Skip to main content

Full text of "Critical and exegetical hand-book to the Epistles to the Corinthians"

See other formats

<^^-» OF PR/«,^ 



1 1615 






Epistles to the Corinthians. 












Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884, 


m the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C. 


The Epistles to the Corinthians stand almost alone in character and aim 
among the writings of the great Apostle. They are not didactic, like Ro- 
mans and Galatians : the former a profound discussion of the principles 
of Anthropology and 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 


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 diflEerent 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 salves all questions by an 
appeal to Scripture, or to the words of Christ, or to his own immedi- 
ate inspiration as an organ of the Holy Ghost. And he solves them for 
all places and ages. It is not by expedients or make-shifts, but by 
going to first principles, that he settles difficulties about ministerial sup- 
port, or a litigious spirit, marriage rights and duties, fellowship with 
unbelievers, and the like. So that the directions apply not only to the 
specific circumstances that called them forth, but to innumerable others 
of a similar kind. Thus what at first sight is only a book of details, 
becomes in fact a book of principles. 

The Second Epistle, while partaking in part of the character of the 
First, is chiefly remarkable for the degree in which it discloses to us the 
personal character and experience of its author. In many parts it is like 
an autobiography. A Judaizing party had been at work in Corinth sowing 
dissension and undermining the Gospel by impeaching the credentials, the 
claims, and the conduct of the Apostle. This puts him on his defence. 
He was compelled to vindicate himself, for he was a witness of the res- 
urrection, a founder of churches, a channel of inspiration, a chosen ves- 
sel to bear the gospel to the Gentiles. Now if in the chief city of 
Greece, one connected closely by arts and trade with the East and the 
West, Paul's authority was struck down, and he was shown to be a man of 
words and not of deeds, a boaster, an intruder, vacillating in his pur- 
poses and selfish in his aims, the consequences could not fail to be disas- 
trous. Here the character of the message was bound up with that of the 
messenger. If he were a man of mere secular impulses and without divine 

» SchafE. 


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 a far more vivid 
conception of his character than would otherwise be possible. He was 
a great man, measured by any standard we may choose to apply — great in 
intellect, in resources, in versatility, in application, in administrative 
faculty — but without the least tinge either of pride or vanity. He could 
not, of course, be unconscious of his gifts or of the work he was enabled 
to perform, but the thought of these things led him only to magnify the 
grace by which he came to be what he was. He was a man of energy 
and decision, who, if need were, could come with a rod and not spare, 
but the element of harshness so conspicuous in his course before conver- 
sion was wholly wanting. He pronounced a prompt judgment upon 
one who had erred, yet when discipline had wrought its destined pur- 
pose, he was urgent that the penitent offender should be restored, lest he 


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 difiiculties than anywhere else. 
But all the serious obstacles with which the world-subduing divine life 
had there to contend were met by the Apostle, who was the Lord's 
chosen instrument to convey this divine life, with a clearness and cer- 
tainty of judgment, with a humility and elevation of consciousness, with 
a tenderness and boldness of utterance, with a never- failing tact, that 
make us follow him through the entire letter with a constantly increas- 
ing astonishment. And when one considers the Attic elegance, the 
Demosthenic force, the almost lyric elevation of his speech in which 
yet is heard the beating of the heart of Christ, we feel in truth at each 
step, how much more than Demosthenes is here, how much more than 
Homer and Pindar who have sung so highly the praises of 6\(iia Kopiv- 
Oog. Ah, her true 6Xj3o(p6pog was the very man whom the people of 
the Areopagus disdained and the philosophers of Athens derided as a 
arrepi^oXnyog. ' ' 

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 tva always and every where 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 


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 clauses, may render it less acceptable to lay readers, but 
ought to enhance its value to clerical students, since the careful study 
of these extracts will tend to increase their familiarity with the original 
tongue as well as to render them more intelligent and more competent 
judges of the merits of the author's opinions. And there are few 
authors in the whole domain of New Testament exegesis whose writings 
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 

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 of the work while passing through the press. 


New York, April 28ih, 1884. 


After having been mainly occupied of late years with the historical 
books of the New Testament, I have now to turn to the Epistles of Paul, 
and to devote renewed labour to their exposition. In the present sadly 
distracted age of the church I feel the deep gravity and responsibility of 
the task which I have to face all the more strongly, because I cannot 
but bear in mind that among all the sacred writings, it was those very 
Epistles of Paul which were pre-eminently to the Reformers the con- 
quering sword of the Spirit, and which exercised the most powerful 
influence in moulding the doctrinal system of our church. The charac- 
ters of Paul and Luther form a historical parallel, to which nothing sim- 
ilar can be found in the whole series of God's chosen instruments for 
the furtherance of evangelical truth. We possess the divine light which 
Paul bore through the world, and in whose radiance the Reformers did 
their work ; the whole Scripture, with all its treasures, becomes day by 
day more richly opened up to us by the labours of science ; but every- 
where, from the extreme right to the extreme left, there is party-strife ; 
and, amid the knowledge that puffeth up, the unity of the Spirit is 
broken, faith languishes, and love grows cold. It is, in truth, as though 
we were giving all diligence to afford the confirmation of increasing ex- 
perience to the malicious assertion of the Romanists, that Protestantism 
is already in full course of decomposition. 

Our wounds will not be healed, but only deepened and widened, by 
arrogant boasting about our Confessions, which are after all but the 
works of men. Much less will the end be attained by a wanton attenu- 
ating, explaining away, or setting aside of the positive teachings of the 
N. T., and of the miraculous facts in the history of redemption ; for 
these have subdued the world, and must continue to subdue it. Only 
in that which is and remains the " norma normans" for all faith and all 
teaching, and for the Confessions themselves, — only in the living word 
of revelation resides the God-given power to heal, which will promote 
the restoration to health, and the union of the body of the church, with 
surer and more lasting effect, just in proportion as the word is more 
clearly and fully understood and more truly and energetically appropri- 


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 allowablencss, 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 Tridentirmm 
and the Syllabus of the Bishop of Rome. 

Now, if nothing save the pure word of God may or ought to prepare 
the way towards a better future for the church, then all expounders of 
that word have but one common aim placed before them, — namely, just 
to ascertain its pure contents, without addition or subtraction and with a 
renouncing of all invention of our own, with simplicity, truth, and clear- 
ness, without being prejudiced by, and independent of, dogmatic a priori 
postulates, with philoloffical 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 tliis question of method in itself, although I cannot ignore the fact, 


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 

' A great many entirely novel expositions of iudividnal 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 i;pon the O. T., the labours of the learning, the acuteness, 
the mastery of Scripture, and the pious iqsight of eighteen centuries— new in- 
terpretations, undiscerned hitherto by the minds most conversant with such 
studies, are destined as a riile 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 difficiTlty 
and reward enough for the laboiirs of exegesis. 

2 Klopper's Exeg-kritische Untersuchimgen uber den zweiten. Korinther-brief, Get- 
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 Eichard Schmidt, die Paulinische 
Christologie in ihrem Zusammenhange niit der Heilslehre des Apostels, Gottmg. 


to agree with von Hofmann's work : Die heilige Sckriftneuen Testaments 
zusammenhdnpend untersucht.' I have nowhere sought this antagonism, 
but it was as little my duty to evade or conceal it. Our exegetical natures 
are very differently constituted ; our paths diverge widely from each 
other, and the means which we have at our disposal, and which we deem 
it right to employ, are dissimilar. Possibly out of this very antagonism 
some advantage may accrue to the understanding of the New Testa- 

Hannovee, ZOth November, 1869. 

1 This work is, for the sake of brevity, referred to merely by "Hofmann,'' 
other works of the author being more precisely designated by their title. 


[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- 
ratelj'), or in which one of these Epistles holds the first place on the title-page. 
Works mainly of a popular and practical character have, with a few exceptions, 
been excluded, as, however valuable they may be in themselves, they have but 
little affinity with the strictly exegetical character of the present work. Mon- 
ographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed by Meyer in loc. The 
editions quoted are usually the earliest ; al. appended denotes that the book 
has been more or less frequently reprinted ; f marks the date of the author's 
death ; c. circa.'] 

Akeesloot (Theodoras), Reformed Minister in Holland : D'eerste Sendbrief 
van Paulus aan die van Korinthen, kortelyk in haar t'samenhang 
uytgelegt. 4», Lugd. Bat. 1707. 

AijPHEN (Hieronymus Simon van), f 1742, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht : Ontlee- 
dende verklaaring van PauUus tweden brief aan die Corinther. 

40, Amst. 1708, al. 

Ambeosiastek. See Romans. 

Batjmgakten (Sigmund Jakob), f 1757, Prof. Theol. at Halle : Auslegung der 
beiden Briefe Pauli an die Corinther. 4^*, Halle, 1761. 

BiLLBOTH (Johann Gustav Friedrich), -I- 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. 

120, Edin. 1837-8.] 

BxTBGEB (Karl Heinrich August von), Oberconsistorialrath at Munich : Der 
erste [mid der zweite] Brief Pauli an die Korinther deutsch ausgelegt, 
2 B'ande. 8^, Erlangen, 1859-60. 

CoccEius [Koch] (Johann), \ 1669, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Commentarius in 

in Epistolas I. et II. ad Corinthios [Opera]. 
CoNTZEN (Adam), f 1635, Jesuit at Mentz : Commentaria in Epistolas S. Pauli 

ad Corinthios et ad Galatas. 2", Colon. 1631. 

Cbell (Johann), f 1633, Socinian teacher at Racow : Commentarius in priorem 

Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam [Opera]. 8'>, Racov. 1635. 

Emmeeling (Christian August Gottfried), f 1827, Pastor at Probsthaida : Epis- 
tola Pauli ad Corinthios posterior, Graece, perpetuo commentario il- 
lustrata. 8°, Lips. 1823. 

Flatt (Johann Friedrich von), f 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen : Vorlesungen 
iiber die Briefe an die Corinther, herausgegeben von C. D. F. Hoff 
mann. 8", Tiibing. 1827. 

Feitzsche (Karl Friedrich August), f 1846, Prof. Theol. at Rostock : De non- 
nullis posterioris Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolae locis dissertationes 
duae. 8", Lips. 1824. 

Geatama (Janus Aafeo) : Commentatio in Paulinae Epistolae prioris ad Co- 
rinthios caput vii. 80, Groning. 1846. 


Hetdenreich (August Ludwig Christian), f c. 1856, Prof, at Herborn : Com- 

mentarius in priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam, 2 voll. 

8", Marb. 18-25-7. 
HoDOE (Charles), D.D., Prof. Theol. at Princeton : An exposition of the First 

Epistle to the Corinthians. 8", Lond. 1857. 

An exposition of the Second Epistle. 8", Lond. 1860. 

HoFMANN (Johann Clhristian Konrad von), Prof. Theol. at Erlangen : Die 

Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments ziisammenh'tingend untersucht (II. 

2, 3 Briefe an die Korinther). 8", Nordlingen. 1864-6, al. 

Jaeger (C. F. Heinrich) : Erklarung der beiden Briefe des Apostel Paulus 
nach Corinth, aiis dem Gesichtspunkte der vier Partheien daselbst. 

80, Tiibing. 1838. 

Rling (Christian Friedrich), Dean of Marbach on the Neckar : Die Korinther- 

briefe theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet [Lange's Bibehverk, Theil. 

VII.]. 80, Bielefeld, 1861, al. 

[Translated with additions by Daniel W. Poor, D.D. , and Conway B. 

•Wing, D.D. 8", New York [and Edin.], 1869, ai] 

Klopper (Albrecht), Tutor at Konigsberg : Exegetisch-kritische Untersuchun- 

gen iiber den zweiten Brief des Paulus an die Gemeinde zu Korinth. 

8", Getting. 1869. 

Commentar iiber das zweite Sendschreiben. 8", Berl. 1874. 

Krause (Friedrich August Wilhelm), f 1827, Private Tutor at Vienna : Pauli ad 

Corinthios Epistolae Graece. Perpetua annotatione illustravit F. A. 

W. Krause. Vol. i. complectens ep. priorem. 8", Francof. 1791. 

Leun (Johann Georg Friedrich), t 1823, Pastor at Butzbach in Hesse : Pauli ad 
Corinthios Epistola secunda Graece perpetua annotatione illustrata. 

8", Lemg. 1804. 
LiGHTFOOT (John), D.D., Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge : Horae Hebrai- 
cae et Talmudicae in Epistolam priorem ad Corinthios. 

4", Cantab. 1664. 

Maier (Adalbert), R. C. Prof. Theol. at Freiburg : Commentar iiber den ersten 
Brief Pauli an die Korinther. 8", Freiburg, 1857. 

Major [Mayer] (Georg), f 1574, Prof. Theol. at Wittenburg : Enarratio Epis- 
tolarum Pauli ad Corinthios. 8o, Viteb. 1558, al. 

Martyr (Peter) [Vermigli], f 1562, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg : In priorem 
D. Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam coramentarii. 2", Tiguri, 1551, al. 

Melanchthon (Philipp), f 1560, Reformer : Brevis et \itilis commentarius in 
priorem Epistolam Pauli ad Corinthios et in aliquot capita secundae. 

8", Vitemb. 1561, al. 

MoLDENHAUER (Johann Heinrich, Daniel), f 1790, Pastor at Hamburg : Erster 
und zweiter Brief an die Corinther nach dem Grundtext iibersetzt mit 
Erklarungen. 8", Hamb. 1771-2. 

MoRus (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), f 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Erklii- 
rung der beiden Briefe an die Corinther. 8", Leip. 1794. 

MosHEiM (Johann Lorenz von), f 1755, Chancellor and Professor Theol. at Got- 
tingen : Erklarung des ersten Briefes Pauli an die gemeine zu Corin- 
thus. 4", Altona, 1741. 

Neue Ausgabe, nebst der Erklilrung des zweiten Briefes herausgegeben 
von C. E. von Windheim, 2 Bande. 4", Altona u. Flensburg, 1762. 

MuscxjLus [Meusson] (Wolfgang), + 1563, Prof. Theol. at Bonn : Commentarius 
in utramque Epistolam ad Corinthios. 2", Basil, 1559, al. 

Neander (Johann August Wilhelm), f 1850, Prof. Theol. at Berlin : Auslegung 
der beiden Briefe an die Corinther. Herausgegeben von Willib. Bey- 
schlag. 8", Berl. 1859. 

Osiandeb (J. Ernst), Dean at Goppingen in Wiirtemberg : Commentar iiber 
den ersten Brief Pauli an die Korinthier. 8", Stuttgart, 1849. 

Commentar iiber den zweiten Brief. 8", Stuttg. 1858. 


Pott (David Julius), f 1838, Prof. Theol. at Gottingen : Pauli Epistolae ad 
Corinthios Graece perpetua annotatione illustratae. [Novum Testa- 
mentum Koppianum, V. 1.] 8", Gotting. 1826. 

RoLLOCK (Robert), f 1598, Principal of University of Edinburgh : Commentarius 
in utramque Epistolam ad Corinthios, cum notis Jo. Piscatoris. 

8", Herborn. 1600, al. 

RucKEET (Leopold Immannuel), f c. 1845, Prof. Theol. at Jena : Commentar 
iiber die Briefe an die Corinther. 2 Bande. 8", Lips. 1836-7. 

Sahl (Laurids), f 1805, Prof, of Greek at Copenhagen : Paraphrasis in priorem 
Epistolam ad Corinthios. ... 40, Hafn. 1778. 

ScHAELiNG (Carl Emil), Prof. Theol. at Copenhagen : Epistolam Pauli ad Corin- 
thios posteriorem annotationibus in usum juvenum theolog. studioso- 
rum illustravit C. E. Scharling. 8", Kopenh. 1840. 

ScHMiD (Sebastian). See Romans. 

ScHULZE (Johann Christoph Friedrich), f 1806, Prof. Theol. at Giessen : Pauli 
erster Brief an die Korinther herausgegeben und erklart. — Zweiter 
Brief erklart ... 80, Halle, 1784-5. 

ScL.iTEK (William), D.D., f 1626, Vicar of Pitminster : Utriusque Epistolae ad 
Corinthios explicatio analyticae, una cum scholiis 4", Oxon. 1633. 

Semleb (Johann Salomon), f 1791, Prof. Theol. at Halle : Paraphrasis in primam 
Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam cum notis et Latinarum translationum 
excerptis. Et in secundam Epistolam . . . 12^', Hal. 1770-6. 

Stanley (Arthur Penrhyn), D.D., Dean of Westminster: The Epistles of St. 
Paul to the Corinthians ; with critical notes and dissertations. In two 
volumes. 8", Lond. 1855, al. 

Stevabt (Peter), f 1621, Prof. Theol. at Ingolstadt : Commentaria in utramque 
Epistolam ad Corinthios. 4'', Ingolstad. 1608. 

Stoee (Gottlob Christian), f 1805, Consistorialrath at Stuttgart : Notitiae his- 
toricae Epistolarum Pauli ad Corinthios interpretationi servientes. 

40, Tubing. 1788. 

Til (Salomon van), f 1713, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Kortbondige verklaaring 
ouer den eersten Brief van Paulus aan die van Korinthen. 

40, Amst. 1731. 
[See also Romans.] 

Vitbinga (Kempe), f 1722, Prof. Theol. at Franeker : Exercitationes in diffi- 
ciliora loca prioris Epistolae Pauli ad Corinthios. 4", Franeq. 1784-9. 
WiNDHEiM (Christian Ernst von). See Mosheim (Johann Lorenz). 

Zachaeiae (Gotthilf Trangott), f 1777, Prof. Theol. at Kiel : Paraphrastische 
Erklarung der beiden Briefe an die Corinther, mit vielen Ammerkun- 
gen herausgegeben von J. K. VoUborth. 2 Bande. 

80, Gotting. 1784-5. 

To the foregoing list may be added : 

D. W. PooK, Translation and Enlargement of Kling' s Exposition of the First 

Ep., in Lange's Com. New York, 1868. 

C. P. Wing, Translation and Enlargement of Kling's Exposition of the Second 

Ep., in Lange's Com. Ibid. 

Canon Evans, Com. on First Ep. in Bible Com. Lond. 1881. 

Joseph Waite, Com. on Second Ep. in Bible Com. Lond. 1881. 

T. T. Shore, on First Ep. in Ellicott's Com. . Lond. 1880. 

E. H. Plumptee, on Second in Ellicott's Com. Lond. 1880. 
David Beown, on both Epistles in Schaff's Popular Com. on N. T. 

New York, 1882. 
Joseph Agar Beet, Com. on both Epistles. Lond. 1882. 


al., dal. = 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 X. 
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 Eecepta = Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir). 
I.e. = loco citato or laudato. 
ver. = verse, vv. = verses, 
f. S. = and following. Ver. 16 f. means verses 16 and 17. w. 16 ff. means 

verses 16 and two or more following, 
vss. = versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the 

usual abridged forms. Kg. 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.?i.= Koi rd /lonrd. 
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 Apocrj'pha 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 Thuc. iv.) ; Roman niimerals in capitals denote 

volumes (as Kiihner, II.). 
The references to Winer's or to Buttmann's Grammar, given in brackets thus 

[E. T. 152], apply to the corresponding pages of Dr. Moulton's and 

Prof. Thayer's English translations respectively. 





)N Corinth (bimaris Corinthus), which, after its destruction by 
Mummius (146 B.C.), had been rebuilt by Julius Caesar, made 
a Roman colony (Pausan. ii. 1. 3), and under the fostering 
care of the first emperors had been speedily restored to its an- 
cient (see Horn. II. ii. 570, and especially Pindar, 01. xiii.) 
glory and voluptuous luxury (hence the expressions Kopivdid(ea6ai, Kopivdiaar^g, 
and Knpivftia Koprj ; see also Dissen, ad Find. Fragm. p. 640 f. ; Ast, ad Plat. 
Rep. p. 404 D), — in that great "KAlafiaq aarpov (Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 
233), 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 ly 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 GentiJe Christians, Acts xii. 2) and a very nu- 
meroiis one (Acts xviii. 4, 8, 10), the most important in Greece, the mother- 
church of the province (i. 3), although only a few of the upper and more 
( ultivated classes (1 Cor. i. 36 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 ' 

' 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- 

Ivance for evangelical truth by associating pel among the Greeks also in its entire sira- 

% Paul's first epistlk to the cokintinans. 

(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 S., 
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 emi^loyment 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 
jjoint of jxtrtisanship 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 

plicity. But the fact is, that in Athens Paul one. Before his mixed audience in Corinth 

was in the qnife peculiar position of having (and he could not regulate his course by 

to speak in presence of philosophers by pro- the possible presence of individual philos- 

fession, and, in the first instance, to them ophers among them) his preaching, simple, 

exclusively. In Corinth, on the other hand, but full of power and fervour, was tlior- 

in the house of the proselyte Justus, it was oughly fitted to make converts in numbers, 

at all events a very mixed audience (made as the result proved. And if these svere for 

up also of Jews and Gentiles, comp. Acts the most part from the humbler ranks, 

xviii. 8) that he had before him, one entirely Paul was the last man to be led by that cir- 

different from those Stoics and Epicureans cumstance to adopt a higher tone ; for he 

who laid hold of him in the ayopo at Athens. knew from long experience among what 

The Athenian address is therefore to be re- classes in society Christianity wa.s wont 

garded as an exception from his usual mode everywhere to strike its first and firmest 

of teaching, demanded by the special cir- roots. 

cumstances of the case. These circum- ' Comp. generally, Semisch, PaiUiis in 

stances, however, did not exist at Corinth, Corinth, in the Jahrb. fur I)eid»che Theol. 

and accordingly he had no occasion there 186", p. 193 ff. 
to teach in any other way than his ordinary 


/eanings, provided with letters of recommendation (2 Cor. iii. 1), perhaps 
from Peter himself among others, labouring to lower the authority of Paul 
(ix. 3), into whose field of work they intruded, and to exalt the- authority 
of Peter (3 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 slack in vainglorious assertion of the national privileges (3 Cor. v. 13, 
xi. 33, xii. 11), and that against the rery man from whom the hereditary 
pride of the Jews had everywhere suffered bloAvs which it felt most keenly. 
Equally natural was it that their appearance and oioerations 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 Pmil, 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. 35, 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. 13. See Pott, Proleg. p. 30 f. ; Baur in the TuUng. Zeitsehr. 
1831, 4, p. 153 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. ' 

" We belong to GhrisV 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. 13), 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. 33, that the evil had not reached 

* Augustine aptly says, De verb. Dom., Pauli, etc. Et alii, qui nolebant aedificari 
Serm. 13 : " Volentes homines aedificari sn- super Petrum, sed super petram : Ego au- 
per homines, dicebant : Ego quidem sum tem sum.Christi." 


such a height of schism that the chiirch no longer assembled at one ]jlace (in 
opposition to Vitringa, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Ewald, and others ; sec on i. 2). 
What further knowledge we have regarding the condition of the church 
at that time, especiallj'^ as to the moral and ecclesiastical evils that prevailed, 
is derived from the contents of the Epistle itself. See § 2. 

Kemaek 1. — For views differing from the above representation of the parties at 
Corinth, see on i. 12. To the more recent literature of the subject, besides the 
works on Introduction, belong the following : Neander, Kl. Schrifi. p. 68 ff., 
and Gesch. d. Pflamung, etc., I. p. 360 ff., 4th ed. ; Baur in the T'iib. Zeiischr. 
1831, p. 61 ff., 1836, 4, p. 1 ff., and in his Pauhis, I. p. 290 ff., 2d ed. ; Scbar- 
ling, De Paulo apost. ejusque adversariis, Kopenh. 1836 ; Jaeger, Erkl. d. Jiriefe 
P. nach Kor. aus d. Gesichtsp. d. vier Parth. Tiib. 1838 ; Schenkel, I)e eccles. Cor. 
prhnaeva fadionibus turbata, Basil. 1838 ; Goldhorn in Illgen's Zeitschr.f. fastor. 
Theol. 1840, 2, p. 121 ff. ; Dahne, d. Ghrisius-parthei in d. apost. Kirche z. Kor., 
Halle 1842 (previously in the Journ. f. Pred. 1841) ; Kniewel, Ecdesiae Cor. 
vetusiiss. disseyisiones et iurbae, Gedan. 1841 ; Becker, d. Par'hemngen in d. Gem. 
z. Kor., Altona 1842 ; Kiibiger, krii. Untersuchungen iib. d. Inhalt d. heid. Br. 
and. Kor., Bresl. 1847 ; Lutterbeck, neutest. Lehrbegr. II. ji. 45 ff. ; Beyschlag 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 217 ff. ; Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 241 
ff. ; Holtzmann in Herzog's Encykl. XIX. -p. 730 ff. ; comp. also Ewald, Gesch. 
d. apost. Zeit. p. 505 ff., 3d ed. Among the latest commentaries, see especially 
those of Osiander, Stuttg. 1847, Introd. § 4 ; Ewald, p. 102 f . ; Hofmann, 1864. 

Eemakk 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, thej' appear as something long 
past and gone, with which Clement compares later quarrels as something worse. 

Kemabk 3. — Only the first part of our Epistle, down to iv. 21, relates to the 
toijic of the parties as such. Hence it is u 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, biat 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 circiimstance which does not tell in favour of the hy- 
pothesis that lays so much mischief to its charge. 


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. Masson in Joh. Masson, Hisloire cril. 

Armenian, from the Corinthians to Paul and ih la n'-publ. rJes le/tres, vo\. "K., 1714; then 

from Paul to the Corinthians, are wretched by David Wilkins, 171.5: by Whii^ton, 1727, 

apocryphal productions (first published by and his sons, 173G ; by Carpzov, Lips. 1776; 


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 Eiiistle, and 
which had now manifested itself even in a case of incest (v. Iff.). 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 rejily (xvi. 12, 17). 

In accordance with these circumstances giving occasion to the letter, it 
was the aim of Paul, first, to counteract the party-divisions and uphold his 
apostolic authority ; secondly, to remove the unchastity which had gained 
ground ; thirdly, to give instruction upon the points regarding which 
queries had been put to him ; and finally, to communicate various other 
instructions, which, in view of the state of things among the Corinthians 
which had come to his knowledge, and partly also in view of the express 
contents of their letter, seemed to him necessary and useful, such as with 
respect to disorder in the public assemblies, with respect to gifts of the Spirit, 
with respect to the resurrection, and with respect to a collection that was to be 
set on foot.' 

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 fif. Reffardln? the date of the com- 

Armenian Grammar, etc., Venet. 1819; position of the lost Epistle, see Wieseler, 

see also Fabric. Cod. Apocr. III. p. 667 ff.). Chronologie des apost. Zeitak. p. SIS. 

Rinck, indeed, has recently (in opposi- ' That this letter from the church was 

tion to the eatlier defence by Whiston, see marked by a tone 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 dritte Sendschr. Paull an die on the erils thernselres, not upon that letter 

Kor. in Armen. TJehersetznnq, neuvei'deutscht, and its character. 

etc., Heidelb. 182.3), and that on the footing " 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, hut 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, iiber den durch Rinck cherishing the idea of a divinely instituted 

bekannt gemachten dritten Brief an d. Kor. order of teachers. Comp. Hofllng, Grund 

und das kvrze Sendschreiben der Kor. in the sdtze d. Kirchenverf. p. 279 f., ed. 3. 
Ileilelb. Jahrb. 1823 ; Bengel, Archiv. 1835, 

6 Paul's first epistle to the corinthians. 

the party-divisions, with a detailed justification of the apostle's mode of 
teaclung (i. 10-iv. 21). Then Paul writes re^jarding the unehastity 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.), Avith the magnificent eulogy on 
love (xiii.), and respecting the resurrection of the dead (xv.). Lastly : 
injunctions about the collection for Jerusalem, miscellaneous remarks, and 
greetings (xvi.). 

It is manifest from the salutation, when rightly understood, that the Epis- 
tle was destined for the lohole church at Corinth, without excepting any party 
whatsoever, but including the rest of the Christians of Achaia. 


From xvi. 8, 19 it is certain that Paul wrote in Ephesus,^ 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. 23 ; 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). 

Remaek 1 . — The statement in the common subscription kyputprj anb ^Mttttuv is 
an old (already in Syr.) and widesjiread error, arising from xvi. 5. In reply to 
the quite untenable grounds urged by Kohler {Ahfassnngfszeit der epistol. Schrifien, 
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 Tub. Zeitschr. 1838, I. p. 63 
ff. The correct subscription is found in B**, Copt. Chrys. Euthal. Theodoret, 
al. : npbg Kop. a kypadr) (Itto 'E<l)faov. 

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, 

> Mill and Haenlein strangely took it p. 301 avails himself of this circumstance In 

to mean : not in, but wwrEphesus, because support of his hypothesis, that the Epistle 

Paul, in xvi. 8. did not write uBe in place of was written in Southern Achaia. See, 

€v'E4>.l Bcittprer also (Beitnige ziir hist. against this, Riickert, J/rt^az./. Exeg.l.p. 

krlt. Einl. in die Paul. Br., OottinK. ia37, III. 132 ff. 


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, Klickert, Anger, Credner. 
Schott, Wurm, Olshausen, Wieseler, Reuss, Ewald, and many others, following 
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Baronius, et ai), as also whether we 
must assume a second visit beticeen 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 c/emiineness, there is no room for doubt in view of the external 
evidences (Polyc. ad Philipjj. 11 ; Ignat. ad Eph. 2 ; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. i. 
47, 49, Ejjist. ad Diogn. 13— Justin M. c. Tryph. pp. 253, 258, 338, Apol. I. 
p. 29 are uncertain — Iren. Haer. iii. 11. 9, iv, 27. 3 ; Athenag. deresurr. p. 
61, ed. Colon. ; Clem. Al. Paedag. p. 96, ed. Sylb. ; Canon Murator. ; Ter- 
tuU. de praescrip. 33, al.), and from the whole character of the Epistle (see 
especially Paley, Horae Paulifiae), 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 {KiHtih 
der Paulin. Brief e, II., Berl. 1851). 


IlavXov Ttpo? Kopivdiov? iitiGtoKr} npajrrj. 

The simplest and probably oldest superscription is that of A B C D K, min. : 

Tvpoq KopivBiovg TvpuTfj. 


Ver. 1. KXrjTog'] 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 knov/n and familiar, that Paul in tha 
beginning of his Epistles almost invariably styles himself anoaT. 'I. X. 6i.a 6eX, 
Qeov without KlrjTog ; see 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Eph. i. 1 ; Col. i. 1; 2 Tim. i. 1. Comp. also 
Gal. i. 1; 1 Tim. i. 1 ; Tit. i. 1 ; only in Kom. i. 1 we find K'AT}r6g. — Instead of 
'IrjaovXpiarov, read, on preponderant evidence, with Lachm. and Tisch. Xpiarov 
'iTjaov. — Ver. 2 ry ovay iv Kop.] is placed by B D* E F G, It. after 'Irjaov ; 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 altei-ation. The hypothesis of Fritzsche, de conformat, N. T. Lachm. 1841, 
p. 44, that {jyinap.. kv X. '1. had been left out, and then reinserted in the wrong 
place, is an arbitrary one, considering the weight of evidence on Lachmanu's 
side and seeing that the right place for the reinsertion would have been so un- 
mistakable. — TE Kni'\ Lachm. : ««/, according to B D G X. But how easily te 
might be dropped without its being noticed ! — Ver. 14. Ruckert has pov after 
Geip, in accordance with A, 17, 57, al. and several vss. and Fathers. An addition 
from ver. 4. — Ver. 15. ejidnTiaa'] A B C* X, min. and several vss. and Fathers 
have ij^aiTTiafiriTE ; so Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Rightly ; the immediate con- 
texli in vv. 14, 16 led to the introduction of the active at a very earlj' date (Syr. 
Tert.). — Ver. 20. tovtov after Kdnpov is wanting in very important witnesses. 
Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Ruckert. A mechanical addition from the forego- 
ing. — Ver. 22. aTjpelov'] aTipela, adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Scholz. 
is so decisively attested byABCDEFG X, min. and many vss. and Fathers, 
that we must regard the singular as introduced through the recollection of 
Matt. xii. 38 f., xvi. 4, al. The reading eivt^ijTovaiv in A points in the same di- 
rection. See the detailed justification of the plur. in Reiche, Commenfnr. crit. 
I. p. 121 ff. —Ver. 23. eOvFni'] Elz. : "ETJrjai, against decisive evidence. Noted 
on margin, and then adopted in accordance with what goes before and follows. 
— Ver. 28. Before ra p?/ ovm Elz. has Kai, against preponderant testimony. Sus- 
pected by Griesb. ; deleted by Lachm. Scholz, Riick. and Tisch. Mechanical 
connection. — Ver. 29. tov Benv'] So Griesb. and all later editors, following de- 
cisive evidence. Avthv in Elz. is an over-hasty correction, due to a failure to 
recognize the design of the repetition of r. Oeov. — Ver. 30. ooipin r'/plv] Approved 
by Griesb. adopted also by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Elz. and Scholz, however, 
have ^/i'lp (TO(j>ia. For the former order are A C D E X, min. Vulg. ms. It. 

CHAP. I., 1. 9 

Harl.** Or. Eus. al, further, B, which has rto<p. tjjiuv, and F G, which have rj 
co(bLa {]iuv. 'Hfilv was put first, in order to join aoipia closely to dnb Qeov ; while 
others marked the conception of the true wisdom by the article (F G). 

Vv. 1-3. Apostolic address and greeting. 

Ver. 1. KATiToq andaT. See on Rom. i. 1. A polemical reference (Chrys- 
ostoiH, Theophylact, and many others, including Flatt, Riickert,01shausen, 
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). — 6ia del. Qeov] That his position as an apostle called 
by Christ was brought about ly the wiU 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 ; 1 Tim. i. 1 ; 3 Tim. i. 1. " Sua ipsius voluntate P. nunquam 
f actus esset apostolus," Bengel. Regarding 6td, see on ver. 9 and Gal. i. 1. • — 
Kul ZuaOh'Tjc] Modern interpreters reckon him the amanuensis of the Epistle (see 
xvi. 21). But the mere amanuensis as such has no share in the Epistle itself, 
which must, however, be the case with one who holds a place in the intro- 
ductory salutation. Since, moreover, in 1 and 2 Thess. we find two others 
besides Paul named with him in the superscription (who therefore could 
hardly botb 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 
Bpistle 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 aj^ostle 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 liimself 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, th.e possi- 
lility 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, I.e. Without due ground, Riickert concludes that 
lie 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 apostlv' to name him 
along with himself. — u (i(Je/l^<if] denotes nothing more special than Chris- 


tiaa brotherhood (so also 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Col. i. 1, r?/.), not fellowship in the 
office of teacher. The pnrticnlm's of the position of Sosthenes were well 
known to the readers. 

Ver. 3. T>/ ekkI. t. Geoii] Qeov is genitive of the owner. Comp. niH' ^np, 
Num. xvi. ;}, xx. 4. The expression is with Paul the stan(lin<f theocratic 
designation of the Christian community, in which the theocratic idea of the 
Old Testament /Hp presents itself as realized ; it is the TT7lipuaiq of thi» 
Snp. Comp. X. 33, xi. 16, 22, xv. ; 3 Cor. i. 1; Gal. i. 13, al. —i)yiaafj. 
iv X. 'I.] adds at once a distinctive definition of quality to r. iKKk. t. Qeov 
(see the critical remarks), and thereupon follows the local specification of r. 
£KKk. T. Qeov. " To the church of God, men Hit net [fed in Christ Jesns, ichich in 
in Corinth.'''' How common it is to find a participle in the phirrd standing 
in an attributive relation to a collective miigiihir, may be seen in Kiihner, 
II. p. 43 ; Pflugk, (id Eur. Hec. 39. Tf; olimj kv Mop., however, is purponely 
placed after I'jyLaafi. k.t.1., because the thought is, that the church of God 
addressed does in itself and as such (not as Corinthiaii) consist of those 
sanctified in Christ. The dyiaa/i6c is to be conceived as conseci'ation to Ood 
in the Christian church (see above, r. tKK'k. r. Qeov). Comp. on Rom. i. 7. 
This belonging to God as His oicn has its causal ground not out of, but /» 
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. 4flE. ; Heb. x. 10). Comp. Phil. i. 1. 'Ev X. 'I. gives to the t/yiaau. 
its distinctively/ Christian character. ' — KlrjTolg ayioLq] 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 KlrjTolq. The adl to the Messianic lingdom (con- 
ceived as issued effectually, comp. on Rom. viii. 38, and see Lamping, Pauli 
de praedestin. decreta, Leovard. 1858, p. 33 f.) is, according to the constant 
conception of the N. T. (Rom. i. 6 ; Gal. i. 6 not excepted), given by Ood 
(ver. 9, Rom. viii. 30, ix. 24, al. ; Usteri, Lehrlegr. p. 381) through the 
preachers of the gospel (Rom. x. 14 ; 3 Thess. ii. 14) ; see Weiss, hibl. 
Theol. p. 386 f. — avv naai «.r.A.] does not belong to KlrjTolq ayioiQ, 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 super scrijit ion as 
j)artof it (on cvv, comp. Phil. i. 1) ; yet neither so as to mark the Epistle as a 
catlwlic one (Theodoret, Estius, Calovius, Cornelius a: Lapide, and others ; 
comp. Schrader) ; nor so that Paul shall be held, while greeting the Corin- 
thians, as greeting in spirit also the universal church (Osiander, comp. Chrys- 
ostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Billroth, Ileydenreich, and others) ; nor yet 
so that by the e-mKnl. r. 6i'. r. Kvp. were meant the separatists, in contrast to 
those disposed to adhere to the church (Vitringa, Michaelis), or as if ahv 
naai k.t.X. were meant to comprehend all Corinthian Christians without dis- 

' [It also shows that the sanctiflcation cording to the standinp force of the phrase 
comes by virtue of union with Christ, ac- in Christ as used by Paul.— T. W. C] 

CHAP. I., 2. 11 

tinction (EicKhorn, Einleit. III. 1, p. 110, Pott) ; but so that the sense is in 
substance just "that expressed in 3 Cor. i. 1 : avv roig dyioiQ ndai roig ovaiv kv 
blri TT) 'Axata. See below on ahruv te ml r/fj.uv. 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 rrdtTi . . . rjjiuv. A comma is to be put after dyioig. — Tolg inmal. r. 
bv T. Kvp.] confessional designation of the Christians, Rom. x. 13 f. ; Acts 
ii. 31. Respecting the N. T. idea of the invoaition 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. 13. — avruv 
re Kal ?;//wv] is joined with tov Kvpiov by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, 
Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Erasmus Schmid, Valckenaer, and 
others, including Billroth, Olshausen, Lllcke (de iiivocat. Ckr., Gotting. 
1843), Wieseler {Chronol. des ai^st. Zeitalt. p. 334), in such a way as to 
make it an epanorthosis or (see Wieseler) epexegesis of the foregoing tjixuv. 
But apart from the fact that this rifiuv in the habitually used 'K.vpioq i)^uv em- 
braces all Christians, and consequently avruv re koX I'jfiuv {I'lfiiJv 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 
TvavTl rdnu, to which they necessarily belong as a more precise definition. 
Comp. Vulg. : "In omni loco ipsorum et nostro.'''' If, namely, cvv -jvaot . . . 
^fiuv must denote the Achaean Christians out of Corinth (see above), then 
iravTi t6wg) requires a limitation to the geographical district which is intend- 
ed. Now, this limitation is not already laid dozen by h KoplvOG) (Liicke, 
Wieseler), since it was precisely in the superscription that the need of deji- 
niteness in designating the readers was obvious, but it is expressly given by 
avTuv TE Kal ^uuv, in such a way, namely, that avruv refers to the Corinthians, 
who, however, are indicated not by v/iuv, but by avruv, because from the 
point where the widening of the address (avv ndai k.t.A.) comes in, the Co- 
rinthians appear as third parties. Accordingly the Epistle is addressed : 
To the Corinthian Christians, and to all irJio, in every place tJiat helongs to them 
(the Corinthians) and to us as well (Paul and Sosthenes), call ^ipon the name 
of Christ. Every place in the province, namely, where Christians lived or 
a church existed (as e.g. in Cenchrese, Rom. xvi. 1), was a pkice which be- 
longed to the Corinthians, a tottoq ahruv, 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 (avruv). As in 

' [The New Testament knows nothing of avT^u applies to the Corinthians. But in 

two kinds of worship.— T. W. C] fact, according to the view of Liicke and 

" It is supposed to convey a polemical Wieseler (see below), it cannot do so, but 

reference to the party-divisions. See Wie- must apply to the other Achaeam. 
seler, I.e. This can only be the case if 

12 Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. 

Rom. xvi. 13 avrov Kal kfiov delicately expresses the community of love (eomp. 
also 1 Cor. xvi. 18 ; Philcm. 11 ; Soph. El. 417 f. : irariwt, tov aov re KOfiov), 
so here avrCtv re kuc r'/nuv 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 Wettc), fails to appreciate 
the ijoiiit of the words. The offence which Ilofm. takes at the reading re 
Kui (as though it must be equivalent to ttrc) arises from a misunder.'*tand- 
ing ; it is the usual co-ordinating re ko/, which here has not even the ajipear- 
ance (Hartung, Partik. I. p. 100) of standing in place of d-f. Comp., on 
the contrary, Hartung, p. 101 ; Bacuml., Partll'. p. 235. Observe, besides, 
that TE Kai gives more rhetorical emphasis to the association of the two gen- 
itives than the simple /cat ; see Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 165. Rabiger, 
h'it. Unters. p. 63 f., has assented to our view. ' Corap. also Maier. Those 
who join ahv naac k.t.1. to kItitoIq ay. (see above) usually take avruv re /cat ijfi. 
as an analysis of the idea navTi : in every place, where they and where we 
(Paul and Sosthenes) are, i.e. elsetchere and here in Ephesus. See Calovius, 
Rlickert, de Wette, Osiander. But how meaningless this more precise ex- 
planation of iravTi would be ! In fact, it would be absurd ; for, since the 
subject \s all {naaL K.T.I.), in which the ??^£/f are thus already included, an 
analysis of it into avroi (which the ndvreg are surely already) and ///^e/f is 
utterly illogical. This ajiplies also in opposition to Becker, by whom the 
rdnog 7]jiuv is held to be Corinth., and to refer to the strangeis who come to 
Corinth. Others have, following Ambrosiaster, referred avruv to the heathen 
lands, and f/fiuv to Judaea (Erasmus, Semlcr, Bolten ; similarly Schrader). 
Contrary to the text, as is also "Wetstein's oj^inion : "P. suum locum\OQ-Ai, 
ubi ipse per praedicationem evangelii ecclosiam fundaverat. Tacite se at- 
que Sosthenem . . . opponit peregrine falso doctori, qui in locum nun suum 
irrepserat." Others refer ev Travri . . . ^J/^wv to the different meeting-places 
of the parties (Vitringa, Mosheim, Eichhorn, Krause, Pott, Ewald), so that 
the Tdnog T//jo)v would be the house of Justus (Acts xviii. 7), or, generally, 
the place where the church had statedly assembled at first imder Paul 
(Ewald) ; and the t6it. avruv the meeting-house of the Petrine party, per- 
haps the Jewish synagogue (Pott), or, in general, the other places of assem- 
bly of the new sections (Ewald). But the presupposition that the church 
was broken up into parties locally separated from each other (see, on the 
contrary, xiv. 23, xi. 17 ff.) has not a single passage in the Epistle to justi- 
fy it. Bottger, I.e. p. 25, holds, strangely, that avribv applies to the Corin- 
thian Christians, and ijfMv to those of Loicer Achaia (among whom Paul is 
sujiposed to have written ; see Introd. § 3) ; and Ziegler, that avruv applies 
to those in Corinth, ■fjij.uv to those staying with Paul in Ephesus, Stephanas, 
Fortunatus, Achaicus (xvi. 17), and others. Hofmann propounds the pe- 
culiar view that /cat rjjiuv betokens that Paul was at home, and felt himself 
to he so, wherever Christ was invoked. As if the reader would have been 
capable of deducing any such ubiquity of spiritual domicile from the sim- 

> Also Burger in his (popular) Auskgung, Erl. 1859, and Holtzmann, Judenthutn «. Chris- 
tenth, p. 749. 

CHAP. I., 3-5. 13 

pie pronoun, and that, too, in the very address of the Epistle, without the 
slightest hint from the connection. 

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 
to the 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 far as 
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 tracing 
all up to God. 

Vv. 4, 5. Mov]' as in Rom. i. 8. — izavTOTe] 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. 3. — ett/ J 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. — h X. 'I.] i.e. in your fellowship icith 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. - — utl] that you, 
namely, etc., epexegesis of £7ri tt) xdp. k.t.X. — -h Kavri] 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 h (comp. 2 Cor. vi. 4), adds 
the more precise definition chosen in reference to the state of things at 
Corinth : h Travrl Aoyw k. nday yvucei : in all discourse and all knowledge — that 
is to say, so that no kind of Christian aptitude of speech, or of Christian 
intelligence, is wanting among you, but both — the former outwardly com- 
municative aptitude, in virtue of which a man isdvvaToqyvuaiv 'e:;EnTelv (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 7o)of 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. A(5yof is not therefore to be understood, with Billroth, de 
Wette, and Maier, of the doctrine preached to the Corinthians. Beza, Gro- 

* See also the elaborate dissertation on the are the (post-Pauline) ones, 1 and 2 Tim. 

apost. benedictory greeting by Otto in the and 2 John 3 ; also Jude 2 (but with a pecul- 

Jahrb.filrD. 7%eo^. 1867, p. 678 flf. The origin iar variation). It was only at a later date 

of that greeting, however, is hardly to be that the Aaronic blessing passed over into 

traced back, as the author holds, to the Christian liturgic use ComtiU. ap. ii. 57. 13) ; 

Aaronic blessing, Num. vi. 2.5 f. Otherwise but a free reminiscence of that blessing 

it would always be triiKtrtUe, and, in par- may already be contained in the greetings 

ticular, would not omit the characteristic of those late Epistles. 

eAco?. Now, the only Epistles in which it » [Westcott & Hort omit this word, but 

certainly occurs as tripartite, and with eAeos, apparently without reason.— T. W. C] 

14 Paul's first epistle to Tin-: Corinthians. 

tius, and others take 7.6yoc to be specially the douum Unguarum, and jtwot? 
the donum 2)ropheti(ie, -which, however, is not convejed either in the words 
themselves or in the connection, and is, moreover, at variance with the sub- 
ordinate importance attached to the ylucaaig la^^elv (chap. xiv.). Lastly, as 
to the running together of the two : h ■Kacy yvuaei tov 7m-jov (Schulz, Morus, 
Rosenmiiller), the very repetition of the trday, and the difference in point of 
idea between the two words, sliould have dissuaded its supporters from su'^h 
a view ; for loy. and yvtjc. can as little be synuiiyiiu (Clericus, Pott) as "^St 
and ril'T . Clement also, 1 Cor. 1, praises the former condition of the church 
with respect to tijv TeXelav Kal aa^a'Ali yvuaiv. 

Ver. 6. KaBug] According as, introduces the relation of that happy condi- 
tion of things {ev ■Kavrl knlovTiadriTE . . . yvuffei) to its cause. See on John 
xiii. 34, xvii. 2 ; 1 Cor. v. 7 ; Eph. i. 4 ; Phil. i. 7 ; Matt. vi. 12. —to 
(lapTvpiov TOV X.] characteristic designation of the OospeJ, the publishers of 
which bear witness of Christ. Comp. 2 Tim. i. 8 ; Acts i. 8, iii. 15, al.; 
2 Thess. i. 10 ; 1 Pet. v. i. Comp. fiapr. tov Beoi; ii. 1. — ifSe^aiuOri] 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 KuSug k.t.a. to the foregoing, as well as with 
the (iejiaiuctt of ver. 8 (comji. 2 Cor. i. 21 ; Col. ii. 7), to explain it of the 
gospel becoming Ji7'mly established in their souls (by stedfast faith), so that the 
opposite is expressed by the Johannine tov Myov ovk exere fiivovxa h v/jIv 
(John V. 38). Comp. Billroth andde Wette. — ev v/nlv] in animis vestris. 

Ver. 7. Result of tu fiapT. r. X. £/3e/3. h vpiv, consequently parallel to ev 
TzavTi knlovT. h avTo). The negative expression py vartpeiaOai h is conceived 
quite after the analogy of the positive Ti?MVTi(. h (see on ver. 5), so that ev 
denotes that in which one is behind (defectively constituted). Hence : so 
that ye in no gift of grace are behind {i.e. less rich than other churches.) 
Comp. Plat. Pol. vi. p. 484 D : prjd' kv a?2(f) pr/6evl pepei ape-fjQ vart/povvTag. 
Ecclus. Ii. 24. The sense would be different, if the words were p^ihvbg 
XapiapaTog (so that no gift of grace is lachingtoyou.) See Rom. iii. 22 ; Luke 
xxii. 35 ; John ii. 3. Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 51. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 237 ; 
ad 8oj)h. Aj. 782. Xapiapa is here to be taken (with Calvin and others, in- 
cluding Rosenmiiller, Pott, de Wette, Maier) in the ioider 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 nvevpn ayiov (Rom. i. 11 ; 1 Cor. 
vii. 7) ; not, with most of the older expositors, as well as Billroth, Riickert, 
Olshausen, Hofmann, in the narrotcer sense of the extraordinary gifts (chap, 
xii. flf.). The proof of this is, first, that the immediately following dn-e/crfe- 
;^op. K.T.7.. makes the ptj vnTepelaffai. h prjiSevl ;\;«p/(T//a-/ appear as an ethical 
endowment ; second, that the significant retrospective reference of the 
aveyKkijTovg in ver. 8 does not suit the jrtp/ff/vfl-n! in the narrower sense, 

' " Non de confirmatione externa verbi, Calovius. Chrysostom understood it of 
quae fit per miracula, sed de confirmatione both ; Tlieodoret, Theophylact, and others, 
interna quae fit per testimonium Sp. St., " of the miracles only. 

CHAP. I., cS. 15 

but does suit all the more strikingly the moral character of the Christian 
gifts of the Spirit in general. The form of exjiression 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 (comji. 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 snfficienter j^raeditum esse 
to stand comparison with other churches. — aneKthxofi. k.-.A.] is a significant 
accompanying definition to what has gone before : as iMrsons, who are not 
in any wise afraid of the revelation of Christ (1 Pet. i. 7 ; Col. iii. 3 f.) and 
wish it away, but who are waiting for it. This waiting and that afflux of 
grace stand in a mutual relation of action and reaction. Bengel says 
rightly : " GTia/racter Christian! veri vel falsi, revelationem Christi vel ex- 
pectare vel horrere." The fact that there were among the Corinthians 
deniers of the resurrection (and consequently of the Parousia in its full 
idea) — which, we may add, might naturally enough cause this hope to 
become all the more vividly prominent in the case of the rest — does not 
take away from the truth of the words, which hold good of the church a 
potiori. Just as little can they (contrary to the winning tone of the whole 
preamble) have it as their design to terrify with the thought of the day of 
judgment (Chrysostom), or to censure the doubters (Grotius, Riickert), or 
even to make ironical reference to the fancied perfection of the Corinthians 
(Mosheim). The participial clause, which needed neither wf nor the article, 
is not merely a temporal definition — consequently "/or the time'''' of the 
waiting (Hofmann) — any more than at Tit. ii. 13 ; Rom. viii. 33 ; Jude 
21. — dTTfKf?.] denotes the persevering expectation. See on Rom. viii. 19 ; 
Fritzsche in FritzscMor. Opusc. p. 150 flf. The word does not indicate 
the element of longing (de Wette). See Rom. viii. 25 ; t Pet. iii. 20. For 
the subject-matter, comp. Phil. iii. 20 ; Tit. ii. 13 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; Luke xii. 36. 
Ver. 8. "Of] refers to 'l^aov X., not, as Flatt, Pott, Billroth, Schrader, 
Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann, with the majority of in- 
terpreters, assume, to the far-distant Gedf, ver. 4, — a view to which we are 
not compelled either by the 'I>ja. Xpiarov 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, «?.). 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. — Kai] also, 
denotes that which corresjjonds to the cnrsKiiexeodai k.t.X., What Christ will 
do. — (iefiatuaei] arripi^Ei, Rom. xvi. 25 ; 1 Thess. iii. 13 ; 2 Cor. i. 21. The 
future .stands here not optaticely (Pott), but as expressive of a confident hope 
in the gracious working of Christ. ' — ewf relov^] applies not to the end of life 

' Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, rect censure ; as a hint that they were aa.- 
and others, find in this expression an indi- AeuoMevoi and eyKArj^ao-i vvv viroKeiy-evoi. A 

16 Paul's first epistle to the corinthians. 

(Calovius, Flatt, and others), but, as the foregoing r. cnroKa?.. k.t.?.. and the 
following h Ty t/tupa n.T.'k. clearly show, to the end of the pre-Messianic 
period of the world's history (the aluv ovroc, 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 avvT£?^ia tov aluvoq, Matt. xiii. 39 f., 
xxiv. 3, xxviii. 20 ; comp. Heb. ix. 2G. — aveyKAi/Tovg k.t.'a.] result of the 
strengthening : 80 that ye shall he free from reproach in the d/iy, etc. Comp. 
1 Thess. iii. 13. See respecting this proleptic usage generally, on Matt, 
xli. 13 ; Phil. iii. 21, and Jacob, Quaest. epic. ii. 4, p. 136 S. Stallb. ad 
Plat. Hep. p. 560 D. — tov Kvplov k.t.1.] The repetition of the noun in- 
stead of the mere pronoun is common in the classics also (Ellendt, ad 
Arrian. Exp. Al. i. 55 ; Kiihner, ad Xeii. Mem. i. 6. 1), and elsewhere in the 
N. T. (Winer, I.e. and p. 136 [E. T. 180]). Here (as at 2 Cor. i. 5 ; Eph. 
i. 13 ; Col. i. 13 f., al.) it has solemn emphasis. Comp. ver. 21. — It is to 
be noted, moreover, that the blamelessness in the day of Christ (comp. 
Rom. viii. 33) is conditioned (2 Tim. iv. 7) by perseverance in the faith 
(through which justification is appropriated) and consequently rests on the 
imputation of faith (Rom. iv. 4 f.) ; but is nevertheless, in virtue of the 
moral character and power of faith, as also in virtue of sanctification through 
the Spirit, of a thoroughly moral nature (Rom. vi. 1 flf., viii. 1 flf.), so that 
the avkyKlriTog at the Parousia appears not, indeed, as ava/idpTTfTog, but as kucv^ 
KTiaig kv Xprnru (2 Cor. v. 17), who, being divinely restored (Eph. ii. 10 ; 
Col. iii. 10) and progressively sanctified (1 Thess. v. 23), has worked out 
his own salvation (Phil. ii. 12) in the consecration of the moral power of the 
new spiritual life (Rom. viii. 2 f . ; Phil. i. 10 f., and now receives the [ipa- 
^eiov of his calling (Phil. iii. 14), the ariipavog of the StKatoavvr/ (2 Tim. iv. 8), 
in the 66^a of everlasting life. 

Ver. 9. Ground of this confident hope. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 13 ; 1 Thess. 
V. 24 -,2 Thess. iii. 3 ; Phil. i. 6 ; Rom. xi. 29. Were the jiE^aiumiq on the 
part of Christ (ver. 8) not to take place, the divine call to the mivuvia tov 
vlov avTov 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). — Ruckert finds 
in (V ot', 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 v(f ov, which D* F G in fact read. But Paul is thinking here in a 
popular way of the call as mediated throuffJi God. It is true, of course, that 
God is the cajisa jti'incipalis, but the mediating agency is also God's, if ov koI 
Jt' ov Ta TzdvTa (Rom. xi. 36) ; hence both modes of representation may oc- 
cur, and Scd may be used as well as vtrd, wherever the context does not make 
it of importance to have a definite designation of the primary cause as such. 
Comp. Gal. i. 1 ; Plat. Symp. p. 186 E, Pol. ii. p. 379 E. Fritzsche, ad 
Pom. I. p. 15 ; Bcrnhardy, p. 235 f. — The mivuvia tov vlov avTov is the fel- 
loicshipwith the Son of God (genitive, as in 2 Cor. xi. 13 ; Phil. ii. 1 ; 2 Pet. 
i. 4), i.e. the participation in the filial relation of Christ, which, however, 

view the more inappropriate, when we con- tie was the thought expressed with respect 
sider how natural and familiar to the apos- to all his churches. 

CHAP. I., 10. 17 

is not to be understood of the temporal relation of sonship, Gal. iii. 26 f. 
{jioivuviav yap viov t f/ v vlod e ciav EKaleae, Theodoret), nor of ethical fel- 
lowship (Grotius, Hofmann, and many others), but, in accordance with the 
idea of the /ca/leiv which always refers to the Messianic kingdom, of fdlow- 
ship of the glory of the Son of God in the eternal Messianic life, ' — a fellowsMp 
wliich will be the glorious completion of the state of vlodeaia (Gal. iv. 7). It 
is the So^a tuv tekvuv tov Oeov (Rom. viii. 31 j, when they shall be avyKhjpovo- 
juot TOV XptaTov, (7i'/j./iop<j)oi of His image, crv/j.j3aGi?i.£vovTeg and cvvSo^aGdtvrsq, 
Rom. viii. 17 ; comp. vv. 23, 29 ; 2 Thess. ii. 14 ; Col. iii. 4 ; Phil. iii. 20 
f. ; 1 Cor. XV. 48 f . ; 2 Tim. ii. 12. 

Ver. 10-iv. 21. First section of the Epistle : resjyecting the parties, with a 
defence of the apostle^ s way of teaching. 

Vv. 10-16. Exhortation to ^mity (yer. \0), statement of the character of their 
p)arty -division (vv. 11, 12), and how wrong it was (vv. 13-16). 

Ver. 10. ^'■Exhortation, however, lest ye miss this end of your calling, 
exhortation I give to you," etc. — a^el^oi] 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. — Sia tov bvdfiaToq /v.r.2.] hy 
means of the name, etc., while I point you to the name of Christ, which, in 
truth, constitutes the one confession of all His disciples, and thereby set 
before you the motive to follow my exhortation. Comp. Rom. xii. 1, xv. 30 ; 
2 Cor. x. 1 ; 2 Thess. iii. 12. Were the meaning ex mandato Ghristi (Heu- 
mann, Semler, Ernesti, and Rosenmiiller), it would be expressed by h tC) 
bvofi. (v. 4 ; 2 Thess. iii. 6, «?.). — lva\ design, and in this form of concep- 
tion, contents of the wnpaKaJM, as in xvi. 12, 15 ; 2 Cor. viii. 6, ix. 5 ; 2 
Thess. ii. 17, and often in the Synoptic Gospels. — to uvto "XeyriTe] 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 mnsensus animorum is only expressed in the sequel {tjte 
6k KUTripTia/j,. K.T.Ti.) ; in the first instance it is the outstanding manifestation 
of the evil that Paul has in view. This in opposition to Erasmus, Grotius, 
Estius, Wolf, and many others, including Heydenreich and Billroth, who 
explain the phrase of this inward agreement, which Paul would have known 
well how to express by to avTo fpovelv (Rom. xv. 5 ; Phil. ii. 2 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 
11), or in some similar correct way, and which, even in such passages as 
Thuc. V. 31. 5, Polyb. ii. 62, is not expressed, hnt presup>p)osed. More expres- 
sive still is Polyb. v. 104. 1 : Myeiv iv kuI TavTd, to sjjeah one and the same 
thing. — koI fif) y kv vji. axioiJ-nTa] the same thought \n jyrohihitiveiorui. (com\i. 
Rom. xii. 14, al.), but designating the evil forbidden vwre gener-ally, accord- 
ing to its category. — fjTe Se k.t.X.] 6e, but rather, hit on the contrary (see Har- 
tung, PartiJcell. I. p. 171 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 360 ; Baeuml. Partih. p. 
95), introduces what ought to be the case instead of the forbidden koI fifi 
/c.r.A. — KaTTjpTia/iEvoi] fully adjusted, estaUished in the right frame (Vulg. 
perfecti ; Theophyl. teIelol). Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; Gal. vi. 1 ; Heb. xiii. 
11 ; 1 Pet. V. 10 ; Luke vi. 40. When there are divisions in a society, the 

' Comp. Weiss, biblische Theol. p. 310. 


KarapTiaiq is wanting (2 Cor. xiii. 9 ; comp. Ka-apTiafidr, Ei)li. iv. 12j ; licuce 
Greek writers also use Karap-liietv in speaking of the estaljlishment of riglit 
relations by the removal of disunion (as here), sedition, or the like, Herod. 
V. 28. 106 ; Dion. Hal. Antt. iii. 10. Whether any Jtyiirative reference, 
however, of Karf/pr. to the original sense of cxicifta-a. Jinsm-ue, he 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, Eisner, 
Valckenaer, Pott, Heydenreich, and others tliink, 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 ax'tofia absolutely, and without special thought of its origi- 
nal material reference (Matt. ix. 16), to denote dimdimn (John vii. 43, ix. 
16, X. 19 ; 1 Cor. xi. 18, and even xii. 25). — iv r^ avrO vo'i k.t.a.] the sphere, 
in which they were to be Karrfpr. Comp. Heb. xiii. 21. Noif and jto//^ 
differ as understanding and opinion. Through the fact, namely, that Chris- 
tians in Corinth thoiight differently (vovq) on important matters, and in con- 
sequence of this difference of thinking, formed in a partisan sj^irit different 
opinions and judgments {yvufiij), and fought for these against each other, the 
TO avTo Myeiv was wanting -and axioiiara prevailed. In opposition to this, 
the Corinthians were to agree together in Christian thinking ' and judging ; 
the right state of things was to establish itself among them in opovoelv and 
ofioyvufxovelv (Thuc. ii. 97 ; Dem. 281. 21 ; Polyb. xxviii. 6. 2). In epiSeg, 
ver. 11, we have the manifestation of the opposite of both of these, of 
Christian sameness of thought and ojjinion. 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 parti/ differences and hostility. 
' AtKpiajirjTovai fiev yap koI 6C evvocav ol (pi/oi To'tq <pi?.oi^, k p i [,ova i Ae o'l dimpopoi 
-e Kat ixffpol allfjloic^ Plat. Prot. p. 837 B. Many other interpreters take 
yvu/xT/ as referring to the practical disposition (to Im-e ) ; whereas voix denotes 
the theoretical uuderstanding. See Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, 
who says : brav yap rt/v avrt/v niariv ext^j^EV, iiy avvanTupeda 6e Kara tt/v ayanT/v., 
ra fiev avra voov fiev , dilaTdfiefta 6i Kara rr/v yvufiyv. But this separation 
between theory and practice is quite arbitrary ; and yvufirj never means in 
the N. T. " disposition, " but alwaj's (even in Rev. xvii. 13, 17) sententia, 
judicium. Comp. the classical ri/g avriiq yvufirjc elvat, to have one and the same 
view, Thuc. i. 113, iii. 70. Eur. Hec. 127 : ek fudg yvup^g, Dem. 147. 1 : Sia 
fiiag yv6f/^g yiveadai, Isocr. Paneg. 38 : ttjv avTtjv exeiv yv6/iit/v, Plat. Ale. 2, p. 
139 A. The converse : kyivovro Sixa ai yvu/iai, Herod, vi. 109. 

Ver. 11. Motive for the foregoing exhortation. — vTrd rfov X? 6r/c] comp. 
Rom. xvi. 10 ; Winer, p. 179 [E. T. 238]. WJiat persons belonging to 
Chloe are meant, was as well known to the readers as it is unknown to us. 
Grotius and Valckenaer understood ^ ^ mortuae Chloiis liheros ;''^ others gen- 

• The sense of " dispogition" is wronply Maier). This is not the case even in Rom. 
attributed to yovi (Riic.kert, Neander. i. 28, xii. 2; Eph. iv. 17 ; see irt toe. 

CHAP. I,, 12. 19 

erally, '^ those of Iter Iwuselwld ;''' others, again, '^slaves,'' as undoubtedly 
such genitives are sometimes to be explained by dovXuc (Schaef. ad Bus. Ell. 
p. 117 f.) ; comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 60 A. Chioe herself is commonly held to 
be a Corinthian Christian, members of whose household had come to Eph- 
esus. It seems, however, more in accordance with apostolic discretion to 
suppose (with Michaelis) that she was an Ephesian well known to the Co- 
rinthians, members of whose household had been in Corinth and retijrned 
thence. — The name (familiar as a surname of Demeter) occurs also elsewhere ; 
Hor. Od. i. 33, iii. 9. 6 ; Long. Past. 7. We may add that Bengel remarks 
weW on kdrjludrj (comp. Col. i. 8) : "exemplum delationis bonae nee sine 
causa celandae." It was in fact the fulfilment of a duty of love. 

Ver. 13. Now what I mean (by this epuhg kv vfuv elai) is this (which fol- 
lows), that, etc. Eegarding the explicative leyu, common also in Greek 
writers, comp. Gal. iii. 17 ; Rom. xv. 8. Calvin and Beza understand it, 
making tovto retrosijective : I say this, because, etc. But, not to speak of 
the less suitable meaning thus attained, tovto in all parallel passages points 
invariablj fo)-icard (Gal. iii. 17 ; Eph. iv. 17 ; 1 Cor. vii. 39, xv. 50), ex- 
cept when, as in vii. 35, Col. ii. 4, a clause expressive of design follows. — 
EKacrrof] Each of you speaks in one of the forms following. Comp. xiv. 36. 
Chrysostom says aptly : oh yap fiipog, aTCka to nav eTrevefxeTo T?jg cKKXrjaiag rj (pdopd. 
— Nothing is to be supplied with the genitive Xlai'/low k.t.X., for slvai Tivog 
means to 'belong to any one, addictum esse. See Seidl. ad Eur. El. 1098 ; 
Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 631 ; Winer, p. 184 [E. T. 343 f.]. — K;7^a] The Jewish 
name (*'?"'l') is so usual with Paul (iii. 33, 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 Hhpog em- 
ployed by him ; hence the less may we regard Kr]<pa 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 j^arties 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 
XpicTov and ver. 14 fl. invalidate at once the theory held by the Fathers 
(Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others, see Riibi- 
ger, Jcrit. Unters. ji. 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. (3) There can be no reduction of the number of 
the parties helow four, although many attempts have been made to bring to- 
gether not only the partisans of Paul and of ApoUos (as having but a formal 
difference), but also the Petrine and the Christine parties (J. E. Chr. 
Schmidt, Biil. f. Krit. ti. Exeg. I. p. 91 ; Baur in the Tid>. Zeitschr. 1831, 
4, p. CI ff., and in his Paulus, I. p. 391 ff., ed. 3 ; 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 pai'ties by assuming that they were ap- 
proved of by the apostle (Schott, with older interpreters). Paul, in factj 

20 Paul's fiust epistle to the Corinthians. 

sets forth quite uniformly /««?• definite diversities of confession standing in 
contrast, and then shows in ver. 13 how sad and how prejjosterous this state 
of division was. — In the face of this manifest mode of reckoning and dispos- 
ing of tlie parties by tlie apostle himself in this passage, severa 1 theories, 
respecting more particularly (3) tJw CJirist-parti/, must be dismissed as un- 
tenable. Among these is (a) the view repeatedly brought forward from the 
days of Chrysostom :' "Mentionem eorum proptirca fecit xma cum illis, 
quod, cujusnam generis essent dissidia inter Cor. excitata, jicr^jnaie e-rj/licare 
non jioterat, nisi ita, ut diceret, alios hunc, alios ilium praeferre doctorcm, 
aliis (recte quidem, 1 Cor. iii. 23) se Christi sectatorcs sim])liciter apjx'llan- 
tibus" (Schott, Isag. 333). With respect to this, it is to be observed that 
iii. 23 implies not the justification of those ^Jyov-eg- f j gj 6e Xpiarov, but the 
truth of the idea,' from the abuse of which that fourth jiarty arose which in 
the 2)assage before us appears imder a precisely similar condemnation to 
that of the other three, (h) 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 tovc Kr/ipd, because Peter 
had the primacy among the apostles of the Jews, and also rohg Xpiarov, be- 
cause they held direct connection with Christ to be the main mark of true 
apostleship, and therefore counted Paul far behind the other apostles ; * 
that the Christ-party, in fact, were the most thoroughgoing disciples of 
Peter (comp. Billroth and Credner, Einl. sec. 132 ; also Keuss, and especial- 
ly Holsten, s. Ev. d. Paul. u. Pet?: p. 25 f.). (c) The opinion of Becker, 
that the Christine party were, 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 ApoUos, 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 e.xegetes, lytj Se Xpiarov being the ut- 
tei-ance common to the three parties ; so that all, indeed, professed allegiance 

' He, however, holds that Paul added tine party from its non-mention. Origan 

"iyto &i Xpio-ToO" koX oi.Ko6(v (i.e. a.<f)' iavTov, also does tiOf quote the ey!o Si Xpio-ToO with 
as Theophylact has it), ^ov\6nevoi' fiapuTfpov the rest of the passage in one instance, al- 

t6 eyK\r)fxa Troi^aai Kai &t fat ovTio Koi TOi' though he does in ailotlier. 

XpiuToi' eis p.epos lioOevTa ei', et xal /ixr) oiiTws 3 See Bcyselihtg, p. 235 ff. — Hilgenfeld (see 
iiroiovf TovTo iKflvoi. Comp. also Theodoret, his Zei/gc/ir. 1805, p. 241) calls Baur's disser- 
wlu) lays stress on tlie special wisdom of tation of 1831, " the ancestral stronghold of 
this procedure. our whole criticism." If so, it is a ruin, 
* Tlie rightness of the confession : ey!o Se like so many other ancestral strongholds. 
Xpio-ToO, considered in and by itself, explains It could not so much as stand firm against 
also why Clement, 1 Cor. 47, mentions only the simple words eyw Si Xpi<rToO, into which 
tlie other three parties and not tlie Christ- Baur )int a meaning as if Paul had written : 
party as well, lie is speaking against the tyta Si tC>v aTroaroAuji' XpicrroO. The con- 
attachment to human party-leaders. He fessioii e-yw 6eXpt(TToO necessarily transcends 
might, indeed, in some way suitable to the all apostolic autliority. and excludes it. 
connection of his exhortation, have brought * Comp. Hilgenfeld, who holds that they 
in the Christine party (which lie doubtless were immediate disciples of Christ, who 
would have done, if they had been as bad sought to establish the exclusive authority 
as they have been made out to be of late), of the original apostles, denying to Paul 
but there was no ««c«m<i^ for his doing so, the Xpto-roO t'^/ai. See also Hilgenfeld in his 
Hence it is unwarrantable to infer (with Zcilschr. 1864, p. Kyj f. 
Jtiibiger) the non-existence of a special Chris- 

CHAP. I., 13. 21 

to Christ, but the strife between them consisted in this, " that they made 
jiarticipation 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, qui a 
Christo Christianos se dicebant, quatenus ah allis sese per schisma sepwrabant, illo 
nomine siM solum appropriato, schismatis rei erant." Since they are ranked, 
just as the others, under the category of the axiofj-ara and £(}i6e<; (vv. 10, 11), 
and their fault is set before them as before the others, ver. 13, by /le/jip. 6 
Xpiardg, 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. § 1 ; also Riickert, Bleek, Einl., Hofm. 16 f.), 
that there is no need whatever for any attempt at a different explanation ; 
such as Eichhorn's imagination, that they rested upon the sayings of Jesus 
in the Protevangelium ; or the view of Grotius, Witsius, Wetstein, and Zieg- 
ler, that they had heard Christ themselves,' or at least their founder had (if 
the former, how disproportionately small must their number needs have 
been ! and if the latter, they would surely have named themselves after their 
founder, since Peter, too, was a personal disciple of Christ). Equally unde- 
serving of acceptance is Storr's view {Opusc. II. p. 252 ff.), adopted by 
RosenmiiUer, Krause, Hug, Heydenreich, and Flatt (comp. also Bertholdt, 
Einl. VI. p. 3319), that they had called themselves tov Xpiaroii, as followers 
of James the brother of Christ. This is an empty conjecture, not to be sup- 
ported by ix. 5, XV. 9 ; and it has, besides, especially this against it, that 
the followers of the venerated James would have had no ground, as distin- 
guished from the other parties, for not calling themselves ol tov 'IukcjiSov or 
oi TOV aSeXcpov tov Kvplov, 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-jjarty 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 j)ecyliar connection with the Lord being laid claim to by the 
Christ-party. This holds especially of SclmileVs 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- 

' This view is taken up again by Tliiersch, with Pharisaic views, proud of their Hebrew 

d. Kirche im apost. Zeitalier, p. 14.3 ff. He descent and of tlieir having known Clirist 

regards the Chvist--pa.i-ty SiS personal dit:ci}}les in the fiesh, disputing the apostleship of 

of Christ, who had come to Corinth from Paul, etc. 
Jerusalem and probably also from Rome, 

23 pa-Ul's first epistle to the corinthians. 

ent's Epistle. Schenkel's theory (defended also by Grimm in the Lit. Bl. 
zur allg. Kirchemeit, 1851, No. 82) bases itself especially on the 2:)as8ages 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 es2)ecially 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 iri the parties of Paul, Apollos, and Peter, makes no ref- 
erence whatsoever to the Christ-party, — a silence which is eloquent enough 
to make us hesitate in ascribing to them any such extreme and dangerous 
character as some have lately imputed to them, and to incline us rather to 
the view of their fundamental principle being one in itself sound, but per- 
verted in its application by party-spirit. ' In addition to de Wette, Lutter- 
beck, and Maier, Goldhorn and Dahne agree in substance with Schenkel, 
seeking amidst differences in detail to prove the existence of 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 Essene views, who, ' ' found- 
ing, doubtless, on some special evangelic writing, and in accordance there- 
with exalting the examj^le of Christ personally above all else, disajiproved 
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 Essene 
Christianity, or in particular of Essene asceticism, as at Rome and Colossae ; 
while, on the other hand, the rejection of marriage does not apj^ear 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-jDarty, the question tchetJier they were Jewish (as commonly held) 
or Gentile Christians answers itself to this effect, that tliey tcere composed of 
loth elements, as also were the adherents of Paul and of Apollos. For we have 
not the slightest ground for assuming that, when the division in the church 
arose upon matters turning on the respect due to individual men, it was 
either Jewish Christians alone, or Gentile Christians alone, who gave them- 
selves to the idea of renouncing the acknowledgment of any human teacher, 
and seeking instead to be tov Xpiarov. This holds good in i)articular against 

» The force of this argument is doubtless for the law of their Pharisaic brethren, and 

evaded by the assumption, that the leaders became a support for tiieir position. Those 

of the party had probably not developed of the Christ-party with Pharisaic tenden- 

their hurtful influence until after the ar- cies were joined, too, by some who boasted 

rival in Corinth of our first Epistle. But that they had once known Christ Himself 

this is simply an unwan-anted evasion. familiarly, nay, that they had seen Him 

'According to P^wald's Gesch. d. apost. when risen from the dead, so that they laid 

Zeit. p. 506 f., ed. 3, they readily allowed claim to apostolic estimation, 
themselves to be carried away by the zeal 

CHAP. I., 12. 23 

Neander, who makes the Christ-party to be Gentile Christians, of a certain 
philosojjhic 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 difEerent a way must Paul 
have come forward against any such syncretistic rationalism ! See, besides, 
in reply to this, Beyschlag, p. 220 ff. Altogether, there were but few men 
of philosophic training who had come over to Christianity at Corinth (ver. 
26) ; and those who had at least a philosophic tendency found the food for 
which they sought with Apollos. And it is a groundless assumption to 
maintain that what Paul says against worldly wisdom (chap. i. 2) is spoken 
with a polemic reference to the Christ-party (this in opposition to Schenkel, 
Jaeger, Goldhorn, Dahne, 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 ardi-Paulvne 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- 

• He depicts them as wealthy Jewish to the idea of Christ being the Supreme 
Christians, familiar with Greek science, who teacher, fallen into a one-sided way of con- 
professed attachment to the spirit of Chris- sidering only His appearance as a man on 
tianity alone, but concealed under this earth, and more especially His teaching, 
mask lawlessness and immorality, and and of allowing the theocratic aspect of 
were deniers of the resurrection. the Lord's life and work to pass more out 

" Originating, according to him, from the of sight. 
Petrine party, they had, while holding fast 

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. 13. Me/ieptarai 6 Xpiardc] affirmative (with Lachmann and Kniewel ; 
so Tiveg as early as Theodoret), not interrogatory (as commonly taken), set- 
ting forth the tragical result of the af arena id state of party-divinion, 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 hrohen 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.' The reproach here conveyed suits the Christ -party also (against 
Rabiger), just as forming a j^arty, but not them alone (Hofmann). The in- 
terrogatory rendering, common since Chrysostom : Is Christ divided ? taken 
as a question of surprise, has nothing against it linguistically (see esp. 
Valckenaer, II. p. 71 f.), but it is liable to the objection that it is only with 
the following jxlj that the text gives us to recognize the beginning of the 
interrogative address.'' Had Paul intended jLu/tifp. 6 X. as a question, it 
would have been most natural for him in the flow of his discourse to carry 
on the same form of interrogation, and say : y UavXog kar. in. vfi. The text, 
I may add, gives no warrant for interpreting Xpiardg of the corpus Chr. 
mysticum, i.e. the church (Estius, Olshausen, and others ; tlveq in Theodoret), 
or even of the doctrina Chr., wliich is not varia et multijdex (Grotius, Mos- 
heim, Semler, Morus, RosenmuUer). — ny Jlailog k.t.A.] Paul surely teas not, 
etc. From this point on to ver. 16 the incongruous nature of the first party- 
confession of faith is specially exposed. Bengel aptly remarks: "Cruxet 
baptismus nos Christo asserit ; relata : rediraere, se addicere." The two 
questions correspond to the mutual connection between helieving and heing 
hajMsed. — vnep'] on behalf of in the sense of atonement.^ Comp. on Gal. 1. 
4 ; Eph. V. 2. — pif to bvojia] in reference to the name, as the name of him 
who is to be henceforth the object of the faith and confession of the indi- 
vidual baptized. Comp. on Matt, xxviii. 19 and Rom. vi. 3. — There was no 
need of a single word more regarding the first of these two questions ; the 

' The conception is not that Christ is 'i [But compare the usage in i Cor. iii. 1, 

bi'oken vp into parts or fragments, so that where the particle is given only in the 

the one party should possess this, the other second quest ion. —T. W. C] 

that, part (see Baur, de Wette, Riickert, ^ Lachm. reads nep\ v/iiv, instead of virip 

Calvin, etc., with Chrysostom and Theo- iiiimv, following only B D* ; too weakly at- 

phylact) ; for each party gave itself out as tested, and deserving of rejection also on 

the possessor of the whole Christ, not this ground, that Paul always uses vnip 

simply of a part. He standing to it in the (even in 1 Thess. v. 10) where the death of 

relation of its Lord and Head. To this Christ is placed in relation to persons, for 

conception corresponds, too, the cyio &e tvhorn He died. Comp. on xv. 3, which is 

XpKTToC, instead of whicli it would not the only ceitain passage in Paul's writings 

have been necessary that it should run, where vnep occurs with an abstract term. 

ip-ov 6 Xpio-Toj, as Hofmann objects. See also Wieseler on Gal. i. 4. 

CHAP. I., 14-17. 25 

answer to it was so self-evident. But as to the second^ the apostle has some 
remarks to make, vv. 14-16. 

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). RTickert linds 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. Hofmanu 
suggests wrongly : they might have interpreted it, as though he had wished 
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 Jie 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 kyi) fiev elfii TIav'Aov is, because it would have 
such absurd premisses. — Kpicwov^ See Acts xviii. 8. — Vdlov] See on Rom. 
xvi. 23. — Iva fiT/] is never elsewhere, and is not here, to be taken as : so 
that not, but it denotes the design, arranged in the divine providential lead- 
ing, of the oi'(Uva vfi. kjicnvTiaa (comp. ver. 17 ; 3 Cor. i. 9, al.). 

Ver. 16. Another Corinthian family baptized by him occurs to his mind. 
He adds it conscientiously, and then cuts off any possibility of his being re- 
proached with untruthful omission by lomhv ova olSa k.t.1. Regarding 
Stephanas, we know nothing save from xvi. 15, 17. — Xoinov 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 iy 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 Aj)ollos (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. 

Ver. 17. Rapid and skilful transition (comp. Rom. i. 16) to this (ov yap . . . 
Etiayy.),* and theme of the section (ovk h ao(j)la .' . . Xpiarov). — ov yap k.t.1.] 

' Suggested naturally by what had been who had been baptized by Peter (Hof- 

said in w. 14, 16, and without any ironical mann) ; nor yet against teachers "qui prae- 

side-glance at those who had prided them- textu ceremoniae gloriolam venantur" (Cal- 

selves on their baptizers (Calovius) ; in par- vin and Osiander). Such polemical refer- 

ticular, not leveUed at boastings on this euces are dragged in without warrant in the 

ground on the part of Jewish-Christians text. 

26 Paul's first epistle to the coriisthians. 

In the assured consciousness that the design of his apostolic mission was 
teaching, Paul recognized that bajjUzing, as an external office and one that 
required no special gift, should as a rule be left to others, the apostolic vnri- 
perat (Acts xiii. 5), in order to avoid, for his own part, being <lra\vn away 
from following out that higher aim, which was his specific calling. A very 
needful and salutary division of duties, considering the nuiltitudc 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.' — oh . . . a//'] is not here, 
any more than elsewhere, to be taken as ecpiivalent to non tam . . . quam 
(Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Estius, Storr, Roseumiiller, Flatt, Pott, and others ; 
comp. also Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 785), but absolutely (see Winer, p. 461 fE. 
[E. T. 631 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 (Rlickert, comp. Buttmann, 7ieat. Or. p. 306 [E. T. 356]). To 
baptize was really not thepiii'pose for which Christ sent Paul, but to j/reach 
(Acts ix. 15, 20, xxii. 15, xxvi. 16-18) ; in saying wliich it is not implied 
that he was not authorized to administer baptism (ng fisv jap to /xeI^ov airea- 
rd^rj, aTTo rff tov koI to sTiaTTov kvepyelv ova sKulvdr), Theophylact), but sent in 
order to baptize he was not. Comp. Chrysostom, Thcodoret, and Theophy- 
lact. — ovK kv GO(pia Aoyov] does not belong to aneuT. (Storr, Flatt), which 
would be an involved construction, but links itself closely to e'vay) i'/.i^^eaBai, 
as telling in what element that does not take place. The negation is objec- 
tive, attaching to the object (Kiihner, II. § 714. 1 ; Baeumlcin, Partik. p. 
357 ff.), negativing actually the hv aofia : hence not /ur/. That ao(}>ia Xdyov is 
not the same as /.6yog aofog, 1. aeaocpia/ihog (Erasmus, Grotius, and many 
others, including Flatt and Pott), but emphasizes ao(t>ia as the main concep- 
tion, may be seen in Winer, p. 231 f. [E. T. 296 f.] : to preach irithout wis- 
dom of speech, without the discourse having a philosophic character, — as de- 
sired by the Hellenic taste. We are not to apply tliis, however, to the 
philosophic contents of the teaching (Storr, Roseumiiller, Flatt, and others), 
but to th^&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 eva-)je}ul^eadai — which 

» According to Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. the baptism of those three in that light, 
369, baptism was performed on the others Stepiianas would not have occurred to him 
by those tiiree, who themselves had been only by way of after thought. Besides, there 
first, baptized by Paul, and who had be- must have been baptized lumverts there be- 
come overseers. Against this view it may fore a presbytery could be erected. Comp. 
be at once urged, that if he had regarded Acts xiv. -^ 

CHAP. I., 18. 27 

is in truth given for all cases alike — without casting it in any philosophic 
mould ; his speech was not to be iv aofia, lest its suhstance should lose its 
essential character. This suhstance 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 
fif] KEvudy /c.r./l.] aim of the evayy. ova iv ao<p. /I. : in order that the cross of 
Christ might not he emptied (comp. Rom. iv. 14) of its essence divinely effectual 
for salvation (Rom. i. 16). The cross of Christ — that Christ was crucified 
(and thereby won salvation for us), — this fact alone was the pure main suh- 
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 kv aoipca "kdyov, 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. Bengcl says well : " Sermo autem crucis nil heterogeneum 
admittit.'''' — With marked emphasis, 6 aravpbc tov XptcTov is put last. 

Ver. 18. Establishment of the foregoing Iva ju?) . . . Xptaruv. Were, 
namely, the doctrine of the cross, although folly to the unbelieving, not a 
power of God to believers, it would be impossible to speak of a Iva fiy KEvuOy 
of its substance, the cross of Christ, as the aim of the evayy. ovk h a. 1. — 
The kari with the dative expresses the actual relation in which the Myo^ 
stands to both ; it is for them in fact (not, as might be thought, simply in 
Hheiv judgment) the one and the other. — toIq a-n:oHvij,.'\ to those who are suh- 
ject to (eternal) hniiktia. Comj). 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 -olq cul^o/i., those icho are saved unto 
Messianic hliss. (b) From xv. 2, Rom. v. 9, 10, viii. 24, al., also Ejih. 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, airb tov relov^ rag 
npoariyopiag Tifteic, Theodoret. He has certainly (Riickert) conceived of both 
classes a.s 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. — fxupia] 
This doctrine is to them (to their conscious experience) a7i absurdity (jiupla 
re ml, akoyla, Plat. Epin. p. 983 E; Dem. 397, pen.). Why ? see ver. 22. 
Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 3. Billroth's answer is un-Pauline. — ■fjiilv'] is not put last 
out of modesty (Billroth), but because the emphasis of the contrast lies on 
the idea of toIq au^o/i. Comp. Eur. Phoeniss. 1738. Pors. : eXavvetv rot' 
yipovTu fi' EK ndrpac. — 6vvap.iQ GeoD] Comp. on Rom. i. 16. That doctrine is 

'Bengel's ingenious exposition: "qui bivio, et nunc aut perit aut salvatur," is 
evangelium audire coepit, nee ut perditus wrecked on the word li^iri-, whicii tiie «»/</«»'« 
nee ut salvus habetur, sed est quasi in coepit does not suit. 


to them (to their conscious experience) God's 2J0ice>', inasmuch, that is to sa\', 
as God works mightily in them through the saving tidings of the Crucified. 
The contrast is stronger than if it were aoipia Oeov, and is also logically cor- 
rect ; for ('irvafitc Ofov necessarily presu])i)oses the opposite of //ofjla, because 
the power of God brings about enlightenment, repentance, sanctification, 
love, peace, hope, etc. Comp. Ignat. ad Eph. 18, where it is said of the 
cross, that it is to us ourr/pia k. l,(07/ alwioQ. 

Ver. 19. Establishment from Scripture of the foregoing ran; 6i aui^ofx. k.t.'/.. : 
for were the word of the cross not God's power for the aui^o/nevoi, 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 Avith 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 croipla and 
avveaig {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, iii. 27) is : clean gane are all sages, scribes, and disputers of this 
world-pjeriod (they can no more hold their ground, no longer assert them- 
selves, have, as it were, vanished) ; God has made the tcorkVs wisdom to he 
manifest folly ! As the ])assages, 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 e^eKTieicSrj is the answer to the nov ; according to classi- 
cal usage, Valckenaer, ad Eur. Phoen. 1662. Ewald holds ver. 20 to be a 
citation from a lost book ; but we are not necessarily shut up to this conclu- 
sion by the >'/)a///iare/'c. although the term does not occur elsewhere in Paul's 
writings, for this exclamation might easily have been suggested to him by 
the ypa/ifiariKol of Isa. xxxiii. 18. The three svhstantives cannot well be 
taken as alluding to the synagogal phrases "^SD b^n and |tJ'"^T (Lightfoot, 
Vitringa), since Paul was not writing to a purely Jewish-Christian commu- 
nity. Attempts to explain the distinction betw-eeu them have been made in 
a variety of ways. But it is to be noted that in what immediately follows 

^ According to whlcli the reference is not judgment vncler SeimaclKrih, 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 

OHAP. I., 20. 29 

rf/v Gocpiav represents all the three ideas put together ; that ypn/i/uaTEr^, again, 
is always (excepting Acts xix. 35) used in the N. T. (even in Matt. xiii. 52, 
xxiii. 34, where the idea is onlj raised to the Christian sphere) of scribes in 
the Jewish sense ; that the avCr/rr/TT/c (Ignat. ad Eph. 18), which is not found 
in the Grreek writers or in the LXX., is most surely interpreted disputant, in 
accordance with the use of av^Tirio (Mark viii. 11, ix. 14 ; Luke xxiv. 15 ; 
Acts vi. 9, ix. 39, al.) and av^i/TTjaiq (Acts xv. 2, 7, xxviii. 29) ; and further, 
that disputing was especially in vogue among the Sophists {lA oIojuevoi navT 
Eidevai, Xen. 3fem. i. 4. 1). And on these grounds we conclude that co^oq 
is to ie taken of human wisdom in general, as then pursued on tlie Jewish side 
hy the scribes, and on the Hellenic side bi/ the sophistical disputers, so that, in 
this view, ypufj/n.. and avCr/r. are subordinated to the general aoipog in respect 
to matters of Jewish and Hellenic pursuit. Many exegetes (Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Theophylact, Oceumenius, and others, including Storr, Rosen- 
miiller, Flatt, Billroth) depart from the view now stated in this respect, that 
they would limit (T0(i>6g to the heathen philosophers, ' which, however, is pre- 
cluded by the (7o0('av embracing all the three elements (comp. alsover. 21). 
This holds at the same time against Riickert, who finds here only the three 
most outstanding features in the intellectual character of the Hellenes : clev- 
erness, erudition, and argumentativeness. But ver. 22 shows that Paul is not 
shutting out the Jewish element ; just as his Jewish- Christian readers could 
see in jpa/ufi. nothing else than a name for the aocpol of their people. Schra- 
der, with older expositors (see below), understands by ai%?/T. 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 (Ti<?/r. could only denote 
afelloio-i?iquirer (comp. av:^r]TElv in Plat. Men. j:). 90 B, Crat. p. 384 C ; Diog. 
L. ii. 23), which would be without pertinence here ; while, on the other 
hand, according to our view, the avv finds its reference in the notion of dis- 
jmtare. — rov aiG)v. tovtov] attaches to all the three subjects : who belong to 
the pre-Messianic 2}eriod of the world (" quod totum est extra sphaeram verbi 
crucis," Bengel), and are not, like the Christians, set apart by God from the 
viol Tov aluvoc Toi'Tov to be members of the Messianic kingdom, in virtue 
whereof they already, ideally considered, belong to the coming a'lcjv. 
Comp. ver. 37 ; Gal. i. 4 ; Col. i. 13 ; Phil. iii. 30 ; Rom. xii. 3. Luther 
and many others take tov aloyv. r. as referring simply to (xvl^r/r. ; 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 alup ovtoq (as Riickert 
and Billroth) ; others render : indagator rerum naturae, physical philosopher 
(Erasmus, Beza, Drusius, Cornelius a Lapide, Justiniani, Grotius, Clericus, 
and Valckenaer), which is quite contrary to the invariable sense of a'liiv ovt. 
— itiiipavev] 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 crdlousness, but : He has shmcn it practically to be 

' In consequence of this, ctv^tjttjtijs has and heathen dialecticians. See especially 
been regarded as comprising the Jewish Theodoret. 

30 Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. 

folly, "insaniens sapientia" (Ilor. Od. i. 34. 2), co^\a ocro^of (Clem. Protr. V. 
p. 56 A), by bringing about, namely, the salvation of believers just tbrough 
that which to the wise men of this world seemed foolishness, the i)reaching 
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 ficofjoaoipoi, Lucian, Alex. 40), and put to shame (ver. 27), 
since the niipvyfia, held by them to be foolish, is that which hriri(jn nalvatian, 
not indeed to them, but to those who believe; iroia yap ao<pia, hruv to KE(pa.?.aiov 
Tuv ayaduv fi^ evpioKy ; Chrysostom. Comp. Isa. xliv. 25, where fiupaivuv is to 
be taken in precisely the same way as here. — tov Koafiov] 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 iiiupavev 6 Qsoq k.t.1., speci- 
fying the why in the protasis and the how in the apodosis : since (see Har- 
tung, Partihell. II. p. 259), that is to say, in the icisdom of Ood the world 
Icnew not Ood through icisdom, it pleased Ood 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. 1. 
19 f. ; comp. also Acts xvii. 26 f., xiv. 15 ff.) ; to the Jews it was presented, 
besides, in the revelation of the O. T. In this His manifested wisdom God 
might and should have been known by men ; but they did not know Him 
therein {ev rij (jocj). t. Qeov ovk syvu 6 K6a/i. r. Qeov), — did not attain by the 
means which they employed, by their wisdom, namely {6ia t^c aotpiag), 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. — h ry ao^iq t. Qenv] is put first emphatically, 
because the whole stress of the antithesis in both protasis and apodosis is 
meant to fall on the notions of wisdom and folly. By ev Paul marks out the 
sphere, in which the negative fact of the ova syvu ("in media luce," Calvin) 
took place ; tov Qeov again is genitive suhjecti, 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. ' Riickcrt is 
wrong in holding that ev r. cto0. r. Qeov is : "m virtue of the icisdom of Ood, 
i.e. under its guidance and ari'angement, 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 liis 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 
])Osition of the words ev . . . Qeov, which on Riickert's view would lose 
their weight and convey a thought here unessential, and jiartly the signifi- 

• Not simply in the natural revelation ver. 22 proves that the Jews, too, are in- 
(Chrysostom, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and eluded with the rest in the notion of the 
many others, including Hofmann). For Koo-^tos. 

