Skip to main content

Full text of "Recensio synoptica annotationis sacrae : being a critical digest and synoptical arrangement of the most important annotations on the New Testament, exegetical, philological, and doctrinal : collected from commentators both ancient and modern.."

See other formats


DEC 1 2007 


\ -^ 















In wliich 

<&ac1) portion ij^^pi^tematjcanp attcibuteb to it^ rejSjiettibe Kutbor, 

The whole accompanied with 


By the Rev. S. T. BLOOMFIELD, M. A. 


Ov (TotpiffTui iJKOfxei', ovbe cnriareTi' eroifioi, denrai be fxovov rwv 
yeypafifxepwv, e^erai^ofxev ri}v Tpa<p{]y. 

Philostr. Jun. Icon. 1, 2-t. 

"Ottov vvk €(TTi tz'kttis, ctTTO vrtt roael, Kai oiibey iiWo i) fxayai riKTOVTai 
\6ywv, Tov TTtdai'OTepov tov erepov (ivurpeireLV hoKovvTOs' 'II iriaris 
o<pdaXfius kffTiV i) fi)) ej^wi' 6<p6n\iJ.ovs ovbey evpicTKei, ctXXa ^ovor 
QT]T€t, TheophylHCl, from Chrysostom. 



UJ fNw 

LONDON : ^ c5 



MDCCtXXVllI. 5 ^ 





The Apostle proceeds, in this Chapter, to detail the 
causes why such a multitude of Jews should be now 
excluded from the Messiah's kingdom : and he 
again lays down the following, as the primary one : 
" That the Jews, priding themselves on their zeal 
for the law% as if that were a high merit, refused to 
repose their hope and trust for salvation in the grace 
of God through Christ, obtained for them by the 
Lord Jesus, (llosenm.) 

In this Chapter is especially considered the dif- 
ference between the justification that is by the law, 
and that which is by faith in Christ. And here 
(Mackn. observes) the Apostle answers to two chief 
objections, whereby the Jews justified their opposi- 
tion to the Gospel. The first objection was, that by 
teaching the justification of the Jews by fliith with- 
out the works of law, the expiations of the huv of 
Moses were rendered of no use in their justification. 
The second was, that by admitting the Gentiles into 
the Church and covenant of God without circumci- 
sion, the covenant with Abraham was made void." 
Koppe well remarks on the mildness of the Apostle, 
with which (though he was going to declare the Jews 
as the authors of their own ruin), yet, as far as was 
possible, he excuses their unbelief (ver. 2.), and pro- 
fesses his love towards them, and his ardent desire 
that they should be saved." 

1. a?eX(poi. Grotius and Koppe rightly think this 



is especially meant for the Jewish Christians, who 
would doubtless grieve at the fate of their country- 

1. 73' jw,6j/ euSoKia T-^j ifxTJ^ /capo/ay, scil. ecrrj, " it is 
the anxious wish of my heart." The expression is 
explained by Theophyl. : o-<po3pa eVifSyjut/a. It pro- 
perly signifies will, or wish : so that the intensive 
force rests in the Kap^ta^. In the Sept. it answers to 
the Hebrew pp. 

Crellius and Paraeus remark on the use of (xlv 
without a 8e, which they think indicates the omis- 
sion of a sentence, such as: "yet speak the truth 
I must." But I cannot agree with them on the 
words omitted. The [xev is sometimes used alone, 
especially after the personal pronouns ; in which 
case it usually may be expressed by '* part.'' So iyw 
{xh, '•' for my part," a-oiixev, of which see examples in 
Matth. Gr. Gr., who has, however, not discerned the 
full force of the idiom. The same sense is some- 
times found, even when the personal pronoun is 
omitted ; as in the passage of Plato cited by Mat- 
thiae. But as the ]u.ev is so used with personal pro- 
nouns, so there is no wonder that it should be used 
with possessive pronouns, which include the personal 
ones. The sense, then, is : " For mi/ part, the wish 
of my heart is," Sec. It is true that in these cases 
tiiere is always a sentence omitted : but it is one 
which must exactly correspond to that which is 
expressed. In the present case it will be as follows : 
" whatever others may wish, or impute to me." 
Theophyl. supplies : " How can I be ill affected to 
you?" which is approaching very near to the truth. 

1. Koi 73 Sevjo-js" 7] TTpos rou &€ov. Here there seems 
a climax, q. d. " nay it is also the subject of my 
prayers to God," i. e. >- 1 offer up prayers to God. 
Tttc/?, /or them, on their behalf. 

1. eis" (TcoTriplav. One should have expected the 
article. The sense, however, must be the same, viz. 
" for their salvation, that they may be saved." The 
Commentators dispute whether this designates tem- 


pnral (as Hammond and Whitby suppose), or eternal 
welfare. Grotius and Doddridge understand both. 
Most Commentators, however, take it to mean " that 
they may he converted to Christianity/' But this 
is only indirectly adverted to. The force of the 
word, especially in this connexion and context, sug- 
gests the idea only of preservation from the wrath 
of God, and acceptance with iiim. Now this the Jews 
sought and expected by the law. Thus far the 
Apostle means to say, that he prays they may attain 
the object of all religious observances ; though he 
knovvs this can in no other way be done but by the 
justification that is in Christ Jesus. 77^/^ a-corr^pia, 
then, included temporal welfiu'e, and preservation 
from the impending ruin which awaited their obsti- 
nate rejection of the Messiah. 

2. fxapTupo) yap auToh on ^r{kov 06oG €^ou(Tiv, " I 
bear them witness," i. e. in their favour. For juia^ru- 
pelv, with a dative, signifies to bear witness /oV a 
person, i. e. in favour of him. See the examples in 
Schleus. Lex. Wets, renders 6;^ouo-j, " they think 
they have." But there is uo need to resort to any 
such stretching of the sense. 

^ 2. ^rjxov Seou. I am surprised that some of our best 
Commentators should take the words to mean a great 
zeal. (See Wolf's Curaa and Schleus.) For though 
this Hebraism of ©eoy, to denote greatness, has place 
elsewhere, yet here it is unnecessary, nay inadmis- 
sible. For (as Koppe observes) it takes away the ob- 
ject of the zeal mentioned, which cannot well be sup- 
posed to be left understood. The old Commentators 
discuss the force of the genitive, which has been most 
distinctly seen by Grotius. " All nouns of this kind 
(says he) have a genitive sometimes of subject, some- 
times of object; as here." And he might have 
given as an example, ^ ouk h/j^i i^oixrlav too tttjAow, 
supra 9, 21., where see the note. Moreover, the 
expression is taken from Ps. 69, 9- (cited in Joh. 2, 
17.), and w^e may here compare Acts 21, 20. 22, 3. 
2 Cor. 12, 2. The sense, then, is : " they have a 



zeal, the object of which is God and his approbation, 
and consequently the Mosaic law, his revelation : 
and this zeal was enkindled by a supposed neglect 
of it on the part of the Jews.'* But this, the Apostle 
adds, isou kut iiriyvuio-iv, which Koppe renders " non 
sapienter et intelligenter." And so Casaubon, in- 
scite. \¥hich, however, does not express the force 
of the phrase. Doddridge explains : " not directed 
into a right channel." But this is wandering too far. 
Yi-Kiyviocris is supposed by Grotius to be here syno- 
nymous with yvco(Ti9i and like the Heb. ]li?"T. But 
it seems a stronger expression, and means well 
founded knowledge, accurate judgment, at least 
not knowledge in general, as Erasm. and Henoch, 
take it.* Now the zeal of the Jews was not under 
such a sure guidance, but (as Koppe observes) pro- 
ceeded upon ignorance of tiie nature and intent of 
the law, and of the real value to be set upon those 
good works on which they so prided themselves. 
The words are thus paraphrased by Theophyl. : ou 
Kar eTrlyvoDO-'iv ea-riv b ^r]Xo9 auroT?, (xri |3ou7vOfx,evojy yvai- 
va», oTi vofxo^ ouro9 TreTrauraj Koi KarrtpyrjTai. 

To this tenaciousness of the Jews wath respect to 
the law (Carpzov observes), the works of Josephus 
bear frequent testimony. And the learned Com- 
mentator illustrates this from several passages of 

* An interpretation also adopted by Amnion, who hence deduces 
the i)hilosophical notion, that our religious faith must rest on just 
concejttions, and knowledge of truth. It is needless for me to point 
out the erroneousness of the opinion, and it is my duty to caution 
the student against the writings of tliis heterodox, though erudite. 
Theologian, who, however (as I learn), is now singing the ttoXj- 

t Kx. gT. IOCS c (e0j'os) elioQos eKovaiovs aiahe^eaQai Qavarovs 
iJffTTep adapaariav, vwep rov fi-qbev twv Trarpiwi' Trepiiheiy lU'nipoviue- 
vor, €t (Cat j3paxvraroy eirj' & 102'2 D & F. "ATravres yap aidpuyiroi 
d)v\aKTLKo\ Tu>v \hiu)v LBiLv elcriv, biacpepovrios be to 'lovba'tov edtos. 
—To'is yapi'jbr) KaQuipoviTip, 7/ ■^(Xeva.^ovaiy, los tto\€^iiljtutois avk-)(;- 
doj'Tai, K"at TreqtpiKaai juev eKcicTTOv twv bt.i]yopevix€V(i)v avrus, ws 
(ixaaav ti]v Trap ui'dpwTTOis eiTe evTvyJav, eiTe ehbaifioriav -^pri 
KiiKeiv, firjbcTTOT av virep Trapafjdffecos icai tov tv^ovtos uv vTvaXXa- 
Uitrdai' TvtpiTTnrepa be ko) ei,<u'peT6s laTir arrfimv y Tvept to tepoy 



3. ayvooGt'Tes' yap t>]v tou 0eoG biKaiotrmr^v. This 
clause seems meant as an illustration of the preceding 
words ou Kar eyrlyvcocriv. The ^iKaioa-. must signify 
" the mode by which God is pleased that justifica- 
tion and salvation should be attained." Being igno- 
rant, then, or not sufficiently acquainted with, and 
not caring to know this hiKuioar. (for the term seems 
to include all these notions), they sought, it is said, 
(rrria-ai r^v \^lav ^iKcciooruvriV, i. e. (says Wets.) " to the 
exclusion of tiie other nations." This, however, is 
not agreeable to the sco})e of the Apostle. By \hiav 
^iKuioa-. is meant a justification of f/ieir own, resting 
on the works of the law. And the Apostle so terms 
it, because, being a law of works, it made every 
one's salvation depend upon his own merits; and 
thus such a law might, in a certain sense, be called 
a justification of his own. So Theophyl. : rr^v €k 
epywv lolcuv Ka) ttovcov KaropSou^evYiV. And in the same 
manner the \olav is understood by Hardy, who ren- 
ders it : " ut ipsis excogitatam ;" and also by 
Rosenm., who observes that 13. 8ik. (by the force 
of the antithesis) denotes that mode of obtaining the 
Divine favour, which the Jews held to be alone the 
true one, and pleasing to God." So also Carpzov. 
" Externa quippe obedientia est ; sunt opera bona, ex 
propriis naturas viribus Legi praestanda, per quas 
justos se reddi posse existimabant.'* 

Xrwai. Koppe explains it as the opposite to Karap- 
yeiv, or avaipth, i. e. " not to suffer it (viz. the Mosaic 
Law) to be taken from them." In this, however, 
there seems something too formal and harsh. Tiie 
force of the (nr^a-on is well illustrated by Theophyl. 
(from Chrys.) as follows: r^ris KcCi TreirrcoKe koi ou ^')varai 
(TTY^vrxi. The idea, then, intended seems to be, the prop- 
ping and buttressing up of a weak structure.* It is 

* So Doddriclge, " The Pliarisees certainly inculcated the exter- 
nal duties of molality, how much soever they might themselves fuil 
in observing them, or lest merely in outward acts ; but they 
trusted in legal expiations to jjrocurc the pardon of tho-e evils 
which might happen ; and the composition of these, if I may be 


rightly remarked by Grotius : " Judaei plerique pro 
causa salutis aeternai constituere volebant justitiam 
illam externam quae per frequentes actiones paratur, 
et in societate humana aliquid valet." 

3. TV] ^iKaiofTuvj] TOO 0feou ofjp^ ')7r 6ray7i(ra.v. Grotius 
has rigiitly noticed that the passive has here (as 
often) a reciprocal force (as Niphal for Hithpaei). 
It is not, however, a mere Hebraism, but is often 
found in the Classical writers. The sense is : " they 
have not submitted, accommodated themselves to, 
yielded obedience to, and accepted, the mode of 
justification held out by God, namely, in the Gos- 
pel." Roppe observes that the aorist is for the pre- 
sent. But to this principle it is unnecessary here to 
resort. We may render, " they have not submitted, 
and do not submit themselves." 

It is shrewdly remarked by Grotius (I think from 
Diog. Laert.) that many v;ould have attained unto 
wisdom, if they had not thought they had already 
attained it. And, in conjunction with Carpzov, he 
compares a similar sentiment of Philo 912 d. EIctj Se 
oi Koi So'i^avrey iiri^eT'.eia'^ai (scil. (r7r€py.aTa)V eXTTiSoy), 

Karoo^ui^aroiV ave^rjKav iavrol^' 'Xttolitioi Qe rravre^ outoi. 
Movoy B' ctTToSo^v]? ci^io^, h avcuf^eis ty^v iXTnda 0eto. 

4. reXos yap voi/.o'j 'Xoig-to9- Here is more plainly 
declared the tnode by which God is pleased that men 
should be brought to salvation by Christ. 

The sense of this passage is not very easy to 
determine ; owing to the brevity with which the 
Apostle expresses himself, and the extensiveness of 
the term reXo?, which admits of two or three senses 
equally applicable in a general way. The most fa- 
vourite opinion, at present, is that of Cyprian, Crel- 
lius, and Koppe, who regard reAos* vofxou X. as a po- 
pular expression for reAoy e^epe rui vo^xco, " Christ 
has put an end to the law." And Koppe takes fly 
^iKonQcr. TTKTT. for elj TO cujui^aiveiv ZiKaiorrvvriv rio ttkt- 

allowed the expression, constituted tlie righteousness which they 
went about fTrijrrai, to establiah or prop vp, decrepit as it was." 


reda-avTi. He tlien lays down the sense of the pas- 
sage as follows : KaraoyrfievTo^ yap v6y.ou 8<a X^icrrou, 
^iKaio6ix€^a 7ravr€9 €K 7rl(TT€co9. And in the same view 
Amnion renders: " Desinit lex in Christum, lit salus 
nunc offeratur credenti." But this mode of inter- 
pretation, though it yields a sense by no means inap- 
posite, is not agreeable to the context. 

Other interpretations may be seen in Pole and 
Wolf. The most simple and satisfactory one seems 
to be that of Chrysost. Theophyl., Q^cumen., Pho- 
tius, and Theodoret (also adopted by Carpzov). 
*' The words (say they) are meant for tlie Jews, and 
Jewish Christians, to assure them that nothing is lost 
by abandoning the Law. The Apostle shews tliat 
there is only onejustification, and that what the Law 
attempted, the Gospel JuJ/ils ; and therefore he who 
chuses the one by faith, fulfils the other ; whereas 
he who aims at the other, must miss of this ; q. d. 
' The intent and end of the law, namely, justification, 
is fulfilled and perfected in Christ.' For what the 
law would have effected, but could not, this Christ 
perfected, namely, tojustify men."* 

5 — H. Koppe would closely connect together 
these verses ; and he lays down the sense as follows. 
*' While the authority of the Mosaic Law lasted, it 
was by a careful observance of it that men ob- 
tained salvation ; but now, since the abrogation of 
tliat law by Christ, the sole condition of salvation 
is t/tis, to believe in the Messiahship of Jesus, and in 
his resurrection from the dead." Koppe then pro- 

* Chrysost. offers the following popular illustration, and able 
exposition of the sense j Kat ydp reXos larpiKiis' vyeia' ojcnrep ovy 6 
bvid[.cei'OS vyifi TvoteTv, Kav fxij tov larptKijv exf' '^^ ^^'■^ ^'X^*^ ^ ^^ /"' 
elhws Bepcnreveii', k^v /Ae-iet'cti boKrj T))y Te\vt]v, tov ttcutos t^cTre- 
<rey' o'vrio /cat eiri tov vofiou Kai Tijs .Ttorews' o /.ley TavTi]y e^iajy, Kal 
TO iiceiyov tcXos e^ei' 6 be-avTijs e^w wPj cif-Kporepoy ea-iy uWorpioi' 
Ti yhp eftovXeTO 6 yoj-ios ; hitcaiov Troiijaai tov uyBpioTTOV dW oiiK 
"KT-)^v(rey' ovheis yap avTov knXijpwae' tovto ouy TeXos y)y tov vojxov, 
KoX els TovTO TTCtira e/3\e7re, cat but tovto Trcu'ra eyeyeTO, i:ai al t:op- 
Ta), Koi al kyToXaiy Kai al Bvtriai. koi to. Xnnra Trcu'ra, h'u biKaiioOfl 
!) ayOpioTTOs' aXXa. tovto to TeXos j/vutrev 6 XpirrTOS fxei^6vw% bia rjjs 


ceeds to illustrate the design of the Apostle. But 
his whole reasoning appears to be sophistical and 
unsound. Indeed it is at variance with that design, 
which is, to show th^ii j ustrftcafion never teas, and ne- 
ver could be attained by the law, since the law never 
could be thoroughly observed. And it is rightly 
remarked by Theophyl. (from Chrysost.) " that the 
words of ver, 5. are meant to contirm what was just 
before said ; namely, that what the law did not ac- 
complish, this Christ completed. For Moses, in- 
deed, says a man is justified by the works of the law. 
But these works no one was found able to fulfil. So 
that it is not possible to be so justified." The above is, 
I think, a just view of the sense ; and it must be re- 
membered, that by laic is meant the moral as well as 
the ceremonial. 

Now the ^TjVcrai (AVets. says) is explained by the 
Jewish interpreters of life eternal. And he subjoins 
several references to the Rabbinical writers; as does 
also Carpzov. Yet some of our best modern Com- 
mentators and Theologians, as Warburton, Whitby, 
and ^lacknight, and, of the antient ones, Origen, 
confine the sense of the expression solely to the pre- 
sent existance, so as to denote a prosperous and 
happy life in the land of Canaan. " And if (adds 
^Vhitby) eternal life was obscurely hinted at as the 
reward of their obedience to the law of Moses, it re- 
lated not to their obedience to the ceremonial but to 
the mora/ law, of which our Saviour speaks in Matt. 
19, 8. * If thou wilt enter into life (i. e. life eternal, 
as in ver. 16.) keep the commandments. And 
Macknight observes, that though this is generally 
thought to be a promise of eternal \\^e to those who 
obeved the law of ]Moses perfectly, yet any one who 
reads the chapter of Levit. 18, o. from whence these 
words are taken, will be sensible, that though the 
doins of these things means a perfect obedience to 
the \vhole law, and more especially to the statutes 
and judgments written in that chapter, the li/e pro- 
mised to the Israelites, as a reward of that general 


obedience, is only their living long and happily as a 
nation in Canaan." (See Dr. Hammond.) As to 
"Whitby's distinction respecting the moral and cere- 
monial law, it seems to be void of foundation. 

I must not omit to observe that in y^aCet rnKciio- 
<T'jvr,v there is a popular ellipsis, in which two clauses 
have coalesced into one ; q d. " Moses, treating of 
the justification to be had from the law, thus writes 
or speaks of it." 

The ajTOL, Koppe says, refers to the Trjo^rTayaara 
before recited in that chapter. And so Blackwall, 
who observes, that it must be taken from the context. 
But such a subaudition is precarious, and here (I 
think) unnecessary. The common ellipsis is xcay- 
/xara, which, however, must be accommodated to the 
case in hand, and must here mean commandments. 
^Nloreover, ra-j-a, I think, plainly includes kui toi- 
aOra, namely such as had been commanded in the 
foregoing part of the lavr. 

6. 7) 06 iK Trlcrrecos oiK>xir,rr'jyr, o-jrco '/-eyei, &C. These 
words, indeed, have a mystical air, and seem very 
obscure ; yet when the Oriental phraseology, and 
Jewish modes of expression, are taken into the ac- 
count, they become sufficiently clear. 

The expression r| €K Tricrrews oiKciirjT-jyr^ o'jrw /Jyei 
involves a prosopopoeia familiar to our ow n language, 
as when we speak of the law directing, ordering, &c. 

'H e/c Tzlrrrcw^ oiKcii'jT'j'^r^ is put, by metonvmv, for 
"the religion which offers them justification by 
faith, viz. the Gospel." OZruis, "to this effect." 
But in order to understand the force of the follow- 
ing words, we must bear in mind the scope of the 
Apostle. Now the antient Commentators, and some 
modern ones, as Carpzov, have righly seen, that 
justification hy faith forms the subject of this and 
the three following verses, in reference to which the 
Apostle inculcates this requisition, '* Believe, do 
not doubt." And the fruits of this are detailed in 
ver. 9, 10, & 11. 

Here two things are contained : " Do not doubt. 


but believe."* This the Apostle expresses in words 
borrowed from Deut. 30, 11 — 14., which are there 
used to denote a great difficulty, and meant to incul- 
cate, that the commandments of God were by no 
means hard of fulfilment. Now there is reason to 
think that the expression of ascending to heaven, and 
descending to hell, was a proverbial mode of denot- 
ing great difficulty, nay impossibility.-^ The words, 
then, are accommodated by Paul to his present pur- 
pose, and applied to the Gospel, by means of the 
phrases ro\JT€(TTi ^oicrrov Karayayeiv and tout' eort 
X^iCTov e/c v€Kpcov avayayelv. 

The admonition not to doubt is couched in the 
words [xri eiVv]? ev rf, KapVia (tou, which aptly express 
that sort of self-conference in which unbelief usually 
originates. So Theophyl. Mr] elxr^^, <^ri(nv, ev rfj Kap- 
8/a (TOU rahe Koi ra/je, rouTea-ri, juir] ivvo7](rrif oAwy a|u,0j- 
^oT^'ias Ti voYjixot,. Tlie scope of the passage is well 
illustrated by Mr. Turner, as follows : '^ Moses 
means to tell the Israelites, that it is neither imprac- 
ticable, nor indeed hard, to attain a knowledge of 
God's laws, and to obey them : St. Paul applies a 
part of what he says (altering it so as to make it suit 
his antithesis) to the subject before him, the facility 
of exercising faith, and consequently of obtaining 
justification. As if he had said, "The system of the 
Gospel demands faith, which is comparatively easy 
of acquisition i it does not require from you any 
thing of vast difficulty, as if the heaven were to be 

^ Sa Schnettg. " Vera hie indoles fidei verbis Mosis describitur, 
qiue in eo consibtit, ut non de ratione et niodo lei proiixfe quseia- 
nuis, sed Deo ejusque verbis credauius." 

f To vviiich purpose Wetbtein cites Gen. Sota J, 9. edit. VVagen- 
seil. Annon eduxit nos ex iEgypto, et diffidit mare nobis, et manna 
nobis coelitus demisit ? Si diceret : conlicite scalas, et conscendite 
aethera, non audiremus eum. Imo adscendamus, ut possideamus 
terrani illam. Num. 13,31. Bava Mezia, fol. 94, 1. Si quia dixe- 
rit mulieri, si adscenderis in firmamentum, aut descenderis in 
abyssum, eris mihi desponsata — ha:c conditio frustanea est. Nasir 
9, 2. Inimundities, qua; cognosni potest, opponitur immunditiei 
abyssi, i. e. occultae, qum cognosci non potest. 


scaled to bring down Christ, or the abyss to be fa- 
thomed to bring him up ; but it asks only what is 
within the reach of every one, what cannot be with- 
held without obstinate prejudice, that is, a belief in 
its divinity." 

One thing is omitted by almost all modern Com- 
mentators, though it is noticed by the antient ones, 
namely, that the words ny avaiSr^o-eraj — avayayeTi/ 
are not only a formula expressive of great difficulty, 
but were meant to advert to the points at which the 
faith of the unbeliever chiefly staggered. So Tlie- 
ophylact : " Do not doubt, nor say in thine heart, 
how did Christ descend from heaven and become 
flesh ? or, how after death did he rise from the 
grave: for God raised him: only believe that he de- 
scended incarnate, and again, after being buried, 
rose and ascended up to heaven : for God raised 
him. So that from the dignity of the raiser thou 
mayest without difficulty believe."* 

Surely notliing can be clearer than that this 
involves the prior existence of Christ before his in- 

* The woitls are thus paraphrased by Schoettg. " Quis consilia 
Dei perscrutabitur? aut novani revelatioiiem habebit. Omnia vobia 
revelata habetis, quae ad saluteni vestrani necessaria sunt." And by 
Carpzov, thus: 1. " Who can be certain whether Christ appeared 
in the Hesh, as God-man ? And whether God be entirely recon- 
ciled? No one can ascend to heaven, no one can account for the 
thing, or comprehend the manner of it. — '2. Who can be certain 
whether Christ really rose again ? whether he has really obtained 
the victory over his enemies, death, the Devil, and sin ? No one 
can descend into the abyss, and find it out, or trace out the man- 
ner of it." (See more in his note.) This view of the sense (which 
is confirmed IjyTheophyl. just cited) is also taken by every Com- 
mentator of note, and amongst the rest by Macknight, who rightly 
observes, " that by tlie apvaaov '\s meant Hades, the place of de- 
parted souls, so called because it was supposed by the Jews to be as 
far below the surface of earth as heaven was thought to be above it. 
See Vs. 139, 8. Amnion, however, contends that the Mosaic CD'l 12]; 
does not denote regions far separated from each other, but the veiura 
Treipa-a yan/v Kui TTuyrow oi Horn. II. 8, '244., and thus designates 
the vicinity of the Orcus, from the notions of the early ages. And 
he refers to Ps. 9, 10. Job 11, 17- Od. 10, 508. Joseph. B. 2. 8, 
11. But such speculations merit little attention from the Christian 


8. eyyuf cou to priy.a icrriv — cou. The sentiment 
(expressed, as before, in the words of Moses) is this : 
" So certain and indubitable is the doctrine of Jesus, 
the true Messiah, that faith must necessarily be due 
to him." (Koppe.) The words and the sense are 
diligently compared by Koppe with those of Deut. 
3, 14. (see Surenhus. p. 476. and Home's Introd.) : 
but the meaning is so clear as to require no laboured 
explanation. One may render: ''The word (i. e. 
the doctrine of faith) is familiar, easy to be under- 
stood, believed, and expressed." 

On the easiness of the religious observances en- 
joined, Philo (cited by Grot, and Carpzov) says, 
853 A. Alreirai yoi.p, co hiavoia, Trapa (tou 0eoy ouhlv 
^apu KoCi TTOiKiT^QV 7) hu(T€pyoVf ctAAa cnrT^ovv TvaJ^iV koIX 
pd^iov TadroL 8e icriv, ayarrav aurov cu£ evepyerriv. On 
which Carpzov truly remarks, that theological faith 
is not contained in moral and philosophical love, still 
less consummated in it. 

9. on iav hixiXoyr}(rrj9 ev toj (rro^oiTi, &C. Koppe 
has here much subtle discussion on Me parallelism 
which subsists in this passage. Taken out of the 
rhetorical form, the words would run thus : " If 
thou confess with thy mouth, and believe with thy 
heart, that Jesus is the Lord, and that God hath 
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 
For with the heart man believeth, and with the 
mouth confesseth,* unto justification and salvation." 

Similar sentiments are found in Mark I6, I6. 
1 Joh. 4, 15. compared with 5, 1. 

Paraeus and Koppe think that confession with the 
mouth is mentioned first, since it so occurs in the 
passage of Moses. Other reasons, indeed, may 
easily be imagined. The confession with the mouth 
is of more consequence, as regards men, and the be- 

* It is a strange notion of Grotius, that the mouth and breast 
are put, by synecdoche, for all the members of the body. It would 
be truer to say that belief in the resurrection is so put, as being 
that article of belief which is of the most importance, since it in- 
cludes the rest. See Tolet., Menoch,, and Parteus ap. Pole. 


lief with the heart as respects Gor/.«= It is observed 
by Theophyl. 73 (xev Kark havoiav ttIo-ti^ hKaiol vj' 3^ 
^aj/reXTjy o-oirTjp/a ev rfj i^jx/a /ceTm,. And in the same 
Mr. Turner paraphrases: "Justifying faith must be 
^ncere, and saving confession must be open '* 
The same view is also taken by Mackn. But this 
seems a too refined distinction, and is, I think un- 
founded HI Scripture. Tor though the ehhKaia^rCvri, 
and the e/y o-corrjpiav are placed separately by the 
Apost e, yet it is for the sake of the parallelisni, not 
that they are separated in remm naturd; and yet 
neither are they properly synonymous, as Koppe 
calls them. ' ^ 

Here it is well remarked by Grotius : '* Facta 
non ffistimat Deus ut ea in aeternum remuneretur, 
nisi quffi ex corde mundato proficiscuntur. Munda- 
tur autem cor per fidem, et cam maxima qu£e credi- 
tur Jesus a Deo resuscitatus; in hoc scilicet ut et 
praecepta ejus noscamus esse divina, et promissa 
certa, tum propter auctoritatem ei datam,tum prop- 
ter \nit£E reddit^ conspicuum exemplum." Bv this 
*e//e/it is plain we are not to understand a mere his- 
torical and dead faith, but a living and active one 
such as shall carry with it a practical obedience to 
the precepts of Christ. 

Jaspis rightly remarks on the great weight there is 
in the word Kt^^io? ; adding, '* Ita enim, ut constat, 
Uiristus dicitur, quod divina est ejus natura et leo-is- 
iatio, et quod imperium exercet, nominatim in eccle- 
siam Christianam." 

11. Xe'yet yap, &c. See the passage explained su- 
pra, 9, 17 & 33. ^ 

12. o'j yao e<TTi Stao-roXvJ. Compare 3, 22. Te Koi 

* To which purpose the following- passage of Origen, Exhort ad 
Mart, sub init. (cited by Bulkley,) U very apposite : "Eerr^ ye- el^'eJy 
ore ,uu\\oy eari rols xe/Xe<Tt Ti^,^y rijy KaphLav n6ppu> '^xorra ^iri 

We may better talk of honouring God with our lips, while the 
heart is far from him, than of honouring him with the heart, while 
the mouth docs not confess him to salvation." 


is here employed in a manner different from the 
usage of the ('lassical writers, by which the re has 
place only in conjunctive, not disjunctive sen- 
tences. Hence in the MSS. D. and E. we read 'lou- 
^oLup Ka\"E7^7v7}vi. But that is evidently ex emenda- 

12. 6 yap ahros Kupioy Travruiv. Carpzov contends 
that here 6 a-Jroy, like the Hebr. ^^T^, denotes the 
great He, Jehovah, which was one among the other 
cognomina of God ; as indeed he has proved in his 
Obss^Philon. on Hebr. 1, 12. But I cannot think it 
appUcable here, nor perhaps in the passage of Hebr. 
Nay, the article seems adverse to this interpretation ; 
while it exceedingly confirms the common one. 
Koppe takes h avrls, he. for as o Kvpios. But, with- 
out resorting to this principle, the sense will be: " the 
same person, one and the same person, is Lord of all 
(both Jews and Gentiles)." It is rightly remarked 
by Grot., that Ku^ios must here mean 0eoy, Jehovah. 

12. ttT^o'jtwv 619 Trauras rouy e7r</caXou|xei^ous' aurov. 
The antient Comm.entators strangely understand 
this, as if God considered those that invoke his aid 
as his riches and treasures ; which is very harsh and 
far-fetched. The sense plainly is, that He is rich, 
i. e. abundant, eiy, in respect to some quality which 
those that invoke him need, i. e. (as Grotius rightly 
understands) ^a^iri, or ^p7](rroTrjri : which is con- 
firmed by Eph. 1, 7- ttT^outos -yapnos' and Horn. 2, 4. 
TrAouToy ;^pr3o-TOT7]Toy, hemgnity. The same expres- 
sion, too, occurs in Philostr. V. Ap. 4, 8. s. f. h rb 
Koivov TrT^ourelv. Koppe urges the harshness of sup- 
plying -/apxTi, and would take 7rAoyra>v for Suvotroy cov, 
or ^Jva]y-tv 'k-)(j^v. But this can only be done by sup- 
plying 8uva|u.ei, which would be a harsher subaudition 
than yapiri ; since it is evident, from the preceding 
words ou icTTi hia(rro7^ri, that not poive7\ but bemgnity^ 
is here considered. Ammon would take ttT^ootcov in 
an active sense, to denote imparting his ivealth. But 
however this signification may have place in TrXoyri^o), 
yet in 7r7^ouT€co it is no where found ; and as yd^iri 


must then be understood, a very harsh subaudition 
would be thus occasioned. 

'ETT^/caXeTo-Qaj may iiere be understood, not of in- 
vocation properly so called, but every kind of pre- 
catory address to God.* 

(ra)ST](r€Tai. The words are taken from Joel 3, 5. 
By TTOis is meant every one, whether Jew, or Gentile. 
It has been doubted whether Kupjo? here refers to 
Christ, or to Jehovah. Most recent Commentators 
suppose the latter; while the antient Commentators, 
more rightly, I think, understand i\\e former. Even 
Koppe, however, admits that it is doabtfid. The 
W'Ord is treated at large by Whitby in the following- 
masterly annotation. " The original for this is Je- 
hovah, whence it is certain that the prophet speaks 
these words of the true and only God, and yet it is 
as certain that the Apostle here ascribes them to our 
Lord Jesus Christ, both from the following words, 
How shall they call on him in ivhom they leave not 
believed? For the Apostle in this whole chapter 
discourseth of faith in Christ, and from the words 
foregoing, of which these are a proof, and to which 
they are connected with the particle yap, for those 
words, ivhosoever believeth in him shall not be 
ashamed, are spoken by the Prophet Isaiah of Jesus 
Christ the Cornerstone, Isaiah, 28, l6. And so they 
are interpreted by St. Peter, 1 Peter, 2. 6, 7. And 
in the Prophet Joel these words follow, ewayyeXj^ojute- 
voi ous Kuptoy 7rpo<rK€K7\riTnc.i, and the evangelised, whom 
the Lord shall call shall be saved. Here then we 
have two arguments for the Divinity of Christ. — 1. 
That what is spoken of Jehovah is ascribed to him. — 

* So Bp. Bull, Harm. Apost. C. 5. § 1. (cited by Slade.) " Invo- 
cationem divini nominis hie, ut alibi ssepe (conf. Psalm. 14, 4. 53, 
4. Isaiah 43,^2. Jer. 10. ult. 1 Cor. 1, 2.) totum atque inte- 
grum divini numinis cultum significare manifestuni est : ut Paulus, 
cum Jidei salutem tribuit, fidem earn velit, qua cultum Dei (in 
Christo sc. atque ex preescripto Evangelii ejus) sibi conjunctum 


2. That he is made the object of our religious invo- 

This opinion, too, is also ably supported by Bishop 
Pearson on the Creed, p. 149, who there argues at 
large, that if Christ be not here called Jehovah, the 
Apostle's argument is quite inconclusive." 

14. On the construction and scope of this and se- 
veral following verses Commentators are at issue. 
Grotius and Hammond suppose ver. 14 and 15 to 
contain an objection on the part of the Jews, that they 
have not had sufficient opportunities of knowing the 
truth, and that to this the Apostle replies in ver. 16 
and 17- But to this it has been justly objected by 
Koppe and Wells, that the answer would not be 
adapted to the doubt proposed ; and moreover the 
same objection is proposed in ver. IS. by the Apostle 
himself, and then more suitably and fully refuted." 
Locke, however, and Taylor (after Crellius) suppose 
that ver. 16. contains the Jewish objection, namely, 
that a Divine mission would have been attended 
with success. Which interpretation has been adopted 
by Koppe and most Interpreters since his time, and 
is supported by the authority of the antient Com- 
mentators. The sense will be most clearly ascertained 
on examining the verses in detail. In the mean 
time the following general view of it by Mr. Slade 
may be acceptable : " The Apostle is shewing, that 
the rejection of the Jews, and admission of the Gen- 
tiles, are consonant to Scripture, and adduces this 
verse as a proof, " whosoever shall call on the name of 
the Lord, shall be saved." How then, continues 
the Apostle, shall they call on him without having 
believed .? And how shall they believe in him, of 
whom they have not heard, &c. ? On this the Jew 
remarks, " But they have not all (see on ver. 16.) 
obeyed the Gospel, for Esaias saith. Lord, who hath 
believed our report?" (From this very quotation 
then, says the Apostle, it appears that) faith cometh 
by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Yet 
why should the Jew conclude, that the Gentiles have 


not tlie privileo'e of hearing, for I say, have they not 
ah-eady heard, are not the words of the Psahnist, 
concerning the heavenly bodies, appHcable to them? 
Psalm 19. And have not the people of Israel been 
made acquainted with this admission of the Gentiles, 
and tlieir own rejection, by the words both of Moses 
and Isaiah ? ver. PJ to the end." 

14, 15. " Since, therefore, the worship o^ God. can- 
not be thought of apart from faith in God, but to 
the production and confirmation of this faith there 
is need of teaching and instruction ; there is surely 
no reason why the Jews sliould pursue me with 
hatred, when I teach that even the Gentiles have 
this faith, especially since it was long ago predicted 
by Isaiah (52, 7.) that this would happen.'' A sen- 
timent expressed by an elegant sorites, proceeding 
from effects to causes, by the aid of four questions, 
to be explained negatively. These are as follows : 
1. No one will call upon Christ, nor acknowledge 
him to be his Saviour and Lord, if he does not be- 
lieve in him. <2. No one will believe in Christ, if he 
has not heard of him. 3. No one will hear of Christ, 
unless there be some one to preach Christ. (Luke 24, 
47.) 4. No one. will preach Christ (cum I/cai/oTTjTi et 
iveoyeia, (2 Cor. 3, 5,) except he be regularly called 
and sent. (Carpzov.) The Apostle, after saying 
whosoever shall call upon the Lord Jesus shall be 
saved, now reprehends the Jews because they have 
not called upon him ; but wherefore have they 
not called upon him ? because they believed not. 
Wherefore have they not believed ? was it because 
they have heard not? but they have heard. Then 
comes the objection. How could they hear without 
a preacher ? To this is subjoined the solution : and 
yet many preached and were sent to them. Now 
hence is it clear that they are the sent ? Then the 
Apostle finally brings in the prophet's saying: " How 
beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel 
of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things !" 
For the Apostles went about announcing good 

VOL. VI. c 


things, and the peace of God towards men. (Theo- 
phyl.) See Chrysost., Theodoret, OLcumen., and 

The 3e is here for aXXa. (See Schl. Lex.) JOo 
is for ov, by a common Greek idiom. Ouk r^Kouarav is an 
idioticai expression for auro Trepi o5 oxjlh rf/couo-av, " how 
shall they believe in him of whom they have heard 
and known nothing." For here, and just after, in olkq^- 
(Tooa-i knowing is supposed to accompany the hearing. 

15. coy (opaloi, &c. Taken from Js. 52, 7. The 
passage is by many recent Interpreters supposed to 
have no reference to the times of the Messiah, but 
(as Rosen m. thinks) treats of those Jews who, after 
the decree of Cyrus in favour of the restoration, re- 
turned first to Judea, and announced the liberation 
of their countrymen, to those who had continued in 
the land." And Bp. Lowth thinks it a poetical de- 
scription of the messengers who first brought the 
good news of Cyrus's decree for the people's return 
home. But from the Rabbinical citations in Wets.* 
there is no reason to doubt but that the Jews under- 
stood it as referring to the times of the Messiah ; 
and therefore it may justly be supposed that the Pro- 
phet here, as in innumerable other passages, couches 
under the primary and exoteric a secondary and ex- 
oteric, or mystical, sense. 

It is singular that the words of the Apostle here 
differ considerably from the Sept., but are agreeable 
to the Hebrew ; except that the D'^^nn^i^ and i^nH^D 
are omitted. The other Greek versions, however, 
and the Vulg., render in nearly the same manner. 
AquUa., ri aj^ai(6Qr](rav ; Symmachus,rj euTrgeTreTy; The- 
odoret, cJ? euV^fTreTs' : and Vulg. (juam fulchri super 
mantes. Whence Koppe, with much ingenuity, con- 

* Ex, gr. Pesikta R. 53, 3. Jalkut Schimoni in Es. fol. 53, 3. 
No. 337. Quo tempore Deus 8. B. Israelem liberabit, triduo ante 
adveiitum Messire Elias slabit in niontibus Israelis, dicetqiie : O 
niontes tcrrce Israelis! quam diii statis in terra deserta. Tunc di- 
cet iis : Pax venit in Mundum S. D. Es, 5^, quam formosi sunt 
super monies pedes nuncii, &c. 


jectures that in the Sept. was formerly read, not (69 
wpoL — a/y, but copaloi — oi.* 

At the expression ajy wqaioij &c. some tasteless 
Commentators have unnecessarily stumbled. There 
is surely nothing but what may very well be under- 
stood, and tolerated. By beautiful is, I think, here 
meant grateful, pleasant, acceptable ; and by the 
feet is meant, not (as Doddr. supposes) the footsteps, 
but the approach ; and this is especially mentioned, 
since at their approach such messengers of good 
news are especially acceptable. Crellius, with his 
accustomed good taste, was, I believe, the first who 
saw the true ratio metaphorae, which has, after him, 
been treated on by Bos,-}- and is especially illustrated 
from Soph. Elect. 1358., cited by Wets, (which I 
had also myself noted down), w (piT^rara) ixev x^^P^^^ 
rfiia-TOV 8' e^foVTroOaiv vTnrjpeTr^ixa' where the Schol. on 
the words ttoocvv 67rr,pery]ii.oL well remarks : hoL yap 
ro'JTwv ra ttoo? (rcoTYjoiav -iqixiu t>7r>]§er^(ra$'. IloOey, in 
the sense oi' approach is an Oriental metaphor. So 
Acts 5, 9. " Behold the feet of those who " &c., 
where see the note, in which is cited a similar pas- 
sage of Eurip. Or. I2I7. TrotpSevoo Sep^o-j TroSa, where 
the Schol. explains : rr]v eXeua-iv ko.) Trapoua-iocu Tr,s^ izap- 
Bcvou. Finally, this passage of the Apostle is beauti- 
fully alluded to by Zonaras in his Hist. 3, 6, 23. rou^ 
TOTTO'jf ous* ol (opaioi 7ro^€f XpitTToG, COS' €\prjvr]v euotyyeT^i- 
o"ap.evou, hia)0€V(rav. 

The words elprjvriv and ra aya^a are, by the paral- 
lelism, synonymous. 

* I cannot but suspect that the letters were eaten away bj' a 
worm, or had faded away, in some very antient archetype. Indeed I 
remember to have met with many instances of these lacunula; in 
the Classical writers, and especially in those of which we have few 
MSS., as Hesych., Dio Cass. &c. Some of these have scarcely been 
perceived, others, filled up, more or less successfully, by the Critics. 

t " The hands and feet (says he) of those who come upon a kind 
errand are represented as beautiful to those who received benefit by 
their arrival." So VVetst^^in : "The feet of those who bring a joyful 
message, even though dirty, yet seem beautiful." This, however, 
seems too fanciful. 

C ^ 


16. aXX' ou 7ravT€9 vTTYjKovfrav. This may be either 
an objection of a Jew, or tiie writer's acknowledg- 
ment. If the former, the answer is to be considered 
as implied in the words of Isaiah immediately fol- 
lowing, which are applied to meet the objection, 
although relating principally to Jewish unbelief. 
See 53, 1. If the latter, the quotation illustrates its 
propriety. (Turner.) See the note supra ver. 14. 
The sense is thus laid down by Koppe. " But the 
reason why many are not saved is solely to be as- 
cribed to the neo'lect of the doctrine declared to 
them ; which very thing the prophets of old, espe- 
cially Isaiah, had predicted. 

The scope of the verse is thus illustrated by Theo- 
pliyl. (from Chrysost.) After having said that the 
preachers had testimony borne to them by the pro- 
phets as being from God, lest any one should say: 
*' And yet, if they were from God, e^ei Travrag olotcZv 
viraKoua-ai (I emend partly from the margin eoej irav- 
Tcos TTavras a., o.)? the Apostle replies that, in fact, all 
did not hearken to the Gospel ; but the truth is not 
at all injured from that ; for this very thing was also 
spoken of by Isaiah, many years before : " Who hath 
believed," &c. This confirms the mode of interpre- 
tation adopted by Locke and Taylor. 

To me it seems that the words cOOC ou — euayyeT^iay 
are a supposed objection of a Jew ; q. d. " But not 
all, nay, very few have hearkened to this good news 
from God ; which is strange." Thus the following 
words will be the Apostle's answer, in which some- 
thing from the preceding clause must be repeated ; 
q. d. True, very few have hearkened to the Gospel ; 
insomuch that we may say, in the words of Isaiah, 
" who hath believed," &c. 

'A/cot), report^ ov any thing heard, ni^1?2t!?, preaching, 
doctrine. Koppe compares a passage of Philo 131 c. 
owSe yap oklyos tVr)v apiSixos^ rwv €^ dcKo^y kou JcpT^yryO-eo)? 

17. oipa. V]' ttIo-ti^ €^ uKoris, &c. Most ancient and 
modern Interpreters regard the aoa as conclusive. 


Koppe renders it atqui igilur. It is seldom by the 
('lassical writers placed, as here, at the beginning of 
a sentence. 

Tiiis passage is regarded by Koppe and Rosenm. 
as similar to that of ver. 14 & 15., and meant to in- 
culcate the necessity of the Apostolical or Evange- 
lical oifice, and to vindicate the divine authority of 
the Christian doctrine against the Jews. It is very 
well paraphrased by Mr. Locke as follows : " That 
which we may learn from thence is, thatfaitli cometh 
by hearing, and hearing from the word of God." I 
assent to Mr. Turner, that this observation is made 
to intimate the necessity that the Gentiles should 
hear the Gospel in order to believe it ; and that there 
is a reference to uKori in the former verse. 

The above seems to be the most probable inter- 
pretation of the whole passage, in ascertaining the 
true sense of which Dr. Macknight perplexes him- 
self and his readers to no purpose. It is plain that 
some verb is left to be understood. Many supply 
eo-Ti : others yiverai, which seems preferable. The 
authors of our Common Version supply ep^erai ; 
which is su})ported by a similar passage of Max. Tyr. 
Diss. 31, 4. 8t' ayy€'A(i)V v] Wroplcx, ep^erat. On the 
Theological doctrine contained in these words see 

Here it is remarked by Wetstein : " Ut sol omni- 
bus lucet, et coelum omnes tegit : ita Evangelium 
omnibus debet annunciari." 

18. aAAct T^eyo), Mr] ouk r,Kov(rav ; On the SCOpe of 
these words Commentators are not agreed. JSome, 
as Hammond, Koppe, and Rosenm., refer them to 
the Jews exclusively. Others, as Vatabl., Grot., and 
Whitby, to the Gentiles. And Locke to both 
Jews and Gentiles. Chrysostom and the Greek 
Commentators support the Jirst of these opinions. 
It is thought by Chrysost. that the Apostle is sup- 
posing an objection ; q. d. " But what say you, if 
preachers were sent to them, and yet they heard not 
at all." The reply to which is : " What say you : 
have they not heard ? W^hy the very farthest parts 


of the earth have been evangelized ; and have not 
you, among wliom the preachers so long remained, 
heard of the Gospel."* 

18. aXXct J^eyco is a formula dubitantis novaque 
objicientis. Mevouvye repels the doubt, and may be 
rendered fw^ but. The passage which follows is 
from Ps. 19, 5.:'j~ and most Commentators are 
agreed that the primary intent of that sublime com- 
position is the illustration of God's glory from the 
works of the creation ; but that it is here accommo- 
dated by the Apostle to the illustration of God's 
glory by the dissemination of the Gospel. And this 
is also the opinion of the learned and orthodox 
Schoettg., whose words are these : " Negari non 
potest, verba htec Psalmi XIX. propria agere de ser- 
mone creaturarum naturali, ex quo omnes homines, 
quacunque lingua utantur, majestatem Numinis su- 
premi agnoscunt. Apostolus autem ea sic adducit, 
ut a pari argumentetur : Si sermo Dei naturalis tarn 
lat^ se extendit, ut omnes homines ilium intelligere, 
Deumque ex operibus suis glorificare queant, quanto 
magis Deo, ej usque in genus humanum propensione 
dignum est, ut verbum Evangelii per omnem terram 
audiatur." He adds that almost the very same sense 
is ascribed to the words in Sohar Genes, fol. 9. Et 
in omnem terram exivit linea eorum : '^12^ ^^h'D 

* The Apostle had shown in a general way, that because faith 
Cometh of hearing and obeying {uko]i) the divine word, it was ne- 
cessary for the Gospel to be preached to all. (ver. 14 — 17 ) Now 
he shows specially, that the heavenly truths had been preached both 
to all the Gentiles (vcr. 18.), and also the Jews (ver. 19.) : but with 
unequal success. For many Gentiles believed in the Gospel, (ver, 
20.) But the Jews, for the most part, remained obdurate, (ver. 21.) 

f The words of this quotation (Koppe observes) agree with the 
Sept., and are not at variance with the Hebrew ; since "^ip (which 
it has been conjectured that Paul read) is never by the Sept. ren- 
dered (jjdoyyus, but (pwi'i) : whereas CDip (the present reading) may 
very well signily (pdoyyds nvTu/r, since ip comes from mp, to stretch, 
and signiHes, Ibt, a eliord in full tension j 2d, the sound emitted 
from it when thiuninied. Nay, in Arabic (as Schoettgen says) mp 
signifies to sound, call, &c. 


'J'13'^^^ b^n*^U,''t3, Ilia verba sunt serv't Messice, etpenneti- 
mitiir stfpcriia et inferna. See also Soliar Exod. fol. 
56. col. 22 i. 

It is probable that the Psalm was meant by its au- 
thor to caiiy a primary or popular, and a secondary 
or mystical, sense. The phrase Trcto-a y^ and xepaTo. 
T^y o]KO'Jix€vri9 are not to be too much pressed ; merely 
denoting tlie habitable tvorlcL* But I cannot agree 
with Koppe, that no more can be elicited from the 
words than this sense ; " t/iat the Jews and Gentiles 
who then rejected the Gospel, might have known it if 
thetf wouldy Carpzov here comj)ares a passage from 
Philo Gol'., where the Mosaic law is thus eulogized : 
Twv vojxcov TO KAeoy ous^ a.7ro7^e7\.oi7r€ Oia Tracrr^y Trjf o\kouul€- 
VTjy Tre^^oiTrj/coy, rX^oi kcc) rcov yr^g repixarcov €(^SaK€v. 

It is evident that the sense of aurcuv will vary, 
according as the natural or mystical acceptation be 
adopted. In the former case it will refer to the 
hearers : in the latter to the preachers^ or the things 

K). [J-ri ouK €yv(o 'l(rpa.rfK ; Here again we have a 
sentence which, from its extreme brevity, is suscep- 
tible of more than one meaning. Certain it is that 
it cannot be taken declarativeltj ; as some have sup- 
posed ;-{- but must be taken interrogatively. The 
question, however, is, what is meant hyeyvui ? Chry- 
sost., and the Greek Commentators, as also Beza, 
interpret it understand, comprehend ; q. d. " But 
suppose these did preach, and these did not compre- 
hend, are they not excusable for their ignorance." 
This, however, requires too much to be supph'ed, 
and is not agreeable to what follows. Grot, under- 
stands by eyvui '* hear of it ;" q. d. " It was impos- 
sible but they must have heard of it ; and therefore 
with them rested the blame." But this sense cannot 

* In Aristid. 1, 415 c, we have the very rare form axarra // ttXoi- 
^0$, i.e. the suitable world, and in 1, 433 d. ki> /jeo-w r>;s oUovfxeyqs 
T€Kal da\da(Tt]<i. 

t So Dr. Macknight, who treats /o) o'v^; as a double negation. A 
strange ignorance this of the Greek idiom. 


be elicited from the words ; for (as Koppe remarks) 
ouK eyvo) is not synonymous \7ith ouk Tj/couo-av ; nor 
could the passages of Moses and the Prophets above 
cited, be of any avail to the removal of that doubt. 
The truth is (I conceive) that after 'lyuco must be 
understood roGro, which is to be referred to what 
went before ; namely (as is suggested by Locke, 
Doddr., Koppe, Rosenm., Piscat., Paraeus, Solet, 
Menochius, and Hardy), the promulgation of the 
Gospel not only to the Jews, but to all nations. 
Thus the words following will be very apt. For the 
Apostle meets this objection by showing that some- 
thing similar had been declared by the Prophets. 

19. TTpcoTos M(o(rrj9 "heyei. It is not very clear what 
is the exact sense oi xpwros. Grot, takes it to mean 
first in tbne ; q. d. " who preceded the other Pro- 
phets in time :" and he thinks it has reference espe- 
cially to Daniel and Isaiah, from whom quotations 
are brought forward supra and infra. 8emier, how- 
ever, thinks it has reference to the Apostles; q. d. 
" prior nobis Apostolis." But this seems harsh ; 
though the Apostles may be included. Wetstein 
and Storr join the irqanos with 'la-^arjA ; q. d. "be- 
fore the nations were called, nay, before they knew 
they were to be called, this was predicted to the 
Jews.'' But (as Koppe observes) though the sense 
is apposite, yet the construction is too harsh to be 
admitted. It is plain that Trpcaros is for irporepos. 
The interpretation, then, of Grot., &c. seems to 
deserve the preference. 

The words here quoted are from Deut. ^2, 21., 
and agree with both the Hebrew and Sept., except 
that y'^as" is put for auVous- \ which, in the accommo- 
dation of the passage to the present purpose, was 
convenient. Grot, and Koppe remark on the Oxy- 
moron in fcV OUK e6j/6« : and the latter compares 
Eiirip. Orest. 902. 'Aqyeiov ouk 'ApyeTov. Plut. 2, 
1811. ^QU(ro^ €K ju-vj ■^oo(roo, T^lSof €k [xy} a/Oou. Drusius, 
too, compares other Classical Oxymorons ; as aowpa 
(Stopa, aya^ouy yctjaouy. Cic. insepulta sepultura. Ovid. 
injustajusta. CdiixxW. funer a nonfunera. But these 


are not quite all of the same kind. By not a jjeople is 
meant not peculiarly so by any covenant or levelation. 

19. eOvei ao-'jv6Ta>. Grotius observes that aa-vver. 
does not simply mean foolish, but infected with the 
folly of idolatry, and therefore impious; since the 
knowledge of God is alone true wisdom. 'Ihe.iiation 
meant by Moses is that of the Philistines ; but in the 
application must be understood the Greeks, or Gen- 
tiles in general. So Theophyl. 105. Tlyap'Ej^T^r^vwv 
a(rvv€TcoT€pov, ^vT^oiS Koi T^iSoiy TrporrKe-^r^voTcvv ; It is 
observed, too, by Wetstein, that the Jews themselves 
(as Salomo, Bechai, and Abarbabel) understand by 

foolish nation, the Christians, whom they call Idu- 
maeans or Romans, as we learn from Altingius in 
Schilo p. 344." 

Ihe words 7rapa^r,'kt6<r(o and Trapopyiw, which oc- 
cur in the two members of the parallelism, are syno- 
nymous; and the sense is, "excite your envy by 
conferring on them benefits which you thought be- 
longed exclusively to you." The ctt) signifies re- 
specting. The sense of the passage, both in its na- 
tural and accommodated sense, is sufiiciently clear. 

llosenm. observes, that 8t. Paul does not cite the 
above passage as a prophecy of the calling of the 
Gentiles, but merely to show, that it had been long 
ago predicted that the Israelites were not the chosen 
people of God, in such a sense as to exclude other 
nations also from receiving his benefits. Mr. Tur- 
ner, however, thinks it probable, from the severity 
of the punishment immediately afterwards denounced, 
that the prophecy has in view the rejection of the 
Israelites, and the admission of the Gentiles to be 
God's covenant people. 

20. 'Hcra/ay 6e ctTroToXjaa, &C. Koppe would ren- 
der the Se similiter seriore tempore. But this is too 
arbitrary an interpretation. It merely signifies imo 
vero. 'AroToAjuia, "is very bold;" for the avrl has 
an intensive force. The word is also used by the 
Classical writers, as Lysias, ^schines, Plut., and 
Philo, from whom examples are adduced by Wets, 
and others, 'AttotoX/xcc /cat Aey^t is put, by hendia- 


dis, for aTOToXfAcoy Xeyet. The ayro refers to the 
anger of the Jews, which such a speech would be 
sure to excite. 

The words are from Is. 65, 1 & 2. (with this al- 
teration, that the two members of the sentence are 
taken in inverse order), and treat of the rejection of 
the Jews, into whose place the other nations sliould pass. 
The aorists euoe^ev and kyevoiLTiv Koppe takes for 
presents used by the Prophet in a future sense. But 
this is an exceedingly harsh mode of interpretation. 
It is sufficient to suppose that the Prophet, more 
prophetico, pronounces what was in futurity as if it 
were already done. 

The sense of the two parts of the parallelism will 
become plainer by mutual comparison. For, as 
Koppe and Rosenm. observe, (from the antient 
Commentators,) God is said eu^la-KeorSai and €ix<pavrj 
yeveaSaiy when he by his benefits excites men to 
worship and obey him : and the terms ^rjrelv and 
€7r€p(i)rdvy like the Hebrew U?pl and b^"^, are syno- 
nymes used to denote devout worship of God. In 
illustration of the force of €7r€pcoT., Crellius observes, 
that they who seek anything are accustomed to 
make inquiries after it. 

521. Trpoy 8e rov 'lo-^aijX, &c. The connection is 
thus pointed out by Theophylact: " That the Jews 
might not have to say, Thou wert found by the 
Heathen, but with us thou didst not choose to have 
intercourse, there follows. All day long I have 
stretched forth," &c. 

The Commentators are not agreed whether Tr^oy 
should be taken in the sense of de, or adversus. The 
former interpretation seems to have been adopted 
by the Greek Commentators, and is preferred by 
many modern ones, as Grotius, Estius, Doddridge, 
&c. : but the latter is supported by Beza, Erasmus, 
Piscator, Koppe, and others. Either^ indeed, may 
have place j but the former seems to deserve the 
preference. Certainly that of the Vulg. and our 
Common Version (ady to) cannot be admitted. 


The words (except with a slight transposition) 
agree with those of the Sept. : but the words dtTreiQ- 
ouvra'and avrikkywra have only one term correspond- 
ing to them in the Hebrew, namely 1*^)3. Hence 
some critics suspect that they represent a double in- 
terpretation. But it is more probable that the 
Translators used two words, to more accurately re- 
present the force of the Hebrew term ; though avri- 
7^€y€iv does, in the Scriptures, often denote rebellion 
as well as contradiction. It is observed by Grotius, 
that the words refer, in their j»m/zarz/ sense, to those 
Jews who followed the party of Antiochns ; adding : 
*' Si nunc tales esse potuere in Judasis, quid mirum si 
et nunc inveniantur." 

'^Oxtjv rr^v ■^[/.epav Theophyl. rightly explains by 
TTuvra Tov pj^ico'voj/, perpetually. On the e^eTreraa-a 
ray yjlpa^t Paraeus well remarks : *' Metaphora a ma- 
tribus, quae petulantes pueros passis ulnis ad se revo- 
cant, venientes complecti parata."* There is ano- 
ther example of the metaphor in Prov. 1, 24. to 
which I add Plut. Dionys. 29- opeycov ray yf^pc/i.^ roTy 
XupoLKoua-ioi^. Theophyl. and Vatabl. supplv, " and 
yet it refuses to come to me." But such a subaudi- 
tion is not necessary; since that sense is included in 
the words onrei^ouvTa and avriT^eyovra. Theophyl., 
however, seems justified in supplying the following: 
' ^(rre ^rJT^ov on kou Tj/coytrav ol €^ '\<rpari'k, /cai cyvwcraVt 
O'JK eQeXrjcav Oe u7rdKov(rai. 

Koppe concludes his commentary on this Chapter 
with the following judicious observations, which are 
highly deserving of attention. 

Et hie quidem locus, imprimis inde a versu 18., si 
diligenter attenditur, non apparet profecto, quid 

* So Kypke, " Est hie gestus benign^ et peraraanter invitantis, 
qui alios expansis ambabus manibus excipere gestit atque amplecti. 
Sic enim ajjtfe respondent sequent ia apud Jesaiam C. 65, 2. be- 
nignae a Deo factse invitationi^ ut ad se venirent Judeei, op|)onitur, 
illos potius, ut rebelles, viam longfe aliam, a Deo magis magisque 
abducentem ingressus esse." Siniillim^ Dion. Hal. p. 408. riW 
avTt) KoXeT kot aiTtpvXeZj kcu rus xelpas vn'iy ci/xa rati nvXais 


amplius postulari aut expectari possit, lit ab otnni 
cupiditatis culpa Deiis vindicetur, causa vero incre- 
dulitatis luunanag, cum eacpje conjunctas miseriai in 
sola hominum ipsorum piava voluntate quasratur. 
Unde ad Capitis 9- ni loca aiiquanto obscuriora rit^ 
interpreteuda, et ab omni ahsoiuti cujusdum decreti 
dwini, c[uod firmari iisdem dicuut, crimine vindicanda, 
hunc imprimis locum diligeiiter conferendum esse 


Having shewn why the Jews in general were ex- 
cluded from the kingdom of the Messiah, St. Paul 
now proceeds to console those of his nation who hail 
embraced the faith of Christ, under the affliction^ 
which a consideration of the lamentable state of 
their countrymen must have produced, and to dis- 
courage, in the Gentile converts, any disposition to 
inordinate self complacency, and any tendency to 
treat the Jews with contempt. He states that, in 
fact, many Jews had become converts to Chris- 
tianity, that the unbelief of those who remained ob- 
stinately prejudiced against the truth, was only made 
illustrative of God's wisdom and kindness to the 
Gentiles; and lastly, that the time should come, 
when the Jewish nation would acknowledge Jesus as 
the true Messiah, and receive his Gospel. (Turner, 
from Koppe.) 

In this Chapter the Apostle studiously inculcates 
that the Jews are not all, ivhollj/, or perpetuuUy to 
be excluded from the favour and mercy of God, if, 
excited by the example of the Gentiles, they took 
unto themselves the same confidence, as consisting 
in faith in Christ. It is, moreover, carefully to be 
borne in mind, that in the whole of this Chapter the 
Apostle does not simply say that the Jews shall, at 
some future time, have faith in Christ, but with the 
adjunct, //'they shall repose faith in Christ; as is 
plain from ver. 11. 23, 26, 31. (Carpzov.) 

1. ae aTTcocraro o ©eoy rov Xaov aurou ; Locke takes 


this to be a question on the part of the Jew who 
made the objections to the former Chapter. It may, 
however, be regarded as an anticipation of an objec- 
tion founded on a misunderstanding of the Apostle's 
words ; q. d. " understand me not as intending to 
assert that God has rejected iiis people." 

The term a;ra>VaTo is a very strong one ; and, liter- 
ally, means to reject wiffi abhorrence as a nauseous 
potion, and, from the adjunct, to push away, cast off. 
But it is ofte!i metaphorically employed by the 
Classical writers with more or less of emphasis, ac- 
cording to the subject and purpose of application. 
Several examples are adduced by Wetstein. Here 
it must have great force, and imply absolute and 
perpetual rejection and abandonment. Koppe aptly 
compares aTroSo/ci.aa^eiv in Ps. 94, 14., and Hesych. 
aTTOiVaro, ftoc/cpav tppixj/ev. The lexicographer, doubt- 
less, has reference to the present passage. The 
sense, then, is : " Hath God cast off Israel from 
being his people : jutv] yevoiro, by no means." 

1. Kcci yap 'l(Tpari-hiry]9 fl^/, '« The Apostle (ob- 
serves Koppe) refutes the objection, 1st, by ex-pe- 
rience; since many of the Jews, and, among the 
rest, Paul himself, were followers of Christ (ver. 1.) : 
2dly, by a familiar example taken from the Old 
Testament, and accommodated to the present pur- 
pose (ver. 2 — 4.)." 

Grotius and others have seen that between the 
^t) yevoiro and eyco yap, &c. there is a sentence left 
to be supplied ; viz. '' For how, then, would it fare 
with myself? For otherwise I should pronounce 
reprobation on myself, since I am an Israelite." 
Now this ellipsis is indicated by the yap, which car- 
ries with it an aXXa)y. 

The words €k (nrep^aros 'A/3paa|ui are equivalent to 
" with all the privileges of a descendant of Abraham." 
I assent to Grotius that in cJ^uXi^? ^evia^iv there is no 
particular emphasis to be sought, but that the words 
are solely to be referred to a certain custom amono- 
the Jews, which is, when speaking of their origin, to 


derive it not only from the nation generally, but the 
tribe in particular ; as in Phil. 3, 5. XTref^ixaToy is 
for yevous. 

2. QUK dtTTcocaro o ©eoy rov 7\.aov aurod o. tt. The 
Apostle solemnly repeats his affirmation. Here 
Jaspis explains : " omni occasione et spe verae feli- 
citatis adipiscendas Deum Judgeos privasse non dici 
potest." Koppe takes the aorist for the present. 
But the common interpretation " hath not rejected," 
comes to the same thing. The sentiment (he ob- 
serves) is frequent in the Old Testament ; as 1 Sam. 
12, Q2. Judg. 6, 13. 

2. ov TTpoeyvu), Rosenm. renders: " qnem ab aeter- 
no cognitum habuit :" Locke and Jaspis : " amavit, 
favit. Wetstein thus : " Quem ad Christum con- 
vertendum esse per Prophetas praedixit." This 
cannot (as Dr. Mackn. observes) relate to God's 
fore-knowing his people to be heirs of eternal life ; 
for, in that case, the supposition of his casting them 
off could not possibly be made: but it is God's fore- 
knowledge of the Jews to be his visible church and 
people on earth.'' Thus Koppe very well renders : 
" Quem quidem semel aeterno sapientique consilio 
populum suum constituerat." The sense must ne- 
cessarily follow out of the parallel passage supra 8, 
29-} where see the note. 

2. r^ ouK o'loare kv 'Hx/a r/ Xeyei t]' yqa^ri ; The 
Critics and Commentators are divided in opinion, 
whether ev signifies o/" Elijah, or in Elijah, or in the 
book of Elijah, that part of the book of Kings which 
treats of the actions of Elijah. The earlier Com- 
mentators adopt t\\Q former mode of interpretation ; 
the more modern ones the latter, which is sup- 
ported by the examples of the idiom occurring in 
the Classical writers. Thus Koppe instances Sue- 
ton, in Nerone. And (I must add) the ancient Cri- 
tics refer to various parts of Homer in a similar 
manner ; as the /caraAoyo?, the Ta(^os UarpoKT^ou, the 
NeKuo|xavTe/a. Nay, even Thucydides himself, L. 1, 
8., refers to Homer iv rou a-Ki^TrTpoo tJ] iraoa^oa-ei. And 


of this we have an example in Mark 12, 26. eV) r^y 
3arou, where see the note. This, then, is proof suf- 
ficient to establish the interpretation : nor can we 
reasonably require (as is done by Ammon) a positive 
example of the idiom as applied to some portion of 
the book of Kings. Besides, the jest of the argu- 
ment does not turn upon any thing that happened to 
Elijah^ but upon what was spoken by the Almighty ; 
whether to Elijah or not, were of little moment. 

2. u)9 iuTuy^avei r(o 0€^ Kara too 'I. The verb 
ivTuy^aveiu is here used in an uncommon manner. 
It properly signifies, with the dative of the person, 
to meet any one, have an interview with, hold con- 
ference, and converse with any one ; as in Acts 25, 
24. Now as this is a sort of action usually done on 
the part of, or inbehalf of another, so the verb often 
takes an uVep with a genitive; as in Rom. 8, 27 & 
34. Heb. 7, 25. 5, 4., &c. But it is also applied to 
a representation made against any one ; as here and 
in 1 Mace. 8, 32. ivr. Kara (rod. 1 Mace. 10, 6 1 & 63. 
11, 25., and without the Kara in 1 Mace. 10, 64. In 
all such cases it denotes to complain against, crimi- 
nate, accuse. 

2, 3. T^eycov, i.e. in 1 Kings 19, 10. The words of 
the Apostle differ from those of the Sept. only in 
construction. (See Surenhus, or Mr. Home's Introd. 
vol. 2.) Koppe remarks that KaraG-KairTeiu is here 
used for /carajSaXAeiv. It is certainly a more exact 
as well as elegant term than /caOaXeToiv of the Sept. ; 
though I cannot assent to Mr. Slade's assertion that 
it is a more apposite one, " the altars being built of 
earth :" for the word is applied, both in the Scrip- 
tures and the Classical writers, to the destruction of 
edifices built of the most solid materials, nay whole 
cities. So Eurip. Phsen. II70. (ioS. UOp m) 8»/ceAXay, 
wV Karaa-KuyS/wv ttoXjv. Agam. 527. Tpoiav Karaa-Ka- 
•^avra too ^iiaiC^opoo AjW itxa/ceXT^-r), ttj KOiT^ipyaa-rai 
irilov. Choeph.46. »(o /carao-zca^pai So^iov. 

3. Kay CO uTeAe/<p973t/ ixo'voy, " I alone of the Prophets 

3'2 ' ROMANS, CHAP. XI. 

am left." Theodoret paraphrases : 6 7roQ<pr\r7]9 ev uutm 

would compare a similar sentiment found in Arist. 
Plut. 1060. ou yap €vpr,<T€i9 ei^ou ^rirmv kr av^pa. rouy 
rpoTTOuf ^eT^rlova. Ma rot/ Aj.' ou yap e<rTiv aAXo?, 
ttXtjv €y(o. 

3. ^r^Toijcri TYiU ■^o)(7]v |w,ou, i. e. *' seek to take away 
my life." An Hebrew and idiotical phrase. 

4. aXXu t/ Xeyet awrto ;^p'>]jut,arjo-|xos' ; The word 
^prifxaTKrixn^, like p^prjaar/^etv, is used (as Grot, ob- 
serves) of every extraordinary method by which God 
makes his will known to men. But here it has espe- 
cial reference to that 6"^/// small oracular voice, called 
by the Hebrews the 7lp 112. as in 1 Kings 19, 12. 
(See Theophyl. and the Greek Lexicographers.) It 
is sometimes used in the Classical writers, and the 
Sept. of the authoritative decrees and edicts of kings 
and princes. 

The passage is taken from 1 Kings 19, 18. Koppe 
observes that the words agree rather with the He- 
brew than the Septuagint. 

4. KareXiTTov ifj-aurco i. a. Augustin and his dis- 
ciples, our modern Calvinists, eagerly catch at this 
word, in order to borrow some support to their pe- 
culiar dogmas of election, and the perseverance of 
the saints; yet with little reason. It is very pro- 
perly observed by Grot, and Koppe, that the verb is 
to have ?i future sense : which is confirmed by the 
Sept. But for what reason the Critics do not say. 
It is, I suppose, by the force of the van conversive, on 
which see the writings of the late venerable Mr. 
Granville Sharpe. Grotius thinks that the Apostle 
writes Kar€\i7rnv, either by a too literal version of the 
Hebrew, or on the authority of some Greek transla- 
tor of his time. Be that, however, as it may, Kare- 
T^iTTQv may signify, " I have left to me," which is equi- 
valent to " there are left to me seven thousand who 
have not bowed the knee to Baal, and who shall be 
preserved." The historical circumstances which are 


alliulecl to in these words may be best known by 
turning to the writings of the Ohl Testament, and 
consulting the best Commentators thereon. 

Many Commentators, both ancient and modern, 
take this seven thousand as a certain for an uncertain 
number, though a considerable one. But it shouki 
rather, I think^ be regarded as a round number. 

4. ouK €Ka.iJ.i^avyovv ryj BaaX. The masculine form 
is generally found in tiie Old Testament ; the /e??n- 
nine form rarely : yet it does occur in Hos. 2, 8. 
Jer. 2, 8. Soph. 1, 4., and Job. 1, 5. rfi |3aaX rj) 
Suvajmej, f/ie power of the goddess Baal ; or, according 
to the Vulg., rfi BaaX tv) Sap-aAet. Whence it ap- 
pears that the idol was of both sexes. What it re- 
presented is uncertain : but it is commonly sup- 
posed to designate the sun and moon. (Koppe.) 
And this has been, I think, satisfactorily proved by 
our learned Selden de Diis Syris, who shows that 
7i^l, Baal, designates the Phoenician Apollo ; and 
ni"int5jr, Ashtoreth, the moon (Judg. % 13.), 73 (he 
adds) was the contract form for 7i?2 ; and therefore 
signified the same idol." Rosenm., too, remarks 
that the image was worshipped either under the 
form of a bull, or of a female calf, or cow, the for- 
mer designating the sun, the latter the moon. Ac- 
cording to the opinion of Abarbanel, the former was 
worshipped by the men, the latter by the women.''*' 

Some Interpreters, the better to account for the 
feminine form, suppose an ellipsis of ei/coVi. But this 
is too arbitrary a subaudition to be admitted. 

5. ouTios ouv Kai — yeyovev. The example of Elijah 
is now accommodated to the present case. (Koppe.) 
The ourcoy may be rendered " thus, for example.^' 
AeT/xixa is well explained by Theophylact Kara- 
T^ei^lKOL : as at 9, 27-, where see the note. The rea- 
son why the Apostle used the word is (Koppe thinks) 
to be ascribed to the u;reXeT(p075v which just preceded. 

* And so Wets. " Jesubel Ilegina colebat Deam : alii Deuni. 
Unde o BfiaX and >'/ BaoX, Hos. 2^ 8. Jereni. ^, '28. 11, 13. 19, 5. 
Z^l, 35. Zephan. 1, 4. 1 Sam. 7, 4. Tob. 1, 5. 1 Reg. 19, 18." 


He, therefore, would not introduce any notion of 
paucity into this passage ; though that it elsewhere 
has place is evident from Wetstein's citations: and 
the ?;eT|X|ut,a yeyovev he considers as put for tyVeXetcpST]- 
o-av nves ; and he renders the whole clause thus : 
*' Sunt etiam nunc, quos pro sua benignitate Deus 

5. KUT eKkoyr^v ^apiTos, " by the gratuitous benig- 
nity of God." 

The sense of the next clause tl Se ^apiri — e^yov is 
too obvious to need explanation. There has, how- 
ever, been much doubt raised as to its genuineness. 
It is omitted in four uncial MSS. and a few others, 
the Vulg., and some recent versions which follow it, 
as also in Chrysost., Theodoret, and some other 
Latin Commentators ; and is rejected by Erasmus, 
Grot., Mill, Wets., Semler, and others. I cannot, 
however, assent to their opinion, and I would re- 
mark, that the number of MSS. is far too small to 
have any sufficient weight. As to the Versions, 
they are of little antiquity and authority: and as to 
Chrysost. and Tlieodoret, there is no prooi'that they 
did not read the clause. It is found in the text of 
both of them ; and although they do not treat on 
that clause, that is no proof that they did not read 
it ; since they, not unfrequently, pass by clauses, and 
especially Theodoret, on account of his brevity.* 
As to Chrysost., he often considers what is suitable 
to a Homily rather than to a Commentary. And 
certainly this clause does appear to be an excrescence 
arising out of and suggested by the word ^apiros. 
But of such there are frequent examples in the 
Epistles of St. Paul. The clause, however, ought to 
be included in a parenthesis. It is truly observed 
by Carpzov (see Doddr., who, with his usual good 
taste, sees the matter in this same light) that the 
Apostle seizes the occasion offered by the mention 
of this word, to repeat and press the doctrine of 

* Thus in the fuller commentaries of Theophyl, and CEcumen. it 
is found ; as also in Photius. 


grace, which he had especially and professedly 
treated on in the 9th Chapter ; namely, that the 
election of God did not respect the merits and good 
works of men, but was purely the work of Divine 
grace. " And hence (continues he) it is apparent 
that the x^p^^ '^"''"' ^KXoyr^v is not opposed, in this 
Epistle, to reprobation unto eternal perdition, but 
rather to the icorks of T?ien, the merits of good ivorks.'" 
" The election here spoken of (says Dr.^Macknight) 
is only to outward privileges, particularly the great 
privilege of being the visible church, and people of 
God.* The remnant according to an election by 
grace, are the Jews who believed the Gospel, and 
who, in the first age, were mani/ thousands. This 
remnant is said to have been elected according to 
grace, because they were made the church and 
people of God along with the believing Gentiles, 
through mere grace or favour. Of this kind of 
election Peter speaks, 2 Ep. 1, 10. Brethren, endea- 
vour to fnahe your calling and election sure ; for if ye 
do these things ye shall never fail. For how can the 
election of individuals to eternal life be made more 
sure than it is by the divine decree ? But election 
to the privileges of God's visible church may be 
made sure by a right improvement of those privi- 
leges. For if God spared not the natural branches, 
neither, perhaps, will he spare thee, Rom. 11, 21." 

Acknowledgments like the above (and many such 
have already appeared in this system of annotation) 
from the most learned and judicious Calvinists, are 
surely not a little important ; and should make the 
great body of well-meaning, and truly pious, but 

* So Jaspis: " Fundament um totius loci de electione est Deut. 
14, 1, 3. coll. 4, 20. 'E/cXoy// autem dicitur de libero Dei consilio 
benlgnissimo, quo ille iibi quemdani in peculium (juasi adsciscit, vel 
populo suo adscribendum curat. Jam sicuti eligcre, elcclio, elccli, 
sub vetere discipline hoc sensu propria vocabula, ita sub inititium 
novae transferunlur ad eos, qui, ut beneficiis cultorum Christi per- 
fruantur, in societatem Christianorum recipiuntur. 1 Cor. 1, 2*. 
E])hes. 1, 4. 1 Thess. 1, 4. 2 Pet. 1, 10. Cfr. Rom. S, 30. in nota 
subjects et Jacob % 5 in noti huic loco addita." 



misjudging religionists, who espouse those opinions, 
consider on what slight foundations, and those in 
every age fast decaying away, their doctrines are 

On this occasion I will not advert to the opinion of 
Dr. Taylor; since the soundness of his theological 
principles on the most important articles of our holy 
faith diminishes his authority on the rest. But I 
may be permitted to adduce the judgment of a 
Prelate, on whose profound learning, great intellec- 
tual powers, and sound, yet enlightened orthodoxy, 
there is but one opinion. *' If it be an act of justice, 
in consequence of man's works or uniform obedience, 
it is not an act of grace ; and if it be an act of grace, 
it is not in consequence of his works. A claim from 
works, and grace through faith, are incompatible. 
A man cannot obtain justification upon both grounds, 
works and grace ; in the one case he would have 
fulfilled the law, in the other case he would not have 
fulfilled it." (Bp. Tomline's Kef Calv. p. 113. ed. 
1812.) This view of the subject is perfectly ac- 
cordant with that taken by Theoyhylact, who (fol- 
lowino- the most eminent Fathers) observes: " If we 
be acceptable to God from works, grace has no 
longer any place ; since if grace have place, works 
are gone, and exist no longer. For where there is 
o-race, work is not grace j and where there is work 
grace is not."* 

* In the cor.r?e of his exposition (formed, as usual, on the most 
iudicious Greek Fatliers) he compares the Xelfi^a to the wheat left, 
after the chaff has been separated from it. " Thus (says he) (Jod 
takes to himself tlie good, rejecting the bad." " The kut ttcXoyiiv 
(continues he) has reference to the exertions and endeavours of 
men from which they are o^to^ rod tTriXeyiffai. Tlie term ■^^upiros 
desi'^nates the gift of God. Hence those that were desirous of, and 
embraced the offers of salvation, were saved, who are also the peo- 
ple of God. God has therefore not rejected his people that is worthy 
of salvation." 

On the words tTrf t )'; x"f"* ^^'' ^''' y'»'c~"' X"P'* Grotius remarks : 
" Hoc comparative dictum : potest et in operantis beneficium con- 
ferri sed tunc minus apparet beneficii magnitudo. Et otvi^uopoy. 
Non est vero idem c^uod hie tractatur, et quod supra initio capitis 4. 


