in which Riickert agrees with him), and
encloses παραστῆσαι between two commas; but this is an unnecessary and
enfeebling breaking up of the passage. Beza and Bengel connect ἑνὶ ἀνδρί
with rapaor., and take τῷ Χριστῷ likewise epexegetically. But the absolute
ἡρμοσάμην ὑμᾶς Would in fact mean : I have betrothed myself to you! In order
that it may not mean this, it must necessarily be joined to évi avdpi.
Ver. 3. The point of comparison is the leading astray by the devil, which
took place in the case of Eve (through the serpent), and was to be feared in
that of the Corinthians (through the false apostles, Satan’s servants, ver.
15). For Paul presupposes it as well known to his readers, that Satan had
led astray Eve by means of the serpent. To him and to them the serpent
chm
CHAP. X1., 4. 641
was by no means either a symbol or a mystical figure of the cosmical principle
(Martensen). (0°) Comp. Wisd. ii. 23 f. ; 4 Macc. xviii. 8 ; 1 John iii. 8 ;
Rev. xii. 9, 14 f., xx. 2; and see on John viii. 44, and Grimm on Wisd. /.¢.
For the monstrous inventions of the later Rabbins, see Eisenmenger, Hnt-
decktes Judenth. I. p. 830 ff. — Paul’s mention (comp. 1 Tim. ii. 15) of Hve
(not Adam) is alike in keeping with the narrative (Gen. iii.) and with the
comparison, since the church is represented as feminine (comp. Ignat. Eph.
interpol. 17). In Rom. v. 12 and 1 Cor. xv. 22, the connection demanded
‘the mention of Adam. — 6 ὄφις] the well-known serpent. — ἐν τῇ πανουργ.
αὐτοῦ] instrumental. Comp. Eph. iv. 14 ; Aq. Gen. 111. 1: ὁ ὄφις ἦν πανοῦρ-
γος, Ignat. Phil. 11 interpol. : ὁ σκολιὸς ὄφις K.7.A. — φθαρῇ] become corrupted,
not be corrupt (Ewald). Paul expresses himself with tender forbearance ;
‘the corruption of the church by anti-Pauline doctrine (ver. 4) he sees as a
danger. — ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότ. «.t.A.] a pregnant phrase: lest your thoughts
(comp. 111. 14, iv. 4, x. 5) become corrupted and led away from the simplicity
towards Christ (εἰς X. is not equivalent to ἐν X., as the Vulgate, Beza,
Calvin, and others have it). See Fritzsche, Diss. 11. p. 63 f. ; Buttmann,
neut. Gr. p. 277 [E. T. 822]. The ἁπλότης ἡ εἰς X. is the quality of simple,
honest fidelity in the παρθένος ἁγνή, who shares her heart with no other than
with her betrothed.
Ver. 4. An ironical (and therefore not conflicting with Gal. i. 18) reason
assigned for that anxiety. For if, indeed, my opponents teach and work some-
thing so entirely new among you, one would not be able to blame you for being
pleased with it. -— Regarding εἰ μέν, if indeed, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p.
414 f. ; Klotz, ad Deoar, p. 522. — ὁ ἐρχόμενος] does not refer to ὁ ὄφις, ver.
3 (Kniewel). It might doubtless mean the jirst comer, as Emmerling and
Billroth kold (Bernhardy, p. 318), comp. Gal. v. 10; but, since Paul man-
ifestly has in view the conduct of the whole fraternity of opposing teachers
(see immediately, ver. 5), it is rather this totwm genus that is denoted by ὁ
épxeduvoc, and that concretely, and in such a fashion that their emergence
is vividly illustrated by reference to one definitely thought of, of whom,
however, the point is left undetermined who he is: is gui venit. Comp.
Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 65 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. v. 8. 22. The word ex-
hibits the persons meant in the light of outsiders, who come to Corinth and
there pursue their courses in opposition to the apostle. They are intruders
(comp. iii. 1), and by the present. tenses their coming and practices are de-
noted as still presently prevailing, just as this corrupting intercourse had
been already going on for a considerable time. Ewald thinks here, too, of
a special individual among the counter-apostles. — ἄλλον ᾿Τησοῦν κηρύσσει]
i.e. so preaches of Jesus, that the Jesus now preached appears not to be the
same as was previously preached,’ consequently as if a second Jesus.
Hence, to explain it more precisely, there is added : ὃν οὐκ ἐκηρύξαμεν : who
was not the subject-matter of our preaching, of whom we have known noth-
ing and preached nothing, therefore not the crucified Saviour (1 Cor. ii. 2)
1Tf Paul had written ἄλλον Χριστόν, the but another is the Christ. How unsuitable
reading of F. G, Arm. Vulg., the meaning _ this is, is self-evident.
of it would be: he preaches that not Jesus,
“
042 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
through whom men are justified without the law, etc. ἄλλος negatives
simply the identity, ἕτερος at the same time the similarity of nature: an
other Jesus... a different spirit. Comp. Acts iv. 12; Gal. i. 6, 7; 1 Cor.
xii, 9, xv. 40. — ἢ πνεῦμα ἕτερον x.7.A.] ἢ, or, in order to describe this reform
atory working from another side, another kind of Spirit, etc. As the
false apostles might have boasted that only through them had the right
Jesus been preached to the Corinthians,’ they might also have added that
only through ¢heir preaching had the readers received the true Holy Spirit,
whom they had not before received, namely, when Paul had taught them
(ὃ οὐκ ἐλάβετε). Moreover, it is decidedly clear from ἢ πνεῦμα ἕτερον k.7.A.
that it cannot have been (this in opposition to Beyschlag) a more exact
historical information and communication regarding Jesus, by means of
which the persons concerned attempted to supplant Paul among the Corin-
thians. It was by means of Judaistic false doctrines ; comp. ver. 13 ff.
See also Klipper, p. 79 f. — ὃ οὐκ ἐδέξασθε] for the Pauline gospel was ac-
cepted by the readers at their conversion : the gospel brought by the false
apostles was of another kind (ἕτερον), which was not before accepted by them.
Riickert arbitrarily says that ἐδέξασθε is equivalent to ἐλάβετε, and that the for-
mer is used only to avoid the repetition of the latter. How fine and accurate,
on the other hand, is Bengel’s remark : ‘‘ Verba diversa, rei apta ; non con-
currit voluntas hominis in accipiendo Spiritu, ut in recipiendo evangelio.”
Comp. on the distinction between the two words, Theile, ad Jacob. p. 68. —
καλῶς aveiyeobe| καλῶς, like praeclare in the ironical sense of with full right.
See on Mark vii. 9 ; Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 271 ff. ; Diss. II. p. 72 f. ; and
regarding the ironical use of the adjective καλός, Stallb. ad Rep. p. 595 C,
607 E. . According to Hofmann, καλῶς is an expression of an earnest ap-
proval, which, however, is cancelled of itself by the impossibility of the
case which is put. But in the protasis the case, in fact, is just simply put,
not put as impossible (comp. Gal. i. 8, 9) ; hence in the apodosis an ἀνάθεμα
on the seducers, or a severe censure of those who did not withstand them,
would have had its place in the mind of the apostle rather than a καλῶς
ἀνείχεσθε earnestly meant. The imperfect ἀνείχεσθε does not, indeed, in
strict logic suit κηρύσσει and λαμβάνετε in the protasis, and we should expect
ἀνέχεσθε, as is actually the reading of B. But it is not on that account to
be explained as if εἰ ἐκήρυσσεν x.7.A. stood in the protasis (if the comer was
preaching. . . ye would, etc.), as Chrysostom, Luther, Castalio, Cornelius
i Lapide, and many others, including Baur, /.c. p. 102, explained it, which
is wrong in grammar; nor is—along with an otherwise correct view of the
protasis—karac ἀνείχεσθε to be taken in the historical sense, as has been
attempted by some, as interrogatively (have you with right tolerated
it 2), such as Heumann, by others, such as Semler,’ in the form of an indig-
nant exclamation (you have truly well tolerated it!), both of which mean-
ings are logically impossible on account of the difference of tenses in the
1 Against the interpretation that it was a schlag, 1865, p. 239 f.
spiritual, visionary Christ whom the Chris- 2 He is followed recently by Hilgenfeld in
tian party had given out for the true one his Zeitsch7. 1865, p. 261.
(Schenkel, de Wette, and others), see Bey-
CHAPOXL ὩΣ * 643
protasis and apodosis. No ; we have here the transition from one construc-
tion to the other. When Paul wrote the protasis, he meant to put ἀνέχεσθε
in the apodosis ; but when he came to the apodosis, the conception of the
utter non-reality of what was posited in the protasis as the preaching of
another Jesus, etc., induced him to modify the expression of the apodosis
in such a way, that now there is implied in it a negatived reality,'.as if in
the protasis there had stood εἰ ἐκήρυσσεν κιτ.. For there is not another
Jesus ; comp. Gal. ii. 6. Several instances of this variation in the mode
of expression are found in classical writers. See Kiihner, II. p. 549;
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 489. Comp. on Luke xvii. 6. The reason for the
absence of ἄν in the apodosis is, that the contents of the apodosis is rep-
resented as sure and certain. See Kriiger, § 65, 5; Stallb. ad Plat.
Sympos. p. 190 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 6. 21; Bremi, ad Lys.
Exe. IV. p. 438 ff.
Ver. 5. You might ‘well tolerate it, Paul had just said; but every reader
who knew the apostle could not but at once of himself feel that he did not
mean it so, that the meaning at his heart was rather: then you would be
very far wrong in tolerating such novelties ; that he thus in the way of
ironical censure makes it palpable to his readers that their complaisance
towards the false apostles was the ground of his anxiety expressed in ver. 3.
Hence he now by γάρ" at once gives a reason for the censure of that complai-
sance so disparaging to his own position as an apostle, which is conveyed in
the ironical καλῶς ἀνείχεσθε. This γάρ does not refer therefore to ver. 1, but
to what immediately precedes, in so far, namely, as it was not meant ap-
provingly (Hofmann), but in exactly the opposite sense. Hofmann ground-
lessly and dogmatically replies that the reason assigned for an ironical praise
must necessarily be itself ironical.* — λογίζομαι] censeo, I am of opinion.
Rom. ii. 3, 111. 28, viii. 18, al. — μηδὲν ὑστερηκέναι) in no respect have I re-
mained behind. Comp. on Matt. xix. 20. Riickert without reason adds :
‘*d.e. in my action.” The μηδέν, in no respect a stronger negation than the
1 Here, too, the delicate and acute glance that case we should have here a singular
of Bengel saw the correct view: “Ponit (forbearance and a singular form of its ex-
conditonem, ex parte reiimpossibilem ; ideo . pression, the former as undeserved as the
dicit in imperfecto toleraretis ; sed pro cona- latter is unlogical. There was as little need
tu pseudapostolorum non modo possibilem, for the alleged forbearance toward the
sed plane presentem ; ideo dicit in prae- readers as in ver. 19 f.
senti praedicat. Conf. plane Gal. i. 6 f.” 2 δέ, adopted by Lachm. on the testimony
Comp. also 1 Cor. iii. 11. Riickert refines of B only, and approved by Riickert, ap-
and imports a development of thought, pears after εἰ μέν in ver. 4 as an alteration,
which is arbitrarily assumed, and rests on because no reference was seen for the yap.
the presupposition that there is no irony in With δέ there would result the quite simple
the passage. Withthe same presupposition course of thought: ‘‘ Jf indeed . . . Imean,
Hofmann assumes the intermingling of two however, etc., not as Riickert would have it,
thoughts, one referring to the present, the that Paul passes from the justification of
other to the past,—which would amount to the intended self-praise given in vy. 2-4 to
a confusion of ideas without motive. This the self-praise itself.
also in opposition to Klépper, p. 84, who 3 Without conceding this arbitrary asser-
thinks that Paul does not wish to charge tion, observe, morever, that ver. 5 also has
the readers with the ἀνέχεσϑαι for the im- a sufficiently ironic tinge. Comp. iv. 8. 9.
mediate present, but had been distinctly See also Klopper.
aware that they had tolerated, etc. In
644 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS,
simple μή (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 10), excludes any restriction to some
mere partial aspect of his official character. The perfect exhibits the state of
the case as at present continuing to subsist (Bernhardy, p. 378): to stand be-
hind. In xii. 11 the conception is different. — τῶν ὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων] The
genitive with a verb of comparison. Comp. Plat. Pol. 7, p. 539 E. See
Matthiae, p. 836. Comp. Kypke, II. p. 265. ὑπερλίαν, overmuch, supra
quam valde, is not preserved elsewhere in old Greek, but is found again,
nevertheless, in Eustath. Od. i. p. 27, 35 : ἐστι γάρ ποτε καὶ τῷ λίαν κατὰ τὴν
τραγῳδίαν χρᾶσθαι καλῶς, καθ᾽ ὃ σημαινόμενον λέγομέν τινα ὑπερλίαν. σόφον. Simi-
larly we have ὑπεράγαν (2 Macc. viii. 35, x. 84 ; Strabo, iii. p. 147), ὑπέρευ
(Kypke, Obss. 11. p. 267), ὑπεράνω, etce., as well as generally Paul’s frequent
application of compounds with ὑπέρ (Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 351). But
whom does he mean by τῶν ὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων ? According to Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Grotius, Bengel, and most of the older commentators, also Em-
merling, Flatt, Schrader, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holsten, Holtzmann (Judenth.
und Christenth. p. 764), the actual swmmos apostolos, namely, Peter, James,
and John (comp. Gal. ii, 9). But Paul is not contending against these, but
against the false apostles (ver. 13); hence the expression : ‘‘ the over-great
apostles,” which is manifestly selected not μετ᾽ ἐγκωμίων (Chrysostom), but with
acertain bitterness, would be very unsuitable here (comp. on the other hand,
1 Cor. xv. 9, ix. 5) if the old apostles should be simply incidentally men-
tioned, because they were possibly placed high above Paul by his oppo-
nents.’ Rightly, therefore, Richard Simon,’ and others have followed Beza’s
suggestion (comp. Erasmus in the Annot.), and understood the Judaistic
anti-Pauline teachers to be the pseudo-apostles (vy. 13, 22), whose inflated ar-
rogance in exalting themselves over Paul is caricatured. Nevertheless they
are not to be considered as the heads of the Christ-party (comp. on x. 7).
Remarx.—The reference of our passage to Peter, James, and John was sup-
ported among the earlier Protestants from polemical considerations, for the
comparison in itself and the plural expression were urged against the primacy
of Peter. See Calovius, Bibl. ill. p. 505. In defence of this primacy, it was
maintained by the older Catholic writers that the equality referred to preach-
ing and gifts, not to power and jurisdiction. See Cornelius a Lapide.
Ver. 6. A more precise explanation of this μηδὲν ὑστερηκέναι τῶν ὑπερλ.
ἀποστόλων, starting from a concession, so that δέ introduces something ap-
parently opposed. Although, however, I am untrained in speech, yet I am not
so in knowledge, but in everything we have become manifest among all in refer-
ence to you. (Ρ The view of Hofmann, that that concession bears on the
preference of the opponents for Apollos, finds no confirmation in the dis-
cussion that follows. Comp. on the contrary, x. 10. — Φανερωθέντες does not
apply to the γνῶσις (Bengel, Zachariae, and others), for how inappropriate
1The immediately following εἰ δὲ καὶ Schulz, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Fritzsche, Bill-
ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ Would also be quite unsuit- roth, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald,
able, since every other apostle, at least as Osiander, Neander, Hofmann, Weiss, Bey-
much as Paul, was ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ. schlag.
2 Alethius, Heumann, Semler, Michactis,
oe
CHAP! KIS, Ge 645
ver. 7 would then be ! But Paul proceeds from the γνῶσις, which he has
attributed to himself in opposition to the reproach of want of training in
discourse, to his having become manifest in every respect, so that τῇ γνώσει and
ἐν παντί are related to one another as species and genus.’ It is arbitrary to
supply a definite reference for gavepw. Rosenmiiller : ‘‘ tanquam verum
apostolum et doctorem ;” Riickert : ‘‘as apostle and honest man”); in
every respect, says Paul, we have become manifest as to how we are consti-
tuted ; and what kind of manifestation that was—its qualitative aspect—
he leaves entirely to the judgment of his readers. Riickert (following Flatt)
regards εἰ δὲ καὶ. . . γνώσει as ἃ parenthesis, and places ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ κ.τ.λ.
in connection with ver. 5, so that Paul, instead of keeping to the infinitive
construction, would pass over into the participial ; but after what has been
said above, this is a quite superfluous expedient, according to which, more-
over, ei δὲ καὶ. . . γνώσει would only stand as a strangely isolated, as it
were a forlorn thought, out of all connection. Olshausen, too (comp. Beza),
breaks up the passage by taking the second ἀλλά as corrective: ‘‘ Yet ye
know in fact my whole conduct, why should 1 still describe it to you ?”
And yet ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντί stands in so natural relation and connection with the
previous of τῇ γνώσει, that it more readily occurs to us to take ἀλλά as : but
on the contrary, than, with de Wette, to take it as co-ordinate with the first
ἀλλά (introducing a second apodosis), as in 1 Cor. vi. 11. --- ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ]
Paul therefore did not reckon a scholastically-trained eloquence (and he is
thinking here specially of the Hellenic type, of which in fact Corinth was a
principal seat) as among the requisites for his office.? Comp. 1 Cor. i. 17,
ii. 1 ff. But his opponents (comp. x. 10) disparaged him for the want of
it. Regarding ἰδιώτης, see on Acts iv. 13 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 16. — τῇ γνώσει] ‘‘ quae
prima dos apostoli,” Bengel ; Matt. xii. 11 ; Eph. 111. 34; Gal. 1. 12, 15.
—év παντί] not : at every time (Emmerling, Flatt), nor ubigue (Erasmus),
but, as it always means with Paul : in every point, in every respect, iv. 8, Vi.
4, vil. 16, viii. 7, ix. 8; see Bengel. Particularly frequent in this Epistle.
— After φανερωθέντες, ἐσμέν is to be supplied from what goes before. The
aorist contains the conception : have not remained hidden, but have become
manifest. The perfect is different inv. 11. The device of Hofmann, that
after φανερωθ, we should supply an ἐφανερώθημεν to be connected with ἐν πᾶσιν
εἰς ὑμᾶς, yields a thought weak in meaning (‘‘after that we... had been
made manifest we have . . . been made manifest in presence of you’) and is
utterly groundless. How altogether different it is at viii. 24! The transi-
1 Billroth follows the reading φανερώσαν-
tes: “If I, however, am unskilled in an ar-
tistic discourse of human wisdom, I am not
so in the true, deep knowledge of Chris-
tianity ; yea rather, I have made it (the
knowledge) in every point known to you
in all things.” Ewald, following the same
reading : ‘but people, who in everything
(in every position) have spoken clearly re-
garding all kinds of matters (ἐν πᾶσιν)
towards you.”
2 How Paul, with the great eloquence to
which all his Epistles and speeches in the
Book of Acts bear testimony, could yet
with truth call himself ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ, Au-
gustine, de doctr. Christ. iv. 7, has rightly dis-
cerned: “Sicut apostolum praecepta elo-
quentiae secutum fuisse non dicimus: ita
quod ejus sapientiam secuta sit eloquentia,
non negamus.”’ Comp. also how Xenophon
(de venat. 14, 3) designates and describes
himself as idiotes, in contradistinction to
the sophists.
646 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
tion to the plural form inclusive of others (by which Paul means himself and
his fellow-teachers) cannot surprise any one, since often in his case the
purely personal consciousness and that of fellowship in a common office pre-
sent themselves side by side. Comp. i. 23 f., v. 11; 1 Thess. iii. 4 f.;
Philem. 7 f., al. — ἐν πᾶσιν] being separated from ἐν παντὶ cannot (as in Phil.
iv. 2) be taken as neuter (in all things, Billroth, Neander ; in all possible
points, Hofmann : ἐν πᾶσιν οἷς ποιοῦμεν x. λέγομεν, Theophylact), but only as
masculine: among all we have been made manifest in reference to you, that
is, among all (i.e. coram omnibus) there has been clearly displayed, and has
remained unknown to none, there lation in which we stand to you ; every
one has become aware what we are to you. Comp. Erasmus (‘‘ quales simus
erga vos”).
Ver. 7. That Paul meant by his ἐν παντὶ φανερωθ. an advantageous manifes-
tation, was obvious of itself ; comp. v. 11. Hence, in order now to make good
a distinctive peculiar point of his φανέρωσις, he continues with a question of
bitter pain, such as the sense of being maliciously misunderstood brought to
his lips : Or have I committed sin—abasing myself in order that ye might be ex-
alted—that I gratuitously preached to you the gospel of God? No doubt the
opponents had turned this noble sacrifice on his part, by way of reproach,
into un-apostolic meanness. — ἐμαυτὸν ταπεινῶν} namely, by my renouncing,
in order to teach gratuitously, my apostolic ἐξουσία, 1 Cor. ix., and content-
ing myself with very scanty and mean support (comp. Acts xviii. 3, xx. 34).
Chrysostom and others exaggerate it: ἐν στενοχωρίᾳ διήγαγον, for καὶ ὑστερηθείς,
ver. 8, is only a temporary increased degree of the ταπείνωσις. ---- ἵνα ὑμεῖς
ὑψωθῆτε] viz. from the lowness of the dark and lost pre-Christian condition
through conversion, instruction, and pastoral care to the height of the
Christian salvation. It is much too vague to take it of prosperity in general
(Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt) ; and when Zachariae explains it : ‘‘in order
to prefer you to other churches,” or when others think of the riches not les-
sened by the gratuitous preaching (Mosheim, Heumann, Morus, Emmerling),
they quite fail to see the apostle’s delicate way of significantly varying the
relations. Comp. viii. 9. Chrysostom already saw the right meaning :
μᾶλλον φκοδομοῦντο καὶ οὐκ ἐσκανδαλίζοντο. ---- ὅτι] that, belongs to dyapr. ἐποίησα
(to which ἐμαυτ. ταπεινῶν is an accompanying modal definition), inserted for
the sake of disclosing the contrast of the case as it stood to the question.
Ὅτι may also be taken as an exegesis of ἐμαυτ. ταπειν. .7.2., 80 that already
with the latter the committing of sin would be described as regards its con-
tents ; comp. Acts xxi. 13 ; Mark xi. 5 (so Luther, Beza, and many others,
also Osiander). But our view interweaves more skilfully into one the ques-
tion with its contradictory contents. — δωρεάν] has the emphasis. — τοῦ θεοῦ]
Genitivus auctoris. Note the juxtaposition : δωρεὰν τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ evayy. :
gratuitously the gospel of God (‘‘ pretiosissimum,” Bengel). (Q°)
Ver. 8. Further information as to the previous δωρεὰν x.7.2. — ἐσύλησα] I
have stripped, plundered, a hyperbolical, impassioned expression, as is at once
shown by λαβὼν ὀψώνιον after it. The ungrateful ones are to be made aware,
in a way to put them thoroughily to shame, of the forbearance shown to
them. — The ἄλλαι ἐκκλησίαι meant were beyond doubt Macedonian. Comp.
δ...
CHAP, “XI:, 9: . 647
ver. 9. --- λαβὼν κ.τ.2.} contemporaneous with ἐσύλησα, and indicating the
manner in which it was done. —dydviov] pay (see on Rom. vi. 23), 1.6.
payment for my official labour. — πρὸς τὴν ὑμῶν διακονίαν] Aim of the ἄλλας
éxkA. ἐσύλησα λαβὼν ow., So that the emphatic ὑμῶν corresponds to the emphat-
ic ἄλλας. Paul had therefore destined the pay taken from other churches to
the purpose of rendering (gratuitously) his official service to the Corinthians,
to whom he travelled from Macedonia (Acts xvii. 13 f., xviii. 1) in order to
preach to them the gospel. —xai παρὼν x.7.A.|] and during my presence with
you I have, even when want had set in with me, burdened no one. He thus brought
with him to Corinth the money received from other churches, and subsisted
on it (earning more, withal, by working with his hands) ; and when, during
his residence there, this provision was gradually exhausted, so that even
want set in (καὶ ὑστερηθείς), he nevertheless importuned no one, but (ver. 9)
continued to help himself on by Macedonian pecuniary aid (in addition to
the earnings of his handicraft). Comp. on Phil. iv. 15. Riickert thinks
that Paul only sought to relieve his want by the manual labour entered on
with Aquila, when the money brought with him from Corinth had been ex-
hausted and new contributions had not yet arrived. But, according to Acts
Xviii. 3, his working at a handicraft—of which, moreover, he makes no mention
in this passage—is to be conceived as continuing from the beginning of his
residence at Corinth; how conceivable, nevertheless, is it that, occupied as he
was so greatly with other matters, he could not earn his whole livelihood, but
still stood in need of supplies! On πρὸς ὑμᾶς, which is not to be taken ‘‘ after
my coming to you” (Hofmann), comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 6 ; Matt. xiii. 56. — κατε-
νάρκησα] Hesychius : ἐβάρυνα, 1 have lain asa burden on no one. It is to be
derived from νάρκη, paralysis, debility, torpidity ; thence ναρκάω, torpeo, I1.
viii. 328 ; Plat. Men. p. 80 A BC; LXX. Gen. xxxii. 32 ; Job xxxiii. 19;
hence καταναρκᾶν τίνος : to press down heavily and stiffly on any one (on the
genitive, see Matthiae, p. 860). Except in Hippocrates, p. 816 C, 1194 H,
in the passive (to be stiffened), the word does not occur elsewhere in Greek ;
and by Jerome, Aglas. 10, it is declared to be a Cilician expression equiva-
lent to non gravavi vos. Vulgate : ‘‘nulli onerosus fui.” Another explana-
tion, quoted in addition to the above by Theophylact (comp. Oecumenius) :
““T have not become indolent in my office” (so Beza, who takes κατὰ. ..
οὐδενός, cum cujusquam incommodo), would be at variance with the context.
See ver. 9. Comp. also xii. 18, 14. Besides, this sense would not be de-
monstrable for καταναρκ. but for ἀποναρκ. (Plutarch, Educ. p. 8 F).
Ver. 9. τὸ γὰρ ὑστέρημα down to Μακεδονίας is not, with Griesbach, Lach-
mann, and others, to be made parenthetical,’ since καὶ ἐν παντὶ x.7.A. is
structurally and logically (as consequence) connected with it : for what was
wanting to me the brethren (known to you) supplied, after they had come from
Macedonia, and, εἴα. ---- προσανεπλήρωσαν] addendo suppleverunt (comp. ix. 12).
But we are not, with Grotius (who in ver. 8 and here thinks of the means
for supporting the poor) and Bengel, to seek the reference of πρός in the
1. 50 also Ewald, who takes ver. 8 and ver. 9 still as a continuation of the question in
ver. 7.
648 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
addition to the earnings of his labour, for of this the whole context contains
nothing ; but the brethren added the support brought by them to the apos-
tle’s still very small provision, and so supplemented his ὑστέρημα. This aid
is later than that mentioned in Phil. iv. 15 (see in loc.) : the names of the
brethren (were they Silas and Timothy ? Acts xviii. 5) are unknown to us.
— kai ἐν παντὶ k.7.2.] and in every point (comp. ver. 6) I have kept and will keep
myself non-burdensome to you ; I have occasioned you no burden in mine own
person, and will occasion you none in the future (‘‘ tantum abest, ut poeni-
teat,” Bengel). — ἀβαρής only here in the N. T., but see Arist. de coel. 4 ;
Chrysipp. in Plut. Mor. p. 1053 E ; Luc. D. M. x. 5.
Ver. 10. Not in form an oath, but a very solemn assurance of the καὶ
τηρήσω : there is truth of Christ in me, that, etc. That is to say : By the in-
dwelling truth of Christ in me I assure you that, etc. The apostle is certain
that as generally Christ lives in him (Gal. ii. 20) Christ’s mind is in him
(see on 1 Cor. ii. 16), Christ’s heart beats in him (Phil. i. 8), Christ speaks
in him (xiii. 3), all, namely, through the Spirit of Christ, which dwells in
him (Rom. viii. 9 ff.); so, in particular, also truth of Christ is in him, and
therefore all untruthfulness, lying, hypocrisy, etc., must be as foreign to
him as to Christ Himself, who bears sway in him. The ὅτι is the simple
that, dependent on the idea of asswrance, which lies at the bottom of the
clause ἔστιν ἀλήθ. X. ἐν ἐμοί, and has its specific expression in this clause.
Comp. ζῶ ἐγὼ, ὅτι, Rom. xiv. 11. See Fritzsche, ad Rom. Il. p. 242 f.
Riickert’s view is more far-fetched : that ὅτι «.7.2. is the subject, of which Paul
asserts that it is ἀλήθεια Χριστοῦ in him, i.e. what he says is a proposition,
which just as certainly contains truth, as if Christ Himself said it. Olshausen
attenuates the sense at variance with its literal tenor into : ‘‘ as true as I am
a Christian.” The thought is really the same in substance as that in Rom.
1x. 1: ἀλήθειαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῷ, ov ψεύδομαι, but the form of the conception is
different. — ἡ καύχησις αὕτη ov φραγ. εἰς ἐμέ] this self-boasting will not be stopped
in reference tome. The gloriatio spoken of, namely as to preaching gratui-
tously, is personified ; its mouth is not, as to what concerns the apostle, to
be stopped, so that it must keep silence. Hofmann, not appreciating this
personification, takes offence at the fact that the καύχησις is supposed to have
a mouth, while Riickert resorts to an odd artificial interpretation of ¢pay. εἰς
ἐμέ (will not be cooped up in me). Just because the καυχᾶσθαι is an action of
the mouth, the personified καύχησις has a mouth which can be stopped. Comp.
Theodoret. — φραγήσεται] Comp. Rom. iii. 19 ; Heb. xi. 33; LXX. Ps. evii,
42; Job v. 16; 2 Macc. xiv. 36; Wetstein, ad Rom. l.c.; Jacobs, ad
Anthol. XII. p. 297. It cannot surprise us that τὸ στόμα is not expressly sub-
joined, since this is obvious of itself, seeing that the καύχησις is conceived as
speaking. There is nothing in the context to justify the derivation of the
expression from the damming up of running water, as Chrysostom and
Theophylact, also Luther (see his gloss), and again Hofmann take it.
There is just as little ground for de Wette’s suggestion, that φραγήσεται is
meant of hedging in a way (Hos. ii. 6). — εἰς ἐμέ] For, if Paul should so con-
duct himself that he could no longer boast of preaching gratuitously, the
mouth of this καύχησις would, in reference to him, be stopped. In this εἰς ἐμέ,
CHAP. XI, 1112; 649
as concerns mé, there is implied a tacit comparison with others, who con-
ducted themselves differently, and in regard to whom, therefore, the mouth
of καύχησις αὕτη Would be stopped. — ἐν τοῖς κλίμασι τῆς "Ay. | is more weighty,
and at the same time more tenderly forbearing, than the direct ἐν ὑμῖν,
which would be πληκτικώτερον (Chrysostom).
Ver. 11. Negative specification of the reason for his continuing to preach
gratuitously in Achaia. — How easily, since he had accepted something
from the poorer Macedonians, might his conduct appear or be represented
to the Corinthians as the result of a cold, disdainful, distrustful disposition
towards them! Love willingly accepts from the beloved one what is due
to it. — ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν] namely, that the reason is not want of love to you. —
Observe the lively interrogative form (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. pp. 186, 347).
Ver. 12.! Positive specification of the reason, after brief repetition of the
matter which calls for it (ὃ δὲ ποιῶ, καὶ ποιήσω). --- Since Paul, in accordance
with ver. 10, wishes to specify the aim inducing the future continuance of
his conduct, καὶ ποιήσω must be apodosis (comp. Erasmus, Annot., Beza,
Bengel, Lachmann, Tischendorf), and must not be attached to the protasis,
so as to make it necessary to supply before iva a διὰ τοῦτο ποιῶ (Erasmus,
Paraphr., “Luther, Castalio, Emmerling), or τοῦτο ποιῶ κ. ποιήσω (Rickert,
but undecidedly), or simply γίνεται (Osiander, Ewald). —iva ἐκκόψω κ.τ.1.]
in order that I may cut off the opportunity of those, who wish (exoptant, Beza)
opportunity, namely, to degrade and to slander me. Τὴν ἀφορμήν, having
the article, denotes the definite occasion, arising from the subject in ques-
tion, for bringing the apostle into evil repute. Had he caused himself to
be remunerated by the Corinthians, his enemies, who in general were looking
out for opportunity (ἀφορμ. without the article), would have taken thence
the opportunity of slandering him as selfish and greedy ; this was their
ἀφορμή, Which he wished to cut off (ἀναιρεῖν, Chrysostom) by his gratuitous
working. Others understand by τὴν ἀφορμήν the occasion of exalting and
magnifying themselves above him (Calvin, Grotius, Flatt). But according
to this, we should have to assume that the false apostles had taken no pay,
on which point, after the precedent of Chrysqstom, Theophylact, Calvin,
Grotius, Billroth, and others, Riickert especially insists. This assumption,
however, which Neander also supports (comp. against it, Beza), has against
it ἃ priori the fact that Paul lays so earnest stress on his gratuitous preach-
ing—which would not be appropriate to his apologetico-polemic train of ar-
gument, if on this point he had stood on the same footing with his oppo-
nents. Further, xi. 20 and 1 Cor. ix. 12 are expressly opposed to it ; and
the objection of Riickert, that the apostle’s testimony to the baseness of his
opponents loses much of its force owing to his passionate temperament, is
an exaggerated opinion, to which we can concede only this much, that his
testimony regarding his opponents is strongly expressed (comp. ver. 20),
but not that it contains anything untrue. If they had worked against him
from honest prejudice, it would have been at once indiscreet and un-Chris-
tian in him to work against them. Riickert’s JSurther objection, that the
1 See regarding ver. 12, Diisterdieck in the Stud. τι. Krit. 1865, p. 517 ff.
650 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
adversaries, if they had taken payment where Paul took none, would have
coupled folly with selfishness, is unfounded, seeing that in fact, even with
that recommendation in which Paul had the advantage of them by his un-
paid teaching, very many other ways were left to them of exalting them-
selves and of lowering his repute, and hence they might be all the more
prudent and cunning. Comp. on ver. 6. — iva ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται x.7.2.] may be
parallel to the previous clause of purpose (Diisterdieck). Yet it is more in
keeping with the logical relation—that here something positive, and pre-
viously only something negative, is asserted as intended—and thereby with
the climactic course of the passage, to assume that iva ἐν ᾧ καυχ. κιτ.}. is the
aim of ἐκκόψω τὴν ἀφορμὴν τ. O. ἀφ., and thus the jinal aim of the ὃ δὲ ποιῶ,
καὶ ποιήσω in regard to the opponents : in order that they, in the point of
which they boast, may be found even as we. This is what I purpose to bring
about among them. If, namely, the enemies did not find in Paul the op-
portunity of disparaging him as selfish, now there was to be given to them
withal the necessity (according to his purpose) of showing themselves to be
just such as Paul’ in that, in which they boasted, i.e. according to the context,
in the point of unselfishness. Hitherto, forsooth, the credit of unselfishness,
which they assigned to themselves, was idle ostentation, see ver. 20. De
Wette makes objection, on the other hand, that they could not have boasted
of unselfishness, if they had shown themselves selfish. But this was the
very point of his enemies’ wntruthfulness (ver. 13, comp. v. 12), that they
vaingloriously displayed the semblance of unselfishness, while in fact they
knew how to enrich themselves by the Christians. Theodoret aptly says :
ἔδειξε δὲ αὐτοὺς λόγῳ κομπάζοντας, λάθρα δὲ χρηματιζομένους. Diister-
dieck, too, can find no ground in the context for saying either that the op-
ponents had reproached the apostle with selfishness, or had given themselves
out for unselfish. But the former is not implied in our explanation (they
only sought the occasion for that charge), while the latter is sufficiently im-
plied in ver. 90. The expositors who consider the opponents as labouring
gratuitously understand ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται of this unpaid working, of which they
had boasted, so that Paul in this view would say : in order that they, in this
point of which they boast, may be found not better than we. See Oecumenius,
Erasmus, Calvin, comp. Billroth and Riickert ; Billroth and others (comp.
Diisterdieck above) taking withal the second ἵνα as parallel to the first,
which Riickert also admits. But against the hypothesis that the opponents
had taught gratuitously, see above. And the not better than we arbitrarily
changes the positive expression καθὼς ἡμεῖς into the negative. Lastly, this
explanation stands in no logical connection with what follows. See on ver.
18. Following Augustine, de serm. Dom. in monte, ii. 16, Cajetanus and
Estius regard iva. . ἡμεῖς as an exposition of ἀφορμήν : occasion, in order to
1 Beza well gives the substantial mean-
ing: ‘Isti quidem omnem mei calumniandi
oceasionem captant, expectuntes dum po-
eniteat me juri meo renuntiantem in prae-
dicando evangelio ex manuum mearum
labore victitare. At ego nunquam patiar
hane laudem (qua ipsos refello) mihi in
Achaiae ecclesiis praeripi. Imo in hoe in
stituto pergam, ut et ipsos ad exemplum
meum imitandum provocem, nedum ut
quam captant occasionem inveniant.”’
a
CHAP! ΧΙ 12: 651
be found as we, and ἐν ᾧ xavy. as parenthetical : in quo, se. in eo quod est
inveniri sicut et nos, gloriantur. Comp. also Bengel. But the opponents
did not, in fact, boast of being ike Paul, but of being more than he was
(ver. 5), and wished to hold him or to have him held as not at all a true
apostle, ver. 4. This also in opposition to Hofmann, who, attaching the
second iva to ἀφορμήν, and referring’ ἐν © καυχῶνται to the apostleship of
which the opponents boasted, finds Paul’s meaning to be this : maintaining
in its integrity the gratuitous character of his working, he takes away from
those, who would fain find ways and means of making their pretended apostle-
ship appear equal to his genuine one, the possibility of effecting their purpose.