CHAP. I., 22. 31 

cant relation between the protasis and apodosis, according to wliich. the 
measure taken by God {ehSoKijaev k.t.1.) appears as called forth by meii's 
lack of knowledge, and hence the ova iyvu would in such a passage be most 
unsuitably referred to the appointment of Ood, so as to excuse what is de- 
clared in Rom. i. 20 to be inexcusable. — o'vk kyvu] 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 K6a/j.og had reached it, would have caused 
the preaching of the cross to appear other than foolishness ; comp. ii. 14. — 
6ia TTjg (7o<j).] applies to the heathen world-wisdom and the Jewish school-wisdom, 
since it is the means of knowledge employed without result (observe that by 
the ovK the lohole from eyvu to Qsov inclusive is negatived) by the Koofxog for 
the knowing God. The prepositional relation cannot differ from that of the 
correlative 6ia r. /luplag which follows. Hence Theophylact interprets 
wrongly : 6ia Tijg ev evyAuTTia Qeupov^evrjg ao<piag e/Lnrodi(6fiEvoc. So, too, Bill- 
roth : ' ' their own vfisdom was the cause of their not knowing. — 'ev66kj](sev 
6 0.] placuit Deo, He pleased, it was His will, as Rom. xv. 26 ; Gal. i. 15 ; 
Col. i. 19 ; 1 Thess. ii. 8. See Fritzsche, ad Rom. H. p. 370. — 6ta ttjq fxtjplac 
Tov K?/pvyfi., i.e. by means of the foolishness which formed the. substance of the 
preaching (of the gospel). That is the doctrine of the cross, ver. 18, wliich, 
as compared with the wisdom employed by the Koa/uog 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 ■KiarevovTag, which word, as solving the riddle 
of the divinely applied fiupia, stands emphatically at the end. For to the 
conscious experience of believers that resultless wisdom of the world is now 
foolishness, and the foolishness of the K/'/pvy/ia 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 ao(j)ia and Qedg, ' ' quasi aliquod telum saepius perveniat in ean- 
dem partem corporis," Auct. ad Herenn. iv. 28. 

Ver. 22 f . * Protasis {k-Keidrj) and apodosis {fjuEig 6e) parallel to the protasis 
and apodosis in ver. 21 : since as loell Jews desire signs as Hellenes seek after 
wisdom, we, on the other hand, preach, etc. It is to be observed how exactly 
the several members of the sentence correspond to what was said in ver. 21 ; 
iox'lov6aioi K. "EAAj/vfc is just the notion of the KSff/wg broken up ; ojinela 
aiTovffi and ao<piav I^t/t. is the practical manifestation of the ovk eyvu . . . rbv 
Qeov ; and lastly, yfxelg 6e ny/pvaaouev k.t.'a. contains the actiial way in which 
the EviUKTiaev 6 Qsdg k.t.X was carried into eflfect. And to this carrying into 
effect belongs in substance 'lovdaioig fiev oKdvdaJ.ov k.t.X. down to aocpiav, 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 
Kal . . . Kai includes not only the two subjects 'lov6aloi and "'ETilrjvEg, 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. — yfielg 

' 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 corintiiians. 

Si] This (Sr, on the contrary, on the other hand, is the common classical M of 
the apodosis (Acts xi. 17), which sets it in an antithetic relation correspond- 
ing to the protasis. Sec Hartung, Partil-cll, I. p. 184 f. ; Baeumlein, Partil\ 
p. 93 f. ; Bornem. Act. ap. I. p. 77. Examples of this usage after kirsi and 
eneid^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 i^Ttuh'/ used by Paul only in xiv. 16, 
XV. 21 ; Phil. ii. 26, besides this passage), is opposed not merely to Billroth 
and Maier's interjiretation, which makes £7reu5?) . . . (,i]-nvaiv introduce a 
second jirotasis after ewUk. 6 Qeog, but also to Hofmann's, that vv. 22-24 are 
meant to explain the emphasis laid on rovq iriarevovTaq ; as likewise to the 
view of Riickert and de Wette, that there is here added an explanation of 
the dia TTjg nupiaq k.t.Ti., in connection with which Riickert arbitrarily 
imagines a fih supplied after 'lovdaloi. — 'lovSa'ioi and "E2^/;pff without the 
article, since the statement is regarding what such as are Jews, etc., are wont, 
as a rule, to desire. — crjfida] 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 aiyostles (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Thcophylact, 
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 
ffti/xela (Rom. xv. 18 f. ; 2 Cor. xii. 12). What the Jews desired in place of 
these were miraculous signs by which the crucified, but, according to the 
apostles' teaching, risen and exalted, Jesus, should evince His being the 
Messiah, seeing that the miracles of His earthly life had for them lost all 
probative power through His crucifixion (Matt, xxvii. 41 f., 63 f.). Comp. 
Reiche, Comment, crit. I. p. 123 f. To take, with Hofraann, the ar/fiela a'lT. 
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 m/ueiov (see the critical 
remarks) to be adopted, we should have to understand it of so7ne 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 <yo<l>iav, nor 
is it so even by X. eoravp. in ver. 23. See on the latter verse. — n't-ovac] is 
the ^*?n/)f7(<Z actually uttered (that there be ^iVe«) ; C'Fovc the seeking after 
and desiring, anquirere (correlative : evplaKeiv). —Xptarbv earavp.] Christ as 
crucified (ii. 2; Gal. iii. 1), and therefore neither as one who exhibits 
miraculous signs, nor as the originator of a new philosophy, such, possibly, 
as Socrates or Pythagoras. — oKav^ahiv} in op))osition to X. karavp. As cru- 
cifed. 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. — i^iupinv] because ])hilosophy is what they 
desire as a guide to salvation ; therefore to believe in Christ (not as one c 

CHAP. I., 24, 25. 33 

the wise of this world, but) as crucified, is to them a folly, an absurdity ; 
whereby, indeed, their own o-o^f'a becomes /tup/a Trapa t. 0fc5, iii. 19. 

Ver. 24. Along with Xpiarov, which is triumphantly repeated, we are men- 
tally to supply K7/pva&o/j.Ev : hut to the called themselves ... we preach Christ 
as God's power and God's icisdom — 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 jjowerfully works out salvation and reveals His counsel full of wisdom •, 
comp. ver. 30. Hofmann's construction, making Xpiarov to be in ajjposition 
to XpiGTov earavp. , would be logically correct only on one of two suppositions : 
either if in ver. 33 there stood merely karavpufihov without XpiaTSv ("a cruci- 
fied one . . . who is to them ChrisV) ; or if, in ver. 24, some more precise 
definition, such as ovtu^ or a'Aifiuq, were given along with Xpiarov. — avrotg] 
is not the iis pointing back to roh^ iriaTevovTa^, so that role ulriTo'ig would be in 
apposition to it (Hofmann) ; for in that case, notwithstanding the harsh and 
distant retrospective reference, avTolq would in fact be entirely sui:)erfluous ; 
but the words avTolg 6e ro'ig kIt^toIq — the avrolg being emphatically put first 
(2 Cor. xi. 14 ; Heb. ix. 33, «?., and very often in Greek writers) — go to- 
gether as closely connected, and mean simply : ipjsis autem voaitis (Vulg.), to 
the called for their part, so far as they are concerned, so that avrolq denotes 
the called themselves (Herm. ad Viger. ^. 733), in contrast to tJiose round 
about them still remaining in unbelief {^lovSaioig . . . fiwplav). Instead of 
r. K?if]Tolg, we might have had rolg TnaTevovaiv (ver. 31) ; but how natural it 
was that the Qeov Sbvafuv k.t.1., 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 
Kl.T]T6q, see on ver. 2.^ That Paul did not write iifuv, is to be accounted for 
on the ground of its being unsuitable to the Krjpbaa. , which is to be here 
again understood ; not, as Ruckert thinks, because it seemed to him too 
hard to oppose rjn. to 'lovfL and sBveai. — Qeov 6vv. k. 6. co^. ] To all the kIt/toI 
Christ is both. But the words are formally parallel to the two former de- 
mands in ver. 22 ; hence dvva/uv is put first. Respecting ao<piav, comp. on 
ver. 80. 

Ver. 25. Confirmation of the Qeov 6vv. k. Qeov ancp. by a general prop- 
osition, the first half of which corresponds to the Qsuv au(j)iav, and the sec- 
ond to the Qeov ^vvafuv. — to uupbv tov Qeov] the foolish thing loJiich corner 
from God,^ i.e. what God works and orders, and which appears to men ab- 

> For the preaching is not twofold, but ^ This, according to the well-known use 

one and the same, only spoken of in its in Greek of the neuter with the genitive 

respective relations to the two opposite (Poppo, ad Thuc. VI. p. 168 ; Kiihner, II. p. 

classes of men. Comp. 3 Cor. ii. 10. That 132), might also be taken as abstract : the 

is the crisis, which tlie gospel bring.*! about, foolishness of God — tlie weakness of God. 

and its influence on the called is to make So to ixoipov, Ear. Hipp. 906. But Paul had 

them free (John viii a3, 30 ; Rom. vi. 23). tlie concrete conc-epi ion i)i bis mind ; otlier- 

'Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 314 (ed. wise he would most ii i;ii ally have used the 

Paris. 1641): -navTiav avSpuiTTiav KfKKrjiiiviav oi abstract Mwpi'a employed just before. The 

viraKovdan jSouArjeeVTes (cArjToi Mvoii.a.a0y)<Tav. meaning of the concrete expression, how- 

These also are the a-w^oju.ei'oi, ver. 18 ; the ever, is not : God Himself y in so far as He is 

opposite is the aTroAAu/aei/ot. foolish (Hofmann) ; passages such as 3 Cor. 

34 Paul's first epistle to the corinthians. 

surd. Comp. to aurypiov t. Qeov, Luke ii. 30. — tuv avSpunuv^ We arc not 
to amplify this, with the majority of interpreters (inchiding Beza, Grotius, 
Valckenaer, Zachariae, Flatt, Pott, Heydenreich, and de Wette), into tov 
aotpov ruv avdpun., after a well-known abbreviated mode of comparison 
(sec on Matt. v. 20 ; John v. 30), which Estius rightly censures here as 
conctvm (comp. Winer, p. 230 [E. T. 307]), because we should have to 
supply with Tuv avOp. not the last named attribute, l)ut its opposite ; the 
true rendering, in fact, is just the simple one : tciser thni men; men pos- 
sess less wisdom than is contained in the foolish thing of God. — tu aoBeviq 
TOV Qeov] whatever in God's appointments is, to human estimation, power- 
less and resultless. The concrete instance which Paul has in view when 
employing the general terms to fiupov and to aadcvec tov Qeov, is the death 
of Christ on the cross, through which God has fulfilled the counsel of His 
eternal wisdom, wrought out with jjoiner the redemption of the world, laid 
the foundations of everlasting bliss, and overcome all jjowers antagonistic 
to Himself. 

Ver. 26. Confirmation of this general proposition from the experience of 
the readers. The element of proof lies in the contrast, vcr. 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 
fmpbv tov Qeov transcends men in wisdom. Otherwise He would have acted 
in the reverse way, and have sought out for Himself the wise of the world, 
in order, through their wisdom, to help that which now appears as the 
fiupov T. Qeov to victory over the foolishness of the world. This holds, too, 
as against de Wette, who (comp. also Hofmann) makes yap refer to the 
whole series of thoughts, vv. 19-25, notwithstanding that the expressions 
here used attach themselves so distinctly to ver. 25. — /?Af Trere] 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). — Tyv KAf/aiv viiC)v] is not to be taken ar- 
bitrarily, with Beza, Estius, Mosheim, Semler, Rosenmiiller, and Pott, pro 
concreto, for vnag tovq kTit/tov^, 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 vii. 20), when tin y make it mean, like the German word 
'*Z?^r?//'" \caUing'\, the vitae genus, the outward circumstances. — oti] 
equivalent to fie kKclvo, oti, in so far, namely, as. Plat. Prot. p. 330 E, Crat. 
p. 384 C, al. John ii. 18, ix. 17, xi. 51 ; 2 Cor. i. 18, xi. 10 ; Mark xvi. 
14 ; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 248 f . — ov nolXnl ao<pol k. a. ] that not many (among 
you) a/re wise in the eyes of men, etc. It is enough to supply the simple nai, 
making ov tto'a'a., i.e. buffew, the subject, and aoij). the predicate ; and there is 

iv. 17, Rom. i. 19, ii. 4, viii. 3, are no proof <>t ' The yap is not against our takinpr it as 

this.— As to the different accentuations of imperative ; Greek writers, too, use it with 

impoi and M<«>po«. see Lipsius, grammat. that mood, as ^.jr. Soph. P/n^. 1043 : a^'xe yop 

Unters. p. 35 ; GottlinR, Accentl. p. 3(M avTov. 

CHAP. I., 27, 28. 35 

no need for introducing an kKlijdrjaav (so commonly), according to which o'v w. o. 
together would be the subject. Kara aapKa, specifying the kind and manner of 
the ao^ia, marks it out asjmrely human, and distinguishes it from the Christian 
wisdom which jiroceeds from the Holy Spirit. For adp^ comprises the sim- 
ply human element in man as opposed to the divine principle. Comp. ao(pia 
aapKiKT], 2 Cor. i. 12 ; cio(l>ia ipvxiK, Jas. iii. 15 ; and see on Rom. iv. 1 ; 
John iii. 6. Estius aptly remarks : " Significari vult sapientiam, quae 
studio humano absque doctrina Spir. saneti potest acquiri." In substance, 
the ao<j>ia Tov K6<jfj.ov, ver. 20, and the o. mv aluvo^ tovtov, ii. 6, are the same. 
— SvvaTol] We are not to supply Kara adpKa here again ; for that was essen- 
tially requisite only with aocpol, and Paul otherwise would have coupled it 
with the third w^ord (comp. ver. 20). That mighty ?nen of this world are 
meant, is self-evident. — £vyevel^'\ of high descent. Comp. Luke xix. 12; fre- 
quent in the classics. — Riickert objects that Paul, instead of proving tht 
phenomenon recorded in ver. 26 to have proceeded from the divine wisdom, 
uses it as an argument for ver. 25, and so reasons in a circle. But this is 
without foundation. For that the phenomenon in question was a work of 
the divine wisdom, was to the Christian consciousness (and Paul was, of 
course, writing to Christians, 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 tov Kdafxov and ndaa aap^, ver. 29) statement of 
the opposite : No ; the foolish things of the icorld icere what God chose out for 
Himself, etc. The calling, ver. 26, was in truth just the result and the proof 
of the election. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 4 f . ; 2 Thess. ii. 13 f . ; Rom. viii. 30, ix. 23 
f. — TCLnupd TovKOGiiov] tliefooUsh elements of theworld (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 aaO. and dytv., for they were, it is plain, really (and not merely 
in the eyes of the world) weak and of mean origin. — The neuters (comp. on 
the plural, Gal. iii. 22) indicate the category generally, it being evident 
from the context that what is meant is the persons included under that cate- 
gory. See generally, Winer, p. 167 [E. T. 222], and the same usage among 
classical writers in Blomfield, ad Aesch. Pers. Gloss. 101. — 'ivar. a. Ka-aiax-] 
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 h^el. 6 Qsd^, 
beside the three contrasts of au<poi, (Swaro!, and ehyEvelg ver. 26), carries with 
it a triumphant emphasis. — rd pij ovto] The contrast to evyevelq is brought 
out by three steps forming a climax. This third phrase is the strongest of 
all, and sums up powerfully the two foregoing ones by way of apposition 

36 Paul's first epistle to the corinthians. 

(hence without nai) : the non-existent, i.e. what was as utterly irorth nothing 
as if it had not existed at all (Winer, p. 451 [E. T. 608]). Comp. Eur. Hec. 
284 : ?)v ■k6t\ oKka vvv ovk elfi' eu. Dem. 248. 25 ; Plat. Crit. p. 50 B ; and 
Stallbaum thereon. The subjective negation //// is quite according to rule 
(Baeumlein, Partih. p. 296), since the participle with the article expresses a 
generic notion ; and there is no need of importing the idea of an tmtrue al- 
though actual existence (llofniann). We are not therefore to supply ri to 
'•a dvra (as if /nr/^ev elvai had been used before), but to explain it : the exist- 
ent, what through repute, fortune, etc., is regarded as tfiat tchichvi (kut' i^o- 
xyv). Comp. Pflugk, ad Hec. I.e. : " ipsum verbum elvai cam vim habet, ut 
significet in aliqiMO numero esse, rebus secundis florere.'''' — KnTi]i}y.'\ Not 
Karaiffx- again, because the notions //?) elvai and elvai required a stronger 
word to correspond to them ; one which would convey the idea of h'inginfj 
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 k. t. ?.. — oKug /x^ kuvx. naaa aap^'\ Hebraistic way of 
saying : that no -man may boast himself. Its explanation lies in the fact that 
the negation belongs to the verb, not to naaa a. {"^'fDl'l^) ; that every man 
may abstain from boasting himself. Comp. Fritzsche, Diss, in 2 Cor. II. p. 24 
f. Regarding crdpf as a designation of man in his weakness and im2">erfectiou 
as contrasted with God, see on Acts iii. 17. — ivuir. t. Qeov] Rom. iii. 20 ; 
Luke xvi. 15, al. No one is to come forth before God, and boast, I am wise, 
etc. ; on this account God has, by choosing the unwise, etc., brought to 
nought the wisdom and loftiness of men, so that the ground for the asser- 
tion of human excellences before God has been cut away. 

Ver. 30 f. In contrast {6e) to the b-uc //>j kuvx- tt. a. humiov r. Qeov, we have 
now the true relation to God and the true and right navxaadat arising out of 
it : But truly it is Ood^s worh, that ye are Christiana and so jiay-takers of the 
greatest divine blessings, that none of you should in any way boast himself save 
only in God. Comp. Eph. ii. 8 f . — tf avrov] has the principal emphasis : 
Fro7n no other than God is derived the fact that you are in Christ (as the 
element of your life). 'Ef denotes the causal origination. Comp. Eph. ii. 
8 : OVK E^ ifiuv, Qeov to dupov, also in profane writers : fk $euv, ek Ai6g 
(Valckenaer, ad Herod, ii. 13) ; and generally, Winer, p. 345 [E. T. 460]. 
While Hofmann here, too, as in ver. 28, introduces into elvai the notion of 
the true existence, which they have from God "in virtue of their being 
inchided in Christ," others again, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and 
Theophylact, take ff avrov Se v/ielg enre by itself in such a Avay as to make it 
express sonship with God (comp. EUendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 553), and regard ii> 
as conveying the more precise definition of the mode whereby this sonship 
is attained : iralSeg avrov hare, fiia rov Xpicrov rovro yevofievoi, Chrysostom ; 
com]). Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Ewald, and others. 
But wrongly ; for the conception fk Bfov elvni in the supposed sense is Johan- 
nine, but is not in accordance with the Pauline mode of expression (not even 
in Gal. iv. 4) ; and elvai kv XpiarC) was a conception so habitually in use 
(Rom. xvi. 7, 11 ; 2 Cor. v. 17 ; Gal. i. 22, al), that it must have occurred 
©f itself here also to the reader ; besides, the and Oeov which follows answers 

CHAP. I., 30. 37 

to the ef avTov. Phis applies, too, against Osiander, who, after i^ avrov, 
mentally supplies yeyevrjfiEvoi : "being born of God, yc are members of 
Christ." — vfielq] with emphasis : ye for your part, ye the chosen out of the 
world. — Of iyevifir] . . . aTtolvrpuaiq] brings home to the heart the high 
value of that God-derived elvai iv XpiarC) : zcTw has iecome to tis from Qod 
tcisdojn, righteousness and holiness, and redemption. 'E-yevyOr/ is simply a later 
(Doric) form for kyhero (Thorn. Mag. p. 189 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 108 f.), 
not, as Riickert makes it (comp. Luther : '■'■ gemacM ist"), a true passive in 
sense ; comp. Acts iv. 4 ; Col. iv. 11 ; 1 Thess. ii. 14 (Eph. iii. 7, Lachm.). 
Christ hecame 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. 3) ; righteous- 
ness, for by means of faith we are through the Lord's atoning death consti- 
tuted righteous before God (Rom. iii. 24 f., al. ; see on Rom. i. 17 ; holiness 
(see on Rom. vi. 19, 22), for in those who are justified by faith Christ works 
continually by His Spirit the new holy life (Rom. viii. 1-11) ; redemp- 
tion, for Christ has delivered believers, through His blood paid as their ran- 
som (Rom. iii. 24, vi. 20, vii. 23), from the wrath of God, to which they 
were subject before the entrance of faith (see on Eph. i. 7, ii. 3). The order 
in which these predicates stand is not illogical ; for after the first intellectual 
benefit {^(pia) which we have received in Christ, marked out too from the 
rest by the jDosition of the word, Paul brings forward the ethical blessedness 
of the Christian, and that in the firsf place positively as d/Katocjbvr/ and dyiaa/wc, 
but then also — as though in triumph that there was now nothing more to 
fear from God — negatively as aTo'/v-puau;, in which is quenched all the wrath 
of God against /o?'me/- sin (instead of which with the Christian there are noiv 
righteousness and holiness). Hence in explaining cnroM'Tp. we should not 
(with Chrysostom) abide by the general a-rryX'/M^ev rjmq anb -rravTuv tuv kukoiv, 
which is already contained in what goes before ; nor again should we, with 
Grotius, Calovius, Riickert, Osiander, Neander, and others (comp. also 
Schmid, bibl. Theol. II. p. 325 ; and Lipsius, Paulin. Rechtfertigungslehi-e, p. 
8), make it the final redemption from death and all evils, such as is the object 
of ilniq, the redemption perfecting itself beyond our earthly life (Hofmann), 
or the definitive acquittal at the last judgment (Weiss, Bihl. Theol. p. 327). 
In the passages alleged to sujiport the interpretation in question, this sense 
is given solely by the accessory defining phrases — namely, in Eph. i. 14 by rz/f 
nepiKoiT/GEuc, ill iv. 30 by ^/nspav, and in Rom. viii. 23 by tov a^tiarog. Riickert 
(comp. Neander) is further of opinion that ^iKaioavvr/ k.t.7,. is merely explana- 
tory of hoto far Christ is to us ao<p!a, namely, as 6iKaLoavvTj, dymanoc, and dno- 
I'vrp., and that these three refer to the three essential things in the Christian 
life, faith, love, and hope : the r/ binding together the last three words and 
separating them from the first. But (1) the re links closely ^^together only 
6iKaioa. and dyiaafj.., and does not include d-rroX. ; much less does it separate 
the three last predicates from ao<p!a ; ' on the contrary, re Kal embraces 6ik. 
> With <To(t>ia the re has nothing whatever to do. Hofmann makes it serve as a link 

38 Paul's first epistle to the corinthians. 

and d}'., as it were, in one, so that then anoAvrpuaL^ comes to be added with 
the adjunctive Kai as a separate element, and consequentlj' there results the 
following division : {n) wisdom, (Z») righteousness and holiness, and (c) 
redemption. See as to this use of re Kai . . . Kai, Ilartung, Partikell. I. p. 
102 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soj}h. I. p. 878 f. ; Baeunilcin, Partil: p. 224 f. (2) 
Paul would, on this theory, have left his readers without the slightest hint 
of the subordinate relation of the three last jiredicates to the first, although 
he could so easily have indicated it by a wf or a participle. (3) According 
to the correct interpretation, airo'kvTp. is not something yd future, but some- 
thing which has a/rwr??/ taketi place in the death of Christ, (d) Bos (Ohs. Misc. 
p. 1 ff.), Alethius, Clericus, Nosselt (Ojmsc. II. p. 127 ff.), Valckenaer, and 
Krause interpret m a still more involved way, holding that only the words 
from Of to Qeov apply to Christ, and these are to be put in a parenthesis ; 
while diKaioavvTj k.t.1. are abstracta pro eoncretis (2 Cor. v. 21), and belong to 
viiel^ ears : "Ejus beneficio vos estis in Christo Jesu diKaioavvr) k.t.X.," 
Valckenaer. How ambiguous and unsuitable would such a statement as bg 
iyev. ao(pia k.t.1. be for a mere parenthetical notice ! — atrb Qeov'\ on God's part, 
by God as the author of the fact. Comp. Herod, vi. 125 : and 6e 'AlK/naiu- 
vog . . . ey evovTo Kai Kcipra lajiKpoi. See generally, Ellendt, L&c. Soph. 
I. p. 194 ; "Winer, p. 348 [E. T. 464] ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 280 [E. T. 
325]. That it belongs to eyevyd?;, and not to mcpia, is proved by the 7/fuv 
which stands between. The latter, however, is not to be understood, with 
Riickert, as though it ran y ^fierlpa (jo<j>ia (" what to the Hellene his ooipla is, 
or is merely assumed to be, namely, the ground of confidence, — tJiat Christ 
is to us"), else Paul must have written : bg f/itlv eyevr^O// ?} co(j>ia with the arti- 
cle, and have placed rjiuv first with the emphasis of contrast. — Observe 
further, that Paul has said vnelg 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 vixelg, we have the i/filv 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 (iv«), determine you to comply with 
that word of Scripture which calls for the true lowly Kavxaadai : he that 
hoasteth himself, Jet him hoast himself in the Lord, praise his OAvn privileges 
only as God's work, boast himself only as the object of His grace. — That 
the Kvpiog is not Christ (Ruckert) but God, and not Christ and God (Hof- 
mann), is proved by the emphatic ef avTov, ver. 30, and huK. t. Qeov, ver. 
29. Comp. on 2 Cor. x. 17. — The apostle quotes Jer. ix. 24, abbreviating 
(piite freely, after the LXX. The construction, however, is anacoluthic ; for 
Paul purposely retains the scriptural saying unaltered in its strong impera- 
tive form, and leaves it to the reader to supply the change from the impera- 
tive to the subjunctive, which the syntax, properly speaking, would require. 
Comp. on Rom. xv. 3. 

of connection to <ioi>Ca. In that case, Paul must have written vo^'a re koX Sixaioa. k. 

ay. K. aTToA, 

NOTES. 39 

Notes by Amebican Editob. 

(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 jjoint 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 manj' 
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- 
l^ress a completed action. (See Acts xx. 9 ; Heb. vii. 8 ; 2 Peter ii. 4, and 2 
John 7.) In the last mentioned we have the present participle used to express 
the very same thing that in 1 John iv. 2 is expressed by a perfect participle. 
It is not denied that the present passive participle often denotes a con- 
tinued state or a lengthened process (as in the description of the ancient 
saints, Heb. xi. 37, as "destitute, afflicted, evil entreated"), but it is claimed 
that this is not the habitual or necessary meaning. The context or the general 
usage of Scripture, or the nature of the subject, must determine the precise 

40 Paul's first epistle to the cokinthians. 

meaning in any given case. In the LXX. the present passive and the perfect 
passive participle of the verb aw^u) 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, vi/. that it is at once present and future. Which of these views is 
intended depends upon the circumstances in each case. On one hand, salva- 
tion is spoken of as to be realized in the day when Christ shall come. So 
1 Peter i. 9, " Eeceiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls"; 
Ilom. viii. 24, " We are saved in hope, but hope that is seen is not hope"; 1 Cor. 
V. 5, "That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus"; Matt. x. 22, 
" He that endureth to the end shall be saved." It is therefore quite certain that 
salvation in its full meaning, as extending to the body as well as the soul, as in- 
cluding inward holiness as well as forensic justification, as putting an end to 
sin and sorrow, vicissitude and temptation, tears and death, is experienced 
only when Christ shall appear a second time, ajDart from sin, to them that wait 
for him unto salvation (Heb. ix. 28). But, on the other hand, it is beyond 
doubt that the Scripture frequently speaks of salvation as a present possession 
of the believer. Thus in Luke vii. 50 our Lord is represented as saying to the 
penitent outcast who bathed his feet with tears and wiped them with the hair 
of her head, "Thy faith hath saved thee." So Paul says (Titus iii. 5), "Ac- 
cording to his mercy he saved us" (cf. 2 Tim. i. 9). And Peter (1, iii. 21) 
says of baptism, " which also after a true likeness doth now save you." How- 
ever men may explain this variant usage of Scripture writers, the fact of the 
variation should not be elided or obscured. Nor should the plain teaching of 
the Bible be denied which constantly affirms of men that they are either saved 
or lost, no third or intermediate condition being conceivable, any more than a 
departed spirit can be one half in heaven and the other half in hell. There 
maybe gradual approaches to the act of faith, or even along preparation for it, 
but the act itself is instantaneous. To speak of salvation, therefore, as a 
process, although the term is susceptible of a meaning which is correct, is to 
run the risk of misleading persons by inducing them to take up an opinion 
which is not at all correct, but unscriptural and dangerous. 

(c) Quotations. Ver. 19. 

The statement here is certainly correct, and is of great importance in ex- 
plaining the method in which the words of the Old Testament are quoted in 
the New. It is from forgetfulness of the unity of Scripture and the prepara- 
tory character of the earlier economy that so many have charged the Apostle 
with wresting the prophetic utterances -that is, giving them a meaning which 
was never intended by the original speaker. It is true in several senses that 
"the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." The Bible's chief and 
salient feature is that it is, from first to last, the history of redemption, and all 
its parts, however diverse in tone and character, are bound together by their 
common relation to the one central and controlling thought, the promise of a 
world-wide deliverer. One of Meyer's great excellences is that he thoroughly 
,and consistently recognizes thjs fact. 

NOTES. 41 

(d) " Christ made unto us wisdom from God." Ver. 30. 

The rendering of this verse to which the author objects may be seen by tak- 
ing the words of the Revised Version, inserting the margin in the text, thus, 
"Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, both righteousness 
and sanctification and redemption." Dr. Meyer's objections certainly have 
weight, but they do not seem conclusive. The order of the words in the 
original, the stress which Paul lays on wisdom throughout the chajjter, and the 
striking contrast thus gained, confirm the view that the three latter nouns are 
epexegetical of the first and are intended to disclose the glorious characteristics 
of the wisdom which is from God as distinguished from the wisdom which is 
of human origin. So Dr. Poor (in Lange), Archer Butler (in Sermons), Canon 
Evans (in Speaker's Commentar}'^), Principal Brown (in Popular Commentary), 
Beet (in Com. ), and, substantially. Dean Stanley. Dr. Poor justly insists that 
in a collocation of words so peculiar, it is natural to take the last three words 
as an afterthought exegetical of the main one — and such an addition was 
needed. Wisdom was what Paul had been disparaging throughout this sec- 
tion. But it was the wisdom of man. Now he glories in Christ as having been 
made unto us wisdom. It was necessary therefore to difference this from what 
he had been condemning. So he adds from God, thus showing whence this 
wisdom came. Then to characterize it, to exhibit its distinguishing peculiari- 
ties as practical and suited for man's deepest needs, instead of being merely 
speculative, he siibjoins the three great points it contemplated. And here is 
where the wisdom of the Gospel far surpasses that of secular philosophy. Here, 
then, Dr. Poor concludes, we have, 1, an adequate reason for the order of the 
words ; 2, not a repetition, bvit a distinct thought in and Qeov, and so a reason for 
the change of the preposition from the one in the first clause ; 3, not a digres- 
sion from the main course of thought, as must be supposed in the other interpre- 
tation, but a glorious consummation of it, displaying the infinite superiority of 
the wisdom from God over all human wisdom ; 4, an epexegesis quite in the 
manner of Paul (Rom. i. 12). 



Ver. 1. fiapTvpiov] A C i<*, min. Sjt. Copt, and some Fathers : fjLvarrjpLov. Ap- 
proved by Griesb. and Ewald, adopted also by Riickert. A gloss written on the 
margin from ver. 7. Had ixaprvpiov crept in from i. 6, the witnesses which 
have it would read also tov Xpcarov instead of r. Qeov ; but this occurs only in 
very few, some of which, besides, have fivor/jpiuv. — Ver. 2. ri euUvai'] Elz. tov 
ei6ivaL n. But tov is wanting in decisive witnesses ; that tl should be put 
first is rendered certain by B C, min. Bas. Cyr. Isid. Chrys. Hil. Victorin. Aug., 
also D E (which have rt ev eldivui) ; and the external attestation must de- 
cide here. — Ver. 3. Kal iyu'] Lachm. and Kiickert read myu, with A B C K, 
min. Or. Bas. al. Taken from ver. 1. — Ver. 4. After netOoh' Elz. has dvOpu- 
TrivTjQ, against preponderating evidence. Addition from vv. 5 and 13. In re- 
ply to Heydenreich's unfounded defence of the word, see Reiche, Comment, crii. 
I. p. 134. — The readings which alter iTei'jol^(7vei0ol : 1, 18*, 48, al. Or. Eus. al. ; 
ireidavolg, Macar.), and those which either leave out Myoig (F G, 74, al. Erp. 
Boern. Ambrosiast. Sedul.) or alter it {?m}(jv : Sjt. Armen. Or. twice over, and 
several others : Uyov), are old shifts resorted to on failure to understand TreiOnlc, 
as also the short reading kv nefJo co(pia^ must be so accounted. See the exegeti- 
cal remarks, and Eeiche, p. 133. — Ver. 7. The order of the words Qeov aocpiuv 
(Elz. and Matth. invert it) is decisively attested, as also the order in ver. 10 : 
aweKaX. 6 9fof. — Ver. 9. In place of the second u, Lachm. and Tisch. have baa. 
with A B C and some Fathers.' Eightly ; <1 is a mechanical repetition from 
what goes before. — Ver. 10. Instead of Jf Tisch. reads yap, supported only by 
B, min. Copt. Sahid. Clem. — avrov'] is wanting in A B C K, Copt. Clem. Bas. 
CjT. It is deleted by Lachm. and Riickert. But considering the independent 
TO yap TTvevfia which follows, it would have been more natural to omit avrov or 
to add dyiov (so Didym.) than to insert avrov. — Ver. 11. kyiuKKp is, in ac- 
cordance with the vast preponderance of evidence, approved by Griesb. and 
adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Kiickert. Elz., however, Matth. and Scholz, have 
ohhi'. Repetition of the preceding o16ei> done mechanically or bj' waj' of gloss. 
[n favour of iyvuKsv there is also the reading kyvu in F G, 23, and Fathers. — 
Ver. 13. nuevfiaToc] Elz. adds uylnv, against decisive evidence to the contrary. 
A superfluous and weakening definition. — Ver. 15. The //tr after avoKp. in Elz. 
and Scholz (deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riick.) is wanting in A C D* F G, 
17, and many vss. and Fathers. It has arisen from the Jt' which follows. In 
K* the whole verse is omitted through Horaoioteleuton. H** has uh'. — rd 
Trdvra] so also Riick. and Tisch. ; Lachm. brackets rd ; Elz. and Scholz have 
simply ndfTa. But rd is attested by A C D, min. Ir. ms. Or. Nyss. Chrys. ; 
ndvra is an old correction of the text, with the view of bringing in the mascu- 

* Clement, too, Cor. I. 34, has o<ro, which mann). A converse proceeding on the part 
certainly was not first imported from his of the transcribers might rather seem more 

(jiiD'a!; 1". '.-.i'n !';■;; ()' t!i(> jipostlc (Ilof- natural. 


CHAP. II., 1, 2. 43 

line to correspond with the ovSevog which comes after ; hence, too, Didym. 
and Theodoret have Trdvrac. — Ver. 16. Xpiarov'] Lachm. has Kvpiov, with B D* 
F G, Theophyl. A.mbrosiast. Aug. Sedul. Mechanical repetition of the preced- 
ing Kvpiov. Had Kvpiov been the original reading and explained by a gloss, 
the substitute for it would have been not Xpiarov, but Beov, seeing that every 
marginal annotator must have been aware from Isa. xl. 13 that the preceding 
Kvpiov referred to God. 

Vv. 1-5. AppUcatioii of the foregoing section (i. 17-31) to the manner in 
which Paul had corjie forward as a teacher in Corinth. 

Ver. 1. Kdyw] 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 Kaff vnepoxfiv k.t.X. belongs to Ka-ayy., as indicating the mode adopted 
in the KaTayy£?i?iecv : I too, when I came to you, hrethren, came proclaiming to 
you, not upon the footing of Oy pre-eminence of speech (eloc^uence) or wisdom (phi- 
losophy), the testimony of God. Against connecting the words in this way,* 
it is objected that iXduv fjWov gives an intolerable tautology. But tliis 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. 84), and would, be- 
sides, apply to the construction tjaSov ov . . . mtplac, KarayyeAluv (Luther, 
Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, and others, including Flatt, Riickert, Hofraann) ; 
further, it is more natural and more in accordance with the sense to think 
in connection with Kaff vnepoxyv k.t.1. of the manner of the preaching than 
of the manner of the coming. For that reason, too, r]A.dov is not placed after 
oo(j>lac. The preposition Kara, again, to express mode (Winer, p. 375 [E. T. 
501]), is quite according to rule ; comp. Kad' vTvepjio'krjv, Kara Kpd-oc, and the 
like. — As to virepoxij, eminentia, comp. 1 Tim. ii. 2 ; Plat. Legg. iv. p. 711 
D ; Del 416 ; Arist. Pol. iv. 9. 5. Also kukuv vTiepox'i, 2 Mace. xiii. G. — 
KaTayyelluv] Paul might have used the future, but the present participle 
places the thing more vividly before us as already begun with the r/Wov. So 
especially often ayyelXuv (Valck. ad Phoen. 1082) ; e.g. Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 29 : 
£f rdf 'A6^vag €Tr2,evaEV, ayyeX^Mvaa to, yeyovara. Plat. Phaed. p. 116 C, and 
Stallbaum in he. See, in general, Winer, p. 320 f. [E. T. 429 f.] ; Dissen, 
ad Pindar. 01. vii. 14. — to jiapTvp. rov Qeov] in substance not different from 
T. fiapT. T. Xpiarov, i. 6 ; 2 Tim. i. 8. For the preachers of the gospel give 
testimony of Ood, 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 TcnoiB anything among you exceptt 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 

' Which 18 done also by Castalio, Bengel, the officium, 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 

' Causaubon remarks well, that 'Irjo-. X. looking back to '. ir-24. 
refers to the person, and k. tout, iarixvp. to 

44 Paul's fikst kpistle to the Corinthians. 

knowledge, his KarayytA/.fiv •woulil iKjt have remained free from ? •TrfYJo;^:^ 
Aoyov ij ancping. The ordvuiry referenee of the negation to -t : / renolred to 
Tcnow nothing, etc., is in arbitniry opposition to the words (so, however. Pott, 
Flatt, Riickert, Osiander, Ewahl). In iK(uva Calvin and Grotius find too 
much, since the text does not give it : magnum duxi ; Hofmann again, too 
little, with Lnther and others : / judged, teas of opinion ; for Paul could 
indeed discard and negative in his own case the iindertahing to know some- 
thing, but not the judgment that he did know something. His nelf-deter- 
mination was, not to be directed to know, etc. Comp. vii. 37 ; 2 ("or. ii. 
1 ; Rom. xiv. 13 ; Kfuvai ti kuI TvpoBfaHat, Polyb. iii. G. 7 ; AYisd. viii. 9 ; 1 
Mace. xi. 33 ; 2 Mace. vi. 14, al He might have acted otherwise, had he 
proposed to himself to do so. — -I euUvni] nfjug uvTi6LaGTo7J]v tt/q l^udev eip/f-at 
aoipiaq' oh jap yXOov avlloyianovQ TZAtKuv, oixVe ao(l>ia/inTa, ov6' aTO.o ti 7.eyuv v/ilv, 
ii oTi 6 Xfua-bg faravpuOii, Chrysostom. But the giving up of everything else 
is far more powerfully expressed by t'K'itvcu (comp. Arrian, Epict. ii. 1) than 
if Paul had said Myeiv or 7.aA£tv. He was not disposed, when among the 
Corinthians, to be conscious of anything else but Christ. The notion oi per- 
mission (Riickert), which might be conveyed in the relation of the infinitive 
to the verb (see Lobeck, ad Phrijn. p. 7ij3 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 1 ; 
Anah. V. 7. 34), w^ould here only weaken the force of the statement. Were 
roil tl6h'ai tl the correct reading (Ijut see the critical remarks), the right ren- 
dering of the genitive would not be : so that (Billroth), but : I made no 
resolution, in order to Tcnow anything. Comp. on Acts xxvii. 1. — k. tovt. 
taravf).] 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 \ip again the connec- 
tion of ver. 1, and that with the simple /ca/ : And Hot my part (with others 
it may have been different !) fellinto ireaTcness and into much fear and trem- 
Hing among you (irpdg vfi. ; see on John i. 1). — ylyveadai kv, to fall into a 
state, etc. (and to be in it) ; so Thuc. i. 78. 1 ; Plato, Prot. p. 314 C ; Dem. 
p. 179, uU. Comp. Luke xxii. 44 ; 1 Mace. i. 27 ; 2 Mace. vii. 9 ; Hist. 
Sus. 8. We might also join npog vjnag to iyevdfi^, not, indeed, in the way in 
which Hofmann interprets it, as if for kyevd/itiv there stood ?/fit/v (Mark xiv. 
49), but in the sense : / arrived among you (2 John 12, and see generally, 
Fritzsche, Ind. ad Lucian. Dial. Deor. p. 85 : Nagelsbach on the Iliad, p. 
295, ed. 3) ; ver. 4, however, shows that what is here spoken of is not again 
(ver. 1) the coming thitJier, but the state w7i.en there. — The three phrases, 
aad., (b6j3or, and Tpd/xog, depict the great timidity with wliich Paul was in 
Corinth, through his humble sense of the disjjroportion between his own 
powers and the great enterprise to which his conscientiousness kept him 
bound. In facing it he felt himself very icealc, and was \i\fear and trem- 
Uing. 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 Aveakness betrays 
itself in Acts xviii. 4-11. The connection forbids us from thinking, with 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theopliylact, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, 
and others, of the sufferings a'ld persecutions (aaft.), and of the apprehen- 

CHAP. II., 3, 4. 45 

sion of dangers, which he had to undergo in Corinth ; for the text hints 
nothing of persecutions and dangers, and these would not necessarily fur- 
nish the motive for simplicity in preaching (vv. 1, 4 f.), nay, might even 
excite to the greater rhetorical exertion. The weakness, etc., was of a deep 
ethical nature, being based on the entire renunciation of human wisdom 
and strength (ver. 5). Other exegetes wrongly understand aadsveia even of 
hodilij weakness, either generally sickliness (Riickert) or more especially 
iceahness in the chest and voice (Storr, comp. Rosenmiiller). — (jiol^oq k. rpd/iof] 
always denote with Paul (comp. also Ps. ii. 11) the deeply vivid and keen 
apprehension of humility, lest it should be unable to meet the emergency 
concerned. See 2 Cor. vii. 15 ; Phil. ii. 13 ; E^jh. vi. 5. — 6 /Idj^of iiov k. t. 
Kijpvy/ud fiov] are indeed emphatically separated from each other by the repe- 
tition of the fiov ; 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 puMica 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 
p)ublic proclamation. — ova kv tteiOoIq an(j). Adjoi^] sc. rjv, non versahatur i?i, did 
not move in the element of j)ersuasive words of wisdom, such words as are philo- 
sophically arranged and thereby fitted to persuade. ]lEid6Q is found nowhere 
else in the whole range of extant Greek literature, mOavog being the word in 
use (Xen. Cyr. vi. 4. 5 ; Thuc. iv. 21 ; Dem. 928. 14 ; Josejihus, Antt. viii. 
9 ; and the passages from Plato in Ast, Lex. III. p. 102. Meineke, Menand. 
p. 222). IleiddQ, however, is formed from nddu by correct analogy as 
^£<Jof from (j)ei6ofzai, etc. Comp. Salmasius, de ling. Hellenist, p. 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 {Ohss. II. p. 
193), would find some trace of it in Plato, Oorg. p. 493 A ; but what we have 
there is Sipday on the icords to niBavov and irldoQ, a casl; which has no connec- 
tion whatever with ■n-etOog. Pasor and Schrader make Treidolc to be the dative 
plural of TveiOu, suada, and what follows to be in apposition to it : i?i persua- 
sions, in words of wisdom. But the plural of tteiOg) 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), h tteiSoI cTO(p!ac 
Xoyuv ; Grotius, h niaToiQ k.t.I.; Valckenaer, Klose, and Kiihn {Commentat. 
ad 1 Cor. ii. 1-5, Lips. 1784), ev mdavolg or TreiBavolg k.t.Ti. (comp. also Alberti, 
Schediasm. p. 105) ; Alberti, iv Trsidovg (suadae) a. 7i6yoig, or ' h Treiflol ooflar 
(without Myoig). — h aTvodei^EL nvEvfiarog k. 6wd/j.Eug] Without there being any 
necessity for explaining the two genitives by a ev Sta Svolv as equivalent to 
TTHEv/xa-og (hvarov (s6 still Pott, Flatt, Billroth, Olshausen, Maier, with older 
expositors), the meaning may, according to our interpretation of andSEi^tc and 
to our taking the genitives in an ol^jective or subjective sense, be either : so 
that I evinced Spirit and poicer (so Vatablus and others, with Pott and Bill- 
roth) ; or : so that Sinrit and p)oiDer made themselves hnoicn through me {CaXvin : 

1 So, too, Semler, Piatt, Rinck, Fi-itzsclie in the UaH. Lit. Zeit. 1840, Nr. 100. 

46 Paul's first epistle to the corinthians. 

"in Pauli ministerio .... quasi nuda Dei maniis sc profcrcbat'') ; or : so 
that Spirit and power gave the proof (Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, 
and Maier, following older commentators). The last is most in keeping with 
the purposely chosen expression and^Ei^iq (found here only in the N. T. ; Dem. 
326. 4 ; Plato, Phaed. p. 77 C, Theaet. p. 1G3 E, and often ; 3 Mace. iv. 20), 
and with the significant relation to ovk tv ■ntidolq a. ?idyoi^. Paul means the 
Holy Spirit (ver. 10 ff.) and the divine pjower communicating itself therein, 
ver. 5 (Rom. i. 16 ; 2 Cor. iv. 7 ; 1 Thess. i. 5), wliich wrought through 
his preaching upon the minds of men, persuading them of its tmth, — the 
testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum.^ At variance with the text is the 
view of several of the older expositors (foUovdng Origen, contra Celsum, 1. 
p. 5), who refer irvevfiarog to the oracles of the O. T., and (^vvd/n. 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 arcdSei^ic. 

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 thnt your faith (in 
Christ) may be based, have its causal ground (comp. Bernhardy, p. 210), not 
on man''s wisdom, but on Ood''s power (which has brought conviction to you 
through my speech and preaching). That Iva introduces not his own (Hof- 
mann), but the divine purpose, is clear frorn kv anoSei^ei k.t.Ti., in which 
Paul has stated how God had wrought through him. Comp. iva in i. 31. 

Vv. 6-16. Wisdom, Jiowever, ire deliver among the perfect ; but it is a higher 
wisdom revealed to vs by the Sjnrit, tchich 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 coi^'ia at all, — a supposition which, in writing to the Corinthians above 
all, he could not safely leave uncontradicted. He now shows, accordingly, 
that among rijDened Christians there is certainly a coi^ia delivered, but not a 
philosophy in the common, worldly sense, etc. 

Ver. 6. Wisdom,, nevertheless (uuphilosophical as my discourse among you 
was), we deliver among the pierfect. — }M7iovfiFv'\ we spealc it out, hold it not 
back. That the plu7-al does not refer to Paul alone (so usually), but to the 
apostolic teachers in general, is clear from the ml tjw in iii. 1, which intro- 
duces the particular application of the jilural statement here. — kv means 
nothing else than in, surrounded by, among, coram ; lakuv iv corresponds to 
the AaAeZv with the dative in iii. 1. We must therefore reject not only the 
rendering for the perfect (Flatt, with older cxjiositors), which is in itself 
linguistically imtenable (for even in such passages as those cited by Bern- 

' Theophylact is rif^ht in supposing as ments tojjotlier, and explains the clause of 

regards TrveOfiaro! : appiJTa- Tii'l TpdjTo) niimv the ^avfxaTovpyia toO wvevfiaroi. So, too, in 

ivfnoifi Tois a.Kovov<Ti. He makes Swd/jieia^, substance, Chrysostom, according to whom 
liowever, apply to the miracles, as docs it is by nveviJ.aTO'; that the miracles are 
Tlicodoret also, who takes the two e'e- made to appear as true miracles. 

CHAP. II., 6. 47 

hardy, p. 213, the herd force of h should be retained), but also the expla- 
nation : according to the judgment of the jjerfect (Grotius, Tittmann, de Sjnr. 
Bel mysterior. div. interpreter Lips. 1814, in the 8yn. N. T. p. 285), which 
would have to be referred, with Billroth, to the conception of among, since 
the corresponding usage of kv i/uol, h aol, in the sense, according to my or thy 
view, applies exclusively to these particular phrases (Bernhardy, p. 211). — 
The TsXeioi (comp. on Eph. iv. 13), who stand in contrast to the vr/Tnot h 
Xpi(TT(^ are those ^cho liave penetrated ieyond the position of beginners in Chris- 
tian saving knowledge to the higher sphere of thorough and comprehensive insight. 
The ao(pia, 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 Trvev/na, but 
independent of the teachings of philosophic rhetoric ; and its matter was 
the future relations of the Messianic kingdom (vv. 9, 12) in their connection 
with the divine counsel of redemption and its fulfilment in Christ, the /ivarr/pia 
TTjq jiaat'^EiaQ tuv ovpavcjv (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 
(TO(j>ia Qeoi) 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 kt'ktic 
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 disciiMmi arcani. With the 
main point in our view as a whole, — namely, that co^ia denotes that high- 
er religious wisdom, and teIelol 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, Rilckert, de Wette, Osiander, 
Ewald, Neander, Maier, Hofmann, accord. Chrysostom, however, Theophy- 
lact, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Rosenmiiller, and others, in- 

» Comp. Riickert, who, as respects the discussions on justification, on the contrast 
matter, is of opinion that it includes tlie between Christ and Adam, and on predesti- 
hlgher views regrardins tlie divine plan of the nation ; in the Epistles to the Ephesians and 
world in relation to the development of the Colossiaiis, in the indications there given as 
kingdom of God, and especially to the to the divine plan of redemption and the 
providential government of the .Jewish peo- person of Christ ; in our Epistle, chap. xv. ; 
pie; regarding the import of the divine views of the same kind in Heb. vii.-x., 
ordinances and appointments before Christ, comp. iv. 11 ff. Osiander makes this tro^ia 
for example, of the law in reference to the to consist in the deeper dogmatic develop- 
highest end contemplated— the kingdom of ment of the gospel as regards its historical 
God; regarding the way and manner in foundations and its eternal consequences 
which the death and resurrection of ('hrist reaching on to the consummation of the 
bear upon the salvation of the world ; as kingdom of God. Comp. Ewald, p. 139, 
well as regarding tlie changes yet in the according to whom its contents turn upon 
womb of the future, and, in particular, the the gospel as the centre and cardinal pomt 
events which are linked with the second of all divine-human history, and for that 
(■ .ming of the Lord. Similarly, and still very reason touch all the problems both of 
-lore m detail, Estius. According to de history as a whole, and of the creation. 
,rotte, portions of this wisdom are to be Hofmann rightly includes also the final 
. /:nd in the Epistle to the Roman.'!, in the glory of believers. 

48 Paul's fikst epistle to the couintiiians. 

eluding Tittmann, Flatt, Billroth, and Olshauscn, understand by the reXtioi 
the Christians generally, or the tn/e Christians, to irhom the apostWs doctnne 
{poipiav ?.(:y£i to Ki//n'}/ia Kal rov rpdirov rijq cuTtjp'iag, to (hd OTavpov autifjvai, TeXei- 
ovf Se Tovg Tve-iffTevKOTnc, Chryso.stom), appeared as irisdom, not as folly, (e) 
" Ea dicimus quae plena esse sapientiae judicabunt veri ac probi Christiani," 
Grotius. But iii. 2 is decisive against this view ; for there jn?.a denotes tlic 
instruction of beginners as distinguished from the anrpla (^pij/ia). Comp. the 
appropriate remarks of Castalio on this passage. — aotpiav fie oh r. aiuv. r. ] iris- 
dom, however, which does not belong to this a/je (lU, as in Rom. iii. 22, ix. 30 ; 
Gal. ii. 2 ; Phil. ii. 8), •which is not, like the Jewish and Hellenic philoso- 
phy, the product and intellectual property of the pre-Messianic age. Comj). 
i. 20. Aioivof ToiiTov an(j)iav ovofid^Ei tt/v £^(j, wf Tvpoanaipov nal rw a'luvi To'vTijt avy- 
KnTaTivofievTiv, Theophylact. — ovde] also (in particular) not. — tcjv apx- t. 
aluv 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 
ao(pta in question is a wisdom to wliich holders of temporal power are stran- 
gers. Comp. ver. 8. It is a mistake to explain the apx- r. alup. -. 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 Chrj'sostom and Theophylact, also Ambrosiaster, Estius, 
Bertholdt), both of these interpretations being incomjjatible with the words, 
and forbidden by ver. 8 ; or lastly, to the Jewish archontcs alone (Cameron, 
Hammond, Vorstius, Lightfoot, Locke, Stolz, Rosenmiiller), wliich is con- 
trary to the general character of the expression, and not required by ver. 
8 (see on ver. 8). — ra»v KdTapy.'] 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), nam-cly, w-hen 
Christ returning establishes His Jcingdom. Comp. Rev. xvi.-xix. This 
reference is implied in the context by the emphatic repetition of tov aluvog 
Toi'Tov. The expedient of ex2)laining it into : " Whose power and influence 
are broken and brought to nought hy the gospel,^'' Billroth (comp. Flatt and 
Riickert), rationalizes the apostle's conception, and does not even accord 
with history. — TY^a present participle, as in i. 18. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 7. 

Ver. 7. Qeov ao(l>iav] Ood''s philoso]/hy, of which God is the possessor, who 
has made it known to those who proclaim it, ver. 10. This Qeoii is with 
great emphasis prefixed ; the repetition of Xa'/.ov/tev, too, carries with it a 
certain solemnity, comp. Rom. viii. 15; Phil. iv. 17. — iv nvaTTipiu] docs 
not belong to tt/v cnroKEKp. (with which it was connected expressly as early 
as Theodoret ; comp. Grotius : " q\iae diu in arcano recondita fuit") Ijut to 
AaXoiifiev,^ not, however, in the sense : '■'■ secreto et apud 2^aiicioreH''' (Estius, 
Cornelius a Lapide), since there is no mention of a disciplina arcani (see on 

» These are nut even indwled (in opposi- phylact, and others, including Pott ; comp. 

tion to Chrysostom and others, including Neandcr : "the intellectual rulers of the 

Osiander), although the dpxoi'Tev may have ancient world.") 

accepted their wisdom, played the part of * Erasmus, Estius, Ruckert, Schrader, de 

patrons to them, etc. (Theodoret, Theo- Wette, Osiander, Ilofmann. 

CHAP. II., 8. 49 

ver. 6), but rather : ly means of a secret, i.e. ly our delivei^ing what has leen 
secret (a doctrine hidden from the human understanding, and revealed to 
us by God, see on Rom. xi. 25). To this is to be referred also the render- 
ing of Riickert and Neander : as a mystery. Most interpreters, however, 
join h fivaTjjpiui with <yo<plav, sc. ovaav : God's secret wisdom (unknown but for 
revelation). So also Pott, Heydenreich, Billroth, Tittmann, Usteri, Ewald). 
But the article, although after the anarthrous aocpiav 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 T^v ev fivGTTjpiu. On the other hand, if he joined h /ivar. to laT^ovfiev, 
he could not, seeing that he wished to prefix lal. for the sake of emphasis, 
write otherwise. — ttjv aTro/ceKp.] 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. 35. 
The word, which in itself might be dispensed with, is added in order to 
introduce the following statement with completeness and solemnity. — ?> 
TTpoup. 6 OeoQ K.T.2..] There is no ground here for supj)lying (with the major- 
ity of expositors, including Pott and Heydenreich) anoKaT^vnTeiv, yvuplaai, 
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 yv the odject of the wis- 
dom, the salvation obtained through Christ. For Tvpoup. has its complete 
and logically correct reference in elq 66^av r)[i. (comp. Ejih. i. 5), so that the 
thought is : '■Ho loMch wisdom God has, before the beginning of the ages of this 
world (in eternity), given the predestination tliat T)y it we should attain to 
glory.''"' This eIq 66^. ijfi. corresponds significantly to the rwv Karapy. 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 hecome (Hofmann) 
this glory, but to estahlish and to realize it. This destination it attains in 
virtue of the faith of the subjects (i. 21) ; but the reference to the spiritual 
glorification on earth is not even to be assumed as included with the other (in 
opposition to de Wette, Osiander, Neander, and many older expositors), as 
also the correlative ttjq 66^tiq 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 mal-es blessed, having at- 
tained in the 66^a of believers the end designed for it by God before the 
beginning of the world. 

Ver. 8. "Hv] Parallel with the preceding 7/v, and referring to Qeov ao(j>!av 
(Calvin, Grotius, and most commentators, including Flatt, Riickert, de 
Wette, Osiander, Hofmann), not to 66^. tj/xuv (Tertullian contra Marc. v. 6, 
Camerarius, Pott, Billroth, Maier) ; for the essential point in the whole con- 
text is the non-recognition of that wisdom.^ — el yap eyvuaav k.t.I.'] parenthet- 

» The simple uniform continuation of the Gr. p. 243 [E. T. 282]), and as introducing a 

discourse by >)>' has a solemn emphasis here, new principal sentence. The asyndetic simi- 

as in Acts iv. 10, and especially often in the lar co-ordination of several relative clauses 

Epistle to the Ephesians. Ail the less reason is, from Homer onward (see Ameis on the 

is there for taking it, withHofmann,asequiv- Odyss. xxiii. 299, append.), a very common 

alent in this verse to ravrriv (Buttmann, neut. usage in the classics also, 

50 Paul's first epistle to the coiuntiiians. 

icul proof from fact for vfhat has been just asserted ; for the ('i/./d iu ver. 
9 refers to »> ov6elc . . . tyvuKcv. The crucifixion of Chrut, seeing tliat it 
was effected by Jewish and heathen rulers together, is here considered as 
the act of the apx- "• a\uv. collectively. — tov Kvpiov rye M^k] Christ is the 
Ijord, and, inasmuch as His qualitative characteristic condition is that of the 
divine o-lory in heaven, from which lie came and to which He has returned 
(John xvii. 5 ; Luke xxiv. 26 ; Phil. iii. 30 f. ; Col. iii. 1-4, al), the Lord 
of glory. Comp. Jas. ii. 1. In a precisely analogous way God is called, in 
Eph. i. 17, o TTarrip T^g do^Tjg. Comp. Acts vii. 2 ; Ps. xxiv. 7 ; Heb. ix. 5. 
In all these passages the expression of the adjectival notion by the genitive 
has rhetorical emphasis. Comp. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 887. This designa- 
tion of Christ, however, is furfosely chosenhy way of antithesis to eamvpuaav ; 
for 6 aravpbg ado^lag elvai doKel, Chrysostom. Had the up^ovrt^Q known that 
aocpia Oeov, then they would also have known Christ as what He is, the Kvpior 
rfjq dofw, and would have received and honoured instead of shamefully cruci- 
fying Him. But what was to them wisdom was simply nothing more than 
selfish Avorldly prudence and spiritual foolishness ; in accordance with 'x 
Annas and Caiaphas, Pilate and Herod, acted. Comp. , generally, Luke xxiii. 
34 ; Acts iii. 17. 

Ver. 9. 'AAAa] l)id., antithesis to /yv o'vitlg ruv apx^vruv t. al. r. iyvuKsv. — 
The passage of Scripture, which Paul now adduces, is to be translated : 
" 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 Juith prejmred for them that love 
Him.'''' In the connection of our passage these words are still dependent 
upon ?ia?Mvpev. Paul, that is to say, instead of afhrming something further 
of the icisdom itself, and so continuing with another ijv (which none of the 
rulers have known, hut which), describes now the mysterious contents of this 
wisdom, and expresses himself accordingly in the neuter form (by d), to 
which he was induced in the flow of his discourse by the similar form of 
the language of Scr'ipture which floated before his mind. The construction 
therefore is not anacoluthic (Riickcrt 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 yh/ove (Theophylact, Grotius). 
The connection with ver. 10, adopted by Lachmann (in his ed. min.), and in 
my first and second editions, and again resorted toby Hofmann : what no eye 
has seen, etc., God, on the other hand{(U, 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 ayanoxnv avrdv, Kadijg ykypanrat logically would need to stand, 
not before, but after, a, because in reality this a, and not the KaHug yiypmrrai, 
would introduce the object of a7reKdlvij>ev. — Kaffug yeyp.] Chrysostom and 
Theophylact are in doubt as to what passage is meant, whether a lost 2>rophccy 
(so Theodoret), or Isa. Iii. 15. Origen, again, and other Fathers (Fabri- 
cius, ad Cod. Apocr. N. T. p. 342 ; Psendepigr. K T. I. p. 1072 ; Liicke, 
EinUit. z. Offenh. I. p. 235), with whom Schradcr and Ewald agree, assume, 
amidst vehement opposition on the part of Jerome, that the citation is from 
the Revelation of Elias, in Avhicli Zacharias of Chrysopolis avers {Ilarmonia 

CHAP, II., 10. 51 

Evang. p. 343) that he himself had actually read tlie words. Grotms re- 
gards them as ^^ e scriptis Rahhinonim, qui ea habuerunt ex traditione vet- 
ere." Most inter23reters, however, including Osiander and Hofmauu, agree 
with Jerome (on Isa. Ixiv. and a^Z Pammach. epist. ci.) in finding here a free 
quotation from Isa. Ixiv. 4 (some holding that there is, besides, a reference 
to lii. 15, Ixv. 17 ; see especially Surenhusius, /caraAA. p. 536 :ff. , also Rig- 
genbach in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 596 f . But the difference in sense — 
not to be got over by forced and artificial interpretation of the passage in 
Isaiah (see especially Hofmann) — and the dissimilarity in expression are too 
great, hardly presenting even faint resemblances ; which is never elsewhere 
the case with Paul, however freely he may make his quotations. There 
seems, therefore, to remain no other escape from the difficulty than to give 
credit to the assertion — however much repugnance may have been shown to 
it in a dogmatic interest from Jerome downwards — made by Origen and 
others, that the words were from the Ajiocali/psis Ellue. So, too, Bleek in 
the Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 330. But since it is only passages from the ca- 
nonical Scriptures that are ever cited by Paul with Kaduq yh'P- > '^^ must at 
the same time assume that he intended to do so here also, but hy some confu- 
sion of memory tooh the apocryplial 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, hihlische Theol. p. 298. — a oipdaA/wc 
avK side k.t.Z.] For similar designations in the classics and Rabbins of what 
cannot be apprehended by the senses or intellect, see Wetstein and Light- 
foot, Sorae, p. 162. Comp. Empedocles in Plutarch, 3for. p. 17 E : oir' 
eTTcdepKTa raS' avSpdmv, ovr' (iraKOvaTa, ovte vocj rrepiTiriTrTd. With respect to 
dvafi. km Kapfi., 37 7J? Tr\\, to rise up to the heart .^ that is, become a con- 
sciously apprelien.led object of feeling and thought, so that the thing enters 
as a conception into the sphere of activity of the inner life, comji. on Acts 
vii. 33. — TToZf dyaTT. avT6v\ i.e. in the apostle's view '.for 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. Apjost. vii. 
32. 3 : ol 6e diKaioL -k o pei) govt at elq ^uijv ai6viov k1i] povo jiovvt eg 
EKelva, a bcpOal/ubg ovk kIJe k.t.2.. 

Ver. 10. Having thus set forth the hitherto hidden character of the divine 
ao(l>ia, Paul now turns to its unveiling, as a result of which it was that that 
lalovnev of ver. 6 f. took place. In doing this he puts yii'iv emphatically 
first in the deep consciousness of the distinction implied in so signal a mark 
of divine favour. The object of aiTEKdl. is the immediately preceding a 
fjToiiiaaev rt.T.l. — ijiilv] jjlural, as laXoviiev in ver. 6, and therefore neither to 
be referred to the apostle alone (Rosenmilller, Rlickert, and others), nor to 
all Christians (Billroth, etc.). — Jm rov irvEVfj.. ahrov] The Holy Spirit, pro- 

' 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, Aeyet ydp), has here our Epistle. The Constitt. apost. too, vii. 33. 

Toi* viToii.ivov<Ti.v ai/Tov. remembering jer- 2, have rois ayawoicrii' auToi'. The so-called 

naps Isa. Ixiv. 4 in 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 ive^n- 


ceediug forth from God as the jiersonal priiKij)le of Christian enlightenment, 
of every Christian endowment, and of the Christian life, is the medium, in 
His being communicated to men (ver. 12), of the divine revelation ; He is 
the learer of it ; Eph. i. 17, iii. 3, 5 ; 1 Cor. xii. 11, xiv. 6, al. — to yap 
TTvevfia K..T.A.'] Herewith begins the adducing of proof for that I'/iilv f5f anemX- 
v^ev K.T.I, which continues on to ver. 13, to this effect, namely : For 
the Sjnrit is familiar with the mysteries of Ood, lecause lie (doiw stands in 
that unique relatioii as respects hioidedge to God, tchich corresponds to the re- 
lation of the human spirit to man (vv. 10, 11) ; hut what we have received is 
110 other than this 8p>irit of Ood, in order that ire might hiow the salvation of 
God (ver. 12), so that no doubt remains that we have actually the anoKal- 
I'l/i/f in question through the Spirit. That -h ■Hvev/ja means not the hrima/i 
sjnrit, but the Ilohj Sjnrit, is certain from what goes before and from vv. 
11, 12. — ty^ewa] rightly interpreted byChrysostom : ovk ayvoiaq, a7.1' aKpijiovq 
ji'uaewf evTuvda to ipevvav evSeinTiKov. Comp. Ps. cxxxix. 1 ; Rom. viii. 27 ; 
Rev. ii. 23. The word expresses the activity of tliis 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. 
— navTo] all things, without limitation. Comp. Wisd. \'ii. 23 ; Ps. cxxxix. 
7. — TO. (iddrj Tov Qeov] Comp. Judith viii. 14 : /?d^of Kapdiag avdpuirov ; see on 
Rom. xi. 33, also Plato, Theaet. p. 183 E. The expression : '^'^ depths of 
God,^'' denotes the whole rich exhaustless ftdness 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 ftadi',3ovAov (Aeschylus, 
Pers. 143) of the Godhead, are included; but we are not to suppose that 
they alone are meant. The opposite is rd jSadsa tov ^arava, Rev. ii. 24. 
The depths of God, unsearchable by the cognitive power of created spirits 
(comp. Rom. xi. 33), are penetrated by the cognitive activity of His own 
immanent principle of life and manifestation, so that this, i.e. the Holy 
Spirit, is the power [Potenz] of the divine self-knowledge. God is the 
subject knowing and the object known in the intrinsic divine activity of 
the Spirit, who is the substratum of the absolute self-consciousness of the 
Godhead, in like manner as the human spirit is the substratum of the 
human Ego. 

Ver. 11 assigns the reason for the kuI to. (iadij tov Qeov just mentioned, and 
that in such a way as to represent the searching of these jSad// as cvclusively 
pertaining to the Spirit of God, according to the analogy of the relation be- 
tween the spirit of man and man himself. — avdpi)TTuv] 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 tov avOpuTrov afterwards (which is wanting in 
F G, and some Fathers), hence also the position chosen for it : avdpunuv 
TO. TOV avOpuTTov : 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 

' The TO iv aiiTw is an argumentative defini- hence to -nvevixa, not ^ 'i'vx'n- Comp. De- 
tion.— In the man the subject knowing is litzsch. hiblisch.e PKi/chologie.p. 198; Krumin, 
the Ego of the personal self-consciousness, de notionib. psychol. Paul. p. 16 f. 

CHAP. II., 13. 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 fidd/i by way of supplement to to. tov avOp. or to to. 
Tov Qsov. This would be a purely arbitrary limitation of the universal 
statement, to which to. (iddr], 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 ?" — eyvuKE] cognita habet. See 
Bernhardy, p. 378. For the rest, this ovddg eyvuKc is, as a matter of course, 
said not as in distinction from the Son (Luke x. 23), but from the creatures. 

Kemabk. — 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. 11.), 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, a23pear3 in His relation to God as the principle of the divine 
self-knowledge, in the same way as the larinciple of the human self-knowledge is 
the nvEvfia of the man, which constitutes his jaersonal life. Hence God is 
known only by His Spirit, as the man is only by his spirit, as the vehicle of his 
own self-consciousness, not by another man. With to nvEv/nu tov Qeov, Paul 
does not again join rd h avTo, because the man's spirit indeed is shut up in 
the man, but not so the Divine Spirit in God ; the latter, on the contrary, goes 
forth also from Him, is communicated, and is to nvev/ia to Ik. tov Qeov. See 
ver. 12. 

Ver. 12. Ae] leading on to the second half of the demonstration which 
began with Th yap nvEvjia in ver. 10 (see on ver. 10). — we?f] as yfilv in ver. 
10. — TO TTVEv/ia TOV Kda/Liov] i.e. the spirit which imielieving mankind has. This 
spirit is the diabolic irvEv/ia, that is, the spirit proceeding forth from the devil, 
under whose power the Kdofiog lies, and whose sphere of action it is. See 
2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Eph. vi. 11, 12, ii. 2. Comp. John xii. 31 ; 1 John iv. 3, v. 
19. Had w^e received this spirit, — and here Paul glances back at the apxov- 
TEQ TOV aluvog tovtov in vv. 6, 8, — then assuredly the knowledge of the bless- 
ings of eternity would have remained closed for us, and (see ver. 13) in- 
stead of utterances taught by the Spirit we should use the language of the 
human wisdom of the schools. It is indeed the nvEvfia Tjjg 7rldv)]g as con- 
trasted with the nvEVfja Tf/q alr]6eiaQ, 1 John iv. 6. Most commentators take 
TO nvEv/ia 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, RosenmuUer, Flatt, Heydenreich, de Wette, Maier, and simi- 
larly Pott. ' But, according to ver. 10, to nvEvfxa must denote, in keeping 

' [So also Stanley and Hodge, but Beet and Principal Brown agree with Meyer, wbose 
view is clearly correct.— T. W. C] 

54 Paul's first epistle to thk coin nth ians. 

with the context, the objective spirit opposed to the Spirit of God ; and that 
is, according to the decided dualistic view of the ai)ostle (comp. csp. Eph. 
ii. 2), the diabolic irvev/ia, 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 inii)ortation ; and this holds, too, 
of Ilofmanu's exjmsition : that it is the spirit, in virtue of wliich 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: " w^e have received onr ivvEVfia not from the world, but 
from God," cannot even be reconciled with the words of the passage. — rb 
EK T. Qeov] The ek is emploj^ed by Paul here not in order to avoid the appear- 
ance of making this Tzvev/xa the principle that determines the action of God 
(so Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 435), which w^ere a needless precau- 
tion, but because this form of expression has a significant adaptation to the 
'iva t'lSunev k.t.T^. ; there can be do doubt about this knowing, if it proceeds 
from the Sjiirit which hfrom God (which has gone forth upon believers ; 
comp. ver. 11, to kv avru), John xv. 20. — 'iva elSu/isv k.t.K.] the divine pur- 
pose in imparting the Spirit which proceeded forth from God. This clause, 
expressive of design, containing the object of the aneKaXvipev in ver. 10, 
completely winds up the adducing of proof for the r/ulv 6e aneKcil. 6 0. Slo, t. 
nv. avr. — to. vivo t. Qeov ,y«P- V/^'v] iu'c the blessings of the Messianic king- 
dom, the jDossession of which is bestowed by divine grace on the Christians 
(r/filv), not, indeed, before the Parousia as an actual jjossession, but as an 
ideal one to be certainly entered upon hereafter (Rom. viii. 24, 30 ; Col. iii. 
3, 4) ; comp. Rom. vi. 23 ; Eph. ii. 8, 9. That to take it ideally in this 
way is correct (in opposition to Hofmann), is clear from the consideration 
that TO ;(apiaO£VTa mufit he identical with a yroifiaaev 6 Qebg k.t.?.. in ver. 9, 
and with the 66^a y/i. in ver. 7. 

Ver. 13. Having thus in vv. 10-12 given the proof of that y/xlv fie cnreKa?.. 
K.T.X., the apostle goes on now to the manner in which the things revealed 
were j)roclaimed, passing, therefore, from the e'i6hai to. x^P- to the 7M7.elv of 
them. The manner, negative and positive, of this Aalelv (comp. ver. 4) he 
links to what has gone before sim})ly by the relative : which (namely, rd . . . 
xapiaO. Tjn.) we also (in accordance wdth the fact of our having received the 
Spirit, ver. 12) utter not in words learned, of human wisdom (dialectics, 
rhetoric, etc.), hit in those learned of the Spirit. The genitives : avdpun. ao<p. 
and Trvev/MTo(, are dependent onrftrfa/croZ? (John vi. 45). See Winer, pp.182, 
178 [E. T. 242, 236]. Pflugk, ad Eur. Jlec. 1135. Comp. Pindar, 01. ix. 
153 : 'rro?.?M fie fiifianToi^ avflpuTruv apeTot^ K^.eog i,)povam> eleafint' avev fie deov k.t.X., 
comp. Nem. iii. 71. Sophocles, El. 336 : rhita vnvOeTf/ftara Keivt/c fiifiaK-a. It 
is true that the genitives might also be dependent upon ?.6yoic (Fritzsche, 
Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 27) ; but the context, having fiifiaKTo'iq nvev/iaroc, is 
against this. To take fiifiaKToig (with Ewald) as meaning, according to the 


CHAP. II., 13. 55 

commo a classical usage, learnable, quae doceri fomunt (seo especially Demosth. 
1413. 24 ; Plato, Prot. p. 319 B : ov 6i6aKrov elvac /arjS' in' avdpun'uv napaoKev- 
aarbv avdpuiroig), does not agree so well with vv. 4 and 15. — The suggestio 
vei'dorum, here asserted, is reduced to its right measure hy didanrolg •, 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. — ■Kvevua- 
TiKolg TTvevfiaTCKo. avyKpivovTsg] connecting^ spiritual things with spiritual, not 
uniting things unlilce 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 
{KvevfiaTLtiolg) the speech also taught by the Spirit (7vvevfj.aTiKd), — things con- 
sequently of like nature, " spiritualibus spiritualia componentes" (Castalio). 
So in substance also Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Balduin, Wolf, Baumgarten, 
Klingin the Stud, und Krit. 1839, p. 437, de Wette, Osiander, Maier, etc., 
and rightly, since this sense suits the connection singularly well, and does 
not in any degree clash with the classical use of avyKpiveiv (Valckenaer, p. 
134 f. ; Porson, ad Med. 136). Plato has it frequently in this meaning, and 
in contrast to diaKphsiv. See Ast, Lex. Plat. III. p. 290 f. Other commen- 
tators, while also taking Trvev/j-ar. as neuter, make avyKpiveiv, explicare, namely, 
either : explaining the N. T. doctrine from the types of the 0. T. (Chrysostom 
and his successors"), or: "exponentes ea, quae prophetae Spiritu Dei acti 
dixere, per.ea, qu;ie Christus suo Spiritu nobis aperuit" (Grotius, Krebs), 
or : " spiritualibus verbis spiritualia interpretantes" (Eisner, Mosheim, 
Bolten, Neander). But the first two of these renderings are against the 
context, and all the three are against the usus hquendi ; for avyKpiveiv is 
never absolutely interpretari, either in profane Greek (in which, among 
later writers, as also in 2 Cor. x. 12, Wisd. vii. 29, xv. 18, 1 Mace. 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 ("'j">3, see Gen. xl. 8, 16,22, xli. 12, 
15 ; Dan. v. 12) ; but in such cases (comp. the passages from Philo, where 
6iaKpiv£iv 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 ' Hence, in Dan. v. 16 (In the history of 

takes it : Sia tmv toO Tn-euVaro; (XTroSeif eioi/ the mysterious writing on the wall, which 
TTjf ToO nvtvixtno<; Si^aaKakiav Tri(novii.e&a. had to be judged of with respect to its 

^ So, too, Theodoret : exoixev fap t^? irak- meaninj<) : Siivao-ai )cpi>aTa o-uyKpivai, thou 

aias Siai?^K>)5 Trji/ ^La.pTvpia.v, Ka\ Si eK€U'i)s Triv canst pronourtce Utterances of judgment. 

Kaivriv p^paLovft-ev TrvevixaTiKY] yap KaxeU'i] Comp. the phrasc, recurring more than 

. . . Kal Si.a. Tiav Tvniav SeUvvfiev rrjv aAiiiJeiai/. once in that same Story of Belshazzar, in 

Several of the older interpreters follow the Dan. v. : ttji- crvyKpia-Lv yvoipiieiv, or : ivayyek- 

Greeks in substance, including Calovius, Aeu' : to make known or declare the judg- 

who, on the ground of this passage, declares ment (as to what that marvellous writing 

himself against the explanation of Scripture might signify), 
from profane writers ! 

56 Paul's fiust epistle to tue couinthians. 

vision in the dream (comp, Kpiveiv rb a/)/iatv6fievov ruv bvetparov in Josephus, 
Antt. ii. 2. 2, also the 'OveipoKiuTiKd of Artemidorus). (g) The meaning, to 
judge, however, although instances of it may be established in Greek writers 
also (Anthol. vii. 133 ; Polybius, xiv. 3. 7, xii. 10. 1 ; Lucian. Soloec. 5), 
would be unsuitable here, for this reason, that the phrase nvev/iariKolc kvev 
fiariKQ, both being taken as neuter, manifestly, according to the context, 
expresses the relation of matter and form, not the judging of the one 
nvevpariKdv by the other (Ewald), notwithstanding that Luther, too, adopts 
a similar interpretation : " and judge sjnritual things sjnritmdly.'''' Lastly, it 
is incorrect to take nvev/nariKolg as masculine, and render : explaining things 
revealed hy the Spirit to those icho are led hy the Spirit (the same as teIe'ioi^ 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 h/ts already bestoiped upon us (ver. 12) in a predictive sign as it 
w^ere, — 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 to. ;t;ayo<<j0evra in ver. 12, 
and the problem and its predictive sign are imported into avyKpivovTeg.^ 
Again, it is by no means required by the connection with ver. 14 ff. that we 
should take wvEvpariKo'ig as masculine ; for ver. 14 begins a new part of the 
discourse, so that rpvxixbg avdpuivog only iinds its personal contrast in 6 6e 
nvEvpariKdg 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 : nvEvnoTog, -n-vEVfiariKolg, nvEvpa-tKa. 

Ver. 14. To receive such teaching, however, in which nvEv/uariKd are united 
with ■n-vEv/j.ariKolc, every one has not the capacity ; a psychical man appre- 
hends not that which is the Spirit of God, etc. — Tpvxmbg avdpunog is the 
opposite of the TrvEv/iariKSg who has received the Holy Spirit (vv. 12 f., 15) ; 
he is therefore one nvEv/ia (the Holy Spirit) p^ excjv (Jude 19). Such a 
man — who is not essentially different from the capKiKdg (see on iii. 1), 
but the mental side of whose nature is here brought forward by the word 
^I'vxmdg — is not enlightened and sanctified by the Spirit of God, but is gov- 
erned by the rpvxv, the principle of life for the adp^, so that the sphere in 
which he works and strives is not that of the divine truth and the divine 
^u>T/, but the purely human activity of the understanding, and, as regards 
practical things, the interests of the life of sense, the ETZLdvpiai ipvximi, 4 
Mace. i. 32, the iTTiavfiiai dvep6-uv, not the lli?.T/pa Oeov, 1 Pet. iv. 2. Comp. 
generally, Weiss, UUische Theol. p. 270 f. The higher principle of life, the 

'This is the view of Pelagius, Seduliiis, x"P'<^'*<'»'''« ^i^'", Tyitufla ovra to>v ne\- 

Theophyhirt (stifrKosted only), Thomas, \6vtwv, & Kal <rvy npivo ij.€v . . . wvev 

Estius, Cloricus, Rensel, Rosenmuller, Pott, fiaTLKo'n nvevfiaTixa AaAoCrTe?. Comp. on 

Heydenreich, Flatt, Billroth, Kiickert. the latter expression, Maximus Tyrius, ttH, 

' Hofmann expounds as if Paul liad writ- 4 ; «n)» era crvfeToi? Aey«o»', 
ten in ver. 12 f . : ra ^ 5 rj vvv «»* Tt ®. 

CHAP. IT., 14. 


human Trvevfta, ' wMcli 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, ^vxtnog means not naturalis {i.e. 
^v(jik6q in contrast to dt^aKroq, rexvinSg, and the like ; comp. Polyb. vi. 4. 
7 : (pvamug koI aaaTaaKtvug), but animalis (Vulgate). Com]}, -ipvxin'j aocpia as 
contrasted with that avudev KarepxoiuivTj, Jas. iii. 15. Many have taken up 
the idea in a one-sided way, either in a merely intellectual reference (rov 
fidvoiq To'ig olaeioig apKoii/ievov "koyiaiiolg, Theodoret ; see also Chrysostom, The- 
ophylact, Beza, Grotius, Heydenreich, Pott ; comp. too, Wieseler on Oal. 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 rftjerai] The 
question whether this means : he is unsusceptible of it, does not undei'stand 
(Vulgate, Castalio, Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Riickert, et al.) ; or : hs does not 
accept, respuit (Peshito, Erasmus, and others, including Tittmanu, Flatt, 
Billroth, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier), is decided in favour of the latter 

1 The distinction between i/zux^ and nvevixa, 
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- 
tojibus recepfa, in his Opnsc. Berol. 1834, p. 
143 flf. ; and, on the other side, Hahn, Theol. 
d. N. T. I. p. 391 ff.). Not, however, as if 
Paul had borrowed this trichotomy (see, 
especially, 1 Thess. v. 23 ; comp. also Heb. 
iv. 12) from the Platonic philosophy, but 
this Platonic type of anthropology, current 
also with Philo and the Rabbinical writers, 
had, like the phrase 6 eo-w and 6 ef a> di'iJpwjros 
(see on Eph. iii. 16), become popidar (comp. 
Josephus, Aidt. i. 1. 2, according to which 
God breathed rveujia and >//ux')>' into man 
when first formed, and subsisted alongside 
of the twofold conception and the cor- 
responding mode of expression (v. 3 f., vii. 
34; 2 Cor. vii. 1; Rom. viii. 10 f., al.). 
Comp. Liinemanu on 1 Thess. v. 23. Luther, 
as early as 1521, has some excellent remarks 
on the trichotomy (printed also in De- 
litzsch's MM. Psychol, p. 392 f.). He likens 
the Tri/eOjua to the Sanctum sanctorum, the 
il'ux'J to the Sanctum, and the <ra>tJ.a. to the 
Atrium. Against Ilofmann'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, loc. cit. p. 87 fif. ; Ernesti, TJrsprung d. 
Siinde, II. p. 76 f. We may add, that Hof- 
mann is wrong in saying, with respect to 
this passage, that it has nothing whatever 
to do with the question about the dichot- 
omy or trichotomy. It has to do with it, 
inasmuch as in virtue of the contrast 
between ^vxi.k.6<; and Trvev^iaTiKos, the i/^uxi 
cannot be the seat and sphere of operation 
of the Divine Spirit, which is to be found 
rather in the human TrveC^na, and conse- 
quently must be conceived as specifically 
distinct from the latter. 

"^ Luther's gloss is : "The naiuralr[iZ.VL is 
as he is apart from grace, albeit decked out 
as bravely as may be with all the reason, 
skill, sense, and faculty in the world." 
Comp. Calovius, who insists with .justice 
against Grotius, that \livxi-<os and erapxiico? 
differ only "ratione formalis signiflca- 
tionis." Paul might have used <rap/ci(cds 
here too (see on iii. 1) ; but ^Auxitos nat- 
urally suggested itself to him as correlative 
to ^ixea-d-ai ; for the 'iivxi cannot be the recep- 
taculum of that which is of the Spirit of God. 
According to Ewald, the word points to the 
Greek philosophers, be?ng 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 
tlie reference was to the philosophers (by 
crowds Tou KocTfiov. for example, or in some 
other way) I 

58 Paul's first kpistle to the cokinthiaks. 

view by the standing use of 6kx(:<y0ai in the N. T. when referring to doctrine. 
See Luke viii. 13 ; Acts viii. 14, xi. 1, xvii. 11 ; 1 Thess. i. G, ii. 13. Comp. 
2 Thess. ii. 10 ; 2 Cor. viii. 17. — rd tov irv.] wluit comes from the Spirit. 
This applies both to the matter and form of the teaching. See ver. 13. — 

fiupia yap . . . yvuvai] ground of tliis o'v StxcTai k.t.a.: It in 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 apj^ends to the relation of the object 
to the subject the corresponding relation of the subject to the object. — 
The statement of the reason for both of these connected clauses is : on 
nvevfiariKug avaKpiverai : because they (to. tov Trver/j..) are judged of after a 
spiritual fashion (iv. 3, xiv. 24), i.e. because the investigative (ava) judgment 
of them (the searching into and estimating their nature and meaning) is a 
task which, by reason of the nature of the subject-matter to be dealt with, 
can be performed in accordance with its own essential character in no other 
way than hj means of a proving and judging empoxi^ered and guided hy the Iloly 
Spirit (a power which is wanting to the tpvxiKdg). Uvev/ia-iKCjr, that is to 
say, refers not to the human spirit, but to the Holy Spirit (see ver. 13) who 
fills the human spu-it, and by the hallowing influence of divine enlighten- 
ment and power capacitates it for the avuKfjivEiv of the doctrines of teachers 
filled with the Spirit who address it, so that this avuKplveiv is an activity 
which proceeds in a mode enipotrered and guided hy 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, i<j/«cA takes place ; they are subject to spiritual judginoit. That 
is an axiom. But this very sort of nvdnpiaig is what is lacking in the fvxtno^- 
Ver. 15. Jle tcTio is spiritual, on the other hand, judges all things, Init is for 
his own part {avrdr) judged hy no one; so lofty is his porition, high above all 
the ijwxiKo'i^, to whom he is a riddle, not to be read by their unenlightened 
jjowers of judging, to which rd tov nvevuaToq are folly ! — o TcvevpaTtK6^] he 
who stands under the influence of the Holy Spirit, enlightened and led by 
Him. Comp. on TrvnuaTiKiocm ver. 14. — rd navra] (see the critical remarks)' 
receives from the context no further liniitution than that of the article, 
which is not tmsuitahle (Ilofmann), but denotes the totality of what 2^fese>its 
itself to ?ns judging, so that it does not apply merely to rd roii irveh/naTog 
(Ewald : " all the deepest and most salutary divine truths"), the avaKpiveiv 
of which, on the part of the -vivnarmoc, is a matter of eoiirso, but means all 

' In connection with the reading n-ivTa, only tlie first of these renderings that would 

those wlio take it as masculim e.xplain tlio be admissible ; for, aocordiiis to ver. If, 

clause very variously ; either; " Qtiando avaKp. cannot mean vrroris concincere 

audit alium loquentem vel docentem, illieo (against Nossclt), and to restrict iravra to 

dignoscere potest et dijudicare, utrum sit the profane would b(! entirely unwarranted 

ex Deo necne" (Bos, Alberti) ; or: "Ego by the context, as is phun from Tr^unaTiicws 

quidem . . . qucmlibet profanum . . . diju- imfcptVeTai in ver. 14 (against Xosselt and 

dicare adeoque a nviviianKoU b. vere collus- Pott). At tiie same time, it would also bn 

tratis digno-scerc possum" (Pott); or: arbitrary in adopting the first view to refer 

'■('onvincere quemlibct profanum erroris it only to the loqui or docere,a.m\ not also 

potiist" (Xtisselt, Kosenmuller). Were the to deeds and other expressions of the life. 
readinLrgoniiinc. and -ravTo. nias(!uline, it is 

CHAP. II., 16. 59 

objects that come within the sphere of his judgment. To everything that 
comes before him he can assign the riglit estimate in virtue of liis power of 
judgment, enlightened and upheld by the Holy Spirit. He has the true 
critical eye of the SoKifidi^Eiv (1 Thess. v. 31) for all that offers itself to him 
to be judged. How often has Paul himself disjjlayed this avdnpicrir TcvuvnaTiKi/, 
and that, too, in matters not connected with doctrine, under situations the 
most varied ! e.g. in his wise availing himself of circumstances when perse- 
cuted and put on trial, during his last voyage, etc. ; in his decisions 
concerning matrimonial questions, contendings at law, slavery, collections, 
and the like, in regard to which he manages with consummate tact, and 
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 siiblime 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. '^ — vn 
ovSevdg'] namely, who is not also iwevfianKo^. This follows necessarily from 
the foregoing 6 ■ dvaKpivei rd Travra. Comp. too, 1 John iv. 1. The 
standpoint of the psychical man is too low, and his mode of thought too 
foreign in its presuppositions and principles, for him to be able to under- 
stand and judge of the pneumatic. In like manner, the blind (see as early 
as Chrysostom and Theophylact) cannot judge of the painter, nor the deaf 
of the musician. — How Roman Catholic writers have sought to render ver. 
15, standing opposed as it does to the authority claimed by the chiu'ch, ser- 
viceable to their own side, may be seen, e.g., in Cornelius a Lapide : " Sin 
autem nova oriatur quaestio in fide aut moribus, eaque obscura et dubia, 
eadem prudentia dictat homini spirituali . . . ejusdem Spiritus jiidicio 
recuiYendum esse ad superioi'es, ad doctores, ad eccdesiam jRomanam quasi mat- 
ricem, " etc. 

Ver. 16. Proof for the avTog 6e vn' ovSevbg avmpivETai. ^'- For in order to 
judge of the TvvevfinrcKdg, one icould need to liave known the mind of Christ, which 
we wvEVfiaTiKol are in jjos-^ession 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. 34. There, indeed, Kbpioc 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 projiosition y/ielg rff k.t.Tl. proves. — 
The vovg Kvpiov is the understanding of the Lord, embracing His thoughts, 
judgments, measures, plans, etc., the vovg being the faculty where these 

• [Surely here the author goes beyond struct Him : but we, we nvevixaTiKoi, are they 

the scope of the passage, which is 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 so as to 

Poor.— T. W. C] instruct them, that is, .iust they who im' ovSe- 

' Fully expressed, it would i-un thus : iVo vbs avaKpivovTai., ver. 15. 
one can know the mind of Christ so as to in- 


originate and arc claboratccl. The conception is not identical with that of 
the ni'tl/ia Xf)irj7iw (ayaiiist Billroth, Neandcr, and many others), which 
rather, when imparted to man, malrs his voix the vovg Xpiarov, not haingitsel^ 
the voi'c X., but that which constitutes its HriUtratnm. — bg (jv/ii3i,3. avrdv] qui 
instructurus sit eum, i.e. in order (after thus coming to know him) to instru<;t 
Jlim. See on this use of 6f, Matthiae, II. p. 1068 ; Kiihner, II. p. 529 fif. 
liegarding (Tv/xi3i(3dCEcv, which is frequent in the LXX. in the sense oiinstruere, 
tlorere, but does not occur with that meaning in Greek writers, see Schleus- 
ucr, Thes. V. p. 154. This be avfiji. avrov is not " r<tther miterfluoudy'^ taken 
ill along with the rest of the quotation (Rilckert), but is included as essen- 
tial to the proof of the vif ov&evhq avaKpiverai, since tha fornning a judgment 
assumes the capacity to instruct (act as master). This, then, is what he 
who would judge the wev/iariKoi must be capable of doing with respect to 
Christ, since these have the mind of Christ. Chrysostom says well : bg 
avfi[ii[ida£i avrbv, ovx awlug TzpoaidrjKev, a^J^.a Tvpbg b eIttev tjStj, bri rbv nvEVfiaTiKov 
oixhlg dvoKpivei' el yap E'ldevai owhlg Siivarai tov Qeov (rather ChrisVs) rbv vovv, 
TzoUC) iialJ.ov (hddffnEiv Kal SiopOovadai. — To refer ahrdv, with Nosselt {Opusc. 
II. p. 137 f.), to the TTvevfiaTiKSg (so, too, RosenmiUler and Tittmann, I.e. p. 
294), is an involved construction rendered necessary only by failure to 
catch the simple course of proof. — ^/uelg 6e vovv X . ex-] tla.emin(yr proposition, 
with the emphasis on ////e/'c, and the explanatory Xpiarov in piace of Kvpiov. 
Paul includes himself along with the rest among the ■Kvevfia-iKoi. These are 
the possessors (ixofisv) of the mind of Christ. For, since they have the Spirit 
of Christ (Rom. viii. 9, IG), and since Christ is in them (Rom. viii. 10 ; 2 
Cor. xiii. 5), their vovq, too, can be no mental faculty different in kind from 
the voi'g XpicTov, 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. Oh yap TlXaTuvog, ovfis Uvdayopov, says Chrysostom, a/l/l' 6 
Xpiarbg ra eavTov rrf ^fierepa hedijKE diavo'ia. Many commentators (not recog- 
nizing the process of proof) have interpreted ex^^i-ev as persjjectam Jiabemus 
(see Tittmann, I.e.), an e.g. Roseumiiller and Flatt : "We know the mean- 
ing of the doctrine of Christ ;" or Grotius : "Novimus Dei consilia, quae 
Christo fuere revelata." 

Notes by American Editob. 

(e) TJie "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 arlvaneed 
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 jjart of this chapter of the wisdom here intended refers 
not to the higher doctrines of the gospel, but to the gospel itself. The contrast 
is between the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God, and not between 
the rudimental and the higher doctrines of the gospel. Besides, what are these 
higher doctrines which Paul preached only to the elite of the church ? No one 
knows. Some say one thing, and some another. But there are no higher doc- 
trines than those taught in this Epistle, and in those to the Romans and Ephe- 
sians, all addressed to the mass of the people. The New Testament makes no 
distinction between (n-lortg and yvuaig) 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 instriiction 
and another. In catechisms designed for children the church pours out all the 
treasures of her knowledge, but in the form of milk, i.e. in a form adapted to 
the weakest capacities. For all these reasons we conclude that by ' the per- 
fect ' the Apostle means the competent, the people of God as distinguished 
from the men of the world ; and by wisdom, not any higher doctrines, but the 
simple gospel, which is the wisdom of God as distinguished from the wisdom 
of men." 

(f) No confusion of memory. 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 suflSicient to guard its subjects from such imperfections. Nor is the 
hypothesis at all necessary, although it is adopted by Weiss (Bib. Theol. I. 383). 
It is quite easy to suppose that the Apostle used scriptural langiiage 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 Eomans 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 it is 
written not to be a form of quotation, but rather equivalent to our purpose when 
we say, "To use the language of Scripture. " Or, if this solution be not accept- 
able, there is another to fall back upon, viz., that which regards the Apostle as 
not intending to quote any one passage of Holy Writ, but rather appealing to 
its authority in general to confirm his position that God siirpasses 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) avyKpivovTcq. 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- 


ned.) And the fact that it is api)lie(l to the interpretation of dreams jiresents 
no difficulty, for in any case the Apostle would have become familiar with its 
use in this sense. The sense too is every way aj)propriate, "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 wording of Holj' Writ is 
not accidental or capricious, but divinely ordered, and it is in all cases to be 
adhered to. A needless change of expression not infrequently makes the life 
and efficacy of the things to vanish. Nor is it a valid objection to this view 
that it makes inspiration mechanical, for, as Dr. Hodge well asks, " If God can 
control the thoughts of a man without making him a machine, why cannot he 
control his language? Why may he not render each writer, polished or rude, 
infallible in the use of his characteristic style?" That He does exercise such 
control assures us that in Scripture we have not only divine truth, but that 
truth communicated in a form free from the discoloring and distorting in- 
fluence of human imperfection. 