7' T< o5i/ ; This is not to be considered, with 
Koppe, as a mere formula transitionis. There is a 
subaudition of epou/xev, or Xe/creov. Here, too, we 
must supply some sentence preceding. Grotius 
offers the following: "an eos qui olim amati fuerant 
a Deo, jam despectos ? non sane ;" Carpzov. " doces 
tu quidem, Paiille, Judaios non simpliciter, nee omni 
tempore segregates esse a Dei justitia (ab ecclesia 
sancta) ; et manifestum est autem, ingentem eorum 
numerum excludi." Then comes the answer, in 
the interpretation of which Comm.entators vary. 
Most of them assign the following as the sense : 
" \\ hat the greater part of the Israelites seek, that 
it obtains not." By 'lo-pav^x is meant that far greater 
part of, and, in a maimer^ all Israel, which did not 
believe in Jesus Christ. Many Commentators make 
the sentence interrogative, and render thus : *' Quid 
igitur! Israelitis non contigit id quod, tanto studio 
optabant atque affectabant ? Imo vero, nonnullis 
eorum uti(jue contigit." But there seems no reason 
to deviate from the common interpretation. By the 
To'jrou is meant justification, and acceptance with 
God. (See 9, 31.) Grot, observes that the cause 
why they did not obtain it is to be sought for from 
9, S2. 10, 3. Theophyl. lays down the connexion 
and sense thus : " Having sliown what is grace, 
namely, that it is the gift of God, and is separate 
from works, the Apostle })roceeds to say that the 
Israelites, though they sought to be justified, have 
not obtained it, because they sought it in the wrong 
way, and from works, in which it is impossible to 
find it." 

For TouToj, many MSS. and Editions read roGro, 
which is preferred by most Critics. The sense, in- 
deed, will remain the same ; but the construction is 
not established on any good authority. For the poetic 
syntax in Hom. II. ^. 450. and \|/. 821. is not to be 

Ibl de justitiae effectibus, hie de causis tiactatur : ibi Xoylcerai Kara 
•^nniv. Hie Xelfifia ^^('(piri yeyove. Imo et vita aiterna ibi ■vunitruu. 
6, 23. ita accipiiuus x^M**' «>''"* X^f"""*? •^•^''- '» ^^- ' 


attended to. And as to the passage cited by Wels. 
from Eurip. Hec. 51. ro6[xov fxev ouv, oVovTrep vjOeAcov 
ru^€7v, ea-ri, there the construction is different. The 
other passages cited by Wets, are little to the pur- 
pose. On the other hand, the syntax of the genitive 
is supported by the authority of the best Greek 
writers, and occurs in Heb. 11, 33., and Prov. 9, 27. 
It is not improbable that the o preceding occasioned 
the accusative to be adopted. 

Carpzov has here cited the following passage of Philo 468. tovs /iky 
yap etfTciyei ^rjbev /xyre ^rjrovj'Tas, fiyTe €vpi(rKovras,rovsb€ kv eicari- 
pti) Karopdovvras, ivlovs bk ddrepoy Trepnroiijj.ievovs' (Lv o't ^kv ^rjrovyres 
ov^ evpicKov<Tiv, o'l be evplrrKovtriu ov ^r]Ti](javTes. 01 fiev ovv f.ii]Te 
evpeaecjs ftyre i^tjTijareijJS etpiejuevoi, tov XoyLtrjiov cnraibevaia kqI 
afieXen^aia ^aXeTrws jjctVarro, Kal bvyafieroi 6l,v Kadopay, kirrjpw- 
vijaat'. — "Os yap ciy oXiyivpi'iaas tov bibdaKOPros inrv padvfj.ias k^i- 
(pvrov re ofj-ov vat gvvi]Bovs, ra jiey Trpoaw KaraXivrj, bi wv vpav Ka\ 
uKoveiy, Ka\ rals dWais bvvdjX€<Tiv eerri )^p7jT0at* — - ci^^ii^ov Kal 
fc'w0j/s Xidov rpoTTOv fTTjjXireverai. Ov yap eV^oj' oi toiovtoi rpoiroi 
Kaph'iap (Tvvievai, Ka'i 6(pdaX[j.ovs jiXen-eiv, Kai wra ciKoveiv, ciXXa 
TV(p^bv Kui Kit)(j)6v Kal dvoi]TOv Kui irdvTa ir-qpov fiiov dfSiiorov eavro'ti 
€L,€ipyd(TavTO, oiibeyl twv beovTwv kc^iaTuvres. 

7. '»] €K7^oyri. Abstract for the concrete oj e/cXeicroj ; 
as in 2, 25. 3, 30. 15, 8. yj' TrepiToy.-^ and 73 aK^o^ua-rla. 
This has the same sense as the ro XeT/x/xa /car' 
e/cXoyTji/ ^dpiT09 at ver. 5., namely, that very small, 
but select and choice portion of the Jews who had 
faith in Christ, and thus obtained justification and 
acceptance. For which purpose Grotius compares 
Dan. 11, 15. eArAoyas* aurojv, their choice men. And 
he adds, that we are here to understand the eKXe/cro/, 
cum effectu, as KXy]T(n supra ; namely, those who 
have received great benefits from God, and have not 
neglected to use them. Theophyl. remarks that the 
term e/cXoyv^ displays the greatness of the benefits, 
and shows that the whole results from the grace of 
God. " Thus we (adds he) familiarly say 6 Zeiva 
€77€ri>-)(ev, '^ such an one has hit the mark, and has 
been lucky ;'* by which we mean olttovms evprjixoc eupev. 

8. ol Se TvoiTTo) eTTCDpco^Tjo-av. The best Commenta- 
tators, both of ancient and modern times, are agreed 
that this, like many other passive verbs, must have 


a reciprocal sense ; as in Job. 12, 40. €r< wcfrcDpoi' 
[X€vriv ex^re Tr,v Kapllav ui^wv. So Grot, induruerunt ; 
" nempe prejudiciis suis,*' adds Ilosenm. The verb 
woipoco, from TTfopos", properly signifies callo ohducere ; 
and TTcoooua-^ai is therefore applied to denote being 
faf, stupid, and also Mind;* and since, in these 
cases, the natural sense is either lost or weakened, 
the word comes to denote being (as we say) callous 
to any sense of virtue, hardened in conscience, and 
consequently vicious in conduct. 

8. €0(jok€v auToi^ o 0eoy 7rveG/xa /caravj^etoy. The 
above sentiment is now confirmed from passages of 
tiie Old Testament, where the Prophets complain of 
similar hardness and impenitence. See 2 Cor. 3, 
14 & 15. 

The quotation is made up from Is. 29, 10. 6, 10. 
and Deut. 29, 3. From the former is taken the 
TTvewjuta /caravujecoy, and from the two latter the 
©(pQaA/xous- — (XKOveiv. With respect to the Trveujtxa Kara- 
vJJeojy, it cannot here (notwithstanding what Chry- 
sostom and the Greek Commentators may urge) de- 
note compunction; as if from Karavwrcoj but, by a 
use confined to the Sept., must be supposed to come 
from vuu), whence v^§(o, vvcttq^, wa-Ta^o), &c., and to 
denote nodding, vu(TTay[xo9. (See Dan. 10,4.) Hence 
the Sept. render C2i^h2 (to be dumb), and EDIT (to 
be silent, dumb), by Kuraveuea-^ai : and here Aquila 
for Karavu^if has KaTa<popa. nveufxa /caravJ^ecoy, then, 
denotes a state of mind stupid, and destitute of all 
sense of good and evil. In employing the passage of 
Isaiah, the Apostle has changed the Greek version 
TTCTroTiKev u^ois into e^wKev aJroTs*, &c. j which, from 

* See the note on Mark 6, 5'i., where I have shown, that it some- 
times denotes the scaly substance which grows over the eyes: and 
hence it is no wonder that the ancient lexicographers should have 
given the sense, " being blinded." Quite unnecessary, therefore, 
is the conjecture of Koppe, that in Hesych. for lirwpwdijaay. erv- 
(pXiodijaay we should read tir-npwQr^tTav . The present reading is de- 
fended by the ordo literarum, and confirmed by Suidas,and another 
passage of Hesych. 7re7rwpw/^e»'o<, latcXriptJiiiyot, rerv^Xw/uej'Ot. 


the genius of antient language, must mean, *' God 
permitted them to become such." (Koppe.) On this 
sense of eSoj/ce the best Commentators, both antient 
and, modern, are agreed. So Chrysost. ouk ivepyelav 
Si^XoT, aXX' avr) roG a-tjv€^copri(r€. And Theophyh 108. 
KaT€7\€i-^ev auT0U9 '^X^^^^ (rov€X(iyprj(re, a<prJK6* And so 
Theodoretand Qicumenius. Grotiusand Hammond, 
too, have well illustrated the force of this Kotravu^iy, 
as it respects the Jews in the time of Christ and the 

* And he explains the KaTavuL,iy by r>)v tt^os fca/ca kiriyovov Koi 
ajAeradeToy e^i^ rfjs ypv)(i']S : adding, KaTayvcTcreadai ylip ecrri to e/j.- 
TTt'i-yyvfTdai ttov, kciI Trpo(Tr]\ov(jQaL. Which, indeed, deserves great 
attention, and is very applicable to the state of the unregenerate, 
who, though they have the 05 sublime given them, are, as it were, 
nailed down to ihe world and the flesh 5 just as, in the beautiful lan- 
guage ot'Cowper, (Task, 1.5.) 

" Brutes graze the mountain-top, with faces prone 
And eyes intent upon the scanty herb 
It yields them ; or, recumbent on its brow. 
Ruminate heedless of the scene outspread 
Beneath, beyond, and stretching far away 
From inland regions to the distant main." 
This passage brings to my mind a parallel one of exquisite beauty in 
Plato de Repub. 1. 9. p. 737 F- & 73S a. ol iipa, (ppoyifaeios kcu aperiji 
aTreipoi,ev(i))(^Lais bk Kcil rols ael ^vyoyres, KaTio,<l)S eoiice, /cat 
uexp'^ TTttXiJ' Tvpos TO jtie-a^u (jyepoyTul re, Kai tuvtij TrXayioyTai bia 
Biov' virepftay-es be tovto, Trpos 7-6 uXj/^^s ayu) ovTe ar^ftXexpav, ttw- 
TTore ovTe i]ye-)(Qr}aav' ovbe tov vyTOS tu> oyTi kirXrjpwQriaav, avbe 
BeBaiov re Kal Kadapds iiboyijs kyevcFuyTO' uXXa po(XKr]iJ.dTwy bUtjy 
KaTib c'tet /jXeVovres, Kal iceKvfoTes els yfjy Kcil els TpuTre^us, fiuaKoy- 
7-ai ■vopTU^ofieyoL Koi d-)(evoyTes, Koi eyeKa r?]? TOVTioy. irXeoyeUas 
XaKTi^oyTes kciI KvpiTTOVTes dXXvXois eribrjpols Kepaeri re Kal onXals, 
u.TTOKTiyyvcL'^'- be d-n-XriaTcar. 

On the whole of this subject the following beautiful lines of the 
above-mentioned Poet (1. 5.) are also very applicable ; 
" Propense his heart to idols, he is held 
In silly dotage on created things, 
Careless of his Creator. And that low 
And sordid gravitation of his pow'rs 
To a vile clod so draws him, with such force. 
Resistless from the centre he should seek, 
That he at last forgets it. All his hopes 
Tend downwards ; his ambition is to sink, 
To reach a depth profounder still, and still 
Profounder, in the fathon)less abyss 
Of folly, plunging in pursuit of deaih." 


The words following, ocpSaXfxous* to5 (xti jSxeTretv, are 
exegetical of the preceding, and are well explained 
by Theophyl. " having eyes to see the miracles, and 
ears to hear the instructions of the Lord and the 
Apostles, yet so as not to use either of them to the 
purpose intended." Thus Rosenm. correctly repre- 
sents the sense as follows : '* Neither their eyes nor 
ears will they use aright. The means of salvation are 
at hand, but they knowingly, and of their own will 
reject them." On this iitfatuation Grotius has ad- 
mirably treated ; and he illustrates the sentiment 
both from the Classical writers, from Josephus and 
Philo, and from the Fathers. Of his citations the 
following are the most important. "Orav yap opyr^ 
haifJiovaiV {67\a7Trr^ Tiva, Touro) to Tr^uiTov e^w^aipeirai 
(ppevwv Tlv vouv Tov eaSyCov, ely Se rrjV X.^^p(o rpCTrei 
Tvco^YjV, iV ei^Y |X7]Sev wv a,aaoTavej : imitated by Ly- 
curg. Orat. contra Leocrat. 01 6eo< ouSev vrporepov ttoi' 
ou(nv rj Tcuv Trovfj^oiV avQpcoTrcov tv]v ^lavoiav Trapdyoixri : 
followed by Vellej. Paterculus, " Quijipe ita se res 
habet, ut plerumque cui fortunam muta turns est 
Deus, consilia corrumpat." Ammian. Marcellin. 
" Solent manum injectantibus fatis hebetari sensus 
hominum et obtundi." To which I add, Athen. 516 
C. TOV ftev UTTO uTrai^eocricts K€Kco^r^p.kVov tcov (otcov e^eX- 
Kvrra^. So the well-known adage : " Quos perdere 
vult Jupiter prius dementat. 

8. etoy T^y (rrjy.€pov vj^f^as*. It is truly remarked by 
Koppe, that these words were added by the Apostle 
to those of the Prophet, in order to accommodate 
them to his own times ; (of which we have another 
example in 2 Cor. 3, 15.) q. d. " and this their ob- 
duracy, stupidity, and impenitence, has continued 
even to the present day." 

9. Koi AajSiO T^eyei' Tevvi^riTco ■>] Tpaire^a, hc. In 
the Psalm to which the Apostle here refers (G9, 23.) 
evils are denounced against those who had inflicted 
bitter injuries on the sacred writer ; ex. gr. " when 
I would eat, they gave me gall for food ; and when 
I was thirsty, they gave me vinegar to drink." Then 


follows the sentiment : " Would that their own table 
may be made bitter by misery and misfortune." 
Which sentiment is accommodated by the Apostle to 
the present purpose. As David (he means to say) 
denounces evils against wicked men, so also will 
God award retribution to those Jews for their injuri- 
ous and contumacious treatment of the Messiah. 
The expressions, however, need not be too much 
pressed. They may be understood to convey a 
notion of Divine punishments of every kind. 

It is evident that by rpoLTre^a is meant, by meto- 
nomy, the food placed upon the table, the meat, also 
convictus.* (Rosenm. and Koppe.) There are many 
ways by which meals may become traps and snares, 
i. e. productive of evil and misery, both concealed 
and open. On these see Grotius and other Com- 

The words el? avraTroSo/xa aurois ought not to be 
understood in the same sense with the preceding 
Trayloa, Q^pav, and (TKo.v^a'Xov, but in the following 
sense : " and may such evils be a retribution to 
them for the injuries they have done me." So 
Schleus. renders: " ut ob mala facta puniantur:" 
and he compares Sirach 14, 6. ko.) touto avTa7ro^oy.a 
ttJs" KaKia.9 auVou. And this mode of taking the words 
el? avraTToSofxa is, I find, confirmed by Theophyl. 109. 
AeiKvus" Se on uvrep a^a pr7]iJ.ara}V to-Otu 7ra(r^ou(nv, eiire 
TO, e\s avraTTo^riixa. 

10. (TKOTia-QriTcoa-av — j3Ae7rejv, i. e. may they fall, 
like blind persons, into the evils prepared for them.*' 
For this is an expression not unfrequently used of 
great miseries. Rosenm. and Grotius take the words 
to denote the darkening of men by affliction. See 
Lament. 5, I7. 

10. Ko.) rov vujTov aoTcov ^taTravro? (rvyKa^^ov, i. e. 
*' make them groan under heavy burthens, which 
bow down the back, and fatigue the body." A figure 
expressive of the miseries of bondage and slavery. 

* In the same sense rpdire^a occurs in the passage of Plato de 
Rep. cited on ver. 8. 


All this wsLsfulfiUid when they were subdued by the 

There are other ways in which both these expres- 
sions may be taken. The kinds of punishment are thus 
ingeniously stated by Carpzov : 1. Afflictio corporis ; 
dum cibiis potusque, victus, quaestus, eorum exitio 
cedit. 2. Occaecatio animae et pernicies ; dum 
Messiam et beneficise ejus gratiosa non vident. 3. 
Damna rerum externarum ; dum servituteperpetua, 
dorso jugitur incurvo, ab Assyriis, Romanis, aliis, 
premantur." He also proposes a more spiritual, but, 
I think, less solid mode of interpretation. 

Mr. Turner thinks it is not to be inferred from the above quota- 
tions, that Isaiah and David had both in view the Jews uho would 
reject the Messiah; but that St. Paul merely quotes the passage to 
shew, that it was undeniable, from the Jewisii Scriptures, that per- 
sons were thus subjected to God's judicial punishment ; having just 
asserted in the words ol bt Xoi. erru)., that such judgment was predi- 
cable of the unbelieving Jews. But I can by no means assent to 
this position. No one, I think, can a' tentively read the 6Sth Psalm, 
and compare it with what happened to our Redeemer, without see- 
ing that it was meant to be proi)hetical of his sufferings. 

It has been observed by many enlightened Commentators (as 
Whitby) that the Hebrew words may be rendered in the future in- 
stead of the imperative mood. To this, however, objections have 
been made, (see Jenkinson ap. Slade) and I admit that they are not 
uiterly unfounded; yet this mode of taking them as futures is con- 
fiinied by several antient Interpreters, and amongst the rest Theo- 
phylact, who (chieHy from Chrysost ) thus ably paraphrases ver. 9 
& 10. ^A^eraderoi ovres tv ti] kuki^, ret eV^rtra tcoXaadiiaovTai^ 'II 
yap Tpinreia aiirwy, TOVTe<TTi, Trcu'ra ra uyaQa, Koi ?/ rpvtpi], uera- 
f3\)]Biii7e-ai eh to'vvuvtlov' koi Trayihevdiirwrciv Kat trvWrjipQIjTucrav , 
ev^elpwTOi Irani yevo^evoi, Kot ael aicavbaXa kcu 7rpo<7/cd^/iara ej' rfj 
$u)ij avTwu €\niT€S. 'AXXo teal ol o^flaXyuot avruiv eaKOTiadijaav, 
KCU 01 vorjTol [J.ey vra^rws, Kal ol aladr]~oi be, utto twp crvfjicpopwy. 
Kat 6 rijros avrwv eKctfifdr]' bovXevovai yap rots Pti^juat'ots areXevrr]- 
Tov bovXeiav' rovro yap ecrri to, biairayroi' ovbeTrore Xvcriy Xrjxpvue- 
yoi ravTi]s. 

11. The Apostle at length concludes his whole 
disputation on the wisdom and greatness of God, in 
rejecting the Jews and receiving the Gentiles, with a 
passage of peculiar beauty, and calculated to excite 
our highest admiration of the Apostle. The sum of 
it is: That God had permitted the Jews, for a time, 
to reject the doctrine of the Messiah, not that he felt 


any satisfaction at this their unbelief, and the misery 
consequent upon it, but in order that the doctrine 
itself might so much the more rapidly be transmitted 
to the Gentiles ; especially since he foresaw that 
this very salvation which the Jews see bestowed on 
the Gentiles might excite them to imitate their faith : 
that therefore the Gentile Christians ought, indeed, to 
adore the goodness of God towards them, but by no 
means to boast over, or insult the Jews ; since what- 
ever blessings they themselves experienced they 
ought to ascribe solely to the Divine benignity, and 
not to their own merits ; lastly, that the Jews them- 
selves, if they return to a better mind, may finally 
experience the same Divine grace ; and this will 
really sometime take place. (Koppe.) See also the 
plan laid down by Carpzov. 

The general meaning of ver. 11 and 12 is thus de- 
tailed by Mr. Turner. " Although the Jews have, 
for a time, been permitted to refuse the Gospel, yet 
it is, by no means, to be supposed that this is in- 
tended to effect their irrevocable rejection and utter 
rule ; it is, that the ' Gentiles may the more readily 
be induced to receive the Gospel ;' or, ' their tem- 
porary rejection has been followed by this conse- 
quence ;' and it is to excite the Jews (aurouy) to 
emulate their example, by embracing the same faith. 
But, were this to be the result, how vast would be 
the benefit to mankind, since their incredulity proves 
so beneficial.' He then draws the conclusion : " If 
divine wisdom causes even the unbelief of the Jews 
to advance his plans, by extending Christianity, 
much rather will the same wisdom make their sub- 
mission to the faith of the Gospel illustrate its truth, 
and promote the best interests of mankind.** 

11. [Kri €7rrona-aVf ha Trea-coa-i -, "have they so 
stumbled, that they might fall," i. e. *' has God suf- 
fered them to be unbelieving, in order that he might 
render them utterly miserable, without a hope of 
salvation ?" Ilratco and Triwrco differ, as cause and 
effect. The former signifies to trip at, stumble^ and 


also, by a metaphor common to all the antient lan- 
guages, to err, delhiquere ; the latter, to fall, and 
also metaphorically to come to ruin, perish. And 
that it must be understood of complete and irrepa- 
rable misery is clear from the following words. 
(Koppe.) So Tiieophyl. Tva Treo-ojo-t reAelco^y fxr^oe- 
TTore opdcoBrjmi ^uvuixevoi. Wets, here compares Ovid, 
t. 3, 4, 17. Qui cadit in piano (vix hoc tamen evenit 
ipsum) sic cadit, ut tacta surgere possit humo : et 
miser Elpenor tecto delapsus ab alto occurrit regi 
debilis umbra suo. 

It is well remarked by Carpzov, that as the im- 
piety of the Gentiles was the cause of the Jews 
having formerly been put into possession of Pales- 
tine, so by the obstinacy of these, the holy inherit- 
ance came to fall unto the Gentiles." Wets, here 
cites from an antient Glossator the following quaint, 
but apt illustration of the subject. '* Quando bos 
currit et cadit, in ejus locum equus statuitur ad pra^- 
sepe, quod non fuisset factum, nisi bos, qui carissi- 
mus erat, cecidisset. Illo autem senato grave est 
hero removere equum in gratiam bovis, postquam 
semel locum ejus occupavit. Ita Deus S. J3. lapsis 
Judaeis eorum dignitatem concessit gentibus, con- 
verso autem Israele ad Deum, grave est ei perdere 
gentes in gratiam Israelitarum." 

'AxXa TM aurwv TrapaTrrcJjxarj, sub. eVi, " but (only) 
by their flill." Ila&aTr., Koppe observes, either sig- 
nifies their offhice, namely unbelief; or the rnisery 
arising from it, otTrcoT^ela; (since Trra/eiv and Treareiv had 
preceded. Schleus. decidedly adopts the latter in- 
terpretation, since the word, lie says nihil aitud sig- 
nijicare potest. Yet I cannot be induced to abandon 
the former. 

At (TcoTripia. must be supplied eyeveTo, taken from 

The sentence is thus excellently explained by 
Grotius (as translated by Turner) " The unbelief of 
the Jews benefits the Gentiles in two ways : first, be- 
cause it is thus made evident, that God does the Jews 


no injustice, in calling the Gentiles to those benefits 
which they had rejected (comp. Matt. 24, 14) j and 
secondly, because, if the greatest part of the Jews 
had believed in Christ, they would have opposed the 
admission of the Gentiles into the Church, unless 
they submitted to circumcision and the Mosaic law, 
as is plain from Acts 15, 1. 21, 20. But since they 
were much the smaller body, they were not able to 
give laws to the others. Thus has God, by a wis- 
dom truly admirable, brought light out of darkness." 
On the sentiment here contained Koppe refers to 
Matt. 21, 32. Luke 15, I7. 18, 30 and 32. And he 
cites Midrasch Tehillim 25. Quando peccarunt Is- 
raelitae, ablata ilia sunt et data gentilibus mundi. 
Sanhedrin 1. Utrique opus manuum mearum sunt, 
quo modo perderem unum alterius causa. — Lapsis 
Judaeis D. S. B. eorum dignitatem concessit gentili- 
bus, converso autem. Israele ad Deum, grave est ei 
perdere gentes in gratiam Israelitarum. 

11. eiy ro irapa^yp^fotTai aotws, "and this has been 
permitted, for the purpose of exciting them to emula- 
tion." On the word Trapa^. see note on 10, 19. 

12. 6» Se ro 'Kapa.Trrui^cx. aurcHv ttT^outos koVjijioj, &c. 
Theophyl. remarks : Auo raura ^oo^^erai KaropQcda-ai, 
8t' iLv yeyei vxjv ro, re 7rapaiJ.vBT^(ra(rQ(x.i rouy 'Iou(^a/oyy, 
Koi ro Karaarrei'kai ro o'lr^^a rwv e^vcov. 

The general sense of this verse is sufficiently ob- 
vious : but to determine the exact force of certain ex- 
pressions, and indicate the mutual dependence of the 
clauses, is not so easy. Koppe has here exerted his 
usual diligence, and not without success. The verse 
contains (he says) a sentiment expressed twice. There 
is moreover an antithesis between el he ro TrapuTrrcoixu 
— i^vwv and :roV«) — aorwu : but the antithesis is irre- 
gular, by the former member being of two parts 
which form a parallelism : whereas the latter has but 
one. The deficient apodosis has been skilfully re- 
stored by Koppe, who lays down the construction as 
follows : et 3e to TraqonrrcoixoL — koV^xou, wofrco [kOLTO^ov vj 

ROMAANS, CHAP. XI. 47 olutcov ; Koi el ro •^rrTjfxa auraiv TrXouTo? eSvcou, 
jroVo) [lolTO^ov to 7r?;r]'pcojULa auTOtv ; 

It is plain that TrT^rjpcoixa corresponds to rJTTrjfjia. 
KoVjuioy must be taken in its full sense, as denoting 
all the nations of the universe, without distinction of 
Jews or Gentiles, but especially the latter. nxoGroy 
must be taken for TrXoyrjo-^xoy, the enriching ; means 
of enriching, blessing, and saving. Koppe refers to 
Hebr. 11,26. Of yfrTr^juia it is not easy to fix the 
sense. The old commentators generally render it pati- 
citas : E. V. d'wiiniition: taking the opposite TrXv^^toju-a 
to denote multitude ; as r^rTou is opposed to TrXeTov. 
See Vorst. Para^us, and Grot., who refer to Is. 31, 8. 
veavia-Koi ea-ovrcn e\s rjrTr}y.a. But I assent to Koppe 
that that passage is indecisive. 

There seems reason to prefer the interpretation of 
Carpzov, Wets., Koppe, and Slade, who take ^rrrnxa 
in the sense of clades, conditio deterior, i. e. (as Mr. 
Slade explains) the deterioration or degradation of 
the Jews, with respect to their privileges as God's 
people, in consequence of their unbelief." Koppe 
refers to 1 Cor. 6, 7-j and a similar use of to -^ttou 
at 1 Cor. 11, 17., and ^Vrao-Qaj to be injerior at 2 
Cor. 12, 13. 2 Pet. 2, 19 & 20. Then (he adds) 
TT'KripcoiJ.a will mean, ex ratione oppositi, abundantia 
fortunoe^ prosperity ; a synonyme of toG ttT^outou ; and 
denote avaA7]\f/<y, restoration (ver. 15. auuKecpaXalcoTiy. 
and Eph. 1, 10. avaKe4^aXa»<:oo-ao-0a<), their full and 
complete conversion to Christianity ; and thus rfr- 
Tv]juta will be synonymous with a7ro(doXrJ9 at ver. 15." 
This last interpretation is undoubtedly the best 
founded ; and it is moreover supported by the au- 
thority of the Greek Commentators. Theophyl. 
(from Chrysost.) p. 110. very w^ell paraphrases the 
whole passage thus : EI ore Trpoa-eKpoixrav Trpo^evot eye- 
VOVTo TOCouTOiS" ara)T7]^i(x.s, Kui iv tco todtovs a7ro|3Ar;Q^va<, 
€Keivoi 7rpoo-€Xr^<pQ'»]<rav, Koi to <r<pa.7^ixa auTcov ttT^outos 
€y€V€TO TWV €^VIK(0V' 770(710 ^oXkOV TO 7rXrypco/xa axjTcov^ 
TOUTeO'TlUj OTOLV 7r(XVT€9 (TfoScOCTJV i7n(rTp€y^avT€9 f 

It is the opinion of the best Interpreters, ancient 


and modern, that there is here no allusion to any 
future return of the Jews, in a visible or remarkable 
manner, to their own land, but only to their final 
admission into the Church of Christ, by faith and 
repentance. The common opinion, however, that 
there is an allusion to the future return of the Jews, 
&c. is ably maintained by Whitby and Doddridge, 
whom see. 

13. v(xiv yap y^eyco roTy eSvea-iv e(p' oVov, &c. Eisner 
rightly observes that this verse and the next are pa- 
renthetical ; and Carpzov (after De Brais) thinks 
that they may best be understood by being thus 
compounded into one, with the following sense. 
" Nolo enim vos, qui e genfilibiis, i. e. extraneis vo- 
cati estis, ignorare, quia omnium ego ^ewf«//?i Aposto- 
lus sum, gloriosumerif meo muneri, si etiam gentiles, 
i. e. consanguineos meos, provocare possem, eorum- 
que nonnullis ad salutem perducere.' The phrase 
So^a^eiv rriv oiuKoviav (he adds) signifies " carry off 
glory from my Apostolical office." 

The above interpretation is also adopted by Schl. 
and indeed yields an unexceptionable sense : but I 
see not how ^o^a^eiv can have the signification there 
ascribed to it. 

Koppe paraphrases the sentence thus. " Scitote 
enim, vos e gentilibus Christiani : ex quo tempore 
missus sum inter gentes Apostolus, in hac muneris 
mei parte rect^ administranda omnem operam col- 
loco, eo imprimis consilio : ut, si fieri possit, popu- 
lares meos ad aemulandam Ethnicorum fidem exci- 
tem, sicque aliquam saltem eorum partem servem." 
Thus Sojajo) will here have the sense o£§YiTu) Soja^ejv, 
for examples of which Koppe refers to Gal. 1, 10 & 
13. And he renders : " I endeavour to acquire ho- 
nour and praise to my office by the multitude of 
Heathen converts." One thing, I conceive, is cer- 
tain, that the introductory words u(xiv yap "keyca are a 
formula requesting attention^ which may be ren- 
dered : " Mind," or " attend now, you Gentiles j 
for to you I (now) speak." 


1'3, fv^' oVov is rendered, by Koppe and others, 
yiiamdiu, sub. ^^ovo-j : as in Matt. 9, 1<'^. But to this 
the present tense €](xi is not suitable : nor, indeed, 
does there seem any reason to desert the common 
interpretation qnatenus, inasmuch as; which yields 
a sense equally applicable. 

By the term ihvwv aTroVroXoy the Apostle merely 
means to designate himself as one to whom was 
chicjiy committed the care of the Gentiles; not to 
the exclusion of the other Apostles, any more than 
to that of his Apostleship over the Jews. 

Of this verse Mr. Slade offers the following trans- 
lation. " For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as 
I am the Apostle of the Gentiles; I proclaim the 
glorious nature and success of my ministry (not with 
a view of making you proud or contemptuous, but) 
that I may excite to emulation my brethren by birth, 
and save some of them,*' i. e. convert them to the 
true faith. 

14. eiTTaJs* 7rapa§-r}X(6a-oj (xoo rr^v (rdipKoi,. Here we 
have an elliptical form in which some verb suitable 
to the context is to be supplied: q.d. " io try if by 
any means I may," &c. It may also, however, be con- 
sidered, with Koppe, as equivalent to jW elouvarov, a 
plirase (as he says, nee desperantis, nee magnopere 
confidentis) which occurs in Acts 27, 12. Rom. 1, 
10. Phil. 3, 11. 

14. KCLi (Tuj(T(si riva^e^ aurwv.* ' These words, Koppe 
observes, are added for the purpose of showing that 
while he was strongly interested for the Gentiles, (to 
whom he was especially sent) and the Jewish Chris- 
tians, he was not forgetful of the rest of his countrij- 
tnen) ; for that is the sense of crap/ca,-}- and to this 

* I would compare Eurii). Andr. 54. el ttms — 6ew ■KupaTyovT 

t Tlie woid may, by a Hebraism derived from "ityn in Is. 58, 7., 
bignify all who are united in consanguiiiily, and denote not only 
those of the same family, but of the same nation It carries with it, 
too, (as is well observed by Theophyl.) an idea yi'j?.7u5r»?rf>s koI d)t- 

VOL. vr. E 


aoTciiu is adapted, by the tt^os ro (rrnxotivoixevov.) On 
the sense ofa-wo-co Commentators are not quite agreed. 
I would render , " put into the way of salvation." 
And so Piscat. and Vorstius. 

The rtvots (Theophyl. observes) is meant to hint 
his fear lest no more than some few should be con- 

15. e» ya^ tJ aTro^oXv] — veKpaiv ; Here we have a re- 
petition of the sentiment at ver. 12. 'Atto^oX-jj signifies 
casting off' {Vike aTroSeivai) ; rejection, at ver. 1., " by 
an image (says Ammon) derived from shipwreck." 
And he refers to Acts ^^7, 21. But such an oltto^q'Kyi 
was made not only in shipwreck, but in a storm. 

Here there is an ellipsis of the verb substantive •r, 
which, as Hardy observes (from Vorstius and To- 
letus), by a metonymy of the containing for the con- 
tained, signifies *' was the occasion for the Gospel 
being preached to the Gentiles, and consequently of 
their being reconciled to God." At ns must be 
understood eVri, or eVra*. The xjy involves the 
notion of greatness, and has the sense of gualis, 

15. •>] 7rpoVX7j\{/»s', " their assumption, reception 
into Divine favour;" like the TrXrypojfxa just before. 
Koppe compares 1 Sam. 12, 2. wq^oarekd^cro ufx.ay 
eaurto elyXaof and Ps. 65, 5. ixUKci^io^ ov TrpoeT^e^co koi 
7rpoo-eXa|3otj. The KoV^txoy denotes the world at large, 
as compared to the Jews ; namely, the Gentiles. 

In the phrases Kara A^vay')) and §cu-^ €k vcKpaiv (Koppe 
remarks) there is inherent a notion of felicity, each 
differing only in degree. Thus the latter corresponds 
to the former, and, agreeably to the popular forms 
of speech in every language, is equivalent to bliss 
supreme and ineffable. Wets, compares Terent. 
Hecyn. 5, 4. Egone, qui ab orco mortuum me redu- 
cem in lucem feceris, sinam sine munere a me abire. 
This interpretation is embraced by the best modern 
Commentators, and is, in some degree, supported by 
the authority of the ancient Commentators. So 
Theophyl. 110, s. f. el opyi^o^evos auroTy, ^r,(T^v, h 06&y, 


roiavTO. e^aoKTUTo irepoif, Kai rohs e^^pous (^b\ov9 e-TToiri- 
<T€v' orav oiuTQuf 7rpo(r7^(x^riTai, ti ovk dv ^apielrai ; Zcot) 
yap €KV€KO(ov Tore ecrrai, TOVTe(mv, UTrei^ot. dyadd. And 
yet the same excellent Commentator admits that 
something deeper (fiad^repov) is concealed. So also 
G^cumen., Photius, and Chrysostom. They do not, 
however, appear to have successfLilly dived for this 
pearl of" truth, any more than Taylor and Mackn., 
who have unwarily followed them. The interpreta- 
tion above detailed represents, I conceive, the prin- 
cipal idea meant by the Apostle. There may, how- 
ever, be included, by way of allusion, that which 
some Commentators, as Vorstius and Carpzov, lay 
down as the principal one, namely, the conversion 
from vice to virtue, " a death unto sin, and a new 
birth unto righteousness." (See Carpzov.) But there 
seems no more than an indirect allusion. The con- 
struction and sense of the whole verse is well laid 
down by Ammon as follows : €i ydp oid ri^y a7ro3o?vrJ? 
auTcov 7\.oyoy r-^y KaToCKhayriS f/crj^up^fir] rm Kocrfxco, TrcxTui 
jtxaXXov €V 7rpoo"?\.i^\{/ei uut(ov ^oooTroirjcrovTai oi €v d^uoriaiy 
V€Kooi r. €. ra eOvrj ; 

16. e'i oe dtrap-^ ayia, KcCi to ^upcL\kCL. 

The Apostle here (I think) commences a new section, the purpose 
of which is to admonish the Gentile Christians not to despise even 
the unbelieving Jews. The reasons for this exhortation are founded 
on the high dignity, by birth, which the Jews may, as the posterity 
of Abraham, unquestiona!jly chiim. Now the sentiment is couched 
under a double similitude : 1st, taken from the primitial fruits 
whence the leaven offering of dougli was made : '2dly, from a tree 
with spreading branches : on which latter he especially dwells, 
pointing out by it the respective condition of the Jews and the Gen- 
tiles. (Koppe^ 

The Apostle now returns to the principal thesis proposed at ver. 
11., that God has not /or erer rejected the Jewish people, and so as 
never again to receive it into favour. (Crell.) 

The above Commentators treat the hk. as transitive, in the sense 
of fiirtlieriuore. K()p|)e takes the el in the sense of quam : but it 
seems unnecessary to deviate from the common interpretation. 
'I hen, as to the distinction between cnrap^ifv and (pOpana, there has 
been some diffeience of opinion, which is well detailed as follows by 
Mr. Turner. " 'A-opY') 'S the first fruits, which were required bv 
the law to be offered to God. It is applied to express the first of- 
fering of the green ears (see Levit. 2, 12 — 14.), or that of the dough 

E 2 


first made into bread. See Num. 15, 1/ — "21, Some, who have 
supposed the foruier to be here referred to, explain cpvp. by the rest 
of the grain, which it was lawful to eat, after the first fruits had been 
presented. But this use of (pvp. can hardly be justified. The word 
occurs only four times in the Old Testament, and five in the New, 
including the place under examination ; and in every instance (ex- 
cept above 11,21., where it is used for potter's clay) it means either 
a kneading trough, or a mass of kneaded dough. See Exod. 8, 3. 
12, 34. Num. 15, 20, 21, 1 Cor. 5, 6 & 7. Gal. 5, 9, It is prefer- 
able therefore tc consider eir. here, in its literal, or j)roper sense, as 
referring to the cake, which was made of the first mass of dough 
(see Num. as above) and offered to God as first fruits ; and (f>vp. to 
the whole mass, out of which the cake was made ; thus : " since the 
offered cake is holy, so is also the whole mass ; meaning that God 
could, if he chose, have appropriated to himself any other portion of 
the productionsof the e,round, or tlie whole; there was no peculiar 
excellency in that which was required. In the tropical sense, some 
understand by cW. the pious ancestors of the Jews, considering it ag 
synonymous with pl$a, and the two members of the verse as pa- 
rallel in sentiment; thus: '' if the Patriarchs were dedicated to 
God, so, in a certain sense, are all their posterity." Others suppose 
it to mean the first converts (compare 8, 3. 16, 5, 1 Cor. 15, 20.) 
who were Jews. So Schoettg. and Ammon : and thus far this expo- 
sition is not improbable ; but pl^u in the next member cannot mean, 
as they intimate, the same body, called, figuratively, the root whence 
Christians s])rang ; for some of its branches are afterwards spoken 
of as having been cut off, which can mean nothing else than the 
excision of a part of the Jews." 

The Jirst mentioned interpretation was adopted by Grotius and 
Rosenmuller. But it seems untenable, for the reasons above given ; 
and also (as Koppe observes) because, in that case, Xoittov ttup, or 
some such word, would have been added to the (piipujia. 

Koppe renders airapyj} primitice fritgum : and it is, he thinks, 
put for the fruits themselves : which is confirmed byThucyd. 6, 20. 
^vpuKocriots be Kcii awo fiapfjapiov TirCJv air ap'^yj* And in (he pas- 
sage of Numb, above cited occurs the very expression airap-^ij (pvpa- 
^aros. The (pvpujia Koppe takes to denote the mass, or dough, i.e. 
the cake of the dough ; and belays down the following as the sense : 
" ex primitiis frugum non possunt panes vulgares, kouoX, subigi ; 
sed quee inde componitur massa est haec ipsa deo sacra, quia primi- 
tiae sunt deo sacra. f Similiter populus ex parentibus ayiois stir- 

* From which curious passage may be illustrated the force of 
a7rap\i), as anciently applied to denote Jirst fruits, under \x])ich was 
comprehended, not only tithes, but royal tribute and taxes, &c. 

■f So Philo 727 a. (cited by Carpzov) calls the Jewish j)eople an 
a7rap)()) of the Deity. 'Lv^-nrav 'lovbniwy edros 6p(payov Xoyoy e^et, 
— 'AXXa TJis vpcjicii'ias avrou kcu eprjjiias eXaiov kcu oIktov (prjni 
^loiJcrfjs alei Xfi^j^aveiv top yyeuoya riov ciXa»j' o) irpofTKeKkijpwvTai, 
hivTL Tov av^TTavTOs iit'OpwTTUjp yevovs a Tre ye jjii] Or] oia tis cnrap'^)) r^' 
iroirjTyKal Trarpl. I assent to Koi)pe that <pvpajjia means the dough, 


pern ducens ipse est ayios." This interpretation of the passas:e has 
been adopted by most recent Commentators, as Rosenm., Jaspis, 
Schleus., Slade, and Turner. And, upon the whole, it seems to be 
true, as far as res|)ects the primary import of cnrap-x^)) and (i)vpa^ia 
(and so far it has the support of the Greek Commentators), but, as 
respects the tropical sense, and the application (which was, I be- 
lieve, first proposed by Crellius, and supported by Grotius), I must 
profess my hesitation to adopt it. Preferable is that of Schoettgen 
and Amnion, the objection made to which by Turner is not well 
founded. And this was also adopted by Carpzov, who paraphrases 
the passage thus. " If now a gieat part of the Jews, at the begin- 
ning of the New Covenant, have, like primitial otfeiings of good 
fruit, been received, on account of their faith, into tlie church of 
Christ, and made partakers of justification and sanctification (Acts 
'2, 41, 4, 4.) ; so neither has the remaining mass of the Jews been 
rejected with' at hope of salvation, but may likewise be received 
into the church of Christ, and obtain justification and sanctification 
(i.e. if the mass shall repose the same faith as the first-fruits )* 
These (as Amnion remarks) are those who at 8, 53. are called the 
o\ rijy a.Tvap'^iiv rod iryevp-aros ej^oi^res (where see the note), who 
are the root and trunk of the church of Christ. For (as Koppe and 
(irotius observe) pl^a may signify both; as in Matt. 3, 10, 1 Mace. 
1. 11., and infra ver. 18, ; as the Heb. ytJ is sometimes rendered by 

Kai et )'/ pi$a uy'ia, Kcil o'l KKahul, " if the trunk be holy, holy 
also are the branches." So also Carpzov: " Et, si radix jam .«ancta 
est, ergo etiam rami potuerunt sancti fieri." And he observes, 
that these words admit of the same interpretation as the former. 
The above sense of pi$.a is confirmed by the following passage of 
Menander frag. p. 278. (cited by Wets.) 6 pi) rpecjxoi- reKovaav ck 
reKi'tjs yens, " AKap-os tarty ovros uttu pictjs kXi'i^os. Here I cannot 
but subjoin the very judicious observations of Grotius on this pas- 
sage, " Hac quffi sequuntur, eo etiam pertinent ne ex Gentibus 
vocatos Judajos, ideo quod legis ritibus addicti essent a se scgregarent, 
nam sicut Ebionis spiritus inter Judaeos, ita spiritus qui Marcionem 

from (pvpdit), which signifies to mix vp Hour in bread-making, or by 
watering, kneading, Cvc. Hence the terms in various languages that 
denote this are taken from one or other of those operations. Dough 
is from bevw, to water ; paste from irucrr)), sprinkled, watered. 
niD'lir. Masses of dough from D1]7, to agitate, work together, mix 
knead. To crrals in Exod. 12, 34., signifies the flour when watered, 
mixed, kneaded, and brought into a consistency for making a loaf. 
* The above is also adopted by Locke and Wells, who ob-^erve : 
" These allusions the Apostle makes use of here, to shew that the 
Patriatchs (the root of the Jewish nation) being accepted by God, 
and the Jewish converts which at first entered into the Christian 
Church, being accepted by God, are, as it were, first fruits or pledges, 
that God will, in due time, admit the whole nation of the Jews into 
his visible chui ch, to be his peculiar people again. By holy is here 
meant that relative holiness, whereby any thing hath an appropria- 
tion to God." 


postea agitavit, inter Christianos e Gentibus foctos incipiebat se 
ostendere. Contra utrumque hoc hominum genus giavia fuere 
Apostcli certamina. Adeo difficile est servare mediocritatem." 

17, 18. €1 3e Tives rcov KT^d^cov i^€KXd(r^ri(rav. On the 
latter of the above two similitudes the Apostle here 
enlarges. The connexion is thus skilfully traced by 
Crellius. " The Apostle pursues his purpose, namely, 
that of exhorting the Gentiles not to contemn the 
unbelieving Jews : and, in order thereto, he pre- 
occupies an objection (such as, that branches, though 
from a good root, yet when broken off are valueless, 
and can derive no esteem from the virtue of the 
trunk), b}- answering which he paves the way for 
the admonition which follows." 

" The Heathens (observes Koppe) are compared 
to the branches of a wild olive-tree, engrafted into a 
garden-olive ; not, indeed, after the usual mode of 
grafting, which is not of the oleaster into the olea, 
but of the olea into the oleaster ; yet after a man- 
ner which may be supposed. Indeed, the Apostle's 
intent does not extend to the fruit borne, but only 
to the engrafting, and the nutriment of the branches 
engrafted." So Origen, Casaubon, and Grotius, 
from whom, indeed, the above remarks were derived. 
Origen accounts for this by observing, that the 
Apostle changes the order of things, accommodating 
things to causes, rather than causes to things." And 
Grotius urges that the Apostle could not do other- 
wise ; since it would have been absurd for the Jews, 
who are here represented as a root, and superior to 
the Gentiles, to be compared with a it;//rf olive-tree, 
but the foreign nations, who are here represented as 
an engrafted branch, to be compared to a garden 
olive." " The Apostle, therefore (adds he), chose to 
" borrow a simile from engrafting, not, indeed, such 
as was agreeable to the usual mode, yet was never- 
theless possible. Nor need it be objected, that a 
wild olive engrafted on a garden olive would bear 
wild fruit : for the Apostle is not speaking oi' fruit, 
but of the grafting of trees, and the nutrition of the 


branch engrafted. And so far the similitude squares, 
which must not be pushed any further tlian as it 
respects the case in question." 

The above methods of accounting for this are, 
however, rendered nugatory by wliat Amnion tells 
us, namely, that it was usual to so engraft, in order 
to promote fecundity. And this he rests on the 
autliority of two passages cited by Bredenkamp : viz. 
Columella de re rust. 5, 9- solent terebrari oleae laetae, 
in foramen talea viridis oleastri demittitur, et sic 
velut inita arbor faecundo semine fertilior exstat. 
Pal lad. de infit. 14, 53. Fecundat sterilis pingues 
oleaster olivas, et quae non novit munera ferre docet. 

But, to proceed to the words in question, with 
this use of e/cKAaco may be compared that of the Latin 
defrhigere. So Virg. Georg. ^i, 30. (cited by Grot.) 
— aut summis defr'mgi ex arbore plantas. Cic. pro 
Csec. 926. Qui prsetereuntes ramum defringerent 
arboris. 'AypieAajoy must here signify a wild olive 
shoot, or hrujich, by a subaudition of KXaSoy. The 
term occurs in Theophr. and Dioscor., cited by 
Wetstein. To which I add Soph. Tr. 1199. ccypiov 
eAaiov, and Theocr. Id. 7? 18. poiKov 8' €^€v aypieXalcp 
Kopuvav. Now a wild olive never bears fruit, and 
hence it became a proverbial term to denote sterility 
and unprofitableness. See Suid. and Diogen. Prov. 
cited by Schoettgen. 

'EveKev-rpjVSrjy, " wert ingrafted." The word ey- 
K€vrpl§(i} signifies literally to prick in, and is used with 
reference to the notch made in the stock, in order to 
admit the shoot to be engrafted (which, Grot, says, 
was called evo4iOa7^|x(o-fxoy). Wets, adduces two ex- 
amples from Theophr. and Marc. Anton. ; and 
Schoettg. refers to Florent. Geoponic. 1, 13, 2. Our 
word engraft has the very same force; since y&a^w 
(from whence it is derived) properly signifies puugo. 

'Ev auToi9 is taken by Koppe for aJroTy. But the 
ev has rather the sense of amongst them, i. e. the 
branches, some of which are supposed to be yet re- 
maining. Others, as Syr., Beza, Wells, Mackn., 


and Schleus., assign to ev the sense o^ avr), fvo, loco, 
vice. But 1 assent to Mr. Slade, that, though there 
are Classical authorities for this signification fas in 
Polyb. Exc. Leg. 82. ev (pepvyi, dotis loco. See Zeun. 
ad Viger. p. 592.), yet such a sense is not sanc- 
tioned by any passage of Scripture, neither is it ne- 
cessary here. 

This is the constructiou adopted by Koppe, who 
seems not to approve of the Hendiadys supposed by 
the older Commentators. Hiottito^^ i.e. " fatness 
and fertility," which is transferred from the root to 
the branches. 'A fit image of tiie felicity formerly 
promised to the Jews only. And the epithet is es- 
pecially appropriate, since we have in Virg. licl. 5, 
68. (cited by Wets.) pinguis olivi ; and Hor. Epod. 
2, 55. lecta de pinguissimis oliva ramis arborum. 
Wets, also refers to a similar figure in Judg. 6, 9. 

18. fxr} KaruKau^u) rcov kT^cc^cov, i. e. literally, " do 
not boast at, against, over, and consequently de- 
spise." The word occurs both in the Old and New 
Testament, and in some MSS. of^.schyl. Pers. 358 ; 
in almost all which cases the Kara is 'pleonastic : but 
here it has the same force as in KarayeAaco, to laugh 
out of countenance ; occurring in Thucydides 3, 83. 
and elsewhere. By the Khdloiv are meant the branches 
broken off. 

In the clause el 8e KaTaKav^d(rai, ou o-y r^v p'^^otv 
^aarrd§€i9, there is a popular ellipsis, in which some 
verb must be supplied. Camerar. subauds, " you 
ought to think." Koppe : yvwSi on. And he thus 
points out the application : " Know that the Jews 
owe nothing to you ; but you, all to the Jews ; since 
the hope of salvation was transferred from the Jews 
to the Gentiles, not vice versa." (See also Ham- 
mond.) Here Wets, aptly compares Anthol. 1, 20, 
2. 'H TTOtpoy ev ^p6y.oiari vaQri^ ^el^copos' apou^'^S' 'Ap^pay, 
Qripol^oTOu TTpey-vov egrjjutoo'uj/v^s'. 'OQi/e/ojy o^oicri [xere^- 
^UT09 >|/xega QaXAco, ou/c e/xov "^^erepoi^ K'kaxn i^^povtri 
^dpos. HoXXt^ <7o1 <pvTO€py€ TTovou ;^ap»?, eTveKoc aeio 


'Ap^pay ev eu/caoTro/y 8ev8p6(rjv eyypa.i^oiJ.a.i' and Martial 
13, 43. Vilia maternis fueramus Persica raniis : nunc 
in adoptionis Persica cara sumus. Grotius, too, cites 
the following elegant Epigram. IIoX^^t) o-qi, (puToe^ye, 
TTovorj p^a^jy elveKOL (relo 'Ap^pay ev euKapTrojy hev^pea-iv 

19. epeTff ouv, ''E^€K7^oi(r^7](rav, &c. The con^^^'on 
is thus traced by Koppe. " If you are inclined to 
insult the Jews on the ground that God has rejected 
them, and received you, think, I pray you, that the 
same wiiich has befallen f/iem, may much more easily 
happen to ijou ; and therefore you should rather 
adore the benignity of God, and stand in awe of his 

The words i^eKhda-bria-av — eyKevrpia-^S are supposed 
to come fiom a Gentile Christian ; q. d. " God, by 
casting off the Jews, has made room for me." To 
this the answer is : /caAwy, which exactly corresponds 
to our well, and implies not only assent and appro- 
bation, but, as here, concession, accompanied by a 
reservation ; i. e. well, but, &c. The Commentators 
compare a similar use of koO^chs in Mark 12, 32. 
Luke 20. 39. Joh. 4, I7. 

20. T-fi aTVKrria, for ev r^ye oltt,, sub. ex\, '' hy un- 
belief, because o/." 

20. o-(j he rfi Trla-rei eo-Tr^/fay. The construction is 
not distinctly seen by the Commentators. There is, 
if I mistake not, an ellipsis of [xovov ; and the cu 
seems emphatical. The sense, then, may be thus 
expressed. '* But it is by faith (only) that thou 
standest," i. e. " It is by continuing in the Christian 
faith and religion, and not through any merit of thy 
own, that thou continuest in the Divine favour unto 
which thou hast been admitted : as the engrafted 
wild olive shoot continueth in the good olive." So 
Theophyl. explains : hia t-^v tt/o-tiv ecrrriKiXf, ev ttJ 
pl^jl eyKeKevTpi(r[xevo^. Here Grotius compares a si- 
milar use of the Heb. "IDi^, to remain. Koppe no- 
tices a similar metaphor in 1 Cor. 10, 12., and thinks 
there is an ellipsis of 8»ori j as in Rom. 10, 9 & 10. 


But this seems founded on a wrong view of the con- 

20. fjiij u-^y]Ko<^pov€i, oCKT^oL <po|2o5. The Greek Com- 
mentators here, rightly recognize an elhpsis of ro/vov. 
The force of fxr] u-^r{Ko^^<)vei is thus excellently illus- 
trated by Grotius. " Be not puffed up with pride, 
nor think this owing to thy own peculiar merits, lest 
thou be cut off," or lest the same happen to thee : 
for (as paraphrases Theophyl.) thou art not the graft 
of nature, but of faith." So Theodoret : " It w^as 
unbelief deprived them of the root, and faith united 
thee thereto, and made thee partaker of its fatness. 
Therefore there is cause for fear and trembling." 
And he refers to Philo 2, 12. It is well remarked 
by Chrysost. oJ/c eiVe, raTreJvoi, aXXa (^o^ou' t] yap 
aTTOVoia KotTa4>povv]0'tv iy,7roi€i ku) padufxlav. Here Wets, 
compares a similar sentiment in Senec. Troad. 259- 
Moderata durant, quoque fortuna altius Evexit ac 
levavit humanas opes, Hoc se magis deprimere feli- 
cem decet, Variosque casus tremere, metuentem 
Deos — Troja nos tumidos facit nimium ac feroces ? 
Stamus hoc Danai loco, unde ilia cecidit. I add 
Find. Isthm. 3, 7« ?«^'f* Se fxao-o-tov "expos' oTri^oixeucov, 
where see Heyn. and the Schol. 

21. el yap o 0eoy rSu Kara <p6(riv K'ka^uiV ovk o<peiVaTo. 
The sense is very obvious. Ouk i:(^€l(TaTo is, by 
meiosis, for k^eKKatre. At /xv^Vo)? — (pe/o-erai there is 
an ellipsis of some verb, as c^o0oiJ or opa, or 6xe7re. 
Ignorance or forgetfulness of this well known idiom 
of the Greek language, has caused many Interpreters 
to stumble at the phrase. To this I attribute the 
reading of very many MSS. (pe'to-Tjra/, which, how- 
ever, would require iKr\ : whereas [K-fpruis demands the 
future Indicative ; of which syntax see examples in 
Wets, and Matth. Gr. Gr. Some MSS. read otj^e— 
<^ei(T€r ai. But this destroys the delicacy of the 
Apostle's language : for, as Chrysost. well remarks, 
he avoids saying ouSe o-oG cpejVerai, from a regard to 
their feelings. Theophyl. paraphrases thus : (po^oo 


(TUTToXy^w [xaXkov 6l(r;ro/r;TO?, /xr^Trtoy TTaiVavroy (rou ou 
(peia-yai. Here Wets, aptly cites Dionys. Hal. 4, 40. 
'Noixi§€iv, ays' rcov (TWyyevea-rclTcov ku) avoiyKCLioroiTcuv txrj 

22. Ue ouv xpWTorriTa Ka) a7roroy.lav 0eoy. The 
force of the first clause of this verse the Commenta- 
tors have failed to discern ; owing, I think, to their 
not perceiving that it depends upon ku), which is 
here emphatical, and put for re /cai, 7wi only—but. 
The Apostle, it must be observed, admonishes the 
Gentiles not so to rest upon the goodness of God 
to them as to grow proud and secure, and forget his 
severity. Thus the words following are exe^etical, 
and show the objects and grounds for the display of 
each of those attributes. Xp>]o-r. comprises the 
Divine clemency in pardoning sin, and his benefi- 
cence in conferring benefits. 

Chrysost. takes another and more refined, but far 
less popular view of the sense,* and therefore pro- 
bably distant from the truth. Into this he seems to 
have been led by not perceiving the construction 
and true gist of the passage. 

Schoettg. and Wets, here compare Schemoth R. 
12. ad Exod. 9, 19- Veni et vide misericordias Do- 
mini. Tanchuma, fol. 35, 4. veni et vide mansue- 
tudmem Dei S. B. Jalkut Rubeni, fol. 93, 4. Vide 
benignitatem quse est in manu Dei S. B. 13,4. Veni 
et vide misericordiam Dei S. B. 

In cLTToroiKia, seventy, the Commentators and Lexi- 
cographers recognize a metaphor taken from sar- 
gery;f the operator being said ajroTeixveiu, to ampu- 
tate an incurably diseased limb. Hence many Com- 
mentators remark on the aptness of the term to the 
present subject : and Grotius compares a similar use 
of the Heb. inin (from mn, to cut of), which is 
rendered o-KXTjoorTjy in Dan. 9, 2. Yet though this 

* In considering which, he might liave adverted to Vs. 130 4 
" For there is mercy with thee : therefore thou shall be feared "' 

t Schoettg. and Schleus., however, think there is a metaphor 
taken from gardening. But of this we have no proof. 


metaphorical use of the word is frequent in the Clas- 
sical, it almost invariably signifies severity in words. 
The only decided example of the physical use is in 
Plut. 2, 199 B. (cited by Wets.) rov hrjixov a7roTO|xoy 
y^^eiav e^^eiv lar^ou. As respects severity in words, 
the term, I conceive, has reference to what we call 
cutting matters short; which, by an easy translatio, 
may be applied to severity in general. 

22. iav €7riiJ.€ivy]s rj] ^^pTjo-rorrjri. This clause 
(which is inadvertently omitted in the text by 
Koppe) is variously interpreted, owing, perhaps, to 
the uncertainty produced by the ellipsis of a noun 
or pronoun united with ^pr](rrorriTi. The context, 
however, forbids us to apply it to the Gentile Chris- 
tian ; and, as certainly, confines it to God; nor, 
indeed, is any pronoun necessary, since the article 
here evidently sustains the place of it ; and hence 
it is plain that it cannot be used (as Koppe seems 
inclined to think) in the sense of probity and good- 
ness, as ascribed to the person himself. 

In the interpretation of this and the following 
clause, the Calvinists are put to great straits, are 
reduced to miserable shifts, and compelled to resort 
to sophistical and metaphysical distinctions. Omit- 
ting to notice these, I shall now turn to what I con- 
ceive is the sound interpretation. Beza, Vorstius, 
and Grotius, render : "remain in that state in which 
thou hast been placed by the benignity of God, 
through faith in Christ, by which this benignity is 
retained :" the consequent being, by a Hebraism, 
put for the antecedent. So Grotius and Whitby : 
'' if thou retainest God's goodness to thee, by con- 
tinuing to be worthy of it, and improving this ad- 
vantage." The above interpretation is also adopted 
by Crellius, and fully confirmed by the Greek Com- 
mentators. Thus Theophyl. (from Chrysost.) ob- 
serves, that the word x?^^'^- ascribes the whole to 
the grace of God. And he explains €7riii,€ivr,9 by 
(TTroM^wv eTTjjuieiWyS'. He observes, too, that the 
Apostle does not' say " if thou continue in faith,'" 


but €v Tj] ^pr^a-TOTTjTi, i. e. if thou continues t to do 
tilings worthi) of his goodness unto the end.'' Here 
it is well remarked by Crellius, that the Apostle ta- 
citly shows that this divine goodness which is im- 
parted to believers, is such as any one may be de- 
prived of, namely, by his own fault, i.e. if he fall 
from that state in which he obtained it : since by 
the same means that this goodness was obtained, by 
the same is it retained." 

A very similar passage occurs in Jud. 21. eauTouy 

22. errej /cat (ru eKKOTrr^a-r]. It is plain that there is 
here an ellipsis of aXXcoy, which often has place after 
€77€i ; as supra ver. 6. and 3, 6., where see the note. 
'EK/coTrr^o-r] is regarded by Grotius as a stronger term 
than €KKk. supra. But Koppe, with more judgment 
regards both as synonymous. 

Hence Mr. Slade draws the well-founded conclu 
sion, that the Christian converts were under no 
overruling necessity of persevering in their state of 

23. This verse is closely connected with the last 
sentiment at ver. 22. The sense is : " The Heathens 
may finally be deprived of the benefits now oflfered ; 
and, on the contrary, the Jews be finally invested 
with them. (Koppe.) 

The Kou may be rendered: "and (on the other 

23. iyK€VTpi(rQri(rovTa.i. Koppe, from Carpzov (who 
observes that the Apostle is speaking, not of what 
certainli/ shall be, but of what may be, by the ttiv 
ouva[j.iv ToG 0eoG, by the supernatural efficacy of the 
divine Word, Rom. 1, 16., no longer perversely re- 
sisted by them), renders : " ?nai/ be engrafted." 
And he adds, that what shall really happen is ex- 
pressed at ver. 25. But I prefer the shall of our 
Common Version, which involves no difficulty, since 
it merely implies a promise. 

23. duvaros: yap €(Ttiv 6 ©eoy vraT^iv eyKevrqicai aurovy. 
Koppe remarks that ouvaros' ia-Ti is for ^jvvarai. But 

62 ROMANS, CtlAP. XI. 

this usual sense of the word seems scarcely sufficient 
for the present purpose. Hence many eminent mo- 
dern Commentators are of opinion that there is here 
an idiom, by which able (by a delicate suppression 
not unknown in our own language) carries with it 
the adjunct notion of wUUn<£. The ratio of the 
idiom has been acutely and profoundly discussed by 
Crellius : and it is observed by Hardy: " When 
God is said to be able to do a thing, there is often 
understood not solely the power of God, but also the 
Divine wiil to do that which He is able to do." 
And Grot, (evidently on the same principles as 
those suggested by Crellius) paraphrases : *' Nothing 
but their own unbelief hinders their being again 
taken by God for his own, treated paternally by 
him, and thence brought by faith unto Christ." 
And he refers, for examples of this sentiment, to 
Rom. 4, 21. 14, 4. 2 Cor. 9, 8. 2 Tim. 1, 12. Heb. 
11, 19. The above interpretation is also adopted 
by Whitby, Mackn., Rosenm., and Koppe.* 

*' Thus is removed (observes Crellius) the third 
objection, on the ground of the impossibility of the 

24. €» ya^ (rh €k rrjs, &c., " quum tu, separatus ab 
ilia gente, Deorum cultui dedita, in qua natus es, 
additus fueris populo Dei, non per natales, sed di- 
vino beneficio : quanto magis hi, qui nati sunt in illo 
populo, rursus in eum recipi, denuo huic coetui, addi 
possunt?" (Rosenm.) 'J'hat the Gentiles should he 
brought to the felicity of Christ's kingdom, was far 
more improbable than that the Jews should be 
brought to this happiness, which was originally des- 
tined for them. (Koppe.) 'H Kara, (^ua-iv is for <pfj- 
o-iK>]. The Gentile nations at large are compared 
to a wild olive tree, and each of them singly to its 

* And so Jaspis, who observes : " Cessante caus^ cessat effectus. 
— Deus, qui potest omnia, potest hoc etiani, quantumvis impioba- 
bile niultis videatur." 


24. irapa (purriu. Mr. Slacle paraphrases : " it is 
unnatural, i. e. contrary to the course which nature 
prescribes, to graft a wild, barren, useless tree into a 
good stock." But tlic sense rather seems to be : 
" not by nature, but by art ; by artificial letting in." 

24. KaTO^iO^aiov , "a good olive-tree," i.e. a culti- 
vated one. This is supposed to be a wonl formed 
by the Apostle, in order to correspond to aypieT^alou. 
The term used by the Classical writers to denote 
this is eAaj'a Kara-Kap7roy; as in Ps. 52, 10. and He- 
rodot. 5, 82. ^u7vOV r^ixeor,^ eAa/rjS". 

24. TToVtp fxaAAov, " how much more (easily, rea- 
dily)." Tfi i-^/a eAa/a, *' their own olive-tree ;" 
namely, that from which they were originally cut. 
On the sentiment see Macknight. 

25. ou yap Qe'Xo) — fxua-rripiov toGto. The Apostle 
now, by the authority of Him from whom he de- 
rived the knowledge, adds that this will realli/ hap- 
pen of which he had before asserted the possibility 
or probability. (Koppe.) Here 1 assent to the 
learned Commentator, that yap is a particle of transi- 
tion ; since it is united with words and formulas to 
that effect ; and moreover is introductory (as Koppe 
remarks) of something new, important, and unheard 
of, and therefore demanding attention to understand 
it. And this is further suggested by the term jutuorrr)- 
pjoi/, on which I have before treated. See Campbell's 
Dissert. Here it is explained by Chrysost. to ayvooJ- 
fX€Vov Ka) ocTroppTiTov 7^€ycov, kui TToAi; fxtv to (iauy.a, 7ro?vtj 
^€ TC} xapaoo^ov €^ov. 13y Theodoret thus : MixrrripiQv 
e<TTi TO ixTj TracTi yvrnpifxav, a70<a p,oi/o<s> to?? (iappou^evoi^. 
And by Schoettg. thus: " Mi/o-Trfojov h. 1. Apostolus 
dicit doctrinam non ubivis obviam, et quee non a 
<juovis docetur, quamvis ejus vestigia in loco Pro- 
phetae citando occurrunt." Dr. Macknight observes, 
that " the Apostle calls the rejection of the Jews for 
a time, and their restoration alter the conversion of 
the Gentiles is completed, a mi/stery, because it was 
a matter of the greatest importance to mankind, and 
because it had hitherto been kept a secret, like the 


doctrine of the mysteries which was discovered to 
none but the initiated." We may suppose, too, with 
Schoettg., that the Apostle disclosed this doctrine 
to the Christians, with the view of checking in them 
a disposition to assume to themselves more than was 
proper, and despise the Jews." 

25. tva fxri r^re Trap' iaoroly (^oovi^oi. It is rightly 
remarked by Grotius, that '' tliis expression is taken 
from Prov. 3, 7« f^"^ *'^^' (Ppovifj.os' Trapa. (reaurwi, i. e. 
(according to the Hebr.) wise in thine own eyes, in 
thy own opinion." So also Is. 5, 21. ou al a-uvea-oi iv 
eotuToTs-. Compare 12, 10.* The general sense must, 
however, be here applied agreeably to the subject 
and the context. Hardy (from Grotius, Vorst., and 
others of the earlier Commentators,) paraphrases 
thus : " that you may not fancy you can of your- 
selves kiiow beforehand what is to be ; nor pride 
yourselves overmuch on the favour in which you at 
present stand, as if ?/om were irrevocably chosen, but 
thei/ entirely and for ever rejected." Koppe, keep- 
ing more to generalities, paraphrases thus : " that 
you may not suppose your notions and opinions re- 
specting the Jews are true, and agreeable to the 
Divine counsels." 

25. oTi 7ra)pu)<n9 olto [xepous T<ja ''\(rparik yeyovev. In 
the interpretation of this clause, and the next, is 
involved some difficulty, occasioned by the elhptica 
character of the style. The words preceding, how- 
ever, and the nature of the subject, enable us suffi- 
ciently well to determine the sense. I am suprised 
that Commentators should have so obscurely seen 
(what is chiefly to be attended to in laying down the 
construction) that at y.€pous there is an ellipsis of /ao- 
vou ; and that d^pis o5 here denotes continuation, du- 
ration, and perpetuity ; as Rom. 5, 15. a^^i vqikou 
a[xa^ri<x. rjV iv rtp KO(r[' & 11, S. eats ttJ? (rr][x€pov 7]'p,e- 
pa9. Other examples may be seen in Glass Phil. 
Sacr. 'Atto ^eporjs is, by a Hebraism, for ck ^epouy. 

* Here Wets, cites Cic. de Orat. 1, 39. M. Bucculejus, homo ne- 
que meojudiciostultus, ct suo valdfe sapiens. 


Umpcoa-is signifies obdurate and obstinate unbelief, 
wilful blindness. (See note on Trco^oua-Qai supra, ver. 
7.) By 'la-par^'K is meant the nation of Israel, the 
Israelites. It must be observed, too, that there is a 
popular hypallage (used to soften the harshness of 
the expression), by which '* in part to Israel"" is for 
" to some Israelites i"*^ as opposed to all at ver. 20.* 
In vain is it objected by Estius, that there ivas no 
mystery in this ; since, in fact, the mystery solely 
respects the follovs'ing words, a^pi^ ov 7r7^7]pcoixa. This 
TT'KripmixoL is, I think, best explained by Grot. Beza, 
Vorst. Tolet., Pise, Koppe, and others, as equivalent 
to TT'Kri^o^ TMV eduwv (as opposed to vjVTrj'ju-ari at v. 12), 
and signifying the great bulk of the Heathens, i. e. 
in a manner, all. Thus the sense will be : " until 
the ichole body of the Gentiles be converted." For 
(as Koppe observes) it is foretold by the Prophets 
that the whole of the nations will yield obedience to 
the Messiah, and embrace his religion. See Ps. 22, 
28. Zach. 14, 9 & iG. Apoc. 15, 4. At the oixpi, be- 
fore o5 TO TrTJipuiiKa raiu cQvcov elo-exSv^, must be sup- 
plied some such words as, " and which will continue 
to perpetuity, until the fulness of the Gentiles en- 
ter." And at eVexOy] there is (as Beza, Piscat., Pa- 
raeus, Grotius, and Koppe observe) to be supplied 
els" TTjv SiacnTveiav rou @eou, the hingdoin of Gody his 
Church, and people. Q^cumenius supplies el? ttiv 
TTicrriv ; which comes to the same thing. Koppe ex- 
plains eVeA^Y] by 7rpoa-67^y]<pSj] ; and refers to the TrpoV- 

* So a Commentator ap. Pole. " Cfecitas obtigit Israeli, non 
toti, serl ex parte, non tamen exigua, sed multo maxima; non om- 
nibus onmino, sed aliquibus.'' Grotius^ too, observes that the cnro 
l^itpovs is used in the same way as the preceding rives rwi' icXdbojv ; 
and is a delicate mode of expressing jjlurivii.'" And he remarks that 
OTTO i^epovs and e/c ^epovs are frequently used by St. Paul to denote 
7ion onmcs, or non omnino. 

By not attending to this, many of the earlier modern Commenta- 
tors, as Tolet., Estius, and Paraeus, vainly perplex themselves to find 
out to what vvord ctTro ^epous refers. (See Pole.) But the mode 
of construction above detailed is the only true one, and was long 
ago adopted by the Fathers and antient Commentators, especially 
Chrysost., as also by Beza, Piscat,, and so Grot., Rosenm., Si Koppe. 


XryxJ/jy at ver. 15. And, indeed, neuter verbs are 
often to be explained in a passive sense. 

Q6. kol] ouTui TTois 'I(rp(xri7\. <ra)^<r€Taif *' and so all 
Israel shall be saved." " By this (Locke rightly ob- 
serves) is not meant eternal happiness in Heaven, 
but the profession of the true Religion here on 
earth." So also Mackn., who observes, that "the 
future restoration of the Jews to their privileges as 
the people of God, in consequence of their em- 
bracing the Gospel, is expressed by their being 
saved ; because, by their coming into the Christian 
church, they shall have the means of salvation be- 
stowed on them,.''' On the important term a-w^. I 
have treated on Matt. 1, ^1., and have shown that it 
often means, as, I think, it does here, put into the 
waij of salvation. 

I am surprised that Grotius and Hammond should 
account as a fulfilment of this prophecy the compa- 
ratively partial conversion of the Gentiles effected 
by St. Paul in his after journeys. Such a TrAvj'ocojtxa as 
that here treated of never did happen even in the 
times of the Apostles, but (as both Brown andMede, 
Diss. 35, observe,) is yet to happen. It is well re- 
marked by Harris ap. Doddr., that as this Epistle 
was written about the year 57, that is, long after the 
most remarkable conversion of the Jews by the first 
preaching of the Apostles, and after Paul had been 
about SO years engaged in his work, it appears that 
the prophecies relating to the calling of the Jews 
were not accomplished then, and consequently are 
not yet accomplished." 

Dr. Whitby has here an excellent Dissertation on the conversion 
of the Jews, as referred to by the words kcu -rrXi^pw^a, &c., in which 
he ably supports the interpretation above adopted and detailed. Of 
this, as the subject is of no little importance, I shall now proceed to 
give a careful abridgment. 

The learned Commentator, in the first place, asserts, and shows 
by examples from the Greek and Latin Fathers and Interpreters, 
that such has been the constant doctrine of the Church. So Chry- 
sost, on ver. 11 & 25. GEcumen. on ver. 25, 31 & 26. Origen. contr. 
Cels. p. 331. Huet. torn. 1. p. 74 c. Orig. contr. Cels. p. 174. Au- 
gust, de Civ. D. 1. IS, 2S. Jerome in Comment, in loc, Cyril in 
loc, and Origen. in Joe. " Moreover (says he) as this doctriflehas 


the suS'rage of all the ancient Fathers, and Commentators thus ge- 
nerally agree in exposition of this Chapter, so it is easy to confirm 
it by showing the absurdity of other expositions, and the plain in- 
consistency of them both with truth, and with the words of the 
Apostle. For, 1st, the words of the Aj)0stle cannot be expounded 
(as is done by Dr. Lightfoot and others) of the spiritual Israel, i. e. 
of all those persons, whether Jew or Gentile, which belong to God's 
election." The learned Commentator then proceeds to overturn 
this opinion, by four arguments, which it will not be necessary for 
me to insert, as the opinion is too improbable to deserve attention. 
In the next place, he refutes at large the opinion of Grotius and 
Hammond (above mentioned), that the words do not refer to any 
yet futuie return of the Jews in a visible and remarkable manner. 
This position the learned Commentator shews to be groundless ; 
Ist, by a reference to the Jews as they are described by St. Paul him- 
self j "as Rom. 9, 12 & 3. ver. 22 & 37, 31. 10, 4. 10, 2 & 3. Acts 
28, 23 & 28. 2dly, by showing the futility of several common 
opinions on this subject ; as that 7nany of the Jews were converted to 
Christianity when they saw Christ's prediction. (Matt. 24.) fulfilled, 
in the Roman army sitting down before that city, and went out of the 
city with the Christians, and so were delivered from the evils which 
followed. This (he shows) is said without any foundation, or testi- 
mony from the writers of those times. 

" Moreover (continues he) this was the time when there hap- 
pened a great apostacy of the Jewish converts, according to our 
Lord's prediction, Matt. 24, 12.; and therefore the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, and that of St. James, are full of exhortations to constancy 
in the faith. See James 1, 6, 7 & 8. 1 Pet. 4, 12. James 1, 12. .5, 
8, 10 (S: 11. 1 Pet. 3, 14. 4, 13 & 14. 5, 9 & 10. Heb. 3, 12 cSc 14. 
4, 1 & 11. 6, 6. 10, 25. 12, 35 & 38. 12, 15. Luke 21, 22 & 23. 
And could the times of the apostacy, even of the converted Jews, be 
the times of the salvation of the unbelieving Jews ? Was it to be 
expected that they should then, more than ever, see the things be- 
longing to their peace, when they were hidden fiom their eyes ? or 
could the times of wrath and vengeance upon that people, when the 
Avenger came out of Zion to punish the iniquity of Zion with the 
sorest judgments, be the very times when the Deliverer came out of 
Zion, to turn away iniquity from Jacob'?' 

He then proceeds to overturn another of these opinions; namelv, 
that after the Temple and City was destroyed, and they brought into 
subjection by the Romans, then many were humbled, and turned Chris- 
tians; and that after that, even in Justin Martyr's days, every day 
there were some who came in to be Christ's disciples. " In the first 
place (says he) I cannot find one word in Church history about 
this conversion, but much to the contrary." i'he learned Com- 
luentator then appeals to Lpiphan., Just. cont. Tryph. p 335. Ter- 
tullian adv. Marcion. L. 3, 23., and Just. Mai t. Apolog. 72 e., and 
cont. Tryph. 323 b , 2(>t) b. p. 350. As to what Justin relates of 
some every day coming in to be ChruU's disciples, that is (he answers) 
to be understood of Gentiles. (See 45 b., 256 d.) This he proceeds 
to show by appealing to the language of Justin Martvr. 

1' 2 


" From this time (continues he) to the da5's of Constantine, the 
Fathers represent ihe Jews as a nation whose ears were shut, and 
their heart hardened, &c. See Iren. L. 3,24. Orig. cont. Cels. L. 2. 
p. 62. L. 4. p. 183 , and Tertull. adv. Marcion L. 3, 23. And this 
seems agreeable to our Lord's predictions. See Matt. 21, 41 & 43. 
Luke 14,24. Matt. 8, 11 & 12. Luke 13,26—30. Now if we 
consider that wrath was come upon this nation eh reXos to the end, 
can we imagine either that this kingdom taken from them, this vine- 
yard let out to other husbandmen, these children of the kingdom cast 
out into outer darkness, should suddenly receive again this kingdom, 
be restored to this vineyard, or admitted to the light of the Gospel, 
or that all Israel sliould be saved, or iniquity should he taken away 
from Jacob, whilst that nation lay under these dreadful judgments ! 
or that when our Lord had so solemnly foretold there should be 
wrath iij)on this people, and they shall fall by the edge of the sword, 
and shall be led away captive into all nations ; and Jerusalem shall be 
trodden down by the Gentiles, until the time of the Gentiles be ful- 
filled. Luke 21, 23, 24., this wrath should not continue on them 
whilst they were captives in all nations, and Jerusalem was trodden 
dojcn ? 

The exposition in question is, moreover, contrary to fact ; for 
when was there any such conversion made of the Jews at the times 
assigned by him, which can, in any probability of construction, 
answer to the phrases used by the Apostle, that by it all Israel should 
be saved ; ungodliness should be turned away from Jacob ; God should 
bless them by taking away their sins ; they who now were blinded 
.should have the veil taken away from before their eyes ; they who now 
were diminished should have again their fulness ; and they who were 
now cast off should be again received ? This could not happen in 
the very times when this Epistle was first indited. For though it 
be trr.e that St. James mentions many ihonsands or myriads of 
Jewish converts, all zealous of the law, Acts 21, 20., yet were they 
all converted at, or before, the time of writing this Ejiistle, artd so 
belonged only to the remnant according to the election of grace here 
mentioned, not to the residue that were blinded, of whose conver- 
sion the Apostle here speaks from ver. 12. to ver. 32. Nor could 
their conversion and salvation be a mystery to be then revealed to 
the Gentiles. That no such conversion after the blindness men- 
tioned in this Chapter happened to them, upon their seeing the 
abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, or soon after 
the destruction of Jerusalem, has been already shewed ; and that 
Justin Martyr says nothing of any such remarkable conversion of 
them, has been also proved. 

Wherefore there having been, as yet, so far as we can discern, no 
such remarkable conversion of the Jews since the inditing this 
Epistle, and no such happy emulation of the converted Gentiles, as 
provoked them to embiace the Christian faith, this could not be, as 
here Dr. Hammond suggests, a confirmation of the faith to the Gen- 
tiles, and much less a means to bring them all to receive it, or to convert 
the Gentiles over all the tvorld. And what records or histories make 
the least mention of any such conversion of the Gentile world, on 


account of the remarkable conversion of the Jews after the wriiing 
this Epislle? When came in such a fulness of the unbelieving 
Jews as was the riches of the world, v, 12 , or such a receptiun 
of them to the Christian faith as was to them life from the dead, 
V, 15. ; or how can these assertions be reconciled to the words 
of the Apostle ; for if the coming in of the fulness of the Gentiles 
be their receiving faith in those limes, then the partial blindness of 
the Jews must cease in those times also ; for blindness, says the 
Apostle, hath happened to the Jews in part, and that blindness is to 
continue only till the fulness of the Gentiles is come in. If, then, the 
blindness of the Jews is not yet ceased, but they have generally con- 
tinued, even from the time of writing this Epistle to this very mo- 
ment, in as much blindness and obduracy as they then lay under, 
and as much branches broken off, as now they are, it follows that the 
fulness of the Gentiles, mentioned by the Apostle, is not yet come 
in, and that when the time for the fulness, i. e. for the conversion of 
the still Heathen Gentiles is come in, then shall the blindness of 
the Jews be removed, and so all Israel shall be saved, and then all 
nations shall fow in unto them, and their reception shall be to the 
Gentiles as life from the dead. 