But in the connection of the text, ἐν ¢ καυχῶνται on the one side and καθὼς
καὶ ἡμεῖς on the other can only denote one and the same quality, namely, the
unselfishness, of which the opponents untruly boasted, while Paul had it in
truth and verified it. Olshausen has been led farthest astray by taking the
second iva as the wish of the opponents ; he imagines that they had been
annoyed at Paul’s occupying a position of strictness which put them so
much to shame, and hence they had wished to bring him away from it, in
order that he might have no advantage, but that he should be found even
as they. And the ἐν ¢ καυχ. is to be taken, as if they had put forward the
authority to take money as an object of glorying, as an apostolic preroga-
tive (1 Cor. ix. 7 ff.) ; so that the whole passage has therefore the ironical
meaning : ‘‘ Much as they are opposed to me, they still wish an opportunity of
letting me take a share of their credit, that I may allow myself to be supported
as an apostle by the churches ; but with this they wish only to hide their shame
and rob me of my true credit: in this they shall not succeed!” But that the
opponents had put forward the warrant to take money as an apostolic pre-
rogative, is not to be inferred from 1 Cor. ix. 7 ff., where Paul, in fact,
speaks only of the right of the teacher to take pay. Further, there is no
ground in the context for the assumed reference of ἐν ᾧ xavy.; and lastly,
in keeping with the alleged ironical meaning, Paul must have written :
εὑρεθῶμεν καθὼς καὶ αὐτοί, which Olshausen doubtless felt himself, when he
wrote : ‘‘in order that he might have no advantage, but that he should be
found such as they.”’ — On ἐκκόπτειν, in the ethical sense of bringing to nought,
comp. LXX. Job xix. 10; 4 Macc. iii. 2 ff. ; Plat. Charm. p. 155 C;
Polyb. xx. 6. 2. The opposite : παρέχειν ἀφορμήν (Bihr, ad Pyrrh. p. 237).
—On the double iva, the second introducing the aim of the first clause of
aim, comp. Eph. v. 27; John i. 7. Hofmann, without reason, desires
ὕπως in place of the second iva.
1 De Wette and Diisterdieck also refer év
ᾳ καυχῶνται to the apostolic working and
dignity. According to the latter, the mean-
ing would be: in order that they, as regards
unselfishness, may let themselves be found just
such as I, the apostle vilified by them, and may
im this way show what is the worth of their
boastful claim to apostolic dignity. Even this
clear interpretation does not remove the
difficulty that, as the καύχησις of Paul con-
cerned the gratuitous nature of his labouring
(ver. 10, comp. 1 Cor. ix. 15), so also the
καυχᾶσϑαι ascribed in the immediate context
to the opponents, and pointing back by
καϑὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς to the apostle’s conduct
(which was the subject-matter of his boast-
ing), requires no other object, nay, when we
strictly adhere to the immediate connec-
tion, admits of no other.
652 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Ver. 13. Justification of the aforesaid iva ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται, εὑρεθ. καθὼς κ. ἡμεῖς.
“ΕΝ οὐ without ground do 1 intend that they shall, in that of which they
boast, be found to be as we ; for the part, which these men play, is lying
and deceit.” — Those who take καθὼς x. ἡμεῖς in ver. 12 : not better than we,
must forcibly procure a connection by arbitrarily supplying something ;
as e.g. Riickert : that in the heart of the apostle not better than we had the
meaning : but rather worse, and that this is now illustrated. Hofmann, in
consequence of his view of iva ἐν ᾧ καυχ. x.7.2. ver. 12, interpolates the
thought : ‘‘ for the rest” they have understood how to demean themselves
as Christ’s messengers. — oi yap τοιοῦτοι x.t.A.] for people of that kind are false
apostles, etc., so that ψευδαπόστολοι is the predicate.’ So also de Wette and
Ewald. Usually, after the Vulgate (also Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Hofmann),
ψευδαπόστολοι is made the subject : ‘‘ for such false apostles are,” ete. But it
should, in fact, be rather put : ‘‘ for the false apostles of that kind (in dis-
tinction from other false apostles, comp. xii. 3; Soph. O. R. 674 ; Polyb.
vili. 2, 5, xvi. 11, 2) are,” etc.,—which would be quite appropriate. Besides,
the ψευδαπόστολοι, disclosing entirely at length the character of the enemies,
would lose its emphasis. On the contemptuous sense of τοιοῦτος, comp.
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 11. p. 848. — ἐργάται δόλιοι] comp. Phil. iii. 2. They
were workers, in so far certainly as they by teaching and other activity were
at work in the church ; but they were deceitful workers (dealt in δολίαις Bov-
λαῖς, Eur. Med. 413, δολίοις ἐπέεσσιν, Hom. ix. 282, and δολίαις τέχναισι, Pind.
Nem. iv. 93), since they wished only to appear to further the true Christian
salvation of the church, while at bottom they pursued their own selfish and
passionate aims (ver. 20). For the opposite of an ἐργάτης δόλιος, see 2 Tim.
ii, 15. — μετασχηματιζ. εἰς ἀποστ. X.] transforming themselves into apostles of
Christ. Their essential form is not that of apostles of Christ, for they are
servants of Satan ; in order to appear as the former, they thus assume
another form than they really have, present themselves otherwise than they
really are. In working against Paul in doctrine and act, they hypocritically
assumed the mask of apostle, though they were the opposite of a true apos-
tle (Gal. i. 1; Rom. xv. 18 ff.; 2 Cor. xii. 12).
Vv. 14,15. And that is quite natural !— καὶ oi θαῦμα] neque res admiranda
est. Comp. Plat. Pol. vi. p. 498 Ὁ ; Epin. p. 988 Ὁ : Pind. Nem. x. 95,
Pyth. i. 50 ; Eur. Hipp. 439; Soph. Oed. R. 1182, Phil. 408 ; Pflugk, ad
Eur. Hee. 976. — What follows is an argumentum a majori ad minus, —
αὐτός] tpse Satanas, their Lord and master. Comp. afterwards οἱ διάκονοι
αὐτοῦ. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 733. — εἰς ἄγγελον φωτός] into an angel of
light. As the nature of God (1 John i. 5; Rev. xxi. 23, 24), and His
dwelling-place (1 Tim. vi. 16 ; 1 Johni. 7) is light, a glory of light, a δόξα
beaming with light, which corresponds to the most perfect holy purity, so
1 Bengel says aptly: ‘‘Haec jam pars
praedicati, antitheton, ver. 5. Nunc tandem
scapham scapham dicit.”” On the idea of
Without doubtthe people maintained for
themselves their claim with equal, nay,
with better right than Paul, to the name
ψευδαπόστολοι, Erasmus rightly remarks:
“ Apostolus enim ejus agit negotium a quo
missus est, isti suis commodis serviunt.”
of apostle, which they probably conceded to
Paul only in the wider sense (Acts xiv. 4,
if: Dt. ΟΣ Ἐν ἢ).
CHAP. XI., 15, 16. | 653
also His servants, the good angels, are natures of light with bodies of light (1
Cor. xv. 40) ; hence, where they appear, light beams forth from them (Matt.
xxviii. 3, al.; Acts xii. 7, al.; see Hahn, Theol. ἃ. N. Τ΄ Τὸ p. 274 f.; Weiss,
bibl. Theol. p. 460). Regarding Satan, on the other hand, comp. Eph. vi.
12 ; Acts xxvi. 18; Col. i. 13. He is ὁ κληρονόμος τοῦ σκότους, Ev. Nic. 20.
— There is no trace in the narratives concerned to justify the assumption '
that ver. 15 points to the fall of man (Bengel, Semler, Hengstenberg,
Christol. I. p. 11), or even to the temptation of Christ, Matt. iv. 8, in which
the devil appeared as the angel to whom God had entrusted the rule of
Palestine (Michaelis) ; but, at any rate, it is the apostle’s thought, and is
also presupposed as known to the readers, that devilish temptations in
angelic form assail man. In the O. T. this idea is not found ; it recurs
later, however, in the Rabbins, who, with an eccentric application of the
thought, maintained that the angel who wrestled with Jacob (Gen. xxxii.
34 ; Hos. xii. 4, 5) was the devil. See Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. I. p.
845. For conceptions regarding the demons analogous to our passage from
Porphyry and Jamblichus, see Grotius and Elsner, Odss. p. 160. (R°)
Ver. 15. It is not a great matter, therefore, not strange and extraordinary,
if, etc. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 11 ; Plato, Hipp. maj. p. 287 A, Menex. p. 235D ;
Herod. vii. 38. — καί] if, ashe does himself, his servants also transform them-
selves, namely, as servants of righteousness, 7.¢. as people who are appointed
for, and active in, furthering the righteousness by faith. Comp. on iii.
9. The δικαιοσύνη, the opposite of ἀνομία, but in a specifically Christian
and especially Pauline sense (comp. on vi. 14) asthe condition of the king-
dom of God, is naturally that which Satan and his servants seek to counter-
act. When the latter, however, demean themselves as ἀπόστολοι Χριστοῦ, the
δικαιοσύνη, Which they pretend to serve, must have the semblance of the right-
eousness of faith, although it is not so in reality. This view is therefore not
‘‘out of the way” (Klépper, p. 90), but contextual ; and the δικαιοσύνη cannot
be the righteousness of the law, the preaching of which is not the mark of
the ἀπόστολοι Χριστοῦ. As to ὡς (transform themselves and become as), comp.
on Rom. ix. 29. — ὧν τὸ τέλος «.7.2.] of whom—the servants of Satan—the end,
Jinal fate, will be in accordance with their works. (s°) Comp. Phil. iii. 19 ;
Rom. vi. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 17. ‘‘ Quacunque specie se nunc efferant, detrahi-
tur tandem schema,” Bengel.
Ver. 16. Irepeat it: let noone hold me for irrational ; but if not, receive me
at least as one irrational (do not reject me), in order that I too (like my oppo-
nents) may boast a little. Thus Paul, after having ended the outpouring of
his heart begun in ver. 7 regarding his gratuitous labours, and after the
warning characterization of his opponents thereby occasioned (vv.13—15),
now turns back to what he had said in ver. 1, in order to begin a new self-
comparison with his enemies, which he, however, merely introduces—and that
once more with irony, at first calm, then growing bitter—down to ver. 21,
1 The present would not be againstit. See then but is not preserved in our present O.
Bengel: ‘‘Solet se trausformare ; fecit jam T., to which Paul alludes, or of a narrative
in paradiso.”? According to Ewald, we are similar to that in Matt. iv. 1-11.
to think of a narrative, which was known
654 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
and only really begins with ἐν ᾧ δ᾽ ἄν τις τολμᾷ K.7.A. at ver. 21. — That, which
15 by πάλιν λέγω designated as already said once (ver. 1), is μῇ τίς μὲ δόξῃ agp.
εἶναι and εἰ δὲ μή γε. . . καυχήσωμαι, both together, not the latter alone ‘(Hof-
mann). The former, namely, lay implicite in the ironical character of ver.
1, and the latter explicite in the words of that verse. (1°) — εἰ δὲ μή γε] sed
nisi quidem. Regarding the legitimacy of the ye in Greek (Plato, Pol. iv. p.
425 E), see Bremi, ad Aesch. de fals. leg. 47 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 527 ; Din-
dorf, ad Dem. I. p. v. f. praef. After negative clauses εἰ δὲ μή follows even
in classical writers (Thuc. i. 28. 1, 181.1; Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 6, vii. 1. 8),
although we should expect εἰ δέ. But εἰ δὲ μή presupposes in the author the
conception of a positive form of what is negatively expressed. Here some-
thing like this : I wish that no one should hold me as foolish ; if, however,
you do not grant what I wish, etc. See in general, Heindorf, ad Plat. Parm.
p. 208 ; Buttmann, ad Plat. Crit. p. 106; Hartung, Partik. II. p. 213 ; and
in reference to the N. T., Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 554 £. — κἂν] certe, is to be
explained elliptically : δέξασθέ με, καὶ ἐὰν ὡς ἄφρονα δέξησθέ we. Comp. Mark vi.
56; Acts v. 15. See Wiistemann, ad Theocr. xxiii. 35 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol.
XI. p. 316 ; Winer, p. 543 [E. T. 729]. — ὡς ἄφρονα] in the quality of one irra-
tional, as people give an indulgent hearing to such a one. — μικρόν τι] accu-
sative as in ver. 1 : aliquantulum, may deal in a little bit of boasting.
Ver. 17. More precise information as to the κἂν ὡς ἄφρονα. --- ὃ λαλῶ]
namely, in the boastful speech now introduced and regarded thereby as
already begun. — κατὰ κύριον] according to the Lord (comp. Rom. xv. 5, viii.
27), i.e. so that Tam determined in this case by the guiding impulse of Christ.
A speaking according to Christ cannot be boasting ; Matt. xi. 29; Luke
xvii. 10.. Now as Paul knew that the κατὰ κύριον λαλεῖν was brought about
by the πνεῦμα working in him (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 10, xxv. 40), οὐ λαλῶ κατὰ
κύριον certainly denies the theopneustic character of the utterance in the
stricter sense, (Ὁ) without, however, the apostle laying aside the conscious-
ness of the Spirit’s guidance, under which he, for his purpose, allows the
human emotion temporarily to speak. It is similar when he expresses his
own opinion, while yet he is conscious withal of having the Spirit (1 Cor. vii.
12, 25, 40). Regarding the express remark, that he does not speak κατὰ κύριον
x.7.A., Bengel aptly says : ‘‘quin etiam hunc locum et propriam huic loco
exceptionem sic perscripsit ex regula decori divini, a Domino instructus.” —
aA?’ ὡς ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ] but as one speaks in the state of irrationality. — ἐν rabr. τ.
ὑποστ. τ. κι belongs to ob λαλῶ κατὰ κύριον, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐν agpoo. taken together :
not according to the Lord, but as a fool do I speak it, with this confidence of
boasting. ὑπόστασις is here interpreted as differently as in ix. 4. According
to Chrysostom, Riickert, Ewald, Hofmann, and many others : in this subject-
matter of boasting (comp. Luther, Billroth, and de Wette : ‘ since it has
once come to boasting”). But what little meaning this would have ! and
how scant justice is thus done to the ταύτῃ prefixed so emphatically (with
this so great confidence) !_ The boasting isindeed not yet actually begun (as
de Wette objects), but the apostle is already occupied with it in thought ;
comp. previously λαλῶ. According to Hofmann, ἐν ταύτ. τ. ὑπ. τ. κι is to be
attached to the following protasis ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ «.7.2. But apart from the
CHAP. XI., 18-20. 655
uncalled-for inversion thus assumed, as well as from the fact that the ὑπόστασις
τ. x. is held to be specially the apostleship, the τῆς καυχήσεως Would be a quite
superfluous addition ; on the other hand, with the reference to the general
λαλῶ as modal definition of ὑπόστασις it is quite appropriate.
Ver. 18. That which carries him away to such foolishness, ver. 10 : iva
κἀγὼ μικρ. τι Kavyno. — Seeing that many boast according to their flesh, so will I
boast too, namely, κατὰ τ. ca4pxa.—Since κατὰ τὴν σάρκα is opposed to the κατὰ
κύριον in ver. 17, and is parallel to the ὡς ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ, it cannot express the
objective norm (comp. v. 16), or the object of the boasting (comp. Phil. iii. 3
ff.; Gal. vi. 13), as Chrysostom and most expositors, including Emmerling,
Flatt, and Osiander, explain it : on account of external advantages,’ but it
must denote the subjective manner of the καυχᾶσθαι, namely : so that the καυ-
χᾶσθαι is not guided by the Holy Spirit, but proceeds according to the standard
of their natural condition as material, pyschically determined, and striving
against the Divine Spirit, whence they are urged on to conceit, pride, ambi-
tion, etc.? Comp. Riickert : ‘‘ according to the impulse of self-seeking per-
sonality ;” also de Wette, Ewald, Neander. Billroth, in accordance with
his philosophy, takes it : ‘‘as individual, according to what one is as a sin-
gle human being.” κατὰ ἄνθρωπον in 1 Cor. ix. 8 is not parallel. See on
that passage. — Riickert denies that Paul after κἀγὼ καυχήσομαι has again
supplied in thought κατὰ τ. σάρκα, and thinks that he has prudently put it
only in the protasis and ποῦ said it of his own glorying. But it necessarily
follows, as well from the previous οὐ λαλῶ κατὰ κύριον, in which the κατὰ τ.
σάρκα is already expressed implicite, as also from the following τῶν ἀφρόνων,
among whom Paul is included as κατὰ τὴν σάρκα καυχώμενος. (V°) It is other-
wise in John viii. 15.
Ver. 19. Not the motive inducing, but an ironical grownd encouraging,
the just said κἀγὼ καυχήσομαι : For willingly you are patient with the irra-
tional (to whom I with my καυχᾶσθαι belong), since ye are rational people !
The more rational person is on that account the more tolerant toward fools.
Hence not : although you are rational (Ewald and the older commentators).
Ver. 30. Argumentum a majori for what is said in ver. 19, bitterly sarcas-
1 To this category belongs also the inter-
pretation of Baur, who, however, refers
σάρξ quite specially to Judaism as what is
inherited, and therefore understands a
boasting, the object of which is only inherited
accidental advantages. The διάκονοι Χριστοῦ,
ver. 23, and the apostle’s subsequent glory-
ing in suffering, ought to have dissuaded
Baur from adopting such a view.
2 Osiander is quite wrong in objecting to
this interpretation that the article is against
it, since Paul, when he means σάρξ in this
sense, never puts the article after κατά.
Paul, in fact, has the article only in this
single passage, and elsewhere writes always
κατὰ σάρκα (i.e, conformably to flesh) whether
he uses σάρξ in the subjective or objective
sense; hence, so far as the article is con-
cerned, there is no means at all of compari-
son. Besides, τήν here is very doubtful
critically, because it is wanting in D* F
G S* min. Chrys. Dam., and is at variance
with the Pauline usage. Osiander’s further
objection, that κατὰ τὴν σάρκα, as understood
by us, is in the apostle’s mouth unworthy of
him for the apodosis, is likewise incorrect,
for he is speaking éronically ; he wishes, in
fact, to deal in boasting like a.fool/ As to
the distinction between κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ
τὴν σάρκα, We may add that the one means:
“after the manner of natural humanity,” the
other, ‘‘after the manner of ¢heir natural
humanity.’” Comp. on Phil. i. 24, 22. In
substance they are equivalent ; the latter
only individualizes more concretely.
636 - PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
tic against the complaisance of the Corinthians towards the imperious (xara-
δουλοῖ), covetous (κατεσθίει), slyly capturing (λαμβάνει), arrogant (éaiperaz),
and audaciously violent (εἰς πρόσωπον déper) conduct of the false apostles, —
καταδουλοῖ] enslaves. Comp. on Gal. ii. 4 ; Dem. 249. 2, and the passages
in Wetstein. Paul has used the active, not the middle, as he leaves quite
out of view the authority, whose lordship was aimed at ; beyond doubt,
however (see the following points), the pseudo-apostles wished to make them-
selves lords of the church, partly in religious, ὁ.6. Judaistic effort (comp. i.
24), partly also in a material respect (see what follows). — κατεσθίει] swallows
up, devours, 86. ὑμᾶς, a figurative way of denoting not the depriving them of
independence in a Christian point of view (Hofmann), which the reader could
the less guess, since it was already said in καταδουλ., but the course of greed-
ily gathering to themselves all their property. Comp. Ps. lili. 5 ; Matt. xxiii.
13; Luke xv. 30; Add. to Esth. i. 11; Hom. Od. iii. 315: yu ro κατὰ
πάντα φάγωσι κτήματα, Dem. 992. 25; Aesch. ὁ. Tim. 96. So also the Latin
devorare (Quintil. viii. 6). Comp. also Jacobs, ad. Anthol. X. pp. 217, 280.
Riickert, who will not concede the avarice of the opponents (see on ver.
12), explains it of rending the church into parties. Quite against the mean-
ing of the word ; for in Gal. v. 15 ἀλλήλους stands alongside. And would
it not be wonderful, if in swch a company of worthlessness avarice were
wanting ?— λαμβάνει] se. ὑμᾶς, captures you. Comp. xii. 16. The figure is
taken from hunting, and denotes the getting of somebody into one’s power
(Dem. 115. 10, 239. 17) in a secret way, by machinations, etc. (hence differ-
ent from καταδουλοῖ). Comp. Reiske, Ind. Dem., ed. Schaef. p. 322: ‘ de-
vincire sibi mentes hominum deditas et veluti captas aut fascino quodam
obstrictas.” This meaning is held by Wolf, Emmerling, Flatt, Billroth,
Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, and others. The wswal older interpretation :
if any one takes your goods from you (so also Ewald), is to be set aside, be-
cause ὑμᾶς would necessarily have to be supplied, and because already the
_far stronger κατεσθίει has preceded. The same is the case with Hofmann’s
interpretation : if any one seizes hold on you (‘‘ treats you as a thing”), which
after the two previous points would be nothing distinctive. — ἐπαίρεται] ex-
alts himself (proudly). See the passages in Wetstein. As in this clause
ὑμᾶς cannot be again supplied, and thus the supplying of it is interrupted,
ὑμᾶς is again added in the following clause. — εἰς πρόσωπ. δέρει) represents an
extraordinary, very disgraceful and insolent maltreatment. Comp. 1 Kings
xxii. 24 ; Matt. v. 39 ; Luke xxii. 64; Acts xxiii. 2 ; Philostr. οὐύ. Apoll.
vii. 23. ° On the impetuous fivefold repetition of εἰ, comp. 1 Tim. v. 10.
Ver. 21. Ina disgraceful way (for me) I say, that we have been weak ! Tron-
ical comparison of himself with the false apostles, who, according to ver.
20, had shown such energetic bravery in Corinth. For such things we, I
confess it to my shame, were too weak ! --- κατὰ ἀτιμίαν] is the generally cur-
rent paraphrase of the adverb (ἀτίμως), to be explained from the notion of
measure (Bernhardy, p. 241). See Matthiae, p. 1359 f.—dé¢ ὅτι] as that
(see in general, Bast, ad Gregor. Cor. p. 52) introduces the contents of the
shameful confession, not, however, in an absolutely objective way, but as a
fact conceived of (ὡς). Comp, 2 Thess. ii. 2; Xen. Hist. iii. 2. 14 ; and the
CHAP. XI., 21. . 657
passages from Joseph. ὁ. Ap. i. 11, and Dionys. Hal. 9 (ἐπιγνοὺς, ὡς ὅτι ἐσχά-
τοις εἰσὶν of κατακλεισθέντες) in Kypke, II. p. 268 ; also Isocr. Busir. arg. p.
362, Lang.: κατηγόρουν αὐτοῦ, ὡς ὅτι καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρει, and the causal ὡς
ὅτι, Υ. 19. The confession acquires by ὡς ὅτε something of hesitancy, which
strengthens the touch of irony. —jueic] is with great emphasis opposed to
the men of power mentioned in ver. 20. — ἠσθενήσαμεν] namely, when we
were there ; hence the aorist. On the subject-matter, comp. 1 Cor. ii. 2. —
There agree, on the whole, with our view of the passage Bengel, Zachariae,
Storr, Flatt, Schrader, de Wette, Neander, Osiander, and others. The main
point in it is, that κατ’ ἀτιμίαν denotes something shameful for the apostle,
and λέγω has a prospective reference. Riickert also gives λέγω a prospective
reference, but he diverges in regard to κατ᾽ ἀτιμίαν, and supplies μέν : ““ in
the point, indeed, to bring disgrace upon you, I must acknowledge that I have
been weak.” But in that case how unintelligibly would Paul have expressed
himself ! For, apart from the arbitrary supplying of μέν, the definite ἀτιμίαν
would be quite unsuitable. Paul, to be understood, must have written xara
THY ἀτιμίαν ὑμῶν (as regards your disgrace), or at least, with reference to ver.
20, κατὰ τὴν ἀτιμίαν (as regards the disgrace under consideration). Ewald
and Hofmann take κατὰ ati. rightly, but give λέγω a retrospective reference.
In their view of ὡς ὅτι they diverge from one another, Ewald explaining it :
as if I from paternal weakness could not have chastised you myself ; Hofmann,
on the other hand, taking ὡς ὅτι as specifying the reason for saying such a
thing (comp. v. 19). Against Ewald it may be urged that ὡς ὅτε does not
mean as if, and that the five points previously mentioned are not brought
under the general notion of chastisement ; and against both expositors, it
may be urged that if κατὰ ἀτιμίαν were in reference to what precedes to mean
a dishonour of the apostle himself, ἡμῶν must of necessity (in Phil. iv. 11,
κατά is different) have been appended in order to be understood, because
the previous points were a shame of the readers ; consequently the fine point
would have lain just in an emphatically added ἡμῶν (such as κατὰ τὴν ἡμῶν
ἀτιμίαν). In our interpretation, on the other hand, κατὰ ἀτιμίαν receives its
definite reference through ὡς ὅτι ἡμεῖς (that we), and a ἡμῶν with ἀτιμίαν
would have been quite superfluous. Most of the older commentators, too,
though with many variations in detail, refer κατὰ ἀτιμ. λέγω to what precedes,
but explain κατὰ ἀτιμ. of the shame of the readers. So Chrysostom,’ Theophy-
lact, Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Hunnius, and others: td
your shame I say this (ver. 20), as if [rather : as because] we had been weak,
and could not have done the same thing, although we could do it but would
not. Similarly also Billroth (followed by Olshausen) : Jn ὦ disgraceful way,
I maintain, you put up with that injustice from the alleged reason that we are
weak” (rather : had been). But since κατὰ ἀτιμ. is not more precisely defined by
a ὑμῶν, we have no right to give to it another definition than it has already
received from Paul by the emphatic ἡμεῖς ἠσθενήσ. Against the retrospective
reference of λέγω, see above. Finally, in that view the passage would lose
1 Chrysostom observes that ὡς ὅτι x.7.A.is | unpleasantness of the meaning by the ob-
given obscurely, in orderto conceal the _ scurity,
658 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
its ironical character, which however still continues, as is shown at once by
the following ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ λέγω. ---- ἐν ᾧ δ᾽ ἄν τις τολμᾶ κ.τ.}.1 Contrast with
the ironical ἠσθενήσαμεν : wherein, however, any one is bold—TI say it irration-
ally—I too am bold ; in whatever respect (quocunque nomine) any one pos-
sesses boldness, I too have boldness. In ἐν ᾧ lies the real ground, in which
the τολμᾶν has its causal basis. As to τολμᾷ, comp. on x. 2. ἄν contains the
conception : should the case occur. See Fritzsche, Conject. p. 35. —év agpo-
σύνῃ λέγω] Irony ; for ph τίς μὲ δόξῃ ἄφρονα εἶναι, ver. 16. But Paul knew
that the τολμῶ κἀγώ would appear to the enemies to be a foolish assertion.
Ver. 22. Now comes the specializing elucidation of that ἐν ᾧ δ᾽ dv τις τολμᾷ,
τολμῶ κἀγώ, presented so as directly to confront his enemies. Comp. Phil.
iii. 5. Observe, however, that the opponents in Oorinth must have still left
circumcision out of the dispute.—The three names of honour, in which they
boasted from their Judaistic point of view, are arranged in a climax, so
that ‘EBpaio, which is not here in contrast to the Jews of the Diaspora,
points to the hallowed nationality, Iopandira: to the theocracy (Rom. ix. 4 f.),
and σπέρμα ᾿Αβραάμ to the Messianic privilege (Rom. xi. 1, ix. 7, al.), with-
out, however, these references excluding one another. The interrogative
interpretation of the three points corresponds to the animation of the passage
far more than the affirmative (Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Estius, Flatt, and
others).
Ver. 23. In the case of those three Jewish predicates the aim was reached
and the emotion appeased by the brief and pointed κἀγώ. Now, however,
he comes to the main point, to the relation towards Christ ; here κἀγώ cannot
again suffice, but a ὑπὲρ ἐγώ must come in (comp. Theodoret), and the holy
self-confidence of this ὑπὲρ ἐγώ gushes forth like a stream (comp. vi. 4 ff.)
over his opponents, to tear down their fancies of apostolic dignity. — rapa-
φρονῶν λαλῶ) also ironical, but stronger than ἐν ἀφροσ. λέγω : in madness
(Herod. iii. 24 ; Dem. 1183. 1; Soph. Phil. 804) I speak! For Paul, in
the consciousness of his own humility as of the hateful arrogance of his foes,
conceives to himself a: παραφρονεῖ ! as the judgment which will be pro-
nounced by the opponents upon his ὑπὲρ ἐγώ ; they will call it ἃ παράφρον
ἔπος (Eur. Hipp. 232) -- ὑπὲρ ἐγώ] He thus concedes to his opponents the
predicate διάκονοι Χριστοῦ only apparently (as he in fact could not really do so
according to vv. 13-15) ; for in ὑπὲρ ἐγώ there lies the cancelling of the
apparent concession, because, if he had granted them to be actually Christ’s
servants, it would have been absurd so say : Lam more! Such, however,
is the thought : ‘‘ servants of Christ are they? Well, if they are such, still
moream I!” The meaning of ὑπὲρ ἐγώ is not, as most (even Osiander and
Hofmann) assume : I am a servant of Christ in a higher degree than they”
(1 Cor. xv. 10), but : Zam more than servant of Christ ; for, as in κἀγώ there
lay the meaning : J am the same (not in reference to the degree, but to the
fact), so must there be in ὑπὲρ ἐγώ the meaning: J am something more.
Thus, too, the meaning, in accordance with the strong παραφρονῶν λαλῶ,
appears far more forcible and more telling against the opponents.’ ὑπέρ is
1So that the absolute ὑπέρ is not to be explained ὑπὲρ αὑτούς, but ὑπὲρ διακόνους Χ,
oe
— >”
CHAP. ΧΙ., 24, 25. . 659
used adverbially (Winer, p. 394 [E. T. 526]) ; but other undoubted Greek
examples of this use of ὑπέρ are not found, as that in Soph. Ant. 514 (ὁ δ᾽
ἀντιστὰς ὑπέρ) is of doubtful explanation. — ἐν κόποις περισσοτέρως k.T.A. | Paul
now exchanging sarcasm for deep earnest, under the impulse of a noble
μεγαληγορία (Xen. Apol. i. 2) and ‘‘argumentis quae vere testentur pectus
apostolicum” (Erasmus), begins his justification of the ὑπὲρ ἐγώ, so that ἐν is
to be taken instrumentally : through more exertions, etc. The comparative is
to be explained from the comparison with the κόποι of the opponents. The
adverb, however, as often also in classic writers, is attached adjectivally (se.
οὖσι) to the substantive. So also de Wette.’ Comp. Luke xxiv. 1; 1 Cor.
xii. 31; Phil. i. 26; Gal. i. 18; see Ast, ad Plat. Polit. Ὁ. 371 f. ; Bern-
hardy, p. 338. Billroth, Osiander, Hofmann, and the older commentators
incorrectly hold that εἰμί is to be supplied : “1 am so in a yet much more
extraordinary way in labours.” Apart from the erroneous explanation of
ὑπὲρ ἐγώ, which is herein assumed, the subsequent πολλάκις is against it, for
this with εἰμί supplied would be absurd. Hofmann would make a new
series begin with ἐν θανάτ. πολλάκις ; but this is just a mere makeshift,
which is at variance with the symmetrical onward flow of the passage with
ἐν. Beza, Flatt, and many others supply ἦν or γέγονα ; but this is forbidden
by ver. 26, where (after the parenthesis of vv. 24, 25) the passage is con-
tinued without ἐν, so that it would be impossible to supply ἦν or γέγονα
further. —év πληγ. ὑπερβαλλ.] by strokes endured beyond measure. — ἐν φυλακ.
περίσσοτ. | by more imprisonments. Clement, ad Cor. i. ὃ : ὁ Παῦλος ὑπομονῆς
βραβεῖον ἀπέσχεν ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας, in which reckoning, however, the
later imprisonments (in Jerusalem, Caesarea, Rome) are included. — ἐν θανά-
τοις πολλάκις] πολλάκις yap εἰς κινδύνους παρεδόθην θάνατον ἔχοντας, Chrysostom.
Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 31 ; 2 Cor. iv. 11; Rom. viii. 36; and Philo, Place. p.
990 A: προαποθνήσκω πολλοὺς ϑανάτους ὑπομένων ἀνθ᾽ ἑνὸς τοῦ τελευταίου, Lucian,
Tyr. 22; Asin. 23. See on this use of ϑάνατος in the plural, Stallbaum, ad
Plat. Crit. p. 46 C ; Seidler, ad Hur, Hl. 479.
Vv. 24, 25. Parenthesis, in which definite proofs are brought forward for
the ἐν ϑανάτοις πολλάκις. --- ὑπὸ ᾽Τουδαίων] refers merely to πεντάκις. . . ἔλαβον ;
for it is obvious of itself that the subsequent τρὶς ἐῤῥαβδίσϑην was a Gentile
maltreatment. Paul seems to have had in his mind the order : from Jews
. . . from Gentiles, which, however, he then abandoned. — τεσσαράκοντα παρὰ
μίαν] sc. πληγάς. Comp. on Luke xii. 47, and Ast, ad Legg. p. 433. παρά
in the sense of subtraction ; see Herod. i. 120; Plut. Caes. 30 ; Wyttenb.
ad Plat. VI. pp. 461, 1059 ; Winer, p. 877 [E. T. 503]. Deut. xxv. 3 or-
dains that no one shall be beaten more than forty times. In order, therefore,
not to exceed the law by possible miscounting, only nine and thirty strokes
were commonly given under the later administration of Jewish law.* See
Our view is already implied in the plus (not
magis) ego of the Vulgate. Luther also has
it, recently Ewald; and Lachm. writes
Umepeyo as one word. Comp. also Klépper,
p. 97.
1 Jn the Vulgate this view has found dis-
tinct expression at least in the first clause:
“in laboribus plurimis.”’
2 This reason for omitting the last stroke
is given by Maimonides (see Coccej. ad Mac-
coth iii. 10). Another Rabbinical view is
that thirteen strokes were given with the
three-thonged leathern scourge, so that
the strokes amounted in all to thirty-nine.
660 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 21, 28, and the Rabbinical passages (especially from
the treatise Maccoth in Surenhusius, IV. p. 269 ff.); in Wetstein, Schoettgen,
Hor, p. 714 ff.; and generally, Saalschiitz, M. R. p. 469. Paul rightly
adduces his five scourgings (not mentioned in Acts) as proof of his ἐν ϑανά-
τοις πολλάκις, for this punishment was so cruel that not unfrequently the re-
cipients died under it ; hence there is no occasion for taking into account
bodily weakness in the case of Paul. See Lund, Jiid. Heiligth. ed. Wolf,
p. 5389 ἢ --- τρὶς ἐῤῥαβδίσϑην] One such scourging with rods by the Romans
is reported in Acts xvi. 22 ; the two others are unknown to us. — ἅπαξ ἐλε-
ϑάσϑ.] See Acts xiv. 19 ; Clem. 1 Cor. v. —rpig évavay.] There is nothing of
this in Acts, for the last shipwreck, Acts xxvii., was much later. How many
voyages of the apostle may have remained quite unknown to us ! and how
strongly does all this list of sufferings show the incompleteness of the Book
of Acts !—vvydjuepov ἐν τῷ βυϑῷ πεποίηκα] Lyra, Estius, Calovius, and
others explain this of a miracle, as if Paul, actually sunk in the deep, had
spent twenty-four hours without injury ; but this view is at variance with the
context. It is most naturally regarded as the sequel of one of these ship-
wrecks, namely, that he had, with the help of some floating wreck, tossed
about on the sea fora day and night, often overwhelmed by the waves,
before he was rescued. On βυϑός, the depth of the sea, comp. LXX. Ex. xv.
5; Ps. Ixvii. 14, evii. 24, al.; Bergl. ad Alciphr. i. 5, p. 10 ; and Wetstein
in loc.—roveiv of time : to spend, as in Acts xv. 33; Jas. iv. 13 ; Jacobs, ad
Anthol. TX. p. 449. The perfect is used because Paul, after he has simply
related the previous points, looks back on this last from the present time
(comp. Kiihner, § 439, 1a); there lies in this change of tenses a climactic
vividness of representation.
Ver. 26 f. After the parenthesis of vv. 24,25, the series begun in ver. 23
is now continued, dropping, however, the instrumental ἐν, which is not to be
supplied, and running on merely with the instrumental dative—through
Frequent journeys, through dangers from rivers, etc. The expression ὁδοιπορ.