CHAP. ill. 63 


Ver. 1. Kol eyw] A B C D E'F G X, min. Clem. Or. Chrys. Damasc. read myu, 
which Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Kiickert, Tisch. have adopted, and justly, con- 
sidering the decisive testimony in its favour. — aupKCKolc'i Griesb. Lachm. 
Riickert, Tisch. read aapnivoLQ with A B C* D* X, 67** 71, Clem. Or. Nyss. To 
be preferred on like grounds as in Eom. vii. 14. Here the interchange was es- 
23ecially aided by ver. 3, where, according to the preponderance of evidence, 
capKiK. is the true reading ; for the fact that D* F G, Or. Nyss. have aapKiv 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. ovJe] Elz. has 
ovTF, in opposition to all the uncials and most Fathers. The former is neces- 
sary here (Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 157), but had uvre very often substituted for it 
by the transcribers. — er;] is wanting in B; bracketed by Lachm. But how 
easily it might fall aside after ovdt through similarity in sound, or on the 
ground that it might be dispensed with when viiv followed ! — Ver. 3. nal Sixoa- 
raaiui'] omitted in A B C X, some min. and several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by 
Lachm. Eiickert, 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. uvOpuKoi] adopted also by Lachm. Eiickert, and 
Tisch., followed by Ewald, according to almost all the uncials and several vss. 
and Fathers. The Eecepta aapKiKoi, although still defended by Fritzsche and 
Eeiche, is so decidedly condemned by the critical evidence (among the uncials 
they have only L and H**), that it must be regarded as derived from ver. 3. 
OvxU too, has flowed from the same source, instead of which, ovk is to be re- 
stored, with Lachm. Eiiokart, and Tisch., in accordance with ABC X*, 17, 
Dam. —Ver. 5. r/f] Lachm. and Eiickert read r/, with A B H, min, Vidg. It. 
Aeth. and Latin Fathers. The personal names very naturally suggested the 
masculine to transcribers. — The order Having . . . 'X-zoXX^q (in Elz. and 
Scholz) arose from ver. 4 ; compare i. 12. — Before SiaKovoi, Elz. and Tisch. have 
(zAa' Tj, which, however, from the decisive weight of testimony against it, must 
be regarded as an addition to denote the sense : nil nisi. — Ver. 12. tovtov] is 

1 Fritzsche, Indeed (ad Bom. II. p. 46, and nal evidence against the Eecepta is, that pre- 

de conform, y. T. Lachm. p. 49), holds that cisely the weightiest Codices ABC ,<, are 

the form o-ipKii'os in this passage, Rom. vii. equally imanimous in reading o-ipKii/os in 

14, and Heb. vii. 16, is an offspring of tlie ver. 1. and aapKiKoi in ver. 3 ; and we cannot 

transcribers. But it was precisely the otlier at all see why the hand of an emendator 

form (Tap/ciKos, so well known and familiar should have inserted the more classical word 

to them, which thrust itself upon the copy- only in ver. 1, while leaving the unclassic 

ists for involuntary or even deliberate o-op/ciKoi in ver. 3. Besides, \vc have trapxiWs 

adoption. Reiche, in his Comment, crlt. I. p. in 2 Cor. iii. 3, entirely tvtthout any various 

138, has made the most elaborate defence of reading crapxiKars, from which we may con- 

the Recepta, and attempted to weaken the elude that the distinction in meaning be- 

force of the evidence on the other side. tween the two words was well known to 

See the same author, too, on Ileb. vii. 16. the transcribers. 
The most decisive argument from the exter- 


wanting in A B C* «*, Sahid. Ambr. Deleted by Lachm. and Riickert, The 
omission, however, was easily occasioned by Homoioteleuton, and was aided by 
the fact that the word could be dispensed with. — Ver. 13. to n-vp] Lachm. Riick- 
ert, and Tisch. read rd nip uvto, with ABC, min. Sahid. and several Fathers. 
Rightly ; the avro not being in any way essential was easily disregarded. — 
Ver. 17. TovTov] Lachm. and Ruckert have avrov, which Griesb. too recom- 
mended, with A D E F G, min. Syr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Syr. p. (on the margin) 
Vulg. and It. (ilium), and Latin Fathers. But, after el rtg in the protasis, aiir(5i' 
ofifered itself in the apodosis as the more common. — Ver. 22. iariv] 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. G-16) to the Apostle's rela- 
tion to the Corinthians. 

Ver. 1. Ka}-w] 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 Qeov aocpiav spoken of 
in ver. 6 f. Even as no other could have done this, so I also cotild not. There 
is no reason, therefore, for holding, with de Wette (comp. Billroth), that 
KaX vfilv would have been a more stringent way of putting it. — a'k/' i>g aap- 
Ktvoi^] namely, had I to sjjeah to you. See Kiihner, II. p. 604. Kriiger on 
Thuc. i. 143. 4, and on Xen. Anab. vii. 2. 28. This brevity of expression 
is zeugmatic. lapKivog (see the critical remarks) is : fleshy (2 Cor. iii. 3), 
not equivalent to aapKiaSg, fleshly. See on Rom. vii. 14. Winer, p. 93 
[E. T. 122], and Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 46. Here, as in Rom. I.e. and 
Heb. vii. 16 (see Delitzsch in loc), the expression is sjyecifdly chosen in order 
to denote mare 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 crdpf — i.e. the nature of the natural man, which is opposed 
since the fall to the Sj^irit of God, and Avhich, as the seat of the sin-princi- 
ple and of lust, gives rise to the incapacity to recognize the sway of the 
Divine Spirit (comp. ii. 14) and to follow the drawing of the vovq towards 
the divine will (Rom. vii. 18, 25), by virtue of the Divine Spirit (see on 
Rom. iv. 1, vi. 19, vU. 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 aadevsia r^g aapKdg (Rom. vi. 19), although they might also 
be in part (pvaiovfievoi vnb tov vobg Ttjg aapKog avrdv (Col. ii. 18), — so that 
Paul, in order strongly to express their condition at that time, could call 
t'^iGTO. fleshy. By aapKivog, therefore, he indicates the unspiritual nature of 
the Corinthians, — i.e. a nature ruled by the limitations and impulses of the 
CTopf, 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 aapKiKoi (guiding themselves according 
to the ffdpf , and disobedient to the nvEv/m) ; for although, in connection w'ith 
continued Christian instruction, they had become more effectually partakers 
also of thj influfMice of the Divine Spirit, nevertheless, — as their sectarian 

CHAP. III. J 1. 65 

tendencies (see ver. 3) gave proof, — they had not so followed this divine 
jjrinciple as to prevent the sensuous nature opposed to it (the odp^) from 
getting the upper hand with them in a moral and intellectual resjject, so 
that they were consequently still Kara capKa and h capni (Rom. viii. 5, 8), 
TO. Tijg aapKog (ppovovvreg (Rom. viii. 5), Kara cdpKa Kavx(^fJ-evoc (3 Cor. li. 18), 
h ao<j>ia aapKiKi) (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 joroper place, uphraiding his readers, not indeed by the former, 
but certainly by the latter, with their unspiritual condition. ' The ethical 
notions conveyed by the two terms are not the same, but of the same hind ; 
hence Iri. in ver. 3 is logically correct (against the objection of de Wette 
and Reiche). 

The difference between capKLKog (also adpmvog) and fvxiK-oc is simply this : 
ipvxinog is one who has not the Holy Spirit, and stands wholly outside of 
the sphere of His influence ; whether it be that he has never yet received 
Him and is therefore still in the natural state without Christ {homo naturalis, 
as in ii. 14), or that he has been forsaken again by the Spirit (as in Jude 19). 
^apaiKog, on the other hand, may be affirmed not merely of the ipvxt-Kdg, who 
is indeed necessarily (japKiKoc, 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 adp^ and 
sets itself against the Spirit ; but, on the contrary, instead of being ttvev- 
fiariKog and, in consequence, living kv nvev/iaTt and being disposed aard ttvev- 
fxa, he is still h aapd, and still thinks, judges, is minded and acts nard 
cdpKa.^ The ■ipvxtKog is accordingly as such also aapniKOQ, but every capKiKog 
is not as such still or once more a ilwxiK-6g, not yet having the Spirit, or 
having lost Him again. The expositors commonly do iwt enter upon any 
distinction between adoKLvog and aapKiKdg, either (so the majority) reading 
aapKiKolg in ver. 1 also, or (Riickert, Pott) arbitrarily giving out that the 
two words are alike in meaning. The distinction between them and TpvxtKog 
also is passed over in utter silence by many (such as Rosenmilller, Flatt, 
Billroth), while others, in an arbitrary way, make adpKivog and aapKiK. some- 
times to be mildsr than fvx'Kdg (Bengel, Riickert, holding that in aapK. there 
is more of the weakness, in tpvx. more of the opposition to what is higher), 
sometimes to be stronger (Osiander ; while Theophylact holds the former to 
be Tvapd <j)vmv, the latter /card fhacv, and the pneutoatic vwep fvaiv), or some- 
times, lastly, refer the latter to the lower intelligence, and the former to the 

• Accordinff to Hofmann,— who, for the between o-opKtfo? and o-apKiKo?. 

rest, defines the two notions with substan- « Ewald says truly, that the strict dlstlnc- 

tlal correctness,— the distinction between tion between spiritual and Jleshly came in 

aapKivo^ and o-apiciKd? answers to that be- first with Christianity itself. But so, too, the 

tween dvai iv <TapKi and Kara aapKo., Rom. sharply-defined notion of the ^ux'*"? could 

viii. 5, 8. But the latter two phrases differ only be brought out by the contrast of 

from each other, not in their real meaning, Christianity, because it is the opposite of 

but only in the form of representation.— the Trieu^aTifcd?, and cannot therefore oc- 

Holsten, too, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 397 f., cupy a middle place between the two for 

has in substance hit the true distinction mer notions. 

G(j pall's first epistle to the CORINTHIANS. 

lower moral condition as given up to tlie desires (Locke, Wolf, and others). 
— wf vT/TTioic h XpiaTi^i] statement justifying the foregoing uq aapn. by setting 
forth the character of their Christian condition as it had been at that time 
to which o'vK t/dvvi/dr/v k.t.?.. looks back. The phrase denotes those who, in 
their relation to Christ (in Christianity), are still children under age, i.e. 
mere heginners. The opposite is rkV-eioi h X., Col. i. 28. See, regarding 
the analogous use in Rabbinical writers of nipim (sugentes), Schoettgen 
ill he. ; Wetstein on 1 Pet. ii. 2 ; Lightfoot, Ilor. p. 162 ; and for that of 
D'Jtap, Wetstein on Matt. x. 42. Before baptism a man is yet without con- 
nection with Christ, but through baptism he enters into this fellowship, and 
is now, in the first instance, a vi/nioq h Xpiaru, i.e. an infans as yet in re- 
lation to Christianity, w;ho as such receives the elementary instruction suit- 
able for him (the ya'ka of ver. 2). The ehayyeXii^eadai, 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 vynioL kv XpiarC). The inference is a mistaken one, 
therefore (on the jjart of Riickert), that Paul has in mind here a semnd 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 ^;'»i 
arrival, of the time, consequently, in which he founded the Corinthian 
church, when he instructed those who gave ear to his ehayyeli^eaOai in the 
elements of Christianity. — By hv XpiarC} is expressed the specific field to 
which the notion of v^TTi6rr/g is confined ; viewed apart from Christ, he, who 
as a new convert is yet a vi/nuic, may be an adult, or an old man. Comp. on 
Col. i. 28. 

Ver. 2. Keeping to the same figure (comp. Heb. v. 12 ; Philo, de agric. 
p. 301), he designates as yaka : tijv elaayuyiK^v koI dnXovcTTipav tov evayyeMov 
diSaoKuTiiav (Basil. Ilom. I. p. 403, ed. Paris, 1638), see Heb. v. 12, vi. 1 f., 
and as (ipujia : the further and higher instruction, the ao^ia, which, as dis- 
tinguished from the yviJaiv ryv ek KaTTJX'jaeuiq (Clemens Alexandrinus), is 
taught among the Ttleiot (ii. 6 ff.). Comp. Suicer, Thes. I. p. 721, 717. 
Wetstein in he. ' — h^i'vaade] 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 tliis absolute 
\xsc of (Vi'va/itai, Jwardf k.t.?.. (which makes any su'])i)lementing of it hj kaOleiv 
Ppuua and the like quite superfluous), Dem. 484, 2."), 1187, 8 ; Aesch. p. 40. 
39 ; Plato, Men. p. 77 R, Prot. p. 326 C ; Xen. Aiiah. iv. 5. 11, vii. 6. 37 ; 
1 Mace. V. 41 ; Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. p. 267 ff. —a?.!' oirJe ire vvv 6vv.] iW 
ov6e, yeti, not ecen. See Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 157. Herm. ad Eurip. Sujypl. 
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 alloir him to treat the sub- 
ject in an elementary style. There is no self-contradiction here, but an ex- 
ception demanded by the circumstances. For the profound development 

' As regards the zeugma (comp. Homer, Winer, p. 578 [E. T. 777] ; Kiihiier, ad Xen. 
11. viii. 546 ; Odysgey, xx. 312 ; Hcsiotl. Theorj. Anab. iv. 5. 8 ; also Nagelsbacli on the Iliad, 
«40), see Bremi, ad Lys. Exc. III. p. 437 f.; p. 179, ed. 3. 

CHAP. III., 4. 67 

of the doctrine of the resurrection in chap. xv. belonged really to the i3p{jua 
(comp. ii. 9), and rises high above that elementary teaching concerning the 
resurrection, with which every Jew was acquainted, and which Paul himself 
so often gave without thereby speaking h reldoLQ^ whence also it is rightly 
placed in Heb. vi. 1 among the first rudiments of Christian doctrine. 

Ver. 3. 2ap/c(/co/] see on ver. 1. — hirov] equivalent seemingly to qiiando. 
quidem (see Vigerus, ed. Herm. 431) ; but the conditioning state of things 
is locally conceived. Comp. Heb. ix. 16, x. 18 ; 4 Mace. ii. 14, vi. 34, xiv. 
11 ; Plato, Tim. p. 86 E ; the passages from Xenophon cited by Sturz. 
III. p. 307 ; Herod, i. 68 ; Thuc. viii. 37. 2, viii. 96. 1 ; Isocrates, Paneg. 
186. — Cv'^of] Jealousy. — Kara avdp.'] after tlw fashion of men. Comp. on 
Rom. iii. 5 ; often, too, in classical writers, e.g. Kaf avOp. ^pove'iv (Sojih. Aj. 
747, 764). The contrast here is to the mode of life conformed to the Divine 
Spirit ; hence not different from Kara adpaa in Rom. viii. 4. — Respectin"- 
the relation to each other of the three words O']!., ep., Sixoar., see Theoi:)hy- 
lact : TvaTTip yap 6 (^7j?.og ri/g eptdog, avrr/ Se rdf ^ixoaraalac yevvg . — On ofy/, 
comp. Bengel : ' ' nam Spiritus non fert studium partium humanarum. " On 
the contrary, Cv^og k.t.X. are ranked expressly among the epja rf/c crapKor, 
Gal. V. 30. 

Ver. 4. Tap] explanatory by exhibiting the state of contention in concreto. 
— avQp.] with a pregnant emphasis : are ye not men? i.e. according to the 
context : are ye not persons, who are absorbed in the unspiritual natural 
ways of men — in whose thoughts and strivings the divine element of life i.s 
awanting ? Comp. Xen. Anab. vi. 1. 36 : avOpuKog el/xi (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. 3, 
The specific reference here has its basis in the preceding Kara avBpurrov Trepi- 
vraTEiTE, hence there is no ground for rejecting the reading avdpumoi., 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 {a7JC o'vk or ov fihroL). — It may 
be added that Paul names only the two parties : iyu . . . liahlov and f ; w 
'Atto/I/Iw, not giving an imjyerfect enumeration for the sake of the neraaxvi^n- 
Ticjuog 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 /z£Trt(T;^;;/iar«cr/zof, in iv. 6, with 
reference to himself and Apollos alone. — iyu iiev'] This jih does not stand 
in a logical relation to the following dL An inexactitude arising from the 
lively way in which thought follows thought, just as in classical Avriters too, 
from a like reason, there is often a want of exactly adjusted correspondence 
between fikv and de (Breitenbach, ad Xen. Hier. i. 9 ; Baeumlein, Partih. 
p. 168 f.). 

Vv. 5-15. Discussion of the position occupied by the two teachers : 
The two have no independent mertt ichatsoever (vv. 5-7 ; each will receive his 

68 Paul's fiust epistle to the corinthians. 

reward according to his own work (vv. 8, 9) ; aud, more cs])ecially, a definitive 
recomj)ense in the future, according to the quality of his work, awaits the teacher 
who carries on the building upon the foundation already laid (vv. 10-15). The 
aim of this discussion is stated in iv. 6. 

Ver. 5. Ovv] Now, igitur, introduces the question as an inference from the 
state of party-division just referred to, so that the latter is seen to be 
the presupposition on which the question jjroceeds. See Klotz, ad Betar. 
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 ApoUos 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 rig ; comp. ver. 7. The 
question is, what, as respects their position, are they ? Comp. Plato, Sep. 
p. 332 E, 341 D. — Sidnovoi] They are servants, and therefore not fitted 
and destined to be heads of parties ; d/lAof ic-lv 6 6e<jTr6TT/g, r/fiel^ eKeivov 
doiiXoi, Theodoret. — 6i' uv] ^^ per quos, non in quos," Bengel. Comp. 
John i. 7. They are but causae ministeriales in the hand of God. — 
ETTtcrrevff.] as in xv. 2, 11 ; Rom. xiii. 11.' — Ka'i] and that. koI . . . cSukev is 
not to be joined with ver. 6 (Mosheim, Markland, ad Lys. XII. p. 560 f.), 
seeing that in ver. 7 no regard is paid to this aal . . . h^cjKsv. — eKaaru ug] 
the emphasis is on ekclct., as in vii. 17 and Rom. xii. 3. — 6 Kip^of] correla- 
tive to the SLcmovoi, is here Ood, 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 all' y of the Textus receptus: 
nisi (which makes the question continue to the end of the verse ; comp. 
Ecclus. xxii. 12) see on Luke xii. 51 ; 2 Cor. i. 13. 

Vv. 6, 7. Statement of the difference in the diaKovia 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. — k(pvTevcja k.t.1.] We are not to 
suppose the object left indefinite (de Wette) ; on the contrary, it emerges 
out of 6i' G)v kiriaTEvcaTE, ver. 5, namely : the faith of the Corinthian com- 
munity. This is conceived of as a tree (comp. Plato, Phaedr. p. 276 E) 
which was planted by Paul, inasmuch as he first brought the Corinthians to 
believe and founded the churcli ; but watered '' by ApoUos, 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 
r^f yap avTov xapiro^ to KoropBuaa, 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. 

> Ye have become believers, which is to he development. Comp. John ii. 11, xi. 15. 

understood here in a relative sense, both as ' Aupustine, Ep. 48, and several of the 

respected the begrinninR and the further- Fatheris make i-noTLo-tv refer in a totally in- 

ance of faith. See ver. 6. The becoming appropriate way to baptism. 
a believer comprehends different stages of 

CHAP. III., 8-10. G9 

Comp. Acts xvi. 14, xiv. 37 ; 1 Cor. xv. 10. — kcri ti] may be taken to 
mean : is anything of imjiortance, anything worth speahing of (Acts v. 36 ; Gal. 
ii. 6, vi. 3. Plato. Phaedr. p. 243 E, Gorg. p. 473 A, %/wp. p. 173 B •, Xen. 
Mem. ii. 1. 13). It is more in accordance, however, with the decided tone 
of hostility to all human estimation which marks the whole context to take 
TL in quite a general sense (comp. x. 19), so that of both in and by them- 
selves (in comijarison with God) it is said : they are nothing. — all' 6 av^. 
Oeog] sc. ra navra kari (1 Cor. XV. 38 ; Col. iii. 11), which, according to the 
apostle's intention, is to be drawn from what has been already said. An 
abbreviated form of the contrast, with which comp. vii. 19, and see 
generally Kiihner, II. p. 604 ; Stallbaum, ad Rep. p. 366 D, 561 B. Theo- 
phylact says well : dfcJdfaf, otl e w del fi6v cj Trpoaexsiv, /cat e'lg avrbv avarcOevai 
TT dv T a TO, cvuliaivovTa ayada. 

Vv. 8, 9. The planter^ on the otlier hand, and tJis wo.terer are one : each oj 
them, however (and here we pass on to the new point of the recompense of the 
teachers), icill receive his own reward, etc. — 'iv tiaiv\ 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 worlcers in the service of Ood. Theo- 
doret : Kara ttjv vnovpyiav. — eKaarog 6e k.t.Ti,.^ wpog yap to tov Qeov spyov 
TTapajialMfievoL ev e'laiv e-rrel ttovuv evekev (i.e. in respect of the pains and 
labour expended) o'vk elalv, alia eKaarog k.t.1., Chrysostom. — l6iov\ both 
times with emphasis. Bengel puts it happily : " congruens iteratio ; anti- 
theton adM?iMTO." The lijiperaL, 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 disposed of in the preceding 
statement (in opposition to Hofmann), but for the new thought enaa-og . . . 
KOKov introduced by 6L The emphasis of proof lies wholly on the word 
thrice put foremost, eeov. For since it is God whose helpers we are 
(" eximium elogiumministerii," Calvin), 6?<?(Z whose tillage-field, God whose 
building ye are : therefore it cannot be otherwise than that that eKaarog . . . 
KOTTov must hold good, and none lack his reward according to his labour 
{'■^ secnndiim laborem, non propter laborem," Calovius). — Qeov awepyoi] for 
we, your teachers, labour tcith 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. 3 ; Rom. xvi. 3, 9, 31 ; Phil. ii. 25, iv. 3 ; 
3 Cor. i. 34 ; 3 Mace. xiv. 5 ; Plato, Def p. 414 A ; Dem. 68. 37, 884. 3 ; 
Plut. Per. 31 ; Bernhardy, p. 171 ; Kiihner, II. p. 173), and fails to appre- 
ciate that lofty conception of a Sovlog Qeov. — Qeoii yeupy. and Qeov oik. set be- 
fore us the Corinthian church, in so far as it is the object of the ministerial 
service of Christian teachers, under the twofold image of a field for tillage 
iye6py., Strabo, xiv. p 671 ; Theag. in Schol. on Pind. Nem. iii. 31 ; Prov. 
xxiv. 30, xxxi. 16), which belongs to God and is cultivated, and as a iuilding 
belonging to God (Eph. ii. 31), which is being carried up to completion. 

Ver. 10. The former of these images (yeupy.) has been the underlying 

70 Paul's first epistle to the corinthians. 

thought in what has liitherto been said (vv. 6-8) ; the second and new 
figure (otKo6.) 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 lie who would build after him takes u])on himself. — 
The x<ip'i is »ot the ajjostolic office, with which Paul was graced (Rom. xii. 
8, XV. 15 ; Gal. i. 15, oZ.), for it was not exclusively an aj^ostle who was 
required for the founder of a church (Rome, Colossae), but the specud endow- 
ment of grace, which he had received from God to fit him for his calling ; and 
he was conscious in himself that he was qualified and destined just for the 
right htying of the foundation, Rom. xv. 20. — The significant weight of the 
words Kara . . . (h(i. jiol is to express humility in making the utterance which 
follows. Comp. Chrysostom and Theophj'lact. — uqaoipogapxiT.] 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 tinshilful architect. 
Without a foundation no man builds ; without a 2wo'per foundation no ao^6q^ 
i.e. no one who understands the art (Ex. xxxv. 10). Comp. Plato, Phil, p, 
17 C, devirt. b. 376 A ; Pind. Pyth. iii. 115, v. 115 ; Soph. Ant. 362. But 
Paul by the grace of Ood was a co(j>bQ apxireKTuv. — 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 siihjective : without appropriating whom in conscious faith ; 
see ver. 11) a Christian society could not come into existence at all. This 
foundation Pmd had laid, inasmuch as he had. made Christ to be jjossessed hy 
the conscious faith of the Corinthian church. Comp. on Eph. ii. 20. — ■dEfikTuov] 
The masculine 6 dE/uiliog (see ver. 11 ; hence wrongly held by Ewald to be 
neuter here), attributed by the old grammarians to the koiv?'/ (see Wetstein 
on ver. 11), is commonly found only in the plural, and that as early as Thuc. 
i. 93. 1. In the singular, 2 Tim. ii. 19 ; Rev. xxi. 19 ; Machon in Athen. 
viii. p. 346 A ; 3 Esdr. vi. 20. — aXAog de moiKod.] By this is meant not 
merely Apollos, but any later teacher of the Corinthians w^hatever (comp. 
fKttCTrof) : "Not my task, however, but that of another, is the building up, 
the carrying on the building.'''' — ttcjc] i.e. here : tcith trhat materials.' See 
vv. 12, 13. Without figurative language : '^ Let each taJce heed what sort oj 
doctrine (as regards substance and form) he ajyjdies, in order to advance 
and develojy more fully the church, founded ujmi Jesm Christ, in its saving 
hioicledge 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 o'lKoih/n/ is, as before, the church, 
wliich, being foiuuh'd upon Christ (see above), is further built up, i.e. devel- 
oped in the Christian faith and life (wliich may take place in a right or a 

> According to de Wette, the force of the by the opponents of the apostle). But the 

irws consists primarily in this, t/iat they sim- carryinf? on of the building, so far as that 

ply carry on the building, and do not alter is concerned, is pre^^upjMsed in n-is en-oiico- 

^he foundation rwhich was probably done Sofiel. 

CHAP. III., 11, 12. 71 

wrong way, see vv. 12, 13), by the teachings of the later teachers. In like 
manner is a house built uji 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 tqjhuilder : for with the layer of the foundation it is quite differ- 
ent, Tie cannot otherwise than, etc. ; but as regards the vphuilder, the case is, as 
ver. 12 ff. sets forth. We are not to bring in any intermediate thought to 
explain the yap, either with Billroth : "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 jireparatory relation to ver. 12, in which the 
varying -rrug of the kwoiKoSofie'iv is exhibited. — -dvyaTai] 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 incapaNe of having 
another foundation. — napa tov Ke/^erov] i.e. different from that, which lies 
already there. Respecting ■Kapd after aTAoq in this sense, see Kriiger, ad 
Dion. p. 9 ; Stallbaum, ad Phileb. p. 51 ; Ast, Lex. Plat. III. p. 28. The 
foundution 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 KEi/ievog must have been in its place before the 
apostle himself laid his foundation. Hence the Kel/xevng defielioQ is that laid 
l>y Ood (so, rightly, Riickert and Olshausen), namely, Jesus Christ Himself, 
the fundamentuiu essentiale. He whom God sent, delivered up to death, raised 
again, and exalted, thereby making Him to be for us wisdom, righteousness, 
etc. (i. 30), or, according to a kindred figure, the corner-stone (Eph. ii. 20 ; 
Matt. xxi. 42 ; Acts iv. 10 f. ; 1 Pet. ii. 6). Comp. 1 Tim. iii. 16. This is 
the objective foundation, which lies there for the whole of Christendom. But 
this foundation is laid (ver. 10) by the founder of a church, inasmuch as he 
makes Christ to be appropriated by believers, to be the contents of their con- 
scious faith, and thereby establishes them in the character of a Christian 
church ; that is the doctrinal laying of the foundation (fundamentum dog- 
maticum). — Observe further, that Paul says purposely 'Ir/aovc Xpiaroc, so as 
emphatically to designate the personal, historically manifested Christ. This 
Of k(7Tiv 'Ijjcovg Xpicrdg is the sum of the fundamental Christian confession of 
faith, John xvii. 3 ; Phil. ii. 11 ; Acts iv. 10 ff. 

Ver. 12. Af] 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, Ileydenreich, comp. 
Billroth). — In connection Avith this carrying on of the figure, it is to be 
noted — (1) that Paul is not speaking of several huildings,^ as though the 
ee/iiXioc were that not of a house, but of a city (Billroth) ; against which 
ver. 16 (see in he.) 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) 

' So also Wetstein : " Duo sunt aedificia, domus regia et casa rustic! quae distinguuntur." 

72 Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. 

The figure must not ho drawn out beyond what the words convey (as Gro- 
tius, e.g., does : " Proj)onit ergo nobis domum, cujus parietes sint ex mar- 
more, columnae partim ex auro partim ex argento, trabes ex liguo, fastig- 
ium vero ex stramine et cuhiio"). It sets before us, on the contrary, a 
huilding rearing itself vjxm the foundation laid hy the inaster-lndlder, for the 
erection of ichich the different workmen bring their sevei'al contributions of 
building materials, from the most precious and lasting doicn to the most mean 
and icorthless. The various specimens of building materials, set side by side 
in vivid asjmdeton (Kriigcr and Kiihuer, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 4. 28 ; Winer, p, 
484 [E. T. 653]), denote the various matters of doctrine propounded by teach- 
ers and brought into connection with faith in Christ, in order to develop 
and complete the Christian training of the church.' 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 (Ka7,dfif/, not eqiiiva- 
lent to Kalai.iQq, a reed ; see Wetstein and Schleusner, Thes.), of little worth 
and perishable," so that they — instead of, like the former, abiding at the 
Parousiain their eternal truth — come to nought, i.e. are shown not to belong 
to the ever-enduring alr/deia, and form no part of the perfect knowledge 
(xiii. 13) 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 s\\)so\\ite\j anti-Ghristifui 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, avrbg 6e 
(Tudr/aerat, ver. 15. Billroth makes the strange objection to this interpreta- 

' Luther's gloss is appropriate: "This is ments, speculations, etc., which, although 

said of j)7-eachinff and teaching, by which built into the fabric of doctrine in time, 

faith is either strengthened or weakened." will not approve themselves at the final 

'Compare Midr. Tillin, U9. 51, of false consummation on the day of the Lord, nor 

teachers :" Sicut foenum non durat, ita nee be taken in as elements in the perfect 

verba eorum stabunt in saeculum." knowledge, but will then— instead of stand- 

^ So, in substance (explaining it of the ing out under the test of that great catas- 

different doctnnes\ Clemens Alexandrinus, troi)he which shall end the history of all 

Ambrosiaster, Sedulius, Lyra, Thomas, things, like the doctrines compared to gold, 

Cajetanus, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, etc.— be shown to be no part of divine and 

Piscator, .Tustiniaui, Grotius, Estius, Calo- saving truth, and so will fall away. Such 

vlus, Lightfoot, Stolz, Rosenrauller, Flatt, materials, in greater or less degree, every 

Heydenreich, Neander, de Wette, Osiander, Church will find in the system of doctrine 

Ewald, Maier. Comp. Theodoret : Tivi% ■nep\ built up for it by human hands. To learn 

&oyy.aTu>v Tavra flprjtT^ai. riZ airoaToXu, (ftatriv. more and more to recognize these, and to 

* Estius characterizes the second class separate them from the rest in accordance 

well as "doctrina minus sincera minusque with Scripture, is the task of that onward 

solida, veluti si sit liumanis ac philosophicis development, against which no church 

aut etiam Judaicis opinionibus admixta ought to close itself up till the day of the 

plus satis, si curiosamagisquaniutilis," etc. final crisis,— least of all the evangelical 

Comp. the Paraphr. of Erasmus, who refers Lutheran church with its central principle 

specially to the" humanasconstitutiunculas regarding Scripture, a principle which de- 

de cultu, do victu, de frigidis ceremoniis." f ermines and regulates its etedfastly Prot- 

They are, generally, all doctrinal develop- estaut character. 

CHAP. III., 12. 73 

tion as a whole, that xp'"'^^^ k.t.1. cannot apply to the contents of the teach- 
ing, because Paul calls the latter the foundation. But that is in fact Christ 
and not the further doctrinal teaching. In reply to the invalid objections 
urged by Hollmann (Animadverss. ad cap. iii. et. xiii. Ep. PauU 2)rim. ad 
Cor., Lips. 1819) see Heydenreich. and Riickert. Our exposition is, in fact, 
a necessity, because it alone keeps the whole figure in harmony tcith itself 
throughout. For if the foundation, which is laid, be the contents of the 
first preaching of the gospel, namely, Christ, then the material wherewith 
the hdlding is carried on must be the contents of the further instruction 
gii)en. It is out of keeping, therefore, to explain it, with Origen, Augustine, 
Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Photius, and more recently, 
Billroth, "of the fruits called forth in the church by the exercise among 
them of the office of teaching" (Billroth), of the morality or immorality of 
the hearers (Theodoret : gold, etc., denotes to, El6r] rf/q aperfig ; wood, etc., 
TO, kvavria TTjq aperyg, olg f/hrpiircaTai rf/g yeevvrjQ to nvp) ; or, again, of the 
worthy or unworthy members of the church themselves, who would be moulded 
by the teachers (Schott in Rohr's Magaz. fur christl. Pred. VIII. 1, p. 8 f., 
with Pelagius, Bengel, Hollmann, Pott). So, too, Hofmann in he, 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 emjiloyed, 
whereas our exposition does. Moreover, if the ipyov, which shall be burned 
up (ver. 15), be the relative j^ortion 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 interjjretation, 
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 reioard or loss ; he who builds on in right fashion upon a good foundation 
(? rather : upon the foundation) has retcard therefrom ; he %olioicould add xchat 
is unsuitable and unenduring, only har?n 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, ioherein 
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 pjart of each believer in 
general. Wrongly so ; because, just as in ver. 6 fE. the planter and waterer, 
so here the founder and upbuilder must be teachers, and because the build- 
ing is the church (ver. 9), which is being built (vv. 9, 10). And this concep- 
tion of the church as a building with a personal foundation (Christ), and 
consisting of persons (comp. 2 Tim. ii. 20 ; 1 Pet. ii. 4 f.), remains quite 
unimpaired with our exegesis also (against Hofmann's objection). For the 
further building upon the personal foundation laid, partly with gold, etc., 
partly with wood, etc., is just the labour of teaching, through which the 
development and enlarg«meat of the church, which is made up of persons, 

74 Paul's first epistle to the cokinthians. 

receive a character varying in value. The tTroiKntSo/nEiv takes place on the 
persons through doctrines, -which are th<' liuihlhig materials. 

Ver. 13. Apodosis : A'o will irhat each has dune on ihe huilding (rb iiiyov) 
not remain hidden (tpavepov yevija.). Then the ground of this assurance is as- 
signed : // yap Tjfiepa 6Tf?.uaei, SC. eKaarov to ipyov. The day is kot' i^ox^/v, the 
day of the Parousia (comp. Heb. x. 24), which is obvious from what follows 
on to ver. 15. So, rightly, Tertullian, contra Marc. iv. 2 ; Origen, Cyprian, 
Ep. iv. 2 ; Lactantius, Inst. vii. 21 ; Ililarius, Ambrosiastcr, Sedulius, 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Thoophylact, the Roniiin Catholics (some of whom, 
however, in the interests of purgatory, make it ovit 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 interjjret the phrase, with Hammond. 
Lightfoot, Gusset, Schoettgen, of the destruction of Jerusalem, which should 
reveal the nullity of the Jewish doctrines. The following exjiositions are 
alien to the succeeding context : of time in general (comp. dies docebit • 
Xp6vog SiKaiov avSpa deinvvciv /i6voc, Sophocles, Oed. Bex, 608 ; Stob. Eel. I. 
]). 234, — so Grotius, Wolf, Wetstein, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and others); 
or of the time of clear hio^rledge of the gospel (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Yors- 
tius ') ; or of the dies trihidationis (Augustine, Calovius, and others). — on 
IV TTvpl anoKa^.] "We are neither to read here otf.^ instead of or* (Bos, Al- 
berti), nor does the latter stand for the former (Pott), but it has a causativ;' 
force : tecatise it is revealed in fire, — the day, namely,' not ro ipyov, as Luthc r 
and the majority of interpreters (among them Heydenreich, Flatt, Schott, 
Neander) hold, following Ambrosiastcr and Oecumenius ; for this would 
jaeld a tautology with what comes next. Bengel, joined b}' Osiander, im- 
agines as the subject of the verb o Kvpioc, Avhich can be evolved from // ///ifpn 
only by a very arbitrary process, since the whole context never speaks of 
Christ Himself. — kv Kvpl] i.e. encompassed with f re (see Bernhardy, p. 209 ; 
Matthiae, p. 1340), so that fire is the element in. which the revelation of 
tliat day takes place. For Christ, when His Parousia draws nigh, is to aj)- 
pear coming from heaven h m>pl fXoyog (2 Thess. i. 8 ; comp. Dan. vii. fl, 
10 ; Mai. iv. 1), i.e. surrounded by flaming fire (which is not to be ex- 
plained away, as is often done : amid lightnings; rather comp. Ex. iii. 2 
ff., xix. 18). This fire, however, is not, as Chrysostom would have it, that 
of Gehenna (Matt. vi. 22, 29, al.) ; for it is in it that Christ appears, and it 
seizes upon every Ipyov, even the golden, etc. , and proves each, leaving the 
one unharmed, but consuming the other. The correct supjilying of y ///ilpa 
with anoKo).. supersedes at once the older Roman Catholic interpretation about 
jmrgatory (against which see, besides, Scaliger and Calovius), as the correct 

» Were this so, the text would need to > As regards the fact of the two words 

contain an antithetic designation of the being often put tlie one for the other by 

present time as night. And in that case, transcriljers, see Scliaefer, ad Greg. ('or. p. 

too, it would surely l)e the clear day of the 491 ; Kiiiiiier, ad AV/i. Anub. i. 4. 2. 

Parousia which would be lucunt, as in Horn. ' Estius, Pott, Billroth, Riickert, Olshau- 

xiii. 12. sen, de Wette, Ewald, Ilofmann. 

CHAP. III., 14, 15. 75 

view of rj ijfiepa sets aside the explanations of the wrath of God against the Jews 
(Lightfoot), of the Holy Spirit, who tries "quae doctrina sit instar auri et quae 
instar stipulae" (Calvin), of tlie fire of trial and persecution (Hosenmilller, 
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 & 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 alifitia, 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" (comiD. on ver. 12). This idea Paul, in accordance 
with his figure of a building, clothes in this firrm : "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. " — a'KOKa'kv-Krerai\ The result of this act of 
revelation is the StjIuoel already spoken of. The present marks the event as 
beyond doubt; the sentence is an axiom. — koI e/cdaroi; k.t.A.] not to be 
connected with ort (Riickert), but with the clause in the future, i) yap t'/u. 
6riX6aei. Is epyov 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 6k. kan 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) lohat is the character of the worTc of each, — 
the fire itself will test. — to nvp avro] ignis ipse (see the critical remarks), i.e. 
the fire (in which the a-rroKaXv^ig of the day takes place) by its otcn 2>roper 
worhing, without intervention from any other quarter. Respecting the posi- 
tion of avT6 after -Kvp, see Bornemann, acZ Xen. Mem. ii. 5. 1. Were we to 
take it as the object of SoKijiaaei, 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. — 6oKi[iaGEi\ '■'■pro- 
iabit, non : purgabit. Hie locus ignem purgatorium non modo non fovet, 
sed plane extinguit," Bengel. 

Vv. 14, 15. Manner and result of this SoKi/idaei. — /xevel] icill remain un- 
ha/rmed; not (ikvu {Text, recept.) for KaraKaT/atTai, in ver. 15, corresponds to 
it. — /iiaebv A#.] namely, for his work at the building (without figure : 
teacher'' s recompense), from God, at whose o'lKo^ofii] he has laboured. Riickert 
holds that Paul 8t«ps 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 worhed 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 KaraKaT/aeTai, shull be burned doion (comp. 

76 Paul's fikst epistle to the couinthians. 

2 Pet. iii. 10), instead of the Attic KaTaKavB/jaemi, sec Thorn. 31. p. 511. — 
(,r)(inJiij(ierai\ sc. rov fiiaOov, i.e. frustrahitur 2ivaemio. Comp. on C,Tiiiiovadai -i, 
to suffer loss of anything, Matt. xvi. 26 ; Luke ix. 25 ; Phil. iii. 8. See 
also Valckenaer, ad Ilerod. vii. 39. The thought is : He will, as a punish- 
ment, not receive the recompense which he would otherwise have received 
as a teacher. "We are not to think of dqwsition from office (Grotius), seeing 
that it is the time of the Parousia that issjjoken of. To take the C'/A*., with 
the Vulgate, et al. : tcithout object, so that the sense would be : " A« 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 taaS. ?.r/ipeTai. — avrbc Jf aud/'/cerai, ovTtj rft wf did. nvp6(;'\ 
In order not to be misunderstood, as if by his l^r/juiuSyaETai 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 lie saved, hut so as through 
fire. Avrdf refers to the tov /aiaOov, which is to be supplied as the object of 
l^rifi. : although he will lose his recomj)ense, 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 w'ay, 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 au 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 aurr/pia,^ yet still only in such a way that the 
catastrojihe of the Parousia loill he fraught tcith the highest anxiety for him, and 
will not elapse without sensibly impairing his inheritance of blessing. He shall 
obtain the aurr/pia, 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 interjiretation, namely, that aoSya. refers to the Messianic 
cuTTjpia, is accepted by most expositors ; but several, such as Rosenmiiller 
and Flatt, take the future as indicating the 2^ossMlity (a view which the 
very fact of the two preceding futures should have sufficed to preclude), 
and Grotius" has foisted in a jiroblematical sense into the word (ecpially 
against the definitely assertive sense of those futures) : "In summo erit sa- 
lutis suae periculo. Etsi cam adipiscetur (quod boni ominis causa sperare 
mavult apostolus) non fiet id sine gravi moestitia ac dolore." It is a common 
mistake to understand w? Sia Tzvpdc in the sense of a proverb {by a hair's- 
breadth, see Grotius and Wetstein in he. ; Valckenaer, p. 157 ; and comp. 
Amos iv. 11 ; Zech. iii. 2 ; Jude 23), because the passage, looking back to 
ver. 13, really sets before us a conflagration (wf, as in John i. 14). It may be 

' For he has after all held to the founda- grade of blessing in the Messiah's kingdom, 
tion. The Messianic salvation is the gifl of Comp. Dan. xii. 3 ; Matt. xix. 28. 
grace to those who believe in Christ as ^ So before him Theodore of Mopsuestia : 

such; while the teacher's blessedness, as dAAa xac aco-cu^ijToi SioTiraeTepai'aiTi'ai'O-io^eii' 

/iiio-dd? (which the general o-wTTjpia in and by avrhv &vvaii.ivr\v. 
itself is not), must be some specially high 

CHAP. III., 16, 17. 77 

added that there is no ground for bringing into the conception the fire of 
the wrath of God (Hofmann), since, according to the text, it is the selfsame 
fire which seizes upon the worlc of the one and of the other, in the one case 
however, proving it to be abiding, and in the other consuming it. Bengel 
illustrates the matter well by the instance of a shipwrecked man : " ut mer- 
cator naufragus amissa merce et lucro servatur ^je;- imdas.^^ Other commen- 
tators, again (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact), understand it to 
mean : He sliall ie preserved, hut 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, nvp cannot be allowed to have any reference to the fire 
of hell ; secondly, because aui^ecjdai, 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 (I.e. p. 17) : 
' ' He himself shall indeed not ie utterly destroyed on that account ; he remains, 
hut it is as one who Ms 2}(tssed 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 j)assed throxigh the fire, (h) 

Vv. 16-23. Warning address to the readers, comprising — (1) preparatory 
statement reminding them of the guilt of sectarian conduct as a destroying 
of the temple of God, vv. 16, 17, — verses which Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
and others quite mistakenly refer to the incestuous person ; then (2) exhor- 
tation to put a stop to this conduct at its source by renouncing their fancied 
wisdom, vv. 18-28, and to give up what formed the most prominent feature 
of their sectarianism, — the parading of human authorities, which was, 
in truth, utterly opposed to the Christian standpoint. 

Vv. 16, 17. OvK oi(^aTE 'oTL K.T.1.^^ could be regarded as said in proof 
of ver. 15 (Billroth), only if Chrysostom's interpretation of audr^aerai . . . 
•rrvpdc, Or Schott's modification of it (see on ver. 15), were correct." Since 
this, however, is not the case, and since the notion of audijoeTai, although 
limited by ovtu dsuQ 6ia nvpd^, cannot for a moment be even relatively included 
under the ^depel tovtov 6 Qeoq of ver. 17, because the cpBopa is the very op>posite 
of thecrwr^/p/a (Gal. vi. 8), this mode of bringing out the connection must be 
given up. Were we to assume with other exj^ositors that Paul passes on here 
from the teacliers who build upon the foundation to such as are ant'i- 
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 

' Hence, also, it will not do to refer a.vT6%^ any surprisEd that the lo* of such a teacher 

with Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 144 f., to the iJe/xe- should be so hard a one I Let them con- 

Aios, which will remain safe, but covered slder how sacred is the field in which he 

over with refuse, ashes, and the like, which works, 

he holds to be indicated by <us 6ia Trupd;. ' Estius and others, including Michaelis, 

2 This holds, too, against Ewald's way of Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Pott, Hofmann. 
apprehending the connection here : Are 


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 : el 6e 
TIC <pSeipei K.T.?.. 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 o'lKoSofi^ 
Qeov. But he has not yet set before their minds ichat sort of an ohoS. Qeov 
they are, namely, the temjAe of God (hence vaoq 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 in the nature of this 
building of God, that ye are God's temple ? etc. The question is one of 
amazement (for the state of division among the Corinthians seemed to imply 
such ignorance, comp. v. 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. — vahg Qeov] not : a temple of Ood, but the 
temple of Uvd.'^ For Paul's thought is not (as Theodoret and others 
hold) that there are several temjiles of God (which would be quite alien to 
the time-hallowed idea of the one national temple, which the apostle 
must have had, see Philo, de monarch. 2, p. 634), but that each Christian 
community is in a spiritual way, sensu raystico, the temple of Jehovah, the 
realized idea of that temple, its ah/div6v. 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 temjAes (in the plural). Valer. Max. iv. 7. 1, 
aZ., in Eisner and Wetstein. — kuI to nvevfia] appends in how far (aai being 
the explicative and) they are vabg Oeov. God, as He dwelt in the actual 
temple by the TirDW (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2394), dwells in the ideal 
temi)le 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 kv vfilv refer to the individuals 
(Riickcrt and many others) ; for the community as such (ver. 17) is the 
Umj>le (2 Cor. vi. 16 f. ; Eph. ii. 21 f. ; Ezek. xxxvii. 27). — Nadf did 
not need the article, wliich comes in only retrospectively in ver. 17, just be- 
cause there is but one vnog Oeov in existence. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph. 
ii. 21 ; Wisd. iii. 14 ; 2 Mace, xiv, 35 ; Ecclus. Ii. 44. 

1 This lively interrogativi^ turn of the dis- * [Here the C;aiiterbury Revision seems to 

course, frequent though it is in this Epistle, have erred in usinfj the indefinite article. — 

occurs only twice in the rest of Paul's H^'rit- T. W. C] 
ings, namely, in Rom. vi. 16, xi. 2. 

CHAP. III., 17, 18. 79 

Ver. 17. El rtq . . . ayi6q kariv'] Tliis is spoken of the real temple ; 
the application to the church as the ideal one is not made until the oinvi:^ 
kcTE vfielg which follows. It is an anticipation of the course of the argument 
to understand, as here already meant, the latter JVew Testament place of the 
divine presence (Hofmann). — Every Levitical defilement was considered a 
destroying of the temple, as was every injury to the huildings, and even 
every act of carelessness in the watching and superintendence of it. See 
Maimonides, de domo electa, i. 10, vii. 7. Deyling, Ohss. II. p. 505 ff. — 
(pdepel] placed immediately after (pdeipei at the head of the apodosis, to ex- 
press with emphasis the adequacy of the recompense. See Kiihner, II. 
p. 626. What (pdepel denotes is the temporal destruction, the punishment of 
death which God will bring upon the destroyer of His teiuple, as in the 
LXX. (pdeipo) is often used of God as inflicting such destruction. Comp. 
Gen. vi. 13 ; Micah ii. 10 ; 1 Kings ii. 27, al — aywg] as the dwelling 
of God, sacred therefore from all injury, and not to be destroyed without in- 
curring heavy divine penalty. — o'lnveg iare v/uelg] ofichich character (namely, 
aycoi) 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 .of the 
(ideal) temple the deterioration of the ch\x\:ch.ontliepart of the sectarians, and 
by the penal destruction which awaits them, their anuleia at the Messianic 
judgment (the (pOopd of Gal. vi. 8). It is a mistake (with most commentators, 
including Luther) to regard diTiveq as put for di (see the passages where this 
seems to be the case in Struve, Qnaest. Herod. I. p. 2 ff.), and to make it re- 
fer to vabg tov Qeov : tohich temple ye are. That would rather yield the inap- 
propriate (see on ver. 16) plural sense : cujusmodi tempjla vos estis. See 
Person and Schaefer, ad Eurip. Or. 908. Matthiae, p. 977. 

Ver. 18. MriSelg eavT. efoTr.] 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 ffaTrar. : vofii^uv, otl alXuq eja to npayfia nal ovx fJf elnov. — SokeI^ 
believes, is of opinion, not appears (Vulgate, Erasmus) ; for it was the former 
that was objectionable and dangerous. Comp. viii. 2, xiv. 37 ; Gal. vi. 3. 
— (yo<j)dg elvai . . . tovtu] ev vfilv belongs to a6<pnq dvai, and iv rw aiuvc tovtu 
defines the crd0of elvai kv v/xlv more precisely, to wit, according to his 7ian- 
Christian standing and condition (comp. ver. 19) : If any one is 2)ersuaded 
that he is wise among you in this age, i.e. if one claims for himself a leing wise 
in your community, which lelongs to the sphere of this pre-Messianic period. To 
the aluv ovTog, 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), ism 
fact a thing foreign and far off ; this aipv is a sphere essentially alien to the 
true state of being wise in th" c'^vv:c\ ; in it a man may have the /rfjof ffo^/af 

80 Paul's first epistle to the cokikthtaks. 

(Col. ii. 23), but not the reality. We must not therefore, in rlefiancc of its 
l)lace in the sentence, link h r^ al. t. merely to a6<pnc (Erasmus, Grotius, 
Riickert, and many others), in doing which h is often taken as equivalent 
to Kara. Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Luther, Castalio, Mosheim, Rosen- 
miillcr, and otliers, 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 Ilofmann : 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 
l)et\vcen h v/ilv and kv r^ aluvc r., but upon g6(j)oc and /jupog, as is plain from 
the fact that in the clause expressive of the aim we have the simple a6(poc 
alone without tv v/xlv. It may be seen, too, from ver. 19 (aocp. tov Kdafiov) 
that Paul had included £v T. a\. r. in the jirotasis. — ^wpdf yEviaOu] i.e. let Mm 
rid himself of his fancied wisdom, and become (by returning to the pure 
and simple gospel unalloyed by any sort of philosophy or speculation) 
SHch a one as now in relation to that illusory wisdom is a fool. — aocpot;] with 
emphasis : tndy icise. See Col. ii. 3, 3. The path of the Christian 
sapere attde proceeds from becoming a fool to wisdom, as from becom- 
ing blind to seeing (John ix. 39). 

Ver. 19. Giving the ground of the fiupbg yeveadu demanded in order to the 
ylvecdai c6<pov. — tov k6(tjuov tovtov] i.e. such as is peculiar to the pre-Messianic 
world (humanity), like the Hellenic sopliistry, rhetoric, etc. ; comp. i. 21, 
ii. Q. — Tvapar. 0fv] judice Deo ; Rom. ii. 13 ; Winer, p. 369 [E. T. 493]. 
How truly that wisdom was its own very opposite, and how utterly to be 
given up ! — yeyp. yap] Job v. 13, not according to the LXX., but express- 
ing the sense of the Hebrew with quite as great fidelity. The passage, 
however, serves as proof, not for the warning and admonition in ver. 18 
(Hofmann), — to take it thus would be arbitrarily to reach back over what 
immediately j^recedes the yap, — but, as ver. 20 also confirms, for the state- 
ment just made, r} yap aocpla k.t.X. If, namely, God did not count that wis- 
dom to be folly, then He could not be spoken of as He who tal^eth the tcise in 
tJieir 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 ta'kesi\iGvcy in their craftiness, whereby He just practically proclaims His 
judgment regarding their wisdom, that it in foolishness. As respects Travoyp- 
) (rt, comp. the Plellenic distinction between it and the true wisdom in Plato, 
Menex. p. 247 A : Traaa te EinaTrjfir] x^pi-^ofiEvij 6iKaio(jvvr/g Kal Tijg allriq aperf/g 
navovpyia, ov ao(j)ia, ^aiverai. — o 6paaa6u. is not " ex Hebr. pro finito dpaaoE- 
Tai''' (Pott, following Eeza), but the quotation, being taken out of its con- 
nection, does not form a complete sentence. Comp. Heb. i. 8 ; Winer, p. 
330 [E. T. 443] ; Buttmann, neut. Or. p. 250 [E. T. 291]. — On dpciacEaBai 
with the accusative {con\m.on\y ynih the (/enitive), comp. Herod, iii. 13, LXX. 
Lev. V. 12, Num. v. 26. 

Ver. 20. Rdhv] as in Rom. xv. 10 ; Matt. iv. 7. The passage quoted is 

CHAP. 111., 21. 81 

Ps. xciv. 11, and the only variation from the Hebrew and the LXX. is in 
putting (TO06JV instead of avdpuKuv, and that purposely, but with no violence 
to the connection of the original (the reference being to men of pretended 
wisdom). — /udraioc] empty, thoughts (for Paul, at all events, had diaXoy. not 
ao(l>. in view) which are without true siibstance. Comp. Plato, Soph. p. 231 
B : TTEfjl ryv fidraiov 6o^oco(pLav. 

Ver. 21. "Q(TT-e] Hence, that is to say, because this world's wisdom, this 
source of your navxdaBai, kv dvdpo)7roig (see ver. 18), is nothing but folly before 
God, vv. 19, 20. According to Hofmann, uare draws its inference from the 
Avhole section, vv. 10-20. But fir/delg Kavxdadu k.t.1. manifestly corresponds 
to the warning fir/(hlc kavr. e^air. k.t.1. in ver. 18, from the discussion of 
which (ver. 19 f.) there is now deduced the parallel warning beginning 
with ojffre (ver. 21) ; and this again is finally confirmed by a sublime repre- 
sentation of the position held by a Christian (ver. 22 f.). — kv dvdpuTrmc] " id 
pertinet ad extenuandum, " Bengcl ; the ojiposite of ev Kvpiu, i. 31. Hu- 
man teachers are meant, ujion whom the different parties prided themselves 
against each other (ver. 5, i. 12). Comp. iv. G. Billroth renders wrongly: 
on account of men, whom he has subjected to himself and formed into a sect. 
Etre Ilai'Aof . . . K?/0af in ver. 22 is decisive against this ; for how strangely 
forced it is to make fxTji^eiq refer to the teachers, and vjiuv to the church ! — 
The imperative after ware (comp. iv. 5, x. 12 ; Phil. ii. 12) is not governedhj 
that word, but the dependent statement beginning with uare changes to the 
direct. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 852 ; Bremi, ad Bern. Phil. III. p. 276 ; 
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 776. — Travra yap vfiuv kariv] with the emphasis on Tcavra : 
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 : hfiiov ydp wdvra 
kcTLv ("ilia vestra sunt, non vos illorum,'''' Bengel) ; but that the apostle has 
in view some form of party-confession, as, for example, " Paul is mine," or 
" Cephas is my man," and the like. It was thus that some boasted them- 
selves of individual personages as their property, in opposition to the ndvra 
vn. k. It may be added that what is conveyed in this ndvTa v/xiJv eanv 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 liis own possession whatever in it is beautiful and glo- 
rious" {irdvTa ?), as is the view of Olshauscn ; 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. Kom. viii. 28 ff.), and consequently to be in an ethical sense 
their possession,' and that the actual Klripovojiid tov Kda/nov (Rom. iv. 13 f.) is 
allotted to them in the Messianic kingdom. Comp. 4 Esdr. ix. 14. The 
saying of the philosophers : Omnia sajnentis esse"" (see Wetstein), is a lower 
and imperfect analogue of this Christian idea. 

» Hence Luther in his gloss rightly infers : " Therefore no man hath power to make laws 
over Christians to bind their consciences." 

S'Z Paul's first epistle to the couinthians. 

Ver. 22. Detailed explication of the Travra ; then an emphatic repetition 
of the great thought ndvra v/i., in order to link to it ver. 23. — Ilav?.o^ . . . 
K;y0.] for they are designed to labour for the furtherance of the Christian 
weal. Paul does not write £> w ; as forming the subject-matter of a partisan 
confession, he apjjears to liimsclf as a third person ; comp. ver. 5. — Koafio^] 
generally ; for the world, although as yet only in an ideal sense, is by desti- 
nation your possession, inasmuch as, in the coming alcjv, 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 Kdafwc, as it occurs in this 
full triumphant outpouring — such asi'eliqui omnes homines (Rosenmiiller and 
others), the itnhelieving Avorld (comp. also Hofmann), and so forth — are 
totally imwarranted by the connection. Bengel says aptly: " Repentinus 
hie a Petro ad totum mundum saltus orationem facit amplam cum quadam 
quasi impatientia enumerandi cetera. " The eye of the apostle thus rises at 
once from the concrete and empirical to the most general whole, in point of 
niatter {Koa/iog), conditioii (J^uri, ddvarog), time (kvEOTuTa, iieX/jyvTo). — i^wiy , . . 
edvarof] comp. Rom. viii. 38. We are not to refer this, with Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, and Grotius, to the teachsrs : " 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 flf. ; 
1 Cor. XV. 19 ff. Theodoret : koI avrbg Jf 6 ddvarog rf/g vfieripag ivEKev u^eT^iaq 
kmjvex^V ''">) ipvaEi. — eIte evEarura, eIte ^eXAovra] Similarly, we are not to re- 
strict tilings 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 j)assive relation as regards OAvnership also, which is equally 
adverse to the same hurtful tendency, namely : hut ye belong to Christ, — so 
that in this respect, too, the Kuvxaadai kv avdpunoLg of ver. 21 cannot but be 
unseemly. Riickert would make iravra yap v/iuv eari k.t.1. 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, 
ho. holds, to supply fiiv after ndvra. 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 TzdvTa vfiuv, 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 Kavx. 

CHAP. III., 23. 83 

kv avdpuTToic. — XpiuTog rfe Qeov] and Christ, again, helongs to God, is, subordi- 
nated to God, stands in His service. For KSipalij Xpitjrov 6 9e6g, xi. 3. Comp. 
Luke ix. 20. The strict monotheism of the N. T. (see on Rom. ix. 5), and 
the relation of Christ as the Son to the Father, necessarily give the idea of 
the subordination of Christ under Ood. ' As His equality with God and His 
divine glory before the incarnation (Phil. ii. 6), although essential, were 
still derived {eluuv r. Qeov, npuroTOKoq irdarjq KTiaeug, 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 he given bach to God 
(1 Cor. XV. 28). Since, however, this relation of dependence, affirmed by 
XpioTog 6e Qeov (comp. on Eph. i. 17), by no means expresses the conception 
of Arianism, but leaves untouched the essential equality of Christ with God 
(Theodoret aptly remarks : Xpiarbq yap Qeov ovx ojf uTio/ia Qeov, all' ug 
vlog Tov Qeov), it was all the more a mistake to assume (so Calvin, Estius, 
Calovius, and many others, including Flatt and Olshausen) that the state- 
ment here refers only to the human nature. It is precisely on the divine side of 
His being that Christ is, according to Paul (Rom. i. 4), the Son of God, and 
therefore as yevvT/jua yvijaiov . . . wf avrbv aiTiov £jwy Kara to Tvarepa elvai 
(Chrysostom) not subordinate to Him simply in respect of His manhood. 
But for what reason does Paul add here at all this Xpiardg ds Qeov, seeing it was 
not needed for the establishment of the prohibition of the Kovxaadac h av- 
dpunoig ? We answer : Had he ended with i/zeZf 6e Xpiaruv, he would then, in 
appearance, have conceded the claim of the Christ-party, who did 7iot boast 
themselves ev avdpuwoic (and hence were not touched by ver. 22), but held to 
Christ ; and this, in point of fact, is what Pott and Schott make out that 
the apostle here does. But this was not his intention ; for the confession of 
the Christ-party was not, indeed, Ebionitic, — as if the X. 6e Qeov were aimed 
against this (Osiander), — but, although right enough in idea, yet practically 
objectionable on the ground of the schismatic misuse made of it. He rises, 
therefore, to the highest absolute jurisdiction, that to which even Christ is 
subject, in order in this passage, where he rejects the three parties who sup- 
ported themselves on human authorities, to make the Christ-party, too, feel 
their error : Christ, again, is — not the head of a party, as many among you 
would make Him, but — belonging to God, and consequently exalted in the 
highest possible degree above all drawing in of His name into party-conten- 
tions. In this way, with no little delicacy, Paul sets the relation of the 
fourth Corinthian party also — of which ver. 22 did not allow the mention — 
in the light of the true Christian perspective ; to do which by no means lay 
too far from the path of his exhortation (Hofmann), but was very naturally 
suggested by the concrete circumstances which he could not but have in his 
eye. (i) 

Remark.— The reference in ver. 22 f. to the party of Peter and of Christ is to 
be regarded as simply by the icay. The whole section fromi. 13 to iv. 21 is di- 

1 See also Hahn, Tkeol. d. N. T. I. p. 120 f. Ursprung der Siinde, I. p. 194 ff . Weiss, biM. 
Gess, V. d. Person Ohr. p. 157 ff. Ernesti, Theol. p. 306. 

84: Paul's fikst kpistle to the Corinthians. 

rected against the antagonism between the rauUne and the Apollonian parties 
(comp. on ver. 4) ; but the idea Travrn v/k'jv tnrii', which Paul holds iip to these 
two, very naturally leads him to make all the parties sensible of their fault as 
well, although to enter furtlter ui)on the Petrine and the Christ-j)arty 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 (Jaeger, Schenkel, Gold- 
horn, Kniewel, etc.), has led to acts of great arbitrariness, as is most conspicu- 
ous in the case of Kniewel, who divides chap. iii. among all the four parties, 
giving vv. 3-10 to that of Paul and that of Apollos, vv. 12-17 to that of Peter, 
and ver. 18 f. to that of Christ ; while in the contrasts of ver. 22 {ehe Koafio^ . . . 
/if AAov-a] he finds the Christ-party's doctrine of the harmony of all contrasts 
accomplished in Christ as the world-soul. 

Notes by Amebican Editor. 

(h) '* 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 stil so applied by the less informed. The 
violence of such an apjilication is obvious on a moment's reflection. The 
text does not say that the mdn is saved by fire as a means of iJurification, but 
so as by fire — that is, scarcely or with difficulty. And the fire is not considered 
as preceding the judgment, but as taking place at the time of the judgment it- 
self, when the Lord Jesus will appear in His glory. "The daj'" (ver. 13) can- 
not, according to usage, denote anything else than the day of the coming of the 
Lord. It is the more important to resist the tenet of purgatorial fire, because it 
is the legitimate outcome of the Romish doctrine of justification and rests upon 
the conviction that, the righteousness that justifies being infused and not imput- 
ed, many will be found at death too good to be sent to hell, but not good enough 
to enter heaven, an<l hence there requires to be a state and place in which by 
disciplinary fires their righteousness may be made complete. 

(i) Xo bort.tdng 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- 
nation can suggest, whether in life or in death, in the present or the fiiture. 
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 G^d Himself. The final touch is worthy of 
the great Apostle. It represents Christ Himself as subordinate to God, and that, 
as Meyer justly says, not mei'ely 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. 



Ver. 2. o Je] Lachm. Ruck. Tisch. read wdf, with A B C D* F G X, min. Syr, 
Ei-p. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Jerome, Aug. Ambr. Pelag. Sedul. Bede. This vast- 
ly preponderating testimony in favour of dxh, and its infreqiiency with Paul 
(only again in Col. iv. 9), make the Hecepta seem the result of change or error 
on the ijart of transcribers. — (riTElTai] A C D E F G H, min, have CriTelTe. 
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 K, 31, Syr. p. Copt. Athan. 
Cyril have (i ; which is recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. 
and Riickert. The Latin authorities have supra quam, which leaves their read- 
ing doubtful. The preceding tuvtu naturally suggested u. — (pporrlv] is want- 
ing in A B D* E* F G N, 46, Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers. Rightly deleted by 
Lachm. Tisch. and Riickert.' A supplementary addition, in place of which 
Athanasius has (pvMovadui. — Ver. 9. on after yap has preponderant evidence 
against it, and should be deleted, as is done by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Su- 
perfluous addition. — Ver. 13. /Wa(T(^.] A C i^*, 17 46, Clem. Origen (twice), Eu- 
seb. Cyril, Damasc. have fW^. Approved by Griesb., accepted by Riick. and 
Tisch. Rightly ; the more familiar (for the verb 6vc(p. occurs nowhere else in 
the N. T., comp. 2 Cor. vi. 8), and at the same time stronger word was inserted. 
— Ver. 14. mwOerC)'] A C K, min. Theophylact have vnvOerow [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, neverthsless, for his own part, does not give heed to hnman 
judgment, nay, he does not even judge himself, hut his judge is Christ (vv. 3, 4). 
Therefore his readers should give up their passing of judgments till the decision 
of the Parousia (ver. 5). 

Ver. 1. Owrwf] is commonly taken as preparatory, emphatically paving 
the way for the uq vntip. which follows. Comp. iii. 15, ix. 26 ; 2 Cor. ix. 
5 ; Eph. V. 33, al., and often in Greek writers. The kuvx- kv av6p. 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 hero, and since the following epithets : virz/p. Xpiarov and oIkov. 
Qeov sound significantly like the v/ielg (le Xpiarov, Xpurrbg 6e Beov which 
immediately precede them, ovrug is rather to be regarded as the sic retrospec- 
tive (in this way, in such fashion), and ug again as stating the objective qual- 

' ^poveiv has been defended again by not the case ; and the former consideration 

Reiche in his Commentar. crit. I. p. 146 fif. cannot turn the scale apainst the decisive 

He urges that tlie omission is not attested weiglit of the chief codices, among which 

by the Greelj Father.'!, and, out of all the only C— and even that not certainly— has 

versions, only by the Latin ones, and that <^po»'€ii'. 
the word is indi^Knsuble. But the latter is 

CHAP. IV., 2. 87 

ity, in which tlie jy/ifZf have a claim to the ovrug r/fiag loyiL,. avdp. which is 
enjoined. Accordingly, we should explain as follows : Under this point of 
view, as indicated already in ver. 23 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 {ovtu)^) and how con- 
clusively shut out from this si)here of vision will be the jiartisan KavxaaBm 
ev avdpuTToigl Men will be lifted high above that. — y/Lidg] i.e. myself and 
such as I, by which other apostles also and apostolic teachers (like Apollos) 
are meant. In view of iii. 22, no narrower limitation is allowable. — avOpu- 
TTOf] not a Hebraism (K'"''*, one ; so most interpreters, among whom Luther, 
Grotius, and others explain it wrongly every one), but in accordance with 
a pure Greelc use of the word in the sense of the indefinite one or a man 
(Plato, Protag. p. 355 A, Oorg. p. 500 C, al). So also in xi. 28, Gal. vi. 
1. Bengel's "homo quivis nostris similis'''' \s, an importation. — virrip. X. k. 
o'lKov. fivGT. Qeov] 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 olKog Qeov, 1 Tim. iii. 15), inasmuch as they are entrusted 
with His secrets, i.e. entrusted and commissioned to communicate by the 
preaching of the gosj)el the divine decrees for the redemption of men and 
their receiving Messianic blessings (see on Rom. xi. 25, xvi. 25 ; Eph. i. 
9 ; Matt. xiii. 11), — decrees in themselves unknown to men, but fulfilled in 
Christ, and unveiled by means of revelation. They are to do this just as the 
steward of a household (see on Luke xvi. 1) has to administer his master's 
goods. Comp. as regards this idea, ix. 17 ; 1 Tim. i. 4 ; Titus i. 7 ; 1 Pet. 
iv. 10. There is no reference whatever here to the sacra77iett^s, which Olshau- 
sen and Osiander again desire to include. See i. 17. The whole notion of 
a sacrament, as such, was generalized at a later date from the actions to 
which men restricted it, sometimes in a wider, sometimes in a narrower 
sense. — Observe, moreover : between the Father, the Master of the house, 
and the oIkovo/uoi there stands the 8o)i, and He has from the Father the power 
of disposal (comp. on John viii. 35 f. ; 1 Cor. xv. 25 ff.), so that the oIkovo/xoi 
are His servants. Paul uses vrnipiTTig only in this passage ; but there is no 
ground for importing any special design into the word (such as that it is 
humbler than dioKovog). Comp. on Eph. iii. 7. 

Ver. 2. If we read wJe (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 Aootoi^ (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 wfJe' again, quite in accordance with 
the old classical usage (see Lehrs, Arist. p. 84 ff.), would convey the notion 
oisie, i.e. ^' cum eo statu res nostrae sinf'' (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 991). We 
might paraphrase, therefore, as follows : ''Such being the nature of our 2)o- 

1 The word would be singularly super- to treat it as belonging to ver. 1, and to 
fluous, and would drag behind in the most separate it by a point from Xouro^. 
awkward way, were we, with Lachmann, 


sition as servants, tlie demand to he made upon the steicards of households ' of 
cotirse tfilces effect.'" If we abide by the Jlecejtta, b Jt Aoirrdv must be render- 
ed : But as to what reinaius, i.e. but as respects what else there is which has 
its place in connection with the relationship of service spoken of in ver. 1, 
this is the demand, etc. ; comp. on Rom. vi. 10. It is a perversion of the 
passage to make it refer, as Billroth does, to the preceding depreciation of 
the supposed merits of the teachers : ^'hitichat still remains fot- 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 ^r/reZra^ f i^ means nothing 
else but : it is sought at their hand (requiritur), i.e. demanded of them. See 
Wetstein, Hofmann's interpretation, too, is an impossible one. He makes 
o &i ?MtTr6v down to svpedy to be the protasis ; e/iol Je k.t./I., and that running 
on as far as Kvpc6c kcnv 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,, a long, obscurely and clumsily involved 
period, against which on linguistic grounds there are the two considera- 
tions — (1) that 8e "koiwbv CrjTEiTai would presuppose some demand already 
conveyed in ver. 1, to which a new one was now added ; and (2) that the 
Se 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, Partilc. p. 93 
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 difiiculty nor the other is removed by 
the arbitrarily inserted thoughts, which Hof mann seeks to read between the 
lines." — iva] is sought with the design, that there ie found. Hence the object 
of the seeking is conveyed in the form expressive of design. That tvpicKeadai 
is not eqiuvalent to dvai (Wolff, Flatt, Pott, and others) is plain here, espe- 
cially from the correlation in which it stands to Qr/Tel-ai. — tic] i.e. any one of 

them. See INIatthiae, p. 1079 ; NiigeLsbach on the Iliad, p. 299, ed. 3 

niardg] 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 ^Tjre'iTai K.T.'k. — e'lq E2.dxi(yr6v iariv] e'lg, in the sense of 
giving the result : it wmes to something utterly insignificant, evinces itself as 
in the highest degree unimportant. Comp. Pindar, 01. i. 122 : kg x^P^'^ 
rkXlETai, Plato, Ale. I. p. 126 A ; Bnttmann, neutest. Oramm. p. 131 [E. T. 
150]. — tm] does not stand for orav (Pott), nor does it take the place of the 
con.struction with the infinitive (so most interpreters) ; but the conception 
of design, which is essential to "iva, is in the mind of the writer, and has 

• This iv Toi<; oIkovoim. is not " uncalled " In \oin6v he finds : " Besides this, that 
for and superfluous" after u>St (as Ilofniaiin the stewards act in accordance with their 
objects); for Paul had, in ver. 1, described name." By the antithetic e/noi Si, again, 
the official service of the teachers by tivo Paul means: "in contrast U> those who 
designations, but now desires to attach conduct themselves as though he must con- 
what more he has to say in ver. 2 specially sider it of importance to liiiri." By inter- 
to the second of these designations, and polations of this sort, everything may bo 
hem- he lias again to bring in the oiKov6iJ.oi. moulded into what ithape 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. — avanpidu] "fidelisne 
sim nee ne," Bengel. — r) vko avdp. yjj..] or hy a human clay at all. The clay, 
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 I'/filipa Kvpiov, which Paul pro- 
ceeds hereafter, not indeed to name, but to describe, see ver. 5. — a?il' oiiSi] 
yea, not even, as in iii. 2. — t/iavrSv] Billroth and Riickert think that the 
contrast between the persons projjerly demanded avTog tuavr. here, which, 
however, has been overlooked by Paul. But the active expression e/uavrdv 
avaKpivu is surely tlie complete contrast to the passive v(p' v/u. avoKp. ; hence 
avrdg might, indeed, have been added to strengthen the statement, but there 
was nonecessity for its being so. — Th.Q avaKpiveiv 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 {nhdev . . . 6e6iK.), and then the antithesis ((^ : but indeed) to the 
above ovcU kfiavr. avaKpivu. — yap] The element of proof lies neither in the 
first clause alone (Hofmann), nor in the second clause alone, so that the 
first would be merely concessive (Baumgarten, Winer, Billroth, Riickert, 
who supplies fikv here again, de Wette, Osiander), but in the antithetic reZa- 
tion of loth clauses, wherein alM has the force oi at, not of '■'■ sondern :'''' I 
judge not my own self, because I am conscious to myself of nothing, but am not 
tliereby justified, i.e. because my pure (ofiicial, 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 : 
ovTE fxeja ovTE (jfiLKphv ^hvoida e/xavrQ GO(pbc (l)v. Me]), p. 331 A ; and Horace, Ep. 
i. 1. 61 : "niZ conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa;'''' Job xxvii. 6. — ovk kv 
ToiiTO) SediK. ] is ordinarily understood wrongly : '■'■ I do not on that account 
look upon myself as guiltless.''^ For the words ovk. kv tovtu, negativing justifi- 
cation by a good conscience, make it clear that 6e6iK. 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 fv roircj ov.* The oh is as little in its wrong place here as in xv. 51. 
Note that the SeSLKalu/iai is to the apostle an undoubted certain fact ; "^ hence 

1 Paul's thought has run thus :— " Were I until the judgment. AeSiKoiufxai, however, 

justified by my conscience free of reproach, does not refer to the being found righteous 

then I should be entitled to pass judgment at the day of judgment (against Lipsius, 

on myself, namely, just in accordance with Rechtfertiqvngd. p. 48), but, as the perfect 

the standard of the said conscience. But shows, to the righteousness obtained by 

seeing that I am not justified by this con- faith, which to the consciousness of the 

science (but by Christ), it cannot even serve apostle was at all times a present blessing, 

me as a standard for self-judgment, and I —Observe, further, how alien- to Paul was 

must refrain therefrom, and leave the judg- the conception that the conscience is the 

ment regarding me to Christ." This applies expression of the real divme life in the man. 

also against de Wette, who holds our exposi- Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol, p. 141. 

tion to be contrary to the context, because " So precisely Ignatius, ad Rom. 5 : aKK' ov 

what follows is not 6 Se SiKaiiiv, but 6 5e ava- napa tovto 6eSiKaiio/iiai. The certitvdo gratloe 

Kpiviov. Moreover, the further imputation is expressed but as not based upon the con- 

of moral desert is certainly not done away science void of reproach. 
with by justification, but it remains in force 


we may not explain it, with Hofmann : Not thereby am I pronounced 
righteous as respects faithfulness in the fulfilment of my office, but only if (?) 
the Lord shall charge me with no neglect of duty. That would plainly 
make the (MiKoiu/iai 2>roUematic.^ — Kifuoc] Christ, ver. 5. 

Ver. 5. Therefore judfje nothing he fore the time, namely, icith respect tome ; 
not as Billroth thinks : one sect regarding another, which is inadmissible in 
view of the preceding avaKp. /le 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 me if you will, I mal'e'cery little of that ; 
hut (ver. 4) seeing that I do not even judge myself, but that he that judgeth me 
is Christ, I therefore counsel yoxi (ver. 5) not to pass a judgment upton me pre- 
maturely ^ — irph Kacpov] i.e. hefoi'e 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 -npb Kaipov, we learn only from what comes after ; 
hence we must not by anticipation assign to Kaipdq the specific sense of 
temjnis reditus Christi. — ti] i.e. Kpiaiv nvd, John vii. 24. — kp'ivete] describes 
Hhepjassing of the judgment, the consequence of the avanp., in a manner accord- 
ant with the looking forward to the Messianic JM<Z(/»?e/i^. Luther, Raphel, 
and Wolf render : alium alii praeferte ; but this runs counter to the context, 
for it must be analogous to the general avoKp. eug av DMti 6 k. ] Epexegesis of 
rrpb Kaipov : judge not before the time (judge not, I say), until the Lard 
shall have come. Then only is it a Kulpiov Kplveiv, because then only can the 
judgment be pronounced rightly according to the Lord's decision. The av 
marks out the coming as in so far problematical (depending upon circum- 
stances; see Hartung, Partikell. p. 391), 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. — bq Kai] /ca/ 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, 
Partih. p. 153 ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 243 [E. T. 283]). In His function 
as Judge, in which He is to come, He will do this also, He will light up, i.e. 
make manifest, what is hidden in the darkness. Respecting ^uriaei, comp. 
Eccles. xxiv. 33 ; 2 Tim. i. 10 ; Pint. Mor. p. 931 C, and the passages in 
Wetstein. What icithdraics itself from the light as its opjwsite (Hofmann, 
who takes Kal . . . Kai as meaning as well, as also) is included here, but not 
that alone. Compare rather the general statement in Luke viii. 17. — kuI 
(pavep. T. ftovl. TO)v KapS.] a special element selected from the foregoing 
general affirmation. The significant bearing of what Paul here affirms of 
Christ at Ills coming is the a]>plication which the readers were to make of 
it to himself and the other teachers ; it was to be understood, namely, that 
their true character also would only then become manifest, i.e. be laid open 
as an object of knowledge, but now was not yet submitted to judgment. — 
Kal t6te . . . Oeov] SO thiit ye can only then pass judgment on your teachers 

• [Most critics apree that there is here no question of liis fidelity was one not to be 
reference to the doctrine of justification, dei-ided by his conscience, but by the Lord, 
and that all the Apostle means is that the — T. W. C] 

CHAP. IV., 6. 91 

with sure (divine) w.arrant for what ye do. The chief emphasis is upon the 
airb T. Oeov, which is for that reason put at the end (Kiihner, II. p. 625), and 
next to it upon what is placed first, 6 enaLvoq. This does not mean praemium 
(so Flatt, with older expositors, citing wrongly in support of it such pits- 
sages as Rom. ii. 29, xiii. 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 7, ii. 14 ; Wisd. xv. 19 ; Polybius, 
ii. 58. 11), nor is it a vox media (as, following Casaubon, ad Ejnct. 67, Wolf, 
Rosenmiiller, Pott, and others assume wholly without proof) ; but it denotes 
simply the praise, the commendation. The apparent incongruity with eKaaru 
is obviated by the article : tfie praise that appeHains to Mm (Bernhardy, 
p. 315) shall be given to each, — so that Paul here puts entirely oxit 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 lonae conscientiae fiduda nascitur." See ver. 4. Theophylact's view, 
although adopted by many, is an arbitrary one : " unde et contrarium datur 
intelligi, sed mavult fi^^/zerv," Grotius (so also Bengel, Billroth, Riickert, 
Olshausen). — anb r. Qeov] not from men, as ye now place and praise the one 
above the other, but on the jJart on God ; for Christ the .Judge is God's 
vicegerent and representative, John v. 27 ff. ; Acts x. 42, xvii. 31 ; Rom. 
ii, 16, al. 

Vv. 6-13. Note, what I have hitherto given utterance to in a manner appli- 
cable to myself and Apollos, has for its object to wean you from party -pride 
(ver. 6). Rebuke of this pride (vv. 7-13). 

Ver. 6. Ae] pursuing the subject ; the apostle turns now to the final re- 
monstrances and rebulces 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 adeTK^oi with a winning warmth of feeling, as in i. 11.- — 
TuvTo] from iii. 5 onwards, where he brings in himself and Apollos si^ecially 
and by name, assigning to both their true position and its limits to be ob- 
served by them with all humility, and then appending to this the further 
instructions which he gives up to iv. 5. Tavra is not to be made to refer back 
to i. 12, where Paul and Apollos are not named alone (so Baur, following- 
older expositors). — iitrecxw- ek ifiavT. k. 'AttoPlAw] I have changed thefm^moj 
it into myself and Apollos, i.e. I have, instead of directing my discourse to 
others, upon whom it might properly have been moulded, written in such 
fashion in an altered form, that what has been said applies now to myself 
and Aiwllos. It is on account of the contrast with oflters which floats before 
the apostle's mind, that he writes not simjily e'lq efxe, but eJf kfiavrov ; eJf, 
again, denotes the reference of this change of form to the parties concerned. 
Respecting neraaxriiiaTiCeLv, to transfoi'm, comp. 2 Cor. xi. 14, Phil. iii. 21 ; 
Symm. 1 Sam. xxviii. 8 ; 4 Mace. ix. 21 ; Plato, Legg. x. p. 903 E, 906 C 
{pfjjjia juETecrxv/J^aTKyuivov) ; Lucian, Imag. 9, Hale. 5 ; Heliodorus, ii. p. 93. 
The axvu^a, 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 otliers? 
Not the order of teachers generally (Calovius, Billroth, de Wette, Neander, 

92 Paul's first epistle to the corinthians. 

et ai., also my own foniicr view), for in that case we should have no change 
of form, but only a sjyeciaUziiuj ; but rather : the instigators of parties in 
Corinth, with their self-exaltation and jealousy, as is clear from the fol- 
low'ing 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 
chiueli, 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 fiereax'/ZJ., but in 
favour of his own theory about the Christ-party : what has been said of 
me and AiwUos holds also of the other jMrties ; this not applying, however, 
to Toi/g Tov XpiaToi), who are to be regarded as forming a peculiar party by 
themselves. Lastly, it is also a mistake (see Introd. § 1) to interpret it 
with Chrysostom, Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, and others : 
"I have put our names an fictitious in place of those of the actual leaders of 
parties ;" ' or to hold, with Parens and Mosheim, that /leracrx- refers to the 
homely figures 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 Qnov awepyovc ! Moreover, the figures in themselves 
plainly could not teach the Corinthians humility ; the lesson must lie in 
the intrinsic tenor of the ideas conveyed. — 'AttoA/w] the same form of the 
accusative as in Acts xix. 1. A B K* have 'KnoXkuv. See regarding both 
forms, Buttmann's ausf. Gr. I. p. 207 f . ; Kiihner, § 124, ed. 2. — 6i' v/iag] 
not in any way for our own sakes. — Iva kv yiuv k.t.I.] more precise explana- 
tion of the 6i' vfxdg (" instructionis vestrae causa," Estius) : in order that ye 
might le-arn hy its (Winer, p. 361 [E. T. 483]), that is to say, by having us 
before you as an examjile of shunning undue self-exaltation, in accordance 
with what I have stated regarding our official position, duty, responsibility, 
etc. — TO fiy vKtp b yeyp.] The elliptical : " not above ichat is written,'''' is made 
to rank as a substantive by the t6 (Matthiae, § 280) ; for (ppovelv is spurious 
(see the critical remarks). The suppression of the verb after //// in lively 
discourse is common in the classics. See Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 153 ; 
Kuhner, II. p. G07 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 607. The short, terse py vTzip b 
yh/p. may have been an old and familiar .saying of the Rabbins (Ew-ald) ; 
only Paul never quotes such elsewhere. — 8 ykyp. 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 sectimi. 
But Grotius hits the truth in the matter when he says : yiypanraL in his 
libris semper ad libros V. T. refertur. Only Grotius should not have re- 
ferred it to a single passage (Deut. xvii. 20 ; comp. also Olshausen) which 
the readers could not be expected to divine. It denotes generally the rule 

> Michaelis : " I know quite well that no fence," etc. But, as Calovius justly ob- 

■ect among you calls itself after myself or serves, the MeTao-xri/aaTitr/nos is here not ''per 

Apollos . . . ; the true names I rather re- fictionu, sed ^er flgurutionu modum." 
frain from giving, in order to avoid of- 

CHAP. IV., 6. 93 

written in the 0. T., which is not to be transgressed ; and this means here, 
according to the context, the rule of humility and modesty, within the bounds 
of which a man will not be vainly puffed up, nor will presume to claim 
anything that lies beyond the limits of the ethical canon of the Scriptures. 
Comp. Riickert, Reiche, Ewald. And Paul could the more readily express 
himself in this general way, inasmuch as all the quotations hitherto made 
by him from the O. T. (i. 19, 31, iii. 19) exhorted to humility. It is 
against the context to suppose, with Cajetanus and Beza, that the reference 
is to the dogmatic standard of the O. T., which was not to be transcended 
by pretended wisdom. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact went so 
far as to refer it to sayings of Christ (such as Mark x. 44 ; Matt. vii. 1 ; 
Theodoret even adds to these (1 Cor. vii. 24), which neither Paul nor his 
readers could think of in connection with the habitually used yeyp. — With- 
out having the slightest support in the use and wont of the language (for 
in passages like Pindar, Nem. vi. 13, Eur. Ion. 446 [455], ypdipeiv has just 
the ordinary force of to tcrite), and wholly in the face of the N. T. usage of 
yeypanrai, Hofmann brings in here the general notion of the definite measui'e 
which is ascribed, adjusted to each by God (Rom. xii. 3). Nor is any coun- 
tenance lent to this interpretation by ypd/j.,ua in Thuc. v. 29. 4 ; for that 
means a written clause (see Krliger). What Paul means is the objective 
sacred rule of the Scriptures, the presumptuous disregard of which was the 
source of the mischief at Corinth ; '■'■ulcus aferit,'''' Beza. — Iva ptfj eiq vnep 
K.T.?!,.] 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 {vTvep, 
comp. 2 Cor. ix. 2), seeking thereby mutually among themselves to main- 
tain and exalt their own reputation {e)g vnip tov ev6g), and that with hostile 
tendency towards the third person, who belonged to another party (/card tov 
irepov). Olshausen understands v-n-ep tov ev6g of their outbidding each other 
in pretensions, which, however, would require the accusative with vrcep ; 
and Winer, p. 858 [E. T. 478], renders : "so that he deems himself exalted 
above the other f against which — apart from the fact that vnep 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 (pvaiohjievoQ, who can be the 'iTspoq (the different 
one) ; and just as e/f stands in antithetic correlation with tov hepov, so vTrep 
also does with /cara ; comp. Rom. viii. 31 ; Mark ix. 40. The ordinary in- 
terpretation is • " On acwimt of the teacher, whom he has chosen to be his 
head,''^ Riickert ; comp. Reiche, Ewald, Hofmann. But like elg, so vnep tov 
Ev6g also must refer to the collective subject of (pvaiovade, and consequently 
both of them together convey the same sense as vnep alTJifkuv, 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 (pvawvaOai of a df vnep 
TOV h6g takes place Kara tov hepov in the jealous wranglings of mutually op- 
posing parties reciprocally, so that each has always full room for the /card tov 
htpov (against Hofmann's objection). — (pvaiovade] the present indicative after 
Iva occurs only here and in Gal. iv. 17. The instances of it, wont to be ad- 

94 Paul's first epistle to the couinthiaxs. 

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, 
a^-ain, in Kypke and Valckenaer, where iva is found with the past indicative, 
were wholly inapi)licable here. Corap. on Gal. iv. 17, note ; Stallbaum, 
ad Plat. f<i/nijj. \). 181 E. On these grounds Billroth and Riickert assume 
that Paul had meant to form the subjunctive, but had formed it wrongly ; 
so too, before them, Bengel characterized the form as a " singularis ratio 
contractionis ;" and Reiche also, in his Comment, crit. I. p. 152, satisfies 
himself with the notion of an erroneously formed contraction. As if we 
were warranted in taking for granted that the most fluent in language of 
the apostles could not be safely trusted with forming the mood of a verb in 
o(j ! Winer finds here an improper usage of the later Greeli. ' But, apart 
from the absence of all proof for this usage in the apostolic age (it can only 
be proved in much later writings, as also in modern Greek ; see Winer, 
p. 272 [E. T. 362]), had Paul adopted it, he would have brought it in 
oftener, and not have written correctly in everi/ 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 (jiaOT/Te). Fritzsche (ad Matth. p. 836) 
took iva as uU, and explained : '■'■uhi (i.e. qiM conditione, quando demisse 
de vobis statuere nostro exemjilo didiceritis) minime alter in alterim detri- 
mentum extollitur.'''' At a later date (in FritzscMorum opusc. p. 186 ff.) he 
wished to resort to emendation, namely : Iva 'ei> Tjfiiv fiaffriTe to fiij vnep 8 yiypan- 
-ai (j)povelv, eva fifj virif) tov ivoc; (pva lov c6at Kara tov irepov (so, 
too, very nearly Theodoret). But although it might easily enough have 
happened that li>a //;) should be written by mistake in place of eva pn, the 
consequence of that mistake would in that case necessarily have been the 
alteration of fvawvadai,^ not into ipvmovaOe, but into (pvaiuade, and the snb- 
junctive, not the indicative, must therefore have had the preponderance of 
critical ev-idence in its favour (but it is found, in point of fact, only in 44, 
Chrys. ras.). The only explanation of ha which is in accordance with the 
laws of the language, and therefore the only admissible one, is that given 
by Fritzsche, ad Matth. I.e. ; 'iva cannot be the particle of design, because it 
is followed by the indicative ; it must, on the contrary, be the local particle, 
whei-e, and that in the sense of whereby, under which relation, so that it ex- 
presses the position of the case (Homer, Od. vi. 27 ; Plato, Gorg. p. 484 E ; 
Sophocles, Oed. Col. 627, 1239 ; Eur. Hec. ii. 102, 711, Andoc. vi. 9, al. ; 

> So, too, Wieseler on Gal. p. 378 ; Hof- sent the futures, is totally destitute of 

mann on Gal. p. 138. Bainab. 7: iVa . . . proof. 

Sel, is an earlier example tiian any adduced " 1 Thess. iv. 13 included (against Tischen- 
by Winer and Wieseler. But how easily Sel dorf).— In Col. iv. 17, n\-qpoU is subjunctive, 
might have been written here by mistake —As respects Lachmann's erroneous read- 
for fi]7, which is so similar in sound 1 (comp. ing, 2 Pet. i. 10, MMeseler, p. 379, is right.— 
Dressel, p. 17). Should fit!, however, be the In John xvii. 3, Gal. vi. 12, Tit. ii. 4, Rom. 
original reading, then 'iva may just as well xiii. 17, the indicative readings are to be re- 
be ubi, as in our passage. The readings jected (in opposition to Tischendorf). 
ditre and fi6T€'x«Te in Ignatius, rtrf^yjA. 4, are ' The K, too, has <f)v<rtou<rt>ot. But how 
dubious (Dressel, p. 124).— Buttmann's con- often does that codex interchange ai and e I 
jecture (neut. Or. p. 202 [E. T. 235]), that the Immediately before it has yiypanTt instead 
contracted presents, on account of the of -yeypan-Tai. 
final syllable having the circumflex, rcpre- 

CHAP. IV., 7. 95 

also Schaefer, ad Soph. 0. C. 621 ; and Baeumlein, Partih. p. 143 f.). Wliat 
Paul says then is this : in order that ye may learn the ne ultra quod scrijytum 
est, wherdn/ (i.e. in the observance of which rule) ye then {(^vacovade is the future 
realized as present) do not puff up yourselves, etc. Suitable though it would 
be, and in accordance with the apostle's style (Rgm. 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 firj, in the relative clause, has arisen from 
the design cherished by Paul, and floating before his mind. Comp. e.g. 
Sophocles, Trach. 797 : iiideg evTavd' ottov fie fif] ng d^erai [ipoTuv ; and see 
Baeumlein, ut supra, p. 290 ; Winer, p. 447 [E. T. 603]. 

Ver. 7. The words Iva fiij . . . hepov are now justified by two consider- 
ations — (1) No one maJceth 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. — (je] applies to each individual of the preceding v/iElg, not therefore 
simply to the sectarian teachers (Pott, following Chrysostom and several of 
the old expositors). — The literal sense of Staicpivei is to be retained. The 
Vulgate rightly renders : " Quis enim te discernit?^'' Comp. Acts xv. 9; 
Homer, Od. iv. 179 ; Plato, Sojth. p. 253 E, Charm, p. 171 C. This of 
course refers, iii point of fact, to supposed pre-eminence ; but Paul will not 
describe it as pre-eminence (contrary to the common rendering : Who maheth 
thee to differ for the better ?). — tI 6e exeig k.t.I.] M, like that which follows, 
heaps question on question. See Hartung, PartiJcell. I. p. 169. To what 
Paul is pointing in the general : " But tchat 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 source {llafieo) of the gifts (Semler, Heydenreich, Pott), which would 
be quite contrary to his humble piety, but : ov6ev olKoOev ixeic, al'ka irapa 
Tov deov ?,a(36v, Chrysostom. Comp. iii. 5, xii. 6, xv. 10. — el 6e Kal e^.] 

« [Still it is better with most critics to take foot says is not unusual in the later writers, 
the particle as a conjunction and consider — T. W. C] 
the phrase a solecism, which Bishop Light- 

96 Paul's first epistle to the couintiiians. 

again, even if thou host received, even if thou hast been endowed with gifts, 
which I will by no means deny. EZ kuI is not meant to represent the pos- 
session of them as problematical (Riickert), but is concessive. Comp. 2 
Cor. iv. 3. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 832 ; comp. Hartung, I. p. 140 f. ; 
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 519 f. — ri Kavxaaai k.t.A. ] ov6elg etv' a/.'/.o-fuaii napaKarad^- 
Kaig /leyaippovel, knaypvnvel 6e ravTaig, Iva (j>v2.d^7j rC> deduKon, Theodoret. 