But to proceed to discuss the import of this phrase, there is a 
double fulness of the Gentiles mentioned in the Holy Scriptures: 
I. That which is spoken of, ver. 1'2., in these words, " Jf the diini- 
nulion of them was the fulness of the Gentiles, and this consisted in 
the preaching of the Gospel to all nations, and the imparting the 
glad tidings of salvation to them, and was, in a great measure, to 
be accomplished before the destruction of Jerusalem, and the ruin 
of that Church and nation, according to our Lord's prediction in 
these words, the Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the 
uorld for a witness to all nations, aiid then shall the time come, 
Matt. 24, 14. Mark 13, 10. — II. There is to be another fulness of 
the Gentiles by a more glorious conversion of them, and a coming 
in of those nations which have not hitherto embraced the Gospel, 
or have relapsed into Heathenism or Mahometanism, to be effected 
when this rejection of the Jews shall cease, and God shall send the 
Deliverer out of Zion to turn away iniquity from Jacob ; and of this 
only can we understand those words of the A|)ostle, v. 12. Jf the 
fall of the Jews hath been (already) the riches of the (Gentile) world, 
and the diminution of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much more 
shall their fulness, i. e. the time of their conversion, be the increase 
and fulness of the same Gentiles. And ver. 15, // the casting away 
of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the rec.ioing them 
again be (to the same world) but even as life from tlv. dead. And v. 
25. Blindness in part hath happened to the Jews, till the fulness of 
the Gentiles shall come in. This blindness, therefore, still continuing 
upon them, as much as ever, another fulness of the Gentiles is to be 
expected, when it entirely shall be removed from them, and so all 
Israel shall be saved. — III. Jerusalem is yet trodden down of the 
nations, and the Jews are yet captives in all nations, whereas the 
captivity and the treading down of Jerusalem is to cease when the 
times of the Gentiles are fulfilled ; according to those words of 


Christ concerning the destruction of the Jews, They shall fall by 
the edge of the sword, and shall be carried captives into all nations, 
and Jerusalem shall he trodden down, till the times of the Gentiles be 
fulfilled, Luke 21, 24. i. e. till the times when they shall have a 
plenary conversion by the coming in of the Jews, and shall no more 
lord it over them, as now they do, but serve them, and flow in unto 
them. And to this purpose let it be noted, — 1. That if we consult An- 
cient Prophecies concerning the vast extent of our Saviour's kingdom 
over all nations, we shall find reason to believe that they have not 
yet had their full accomplishment upon them, for he has riot yet 
had the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession, Psal. 2, S. 
God hath not yet made all people, nations, and languages to serve 
him, and all dominions to obey him, Dan. 7, 4. 27. He has not yet 
filled the whole earth, or broken in pieces, and consumed all other king' 
doms, Dan. 2, 34, 3.5. That seems not yet fulfilled which was fore- 
told by Macab, that the Lord should be king over all the earth, Mich. 
5,4. and by Zachariah, Zach.l4, 9. and by David, Psal. 72, 8. 
These, and sundry other such like prophecies there are, which yet 
were never acc(jm])lished according to the full import of them. For, 
as Brcrewood observes, if we divide the known regions of the world 
into thirty equal parts, the Christians' part is (only) as five, the Ma- 
hometans as six, the Idulators as nineteen; whence we have reason to 
conclude, that there is yet a time to come, before the consummation 
of all things, in which our Saviour will yet once more display the 
victorious banner of his cross ; and like a mighty man of war march 
on conquering, and to conquer, till he has confounded, or con- 
verted his enemies ; and, finally, consummated his victories in a glo- 
rious triumph over all the powers of the earth, and made all na- 
tions, tongues, and languages to serve him. — 11. That there is still to 
be a glorious conversion of the Jewish nation, as it seems evident 
from the words of the Apostle here, who sjjcaks of a lime when the 
partial blindness which then had happened to the Jews, and still con- 
tinues upon them, should cease; when God would turn away ungod- 
liness from Jacob, and take away (the punishment of) their sins, 
which he has not done ; and when not a little remnant only, as at 
our Lord's first Advent, but all Israel should be saved ; when that 
Israel, whose minds were then, and still are, blinded by the veil that 
is upon them, shall have that veil taken away by their turning to the 
Lord. But also from tuose prophecies of the Old Testament, which 
promise to that nation such kindness, favour, and salvation, as ei- 
ther has not been at all as yet, or but imperfectly fulfilled ; as when 
he promises to bless her with such blessings as never should be 
taken from her, and to shew mercy to her, so as never to forsake 
her more. See Isa. 54, 9 & 10. 59, 20 & 21. 60, 15, 18, 19 & 20. 
CI, 7 & 8. (52, 4, 12. 65, 19. 66, 22, Jer. 32, 39 & 40. Ezek. 
34, 28 & 25. 37, 25, 26 & 27. 39.28 & 29. Amos 9, 15.— 
Now it seems very evident, that scarcely any of these things can 
be applied to the return of the Jews from their captivity in Baby- 
lon. For since that time his kindness hath departed from them, and 


his covenant of peace hath been removed for above IGOO years ; Fio- 
lence hath been heard in their land, wasting and destruction zvithin 
their borders, and their land has been made desolate; the days of 
wrath, of mourning, and of weeping, have been long upon them ; 
their Sun hath been, according to our Lord's prediction, darkened, 
and their moon hath not given her light; their Sanctuary and Taber- 
nacle have been consumed, and they have been a prey to the Heathen; 
they have long since ceased to be his people, and he to be their 
God. Nor can we reasonably confine these promises to that little 
remnant which believed in the times of the Apostles ; for they were 
never gathered out of all lands, nor did ihey inherit the Land for ever, 
but were banished thence, as well as the unbelieving Jews, by Ha- 
drian ; they can in no propriety of speech be styled the House of 
Israel, the whole House of Israel. Nothing, indeed, seems more un- 
likely than that the time of the casting them off, the breaking oflF 
the branches, the leaving them under a spiritual slumber, the tak- 
ing the Kingdom from them, and casting them out into utter dark- 
ness, should be the time of the completion of these glorious pro- 
mises; and that this sense cannot accord with the discourse of our 
Apostle here, has been already shown. Nor, thirdly, can we apply 
these promises to the believing Gentiles ; for sure they could not be 
a prey to the Heathens, or, to bear their shame, be tlie people wliom 
God hath led into captivity, and after gathered into their own land, 
and so planted there as never to i)e plucked up again ; the promises 
could not be made to them that they shoukl suck the breasts and eat 
the riches of the Gentiles. — 111, I have already shewn from Scripture 
prophecies, that after this conversion the nations generally shall flow 
in to them, and walk in their light, and so their fulness (which signi- 
fies not their incorporation into another Ciuuch, but as the opposite 
words, their/ai/, tlieir diminution, their rejection, require, and as the 
Apostle doth himself in<^er|)ret it, their rece^/io« to theChristian faith, 
and so into the favour of God) shall be the riches of the Gentiles, and 
as life from the dead to them ; then the Gentiles shall come to their 
light, and kings to the brightness of their rising ; and natio7is that have 
not known them shall run in unto them, because God hath glorified 
them. Tlien, saith God, / will gatlier all nations, and tongues, and 
they shall come and see my glory. Isa, 55, 5, 56, 8. 66, 18 & 9.1. 
Then all nations shall turn, and fear the Lord truly, saith Tobit, 
chap. 13, 10 & 11. And this I conceive to be that fulness of which 
the Apostle speaks." (Whitby.) 

The above arguments seem conclusive : and 
therefore it is in vain that Wets, who adopts the in- 
terpretation of Hammond, urges : " Neque cum na- 
tura hominis, neque cum indole doctrinte Christi 
consistit, ut malem mutationem speremus. Scimus, 
quid liactenus argumenta pro veritate doctringe Chris- 
ti eifecerint, nimirum quosdam credidisse, quosdam 


non credidisse. Nee nova sperare possiimus."* 
This, indeed, is supposing a knowledge which we do 
not possess, and ought not to pretend to, of the 
the mode in which this TTfopcocrts" will be removed : 
a subject (to use the words of Koppe) scarcely less 
obscure to us, than was formerly to the Jewish 
Christians that of the conversion of the Heathens, 
(Acts 11, 18.), which is itself by Paul called a mys- 
tery (16, 25. Eph. 3, 4 — 6). There is, however, no 
reason to suppose, as is commonly done, that this 
w^ill be effected by a simultaneous, sudden, and mi- 
raculous conversion. It seems reasonable to imagine 
that the conversion will not be instantaneous, and 
yet not tardy; since, probably, the prejudices of the 
Jews will have been, for some time, gradually wear- 
ing away. However, we are not to be '*wise above 
what is written :" nor is it reasonable to expect, that 
what is mentioned as a mystery should now be com- 
pletely understood. And thus, (to conclude in the 
words of Koppe,) "since the Apostle hath not him- 
self thought proper to explain the thing, or the 
mode in which it will be brought about, very dis- 
tinctly, it seems best for us to leave it wholly to the 
Divine will and good pleasure." -f- 

*IaK(o^. The words are from Is. 59? 20., and agree 
with the Sept., except that evcKev is there used in- 
stead of e/c. And indeed Beza and Koppe suspect 
that this was originally read in the present passage ; 
since 'EK, as a contraction of eve/ca, might easily be 
changed into *EK. But I know not whether it can 
be proved that 'EK is a MS. abbreviation. At all 

* On this, and the above hypothesis of Hammond^ it is well re- 
marked by Koppe : " Quicquid contra primam (i. e. communem) 
totius loci interpretationem a Theologis imprimis dispiitatam vidi- 
mus, ex ingenio magis, quod in consiliis divinis dijudicandis plerum- 
que falli ut quisque est sapientissimus, ita kibentissimb confitetur, 
quam ex iisu loquendi, systematiqueinm Paidli ipsius inm reliquorum 
scriptormn divinorum, rutione et consensu, repetitum videatur." 

f So Jaspis ; Totam illani rem potius divinae providenli^e veie- 
cundfe; verecunde Inquam^ reliuquamus." 


events, it is improbable that the mistake should have 
crept into all the MSS., and even those very antient 
ones from which the early Versions, the Syr. and 
Vulg., were formed. The Arabic Translator seems 
to have read iv ^idiv. But that can neither be re- 
ceived, nor will it serve to confirm the above conjec- 
ture ; since it is undoubtedly an error for e/c. 

Taylor thinks that the Apostle does not allude to 
any particular prophecy, but the current sense of 
the Prophets. This, however, is cutting the knot. 
I am rather inclined to adopt the conjecture of Vi- 
tringa (on the passage of Isaiah), that, together with 
this passage, St. Paul connected in his mind^ Ps. 15. 
(Heb. and Eng. 14.) ns owa-ei €k Xicov ro a-coTTi^iov 
Tou 'la-pa-^T^ ; 1 am not, however, disinclined to agree 
with Mr. Turner, that the Apostle modifies the lan- 
guage of the Prophet to accommodate it to his purpose. 
" The sense (continues Turner) the Apostle does 
not change. The Hebrew Prophet speaks of the Re- 
deemer as coming to Zion. This was perfectly na- 
tural, as Zion was the centre of national glory. The 
Christian Apostle, not denying that the Iledeemer 
had come to Zion, speaks of his marching, as it were, 
triumphantly out of Zion, and subduing all opposi- 
tion. Thus the passage, as applied in the epistle, 
will be understood figuratively, and be equivalent to 
Isa. 2, 3." With pyofxevoy the Commentators com- 
pare the Hebrew hi^X 

26. Kou a7ro(rTp€-^€i acej^e/as' octto 'laKcoQ. Here the 
Heb. and the Sept. slightly differ. The former has : 
" unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob." 
But there is no occasion, with Grotius and others, 
to suppose that the Sept. Translator had a different 
reading. He seems only to have rendered somewhat 
too freely the sense of the Hebrew. For when (as 
observes Vitringa in loc.) the prophecy declares that 
the Messiah would come to Zion (meaning for its 
benefit), and to them that turn away from transgres- 
sion| in Jacob, it expresses the object for which he 
would come, to convert the posterity of Jacob from 


sin. So the Chaldee : " to convert rebels, the house 
of Jacob, to the law.'' And Kimchi adds, " because 
then all the Israelites shall be thoroughly converted." 
" And it is certain (observes Doddr.) that the ge- 
neral tenor of God's covenant with Israel gave no 
hope of deliverance after rejection and abandon- 
ment, but in a way of repentance and reformation." 
Most assuredly I cannot approve of the liberty taken 
by Bp. Lowth, of translating from the Sept., con- 
trary to all the copies of the Hebrew text, confirmed 
as it is by Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion. 

It is observed by Jaspis, that "almost the first word 
which issued from the mouth of our Saviour, on com- 
mencing his ministry was ; ju-eravoeTre ! repent ! (Matt. 
4, 14.) And the same may be said of John the 
Baptist (Matt. 3, 2.) ; as also of Pet. Acts 2, 38." 

27. KOI aZr-q cturoTy, kc. The Apostle goes on 
with the same passage of Is. 59, 21. ; but, after the 
Jewish manner, does not transcribe the whole pas- 
sage, but only its commencement; leaving the rest 
to be supplied by the reader. (Koppe.) On this 
custom see his Exerc. 1. ad Rom. 

The other words orav — a.xJTwv are added from Is. 
27, [)• The sentence may be thus rendered, with 
Koppe : '* And these are the benefits which I pro- 
mise them, after I shall have liberated them from 
the divine punishments (I will give my spirit to 
them)." Aia^r^KTi here signifies a promise ; as in 
Acts 3, 25., Gal. 3, 17., and may be compared with 
the Heb. H"^")!. (See Schleus. Lex. in voc. § 4.) It 
literally signifies a disposal of any property, or any 
thing advantageous, made in favour of a person ; 
without any reference necessarily to inheritance after 
death. The passage is thus paraphrased by Jaspis : 
" Si se ad me converterint Messiam rit^ accipientcs, 
a peccatorum poenis eos liberabo, et eeterna bona illis 
certissim^ exhibebo ; sic fatur Deus." 

28. Kara fxev to euayyeXiov, e^Spo) S»' tyftay — rouy 
xare^a^. These words are meant to meet a tacit 
objection; q. d. "It cannot be that all Israel will 


be saved, and experience such grace from God ; 
since tliey are God's enemies, and God is theirs." 
To which the reply is : " They are indeed enemies ; 
but are nevertheless beloved, though in another 
respect. The hatred is, by right reason, mingled 
witii love, and tempered with charity ; especially as 
respects the nation at large. (Crellius.) 

The [X€u and he do not form a simple apodosis, but 
(as Koppe observes) are e([uivalent to e/Wp ouv — koI 
o[xco9. Kara to €uayy€7aov. Here there is a popular 
ellipsis, which the nature of the subject requires to 
be thus filled up. '* As far as respects their i^ejec- 
t'loji of, and opposition to, the Gospel." Carpzov 
paraphrases it: " ut quod medium reconciliationis 
Juda3i adeo prosequuntur." But this seems wan- 
dering too far. 

The word €)(Ppoi does not declare whose enemies ; 
but the verses preceding and following shew that we 
must not subaud ixov, with many Commentators, but 
0eou ; and consequently the same word must be sup- 
plied in the antithetical word aya7rr^ro\. I know not 
whether the Commentators are justified in regarding 
€-)(Hpoi as a noun substantive ; which not a little em- 
barrasses the subject. (See Mr. Locke's note.) It 
rather seems to be an adjective signifying alienated 
(from the favour of God); and thus it will correspond 
with ayairriTo). On this sense of ex^oos 1 have treated 
at Rom. .5, 10. 

28. Si' uju,a?. This expression, from its extreme 
brevity, is susceptible of more than one mode of 
interpretation. By it (as observes Crellius) may be 
signified both the ftial, and the impulsive cause. 
(See his note.) Many modern Commentators, as 
Locke and Koppe, fix on the latter ; viz. " for your 
good and advantage." So supra ver. 11. Others, 
and amongst these Crellius, prefer the former * But 

* And this is adopted by most ancient and modern Interpreters. 
But, as Doddridge rightly observes, " though the most natural sense 
of these words, were they considered alone, might seem that the 
calling the Gentiles prejudiced the Jews against the Gospel ; yet, 
as they generally rejected it before the Gentiles were called, the 
other signification appears preferable." 


I see no reason why both interpretations may not be 
received. I would moreover observe (what seems 
to have struck none of the Editors or Critics) that 
a comma should be placed after e^^po) ; since the 
word must be taken twice. The sense, then, is : 
*' they are indeed enemies : but they are enemies for 
your sakes, and advantage. 

28. Kara. §€ rriv kKT^oy-qv, a-yaTTTjro) 6. r. tt., " but HI 
respect of their election, as the posterity of a nation 
generally chosen by God for his peculiar people, in 
that view they are beloved." Then the Apostle 
adds, by way of explanation, 3«a tows* Trarepas", i. e. on 
account of, and in respect of the love which God 
bore to their forefathers."* " Thus the Apostle 
(observes Carpzov) means to hint, that the rejection 
is not so irreversible as to exclude all hope of their 
return to favour ; and that there is no doubt but 
these may also be sav'ed, if they only imitate the 
faith of their forefathers.''-^' 

* This subject is more than once treated of by Philo, from whom 
Carpzov cites the following passage, 727 b. To h' airioy, at rwv 
ap^^ij-yeruiv tov 'idvovs •Kepip.a'^i^roi hiKatoavvcu, /cat ctperat, ai KaQa- 
■jrep (pvra adavara hiajxivovaiv, aeidaXea Kapirov (pvrevaat tois 
ciTToyovois (TWTijpLOi', /Cat TTpos TiuyTa (hcpeXifxor', Kciy avroi Tvyuxrt 
humapravovTes lacTLjxa ciXXct yu?) TravreXais cipiara' & 937 B. AevrepM 
be Ti] Twi' upyy}y€Twv tov eBvovs baiorrjTi, on reus iKbeijxei'ais awjia- 
Tiov \pv\^a1s UTrXaarov (cat yvf-ivijv evheiKvvjjLeyoi ivpos tov up'^ovTU 
depaireiaV) tus inrep v'lwv iccu OvyuTepwy iKereias ovk ctreAeTs eiwSatri 
iroielcrdai, yepas avrols Trpe-^oyros tov Trarpos to €tti]Koov ey ei/^ots. 

f The whole passage is thus ably paraphrased by Wetstein : 
" Quod attinet ad Evangelium, cum illud et ipsi rejicianf, et vobis 
prsedicari agerrimfe ferunt, sunt inimici Dei, ab eo merito rejecti, 
ut vos in eorum locum substituamini: quod autem attinet ad elec- 
tionem, qua Abrahamus primo vocatus et electus est, postea cum 
tot&. et sola natione foedus initum est, addit^, promissione de Messia 
roittendo negari non potest, Deum nationi huic singulariter favisse, 
et iterum fautorum, si poster! mores majorum fuerint imitati." 2 
Sam. 9, 7. 

" This election (Taylor and Rosenm, observe) is the same with 
that mentioned in 9, 11. 11, 5., therefore the unbelieving Jews 
were not so cast off, as to be entirely deprived of the favour of God, 
agreeably to what he had long before declared. Lev. 26, 44 & 45. 
Deut. 4, 31. Jer. 30, 11. And this clearly shows the nature of 
that election, concerning which the Apostle discourses in 9, 10, 11." 
Whitby, however, observes, that in this Chapter there is mention of 
a double election. 1. iiAoyt) x"'pt7-o$, ver. 5 & 7-, the Gospel elcc- 


29. ajaera|u,e\v]Ta ya.^ rot ^apia-fxaroL Ka) vj' K\7]<n? 
roG 06oG. These words assign the r^eason why the 
Israelites even yet, on their ancestors' account, cease 
not to be beloved : and this is founded on the con- 
stancy of the Divine will, that decrees nothing of 
which the Deity can ever repent. (Koppe.) 

'Xapio'y.arcc signifies Divine benefits of every kind : 
and e/cXoyjJ is added, suitably to the present subject, 
and respects that calling and election by which the 
Israelites constituted the peculiar people of God. 
These ;^ap/(rfxaTa bestowed by God on Abraham and 
his seed, are said to be ajxera/xeX-^Ta, i. e. not to be 
repented of by him,* and, consequently, certain and 

tion. 2. ticKoyi) 8ia rovs warepas, " an election for their fathers' 
sake," in which sense the whole nation of the Jews were styled the 
elect. Deut. 4, 27. 7, 6—8. 9, 5, 10, 14, 15. Gen. 17, 7. 

* This word (though unaccompanied by authorities in most Lexi- 
cons) is frequent in the Classical writers j and signifies, like other ver- 
bals in Tos, either what is not repented of, or what cannot be repented 
of. Examples are adduced by Wets, from Plato, Aristot. 931 b., 
Polyb. Leg. 22., Aristot. Nic. 9, 4., Lucian Abd. 11., Dionys. Hal. 
L. 2. avrai yap elcri j3€ljaioi Kal aXrjdels r^^tjat kciI uyacpaiperoi, ^a- 
pieis re koX ajj-erafxeXriros' & Porphyr. 5. Pythag. p. 40. r^y §' Itti 
Ka\o7s Kai biKawis [^ribov})v'\ — kcu —apaypiji-ia ijheiav, kol els to ewiov 
aneraixeKr)Tov. To which may be added 2 Cor. 7, 10. 

It is well remarked by T. Edwards ap, Mant., that the gifts and 
calling of God are a/^/erajue/\r;-a, because promises of this kind are 
founded upon such grounds as cannot be altered ; even upon the 
original fixed and peimanent designs, intentions, and constitution 
of an all-wise Providencein the government of theworld through suc- 
cessive ages, of which they are partial declarations or revelations." 

On the sentiment, Eisner cites the following Classical passages. 
Plutarch 2, 551. Gew heos ohhev f.i€TdroLa Trpdyj.ia-os ovhev'Os' and 
Seneca L. 6. de Benef. C. 23. " Adjice nunc cjuod non externa co- 
gunt Deos, sed sua illis in legem sterna voluntas est; statuerunt 
quae nonmutarent; itaque non possnnt videri facturi aliquid, quam- 
vis nolint ; quia quidquid desinere non possunt, perseverare volue- 
runt; nee unquam primi consilii Deos poenitet. Sine dubio stare 
illis et desciscere in contrarium non licet : sed non ideo, quia vis 
sua illos in proposito tenet, ex imbecillitate permanent, sed quia 
non licet ab optimis aberrare, et sic ire decretum est." Wolf, too, 
cites from Homer : Ou yap eyuov iruXivdypeTov, ovb' diraTrjXov, Ovb' 
areXev-rfTOV, on tcev Ke(paXij t^arai'vaw' and Max. Tyr. Diss. 29. 
fie-aridetrdaL yap /cot fierayanocTKeiy TrpoaijKei f.u) on Oeo), dXX' ovb^ 
ui'bpl ttyaflw. And Grotius refers for a similar sentiment to Mai- 
monid. de Poenit. C. 7> §• 5. 

After quoting the above passages, Eisner throws out the following 


immutable ; but which (as is plainly hinted) may be 
restored on repentance, and faith in the Messiah. 
It is quite evident (Mr. Turner very properly re- 
marks) that this text has no bearing on the doctrine 
of the indefectibility of grace. The state of the 
Jewish people is a comment on its meaning. 

30. The Apostle, now returning to his principal 
scope at ver. 26., namely, that there would be a time 
when all Israel should be saved, and on account of 
which the Apostle had said what precedes, 7ww also 
keeps the same in view, and has reference thereto in 
the elegant comparison subjoined (Crellius.) 

Neither the construction nor tlie sense of the 
words is very clear, both being cast in the Jewish 
mould. Koppe renders : " That they are yet un- 
believing, does not prove that they are condemned 
to eternal reprobation, for this mode of reasoning is 
refuted by the example of the Gentile Christians, 
themselves formerly unbelieving." By ujuteTy is evi- 
dently meant " you Gentile Christians." And 7]V6<- 
6>3(raTe must refer not only to unbelief as disobe- 
dience, but to neglect of worshipping the true God, 
and going after idols. So Macknight: " The dis- 
obedience of the Gentiles consisted in their losing 
the knowledge and worship of the true God, and 
in their worshipping idols, notwithstanding the true 
God made himself known to them, in every age, by 
his works of creation and providence. Rom. 1, 20." 

SO. yjAery^Y^re, i. e. " have been mercifully and 
graciously introduced into God's church and cove- 
nant.*' It is rightly observed by Koppe, that eX. is 
here used to indicate that salvation is not of human 
merit, but of Divine grace. fSee also Mackn.) At 

caustic animadversion : " Multo sanius do Dei sapientiS. majestateque 
judicaverunt Gentes Evangelii Luce caientes, quilm qui Christiani 
vocari amant Sociniani, Remonstrantes, et Pelagiani omnes." A 
far more Christian spirit dictated the remark of Doddridge, that 
these testimonies of Pagan authors, relating to the divine perfections, 
might have taught some of our divines to speak more honourably 
of them than they do in some of their writings." 


TJiro^Tcov a7r€i$€ia must be understood eVj, which will 
here have the force of Sta, hi/, on occasion of. Mr. 
Locke renders : *' through the standing out of 
the Jews who submit not to the Gospel. And so 
Schoettg. : " Incredulitas Judgeorum in caussa fuit, 
ut Deus, qui summe bonus est, et homines beata^ 
vitae consortes esse cupit, gentes interea, nolcnti- 
bus Judaiis, vocaret." To this mode of interpreta- 
tion, however, Taylor, not without reason, objects; 
arguing that the rejection of the Jews was by no 
means indispensable to the admission of the Gen- 
tiles ; that when the promise was made to Abra- 
ham, the calling of the Gentiles was not a secondary 
design, to take effect in case the Jews rejected the 
Gospel, but an absolute purpose to be accomplished, 
whether the Jews complied or refused." And so 
Macknight : '' The Apostle does not mean that the 
Gentiles would not have been admitted into the 
covenant and church of God, by having the Gospel 
preached to them, if the whole Jewish nation had 
embraced the Gospel. The title of the Gentiles to 
all the blessings of the covenant with Abraham, was 
established by the covenant itself. But his meaning 
is, that considering the disposition of the Jews, their 
disobedience and rejection, and the consequent de- 
molition of their church, in order to the erection of 
the church of God on a more enlarged plan, was 
necessary to the admission of the Gentiles into the 
covenant and church of God." Perhaps, however, 
it may be better not to aim at diving too far into the 
counsels of God. Nor is it necessary, since eVj can- 
not well signify more than " on occasion of," at ;* 
though (to use the words of Mr. Slade) it is not the 
less true that their infidelity and rejection were 
known in the counsels of God, before the Gentiles 
were originally called. 

31. o'jTo) Kou ouToi — €7\.€Yfiio(n. On the punctua- 
tion and, as depending thereon, the sense of this 

* And this is all the force that Chrysost. ascribed to it. 


passage. Commentators are not agreed. Many place 
a comma after eAee/, rendering : " So have they now 
disbelieved and rejected the mercy vouchsafed to 
you, so as finally to obtain mercy themselves." And 
this seems sufficiently agreeable to the order of the 
words : but not so to the antithetical verse, which 
requires that the comma should be put after vjVe/- 
^Tttrc^v, and, by an Hyperbaton, (a figure usual to our 
Apostle) the words uTrerepip eXefi be taken with eAer;- 
Bcocri. Indeed, propriety of language demands this : 
fory^TrelSYjo-av does not admit r«> uixerepto eT^eei, but re- 
quires the repetition of no Seep preceding. Thus 
the clause tW eAeigQcoo-t rw u/xert'^o) eXeet will exactly 
correspond to the antithetical one iT^eyjOriri t>] ro6ra)v 
uTreiBela : only y]7r€i^7](rav (which has here the present 
sense united with the past) must be interpreted 
suitably to the case, and be understood simply of 
disobedience, and refusal to receive Jesus as the 

'Ettj here also means " on occasion of j" but in- 
cludes a notion of the Jews being thereby the more 
excited to seek and obtain salvation. And this cir- 
cumstance is touched on by Chrysost. (who adopts, 
together with many eminent modern Commentators, 
the foregoing punctuation and interpretation) thus : 
€G'a)S7}T€ were aurou? emo'Tra.a'aa-Qai rati ^rp^cp ^evovras. 
See his excellent exposition of the whole. 

The iW (as Theodoret and many of the best mo- 
dern Commentators have seen) has here the eventual 
force, which Theodoret calls a popular idiom. Thus 
Koppe : " cujus incredulitatis is tandem erit exitus, 
ut et ipsi serventur." If the common interpretation 
be retained, the words will (he thinks) admit the fol- 
lowing sense : iVa kou auroi ook e^ eqyioV) olTOC iv ^apirt 
(eveAeet) (rcoQ(v(ri. But this seems exceedingly harsh. 
The idea involved in eXeej is not less forcible on the 
former interpretation : for eXeet was doubtless in- 
tended again to remind them that salvation, even in 
those who ever so readily or obediently observed the 
call of God, was through mercy, or by grace and 


Whitby (ap. D'Ojley) thus paraphrases: " That 
they also may obtain mercy together with you, and 
you with them, the fulness of the Gentiles coming 
in with their conversion." The argument (he ob- 
serves) for the calling of the Jews, runs thus: '^ If 
God hath called the Gentiles to His grace, after 
Jong idolatry and infidelity, though they were never 
before admitted to those privileges which the Jews 
enjoyed, nor had God promised to be their God for 
ever much more will He withdraw His chosen 
people from their infidelity." 

32. (rw€K-K€i(Te yocp o 0€O9 rovs' Travras eh arrel^eiav. 
Ihese words are susceptible of two interpretations, 
almost equally founded in probability. The ancient 
Commentators, as Chrysost., Photius, &c. ; and some 
modern ones, as Glass, Zeger, Parous, Carpzov, and 
Wets., render: '* hath convicted all of sin, hath 
proved that they are under sin, tiamely by his laiv 
(as^Rom. S, I9, 20 & 24. 3, 9. Trpor^r.a^ro^H^^ yh 
iou^aious re kol) ^'ExXrjvas' Trduray icp' ^^olotUv ehai) 
and their merits to be none at all." So Gal. 3, 22. 
(TweKT^eia-ev 73 ypa.^-^ rk ttclvtol uitI a/xa^r/av, iW -^ eVay- 
reX/a e/c jriVrews" 'Irjo-oG l^f^ia-roZ Uf rors- 7ri(rre6ou(ri. 
Ihis interpretation being adopted, 'we must suppose 
the word a-uyK-Keiay to be used after the Latin idiom, 
and in an unauthorized sense. Other Commenta- 
tors, however, as Piscat., E. V., and most recent 
ones, interpret : '^ has concluded or shut up all to 
disobedience, and sin subjected them to its controul." 
For (as Mr. Turner observes) '^ to shut up one thino- 
under another, or to another, is to subject it to the 
controul of that other. (See Raphel 2, 440—444.) 
Ihis must, of course, be understood of God's permit- 
ting them to be subject to sin. (See Crellius.) Ac- 
cording to this interpretation, at the passage of Gal. 
o, . — , Dy a-oveKT^eia-ev rj ypa<pr] must be understood: 
" has declared all (nations) to be subject to sin." 
And, upon the whole, this latter mode of interpreta- 
tion seems to be the safer. As to the former, it is 
quite unsupported by Classical use. The Greek 
VOL. VI. a 


writers say, a-oyKT^aev iv tivi ; here, too, ely aTreiBetoLv is 
for €v uTrei^ela. Thus Polyb. very frequently uses 
the expression cruyKX€leiv ely riva or ri. (See Schweigh 
Lex. Polyb.) And so Dionys. Hal. 598, 92. Arrian 
E. A. 1, 3, 5. 1, 416. And as to the parallel passage 
at Galat. 3, 22. there the utto may very well be sup- 
posed put for ely: whereas ely cannot here well be 
taken in the sense of; nor is any example pro- 
duced of such a signification. 

As to the interpretations proposed by Locke and 
Mackn., they are contrary to the usage of the lan- 
guage, and utterly inadmissible. 

It is plain that by 7rai/Tas are meant all men, all 
nations ;^ as in the parallel passage of Galat. 

* The unbelief charged nationally on the Jews and Gentiles in 
their tnrn, in this and the two preceding verses, whereby they ceased 
to be the people of God, was evidently the disowning of his domi- 
nion ; by which means they put themselves out of his kingdom, 
and so were no longer in the state of subjects, but aliens and rebels. 
And tlie mercy here spoken of, is their being undeservedly brought 
to the kingdom of God. — Tliis, again, has nothing to do with tiie 
final acceptance of particular persons. (Taylor.) Yet it may be ap- 
])lied to individuals, mutatis mutandis. And, moreover, as is well 
remarked by Doddr., "it is of great importanceto bear in mind that 
this refers to different periods. First, God suffered the Gentiles, in 
the eaily ages of the world, to revolt, and then took the Abrahamic 
family as a jicculiar seed to himself, and bestowed extraordinary fa- 
vours upon them. Afterwards, he permitted them, by unbelief and 
disobedience, to fall, and took in the Gentiles on their believing ; 
and he did even this with an intent to make that very mercy to the 
Gentiles a means of provoking th.e Jews to jealousy, and so bring 
them to faith by that which had at first been an offence in the way 
to it. This was truly a mystery in the Divine conduct, which the 
Apostle most rationally, as well as respectfully, adores, in the con- 
cluding words of the Chapter." 

For the following sensible and edifying reflections I am indebted, 
to Reland, Antiq. Judaic, p. 2. C, 4. §. 11. (as translated by Bulk- 
lev.) " To be concluded under sin is of no tiifling import. It 
comprehends the guilt, the fears, the judgment, and the punish- 
ment of sin ; as if he should say, " all are guilty ; all shall be ob- 
noxious to the judgment of God, to death, and afliictions." Under 
these afflictions, that consolation which is here conveyed is to be 
particularly regarded. The Apostle instructs us, with respect to 
the cause and issue of these afflictions, that we are subjected to 
these evils on account of sin, but not that we should perish. He 


33 — 36. Filled (especially by what has just pre- 
ceded) with a most lively sense of human unvvorthi- 
ness and the Divine benignity, the Apostle now 
lauds and extols the wisdom and goodness of God, 
and that with such power of oratory, that no one 
possessed of any sense of sublimity and grandeur 
will hesitate to rank it among the noblest and most 
eloquent passages respecting the Deity to be found 
in the whole range of antiquity. (Koppe.) 

33. (V jSa^o?, &c. There is something poetically 
and almost lyrically bold in the expression w ^aOoy 
TrXouTou. Koppe takes the 3- tt. to denote " deep, 
unfathomable riches;" as Ps. 139, 6. Eph. 3, 8. 
And 3aOos', he observes, is equivalent to d^vcra-of ; as 
1 Cor. 2, 10. 2 Cor. 8, 2. Ap. 2, 24. There is so 
much the greater propriety in the epithet, since 3a0u$' 
was commonly used, by the Classical writers, of 
whatever is great in general.* Carpzov here aptly 
compares Philo 486. ^12 d(^^ovoi al a-ai Xapjres* Koi 
euepyetncuv' & 425. 'H roy 0eoy (ro<$>/a, o jw-eyas" (»s oKri- 

adds, therefore, the manner of deliverance ; and mercy is freely pro- 
mised that consolation may be sure. This declaration will appear 
])erspicuous and sweet when we a{)ply it ; when, in our feais and 
afflictions, we perceive that it belongs to us, and we s^hall feel our- 
selves supported by this promise of mercy. It is. therefore, an use- 
ful declaration, and we should have recourse to it in all afllictions , 
for it advises us of their final cause, and of free mercy. The term, 
expressive of universality, is to be noticed, that we luay know that 
the promise is universal, and that each of us is really included in it." 
* To this purpose Wets., among other citations, has the following 
Schol. on Horn. Od. h. 385. kutu fSadovs rijs biaroias eftovXevop-o. 
iEschyl. S. C. Th. 545. Badelay aXoKU but (ppeiws Kapirovjieyos, e^ 
^s TCI KeSi'ct /3Xa(T-ai'f t /JouXeuytmro, Plato 134. jydOos yeiraloy (as in 
Homer). Plut, 1, 327. ^povrj^a Ka\ jiddos xl^vxijs' Themist. 134. 
ftuQos hiavoias. ^lian V. H. 318. ttXovto) ftaOe'i' So also Eurip. 
ap. Polyb. 12, 14. ftadvirXovros eiptjyif Nonnus Dion. 1. /3a0v- 
■jrXovrto TrapatcoiTif iEschyl. Pers. 471. Ed. Blomf. SipHijs b' rtj'w- 
fi(x)t,ey KUKuii' opijy ftados' where the learned Editor compares 718. 
"Nvy T€ <7e Ci]Xw davoyTa, Trpiy KaKwy 'ibe7y pc'iBos, and remarks : 
" Grseci, cum alicujus rei abundantia esset, seu rerum secundarum 
sive adversarum, sive annoruni, hac metaphori utebantur. Dice- 
bant igitur paOos kXovtov, iDudvs Xeif-iivy, jiadv yfjpas, jycidos KaKwy^ 
ftadela elptjvrf." 



B(v9 TrorajW.oy, p^apa? kou etjc^poeruVTjs" Ka) twv aXkaiV aya- 
Qw)/ 7r'kr]ixixvpouu. I would compare a sentiment of 
the same cast, and similarly expressed, in Philo, p. 
68 A. a^vvarouixev 8e ttTvoutov 0eoG avaixcrp^crai. 

In speaking of the o-o(p/a and yvcoo-jy OeoG, the 
Apostle (as Chrysost. and the Greek Commentators 
observe) especially adverts to the wisdom of" God's 
economy with respect to national salvation, i. e. (as 
Hardy expresses it) " qua cujusque gentis ingenia, 
propensiones, et mores clarissime perspicit, ut dis- 
penset quid cuique genti et tempori conveniat." 
►See also Rosenm. 

33. cJy ave^epevvTjTa rot k^iixo-tol — oCo) auTou, " how 
unsearchable are his decrees and measures, both for 
good and for evil," or " the whole governance of his 
providence, as exercised towards his creatures." By 
the Kplixara, Grotius and most Commentators under- 
stand the governance of God's providence; and by 
tlie l(ioi, the icays by which his plans are carried into 
effect. So Eurip. Hec. 743. (cited by Wets.) outoj 
7re<f>vKcc fxavTi^, wfTre jtxr] Khu^iV i^ia-Topr^a-ai (ruiv hZov /3oy- 
Aey^arcov. Compare Ps. 119, 91- 92, 1. Is. 40, VS 
& 14. Here Grotius cites Origen contr. Cels. Elff-j 
yao riv€S €]p[xo) ko.) oLKohoo^lai d(paTQi Koi dcve/cSjTjyvjroi 
Trepi r^9 Kara ras avQpcoTriva^ '>^i>^ot.9 hia(po^Qu oiKOVo^ia^. 
Chrysost. and the Greek Commentators carefully 
confine this sentiment to what has just been said, 
namely, of the Divine economy respecting the salva- 
tion of the Gentiles, and the final, but perhaps gra- 
dual, conversion of the Jews. 

The epithets ave^cpeuvrjra and aj/e^jp^vjWroi are 
nearly synonymous, and form a parallelism : though 
the ratio metaphorse differs ; and the Commentators 
variously exercise their ingenuity. (See Turner.) 
The former word is used by Aquila and Symma- 
chus ; the latter, by the Sept. at Job. 5, 9- 9, 10., 
and in the Apocrypha. Here Wets, compares a 
passage of Schemoth Rabba 6. " Non perscrutatus 
est judicia mea, neque interrogavit me, quale esset 


nomen meiim ; quod tufecisti." Here I would com- 
pare a similar exclamation in Eurip. Hel. 717. h^l? 

cos €<PU Tl TTOlKb^OV KOi) hlJ(rT€K^aOTOU. 

31s 35. Tiff yap eyvco vovv Kupiou ; -^ ris, Scc. Wets, 
(after Theodorct) paraphrases thus : " Quis novit 
scientiam Dei? quis consiHum dedit sapientissimo ? 
quis munera Optimo Maximo r" marking the distinc- 
tion in ver. 31. between TrXouroy, rro^la, and yvcocris. 
In this view of the sense, however, there seems 
something fanciful and precarious. The sentiment is 
more satisfactorily expressed by Koppe : "providentia 
divina nee ingenio humano penetrari, nee consiliis 
Immanis adjuvari, nee propria quadam hominis dig- 
nitate invito numine flecti potest." It is thus ele- 
gantly paraphrased by Theophyl. (from Chrys,) 115 
med. M.0V09 auTos oio€ ra auVoG, ku) ou^e)^ erepos. ^o<pos' 
he iov, ou Tzao krepw (Toix^ooT^qu ea-o^plaSr), aXX' aurls' iotu- 
Tco auTotpKYis lyevero Kai ecrTiv. 'AXXa koi ttolvtcov tcvu 
aya^uiv Trrjy^ €(rTi, Koi ocra hi^axriv, 06^ cos a;jtoJj3r;V o^peiT^cov 
oiOoxrjv aXAa Inot, ttjv olKeiav ayntSorriTa. T/y yap irpoe- 
Oa)K€V auTco, roiJT€(rTi, ro) ©eto, ha avraTroho^rja-rjTai 
ayro) ; TOureTTiv, iVa >] Trapa rou ©eoG chpyea-'ia, cos 
uvTaTTO^o^a T^oyKr^eli] yrpos aurov yivoixevov. 

There seems no doubt but the Apostle has formed 
the passage from Is. 40, 13 & 14. Very similar, too, 
are Sap. 9, 17- Sir. 18, 2 — 5., all which I leave to be 
examined by the student. Koppe compares Solon 
Frag. ver. l49. :rav-y] 8* a^c/varcov a^avris voqs au^pai- 
TTOicnv. And I would adduce a similar passage of 
Lucian 1, 758, 40. ol U Orj ^T^lwovres, i<au jravu b^itoep- 
Keiscocri, ri du hvvoiUTO cruvi^elv rcov Tr^s \J/tj;^:^y, airo ye rris 
e^coSev raurris Trepi^dXr^s. 

Locke and Hardy judiciously remark that this 
emphatical conclusion seems in a special manner to 
regard the Jews, whom the Apostle would hereby 
teach modesty, and submission to the over-ruling 
hand of the all-wise God, whom they are very unfit 
to call to account for his dealing so favourably with 
the Gentiles. His wisdom and his ways are infinitely 


above their comprehension, and will they take upon 
themselves to advise him what to do? Or, is God 
in their debt ? Let them say for what, and he shall 
repay it to them." 

35. tIs Trqoe^coKev auro), ku) a. a. Grot, observes, 
that the sentiment is the same as at Matt. 20, 14. 
" Take that thine is, and go thy way." And he pa- 
raphrases thus : " Si cui rationes Divinse dispensa- 
tionis, a me hactenus allatse, non satisfaciunt, cogitet 
non de reddenda gratia, sed de beneficio dando hie 
agit : beneficii autem sui quemque oportet esse arbi- 
trum." Jaspis thus : '' An Judaei primo loco de 
Deo bene meriti" sunt, ut eum quasi cogere possent 
ad beneficia ipsis tribuenda? Ad Deum omnia om- 
nino sic redeunt, ipso ordinante et efficiente, ut, 
quod ipse velit, tandem certissime eveniat." Koppe 
compares a similar sentiment in Job 41, 3. 

36. oTi e^ avrou, kou ot' avroo, kol) els' atjTov ra Travra. 
Koppe thinks there is no reason to anxiously discri- 
minate between these phrases, which are (he ob- 
serves) accumulated, from vehement emotion, and 
carry only this general sentiment, that all things de- 
pend upon Him. But I cannot agree with the 
learned Commentator. Nothing seems more un- 
worthy of a sacred Critic and Philologist, not to say 
a reverent Theologian, than wrapping up things in 
this summary way, except in cases which admit not 
of certain determination : but this is not one of 
them. The clauses may very well be distinguished; 
and are satisfactorily explained by Theophylact as 
follows ; Autos ^J Tngyv] jravr cov, kou o Trojrjrrjs" ttolvtcov, 
KoCi flruvo^eu? Travrcov. UavTO, -yap i^ aorou e^ei rriv 
apyrjUi kol) Sj* aurou iyevero, kou €i9 avrov, oxTTreg eiy 
6ejuieA<ot/ riva ^e^riKora 'i(rravTai kou (njV€)(^.vrou cTre- 
o-r§aja/x6t/a Trpos avrou. I would, then, paraphrase 
thus : From Him, as their original creator, all 
things are derived : through Him, as their continual 
preserver and constant conductor, all things consist 
and subsist j and to Him, as their ultimate end, all 


things and all actions tend, so as to contribute to In's 
})raise and glory, illustrate his perfections, and finally 
accomplish his wise and benevolent purposes.* 


Now, as connected with the doctrinal, comes the 
parwnetical and practical part of this Chapter, which 
Theodoret introduces with the following fine re- 
marks. ^Oirep €<rriv ©(pSaX/xoy €v <r«)p,aTi, rooro ry] \|/up/->^ 
TTJCTTtf, Koi Tcov QcKov v) yvcocTis" Qe7rai ot o^co^ aurr] Trj^y 
TrpuKTiKTi^ aperrj^y KaBuTrep 0(^^0^1x05 ^eiocov, Koi TroSaJv, 
Koi TCOV aXXcov fxapKuv too o"aj/xaro?' toutoo he yapiv 
Qeiof uTToa-ToXos' to?? fioy^aT ikons' Xoyojy koi tt^v rfiiKr^v 

* On the first two clauses there can be no doubt. The second is 
confirmed by Acts 17, 28. " In Him we live, move, and have our 
being}" and Heb. 1, 3. " upholding all things by the word of his 
power:" and both of them byAristol. de Mundo 6. (cited by Wets.), 
who mentions it as an old adage of all nations: ws tA.- Oeov ru 
irarra, i:ui hia Qeov yfu'iy (rvi'eanjtcei', consist, subsist. As to the 
third clause, it is less easy of determination. (See the Commenta- 
tors.) The above explanation of it, however, is confirmed by Op- 
plan Hal. 1, 409. (cited by Wets.) Zev /.laKap, es be rre Trarra kcu Ik 
aeOey cpptfoirctt, where I would read ti'jjniw-ai. (See 1 Cor. 8, 6.), 
and INIarc. Anton. 14, 23. d (pvaix, Ik nod TrdiTa, tv aol Trarra, els 
at- TTcaro, which j)a=sage is. so strongly similar, that I sus[ ect the 
philosopher derived it from the Apostle : and surely a much greater 
writer than he might have been ))ardoncd for appropriating it, and 
any writer, however eminent, might have been proud of it. The 
trifling verbal variation may, I think, be accounted for from some 
variety of reading in the MS. which the above njentioned author 
used. Nay in the Vulgate we have in ipso, i. e the ep aol : though 
in the third clause. Indeed the words seem to have been tampered 
with by some one who was perple.\ed w ith the eis rre. 

Grotius, in reference to the ihree links of this glorious chain, cites 
Theocr. Idyl, (speaking of Ptolemy), 'Atbpojy 6' av T[ro\€/.i(uos evl 
Trpi'oToiai XeyeaOuj, Kctl Trvf.iciTus, Kai ^itcffos, which passas^e, I con- 
jecture, was in the mind of Milton when he wrole the noble line : 
" Him first. Him last, Him midst, and without end." 

I see no reason, with Grotius and Wets., to limit this last verse to 
the dispensations of God just treated of. It is, 1 conceive, meant to 
be general. So Theodoret 128 ult. b' (speaking of St. Paul) bia 
Tuiy 'Pwyuatwv TTdaif aydpwTrois r>)y ujfeXeiav ~po(T{]veyKev. 
And of it Ammon says : " N'ereor, ut brevius simulque rectius 
delineari c^ueat omnis theologiic svimma." 


hioctcrKctKiccv TrpoG-redeiKe, Tr,v rey^ecoTarrjV Karao'KCvoi^ayv 
iv rlfuv apeTT^v. This, as Carpzov observes, treats of 
the moral and practical duties of justified Christians, 
and is rightly considered as the compendium and 
synopsis of moral theology. "It extends (continues 
he) up to 15 — 13., and consists of three sections. 
The Jirst inculcates the general duties of Chris- 
tianity, which respect all Christians, of whatever 
rank or degree, station or dignity. (C. 12.) Section 2. 
treats of political or social duties, such as are to be 
observed by Christians with respect to their supe- 
riors, their equals, and themselves. (Ch. 13.) Sec- 
tion 3. treats o? private duties, economical and cere- 
monial, such as are to be attended to by Christians 
in their social intercourse with each other, espe- 
cially towards those who have not hitherto been 
convinced, but are as yet weak in the faith." (Ch. 

The whole Chapter is said, by Grotius, to be 
Isocratean, in the jo-o/ca>?^a and antithesis. 

1. 7raia/ca?vw oOv ufxay, &c. The Apostle now ex- 
horts them to lead a life worthy of such Divine be- 
nefits, i. e. consecrated and dedicated to God, &c. 
This seems to be hinted at by the oZv, which Wets, 
thus paraphrases : " Quia Deus ita vobis favit, et 
morte dignos ad spem vita^ aeternae revocavit, obsecro 
vos per Dei misericordiam." It is well observed by T. 
Edwards, that " the Apostle, having concluded his 
argument, proceeds, according to his usual method 
in all his Epistles, to draw an inference of exhorta- 
tion from what he had before said, in order to per- 
suade men to the practice of virtue and righteous- 
ness ; and because the finishing point, in which his 
argument terminates, is the observation that all the 
great dispensations of Providence are, with unsearch- 
able wisdom, designed finally to issue in events of 
mercy, it is therefore with great eloquence of affec- 
tion that he lays the stress of his exhortation upon 
that particular motive." 

1. A»a TMv oUripixaiv to5 0eoy. I cannot, with Ori- 


gen, see any etnphasis in the plural. It rather seems 
to be a Hebraism founded on C'^'^ni in the Old 
Testament, (see Gesen. Heb. Lex.) and (as Koppe 
observes) is equivalent to h^eos and x^P^^- Compare 
2 Cor. 1, 3. rhil. 2, 1. Col. 3, vl Heb. 10, QS. 
Thus it is rendered in the Vulg. misericordiam 

1. 7rapa<TT7]o-aj to. (rai[i.ct.T(x u[i.cov — ©fto, " that you 
consecrate your bodies to God." Beza, Bos, Eisner, 
Albert!, and others, think there is here a sacrifi- 
cial metaphor,* alluding to ceremonial observances. 
Theophyl., however, recognizes a milifari/ one. Ha- 
paTlbr,^i is here used for Trpoa-i^eceiv, and corresponds 
to the Heb. T?2i*n in Levit., and often elsewhere. 
See Gesen. Lex. Heb. Ta a-ajixaTu (as is rightly 
observed by Beza and Koppe) is for u/xay ayro-js-j- (as 
6, 13. and James 3, 6. o?voy to o-co^aa for o?vov tov av- 
QowTTov), in accommodation to the preceding meta- 
phor from sacrifices. :j: On the same principle Koppe 

* Of which Wets, has collected tlie following examples. Har- 
niog. de Inxent. 3, 14. vfieli te —apairri'icTaade rpiaKoaiovs lepela 
ro~ts joujfAols. Lucian Deor. Concil, 13. k^h' luvplas txaro/ipas -aoa- 
ari'iar]. Polyb. Exc. p. 1093. 6vf.iarn ro'is /5wyi<o7s -apaoT//<ra»-es. 

f So Schoettgen. " By a Hebraism (of which I have given ex- 
amples in the note on S, '27.), this signifies vosmet ipsos, iiourselves. 
For God requires the service not so much of the body as of the soul." 

X Here the Commentators, as Eisner and Wets., compare the fol- 
lowing passages. Isocrat. ad Nicoclcm. iiyov be rov-o euai Ovf^a 
ka\\(OT« y, Kai depaTreiay ^(ey<<Tr>;r ear ws /jeArjcTrov Kai biicaioraroy 
(Teavroy -ape-^ijs, Hierocles. oibe -t/mr deov 6 —pojjyoviaiyujs 
lepeloy eavroy Trpocruyioy. Porphyr. L. 2. §. 45. de AbstinentiA, p. 
S8., who calls the wise man externally and internally pure^ uybpa 
lepoi'i-ieyoy rij yoep^ Qvfjif}, Koi /.lero. Xei'»>j/J tadfjTos Kiii Kctdapds r<J 
oyri ri'is y^v^iKi^s ti-adeias kctt r»/s KovipoTTjTOS ~ov ffwyuaros Trpoaioy-a 
rw 0c^, oi/t: ei, aWorpiioy icai odyeitjy ^i^'w*' ^'fu ~a6i7iy vi-i'^nv-wr 
fiepapijjjeyoy. Philo, p. S38 F. Bulkley, too, cites Hierocles in 
Aur. Carm. p. 24., who describes the good man as bringing or pre- 
senting himself, in the first place, a sacrifice and an oftering unto 
God, and forming his soul into a divine image, and his mind into a 
temple fitted for the reception of the divine light. " For what other 
sacrifice (says he) canst thou bring, or what other image or form so 
congruous to deity, as that which the mental or rational nature, 
refined and purified, necessarily must be." 

I omit many passages from Philo and Josephus, and the Rabbi- 
nical writers, to the same purpose, cited by Carpzov, Wolf, and 
Deyling Obss. Sacr. T. 3, 313. 


accounts for the following terms Qua-iav Jcoo-av, aylav, 
euaperrrov r. 0., all of which appear to have been 
sacrificial terms. Thus, for instance (as Koppe ob- 
serves), ayjo? and €vap€(Tro9 tm 0e«) were common 
to all sacrifices. Zcoo-a, most Commentators think, 
is said in opposition to the common sacrifices, which 
were slain previous to being oflTered ; q. d. " offer 
up, not slain animals (see Levit. 16, 10 & 20.), but a 
living sacrifice,* namely, yourselves." This, how- 
ever, seems scarcely satisfactory. I prefer, with 
Photiusand Jaspis, to suppose that it means the moral, 
i. e. tropical and spiritual sacrifice of the Gospel, 
in opposition to the corporeal and ceremonial ones 
enjoined by the Mosaic Law. Compare 1 Cor. 6, 
50. Rom. 6, 3, 4, 6, 8 & 13. 

Qoa-la. is obviously the Hebrew Tn^Vy or victim. 
Now this is ordered to be dyia: which term answers 
to the Heb. DIDil, a/xcojmoy, without spot, as was 
prescribed by the Law. The word following, eoapea-- 
Toy, is exegetical of the preceding, and must not be 
taken with Trapaa-r., as Estius and Koppe direct 
(w^hich would cause a needless h3'^perbaton, and 
cripple the sense), but with ©€«>; as the ancient and 
most modern Commentators take it. So Theophyl. : 

* So Carpzov, who subjoins the following exposition : " Qvaki 
Swtra, hostia vivens, est oblatioac sacrificium Novi Testanienti, non, 
ut in Veteri illo, cruentum, igne cremandum, morleve efhcienduni; 
sed tale, quum intellectus, voluntatis, sensuuni, ac membrorum cor- 
poris vita ex Deo in Christ i sit, Rom, 6, II, 13.: per Spiritum 
Sanctum, qui vivificat, excitata, Rom. 8, 5 & 6. Joh. 6, 63.! et, 
post abolitam mortem peccatoium, perpetuo sanctimonice exerci- 
tatio consecrata, Horn. 6, II & 22. Judaeis prohibitum erat, dara- 
aifua morticinia in sacrificium offerre. Multo minus Cliristianis 
otfere licet sacrificium mortuum et cadaverosuni." 

This interpretation, too, is supported by Ciirysost. and the Greek 
Commentators. Thus Theodoret : " The Apostle had before ex- 
horted them to yield their members as instruments of righteous- 
ness, and to render themselves to God as those that were alive, from 
being dead ; he now proceeds to exhort them to offer up a sacrifice 
of these, and a living sacrifice, i, e. not that their bodies should be 
slain, but be dead unto sin, i. e. no longer admitting its opejation." 
So also Theophyl., who adds : " For when we mortify these, we live 
in the spirit." See also Photius ap. CEcumen. 


** For the Jewish sacrifices were not altogether pleas- 
ing to God, " who lias required these (says he) at your 
hands ? but with these God is well pleased." Gro- 
tius compares Phil. 4, 18,, and the Heb. nin''7 H**"), 
oVjXTg €1)0)010.9 rep &€a), Lev. 1, 9^ 13, 1 7.* 

1. T^v T^oyiKTiV 7\.aTpetot.v ui/.(vu. On the construction 
and sense of these words Commentators are not 
quite agreed. Erasmus, Tolet, and Crellius, regard 
them as put in apposition with the preceding : so as 
either (if we have in view the grammatical construc- 
tion) to cohere with the preceding accusatives, or 
(if the sense itself), to connect with the verb ivaorjL- 
G-rrja-ai and the following; the clause assigning a 
reason; q. d. "for this is your reasonable service." 
And they refer to Eph. 5, 2. 1 Tim. 2, 6. Others, 
as De Dieu and Koppe, endeavour to remove this 
harshness, (which, however, is a common idiom in all 
languages) by taking Xarpe/a for the sacrifice. But 
this fails of effecting the purpose intended, and only 
embarrasses the plain sense of the words. 

As to the "koyiK., various are the senses assigned 
to it, which may be seen in Pole. The most obvi- 
ous sense is that in which it is taken by Grotius, 
Schoettg., Beza, Erasm., Zeger, Hammond, and 
many modern Interpreters, including Schleus. and 
Macknight, " with the mind and reason," mental and 
rational, " suitable to human reason and the Divine 
nature." There is (they think) here a reference to 
the irrational rites of Heathenism, and the merely 
corporeal ones of Judaism, whose service consisted 

* Schoettgcn, too, observes that tliis Qvala ay/a and evaperrros is 
just such as is so often inculcated in the sacritices of the Old Testa- 
ment : nin'V ir>iip and mn»j nn, by whicli arc meant such things as 
are conmianded by God, and esteemed |)\ne by Him. " The Chris- 
tian, therefore (continues he), ought to offer up unto God such 
works as are commanded by him, and which God himself accounts 
holy; otherwise our worship cannot please him. In this view, all 
those works devised by an avdutperos, or wUl-ivomhip, are forbidden j 
though this sort of worship may to many wear the aspect of ex- 
treme sanctity." 


Twu akoycou, of brute animals, " But we (Grot, para- 
phrases) offer a body in which the m'uid is compos ra- 
t'lonis excellent issimas, and the actions are directed 
by reason." This, however, if I mistake not, is nei- 
ther agreeable to Scripture, nor borne out by expe- 
rience.* I therefore prefer the interpretation of 
Chrysost. and the Greek Commentators, adopted 
also by Estius, Mede, Wets., Rosenm., Koppe, I)ey~ 
ling, Olearius, Dodwell, Carpzov, Jaspis, and others, 
viz. mystical^ spiritual; as opposed to rites and cere- 
monies, which (as Wets, remarks) were observed 
even by those whose minds were unpurged. *' Now 
the Apostle (says Jaspis) opposes to the external 
worship by sacrifices the internal and spiritual sacri- 
fices." Carpzov. here cites a similar sentiment from 
that most spiritual Jew, Philo 850. 

y,Qp(podcr$e. These verbs must be taken in a reciprocal 
sense : " Do not conform^ but transform yourselves" 
Some excellent MSS. have the verbs in the Infini- 
tive ; which reading is approved by Griesbach as 
being the more difficult. Both the terms here used 
are copiously illustrated by Wets. The former sig- 
nifies to model oneself and one's manners after ano- 

* Would that man were always compos rationis, and his actions 
under the guidance of reason ! But, alas ! not to mention the tes- 
timonies of Scripture, the language of our Evangelical Poet is, I 
fear, too true. 

" Reasoning at every step he treads, 

Man still mistakes liis way ; 
Willie meaner things, whom instinct leads, 
Aie never known to stray." 
The subject is learnedly illustrated from the Classical writers by 
Arndt. Misc. p. 102., and Amel. p. 54*2. Extracts from the former 
may be seen in Wolf's Curae. But as they only apj)ly to the un- 
founded interpretation just mentioned, I shall omit them. See 
also Wolf and Carpzov, who rightly observe that this interpretation 
exactly squares with the opinions of Spinosa, the Naturalists and 
Anti-scriptuarians (like the Rationalists of our days), who affirm 
that the principles of reason must be compounded with revealed The- 
ology, and that Theology is to be built upon the double foundation 
of reason and revelation. 


tlier, imitate him ;* and this force seems to rest in 
the a-uv. 

By tlie auoui is plainly meant the custom of the 
world ; as Ko(rfxo9 in 1 Joh. 2, 16. 

2. iX€Ta[xop(^ou(rBe ryj avaKaiva)(rei r. v. u, Koppe 
regards this as a sort of Hendiadis for ;xerajuio^<pouo-Qe 
Kol ava/coivouo-Qe /caret youv. To me the words appear 
to be exegetical, denoting in what manner, and to 
what degree, this change is to be effected, -j- namely, 
by putting on the new man, &c. Eph. 4', 24. See 
the notes of Whitby, Locke, &c. On ix€Taixop<p. 
Wets, aptly cites Seneca, Ep. 6. Sentio, non emen- 
dari me tantum, sed transfigurari. 

2. eiy ro ^oKiixa^eiv, &c. On the exact force of 
this phrase Commentators are not agreed. Crellius 
takes it to denote the terminus quo. The Greek 
Commentators suppose it to point out the beneficial 
effects resulting from this regeneration : ParcTus, 
" in what it consists." Cameron maintains, that the 
transformation is that habit of mind, of which the 
work is TO ooKii^a^eiv. These interpretations are, 
however, not irreconcileable with each other, and 
may be united. The Apostle (I think) meant to 
point out by example tiie most remarkable effects of 
this regeneration : namely, to ^oKiixd§€iv ti to SeXr^pa 
TOO 0eoy, which the best Commentators explain to 

* So Plut. 1, 73 E. 01 TToWoi r/)»' up€T))v rov apj^oj-os opuvres 
eKuvffiws atxxppoj'ovffi, kcu (TV(T)(^y]f.iciriSoi'Tai Trpos av-oi'. Li v. 14. 
ipsi se homines in regis vclut iinici exempli mores formant. Cic. 
E|)ist. I, 8, ipse me couformo ad ejus voluntatem. Ovid Trist. 5, 
13, 25. Tu tamen, ut falsce possis quoque pellere culpae crimina, 
quod non es, ne videare, cave. 

Wets, (almost all of whose examples bear the sense pretend J offers 
Uie following remarks: " Qui mores suos ad mores seculi corruptos 
conformat, non simulate sed vere malus est : sed poterat sibi ipsi 
talis non videri, ita ut excusatione hac uteretur, diceretque, se ani- 
ttium sanctum et honestum habere, licet, ut seculi nios est, viveret 
ideo Paulus : nolite, ait, similes esse scculo huic, ne ficte quidem et 
simulate, ut multi dicunt. Talis simulatio cum vera, pietate, cum 
interns, animi innovatione et transfigurationeconvenire non potest." 

t Mera/.(. denotes a change (/jieTa) of the /.iopcpi), or form, figure, 
disposition. On both the above terms see the excellent expositions 
of Thcodoret and Pholius ap. CEcunien. 


prove, try, examine. Theophyl. ^layiyma-Keiv. So 
also Basil, Origen, and Hilary. Others take it to 
mean experience : and others again (as Mackn.), to 
approve. All these significations, indeed, are sup- 
ported by good authority : but the first seems to be 
the most agreeable to the context: and it has this 
advantage, that it may include the rest. It is proper 
to observe, that this So/cjpa^ejf must not be merely 
speculative, but practical. The tc QeXTjitxa roG 0eou 
denotes what God would have men to do, including 
both belief and practice: and I assent to the Greek 
Commentators, and the most eminent of the modern 
ones, (as Para^us, Grotius, Schoettg , Locke, and 
Mackn.) that there is here an allusion to the compa- 
rative excellence of the revelations of God under the 
Law, and under the Gospel. Locke, indeed, thinks 
that these two first verses were meant to show the pre- 
ference of the Gospel to the Gentile state and Jewish 
economy. In which view he paraphrases thus : "that 
you may, upon examination, find out what is the 
good, the acceptable, and perfect will of God, which 
now, under the Gospel, has shewn itself to be in 
purity and holiness of life: the ritual observances 
which he once instituted not being that his good, 
acceptable, and perfect will, which he always in- 
tended ; they were made only the types and prepara- 
tory way to his more perfect state under the Gos- 
pel." I would, however, put a comma after 0eoy 
a.ya$ov, and fy'apeo-Tov, which will serve to clear the 
sense. Many Commentators, indeed, think there is 
no reference to the various revelations of God. And 
such is the opinion of Basil ap. Theophyl., who dis- 
cusses the difference between the words; perhaps 
with more ingenuity than solidity or certainty. Yet 
I am inclined to think there is a climax intended : 
and such seems to have been the opinion of Wets., 
who thus paraphrases reAeJov. " Tunc perfecti eritis, 
et ex re ipsa cognoscetis : Deum non postulare 
solum, ut quis domi bonus et plus sit, et non nisi ea 
vitia fiigiat, quai non sunt vitia seculi : sed ut sem- 


per et ubique virtuti det operam, etiam contra mores 
seculi." I certainly prefer this to the method adopted 
by Koppe, wlio wraps all up by treating these as 
synonymous terms. 

3. T^eyo) yap, &c. Now follows a more copious 
detail of particular Christian virtues, especially of 
those which the Apostle knew the Romans either 
greatly neglected, or paid too limited an attention 
to. Among these he most enlarges on humility, a 
virtue much neglected, especially by those who ex- 
celled in wisdom or ecclesiastical dignity, or had 
received certain spiritual gifts. (Koppe.) In this, 
however, there seems something too artificial, and 

Tap is taken by Koppe in the sense of exempli 
gratid. But as it stands at the commencement of 
the recensio of Christian duties now detailed, it may 
have what is called the inchoative force. 

Aeyoi has here the sense of i-Triraa-a-io, hid, tell, 
order; as in Matt. 23, 3. So Schoettg., who ex- 
plains it Jiiheo. 

3. 8ia rrJ9 p^a/stroy rrj^ SoOeiVr^y iJ-oi. Most modern 
Commentators explain this: " by virtue of my Apos- 
tolical office and authority ; metonymy of cause 
for effect. (See Grot, and Crell.)* But this seems 
too limited and formal an interpretation. The 
Greek Commentators, on the other hand, take 
it to mean the Holy Spirit : which is certainly 
coming nearer the truth: for after ho^eia-r^s' ou"-ht, I 
think, with Photius, to be supplied Qeou from the 
preceding. And this will confine ^^apiros- to the 
sense of an inspired or supernatural faculty gra- 
ciously imparted by God ; and which, in St. Paul's 
case, would be the highest measure of inspiration. 
(See Mackn.) This is more usually termed ;^apjo-j«,a} 

* So Wetstein : " Hoc ipsum quod \ os admoneo, numeris mihi 
mandati pars est : admoneo autem, ut mco exenipjo quisque ves- 
tidm mandate niunere fungatur, neque ejus liniitesexccdat. comm 
6. 1 Cor. 1, 4. 3, 10. i, 7- & 2 Cor. 13, 10. Gal. 2, 9, inf. 15, is! 
Acts IS, 27." 


as in ver. 6. (which sufficiently supports this inter- 
pretation) €^ovT€S oe ^apla-ixara Kara tt]v X^i'"* "^"^'^ 
oaheia-av r]iuv oia(pooa. So Theophyl. 118. Ojk efxau 
Xoyov yjyco, tr^a-h, aXXa rov a-o toO ©eoG, ov ">]' ;/«?'? 
a-JroG hii7Tii€'ja-e ixm. Dr. Mackn., too (very properly), 
interprets this ;/a5io-aa " the grace of Apostleship, 
the gift of inspiration." And Koppe, after much 
discussion, comes to nearly the same conclusion. 
Compare 1 Cor. 1, 4. 3, 10.' Gal. 2, 9. 

3. iravTi TM o'jri iv uaTv. This may possibly be an 
Hellenistical and idiotical expression for eKaa-rcp 
ofuuv ; as Eph. 1. 1. roiy ayioiy rois o'J(riv ev 'Ei>eo-a> 
The Commentators also compare 1, 7« 7) 23. 16, 11. 
1 Cor. 1, 2. 2 Cor. 1, 1. Yet it seems to have more 
emphasis than the other expression, and seems to 
imply evej'i/ individual of you all, of ivhatever station 
or dignity. So Theophyl. : koli jOjoj-Y; Ka\ aoyo'jri. 
Koppe would take it for rio ovrt r;, i. e. tm ^oKoZvn 
Tt ; as 1 Cor. 1, 28. But this is quite inadmissible; 
since ri would thus be too emphatical a word to 
admit of being left to be understood : neither is it 
required by the sense. 

3. ixv) vrrep^povelv Trao o oel cPpoveTv. It is not ne- 
cessary (with Grot.), to take the Infinitive for the 
Imperative, since it depends upon the 7^€yco. AVe 
may observe, that the admonition* is rendered more 
striking by the paronomasia between the \vords 
(^poyeh, -JTrep^poveh, and (ra}(^oov€7v,'\' which are thus 
distinguished by Wetstein : " Illuil peccat in ex- 
cessu per superbiam : Istud est justum de se et aliis 
judicium : Hoc vero significat modestiam.*' The 
words Trap' o oel <^ooveiv are accounted by Ilosenm. a 

* On the giving of which Wets, remarks : " Consilium aiit stipem 
dare prudentum est et di\ itum : indubtria sanorum : patientia 
aegrorum : modestia omnium." 

t Examples of this paronomasia are given by Grotius and VVets.j 
as Charondas ap. Stob. S. 42. TrpotnroieiTQd) he ecaoros rCjv ttoXltwv 
awcppoieiy nuXXoy >*/ <pporely. Thucyd. 2, 62. 'ieyai be rois ky^dpois 
ofiO<Te, /J>; (ppori'ifjia-i fxovovj aX\a Koi Karaipportifiari, Sotades : 
*Av aXaioi'^s, tovt ayoias ecr-l 0puay/na" "Ay tk (TCjjfpoyfis, tovto 
Sewy bwpoy {'/rcio^ei. 



mere periphrasis of uTrep'^povc'iv. But they are rather 
exegetical, and have an intensive force. Nor is the 
'jTrep pleonastic, as Hardy supposes. Grot, compares 
u\J/v3Xo(?5oye7v ; and Koppe, 2 Mace. 9, 12. yV«7;0av<:y? 
(ppQvelv. I add i^€i§w (pooveh, and Thucyd.' 13, 45. 
iKacrros aKoynrrw^ €Ti7r7\.€0V ri a'jrlv ioo^afrev, de se 
plus cequo sen tire solet. V/ets. thus paraphrases : 
"Dignitatem vos vestram tueri, et felicitatem agnos- 
cere non veto; vobis Dens hanc gratiam fecit, lit 
ad Christum vocaret ; in vos dona spiritus sui Jarga 
manu contulit : sed ideo non superbire, et alios con- 
temnere, quin potius eo magis modestise studere, et 
omnibus lionorem exliibere debetis."* 

3. (^oQveiv €\s TO (rcoc^ooveiv. Here we have an acute 
dictum, or paronomasia, the force of which will be 
perceived by observing tliat (?_5ove?i/ is a term medice 
signijicationis ; and that in a-cocppove'iv there is an al- 
lusion to the etymology of the word, which, as often 
in the Greek and Hebrew, inculcates a moral truth. 
This is well expressed by Theophyl. 119. O-jrco oe 
e'lTreVj ha ^€i^r,, oVt o fxr^ Ta-€ivo<pcov(v)/, TrapoLTraUi Koi 
e^€(rrr,K€ rwv \qIcov Xoyjo-^acov* o 6e ra-eivo^^ovaJv, o-foas" 
€^€i Tap ^p€va9' KCii 3<a toOto T^dyeron <rco<pf)ove7v. So)- 
(ppoveh (says Wets.) opponitur vel stultiti^e, vel mo- 

* Schoettgen, however, makes the words of general application, 
as referring not to rulers only, but to all, both Jews and Gentiles, 
both of whom prided themselves overmuch on their wisdom, conse- 
quently despising Christian simplicity." " Now these (continues he) 
the Apostle exhorts 0pojc7r els to uuxpooveiv,'' i.e. to jud<z;e soberly 
of the divine revelation and Gospel announced to them ; q"d. " For 
then the Jew-swill see that they must at some time quit the economy 
of the Old Testament; and the Gentiles will perceive that they 
cannot come unto God solely by the use of reason." 

t .\nd he cites numerous i)assages from the Classical writers. 

(^vyais awzovcri ra rijs (ppovi'itreios fcpinara. Xenoph. de Socr. 1. 
ri (TtocppocTi'i')], ri {.invia, ri avtpeia, ri beiKia ; Diog. Laert. 3, 91, 
Aristot. Nic. 2, 1. 4, 13. Isid. 3, 2G6. Joseph. Mace. 2 & 3. 
Thucyd. 6, 78. KUKwdfjiai ^ti' ha (TuKpporiaQQjiey, where the Schol. 
explains rinveivwBCJixer. Homer uses (ppvyrjuis for what Juvenal 


These words lead us to suppose that irregularities 
had taken place in the exercise of their gifts at 
Rome, as at PhiHppi and Thessalonica. 

8. €Ka(rru) cos b ©eoy e|xe§J(re jxer^ov TTiVrco)?. 'E/ca- 
(TTU) m (Grotius observes) is for w? eKua-TU), by a 
transposition common to St. Paul. See 2, 27- To 
me it seems rather that there is an elHpsis of oDVcoy. 
Theophyl. well explains : o)? T^oyi^t^ev ort eKaa-Tip 
iixepKrev o ©eoy jaerpov' Trterrea)?. 'ETreiSig ya^ ra. ^api(r- 
jxara ]xaX7\.ov ely ctTrovojav CTT-^^e rouj TroXAooy, Si' auro 
ToGro, <p>)0'i, SeT (raxppoveiv, SjoVj o 0€oy e^epKrcv kKa(rria 
TO jULCTgov T^y 7r»o-T€cos'. It is plain that ttIo-tis cannot 
here be taken in the usual acceptation. Most re- 
cent Interpreters, as Koppe and Morus, understand 
by it religious knowledge^ and the faculties and qua- 
lities annexed to it.* But this seems too vague and 
limited a sense. It plainly appears from the fol- 
lowing verses that something far more is required : 
though as to ivhat that is, the early modern Commen- 
tators differ. It has, I think, been rightly seen by 
Chrysost. and the Greek Commentators, including 
Theophyl., Photius, Theodoret, and QEcumen., that 
Tr/o-Tis" has the sense of ;^apio-|xa at ver. 6., and de- 
notes the gifts and graces (always supernatural, and 
sometimes miraculous,) of the Holy Spirit. So Eph. 
4, 7- ^Vi oe kKaa-TLO t^ikcov e^oBr] t] ^apis koltol to [i-erpov 
T^y ^(opeds Tou Xpto-roG. This interpretation is also 
adopted by Carpzov, who thus explains : Mer^ov 

calls the mens sana, and Cicero the consider ata judicia mentis. Here, 
however, is ineant mvdestia animi. Wetstein concludes with a pas- 
sage of Plut. 2, 83., somewhat parallel both in sentiment and phra- 
seology with the one before us, where the philosopher bids us not be 
BavixacTTai, Trap' 6 bel, Xoywr, i) aidpcjTrwv, i) Karacppoyrjral, some- 
thing like the nil admirari of Horace. 

* " The word is here used (observes Koppe) in an extended 
sense, to denote every part of the character of a Christian animated 
by tlie divine spirit, whether understood as consisting in a know- 
ledge of divine things, or in faith in God and in Christ, or in pro- 
fessing the doctrine of Christ Trapprjcr/^, or delivering it with skill 
and ability, or lastly, discharging tlie other offices of the Church 
with fidelity." 


Trta-Tems est diversus gradus ac portio dlversa henefi' 
ciorutn et gratice Dei, cognitionis Dei, ac dononim 
Spiritus Sancti, cum administrantium, turn sanctifi- 
cantium, qua? ille singulis distribuit ad commune 
bonum Ecclesiai, uti vult. 1 Cor. 12, 4, 11. Est sive 
amplior sive arctior mensura? quantitas, notitia 
rerum divinarum, quae Christianis piis una cum Jide 
obtigit diversimode, per unctionem Spiritus Sancti. 
1 Job. 2, 27." It is also adopted by Grotius,* and, of 
tbe recent Commentators, by Jaspis, who takes Tr/crriy 
for Tremo-Teujw-evcov hcopeuf and explains the [xerfiov tti- 
(rT€(jo9, " totus ille modus et ambitus cognitionis et 
persuasionis in causa religionis, additis viribus ad 
recte agendum donisque varii generis." 

Macknight observes, that by exhorting the Ro- 
mans to behave wisely, according to then' measure of 
faith, the Apostle tacitly reproved such of them, as, 
not considering the nature of their own gifts, aspired 
to offices in the church for which they were not qua- 

4, 5. Ka9a7re§ yao iv iv) crco/jtarj, &C. Here we have 
a familiar, and notunfrequent, illustration of the sub- 
ject, from a comparison (by allusion) of the natural 
body, with the body politic, or social. -f- The compa- 

* Who explains : " Quisque se f^eiat pro donis qu£E a Deo accepit, 
nenipe pio niodo ejus quam liabet tidei." And he observes : " Itaque 
f^ternoi'Triarecjs, quod nioxdicit ayciXnyiai' Tri(T-€U)s,proportionemfi(lei, 
est i[)sa mensura gratia: data pro modo fidei. Vide infra, ver. 6. Eph. 
4, 7. 1 Cor. 1^, 7' 'Aj'uXo-yiai' proporlionem piiniusvertil Cicero, queni 
secutisunt Latini ahi. Hieron)mus adversus Jovinianum '2. Taittum 
gratice Chr'tsti infiinditnr , quantum valemus haurire." He thinks, (oo, 
that tiiere is here an alhision to the services of the I.,evites; some of 
which were enjoined on jouths, others on the middle aged, others on 
tlie old, Num. 4. 1 Paral. 15, 5, And he adds, " Erant ilia Vetera, 
noslrorum avri-vTra, exemplnria, Heb. 9, 24. In |)rimailla EcclesiA 
pro tide erant dona, pro donis ministeria." But Scharbau, in a 
learned Dissertation on this verse, (in his Obss. Sacr. p SO — 85.) 
thinks there is an allusion to the different measure of unction or oil 
poured on the heads of the Priests: for the Holy .Spirit was poured 
on Christians ek /.terpov, on Christ ovk etc /.lerpov, Joh. 3, 35. 
Heb. 1, 9. 

t As in the case of the Ajjologia of iMcnenias Agrippa, in the ce- 
lebrated oration of Liv. 'I, 3'2. See also Clemens ad Corinth.-, cited 



rison, then, is made with the body of the Christian 
Church, considered as an Ecclesiastical Society. 

ITpa^jy must here be rendered office, ministry, 
utility. On the sentiment (as applied to civil so- 
ciety) Wetstein cites Eustath. on Horn. II. k. p. 719, 
16. opa 06 KcCi lua^ruplaVy rou oG Trao"* Travra tov beov 
8<Sovaj, oure kolko. oure /caXa* ei youv koh €l()os' KaK09 

5. ouTcos 01 TToXXo) ev (raiy.a ec^xev iu ^pKrTip. Here 
we have the apodosis of the comparison. (Crellius.) 
And this rests in ouro)?, which may be rendered: 
*' Thus, in the application of this comparison to the 
Christian Church." Koppe takes oj 7ro?vAo» for ttuv- 
r€9. But however that principle may apply else- 
where, it is here unnecessary to be resorted to. Ol 
TToXXot signifies " we the many," for ol ovrey ttoXXo), 
" we who are many," &c. See 1 Cor. 10, I6. The 
sense then is: "In like manner we Christians, though 
many, are one body, have been united into, form 
one body* in Christ, i. e. in respect of Christ, con- 
sidered with a reference to him as the head of the 
whole society." So Jaspis, who renders : " Caput 
hujus societatis dum Christus est, se suo quisque mo- 
dulo ac pede metiatur, neque spernat alium, alio 
munere aliave dote ornatum." See Ephes. 15 & 16. 
Wetstein refers to Rom. IG, 3.5,7,11 k 13. 1 Cor. 

by Grotlus. Koppe, too, compares Seneca de \\k, 2, 31., and Marc. 
Anton. 7- §• 13. o'lov ka-iv ev ro'is yiivfieyois ra fxeXr] tov cw/^taros, 
TOVTOV e'x^' ~^^ \6yov tv hiearCjcri ra XoyiKci, Ttpos f.iiav riva rrvve^i' 
yiav KaTeuKevafTfieva. Bulkley quotes Cic. dcOfF. 3, 5. Nor is this 
comparison unknown to the Jewish writer-. So Synop. Sohar. p. 
13, 64. (cited by Schoeltgen.) Sicut homo in varia dividitur mem- 
bra atque articulos, certis gradibus sibi invicem innexos et supra 
invicem elevatos ; e quibus omnibus taraen exsurgit unum corpus. 
Sic quoque omnia creata, qufe in mundis sunt, membra sunt supra 
sese invicem disposita, et quando omnia debito ordine consider- 
antur, unum sunt corpus. Ad instar legis, qute in varlos etiam ar- 
ticulos distributa, et unum tamen corpus est. 

* Wetstein has here a vast number of Classical quotations, 
which are, however, of little importance j since they are merely 
parallel examples of a phrase too familiar to need any illustration, 
such as esse (or iicri) unum corpus. 