πολλάκις is not to be taken as saying too little, for Paul was not con-
stantly engaged in journeys (comp. his somewhat lengthy sojourns at
Ephesus and at Corinth); wherefore he had the less occasion here to put
another expression in place of the πολλάκις which belonged, as it were,
to the symmetry of the context (vv. 23, 27). Hofmann wrongly joins
πολλάκις With κινδύνοις, and takes πολλάκ. κινδύνοις aS in apposition to ddor-
πορίαις : ‘‘ journeys, which were often dangers.” Asif Paul were under the
necessity of expressing (if he wished to express at all) the quite simple
thought : ὁδοιπορίαις πολλάκις ἐπικινδύνοις (journeys which were often dan-
gerous), in a way so singularly enigmatical as that which Hofmann im-
putes to him. Besides, if the following elements are meant to specify the
dangers of travel, the two points ἐκ γένους and ἐξ ἐϑνῶν at least are not at all
specific perils incident to travel. And how much, in consequence of this er-
See in general, Lund, p. 540f. According proved from the Rabbins that it was on this
to Maccoth iii. 12, the breast, the right and account that the fortieth was not added, as
the left shoulder, received each thirteen of Bengel, Wetstein, and others assume.
the thirty-nine strokes. But it cannot be
CHAP. XI., 28. 661
roneous connection of ὁδοιπορ. πολλάκ. κινδυν., does Hofmann mar the further
flow of the passage, which he subdivides as ποταμῶν κινδύνοις, ληστῶν κινδύνοις,
ἐκ γένους κινδύνοις k.T.2. down to ἐν ϑαλάσσῃ κινδύνοις, but thereafter punctu-
ates : ἐν ψευδαδέλφοις κόπῳ kK. μόχϑῳ ἐν ἀγρυπνίαις, πολλάκις ἐν λιμᾷ K. δίψει, ἐν
νηστείαις, πολλάκις ἐν Woy. K. yuuv.’ In this way is lost the whole beautiful and
swelling symmetry of this outburst, and particularly the essential feature
of the weighty anaphora, in which the emphatic word (and that is in ver. 26
κινδύνοις) is placed jirst (comp. e.g. Hom. 71. x. 228 ff., i. 486 ff., ii. 382 ff.,
v. 740 f.; Arrian, Diss. i. 25 ; Quinctil. ix. 3. Comp. also ver. 20, vii. 2;
Phil. iii. 2, iv. 8 al.). — vd. ποταμῶν x.7.A.] The genitive denotes the dangers
arising from rivers (in crossing, swimming through them, in inundations,
and the like) and from robbers. Comp. Heliod. ii. 4. 65 ; κωδύνοι ϑαλασσῶν,
Plat. Pol. i. p. 332 E; Huthyd. p. 279; Ecclus. xiii. 24. — The κινδύνοις,
each time prefixed has a strong oratorical emphasis. Auct. ad Herenn. iv.
28. There lies in it a certain tone of triumph. — ἐκ γένους] on the part of
race, i.e. onthe part of the Jews, Acts vil. 19 ; Gal. i. 14. The opposite :
ἐξ ἐθνῶν. --- ἐν πόλει, in city, as in Damascus, Jerusalem, Ephesus, and others ;
the opposite is ἐν ἐρημίᾳ, in desert. On the form of expression, comp. ἐν οἴκῳ,
ἐν aypé, ἐν μεγάρῳ, and the like. Xen. de rep. Lac. vili. 3: ἐν πόλει καὶ ἐν
στρατιᾷ καὶ ἐν οἴκῳ. --- ἐν ψευδαδέλφοις] among false brethren, i.e. among Juda-
istic pseudo- Christians, Gal. 11. 4, οἱ ὑπεκρίνοντο τὴν ἀδελφότητα, Chrysostom.
Why should not these, with their hostile and often vehement opposition to
the Pauline Christianity (comp. Phil. iii. 2), have actually prepared dangers
for him? Riickert, without reason, finds this inconceivable, and believes
that Paul here means an occasion on which non-Christians, under cover of
the Christian name, had sought to entice the apostle into some danger
(? κινδύνοις). ---- Ver. 27. κόπῳ x. μόχϑῳ] by trouble and toil ; comp. 1 Thess. ii.
9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8.2 Then with ἐν aypurv. there again appears the instrumen-
tal ἐν. On ἐν λιμῷ κ.τ.λ., comp. Deut. xxviil. 48. — ἐν νηστείαις πολλάκις] by
Srequent fastings. Here precisely, where ἐν λιμῷ κ. δίψει, and so involuntary
fasting, precedes, the reference of vyor. to voluntary fasting is perfectly
clear (in opposition to Riickert, de Wette, Ewald). Comp. on vi. 5. Estius
aptly observes : ‘‘jejunia ad purificandam mentem et edomandam carnem
sponte assumta.”” Comp. Theodoret and Pelagius. (w*)
Ver. 28. Apart from that which ocewrs beside (beside what had been men-
tioned hitherto) there is for me the daily attention, the anxiety for all the
churches.* He will not adduce more particulars than he has brought for-
ward down to γυμνότητι, but will simply mention further a general fact, that
1So that πολλάκ, ἐν λιμῷ κ. δίψει would
belong to ἀγρυπνίαις, and πολλάκ. ἐν ψύχει κ.
γεομᾶο- Christians. This results from his
error in thinking that all the points in ver.
γυμνότητι to νηστείαις, each as a circum-
stance of aggravation ; while both ἐν aypuz-
viats and ἐν νηστείαις belong to κόπῳ k.
μόχϑῳ.
3 From these passages, combined with
Acts xx. 31, we may at the same time ex-
plain the ἀγρυπνίαι, which Hofm. interprets
of night-watchings in anxiety about the
27 are to be referred to ἐν ψευδαδέλφ.
3 Accordingly the comma after ἡμέραν is
to be deleted. If μέριμνα κιτ.λ. be (as is the
usual view) taken as a clause by itself, the
ἐστί to be supplied is not a copula, but:
exists. But according to the right reading
and interpretation, ἡ émor. μοι, as an inde-
pendent point, would thus be too general.
662 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
he has daily to bear anxiety for all the churches. On χωρίς with the geni-
tive : apart from, see Stallbaum, ad. Plat. Apol. S. p. 35 C. The emphasis
is on πασῶν. Theodoret : πάσης yap τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐν ἐμαυτῷ περιφέρω τὴν μέριμναν.
Nevertheless, this πασῶν is not, with Bellarmine and other Roman Catholic
writers, as well as Ewald οὐ a/., to be limited merely to Pauline churches,
nor is it to be pressed in its full generality, but rather to be taken as a popular
expression for his wameasured task. He has to care for all. Chrysostom,
Theophylact, and others attach yop. τ. tap. to what precedes, and separate
it from what follows by a full stop ; but this only makes the latter unneces-
sarily abrupt. Luther, Castalio, Bengel, and many others, including Flatt,
Billroth (but uncertainly), and Olshausen, consider ἡ ἐπίστασις k.t.A. (OY,
according to their reading : ἡ ἐπισύστασις x.7.2.) aS an abnormal apposition
to τῶν παρεκτός : not to mention what still occurs besides, namely, etc. This
is unnecessarily harsh, and χωρὶς τῶν παρεκτός would withal only be an empty
formula.— τὰ rapexréc is : quae praeterea eveniunt,’ not, as Beza and Bengel,
following the Vulgate, hold : ‘‘ quae eatrinsecus eum adoriebantur” (Beza),
so that either what follows is held to be in apposition (Bengel : previously he
has described the proprios labores, now he names the alienos secum communi-
catos), or τῶν παρεκτός is referred to what precedes, and what follows now
expresses the inward cares and toils (Beza, comp. Erasmus). Linguistic
usage is against this, for παρεκτός never means extrinsecus, but always beside,
in the sense of exception. See Matt. v. 32 ; Acts xxvi. 29; Aq. Deut. i. 36 ;
Test. XII. Patr. p. 631 ; Geopon. xiii. 15. 7; Htym. M. p. 652, 18. This
also in opposition to Ewald : ‘‘ without the wnusual things,” with which
what is daily is then put in contrast (comp. Calvin). Hofmann, following the
reading ἡ ἐπισίστασίς μου, would, instead of τῶν παρεκτός, write τῶν παρ᾽ ἐκτός,
which is, in his view, masculine, and denotes those coming on the apostle
JSrom without (the Christian body), whose attacks on his doctrine he must
continually withstand. With this burden he associates the care of all the
many churches, which lie continually on his soul. These two points are in-
troduced by χωρίς, which is the adverbial besides. This new interpretation
(even apart from the reading ἐπισύστασις, Which is to be rejected on critical
grounds) cannot be accepted, (1) because oi παρ᾽ ἐκτός, for which Paul would
have written οἱ ἔξω (1 Cor. v. 12 ; Col. iv. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 12) or of ἔξωϑεν
(1 Tim. iii. 7), is an expression without demonstrable precedent, since even
Greek writers, while doubtless using οἱ ἐκτός, extranet (Polyb. ii. 47. 10, v.
37. 6; comp. Ecclus. Praef. I.), do not use οἱ παρ᾽ ἐκτός ; (2) because the
two parts of the verse, notwithstanding their quite different contents, stand
abruptly (without καί or μὲν. . . δέ, or other link of connection) side by side,
so that we have not even ἡ dé μέριμνά μου (over against the ἐπεσύστασίς pov) in-
stead of the bare ἡ μέριμνα : and (3) because the adverbial χωρίς in the sense
assumed is foreign to the N. T., and even in the classical passages in ques-
tion (see from Thucydides, Kriiger, on i. 61. 3) it does not mean praeterea
generally, but more strictly scorsim, separatim, specially and taken by itself.
1 The Armenian version gives instead of iova Ta παραλειφϑέντα τῶν ἀπαριϑμηϑέντων.
παρεκτός : ἄλλων ϑλίψεων, A correct inter- 3 So, too, in the passage, Thue. ii. 31, 2,
pretation. Chrysostom exaggerates: πλε- adduced in Passow’s Lexicon by Rost and
CHAPS ἘΠῚ 0. 663
See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 11. p. 974. But the two very general categories, which
it is to introduce, would not suit this sense.— ἡ ἐπίστασις] may mean either:
the daily halting (comp. Xen. Anab. 11. 4. 26 ; Polyb. xiv. 8. 10; Soph. Ant.
225: πολλὰς yap ἔσχον φροντίδων ἐπιστάσεις, multas moras deliberationibus
effectas), or: the daily attention.’ See Lobeck, ad Phyrn. p. 527 ; Schweigh.
Lex. Polyb. p. 265. This signification is most accordant with the context
on account of the following ἡ μέριμνα κιτ.3. Riickert, without any sanction
of linguistic usage, makes it : the throng towards me, the concourse resort-
ing to me on official business.? So also Osiander and most older and more
recent expositors explain the Recepta ἐπισύστασίς μου: or ἐπισύστ. μοι. But
likewise at variance with usage, since ἐπισύστασις is always (even in Num.
xxvi. 9) used in the hostile sense : hostilis concursio, tumultus, as it has also
been taken here by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Beza,* Bengel,
and others. See Acts xxiv. 12, and the passages in Wetstein and Loesner,
p. 230.—The μοί ; which, in the interpretation of ἐπίστ. as concourse, would
have to be taken as appropriating dative (Bernhardy, p. 89), is, according
to our view of émor., to be conceived as dependent on the ἐστι to be supplied.
Ver. 29. Two characteristic traits for illustrating the μέριμνα πασῶν τῶν
ἐκκλησιῶν. Chrysostom aptly says : ἐπήγαγε καὶ τὴν ἐπίτασιν τῆς φροντίδος, and
that for the individual members (Acts xx. 91). --- ΑΒ ἀσθενεῖ with σκανδαλίζεται,
so also ἀσθενῶ with πυροῦμαι forms a climax—and in a way highly appropri-
ate to the subject ! For in point of fact he could not in the second clause
say : καὶ ov oxavdahiFoua. —The meaning of the verse is to express the most
cordial and most lively sympathy (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 26) of his care amidst the
dangers, to whom the Christian character and life of the brethren are expos-
ed : ‘‘ Who is weak as regards his faith, conscience, or his Christian moral-
ity, and I am not weak, do not feel myself, by means of the sympathy of my
care, transplanted into the same position? Who is offended, led astray to
unbelief and sin, and I do not burn, do not feel myself seized by burning
pain of soul ?” Semler and Billroth, also de Wette (comp. Luther’s gloss),
mix up what is foreign to the passage, when they make ἀσθενῶ apply to the
condescension of the apostle, who would give no offence to the weak, 1 Cor.
ix. 22. And Emmerling (followed by Olshausen) quite erroneously takes
it : ‘“‘quem afflictum dicas, si me non dicas? quem calamitatem oppetere, si
me non wis premi, quin uri memores?” In that case it must have run καὶ
by Hofmann, where χωρίς further intro-
duces a separate army contingent, which is
counted by itself.
1Gregory of Nazianzus has ἐπιστασία,
which is to be regarded as a good gloss.
See Lobeck, /.c. ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i.
5. 2, var.
2 ἐπίστασις does not once mean the pressing
on (active) the crowding. In 2 Mace. vi. 3
(in opposition to Grimm in /oc.), ἡ ἐπίστασις
τῆς κακίας is the setting in, the coming on, i.e.
the beginning of misfortune (Polyb. i. 12. 6,
ii. 40. 5, αἰ.). In Dion. Halicarn. vi. 31, the
reading is to be changed into ἐπίϑεσιν. In
Polyb. i. 26. 12, it means the position.
Nevertheless, Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 156 [E. T.
180], agrees with Riickert.
3 Chrys: οἱ ϑόρυβοι, αἱ ταραχαΐί, αἱ πολιορ-
κίαι τῶν δήμων καὶ τῶν πόλεων ἔφοδοι. Beza
renders the whole verse: ‘‘ Absque iis,
quae extrinsecus eveniunt, urget agmen
illud in me quotidie consurgens, 7.e. solici-
tudo de omnibus ecclesiis.’””» Comp. Ewald:
“the daily onset of a thousand troubles and
difficulties on him.” Bengel: ‘‘ obturbatio
illorum, qui doctrinae vitaeve perversitate
Paulo molestiam exhibebant, v. gr. Gal. vi
17.
664 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀσθενῶ ; besides, σκανδαλίζεσθαι never means calamitatibus affict, but
constantly denotes religious or moral offence ; and lastly, σκανδαλίζεται and
πυροῦμαι would yield a quite inappropriate climax (Paul must have repeated
oxavdanifouar). — ἀσϑενεῖ] comp. Rom. iv. 19, xiv. 1, 2, 21; 1 Cor. vill. 9, 11;
1 Thess. v.14 ; Actsxx. 35. The correspondence of σκανδαλίζεται in the climax
forbids us to understand it of suffering (Chrysostom, Beza, Flatt). — πυροῦμαι]
What emotion is denoted by verbs of burning, is decided on each occasion
by the context (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 9; see in general on Luke xxiv. 32),
which here presents a climax to ἀσϑενῶ, therefore suggests far more naturally
the idea of violent pain (comp. Chrys.: xa ἕκαστον ὠδυνᾶτο μέλος) than
that of anger (Luther : ‘‘it galled him hard ;” comp. Bengel, Riickert).
Augustine says aptly: ‘‘quanto major caritas, tanto majores plagae de
peccatis alienis.”” Comp. on the expression, the Latin ardere doloribus, faces
doloris, and the like (Kiihner, ad Cic. Tusc. ii. 25. 61); also 3 Mace. iv. 2,
and Abresch, ad Aesch. Sept. 519. — Lastly, we have to note the change in
the form of the antitheses, which emerges with the increasing vividness of
feeling in the two halves of the verse: οὐκ ἀσϑενῶ and οὐκ ἐγὼ πυροῦμαι.
In the former case the negation attaches itself to the verb, in the latter to
the person. Who is weak without weakness likewise occurring in me ? who
is offended without its being J, who isburning? Of the offence which another
takes, Jon my part have the pain.
Ver. 30. Result of the previous passage—from ver. 23 onward 'in proof
of that ὑπὲρ ἐγώ in ver. 23—put, however, asyndetically (without οὖν), as is
often the case with the result after a lengthened chain of thoughts (Dissen,
ad Pind. Exc. I. de asynd. p. 278); an asyndeton summing up (Nigelsbach
on the Iliad, p. 284, ed. 3). 171 must boast (as is the given case in confront-
ing my enemies), I will boast in that which concerns my weakness (my suffer-
ings, conflicts, and endurances, which exhibit my weakness), and thus prac-
tise quite another καυχᾶσϑαι" than that of my opponents, who boast in their
power and strength. In this τὰ τ. ἀσϑ. μ. kavy. there lies a holy oxymoron.
To refer it to the ἀσϑενεῖν in ver. 29 either alone (Riickert) or inclusively (de
Wette), is inadmissible, partly because that ἀσϑενεῖν was a partaking in the
weakness of others, partly because the future is to be referred to what is
meant only to follow. And it does actually follow ; hence we must not, with
Wieseler (on Gal. p. 596), generalize the future into the expression of a
maxim, whereby a reference to the past is facilitated. So also in the main
Hofmann. — καυχᾶσϑαι, with accusative, as ix. 2.
Ver. 31. He is now about to illustrate (see vv. 32, 33) the just announced
τὰ τῆς ἀσϑενείας μου καυχήσομαι by an historical enumeration of his sufferings
from the beginning, but he first prefaces his detailed illustration (‘‘ rem
quasi difficilem dicturus,” Pelagius) by the assurance, in God's name, that he
1 Everything in this outburst, from ver. ance of his truthfulness (ver. 31), actually
23 onward, presented him, in fact, as the begun by him (ver. 32) in concrete historical
servant of Christ attested by much suffering. form.
Thus, if he must make boast, he wishes to 2 Chrys. exclaims: Οὗτος ἀποστολικὸς
boast in nothing else than his weakness. χαρακτήρ, διὰ τούτων ὑφαίνεται εὐαγγέλιον.
And this καυχᾶσϑαι is then, after an assur-
CHAP. XI., 32, 33. 665
narrates nothing false. The objections taken against referring his assurance
to what follows (see Estius and Riickert)—that the incident adduced in ver.
32 stands, as regards importance, out of all proportion to so solemn an
assurance, and the like—lose their weight, when we reflect that Paul has
afterwards again broken off (see xii. 1) the narrative begun in vv. 32, 33, and
therefore, when writing his assurance, referred it not merely to this single
incident, but also to all which he had it in his mind still to subjoin (which,
however, was left undone owing to the interruption). Others refer the
oath to what precedes, and that either to everything said from ver. 23 onward
(Estius, Calovius, Flatt, Olshausen), or to ver. 30 alone (Morus, Riickert,
Hofmann ; Billroth gives a choice between the two). But in the former
case logically we could not but have expected ver. 31 after ver. 29, and in
the latter case the assurance would appear as quite irrelevant, since Paul at
once begins actually to give the details of his ra τῆς ἀσϑεν. μου καυχήσομαι (ver.
31 f.). — ὁ Sede x. πατὴρ τ. κυρ. ju. "I. X.] Union of the general and of the .
specifically Christian idea of God. Ἡμῶν yap ϑεὸς τοῦ δὲ κυρίου πατήρ, Theo-
doret. Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 24 and Eph. i. 8. —6 ὧν εὐλογητὸς κ.τ.}.} append-
ed by the apostle’s pious feeling, in order to strengthen the sacredness of
the assurance. ‘‘ Absit ut abutar ejus testimonio, cui omnis laus et honor
debetur in omnem aeternitatem,” Calovius.
Vv. 32, 33. Paul now actually begins his καυχᾶσϑαι τὰ τῆς ἀσϑενείας αὐτοῦ,
and that by relating the peril and flight which took place at the very com-
mencement of his work. Unfortunately, however (for how historically im-
portant for us would have been a further continuation of this tale of suffer-
ing !), yet upon the emergence of a proper feeling that the continuation of
this glorying in suffering would not be in keeping with his apostolic position,
he renounces the project, breaks off again at once after this first incident
(xii. 1), and passes on to something far higher and more peculiar—to the
revelations made to him. The expositors, overlooking this breaking off
(noted also by Hilgenfeld), have suggested many arbitrary explanations as
to why Paul narrates this incident in particular (he had, in fact, been in
much worse perils !),1 and that with so solemn asseveration and at such
length. Billroth, e.g. (comp. Flatt), says that he wished to direct attention
to the first danger pre-eminently by way of evidence that everything said
from ver. 23 onward was true (ver. 31). In that case he would doubtless
have written something like ἤδη yap ἐν Δαμασκῷ, or in such other way as to
be so understood. Olshausen contents himself with the remark that Paul has
only made a supplementary mention of the event as the first persecution ;
and Riickert even conjectures that it was by pure accident that Paul noted
by way of supplement and treated in detail this story occurring to his recol.
lection !_ Osiander thinks that he singled it out thus on account of its con-
nection (?) in subject-matter and time with the following revelation, and,
as it were, by way of further consecration of his official career. Comp. also
Wieseler on Gal. p. 595, who likewise considers the narrative as simply a
1 Arbitrary explanations are already and less known; and by Pelagius: because
given by Chrysostom (comp. Bengel, Ewald, in Damascus the Jews had stirred up etiam
and others): because the incident was Older —principes gentium against Paul.,
666 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
suitable historical introduction to the revelation that follows. But we do
not see the purpose served by this detailed introduction,—which, withal, as
such, would have no independent object whatever,—nor yet, again, the pur-
pose served by the interruption in xii. 1. According to Hofmann, the men-
tion of this means of rescue, of which he had made use, and which many a
one with merely natural courage would on the score of honour not have
consented to employ, is intended to imply a confession of his weakness.
The idea of weakness, however, is not at all here the opposite of the natural
courage of honour, but rather that of the passive undergoing of all the
παϑήματα Of Christ, the long chain of which, in Paul’s case, had its first link
historically in that flight from Damascus. Calvin correctly names this flight
the ‘‘tirocinium Pauli.” —év Δαμασκῷ] stands as an anacoluthon. When
Paul wrote it, having already in view a further specification of place for an
incident to follow, he had purposed to write, instead of the unsuitable τὴν
Δαμασκηνῶν πόλιν, something else (such as τὰς πύλας), but then left out of
account the ἐν Δαμασκῷ already written. It is a strange fancy to which Hof-
mann has recourse, that τ. Δαμασκ. πόλιν is meant to be a narrower concep-
tion than ἐν Aayacko. —édvapync] prefect (Josephus, Antt. xiv. 7. 2; 1 Mace.
xiv. 47, xv. 1 ; Strabo, xvii. p. 798 ; Lucian, Macrob. 17), an appellation of
Oriental provincial governors. See in general, Joh. Gottlob Heyne, de
ethnarcha Aretae, Witeb. 1755, p. 3 ff. The incident itself described is
identical with that narrated in Acts ix. 24 f. No doubt in Acts the watch-
ing of the gates is described to the Jews, and here, to the ethnarch ; but the
reconciliation of the two narratives is itself very naturally effected through
the assumption that the ethnarch caused the gates to be watched by the Jews
themselves at their suggestion (comp. Heyne, l.c. p. 39). ‘‘ Jewish gold had
perhaps also some effect with the Emir,” Michaelis. —7jv Δαμασκ. πόλιν]
namely, by occupying the gates so that Paul might not get out. Regarding
the temporary dominion over Damascus held at that time by Aretas, the Ara-
bian king, and father-in-law of Herod Antipas, see on Acts, Introd. § 4, and
observe that Paul would have had no reason for adding ’Apéra τοῦ βασιλέως,
if at the very time of the flight the Roman city had not been exceptionally
(and temporarily) subject to Aretas—a state of foreign rule for the time
being, which was to be brought under the notice of the reader. Hofmann
thinks that the chief of the Arabian inhabitants in the Roman city was meant ;
but with the less ground, since Paul was a Jew and had come from Jerusa-
lem, and consequently would not have belonged at all to the jurisdiction of
such a tribal chief (if there had been one). He went to Arabia (Gal. i. 17)
only in consequence of this incident. —dia ϑυρίδος by means of a little door
(Plato, Pol. ii. p. 359 D; Lucian, Asin. 45). It was doubtless an opening
high up in the city wall, closed, perhaps, with a lid or lattice. — ἐν σαργάνῃ]
in a wickerwork, i.e. basket (Lucian, Lexiph. 6). Comp. Acts ix. 25: ἐν
oxvpidt. —On the description itself Theodoret rightly remarks; τὸ τοῦ
κινδύνου μέγεϑος τῷ τρόπῳ τῆς φυγῆς παρεδήλωσε.
NOTES. 667
Notes sy American EpITor.
(n*) “4 godly jealousy.” Ver. 2.
This phrase, given in the A. V. and retained in the Revision, includes all the
possible meanings of the original ; for a godly jealousy may be at once one of
which God isthe author or the object, one that He has, or that is pleasing to
Him, or that is extraordinarily great.
(05) ‘* The serpent.” Ver. ὃ.
The comparison made here is a clear evidence that Paul accepted the narra-
tive of the fall as an historical fact. For a fable would give no ground for his
fear, and would be inconsistent with the earnestness of this passage. The
comparison suggests that the serpent was a mouthpiece of a spiritual foe.
(p*) Paul’s manifestation. Ver. 6.
A better sense than that of the T. R., which Dr. Meyer adopts, is obtained
from the reading of all the later editors, which gives an active participle : have
made manifest, viz. the Apostle’s knowledge of divine revelations and spiritual
truths.
(Q°) Paul's gratuitous service. Ver. 7.
This verse and the following seem designed to answer the charges founded
on the fact that he took no money from the Corinthian church, but supported
himself by his own labours and the gifts of others. The charges were that a
real apostle could not thus abstain from claiming his undoubted right, and that
Paul’s doing it indicated a want of confidence in the Corinthians. He vindicates
his course, and declares his intention to persist in it.
(n°) ‘ Satan transformed.” Ver. 14.
It would hardly be possible to affirm the personality of Satan more strongly
than is done here. The practical suggestion is also of immense weight—Satan
does not come to us as Satan.
(5) ‘* Whose end shall be according to their works.” Ver. 15.
On this Beet remarks that Paul had no expectation that all men would event-
ually be saved. For he is evidently thinking of bad works, and therefore of a
bad end. But if finally restored, the end of all men and of these servants of
Satan would be endless happiness, in whose light the most terrible and pro-
longed bygone torments will, as endless and glorious ages roll by, dwindle into
insignificance.
(τὸ) Paul’s boasting. Ver. 16.
Three times he has attempted to begin his boast, first in x. 18, when he is
interrupted by the recollection of the hollowness of the boast of his opponents
and compelled to assert the reality of his own ; again, in xi. 1, when he is checked
by the recollection of the difficulty of pressing it on readers so perverted as the
Corinthians by the influence of their false teachers ; again, in xi. 6, when he is
led aside to answer the charge arising out of his refusal of support. Now once
more he returns to the point, and now for the first time carriesitthrough. He is
668 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
still oppressed by the consciousness of the seeming senselessness of such self-
praise ; but he defends himself on two grounds: that he is driven to it by the
pretensions of his opponents ; and that he is speaking, not of his higher gifts,
of which he might reasonably be proud, but of those very points in his con-
duct and character which had given occasion to his opponents to charge him
with ‘‘ weakness,” x. 10. (Stanley).
(u®) ““ Not after the Lord.’’ Ver. 17.
This phrase means, ‘‘ Not as Christ would have me speak, but in the person of
a fool.’’ Such an utterance is not inconsistent with the Apostle’s claim to in-
spiration. For the simple end of inspiration is to secure infallibility in the
communication of truth. It does not sanctify, nor does it preclude the natural
play of the intellect or of the feelings. Even if therefore this conduct of Paul
was due to human weakness, that would not prove that he was not under the
inspiration of God. But such an assumption is needless. There was nothing
wrong in his self-laudation. He never appears more truly humble than when
these references to his labours and sufferings were wrung from him, filling him
with a feeling of self-contempt. All that the expression implies is that self-
praise, in itself considered, is not the work of a Christian ; it is not a work to
which the Spirit of Christ impels a believer. But when it is necessary to the
vindication of the truth or the honour of religion, it becomes a duty (Hodge).
(v®) «* According to the flesh.” Ver. 18.
Surely there is no necessity of supplying these words at the end of the verse.
What the Apostle means is, ‘‘As many boast from unworthy motives, I also
will boast.” If they did it from bad motives, he might well do it from good
motives ; and that he did it from such motives the whole section shows.
(w®) Paul's toils and sufferings. Ver. 27.
On this graphic statement Stanley justly remarks that ‘‘it represents a life
in the Western world [may we not add, in the Eastern also ?] hitherto with-
out precedent. Self-devotion for some special national cause had been often
seen before; the career of Socrates was a lifelong service to humanity ; but a
continual self-devotion, involving hardships like those here described, and ex-
tending over so long a period and in behalf of no local or family interest, but
for the interest of mankind at large, was, down to this period, a thing unknown.
Paul did 41] this. and Paul was the first who did it.’’-—‘‘ This passage makes
even the most laborious of the modern ministers of Christ hide their faces in
shame. What have they ever done or suffered to compare with what this apos-
tle did? It is a consolation to know that Paul is now as pre-eminent in glory
as he was here in suffering” (Hodge).—Stanley adds further: ‘‘It is remark-
able that while there is nothing in this account which contradicts, yet the
greater part of it goes far beyond the narrative of the Acts. It shows that the
biography of the Apostle, unlike most biographies of heroes and saints (e.g.
Xavier), instead of overrating, underrates the difficulties and sufferings which
we learn from the Apostle’s own account, the accuracy of which is guaranteed
by the extreme and apparently unfeigned reluctance with which it is brought
forward.”’
CHAP. XII. _ 669
CHAPTER, XII.
Ver. 1. καυχᾶσθαι δή] So also Tisch., following K M and most min. Arm. and
the Greek Fathers. But BD** E F G I, and many min., also Syr. utr. Arr.
Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. have the reading καυχᾶσθαι ὃ εἴ, which Griesb. has recom-
mended, and Scholz, Lachm. Rick. have adopted. D* &* 114, Copt. Slav.
codd. Lat. Theophyl. have καυχᾶσθαι δέ, which Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 122 f.,
prefers. The testimonies for καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ preponderate so decidedly that we
are not entitled to derive δεῖ from xi. 30. On the other hand, the apparent
want of connection in καυχ. δεῖ ov oud. was sufficient occasion, partly for
changing δεῖ into δέ, or by means of itacism into δῇ (the latter Reiche defends
and Ewald follows, also Hofm.), partly for prefixing an εἰ to the καυχ. from xi.
30 (N** 39, Lect. 17, Vulg. Pel.). — οὐ συμφέρει μοι, ἐλεύσομαι yap] Lachm. and
Riick. read οὐ συμφέρον μὲν, ἐλεύσομεν δέ (Lachm.: δὲ καί, after B), supported by
BF G 8, and in part by some min. vss. and Fathers. But μὲν... dé betrays
itself as a correction by way of gloss of the difficult γάρ, in which μοί was sup-
planted by μέν, and γάρ by δέ. The question whether συμφέρον is original
instead of συμφέρει, is decided by the circumstance that, according to the codd.,
the reading συμφέρον is connected with the reading μὲν... dé, and hence falls
with it, — Ver. 3. ἐκτός] Β Ὁ" ἘΠ δὲ, Method. in Epiph. have χωρίς. So Lachm.
Tisch. and Riick. Rightly ; ἐκτός is from ver. 2. The subsequent οὐκ olda is
deleted by Lachm., but only on the authority of B, Method. — Ver. 6. ri] is doubt-
less wanting in B D*** K** F GN* 37, 67** Arm. Boern. Tol. Harl.** codd. Lat. Or.,
and is deleted by Lachm. and Riick. But how easily it was left out, being regard-
ed as utterly superfluous, and even as confusing !— Ver. 7. Before the first iva
Lachm. has διό, following ΒῈ G 817, Boern. An insertion for the sake of con-
nection, occasioned by the not recognizing the inverted order of the words, so
that καὶ τῇ ὑπερβ. τῶν ἀποκαλ. was attached in some way to what goes before
(with some such meaning as this ; in order that no one may get a higher opinion
of me... eventhrough the abundance of the revelations). — The second iva μὴ ὑπεραί-
ρωμαι 15 wanting in A DE FG δὲ 17, and several vss, and Fathers (bracketed by
Lachm.) ; but the emphasis of the repetition being overlooked, the words have
been passed over as having been used already. — Ver. 9. δύναμίς μου] μου is
wanting in Αἴ B D* FG &, and several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Bengel,
Lachm. Tisch. Considering, however, the no small weight of the testimonies
for μου (A** D*** EK KL &** and almost all min. vss. Or. Chrys. Theodoret),
and seeing that the syllable μου might easily be passed over after the syllable
μις, the Recepta is to be preserved, its sense also being necessary according to
the whole context. — τελειοῦται] AB D* FG &* haveredeitar. So Lachm. Tisch.
and Riick. Rightly ; the former is an interpretation. — Ver. 11. After ἄφρων
Elz. has καυχώμενος, against decisive evidence. An exegetical addition. — Ver.
12. ἐν σημείοις ἐν is wanting in A Β D* 817, 39, 71, al. Vulg. ms. Clar. Germ.
Tol. and Fathers ; while F G, Boern. Syr. Chrys. Ambrosiast. have καί. ἐν is
mechanically repeated from what precedes, and with Lachm., Tisch. and Rick.
640 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
is to be deleted. — Ver. 13. ἡττηθητε] B D* 8* 17 have ἡσσώθητε (so Lachm.), which
is nothing but a copyist’s error, and in D and δὲ is rightly corrected ; F G have
ἐλαττώηητε, Which is a gloss. — Ver. 14. After τρίτον Griesb. Scholz, Lachm.
Riick. Tisch. read τοῦτο, following doubtless a preponderance of authorities,
among which, however, D E 93, Copt. Syr.? put it before τρίτον. An addition
from xiii. 1. — ὑμον] is wanting after καταναρκ. in AB δὲ 17, 71, al. Aeth. Damasc.,
while D* F G have ὑμᾶς. Both have been supplied, and are rightly deleted by
Lachm. Tisch. — Ver. 15, εἰ καί] καί is wanting in A B FG δὲ" Copt. Sahid.
Deleted by Lachm. An addition from misunderstanding ; see the exegetical
remarks. — Ver. 19. πάλιν] Lachm, Tisch. and Riick. read πάλαι on preponder-
ating evidence. Rightly ; the πάλαι not understood was erroneously glossed. —
In what follows κατέναντι is to be adopted instead of κατενώπιον, with Lachm.
and Riick., on preponderating evidence. Comp. 11. 17. — Ver. 20. Instead of
of ἔρεις, Lachm. and Riick, read ἔρις, but against preponderating evidence.
The latter might easily originate through itacism. Instead of ζῆλοι, Lachm.
Tisch. and Riick. read ζῆλος, following A B D* FG, Goth. Syr. Arm. Dam.
Rightly ; the plural crept in from the surrounding forms. — Ver. 21. ἐλθόντα με]
Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. read ἐλθόντος μοῦ, following ABFG δὲ" 39, 93.
Rightly ; the Recepta is a grammatical emendation, which brought with it the
omission of the subsequent we. — ταπεινώσῃ] Lachm. and Tisch. read ταπεινώσει,
following BD EF GL, min. Oec. The subjunctive is a mechanical alteration
in accordance with the preceding and usual form.
Conrents.—Breaking off from what precedes, Paul passes over to the
revelations which he has had, narrates one of them, and says : Of this he
would boast, not of himself, except only of his weaknesses ; for he will
perpetrate no folly by self-glorying, but abstains from it, in order not to
awaken too high an opinion of himself (vv. 1-6). And in order that he
might not plume himself over those revelations, there was given to him a
painful affliction, on account of which after a thrice-repeated invocation he
had been referred by Christ to His grace ; hence he preferred to glory in
his weaknesses, in order that he might experience the power of Christ, for
which reason he had pleasure in his weaknesses (vv. 7-10). — He had be-
come a fool, compelled thereto by them ; for he ought to have been com-
mended by them, since in no respect did he stand behind the fancied apos-
tles, but, on the contrary, had wrought amongst them the proofs of his
apostolic dignity (vv. 11, 12). This leads him, amidst bitter irony, again
to his gratuitous working, which he will continue also on his third arrival
(vv. 13-15). But not only had he not by himself and immediately taken
advantage of them, but not even through others mediately (vv. 16-18).
Now begins the conclusion of the whole section : Not before them, but
before God, does he vindicate himself, yet for their edification. For he
fears that he may find them not in the frame of mind which he wishes, and
that he may be found by them in a fashion not wished for (vv. 19-21).
Ver. 1.1 Scarcely has Paul, in xi. 32 f., begun his καυχᾶσϑαι τὰ τῆς ἀσϑενείας
1 See on ver. 1 ff., Beyschlag in the Stud. schlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 217 ff. ;
u. Krit. 1864, p. 206 ff. ; Hilgenfeld in his also Holsten, zum Evang. des Paul. u. a.
Zeitschr. 1864, Ὁ. 173 ff.; and again, Bey- Petr. 1868, p. 21 ff.