Ver. 8. The discourse, already in ver. 7 roused to a lively i)itch, becomes 
now bitterly ironical, heaping stroke on stroke, even as the proud Corinthi- 
ans, with their partisan conduct, needed a vovOeaia (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 KSKop. eote, ettIovt., and kjiaaiTi., we have a vehement 
climax : Already sated are ye, already iecome rich are ye; without our help y^ 
have attained to dominion ! The sarcastic force of this address, which showe 
the repulsive shape in wliich the inflated character and demeanour of the 
Corinthians presented itself, is intensified by the emphatically prefixed ydr) 
. . . ?'/(')!] and x'^pk W'wv : ^^ already ye have, what was expected onlj' in the 
coming a'tuv, 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 fiaaiTieia !" 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, neKop. and ettIovt. (comp. 
Rev. iii. 17) have been taken as referring specially to Christian knowledge 
and other endowments (comp. i. 5), and kjiaaLA. 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, Light foot, 
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 iji part correctly enough describe the state of the case, which is here 
ironically presented, (j) The right view may be seen in Ilofmann also. In 
connection with the ifiaail. left without being more precisely defined, nothing 
came so naturally and at once to the Christian consciousness as the thought 
of the Messianic liaaiTiEia.' And how well this idea corresponds to the wish 

' So rightly also Schrader, Ruckert, de mann. Comp. Olshansen (who, however, 
Wette, Osiander, EwaM, Neander, Ilof- Rives a ratiunalizin;: view of the ruling). 

CHAP. IV., 9. 97 

which follows ! If, however, f/?a(7. applies to the Messianic ruling (see on 
iii. 32 ; Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 370), and consequently to the avti^aaiktvem of 
2 Tim. ii. 12, comp. Rom. viii. 17, then in that case KFKop. and ett'Kovt. 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 Kaf k^oxvv (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 tYiefact ofhamng entered upon the possession. 
SeeKuhner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 18. As to f]6r], i.e. now already, see on John 
iv. 35. — x'^pk wuv'\ without whose work, in fact, you would not be Chris- 
tians at all ! — Koi b(j>el6v ye k.t.X.] and (the thought suddenly striking his 
mind) would that ye had indeed attained to dominion ! In the later Greek 
writers 6(j)eXov is used as a particle, and joined with the indicative, 2 Cor. xi. 
1 ; Gal. V. 12. See Matthiae, p. 1162. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 185 [E. T. 
214 f.]. Ve strengthens the force of d(p£2,ov ; see Hartung, Partihell. I. p. 
372 f. ; Baeumlein, Partih. p. 55 f. The thought is : "Apart from this, 
that ye have witKout us become rulers, would that ye had at least {yl) become 
such! Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 281 f. — Iva k. tjueI^ vfilv avii.paa.'] 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 Efiaau. denotes something com- 
pleted from the sjjeaker's present point of view {hare 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. Grit. p. 43 B. — Observe, 
we may add, how the sarcastic climax ends at last with '/ca« 6^f /I6v ye k.t.I. in 
a way fitted to put the readers deeply to shame. Comp. Chrysostom. 

Ver. 9. Tap] giving the ground of the foregoing wish : For the position 
of us apostles is to my mind such, that to us the avfi(iaa. would even be a thing 
very desirable ! It is precisely the reverse of that ! — In 6oku we have a pal- 
pable point in the statement. Comp. on vii. 40. Without otl following, 
see in Kiihner, ad Xen. Anah. v. 7. 13. —vi^aq rohg air.] does not refer sim- 
ply to Paul (Calvin and others, including Schrader and Olshausen), which 
is forbidden by tovc an., but to the apjostles generally. The designation tovq 
hnoGT. is added by way of contrast to their position, in which they, instead 
of being at all privileged as apostles, were laxaroi. 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. — kaxaTovg] Predicate : as 
homines infimae sortis. Comp. Mark ix. 35 ; Alciphr. iii. 43 ; Dio Cassius, 
xlii. 5 ; Dem. 346, pen. It is joined with awoar. by Erasmus, Castalio, 
Beza, and others, including Semler and Pott: "Deus nos, qui postremi 
apostoli facti fuimus, tamquam EKidav. oculis alior. sistit" (Pott). But in 
that case we should require to have rovg an. rovg kax-, or at least rohg mj. 
an., because egx. 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. 
— anESsi^ev] not : fecit, reddidit, but : He has set us forth, presented tis as last, 


caused u» to appear as such before the eyes of the world (see the following 
etarpov K.r.X.). Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 4 ; Plat. Cmv. p. 179 C ; Dem. 687. 
11 ; Xen. Oec. v. 10 ; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 72 C. — wf kmeavar.'] 
as men condemned to death, so that we appear as such. How true in view of 
their constant exposure to deadly perils ! Comp. xv. 30 f. ; 2 Cor. xi. 23 
fE. TertuUian's rendering (de pudic. 14) : " veluti iestiarios,^^ although 
adopted by Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius S, 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. 
— oTi dittTfjov tyev. k.t.I.} serves to make good the statement from Jo/cw to 
enidav. ; hence it is a mistake to write 6, ti and connect it with diarp., as 
Hofmann conjectures should be done ("which spectacle we have in truth 
become to the world " ). The meaning is : seeing that we have become a spec- 
tacle, etc. Oearpov is here like dia or dkafia, as Aesch. Dial. Socr. iii. 20 ; 
Ach. Tat. I. p. 55. Comp. deaTpH^eadai, Heb. x. 83 ; eKdeaTpli^ecdai, Polyb. iii. 
91. 10, v. 15. 2. — Kal ayy. k. avdp.] specializes the rw Koofio) : 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 ayye^oi in 
the N. T. , standing absolutely, is never used of the good and bad angels taken 
together (this against Zeger, Bengel, Olshausen, al.), nor of the bad alone 
(this against Vatablus, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and others, including Flatt 
and Neander), but always only of the angels Kar' e^ox^/v, i.e. of the good 
angels (comp. on Rom. viii. 38). Where it refers to the bad angels, it 
always has some addition defining it so (Matt. xxv. 41 ; 2 Cor. xii. 7 ; 2 
Pet. ii. 4 ; Jude 6). Hahn's objection is a trifling one (Theol. d. N. T. I. 
p. 261) : that the angelic world generally is meant ; comp. also Hofmann. 
Yes, but the evil angels are no longer therein ; see on Eph. ii. 2. Some 
have thought that we must bring in the bad angels, because dearpnv involves 
the idea : a sid>ject 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 vario\is, and even opposite in its nature ; it is not here 
taken into consideration at all. Theodoret says well : irhcsLv t\q ■Qtupiav 
npdKEiTai TO. TjfieTEpa' ayyeT^oi fiev yap rr/v ijiitTepav avdpiav Savfia^ovai, tuv 6i 
avdpunuv ol jiev kcpf/^ovrat roig y/iertipoig na-drjfiaciv, ol 6e cvvakyovai /xev, hnafivvai 
6e o'vK laxvovaiv. The way in which the angels come in here, therefore, must 
not be regarded as simply proverbial and figurative (Baur). (k) 

Ver. 10. What very different sort of people ye are from us! — nupol 6ia X. J 
for, because we concern ourselves about nothing else save Christ the cruci- 
fied, are bent on knowing Ilim only, and on having nothing to do with the 
world's wisdom (comp. ii. 2), we are foolish, weak-minded men, for Christ's 
sake. Comp. i. 18, 25. — <pp6vi/j,oi h X.] wise men are ye in your connection 
with Christ, sagacious, enlightened Christians ! Observe, that Paul could 
not write again 6ia X. ; the Christian pseudo-wisdom had other motives. 
The nature of the irony, ^^ plena aculeis''^ (Calvin), with which he scourges 
the worldly state of things at Corinth, does not allow us to supply anything 
else here but fautv and eari. -^ ao-^evelc] 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 laxvpol, men ofpoicer, 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 aa^. 
to their sufferings : ' ' Quia multa mala patimur, nee resistimus quod est 
infirmitatis," and lex- : "Mala, si qua occurrunt, facile repellitis," Estius. 
— evSo^oi] celebrated, highly honoured personages ; arifioi : unhonoured, despised, 
Matt. xiii. 57 ; Hom. II. i. 516 ; Plato, Legg. vi. p. 774 B, Euthyd. p. 381 
C. — In the last clause the first person is the subject of the sarcastic an- 
tithesis, because Paul means now to speak at more length regarding the 

Vv. 11-13. Down to the present hour this despised condition of ours 
continues uninterruptedly, manifesting itself also (/ta/) in all manner of pri- 
vations, sufferings, and humiliations. — The assumption that we are not to 
understand this axpi t^c apn ilipaq, as also fwf apri 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. — ■yv/j.v^TEvo/n.ev] i.e. we lach necessary raiment. Comp. 
on yvuvoQ in Matt. xxv. 36 ; Jas. ii. 15 ; and Theile in loc. The verT), as 
used both in this sense and of being lightly armed, belongs to the later 
Greek. The form yv/nviTevo/iev (Lachmann and Tischendorf), although 
vouched for by a majority of the codd., is nothing but an ancient clerical 
error ; see Fritzsche, de conform. Lalicm. p. 21. — /co/la(^<C-] quite literally : 
roe are beaten with fists. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 67; 1 Pet. ii. 20 ; 3 Cor. xii. 7. 
A concrete representation of rude maltreatment in general. — aaraTaviiev^ we 
are unsettled, have no abiding dwelling-place, Rufinus, Ep. 20. Theo- 
phylact : ilavvoiie-da, (pe'vyofiEv. — KOKtu/itv k.t.Ti.] we toil hard, worhing with 
our otcn hands. Comp. as regards Paul, ix. 6 ff. ; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ff. ; 1 Thess. 
ii. 9 ff. ; 3 Thess. iii. 8 ; Acts xx. 34 ; and who is in a position to deny 
that others of the apostles too acted in the same way ? Paul includes this 
among the elements of their despised condition, which he adduces ; and 
he had a right to do so, for it was such in the eyes of the world, which 
could not and would not recognize and honour so noble a self-denial. — 
loidop. evloy. k.t.I.^ 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 (Svciprj^. , see the critical remarks, and comp. 1 Mace, 
vii. 41 ; Aesch. Ag. 1078 ; Soph. El. 1182 ; Eur. Heracl. 600), we do not 
in any wise defend ourselves or seek vengeance against them (as men do 
who have honour to vindicate and maintain) ; but, on the contrary, wish 
good to our revilers, remain quiet and patient towards our persecutors, and 

' The two expressions are synonymous ; tained by Tlttmann, Synon. p. 33 ff., ia 
henpe, too, this passage is a proof that the erroneous. See Fritzsche, aA Rom. I. p. 
distinction between axpi. and iu-e'xp'. niain- 308 ff. 


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 (Kuckert and others), is very dubious, consider- 
ing the difference of expression ; but the di.H2wsit'ion required by Jesus lived 
in him. — uq TrepiKa^dpiiaTa k.t.%.] 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 Kda/uog is the woi-ld of men 
(Rom. iii. 6, v. 12), corresponding to the Travrwv which follows. liepimdapiia 
(from neptKadaipu, to cleanse round about, on every side) means quisquiliae, 
what one removes by cleansing, both in a literal sense and figuratively, like 
our offscourings, scum (Arrian. Diss. Ejnct. iii. 22. 78). The simple Kd-&apfia 
is more common ; and it especially is often found in this figurative sense in 
Demosthenes and later writers (see Wetstein, Loesner, Obss. p. 276 f . ; comp. 
also Kiihner, II. p. 26). With this rendering Erasmus, H. Stephanus, 
Beza, Estius, and others, including, Riickert, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, 
Neander, Hofmann, are content, following Theodoret, Theophylact, and 
Oecumenius. Ka^^dpfiara, however, is likewise used to denote those who, 
in times of plague and other jjublic calamities, were offered up to expiate the 
wrath of the gods (see Schol. ad Arist. Plut. 454 ; Bos, Exercitatt. p. 125 ff. ; 
Munth. Obss. e Diod. p. 321 f.), and in Prov. xxi. 18, TvepiKadapua corre- 
sponds to the Hebrew "^^S, while neptKa^apjudg, too, in Plato, Legg. vii. p. 
815 C, means lustratio, and TrepiKa^apTjjpiov in Hesychius {sub voce ■dEunara), 
a sacrifice for purification ; and, on these grounds, Luther and many others 
(among them Pott, Olshausen, Osiander) assume that Paul refers here to 
that Greek sacrificial custom (see especially Photius, Quaest. Amphil. 155), 
and means h^ KtpiKd-&. expiatory sacrifices, — the idea oi '■'■ reprobate, utttrly 
irorthless 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 uq, that Paul ascribes a 
certain power even to his sufferings. Now the current and constant word 
lor the expnatory offering is Ka-Bapfia (not 'jzEpiKd-dapfia) ; ' but, even supposing 
that Paul had conceived TvepiKad^dpfiara as piacula, he would in that case 
have again used the plural TrepiiprnjuTa in the next clause, for irepiipTjfia is sy- 
nonymous with TzepiKd'&ap/xa, and each individual would be a piaculum. If, 
on the other hand, he conceived nepiKa-^dpixaTa as offscourings, castings away, 
he could very suitably interchange this phrase afterwards with the collect- 

> UapaKoXoviitv : being slandered, we en- Compare rather 2 Mace. xiii. 23 : tous 'lovSa- 

treat. See regarding wapaicaA., to entreat, I'ous TtaptKo-Kiaiv, he gave good words to the 

nieek on Heb. II. 1, p. 454 ff. Theopliylact Jm*. 

puts it happily : wpooTepoit Ad-yois koX ixaXaK- " Ilencc Valckenaer holds the reading of 

TiKoi? aixiiPone&a.. Comp. Acts xvi. 39. Gro- G, inin., uo-Trfpel icatJdp/aoTa, to be the true 

tins explains it : Dexm pro ipsis jyrecarnur. one, because Paul " ritus Graecos noverat 

But De^im and pro ipsis are unwarrantably et linguam." 
inserted on the ground of Matt. v. 10, 44. 

CHAP. IV., 14, 15. 101 

ive singular {rubbish). — navruv Trepiip.] The refuse of all. The emphasis 
lies on -rravruv, and wf is to be supplied again before it. neplfjjfia (what is 
removed by wiping) being substantially the same in meaning with nepi- 
Ka^apua (see Photius, s.v., Tob. v. 18, and Fritzsche in he), has been as 
variously interpreted by the commentators. — eug apn] belongs to iyEVTj-&., 
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 {fifielg), in order 
now at the close of the section to make his readers feel again, in the most 
impressive way, that 2^^>'sonal 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. Eeceive this censure (from ver. 7 onwards) not as meant to put 
you utterly to shume, hut 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 tip ! — hope soon to 
come to you myself ; dm I to come to punish, or in geritleness (vv. 18-21) ? 

Ver. 14. OvK kvTpEKuv'] 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 partici2)le, however, is not the same as an infinitive, but the 
meanini'- is : I shame you not by what I am now writing to you. See Heind. 
ad Phaed. p. 249 f. ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 495 D ; Matthiae, p. 
1289. Ruckert prefers keeping to the general sense of humUing, moving 
greatly ; but why should we, when we have in 2 Thess. iii. 14, Titus ii. 8, 
1 Cor. vi. 5, XV. 34, the perfectly distinctive Pauline notion of the word ? 
Comp. also Diog. L. ii. 29 ; Ael. V. H. iii. 17. And just because Paul 
feels the shaming element in his rebuke for the Corinthians, does he point 
out, so as to further the moral effect of his bitter words, what according to 
his idea his rebuke essentially is, not a putting to shame, but a fatherly ad- 
monition. Bengel says well : " Exquisita emi9^e/3a7rf/a . . . Saepe quendam 
quasi leporem apostolus salva gravitate apostolica adhibet. " — wt;T?erw] The 
Undly intention of the admonition is not conveyed in the word by itself (see 
on Ejjh. vi. 4, and comp. e.g. Plato, Pol. viii. p. 560 A ; vov-^etovvtuv re 
Kal KaKi^dvTo^v, Legg. ix. p. 879 D ; Dem. 798. 19, al), but in the context. 
Comp. Acts XX. 31. Plato, Euthyd. p. 284 E : vov&etu <f haipov. The 
construction is varied so as to give us not the participle again, but the in- 
dicative (as the opposite of hrpeTTuv ypdpu, taTcen together), whereby the an- 
tithesis is made independent and so more emphatic. See Hermann, ad 
Hymn. Rom. p. 125. Kiihner, II. p. 423. 

Ver. 15 justifies the cLc rluva uav aya^. vovOeriJ. — For suppose ye have ten 
thousand tutors in Christ. On fjvplovc,' compare Matt, xviii. 24 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 
19. —Respecting the paedagogi among the Greeks and Romans (comp. |n«, 

1 The distinction drawn by the old gram- without foundation. See Buttmann, ati» 
marians between ^.vpcoc (a numeral proper) fuhrl. Sprachl. I. p. 284 ; flllendt, Lex. Soph. 
and fivpt'oi (an indefinitely large number) is II. p. 144. 


2 Chron. xxvii. 32 ; 2 Kings x. 1, 5 ; Esth. ii. 7 ; Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. VI. 
p. 272), who, for the most part shives, had it in charge to educate and give 
constant attendance upon boys till they came of age, see Wetstein and 
Hermann, Prkatulterth. § 34. 15 ff. The name is here ^xenjiguratively to 
the later workers in the church, the noTH^ovrcg (iii. 6-8), the inoiKo6op.ovvTeg 
(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 wartpar except nacSay., and since, 
moreover, Apollos also was reckoned among the ■KaL^ayuymq, 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 Wettc, 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. — a2/l' ov tt. Tra-.] sc. exere. 
The alia, after a hypothetical protasis is the at of emiihatic contrast, on the 
other hand (Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 43, ed. 3 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 11 ; 
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 93), and that, too, without a restrictive yk, in the sense 
of at certe ; see Kiihner, adXen. Anab. vii. 7. 43. — h yap X/j/otcj k.t.1.] i.e. 
fo7' in tlie life-felloicship of Jesus Christ no other than I myself haslegotten you, 
through t?ie gospel. Just as tv XpicrC), in the first half of the verse, conveys 
the specific distinction of the ■KaidayuyovQ exeiv ; so here, and that with the 
emphatic addition of 'It/gov, it conveys that of the moral generation, which 
has taken jilace, not out of Christ, but in Him as the element of its being ; 
and Sta tov evayyel. (comp. 1 Pet. i. 23) is the means whereby this establish- 
ment of their existence in the Christian sphere of life has been brought 
about. In both these respects it differs from physical generation. The 
antithetic emphasis of the kyu forbids us to refer h X. 'I. to the person of 
the apostle: '■'■in my fellowship with Christ, i.e. as Jlis apostle''' (de Wette, 
comp. Grotius, Calovius, Flatt, al.). — eyewTiaa] Comp. ver. 17 ; Philem. 10 ; 
Gal. iv. 19. Sanhedr. f. 19. 2 : " Quicunque filium socii sui docet legem, 
ad eum scriptura refert, tanquam si eura genuisset." 

Ver. 16. Oi'i*] since I am your father. — fii/i. /n. ylv.] tecome imitators of me. 
Paul does not add any more 2)recise definition as to the matter {'■'■in cura tu- 
tandae in ecclesia ttim unitatis turn sajictitatis,''^ Grotius tliinks, 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 fiifi. yiv., comp. xi. 1 ; 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14 ; Eph. v. 1 ; Phil, 
iii. 17 ; and as regards the idea, Xen. Me7n. i. 6. 3 : ol (h(iaaKaloi rovg fiadriTag 
fiifirjrag eatiTuv anodciKvvovatv. 

Ver. 17. Am TovTo'] namely, in order to further among you. this state of 
things meant hy ptfi. ft. yiv. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Piscator, Ruckert, 
Maier, make it refer to ver. 15 : "on this ground, because I am your 
father." But that would convert ver. 16, quite arbitrarily, into a strange 

CHAP. IV., 18. 103 

parenthetical interpolation. — enefiipa v/u. Tifi.] See In trod. § 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). — reKvov /xov] comp. 1 Tim. i. 3, 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 riKva 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. — h Kvpt'w] specifies the character- 
istic relation in which Timothy is his beloved and faithful child (comp. 
Eph. vi. 31) ; 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 o 
■n-iarei, 1 Tim. i. 3. Comp. i. 3. — ai>a/j.v^aei] for the Corinthians seemed to 
have forgotten it.' — rag 66ovg uov rag kv X.] i.e. the paths, which I tread in 
Christ (as my sphere of activity), i.e. in the service of Christ. The aim in 
view (6ia TovTo) is to lead them to imitate the apostle by reminding them of 
the whole way and manner, in which he conducted himself in his calling alike 
personally and relatively ; for must not the recalling of that conduct vindi- 
cate his character, so much misunderstood and depreciated in Corinth, and 
place it in such a light as would show it to be worthy of imitation ? more 
especially in respect of his self-denial and humility, so far removed from the 
arrogance and self-seeking of the Corinthians. — Kaduq] is commonly taken as 
defining moi^e precisely what has been already stated in a general way, as wf 
does in Rom. xi. 3, Luke xxiv. 30, Thuc. i. 1, and frequently elsewhere. 
See Bornemann in Luc. p. 141. But KaQdq means sicut (Vulgate), like the 
classical Kada or Kaddwep : even as, in such fashion, as. '■' 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 plnces ; 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 
KaOug refers not to the contents of SMoku, nor to the mode of preaching 
(neither of which would stand in a relation of practical significance to niji. 
11. yiv.), but to the peculiarity of character as a whole, which distinguished 
Paul in his work as a teacher. — Tzavr. kv tt. IkhI. ] This emphatic state- 
ment, with its double description, gives additional weight to the example 
to be imitated. Comp. Acts xvii. 30, xxi. 38. 

Vv. 18. As though now 1 were not coming to you, some a/re puffed up. It is 

' That Paul does not use StSof et, to avoid auTon-Tai yap eyfy6vei<xav T^s iiroo-ToAKt^S 

giving offence, because Timothy was still operas. 

young (Chrysostom, Theophylact), is an ' -Bniroth Tenders it rightly : eodem modo, 

imagination pure and simple. Theodoret qvo, but Inserts quite unwarrantably au 

says aptly : Kri&r)v Si airiov o Aoyos (caTrjyopei- ipse iit&V the quo. 

104 Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. 

likely that these boasters, who belonged more probably to the ApoUonians 
than to the Christ-party (ver. 19 f.), believed and affirmed that the apostle 
had not the courage to appear again in Corinth (3 Cor. x.l) ; and it is to pre- 
vent their being strengthened in their delusion by the mission of Timothy 
that Paul now adds these remarks, vv. 18-20. Hence we are not to make 
the new section begin here (Tertullian and Theodoret referred k<pv(T. rivec 
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 6e as the fourth word in a sentence, see 
Winer, p. 519 [E. T. 699]. — ug, as, denotes : on the assumption that; see 
Matthiae, p. 1320. It introduces the ground of the hipvaiMd. from the point 
of view of those that were jjuflfed up. Comp. Kiihner, II. p. 374 ; Lobeck, 
ad Soph. Aj. 281. — epX^IJ-} ^^^t for klevaofievov (Tlatt), but indicative of the 
sub-sisting relation. ^'' Paul ia not coming'''' was their conception, and this 
made them bold and boastful ; (piT^apxiaq yap to £yK?i.?ffia ry iprifiia tov didaoKoKov 
e'lq uTvdvoiav Kexpvf^dai, Chrysostom. — Tiveg] as in xv. 12. 

Ver. 19. 'ETiEvaofiai 6e] the contrast emphatically put first : come, however, 
I will. — raxit^Q] Comp. Phil. ii. 24 ; 2 Tim. iv. 9. As to how long he 
thought of still remaining in Ephesus, see xvi. 8. — 6 Kvpiog] to be under- 
stood not of Christ, but of Ood. ' See the critical remarks on Rom. xv. 32. 
Comp. Rom. i. 10; Jas. iv. 15. — yvuaoimi'] what and how the boasters .spm^ 
{tov 16yov), 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 yvill take fcnowledge. — Tt)v Svvn^i.] namely, 
their power of tcorhing for the advancement of the (3am?.. t. Qeov, ver. 20. 
To explain it as referring to the power of miracles (Chrysostom, Theophylact ; 
not Grotius), or to tho 2)otcer of their virtues (Theodoret, Pelagius, Justin), is 
contrary to the context. Comp. what Paul says of himself in 1 Thcss. i. 5. 
This practically effective might, which has for its primary condition the 
true power of the Sjwrit (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 icords, which were altogether lacking in the strength 
to effect anything. How wholly othervdse it was with Paul himself I 
Comp. ii. 4 ; 2 Cor. vi. 7. 

Ver. 20. Justification of the yvcjao/^ai ol tov 'koyov k.t.'K. by an axiom. — h 
7i6y(^ and 'ev Suvdjuti describe wherein the fiaaiXeia has its causal basis ; it has 
the condition of its existence not in speech, but in power (see on ver. 19). 
Comp. on ii. 5. The ftaaiXeia tov Qeov, again, is not here, as it never is else- 
where (see on Matt. iii. 2, vi. 10), and in particular never in Paul's writings 
(neither in this passage nor in Rom. xiv. 7 ; Col. i. 13, iv. 11 ; .see on these 
verses), the church, or the kingdom of God in the ethical sense (Neander : 
" the fellowship of the divine life, which is brought about by fellowship 
with the Redeemer"), but the Mexsianie Miigdom, in which, at its expected 
(speedy) manifestation, those only can become members who are truly 

' [But as the Apostle so constantly uses suppose a reference to the will of Christ.— 
this word as a distinctive title of the Son T. W. C] 
(cf. vv. 4, 5), it seems more natural liere to 

• CHAP. IV., 31. 105 

believing and truly sanctified (Col. ill. 3 f. ; Phil. iv. 18-21 ; EpK v. 5 
al.). (l) But faith and holy living are not established by high-soarino 
speech (not by to, iv rolg 16yoiq (puvTaafiaTa, Plat. Sojih. p. 234 E), but by 
dvvafiic, which is able effectively to procure gain for the kingdom (Col. i. 
28 f. ; 1 Thess. i. 5 ; 1 Cor. ix. 19fl. ; 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 aXXa, ov St, or ya/>),' and since, too, in v. 1 ff. there 
is no further reference to the speedy arrival of the apostle. — ti.] in the sense 
of irdrspov. Comp. Plato, Phil. p. 52 D, and Stallbaum i/i loc. He fears the 
first, and wishes the second. "Una quidem charitas est, sed diversa in di- 
versis operatur, " Augustine. — h paj36(/\ with a rod ; but this is no Hebraism, 
for iv denotes in pure Greek the Iteing fromded with. Heb. ix. 25 ; 1 John 
V. 6. See Matthiae, p. 1340 ; Buttmann, neut. Or. p. 284 [E. T. 330]. 
Comp. Ecclus. xlvii. 4: iv W(p, armed with a stone. Lucian, B. M. xxiii. 
3 : Ka0LK6fi£vog iv ry pdpSo). The meaning of the figurative phrase, borrowed 
as it is from the relation oi father, is : iv KoMaei, iv ri/iupla, Chrysostom. — 
iWu] am I to come? See Winer, p. 268 [E. T. 356]. Chrysostom puts it 
happily: iv v/nlv to Trpdy/na Kelrai. — ■n-vev,uaTi re Ti-paor.] not: with ^^ a gentle 
spirit " (Luther, and most interpreters), so that vrvevfia would be the subjec- 
tive principle which should dispose the inner life to this quality ; but : with 
the Spirit of gentleness, so that irvEVjua is to be understood, with Chrysostom 
and Theophylact, of the Holy Sjnrit ; and irpaoT. denotes that specific effect 
of this nvevfia (Gal. v. 22) which from the context is brought peculiarly into 
view. So in all the passages of the N. T. where nvev/xa, 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 -n-vev/ia rijc alrideiag (John xv. 26, xvi. 13 ; 
1 John iv. 6), vlodeaiag (Rova.. viii. 15), ttjq nlaTeug (2 Cor. iv. 13), co^iag (Eph. 
1. 17), dwafiEug k.t.X. (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 : ecri yap nvevpa iroadTriTog kol rrvevpa ava-TjpoTr/Tog, 
Chrysostom. Comp. on Luke ix. 55. — Instead of the form Trpadrrfg, Lach- 
mann and Tischendorf have, in every passage in which it occurs in Paul's 
writings, the later wpavrr/g (except that in Gal. vi. 1 Lachmann retains 
trpadTiK ; 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 

* For to regard v. 1 as an answer wliich in view of tc iJeAere alone, is not even logi- 
Paul gives to himself xmio his own question, cally practicable. 
as Hofmann docs, is a forced devio©* Wliich, 


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, Trpavrrig is undoubtedly the true 

Notes by American Editor. 

(j) PauCs irony. Ver. 8. 
The natural force of this verse is not to be denied or evaded. As Calvin 
says, the Apostle, after seriously and without figures of speech repressing the 
vain confidence of the Corinthians, proceeds ironically to deride them. Nor 
is this the only place in Scripture where such language occurs. It is to be 
found in the Old Testament (1 Kings xviii. 27, Job xii. 1, etc.), and also in the 
Second Epistle to the Corinthians (xi. 19, 20). And experience seems to show 
that there are occasions when no other form of speech will answer, and yet of 
course this is not to be lightly assumed. The Bible gives no warrant for a 
continuous or even prevailing tone of irony or satire. As Burke said of another 
matter, an extreme medicine must not be turned into one's daily bread. Per- 
haps the rule laid down by Hodge (in he. ) 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 morUuri, about to 
die. In the writer's view, he and his fellow-apostles were led forth, not sim- 
ply before the gaze of the thousands or tens of thousands gathered under the 
open sky in a huge structure of wood or stone, but upon the world's broad 
stage, where all created beings, from men up to angels, gaze with wonder upon 
the dreadful death-struggle, while the selfish Corinthians sat by, unconcerned 
and unmoved at the awful spectacle. Stanley quotes Seneca's description 
(Provid. iii.) of the wise man struggling with fate : " Ecce spectaculum dignum 
ad quod respiciat intentus operi suo Deus." But the Apostle represents God 
as the One who appointed the spectacle, and all other beings as lookers-on in 
wonder and sympathy. 

(l) The " Kingdom of God. " Ver. 20. 
The author's restriction of this term to the Messianic Parousia is one of the 
few peculiarities (another is his insisting that Iva must always be construed as 
telic, in order that) which are a drawback to his general excellence. The term 
here may just as well denote the existing church as its final manifestation in 
the great day ; nay, it should rather have that meaning, to bring out the full 
force of the Apostle's argument. The best rebuke of the offensive inflation of 
his adversaries, who boasted instead of working, was to assure them that the 
present administration of God's cause in the earth was not in profession only, 
but attended with divine power. That such would be the case hereafter they 
might easily admit, but what was needed was to lender them sensible of its 
divine efficacy now and here. 

OHAP, y, 107 


Ver. 1. After eBveclv Elz. has dvo/xu^erai, •which is defended by Matthaei and 
Heiche, but in the face of quite decisive evidence. Supplied, laerhaps from 
Eph. V. 3. Equally decisive is the evidence against e^apOy, ver. 2 (Elz.). From 
ver. 13. — Ver. 2. Tvoir/aag] Kiick. and Tisch. read npd^aq, which Griesb. too, 
recommended, with A C J<, min. Oi-. ? Manes (in Ejiiph.), Epiph. Bas. The 
external evidence is pretty evenly balanced. But at all events the phrase Tvomv 
epjov was very familiar to the transcribers from the N. T. ; hence npd^ag should 
have the preference. — Ver. 3. cnvuv] Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have (if arr., against A 
B C D* X, min. and several vss. and Fathers. According to the analogy of the 
(if irnpuv which follows, uq (as embracing the whole ilnuv . . . nvevfj..) was first 
of all written on the margin, and then taken into the text. — Ver. 4. 'Irjaov alone 
(without Xpiarov) is the reading in both cases of A B D, Aeth. Clar. Lucif., and, 
as regards the second, of several other vss. and Fathers. So also Lachm. Kiick. 
and Tisch. Rightly ; the solemn character of the address gave occasion to the 
addition of Xpiarov. — Ver. 5. roil Kvplov 'iTjffov] So also N. Kiickert reads tov 
Kvp. fijiuv 'I. XpicTov, with evidence of considerable weight in favour of it, but 
probably taken from i. 8. Lachm. brackets ijntjv 'I. X. ; for B, Or. (thrice) 
Tert. (twice) Epiph. Aug. (once) Hilar. Pacian, have simply tou Kvplov. So 
Tisch. But since ' Itjgov occurs in all the other witnesses except those few, and 
since their discrepancies concern only rjnuv and Xpiarov, the Eec. rov Kvplov 
'Irjaov shoi^ld be retained ; for 'Irjaov might very easily be overlooked, espe- 
cially where four words, one after another, end in OY. — Ver. 6. fw/io2] The 
various readings SoAol (D*, Bas. Hesych., recommended by Griesb.) and (pdtlpn 
(Lat. in Cerular. ; corrumpit : Vulg. Clar. and Latin Fathers) are interpretations. 
— Ver. 7. After emaOdp. Elz. has ovv, against a great preponderance of evidence. 
A connective addition, as are also kuI before ov in ver. 10, and kuI before e^ap. 
in ver. 13. After ?)/iuv Elz. and Scholz read vrrep yiiuu, 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 j/ 
iipw.] Kai (xpT. is the reading of almost all the uncials and Clar. Boern. (so Lachm. 
Riick. and Tisch.) ; rj was mechanically taken up from the context. — Ver. 11. 
Instead of y before nopv. Elz. has ?}, contrary to Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. Vulg. Ir. 
Tert. Chrys. and many other Fathers, also some min. The r), which occurs in 
B** D N, came in mechanically from the succeeding context. — Ver. 12. Kal] is 
wanting in A B C F G K, 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. e^apeln] t^dpare, 
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 kuI before i^a/i. 
in Elz. 

108 Paul's fiiist epistle to the corinthians. 

Vv. 1-8. lieproof and apostolical judgme7it respecting an incestuovs person in 
the church. 

Ver. 1. The censure of the purty-divisions is conchuled. 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. — iiAwf] means simply in genei-al, in vniversum, as 
in vi. 7, XV. 29, Matt. v. 34, and in Greek writers ; it belongs to aKoverai, so 
that to the general expression 6/lwf aKoiierai. -rropv. there corresi)onds the par- 
ticular Kal ToiaiiTr/ wopi>., sc. aKoverai. The latter, however, is something worse 
than the former, hence the Kai is intensive (Ilartung, PartikeU. I. p. 134 ; 
Baeumlein, Partih. p. 147) : One hears generally (sjieaking broadly) of forni- 
cation among you., and even of such fornication one hears among j'ou, as is not 
found among the heathen themselves. To render it certainly (so as to indicate 
that it is no dnhius minor., sed res manifesta ; so Calvin, Beza, Piscator, 
Estius, Eisner, Calovius, "Wolf, al.) or universally (Schrader, Ewald) is 
against the meaning of the word, which may, indeed, signify jjrorsiis or 
omnino (Vulgate), but neither nhique nor certainly.^ Rilckert thinks that it 
assigns the ground by means of a generalization for the thought which is to be 
supplied after iv. 21 : I fear that I shall have to use severity ; and that Paul 
would more fittingly have written yovv. This is arbitrary, and even in point 
of logic doubly incorrect, because 6?iwf here introduces the report of a quite 
special offence, and therefore cannot assign a ground by generalization ; and 
because, if the restrictive yovv would have been better in this passage, Paul 
in using the generalizing 6/.wf must have expressed himself illogically. — kv 
v/xlvl not : as occurring among you (comp. Ewald), for it is a defining state- 
ment which belongs to aKovtrai ; but : one henn tall' 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 sjjoke to him in some such way as this : 
In the Coi'inthian church one learns the existence of fornication, etc. ; sUch 
things as these one is forced to hear of there ! — iv Tolg idv. ] ael and tuv 
kfhiKuv bveiSi^Ei ro'ig maTolg, Chrysostom. Regarding the prohibition among 
the Jews : Lev. xviii. 8 ; Deut. xxii. 30 ; Philo, de spec. leg. p. 301 ; 
Michaelis, ifo.s. P. II. p. 206 ; Saalschiitz, Mos. P. p. 7GG f. The instances 
of such incest among the Greeks and Romans (see Maji Dims. I. p. 184) were 
exceptions contrary to law (see Eisner, p. 90 ; Wetstein and Pott in loc), and 
abhorred (Wetstein, Z.c.)." — ywaUa tov Trar/x^f] i.e. 3H n^X, stepmother, 
Lev. xviii. 8, and the Rabbinical authorities in Lightfoot, p. 166. It was, 
no doubt, in view of the prohibition announced in Lev, xviii. 8 that Paul 
chose this form of expression (instead of the Greek designation firirpvia), 
(joTE ■Ko'XTiC) xn?ieTvuTepov 7r?.f/^at, Chrysostom. The dejiarture from the usual 
arrangement of the words, too, ywalKo. rtvn tov irnTpdg, puts an emphasis of 
ignominy upon ywnlKa. — £;fe«v] Many expositors, such as Calvin, Riickert, 
Neander, leave it undecided whether this refers to having her in marriage 

' [The R. V. grives the sense happily by the as a crime incredible, and, with the excei> 
term "actually."— T. W. C] tion of the case he is speaking of, unheard 

' [Cicero (pro Cluentio, 5, C) mentions it of.— T. W. C.l 

CHAP, v., 3. 109 

(Vorstius, Michaelis, Billroth on 2 Cor. vii. 13, Maier) or in eoncuhinage 
(Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Cornelius fi, Lapide, Pott, Olshausen, Osiander, 
Ewald, Hofmann). But in favour of the former there is, first of all, the fact 
that ex(^ is never used in the N. T. in such a sense as that of the well-known 
f;jfw Aa/rfa (Diog. Laert. ii. 75 ; Athen. xxii. p. 544 D), or " quis lieri Chrysi- 
demTiabxdt V' (Terent. Andr. i. 1. 58), but always of possession in marriage^ 
(Matt. xiv. 4, xxii. 38 ; Mark vi. 18 ; 1 Cor. vii. 3, 39. Comp. 1 Mace. xi. 
9 ; Horn. Od. iv. 569 ; Herod, iii. 31 ; Thuc. ii. 39. 1 ; Xen. Gyr. i. 5. 4 ; 
Gregor. Cor. 931, ed. Schaef. ; Maetzn. ad Lycurg. p. 131) ; but further, 
and more especially, the use of the past tenses Troiijaaq, ver. 3, and Karepyaaa- 
/levov, 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 -Kopveia (see on Matt. v. 33) ; 
because, in the first place, he needed this general notion in order to describe 
the state of licentiousness subsisting at Corinth generally, and now further 
intends to designate definitely by k. tomvtt] iropv. k.t.7^. the partictdar occur- 
rence which is included under this general category. Matt. v. 33, xix. 9, 
should have sufficed to keep Hofmann from asserting that nopveia 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. 13, 13). 
Another objection : How could the magistrates have tolerated such a 
marriage ? is obviated, partly by the consideration that in that large and 
morally corrujit city the magisterial eye was doubtless blind enough, espe- 
cially on the point of the KopivOia^eadai (see Introd. § 1) ; and partly by re- 
membering the possibility that the offender, whether previously a Jew or — 
which is more likely — a heathen, having turned Christian, might put for- 
ward in his own defence before the tolerant magistracy the Rabbinical axiom 
that the becoming a proselyte, as a new birth, did away with the restrictions 
of forbidden degrees (Maimonides, Jehhamoth, f. 983 ; Michaelis, Eml. 
§ 178, p. 1331 ; Liibkert in the 8tud. u. Krit. 1835, p. 698 f.). Whether 
or not he belonged to one of the four parties (as, for example, to that of 
Apollos), we need not attempt to decide. See remark at the end of this 
chapter. — As to the wife of the incestuous person, nothing can be affirmed 
with certainty, and with probability only this, that she was not a Christian, 
else Paul would have censured her conduct also. Yier former husband was 
still alive (so that she must have been divorced from or have deserted him), 
and was probably a Christian ; 3 Cor. vii. 13. 

Ver. 3. A question suddenly introduced with and, laying bare the incon- 
gruity of this state of things with the attitude previously noticed (see 
Hartung, PartiMl. I. p. 146 f.). —hpelq emphatic : Te, the people among 
whom so disgraceful a thing can occur ; for kolvov ttclvtuv to iyKlrjfia ytyove, 

' Even in John iv. 18, where, however, longs to the passage, as applied to an irreg- 
the word must be kept in the peculiar ular, not real or legal marriage. 
significant mode of expression which be- 

110 Paul's fiust epistle to the corinthians. 

Chrysostom. — ireipva. tare] What is meant is the spiritual self-conceit 
already censured (iv. G IT., 18) regarding the lofty degree of Christian wis- 
dom and perfection in general, -vvhieh 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). 
— €irev6)/a.] are fallen into distress (penitential mourning), for by reason of 
the fellowship between Christians (comp. xii. 2G) e6el ivEvdficai, Siotl e'lq rb 
Kuivov Ti]z tKK7j]aiaq t) diaftoly 7r/wf;^:wp//<Tei', Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom. — 
h'a (ifjOy K.T.X.] The design which, according to the apostle's view, theEirevO. 
ought to have had, and the attainment of which would have been its result, 
had it taken place : in order that TiemigTit ie removed, etc. It intensifies and 
completes the contrast with their conceited self-assurance, and leads appro- 
priately to the introduction of 7ns oicn judicial sentence, which comes in, ver. 
3, with iyu) fjev yap k.t.X. ; all the less, therefore, is Iva apdy k.t.'/.. to be re- 
garded as forming such a judicial utterance (Pott, Hofmann) standing forth 
Avith imperative independence : Away with him, etc. (see on 2 Cor. viii.7). 
That does not come in until ver. 13. — ipyov] f acinus, the nature of which is 
shown by the context. See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 671.' 

Ver. 3. 'Ej'w fiev yap] introduces the independent resolution already ar- 
rived at by liimself, and therewith the justification of the 'iva apBy ; for he, 
Paul, for his 2J(i>'t, has resolved already to inflict a yet heavier j)unishment upon 
him. Comp. also Winer, p. 422 [E. T. 568] ; the contents of vv. 3-5 corre- 
spond to the im ap^^f; in its connection with mt . . . knevdija. The /lev solita- 
rium must be taken as meaning : / at least. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 
841 f. ; Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 159 ; Ilartung, Partihell. II. p. 413. — rw 
iTVEvuari] Comp. ver. 4 : tov efiov -nVEvfiaroi, hence not to be understood, as 
Chrysostom and others hold,'' of the Holy Sijirit, against which rcj aufian 
also militates, comp. vii. 34 ; Rom. viii. 10 ; Col. ii. 5. — 7>5?/ KtKp. ug Trapui'] 
have made up my mind already, as though I ic ere ]jresent (personally superin- 
tending your community). ^ — tov ovtu tovto Ka-spy. ] belongs to ndpad. rCt Sar. , 
ver. 5, so that, after the intermediate statements which follow, the object 
of the sentence is taken uj) again by -hv tolovtov in ver. 5 (hunc talem in- 
quam), comp. 2 Cor. xii. 2. See Matthiae, p. 1045 ; Schaefer, Melet. p. 84. 
Bengel says happily : " Graviter suspensa manet et vihn/t oratio usque ad 
ver. 5." Not so happy is Hofmann's view, that tov . . . Kurepy. belongs to 
KEKpma as an accusative of the object, whereupon Traputhivmi k.t.1. is then set 
down to a mixing up of two constructions, this being coupled with an inap- 
propriate comparison of Mark xiv. 64. — oiVwJ after such fashion, in such a 
tcay. The way and manner thereby referred to as aggravating the offence 
were known to the readers, but are unknown to us. Respecting oirw in a 

' [This verse is read as a question in tlie iiig it as such, notwithstanding that cod. X, 

Syriac version and the Greeli Fathers, and too, has added its weight to the side of the 

by Canon Evans in Speaker's Com. The overvvlielming contrary testimony,— this <us 

sense is the same.— T. W. C] might be very simply distinguished from 

* So, too, llolsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Pe(r. that whiuli stands before iraputv in this way, 
p. 385. that the first u»s would mean ae, and th« 

* Were the i><s before intiav the genuine second a« if. 
reading,— and Hofmann persists in retain- 

CHAP, v., 4. Ill 

bad sense, see on John xviii. 22, and Bremi, od Dem. Phil. I. p. 120. Pott 
and Olshausen explain it wrongly : "Zicei Ghristianus sii, " 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. — aarepy.'] has per- 
petrated, more emphatic than noLyaa^, ver. 2. See on Rom. i. 27. 

Ver. 4. Four different ways of dividing the verse are possible : either h 
Til) bv6fi. belongs to cvva;;(6. and avv rf; Svv. to napaSovvai (Beza, Justiniani, 
Oalovius, Heydenreich, Billroth, Olshausen, Ewald, Hofmann), or both be- 
long to avvaxO. (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Calvin, Grotius, 
Riickert), w both belong to napaSovvai (Mosheim, Pott, Flatt, Schrader, 
comp. also Osiander) ; or h r. bvofi. belongs to -rrapadovvai, and uvv t. 6vvd/i. 
to the participial clause. Against the second and third of these views, there 
is the fact that the symmetry of the address would be needlessly destroyed 
by bringing in the authority of Christ twice over in the one division, and 
not at all in the other ; against the first, again, there is this, that h ru 6v6/x. 
K.T.I. , as a solemn formula of apostolic enactment (2 Thess. iii. 6 ; Acts iii. 6, 
xvi. 18), links itself more suitably to the sense with irapaSovvai k.t.1. than 
with awaxQ. k.t.Ti. (to the latter of which Matt, xviii. 20, elg to 5v., 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, Hofmaryi objects that h tij bv6juaTi k.t.'X. 
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 fka 
seal of his high and ploiary author it i/. — cwaxOevTuv . . . 'Irjaov] after ye are 
assembled, and my sjnrit (note the emphatic r. e/iov), tcith the power of Jesus 
("qui nostram sententiam sua potentia reddet efficacem," Erasmus, /*«r- 
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 tJiat ye hold an assembly of the church, in ichich ye shall 
consider me as present furnished with the poicer of Christ, and in this assemlly 
shall declare : ' ' Paul, in the name of Christ, with whose power he is here spir- 
itually in the midst of us, hereby delivers over the incestuous man unto Satan."" 
^piKTjg jieGTov cvveKporr/ae 6iKa(jT>/piov, Theodoret. — cvv] denotes in efficient con- 
nection theretoith. 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- 

> [So Stanley, Beet, Principal Brown, et — T. W. C] 

al—T. W. C] ' Chrysostom and Theophylact, however, 

» [It is a serious objection to this view leave the choice open between the two 

that it would naturally require the preposi- renderings : ^ on 6 Xpicrrbs &vvarai^ toioOtt,^ 

tion before Suva^ci to be not <tvv but «V. vit-lv x^P'-V ^ovvai, wo-re Svva<T^<>.i. Tcp ^la^riAo. 


tie its official possessor and organ, and could not therefore imagine himself 
meeting with other persons and with it in the third place, but • as being 
present in immanent union with it as Christ's rti)ostle 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 llofmann, by avv r. 6vv. k.t.7.. 
Paul means only to express this, that he would rely iiyon tlie aid of the 
power of Christ. Comp. the classic cvv Beo'ig, deoritm ope (Rrisig, Enarr. p. 
Ixiv. ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 8). But the thought thus yielded, 
after the h r^ bvdfiari, k.t.I. which has gone before it, wcwjld be far too weak. 
Ver. 5. Tov toiovtov] the so-constituted, comprises in one word the whole 
abhorrent character' of the man. Note the similar expression in 3 Cor. ii. 
7. — napachvvai rip I,aTava] is — although the phrase may not occur in Jewish 
formulae of excommunication (Lightfoot, Horae, p. 1G7 ff., but see Pfaff, 
Orig. jur. cedes, p. 72 fl.) — the characteristic designation of the higher Chris- 
tian grade of excommunication , ioith which there was essentially/ joined the or- 
daining in the jJOtcer of the apostolic office (not simply the p)resuj)p>osition, as 
Billroth's rationalizing interpretation has it), tliat Satan should plague the 
pet-son delivered over to him with corporeal inflictions. Therein consisted the 
difference between tliis jieculiar sj^ecies of the D'^.n which had passed over 
from the synagogue to the church, and the siraj^le alpciv ek /jeaov, ver. 2, 
comp. ver. 13. The latter could be performed by the church itself, w^hereas 
the napaSovpai tC> 2ar. appears in tliis passage, as in 1 Tim. i. 20, to be 
reserved for the plenary authority of an apostle. It pertained to the apos- 
tolic e^ovaia, 2 Cor. xiii. 10. Comp. the analogous penal jjower in the cases 
of Ananias and Elymas, Acts v. 1 ff., xiii. 9 ff. The simjjle 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 rrapadavvai is active; he does not say 
Tzapa(h6^vai, but he himself will do it. There is no reason to doubt the 
fact of tlus power being the prerogative of the apostleship, as the higher 
authority vested with power to punish* (Lipsius Rechtfertigungsl. p. 181, 
llofmann) ; comp. also Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 373. As regards the 
special assumption, again, that the thought would be complete in itself 
without Tij ^.aram (llofmann), 1 Tim. i. 20 should have been enough, even 
taken singly, to preclude it ; for, judging from that passage, one might 
rather say that tic dltOpov t. anpnur was obvious of itself. The delivery over 

napaSihoaai, r) oti k a\ avTO^ /net?' Vfiuiv <Tvv Tw Trvivixari Tovls-vpiov. Comp. ActS XV. 
Kar' avToC (^f'pei ttji' i^tJi/joi'. AeCOrd- 28. 

ing to Tlieodoret, is viewed as the » Elleridt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 84.3. 

premding authority. Had tiie apostle, how ' Even if 1 Tim. is not an apostolic 

over, represented Christ to himself as form- Epistle, 1 Tim. i. 20 is at all events written 

ing the third in their meetinjf, he would in the M)>/ that the delivery to Satan was 

hardly have used so abstract an expre.ssion effected not by the church, but by tlu 

('uia.uei), but would have written at least apostle. 

CHAP, v., 5. 113 

to Satan can only be viewed as an ex2)ress and declaratory act of relegation 
from Christian fellowship into the power of the apxuv tov Koafiov ; not as if 
Satan were but he, ' ' through whom the evil-doer should come to exjjerience 
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, al.). But this is against the connection, according to which 
(see vv. 2, 13) the wapaS. rtj Sarava cannot belong to a different category 
from the alpeiv kn /tieaov. At the same time it is not quite identical with it, ' 
not simjily a description of the excommunication (Calvin, Beza, and others, in- 
cluding Semler, Stolz, Schrader, Maier), seeing that the bodily result is 
indicated by e'lQ dAsOp. t. aapK. as essential and as explaining itself to the 
reader without further interpretation. — elf bledp. t. aapK.] is that which is 
to be effected by Satan on the man delivered over to him : for hehoof of 
destruction of the flesh,, i.e. in order that (elKet irovr/pc^ f/ voau htpa, 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 auua that is to die, but his 
cap^ (Rom. viii. 13 ; Col. iii. 5). The reason why the word aap^ is here 
purposely selected, and not the ethically indifferent auna, was correctly 
discerned by so early an expositor as Chrysostom, although many more 
recent interpreters, such as Riickcrt, have failed to perceive it. Hofmann 
also takes, in substance, the right view, Schriftheweis, I. p. 462. To make, 
however, as he does (p. 105), the oXedp. r. aapK. the same as Sia^Oniperai 6 efu 
rjfiuv avdpcjTToc, 2 Cor. iv. 15, accords neither with the real meaning nor with 
the ethical relations of the case. As regards the two telic statements : elc 
b'Xedp. T. a. and Iva to nvEv/xa k.t.X. (which last expresses the final design of 
the whole measure of the irapaMwat k.t.I.), observe that it is with an anti- 
Christian purpose that Satan smites the man delivered over to him with 
bodily misery, but that against his own will this purpose of his is made to 

1 So also Grotius, who, moreover,— and being nnderstood merely of the pains of 

in this Billroth follows him— rationalizes repentance breaking the sinful impulses. 

TrapadoOrat into precart Deum, ut eum tradat. The repentance, too, was, in fact, just as 

"So, too, Theophylact on 1 Tim. I.e. likely to have remained lacliing as to have 

Comp'. Balsamon, ad Can. vii. Basil, p. 938, set in, had it not been for these bodily pains 

where it is said that we term subjects of intervening after the delivery over to Satan 

Satan : ol x"P'io'^^''<» <*''° "^^^ Koiviavia's tS>v as a means of humiliation and discipline 

irio-Tii/, similarly Theodore of Mopsuestia in (comp.iva naiSev^ixii., 1 Tim. i. 20,and Hutlier 

Cram. Cat. p. 93, who explains it of the ex- on that verse). Thereby the whole moi'd- 

communication (the result of which is the Jication of the old man was to be brought 

dominion of Satan ; and Paul gives the about, inasmuch as the <rapf constitutes 

name here from that result, in order the the moral essence of the old man in virtue 

more to overawe), and then hhidiiov o-apxcis : of the power of sin which dwells m it 

Trtv Kara, tov irapovTa ^iov Sia T^9 ^cera^eAeiaj (Rom. vii. 18), and which guides a,nd gOV- 

(TvvTpi^^v. Comp. Ambrosiaster, Augustine, ems him. The <7apf is to perish, in order 

cmitr. Farm. iii. 2 ; Pelagius, Anselm. that the f^U-n of SAe^po? aliivio? may not be 

s The expression : oAedp. t. crapK., is too Inflicted at the day of judgment (3 These, i. 

Btrong and characteristic to allow of its 9 ; comp. 1 Tim. vi. 9). 


sei've Ood's aim of salvation. — 'iva to nvevfin k.t.?..] in order that 7i/» spirit, 
the underlying element of tholiigher moral life, of the true C^//, may he saved 
(with the Messianic salvation) un the day of the (approaching) Parousia. That 
the (Tu/za, again, — in which the aap^ has lost its life, so that it is no longer 
the auixa Tf/g aapKog, 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 interiro, partim 
servari velit. Nam nee corpus iuterire potest sine divulsione ab anima, nee 
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 bleBpog ryq cjapKdg in the 
case of the man led by this punishment to conviction of sin and true peni- 
tence. The TTapafhvvai tC) 1,aT. was therefore a 2^('edago(/ic 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 napaSovmi itself, as Chrys- 
ostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact maintain, on the ground of Paul's not 
having written knSovvai), — a measure, in connection with which the irvevfia 
remained out of Satan's power and accessible to the gracious iufiucuces of 
Christ, inasmuch as it retained the vital principle of faith, wliich was to 
develop its supremacy just in proportion as the adp^ 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 destixic- 
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 
Trapa^ovvai ru ^ar., 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 alpsiv in fitaov (comp. ver. 13), which also w^as 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 Pa\il 
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 — ho^D odious ap- 
pears that of xchich ye malce boast ! Rather ought ye to consider that a little 
leaven, etc., and (ver. 7) sireep out the old leaven ! YiarxviJa is not the same 
as Kai<xr/oir, but : materies gloriandi (see on Rom. iv. 2) ; and what is meant 

' Baur, however, is of opinion (Paiili/g, I. Cor. xii. 12 ; 1 Cor. xii. 10, 29 f. 

p. 3.34) that as it never did come in tlie in- ' Uenee, too, tlie idea that the readers 

stance before us to the worliiiig of an ac- were to let liiui linow of tlie day fixed for 

tual apostolic miracle, so neltlier did sucli a tlie meeting in fiuestion (Ilofmann), is not 

thing ever talie 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, Theophylaot, Grotius) as a 
man of liigh 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 ! 
alcrxpov kKeoq, Eur. Hel. 135. — o'vk. oUare k.t.X.'] Basis of the admonition 
which follows in ver. 7. The meaning of the jtroverMal 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 eorrufts the wlwle church. But ver. 8 proves that Paul was 
thinking not of persons, but of abstract qualities in connection with C*,"?/ 
and al^vfia. 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 ofEence, and their dyior/ig is gone ! 

Ver. 7. "EKKaddpaTE ttjv 'wal. CVl From what has been already said, the 
meaning apart from tlie figure cannot, it is plain, be : Exclude from your com- 
munion the incestuous person ' and other notorious offenders (Rosenmuller), but : 
Empty your church of the sinful haMts, lohich still remain among you from 
your pre-Christian condition (as a residuum of the unregenerate 7raAa/6f avffpw- 
TToc, 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 rtjv TraXaidv, comp. Ignatius, Ifagnes. 10 : 
T?)v naKTjv l^v/j,?}v rfjv TTalmudEiaav koI kvo^laaaav. — The expression kuKaddp. (comp. 
Plato, Euth. p. 3 A ; LXX. Deut. xxvi. 13) is selected in view of the custom, 
based on Ex. xii. 15 fif., 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, JiXd. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 1111 
f.), which was meant to be a sign of the moral purification of the house 
(Ewald, Alterth. p. 475 f.). — veov (pvpafia] afresh hieaded mass, i.e. figure 
apart : a morally new church, freshly restored after the separation from it of 
all immoral fermenting elements, its members being vhi. avBpunot through 
Christ (Col. iii. 9, 10). As respects the difference between veoq and Kaivoq, 
see on Col. iii. 10. — /caflwf etrre af?;/zoi] w accordance with your unleavened 
character, i.e. in keeping with the ethical nature of the position of a Chris- 
tian, which, as such, is separated from sin. For this a^v/xov elvai 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 ktlci^ of God (2 Cor. v. 17 ; Eph. iv. 24 ; Col. iii. 
10) in the Kacvdrrig TrvevfidTog (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 

> Chrysostom, Theophylact, Cornelius a Osiander, Ewald, Maier, Neander, Hof- 
Lapide, Zeger, Estius, Michaelis. mann. 

^ Comp. Theodoret, Calvin, de Wette, 

116 Paul's first epistle to the corinthians. 

being leavencil) is abnormal. Hence Christians are — according to this 
higher mode of regarding the position of a C'liristian — a^vfjtoi. There is as 
little warrant for rendering kcTTt here by esse debetis (Flatt, Pott, Billroth, 
following Chrysostom, Theophylact, al.) as in Luke ix. 55. Rosenmiiller 
holds that dCv/x. has here Ms proper meaning : as ye now " vivitis festos dies 
azymorum.'''' But a:,vnoq, in fact, does not mean qui ahstinet fermento (as 
Grotius would make out, likening it to aairor, aoivoc), but non fermentatus 
(comp. n'i:frp). Plato, Tim. p. 74 D ; Athen. iii. p. 109 B ; Gen. xix. 3 ; 
Ezek. xxix. 2, ah 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. — nal yaf) to ■Kuaxo. k.t.?.. ] The motive 
for sKKaOapaTE k.t.a. The emphasis is on to itaaxa,^ andxat yap does not mean 
simply /or, etenim, but for also (Hartung, Partikell. \. p. 137 f . ; Stallbaum, 
ad Plat. Gorg. p. 4G7 B), the '■'■also''' introducing the objective relation of 
things corresjKjnding to the exhortation which had just been given. The 
paschal laml> slain, and the leaven not purged out — what a contradiction 
that is ! Paul designates Christ as the Christians' 2^<^^<^^<^^ lanib which had 
been slai/i (Deut. xvi. G ; Mark xiv. 13 ; 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 heginning of redemption 
which made it 2>ossihle''' (Hofmann, Schriftheiceis, H. 1, p. 323), but, accord- 
ing to the whole N. T., as the atonement for believers, and that, too, on the 
very same day (the day before the feast of the Passover, see on John xviii. 28) 
on which, from the earliest times, the blood of the paschal lambs had been 
shed as an expiation for each family (see Ewald, Alterth. p. 466 f. ; Keil, 
§lxxxi. 11). Comp. also John xix. 36. In connection with this verse it has 
been justly remarked (comp. on John xviii. 28, and Liicke in the Gott. gel. 
Am. 1834, p. 2020), that Paul could not with propriety have given this title to 
Christ, if he had followed the Synoj^tical account of the day of Jesus' death. 
Comp. Tntrod. to John, § 2. In point of fact, had he followed the tradition 
of the Synoptists, that death-day, as being the loth 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 ;''"' * 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 

' Theodoret renders wrongly, for it is tion also agrees with this. See Gemara 

against the order of the words (as if it were Bab. in Sanhedr. vi. 2: " Traditio est, w«- 

Acai yop rjiiCiv T. jr.): e'xo^xfi' Ka'i r/jiei? ativov pera Poschatis suspensum fuisse Jesum." 

Thv vnip r]fi.iov 'itpovpyiav (caraSef a/uei'oi' ; comp. It IS well known that the 14th Nisan (the 

I-uther and Neander. Erasmus translates Preparation-day) was called nD3 2'^i,\ vea- 

correctly : '• Nmn e( pasc/i a noatram.''' pera Paschatis. The fabulous tircumstances 

' This passage, too, therefore goes to linked with the death of Jesus itself in the 

establish the position that John's narrative, passage of the Talmud referred to, do not 

and not the Synoptic, is the historically cor- affect the simple statement as to the time 

rect one as regards the day of the death of when it took place. 
Jesus. Observe how the Rabbinical tradi- 


CHAP, v., 8. 117 

be His leing slain as a llaarTjpiov, Rom. iii. 25 — were the neic 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. 374 f. (comp. also his Beitr. z. Wiirdigung d. Ev. p. 266), urges as 
an argument on the other side, that in x. 16, to non/piov rf/g Ev'Aojiag, as a tech- 
nical phrase for the cuji in the Lord's Supjier, 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 
Lamh of believers. The Supper, therefore, which brought them into fellow- 
ship with the body and blood of Christ, could not but present itself to the 
Christian consciousness as the paschal meal, corresponding to the eating of 
the paschal lamb, and so, too, the cup in the Supper as the antitype of the 
paschal cup. Consequently chap. x. 16, taken in connection with the jjas- 
sage before us, speaks /(??• and not against the account in John. It is, how- 
ever, fi'om 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 jiaschal lamb having been slain, there follows the Tceeping of 
the feast, and that not with leaven, but with what is unleavened. Since, 
then, Christ has been slain as the Christian's paschal lamb, they too must 
keep their feast in an ethical sense, that is to say, by leading a holy life, 
without sinful admixture, with pure and true Christian virtue. Hence the 
admonition : let us therefore Iceep feast, etc. The eopr/y implied in foprat^. is, it 
is true, th.G 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. jd. 447 D. It may be 
added, that Theodore of Mopsuestia says aptly : wf yap irapuv, <>vtu npog 
Tovg Tvapovrag Tiolttov dia?JyeTai. — h C.vfiij iral.'] Precisely as in ver. 7 ; not as a 
designation of the incestuous person (IVIichaelis, Rosenmiiller, Heydenreich), 
which would, besides, have required the article. 'Ev is used in the sense 
oi provided 10 ith. Comp. on iv. 21. — ptj6e h (.vp.-)) Kan. k. ttw.] singles out 
something special from the general pf/ h C- '^^ol. : and inj)articular not with 
the leaven of maliciousness and wichedness (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 wi^on nequitia and mulitia. 
— aCt'/'Oif] fromafv/ia, what is xmleavened, i.e. r\i:;n (Ex. xii. 15, 18). There is 
nothing (such as aprocq) that needs to be supplied. — 'E'llmpLv. and alijf). differ 
from each other only in degree ; the former is movaX purity (Ka&ap6r//c An- 
voiag Kal a(h2.6TT/g ovSev exovaai avvEamaapsvov Kal vkovXov, Theophylact on « 
Cor. i. 12) ; the latter, moral truth, the essence of actual moral goodness. 
See on John iii. 21 ; Eph. v. 9 ; Phil. iv. 8. 

Remake. — This whole allegory, w. 6-8, would have been unnatural on Paul's 
part, had he been writing this Epistle, which was written before Pentecost 


(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, ichirh ifit<tl,rn np Jnj him in vn othfr place, 
would offer itself to him unsought, so that the jieculiar stamji of his discourse 
woiild be accounted for as bearing the impress of the festal thoughts awakened 
within him by the approach of the Passover. The j)assage before \is, there- 
fore, comiiared with xvi. 8, is rightly regarded by Bengel and most of the suc- 
ceeding commentators (comp. especially Wieseler, (Ihroiiolugie d. Apost. Zeifalt. p. 
327 S.) 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 lior. Paul. 
p. 413 ff. ; Eichhorn, Einl. III. p. 138 ; de Wette, Curtius, de temp, quo prior P. 
ad Tim., etc. p. 43 ; Schrader, II. p. 132 ; Hofmann) have only this in their 
favour, that a demonstrative proof is of coiarse impossible. But it is a misun- 
derstanding of the passage to find in it an admonition to celebrate joroperly the 
approac-hinrf 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 i^assage as to the question ichether or how Christia7is kept the 
feast of Easter in those days (against Weitzel, Passahf. p. 183 ff. ; Lechler, p. 
350). Theophylact saj's well : SeiKwaiv on ndg o xpovo^ iopryg earc Kuipb^ roig 
XptnTiavoig 6iu TfjV vTrepfioTi^v tuv doOevruv avroig dya^uv Sia rnvrn yap 6 vlbg rov 
Ofov avffpuTTog yeyovE Kal irvOrj, Iva ce lopTal^eiv noiijari. Comp. Hilgenfeld, Pas- 
chastreit, p. 173 f. 

Vv. 9-13. Citation and fuller explanation of a passage of the former letter 
which had heen misinterpreted in Corinth Ity 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. — h rf; emaTo?.ri'] i.e. in the 
letter which I tcrote to yon, and so : in my letter, by which Paul means the 
letter to the Corinthians, composed before the present one and in the posses- 
sion of his readers, but not in ours. So rightly Ambrosiaster, and after him 
Calvin, Beza, Estius, Clarius, Zeger, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel, Wetstein, 
Mosheim, Scmler, and many others. Including most modern interpreters. 
Chrysostom, again, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cornelius a: Lapide, 
Fabricius, Wolf, Glass, Baumgarten, Bolten, Stosch {de epp. ap. non dejierd. 
1753, J). 75 flf.), and Miiller {de trib. PavU itinerih. Corinth, suscept. de epis- 
tolisqne ad eosd. non deperdit., Basil. 1881), understand it of the jrresent Epis- 
tle, either supposing that a reference is intended to vv. 2 and 6, or even 
making h/p. a])ply to ver. 11. This method of interpretation arises for the 
most part from dogmatic i^rejiulices, ' and has against it the following con- 

' Grotius aptly remarks : " Satig Deo w-hich itself owes its origin to a dogmatic 

debemus, quod tot (epistolae) servatae retrospective inference — between canon 

sunt, ad quas si et singulorum vita ct regi- particidarlt and nnirer.ia'if, teinporalis and 

men ecclesiae dirigatur, beiicerit." Comp. periwluux. Divine Providence, heliolds, did 

Calvin. Calovius, in order to defetid the not design tlie lost Rpi.'<tle ff7 usina canoni- 

integrity of the canon against the Roman aim j)erpet>iiim of the wliole church, and 

Catholics, insists upon the distinction— therefore allowed it to perish. 

CHAP, v., 10. 119 

siderations : fint^ tlie parallel passage in 2 Cor. vii. 8 ; secondly, that h rfi 
fTT. would in that case be singularly superfluous ; tliirdly, the fact that ///) 
cvvavajj.. nSpv. occurs neither in ver. 2 nor ver. 6 ; and JinaUi/, 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. Zeitulter, I. p. 305, 
pronounces in a peculiarly positive way that the hypothesis of a lost Epistle 
is a '■^fiction ;''"' Paul means the present letter, but distinguishes it as a letter 
from the ecstatic act which he had just performed through the medium of 
this letter, namely, the transference of himself in spirit into the midst of the 
church ; what he wishes to declare is the permanent epistolary significance of 
that act. But this itself is quite an empty ^'■fiction,'''' since there is not a 
trace of an ecstasy here, since Paul would, on this theory, have taken the 
very vaguest way possible of expressing his supposed meaning, and since the 
parallel statement in 2 Cor. vii. 8 is decisively against any such arbitrary 
fancies, (n) It maybe added that, when Rilckert 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 Jiaving also preceded our first 
Epistle. — avvavanLyv .^ to mix oneself vj^ with, have intercourse with, 2 Thess. 
iii. 14 ; Athen. vi. p. 256 A ; Lucian. Cont. xv. Comp. the affirmative 
arklleadai and, 2 Thess. iii. 6. — 7r(5pvof, in the N. T. and in Ecclus. xxiii. 
16, sigm&.e& 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, //?) awavay.. Tvopv., which had been misinterpreted among the 
Corinthians (as Paul gathered prsbably 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. — oh ttcivtuq toIq nopv. r. k. t. ] is dependent on yy avvava- 
yiyv. ; it stands in a relation of opjwsition to the preceding ndpvoLq, and ex- 
plains what that ndpvoig did not mean. ' ' I wrote to you to refrain from 
inter couTse with fo7'nicatoi's, (i.e.) not ahsohiteJy^ with the fornicators of this 
woi'ld." An entire cessation of intercourse with -Kopvoig 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 : oh navrug t^v avrfjv k. ti/v 
hepav fvatv ercdeyeda, aJ-TJ ekuvo to eISoq ixovov k.t.I. The ov instead of yy is 
correct enough (in opposition to Rvickert), because oh iravTug t. ndpv. r. k. t. 
conveys something which is objectively denied, a definition of the notion of 
'n-dpvoig, which does not occur. Comp. Buttmann, neut. Or. p. 334 [E. T. 
389]. The conception is a different one, e.g., in Plato, Pol. iv. p. 419 A : 
kav rig as <pr) yfj ivavv tl evdaifiovag noieiv rovTovg. Commentators often supply 

' In the classics, mostly of unnatural vice mon with Greek writers (Lobeck, Parol, p. 

(with males). Becker, Charides, I. p. 346 ff. ; 57), would have been still stronger if used 

Hermann, Privaialterih. § xxix. 23. in place of Travrus, altogether, abcolvtely. 

2 The phrase irarTij 7nicTco5, which is com- See generally on Ix. 22. 

120 Paul's first epistlk to the corinthiasts. 

iypai)a after ov ; so, among the rest, Olshausen ; not (wrote I, meant I) : with 
the fornicators of this wmid in general. But what an arliitrary separation 
this is of the mutually connected words oh navTuq ! And the interpretation 
in question has this, too, against it, that r. Koafiov t. does not refer to the 
world in general, but to those who were non-Christians (see below), so that 
the "in general''' would be JogimUy incorrect. Riickcrt takes ov navrug as 
an intensified negative like that in Rom. iii. 9 (comp. Luther), and supplies 
eypai)a after it : '' By no means did I write ; i.e., the import of my prohi- 
bition was by no means, to Imve no intercourse with the fornicators of this 
icoi'ld.'''' 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 
(to tz avT u q w f knl (l)fxo}.oyTi/x£vov tWeike irpayjiaTog) : ' ' not, of course, with 
the fornicators of this world.''' In that case, we should have had at least 
TrdvTWf ov, for the sense would be, as Theophylact himself states : «ai Travrug 
ov Tolg irdpvotg r. Koa/iov Gvvavafiiyvvadai 'snu'kvaa, rovrtaTi Tolg to)v 'ElTit/vuv. — 
Tov KSa/iov TovTov] who belong to this (ante-Messianic) tcoi'ld, not, like the 
Christians, to the Messiah's kingdom as its future members ; hence it is the 
aXMrpLoi TTjg niffTeug (Theodoret) who are here denoted, whose opposite is 
the a6e?i(t>6g in ver. 11. To understand it of manhind in general, Christians 
and non-Christians together (Pott, Hofmann, al.), is, seeing that tovtov is 
joined with it, contrary to the apostle's mode of using language (Gal. iv. 3 ; 
Col. ii. 8 ; Eph. ii. 2 ; 1 Cor. iii. 19, vii. 31 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4), and contrary 
also to the context (vv. 11, 12). Afterwards, when Paul is thinking of the 
world of men i7i general, he purjiosely omits the tovtov. — tj Tolg ■KAeoveKToig 
K.T.l.l We may suppose that Paul, in the passage of his former letter now 
alluded to, had warned them not merely against Tzdpvoig, 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 imrld, or — not to 
overlook the others, with whom also I forbade you to hold intercourse — 
with those greedy of gain, and violently grasjnng at it.'' These two, connected 
with each other as general, and particular by Kai (see the critical remarks), 
are conceived of as helonging together to one category. It is otherwise in 
ver. 11, where each of these sins is viewed by itself. As to dp-rr., the essen- 
tial characteristic of which is violence, comp. Luke xviii. 11 ; Soph. Phil. 
G40 : Kke-^ai re xapirdcrai ^itf,. — T. Kdofiov r. is to be understood again after 
ipTT. and el(5(j7. See ver. 11. — cTrel IxpdleTe /c.r.A.]/o/' so, (were you absolutely 
and entirely to break off from the heathen fornicators, etc.) you must needs 
go out of the world (iTtpav o'lKovfiivr/v u<peiAETe (^r/rf/aai, Theophylact), since no- 
where could you be perfectly relieved from casual contact with such non- 
Christians. I should thus have demanded what was impossible. As re- 
gards the direct o^eiAere, 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 u(pei'kETe, which has, indeed, the preponderance 

CHAP, v., 11. 121 

of evidence in its favour, but must be considered as an emendation. The 
strangeness of the conclusion is not conveyed by the apa (Hofmann, followino- 
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, PartiJc. j). 19 S.). See against Hartung, Ellendt, 
Lex. Soph. 1. p. 214. 

Ver. 11. Nwt 6i] But thus (see on Rom. iii. 31), in reality as contrasted 
with the aforesaid misconstruction, / did write to you. Herewith Paul now 
introduces the tnie meaning of the passage from his letter quoted above, 
ver. 9. Other expositors make wvl Si refer to time : hit at pi'esent (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 pixrport 
of that phrase in his former letters : "z^?) avpava/x'tywadai ivopvoiQ.^'' 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 ijresent ypa.(pu 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. — aSeXcjyuc 
bvo/xa^6fj..] the most important element in the more definite explanation ' 
which Paul is giving of his misunderstood prohibition : ieing called a brother, 
i.e. bearing the name of Christian. Comp. 6vo/ua exetv, Rev. iii. 1. Estius, 
following Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Oecumenius, joins 6vo//af. with 
what comes after, in the sense of : ij" a Itrother is a notorious fornicator, 
having the name of being such. But bvo/ndCeadai. means always simply to he 
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 : hearing the character and repute of a fornicator, he must 
have used the jihrase bvofidi^eadai elvai ndpvog (Plato, Pol. iv. ji. 428 E ; Prot. 
p. 311 E). Besides, it is unlikely that he should have expressly limited 
the prohibition to notorious fornicators alone, and thereby weakened its 
moral force. — loidopoq] as in vi. 10 ; comp. oniv. 12. — EiSuloldTpri{\ Estius 
observes well that this applies to iAe 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 Duster- 
diek in loc. Among the frivolous Corinthians, such reversions to the old 
habits and fellowship might not be uncommon. — iitdvaoq] 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 serie* 
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 

' This more detailed definition, therefore, vaiJ.iy. iropvoi-s as they had actually done, 

oannot have been given expressly in the For there is no indication in the text tliat 

lost Epistle, but must have been taken for the misinterpretation was a wilful and 

granted as self-evident. Otherwise they ?Ha^ida(« one, arising out of /caKia k. Trot-iipia, 

coidd not have so misinterpreted the awa- ver. 8 (Hofmann)- 


destroy the peace of the rhnrch-Viie. — tu t. lu/St aweaO.] parallel, though 
by way of climax, to the uy awava/i. ; hence not anaeohithic in i)oint of 
construction. As regards the meaning, again, we must not limit it to the 
Affiipue (Vorstius, Mosheim, Stolz, Heydcnreich), which would suit neither 
the (juite general phrase awecO. (comp. xi. 20) nor the intensifying fiin^k. 
It means : with one so constituted (comp. vcr. 5) not even to have felloicship at 
tahle (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 fellowshiiJ at the Aynpae with such persons. El di kolvtji; 
Tpoipfjq Totg roioi'Toig ov thl koivuvsIv, i/ttov ye /ivariKf/g re Kai ^ciag, Theodoret. Re- 
specting the distinction between the //;) avvavafiiyv. and excommunication, 
see 2 Thess. iii. 15. 

Ver. 12 f. The reason for his having spoken in reference to the Christians, 
and not those without the Christian pale : for it doen not at all concern me to 
he 2>iufiing disciplinary judgments vjion the latter. — tI yap ^m] for what concern 
is it of mine? etc. See Wetstein on the passage, and Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. 
p. 598. The emphasis falls so entirely uj)ou ri and rohg i-^u, that we have 
not e/j.oi, which is not needed even if the reading Kal (even, hesides) r. ffw be 
adopted. — rovg efw] was with the Jews the standing name (D'JIX'n) for the 
heathen (see Lightfoot, Ilor.., ad Marc. iv. 11 ; Schoettgen on this verse ; 
Kypke, II. p. 198); and so, in like manner, with the Christians it was the 
standing appellation for all who were non- Christians., as being outside the 
fellowship of the true people of God (Col. iv. 5 ; 1 Thess. iv. 12 ; 1 Tim. 
iii. 7). — ovxl Tovg mu v/Ltelg kp'ivf.te ;] 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 l)y his readers theniselves 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 out.side 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 efu. What he means is rather this : "To judge those Avho 
are not Christians is no concern of mine, any more than you take in hand to 
judge any others except your fellow-helievei-s.''^ "Exco, quod in ecclesia 
fieri solet, interpretari debuistis monitum meum, ver. 9 : cives judicatis, 
non alienos," Bengel. The simple Kpivere is altered in meaning by Billroth: 
Is it not enough that ye? etc., as well as by Castalio, Grotius, al. : judicare 
dehetis (we find this interpretation as early as Thcophylact). The Corinthi- 
ans actu(dhj judged, every time that they passed a sentence of ecclesiastical 
discipline. Lastly, it is a mistake to render, as is done by TLveQ in Thco- 
phylact, Knatchbull, Hammond, Michaelis, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, 
Ileydenreich : No; judge ye your fellow- Christ ians ! Oi'j/ is not a suitable 
answer to r/, and would, besides, require a7M after it (Rom. iii. 27 ; Luke 
i. 60, xii. 51, xiii. 3, 5, xvi. 30), and that with a clause forming a logically 
correct antithesis to the question put. 

Ver. 13. Jhit of those that are without God is judge, — not I and not you. 


CHAP. v.. l."). 123 

This statement appears more weighty and striking when taken as a sen- 
tence by itself, than as a coutinuivtion of the question (and still in depend- 
ence upon ovxi ; so Lachmann, Riickert, Olshausen, Hofmarin). The ac- 
centuation Kpivel ^ is to be rejected, because it is clear from the context, that 
so far from there being any necessity for the reference to the last judgment 
which would give occasion for the future (Rom. iii. 6, ii. 10), on the con- 
trary the -present KpivEi (Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, al., Pott, de Wette) 
corresponds in much the most natural way to the preceding Kpiveiv and Kpi- 
vere. According to this view, then, the future judgment is neither exclu- 
sively pointed to by npivet, 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 : e^dpare k.t.7^. 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. MwfT«//i/)i.' TE&etue 
fiapTvplav, 'deiif) vdiMo (iiftaiuaaQ tov Myov, Theodoret. Ilofmann conjectures 
that Paul wrote aal i^apd re, and that this meant : and no lem wUl lie [God) 
also take away the wicked one (those who are wicked in general) frotn tJie ruidd 
of you ;^'' but this is neither critically established — since the Recepta ml 
i^apeiTE is on critical grounds to be utterly rejected — nor grammatically ad- 
missible, for the assumed use of Kal . . . te is foreign both to Attic jirose 
and to the N. T. ; ' nor, finally, is it in accordance with the context, for -bv 
■Kovnpdv manifestly refers to the specific malefactor of ver. 2, and to liis ex- 
clusion from church ; comp. Augustine : '■'tov irovr/pdv, quod est hunc malig- 
num." — v/iuv avruv] is more expressive than the simple vfiuv : from the midst 
of yourselves, in which you have hitherto tolerated him. Bengel's com- 
ment hits the mark : " antitheton externos.^'' 

Rkmaek. — 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 M'ere levelled belonged to 

' Although preferred by Luther, Grotius, Bomemann, ad Anab. i. 8. 3; Kiiliner, ad 

Estius, Wetstein, Bensrel, Valckenaer, al., Memor. iv. 2. 28 ; Hartunfr, ParliMl. I. p. 

Lachmann, Scholz, Riickert, Olsliausen, 113 ff. ; also KruRer on Thur. i. 9. 3. The 

Tischendorf, Ewald, Hofmann (in accord- afqueetiamv;mi\A have been rendered by 

ance with Arm. Copt. Vulgate, Chrysostom, Kal . . . 6e With respect to the occui-reiice 

al.). of Kai re and (cai . . . T6, without a corro- 

" The apparent proof - passages from sponding Kai after it, in Honior, Herodotus, 

Greek writers are either founded on cor- etc., see Nagelsbach on the Iliad, p. 170 f., 

rupt readings or are deprived of their force ed. 3; and on the whole subiect, comp. 

when correctly explained. See especially Mattliiae, § 626, p. 1504 f. 

124 Paul's first epistlk to thf: Corinthians. 

any one special party, and if so, to which. In particular, we must refrain from 
attempting to refer the ■nopvela 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 Ajyollonians 
(Rilbiger). 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. 

Notes by Amebican Editob. 

(m) 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 disciiDline. 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 imjjose in any case is 
exclusion from its fellowship. The reasons for exercising such discipline are — ■ 
first, the honour of Christ, which is sadly impeached when open sin is allowed 
among those who confess His name. To make " Christ the minister of sin" 
is a grievous offence. Secondly, the welfare of the church requires that trans- 
gressors should be dealt with. For sin is a spreading leprosy. It may begin 
in a small and obscure place, but unless arrested will increase and diffuse itself 
till the whole body is infected. A moral gangrene must be cut out. Thirdly, 
the welfare of the offender himself, which, although it is subordinate to the 
other considerations mentioned, is never to be lost sight of. The wise, kindly, 
deliberate action of the chiirch 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 soiil ; it depraves the conscience ; it indu- 
rates the moral sensibilities ; it cuts off from prayer or renders it formal and 
empty ; it paralyzes the usual means of grace ; and it opens the door for other 
forms of evil. And all this holds good of a society as well as of a single be- 
liever. The only safe rule is to resist at the beginning, and continuously to 
purge out the old leaven, and to make the whole life one of perpetual conse- 
cration to God. 

N"OTES. 125 

(n) 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 
all ages. If so, it was of no consequence whether such writings were preserved 
or not. It seems certain that the church has all the inspired epistles which 
God designed she should have. Nothing that ever was justly in the Canon has 
been lost from it, so far as any evidence on the subject can be gathered from 
the records of the early church. 



Ver. 2. ry] is wanting in Elz., but has decisive evidence in its favour. — Ver. 5. 
/If yu] Lachm. has Aw^w, on the authority of B alone. In the absence of internal 
grounds for decision, this is too weakly attested, far weaker than in xv. 34. — 
ivi] so Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riick. Tisch., following B C L X, min. Chrys. 
Theodoret, al. How easily the familiar kariu (so Elz.) would creep in ! — aiiipdg 
oixU eZf] Lachm. and Eiick. read vvdei^ co(pug, with B C X, min. Copt. Damasc. 
D* E, Olar. Germ. Aeth. Athan. have simply oo<p6^ ; F and G have obi'it tig ao(j)6g. 
In A, the whole passage vv. 3-6 is wanting (from the similarity of the two last 
syllables ioTui' in vv. 2 and 6). From this it appears that the evidence for ovde'ig 
ao(p6g certainly preponderates, against which, however, there must be set the 
difficulty of seeing why this reading should have undergone alteration. Were 
co(png ovde elg, 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 ovi^e elg (which Griesb. 
approves of), inasmuch as copyists went right on from ao<pOI, to OS, and the 
two other variations would then arise from dissimilar critical restorations of the 
text. — Ver. 7. Elz. has ev i/ilv against decisive evidence. An interpretation. 
— Ver. 8. Kal Tavral; Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. have koI tovto, following A BCD 
E X, min. vss. and Fathers. Rightly ; the plural crept in, because tico Uiwrjft 
were mentioned (dcSt/c. and airocT.). — Ver. 9. There is conclusive evidence for 
reading Qeov (inc. in place of (iaa. Oeov. In ver. 10, again, this order is too weak- 
ly attested to be received. — Ver. 10. The oh before kItjp. is wanting in A B C D E 
K, min. Copt. Ignat. Method. Athan. Chrys. al. Deleted by Lachm. and Riick. 
with justice ; for while the jireceding Oeov might in itself just as easily lead to 
the omission as (by repetition of the last syllable) to the insertion of the ov, the 
latter was favou7-ed by ver. 9. — Ver. 14. r/fidg} Elz. has vfidg, against decisive tes- 
timony (perhaps from Rom. viii. 11). — e^eyepei] Lachm. and Ewald read t^e- 
yelpet, with A D*. B and 67** have i^i'/yeipe. The Eecepta should be adhered 
to, with Tisch., following C D*** E K L >«, min. Vnlg., both Syr. Copt. Aeth. 
Arr. and many Fathers. The connection makes the future necessary as the 
correlative of KnTapyrjcyei 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 
k^nyeipe and i^eyeipei, the former looks like a mechanical repetition of the pre- 
ceding tense, and the latter a slip of the pen. — r/ ovi< (not the simple ovk) has 
decisive evidence on its side. — Ver. 19. to aQ/ia] Matth. aud Tisch.* read -ra 
aufioTd 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. nn) ti' tu Trvevunri {/k'jv, urti'u Inn tov 'Beov is deleted by all 
modern editors (except Matth.) since Mill and Griesb., following A I; C* D* E 
F G K, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. Method. Didym. Cyr. Maxim. Damasc. Tert. 

' [Tisuheiidorf returus to lln' .siiijrular iu his last edition.— T. W. C] 

CHAP. VI., 1. 127 

Cypr. Ir. Ambrosiast. and all the Latin Fathers. An ascetic aclclition, although 
a very old one (occurring even in the Syriac), which got into all the wider cir- 
culation because a church-lesson begins with 6n^daare. Comp. Reiche, Comm. 
crii. I, p. 165 flf. 

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, hearing in mind that the unrighteous shall not hecome par- 
takers in the Messianic hingdom (vv. 7-10), and that they, as Christians, have 
hecome 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^ airy 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. Jahrh. 1853, p. 10 f.), — that it was the damage done to the Chris- 
tian cause in puhlic 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 iropvoi:. Paul does not employ so 
much as a Se, or an alia, or any other form of connection, but goes on with 
epistolary freedom, leaping, as it were, from one point of censure to 
another. — rig] 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 foi 
the apostle's sending these admonitions. — Tvpayfia] lawsuit, matter of dis- 
pute. Comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 9. 1 ; Demosth. 1120. 26 ; Josephus, Antt. xiv. 
10. 7. — Kplveadai] go to laio, litigare ; see on Rom. iii. 4 ; Wetstein, ad 
Matth. V. 40. — kni Tuv adinuv] hefore fWiner, p. 351 [E. T. 469]) the unright- 
eous ; a specially significant designation of the heathen (see on Gal. ii. 5), as 

1 Bengel says aptly : " grandi verbo ver. 1 as affirmative (against Lachmann). 

notatur laesa majestas Christianorum." Least of all can we agree with Hofmann in 

Schrader imports an ironical meaning into taking the words down to a.U«jiv afBrma- 

the word, which is irrelevant. The right tively, and then regarding k. ovx<. in. t. 

interpretation is given by Chrysostom : ayliov as a query that strikes in there : for 

ToAjxr); e<TTi to npayfia Kol napavofj-ia-;. See aS errl T. aSi>a>f, Koi ovx'i e. T. ay., is plainly JUSt 

to ToA^tai/, sitstinere, lum erubescere. Stall- the ordinary antithesis of assertion and ne- 

baum, ad Plat. Phil. p. 13 D ; Jacobs, ad gallon joined together by kcX ov. To make 

Athen. addit. p. 309. Comp. the proverbial Hofmann.'s rendering logically tenable, it 

phrase tt3.v ToKy^iv. would V)o needful that Paul should, instead 

"^ It is out of the harmony with the fervid of «. ovxi. have written : /cal tI oux'. and why 

tone of the whole passage, in which ques- not before the saints ? 
tion is heaped on question, to understand 


contrasted with the Christians, who are ayioi (see on i. 2). Chrysostoni puts 
it well : ovK elnev knl ruv amaruv (as in ver. 6, where the opposite of adeX^oc 
was required), aXX' tnl tuv idkuv, Xi^iv Oeig m ndliaTa jfpetav elxev e'lq rf^v 
npoKELfikvrtv vTvudeaiv, dare anorpk^ai koL airayayelv. There is indeed a contra- 
dictio in adjecto in the Kpiveadai etzI t. ckHkuv ! For the Rabbinical prohibi- 
tions of going to law before the heathen, see Eisenmenger, EntdecU. Judenth. 
II. p. 472 S. (e.g. Tanchuma, f. 92. 2 : " Statutum est, ad quod omnes Isra- 
elitae oblio^antur, 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, Einl. 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 /(??'»i8 of the Kpiveadai 
are present to the ajjostle's mind in speaking of the judgment kivl t. a6. and 
knl T. ay. ; in the former case, that by legal jwocess ; in the latter, that by 
arbitration through means of diairrjTai. — Theodoret remarks justly (on ver. 
6), that the prohibition of the Kplvecdai knl tuv aSUuv is not at variance with 
Rom. xiii. 1 fiE. : ov yap avrtTEiveiv neTievei rolg apxovmv, d/lAd Tolg i/diKTifiEVOtc 
vo/xoderel fifi Kcxpyodai rolg apxovai. To yap alpelodai fj adiKeiadai 7 Trapd roZf 
ofJOTTiaToig SoKifid^eadai r^f avTuv t^^praro yvufirjq. 

Ver. 2. "H ovk oldatE «.r.A.] 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 notf'' etc. Only on the ground of 
this not knowing could you betake yourselves to such unworthy Kpiveadai ! 
Sii Toivw 6 neTJkuv Kpiveiv eKeivovg t6te, nug vn' ekeivuv dvixv npiveadai vvv ; Chry- 
sostom. — Tov Kdfffiov Kpivovffi] at the last judgment, namely, sitting along tcith 
Christ as judges over all who are not Christians {lidanog). 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 Rev. xx. 4 (when the Koa/xog, 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 Kdff/nog 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- 

' Hence this passage does not at all run ' Observe that this view necessarily pre 

counter to the injunction to obey mafris- supposes the resuirectionot unbelievers ah 
trates. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Thcol. p. 417. (Aits xvii. 31). Comp. ou xv. 24. 

CHAP. VI., 2. 129 

sumed by Billrotli as the ideal truth which underlay the words of the apostle, 
unconsciously to himself) is an alteration of the sense which runs counter to 
the context ; for the whole argument a majori ad minus is destroyed, if 
Kpivomi is to be understood in a one-sided way as equivalent to KaruKp., 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 Ghristiani futuri sint magistratus (Lightfoot), which is at variance with 
ver. 3, and with the conception of the speedily approaching Parousia. 
Mosheim, Ernesti, Nosselt, Rosenmiiller, and Stolz turn the '■'■shall judge" 
into "■can judge," comparing ii. 15, 16. But this, too, is to alter the notion 
of Kpiveiv 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. vii. 22. — kuI eI h vfiiv k.t.1.'] The 
quick striking in of the /cat in the very front of the question is as in ver. 2 ; 
see also Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 123. — el kv i/i. Kp. 6 Kdaji.^ repeats with em- 
phasis, and with an individualizing force (yiuv), the contents of the truth 
already stated and established to the believing consciousness (hence the 
present Kpiverai). The h v/ilv, 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. kv (HiKaaralg, Thuc. i. 53. 1, h vofiodiraig k.t.X. See, too, the 
passages in Wetstein. The £v therefore by no means stands for vk6 (Raphel, 
Flatt, al.), although we may gather from the context that the vfieic are them- 
selves the parties judging (vv. 2, 4). Nor has it the force of through (Grotius, 
Billroth, al.), in support of which it is a mistake to appeal to Acts xvii. 31, 
where, owing to the connection, h stands in a wholly different relation from 
what it denotes here. Here the word h is selected in view of the following 
KpiTTjpia, 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. — 
avd^. tare Kpir. k.7Mx.^ Kpirr/piov does not mean matter of dispute, case at law, 
as most expositors (even Pott, Flatt, Riickert, 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 j^Zace 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 : //^ epxeodu eirl Kpirr/piov eOviKdv, Constitt.- 
ap. ii. 45. Precisely so with diKaarr/piov. 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 meaninf? of this question into = Comp. too, van Ilengel, ad Horn., ii. 27 : 

a general participation in Ike reign of Chrid " vita vestra mm vita eorum comimranda.'' 

130 Paul's first epistle to the couinthians. 

»s to the sense : " indigni estis, qui de minimis judicetis ?" According to 
Chrysostora and Theophylact, others understand here the heathen courts of 
justice, either affirmatively (so, as it appears, Chrysostom and Theophylact 
themselves ; so, too, Valckenaer, al.) or interrogatively (Billroth) : and that 
it is unworthy of you to le judged lefore courts of so 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 Kpirrip. eT^ax-, described as [ituTiKo. 