5. §6 /caQeTff, aXXrjAcov ^eArj. This Grotiiis and 

others explain as a construction of the singular with 

the plural, by the figure synthesis. But in this there 

seems something too formal. Pearce, Blackwall, 

Wolf, and Macknight, would defend the irregularity 

by takmg the /ca^' for Ka^\ i. e. Kara, contract of kou 

eirct. Which, however, is quite 'inadmissible. The 

ti'uth IS, this is an idiotical phrase, unknown to the 

Classical writers, and therefore solecistical, for /ca6' 

em, of which we have another example in 3 Mace. 

6, S4^* The sentiment is well expressed by Jaspis* 

as follows: '^Unam Christianam societatem effici- 

nius, sed quilibet nostrum habet varia negotia mutui 

commodi promovendi causa procuranda; htec quis- 

que rite peragat fugiatque 7ro-Kv7rpay[xo(T6vriv, sedulita- 

tem malam." 

6. In the style of this sentence there is some irre- 
gularity. Hence on the construction Commentators 
are not agreed. Many recent ones follow the method 
ot Erasmus, Homberg, and Schoettgen, namely, by 
joining the words exovre^ §6 ;^apjV]aara with the pre- 
ceding words; taking S^ for Kalvrep. «ee Koppe and 
Jaspis. But this is liable to many objections, both 
in respect to construction and sense, which have 
been ably stated by Wolf, who adds : " Mihi quidem 
V. 5. comparatio inter corpus physicum ej usque 
membra diversa, et corpus spirituale, ejusque mem- 
bra penitus absoluta institui videtur ab Apostolo, 
ver. 6. consectarium, inde prono impetu fluens, non 
solum deducit, sed et eadem opera cum admoni- 

*v,*J 'u'^^ compares els Kad' els at Mark 14, 19., and observes, that 
the Hebrews use the nominatives absolutely. Koppe compares Avh 
€cs at Apoc. 21, 21. But none of these are parallel. In the pas- 
sage ot Mark there is a pure Hebraism : and as to the principle of 
the nommative absolute it does not here apply. Nor is the dWt eh 
parallel; smce there there is simply an ellipsis of eVa (Anglice "one 
61/ one ) : and it is found without the eh in distributive sentences 
It IS sufficient to consider the phrase in question as a popular one 
and sui generis Now propriety of language would require (2I 
Koppe suggests) ,aff !^ya Travres, or ol Kad' era, or (as Piscator 
says; o de eis ecooroj Kad' eavrov. 


tione conjuiigit hoc sensu : cum itaque diversa dona 
habeamus, v. c. prophet lam, habeamus earn, secun- 
dum analogiam jldei. Nostra explicatio per supple- 
mentum verbi e;^<:o|xev, olttq koivou repetiti, vel Trpocp-*]- 
Teua)y.€v, nee rationibus linguae, in qua ssepe vel ex 
antecedentibus, vel ex re ipsa, verbum aliquod sub- 
intelligitur, nee scopo Apostoii adversa est. Apos- 
tolus enim omnino hie adhortatione aliqua defungi- 
tur. Id manifestum est ex. ver. 9. ">] ayuTrrj avuTroKpi- 
Toy, i. e. amor sit nonfucafus. Quse admonitio ante- 
cedentibus verbis eandem vim et habitum omnino 
vindicat. Et sensus hie convenientissimus nascitur 
etiam ex verbis illis : sive ministerium, versemur in 
rninistrando. Id enim vult Apostolus, ut non alia 
consectemur, quam quse nobis a Deo commissa sint, 
nee v. c. ad interpretandam Scripturam aliquis acce- 
dat, cui ^lUKovia commissa est." I cannot, therefore, 
but greatly prefer the common construction and 
interpretation, which is supported by the Greek In- 
terpreters, and which our modern Commentators 
w^ould not (I think) have deviated from, had they 
read the masterly discussion of the whole passage to 
be found in Photius ap. Q^cumen., which is worthy 
of that great Critic* The e^ovres, then, is a nomi- 

* My limits will only permit me to give a slight sketch of its 
contents. " There is (says he) in the sentence two figures, the aird 
Koirov, or zeugma, and the ellipsis. Thus the exorres must be 
taken at each member uttu koivov, and adapted to circumstances." 
*' Yet (continues he) something is left to complete the thought, as 
fxeyeru) ev w eXajiev eKarrros j^ap/cyuart, >) apKeicrdo), av CTTOi)(^eiTU), 
y Ti TOiovTOv' olov, e'ire Trpocpyjreiai' e^ei ris, eire biaKoi'iay, fxeverw 
hcacTOS, Kai 6 rrjv 'Kpo<priTeiav ey(wv, Ka\ 6 t)]v biaKOviay, Kill 6 ttjv 
cibcKTKaXiav, Kal 6 tijv TrapaKXtjcriy e^wj^, arrXuis eicacTTOS, ev u> 
eXafie "^apiaiiaTi. He then proceeds to defend the extremely figu- 
rative style of the Apostle; and he grants, that though an attention 
to terms, syllables, figures, composition, &c. is of little importance, 
compared to the grandeur and momentous nature of the subjects, 
yet the Apostle condescended to use these, that he might gain upon 
the minds of men the more, and draw them to salvation. " If (con- 
tinues he) the Apostle had abstained fiom them, some would have 
dared to charge him with deficiency in power of language, or with 
idiotism, birov koL vvv riyes fit) avyierres Tcirotavra, cnreipiay avroy 
tHjv TOiouTwy tyjEiv t^ toy ovb' uvTol avyicKjiy, vTcoXa^iftayovaiy. 


nativLis pendens, from which ep^oftev must be repeated 
at each clause, and also such a verb as is suitable to 
the nature of the phrase. The sentence extends (I 
conceive) to the end of ver. 15. Yet it is difficult 
to reconcile the latter clauses with any notion of 
correct syntax. In translating, it is not necessary 
to advert to every particular, but consult the gene- 
ral intent of the Apostle, which was, to excite them 
to the zealous exercise of the various gifts and 
graces of a Christian ; so, however, that those who 
possessed the higher kinds, should not thwart or in- 
terfere with one another. 

6. eire Trpocprireiav, sub. €^€i. e;^er«> auTr^v (i. e. 
X^oiarSa)) or ep^ovres", e^^co^ev, i. e. TrpoCPrjTeoa-wixev. On 
the nature of this Trpoi^rireia, there has been consider- 
able discussion. See Koppe, Exc. 3. on Epist. ad 
Eph., from which llosenm. details the following par- 
ticulars : " llpo<;>riTis, ^^"'13, in genere est, quisquis 
cum Deo singulari quadam ratione est conjunctus, 
cui Deus revelat, quae antea ei parum cognita fue- 
rant. Exinde varias accipit significationes, ut de- 
notet hominem, qui profert vaticinia, vel arcana alio- 
rum hominum consilia retegit, vel subito spiritus 
divini impulsu ad docendum, cohortandum, conso- 
landumque assurgit, vel carmen divinitus inspiratum 
decantat. Hoc loco Trpocp^jre/a videtur esse donum 
ejusmodi, quo nonnulli Christian!, singulari qiiodum 

And if, on the other hand, he had used them perpetually, the Apos- 
tolical character kv rols -^vapeiopufxerois erldero. [Here I rnoie than 
suspect a corruption of the text ; though the Editor observes an al- 
tum silentium, I conjecture lu avrols (or abrolis) Trapeupa^evos 
eridero, sub. tu'.] " Thus, continues Photius, birJTrjaey ovy (Tvverws 
Kcit Trat'TCKTofMs lifKpu)' expijo-uro /ier -yiip eKeiyois, wore bel^ai pahiov 
eivai (jovXojieroj to tolovtov, Kcii on ovk ayvoei' CTre/uetve ^e roi 
AiroaToXiKu ^npaKriipi, rijv evyeveiav kol to inrepiepyoy kciI icadapov' 
Kai avTofv^s tov Xoyov tijxwv." 

From the above curious passage we may learn, that the disputes 
about the style of the New Testament were not unknown in the early 
ages, and we see what side Photius took. Had he lived in the se- 
venteenth century, he would have strenuously battled for the purity 
and even elegance of St. Paul's style, and would have been a far 
more formidable combatant than Geojgius and his compeers. 


Spiritus Divini ahrepti docebant.'" Carpzov takes it 
to denote an Interpreter of Scripture ; and he thinks 
that the ava'koylcx. TrlarTew? signifies the articles of 
faith, and heads of Christian doctrine hiid down in 
Scripture. This, however, seems too hmited a sense, 
as th3 other of Koppe and Rosen m. is too vague. It 
should rather appear to denote one who, by Divine 
inspiration, not only interpreted Scripture, but ex- 
plained and set forth all the mysteries of the Gos- 
pel, and pubhcly preached and exhorted, for the 
purposes of Christian consolation. So 1 Cor. 13, 2. 
" Though I have all prophecy, and understand all 
mysteries, and all knowledge." Now this is directed 
to be done Kara t7]v avot.Aoyioi.v rrj^ Trlfrrews, on which 
words much has been written. (See Dr. Campbell's 
Dissert. 4. § 13.) It seems clear that they cannot 
be taken in the sense assigned by the Romanists, and 
some Protestant Commentators, (as Pareeus and 
Beza,) or be supposed to refer to any creed, or arti- 
cles of faith, of which, at this very early period, 
there appears not a vestige in ecclesiastical anti- 
quity.* Neither is it agreeable to the force of the 
term, which is an idiom noticed by the antient Lexi- 
cographers ; as Cyrill, who explains kglto. avaT^oyiav 
as a phrase signifying pro, pro rata portione. 
And so Hesych. kolto. ^erpov 13 Kavovct. This sense, 
too, is confirmed by the Classical })assages cited by 
Wetstein ; as Demosth. pro Corona, who joins toge- 
ther, as synonymous r/^r^o-is*, avaXoy* o-p,os', and ava- 
"koyla, Philo, T. 2. p. 391, 15. Kar avaT^oyiav t^? 
KTri(T€(ti9. Plato, Polit. Tcov av^pwu €Ka(rTov ^kvres Tr^s 
ttTY^s ot^'iot-S, oJ rfi Tiy.fl TrAeov 6oO\.rfh(iiV a<pe<rT6i(riv, vf Kara, 
rr^v ava7<oyiGLV rrjV Tv]y uy-erepas Teyyr^s. Thus Wets. 
defines it: " Pro ratione ejus quod ipsi creditum et 
manifestatum est." And he refers to Jer. 23, 28. 

* Gatalier explains it of the Apostolical doctrine, \yhich was then 
(he says) well known and familiar j or rather, to the writings of the 
Old Testament, from which the Apostle used to refute and convince 
the Jews. And in nearly the same manner it is understood by 
Schoettg. and Carpzov. 


Furthermore, by rrjf Tria-rewy is generally admitted 
to be meant (as just before) rod ^apia-^uTOj^^, " the 
gift or grace bestowed." So Hardy : '* according to 
the measure of the gift conferred by God, which, as 
it will not be equal, so neither will the exercise of 
7rpo(priT€ta be equal," And thus Koppe : " with that 
measure of grace which every one hath received, 
let him be content, siioque se modulo metiri discat." 
And, in the same view, Macknight observes : " The 
Apostle's meaning is, that such as enjoyed the pro- 
phetic inspiration were not to imagine, that because 
some things were revealed to them, they might speak 
of everif thing ; but that in prophesying, they were 
to confine themselves to what was revealed to them. 
The same rule we have at Eph. 4, J.** See also Crel- 
lius, who, pointing out the sense of Kara, acutely ob- 
serves : " The Apostle means that there should be 
some proportion between the use of the gift, and the 

gift itself r 

Doddr., however, thinks, that if we suppose the 
prophetic gift to be given in proportion to the exer- 
cise of faith, that is, of dependance on God, when he 
signified a disposition in general to impart it, we 
have the clearest explication the phrase will admit." 
And indeed this is nearly the same view in which the 
question is considered by the Fathers, as Chrysost., and 
all the Greek Interpreters. So Chrysost. 179, 15. €\ya.p 
/cat ^apis' ecTiv, aXX* oup^ aTrAcoy e/cp^e?raf aTvXa roc jtxerga 
Trapa rcvv he^^oyJvcov Xa/x/Sai/ouca, tocoGtov iTrippel, o<rov 
dv eu^r) (tk€uos^ Tzia-Tecos aurf, Trpoccve^Bev. And Photius 
ap. CEcumen. 368. vuv ^elKvua-iv on rwv ^okovvtcdv [xei- 
^ovcov ^aoKT^aToyv, o\ T^aix^avovres eIo")v alrioi tt^os* to 
7\a^€7v' el yap kui p^apty eo'TJ, ro(rouTov fxev roi i-TTippel, 
o<rov dv eypTj (TK-etJos* eTrirrj^eiov ecatro Karacrrja-ai 8ia ri^y 
7ri<rr€cas. So also Justin Martyr, Apol. prim, (cited 
by Bulkeley): Tlpos dvaXoyiav cov eT^ajie ouvutxecov rrapd 
0eoG Tov "koyov aTraJTr^Qr^frecQaj, coy o ^picrToy iixi^vutreVj 
referring to Luke 12, 48. 

Whichsoever of the two interpretations he adopted, 
one thing seems clear, namely, that (as Beza and 


Crellius have well seen) the Apostle first lays down 
TT^ocp^jreTa and hiaKovia each as a genus, and then pro- 
ceeds to enumerate their species, viz. of 7rpo(pr^Te7a two, 
and of hoLKdvia three. An observation indeed which 
had been anticipated by Photius. 

7. eVre hiaKoviav, iv rfj ZiaKovia. It is clear that the 
words Sja/covos*, haKoveiv, and ^iukovIol, though (as Pho- 
tius observes) they be general terms, and used of the 
Apostles themselves, Kom. 11, 13. 1 Cor. 3, 5., yet 
are often, in the New Testament, used of some cer- 
tain kind of offices undertaken for the cause of the 
Christian religion, (compare 1 Cor. 12, 5. 2 Cor. 9, 
1.) and appropriated to those Christians who did not 
so much employ themselves upon the doctrines of 
the Gospel, as the external affairs of the Church, and 
of individuals. Among these there were especially 
the oj TTpoea'Twre^, €7ria-Ko7roi, rrpecr^uTe^oi, as well as 
others of somewhat inferior rank and dignity, as the 
Deacons properly so called. See Acts 6, 1 — 7- In 
this passage, however, the Trpoeo-rcorep also seem to 
be comprehended. See the note on ver. 8. and com- 
pare Eph.4, 12. 1 Pet. 4, 11. (Koppe.) 

At hiuKovla must be understood jaei/ero). Examples 
of similar ellipses are adduced from Arrian. Epict. 
4, 4. & 3, 23. by Raphel and Eisner, the latter of 
whom subauds ecrrco (as in 1 Tim. 4, 15. and ^lian. 
V. H. 1, 31. ovrey ev yecooyicf) ; which is certainly a 
more simple m.ode of supplying the ellipsis, and 
yields the same sense. 

On the kinds of deacons, and various offices per- 
taining thereto, see Suic. Thes. 1, 862. and Bing- 
ham's Eccl. Ant. 1. 2. c. 20. 

7. elre hi^da-Kwv, iv tyj 8tSa(r/ca7\./a. It is rightly 
observed by Crelhus and Koppe, that the Apostle 
here proceeds to enumerate and explain the different 
sorts of Trpoc^vjre/a. 

'O Si8aa-/ccoj/, scil. Trpo<^riTr\9. Koppe explains: "an 
inspired teacher of things, whether common and 
from any other quarter, or unheard of, and new." 
For that these cannot be the same with the OiSao-/ca- 


Xoi properly so called at Eph. 4, 11. 1 Cor. 12, 28., 
Koppe thinks apparent from the following word xa- 

8. e*T€ wapcLKaT^wv iu rr^ irap(jLK'Ky\<T€.i. The term 
is well explained by Koppe, " qui afflatu Spiriti 
Sancti incitatus, populum admonet, hortatur conso- 
latur;" as Acts 13, 1.5. 1 Cor. 14, 3. He would not, 
however, understand 7ra§. and 8»Sa(r/c. of distinct 
offices, but both united in the same person. The 
two terms were (he adds) employed conjointly of 
those who, excelling in wisdom and eloquence, used 
to rise up in the Church, and address the congrega- 
tion, for the purpose of instruction and edification. 

Koppe thinks that from the gift of tongues, and 
healing of the sick, such as the Corinthians enjoyed, 
1 Cor. 12., (which we call /car eJo;^r]v, the gifts of 
miracles,) not being mentioned^ we may infer that 
they were not fosseased by the Roman Church ; 
since, if they had, no good reason can be imagined 
why the Apostle should not have made mention of 
them. But this seems not a very correct inference. 
The thing, however, is uncertain, as indeed are 
many points respecting the constitution of the pri- 
mitive Church. 

The words 6 nxeraSiSouy I consider (with Crellius 
and Koppe) as forming a distinct clause, to be refer- 
red to tlie (iiaKovla. at ver. 7? and to be interpreted of 
these virtues as common to all Christians.* 'O jutera- 
SiSojy is taken by Schoettg. and Koppe to denote the 
person who collected the alms in the church, and 
distributed them among the Christian poor ; (Acts 
6, 3.) like the Hebr. d:Sd or ^^"i:j. See Lightf on 
Matt. 4, 23. and Vitringa de Syn. Vet, 

8. TrpoiVrafjt.evos', " Praeses Ecclesiie, Bishop, Pres- 
byter, Pastor ;" by which names he is called in 
1 Tim. 5, 17. 1 Thess. 5, 12. 

*0 eXetov, " he who takes care of the sick." See 

* Others, however, as Rosenm., think that at these words, and 
not before, commences a statement of the duties common to all 


Acts 6, 1, seqq. So avTiXv^'vj/ej? in 1 Cor. 12, 28. 
That eXetov may have this signification no one can 
doubt. See Luke 10, 37-* Koppe observes, that 
if the three terms be thus distinguislied, there will 
thereby be removed a difficulty which otherwise can 
hardly be got over, namely, how TrpoiVrrajaei/os* should 
be mentioned in a passage which might seem to 
treat, not of ecclesiastical functions, but of the gene- 
ral duties of Christians. 

It may further be observed on the words 6 ju-era- 
SiSows", iv aTrXoVrjTt* o Trpoi/rra^evo^, iv (tttov^-yi' o i'hecov, 
iv IXaoorryTC that we have not, in conformity with the 
preceding, 6 ju-eraSiSouy ev ra> |u,6TaStSova», o TrpoVcrdt- 
y.€vos iv TO) TTooea-Tauai, &c., but to the offices are also 
joined those virtues which were required for the 
right administration thereof. 

To proceed to the consideration of each of the 
terms by which these are expressed, aTrXorTJy is a 
word of extensive signification; and therefore our 
chief guide to its true sense here must be the con- 
text. The antient Commentators, and many emi- 
nent modern ones, explain it liberality ; (see Carp- 
zov, Schoettg., and Wolf;) a sense, indeed, sanc- 
tioned by use, and which may be admitted here, if 
the passage be supposed to refer to private charity^ 
but if to the office of distributing common contribu- 
tions, then this virtue can hardly have place, and 
some other will be required, more accommodated to 
the nature of the thing. Now this may be expressed 
by one term, (and that a frequent sense of aTrAorrj?) 
namely integrity, or sincerity, uprightness : which 
will include fidelity and impartiality in the distribu- 
tion. Ammon explains it, "omnis SiTrXorr^Toy expers." 

The words following o Trpo'ia-raixevoy rr] (tttouSt] 
plainly contain an admonition to diligence in the 

* See also a long and excellent note of Dr. Macknight, which 
concludes thus : " The person who supplied the wants cf the poor 
was called 6 fierabibovs, the distributor ; but the person who at- 
tended the destituto, the sick, and the distressed, 6 kXewv, WiQshcwer 
of mercy J" 


discharge of any ecclesiastical office and presidency. 
(See more in Slade.) 

8. 6 €7^€(ou €v iT^aporr^ri. The force of this admoni- 
tion to private Christians is very obvious ; * as in 2 
Cor. 9, 7« " Let him give not grudgingly, or of ne- 
cessity." See 1 Pet. 4, 9- Thus Schoettg. para- 
phrases : *' Qui objecta habet miserabilia, non debet 
sollicitus esse de crastino, sed Igeta mente sua distri- 
buere." Yet lAap., alacrity to attend, cheerful man- 
ner, and kindly demeanour, Avould be a very useful 
quality in him who had to visit the sick or the 
afflicted. See Grot., Koppe, Doddr., and Macknight. 

9. Now finally follow the private virtues which are 
to be cultivated by Christians : as is plain from the 
article not being prefixed to the participle. (Koppe.) 
The Apostle now shews how all the above may be 
accomplished. (Tiieophyl.) 

9. r^ ctyaTcr], avuTroKpiroy. Koppe explains this, 
" love towards Christians;" which, however, seems 
to be too limited a sense. Chrysost. and the Greek 
Commentators better define it, " love towards our 
neighbour," i. e. philanthropi/. Origen and others 
interpret it, " love towards God." But this seems 
not to have been then in the mind of the Apostle. It is 
agreed that there is an ellipsis of cVrw, as in tlie next 
clause €(rre. Indeed, almost all the ellipses of this 
portion may be said to be of the verb substantive, 
modified in signification according to circumstances. 
The word avu-roKpiTos' occurs in James 3, 17- and 
Sap. 5, 18. 18, 16. 2 Tim. 1, 5. 1 Pet. 1, 22. Theo- 
phyl. paraphrases: "Let your love be undissembled, 
for then alone is it really love." 

Koppe and others take the participles aTroa-ruyQuv- 
T€9, &c. for verbs. But that can only be by an ellip- 
sis of the verb substantive. In this whole verse 
Grot, supposes an ahusion to certain parts of the Jew- 
ish occonomy. But it is more to the purpose to no- 

* On this Theodoret remarks: rf] ev-olci tiiv evcppocrvi-rjv crvv-^T- 
T€i, rfjs ixeravotTews vtto^ou'wv ru Kepbos' ■^(^nipely yao elwdamv ol 


tice, (with Wets.) how exceedingly energetic are the 
terms aTrocrTuyovurc^ and KoT^Xcoixevoi. Of tlie former 
Wets, adduces numerous examples from Herod. 2, 
47. 6, 129. Parthen. Exot. 8, 12, 20 & 36. Soph. 
CEd^ Col. 178. oy (^iTiOV otTroa-TuyeiVf Koi rov (f^/Xov (re- 
^6o-9a^. Anthol. 6, 8, 6. 1, 83,3. Theophyl. ex- 
plains it : €K •'S/o^ris y.ifrouvT€9. And he has several 
other illustrations of the force of the dtTro, which, 
however, he presses too far. With respect to the 
latter term, /coXAaco properly signifies to glue, and in 
the middle voice is used as a deponent, with a reci- 
procal sense, viz. to glue oneself to, to stick to (lii<e 
the Hebr. p^l). Hence it comes to signify, /o//o/i; 
after, seek, observe, study, &c., as in the present pas- 
sage. So Paraeus : " non bonum frigide probantes, 
sed flagrantissimc complectentes." See also Carpzov 
and Schoettgen. On the term koXX. Theophyl. re- 
marks : ouK ap/ceT 73 too kukou a7ro(Pvyri, aXXa 8eT wpoa^ei- 
voLi KOii TTjV rrjs' aperrj? ipya(rlav. He also observes, 
that it is meant to enjoin a 8jaGe(nv ayaTrrjTiKvJv, *' par- 
taking of that intimate nuptial union in reference to 
which God has said TrpocrKoT^T^Ti^-^a-erai avSpcoTros Trpof 
rr)v yuvaT/ca." Chrysost., too, has beautifully detailed 
the component parts of this ayaTTTj auuTroKpiro^, and 
he copiously illustrates the rest of the sentence. In 
common with the Greek Commentators, and many 
modern ones, he regards ttovvjoov and ayaSou as signi- 
fying simply moral good and evil. But I assent to 
Crellius, Paraeus, Hardy, and Koppe, that the good 
and evil is restricted by the context to that which is 
done towards our neighbour, and therefore means 
whatever may injure, or may benefit him. 

10. T7] <piXaSeA4)/a ely aXXTfXou? <pi7\.o(rropyoi. I am 
inclined to think, that in this impressive injunction 
there is a climax. For as the Apostle had just be- 
fore charged them to preserve ayuTrriv, which is a ge- 
neral term Aenoimg pJiilanthropy* so now he enjoins 

* For (as Crellius observes) aycnn) has here an extended signiH- 
cation, and relates to tliose who are not, in any sense, brothers, 
and moreover, is rather shewn in actions than in words; while <pi\a- 


them to be (pi'koG-ropyQi rf cJi<Xa8eX<^/a, where (as Crel- 
lius observes) tt, cJ)iA. is a dative of instrument, since 
it denotes the tnode in which we ought to be c^jXoo-- 
Topyoi. And he renders the sentence thus : " intimo 
quodam amoris afFectu mutuo inter vos propensi, 
quo illi Solent qui sanguinis vinculo inter se juncti 
sunt." Cameron thinks the Apostle here tacitly 
censures the apathy of the Stoics, recommending 
sympathy in the good or evil of others. 

<I>iXoa-Top7oy is properly used of the natural, and 
therefore strong, affection which subsists between 
parents and children : but it is also applied to any 
other vehement affection.* The word is here ren- 
dered by TertuUian ajffectuosi. Examples, both of 
the natural and figurative sense, are adduced by 
Wets.; as Plutarch, p. 1.52c. vouQeTrjo-as* tous to c^uVet 
<PiK7iTiKov ev T^fuv KO.) (pi7\.6(rTopyov eiy ^rjpia, /caravaXjo-Kov- 
ra?, avQproVoiy o^eiXojUtfVov. 2 Macc. 9j 21. 

10. TYj Ti^Ti aXXTjXo'j? 7rpoy]yo()[K€V(n. The force ot 
this injunction is (I think) much mistaken by almost 
all Commentators, who understand it of humUity 
(referring to Phil. 2, 4.); wdiich would seem here 
out of place. The context rather suggests the idea 
of readiness to do good, and to treat others with kind- 
ness, even anticipating them in it. This sense of 
riixrj, namely, (as Schleus. explains,) observantia et 
omnia humanitatis officia quce aliis debenius, is found 
in many other passages of the New Testament. Thus 
Schleus. subjoins, as examples, the present passage, 
and Rom. 13, ?. 1 Cor. 12, 29. Col. 2, 23. 1 Thess. 
4, 4. 1 Tim. 6, 1. 1 Pet. 3, 7. And this interpreta- 
tion is supported by Chrysost. and the Greek Com- 
mentators. The words of the eloquent Father are 

b€\(pia consists in kindly sentiments, and a sort of fraternal affec- 

* The force of the term is elegantly illustrated by Chrysost., who 
adds : Mt) /.lere (piXelcrQai Trap' erepov, aW avrus eirnriiba tovto) koX 
KUTcip^ov' ovTLt) ycip ical -ijs eiceivov (piXias tov ^laQov KapTcwrrif el- 
TviLv roivvv t>)i' alriav bi i]v 0(^etXw/xej' aWi'iXovs (pLXelr, Xeyei Kal 
TTwy av yh'OiTO to. rijs (piXias uKiyriTa. 


as follow : OOVco ya^ (piX/a Koi ylverai, Koi yevojtxevvj 
fxevei, Kou ou^ev ouroi <pi7^0Df TrojeT, cos to (nrouha^eiv r-r 
Tiixji viKOLU Tov TrXria-iov. And so Crellius, who ob- 
serves, that this is not meant of the honour due 
from an inferior to a superior, but of good will and 
kindness between equals, or at least those between 
whom no decided inequality subsists." That acute 
Commentator has, indeed, well discerned the gene- 
ral force of ri[xri ; but, old associations clinging to 
to him, he most unwarrantably limits its application. 
The sort of rtju-v) here meant has nothing to do with 
superiority or inferiority of rank and station, but 
may be mutually practised by those who are very 
unequal in station ; since there are many points in 
which the inferior may show kindness to the supe- 
rior ; so that it is their mutual chdi/ as well as in- 
terest in these respects Trporiyeicr^ai aXXvfxoys*, i. e. (as 
Theophyl. explains,) 7rpocpOave<v, TrpoXaja^aveiv. And 
this is, 1 conceive, the Apostle's meaning at Hebr. 
10, 24. KOI KaTavQco(j.€V aX'AriT^ous els Trapo^vfy ^xov ayotTri^s 
Koi KotT^aJv epycov. The passage is elegantly rendered 
byJaspis: " Humanitate mutua sese officiis debitis 
preestandis alter alterum vincit." Here may be 
compared Tacit. Agric. 6. (cited by Wets, and which 
I had also myself noted down.) Viceruntque mira 
concordia per mutuam caritatem, et invicem se ante- 
ponendo. Schoettgen, too, has added several Rab- 
binical citations expressive of a similar sentiment. I 
would also compare an inimitably fine sentiment in 
Thucyd. 1, 810. ku) to. es aper^v Tj'vavricojuieOa roTs" 
7ro7\.7\ois' 0^ yoip 7roi(T^ovr€S ev, ctXXct hpcovTCS, /crcJjuieQa 
Tovs (piT^ous' ^e^aiorepos 8e 6 hpacras rrjv x^piv, (va-re 
6<p€i7^oii.€vrjV Si' euvoias c6 SeSco/ce trco^eiV b r)' a.VT0(p€i7\.a)V, 
a[x^7\.ur€^0Si el^fos, ouk €9 ;^aptv, aAX' e6' cx^e/XTjfta rr^u 
aperr^v aTroScoVwV kou [kovoi ou too ^u^<^€poVTos [i-aXkov 
Xoyio-fxto, 7] T^y e'ke\j^€pias rto ttio-tco a^ews Tim coc^e- 

11. TTi (TTrou^j] ix.ri 6Kvy]poi' rto Trveu/xctrt §€OVT€s' tco 
Kotlptp BouAeuovrey. In the interpretation of this verse 
there has been no little difference of opinion among 


Commentators. Koppe thinks we have here one 
sentiment expressed in three different ways ; and 
that is this: '* Conseciate your whole powers to the 
religion of Christ." But I see not how the passage 
can be considered in that light. To me it rather 
seems that of the clauses rfj a-Trouoji [xrj oKurjooi and 
TM TTveu^arj ^eovrey, the latter is added by way of 
opposition. The question, however, is, to what do 
the words relate ? Most Commentators refer them 
to the latter clause, rep KvpUp ^ouXeoovre?. Some, as 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Menoch., Paraeus, Tole- 
tus, Crellius, &;c. to the Jo?- me r. And this is surely 
far more regular, and agreeable to the subject of the 
preceding verses. Besides, the terms o-tto-jot^ and 
oKvrifio] are far more applicable to exertion in the ser- 
vice of man, than zeal in the cause of God and reli- 
gion. And it may be observed, that though the 
words are often used for the former, yet scarcely 
ever, I think, in the New Testament, for the latter. 

In the structure of the phrase tt^o-ttouStj okvtjj^/oi there 
is something remarkable. Crellius says that " two 
contraries are joined :" " Since no one can be dili- 
gently idle, or idly diligent." Yet he seems to forget 
thelloratian strenua inertia: but indeed it is unneces- 
sary to resort to any such subtleties and refinements. 
The Apostle simply means, '' let your o-ttouSi] have no 
portion of oki/os*, want of alacrity''' With respect to 
the next clause, rm T^veuixan ^€ovt€9, it is by some (as 
Estius, Toletus, and Carpzov) interpreted of the 
Hull/ Spirit. But most Commentators, both antient 
and modern, take it to denote J'ervenci/, zeal, impe- 
tus animi. It seems meant to illustrate by the con- 
trary, or, (as Chrysost. and Thcophyl. say,) to shew 
the mode of the preceding. The phrase occurs also 
in Acts 18, 25. (where it is used of Apollos,) Jecov 
r<M TTueuixari. And it is found not unfrequently in 
the Classical writers, from whom Wetstein adduces 
sevei'al examples, as Eunap. ^des. p. 45. c6^ oe 
uyavaKTOuvra /careAajSe, Koi tco Trepj^eovrct. Piiilo, 
T, 2. p. 1/^5 1<3. §<zCov Ka) 7r€7ru^(ou.€yos utto Trjy voat- 



jxou ^layavaKT-fia-^cos. Though there it is generally 
used of anger. It is explained by Chrysostom and 
Theophyiact Sjayeye^/xe'voj, and Qepixoi. 

As to the sense vulgarly (and merely with refer- 
ence to our common translation)* ascribed to the 
words, namely as enjoining alacrity and zeal in the 
discharge of the business of life, and in our calling,-}- 
it is quite unsupported by the context, and adopted 
by no Commentators of note, except Doddridge, 
who not unfrequently errs in this way^ and often with 
no better reason than to avoid losing a useful text. 
Jaspis unites this clause with the other, thus: "In 
omni vitae negotio, in omni officiorum genere acri 
animi studium et fervor eluceat. Summo animi vi- 
gore agite, quod vestrum est. Sit vobis imprimis 
in rebus ad rel. Chr. pertinentibus evSouo-ia(r|xos' qui- 

11. Tfp Kulpu) SoyXeJovres*. In the reading of these 
words there is much difference of opinion. Almost 
all critics for the last century read Kai^a>, which has 
been introduced by Griesbach into the text. Yet all 
that has been urged in its favour by Hammond, 
Mill, Wolf, Carpzov, Griesbach, and lastly by Mr. 
Bryant ap. Bowyer, seems insufficient to produce con- 
viction of the truth of that reading. My limits will 
not permit me to enter at large into a merely critical 
question. I shall merely offer a/ew reasons which to 
me appear sufficiently valid to induce anyone to reject 
that reading. 1. It is very weak in authority, being 
found only in three MSS. (one of them the interpo- 
lated Cod. Cant.) and in no antient version : nor is it 
supported by the Fathers (ex. gr. Chrysost.,) and the 
Greek Commentators. It rests almost solely on cer- 
tain Latin Versions and Fathers, including some early 
editions. Its advocates indeed urge its greater suita- 

* So Tindal : "Let not the business which ye have in hand be 
tedious to you." 

f In this view it may be woith while to remark, that that bustling 
and active people, the Athenians, erected a statue baijjioi'i (nrovhaii/, 
as we find from Pausan. \, 24, 3. 

ROMANS, CHAP. Xll. 115 

bleness to the context, meaning the following verses. 
But I see nothing to which it can be well thought to 
refer, except t^ QyJil/ei u7ro[x€vovT€9, which words con- 
vey no notion of persecution. Besides, as Wets, ob- 
serves, "Non potuit Paulus hoc loco Romanis com- 
mendare ut tempore servirent, tum quia cum ex- 
hortatione, ut animo ferventes essent, consistere non 
poterat, tum imprimis quia semper in vitio ponitur, 
et adulatorum potius est et callidorum hominum, 
quam candid^ et apert^ agentium." To this Mr. 
Bryant answers, " that the vitium depends upon the 
ideas we annex to it. On the other hand, to recom- 
mend persons to submit to tiie times, and to acqui- 
esce in what comes npon them, contains very salu- 
tary admonition.'' 'iVue (it may be replied) but 
however salutary, yet, if not agreeable to the con- 
text, it cannot be thought to have place. Besides 
such a sense requires the subaudition of the words 
and yet ; which is a too arbitrary ellipsis.* I must 
not omit to notice a specious argument urged by 
most of the advocates for the new reading. It is, 
that the precept nZ Kvplip houTveuovre^ is too general, 
and had been before brought forward at ver. 1 and 
2, and therefore would not be there repeated. But 
to this it may be replied, that, the words do not in- 
culcate a general precept, but are only meant to en- 
force the observance of the former, on this motive, 
that the service was to be done, as done unto the 
Lord, commanded by him, and to be rewarded by 
him. And here (as often) there is an ellipsis of ws. 
This view of the subject (I must observe) is sup- 

* It has been further urged, in order to establish this reading-, by 
Carpzov and others, that it is pure Greek. That it is Greek, 1 do 
not deny ; but whether g^oo^/, I doubt. The only examples adduced 
are from Plat., Xiph., Anthol.,and Fscudo-Phocylides (a no very un- 
exceptionable witness). I suspect that it is only a Latinism, formed 
fiom tempore servire. 1 admit, however, that it is Greek sufficiently 
good for the Apostle. Yet that will not prove the phrase to have place 
liere, unless it be suitable to the context ; which (as I said before) it 
is not. It is justly accounted by Doddridge as unnatural, and tend- 
ing to sink the sense. 

I 2 


ported by the authority of Clirysost. and the otlier 
Greek Commentators. So Theophyl. 123. s. f. 
"^Orav <pjXa8e/M$>os' el, orav tt^v ayaivr^v €yy\s.> ko.) to. oKka 
a Trpoet^rirai, tqt€ Oorj7\.€uei9 rS Kup/o). Els* eauTov yao^€-)(erai, o(tol ttoicTs' tco a3e?;4)«>. And so Wets. 
" Domino servire omnia quidem officia complecti- 
tur : at hie non docet Paiilus, quid sit agendum, 
sed quomodo, ex animo, sincer^, aperte, candide, 
tanqiiam Domino Jesn Chiisto, qui omnia videt, qui 
renes et corda scrutatur, servientes." See Joh. 4, 24. 
Eph. 6, 5—8. Col. 3, 22, 23, and 24. 1 Thess. 2,4. 
12. T-ri ehTTihi -^aipovres' rr ^T^n^ei uiroixevovTCS' rrj 
Trpoa-eo^-fi Trpoa-Kaprepouvres. Many Commentators, an- 
tient and modern, think that these three clauses are 
to be taken conjointly, as serving to shew the Chris- 
tian's supports under adversity. Chrys., too, con- 
siders them conjointly, bnt in a different view, 
namely, as wTreK/caufxara too Trophy e/cetvoy. See his 
very eloquent explanation, which is, however, too 
fanciful and the phraseology turgid. Besides, how 
can Sx/xJ/is' be considered as an wTre'/c/caufxa. I rather 
assent to Theophyl., that the clause rrj eT^yri^i ^ai^ov- 
rey is meant to suggest the means and motives by 
which the above mentioned duties may be accom- 
plished; namely eav r^ eX7r<Si o-we^ycopieSa. The con- 
nexion is also skilfully pointed out by Theodoret 
thus ; 'O yap to) TrueufxaTi §€a)V, koI Trpodu^Jiwy rS oec- 
TTOTYy Sou7\.6ue», Koi 77po<Tif.evei rwv e?\,7rJ^o|m,evajv ayaScuv tvjv 
aTToXaua-iv, Ka\ rwv TrpocrTriTTTovTcou TrepiyiveTUi 7r€ip(x(riJ.wv, 
Toiy ToSrcov Trpoa-^dXais tt^v oVo/xovv^v avrirarTuiV, Kai 

Trj Gxj'xj/ei uxoixevovT€9. The construction (which is 
not sufficiently attended to by the Commentators) 
is this : ev t^ Qxixlyet wTrofxev., scil tt] iTwri^i, or uVo ttj? 
eXTTiSoj. For the Apostle (1 think) means to suggest 
that by this Christian hope they were to bear up 
under affliction. So Theophyl. 'Kvrei^-^ vj eWTr)^ twv 
iKeKkovruiV ecrri, (pr^friv, on Koi iv toj irapoVTi Kotipco jxeyoc, 
Kapyrcocrr^ kclTIv, to koh Kapre^iKoy koi SoKtjotoy yiV€(r$aif 
UTTO rrjy iv 6A.{\|/e<r<v uVojaov^s*. 


Tj) 7rpo(r€u)(r 7rpo(rKOLpr€poOvT€9, " assiduously perse- 
vering in prayer." tlpoa-K. is a very strong term. 

We liave the same phrase in Acts 1, 14. and 6, 14., 
and 7rpocrKapT€pYj(rei in Eph. 6, 18. This clause is (as 
Theophyl. observes) meant to suggest another and 
most powerful means for accomplishing the above- 
mentioned duties. But then it must be fervent, 
persevering, and earnest prayer. See Chrysostom. 

13. raTy y^pelais rwv ay'uov Kowcovouvre^, " communi- 
cating to the necessities of believers." Chrysostom 
and the Greek Commentators injudiciously (I think) 
press on the term koiucov. which, they say, means far 
more than -Kapkyco ; as if it signified that Vv^e were to be 
partakers of their indigence : which is not only ab- 
surd, but by no means countenanced by the true 
sense of /cojvojveTv, which is properly used with a Da 
five ofpersoHy and a Genitive of thing, with napoi or 
the dative with ev, and denotes 1. to have any thing 
in common with, (as in the classical writers, from 
whom numerous examples may be seen in St. Thes. 
5136.) and 2. to make any one partaher with us of 
any thing. So Gal. 6, 6. Koivcovelrco 8e o Karrj^ouixevos' 
Tov Aoyov TM Karr]youUTi evTToicnv ayaSoTy. (Of this latter 
sense Budseus and Steph. Thes. adduce no examples 
from the Classical writers.) This, however, only ex- 
presses that we make him partaker with us, but does 
not infer the degree of participation. Thus when we 
give ever so small a sum to another, we make him 
participate in our property, though in a very small 
degree, and unequal proportion.* So that the term 
does not, in fact, materially differ from Traoe^cu. 

Into another error too this same injudicious pressing 
on the term led the antient Commentators; namely, 
to represent charity as an iy^Tropla, and the gain as 
common. For (says Chrys. 18'2, 9.) Koivuivla yap 
ka-riv €\(r<p€p€is (to ypi^ixara ; €](r(p€pov(rl (roi 7rapprj<rla.v 
€K€hoi TT^v -rrpos 0eov language far too lax and un- 
guarded. And this Theophyl. has pushed still fur- 

* It is plain ihat tlrs Koivmia is only meant to be of our aburi' 
dance. See Livy ap. Wets. 

lis ROMANS, CHAP. Xll. 

ther, by explaining thus : (tv ixev yap )(pi^y.ata Sj^coy, 
€Keivoi ^e avTeKripepoocri rov oupavov. A most heterodox 
doctrine (to say the least), and one of the worst 
dogmas of Popery. As to the reading fxvei'aty, it 
is entitled to no attention, being supported by 
only three MSS., and no Versions and early Com- 
mentators. Koppe says that it makes no difference 
in the sense; since Koivaivelv raTy jutve/ajy tcov ayiwv 
is equivalent to ftvy^ju-oveueiv rcvu aytcov. And he 
refers to Gal. 2, 10. rcvv TTTOi^cov hot. (xvyi^oveumfxev. 
But that passage is little to the purpose ; and without 
some direct authority from St. Paul, or some other 
sacred writer, this sense cannot be admitted. Nay, 
if the true ratio of the word Koivcoveh be attended to, 
no such can be expected to exist. Besides, on such 
an interpretation, the singular, and not the plurai 
might be expected. Now the singular occurs else- 
where in Scripture ; the plural, I suspect, no where. 
The truth is, if the reading were genuine, no other 
sense could well be elicited from it than that which 
has been laid down by most Roman Catholic Com- 
mentators, namely, of making contributions for the 
expenses of festivals to celebrate the memory of the 
Saints on the days of their martyrdom. (See Wolf's 
Curse, and Carpzov.) But this is contrary to the 
scope of the Apostle, and supposes (what has no 
probability) that a persecution unto death of the 
Roman Christians had long before existed; and 
what is most fatal to this notion) that practice had 
then been most firmly established, of which we find 
no trace for more than a century afterwards ! There 
cannot (I think) be the least doubt but that the 
reading was by crafty design introduced into the 
text, from the margin, where it had been noted 
down by some who, ignorant of the true sense of 
ayiwv (viz. Christians), and who living at a period 
when the festivals of the Saints (properly so called) 
were in general use, and their reliques enshrined and 
adorned in the most costly manner, noted down 
fxvelav as an explanation, which was afterwards in- 
troduced into the text. 


The common interpretation, which assigns, not 
the memory of dead, but the indigence of living, 
Christians, as the sense, is supported by the words 
following, TTjv (PiXo^€ulav ^iwKovrey: for these two 
clauses are undoubtedly connected together, and 
after charity to the poor is enjoined hospitality to 
the Christian strangers. 

14. Sjco/covray. This is a strong term, in which there 
is an agonistick, or, as some say, venatick metaphor. 
It is found in this figurative sense, both here, and in 
9, 30 & SI. 14, 19- 1 Cor. 14, 1. ^uokovtcs rriv ayuTrriv. 
It may, however, be too much pressed, in interpre- 
tation : and yet I cannot approve of the tame ver- 
sion of Macknight, " practise hospitality :" for (as 
Theophylact observes) it is not jmeT/ovrey ^i7\,o^€uio(.u. 
Doddridge renders '^pursuing hospitality." But 
our language will, I conceive, scarcely bear this 
idiom. Our Common Translators have better ren- 
dered : ^^ given to hospitality." 

It is justly remarked by Doddridge, that it was 
the more proper for the Apostles so frequently to 
enforce this duty, as the want of public inns ren- 
dered it difficult for strangers to procure accommo- 
dations, and as many Christians might be banished 
their native country for religion, and perhaps were 
laid under a kind of bann of excommunication, both 
among Jews and Heatiiens, w^iich would make it a 
high crime for any of their former brethren to re- 
ceive them into their houses."* Schoettgen here 
adduces several Rabbinical passages in praise of 

14. After treating of brotherly love, the Apostle, 
in the verses following, up to the end of the chapter, 
(which are closely connected together, and mark the 

* For the elegant illustration in his paraphrase the Dr. acknow- 
ledges his obligations to Mr. Blackwall ; and that learned person 
might as well have acknowledged his to Theophtjl., who borrowed 
it from Chrysostom. The eloquent Father has brought it for- 
ward as a procme to his impressive ijOikov, moral, or application, of 
the whole of tliis interesting portion of Scripture. 


duties of Christians under the injuries of enemies) 
inculcates good will even towards enemies, and an 
entire abstinence from all vindictive feelings towards 
them. (Theophylact and Koppe.) 

BY^i(vKovr€9 is especially meant those who persecute 
for religion's sake ; and here it is proper to notice 
the emphasis communicated to the present injunc- 
tion, first by the repetition of euAoyeTre, " bless (I 
say) ;" 2dly, by the same thing being expressed ne- 
gatively as well as affirmatively ; which is called a 
Hebraism : though indeed it occurs also in the Clas- 
sical writers.* 

15. ^ai^eiv ix€Ta ^aipovrcov — KT^aiovrcov. 

Some early modern Commentators, as Tolet., take this as a ge- 
neral precept, enjoining love towards enemies as well as friends. 
This, liowever, proceeds on a wrong view of the scope of the sen- 
tence. As to t!ie explanation of Koppe, it is too vague and indis- 
tinct. Crellius says the Apostle now passes to the duties of com- 
mon life, boili towards brethren, and towards all men. But it may be 
thoughtmatterof doubt whether there be any transition. There seents 
rather to be some connection with the preceding; and this has been 
pointed out by the antient Conmientators, Chrysost. Theophyl. &c., 
with somewhat more success than by the modern ones. The vin- 
cidum, however, of the connection (if I mistake not) is this. After 
laying down an injunction which might have seemed Trapabo^oy, as 
respects enemies, the Apostle subjoins to it another which respects 
fellow Christians, and all Jellow-crealurcs who are not enemies ; 
namely, to feel unfeigned sympalliy with them, both in prosj)eriiy 
and adversity; not so, however, that (as the early modern Commen- 
tators, followed by Hardy, explain) we are to be supposed to have the 
same feeling of their prosperity and adversity that they have, which 
is manifestly impossible. 

* Besides the above sources of emphasis which have been noticed 
by the modern Commentatois, there is another inherent in the 
terms themsehes. For (as Chrysost. and the Greek Commentators 
observe) the Apostle does not say j.u] i.ti'i]aii;ake~i-e, /i?;^e af^ivveade, 
but, what is far more, evXoyefre. And (continues Theophyl.) the 
Apostle has added /.o) (vctrapdo-Qe, meaning thereby that we should 
do neither that nor the other. For he who blesses them that perse- 
cute him for Christ's sake, shews that he vfjoices in suflFering for the 
object of his affection : but he who curses, evinces that he does not 
so rejoice; and hence it is plain, that he does not love him for whom 
he is persecuted." This mode of explanation seems greatly prefer- 
able to that adopted by m(jst recent Commentators, who pare down 
and explain away the solid meaning of the terms evXoyelj' and kut., 
by making them equivalent only to well-wishing, and haling. 


The jjiera does not settle the degree of sympathy. That will differ 
according lo circiunstances, to detail which would be here out of 
p ace. 

Tlie true sc<ipe of the Apostle, and the force of (his injunclit)n, is 
admirably illiistiated by Chry=ost. He shows that it rcqiiiies a more 
generous and philosophic spirit to rejoice with them tluit jojoice, 
than (o weep wiih them that weep ; smce, in the latter case, nature 
inclines us to sympathy; but, in the former, ths baleful passion of 
envy is apt to rise, so that it is difficult not to cnry, and much more 
so to rejoice with them. " And yet (continues he) there is no 
stronger cement to love than this sym|)athetic affection, when ge- 
nuine. Think not, becau.-e you stand ai)art from calamities, that 
you may remain devoid of sympathy. For by tliat s)n)j)athy you 
may lif^hten the sorrow, if not remove the calamity of your siijfer - 
jn^ neighbour ; and assuredly, enhance the satisfaction, if not in- 
crease the prosperity, of your Tejoicing neighljom': Koiyuyei toivvv 
Tijjy bai^ijviof, if a Kovcpia^is T))y uQvfxiav' Kowwre'i yjapas, 'ira pito)(Tt]s 
Tt)y evfpoavi'tjy, teal 7r/ysj;s tiip uycn7t)v, kcd irpo tKe'tvov aavrvr (hcjte- 
X»'/(Tjjs, bici i^iei' 70U bah:pv€iv, eXet'ijuofa t^aracri^evu^wy, via bt rov rrvv- 
I'lbefrOai, (pdovov kcu /jao-^ar/os eavrov tKKaOui'pwi'. See also Tlieo- 
l)hyl Theodoret has here the following brief, but pithy, exposition: 
Kotj'Wj'eTre a\\»//\ots, kcu rwy Xv7rt]pu)y, kcu ruty tvciTTUoy' ro fiey -yap 
<Tvf.iKcii)eicis, TO be ^iA(«s oy^e )(oi"T)jv tou cj)06yov roy i.twf.ioy. There 
is only one point on which I differ in opinion with Chrysost., Thco- 
phyl , and others 3 namely, when they suppose this verse has refei- 
ence to the same ])ersons as those who formed the subject of the 
last. For surely sympathy in the joys and sorrows of our enemies is 
not to be expected. And the evXoyely, it must be remembered, re- 
fers rather to words, than to feelings and sentiments, which (nolwith- 
.standing what Chrysost. says) cannot be biccOepficiiyeaOai r// (jnXlcji to- 
wards our enemies and persecutors. See some excellent illustrations 
of this subject by 15p. Butler ap. DO)ley and Mant. 

With the sentiment Wotstein has comj)ared several from the 
Classical vviiters; ex. gr. Plant. Amph. 3,3,3. Anthol, 1, I'i, 5. 
Philostr. p. 73G. Eurip. lj)h. A. 408. Dio Cass. p. 255. And one 
from a Rabbinical writer. Bulkley, too, cites Xen. Cyr. s. f. •* It is 
a very difficult ujatter to be able always to do good to those whom 
we wish to serve ; but, for this very reason, we should be the more 
solicitous to ap])ear pleaded when any good befalls them, and to 
sympathize with them in their ditlicultics, and to prevent, as far as 
we can, their falling into them." I add the following. Xen. Cyr. 
S, "2. iTvyrjboi-iepos ^itv eiri to~is c'lycidoli cpayepos eiyai, rrvvityj)i)i^ieyos 
be eiri to1% kukoIi,. Pollux 6", 136", 1. 6s ci^Oerui /.ley vols uXXorptois, 
■)(^aip€i be rots rnrarruty kcikoIs. Liban. Oral. 52 c. cTvyijXyel toIs 
uyiijjfxeyois, ffuyi^a/pet rols paicrcicri. And 379 D. iKuyos TrcipctfivSt'i- 
(racrOcu rw XvTrovj-tevit) yun' aviijTdiirnC in whi( h pa.^sage there is a 
lacuna, which I wovild thus fill up: Xv7rovf.ieyM ^ey (TvXXv7n]driyai, 
ilboyei b) be eTvvi]a!)i']ycu. Soph. Q'Ld. Col. 751. tv7s yap tjnreipois 
l^po-uiy Moyois oioy re avy-ciXcuTrdJoe'ty rc'ibe, i. C. e. KOKuiy. So the 
Horalian, " Hand ignarus mali miseris succurreie disco. Qi^schyl. 
Agam. 70"4. Edit. Blomf. (showing how impeifeclly this is done in 


the last world.) rw bv(nrpayovvTi §' eTritrreya^eiv Has ris erot/jos' 
bfiyjxa be Xvn-rjs Oubef k(f 7/7rap TvpofJOKvelTaC Kat i,vy\aipov(jiv 
vnoLo-KpeTvels, ayeXaara TrpoirwTra (iia^oixevof where see the learned 
Prelate. Soph. Antiq. 319. ovtol l,vveyQeiv, aWa avu^ikeiv €(j)vy' 
"It is not my manner to hate with those that hate, but to love with 
those that love." Soph. Aj. ^65. Ylorepa 6' av, el vejioi tls aipeaiv, 
\dj3oLS, (^IXovs avLwv aiiros yhoviis e^eiv, *H koivos ev KOLVoim Xv- 
weWai Ivvwv ; Eurip. Helen, T^T- kukos yhp ocrris fiij <re/3et ra 
bemroruJv Kat i;vyyeyr]de, Kai ^vycobivei Katcols. Eurip. Ion. 935. 
ws (TVCTTevaiieiv y oiha yevvaiios (j)'iXois. 

iQ — 21. In these verses we have precepts re- 
necting Christian prudence, which if any one will 
observe, he may avoid, or at least soften, many 
calainities. Here, then, two things especially are 
inculcated : a mutual concord among Christians (by 
which it is certain an indifferent condition may be 
bettered, and adversity be rendered far more toler- 
able ;) and mildness and forhearance, even towards 
enemies, nay even a readiness, if possible, to render 
them services. (Koppe.) 

16. TO auTo ely aXXT^Aou? (ppovouvre?. These words, 
from the extensiveness and indeterminatenatureof the 
terms employed, admit of more than one meaning. 
In which view it is observed by Rufinus : " Sermo 
iste non natura sua, sed interpretatione obscurior 
factus est." One thing seems clear, that (ppovelv does 
7iot, as some ancient Commentators maintain, relate 
ad intelligentiam, but ad affectum animi. And so 
Origen, Beza, Erasmus, Cameron, Crellius, and 
most Commentators since their time. The sentence 
is thus paraphrased by Erasmus (ap Koppe) : " idem 
alii in alios (de aliis) sentientes nemo putet alium se 
rninorem ; sed omnibus se accommodet, de omnibus 
ex aequo bene sentiat." By Hardy (from the early 
Commentators and Crellius) thus : " Sit affectuum 
et animorum concordia ; et alter alterius commoda 
mutuo afFectu promovete." But the simplest, and 
perhaps the truest interpretation, is that of Rufinus 
(cited by Wets.) : " Hoc est quod dicit : ut ita de 
fratre sentiamus, ut de nobis ipsis, et ita velimus 
proximo, sicut et nobis volumus, ut in Evangelio 
dominus dicit : qua? vultis, ut vobis faciant homines. 


et vos facile illis." Here Wets, refers to Rom. 15. 
5. Phil. 2, 2. 3, 15 & l6* 

l6. jUll) TO. 0t\|/7]Xa 0pOVOlJVT€9, Oi. T. T. (T. ThcSC tWO 

clauses undoubtedly correspond to each o her. 
With respect to the first, the phrase /xt) ra J^/rjXa 
(^pov. is equivalent to ]xr\ ui!/ri\o<ppou€ir€ at 11, 21., 
though far more elegant. So Lucian Herm. 5. (cited 
by Wets.) u\{/r]Xa yap -i^'Stj (ppovei^. To which may be 
added Lucian Somn. '^. 32. p. 79- (cited by Bulkley) 
'Oo"ot — ]w<e TTcti/u fxerecoooL fxrjTe u\|/rjXa i^povrirrav — Mi* 
'ETTjej/ceTs" Tjva? Koi (Twerous' Xeyety. Wets, here refers 
to Is. 26, 5. The neuter, therefore, ought to be 
dropt (as is done by the early modern Commentators 
and our common Translators) and the u\}/7]Xa be 
taken adverbially. Thus Tyndal well renders: "Be 
not highe-minded." Now this will guide us to the 
sense of the apodotical clause, aXXaroTyraTreivoTyo-uv- 
a7rayo|u,evoj, which is susceptible of more than one 
meaning ; and, as it somewhat recedes from the 
usage of language, has occasioned some perplexity. 
Most recent Interpreters adopt the exposition of 
Koppe, who, adhering to the general sense of. uTrd- 
■yeo-Qaj, explains the whole verse thus : " Do not, 
through pride, withdraw yourselves from intercourse 
with your afflicted brethren, but willingly associate 
with them, and bear their distresses." But I do not 
see how the notion o^ distresses can be elicited from 
o-uvaTT., except by great harshness. It involves far 
less difficulty to suppose that the Apostle has here 
somewhat receded from the common use of the term, 

* And he cites Homer II. 6. 361. rii yap (ppoveeis, a r eyw Trep. & 
V. 487. irat'Tes era ^pecrt Qvjiuv exorres. Aristid. in Alex. p. 80. 
fieyitTToy h' t'lv >//LtT»' Trpos aWijXovs, on 'icrov tppovely ctt' aWiiXois 
e'l^ofiev' tyw fiev eKeivw ws hihatTKuXo) (piXorifxovfiei'os, 6 b' kv 
oliceias b6£,r]s fxepei to KaO' yfxas TiQkjievos' & in Cyzicum, p. 246. 
T ai/ra (ppopeTy aei i-iev hijirov €vh6Kij.toi' irpayf-ia, rols be Trapoviri 
Kaipols Kul acpobpa <TVfil3alvov. Thie same phrase r avra <ppoveiv, 
and in this same sense occurs in Liban. Or. 440 c. & 864 b. And 
I would add that r avra <ppoyeli' and r' av-6 often occur in Aristid. 
(as T. 1, 481 A. T. 2. p. 7-), and repeatedly in the Orat. Trepl o/io- 
yolas, T. 2. 337. ct se((q. 


and, as is thought by Chrysost. and all the Greek 
Commentators (surely better judges of phraseology, 
as well as sense, than modern Commentators can be 
expected to be), uses it for o-u|X7rep»(pe§eo-9aj, o-uy/cara- 
jSott'vejv. So Theodoret, who explains it a-vyKarUvai, 
to condescend.* Tiie above Commentators, too, very 
rio-htly, take roT? raweivois in the masculine (for per- 
sons), not in the neuter, as many modern Commen- 

The ratio metaphorge has (I think) been best 
pointed out by Beza, as follows : " Dicuntur o-uva- 
Trayeo-Qat qui in aliorum gratiam ab instituto itinere 
deflectant, ut illos assectentur." He has not, how- 
ever, laid liold on the right clue, which is this. A per- 
son is said o-uvaTrayeo-Sat, when he is met with by a 
crowd, and is burried away with them in the direc- 
tion they are going. But, as passive verbs are often 
used in a reciprocal sense, so o-uvaTrayeo-Qat may sig- 
nify to yield oneself to a multitude, and go with 
them. And this admits of a good as well as a bad 
sense; in the former of which it is here taken, and 
fio-uratively denotes to condescend to : which well 
expresses humility in its various offices, of course 
including that mentioned by Koppe, and that espe- 
cially insisted on by Chrysost.; namely, of personally 
visiting, and rebeving the sick.-)- In fact, it denotes 
a humble temper of mind, as shown in condescen- 
sion to others, even though they may be supposed to 
be inferior to us in rank, station, or ability. And 
this is confirmed by what follows, which seems to be 
exegetical of the preceding. 

16. fxT] ylveaSe (ppoviiJ.oi tzol^ €oi.uroi9'> " be not wise 
in your own conceits, or in your own eyes." This, 

* Thus Carpzov rightly takes the latter clause for raTreivofpu- 


f In which view Wets, paraphrases thus : " Sit apud vos nnodes- 
tia3 locus, sit deruissis hominibns perfugium, sit auxilium pudori, 
i.e. Demittite aninio^ vestros, aique eo loco vos esse existimate, qiio 
sunt, qui tanquani humiles conlemnuntur." Heb. 13, 3. Sir. 3, 
20 & 22. 


it may be observed, is exegetical of the preceding, 
and is an admonition repeated from 11, 25., where 
see the note. 4>povjfxoi is for o-o^doj. The words have 
the appearance of a, popular and adagial diet, taken, 
it seems, from Prov. 3, 7- and Is. 5,21. Koppe here 
compares ^schyl. wap iaurw to ^iKaiov e^eiv. But 
there €^€iv is for Kctre-xeiv. The passage is well pa- 
raphrased by Theophyl. as follows : Mt] vo^l^eTe ag- 
Keiv auToi eoturo'is, Kai fxr] ^eirrSai irepou rod O'uju.3oy7\.etjov- 
To^, 7} TO heov uTToOr^crojuevoL;* Kai yap ko.) Mco(rrjs rto 
©eo) co/xiAei, aXX' e^er^Qig (rvixibovT^orj toG TrevQeoo^. 

17. [J^ri^ev) KaKov — av^pcoTrcov. i'he Apostle, having 
thusflir shown how studiously Christians ought to cul- 
tivate peace and concord one iv'ith another, proceeds 
to teach how they ought to do it with other men. 
(Crellius.) He, at the same time, inculcates for- 
bearance towards enemies, and patience in bearing 
their injuries, as opposed to thirst of vengeance, 
which only serves to perpetuate hatred, and inflame 
animosity. (Koppe.) This, of course, only respects 
individuals, not communities. There evil may be 
recompensed with evil ; as is clear from Rom. 13, 4. 
The precept, itself, is in perfect accordance with that 
of our Lord, which strictly forbids private retaliation."^ 

* A sentiment not unknown to the Jewish writers. To which 
purpose Wets, has, among other Rabbinical citations, one fiom 
Rabbi Simeon, who, improving on the maxim of Solomon ("He 
that rendereth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house"), 
says: '* He that rendereth evil for evil, evil shall not depart from 
his house," Nor are examples wanting even in the Classical wri- 
ters. Thus Koppe compares Seneca de 1j^ 2, 3'2. Non enim, ut in 
beneficiis honestum est, merita meritis repensare, ita injuiias inju- 
riis. And Strigil compares Valer. Max. Speciosis injuriaj beneficiis 
vincuntur, quiim mutui odii pertinaci^ pensantur. To which I add 
Polysen. L. 5. p. 486, 1. iKprfKe tovs t;)(^Bpovs, Trpoaenrwr' oh i^ciKiv 
KciKoy y]j.Lvvafir]v, a\X ayudui KCiKoy, Plato, p. o6 E. ovbe (Set) 
ubiKovi^iepoy cipa avrabiKcly, u)s ttoXXoI o'ioyrat. And a little after 
we have : n be; avriKatcovpyelv kukws Traaypi'Tci ws ttoXXoI (pa(n, 
biKuioy H) ov biKaioy : oiibnfjLws. And again, 37« « ovre kcikuis ttikt- 
yoyra lifxvveaQui ayTibpwyras Ka^:wi. There is also a passage j)ut 
in the mouth of Dion, by Plut. Dion. 47., which is, peihaps, for 
beauty, not to be paralleled in the whole range of Classical litera- 
ture : — TO yap ctvrt TijxwpeiGQai rov TcpoabiKeiv yoj^Ko biKciiorepoy 
lopiadai' (pvaei yiyof-ieyoy utto /uids aaQeyelas' arBpunrov bk KUKuiy, 


17. Trpovoouixevoi Koka. kvcoinov ttolvtcov av^pcoTTfov. 
These words do not seem to liave any very close 
connexion with the context. Koppe, indeed, would 
effect a connexion by a mode of interpretation re- 
ceding from that supported by all other Commenta- 
tors, ancient and modern. He considers the pas- 
sage as taken from Pro v. 3, 4., and, following the 
sense of the present Hebrew text, woidd render 
it : " conciliating the favour and good will of men." 
But we are not compelled to follow the Hebrew text, 
with which we have here nothing to do. The words 
are from the Sept. Version, and can have no other 
sense than that assigned by thegenerality of Commen- 
tators ; namely : " providing, taking care (to do) 
things honest, and of good repute, in the sight both 
of God and man." Besides, the Apostle himself 
again uses the whole clause in that very sense, ap- 
plying it to his own case, at 2 Cor. 8, 21., where see 
the note. And moreover the phrase TrpovofTcrQat 
KaXoG occurs at 1 Tim. 2, 8., and in Sext. Emp., 
cited by Wetstein, and Trpovoela-Qai too hiKOLifjit in Jo- 
seph. Ant. 9, 1, 1" In all these cases Tr^ovoclaSai, 
is for TT^ovoiav irQieia-^oLi^ to take care oj* and is 
of frequent occurrence with various substantives. 

e\ KaX ^oXeTTor kariv, ov-^ ovtws aypiov e'lyai iravrinracri Kui cvuko- 
\ov, wore ^rj fxeralDaXkeiv y/ipiri VLKrideiaav vtto rCijv iroXXaKts eu 


To those, however, who may be inclined, on this ground, to doubt 
whether the subhrne doctrine of unquaUfied forgiveness of injuries 
was indeed a new one introduced by Jesus Christ, I would answer, 
1st, that it seems not improbable that the above cited writers might 
be indebted for this sentiment to the New Testament, which it can 
scarcely be supposed that persons so curious and investigating would 
neglect to peruse. Certain it is, that to the publication of the New 
Testament alone can we usually ascribe that higher tone, and more 
refined purity of ethics so observable in tlie moral philosophy of the 
second and succeeding centuries. Besides, in the above writers we 
have only the bare doctrine, unaccompanied by those all-powerful 
motives to its performance, which none but the searcher of all 
hearts could have devised, and unsupported by those divine sanc- 
tions which would vainly be sought for out of the limits of Chris- 
tian Theology. 

* Dr. Macknight, absurdly pressing on the sense of wpo, renders 


(See Wetstein's examples.) And it is in vain Koppe 
objects, that in the present case we have the Accu- 
sative, not the Genitive; since that syntax pro- 
duces the same sense. I am surprised that the 
Commentators should not have perceived that in this 
construction there is an ellipsis of TrojeTv, which makes 
the sense complete. The syntax is indeed rare ; 
yet I have myself noted the following examples. 
Dionys. Hal. 515, 47- oure 7r^ovooJ|xevai alSouy — to jt^ij 
opaa-BoLi. Xenoph. ap Steph. Thes. raGra xpoevo'j^r^v 
& Mem. 4, 312. ra <To^<^€pwrct. Trpovoe^aSai Trep) raiu 
lj.e70\.ovruiv. Hipp. 7? 1^- ^kc'ivo KaAcos* Trpovoouvrcc & 
Cyr. 41, 4. ro Tra^ayeAXojtxei'ov Trpovoeire' & 6, 3, 7' to 
TrapayyeXXopievov Trpovoeh, where Zeun, without rea- 
son, conjectures Trpoa-voelv from the editio Guelph, 
which is indeed a vox nihili. Thucyd. p. 61. 7rpo(rv. 
raura' & (), 9. Trpavor^aai roG ercujaaTos" ri. 

Still the connexioji is not clear. Koppe refers it to 
the preceding clause. But this mode of interpreta- 
tion (as we have seen) is inadmissible. It is, indeed, 
referred to the preceding by Tolet. and others, and 
also GEcumen. ; but on very weak grounds. Chry- 
sost., however, decidedly unites it with the J'oltoiving 
clause. See his very ingenious and masterly expo- 
sition, which, however, does not, to me, appear very 
solid, nor his reasoning quite convincing. As the 
words eJ Suvarov — elprjveuovrey are closely connected 
with the foregoing Mri^ev) kolkIv, &c., it is probable 
that 7rpovoou|u,evoj, &c. is a parenthetical clause.* If 
there be any connection, it is wnth the preceding. 

18. el buvoiTov, TO 6^ uy.wv, |xeTct TravTcov avB^WTrcov 
eiprjveuovres'. Koppe considers this as the same sen- 
timent repeated ; since the Apostle saw that in this 
mildness of disposition was placed the greatest safe- 
guard of their happiness. But it is 7iot, I think, a 
mere repetition : though (as Crellius observes) the 

* And such seems to have been the ojjinion of l.hcophyl., who 
has the following sensible remarks : ovx''" ^pos Kerohot,iciv cCj/iey, 
TOVTO ^rjair, aXX' (Va jii) Trapi^wf.iev Kciff i]^b)v acpopfxas rols f3ov\o' 
juevots. To yap ciffKavbaXiarov Kal uTrpoaKOTrov uTraire'i. 


study of peace is a hhidredvutue, to that of bearing 
irjuries; nay, tiie latter is a medium for practising the 
former. It is thought remarkable by Doddr., that 
Dr. Barrow adds " this must include living at peace 
with heretics and sciiismatics." But had Dr. Doddr. 
read Chrysost., the Fathers, and Greek Commenta- 
ters, he would have thought it not at all strange.* 
And they are thus far right, that religious peace 
must be here included ; yet not even peace must be 
purchased by compromising what we consider to be 
truth, when that truth is at stake ; though, when 
that is not the case, we should strive that if oi/.oho^ia. 
cannot be maintained, there may be as much as 
possible of ojtxovo/a ; since the latter may, with pru- 
dent management, lead to the former. 

The expressions el Swarov, ij^'it be 'possible,'^- and 
TO ej uju-fov (sub. KOLTo. and ^€po9) *' as far as your part 
reaches, as far as depends upon you," (the latter of 
which qualifies or explains the former), seem to be 
introduced to illustrate the sense of the elpr^vetjeiVy 
which is, that you live at peace^ or be friends with 
all men, J by bearing injuries from them, and doing 
them good in return ; § so that (as Crellius says) it 
may be always peace on your part, to i^ Jp-cov. 

* So Chrvsost. 186, 28. el be irou rqv evael^eiav irapaftXaiTTO- 
lievr}v "ihois, fii) 7rpor//xa rj/v oj-ioroiav rfjs aXi]deias, aW 'I'araao 
yevi'aiios ews Oaj'cirov. 

f 1 his necessarily admits that it is sometimes not possihle. 
" And no wonder (says Chrysost.) that ihis should not be possilile, 
with respect to others, when it is not always possible with respect 
to man and wife." 

X By TTc'ip-wy audpwTTcov is evidently meant both Christians, Jews, 
and Gentiles. 

§ Wets, here compares the following similar sentiments, Philo 
T, 2, p. 31. 28. KepbaiyeTf yap Kepbos i^ieyiaToy elpi]^)^, Kui roi ris 
uv erepos aadeyearrepu) irapayuyp^aeiev ohrivus ovi' wy icr-^vporepos : 
Tis he viKav hvva^eros jSovXoir ay //rraiOai fi)) cvy^pwyievos rio 
bvvatrdai ; ycovos be ovros to apitrruy ovk: et' p<^l-U] Kal TrXeoret,!^ 
ride/xeros, uXX ev acrraarTLaarcp /3/w k:al to ecp' eavrov i)kov fxepos 
i](TV)(aS.0VTi, TraPTLJV ebo^ev e'lvai davjj.a(TLU)TUTOS. Bt-racholh, f'ol, 
17, 1. Abai frequenter illud in ore habuit : Homo respondeat 
blande, remillat iram, multiplicet ])acem cum fiatribus et propln- 
quis suis, imo cum oumibus hominibus, etiain cum peregrinis in 
plateis, ut ametur snpra et infia, et acccptus sit omnibus homin.bus. 


19. fJ-^ eauTovy e/cSiKoGvTfs*. In interpreting tliese 
words, the force of the pronouns in this sentence must 
be especially attended to ; since they are, I think, 
emphatic; and the scope of the whole is, to for- 
bid private retaliation, and to enjoin the injured 
person to leave vengeance to others, i. e. either God, 
or the public and the laws.* And it is of importance 
to attend to this, since it will enable us to arrive at 
the sense of the next clause, which otherwise is not 
easy of determination. Now there are three ways in 
which the clause Sore tottov t^ opyrj may be, and h s 
been explained. The 6pyf, may be referred to the 
person injured ; and then the '^^ne rowov, some think, 
will mean : '* let it go, defer venting it, give space 
to that anger, which is ^ furor hrevis, and may thus 
have time to cool." So the Arabic Version, Ambros. 
De Dieu, Surenhus, &c. But no such sense can be 
proved to be inherent in the words ; neither would 
it be suitable to the words following, *' for it is 
written," &c. 

Others, as Chrysost. and the Greek Commenta- 
tors, Augustin, Luther, Vorstius, Beza, Casaub., 
Gatak., Cameron, Schmid, Grot., Le Clerc, Ham- 
mond, and Eisner, refer the opyri to God. So Qlcu- 
men. 372 a. Oore rowov KcCi -^copav t-^ ooyr^ too Qeoy 
€7^Qe7)/' dv yaq (tv eKdj/o-jirry? (rcaurov, e'iJioiKra. vj opyr] row 
fieou, ou;;^* e,|e< ytopav too €K^iKr^(rai on TrpQe^iKrifras trea'j- 
TOV el yap cru ix.r\ aiJ-uvy], 7}^€i t^ opyrj. And Theophyl. 
I2G. Sore Trapohov rf, too 0eoG opyj] Kara rou aSi/coGvroy 

* This sense has been established by Grotius ; and, for illustrations 
of it, I refer the reader to Soph. OEd. E. 230., where the Schol. ex- 
plains : ovbefiin -tens ep^erat ro'is irpoTraQovcny a.rTL-ij.iwpovi.ievois' 
& CEd. Col. 274. i^sch. Eumen. 981. ^schyl. Agam. 1^34. Schol. 
on ^schyl choeph. 325. Plut. Dion. 47. 

It is truly observed by iMacknight, that ''this precept is founded, 
as in leligion, so in right reason, and in the good of society. For 
he who avenges himself, making himself accuser, and judge, and 
executioner, all in one person, runs a great hazard of injuring both 
himself and others, by acting improperly, through the influence of 



u/xay. And this interpretation, which seems, upon 
the whole, the best founded, has been adopted by 
Wolf, Rosenm., Koppe, and Schleusner. 

Others, again, as Vat., Drusius, Est., Menoch.J 
Tirinus, Anselm, Cortius, Schoettg., M^ets., and 
Hammond, refer the opyrj to the injurer ; i. e. by 
leaving him. In support of this interpretation Wets, 
cites Petron. 94. cede injurise. Thucyd. 1, 38. 
el^on TYi r^^erepa oqyji. And he refers to the Pytha- 
gorean maxim, '' Do not stir the fire with iron," i.e. 
iJir^iKeiV Tois opyi^o^evois' & 462 B. Set Se |xr]Oe Tre/^ovTas" 
auTT) (ry^ ^pyjl) StSovat roVov and other passages, 
though less to the purpose.* But in the last citation, 
h^ovai ■)((upav opyfj signifies to give way to our own 
anger, not to yield to that of another : and in that 
of Thucyd. the phrase is itself determinate : which 
is not the case with this of St. Paul. Besides, the 
term 0^77) must thus be taken for the violence or 
injury of the angry person : which would be very 

The context, then, by which alone the sense can 
be determined, requires the second'\- interpretation, 
which is decidedly preferable : and as it has not been 
confirmed and illustrated by any Classical passages, 
the following maybe acceptable. Eurip. Suppl. 511. 
e^rjpKe(Ta9 r^v Zeu? Ttju,a)pou]u,6Voy 'Jiuas S' u^pl§€iv ouk 
^)(_pr\v TOjyjvS' y/3^iv. Phocyl. 13, 72- 1>A ]U''<JW'Oy /ca/co- 
T7]Ta, AiKj ^ dtTreXei^/ov a^uvav IleiSto jutev yap oveiap 
epis S' epiv avrKpyreyet. Theophyl. 126. s. f. remarks, 
that this is irpos Trapa/xuQtav jutJKpo-vf/up^cov, ot3Sev yaq aXko 
€7riSt)^oo(nv a>V iSeTv eaurohs e/c6»KrjOevTay. The senti- 
ment is, however, injudicious ; since (as Crell. well 
observes) when it is said that by their forbearance 

* To the above may be added Eurip. Bacch. 603. opy)) b' vTrodes 
riav\ov TToba' where Musgr. conjectures rpoTrov, a mild disposition. 
Aristid. 3, 265 B. ovbe biboxri x^paf rj) [iXaa-fiJUi^. Philostr. V. 
Ap. 8, 5. cos ejiiol tottov. 

t Oleander and Koppe would unite the first and second interpre- 
tations : a method surely uncritical and inadmissible. Schoettgen 
would conjoin all three ; which is the very acme of absurdity. 


and patience Christians leave place for Divine ven- 
geance, it is not meant that this vengeance is their 
intention, but only that it is the event, or result, of 
their patient endurance and forbearance.* 

19. €[t.o\ €K^lKrj(n^' iy(o avraTTO^cocro. The words 
are from Deut. 3;3, 35. (cited also at Heb. 10, 30.), 
where the pronouns are both emphatical. The se- 
cond clause is exegetical and intensive. 

20. kav oZv Treii/a, &c. It is rightly observed by 
Crellius, that the oZv shows this precept depends 
upon the preceding. And Chrys., Theophyl., and 
CEcumen., have well seen that there is here a sort of 
climax ; q. d. " I not only exhort you eior^veueiv, but 
I enjoin you to do good to your enemy. This will 
be, indeed, the test whether vindictive feelings are 
thoroughly suppressed ; namely, whether you are 
ready to perform the common offices of hitmanitij to- 
wards him, if he should need them." For this is all 
that is meant hy feeding him, and giving him drink ; 
these being adduced as an example ; though they 
must extend to all such benefits as the person might 
have claimed had he not injured you. The expres- 
sions themselves are taken from Prov. 25, 21 & 22. 
'^(uiJ.i§€iv, from "^co^os (and that from t^/wco, -^aco, 
radoj, signifies, literally, to give a bit, a mouthful; 
but in the Sept. it answers to the Heb. 7'^i^^n, " to 
give one to eat, to supply food." See Schleus. Lex. 
Vet. Test. Horl^eiv signifies to give drink; as in 
Matt. 10, 42. 25, 35., and elsewhere. 

It is, however, of more importance to attend to the sense of tiie 
controverted passage, aiOpakas Trvpos uupev/reis l-i rifv Ke(paX))y, 
nvrov, on which variovis have been the opinions of Commentators 
and Theologians, all of which it cannot be expected that I slioiild 
review. To such only as have any semblance to truth or probabi- 
lity can I advert. The most popuUir opinion for the last century 
is, that there is here a metaphor derived U-om founding, i.e. an allu- 
sion to the melting of lead, or other fusible metals; and that the 
expiessior\ signifies, " thou shall thereby melt down his enmity, and 
warm him to kindness and atfection." (See Macknight.) And this 

* For the patience here inculcated may be nferred to both those 
classes into which the philosopher Ejjictetus has distributed this 
vijtue, the ave-^(.v and the uTrep^Ji', bear tindfnrheiir. 

K 2 


mode of interpretation was adopted by Jerome, Hilary, Piscator, 
Vorstius, Schottus, Fiancke, Kamni., Schultens, Wolf, Heumann, 
Doddridge, Taylor, Macknight, and Ja^pis. But, however ingeni- 
ous, there is not, as far as I can find, sufhc'ient out h or it y for it either 
from Classical or Rabbinical examples, and it is devoid of all support 
fiom those who may be supposed to have best understood the import 
of Greek phraseology. And as there is not a shadow of proof that 
this is the sense, so there is the greatest reason to think it is not. 
For the phrase, both in the passage of Proverbs 25, 21. (from 
whence this passage is taken,) and wherever else it occurs, (as in 
Ps. 140, 9 & lO. Is. 47, 11. Ezek. 10, 2. 4 Esdr. 16, .52.,) is always 
used of severe and 7)iuine punishment. Thus evidence, both posi- 
tive and negative is against that interpretation, which, in fact, 
could only have originated in well meant but mistaken views of the 
import involved in these words, as if it were impossible to exclude 
from the common interpretation a notion of vengeance, unworthy 
of the Apostle, and little accordant with the precepts of our Re- 
deemer. But this, as will be seen further on, is founded on nariow 
and partial views of the sense, such as do credit rather to the head 
than the heart of those who devised them. 

2. Near akin to this mode of interpretation is that first (I be- 
lieve) thrown out by August in, and afterwaids adopted by some 
early modern Commentators, as Crellius, and especially Hammond ; 
and, in the last century, adopted by several Commentators of note, 
as Schoettgen, Doddridge, C arpzov, and Amnion ; namely, that 
" by this conduct thou wilt touch his conscience so severely, that 
he will re[)ent of his injury." But this seems very far fetched, and, 
like the former interpretation, is devoid of all authority : for I can- 
not reckon as such the mode of applying the passage found in a 
modern Jewish Rabbi. 