EEE
CHAP! Kis, ΠΣ 671
with the incident in Damascus, when he breaks off again with the thought
which, in the instantaneous, true tact of his consciousness (comp. on xi. 32
f.), as it were bars his way : καυχᾶσϑαι dei, οὐ συμφέρει μοι (see the critical re-
marks) : to boast of myself is necessary, not beneficial for me. Let it be
observed that οὐ συμφ. is the antithesis of dei ; (mecesse, non utile est), and
that a comma only must therefore stand after dei ; further, that yo. belongs
not merely to cuud., but also to δεῖ (Tob. v. 14 ; Kithner, ad Xen. Mem. iii.
8. 10, Anadb. 111. 4. 35; Miatzner, ad Antiph. p. 257) ;’ lastly, that ov.
means the moral benefit as opposed to the ethical disadvantage of the self-
exaltation (comp. ver. 7, and see Theophyl.) : ‘‘saluberrimum animo ἡ τῆς
Comp. Ignat. Trall. 4 : πολλὰ φρονῶ ἐν Beg, ἀλλ᾽
ἐμαυτὸν μετρῶ, ἵνα μὴ ἐν καυχήσει ἀπόλωμαι. The δεῖ arose out of the existing
circumstances of the Corinthians, by which Paul had seen himself necessi-
tated to the καυχᾶσϑαι ; but the οὐ συμφέρει prevails with him to pass on to
something else and far higher, as that in which there lay no self-glory (ver.
5). With the reading δή (see the critical remarks) the δή would only make
the notion of καυχᾶσϑαι more significantly * prominent, like the German eben
or ja [certainly, or indeed] (see Kriiger, § 69, 19. 2 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 392 ;
Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 98), but could not, as Hofmann (with an inap-
propriate appeal to Hartung) assumes, denote glorying ‘“‘ simply and abso-
lutely,” in contrast with a καυχᾶσϑαι τὰ τῆς ἀσϑενείας. This Paul would have
known how to express by something like ἁπλῶς δὴ kavyaoda. — ἐλεύσομαι]
not : I would (to which Hofmann practically comes), but : I will (now)
come to speak. See Wolf, Curae; Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. ix. 83, p. 119. —
γάρ] He might also have said οὖν, but his conception is, that by his passing
over to something else the οὐ συμφέρει μοι is illustrated and confirmed. See
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 235 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 86. --- εἰς ὀπτασία ςκαὶ ἀποκαλ.
κυρίου] i.e. to facts, in which Christ imparted to me visions and revelations.*
The genitivus subjecti κυρίου is the characteristic definition, which both words
need (not simply the second, to which Hofmann limits it). Theophylact
remarks that in ἀποκαλ. there is added to orrac. something more, ἡ μὲν yap
οἰήσεως συστολή," Grotius.
1 Reiche (Comment. crit. I. p. 404) objects
that Paul must have written ‘‘ solenniter et
perspicue :”” καυχᾶσϑαι ἐμὲ det, ov δὲ συμφέρει
μοι. But if μοι were not to be referred
jointly to δεῖ, seeing that δεῖ with the dative
and infinitive certainly is found in classical
writers seldom (see also Ellendt, Lex. Soph.
i. p. 399 f.), and never in the N. T., an ἐμέ
would not be necessary: but καυχ. δεῖ may
be taken absolutely : boasting is necessary
(under the circumstances given), not advan-
tageous is it to me. The non-use of 6€ or ἀλλά
isin keeping with the very common asyn-
detic juxtaposition of contrasted state-
ments, 1 Cor. vii. 6; Rom. ii. 29; 2 Cor. v.
8, el al. Reiche himself, defending the Pe-
cepta, lays the whole emphasis on μοι : my
boasting takes place not for my own advan-
tage, but for yours (in order to correct your
judgment regarding me, etc.). He explains
it, therefore, as if Paul had written: οὐκ
ἐμοί OF οὐκ ἐμαυτῷ συμφέρει. Theodoret had
already taken it erroneously, quite like
Reiche.
2“Aé est particula determinativa, id
verbum, quod sequitur, graviter efferens,”’
Kihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 7.2. Comp. also
Hartung, Partik. I. p. 283. Erasm.: “ glo-
riari sane non expedit mihi.”” It might ac-
cordingly be taken also with a touch of
irony, like seilicet : boast indeed I must. See
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 173 E; Har-
tung, 1.5. Holsten also, 1.6. p. 28, takes it in
the ironical sense.
3 As is well known, from this passage
arose the apocryphal ᾿Αποκάλυψις Παύλου,
and (or?) the ᾿Αναβατικὸν Παύλου. See Liicke-
Einl. in d. Offend. Joh. 1. p. 244 ff. ed. 2. Theo,
phylact finds the proof that this treatise is
not genuine in ἄῤῥητα, ver. 4.
672 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
μόνον βλέπειν δίδωσιν, αὕτη δὲ Kai τι βαϑύτερον τοῦ ὁρωμένου ἀπογυμνοῖ. This
distinction, however, keeps the two ideas apart contrary to their nature, as
if the apocalyptic element were not given with the ὀπτασία. Ὀπτασία
(‘‘species visibilis objecta vigilanti aut, somnianti,” Grotius) is rather a
special form of receiving the ἀποκάλυψις (comp. Liicke, Hinl. in d. Offenb. Joh.
I. p. 27, ed. 2), which latter may take place by means of such a miraculous
vision (Dan. ix. 23, x. 1, 16) ; see also Luke i. 22 ; Acts xxvi. 19. This is
the meaning of ὀπτασία here, and ἀποκαλ. is a wider idea (inasmuch as
revelations occur also otherwise than in the way of visions beheld, although
here ensuing in that way ; comp. ver. 7, where ἀποκαλ. stands alone.—That
Paul by what follows wishes to prove, with a polemic object against the
Christine party, that external acquaintance with Christ was superfluous (so
Baur ; see also Oecumenius), is not to be assumed, just because otherwise
the mention of his having had a vision of Christ would be necessary for its
bearing on the sequel. Nor can we from this passage infer it as the distinc-
tive feature of the Christines, that they had claimed to stand by visions and
revelations in a mystical connection with Christ (Schenkel, Diihne, de
Wette, Goldhorn ; comp. also Ewald, Beyschlag), since Paul is contending
against specifically Judaistic opponents, against whom he pursues his gen-
eral purpose of elucidating his apostolic dignity, which enemies obscured
in Corinth,’ from the special distinctions which he, and not his opponents,
had to show (comp. Riibiger, p. 210 ; Klépper, p. 99 ff.). (x)
Ver. 2. He now quotes instar omnium a single event of such a nature,
specially memorable to him and probably unique in his experience, vv. 2-4.
—oida ἄνϑρωπον x.t.2.] I know a man... who was snatched away. Paul
speaks of himself as of a third person, because he wishes to adduce some-
thing in which no part of the glory at all falls on the Ego proper. And
how suitable in reality was the nature of such an event to the modest mode
of representation, excluding all self-glory ! In that ecstasy the Ego had
indeed really ceased to be the subject of its own activity, and had become
quite the object of the activity of others, so that Paul in his usual condition
came before himself as other than he had been in the ecstasy, and his J,
considered from the standpoint of that ecstasy, appeared as a he. — ἐν Χριστῷ]
a man to be found in Christ (as the element of life), 1 Cor. i. 80, a Christian ;
not : ‘‘ quod in Christo dico, i.e. quod sine ambitione dictum velim,” Beza,
connecting it with olda (comp. Emmerling). — πρὸ ἐτῶν δεκατεσσάρων] belongs
to ἁρπαγέντα, from which it is separated by the parenthesis. We may add
that this note of time is already decisive against those, who either find in
this incident the conversion of the apostle (or at least something connected
therewith), as Damasus, Thomas, Lyra, L. Capellus, Grotius, Oeder, Keil,
Opuse. p. 318 ff. ; Matthaei, Religionsgl. I. p. 610 ff., and others, including
1 According to Hilgenfeld, Paul means such things had not been imparted after
now toimpart yet something greater than
the vision of Christ (?) at his call. Not some-
thing greater, but something quite of
another kind. Holsten, too, finds in the
ὀπτασίας something, which exalts Paul above
the original apostles, since to the latter
the resurrection of Christ. That, indeed,
we do not at all know. We are acquainted
with analogous disclosures also by Peter.
And how scanty are our sources regarding
the history of the Twelve !
CHAP, XIE, 2; 673
Bretschneider and Reiche, and quite recently Stélting, Beitr. 2. Hweg. d.
Paul. Br, 1869, p. 173—or identify it with the appearance in the temple,
Acts xxii. 17 ff., as Calvin (but uncertainly), Spanheim, Lightfoot, J. Ca-
pellus, Rinck, Schrader, and others ; comp. also Schott, Hrért. p. 100 ff. ;
Wurm in the 7 Ὁ. Zeitschr. 1833, 1, p. 41 ff. ; Wieseler, p. 165, and on Gal.
p. 591 ff. ; Osiander. The conversion was upwards of twenty years earlier *
than this Epistle (see on Acts, Introd. ὃ 4). See, besides, Estius and
Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 58 ff. ; Anger, rat. temp. p. 164 ff. In fact, even if the
definition of the time of this event could be reconciled with that of the ap-
pearance in the temple, Acts xxii. 17 ff., still the narrative of this passage (see
especially ver. 4 : ἤκουσεν ἄῤῥητα k.T.A.) is at any rate so essentially different
from that in Acts xxii., that the identity is not to be assumed.’ The connec-
tion which Wieseler assumes with the Damascene history does not exist in
reality (comp. on xi. 32 f.), but with xii. 1 there begins something new. The
event here mentioned, which belongs in point of time to the stay at Antioch
or to the end of the stay at Tarsus (Acts xi. 25), is to us quite unknown
otherwise. The reason, however, why Paul added the definition of time is,
according to Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodoret, and others, given thus :
‘‘videmus Paulum ipsum per annos quatuordecim tacuisse, nec verbum fuisse
facturum, nisi importunitas malignorum coégisset,” Calvin. But how purely
arbitrary! And whence is it known that he had been so long silent re-
garding the ecstasy ? No ; the specification of time flowed without special
design just as naturally from the pre-eminently remarkable character which
the event had for Paul, as from the mode of the representation, according
to which he speaks of himself as of a third person, in whose case the notice
of an already long past suggested itself spontaneously ; for ‘‘ longo tempore
alius a se ipso quisque factus videtur” (Bengel). —eite ἐν σώματι] 86. ἡρπάγη
from what follows. Regarding cite . . . cite, whether. . . or, see Hartung,
Partikell. II. p. 202 f. also Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 224. He puts the
two cases as quite equal as respects possibility, not the first as more probable;
hence with the second εἴτε no καί is added ; see Dissen. In that ecstasy his
lower consciousness had so utterly fallen into abeyance, that he could not
afterwards tell (according to Athan. 6. Ar. Serm. 4 : dared not tell) whether
this had taken place by means of a temporary withdrawal of his spirit out
of the body, or whether his whole person, the body included (ἐν céuarv), had
been snatched away. By this alternative he expresses simply the utter in-
comprehensibleness for him of the manner of the occurrence. It is to him as
if either the one or the other had taken place, but he knows neither the
former nor the latter ; hence he is not to be made responsible for the possi-
bility or eventual mode of the one or other. ‘‘ Ignoratio modi non tollit cer-
tam rez scientiam,” Bengel. Following Augustine, Genes. ad lit. xii. 5, Thomas
and Estius explained ἐν σώματι : anima in corpore manente, so that Paul would
say that he does not know whether it‘took place in a vision (ἐν σώματι) or by an
1 According to Wieseler, the ἄῤῥητα ῥήματα § the revelation laying the basis for his voca-
were the preparatory basis for the delega- tion among the Gentiles had been received
tion of the apostle in Acts xxii. 18,21. But by Paul much earlier than the appearance
there is no hint of this in either text. And inthe temple, Gal. i. 15.
674 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
actual snatching away of the spirit (ἐκτὸς τοῦ o.). But if he had been uncer-
tain, and had wished to represent himself as uncertain, whether the matter
were only a seeing and perceiving by means of the spiritual senses or a real
snatching away, it would not have had at all the great importance which it
is held to have in the context, and he would only have exposed to his rivals
a weak point, seeing that inward visions of the supernatural, although in
the form of divinely presented apparitions, had not the quite extraordinary
character which Paul manifestly wishes to ascribe to the event described.
This also in opposition to Beyschlag, 1864, p. 207, who explains the alter-
native εἴτε ἐν σώματι Only as the bestowal of a marvellous ‘‘range” and
‘‘reach” of the inward senses—in spite of the ἁρπαγέντα. Moreover, we must
not ascribe to the apostle the Rabbinical opinion (in Schoettgen, Hor. p.
697) that he who is caught into paradise puts off his body and is clothed
with an ethereal body ; because otherwise he could not have put the case
εἴτε ἐν σώματι.; So much, however, is clear, that for such a divine purpose
he held as possible a temporary miraculous withdrawal of the spirit from the
body without death.*? The mode* in which this conceived possibility was to
take place must be left undetermined, and is not to be brought under the
point of view of the separability of the bare πνεῦμα (without the ψυχή) from
the body (Osiander) ; for spirit and soul form inseparably the Hgo even in
the trichotomistic expression of 1 Thess. v. 23, as likewise Heb. iv. 12 (see
Liinemann in loc.). Comp. also Calovius against Cameron. Hence also it
is not to be said with Lactantius : ‘‘ abit animus, manet anima.”—The anar-
throus ἐν σώματι means bodily, and that his own body was meant by it, and
tov σώματος with the article is not anything different, was obvious of itself
to the reader ; σῶμα did not need the article, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p.
83 C.— ἁρπαγέντα] the stated word used of sudden, involuntary raptures,
See Acts viii. 89 ; Rev. xii. 5 ; 1 Thess. iv. 17. The form of the 2d aorist
belongs to the deteriorated Greek. ‘See Thomas Mag. p. 424; Buttmann,
I. p. 381. --- τὸν τοιοῦτον] summing up again (Kiihner, IL. p. 330) : such an
one, with whom it wasso. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 5. — ἕως τρίτου ovp. | thus, through
the first and second heaven into the third. As the conception of several
heavens pervades the whole of the O. and N. T. (see especially, Eph. iv. 10;
Heb. iv. 14) ; as the Rabbins almost unanimously (Rabbi Juda assumed only
two) reckon seven heavens (see the many passages in Wetstein, Schoettgen,
Hor. p. 718 ff. ; comp. also Eisenmenger, Entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 460 ;
Hahn, Theol. d. Ν. Τ. I. p. 247) ; and as Paul here names a definite number,
1 Just as little is the case put to be made
conceivable as a momentary transfiguration
of the body (Osiander). The bodily trans-
figuration is simply an eschatological event
(1 Cor. xv. 51 ff.; 1 Thess. iv. 17), anda trans-
formation of such a nature, that after it the
return to the previous condition is quite in-
conceivable.
2 Comp. the passage already quoted in
Wetstein from Philo, de Somn.I. p. 626,
where Moses ἀσώματος yevouevos is said to
have fasted forty days.
3 The remark of Delitzsch in this connec-
tion: ‘because what is experienced com-
presses itself, after the fashion of eternity, into
α moment” (Psychol. p. 357), is to me obscure
and too strange to make it conceivable by
me.
4In Lucian, Philopatr. 12, Christ (Π αλιλαῖος)
is mocked atas εἰς τρίτον οὐρανὸν ἀκροβατήσας
καὶ τὰ κάλλιστα ἐκμεμαϑηκώς.
CHAP. XE; 2: 675
without the doetrine of only three heavens occurring elsewhere ; as he also
in ver. 4 specifies yet a higher locality situated beyond the third heaven : it
is quite arbitrary to deny that he had the conception of seven heavens,
as was done by Origen, contra Celswm, vi. p. 289: ἑπτὰ δὲ οὐρανοὺς, ἢ ὅλως
περιορισμένον ἀριϑμὸν αὐτῶν, ai φερόμεναι ἐν ταῖς ᾿κκλησίαις οὐκ ἀπαγγέλλουσι γραφαί.
(x°) The rationalistic explanations of more recent expositors, such as that
of Billroth (following Schoettgen) : that he only meant by this figurative
(2) expression to express the nearness in which his spirit found itself to
God, have as little exegetical warrant as the explanation of Calvin, Calo-
vius, and others, that the holy number three stands κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν pro summo
et perfectissimo, so that τρίτου denotes ‘‘the highest and most perfect sphere
of the higher world” (Osiander) ;* or as the assertion of others (Kstius,
Clericus, Bengel, and others), that it is a doctrine of Scripture that there are
only three heavens (the heaven of clouds, the heaven of stars, and the
empyrean ; according to Damascenus, Thomas, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, and
others, ‘‘coelum siderewm, erystallinum, empyreum ;” according to-Grotius :
‘regio nubifera, reg. astrifera, reg. angelifera”), or the fiction of Grotius
and Emmerling, that the Jews at that time had assumed only these three
heavens. It istrue that, according to the Rabbins, the third heaven was
still no very exalted region.?- But we do not know at all what conception of
the difference of the seven heavens Paul followed (see below), and are there-
fore not at all justified in conjecturing, with Riickert, in opposition to the
number seven, that Paul was not following the usual hypothesis, but another,
according to which the third heaven was at least one of the higher ;* but see
on ver. 4, where a still further ascent from the third heaven into paradise
is mentioned. Even de Wette finds the usual view most probable, that by
the third heaven is meant the highest ; ‘‘in such things belonging to pious
fancy nothing was established until the Rabbinical tradition became fixed.”
But the third heaven must have been to the readers a well-known and already
established conception ; hence we are the less entitled to depart from the
historically attested number seven, and to adopt the number three (nowhere
attested among the Jews) which became current in the church only on the
basis of this passage (Suicer, Thes. II. p. 251), while still in the Test. XII.
Patr. (belonging to the second century) p. 546 f., the number seven holds
its ground, and the seven heavens are exactly described, as also the Ascensio
Jesaiae (belonging to the third century) has still this conception of Jewish
gnosis (see Liicke, Hinl. in d. Offend. Joh. I. p. 287 f., ed. 2). How Paul
conceived to himself the several heavens as differing, we cannot determine,
1 The old Lutherans, in the interests of the
doctrine of ubiquity, maintained that the
third heaven and paradise denote “‘ statwm
potius alterius saeculi quam Jocum,”
Hunnius.
2 The Rabbinical division was different,
6.0. (1) velum; (2) expansum ; (3) nubes, (4)
habitaeulum ; (5) habitatio ; (6) sedes fixa ;
(Ὁ Araboth or ταμεῖον. Others divide in
other ways. See Wetstein. ᾿
3 Riickert appeals to the fact that R. Juda
assumed only fwo heavens. But this iso-
lated departure from the usual Rabbinical
type of doctrine cannot have any applica-
tion here, where a ¢hird heaven is named.
Passages would rather have to be shown,
in which the number of heavens was
assumed to be under seven and above two.
In the absence of such passages, Riickert’s
conjecture is groundless.
676 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
especially as in those Apocryphal books and among the Rabbins the state-
ments on the point are very divergent. Erroneously, because the concep-
of several heavens is an historical one, Hofmann (comp. also his Sehrift-
beweis, II. 1, p. 535) has regarded ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ as belonging to the vision,
not to the conception (in connection with which he lays stress on the absence
of the article), and spiritualizes the definite concrete utterance to this effect,
that Paul in the vision, which made visible to him in a spiritual manner the
invisible, ‘‘ saw himself caught away beyond the lower domains of the super-
mundane and up into a higher region.” This is to depart from the clear lit-
eral meaning and to lose oneself in generalities. It is quite unwarranted to-
adduce the absence of the article with τρίτου, since with ordinal numbers
the article is not at all required, Matt. xx. 3; Mark xv. 25; Acts ii. 15,
xxiii. 23; John i. 40; Thuc. ii. 70. 5; Xen. Anabd. iii. 6. 1; Lucian, Ales.
18; 1 Sam. iv. 7; Susann. 15; see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 35;
Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 292, ed. 3.
Vv. 8, 4. And I know such aman. . . that he, namely, was caught away,
etc. The expression is here the well-known attraction oidd ce τίς el. Most
expositors consider the matter itself as not different from what is mentioned
in ver. 2, so that τρίτος οὐρανός and ὁ παράδεισος Would be one and the same.
But it is decisive against this view, that ὁ τρίτος οὐρανός cannot without arbi-
trariness be taken otherwise than of a region of heaven comparatively low
(see on ver. 2). Besides, the whole circumstantial repetition, only with a
change in designating the place, would not be solemn language, but battol-
ogy. This also in opposition to Hofmann, who imports the modification :
‘«The one time emphasis is laid only on the surroundings, into which he
found himself transported away from the earth ; the other time on the con-
trast of the fellowship of God, into which he was transported away from the
church of God here below.” Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, Origen, Atha-
nasius, and several Fathers and schoolmen (see Estius and Bengel on the
passage), also Erasmus? and Bengel?, have rightly distinguished paradise
from the third heaven. Comp. also Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. 1. p. 246 ; Osian-
der, Hilgenfeld, and others. Still we are not, with Bengel (comp. de
Wette), to regard (see on ver. 2) paradise as interius quiddam in coelo tertio,
quam ipsum coelum tertium (comp. Cornelius ἃ Lapide) ; but Paul relates
first how he was caught up* into the third heaven, and then adds, as a fur-
ther point in the experience, that he was transported further, higher up
into paradise, so that the ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ was ἃ break, as it were, a resting-
point of the raptus. Thus, too, the repetition of the same words, as well
as the repetition of the parenthesis, obtains its solemn character ; for the
incident is reported step by step, i.e. in two stages.— The paradise is here
not the lower, i.e. the place in Sheol, in which the spirits of the departed
1“ Raptus est in tertium usque coelum, words judges very rightly: ‘“‘Non solum
hine rursum in paradisum,’’ Erasmus in his suaviter suspendunt acuuntque lectorem,
Paraphr. Comp. Clemens Alex. : ἕως τρίτου et gloriationi consideratae pondus addunt,
οὐρανοῦ, κἀκεῖϑεν εἰς παράδεισον (Strom. Vv. sed etiam plane duplex rei momentum expri
p. 427). munt.”
2 Who as to the repetition of the same Ν
CHAP? XE Ὁ. 677
righteous are until the resurrection (see on Luke xvi. 23, xxiii. 43), nor as
Hofmann, Schriftbew. 11. 1, p. 489, substitutes in place of this historical
conception the abstraction: ‘‘the present communion of the blessed dead
with God, as it is on this side of the end of things ;” but the wpper, the
paradise of God (Rev. ii. 7 ; Enoch xxv. 1) in heaven, where God’s dwell-
ing is. This distinction is one given historically, and necessary for the
understanding of the passage, and is rightly maintained also by Osiander,
Hahn, and others. Comp. the Rabbinical passages in Eisenmenger, entdeckt.
Judenth. 1. 296 ff., and generally, Thilo, ad Hv. Nic. 25, p. 748 ff. ; Gfrérer,
Jahrh. ἃ. Heils, 11. p. 42 ff. The idea, however, that Christ has carried the
believing souls out of Hades with Him to heaven (Delitzsch, Psychol. p.
414) goes beyond Scripture, and is not presupposed even in this passage. —
ἄῤῥητα ῥήματα] an oxymoron :' dicta nefanda dictu, speakings, which may not
be spoken (Dem. 1369. 25, 1370. 14 ; Soph. O. R. 465 ; Eur. Hel. 1370; and
Pflugk in loc.), 1.6. which may not be made the subject of communication
to others. The revelations which Paul received were so sublime and holy,
that the further communication of them would have been at variance with
their character ; what was disclosed to him was to be for him alone, for his
special enlightenment, strengthening, comforting, with a view to the fulfil-
ment of his great task ; to others it was to remain a mystery, in order to
preclude fanatical or other misuse ; comp. Calvin. That ἄῤῥητα here does
not mean quae dici nequeunt (Plato, Soph. p. 238 C), as Beza, Estius, Calovius,
Wolf, and many others, including Billroth and Olshausen, hold (Riickert is
not decided), is shown by the solemn epexegetical ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆ-
σαι. in which ἐξόν means licet, fas est, and is not—as Luther and many older
and later commentators, including Billroth and Olshausen, wish to take it,
quite at variance with the signification of the word—equivalent to divarov.
The Vulgate aptly renders : “ et audivit arcana verba, quae non licet hom-
ini loqui,” i.e. which a man may not utter aloud. Lucian, Hpigr. 11 (Jacobs,
Del. epigr. VII. 66) : ἀῤῥήτων ἐπέων γλώσσῃ σφρηγὶς ἐπικείσϑω, Soph. H7. 1000,
Aj. 213. Comp. Rev. x. 81. --- ἀνϑρώπῳ] for they are reserved only for
divine communication ; a man, to whom they are revealed, may not utter
them. (z°)—As to what it was that Paul heard for himself, the Fathers and
schoolmen made many conjectures after their fashion. See Cornelius ἃ
Lapide and Estius. Theodoret well says: αὐτὸς oidev 6 tavta τεϑεαμένος.
From whom as the organ of communication he heard it, remains veiled in
apocalyptic indefiniteness. Revealing voices (comp. Rev. /.c.) he did hear.
Ver. 5. On behalf of the one so constituted I will boast, but on behalf of
myself, etc. Paul abides by his representation begun in ver. 2, according to
which he speaks of himself as of a third person. The reader understood
him! to the effect, namely, that apart from that difference of persons under-
1 See regarding similar juxtapositions in
general, Lobeck, Paraiip. p. 229 f. Comp.
plat. Conv. p. 189 B : ἄῤῥητα ἔστω τὰ εἰρημένα,
Soph. Qed. Col. 1005: ῥητὸν ἄῤῥητον, Aj. 213:
λόγον ἄῤῥητον.
2 Τῇ is most natural (comp.the Apocalypse)
to think of disclosures regarding the end of
the world, which however, must have gone
further than what occurs in the Epistles of
the apostle (as 1 Thess. iv.; 1 Cor. xv.;
Rom. xi. 25 f.). More definite statements
(see Ewald) must be left in abeyance,
678 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
lying the mere representation,the essential meaning of ὑπὲρ τοῦ τοιούτου καυ-
χήσομαι was the same as if Paul had written : τὸ τοιοῦτο (or ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ)
καυχήσομαι. But this may not mislead us, with Luther, Mosheim, Zachariae,
Heumann, Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, to take τοιούτου as neuter ; for in
favour of the view that it is masculine (so after Chrysostom, most expositors,
including Flatt, Fritzsche, Billroth, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Osiander,
Hofmann) we may decisively urge not merely τὸν τοιοῦτην, vv. 2 and 3, as
well as the personal contrast in ἐμαυτοῦ, and the otherwise marred symmetry
of the whole mode of representation (see Fritzsche, Diss. II. 124), but also
ὑπέρ, Which with καυχᾶσϑαι denotes the person for whose advantage (see on v.
12), not simply in regard to whom (Hofmann), the boast is made ; the thing .
is afterwards by év expressly distinguished from the person. The objection
of Riickert, that Paul might not push the conception so far! is quite invalid,
since, in fact, the readers, if they once knew that from ver. 2 onward he
meant himsely, could not at all misunderstand him. — εἰ μή is not for ἐὰν μή
(Riickert), but it introduces an actually existing exception to that principle *
ὑπὲρ ἐμαυτοῦ ov καυχήσομαι. It is, however, neither necessary nor justifiable
to supply with ὑπ. ἐμ. ob καυχ. : ‘of the visions and revelations which I
have had,” so that εἰ μή would form an inexact contrast (de Wette), since
Paul, quite in harmony with xi. 30, absolutely denies that he wishes to
boast on behalf of his own self otherwise than only of his weaknesses (comp.
xi. 50). Self-glorying otherwise is only then to take place on his part,
when his own Ego (his work, toil, merit, etc.) does not come at all into
consideration, but he is merely the dependent, receptive instrument of the
Lord, and appearsas a third person, on behalf of whom the καυχᾶσϑαι takes
place. The plural ἀσϑεν. denotes the various situations and manifestations,
in which his feebleness presents itself. (Α7)
Ver. 6. Tap] is not indeed or however (Flatt and others), nor are we, with
Riickert, to supply a μέν after ἐάν ; but the thought, for which γάρ assigns
the reason, is—by a frequent usage very natural with the lively train of
thought (see especially, Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 464 ff.; Baeumlein, Partik.
p. 83 f.)—as resulting of itself, not expressly set forth ; it is implied in the
ov καυχήσομαι εἰ μὴ k.T.2., in so far as these words presuppose that Paul could
boast, if he would. In reference to this he continues : for in case I possibly
shall have wished, etc. Comp. Winer, p. 422 [E. T. 568]. Osiander
wrongly refers γάρ to the jirst half of ver. 5 ; for the second half contains
the leading thought and the progressive point of the passage. According
to Ewald, Paul means the time of judgment, when he shall wish really to
glory, whereas now he refrains. In this case he must have subsequently at
least written νῦν δὲ φείδομαι in order to be understood, and even then the
reference of the ϑελήσω to the day of judgment, in the absence of any
express designation of the latter, would only be very indirectly indicated. —
ἐάν] does not stand for κἄν any more than at x. 8 (in opposition to Riickert).
— οὐκ ἔσομαι ἄφρων] glancing back to xi. 1, 16 ff., but spoken now in entire
1 Καυχήσομαι, namely, expresses a princi- others would take it: “Futurum pro
ple to be followed, not as Grotius and ~potentiali . . . gaudere et exultare possem.”
CHAP. XII., ‘7. 679
seriousness, expressing the folly of the vaunting which injures the truth. —
φείδομαι δέ] 56. τοῦ καυχᾶσϑαι, t.e. but I keep it back, make no use of it. Comp.
Xen. Oyr. i. 6, 35, iv. 6. 19 ; Soph. Aj. 115 ; Pind. Nem. ix. 20. 47; LXX.
Job xxxiii. 18 ; Wisd. i. 11 ; Dissen, ad Pind. p. 488 ; Porson, ad Hur. Or.
387. — μή τις εἰς ἐμὲ λογίσηται x... | Purpose of the φείδομαι δέ : in order that
no one may judge in reference to me beyond that, as which he sees me (i.e. supra
id quod vidit esse me, Beza), or what he possibly hears from me (out of my
moutl , 1.6. in order that no one may form a higher opinion of me than is
suggested to him by his being eye-witness of my actions, or by his being, it
may be, an ear-witness of my oral ministry. Many in Corinth found his
action powerless and his speech contemptible (x. 10) ; but he wished still
~o call forth no higher judgment of himself than one consonant to experience,
which could not but spontaneously form itself ; hence he abstains from the
καυχᾶσϑαι, although he would speak the truth with it. On λογίσηται, comp.
xi. 5; Phil. iii. 13; 1 Cor. iv. 1, αἱ. Ewald takes it ; in order that no one
may put tomy account. This, however, would be expressed by pA τις ἐμοὶ
λογίσ. ---- The τί (possibly) is to be explained as a condensed expression : sé
quid quando audit. See Fritzsche, Diss. 11. p. 124 ; Schaefer, ad Dem. IV.
p. 232 ; Bremi, ad Aesch. II. p. 122f. On ἐξ ἐμοῦ, comp. Herod. iii. 62, and
the Latin audio ex or dealiquo. See Madvig, ad Cic. Fin. p. 865.
Ver. 7. καί] is the simple copula, not even (Fritzsche). The course of
thought, namely, is : For this reason I abstain from καυχᾶσϑαι (ver. 6), and
—to return now to what I said in vv. 1-5—as concerns those revelations
which I, though without self-glorying, leave not unmentioned (ver. 5),
eare is taken of this, that I do not vaunt myself on this distinction. — τῇ
ὑπερβολῇ τῶν ἀποκαλ.] Dativus instrumenti: because the revelations imparted
to me have a character so exceeding,-—a nature transcending so utterly all
the bounds of what is ordinary. The order of the words is inverted, in order
fo make the whole attention of the reader dwell on τῇ ὑπερβ. τ. ἀποκαλ., to
which the discourse here returns.’ Comp. ii. 4 ; Gal. ii. 10, al. See on
Rom. xi. 31. -- ἐδόϑη μοι σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκὶ x.7.A.] ‘‘Ex alto habuit revela-
tionem, ex profundo castigationem,” Bengel. It is not to be connected so
as also to take in ἵνα ἄγγελος Lat. μὲ κολαφ. (Knapp), nor is σκόλοψ to be con-
1 Lachmann, who has adopted διό before τῶν ἀποκαλύψεων. Ewald follows Lach-
ἵνα (see the critical remarks), puts the
whole of ver. 6, ἐὰν, . ἐξ ἐμοῦ, in a paren-
thesis, and places a full stop after ἀποκα-
AvWewv in ver. 7,so that «x. τῇ ὑπερβ. τ.
ἀποκαλ. goes with εἰ μὴ ἐν ταῖς ἀσϑενείαις
(Lachmann has struck out μον, but on too
slender authority) in ver. 5, and διὸ ἵνα μὴ
ὑπεραίρωμαι begins a new sentence. But
in that case not only would καὶ τῇ ὑπερβολῇ
τῶν ἀποκαλ. come in haltingly after a very
isolated and, as it were, forlorn fashion,
but Paul would have given to the paren-
thesis and illogical position. Logically he
must have written: ὑπὲρ ᾿δὲ ἐμαυτοῦ ov
καυχήσομαι (ἐὰν yap ϑελήσω καυχήσασϑαι...
ἐξ ἐμοῦ) εἰ μὴ ἐν ταῖς ἀσϑενείαις καὶ τῇ ὑπερβολῇ
mann’s reading, but, not assuming any pa-
renthesis, attaches καὶ τῇ ὑπερβ. τῶν ἀποκαλ.
to μή τις εἰς ἐμὲ λογίσηται κ.τ.λ., and that in
the sense : even by these abundant disclosures
led astray, if [should express myself,namely,
as to their contents. But apart from the con-
sideration that Paul would have expressed
such a sense too unintelligibly by the mere
dative and without more precise definition,
utterances regarding the contents of the
ἀποκαλύψεις, had he made them, would have
fallen within the category of what is
denoted by 7 ἀκούει τὶ ἐξ ἐμοῦ, and conse-
quently in so far the logical accuracy of μή
τις εἰς ἐμὲ Aoy. «.7.A, would fail.
680 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
sidered as a prefixed apposition, and ἄγγελος Zar. as subject (Tertullian, and
probably also Chrysostom, see Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 127). For it may be
urged against the former, that an inappropriate relation of meaning would
result from it ; and against the latter, which Hofmann has again preferred,
that there is no reason whatever for departing from the usual order of the
words, since even with it the iva μὲ κολαφ. applies to the angel of Satan.
The ordinary construction isto be retained as the simplest and most natural ;
_ according to this, ἄγγελος Zar. appears as an appositional more precise defini-
tion of σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί : there was given to me a thorn for my flesh, an angel of
Satan.—id68y] by whom ? The usual answer, given also by Riickert, Olshausen
(‘‘the educating grace of God”), Ewald, is: by God. See especially, Au-
gustine, de nat. et grat. 27: ‘‘ Neque enim diabolus agebat, ne magnitudine
revelationum Paulus extolleretur, et ut virtus ejus proficeretur, sed Deus.
Ab illo igitur traditus erat justus colaphizandus angelo Satanae, qui per
eum tradebat et injustos ipsi Satanae.” Certainly iva μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι is the
purpose not of the devil, but of the divine will, without which the suffering
in question inflicted by the devil on the apostle could not affect him ; but
just because the latter has thought of the devil as the one from whom that
suffering proceeded, he must have conceived him also as the giver, because
otherwise his mode of representation would be self-contradictory. Doubt-
less Satan is only the mediate giver,’ who thereby is to serve the divine final
aim iva μὴ brap. ; but the explanation, that Paul had wished to say (?) that
God had permitted (so also Chrysostom and Theophylact) Satan to torment
him (Billroth) is a quite arbitrary alteration of what Paul actwally says.
His meaning is rather, and that expressed in an active form: Satan has
given to me a thorn for the flesh, in order to torment me with it—which
has the moral aim ordained in the divine counsel, that I should not vaunt
τη 56], ---- σκόλοψ] only here in the N. T. It may mean stake, ξύλον ὀξύ,
Hesychius (Homer, 171. viii. 343, xv. 1, xviii. 177 ; Herod. ix. 97; Xen.
Anab. v. 2. 5), but also thorn (Lucian, Mere. cond. 3; LXX. Hos. ii. 6 ;
Ezek. xxviii. 24 ; Num. xxxiii. 55 ; Ecclus. xliii. 19, and Fritzsche in loc.,
Dioscor. in Wetstein), as, indeed, it may also denote anything pointed,
splinters, ridges, ete. The Vulgate has stimulus. Itis here commonly taken
as stake, many, like Luther, thinking of a penal stake.” Comp. σκολοπίζω,
impale, ἀνασκολοπίζω, Herod. i. 128. But as the conception of a stake fixed
in his flesh has something exaggerated and out of keeping about it, and as
the figurative conception of a thorn pressed into the flesh with acute pain
might very naturally occur to him from the LXX. (Num. xxxiii. 55 ; Ezek.
xxviii. 24), the latter signification is to be preferred. Comp. Artem. iii.