Vv. 3 4. Climactic parallels to ver. 2, ver. 3 corresponding to the first half 
of the preceding verse, and ver. 4 to the second ; hence ver. 4 also should 
be taken as a question. — ayye?x)vg] angels, and that — since no defining epithet 
is added — in the good sense, not as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Erasnms) Beza, Calovius, Bengel, and most commentators 
make it, deimns (Jude 6 ; 3 Pet. ii. 4), nor good and bad angels (so Corne- 
lius a Lapide, al.; also, as it would appear, Hofmann). Other expositors, 
such as Grotius, Billroth, Riickcrt, de Wette, leave the point imdecided. 
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 foi which they are to render an account ; 
and Gal. i. 8, according to which, in a certain supposed case, they would 
incur an avaOefia.^ All modes of explaining away the simple meaning of the 
words are just as inadmissible a? in ver. 2 ; as, foi example, Chrysostom : 
OTUV yap al ac^fiarot 6vvd/XEig avrai IT^arrov y/ioi evpe&CxT/v Ixovaat t€)v aapKO nepi- 
^E^TiTi/iivuv, ;i;rt/le7rwrfpav i^tjaovai S'iktiv ; Erasmus : " vestra pietas illorum im- 
pietatem, vestra innocentiu illorum impuritatem condemnabit ;" Calovius : 
the judicium is ajjjjrohativuin, making manifest, that is to say, before the 
whole world the victory of the saints already in this life over the devil ; 
Lightfoot : what is meant is, that the influence of the kingdom of Satan is 
to be destroyed by Christianity ; while Nosselt, Ernesti, and Stolz make it 
ability to judge, if an angel were to preach a false gospel (Gal. i. 8). — fi^/rtyE 
PiuTiKa] is not to be included in the question, so that we should have to put 
only a comma after Kpivovfiei' (as Tischendorf does). For ftiuuKd, things 
which lelovg to the necessities of this life, disjnites as to the meum and tuum 
(comp. Polybius, xiii. 1.3: twp (^iutikuv avva?-?.ay/idTuv), will not be among 
the subjects of the future judgment, to which Kpivovfiev refers. We must 
retain, therefore, the mark of interrogation after Kpivov/iev (Lachmann), and 

^ ' Observe also the different cla.sses of without f/fiical {.'rounds. Moreover, the 

angels referred to in Rom. viii. 38; Eph. i. angels are not to be regarded as absolntehj 

21 ; Col. i. 16 ; 1 Pet. iii. 32. We cannot con- good, Mark x. 18. Comp. on Col. i. 20. (o) 
ceive these distinctions in rank to exist 

CHAP. VI., 4. 131 

put a full stop after [iiur., so that /iT/riyt (Siur. may be seen to be the con- 
densed condusio : to say nothing tlien of private disputes ! i.e. IIoio far less can 
it he douhtful that tee have to judge [ituriKd ! Comp. Dem. 01. i. (ii.) 33, and 
Bremi in loc. p. 159. See generally as to ^ijTLyt (found only here in the 
N. T.), nedum sc. dieam; Herm. ad Viger. p. 803 ; Schaefer, Appar. ad Bern. 
I. p. 365 ; Hartung, Partihell. II. p. 154 f. Regarding the relation of 
^luuKdg to the later Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 355. — The antitJiesis 
of ayyeTiovc and (iiuriKa, turns on this, that the former belong to the higher 
superterrestrial sphefe of life (wf av ekeIvuv oh Kara tov (ilov tovtov bvruv, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia). The ayykl. without the article is qualitative. 

Ver. 4. B/wn,/ca fiiv ovv /c.r./l.] takes up /3(wr. at once again with emphasis. 
Comp. Herod, vii. 104 : to, av huelvoQ avuyif avdjyec rfe rahrb ael. — The sen- 
tence may be understood as a question (of astonishment), so de Wette, 
Tischendorf, Ewald, al.; or as a reproachful statement, so Lachmann. The 
former, if r. k^ov&. be correctly explained, corresponds best with the whole 
structure of this animated address (see on ver. 3). Miv ovv is the simple 
accordingly, thus. ' Kpir^pia are here also not lawsuits, but judicla, as in ver. 
3. The meaning therefore is : If ye then have courts of trial as to private 
matters, i.e. if ye are in such circumstances as to have to hold courts of that 
kind. Comp. Dem. 1153. 4 : exovruv rag diKag, qui lites habent administran- 
das. Hofmaun's rendering is a most involved one, making /3<ur. Kpir. 
predicate to tovq e^ovd-. h t. ekkI., and eav kx- a. parenthetical clause, to which we 
are to supply as its object k^ov&evrjiihovq.'^ — Ka^iC,ETe] do ye — instead of 
taking some from among yourselves for this purpose — set those dmon, etc. ? 
namely, upon the judgment-seat as judges, which follows from KpiT//pia. 
Comp. Plato, Legg. ix. p. 873 E ; Dem. 997. 33 ; Polyb. ix. 33. 13. It is 
the indicative, and the k^ov&evfjp.. h r. ekkI. are the heathen. So in substance 
Valla, Faber, Castalio, Luther, Calovius, W(?lf, al., including Pott, Flatt, 
Heydenreich, Schrader, Rlickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, 
Neander, Weiss ; Osiander is undecided. To this it is objected that /cai^/^. 
does not suit heathen magistrates, and that kv t. ekkX. indicates the k^ov&. 
as members of the church (see especially Kypke, II. p. 301). But neither 
objection is valid ; for the term Ka^H^ere is purposely selected as significani 
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 (roi-c 'e^ov&.), while the text does not give tovq h tt} ekkI. More- 
over, by r. E^ov-d., Paul does not mean to describe the contempt for the hea- 
then &s justifiaUe {lloimn.rm' a objection), but simply as existing, as a fact, 
however, the universal existence of which made the absurdity of the 
procedure here censured very palpable. Other interpreters make Ka^K 
imperative, and the ifovi?. members of the church held in small account : 
take (rather) minimos de pioru7n pkhe as arbiters.^ But not to speak 

' Introducing the more detailed develop- neutesi. Stud. p. 127. 

ment of the thought to which expression ' So the Vulgate, Peshito, Chrysostom, 

had been given already. See Baeumleln, Theodoret, Theophyluct, Erasmus Beza, 

Partik. p. 181. Vatablus, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, BengeL 

» Uo w meaningless this would be ! More- Wetstein, Hofmaun, al. 
over, see below. Comp. also Laurent. 


of the rather generally sup])lie(l from imagination, nor of the fact that 
to designate those less aipahle of judging na t. k^ov-^. ev t. ekk?.. 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-menibership of the despised persons, and must 
have written at least rovg i^ovd. tovc ev r. e/c/cA. For oi e^ov&. hv r. ekkX. are 
those wlw 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 : 
ovK eve h vfilv. Arrangements of words like rovg £^ov&. h Tij emA,. for roiig h 
T. ekkX. k^wd. are common enough in classical writers also. See Kiihner, 
ad Xen. Anab. iv. 2. 18. — rovTovg] with an emphasis of disdain. See Dissen, 
ad Dem. de Cor. p. Hi. f., 325 ; Kriiger, Aa7ib. i. 6. 9 ; EUendt, Lex. Sojjh. 
II. p. 460. 

Ver. 5. Upbg ivrp. v/iiv Aiyu] is to be referred, as is done by Lachmann, 
Tischendorf, Ncander, and Hofmann, to ver. 4, comp. xv. 34 (it is com- 
monly referred to what comes after), so that the foUowdng question unfolds 
tlie humiliating consideration involved in ver. 4. The address thus acquires 
more point and impressiveness. — ovrug] belongs not to Ityu (Hofmann), 
but to OVK Evi K.T.I. , and sums up the state of things : sic igitur, rebus ita 
eomparatis, since you rohg k^ov&evTjuEvovg Ka-diC,ET£. See Bornemann in Rosen- 
miiller's Repert. II. p. 245 flf. ; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 933. C. Fr. Her- 
mann, ad Lucian. de hist, conscr. p. 161. It is otherwise understood by 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, al., including Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, 
Olshausen, Ewald, who make it : so much, so completely is there lacking, 
etc. But it is only the definition of viode, not of degree, that will suit the 
absolute negation of this clause, intensified as it is by oIh^e t]r. — Regarding 
evi, see on Gal. iii. 28. The tro^of carries point against the Corinthian self- 
conceit. — oi'Se e/f] ne unus quidem. " Quod est vehementius," as Erasmus 
well puts it, " cum sitis tum multi." See on John i. 3, and Kriiger, Anab. 
iii. 1. 3 ; Bornemann and Poppo, ad Cyrop. ii. 1. 21. Comp. non ullus 
(Kiihner, ad Cic. Tusc. i. 39. 94) 7iemo unus (Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 137). 
Frequent in Isocr., see Bremi, I. E.rc. iii. — bg dwijaETm] purely future in 
force : tcho (as cases shall occur) will be able. — (huKplvaL] to judge, as arbitra- 
tor. — ava iieaov t. a6. avTov] between (LXX. Gen. xvi. 5 ; Ex. xi. 7 ; Ezek. 
xxii. 26 ; Isa. Ivii. 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 T. a6e'k<pov, is meant to p)^^ ^ slmmc. The singular is used for 
this reason, that tov mh'Axpnv must mean the plaintiff who brings on the 
lawsuit (not the defendant, as Ewald would have it), between ichom (and, as 
is obvious, the defendant) the arbitrator, called into requisition by the 
bringing of the suit, pronounces Ms decision. Were the plural employed, 
that would indicate the two litigants generally, but not the party bringing 
&n the suit in particular. Hofmann, contrary to the plain meaning of the 
words, understands the phrase of the self-deci,si<m 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 : SiaKplvac h kavrCi rrpbc '''ov arfe/li^ov 
ai'Tov. Moreover, owJi eJf (or obMc 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 he an arMtrator.''^ — The reading, t. a6el(l>ov k. tov a6E?{,(l)ov avrov (Syr. Arr.), 
is an interpretation, although recommended by Grotius and again by 

Ver. 6. Quick reply to the preceding question : M) (see Hartung, 
Partihell. II. p. 37 ; Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 10 f.) brother goes to laic with 
Irother, and that (see on Rom. xiii. 11) iefo7'e unhelievers.^ 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 ! KpivsTat in precisely the same sense as in 
ver. 1, KpivEG'&aL inl T0)V adiKuv. (p) 

Ver. 7. M.ev ovv] as in ver. 4 ; it now brings under special consideration 
the foregoing a6e7^<j>. fiera aS. KplvETat — namely, as to what the real character 
of such a proceeding may be in itself viewed generally (oAwf being taken as 
in V. 1), apart from the special element unhappily added in Corinth, eirl 
anlaruv. The /lev corresponds as little (against Hofmann) to the oA^ld which 
follows in ver. 8, as the /uh> in ver. 4 to the a?L?id in ver. 6. The y6r} 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. 
p. 240 f. — TJTTTi/ua] a defeat (see on Rom. xi. 12), i.e. damage, loss, and that, 
according to the context, not moral decay (so commonly), or ?mrt to th« 
church (Hofmann), or imperfection (Billroth, Riickert), or iceahness (Beza) ; 
but, it redounds to your coming short of the Messianic salvation (see ver. 9). — 
eavT(Jv] like aXkifkuv, but giving them to feel, more strongly than the latter 
would, the impjropriety which had a place in their oicn circle (Kiihner, ad Xen. 
Mem. ii. 6. 20). — /cpt>ora] as in Rom. v. 16, Wisd. xii. 12, legal judgments, 
which they had respectively obtained {ex^^te). — aSiKEla&E . . . awoaTsp.] 
middles : to allow wrong and loss to le 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 Sia-i in ver. 7 still continues : Why 
do ye not rather allow yourselves to suflEer wrong, etc., and not, on your part, 
do wrong, etc. ? This view, instead of the ordinary one, which makes 
ver. 8 an independent sentence like ver. 6, is necessary, because tj ovk oUute 
in ver. 9 has its logical reference in diazL. The reference, namely, is this : 
" There is no ground conceivable for your not,'''' etc. (Siarl . . . aJf-A^oiV), 
" unless that ye hieic not,''^ etc. (?/ ohn oldars). — ml tovto aSEX(povg] to whom 
nevertheless, as your brethren, the very opposite was due from you ! With 
respect to the climactic K. tuvto, and that, see on Rom. xii. 11, and Baeumlein, 
Partih. p. 147. 

1 To take the sentence as a reproachful sterner and more tellinft than the common 
asserti07i (so Luther, Beza, Lachmanii, way of viewing it as a question, which is 
Osiander, Hofmann^ makes the passage adopted also by Tischeudorf and Ewald. 

134 Paul's fiest epistle to the corinthians. 

Ver. 9. "II ol'K oldare] See on ver. 8. To supply an unexpressed thought 
here (" Do not regard the matter liglitly," Billroth ; " This is a far greater 
y/rrv/ia," Iluckert ; that ?/--i///a to the church " they could only fail to per- 
ceive, if they did not know," etc., Ilofmaun) is just as arbitfary as to do so 
in ver. 2 — adiKot] the general conception (under -svhich the preceding adiKeiv 
and hivoaT. are included) : unrighteous, immoral. See the enumeration which 
follows. — Qeov ftaail.] the Qnw coming close after a(hKoi, and put first for 
emphasis (see the critical remarks). As to the truth itself, that adiKia 
excludes from the Messiah's kingdom, see on Gal. v. 21 ; and as regards 
what is implied in the Messianic K?.//povo/:ua, on Gal. iii. 18 ; Eph. i. 11. — //^ 
■n-?.avd(T^e] for that moral fundamental law was more easily, it is plain, flung 
to the winds in frivolous Corinth than anywhere else ! Possibly, too, some 
might even say openly : (^i^MvQpunnq £)v 6 Oebg kui ayaiJof, ovk kire^ef)XfTai rolg 
■;r?i;iiJi?.^,ua(n' /lij J?) (pojSr/'&u/iEv ? Chrysostom. Hence : lie not mistal'en {■JT?.a- 
vaade, 2)nssire, 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 aSiKoi 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. — ndpvoi, fornicators in general ; fjoixot, adulterers, Heb. xiii. 4. — 
u6gi1o1.'\ see on v. 11. — fiaAaKo!] effeminates, commonly understood as qui 
nmliehria patiuntur, but with no sufiicicnt 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 (moUes) were called nSpvot 
or Kivaidoi. One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be 
mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore : effeminate 
hu-urious livers. Comp. Aristotle, Eth. vii. 7 : fia?.aKdg kuI -pv<pG)v, Xen. Mem. 
ii. 1, 20, also iiia?MK(o(;, iii. 11. 10 : rpixpy 6e Koi (laMaKia, Plato, Rej). p. 590 
B. — apaevoKolTai] sodomites, who defile themselves with men .(1 Tim. 1. 10 ; 
Eusebius, Praep. etang. 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 flf. 

Ver. 11. How unworthy are such of your new (7/( r^s^/rtn relations ! — Tavra] 
of persons in a contemptuous sense : »iich trash, such a set. See Bern- 
hardy, p. 281. — -lvIq] more exact definition of the subject of syre, namely, 
that all are not meant. It is the well-known axviJ-o. Ka(f oTvov koX /lipog 
(Kiihner, II. p. 156). Comp. Grotius. Valckenaer says well : ^ ' vocula, rivec 
dictum paulo durius emollit.'''' Billroth is wrong in holding (as Vorstius 
l)efore him) that ravrd nveq belong to each other, and are equivalent to 
rotovTot. In that case ravrd riva would be required, or roloi nveg. See Ast, 
ad Plat. Legg. p. 71 ; Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. ii. 1. 2 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
II. p. 832. — cnrelova. k.t.X.] describes from step to step the new relations 
established by their reception of Christianity. First of all : ye itashed your- 
telves clean, namely, by your immersion in the waters of baptism, from the 

' Comp. Emesti, Z'riqyrung der Sunde, II. p. 29 f. 

CHAP. VI., 11. 135 

moral defilement of the guilt of your sins (you obtained, through means of 
baptism, the forgiveness of your sins committed before you became Chris- 
tians), (q) Comp. Acts xxii. 16, ii. 38 ; Eph, v. 26 ; 1 Pet. iii. 31. Ob- 
serve the use of the middle, arising from the conception of their self-destina- 
tion for baptism. Comp. EjianriaavTo, x. 2. We must not take the middle 
here for the ixtssive, 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 preconcejitions ; neither is it to be understood, 
with Usteri {Lehrhegriff, p. 230) and Rlickert (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, Kaflapiaac, in Eph. v. 26, militate strongly. This 
moral regeneration ft?i,v^6' in connection with baptism (Tit. iii. 5), but is not 
designated by aKsAoba., although its subjective conditions, /uerdvoia andiriartg 
are presupj^osed in the latter expression. The producing of regeneration, 
which is by water and Spiirit, is implied in the rj-yidaBriTe which follows : ye 
Itecame (from being unholy, as ye were before baptism) holy, inasmuch, 
namely, as by receiving the (Jwped tov dylov ■Kvevnaroq (Acts ii. 38) ye were 
translated into that moral frame of life which is Christian and consecrated 
to God (John iii. 5 ; Tit. iii. 5 ; Eph. v. 25, djiday). Riickert and Ols- 
hausen take it in the theocratic sense : "ye became set apart, numbered 
among the ay/o<." Comp. Osiander, also Hofmann : ^^incorporated in the 
hx)ly churchy But the progression of thought here, which marks its advance 
towards a climax by the repetition of the aXkd, requires, not a threefold de- 
scription of the transaction involved in baptism (Calvin, Hofmann), but 
three c?ij'f(sre;i^ 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. — ediKaiudTjTe] 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 airelovaaade ; and secondly, because the ei^iKaiuOrjTe, if used in this 
sense, would have needed not to follow the dyidnerjTE, but to precede it, as 
in i. 80 ; for to suppose a descending climax (Calovius) is out of the question, 
if only on account of the aTreAoiff., which so manifestly indicates the beginning 
-of the Christian state. What is meant, and tha+; by way of contrast to the 
notion of dS/Kla 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 tlie 
Spirit which began with baptism, so that now there is seen in the man the 
fulfilment of the moral demands or of the 6iKaiu/ua tov vo/hov (Rom. viii. 4), 
and he himself, being dead unto sin, ^eSiKaiurat, divb r^f d/iapTiag (Rom. vi. 

> [Beet says, with justice, " a solitary opposition to the distinction between .iusti- 

instance, probably, in the New Testament fication and sanctification. Justification is 

of this simplest sense." — T. W. C] comprised already in ineXova. Comp. 

2 There is therefore no warrant for ad- Weiss, MM. Tluol. pp. 342. 34.5 ff. Its sub- 

ducing this passage, as is done on the T!o- jec-tive basis, however, is one with that of 

man Catholic side (even by Dollinger), in sauctification, namely, faith. 

136 Paul's first epistle to the corinthiaks. 

7), and edovluBii t^ ^iKaioavvy (Rom. vi. 18), whose instruments his members 
have now become in the kuivott/c of the spirit and life (Rom. vi. 13). This 
diKaiuH^vai does not stand related to the dyiaadf/vai in any sort of tautological 
sense, but is the effect and outcome of it, and in so far, certainly, is also 
the moral continuatio justijimtionis (comp. Calovius), Rev. xxii. 11. — The 
thrice repeated alia, lays a special emphasis upon each of the three points. 
Comp. Xenophon, Anab. v. 8. 4 ; Aristophanes, Acliarn. 402 ff. ; 2 Cor. ii. 
17, vii. 11 ; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 142 ; Bornemann, ad Xen. 
Symp. iv. 53 ; Buttmann, neut. Oramm. p. 341 [E. T. 3981. — ^^ '^^ ovS/iari 
. . ^ftuv] is by most expositors made to refer to all the three points. But 
since h tcj m>evfian k.t.1. does not accord with anelo'va. (for the Spirit is 
only received after baptism. Acts ii. 38, xix. 5, 6 ; Tit. iii. 5, C ; the case 
in Acts X. 47 is exceptional), it is better, with Riickort, to connect ev tu 
bv6fiaTi . . . Tjnuv simply with idiKaiud,, which best harmonizes also with the 
significant importance of the idiKaiudTjre as the crowning point of the whole 
transformation wrought in the Christian. The 7iame of tJie Loi'd Jesus, i.e. 
what pronouncing the name ^^ Ki'piog 'Ir/aovg'''' (xii. 3) affirms, — this, as the 
contents of the faith and confession, is that in which the becoming morally 
righteous had its causal basis (h), and equally had its ground in the Spirit 
of our Ood, 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 kv nl 
hvdfiaTi . . . Qeov 7///wv into connection with the navra ^loi e^ectiv which fol- 
lows, the latter would at once become limited and defined in a way with 
which the antitheses all' k.t.1. would no longer in that case harmonize. 
For it is precisely in the absoluteness of the ndv-a fioi e^eotiv 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 ^yidad. and k^maiuO. have their warrant 
as acts of Ood, and in accordance with the ideal view of what is the specifi- 
cally Christian condition, however imperfectly as yet this may have been 
realized, or whatever backsliding may have taken place. The ideal way 
of speaking, too, corresponds to the design of the apostle, who is seeking to 
make his readers feel the contradiction between their conduct and the char- 
acter which as Christians they assumed at conversion ; a(p66pa evt petit iku^ 
ETCTiyayE Ityuv kwor/aaTE t/IIkuv vfidg e^eHeto kuhuv 6 Geof k.t.1., Chrysostom. 
And thereby he seeks morally to raise them. 

Vv. 12-20. Correction of the misunderstanding of Christian liherty, asthougit 
fornication, equally with the use of meats, came imder the head of things allow- 
able (vv, 12-17). Admonitions against fornication (vv. 18-20). 

Vv. 12-14. Connection and sequence of thought. In this neic condition of 
life (ver. 11) all tilings are alloiced to vs, hut they must he for our good, — all 
things alloiced, hut tee on our 2Mrt must remain free (ver. 12). Among these 
allowed things is the use of food, as what is in accordance with nature and ap 
pointedhy Ood merely for a time (tu fipu/iaTa . . . KUTapy., ver. IS). Wholly 
otherwise is it with the use of the l>ody for fornication ; that is anti- Christian 

CHAP. VI., 12-14. 137 

(rd Se acj/ia . . . crufian, ver. 13), and contrary to the eternal destiny fixed "by 
God for the hody (ver. 14). — Not without reason did Paul, when reckoning 
up the different forms of ai^Kia in ver. 9, place tropvela first. Comp. v. 1 ; 2 
Cor. xii. 21. But Corinthian Epicureanism, starting from the Hellenic 
mode of viewing this matter, which was altogether very lax (Herm. Privat- 
alterth.^ § 29. 13 ff.), easily found for itself even a certain justification of 
fornication, namely, in the doctrine of Christian liberty in adlaphoris, the 
maxim of which is : TvdvTa fioi e^eanv. 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 adm- 
phoron, so also was satisfying the desire for sensual pleasure by fornication. 
Comp. Baur in the theol. Jahrh. 1852, 1 and 3 ; Weiss, UM. Theol. p. 420 f. 
Olshausen, indeed, thinks that Paul would have given an absolute command 
.'to exclude all such persons from the church, and that therefore it is only 
the possibility of so gross an abuse of Christian liberty that is implied here. 
But the former is an arbitrary assumption,' 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. 23 lends no support to 
this exposition, for it is obvious that the same maxim could be made to 
apply in very many different directions. Riickert'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 -rzavTa I^egtiv 
in their favour, and that Paul had only transferred it here in order to guard 
against the abuse of it respecting fornication (in substance, therefore, coincid- 
ing with Olshausen). To the ordinary interpretation Riickert objects, that 
the Corinthians in their letter would certainly not have described the nopveia 

' 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 ^avra ff. the apostle is speaking quite distinctly 

^ot ef ecTTc was applied to these also in Cor- and constantly of the iropv^ia. alone, not of 

Inth ; now Paul would surely nevsr have unnatural sins. 

138 Paul's first epistlk to tiik <;()Uintiiia>:.s. 

as prevailing among them, nor would they have undertaken the defence of 
it to the apostle whom tlioj- knew so well. But this objection is \mfounded ; 
for from v. 1 we must assume that Paul had come to know of the state of 
morals at Corinth through oral reports, and consequontly Imd not learned 
the abuse there made of the -ravTa i^eanv through expressions in the Corin- 
thian letter (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. 13 ff. to the second point. 
Against this we may urge, first, that the first point was surely too impor- 
tant to be disposed of by so brief a hint as that in ver. 13 ; secondly, that 
the two halves of ver. 13 stand in an antithetic relation to each other, which 
gives the first half merely the position of an aitxiJiai-y clause ; thirdly, that 
chap, viii.-x. do not deal with the question of food in general, but with 
that of eating saa'ijicial flesh in particular ; and lastly, that ver. 13 ff. have 
likewise quite as their special subject that of fornication. — Tzav-a fj.oi i^eariv] 
might be regarded as the objection of an oppo7ient (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 epelg ovv, or the like). Comp. on ver. 13. — 
It Avould be self-evident to the reader that navTa meant all that teas in itself 
indifferent (whatever was not anti-Christian). — iwi] spoken in the character 
oi a Christian in general. Comp. ver. 15. Bengel .says well : " Saepe Paulus 
prima persona singul. eloquitur, quae rim hahent gnoines.'''' Comp. Gal. ii. 18. 

— avfi(i>ep£i] is jirofltable. This must not be arbitrarily restricted either in the 
way of taking it as equivalent to o'lKo^oitel (Calvin, al., also Billroth after x. 
23), or by confining it to one's own advantage (Grotius, Ileumann, Schulz, 
Olshausen). What is meant is moral profltableness generally in every respect, 
aa conditioned by the special circumstances of each case as it arises. So, 
too, in X. 23. Theodore of Mopsuestia, it may be added, says rightly : 
ETvea^ yap ov navra av/jcpfptf, i^fpov ur ov Traat ;l'/J;?ffrto^•, o/./d Tolq oxpe/.ovat fxdvoig. 

— ovK kyi>] not I for myjxtrt. The subjection will not be on my side, but the 
things allowed will be what is brought into subjection. This tacit contrast 
is indicated both by the position of ovk h,u) and by vTr6 rtvog. The common 
interpretation : '^ ego sub nulliits redigar potestatem" (Vulgate), does not 
correspond to the order of the words. — l-^ovaiaaO. ] purely future in force : 
shall be ruled by anything whatever. This result, that on my ])art moral 
freedom should be lost througli anything, will not en.sue ! Otherwise the 
thing would plainly be «o^ allowed. I shall preserve th6 power of moral 
self-determination, so as to do or leave undone, 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 t/i'/>? mascHline (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, 
Vatablus, Ewald, ah), the meaning would then be, that in things indiffer- 

CHAP. VI., 13. 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 navTa. — The paronomasia in e^eartM and k^ovc. was 
remarked by expositors as early as Chrysostom and Theophylact. All is in 
my power, yet it is not I tcho will he overpoicered hy anytldng. Regarding t^ov- 
aid^Eiv (which is not used in this sense by Greek writers), comp. Eccles. vii. 
19, viii. 8, X. 4 f. 

Ver. 13. Tf/ KoMa] sc. eari, 'belong to, inasmuch, that is to say, as they are 
destined to be received and dige.sted by the belly (the vnodoxn riJv airluv, 
Photius in Oecumenius). Comp. Matt. xv. 17. — rolg fipu/uaaiv] 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 loith its destination, belongs to the category of 
the adiaphora ; while fornication, on the other hand, which is anti- Chris- 
tian, is contrary to the relation of the body to Christ. The second element 
(which, however, is very closely connected wi+h the first), by which this is 
made manifest, consists in what God will hereafter do on the one hand with 
the KoMa and the (ipu/naai, and on the other hand (ver. 14) in respect of the 
body's relation as pertaining to Christ, which latter relation is imperishable, 
in contrast to the perishable nature of the things first mentioned. — 6 de Qtbg 
. . . KUTapy.] 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, 
Ruckert, 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 rd (ipufiara . . . Karapy. as words 
of an opponent, the premisses of a conclusion as to the allowableness 
of fornication, which conclusion is impugned by Paul in the to 6e 
aijfia K.T.X. which follows. But the apostle nas 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 a?2d again (as in ver. 12, ac- 
cording to this dialogistic view). Other interpreters, following Chrysos- 
tom and Theophylact, make the design of 6 Se Ococ k.t.T^. to be a warning 
against excess. Comp. Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, al. But this, although 
in harmony with the dlTid in ver. 12, would stand in no logical relation to 
the 6 Se Geof k.t.X. of ver. 14, and thereby the inner connection of the whole 
address (see above) would be broken up. — kuI TavTTjv nal ravra] Regarding 

1 Several of them, however, fall into the to be at death, which xal raCra alone shows 
mistake of making the date of the Karapy. to be inadmissible. 

140 Paul's first epistle to tue corinthians. 

the use of the double oItoc for Uelvo^ . . . ovto^, which is not common, see 
Bemhardy, p. 277. Comp. Josh. viii. 22 ; 1 Mace. vii. 46, ix. 17. — to 6i 
(Tcj/xa] Paul cannot name again here a single organ ; tJie whole "body is the 
organ of fleshly intercourse : ' see ver. 16. — r^ Tvopveia] for fornication (con- 
ceived of as a personal power), for its disposal and use. — ryKn/a/cj] inas- 
much as the body is a member of Christ." See ver. 15. — rcjcrij/zari] inas- 
much, namely, as Christ is destined (lias it as His function) to rule and use 
the body as His member. "Quanta dignatio I" Bengel. It is a mistake 
to make the phrase refer to the raising up and glorifying of the body, which 
it is the part of Christ to effect (Ambrosiaster, Anselm, Thomas, Grotius) ; 
for this would destroy the unity of mutual reference in the two clauses 
(comp. above, ra fipufiara k.t.X.), and, besides, the resurrection is brought 
forward afterwards as something separate from the preceding, and that, 
too, as the work of Ood (parallel to the 6 6e Oebg k.t.I. in ver. 13). 

Ver. 14. This is jjarallel in contents and form to the sentence, 6 61 Qebq 
. . . Karapyr/aEi, in ver. 13 : Wotc God has not only raised uj) the Lord, "but will 
raise up 7is also by His power. The body, consequently, has a destiny which 
stretches on into the future eternal aluv ; how wholly different therefore 
from the noilla, that organ of temporal nourisliment, which will cease to be 1 
— KOL Tov Kvp. ^-yetps] necessary assurance of what follows. See Rom. viii. 
11. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 20 ; Col. i. 18 ; 2 Cor. iv. 11, 14. — koI ?}fiac e^eyepd ^] 
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 TOV Kiip. fiyeipe, 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 (//,«df), 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 k^ey. (out of the grave, comp. £^ai>daTacii tuv veapuvy 
Phil. iii. 11) is accidental, without any special design — in opposition to 
Bengel and Osiander's arbitrary opinion that the former word denoted the 
first-fruits, and the latter the " wiassa dormientium. " * — avTov'] — not ainov, 

' Neither our text nor Luke xx. 35 gives ' If i^cyeipei were the true reading (but 
any support to the assumption that those see the critical remarks), the tense employ- 
partaking in the resurrection will be with- ed would in that case bring before us as 
out sexual distinction. The doing away of jwesent what was certain in the future. If 
the icoiAi'a refers simply to the cessation of ef >)Y6ipe were correct, we should have to 
the earthly process of nutrition ; it does interpret this according to the idea of the 
not afifect the identity of the body, which resurrection of believers being implied in 
Delitzsch (Psychol, p. 459), without warrant that of Christ, comp. Col. ii. 12. 
from Scripture, pronounces to be indepen- ■• Against this view may be urged the 
dent of the exterual continuance of distinc- consideration, in itself decisive, that in the 
tion between the sexes. Such assertions whole of chap. xv. iyeipm is the term con- 
lead to fantastic theories v-nip o yiypamai. stantly used both of Christ's resurrection 

' [" Whoever eats food, of whatever kind, and that of believers ; whereas ef eyeipio oc- 

puts it to its designed use : whoever com- curs in all the N. T. only here and Rom. ix. 

mits fornication uses his body in a way for 17 (in the latter passage, however, not of 

which it was never designed." Stanley.— the rising of the dead). 
T. W. C] 

CHAP. YI., 15, 16. 141 

because tittered from the standpoint of the writer— applies to God, not to 
Jesus (Theodoret) ; and Slo. rfjq dwafj.. avr. should be referred not to both 
the clauses in the sentence (Billroth), but, as its position demands, to e^eje- 
pel ; for to the ground of faith which the latter has in kuI rbv Kipiov ^yEipE, 
Paul now adds its undoubted possibility (Matt. xxii. 29), perhaps glancing 
purposely at the deniers of the resurrection, ttj a^ionicrla r^g tov woiovvrog 
(axvog Tovg avTcXeyovrag errcaTo/LciCuv, Chrysostom. 

Vv. 15-17. That fornication is not an indifferent thing like the use of 
meats, but anti- Christian, Paul has already pi-oved 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 ablwrrence foTnication. is on that account, 
he now brings home to the mind of Ms 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 j)rinei2ni 
(Baur in the theol. Jahrh. 1852, p. 538 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. 

— ovK oldaTE K.T.I.'] He here takes up once more, and exhibits with greater 
fulness, the thought in ver. 13, to cujia tQ Kvpiu, as the basis for the follow- 
ing warning : apag ovv k.t.1.- — jieIti Xpiarov] Inasmuch, that is to say, as 
Christ, as the Head of the Christian world, stands to it in the closest and 
most inward fellowship of organic life (see especially Eph. iv. 16), and forms, 
as it were, one moral Person with it ; the bodies of the individual believers, 
who in fact belong to the Lord, and He to them for this world and that which 
is to come (ver. 13 f.), may be conceived as Christ's members, just as from 
the same point of view the whole church of Christ is His collective organ, 
His body (Rom. xii. 5 ; Eph. i. 23 ; Col. i. 18, ii. 19 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13, al). 

— apag] Shall I then take away, take off, the members of Christ, and, etc. 
Billroth sees in apac simply minuteness of descrijition, indicative of deliber- 
ation, as in np^ . But this is to confound it with laftuv. The Vulgate 
renders rightly : tollens ; Luke vi. 29, xi. 22 ; John xi. 48 ; Plato, Fol. ix. 
p. 578 E, Tim. p. 76 B ; Sophocles, Trach. 796 ; 1 Mace. viii. 18. What 
is depicted is daring misapproptriation. The plural to, jiklr) denotes the cat- 
egory, for the matter "non quanta sit numero, sed qualis genere sit, specta- 
tur," Reisig, Congee, in Aristoph. p. 58. Since the Christian's body is among 
the members of Christ, the nopvevEiv is a deed whereby a man takes away 
the members of Christ from Him whose property they are, and makes them 
a harlot's members. — tto^^cw] future : Shull this case occur with me ? shall I 
degrade myself to this ? so far forget myself ? Riickert and Osiander hold 
that it is the aorist subjunctive : should I, etc. (see Herm. ad Viger. p. 
742). It is impossible to decide the point. 

Ver. 16. 'H ovk oUote] "Or if this fiij yhocTo (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 ij ovk oISute cannot correspond with the ovk 
oUaTE of ver. 15 (Hofmann : "either the one or the other they must be 
ignorant of," etc.), for qtl 6 koXAuh. k.t.X. manifestly refers to the conclusion 


from the preceding expressed in apag ovv, and therefore is subordinated to 
the question answered shudderingly with //?} yfvoim. In ver. 19, too, the ^ 
ovK ol6(iTf refers to wliat has just before been said. — ko?Mj/i.] who joins him- 
self to (p?7), indicating the union in licentious intercourse. Comp. Ecclus. 
xix. 2 ; Gen. ii. 24 ; Ezra iv. 20. — ry 7r6pvy] the harlot with whom he deals 
(article). — ev cu/xd eoriv'] is a single hody ; previous to the KoTiXacrOai he and 
the person concerned were tico bodies, but he who is joined to the harlot — 
an united subject — is 07ie body. — ioovrai yap k.t.I.'] Gen. ii. 24 (quoted from 
the LXX.) sjjeaks, indeed, of wedded, not unwedded, intercourse ; but 
Theodorct rightly points out the paritas rationis : ev yap kuI tovto Kanelvo t^ 
<j>vffei Tov TTpdypuTog. — (pr/alv] "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. Comj). on 
Matt. xix. 5. Similarly Gal. iii. 16 ; Eph. iv. 8 ; Ileb. viii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xv. 
27. 'II ypaifir/, which is what is usually supplied here, would need to be 
suggested by the context, as in Rom. xv. 10. Riickert arbitrarily prefers 
TO TTVEVfia.'' — 01 6i'o] the tico in question. Tlie 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. 
Rnbh. 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. 200 f.). — tlf aapKu pUiv] "in^ "^Vtl- See on Matt. xix. 5. 
Ver. 17. Weighty contrast to 6 Ko7.'Aufx. ry ■Kopvy iv cu/jd kan, no longer 
dependent on hn. — Kolldadai tQ> Kvplu, an expression of close attachment to 
Jehovah, wliich is very common in the O. T. (Jer. xiii. 11 ; Deut. x. 20, 
xi. 22 ; 2 Kings xviii. 6 ; Ecclus. ii. 3, al.). It denotes here, inward union 
of life with Christ, and is selected to be set against the /co/l/l. rfi ndpvy in ver. 
16, inasmuch as in both cases an intima conjunctio takes place, in the one 
fleshly, in the other spiritual. We are not to assume that Paul was thinking 
here, as in Eph. v. 23 if. (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 2 ; Rom. v. 4), of the union with 
Christ as a marriage (Piscator, Olshausen, comp. also Osiander) ; for in that 
mystical marriage-union Christ is the Bridegroom, filling the man^s place, 
and hence the contrast to KoTCk. ry Tiopvy would be an unsuitable one. 
Olshausen's additional conjecture, that when the apostle sjjoke of ry ndpvy 
there floated before his mind a vision of the great whore who sitteth upon 
many waters (Rev. xvii. 1), is an empty fancy. — ev nvev/id ian] conceived 
of as the analogue to i-v auiia. Com]). 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 nvevfia of the believing man 
and the nvev/ia 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 lumian spirit through the 

^ To take it imj)frsoiia/ly: '"it Li said," a,s quotations from Scripture. Comp. Winer, 

In 2 Cor. X. 10, according to tlie well-known Or. p. 486 [E. T. 656] ; Buttmann, nnit. Or. 

usage in the classics, would be without p. IIV [E. T. ia4]. 
warrant from any other instance of Paul's 

CHAP. VI., 18. 143 

power of th.e 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 2>ut in 
hazard (Hofmann), but excluded altogether as a moral i>rq)ossibilit>/ ! 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 verhum, quo actus concubialis sanctificatur,'''' Calovius. Comp. Weiss, 
liU. Tlieol. p. 421. 

Vv. 18-30. Direct prohibition of fornication, strengthened by description 
of it as a sin against one's own body, which is in fact the tem^olc of the Holy 
Spirit, etc. 

Ver. 18. ^zvyETE vr/v Tvopv.'] 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. — ttht d/japr/j/ia 
K.r.X.] asyndetic corroboration of the preceding prohibition. Paul does not 
say anything here incapable of being maintained in its full stringency of 
meaning (Riickert, de Wette), nor is there any reason for taking wav, with 
Michaelis, Flatt, Pott, and others, in a popnhw sense, as equivalent to 
almost all (comp. Theodore of Mopsuestia and Melanchthon : " cxmi quodam 
candore accipiatur de iis, quae saepias accidunt") ; but the truth of his 
words is based on the fact that every other sinful act (d/idpTTj/m), 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 d/idpTT^fia, 
viewed in its relation to the body, comes to stand ektoc tov (ju/naTog, and has 
there the sphere of its occurrence and consummation. This holds true even in 
the case of the suicide, whose act is in fact a sinful use of external things, 
the instance of a man's voluntarily starving himself not excepted (against 
Hofmann's objection), for this is accomplished by the abuse of abstinence 
from food (which is equally an external relationship), and therefore ektoc tov 
aufiaroq. How entirely different from the case of all such other sinful acts 
stands the state of things with unchasteness, where there is sin, not ektoq t. 
aufiaroc, but e'lc to ISiov au/m ! See below. In connection with this passage, 
expositors indulge in many arbitrary and sometimes very odd interpretations ' 

1 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, al., The body in its totality, he holds, is meant, 
shigle out as the characteristic point— con- inasmuch as it is one body with the harlot, 
trary to the literal tenor of the passaf,'e— and in virtue of this unity the fornicator 
the defilement of the ichole body by forni- has the object of his sin not without hira- 
cation, on which gi-ound a t)ath is taken self, but in himself, and sins against the 
subsequently. This latter point Theodorct body identified with his own self. But all 
also lays stress upon, explaining, however, this is not in the text, and no reader could 
the expression by the fact that the man read it into the text. Hofmann, too, im- 
who commits other sins ov Too-auTTjv ala-^ria-iv ports what is' neither expressed in the 
Aafi/Sivei T^s a^apria's, while the profligate, words themselves nor suggested by the an- 
on the other hand, eiiJi-v iJ^^ra rriv inapWa.' tithesis,— tlie obscure notion, namely, that, 
alo-.^ai/eroi toO Ka<oi Kal airh to (Tci^ia ^SeKvr- as In the case of the glutton, after oomplet- 
Terai. Chrysostom's interpretation of the ing the deed " ike thing of his sin does rot 
whole body has been taken up again by rcinaiti with him'' (?). 
Baur (in the theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 510 f.). 


and. saving clauses. Among these must be reckoned the exposition of 
Calvin and others, hy way of comparUon : "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 signijicance (namely, 
as the sum of the 2Je>'so7udity) . According to Chr. F. Fritzsche {JS^ova Opusc. 
p. 249 f.), what is meant is that all other sins do not separate the body of 
the Christian from the body of Christ, this taking place only through for- 
nication (ver. 15). But the general and local expression i/crof r. trw/iarof 
eoTLv docs 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. — b kav /c.r.A.] which in any case whatever (Hermann, ad 
Viger. p. 819) a man shall have committed. Respecting idv, instead of av, 
after relatives, see "Winer, p. 291 [E. T. 390]. — eKTogr. auju. tanv] inasmuch 
as the sinful deed done has been one brought about outside of the body. — eif to 
ISiov au/ia] For his own bodily frame is the immediate object Avhich he 
affects in a sinfid way^ whose moral purity and honour he hurts and wounds 
by his action. Comp. on etf, 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 weaJcening effect upon the body itself (Athanasius 
in Oecumenius, and others). 

Ver. 19 justifies the d/iaprdvEi in respect of the specific descrii^tion of it 
given by dg to hhov tru/zn. " Commits sin,'''' I say, against his own body ; or^ 
in case yc doubt tha^ 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, ji. 60) is the temple (not : a temple, see on iii. 16) 
of the Holy Spirit which is in you (Rom. viii. 11) ; and that (2) ye belong not 
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. — ov excte cnrd Qenv] gives edge to the proof,' and 
leads on to the second point (ovk eote iavTuv). Ov is under attraction from 
ay. nv. (Winer, p. 154 [E. T. 203]). — kuI ovkk.t.?,.] still dependent upon oti, 
which is to be supplied again after Kai, not an independent statement (Hof- 
mann, who takes the Kai as meaning also), which would needlessly interrupt 
the flow of the animated address. 

Ver. 20. For (proof of the ovk eote iav-.) 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 j)rice, which was paid to God for your 
reconciliation with Ilim, namely, the blood of Christ, Matt. xxvi. 28 ; 
Rom. iii. 24 f. ; 2 Cor. v. 18 flf. ; 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 

' Chrysostom : icoi rbi' ieJioKora ridti.Ktv, the Idea of tlie body being the temple of the 
iii/ojAoi' T« 6/u.oC iTOMv Toi' aKpoa.Ti]v, Ka.\ (fto^uv Holy Spirit, ill opposition to the abuse of 
(cai T<Z fieyet'^ei t^5 jrapaKaraiJiJKjjs Kai tr <t>i\o- it in debauchery, comp. Herm. Pa^t. Sim. 

Ti/iia ToO napaKara^eiievov. Further, aS tO V. 7. 

NOTES. 145 

Christ ; but see John xvii. 9. — r<//7/f ] strengthens the ijyopdcO. as the op- 
posite of acquiring without an equivalent. Comp. vii. 23. The common 
exposition (following the Vulgate) : magno 2^retio, 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. — do^aaare 6?/ k.t.I.] Do hut glorify^ etc. This is the moral 
obligation arising out of the two things grasped by faith as certainties, 
ver. 19. Regarding the 6t] of urgency with imperatives, see on Acts xiii. 2. 
— kv Tu au/i. v/i.] not instrumental, nor as in Phil. i. 20 (comp. Rom. xii. 
1), but so expressed, because the exhortation proceeds upon the footing of 
the whole tenor of ver. 19, in which the body is described as a temple; in 
your tody, namely, practically by chastity, the opposite of which would be 
an an/zdi^eiv rbv Qe6v (Rom. ii. 23) in His own sanctuary ! 

Notes by American Editor. 
(o) T%e Judging of angels. Ver. 3. 

The author is undoubtedly correct in saying that here, according to the con- 
stant iisage 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 ?' ' 

(p) 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 it is not wonderful that this should have 
cropped out in the Christians of Corinth. AVhat 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 

(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 
Scripture— Ps. li. 7 ; Isa. i. 16 ; Rev. xxii. 14 (true text). All three expressions 
are to be taken simply as a varied utterance of the same truth, and their force 
is well given by Stanley thus : " Ye were 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 


Ver. 3. 60e/^7?v] Elz. and Matt, read d<l)£i?io/Ltevr]v evvoiav, against decisive evi- 
dence. Erroneous explanation. — Ver. 5. T?} vqazEig aai after axolaarjTe (not 
axoXai^TjTe, Elz.) is an inappropriate addition in the ascetic interest ; and 
cvvEpXEofiE, in place of ijts, is a gloss. — Ver. 7. yap'] A C D* F G N*, min. It. 
Copt. Goth, and several Fathers have 6L Approved by Griesb., and adopted 
by Lachm. Tisch. and Eiick. The yap was an incorrect gloss upon the 6e. — 
Instead of 6f . . . of, read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following the majority of 
the uncials, 6 ... 6. In ver. 10 again, Lachm. and Riick. put ,Y"P'Cf<^^«t in 
place of ;i:upt(T6^j'at (with A D E F G) ; but, considering the weight of authority 
on the other side, a^ievaL dissuade us from the change. — Ver. 13. ovtoq'] 
approved also by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Eiick. and Tisch. The evidence 
against avToq (Elz.) is conclusive. But this induces us to read avrj} in ver. 12 
also (with Lachm. Tisch. and Riick.). — avTovl Lachm. Tisch. and Eiick. have 
Tov avSpa, approved bj^ Griesb. also, and on conclusive grounds. Kvtov has 
crept in from uniformity to ver. 12. Had there been a gloss, we should have 
found a corresponding variation of avTijv in ver. 12 as well. — Ver. 14. ai'dpi] 
The uncials from A to G, X* Copt. Baschm. It. Jerome, and Augustine, read 
aSeTKpC). Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Eiick. and Tisch. 
'Avdpl is an explanatory addition. — Ver. 15. ?///df ] Tisch. has v/idg, but the evi- 
dence for it is weaker ; and vfidg would easily come in from ver. 14. — Ver. 17. 
Kvpioc] Elz. and Matt, read Oeog, and, after KeKTirjKev : 6 Kvpiog. Against con- 
clusive testimony ; Kvpioc was glossed and dislodged by Geof, and then after- 
wards reinserted in the wrong place. Hence in G, Boern. we have 6 Kvpto^ 
... 6 Kvpiog 6 6e6(,-. — Ver. 18. Instead of the second rtf EKhjOn, Lachm. Tisch. 
and Eiick. read KEKlETai tic, with A B N, min., and additional support from D* 
F and G, which have rig kekI. The Recepta is a mechanical repetition from the 
first clause of the verse. — Ver, 28. yr/p-yg] B X have yaprjcn^i ; and, since in A we 
have yapijay, and in D E F G XdjSt^g yvva'iKa, which is plainly a gloss, the evi- 
dence preponderates in favour of yaprjcriQ (Lachm. Tisch.) ; ynpriQ arose out of 
what follows. —Ver. 29.' After aSET^foi Elz. has on, against A B K L N, min. 
Baschm. Syr. p. Vulg. Eus. Method. Basil, Theodoret, Hierat. al. An exegetical 
addition. — to loinov eotlv'] A B X, min. Copt. Syr. p. Arm. Slav. Eus. Ephr. 
Basil, Cyr. have egti to TLOirrdv. Now, seeing that D* has simply kari Ioltxov, 
and F G 67** Boern. Vulg. Method. Tert. Jerome, Ambrosiast. al. have ect'i, 
Xonrdv egtlv, the reading of A, etc., is best accredited. That in the Eeceived 
text originated in the wish to indicate the fact that to Iolttov 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 Eariv and to Tioindv, which is done by Lachm. 
Tisch. Eiick. and Scholz, see the exegetical remarks on the verse. — Ver. 31. ru 

' Eespectinff ver. 29, see Reiche, comment, crii. I. p. 1V8 ff. 

148 Paul's first epistle to the couixtiiiaxs. 

noafiif) TovTcp] Lacbm. Tisch. and Riick. read ror Korrfjov, witli A B X, also D* F 
G 17, which, however, add tovtov. The dative was a correction to bring it 
into accordance with the common usage ; tovtov (rovT(f)) again in addition from 
what follows. — Vv. 32-34. dptTft] Lachm. and Riick. have apeci^, with A B D E 
F G X 21 46, Ens. 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.' iiefiipiaTni k.t.T^"] Knl 
fiefifptoTai occurs in A B D* K, min. Syr. p. Copt. Vulg. Cyr. Jerome, and 
many other Fathers, and is joined to what precedes it by most of the codd. 
Copt. 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 Kai after f^e/iip., 
which is wanting in Elz., is conclusively attested by A B D*** F G K L K, 
min. Aeth. Vulg. It. Chrys. al. Going on with the verse, we find f) ayajioq after 
yvvi'i in A B K, some min. Vulg. and several Fathers ; while, on the other hand, 
there is no tj ayafioq after TzapQivoc 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) [«ai] pefitpiaTai Kal f/ ■)vr7} kuI y TrapOivog- rj uya- 
fioc fxepi/n'd K.-.A., and (2) Ka\ /^ie/iEpiarni. K<il r] yvvi/ tj aynfxog k(u y nap6ho( i/ 
ayafiog ^Epifivd K.T.X. The latter is adopted by Lachm. and Eiick. ; but is vot 
to be preferred, because it offers no difficulty whatever, and, consequently, no 
occasion for any change. The former, on the contrary (found in D*** F G K 
L, and many min. It. Slav. Chrys. Theodoret, Dam.), presented a stone of stum- 
bling in the /le/iipiaTai, which was either not \inderstood at all, or misunderstood. 
Where not understood, it was left out altogether (so even Cj'prian : " uxori. 
Sic et mulier et virgo innupta cogitat," etc.) ; where misunderstood (that 
/lepisenOac miist mean curls distrahi, see Jerome, adv. Jovin. i. 7), it was con- 
nected with the preceding clause by kcu (which apjiears, therefore, to be spuri- 
ous). This made ywr} be taken as mulier vidua (Aeth.) ; and hence r/ nya/wc 
was either pushed forward (Vulg.), or else left in connection with irapbevoq, 
and the same word added to yvvrj as well (A B X, Lachm.). Scholz, too, has 
the words as in our reading,^ but spoils it by his quite wrong and abrupt method 
of punctuation : r^ yvvaiKr lie/neptaTai. Kai y ywy Kal y napOevog y uyafiog fiepifiv^ 
K,T.?i. — Ver. 34. nl tov Koa/iov] omitted in B alone, which, however, is approved 
of by Buttmann {Shtdien u. Krit. 1860, p. 370). — Ver. 37. t6paiog- kv Ty «a/-»(i/a] 
Lachm. reads h t^ Kap6. avrov etJ^jaZof, which has conclusive evidence in its 
favour ; on the other hand, there is no sufficient ground for omitting ^(5p. (as 
Griesb. does) or avrov (deleted by Tisch.). As regards rSpa'iog 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 iaryKsv. — avrov tov"] 
is deleted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. in accordance with A B K. In place of 
it, Tisch., following the same authorities, has iv ry 16 ia Kapdia. The evi- 
dence, however, for avTov tov (the uncials D E F G K L) is too weighty and 
uniform, while tov again was in appearance so cumbrous and superfluous, and 
such a natural occasion for writing I6ia instead of avrov presented itself in the 

' Respecting ver. 34, see Reiche, Co»»7««n<. ed by Tisch. Elz. varies from it only in 
crit. I. p. IM ff. omittind tlie <toi after fie/j-epio-Tai, •whicb was 

' It is defended also by Relche and retain- justly reinserted by Bi ngel. 

CHAP. VII., 1. 149 

preceding ISlov OeXr/fj.., that our conclusion is to retain the Recepta. — Instead 
of ^inei, A B X 6 17 37, Copt, have Trnu/aei (as also where it occurs for the sec- 
ond time in ver. 38), which is adopted by Lachm. and Kiick. (B 6 17 37 have 
■KOLTjGEL also the first time in ver. 38). But in default of internal reasons for a 
change, these witnesses, having no support from the Fathers, and next to none 
from the vss., are too weak to warrant it. — Ver. 38. 6 EKyafiii^uv'] Lachm. and 
Riick. have "6 }uu'i(uv ttjv napOivov iunrov. Now it is true that ■yafii^cji' occurs in 
A B D E K 17 23 31 46, Clem. Method. Basil., and r^i^ TvupO. eavr. (or r. lavr. 
TTupB., SO Kiick.) in much the same codices and Syr. Erp. Arm. Baschm. Aeth. 
Vulg. Clar. Germ. Clem. Basil, al. But the whole reading is manifestly of 
tlie nature of a gloss, EK-ya/xl^uv, being explained sometimes by ya^il^uv ti/v TzapO. 
tavT., sometimes by the addition to it of ryv napd. eavr. The latter phrase 
crept into the text beside £Kya/x., the former in place of it. — Instead of 6 6e read 
sal 6 ; so Griesb. Lachm. Schulz, Riick. Tisch., upon conclusive evidence. 
The antithesis gave rise to the 6 6e. — Ver. 39. After (Jf'deraj EIz. has vnfiu, 
against A B D* F" • K**, min. with many vss. and Fathers. Taken from llom. 
vii. 2, although Reiche doubts this. — kav Je] Tisch. has kdv 6e kuI, upon 
insufficient evidence ; the kuI might easily come in through writing the next 
syllable twice over, or by a clei'ical error such as KEKnt^ifir] (so F G). 

Contents. — Instructions regarding marriage, matrimonial intercourse, 
and divorce (vv. 1-17) ; then an excursus upon the theme that the reception 
of Christianity ought not to alter the outward relations of life (vv. 17-24) ; 
lastly, about virgins — as to how far celibacy in general is advisable for both 
sexes (vv. 25-34), and whether a father does better to let his daughter re- 
main single, or give her away in marriage (vv. 35-38). The same advice, 
to remain unmarried, is given to widows (ver. 89 f.). Comp. on this chap- 
ter, Harless, die Ehescheidiingsfrage^ 1861. 

Ver. 1. Ae] leads over to the answering of questions put in the letter 
from Corinth. — kypafaTE /mi] 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 snUistence 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 "sm& Christianorum 

» Fragment of a Codex of the 7th century. from the perverted moral extravagance of 

See Tisch. Monum. sacr. ined. p. 460. others, who, because of the of 

^ If the opinion that fornication was sex involved, counted marriage also an im- 

lawful (vi. 12 ff.) arose at Corinth out of an pure thing, and would have the maxim : 

Epicurean libertinism, the doubts regard- ko-Kov av^pionw yux/acKos jirj an-Teo-rJai, to be of 

ing the lawfulness of marriage must have absolute and universal application, 
flowed from the opposite source, to wit. 


nomine pMlosoj)hi verius quam Christiani.'''' But such of the Greek philoso- 
l)lR'rs as advocated views adverse to marriage did so upon the ground of 
the cares and danf/ers connected with marriage (see Grotius in loc), not 
from any doubt regarding its momliti/, as, according to vv. 28, 36, must 
have been the case among the Corinthians. Further, it is certain that the 
adversaries of marriage could jwt be of the Petrine 2Mrty ; for Peter himself 
was married (Matt. viii. 14 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5), and the Judaizing tendency, 
which cannot be proved to have had an Essene-Ebionitic character in Cor- 
inth (Schwegler, I. p. 163 f.'), could be nothing else but favourable to 
marriage (see Lightfoot, Horae, p. 189). Olshausen (comp. also Jaeger, 
Kniewel, Goldhorn, Ewald) decides for the Christ-jxirty, 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 Ensenism 
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, Rabiger, Osiander, Maier, Riickert re- 
fuses to give a decision), who — in opj^osition, 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 lelow 
celibacy, and advising against it, hence, too, as respects married persons, 
favouring a cessation from matrimonial intercourse and even divorce (vv. 3 
ff., 10 ff.). — Kalov av6piJTTu\ With respect to what you have written to me 
{ntpl K.T.I., absolute, as in xvi. 1, 13 ; Bernhardy, p. 261 ; Bremi, ad De- 

> One section of the Essenes even declared should have adduced the unwedded life of 

itself against celibacy, Josephus, Bell. ii. Christ as an argument against marriage— 

8. 1.3 ; Kitschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 185. in the first place, because He, as the incnr- 

•J According to Ewald (comp. too, his nate Son of God, held too lofty a place in 
Oench. der ajtod. Zeit. p. 603 f.), the C^hrist- the believing consciousness to present a 
party appealed to i\\e example of Clirisl m standard for such earthly relationsliips ; 
regard to this point especially. But had and secondly, because He Himself in His 
that been the case, we should surely have teaching had so strongly upheld the sane- 
found some traces of it in Paul's way of tity of marriage. 

discussing the question, whereas, on the ^ j^gt ^s they were often misinterpreted, 

contrary, the reference which he deems it as is well known, in after times in the 

due to make is rather to Jus own example interests of the celibate system, of nunner- 

(ver. 7). Looking at the matter as a whole, ies and monasteries, 
it is prima facie improbable that any one 

CHAP. VII., 3. 151 

mosth. 01. p. 194 ; Maetzner, adAntiph. p. 170), it is good for a man, etc., that 
is to say : it is moralli/ salutary ^for an (unmarried) mail not to touch a teaman. 
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 ywaiKog fir/ aTTTEadai 
is, indeed, something morally salutary in and by itself ; but this affirmation, 
made from a general jioint 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 Kalbv k.t.1. is not appropriate 
for the defence of celibacy in general (" si honum est mulierem non tangere, 
malum ergo est tangere," Jerome, ad Jovin. i. 4, and see especially Cornelius 
fi Lapide in he). — anreaOai, like tangere in the sense of sexual intercourse 
(Gen. XX. 16, xxi. 11 ; Prov. vi. 39). See Wetstein and Kypke, 11. p. 
204 f. Marriage is the particular case coming under this general ywaiKoc 
a-n-Teudai, to be treated of in detail hereafter. Riickert, failing to recognize 
this progress in the apostle's argument (so, too, Kliug in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1839, p. 444), holds that the reference is to sexual intercourse in m.arriages 
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 
" a chaste life, as of hrother and sister, was more consonant, on the part of 
married persons, with delicacy of moral feeling" {Kaldv) ; 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 tcithout a /uev, because it is, in the first place, conceived simjdy in itself ; 
the limitation which follows is added with 6e by way of antithesis. Comp. 
on Eph. V. 8, and Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 433. Precisely so, too, in ver. 8. 
Ver. 2. In order, however, that offences in the way of fornication (see on this 
plural of the abstract, Kuhner, II. p. 28 ; Maetzn. ad Lycurg. p. 144 f.) 
may le avoided in practice, the rule holds good : Let every man have ^ a icife of 
his oicn (properly belonging to himself in marriage), etc. On Jm, comp. 
Winer, p. 372 [E. T. 497]. Ruckert, de Wette, and Maier are wrong in 
maintaining that kxeru 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 anodi- 
i)6tu in ver. 8 is not to be taken as permissive, any more than the yafiTjaaTuaav 
which answers to f jeru in ver. 9. It is opposed, further, by the considera- 
tion that dia rag rropvEiag is a determining element of a moral kind, which 
must therefore necessarily lead not to a mere permissibility, but to a positive 

> That we have in Ka\ov k.t.A. a moral ly stated.— T. W. C] 

axiom, a statement of what is ethically = This ix^iv is nothing else but the simple 

salutary, not a mere utilitarian principle of habere (to posses.s) ; it does not mean inter- 

practical prudence, is clear, especially fi-om tercourse in marriage, which ought to be 

the comparison in the last clause of ver. 0, covtinved (Kling, Heydenreich, following 

and from vv. 32-34, where the ethi(!iil benefit Cameron and Estius). Paul comes to that 

of it is explained. [See the limitation of only in ver. 3. 
KaKov in ver. 26, where the reason is formal- 

153 Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. 

obligation (already noted by Erasmus). This injunction, liowever, is a 
moral rule, to wbicli exceptions may occur frt)m higher considerations in 
cases where no danger of fornication is apprehended and there is the " do- 
num continentiae," as Paul liimself had shown by liis own example, — in 
wliich, nevertheless, no support whatever is given to any sort of celibacy 
enforced hy law, a thing which, on the contrary, our text decidedly dis- 
countenances. Hiickert thinks further that Paul exhibits here a very poor 
opinion of marriage ; and Baur (in the theol. Jahrh. 1852, p. 15 if.) 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 Ilothe, Ethik, III. p. 614. But can it be true, then, that Jie, who looked 
upon the union with Christ itself as the analogue of wedded life, valued 
marriage only as a " temperamcntum contirfentiae" ? No ! what he docs is 
this : out of all the diflferent grounds on which marriage rested in his mind, 
he selects just that one which, in the first place, specially concerned his 
readers (remember the nopivdidl^Eadai), and in the second jjlace, 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 avdyKTi, 
the near approach of the Lord, and the necessity, therefore, of an undivided 
surrender to Him, Paul had, under these given circximstances, recognized in 
the state of single life what in and by itself was Ka/ihv avdpumj, if only no 
foi'nication and heat icere conjoined thereicith. It is from tliis 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. — iTTjv b^eilfiv'] the due in the matter (Rom. xiii. 7), i.e. according to the 
context, as euphemistically expressed, the debitum tori.^ See ver. 4. The 
word does not occur at all in Greek writers ; see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 90. 
Nor does it in the LXX. and the Apocrypha. — tj ywy tov l^iov a6/i. k.t.Tl.] 

'Comp. In opposition to tiiis, Ernesti, in Pliilo. f/« .Iftr. p. Si^), l)iit<|>iAdT.)s(Honier). 

Ethik des Ap. Paulus, p. 115 f. ni'fi^, awovaia. Tlie author of tlie ploss, 

^ If we adopted tlie common reading Tiji- tlierefore, must eitiier liave misunderstood 

o^eiAofi. eui-oiaf, we sliould not talie it, witli riji' 6(^6iA>).', (ir, understandiiijLC it rijrhtly, 

Grotius, a/., in tlie .same sen.s(! as given liavo used a wroiij; e.\prfssii)n to explain 

above, but generally, with Calvin and it. The reading 60f .Aome.'jji' nurji' in Chrys- 

others, as benevolenUam. For the expression ostom points to the former alternative, 
for that special idea is not eii/oia (not even 

CHAP. VII., 5, G. 153 

Explanatory of ver. 3. The tcife has no poicer over her own locly, namely, as 
regards cohabitation, hut the husband has that power ; likewise (djiwiut;) also 
on the other hand, the converse holds, so that ' ' neutri liceat alteri con jugale 
debitum jjoscenti denegare," Estius. Corresponding statements of the 
Rabbins may be seen in Selden, uxor. Hehr. iii. 6. 7. — Bengel says happily 
respecting hViov, that it forms with ohii t^ovaidi^ec an elegans paradoxon. 

Ver. 5. WitMwld not yoursches from each other, unless it were perhaps {nisi 
forte, comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 5 ; Luke ix. 13) that ye did so as occasion emerged 
(dv), l>y agreement for a time (supply airoaTepf/Te aXli/l. ; see on Luke ix. 13). 
The obvious meaning is eujihemistically exjjressed by anocTep. ; ajav roivw 
dp/ioSiug TovTo TeOctKEv errl tuv oh avfKpcjvug rfjv kyKpareiav aipovfievov, Theodoret. 
— 'iva axoTiaGrjTE k.t. A.] Iva introduces the design of the concession just made kn 
cvfi(j)6v. npoQ Kaipov : 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 j^raying of the Christian heart, which ought to ascend 
dScaXsi-iTTuc (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 ; jirobably 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. Ill 
f. Comp. Test. XII. Pair. p. 673 : natphq yap cwovaing ■yvvaiKog ahroii, Kal 
Kaipog kyKparsiag elg Tvpocrevxvv aiiTov. — Kal nd'kiv 7/re] still dependent on Iva, 
indicates gejjlvuq the being together again for matrimonial intercourse. With 
respect to kirl to avrS,^ comp. on Acts i. 15. — Iva fiij Treipdi^y k.t.'A.] design of 
the Kal TcdXiv . . . r/re : 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. 'AKpaaia, 
which occurs again in the N. T. in its older form of dKpdrsia, Matt, xxiii. 25, 
comes from aKpan'/g {Kparelv), and is the opposite of kyKpdre/n. See Lobeck, 
ad Phryn. p. 524 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Pep. 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 aKpdaia 
(with the a long, from aKpaToq), in the Ionic form aKpr/air/, means bad mixture, 
as opposed to evKpacia. See Theophrastus, c. 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 lach 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. TovTo] does not refer to what follows (J. Cappellus, Rosenmiiller), 
which it does not suit ; nor to ver. 2 (Beza, Grotius, de Wette, Gratama, 

> Erasmus remarks rightly : " ut intelligas, cos ante fuisse separates thalands.''' 

154 TAUL'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 k. naXiv km to avrb i/re (Origen, TertuUiau, Je- 
rome, Cornelius a Lapide, al.), which is but a subordinate 2Jortion of the 
preceding utterance. It is to this utterance : //?/ a-oarepelTe . . . uKp. v/iuv, 
which directly precedes the tovto, that it can alone be made to refer without 
arbitrariness, — an utterance which might have the appearance of an kiziTayij, 
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 hy way of 
command, as if you might not be abstinent at other times or for a longer period 
t/c avfKpcjvov, 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 : avyKaraBalvuv tJj aadevela v/uup, and Erasmus : " con- 
sul© vestris periculis." — avyyvufiri occurs here only in the N. T. (Ecclus., 
pref. i. and iii. 13), but very often in Greek writers, — not, however, in the 
LXX. It means invariably either forgiveness, or, as here, foi'ltearance, indul- 
gence, yvo)/iTj KpiTLKTj Tov ETTiEiKovg opBI], Aristotlc, EtJi. vi. 11. Hammond and 
Pott transgress the law^s of the language by making it the same as /cord -yv 
ifiyv yvo)fi!/v. So even Valckenaer ; comp. Calovius, Flatt, Heydenreich, al. 
Ewald, too, renders without any support from the usage of the language : 
'■'■with the best conscience.'''' 

Ver. 7. I do not say by way of command that you should withhold your- 
selves only for the time of prayer and then be together again ; biit indeed 
(6i) I wish i\\?it everyone had the gift of continency, as I myself, and so 
could restrain himself, not merely at such isolated periods for some particu- 
lar higher end ; still (and that justifies what I said : Kara cvyyvu/iu/v) this gift 
is not vouchsafed to all. There is no more ground for supposing that fiiv 
should be supplied (after Xeyw) in connection with this de, than there is in 
ver. 2 (against Riickert). — ug kuI kfiavTou] as also I myself, that is to say, 
endued icith the donum continentiae, h kyKpareia, Chrysostom. See what fol- 
lows. He does not mean his state of single life, but its charismatic basis. 
The Kai is, as for instance in Acts xxvi. 29, the quite commonly used Kai of 
comparison. — x^piofio] « special endowment bestowed by divine grace, fitting 
Mm for the jmrjyoses of the Mngdom of God. Comp. on xii. 1—4 ; Rom. xii. 
0. It is of course, and necessarily (because communicated through the 
Spirit), conceived as existing within the church. The words Travrac avOpd)- 
TToi'f do not contradict this ; for Paul could most warrantably wish to all 
men that gracious gift, which he as a Christian was conscious that he pos- 
sessed, and as to which he knew that even within the Christian pale it was 
vouchsafed to one and withheld from another. — 6 fiev ovrug /c.t.A.] is not to 
be understood as if the first ovrug meant the gift of continence, and the 
second a man's sintableness for wedded life (de Wette, with older commen- 
tators, beginning with Theodoret and Theophylact), but in a quite geno'al 
sense : the one has his peculiar gift of grace after this fashimi, the other in 
that ; the one so, the other so. Under this general statement, the possession 

CHAP. VII., 8, 9. 155 

of continence, or some other gracious endowment in its place, is included. 
As to the double oiiTug, comp. LXX. 3 Sam. xi. 35 : Tcore fitv nvrug kuI ttote 
ovTuq Karaipdyerai y poficpaia, also Judg. xviii. 4 ; 2 Kings v. 4 ; 3 Sam. xvii. 15. 
It is not so used in Greek writers. 

Vv. 8, 9. Aeju 6i] leads on from what is contained in ver. 7 (from the 
subjective tcish of the apostle and its objective limitation) to the rules 
flowing therefrom, which he has now to enunciate. Riickert holds that the 
transition here made by Paul is from the married to the unmarried. But 
were that the case, rolg 6e aydjioic would require to stand first (comp. ver. 
10) ; the emphasis is on leyu. — ro?f aydjioig] what is meant is the whole 
category, all without distinction, including toth sexes, not simjjly widowers ; ' 
for the phrase opposed to it, rolg yeya/iijKdat, in ver. 10, embraces ioth sexes ; 
and hence dyd/x. cannot apply to the unmarried men alone (Riickert). The 
additional clause, k. ralg x^P^-'-^i by no means justifies a restrictive rendering ; 
for in it the Kai does not mean also (Hofmann), but, as the connective and, 
singles out specially from the general expression something already included 
in it : and in 2)a)'tictilar the widows. The idiom is an ordinary one both in 
classical and N. T. Greek (Matt. viii. 33 ; Mark xvi. 7 ; and often else- 
where) ; see Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 11, 713. Comp. here Soph. 0. R. 1503 : 
Xepaovq (jidapyvac naydfiovg. 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 ff.). — nalov (as in ver. 1) avrotg, sc. sari ; comp. 
ver. 40. — kdv fieivuacv k.t.X.] if they shall have remained as I also {have remain- 
ed), i.e. unmarried. The opposite of this is yaiirjaaTucav, ver. 9. The (jf 
Kayu therefore receives here from the context a different meaning than in ver. 
7. Luther, Grotius, and others infer from this passage that Paul was a 
widower ; ^ so, too, Ewald. But this conclusion rests upon the assumption, 
which is linguistically inadmissible, that aydjioig denotes widowers alone 
{i.e. xvpot) ; and, moreover, would not be a safe inference even were the 
assumption sound. Acts vii. 58, moreover, is against this ; for one could 
not place Paul's marriage after the stoning of Stephen. — ovk eyparevovTai] 
to be closely joined together : are incontinent. See Hartung, PartiMl. II. 
p. 133 ; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 367 ; Ameis on Horn. Od. ii. 274. The 
verb kyKpaTEvececu (Ecclus. xix. 6) is foreign to the older Greek, although this 
precise phrase : ovk. kyapar., is sanctioned by Thomas, p. 30, and Phryn. p. 
443. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. l.c.—yaiirjcdT.] Regarding the later form of 
the aorist eyd/nTjaa, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 742. — nvpovaOai] to he in a 
fame, of vehement emotions (2 Cor. xi. 29 ; 2 Mace. iv. 38, x. 35, xiv. 45 ; 
of love, Anacreon, x. 13) ; it means here, " occulta flamma concupiscentiae 
vastari," Augustine, de sancta virginit. 34. Comp. Suicer, Thes. II. p. 895 ; 
from the Rabbins, the history of Amram in Lightfoot, Jloi'ae, p. 190 ; from 
the classics, .lacobs, Del. Bjjigr. v. 34. — Kpsiaoov] not because it is the least 

' Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Es- the ancient church was that Paul was never 

tius, al., including Pott, Heydenreich, Bill- married (Tertullian, Jerome, Chrysostoni, 

roth, Ewald. al-)- The contrary is stated in Clem. Alex. 

* The prevalent and correct tradition of (in Eua. H. K iii. 30). 


of two evils (Riickert, Kling ; comp. Estius), but because to marry is no sin 
(vv. 38, 30), Avliilo to burn is sinful (Matt. v. 28). 

Ver. 10. But to those icho have married; tliis is ojiposed to the ya/xriffdru- 
cav, which referred to future marriages. 'Accordingly, just as yafi^adr. ap- 
plied only to Christians of both sexes leading a single life, so yeyaiiTjKdci, 
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 Avas not a Christian, by roif ?,o<7roZc, 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 imderstands 
toIq jEyafiTjKdm 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 disapi^roved of by some ; and, because the apostle 
had given an opinion iu ver. 8 unfavourable to such marriages, he 
now forbid the dissolution of a union of that sort when once formed. But 
the fact of the hydfxoi and the widows being coui^led together in ver. 8 lends 
no support whatever to this, for aydiioiq applies to hoth 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 vewcrr/). 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 sejiarated herself 
from her husband presented to the Christian consciousness the most anoma- 
lous phenomenon in this sphere, and notwithstanding might not \mfrequent- 
ly occur in the wanton city of Corinth even within the Christian society. ' 
This is quite suflScient, without there being any need for assuming that the 
apostle had been questioned about some case of this kind (Hofmann), jiarticu- 
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. — ovk kyu, all' 6 Krptof] The negation 
is absolute. Paul knew from the living voice of tradition what commands 
Christ had given concerning divorce. Matt. v. 31 €., xix. 3-9 ; Mark x. 2- 
12 ; Luke xvi. 18. Hence 6 Krpiog, sc. TrapayyillFc, 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 

• That we are to ascribe the tendency to state of morals at Corinth is explanation 

such separation precisely to devoid entlmn- enough, more especially in connection with 

asm on the part of Corinthian wives leading the easy and frivolous way in which 

them to shrink from matrimonial inter- divorces took place in Greek social life 

course (de Wette, comp. Hofmann, p. 140), generally (Hermann, Privaialierlh. § xxx. 

is a view which is inadmissible for this 14-16), not merely by dismissal on the part 

reason, that Paul, having before him such of the husband (a7ro7re>7reii/), but also by de- 

a mere error of feeling and judgment, sertion on the part of the wife (anokiiweiv) ; 

would have made a disproportioii;ite con- comp. Bremi, ad Bern. I. p. 98. 
cession to it by saying ixtviTia dya/oios. The 

CHAP. VII., 11. 157 

known to liim "by insxiiration) . It is otherwise in 1 Thess. iv. 15. As re- 
gards the fyw, again, Paul was conscious (ver. 40) that his individuality was 
under the influence of the Holy Spirit. He distinguishes, therefore, here 
and in vv. 18, 35, not between Ms own and insjnred commands, but between 
those which ])roceeded from Ms own (God-inspired) subjectivity and those 
wMch CM'ist Himself siqqMed hy His objective word, (r) Since, now, the 
■KDevfia Qsov in no way differs from the Twevjua Xpiarod (Rom. viii. 9-11), 
Kvpiov ivTolal (xiv. 37 according to the Text, recept.) could be predicated of 
the former class of precepts also, although neither in the same sense as of 
the latter, in which Paul's own subjectivity had no share whatever, nor with 
the same force of absolute obligation ; but, on the contrary, only in so far 
as the other party recognizes them as evToTiac Kvpiov (xiv. 37). — /if/ jw/)<<r^^m«] 
let her not be separated, which, however, is not purely passive here (as in 
Polybius xxxii. 12. 7), but means : let Tier not separate herself. Isae. viii. 
36, p. 73. For the rest, vv. 13, 15 prove that this phrase and fjfj cKp/svai 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 kdv to Karall. is a jiarenthesis pure and simple, disjoined 
from the rest of the sentence which continues with koI avdpa. But in case 
she should perhaps {tav &£) even {Kai, i.e. in fact, actually ; see Hartung, Par- 
tihell. I. p. 133 f.) be separated (have sejiarated 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 ovk 
kyu, alT: 6 Kvp., ver. 10), but he supposes a future case, which will possibly 
arise notwithstanding the commandment of the Lord's just adduced. The 
eav Kai therefore, with the 6e of antithesis, introduces, as in ver. 38, an oc- 
currence which will possibly be realized in the e.rperiencs of the future (Her- 
mann, ad Viger. p. 834 ; Winer, p. 375 [E. T. 367]). This in opposition 
to Riickert, who maintains that the words refer to that sijecific case (see on 
ver. 10), and mean : if however, she should perhaps have already separated 
herself before receiving this decision ; and likewise to Hofmaun, who ren- 
ders : if such a separation has actually already tal^en place within the church, 
thereby presupposing that such a thing will henceforth never take place 
there again. — iieveru dya/zof ] 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. — f/] or else; comp. on ix. 
15. — KaTaAlayrjTu] pMssive, leaving it undefined as to who was the active 
subject in the case (see Buttmann, I. p. 368 ; Winer, p. 345 [E. T. 338]) : 
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. — Kal avSpa yw. /i^ 
a(j)C£vai] and that a husband put not aicay a wife, send her from him, separate 
himself from her. Comp. Herod, v. 89 : cmhTa raiirr/v tt/v yvvalKa. This 
clause added by Christ (in accordance with Schamai's doctrine) : TrapenToq 
Uyov nopvEidg, Matt. v. 33, 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 

Ida Paul's first epistle to the cukinthians. 

hcartl 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 Xoinoi 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. — oi'x o Ki>p.] 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 Trapa-, - 
-fiTJiu. — avvEvdoKt'i] approves with him (comp. on Rom. i. 32), joins in ap- 
proving ; for Paul takes for granted that the Christian partner on his side 
approves the continuance of the union. ' It is alien to the scope of the pas- 
sage to hold, with Billroth, that in awevty is implied the contempt of the 
heathen for the Christians. Regarding o'ikeIv juetu, to dwell icith, of living 
together i/i marriage, see Scidler, ad Eur. EI. 99 : h yafioiQ l^evxdeloav olneiv, 
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 Aa?»e^ infidelem, " Pelagius. rrepl tuv irpb kt/ pvy/iaroc 
avva(j)devTO)v e(j>?/, Tlieodoret. 

Ver. 13. Kal orVof] a common turn of expression (instead of bg k.-.?..) in 
connection with kuL See on Luke x. 8 and Kiihner II. p. 526. — /irj atpuru 
T. nvSpa] let her not put away her husband, not send him from her. To trans- 
late otherwise (let her not leave him) is, in view of ver. 12, altogether 
arbitrary. The Vulgate renders correctly : "non dimittat virum." The 
apparent unsuitableness of the expression is happily explained by Bengel 
(on ver. 10) : '■'■ Sepjaratur pars ignobilior, mulier ; dimittit nobilior, vir ; 
inde conversa ratione etiam mulier fidelis dicitur dimittere, et vir infidelis 
sejtnrari, vv. 13, 15." In the marriage Paul regards the Christian 
partner, even when it is the Avife, as the one who, for the sake of Chris- 
tianity, would have to send away the non-believer, were this in accordance 
with Christian jmnciples. But these do not j^ermit 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 jyresumptuous violation of 
duty. Comp. Harless, Ehescheidungsfr. p. 85. This view of the apostle's 
has no connection with the right conceded even to wives among the Greeks 
and Romans of divorcing themselves from their husbands (loose principles 
on this subject were held also among the Rabbins ; see Lightfoot, llor. p. 
191). But certainly Paul did not regard the Christian partner in a mixed 
marriage as the one who teas to rule in general (in opposition to Olshausen) ; 
the head in every marriage, if it was to continue at all, was, in his view, 
according to Gen. iii. 16, the husband. 1 Cor. xi. 3, xiv. 34 ; Eph. v. 22 ; 
Col. iii. 18 ; 1 Tim. ii. 11 f. 

Ver. 14." For — this justifies the injunction given in vv. 12, 13 — the unholi- 
ness of the non-believing partner is taken aicay in virtue of his personal connec- 

' Hence the compound awivhoKtl is used euSoKei, according to B (in opposition to 

rightly and of deliberate purpose in the Buttmann in the Slud. v. Krit. 1860, p. 369). 

second part of the statement also, although ' Cump. on this verse, Otto against Abr«- 

there the husband is the subject, and it nuncialion, 1864. 
ought not to be supplanted by the simple 

CHAP. VII., 14. 159 

tion with the leliever ; he is sanctified — this sanctification having its causal 
iasis 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 dyioTT/g, 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 (jtvpa^ia (Gal. vi. 16 ; 
Rom. xi. 16).' The clause : iirel apa to. reava k.t.'X., shows that what the 
anioToq 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 fellowshii^ which forms the 
EKKlrjaia Qeov, 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 mai'ried 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 amdaprog as hitherto, but — although 
mediately after the fashion described — a r/yiaa/ievog. 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 h ry 
yvv. and kv TG) av6., comp. h aol Trda' iyuye au^ofiai, Soph. Aj. 519 ; ev coi 
ta/xev, Oed. R. 314, and the like ; EUendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 597. — krcn apa 
K.r.A.] because according to that (if, namely, that rjyiaaTai did not hold good ; 
comp. v. 10), i.e. because otherwise your children are unclean, profane. That 
Christians' children are tiot profane, outside of the theocratic community 
and the divine covenant, and belonging to the unholy Kdofiog^ 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 

' In a mixed marriage, therefore, the potius praeponderat quod melius est et 

Christian avtoTijs forms, in relation to the efflcaciiis." 

Ta.on-Qh.T\s,t\ain\xxiho\\ness,t\ie preponderating *e.g. Calovius and others hold that r\y. 

element, extending the character of sancti- refers to the usus conjvgalis as sanctified 

ty even to what of itself would be profane ; jMr preces fidelis conjugis ; Tertullian, 

as Chrysostom expresses it : fcKoi 1^ KatJapoTTjs Jerome, Theodoret, Castalio, Estius, al., 

T^s yvvai.KO': rr\v aKa^apaCav. Comp. the think that it points to his being destined 

paraphrase of Erasmus : " Non inficit dete- to be converted afterwards, so that tha 

rioris impietas alterius pietatera, quin illud mejining would be candidatua Jidei est. 


the diiklrcn's case, that which makes them holj^ is simply the specific hontl 
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 
haptism of Christian children been then in existence, Paul could not have 
drawn this inference, because in that case the ayiorr/g of such children would 
have had another basis.* That the passage before us does not even contain 
an cxegeticnl jiistificatioii of infant bajjtism, is shown in the remarks on Acts 
xvi. 15 (against de Wette in the Stud. n. Erit. 1830, p. G69 fl"., Neander, 
Olshausen, Osiander, and older expositors). Neither is it the point of 
departure, from which, almost of necessity, paedobaptism must have 
developed itself (Weiss, hM. Theol. p. 423) ; such a point is rather to be 
found in the gradual development of the doctrine of original sin (s) — viiuv] 
should not be restricted, as is done by most expositors, following Chrysos- 
tom (so recently, Pott, Flatt, Ewald, Harless), to tJiose involved in mia-ed mar- 
riages ;^ but, as Paul himself makes clear by changing the person, referred 
to the o'eaders 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. — vvv Je] Itut 
so, as in ver. 11. 

Ver. 15. Paul had before enjoined that the Christian partner should not 
make a separation if the non-Christian consents to remain. But what, if 

'The essence of this bond of 'uiion, as vital union. It \s\\^ont\i\S2yaritas ratiords 

regards the children, docs not lie in their that the validity of the argument depends, 

being torn or begotten of Christian parents ; "^ Comp. Jebanwth, f. Isxviii. 1 : " Si gravi- 

for the children, although holy for their da fit proselyta, non opus est, ut baptizetur 

parents' sakes, might be born or begotten infansquandonatusfuerit ; baptismus enim 

before the father or mother had embraced matris ei cedit pro baptismo." 

Christianity. Nor are we warranted in ' "AicaiJapTot is taken by many as equiva- 

saying, with Hofmann, that the child, as lent to xprnii. See Melanchthon in partlc- 

the gift of God, is holy, for its relation to its ular : " Si non placeret consuetudo conju- 

;)a»wi<.«, who, so far as that is concerned, do galls, filii vestri essent spurii et catenas 

not regard W«,<i« withivhlchitisbmm. That immuiidi, axatJapTot. At filii vestri non sunt 

is arbitrarily to limit the apostle's thought, spurii; ergo consuetudo conjugalis Deo 

and to read all the most essential points of placet." He interprets aKadapToi after TTDD 

it from between the lines. On the contrary, in Deut. xxlii. 

the relationship which Paul here enunciates * Comp. Miiller, v. d. Siinde, II. p. 383, ed. 

simply and without any artificial saving 5. Our passage, however, ought not to be 

clause is one which consists in the immedi- adduced to prove the universal pollution 

ateclosefellowshipof life, by virtue oi which of men by nature and birth, for iKddapra 

the consecration of Christian holiness at- must denote, not moral, but theocratic un- 

taching to the parents passes over from cleanness, like the Koiva of Acts x. 28. 

them to their children also, to whom other- This against Erncsti also, rr/t}yrinig der 

wise, as being still a7ri<rToi9, the predicate Siinde, IT. p. 162 ff. Tlie children of Chris- 

aKa&apra would rightly belong. E(iually tians are, it is plain according to this verse, 

close and cordial is the fellowship of life holy already (without baptism^ at a time of 

between husband and wife, while every life at which it is as yet inconceivable that 

other kind of mutual connection is less in- the uncleanness should be removed through 

timate, and forms a more distant degree of fdloirskip with the Redeemer byfuith. 

CHAP. VII., 15. 161 

the non- Ohristian partner seeks separation ? In that case they were to let 
such an one go without detention (xupii^eodu, permissive, see Winer, ji. 291 
[E. T. 390]) ; "suas sibi res habeat ; f rater sororve sit aequo animo," 
Bengel. And the reason for this was : "J. leliever in such circumstances is 
not enslaved, nay, surely {6k after the negative clauso) it is in feace that Ood 
has called us,'''' so that this our calling forbids such a living together as 
would be tm,peaceful through constraint. — oh 6s6ov'X.] is not enslaved, so, 
namely, as still to remain bound in marriage to such a jw/j<fo,uewf . ' The 
expression brings out the unworthy character of such a relationship. Comp. 
Gal. iv. 3 ; Plato, Pol. ix. p. 589 E ; Soph. Trach. 356 ; 4 Mace. iii. 3 f., 
xiii. 2. See, on the other hand, the simple 6k6tTai in ver. 39. — iv rolq roiov^ 
Toi.(;'\ not, as Hofmann takes it : '■'■In matters of the natural ?//e," to which 
marriage belongs, but in accordance with the context : tender such circum- 
stances, i.e. in such a position of things, where the non-believing consort 
separates himself. Luther renders well : " m solchen Fallen. " Comp. h 
toI(j6e, Soph. Oed. Tyr. 892. n- rohroLq, Plut. Olor. Ath. p. 350 A ; Phil, 
iv. 11 ; kv o/f, Antiph. i. 6, and Maetzner in loc, p. 131. Only a comma 
should be placed after roiovToig. — ev elpT/vy] is not the same as ejf elpr/vr/v 
(Rosenmliller, Flatt, Riickert, following older expositors ; comp. also Bill- 
roth), or 'iva (.>iiev h dp. (de Wette, Osiander, Gratama, Maier) ; for that 
which is stated is not to what God has called us (see, on the other hand, 
ver. 22 ; 1 Pet. v. 10), but in what ethical form God's call has taken place. 
He has so called us, namely, to the Messiah's kingdom, that He therewith 
caused peace to be proclaimed to us in respect of our relation to others 
(Eph. ii. 14 ff.). Analogous to this is the h in Eph. iv. 4 ; 1 Thess. iv. 7 ; 
comp. also on Gal. i. 6. To understand, however, the elp^vy as referring to 
the peace of the soul with God (Harless, Hofmann) would be possible only if 
JerfodA. were to be referred to binding of the conscience. And even in that 
case we should expect as correlative rather h or f/r' ilEvBepiq (Gal. v. 13). 

Remark. — Since desertion (;i;wp/C£rai) appears here as an admissible ground for 
divorce, this has been thought to conflict with Matt. v. 32, xix. 9, and various 
explanations have been attempted (see Wolf in loc). But the seeming contra- 
diction vanishes, if we consider ver. 12, according to which Jesus had given no 
judgment upon mixed marriages ; Matt. v. 32, therefore, can only bind the 
believing consort, in so far that he may not be the one who leaves. If, however, 
he is left by the non-believing partner, then, as this case does not fall under 
the uttei'ance of Christ, the marriage may be looked upon as practically dis- 
solved, and the believing jjartner is not boiind. But to ajsply, as is often done, 
the permissive x<^pti^o6o), also to such marriages as are Christian on both sides 
— the ;<;wp«C'^/ie7'or, that is to say, being an unchristianly - minded Christian 
(Harless)— is exegetically inadmissible, seeing that the Tioiiroi who are here 
spoken of (see ver. 12) constitute the specific category of mixed marriages, in 

* Weiss, in the Dentsch. Zeitsclir. 1866, p. Hofmann. But had Paul meant this, he 

267 (comp. his MM. Theol. p. 42.3), under- must have indicated it more particularly, 

stands SeSoOA. of the burden of the conscience According- to the context, ov SeSoOA. is the 

in view of Christ's command respecting the opposite of the firi o.(\>Utu> in vv. 12, 13, denot- 

indissolubleness of marriajje. Precisely .so ing legal necessity, like SeSerai in ver. 39. 

162 Paul's first epistle to the corinthians. 

which, therefore, the one partner in each case falls to be reckoned among rovg 
efw. So also pref. to 4th etl. p. vii. f. — Our text gives no express information 
upon the point, whether Paul woiild allow the Christian partner in such a union 
to marry again. For what ov i^echvAurai 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 tinder 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, I.e., a notxda. 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, hihl. Theol. I.e.). (t) 

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) %oife hww tchether 
she, hy 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 el in the 
sense of el /u^ (see also Tholuck, Bergiiredig. 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. 'Avade^ai (prjtjiv inl 
XpT^aralc eATrlat rbv ttovov. £j«f tov Qeov Tfjq Trpodvfiiag en'tKovpov, Theodoret. 
That is to say, they find in iv fie elpijinj k.t.1. 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, 
Riickert, Olshausen, following Calvin and others), or else regard ver. 15 as a 
j)arenthesis (Grotius, al.). But the parenthetic setting aside of ver. 15 is as 
arbitrary as the turn given to the idea of h 6e elpTjvi} k.t.Ti. is the contrary to 
context. With respect again to taking el as equivalent to el jjt), it is per- 
fectly true that el, following upon the notion of uncertainty, may answer 
in meaning to el fiij (Thuc. ii. 53. 2 ; Kriiger, § Ixv. 1. 8 ; Esth. iv. 14 ; 3 
Sam. xii. 22 ; Joel ii. 14 ; Jonah iii. 9) ; but the thought which would thus 
emerge does not suit the connection here, because in it the point is the ov 
(k6ov?Mrai, to which the proposed rendering of the el would run counter.' 
Moreover, this use of el 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 : hoir, in how far (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. IT. p. 823) ; it is not 

' PhotiUS, as cited by Oecumenius, says Kal rr)v \vaiv eKciios Toifi, ov SeSovAwrai 6 irio-- 
Very justly : ovk «x*i aydyxriv 6 TTto-TOT ri i) tos ets to ^t) ^wp'C^iJ^i'ai. 

ffto-Tij (v Tois an-io-Tois Toiavr-qf, ola aiiTui fjriKfi- ' Comp. de Wette, Osiander, Neander, 

Toi c'ttI Ta);- tticttcoi- tVct /u.ei' yap Tram Tporrw, Ewald, Maler, Hofmann [Stanley, Alford, 

XcopW Aoyou nopveiai ovk efeffTtf oltt' aAArjAwi' Beet]. 

Toiis <TVi'a.<j)&(VTaf X'"P'<"^T''"'' fVTaii^a 6e, av 'A Hmifation of the ou SeSouAuxai, and 

tiiv avvtvioKji TO airio-TOMnepos tw Trio-Tu! avvoi- that, too, of a quite general sort, comes in 

Ktlv, iet M»I Aveiv to <Tvvoi.Kf<ri.ov av 6e crTao-io^f/ Only with the ei /xtj k.t.A. in ver. 17. 

CHAP. YII., 17. 103 

therefore the accusative of the object. Comp. tI olec, -1 doKelg, Xen. Jlier. i. 

15. Regarding the future auaeig comp. Stallbaum, ad Oorg. p. 249 ; Klotz 
ad Devar. p. 508. 

Ver. 17. Et fir/] is meant, according to Grotius, to introduce an exception 
to the tI oldaq : " lUud quidem, quod dixi, non scis, sed hoc debes scire;''' 
or, more exactly, since ei jif] is not the same as alTid (see on Gal. i. 7) : 
Nothing hut 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, vmsuitable for this reason, that ver. 16 vras only a subordinate 
thought, to which eJ /n?) k.t.1. as a newly introduced leading idea stands in 
no logical nexus. The logical connection of el jifj^ nhi, etc., is, on the con- 
trary, to be sought in the leading thought of the foregoing passage, which 
was 01) (5cdoi'/l(jr«< /c.r.A. This oi' Jerfoi'/lwrai . . . Getif 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 
so much as Tcnowing wliether 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 Jias jjlaced and called him., and to eon- 
duct himself accordingly, instead of 2}ossibly seeking to breah it up without any 
very pressing cause." Comp. as in substance agreeing wdth this, Olshausen, 
de "Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier. Pott holds that ;t;wp/^"erat should be 
supplied after el jur/ ; but the antithesis would require eI Se p/, 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 
ou<TEic : "But even if thou shouldst not, the general rule applies in every 
case." Were that correct, we should of necessity find eI 6e koL fiy. Lastly, 
there is the view of those who would join eI //?/ to the preceding clause 
(TLveg in Theophylact, KnatchbuU, Romberg, Hammond, Olearius, Morus, 
and recently Hofmann) : if thou shalt save thy wife, if (or) not ? ^ Now this 
is not, indeed, excluded by the //^ (as Riickert thinks, who requires oh ; but 
see Hartung, PartiMl. II. p. 123) ; still the addition would be quite inap- 
propriate to the sense of the two questions, for these convey the idea : thvu 
knowest not at all if, etc., with which the alternative 7iecne does not harmon- 
ize, — on which ground, too, Hofmann makes ver. 16 to be the concluding 

1 Paul had doubtless ground enougli in here gives expression to in a Christian 

the rich experience of his career for giving form. 

this warning. How often in tiie cases of ^ Respecting el ij-v in the sense of rrk-qv, 
conversion to Christianity must the deep see Poppo, a(^ Thiic. III. 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, neiit. Gram p. 308 [E. T. 359]. 
lationships !— an offence against the practi- ' Hence the reading ij m in more recent 
calrule-: ''qua positm fveris, in statione codd. Severianus in Oecumenius, Chrysos- 
mane " (Ovid, Fasti, ii. 674), which Paul tom, ms. Syr. p. on the margin. 