The mode of interpretation which I shall now proceed to detail 
is the most antient, and, 1 think, by far the best founded one ; it is 
supported by the Greek Fathersand Commentators, all the later ones, 
except Augustin and Jerome, and a very considerable part of the mo- 
dern Interpreters, as Beza, Estius, Cameron, Gomar Grotius, Whit- 
by, Wetstein, Hardy, Rosenm., Kop])e, Schleusner, Slade, and Tur- 
ner ; namely, that the words are expressive of acute pain, and severe 
punishment, even that of the Divine wiath and vengeance. Now 
this is supported by the united authority of all the passages of the 
Old Testament where the exjjiession occurs,* and therefore we can 
hardly supjiose it to be otherwise used here. Besides, the context 
in this case requires it ; for the words preceding treat of the Divine 
vengeance. Nor is there any well-founded objection to the above 
sentiment itself, when pro|)erly understood. See Chrysostom, and 
especially fficumen. and Theodoret. The sense is thus expressed by 
Grotius : " Si alter ilia tanta tua patientia ac beneficien^ia ad meli- 
orem mentem revocari non potest, giavis ei impendet ])oena." And 

* Thus, for instance, in the passage of Prov. after the words here 
cited, are added, v ^e Kvpios avTcnrobioaei aoi ayadh ; by which it 
is plain that evil was meant by the expression ardpaKus (Tcopevaai, &c. 


he observes : " Dicimur facere, cui rei occasionem praebemus, ut 
Luc 16", f). Tort ullia mis libro de Fatientia, Plus improbum ilium 
cu'di^, suxtiiiendo. Ab en tiilm vapiiLibit, ejus gratia sitslines." 
Koppt- iraiislaten the parSAiie thus: "Si alter ilia lanta lua patien- 
tia et benelicientia nou redierit ad nientem mcliorem : gravis ei 
iuipendet poena." And he lays the following down as the sentiment 
inteniled to be expressed by the Apostle : " Deum sihi prcesentem 
ease iiijuri(V ciijnsvis ultorem, has ipsas hostium injurias eo minus 
perhoi lescerent l2etiores(|ue perferrent ; turn imprimis ipsis eorum 
adoersariis, maximb Jiulais, ut hi hac ipsa poenarum divinarum, 
quas sua erga palientes ieH; ow 0x9 «e Christ ianos crudelitate certo sibi 
contiahebant, comminalione a novis atrocioribusque injuriis ab- 

The enemy is not, however, to be thus treated from any wish or iw- 
tenlion* of drawing- down the Divine wrath upon him. It is only 
meant that this will be the consequence, namely (/" Ae c/oes not repent, 
but persists in his enmity and injury : for (as Locke and Turner ob- 
serve) the persevering wickedness and impenitence of the injurer 
are to l)e sujiposed. bo that St. Paul merely states in what the con- 
duct of boih ])artics will result ; without intimating that the injured, 
will be grattjied. 

This last interpretation, I repeat, seems, upon the whole, true ; 
though it must be confessed that the language employed by some 
in detailing it (especially Chrysostom and Theophylact) is too un- 
guarded. Wctstein (oddly enough) intermingles both interpreta- 
tions in the following paraphrase. " Hoc faciens, aut ipsum tibi 
reconciliabis, aut saUcm le ipsum tutum prtestabis, nee te ipsius 
peccatis et cilamitatibus implicabis. Sin contra feceris, et malum 
malo rependeris, etiam supia tuum caput fulmen decidet." Out of 
the very few examj)k'S which can be found in antient history of re- 
turning good for evil, one is here adduced by VVetstein from Tacit. 
Annal. 2, .55. ''Tanta mansuetudine agebat, ut cam orta tempestas 
raperet in abrupto, possetque inleritus inimici ad casum referri, mi- 
serit Irii ernes, (luarum subsidio discrimini eximeretur." Some 
others are found in Xenoph. Cyv. and Anab. 

Ilosenm. thinks it not necessary to interpret these words of Di- 
vine punishments. But for this opinion there is not the least founda- 
tion ; since in the Old Testament the expression is invariably so ap^ 
plied, and the context here evidently requires this. 

21. |U.7] VIKU) VTTO TOU KUKOU KUKOU. This VGlSe is 

not, I think, so closely connected with the preceding 

* So Theodoret 135. elbeyai fievroi XP'/» *^^ °^^ ^^^ tovto depa- 
ireveiv 7rporr»/ket tovs hvcrperels, 'ira peicovs tKelvoi riautTi bik-m' 6 
yap delos cittootoXos -aura TrpoarHieiKe, aeJDecrai tov abiKovpet'ov 
PovXopetos TOV dopor, ov tw ctyaflw (tv kcikov avUiaai neipuipevos' 
on yap <^t\o<To0eti' KcXevei, kat rU tsj/s bituaicei. And so CEcumen. 
372 D. pi) biaOeaei KaKoiroiM euepytret" virep yap TrapnpvOias aov 
eiptjrai rd elpijpera, on \l(jjpicu)v Kal TrorictJi', apOpuKcts Trvpos 
(TopeiKTeis, ovK I'l'o pev ra ovtujs Troijii. See also Photius ibidem. 


as to support the second interpretation above-men- 
tioned ; but seems an independent one : though it 
bears a strung affinity to it. The Apostle seems 
here to rise still higher ; and intentionally employs 
the expression viKa ev rep ayabw, to effectually pre- 
vent any misunderstanding of his last words, as 
giving any countenance to procuring evil to one's 
enemy. And this view of the scope of the passage 
is confirmed by the following admirable exposition 
of Theophyl. 127- med., founded on Chrysost. 
'EvrauQa touto JttoSt^XoT, to |X7] heiv Tj'ftay rojauTTr) yvcoix-r) 
^a)|x(^e»v TOWS' €^$pou9, Tva Tr'Keiova /coAactv auToTy kirayco- 
u.€V rouTO yap iariv o T^eyei' Mt] viKus u-ko tou /ca/cou, 
TOureo'T J, fxv] ^vr^(riKaKiQ Troootipecrei touto ttoici, jxvjStj fxjixou 
Tov KaKOTTOiov riTTO, yap ecrri rouro. aTJKa. a-Trouha^e 
u,5.7\.Xov €V rji ayaSoTToua coi* viktig-ui eKeivov^ kou ^€tol- 
^oKKeiv otTTo TTjS" KaKias. Orrep ouv elirev avcorepco, tt^os* 
Tzapaii-a^iav t^S" iLiKpo-i^^jyics clrre' vvv) Se to t€7\.€cot€^ov 

The sentiment is illustrated by Grotius and Wets, from the fol- 
lowing Classical {jassages. Justin 11, 12, S, '' Tunc Darius se ra- 
tus veib victum, cum post pra;lia ttiam beneficiis ab hoste supe- 
raretur." Apulej. Apol. *' Malvim filium beneticio vinceret." Po- 
Ivain. 5. p. 485. ov kuk^ tcaicov ijfxvva^ir]v, aXAa ayctSw KaKvv. Iso- 
crat. ad Demonic, o^uotws al<x-^por v6f.iiS.e, tuv t')(d^G)v yiKdadai raTs 
KaKOTToiais, K"ai rwi' (fylXwr j/rrdcrflot rals evepyeaiciis. Joseph. Ant. 
2, 6, 8. fd)) viKr]d7]s i»7r' avTijs, scil. opyiis. Plut. Dion. 47. x^P""* 
vLi^dadai. Seneca de Benef. 7. 31. "Vincit malos pertinax bonitas, 
nee quisquam tarn duri infcstique adversus diligenda animi est, ut 
etiam vi tractus bonos non amet." 32. " Ingratus est — Huic ipsi 
beneficium dabo iterum, et tanquam bonus Agricola cura cultftque 
sterilitatem soli vincam." De Ira 2, 32. " Non enim ut in benefi- 
ciis honestum est merita meritis repensare, ita injurias injuriis, 
illic vinci turpe est, hie vincere. Inhunianum verbum est, et qui- 
dem pro justo receptum, iiUio: et a conlumeliS. non differt nisi 
ordine. C^ui dolorem regerit, tantum excusatius peccat. — Magni 
animi est injurias despicere." Carpzov compares Philo ap. Stob. 
10. p. 47. Ovbei'l fxyrjatKciKuiy ro Trapawai', aWa viicap tovs e-^Opovs 
aiiwv kv rw ttoicIj' €v, fiuXXof ?; loXcnrreiy. And Bulkley cites Mar- 
cus Antonin, 'Aptcr TOsrpoTros rov afxiivetrdai, to fit) €t,ofxoiov(TdaL. I 
add, D. Cass. 688, 80. ohhkv yap ovru) /cat bovXol ^at oiKeiovrai Tiva 
Kap aXXorpios Kctv e^Bpos (ov t-v^JJ? ws to fiij ubiKclcrdai, ical Trpoaeri 
Kctt €v ircLGxeiv. Polya3n. 7, 23. ■^eipwaanevos es uKporaTOV evvoias. 
Liban. Or. 733 C. aKoiriLv, ws Troptjpa ^vais, aveXiriaTOV Tv^oxxra 
avyyvwf.a]S, bvaajTrelrai (i. e. aiSeTrat) rrjv \dpu', kciI yLtera/3o\Xet 


Toiis rpvrrovs. Dionys. Hal, 676, 30. tit^u yap iifxds ^pijrrros ioy. Jo- 
seph, 664, 26. yeriKT]fX€i'ri rals evepyecriais, Xen. Cyr, 5,7j 29. 
bun fini Tovs €fX€ Tifxaiyras viKijtrai ev iroiovyra. Eurip. Hcc. E. 339. 
uperyj ae vtKu>. Thucyd. 4, 19. T. 2. p. 27- fin. c'tW yy Trapoy to 
nvTO * bpdaai, Trpui, to tTrtetfces i;ai ciperij avro viKt'iffuS) Trapa a 
TT-potrehe'^eTO, fuerpiojs ^vj'oWctyj/. 


In this second section of the practical part of the 
Epistle (namely in this whole chapter) are inculcated 
the 7noral duties to be observed by all Christians : 
1. Those towards superiors (i^oucrlai vTrcpe^oua- on), the 
supreme magistrates -j- and princes eminent in dig- 
nity and station (see Phil. 2, 3.), and especially the 
Roman Emperors, And there was need of the ad- 
monition, since at that time there w^ere at Rome 
both Jews and Christians who, from hatred of the 
tyranny of Claudius and Nero, had, there is reason 
to believe, plotted against them. (Carpzov.) 

The connexion of the last and the present Chapter 
is thus ably pointed out by Theodoret. 13.5. s. m. 
OuTco ^la. Tovrcov to t^Qo^ Traiheucrot^, 7rapaK€7<€U€ro(,i Koi 
ToTy ap^ouTi T'^v 7rpo(r7jKov(rav airov^iKeiv rifxriV irpar^ei 
yoio' are 5>] tou wavoLyioo TrvedfJ^aTo^ Tr'houfTicos rr^v ^ocpiv 
^€^a.[X€V09, ^«y Tivey, TV(^io ^aXkov i] ^r]X<p K€)(^pr]^€Voif 
rciiu ^uoTiKwv ap^ovTfov Ka.Ta<ppovrj(rou(n, (xel^ous^ eaoroitf 
6ia rr]V yvcocnv u7roXajU,/3avovTey* aXXwS' re /cat rrjV Kccra- 
p^wQeTff-av oLuTcov bo^av aTroTpilbofxevo^ Touro TrojeT. ^lej^dX- 
"XovTo yup, CDS' roits koivous ocvarp€7rovT€p i/ojtxouy koi ot jxev 
eXeyov, 01 tt^v ol/coyju-evryv avao'TarojcravTes*, ovtoi koi 
ivTuuBa 7rap€Kriv' ol Se, on erepa e^r) elcayovoT TTPouyou 
Tolvuv €Voixi(r€ kol) 7r6§» TovToit voy.rjS€Tr](rah 

" Well did the Apostle know (observes Koppe) 
how impatient the Jews were of the Roman yoke." 

* For avTo and avTus found in many MSS. I would read avrdy, 
and subaud rdy ey^Opvy from the ex^pus preceding, which is also to 
be supplied at TrpocrebexeTo. As to the reading avro, it appears to 
have arisen from the y final being absorbed by the y following and 

t So the Latia Potcstas (See Facciol. Lex.), and the Italian 


And he refers to Joseph. Ant. 17, 2, 4. and Acts 
18, 2. compared with Sneton. Claud. 25. " Lest 
therefore (continues he) the Christians, a great 
part of whom at least were Jews, should be hurried 
away by a desire of innovation, and thereby disgrace 
the doctrine of Christ, and at the same time bring 
on themselves evils and calamities inevitable, the 
provident Apostle, after explaining at large the na- 
ture and divine origin of government and magis- 
tracy, exhorts the Christians to faithfully and with 
alacrity discharge these duties : especially since he 
saw that what he himself had previously disputed 
concerning the Ubertij of Christians^ might easily, by 
imprudent and ill disposed persons, be misinter- 
preted, as if at variance with the authority of magis- 
tracy. The same admonitions are found at Tit. 3, 1. 
1 Pet. % 13, and 14. (Koppe.) 

Verse 1. irarroL \(^up^>] i^oiKriaiS' v7r€p€^ou(rais utto- 
raa-a-icrQco. The Commentators observe that Trda-ot, 
j/oX^, like the Hebr. tTSt h^^, in Genes. 1, 10, 12, 5., 
is for eKaa-ros. But it seems to me a far more ener- 
getic expression ; q. d. "Let every individual with- 
out exception," &c.; of course implying of whatever 
rank of subjects, and of whatever order, whether se- 
cular, or ecclesiastical. 

"E^oua-lais viT€pe)(o6<roiis, " the higher powers." This 
signification of e^oua-la is not unfrequent in the later 
Greek writers, and examples are adduced by Wets, 
and Koppe. So Potestas in the later Latin writers ; 
as Amm. Marc. 14, 1. Celsse potestates. Whence 
podesta in the Italian. The expression celsne podes- 
tates is exactly parallel to this of the Apostle. All 
Commentators are agreed, that by the powers are 
meant (abstract for concrete) the persons who exer- 
cise the powers, i. e. magistrates^ oX u7r€pe-)(ovTes (as 
in ver. 3. 1 Pet. 2, 13. Sap. 6, 5. 2 Mace. 3, 11.), ol ev 
u7r€po)(y) oVT€9 (1 Tim. 2, 2.), ol KpoLTodvres (Joseph, B. 
11» 70> '7rpo€^ovT€s ToTy a^ia>]u,acri. (Joseph. Bell. 7? 
11, 1. It refers therefore to all who oTrepe^oua-i, 


" are set over others, are in authority ;" inchiding 
magistrates and officers of justice of every kind. 

With this sentiment W^ets. compares Pausan. 
Eleac. 2, 3. oi Travres oivSpcoTroi $€f>a7r€uouariv to. UTrepe- 

1. ou yap €(niv e^oyc/a el [xyj octto tou ©eoG. That to 
some singular providence of God the origin and 
whole fortunes of rulers are to be referred, is an opi- 
nion so common to and constantly prevailing among 
all people, that it may seem to have been instilled by 
the Almighty himself. (Koppe.) To this purpose we 
have, among other passages cited by Wets., Hesiod. 
Th. 06. €K 0€ Atoy j3ao-jX7^6y. Homer l^acriT^ely oioyevelg 
and oioTpe^eTy. Callim. Hymn, in Jov. E/c oe Aioy 
^U(ri7^7]€9, eTrei A«os* o-J'^^y auuKTcov &€iot€^qv, rco Koi trcpi 
reVyV €Koivao ra^iu. Hom. II. a 279. 0. 205. Dio 
Chrys. 1. p. 3. c. Epict. 29. rwv 3e /SeXTiVrcov coj 
(paivofx€vcov OUTC09 e;^r], a)y utto rou 6eot> rerayjuies/os' e»? 
rauTfiv rr^v ra^iv. Joseph. B. 2, 8, 7- (tie Essenis) 
TO TTia-Tov aet Trape^eiv Trr/o-j, ^oKkttcx. 8e toTs" KparaZa-iv, 
O'j yao 8i^a. $eou Trepiylvea-^al rivi to a.pyeiv. Koppe, 
too, cites Piin. Paneg. Si adhuc dubium fuisset, 
sorte casuque rectores terris, an aliquo numine da- 
rentur, principem tamen nostrum liqueret divinitas 
constitutum. Amnion compares Sueton. Tit. C. 
9. Principatus flito datur. See also Prov. 8, 15 
and 16. 

A'l 3e altrai e^ooa-lcn, " the powers which exist, and 
are such,'' i. e. not merely sovereigns dejuve, but de 
facto. It is well remarked by Grotius, " Imperia 
omnia post vocationem Gentium Deus regit, ac 
mutat, non communi tantum ilia providentia, per 
quam multa relinquit naturali ordini, sed sapientia 
attemperata subditorum utilitatibus, aut, si ita me- 
ruerint, poenis. Fecit hoc et olim Deus aliquoties, 
Prov. 28, 2. Psal. 75, 6 and 7. Dan. 2, 21 and 57. 
At Christus hoc universaliter a Christianis credi et 
pro certo haberi voluit, Joh. 19, 11."* 

* To the above view, however, it is objected by Macknight, that 
here al esouamt vivepeyov-es, being distinguished from ol ap\ovT€S, 


2. a)(rr€ 6 avr iracra-oixevos r^ e^ovcria^ r. t. 0. 8. a. 
It is plain that avTiTao-o-ojutevos* and dvBea-rrjKev are used 

ver. 3, must signify, not the persons who possess the supreme autho- 
rity, but the supreme authority itself, whereby the state is governed ; 
whether that authority be vested in the people, or in the nobles, or 
in a single person, or be shared among these three orders : in short, 
by the higher powers is denoted that form of government which is 
established in any country, whatever it may be," ''A remark (adds 
he) which deserves attention, because the Apostle's reasoning, while 
it holds good concerning the form of government established in a 
country, it is not true concerning the persons who possess the su- 
preme power, that there is no power but from God, and that he who 
resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. For if the person 
who possesses the supreme power in any state exercises it in destroy- 
ing the fundamental laws, and to the ruin of the people, such a 
ruler is not from God ; is not authorised by him, and ought to be 
resisted. But with respect to the words ov yap eariv e^oviria el fj-i) 
ctTTu Qeov, for there is no power but from God, it must be observed 
that they were meant to correct the pride of the Jews, who valued 
themselves exceedingly because they had received a form of govern- 
ment from God. The government of every state, whether it be 
monarchical, aristocratical, democratical, or mixed, is as really of 
divine appointment as the government of the Jews was, though 
none but the Jewish form was of divine legislation. For God having 
designed mankind to live in society, he has, by the frame of their 
nature, and by the reason of things, authorized government to be 
exercised in every country. — At the same time, having appointed no 
particular form to any nation but to the Jews, nor named any par- 
ticular person or family to exercise the power of government, ho 
has left it to the people to choose what form is most agreeable 
to themselves, and to commit the exercise of the supreme power to 
what persons they think fit. And therefore, whatever form of go- 
vernment hath been chosen, or is established in any country, hath 
the divine sanction : and the persons who, by the choice, or even by 
the peaceable submission of the governed, have the reins of govern- 
ment in their hands, are the lawful sovereigns of that country, and 
have all the rights and prerogatives belonging to sovereignty vested 
in their persons," Macknight. 

All this, however, seems not to the point. Such refinements are 
not to be sought in a passage like the present, written populariter. 
Moreover, when it is said that the governor is sent from God, it can 
only be implied that he is permitted to be so by the real, though in- 
scrutable, providence of God ; though mediately appointed by the 
authority, or invested with it by the consent of man. The very 
constitution of government (as Mr, Slade observes), which is said to 
be derived from God, is framed by the will and consent of a people. 
God has ordained that there should be governments, and therefore 
governors, and that they should be obeyed : but still, every particu- 
lar arrangement is left to human discretion. 


as synonymous ; and though the former may seem 
to be the stronger term, yet it simply means to re- 
sist, frequently both in the Scriptural and the Classi- 
cal writers. (See Schl. Lex.) Atarayr), like ^laTay^a, 
and oiara^i^, signifies ordinance. See Schl. Lex. 
Vet. Test, et Nov. Test. 

Schoettg. and Wets, compare a similar sentiment 
of Bereschith Rabba 14, 8. R. Jodan dicit : quicun- 
que faciem suam obfirmat contra regem, idem est ac 
si illam obfirmaret contra majestatem divinam. 

" As the precept (observes Mackn.) in the fore- 
going verse, and the declaration in this, are general, 
they must be interpreted according to the nature of 
the subjects to which they are applied-. "Wherefore, 
since the poiver, of which the Apostle speaks in both 
verses, is the /arm of government, and not the rulers 
of a country, the subjection to the higher powers en- 
joined in the first verse, is not an unlimited passive 
obedience to rulers in things sinful, but an obedience 
to the wholesome laws enacted for the good of the 
community, by common consent, or by those who, 
according to the constitution of the state, have the 
power of enacting laws. To these good laws the 
people are to give obedience, without examining by 
what title the magistrates who execute these laws 
hold their power ; and even without considering 
whether the religion professed by the magistrates be 
true or false. For the same reason, the opposition to, 
and resistance of, the poiver, forbidden in the second 
verse, is an opposition to, and resistance of, the es- 
tablished government, by disobeying the wholesome 
laws of the state, or by attempting to overturn the 

The general sense, too, is well expressed by T.Edwards, thus : "Chris- 
tians are not, by the freedom of the Gospel, exempted from any 
ties of duty or subjection which by the laws of tlieir country they 
ought to observe towards the governors or magistrates of it, (though 
heathens,) any more than their fellow-subjects. On the other side, 
these rules do not tie them up any more than their fellow-citizens 
(who are not Christians) from any of those civil rights which, by 
the law of nature, or the constitution of the country, belong to 


government, from a factious disposition, or from ill- 
will to the persons in power, or from an ambitious 
desire to possess the government ourselves. These 
precepts, therefore, do not enjoin obedience to 
tlie magistrates in things sinfid ; and more espe- 
cially in things morally good, and which tend to 
the welfare of the state. Besides, as in the follow- 
ing verses, the Apostle has shewn, from the nature 
and end of their olfice, that the duty of rulers is to 
promote the happiness of the people, it is plain from 
the Apostle himself, that they who refuse to do 
things sinful, or even things inconsistent with the 
fundamental laws of the state, do not resist the ordi- 
nance of God, although these things should be com- 
manded by a lawful magistrate, because in com- 
manding them he exceeds his power. And, that 
opposition to a ruler, who endeavours utterly to sub- 
vert the constitution, or to enslave a free people, is 
warranted not only by right reason, but by the Gos- 
pel, which teaches, that riders are the servants of 
God, for good to the people, and are supported by 
God only in the just execution of their office.*' 

All this may be very true, but it does not seem to 
have been contemplated by the Apostle, whose in- 
junction is expressed popularly and generally, with- 
out reference to some few exceptions, or to th.e ex- 
treme cases in which resistance may be lawful. 

2. ol 8e av(i€(rrr}K6r€9 eauroTs* K§//xa 7\.T]\l/ovrai. These 
words are considered by Bp. Sherlock and Mr. Slade 
as not referring to the preceding, but rather as form- 
ing the introduction to a new argument. This, 
however, though countenanced by Koppe, is not 
agreeable to the usual force of 6e, nor (I think) suit- 
able to the context. The he manifestly signifies au- 
tem. And so it is rendered by the Vulgate. The 
above harsh construction was resorted to by Bp. 
Sherlock, in order to justify the explanation of K^ly.ot 
adopted by him (in common with many other inter- 
preters, as Chrysost. T. Aquinas, Paraeus, Vorstius, 
Tolet., Vatab., Whitby, &c.) namely, temporal pu- 
nishments. But this is at variance with the context: 


for, as Crell. truly says, the scope and connection of 
the Apostle's argumentation requires the word /cpi'/xa 
to be understood of divine rather than human pu- 
nislunent. Hammond has here a very masterly an- 
notation on the force of the term /cpZ/xa in Scripture, 
which will (like almost every thing from this most 
learned, able, and honest Divine) amply repay an at- 
tentive perusal. From what he has said there can be 
no doubt but that both these senses must here be 

2. iaurois Kpifxa Xig\{/ovTai. This seems an Helle- 
nistical phrase, formed (as Koppe thinks) on the 
Hebr. lon?DQ t^lTJ, and equivalent to Kplvea-^ai at Jas. 
3, 1. and Matt. 23, 14. Koppe, too, takes tauroTs' 
to mean sitd culpa. But this seems supposing an 
empiiasis unwarrantably. It should rather appear 
that the €aoTo7y is pleonastic ; since this is supposed 
by the force of the middle voice; which, however, is 
not much attended to by the Scriptural writers, who 
often add a dative of the personal pronoun, as if the 
verb were in the active voice. 

3. oj yap ap^ovres ook elci (^6(^0^ — naKcov. The con- 
nexion of these words, or at least the force of the 
yapy is not very clear. Theophyl. and Crellius well 
observe, that the Apostle meets a tacit objection, 
such as : '* It is hard that I should be in continual 
fear of the /cp/fxa of the magistrate." To which the 
answer is : " There is no reason for fear, so long as 
thou doest well ; for rulers are not a terror, &c." 

^oBoy, for (^o^epoi, by a metonymy of the effect 
for the cause, signifies that which strikes fear, the 
terriculamentum, whether a person, or a thing. 
See 1 Pet. 3, 14. This use is also found in the 
Classical writers. Thus Schleus. in his Lex., 
compares Soph. Phil. 1241.., Eurip. Troad. 1165., 
and Justin 3, 1, 1. Xerxes terror gentium. And 
so an inscription cited by Wets. : el/xt Kpirr^^ yap rfTnos* 
ISu'i/Arojy, ro?y 3' a/iiKoZa-i oeoV. Examples of a similar 
sentiment are cited by Schoettg. and Wets, from 
the Rabbinical writers. 


Here it is observed by Grotius. " Post argumentum 
ab origine, alteriim addit ab usu, cujus causa consti- 
tiita sunt imperia, nempe ut improbitate repressa 
tutius vivant boni. Hoc autem plenissim^ praestant 
boni Reges, mali quoque aiiquatenus, vel sui causa. 
Et quanquam interdum aliquid vitii intervenit, nun- 
quam tamen non satius est esse principes, quam non 
esse. Nam ut rect^ Tacitus, Vitia erunt donee ho- 
mines, sed neque hcec continua et meUorum interventii 
pensantur. Et, quomodo sterilitatern aut imbres et 
cwtera naturce mala, ita luxus vel avaritia dominan- 
tium toleranda.'" And he compares Joseph. Bell. 2, 
28. and Cic. dQ "L^g' 2. Leges improbos supplicio 
afficiunt, et defendunt, ac tuentur bonos. 

3. 6eXe<9 §6 it-ri (po^eta-dai tyjV e^oua-lav ; So Liban. 
Or. 210 D. et 8e fxel^cou b (poQos r^y e^ouo-Zay. Tacit. 
Agric. 9- ubi officio satisfactum, nulla ultra potes- 
tatis persona.* 

4. 0eoG yap 8<a/covos* ecrri aoi ely to ayct^ov. This 
suggests another reason why we should be subject 
to the power, not only as being the minister of God 
to us, but as appointed by God ybr our own good. 
For in the last words rests (as Koppe observes) the 
force of the sentence. By good, the Commentators 
remark, is meant good, both natural, civil, and 
moral. (See Pole.) Aiolkqvos is used as T^-eirovpyo) ©eou 
at ver. 6. Here Wets, aptly cites Plut. 63 d. v-nr-ripe- 
(Tiav fieoS TO ^aciXeueiv "t^youixevos, ocrye av/Vrvjo"*, kou ouk 
ed KeiaSai koli apyeiv rr\v iv (ro) TocraJrTjv Sj/caJocJvvjv. 
Philo T. 2. p. 200, 46. QeoO yap uirrioerai Trgoy reKvcov 
iTTTopav ol yoveTy o 8' UTrri^tTriv anixd^cov, (ritvaTiixd§€i koI 
Tov dp^ovra. Grot., too, quotes Seneca Ep. 73: Er- 
rare mihi videntur qui piitant Philosophiai fideliter 
deditos contumaces esse ac refractarios et contemp- 
tores Magistratuum ac Regum, eorumve per quos 
publica administrantur. E contrario etiam nulli ad- 
versus illos gratiores sunt, nee immerito : nullis enim 

* i. e. " he threw oft' the mask of power." There seems to be an 
allusion to the masks which tlie tragic actors wore, when icpresent- 
ing the characters of kings and great personages. 


plus pi'cTstant qiiam qiiibus frui tranquillo otio licet. 
Itaqiie hi quibus ad propositum bene vivendi aditum 
confert seciiritas publica, necesse est ut auctorem 
hujus boni, ut parentein colant. And he remarks : 
" Sicut hac in re Magistratus multum sapientibus 
prosunt, ita et sapientes, prsecipu^ Christiani, pluri- 
mum Magistratibus. Nam multos corrigendo, et 
meliores reddendo etiam quam Leges humanae prae- 
cipiunt, detrahunt ilHs magnam severitatis materiam, 
efficiuntque ut placidius imperent " 

4. ou yap et/o) TTr)i/ (txap^ajgav (^opei. Grotius observes 
on the litotes in ej/crj, i. e. gravl de causd. By hear- 
ing the sword is meant having the power of life and 
death ; which was represented by the Roman ma- 
gistrates being girded ivith the sivord, or having it 
carried before them : * a custom which is partly re- 
tained in modern times. See Grotius, who refers to 
Tacit. L. 3.,t and says that in the Rabbinical writers 
frequently occurs the expression Rex,qui portat gla- 
dium. It must be remembered that decapitation was 
the most frequent capital punishment, and that often 
performed (as is usual in Germany) with a sword. 
A very striking plate representing this mode of exe- 
cution may be seen in Johnes's Froissart. 

"E/cotKos", an avenger. For 6 iKliKuiv. (See at 2, 5.) 
Thus in 1 Thess. 4, 6. the Lord is said to be the kKhKwv 
Travrwv tqutcov, the punisher of all such. The word 
also occurs in the Greek Translators of the Old Tes- 
tament, (See Schl. Lex. Vet. Test.), and in Aristaeus 
and Cheroboscus, cited by Wetstein. The e\s ooytiV 
Koppe accounts as redunclant. But that is certainly 
not the case. The words have much meaning; 

* So Sueton. Galb. 11. (cited by Wets.) : Iter ingressus est palu- 
datus, ac dependente a cervicibiis pugione ante pectus, ncc prius 
usum togae recuperavit, quJim oppressis, cpii novas res nioliebantur. 

t To which 1 add Liban. Ep. 1048. where it is said that a good 
and mdd king will rejoice, d to h'<poi ufiyoi. Philostr. V. Ap. 7> 16. 
Tovs rh iifi] (peporras. & Vit. Soph. 1, ^5, 2. btKaarov yap be'iffdcu 
^i<pos exoyras. Herodian.3, 11. 4. Trapi](l)pi]-o re ai/rw ^(^os. Plli- 
lostr. V. pp. 4, 42. e^' w to U(pos 7iv, qui ])Ta:tor ercit. 


though they are somewhat inelegant in their present 
position ; and for that reason they were omitted by 
some antient librarii, (as in the Cod. Cant.) ex 

5. Sio avayKTi u7roTa<ro"e<rSa» — (rovei^r^criv. It is not 
necessary to press on the sense of avayK-rj (as is done 
by some early Commentators). The necessity (as 
Hardy observes) is not absolute^ but hypothetical, 
(compare Matt. 18, 70> or, as Schl., in his Lex., 
explains, necessitas, ijuce est e nexu reriim humana- 
rum inter se invicem, et ipsa naturci humand. It is 
therefore better to render it, with some Commenta- 
tors, oportet, KaBy]Kov ea-ri. Indeed it is to be re- 
garded as a popular phrase ; q. d. (as Hardy para- 
phrases) : " if you are impressed with any reverence 
towards God, or regard for your own tranquillity and 
safety, it is necessary for you to be under subjection 
to them." Koppe thinks the expression is equiva- 
lent to SeT ouv uTToraiTcrea-bai. And Wets, refers to 
Hebr. IG, 23. and Matt. 18, 7- Nor is this merely an 
Hellenistical use. Grot, compares the Sophoclean 
ap-)((ivr€s aa-iv, aiVre uVei/creov. And Wets, cites seve- 
ral examples of avay/c-^ from Plato and Xenophon. I 
add Soph. Ql^d. Col. 605. on a-Cf)' ava.yKr} rfjOe TrT^riyrjuai 
^Qovi. See also Carpzov. The thing is, indeed too 
plain to need any further illustration. So that it is 
surprising some eminent Tiieologians and Critics, as 
Luther and Michaelis, should favour the reading 
avayKYi vTrorda-a-ea-Qe, which is objectionable, both on 
the score of propriety of language, and correctness of 
doctrine. Neither is it supported by any authority. 
For the reading uTrorao-o-eo-Se without avayKXi, in some 
early MSS. and Fathers is evidently a paradiorthosis. 
The Vulg., indeed, supports the interpretation of 
Michaelis : but its authority is not so great as to alter 
the state of the case. 

The obedience here inculcated is manifestly poli- 
ticaly and not religious. And this is all that seems 
necessary to be kept in view. (See the Commenta- 
tors.) The words following suggest the motives 

ROMANS, CHAT. Xlll. 145 

for tliis obedience, namely, not only ^la rr^v opyrjvy 
out of dread of the penalty incurred, but also for 
conscience sake. And here again we have a 'popu- 
lar mode of expression, deviating from the Classical 
use, but of which the sense would seem too obvious 
to need any explanation, were it not necessary 
to so paraphrase cruveih. as to shew the connexion 
betw^een this and the following verse. Now tJi'is, I 
conceive, is most successfully traced by Theopliyl. 
Ii39' as follows.' A vayKr] 67roT6i(r(r€a'Bai, ou ^xo'vovTva /X6 ttci- 
poicrBrj^ rrj 9 pyr}^ kol) tou 0€oy ko.) to-j ct&p/ovroy, aJ9 uttci- 
07]y, Koi Ko7^aT^-r^9 a^pogTjra" oKha. Kai i'va ^rj do^r^s' afru- 
veiOr^To^ eivoii Kai ayv(u^(uu irepl rou (vepyeTrjV. Kuepye- 
roucri yup ol ap^ovre^ fxeyaXcoS' ray TroAeiy" 8<a yao avrcov 
b /3/oy TjjaoJv (ruvlcrraTai' Ka) e'iye fxri r^trav^ Travra dv 
torero, rdtv OuvarcoTepmu rouf acr^evecrepouy KuraTrivou- 
Tcov. 'H <Tov€i^r^(ri's (rou toivuv, (firjor), 7re»0e'ra) (re ri^av 
Touy TO. ToiauToc Ka7\.a ^api^Q'xevous <roi. 

The exalted principle of acting for conscience 
sake, and not merely from fear of penal statutes, 
was not unknown (in theory at least) to the Hea- 
then piiilosophers. Thus Wets, compares Hor. Ep. 
1, If), 5*2. Oderunt peccare boni ir/V-/z///Aa/«ore : Tu 
nil admittis in te formidine poena? Democr. Sent. 
Mv] 8;a (po|3ov, aXXa S»a ro Oeov aTre^ecBai ^pecuv arxaprrj- 
jXccTcov. Aristot. Eth. 10. lilt. oJ yap vreCjiuKafri ai^oT 
Trei^up-^eiv, aXka (Po|3(o, ouo' aTe^6O"0a; rritv (^olu'Kwv dia 
TO uKT^pov, aAAa 8ia ray nixcopia^. See also Cic. 
Parad. 5. 

It is well observed by Hardy, thatfromtliis passage 
it is certain that human laws, legitimately enacted, 
are not only binding in foro externWy but in foro 
conscientice et Dei, and not only bind the trans- 
gressor lo punishnientj hut to blame.'* Tlius trans- 
gression becomes not only a breach of law, but a sin. 

6. hia. TouTo yap Ka\<popou9 reTiclre. The connexion, 
and the real force of the yao (wiiich has not, I think, 
been distinctly seen by our modern Commentators), 
seems to have been correctly laitl down by Theopliyl. 



on the former verse, whom see. The first yap 
refers to their high usefulness ; the second yap sub- 
joins an additional reason, namely, that they are 
appointed by God to a ministration which is, upon 
the whole, highly beneficial to men. 

It is certain that the words ely auro toGto (as all 
the ancient Commentators, and also many modern 
ones of note are agreed), must be referred, not to the 
antecedent <$)o^ouy xeAeTv, but to the T^eiroupyeiv, which 
is comprehended in T^eiroopyoL This, indeed, is so 
clear, that I am surprised Koppe should have re- 
vived a mode of interpretation which could only 
have arisen from ignorance, or wilful misrepresenta- 
tion ; namely, that of referring els* auro toOto to the 
TO reXelv, i. e. for " they are continually attending to 
the collecting of the taxes ;" which involves an absur- 
dity : for that would be no reason why we should pay 
them. Besides, it compels us to take (with Koppe) 
"keirouQ^yoi ©eoG for the tax-gatherers — dropping 0eoG ! 
All which is so harsh and contrary to the context, 
and so much at variance with every principle of 
sound interpretation, that it deserves not a moment's 
attention. And be it observed, that the word tt^oo-k. 
is much too strong a term to be employed of merely 
collecting tribute : whereas, on the common inter- 
pretation, it is very suitable. Thus in Acts 1, 14., 
and Col. 4, 2. we have tt^oo-k. t^ Trpoa-eit^fi, and 2, 42. 
TTgocK. TYj BiSap^v and Acts 6, 4. Trpoa-K. tyj ^laKovla 
Tou Xoyo^j. That it is a very strong term is also ap- 
parent from Ephes. 6., 18. €\s auro tooto aypuTrvovvres 
iv Trao-y] 7rpo(rKaprfpri<r€i, where there is the same con- 
struction as in the present passage. And Koppe on 
that place himself admits that the words are put 
for aypo7rvouvT€9 Ka) wqoa-Kaprepoijvres. I should not 
have thought it worth while to dwell so long upon an 
interpretation manifestly unfounded, had it not sup- 
plied a petty hold to infidel cavillers, from which to 
level the shafts of their puny ridicule at the vene- 
rable Apostle. 


Aeirovpyo? is a very strong term, properly denot- 
ing (as Schleusner, in his Lex., observes), persons 
who were obliged, either by their own tribe, or the 
people at large, to perform certain pubHc forms of 
worship, or at their own expence to supply the wants 
of the state, and, in a case of necessity, undertake 
all the most burthensome and irksome offices in the 
state, yield up their property, nay, even their life 
and blood, to promote the welfare of the state." 
For the etymology and Scriptural application of the 
word, see the note on Luke 1, 23. It is almost un- 
necessary to observe, that without the faithfid and 
conscientious payment of taxes, the ends of the Aet- 
Tou^yioc. in question could never be attained. So 
Tacit. Hist. 4, 74. (cited by Koppe and Rosenm.) 
Nee quies gentium sine armis, nee arma sine sti- 
pendiis, nee stipendia sine tributis haberi queunt. 
And yet it is God's will and pleasure that such 
"KeiTovpyioLi should be performed ; and therefore it is 
h'is will that the taxes necessary to their support 
should be rendered. It is manifest, however, that 
this only applies to taxes legally imposed, and ne- 
cessary to the purpose in question. 

The student will remark the discrimination be- 
tween elo-TT^a^eiy and elcrcpopcov. As to the difference 
between the terms i^opos here, and t€%os at the next 
verse, it is not, indeed, of any importance to the 
doctrine, but it may be observed that, according to 
the opinion of the most learned Philologists and 
Antiquaries, (^opos and (^opai denoted the land tax 
and tlie capitation tax, and are nearly the same with 
the KT^i/o-oy at Luke 20, 21., where see the note. 
The reX-rj were the vectigalia, and the customs levied 
on the imports and exports. In illustration of which 
Koppe aptly cites Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. <l>ogoyff 

TTCLVTcov Treipco^e&oi, <f)€p€lV. 

7. aTToSore ouv wafTi ray ocpetXay. The word 6<pei'kr\ 
is a general term, and may denote whatever is due ; 



and this both in a physical and moral sense. Here 
it denotes both ; as appears from the words following, 
which are exegetical. It is plain that at rS some 
participle must be understood. I prefer, with Koppe, 
aWovvri. Others take tw for w, and supply o<^e/A6re. 
But this seems too arbitrary an ellipsis. 

By (po0o?, Koppe observes, is meant the reverence 
due to a superior ; by t»]ui,i^, the offices of respect to 
equals. And certain it is that tj]xt^ is used not only 
of equals, but of inferiors. (See Schl. Lex.) yet 
here the Apostle has only in view governors, who, as 
respects their station, are superior to the governed. 
I am inclined to think that the words in question are 
only two terms expressive of the same thing, though 
in different degrees ; (polios' denoting the reverential 
homage due to Kings, and principal rulers ; rifxri, the 
respect due to all who are in authority. This seems 
preferable to fancying certain distinctions in the 
words, which it would be difficult to prove ; such as 
that imagined by Doddr. and some early modern 
Commentators, who take (po^os to denote the inward 
disposition; and tj/xt) the external behaviour pro- 
ceeding from it. 

Mr. Weston here compares the following elegant 
passage of Soph. Antig. 886. Kparos S' orio k^oltos 

8. /xTjSevi /xrjSev ©(pe/Xere, el ju-t^ to ayonrav aXXTjXoyy. 
The Apostle takes occasion, from the word o(p6jXa$«, 
to pass from what respects the political law to that 
which regards morals; and shows that these precepts, 
as they had been before Moses', so now also did they 
remain, but with the glorious supplementa of the 
Christian dispensation. (Grot.) The injunctions 
concerning the duties towards Heathen magistrates 
terminated at ver. 7. ; and in the present and fol- 
lowing verse the Apostle proceeds to treat of the 
mutual offices and duties of Christians one towards 

The general scope of the sentence is indeed plain ; 


but some doubt has been raised respecting the exact 
sense, and this has arisen from tlie word o(p6/xere, 
vvliicli some ancient and modern Interpreters, as 
Ar. vers., De Dieu, Koppe, and Rosenm., take in the 
indicative, and render thus : " Ye owe nothing to 
any one, except mutual benevolence ;" i. e. the whole 
circle of your duties is comprehended in mutual 
benevolence. But this I cannot but consider very 
harsh, since the Apostle is here occupied with ?w- 
junctions and the Imperative is several times used 
both in the preceding and the following verses. The 
common mode of interpretation is supported both by 
the ancient and by most modern Interpreters, and is 
very well made out by Theophyl. as follows. Tay ^h 
aXkas o'cpetXas" aTrodorf ]u,>]SeVoTe 8e tt^v aya.7ry\v oltto' 
Souvaj QeXr^crere, aTOC aei o^7^rj[xa aurrlv €)(^er€ 8»ryve/cfy. 
Mt) yap i7r€idr} <rrjfX€^ov ayawr^riKriv cTreod^co ^idQea-iv 
Trpoy Tov 7r7^ri(riov, voixi(rj]s aTroTrT^T^pooTai ty^v ocJieiXT^i/, Koi 
8ia TOUTo Trapififi^ aorov abpioV aAAa Otr^vf/cw? vofxi^e T7]v 
ctyaTTvjv -^pecoa-relv rco ttXtjo-Zov. So also Carpzov : 
" This charity (which Photius calls the mother of 
the virtues) l^aul here describes as a continued debt, 
which is ever being paid, and yet is always owing, 
and is never quite discharged in this life.''^ Tills 
passage has been thus elegantly imitated by Augustin 
Ep. 62. '* Semper debeo charitatem, quae sola, etiam 
reddita, detinet debitorem."'}- 

* " Other debts (says Grot.) are paid ofF, and therefore done 
away, but the debt of love is never discharged, but continues." 

Nor is there any reason to object to tlie seeming harshness of the 
e\prcssion, since (as Grotius observes) it is an acuti dictum, and 
must not be too much pressed upon. 

t And also by Milton, Parad. Lost, 4, 55. (cited by Wets.) as 
follows : 

" A grateful mind 
By owing owes not, and still pays, at once 
Indebted and discharged." 
With this divine doctrine of Christian Charity, one may contrast 
the misanthropic spirit of the most Heathen writers, of which there 
is a curious instance in an Epigram from the Anthol. 1, 1 5, 6. (cited 
by Wets.) evbainojv irpMrov /.uy 6 ntjbeti fjtjbey o^et'Xwv* elra b' u 

^t) yt'lflCHt' TV TplTOP 6(TTIS UTTOtS. 


8. yap ayaTTwv tov €T€qov, voikov 7r€7ry\.irjpcoK€. By 
the other is meant tov TrXi^Vtov : for trepoVj anothevy 
means any other person with whom we have any sort 
of connection : and so St. Paul here explains : tov 
TT'hrfia-iov, one's neighbour. Indeed a greater than St. 
Paul, in his inimitable parable of the good Sama- 
ritan, has taught us to thus extend the signification 
of €76/50?, making thereby the command as unhmited 
as the benevolence of the Deity, and co-extensive 
with the sphere of human action. 

Here it is as unnecessary to point out the supe- 
riority, in this respect, of Grecian over Pharisaical 
ethics, as it is for me to prove that the word in this 
sense is frequent in the purest Greek Classics, that 
point having been already established, beyond the 
reach of controversy, by the erudite labours of Ra- 
phelius on Matt. 5, 43. See also some long and 
learned illustrations of this idiom in the notes to the 
celebrated " Spital Sermon" of a late venerable and 
most eminent Scholar, p. 43. 

ne7rA'J5pa)Kehas the sense o^ implere solet. Schleus. 
renders : " omnia officiorum genera aliis praestate, 
maxim^ officium mutui amoris." By the vojtxov is 
meant the law in general ; not, as it is understood 
by some Interpreters, that which respects our neigh- 
bour only. 

9. ro yap' OJ |xot;^euVe<S', &C. At to yap there is 
an idiom, in tracing the nature and force of which, 
Commentators are not quite agreed. The early In- 
terpreters regard it as put for oVt. But the more en- 
lightened views of construction, developed during 
the last two centuries, have shown this to be erro- 
neous. Camerar. and others think it is put oei/cTi/ccoy, 
as the article neuter frequently is. But surely there 
is nothing of Se/^iy here. There is, I conceive, an 
ellipsis of some word, which I would supply, with 
Koppe, by yeypa^iuevov. Thus we have [a clause in 
the place of a noun. 

The Apostle, it may be observed, has not arranged 
these commandments in the order in which they stand 


either in the Hebrew, or the Greek versions ; though 
(as Koppe remarks) he follows the latter rather than 
the former. See Mark 10, 19. Luke 18, 20. Koppe 
refers to Fabr. Bibl. Gr. 4. C. 4. p. 110 seqq. I 
would add that a passage, similar both in construc- 
tion and sentiment, occurs in Philo Jud. 749. aXka 

TuuT-ri. Philo there refers to the second ov prohibitory 
Pentad of the Decalogue ; the idiom is frequent in 
the best Greek writers. 

The words oj \}/6uSofA,apru§r](r€/s' are not found in six 
uncial, and several other MSS., and have been can- 
celled by Griesbach, though not, I think, on good 
grounds. The number of MSS. which have them 
is very small, compared with that of those in which 
they are not found: and the Homoiteleuton suggests 
an obvious reason for the omission ; though not, 
perhaps, to such an extent. And it is true that one 
may account for the introduction of the clause, as 
well as for its omission. But if it had been intro- 
duced, it would, I think, have been in another place. 
For after otj KXexI/ej? it would seem that ou/c eTri^ujutTjVe/s* 
ought to have followed : and so the Librarii re- 
moved the irregularity by cancelling the clause. To 
such petty niceties, however, our Apostle pays little 
attention. After all, the question is of no great im- 
portance, since the prohibition, if not expressed, 
cannot but be understood, being included under the 
comprehensive words Koi el tis irepot. kvroT^ri. 

9. /cat e'/ ris irepcc kvroT^ri, " and whatever other 
commandment there may be." On this idiom I 
have before treated at Mark 11, 25., and I would 
here add an example from Artemid. 3, Q5. koi ehi 
aXko. In the words krepoi evroXv] there is a brevity 
frequent in the popular style : for any other must be 
understood with the limitation, " namely, of the same 
nature with those just adverted to," or *' connected 
with the duties which we owe to each other ;" as, 
for instance, to honour our parents. 

9. kv rouTo) Ta> "Koyta ava/ce^aAa»oGra<, &c. The 


verb avaK€t^. signifies properly to cast up an account, 
reckon up the items of it ; and, figuratively, to com- 
prise, as it were, under one head, comprehend in a 
small compass.* Aoyos has here the sense of *^1"1, 
yvciifxr}, seutentia^ general precept; as in Joli. 4, 37. 
Grot, observes that the Hebrew writers have the 
saying '* Lex tota in hoc ava/fe<paXatouTa»j Dilige 
Deum tota corde et tota anima atque substantia. 'f- 
And he adds that these precepts are also called by 
them the summae magnae. It is remarked by Chrys. 
that this love is the beginning and end of virtue, 
which has this root, this foundation, and chief head." 

The future tense is, by a Hebraism, put for the 
Imperative. With respect to the term tov wT^rio-iov, 
neighbour, it literally signifies he who dwells near us :;{; 
but (as Grot, observes), in the Mosaic law, it denotes 
one subject to the same law. In the Gospel, how- 
ever, the word has a wider acceptation, and com- 
prises every individual descended from our first 
parents, without any distinction of nation, manners, 
customs, religion, or race." In this sense, every man 
is the Christian's neighbour, and especially any one 
with whom he has to do in any way whatever. 

Koppe here reads, from some MSS., o-eaurov. But 
that seems a mere paradiorthosis. The common 
reading is supported by the use of the best writers. 
See Porson on Xenoph. Anab. and Matth. Gr. Gr. 

By loving one*s neighbour as oneself is, I conceive, 
not meant that we should love him as much as our- 

* The force of the term is copiously illustrated by Wets, from the 
best Greek writers; ex. gr. Aristot, aura to. livayKuia uvitKecpa- 
\aLOVf.iivoi. Galen. avyK€(j)a\aiu)(ras eU ev iiirapra ra Tvpoeiprjficya. 
Thiicyd. 6, 91. TroWa Trapeis to. fieyiara KecpaXaiuxrw. Glossar. 
Scaligeri cWace^aXat'wCTts, repetitio. Hesych. c'lj'a/v.e^aXatovroi, CTi/yu- 

De Dieu (from Hesych.) explains the at'ctKecpaXcuovrai by dra- 
Xafiftaperai, and he subjoins tTravaXj/i/zis, eriXoyos. But that is 
merely the rhetorical sense, which does not here apply. 

t So also R. Akiba (cited by Koppe) ^Min '?'73 legis est in his 
Levit. 19, 18. Diliges proximum luum, sicut tc ipsum. 

X So Prov, 3, 29. " Devise not evil against thy neigh')our, seeing 
lie dwclleth securely by thee." 

ROMANS, CHAP. Xlll. 153 

selves,* but in (he same manner^ though not to the 
same degree, as we love ourselves.-f- And this is 
confirmed by the words following, which seem to be 
exegetical, and meant to shew the nature of" this 
Jove ; namely that we should be as careful to avoid 
injuring him as we would of injuring ourselves. 
Now this is not impracticable, and may therefore 
be justly expected of us. And let it be remembered 
that no one can commit a crime without injuring his 
neighbour. For, as Aristot. Nic. Eth. 9, 8. p. 413. 
(cited by Bulkiey) observes, Tov Se iJ.o^Srif,ov oJ 8e? 
37^a\J/ei yao Koi iaurov, Koi Touy TreXay* (^auXoty 7rdQ€<nv 

10. 7) ayoarri r<p 7r7^7}(nov kolkov ovk epya^eroti. This 
is (as I before observed) exegetical of the preceding. 
Here (the Commentators remark,) we have abstracts 
for concretes, q. d. " He who loveth another doth no 
harm to him," &c. But it may very well be under- 
stood thus : " Love, i. e. (the love here enjoined) con- 
sists in not injuring any one." And true indeed it is 
that a great part of the love we bear to our fellow- 
creatures is only required to be shown by not injur- 
ing them : which will often operate as a positive be- 
nefit. Some eminent Commentators, however, 
maintain that more is here meant than is expressed, 
namely, that there is included an admonition not to 
stiver our neiglibour to be injured. And certainly 
to suffer him to be injured, and do nothing to prevent 
it, is a sort of injury. Others, again, think there is 
a meiosis, by whicii is also to be understood bene- 
fitting and doing good. J 

* Which would be contrary to nature. So Aristid. oi/xai tov 
^vaet TrdtTiv aydpu'Trois (TV/JijSeftijKdros iiv ovru) H' tan fxrjbeva iavrov 
ftuXXoy <^iXeti'. 

t So Cajetan and Estius ap. Pole, who explain: " Eo mndo quo 
diligi? teipsum ; hoc est, amore aniicitiae, quod est velle illi bonuni, 
honestum, utile, delectabile, propter ilium, non propter te, sicut vis 
tibi '.j)si htec bona propter teipsum." 

X And in this view Mr. Slade observes, that " the principle of love 
extends much farther than not wjuring, and necessarily leads to the 
active and universal exercise of benevolence." 

The sense of the passage is thus ably discussed by CrcUius : ^' Quod 
si quis dicat, logcni non tantum prohibcre nc proximo nialcfacia- 


10. 7r7.7Jp(oiJ.oL oSv V01J.QU >)' ayaTrr}. The sense of these 
words is not in itself quite determinate. They may 
signify (as some early modern Commentators inter- 
pret) that * love is the end and scope of the com- 
mandments respecting our neighbour ;' or (as others 
explain) that in ' love consists the fulfilment of the 
law ;' which latter interpretation seems to be more 
agreeable to the words preceding. " Hence (ob- 
serves Koppe) the same precept is by St. James 2^ 8. 
styled the vo^oy ^a(rt7\.iKos, and by St. Paul, 1 Tim. 1, 
5., the reXos* tt^? errotyyeX/ay." It is remarked by 
Theophyl. and the other Greek Commentators, that 
the Apostle shows both kinds of virtue to be inherent 
in charity or benevolence ; namely the abstaining 
from evil, which is implied in kukov oCk epya^erai, and 
the doing of good, as indicated in Tr'kr^pcoiKa ouv vo/xoy 13 
ayccTTT] ; for okoKT^r^pov Karophoi kv T^'pTv r7]V aperrjv, tt^v 
8kx Toy vojxou h€iKvu[x€vriv. The TrXv^^fo/xa, (Carpzov ob- 
serves,) is meant to indicate that the substance and 
sum of the precepts of the second table consists in 
love towards our fellow-creatures. 

11. Koi rouro, elSorey rov Kaipov. The Apostle now 
passes to the third part of the Chapter, in which is 
contained a general admonition to true holiness of 
life, and the laying aside of certain vices which he 
has both here, and in the preceding chapter, repre- 
hended. (Crell.) 

In order the more to excite and confirm their zea- 
lous observance of the virtues which he had thus far 
enjoined, the Apostle adds this new reason, that the 
return of Christ to the earth, and the blessings he 
will bring with him, are events not far distant. Now 
this holiness of life, and abstaining from evil, is com- 

mus, sed jubere ut benefaciamus : respondemus, haec bona quae 
proximo exhibere debere jubet, in eo tacitfe contineri, ne illi male- 
faciamus. Ea enim tantum bona lex proximo exhibere jussit, quae 
nemo nisi odio ductus alteri denegare potest, quseque talia sunt, ut 
in eorum denegatione malum proximo inferatur. Quo circa chari- 
tas ejusmodi quoque bona aliis prsestanda a nobis exigit ) quando- 
quidem et denegatio eorum malum continet, et non nisi ab iratis 
et odio flagrantibus hominibus, vel saltern qui omnem humanitatis 
affectum exuerunt, proficisci potest." 


pared to the conduct of men who are placed, as it 
were, in the broad day-light, and view of their fellow 
creatures, and are therefore held in moral restraint 
by such full observation : a similitude to be traced 
from the figurative use of light and darkness to de- 
note virtue and vice, common both to the Biblical 
and the Classical writers. See Ephes. 5, 8 and 11. 
1 Thess. 5, 4 and 5. 1 Pet. 2, 9. Matt. 25, 1—11. 
Joh. 3, 20 and 21. 1 Cor. 6, 8. Comh. Hebr. 10, 
25. (Koppe.) 

Here there are inculcated the duties of Christians 
towards themselves^ to the end of the chapter. The 
transition is indicated by the words Kai roGro. 

The Greek Commentators, with less than their 
usual judgment, apply the words solely to the virtue 
of charity, just before enjoined. But certainly (as is 
rightly observed by Crellius) they belong, not to the 
words immediately preceding (at which the Apostle 
had made a kind of digression) but to the whole of 
the Apostle's exhortation, in which had been pre- 
scribed the various virtues and duties of Christians, 
especially a non-conformity to this world, which in- 
dulges in various kinds of carnal pleasures, and the 
living in peace and harmony with all." 

The Greek Commentators and the early modern 
ones have not well seen the force of the formula koli 
toOto. Some, as De Dieu, and Carpzov, take it ab- 
solutely, in the sense of quocirca. This, however, 
seems precarious. Others more rightly consider it 
as elliptical, and supply ^roieTre; and by this under- 
stand "this especially'' So Grot., Hardy, Koppe, 
and also Theodoret, who explains it by ftaAiora. 
Traces of this idiom are, if I remember, found 
in the Classical writers. There is a similar ellipsis 
in Corinth. 6, 8. and Hebr. 10, 25. koI Toa-ourui jtxax- 
Xov, oG-fo 3Ae7reTe €yyl§ov(rav ttju rj^ae^av. Hammond 
would supply iLoXkov ocpe/Xere; and Carpzov TrapaKoCkw, 
from ch. 12. 6. But these subauditions seem some- 
what precarious. 


Some modern Commentators, as Koppe, regard 
one or other of the words Kai^ov and cnpa as pleo- 
nastic : which, however, seems rather uncritical. 
I prefer, with the generality of Commentators, to re- 
gard Kuipov as signifying opjwrtiinitas, tempus oppor- 
tunum. Rosenm. renders : '* considerantes quale 
jam sit tempus, qualis opportunitas." Now this is 
meant to suggest that the time is critical, as being 
short, and hence whatever is to be done must not be 
delayed. So elsewhere, '* Behold now is the ac- 
cepted time ; now is the day of salvation." Of the 
phrase, elSeva* tov Kaiplv Wets, adduces examples 
from Plutarch and Libanius. Koppe, too, compares 
Plato Apol. Socr. aKka yap Tj^t} wpcc uTnevai, €[j.o) jotev 

The words on copa, &c. seem to be exegetical of 
the preceding. 

11. oTi wpa. 1^1x5.9 T]^Yi e^uTTVou iyep^^vai. The wpa is 
well rendered by our English Translators " high 
time." The phrase i^ uttvoo iye^Srlvai is thought by 
Grotius to be a military allusion, such as the Apostle 
frequently uses. And he compares the Horatian 
" nunc excitatur classico miles truci." I cannot, 
however, here recognise any such. The verbs ex- 
citare and eyelpea-^ai are, by the Greek and Latin 
writers, used generally of being roused from sleep. 
In uTTVoo there is another metaphor. The sleep 
meant is that of negligence, security, ignorance, vice, 
and sin in general.* So Theophyl. 131. Zei Y^jutay ck 
Tou VTTVOU rr\s paBufxias' eyep^rjvoii, Koi eivai eroijtxous' Trpoy 
TO. Trj9 avao-raa-ecop d^ei €pya. The force of the me- 
taphor is copiously illustrated by Crellius and Carp- 
zov, the latter of whom thinks that the expression 
denotes a knowledge of sound doctrine, and a vir- 
tuous and holy life. Certain it is that there is in- 

* Carpzov, however, does not here understand by vttvos the 
sleep of security and sin, since the Apostle is addressing himself to 
justified Christians, but remissum studiurn, indolence, as opposed to 
alacrity and ardour in the attaining a knowledge of the Christian 
religion and tlie will of God. 


volvecl in the Cttvou cyeoSrivai the being, as we sav, 
awake to a sense of duty, alert to a life of vigilance, 
prudence, virtue, and religion. 

The next clause suggests the reason for this : vdv 
yap iyyureoov, &c. In the interpretation of these 
words, Commentators are not a little divided in opi- 
nion. The most favourite notion for the last century 
has been, that a-corrjpia signifies the doctrine and know- 
ledge of salvation ; and that eyyur. has the figurative 
sense, " easier of comprehension, better understood 
by." An interpretation first promulgated by CreU 
lius, and afterwards espoused by Mackn., Rosenm., 
and Schleus. in his Lex. But though this may be 
admitted as no ill founded reason for the exhorta- 
tion, yet it seems somewhat frigid, and, what is 
more, the signification in question of eyyur. has never 
been established on any certain proof. For as to 
the passage of Rom. 10,8. iyyvs' a-oo to priy.a, it is 
not apposite ; since it is a quotation from the Old 
Testament, and the harshness of the Hebraism is 
softened by some accompanying adjuncts : which 
are not here found. 

Others, as Hammond, Whitby, Wells, Slade, and 
Valpy, suppose that the term alludes to the manifest- 
ation of Divine favour to the Gentiles, exhibited in 
the rejection of the Jews, which was soon to be illus- 
trated by the ruin of their city and polity, and which 
the Apostle had before represented as producino- 
a-MTTipla to the Gentiles. Thus rj (rcoTYjpia. will allude 
to the deliverance of the disciples from the persecu- 
tions of the unbelieving Jews, by the destruction of 
Jerusalem. (See Mr. Slade.) But this seems some- 
what harsh and precarious. 

Others, again, as Locke and Koppe, take t) a-mrripicc 
to mean the literal advent of Christ. And Koppe 
observes, that the Apostle, in order to excite his 
readers to the practice of the above virtues, adds this 
consideration, that the return of Christ to tiiis earth 
was not fiir distant ; an event which would be ac- 
companied with salvation to the righteous. He then 


refers to his 2d Excursus on Thess., to shew that the 
Apostle, by the wise permission of Divine Provi- 
dence, cherished the opinion and hope of Christ's 
speedy return. This, however, is liable to many ob- 
jections, which are ably stated by Whitby on 2 Thess. 
4, 15. and in his Discourse by way of enquiry, &c., 
added to his Annotations on 2 Thess. p. 488. et seq. 
Such an error cannot, surely, be supposed to have 
existed in an inspired Apostle. Besides, the opinion 
is contradicted by himself at 1 Thess. 4, 15. and 2 
Thess. 2, 1 and 2. Neither are we compelled to 
adopt any such interpretation here ; since, if the se- 
cond interpretation above detailed be not thought 
admissible, there is yet another, which, as it is the 
most antient, so, if I am not mistaken, it will turn 
out to be the best founded ; namely, that by a-corri- 
pia is meant the period of death, when every one's fate 
will be determined, and which to the righteous will 
be the commencement of eternal felicity. An ex- 
position espoused and ably supported by Taylor. 
This too, appears to have been the only one known 
to the antient Commentators. (See Chrys., &c.) 
The whole passage is well illustrated by Theophyl. 
as follows : 'ETrei^-i] el/coy rjv ev capyy^ fxkv rrjs 7rl(rr€cos' 
(TTTOD^onoTepovs' auTovs elvai, elra. Trpo'iovTOS roG ^povou 

fxeXTiOvr I aicov). %a)Tr]piav yap rourov a)VO]u,a<rej/ oltto too 
yp-^crrorepoo ovojxaroy* roTy yap ajU-agrcoXoTy ou <r«)T7]p/a, 

T^jxe^a, jtxaXXov €7nT€Via)[x€V Tr]V (nrov^riv. 

Here we must attend to the force of eTno-reuo/xev, 
which has been well illustrated by Grot. " IlKrrev-eiu 
(says he) is one of those verbs which sometimes 
denote action either in its commencement, progress, 
or conclusion. (See Exod. 4, 10. and Neh. 8, 3.) 
Here it must denote the commencement of action." 
Hence some Commentators also supply TrpdSrov : 
which, however, is not a legitimate ellipsis. The 
Syriac Translator renders, " than when we were 
converted to the Christian faith :" and Markland ap. 


Bowyer, ''than when we first made profession of our 

12. >3 j/y| 7rpo€Koyl/€v, &c. The Apostle continues 
the metaphor employed in the last verse: though 
the sense of vv§ and r;^epa must depend upon the 
mode of interpretation adopted in that verse ; either 
(as Mr. Turner observes) as understood of heathen 
ignorance and Christian knowledge, or, of human 
imperfection, misery, and wickedness, and future 
virtue and happiness. Mr. Slade (from Whitby and 
Macknight) interprets it, "the more glorious dis- 
play of Gospel light, which followed the signal over- 
throw of Jerusalem.*' The darkness and corruption 
(says he) both of the Jews and Gentiles, beino- 
thereby in a greater measure removed. Luke 1 78 
& 79. Acts 26, IS. Eph. 5, 8. 1 Thess. 5, 5. 1 Pet 
2, 9. 

IlgoeKo^f/ej/, '' is far advanced." The word TrpoKOTrrco 
signifies properly to cut fortvard, as in making a 
road through a wood : 2dly, to get forward: Sdly, 
to go forward, advance. An example of its use with 
vu| is cited by AVets. from Joseph. B. 4, 4, 6. r^y 
voKTos' TT^oKoTrrovG-Yi^. Thc coutcxt kcrc fixes it to the 
sense "far advanced." Thus Theophylact explains 
it, TT^oV TfXoy. See 1 Joh. 2, 8. Wetstein compares 
a similar metaphor of nox in Sanhedrim, fol. 104, 2. 
ad Thren. 1, 2. "Flevit propter noctem, i. e. prop- 
ter opera noctis." 

12. a7roGa;^eOa o6u ra epycx. tou (r/coroyy — ^coro^. In 
the explanation of this figurative phraseology the 
Commentators are not quite agreed. The chief 
question is, whether in oTrXa there is a notion of 
annour, for defence, or only of dress. The latter 
has been supported by Bcza, Beausobre, Koppe, 
Rosenm., and others. But it does not appear to me 
that any sufficient proof has been adduced of this 
use of the word. \^he former interpretation (which 
is supported by the antient Greek Commentators, 
and most modern ones), is, I think, the best founded! 
I cannot, however, approve of the refinements pro- 


ceeding upon an excessive pressing of this notion of 
armour, which have been introduced by Chrysost., 
Theophyl., Doddr. and Carpzov; refinements which 
seem not to have been intended by the Apostle. By 
the oTTAa Tou (^(liTos are meant (as Amnion observes) 
what are called, at 6, 13. the oVT^a ^iKaiocrvvr^s, 

13. OS ev T^fJ-epa eba-)(riiKovto9 TrepiTraTrjO-coixei/, " let us 
walk (i. e. live) decorously and decently, as men do 
who live and act in the day," i. e. in the full view of 
the public. This the Apostle illustrates by a refer- 
ence to those vices which were, in antient times, 
committed almost exclusively in the night. Of this 
sense of e-ja-^r^ixovco^ Koppe has given some illustra- 
tions. He recognizes in it a metaphor taken from 
the splendid garments worn by actoj^s. (See his 
note.) The word, however, seems to mean no more 
than " what has a good a-xy][xtx, what sits ivell iqwn 
the person^' and therefore becomes him. And here 
it is well observed by Theophylact, Ovo^v yao ourcos^riix.Qcrvvii]^ alnou, (69 Sc^aprioc' co<r7reg Koi €u(ryriixo(ruvr}9 
ou8ev coTO) Tfpo^evov, (V9 aperrj. 

As to the words following, kcoixoi^, [xeOai^, Koirais, 
and a(Tehyelon9t it is not necessary to anxiously dis- 
tinguish them. Though Wetstein says, " Kcoy.of 
gravius est peccatum quam fxeBr}, et €pi9 quam ^75X09, 
ergo et ko/ttj pejor quam aa-eT^yeicx." But it would 
be difficult to prove all this. They may better be re- 
g'di'ded as two classes of vices; the former, those of 
drunken revelry,* the latter that of unlawful ve- 
nery of every kind, and usually springing from the 
former. The words following, e^/Sj koi ^rfhco, will 
represent the effects which almost unavoidably result 
from both those vices. -{- See the illustrations of 

* The irwju. is explained by Theophylact, -a yiteru fxidr^s vat 
vfipeojs ^(Tfiara' 6 kcu itapoivia Xeyerai. 

f Among the other numerous Classical passages atlduced by 
Wetstein, in illustration of the revelry and obscenity of antient 
times, is a very witty one from Epichaimus/t\- wocjios tV Kwf^tos, Ik 


In Koirais KOLi ctTe'hy. the Syriac Translator seems 
to have recognized an hendiadis for concuhitu im- 
puro. Tlie latter expression, indeed, seems to be in 
some measure exegetical of the former; for, as The- 
ophylact observes, It is not Kolrrj that is forbidden, 
aAXa TO 7ropV€V€iv. 

14. olT^tC iuOua-aaSe rou K6piov 'I. X., i. e. "take 
upon you his manners, follow his example." A me- 
taphor derived a re vestlarid, or perhaps from the 
theatre. It is found both in the Hebrew, as ILUT, 
and in the best Greek writers. Carpzov refers to 
Pfochen de Ling. Gr. N. T. pur. § 118. Examples 
are adduced by Gataker in Cinn. L. 1. C. 9-, and 
also by Wetstein.* Ammon here renders, "induite 
potius mentem ver^ Christianam ;" and Mr. Turner, 
"become assimilated to the character of Christ." 
The phrase to put on Christ occurs, Schoettgen ob- 
serves, twice in the New Testament, and is used 
once theoretically, Galat. 3, 27,, and once practi- 

KUjiov 8' eyevETO Qvavia' €K be dvavias hlKr) yiver, CK biKrjS be Kara- 
biKT}. Carpzov, too, aptly cites Philo 192. ratrrpifiapyiif tolvvv >/ 
oirabos Ik (pvffeujs aicoXovdel avvovaias iibovjjfiafiap eKTOTZov, Kal 
otarpoi' civ€7ri(T)(€Toy, kciI Xiirray ctpyaXewrarjji' eiricpepovaa. "Gray 
yap viro oxj/ofayias Kctl ai:parov Kal TroWijs fieBris ayOpwTroi rrieaOio- 
aiv, ovKeri Kparely eavTwv bvvavraC irpos he ras epioriKus niseis 
£7r€iyu/.ieyot, KU)fxaS.ov(n Ka\ Qvpav\ov<n. I add, ^lian 6, I, r>)»^ 
aKoXaaTOv Koirrjy cnreiTraro. 

* As Lucian, Gall. 19« airobvaufieyos be ruy Uvdayopay, rua 
fi€Ty]f.i(pia(Tii} fier alruy ; Dionys. Hal. L. 11, 5. ovKeri fuerpui^oy' 
res, aWa Toy TapKvyioy tKe'iyov iKhvofueyoi. Liban. Ep. 956". Ta- 
cit. Ann. 15, 45. " Graeca doctrina ore tenus exercitus, animum bo- 
nis artibus non induerat.'' And 16, ^S. " Nisi proditorem palam et 
hostem induisset." The Commentators also cite Chrysostom, as 
noticing it to have been a common phrase in his time, to express 
great love of any one, and uninterrupted intercourse. But this is 
scarcely apposite, since that, in fact, imports no moie than our 
vulgar adage, Such an one is hand and glovetvith another. But there 
the idea is quite different with tiiat here meant to be inculcated 
by the Apostle, which only implies imitation of our Lord; as in Phil. 
2, 5. " Let the same mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus." 

In the numerous other passages cited by the Philological Coni- 
mentatoi's of eybverrOat, aTTobvetrdai, indiiere, exuere, there is no 
more than a slight allusion to conduct considered figuratively, as a 
dress. Nay our own use of habit is no more than this. 



cally, in the present passage. Carpzov remarks, 
that we j)ut on Christ in two ways : 1. In regenera- 
tion and justification, if we impute to ourselves, by 
faith, the innocence, righteousness, and obedience 
of Christ (Gal. 3, 2?.); also, if we be closely con- 
joined with him ; as in ver. 12. 'EvSuo-cojae^a ra ottT^ol 
Tou ^(joros. 2. In sanctijication., if we imitate the 
virtues, life, and manners of Christ, by the assistance 
of the Holy Spirit. So that it is the duty of Chris- 
tians to be (ruy.[x6p(poi rrj^ el/covos* rov ulou avrou, Rom. 
8, 29." See also Macknight, whose examples, how- 
ever, are not all of them apposite. 

14. Ka) T% (rapKos' Tpovoiav y,rj Troieiarbai ely e7nSu]ut,fas". 
It is not worth while for me to detail the harsh and 
forced interpretations of this passage which have 
been given by some recent Commentators, as Koppe. 
The common one is at once natural, and agreeable 
to the context, and is moreover supported by the 
authority both of the Greek Commentators, and the 
most judicious of our modern Interpreters. Nay 
even that innovating refiner Amnion acknowledges 
it to be the true one, and thus ably paraphrases the 
sentence : rrjs' Se <rapKos ^"^ ovtcos Trqovaeire, iW r^e^rjre 
ray eTrtQup-jay. Gal. 4, 16. Foventes sensum Christi- 
anum corporis vestri ita curam habete, ut to erri^o- 
y.rjTiKov semper pareat tm rjyeixoviKtp.'" It is manifest 
that by o-a^/coy is meant rov (ra}[j.ixT09 j and the ely de- 
notes the end of action. The sense then is, " Do 
not so make provision for tlie body as to gratify its 
lusts." The phrase Trpouolav Troielv is also used by the 
best Greek writers.* 

Koppe observes, that by ertQ. are here meant not 

* From whom Wets, adduces numerous examples ; as Anonym, 
pro Ai'istoniene* eyw (povevwy tovs avdearrjKOTas, kciI tov awp.a~os]v ivpivoiav, avbpelos u^a Ka\ avvervs. Dionys. Hal. A. V, 
4(5. Trpuvoicw ovhej-iiav rfjs envrov xpv^ijs Trcipa to j'lKav Troiovfiet-os. 
'Jhucyd. 6, 9. voj.d'Siov b^o'n>)s ayaOuy TroXiri^v elvai, os av Koi tov 
aw^UTOs re Kai Tfjs ovaias Trpoi'oJJTcti. Dio Cluys. p. 48S c. cTretra 
olfjiai Kai TOV (7wj.iaTOS heov Trou'iaarrdai Tira irpoi'Diav, €K ttoXXt/s kai 
fjvve-)(ovs raXatTTwpt'as otTretpjjKOT-os. So the Latin wiiters used the 
phrase curam habere. 


only vitia anlnuc, but the ipsafoc.ta externa, such as 
KwiJLoi, Kolrai, juieOaj, vcr. 13. This, however, seems 
to be refining too much. 'E;riGu/t/a is here used in 
a bad sense; as at 1 Pet. 4, 2 k 3. 1 Joh. 2, 16. and 
elsewhere. Nor is this sense confined to the Scrip- 
tural writers. So the word occurs in the following 
apothegm of Chr^'sippus ap. Athen. 337 a. Travrwv 
[xev TTficoTicrTa kuk-ov eTi^ixia. tVr). 

It may not be unedifying to compare the purity 
and spirituality of Christianity, with the bestial 
grossness of the Epicurean system. So the founder 
of it himself, as cited by Grot. : 06 yap eycoye e/^m 
Ti voTifTco T ayahov, ac^ajgwv [).€V ray Sjct ^u7<cov rj^ovay, 
a<paipcou 0€ rag (ti a^poOKTicov Kcu raj Oi' oi.Kpciaixa,Tcov Koi 
rocs' ^la ^op<^a9. 

It is evident from tiie words of the Apostle (and 
the Greek Commentators especially notice this), 
that he does not throw any hindrance in the way of 
a proper care of the body, but only forbids indul- 
gence in its lusts. For, as observes Theophylact, 
p. 133, ou'Oe dv €\'rj Trpovoiu T^oittov, orav rr^v <p7^oya avuTr- 
Tif}9, orav rYjV ^d[xivov ya\eirriv Troif^s. 'Ev ^^jrei [xovov, 
OTTws uyiaivoucrav tp^Vj? rr^u crapKa' Trepairepco ^e (xr^Oev 
Trepiepy da-fly cocrre ray €7ri^Jvixias aur7]s ava\!/ai, a?vXa 
Tracav rrjV a-TrouOrjV 7r€p) rd TrveoixariKa dvaXicKe. 

Whether the Apostle meant (as is thought by 
Rosenm.) to advert to the ascetic notions of the 
Essenes, who regarded the body as a prison or clog 
to the mind, and to be treated with every sort of 
harshness and severity, is somewhat doubtful, since 
such opinions were almost wholly confined to Pa- 
lestine. If the Apostle had any farther purpose than 
that of general exhortation, he may, as writing to 
Romans, be rather supposed to advert to the dogmas 
of the Stoics. 


The third sccCion of the practical part of this Epistle treats of 
various duties, pricutc and civil, to lie peifomied iu daily intercourse. 


especially towards those who, not fully satisfied as to the abrogation 
of the ceremonies which had been formerly instituted in the Mosaic 
Law, do not in this respect evince faith, but hesitate concerning the 
eating of certain foods, and the regarding of times. Then he shows 
the use of Christian liberty in things ixecrois and abuKpopois, things 
indifferent. Lastly, he subjoins an exhortation to the preserving 
concord both among Jews and Gentiles recently converted to Chris- 
tianity. This pFjcTLs occupies the whole of ch. 14, to the thirteenth 
verse of the following chapter. (Carpzov.) 

To the precept inculcating love one towards another, of which 
he had begun to treat, the Apostle subjoins an admirable corollary, 
highly necessary in those times and circumstances. Many Jewish 
converts were zealous of the complete observance, both by them- 
selves and others, of the moral precepts of Moses, nay even the ritual 
ones. Acts 15. These, then, were not well affected towards the Gen- 
tile converts, w ho observed not those rites. On the other hand, the 
Gentile converts, conscious of the liberty granted in the Christian 
Dispensation, wished to exclude the Judaizing Jews from commu- 
nion with them, 11, 18 & 21. Hence would have followed schism, 
which would have exceedingly impeded the progress of the Gospel. 
To prevent this evil, the Apostle takes a middle course, and recom- 
mends the Jewish converts to adhere to their own opinion, and yet, 
at the same time, not to charge with impiety those who thought 
otherwise. The Gentile converts he admonishes not to shun com- 
munion with their Judaizing fellow Christians, nor despise them as 
simple and dull of understanding. Great, indeed, was the stiuggle 
the Apostles had to maintain between these two classes ; in accom- 
modating themselves to which, sometimes to the one and sometimes 
to the ether, according to time and circumstances, and yet so as to 
reconcile both parties, they eminently displayed their prudence and 
philanthropy. (Grotius.) 

Of this third portion of the practical part of the Epistle Schoett- 
gen gives the following i)lan : 

"It may be distributed under three heads, in the first of which 
the JevLS in particular are addressed, ch. 14, 1 — 18 : in the second, 
the Gentiles ir» particular, 19—23: in the third, all of them at 
once, 14, 1 — 13. 

In ihe. first part we have, 1st, a Proposition : That no one is to 
be judged or condemned because of certain kinds of food, v. 1 & 2. 
2dly, Arguments, I) Because we are all servants of God, ver. 3, 4, 7, 
8, & 9. 2) Because every one ought to live according to his know- 
ledge, and the dictates of his conscience, ver. 5. 3) Because both 
may be done to the glory of God, ver. 6. 4) Because every one 
shall give account of himself to God, ver. 10 — 12. 5) Because no 
one ought to put a stumbling-block in his brother's way, v. 13 — 15. 
6) Because in the Christian Dispensation distinction between meats 
is done away with, ver. 16 — 18. hi the second part we have, 1st, a 
Proposition : That peace and edification is to be followed after, and 
no stumbling-block to be thrown in another's way, ver. IS & 19. 
2dly, Arguments; 1) Because meats are things too inconsiderable 
to deserve being made an occasion of offending others, ver. 19, 20, 


& 21. 2) Because every thing is to be done according to a con- 
science certain, not doubtful, ver. 2'2 & 2:3. In the third ])art we 
have, 1st, a. Proposition : That no one, wliethcr Jew or Gentile, 
ought to please himself, ch. 15, 1, 2, 7- 2dly, Arguments; I) From 
the examjile of Christ, vor. 3 & 4. 2) Because Ciod lovetli both the 
Jews and Geniiles, ver, S — 12. 3illy, A wish, ver. 5, G, & 13. 