33: ἄκανϑαι καὶ σκόλοπες ὀδύνασ σημαίνουσι διὰ τὸ OFb. — τῇ σαρκί is Most natu-
rally attached to σκόλοψ as an appropriating dative (comp. Castalio) : a thorn
for the flesh, which is destined to torment that sensuous part of my nature
which lusts to sin (in specie, to self-exaltation). Fritzsche, who, with
1Comp. Hofmann: “an evil which be- Τὴ the gloss: “It is a stake, where
falls him in accordance with God’s will, but people are impaled, or crucified, or
through the working of a spiritual power hanged.”’
opposed to God.” =
CHAP. χα ἢ. — 681
Winer, Osiander, and Buttmann, takes τῇ σαρκί as defining more precisely
the part of μοι (see as to the σχῆμα cad’ ὅλον καὶ μέρος, more used by the poets,
Niigelsbach on the JJ. ii. 171, ili. 488 ; Reisig, ad Oed. Col. 266 ; Jacobs,
Delect. Epigr. p. 162, 509 ; Kiihner, II. p. 145), objects that τῇ σαρκί seems
inappropriate, because it is inconceivable that a σκόλοψ should torment the
soul, and not the body. But this objection would apply, in fact, to
Fritzsche’s own explanation, and cannot at all hold good, partly because it
is certainly possible to think figuratively of a σκόλοψ tormenting the soul (see
Artemid. /.c., where, among the figurative references of ἄκανϑαι x. σκόλοπες,
he also adduces : καὶ φρόντιδας καὶ λύπας διὰ τὸ τραχύ), partly because σάρξ
does not denote the body absolutely, or only according to its susceptibility
(Hofmann), but according to its sinful quality which is bound up with the σάρξ.
The objection, on the other hand, that salutary torment is not the business
of an angel of Satan (Hofmann), leaves out of consideration the divine tele-
ology in the case ; comp. on 1 Cor. v. 5.—dyyedoc Σατᾶν] Paul considers
his evil, denoted by σκόλοψ τ. o., as inflicted on him by Satan, the enemy of
the Messiah, as in the N. T. generally the devil appears as the originator of
all wickedness and all evil, especially also of bodily evil (Hahn, Theol. d.
N. T. 1. p. 372 f. ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 462). By the addition of ἄγγελος
Zar. in apposition to σκόλοψ τ. o. the σκόλοψ is personified, and what is an
épyov of Satan appears now, under the apostle’s vivid, concrete mode of
view, an angel of Satan. The interpretation which takes the indeclinable
Zarav,’ occurring only here in the N. T. (see, however, LXX. 1 Kings xi.
14, 23, 25 ; Aq. Job i. 6), as the genitive, is the usual and right one. For
if Σατᾶν be taken as a nominative, it must either be a nomen proprium : the
angel Satan (Billroth), or it would have to be taken adjectivally : a hostile
angel (Cajetanus and others, including Flatt). But the latter is against the
standing usage of the N. T., into which 10W has passed only as a nomen
proprium. Against the former no doubt Fritzsche’s reason is not decisive:
‘‘sic neminem relinqui, qui ablegare Satanam potuerit” (comp. Riickert),
since Satan in his original nature was an angel, and might retain that ap-
pellation without the point of view of the sending coming further into con-
sideration ; nor can we, with Olshausen, urge the absence of the article,
since ayy. Zar. might have assumed the nature of a proper name; but the
actual usage is against it, for Satan, so often as he occurs in the N. T., is
never named ἄγγελος (Rev. ix. 11 is not to the point here, see Diisterdieck
im loc.), which was a very natural result of the altered position of the devil,
who, from being an ἄγγελος before, had become the prince (Eph. ii. 2) of his
kingdom, and now had angels of his own (Matt. xxv. 41, comp. Barnab.
18). —iva pe κολαφίζῃ] design of the giver in ἐδόϑη μοι κ.τ.2. : in order that
he may buffet me (Matt. xxvi. 67 ; 1 Cor. iv. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 20). The present
denotes the still subsisting continuance of the suffering. See Theophyl. :
οὐχ iva ἄπαξ με κολαφίσῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεί. Comp. Chrysostom. The subject is ἄγγελος
Σατᾶν, as indeed often the continuation of the discourse attaches itself to
1 Σατανᾶ, read by Lachmann and Riickert on the authority of ΔῈ Β D* FGN* 67**, is
a correct interpretation.
682 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS,
the apposition, not to the subject proper. See Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 148 f.
Fritzsche himself, indeed, regards σκόλοψ as the subject,’ and assumes that
the vivid conception of the apostle has transferred to the subject what
properly belongs only to the apposition, to which view he had been moved
by the similar sound of σκόλοψ and κολαφίζῃ, as well as by the personification
of σκόλοψ. But how easily might he have found a word which would have
suited the conception of the personified σκόλοψ, and would not have been
inappropriate to the apposition ayy. Zar. ! But in fact he has chosen a
word which does not suit σκόλοψ at all, and suits ayy. Lar. exclusively, and
hence we are not warranted in denying that the word belongs to ayy. Lar.
Besides, this connection is most naturally suggested by the relations of the
sense ; for only by iva μὲ κολαφ. 068 ayy. Zar. come to be a complete appo-
sition to σκόλοψ τ. o., inasmuch as the element of pain in the case expressed in
σκόλοψ τ. σ. is not yet implied in the mere ayy. Σατᾶν, but is only added by
iva μὲ κολαφ. --- ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι] paedagogic aim of God’s guidance in this
κολαφίζειν. See above. The devil and his angels serve, against their inten-
tion, the intention of God. See Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 382 f. In the
repetition of the same words there is expressed the deeply felt importance
of this telic destination. See Heindorf, ad Phaed. p. 51 ff. ; Matthiae, p.
1541. Comp. also Bornemann, Schol. in loc. Ὁ. xxxix. — Lastly, as con-
cerning the thing itself, which Paul denotes by σκόλοψ τ. o. x.7.2., It was
certainly known by the Corinthians from their personal acquaintance with
Paul without any more precise indication ; to us at least any special indica-
tion has been denied. For a great host of attempts at explanation, some of
them very odd, see Poole’s Synopsis ; Calovius, Bibl. il. p. 518 ff. ; Wolf,
Cur. The opinions are in the main of three kinds: (1) that Paul means
spiritual assaults of the devil (what are called injectiones Satanae), who sug-
gested to him blasphemous thoughts (Gerson, Luther, Calovius), stings of
conscience over his earlier life (Luc. Osiander, Mosheim ; also Osiander, who
includes also a bodily suffering), and the like. The Catholics, however, to
whom such an exposition, favouring forms of monastic temptation, could
not but be welcome, thought usually of enticements of Satan (awakened, ac-
cording to Cardinal Hugo, by association with the beautiful Thecla !)* to ἡ
unchastity, (Thomas, Lyra, Bellarmine, Estius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, and
many others, and still Bisping), for which Augustine and Theophylact are
often wrongly quoted as vouchers. (2) That Paul means the temptations on
the part of his opponents*® engaged in the service of Satan (xi. 13, 15), or the
temptations and troubles of his apostolic office in general (Theodoret, Pelagius,
Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, and many others, including Fritzsche, Schrader,
Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 401). (8) That Paul means a very severe bodily
1Comp. Augustine, Conc. 2 in Ps. lwiii.:
κε Accepit apost. stimulum carnis, a quo cola-
phizaretur.”’
2 See, regarding this mythical association,
the Acta Pauli et Theclae in Tischend. Act.
apocr. p. 40 ff.
350. Chrysostom and others. Many
among these, because of the singular, think
specially of one pre-eminently hostile an-
tagonist. So, among the ancient expositors,
Oecumenius, and, among the modern, s¢v-
eral cited by Wolf, and also Semler and
Stolz. Chrysostom and Theophylact name,
by way of example, the smith Alexander,
Hymenaeus, and Philetus.
CHAP. XII, ἧς 683
suffering (Augustine and many others, including Delitzsch and Hofmann),
in connection with which conjecture has lighted on a yariety of ailments,
such as hypochondriac melancholy (Bartholinus, Wedel, and others), pain in
the head (τίνες already in Chrysostom, Theophylact, Pelagius, Oecumenius,
and Jerome, ad Gal. iv. 14, mention it ; so also Teller), haemorrhoids (Ber-
tholdt), ‘‘ falling sickness or something similar” (Ewald, Hofmann), epileptic
attacks of cramp (Ziegler, Holsten), and several others. — Against No. 1 we
cannot urge τῇ σαρκί, since the devil’s influence would have, in operating on
the moral consciousness, to start certainly from the σάρξ, where the prin-
ciple of sin has its seat (Rom. vii.), but we may urge σκόλοψ and iva μὲ κολαφ.,
figurative expressions which evidently portray an acute and severe pain.
Besides, under such a constant spiritual influence of the devil, Paul would
not appear in a manner in keeping with his nature wholly filled by Christ
(see especially, Gal. ii. 20), and with his pneumatic heroism. Enticements
to unchastity are not even to be remotely thought of on account of 1 Cor.
vii. 7 ; it would be an outrage on the great apostle. Against No. 2 it is to
be remarked that here a suffering quite peculiar must be meant, as a counter-
poise to the quite peculiar distinction which had accrued to him by the
ὑπερβολὴ τῶν ἀποκαλύψεων. Besides, adversaries and official troubles belonged
necessarily to his calling (see especially, iv. 7 ff., vi. 4 ff.), as, indeed, he
had these in common with a// true preachers of Christ, and knew how to
find an honour in them (comp. Gal. vi. 17) ; hence he would certainly not
have besought the taking away of these sufferings, ver. 8. It is believed, no
doubt, that this explanation may be shown to suit the context by ver. 9
compared with ver. 10 (see especially, Fritzsche, p. 152 f.), but ἀσϑένεια in
vv. 9 and 10 expresses only the category, to which also that special suffering
belonged. Accordingly No. 8. remains at all events as the most probable,
namely, the hypothesis that Paul bore in his person some kind of painful,
chronic bodily evil, which seemed to him as inflicted by Satan.’ Only this
evil cannot at all be specified more precisely than that it made itself felt in
its paroxysms by shocks of pain, which might be compared to blows ; but
in what part of the body it had its seat (possibly proceeding from the head)
cannot with certainty be inferred from κολαφίζειν, since this word, like the
more correct Greek κονδυλίζειν, denotes buffeting with the fist. More spe-
cific conjectures are mere fancies, are liable to be enlisted in the service of
tendency-criticism (Holsten, who attaches to this suffering the disposition to
visionary conditions), and come to some extent into sharp collision with
the fact of the apostle’s extraordinary activity and perseverance amid bodily
hardships. The hypothesis of a bodily suffering, with the renunciation of
any attempt to specify it more precisely, is rightly adhered to, after older
expositors, by Emmerling, Olshausen, Riickert, de Wette, Beyschlag, et αἱ.
1 Τὴ this respect, too, we find a parallel in
the history and mode of view of Luther,
who, as is well known, suffered from vyio-
lent attacks of stone (which visited him with
especial severity on the Convention at
Schmalkald), and likewise ascribed this
suffering to the devil as its author.—Chrys-
ostom exclaims against the view of a
bodily evil (κεφαλαλγία): μὴ γένοιτο’ ov yap av
τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Παύλον ταῖς τοῦ διαβόλου χερσὶν
ἐξεδόθη, ὅπου γε αὐτὸς ὁ διάβολος ἐπιτάγματι
μόνον εἶκεν αὐτῷ Παύλῳ. An argument nimi-
um probans /
684 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(though Riickert here also appeals to the alleged traces of sickness in our
Epistles, such as 1 Cor. ii. 2, 2 Cor. iv. 12, as well as to Gal. iv. 13-15) ;
while others, as Neander and Billroth, content themselves with an utter
non liquet, although the former is inclined to think of inward temptations.’
Vv. 8, 9. Ὑπὲρ τούτου] in reference to whom, namely, to this angel of Satan.
That τούτου is masculine (comp. ver. 3), not neuter (Vulgate, Luther, Flatt,
Osiander, and others), is evident from the fact that iva ἀποστῇ ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ follows
without any other subject. On the latter, comp. Luke iv. 13 ; Acts v. 38,
xxii. 29. — τρίς] is taken since Chrysostom’s time by many as equivalent to
πολλάκις ; but quite arbitrarily, and not at all in keeping with the small
number! No; Paul relates historically, as it really happened, leaving it
withal undetermined what intervals had elapsed between these invocations.
At his first and second appeal to the Lord no answer was made ; but when
he had made a third appeal, the answer came. And that he thereupon did
not entreat again, was understood of itself from his faithful devotion to Him,
whose utterance he had now received. According to Billroth, τρίς is
intended to intimate a thrice-repeated succumbing to that pain, a thrice-
repeated utter dejection, which, however, is sheer fancy. — τὸν κύριον] not
God (Calvin, Neander, and others), but Christ (see ver. 9), who is, in fact,
the heavenly advancer of His kingdom and mighty vanquisher of Satan.* —
εἴρηκέ μοι] The perfect, which Riickert finds surprising, is what is quite com-
monly used of the continued subsistence of what has been done: he has
spoken, and 1 have now this utterance abidingly valid. (B’) Accordingly the
evil itself is to be regarded as still adhering to the apostle. How he received
the answer, the χρηματισμός (Matt. ii. 12; Luke ii. 6; Acts x. 22), from
Christ (by some kind of inward speaking, or by means of a vision, as
Holsten holds), is entirely unknown to us. — ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις pov) there suffices
Jor thee my grace, more thou needest not from me than that I am gracious to
thee. In this isimplied the refusal of the prayer, but at the same time what
a comforting affirmation! ‘‘Gratia esse potest, etiam ubi maximus doloris
sensus est,” Bengel. Riickert (comp. Grotius) takes χάρις quite generally as
good-will ; but the good-will of the exalted Christ is, in fact, always grace
(comp. xiii. 13 ; Acts xv. 11; Rom. v. 15), and made itself known espe-
cially in the apostle’s consciousness as grace, 1 Cor. xv. 8, 9, and often. A
special gift of grace, however (Chrysostom : the gift of miracles), is arbitra-
rily imported. — ἡ yap δύναμίς μου x.7.A.| for my strength is in weakness per-
JSected. The emphasis lies on δύναμις : ‘‘Thou hast enough in my grace ;
for lam not weak and powerless, when there is suffering weakness on the
part of the man to whom I am gracious, but exactly under these circum-
stances are my power and strength brought to perfection, i.e. effective in full
measure.”” Then, namely, the divine δύναμις of Christ has unhindered scope,
not disturbed or limited by any admixture of selfish striving and working.
1 The most strange interpretation of the 2 The invocation of Christ has reference
passage is given by Redslob in the Progr. also here to the intercessory work of the
ad. Hamb. Gymnas. 1860, who goes so far as Lord, Comp. on Rom. x. 12; Rich. Schmidt,
to make out of it a jesting designation of = Paul. Christol. p. 127 f.
Silvanus (N90, Ezek. xxviii. 24) !
CHAP. XII., 10. — 685
The relation is similar in 1 Cor. 11. 4 ἢ. Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 7. With the read-
ing without μου (see the critical remarks), which Hofmann too prefers, there
would result the quite general proposition : ‘‘for power there attains to its
full efficacy, where weakness serves it as the means of its self-exertion” (as
Hofmann puts it)—a proposition, which is only true when the δύναμις is dif-
Jerent from the ability of the weak subject, and can work with all the less
hindrance amidst the powerlessness of the latter. Hence, for the truth of the
proposition and in keeping with the context (comp. ver. 9), the specification
of the subject for ἡ δύναμις cannot at all be dispensed with. — ἤδιστα οὖν μᾶλλον
καυχήσομαι κ.τ..} the altered tone proceeding from that answer of Christ.
Grotius’ and others, including Emmerling, join μᾶλλον with ἥδιστα, although
μᾶλλον is used to heighten the comparative, but not the superlative (see on vii.
13). Estius (comp. previously, Erasmus) finds in μᾶλλον : ‘‘ magis ac potius,
quam in ulla alia re, qua videar excellere ;” Bengel and Billroth : ἢ ἐν ταῖς
ἀποκαλύψεσιν ; Riickert : more than of what I can (my talents and perform-
ances) ; comp. also Ewald. But against all this is the consideration that
Paul must have written : μᾶλλον ἐν ταῖς ἀσϑενείαις μου καυχήσομαι. As the text
stands, μᾶλλον belongs necessarily to καυχήσομαι (comp. vii. 7), not to its
object. And the reference of μᾶλλον is furnished by the context. Previously,
namely, Paul had stated how he had prayed the Lord to take away his suf-
fering. Now, however, after mentioning the answer received, he says :
With the utmost willingness (maxima cum voluptate, comp. ver. 15) there-
fore will I, encouraged by the word of the Lord which I have, only all the
more (comp. on vii. 7) glory in my weaknesses ; all the more boldly will I now
triumph in my states of suffering, which exhibit me in my weakness ; comp.
Rom. v. 3, viii. 35 ff. More than would have been otherwise the case, is the
courage of the καυχᾶσϑαι ἐν ταῖς ἀσϑενείαις increased in him by that utterance
of the Lord. (07) -- ἵνα ἐπισκηνώσῃ κ.τ.}.} Aimof the μᾶλλον καυχήσομαι x.T.A.
And the Lord’s answer itself has, in fact, placed this goal before his eyes, and
assured him of his reaching it. The ἐπ’ ἐμέ is conceived of as : may take its
abode on me, i.e. may come down before me and unite itself with me for abid-
ing protection, comfort, strengthening, etc.? The choice of the word ἐπισκην.
leads us to conclude that he has conceived of the case as analogous to the
Shechinah (comp. on John i. 14, xiv. 23). The direction from above down-
ward is not withal implied in ἐπί by itself, which rather indicates direction
in general (comp. Polyb. iv. 18. 8: ἐπισκηνοῦν ἐπὶ τὰς οἰκίας, to go into
quarters in the houses), but is given in the context. Comp. Ps. civ. 12. (07)
Ver. 10. Διό] because, namely, in such circumstances with such a mood the
power of Christ joins itself with me. —eidoxd ἐν ἀσϑεν.} I take pleasure in
weaknesses, bear them with inward assent and willingly, when they befall me.
Comp. vii. 4. ‘‘Contumax enim adversus tormenta fides,” Tacitus, Hist.
i. 3; Seneca, de prov. iv. 4. ao. are here, asin the whole context, situ-
ations of human powerlessness, brought about by allotted experiences of
1 Grotius and Emmerling expressly, but of Christ to the ἰσχύειν πάντα (Phil. iv. 18)
many others, as also Flatt and Olshausen, in its forms of ever-renewed heightening
tacitly, by leaving μᾶλλον untranslated. . and exaltation (Phil. iv. 16). Comp. 2 Cor.
2 That is the holy ἐνδυναμοῦσθαι by means_ vi. 4 ff.; Rom. viii. 37 ff.
686 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
suffering. Afterwards four, partly more, partly less, special kinds of such
situations are adduced. Riickert, quite at variance with the context, under-
stands diseases to be meant. — ἐν ὕβρεσιν) passive : in cases of arrogant treatment,
which I experience. On the plural, comp. Plato, Legg. i. p. 627 A ; Dem.
522. 13; Ecclus. x. 8. They bring into necessities (avayx.); and persecutions
drive into straitened positions (otevox.),out of which no issue is apparent (comp.
on iv. 8). --- ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ] belongs neither to all five elements (so usually),
nor simply to the last four points (Hofmann) but to εὐδοκῶ : for Christ's
sake, because by such sufferings His honour and His work are promoted.
That Paul meant sufferings for Christ, was, indeed, self-evident. But he
wishes to assign the specific motive for his εὐδοκῶ. ---- τότε δίνατός εἰμι] inwardly
through Christ’s power. See vv. 8, 9. τότε, then, is emphatic, here with the
feeling of victoriousness. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54; Col. iii. 4; Hom. 71]. xi.
191 f., 206 f.; Plato, Phil. p. 17 Ὁ, Conv. p. 192 B. On the idea, comp.
the expression of Moses in Philo, Vit. M. 1, p. 613 B : τὸ ἀσϑενὲς ὑμῶν diva-
μίς ἐστιν.
Ver. 11. Paul now comes to a stand, and surveys how much he has said
in commendation of himself from chap. xi. onward. This retrospect ex-
torts from him the admission: γέγονα ἄφρων, but as respects its contents he
at once proceeds to justify himself, and to impute the blame to the readers.
It is not to be taken either as a question or in the sense of a hypothetical pro-
tasis (Hofmann gives a choice between the two). The ὑμεῖς x.7.2., asyn-
detic, but all the more striking, gives no ground for such a weakening of
the meaning. — γέγονα ἄφρων] ironical exclamation ; for it is clear from xi,
16, xii. 6, that Paul did not really regard his apologetic καυχᾶσϑαι hitherto
as a work of folly. But the opponents took itso! In the emphatically
prefixed γέγονα (comp. v. 17) there is implied : it has come to pass that I am
a fool! This now subsists as accomplished fact! ‘‘ Receptui canit,”
Bengel. —iyeic μὲ ἠναγκάσατε᾽" ἐγὼ yap x.7.4.] This justifies him and blames
the Corinthians for that γέγονα a¢p. The emphatic ὑμεῖς, and afterwards the
ἐγώ, the emphasis of which Riickert failed to perceive, correspond to each
other significantly : you have compelled me ; for J had a claim to be com-
mended by you, instead of commending myself. The stress is on ig’ ὑμῶν,
next to the éyé, in which there is a side-glance at the pseudo-apostles,
boastful themselves, and boasted of by their partisans. — οὐδὲν yap ὑστέρησα
κιτ.}.1 Reason assigned for ἐγὼ ὥφελον. See, moreover, on xi. 5. The
aorist refers to the time of his working at Corinth. The negative form
of expression is a pointed litotes. —ei καὶ οὐδέν εἰμι] although Iam quite
without value and without importance. The same humility asin 1 Cor.
xy. 8-10. But how fraught with shame for the opposing party, with
which those false apostles were of so great account! And in this way
the significant weight of this closing concessive clause is stronger and
more telling than if it were attached as protasis to what follows (Hofmann).
It is more striking. —In regard to οὐδὲν εἶναι, see on 1 Cor. xiii. 2; Gal.
vi. 3.
Ver. 12. Proof of the previous οὐδὲν ὑστέρησα τῶν ὑπερλ. ἀποστ : The signs,
indeed (yet without producing among you the due recognition) ef the apostle
CHAP. XII.,-18. 687
were wrought among you. The μέν solitarium leaves it to the reader to supply
for himself the corresponding contrast, so that it may be translated by our
truly, indeed. See especially, Baeumlein, Partik. p. 163 ; Maetzner, ad An-
tiph. p. 153 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anabd. i. 2.1. The contrast to be supplied
here is put beyond doubt by the idea of the σημεῖα which is placed emphat-
ically and significantly at the head ; hence we must reject what Billroth
(followed by Olshausen) supplies ; but even otherwise you can make no com-
plaint about anything. —ra σημεῖα τοῦ ἀποστ. is that which divinely evinces the
apostle to be such, that by which one discerns the apostle. Ὁ ἀπόστολος with
the article does not denote the ideal of an apostle (Billroth), which would be at
variance with his humility, but the apostle in abstracto. Bengel says aptly :
‘ejus, qui sit apostélus.” —xatepydody ἐν ὑμῖν] namely, which I was with
you. The J, however, retreats modestly behind the passive expression.
The compound ‘‘perficere notat maxime rem arduam factuque difficilem,”
Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 107. —év πάσῃ ὑπομονῇ} the manner of the κατειρ-
γάσϑη ἐν ὑμῖν, strengthening the force of the proof : in all manner of perse-
verance, so that amidst adverse and painful circumstances there was perse-
verance with all possible stedfastness in fully exhibiting these signs of an
apostle. The view followed by many older expositors since Chrysostom :
“primum signum nominat patientiam,” is erroneous, since the ὑπομονή is
not a specifically apostolic σημεῖον." -- σημείοις x. τέρασι καὶ δυνάμεσι) whereby
those signs of an apostle were accomplished, so that σημείοις is here meant
in a narrower sense (miraculous signs) than the previous τὰ σημεῖα. The
three words in emphatic accumulation denote the same thing under the two
different relations of its miraculous significance (onu. x. tép.) and of its nature
(div. deeds of power, 1. Cor. xii. 10). Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 9 ; Heb. ii. 4 ;
Acts ii, 22. The notions of σημεῖα and τέρατα are equivalent. See on Rom.
xv. 19.— Paul therefore wrought miracles also in Corinth, and wrought
them as credentials of his apostleship (Heb. ii. 4). Comp. Rom. xv. 19 ;
Acts xv. 12. —On the accumulation of terms, comp. Cic. Tuse. 11. 40. 26:
‘* His ego pluribus nominibus unam rem declarari volo, sed utor, wt quam
maxime significem, pluribus.” Comp. also Cic. de Fin. 111. 4. 14 ; Nat. D.
ii. 7. 18. — How at variance with our passage is the historical criticism,
which lays down ὦ priori the negation of miracles ! (Ὁ)
Ver. 13. Ti γάρ ἐστιν... ὑμῶν] Bitterly ironical justification of what was
said in ver. 12. For what is there, in which you were placed at a disadvantage
towards the other churches (in which I wrought), except, etc. ? that isto say :
for in nothing have you come behind, as compared with the other churches,
except, etc. Quite arbitrarily Grotius limits this question, which embraces
‘the whole blissful apostolic working, to the communication of gifts by the lay-
ing on of hands. — ὑπέρ] means nothing else than beyond, but in the direction
downward (reference to the minus) which ἡττήϑητε specifies. Comp. Winer,
p- 376 [E. T. 502}. Rickert, overlooking the comparative sense of ἡττήϑητε,
says : there is here an ironical confession that all churches had disadvantage
i An appeal should not have been made to vi. 4, where in fact there stands the wider
conception θεοῦ διάκονοι.
688 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
from Paul, and it is only denied that the disadvantage of the Corinthian
was greater than that of the other churches. This would not suit at all as
assigning a reason for ver. 12. In assigning a reason, Paul could not but say:
ye have'in nothing come off worse ; but to say, for your disadvantage has not
been greater, would, with all its irony, be inappropriate. On the accusative
of more precise definition with ἡττήϑητε, comp. Xen. Cyr. i. 4. 5: ἃ ἡττῷτο.
The more usual construction is ¢ or ἐν ¢. — εἰ μὴ ὅτι x.7.4.] In this exception
(‘‘ specie exceptionis firmat quod dicit,” Grotius) lies the painful bitterness
of the passage, which in the request that follows χαρίσασϑε x.r.2. becomes
still sharper. It is the love, deeply hurt in its pure consciousness, that
speaks. —airic ἐγώ] I myself; this places his own person over against the
apostolic services indicated in τί... ἡττήϑητε. Comp. in general on Rom. ix.
3. Riickert (so also Bengel) holds that Paul has already had in his mind
what he subjoins in vv. 16-18. Such an arbitrary prolepsis of the reference
is the more untenable, seeing that with vv. 14, 15 another train of ideas in-
tervenes. — ov κατενάρκησα ὑμῶν) See on xi. 8. Only by the fact that he has
not been burdensome to them in accepting payment and the like, has Paul as-
serted himself as an apostle less among them than among the other churches !
For this injustice they are to pardon him !
Ver. 14. After that cutting irony comes the language of paternal earnest-
ness, inasmuch as Paul once more (comp. xi. 9-12) assures them that even on
his impending third arrival among them he will remain true to his principle
of not burdening them, and explains why he will do so. — ἰδού] vivid realiz-
ing of the position in the changing play of emotion. — τρίτον] emphatically
prefixed, belongs to ἐλϑεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς (comp. xiii. 1), not to ἑτοίμως ἔχω, as
Beza, Grotius, Estius, Emmerling, Flatt, and others, also Baur (in the
Theol. Jahrb, 1850, 2, p. 139 ff.), Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 200 f., would
have it,’ since, according to the context, it was not on his third readiness to
come that anything depended, but on the third arrival, for only as having
arrived could he be burdensome to the readers. Comp. the Introd., and
see Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 614 ff.; Neander, I. p. 414 ; Anger,
Rat. temp. p. 71; Wieseler, Chronol. d. ap. Zeitalt. p. 233. Chrysostom
aptly says : καὶ δεύτερον παρεγενόμην καὶ τρίτον τοῦτο παρεσκεύασμαι ἐλϑεῖν, Kai Ov
καταναρκήσω ὑμῶν. --- οὐ yap ζητῶ x.7.A.] for my endeavour is not directed to yours,
but to you ; you yourselves (your ψυχαί, ver. 15)—namely, that I may win
you for the salvation in Christ (Matt. xviii. 15 ; 1 Cor. ix. 19)—are the aim
of my striving. ‘‘ Dictum vere apostolicum,” Grotius. Comp. Cic. de Fin.
ii. 26: ‘‘Me igitur ipsum ames oportet, non mea, si veri amici futuri su-
mus.” Comp. also Phil. iv. 17. — οὐ yap ὀφείλει κ.τ.λ.} Confirmation of the
principle previously expressed, from a rule of the natural rightful relations
between parents and children ; for Paul was indeed the spiritual father of
the Corinthians (1 Cor. iv. 15). The negative part of this confirmation cor-
responds to οὐ ζητῶ τὰ ὑμῶν, and the positive to the ὑμᾶς ; for, while Paul
ζητεῖ αὐτούς (not τὰ αὐτῶν), he is the father, who gathers for his children
treasures, namely, the blessings of the Messianic kingdom. —oi γονεῖς] 80.
1 See also Mircker, Stellung ἃ. Pastorallm., Meiningen 1861, p. 18 f.
POLY
AA
ἃ.
CHAP. XII., 15=18. $ . 6. SC 689
ὀφείλουσι ϑησαυρίζειν, not as Beza holds : ϑησαυρίζουσι ; for ὀφείλει is not im-
personal. That by the first half of the verse, moreover, the duty of children
in love to support and provide for their parents is not excluded, is clear from
the very ϑησαυρίζειν, and is just as obvious of itself as that in the second part
the ϑησαυρίζειν is not to be urged as a duty of parents (1 Tim. v. 8), but
always has merely its relative obligation, subordinate to the higher spiritual
care (Matt. vi. 33, vv. 19-21 ; Eph. vi. 4 ; Mark viii. 36).
Ver. 15. Paul applies what was said generally in ver. 14 : οὐ γὰρ ὀφείλει
x.7.A. to himself (ἐγώ, Ton my part: I, however, will very willingly spend and
be spent for the good of your souls, in order, namely, to prepare them for the
salvation of eternal life (Heb. x. 39, xiii. 17; 1 Pet. i. 9; Jas. i. 21).
Theodoret rightly says : ἐγώ δὲ τῶν φύσει πατέρων καὶ πλέον τι ποιεῖν ἐπαγγέλλομαι.
— For examples of δαπανᾶν (ἐκ strengthens, Polyb. xxv. 8. 4, xxi. 8. 9, xvii.
11. 10) used of the life, see Kypke, II. p. 272. On the subject-matter, comp.
Horace, Od. i. 12. 88f.: ‘‘animaeque magnae prodigum Paullum.” — εἰ περισ-
cot. ὑμᾶς ἀγαπῶν ἦττον ἀγαπῶμαι] εἰ does not stand for εἰ καί (which is read by
Elzevir and Tischendorf), for which Riickert takes it, but is the simple ἐγ),
and that not even in the sense of ἐπεί or ὅτι, as it is used ‘‘ ne quid confiden-
tius, directius affirmetur” (Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 195), but, as is here
most in keeping with tender delicacy in the expression of a harsh thought,
in the purely hypothetical sense : if, which I leave undecided, etc. In
view of the possible case, that he finds the less love among his readers, the
more he loves them (this is implied in the mutual reference of the two com-
paratives, see Matthiae, § 455, Rem. 7),’ the apostle will most gladly sacrifice
his own (what he has from others, or even by his own work) and himself
(comp. Rom. ix. 3; Phil. ii. 17) for their souls, in order that thus he may
do his utmost to overcome this supposed—and possibly existing—dispropor-
tion between his loving and being loved by stimulating and increasing the
latter (Rom. xii. 21 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 4-7). Hofmann, not observing the clever
turn of the hypothetical expression of the thought, without reason finds this
view absurd, and with sufficient crudeness and clumsiness takes εἰ to ἀγαπῶ-
μαι as an independent question, to which Paul himself makes answer with
ἔστω dé (in the sense : be it so withal, I will let it rest there). To this inter-
rogative view Hofmann ought all the less to have resorted, seeing that in-
terrogation in such an indirect form (Winer, p. 474 [E. T. 639], and see on
Matt. xii. 10 ; Luke xii. 23) is wholly without example in Paul, often as he
has had an opportunity for using it. It is found often in Luke, more rarely
in Matthew and Mark. Except in the writings of these three, the N. T. does
not present that independent use of the indirectly interrogative εἰ.
Vv. 16-18. Refutation of the possible slander, which assuredly was also
actually ventured on the part of his adversaries, that, if he had not himself
directly burdened the Corinthians, he had still done so in a cunning way
indirectly by means of his emissaries. —In ver. 16 Paul does not, indeed,
speak in the person of his opponents, for otherwise, instead of éyé, he must
1In opposition to Hofmann, who, not two comparatives, supplies with meproc. :
attending to the correspondence of the {than others, and with ἧττον : than by others.
690 °S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
have expressed himself in the third person ; but he clothes his speech in
the words of his adversaries.’ (E") — ἔστω dé] concessive : but be it so, it may,
however, be the case that J have not oppressed you. Comp. Plat. Gorg. p.
516 C, al.(Kriiger, § 54, 4. 2) ; also the elev, very common in classical writers,
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Euthyph. p. 13 Ὁ ; Reisig, ad Oed. Col. 1303, and for
the similar use of the Latin esto, sit ita sane, Cicero, Tusc. i. 43. 102 ; De
Fin. iv. 45. — ἐγώ] my own person, — ἀλλ᾽ ὑπάρχων x.7./.| no longer depends
on ἔστω dé, but is the contrast—to be read as an exclamation—of ἔστω δὲ,
ἐγὼ ov κατεβάρ. ὑμᾶς : but eunningly I, etc. — δόλῳ] This would have been the
case, if he had made plunder of them indirectly by a third hand. — ἔλαβον]
caught, figure taken from hunting. See on xi. 20. Comp. on δόλῳ λαμβάν.
Soph. Phil. 101, 107, 1266. — Vv. 17 and 18 now show in lively questions,
appealing to the reader’s own experience, how untrue that ἀλλ᾽ ὑπάρχων. . .
ἔλαβον was. Have I then overreached you by one of those whom I sent to you?
namely, by claims for money, and the like. The construction is anacoluthiec,
inasmuch as Paul, for emphasis, prefixes absolutely the τίνα ὧν ἀπέσταλκα
πρὸς ὑμᾶς as the object of what he wishes to say, and then subjoins the further
statement independently of it, so that the accusative remains the more em-
phatically pendent—a usage found also in classical writers. See Bernhardy,
Ρ. 183. — ὧν] τούτων otc. Comp. Rom. xv. 18. — In ver. 18 he now mentions,
by way of example, Titus, whom he had encouraged to travel to Corinth,
and his fellow-envoy, and he asks, significantly repeating ἐπλεονέκτ. and pre-
fixing it : Has Titus overreached you? This journey of Titus to Corinth is not,
as is otherwise usually supposed, the one mentioned in chap. viii., which
had yet to be made, and in which Titus had two companions (viii. 18, 22),
but the one made soon after our first Epistle, and mentioned in chap. vii.
The fact that Titus only is here mentioned, and not also Timothy (1 Cor. iv.
17, xvi. 10), is made use of to support the opinion that Timothy had not
come to Corinth at all (see the Introd.). Comp. Riick. pp. 380, 409. But
how groundlessly !_ From the long and close connection of the apostle with
the Corinthians it may be even ὦ priori concluded, that he had sent vari-
ous persons to Corinth beside Titus ; and he himself testifies this by the
plural ὧν ἀπέσταλκα. But here he names only Titus instar omnium as the one
last sent. Besides, it would not have been even proper to say : I have sent
Timothy to you, since Timothy, in fact, was joint-sender of the letter (i. 1).
— τὸν ἀδελφόν] the brother (fellow-Christian) well known to them (but unknown
to us).? That in that mission he was quite subordinate to Titus is clear from
owaréor., and from the fact that in what follows the conduct of Titus alone
is spoken οἵ. -- τῷ αὐτῷ πνεῦμ.} with the same Spirit, namely, with the Holy
Spirit determining our walk and excluding all πλεονεξία. The dative is that
of manner to the question how 2 Comp. Acts ix. 31, xxi. 21 ; Rom. xiii. 13.
It may, however, also be just as fitly taken as dative of the xorm (Gal. v. 16,
1 Let us conceive that they had asserted mimesis, which is almost a parody.
regarding Paul : ἔστω δέ' αὐτὸς ov κατεβάρησεν 2 According to Wieseler, Chronol. Ὁ. 349,
ὑμᾶς κιτιλ, This Paul makes use of, inas- it was Tychicus, as also at viii. 22. This
much as he, entering into their meaning, rests on a combination drawn from Titus
says of himself, what they have said of him—a__ iii. 12.