164 Paul's first epistle to the cokixthians. 

confirmation of the whole admonition beginning with rwf r5t 7.ninoiq in ver. 
12. This, again, is impossible, for this reason, that the fin<t part of the 
counsel given to the ?.o(n-oj has already received its confirmation in the yap 
of ver. 14, and in accordance therewith the yaf) of ver. IG 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 ])lan and development of the apostle's argument. Rinck, in 
his Luculr. crit. p. 142 f. (and so previously Thcodorot), connects from « //^ 
on to KvpioQ with the preceding passage : " ncscis enim, an salvum eum fac- 
turus sis, nisi prout quemque Dominus adjuverit." lint hdo-t.) uq tfiip. 6. K. 
and eKaoTov wf kskTi.. 6. 9. are manifestly parallel, and, as such, contain not a 
frigid repetition (Rinck), but an earnest exhaustion of the thought. — eKdarcj 
uc] the same as ug ek., but with emphasis on the kudcru. Comp. iii. 5, x. 
16 ; Rom. xii. 3. As the Lord (God) hath ap2wrtiorted to each (has bestowed 
his outward lot), as (i.e. y Kki/aei, ver. 30) Ood hath caUed each (to the 
Messiah's kingdom), so let him walh^ 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. 'E/iepiaev, 
has given his portion (Polybius, xxxi. 18. 3, xi. 28. 9 ; Eccles. xlv. 20 ; 2 
Mace. viii. 28 ; 4 Mace. 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 \incircumcised, a slave or free,' etc. See ver. 18 flf. These 
relationships of life are hei-e regarded as a whole, out of which each indi- 
vidual has received his fiepog from God {to uefjepia/iievov, Lucian, J). D. xxiv. 
1), in accordance with the varying modes (wf) of the divine apportionment. 
Comp. the classical y sl/jap/jevr/, sors attrihuta. We have to supply neither 
TrepiiraTEiv (Hofmann), nor anything else. What the Lord has apportioned 
is just the fispog, which each man has. Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 175 ff., 
understands /nepiCsn' in the theocratic-Messianic sense, and makes 6 Kvpiog 
refer to Christ: "in qua vitae externae sorte ac statu (wf, conf. ver. 18) 
cuique Dominus tenejiciorum suorum quasi imrtem trilniit.'''' According to 
this, what woiild be meant would be the //fp^f rov Kh'/pov t<jv aylui' (Col. i. 
12), which, however, refers to the bliss of the future a'luv, and would re- 
quire, therefore, to be understood here j^folepticalhj. But there are two con- 
siderations which put a decided negative upon this view : first, the refer- 
ence assumed for the absolute kjiip. is not suggested by the context (see, on 
the contrary, ver. 18 ff.) ; and in the second place, logically the calling 
must go first, since lefure it there can be no mention of the Messianic /jepi^ew 
(Rom. viii. 30, x. 14 ; Col. i. 12). This holds also against the essentially 
similar interpretation of Ilarless, which co-ordinates l/iup. with the calling. — 

•Thecal; of the individuals to salvation in a elianfre of the situation in which they 

took place in these differently apportioned liad been when called. This mistake should 

l)ositions and relationships in life. Hence have been precluded even by what follows, 

tli(^ u)9 eVe'picrei' takes i)reeedence of the ws which always starts from those circum- 

KeK\r)icei'. Hofmann is wroug in lioldiiiK that stances alone which subsisted a* tfie time 

the los itiipLcrtv mifrht lie on this side or on of (he calling ; see vv. 18, 21, a4. 
that of the calling, and might consist even 

CHAP. VI I. , 18-30. 165 

k£k17}K£v] a completed transaction continuing to the present in. its results, 
hence the perfect ; the aorist kj-dp. , on the other hand, indicated something 
merely which took place as an act of the jxist, and this act occurred hefore the 
kek17]kev, at birth, or some other point in life. — koI o'vtuq K.r.A.] 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 Corintli, but, etc., iva rw ex^i-v k-o-I 
dA/loDf Koivuvovg Trpodv/idrepoi ivEpl t^v vnaKoijv dcaTsduGi, Theophylact. — Siardaa. ] 
r ordain, appoint, xi. 34, xvi. 1. Observe the evidence here of apostolic 
power over the church. 

Ver. 18 flf. Further explanation of this injunction by way of example, and 
not bearing simply on the case of Christians living in mixed marriage.' — The 
protams 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. Kilhner, 11. p. 561. — /z^ ET:icv:a(3Qu\ ne siii attraliat, sc. j/raeputiuiJi. 
A surgical operation frequent among the later Jews (1 Mace. i. 15, and 
Grimm in he. ; 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 Oentile converts. See, besides Wetstein, Groddeck in Schoettgen's Horae, 
p. 1159 f. ; Lightfoot, p. 194 ; Liibkert in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, p. 657. 
Such persons were styled D'DIK^O. See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1274. — h 
aKpajS.] Comp. Rom. iv. 10. 

Ver. 19. Comp. Rom. ii. 25 ff. ; Gal. v. 6. From the Christian jjoint of 
view it matters nothing whether a man be circumcised or not ; comp. viii. 8. 
— alia TijpijaLg EVTol. Qsov] 'but Tceeping of the commands of Ood, sc. to. iravTaECTi, 
as in iii. 7. According to the Christian idea (Rom. xiii. 8), there is no dif- 
ference between tliis and the faith that worketh by love (Gal. v. 6). Bill- 
roth is wrong in taking it as : " /« themselves circumcision and uncircumci- 
sion are alike indifferent ; such things are of importance only in so far as 
they are an observing of the commandments of God ;" for ^ aKpo[i. cannot 
be included with the other under rijp. evt. Qeov. 

Ver. 20. An emphatic repetition of the rule after giving the illustration of 
it. Comp. ver. 24. — h ry KlriazL ?} EKli^dri] Since Calvin, expositors have 
often understood KliiaLq of the outward position in life, like our calling [Beruf], 
and have supplied kv before y in accordance with the pure Attic idiom (Stall- 
baum, ad Plat. Phued. p. 76 D ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 32). So, re- 
cently, Rilckert. But although Klyatq (Dionys. Hal. Antt. iv. 18) does ex- 
pressly correspond to the Latin classis, a ditision of the largesses, according 
to the true derivation of that technical term from the Greek, yet even pro- 
fane writers never use Klfjaigin the sense of avocation [Beruf] (rank, and the 
like) ; and in the whole N. T. the Christian meaning of kuIeIv and Klfic!:r ' 

' Theodoret says well: ^Ito. avvri-&ta<; aivo toO irpoiceincVou eis ire pa jiera^c. ti'ci, 
Tracrt i^ojuot^erwi' Ta icaxaAAijAa. 


that in which they arc invariably used, and so here also : in the calling (to 
the Messianic kingdom {throuyh which (7/ being the chit, instrum., as in 2 Tim. 
i. 9) he was culled. This may have been, that is to say, a ii?.f/(7ig going forth 
from God to a circumcised man or an uncircumcised, to a slave or a free- 
man, etc. If, now, the man, for example, who was called in circumcision 
by a vocatio circumcisi thereafter restores the foreskin, so as to give liimself 
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- 
toni and Theophylact (ev olu jSiu koI iv ol(^ Tdyfian Kal TroTnTevfian uv kniaTevaev, 
iv TovTif) fiEviru' K'krjaiv yap T'^v e'l^ rfjv ir'tariv npoaajuyr/v <pj)ai). 
Comp. ver. 17 : wf KEKlriKev 6 Qedq. The emjihatic iv ravry (vi. 4) points at the 
misdirected yearning for another state of matters through which another Kkf/aii 
would present itself, as e.g. through the iKianaadai a being called h aKpo- 
ftvCTia, etc. 

Ver. 21. M// coi /zeAerw] let it give thee no concern., let it be all the same to 
thee. Horn. II. ii. 338, x. 92 ; Plato, Phaed. p. 95 B ; Tim. p. 24 B ; 
Wisd. xii. 13 ; Mark iv. 38, al. What it is that ought to give him no con- 
cern, is plain from the immediate context, namely, his being called as a slave ; 
not, as Hofmann would read into the text, his seeming to be doomed to life- 
long slavery. — all' e'l Kal k.t.X.^ but, even if thou art in circmnstances to become 
free, use it rather, namely, the having been called as a slave ; make use 
rather (instead of becoming free) of thy ' ' vocatio servi" by remaining true 
to thy position as a slave. Comp. ver. 20. So, in substance, Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Theophylact. Camerarius, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, and many of 
the older interpreters ; among more modern expositors, de Wette, Osian- 
der, Maier, Ewakl," Baur (in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 36 ff.), also Vaihinger 
in Herzog's Eneyld. XIV. p. 474 f. ; Weiss, biU. Theol. p. 417 f. The alld 
is nothing else than the German sondern, corresponding to the preceding fil/ 
coi /ieI., and c'lKai is etsi (Herm. ad Viger. jj. 832 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. 
p. 33 A ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 151), so that it conveys the sense : e/een 
aWiough, if even ; and in the conditional clause the emphasis is made by Kal 
to fall upon 6vvaaai. The Syriac, however ("elige tibi potius quam ut ser- 
vias"), and most modern commentators, su])ply ti) elevdepia after xPV'^^'y 
with Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, 
and many others (a view mentioned, too, by Chrysostom). PauVs advice, 
they hold, is rather to avail oneself of the opportunity of becoming free. But 
this is grammatically incorrect, because it goes in the face of the /ca/,* and 

« Who, however, expounds xP^<^<*ot as " but if thou mayest even be free," etc. 01s- 
meaning to let oneself be used, i.e. to be de- hausen holds that spiritual freedom is ini- 
pendent without beinR able to establish any plied in KaKiladai., and that, starting from 
precedent for such a rendering. Regard- this idea, Paul goes on : " but if in addl- 
ing xP^"^"*"' without adativeof the object, tion to thy spiritual freedom thou canst 
see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 452 C, 489 B. obtain also bodily liberty, avail thyself of 

" What devices have been practised of it rather." Even Neander substantially 

late with this xot ! Billroth thinks that it agrees with this. But upon Billroth's view 

indicates an accessory thought : "this, too, Kai would require to come before tl \ upon 

is not to be denied, that if thou canst be Riickert's and Olshausen's, before eAevd. ; 

free," etc. Riickert thinks that it denotes and the turn given to the clause by the 

a climax and properly (?) belongs to iKiv&. : latter is but one proof out of many that 

CHAP. VII., 22. 107 

contrary also to the connection, for Paul would thus be contravening his own 
thrice-repeated injunction : let each man remain, etc. (u) The ground spe- 
cially founded on (in a very unhermeueutical way) by Riickert, that the old 
interpretation is against the spirit of the apostle, is untenable ; for the ad- 
vice to use the opportunities of obtaining freedom — an advice comparatively 
unimportant and paltry in view of the Parousia believed to be at hand — by 
no means corresponds with the apostle's lofty idea that all are one in Christ 
(Gal. iii. 28 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13 ; Col. iii. 11) ; that in Christ the slave is free 
and the freeman a slave (ver. 22) ; as, indeed, ver. 22 can furnish a confir- 
mation of ver. 21 only on the ground of the old exposition, descending from 
Chrysostom, aZ., of jiallov xpv'^o-i- It may be added, that that idea of true 
Christian equality carries in itself the germ of the aholition of slavery ; the 
latter is the ripe fruit of the former. The moral consciousness of Christen- 
dom has not in this respect advanced leyond 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. IB ; 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 may be further noted that he does not 
forbid an exchange of slavery for freedom, which was in itself allowable ; 
but he dissuades from it as a trifling way of dealing with the position in 
question, under the circumstances of the time, when viewed from the height 
of the Christian standpoint. 

Ver. 22. For tlie converted slave is Chrisfs freedman ; in like manner , too 
(6/ Kai introduces the precise reversal of relations which here also takes 
place), the freeman toho 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 flf. ; Eph. vi. 6 ; Col. iii. 24) ; but Paul grounds 
here his admonition in ver. 21 by showing that the matter may be looked 
at from a twofold poi?it of view : the Christian slave should recognize his 
relation to Christ as that of an aKeTievdepog Xpiarov,^ and the freeman's relation 
as that of a (hvlog Xpiarov. This will serve in his case this end, not by any 

men may make anything out of every- must have written KaX eJ. He might have 

thing, if they — wi/;. Hofmann considers written either, and would, had it been koI 

that Kttt' lays emphasis on the reality (comp. et, have meant even in (he case that; but he 

on ver. 11) as contrasted with the mere meant el icai {if thou art even in a position to, 

tvish, which wish, however, is only brought etc.), and therefore tvrote it and nothing else. 

in by an en-oneous explanation of ij-v o-oi The latter is as little absurd as the former. 

ixtKfTui. He even maintains that, according • So that " ei o-i^a Sov\ov, iAA.' 6 voCy eAcv- 

to our understanding of the verse, Paul deftost'' Soph. Fragm. 677, Diudorf. 

1G8 Paul's first epistle to the cokinthians. 

means (as Hofmann illogically inserts into the text, despite tlie iiheiv again 
required in ver. 24) tluit 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. — 6h Kvpi(f> k?.. 6ov^.] the 
dare who ix culled in the Lord, i.e. who has received the Christian calling. 
That is to say, this Kki/aiq has not taken place, as any other might, out of 
C;hrist, but in Ilim, as being the distinctive element in wliich it has its 
specific character. The kv Kvplij, which might have been understood of it- 
self is expressly added here, because it was meant to be an emphatic corre- 
late to the Kvpiov which follows. It is wholly foreign to the argument to 
imagine a contrast here wdth the earthly master (Hofmann), as in Eph. vi. 
5 ; Col. iii. 22, iv. 1. — anelehdEpoq with the genitive is not used here in the 
common sense of lihertns alicujus, some one's manumitted slave, for the 
master hitherto had been sin or Satan (see on vi. 20) ; but simply a f reed- 
man belonging to Christ (comp. k?j/toI 'If/Gov X., Rom. i. 6), after Christ, 
namely, has set him free from the service of another (comp. Ignatius, ad Horn. 
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) ; hecome 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 apjilied 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 Avith 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 /zsy 6ov?i.o7rpeK£g i;:(Eiv (ppdv/^fia. 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 avdpuKuv 
refers to Paul, Cephas, Apollos, etc. (Eiickert), and that the meaning is 
substantially the same as had been expressed in iii. 21 by firiMq Kavxdcrdu 
iv av6p6)TToi.g (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. C]). llcydenreich, on the other hand, holds (with 

' Paul is, in fact, prnardlnf? i)y tliis grand tianity side by side witli all unjust estima- 

utterance of his against all unjust contempt tion of the worth of mere outward free- 

for the condition of outward slavery.— a doin. 
feeling which vanishes in the liglit of Ohrii;- 

CHAP. VII., 24, 25. 169 

Menocliius, Hammond, Knatchbull, Mosheim, Micliaelis, Zachariae) that lie 
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 GTiTistianity (for according to the connection it is this motive which 
must be presupposed, not : for gciMs sake) ! 

Ver. 24. To conclude the whole digression, the weighty rule is once more 
enunciated (h « k.t.X. : In whatever relationship, in whatever outward po- 
sition, etc.), and now with the strengthening clause n-apa Gew, which de- 
scribes the iv TovTO) jueveiv according to its moral and religious character ; that 
outward abiding is to be of such a kind that therein the man shall abide 
inwardly tcith God (the caller), which moral relation of fellowship is locally 
represented in a concrete way by Trapa (" a Deo non recedens," Estius). 
Comp. Theophj'lact, — who, however, makes out a special reference to im- 
moral obedience to masters, — Schrader, Rilckert, JSTeander, 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 Z)eo" (Calvin), '■'■Deo inspectante'''' (Grotius), which would imply: 
"perpetuo memores, vos in ejus conspectu versari" (Beza, comp. de Wette), 
would correspond to the current phrase kvuwiov mv Qeov. Hofmann makes 
h (!) and h rovrcf) refer to Christ (comp. ver. 22) ; the call took place in 
Oltrist to Ood, and therefore every one is to have in Christ (on His mediato- 
rial foundation) his abiding icith 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 y;wft God, not to God, but to eternal 
Messianic life (comj). on i. 9). 

Ver. 25. Ae] indicating the transition to a new section in the discussion 
on marriage. — Trapdevuv] 'Hrgins. "We are not to understand this' of the un- 
married of ioth sexes, young men and maidens, which is contrary to the ordi 
nary usage of the language (see too, vv. 34, 36, 37) ; for in such passages as 
Rev. xiv. 4, Oecumenius, Quaest. Amphil. 188 ; Nonnus on John xix. 26 ; 
Fabricius, Pseudepigr. V. T. U. pp. 92, 98 ; also Arist. Eq. 1302, the word 
is maidenly ; and that it ever with Greek Avriters means a single man in the 
proper sense, is at least very doubtful. — jvcjfi?]v] view, opinion. As regards 
■yvufi. 6l6o)fj.i (2 Cor. viii. 10), see the examples in Kypke, II. p. 205. — The 
sense most in accordance with the context for mcrrof 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 helieving, as Hofmann would have it. Paul's being an a^i6xpE(^^ ctiV" 
/SovAof (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 <jq (quippe) ePier/juevoc k.t.X. 

I With Theodore of Mopsnestia, Bengal, Semler, Zachariae, Schleusner, Schulz, Rosen- 
muller, Flatt, Pott, Olshaiisen, Kwaid. 

]*'0 Paul's first epistle to the cokinthians. 

Ver. 26. In currying out his theme <Z« «iV^eni&M«, Paul proceeds as follows: 
first, in the passage extending to ver. 35 he gives a general recommenda- 
tion of single life to loth sexes, and only then deals with the suljject of vir- 
gins exclusively on to ver. 38. — ovv'] therefore, introduces now the yvLijii] in 
accordance with what was said in ver. 25. — avdiiunui] 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 : 
(I person, including both sexes. It is otherwise in ver. 1. — oiirwf] so, as ha 
is, i.e. vnmari'ied, which follows from r. Tvapdiviov, ver. 25. To be so Paul 
esteems saluta/ry {liaMv, as in ver. 1), not absolutely and in itself, but be- 
cause the Parousia is near, and still nearer, therefore, must be the general 
calamities which are to precede it, the dolores Messiae, TTiyo ''i2r\ (see on 
Matt. xxiv. 3). These form the instant (iii. 23) distress, i.e. a distress 
which is impending and has already begun to set in. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 
19. The persecutions (Pott, 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.f. Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 103), against which d'kl-^iv 
alone, in ver. 28 and ver. 31, testifies with sufficient clearness. Comp. 
rather rf/ hvearuay avdjKy, 3 Mace. i. 16, the distress having set in, and see 
generally on Gal. i. 4. — The construction is anacoluthic, so that tovto, 
which belongs to vofii^u, prepares for the following kukov vnapxeiv on to 
ovTug dvai (comp. on Rom. ii. 3 and Kiihner, § 631. 2); but then on kqTmv 
K.T.l., which states the contents of the vo/ii^u, instead of ending simply 
with avOpuTTu to ovTug elvai, begins from the beginning again, and that with 
a oTi, which comes in in place of the construction with the infinitive 
(Kiihner, § 771. 5). A manifest confusion of expression, into which in dic- 
tation Paul might be especially likely to fall by forgetting, after the enuncia- 
tion of the principal thought 6ia r. eveot. avdyn., that he had already said 
/ca/lov vKupxEiv. Hence, too, it is more natural to connect 6ia r. hear. avajK. 
with what precedes it than hyperbatically withort /c.t.a. (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 2}6>'son to be in such a jwsition. 
Heydenreich holds wrongly — as the fact of there being no avralg added is 
enough of itself to show — that 6 ri should be read, so that Paul would say 
that what is good for the man is good for them, namely, single life. De 
Wette takes tovto as equivalent to napOevov slvai, and then renders on by 
hecause: " because it is in general good for a man to be unmarried." ^ But 
this " in generaV^ is not in the text, and yet of necessity it would have 
required to be there, for without it the argument emerges as an idem per 

' oi-dpujro? a.s a. feminine usually answers ' This rendering occurs in substance in 

in Greeli writers, as is well known, to the Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin. Beza, too, 

German colloquial phrase " d<ui Afensch." agrees with it in his explanation of toOto, 

' Ewald, moreover, takes to outws elvoi to but understands on koXov k.t.\. as resump- 

mean " (hat it should be so," referring to the tive. 
following rule StStirai, k.t.X. 

CHAP. VII., 37-31. 171 

idem ; and in truth, even were the " in general" expressed, the main state- 
ment would be an inappropriate one, since it would contain nothing to 
establish the essential element 6ia t. kvear. avajKr/v. The anacolutlton of the 
passage belongs to those in which " celeritate quadam abrepti novam cnuu- 
tiationem iuchoamus priore nondum absoluta," Bremi, ad Lys. Exc. 
V. p. 442. 

Ver. 27. Lest the yvu^r] 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 he 
loosed. The construction is as in ver. 18. — ywaLKi'] dativus communionis, as 
in Rom. vii. 2, and with Greek writers. It is plain, especially from vv. 29 
and 34, that 6eS. yw. does not mean betrothal (Ewald and Hofmann), but 
that yvvT] denotes a married icife. — leXvcaL] does not imply: art thou seiya- 
rated from (Mosheim, Semler), but art thou free from, unentangled with a 
wife, single (" sive uxorem habueris, sive non," Estius; comp. so early an 
interpreter as Photius)? See ver. 28, and comjj. Xenophon, Cyr. i. 1.4, 
where "keTivaBaL an' aTJiijTiuv is equivalent to aiiTovo/ua dvai. 

Ver. 28. Ovx »7^a/9ref] But should it be the case that thou shalt have 
married, tTiou Jmstnot sinned th.evem. Comp. Matthiae, p. 1203; Buttmann, 
neut. Gr. p. 172 [E. T. 199]. Hofmann is wrong here also (comp. on ver. 
11) in holding that iav 6e Kai means : but if already actually, etc. — yT//xii ?'/ 
Trapd.] Here as in 1 Tim. v. 11 the term ya/nsiv is applied, indeed, to the 
woman (see on ver. 39), but without violation of rule, since it is not joined 
with an accusative. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 424. — t^ aapKi^ not in 
the ethical sense, but (comp. Gal. iv. 13) for the material, animal part of 
man's nature. In troublous times the married man is exposed to special 
anguish from sufferings of this kind (hunger, nakedness, sickness, misusage, 
banishment, etc.). Whether we have here a dative of appropriation 
(trouble for the flesh ; see on 1 Cor. xii. 7 ; Bernhardy, p. 88), or whether 
it belongs to the verb, cannot well be determined. — kyo) 6e v/u. <pEi6ofiai] hit 
I, 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 

Vv. 29-31. T7ds, hoivever, I say, i.e. of what follows I assure you. Comp. 
XV. 50. At- leads over to something wherewith Paul (" as it were prophesy- 
ing," Ewald) designs to secure the more acceptance for the counsel, which he 
has given with the view of sparing his readers. Pott, Flatt, and others 
take TovTo 6e <j)jjfj.i k.t.a. as a more precise explanation of Bllil^iv . . . tolovtoi, 
and then vv. 32-35 as a more precise explanation of iyb 6e vfi. <pei6. Two 
things militate against this — first, the more emphatic import of ^rjiii (comp. 
also X. 15, 19 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 906), which is stronger than Myu ; 
and secondly, the correct view of cvvearaA^. (see below). Riickert takes it : 
" Happen, however, what may, marry ye or not, this remark I cannot sup- 
press." But were that the meaning, tovto 6e ^. would require to follow at 
once after ovx vnapre. — 6 KnLp6(:] the S2)ace of time, — subsisting up to the Pa- 
rousia, — not our earthly lifetime in general (Calvin, Vorstius, Estius, al.) ; 
neither is it merely the time yet to elapse ere tliat avdyK?/ arrives (Reiche), 


which would be more clistinctly indicated than by the simple 6 naipoq ; be- 
sides, the uvi'iyKij has already begun to make itself felt, kuecTuaa, ver. 20. — 
cvvEaTaXfih'oq] is taken by most recent expositors (Schulz, Roscnmiiller, Stolz, 
Pott, Heydenreich, Flatt, Riickert, Olshausen, Neauder ; Billroth is unde- 
cided) as meaning mlamitosum. But without warrant of usage ; for in pas- 
sages such as 1 Mace. iii. 6 (comp. Polyb. v. 15. 8, xxiv. 5. 13 ; Plato, Lys. 
p. 210 E ; Isocrates, p. 176 A ; Philo, Quod omn. prob. liber, p. 609), v. 3, 
2 Mace. vi. 12, 3 Mace. v. 33, avaTe?.7.u means to humhle, to orerthroir, which 
does not suit with Kaipdc. The correct translation is that of the old inter- 
preters (so also de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier, Hofmann, Weiss) : com- 
j)re.ised, i.e. hro^ight within narrow limits (Plato, Legg. iii. p. 691 E ; De- 
mosth. 309. 2 ; Lucian, Tear. 12 ; comp. cvarolr/, alhreviatiov). The space 
of time remaining is oxAy of hrief duration. In connection with this, to 
J.onrdv is generally made to refer to what 2>reccdes : ' the time is henceforth 
(in jMsterum, see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 777 ; Kuhner, ad Xen. Anah. ii. 2. 
5) cut short, — a mode of connecting the words, however, which makes rd 
loiTzdv convey a superfluous idea. Others hold that it refers to -what follotcs^^ 
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 telle sense of Iva, too, would be deprived of its logical 
reference to what precedes. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Hofmann, adopt- 
ing the reading which puts karl before to Tiontov (see the critical remarks), 
place a comma after the verb : avvecTokii. taTtv, to 'aol-ov 'iva k.t.X., i.e. the 
time is sJiortened, in order that in future, etc. Comp. as regards this posi- 
tion for Iva, on Ejih. iii. 18 ; Gal. ii. 10 ; Rom. xi. 31. This is preferable, 
because to 7m.-k6v 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 liitherto. Comp. upon the sub- 
ject-matter. Matt. xxiv. 42 ff. — Iva introduces the design of cvveaTalfji. kari 
in the arrangements of Ood.^ Beza, Billroth, Schrader, Hofmann make it 
refer to tovto lU (pr/fu. But we may see from Trapdyei. yap k.t.1. in ver. 31 
that Paul was thinking of so great results as the aim, not of his assertion, 
but of the thing asserted, — a view which agrees thoroughly with his relig- 
ious contemplation of the world, Rom. v. 20, vii. 13, viii. 17, xi. 31 ; 2 
Cor. iv. 7, vii. 9, al. He looks upon everything as fitted into the plan of 
moral redemption under the government of God. — Iva nal ol ex- >^»'- k-t.^-] 
The meaning is : In order that each may l-eep 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 lieart and life ; 
that the sorrowful should not do so through his tril)ulation, nor the joyful 
through his good fortune, nor the merchantman through his gain, nor he 

' Peshito, Clirysostom, Thoodoret, Tlieo- and Riickert. 

phylact, Beza, Grotiiis, «/., irieludiiifr Hill- ' There is therefore no ground here for 

rotli, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Reiche, bej^inning a new sentence with to Aotn-oi' 

Ewald, Maier, Neaiider. ii'a, and taking Iva in the imperative sense 

* Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Viiljrate, (comp. on v. 2). So Laurent, iieut. Stud. p. 

Erasmus, Calvin, al., including Heydenreich 130. 

CHAP. VII., 31, 32. 173 

who uses the world through his use of it. We see the reverse of this inde- 
pendent attitude in Luke xiv. 18-20. There the heart cleaves to temporal 
things as its treasure, Matt. vi. 21. By giving Iva its proper reference, it is 
made clear that Paul neither designs to lay dotmi mles 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, 
temp)us deficiet malis tonisve sensu percipiendis.''' — Kal ol exovteq yw.] Even the 
married. This Kai singles out the first point for special emphasis, because it 
was the one on which the discussion chiefly turned ; Kal in the instances 
which follow is the simple and. — ol ayopaC,. uq fjf/ Karix- ] the iuyers as not 
possessing (2 Cor. vi. 10), that, namely, which they buy. — (if fifi naraxp.] 
may mean, like the Latin al)uti, so far as the word in itself is concerned, 
either : as not abusing it,^ or : as not using it (Vulgate, Calvin, Grotius, 
Estius, al., 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 j^reference here from the 
analogy of the preceding clauses. The compound verb — which ought not 
to have the sense of at one''s oinn p>leasure (Hofmann) imj^orted into it — serves 
merely to give greater emphasis to the idea ; see Bremi, ad Isocr. Panegyr. 
§ ix. p. 21 ; Herodian. viii. 4. 22. Translate : Those who use this (pre-Mes- 
sianic) world as not maMng use of it.- There is no reason either for taking 
Karaxp- in the sense of using up (Reiche, Ewald), because this meaning, al- 
though in itself admissible on linguistic grounds (Diog. Laert. v. 69 ; Lys. 
p. 153. 46 ; Isocr. p. 55 D), only weakens the force of the antithesis in a 
way contrary to the relation subsisting between all the other antitheses, (v) 
— ;i:pr/(T^af in the sense of uti 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 rtj /LiE-ya?,6(}>povi), and seldom in later Greek (Schae- 
fer, ad Gregor. Cor. p. 691). See also Bornemann, Acta apost. I. p. 222. 
Karaxpviyf^ai, 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 compoimd verb. Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. 
p. 157 f. [E. T. 181]. 

Vv. 31, 33. Lachmaun places only a comma after tovtov, in which he is 
followed by Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, and Maier. From napdyei on to 
elvai would thus form collectively a ground for the preceding koI ol xp^/^£voi 
K.T.I. This would be correct, if the foregoing words conveyed an exhorta- 
tion, or if Iva in ver. 29 were dependent upon tovto cU- (jyr/fii. Since, how- 
ever, what is conveyed in the preceding statement is the design of God, the 
full stop after tovtov should be retained ; the words from napayei on to tov- 
Tov form thus a confirmatory addition to ol xp'-'/i^voi . . . Karaxpufievoi, while 

» Sjrriac, Tertullian, Theodoret, Theo- Paul gives us here the explanation of his 

phylact, Oecumenius, Luther, Beza, Come- forcffoing paradox. 

lius h. Lapide, al., including Olshausen and ^ Hence Fritzsche (de confoim. Lachm. p, 

Billroth, the latter of whom considers that 31) rejects it as an error of the copyists. 

J 74 Paul's fiust kpistlk to the corinthians. 

diA(j Jt', again, marks the advance to something new, to what Paul, in view 
of this passing away uf the fashion of this world, rioio desires of his readers, 
namely, that they should be a/upifivoi, i.e. without worldly aires (see vv. 33, 
34). — napdyei] is passing away, in accordance with the Katpug aweara?^//. in 
ver. 29. To axvfia, 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 Hofniann), but the expiry 
of the a'lwv ovrog, the end of which is the world-embracing catastrophe of 
the Parousia, the transformation of the form of this world, and therewith 
of its whole temporal constitution, into the new heaven and the new earth. 
Comp. 1 John ii. 17 ; Rev. xxi. 1 ; Rom. viii. 19 flf. ; 2 Pet. iii. 10 ; Matt. 
V. 18. Grotius, Valckenaer, and Flatt are wrong in holding that the mean- 
ing is : " non manebunt, quae nunc sunt, res tranquillae, sed mutabuntur 
in turbidas," and that the expression is taken from the language of the 
theatre (changing the scene, Eurip. Ion. 166 ; Lucian, Herm. 86). Our 
rendering is demanded by vv. 26, 29, and by the eschatological view of the 
N. T. generally. — fltvlw 6e k.t.X.] Comp. hyit de v/i. (^eUhiiai in ver. 28. — to, 
Tov Kvpiov (the cause of Christ) is more precisely defined by what follows. 
— The reading apeaei, how he shall please, and apiay, how he may please 
(see Stallbaum, ad 8ymp)os. p. 216 C ; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 350), are equal- 
ly suitable so far as the sense is concerned. 

Ver. 34. Taking the reading fie/iep. k. ?/ yvvij k. tj napdivog (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 /lepl^EaOai 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 nepifivav. 
Theophylact says well : oh rfjv avri/v exovai t^povrida, aXka fiefiepi<j/jivai e'tal Talc 
awovdatg, kuI ?'/ fisv nepl aXka cnov^di^ei, ij &i. rrepl aXXn. 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. — Mefiip. is in the singular, because it stands at the head of the 
sentence, and ^ yvvy «. i) napOkvog embraces the female sex as a whole made 
up of two halves. Comp. Kiihner, II. p. 58 f. ; Bernhardy, p. 416 ; Butt- 

' If we adopt Lachmann's reading (de- betrothed maiden, in his opinion, is no 

fended especially by Hammond among the longer ayaMo?. But in the whole context 

older expositors), which Ewald also follows there is only the simple distinction made 

(leaving out, however, the second i) ayafios) between married and unmarried persons, 

the meaning will be : The married man Betrothed maidens, too, belong to the lat- 

cares . . . how he tmiy pleme hix wife, and is ter class ; comp. ver. .36 : YaM€tTai<rai'. [Tre- 

divided (mhisinterest). And the unmarried gelles and Westcott & Hort follow Lach- 

7rife (widowed or divorced) and (he unmar- mann, but Tischendorf and the Canterbury 

vied maiden caref, etc. Hofmanr., too, pre- Revision adhere to the received text.— T. 

fers this reading, taking the <cai, which it W. C] 
has before r) ywri, in the sense of ako. The 

CHAP. VII., 35. 175 

mann, iieut. Or. p. 110 f. [E. T. 126]. — 'iva y dyla h.t.a.] Comp. 21 Cor. vii. 
1. This moral consecration to God of her whole personality, which she 
strives after, is the Kug apeaei tC) Kvpiio 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 aptaKciv 
rcj KvpiCf), would be a piece of j^rudei'y, which is unlike him. 

Note. — There is no ground for inferring from vv. 32-34 that Paul, himself 
unwedded, looked " somewhat askance" upon marriage (Riickert). To assume 
any such onesidedness of view on his part would be a very hasty proceeding (see 
on ver. 2). On the contrary, what we have here is not his view of how, from 
the nature of the case, things must necessarily subsist,^ but only his experience of how 
in point of fact they usually did subsist. This experience he (6 uyafiog) 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 ui^on 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 foiand 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. Tovto] refers to the recommendation of single life contained in 
vv. 26-34. — TT/jof TO v/i. avTuv (7i'//0.] for your own advantage. The genitive 
with avjKpepov used as a substantive, as in x. 33 ; see Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
Rep. p. 338 0. — ovx'i-va k.t.1.^ explaining more in detail, negatively and 
positively, the TzpoQ . . . avjicp^pov. To cast a noose upon one is a figurative 
expression, originally borrowed from the chase (less probably, from war- 
fare), for the idea of dejiriving of freedom (bringing under binding and lim- 
iting relations). Comp. Prov. vii. 31, and see Wetstein and Loesner, in 
loc. The sense of "giving occasion to scruples" (Billroth, comp. Bengel) 
does not correspond so well with the figure and the connection. — a2.M nphg 
TO Evax- K.T.Ti.] but to 2yromote the haUt of comeliness and undimded 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 ayafjoi ; 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 con-esponds 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'''' 

' 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. 103. 
handmaids of the Lord (Priscilla, etc.) who 

17G Paul's first epistle to the cokintiiians. 

of the Christian. Its sacred nature and the foul eontirisfii to it are set forth 
in Rom. .xiii. 13, 14. — The dative of ai)i)n)[)nati()n, rC) Kr/j/tjand a^epian., are 
conjoined with the cvTrap., used as a substantive, to make up the unity of the 
idea. — evndpeSpog does not occur elsewhere. Hesychius explains it by KoXug 
Ttapaiievov. — a7re/)«T7r.] "absque di.stractionc, i.e. avrv roh /irpi/ivhv ra tov 
k6(j/iov,'''' Kypke, II. p. 207. Comp. irepiaTzaaOni, Luke x. 40. Regarding 
the connection of the word with the later Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 
415. Xeno])h()n, Agen. i. 4, has ai^taa-jrdaTuq. The adverb attaches itself to 
evndp. defining its meaning precisely. See on xii. 28.' 

Ver. 36. A*] introduces something opposed to the svax^uiov. — a(lX1^|■ovdv\ 
means aaxvitova dvai (comp. EvaxJjuovelv = eiiax'/fJ-ova ehai, Plat. Legg. v. p. 
732 C), and may therefore be explained either in Mhaactire sense (to act dis- 
honourably, conduct oneself in a dishonourable waj', Plato, Pol. vi. p. 506 D, 
Theaet. p. 165 B ; Xen. de re eq. xi. 6 ; Herodian, v. 8. 16 ; Lucian, de sao-if. 
7), or in the iMssive sense {to have dishonour, Eur. IIcc. 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 thinls that he is acting dishon- 
ourably towards his mrgin (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., 0. Bex. 1492 ff. ; Eur. IltJ. 2D1 ; comp. Ecclus. 
xlii. 9 ; and Lennep, ad Phalar. p. 362), but the dishonour of seduction, 
which the father or guardian fears he may give occasion to by refusing per- 
mission to marry ; see the following context (against Theodoret : 6 6e r^ 
aya/iiav ciKoa/j-lav vTzolafijidv(jv, Theophylact, al.). Taking it in the passive 
sense, we have : if any one thinks to hare disgrace in resj/ect of his virgin (from 
seduction, or her being left unwedded). So in substance the Syriac 
("despici"), Grotius, Mosheim, Zachariae, Ileydenreich, 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 
ajiart from the consideration that aaxiH- is most commonly found in the ac- 
tive meaning (see also xiii. 5), there is this against the second rendering, 
that tTTt with the accusative takes for granted that aaxv!-ov£lv\xi\Yi\\<is, activity, 
since it states the direction in irhirh it is exerted (comp. dcxv^'oveh' elg riva, 
Dion. Ilal. ii. 26). — vo/il^ei] " Si pers2:)ecto filiae suae ingenio judicet, coeliba- 
tui non esse aptam," Calvin. — eay y vTypaK/i.] is the case, in connection with 
which that ft Se tiq aaxvi^ovelv, k.t.I. is supposed : in case she pass her time, 
jyass the highest point of her youthfid bloom. As regards the aKfii] itself, see 
Plato, Re2'). p. 460 E : ap' ovv am ^wAokfI fterpiog xP^'^'^i aKfii/g ra elKomv ett) 
ywaiKi, avfipl rff ra rptciKovTa, and Stallbaum, ad hunc loc. ; other definitions 
of the age may be seen in Locclla, ad. Xen. Eph. p. 145. Paul's opinion is, 
that before the clkjit] is reached the acxwrnrnv . . . vof/lCei 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 virtpaK/xog would be more 
ready to yield to a lover, If she is not allowed to marry. Respecting the 

• [The image hero and the words are well illustrated by the little narrative Luke x. 
89^2 in the original.— T. W. C] 

CHAP. VII., 37. 177 

word vTrepaKfj.., which is not found in ancient Greek, see Eustath. 11. i. p. 11, 
31 ; Od. p. 1915, 29. The classical writers use instead of it the perfect of 
napaK/xdi^eiv, as in Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 23 ; or the adjective napaniiaaTLUT], as in 
Galen, VI. p. 312, 14. — aal ovruq 6(j)£l?.Ec yiveadai] depends on the el : ' and 
■if so (namely, that the virgin marry), it must he. Thus there is added to 
the subjective condition of things, expressed in 6e ng aax'//^- k.t.a., the corre- 
sponding (not heterogeneous, as Hofmann objects) objective condition on 
the part of the maiden, whose natural temperament makes marriage needful. 
It is quite akin to the German phrase : und wenn's nicht anders sein harm 
[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 6(pei?iEi. According to Riickert, k. ovt. b(p. yiv. depends upon 
kdv : and she must remain so (i.e. unwedded). But the indicative d<pEi?.Ei is 
decisive against this rendering ; and what an amount of straining is needed 
to make yiveaBai equivalent to remain ! for she is unwedded, and, if she so 
remains, cannot become so. — 6 Oklei ■kolelto)] not : let Mm do tchat pleases him 
(so ordinarily ; but this is contrary to the context ; see what follows, and 
the preceding o^ei1.el)^ but : let him do ichat he intends (to give his virgin in 
marriage) . Theodoret puts it well : to 6okovv npaTTETu. — yafieiTuaav] 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 
" the youths'''' should be supplied here as the subject, and avrrjv as the object. 
Ver. 37. He icho, 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. — w?) ejwv avdyKriv] icithout having constraint (ob- 
jective necessity), as he, in ver. 36, whom the natural temperament of his 
virgin causes to fear the aaxrifJ-ovElv before explained. — k^ovaiav ds sxei /c.r.Z.] 
contrasted with the fiij Ix- avdyK. (rff, but rather) as the correlative positive 
state of free disposal in respect of what he himself wills. Strictly speaking, 
therefore, we should have the participle here, but instead, there is again a 
change in the construction. Comp. on iv. 14 ; Buttmann, neut. Or. p. 327 
f. [E. T. 382]. — To'vTo] is not explained — though this is the common suppo- 
sition — by the infinitive which follows ; were that the case, we should have 
TO T^pslv, or (as in Od. i. 82 ; 1 Thess. iv. 3 ; Jas. 1. 37, al.) the simple 
infin. (comp. the critical remarks). But Paul leaves the reader to gather 
from the connection what is meant by tovto (namely, nat giving the maiden 

» Theophylact begins the apodosis with arising from the nature of the case, that he 

Kai ouTus : yeve(rdia, <<)r)<ri, xai ovtco. ttw? ; o do what he will.'''' Laurent also makes koX 

&iKei. TToieiTO). In that case «. outo? 6(^. yiv. oiiTois o^i. yiv. the apodosis, expounding It 

would be quite superfluous, the Kci deprived to mean : so it rnitst be in this case also. The 

of Its reference, and ovx iiJ^apr. would not clauses which follow he considers explana- 

suitthe obligatory 6(<)€tAei. Similarly Hof- tory ; and (cai must go back for Its reference 

mann, who follows the same view, para- all the way to ver J : not merely in the case 

phrasing it thus : " TIds too (?) Is a necessity of the TrupoOatJoc. 

178 Paul's first epistle to the corinthians. 

in marriage). The design of this tovto kekplkev (conchmim hahet) is then de- 
clared by Tov Tr/pelv : in order to keep (to preserve iu her maidenly state) his 
own maiden. And this is not a mere periphrasis for not giving in marriage 
(as de Wette objects), but ratlier the design which the father or guardian 
has in his tovto kkkpikev, hi/ virtue of his right to dispose of his own child : ob- 
serve the emphatic t?/v iavTov Trap'&fvov. That tJie mai/leii'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. Primtalterth. § 30. 2 ff.)- — sn/wf woid] in the sense of 
action nwrally right, the positive side of the oi'x ajiapThvet. of ver, 36, and 
in so far stronger here ; hence, too, it is represented in ver. 28 by Kpdaaov 
Tzoiel in relation to the KaluQ Tram, which is equivalent to ovx d/uapTavet. 

Ver. 38. Result of vv. 36, 37, Kal . . . kw, as well . . . as also. Paul had 
thouo-ht of saying kuIuq ttouI in the second clause also, but thereupon 
strengthens his expression {Kpelaaov) so as to correspond with the o-elations of 
the two predicates, ovx a/anpT. in ver. 36, and KaT^ug noiel in ver. 37. — 6 
cKya/i.] he who marries her (his virgin, ver. 37) out (gives her out of his family 
in marriage). This going " oh^' is not taken into account in the second 
clause. — Kpelaaov] for see ver. 34. Regarding kKjafi., comp. Matt. xxiv. 
38 ; it is not preserved in Greek writers. 

Vv. 39, 40. An appended rule respecting second marriage on the part of 
women, occasioned probably by questions from the Corinthians. — (U(kTai] 
sc. T(f) avfipi ; she may not separate herself from him and marry another. 
Comp. ver. 27 ; Rom. vii. 2. — w i?tA« ■yaiJirj-&fjvai] to whom she desires to he 
married. Comp. Mark x. 12. Vaiiel uiv yap 6 avyp, ya/ielTai de i) ywfj, Schol. 
ad Eur. Med. 593. As regards the later form yafir/dfp>at, instead of the Attic 
yafie-&yvai, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 742. — jtovov h Knp/w] only in the Lord, 
not apart from Christ as the specifically determining element of the new 
union ; only in a Christian way, i.e. only to a Christian, sc. let her be mar- 
ried. ' So among the early interpreters, TertuUian, 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, tliose mixed marriages are meant which date from the pre- 
Chridian period, and in which only one spouse has become Christian. 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, Calovius, Wolf, and others, includ- 
ing Pott, Flatt, Ileydenreich, Billroth, Rilckert, Osiander, Neander, Maier, 
Ewald, all understand the phrase to mean : in a Christian sph-it, acting as a 
Christian slwrdd, in the fear of the Lord, etc. (several of the above-named 
interpreters, as Flatt, Riickcrt, Osiander, Neander, Maier, include also the 
point that the husband must be a Christian, or lay the chief stress upon 
this, as Hofmanu and Weiss). But what we have here is plainly a limita- 
tion of the u &e1ei so emphatically put first. Moreover, the wider and more 
general the meaning ascribed to h Kvplo), the more inappropriate it seems 
in connection with the foregoing definite rules, which all take for granted 

' 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. — /micapiur.] more Messed, i.e. not merely more 
sjoared from troubles (vv. 26, 28), but, in accordance with the higher ref- 
erence which //a/ca/3. 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 h 
Lapide, al., including Hirscher, Moral, III. p. 502), there is not a word of 
that in the text, even if we should read karaL in place of kariv. — Kara r. i/uf/v 
yvu,ur/v] kfir/v carries the emphasis of apostolic self-consciousness. — do/cw 6e 
Kayi) K.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 (exeiv) to me also, and hence as worthy to be 
received and followed. — Respecting 6oku, mihi vicleor, the note of Estius 
may suffice : "minus dicit, plus volens intelligi." Comp. iv. 9. — Kayii] 
like other teachers who have received His gifts. — In the two expressions 
coming together — of which doiiu has a touch of irony (comp. Dissen, ad Bern.- 
de Cor. p. 230 f.) — there is implied a side-glance, but whether precisely at 
the Petrine farty (Neander, Rabiger, al.') may be doubted. It is safer to 
say generally : at opponents of his full standing as an apostle in Corinth. 
Comp. Calvin, (w) 

Notes by American Editoe. 

(b) Pauls command and the Lord's. Ver. 10. 

It is important to insist upon the author's explanation of the words, " I com- 
mand ; yet not I, but the Lord." This is not a distinction between what is in- 
spired and what is not. What the Apostle means is simply that the Corinthians 
had no need to apply to him for instruction on the matter of divorce, because 
Christ had alreadj"^ 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- 
crate those who are bound by them, and that the children of Christian parents 
may therefore be considered as among the people of God, and that from this 
would follow the natural consequence that the whole family would participate 
in the same rites as belonged properly, and in the highest sense, only to those 
members or that member of it who was strictly a believer. Est mairimonium 
Christianum est sdboles Christiana (Bengel). 

(t) Desertion a cause of divorce. Ver. 15. 

Hodge's explanation of this matter is somewhat different and apparently 
better: " There is no conflict here' between Christ's command and Paul's in- 
structions. Both say, a man cannot put away his wife (nor of course a wife her 
husband) on account of difference of religion, or for any other reason but the 
one above specified (Matt. ver. 32). The Apostle only adds that if the believ- 


ing party be, without just cause, put away, he or she is free." The marriage 
contract thus wilfully broken no longer binds. Hence wilful desertion is 
judged to be a legitimate ground of divorce. 

(u) " Use it rather." 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 siimmation in Stanley in loco.) Meyer's reference to the 
Kal may be tiarned 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 EUicott' 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 iising 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 

(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 diaties 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 ciiltivatiou 
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 God depends not on our desertion of one religious com- 
munity for another,but on our keeping His commandments in whatever religious 
community His providence has placed us, whether circumcision or uncircum- 

CHAP. VIII. 181 


Ver. 2. di] is wanting in A B X, min. several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by 
Lachm. Eiick. and Tisch., as Griesb., too, bad recommended. Added for the 
sake of connection, as was also yap (after the iirst ovre) in ver. 8, which is omit- 
ted likewise in A B X 17, al. — sK^evai] It is true that A B D E F G X, min. 
Clem. Nyss. Theodoret, Damasc. have iyvuKkvai (recommended by Griesb., 
adopted by Lachm. Kiick. and Tisch.) ; but what goes before it and what fol- 
lows make it clear that iyv. is a gloss. The reading elvai, too, in 39, 91, 109, tells 
in favour of s'tStvai. — oviUnu ovSsv eyvuKs'l Lachm. and Riick. have ovnu eyvu, 
which was recommended by Griesb. in accordance with testimony of very con- 
siderable weight, in substance the same as that in favour of iyvuKEvm instead 
of t'tSivat. But the peculiarity of the emphatic Recepta does not show the hand 
of a gloss-writer. What has taken place has rather been the reduction of the 
original reading to the simple ovttu eyvu, at first, perhaps, by omitting the su- 
perfluous ovSev, all the more readily that it was preceded hjovSeno), whereupon 
eyvuKe became transformed into eyvu, either from the next word beginning with 
K, or by the influence of the inf. yvuvai which follows, while ovdenu was dis- 
placed, as in many other cases (John vii. 39 ; Luke xxiii. 53 ; Acts viii. 16), by 
the more familiar oinu. — Ver. 4. erepof] is wanting in A B D E F G X* min. 
with several vss. and Fathers. Condemned by Mill and Griesb., deleted by 
Lachm. and Riick. But why should any one have added errpof ? 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 hut one other ffocZ"). — Ver. 7. ry awfiSijaei] 
Lachm. and Riick. read t?) awriOelg, with A B t<, some min. Copt. Bashm. Aeth. 
Syr. p. (on the margin) Damasc. Approved also by Griesb. and Rinck. ry 
avveidTJaei, however, as the more difiicult reading, should be retained. See also 
Reiche, Comment, crit. I. p. 200 ff. It was noted on the margin how the avuei- 
6r}(Jig Tov elSuTiov arose, namely, by ry owriBeia, and then this phrase easily crept 
into the place of the original t. cvvflS. — It is preferable, however, to put twf 
apri before tov eIrfuAov (Lachm. Riick. and Tisch.), with B D E F G K 31, 37, 
116, and several vss. and Fathers ; in the Recepta we have transposition in the 
interest of the construction. — Ver. 8. wapicTriai] A B K, min. Copt. Bashm. 
Clem. Origen (twice), Athan. Cyr. Damasc. have Tvapaarr/aei. Recommended by 
Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Rightly ; the presents which 
follow gave rise to the same tense here. 'Lvvicrriai, which has but weak sup- 
port, is a gloss. — There is considerable evidence (especially A B K) in favour 
of omitting the yap, and putting the negative clause first in what follows 
(Lachm. Tisch.). The transcriber would have a mechanical inclination to place 
the positive half of the statement first. — Ver. 9. There is decisive evidence .for 
reading aadevtaii' instead of the Recepta ua^evovciv. — Ver. 11. kuI anole'trai'] In 
place of Kui, A has ovv after the verb (so Riick.), while B N* 17, Copt. Bashm. 
Goth. Clem, have yap, which is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The last of the 

183 Paul's first epistle to xiiii cokinthians. 

three readings is the true one ; yap not being understood, was explained in 
some cases by kui, in others by ovv. Instead of dno/.Eirai, read with Lachm. 
Kiick. and Tisch. air-oTi/vrai, on the authoiity of A B D* K, several min. Copt. 
Goth. Clem. Bus. Antioch. Chrys. Theodoret, and Damasc. The future arises 
from a mechanical alteration of the text after olKoih/iTjO. — d^£/i(p6^] Lachm. 
Kiick. and Tisch. have 6 dih/cpoc after yvunei, which has conclusive evidence in 
its favour. The Becepia originated in a mistaken attempt to help oiit the con- 
struction. — fTTf] Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. read ei>, which is supported by de- 
cisive testimony. 

Contents. — To eat flesh offered to idols is a thing morally indifferent for 
all who understand rightly what an idol is (vv. 1-6). Still, for the sake 
of those who are more weak, we should refrain from so eating, if it is a 
stumbling-block to them (vv. 7-13). 

Ver. 1. Ai] marks the transition to a 7iew subject, which the queries from 
Corinth led the apostle to discuss. — Trtiot rwv £i(5wAoi9.] 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 hegin at on (for) 
Trdiref , as is done by Luther, Bos, Er. Schmid, Eaphel, Wolf, Bengel, Valck- 
cnaer, and others, among whom are Olshausen and Maicr ; for the fact 
that. 7/ yvucig (jtvaioi stands unconnected with what precedes it, and the sense 
of o-i in ver. 4 {that), are decisive against this. The true commencement is 
only at /} yvuaig <pvoioi (so, with older commentators. Pott, Riickert, de Wette, 
Osiander, Ewald, Neander ; Billroth is undecided on the jioint), so that 
the preceding yvuaiv e^ouev has very naturally given occasion to the warn- 
ings which begin with ?} yvwCT/f (pvaiol. — elSu^M^vTa, things offered to idols, 
Kfjea eUuXd^vra, 4 Macc. v. 1, are those parts of the animals offered in hea- 
then sacrifices, which remained over after the priests had received their 
share, and which were either consumed in the temple or at home in connec- 
tion with sacrificial feasts (Dougt. Anal. I. p. 234 ff. ; Hermann, gottesd. 
Alterth. § xxviii. 22), or else (by poor or miserly persons) sold in the flesh 
market. Comp. on Acts xv. 20.' 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 ai)t 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- 

' Paul, however, makes no reference to pendent position as an .apostle, he had early 

the decree of the apostles either here or cnouKh sliaken himself clear of all appllca- 

elsewhere, which is in keeping with his con- tions of the tenipcjrary aj^reement come to at 

sciousness of his own direct and indepcn- Jerusalem which niisht conflict, upon points 

dent apostolic dignity. Comp. on Acts inc. in themselves indifferent, with the princi- 

cit., and on Gal., Introd. §,3. Moreover, i)les elsewhere enunciated hy him, although 

this very chapter, along with chap, x., coupling this with a wise forbearance 

shows plainly that, in virtue of his inde- towards those who were weak in the faith. 

CHAP. VIII., 1. 183 

cess, whether we are disposed to find the former in the Christ-party (01s- 
hausen, Jaeger) or in the Apollonians (Rabiger). As regards the weak, see 
ver. 7, and the remark subjoined to it. — ol6a/iev] should not be joined di- 
rectly with nepl k.t.1., but the latter clause is to be taken as in vii. 1 : M)ic, 
as respects meat offered to idols, we hnoio that, etc. Hofmann, following 
Semler, but in the face of all the Versions and Fathers, reads ol6a uev {I know, 
indeed, that), by which he gains nothing but a /liv solitarium, which would be 
all the more uncalled for, seeing that the corresponding antithetic clause, 
where he ought to find y Se yvucig, 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 Je. The suhject of olSa/iev consists of all those, 
besides the apostle himself, of whom the yvuatv exojuev holds good, that is 
to say, of Paul and the (as regards this point) moi'e enlightened Christians : 
I and those like myself in this. Theophylact puts it rightly (comp. Chrysos- 
tom) ; npoQ Tovc TcXeiovg drnMyerai, acpelg rovg are'kearEpovq. Since olSafiev and 
Ixo/iev must have one and the same subject, Riickert is wrong in taking the 
first indefinitely : it is well Jcnown. Olshausen understands it of all Chris- 
tiatis, and seeks to remove the contradiction between that and ver. 7 in this 
way : he distinguishes jvuglq and rj yvuaic, making the former to be a certain 
ground of hnoioledge in general ; the latter, the sijecifc knowledge of Iww the 
form and the poicer of idolatry stand related to each other. But the yvunsLq in 
ver. 1, although without the article, has been already defined very exactly 
as regards its contents by Trepl r. nSu\., and still more by ver. 4, so that y 
yvuaic in ver. 7 can mean nothing else but the yvuaiQ tinder 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 (comjj. 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 icithout Travreg, if the ovk ev irdciv 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 navTE^ there the unexpressed idea, '■'■ properly 
speahing, all Christians as such'''' (Ewald), or to give to the exofiev the sense 
of '■'■should have."' Others, following Er. Schmid ("we at Corinth are all 
wise enough"), regard the Corinthiahs as the subject, and take (Nosselt, 
Opuscula, II. p. 152, Rosenmiiller, Pott, Heydenreich, Flatt) the words nepl 
. . . exofiei', and then on oii^ev eldulov in ver. 4 on to ver. 6, as quotations 
from the Corinthian letter, the refutation of wliich begins with ver. 7. But 
this is unnatural ; for in that case Paul would have brought the passage ?/ 
yvuaiQ <f>vGLol k.t.I., on to ver. 3, into his refutation as well. Further, it is 
contrary to the apostle's habitual way of writing, for he always marks out 
the words of an opponent as such by some formula ; and lastly, it is quite 
unnecessary, seeing that the supposed contradiction between ver. 1 and ver. 
7 vanishes on considering the change of person (from the^rs^ in ver. 1 to 
the thii'd in ver. 7). — yvuaiv] have knowledge; ofichat? is plain from the 

> So Elwert, Progr., Quaestiones ad philol. sacram. N. T., Tubing. 1860, p. 17. 

184 Paul's first epistle to the corinthians. 

context, namely, of the way in which flesh offered to idols slwuld he 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 
yvuatv exofiev. — The article turns the abstract yvuaig into a noun appellative. 
—The hmdedge (in and by itself, uaraelj^ jruffeth up (iv. 6, v. 2) ; lut tlis 
love (to the brethren ; corap. Rom. xiv. 14, 15) edifieth (x. 23), furthers the 
progress of the church (viewed as oiKodofiy Oeov, see iii. 9) towards Christian 
perfection. It is, indeed, the necessary r/yefioviKov to the effectively sympa- 
thetic and humble ajjjMmtion of the knowledge. Comp. chap, xiii., espe- 
cially ver. 4. — Vv. 2 and 3 explain the preceding statement, both from the 
wrong nature of the suj^posed knowledge and from the preciousness of love 
to God.. — Since the yvuaiq in and by itself, divorced from love, is never a 
real knowledge, but only such as a man fancies himself to have (iii. 18), 
Paul characterizes here what he before designated by r) yvijaiq as a doKs'iv 
dSevai tc ; 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 ayarrdv rbv Oe6v. 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. — r/] anything 
whatever, any object of the yvuaig. Pott and Flatt interpret : something 
wonderfitl ; but this does not correspond so well with the sententious 
character of the verse. — ovStTru k.t.1.'\ he knows notJiing 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, impractical, in its character. 
In order to the yvuvai Ka6ug del we must of necessity have love, which regu- 
lates the knowledge morally, gives it proper depth, and makes it practically 
salutary. Comp. xiii. 2. As regards the repetition of the negative (Luke 
xxiii. 53 ; John xix. 41 ; Acts viii. 16), Schomann, ad Is. p. 469 ; Stall- 
baum, ad Plat. Crat. p. 398 E). — Ver. 3. ovrog] with emphasis : he, to the 
exclusion of the other who prides liimself on his know^ledge. — iyvuaTai vn' 
avTov] This is rationalized by Billroth in his usual fashion into : " Ood 
rec/)gnizes Himself in him ;'''' but it means simply : this man islcnoicn by Him. 
The statement is a pregnant one. Instead of making it logically complete 
by saying : "it holds good of such a man not merely that he hiows in the 
ti-ue sense, but also that he is Tcnoicn of God," the apostle states simply the 
latter and greater truth, which of itself implies the former. The iyvua-ai vtt 
nvTov shows the im2)ortance and preciousness of the love spoken of, in accord- 
ance with its holiness ; for if God hiows 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 
experience of the man, and which is the causa salutis, ' so that God in thus 

' Comp. Constit. ap. v. 16. .3 : m*) ■yiyi'ioo-KOi'Tes @ibv 5ia toO K>)puy/naTos ffio-Teuo-afTet eyi'WTe 

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 ; 3 Tim. ii. 19. Comp. 
Hofmann, Schriftheweis^ I. p. 258 flf. See also on xiii. 12. Other inter- 
preters supply the thought ^tt suum disci2yulum (Erasmus) or inter filios 
(Calvin), and the like. Comp. Usteri, Lehr'begriff^ p. 283. But that is to 
iuBert a meaning not in the text. Others, again, take it as ajyprdbatus est 
(Piscator, Clericus, Gataker, Grotius, Wolf, Mosheim, Semler, Morus, Vater, 
ffZ., following Fathers in Suicer, Thes. I. p. 762). But this is as much 
against linguistic usage (see on Rom. vii. 15) as Augustine's edoctus est (so, 
too, Beza, Pareus, Er. Schmid, and others, including Nosselt, 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 hiowing ; he finds in yivuaKeiv (as 
in J^T, see on Matt. i. 25) the bridal (?) relation of the soul to God. 

Ver. 4. Ovv] igitiir, takes up again the interrupted statement (ver. 1) ; 
comp. xi. 20, and see on Mark iii. 31, and Baeumlein, Partih. p. 177. — rr/f 
dpuc. T. Ei6.] more precise definition of the indefinite tuv eiSuloO., ver. 1. 
There is no reason any more than formerly for writing olda/iev here as ol6a 
uev with Hofmann. — on ohSev eldul. ev Kdofioy] tliat there is not an idol in the 
world. Paul's meaning here is not : what the heathen adore as gods is some- 
thing absolutely without existence (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 ovSev 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 Tsraelitae, idoluni nihil esse.'''' Comp. 
also .Joseph. Antt. viii. 13. 6. But this must be held incorrect, seeing that 
iv r. Kda/xij does not harmonize with it, and because of the parallel expres- 
sion ovSel^ ee6g. — Kat bri ovMg k.t.X.] and that there is no other Ood hit one. 
The El uv refers simply to ovdeig QeS^, not to erepog. See on Gal. i. 19. 

Vv. 5, 6. Confirmatory elucidation of the preceding statement oti ovSh 
ftrfw/lov . . . fl /iiy elf. 

Ver. 5. For (yap) even {Kai) if really (elnep, see Hartung, PartiTcell. I. p, 
343 ; Baeumlein, Partih. p. 202) there exist so-called gods, lohether in heamn 
or on earth. 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 Koi elnep, i.e. even in the case that, if there he 
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 etn-fp by itself, but by the connection in which it stands here. 

awTov, aaWov Se ly v uxtBtjt e v n' avTov low that the ffods as such existed at all, but 

fid 'lr)(Tov ToC cru>T^po! k. AvTpajToO Ttaf held those beings regarded as gods to be 

e\nii6vTu>v en' airoi'. demons. Couip. Welss, MM. Theol. p. 279. 
' We know from x. 20 that he did not al- 

186 Paul's kimstlk to the Corinthians. 

Comp. Rom. viii. 9, 17, etc. ; and see Bacumlcin, I.e. Tlie 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 ua-rrei) k.t.7.. : as there are, 
indeed, gods maraj and lords many. What is conceded here is the premiss 
from which that possiljility may be drawn as a consecjuence. If there exist, 
that is to say, a multitude of superhuman beings, who come under the cate- 
gory of Oeo'l (in the wider sense) and Kvinot, then Ave must admit that it is 
possible that those whom the heathen call gods — Jupiter, Apollo, and so 
on — have an actual existence.^ The deoi jroPiZot and Kvpioi no?.?ioi are, as the 
connection necessarily leads us to understand, not human rulers, deified 
kings, and the like, but the superhnman poicers (angels), of whom it is said 
in Deut. x. 17 : 6 yap Kvpiog 6 Qevg v/juv, ovrng Oebg rfjv 6eo)v /cat Kvpiog ruv 
Kvpiuv.^ Comp. Ps. cxxxvi. 2, 3. Most commentators take ilai as said e 
gentilium jiersuasiane (so Pott, Flatt, Heydenreich, de Wette, Ewald, Nean- 
der, Maier), which would give as the sense of the whole : " «/" there he in 
reality so-called gods among the heathen, as, indeed, they speah of many gods and 
lords'''' (de Wette). But this explanation runs counter to the fact that elai 
is put first with emphasis : and the e gentllbtmpersuasione 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 yfilv 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 nai denotes real existence (the 7iey6fi. fieoi being demons, x. 20,) while 
with the second we should supply : in the view of the heathen. Riickert 
takes both the first and second nai in the right sense, but makes elnep 
mean, — contrary to the rules of the language, — although it must he conceded 
that (which is not its meaning even in such passages as those given by 
Kilhner, II. § 824, note 2), and supposes that the apostle conceived the 
angels and demons to be the realities answering to the Xey6/i. i9eo/.' — As 
regards nal eI, etiam, turn, si, which marks the contents of the conditional 
clause as iincertain, comp. on Mark xiv. 29 ; and sec Hermann, ad Viger. p. 
832 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 32 A. It is here the '■'■ etiamsi de re in 
cogitatione posita," EUendt, Lex. Sopjh. I. p. 884. Examples of ml yap el, 
for even if, may be seen in Hartimg, Partilell. I. p. 141. 

Ver. 6. Apodosis : yet have we Christians hut one God, the Father, etc. 
Therefore : oh^a/iev otl ov6ev eh^uTiov k.t.?.. The kcTiv to be supplied after //yuiv 
is the simple verb substantive. — a?i?:] as in iv. 15. — Oebg 6 iraryp] might be 
tai-en together here as forming one conception, like Kvptog 6 Qsdg (Fritzsche, ad 

1 The meaning of the verso, therefore, 'i [Hodge, tw /wo, sustains this view strong- 

frcely rendered, would be: For even if we ly.— T. W. C] 

gupiMfethal the gods of Die heathen mythology ^ Tliere is no ground whatever for brin^- 

have a real exutenre, which is no mch absurd ing in tlie demons here from x. 20 (this in 

SH])jx)sifion, seeing that there is not tnerely opposition to Olshansen and others). Tlie 

One Ood and One Lord (in the wider sense second part of tlie verse, which malces 

of these words), but gods many and lords no further mention of AeyoM«Voi? fleois, 

many: still for us Christians, etc., ver. 6. should have sufficed of itself to prevent 

Hofniann asrrees stibstantially with our ex- this ; still more the correlation in which 

position of the passage. See also his S'c/tr./i- the many gods and lords stand to the els 

bew. I. p. 348. ©eos and tZs Ku'pios in ver. 6. 

CHAP. VIII., 6. 187 

Matt. p. 168) : it agrees better, however, with the elg Kvpioc 'I. X. which 
follows, to understand 6 waryp as in apposition to 9e6g and defining it more 
precisely. By 6 irarr/p, and the relative definitions of it which follow, the 
f 'c Oedg has its specific character assigned to it, and that in such a way as to 
make the reader feel, from the relation of the One God to the world, and 
from his own relation to Him, how the Christian, despite that plurality of 
gods, comes to rest in the thought of the unity of God, and how idols are 
with him put out of account altogether. Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbeic. I. p. 
348. — 6 warr/p] in the Christian sense, according to the idea of the vlo-Qeaia of 
Christians. Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iii. 26. — tf ov ra ndvra] as to primary ori- 
gin. See on Rom. xi. 36. — kuI yfulc dc avrov] i.e. and we Christians are 
destined to serve His jncrjioses : He is our End. Here again, after the Kal, we 
have the deviation from the relative construction, common with the apostle 
from his preference for direct address. Comp. on vii. 13. Bernhardy, p. 
304. It is arbitrary to take elg 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 kv, with Beza, Calvin, and others ; or for if, with Schulz, 
Heydenreich, and Pott. Billroth interprets it in Hegelian fashion : ' ' that 
man should be tovards God, should return into Him as his First Cause, not 
remain /w himself. ^^ This has only a seeming likeness to Augustine's " Fe- 
cisti me ad te, et inquietum est cor npstrum, donee requiescat in te," Conf. 
i. 1. Olshausen, following older expositors (Calovius, Estius, al.), 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 fJf refers to the agency of the Holy 
Spirit in bringing all back to its primary origin. ' — 6i' ov ra jravra] does not 
apply to the new moral creation (Grotius, Stolz, Pott), and consequently 
cannot include all that is involved in I'edemption and atonemerit (Baur, neut. 
Thcol. p. 193), which is clearly against the sense of the preceding to. ivdvra ; 
but it means that Jesus Christ, in His premundane existence, as the Son of 
God (not as the Ideal Man or the like) as Trpwroro/coc iraariq KTiaeuc (in John's 
phrase, as Aojof), was He through whom ^ God brought about the creation 
of the world. See on Col. i. 15 ff. Comp. John i. 3. Usteri, Lehrlegriff, 
p. 315 ff. ; Rabiger, Christol. Paul. p. 29 ff. ; Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. § 85 ; 
Lechler, p. 51 f . ; Weiss, hill. Theol. p. 818. Philo calls the Idyoq the 
bpyavov, 6l' ov KaTeaKEvda-&rf (6 Kda/noc:). See de Cherub. I. p. 162. In Rom. xi. 
36, 6c' ov is said of God, and the reference is therefore of a different kind 

1 Hence we find, in some of the later codd. to it, and insomuch as it exerts a reflex re- 
and Fathers, additional clauses respectinjr stovative influence even upon the ktiVis 
the Spirit, namely, Kal ev nveifxa ayiov, ev <^ (Rom. viii. 19 ff.), those who believe are 
ra navra k. rfneU ev aiiTiu, and : xal ei* nvevfxa equivalent to things as a whole." An in- 
ay. Si.' oO nivTa. But SO early an expositor stance— to be taken as a warning— of exe- 
as Chrysostom remarks expressly that the getical subjectivity in the interest of dog- 
Spirit is not mentioned here. matio preconception. 

2 In order to bring out the " all " (Rom. ' Not e| o5 which holds only of the Fa- 
xi. 36), 01shau.sen affirms : " Insomuch as tlier, although eis ov could be said of th« 
the church is destined to receive all men in- Son also (comp. Col. i. 16). 


than here. — koi y/xelg rft' avrov] is not to be referred to the physical creation 
(Riickert) ; for the idea thus elicited would not only be tame and obvious 
of itself, but also out of keeping with what has previously been stated of 
God, the second clause in which, k. y/jelg elg avrdv, adds a different, namely, 
an etkicul relation. The reference here is to the new creation of lelievers 
(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 
beino-, and we our Christian existence, that which we are as Christians. 
This '■'■one Ood 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 yvuaic that we 
speak of (r/) is not in all ; but doubtless (the 6e as in vii. 37, and very often 
— so ver. 9 — after a negative clause) there are many who, " etc. — r^ avvEi- 
drjaei tug apri tov et J<j/lot)] in virtue of their conscience till now regarding tJie 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 avveiSr/(jtg tov elduAov is : olSajiev, on oiidev d6u?MV iv k6(7/io), 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 wtliout 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. ' — cweidrjan;'^] means simply conscience (neither 
judicium, as many maintain, nor obscure conception, as Schulz would have it ; 
Billroth's rendering is better, though still inexact : " conviction that there 
are eUula ;" so also Reiche, Maicr), and -ov eh'iMov is the object of the moral 
consciousness, the article indicating the idol in a generic way. As to the 
gen. with aweid., 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). — ewf 
apri] marks off the time more sharply than "always as yet" (Hofmann), 
which would be In ; it means, " up to this verrj hoiiy (iv. 13, xv. 6, and in 
all other passages). Taking the usual order of the words, it would most 
naturally attach itself to hOiovm \ but since the place Avhich on critical 
grounds must be assigned to it is before Mu?.ov (see the critical remarks), it 
must be joined to ry oweiSr/aec. We might have expected ry eug apn aweidt/aec 
TOV ei6u7.ov or r/; avveith'/aei tov eh^uXov tij tug apTi ; even in Greek authors, 
however, one finds adverbial attributives used in this loose adjectival way 
without any connecting article ; and Paul himself in other jjlaces employs 

' [The later critical editors all adopt the (Pro/angrddf. pp. R2 ff., 75) Kohler, Schrift- 

other reading <Tvvi\6iia = by /(miiliar inter- gemdsse Lelire vom Gew., 1864 ; Delitzsch, 

couree with, or as the Revised Version has , Psychol, p. 1.33 £f. ; Lindes, de vi et ratiotie 

it, "beinRUsed to."— T. W. C] <rui'ei«^(rea)s ex N. T. Lund, 1860; R. Hof- 

* Sec generally, besides von Zetschwitz mann, Lehre torn Gew., Leipz. 1806. 

CHAP. VIII., 8. 180 

tliis mode of expression (see on xii. 28 ; 2 Cor. xi. 23 ; Phil. i. 26 ; Gal. i. 
13). — It is an artificial construction, and without sufficient ground, to 
supply a second awsi^/'/aei (without the article) after ry avvetd., and connect 
eo)c apTi Toil eldulov with this. — aaOevijg ovaa] hecause 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 dejiled (made conscious 
of guilt) by eating, because in that case the eating would be kn ■n-icTEug (Rom. 
xiv. 23). Molvveiv (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 1), of ethical defilement ; also in 
Ecclus. xxi. 28 ; Porphyr. de Abstin. i. 43 ; Synesius, Ep. 5. Comp. Titus 
i. 15 : fitaiveiv. Observe here the two sides of the conscience : it was weak 
to begin icith, and aftericards it is defiled as well. 

Note. — The ewf upn, 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 consuiry^- 
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) : 7/(7av yap tto?iXoI i^ ei6o}Xo2.aTp!a( Ty Trlarei npoas'ABovTeg oi icjgapri, Tovreari 
Kal fjera to maTevcrai, tu e'l^ajTioOvTa iaOiovaiv ug elSuh'iOvTa. Theodoret says : ovx 
7] ^puaig /xoTiVvei, aXAd. r/ cvveiSrjatc t?/v TeTieiav oh de^afievrj yvuciv, £ti de rjj TrldiTi tmv 
eU^uXuv KaTExo/xiirj. 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 G'en^i/e-Christians, 
is advocated also by Hofmann, and finds expression in Lachmann's reading of 

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, Parens, 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 : ovte kav /x?) (pdju/iev, TrepiGcrevo/nev, ovte kav (payu/Ltsi', 
vcTepoviiEBa. No, Paul is now going on (the advance being indicated by de) 
to show what regard should be paid to those weaker brethren : "iVow, food 
is not the determining element in the Christian'' s relation to Ood ; to abstain 
from it does no harm, and to fartal'e of it gives no advantage (see the critical 
remarks). Therefore (ver. 9) ye ought not to male yourselves a came of stumbling 
to thsweak through your liberty to eat sacrificial flesh.'''' If food were not a 
thing indifferent, — if abstinence from it brought loss, and partaking of it 
blessing with God, — then it would be our duty not thus to adapt ourselves 


to the weak. — ov Tvapaarf/mi] it irill not (in any case which may arise ; 
future) present us to God; non exhiliehit nos Deo, i.e. it icill 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, Ilofmann. Most interpreters take the 
word in the sense of commendabit, or, keeping by the Sec. napiaTTjoi, commen- 
dnt, as if it were mwaryaa or awioTTiai. This is untenable according to the 
rules of the language ; and it is illogical besides, for loth the cases which 
follow ovTE . . . ovre are included under the collective conception, ov napaoT. 
^ efoj.' — vcjTEpovfj..] do ire come short, do we lack anything in our relation to 
God. The opposite of this (comp. Phil. iv. 12) is nepiaa. : ve have an over- 
flowing abundance, something more than mere suflBciency in our relation to 
God ; TovTECTiv eixhKifiovfiEV Trapa tu Qeu) ug ayadov -i woiT/travTEg koi p-tya, Chrys- 
ostom. — [iAEKETE de] The 6e, now then, introduces what is their positive 
duty, as contrasted with the foregoing negative state of the case. — TzpdaKofifia] 
stumbling, i.e. occasion to act contrary to conscience. Comp. Rom. xiv. 13. 
Ver. 10. Tig] any such weak brother, namely. — rdv exovtu yvuaiv] quippe 
qui cognitionem hales, in significant aijposition to ai. It is just this, which 
the weaker believer knows respecting the stronger, that leads him astray. — 
Ev EidulEiG) KaTOKEinEvov] 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 pro?uMtio7i of tlus 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 f Jrfw?.eZoi- — which does not occur in profane writers — from the LXX. and 
the Apocrypha, may be seen in Schleusner, TJies. II. p. 246. See also 
Eustath. ad Od. vi. p. 263. 17. In the Fragm. Soph. 152 (Dind.), the true 
reading is iSMia. — oiKoSofi/jdr/aETm] is neither a vox media (Clericus, Eisner, 
Wolf, al.), nor does it mean impelletur (Castalio, Kypke, Hermann, Stolz, 
al.) or confrmabitur (Syr., Grotius, Zachariae, Schulz, Billroth), but as 
always in the N. T. : willbe built up, advanced in a Christian frame of mind, 
so as to eat (elf to ecO.). To be brought to eat sacrificial flesh tchile one is 
weak {aadEv. bvrog, opposite of yvuciv exelv), is, as Calvin rightly expresses it, 
a ruinosa aedificatio, seeing that the foundation which it ought to have, the 
TcicTig, is wanting. We have here, therefore, an ironically significant anti- 
phrasis ; without the anO. ovTog it might be a case of a real olnodoixEladai ; 
things being as they are, however, it can be so only in apjiearance, and, in 
reality, it is the very opjwsite.^ Egregie aedifcabitur / The hypothesis 
(Storr. Opnsc. II. p. 275 f. ; Rosenmiiller, Flatt, comp. Neander), that Paul 
borrows the word from the letter of the Corinthians to him (in which they 

' This holds also against the modification " Wetstein compares with this the pas- 

which Valckenaer, Riickeit, and de Wette sage in Nedarim, f . 40. 1 : "Si 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- 

iiito a position to appear before Ilini." catio juniorum est demolitio, et demolitio 

Comp. Theophylact : ouk otxeioi i^M^s tuJ ©«ui, seniorum est aedificatio." 

CHAP. VIII., 11-13. 101 

had said that by partaking of sacrificial flesh people edify the -wreak), and 
gives it back to them in an antiphrastic way, cannot be established, and is 

Ver 11. 'AndTilvrai (" terrificum verbum," Clarius) yap unfolds the mean- 
ing of the antiphrastic element of the preceding okorf., the yap introducing 
the answer- (Ilartung, I. j). 477 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 240 ; Baeumlein, Part. 
2). 72), in which the apostle's irony loses itself in the deep earnestness which 
imderlies it : he is in truth utterly ruined, etc. — aTt6%7\.vTai is meant here, as 
in Rom. xiv. 15, of destruction /car' i^oxrjv, the eternal a-n-u/ieia to which a 
man becomes liable when he falls from the life of faith into that of .«in 
through violation of his conscience. See on Rom. xiv. 15. Billroth, indeed, 
holds the yap here to be quite inexplicable, unless we take cnrdXTi. simply in 
the sense of is led astray (l:)ut see the critical remarks) ; while Riickert 
declares the yap utterly useless. Nevertheless, uTvoATivrai k.t.X. makes it 
clear and unmistakable how the case stands with the preceding olKochfir^O. , 
so that yap is logically correct. — h r?} ay yvtjasi] belongs to awa'A/i. : ty 
means of thy hioicledge, so that it through the use thou hast made of it, has 
occasioned this destruction. 'Ett/ (see the critical remarks) would be : iqion 
tjiy knowledge, so that it was the ground of what took place. — 6 a6El<p. 6c 
bv X. (ZTT. ] a weighty twofold motive for not bringing about such a result. 
Comp. Rom. xiv. 15. The 6C bv X. ctt. is frustrated by the a-Koll. ! Comp. 
ver. 12. Bengel says well in reference to dC bv : " ut doceamur, quid nos 
fratrum causa debeamus." Respecting ihd, comp. Rom, iv. 25. 

Yer. 12. Obru] When ye sin against the brethren in this way, as described 
in vv. 10, 11. — Kai] and especially. — ri'TrroiTtf] in snhstance the same thing 
as fioAiivovTeg in ver. 7, only expressed by a different metaphor, which makes 
the cruelty of the procedure more apparent. What befits a weak conscience 
\% forbearance, not that it should morally receive Uows, should be smitten 
through offence done to it as with a wounding weapon (Hom. II. xix. 125 ; 
Ilerod. iii. 64 ; Xen. Cyr. v. 4. 5 ; Prov. xxvi. 22), so that now, instead of 
being but a toeali, it becomes a lad conscience. — avTuv] put first because 
correlative to the eif XpcarSv which follows ; in the latter is finally concen- 
trated the whole Jieinotisness of the offence. 

Ver. 13. Comp. Rom. xiv. 21. The classic diSirsp, 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. — fipljfia] any hind of food, indefi- 
nitely. Instead now of saying in the apodosis : ' ' then I will never more eat 
of it," etc., he names the special I'ind of food (/cpea) presenting itself in appli- 
cution to the subject discussed, by abstaining from which, at any rate, the 
use of sacrificial flesh and the (T/cdi^fyaAoi- thereby given would be excluded. — 
oh fir/ (l>dyu] " Accommodat suae piersonae, ut facilius persuadeat," Piscator. 
The expression is not by way of exhortation, but of assurance, ^^then I icill 
certainly not eat,'''' etc. Tovto uq 6i6daKa2.og apia-og to (h' eavrov iraideveiv a Isyei, 
Chrysostom. — e'lg r. a'luva] to all eternity, nevermore ; hyperbolical mode of 
expressing the most thorough readiness. Comp. as regards the idea, Rom. 
xiv. 21. —Ivaitf/ K.T.A.] 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 oKavdal. and r. a(5t/,^. //. 
are placed. — That the maxim here enunciated cannot be an universal rule in 
aduqihoris, had been pointed out already by Erasmus. Comp. Gal. ii. 5 with 
1 Cor. ix. 19 ff. and Acts xvi. 3. It does not hold, when the truth of the 
gospel comes to be at stake. Comp. Gal. ii. 14, (z) 

Notes by Amebican Editoe. 
(x) " Is known of Him." Ver. 3. 

The pregnant meaning of this phrase is well given in Cremer's Lexicon suh 
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. • 

(t) 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 so much 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 suoh beings as the heathen conceived their gods to be : 2. That 
the supernatural beings who do really exist, and who are called gods, are 
really divine. They are mere creatures. 

(z) Tlie 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 justlj' 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 froin the beginning, is simply abol- 

I'J-i PAUL'6 laiiSX JiriSTi.L- Ih THE CUUi:slUlA^-6. 


Ver. 1. ovK e'lfil eXevQepog ; ovk e'lfil an.] So A B S<, min., and most of the vss., 
with TertuUian, Origen, Ambrosiast. Aug. Pelag. Cassiodorus, Bede, Griesb. 
Schulz, Lachm. Tisch. Elz. inverts the order of the questions, and is 
defended by Pott, Kinck, Keiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 206 ff., Hofmann. But it 
was very natural to transfer ovk elfi'i dir. to the first place as the more impoiiani 
point, and the one first expounded in detail by the apostle himself (vv. 1-3). 
— Ver. 2. T^f £/^?/?] Lachm. Kiick. Tisch. read //ov Tfjq, with B K, 17, 31, 46, Or. 
Rightly ; the Becepta is a more precise definition of the meaning in.serted in 
view of ver. 3. Had fiov crept in from the tu epyov fiov in ver. 1, it would have 
been put after cnroaToXriC. — Ver. 6. ror] is wanting, it is true, in AB D* F G t<, 
17, 4.6, Isidor., and is deleted consequently by Lachm. and Eiick. ; but the 
omission was very naturally suggested by vv. 4, 5. — Ver. 7. h- mv Kapnov'] 
Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read rdv Kapnov, with A B C* D* F G K* 17, 46, 137, 
Sahid. Boern. Tol. Flor. Harl. VuJg. ms. Bede. The Recepta is an alteration 
in accordance with what follows, made without observing the difference in 
meaning. — Ver. 8. fj uvxi- unl /c.r./l.] There is decisive testimony in favour of 
^ Kat 6 vo/ioc ravTa oh Myei ; approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. 
Tisch. It was altered because not understood. — Ver. 10. k-n' eATridi rov fiere- 
xeLv"] So Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riick. Tisch., with ABC K*, 10, 17, 71, Syr. 
utr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. Arm. Or. Eus. Cyr. The Recepta again 
(defended by Reiche) is : rT/g iTiTvidog avTov /uTtxetv en' eXnUh. Since, however, 
this en' e'An'uh is omitted also by D* F G, 46, it has such a weight of evidence 
against it' that it must be rejected at once ; r;}f l/.niSog uvtov fiertxeiv, again, is 
so plain as regards its meaning, that had it been the original reading it could 
hardly have given rise to any change. If, on the other hand, it was not 
observed that we have to supply oAodv after akouv, the en e/^nUh rov /lerexeiv 
remained unintelligible, and r/7f Dini^og avrov was put in as a gloss to obviate 
the diflficulty ; then this mistaken gloss in some cases displaced the original 
words, in others?, got mixed up with them (Elz.). — Ver. 11. Oepiao/iev] C D E F 
G L, min. Vulg. It. Theodoret, have Oepioutiev. So Lachm. on the margin. 
Tischendorf is right in receiving it into the text ; grammarians took offence at 
the subjunctive after f]. ' — Ver. 13. There is decisive evidence for reading 
napedp. here with Lachm. Riick. Tisch. (approved also by Griesb.), and in ver. 
15 ov Kexpv,""i ol'ihvl T., with Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riick. Tisch. — Ver. 15. 
Iva T«f Ktvucy'] There is great diversity here. B D* K*, Sahid. Baschm. have 
ovih'ig Keiuaei (so Lachm.). A has ovihig fiij KsvtJaei (so Riick.). F G, 26, give us 
Tig Kevuaei. The Recepta, which is specially defended by Reiche, 'ivn rig Kevo'xTT), 
has only a partial support from C D*** E I K X**, the majority of the mm. 
and vss., Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl. Oec, because most of these 

' Reiche would attach this addition as standinsr first, it would obtrude upon 
(which quite mars the sense in the Becepta) tlic aiitithosis something quite foreign to it 
to the next verse ; but there, too, especially and unsuitable. 

CHAP. IX. 195 

authorities are in favour ot ksvuosi, whicli is adopted by Tisch. Biit the 
Received reading, as well as the tic Kevuaei, 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 ?/ to Kavxrjfid /nov ovc^ag Kevuaei. See the exeget. remarks 
on the verse. — Ver. 16. Kaixn,ua] D E F G K*, It. : x^pi-C- Not strongly enough 
attested ; an old gloss in accordance with Luke vi. 32- 34. Instead of yap after 
oval, Elz. has 6e, but against conclusive evidence. A false correction. There 
are decisive grounds for reading, with Lachm. and Tisch., evnyyeliaunaL in 
place of the second EvayyAli^uiuac ; the Rea^pia is a repetition from the first. — 
Ver. 18. Elz. and Scholz have tov Xpiarov after evayyiX., in ojiposition to deci- 
sive evidence. — Ver. 20. /j.?) uv avrbg virb vofiovl omitted in Elz , but given by 
almost all the uncials and many vss. and Fathers. Homoeoteleuton. — Ver. 21. 
The genitives Qeov and XpioTov (Elz. and Scholz have the datives) have deci- 
sive testimony in their favour, as KepSdvu Tovg av. also has (so Lachm. Eiick. 
Tisch.) ; the Recepta Kep(ii]au dvofiovc, was formed upon the model of ver. 20. — 
Ver. 22. The uq before aaO. is wanting in A B X*, Vulg. Clar. Germ. Or. Cypr. 
Ambrosiust. Aug. Ambr. Bede. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was a 
mechanical addition on the plan of the preceding clauses. — The article before 
vdvTu ■ (Elz. Scholz) is condemned by a great preponderance of authority. — 
Ver. 23. tovto'] The most and best of the uncials, with the majority of vss. 
and Fathers, have ravTci ; recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. 
Tisch. ToiiTo is a gloss inserted to define the meaning more precisely ; for the 
same reason Sahid. Arm. read TavTO de irdwa. — Ver. 27. •yTrwiridfu] So Elz. 
Lachm.. It has such a mass of weighty testimony on its side (A B C D* K, 
min. Or. Chrys. Theodoret, Theophyl. Oec.) that the other readings, viroKid^cj 
(F G K L min. Fathers) and vTrmrieCo) (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, afflujo, domo, do not show clearly which reading 
they follow. Notwithstanding, intonidZij has been defended of late, especially 
by Matth. {"TridCeiv loco irui^Eiv aliquos male habuit"), Eeiche, Hofm., and 
adopted by Tisch. It appears to have been simply the production of ignorant 
and mechanical transcribers, who were familiar with ntdl^o) or tclH^u, but took 
offence at vnu (with Q). 

Contents. — That principle of loving self-denial whicli Paul had just laid 
down for himself in resj^ect of the single point in question (viii. 13), he now 
confirms ht/ 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) sujiported 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). 


Ver. 1. The first two cjucstions bring out the fact that he was seemingly 
exalted far above anj^ 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 re])reseuts him as proving the point 
by a personal appeal to his readers, whom Paul kuI avrovg elc fiaprvpcav kumI, 
Theodoret. — i^vdepo^] free, dependent upon no man. Comp. ver. 19. — 
'I?;(7ovv. . . eupoKa] Observe the solemnity of the phrase ; his readers Icnew 
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 Avith 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 difi[erent forms (Acts xviii. 9, xxii. 
17 f. ; 2 Cor. xii. 1).' It is an arbitrary thing to exclude those later apjiear- 
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. — iv Knp/cj] does not belong to ipyov ; just as little 
does it to v\itiz (Pott), or to v/zeif icrz alone (Riickert), but is meant to bring 
out the Christian character of the whole to epyov p. vpelq iare. For out of 
Christ, in 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 : 
hy the help of the Lord, is arbitrary, and does not suit the context. Some of 
those who adopt it understand Khptog 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 ov to epyov k.t.Ti., and flowing from a heart deeply 
moved. — dZAo/f] i.e. in relation toothers, who, not belonging to your com- 
munity, do not own my apostleship as valid for them. ' ' ' We have no Apostle 

' Baur takes advantage of this stress laid terpretations which make this a visionary 
on the fact of having seen Christ, to sup- beholding of Christ (Baur, Holstein, (d.), see 
port his hypothesis as to the close connec- Beyschlag in the Stvd. u. Krit. 1864, p. 220 f. 
tion of the Petrine and the Christ-party. How very distinctly Paul himself describes. 
See against this Rabiger, p. 128 f. Accord- especially in Acts xxii. 14, a bodily appear- 
ing to Schenkel, the allusion is to the visions ance I See also Gal. i. 1, comp. with ver. 15. 
of the Christ-party (the existence of which Nothing contrary to this can be proved 
he has first of all to assume). The true from the words iuipaKivai and b^ieiivai (xv. 
view i.s, that Paul is here indicating how, 8), since these do not determine the Aiwa! of 
in respect of this point also, he stands in no seeing and appearing. Comp. e.g. the use 
whit behind the original apostles. "ETreiSn of the latter term in Acts vii. 2G of a bodily 

fieri TTji/ a.vaKy)>\)iv toC crajT^pos e(cArj9i), il^ov hi appearing. 

Sdfar oi drrocTToAoi Trapo ii.tyiarrjv <us T^s » It was Unquestionably by stranger Pe- 

ToO Kupiou flfav )7f luj^ei'oi, kcI tovto TtpoaTtB- trine Christians that tlie anti-Pauline influ- 

tiKsv, Tlieodoret. And it is no lower thing ence had been exerted upon the Corinthian 

to have seen Christ in His glory than to church. So much is clear, but nothing 

have seen Him in His humiliation upon the more. Rabiger thinks that they were the 

earth. Comp. Cahin. As against the in- instigators of the Petrine party in Corinth. 

CHAP. IX., 4. 197 

Paul,'' say they ! Comp. as to the relation of the dative, viii. 6. , — om e'l/il] 
See Winer, p. 446 [E. T. 601]. — a?i?idye] still at least. See Hermann, ad 
Viger. p. 836. The ye intensifies the alia of the apodosis (see on iv. 15, 
viii. 6) ; see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 24 f. It cannot be said with any critical 
certainty that a7Ji,dye ever occurs in the classics undivided (without one or 
more words put between the two particles). See Klotz, I.e. p. 15, and 
Heind. ad Plat. PJiaed. p. 86 E ; Stallbaum, ad Bep. p. 331 B.— Taking the 
reading rj yap acppay. /lov r. awooT. (see the critical remarks), the meaning is : 
mi/ seal of apostlesMp, with the emphasis on acppay. As to the word itself, 
see Rom. iv. 11. Theodoret well remarks : dndSsc^iv yap tuv anoaToliKuv 
KarnpOufinTuv ttjv vfiETepav e;^;w fLerajiolrjv. — ev 'Kvpiui] as in ver. 1 ; it belongs 
to the whole jjreceding clause : t; (j(l)payig t. ijj.. an. vfi. kare. 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). — // tfiy an'oloy. k.t.1.^ statement of icJiat 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 amri eari were absent, 
or if £(TTe occurred again. — rolg kfie avaKp.] to thase who institute an inquiry 
regarding me (comp. Acts xix. 33 ; 3 Cor. xii. 19), who question my apostle- 
ship. Both anol. and avuKp. are purposely-chosen forensic expressions. 
Comp. as to the latter, Luke xxiii. 14 ; Acts iv. 9, xii. 19, xxiv. 8, xxviii. 
18. — avTT]] this, namely, this fact, that you are the seal of mine airoaToll). It 
does not refer to ichat 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 e/z?) 
and kfie, expressive of a well-grounded sense of his own position. 