Some Commentators, as Koppe (and indeed Carpzov), think that 
by the v:eak in faith are iiere meant those among the Christians who 
were attached to the severe discipline of the Essencs, and aljstained 
from flesh, either wholly or partially (i. e. on certain days). And it 
is well known that such kind of abstinence was not unusual both 
among the Jews, and also the Greeks and Romans, the former ])rac- 
lising it from religious scruples, the latter fiom j)hilosophical 
dogmas. See Porj)h. dc Abstinent. And this is further confirmed 
and illustrated by various jiassages of the antients adduced by Gro- 
tius, Carpzov, and Koppe; as Seneca Ep. lOS. Clem. Alex. Irom. 
1. 7. Philo ap. Euscb. Fr. Ev. 1. 8. fin. Philo S9-4 c. Joseph, in Vit. 
3. Clem. Alex. P<edag. 1. 2. Canon. Apost. 501. Orig. c. Cels. 4. 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4, 3. But all that Ko|)pe has proved is, that the 
Essenes may be here included, not that they were especialhj intended. 
For, as Morus (cited by Rosenm.) justly observes, tho>e on whom 
religious concord is here enjoined were persons who had united to- 
gether in one society, consisting both of Jews and Gentiks: and 
surely this concord did not depend upon the question, whether any 
one would chuse to disclaim this or that food, from philosophical 
opinions, but from the injunctions of the Mosaic Law." 'i'iie same 
learned Theologian further observes; " In N. T. libris ibi conti-a 
nierum Judaismum dici, ubi Judaica; Icgis vis in decejnendo de- 
lectu ciborum sublata dicitur, et ostenditur malfc agi, (]uod ea vis 
adhuc inculcetur Christianis, e contrario ibi contra opiniones Juda- 
ismo additas ; delectum ilium commendantes, dici, ubi defensio 
liujus delectus niti dicitur nugis et aEftctatione insignis sapientiae 
aut pietatis." 

The scope of the chaj)ter is well illustrated by Theophyl., as fol- 
lows : " JNlany of the Jewish converts, even after having embraced 
the Christian faith, still adhered to the observance with respect to 
meats, abstaining from the flesh of swine, since they as yet dared 
not entirely abandon the law. Then, that it might not be said they 
abstained only from swines' flesh, they abstained from every kind of 
flesh, and lived entirely npon herbs. Others again there were, fur- 
ther advanced, who, holding themselves bound by none of these 
observances, taunted those who practised the same. The Apostle 
therefore was apprehensive kst the more advanced, by unseasonably 
and injudiciously attacking the notions of the less advanced, should 
cause them to fall from the faith. He, then, wisely steers a middle 
course. For he does not venture to reprove the assailants, lest he 
should encourage the less advanced in their tenacious adherence 
to ritual observances ; nor, on the other hand, could he commend 
them, since he would thereby have rendered ihem the more vehe- 
ment in their opposition ; but he addresses an exhortation accom- 
modated to both parties." 


S. 8. By TOV aaS. the best Commentators understand 
one who is doubtful, or not fully persuaded of the 
propriety or impropriety of certain things in them- 
selves indifferent, and is not satisfied as to the liberty 
which Christianity allows in those cases.* JHcrris 
does not here signify the doctrine itself, nor the as- 
sent to it ; but a full persuasion of mind as to what 
is lawful, or unlawful : and the article seems to be 
put for aoTou. Theodoret w^ell explains rov ao-9. by 
TOV raT? vo^xiKCA^ 7rapaTrj^6(ri he^ou'kco^evov. 

JJpoa-Xafx^avea-^e is variously interpreted ; and in- 
deed it will admit two or three senses, any one of 
which would not be unsuitable here. Some explain, 
" receive into Christian communion and fellow- 
ship." Others, support, confirm ; since (say they) 
this verb, like ai/riXa/x|3aveo-9a<, may signify to lai/ 
hold hy the hand, and raise up any one when falling 
or sinking." This, however, may be doubted. Uporr- 
"kafx^oLveo-Qai signifies properly " to lay hold of, and 
draw any thing to us;" and as this generally implies 
protection, support, so here the first-mentioned in- 
terpretation, with the adjunct notions of protecting, 
cherishing, kindly treating, taking into familiar in- 
tercourse, &c., may, I think, represent the sense 
intended. The w-ord is used nearly in the same man- 
ner infr. 15, 7- There is also a kindred passage at 

Gal. 6, 1. KaTa^Tl§€T€ tov TQIOUTOV €V TTVfU^aTi TrpaoTYj- 

Toy. See also Ps. 27, 10. 64, 4. 73, 24. Sept. 

1. y-rj €19 ^iaKpi(r€i9 oiaTvoyKrycov. On the interpre- 
tation of these words Commentators are not agreed. 
Theophyl. (from Chrys.) explains : jav] hiaKpivoy.€voi 
iyri TYj acrdeveioc, Koi (rKav(^oLXi^oy.€Voi, ko.) \0yKrfx0l9 ttoT^- 
7\.o7s TaoaTTofxevoi' aXA' cog ao^Oev^ ovra Tracrrj^ SepoiTreias 
a^iodvT€s. llosenm. (from Knatchbull) renders : " ne 
in ipsius sententiam curiose inquiratis, eamque se- 

* Grotius, however, explains it : " Qui Christianismum quidem 
aniplexus est, setl non omnia a Clnisto, aut Spiritu ejus revelata 
pernoscit, pia-cipiife vcr5 niystcriuin illud quod septimo capita ape- 
rjre coepit Paulus." 


ver^ damnatis." AiocKpiueiv here signifies dijudkare', 
as in Matt. IG, 3. 1 Cor. 6, 5. Koppe regards the 
words as equivalent to aWw diaK^la-ew^ koI SjaAoyio-ixoG. 
OtJiers, however, as Slade and Turner, render : *' not 
with a view to tlie agitation of doubtful (juestions, 
or unprofitable useless discussions." All of these in- 
terpretations are suflficiently agreeable to the con- 
text ; but it is not easy to determine ivh'ich yields 
the truest sense, since the expression deviates from 
the general usus loquendl. The sense is probably 
best represented by Mr. Valpy : " bewilder him not 
in the discussion of abstruse and subtle controver- 

2. OS ju.ev TTiGTeCei ^ayeiv ttolvto., o 3e a. X. e. The 
Apostle now illustrates the thing by an example, 
and withal shows why he has gvcn the precept. 

The syntax oy juiev — o Se, for 6 jxev — 6 oe, or €h [xev 
trepos Se, deserves attention : on which, and its kin- 
dred phrase, see Matth. Gr. Gr. p. 419- and Viger. 
c. 11. It is chiefly found in the later Greek writers. 
An example from Polyb. is cited by Koppe. 

2. TTio-retjei <^ayeiv Travra, "is persuaded to eat, 
thinks he may eat." This seems an idiotical expres- 
sion. By TTavra is meant all meats without discrimi- 
nation, even those forbidden by the Mossic Law ; 
or perhaps, with a view to the opinions of the Es- 
senes, T^e^/i, as well as vegetables. Ammon thinks 
that there is here reference to the coinmon feasts 
mentioned in 1 Cor. 8, 4. seq., at which some, from 
a dread of partaking of meat which had been offered 
up to idols, abstained from all food but vegetables. 

S. ecblwv Tov jtxev ea-diovra. |u,tq e^ouQei/e/ro). At icrS. 
must be supplied Travra. 'EjouSeve/rw, "set at nought, 
despise, and account as superstitious." KpiveTco, for 
KaraKpivlra), " condemn as impious and unworthy 
of the favour of God." By Trpoa-eXaliero is n^eant, 
" has received him, accepted him, admitted him to 
the benefits of the Christian religion, without sub- 
jecting him to any restraints in respect of such ritual 


4. (TO ris fij KpivMV oCKKoT^iov olKerriv ; This seems 
to be a popular form of speech, equivalent to, " by 
what right dost thou pretend to exercise a privilege 
of judging another man's servant?" Yet examples 
of (T\) Ti9 el; occur in the Classical writers. 'AxXo- 
Tpiov is put (as Koppe observes) for aXkorpwj Kit^ioo. 
An example apposite in respect of the thing, as well 
as the expression^ is given by Wets, from Xen. de 
Rep. Ath. 1, 10. dv ri9 TUTTTj] Tov oKKorpiov SouXov, 
ypaC^as elvai Kara tov tutttovtu. 

As to the clause rep JS/oj Huplco o-rv^/cei rl TriVTej, 
Commentators are not quite agreed upon its sense. 
The best founded opinion seems to be, that the terms 
are judicial, and signify, the former to act rightly, 
or stand in judgment ; the latter to be in the wrong, 
delinquere, to fall in judgment. Now the phrase 
stamd in judgment often occurs in the Old Testament. 
Rosenm. explains the term a-rriKav '^ certus animi 
esse, persuasus de sua sententia, recte agere ; and 
7rl7rreiv,incertus errareJ" The sentiment is thus laid 
down by Koppe : '* Non est nisi Dominus ipse, qui 
possit eum absolvere aut condemnare." 

4. o-raQTjVerat 8e. This must be understood in sub- 
servience to the interpretation of the former clause. 
Locke renders it : " he shall stand in the family." 
But for this signification there is no authority. Ro- 
senm. takes it to mean, " his uncertainty shall be 
removed." This, however, is obscure and dubious. 
It must, I think, signify, " he shall stand fast, or 
shall be held free of blame, and not be punished."* 
(See Macknight and Koppe.) Ammon very well 
paraphrases it : *' neque enim is, qui se cibo quali- 
cunque pollui posse negaverit, propterea cadet sen- 
tentia ; potest enim Deus eum absolvere, vel sine 
legis Mosaicae observatione." 

Under ouvaro?, able, is also comprehended ivil- 
ling ; as elsewhere more than once in the Epistle. 

* So Carpzov understands the word, explaining, " consistet ac 
stabilietur ;" " Deus succurret imbecillitate, ut arijKi), stet ;" " God 
will not condemn him, nor permit him to fall so as never to rise 


So 11, S3. Suvaroy ya^ €<Tri o 0eoff ttuT^iv lyKevr^ltron 

5. OS lu-cv /fp/vet r^ixepav Trap' vj'fxepat/. Here the se- 
verer, or the laxer discipline of Christians in the 
observance of external rites is illustrated by another 
example, namely, as contained in distinction of dai/s 
as well as meats (such as the Sabbath, Passover, 
Pentecost, a-KrivoTr-riyiai, &c.)j vvhich some held holier 
than others, and maintained that on them there 
should be an abstinence from all work, and a devoted 
attention to the worship of God." So Theophyl. 
136. 'H(rav Tjves" VTjcrreuovrey, ^ ko.) tcov ^oi^eicov ocTre^o- 
fAevoi priTa9 rives ij/xfpay* krepoi 8e Travrore €(rbiovT€Sy 
o'» Kot.) KaT€Kpiuou Tous* vr](rT€uovTas. Hep) toutiov ouv cprj- 
criv, oTi dxXos aAXcoy Kplvei, Ka) a.^ioi<popov eVr» ro Trqay^La. 
Such is the common interpretation, which Koppe, 
however, deserts, and thinks that in ver. 5 Si Q. there 
is contained the same sentiment, (namely, concern- 
ing abstinence from food,) only a little altered. 
^' For (says he) in all the rest of the chapter there is 
no further mention of distinction of days, but, on 
the contrary, the Apostle often returns to the for- 
mer one, oi abstinence from flesh'' This reasoning, 
however, is scarcely conclusive. There is (as Ro- 
senm. observes) no cause why the Apostle should 
not, after interposing another admonition, revert to 
the former subject. As to what Koppe, however, 
says on the abstinence of Chvistians from hesh on 
certain days, it is confirmed by Theodoret, whose 
words are these : O't jutev yag ^iriveKcos aTrel^ovro rdov 
^pco^JLaroiV, ol oe kv'ias y^yJpo-s. Nay also by Chrysost. 
201, 33. evrauBa. 3e |xo< SoKeT r^fxepa koi Trep) vrirrreias aU 
ViVrecQaj. Kat yap eiKos* rwu vi](rT€x)ovTa)V Tivas tous [jltj 
VTiCrredovTas Kplveiv 8ir]V6/ccoy, r] koli ev rais TraoaTripi^G-ea-iv 
€iKQS €iva.i Tivas tovs pr]Ta9 Tifxepas ocTre^oixevooS) Koi 
pTjTay €)(^a[ji.evo'Js. And, upon the whole, this inter- 
pretation seems to deserve the preference. It is 
worthy of observation, that Theophyl., who lived in 
an age when the system which we call Popery was 
pretty far advanced, fearful lest the Apostle's words 


should be thought to render nugatory tlie observa- 
tion of the fasts enjoined in the Romish Church, 
sh'ps in (or some later Romanists for him), without 
any authority from Chrysost. or any of the early 
Fathers : raurot. Se (ruyKot.rot.fdaiv€i aurois, Sia to veoc^urov 
T^S" wla-reais aurwv. A distinction truly Jesuitical ! 

5. Kplvei -^ixepau ita^ r^jxeq^cLv. Koppe here notices 
the TTotpa with an accusative in the sense compared 
with : and he refers to Viger. de Idiotism. ch. 9, 6. 
He would, too, subaud ayvorepccv, ^lai^copwrepoLV aXkriv 
aXk-qs Tj'ju.fpay. The above sense of Trapa is, indeed, 
found in the Classical writers : but the ellipsis of 
ayvQT€pav is not a little harsh. That word seems to 
be implied in the Trapa, which not only signifies than, 
but more than, i. e. better than, like uTrep and the 
Hebr. p. Of this sense see examples in Schleus. 
Lex. in voce. § 5. and consult the Philologists there 

In the antithetical clause must be supplied, as the 
context requires, Hcrr^v, i. e. " equally appropriate to 
religious purposes." 

5. €Ka<Tros €V rco ISuo i^oj" TrT^rjpo^opeicrQa). Here 
again there is a brevity of expression which requires 
that there should be supplied from the context (as 
Koppe suggests) la-^iuiv Koi fx-rj iaSiwv, koIvwv Koi fx,v] 

K^IVCOV 7]fJ.€pCCV. 

5. €v rto ISj'o) vol' 7r7^rioo^opel(T^co. On the sense of 
these words there has been much variety of opinion. 
Many Commentators, as Erasm., Grot., and Doddr., 
take them to mean, " let every man freely enjoy his 
own sentiment," And Grot, thinks the expression 
equivalent to the Hebr. ^17 n« i^TD"^ ip^« ; and he 
cites Eccl. 8, 11. €7r7\.rjpo^op-i^^r} Kap^icc uuuu rod avSpco- 
TToo iu auroTs" rou 7roi7](rai to Trovrjpov. He also compares 
a sentiment of Evenus : ku) Trpls f/-ev rourotyy apKei "Xo- 
yoy eh o TraXaios, %o) fJ-eu tuutoi. Tjokouvt ia-Tiv, €[xoi Se 
TOLoe. And another fi'om Sophoc. "Orw Se /xv) tolK 
eVrjv iv yval/xv) <pjAa, KeTvoy r eKeiva (TTepyeTW, Kayco 
Totoe. Wets., too, compares one from Pint. t. 2. p. 
12 a. Trepl /xtv om TooTcoVf ottods eKa<JTos aorov TreTreiKev, 


ourw? uTToT^aiK^ctverco. This interpretation, however, 
seems scarcely warranted by tlie context. Others, 
but less admissible, may be seen in Pole. The one 
most agreeable to the context seems to be that 
adopted by the antient Greek Commentators, also 
Vatabl. De Dieii, Koppe, &c., namely, " quisque de 
sua animi sententia certus fieri studeat." De Dieu 
paraphrases : " Qui dies et cibos non discernit, faciat 
id quia de libertate Christiana persuasus est apud 
mentem suam. Qui adhuc discernit, fliciat idem 
qui Legem vigere adhuc in animo persuasum habet. 
Quisque qu6d persuasum habet placere Deo, faciat." 
So that, upon the whole, the sense is correctly 
enough represented in our common version: "Let 
every one be fully persuaded in his own mind." Dr. 
Whitby very well paraphrases : " Let every one act 
with fulness of persuasion that he doth what is law- 

(5. 6 <poov(dv T7]v T^fxepaf, Kuplco (ppQV€7. Verses 6 & 7 
are parenthetical ; and (as Crellius observes) the 
Apostle here conjoins examples of botli the discre- 
pant sentiments, as well in respect of days, as of 
.meats, and shows, by a new reason, that those who 
in this instance think differently from each other, 
ouo-ht not to despise or contemn one another. 

Cl 1 ^y,/ •1"/' 

The meaning or o c^oovcov rr]v rnxepoLV is plam irom 
the context; but there seems in it an idiotical and 
popular use. The term ^a. may be exactly paralleled 
by our verb to mind. The sense, then, is: " he who 
minds, observes, keeps holy the day." So Traoarr]- 
pe?v in Gal. 4<, 10. 

Kvoup is for ely rov KJptov, oia roy Kvpiou (as Theo- 
phyl. 'explains), " with a reference to the Lord, and 
in obedience to his understood will." The clause 
eJ;^apjo-Te» rto 0eco must be accommodated so as to 
apply both to the b ea^'uov and the 6 jxt^ ia-d'uov. In the 
former case the sense is plain, and relates (I think, 
both to the returning thanks for the food,* and to the 

* With a reference, too, to the blessings thereby supposed to be 
imparted to it. See Dcut. 8, 10. and 1 Tim. 4, 4. (Ammon.) 


Christian liberty of unrestricted participation. In 
the latter case the sense is less obvious. The best 
Commentators explain : " returns thanks to God for 
the gift of abstinence." The scope of the passage is 
well traced by Theophyl., as follows : 'Ev ^TjTou/xfv 
|xovov, ^i](3"jv, kav S<a tov 0€ov to 7rgay/xa y6j/>]Ta», KoCi eu- 
yapjCTcoci TO) ©eoS, kou b ju-t] ecrdicov Koi b ia-Qicov oOro) 
-ya^ yevoy.evov, aSia^XTjTov €(rTi. So also Chrysost. 202, 
13. ou Trept ra Kaipici to Trpayit^a ecrri, to yap ^rirou^evov, ei 
8»a Tciv 0eov Kat ouroy KaKeivos epyoc^erat, ei a^<pQr€poi ely 
e^yapicrriav Teheorcocri' Kai yap KoCi eKelvas kou ouroy eu- 
y^(xpi(rro6(ri rto 0eaj' el rojvuv ajw,4^or6oot eu^apicTToOariv^ 
oi) TToXu TO ju-ecrov. 

7- ouoeis" yap tJjulcoi/ eauTa> ^y. It is plain that by 
no one is meant no Christian. The sense of the ex- 
pressions eauToj ^7]v, and iavrcp arro^vrjcrKeiu, is best de- 
termined by the context. The former plainly signi- 
fies, " to live after our own judgment, will, and plea- 
sure."*' Now the dative depends upon err), which 
often has the sense of con/onnahli/ to. With respect 
to the clause aTro^vrio-Keiv tm Seep, its meaning is not 
so clear. It may be best understood ex opposito; 
though on the exact signification to be assigned 
Commentators are not quite agreed. The sense 
seems to be this: " No one has, at death, any power 
over himself and his fate in another state of exist- 
ence, nor ceases to depend for every thing upon 
God, by whom he is to be judged." Koppe wraps 

* This VVetstein has illustrated by a comparison with seveial 
Classical passages; as Menander ap. Stob. 120. tovt eori to 5j]j', 
ov\ eavTio S,riv fiovuv. Plut. 1, 819 F. ctfo'j^poj' yap (?»;»' fxovois 
cavroTs kcu cnrodi'ijaKeiy. Eurip. Ion 646. ea §' kjiav-w <f j/i', i]hrj 
yap ?/ xapis jieyaXoiai yaipeiv, (TjjiiKpa 6' ijbeMS eyeiv. Besides seve- 
ral passages from the Latin Classics, in which occurs the phrase 
vivere sibi, tibi, &c. Kypke, too appositely compares Demost. ad 
Phil. Epist. p. 66. 01 Tus Trap'' eKeirov bwpeas u'ltcabe Xai^iftaiorres, 
ovK a\cf)^yrovTaL ^biKiinvio zwrres. And Antiphon ap. Stob. 66. p. 
422. ''Certe si mihi corpus alterum, quale nieum est, accederet," 
Wetstein also compares a similar sentiment of a Rabbinical writer. 
Aboth 4, 22. " Non tu^ sponte formatus es, non tua voluntale na- 
tus es, non tuft, voluntate vivis, non tu^ voluntate moreris, non tufi. 
voluniate redditurus es rationem Kcgi omnium regum." 


up the sense too briefly, I think, by interpreting 
both expressions as merely signifying, "that whether 
alive or dead, we are in the power of God." Gro- 
tius paraphrases the passage thus : " Christo qui nos 
sues fecit, et vitam et vitas omnia, et ipsam mor- 
tem consecrare debemus, et parati sumus."* And 
Taylor observes, that the Apostle's argument stands 
thus : "According to the principles of true religion, 
and of the Christian religion in particular, we are 
not our own, "\ve are all Christ's,i~ "vve are his disciples 
and subjects, and his will should be the rule of our 
consciences and conduct. Therefore, as we should 
not make our own wills or sentiments a rule to our- 
selves, much less should we make them a rule to 
others ; as if they were to live to us, like servants, 
to pay us obedience." Jaspis, after laying down the 
sense nearly as above detailed, draws the conclusion, 
*'uti ergo Christo integrum relinquimus judicium, 
sic lenitate erga alios opus est, ver. 10. qui his in 
rebus nostro judicio non sunt subjecti.'* 

That by the Lord is here meant Christy is plain 
from ver. 9, " where (observes Koppe) it is probable 
that the same heifig was conversant in the mind of 
the Apostle at ver. 6. under the name of God." 

7, 8. iavT€yap — ia-fxev. Here there is a continu- 

* And Carpzov thus : 1. None of us liveth to himself. No one is 
to svij)pose that he may live and act according to his own pleasure, 
and is to give an account of his actions to no one but himself. J3ut 
we must conform our actions to the will and jileasure of the Lord, 
and consider that we ought to be devoted to Him, and live in obe- 
dience to Him, and that we shall have to give an account of our- 
selves to Him. 2, No man dielh to himself, i. e. so as to be at rest, 
and not have to give an account to any one of the things which he 
has done in this life ; but when we die, and ap])ear before the tri- 
bunal of the Lord, our Judge, every one will give account of him- 
self to the Lord." 

t Schoettgcn here compares Tanchuma : "Thine was Moses, ns 
well in death as in life." And Carpzov cites Philo 40S a. (on the 
words of the Almighty, " sumite mihi primitias.) Ovkovv kuI, 
kvTavda Trapah'eais, fii) eavrols, aXXii Gew Xa^iliayeiv. — Tw yiip 
"Oj'ti Ka\ trw^ia-wv Ka\ Trpay^arwi' at tipya.\ Kara Qeoy e^eraioi'Tat 
fioi'oy. And 1078 .\, T([> 0ej5 /.tovut C'/^ai koI $f}(Tai trwirioy rod 


atioji and repetition of wliat was said at ver. 7- The 
Apostle (Crellius observes) collects the whole into a 
short compass, drawing the inference, " Whether, 
therefore, we live," &c. It is here remarked by Ro- 
senm. " Est igitur necessitudo hominum cum Deo, 
quae pertinet ad omnem vitam, ad omnia genera fac- 
torum, in quibus locus est conscientiee sui, propo- 
sito, caussis, consiliisque, per quae cum religione con- 

9. 649 roGro yap X. Koi uTreSave — Kupieiiiry]^ "for for 
this end and purpose Christ died, and, after his re- 
surrection, rose again unto glory, and yet liveth, 
that he might be sovereign of the whole human 
race, both the quick and the dead."* It is hence 
meant to be inferred, that we live unto Christ, and, 
not at the will and pleasure and for the purposes of 
men. Rosenm. here judiciously remarks. *' Haec 
omnia autem eo consilio dicuntur, ut appareat judi- 
cium de hujusmodi factis, quae delectum ciborum 
concernunt, non pertinere ad homines, sed ad Deum, 
ad quem unum omnis religio refertur, et quicquid in 
hoc genere fiat id ita judicandum esse, prouti hoc, 
quod fieri et omitti in non necessariis potest, ab eo, 
qui facit vel omittit, ad Deum referatur, conjunga- 
turque cum necessariis officiis, ne haec damnum ca- 
piant. Unde concluditur, uti judicium, ne nostrum 
quidem sit, sic lenitate erga alios opus esse." 

In this passage there are several various readings, 
none of which, however, make any material altera- 
tion in the sense. Some few MSS. and Versions 
omit the koi before aTreSave. But as to the MSS., 
their number is too inconsiderable to merit much at- 
tention ; and as to the Versions, they are scarcely 
admissible evidence in so minute a point. The com- 
mon reading is defended by the usage of the Apostle, 

* Wetstein has ably stated the argument thus : " Christ both 
died, returned to life, and norv liveth, and will live to all eternity. 
Had he not returned to life, he could not have redeemed us : had 
he not returned to life, he could not have power over us : did he 
not live an immortal life in Heaven, he would not have that power." 


whose style is 7roXuo-(jv§6(rp,of. So that much stronger 
evidence than tliat of the MSS. in question would be 
requisite to authorize the ko.) to be cancelled. As 
to the words following, there is reason to think that 
a clause has been introduced from the margin. Thus 
Koi dvea-TTj is omitted in some MSS., and many Ver- 
sions and Fathers ; and koI dvۤr,<r6v in some MSS. 
and Versions. Koppe and Griesbach, on the autho- 
rity of a considerable number of MSS. and Fathers, 
edite koI dvea-Trj koI e^r^(Tev : which reading may be 
thought, upon the whole, to deserve the preference, 
since there is too little evidence to authorize the 
omission of either clause. If, indeed, any one were 
omitted, it should rather be ko.) dvetrrrj : and then the 
common reading dve^rjcrev will be preferable.* 

With the veKpaJv kou ^wvrcou Kvpieua-r]^ Wets, com- 
pares Suidas (speaking of Mercury) ko.) §a)VTa)v ko.) 
TCTeT^euKOTcov oip)(^€i, and Diodor. 5, C, 8. (speaking of 
Hades) oio ku) t(Zv rereK^uKoTcov Kv^ievei, Compare 
Phil. % 10 and 11. 

10. (TV Ti KplveiSTov aSeXcpov o-oi» ; Here the Apostle 
urges a new reason to dissuade them from exercising 
rash judgment and condemnation ; and this is sug- 
gested partly in the word a^eXcf^.-j- which is emphatic ; 
but chiefly in the words following, Trdvres yap Trapacr- 
rri(r6y.€QaTci} i3e/xrai toj X^jcttou, which import that we 
are all equally amenable to this judgment, and there- 
fore are not warranted mjudging, much less contemn- 
ing and despising each other : all must be left to the 
judgment of one great and true Estimator, and none 
ought to presume to intrude upon his province. 
Now this must, of course, be understood with espe- 
cial reference to the subject in question, namely the 
observance or non-observance of any ceremonial 

* This reading Carpzov strenuously defends ; and he observes, 
" Grftci verbo aioori/Tot utuntur eA nolione, ut sit reviviscere de- 
nuo, i. e. })Ost rcsurrectionein se vivuin ostendere." 

t The force of tliis term is too obvious to need illustration. It 
will be sufficient to refer the student to Pole's Synop. 


Koppe thinks that the first o-u refers to the weaker, 
and the second, to the better informed Christian.* 
The KOiij it may be observed, signifies " on your part." 
^E^ouSevely, set at nought, despise. By Travrt? are 
meant all without exception^ both the weak and the 
strong in faith and knowledge. Ilagao-r. is a judicial 
term, representing graphically the posture of the 
criminal when appearing at the bar of judgment. 

The passage is thus paraphrased by Rosen. " Quid 
occupas Christi officium ? lllius est, de occultis ju- 
dicare. Solus novit, quantum cognitionis quisque 
acceperit, quantum ab eo pro talenti sui modo exigi 
debeat." And by Wets, thus : " Vis judex sedere ? 
stabis judicandus ipse." Mackn. draws from hence 
and from Phil. 2, 10. the well founded conclusion, 
that the souls of men, at death, will neither sleep, nor 
fall into a state of insensibility. (See his note.) 

11. yeypoLTTUi yap' Zto kyw. The position, that all 
men, without exception, shall be judged by Christ, is 
now confirmed by a passage of the Old Testament, 
namely Is. 45, 23. ; what is there said of Jehovah, 
being here ascribed to Christ.-^- (Koppe and Ro- 
senm.) There is here a slight variation, which some 
Commentators attribute to the Apostle's citing from 
memory. It seems rather (I suspect) to have arisen 
from some variation in the Hebr. Text, together with 
a freedom of version, such as, in accommodating 
passages of the Old Testament, the Apostles were 
Justified in exercising. The Hebr. and Sept. have, *' I 
swear by myself," of which " as I live," may be con- 
sidered as no unfaithful paraphrase, being (as Koppe 
observes) formed after the model of Num. 14, 21 

* So Jaspis, who paraphrases : " Cur vos injirmi sodales firmi- 
ores, aut cur vos Jirmiores (provectiores) timidiores illos damnare 

t On which Koppe remarks : " And no wonder ; since that he is 
united with him most closely, is an opinion perpetually expressed 
both by the Jewish writers, as often as they speak of the Messiah, 
and by the Apostles, as St. Paul and St. John. See on 9, 5. and the 
first Epistle of St. John. 


and 28. Jer. 22, 24. Ez. .5, 11. For 6|ojaoXoyr>6Tai 
the Sept reads o^eTraj. But there the Cod. Alex, 
has e^Qixelrai, which may have been the readini? iii 
the Apostle's time. Some MSS., too, of the Sept., 
have Tcp 0efo, and not rov 0eov, which is the textual 
and the general reading. Upon the whole, the sense 
of the Prophet is faithfully expressed by the Apostle. 
The Prophet, it may be observed, treats of the pro- 
pagation of the Jewish religion among the Gentiles, 
and it is predicted by him that they will acknow- 
ledge and worship the true God. 

13. a pa ow eKaa-TQS' ^[xcov Trep) eaciroG X. 8. r. 0. 
Here the sense is too plain to need any exposition : 
and on the phraseology it is only necessary to no- 
tice, that SwVei is for aTroScoV^;, by an idiotical and 
popular use : though examples of the simple verb 
are cited by the Philological Commentators from 
Xenoph., Aristot., and Plutarch. Here, it may be 
observed, God is represented as an eu^ovos (on which 
word see Blomf. on ^.scliyl. Pers. 820. and compare 
Hebr. 13, I7. and 1 Pet. 4, 5.) 

13. iJ,yK€Ti o'jv a7vX7;'Xo'js' Kpivcoix^u. lu thcsc words 
is contained a conclusion drawn from the precedino- 
and from the former part of the chapter. (Crellius.^ 
Here it is inculcated, that we must not only abstain 
from unjustly judging those who entertain different 
sentunents ni things appertaining to the conscience, 
or knowledge of right or wrong ; but also beware 
lest the weaker be by our actions and sentiments 
aggrieved, and thus be led into sin. (Koppe.) This 
judging, indeed, is dangerous in doubtfid points; 
since the judgment you pass on another will be 
passed on yourself, Matt. 7, 1. (Rosenm.)* 

* And he details the scope of the verse as follows : " Aliam rati- 
onem afTert Paulus, cur lenitate sit utendum in dijudicandis aliis 
delectum ciborum in-obantibus vel improbantibus, at cur nemo 
suam de hac re scntcntiam aliis, ut necessariam omnibus, obtrudere 
debeat. Hujusmodi nempe iniquioribus judiciis et agendi modis 
alios tacde posse eo adduci, ut contraria suaj persuasioni affant et 
contra conscientiam pcccent." 



The Commentators notice the ambigu^ dictum, 
or antanailasis, in Kplvwixev and /cp/vare, which (as 
Koppe observes) it is difficult to express in any ver- 
sion. A similar antanailasis in a-racna^av is adduced 
by Raphel from Herodotus. In the former case the 
term denotes to pass severe and unjust judgment 
upon ; and in the hitter signifies resolve^ statuere. 
In the same manner judkare is used for constituere 
m Cic. adFam. 7, S3. " Mihi judicatum est." 

The terms Trpoa-Koixixa and o-KavhaT^ov are synony- 
mous : though the latter is the plainer one, and 
seems to be exegetical of the former. Grotius, in- 
deed, and others, take the former to mean a trifling 
lapse, or trip, the latter, an utter fault.* But this 
distinction seems unauthorized. 

By a5fX4:>aj is meant any fellow creature, and espe- 
cially /e//oM; Christian. 

14. olSa Koi 7re7r€i(r[xai ev K.vpicp 'Itjo-ow, oti ouheu — 
Koivov. The Apostle here meets an objection, which 
might be advanced against this precept. (Crellius.) 
Me6' oe^/oa^ev on ou^ei e;ri7r7;rj<7(re»v rto acSfvoui/ri, ^oyfxa- 
Ti^ei AojTTov TTfpi raiv ^pw^arcov, Traihevwv tov a(Theve(Tre- 
pov, |XTg oehiivai, jxijSe rp^xeiv raoroi, cos^ uKaSa^ra. 

The clause olSa /cat Treireitrixai e. K, 'I. is a brevilo- 
quentia for " I know and am fully persuaded, (from 
the teaching of Christ himself).'' OUa. ko.) 7r€7r€i(ry,ai 
is a strong expession, which also occurred supra 8, 
38. Wetstein, too, cites an example of it from Ma- 
chon ap. Athen. 13. p. 581 c. oT§a yap aKpi^ai^ ko.) 
7r€7r€ib\ OTJ, &c. The w^ords ev 'I. X. are well para- 
phrased by Theophyl. thus : ovk uvS^cottivoi^ T^oyia-^ols, 
aXk' iv X. 'I. (scil.) Trap' aJrou fxadSv, Koi eKeViev rrT^r}- 

Kojvov here corresponds to the Hebr. t^?2ID, uKaQa.^- 
Tov, impure^ and was by the Hellenists especially 

* Mr. Slade explains the former of those scruples, which put 
difficulties or discouragements in the way of a brother, and make 
him take offence ; the latter, of those which may shake and impair 
his faith." 


applied to what it was unlawful to eat. Koppe 
refers to 1 Mace. 1, 4? & 0'2. Matt. 15, 11. Mark 
7, 2. Acts 10, 14 & 28. 11, 8. Hcbr. 10, 29. In 
di' auTou there seems to be a Latinism for per sCy 
whicli signifies, '*in its own nature," Kab' uotq. 

" Tiie Apostle (observes Rosenm.) supposes that 
no law to that effect had been given to the Gentiles; 
and that, with respect to the Jews, it was abrogated, 
he had before shown. 

14. €i [JLYj rep Xoyi^o^xem, &C. The el ^/.tj is for aXXct. 
Aoyjjo/Ltevtp Tj literally signifies " to him that consi- 
dereth any thing." Compare 2, 3. 3, 28. 4, 8. 8, 18. 
'E/cf/j/co Koivdv, *' in respect of him it is unclean." It 
is here observed by Capellus, that nothing is lawful 
to him who believes any thing to be vmlawful, or as 
long as he believes it to be so. And Paraeus ap. 
Pole observes, that from this passage Theologians 
maintain, than " an erroneous conscience binds man, 
not indeed to act according to it, but to avoid acting 
contrary to it : and the reason is, that actions are es- 
timated by the will, and the will is moved by the 
object known : so that he who acts against the dic- 
tates of the understanding,has the deliberate intention 
of sinning," &c. This doctrine was not unknown to 
the Rabbins. So Maimonid. de Jubilaeo 5, 2. Id 
pendet ab ejus opinione. Si reputet ea tanquam 
ligna, ecce censentur ligna ; si reputet ea tanquam 
fructus, ecce censentur fructus. 

15. €1 he hia ^pcJoixa 6 aSfXcpoy crou Xy7re?Taj. The 
S;a ^pcofjia 7^07re7rai, the being brouglit into grief may 
be understood with reference to the pain o1^ self con- 
demnation any one would feel on being induced, by 
the example of another, to eat what he believed to be 
unlawful. So Doddr. *' The grief is that which 
arises from a consciousness of having acted amiss, in 
conformity to the example of a person considered as 
superior, whether in rank or genius, knowledge or 
piety." Or it mai/ advert to any such weak brother 
being hurt at the licence claimed and used by ano- 
ther, and the superstition charged by that other on 

N 2 


himself. And so most of the earlier modern Com- 
mentators, and also Rosenm., interpret. Some, 
however, as Bishop Hall, Hammond, Eisner, Carp- 
zov, Koppe, and Schleus., take Au7reTra» for c/cavSa- 
T^i^erai : and indeed Xu;reTv is often used in the best 
Classical writers in the sense " to aggrieve,"" in any 
way whatever. Of this signification Eisner adduces 
several examples, which might easily be increased, 
were it necessary. The passage is thus paraphrased 
by Carpzov. " Si propter esum offenditur frater 
tuus, et ad iram aut indignationem tui provocatur, 
vel tristitia afficitur, aut illicitur ad peccandum." 
And he observes : " Prout diversa sunt diversorum 
ingenia, etiam >] Auttt) diversam affectionem." Wolf 
strenuously defends the common interpretation, and 
restricts the word solely to grief But it is unneces- 
sary to dilate so much upon a point involving no ma- 
terial difference ; since to be grieved and to be ag- 
grieved are notions closely cognate. 

15. 06k ert ko-tol aydtTrrjv TrepiTrarel^, " thou dost 
not act according unto love, in love, agreeably to 
the dictates of love." For (as Koppe observes) it is 
the part of love, not only to bear with a weaker bro- 
ther, but, for his sake, to suffer one's own liberty to 
be somewhat circumscribed, especially in a matter 
which involves nothing that is unlawful. 

15. txri rm Qpco^an (Tou iKelvov axoXkue vTrep ov 'Xpicr- 
Toy a-n-lQave! The disputations between Limborch, 
Wolf, Eisner, and others on this clause might very 
well have been spared ; since it is evident that ctTroA- 
Xu/xt is here used in a popular and restricted sense ; 
and, at all events, (as Eisner remarks) it does not 
necessarily imply final perdition. The sense of this 
term depends upon that of XuTreTraj : but it cannot 
possibly import more than " cause him to fall from 
a state of salvation ;" whether that fall shall be final 
or temporary, will depend upon his future repent- 
ance or non-repentance. AttoX. therefore, denotes 
the bringing him into a state of present reprobation, 
from which it must be difficidt for him to rise ; and 


thereby doing thy part to produce hhjinal reproba- 
tion and perdition. The circumstance uVep ou Xpjo- 
ros axe^oLve is skilfully thrown in, to shew the pecu- 
liar baseness of this conduct, since it involves a con- 
travening of the designs of Christ in favour of one's 

16. iJJTi Q7\.a(r^r}fX€l(r^co ouv u[xSv ro ayahLv. On the 
interpretation of ayahlv Commentators are not 
agreed. Some, as Grot., Hammond, Vorstius, Pis- 
cat., Estius, and Toletus, take it to mean " Christian 
Liberty :" and they appeal to 1 Cor. 10, 29. But 
this requires a somewhat tortuous application of the 
words. Erasmus and Carpzov take it to refer to the 
73 7rXrjpoc^ope/a roG IS/ot> vo^s^ before mentioned. This, 
however, seems to be no less harsh than the former 
interpretation. It is surely more rational to under- 
stand it, with the antient Greek Commentators, and 
some modern ones, as Rosenm. and Koppe, of the 
Christian retlgioii, the Christian faith, the 73 |3ao-jXe/a 
rou 0€oj of the next verse, by a periphrasis. The 
passage is thus paraphrased by Koppe. " Suffer not 
that, by your fault, the transcendent benefits of the 
Christian religion should be despised and profaned 
by the Gentile nations." See 2 Cor. 6, S. and Rom. 
7, 13. I would here compare Philostr. V. App. p. 
555. cos ^lOL^aXKeiv aurou kou to. €7raivo6y.€ucx.. 

BAao-<p., " be brought into calumny, contempt, 
hatred ;" which must necessarily arise from the mu- 
tual strifes and disputes of those who profess a reli- 
gion of peace. 

17. ou yap ea-Tiu t] ^acri'keia rou 0eoG jS^ajo-jy Koi Trocis. 
A popular and familiar mode of expression for, " In 
the Christian religion and the worship prescribed by 
it, it is not meats and drinks that are considered, but 
virtue, peace, spiritual joy, &c, i. e. in order to the 
attainment of the kingdom of Heaven, we have no 
need of abstinence from meats, but of righteousness, 
peace, &c. The sense, then, may be thus expressed. 
" For the hope of future felicity with Christ is not 
placed in the freely partaking of, or the wholly ab- 


staining from eating and drinking, but in a true and 
divinely spiritual benevolence and humanity shown 
towards others ; to which he who piously endeavours 
to attain, shall be approved by God and man." 

I cannot, however, assent to Koppe, that liKaio- 
(Tuvri here signifies henignitas. That seems included 
under eigvjvTj. Whereas ZIkolios signifies righteousness 
generally. Zacharias, Schoettg., Carpzov, and Am- 
mon indeed take it to d.Qx\oie justification : and they 
refer to 5, 1. 6, 22. Gal. 5, 22. But those passages 
are evidently of another character. The context 
here requires the sense of Sjk. above laid down. 
Wip7]vri is well explained by Koppe " concordiae ser- 
vandae studium." So elprjviKos' in James 3, IJ. With 
respect to the x^P°^^ ^^ ^'^^^ Commentators are not 
quite agreed. Some, connecting it closely with ev 
TTveu/x., explain it, *' an inward joy arising from the 
consolations of the Holy Spirit." And indeed that 
sense is supported by not a few passages of Scrip- 
ture. Yet the context would seem scarcely to allow 
of it here. I prefer, with Hammond, Scott. Doddr., 
Rosenm., Koppe, andSchleus., "studium exhilarandi 
alios, ac promovendse aliorum felicitatis." (See 

I must not omit to observe, that the above inter- 
pretation of the whole clause is supported by the 
authority of Theophyl., whose words are these : Ei? 
TTjv 3ao-iXeiav too 0€ot> eia-ayei r] ^iKono(r6vrj, rouTecTiV, 
7} KaSo7\.ou aperrj, o a/xeftTrTos" ^los:, ku) elprjVT) vrpoy rov 
aSeXcpov, oup^' >] (pi7\.ov€iKia' ku) tj ^apot eK rvj? optovo/af, 

/cat ■)(apa. kui ^tti Trovrjpaiv TrpayiLaroiV, kyrriyayeVy iv 
IIv€uij,a.Ti ayico. 

18. ya^ iv rouTOiy SouXeucov r<o X^icrto — oiv^pco- 
TTQis. At ev TouTois Koppe supplies (f>povrj^o(.a-i. JBut 
it seems more regular to subaud 7rpdyy.a(ri, and take 
it to denote temper and dispositions, including a 
yielding spirit, in the using or non-using things in 
themselves indifferent. 


18. ^ouXetW Tto XpKTTM, " he who servcth Christ, 
by obediently performing all his injunctions in such 
resj)ects." The words €uaf>€crr. and Soacjjw,. are per- 
haps here synonymous ; though Koppe thinks that 
hoK, is purposely aj)plied to God^ and not to men, in 
order effectually to exclude all idea of human 
merit, and all ground for boasting. This, however, 
seems too fanciful. It appears, in fact, to have been 
a popular expression.* 

ly. apot rtov TO. Tr,9 elpr^vr^y oicuK(o[x€v. This is a con- 
clusion drawn from the preceding ; q. d. *' Since a 
peaceable spirit is so well pleasing to God and man, 
let us study peace."" Ai(vk€iv, it may be observed, is 
a stronger term than ^rireiv. In rot rrjs €\c>-f^vr,s and 
Tct T7]y rnKoOotxTi^ there is an usual idiom for tyiV e\pr,vr^v 
and TTjv o</co8o/xrji/. In the latter term there is (as is 
not unusual with the Apostle) a metaphor derived 
from arcJiUecture. It must here denote the promo- 
tion and increase of Christian virtue. See 15, 2. 
1 Cor. 14, 3 & 5. 12, 2G. 2 Cor. 5, 1. 10, 8. 12, 19- 
13, 10. Eph. 4, 29. Theopliyl. well explains ; 7rpo<T- 
r^/cei r^iLOLS tt^s aXXv^Acov co^eXejay eveKa ttuvtcuv Troieiv. 
And upon the whole sentence he judiciously re- 
marks, that T^y €\pr'ivri9 is meant, especially of the less 
advances. Christian ; and oIko8., of the more ad- 
vanced in spiritual knowledge, who is admonished 
not to cast down his brethren by causing them to be 
scandalized ; yet the words os aAXij'Aous* show that 
these duties are common to both, and reciprocal ; 
and peace is mentioned first, since without it, it is 
impossible to promote edification." 

20. fXT] ei/6/cev /SgcojaaToy KaraXue to e^yov roxj QeoZ. 
Here the sentiment inculcated at ver. \5. is again 

* Of which Schoettg. gives an example from Bcrachoth, fol. 17, I, 
Ut (Jiligatur superiub (in coelo, soil, a Deu), et desiderates sit infe- 
rius (in teriS.), et acceptus hominibus. \Vets., too, cites Joseph. 
Ant. 16", 6, 7- To which may be added bimplic. Comm. 5, 40. 
(cited by Bulkley.) "i)-e\i yap upeaTor boKei Oeoj Kal tois tLKhpoaiy 


By the efyov rou &eou many Commentators under- 
stand the Christian brother^ considered as the work- 
manship of God : and they refer to Eph. 2, 10. and 
1, Cor. 9, 1. But in the former passage we have 
TTo/T^/xa, and that without the article : and the latter 
evidently requires the interpretation which I shall 
now proceed to state ; namely, that of the ancient 
Commentators, and most modern ones, who here 
suppose that by to epyov is meant (with an allusion 
to the architectural metaphor which had just pre- 
ceded) the faith and Christian piety of the person in 
question j and it is ascribed (they think) to God, as 
being excited, promoted, and preserved by him. 
Chrysost. and Theophyl. explain it o-coxTjg/av. See 
1 Cor. 15, 58. Phil. 1, 6. 

20. TTOLVTa ix.€V Kd^apd, oXkaKUKov, &c., " all (meats) 
are pure and permitted : there is no one koivqv (Tit. 
1, 15.), all are pure, as well by nature, as by the per- 
mission of God." 'AxXa KUKov T<x> avQpcdTTip r. 3. tt. e. 
At KCX.KOU must be supplied jS/jcojuia. The words may 
be referred either to the weak Christian, who,:^if he 
eateth 8<a Trpoa-Ko^ixaros (i. e. (ruv 7rpo(rKO[/,iJ.aTi, stum- 
blingly, with an uncertain and dubious mind), sin- 
neth ; or, to the mo?^e hiowing and advanced Chris- 
tian, who, if, by eating, he offends and causes ano- 
ther to sin (S»a 7rpo(TKo^iKa.ro9i for ftera 7r/;oa-/co]u,|U.aToy, 
i. e. occasioning an offence to him), he also sinneth. 
The latter interpretation seems preferable, on ac- 
count of what follows. (Koppe.) Theophyl., how- 
ever, and many others, adopt the former mode of 

21. KaXov TO [KT^ (payeiv Kpea, /AvjSe Tneiu ohou. Grot., 
Hardy, Rosenm,, and not a few other Commentators, 
take KaT^ov as a positive, for the comparative melius. 
This, however, is not necessary. It may be pre- 
ferable, with Koppe, to consider kuXov as put for 
Tr^oa-riKov : which is certainly more agreeable to the 
usus loquendi. The kuT^ov may be viewed in several 
aspects, as consisting of many particulars on which 
see Pole's Synop. The use of Kpea in the plural 


for the singular, is an idiom deserving of attention. 
Wets, adduces several examples of it j as Homer. 
Kp€a TTo'hT^a sa?pissime. Athen. 540 c. oXojtxeXrj Kpea.' 
and 130 e. rerraoa X7]'\}/Tr} Kpeoc ixiKpa. Xen. Cyr. 2. 
€y€v€To eKacTTcp rpia /cgea. 

21. jXTjSe €v CO. Here there is an ellipsis, in which 
must be supplied either, (with Grot, and most other 
Commentators,) Troieiv, or, with Koppe (who refers it 
not only to wine, but other intoxicating drinks), 
TTieTv. "The former, however, seems the more natural 
and regular ellipsis : neither is it quite certain that 
any other intoxicating drinks were known in ancient 
times. 'Ev to, '* by which." Upoa-KOTTTei is for (tkuv- 

The words ri c/cavoa^ /^erat 7\ ao-Oeve? are omitted in 
three MSS., and some Versions and Fathers; and 
even rejected by Mill and Koppe, as being a gloss. 
This, however, can hardly be true of ^' aff-QeveT: and 
if that clause be genuine, so probably is the pre- 
ceding one. Besides, the omission in so few MSS. 
may be accounted for on the principle of the ho- 
moiotelcuton. Both the clauses, too, were read by 
Chrysost. ; and there is, I think, great emphasis in 
the use of three terms so nearly allied to each other. 
And, in this view, Theophyl. remarks, that by all 
these the Apostle draws on the more confirmed Chris- 
tian to the help of his brother, as being in all re- 
spects iveak,^ See the masterly comment of Chrys. 

* And, adverting to the tliree terms, he observes that the Apostle 
hy TzpoGKonrtiL hints at the blindness of the neophyte j by (TKavh. 
hints that he is kovcjws, and by acrdeiel, that he is oXtyuTria-os, 

Wets, regards (TKUfbaXoy as a stronger term than ~p6crK0fi/ja, and 
he subjoins the foHowing })ara})hrase : " Si importune instas,,ut 
tVater ex Judaiis edat cibos lege Mosis vetitos ; aut ille movetur ut 
edat aut non. Si non edit, animus ilUus a te magis ahenabitur, et 
tuus ab illo ; ut ipsum ridebis et contemnes tanquam supcrsti- 
tiosum : ille te judicabit impium, cpii nulla Legis a Deo lataj reve- 
rentiCi ducatur. Hoc liet cum injuriil et damno utriusque vestrum, 
amicitia enim nmtua frigescet. Si vero, ut tibi j)laccat, edat, adhuc 
pejori loco res est, agit ille contra dictamcn conscientiae suae, et tu 
ipsum ad peccandum adcgirti. Illud est /rpdo-vo^/^tt, hoc atcuybuXoy. 
Hoc pacto grave et Icthale vulnus i])si infligiiur, dcrOtvem ■n-()6s 


From a passage cited by Wets, from Augustin, it 
appears that wine was scrupled at by some weak 
bretliren, on the same ground as was meat ; namely, 
that what was publicly sold had sometimes been 
used at libations to the honour of the Heathen gods. 

22. cro Trlariv €^ei9, " thou hast faith (thou sayest), 
be it so." The ancient Greek Commentators, and the 
early modern ones, read this clause interrogativelij : 
but the other seems the more spirited mode, and 
therefore more agreeable to the style of the Apostle. 

^y faith is here meant a persuasion that what one 
is doing is right and lawful ; or, in other words, the 
assent of the conscience. (Rosenm.) So Schoettg., 
who explains it : " plenissimum persuasionem etcer- 
titudinem de veritate et bonitate opinionis suae." 
And he observes : " Theologi Scholiasticos secuti 
vocant conscientiam rectam.'' Koppe, however, re- 
fers it simply to 7r7\,r}po<^o^ia of action, but also to the 
doctrine of Christ, which makes the primary merit 
of a Christian consist in yielding assent to the me- 
rits, promises, and precepts of Christ. 

22. Kara creauTov ep^e evcaynov tou &€otj, i. e. '* keep 
this persuasion to yourself, and your God ; use it 
when you have no other witness ; and do not em- 
ploy it so as to offend your fellow Christian, and 
weaker brother." *' Here (observes Theophyl.) the 
Apostle hints at the more advancedChristian, as being 
Keuo^o^ov." Of the phrase Kara rreaurov e^eiv. Wets, 
adduces an example from Heliod. 7? 16. i^e^Jiu^ei Ka) 
Kara (raurov e^e, Ka] fxr^^ev) <f>pa§€. And he also cites a 
similar sentiment from Epict. Arrian 4, 8. e7r} ttoXu 
€Tr€ioa)[Kr^v XavSaveiv ^i7^o>To(pwv' icai •j^v ]w.oj <p>30"< roSro 
a)(PeXj]u.oV TTpcoTov fxev yap fjOeiv, o(ra /caXcos* eTToiouVf on 
ou 6ia rov9 Oearay kiroiouv, aAXa Si' eixaorov tJoSiou i^au- 
Tto KaXcoy — Travra ifnauTiv Ka) tm Qeto. He also com- 
pares Marc. Anton. 7? 58. /xo'vov 7r^c/Ve;^e Ka\ 5e?ve /caXoy 
€hai (reatjTip. The phrase iuwTriov tou Seou, it may be 

fiavaroj'.qnam mors consequetur comm. 15, 20. 16, 17." But this 
seems rather ingenious than solid. 


observed, corresponds to the Hcb. niH'' ''IDT, It 
here seems to signify, " with a reference to God." 
The sense, then, is : " keep it to thyself, and use it 
towards God only." 

and Kplv€iv, Wets, observes, are opposed to each 
other, as the Latin prohare and improbare. And he 
j)araphrascs thus: " Felix qui se ipsum non damnat, 
in ea re quam faciendam probat, pra?fert et eligit." 
Koppe refers to a similar sentiment in 1 Joh. S, 21. 
'Ev CO ^oKiixa§€i is for iv eKelvcp o OoKi/txcc^ei. This 
maxim, asThcoj)hylact remarks, must be confined to 
the subject in question. 

23. 6e oiaKpivrj^evos — eo-ri'v, " and he, doubting 
(whether it be right to eat), is condemned, i. e. is 
liable to be condemned (nay is self-condemned), if 
he eat, because he doth it not from faith." The 
passage is explained by Theodoret thus : 'O 8e p,eTa 
rivos oiaKpi(T€a)S ia-blcuv Kud' eauTOu rr^v \I/r^<pov (^epei. 
And by Theophyl. 141. KaraK^Kpnai, Atar/; ou-^ 
on OLKoSaorov r^u to ^p(vy.a, aXX' on ouk €7ri(rr€u(rev or* 
KaSapov €(TTiv, aT;?;' ri-^uro roG jSpcJ^aaroy, toy aKaSaprou. 

After 7rl(rT€cos must be understood TroieT or <^ay€i. 

22. TToiv 8e o'jK €K TTJO-rftoy, a[xapTict etTTiv, ** for 
whatever is not done with a full persuasion that it is 
lawful, is sinful." AVets. compares a similar sen- 
timent in Plin. Epist. 1, 18. Si tutius putas illud 
cautissimi cujusque pr^eceptum : Quod dubitas, ne 
feceris ; id ipsum rescribe, and Thilo 1, 5659. Gro- 
tius, too, cites Cic. de Offic. Quod dubitas (a^cjuum 
sit an iniquum) ne feceris. Indeed, it appears to 
have been a not uncommon saying among the Jews. 
To which purpose Koppe cites from a Rabbinical 
writer : " Hie est magnus Canon legis : Quicquid 
utrum licitum sit an illicitum tu ncscis, id tibi illi- 
citum est." To which may be added Ketuvorth, fbl. 
15, 1. (cited by Schoettg. on Acts 15, 21J.) Novem 
sunt tabcrnir, quit omnes carnem mactatam vendunt, 
una vero illarum vendit carnes morticinas. Si quis 
ergo emit, et ncscit ex qua emerit, si dubitat, prohi- 


bitum ipsi edere : quod si vero (in platea) inveniat, 
ojy €7r) TO TToXu esse creditur, i. e. licitum. Tiiis, 
Ammon observes, is a locus de moralitate quam suh- 
jectivam dicunt facile prmceps. And it has been 
applied most ably by Dr. Paley in his Moral Philos. 
L. 1, 7* fii^- Chrysost., however, remarks ; raura 8e 
Travra Treo) ttJ"? 7rpoK€ifj,evr}S' uTroQea-ecos etprirai, ou Trepi 
Travrcov. And certainly this is applied by the Apostle 
only to the case in question : but that is no reason 
why it should not be made, mutatis mutandis, of 
general application. This will, however, in no re- 
spect, justify Augustin for inferring from hence, 
that the very best actions of the Heathens were only 
splendid sins. For (as observes Mackn.) though 
they had not faith in any divine revelation, they 
might have the faith mentioned by the Apostle ; i. e. 
a firm persuasion of the lawfulness of their own ac- 
tions, and an inclination to please God by doing 
what they thought right and acceptable to him." 
Wolf, Carpzov, and others, however, make it an 
aphorism extending to faith of every kind, not only 
historical and of conscience, but also oi' doctrine ; as 
when used of ?i justifying faith. But all this is more 
easily asserted than proved. 

Many distinguished Critics would here introduce, 
from several MSS., a doxology also found in 16, 25, 
26 & 27. : and Griesbach, with his usual rashness, 
has received it into the text, though for this position 
of the doxology there seems little foundation. The 
evidence, both internal and external, is greatly in 
favour of the common arrangement. I shall not, 
however, enter at large into the consideration of this 
purely critical question ; since what Mr. Slade has 
written may suffice for most of my readers ; and I 
shall only observe, that though doxologies are some- 
times found in other parts of the Apostolical Epistles 
as well as at the end of them (See Eph. 3, 21. Phil. 
4,20. Heb. 13, 20.), yet not, I think, so as to inter- 
rupt the connexion of any discourse : which would 


be the case here. As to the conjectures and hypo- 
theses of" Jerome, Semler, and others, they merit 
little attention. 


The commencing verses of this Chapter are so 
closely connected with the concluding ones of the 
preceding, that it is surprising the division should 
have been made at so improper a place. 

The connexion is thus traced by Koppe : " Every 
one may, indeed, use his own judgment and persua- 
sion : but we should be indulgent to the weakness 
of others, lest we furnish to them an occasion or 
incitement to sin." 

1. o(}3e/Xo/xev 0€ i^[X€79 ol Tyjvaroi tol cKj^evr^ixara. r. a. /3. 
By the ol ouvaro), as opposed to to7^ acrbevea-i, must 
(as Koppe and Rosenm. remark) be understood the 
more abundant in knowledge, and the stronger in 
tliith (14, 22, compared with Luke 21<, 29. and Acts 
7, 22. Suvaroy ev Xoytp); and by the aouvaro), those 
less skilled and knowing, and therefore in hesitation 
and doubt as to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of 
any thing. Both the physical and moral sense of 
aouvaro? is amply illustrated by Wets.* 

By the ao-Oeyy^/xara are evidently meant " false and 
superstitious opinions :" and the term ^aa-ra^eiv 
must, in this context, signify to bear ivith^ and con- 

■* Tlie term properly denotes weakness of body, inability, especially 
that proceeding from being maimed. Thus, Wets, observes, the 
synonyme aydin^oos is opposed to hwarus, hwafieans, vyiaivujy. 
It may be noticed, that ol abvvaro\, was a term sometimes applied 
to denote military invalids. 

Of the two terms ol bvyarol and ol abvfnToi Carpzov gives the 
foHowing explanation : " Ot bvraro\ sunt validi ad agendum. Spc- 
ciatim, sunt provectiores in rerum ac disciplinarum cognitione ; 
sunt hi, quibus major doctrina;, major virium mensura spiritualium, 
data est. Hoc loco intelliguntur, qui in dogmate de Christiana li- 
bertate recte instituti, ac de usu rerum ai^m^oowi^, omnino convicti 
sunt. 0( abvyaroi sunt, qui adhuc haisitant quoad abrogationem 
ceremoniarum Mosaicarum, et in TrpdUi Christianil hallucinantur. 
cap. 14, 1. vocabantur ol (\(rderovyres rtj irirTrei.." 


seqiiently, with a reference to the subject in ques- 
tion, to avoid doing in their presence what might 
shock their prejudices, or afford them an example 
of what they could not conscientiously approve. * 
The whole passage is thus paraphrased by Wets. : 
'* Si quis pedibus a?ger est, non ideo gestamus potius 
et adjuvamus. Si quis morbo decumbit, etiam con- 
sulimus, ut a carnibus abstineat. Quid si animo 
a3ger et infirmus sit ? Annon tunc potius ejus mi- 
sereri et vicem ejus dolere, eumque ferre justum 
est ?'' In this, however, there seems something 
rather ingenious than solid. 

1. ij.rj eauroT? aoeV/cetv, " and not to aim at pleasing 
ourselves (only)." 'Apea-Kciu iaorm seems to have 
been a not un frequent phrase.-f- 

2. e/cao-Tos" r^^t^oiv rw 7r7;r;0-<ov apeaKero) ely to ayaBou 
rfbs o»/coSo]U!,r]v. Here the Apostle gives a Umitation 
to his precept, that this complaisance might not 
degenerate into mere abject subservience (as that of 
the apea-Kos in Theophr. Char. Eth. 5.) ; adding €\s 
TO a.yah\v Trpls o\KohoiJ.r,v. Hardy explains this : " Illi 
se accommodet, etiamsl sibi gratum non sit, modo 
sine peccato." This interpretation, however, pro- 
ceeds on a wrong view. Nor can I assent to those 
who place a comma after ayadov, thus making (as 
Koppe indeed seems to prefer) ely ro ayaSov and eh 

* Of this condescension to the weaknesses of others, the Apostle 
gave not only the precept, but the example ; as we find from 1 Cor. 
9, 22. 10, 33. 

f Several examples of it are adduced by Wets. ; as the following 
from Xiphil. a(p6bpo (pperyp-qs fJiumoursomeJ, oi/re ro'is uXXols 
ijpeaKef, cvr aiirvs eavTui. Plato Protagora. e'yj'wv* yup on ovk 
i'lpea-ev .ahrus eavr^ Tois awoKpifrefxi ra'is {-'f-nrpoeTdev. Seneca Epist. 
115. Dum sit magnus et opinionum securus [animus] et ob ipsa, 
qu£e aliis displiceunt, sibi placens. Athen. p. 58 c. upeaKcy tcivrw. 
Theophr. Ch. Eth. 5., where he depicts the 6 cipeaKos, the contrary 
to whom is the aixpubris. JEschyl. P. V. I8t>. Trap' tavrf ro biKaiov 
€x<jiy) where the Scho). explains : Trcwra biKalws oiv^evos Troteir, 
nvros eaurw cipiaicu)v, Koi bitcaioy vopi$.u)v eivui, uirep ay povXijTUL 

The Latin writers, too, frequently use the phrase tibi and sibi 


oiAToSojxr'v two synonymous terms : which is surely an 
unjustifiable curtailing of the sense. As to the mode 
of" interpretation adopted by Ammon, who takes it 
as equivalent to ely aya^oi/, " for good,'* i. e. in things 
pertaining to religion ;" it is quite inadmissible ; 
since, in fact, the to here has the force of auVoG ; as 
the older Commentators have rightly seen." The 
clause €is o\Ko^o[xriv seems to have been added, to qua- 
lify and explain the former ; and it is therefore not 
necessary to resort to the interpretation just men- 
tioned, since the words ety ol/cooojarfv are sufficient to 
limit this to things pertaining to religion. On the ej? 
ro ayabov, Theodorct well observes : ea-n yao apecrKeiu 
Ka) €7r) x'jTT-r] Koi ioc'JTOu KUi rotj TrArjo-Zov. To which 
purpose there is an apposite passage in Theophr. 
Ch. Eth. 5. Trept apecrKela? — >] 8e apecrKeia. ea-riv — ovk 
€7!-) jSeAr J 0-Tto t^Oovrjf 7ra^a(TK€ua(rTiK-^. 

It is judiciously remarked by Chrysost. and Theo- 
phyl., that the words ely o\Ko^oy.T^v were added, to 
prevent a perversion of the ouvaro), or stronger, who 
might say, in reference to the weaker one : '* By 
pressing him to participate of all meats and drinks, 
without restriction, I draw him to what is sond." 
But it must be good for him, to his Christian edifica- 
tion. So that such a procedure, even if good in 
itself, yet being inopportune, would tend to destruc- 
tion rather than edijication. For an ill-timed rebuke 
does not edify " 

3. KOLi yap "Kpicrros ouk eaurco ^pecev. The pre- 
cept is further enjoined upon us by the example of 
Christ himself, who sought not his own glory, who 
lived not to himself, and who bore the most cruel 
injuries without complaint. 

It is well observed by Koppe, that the sentiment 
" he bore the insults of men," is clothed in the 
words of Ps. 69, 10. o\ ovei^iTixo) tcvv oi/eioi^ovrcov <r€ 
€7r€7r€crov eV tjote, which agree exactly with the Ileb. 
and the Greek version. The words are admitted by 
Rosenm. to be strikingly applicable to Christ; yet 
Koppe will not allow them to be more than an at- 


commodation, and denies that they were primarily 
meant of the Messiah ; observing : " Psalmum in 
suo contextu ex consilio auctoris de Messia agere 
probari non potest.'* But the onus probandi rests 
with him. It is (as Mr. Turner truly remarks) for 
h'lm to prove that the application varies from the 
intention of the original author." Besides, he him- 
self admits that various other sentences of the Old 
Testament were, by the Jews of that time (nay even 
by those of the present day), conceived to treat of 
the fortunes of the Messiah. And whence could 
have arisen such an opinion, unless it had had its 
foundation in tradition handed down from the times 
of the Prophets themselves ? Moreover, the Apostle 
himself, in the following words, refers to those nu- 
merous passages which occurred in the Old Testa- 
ment, as written for the instruction and consolation 
of believers in the Messiah. 

4. oVa yap Trpoeypotcpr) — hi^aa-KCiT^iav, It is well 
observed by Grot., that this clause is inserted, in 
order to meet a tacit objection, that the passage 
does not belong to tis, but unto David ; or (to use 
the words of Crellius) that it has no reference to 
Christ or to Christians, olim hcec contigisse, aliam 
horum, aliam illorum temporum et reriim rationem 
esse. To which the answer is : '' It does indeed 
appertain to David, but it is admitted by all Jews to 
be typical of Christ." (See 1 Cor. 10, 6 ) Theophyl. 
adds, '* for our imitation." 

4, j'va, Sia rrj^^ uttoikovyis — k^wi^ev. Here more 
than one mode of construction and interpretation 
has been devised. Some Commentators think there 
is an Hendiadis in rvj? uVojaovT^s" /cat r^y TrapaKXTjcecoy. 
This, however, is (I think) too bold. It should seem 
that I'j/a has the eventual sense, and that the purport 
of the whole sentence is, to represent the result of 
what had been written aforetime, namely '* so that 
by patience, &c. we may have hope." The ques- 
tion, however, is whether uVojutovv]? is to be taken 
with ypoi<^cov, or not. Now this is a point of no very 


easy decision, and on whicli Interpreters differ. It 
seems most probable that it ouglit not : and such is 
the opinion of many eminent ancient and modern 

The sentence is thus explained by Chrysost. : "hex. 
6K7reVo|u,6i/ (ttoj/c/Xoj yao ol aymvcs^ eVoj^ev, e^co^ev^ tva. 
v€uoou^€voi Ka) 7rapaKaXouix€Voi Trapa tcov ypai^uiv, uTTOfxo- 
vr,v eTTjSeJ^ajjtxeda, »W ev uTroixovyi §aiUT€9, ixevcofxev ctt) r^y 
fXTTiSoy raura yap a?0\.r,7^a)V €(tt\ KaTa(rK€ua.(rriKa, tj' 

repoL ctTTo rcov ypac^iov ylverai. And by Tlieophyl. 144. 
as follows : "KwauSa. Se ko.) ely uTro'xov^v Tretqaa-fxcuv au- 
TOS" TTOLpaKokei, Kai (^rjfTiv' Hva utto tcov ypa^wv v€'jpouy.€- 
VQi u7roixeua)[X€V, Kai uTroixevovres' ^eiKvuw^ev iv ioLuroiS 
TToitroiV rrjV iT^Trloa ^cu(Ta.v Koti ^€(daiav. 'O yap VTrofxevcov, 
€Keivo9 So/cf? eT^TTiOa 'ey(eiv rwv ixeTO^ovroiv aya^ww wtrxep 

By €^uiixeu must be understood Kare^^coixeu, " hold 
fast." Tr)v iXTTi^a. Here the article seems to be used 
for the pronoun possessive, " our hope." 

5. o C€ @€09 rrjs' uTrojtxovT]?, Ka) r^y TrapaKkr^a-cois ScJyj 
uju.Tv TQ auTo c^^oveTv iv a7<.7^.7]Xois. The Apostle now 
addresses himself r/f/ vota. 

God is said to be "the God of patience and conso- 
lation," because he j)roduces them in us, by supplying 
various means by which that virtue may be generated; 
and in order to enable us to meet all sorts of evils 
with unbroken courage, and unshaken constancy, he 
supplies us with variqus solaces. (Crell.) Since in 
the mutual concord of Christians the Apostle found 
the best alleviation of injuries from without, so to 
the cultivation of this virtue he especially exhorts 
them. (Kop})e.) 

When God is here said to be the God r^s uTroixovrj^^ 
Ka) rrjS' 7rapaK7^r](r€(o^, w'c are not to consider on/i/ the 
media by which all things are made to work for good 
in the end, and the religious solace to be found in 
Scripture, but also the supports, assistances, and 
comforts of the Holy Spirit, or the paraclete^ a very 
high degree of whose graces were vouchsafed to the 

VOL. VI. o 


primitive Christians, but from whom Christians of 
every age may expect '^ sanctifying influences as are 
given to every man to profit withal." 

Koppe here compares the similar formulas 0eo? 
TT}? eXTr/Soy, ver. 13., and 0eo? rr]? ej^T^vvj?, 15, 33., 
1 Thess. 5, 23. And Grot, observes, that the ge- 
nitive in the New Testament sometimes denotes the 
object, and sometimes the effective cause. 

5. TO auTo ^^ovelv iu aAATjXoiy, Kara Xp. 'I. It is 
rightly observed by Crellius, that the to auro ^^oveiv 
is to be understood, not so much " de sententiarum 
ac opinionum, quam animarum ac voluntatunv con- 
spiratione." So Tirinus and others ap. Hardy, who 
interpret it of '^similar affections and good will in 
bearing their mutual infirmities, to the removal of all 
altercations on the distinctions of meats and days, 
that there may be no hi^oa-Taa-lai.. 

The words Kara 'Kpirrrou 'I. may, as Koppe says, 
be referred either to aXXTjXoJS", for aXT.Tfxo/y toT? Kara 
X., or to TO auTo (^poveiv. 

6. jW o'jitoQujxaSov iv iv) (rroixari S., that " when ye 
praise God, ye may do it, as with one mouth, so also 
with one mind, with unanimity, without strife, ha- 
tred, or contentions." And so Grot., who observes, 
that there is here a reference to the antient doxolo- 
gies and litanies. 

Aoja^rjre, praise, celebrate. Compare Job. 15, 8. 
1 Cor. 6, 20. On o/xo0u|xa8ov* see Acts 2, 46. and the 
note there. 

6. rov 0eov Ka) irarepa rou Kvpioo i^^cdv 'I. X., " the 

* OF which phraae, and also of erl ffTOfuiri, Wets, has here ad- 
duced several illustrations ; as Plato ap. Polluc. 2, 102. it, evos aro' 
uaros. Plato 775 D. fxig, be ^wvj) kcu e'E, erhs (xro^aros TtavTas avj^L- 
tpiaveiv' & 595 C. Tcdi'Tes yap il, evos tTTOfxaros v^vovai. Arist. Eq. 
667. 01 6' ts evos aroj-iaros uTravres uveKpayov, where the Schol. 
explains: 6fxo6viJ.ab6v kcu ixia <j)uptj. He also subjoins several other 
examples of t^ evos arofxaros from Aristides, Galen, and Anthol., 
and likewise of uno ore, from the best Latin writers. It bhould 
therefore seem that ev evl (jtoixuti is an Hellenistical phrase. Of 
the examples of o/xodv^abov the most apposite is one from Demosth, 
Phil. 4. eav wyneTs oiLiodv/.iab6v e(f iKereias Kal \iras Tpcnro^evovs. 


God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Com- 
pare Q Cor. 11, 31. Eph. 1, 3. 1 Pet. 1, 3. Here it 
is observed by Koppe : *' Hoc apte ad doctrinani 
Paulli aliis locis propositam cf. Eph. 1, IJ. (adde Jo. 
20, 17-) ut idem Deus dicitur abas Qel^ ko.) ttut-^p 
r^lJioov Galat. 1, 4. (itemque Joh. 20, I7.) DupHcem 
cum Deo et Patre necessitudinem habet Christus 
pros nobis, dupHcem nos quoque per Christum. Joh. 
20, 17. Eadem formula legitur 2 Cor. 1, 3. 11, 31. 
Eph. 1, 3. Col. 1, 3. 1 Pet. 1, 3." 

7. Sjo 7rpo(r7\.ay.(dav€<r^6 aXXvfAoyy. This very con- 
sent of mind would especially be declared, if the 
Gentile and the Jewish Christians mutually assisted 
and supported each other : for to these two kinds of 
Christians the to Trpoa-K. aXX-jf?*.. seems to pertain. 

Aio is pregnant with meaning, and is well para- 
phrased by Grot. : " Since these things are so; since 
love forms a principal article in the Christian faith." 
On the force of ttoog-X. see the note on 12, 1. 'Tjxaf, 
" you all, whether Jews or Gentiles.** 

7- ely ^o^av 0eoG. This clause admits of two modes 
of explanation. 1. If referred to the TrpocrX. aAXrj'x. 
it will signify, " ad honorem Dei;" q, d. " and this 
your mutual love will redound to the honour of 
God.** And so Chrysost., Theophyl., and many 
early modern Commentators. 2. It may, with most 
recent Commentators, be referred to what immedi- 
ately preceded, i. e. " hath placed you in a state of 
salvation by which you may finally attain to the glory 
of God." This Koppe thinks preferable, on account 
of ver. 8 & 9-j in which is declared how Jesus Christ 
hath promoted the glory of God, viz. by receiving 
Jews and Gentiles into his favour. 

That this passage has a reference to Church com- 
munion, has been shown by several able Commenta- 
tors. See Doddr. and Mackn., or Slade. 

8. Xeyo) 6€ 'I. X. diocKovov — Trarepcov. Here we have 
a reason for the preceding. Many MSS. indeed 
read yap, but, as it should seem, from a gloss. The 

o 2 


argument is thus stated by Rosenm. : " Quia Chris- 
tus et Judseis (v. 8.) et paganis (v. 9.) prodesse, at- 
que ex ambobus iinum ccetum efficere voluerit, debet 
alter Christianorum alteri lenem esse, atque ita ei 
secundum exemplum Christi inservire, neque vero 
eum infestare." It is observed by Mr. Turner, that 
either St. Paul carries on the argument for mutual 
concession and favour, from the character and office 
of Christ ; or, having before mentioned it, ver. 7-) 
he is led thereby to the subject of his Epistle, the 
extending of the Messiah's kingdom to the Gentiles, 
the prominent idea in his mind." 

AioLKovos 7repiToix7]S' is rightly regarded by Rosen- 
muller as a brief and popular expression for ^kxkovos' 
®eotj aTTOCTeAXo/xevoy tt^os rouy ;reptTerfj!,T]|xevoi»s', where 
we have the abstract for the concrete, as often. 
Koppe here compares Matt. ^0, 28. " he came not 
to be ministered unto, but to minister." See also 
Joh. 13, 14. Phil. 2, J. 

8. uTTcg a7\.r}^ela9 0eou, " for the establishment of 
the truth of God." So Koppe : tv tw a-uvia-ravai t-^v 
aXri^eiav, i. e. *' faith in keeping his promises." In 
the words following, ely to j3e0. — TrarepcDV, is (as 
Koppe observes) more clearly shown what is meant 
in the uttc^ ti]? a.7\.rfieta9 BeoG. In iTrayy. TruTepuiV (as 
Grot, rem.arks) the genitive is a genitive of object ; 
and the sense is : " the promises made by God to the 
Fathers, namely the Jews, to whom the promises of 
a Messiah appertained." Be^ai(oo-a< ray eVayyeX/ay, 
" to do that which God had promised that he would 
sometime do." And so Koppe interprets. The 
word 3e3., it may be observed, is especially appli- 
cable to ivrayyeT^. Thus Polyb. p. 364. (cited by 
Wets.) ^e^aicua-eiv ray errayyexias. Aristides, l3e|3at- 
(jj(Tai T^v €7rfx.yy€7^lav. Compare 1 Cor. 1, 12. Gal. 3, 
17. Eph. 5, 32. Here it is observed by Wetstein : 
" Christus ipse eo usque se demisit, ut eorum, qui a 
multis contemnuntur, minister esset : 7r€piroi/.r, con- 
temptus nomine." 

9. rot. 6e eSvT] uyrep eXeouy Oo^a<yai tov 0eov. Koppe 


observes that there is an anacolutlion. The exact 
construction, he says, would have been this : tcHv 8e 
eSvcov S/a/covous" (Ivoci ri^ois uir^p iXeou^ Qeou, ely to So^ctcrai 
auTol)^ rrjv )(^a.piu Tou Qeoo. Here Ilosenm., with many 
Commentators, subauds T^eyco and o<^ei7^€iv from the 
preceding; and he refers to a similar ellipsis at 4, 13., 
and lays down the sense as follows : " Although 
Jesus only hy himself announced the Gospel to the 
Jews, yet the Gentiles have not been neglected, but 
they themselves also ought to magnify the goodness 
of God, for so weighty a benefit imj)arted to them, 
though from no obligation of promise." 

9. Ka^cos yiypawrai, " thus may be fulfilled what 
was written." It is well remarked by Taylor, that 
the Apostle is persuading the converts to a cordial 
coalition in public worship, and is giving each party 
a substantial reason why they ought to unite their 
hearts as well as voices. But as it would be more 
difficult to persuade the Jew, he applies to him seve- 
ral quotations out of Scripture,* Ps. 18, 49. Deut. 
32, 43. Ps. 117, 1. Isa. 11, 10. the first and last of 
which, as Whitby shews, the Jews interpreted of the 

On the sentiment see 11, 31 and 32. Wetstein 
aptly adduces a Rabbinical writer. Megilla, fol. 14, 1. 
ex quo tempore Judaei terram promissam ingressi 
sunt, nemo gentium Deo canticum dicere potuit ; 
postquam vero in captivitatem ducti sunt, denuo coe- 
perunt jus habere ad glorificandum Deum. 

9 — 12. The first passage is from Ps. 18, 50. (with 
the omission of /c-joioy after eOveVt), and is quoted 
from the Sept., which closely follows the Hebrew. 
The next passage is Deut. 32, 49., following the 
Sept., and receding from the Hebrew, which reads, 
'^DV 'cy'^> ^T^yyn, celebrate the nations, his people. 
The third passage AIveTre — 01 Xaoj is from Ps. 11 7, 1., 
and follows the Greek, which agrees with the He- 

* Which, as Wets, observes, arc taken from the L;iw, the Pro- 
phets, and the Psalms. 


brew. In the fourth,"Eo-rai 75 pl§a (stirps, Apoc. 5, 5. 
22, 14.) rod 'lea-arou — €7v7riod(rav, from Is. 11, 10., he 
closely follows the Greek, without (as it seems) con- 
sulting the Hebr. In the three former passages is 
contained this sentiment : That Jehovah shall be 
known as the true God among the Gentiles as well 
as the Jews. The last contains the promise, that a 
King shall be born from the Jews, another David, to 
whom even the nations not Jewish shall render obe- 
dience. (Koppe.) 

12. 67r* auT(p cQvTj eXTTJouo-jv. The Hebrew text is, 
" Him shall the Gentiles consult," i. e. from the 
Messiah, as the common author of the salvation of 
all people, not only the Jews, but the Gentiles shall 
seek their oracles, i. e. will desire to be taught by 
him the means of obtaining salvation; and will 
therefore place their trust in him." (Rosenm.) 

It is observed by Turner, that -^ pi^a. and aviG-ra- 
(xevos undoubtedly mean the same person ; as is pro- 
bable from the parallelism. " The word root (conti- 
nues he) is often used by the Hebrew writers for 
sucher springing from the root. Comp. Rosenm. on 
Isa. in loc, or see Isa. 53, 2. Hos. 14, 6." 

13. 6 Be ©eoy r^y eATr/Sos* Tt'kripwa-ai ujtxas" — Tri<Tr€(i€iv. 
Epilogus est epistolse, quam aliquoties claudit, qui 
continet votum Apostoli, quo Romanis qusedam a 
Deo precatur. (Crell.) 

In this verse begins the fourth, and the last part 
oj this Epistle, namely, the epilogus, or conclusion, 
which, it may be observed, is written with admi- 
rable prudence and wisdom. Now this may be con- 
sidered as forming two parts : in i\\e former of which 
the Apostle addresses endearing language to the 
Romans, and apologizes for what he has written, 
ver. 14. to the end of the chapter. In the latter he 
testifies his love at large, and in various ways. And 
this occupies the whole of the last chapter. (Carp- 

Here the Apostle earnestly entreats of God, that 
the Gentile Christians may be preserved, and con- 


firmed in this hope of felicity which the Scriptures 
had claimed for them. Thus there is a close con- 
nexion between ver. 12 & 13. (Koppe.) 