CHAP. XIE; 19. Oo
vi. 16). We cannot decide the point. If the inward agreement is denoted
by τῷ αὐτῷ πνευμ., the likeness of outward procedure is expressed by τοῖς
αὐτοῖς ἴχνεσι (comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 276 Ὁ : τῷ ταὐτὸν ἴχνος μετιόντι). But
here the dative is local, as in Acts xiv. 16: Jude 11 (comp. Fritzsche, ad
Rom. I. p. 225 f.). So Pind. Pyth. x. 20: ἐμβέβακεν ἴχνεσιν πατρός, comp.
with Nem. vi. 27 : ἴχνεσιν ἐν Πραξιδάμαντος ἐὸν πόδα νέμων. Whose are the
footsteps, in which the two walked ? The footsteps ef Paul in which Titus
followed his predecessor (comp. Lucian, Herm. 73), so that they thereby
became the same, in which both walked — said with reference to the unself-
ishness maintained by both. The context does not yield any reference to
Christ (1 Pet. ii. 21).
Ver. 19. His vindication itself is now concluded. But in order that he
may not appear, by thus answering for himself, to install the readers as
judges over him, he further guards his apostolic dignity against this risk.
Carrying them in mediam rem, he says: For long you have been thinking
that we are answering for ourselves to you! Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 3. Correction
of this opinion : Before God we speak in Christ ; it is God in presence of
whom (as Judge) we speak in Christ’s fellowship (as the element in which
we subsist and live). ἐν X. gives to λαλοῦμεν its definite Christian character
(which, with Paul, was at the same time the apostolic one). Comp. ii. 17.
But, that he may not suppress the proper relation of his apology to the
readers, he adds lovingly : but the whole, beloved, (we speak) for your editica-
tion, for the perfecting of your Christian life. — πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογ.]
After adopting the reading πάλαι (see the critical remarks) this sentence is
no longer to be taken interrogatively, because otherwise an unsuitable empha-
sis would be laid on πάλαι. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Riickert have also
deleted the mark of interrogation. πάλαι means’nothing else than jor ὦ long
time, in which, however, the past to be thought of may be very short accord-
ing to the relative nature of the notion of time, as e.g. Hom. Od. xx. 293
f.: μοῖραν μὲν δὴ ξεῖνος ἔχει πάλαι, ὡς ἐπέοικεν, ἴσην, Plat. Gorg. p. 456 A ;
Phaed. p. 63 D, al.; see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 18 B; Xen. Anab. iv.
8. 14, iv. 5. 5; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. 11. p. 481. So also the Latin dudum,
jamdudum. Here the meaning is, that the readers are already for long, dur-
ing the continuation of this apology, remaining of opinion, etc. As respects
the connection with the present, see further, Plato, Phaedr. p. 273 C ; Xen.
Anab.-vii. 6. 87. There exists no reason for attaching πάλαι to ver. 18 (Hof-
mann, then taking δοκεῖτε interrogatively), and it would, standing after ἔχνεσι,
come in after a tame and dragging fashion, while it would have had its fit-
ting position between οὐ and τῷ αὐτῷ. --- ὑμῖν] Dative of destination. Comp.
Acts xix. 33 ; Plato, Protag. p. 359. D; Pol. x. p. 607 B. Vobis, i.e. vobis
judicibus, has here the chief emphasis, which Riickert has aptly vindicated.
The earlier expositors, not recognizing this, have accordingly not hit on the
purpose and meaning of the passage ; as still Billroth: ‘‘It might seem
that he wished to recommend himself” (comp. iii. 1, v. 12). To this his
answer is : ‘‘I speak before God in Christ, 1.6. my sentiments in what I say
are not selfish, but upright and pure.” Comp. Chrysostom, Erasmus, Beza,
Calvin, Grotius. —karévavti τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐν Xp. λαλοῦμεν] to be taken togeth-
692 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
er,’ as in ii. 17. — τὰ dé πάντα] se. λαλοῦμεν. Grotius and others, including
Griesbach, Scholz, Olshausen, and Ewald, read τάδε as one word, and con-
nect it with the previous λαλοῦμεν. But for what end? The mode of ex-
pression in the usual way of writing it is quite Pauline, and makes the im-
portant thought more emphatically prominent ; éde never occurs with Paul,
and the reference of rade to what goes before would at least not be in ac-
cordance with the common usage (comp. on Luke x. 39). (ΕἾ)
Ver. 20 1." Subjective justification of what was just said, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν
οἰκοδομῆς. For I fear to find you on my arrival such as have very great need
of oixodoug. — The sharp lesson which he now gives his readers down to xiii.
10, although introducing it not without tenderness to their feelings (φοβοῦμαι,
and then the negative form of expression), could not but wholly cancel the
thought : ἡμῖν ἀπολογεῖται, and make them feel his apostolic position afresh
in all its ascendancy. It is in this way that the victor speaks who has recon-
quered his domain, and this language at the end of the letter completes the
mastery shown in its well-calculated arrangement. — κἀγὼ εὑρεϑῶ ὑμῖν x.7.2. |
and that I shall be found such an one as you do not wish, namely, as τιμωρὸς καὶ
κολαστῆς, Theophylact ; 1 Cor. iv. 21. The negation attaches itself to οἵους
in the first clause, but in this second to ϑέλετε, by which there is produced
a climax in the expression. — ὑμῖν] Reference of εὑρεϑῶ : for you, to your
judgment based on experience. Comp. Rom. vii. 10; 2 Pet. iii. 14. This is
more delicate and expressive than the meaning of the common interpretation :
by you (dative with the passive), Rom. x. 20.— What follows is not, with
Riickert, to be regarded as if μήπως down to ἀκαταστασίαι were a more pre-
cise explanation regarding the condition of the Corinthians (consequently re-
garding that μήπως ἐλθὼν οὐχ οἵους θέλω εὕρω ὑμᾶς), and, ver. 21, a more pre-
cise explanation regarding the apostle’s duty to punish (consequently regard-
ing that κἀγὼ... θέλετε). Against this it may be decisively urged that
ver. 21 brings forward quite a different category of sinful states from ver.
20, and that ver. 21, rightly understood, does not yet express any threat of
punishment. No; the arrangement of the passage is this: After Paul has
said that he is afraid of not finding them such as he wishes them, and of
being found by them such as they would not wish him, he now gives the
more precise explanation of that first apprehension (μήπως... . εὕρω ὑμᾶς), by
adducing two kinds of sins, which he fears to find among them, namely, (1)
the mischiefs occasioned by partisan feeling ; and (2) the sins of impurity,
which would bow him down and make him sad. The further explanation
regarding the second apprehension expressed, κἀγὼ εὑρεθῶ ὑμῖν οἷον οὐ θέλετε,
thereupon follows only at xiii. 1 ΠῚ --- μήπως ἔρεις x.7.2.] 86. εὑρεθῶσιν ἐν ὑμῖν.
— ἔρεις, ζῆλος] contentions,*® jealousy. See 1 Cor. i. 11, iii. 8. --- θυμοί] irae,
excitements of anger. See on Rom, ii. 8; Gal. v. 90. --- ἐριθεῖαι] party-in-
trigues. See on Rom. ii. 8, and the excursus of Fritzsche, I. p. 143 ff.*—
1So0 that the chief emphasis is laid on 3 Regarding the plural form épets, see
κατέναντι τοῦ θεοῦ, Opposed to the previous Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 326; Gregor. Cor., ed.
ὑμῖν. Schaef. p. 476; also Buttmann in the Stud,
2 On ver. 20-xiii. 2, see the thorough dis- u. Krit. 1862, p. 172.
cussion by Liicke (Whitsun Programm of 4 Fritzsche (following Ilgen) is probably
1837) ; Conjectan, exeg. Part I. p. 14 ff. right in deriving ἔριθος from ἔρι, valde (see
CHAP. ἈΠ 21. O08
καταλαλίαι, ψιθυρισμοί] slanders, whisperings. See on Rom. i. 30. — φυσιώσεις]
Manifestations of conceited iflation ; elsewhere only in the Fathers. —
ἀκαταστασίαι] disorderly relations, confusions, comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 33. (67)
Ver. 21. The interrogative interpretation (Lachmann, Liicke) is, viewed
in itself, compatible not only with the reading ταπεινώσει (Lachmann), but
also with the deliberative subjunctive of the Recepta (Liicke). Comp.
Xenophon, Oec. iv. 4 : μὴ αἰσχυνθῶμεν τὸν Περσῶν βασιλέα μιμήσασθαι ; see in
general, Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 159 f. ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 203. But
the wswal non-interrogative explanation, which makes μή still dependent on
φοβοῦμαι, not only makes the passage appear more emphatic (by the three
parallels, μήπως --- μήπως --- uf), but is also the only interpretation suited to
the context, since, in fact, after the apprehension quite definitely expressed
in ver. 20, the negative questiou, in the case of which a No is to be con-
ceived as the answer (comp. vv. 17, 18), would be inappropriate. — In μή
compared with the p.evious μήπως there lies a climax as regards the definite-
ness of the conception. — πάλιν] goes along with ἐλθόντος μου ταπεινώσῃ pe ὁ
θ. μ. πρὸς tu. (comp. on ii. 1), so that Paul reminds them how already at his
second visit (comp. 1 Cor. v. 9) he had experienced such humiliation.
Connected merely with ἐλθόντος μου (Beza, Grotius, Flatt, de Wette, Weise-
ler, and many others), it would be without important bearing. — ἐλθόντος
μου tax. με] a construction also of frequent occurrence in classical writers.
Comp. on ix. 14, and see Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 270 [E. T. 315]. — ταπει-
γνώσει we, not of bodily (Hofmann), but of mental bowing down in dejec-
tion. Comp. Polyb. iii. 116. 8, iv. 80. 3. ‘‘ Nihil erat, quo magis exultaret
apostolus, quam prospero suae praedicationis successu (comp. 1 Thess. ii.
20; Phil. iv. 1) ; contra nihil erat, unde tristiore et demissiore animo red-
deretur, quam quum cerneret, se frustra laborasse,” Beza. Comp. Chrys-
ostom. The future ταπεινώσει (see the critical remarks), which expresses
the apprehension that the sad case of this humiliation will withal actually
still oceur (see on Col. ii. 8), stands in a climactic relation to the previous
subjunctives ; the apprehension increases. — ὁ θεός μου] as Rom. i. 8 ; 1 Cor.
i.4. Inthe humbling experiences of his office Paul sees paedagogic de-
crees of his God. — πρὸς ὑμᾶς} not among you, for how superfluous that
would be ! but : in reference to you, in my relation to you. So also Riick-
ert, who, however (comp. Chrysostom, Osiander, and several), explains
ταπεινώσις Of Paul’s seeing himself compelled ‘‘to appear before them not
with the joyful pride of a father over his good children, but with the puni-
tive earnestness of a judge.” But the punitive earnestness of the judge is
in fact no ταπεινώσις, but an act of the apostolic authority, and only follows
subsequently, after the ταπεινώσις has taken place by the observation of the
punishment-deserving state, which has made him feel that his efforts have
been without result. — πολλοὺς τῶν προημαρτηκότων Kai μὴ μετανοησάντων] On
Buttmann, Lewxilog. I. Ὁ. 146 f.). Comp. the but vos, since in €p the iota is short,
many forms compounded with ép: in Ho-
mer. For the second part of the word no
proper derivation has yet been found. This
second half is not simply the ending 60s,
whereas in ἔριθος it is long. See Homer, 7.
Xvili. 550: “Ev δ᾽ ἐτίθει τέμενος βαϑυλήϊον
evda δ᾽ ἔριϑοι. See regarding the various
derivations. Lobeck, Pathol. Ὁ. 365.
694 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
προημαρτ., comp. Herodian, iii. 14. 8 : ἀπολογεῖσθαι πρὸς τὰ προημαρτημένα.
According to Riickert, Paul has written thus inexactly, instead of πολλοὺς τῶν
How arbitrary ! In that case he would
have expressed himself with downright inaccuracy. Liicke, 1.6. p. 20, ex-
plains it more ingeniously : ‘‘Cogitavit rem ita, ut primum poneret Chris-
tianorum ex ethnicis potissimum τῶν προημαρτηκότων καὶ μὴ μετανοησάντων
genus universum, cujus generis homines essent ubique ecclesiarum, deinde
vero ex isto hominum genere multos eos, qui Corinthi essent, designaret
definiretque.” But the reference to the unconverted sinners, who ubique
ecclesiarum essent, is quite foreign to the context, since Paul had simply to
do with the Corinthians (comp. previously πρὸς ὑμᾶς), and hence these
could not seek the genus of the προημαρτηκότων x.t.2. here meant elsewhere
than just in their own church.
from the order of the thoughts specified at ver. 20, according to which ἐπὶ
τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ x.t.A. cannot belong to μετανοησ. (comp. Lucian, de salt. 84 :
μετανοῆσαι ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐποίησεν), as it is usually taken, but only to πενθήσω: and that
7 will lament * many of those, who have previously sinned and shall not have
repented, on account of the uncleanness, etc. Thus Paul passes over from the
sinful states named in ver. 20 to quite another category of sins, and the
course of thought accordingly is : ‘‘I fear that I shall not only meet with
contentions, etc., among you, but that I shall have also to bewail many of
the then still unconverted sinners among you on account of the sins of im-
purity which they have committed (Eph. iv. 30°; Heb. xiii. 17).” Not all
προημαρτηκότες καὶ μὴ μετανοήσαντες In Corinth were impure sinners, but Paul
fears that he will encounter many of them as such ; hence he could not
προημαρτ. τοὺς μὴ μετανοήσαντας.
The right interpretation results undoubtedly ἡ
1 πενϑήσω is taken by Theophylact and
others, including Billroth, Riickert, Ols-
hausen, and de Wette, as a threatening of
punishment ; and Grotius even thought that
the apostles may have discharged their
penal office not without signs of mourning,
“sicut Romani civem damnaturi sumebant
pullam togam.” But the whole reference
of the word to punishment is in the highest
degree arbitrary, and at variance with the
context. For it is only at xiii. 1 ff. that
the threat of punishment follows; and the
ταπεινώσῃ με ὃ Peds μου πρὸς ὑμᾶς, With
which καὶ πενϑήσω is connected, warrants
us only to retain for the latter the pure
literal meaning lugere aliquem, which is
very current in classical writers (Hom.
11. xix. 225, xxiii. 283; Herod. vii. 220; Xen.
Hell. ii. 2. 3) and in the LXX. (Gen. xxxvii.
34, 1. 8, ad. ; Ecclus. li. 19; Judith xvi. 34).
The word does not at all mean to prepare
sorrow, as Vater and Olshausen explain it.
Calvin therefore is right in leaving the idea
of punishment out of account, and aptly
remarks: ‘ Veri et germani pastoris affec-
tum nobis exprimit, quum luctu aliorum
peccata se prosequuturum dicit.’’ Estius,
too, rejects any reference to punishment,
and finds in πενϑήσω that Paul regards
those concerned as Deo mortuos. Comp.
Ewald. Under the latter view too much is
found in the word, since the context does
not speak of spiritual death, but specifies
the ground of the mourning by ἐπὶ τῇ ἀκα-
ϑαρσίᾳ «.7.A. Hence we must adhere to
Calyin’s exposition as not going beyond
either the meaning of the word or the con-
text. Calovius also says very correctly (in
opposition to Grotius) : “‘Non de poena hic
Corinthiorum impoenitentium, sed de moe-
rore suo super impoenitentia.’’ De Wette,
followed by Osiander, tinds in πενϑ. the
pain of being obliged to proceed with the
special punishment of excommunication, and
explains πολλοὺς τῶν προημαρτ. K. μὴ μεταν,
ἐπὶ κιτιλ. of the worst among the unconvert-
ed sinners guilty of unchastity. In that
case the chief points of the meaning must be
mentally supplied, for which there is the
less warrant, seeing that πενϑήσω is parallel
to the ταπειν. με ὁ 3., expressing subjectively
that which is denoted by tame. x.7.A, οὗ-
Je cli vely.
—————————————————— -ἦὉ-.
CHAP. XII, 21. 695
write at all otherwise than : πολλοὺς τῶν προημαρτηκότων καὶ μὴ μετανοησάντων."᾽
This explanation is adopted by Winer, p. ὅ90 [E. T. 792], Bisping, and
Kling. — The perfect participle προημαρτ. denotes the continuance of the
condition from earlier times; and καὶ μὴ μετανοησάντων has the sense of the
futurum exactum: and who shall not have repented at my arrival. The
προ in ποοημαρτ. expresses the sinning that had taken place in earlier times,
which Liicke (comp. Olshausen) refers to the time before conversion (comp.
the passages of Justin, Apolog. i. 61 ; Clement, Strom. iv. 12 in Liicke, p.
18 f.). But as the evils adduced in ver. 20 only set in after the conversion,
we are not warranted (see the plan of the passage specified at ver. 20) to
assume for the sins named in ver. 21 the time before conversion, as, indeed,
1 Cor. v. 1 also points to the time wyter conversion. But if we ask how far
Paul with his πρὸ looks back into the past of the Corinthians that had
elapsed since their conversion, it might, if we regard vv. 20 and 21 by them-
selves, appear as if he referred not further back than to that time, in which
the contentions (ver. 20) and the sins of impurity censured in 1 Cor. v. 1
(ver. 21) emerged. But as this happened only after his second visit, and
as he says in xiii. 2 that he had foretold (comp. ii. 1) punishment to the
προημαρτηκόσι already at his second visit, it follows that with his πρὸ he
glances back from the present to the time before his second visit. After his
Jirst visit there had already emerged in Corinth evils, which humbled him
at his second visit (ver. 21), and on account of which he at that time
threatened (see on xiii. 2) these προημαρτηκότες with punishment ; after his
second presence there had now broken out, in addition, the contentions
1 The objections of de Wette against my
explanation will not bear examination. For
tainly fears that he will have to lament the
non-repentance of the persons concerned,
(1) from the fact that Paul, in order to ex-
press his alarm and anxiety regarding the
unchaste, mentions withal the category of
sinners in general, there does not arise the
appearance as if he would not have to
mourn over the latter ; but out of the col-
lective wickedness in Corinth he singles out
the unchastity which was prevalent there
as specially grievous. This species of sin-
ners appears under the genus of Corinthian
sinners as one of the two chief stains on
the church (the other was the party-spirit,
ver. 20). Further, (2) the προημαρτηκοτες in
xiii. 2 are not any more than here a species,
but likewise the category, to which the
kinds denoted in vv. 20 and 21 belonged.
(3) The connection of ἐπὶ x.7.A. with πενϑήσω
is not unnatural, but natural, since πολλοὺς
TOV προημ. K. μὴ μεταν., taken together, is the
object of πενϑ.. so that Paul has observed
the sequence which is simplest of all and
most usual (verb—object—ground). The ob-
jections of Osiander and Hofmann are not
more valid. Those of the latter especially
amount in the long run to subtleties, for
whieh there is no ground. For Paul cer-
and the sins which they are still committing
at the time. Thisis clearly enough contained
in καὶ μὴ μετανοησάντων ; and asto 7 ἔπραξαν,
Paul very naturally writes the aorist, and
not 7 πράσσουσιν, because he transplants
himself, as in μὴ μετανοησ., to the point of
time when he arrives and will then judge
what they have done up to that time. He
might also have written 7 πράσσουσιν, but
would thereby have deviated from the con-
formity of his conception of time imtro-
duced with κ. μ. μετανοησ. (which is that of
the futurum exactum), for which he had no
occasion. It is incorrect, with Hofmann,
to say that μετανοησάντων refers to the time
when Paul was writing this, and that, be-
cause there was still space for them to
repent up to the time of his arrival, he has
not spoken generally of the impenitent, but
of many (who, namely, would remain hard-
ened). According to the context, μετανοη-
σάντων can only apply to the time of his im-
pending ἐλϑεῖν, when he will have to lament
many of the old and still at that time non-
repentant sinners, on account of their im-
purity, ete,
696 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
and sins of impurity which we know from his Epistles; and to all
this, consequently to the whole time till after his first and before his
second visit, he looks back, inasmuch as he says not merely ἡμαρτηκότων,
but 7p o'juaptyxérwv. Consequently Billroth is wrong in restricting the word
merely to those ‘‘ whom I already, through my second sojourn among you,
know as sinners ;” and Estius says too indefinitely, and also quite arbitrari-
ly, as regards προ, not starting from the present time : ante seriptam prio-
rem epistolam, while many others, like Riickert, do not enter on the ques-
tion at all. — ἐπὶ τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ κ.τ.λ.] if connected with μετανοησάντων, would
be in respect or on account of. But, apart from the fact that μετανοεῖν (which,
we may add, Paul has only here) is in the N. T. never connected with ἐπί
(as Joel ii. 13 ; Amos vii. 3, LXX.), but with ἀπό (Acts viii. 22 ; Heb. vi.
1) or ἐκ (Rev. ii. 21 f., xvi. 11), in this particular case the necessary and
correct connection (see previously on 70/2. τ. προημ. K. μὴ μετανοησ.) is with
πενθήσω, the ground of which it specifies : over. Just so Aeschin. p. 84, 14;
Plut. Agis, 17 ; Rev. xviii. 11; 1Sam. xv. 35; Ezra x. 6, al. ’Axa6apoia,
here of licentious impurity, Rom. i. 24; Gal. ν. 19 ; Eph. iv. 19. Then:
πορνεία, fornication in specie. Lastly : ἀσέλγεια, licentious wantonness and
abandonment (Rom. xiii. 13 ; Gal. v. 19 ; Eph. iv. 19; Wisd. xiv. 26). —
ἔπραξαν] have practised. Comp. on Rom. i. 32.
Notes py AMERICAN EprrTor.
(x*) Paul's view of boasting. Ver. 1.
The Revised Version gives an exact rendering of the text as adopted by all
the latest editors and by most modern expositors. ‘‘I must needs glory,
though it is not expedient.’’ He had repeatedly spoken of boasting as a kind
of folly, something derogatory and painful; still, unseemly as it was, circum-
stances compelled him to resort to it. However, now he would leave it and
pass to the revelations made to him.
(x®) «* The third heaven.”’ Ver. 2.
In regard to Dr. Meyer’s view that Paul had the Rabbinical notion of seven
heavens, it may be said that it is by no means clear that the Jewish opinion to
that effect was prevalent in Paul’s day, and still less that it was adopted by
the sacred writers. But as we have in Eph. iv. 10 the phrase ‘‘above all
heavens,’’ and in Heb. iv. 14, ‘‘ passed through the heavens,” it seems better to
consider the words as simply = the highest heaven. This disposes also of
Dr. Meyer’s statement in ver. 3, that Paradise is different from the third
heaven and ina higher sphere.—Paul was simply caught up to the present
abode of the faithful dead.
(25) ““ Notlawful for a man to utter.” Ver. 4.
It needs no argument to show that if Paul was not allowed to narrate what
he had actually seen in heaven, it is certainly wrong for ordinary persons
to give an account of what they imagine to have taken place there. Besides,
NOTES. 697
how could a man utter them? We have a case in point in the fourth and fifth
chapters of the Apocalypse. John had heaven opened to him, and tells us the
result, but it is altogether in the form of symbols and figures. A throne
is there, and One like a jasper and a sardine stone ; a rainbow like an emerald
encircles all; seven lamps of fire are burning ; lightnings flash, thunderings
are heard; and a sea of glass shines like crystal. All these are marvellously
suggestive, but they do not ‘“ utter the unutterable.”—And further, recent ex-
. perience confirms the words of F. W. Robertson; ‘‘There are some things
in this world too low to be spoken of, and some things too high. You cannot
discuss such subjects without vulgarizing them.”
(at) ‘* Save in my weaknesses.’’ Ver. 5.
The meaning is, ‘‘I will boast concerning myself only in those things which
prove or imply my own weakness.’’ A revelation was a gratuitous favor,
and might be gloried in without assuming any special merit to himself.
(B’) ‘* He hath said.” Ver. 9.
Dr. Meyer rightly insists upon the full sense of the perfect tense, as given in
the Revised Version above. The answer was ever sounding in the Apostle’s
ears, and not in his only, but in those of all God’s suffering people from
that day to this.
(c") ** Will I glory in my infirmities.” Ver. 9.
This is not a fanatical or irrational assertion, but based on sufficient grounds
—viz. that Christ’s power may dwell upon me as aShechinah. Most Christians
are satisfied if they are resigned under suffering. To rejoice in trials because
thereby Christ is glorified is more than they aspire to, Paul’s experience was
far above that standard. That Christ should be glorified was to him an end for
which any human being might feel it an honour to suffer (Hodge). -
(Ὁ) ““ Signs and wonders and mighty deeds.” Ver. 12.
As the author says, these are different designations of the same thing, viz.
miracles. These are called signs in reference to their design, i.e. to confirm
the divine mission of those who perform them ; wonders, because of the effect
they produced ; and mighty deeds, because they are manifestations of divine
power. How far the Apostle was from the view of some in our day, that
miracles are a burden ta carry.
(E") ““ Caught you with guile.” Ver. 16.
It is very unfortunate that this phrase has often been quoted as if it
expressed the course of the Apostle, instead of being, as Dr. Meyer says (and all
critics agree), a concessive statement of the charge of his adversaries, which he
proceeds in the next verse at once to deny, by an appeal to facts, viz. the
mission of Titus and his companion, who followed Paul’s example in bearing
their own expenses.
698 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(ΕἼ False impressions corrected. Ver. 19.
The closing verses of the chapter seem designed to guard against two mis-
takes the Corinthians might make: “First, that he felt himself accountable to
them, or that they were the judges at whose bar the was defending himself.
Second, that his object wasin any respect personal or selfish. He spoke before
God, not before them; for their edification, not for his own reputation.”’
The first words of ver. 19 are well given in R. V. according to the best text,
“Ye think all this time that we are excusing ourselves,’”’ ete.
(a?) ‘* Lest there be strife, jealousy,” etc. Ver. 20.
The accumulation of words serve to show the Apostle’s indignation, and also
to present a lively picture of the evils introduced into a Christian church
by the revival of this old disease of the Grecian commonwealths (Stanley).
‘‘ Swellings’’ = manifestations of pride and insolence. The other terms
are well given in the R. V., except that ‘‘ wraths,” an unidiomatic word, would —
be better replaced by ‘‘ outbreaks of anger.’’
CHAP, ‘Kir. $1. 699
CHAPTER XIII.
Ver. 2. After viv Elz. has γράφω, in opposition to decisive evidence. A sup-
plementary addition. Comp. ver. 10. — Ver. 4. εἰ] is wanting in B D* FG Κα
ΠΕ min. Copt. Aeth. It. Eus. Dem. Theoph. Bracketed by Lachm. and Riick.
Looking to the total inappropriateness of the sense of καὶ εἰ, those authorities
of considerable importance sufficiently warrant the condemnation of εἰ, although
Tisch. (comp. Hofm.) holds the omission to be ‘‘ manifesta correctio.’’ Offence
was easily taken at the idea that Christ was crucified ἐξ ἀσθενείας, and it was
made problematical by the addition of an εἰ, which in several cases also was
assigned a position before καί (Or: εἰ yap Kai). — καὶ yap ἡμεῖς] Elz. has καὶ yap
καὶ ἡμεῖς, in opposition to far preponderating evidence. ‘The second καί is an
addition, which arose out of καὶ yap being taken as a mere for, namque. — ἐν
αὐτῷ! AF GX, Syr. Erp. Copt. Boern. have σὺν αὐτῷ. So Lachm. on the mar-
gin. An explanation in accordance with what follows. — ζησόμεθα} Lachm.
Riick. Tisch. read ζήσομεν, in favour of which the evidence is decisive. — εἰς
υμᾶς] is wanting only in Β D*** E*** Arm, Clar, Germ. Chrys. Sedul., and is
condemmed by Mill, who derived it from ver. 3. But how natural was the
omission, seeing that the first half of the verse contains no parallel element !
And the erroneous reference of ζήσομεν to elernal life might make εἰς ὑμᾶς appear
simply as irrelevant. — Ver. 7. εὔχομαι Lachm. Tisch. and Riick., following
greatly preponderant evidence, have εὐχόμεθα, which Griesb. also approved.
And rightly ; the singular was introduced in accordance with the previous
ἐλπίζω. --- Ver. 9. τοῦτο dé] This δέ is omitted in preponderant witnesses, is
suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. Addition for
the sake of connection, instead of which 73 has δή and Chrys. yap. — In ver. 10,
the position of ὁ κύριος before édwk. μοι is assured by decided attestation.
ConTENTs.—Continuation of the close of the section as begun as xii. 19.
At his impending third coming he will decide with judicial severity and
not spare, seeing that they wished to have for oncea proof of the Christ
speaking in him (vv. 1-4). They ought to prove themselves ; he hopes,
however, that they will recognize is proved character, and asks God that
he may not need to show them its verification (vv. 5-9). Therefore he
writes this when absent, in order that he may not be under the necessity of
being stern when present (ver. 10). Concluding exhortation with promise
(ver. 11) ; concluding salutation (ver. 12) ; concluding benediction {ver.
13.)
Ver. 1. As Paul has expressed himself by μήπως ἔρις x.t.A. in xii. 20, and
in ver. 21 has explained himself more precisely merely as regards that μήπως
ἐλθὼν οὐχ οἵους θέλω εὕρω ὑμᾶς (See on xii. 20), he still owes to his readers a
more precise explanation regarding the κἀγὼ εὑρεθῶ ὑμῖν οἷον ob θέλετε, and
this he now gives to them. Observe the asyndetic, sternly-measured form of
700 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
his sentences in vv. 1 and 2. — τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς The elaborate
shifts of the expositors, who do not understand this of a third actual coming
thither, inasmuch as they assume that Paul had been but once in Corinth,’
may be seen in Poole’s Synopsis and Wolf's Curae. According to Lange,
ypost. Zeitalt. I. p. 202 f. (comp. also Miircker, Stellung der Pastoralbr. p.
14), τρίτον τοῦτο is intended to apply to the third project of a journey, and
ἔρχομαι to its decided execution: ‘This third time in the series of projects
laid before you above J come.” Linguistically incorrect, since τρίτον τοῦτο
ipx. cannot mean anything else than : jor the third time I come this time, so
that it does not refer to previous projects, but to two journeys that had taken
place before. Οἡ τρίτον τοῦτο, this third time (accusative absolute), that
is, this time for a third time, comp. Herod. v. 76: τέταρτον δὴ τοῦτο. . .
ἀπικόμενοι, LXX. Judg. xvi. 15: τοῦτο τρίτον ἐπλάνησάς με, Num. xxii. 28 ;
John xxi.14. Bengel correctly remarks on the present : ‘‘ jam sum in pro-
cinctu.” (H")— ἐπὶ στόματος dio μαρτίρων K.t.2.| On this my third arrival there
isto be no further sparing (as at my second visit), but summary procedure.
Comp. Matt. xviii. 16, where, however, the words of the law are used with
another turn to the meaning. Paul announces with the words of the law
well known to his readers, Deut. xix. 15, which he adopts as his own, that
he, arrived for this third time, will, without further indulgence, institute a
legal hearing of witnesses (comp. 1 Tim. v. 19), and that on the basis of the
affirmation of two and three witnesses every point of complaint will be decided.
Not as if he wished to set himself up as disciplinary judge (this power was
vested ordinarily in the church, Matt. xviii. 16, 1 Cor. v. 12, 13, and was,
even in extraordinary cases of punishment, not exercised alone on the part
of the apostle, 1 Cor. v. 3-5), but he would bring on and arrange the sum-
mary procedure in the way of discipline, which he had threatened. Nor
did the notoriety of the transgressions render the latter unnecessary, seeing
that, on the one hand, they might not a// be notorious, and, on the other,
even those that were so needed a definite form of treatment. Following
Chrysostom and Ambrosiaster, Calvin, Estius, and others, including recently
Neander, Olshausen, Riibiger, Ewald, Osiander, Maier, have understood
the two or three witnesses of Paul himself, who takes the various occasions
of his presence among the Corinthians as testimonies, by which the truth of
the matters is made good,? or the execution of his threats (Chrysostom, The-
1 Most of them, like Grotius, Estius, Woll,
Wetstein, Zachariae, Flatt, were of opinion
that Paul expresses here, too, simply a
third readiness to come, from which view
also has arisen the reading ἑτοίμως ἔχω ἐλθεῖν
instead of ἔρχομαι ἴῃ A, Syr. Erp. Copt. To
this also Baur reverts, who explains ἔρχομαι :
Tam on the point of coming. But this would,
in fact, be just a third actual coming, which
Paul was on the point of, and would presup-
pose his having come already twice. Beza
and others suggest: ‘‘ Binas suas epistolas
(Ὁ pro totidem ad illos profectionibus re-
censet.”
2 Grotius, in consistency with the view
that Paul had been only once there, quite at
variance with the words of the passage,
pares down the meaning to this: “cum bis
terve id dixerim, tandem ratum erit.”” Com-
pare also Clericus. The explanation of Em-
merling: ‘‘Titum ejusque comites certis-
simum edituros esse testimonium de animo
suo Corinthios invisendi,” is purely fanci-
ul. The simple and correct view is given
already by Erasmus in his Paraphr. : “ Hic
erit tertius meus ad vos adventus; in hune
se quisque praeparet. Neque enim amplius
connivebo, sed juxta jus strictum atque exac-
CHAP, RII; 2. 701
ophylact, and others, comp. Bleek, Billroth, Ewald, Hofmann) is to be de-
cided (Theophylact : ἐπὶ τῶν τριῶν μου παρουσιῶν πᾶν ῥῆμα ἀπειλητικὸν KaTaoTa’
θήσεται καθ᾽ ὑμῶν καὶ κυρωθήσεται, ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσατε᾽ ἀντὶ μαρτύρων γὰρ τὰς
παρουσίας αὐτοῦ τίθησι). Βαΐύ if Paul regarded himself, under the point
of view of his different visits to Corinth respectively, as the witnesses, he
could make himself pass for three witnesses only in respect of those evils
which he had already perceived at his jirst visit (and then again on his
second and third), and for two witnesses only in respect of those evils which
he had lighted upon in his second visit for the jist time, and would on his
third visit encounter a second time. But in this view precisely all those evils
and sins would be left out of account, which had on/y come into prominence
after his second visit ; for as regards these, because he was only to become
acquainted with them for the jirst time at his third visit, he would only
pass as one witness. Consequently this explanation, Pauline though it looks,
is inappropriate ; nor is the difficulty got over by the admission that the
relations in question are not to be dealt with too exactly (Osiander), as, in-
deed, the objection, that the threat is directed against the προημαρτηκότες,
avails nothing on the correct view of xii. 21, and the continued validity of
the legal ordinance itself (it holds, in fact, even at the present day in the
common law) should not after 1 Tim. v. 10 have been doubted. Nor does
the refining of Hofmann dispose of the matter. He thinks, forsooth, that
besides the προημαρτηκότες, all the rest also, whom such a threat may con-
cern, are now twice warned, orally (at the second visit of the apostle) and in
writing (by this letter), and his arrival will be to them the third and last ad-
monition to reflect. This is not appropriate either to the words (see on ver.
2) or to the necessary unity and equality of the idea of witnesses, with which,
in fact, Paul—and, moreover, in application of so solemn a passage of the
law—would have dealt very oddly, if not only he himself was to represent
the three witnesses, but one of them was even to be his /etter. — καὶ] not in
the sense of 7, as, following the Vulgate, many earlier and modern exposi-
tors (including Flatt and Emmerling) would take it, but : and, if, namely,
there are so many.’ Paul might have put 7, as in Matt. xviii. 16, but, fol-
lowing the LXX., he has thought on and, and therefore put it. —rav ῥῆμα]
everything that comes to be spoken of, to be discussed. Comp. on Matt.
iv. 4. ---- σταθήσεται] will be established (D3P"), namely, for judicial decision.
This is more in keeping with the original text than (comp. on Matt. xxvi.
25) : will be weighed (Ewald).
Ver. 2. Ὡς παρὼν... νῦν is not to be put in a parenthesis, since it isa
definition to προλέγω, which interrupts neither the construction nor the sense.
1 have said before, and say beforehand, as at my second visit (‘‘ sicut feci, cum
secundo vobiscum essem,” Er. Schmid), so also in my present absence, to those
who have formerly sinned, and to all the rest, that, when I shall have come again,
Iwill not spare. Accordingly ὡς παρὼν τὸ δεύτερον leaves no doubt as to the
tum res agetur. Quisquis delatus fuerit, is pression ‘zwei bis drei.” Comp. Xen.
duorum aut trium hominum testimonio vel Anab. iv. 7. 10: δύο καὶ τρία βήματα. See
absolvetur vel damnabitur.”’ Kriiger and Kiihner in loc. In this case
1 Τί corresponds quite to the German ex- καί is atque, not also (Hofmann).
702 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
temporal reference of προείρηκα. Moreover, from ver. 2 alone the presence of
the apostle, which had already ¢aice taken place, could not be proved. For,
if we knew that he had been only once, προείρηκα would certainly refer to the
first epistle, and ὡς παρὼν x«.7.A. would have to be explained : as if I were
present for the second time, although I am now absent (comp. Grotius, Estius,
Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Baur, and others).* But, as it is clear from
other passages that Paul had already been twice in Corinth, and as here in
particular τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι immediately goes before, that view, in which
also the viv would simply be superfluous and cumbrous, is impossible.