Ver. 4 f. Returning from the digression in vv. 3, 3, Paul begins a new 
series of questions, with the view of now making good the prerogative arising 
out of Ms apostleship, which in point of fact he declined to exercise. — //^ ovk 
'cxoiJ-ev} i.e. we surely are not destitute ^j/" the right to lead, etc. ? Comp. Rom. 
X. 18 ; 1 Cor. xi. 33. The /^ZuraZ cannot be restricted in its reference to 
Paid alone, seeing that it has just been preceded, and is again followed in 
ver. 6, by the singular, but must imply that the apostle is thinking hoth of 
himself and of whosoever else acts in liJce 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 (lovoq 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 Oi 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 not anti-PauUne, and the express con- 

Ilofmann explahis the expression from the trast iiere is with the vfiel';, among whom 

difference between the iTroo-ToArj t^? Trept- must be «w<;ft<de(i the Jewish-Christians who 

To/x^s and that t^s diKpoPvo-Tia?. But that is were in Corinth, 
going too far ; for all circumcised Christians 


quofl in cnsu iwxli scandali infirmorum fratruni vitandum est." — (payElv 
K. ■mdi'] i.e. at the cost of the churches. To undiM-stuiul it of non-observance of 
the Jewisli laws about food (Iluunius, Ilcydcnrcich, BiUroth, comp. Olshau- 
sen), or of sncrifieUil flesh and wine (Schrader), is contrary to the context. See 
ver. 6 ff. The right of eating and drinking., in the sense in vliich the reader 
would naturaUy undet'stand it as an apostolic prerogative (Luke x. 7). re- 
quired nothing to be added to define it. The analogy of Matt. xi. 19 (Hof- 
mann) has no bearing on the clause before us, the point of view there being 
that of asceticism. — The infinitives are exegetical, and need no tov (Matt. ix. 
6 ; Mark ii. 10, cd.). — adsTKpfjv )w. nepidy.] to lead about (along with me on 
my official journeys) a sister (a female believer) as a icife. The view taken 
by several of the Fathers (see Aug. de op. Monach. iv. 5, Jerome, nvkq in 
Theodoret, Thcophylact ; comp. generally, Suicer, Thes. I. p. 810), that a 
serviens matrona is meant (so also Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, and Estius,) 
is against the plain meaning of the words, without shadow of historical 
support in the life of the apostle, supposes a somewhat unseemly relation, 
and is contrary to the example of Peter, Matt. viii. 14.' It has, however, 
been still defended of late by Roman Catholic writers (Maier) on wholly 
insufficient grounds. On nepidyeiv, comp. Xen. Cyr. ii. 3. 28 ; it occurs 
oftener in the middle, as Xen. Mem. i. 7. 2 ; Polyb. xx. 5. 8. — ug Kal ol 
loiTT. an.] It does not follow from this that all the other apostles were mar- 
ried, but the majority of them must have been so, otherwise the phrase, 
which must be meant to hold at least a potiori, would be unsuitable, (b') — 
I'al ol a6e?i(poi tov Kvpiov] 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. 21. The arfe/l0o2 tov Kvpiov, therefore, should not be put on a 
level with Cephas (Hofmann), and sought within the imniber of the Twelve, 
but are the actual brothers of Jesus, not His half-brothers merely (sons of 
Joseph by a former marriage), but His uterine brothers, later-born sons of 
Joseph and Mary (Matt. i. 25 ; Luke ii. 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 wiiom James, in particular, as presi- 
dent of the church in Jenisalem (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 is supported by Hengs- 
tenberg and others, that the phrase denotes the sons of Chrisfs mother''s sis- 

• Valla perceived riRhtly " fuissc aposto- » Which is held also by de Wette, Billroth, 

los snas uacores comitatas," but thinks tliat Ruckert, Osiander, Neander, and Ewald, 

they were called sisters, " quod tatujuam anions the more recent expositors of the 

non uxores jam erant." An " elegans arc/n- passage before us. 
tia" (Calvin) 1 

CHAP. IX., 6. 199 

ter^ so that James, the Lord's brother, would be identical with the son of 
Alphaeus (liut see on John xix. 25), and would bear the name of "brother 
of the Lord" (HK 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. Zeitaltei\ p. 189, understands the Alphaeidae to be meant ; they were, 
he holds, the adoijted brothers of Jesus, Joseph having adopted, as his own 
the children of Alphaeus, who was his Irother, 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^rs^-born (Matt. i. 25 ; 
Luke ii. 7), but as her only child. Lange is wrong here in making the mi 
a proof that the brethren of the Lord were among the Twelve, and are but 
singled out from their number in this verse for special mention. What Paul 
says is rather : "as also the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord ;" 
and then, having set before us this august circle formed by the Twelve and 
those brethren of the Lord closely associated with them since the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus (Acts i. 14), in which, too, he himself, as an apostle, had an 
equal place, he singles out in conclusion the most illustrious of them all, 
one who was looked upon as the head of the whole circle (Gal. i. 18), by 
adding : '■'■and, i.e. and, to mention Mm in particular by name, Cephas;'''' so 
that it is only the last kw., and not the second as well (as Hofmann, too, 
maintains), that carries the force of special distinction (Fritzsche, ad Marc. 
p. 11) ; comp. Mark xvi. 7. — The design of the whole question, firj ovk ex. 
k^ova. aSsXct). y. n., 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 TVEpiayeiv : " Am I denied, then, 
the right to live at the cost of the churches, and to have, like the other 
apostles, etc., a consort journeying along with me fi-om 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. Pair. I. p. 330. 

Ver. 6. 'H] or, i.e. unless it were true that, etc. In that case, indeed, the 
k^ovGia, of which I spoke in vv. 4, 5, must of course be wanting ! We have 
therefore no third 'e^avaia introduced here (Pott, Riickert), but rj conveys an 
argument, as it usually does. — Bapvdjiag] see on Acts iv. 36. He was for- 
merly (see on Acts xv. 88) Paul's companion in his missionary labours, 
and as such held a high apostolic position (Gal. ii. 9). — tov fifj ipyaC,.'] Have 
we not the right to cease from worhing ? 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 inrlependent labour, and 
acted upon this rule even when working separately, whereas the rest of the 
apostolic teachers (see n6vog) claimed support from the resources of the 
churches. ''Epyn(;e(70ai is the word constantly used used ior working, 2Thess. 
iii. 8 ; Acts xviii. 3 ; Homer, //. 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 /ly). 

200 Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. 

Ver. 7. Proof of this apostolic right tov iifj (pyd(,ea6ai froni three analogies 
in common life, by ajiplying which to the preachers of the gospel it is made 
manifest that these have the right to lire from the gospel. ' ' Pulchre con- 
fertur minister evangelii cum milite, vinitore, pastore," Bengel. Comp. 2 
Cor. X. 3 ff. ; Matt. xx. 1 ; John x. 13 ; Acts xx. 28 ; Eph. iv. 5. — Uioig 
bip.] i.e. 80 that he pays his own wages (Luke iii. 14 ; Rom. vi. 23). — The dif- 
ference of construction in the two clauses with tadtet {tov Kap-z6v, see the 
critical remarks, and then ek), is to be regarded as simply an accidental 
change in the form of conce2)tion, without diversity in the substance of the 
thought. With tK (comp. Ecclus. xi. 17 ; Tob. i. 10, al.) the expression is 
])artitive ; in using the accusative Paul has the fruit (the grapes) in a purely 
objective way before his mind. See generally, Kiihner, II. p. 181. The 
wages of .shepherds in the East consists to this day in a share of the milk. 
See Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. VI. p. 97. 

Ver. 8. Transition to the proof from Scripture of the above k^ovaia. — It 
is not supposed surely that I speah this (namely, what I say of that apostolic 
prerogative in applying to it the rule of these ordinary analogies) after the 
manner of a 'man (according to mere human judgment, as a purely human 
rule, and not a divinely given one) ? or the law too, does it not say this? Is 
it silent concerning this principle ? Does it contain no statement of it ? — 
Kord avftp. ] The opposite of this is Kara tov v6/j.ov tov Qeov. Comp. on Rom. 
iii. 5 ; Gal. iii. 15. Theodoret gives the idea correctly : el rft Tivt uvdpunivog 
dvai TavTa SokeI ?.oyi(T/wg, aKovhu tov vdfiov diappfjdriv diajopevovTog. — y] 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. — nai} too ; the law is conceived of as the higher 
authority coming in over and above the indi\'idual \a7M. — ov\ negatives 
the \kyu ; see the critical remarks. Comp. ver. 7. — As to the difference 
to be noticed between "kalu and Ikyu, see on Rom. iii. 19 ; John viii. 43. 

Ver. 9, rdp] introduces the answer which is to prove that the Tuv-a ov Xiyei 
does not hold good. — rw Mwixr. v(5//w] carries a certain solemnity, as coming 
after 6 vdjiog 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 {(}>i/ii6g, Krifidg), which used to be 
done among heathen nations (Varro, i. 25 ; Cato, de re rust. 54). See 
Michaelis, Mos. R. III. § 130. The motive of the prohibition, in accord- 
ance with that spirit of tenderness towards the lower creation which breathes 
throughout the whole law (see Ewald, Alterth. p. 222), w^as humanity to 
the helpful animals. See Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 21 ; Philo, de Carit. p. 711 
F. The same citation is made in 1 Tim. v. 18. Comp. also Constitt. ap. ii. 
25. 3. — 0</zw(Tt7f] — Kjjfiuaetg, 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 kt//jovv, to muzzle, comp. Xen. de re 
eq. v. 3 ; Poll. i. 202. As to the future with the force of an imperative 
{tlu>u wilt — that I expect of thee — not muzzle aii ox in tlie thrashing-Jioor), see 
on Matt. i. 21. — Beginning with ///) tuv jhuv, there follows now the iriter- 
pretation of this law, given in the form of a twofold question which runs on 

CHAP. IX., 10. 201 

to liyEt, first of all, negatively : Ood does not surely concern Himself cd)oxit 
oxen? To modify this negation by an ^'- only'''' (so Erasmus and many others, 
among whom is Riickert : "for nothing further than") is unwarrantable, 
although even Tholuck's view in its latest form still amounts to this {das 
A. T. iin N. jT., 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 6C yfiaq. Oh yap imep tuv aMyuv 6 v6/iiog, aTJC vnip tuv vovv k. 
Adyov ex^vTuv, Philo, de Sacrif. p. 251. Manifestly in this way the apostle se^s 
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 tliis standpoint did not 
take the historical sense into account along with the other at all. The in- 
terjjreter, 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 j^rocedure finds \tfi 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 suj^posed — is this the true state of the 
case, that He saith it altogether for our sahes ? — navTug] in the sense of in any 
case, 'wlwlly, absolutely, as in v. 10, ix. 23 ; 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 aflirma- 
tive statement better. Theophylact says well (following Chrysostom) : uq 
enl ufioAo-yov/ievov TE&eiKEV, 'iva fiy avyxcjp'pr] j-iTjS' otlovv avrfiireiv tu) aKpoary. — 
6i' riiiaq] 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 ■^fielg in ver. 11, since it is an entire- 
ly arbitrary assumption to make the latter word have a diflferent subject from 
our I'lfiag. — Myei] sc. 6 Qe6q supplied from the foregoing clause, not i) ypacj)// 
(Olshausen). — yap] as in ver. 9. — Eypd(l)rj] namely, the utterance of the law 
cited in ver, 9. — on] cannot have an argumentative force (Luther, Beza, 

> "Not simply generalizes (Klingm the Sh/d. goes astray with a naive simplicity of its 

u. Krit. ia39, p. 834 f. ; comp. Neander), nor own: "God cares for all things; but He 

" subordinates the one to the other'' (Osiaiuler), 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, " Comp. also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 296. 

209j . Paul's first epistle to the oorinthians. 

Calviri, and others, among whom is Ncanflor) ; nor is it the simple that of 
quotation (Riirkert, who indeed looks u])on what follows as cited from some 
apocryphal book, in which Ewald coiicm-s with him), so that tyiidcpjj would 
refer to the next clause, — but it is ea^jjlicative merely (Castalio, Pott, de 
Wette, Osiander, oJ., comp. also Hofmann), setting forth the typico-allegor- 
ical contents of these words of the law in so far as they were written 6i' i}fiag, 
that is, for the Chrixtiaa tmclters : namely, thiittliejdoiKjheriH liotiud to jilo^tgl. 
in hope, ami the thranher (is bound to thrash) in hope of huringlms xhare. The 
a?io<Jv and the aftorpiuv is thus no other than the gospel teacher, as necessa- 
rily follows from 61' y/iag ; the passage of the law now under consideration 
gives occasion to his being Jiguratively designated (see as early expositors 
as Chrysostom and Theojihylact) in accordance with the idea of the ye^pyiov 
Qeov (iii. 9), without, however, the two words being intended to signify dif- 
ferent departments of teaching, — a notion which receives no countenance 
from the context. It is teaching in general that is here represented by two 
analogous figures. Figure ajmrt therefore, the meaning is : that the teacher, 
namely, is hound ' to exercise his office of teaching, in hope to have profit there- 
from, dvdiv ovv erepov to arS/xa aKr]fiu~ov ov tov fwov tovtov /3od f/ on rovg ficSaa- 
KaXovg Tovg novovvrag dec Kal a/noiiS^g aTro7.avEiv, Chrysostom. It is a mistake to 
apply the words, as is commonly done, to the literrd ploughcr and thrasher. 
Such a maxim of ordinary life would, it is plain, be Avhollj^ foreign to the 
typico-aUegorical 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 jirecept to the spiritual work tJiat the aj^ostle would 
have his readers make ; there is not the slightest trace of this in his w^ords, 
but the material work serves directly as the foil to the spiritual. Theophy- 
lact puts it rightly : 6 diSacKaloQ b(pel?.ei aporpiav k. kokiuv ck' elTvidi afioi(3^g k. 
avTLfiia&iag. — kiz' eXtt/A] has the chief emphasis, and belongs to o^e/Aet, being 
its conditioning basis (as in Rom. iv. 18, viii. 21 ; Titus 1. 2). What hope 
the ploughcr is to cherish, is self-evident, namely, to enjoy with otliers the 
.'ruits of his iiloughing ; the reference of the figure is obvious from the con- 
text. — Ttw iiETExeiv] to wit, of the grain thrashed. As to the genitive, see 
Rom. v. 2, al. 

Yer. 11. Application of ver. 10, and that in such a way as to make the 
readers feel on iiei^ova ?.nfi(3avovaiv // (hc'iunniv, Chrysostom ; an argument a 
majori ad minus. — rjiie'ig'] does not include Barnabas, who cannot be jiroved 
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 {Fairelpa/iev), Acts xviii. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 19.— 
^neig v/ilv] An em])hatic juxtajiosition, the emphasis of which is further 
heightened by the y/xelg i^wwi; wliich follows. — -a nvev/janKa] spiritual things, 

> 'Cc^etAet debet (\''ulRate). Hofmann goes the sense of beiiiff entitled, as if he read 
against linguistic usage in turning it into Sixaiot eo-n, or sonietliing to tliat eflfcct. 

CHAP. IX., 12. 203 

Christian knowledge, faith, love, etc., inasmucli as these are the blessings 
which, proceeding from the Holy Spirit (Gal. v. 23), become the portion of 
believers through the sower's work of preaching the gospel (Matt. xiii. 3 ff.). 
Contrasted with these are to. aapKim, the things which have nothing to do 
with the Holy Spirit, but belong to the lower sphere of man's life, to his 
sensuous, corporeal nature, such as food, clothing, money, etc. Comp. as 
regards the antithesis, Rom. xv. 27. — M^ya] res magni momenti, Xen. Cyrop. 
vii. 5. 52, Anah. vii. 7. 27. It means here, from the connection : some- 
thing disproportionate. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 15. — ■depiauiiEv'] see the critical 
remarks. The suhjunctive sdier e'l "respectum comprehendit experientiae" 
(Hermann, de partic. av, p. 97) ; see regarding this idiom on Luke ix. 13, 
and Hermann, ad Viger. ]). 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 examj^le of others. — aTiloi] otlier 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 Co7-intMan 
teachers. — rz/f vfiuv i^ovG.^ the authority over you,'^ i.e. according to the 
context : the right (d') to claim their support from you. 'Y/^wv is thus 
the genitivus ohjecti (as in ver. 6, comp. John xvii. 2 ; Matt. x. 1, al.), 
not siihjecti, 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), i.e. resources, which are at your command, may be 
justified by classical usage (Plato, Legg. viii. p. 828 D ; Thuc. 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 Corintliians. Conjectures (such as that of Olearius : rjiiuv, 
which is actually the reading of 2. 52. and to which Riickert and Neander 
too are inclined ; or that of Cappellus and Locke : ovaiaq) are quite super- 
fluous. — The second a'kld is opposed to the ovk expm. Comp. Hom. il. i. 
26 f. ; Plato, Sympos. p. 211 E, and often elsewhere. — fiallov'] potius, we 
the founders of your church. — navra creyo^ev] we endure all things (see Wet- 
stein and Kypke, IL p. 213), should be left indefinite : labours, privations 
and the like, arising from our not using the right in question. Comp. xiii. 
7. — Iva u^ ejKOTv. /c.r.A.] For how easily, supposing the apostle's labours 
had been less independent, or that some suspicion of self-interest, ambition, 
or freed 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- 

> Observe the emphasis conveyed by put- under obligation to me first of all, and not 
ting the u/iiv first : over pott, who are surely to them. 


mended and furthered by such an example of noble self-denial ! Respect- 
ing eyKony, comp. Dion. Hal. de comp. terh. p. 157, 15. 

Vv. 13, 14. An additional proof of the above right on the part of the 
teachers, drawn now from the sphere of the Israelitish theocracy, namely, 
from the example of the priests and the corresponding command of Christ 
Himself. Then, in ver. 15, iyit rft . . . tovtuv repeats the contrast to this. 
— The y?Vs? of the two parallel halves of ver. 13,' which together describe 
the ieparei'eiv (Luke i. 7), characterizes the ])nQstsge7ie)-aUy : oira lepa epyal^., 
irJio 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" {npoaeSp. and napedp., of an official, and especially of a priestly, 
assidere, Diod. Sic. i. 40 ; Josephus, cont. Ap. i. 7 ; Lucian, Asin. 5 ; 
Kypke, II. p. 213). As regards rd Itpa, res sacrae, i.e. what belongs to the 
divine cultus, comp. 3 Mace. iii. 21 (according to the true reading) ; 
Demosth. 1300. G ; 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 : "- alt aris esse socios in dividenda victima." It is incorrect to ex- 
plain the first clause as referring to the Letites and the second to the priests 
(so Chrysostom, Theophylact, Vitringa, Wolf), for the Levites were not to. 
lepa tpyai^d/ievot., but only lepdchvloc (3 Esdr. i. 3), and therefore, in respect of 
their occupations, are no fitting analogues to the preachers of the gospel ; 
see rather Rom. xv. 16 ; Phil. ii. 17. On this ground we must refuse even to 
include the Levites here (against de Wette, Osiander, Maier, al.). Riickert 
understands both clauses to I'cfer 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 lepdv and the dvciacT. are simply kot' 
i^oxvv, those of Israel (Rom. ix. 4) ; and how could he otherwise have said 
ovTu ml K.T.I. , 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 jyrimarily 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 rw ■&vataaTi]p. is especially opposed to this inter- 
pretation, since for Paul there can be but the one altar ; comp. x. 18. — 
OVTU Koi 6 KhpioQ K.T.l.l SO, i.e. in accordance with the relation of things 
stated in ver. 13, hath the Lord also, etc. '0 Kip^of 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 Kai, again, the command of 
Christ is linked to the foregoing relations -under the 0. T. economy, with 

• The paraphrastic description of the the purposes of the argument. The Ao/y 

priests from their employments serves to Ihiiig at which they labour is the gospel 

make the representation uniform with that i,Rom. xv. 16), and the offering which they 

in ver. 14. The rfo?/W<; designation, however, present is tlie faith of their converts (Phil, 

brings out the analogy with the Christian ii. 17), and, consequently, those converts 

teachers in amore clear and telling way for themselves (Rom. I.e.). 

CHAP. IX., 15. 205 

whicli it corresponds (comp. Clirysostom). Tlie 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 : ovtu kuI rolg to evayy. Karayy. 6 Kvpiog diera^e. — For ex- 
amples of the idiom f^v ek, see Kypke. 

Ver. 15. 'Eyw 6e] Paul now reverts to the individual way of expressing 
himself (ver. 3), effecting thereby a lively climax in the representation. 
From this point onward to the end of the chapter we have a growing torrent 
of animated appeal ; and in what the apostle now says regarding his mode 
of acting, his desire is that he alone should stand prominent, without con- 
cerning himself about others, and how they might act and appear in these 
respects. — ovSevl tovtuv] none of these things; Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Estius, Riickert, al. , make this refer to the grounds of the k^ovaia in question 
which have been hitherto addviced. 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 ek tov EvayyEliov t^yv. Of what belongs to that 
ordinance (food, drink, money, clothing, etc. , see Acts xx. 33) — of none of 
these things (jovtuv) had Paul availed himself. How common it is for 
Greek writers also to use tuvtu of a single thing, when considered in its dif- 
ferent component elements, may be seen in Kiihner, § 433, note ; Stallbaum, 
ad Plat. Apol. Soc. p. 19 D. Hofmann holds that the ^^ facts from the history 
of redemption,'''' cite^ in vv. 13, 14, are meant. But ov6evI implies that what 
is referred to is a multitude of things, which is summed up in tovtuv. — 
Observe the use of the perfect kexpvij^- to describe a continuous course of 
action. It is different with Expwdfi. in ver. 12. — A fidl stop should be put 
after tovtuv ; for with oim sypaipa de TavTa (all from ver. 4 to ver. 15) there 
begins a new section in the apostle's address. — • Iva ovtu k. t. 1. ] in order that 
(for the future) the like (according to what I have written, namely, that the 
preachers of the gospel should be supported by the churches) should he done 
ill my case (comp. Luke xxiii. 31 ; Matt. xvii. 12). — fidAlov] potius, namely, 
than let myself be supported (not magis, Vulgate). — fj to Kavxrifia /lov ovSelc 
kevuoel] (see the critical remarks) expresses what is to take place, if the 
an-o^avEiv does not ensue. That is to say, the ij cannot here be the tJian 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 tj. It means ^^aut,^' 
or otherwise (comp. vii. 11 ; Acts xxiv. 20), equivalent to eI 6e h?], and so 
specifying ^^what will tale place, if the thing lef ore named does not happen''^ 
(Baeumlein, Partih. p. 126), so that it is equivalent in sense to alioquin. 
See Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 12 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Andb. i. 4. 16 ; Ellendt, 
Lex. Soph. I. p. 750 f. ; Baeumlein, I.e. What Paul says is : "■Rather is it 

1 My own former view (ed. 2) was to this although approved by Winer, p. 532 [E. T. 

effect, tliat instead of saying : " Better for 715]— as too bold, being without analogy in 

me to die than to take recompense,'' Paul the N. T., in which, as with classical writers, 

made an aposiopesis at J), breaking off there the suppression of the apodosis occurs only 

to exclaim with triumphant certainty : My after conditional clauses (comp. Rom. ix. 

Kavx-nt^o- no mamvill make void ! According 22 f.). Maier has followed this view ; as 

to this, we should have to supply a dash does Neander, on the supposition that Lach- 

after ^, and take what follows indepen- mann's reading were to be adopted, 
dently. I now regard this interpretation— 

206 Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. 

good forme to die, i.e. rather is death beneficial for me, or otherwise, if this 
anodavElv 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. — to KavxnM^ f^ov 
K.T.X.] i.e. No man will ever bring me to give up my principle of preaching 
without receiving anything in return, so as to produce the result that I can 
no longer have ground for glorying {Kavxifia here too means materies glori- 
amli, as in v. 6 and always). Lachmann's conjecture (Stud. u. Krit. 1830, 
p. 839, and Praef. p. xii.), which is adopted by Billroth : vfj to Kai'xma fiov 
«i''(5e<f K/rvcjori (comp. XV. 31), breaks up the passage unnecessarily ; and tlie 
same meaning would be arrived at more easily and simply, Avere we merely 
to write ijwith the circumflex, in the sense of sane, which is so common in 
the classics (Bacumlein, Partilc. p. 119 f.)': in truth, no one will make my 
glory void. But this use of r} 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 aivo^avelv we are to understand pre- 
cisely death ly famine (so Billroth, with Theophylact, Erasmus, Piscator, 
al.) ; but the thought is generally to this effect : so far from letting myself 
be supported by the churches, I will rather be kept by death from this dis- 
grace, by which, while I live, I shall let no one rob me of my glory. The 
idea is that of avrl tov Cyv aiTo-&vf)aMiv evKleug, Isocr. Etag. 1. The apostle's 
KavxTm-a would have been made empty (Kevuaei), 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 Keveavx/'/c (Homer, II. viii. 230). (e') 

Ver. 16. Why Paul has every reason (yap) to hold his Kaix'//J^o- thus fast. 
Eor the preaching of the gospel, taken hy 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. — avdyKt/ yap /loi kniK.] sc. ehayyelil^ea'dai, as is proved by what 
goes before. Comp. Homer, Tl. vi. 458 : upaTepy J' eniKelae-' avayKT], and the 
common phrase in the classics : avdyKTjv inc-^elvai. — oval yap fioi eanV] Comp. 
LXX. in Hos. ix. 12. Woe betides him, i.e. God's threatened judgment 
will fulfil itself upon him (in the coming day of judgment), if he shall not 
have preached the gospel {evayyeliau^ai, see the critical remarks) ; from this 
is evident {ydp) how the avayKT] arises, namely, that he must preach ; he can- 
7iot give it up, without incurring eternal destruction. 

Ver. 17 f. The sentence immediately preceding this verse, oval yap . . . 
Evayy., was merely a thought interposed, a logical jiarenthesis, to the con- 
tents of which Paul does not again refer in what follows. In ver. 17 f., 
accordingly, with its ydp, the reference is not to this preceding sentence 
oval K.T.I., SO as to establish it by way of dilemma (which was my former 

' The readings of B I)* K* and A give tlie evacuat"), give the plain and good sense : 

above sense ; F G again, will) their n? Kerui- for it in better for me to die (than that such a 

<rei, in which it is simplest to take the ns as thing should happen in my case) ; or who 

an interrogative (comp. Boerner : " quis will bnng my glory to nought t 

CHAP. IX., 17. 207 

interpretation), but to avn^K^ fioi Enineirai, ver. IG (comp, de Wette, Osiander, 
Hofmann), and that indeed in so far as these latter words were set down to 
confirm the premous assertion, eav evay-ye?J^u/iiat, ovk eari /loi Kavxvua. The cor- 
rectness of this reference of the yap which introduces ver. 17 f., is confirmed 
by the fact that the leading conceptions in the argument of ver. 17 f., to 
wit, EKuv and anuv, are correlative to the conception of avdyK// in ver. IG. 
The yap in ver. 17 thus serves to justify the second yap in ver. 16, as we 
often find, both in Greek writers and in the N. T., yap repeated in such a 
significant correlation as we find here (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 110 f.). 
In order to prove that he has rightly established his previous statement iav 
. . . KavxiiJ-o- by adding avayKrj yap fioi kniKeirat, the apostle argues, starting 
now from the opposite of that avdyKTj, and therefore e mntrario, as follows : 
'•'• For supposing that I carry on my preaching {tovto Trpaaaut) of free self-de- 
termination, then I have a reward, of which, consequently, I can glory ; but 
if I do it not of my oicn 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, r/f 
ovv K.T.I.) involves no reward for me." — From this simple course of thought 
— in which the fuoflbv ixu refers to the certain possession hereafter of the 
Messianic i-eward, * and is conceived as the more specially defined contents of 
the KavxVF-o- in ver. 16, — it will be seen that the apodosis of the second half 
of ver. 17 is olKovo/xlav TrE-iriGTEv/xai, that these words, consequently, should 
neither be put in a parenthesis nor attached to the protasis (so Knatchbull, 
Sender, Hofmann — comp. also his Schriftieweis, II. 2, p. 332) by reading ei 
Je uKuv o'lKov. Tre7r!aTev/Liac together, to which rig ovv k.t.X. would then become 
the apodosis ; * — a view under which the significant bearing of the purpose- 
ly chosen phrase oIkov. ireirlaTevfrni is entirely lost sight of. Billroth, failing 
to recognize how essential el 6e aKuv, ok. iveTviaT. is to the argument, makes 
it parenthetical, and understands aKuv (with Bengel, Zachariae, and Schulz) 
as meaning non gratis, which is contrary to the signification of the word. 
Many expositors render knuv and clkuv by " with joy and gladness'''' and " icith 
reluctance''' (so Calovius, Piscator, Estius, Kypke, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Pott, 
al. ; comp. also Ewald) ; but this runs counter to the fact that, as tiq ovv 
. . . fiiaddc 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 liis call (Acts ix. 22, 26), as 
it were constrained by Christ (l^ a.vdyK7/g anuv, Plato, Legg. v. 734 B), — 

1 On nio-^bi' exeii', comp. Matt. vi. 1. It is text. In Herodotus ix. 48, which Hofmann 

the opposite of ouai ii-oi. icniv, and hence adduces (also Hartung, Partik. II. p. 23), it 

u.i.(tB6<; cannot mean the reward which Hes is otherwise (oi i' Ziv k.t.X.). Moreover, 

in the very action itself, namely, the self- a special peculiarity of Herodotus to put 

satisfaction to which it gives rise (Hof- ovv before the apodosis ; whereas, with 

mann). Paul, it occurs only in Romans loc. cit., 

* As regards the ovv of the apodosis, see where it comes in after an accumulated 

on Rom. ii. 17-24. It would have been series of protases and, as an epanaledsis, 

exceedingly vncalled for after such a short was quite appropriate. 
and perfectly simple protasis as that in the 

Ji08 Paul's fikst epistle to tjie couinthians. 

but, notwithstanding, pursued liis Avork with heart and hand. — o'lKovofiiav 
TTETriar.] oIkov. has significant emphasis ; as to the construction, comp. Rom. 
iii. 2 ; Gal. ii. 7. If I preach ukcjv, so Paul holds, then the apostleship, 
with which I am jiut in trust, stands in the relation of the stewardsMp of a 
homehold (iv. 1) ; for that, too, a man receives not from his own free choice, 
but by the master's will, which he has to obey ; and hence it follows (ovv) 
that no reward awaits me (this being the negative sense of r/f . . . fuad6q ; 
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), w'hereas one who works 
of his own free will does more than he is bound to do, and so labours in a 
sense ^vorthy of reward. The meanings which some expositors find in oik.. 
■KEw. are inserted by themselves ; thus Pott explains, " niliilosecius 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 6c- 
(jlnning a new sentence with r/f ovv. To sujDpose a middle clause omitted be- 
fore this sentence (with Neander, who would insert, ' ' How am I am now 
to prove that I do it of my own free will ?") is to make a purely arbitrary 
interruption in the passage. — 6 ^lla^6g] the lefitting reward. Neither here 
nor in the first clause is iiic-Qoq the same as Kahxt/fta (Pott, Riickert, Ewald, 
(d.)\ but it is viewed as standing in the relation of the inducing aiuse to 
that hri fioi Kavxi/ia, supposing the latter to take place. This also applies 
against Baur in the theol. Jahrh. 1852, p. 541 ff., w^ho, moreover, pronounces 
the apostle's argument an unsound one. The distinction which Paul here 
makes is, in his opinion, at variance with the absolute ground of ol)ligation 
in the moral consciousness, and is either purely a piece of dialectics, or has 
for its real basis the idea of the ojiera stipe7-erogationiti. 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 ajjostles in ordei' 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 a Lapide and others. 

Ver. 18. "Iva] 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- 

' This is not an arbitrary assumption (as » Wetstein, with wliom Baur agrees, re- 

Hofinann objects), since it is well enough marks : " aryute dictum, nullum mercedem 

known that the oUoi'ojioi were, as a rule, accipere, haec mea merces est." But had 

slaves. Paul intended any such point, he must have 

CHAP, ix., 19-22. 209 

rect ; the second would have to be referred to the conception : " / oufjM.^ " 
etc., but yet does not suit the negation : " / have therefore no reicard,'''' which 
had its animated expression in the question : tIq ohv k.t.2.. It is much 
better to interpret Iva evay-y. k.t.Tl. as stating th£ aim, according to God^s 
ordination, of this negative condition of things : in order that I should 
preach witTwut 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 heyond 
the obligation of the o'lKovo/iia, and consequently made him worthy of reward, 
which the work of the olnovd/iog, taken by itself alone, did not do. More- 
over, this interpretation of Hofmann's would require an expression, not of 
the design (tva), but of the inducing ground (such as 6i' bv). The 'iva is 
used here, as so often in the N. T. , to indicate the divine teleology (Winer, p. 
427 [E. T. 573]). — evayyelcC,. aSdn. drjau to evayy.] i.e. in order that I, hy 
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 Tidrini, facio, 
see Kypke and Losner in loc. Comp. also on Rom. iv. 17, and Hermann, 
ad Vigor, p. 761. There is no need of going out of the way to render it, 
with Beza : set forth, with Grotius : collocare, like rcdevac x^^P'-'^t or with 
Pott : to set hef ore them (as spiritual food). "Iva, with ih.e future indicative, 
conveys the idea of continuance. See Matthiae, p. 1186. Among the older 
Greek writers birug (also 6<}>pa) is ordinarily used in this connection (Matthiae, 
I.e. ; Kiihner, H. p. 490), while this use of Iva is, to say the least, very 
doubtful (see against Elmsley, ad Eur. Bacch. p. 164, Hermann, ad Soph. 
Oed. Col. 155 ; Klotz, ad Demr. p. 629 f.) in the N. T. again, and with 
later authors it is certain (Winer, p. 271 [E. T. 361] ; Buttmann, neut. Or. 
p. 202 [E. T. 234]). — elg to uv /carajp.] aim of his ada-rv. Tidevai to evayy. : 
in order not to make use of. To understand mTaxp- as meaning to misuse 
(comp. on vii. 31), would give a sense much too weak for the connection 
(against Beza, Calovius, and others, among whom is Ewald). The right 
rendering already" appears in the Greek Fathers. — h tu evayy. '\ i.e. in do- 
cendo evangelio. — The k^ovaia fiov is not exclusively that indicated in ver. 4, 
but tJie apostolic prerogative generally, although in aijpUcation to this par- 
ticular point. 

Vv. 19-22. Confirmation of this eiq to fiij naTaxp. t. ef /xov by his practical 
procedure in other matters, which was such, that not to renounce the use 
of that e^ovaia would simply be to contradict himself ; it would be a gross 
inconsistency. — en ttuvtuv] Masc. It belonged to the apostolic k^ovaia 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 Ilofmann, who asserts that a position precisely 

expressed it by ajoLio-flos or inK^flt. He would fvayy., or something similar, if lie had put 
possibly have written Iva a/ito-flos ktjpv^w to ii'o at 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 all, accommodat- 
ing himself to their necessities in self-denial to serve them. It is only here 
that kXevdcpog occurs with ek ; elsewhere (Rom. vii. 3 ; comp. Rom. vi. 18, 
22, viii. 2, 21) and in Greek writers with and. — roi-f n}.eiovng] i.e. according 
to the context : the greater part of the wavre^, 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. — Ktf>6r/ffu] namely, 
for Christ and His Mngclom, 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 cuau in ver. 22. Comp. Matt, 
xviii. 15 ; 1 Pet. iii. 1. Regarding theformeKepdyaa, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
p. 740. 

Ver. 20. Explanation in detail of the preceding verse (/ca/ ejjexegeticaT). — 
To the Jews Paul hecame as a Jew, i.e. in his relations to the Jews, whom he 
sought to convert, he behaved in Jewish fashion, observing e.g. Jewish 
customs (Acts xvi. 3, xxi. 26), availing himself of Jewish methods of teach- 
ing, etc., in order to loin Jews. Jewish Christians are not included here 
(Vorstius, Billroth) ; for these were, as such, already won and saved. — 
to'lq vnb vofiovl to those under the law ; not really different from ro'iq 'Iov(^aLoig, 
save only that they are designated herefrom 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 
2>roselyt€S, — 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 vTzb vofiov. The very same reason holds against the supposition that 
the rigid Jews, the Pharisees, are meant. The first of these three views is taken 
by Theodoret, the second by Theodore of Mopsuestia, Grotius, Mosheim, al.; 
Theophylact is undecided which of the two to prefer, comp. also Chrysostom ; 
Lightfoot and Heydenreich adopt the third. — //z) wv avToc i'tto vdfiov] 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 resjiect of nationality he actually was an 'lov^alog. — roiig vnd vofi.] The 
article denotes the class of men in question. 

"Ver. 21. To'tc ai>6/jotc] i.e. to the heathen, Rom. ii. 12. Comp. Suicer, Thes. 
I. p. 366. — (Iff avo/ilog] by holding intercourse with them, giving up Jewish 
observances, teaching in Hellenic form (as at Athens, Acts xvii.). Comp. 

> According to Hofmann, Paul establishes for the same end for which he refrained 

the negative question n? ovv fiot iv-riv 6 /mo-- from claiming support. This view is con- 

1*09 by the sentence linked to it with yip, 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., 32. 311 

Isidor. Pelus. ed. Paris, 1638, p. 186. — [if] g)v k.t.I.I 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 toIq avofioiq uq avo/xog, always recognized his subjection to the divine 
vo/ioQ revealed in Christ. In spite, therefore, of his thus condescending to 
the avo/ioiQ, he was by no means one without legal obligation to Ood (no 
avofiog Qeoi)^), 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 vdjuog tov nvev/iarog ml rfj^ A'«P'™? (Chrysos- 
tom), and was to him accordingly the higher analogue of the venerated 
v(5//o? (Rom. iii. 27), which has its fulfilment in love (Rom. xiii. 10) ; comp. 
Gal. vi. 2. The two genitives Qeov and Xpiarov denote simply in relation to, 
in my position totcards ; they thus give to the two notions avofioQ and ivvo/wc 
their definite reference. 

Ver. 22. The acdevelg are Christians weak as yet in discernment and moral 
power (viii. 7 flf. ; Rom. xiv. 1, xv. 1 ; Acts xx. 35 ; 1 Thess. v. 14). The 
terms KEpdr/cu and tjuau 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 destrtiction (viii. 11 ; Rom. xiv. 15). To under- 
stand the phrase as denoting non-Christicms 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 oi aadevEig, and can- 
not be justified by Rom. v. 6. Comp. also 2 Cor. xi. 29. — ug aadsv^c] 
"perinde quasi simili tenerer imbecillitate, " Erasmus, Paraphr. — toIc ndai 
K.T.A.] to all (with whom I had to do) / have become all, have suited myself 
to them in all ways according to their circumstances. Comp. as regards 
navra yivEGffai,'^ 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 avyKardpanig 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 
82nrit, 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 ojiposition to Riickert's unfavourable judg- 
ment. Augustine puts it well : ' ' non mentientis actus, sed compatientis 

1 Hofmann's conjecture, that Paul wrote Christ, that it made him one who was not 

©e<P (following it, however, with Xpto-roC), without law in his relation to God." 

has vii-tually no critical foundation, and is " Not to be confounded with the expres- 

wholly devoid of exegetical basis. Hof- sion nivra yiverr^ai nvi, which means insiar 

raann explains the passage as if he read omnium fieri alici/i, as in Xen. Eph. ii. 13; 

fwo/jLO? XpicTTov ovK iiv avofio? 0ea>, making comp. Locella in loc., p. 209. 
Paul say of " his being shut up in the law of 


affectusy — Trdv-wf] in any case (comp. on ver. 10, and Plato, Phaedr. p. 
2G6 D ; 2 Mace. iii. 1:3 ; 3 Mace. i. 15 ; the reverse of ovdanur, Plato, Soph. 
p. 240 E ; comp. the frequent phrase iravrtj Trui^rtjf, Stallbaum, ml Plat. 
Phned. p. 78 D). Should the apostle in every case, in which he adapted 
himself as described in vv. 19-22, save some, — that is, in the one case of ac- 
commodation these, in the other those, but in all some, — there would result 
the TrTieioveg of ver. 19, whom it Mas his design to win as there summarily 
set forth. — rwfftj] make them partakers in the Messianic (salvation, vii. 16, 
X. 33 ; Rom. ix. 27, al. Not different in substance from Ktp&iicu, but strong- 
er and more sjjecific, as was suitable in expressing the Jiiial result. Comp. 
1 Tim. iv. 16. 

Ver. 23. Ilavra fii ttolu] quite general ; now all that I do is done for the 
gospel's sake. — Iva avyKoiv. avTov yEv.'\ Epexegesis of 6ta ro evayy. : in order 
that I may l)ecome a felloici-fartaker therein, (g') Comp. on cvyKoiv., 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 real contents of the message of salvation. Hence the mean- 
ing in siibstauce is : in order to tecoine one of those in irhom the gospel will 
reaihe 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 ppafie'iov in ver. 
24. The inward salvation of the moral life again (Semler and Pott) is only 
the ethical path of development, whereby ukii ultimately reach the av)Koivu- 
via here intended. Comp. Pliil. iii. 10 if. 

Ver. 24 S. Exhortation to his readers to follow his example, clothed in 
figures borrowed from the relations of athletic competition among the 
Greeks (comp. Phil. iii. 12flf.). — Doubtless Paul, writing to the Corinthians, 
was thinking of the Isthmian games, which continued to be held even after 
the destiaiction of the city by Mummius (Pausanias, ii. 2). There is no 
sufficient ground for supposing the Ohjnqnc games to be meant, as those 
in which the foot-race formed a peculiarly prominent feature (Spanheim, 
Wo'f, al.), 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. — ro ppnpelov] Aeyerai di ovtu to 6i66fJEvov yipag tl) viKyaavn 
ad?.TiTy, and niv tuv thiWh'Tov ai'To fifiafievTuv (ipajSeiov, anb 6i ruv afi/MvvTov 
aOlov , Scholiast on Pindar, 01. i. 5. 2r/^of Se ecri tov ayuwg (the Isthmian) 
irirvg (pine), to 6e avtKnfiev ailtva (not ivy, but parsley) aal ai'Tov tjv aTi<pavng, 
Scholiast on Pindar, Isthm. vnu-deaig ; comp. Plutarch, qv. symp. v. 3, and 
see Boeckh and Dissen, ad Pind. 01. xiii. 33 ; Hermann, gottesdienstl. Al- 
terth. § 50. 27, ed. 2. In the application (h'« ko-c?..), we are to understand 
the future Messianic salvation vfYach. all may reach. Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 12. — 
ovTu Tpkx^Te, 'i-'va] should not be rendered, as it is by most expositors, "so 

CHAP. IX., 25-27. 213 

rwa^ that,^'' — wliich tlie 'ivn, as a particle expressive of design, makes inad- 
missible (comji. vv. 26, 27), — bnt : 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 elf with the jjlural KaraldjijiTe. Paul exhorts his 
readers to run in a Avay as worthy of the prize (so to shajje their inner and 
outer life), as the one who, by decision of the judge, receives the crown for 
the foot-race, in order that they may attain to it {i.e. the crown of the Mes- 
sianic salvation), (h') There is no need for the arbitrary insertion of the 
idea : "as is necessary, in order that," etc. (Hofmann). 

Ver. 25. At] marks the transition to the course of conduct observed by 
any competitor for a prize. — The emphasis is on -rrag. It is from it that the 
conclusion is then drawn in ver. 26, kyu toIvw'. — 6 ayuviCd/u.] used as a sub- 
stantive. The statement is as to what every competitor does to prejoare him- 
self for his struggle ; in all resj^ects he exercises self-control (eyKpar., see on vii. 
9). The word ayuvl^ea^ai denotes every kind of competition, and includes 
therefore the more specific rpexeiv (comp. Herod, v. 23 ; Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 
27 : ayuvi^ea^ac ardSiov). Regarding the abstinence (especially from wine, 
sexual intercourse, and all heavy food excejit a good flesh-diet), by which 
the competitors had to prepare themselves for the struggle for ten months 
previously, see Intpp. ad Ilor. Art. Poet. 412 ff. ; Valckenaer, p. 251 ; 
Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. VI. p. 97 f . ; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § 50. 16 f. — 
TzdvTo] Accusative of more precise definition. See Lobeck, ad Aj. 1402. 
Comp. ix. 25. — ekeIvoi /xev ovv k.t.1.] illi quidem igitur, to wit, the competi- 
tors proper. — - ?/«e/f] ice Christians. The iravTa eyKparevecr'&ac holds of both 
the ayuvLC,o[ikvoL, 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 TvdvTa eyKparevovTai, 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 to ver. 
25, am prepared by such abstinence to strive for the incorriqMble crown, in 
such a icay as, etc. The apostle thus sets his own ethical mode of striving 
(as a runner and combatant) before his readers as a pattern. Respecting 
the following toIwv, which Paul has only in this passage, comp. Luke xx. 
25 ; Heb. xiii. 13 ; Hartung, Partik. II. p. 349 ; Baeuralein, Partih. p. 251 f. 
— ova arf^Awf ] sc. rpixuv. The word means unapparent, not clear, reverse of 
npoAz/lo^. 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 sid)jectively, 
so that the man> who acts, hopes, etc. , is himself not clear, but uncertain and 
hesitating as to manner, aim, and result ; comp. 2 Mace. vii. 34 ; 3 Mace, 
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 : dS^Xog imfiaaig ; 
also in Xenoph., Plutarch, etc. So here ; and hence we should render : 
not icithout a clearly conscious assurance and certainty of running so as to reach 
tJie goal. Comp. Vulgate, " non in incertum ;" Chrysostom : irpbg ckottov 
Tiva fiM-rruv, ova e'tKy koI fidrijv, Phil. iii. 14, Kara ckottov dtuicu ettI to fipajiElov, 
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 ^cliither 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 ])e plain in the case of every runner in a race whither he 
would go. Homborg's rendering is better : " ut non in obscuro sim, sed 
potius inter reliquos emineam. " Comp. Evvald : "not as in the dark, but 
as in the sight of all. Still this does not correspond so well with the parallel 
uQ ovK ciFpa (UfMJv, which imi)lies the conception of the end in view. Alex. 
Morus and Billroth (comp. Olshausen) understand it as meaning, not with- 
oi(t definite aim {not shiiplij for private exercise). But this runs counter to 
the whole context, in which Paul is set forth as an actual runner in a race- 
course, so that the negative thus conveyed would be inappropriate. — ovk 
aipa Sepuv] The boxer ought to strike his opponent, and not, missing him, 
to beat the air, to deal stroTces in air. Comp. the German phrase, " iw's 
Blaite hinein.'''' See Eustath. ad II. ji. 663, 17, and the instances given by 
Wetstein. Comp. Theophilus, ad Autol. iii. 1. The context (see above on 
(uVjl.) forbids us to render, with Theodoret, Calovius, Bengel, Zachariae, 
Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, Hofmann, and others : not in imaginary com- 
lat merely, without a real antagonist {cmanaxia). Respecting the ovk in this 
passage, see Winer, jx 452 [E. T. 609]. — all' virunial^u k.t.I.'] hut Heat my 
hxly hlue, — alteration of the construction, in order to make the thought 
stand out in a more independent way ; comp. on vii. 37. The alia, how- 
ever, can have the effect only of presenting what is here stated as the oppo- 
site of aipa (Upuv, not as that whereby a man simply prepares himself for the 
contest (Hofmann, comp. Pott). Paul regards his own body (the aujua ri/g 
oapKdg, Col. ii. 11, the seat of the nature opposed to God, of the law in his 
members, comp. Rom. vi. 6, vii. 23) as the adversary (avrayuvKXTj/g) , against 
whom he fights with an energetic and successful vehemence, just as a boxer 
beats the face of his ojijionent black and blue (respecting vnuiria^eiv, comp. 
on Luke xviii. 5, and Bos, Ex-ercitt. p. 140 ff.), so that those lusts (Gal. v. 
17), which war against the regenerate inner man, whose new principle of life 
is the Holy Spirit, lose their power and are not fulfilled. It is in substance 
the same thing as rag irpd^eig rev aufiaroq ■Bavarovv in Rom. viii. 13 ; comp. 
Col. iii. 5. The result of the vTTunid!^^ k.t.I. 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 : k. dovlayuyu, I make it a 
slave (Diodorus, xii. 24 ; Theophrastus, Ep. 36 ; Theophyl. Simoc. Ep. 4), 
which also " a pyctis desumptum est ; nam qui vicerat, victum trahebat ad- 
versariura 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. — alloig K7/pb^ag] after having been a herald to others. The apostle still 
keeps to the same figure, comparing his preaching, in which he summoncl 
and exhorted men to the Christian life, to the oflice 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 Kjjp. as denoting 

' Comp. the weaker analogies in profane writers, as Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 28 ; Cio«ro, Off. I 

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 jJoint of fact, was a herald, who joined persmially 
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.' — ado/ci/zof] rejectaneus, unapproved, i.e. 
however, not " ne dignus quidem, qui ad certamen omnino admittar" (Pott), 
— for Paul is, from vv. 36, 37, actually in the midst of the contest, — but 
praemio indignus, — fifj rovg aAAovf to deov didd^ag avrbg tov reXovg tuv ayuvuv 
tvuvteIuq (Sia/idpTu, Theodoret. (i*) 

Notes by American Editob. 

(a') Paul's defence. Ver. 3. 

The Kevised 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 ApostleshiiJ, 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 ajiostles generally were 
married, which agrees with the common tradition respecting all of them but 

(c') " Both 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. cxlvii. 9), and the fowls of the air (Matt. vi. 26), and 
therefore Paul could not possibly intend to deny that the primary object of the 
precept was to secure just treatment for the laboring animal. What he means 
is that it had also a higher reference, viz., to teach the important truth that all 
labor should have its due compensation, and that they who by their toil obtain 
food for others ought themselves to share it." 

(d') The sense of e^ovaia. Ver. 12. 

In this verse is the fifth instance in the present chapter in which this word 
occurs. It is rendered in the common version power, for which Greeks usually 
employed another word (du-namis). The Eevised Version in every case substi- 
tutes n^W (see vv. 4, 5, 6, 12), the sense being not physical, but moral au- 
thority. ' 

' [Stanley remarks concerning this com- and that sometimes, as in the case of Nero, 

plication of the metaphor.that it is rendered 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. 

(e') Pmd'fi glori/ing. 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. 

(f') " Thai 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 all." He 
would have greater success through gratuitious preaching attracting all, than 
through paid preaching attracting some but repelling others. , 

(g') " That I may become a fellow-jyartaker." 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," i.e. as well as you. Do not think that I do not require 
this for myself. In order to do good, we miist be good. To extend our Chris- 
tian liberty to its utmost range is dangerous, not only for others but for our- 
selves. This argument is supported, first, by his own example (ix. 24-27); sec- 
ondly, by the warning of the Israelitish history (x. 1-12) (Stanley). 

(h') " 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). 

(i') " Lest 1 mysdf fthoxdd be rejected." Ver. 27. 
What an argument and what a reproof is this ! The reckless and listless Co- 
rinthians thought they could safely indiilge 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 (llom. 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 

CHAP. X. 217 


Ver. 1. yap'] Elz. basrfg, against decisive evidence. An alteration arising from 
failure to understand the connection. — Ver. 2. EffanrhavTo] A C D E F G X 
min. Dial. Bas. Cyr. al. have tjSanTioQrjaav. Recommended by Griesb., adopted 
by Lacbm. and Riickert. It is, however, an alteration to which copyists were 
induced by being accustomed to the passive of jSairr. ; the middle is sufficient- 
ly attested by B K L, Orig. Chrys. al. —Ver. 9. Kvpiov] So B C X, min. and 
several vss. and Fathers. The readings Be6v and Xpiardv are interpretations, the 
first occurring in A, 2, Slav. ms. Bede, the second adopted by Elz. Scholz, and 
Tisch. on the authority of D E F G K L, min. vss. Fathers ; defended also by 
Eeiche. Epiphanius avers XpioTov to be a change made by Marcion. — Vv. 9, 
10. Elz. adds /cat after KaOug ; but this has too jjowerful testimony against it to 
be admissible on the ground of ver. 8. It is deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Eixckert. 
— Ver. 9. anuXovTo'] Riickert, following A (?) B K, reads a-rrMAvvTo, as he does 
also in ver. 10 on the authority of A. Rightly in both cases ; the change of tense 
was overlooked. — Ver. 11. ■ndvra'] is wanting after rft in A B 17, Sahid. and sev- 
eral Fathers. It comes before it in D E F G i^, 3, Aeth. and some Fathers. 
Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Riick. and Tisch.; an addition naturally sug- 
gested. — TVTvoi'] Lachm. and Riick. read TvmKtjg, following ABCK X, min. 
Syr. p. (on the margin), and many Fathers. Rightly ; the Becepta, defended 
by Reiche, is a repetition from ver. 6. As connected with tvttikuq, how- 
ever, and resting on very much the same attestation (including V,), awsjiai- 
vsv should be adopted in jjlace of Gvve(3aivov. — KaTTJVTTjaev] Lachm. and Tisch. 
have KarijVTrjiiev, on the authority of B D* E* F G X, 39, 46, and some Fathers. 
An instance of the frequent transformation of the jierfect into the aorist form, 
with which the transcribers were more familiar. — Ver. 13. Elz. has v//(2f after 
dvvuaOni ; but this is an addition ojDposed by decisive evidence. — Ver. 19. Lachm. 
Riick. and Tisch. invert the order of the two questions, following B C** D E 
K**, 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 still 
in A C* and X*), and was afterwards restored where it seemed to stand most 
naturally (according to the order of origin and operation). Reiche, nevertheless, 
in his Gomm. crii. I. p. 240 f., tries to defend the Becepta (K L, with most of the 
min. Syr. utr. Goth, and Greek Fathers). — Ver. 20. u Ovei ra eBv?]'] Lachm. 
Riick. and Tisch. read u Ovovaiv, on very preponderant evidence (as also Ovovglv 
afterwards). The missing subject rh lOn] was joined on to Ovovaiv (so still in 
A C 5<), which thereuiDon drew after it the change to dvei. — Ver. 23. Elz. has 
ytiot after -iravra, against decisive evidence. Borrowed from vi. 12. — Ver. 24. 
After irepov Elz. has '^maToc, in face of decisive testimony. Supplied, perhaps, 
from remembrance of Phil. ii. 4. — Ver. 27. f^f] is wanting in A B D* F G ^5 
and some min. Copt. Vulg. Antioch. Chrys. Aug. Ambrosiast. Pel. al. Lachm, 
and Riick. are right in rejecting it as a mere connective addition. — Ver. 28. 
lep^OvTov] approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Elz. and 


Scholz. again have i'i6u'a60vtov, contrary to A B H K, Sahid. and the indirect 
witnesses given by Tisch. The commoner word (which is defended by Reicbe) 
was first written on the margin, and then taken into the text. — After aweifiriaiv 
Elz. has Tol', yiif) Kvpinv i/ yr/ k. to TzXr'nujiin nvrij^. A repetition of the clause in 
ver. 26, which crejit from the margin into the text ; it is condemned by deci- 
sive testimony, as is also the (U which Elz. puts after el in ver. 30. 

Contents on to xi. 1. — The warnings supplied by the hi.story of our 
fathers urge us to this self-conquest (vv. 1-11). Beware, therefore, of a 
fall ; the temptation has not yet gone beyond what you are able to bear, 
and God's faithfulness will not suffer it to do so in the future ; flee, then, 
from idolatry (vv. 12-14). This exhortation is supported, as regards the 
eating of sacrificial meat, by the analogies of the Lord's Supper and the 
Jewish usages in partaking of sacrifices (vv. 15-18). And therewith Paul 
returns from the long digression, which has occupied him since ix. 1, to his 
main subject, which he is now in a position to wind up and dispose of with 
all the more vigour and terseness (vv. 19-xi. 1). 

Ver. 1. Tap] Paul had already, in ix. 26 f., set himself before his readers 
as an example of self-con quest ; he now justifies his special enforcement of 
this duty by the warning example of the fathers. IIAeZov avrovq dedi^aadai 
flovTiT/ftelg to)v Kara tov 'lapafj'k avajLii/iv^aKei, Kal baorv aTzrj'kavaav ayaduv Kai baai( 
7rei)n~eaav TifLupiaiQ. Kal KaXei rvirovg tovtuv eKelva, diddaKuv cl)f ra b/ioia neiaov- 
rai ri/v o/ioiav aTriarlav KTr/ffafievoi, Theodoret. — ov 6e^u v/j.. ayv.] indicating 
something of importance. See on Rom. xi. 25. — ol Trarepeg 7//i.] i.e. our 
forefathers at the time of the exodus from Egypt. The apostle says ///nuv, 
speaking, as in Rom. iv. "1, from his imtional consciousness, which was 
shared in by his Jevdsh readers, and well understood by his Gentile ones. 
The idea of the spiritual fatherhood of all helisvers (Rom. iv. 11 ff., de 
AVette, al.), or that of the O. T. ancestry of the N. T. church (Hofmann), 
would suit only with holy ancestors as being the true Israel (comp. Rom. ix. 
5 ff. ; Gal. vi. 16), but does not harmonize with the fact of the fathers here 
referred to being cited as warnings. — iravTEg] has strong emphasis, ' and is 
four times repeated, the coming contrast of ovk kv rolg Tv?.doaiv, ver. 5, being 
already before the apostle's mind. All had the blessing of the divine 
presence {vrrb r. vef. f/oav), all that of the passage through the sea ; all re- 
ceived the analogue of baptism, all that of eating, all that of drinking at the 
Lord's Supper ; but with the majority God was not well pleased. — v-nb r. vc^.] 
The well-known (rr/v) pillar of cloud (Ex. xiii. 21 f.), in which God's pres- 
ence was, is conceived as spreading its canopy over (Jjnd) the march of the 
])eople that followed it. Comp. Ps. cv. 39 ; Wisd. x. 17, xix. 7. — 6ta ^fig 
dal.} See Ex. xiv. 

Ver. 2. The discourse flows on in uninterrupted stream, beginning with 
the on in ver. 1, to the end of ver. 5 ; then follow^s the application in 
ver. 6. — etc tov Mwiar/v] in reference to Moses, so that they thereby devoted 
themselves to Moses as the deliverer and mediator Avhom God had sent 
them. Com}), on Rom. vi. 3; Matt, xxviii. 19. — eliairuaavTo] they had 

' Orotius : " tain qui sospites fuere, quam qui perierunt." 

CHAP. X., 3, 4. 219 

iJiemselves iajytked, 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 
eaid regarding aneXova., vi. 11, — is pur2yosely chosen, as in Acts xxii. 16, to 
denote the receptive sense (see Kiihner, II. ji. 18 ; Valckenaer, p. 256; 
Winer, jd. 239 [E. T. 319]); for although kjiaTZT., and the subsequent ^ayov 
and eniov, 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. — iv Ty vE(p.] h is local, as in /3a7rr(C«v 
ev vSarc, Matt. iii. 11, al., indicating the element in which, by immersion 
and emergence, the baptism was effected. Just as the convert was baptized 
in water with reference to Christ, so also that O. T. analogue of baptism, 
which presents itself in the people of Israel at the passage of the Red Sea 
with reference to Moses, was effected in the cloud under which they were, 
and in the sea through which they passed. So far as the sacred chud, 
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, is it enough to define the point of com- 
parison simply as Grotius does (comp. de Wettej : ' ' 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 nrtJes proprium humo ?'emportat;" 
so also Bengel : "Nubes et mare sunt naturae aqueae (quare etiam Paulus 
de columna ignis silet)." (j') 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 wovild 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 tico 
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 apjiropriates 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.' — ro ai'riJ] so that each one therefore stood on the very 

I Bengel well says : " Si plura essent N. T. sacramenta, ceteris quoque simile quiddam 

220 Paul's first epistle to the corinthiaxs. 

pame level of apparent certainty ol not lieing cast off hy God. — The [ipijfia 
rrvEVfiaTCKov 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. Ixxviii. 
24 f. ; Wisd. xvi. 20 ; John vi. 31 f.), the gift of God, who by His Spirit 
wrought marvellously for His peojjle. Being vouchsafed by the xdpig wvev- 
(laTLKri of Jehovah, it was, although material in itself, a xopiofia TTvevfiariKdv, a 
food of supernatural, divine, and spiritual origin. Comp. Theodore of 
Mopsuestia : TrvEVjiariKov ku7.u koX to fipufia Koi to TTufia, (if av tcv TtvevfiaToq 
a/i(pu iha Tov Mwi)CTfwf kuto. tt/v cnrdppT/Tov avTov napac x^vToq dhvafiiv. ovtu de Koi 
n-VEVjiaTLKT/v tKaXeaev -f/v nerpav, wf av Ty Swa/iei tov nvevfiaToq EKdovaav to. vSaTa. 
What the Rabbins invented about the miraculous qualities of the manna may 
be seen in von der Hardt, EiJhem. phil. pp. 101, 104 ; Eisenmeuger's entdeckt. 
Judenth. II. p. 876 f., I. pp. 312, 467. Philo explains it as referring to the 
Logos, Leg. alleg. ii. p. 82, Quod, deter. j)ot- insid. sol. p. 213. — Trd^a] Ex. 
xvii. 1-6 ; Num. xx. 2-11. Regarding the forms 7r6/iia and 7rw//a, see Lobeck, 
Paral. p. 425 f. — iwivov . . . 'S.picToq'] a parenthetic exjilanation in detail 
as to the quite peculiar and marvellous character of this irdim. The imper- 
fect does not, like the preceding aorist, state the drinking absolutely as a 
historical fact, but is the desci-iptive imperfect, depicting the process of the 
Ikiov according to the peculiar circumstances in which it took place ; it thus 
has a modal force, showing hoic things ireitt on with the TtdvTer . . . kiriov, 
while it was taking place. Bengel remarks rightly on the yap : " quails 
petra, talis aqua." — l/c TrvevuaT. okoX. TreTpag' ?/ rft- Trerpa jyv 6 X.]/rom a spir- 
itual rock that followed tTiem ; the Hock, hoicever (which we speak of here), 
ioas Christ. TlveufxaTiK^g has the emphasis ; it corresponds to the preceding 
TTVEVfiaTiKdv, and is exjjlained more specifically b}' 7 (ie t. j/v 6 X. The rela- 
tion denoted by dKo2.ovdoi>ar/q, 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 Myog 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 Tvhpa tvvev[icctiktj ; 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-retelation 
and manifestation of the Son of God, who invisibly accompanied the host on 
its march ; it was, in other words, the Tery Christ from heaven, as being 
His own substantial and efficient presentation of Himself to men (comp, 
Targ. Isa. xvi. 1, and Philo's view, p. 1103 A, that the rock was the coipia). 
(3) Such being the state of the case as to the rock, it must of necessity be a 
rock ihat followed, that accompanied and went icith 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, »#m<. TViCo/. p. 200 ; Weisa 

common characteristics of the two ordi- I'M. Theol. p. 353. 

CHAP. X., 3, 4. 221 

their Avay througli the desert ; for Christ in His pre-existent condition, the 
heavenly "substratum," so to speak, of this rock, went constantly with 
them, so that everywhere in the wilderness His essential presence could 
manifest itself in their actual experience through the rock with its abuu' 
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 //w«, 
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. \ ; Onkeloson 
Num. xxi. 18-20 ; and see Wetstein and Schottgen, also Lund, Heiligth., 
ed. Wolf, p. 251) ; such fictions as these, when compared with what the 
apostle actually says, should certainly be regarded as extravagant after- 
growths (in opposition to Riickert and de Wette). It is just as unwarrant- 
able, however, to explain away, by any exegetical expedient, this rock which 
followed them, and which was Christ. The attempts which have been made 
with this view run directly counter to the plain meaning of the words ; e.g. 
the interpretation of Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Drusius, Grotius, 
Lightfoot, Billroth, al. (which dates from Theodore of Mopsuestia), that the 
rock means here what came from it, the water ( !), which, they hold, followed 
the people and jn-ejigured Christ {rp). That yv denotes here signifcabat (so too 
Augustine, Vatablus, Salmasius, Bengel, Loesner, al.), is a purely arbitrary 
assumjDtion, seeing that Paul neither says ka-i, nor tvtvoq fjv, or the like, nor 
even indicates in any way in the context a typico-allegorical reference. This 
applies also against what Ch. F. Fritzsche has in his Nova Opusc. p. 261 : 
" The rock in the wilderness was a rock of blessing, strength, and life-giving 
for the Jews, and thus it prefigures Christ," etc. Paul does not say anything 
of the sort ; it is simply his expositors who insert it on their own authority. 
Baur, too, does violence to the apostle's words (comp. his neut. Theol. p. 
193), by asserting that Paul speaks of Christ as the tvvevh. Trerpa 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 tliis, Rabiger, Ghristol. Paul. p. 31 f. ; Weiss, 
iibl. 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 si Lapide, and many others, among 

> Baur Is wholly unwarranted in taking <^r,crli' ou yap av koI Tiph toutou <%^'e^Au^e^, iAA. 

rrvevtxa.Ti.K6s, ver. 3 f., in tlie sense of typical iripa ns nerpa TTieuMaTiKi) to nav eipya^cTo, 

or allerjorically sif/nijicant. His appeal to TovTianv 6 Xpto-rbs 6 Trapiiv avTols iravraxot 
Eev.xi. 8 and Barnab. 10 is irrelevant. xaX ndyra ^avfiarovpyiiv. 

2 ov yap rj Tij; Trerpas <|>u<tis to v&uip r^<j>iei. 

222 Paul's fiust epistle to the Corinthians. 

whom arc Flatt, Kling iu the Stud, und Erit. 1839, ji. 835 ; Osiander, 
Neander, Hofmann.' (k') 

Vcr. 0. 0/7C f V To'iq Ti7Moaiv] not with the greater ^)arf of them. A tragical 
litotes. Caleb and Joshua alone reached the land of promise. Num. xiv. 
30. — KarearpudT/aav] 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 wdth Num. xiv., as death by the hand of 
God (Herod, viii. 53, ix. 76 ; Xen. Cyr. iii. 3. 64 ; Judith vii. 14 ; 2 Mace. 
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) lecarne types of us, i.e. historical 
transactions of the O. T., guided and shaped by God, and designed by Him 
iiguratively to represent the corresponding relation and experience on the 
part of Christians. See regarding rvrrog, on Rom. v. 14. — iyEVT]6r]aav'\ The 
plural is by attraction from the predicate tvtvol. See Kiihner, II. p. 53 f. ; 
Kriiger, § Ixiii. 6. Hofmaun (comjj. vi. 11) takes the Israelites as the sub- 
ject : '' They 'became this as types of us ;''' but the recurrence of the ravra in 
ver. 11 should have been enough of itself to preclude such a view. — km- 
QviirjT. KUKuiv] (piite general in its reference : dssirers (Herod, vii. 6 ; Dem. 
661 wft., and often in Plato) of evil things (Eom. i. 30). To restrict it to the 
" Corinthios ejmlatores''' (Grotius) is arbitrary ; for it is equally so to con- 
fine the Kudug mnElvoL cTzeO. which follows solely (Rilckert, de Wette, 
Osiander, Neander), or particularly (Hofmann), to the desire of the Israelites 
for flesh (Num. xi. 4), whereas in truth the words refer generally to the 
evil lusts which they manifested so often and in so many ways upon their 
journey, that particuhu- desire not excluded. 

Ver. 7. There- follows now upon this general warning the first of four 
special ones against sins, to which the s-mftv/je'iv kukuv might very easily lead. 
''Eligit, quod maxirae Corinthiis congruebat," Calvin. — HT]6i] also in par- 
ticular do not. Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 314 [E. T. 366]. The rep- 
etitions of /u/jSi: which follow, too, from ver. 8 to ver. 10 are also negatived, 
but in continuance of the special prohibitions. — yiveade] in the second per- 

' Comp. his Schriftbew. I. p. 171: " The rock cess of thought on the part of the apostle, 
from which the water flowed was a natu- which, as such, is not to be measured by 
ral one, and stood fast in its own place ; the taste of our day, so that this unvar- 
but tlie true Rock that really gave the nished exegetical. conception of it might bo 
water was the 7K")tj?^ "Il^f (Isa. xxx. 29), set down as something " absurd," as is 
was , Teh ova/i, who went with Israel." By done by Hofmann. The Rabbinical culture 
not calling tlie Rock God, but Christ, the of his time, under which the apostle grew 
apostle points forward, as it were (accord- up, was not done away with by the fact of 
ing to Hofmaim), to the application which 'lis becoming the vessel of divine grace, 
lie is about to make of the words, namely, revelation, and power. Comp. Gal iv. 22 ff. 
to the cup which Christ gives us to drink. Our passage has nothing whatever to do 
But Paul's words are so simple, clear, and with Isa. xxx. 29, where men go up into the 
definite, that it is impossible to get off temple to Jehovah, the Rock of Israel. It 
by any quid pro quo. For the rest, it is to is of importance, however, in connection 
be observed that in this passage, as in the with Paul's doctrine regarding the pro-ex- 
previous one, where the crossing of the sea istence of Christ and its accordance with 
is taken as a typical prefiguration of bap- tlie doctrine of the Logos, 
tism, we have doubtless a Rabbinical pro- » [Literally, »<r«tced as corpses.— T. W. C] 

CHAP. X., 8, 9. 323 

son, because of the special danger to which his readers, from their circum- 
ttances, were exposed. Comp. on ver. 10. — elSuXoUTpai] 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 ((payelv k. melv). Comp. vv. 14, 20, 21. The passage cited is Ex. 
xxxii. 6 according to the LXX. ; it describes the sacrificial feast after the 
sacrifice offered to the golden calf. The rcveg avruv, four times repeated, 
certain of them, notwithstanding there were very many (although not all), 
brings out all the more forcibly the offences over-against the greatness of 
the penal judgments. Comp. on Rom. iii. 3. — -n-ali^eiv] to ie merry. This 
comprised danciiig, 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, Scut. 277 ; Pindar, 01. xiii. 
123) does not harmonize with the more general meaning of PDVf in the 
original text. To understand the phrase as indicating unchastity (Tertull. 
dejejun. 6) is contrary to Ex. xxxii, 18, 19, and Philo, de vit. Mos. 3, pp. 
677 D, 694 A. 

Ver. 8. ''EiropvEvaav'] Num. xxv. 1 ff. — elKoai, rpelg'] According to Num. 
XXV. 9, there were 24,000. So too Philo, de vit. Mos. 1, p. 694 A ; de 
fortit. p. 742 D ; and the Rabbins in Lightfoot, Horae, p. 205 ; also Jose- 
phus, Antt. iv. 6. 12. A slip of memory on the apostle's part, (l') 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 vi divina, and 1000 gladio ze- 
lotarum (Krebs, after Bernard and Havercamp on Josephus, loc. cit.) ; that 
Paul states merely what befell the tribe at Simeon (Michaelis). Cajetanus 
and Surenhusius would have us read eluogl rlaaapec, as, in point of fact, is 
given in a few codd., but manifestly by way of correction. Osiander too 
leans to this ; cornj*. Valckenaer. 

Ver. 9. 'E/cTTCip.] Stronger than the simple verb (to prove to the full), Matt, 
iv. 7 ; Luke x. 25. Comp. the classic eKTreipao/iai (Herod, iii. 185 ; Plat. 
ep. 13, p. 362 E). To try the Lord,' nin^-fl^ DDJ, means generally, to let it 
come to the point whether He toill show Himself to he Ood ; in this case : 
whether He will punish (" quousque itura sit ejus patientia," Grotius). See 
in general, Wetstein, ad Matt. iv. 7. What special kind of trying Paul has 
here in view, appears from Kadhq k..t.\., where the reference is to the people 
after their deliverance losing hea/i^t 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 

' The Kvpio? is God in Num. xxi. 4 ff. had no reason to refer it to Christ as the 
Paul's readers, whose familiarity with the Aoyos da-apKO's (from which comes the Recep- 
bistory in question is taken for granted, la Xpio-rov). 

234 Paul's fiust epistle to the corintuiaks. 

many, forgetting the blessings of their spiritual deliveranee, might look 
buck with a discontented longing to the license of the past ! It is a 
common opinion that Paul designates their jjarticipation in the sacrificial 
feasts as a tempting of God (comp. ver. 22, where, however, the connection 
is totally different, and -uv Kvptov 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 Kcidug kuI k.t.a., and familiar to the readers. The context equally 
forbids the interpretations of Chrysostom and Theophylact : the craving for 
tconders ; Theodoret, the speaking tcitli tongues; Grotius, the conduct of 
the schismatics ; and Michaelis, that of i\\e anti-Pauline party. — ineipaaav] 
namely, avrdv, not in an absolute sense (Winer, Reiche). — cnrullvvTo] see 
the critical remarks. The imperfect lays the stress on the continuoiis devel- 
opment of what occurred, and thus places it in the foreground of the his- 
toric picture. See Kiihner, II. p. 74. As to vno with anuXk., see Valcke- 
naer, p. 261. Ellendt, Lex. Sopih. II. p. 880. 

Ver. 10. Nor murmur, etc. ; expression of contumacious 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 am'M^. vtto t. b?.odp. denotes a violent death, which does not tally 
with Num. xiv. ; and, in the second, because -ivig avruv cannot apply to 
the whole people (except Caleb and Joshua), which it would have to do ac- 
cording to Num. xiv. If, however, what Paul has here in view is the mur- 
muring against Moses and Aaron after the death of Korah and his company 
(Num. xvi. 41, 49), then his prohibition must refer not to discontent against 
God (which was, moreover, referred to already in ver. 9), but only to mur- 
muring against the divinely commissioned teachers (Paul, Apollos, and others), 
who, in their position and authoritative exercise of discipline, corresponded 
to the type of Moses and Aaron as the theocratic leaders and teachers of the 
rebellious people. And it is for this reason that he uses the second person 
here, although the first both precedes and follows it. Amidst the self-con- 
ceit and frivolity which were so rife at Corinth, and under the influences 
of the party-sjoirit 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. — anuXk. vtto t. bh}0p.] namely, the 
14,700, whose destruction (Num. xvi. 46 flE.) is ascribed to the plague (^^JO) 
of God. Paul defines this more closely as wrought by the Destroyer (Hesy- 
cMus, 7.vfieL)v), who is the executor of the divine plague, just as in Ex. xii. 
23 the H'nc'D executes the plague C^JJ) of God, — this personal rendering 
of n'niJ'D (according to others, ^^e;7iic/es), which was the traditional one 
from the earliest times among Jews and Christians alike, being followed by 
the apostle also. The o/Mdptvr?/^ (6 bkodpeuuv, Ex. xii. 23 ; Ileb. xi. 28 ; Wisd. 
xviii. 25. Comp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 16 ; Isa. xxxvii. 30 ; Job xxxiii. 22, al. ; Acts 
xii. 23) is the angel commissioned by God to carry out the slaughter ; and he 

CHAP. X., 11. 235 

again is neither to be conceived of as an evil angel (a conception still foreicrn 
to the old Hebrew theology in general ; see also 1 Chron. xxi. 12 ; 3 Chron. 
xxxii. 21 ; 2 Mace. xv. 22, 23), nor rationalized into a pestilence. The 
Rabbinical doctrine of the mon '\vh'0 (see Eisenmenger, entdechtes Judenth. 
I. p. 854 ff.) developed itself out of the Hebrew idea. — OAodpevu, and the 
words formed from it, belong to the Alexandrian Greek. See Bleek on 
Reb. II. p. 809. But the reading bXedp. , although in itself more correct, is 
very weakly attested here. 

Ver. 11. TavTo] These facts, referred to in ver. 6 ff. — tvttikuq] 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 
Ikia /loJpa. It is only among the Fathers that we find tv-klkoq and tv-klkuq 
used anywhere else in this sense (it is otherwise in Plutarch, Mor. p. 442 
C). — avvel3aivov] brings out the 2yf'ogressive development of the events ; the 
aorist eypfK^ri simply states the fact.^ Comp. on ver. 4, and Matthiae, p. 
1117. The 6e contrasts kypdcprj k.t.I. with what precedes it, expressing 
"quod novum quid accedit, oppositionem quandam," Hermann, ad Viger. 
p. 845 : "that it was written, again, was for," etc. — yrpo? vovdealav t//liuv] 
for our admonition (comp. on iv. 14). That is to say, when we are tempted 
to the same sins, then should the thought of those facts that happened 
TVTTLKuc:, Avarn us not to bring down upon ourselves like judgments by like 
offences. As to the later form, vovfleaia in place of vovdeTijaiq and vovderia, 
see Lobeck, ad Pliryn. p. 512. — eIq ovg k.t.1.\ is not opposed, as Hofmann 
would have it, to the heginning 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 pioint to the warning by reminding the readers how 
nigh at hand the day was of retributive decision. Ta rtkrj ruv aluvuv is identi- 
cal with 7/ (jvvriTieta tuv aluvuv, Heb. ix-. 26, the concrete to, teItj (the ends) 
being put here for the abstract cwTtleia (consummation). In other words, 
upon the sujiposition of the Parousia being close at hand, the last times of 
the world were now come ; the aluvEg, which had their commencement at its 
beginning, were now running out their final course. The plural expression 
TO. teItj, here used, corresponds to the conception of a plurality of periods in 
the world's history, whose common consummation should carry with it the 
final issues of them all. ' With the Parousia the aluveq eizepxdfievoi (see on 

1 The Becepia tvttol would mean : These events in detail ; the latter (slngulai-) to the 

things happened to them as types; comp. record as a zy/(o;«.— T. W. C] 

ver. 6. Hofmann takes raina. he tuttoi as an ' Weiss, in his bibl. Theol. p. 301, gives a 

independent clause. But what an arbitrary different interpretation, making ra reAij the 

disruption of tlie sentence this would be 1 goals. Each of the past aliavii. according 

And how thoroughly self-evident and void to his view, served as a preparation for the 

of significance the avvi^ai.vov eictiVocs would time of full maturity. But Paul always uses 

in that case be ! teAos in the sense of end (in 1 Tim. 1. 5 it is 

* [The former verb (plural) relates to the otherwise) ; and this, too, is the most natural 

2'Z6 Paul's first epistle to the corinthians. 

Eph. ii. 7) begin to run. What is implied by the jdural is not one thing 
running nhngside of another, in particular, not the time of Israel and the 
time of the Gentiles (llofmann), but the succession of the world-periods, one 
coming after another. So always, where aluvi^g occurs in a temporal sense. 
— KOT^vTfjKcv] They have reached to us, i.e. have fallen upon our lifetime, and 
are how here. The aluveg are conceived of as stretching themselves out, as 
it were, in space. Comp. xiv. 36. 

Ver. 12. 'flffrf] Wherefore, warned by these instances from the O. T. • — 
hravai] 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. — ^Acttetw, //^ ■Kkay'] 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 bpyij (comp. Gal. v. 4). 

Ver. 13. Encouragement to this (i'Aen-ero) fiy neay. " 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 (?) ; 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 Tnardg onwards, to encourage, — a connecting thought, however, being 
interpolated between the two clauses (" sed nunc major tentatio imminet," 
Bengel). — Tretpaafjiog'] The context makes no special mention of sufferings and 
persecutions (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Camerarius, Grotius, Ewald, (d.), but 
of incitements to sin in general, as things which, if not overcome, instead of 
being a disciijline to the man exposed to them, will bring about his Trinretv ; 
but suflEering is included among the rest in virtue of the moral dangers which 
it involves. Pott restricts the reference too much (comp. also Hofmann) : 
"tentatio quae per invitationem ad convivia ilia vobis accidit," which is 
inadmissible in view of the general terms employed in ver. 12 ; the particular 
application follows only in ver. 14. — dh/cpev] marks the continuance of the 
fact of its not having taken them. It has not done so, and does not now. 
This use of Aanjidvsiv, in reference to fortunes, .states, etc., which seize upon 
men, is very common in the classics (Thuc. ii. 42 ; Pind. 01. i. 130 ; Xen. 
Symp. i. 15, and often in Homer). Comp. Luke v. 26, vii. 16 ; Wisd. xi. 
12 ; Bar. vi. 5. — av&pumvog} i.e. viribus humanis accommodatus, ovx vKep 6 

meaning here, where he is speaking of tlie the same as in n-A^pco^a riav Kaipiiv, Eph. 1. 
?apse of periods of time. The thouglit is 9 f . 

CHAP. X., 14. 227 

dvvarai av&po):Tog. See Pollux, iii. 131. The fact that in the second clause of 
the verse this phrase has vwep o dvvaa'&E and tov 6vvaa-&ai vneveyKdv corre- 
sponding to it, militates against the rendering : ' ' not of s^iperhuman origin'''' 
(comp. Plato, Ale. i. p. 103 A ; Phaedr. p. 259 D ; Rep. p. 497 C, 493 E), 
i.e. either not from the devil (Melanchthon, Piscator, Vorstius, al.), or not 
from Ood (Olshausen, who finds an allusion in the second clause to the dolo- 
res Messiae). Comp. ovk av&punivTi Kada, Polyb. i. 67. 6, and the like ; Plato, 
Prot. p. 344 C, Crat. p. 438 C ; ovk. av^punivrjg dvvafieuc, Thuc. vi. 78. 2 ; 
baa av&punoi (sc. (Ivvavrai), Plato, Pep. p. 467 C ; /leli^ov fj kut' av&puivov, Sojih. 
Oed. Col. 604. Chrysostom : avd-puirivog, tovtegtl ficupog, fipaxvg, ab/xfiETpog. — 
TTiarSc] 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') — 6f] in the sense of 6r< oirog, like the German " er 
der." Comp. Bernhardy, p. 291. "Ocrye would be still more emphatic. — 3 
Svvaa'&e] what you are in a position to hear. The context shows the more 
special meaning. Comp. on iii. 2. — al'ka woitjcel k.t./I.] hut will with, the (fhcn 
existing) temptation make also the issue, i.e. not the one without the other. 
God is therefore conceived of here as He who mal:es the temptation, i.e. 
brings about the circumstances and situations which give rise to it (comp. 
on Matt. vi. 13), but, previously, as He who lets men be tempted. The two 
things, according to Paul's view of the divine agency in the world, are in 
substance the same ; the God who allows the thing to be is He also who 
brings it to jjass. Hence the two modes of conception may be used inter- 
changeably, as here, without contradiction. Comp. on Rom. i. 24. — r. 
eKftacLv] the issue (egressum, Wisd. ii. 17, viii. 9, xi. 16 ; Horn. 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. e/c Treipaafiov pveaOai, 2 Pet. ii. 
9) ; similarly Eur. Med. 279, sKpacig arr/g. Theophylact gives the sense with 
substantial correctness, rf/v cnral'kayijv tov Tveipaciiov ; but it is unsuitable to 
make, as he does, the cvv k.t.I. refer to coincidence in time (d/xa rw kneTi'Belv 
v/ilv TOV neipaa/xov) ; so also Hofmann. Bengel puts it well : "/ca/, etiam, 
indivulso nexu." — tov Svvac'dac imev.] does not say wherein the issue might 
consist (of leing able to hear the temptation ; comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 
844), for the Svvaa^ai vnev. is no iKJiaoiq (the taking it so is illogical) ; but it 
is the genitive of design : in order that you may he able to hear it (the tempta- 
tion). Were it not that God gave the EK(iaaig along with the neipaa/idg, 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 ifidg 
should be supplied to Siiv. virev., is clear of itself from what precedes. See 
Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 10. 

Ver. 14. Aionep] 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 sejmrate you from God. Comp. ver. 
22. And they would qiake themselves indirectly guilty of idolatry by par- 
talcing of the sacrificial feasts. See vv, 7, 20 f. As respects (pehyeiv ano, 
fugiendo discedere a, see on Matt. iii. 7. Ruckert would draw a distinction 

228 Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. 

liere to the effect that, harl the verb been joined with the accusative (vi. 18)j 
it would have indicated that the readers were already inrolred in idolatrous 
worship ; but this is untenable (2 Tim. ii. 23 ; AVisd. i. 5 ; Plato, Legg. i. 
p. G36 E ; Soph. Phil. G37, Oed. R. 355), being a confusion of the phrase in 
question with <f>i'vyeivkK (Xen. Anal. i. 2. 18 ; Tob. i. 18). The precise meaning 
here must be sought in the context, which certainly gives us only the idea of 
the danger being at hand (ver. 7). 

Ver. 15 flE. Paul has just been forbidding his readers to participate in the 
gacrificial feasts, on the ground of its leing 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. 'Q.q ippovifiotg] i.e. to those of whom I take for granted that they 
are intelligent ; ug indicates the mode of contemplation, the aspect under 
which he regards his readers in saying to them, etc. Comp. iii. 1 ; 2 Cor. 
vi. 13, al. See Bernhardy, p. 333. — Myu refers to Kphare vfi. o ^. (comp. 
vii. 12), and 6 0?;/« points to what follows in vv. 16-18. '*J.s to Intelligent 
men, (who can judge aright), I say : judge ye what I affirm.'''' On the differ- 
ence between Aeyw and ^t?/^/, comp. "Rom. iii. 8 ; Herod, iii. 35 ; Xen. Apol. 
13, Anal. i. 7. 18, vi. 6. 16, ii. 1. 14 ; EUendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 906. — 
The emphasis is on vjielg ; your own judgment shall decide. 

Ver. 16. To TTOTz/piov] 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 Mutt. xxi. 42, see Bornemann, Schol. 
in Luc. p. 16 f. ; Buttmann, neut. Or. p. 247 [E. T. 288] ; Kiihner, II. p. 
612. This Greek fashion of " trajection" is of such common occurrence, 
that it is a piece of j^ure arbitrariness to infer, with Hofmann, from the 
accusntire here that the action of blessing and breaking, of which the ele- 
ments are the objects, malces them the Koivuvia. — Paul names the euj) first, 
not because at the sacrificial feasts men thought less about food than about 
a i)leasant meeting primarily for enjoying wine (they came for eating and 
drinking), but because he means to speak at more length about the bread, 
and in connection with it, especially to discuss the Israelitic partaking of 
the sacrifices, as it suited his theme of the meat offered to idols. For this reason 
he begins here by disposing briefly of the point concerning the cup. In 
chap. xi. he does otherwise, because not regarding the matter there 
from this special point of view. — ri/g evloyiag] getiit. qtialit., i.e. the cup over 
which the llessing is spoken, namely, when the wine contained in it is 
expressly consecrated by prayer to the sacred use of the Lord's Supper. ' It 

' ^fho had to officiate at this consecration ? Justin Martyr's time {Ajwl. i. 05) it fell to the 
Every Christian man probably mi{;ht do so jrpoco-Tws, but so that the president is con 
at that time, wlieu the arrangements of ceived as representiiif^ and acting in fellow- 
church-life as regards public worship were ship with tlie congregation. See Ritschl, 
as yet so little reduced to fixed order. In allkathol. K.p.ZQbf. The /»/M/'a^*- in the pas- 

CHAP. X., 16. 229 

IS a mistake to understand rfjQ svloj. actively : the ctqj which hrings blessing 
(Flatt, Olshausen, Kling), as the more detailed exi)lanations wbich follow 
are sufficient of themselves to prove. They equally forbid the explanation 
of Schulz : the cup of jjraise ' (comp. Kahnis, Lehre vorn Abendm. p. 138). 
Neither should the phrase be viewed as a terminus technicus borrowed from 
the Jewish liturgy, and answering to the 7131371 DO . See on Matt. xxvi. 
27, and Riickert, Abendm. p. 319 f. — 6 e'vTioyoviiev] an epexegesis giving 
additional solemnity to the statement : xohich we bless, consecrate with 
prayer, when we celebrate the Lord's Supper. Comp. Mark viii. 7 ; Luke 
ix. 16 ; 1 Sam. ix. 13. Ey^oy. in its literal sense must not be confounded 
with f i);{;cp«ffr. (Erasmus, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Beza : " quod cum gratia- 
rum actione sumimus"), although the prayer loas, in point of fact, a thanksgiv- 
ing prayer in accordance with Christ's example, xi. 34 f. As to the difference 
between the two words, comp. on xiv. 16. — ovxi kocv. t. a'l/x. t. X. tari] This 
is aptly explained by Grotius (after Melanchthon and others) : '■^ noivuviav 
vocat id, per quod fit ijjsa communio." The cup, i.e. its contents as these 
are presented and partaken of, is the medium of this fellowship ; it is real- 
ized \n the partaking.'^ Comp. i. 30 ; John xii. 35, xvii. 3 ; Eodatz in 
Rudelbach's Zeitsehrift, 1844, 1, p. 131 ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 31. The 
sense therefore is : Is not communion icith the blood of Christ established 
through 2MHahing of the cup ? '^ 'Earl never means anything else than est 
(never significat) ; it is the co])ulei of existence ; whether this, however, be 
actual or syniboUcal (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. Wltat sort 
of a participation it might be, was of no importance in the present connec- 

sage before us are the utterance of the \t,t?ikingKoi.vii>viaa,s^^thetnaUeroffactofa 

Christian cotiscioiisriess of fellowsJdp, to which joint (?) participancy,'^ and then opinhig that 

it makes no difference who, in each sepa- the apostle has in view an eating of the 

rate case, may be the ministerial wgan of bread and drinking of the wine, which by 

the fellowship. Kahnis explains them from means of this corporeal process, and with- 

the amen of the congregation (Justin, loc. out Its being possible to eat and drink 

cit.) ; but that itself was primarily the time- merely bread and wine, makes vs joint-par- 

hallowed expression of that consciousness. takers of the body and blood of Christ. In 

1 With excessive arbitrariness Hofmann support of the meaning thus assigned to 

(comp. his Schriftbeiu. II. 2, p. 225 f.) insists Koivbivia., Hofmann appeals inappropriately 

on taking 6u\ovia otherwise than eirAoyoOnef; to i. 9; 2 Cor. xiil. 13; 1 John i. 3. .Joint 

the former, in the sense of an ascription of participancy would be avyKoiviavia ; comp. 

praise, with God as Its subject ; the latter, avyKoivuivo^. Ix. 23; Eom. xi. 17; Phil. i. 7. 

in the sense of cowsewa/iwg' the cwp. The ' Itisplain from vv. 18, 20, 21, that /coiiwria 

consecration, according to him, makes the \sh.erene\ commtmication. apportioning 

difference between it and the Passover cup. (Luther, al., including Kling, Billroth), 

But the said difference could not have been which it never means in the N. T. (see on 

expressed by Paul in a more unsuitable Rom. xv. 26), nor consortium, societas (Eras- 

or perplexing way than by repeating the mus :" quod pariter sanguine Chrlstl sumus 

same word. redemtl," comp. Zwingll). See also Kahnis, 

^ Hofmann too comes to this in substance Ahendm. p. 132 f. 
after all, although ho tries to escape from 


tion, for the a])ostlc is dealing here simply with the Koivuvia in itself, not 
with its niiture, which dilTtTod according to the different analogies adduced 
(vv. 18, 20). (n') It cannot therefore l^e gathered from this j^ssagc 
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 helieving 
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 could only mean 
the latter, since at the institution of the Supper the body of Christ was not 
yet slain, and His blood still flowed in His veins." See, besides, on Matt, 
xxvi. 26. Again, if the glorified state of His bod}% i.e. the cuiia rfjg 66^?/g 
avTov (Phil. iii. 21), set in only with His ascension, and if, when He insti- 
tuted the Sujjper, His body was still but the ou/ta r^f aapKog avrov, which 
soon after died ujion the cross for reconciliation (Col. i. 22), while, never- 
theless, the first Lord's Supper, disjiensed by Jesus himself, must have 
carried with it the whole specific essence of the sacred ordinance — that essence 
depending precisely upon t\\c future critcifixion of the body and oittpouring of 
the blood, — then the apostle cannot have in view the glorified^ auna ^nA 
aijia as being given and partaken of through the medium of the bread and 
wnne. 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 
imeumatic body already at His disposal to dispense as He would (Olshausen, 
Hofmann), or that a momentary glorification, like that on the Mount, took 

' For the rest, it is plain enough from the the Supper as f/lorifled ; that, in virtue of 

correlative <7-a>/u.a that the alfna. t. X. denotes the consecration, the participant partakes 

the blood— not, as D. Schulz still maintains, of the glorified blood, etc. Riickert, of 

the bloody death— of Christ (which, consid- course, di.seards all questions as to mode in 

ered in lUelf, it might indeed sijmbolize, but connection with this view which he ascribes 

could not be called. Fritzsclie, ad Eom. I. to the apostle, but which he himself consid- 

p. 374 ; Kahnis, Abendni. p. 60 f.). ers a baseless one (p. 242). His mistake lies 

'^ When Rodatz objects that an ideal in deducing too much from, 

union with the actual body slain and blood which is neither in ver. 3 nor anywhere 

shed ufi logical contradiction, he overlooks else in the N. T. the opposite of material, 

the fact that tlie material sphere is not be- but of natural {i Pet. ii. 5 not excluded); 

yond the reach of inward appropriation. and the irveOfia to which irt'eu/iaTino? refers is 

Spiritual communion may have reference always (except Eph. vi. 13, where it is the 

to a material object, without excluding a diabolic spirit-world that is spoken of) the 

symbolic process in which " signatum non Divine ■nvevii.a. In the case of gifts which 

cum signo sed nobiscum unitur" (Vossius, are ■nviviJ.a.Ti.Ka., it is this -nvivixa. who is 

debdiitiKnio, p. U). Comp. Knhti'i^, Boy/na/. always the agent ; so with the supply of 

I. 621 : " Bread and wine form not a miTc manna and water in the wilderness, 

•ymbol, but a sign, which is at the same and so, too, with the bread and wine 

time metUum ;" see also HI. p. 4S9. The received in the Lord's Supper, inasmuch 

important alteration in the Latin Confcs.'i. as in this ppiaixa and n-ofia the commun- 

Aiig. .\rt. X. of 1540, points in the same di- ion of the body and blood of Christ is real- 

rection. ized, which does not take place when 

' Riickert iilso {Abendni. p. 224 ff.) holds bread and wine are partaken of in the ordi- 

that Paul conceived the body and blood in nary, natural way. 