13. Geo^ T^ff €X7rioo9, &c., " May God, from whom 
alone is to be expected whatever you hope in this 
life, or in the next," &c. UT^rjpwa-ai Jp,ay Trao-yis* p^agay 
Ka) el^Tj'vr;?. The general sentiment is thus expressed 
by Koppe : " In amplectenda et profitenda religione 
securos ab omni malo felices beatosque vos reddat." 
And the ehrjvri he explains vacuitas a malo, (ranqidl' 
litas, securitas. Others, however, take it to denote 
concord and unanimity. But this seems too harsh 
an interpretation. Xa/ja, i.e. "joy that you are 
Christians, together with the other consolations and 
grounds for rejoicing, which the Gospel alone can 

13. eis TO 7r€^i<Ta'€U€iv v^ds ev ty) eXTri^i — aylovy " that 
ye, by the powerful aids of the Holy Spirit, shed 
abroad in your hearts, may abound more and more 
in this hope. (See Theophyl.) Wetstein here com- 
pares Philo 2, 116, 47. Ta 8' OTrXa ku) ^riy^avr^ixoLra 
t^ixcov, Ka) TToicra r] oJvajxts" iv jtxovto tco Tna-reueiv 0eco 

14. 7re7r€i(r[xai Se — ayaQcotruvrjS. Since not only the 
immediately preceding verses, but the greater part 
of the whole Epistle was written with the especial 
intent that the Jewish Christians might be excited to 
sentiments of love and affection towards the Gentile 
brethren, the Apostle now (towards the conclusion 
of the Epistle) excuses the liberty, and, as it were, 
boldness which he had used in treating on that sub- 
ject, by pleading the strong obligation, and sacred 
duty enjoined on him from heaven, by which he was 
especially bound to render service to the Gentiloe, 
and, in every way, to commend their cause to the 
Jewish Christians. "Which sentiment, indeed, again 
gives tiie Apostle an occasion of dwelling on his own 
merits respecting the conversion of the heathens ; 
and to declare, moreover, what he had resolved to 
do for the further propagation of the Gospel among 


those nations, ver. 16. seq. (Koppe.) So Theophyl. 

T^oiirov. Grotius, too, remarks : *' Solet Apostolus 
monita sua emollire quasi ex superabundanti adhi- 
bita, ut eo magis suos ad officium excitet. Simile 
loquendi genus 2 Tim. 1, 5. Flebr. 6, 9-" 

By the a.^e'ki^oi may (I think), v.'ith Koppe, be un- 
derstood the Roman Christians generally, and not 
the Presbyters only : though it is not necessary to 
suppose that the commendations were applicable to 
every individual of the body. 

Kaj auTot, " ye yourselves also ;" which (as Pisca- 
tor observes) involves the farther sense, "even with- 
out my admonition J even though I admonish you." 
Here Beza compares the Homeric r/ /xe (nre^hvTGL 
Koi aurov brpuvei ; 

Theophylact notices the strength of the terms 
fj^earro] ayaOwcuvvj? and 7r€7r?;73pa)ju,6voi Traerrjy yvuxreoi^. 
The ayahcoa-uvTi, it may be observed, has all the lati- 
tude of signification found in our goodness, and espe- 
cially denotes benignity and integrity. So Theo- 
phylact explains it, ayahr^s yvw{K7i9 ko.) 4)iXaSeA<^a>v. 

14. 7r67r7i7]|5a)juevo» Trao-ijy yvaia-eco^. This (as was just 
observed) is a strong expression ; for (as Theophyl, 
remarks) the Apostle does not say, *'ye have all 
knowledge," but, " ye are Jilled with all know- 
ledge." There is, too, perhaps, a climax. For (as 
Theophylact observes) it would be of no service to 
have goodness, and not to know how to use it. As 
to the Trao-Ty? yva}(r€ai9, it must not be pressed upon 
in interpretation ; (as when Koppe renders it, " in- 
signis quaedam rerum divinarum intelligentia.") Its 
sense is, I think, determined by the words following, 
Sui/a/xevoi kou aXAT^Xous' vovBeTeiv. It signifies, then, 
filled with all knowledge necessary for the purpose 
of mutual instruction. Here Carpzov compares 1 
Joh. 2, 20. " Ye have an unction from the Holy 
One, and ye know all things." And 27- "But the 
anointing which ye have received of him abideth in 
you ; and ye need not that any man teacli you," 


The Koi in the next clause is pregnant with mean- 
ing ; and the sense is : "able not only to understand 
the doctrines of the Gospel, but to explain, teach, 
and instruct others in them." This, indeed, rather 
requires the reading aX7;ouy, which is supported 
by powerful authorities, and is probably the true 
one. Wetstein here adduces numerous passages 
illustrative of vooQereh, as the following from Menan- 
der : aTravres tV/xev e«y to vouQfreTv (ro(pol' uuto) 8' 
a.fji.apTa.vovT€9 ou yvcoa-KOfxeu. Athen. KoAa^ejv he iv 
hiKji ho'jXous' hei, Koi fXTi vou^erorjvra, cJy eT^eu^epov^, Qpurr- 
reaSoci 7ro»e?v. Indeed the word is of frequent occur- 
rence in the best Greek writers. Schleusner defines 
it, "ad sanam mentem revocare verbis." But that 
is not always the sense ; as will appear from the fol- 
lowing passage of Aristoph. Vesp. 254. e<, vri AC, 
auSi9 Kovo67\.oi9 v'Q\j^€rri<Teh' T^fxa^. 

15. ro7<ixripoT€0(iV Se 6ypa\}/a 6;ji.Tv. The Apostle here 
replies to a tacit objection ; " why, then, have you 
plied us with admonitions," &c., and states the rea- 
son why he had written with such boldness and au- 
thority. (Crellius.) 

ToA]U,rpoTepov, " paulo liberius," somewhat hoJdli/. 
'Atto fj.€oou9 may be construed either with €ypay^a, 
and signify, " in some parts of this Epistle ;" or 
with To7^ixripoT€^ov. But the former seems the more 
regular mode. It thus signifies " ex parte aliquate- 
nus," quodammodo. Schleusner, in his Lex. com- 
pares Arrian, Ep. 1, 27, I7. 

15. (JOS eTravaixiixvria-Kuiv upas". Koppe takes this for 
wa-re €7ravaju.j/'xvr;o-KeJv. This, however, is not neces- 
sary : nay, if I mistake not, the other is equally good 
Greek. With the sentiment (viz. of admonishing 
those who are supposed to know,) Wetstein compares 
Demosth. Phil. fin. CKua-Tov ufxwv, KaiTrep a.Kpi^ais' 
flSoVa, ojufoy e7ravotixv7]<rai ^ouXoixai. 2. Pet. 12, & 13. 
The words 8»a t>)v x^F^^i ^c- Koppe observes, are to 
be closely connected with those that commence the 
next verse. And Rosenm. renders, '* vi numinis 
mihi a Deo demandati." 


16. €19X0 elvcLi [t.e TieiTQupyov 'I, X. e. t. e., " that I 
should bestow my especial attention on the conver- 
sion of the Gentiles to the religion of Christ." This 
seems to be the simple sense : but the Apostle has here 
expressed himself by a formula derived from the 
Jewish religion, in order thereby to impress more 
strongly on the minds of the Jewish Christians the 
weight and dignity of the Apostolical office. He, 
therefore, does not call himself S/a/covos*, but Xeiroup- 
yof, a sacred minister^ a priest; which is the perpe- 
tual signification of T^eirovpyeiv and its derivatives, in 
the Greek versions of the New Testament. (See 
Schl. Lex.) Nor does he say that it is his office 
KrjpuVo-eiV, but Upov^yeiv to euayyeT^iov. Finally, he 
does not make the fruit of his labour consist in this, 
ha €7ri(rrpoL<poo(ri ra edvr] els Seov Sjo, ttv. aylou : but in 
this, tW yevrtrai 7r^o(r(popa. rwv eQvcov eoTrpocrheKTos i^yiaa-- 
lx€V7]j (ay/ct, h. 7rpo(r6V€)(S€l(ra rm Seco,) €U ttv. ctyup, " ut 
ipsi offerentur Deo tanquam victima sacra ei et ac- 
cepta (12, 1)." (Koppe.) Not only these, but Trgoo-- 
<^opa and ■^yiaa-ixevT] are sacrificial terms, and are not, 
with the early Commentators, to be rendered too 
literally, or pressed upon. It is rightly remarked by 
Carpzov, that Uporjpyeh to euayye'Kiov tou (deoZ merely 
means to preach the Gospel, as a priest of the New 
Testament, that Gospel by which men are conse- 
crated unto God, and made Guc/at ^oVat, aylai, 
euapea-Toi r<S ©eoJ, Rom. 12, 1. Phil. 2, IJ. So The- 
ophyl. (from Chrysost.) Ely t/ he eSoQr] (xoi v] x^pis ; 
€»$• TO ehai [/.e T^eirovpyov ku) lepeoc rod euayye'AloiJ. Mr} 
roivvv (xoi ix€iJ.(^e(rSe, eav upv o/xjAoi- aurri yaq ixou i€Q(o<ruvr] 
TO KurayyeTO^eiv to euayye^iov. Map^atpav ex»> t(>v 
y^oyov hua-ia ia-re u/xeTy* tj? S' av fx.efc-4/otTo tco lepel r^v 
^jLU^aipav €7rayovTi rois Trgoy ^ixriav a(p(opi(riJ.evois ; In- 
deed there is inherent in the word a sense somewhat 
more profound than that which is laid down by 
Koppe, who, by the way, takes no notice of the 
words ev 7rveviJ.aTi ayiip, which are explained away 
by Rosenm., but very properly dwelt upon by Dod- 
dridge, and especially by Macknight.* 

* Whose words are these : " According to the law, the sacrifices 


17. ^^(o ouv Kau^7}(yiv iv X. 'I. ra tt^qs 0eov, " I liav^e 
therefore a cause or reason for boasting, because, 
like a true priest, I offer up men as victims sacred 
to God, by Jesus Christ, and bring them to the Di- 
vine rehgion, and the feHcity conjoined with it." 

Kau;^7](rjy, " reason for boasting." So Phil. 3. 
Tcfc TTpof 0€ov, suitably to the metaphor in which the 
Apostle yet continues, must be supplied Trpocrevc^- 
$€VTa, equivalent to Trpoa-cpopa) ^ucrlai, Hebr. 2, I7. 5, 
1. Wetstein compares Isocr. ad Demon. €u(r€^€7 ra 
Trpos rous $€ou9. And ad Nicocl. on ra Trep) rouy 5eouy 

18, 19. ou yoi-p TolKikT^G-io AaXeTv ti cov, &c. There is 
an obscurity in these words (proceeding, as Ammon 
thinks, from the modesty of tlie Apostle), whicli our 
Interpreters have not been snccessfid in removing. 
Grot, and Carpzov lay down the following sense. 
" For I can scarce dare to say, or speak out, how 
much Christ has done by me, as well in words as in 
works, nay miracles, so that so great numbers of 
Gentiles should obey the truth." This, however, 
Koppe pronounces a very harsh interpretation : and 
he proposes the following : " I can never venture to 
boast of the labours of others, and not my own." But 
how such a sense can be elicited from the words, it 
is difficult to see, and still more to recognise in it any 
thing of the Apostolic spirit. Koppe indeed pro- 
poses another interpretation, by which the words are 

were sanctified, or made acceptable to God, by being salted and laid 
on the altar by the priest, Matt. 23, 19. Mark 9, 49. But the Gen- 
tiles converted from idolatry to the worship of the true God, through 
the Apostle's labours, were otfered by liini to God as a free will 
offering; and were sanctified, or made acceptable to God, by the 
influences and gifts of the Holy Ghost, which the Apostle had con- 
ferred on them. By these gifts, the Gentiles were strongly con- 
firmed in the faith of the Gospel, and cleansed from their former 
impurities. This was an exercise of the priest's office, and a sancti- 
fication of the offering which was far more excellent, effectual, and 
acceptable, than the sanctification and offering of the sacrifices of 
beasts prescribed in the haw." 


a mere foi^mida veracitatis suae contest an dee ; q. d. 
" J will say no more than what Christ has really 
made me instrumental in effecting ; I will not exag- 
gerate, nor deceive." And this is adopted by Ro- 
senm. and Turner. But it seems as objectionable as 
the preceding interpretation. Mackn. uses a still 
greater liberty, by inserting a whole clause, contrary 
to the rules which regulate such insertions ; and, 
what is more, producing a very frigid sense. 

Under these circumstances, it is necessary to re- 
sort to the fountain heads of interpretation as they 
are found in the antient Fathers ; and, if I mistake 
not, we shall here, as on many other occasions, find 
that there alone is preserved the pure unadulterated 
truth. I shall give the interpretation of Theophyl., as 
being the shortest, but it is founded on the authority 
of Chrysost., and is confirmed by Q^cumen.Theodo- 
ret, Photius, and others, p. 148. "Erreihri eJ-n-ev, on Xej- 
roupyoy €iy.i roy euayyeT^lou eie Travra to. eSvrj, (prjclv on 
ou KOjutTTOc^co, ouSe aXa^oveJojaai ri cov ouk e7roirj(ra, 
jU-aXXov he oCk eyco KoiT€ipyo!.(ra.y.rjV, aXX 'o ^^icrros kcl- 
r€ipya(TOLr(i, €(j.o] opyavtp p^pijcra/xevoy. Eire yap (pQeyyo- 
jtxat ri 7,€yu)V /cat <pi7^o(ro'^wv Trepi ra)V oupavioUy eire 
epya^ojULai Seiocv TToT^ireiav ju-erjcov, '^ Koi 9ati^jtara reT^wv, 
Travra roG X^j(rTou, Cum dixisset, minister sum Evan- 
gelii ad onines gentes, adjicit, Non sum arrogansj nee 
arroganter jaeto qidcquam eortim quae non feci ; imo 
non ego feci, sed Christus ejfecit meinstrumentousus. 
Sive enim qidcquam loquat^ de coelestibus disserens ac 
philosophans, sive operer, divinam co?iversatione?n ex- 
ercens, sive miracula perficiens, omnia sunt CJiristi. 
The obscurity, in fact, is occasioned by a remarkable 
brevity o/'expressiofi, arising in modesty. 

The Xoyo) refers to the preaching of the Gospel ; 
and the epyipy to the miracles by which he proved 
his Divine commission : for the words following, 
eu 5uvajtJL6j (rr}y.ela)v Koi reparcuv, are exegetical of the 

19. w(7T€ jxe ctTTo 'If^oucaAv^ix, &c. Here are enu- 
merated the limits of the regions within which his 


Apostolical labours had hitherto been confined ; 
namely, Jerusalem on the East, and Illyricum on 
the West. It must be observed that the term 
KUK7,ip may here, (by the usage of the best Greek 
writers,) have great latitude, and comprehend a 
very extensive radius of country about Jerusalem, 
including Palestine, Syria, and the adjacent parts 
of Arabia. But Jerusalem is especially mentioned, 
from its being the centre whence the rays of Divine 
knowledge beamed. 

On Illyricum, see Strabo and the other Geogra- 
phical writers, or Cellarius. 

19. 7r€7rXr)pcoK€vai ro eoayyeT^iov r. X. Here we 
have a mode of expression differing widely from 
the Classical usage, and which may very well be 
reckoned among the Hellenistical phrases of the 
New Testament; though it can only exactly be 
paralleled by Col. 1, 25. TrT^riowa-oti tov T^oyov tou 0eoC. 
The early Commentators seem to have been much 
perplexed with the expression, which they render 
*' fully evangelize." The later Interpreters, as Vi- 
trmga and Koppe, more judiciously, regard it as a 
Hebraism derived from a similar use of the corre- 
spondent term "^n;}, to complete, perfect, (which, espe- 
cially in the Chaldee dialect,) often signifies to teach. 
And this interpretation is confirmed by the autho- 
rity of the Syriac Version. After all, however, it 
may perha])s be a vox pra^gnatis, and signify, *' I 
perfectly fulfilled my office, that of preaching the 
Gospel." And this, if I mistake not, was the mode 
in which Chrysostom understood the word. 

20. ouTO) 8e (^JAor//xoujU-e!/oj/ eitayyeT^l^efxdon. The par- 
ticiple c^jAot. depends upon the preceding cocrre 
7r€7r7,7)pa)K€vai, and it may be taken as the participle 
imperfect; though in translating it must be ex- 
pressed by the verb in the preterite, " Thus have I 
striven." ^iAoTip.e?o-Qat (it may be observed) is a 
very strong term; and the force of it is illustrated 
by Wets, and Kypke with many examples. It signi- 
fies properly " to be studious of, and to seek after 


honour;" and since such a pursuit implies zeal and 
labour and diligence, the verb comes to denote ge- 
nerally to do any thing with great labour, diligence, 
zeal, &c. : and this is by most Commentators thought 
to be the sense here ; though Koppe, keeping close 
to the primitive import, takes it to mean : " I regard 
it as an honour," &c. But the former interpretation 
is by far the more rational one : and certainly the 
latter never entered into the thoughts of the Greek 

20. ouK oTToo (ouoixaa-^rj X., " not SO much where Christ 
was named." The ou;^ has here the sense of non 
tarn : for, as Rosenm. observes, Paul found disciples 
in certain places where he discharged his office ; as at 
Ephesus, Acts 19, 1- : nay at Rome, where a Church 
was already founded, he thought proper to preach 
the Gospel. 

20. tW jtxig e7r' aXXoVptov SejU-eXjov oj/coSojutto. The sense 
of these words is too obvious to need explanation. 
The Commentators remark on the fondness of the 
Apostle for metaphors taken from a foundation ; as 
1 Cor. 3. 10. Eph. 2, 20. And they might have 
added, that this has every appearance of having been 
a proverbial phrase, examples of which I remember 
to have met with in the Classical writers. 

21. aXXa /caScoy yey^aTTTat, "thus was fulfilled in 
my case," &c. Plainly an accommodation of the 
words of Is. 52, 15. (by the common consent of the 
Jewish Interpreters referred to the Messiah) to the 
Apostle's own case." This quotation exactly agrees 
with the Sept. ; but in the Hebr. there is nothing 
corresponding to Treg) aurotj. 

22. 3*0 Koi eve/<:o7rro|X7]v r. tt. t. e. The Sjo refers, not 
to what immediately preceded, but to ver. 19 and 
20., and expresses the cause why the Apostle had 
not yet come unto them, namely (as Koppe states 
the case) because the Romans had received the Gos- 
pel from other hands, and because the Apostle's 
plan, namely of first propagating it where it had ne- 
ver yet been delivered, had hitherto kept him too 


much occupied with perpetual labours, to attend to 
Rome, or any place where the Gospel had been al- 
ready preached. 

'Eve/coTTTOjtxrjv row ex9e?v expresses that he had in- 
tended to come unto them. Theophyl. supplies 
xoXXaKJy €7ri^€ipcov, koI e7r<9t>|xtov Ojatos" €K(o7\.vQr}V. The 
ev€K07rr. is explained by Heysch. €V€7ro^i§o[jLr]v. So at 
the beginning of the Epistle we have e/ca)Xu9r;v Si^pi 
Tou oeiipo. 

Q3. vov\ Se fxrjKeri tottov e^cuu 6. r. k. t. The sense 
of this passage is thought to be somewhat uncertain, 
TOTTOV €X^^^ being a phrase of extensive signification. 
It may either mean, as Theodoret and several mo- 
dern Commentators explain, " there being no longer 
any place remaining where Christ has not been 
preached, i. e. any fit place, viz. any city of cele- 
brity ; whence the Gospel could easily be communi- 
cated to the circumjacent villages. This, however, 
requires too harsh a subaudition. I therefore prefer, 
with Chrysost., Theophyl., and several modern Com- 
mentators : " there being no longer any sufficient or 
urgent occasion for my ministerial labours here. And 
so TOTTOV e;^e*t/ is used in Hebr. 12, IJ. ; though Slade 
goes much too far, when he says the whole Country 
had embraced the Christian faith, so that there was 
no place, and therefore no opportunity, for the exer- 
cise of the Apostle's labours in the work of conver- 
sion. Kx»'|xaTa is to be taken in a popular sense ; 
as when we say : " this part of the country, region ;" 
as 2 Cor. 11, 10. Gal. 10, 21. Properly speaking, 
the word denotes one of those divisions of the 
sphere between the Equator and Arctic pole, of 
which the antient Geographers made seasons. 

'E-nriTTa^eocv e^cov rod eAGeTv, " having a strong desh'e 
to come to you." This word is rare; but lirnro^yia-is 
occurs in 2 Cor. 7» 7 and 11. and Ezech. 23, 11. 
Aquila. The expression has much energy ; iiri 
having an intensive force. 'Atto ttoT^T^cov ircov, "for 
several years," viz. (as Koppe thinks)yb?<7% i. e. from 
the time at which the Apostle had, by means of 


Aquila and Priscilla, received a knowledge of the 
Church at Rome. 

24. coy €OLV TTopevcoixoti el? rr^v %7ravta9, eXeJaro]«,ai 
Trplf u]u,ay. Here cos* eav signifies " as soon as :" a 
sense rather uncommon, but found in some of the 
later Classical writers. Examples from Cebes are 
adduced by Koppe, and these have the subjunctive ; 
which confirms the common reading here ; for some 
MSS. have 7ro^eJo|xaj, which is adopted by Koppe. 

"ZTravlav is for 'IrrTravlav, which indeed is read in 

several MSS. and Editions : but there is reason to 

think that the contract form is at least as antient as 

the age of the Apostle. (See Koppe.) 

Whethei' this journey was ever taken, is doubted: and certainly 
the words of the Apostle only declare his intention to take it. Th^ 
Roman Catholics, indeed, not only assert that it was taken, but 
maintain that Paul staid in Spain two years. It is, however, re- 
marked by Koppe, that writers of the most credit, (as Eusebius and 
Origen) do not mention the journey, even where they might have 
been expected so to do. (See Euseb. H. E. 3, 3.) " Nor is there 
(continues he) any certain vestige of it in any antient writer. The 
passages of the Fathers which are usually ai)pealed to, either (as in 
the present one) only signify the Apostle's intention, (as Cyril, 
Hieros. Catech. p. 204.), or offer the mere opinion, resting solely on 
this passage of St. Paul j as Athanas. ad Dracont. T. I. p. 956., 
Hippol. de XII Apostolis, p. 510., Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. § 510. 
TrpofjXOei' eu)s 'IXXvpt/cow Kal 'IraXias Kai 'SiTravias KrjpvtTcrwi' to ei/ay- 
yeXwy. Chrysost. Homil. 7- in Paullum, and Theodoret onPhilipp. 
1, 25. and on 2 Tim. 4, 17- As to the inscription of Gruter, Thes. p. 
27S. Neroni Caes. Aug. Pont. Max. ob. proving, latronib. et 


TAM. it was strongly suspected by Scaliger and Gruter themselves. "j 
Thus far Koppe, to whose opinion I can scarcely assent He 
has not proved that the antient Fathers, (as Clem. Rom., Hippol., 
Athanas., and Chrysnst,,) spoke from mere opinion founded on the 
present passage; and Theodoret, be it remembered, usually draws 
from very pure sources. To me it appears highly probable that 
Clemens Ilomanus and the others had positive authority, now lost, 
fon their assertion. I know not how else to account for so general 
a persuasion as that which is found in the early Ecclesiastical wii- 
ters. I grant that we cannot from hence prove that Paul was the 
original founder of the Church of Spain. Dr. Doddridge, indeed, 
observes: " It appears probable from hence, considering the j)rin- 
ciple which St. Paul chose to govern himself by, of not building on 
another man's foundation, that no Apostle had yet planted any 
Church in Spain ; which, as Dr. Geddes justly remarks, very ill 
agrees with the legend of St James ; for, according to that, he had 


now been 15 years in Spain, and had erected several bishoprics 
there." The probabilily, however, is very slight ; and the principle 
of precarious a})phcation. To me it seems by no means unhkely 
that a country in such close connection with Greece and the East 
should have been, by this time, in some degree evangelized ; though 
wiiether to the extent represented by the legendary historians of the 
Roman Catholics, or not, may seem doubtful. 'J'/tis, howevei', may 
be thought entitled to credit, namely, the one plain and ample cir- 
cumstance, that St. James first planted the Gospel in that country. 
And this, considering the great extent and pojjulation of that coun- 
try, would not exclude an occasion for St. Paul's labours. 

24. Kou 6(p' ufxaiu 7rp07r€ix<pSriyrxi. On this word see 
the notes on Acts 1.5, 3. 17, 13., to which I add the 
following illustration, from Soph. CEd. Col. IO67. 
Tot> e'/re 7raif)es yai Trooizeix-^avres ^i'haiv ; 

24. eav u,afyv irpcorov oltto y.€pou9 €[X7r7^rj<r()(Jo, " after I 
have been partly refreshed.'* Here must be supplied 
rrj^Qeas, (rwou(rtas, or tiie like. In illustration of which 
Koppe cites ^lian St. H. 5, 21. (on peacocks dis- 
playing their gay plumage) ea ^'ap €^7rXri<rSrivai r^y 
6eas* Tov TraperTTcuTcc. 

25. vuv) 6€ TTOpeuoju-ai ely *l€oou(ra7\.ri^. The Apostle 
adds this, that they may not expect him very soofi. 
For before his journey into Spain he must go to 

Uopeuo^ai, " I am on the point of departing." 
AiaKovcov ToTy ayjoty. The verb oiock. signifies pro- 
perly '■' to minister^ by preparing and setting provi- 
sions on the table:" but it also denotes, in a general 
way, " to promote ^he good of others ;" and that 
either by tiie contribution, or by the distribution of 
necessaries, for their support. So Luke 8, 3., 2 Cor. 
8, 19.J and Hebr. 6, 10. SiaKovv^Vai/rey roTr ay/oiy. 
On these eleemosynary collections see Acts 24, I7. 
2 Cor. 9, 12. Acts'e, 1.11, 29. 

By ToTy ayiojy are meant the Chrisf'ums. 

26. euooKr^trav yap Ma/ce$ov/a Koi 'A^aia, $c:c. " for 
the Macedonians and Achaians have thou<fht sood 
to make a common collection for the benefit of the 
poorer of the Jerusalemitish Christians." In this 
same sense koiv. occurs in 2 Cor. 9, 13. Hebr. 13, I6. 

VOL VI. p 


EtJSoK. thought good, determined. Compare 1 Thess. 
% 8. Luke 42, 32. Gal 1, 15. Col. 1, 18. 

27. euOoK-^a-av yap, Koi ocpetXerat avrwv 6io-»v. There 
is here (as Grot, says) an iwaphora together with an 
epanorthosis. Yet neither he nor the Greek Com- 
mentators have distinctly seen the force of the yap 
which is very elliptical, q. d. " For I acknowledge it 
was of their own good pleasure, without necessity." 
Then the koI must (I think) be taken for Kairol, and 
yet. '0(j5ejXeTaj aurcov eWi, " they are under obliga- 
tion to them," i. e. moral obligation, on which Gro- 
tius enlarges, like a learned Civilian ; but very un- 

27. ei yap rois TrveufxaTiKois — aJroTs'. Koppe re- 
marks that TTveo^jLaT. and (rapKiK. here signify divine 
SLud human ; with an adjunct notion in the former 
of dignity, excellence, and utility ; and in the lat- 
ter, of imbecility and unworthiness. And he refers 
to his 5th and 9th Excurs. on Galat. But perhaps it 
is a simpler, and truer mode to suppose, that the for- 
mer is said of the things of the soul, and another 
life -, and the latter, of those of the body and this 
life. There is a similar sentiment in 1 Cor. 9, H. 

Koivcoveiv TiVi signifies '* to make one partaker 
with," carrying a dative of the thing, and a genitive 
of the person ; as Rom. 12, 13. ; or taking a dative 
of the person and a dative of the thing, dependent 
on ev ; as Gal. 6, 6. Sometimes, however, as here, 
it is used intransitively,, in the sense " to be par- 
taker with any one ;" and the dative is governed of 
€v expressed, or understood. See Phil. 4, 15. 2 Tim. 
5, 22. Some Commentators indeed here take koiv. in 
a transitive sense : but that is incurring an unneces- 
sary harshness. 

Schoettg. compares a similar sentiment in Synops. 
Sohar. R. Jehuda veniens in locum quendam, ubi 
eidem azyma mittebant, respondebat, se pretiumpro 
illis soluturum : illisque mirantibus dicebat : Annon 
permittetis, ut id faciam pro verba legis ? atque sic 


28. TouTO ouv e7riT67\.e(ra$', /ca J cr(Ppa7«rafxevo$' auToTy Tov 
KapTTQv rotjTov. 'ETT^TcAetray may be rendered, " having 
despatched and accomplished this office." 'E<ppayi- 
(roi.iJi.evQ I, is by the best Commentators interpreted, 
*• having safely delivered this money, as under seal." 
So Chrysost. 2'-27, 28. who explains, coy e/y jbaa-iXiKot. 
TOLfj-elfx. ivaTToSeixevos, aJy ev a<ruXcp Koi a<r(paXej p^copuo. 
So also Carpzov, who renders " consignax ero." And 
he compares consignare in Sueton. Claud. 26. and 
consinnaflo in Quinlil. Instit. Or. 12, 8. To which 
may be added our consign. Carpzov. then trans- 
lates the passage thus. " Si coUectam eleemosynam, 
sigillo obsignatam, et mihi datam at(jue commissam, 
illis fideliter tradidero." The above interpretation is 
also adopted by Loesner, who adduces an example 
of this sense from Philo C07 c. wVTrtp ro a/cXive? ri^y 
eoTT^ayioL^ tV f^e/3a»co ttolo a'JroTy eu p-aAa (T<Ppayi<rd- 
fxevoi. Sc 588 E. a<r0a7^>]y Seas' errnv, ei/c^gayx^oju-e- 
voy ols OLV e^eXyj to afrakeurov. 

The Vulg. and some Commentators prefer assig- 
navero. But tirls is far less apposite. 

Tov KotpTTov TovTQv. Tliis uuiy bc understood in a 
two fold sense, as the fruit of their Christian bemji- 
ciuni, and of his Apostolical labour. The recent 
Commentators understand it of the benefit itself. 
i3ut this is refining away the sense. Compare Philo 
4, 17. 

29- oida 0€ oTi ep^oixevof eA6y(roju,ott. The 

Apostle now shows how desirable will be his visit to 
them. (Crell.) 

Tliese expressions are very strong, and must not 
be explained away, as is done by too many recent 
Commentators. The sense is : *' I know that, when 
I come, I shall come with the most exuberant bless- 
ings and benefits of the Gospel, and the religion of 
Christ." Chrysost. paraphrases the passage thus. 
Oida 3e on ep^ojxevoy o^cfxai ufjiay €v aTraciv euCioKi- 
jm-owray, Koi KO^covrctg T«Ty dtya^oTy, Koi ^uo'kov aya^aiv 
ct^io'jy €7ralv(iiV tcou Kara, to €oayy€7\.iov. And so The- 
ophyl., who further explains rl^Xipw^aTi euAoy/a? t. €. 

p 2 


T. X. €. by TravTa ra dyaQa ra d^ia r^? euAoyj'a?, i. e. 
Tou €7raiuQU rou Kara eoayyeXiov. Koppe interprets the 
euMyla rou euayyeyJov, '*the benefits redounding from 
the doctrine of salvation by Christ," i. e. the ^apla-- 
(xara TTveu^ariKOL mentioned at 1, 11. And these, 
indeed, I think, are especially intended. 

oO. TrapaKoko) §6 ufJias", a3€X(poJ — (ruvayoivia-aar^ai fxoi 
iv raTy Trpoa-eu^alf u. i. tt. r. 0. The Apostle con- 
cludes with conjuring them to commend himself and 
his fortunes among the Palestine Jews to God." 
And this he does both by Christ, whose religion 
they profess, and by that love which is the fruit of 
the Spirit; entreating that they would aid him and 
his efforts, by the co-operation of their prayers to 
God on his behalf. 

The word a-vvaycovia-aa-^ai often occurs in the Clas- 
sical writers with a dative of person, but almost 
always in a physical, not (as here) a moral, sense. 
Many examples are adduced by Eisner and Wets. 
It is not, perhaps, necessary to press on the primary 
signification so much as is done by some of the early 
Commentators*; yet it is a strong expression, and 
hints that the prayers must be earnest and persever- 
ing. Thus the Latin Classical writers have the 
phrase " contendere precibus." 

31. iW pucrSco (XTTOTcov ctTrejQoui/rojv, &C. The Apostle 
here hints how necessary it was that he should have 
the aid of their prayers, considering how great a 
danger he would encounter. It is well observed by 
Koppe, that the Apostle does not desire to be pre- 
served from calamities^ but only that he may be so 
strengthened as to be enabled to overcome them, 
and that he may be the means of cheering the 
afflicted Christians at Jerusalem. Compare Acts 20, 
22. 23, 11. 

'Puo-QoJ, " be delivered from the attacks of the un- 
believing Jews." 

* In this respect the Greek Commentators have shown more 
judgment. They moreover notice the deep humility involved in 
this request. 


31. Tva 7]' hiuKovia [jlou t) ely 'I. €'j7rpo(r^€Kro9 y. r. a. 
By ^luKovla is meant, not (as Grotiiis, Rosenm,, and 
others, suppose) the alms collected by Paul, but his 
exertions in collecting them, and now in conveying 
and distributing them. The Apostle, it may be ob- 
served, was apprehensive that even all these pains 
bestowed on benefiting them would scarcely suffice 
to remov^e the prejudices they had been induced to 
harbour against him, as an apostate from the Mosaic 
Law. (See Chrysostom.) To this purpose it is well 
remarked by Ammon : " Videmus Paulum, vel dona 
ferentem, timuisse exulceratos sibique infestos fra- 
trum Hierosolymitanorum animos. Neque hoc te- 
mere : oegerrime enim deliniri poterant vel beneficiis 
adlatis, Acts 21, 20 seq." Doddridge, too, well ob- 
serves, that " how extreme their bigotry and rao-e 
was, appears from their behaviour to him at the very 
time here referred to, Acts 21 — 24." 

82. "ivcc €v x^P^ exSo) TTjSo? Jjuiay, *• that I may, by 
the will and pleasure of God, be permitted to come 
unto you," iv ;^a/5a, i. e. a-vv ;^aga, *' with joy,'' name- 
ly, the pleasure of having succeeded in my mission. 
Ka» (TuvaTraucrio^ai u[uv, ''and that we may have a 
mutual pleasure in each other's society." 

33. 66 060$- TTis €]privrt9, &c., Hebr. CD7^, " the 
author and fountain of these and all other blessings, 
both spiritual and temporal, be with you, help and 
favour you." 

CHAP. xvr. 

Koppe observes, that he sees no reason to recede 
from the common opinion, that this chapter forms an 
integral part of the Epistle ; and he refers to an Ex- 
cursus of his, in which is examined and refuted the 
contrary opinion of Semler. The chapter is (he 
says) an Appendix, or what we call the Posfcript,* 

* Added, as Wctstein thinks, after the Aiioslle had read the 
J)pi»tle to the Church at Corinth. 

214 ROMANS, CHAl'. XVI. 

in which Phcebe is comrnended to their affectionate 
attention, various salutations transmitted, and divers 
admonitions and exliortations intermixed." 

1. o-uv/o-T7jfjt,{ ^6 ufxlv <I>o/^7]v, " I commcud to you 
Phebe." The name occurs in Sueton. Aug. 65, This 
Phebe seems to have been in the company of those 
who conveyed the letter; thaugh not herself the 
bearer ; otherwise the Apostle would have added 
Tvj'i/ (^epov(rav v^lv twjttv Tf]v cttjo-toX^jv. See ver. 22. 
Eph.6, 21. Col. 4, 7 and 8. Phil. 2, 25— 29. Phi- 
lem. 11 and 12. That she was not known at Rome 
appears from the addition oucrau diocKovov rri^r^KKT^iqcrias 
rris €v /cey;^pea?y. There were doubtless more 
Christians travelling in company to Rome, to one of 
whom the letter was committed. Now Phabe is 
mentioned, as especially needing the friendly notice 
and assistance of the Roman Christians. 

T^v aOeXcpTjv rJ|!xtov, " our sister in the faith, and 
therefore dear to us." AiaKovov r-^y e. r. e. /c., a Dea- 
coness." Now, according to the constitution of the 
primitive Church, there was an order of females at- 
tending on part of the public business of the Church, 
which consisted of two kinds: 1. Elderly women 
(TT^eo-^uTi^ey) presiding over, and superintending the 
morals of, the female Christians; and 2. hiuKovoi, who 
discharged some of the orfices of the ministry, as bap- 
tizing the female converts, and who also collected 
and distributed the contributions for the relief of 
sick and poor females, and discharged other minor 
offices. So Plin. Ep. 10, 97- necessarium credidi ex 
duabus ancillis, quae ministrae dicebantur, quid esset 
veri et per tormenta quaerere,* where see Vossius. 
Consult, too, Coteler. ad Constitt. Apost. 3, 15, and 
especially Bingham, Ant. Eccl. 11, 12., as also Suic. 
Thes. in v. ^kxkovos' (and also Doddr. and Taylor. 

* Wetstein, too, cites Theodoret, H. E. 3, 10. yvn) ya/< ris Ini- 
<r/;//os ty ei/\o/3et^, ku\ tov rj/s tiauorias iii,iwfi€t'r] j(«pt(7^aro$ ; and 
refers to Jcroiue on this passage. 


I'lie Church at Cenchrea, which was the port to 
Corinth on the Asiatic side, was probably an append- 
age to that of Corinth, or regarded it as the Mother 
Church. (Koppe.) Doddr., however, thinks it had 
a pastor of its own. 

2. iva. a\tTy\v Tr^oa-oe^ria-Qe ev Kuplw a. r. a,, that ye 
receive her iv KupUo, '' in the name of Christ, on ac- 
count or Christ." 'A^iwy rcov dy'icov, in such a man- 
ner as Christians ought to receive each other." It is 
rightly observed by Grot., that the adverb governs 
the case of the primitive adjective. And this is fre- 
quent in Thucyd. ; ex. gr. 6, 16. 3, 39. 10, 69 and 8t). 
y, 58. See Matth. Gr. Gr. 485. 

2. /cat Trapao-T^re aur>], literally, ^^ stand hy * her, 
assist her," fv <L av u^kcov xpV^V* " i" whatever busi- 
ness she may need your assistance." On the nature 
of this business we are left in the dark. Some sup- 
it to have been a cause at law brought on appeal 
before the Imperial Court. (See Macknight.) The 
term Trpdy^cc, however, is of very general applica- 
tion, and may extend to business of every kind. 

3. Koi yap auTT) Tr^oa-rdrisr TroAXoJv, "for she hath 
been a protectress and supporter of many." ITpoo-Ta- 
ris is the feminine form of Trpoo-raTviy, which is fre- 
quently used for the Latin Patronas. Nor was the 
form Patrona unknown to the Latin authors. It 
should seem, however, to be here employed in a 
somewhat lower sense than Tr^oa-rdris usually carries 
with it in the Greek writers. So Theodoret : TrpoaTa- 
(Tiav coV oifxai, rriv (piXo^evlav koi KT^^if^oviav /caXeT. 
Both words are copiously illustrated by Eisner and 
Wetstein. See more in Macknight. 

3. dcTTraa-aa-be II. k. A. rouy crovepyoOs' ]w,ot> ev X. 'I. 
See Acts 18, '2 & 26. and the note on 1 Cor. 16, 19. 
np. is a diminutive, like Livilla, and many other 
names occurring in the Classical writers. 

* Jii TTupatTT. there is, Roseniu. remaiks, a military metaphor, 
from ■Kapa(TTaTr]s, a soldier who stood next another in a hne ; as in 
Joseph. 13. 2, 12, 7. and the best Gieek writers. 



3. Tous" oruve^yoJs' ]«.ou tJ. X. 'I. "my coadjutors, co- 
operators, iv X. 'I., in promulgating the doctrine of 
Christ." So Phil. 2, 25. a-we^yov koi a-vvcrrpaTicoTi^v 
li.ox). 1 Thes. 3, 2. (rovepyov roG ©eou ev tw (vayyiT^ia. 
rou X^KTTou : and elsewhere not unfrequently in St. 
Paul's Epistles. It is thought by Vitringa and 
Schoettgen, that as the whole liturgy of the Jewish 
Church was preserved by the Christians, they also re- 
tained the titles of the ministers of the Word, except 
that of Rabbi, which was abolished by Christ himself. 
" Now among these (continue they) h^^Tl, fellow col- 
league^ which meant one who had been advanced to 
the dignity of Rabbi, but, out of modesty, did not as- 
sume the 7mme, till after the deatii of those who had 
advanced him to the honour. Thus, here Aquila and 
Priscilla are called Cl^H, since the title Apostle they 
could not, neither wished, to assume." The learned 
Commentators then adduce agreat number of examples 
■which prove the existence of such an office in the Jew- 
ish Church, but by no means sufficientto countenance 
their notion, that the Apostle here intended to invest 
Aquila and Priscilla with a title of Ecclesiastical dig- 
nity. Nor is there any proof that cruvepyls was the 
word by which the IIH was expressed : and as in 
the other passages of the New Testament where the 
word (Tuvepyos occurs, there is no vestige of such an 
allusion, so I cannot think there is any here ; and I 
can only see in the notion that too great fondness for 
system and hypothesis which distinguished Lightfbot, 
Vitringa, Rhenferd, Schoettg., and whicli has done, 
more or less, all those who have dedicated them- 
selves to any confined branch of study, as that of the 
llabbinical writers. 

4, omves OTrep Trrjs ^J^up^>2S' jxo'j rov iauTwv rpap^TjXov 
uiri^riKav. This is a strong and hyperbolical expres- 
sion, for, " they hazarded their lives for my preserv- 
ation." The expression literally signifies, " sub- 
mitted their necks to the sword.** 

It is a phrase which rarely occurs in the Classical 
writers, yet something similar is adduced by Wets, 
from Diod. Sic. 1. 32. p. 690. fcXa/ovros- 8e rod' rrpefr^'j- 


repou, Kou 4><XaSeX(pov Tra^oy TT/so^epovro?, /cat ridevros 
iotuTov uTTo rov (Tioripov. The Apostle is supposed to 
refer to what is related in Acts 18, or 19. 

By 7rd(rai a I e/c/cX7](riaj raJv ehvcov. Grot, and Koppe 
understand all the churches in the vicinity of Co- 
rinth. But I do not see why it may not, with Vorst. 
and others, be extended to the Gentile churches in 
general. Besides, the interpretation of Grot, and 
Koppe would require the singular, tou eSvouy. 

5. Koi Trjv KoiT oIkov a'jTiov €KK7\.7](riav, i. e. (as the 
Greek Commentators, and some modern ones ex- 
plain) " their Christian family." (See Koppe and 
Chrysost.) But it should rather seem, as is the opi- 
nion of Qicumen,, Beza, Mede, and most Commen- 
tators since their time, that the expression refers to 
a congregation which met at their house : for there 
is reason to tliink that they would scarcely yet be 
allowed the privilege of having public buildings for 
religious worship. They probably as yet worshipped 
in small cono:rei2:ations, assembled Kar oIkov. And to 
this there is possibly an allusion in Acts 20, 20. 

The names from Ep?enetus to Olympas occur no 
where else in the New Testament. 

5. a.-Kapyr\ rr^^ 'Ayaioi.9. There is here a remarka- 
ble var. lect. Several antient MSS. and some Edi- 
tions and Fathers, read 'Ao-ta?, which is preferred by 
Grot., Mill, Bengel, Whitby, Koppe, and Rosenm., 
and has been received by Griesbach. Indeed, it is 
so well supported both by external and internal evi- 
dence, that there is every probability it is the true 
reading. The very nature of the term airaoyri sug- 
gests the idea of o/?e;?er*o^i only (see 1 Cor. 15, 20.); 
and as in 1 Cor. 16, 15. Stephanus is called the 
6i-Ka.p-/r^ TiQ? 'Ap^aiay, Epenetus could have no claim 
to the name. Mr. Slade indeed urges, that it is pos- 
sible Epoenetus might have been one of that family 
to which this appellation is given ; and he might 
have been the earliest convert in the household of 
Stephanas. Thus, though Epanietus, as an individual, 
was the first fruits, yet the same term was applicable 
to the house of Stephanas, as a family,'' The possi- 


bility, however, involves so many arbitrary supposi- 
tions, that it must be acknowledged to be very faint, 
and by no means to rise to prohahility. Ammon 
defends the common reading, on the score of its be- 
ing the more difficult one, and thinks it likely that 
'Ao-j'ay arose from emendation. But how it should 
be thought the more difficult reading I cannot see. 
The a.iTai.^yr\ is applied by Ammon to the many Co- 
rinthian converts (mentioned at Acts 18, 8.) collec- 
tively taken. But this is too harsh to be admitted. 

7. 'Av'hpoviKoVf Andronicus. A frequent name 
among the Romans ; as, Andronicus Rhodius, Livius 
Andronicus. 'louvlav, Junia, a feminine form o{ Ju- 
nius. This was probably the wife, or sister, of An- 
dronicus; and these, as being relations of Paul, were 
most likely Jewish Christians. 

Into the etymological speculations on these names 
I shall not enter, as they are too uncertain to deserve 

Suvaip^fxaXcJrows'. See Coloss. 4, 10 Philem. 23. 
To which captivity the Apostle refers is uncertain, 
since he was often in bonds. Clemens Rom. Ep. ad 
Corinth, c.5. says seven times. 

7. omves e\<riv e7ri(rr}y.oi eu toT? aTroa-roT^oif. It is 
somewhat uncertain what this is meant to indicate. 
AVhitby, Koppe, and others, take it to mean, that 
they were eminent teachers ; ctTroo-roAoy being some- 
times used in a lower sense ; as in 2 Cor. 8, 23. Phil. 
2, 25. But in both those passages the article is not 
found, as here, which, I think, determines it to mean 
Apostle in the highest sense. And such is the view 
adopted by the generality of Commentators. Thus 
iv will signify inter ; q. d. " who were held in high- 
est consideration by or among the Apostles." 

8 — 15. Salutations are sent to six and twenty in- 
dividuals, and two whole families. By this it is in- 
dicated : 1. that Paul, though he had not yet been 
at Rome, still well knew the Christians who resided 
there : 2. that he well remembered them, since he 
called them all by name, and assigned to each his 


commendation ; 3. that he felt persuaded the Ro- 
mans would not take this letter amiss, though writ- 
ten somewhat boldly, Rom. 15, 15. (Carpzov.) 

8. 'A,a7rx/ai/. Koppe compares Ampl'iatus, and ob- 
serves (referring to Gruter's Thesaur.) that it was a 
frequent name among the Romans. Tov ayairr^rlv 
IJ.OU iv Kooup. Rosenm. remarks, that the formulas 
€v Ko^/oi and iv Xpicrra) have a dejitiitive force, i. e. 
indicate in what sense, and with what restriction, the 
verb to which they are affixed is to be taken. 

9. Oup^avov. A frequent name among the Romans. 
Srap^uv, Stachus. A Greek name, which occurs once 
in Gruter. 

10 — 11. 'AjreTiX^u. A name notable from the Ho- 
ratian " credat Judasus Apella, non ego." Ao/cj/xov, 
i. e. " probatus in re Christiana," "an approved 
Christian." Theophyl. explains it: tou aveTr/AvjTrrov 
Tov aixco[xov €V TToicn. 

Arhtohidiis and Narcissus. Not unfrequent names 
among the Romans. Theophyl. explains rws ovray 

iv Kt>&{(« by TOU? TTJCTOUf. 

12. Tpuc^ait/av Kou T p[j(^ui<Tav . Both these names 
occur in Gruter's Inscr. ; the former of them also in 
Justin. 39, 2. KoTriajfray iv Kupiu), " who laboured 
in the cause of the Lord and our Religion." It is 
well remarked by Theophyl. 156. Ourcos eKacrrov Kara, 
rriv ai^iav ouQ[xa§€i, aurous re irpodit^LQTipous ttokJov, Ka\ 
irepo'JS' ely ^>;Aoy oieyelpov. 

llepa-l^a, Persis. A name also occurring in Grut., 
and which is supposed to be one of those derived 
from country, as Mysa, Syra. And we ourselves 
have not a few names of this sort, as Nurman. The 
word does not necessarily denote a slave ; since 
freedmen, after emancipation, retained their names ; 
and persons might have it, though without being 

13. ToGc^ov. A name occurring in Mark 15, 21. 
This was a son of Simon the Cyreneau. 'E/cXeKroj/ 
iv Kupio), i. e. " a select or approved Christian.'* 
Slade thinks the expression might be intended to 


distinguish him from othersof the same name, which 
was a common one ; and therefore that it is only equi- 
valent to rov ctSeAcpov, V. 23. This, however, is harsh ; 
and the use of the article does not here seem appli- 
cable : though I acknowledge it is adopted by Theo- 
phyl. at Tov oo/cifxov, ver. 10. By ttjv jXTjrega auToo kou 
€[xod is meant " his mother by nature and birth, and 
mine by grace and in affection." Theophyl. says it 
was intended [xaprupeiv r^gv yuvaiK) ttjv a^er^v. 

14. acTracrao-Qe 'AcruyKpiTov, 4>Xe7ovra, 'Kpf/^oiy, Tla- 
Tpo&oiv, 'Kpfxr^v, K. r. <t. a. a. The Hernias here men- 
tioned is supposed to have been the author of the 
Pastor. The name Patrohiis occurs in Martial 2, 32. 
and elsewhere. Indeed, almost all the names men- 
tioned by Paul occur somewhere or other in Gruter's 
Thesaurus of Inscriptions. A^ these last persons 
are not mentioned with any terms of encomium, we 
may suppose them to have been inferior in Christian 
graces to the preceding, yet deserving of an affec- 
tionate mention. 

15. ^I'Ko'koyov K(M 'loux/ai/. Both names frequent 
among the Romans. Julia was probably wife or sis- 
ter of Philologus. Ka} T0\J9 <T\)V auTois Travras ayious, 
" and all the Christians resident with them." It is 
plain that Peter was not now at Rome ; and there- 
fore the tradition respecting the Bishops, as promul- 
gated by the Roman Catholics, is utterly disproved 
by fact. 

16. ao-7ra<rao-QeaXX75Xous'ev4)jX7ijW,ari. Koppe thinks 
that the salutation was to be given in the name of 
Paul. This, however, seems an ill-founded notion ; 
though I acknowledge it is supported by the autho- 
rity of Theodoret and CEcumenius. Without dwell- 
ing, however, on this opinion, it may be observed, 
that as the Apostle had before bid them salute cer- 
tain persons in his own name, so he now bids them 
salute each other. The reason for which seems to 
have been alone seen by Chrysost. and Theophyl. 
The words of the latter are as follows : Tm /xv] 4>»Xo- 


p-^frQcti' Kou rous* |!X€V p.era vr'Xeiovcov eyKcofxicav, rouff 8e 

fxari' iW jw-^fre 6 |U.eyct? KaTa(ppovf too i'ka.TTQVo^, ]W'>3Te o 
fj.iKpos' ^ufTKaivf] rcii [X€i^o)^i, Tou ayjou c^iX7]|Jt,aToy TravTOc 
KaraTrpaiiovTos re Koi i^Krouvroy. 

On this kiss of peace and love much has been 
written by Grotius. Whitby, and others, who trace 
it to antient Oriental custom, and one borrowed from 
the Synagogue. It appears that, in the Apostolic 
age, the kiss was given to each other at the end of 
the Liturgy, and before the Communion Service. It 
was understood to express mutual love, and, in things 
spiritual, equality. This custom continued during 
a great part of the first century, and is noticed by 
several early Ecclesiastical writers cited by Grot, 
and others; as Justin Apol. 1, 85. aXAvfAoyy (ptArfpaTt 
ao-Tra^o/xeda Trauo-ajuievo* rwv eu^cov. Tertullian de 
Oratione : Qua3 oratio cum divortio sancti osculi In- 
tegra? Quem omnino officium facientem impedit 
pax? Quale sacrificium est, a quo sine pace (i.e. 
pacis osculo) receditur. Constitut. Apostol. 1,2. c. 
57? e'lra Koi a(r7ra§€(T$(i)(rav a/vXTQAoy? ol av6p€9, Kai aX- 
"Krikas ol\ yuvaiK€9, to eu Ku^lip (plXruxcx, — /cai jtxera touto 
7rpo(r€u^e(rQ(o b Oiolkovo^ vrrep Tvjy eKKT^rima^ ctTrao-rjs". Mera 
Se TauTOL yiveVOo) 75 $u(ria, €<ttu)tos TravTof tou Xaou, Koi 
TT^oa-eo^ofxevoo rja-v^aiy' /cat oTav avevep^Qv], |u,6ra/\.apt,j3a- 
verco e/cacTV] ra^is KaS' eaoTriv too KopiUKOo (rcofxccTos kui 
TOO Tifxloo aliKOLTos' whcrc see Cotelerius. Why the 
Apostle has not more frequently made mention of 
this custom, (having only adverted to it here, and in 
1 & 2 Cor. and Thessal.), has been the subject of va- 
rious and uncertain conjecture. Be the cause what 
it may, there is reason to think that this custom, so 
liable to abuse and misrepresentation, was laid aside 
at a very early period of the Christian Church. 

16. acTTct^ovrai uju-ay a\ eKKkritriai r. X. On this 
there is no occasion to raise any difficulty, since, as 
Grot, observes, we need only suppose the Grecian 
Churches, and especially those which Paul had 


visited, and with which he was, doubtless, in fre- 
quent communication by letter. SeeErasni. 

Some MSS. and Fathers have naa-ai. But this 
seems from the margin. 

17. aS6X(poi, " brother Christians," not the Pres- 
byters only, to whom the letter was delivered, but 
all the rest of the Christians likewise. (Rosenm.) 

Being about to conclude the Epistle, he now 
touches on the subject of those disputes and dissen- 
sions which he had heard prevailed among the Ro- 
man Christians, the suppression of which was one 
principal purpose of the Epistle. Of these, then, he 
admonishes them to beware. He bids them mark 
those that caused divisions, and raised factions, and 
also those that occasioned scandals and offences 
among the unbelieving. Now these o-/cavSaXa might 
arise both from the immoralities of those who made 
profession of Christianity, and from those who, by the 
introduction of heretical and false opinions, caused 
the Heathens to take unjust offence at the Gospel. 
But, from the context, it should seem that the for- 
mer scandals were most in the mind of the Apostle. 

17. eK/cX/vare air auTwv, " avoid familiar inter- 
course with them." So o-rey^T^ecrQcLi cnr auTcov, '2 Thes, 
3, 6. Wets, compares Plut. ^, 479 a. iv St 8»;(/oo-- 
raa-lri kou TvayKaKos eix^xope T»fx.7]y, ol/cerrjs" Sja/3oXoy, t] 
KoKa^ TrapevSuy QupaToy, y] TroT^irrj^ ^da-Kcuvos. And he 
refers to Apoc. ^, 14. 

18. ot yap TOiouTOj rco K^vpuo Tjfjt&ov I. X. 00 SouAeuou- 
(Tjv, aXXa Trj eauTcvv Koi'kia. Who these heretics 
were, and what their doctrine, cannot with certainty 
be determined : yet, from the subject of the Epistle, 
it seems probable that they were Jetvs who, together 
with an outward appearance of sanctity, joined an 
immoral, or, at least, a sensual life (which last seems 
to be adverted to in the words 8ouXeuouo-iv t^ iavrtov 
KojXi'a*), and sought no more than to make the pro- 

* On which Wets, cites Plut. 5*2.^), i Ar]i.idhr]s — alras yap els 
TYiv yarrrepa brjfxnyMyrians k. r. X. Seneca de benef. 7, '26. ahus 
abdoniini servit, alius liicri totus est. And Kopj)e compares Anthol. 
11, 52. Epigr. 10. p. 276. p>) belv bnvXeveiy yaarpi Xey lor 11 peTi)y. 


fession of the Gospel a means of obtaining a luxu- 
rious living. kSee llosenmuller and Michaelis in loc. 
18. Ko.) hia. Tri^ ^pria-To'hoyioi.s Koi euXoyjay e^axarcoa^i 
r. a. The terms ^pria-ToXoyla and euXoyj'aare (riglitly 
I think), by many Commentators, thought to be 
synonymous. Thus our Common Version : "good 
words and fair speeches;" meaning deceiving 
speeches, or words onli/. And so the best Classical 
writers use ^pT^a-To) 7\.Q'yoi ; as Menand., Herodian, 
and Anthol., cited by Wets., who (piotes the word 
p^pYjo-ToXoy/a from Eustath. on Hom. II. ■^. p. 1437-, 
and also compares S. A. Victor Epit. 34. blandus 
magis quam beneficus : unde eum Graeco nomine 
■)(_pt](Tro\oyov appellavere. Plat. euT^oyia apa, Koi evap- 
[xoa-rloe., koi €uar^riy.o(ruvri' And Aretalogus from Ju- 
venal, 15, 15. 

18. Twv oLKOLKcov. Thc vvord aKOLKos often signifies, 
not only harmless, but guileless, aTrT^ous; unsuspicious 
of evil. See the numerous examples adduced by 
Wets., to which I add Thucyd. 3, 83. Ka) to euTjGf? 
ow TO yevvaTov TrXeTo-Tov p,6T€p^6»j /carayeXao-Qev vJc^av/crOy]. 

19* >f yap ^^Kcov vTraKori ely Trdvra^ a<p//c6To. The 
sentence is well paraphrased by Koppe as follows : 
" vestrac ipsorum famae et existimationi id debetis 
cum vestra in religione constantia, ubique terrarum 
laudibus celebretur." 'TiraKori, " obedience to the 
doctrine of Christ." *A<piK€To, *' has become known 
to all." So Hipoccr. (cited by Rosenm.) TroXt/re o-ou 
TO KXeos" Tvjy ev \riTpiiai o-o^/v]? 7re(polrr}K€V Koi ey >5ju.ea? 

19. ro e<$>' 6[x7v, scil. y.€po9, " on your behalf, on 
account of you." This seems preferable to suppos- 
ing, with Koppe and others, the to to be redun- 
dant. Wets, compares from Ach. Tat. to iir' €[xo). 

19. 0eX(o 06 61x0.9 o-o<pous* — KUKov. Grotius very 
well explains this : " I wish you to be so prudent as 
not to be deceived, and so good as not to deceive." 
Koppe paraphrases : " Velim vero, ut vestra de 
rebus divinis humanisque sapientia sit cum virtute 


conjuncta, et ab omni pravitate et calliditate quam 
maxime aliena." The learned Commentator then 
refers to Matt. 10, 16. 1 Cor. 14, 20. Eph. 4, 13— 
15., and observes, that the contrary disposition is 
described in Jer. 4, 22., and Sanhedrim 21, 1. Vir 
facit sapiens in improbitatem. Wets., too, compares 
Eurip. Bacch. 654. A. crocpos' eh tXtiv a 8e? o-' ehai 
cocjios*, & n. a ^€1 iJ.dkKTTct, rauT eyoiy €(pou (ro<poy. It 
is well remarked by Theophyl., that the Apostle's 
words hint that some of tiiem had been deceived. 

19. OLKepuious €\s TO KUKov. The word a/cega<oy, 
whatever it may be derived from,* has two significa- 
tions ; 1st, a passive one, injured, unhurt. And 
Schleus. Lex. refers to Diodor. and Josephus. But 
it also occurs in Thucyd., Xenoph., and many others 
of the best Classical writers. 2d, an active (as here), 
namely, one who does not injure, who is uninfected 
with fraud or violence, &c. ctTrXous" ; as it is explained 
by the Schol. on Eurip. Or. 920. Theophyl. ex- 
plains it, a/cepaj'oyy eJy to ix-^ KaKowoieiv ercpoit^ So 
Matt. 10, 16. ccKepaioi ws" wepKTTcpai. Joseph. Ant. 
1, 2, 2., and Arrian Epict. -S, 23. juteyaXocpuT^s- /cat 
aTrXoGs" KOLi aKepaios, In Philo, 2, 15, it is joined to 

20. 8e ©eos" r^ff elpvfvriy (TuvTpi-i^ei tov %aTavoiv v. r. 
TT. u. Most modern Commentators understand by 
Satan those persecuting Jews and Judaizers, who 
are styled in 2 Cor. 11, 15., the messengers and 
ministers of Satan ; and by <ruvrp/\|/et, the taking 
away the power of those agents to deceive and per- 
secute, by the destruction of Jerusalem, together 
with those deceiving. (See Whitby.) This mode of 
interpretation, however, too much favours the no- 
tions of those who deny the personality of Satan. 
Grot, has far more solidly annotated on the words 
thus : " Explicatur sensus vTrouotas loci Gen. 3, 15. 

* A point on which Etymologibts are not agreed. I prefer to 
regard it as the same with oK/mrox, unmixed. 

] ( ORINTIIfANS, CHAP. I. ^41 

lingness to I)iiiig forward the real names of those 
sectarists, has used fictitious ones. And they refer 
to 4, 6. {x€T€(r^r,ixdTi(ra. But that passage is quite of 
another nature.* [See Storr, and Krause. Edit.] 
Nor does there seem any reason why Paul should 
designate various sects, namely of those who pro- 
fessed to adhere to Paul, or Apollo, &c. There 
migjit be, and doubtless were, sects among the Co- 
rmthians, and yet the teachers to wh^m these 
persons adhered, might be little aware of, or at 
least not countenance, them. Some might prefer 
lanl, as being thviv instructor (and more pro- 
found in religious knowledge. Kdit.) ; others, Apol- 
los, as being more eloriuent than Paul : and others, 
Cephas (i. e. Peter), on account of his fame, or in- 
duced by some of his disciples who had come to Co-- 
rinth, and who, we may suppose, would be of the Ju- 
daizing Christians. Hence Paul refers the blame 
not to the teachers, but to the Conntltlnns. (Ho- 
senm.) As to tiie words ^yro ?j€ Xpia-rou, there is no 
need to cancel them, with Pearce, or to read X^/Vttou, 
with Bentley and Markland. They are, as Uosenm. 
observes, notjto be understood as involving any cen- 
sffre,f but added to complete the enum'^ration of 

The above view of the subject (which seems the 
best founded) is also supported by Grotius, who has 
illustrated the sense from an interesting passa^-e of 
Clem. Rom. Epist. ad Cor., which plainly refers to 
this very state of affairs at Corinth : 'AmAa/Sere tijv 

* Whitby, loo, in refutation of this opinion, observes; "That 
this IS here said, not by a fiction of names, or persons, under which 
the Apostle taxed the heads of tiie seels the Corinthians- 
but that they reaily divided upon these arcounts is evident, first' 
from St. Riul's tlmnking God that lie baptized so few of them, lest 
they should have occasion to sav he baptized in his own name,' and 
so made disciples to himself; secondly, from the words, let no 
glory in men, for all are yours, whether, Paul, or Apollo or Ce- 
phas, eh. 3, '21 & '22." 

^ SoTheophyl. K;S. O^ rovro iyKaXel, tSdr. X^yovaiv, lyio hk 
XptfTrov' aWh twn u'v TraiTfs tovto Xiyoviri. 



(TncTokriV ToC ixaKaoloo Tlau'Kou rorj 'A7roo"roAou* t» irpui- 

7rv€u^ot.TiK(Ms €7r€(rT€i'Kev u^iv Tvefi aurou re Ka) Kvjcpa /ca* 
ArroTO^cOf Sia to /cai rore Tr^ofrKTviVeiS" UjW.ay 7re7rot'^<r5aJ' 
a?;?;' "J^ 7rpo<TKlM(ns €K€ivri r]TTOV a[xapTiav 6[uv Tr^ocrrjveyKeV 
xgotre/cXi^Tjre yap 'ATTOcroXoty |xe|U.apTup75|xevoJS', ^a* avSpi 
8e8oiciju,a(r|a6v«) Trap' auroTs"" vuv» Ka» Karavov^o-are, Tivey 
oyay 8i6VTge\|/av. See also Whitby, and especially 
Semler, to whose opinion, however, (though adopted 
by Rosenm. and others) I cannot assent, namely 
that by Xpjo-roG is to be understood a brother of 
Christy meaning James : which is so devoid of all 
probability, that it is not worth enlarging upon. 

As to the order in which the names are put, on 
this there has been much uncertain speculation. It 
is plain that Xpio-rou is put last, for the purpose (as 
Theodoret observes) of more strongly shewing the 
absurdity of confounding the disciples and the mas- 
ter. And this is especially enlarged on in the next 

13. The impropriety of this factious spirit is 
evinced by two arguments. (Krause.) Or rather 
three, according to Crellius. 

13. [xefxepirrTai 6 'KpKTTof ; '* are there more Christs 
than one ; is Christ split into sundry parts. So 
Theophyl., Menoch., Tirinus, and the Scholiasts. 
This interpretation, however, though supported by 
Eisner, seems fanciful and precarious. Others give 
the words a metaphorical sense, i. e. " is the mystical 
body of Christ, namely his Church, divided." So 
Beza, Piscat., and Macknight. — This, however, 
seems frigid and inapposite. The best founded in- 
terpretation seems to be that of Grot., Simon, Sem- 
ler, Rosenm., and most recentCommentators, namely, 
" is the doctrine of Christ, the Gospel, he. 

The Philologists here compare Polyb. 8, 18. <rra- 
<rioi.<roLvr€s yap irpos <r<fias e]u,e§J<rQ>30"av, ol ^xev Trpos 'Ag»o/3a- 
^ov, oj §6 TT^os rr^v AaoSi/ci^v. Herodian, 3, 10. r^re Trep) 
roL Qedixara aurwv, v] ra a/cpoa]u.ara cttouSv] (pi7\.QV€iKcds 
€Kd(rTOT€ e[X€^i^ero. Heliodor. 7> 4. '^ie<nrdTo fr^v 8»a- 
vo»av, Kcu 6^epj^€T0 tly rr^v vr^o^ CKUTepov €7riQo[xiav. 


13. p.^ riauXos" e(rTavp(oOri uirep ufxcuv, i.e. " did you 
obtain remission of sins and atonement by Paw/ ? 
No, by Christr 

13. 7] eTs- TO ovo[J,a. IlayT^oy ilboLTrrifrSrire ; " were you 
bonnd by baptism to obey the injunctions oi" Paul?" 
For " to be baptized to, or to the name of, any one," 
is, to be bound, or to bind oneself, by that form, to 
obey the religious injunctions of such a person, whe- 
ther of faith or practice. See Matt. 28, 19. (and the 
note on that passage.) Rom. 6, 3. Gal. 3, '■2G. com- 
pared with Acts 8, 16, See also Mackn. and Locke 
in loc. 

14. fu;;/ap{<rrco rco Seco, &c. This phrase must (I 
think), witli Semler, Crellius, and most recent Com- 
mentators, be taken in a popular sense, for : " I ex- 
ceedingly rejoice :" an idiom not confined to the an- 
tient, but found also in most modern, languages. 
And so it is understood by Chrysost. 

The Apostle means to say, that his enemies would 
thus lose a fair occasion of censuring him, as if de- 
sirous of making to himself partisans. It is observed 
by Chrysost. and Theophyi., that this must not be 
understood as meant to depredate baptism, but to 
lower the conceit of those who were proud of confer- 
ringit: to [xev yap^a7rri(ry.a fj.€y(x.,To 3e ^aTrri^civ ou [K€yoi.. 

The Crispus here mentioned was the ruler of the 
Synagogue, of whom we read in Acts 18, 8. ; and 
Gains, Paul's host, when he was at Corinth, 16, 23. 

15. i'va [KTi ris eiTrr, — eBarrTKra. Crellius here, as 
often, refines too much, when he says that the tW 
denotes, not the finem sal facti, sed effectam, seu 
eventum. Nor is he warranted in supposing that 
Paul neither himself baptized, wov permitted any to he 
baptized ; than which nothing can be more impro- 
bable. No views of caution and prudence could, 
justify such an omission.* The plain case is, that 

* Burnet, indeed, thinks that the reason why Paul baptized so 
few was, because bajjtism was delayed till some considerable time 
after conversion to Christianity, and that the Ajjostle did not stay so 
long in a place as to do it. But, as Doddridge observes, it does 

R 2 


Paul foresaw the possibility of such an aspersion, and 
took this measure as the best adapted to give no co- 
lour to it. See Grot., Theodoret, and Doddr. 

16. e^aTTTKra, Oe Koi tov St6*?5oc>(X oIkoV Xojttov ouk 
ol^a — k^a-TTTia-a. I assent to Wolf, that by house are 
here indicated all the family, of every age, sex, and 
condition ; and Wolf and Vitring. Obss. Sacr. L. 2, 
6. p. 81. rightly maintain from hence the use of infant 
baptism in the primitive Church. Wolf aptly appeals, 
in proof, to Ignat. Ep. p. 21. arra^oixai tou9 o'Ikoo^ rwv 
aoeXtpSu ixou arhv yuvai^] Ka\ re/cvoty. On this subject 
see the masterly Dissertation of Wets. Matt. 28. fin. 

AojTTov ovK olha— i^oLTTTiGa. This is, as Grot, says, 
an Epanoi'ihosis priorls dicti. Aojttov, further^ be- 
sides ; as Acts 27, 27. Ouk oloa ei, " I know not whe- 
ther.'* A phrase indicating at least uncertainty^ 
and shewing, Q^cumen observes, the little interest he 
took in the matter. W^olf paraphrases ; 1 am un- 
conscious of baptizing any others." So Semler : 
" Vix arbitror, dubitovalde." And the former thinks 
the el does not infer imcerfainfy, but may be taken 
for OTJ. This, however, seems to be a mere shift, 
and is here inadmissible ; since, when associated 
with OUK ol^a, el cannot but imply some degree of un- 
certainty. Neither is there any reason to explain 
away such a sense ; since, as Doddr. observes, the 
expression of uncertainty as to such a fact is by no 
means inconsistent with inspiration, in that view and 
notion of it which he has stated in his Discourse on 
that subject, annexed to his Family Expositor. It 
is observed too, by Whitby, that St. Paul's inspira- 
tion, or Divine assistance, in writing his Epistle, did 
not reach to an information in such things as these, 
but only to direct him into all truth he was to teach 
unto the Churches.* 

not appear that baptism in these earliest and purest ages was long 
delayed; and it is certain that this cause could not take jdace here, 
as Paul continued at Corinth eighteen months. 

* So Rosenni. " OeoTri euoria Apostolorum, nonnisi ad religionis 
doctrinani perlinuit, nee ita est intelligenda, quasi nihil eis memo- 


17. otj yap axeareiXe — eudyycT^i^ea-^ai. This is to 
be understood (like many other expressions) compa- 
rate, i. e. "not principally to baptize:" for (as 
Schoettg. observes) baptism might be > im'- ' - \ 
by others ;* but the chief office of the Apostles was 
€ua.yy€7^,i§€(rSai. Now €vayy€7<i§€(j-$ai here, and in 
many other passages of the New Testament, signifies 
" to deliver, or teach, the truths of the Gospel." 

'• The Apostle now (observes Rosenm.) passes to 
a vindication of his doctrine, and the method he had 
pursued in communicating it. Up to ch. 2, ver. 2, 
he treats of the nature of his doctrine, and declares 
that this he cannot accommodate to the prejudices 
of men, so as, like Pseudo-Apostles, to keep out of 
view, or sophisticate what would be cried down by 
many, and seem to them foolishness. Then ch;)( . 
2, 3. seqq. he details the method he had pursued at 
Corinth in preaching the Gospel." 

17. ooK iv (Tocpia T^oyou, for ev \oycn (roc^/ay, or T^oyio 
<ro(pa>, or Xoyoty (ro<f)o'is ; as in 2, 13. iv ^l^aKToiy avSpw- 
Trivrj9 o-ocp/ay T^oyoiy, or as Pet. '2, 1, 16. <r€fra}(pi(r- 
fxeuoi^ Xoyojy, i. e. not what appeared to men learn- 
ing, acumen, eloquence, &c. For though Rosenm. 
regards the X07C0 as denoting solely the subject, 
as distinguished from tho words ; and others under- 
stand the oratory, and others again, the philosophical 
and rhetorical acumen which distinguished the So- 
phistae, yet it seems to yq^qy, more or less, to all of 
these. It is well paraphrased by Theophyl. e^y-hayr- 
Tia, K(xXki€7r€ia. 

17. 'iva (xri K€U(o(if, 6 (rraupos^ roG Xpio-roG. By the 

ria excideie, aut cos latere potuisset." And Heumann (from Jus- 
tin) observes: " Hujiis rei informatio ad privatam religioneni sic 
pertinet, ut liberum sit, Dei niimen, quod Apostoli expcrti sunt, 
liberaliter revercri ; ad publicam vero religionis forniulain non per- 
tinet, deoTrvevtrriay sollici(b describere." 

* And these (as Doddridge says) inferiors; this office requiririg- 
no extraordinary abilities, and being attended (at least immersion) 
with some trouble and inconvenience." So Rosenm. " Baptismus 
per quemlibet impleri poterat, sicut illi a Petro conversi in Pente- 
coste non omncs ab ipso fuerunt baptizati ; at preedicatio rei erat 
maximfe digna Apostolis, et maximo cum pcriculo conjuncta." 


o-raupoy tou ^picrroo is meant the doctrine of the 
cross of Christ, the truths of the Gospel, especially 
the fundamental ones, of the sacrifice and death o^ 
Christ for our sin. Kevcobfi, " should be deprived of 
its proper force ;" like the Hebr. 7''in. So Theo- 
phyl. a.^pri(rrQ^ Koi keuos eupeSj]. And he admirably 
annotates (chiefly from Chrysost.) on the passage, as 

" If the Apostles had preached ev (ro<pia Aoyov, 
some would have been led to say that they brought 
over men by the persuasiveness of their oratory, and 
not by the power of the person preached : which 
would be the injury and loss of the crucified Jesus. 
But preaching with popular simplicity, tiiey shewed 
that the crucified Jesus had done the whole." The- 
ophylact. then proceeds to illustrate the k€v. by the 
following example. *' A Greek asks me concerning 
some divine truths above my comprehension. If I 
attempt to prove these from syllogisms and heathen 
wisdom, I shall shew mi/ weakness ; for no reason 
can prove these. And so this my weakness will ap- 
pear to be the iveakness of the Gospel, and the m.ost 
important truths of it will appear empty and vain." 
See also Photius ap. QEcum., who explains Kev, by 
KOLreore'kl^eroLi ; q. d. " Paul was not sent to teach 
them philosophy, or rhetoric, or eloquence, but truths 
of far higher importance, as showing the atonement 
for sin, or method bv which atonement for sin and 
reconciliation with God could be attained." 

The above must be considered as chiefly applicable 
to the Apostles ; for, as Dodd. observes, amidst all 
the beautiful simplicity which a deep conviction of 
the Gospel tended to produce, there was room left 
for the most manly and noble kind of eloquence ; 
which therefore the Christian Preacher should labour 
to make habitual to him." See Mosheim, Eccl. Hist, 
cited by Slade, and consult Schoettg. Hor. Heb. and 
the writers there quoted. 

18. y^^yoyyap o too (rraopod, '* the doctrine of the 
crucifixion of Christ, and the benefits thence re- 
dounding to Christians." ToTrjOtev aTroT^y^ufjiCvoi^ iJ-io^ia 


errri. It is rightly remarked by Theodoret, that 
aTToXXu^evoiS- is put for UTria-roda-i ; and (rcu§oiJ.€vov9, for 
TTKTTCuovTas, that this (says he) utto toG reAouy r^f 
Trporiyoplas Ti$€i9. So Grot., who observes : " Rem 
denotat ex effectu ;" since those who disbelieve the 
Gospel, perish. See Joh. 3, 18. Thus in 2 Cor. 2, 
15 and 16. men are divided into the o-oj^o/xevouy and 
the a7roX7vo/Aevou9. We may, then, paraphrase thus : 
" to those who disbelieve, and reject the Gospel, and 
therefore perish, &c., but to those who believe and 
embrace it, and are thereby saved.'* And in the 
same manner the expressions are interpreted by 

18. y.(vplcc ea-ri, '^ it is to them, it appears to them, 
folly, foolishness." So Thucyd. 5, 41. roTy Se Aa/ce- 
hai[xovioif TO p,ev Trpajrov iooKei [xcopia eli/at raCra. 1'he- 
ophyl. (from Chrysost.) here well remarks, that some 
unbelievers in Corinth deridingly said: "It is folly 
to preach a crucified God : for if he had been God, 
he would not have suffered himself to be crucified. 
But he who could not escape from death, how can he 
be raised from the dead ?" " Now (continues Theo- 
phyl.) it was likely that believers would be extremely 
indignant at these perversions. The Apostle, there- 
fore, means to say : Be not surprised : for to those 
who are perishing, even the means afforded by God 
for salvation appear to be folly." I can only refer 
my readers to the admirable illustrations of Chrysost. 
who commences a most eloquent Homily with the 
following exquisite passage (p. Q66.) To'i^ Kay,vova-i 
Ku) ^u^oppayoijfri KOii a\ rpoCfioi al oyteis ar^^tTy, ol (p/Xo/, 
Kui 01 Trpoa-YjKovres iTrcc^^elf, Koi o'jOe yvcopi^ovrai iroWd- 
KiSy ct.'hXcL Koi €vo^7^e7v hoK(i{i(jiv' ouTco St) rots' ray ^J^uvas* 
arroXXu/xevoJS- a-uy.^alveiv euu^r)- to. yaq 7rpo9 (rcorrjplau 
^€povTa ayvooGo-i, Koi rohg KryOopiej/ous" auruiv evoVKeiv vo- 
fxi^oua-i' ylverai Ce touto o'J Trapa Tr/V toG ■jrpa.yu.a.ros 
(po<riv, aXkcL irapa. rrjv cKelvcov uo(rov. 

The sense of oovafxis 0eoG iam is : " it is God's 
powerful means of bestowing salvation on men. 
Theophyl. 171. explains: <ro<piav €ix<fiot.iv€i 6 a-TOLupos' 


Suva^jv ix€U, on havario Oolvutov eXutrev. Tl€^iou(ria yoc^ 
0uvaix€vai9, ro, TTiTTTOvra vikolV (ro(piav he, on rourco ro> 
T^oTTu) aTToAto/^oray hiecroiore. So Grotius. 

19. yeypoLTTTai yap, i. e. *' so that what is written 
(by Is. 29, 14.) may be here applied.*' This passage 
of Isaiah treats of the false prophets, and evil coun- 
sellors of Hezekiah, who seemed to themselves wise. 
The words are quoted from the Sept., (See Surenhus. 
on Quot. p. 520.), and signify: " I will destroy and 
frustrate the wisdom of the wise, and bring to noiigiu 
the understanding of the prudent." Now by the 
U7.veand prudent are here meant those who fseem so : 
and by aTroXtp and a97]rrjo-«> is meant: " I will make 
their folly evident." 'A^ereoj is, I think, properly a 
law term, and signifies to abrogate or repeal ; and 
hence comes to signify in a general way vim et auta- 
ritatafem ad/mere. See Schl. Lex. By (ro(p/a is 
here meant mere human wisdom, and especially that 
sort of erudition in which the Greeks especially 
prided themselves. In the ])arallelism <r6v€(nv is sy- 
nonymous with ao^^MV. The word, often signifies, in 
the Classical writers, what we call clever; as in 
Thiicyd. 3, 37. and 1, 84. a-Dveros clyav. Theophyi. 
well paraj)hrases a7ro7\.(d t-^v cro^/av by avoWyrov oltto- 
Se/^o), "shew its inutility, and inability to discover 
the mode by which may be attained pardon and 
atonement for him, reconciliation with God, and the 
blessings springing from it. 

20. TTou cocbos" ; TTOJ ypa^iKarevs ; ttoG (t. t. a. t. 
These words are also acjuotation from Scripture, or, 
at least, formed from it. They bear a strong Ve- 
semblance to Is. 33, 18. where there is the same 
point in ttou — ttoG. (See Surenhus. p. 522. and Vi- 
tringa in !oc. or Wliitby.) 

In showing the inefficiency of human wisdom for 
the purposes in question, the Apostle is understood 
by the best Commentators to strike both at the Gen- 
tile and the Jewish wisdom : and first, the former, 
by o-o(poV, which word is well explained by Theophyi. 
<p»AoVo<jjoy. Now those among the Greeks who ap- 
plied themselves to intellectual, especially moral and 


ethical, enquiries, were antiently called o-o(po), which 
answers to the Hebr. D^^^rn. Thus the seven wise 
men were called ol o-o0oj. Afterwards, however 
such entjuirers were called <p»Xoo-o(po». Yet the above 
use of o-o(poy may be said never to have been quite 
laid aside. 

The ypci[xixaT€vs' is plainly the Jew'ish "^20, which, 
Grot, observes, in the Helfenistical style, denoted a 
Chilian and Jlisforian ; now in a certain sense, the 
Jewish scribes were both. 