Beza, who is followed by Zachariae and Miircker, connects awkwardly (see-
ing that τὸ δεύτερον and viv must correspond to each other) τὸ δεύτερον with
προλέγω. Hofmann also misses the correct view, when he makes ὡς serve
merely to annex the quality (‘‘as one having been there a second time, and
now absent’’), in which the apostle has said and says beforehand. In this
way ὡς would be the quippe qui from the conception of the speaker, as in 1
Cor. vii. 25, and παρών would be imperfect. The two clauses of the sentence,
however, contain in fact not qualities subjectively conceived, but two objec-
tive relations of time ; and hence ὡς, if it is to have the sense given above,
would simply be irrelevant (comp. 1 Cor. v. 3a; 2 Cor. x. 11; Phil. i. 27)
and confusing. Paul would have simply written : προείρηκα παρὼν τὸ δεύτερον
καὶ προλέγω ἀπὼν viv. — τοῖς προημαρτηκόσι] See on xii. 21. It is self-evident,
we may add, that the πρὸ in προημαρτ. has from the standpoint of the zpo-
λέγω ἃ greater period of the past behind it than from the standpoint of the
προείρηκα, and that the προημαρτηκότες, whom the present προλέγω threatens,
were more, and in part other, than those to whom at the second visit the
προείρηκα had applied. The category, however, is the same ; and hence it is
not to be said, with Liicke, that from our passage it is clear : ‘‘quibus nunc,
tanquam προημαρτηκόσι, Severiorem castigationem minatur apostolus, eosdem
jam tune, quum olim (προείρηκα) minitatus esset, προημαρτηκότας Suisse.” Paul
had at his second presence threatened the προημαρτηκότες, and he threatens
them also now. On the two occasions the threat referred to the same
genus hominum, to those who had sinned before the time at which Paul
discoursed to the Corinthians, and were still sinners ; but the individuals
were not on the two occasions quite the same. Certainly at least there
were now ( προλέγω) not a few among them, who had not been included on
the previous occasion (see 1 Cor. i. 11, v. 1, comp. with 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21).
— καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν] Thus τοῖς μὴ προημαρτηκόσι. To these he then said it
1 To this category belongs also the strange
view of Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 208:
‘* This is the second time that I am present
among you and yet absent at the same
time.’ Paul, namely, had, in Lange's view,
the spirit-like gift of transplanting himself
with the full spiritual power of his author-
ity during his absence into the midst of the
distant church, which had doubtless felt
the thunderciap of his spiritual appearing.
In Corintk this had taken place the first
time at the exclusion of the incestuous per-
son, 1 Cor. v. 8, and the second time now.
Of such fancies and spiritualistie notions
there is nowhere found any trace in the
apostle. And what are we to make in that
case of the viv? The only correct view of
this νῦν and its relation to τὸ δεύτερον is al-
ready given by Chrysostom: παρεγενόμην
δεύτερον καὶ εἶπον, λέγω δὲ καὶ νῦν διὰ τῆς
ἐπιστολῆς, ἀνάγκη με λοιπὸν ἀληθεῦσαι. Comp,
also ver. 10.
CHAP) KIT.) ὃ. ETS
before, and he says it so now, by way of warning, of deterring. It is the
entire remaining members of the church that are meant, and Paul mentions
them, not as witnesses, but in order that they make the threatening serve
according to the respective requirements of their moral condition to stimu-
late reflection and discipline ; hence τοῖς λοιποῖς, even according to our view
of προημαρτ., is not without suitable meaning (in opposition to de Wette).
-- εἰς τὸ πάλιν] On the πάλεν used substantivally, see Bernhardy, p. 328, and
on εἰς in the specification of aterm of time, Matthiae, p. 1345. Comp. εἰς
αὖθις, εἰς ὀψέ, ἐς τέλος, and the like. — οὐ φείσομαι) Thereasons why Paul spared
them in his second, certainly but very short, visit, are as little known to us,
as the reason why Luke, who has in fact passed over so much, has made no
mention of this second visit in the Book of Acts.
Ver. 3. I will not spare you ; for ye in fact will not have it otherwise !
Ye challenge, in fact, by your demeanour, an experimental proof of the
Christ that speaks in me. Thus ἐπεί, before which we are to conceive a
pause, annexes the cause serving as motive of the οὐ φείσομαι, that was under
the prevailing circumstances at work. Emmerling begins a protasis with
ἐπει, parenthesizes ὃς εἰς ὑμᾶς «.t.A., and the whole fourth verse, and regards
ἑαυτοὺς πειράζετε in ver. 5 as apodosis. So, too, Lachmann, Olshausen,
Ewald, who, however, treat as a parenthesis merely ver. 4. This division
as a whole would not yield as its result any illogical connection, for, because
the readers wish to put Christ to the proof, it was the more advisable for
them to prove themselves. But the passage is rendered, quite unnecessarily,
more complicated and cumbrous. — érei δοκιμὴν ζητεῖτε κ.τ.}.1 That is, since
you make it your aim that the Christ speaking in me shall verify Himself,
shall give you a proof of Hisjudicial working. To take τοῦ... Χριστοῦ as
genitive of the subject (comp. ix. 13; Phil. ii. 22) better suits the following
ὃς καὶ ὑμᾶς κ.τ.λ., than the objective rendering (Billroth and Riickert, follow-
ing older expositors) : a proof of the fact that Christ speaks in me. — ὃς εἰς
ὑμᾶς οὐκ ἀσθενεῖ K.7.A.| who in reference to you is not impotent, but mighty among
you. By this the readers are made to feel how critical and dangerous is
their challenge of Christ practically implied in the evil circumstances of
the church (xii. 20 f.), for the Christ speaking in the apostle is not weak
towards them, but provided with power and authority among them, as they
would feel, if He should give them a practical attestation of Himself. A
special reference of δυνατεῖ ἐν wiv to the miracles, spiritual gifts, and the
like, such as Erasmus, Grotius,’ Fritzsche,” de Wette, and others assume, is
not implied in the connection (see especially ver. 4) ; and just as little a
retrospective reference to x. 10 (Hofmann). — Of the use of the verb duvareiv
no examples from other writers are found, common as was ἀδυνατεῖν. Its
use in this particular place by Paul was involuntarily suggested to him by
1Grotius: ‘Non opus habetis ejus τοὶ religionis impedimenta tollendo, ecclesiam
periculum facere, cum jampridem Christus moderando, ipse vobis se fortem ostendit.”
per me apud vos ingentia dederit potentiae This emphatic ipse is imported,—which
suae signa.”’ arose out of Fritzsche’s regarding the apostle,
2 Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 141: ‘‘ qui Christus not Christ, as the subject of δοκιμήν,
χαρίσματα largiendo, miracula regundo,
104 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the similar sound of the opposite ἀσθενεῖ. Yet he has it also in Rom. xiv. 4;
as regards 2 Cor. ix. 8, see the critical remarks on that passage. — ἐν ὑμῖν]
not of the internal indwelling and pervading (Hofmann), which is at variance
with the context, since the latter has the penal retribution as its main point ;
but the Christ speaking in Paul has the power of asserting Himself de facto
as the vindex of His word and work in the church, so far as it is disobedient
to Him and impenitent.
Ver. 4. Kai yap éoraup. ἐξ ἀσθ., ἀλλὰ ζῇ ἐκ δυνάμ. θεοῦ] Reason assigned for
the previous ὃς εἰς ὑμᾶς οὐκ ἀσθενεῖ, ἀλλὰ δυνατεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν : for even crucified was
He from weakness, but Heis living from the power of God.’ Without μέν after
ἐσταυρ. the contrast comes in with the more striking effect. ἐξ ἀσθενείας de-
notes the causal origin of the ἐσταυρώθη, and is not, with Chrysostom (who
complains of the difficulty of this passage), to be interpreted of apparent
weakness, but finds its explanation in viii. 9; Phil. ii. 7f. Jesus, namely,
had, in the state of His exinanition and humiliation, obedient to the Father,
entered in such wise into the condition of powerless endurance as man,
that He yielded to the violence of the most ignominious execution, to
which He had, according to the Father’s will, submitted Himself ; and
accordingly it came ἐξ ἀσθενείας, that He was crucified. But since His resur-
rection He lives (Rom. v. 10, vi. 9, xiv. 9, al.), and that from the power of
God, for God has, by His power, raised Him up (see on Rom. vi. 4) and
exalted Him to glory (Acts ii. 33; Eph. i. 20 ff.; Phil. ii. 9). To make
the θεοῦ refer to ἀσθενείας also (Hofmann, who inappropriately compares 1
Cor. i. 25) would yield a thought quite abnormal and impossible for the
apostle, which the very οὐκ ἀσθενεῖ, ver. 3, ought to have precluded. — καὶ yap
ἡμεῖς k.T.A.| Confirmation of the immediately preceding καὶ yap . . . θεοῦ,
and that in respect of the two points ἐξ ἀσθενείας and ζῇ ἐκ δυνάμεως ϑεοῦ.
‘‘That the case stands so with Christ as has just been said, is confirmed
from the fact, that these two relations, on the one hand of weakness, and
on the other of being alive ἐκ δυνάμ. ϑεοῦ, are found also in us in virtue of
our fellowship with Him. It is an argumentum ab effectu ad causam issuing
from the lofty sense of this fellowship, a bold certainty derived from experi-
ence, the argumentative stress of which, contained in ἐν αὐτῷ and σὺν αὐτῷ,
1The Recepta καὶ yap εἰ éoravp. would roneously takes the Recepta in such a way,
yield the quite unsuitable sense: for even
if, i.e. even in the event that, He has been
crucified, ete. Kai εἰ should not, with the
Vulgate and the majority of expositors, be
taken as although, for in that case it would
be confounded with εἰ καί. Καὶ εἰ means
even if, so that the climactic καί applies to
the conditional particle. See Hartung, I.
p. 140 f.; Haack. ad Thuc. p. 562 f.; Stall-
baum, ad Plat. Ap. S. p. 32 A, Gorg. p. 509
A. De Wette wrongly rejects my view of
the Recepia, making καὶ yap signify merely
for. It always means for even. See Har-
tung, I. p. 148; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg.
p. 467 B. So, too, immediately in the καὶ
yap ἡμεῖς that follows. Hofmann quite er-
that Paul with καὶ εἰ merely expresses a
real fact conditionally on account of his
wishing to keep open the possibility of looking
at it also otherwise. In that case ἐξ ἀσθενείας
would really be the point of consequence
in the protasis, and the apostle must at
least have written καὶ yap εἰ ἐξ ἀσϑενείας
ἐσταυρώϑη. Besides, the leaving open a pos-
sible other way of regarding the matter
would have no ground at allin the text. A
mistaken view is adopted also by Osiander,
who has taken καί as the also of comparison,
namely, of Christ with His servant (conse-
quently, as if καὶ yap αὐτός had stood in the
text).
CHAP. XIII., 5. . 705
bears the triumphant character of strength in weakness. Hofmann wrongly,
in opposition to the clear and simple connection, desires to take καὶ yap ἡμεῖς
ao. ἐν αὐτῷ, which he separates from the following ἀλλὰ κ.τ.1., as a proof
for the clause ὃς εἰς ὑμᾶς οὐκ ἀσθενεῖ, ἀλλὰ δυνατεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, for which reason he
imports into ἐν αὐτῷ the contrast : not ὦ weakness of the natural man. This
contrast, although in substance of itself correct, is not here, any more than
afterwards in σὺν αὐτῷ, intentionally present to the mind of the apostle. —
ἀσθενοῦμεν ἐν αὐτῷ] Paul represents his sparing hitherto observed towards the
Corinthians (for it is quite at variance with the context to refer ἀσϑ., with
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, Estius, and others, to suffer-
ings and persecutions) as a powerlessness based on his fellowship with Christ,
inasmuch as Christ also had been weak and ἐσταυρώϑη ἐξ aodeveiac.' But
that is only a transient powerlessness ; we shall be alive with Him through the
power of God in reference to you. (17 As heis conscious, namely, of that im-
potence as having its ground in Christ, he is conscious also of this being
alive in union with Christ as fellowship with His life (civ αὐτῷ), and hence
proceeding ἐκ δυνάμεως ϑεοῦ, as Christ’s being alive also flowed from this
source, Rom. i. 4, vi. 4, al. — Ἐἰς ὑμᾶς, lastly, gives to the ζήσομεν (which is
not, with Theodoret, Anselm, and Grotius, to be referred to the future life)
its concrete direction and special reference of its meaning :? we shall be alive
(vigere, comp. 1 Thess. iii. 8) in reference to you, namely, through the effec-
tive assertion of the power divinely conferred on us, especially through
apostolic judging and punishing (see vv. 1, 3). ‘‘ Non est vivere, sed valere
vita,” Martial, vi. 70. Comp. for the pregnant reference of ζῶ, Xen. Mem.
ili. 8. 11; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 809 D; Dio Cass. lxix. 19. Calvin well
observes : ‘‘ Vitam opponit infirmitati, ideoque hoc nomine jflorentem et
plenum dignitatis statum intelligit.”
Ver. 5. Now he brings the readers to themselves. Instead of wishing to
put to the proof Christ (in Paul), they should try themselves (πειράζειν, to put
to the test, and that by comparison of their Christian state with what they
ought to be), prove themselves (δοκιμάζειν). Oecumenius and Theophylact
correctly estimate the force of the twice emphatically prefixed ἑαυτούς ; δοκι-
uate, however, is not, any more than in 1 Cor. xi. 8, equivalent to δόκιμον
ποιεῖν (Rickert); but what Paul had previously said by zrecpafere, εἰ ἐστὲ ἐν τ.
z., he once more sums up, and that with a glance back to ver. 3, emphati-
cally by the one word δοκιμάζετε. --- εἰ ἐστὲ ἐν τῇ πίστει] dependent on πειράζετε,
not on δοκιμάζετε : whether ye are in the faith, whether ye find yourselves in
the jides salvifica (not to be taken of faith in miracles, as Chrysostom would
have it), which is the fundamental condition of all Christian character and
life. The εἶναι ἐν τῇ πίστει stands opposed to mere nominal Christianity. —
i) οὐκ ἐπιγινώσκετε k.T.A.| ποῦ ground of the obligation to prove themselves the
more strictly (‘‘si id sentitis, bene tractate tantum hospitem,” Grotius,
1 This impotence is not to be conceived as __ est resignation and self-surrender, and this
involuntary (de Wette, following Schwarz was its very characteristic. Comp. Heb.
in Wolf), but as voluntary (comp. ov deigo- xii. 2.
μαι, ver. 2), as Christ’s weakness also was 2 Hence εἰς ὑμᾶς is not, with Castalio and
voluntary, namely, the impotence of deep- Riickert, to be joined to δυνάμ. ϑεοῦ.
706 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
comp. Osiander, Maier, and others) ; for the ἐπιγινώσκειν already presup-
poses the self-trial, not the converse (Hofmann), On the contrary, Paul
lays hold of the readers by their Christian sense of honowr, that they should
not be afraid of this trial of themselves. Or does not this proving of your-
selves lead you to the knowledge of yourselves, that Christ isin you ? (37)
Are you then so totally devoid of the Christian character, that that self-trial
has not the holy result of your discerning in yourselves what is withal the
necessary consequence ' of the εἶναι ἐν τῇ πίστει : that Christ is in you (by
means of the Holy Spirit) present and active ? Comp.’ Gal. ii. 20 ; Eph.
iii. 17. The construction ἑαυτοὺς ὅτε I. X. ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν is not a case of at-
traction, since in ὅτι κ.τ.λ., ὑμεῖς is not the subject (see on Gal. iv. 11), but
ὅτι defines more precisely (that, namely). And the full name ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός
has solemn emphasis. — εἰ μήτε ἀδόκιμοί ἐστε] After this a mark of interroga-
tion is not to be repeated, but a period to be placed. That Christ is in you,
you will perceive, if you are not perchance (εἰ μήτε, comp. 1 Cor. vil. 5) spu-
rious Christians. (k’) In such, no doubt, Christ is not! Rom. viii. 9 f.
To attach it merely to the predicated clause itself (I. X. ἐν iu. é.) as a limi-
tation (Hofmann), is at variance with the very γνώσεσϑε, ὅτι that follows in
ver. 6, in keeping with which that exception εἰ μήτι «.r.2. is to be included
under the ὅτι «.7.4. attached to ἐπιγινώσκ. ἑαυτούς. In εἰ μήτε the tu serves
(like forte) ‘‘incertius pronuntiandae rei,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 496.
According to Ewald, εἰ μήτι ad. ἐστε depends on δοκιμάζετε, and ἢ οὐ ἐπιγινώσκ.
. ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν is to be a parenthesis—a construction which is harsh and
the less: necessary, seeing that, according to the usual connection, the
thoughtful glance in the ἀδόκειμοί ἐστε back to ἑαυτοὺς δοκιμάζετε is retained.
Ver..6. The case of the ἀδόκιμον εἶναι, however, which he has just laid
down as possible perhaps in respect of the readers, shall not, he hopes, oc-
cur with him: you shall discern (in pursuance of experience) that we are
not unattested, ungenuine, that is, ‘‘ non deesse nobis experimenta et argumenta
potestatis et virtutis, qua in refractarios uti possimus,” Wolf. Comp. vv. 7,
9. Not without bitterness is this said. But the object of the hoping is
not the desert of punishment on the part of the readers, but the δοκιμή of the
apostolic authority in the event of their deserving punishment. ᾿Απειλητικῶς
τοῦτο τέϑεικεν, OC μέλλων αὐτοῖς THE πνευματικῆς δυνάμεως παρέχειν ἀπόδειξιν, Theo-
doret. According to others (Beza, Calvin, Balduin, Calovius, Bengel),
Paul expresses the hope that they would amend themselves and thereby
evince the power of his apostolic influence. This, as the blending of the
two views (Flatt, Osiander), is opposed to the context in vv. 3 f., 7, 9.
Not till ver. 7 does Paul turn to the expression of gentle, pious love.
Ver. 7. Yet we pray to God that this, my apostolic attestation, which I hope
to give you means of discerning, may not be made necessary on your part.
On εὐχόμεϑα (see the critical remarks), compared with the ἐλπίζω used just
before, observe that, as often in Paul and especially in this Epistle of vivid
emotion, the interchange of the singular and the plural forms of expressing
1 The εἶναι ἐν τ. πίστει and the Χριστὸς ἐν each other as cause and effect. Comp.
ὑμῖν are not equivalent, but are related to Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 348.
OMAP) SITE 07: 407
himself has by no means always special grounds by which it is determined.
— μὴ ποιῆσαι ὑμᾶς κακὸν μηδέν] that ye may do nothing evil, which, in fact,
would only keep up and increase your guilt. Others incorrectly take it,’
‘‘that I be not compelled to do something evil to you.” How could Paul
have so designated his chastisement ? For that ποιεῖν κακόν stands here, not
in the sense : to do something to one’s harm, but in the ethical sense, is shown
by the contrast τὸ καλὸν ποιῆτε in what follows. But even apart from this,
in fact, because εὐχόμεϑα receives through πρὸς τὸν ϑεόν (comp. Xen. Mem.
i. 3. 2; 2 Mace. ix. 13, xv. 27; Num. xxi. 8, al.) the meaning we pray, the
words, in the event of ποιῆσαι ὑμᾶς not being held to be accusative with in-
finitive, would have to be explained: to pray to God that He may do
nothing evil to you—which would be absurd. But the accusative with the
infinitive occurs as in Acts xxvi. 19. —ovy ἵνα ἡμεῖς x.t.A.| Statement of the
object, for which he makes this entreaty to God, first negatively and then
positively ; not in a selfish design, not in order that we may appear through
your moral conduct as attested) in so far, namely, as the excellence of the
disciple is the attestation of the teacher, comp. iii. 2 f., Phil. iv. 1, 1 Thess.
li. 20, al.), but on your account, in order that ye may do what is good, and
thus the attestation may be on your side and we may be as unattested, in so
far, namely, as we cannot in that case show ourselves in our apostolic
authority (by sternness and execution of punishment). That he should
with δόκιμοι and ἀδόκιμοι refer to two different modes of his δοκιμή, is quite a
Pauline trait. Through the moral walk of the readers he was manifested
on the one hand as δόκιμος, on the other as ἀδόκιμος ; what he intended in
his εὐχόμεϑα πρὸς τὸν ϑεόν κ.τ.. was not the former, for it was not about
himself that he was concerned, but the latter, because it was simply the
attestation of the readers by the ποιεῖν τὸ καλόν that he had at heart.
According to Olshausen, there is meant to be conveyed in οὐχ iva ἡμεις δόκ.
φανῶμ. : not in order that the fulfilment of this prayer may appear as an effect
of my powerful intercession. But Paul must have said this, if he had meant
it. Others® hold that after οὐχ there is to be supplied εὔχομαι, or the idea of
wish implied in it, and iva expresses its contents; ‘‘I do not wish that I
should show myself as standing the test (that is, stern), but rather that ye
may do what is good and I be as not standing the test (that is, may appear
not standing the test, and so not stern),” Billroth. Certainly the contents
of εὔχεσϑαι might be conceived as its aim, and hence be expressed by iva
(Jas. v. 16; Col. i. 9; 2 Thess. i. 11); but in this particular case the
previous infinitive construction, expressing the contents of the prayer,
teaches us that Paul has not so conceived it. Had he conceived it so,
he would have simply led the readers astray by iva. The explanation
is forced, and simply for the reason that the fine point of a double aspect of
1 50 Billroth, Ewald, Hofmann, and pre- 12. Elsewhere always in the N. T. ποιεῖν
viously Flatt and Emmerling, asin the first τινί τι.
instance Grotius, who says: ‘‘Ne cogar 2 So Billroth and Osiander and others, as
cuiquam poenam infligere, quae malum well as previously Flatt, Zachariae, Estius,
dicitur, quia dura est toleratu.”” On ποιεῖν Menochius, αἰ.
τινά τι, Comp. Matt. xxvii. 22; Mark xv.
708 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the δοκιμή was not appreciated. From this point of view Paul might have
said in a connection like vi. 8 f.: ὡς ἀδόκιμοι καὶ δόκιμοι. ---- ὡς ἀδόκιμοι] Beza
aptly says : hominum videlicet judicio. By way of appearance. Comp. al-
ready Chrysostom.
Ver. 8. Reason assigned for the relation just expressed as aimed at by iva
ὑμεὶς τὸ καλὸν ποιῆτε, ἡμεῖς δὲ ὡς ἀδόκιμοι ὦμεν. That we really have this design,
is based on the fact that we are not in a position to do anything against the
truth, but for the truth. The ἀλήϑεια is to be taken in the habitual sense
of the N. T.: the truth κατ ἐξοχήν, the divine truth, i.e. the gospel ; comp.
iv. 2, vi. 7. If Paul, forsooth, had not had the design that the readers
should do what is good, and he himself appear without punitive power and
consequently as unattested, he would have counteracted the gospel, in so far
as it aims at establishing Christian morality, requires penitence, announces
forgiveness to the penitent, etc. ; but he is not in a position to do so (1,7)
To take ἀλήϑεια, with Flatt and older expositors,’ as moral truth (see on
1 Cor. v. 8), wprightness, is a limitation of it, which the context all the less
suggests, seeing that ἀλήϑεια in the above sense embraces in it the moral
element. The taking it in the judicial sense would be accordant with the
context (iva ἀληϑῆ φέρωμεν τὴν ψῆφον, Theophylact, so Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Grotius : ‘‘ quod rectum justumque est ;” Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Bengel, de
Wette: ‘‘the true state in which the matter finds itself ;” so, too, Riibiger) ;
yet, in that case, there would result an inappropriate contrast, since ὑπὲρ. τ.
aa. can only mean ‘‘for the benefit of the truth,” which presupposes a more
comprehensive idea of ἀλήϑ. (de Wette : “το further the truth”). —aav
ὑπὲρ τ. ἀλ.] 86. δυνάμεϑά τι, we are able to do something.
Ver. 9. Not reason assigned for ver. 7 (Hofmann), but confirmation of
what is said in ver. 8 from the subjective relation of the apostle to the
readers, in which χαίρομεν has the emphasis. This joy is as the living seal
of the heart to that axiom. — ἀσϑενῶμεν] according to the connection, quite
the same as ἀδόκιμοι ὦμεν in ver. 7, of the state in which the apostle is not in
ἃ position to exercise punitive authority on account of the Christian conduct
of his readers. Comp. ver. 4. — δυνατοί] correlative to the ἀσϑενῶμεν, con-
sequently: such as (on account of their Christian excellence) one can do noth-
ing to with the power of punishment. The latter is powerless in presence of
such a moral disposition. The context does not yield more than this con-
trast ; even the thought, that the δυνατοί guard themselves against all that
would call forth the punitive authority (Hofmann), is here foreign to it. —
τοῦτο καὶ εὐχόμεϑα] this, namely, that ye may be strong, we also pray ; it is
not merely the object of our joy, but also of our prayers. On the absolute
εὔχεσϑαι used of praying (for after ver. 7 it is not here merely wishing), comp.
Jas. v. 16 ; often in classic writers. There is no reason for taking the τοῦτο
adverbially ; thereupon, on that account (Ewald). — τὴν ὑμῶν κατάρτισιν) epexe-
gesis of τοῦτο : namely, your full preparation, complete furnishing, perfec-
tion in Christian morality. Comp. καταρτισμός, Eph. iv. 12. Beza and
1So Photius in Oecumenius, p. 709 D: ‘* Innocentiae enim nostra sententia obesse
ἀλήϑειαν τὴν εὐσέβειαν καλεῖ ὡς νόϑου ὄντος non poterit ;’ as also Erasmus, Mosheim,
τοῦ δυσσεβοῦς βίου, and previously Pelagius : and others.
CHAP) kre F071 HOD
Bengel think of the readjustment of the members of the body of the church
that had been dislocated by the disputes (see on 1 Cor. i. 10, and Kypke,
II. p. 290)—a special reference, which is not suggested in the context.
See ver. 7.
Ver. 10. This, namely, that I wish to have you δυνατούς or κατηρτισμένους
and pray accordingly, this is the reason why 1 write this when absent, in order
not to proceed sharply when present, etc. He wishes that he may be spared
from the οὐ φείσομαὶ threatened in ver. 2, and that he may see the earnest
anxiety, which he had already expressed at xii. 20 f., dispelled. In virtue
of this view of its practical bearing, ταῦτα is to be referred, not to the whole
Epistle, but (comp. Osiander and Hofmann) to the current section from xii.
20 onward. — ἀποτόμως] literally, cwrtly,—that is, with thoroughgoing stern-
ness,—the same figurative conception as in our schroff, scharf [English,
sharply]. Inthe N. T, only recurring at Tit.i.13. Comp. Wisd. v. 22, and
Grimm in loc. ; ἀποτομία, Rom. xi. 39. More frequently in classical writers.
See, in general, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 508; Hermann, ad Soph. O. R.
877. — On χράομαι without dative, with adverb, to deal with, comp. Esth. i.
19, ix. 27, ix. 12 ; 2 Macc. xii. 14 ; Polyb. xii. 7. 3. — ἣν ὁ Κύριος ἔδωκέ μοι
εὶς οἰκοῦ, k.T.A.] contains a reason why he might not proceed ἀποτόμως, as
thereby he could not but act at variance with the destined purpose for which
Christ had given to him his apostolic authority, or at least could serve it
only indirectly (in the way of sharp chastening with a view to amendment).
Comp. x. 8. If we connect the whole κατὰ τ. ἐξουσίαν x.t.2. with γράφω (Hof-
mann), the iva παρὼν μὴ ἀποτόμ. χρήσωμαι 15 made merely a parenthetic thought,
which is not in keeping with its importance according to the context (ver.
7 ff.), and is forbidden by the emphasized correspondence of ἀπών and παρών
(comp. ver. 2). This emphasis is all the stronger, seeing that ἀπών in itself
would be quite superfluous.
Ver. 11. Closing exhortation. Bengel aptly observes : ‘‘ Severius scrip-
serat Paulus in tractatione, nunc benignius, re tamen ipsa non dimissa.’? —
λοιπόν] See on Eph. vi. 10. What I otherwise have still to impress on you
is, etc. : ‘‘Verbum est properantis sermonem absolvere,” Grotius. — χαί-
pete] not : valete (for the apostolic valete follows only at ver. 13), as Valla,
Erasmus, and Beza have it, but gaudete (Vulgate). Encouragement to
Christian joy of soul, Phil. iii. 1, iv. 4. And the salvation in Christ is great
enough to call upon even a church so much injured and reproached to re-
joice. Comp. i. 24. —xaraprifeote] let yourselves be brought right, put into
the right Christian frame ; τέλειοι γίνεσϑε, ἀναπληροῦτε τὰ λειπόμενα, Chrys-
ostom. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 10 ; and see Suicer, 7168. IL. p. 60. — παρακαλεῖσϑε]
is by most, including Billroth, Schrader, Osiander, correctly understood of
consolation ; become comforted over everything that assails and makes you to
need comfort, consolationem admittite! ἐπεὶ yap πολλοὶ ἧσαν οἱ πειρασμοὶ Kai
μεγάλοι οἱ κίνδυνοι, Chrysostom. Riickert no doubt thinks that there was
nothing to be comforted ; but the summons has, just like what was said at
i. 7, its good warrant, since at that time every church was placed in circum-
stances needing comfort. Riickert’s own explanation : care for your spirit-
ual elevation, is an arbitrary extension of the definite sense of the word to an
710 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
indefinite domain. Others, following the Vulgate (exhortamini), such as
Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Ewald, Hofmann, render : accept exhortations to what is
good, which, however, in the connection is too vague and insipid ; while de
Wette, following Pelagius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, and others (exhort ye one
another), imports an essential element, which Paul would have expressed by
παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους (1 Thess. iv. 18, v. 11) or ἑαυτούς (Heb. iii. 18). — τὸ αὐτὸ
φρονεῖτε! demands the being harmonious as identity of sentiment. See on
Phil. 11. 2.— εἰρηνεύετε] have peace (one with another), Rom. xii. 18 ; 1 Thess.
v. 13; Mark ix. 50 ; Plat. Theaet. p. 180 A ; Polyb. v. 8. 7 ; Ecclus. xxviii.
9,13. Itis the happy consequence of the τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ; with the diya
φρονεῖν it could not take place. — καὶ ὁ ϑεὸς x.t.A.] This encouraging promise
refers, as is clear from τῆς ἀγάπης καὶ εἰρήνης, merely to the two last points
especially needful in Corinth—to the harmony and the keeping of peace ;
hence a colon is to be put after παρακαλεῖσϑες. And then, if ye do that (kai,
with future after imperatives, see Winer, p. 293 [E. T. 392]), will God, who
works the love and the peace (Rom. xv. 13, xvi. 20; Phil. iv. 9 ; 1 Thess.
v. 23; Heb. xiii. 20), help you with His presence of grace. The charac-
teristic genitival definition of God is argumentative, exhibiting the certainty
of the promise as based on the moral nature of God. (μ7)
Ver. 12, 18. As to the saluting by the holy kiss, see on 1 Cor. xvi. 20. — oi
ἅγιοι πάντες] namely, at the place and in the vicinity, where Paul was writing,
in Macedonia. It was obvious of itself to the readers that they were not
saluted by all Christians generally (Theodoret). It by no means follows from
this salutation that the Epistle had been publicly read at the place of its com-
position (possibly Philippi) in the church (Calovius, Osiander), but simply
that they knew of the composition of the Epistle. Nor is any special set
purpose to be sought as underlying the current designation of Christian ἅγιοι
(‘‘utpote sanguine Christi lotos et Dei Spiritu regenitos et sanctificatos,”’
Calovius). According to Osiander, the higher value and blessing of the
brotherly greeting is meant to be indicated ; but comp. 1 Cor. xv. 20, οἱ
ἀδελφοὶ πάντες. --- Paul does not add salutations to individuals by name ; these
Titus might orally convey, and the apostle himself came, in fact, soon
after (Acts xx. 2).
Ver. 14. Concluding wish of blessing—whether written by his own hand
(Hofmann) is an open question—full and solemn as in no other Epistle,
tripartite in accordance with the divine Trinity,’ from which the three
highest blessings of eternal salvation come to believers. — The grace of Christ
(comp. Rom. v. 15, i. 7; 1 Cor. 1. 3; 2 Cor. i. 2, viii. 9 ; Gal. vi. 18 ; Eph.
i. 2; Phil. 1. 2; 2 Thess. i. 2; Philem. 25), which iscontinuously active in
favour of His own (Rom. viii. 84 ; 2 Cor. xii. 8), is first adduced, because
it is the medians, Rom. v. 1, viii. 34, between believers and the love of God,
that causa principalis of the grace of Christ (Rom. v. 8), as it also forms the
presupposition of the efficacy of the Spirit, Rom. viii. 1, 2. The fellowship
of the Holy Spirit—that is, the participation in the gracious efficacy of the
1 On the old liturgical use of this formula of blessing, see Constit. apost. viii. 5. 5, viii.
12. 3.
. ee ᾿’'' ..
NOTES. VAL
Holy Spirit —is named last, because it is the consequence of the two former
(Rom. viii. 9 ; Gal. iv. 6), and continues (Rom. vii. 6, vill. 4 ff., 26 1.) and
brings to perfection (Rom. viii. 11 ; Gal. vi. 8) their work in men. — μετὰ
πάντων ὑμῶν] se. εἴη. Seal of holy apostolic love after so much severe cen-
sure, one thing for all. (Κ΄)
Notts By AMERICAN EDITorR.
(Εἴ) Paul's visits to Corinth. Ver. 1.
All the recent expositors save Stanley and Plumptre (in Ellicott’s Commentary)
agree that the language of this verse implies that the Apostle had already
visited Corinth twice. There is a good note on the subject by Dr. Poor in the
American edition of Lange.
Ver. 4.
This weakness is not a moral weakness, nor is it bodily infirmities or suffer-
ings, nor yet a weakness in the estimation of others, i.e., that he was despised.
It is antithetical to power, and as the power referred to was that of punish-
ment, the weakness must be the absence of such power. ‘‘The Apostle in
Christ, i.e., in virtue of his fellowship with Christ, was when in Corinth weak
and forbearing, as though he had no power to vindicate his authority ; just as
Christ was weak in the hands of His enemies when they led Him away to be
crucified. But as Christ’s weakness was voluntary, as there rested latent in
the suffering Lamb of God the resources of Almighty power ; so in the meek,
forbearing Apostle was the plenitude of supernatural power which he derived
from his ascended Master’’ (Hodge).
(1") ““ We also are weak in Him.”’
Ver. 5.
The exhortation, Hodge argues, supposes on one hand that faith is self-mani-
festing, that it reveals itself in consciousness and by its fruits; and on the
other, that it may exist and be genuine and yet not be known as true faith by
the believer himself. [The poet Cowper is a case in point.] Only what is
doubtful needs to be determined by examination.
(s') ‘* Prove your own selves.”’
Ver. 5.
The Revised Version retains the closing word here, putting it as an adjective
and not a noun. Of course it neither does nor can have the theological sense
(Εἴ) ‘* Except ye be reprobates.”’
1 Estius, Calovius, and Hammond under-
stand κοινωνία of the communicatio activa of
the Holy Spirit, which, doubtless, as τοῦ
πνευμ. ay. would be genitivus sudjecti, is in
accordance with the preceding clauses, and
not at variance with the linguistic usage of
κοινωνία in itseli (Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. pp.
81, 287), but is in opposition to the usage
throughout in the N. T. (see on Rom. xv.
26; 1 Cor. x. 16), and not in keeping with
passages like Phil. ii. 1; 1 Cor. i. 9; 2 Pet.
i. 4, passages which have as their basis
the habitually employed conception of the
participation in the divine, which takes
place in the case of the Christian. Hence
also not: familiaris consuetudo with the
Holy Spirit (Ch. F. Fritzsche, Opusc. p.
276). Theophylact well remarks: τὴν κοινω-
νίαν τοῦ aylov πνεύματος, τουτέστι τὴν MET O-
χὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μετάληψιν, Kad ἣν
ἁγιαζόμεϑα, τῇ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἐπιφοιτήσει τοῦ παρα-
κλήτου κοινωνοὶ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι καὶ αὐτοὶ, οὐκ
οὐσίᾳ, ἀλλὰ μεϑέξει ὄντες.
712 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
of ‘‘ one judicially abandoned to perdition,” but simply means those who can-
not stand the test and are disapproved.
(u") ** We can do nothing against the truth.” Ver. 8.
It follows from Dr. Meyer's just exposition of this utterance that Paul’s de-
cision, if against the truth, availed nothing before God. The doctrine of Rome,
that discipline is valid and effectual, even clave errante, is refuted by this text.
What the church binds on earth is bound in heaven only when it is in accord-
ance with the truth.
(m') The condition of peace. Ver. 11.
in reference to the two latter clauses of the verse, Hodge calls attention to
the ‘familiar Christian paradox.”’ God’s presence produces love and peace,
and we must have love and peace in order to have His presence. God gives,
but we inust cherish His gifts. His agency does not supersede ours, but min-
gles with it and becomes one with it in our consciousness. We work out our
own salvation while God works in us,
(N1) The comprehensive benediction. Ver. 14.