CHAP. X., 16. 231 

place at the time of instituting the Supper, as Kahnis formerly held ; but 
see now his Bogmat. I. p. 632 ; and comp. also, on the other side, Ebrard, 
Dogma vom heilig. Alendm. I. p. 109 f. Either, therefore, the apostle re- 
garded the Koivuvta 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 fellowshij) realized by the inner man through 
the medium of the symbol partaken of, as an appropriation of the work of 
atonement consummated through means of His body and blood, and conse- 
quently as a real life-fellowship, other than which, indeed, he could not 
conceive it as realized when the Supper was instituted. Comp. Keim in the 
Jahrb. f'wr Deutsche Theol. 1859, p. 90 ; Weiss, hibl. Theol. p. 355. Against 
this Koivuvia 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 j)hrase, " 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 Ahendm. 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 symlol also corresponds to the notion of fellowship, 
and that all the more, because this eating and drinking of the elements 
essentially is the specific 7nedium of the deep, inward, real, and living Koivuvia ; 
hence, too, the "calix communionis" cannot be possibly ajigurata loquutio. 
This last point we maintain against Calvin, who, while insisting that "non 
toWatnr Jlgwae Veritas,^'' and also that the thing itself is there, namely, that 
" non minus sanguinis communionem anima percipiat, quam ore vinura^ 
bibimus," still explains away the Koivuvia of the blood of Christ to the 
effect, ' ' dum simul omnes nos in corpus suum inserit, ut vivat in nobis et 
nos in ipso." — bv kTlcj/iev] 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 foi' the Supper. Instead 
of doing so, Paul enriches his representation by mention of the other essen- 
tial symbolic action with the bread ; comp. xi. 24. That the breaking of the 
bread, however, was itself the consecration (Riickert), the narrative of the 
institution will not allow us to assume. — tov au/xarog r. 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, 7ieut. 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 

> Zwingli, in his Respon. ad Bvgenh., ex- historical development of Zwingll's (Joe- 
plains it thus : " Poculum gratiarum actio- trine is that given by Dieckh off in his ««ang'. 
nis, quo gratias agimus, quid quaeso, aliud Abendmahlslehre im Reformatiomzeitalter, I. 
est quam nos ipsi f Nos enim quid aliud p. 428 ff. Riickert remarks with justice 
sumus nisi ipsa communio, ipse coetus et that Zwingli has here lost his footing on 
populus, consortium et sodalitas sanguinis evangelical ground altogether. But Cal- 
Christi? h. e. ille ipse populus, qui sanguine vin, too, has lost it, inasmuch as he makes 
Christi ablutus est." The most thorough everything turn upon the spiritual reoep- 

233 Paul's first epistle to the torixthians. 

Ver. 17 confirms tho statement that the broad is a communion of the body 
of Christ. For it is one bread; one hody are trc, the many, i.e. for through 
one hrend being eaten in the Supper, ire Chrintiann, although as indimduals 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 
Koivuvla 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 effedu (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 imjily a logical conver- 
sion (as Rodatz objects) ; but either the effect or the cause might be posited 
from the Christian consciousness as premiss, according as the case required. 
See a similar process of reasoning aheffectu ad causam in xii. 12. Comp. also 
Luke vii. 47. According to this, h-i. is just the since, because (for), so com- 
mon in argument, and there is no need whatever to substitute yap for it 
(Hofmann's objection) ; iari is to be supplied after fif aprog ; and the two 
clauses are placed side by side asyndetically so as to make the passage 
"alacrior et nervosior" (Dissen, ad Pind. Exc. II. p. 376), and, in particular, 
to bring out with more emphasis the idea of unity (t/f . . .ei") (comp. Acts 
XXV. 12). The ol yap Trdvrec k.t.'X. which follows leaves us lo room to doubt 
how tlie asyndeton should logically be filled \ip {and therefore also) ; for 
this 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. 
Heydenrcich, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, al.). The ol yap TzdvTec, too, 
.forbids our supplying ea^uh after aprog (Zwingli, Piscator, Mosheim, Stolz, 
Schrader, comp. Ewald) ; for these words indicate the presence of another 
conception, inasmuch as, repeating the idea conveyed in t(f dprog, they 
thereby show that that E]g ap-oc was said of literal bread. Tliisliolds against 
Olshausen also, who discovers here the church as being " the bread of life for 
the icorld !'''' Other expositors take on (comp. xii. 15 f. ; Gal. iv. 6) as intro- 
ducing a protasis, and Iv a. k.t.Tl. as being the apodosis : " because it is one 
bread, therefore are ice, 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 ovv, or some such 
word, after the un, in order to avoid misunderstanding ? Interpreters would 

tion of the gl'rinfU>(l body, i.e. upon receiving se non facit, nt vesccntes sint unum corpus, 

tlie vivifyiiif? power wliicli flows from it, se<J panis id facit quatenus est communio" 

wlicreas tiie words of institution have to do etc. 

simply with that body, wliicli was to be cru- «FIatt, Rflcliert, Kahnis, Maier. Hofmann, 

cljied for the atonemenl and with its fellow- following the Vulgate. Castalio, Calvin, 

ship. As to Calvin's doctrine of the Supper, lieza, Bengel, a/. Riickert, however, has 

see, besides Henry and Stahelin, Kahnis, II. since assented {Abendin. p. 229 ff.) to the 

p. 494 ff. modifications proposed by Rodatz, of which 

'Comp. Bengel: "Probat poculum et mention is presently to be made, 
panem esse commvnionem. Nam panis per 

CHAT. X., 18. 233 

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 ev aij/j.a, ^^wifh Christ the Head" (comp. also van Hengel, 
An7iot. p. 167 f.), and finding the progress of the thought in the words sup- 
plied. But in this way the very point on which all turned would be left 
to be filled in, which is quite unwarrantable ; Paul would have needed to 
write EV ou/ia avrov rf/g Kccpa/if/c, or something to that effect, in order to be 
understood. — ol no/^Xoi] correlative to the ev aujia (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, sxe ol navTsq, the ichole ; 
comp. Rom. v. 15, 18. The ^inity of h-ead 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 8^q)per. 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. — kn rov ivbg aprov /nerex- is inter- 
preted by some as if there were no in : " since we are all partakers of one 
bread" (Luther). This is contrary to the linguistic usage, for /lerex^iv is 
joined with the genitive (ver. 21, ix. 12) or accusative (Bernhardy, p. 149), 
but never with in ; and the assumption that Paul, in using £«, was thinking 
of the verb kaOieiv (xi. 28), is altogether arbitrary. The linguistically cor- 
rect rendering is : for tee all have a share from the one h'ead, so that in ana- 
lyzing the passage we have to supply, according to a well-known usage 
(Buttmann, neut. Or. p. 138 [E. T. 158]), the indefinite indication of a 
part, Ti. or nvog, before ek tov evbg aprov. Hofmann, too, gives the correct 
partitive sense to the expression. The article before evog points back to 
what has been already said. 

Ver. 18. Another ^ analogue to prove that participation in the sacrificial 
feasts is idolatry. — Kara aapKa] without the link of the article, because 'lap. 
KOTO, aapua is regarded as a single idea. Comp. on Rom. ix. 3. Israel after a 
purely human sort means the horn Israelites, the Jews, as distinguished from 
the 'lap. Kara Trveiifia (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 cTvepfia of Abraham. It was very natural for the apostle to add /card 
capKa, seeing that he had just been speaking of the sacred ordinance of the 
Christians. — As to the Jeioish sacrificial feasts, see Michaelis, Mos. R. II. 
pp. 282, 346 f., IV. § 189.- — aoivuvol tov dvacaar.] 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 GemeindegottescC. p. 195 ; comp. also Kahnls, 
place the Lord's Supper in the light of a Abendm. p. 30). See against tliis view, Hof- 
sacriflcial feast (Olshausen, Hamack, mann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 232. 

234 Paul's first epistle to the corinthians. 

eat of tlie 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, W/ii/ did 
not Paul write Oeov imtead of dvaiaar. ? is not to be answered by affirming 
that he could not ascribe the koiv. tov Qeov elai to the 'lap. k. aapKa (Riickert, 
Abemhn. 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 Mnd of fellowship with God ?). But the true reply is this : the koi- 
vuvia Qeov would have been here much too vague and remote a conception ; 
for that fellowship belonged to the Jew already in his national capacity as 
one of the people of God generally, even apart from partaking of the sacri- 
fices. It was by the latter that he showed the narrower and more specific 
relation of worship in which he stood to God, namely, the peculiarly sacred 
Koivuvia (Ex. XX. 21 ff.) rov dvaiaaTjjpiov. 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, vv. 16-18, the apostle has now jus- 
tified his warning given above against the sacrificial feasts as a warning 
against idolatry (ver. 14). But from the case of the Jewish sacrificial eating 
last adduced, his readers might easily draw the inference : " You declare, 
then, the idolatrous offerings and the idols to be what the heathen count 
them ?" For whereas the apostle adduced the Koivuvia of the Jewish Bvaiaa- 
Tt/piov, and that as an analogue of the heathen 6v<jiaari/pia, he seemed thereby 
to recognize the Kotvuvia 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. IB- 
IS (de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann, aZ.), as ver. 20 {dbovaiv, correlative to the 
OvaianTTipiov of ver. 18) shows. — ri ovv (pr/fxi ;] wMt do I- maintain then f 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. i. 4. 14. — tI ianv] 
is somethitfg^ i.e. has reality, namely, as eldulddvTov, so that it is really flesh 
which is con.secratcd to a god, as the heathen think, and as ddulov, so that 
it really is a divine being answering to the conception which the heathen 
have of it ; as if, for instance, there were such a being as Jupiter in exist- 
ence, who actually possessed the attributes and so forth ascribed to him by 
the heathen. To accent the words n iariv (Billroth, Tischendorf, comp. 
Ewald) would give the sense : that any idol-sacrifice (and a7iy idol) exists, in 
the capacity, that is to say, of idol-sacrifice and of idol. Either rendering 
harmonizes with viii. 4. In opposition to the latter of the two, it must not 
be said, with Ruckert, that ian would need to come immediately after bri, 

CHAP. X., 19, 30. 235 

for the last place, too, is the seat of emphasis (Kiihner, II. p. 625) ; nor yet, 
with de Wette, that the one half {eI^uMOvtov) is not so suitable, for the con- 
text surely makes it perfectly plain that Paul is not speaking of absolute ex- 
istence. But since both renderings are equally good as regards sense and 
expression, we can decide between them only on this ground, that with the 
second the ri would be superfluous, whereas with the first — which, follow- 
ing the Vulgate, is the common one — it has significance, which should give 
it the preference. At the same time, we must not insert any pregnancy of 
meaning like that in iii. 7 (of influence and effect) into the r/, 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. — d/l2'] refers to the negative sense of 
the preceding question. Hence : '■'■No; on the contrary , I maintam,'''' etc. 
See Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 37 ; Baeumlein, p. 10 f. — advovatv] 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 to a real God (9ecj), folloics (ovv, in ver. 
19) from the fellowship in which the Jew who ate of the sacrifices stood to 
the altar on which they were offered ; inasmuch as confessedly it was only 
the Jewish dvacaarr/piov with its sacrifice that belonged to a real God, and 
consequently the heathen dvaiuaT?/pia and their offerings could not have ref- 
erence to a God, but only to beings of an opposite kind, i.e. demons. — 
^aifiovioig] 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 all the later Jews with strict logi- 
cal consistency from the premisses of a pure monotheism and its opposite. 
See the LXX. rendering of Deut. xxxii. 17 ; Ps. cvi. 37, — a reminiscence 
of which we have in Paul's expression here, — Ps. xcv. 5 ; Bar. iv. 7 ; Tob. 
iii. 8, vi. 14, and the Rabbinical writers quoted in Eisenmenger's entdecht. 
Judenth. I. pp. 805 ff. , 816 ff. So Paul, too, makes the real existences an- 
swering to the heathen conceptions of the gods, to be demons, which is es- 
sentially connected with the Christian idea that heathendom is the realm of 
the devil ; for, according to this idea, the various individual beings re- 
garded by the heathen as gods can be nothing else but diabolic spirits, who 
collectively make up the whole imperial host of the apx^v tov koc/hov tovtov 
(Eph. ii. 3, vi. 13), who is himself the apxriy6g.* Comp. Hahn, Theol. des 

1 Acts xvii. 18 is uttered by Greeks accord- is through its being set apart for the altar, 
ing to their sense of the word ; but in Rev. If not partaken of in its quality as sacriji- 
Ix. 20 we are to understand demons as cial meat, it had lost its relation to the de- 
meant, mons, and had become ordinary meat, just 

" Mosheim objects that if Paul held this as Jewish sacrificial flesh, too, retained the 

belief, he must have pronounced the sacri- consecration of the altar only for him who 

flcial meal to be positively unclean. But ate it as such. 
it had surely received no character indelebil- 

230 Paul's first ?:pi3Tle to the corinthians. 

N. Test. I. p. 300 f. ; Weiss, bif>l. Theol. p. ^79. The ancient church, too, 
followed Paul in remaining true to this idea. See Grotius on tliis passage. 
Usteri, Lehrheyr. 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- 
cordino- 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 ho far the sacri- 
fices of the heathen were presented to demons. The LXX. rendering of 
Deut. xxxii. 17 and Ps. xcv. 5 should of itself have been enough to prevent 
any such paraphrase of the direct dative-relation. — ov dtlu 6e K.T.'k.'\ that /, 
hoicever, do not wish, still dependent upon oti^ the reply to -\ ovv <f>rini being 
only thus completed. The Kotvuvovg points back to koivuv. in ver. 18. The 
article in tuv Sai/i. denotes this class of beings. 

Ver. 21 gives the ground of the foregoing ov SfIu 6e vfia^ k.t.a. — oh 6vva<T6e'\ 
of moral impossibility. ' ' Nihil convenit inter Christum et impios daemo- 
nes ; utrisque serviri simul nou potest nisi cum iusigni contumelia Christi," 
Erasmus, Paraph. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 15. — Tror^piov Kvpiov] a cup having ref- 
erence to the Lord, i.e. according to ver. 16 : a cup which brings into communion 
with Christ. Its analogue is a Trorr/piov datnovluv ; the latter was quoad even- 
turn, 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 Koivuvohg riJv Saifiov. 
(ver. 20). — rpn-Kr/c Kvpiov] refers to the whole KvptaKov Se'nvvov, xi 20. In- 
stances of /.lE-exeiv with rpaivl:(,rjg, and like expressions, may be seen in Loes- 
ner, Obss. p. 288. 

Ver. 22. Or do we 2>rovoke the Lord to jealoxisy ? to prove that He will not 
suffer us to set Him on the same level with the demons ? The connection is 
this : " Ton cannot, etc., ver. 21, unless it were the case that tee Christians were 
people whose business it is to provoke Christ to jealousy.'''' Hence the indicative, 
which .should not be taken as deliberative, with Luther and others, includ- 
ing Pott, Flatt, and Riickert {or would we defy the Lord?), but : we occupy 
ourselves therewith, are engaged therein. Comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 370. 
The phrase, rhv Kvpiov, 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. — /^y laxvp- k.t.I.] 
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- 

> According to Hofmann, Paul means ^^rt/ tion on their part without becoming jeal- 

strength, wliich men must suppose tliein- ous. But the idea, " withi7npum(!/," would 

selves to possess if they are confident that be arbitrarily imported into the passage, 

they can take part u'ifh imimnity in the Tlie greater strength, upon this view of it, 

sacrificial feasts, whereas Christ can by no would be in truth the capacity— not existing 

means endure the sight of sucli participa- in Christ— to do what was morally Impossible 

CHAP. X., 23-25. ■ 337 

ostom already correctly notes the abductio ad cibsurdum, 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 liherty 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. Oram. p. 345 [E. T. 403], and enunciating in the first place the afore- 
said principle itself, coupled, however, with its qualifying condition of love. 
Thereafter in ver. 24 he lays down the general maxims arising out of this 
qualification ; and then in vv. 25 ff. the special rules bearing upon the eat- 
ing of meat offered in sacrifice. — o'luo^ojiel] promotes the Christian life of 
the brethren, viii. 1. Comp. on Rom. xiv. 19. See the counterpart to this 
in Rom. xiv. 18, 15, 20. — As to av/i<pef)Ei, see on vi. 12. 

Ver. 24. Let no one be striving to satisfy his men 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 fxdvov and Kai, 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 
olnoSofielv is included under this quite general rule, the application of which 
to the matter in dispute is not to come till afterwards. — After hlM we are 
mentally to supply eKaaror^ from the preceding iur/6eic. See Bernhardy, p. 
458 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 192 E, Hep. p. 366 C ;' Buttmann, neut. 
Or. p. 336 [E. T. 392]. 

Ver. 25. On fidicsXTiov, shambles, slaughter-house (Varro, de ling. Lat. 4, p. 
35 ; Dio Cass. Ixi. 18), see Kypke, II. p. 219. Comp. Plut. Mor. 752 C : 
fianelela. It passed over into the Rabbinical writings also ; see Drus. in loc. 
— jxrjSev avaKpLv. ] nuikiag no investigation (Vulg. interrogantes ; not : condemn- 
ing, as Grotius, Ewald, and others take it, contrary to the meaning of the 
word), i.e. instituting no inquiry about any of the pieces of meat exposed 
for sale, as to whether it had been offered in sacrifice or not. The weaker 
Christians, that is to say, were afraid of the possibility (see on viii. 7) of 
their buying sacrificial meat at the flesh-market, because they had not yet 
risen to see that the flesh of the victims when brought to the public mart 
had lost its sacrificial character and had become ordinary meat. They 
would probably, therefore, often enough make anxious inquiries over their 
jiurchases 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. — rfia ttjv aweidriaLv'] may 
b3 taken as referring either (1) to fiTj^iv avanpivovreg as to the required mode 
of the Tvav eaOieiv : eat all without inquiry, in order that your conscience 7nay 

(ver. 21). Had this, however, been the apos- ou Svvatr^e in ver. 21. According to the 
tie's meaning, he would have needed, in pi'esent order, the meaning of 1<tx"P- is de- 
order to be logical and intelligible, to re- termined by Tza.paC,T\\ovixiv to be the strength 
verse the order of his clauses, so that iuxv- which could make head against that of the 
pdrepoi should have its sense determined by ^^Aos thus aroused. 

238 Paul's fikst epistle to the corinthians. 

not he troubled, which would be the case if you were told : This is meat of- 
fered to idols (so Erasmus, Roseumuller, Hofmann, and others, following 
Chrysostom) ; ' or (2) simply to uvaKfjivovreg : icitlcout 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 6i.a r. cvveid., and also 
because of the rov yap Kvpiov k.t.'a. 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 Jlesh 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. 36. 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, Beugel, Mosheim, and others, including Flatt, 
Pott, Heydenreich, de Wette, Osiander, Maicr. Comp. viii. 7, 10. But it 
could occur to none of the apostle's readers to take -yv cvveid. as referring to 
anything but their own individual conscience. It is otherwise in ver. 28, 
where J<' eKelvov rov iiijvva. prepares us for the transition to the conscience of 
another person ; while the ovxi rbv eavrov in ver. 29 shows that in vv. 25 
and 37 it was just the reader's otrii conscience that was meant. 

Ver. 30 supplies the religious ground for the injunction just given : fi7/6ev 
(ivaKpivEiv Sia t. avveldr/aiv, expressed in the words of Ps. xxiv. 1 (comp. Ps. 
1. 13), which Paul here makes his own. (o') If the earth and its fulness 
belong to God, how should it be necessary before using somewhat of them 
for food to institute an investigation on grounds of conscience, as if such 
gifts of God could be in themselves unholy, or involve sin in the use of 
them ? Comp. 1 Tim. iv. 4. For the rest, the passage affords another ])roof 
that the apostle had now in principle gone beyond the standpoint of the 
decree of Acts xv. Comp. on viii. 1, Remark. — As to irX/jpu/ua, id, quo res 
impletur, see Fritzsche, ad Bom. II. p. 469 ff. Calvin had already put the 
point well : "Terra enim, si arboribus, herbis, animalibus et aliis rebus 
careret, esset tanquam domus . . . •eacwa." 

Ver. 37. Af ] of continuation. In the matter of invitations too the same 
principle holds good, only with the incidental limitation adduced in ver. 38. 
Note the emphasis conveyed by the unusual place of the Kalel, in contrast to 
the TO h iiaKklXu nukovfi. 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 Jiesh-marlcet ; now, he is a guest at a 
feast. — It is plain, at the same time, from ver. 28, that what is meant is not 

■ " Vitandum enim est offendiculum, si in his Paraphrase with fine exegetical di»- 
incidat, non accersendum," Erasmus adds cemment. 

CHAP. X., 28. 239 

the invitation to festivals in express connection with sacrifice, but to other 
heathen feasts, at which, however, flesh offered to idols might occur ; for 
in the case of a sacrificial feast the lep66vT6v hn was a matter of course. — 
Kal dklere Trop.] " Admonet tacite, melius forte facturos, si non eant, ire 
tamen non prohibet," Grotius. 

Ver. 28. 'Eav 6e rig k.t.I.'] But should it so happen that some one, etc. It 
is clear from this that the host (Grotius, Mosheim, Semler) is not meant, 
otherwise rig (ver. 37) would not be rejjeated, and besides, 6i kKslvov . . . 
(jweiSTjGLv would not suit ; but & fellow-guest, and that not a heathen (Chrys- 
ostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, al., including de Wette and Maier, according 
to whom the thing is done maliciously, or to put the Christian to the test'), 
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 sacriflcial 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 riq moi^e 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 iiipvcag, as 
was obviously implied of necessity in the 6ia after what had already been 
said in viii. 7-13. The r/?, therefore, must be one whose conscience re- 
quired to be spared, consequently neither a heathen nor a Jew, but, in ac- 
cordance with Adii. 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 hi?, family knew the guest as such. To leave the r/f thus 
indefinite is, besides, the more clearly wrong, seeing that the rule for buy- 
ing meat had been finally disposed of in vv. 25, 36, and cannot extend into 
ver, 38, because ver. 38 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. 35. — 6C kKslvov r. fitjvva. k. t. avveiS.] for the saA-e of Mm wlio 
made it hnown., and of conscience, i.e. in order to spare him and not to injure 
conscience. The {Sia) ryv awekhjaiv is the refrain which serves to give the 
motive for the rules laid down since ver. 25. To tchose conscience this re- 
frain points here, Paul does not yet say (else he would have added avrov), 
but utters again first of all this moral watchword without any more precise 
definition, in order immediately thereafter in ver. 29 to express with the 
special emphasis of contrast the particular reference of its meaning designed 

* Ewald, too, holds the tU to be a heathen * 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 a heathen festival at all, carries weight 

who gave the hint in a frank and kindly only on the supposition of a sacrijkial 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 avvEuhiaiq had a different meaning. This k. t. 
avveiih/aiv, therefore (the Kai here being the simple nvcT), 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 firiv'va., see 
on Luke xx. 37. If we imagine the fiijvva. to be a heathen, the «. r. aweii. 
lands us in an insoluble difficulty. For either (1) we should, with Ewald, 
sui)])ose that this heathen's view of the matter Avas, that the Christian, being 
warned, would not eat, but, on the other hand, if he did, w^ould be still 
worse than a Jew, converting liberty into licentiousness ; comp. Erasmus, 
Parnphr.'^ But in that case how very obscurely Paul would have expressed 
himself, especially when in the whole context awec^T/aig means tJie Christian 
consciousness raising scrtqiles for itself, and that in respect of what was law- 
ful or unlawful ! Or (2) we should have, with de Wettc, to take ttjv awei- 
6>iaLv as not the conscience of the /jtjvvg. 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. — iepodvTov] used of 
sacrificial flesh also in Plutarch, Mor. p. 729 C. The term is purposely 
chosen here instead of £i6u2.66vtov, as a more honourable expression, because 
the words are sjDoken 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 rfm r. cvveiS. as 
meaning one's oion conscience, as in vv. 25, 27, and so wi.sunderstand Paul 
with his high views of Christian freedom, he adds here this emphatic ex- 
planation, and the reason in which it rests (IvaTi yap . . . ver. 30). — ryv 
eavTov] his own individual conscience, his, namely, who was warned. — tov 
hkpov] of the other in ths case, points back to the rbv fiTjviaavTa, whose con- 
science, too, is afterwards included under all7]q GweiSyceug. — Ivari yap k.t.A. ] 
For why is my liberty, etc., that is : for it is absurd that another man^s con- 
science should jwonounce sentence (of condemnation) upon my liberty (ray moral 
freedom from obligation as regards such things, indifferent as they are in 
themselves). This is the reason, why Paul does not mean one's own con- 
science when he says that to spare conscience one should abstain from eat- 
ing in the case supposed (ver. 28), but the conscience of the other. One's 
own conscience, the distinctive moral element in one's own self-conscious- 
ness, does not need such consideration ; for it remains unaffected by the 
judgment passed and slander uttered, seeing that both are without founda- 
tion. The only motive for the abstinence, therefore, is the sparing of the 
conscience of others, not the danger to one's own. Similarly Bengel ; comp. 
de Wette. The ordinary interpretation ^ is that of Chrysostom, taking the 

> Hence t. aweiS. should not be under- have occasion to form, so that the Ohris^ 

stood of conscience in abHracto (Hofinann : tiaii's liberty would be subject to the tribu- 

" conscience as such, no matter vviiose," nal of the moral consciousness of others, 
although in </;<'.^/V //ffcv that of the nijvutr.). 'Adopted by Heydenreich, Flatt, Bill- 

" Similarly Ilofniann also thinks of the roth, Kiickert, Olshausen, Neander, Maier, 

"bad opinion of Christianity" which the Ewald, Hofmann ; Osiander is undecided. 
(iTjci/V. first of all, but others as well, would 

CHAP. X., 31, 33. 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 aweiSr/aiv . . . arepov, and to thrust it aside as some- 
thing only incidentally appended. The connection, too, of the conditional 
protasis with the interrogative H in the apodosis in ver. 30, makes it clear 
enough that Paul wishes to bring out the ahsurdity of the relation between 
the two conceptions. Comp. Rom. iii. 7, al. Vatablus, Schulz, and Pott 
find here and in ver. 30 the objection of an opponent "ad iufirmitatem fra- 
trum suorum se conformare uolentis." The yap is not inconsistent with this 
(see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 807), but the ovv is (ver. 31). — Observe the dif- 
ference between tov irepov {alterius) and allriQ {alius, i.e. alienae), by which 
an2/ other conscience wimtever is meant. — ja/o«r<] Dative of the manner : 
gratefully^ with thanJcs. 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 benejicio Dei (Beza, 
Grotius, Heydenreich, Hofmann), we bring in Dei entirely without warrant, 
and overlook the parallel ebxapiaTG), the idea of which is the same with that 
of x^piTi. — The twice-used iydj is emphatic : / for my part. — juerexu] The 
object of the verb is self-evident : food and drink. Comp. vwep ov. — evxa- 
piaro)] ' ' 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 ovv 
(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 ; anb tov nponeLfitvov hnl to KaOolinbv i^ijyaye tijv 
TrapaivEOcv, eva mTJiLGTov bpov 7'j[uv 6ovg, rb Tbv Qebv 6id ttclvtuv do^d^eadat, Chrys- 
ostom. — ka6kTE and niveTs are to be understood in a perfectly general sense, 
although the subject which the apostle had been handling hitherto naturally 
suggested the words. Rixckert is wrong in holding that it would be more 
correct if mv stood in place of el. The el is here also " particula plane 
logica, et quae simpliciter ad cogitationem refertur," Hermann, ad Viger. 
p. 834. T/, again, does not stand for the Attic otlovv (Riickert), but the 
emphasis is on noielTe : be it that ye eat, or drink, or do anything ; so that 
the three cases are : eating, drinhing, acting. — ndvTa] without any limita- 
tion whatever. " Magnum axioma," Bengel. A Christian's collective action 
should be directed harmoniously towards the one end of redounding to the 
glory of 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 
XV. 8. The opposite : Rom. ii. 23. (p') 

Ver. 32. 'ATrpbaKOTrot] become inoffensive (by constantly increasing com- 
pleteness of Christian virtue). See on Phil. i. 10. — /cat 'lov6. ml "EA;i. /cat 


T. ekkX. Toil &eov] i.e. fornon- 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, wliich is at variance with 
Kal rfj tKKk. Tov Qeov, since the three repetitions of mi stand on the same 
level. Hence also it will not do to lay all the emphasis, as Billroth does, 
upon TTj ekkI. tov Qeov, although it is true that it is designated in a signifi- 
cant way, as in xi. 22. The rule is clearly quite a general one ; and it 
places on the same level the three classes with whom intercourse must be 
held without giving any occasion for moral offence. 

Ver. 33. Yldv-a Tvaciv upkoKu] See ix. 19 fE. ■ndv-a, in ecery respect, ix. 25. 
dpfaKG), am at the service of. It denotes what takes jilace 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 -jzacLv apecnEiv tov av/ij3ov?.EvovTn kuI to. koivo. 
npaTTovTa aSbvarov, Dem. 1481.4. Comp. Rom. xv. 2 ; 1 Thess. ii. 4. — tuv 
TToA^wi^] 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 : !^t]teIv to KoivGxpeMg 7zaou>, Kal jifi to eavTov. — iva atJ^Com] 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," 

Notes by American Editor. 

(j') " In the cloud." Ver. 2. 

This view agrees with the representation of the cloud in the Rabbinical 
books : " It encompassed the camp of the Israelites as a wall encompasses 
a city." It is hardly necessary to make miieh of the typical relation upon 
which Meyer insists. The point of similarity which the Apostle makes is that 
the display of God's power in the cloud and in the sea constituted the people 
disciples of Moses. "It inaugurated the congregation, and, as it were, bap- 
tized them to him, bound them to serve and follow him." There cannot be 
an allusion to the mode of baptism, because, so far as appears, the people were 
neither immersed nor sprinkled. 

The privileges mentioned in this verse and the one following are such as 
correspond most nearly with the two Christian sacraments. This is the only 
passage where they are thus brought into juxtaposition. Neander as well as 
Bengel views the fact as a testimony in favour of the Protestant doctrine that 
there are only two sacraments. 

(k') 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 histoiy 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. 

(l') a slip of memory. Ver. 8. 

There is no need of assuming any such slip, because Paiil'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 

(m') " Qod is faithful." Ver. 13. 

The author hardly gives the exact sense of these words. Still less does 
Stanle3% 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- 

(n') " 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 
ministrj', 2 Cor. viii. 4 ; of the Gospel, Phil. i. 5 ; of sufferings, Phil. iii. 5. Of 
course, the nature of the participation depends on the nature of its object. 
Here it cannot mean a literal partaking of the substance of Christ's body and 
blood, since, not to mention other reasons, when the supper was instituted the 
body of Christ was not yet broken nor His blood shed. It must mean therefore 
the appropriation of the results of His sacrifice, the appropriation being 
mediated by this ordinance when there exists faith in the communicant. 

(o') " The earth is the Lard's" etc. Ver. 26. 
This is said by Wetstein to have been the common Jewish form of acknowl- 
edgment and thanksgiving before meals, and probably was the early Eucha- 
ristic blessing. This fact would give the greater weight to the citation of it as 
an evidence that nothing is unclean in itself, or can become polluting if used in 
obedience to the design of its creation. 

(pi) " 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 secures all other ends (such as our own welfare, the good of 
others, etc.) by making them subordinate, while at the same time it exalts the 
soul by placing before it an infinite personal object. Between this and mak- 
ing being in general the end of our actions, there is all the difference that there 
is between the love of and the love of an abstract idea. The one is re- 
ligion, the other is morality (Hodge). 

CHAP. XI. 245 


Ver. 2. a6e2.<l>oi} is wanting in A B C K, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Athan. 
Cyr. Bas. Chrys. Deleted by Lachm. and Eiickert. 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. iavrf/^] avry^ 
(Lachm.) occurs inACD*FGL X, min. Chrys. Theodoret, al. This is such 
a preponderance of evidence against the Becepta (preferred by Tisch. on the 
authority of B E K Or.), that we must suppose the latter to be an exegetical 
change for the sake of clearness. — Ver. 7. -yvvrj] A B D* F G X, 73, 118, Dial. 
Isid. Theodoret read i) yvvfj, which is adopted by Lachm. Kiick. 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. ?/] is 
wanting in witnesses of decisive authority ; deleted by Lach. Eiick. Tisch. 
Added to mark the question. — aiir^ r/ ^vaiq'] A B C D H X, min. Damasc. have 
7j (pvaig avTTj (so Lachm. and Tisch.) ; F G Arm. Tert. simply ^ <pvaig. In the 
absence of grounds of an internal kind, the weight of evidence on the side of 
T/ (p. ai'Tfi should make it be preferred. — Ver. 17. -rvapayyiTiXuv . . . sTraifu] 
Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read napa-yyiXXu . . . knaivuv, on the authority of A B C* 
F G min. Syr. utr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Clar. Born. Ambrosiast. Aug. Pel. 
Bede. This is a preponderance of evidence — all the more that D*, with its 
reading of napayyeXku, ovk kiratvo), must here remain out of account. Then, too, 
ver. 2 compared with ver. 22 made ovk e-naLvCj 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. irpolafifiavei.'] A, 46, al. have ■KpoaAajxfi. So Riickert. 
But this is plainly an alteration, because the irpo, prae, was not understood. — 
Ver. 22. eTTuivsau] So also Lachm. on the margin (but with efcaivo) in the text) 
and Tisch., following A C D E K L K, all min., several vss. Chrys. Theodoret. 
The present crept in from its occurrence before and after. — Ver. 24. After dnt 
Elz. has 'AdjieTE, (pdyere ; but in the face of decisive evidence. Taken from 
Matt. xxvi. 26. — kIu/ievov] omitted in A B C* K*, 17, 67**, Ath. Cyr. Fulg. 
In D* we have OpyrrTOfievov ; in Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. al, 6i66/xevov. Justly 
suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. R,iick. Tisch. Mere supplements. 
— Ver. 26. The tovto which stands after norijpiov in Elz. is condemned by de- 
cisive evidence. So, too, the tovtov, which Elz. has after uprov in ver. 27, is a 
later addition. — Ver. 29. ava^ujc does not occur in A B C N*, 17, Sahid. Aeth. ; 
nor does tov Kvplov (after au/na) 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 de instead of yap. The latter is an explanatory altera- 
tion. — Ver. 34. el^ Elz. has el Si ; 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 there was as yet a sad lack of jiractical evidence 
of this imitation ; see also x. 33 (comp. Kiihner, ud Xen. Anal. i. 7. 4). — 
myu] OS I also have become an imitator, namely, of Christ. Comp. on Matt. 
XV. 3. Christ as the highest pattern of the spirit described in x. 33. Comp. 
Phil. ii. 4 ff. ; Rom. xv. 3 ; Eph. v. 2 ; Matt. xx. 28. 

Ver. 2. Conciliatory preamble to the sharp correction which follows. — 
6e] 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 fiiur/rai and ntfivrjade. 
— navTo] because you are in all respects mindful of me. Rilckert's explana- 
tion : " you think on everything that comes from me''"' (xvi. 14), is needlessly 
far-fetched, seeing that fie^ivrj^ai with the accusative, very frequent in Greek 
writers, does not occur in the N. T., and the absolute iravTa is common 
enough (ix. 25, x. 32). — koI KuOug k.t.1.] and hecause you Iwld fast the tra- 
ditions in the vnay in which I delivered them to you. This is the practical 
result of what was stated in the foregoing clause. Uapa^oaeig 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.yn. p. 803 A ; Polyb. xi. 8. 2) ; but 
the tenor of the following context shows that Paul means here directions 
of the latter sort, which he had given to the Corinthians orally (and also 
perhaps in his lost letter, v. 2). He had, at the foundation of the church 
and afterwards, made various external regulations, and rejoices that, on the 
whole, they had not set these aside, but were holding them fast in accord- 
ance with his directions (/ca^^;^;e-e, comp. xv. 2 ; 1 Thess. v. 21 ; Heb. iii. 
6, X. 23). As to the connection of TrapeduKa . . . napaSoaeic, 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 2}rincij)le of the succeeding admonition. Respecting delu . . . eliUvai, 
comp. on X. 1 ; Col. ii. 1. — Kavrbg avSp.\ note the prominent position of 
the word, as also the article before Ketp. : 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. IG 
f., ii. 10), but -of the organization of Christian fellowship, as it is based 
upon the work of redemption. Comp. Eph. v. 21 ff. — Ket^ali], 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 

' Much fruitless trouble has been taken der), now the Christ-party (Olshausen), and 

to connect even the non-veilinfj of the wow the foUoivers of ApoUos {Via\3\scr),Y!'ho 

women with the state of parties at Corinth. have been represented as the opponents of 

Now it lias been the rauline iMvty (Neau- veiling. 

CHAP. XL, 4. 247 

as head of the church (Col. i. 18 ; Eph. i. 22, iv. 15) is also head of the 
woman (comjj. Eph. v. 22 f.). The relation indicated by Ke(f). is that of 
organic subordination, even in the last clause : He to whom Christ is subor- 
dinate is Ood (comp. iii. 23, xv. 28, viii. 6 ; Col. i. 15 ; Rom. ix. 5 ; and see 
Kahnis, Dogm. III. p. 208 flf.), where the dogmatic explanation resorted to, 
that Christ in His human nature only is meant (Theodoret, Estius, Calovius, 
al.), is un-Pauline. Neither, again, is His voluntary subjection referred to 
(Billroth), but — which is exactly what the argument demands, and what 
the two first clauses give us — the objective and, notwithstanding His essen- 
tial equality with God (Phil. ii. 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. — ke^. 6e X. 6 
Gedf] The gradation of rank rises up to the supreme Head over all, who is 
the Head of the ma?i also, mediately, through Christ. This makes it all 
the more obvious that, on the one hand, the man who prays or speaks 
as a prophet before God in the assembly ought not to have his head cov- 
ered, see ver. 7 ; but that, on the other hand, the relation of the women 
under discussion is all the more widely to be distinguished from that of 
the men. 

Ver. 4. First inference from the aforesaid gradation of rank. — This infer- 
ence is a plea of privilege for the men, which was but to prepare the way for 
the censure next to be passed upon the women. Had Paul meant to cor- 
i-ect the men because they had prayed or preached as prophets at Corinth 
with their heads covered (Chrysostom and many of the older commenta- 
tors ; see against this view, Bengel, and especially Storr, Opusc. II. p. 283), 
he would have gone into the matter more in detail, as he does in what fol- 
lows respecting the women. — Trpoatvx. ] of praying aloud in the public 
assemblies. For that Paul is giving instructions for the sphere of chiirch-life, 
not for family icorship (Hofmann), is quite clear from the iTpo<bT]TEveiv added 
here and in ver. 5, which does not suit the idea of the private devotions of 
a husband and wife, like the (;xo'^aC,Eiv ry Tcpoaevxri in vii. 5, but always 
means the public use for general edification of the ;^;d/j<(7/m referred to, name- 
ly, that of apocalyptic utterance (Acts ii. 17 1, xix. 6, xxi. 9; 1 Cor. xiii. 
and xiv. ; Matt. vii. 23). Moreover, vv. 5 f . and 10 presuppose publicity ; 
as indeed d 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, sad wi«i«fe7'ii."— Even 

caput Cliristi, non de essentia dicitur, sed the exalted and reigning Christ is engaged 

de ministei-iis. Pilius mediator accipit min- in this ministei-ium, and finally delivers up 

isterium a consilio divinitatis, sicut saepe the kingdom to the Father. See xv. 28. 
inquit : Pater misit me. Fit hie mentio non 


public occasion of offence that such precepts could aloiie 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 nepifiSXaiov, and that, if she 
failed to do so, she stamped herself as a harlot (ver. 5 f.) ! — To take irpo- 
aevx- as equivalent to ylucaai^ lalelv (Baur) is not justified by xiv. 13, 
although speaking with tongues may have occurred in connection with pub- 
lic prayer by women. — 7Tpo^;/r.] See on xii. 10. The force of the partici- 
j)les is : Every man, when he prays or speaks as a prophet, while he has, etc. 
— Kara K£(f>. ix'^'"] *^- ''''• ^^^ Fritzsche, Conjeet. I. p. 36. Buttmann, 7ieyt. 
Or. p. 127 [E. T. 146]. Having (something) doirn 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 f. 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. 
iii. 407 ; Dougt. Anal. II. p. 116). The Hellenic usage had naturally be- 
come the prevalent one in the Hellenic churches, and had also commended 
itself to the discriminating eye of the apostle of the Gentiles as so entirely 
in accordance with the divinely ajipointcd position of the man (ver. 3), that 
for the man to cover his head seemed to him to cast dishonour on that posi- 
tion. — Karaiax- ttjv Ke<p. avTov] So, with the sjuritus lenis, avrov should be 
written, from the standpoint of the speaker, consequently without any re- 
flex reference (his own head), which the context does not suggest. The 
emphasis of the predicate lies rather on KaTaiaxvvEi, as also in ver. 5. Every 
man, when he prays, etc., dislionours his head. Li what respect he does so, 
ver. 3 has already clearly indicated, namely (and this meets Baur's objec- 
tion to the apostle's argument, that the duty of being veiled should attach 
to the man also from his dependence, ver. 3), inasmuch as he cannot repre- 
sent any submission to human authority by a veil on his head without there- 
by sacrificing its dignity. His head ought to show to all (and its being 
uncovered is the sign of this) that no man, but, on the contrary, Christ, 
and through Him God Himself, is Head (Lord) of the man. We are to 
understand, therefore, rfjv KE(pal7jv avrov quite simjily like Kara K£(pa?.^c, of the 
hodili/ 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 Ketpn^fj, namely, in the literal 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. 

" Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Flatt, Ewald, Neander. 

CHAP. XI., 5. 249 

Ver. 5. A second inference of an op2:)osite kind from ver. 3, namely, with 
respect to the women. — Prayer and prophetic utterances in meetings on the 
part of the women are assumed here as allowed. In xiv. 34, on the contrary, 
silence is imposed upon them ; comp. also 1 Tim. ii. 13, 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 puhlio 
assembly of the congregation, the whole sKKXr/ala, that is sjioken 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 irpocevxeaf^ai ?/ TrfjodT/Tevetv of the women, and at the same 
time cannot mean family worsliip 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 jieculiar 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 w^hat 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 
2)ostponing 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, vdth Grotius, that in xiv. 34 
we must understand as an exception to the rule : ' ' nisi speciale Dei man- 
datum habeant." — arara/caliiTrrcj] Polyb. xv. 27. 2. As to the dative, see 
Winer, p. 203 [E. T. 271]. — t?)v Ke<pa?L.. avTTjg] — see the critical remarks — 
is, like T. Ke(j). avTov 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 sho?'n head the uncm^ered one is on a par. — ev yap ken 
/c.r.A.] for she is nothing else, nothing better, than she who is shorn. As 
the long tresses of the head were counted a womanly adornment among Jews 
and Gentiles, so the hair shorn off was a sign either of mourning (Deut. xxi. 
12 ; Homer, Od. iv. 198, xxiv. 46 ; Eurip. Or. 458; Hermann, Privatalterth. 
§ xxxix. 28) or of shamelessness (Eisner, Ohss. 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. — ev k. to avrd] emphatic: unum idemque. 
See instances in Kypke, II. p. 220. The subject to this is ivaaa yvvfj k.t.A., 
not the appearing uncovered, so that strictly it ought to have been rw 
k^v(>?ja0ai (Billroth). And the neuter is used, because the subject is regarded 
as a general conception. Comp. iii. 8. Respecting the dative, see Kiihuer, 

250 Paul's fikst epistle to the cokinthians. 

II. p. 244; Kruger, § xlviii. 14. 9. — The form fvpuw has less authority in 
Attic writters than fiyjtu. See Lobeck, (ul Phryn. p. 205. 

Eemark. - The evil, which Paul here rebukes with such sharpness and de- 
cision, must have broken OTit 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 TertuUian (de virginib. velaiul.) unwarrantably applies 
our passage to them also. 

Ver. 6 gives the ground of ev tan k.t.I., ver. 5. That ground is, that the 
step from not being covered to being shorn is only what ammstency 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 icoman jnits on no covering, 
when she has once become no 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 Ilofmann). To understand it simply 
as a permission, does not suit the conclusion; comp. on the contrary 
KaraKaXvivTEaOu. — to KEtp. fj ^vpdcBai] "Plus est radi (ff/).) quam tonderi," 
Grotius. Comp. Valckenaer. avp. means to shave, with the razor (^vp6v). 
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 KaraKaA-v-rrTtadu, consequently 
a second ground for the proposition under discussion (the first being vv. 
3-6). The argument sets out again (comp. ver. 3) e contrario. — om o^dAct] 
does not mean : he is not 'bound, which, as ver. 3 shows, would not be enough ; 
but: he ought not, etc., in contrast to the woman who ought (vv. 5, 10). 
Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 14. — e'ikuv k. 66^a K.r.7.] 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 (avf/p) is the image of God (Gen. i. 26 f.), inasmuch as he, being 
Adam's representative, has dominion over the earth. Other elements of 
what constitutes the image of God are not, according to the context, taken 
into account here, nor are the ecclesiastical definitions of it. Pie is also the 
glory of Ood, inasmuch as, being the image of God, he, in his ajipearance as 
man, practically repres(>nts on earth in a human way the majesty of God as 
a ruler. Ruckert, following older interpreters (given in Wolf), holds that 

CHAP. XI., 10. 251 

So^a is meant here as the rendering of niD'l, Gen. i. 26; as also, the LXX., 
in Num. xii. 8, Ps. xvii. 15, transhites njIDJ^ by rfofa. But had Paul wished 
to convey the meaning of niO'n, a passage so important and so familiar as 
Gen. i. 26 would certainly have suggested to him the word used there by 
the LXX., ojjioiuaiQ. Adf a corresponds simply to the Hebrew ni3D. — Paul 
describes only the man as being the image and do^a of God ; for he has in his 
eye the relation of marriage, in which rule is conferred on the man alone. 
The woman accordingly has, in harmony with the whole connection of the 
passage, to appear simply as do^a av6p6(;, inasmuch, namely, as her whole 
wedded dignity, the high position of being spouse of the man, proceeds 
from the man and is held in obedience to him ; so that the woman does not 
carry an independent glory of her own, an ISia do^a, but the majesty of the 
mati reflects itself in her, passing over to her mediately and, as it were, by 
derivation, (q') Grotius compares her happily to the moon as "lumen 
minus sole." This exposition of 66^a avdpuc is the only one which suits the 
context, and corresponds in concejjtion to the preceding 66^a Qeov, without 
at the same time anticipating what is next said in vv. 8, 9. The conception 
of the (^6^a, which is Qeov in case of the man and avSpog in that of the woman, 
is determined by the idea of the o7'do 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 ei/vuv 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 leoman, 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 ci'eated 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 in again, but 6id, which, however, considering 
how familiar the history was, throws no doubt upon the genuineness of the 
EK. In Koi yap the Kal (which has the force of even indeed, Hartung, I. p. 
135) belongs to ovk. EKTiaQi]. The present genetic relation of the two sexes, 
ver. 8, began as early as the creation of the first pair, (k') 

Ver. 10. A<d TovTo] namely, because the relation of the woman to the man 
is such as has been indicated in vv. 7-9. — i^ovciav ejew knl rijc /ce^.] to have 
a power, i.e. the sign of a power (to wit, as the context shows, of her husband's 
power, under which she stands), upon her head ; by which the apostle means 
a covering for the head} So Chrysostom,'^ Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
lact, with the majority both of ancient and modern commentators, including 

' Luther's gloss is : " That is the veil or And on ver. 7 he says : As the man ought 
covering, by which one may see that she is to pray uncovered in token of his a.pxy\, so 
under her husband's authority, Gen. iii. for the woman it is a mark of presumption 

16." TO ;u.T) exetv Ta <TUfi/3oAa T^s iiTroTay^?. 

* 'Apa TO KaAvTrTcat^at VTroTOY^? icat e^ovaias. 

252 Paul's first epistle to the couinthians. 

van Hengel, Annot. p. 175 flf. ; Liicke in the Shid. u. Krit. 1828, p. 571 f., 
Billroth, Riickert, Olshauscn, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Ncauder, Maier, 
Weiss, Vilmar in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 465 f. ; comp. Diistcrdieck in 
the Sttid. u. Krit. 1863, p. 707 flE. Just as in Diodor. Sic. i. 47, in the 
phrase £;i;oii(Tav rpuq (iaaiXeiag knl rfjq KE(p., the context shows beyond a doubt 
that fiatj. means sj'mbols of one^s own power (diadems), so here the connection 
justifies the use of i^ovaia 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 Ilofmann objects. Comp. also the or- 
naments of the Egyptian priests, which, as being symbols of truth, bore the 
name of akifiua^ Diod. Sic. i. 48. 77 ; Ael. V. H. xiv. 34. Schleusner ex- 
]jlains i^ova. as a tolcen of the honoxir (of the married women over the single). 
But both the context (ver. 9) and the literal meaning of i^ovcia are against 
this. Bengel and Schrader make it a sign of authority to speak in public. 
But the whole connection points to the authority of the husband over the 
wife. There is not a word in the whole passage about the potestas orandi, 
etc., nor of its being granted by the husband (Schrader). Hagenbach's view 
(Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 401) is also contrary to the context, seeing that we 
have previously Jm tov avSpa ; he understands k^ovala as a mark of descent. 
Paul, he holds, formed the word ujion the analogy of Trapovcia «.-.?.., — 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 
e^ovaia 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. Jahrl). 1854, p. 129 ff., gives out the term to be a Jeirish- Greek one, 
derived from tf laov ; 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 i^ovala, poicer, is so very familio/r 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 t^ laov, that is simply an etymological 
impossibility. Other interpreters still assume that k^ova. means here not a 
sign of pow^er, but power itself. So, in various preposterous ways, earlier 
commentators cited by Wolf ; and so more recently Kyjjke and Pott. The 
former puts a comma after i^ovaia, and explains the clause : " propterea 
mulier potestati obnoxia est, ita iit velamen (comp. ver. 4) in capite habeat." 
But the sense of b<peiAi;iv n would rather have required v-uKoi/v in place of 
k^ovaiav. Pott again (in the Gotting. Weihnachtsprogr. 1831, p. 22 ff.) ren- 
ders it : "mulierem oportet servare jus sen polestatem 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 
over herself, andi far that very reason ought to wear a veil. Hofmann, too, 
rejects the symbolical explanation of e^ovaia, and finds the metajihorical ele- 
ment simply in the local import of the phrase tnl KEipaTiTji; (comparing it with 
such passages as Acts xviii. G, where, however, the idea is wholly different 

CHAP. XL, 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. tVe 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. Jalirb. 1852, p. 571 flf., are too remote). We have 
the more reason, therefore, to agree with Liicke in ascribing it to the inge- 
nious apostle himself, however old the custom itself — that married women 
should wear veils in public — was in Hebrew usage (Ewald, Alterth. p. 269 
f.). — 6ia Tovg ayyeTiovg] which Baur uncritically holds to be a gloss — a view 
to which Neander also was inclined — is not a formula ohsecrandi (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 
{6ia TovTo) an outward one : " for the sake of the angels," in order to avoid 
exciting disappj'oval among them. ' Tovg ayyelovg al6icdr/Ti, Chrysostom. Eras- 
mus puts it well in his Paraphrase : ' ' Quodsi mulier eo venit impudentiae, 
ut testes hominum oculos non vereatur, saltern ob angelos testes, qui 
vestris conventibus intersunt, caput operiat." That the holy angels are 
present at assemblies for worship, is an idea which Paul had retained from 
Judaism (LXX. Ps. cxxxviii. 1 ; Tob. xii. 12 f . ; Buxtorf, Synag. 15, p. 
306 ; Grotius in loc; Eisenmenger, entdecM. Judenth. H. 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 Tri/i. xii. 7; Theodoret, comp. Theophylact), seeing 
that he nowhere says anything definite about them. Other expositors make 
the reference to be to the hul angels, who would be incited to wantonness 
by the unveiled women (Tert. c. Marc. v. S :, de virg. vel. 7, aZ.),' or might 
incite the men to it (Schoettgen, Zeltner, Mosheim), or might do harm to 
the uncovered women (Wetstein, Semler). Others, again, understand it to 

1 [So Hodge, Lange's Com., Stanley, that relation to the woman which is assigned 
Princ. Brown, Speaker's Com., Ellicott's to her husband.''' Hilgenfeld too, in his 
Com., and Beet.— T. W. C] Zeitschr. 1864, p. 18.3, makes it refer to the 

2 Since the apostle is speaking of meet- story in the Book of Enoch, 5 f., about the 
ings for worship, it is unsuitable to make transgression. of the angels with the daugh- 
the reference be to the angels as witnesses ters of men. What an importing of carnal 
of the creation of the first pair; so van Hen- litst ! And were not the women whom the 
gel, Annot. p. 181 f., following a Schol. in apostle here warns in part matrons and 
Matthiae. Any allusion to Gen. vi. 1-4 (sug- gray-headed dames ! 

gested already by Tertullian, al. Comp. ' q^^gi^ xil. Pair. p. 529 should not be ad- 

also Kurtz, d. Ehen d. Sohne Gottes, p. 177, duced here (against Bretschneider). The 

and Hofmann) is wholly foreign to the pas- passage contains a warning against the 

sage. Hofmann imports into it the idea : vanity of head-ornament, the seductive 

"thatthespirits which have sway in the cor- character of which is proved by an argu- 

poreal world might be tempted to enter into ment a tnajori ad minus. 

254 Paul's first epistle to the coeintdians. 

Taesm piovs men (Clem. Alex.), or the Christian prophets (Beza), or those pre- 
siding in the congregation (Anibrosiaster), or those deputed to bring about 
betrothals (Lightfoot). or unfriendly sjries (Ileumann, Alethius, Schulz, Moms, 
Storr, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Scbrader) — all mere attempts at explana- 
tion, which are sufficiently disposed of by the single fact that ayyeXoi, 
when st&nding absolutely in theN. T., always denotes good angels alone. See 
on iv. 9. The correct exposition is given also by Diisterdieck, I.e., who 
shows well the fine trait of apostolic mysticism in 6m tovq ayyeTiovg. 

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 their own position. Hence the caveat which now 
follows {knayEL tt/v diopduaiv, 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 
{kv Kvpiui), that neither does the woman stand severed from the man, i.e. in- 
dependent of, and without bond of fellowship with, him, nor vice versa. 
They are united as Christian spouses (comp. ver. 3) in mutual dependence, 
each belonging to the other and supplying what the other lacks ; neither 
of the parties being a separate independent person. The h Kvpicj 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 iv Kvf}i(f) as predicative definition : " neither does the woman stand in 
connection with Christ without the man, nor vice versa,'''' this would resolve 
itself either into the meaning given by Grotius : " Dominus neque viros 
exclusis feminis, neque feminas exclusis viris redemit ;" or into Hofmann's 
interpretation, that in a Christian marriage the relation to the Lord is a 
common one, shared in by the two parties alike. But both of these ideas 
are far too obvious, general, and commonjilace to suit the context. 01s- 
hausen (comp. Beza) renders it, '■^by the arrangement of Ood.'''' But 'ev Kvpiu 
is the statedly used term for Christ ; the reference to the divine arrangement 
comes in afterwards in ver. 12. 

Ver. 12. For, toere 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. — rj yvvt/ ek tov 
av6p.] se. ean, namely, in respect of origination at first. Comp. ver. 8. — o 
avTjp f5m TTiq yvv.'\ in respect of origination now. 'Ek 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. ; dia again the mediate origin by birth, all men 
being yevvr/Tnl yvvaiKuv, Matt. xi. 11 ; Gal. iv. 4. Paul might have repeated 
the EK in the second clause also (Matt. i. 16 ; Gal. iv. 4), but he wished to 
mark the difference between the first and the continued creation. And in 
order to bring out the sacred character of the moral obligation involved in 
this genetic relation of mutual dependence, he adds : ra 6e navra ek t. Oeov : 
nmc all this, that we have been treating of ("vir, niulier et alterius utrius 
mutua ab altero depcndentia," Bengel), is from God, proceeding from and 

CHAP, XI., 13-15. . 255 

ordered by Him. As regards this ek, comp. 3 Cor. v. 18 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; 
Rom. xi. 36. 

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 {ohds) teach you 
the opposite ? — kv v/ilv avrolg] without any influence from without ; comp. 
X. 15. — T(f) Qe(f)] superfluous in itself, but added for the sake of emphasis, in 
order to impress upon them the more deeply the unseemliness of the un- 
covered state in which the woman comes forward to deal with the Most High 
in prayer. — Regarding the different constructions with Tipkivov ean, see Butt- 
mann, neut. Gr. p. 239 [E. T. 278]. — The cpvaic is the natural relation of the 
judgment and feeling to the matter in question, — the native, inborn sense 
and perception of what is seemly. This instinctive consciousness of pro- 
priety had been, as respected the point in hand, established by custom and 
had become <pvaic- Comp. Chrysostom. The manifold discussions, to little 
purpose, by the old commentators regarding the meaning of ^vaic, may be 
seen in Poole's Synojjsis, and in Wolf. It is here, as often in Greek writers 
(comj). 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 utl avijp K.r.'k. would go much 
too far and be unwarranted. Were we, again, to assume that on does not 
depend at all on diddaKei, but gives the ground for the question, so that 
SiddcKeL 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 bn instead of con- 
veying his meaning with clearness and precision by yap ! And even apart 
from this objection as to the form of expression, we cannot surely suppose 
that the apostle would find in a fact of aesthetic custom (vv. 14, 15) — that 
is to say, a something in its own nature accidental, and subsisting as an 
actual fact only for the man accustomed to it — the confirmation of what the 
order of things in conformity with their creation teaches, (s') — avri]\ inde- 
pendently of all other instruction. — Upon the matter itself {K.6fi7]v de hxeiv kcu 
EVKOfiav elvai jvvatKUTepdv eari, Eustath. ad II. iii. p. 288), see Perizonius, ad 
Ael. V. H. ix. 4 ; Wetstein in loc. In ancient times, among the Hellenes, 
the luxuriant, carefully-tended hair of the head was the mark of a free man 
(see generally, Hermann, Privataltei'th. § xxiii. 13 ff.). Comp. also 2 Sam. 
xiv. 25 f. In the church, both by councils and popes, the Ko/uorpocpelv was 
repeatedly and strictly forbidden to the clergy. ' See Decretal, lib, iii. tit. 

1 If we are to look upon the tonsure, how- held by the apostle in our text. Long hair 

ever, as a symbol of the spiritual life in on the head is a 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 

35G Paul's fikst epistle to the corinthians. 

i. caf. 4. 5. T. — oti n kohtj avrl izepLJi. <5tJ.] Ground for long hair being an 
ornament to a woman : because it is given to lier instead of a veil, to take its 
place, to be, as it were, a natural veil. TMs again implies that to wear a 
veil, as in the case in band, is a decorous thing. For if the k(5///; is an hon- 
our for a woman because it is given to her in place of a veil, then the veil itself 
too must be an honour to her, and to lay it aside in prayer a disgrace. 
^^ Naturae debet responderewZji«to8," Bengel. Ilepi^67^aiov, something thrown 
round one a covering in general (see the Lexicons, and Schleusner, Thes. IV. 
p. 289), has here a special reference to the veil {KaXhwrpa, Kalvfifia) spoken of 
in the context. 

Vcr. 16. The apostle has done with the subject ; but one word more of 
warning now against all controversy about it. — Soke'i] Vulg. : "si quis autem 
videtur contentiosus esse." This would imply that sort of forbearing cour- 
tesy in the (Jo/ceZ, 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, Lex. Xen. I. p. 757 f. So de Wette and "Winer, p. 570 [E. T. 
766]. But one can see no reason for Paul's choosing any such special deli- 
cacy of phrase. If, again, we understand the words to mean : if any one 
liJces to be, or has pleasure in being, contentious (Luther, Grotius, Riickert), 
that is to confound the expression with the construction SokcI fioi.^ The 
simplest explanation, and, at the same time, quite literally faithful, is, as in 
Matt. iii. 9, Phil. iii. 4 : if any one is of opinion, if he thinks, or is minded 
to be, etc. ; but to import the notion of pertnission into the infinitive here, 
in connection with this rendering (Billroth), would be arbitrary, because 
without warrant from the text (Kuhner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 1). — yfidg 
TocavTTiv K.T.?i.] declarative : Let him be told that we, etc. Comp. Rom. xi. 
18. See Winer, p. 575 [E. T. 773]. — v/^ek] land those who are like minded 
with me. — ToiavTTjv cwijB.'] 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 suits the 
immediate context, and is required by ///zctf ; hence we cannot, with The- 
ophylact and Osiander, leave it an open ' question which of the two refer- 
ences should be preferred. The ov6e al ckkX. t. Qeov is not against this 
view ; for what is asserted is not that all individual members were free from 
the love of strife, but only that the churclies as a whole were so. These last 
are distinguished by ovdi. al ekkI. t. Qeov from the individuals implied in 
T/juetg. Neither does the expression avvTjdeia throw any difficulty in the way 
of our interpretation ; on the contrary, occurring as it does in this short con- 
cluding sentence of deprecation, it lends to it a certain point against the 
readers, some of whom seem to have allowed this vice of contentiousness 
to grow with them into a habit ; it was their miserable custom ! (t') — The 

' So, too, ioKa /xot, lubet, volo. See Ast, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 251. Also SeJo/trai /xoi. See 
Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. .552. 

CHAP. XI., 17-19. 257 

abnormal position of isolation, into which their controversial tendencies 
would bring them, should surely suffice to prevent their indulging them ! 

Ver. 17. Transition to the censure which follows. Note this (what I have 
written up to this point about the veiling of the women) / enjoin, ' while I 
do not praise (i.e. while I join with my injunction the censure), that ye, etc. 
The "litotes" ovk knaivuv glances back upon ver. 2. Lachmann's view, ac- 
cording to which the new section begins at ver. 16, so that (pMvetKog would 
relate to the axifyfJ-ara in ver. 18, has this against it, that napayyeXku always 
means fraecijpio in the N. T. (vii. 10 ; 1 Thess. iv. 11 ; 2 Thess. iii. 4, 6, 
10, 13, aZ.), not I announce, and that no injunction is expressed in ver. 16. 
Moreover, we should desiderate some conclusion to the foregoing section, 
and, as such, considering especially that the matter in question was such a 
purely external one, ver. 16 comes in with peculiar appropriateness. Other 
expositors, such as Lyra, Erasmus, Piscator, Grotius, Calovius, Hammond, 
Bengel, Riickert, also Ewald and Hofmann (comp. his Schriftbeiceis, II. 2, 
p. 235 f.), refer tovto, after the example of the Greek Fathers, to what 
follows, inasmuch, namely, as the exposition now to begin ends in a command, 
and shows the reason why the church deserves no praise in this aspect of its 
church-life. Paul has already in his mind, according to these interpreters, 
the directions which he is about to give, but lays a foundation for them 
first of all by censuring the disorders which had crept in. Upon that view, 
however, the tovto napayj. would come in much too soon ; and we must 
suppose the apostle, at the very beginning of an important section, so little 
master of his own course of thought, as himself to throw his readers into 
confusion by leaving them without anything at all answering to the tovto 
napayy. — oti oim s'lg to Kpe'iTTov k.t.?..] does not give the reason of his not 
praising, but — seeing there is no vfiag with knaiv., as in ver. 2 — states what it 
is that he cannot praise. Your coming together is of such a kind that not 
the melius but the pejus arises out of it as its result ; that it becomes worse 
instead of better with you (with your Christian condition). Theophylact 
and Billroth make to upelTT. and to ^ttov 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. TlpuTov fiEv yap] The second point is found by most expositors 
in ver. 20 (so Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, Winer, 
p. 536 [E. T. 721]). In that case Paul first of all censures here generally 
the divisions which appeared in their assemblies, and then in ver. 20 links 
on by ovv the abuse of the Lord's Supper as a consequence of those divisions. 
But this view has against it the fact that he follows up ver. 18 neither by 
censure nor correction of what was amiss, which he would not have omitted 
to do, considering the importance of the matter in question, if he had re- 
garded ver. 18 as touching upon a distinct point from that in vv. 20, 21. 
Moreover, in ver. 22, enaLvtau v/idg ; kv tovtu ovk enatva, which has reference 

* Hofmann irrelevantly objects to our enjoined that the women should be veiled 
makiag toOto 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 epistlk to the cokinthians. 

to the ovK etraivuv 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 Ilofmann, who 
insists on taking npurov, in spite of the //tv 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. Jahrbiichei; 1852, p. 558 ; Rabiger, p. 135 ; Osiander), 
that ovv in ver. 20 does not introduce a second point of reprehension, but 
takes up again the first point, which had been begun in ver. 18 and inter- 
rupted by Koi fifpo^ Ti k.t'.I. (see on viii. 4), — an interpretation which is 
strongly sxipported by the repetition of the same words (fwepxou- vnuv. In 
using the term ax'tof^ara,^ 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 : Whei'e is the second point, which irpurov leads us to expect ? It com- 
mences in xii. 1. Paul censures two kinds of evils in connection with their 
assemblies — (1) the degeneration of the Agapae (vv. 18-34), and (2) the 
misapplication of the gifts of the Spirit (xii. Iff.). The npurov fxev is left 
out of account while he pursues the first point, and instead of following it 
up with an inena 6e, after completing his discussion, he passes on in xii. 1 
with the continuative 6e to second subject, making no further reference to 
that TTpuTov /lev yap in ver. 18. How common it is in classic writers also to 
find the npurov followed by no inetTa, or anything of the kind, but another 
turn given to the sentence, may be seen in Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 191 ; 
Bremi, ad Lys. I. p. 31. Comp. on Acts i. 1, and on Rom. i. 8, iii. 2. — kv 
ekkI.] in a church-meeting. This is conceived of as a local sphere (comp. Ben- 
gel : ^^ vergit ad significationem foci"), in tc?iich the (Tvvepx^(yffat 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 elg kKKlrjaiav (Lucian, Jov. Trag. 6), yet we must neither 
take hv in the sense of elq (Vulgate, Riickert, Schrader), nor impute to the 
word ckkI. the meaning : jdace of assembly (Grotius, Wolf, Heydenreich), 
nor understand it adverbially, as with abstract terms : congregationally 
(Hofmann). — There should be no comma after hnKk. ; for awtpx. k.t.I. 
connects itself in meaning not with Iikovu, but with axiff/^ara k.t.I. — aKoiioi] 
in the sense of uKr/Koa, denoting continuance. See Ast, ad Plat. Leg. 
p. 9 f. ; Bernhardy, p. 370 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 26. — /dpoq ti] 
for a jjart, partly, Thuc. i. 23. 3, ii. 64. 2, iv. 30. 1 ; Isocr. p. 426 D. He 
cannot bring himself to believe all that he has heard of the divisions at 
their assemblies. A delicate way of showing the better opinion that he still 
has of his readers, not a reference to the uncertainty of the source whence 
the news reached him (Hofmann). — del] according to God's decree. It is 
the " necessitas consequentiae" (Melanchthou) ; 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 

' ChrySOStom well remarks : ov Ae'yei- a.Kovo> na\i.arTa ((cacbi' ^i* oirToii' Siaaelaat. Tijc Stavoiav, 
ftT) Koivjj u/uia9 <rui'Sei7r»'€r»', aKOvut yap (tar iSiav touto T€t)et(cc to toO (TXiV/iiaTos ovofia, o koi tov- 
iifiai €<7Tta<rt)oi xal nrj ficrd Tuiv nevrjTun' aW 6 tov ^i* oItioi'. 

CHAP. XI., 20. 259 

suffered themselves to be carried away by party-agitation, should lecome 
manifest, (u') — Koi aipiceig] It cannot be proved (although Riickert, Nean- 
der, Hofmann, and others hold) that alpEcreig is something tcorse ' than axia- 
fiara (and that kul must mean even), as Pelagius, Estius, and Calovius would 
take it ; for Kai may be simply also (among other evils also), and in Gal. v. 
20 — where, moreover, cxiotiara 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-se/x<- 
rations, but always shows us merely ■psivtj -dimsions subsisting along with 
outward unity, one cannot well make out icherein the worseness of the 
aip£(T£ig consisted ; for to hold, with Riickert, that elvai means to ensue, and 
points to the future (as Hofmann too maintains), is a perfectly groundless 
assumption. The alpiaeig tcere there, were not merely coming ; it will not do 
to confound elvai with yiveadai. or kMelv (Matt, xviii. 7 ; Luke xvii. 1), a 
mistake into which J. Miiller also falls. I.e. We must therefore, with 
Chrysostom, Grotius, Olshausen, al., regard alpeaeig as another form of des- 
ignation for the same thing (the crx'(yfJ-aTa). It does not mean heresies in 
the sense of false doctrine (3 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 chttrch generally ^ (according as there existed 
tendencies and views at variance with each other and destructive of har- 
mony). Comp. on Gal. v. 20. 

Ver. 20. Ovv] resuming after the parenthesis ; see on ver. 18. — £7ri rd 
avrS] to the same place. See on Acts i. 15. — ovk eoti KvpiaK. Selnv. <pay.] 
there does riot taJce place an eating of a LorcVs 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 ean with the infinitive, in the sense of : it 
is possible, one can, as in Heb. ix. 5. So e.g. the passages from Plato given 
by Ast, Lex. I. p. 622 ; Hom. il. xxi. 193, al. ; Thuc. viii. 53 ; Soph. Phil. 
69 ; Aesch. Pers. 414 ; Polyb. i. 12. 9, v. 98. 4. It occurs in the classics 
also for the most part with the negative. See generally, Valckenaer on 
Eurip. Hii^pol. 1326. Beza, Estius, Zachariae, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, 
Winer, al., render it otherwise, as if there were a tovto in the text : this is 
not, etc. And even if there were such a tovto, it would have nothing here 
to connect itself with. — Kvpiaabv dslTrvov] a meal belonging to the Lord, conse- 
crated to Christ ; comp. ver. 27, x. 21. The name was given to the love- 
feasts (Agapae, Jude 12), at which the Christians ate and drank together 
what they severally brought with them, and with which was conjoined the 
Lord's Supper properly so called (x. 16, 21 ; comp. on Acts ii. 42), so that 

' So also J. Miiller, v. d. Sitnde, I. p. 538, alpeo-isa " mollivs vocabulum" than a-xi-cri^a. 

ed. 5, holds that axi-aix. denotes the inner ^ It is arbitrary to ascribe the disturbance 

disunion in the church, wliich shows itself about the Lord's Supper to one special 

in positive division and faction (aipeo-eis). party at Corinth, such as the Christ-party 

Wetstein, on the contrary, considered (Olshausen), or that of ApolIos(Rabiger). 

2G0 Paul's first epistle to the coeinthians. 

the bread was distributed and partaken of during the meal and the cup 
after it, according to the precedent of the original institution. Comp. 
TertuUian, AjjoI. 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 vofue 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 delnvov, the precise scope of which is determined by the meal so 
originally instituted (John xiii. 2) to which it points. 

Ver. 21. UpolajiPavEi] takes leforehand his own meal (as contrasted with 
KvpmK. Se'iwv., comp. Chrysostom : to yap KvpiaKov hhuTiKov Troiovaiv). 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 Kvpinnbv delnvov, 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 
hio-hest 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 \eiiwhat remained ior the poorer members. 
This runs counter to the eKaarog, which must mean every one who brought 
anything with liim. 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. 23, 33). — h 
Tu (payelv] not ad manducandum (Vulg.), but in the eating, at the holding of 
the meal. — ttelvo] because, that is to say, he had nothing, or but little, to 
bring with him, so that he remained unsatisfied, receiving nothing from the 
stores of the wealthier members. — fiedvEc] is drunken, not giving the exact 
opposite of Tceiva, but making the picture all the fuller and more vivid, be- 
cause wELva and medvEL lead the reader in both cases to imagine for himself 
the other extreme corresponding to the one specified. We must not weaken 
the natural /orre of ^eO., 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. — fif) yap o'lKiag k.t.A. ] 
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 f The sense of astonishment (Hartuug, Partikell. 
I. i^. 478) is conveyed by the question, not by the yap. — fj -fjg iKK?.r/ciag . . . 
Ixovrag] 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 desjnse the church of God (which you show by your not counting 

1 The underlying dilemmatic conclusion of God, etc.; youhavehouses.thereforeyou 
is : Persons who act as you do have eitfier despise, etc. 
no houses, etc., w they despise the church 

CHAP. XI., 33. 261 

its members worthy to eat and drink on a common footing with yoii), and (3) 
to cause tJiejJoar to he put to shame ? The latter could not but feel themselves 
slighted, if they were not thought worthy of having a share in what the 
wealthier had provided. The main emphasis in the first clause is upon r^f e/c/cA. 
r. Qeov (Qeov, '^ dig7iitas ecclesiae," Bengel, comp. ver. 16); in the second, 
upon KaTaLaxvveTi. — Kespecting ovk exeiv, not to have, to be poor, see Wet- 
stein on 2 Cor. viii. 13 ; comp. ol exovreg, divites, in Ast, ad Plat. Legg. v. 
p. 172; Bornemann, ad Anab. vi. 6. 38. Here, however, we have ny with 
the participle and article, because the class is referred to (Baeumlein, Partih. 
p. 296). — TL vfilv eIttu k.t.^.] what shall I say to you ? Shall I give you 
praise ? On this point I praise not. If we keep ver. 17 in view, to connect 
iv TovTCf) with knaLVG) 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 joints, 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 kv tovtu ovk. eiraivu. For I, for my part, have re- 
ceived the following instructions from Christ tonching 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 I am concerned, at variance 
as it is with the knowledge of the matter obtained by me from Christ and 
communicated to you ? — ano tov Kvpiov] Had Paul written wapa r. k., this 
would have denoted that he had received the instructions directly from 
Christ (Gal. i. 12 ; 1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. 1 ; 2 Tim. iii. 14 ; Acts x. 22; John 
vi. 45, viii. 40, x. 18) ; cnrd r. k., on the other hand, means forth from the 
Lord, from the Lords side as the source, so that the preposition taken by itself 
leaves the question open whether the relation referred to be an indirect (so 
generally, including Gal. iii. 2 ; Col. iii. 24) or a direct one (as in Col. i. 7 ; 
1 John i. 5 ; 3 John 7). And Hofmann does not go further than this in- 
definite relation, holding the only idea expressed here to be that of origin 
from the Lord ; comp. also his Schrifthew. H. 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 napa, while yet in point of fact he uses only and, we 
are warranted in assuming fhat 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 napi- 
la(i. being in itself inapprojiriate, will not hold, especially when we view 
it as correlative to napiSuna ; comp. xv. 3. 

' 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. 


The question now remains : Does Paul, in asserting that his account of 
the msthwtion proceeded from the Lord, mean to say simply that he received 
what follows by a tradition descending from Christ,' or by a recelation 
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 instituticm of this ordinance, 
like his gospel generally, in the way of authentic revelation from Christ. 
As to tYieform 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 kyu, whereby he 
puts forward with the whole strength of conscious apostolic authority the 
communication made to himself, to Mm personally, by the Lord, over-against 
the abuse, contrasting with it, of the Holy Supper among the Corinthians. 
Had he meant simply to say : "I know it through a tradition proceeding 
from Christ," then his syu would have been on the same level with every 
other, and the emphatic prominence which he gives to the kyit, as well as 
the sing. naph?M[3ov, would be quite unsuitable, because without any 
specific historical basis ; he would in that case have written : napelafiofiev 
yap (iTTo -or KvplmK 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 amteiits of the narrative inde- 
2)endently of the Gospels, although not necessarily an absolute ultimate 
authority establishing the literal form of the tcords of institution (even in 

' So Neander and Keim in the Jahrb.fiir Deutsch. Thed. 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. — b kuI Tvaped.] 
which I (not only received, but) also delivered to you. Conversely in xv. 3. 
Instances of Ttapalanji . and Trapa6ovvai, in the sense of discere and tradere, 
may be seen in Kypke. — '6ti\ that, as in xv. 3, not /<?/■, as Luther and Hof- 
mann render it. The latter translation would leave untold what Paul had 
received and delivered, in sjiite of the importance of the matter in ques- 
tion ; and it derives no support from the repetition of the subject, 6 Kvpiog, 
since that, with the addition of the sacred name 'Ir/aovc, gives a solemn em- 
phasis to the statement. It is the full doctrine of the Lord's Supper, which 
they owe to him, that he is now setting before his readers. — h t^ vvktI y 
irapedidoTo (imperfectum adumbrativum, see Kiihner, II. p. 73) : in the night 
in which His betrayal teas 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. Anal), v. 7. 17, Mem. ii. 1. 32, with 
Kiihner thereon ; Plato, Phaed. p. 76 D, with Heindorf and Stallbaum in 
he. — apTov] bread (a cake of bread), which lay on the table. 

Eemabk. — 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- 

Ver. 24. Tovro /xov icrl to cujia\ This is my body (the body of me). The 
emphasis lies not on the enclitic fiov, but on to cu/ia. See, further, on Matt, 
xxvi. 26, and Keim (in the Jahrb. fiir Deutsch. Theol. 1859, p. 73), as against 
Strobel (in Rudelbach's Zeitschr. 1854, pp. 598, 602 ff.). who would have 
TovTo not to refer to the broken bread at all, but to point forward to what 
is to be designated by the predicate. This tovto can mean nothing else 
whatever but : this broTcen bread here, which again necessitates our taking ioTi 
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 kaTi more precisely in connec- 
tion with thatj^rs^ celebration of the Supper, it is to be taken as "being" 
in the sense of proleptic symbolism ; and thereby the very possibility of the 
Lutheran synecdoche (upon which even Mehring falls back, in the Luther. 
Zeitschrift, 1867, p. 82) is done away. — to vnep v/io)v] Klufievov is spurious. 
We must supply simply bv : which is for your behoof, namely, by its being 
broJcen (slain'). Christ's body was not, indeed, literally broken (John xix. 

' This more precise explanation of the spoken by Jesus, only the tho^ight was ex- 
absolute TO vrtip iiiJi., Kc. 6v, is to be drawn pressed in the action of breaking the bread, 
from the preceding: exAao-e ; and hence the This ,«i/^wnanjriiag:eof lively depicting suits 
addition of kKujix^vov is very correct in point well with the deep emotion of the moment ; 
of interpretation. But the word was not and there is no ground cither for regarding 

204 Paul's first epistle to the corinthians. 

33), but in His violent death our Lord sees that accomplished in His body 
which He had just done with the bread. This is the point of what he be- 
holds in the broken bread looked upon by Him with such direct creative 
vividness of regard ; but in truth the simple to vnep vfiiJv is more in keeping 
with the deep emotion of the moment than any attempt to expound in a 
more detailed way the symbolism wliich both presents and intei'prets itself 
in the breaking of bread ; and Matthew and Mark have not even this "for 
you." — Tov-o noiElre] to wit, what I now do ; not merely the hreaking oi 
the bread joined with a thanksgiving prayer, but also — as the action itself 
became the silent commentary on this tovto — the distribution and eating of 
the bread ; comp. ver. 26. — e'lr t. k/x. dvd/zv.] in remenibrance of me, presup- 
poses His ohsenre in body for the future ; see on Luke xxii. 19. "We may 
add that these words also do not occur in Matthew and Mark, whose simple 
TOVTO koTi T. aij/id /lov 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. 'ilaa'vT. k. t. ttot. ] sc. eTuijie koL evxapioTyaag scukev avTo'iq (this last is 
to be taken from eK^ae), vv. 23, 24. — to ttott/p.] the cup which stood before 
Him. It was the cup which closed the meal, although there is no ground 
to connect /leTa to denzv. here with to noTTjp., as Pott does. — kaTiv] in the 
position which it has here, is decisive against our connecting iv tQ ifiu al/x. 
with y K. (had., as most interpreters do (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, and many 
others, including de Wette, Rodatz, Maier, Hofmann), although Luther (in 
the g?: Bel'.) rightly rejects that connection. What Christ says is, that the 
cup is the neiD covenant in virtue of His Mood, 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 symhoUcal 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 Ihod became, by its being poured forth, the l?xiaTr;piov, * 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 (cAu^ecoi' as prob- ■ of even the symbolical interpretation of the 

aMe on internal evidence (Kahnls, Doe/mat. Lord's Supper. With every attempt to ex- 

I. p. 616), or for characterizing that which plain away the atoning death, the Supper 

rejects it as " vaga et frigida" (Reiche, becomes utterly unintelligible. Comp. 

C'omm. cnl.) ; nor will it do to explain the Ebrard, Dogma votn Abendfn. II. p. 752 B. 

omission of the word by John xix. 36 f.dlof- "The word covenant \s unquestionably 

mann). .As to Hofmann's making kAium refer genuine, for it is common to all the narra- 

only to the violent bending and u-irnch- lives ; but the designation of the UadriKr) as 

ing, as the term is used of men under tort- (catvi) dates from Paul, being a later more 

ure (see Wetstein) and by physicians, the precise definition of the phrase. Kaii/^s in 

very fact that the bread was broken should Matt. xxvi. 27 and Mark xiv. 24 is spurious, 

have sufficed of itself to forbid the idea. This applies also in opposition to Baur in 

' The atonement through the deatli of the theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 551. 
Jesus is at any rate the necessary irreiniss 

CHAT. XI., 2G. • 265 

way of grace, justification, sanctiflcation, 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 co\Qiia.nt-Mood of the covenant. — tovto TroieZ-e] 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 incomjjatible 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 
ohjectknty, the sacred words in which the original institution was couched. 
What he desires to lay stress ujjon as against the Corinthians, comes in 
afterwards in ver. 26 ff. — baata^ av vriv.] peculiar to this account of the or- 
dinance : as often as ever (qriotiescunqtie, see Kiihner, II. p. 94 ; comp. Ben- 
gel) ye drink it ; the context supplies tovto to ttott/p. as the object of irlv,, 
without its having to be represented by a pronoun (avTo). 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 togetJter at 
a 'i^^V'O. But how can that be conveyed by the simple ivivjiTe ? And it 
was certainly not a drinMng meal., but a regular Mttvov (ver. 25). — Note, 
further, as to the av, that it is placed after baaKiq, " quia in hac voce maxi- 
mum sententiae pondus positum est," Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 16. 

Ver. 26. Not still words of Christ (Ewald), ' in citing which Paul glides in- 
voluntarily into the form into which they had by this time become moulded 
in the church ; for against this view there is (1) the unsuitableness in itself 
of such a ixjTepov npSTepov in the expression (especially after ver. 23) ; (2) the 
fact of the words being linked to the preceding by yap, which is less in 
keeping with the tone and direct form of the words of institution, but, on 
the other hand, naturally marks the apostle himself again beginning to 
speak ; and (3) the fact that Luke has nothing of a similar kind in his ac- 
count of the Supper. The common view is the right one, that Paul proceeds 
here in his oicn person. But what he gives is neither a further reason as- 
signed for ova kiratvu in ver. 22 (so Hofmann, in connection with his incor- 
rect interpretation of otl in ver. 23), nor is it an experimental elucidation of 
the last words of ver. 25 (the ordinary view), for the contents of ver. 26 
stand rather in the logical relation of consequence to the foregoing narrative 
of institution. No ; yap is to be taken here (comp. on ver. 22) in its infer- 
ential sense, and made to refer to the whole preceding account of the ori- 
gin of the Supper. "We may paraphrase thus : Such, then, leing the facts of 
the original institution, it comes to pass that as often as ye, etc. — tov apTov 
TovTovl the bread prescribed according to this appointment of Christ ; to 
TTOTi/piov : the cup now spoken of, the eucharistic cup. — KaTayye'k'keTc'] ye pro- 

> In the Constilt. ap. too (viii. 12. 16) they chaupe of tw ^dvaTov Tbi- e^bv KaTayyi\- 
are placed in Christ's moutli, but with the Aere, ixP'-'^ "■'' «'^'*"- 

2GG Paul's first epistlh to the corinthiaxs. 

claim the Lord's death, i.e. ye declare solemnly in connection with this ordi- 
nance, that Christ has died for you. This KaTayyi?.AEiv cannot without arbi- 
trariness be taken as merely a declaring bi/ action (so commonly) ; it can only 
be taken as actually </ral.' How it took place, we do not know. The 
Peshito (the Vulgate \\\\^ annuntiahiti») rightly took Ku-a)y. ni^ indicative,'' 
wliich Grotius and others ought not to have changed mio 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 l)een inappropri- 
ate. Even in the case of unworthy particijjation the KciTuy/f/Aeiv refeiTcd to 
was not omitted ; the admonition, therefore, could only have respect to the 
worthiness of the participation, with which that KnTayyi/iMiv 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 Kurayy. is imperatice. See, besides, Rodatz 
in Liicke and Wieseler's Vierteljahrschr. I. 3, p. 351. — a xpio or tWy] mitil 
He uliall 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. — axpi^ stands without av (see instances in Lobeck, ad 
Phryu. p. 15 f.), because the arrival of the Parousia is conceived as abso- 
lutely certain, not as conditioned by any contingencies which might possi- 
bly delay it (Hermann, jmH. 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 : fiera yap rf?) ri/v avrov Trapovaiav ovketi ;^;/^e/a r uv a v fi (i dAuv rov 
a d) /xaT oc, avTov (paivofifvov rov au/iarog' Aia rovro direv' o-xpi^ ov av D.Bi). To 
eat tcith Him will then l)e 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 KarayytAleiv of the communicants the fear and trembling of the Maran 
atha, xvi. 22. 

Ver. 27. From that naTayyelletv k.t.1. it folloics how great is the sin of 
])articipating iinworthily. This reference of the cjorf is sufiiciently pointed 
and appropriate not to require us to go back further (to all that has been 

• KarayyeWfiv is always ail actual procla- served for some quarter of a century. And 

7Ha(ioii, never a mere rjiving to he known by have not the eucharistic liturfrics iii) to this 

deeds. Were the latter tlie meaning here, day, even tlie oldest that we are acquainted 

Paul would be using a po<tical expression with (in Daniel, Codex lilurg.), as for in- 

(.something like ovayyeAAfu' in Ps. xix. 1 f.), stance the " Liturgia Jacobi," essential 

which would be not at all suitable in view parts, which are a KarayyiWuv of the Lord's 

of the context. I regret that Ilofmann has death? f'omp. too the explicit confession 

been so hasty in censuring my assertion of prescribed at the Jewish feast of the Pass- 

the necessity of the above interpretation, over, Ex. xii. 27, xiii. 8. 

as if it carried absurdity on the fiice of it. ''So also Theophylact, Beza, Bengel, de 

We do not know in what forin.s a lifiirgical Wctte, Osiander, Kalinis, Ncaiulcr, Maier, 

elementhad already developed itself in con- Riickert in- his Abendin. p. 211, Ilofmann. 
nection with a rite which had now been ob- 

CHAP, XL, 27. " 267 

said from ver. 20 onwards), as Riickert would have us do, — t] ■k'lvtj] 1j does 
not stand for Kai (Pott and older expositors) ;' but the meaning is : if a 
man partake of the one <yi' the other unworthily, he is alike guilty ; neither 
in the case of the bread nor of the wine should there be an unworthy par- 
ticipation. We must remember that the two elements were not partaken of 
in immediate succession, but the bread during the meal and the wine after it, 
so that the case was quite a possible one that the bread might be partaken 
of in a worthy, and the cup in an unworthy frame of spirit, and vice versa. 
Comp. also Hofmann. The guilt, however, of the one or the other un- 
worthy participation was the same, and was alike complete ; hence fj is not 
repeated in the apodosis. Roman Catholics (see Estius and Cornelius a 
Lapide) find in this ?/ a support for their " communio suh una.'''' See Calo- 
vius in opposition to this, ^roj) Kvpiov] as KvpiaKdv in ver. 20, x. 21. — 
ava^iug] in an u7ucortky manner., i.e. in a xcay morally out of l-eejnng icitJi 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 ranh for themselves their particular way of 
communicating under the general avaf/wc, and not till ver. 29 does he him- 
self characterize the special form of unworthy participation which prevailed 
among them by 6 yap icdluv k. wivuv. See on the verse. — evoxog earai k.t.a.] 
Evoxog with the dative and genitive (see Matthiae, p. 850) expresses the lia- 
Mlity of guilt (see Bleek on Heb. ii. 15) : he shall be — from the moment he 
does so — under guilt to the body and Mood of Christ, i.e. crimini et poenae 
corporis et sanguinis Christi violati obnoxius erit (comp. Jas. ii. 10, and the 

> To this mistake, too, is to be traced tlie is want of love, a disposition to judge 

reading Kai (in A D, some min. vss. and others, but with the underlying idea that it 

Fathers), which Pritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. is impenitence that makes an unworthy 

191, and Ruckert approve. It was suggest- communicant. Kahnis : " unbelief, which 

ed by ver. 26, and gained support from the does not acknowledge a higher intrinsic 

Kai which follows ; but is not necessary, for worth in the Lord's Supper." At all events, 

there is a change of conception. it is the lack of a constantly present, lively, 

" Theophylact, following Chrysostom, and active faith in the atonement brought 

makes it <i! n-eptopii'Tas T0U5 Tre'cijTas. Theo- aboutby Christ's death, which is the sovrce 

doret holds that Paul hits at those fond of of the various states of moral unworthiness 

power in Corinth, the incestuous person, in which men may partake of the Supper : 

and those who ate the things offered to as was the case also with the Corinthians 

idols, and generally all who receive the when they degraded it into an ordinary 

sacrament with bad conscience. Luther : meal for eating and drinking (and Hofmann 

"he is worthy who has /ai/A in these words, goes no further in his explanation of the 

' broken for you, etc.'" Grotius : "qui hoc di'afiwO. The more earnest and powerful 

a«tu curat quae sua sunt, non quae Domini." this faith is, the less can that participation, 

Bengel : "qui se non probant." Flatt : not by which we are conscious of coming into 

with thankful remembrance of the death of communion with the body and blood of the 

Jesus, not with reverence towards Him. Lord, and thereby commemorating Him, 

not with love towards others ; so also in take place in a way morally unworthy, 

substance Riickert in his Commentary, and Bengel is right indeed in saying : " Alia est 

—with more detail and to some extent dif- indignitas ederdis, alia«^««" (comp. Riickert, 

ferently— in his work on the Lord's Supper, Afjendrn. p. 2.53) ; but the latter in its differ- 

p. 234. Billroth : with offence to the breth- ent moral forms is the necessary conse- 

ren. Olshausen : what is primarily meant quence of the former. 

2GS Paul's first epistle to the roniNTHiANs. 

classical hoxoc v6/ioic, Plat. Leffff. ix. p. 869 B E) ; inasmuch, namely, as tlie 
proclamation of the Lord's death at the participation in the bread and the 
cup ])resupposes 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, fii/ <haKplvuv k.t.1. The often repeated interpre- 
tation : "par facit, quasi Christum tnicidaret" (Grotius, following Chrys- 
ostom and Theophylact), apjiears 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 : tvoxoq earai tov Oavdrov tov Kvp.), 
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, w'ith every other 
sin, is forgiven to the man who connuunicates worthily). But that would 
be surely no new guilt, but the continuance of the old ; and in this sense 
Kahnis explains it, Dogmat. I. p. 620. But to bring out this meaning, the 
apo.stle, if he was not to leave his words open to misunderstanding (comp. 
John iii. 36, ix. 41), must have written not evox- earai, but evox- /^ivei or fievel. 
Olshausen again, with older expositors, thinks that our passage implies a 
powerful argument against all Zwinglian theories of a merely commemora- 
tive ordinance. This, however, is too hasty and uncertain an inference ; 
because the profanation of an acknowledged symbol, especially if it be one 
recognized in the religious consciousness of the church (suppose, e.g., a cru- 
cifix), does injury to the object itself represented by the symbol. Hofmann 
is not justified in disputing this. Comp. Oecolampadius, Piscator, and 
Scultetus, who adduce, as an analogous case, an injury done to the king's 
seal or picture.' Riickert, on the other hand, is wiong in supposing that 
we have here a proof that the bread and wine are only st/mhols.'' 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. 

» Luther's objection to this in the Grosse and need not be a real presence. Thus a 

Bekenntnm resolves itself, in truth, into man sins against the bodi/ of Christ, even 

mere hair-splitting. The argument of the when he sins against the sacred symbol of 

old systematic divines again is : The object that body, and against the Nood of Christ, 

against which we sin must be present ; we in like manner. Comp. also Neander. 
sin against the body and blood of Christ ; ^ Otherwise in his treatise rmn Abendm. 

therefore these must be present. This con- p. 236, where, on the ground of x. .3 f., x. 16. 

elusion is incorrect, because the major pre- he does not doubt that what is meant is a 

miss is so. The presewe of the object " in direct offence committed against the very 

quod delinquimus quodque indigne tracta- things there present, 
mus" (Quenstedt) is not ahvays necessary, 

CHAP. XL, 28, 39. ■ 2G9 

Ver. 28. Ae] carrying onward : " now, in order not to incur tMs guilt, let 
a man examine himself, etc. ;" let him search into his frame of mind and 
moral condition {t?jv didvoiav mvrov, Theodore of Mopsuestia) to see whether 
he will not partake unworthily ;' (w') comp. diuKpiveiv, ver. 31. — /cat odrwf] 
and so, after he has examined himself, and in that ease. See on Rom. xi. 2G. 
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 doKifiaC,. 
as meaning to malce qaalijied, which it never does, not even in Gal. vi. 4 ; 2 
Cor. xiii. 5 ; 1 Thess. ii. 4. — avOpunoc;'] as iv. 1. 

Ver. 29. Since ava^iuq is spurious (see the critical remarks), 6 kadiuv k. 
Tzivuv 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 /jf/ SiaKpivuv in the 
sense : iecause he does not, etc., as in Rom. iv. 19. But after ver. 28, whose 
eadieiv k. niveiv 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 n^ Smkp'lvuv K.T.I, conditions the predicate, and is not a modal definition 
of the subject. The apostle might have written simply h-pZ/m yap eavrC) icOiei 
K. TTivEi, //?) diaKp. T. a. ; but the circumstantial description of the subject of 
the sentence for the second time by 6 jap kaOiuv k. ttIvuv carries a certain 
solemnity with it, making one feel the rish incurred by going on to eat and 
drink. — Kplfxa iavrQ /c.r./l.] a concrete expression (comp. 2 Cor. ii. 16) of the 
thought : he draws doton judicial sentence ujyon himself hy his eating and drink- 
ing. The power to effect this turns on the evoxog earai /c.r./l., ver. 27 ; and 
therefore nothing is decided here against the symbolical interpretation of 
the words of institution. That the Kp~i/^a is a j>e««^ one, is implied in the 
context (Rom. ii. 2, iii. 8, xiii. 2 ; Gal. v. 10). The ahence 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 tehijmral judgments as the penalty of un- 
worthy communicating, and that such judgments apjjeared to him as chas- 
tisements employed by God to avert from the offender eternal condemna- 
tion. With respect to the dativus incommodi kavrC), comp. Rom. xiii. 2. — 
//?) SiaKplvuv TO aufia] if lie does not form a judgment upon (so 6iaKp., Vulgate, 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Bengel, de Wette, Weiss) the })ody, i.e. the body 
/car' i^ox'n'i 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 dianp., 
comp. xiv. 29 ; Matt, xvi, 3). Comp. Chrysostom : ^fj k^sTdi^uv, /i^ kwouv, 
OQ xPVi "^^ fieyef^oq tuv ■Kponeijievuv, fifj 7ioyil^6/ievog tov oyaov Tfjq Supedg. Usually 

1 Confession is an institution of the church, assurance that one does not eat and drink 
meant to aid in carrying out this rule of the unworthily, 
apostle's, in which the absolution gives 


(so too Ewald, Kahnis, Hofmann) commentators have taken SiaKp. in the 
sense of to distiixjuish (iv. 7), and have rendered accordingly : if he (or, 
following the reading which puts amf/wf after nivuv : because he) does not 
distinguish the body of Christ from common food.'' Hofmann, again, see- 
ing that we have not tov Kvpiov along with -o owpa holds it more correct to 
render : if he does not distinguish the body, which he who eats this hrend far- 
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 tha