It is remarkable that an Epistle written under a tempest of conflicting emo-
tions and often breathing indignation, reproach, and sorrow, should close with
the richest of all the benedictions of the New Testament. The grace of the
Lord Jesus stands first, because it is by it, as Bengel says, that the love of God
reaches us. It is indeed the necessary condition of its manifestation, for we
are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. The love of God, again, is the
source of redemption. It is manifested in His sending his only-begotten into
the world, for God so loved the world that he gave, ete. The communion of
the Holy Ghost is not communion with Him, but participation in Him, the
holy fellowship mediated by His indwelling with the Father and with. the
Son, and with all that belong to the one mystical body of Christ.—The dis-
tinct personality and the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
being here plainly implied, the benediction is a clear recognition of the
Trinity, the fundamental doctrine of Christianity.
Ps
TOPICAL INDEX.
A.
Aaronic Blessing, 13.
Absolution, 269.
Abstinence, 189 seq. ;
good, 191 seq.
Achaia, 6; churches of, 11, 400 seq.,
416.
Adam, The first and the last, 379 seq.;
the fall of, 640 seq., 667.
Adiaphora, 190, 192, 193.
Admonition, 101.
Affliction, 417 seq., 436, 437, 419 seq. ;
a special, 420 seq. ; in ministerial
work, 494 seq., 505, 547 seq , 548
seq. ; compensations of, 503, 505,
507.
Agapae, 258, 259, 271, 328.
Aim of the Christian Life, 213 seq.,
216.
Amen, 323, 335, 433.
Anathema, Maranatha, 404 seq., 406.
Angels, 129 seq. ; the judging of, 145 ;
as guardians, 253 ; the language of,
301.
Aphrodite, worship of, 1.
Apollos, 2; his party, 19 seq., 84,
183 ; and the resurrection, 340; to
visit Corinth, 399.
Apostles, sent of God, 98 ; suffer pri-
vations, 99 seq.; married, 215;
witnesses of Christ’s resurrection,
344 seq.
Apostolic, greeting, 9, 13, 403 seq.,
416 seq. ; teaching, 26; benevolence,
394 seq.
Appearances, Regard for, 594, 598.
Aquila, 1.
Arbitration, 128, 131 seq.
Asceticism, 214, 260.
Atonement, The, 264 seq. ; faith in,
267 ; the central fact, 343 ; effect of,
522 ; its benefits. 529 seq., 542 seq. ;
the doctrine of, 539 seq., 543.
Avaricious, The, warned against, 120,
121.
for others’
B.
Baptism, and faith, 24; and Paul, 25
seq. ; delegated to assistants, 26 ;
effect of, 66; regeneration in, 135,
146 : of infants, 160, 179 ; the sym-
bols of, 219 seq., 242; in the Holy
Spirit, 289 ; for the dead, 364 seq.,
366 seq., 368, 392.
‘« Being saved,” 39 seq.
Benevolence, commended, 237, 242,
394 seq. ; exhibited, 578 seq., 597,
580 seq. ; exhortation to, 583 seq.,
601 seq. ; the divine measure of,
588 seq. ; equal and universal, 590
seq., 598; voluntary, 604 seq. ; bless-
ings of, 609 seq.
Benediction, The Triune, 710, 712.
Bible, The, its chief aim, 40 ; its spir-
itual interpretation, 56 seq
Blessing, Aaronic, 13.
Boasting, forbidden, 36, 81, 84 seq.,
commanded, 38; disapproved of,
627 seq. ; in God, 635 ; of Paul, 654
seq., 671 seq.
Body, The, 141 seq. ; a temple, 144
seq.; its membership, 291 seq. ;
divinely designed, 293 seq. ; nature
of its resurrection, 373 seq., 375 seq.,
377 seq., 393, 512 seq., 541; kinds
of, 378 seq., 383, 384, 507 seq. Σ΄
translation of, 520.
Brothers of Christ, 198 seq.
σ
Calvin, and the Lord’s Supper, 291
seq.
Canon, of the Bible, 125.
Catechism, Teachings of the, 61.
Celibacy, 150 seq., 152 seq., 154, 155
seq., 169 seq., 174 seq., 176 seq.,
178 seq., 180, 197.
Cephas, his party, 19 seq.; mentioned,
199 ; witmess of Christ’s resurrec-
tion, 343,
Change, A universal, 384 seq., 393.
Chloe, 18 seq.
Childhood condition, 306, 310; in
judgment and malice, 323 seq.
Christ Jesus, invocation of, 11; fel-
lowship with, 10, 13; imparts
knowledge, 13 seq.; his second
coming, 15, 16, 74, 84, 91, 355 seq. ;
a party of, 20 seq.; if divided, 24
seq. ; proclaimed, 31 seq. ; as the
Crucified, 32 seq., 391 ; our wisdom
and righteousness, 37 seq., 41; his
714
crucifixion, 50 ; his mind, 59 seq. ;
the foundation, 70 seq., 73 ; subor-
dinated, 83, 85 ; the paschal lamb,
116 ; His brothers, 198 seq. ; as the
Rock, 221, 222, 242; his Divinity,
243; the head, 246 seq.; confessing,
298; His resurrection, 342 seq.,
352 seq.; His final triumph, 359
seq., 361 seq. ; the glory of His res-
urrection body, 382 ; the author of
victory, 390 ; the life of believers,
497 seq. ; died for all, 529 seq., 542
seq. ; the righteousness of God,
539 seq. ; his humiliation, 584 seq.,
597 ; will triumph over all, 621.
Christian, The, possessing all, 81, 82,
84, 501; belonging to Christ, 84
seq. ; as God’s steward, 87 seq. ;
enduring privations, 96 seq. ; to be
purified, 115 seq., 124; to be holy,
117; to be a judge, 128 seq., 145 ;
of angels, 129 seq. ; forbidden to
litigate, 127 seq., 131 seq., 133 seq.;
to be self-master, 139 ; united with
Christ, 142; bought with a price,
168, 196 ; striving for the goal, 213;
his rule of conduct, 241 ; to imitate
Christ, 246; to seek after love,
300-312 ; to be raised first, 355
seq. ; the nature of his calling, 400 ;
a sweet savour to God, 453 seq. ; the
glory of, 480 seq., 482 seq.; his
power of life, 497 seq. ; their afflic-
tions and their glory, 503, 505, 548,
558 ; walking by faith, 503; striv-
ing to please God, 521 seq. ; a new
creature, 533 seq. ; a coworker with
God, 544 seq. ; his righteous con-
duct, 548 seq. ; his moral duty, 551
seq. ; the temple of God, 556, 558 ;
the riches of, 584 seq.
Christianity, The blessings of, 14 seq. ;
and nature, 272.
Christ-party, The, 83 seq. ; 150, 183.
Circumcision, 165.
Church, The, founded on Christ, 70
seq. ; its building materials, 72 ; the
abode of the Spirit, 78 seq. ; its
teachers, 84; its basis, 104 seq.,
106 ; its discipline, 111 seq., 124;
scandal in the, 115 ; to be purified,
115 seq., 124 ; united to Christ, 145;
as Christ’s body, 294 seq. ; govern-
ment in, 295 seq.; to be edified,
320, 321 seq. ; the temple of God,
624 seq.
Comfort, from God, 417 seq., 436, 439
seq., 502, 565 seq.
Collections, 395, 580 seq., 586 seq.,
593 seq., 600 seq.
Communion, 229 seq., 231 seq., 233
seq., 236 seq., 243.
TOPICAL INDEX.
Communism, 590 seq., 598, 612, 613.
Companionship with evil, 372 seq.
Conduct, Rule of, 241; righteous,
548 seq.
Confession, of sin, 269; of Christ,
297.
Confidence, desired, 561; secured, 574
seq., 576.
Conscience, 89 ; of the heathen, 188 ;
under temptation, 190 seq. ; vio-
lated, 191; treatment of, 191; in
eating sacrificial meats, 238, 239;
testimony of, 424 seq.
Contentiousness, reproved, 256 seq.,
272 seq., 692 seq., 698.
Continency, 154.
Conversion, 167, 528, 535.
Conviction, of the heart, 460, 483.
Corinth, The Church at,1; its un-
mixed character, 2; its divisions,
3 seq. ; receives Paul’s Epistles, 6 ;
its parties, 12 ; favored with gifts,
14 seq.; a testimony for Paul, 461
seq. ; Paul’s visit to, 700, 711.
Corinthians, Epistles to the, apocry-
phal, 4 seq.
Corinthians, First Epistle to the, 4 ;
occasion of writing, 5; aim and
contents, 5; to whom written, 6;
place and time of writing, 6, 118 ;
its genuineness, 6 seq.; its address,
11 seq.
Corinthians, Second Epistle to the,
409 ; occasion of writing, 410; aim,
411 ; contents, 411, 412; place of
writing, 412 seq. ; genuineness of,
413 ; unity of, 414.
Communicant, The worthy, 269, 273.
Covenant, 264 seq. ; the new and the
old, 464 seq., 466 seq., 483, 474 seq.,
484, 475 seq.
Covetousness, 603, 613.
Creation, Mosaic account of, 272.
Creatures of God, good, 238.
Crispus, 1 ; baptized by Paul, 25.
Cross of Christ, 27; preached, 31 seq.;
its influence with the Jews, 32.
Crucifixion of Christ, 50.
Culture, opposed to the Gospel, 2.
D.
Dancing, 223.
Dead, Raising the, 282, 338, 340, 348,
350, 352; 353, 354, 355. 5714: 9718.
383, 385, 386, 387, 391, 392, 393.
Death, through man, 353; universal,
353 seq.; the last enemy over-
come, 360 seq. ; done away with,
388 seq. ; a transition state, 374,
392 seq. ; the sentence of, 422, 437 ;
eternal, 466 ; no fear of, 516; ethi-
cal, universal, 529, 542.
TOPICAL
Decrees of God, 87.
Deceit, reproved, 652.
Defilement, 189.
Deliverance, promised, 226 seq. ; of
God, 422, 436 ; prayer for, 684.
Demons, or devils, 235 seq.
Dependence, Mutual, 290, 292.
Desertion, 161 seq., 179 seq.
Discernment, of Scripture, 56 seq.,
58 seq.
Discipline of the Spirit, 105 ; of the
Church, 111 seq., 121, 122, 124, 192,
445 seq., 456 ; unto edification, 709.
Discontent of Christians, 223 seq.
Discrepancy of Scripture, 223, 243.
Dissensions, reproved, 257 seq. ; uses |
of, 273.
Divorce, 109, 156 seq., 158 seq., 160
seq., 171 seq., 178, 179, 180.
Doctrines, Development of, 72.
Drunkard, The, warned against, 121.
E.
Earnestness, manifested, 601 seq.
Easter, 118.
Ebionitism, 23.
Eestasy, 672.
Edification, 320 ; by prayer, 321 seq.;
in discourse, 335 ; in all teaching,
329, 336, 691.
Elections, Church, 593.
Election, Divine, 34 seq., 185.
Encouragement, 517, 519.
End, The, of the Resurrection, 356 ;
of the world, 385 seq., 392, 511.
Endowment, 295.
Ephesus, 6, 398, 405.
Epicureanism, 149, 339 ; its immoral
maxims, 369 seq.
Epistle, A lost, 118 seq., 125.
Equality, Christian, 167.
Essenes, 22, 150.
Eve, The fall of, 640 seq., 667.
Evil Angels, 225, 253.
Eyil, The rights of, 137 seq. ; avoid-
ance of, 241 seq., 707; association
with, 372 seq. ; renounced, 487 seq.
Excommunication, 109 ; enforced, 111
seq., 113 seq., 124.
Exhortation, to steadfastness, 342, 390
seq., 391, 400, 405, 433 seq.
Expediency, Christian, 137 seq.; the
rule of, 191, 192 seq. ; its applica-
tion, 237.
F
Factions, The, 39, 123.
Faith, perseverance in, 16; and bap-
tism, 24 seq.; based on God’s power,
46 ; saving, 281 seq. ; without love,
302; and love, 308 seq., 310 seq.; de-
pendent on Christ’s resurrection, 349
INDEX. 715
seq. ; steadfastness in the, 342, 390,
391, 400, 405, 433 seq., 4388; the
spirit of, 498 ; in Christ’s salvation,
499 ; walking by, 518, 541 ; appro-
priating salvation, 535 ; increase of,
632 seq.
Faithfulness of God, 227 seq., 243,
431, 487.
Fasting, 547, 557.
Fatherhood, Spiritual, 218.
Fear of God, The, 560 seq., 575.
Feasts, Sacrificial, 182, 204, 227 seq.,
233 seq., 235 seq.
Fellowship, Christian, 159 seq., 229
seq., 231 seq., 401 seq., 403 seq.,
418 seq., 441 seq., 610 seq.
Fellowship, with Christ, 10, 13, 16,
142 ; in the Lord’s Supper, 229, 230
seq ; with unbelievers, 554 seq., 558;
with saints, 580 seq.
Fidelity, 88 ; decided by God, 89 seq. ;
to one’s calling, 165 seq., 169, 180.
Folly, reproved, 80.
Forbearance, 191, 239 seq., 444 seq.,
456.
Forgiveness, 443 seq., 446 seq., 448
seq.
Fornication, 108 seq., 119 seq., 121
seq., 123, 137 seq., 139 seq., 141 seq.,
143 seq., 151 seq., 223.
Foundation, The, laid, 70, 73.
Freedom, Moral, 137 seq., 154, 163,
167, 172, 189, 236, 238, 239 seq.; in
the Spirit, 479 seq.
G.
Gaius, 25.
Gallio, 2.
Gifts, bestowed, 14 seq.; all from God,
95 seq., of the Holy Spirit, 275,
277 seq., 479 seq.; classes of, 280
seq., 282; in the church, 295 seq.,
distributed, 296.
Glory of God, sought for, 241, 243
seq.; completed, 393; in Christ,
493, 502, 504.
Glory, to be revealed, 50 seq., 481 seq.,
485.
God, his faithfulness, 16, 227; con-
founds the world’s wisdom, 28 ;
manifests His own wisdom, 30 seq.,
33 seq. ; His choice of means, 35
seq. ; secures us salvation, 36 seq. ;
glorying in, 38; revealed through
the Spirit, 52; source of spiritual
growth, 69 seq. ; His wrath, 77; as
Judge 122 seq.; the only Deity, 168
seq. ; as Creator, 238 seq.; His
glory, 241, 243; His absolute sov-
ereignty, 362 seq.; and the resur-
rection body, 375; the Father of
Mercies, 436 ; trust in, 422; giveth
716
victory, 452 seq., 457; man’s suf-
ficiency, 455, 457, 463 seq. ; giveth
the Spirit, 517.
Gospel, The, proclaimed to the lower
classes, 1; established in the be-
liever’s soul, 14; proclaimed, 30,
340 ; without charge, 209 ; opposi-
tion to, 398, 405 ; not changeable,
432 ; triumph of, 621 seq.
Government, in the Church, 295 seq.
Grace of God, The, in Christ, 13;
powerful in Paul, 347 seq. ; impart-
ed through him, 428 ; in vain, 545,
557 ; given to liberal churches, 578 ;
freely given, 607 seq. ; sufficient for
all trials, 684 seq.
Greeks, The, litigious, 145 seq.
Greeting, Apostolic, 9, 13, 403 seq.,
416 seq., farewell, 710.
H.
Head-covering, in prayer, 247 seq.,
249 seq., 251 seq., 255 seq., 272.
Heathen gods, 185 seq.
Heathenism, 2385 seq. ; intercourse
with, 554 seq., 558.
Heathen vices, 121 seq.
Heaven, longing for, 510 seq., 515 seq.,
519 seq., 541, 542 ; our home, 518 ;
the number of heavens, 674 8866.»
696 ; visions of, 677.
Holiness, in Christ, 37 seq., 117; to
be established, 560 seq., 575.
Holy Spirit, The, his gifts, 14 seq.,
275, 279 seq., 281 seq., 287 seq., 314
seq. ; revelation of, 51 seq. ; dwell-
ing in the church, 78 seq., 461 seq. ;
his gentleness, 105 ; a symbol of,
219; imparted, 289; given to the
church, 295; to human prophets,
332 seq., anointing of, 434 seq., 437
seq. ; dedicating the ministry, 468 ;
giving life, 464 seq.; giving liberty,
479 seq. ; from God, 517.
Honesty, recommended, 594.
Humanity, to the brute creation, 200,
215.
Humility, The rule of, 93 seq. ; en-
forced, 95 seq. ; exemplified, 212 ;
enjoined, 226.
Husband, Duties of a, 152 seq.
Ie
Idols and Idolatry, 182 seq., 185 seq ,
188 seq., 190 seq., 192, 223, 227, 233
seq., 276.
Immortality, 374 seq., 377 seq., 381
seq. ; longing for, 510, 515 seq., 541.
Impressions, False, corrected, 691 seq.,
698.
Incest, 5, 108 seq. ; how Rosie,
111 seq. ᾿
TOPICAL
INDEX.
Ineontinency, 153.
Indulgence of Sin, 224.
Infant Baptism, 160, 179.
Infirmities, 685, 697.
Inspiration, 568, 575.
Intercourse, with sinners, 119 seq.,
121 seq. ; with unbelievers, 554 seq.,
558.
Intermediate State, The, 39, 340.
Interpretation, Scripture, 55 seq., 61
seq. ; the gift of, 321 seq., 334 seq.
Interpretation, The gift of, 283 seq.,
324 seq.
Trony, Apostolic, 96, 98 ; of Panl, 106,
459 seq., 638 seq., 641 seq., 655 seq.,
687 seq.
Israelites, The, 218; their exodus,
219 ; in the Wilderness, 221; their
sacrifices, 228 ; their hardening, 473
seq. ; blinded, 475 seq. ; enlighten-
ed, 476.
Isthmian Games, 212 seq.
J.
James, the brother of Christ, 21 ; wit-
ness of Christ’s resurrection, 345.
Jealousy, godly, 639 seq., 667.
Jerusalem, The church at, 394 seq.
Jesuits, The first, 22.
Joy, in tribulation, 564 seq., 566 seq. ;
secured, 573 seq.
Judaists, 23.
Judgment Day, The, 15, 74 seq., 84,
90 seq., 128 seq., 225, 386 seq., 499
seq., 505, 522.
Judgments cf God, 28, 79, 122 seq.,
271; to be vindicated, 622, 653,
667 ; foretold, 693 seq.
Judgments of Men, 90, 122.
Justification, 135 seq., 146; by faith
and love, 309; the doctrine of, 539
seq., 543.
Justus, 1; the church in his house, 2.
IK.
Kiss, An holy, 403, 710.
Knowledge, 183 seq, 192 ; its conceit,
184 ; its abuse, 191; as a gift, 281 ;
the word of, 298; without love,
302 ; imperfect, 305 seq., 307 seq.;
according to the Spirit, 531 seq.
Knowledge of God, revealed, 52; a
matter of experience, 184 seq. ; the
light of the, 492 seq., 505.
Knowledge, through Christ, 13 seq. ;
of Christ, 531.
L.
Labor, and its Reward, 200 seq., 215,
390 seq.
Law, The, as higher authority, 199;
of Moses, 467, 475 seq.
eS ee ΣΝ ee ὁ."
TOPICAL INDEX.
Lawsuits forbidden, 127 seq., 131 seq.,
133 seq., 145 seq.
Leaven, 114 seq.
Letters of Commendation, 459, 461.
Liberality, commended, 237, 242, 394
seq. ; exhibited, 578 seq.. 597, 580
seq. ; exhortation to, 583 seq. ; the
divine measure of, 588 seq. ; equal
and universal, 589 seq., 598 ; free
and cordial, 605 ; the reward of, 605
seq. ; its spirit, 607 seq., 613 seq. ;
blessings of, 609 seq.
Liberty, Christian, 137 seq., 180, 189
seq., 236, 238, 239 seq.; in the
Spirit, 479 seq.
Life, Spiritual, activity of, 450.
Liturgies, Eucharistic, 266.
Living for Christ, 530.
Lord s Supper, The, 117, 219 seq., 228
seq., 230 seq., 232 seq., 243, 259 ;
disorders at, 260 seq., its institu-
tion, 261 ; its doctrine and celebra-
tion, 263 seq., 265 seq. ; liturgies of
266 ; worthy reception of, 267 seq.,
273; Zwinglian view of, 268; self-
examination for, 269 ; unworthy re-
ception of, 269 seq. ; its transfigur-
ing power, 514.
Love, 184 seq., 192; as a gift, 297,
299 ; the want of, 300 seq., 302 ; ex-
cellency of, 303 seq., 313 ; personi-
fied, 303; its characteristics, 304
seq. ; its imperishableness, 305 seq. ;
and faith and hope, 308 seq., 310
seq.; description of, 310 ; the great-
est gift, 310 seq.; in all things,
400 ; its exercise, 447, 552 seq. ; con-
straining, 527 seq., 542 ; exhibited
in benevolence, 583 seq., 597 ;
brotherly, 596.
Love Feasts, 122, 258, 259, 271.
Lutheran Church, Evangelical, The,
its doctrinal development, 72 ; and
the Lord’s Supper, 230 seq., 263
seq., 270.
M.
Macedonia, 397 ; receiving grace, 578;
showing benevolence, 578 seq., 580
seq.
Man, his spiritual condition, 57 seq.,
65 ; with Christ’s spirit, 60; the
temple of God, 78; over woman,
246 seq. ; with head covered in
prayer, 247 seq., 249 seq., 255; de-
pendent on woman, 254 seq.
Man, The Natural, 64 seq., 67.
Marriage, 149 seq., 151 seq., 155 seq.,
158 seq., 162 seq., 170 seq., 173 seq ,
178 seq., 180, 189, 250, 252 seq. ;
from a Christian standpoint, 254
seq.; mixed marriages, 158, 159,
717
161, 178 seq.; with unbelievers,
554 seq., 558.
Martyrdom, 303.
Meat, offered to idols, 183, 185, 188
seq., 190 seq.; abstinence from, 191,
233 seq., 237 seq., 239 seq.
Memory, Confusion of the, 61.
Messianic Kingdom, The, 10, 17, 74
seq., 84, 96 seq. ; its basis, 104 seq.,
106 ; its advent, 305; its develop-
ment, 308 seq. ; its end, 356, 358.
Millennium, The, 357 seq., 359.
Mind of Christ, The, 59 seq.
Ministerial Support, 200 seq., 202 seq.,
204 seq.
Ministry, The Christian, 466; its
glory, 467, 486 ; its dedication, 468,
470 ; free from sin, 487 ; sufferings
in the, 495 seq., 505, 547 seq., 549
seq.; of reconciliation, 535, 537
seq. ; its moral power, 546, 547.
Miracles, The gift of, 282.
Modesty, The rule of, 93 seq. ; -en-
forced, 95, seq.
Monasticism, 197.
Monks, The first, 22.
Monotheism, of the New Testament,
83.
Moses, 218; his ministry, 467 seq.,
469 seq., 471 seq., 473 seq., 484,
475 seq.
Murmuring, against spiritual authori-
ty, 224.
Musical instruments, 317.
Mystery of God, revealed, 52.
Mythology, Heathen, 186.
N
Nature, conformity to, 255, 272.
New Testament, its practical charac-
ter, 393 ; its monotheism, 83.
O
Obedience, to authority, 447, 456.
Offence, giving no, 242 seq.
Old Testament, Manner of quoting
the, 556 seq., 558.
Order, in God’s kingdom, 246 seq. ;
in public worship, 331 seq., 333, 335,
336. ;
Organic Nature, its glory in diversity,
375 seq.
ἘΣ
Paradise, 676 seq.
Pardon, 443 seq., 448 seq.
Parousia, The, 16, 74 seq., 114,
225 seq., 305 seq., 355 seq., 385 seq.,
387 seq., 404 seq., 427, 467 seq.,
484, 507 seq., 511 seq., 541.
Partisanship at Corinth, 19 seq.; re-
buked, 24 seq., 91 seq., 96 seq.,
123 ; considered, 39, 67 seq.
718
Paschal Lamb, The, 116 seq.
Passover, The, 116 seq., 118.
Paul, at Corinth, 1; at Athens, 2;
his authority attacked, 3; writes
his first Epistle, 5; his visits to
Corinth, 6; his greeting, 9 seq. ;
called by God’s will, 9; full of
Christ, 15 ; exhorts to unity, 17;
his party, 19 seq., 84 ; his relation
to baptism, 25 seq.; his function as
a teacher, 26; preaches Christ,
31 seq., 43 seq. ; rebukes party
strife, 67 seq. ; lays the foundation,
70; as spiritual father, 102 seq. ;
sends Timothy, 103; his plenary
authority, 111 seq. ; his unmarried
state, 155, 175, 215 ; and cireumci-
sion, 192 seq. ; his vision of Christ,
196 ; his claim as apostle, 196 seq.,
215 ; his secular occupation, 199 ;
means of support, 205 seq., 647 ;
his apostolic reward, 208 ; all things
to all men, 210 seq.; divine revela-
tion to, 263, 273; as a_ teacher,
316 ; a witness of Christ’s resurrec-
tion, 346 ; his humility, 346 seq. ; in-
fluenced by God’s grace, 347 ; in dai-
ly suffering, 369, 547 seq., 549 seq. ;
his conflict with wild beasts, 369
seq.; writes numerous letters, 396 ;
reason of his comfort, 419 seq. ; his
plan of journey, 427 seq. ; a messen-
ger of grace, 428; a man of word,
429 seq. ; not Lord over the faith,
435 seq. ; his forbearance, 444 seq.,
456; his forgiveness, 443 seq. ;
quotes from the Psalms, 498, 505 ;
persuades men, 523 seq. ; manifests
zeal, 526; an ambassador of God,
538 seq. ; his fraternal love, 562 seq. ;
desires confidence, 561 ; secures it,
574 seq., 576 ; vindicates his author-
ity. 617 seq., 619 seq., 625; his
bodily presence, 626, 636 ; his proy-
ince, 631, 636; indulges in irony,
638 seq. ; his speech, 644 seq. ; his
gratuitous service, 646 seq., 667;
indulges in boasting, 654 seq.;
667 seq. ; relates his sufferings,
660 seq. ; his escape from Damascus,
666 ; his special revelations, 671 seq. ;
receives a thorn in the flesh,
680 seq. ; works signs and wonders,
687 ; threatens discipline, 700 seq. ;
farewell exhortation and greeting,
709 seq.
Peace, Conditions of, 709 seq., 712.
Perfect, The, 60 seq.
Pentateuch, its divine authority, 272.
Pentecost, 398.
Perseverance, in faith, 16.
Peter, 3 ; the party of, 83 seq.; a mar-
TOPICAL INDEX.
ried man, 150; his wife, 199; his
primacy, 644.
Petrine party, 150, 189, 196, 404.
Philosophy, Christian, 47, 48.
Polygamy, 152.
Poverty, of the Primitive Church,
394 ; of Macedonia, 579, 596 seq.
Power, 104 seq., 215.
Prayer, demeanour in, 247, 249 seq.,
251 seq., 255 seq. ; with understand-
ing, 321 seq. ; of thanksgiving, 323,
423 seq. ; intercessory, 423, 707.
Preaching, of Paul, 26 seq., 431, 437;
of the Cross, 27; its foolishness,
30; its nature and aim, 31 seq.,
43 seq., 54 seq. ; with recompense,
206; a necessity, 206, 216;
its Messianic reward, 207; in un-
known tongues, 316 seq., 319, 321,
327 seq., 330 seq., 334 seq.; depend-
ent on Christs resurrection, 349
seq. ; ability in, from God, 455, 457 ;
Christ, 491 seq. ; gratuitously, 646
seq., 667 ; for deliverance, 684.
Predestination, 27, 49, 453 seq., 457.
Pride of Party, rebuked, 91 seq.
Priesthood, The Levitical, 466 seq.
Priests, 204.
Progress, Moral and Spiritual, 305 seq.
Promises of God, certain, 433, 560.
Prophecy, of the Old Testament, 28 ;
Prophecy, The gift of, 282, 314 seq.,
316 seq. 331 seq.; without love, 302;
its design, 326 seq., 328 ; its order,
331 seq., 334 seq.
Providence of God, 180, 200 seq., 215.
Punishment, remedial, 114 ; admin-
istered, 445 seq., 446; for deeds
δέρῃ 521 seq., 542, 653, 667, 694
seq.
Purgatory, 74, 84.
Purification of the Church, 115 seq. Rs
123, 124.
Purity, Moral, 175.
Q.
Quotations, 40.
R.
| Rabbinical Exposition, 473, 484.
Rebuke, administered, 442 seq.
Reconciliation, 534 seq., 542 seq.,
536 seq.
Redemption in Christ, 37 seq., 47,
534, 542 seq., 539, 543 ; the price of,
144, 168.
Regeneration, 135, 534.
Religion, The beginning of, 66.
Renunciation, of self, 209 seq., 216.
Repentance, 113 ; unto salvation, 569
seq., 576.
Reprobates, 706, 711 seq.
TOPICAL
Responses, 322 seq., 335, 433.
Restoration, The doctrine of, 363 seq.
Resurrection, of Christ, 340, 343 ; wit-
nesses of, 344 seq., 346 ; the central
doctrine, 349 seq. ; its certainty,
352 seq., 499 ; its glory, 490 seq.
Resurrection of the Dead, 338 seq.,
340 seq., 499, 507, 512, 541 ; denied
by some, 348 seq. ; terrible alterna-
tives of, 350 seq., 352 seq. ; through
man, 353; universal, 354 seq.; in
complete order, 355 seq. ; nature of
their bodies, 374 seq., 376 seq., 383
seq., 386, 387, 392 seq. ; the time of,
385.
Reward, of work, 69, 74 seq., of deeds
done, 521 seq., 542.
Revelations, Divine, 331 seq. ; special,
to Paul, 671 seq.
Righteousness, in Christ, 37 seq., 135,
539 seq., 543.
Rubrics, Primitive, 336.
5.
Sacrament, The idea of a, 220; the
number of, 242.
Sacrifices, 182, 204, 227, 228, 233 seq.,
235 seq.
Sadduceeism, 338 seq.
Saints, on earth, 10 seq.
Salvation, from God, 16, 36 seq. ; by
the Cross, 27; by preaching, 30
seq. ; its proper understanding, 39
seq. ; revealed by the Spirit 52;
degrees of, 76 seq., 522, 542 ; the gift
of grace, 76; with difficulty, 84 ;
of God’s calling, 164; its cause,
184 ; Messianic, 212 seq., 242; a
life-struggle, 216; by the Gospel,
341 ; in the present, 546, 557.
Sanctification, 10 seq., 135 seq., 146,
159.
Satan, 111 seq. ; to be destroyed, 130 ;
his devices, 449, 456 ; blinding man,
489 seq., 504; intercourse with,
555 ; and Adam’s fall, 641, 667 ; his
personality, 652 seq., 667; the
angel, 681.
Scandal, in the church, 115, 124.
Schism, reproved, 293.
Scripture, Unity of, 40.
Sectarianism, at Corinth, 2 seq. ; re-
buked, 17 seq., 24 seq. ; considered,
39, 67 seq.; pride of, 91 seq., 96
seq.
Self-conceit, 110, 627 seq., 631 seq.,
636,
Self-control, 213 seq., 218.
Self-deception, 79; warned against,
226.
Self-denial, 173 seq., 180, 202 seq., 210
seq., 216.
INDEX. 719
Self-devotion, 660 seq., 668, 689.
Self-examination, 269, 270, 706.
Selfishness, condemned, 237.
Self-measurement, 628 seq., 631 seq.,
636.
Self-punishment, 214.
Separation of Man and Wife, 156 seq.,
178 seq.
Services of Help, 294 seq., 299.
Serving God, 236.
Sex, Distinctions of, 140 seq., 272;
subordination of, 247 seq., 249 seq.,
251 seq., 272; Christian relations
of, 254 seq.
Silas, 1.
Sin, warning against, 226 seq., 225
seq.; incitements to, 226 ; to be pun-
ished, 702 seq.
Slander, refuted, 689 seq., 697.
Slavery, 166, 180 ; its abolition, 167.
Social Exclusion, 118 seq.
Sodomy, 134.
Sorrow, godly, 569 seq., 576.
Sosthenes, 9.
Sowing and reaping, 202 seq.
Spectacle of the Universe, 97 seq.,
106.
Speech, 104 seq.
Spirit, The Human, 52 seq.
Steadfastness, Exhortation to, 342,
390 seq., 391, 400, 405, 498 seq.
Stephanas, 25, 401.
Stewards of God, 87 seq.
Stumbling-blocks, 189 seq.
Subordination of Christ, 11, 83, 85,
247.
Substitution, of Christ, 529 seq., 542
seq. =
Suicide, 143.
Suffering, for the Gospel’s sake, 203,
660 seq., 668.
Suffering from God, 455, 457, 463.
Sunday, its practical observance, 395,
405.
T.
Teachers, A Divine Order of, not in-
stituted, 5; their ability, 316; to
speak in their own language, 324,
336.
Teaching of the Apostles, 26; of
Christ’s disciples, 73 ; tried by fire,
74 seq.; not restricted to office, 329,
336.
Temptations, 226 ; help in, 227.
Tempting God, 233 seq.
Thanksgiving, 238, 243, 323, 390, 417,
436, 423 seq., 451 seq., 501, 608 seq.,
612.
Things eternal and temporal, 503.
Thorn in the flesh, Paul’s, 680 seq.
Timothy, 1, 416; sent to Corinth, 5,
103, 398, 409 ; his conversion, 103.
720 TOPICAL
Titus, 1 ; his joy, 574 ; to gather con-
tributions, 582; sent to Corinth,
591 seq.; companion of Paul, 592 ;
commended, 594 seq.
Tongues, The gift of, 275 seq., 277
seq., 279 seq., 284 seq., 286 seq.,
296, 298, 300 seq., 314 seq., 316
seq., 324 seq., 327 seq., 330 seq.,
336.
Tonsure, The, 255.
Traditions, 246, 271 ; historical, 343.
Translation, of the body, 520.
Transubstantiation, 270.
Trinity, The, 279 ; recognized, 710,
712.
Trumpet, The, 318 ; at the resurrec-
tion, 387.
Trust in God, 422.
Truth, 304; manifested, 488 ; alone
decisive, 708, 712.
τ.
Unbelievers, at law with, 133 56α..
145 seq. ; lost, 488?seq., 504 ; blinded
by Satan, 489 seq., 504 seq.
Unchastity, 5.
Uncireumcision, 165 seq., 180.
Union with Christ, 10, 13, 142, 231 seq.
Unity, Christian, enjoined, 17 seq. ;
in the Lord’s Supper, 232 seq. ; of
believers, 290.
Unrighteousness, endured, 133 seq.
Utterance, imparted by Christ, 13.
Ὑ:
hm
Veil, as a covering, 251 seq., 256; as a
symbol, 253:
Vices, excluding from the kingdom,
134
Vision, Kestatic, 676 seq., 697.
Victory, through God, 452 seq., 457.
Virgins, and Virgin Life, 169, 174, 177
seq.
Virtues, The theological, 308 seq.
“Ate 3
AK
INDEX.
W.
Warfare, carnal, 619 seq. ; spiritual,
620 seq., 635 seq.
Warning, against sin, 222 seq., 225,
226, 372 seq., 694 seq.
Weakness, Moral, 270 ; physical, 684 ;
becomes strength, 685 seq., 704 seq.
Wicked, The, judged, 123; not to
enter heaven, 134.
Widowers, 155.
Widows, 156. ,
Wife, Duties of a, 152 seq., 174 seq.
Will of God, The, 291.
Wisdom, Christian, 281 ; the word οἵ,
298.
Wisdom, of the world, 28 seq., 425;
of God, 30 seq., 33 seq., 35 seq., 45
seq., 48 seq., 60 seq. ; in Christ, 37
seq. ; its glorious character, 41 ; re-
vealed by the Spirit, 46; religious
wisdom, 47; wordly wisdom re-
buked, 79 seq.
Woman, her rank, 246 seq. ; her de-
meanor in public prayer, 247 seq.,
249 seq., 255 seq.; the glory of man,
251 seq., 272 ; dependent upon man,
254 seq.; to be silent in public wor-
ship, 333 seq., 336.
Workers with God, 69; rewarded, 74
seq.
Works, without love, 302.
World-power, and wisdom, 35 seq.
Worship, of Christ, 11.
Worship, public, 247 seq., 249 seq.,
251 seq., 255 seq.; 327 seq., 329 seq. ;
with the understanding, 322 ; order
in, 331 seq., 333, 335, 336 ; woman
in, 333 seq., 336.
Wrath of God, 77, 79.
Z
| Zeal, after gifts, 296, 297, 299, 313 seq,
319 ; for God, 526 seq. ; disciplinary,
571, 576 ; awakened, 572; given of
God, 591, 598 ; stimulated, 601 seq.
Zwingli, his view of the Lord’s Sup-
per, 231, 268.
Δ LK CN GR α
ἡ RSE Ah }
Aya’ iN
we a heey τῳ. .
‘ ΩΝ
ὧν ΣῊ x
Ais, Heys a
Peat st
y Pave hse
δ: ' Be
ὶ ὙΠῸ" ᾿
νι}.
ἱ
᾿ At eee,
ν Ἂ
γῇ ἰὴ a
ee
+k
ΨΥ, ,
i
3
als t
: ‘
; Ἂν ' :
;
I .
¥
3
ὶ
"
;
ἀμ ΑΙ
DATE DUE
PRINTEDINU.S A.
1
i Pet
Daca |
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11