By <ru§r,rrjrri^ Grot, understands " an explorer of 
the works of nature," P%s7C//.y ; and he refers to 
Baruch 3, 23. o\ €k^i]touvt6s ttJv o-ui/ecnv eTrJ r^y yvjy. 
But there the expression is different, and the com- 
ple^xion of the whole passage dissimilar. Besides, 
aiaJj/oy would not have been the term employed, nor 
would the ToGrou have been used. Moreover, the 
term o-oj. signities, not an irKjuirer, but a disputer. 
The sense, then, is : where is the subtle dispufer of 
this world only, the Sophist, who rests on mere hu- 
man wisdom?" See the Commentators ap. Pole and 
Wolf, and especially Fuller, who (in common with 
Witsius Misc. Sacr.) observes that such an one was 
called by the Hebrews ]t!?n : and hence the mystical 
and allegorical Commentators on Scripture were 
termed CD^tmtD. And so Fessel. Adv. 8.1,201. 
and Lightfoot.* These and other learned Rabbinical 
scholars, however, seem, as usual, to carry the matter 
too far. Chrysost. and the Greek Commentators, 
with more judgment, refer it chiefly to the Gentile 

* And also Schoettgen, who observes tliat these <Tua,]-j,rat, 
DOmi, \V(M'e ))ersons who deduced fioui Scripture many alletrori- 
cal anagogical, mystical, and cabbali.stic senses, and moreover could 
hold such subtle disputations concerning the bevrepwcrns and 
TrarpoTrapnboroi decrees and custf)ms. And he adds: " Ouibus re- 
bus codem modo sibi placebant, ac tempoiibus barbaris ^ obscuris 
Schohastici, qui Iheologiam et Hhilosophiara tani subtiliter et acut^ 
proposuerunt, ut vix ipsi scirent, quid sibi voluerint. Sed Deus 
utramque et Judreorum et Scholiasticorum xLevboao<plav stultam 
fecir, ut, quos ante nemo refutare, aut iibdem contradicere i)oterat 
postea publico ct sine periculo irriderentur." * 


subtle disputants and sophists, toGs* Xoyto-ju.oTy Kal egeJ- 
vaty rot iravra kTrnpeTTovras. I see no reason why the 
Apostle may not be thought to have in view the 
o-u^Tjrrjra), both Jewish andGentile. That the Apostle 
had the latter in view appears from what follows. 

On the force of the ttoO ea-n Commentators are not 
quite agreed. It is, I think, a popular phrase, and 
best explained in a popular manner ; q. d. " What 
has he done ; what fruits can he show ? None." 
Or, " He is no where ; he cannot show his face." 
See Grot. 

20. oup^j eju-fopavev o ©eoy ti^u crocplav r. k. t. On the 
sense of these words, the Commentators vainly per- 
plex themselves. (See Pole.) The simple truth is, 
that God, by promulgating a plan of salvation which 
no human wisdom could have devised, much less ac- 
complished, has thereby placed in a strong point of 
view the weakness and inefficiency of mere human 
wisdom for the purpose of salvation. So Theophyl. 
171. aveve^yyjTov ©eos" t-tjv <ro<piav oucrav eoei^e, Ka) 
r{h€y^e [xcupav, a/y fxri Icr^vrraa'av eupeiv ro aXTjQes'. 

21. €7r€ihri yap ev rj} (ro^ia, &c. These words, 
Theophyl. and Crellius observe, shew the cause why 
God did so; and are exegetical of the preceding. 
" For since, or after, the world, even the wisest, had 
failed to attain a knowledge of God, and a method 
of reconciHation with him." 

The expression ev tt) (ro<^la too Seod is of uncertain 
interpretation. (See Pole) Vorst., Lightf., and Hardy 
explain : " in theologia sua circa Deum, sapientia, 
quae Deum habuit, non auctorem, sed objectum.** 
This, however, seems harsh. Schoettg. explains it : 
'* philosophiam quee divina, Deique donum est." 
The best Commentators are agreed that there is an 
oppositiunhetween this phrase and the one just after, 
8ta Trig (ro^/ay. It must, I think, mean " the wisdom 
of God, as conspicuous in his works, both of nature 
and revelation." See Grot., Beza, and Wolf, and es- 
pecially a passage cited from Voss. de Orig. Idol, 
cited by Wolf, and here referred to by Slade. 


21. ZioL T^y o-oc^/ay. Tliis, as appears from the anti- 
thesis, must signify: *' by the force of its own wis- 
dom." Xo(pla denotes intellectual enquiry of every 

21. €udQKrj<y€u o ©eoy, "thought good, vouchsafed, 
decreed ;" or "it pleased God." See Luke 12, 23. 
Gal. 1, 15. Col. 1, 19. Aia TT^y fxaypias^ fou K7]poy- 
y-uTof, is for 81a Krjpuyixaro^ [x.a>c>ou, " by a Gospel which 
was thought * folly, or foolishness, as being devoid 
of all that the world called wisdom." This phraseo- 
logy, which, it must be admitted, partakes of the 
poetical cast, is found in the Classical writers, though 
chiefly in the Dramatists. See Vorst. Phil. Sacr 
C. 3. 

21. (Tojo-ai Tot)y 7r«rr6uovTay, " to place in the way of 
salvation those that such believe,'* viz. in the doc- 
trines propounded by this preaching. On the above 
sense of a-w^cu I have treated on Matt. 1, 24. From 
the use of (Tw<rai in the latter part of this sententia 
himembris, I cannot but think that a clause is left to 
be supplied in the former member ; namely at row 
0€oG ou/c eyvo), " knew not God, nor the mode of pro- 
pitiating him, (and consequently must have perished)." 
See Whitby s excellent annotation. 

22. exei^fi Kcti 'loySaTot a-rnKeiov alroGo-j, koi ""ExXijvey 
(ro<pla ^YiToua-i. 'I'he Apostle now shows by what 
cause, and through what prejudice neither the 
Jewish nor Gentile wise men believed. 

The Jews, it is said, sought a sign.'\- How so ? it 

* An example of this figure occurs in Thucyd. 6, I7. T, 2, 348 
6. Edit. Bekk. ovk at^prjcr-ds ijbyj ij avoia, i. e. what you call avoia. 
So also Soph. Antig. 95. 'AXX' ea /xe Kal Tt)v e^ eiiov bvafjovXlav. 
And CEd. Tyr. 397. aXX eyw /jivXwy, 6 juribk eibios, oI^ittovs eTravau 

t Or signs; as some MSS., Versions, and Editions read, which is 
received bvGriesbach; but too rashly, I think. For though the 
authorities in its favour are strong, yet, as to MSS., the difference 
is so small that their anthoiity is but slight ; and that of the Ver- 
sions is not quite unexceptionable testimony in such a case. Be- 
sides, the common reading is defended by internal evidence, as well 
as external testimony. For none could reasonably have desired 
more than one such di^jdeiov' 


may be asked. Had they not been favoured with 
many signs, both exhibited by Christ and the 
Apostles ? True : but not what they properly called 
o-r^jxeTa, by which they meant signs from heaven ; as 
in Mark 8, 11. (where see the note.) There were 
probably those who desired some such sign as their 
deliverance from the Roman yoke, by an interposi- 
tion similar to that whereby the host of Pharaoh was 
suddenly drowned in the Red Sea; or that of Senna- 
cherib's army, destroyed in one night : or some such 
as that of bread being given them from heaven ; the 
Sun standing still, &c. How prone the Jews were, 
in all ages, to ask for such signs, sacred history as- 
sures us, and the Rabbinical writings confirm this. 
See Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. and also Doddridge. 

"KjO^rivei (ro(^iav ^rjToumv. The Apostle here excel- 
lently sketches the characteristics of the Jews, and 
the Gentiles. The Jews seek a sign, and that such an 
one as shall be agreeable to their wishes, and agree- 
able to their gross conceptions. The more rational 
Greeks do not so much ask for miracles as require 
wisdom, but it must be that of their own kind, or (as 
Hardy, from Grot, and the early Commentators, ex- 
plains) human wisdom, philosophical reason,^ set off 
by the Jigmenta oratoria ; they wish whatever is said 
to be deduced and proved from natural principles ; 
and whatever cannot be proved or comprehended by 
reason, as a mystery of faith, they would explode. 
Thus in both cases, each wishes and calls for that on 
which his heart is set, which he has been accustomed 
to, and therefore demands. 

The Apostle then subjoins: 'HjtxeTs- Se K-^o6(r(ro[X€v, 
&c., in which sentence there is a short clause left to 
be supplied. Grotius subauds the following: " Non 
rationes adferimus, sed testimonium de re conspecta." 
And Doddridge: "Unmindful of all unreasonable 
and petulant demands." It seems, too, that the 

* So Chrysost. "EXXtyves aTzairovaiy i/fiCis priropciai- Xvyuv Kai 


words o-Kav^aXot/ and {xtooiav, though put in apposi- 
tion witli Xpio-T&v t<rraupfujtxeyov, require to be ex- 
pressed tlius ; *' Though it be to tlie Jews a stum- 
bhng block, (as contrary to all their secular expecta- 
tions,) and to the Greeks foolishness, as not resting 
mainly on the principles of reason :" or, as Grotius 
phrases it, *' Insipidum illis videbatur nihil adferri 
de rerum principiis, de finibus, de animi natura: 
quae elementa sunt apud Graecos sapientige moralis." 
24. auVoTy 8e KXryXo?? 'I. t. k/'E., "but (we preach) 
to those who are called (and obey the call), whether 
Jews or Gentiles." (See Grot, and Vorst.) ©eof 
^6va(j.iv Ka\ 0eoy o-o^/av. These words ought, I think, 
to be taken as put in apposition with tlie preceding 
X|5io-Tov €a-Ta'jf>(ofj.€vov, and signify: " Which doctrine 
of Christ's crucifixion, and those which depend upon 
it, are, i. e. carry with them, an illustration of the 
power and wisdom of God." There is here, Grotius 
observes, a metalepsis; since by Christ God shewed 
both his power to convert men (see Rom. 1, 16.), 
and his wisdom, treated of in Rom. 11, 33.** And 
he refers to 2, 7. and Isa. 5S, 11. Many Commen- 
tators are of opinion that the power of Cirod is spoken 
of with reference to the Jews; and the wisdom of 
God, with reference to the Gentiles. In which view 
Doddridge paraphrases: "To the converted Jews 
his mission is confirmed by miraculous evidence, and 
the accomplisiiment of prophecies far more im- 
portant than any event which their carnal brethren 
expect; and the believing Gentile finds it infinitely 
fuller of Divine wisdom and goodness to a lost 
world, than any system of philosophy that was 
ever invented." But the paraphrase of Whitby is 
closer, and more faithful. Rosenm. refers the huva- 
ftiy and (ro»?5/a to tlie kXijtoj, or Christians generally; 
observing : " Nam veri Christiani experiuntur vim 
iilam divinam emendandi animum, quee inest huic 
salutari iloctrinit. Experiuntur etiam sapientissim^ 
egisse Deum in eo, quod non per Philosophiam, sed 


per talem doctrinam, simplicem et planam, omnium 
hominum captui accommodatum, ad salutem perdu- 
cere velit humanum genus." This explanation, how- 
ever, of the J'ormer member is too limited. 

Wetstein here cites Aristid. p. l6. c-^e^lv yap 
h6vay,iv Tou Atos" elvai "keyoiv tjs* aurr^v e/c rourcov, ouk a.v 

25. oTi TO ^(opov rod Seou coi^unepov rcov oiv^^ioTrmv 
icTTi. This sentence (which is obscure from its ex- 
treme brevity) is meant to meet a tacit objection, 
and give a reason for the preceding position. The 
sentiment intended to be expressed is this : " Most 
wise are all the counsels and plans of God, though 
they may seem to men foolish." (Crellius, Krause, 
and Rosenm.) 

To advert to the phraseology, which is popular, 
TO (XMpov Tou &€ou is for 7]' ^wplot T. 0. ; and after 
<ro<P(or€pQv must be supplied rod G-o<pod, taken from 
that word. Of this brevity, which is often adopted to 
avoid tautology, Grotius adduces an example from 
Pliny. Here, too, as Sclater says, there is a conces- 
sio ironica; the words being spoken after the opinion 
of men. The passage is thus paraphrased by Rosenm. 
Most efficacious are the means which God uses, to 
bring about the best ends ; even though they appear 
weak and insignificant." 

Again in the ao-Qeves" toG Seod, as Grotius remarks, 
there is signified comparate what is weak in power : 
and at \<r)(y^oT€pov must be supplied tov lo-^upod. The 
Apostle has reference to what was said at ver. 24. 
Here the sense is obvious. See the Paraphrasts. 
Grotius compares a similar sentiment in 1 Kings 12, 
10. and Wetstein one from Plato. 

26. /3Xe7reT€ yap, &c. In order to prove what he 
had said, that few ni the Church were wise according 
to the flesh, the Apostle appeals to the examples of 
the Christians themselves. Tao therefore refers to 6, 
23. (Crell.) 

BxeVeTe yap rr^v kT^tjo-iv Jjul^ov, " for ye see the mode 


of your calling* or the situation of those who have 
embraced the Christian religion. "On, *' namely 
that." By (ro(pQ) Kara crapKa, are meant those who 
had the wisdom of the flesh, the body, mere human 
and not divinely revealed, wisdom of this world only. 
AuvoiTo), iuyevely, powerful, noble. Here must be 
supplied K€K7.r)vrai from the context, namely KT^^a-iif 
preceding.f «' It might (observes Rosenm.) have 
seemed that the Christian religion could not have 
risen without the aid of the learned, the powerful, 
and the noble : hue the event shewed that God does 
not need the assistance of men." This indeed seems 
to have been the Apostle's own reflection. 

On the facf in question, that almost all the Chris- 
tians were of the poorer and labouring classes, Grot, 
has the following beautiful remark, " Not that the 
Gospel rejects persons of any sort ; but that the less 
burthened more easily tread the narrow and sleep 
pathr (See Matt. 5, 3. and 19, 23. and the notes 
there. See also Lactant. 7, 1.) 

27. aXXoc ra po§a tow /coV/aou eJeAefaro. By €^e- 
Aegaro must be meant « placed in a state of salva- 
tion ;'* synonymous with the calling]u?>t before men- 
tioned. A use of the word which requires us to 
advert to the genius of Hebrew phraseology and 
which is well stated by Schl. Lex. 1,755. He no- 
tices inn in the sense love, approve, and benejit : and 
adds, that "as the Christian religion may well be 
reckoned among the greatest benefits of God, and a 
striking indication of the benevolence of the Deity 
so €K-K^^a(T^on is, in the New Testament, ascribed /car' 
€>^oxriV to God, inasmuch as he, of his own benevolent 
will, not only offers to men this saving Religion, and 
destines it for them, but really confers it upon them. 

tio ^^'~'''"'' '^ "^"^^ ^^ observed, includes the assent and accepta- 

t Which seems far preferable to the mode adopted bySlade who 
supphes e,m, or hXeKrol, from t'ieXt'iaro in the followinff verse 
As to Mackmghfs manner of filling the ellipsis, it is quite inad- 
nussible, ^ 


And thus the term here simply denotes the being 
brought to the Chnsfian religion.'" 

Ta iKcvpa andra acrBev^ are neuters for masculines, 
according to the frequent usage both of the Scrip- 
tural and Classical writers. Nor is there any occa- 
sion, with Mackn,, to supply Trpoa-coTra, nor, witii Cal- 
vin and Hardy, to consider the positive as here put 
for the superlative ; still less with Grot, and most 
modern Commentators, to take /coVjaou for Koary-t^., in 
the sense, " those who appeared so to the world :" 
which is too harsh, and not agreeable to the next 
verse. I prefer with the Vulg., Pagninus, Beza, and 
Piscat., to regard it as equivalent to " in the world%** 
The word seems to have been added chiefly for the 
sake of perspicuity. 

27. tW Tous* (ro(pous Karaia-^uvyi, i.e. "to put them to 
shame, by showing that what they could not effect 
by their wisdom, had been accomplished by what 
they accounted foolishness." So Theophyl. 174 
(from Cluysost.) ToGro yap irm i/.€yi(TTrj aia-^uur, rcov 
'ETiXyjVcov, OTOLV 'Icrcocri rov ctti t^s" ayopd^ ^€ipoT€)(yriV vwep 
auTouff <^j7\.oo'f)(pouvTO£, Koi rlv airSevvj ko.) €UKOiTa<ppovriTOV 
Touy 61/ 6uva(rTeia. Kai TrT^ourco raweivouvra. 

With respect to the ra aa-bevT] and the ra i(r;^upa. 
the former term, it may be observed, was applicable 
to the Apostles in all respects, both in birth, station, 
and acquirements of every kind ; and the latter, 
equally so to the Gentile philosophers. 

28. Koi TO. ayeur} rod /coo-juioy, ignoble : as opposed to 
the euyevri. By the i^ovSeurjixeva are meant those that 
were made nought of, most contemptible. The term 
is of frequent occurrence in the New Testament ; 
and in the Sept. it answers to the Hebr. 0^12, which 
is sometimes rendered aTro^oKi'xa^eiv. 

28. Kui Ta (XT] ovra, »Va rot ovTa KaTa^yr^trri. The 
Apostle adds another link to the chain of antithesis, 
by an expression which partakes of the hyperbole, 
or .Oxymoron, but is not unfrequent in good writers.* 

* Of the exann|)les adduced by Eisner and Wetstein, the follow- 
ing are the most apposUe. Eurip. Troad. COS. ofiCo rh rwy Oeioy, 


Karapy. is here, as often, to be understood logke, 
i. e. in the sense, "to cause men to see that those 
persons are nobodies, of no esteem." 

2 ). oTTcoy [x^ ka'j^ri<rrirai Trdtra (rap^ e. a. There 
is here a strong Hebraism. For, as Grotius and 
Rosenm. remark, '' y.rj iraa-a Hebraiis universaliter 
negant." And <rap^ answers to T^^n, and signifies 
man. (See the examples in Schl. Lex. Vet. et Nov. 
Test.) 'EvcoTTiov Tou (dew is another Hebraism, and 
is well explained by Grotius, *' ubi cum Deo res 
est." Thcophyl. I74. paraphrases the whole verse 
thus : Aia. TryjTo raura 7r€7rQir}K€V ©e&y, 7va. Karaa-reiXr 
Tov Tu(pov Ko.) TTjv (x7^a§ov€iav rwv ra too koct^o'j (PoovoJv- 
Tcuv, Koi Trela-y] Travra auru) avanhevui Koi ^xri Kau^oicr^ai 
€vco7riov auTou. 

30. e| aJrov oe ufAeTy ^(rre, Sec The Apostle here 
places Christians in opposition to tliose \yho have 
been decorated witli these carnal qualifications ; and 
he shows that tliey ought, contrary to the usual 
custom, to hold all their dignity as from God, and 
refer it solely to him. (Crellius.) 

At ej auro'j rnust be understood jtxovow. The words 
are to be taken emphatically ; q. d. "from him 
alone, and not from men." 'Eo-re iv X. 'I., " ye are 
become Christians." The same phrase (which sa- 
vours of Hebraism) occurs in Rom. 8. 1. 

oO. OS kyevrihri rifuv o-o(p/a, Sic. In these words (which 
are of no very easy explanation) we nuist especially 
attend to the force of the Hebrew and Hellenistic 
idiom. There is throughout the sentence a meto- 
nymy of the eff'ec/: for the cause; and we have also 

ws Tu f.ity TTvpyova avu) ru yu//^ti' vtru, r'a ^t hoKovrr a.Trb.'\ecrny. 
And Here. fur. 314. et /jiey (rdeiorrwy rwy efiuiy /3pax«o»'W)'^Hj' ris 
vfjpiiojy, pabtujs kwavauT av' Nuv h' ovbt:y itrfxey. Joseph, Ant. 1, 
13, ?. Oeoi — oyra iKayoy Kai ruiy vvk oyrtoy els evTropiar urdptjTrovi 
irapnyaye'iy, Kai to. oi-ra rwr t;r* avrols dappoiiyrwy atpeXtcrOai. 
Stoboeiis S. 3S. ro'ts ovbey ovcriy ovbe els oXws (pdovel, ae\ to. aefiya, 
TTiii-a Kfk-Ttj-ai <p66yoy. Loesner, too, adduces exampk-s f/om 
Philo, and refers to Broukh. on Tibull. 1, 5, 30., Moll, on Long. p. 
76, and Valckn. on Eurip. Phoen. I add, Plulo?tr. V. Ap. S, 7. p. 
331. TU yap o'vk oira, ah at (roie't) , kui ru oy-a uirifrreladai. 


the abstract for the concrete. The sense, then, is: 
" who was made by God the means of wisdom * be- 
ing imparted to ns ; since by him and his doctrine 
alone are we enabled to contemphite God and his 
arcana, which even the most acute human enquirers 
could never have imagined." 

This idiom is not altogether Hellenistical. Thus 
Wetstein cites from Sueton. Vit. 15. Quibusdam ac- 
clamantibus ipsum esse concordiam. And farther 
on : L. Antonius III. vir et Cn. Pompejus appellati 
sunt Pietas in numis. Terent. Adelph. 3, 3, 40. 
Tu quantus quantus nil nisi sapieniia es. See other 
examples from ^lian, Soph., and Eurip., cited by 
Homberg, Parerg. Sacr. ad Marc. 13, 19. 

30. ^iKaiocrtJvr) re kou ayictcixoy, " the caw^eof our jus- 
tification, and the author and promoter of our sanc- 
tification, both by imparting pure doctrine, by the 
example of his own holy life, and especially by pro- 
curing for us the assistance of the Holy Spirit." In 
Rom. f), 19. the word ayiacr. is used merely for 
BiKuioa-uvri. Koji a7roXurpco(rty, "the cause of our re- 
demption, of the remission of our sins." 

The above, which is founded on the best modern 
Commentators, appears to be the true construction 
and sense of the verse, and is confirmed by the au- 
thority of the Greek Commentators, -f- and also of 
the Rabbinical writers. See Schoettg. H. H. 

* Namely, (as Rosenni. remarks,) true wisdom, and such as is 
worthy of tlie name. 

f Thus Theophyl. 174. paraphrases. TeKva Qeov lyeyecrde, i^ai e^ 
avTOv core. Then he explains 6s eyeriiOr] ao(pia, &c. by trofovs {//.ids 
Kul biKaiovs Kal ayiovs Kcil eXevOepovs eifiyaaciTO. The Apostle, he 
thinks, used the idiom to show the to ba\piX€s rijs bwpcis. Finally, 
he notices the order in which these bentfits are mentioned (p. 1/5. 
med.) npuiToy (TO(j)Ovs cTroirjcrey, o7^a\Xa^as Tfjs TrXaprjs, Kal Oeoyru)- 
aiav bLhai,as' Kal tote biKalovs, twv auapriwv tt}v iiipetriv buiprjcTa.- 
ud'Oi' elra Kal ayiaaas bia roii hyiov Jlyev^aros' Kat ovtu) reXeiav 
airaWayijv TravTtov Twy KaKuir )(^api(Tai.ievos Kal tXevdepMtras, wctt€ 
avTOV jxuvov elj'oi ijjj.ds, Kal avno avaKeiadui. 

I must not. however, omit to advert to a new construction and 
interpretation which was first propounded by Bos, Obss. N. T. p. 
1 1 . and afterwards adopted and supported by Noessclt and Krause. 


31. KaQto9 ycypUTTTai' *0 Kau^w^xevos, €V Kugjo) Kau- 
)(^d(r^a). The sense of this elhptical expression seems 
to be : " JSo that (to use the words of Scripture) he 
that boasteth," &c. Or, as Grotius, Hardy, and 
others, render, '' ut fiat quod scriptum est." Jaspis 
would supply ouTO) yevriTai ko.) €u uiuv before /caSa»s', in 
nearly the same sense. But that ellipsis is too arbi- 
trary to be admitted. 

This is a reference to Jer. 9, 23 & 29., in which 
the senne rather than the words is expressed. (See 
Venema and Blayney in loc, and compare the Sept.) 
The sense is. "He who would worthily extol his 
dignity or felicity, let him refer all of which he 
boasts to God, who bestoweth all these endowments 
by and througli Christ." It is plain from the 
passage of Jer. that by Kvp. we are here to under- 
stand Jehovah, God. The verse is thus paraphrased 
by Iheophyl. 175. liavra raZra yeyovev, iW ju.ry8ejy 

aA/uo Tivi, aAX €7ri rto ©etp tco TO(TaZr r^ixiv ■yapio'au.evui. 
Ylcus ouv r^'xels <^u(Tiou(rSe Kai e(^' eaurcn^- kou i7r\ avBpcv- 
TTois" SjSao-KaXojy ; See the admirable illustration of 

Tlu'v put the words os lyei'^'idr) y/jly ao^'ia — Qeov in a parenthesis. 
And Uius hiKaioavvt], &e. will be referred to j/ywets tore, and be 
taken for hiKaiwQevres, &c. : and ev Xpinru) will be for biU X., " per 
Jesuni Chiistiim." This construction the above Commentators say 
is supported by the context from \er. "26 , and hy a siinilar passage 
at 0', 11. iiyiiKrOijTe vat ttiKaiioOr^re iy ivofxari rov Kvpiov 'l7](T0V, 
and finidly by the usus h)quendi of the Apostle, in which abstracts 
are often used for concretes ; as // neptrui-n) for o't TrepirerfnjiJtroi. 
But the common construction is, at least, <is agreeable to the con- 
text as this. As to the passai^e adduced, it is not in point; and 
the use of abstracts for concretes is limited to certain words, and 
no instance can be shown of any such catacliresis as the construc- 
tion in question would involve, and which is, I think, totally inde- 
fensibl.:. Nay even the daring and innovating Griesbach rejects it. 
As to the sense, it is nearly the same. 

s 2 



"Quatuor sunt istius capitis partes. In prim^ ostendit, se inter 
Corinthios non fuisse usum excellentia sermonis, nee sapientiam 
mundanam illis annunciasse, quemadmodum superius docuil fieri 
debere, et sic thebin applicat ad hypothesin. In aUer& per occupa- 
tionem (juandam docet, se nihiloniinus suinmain sapientiam praedi- 
care. In terti^ similiter per occupalionem quandam ostendit, unde 
sapientiam istam, quam occultam vocaverat, ipse et alii sui similes 
hauserint, et qui fiat ut simplici oratione utatur. In quartS, cau- 
sam affert, cur quibusdam evangelica praedicatio minimi arrideat." 

The Apostle proceeds with the subject he had commenced at 1, 
17., namely, that the testimony is to be delivered in simple lan- 
guage, and there is no need of eloquence and subtle reasoning, 
which rather makes the witness suspicicnis. 1, 6', (Wets.) 

The connection is vaiiously traced. In this Whitby has, I think, 
been more successful than Doddridge ; and his mode of interpreta- 
tion is supported by Crellius, Wetstein, and others. Yet the fol- 
lowing one brought forward by Chrysostom, Theophylact, and 
others, deserves attention. " And not only have the disciples of 
the Gospel been chosen from among men of no wisdom or high 
birth, but I also, the preacher of the Gospel, did not come to you 
with prepared words and human wisdom," &c. 

Verse 1. Kdyco eXQcov — KotrayylT^T^cov wju.Ti/, &C. 
Krause and Rosenm. would conjoin iT^Scov with 
KarayeXKcDV. Which, however, seems to confuse 
rather than to clear the construction, and is contrary 
to that view of it which has been taken by Chrysos- 
tom. The sense is : " Thus when I came to you 
(to Corinth), I came not preaching /ca^' wepa^r^v 
T^oyou, for iv VTTe^o^fi. 

Rosenm. interprets the 7^070^ of the dociri?ia ipsa, 
ex argiimento sua spectata, i. e. sublimity of doctrine: 
and he takes uirepo-^riv cro^las to denote erudition, 
especially philosophical, which was by the Corin- 
thians thought the only true wisdom. (See Doddr.) 

1. TO jtxaorugiop' roZ ©eou. There is here a var. lect. 
which merits some attention. Several excellent 
MSS., and some Versions and Fathers, read jauor^'- 
piQv, which is preferred by Locke, Pearce, and others; 
and indeed it is somewhat confirmed by ver. 7. and 
the word is often used by the Apostle : but for this 


very reason, and considering how similar the two 
words are in MS. letters, I cannot but suspect that 
it arose from accident. It might, too, be introduced 
from emendation : for it seems to yield a stronger 
sense. It is, however, unnecessary. Maorupiov ro5 
06otJ, which is a periphrasis for the Gospel, the Chris- 
tian doctrine, is sufficiently apt ; and is supported by 
other passages of the New Testament; as 1 Cor. 

1, 6. TO i/.aprvpiov too XpjcTToG. 2 Tim. 1,8. to (J^ocp- 
Tuptov TOO Kupioo. Schleus., too (I perceive) regards 
IJioa-Tiqpiov as a gloss : and he refers the origin of this 
signification to the Hebrew, in which TTT^ and Hll'^ 
is often used both of the Divine laws and of the 
Jewish doctrine; as 2 Kings 11, 12. Ps. 132, 12. 
Is. 8, 20. 

2. 00 yap CKpiva toG eloevaj — €<rraopa)ix€uov. Since 
a principal part of the Apostolic office consisted in 
preaching the doctrine and the saving death of 
Christ, hence St. Paul says it was his grand object 
to fulfil this duty: that the praise of other things 
was indifferent to him, nor had he come forward 
with, or made any show to the Corinthians of philo- 
sophical science, or the arts of oratory and elo- 
quence. (Krause.) 

2. ou yoLp €Kpiva toG elSeW/, i. e. either, " I thought 
it not worth while to know" (as it is understood by 
Theophyl., Erasmus, and Justin), or, " I determined 
not to know :"' but the latter interpretation is the 
more suitable to what follows. Krause refers to 
5, 3. 7, 35. Acts 20, 16. 27, 1. Rom. 14, 13. 2 Cor. 

2, 2. Tit. 3, 12. Polyb. 4, 06. 

In ouK elSeWj there is an idiomatical, and, as I 
suspect, a popular form of expression. On the sense 
of the words Commentators are not agreed. The 
best founded opinion seems to be that they signify : 
" I resolved to profess or show no knowledge, but to 
so carry myself as to seem to know nothing but,"&c. 
And so Sclater, Estius, Henoch., Teren., Wolf, Ca- 
saub, Rosenm., Krause, and Justinian (cited by 
Pole), which last Commentator compares the Latin, 


" Nescias quod scis, si sapis," i. e. vide ne cuiquam 
dixeris, ita te gere ac si prorsns nescires.* 

Rosenm. observes that the Apostle purposely ab- 
stained from exhibiting the vast stores of knowledge 
and erudition which he undoubtedly possessed. The 
reason is stated at <>, 1. seqq., namely, that the Co- 
rinthians were yet a-apKiKo), tiros, who could not 
comprehend higher doctrines, as is rightly remarked 
by Orig. c. Cels. p. 101. 

At Ttjotouv X. Ka) TOUTOV t(rTaup(oy.evov, the Koi has, I 
think, the sense of prceserthn ; and the expression 
signifies, " to preach and commemorate the whole 
history of Jesus Christ, his origin, birth, life, doc- 
trine, and especially his death and the important 
doctrines connected with it." (Compare 15, 1 — 4<.) 
Which is always the sense of the formula. Thus to 
preach Christ is of yet more comprehensive signifi- 

Griesbach omits the roG : which, Mr. Slade thinks, 
makes the construction clear. Yet the other is a 
common Scriptural idiom, and I suspect the tou was 
thrown out ex emendatione. 

3. Kou eyco iv aa-^evela koi ev (^o(dco — ujuiay. Thus 
far the Apostle has spoken of the subject of his 
teaching, and has averred that he preached not to 
them human wisdom. He now proceeds to instruct 
them concerning the method wiiich at Corinth he 
had pursued in the promulgation of the divine doc- 
trine, and the communicating it to his hearers. 
(Rosenm.) Thus these words would seem to be 
illustrative of the preceding. 

* Wets, also compares tVie two following Classical passages. 
Arrian Ejjict. 2, 1. hul,ov be jjajbels ehai, Kctl elberai nrjbey' fiovov 
rovTO (^aivov, ttms fxijT cnrorv^ris Trove, fxlire TrepnretTrjs' aWoi /leXe- 
Twcrai' bii^as, ciXXoL 7rpo/3\/;/iora ciXXot avWo'yicrfj.ovs' crv airoOyrjcr- 
KeiVy (TV bebiarBai, av (rrpel^XovaOai, av €L,opiceaBaL' & 18. el irpo- 
Koxpat deXeis, v7r6j.ieivov ereKer tGiv Iktos iirovs b6t,cii Kai TjXtdios' 
l^rjbej' j3ouXov bctceli' eirlffTaadcti, k^v b6L,rjs ~iaiv eirai ris, ciTriarei 
aeavTw. The former of these passages is so similar, both in senti- 
ment and phraseology, that 1 cannot but suspect the Philosopher 
(who, as I have on other occasions observed, api)e3rs to have read 
the New Testament) had this passage of St. Paul in view. 


3. eyevoiArjV 7rqo9 u/xay. Rosenm. renders : " I car- 
ried myself among you as weak (unlearned) and 
very modest." Or aorb. may, he thinks, denote fiml- 
dity. The following words c^o^o) Koi rpojuiw, he main- 
tains, must mean modesty and bashfnlness. Yet 
they are otherwise explained by Chrysost. and the 
Greek Commentators. (See Chrys. and Theophyl.) 
Storr refers the ao-Q. to Paul's imbecility of body, 
mentioned at 2 Cor. 10, 10., i. e. a thin weak voice, 
and a hesitation in pronunciation. Yet the ao-O. may 
refer also to the extreme smallness of stature, stoop- 
ing, &c., which are ascribed to the Apostle. And 
of this opinion is Schoettg. Indeed it is not impro- 
bable that the ao-Qeve/a here, and the arr^evri^ in 2 
Cor. 10, 10. refer to the same infirmities or disadvan- 
tages as the thorn in the Jiesh mentioned at 2 Cor. 

12, 7. Then ev ao-Geve/a will refer to the fear justly 
excited by his persecutors, and the ev (po^tpKa) tqoixu>, 
to his modesty and bashfulness.* After all, how- 
ever, I grant that there is much to be said in defence 
of other interpretations, and it is very difficult to 
exactly determine the Apostle's meaning. 

4. Koi b Xoyoy — Suvajaetoy. The Apostle adds that 
the mode of bringing forward the doctrine delivered 
by him, was not guided by the precepts of human 
art. (Rosonm.) 

In Xoyoy and KTj^oyixa there is, I think, an hendia- 
dis. So 'I'eren., Estius, and Henoch., who render : 
" oratio qua utebar in praedicando Evangelio." 

4. ouK €V Tret^oTy avSpcovnuriS' (ra^las Xoyojy, " not in 
the persuasive words of human wisdom." Rosenm. 
refers the Xoyojy o-ocp/as" to choice, collection, and 
connection in composition, or to oratorical elocution. 
XleiOoTy, if it be genuine, is a word of the same form 
with cfieTdoy and /Ajfioy. It is, however, so unusual (or 
rather occurs no where else), that many conjectures 

* To which purpose Wets, cocoparcs 4, 10. 2 Cor. 11, 6 & 3. 

13, 4 & 9., and says it is tliere opposed to the arrogance of a false 
Apostle. And so Mr. Locke. 


have been hazarded, the most probable of which is, 
ttjOoTs" for TTj^avoTy, from a MS. abbreviation. But 
this is precarious. As to the common reading, if 
the form can be proved to be analogical, no excep- 
tion ought to be taken at the rarity of the word. 
Now this has been done by Salmas. and Kypke. So 
that if the MSS. agreed on the reading, no reason- 
able doubt cotdd be entertained of its genuineness. 
But there is such a farrago of Var. Lect. as cannot 
but lead one to suspect a corruption. (See Wets, and 
Griesb.) Into a question merely critical I cannot 
enter much at large, and I will only observe, that as 
avS pai7rivr]9 is omitted in very many MSS., it may be 
suspected to come from the margin ; and as the 
reading TrfjQoT is supported by some MSS. and also 
by Euseb., Zonaras, and others, I think (with Wets., 
Semler, Schleus., and Krause), that it ought to be 
adopted.* But I cannot agree with them in can- 
celling Xoyojy. It may be sufficient to point thus: iv 
7ret6o? o-ocp/ay, Aoyoiff, or read €u TreiQol o-o^/a? T^oycov. 
At all events, the sense of the Apostle is clear. 

Here Krause compares a similar sentiment of 
Max. Tyr. Diss. 15. p. 148. Ou kutol tous* ruiv ttoXKwv 

ij ovoixarwv hp6[xos, -^ prjfxaroc. 'ArriKof t) 7r€f>i6hoi euKuy.- 
TreTy, ^ agp-ovia uypa' raS' ea-r) Travra. Kara toi/ €v ^iovug-qu 

Xco^'J re re^vfis. 

4. aXX' €v a7ro6€i^€i Trveujaaro? Ka) ^uvay.€a)y. Most 
recent Commentators explain away the force of these 
words, which (notwithstanding what they say) must 
be referred to the operations of the Holy Spirit, 

* Nothing is easier than to see the origin of the error. The o- 
(as in a thousand other instances) was generated by the a following. 
The examples adduced by Wets, sufficiently prove the correctness 
of the phrase ; yet none of them hav»-? X6yu) in the genitive, but only 
as a separate noun, by a sort of hendiadis. The most apposite ex- 
ample is Heracl. Pont. // bia rov Xoyou ireiOu). Wets., indeed, ob- 
serves that Plato, Ep. 6'. distinguishes the <ro<piav ti)v avdp(i)wi%-nv 
and the aiayKaUiv. This, however, is but blight evidence in sup- 
port of the common reading. 


as shown both in the prophecies of the Old Tes- 
tament, and in the Apostles. The dovafx., too, must 
refer to tlie working of miracles. And this is 
established by the next verse, and is confirmed 
by the authority of the Fathers and ancient Com- 
mentators, and all the earlier modern ones. 

5. 7voi. 7] TTiVrj? uiJLcov jtxT] J] €v (ro<^i(t av^pcoTTcov, a. 
€.8. 0, The sense of these words is apparent from 
that of the preceding. The iva is by some thought 
to have the eventual sense ; the thing being, as Ro- 
senm. says, a consequence of the preceding. 

6. <TQ<^lav 8e 7^aXou(x€v iv roTy reXe/ojff. Here we 
have the second head of the Chapter (see the Introd.), 
in which Paul shows that if human wisdom be 
wanting to his preaching, it is not devoid of true 
and solid, even divine, wisdom. 

AaXoujotev, " we do speak, we have to speak wis- 
dom, but it is among the t€7\€ioi, or auditors far 
advanced in spiritual knowledge, not the a-apKiKoi or 
vv57rjoj, but the 7rv€i>y.aTiKoi. (See 3, 1. and Heb. 5, 14. 
6, 1.) This interpretation is supported by the most 
eminent modern Commentators. (See Whitby.) It 
is observed by Schleus., that at 1 Paral. 25, 8. Sept. 
the oi i^avQavovTey are opposed ro/y reXe/oiy, where the 
Vulg. renders the former indoctos; the latter, doctos. 
Rosenm., however, thinks that the reXej'oi may mean 
Christians generally, as opposed to Heathens and 
Jews. And this interpretation, he thinks, is sup- 
ported by the following words, in which o-o(p/a is 
commended, and is proposed not to the further ad- 
vanced only, but to all Christians, though unknown 
to others who are not Christians." 

6. (To^iav 3e oy tou a\(vvos toutou. " Here (observes 
Rosenm.) the Apostle proceeds to show the great 
difference between Christian wisdom and that of the 
Greeks and Jews." The sense is : *' But we do not 
speak the wisdom of this age ;" q. d. this enlightened 
age, an age which boasted of its progress in phi- 


6. oJSe Tcov a^^r'vTcov too at(vvo9 toutou. This is 
thought, by Semler and Rosenm., to have reference 
to the Jewish rulers ; as appears, they think, from 
ver. 8. That, however, is not quite decisive. The 
Greek Commentators refer it to principal and in- 
fluential persons among the Heathens, in station or 
talents. I see no reason why we may not refer it to 
both. Certain it is the term Kara^yoyjaevouy is as 
applicable to one as to the other : though in a some- 
what different sense. Schleusner renders it : " qui 
tamen in hac re nihil valent, nullius pretii sunt." 

7. ctXXct XotXoG]ut,ev (Tot^iav 0eoG iv ^ua-Tr}piu). Krause 
here compares Ephes. 3, 3. 6, 19 & 20. Col. 1, 26 
& 27. 2, 1 — 8. 3, 4. Of this sentence the phraseo- 
logy is elHptical and popular. Commentators in 
general either supply Trore oixrav (which seems the 
more correct mode), or, with Grot., regard the 
words as put, by an inverse phrase, for r-^u a-TroKCKf^Dix- 

fJi€VrjV €V jaUCTTTJOl'o). So EpllCS. S, 9- If-UrTTT^piOV OCTTOKe- 

Kpvi/.l/.€vov iv rep 0ea>, *' known to God alone." See 
also 15,51. Sir. 22,' 22. 2 Mace. 15, 21. By aTroe- 
Ke/cpjULjuievr^v is meant a-ea-iyrnxevrjv, Rom. l6, 15. 

The Apostle has here especially in view the all- 
wise counsel of God for the salvation of men by 
Jesus Christ, in the writings of the Old Testament 
only obscurely signified, and to the generality of 
men utterly unknown. Col. 1, 26. Eph.1,9. 10,3. 
5, 9. (Krause and Rosenm.) (See more in Mackn.) 

7. "^v TTpocoqicrev Self tt^o rtov aicovayv. Here we 
must subaud aTro/caXuTrrejv. The sense, then, is : 
" which God, from everlasting, had planned and 
purposed to reveal." The Trpo in wpocop. is thought 
to be pleonastic ; but it has, at least, an intensive 
force ; and indeed it seems to be closely connected 
with the notion of planning, deliberating, &c. Theo- 
phyl. says the term is employed to show the love of 
God : since those are especially supposed to love us 
who have been for a long time making preparations 
to benefit us." The phrase irpo twv aicovcov is formed 


on the Hebrew D"^?27li^l, and is synonymous with 
TTpo KaTa/3oXT;y KO(Tfxou. 

7. fls* oo^av rifxcou. Tlie preposition here indicates 
end, purpose ; and So^av is to be taken metaphori- 
cally in the sense salvation, happiness, &c. So Theo- 
phyl. : Kabo koivcovoijs vifxay toutt]? tTvoivitre Ao^a yao 
SouAoy TO KOivcovr}(rai no SetrTrory) a.7roKpu(potJ y.v(Trriplo\j. 
And so Wliitby and Doddridge. Ilosenm. explains : 
" nos enim Deus habuit di<j;nos, (pios donis supra 
omnes prophetas ornaret." And in nearly the same 
manner it is interpreted by Mackn. Mr. Slade 
determines, though cautiously, the former sense to 
be requisite, but thinks the latter need not be ex- 

8. iiv oui^ej? Tcov ap-^rjVT(ov r. a. r. €yva)K€V. By the 
rulers must (as almost all ancient and modern Com- 
mentators agree) be understood the Jewish rulers. 
Their ignorance arose from their not comprehending 
the prophecies : and this their bitterness against 
Christ was engendered by his supposed disaffection 
to the Mosaic law. El yap eyvcoa-av, " if they had 
known that wisdom, those wise counsels of God 
revealed, though somewhat obscurely, in the pro- 
phets," &c. (RoseTHTi.) Theophyl. well suj)plies after 
€yvco(ra.v the words tyjv 6uroK€Kp6ix[j,€vr^v ^o^av ku) t^s* 
fif/ay o\Kovo[xla^ (xufrrrjpia ; as, for instance, he adds, 
the incarnation, tiie crucifixion, the calling and ad- 
mission of the Gentiles, the subjects of regeneration, 
adoption, inheritance of heaven, and all other doc- 
trines revealed to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit." 

By eyvaxrav we may, I think, understand thorough 
knowledge and conviction. For they could not but 
have had, at times, a sort of impression that Jesus 
was the Messiah. And be it remembered that such 
ignorance as theirs could claim no excuse. If they 
had not a full knowledge, it was their own fault; 
since they blinded their own eyes, and hardened 
their own hearts. (See Grot.) 

8. ou/c dvTov K.upiov rrifho^Tj^ €(rTa6p(o(rav, i. e. " pro- 
cured his crucifixion by their instigations." So far 


as the term ap;^ovT€y includes Pilate and Herod, it 
must be modified. (Grot. & Rosenm.) The expres- 
sion Tov Kup. T^y ^o^rjs (on which the older Commen- 
tators vainly perplex themselves and their readers) 
is plainly a Hebraism, and signifies ** the glorious 
Lord," or "the Messiah." It is rightly supposed by 
Grot, to be taken from that of '^ the King of glory" 
in Ps. 24, 9. See the opinions of the Fathers, stated 
by Suic. Thes. 2, 195. 

9. aXka Ka^cof yeypaTrrai' *A o(p9aX|u(,os', &C. The 
sense of this formula is here, as in most other places, 
" but, to apply the words of Scripture." The words 
which follow are nowhere found in the Old Testa- 
ment totidem verbis. Some of them occur in Is. 
64, 3. 65, 17- '• iind, as the words are not a regular 
quotation, that is sufficient. It was ill-judged in 
Origen, Jerome, and others of the ancients, to sup- 
pose that they existed in the lost apocryphal books 
of Elijah. That would be inconsistent with the true 
force of the icaGcoy yeypuTrroii, which is only applied to 
the Canonical books of Scripture. On the same 
grounds must the opinion of Grot, be rejected, who 
thinks that the Apostle rests on some tradition re- 
ceived from the Jewish Rabbles. This is surely- 
ascribing Jar too much authority to such composi- 
tions, useful as they may be in the illustration of 
the sense of Scripture. The most unexceptionable 
opinion is, that the Apostle here, as often, accom- 
modates the words of the Prophet to his purpose. 
In which case care must be taken how we apply 
either the Heb= or Sept. to the interpretation of the 
passage of the New Testament so accommodated. 
Nor are we bound to conform exactly to the same 
subject ; for accommodation implies change. Here, 
however, change is not necessary: and therefore Wolf 
and Schoettgen, not without reason, object to the 
common interpretation, which refers the subject of 
these words to the happiness of a future state. The 
b.est Interpreters, as Chrys., Theophyl., &c., and, of 
the moderns, Surenhus, Vitringa. Wolf, and others. 


have rightly maintained that the words relate to the 
beatitude of the times of the Old Testament, and 
the mysteries of it, and are applied by the Apostle 
to the doctrines of the Gospel, and the benefits 
thereby conferred on us. As to the words a o4>9aX- 
jtAoyou/c etoe, &c.. their sense is plainly : " such things 
as were unseen and unknown, unheard of, nay of 
which the mind of man had never formed any con- 
ception. =*^ 

By T^Tolfxaa-ev is meant " has held in reserve :" and 
aycLTT. here includes the notions of worshipping and 
obeying. Thus our Saviour says : '* He that lovetli 
me keepeth my commandments." 

I must not omit to notice the d at the commence- 
ment of the sentence, which some would cancel 
as inconvenient, and others would alter. Neither 
course can be defended, nor is either necessary. We 
may, I think, regard a o(pOaX/x,oy — a;/ei3r; as an anta- 
podoton or unfinished sentence: and hence the a 
is, after the Hebrew manner, repeated at the next 
clause. Indeed the whole is an Hellenistical con- 
struction. For a Classical writer would have used 
oa-a, which indeed is found in the Alexandrine 
MS. and some Fathers ; but, I think, from emenda- 

10. Here commences the third part of the Chap- 
ter, in which the Apostle shows how things so hidden 
and remote from all human thought have been 

* The last clause of this triple parallelism contains an idiom found 
both in the Heb. and the Classical writers. See Jer. 6.5, 1 7. 3, 17. 
Hence it is not strange that it should be found in the Rabbinical 
writers. See Wetstein's citations, of which the most apposite is 
Maimonid. de fundauientis Legis 2, 14. Hssc autem res non potest 
ore profeni, nee auribus usurpari, aut mente hominis perspicue 
comprehendi. Surgit eleganter, multa ipsi videmus pulchra ; 
plura aliorum relatu vidimus j plurima nee nisa nee audita mente 
concipimus. From the Classical writers he compares Empedocl. : 
ovTwi ovT eTTibepKTa 7a'V aptpaaiv, ovr tiraKovtr-u, ovre vow irepi- 
XrjTr-a. Cic. pro Marcell. 2. qua? quidem ego, nisi ita magna'fatear, 
ut efi via cujusquanj mens aut cogitatio capere possit, amens sim'. 
Curtius 3, 2, 1'2. Opulentia, quantam, qui oculis non subjicerei 
animis concipere non })ossunt. 


known to himself and others, namely, by Divine 
revelation. (Crell.) 

10. 7]pv ^6 060? a7re/caXu\}/6 S. r. 11. a. We must 
here subaud raZra from the a preceding. By v]jw.7v is 
meant, as some think, the Apostle himself: or, as 
others think, himself and the rest of the Apostles : 
which I prefer. But I see no reason why it may not 
be meant, in a certain degree, for all Christians. 
For though, in its chief import, the revelation was, 
as the Apostle says, by the Spirit; yet, by means of 
the Spirit, v/e mediately (through the sacred writers 
of the New Testament) derive knowledge on points 
stretching beyond all human comprehension, or even 

The next words shew ivJiy we cannot know or 
conceive those truths. To yap 77V€u[j.a oloev. Now 
here there is the very frequent, but too often unob- 
served, ellipsis of y.ovov. For the Holy Spirit, it is 
said, alone ipevva, which here does not merely mean 
searcheih, but denotes such profound research as 
leads to thorough knowledge. So Theodor. to epevva 
o\)K erri ayvaias TeSe«/c€V, aX?C iTr) yvtucrea)^ aKpi^ouy. 
And so Theophyl. The meaning, then, is : " tho- 
roughly knoweth and understandeth." Compare 
Prov. 8, 27. Rom. 3, QJ. Ap. 2, 23, 

10. Tct (idSy] TOO @€ou, i. e. the hidden counsels of 
God, ra ave^i^uiac-To. rod 06oD, or (as Hesych. ex- 
plains) ra a^cdpyJTa, ra aKaraXT^Trra, such as they 
continued to be during the times of the Old Tes- 

11. This verse is meant to show and illustrate the 
exact knowledge of the Spirit respecting the myste- 
ries of God : and this is done by a popular and very 
forcible simile, or comparison. 

11. rly yap oi^ev aj/SpcoTrcov ra rod av^pcoTrou. Subaud 
from the preceding ^dSiq, " hidden counsels, plans, 
and intentions." The sense, then, is : "Who know- 
eth the counsels hidden in the breast of another 
man ? Who but the man himself and his own mind?" 


Tills is appositely applied to the Spirit of God, who 
alone knoweth the secrets of God, and can reveal 
them to others. Thus without revelation, mediate 
or immediate, no knowledge can be attained of the 
counsels of God. See Chrys. and Theophyl., and 
also Schoettgen. 

Wets, compares a similar sentiment of Koheleth, 
R. 11, 5. Bereschith, R. (j5, 7- Nemo homo novit, 
quid sit in corde socii sui. 

12. r^[t.€is 2e ou to Trveu^a rod Kotrixou eXct^o^^v. The 
Apostle here rejoices at the knowledge thus di- 
vinely granted, and acquiesces in it as excellent, 
even though it be unaccompanied with any know- 
ledge of human learning. (Krause.) The sense 
seems to be this : " But we (meaning both himself 
and the other Apostles) have received, not the spirit, 
temper, and disposition of the world, that is consistent 
with worldly wisdom, but divinely instilled wisdom^ 
so that we may know and approve the benefits which 
are freely bestowed on us by God, and especially 
the wisdom communicated by the Gospel, which 
alone instils the true princi{)le of virtue, and leads to 
real happiness." The above (which is chiefly founded 
on Chrysost. and the Greek Commentators — see es- 
pecially Theophyl.) I believe to be the true sense. 
But, from the flexible nature of the expressions em- 
ployed, it is hardly possible to determine it with 
certainty. Hence the variety of interpretations. 

1^. a Koi 7\,aXouix€V ouK iv 3<8a/CToTy a. tr. A. At a must 
be repeated ;^a§<(r9evTa from the preceding. AaXoG- 
jtA€v, ive speaft, teach. A sense frequent in Scripture, 
especially in the Gospel of St. John. OuKev OiSa/croTy, 
&c., '* not in the words, oratory, or argumentation 
suggested by human wisdom, but in those suggested 
by the Holy Spirit. Rosen m. remarks, that by 7\.oyo^s 
are here meant, not only the wordsy but the subject^ 
and the whole method of treating it." On which 
sense see Steph. Tlies. or Ernesti's Lex. Tech. Rhet. 
AioocKTolf avQptuTriWj? aoiplas, " taught by human wis- 
dom." This syntax (namely, the genitive of cause) 


also occurs in Joh. G, 45. ; and indeed is occasionally 
found in such verbals in to9, in other writers. 

13. TTvevixotTiKoif TTveu/xariKa o-uy/cg/vovres*. On the 
sense of these words there has been no little differ- 
ence of opinion. Almost all the recent Commenta- 
tors adopt the interpretation of Pelagius, Sedulius, 
&c., which is also noticed by Theophyl. And they 
render o-uyK^lvovres explaining ; a sense found in se- 
veral passages of the Sept. where the word answers 
to the Heb, iriD. And so the simple Kplveiv in Jo- 
seph. ; and ^laKplveiv in Philo. (See Krebs. and 
T.oesner. This interpretation, too, may be seen 
fully developed in Rosenm. and Krause.) Thus at 
TTveuju-ariKoTy must be supplied avQgwVojy, which they 
think more agreeable to what follows. But the 
Apostle makes such abrupt transitions, that even i/iat 
principle is sometimes scarcely applicable. Chrys. 
and the other Greek Commentators take the ellipsis 
to be 7rpa.yii.aTa. And this is the interpretation sup- 
ported by almost all the earher modern Commenta- 
tors, and ably defended by Whitby, who states it 
thus : " We speak these things in the words taught 
by the Holy Ghost, comparing the things which 
were written by the Spirit in the Old Testament, 
with what is now revealed to us by the same Spirit, 
and confirming our doctrines from them." So Hardy 
(from Grot, and others) : *' Exponentes ea quae 
prophetse Spiritu Dei acti dixerunt, per ea quae 
Christus suo Spiritu nobis aperuit : evangelica mys- 
teria ex typis Vet. Test, illustrantes et confirmantes." 
And this, upon the whole, seems the most satisfac- 
tory sense. But I see no reason why Whitby should 
have adhered to our common version comparing. It 
is evident that Chrysost., &c. took it to mean ejo- 
plaining: though it must be such sort of explanation 
as arises from a mutual comparisonof any two things 
with each other. And this sense is rightly adopted 
by Doddr. and Mackn. 

Wets, has here an immense farrago of passages, 
few of which are to the purpose. The most apposite 


Nam ibi per serpentetn intelligi Satanam consentiunt 
omnes Hebraei : idco Satan dicitur Hebraeis tL'n: 
'^2''::ipr7, o(p<y apyam\ Apoc. 12,9- ^pdKcov SO^pe in 
eadem Apocalypsi. Habet Satanas calliditatem, et 
studet nocere, ut serpens aut dracho. Hoc autem 
vult dicere Apostolus, Satanas est qui per novos illos 
Doctores earn, quae est inter vos Christianos ex 
Judaeis et ex Gentibus vocatos, concordiam coepit 
rnmpere : sed non diu durabunt ejus astus ; facile 
pars major et sanior casteras ad sanitatem reducet." 
See also the early modern Commentators ap. Pole. 
Yet, after all, there can no where be found so much 
apposite matter within so small a compass as in the 
words of Theophyl. 1.58. fin. (founded on Chrysost.) 
** Since there were divisions, the Apostle invokes 
the giver of peace that he would suppress the scan- 
dals. Now he does not say uVora'^ei, but, what is 
more, o-uvrpi-^ei, and that not only those who were 
the workers of the scandals, but Satan, the chief and 
primary mover. The a-wrpi-^ei is but })recatory and 
practical ; and the crhv rd^ei consoles them by sug- 
gesting the speediness of the deliverance." See also 

20. TJ X^P^^ ^°" Kvpiou r,ixcov 'I X. (xeb* v[x(ov. These 
words need not, I think, be referred solely to what 
immediately preceded, but may be understood gene- 
rally ; q. d. : " And for these and all other pur})oses 
may the favour and help of our Lord Jesus Christ 
be with you." 

These words generally form a concluding clausula 
of an Epistle, and were probably meant to do so 
here; but (as many Comnientators conjecture) the 
Apostle, having an opportunity of adding something 
more, subjoins another postcript, containing some 
furtiier salutations; and then concludes witJi the 
usual clause. 

21. Tj/xoSeo?, Timofheiis: then residing at Corinth. 
Ao'JKojy. This some suppose to be the same with 

Luke, who was then, they think, with Paul (see 
Acts 20, 5.) ; or Lucius the Cyrencan, mentioned 
VOL. vr. Q 


in Acts 13, 1. Which latter opinion seems prefer- 
able ; for (as Ammon remarks) Luke was then at 
Philippi. Besides, there was so much communica- 
tion between Corinth and Cyrene, that it is probable 
enough that Lucius should have been then there. 

'Icto-ojv, Jason. Probably the person mentioned in 
Acts 17j 5 — 9. '^ai<Ti7rarpo9. Probably the person 
mentioned in Acts 20, 4. by the name Sosipater, the 

22. TepTtos" — Ku|5{to. These are the words of the 
amanuensis employed by Paul to write the Epistle. 
It has been conjectured that this Tertius is the same 
person with Silas. But Ammon remarks that the 
StXflty and ''tl^'^buj do not well correspond ; and that 
it is improbable a prophet, as was Silas, would con- 
descend to perform the office of an amanuensis; for 
that was the province of the disciples of Paul (as 
Titus, 2 Tiiess. 3, 17-)» ^"<^ i^ot liis colleagues" 
This latter reason, however, seems of little weight. 

The words ev Kvplcp are, by the best Commenta- 
tors, referred to ao-Trct^ojutai : M^hich seems preferable ; 
since, if they be joined with o ypaxj/a?, they will in- 
volve considerable harshness. 

23. rccVoy, Gains. Commonly supposed to be the 
same with the one mentioned at Acts 19, 29 & 20. 
But he was a Macedonian born at Derbe ; this one, 
a Corinthian and the ^evos not only of Paul, but of 
the whole Church. This Gains was probably the 
same with the one mentioned at 1 Cor. 14., and who 
(as Origen tells us) was afterwards Bishop of Thes- 

By the ^evoy /xou kou t. e. o. the best Commenta- 
tors think is meant, that be allowed the Corinthian 
Christians to hold their meetings at his house. By 
the oiKovoy.os' T^y TroT^eco^ is meant the city treasurer, 
or steward : an office of great dignity. Thus in 
Joseph. Ant. 11, 6, 2. Artaxerxes is said to have 
ordered his secretaries to write to the nations on 
behalf of the .Jews, roTy t€ o\kovo[jloi9 ko.) ap^oua-iv. 
(Koppe.) Wets, cites Marmor. Oxon. NeiT^o) o\ko- 


vojtxto 'Ao-Zay. Inscr. Spoil. afxepi/Avoy oiKovo^os tt]? 

24. >)';(^apjy toG K'jploo — a.[xr,v. These words Paul 
now adds with his own hand, as was his custom. 
Such an appendix ought to have been, to all readers, a 
sufficient proof that this Epistle of Paul is genuine. 
Compare 1 Cor. 16, 21. (Jaspis.) 

2.5. TO) Se S'jvaju,evaj Jju-as" (TTt^pi^ai, &c. The clau- 
sula 2,5 — 27. is in some MSS. found at the end of 
eh. 19., where see the note. 

25. Ta> ^uvafxcvo) ujutay (rrripl^ai. Since some verb 
is wanting to which tiie dative maybe referred, these 
words are usually construed with oo^a at ver. 27. ; 
and M is thought to be pleonastically added par 

25. Kara to eiayyeAJov, " per Evangelium (meum)," 
'* the doctrine w-hich I teach." And so Mackn. 
*' What the Apostle wished the Romans to be esta- 
blished in was those essential points of doctrine, 
which he always preached, and which he had incul- 
cated in this letter ; namely, the gratuitous justifica- 
tion of Jews and Gentiles by faith, without works 
of law ; and in particular the justification of the 
Gentiles, without subjecting them to the law of 
Moses. These doctrines he calls his gospel, or good 
news, not in contradiction to the good news of the 
other Apostles, as Locke fancies, to the great dis- 
credit of the rest, whose doctrine was the same with 
Paul's so far as it went, but in opposition to the 
doctrine taught by the Judaizcrs, and other flUse 
teachers, who added the law to the Gospel, on pre- 
tence that the Gospel was defective in rites of 

At 6ova^€vco there is, I think, an ellipsis of juiovoj/. 

25. Kara a7ro/<a7vu\|/<v |U,'j(Tr7]piou ;^. a. (r. " The 
Apostle Csays Mackn.) calls the admission of the 
Gentiles to the privileges of the church and people 
of God, without subjecting them to the law of 
Moses, a mystery, because it was a doctrine of much 
greater importance than any doctrine taught in the 



Heathen mysteries; and because, like these myste- 
ries, it had hitherto been kept secret." The phrase 
^p6voi9 oucoviois is referred by Locke and Taylor to 
the Jewish alcovef, or ages under the law. This, 
however, seems fanciful. (See the long note of 
Macknight.) It may suffice to render ^povoif alto- 
vloi9, with Grot., " longissimo tempore." 

25. (r€<ny7]ix€V0Vj hidden. 

26. (pavegcoOevTo? 8e vvv Stare 7. tt., ^' but now (see 
Eph. 3, 5 & 10. Col. 1, 26. 1 Pet. 1, 12.) is made 
manifest." If the re be genuine, the construction 
is : " now and already by the writings of the Pro- 
phets :'* and this with especial reference to the pro- 
phecies concerning Christ ; as 2 Pet. 1, 20. If it 
be cancelled, Sta ypacpcav will be taken for Kara 
ypa(pas, " accommodate ad Prophetarum oracula." 
(Koppe.) But this seems harsh ; and therefore the 
former mode is preferable ; and certainly there is no 
good authority for the omission of the re. It is plain 
that Kar eTTiray^v tou aiwviou 0eou must be referred 
to (pavepcoSeuTos. 

©eoy aicomy. Koppe paraphrases : ** the same 
God who from eternity had destined them to be 
promulgated at their proper time." 

Ely uTraKorjv 7rl(rT€(jo^, for ely to viraKweiv rf, Trlcret, 
i. e. ety ro 7rj(rreJe<v. 

27. jtA-ovo) (ro(pa> 0ea). Koppe says this is for (roc^ai- 
raT<a ©ew. But it is a far stronger expression than 
that. God is said to be the only wise God, as being 
the sole author of all wisdom, and the fountain from 
which it proceeds. '* This wisdom (observes Hardy) 
is not mere knowledge, but practical knowledge 
shown in the proper government of things, by which 
all things are directed by the most suitable means to 
the best end." Here Wets, compares the following 
sentiments from the Classical writers. Phocyclid. 49. 
eTff Qeoy ecr* (tq^os. Diogen. L. proem. 12. (p»Xo<ro<p/av 
8e 7rpSro9 c6udy,a(r€ TluQayoqcx.9, Koi iaurov <pi7\.6<ro(pov — 
ftrjSeva yap elvai (ro<pov dvSpcoTrov, aT^X' -^ Qeov. Philo T. 
1. p. 457, 4. ro yoL^ jtxTjSev oiW9a» el^evai Trepay eTKrr>]- 


fAvjy, evos* ovToff ^ovou coc^oG tou kcc) jtxovoo 9eoG. To which 
I add Aristid. T. 3. 519 c ov yoGi/ a|<oj o-o<pa)TaTov 
eTvat 0€oV. 

These words 8<a Xpia-rou may be referred either to 
[xovui (ro4>(p ©eo); which will require the subaudition 
of yvcopicrUvTi ; or to the words following. But the 
former seems to be the more regular construction. 



In this Epistle various subjects are treated. I. 
The dissensions which had arisen among the Corin- 
thians, and the pride of those engaged therein, the 
Apostle sharply rebukes, and exhorts them to con- 
cord, ch. ] — 4. Then follows II. a reproof because 
of an incestuous person not having been expelled 
from the society, ch. 5. ; and III. because of the 
quarrelsome and litigious spirit to which many were, 
in a manner, enslaved, ch. 6, 1 — 11. Then IV. 
the Apostle admonishes them to abstain from forni- 
cation, and not to abuse the Christian liberty, ch. 6, 
12 — 20. He answers various questions put to him 
by the Corinthians, and treats V. of Christian matri- 
mony ; ch. 7- tot. VI. of idolothyta, ch. S, 1 — ch. 
11, 2. VII. of women making their appearance veiled 
at the congregations of Christians, ch. 11, 2 — IG. 
VIII. of the Lord's Supper, ch. 11, 17—34. IX. of 
the gifts of the Holy Spirit, ch. 12, 13, 14. X. of 
the resurrection of the dead, ch. 15. ; finally XI. of 
the collecting of alms in the Church, ch. 16. (Ro- 

Wets, remarks : " Corinthii non minus lascivia 
quam opulenta et philosophiag studio insignes fue- 
runt." And after adducing a vast number of cita- 
tions, from the Greek and Latin, illustrative of the 
character of the Corinthians (none of which my 
limits will permit me to insert) he subjoins the fol- 
lowing observation : " Ex his planius intelligimus, 


quae Apostolus in Sophistas et sophismata contra 
resurrectionem mortuorum, in scortationem et inces- 
tum, denicjue in divites avaros Corinthiis scripsit." 

In ver. 1 — 9-, Rosenm. observes, is contained the 
exordium of the Epistle, in which the writer mo- 
destly conciliates the goodwill of his readers.'* 

1. riauXoy K'ArjTOS^ aTroVroTios* 'I. X. Tilis is a brief 
and elliptical expression, denoting an Apostle of Je- 
sus Christ, especially called and constituted by him.* 
Here St. Paul has reference to his extraordinary and 
miraculous call recorded in Acts 9- It is no wonder, 
therefore, that he should, in most of his Epistles, 
advert to it, and especially on this occasion, since 
(as Doddridge remarks) there were those in the 
Church of Corinth who affected to call the authority 
of his mission into question. See Whitby and 

Aia $€Xi^ixaTO£ 0eo'j. This is rendered by Schleiis. 
Lex. " quas fuit divina benignitate." And Krause 
compares a similar use of the Hebr. p!J"l. This, 
however, seems an unnecessary refinement. I see 
no reason to deviate from the common interpretation 
decreto. See Eph. 1, 11. Gal. 1, .5. Hebr. 10, 10. 
Thus in a kindred passage of 1 Tim. 1, 1. we have 
KaT €7nTa-yr,v 0eoG. Valckn., in his Scholse on this 
Epist. p. 23. thus distinguishes QeAr^/xa and ^ouAvj. 
*' 0eAryjaa, voluntas, propria est auimi jam determU 
nati statutum, decretum. Bo-jXt) contra et BoJXo/xa» 
proprie tantum deliberationem animi nondum deter- 
minati indicant." 

With his own name the Apostle couples that of 
Sosthenes, who is by many thought to be the person 
mentioned in Acts 18, I7., and whom they suppose 
to have been now chief of the Synagogue at Corinth. 
This, however, (as Rosenm. observes) is mere con- 
jecture ; and on no better foundation rests the opi- 
nion of others, that he wrote this Epistle at Paul's 

* It is tliought to be founded on a similar use of the H.ljr, nip. 
See Gcscn. Hebr. Lex. 


dictation. See 16, 21. That Paul himself' wrote 
only the concluding verses, is certain ; but whether 
Sosthenes was the scribe, is, like the other conjectures, 
doubtful. Hence many think that Sosthenes is 
named in conjunction with Paul, from having been 
with him, and entertaining the same sentiments with 
himself. These conjectures, however, do not rise 
above probability. Chrysost. and the Greek Com- 
mentators simply suppose that the Apostle joins Sos- 
thenes with himself, out of modesty. And Doddr. 
observes, that " it was both humility and prudence in 
the Apostle thus to join his name with his own, in an 
Epistle in which it was necessary to deal so plainly 
with them, and to remonstrate against so many irre- 

Many modern Commentators, as Crellius, Simon, 
Valckn., and most recent ones regard the article as 
indicating the celebrity of Sosthenes ; q. d. " tJie 
brother." But the Apostle often uses it when no 
celebrity can be supposed; as in Rom. 16, 23. KoJ- 
aqzos h adeAc^os". The force of the article seems ra- 
ther to be that expressed in our common version ; 
as standing for tiie pronoun possessive, or rather car- 
rying with it the ellipsis of the pronoun. Bp. Mid- 
dleton thinks that the expression merely designates 
him as a Christian convert: which, in fact, comes 
to the same thing, since it requires the subaudition 
just mentioned. 

2. rfi €KK7i7}fria — Kui Ti'jatov, " to the body or assem- 
bly of Christians resident at Corinth." 'Hyjao-fxevoy 
€v X. I., /cXT^roTy ay/ojy. Both these expressions are 
designations of Christians, and used (with reference 
to the phraseology of the Old Testament) of those 
who are separated from the bulk of the heathens, and 
set apart for religious and holy purposes, for the pro- 
fession of true religion. See Deut. 7? 6. and 14, 2. 
and consult Benson on 1 Pet. 1, 2. and Bp. Lowth 
on Isa. 13, 3. By kXijto) are denoted Christians, 
those, who being called, obeyed the call, and were 
thus ])laced in a state of salvation. The Jews 


(Krause observes) called themselves tbe mn*^ ''^P^, 
the peculiar people of God; and therefore this is by 
the Apostle especially applied to Christians. See 
Rom. 1, 7. 

2. (Tuv 7roL<Ti — auTcov re kou r^ixcov. Here roTy eVi- 
KOL7\o\jiKcvoi9 TO ovo/xa Toy Kupj'oK r][xu)v 'I. X. is regarded 
by the best Commentators as a periphrasis for 
Christians; eV</c. often signifying to invoke for reli- 
gious purposes, to ivois/iip ; as Acts 2, 21. 2 Tim. 
2, 22. and Joel 3, 5. Hammond and Locke take 
the words to signify "called by the name of Chris- 
tian," or "called Christians :" which comes to the 
same thing, but is not so well supported ; for in 
Acts 15, iy. James 2, 7. the phraseology is dif- 
ferent ; since (as Wolf remarks) the phrases ewiKa- 
"keia-^iat oi/ojaa eVt tjvo?, or tjvi, and 67n/ca/\6?<rOa» ovojw,a, 
do not signify the same thing, and the Sept. and 
New Testament writers do not use them promiscu- 
ously, but in a different sense : e7ri/caX. having, in 
the former case, an active, in the latter, a passive 
sense. So also Whitby, whom see. 

Suv Traort llosenm. would render ceque ac; like 
the Hebr. tDV in some passages of the Old Testa- 
ment: and he refers to Gal. 3, 9. This, however, 
seems too harsh ; and it is certainly more natural 
to interpret the words in their usual sense (as do 
Chrys. and the Greek Commentators, and most mo- 
dern ones), and take them to signify " all o/" Achaia," 
for iv iravri toVco, which must be closely joined with 
ToTy t7riKa7^o'Jii.€voi9, signifies ani/ ivhere else in the 
territory, namely of Corinth : regarding Corinth and 
the parts adjacent, in which alone the Gospel seems 
to have been extensively professed, as an Ecclesias- 
tical Division, or Bishoprick. Thus the name Ca- 
tholic, given to the Epistle by Chrysostom, will be 
taken in so limited an acceptation as not to afford 
any reasonable objection. The above mode is also, 
I find, adopted by Zieglcr and Bp. Pearce.* 

* Tl)c manner in which Wetotein understands the ev iravrl 


2. aurcov re ko) rjjacov. The Greek Commentators, 
andTmany eminent modern ones, as Le Clerc and 
Rosenm., refer tliese words, not to roVo), but to 
Kuo/o), and regard them as a sort of correction ; 
q. d. " Our Lord, did I say ? Not so, but theirs as 
well as ours." * 

3. ;^ap<s' viuv — 'Itjo-oG Xpjo-roG. See Rom. 1, 7* 
and the note. Semler would understand the ^a^if 
of the forgiveness of sins, through Christ ; referring 
this word to the Gentiles, and the elp-^vrj to the Jews. 
A mode of interpretation, however, which seems too 
systematical and hypothetical. We must under- 
stand, in a general way, the gifts and graces ob- 
tained by the Gospel. It is also observed by Sem- 
ler, that x^P^^ i^ "ot ^^^^'^ to be taken in its usual 
sense, of the grace of calliiig, but as denoting be?ie- 
/icium, with reference to those gifts and faculties 
not common to all Christians. And he refers to 
Acts 18, 17. And Theodoret, CEcumenius, and 
Rosenm. Chrysostom, however, and Theophylact, 
are of a different opinion. 

The Apostle, Rosenm. remarks, now directs his 
discourse to the dissentions by which the bonds of 
peace had been broken among the Corinthians ; iand, 
though he knew himself to be contemned by some, 
yet he shews an absence of all resentment, and rather 
wishes them welly by thanking God for their common 
salvation." Theodoret judiciously notices this c«/;- 

roTTf differs from that of all other Commentators. His woids are 
these : Paiilus ab Ecclesi^. Corinthiaca. distinguit omnes ubicunque 
locorum invocantes nomen Domini ; illi sunt, qui Corinthi sedes 
fixerant, hi mercatores et nautee hospites, qui Christo nomen dede- 
rant, eumque modo Corinthi, modo in patriam reversi invocabant." 
This, however, is rather ingenious than solid, 

* Wetstein, however, remarks, '' Paulus swim locum vocat, ubi 
ipse per praedicationem Evangelii Ecclesiam fundaverat. Taciib se 
atque Soslhenem Corinlhum, Act. 18, 17. » opponit peregrino falso 
Doctori, qui in locum non suum irrepserat, 2 Cor. 10, 13 & 16." 
And he cites Dion\s. Hal. 2, 6. OiiaXepio) Kal iravrl uWm yrw/ui} 
ayopeveii' ev to) envrnv totto) Kara tov apycTiov tdinpoy, Kal koit/jiop 
airobwiTnf.iey." But few, I think, will agree with tlie learned Com- 


tatio henevolentlfe : and it is truly remarked by 
Doddr., that this language and that of the next verse 
would have a tendency to soften their minds, and 
dispose tliem the better to receive the plain reproofs 
which the Apostle was going to give them, and 
which, in their circumstances, faithful love extorted 
from him. 

4. TTOLVTOTe, " as often as I offer up my prayers to 
God." 'Ev X^»o-Ta>, because of Jesus Christ. 

5, 6. The Apostle now more fully explains what 
he had said, by enumerating those various benefits 
of which the Corinthians had been made partakers 
by Christ and his doctrine. (Kranse.) 

"On €v Travri €777\.ouTl(r^riT€, " that by him ye abound. 
€v Travri, scil. ;^apiV/ji,ar<, grace, such as Christians 
receive from God. Here 7rXouTi§€(r$ai is for Trepia-- 
a-€V€iv ; as in 2 Cor. 9, 8. 12, 1. Thess. 3, 12. Eph. 
1,7* It is rightly remarked by Crellius, that iv xavri 
T^oyo) is meant to explain the preceding ev ttolvt) ; q. d. 
in omni, inquam." 

5. €U TravTJ — Xoyo) ku) 7ra(ry) yvwrrei, both together 
may denote a complete and perfect knowledge of the 
Christian religion. (See Schoettg.) Aoycp answering 
to the Hebr. "^11, I'es ; though it may refer to elocu- 
tion in preaching, and perhaps (as some say) that 
highest sort of it which included the gift of tongues. 
Yva)(T€i is confined by Semler to the interpretation 
and explanation of the Old Testament. And indeed 
this (especially if referred to the prophecies of Christ 
and his religion) may be included : but it is only (I 
think) a part of the Apostle's meaning. Semler says, 
this language plainly shews that he had in view 
chiefly the masters and doctors. Which, however, 
seems hypothetical. The Apostle rather meant it of 
all generally, though in various proportions, just as 
it might apply ; and apply it would to many. 

6. KoBios TO [xapTopiov TOO XpiffToG e^fjSajw'Sry iv U]ut,7v. 
The Ka9a>y Rosen m. would render postquam. But 
this signification is unsupported by the examples he 
adduces. Krause renders it siquidcm ; which, he 


thinks, introduces a transition. Some of the early 
modern Commentators, including Semler, render it 
prout; and Schleus. quod ; as in Acts 15, 14. 2 Joh. 
ver. 3. I prefer prout and our common version even 
as. It is observed by Crellius, that the sense of 
similitude^ cofnparison^ &c. is often lost in this par- 
ticle, which often denotes the unius rei ex alteidcon- 

6. TO fxaprupiov too ^pKTTou. There are several 
senses of which ixapTu^iov is susceptible, none of them 
unsuitable to the present passage : either (as it is un- 
derstood by Hardy, from the early modern Commen- 
tators) " the Gospel which testifies of Christ/' or (as 
the recent Commentators, Rosenm. and Krause, ex- 
plain) " the Christian doctrine and instruction ;" as 
2, 1. 2. Thess. 1, 10. 1 Tim. 2, 6. 2 Tim. 1, 8. where 
it is explained by euayycXiov. Chrysost. and Theo- 
phyl. explain it Kvjpuyiixa, as referred to the testimony 
which Christ bore of himself j as in Apoc. 1, 2. 
The first two interpretations may, however, be 

6. i^e^aioj&ri, conjirmed. The whole passage is thus 
paraphrased by Krause. '* Doctrina Christi se talem 
vobis prgestitit, ut dubitare non possitis, quin omnia 
complectatur, quae ad felicitatem consequendam per- 
tinent ; usus et experientia vos edocuerunt, reli- 
gionem Christianam esse saluberrimam." 

7. (ii<TT€ uy.a£ ^Ti v(rTep€7crSai €V ju,7]Sevj. X. Rosenm. 
observes, that these x^pla-^aTu are not only gifts ex- 
traordinar}^ but also, and here especially, the ordi- 
nary and general benefits of Christianity ; as the 
tranquillity it bestows, and the firmness, constancy, 
energy, and progress in well doing, which it imparts. 

7. a-;r€K^€^0(X€V0U9 Tr^v aTroKoKu-^iv I. X., "expecting 
the revelation, to judgment and destruction ;" called 
the second advent, iyn^oiveia, &c. See 2 Thess. 2, 8. 
1 Tim. 6, 14. 2 Tim. 4, 1—8. Tit. 2, 13. 'Attck^o- 
/-cev carries with it the notion of secure, sine metu. 
Compare Rom. 8, 18. It is observed by Theophyl., 


that axoKo.'K. is used to hint that he now Trapecm, 

8. Of Kaj 3e|3a»coVe» tjju.ay eW TeAoi^y aveyKXrjVouf. The 
Of may be referred either to X^jo-tou, the nearer, or 
to 0eof, the remote antecedent at ver. 4. T\\e former 
mode is adopted by many Commentators ; the latter, 
by Beza, Camerar., Grot., Calvin, Creliius, Simon, 
Heuman, Bengel, Hardy, Wets., Pearce, Semler, Ro- 
senm., and Mackn. ; and it is, I think, preferable. 
For, as Mr.Valpy observes, there is a manifest distinc- 
tion here between him who ^ejdaicoa-ei, and our Lord, 
whose day is mentioned. And he paraphrases tiius : 
*' God will do all that is re([uisite on his part to ren- 
der you unblamable to the end ; so that you shall 
not fail of it through any want of divine grace neces- 
sary to that end, or any unfaithfulness to his pro- 
mise, who hath already reconciled you to himself, 
through the death of Christ, io present you holy and 
unhlameable^ and unreproveahle in his sight ; if you 
continue in the faith grounded and settled, and he not 
moved away from the hope of the Gospel." 

"Erof reXouf, Rosenm. explains semper ; comparing 
the Heb. n!J-r7 and elf reAof, Joh. 13, 1. oNIatt. 10, 
22. and elsewhere. And in nearly the same manner 
it is understood by Creliius. In this mode of inter- 
pretation, however, there seems something frigid and 
formal. I prefer, with other Conimeutators, to in- 
terpret it of the end of life. And so it is understood 
by Wolf. 

Elf TO elva» ave^KXr^Touf, " that you maybe unblam- 
able." Krause refers to a similar use of apoftof at 
Ephes. 1. I. ; and observes that Hesych. explains it 
avu^'jvous. He also refers to Suic. Thes. 1, 329. The 
sense is : " liable to no trial and punishment ;" which 
includes acceptance and reward. 'Ev rf, Yifxipa toO 
Kug/oy r|pov I. X., " in or at the day of our Lord," 
1. e. the day of judgment. Grot, and Krause take 
6 V for elf . But tliis is unnecessary, and indeed far 
less apposite. So that it is useless to cite examples 
of iv rfi for eif ttjv. It may be observed that this 


designation of the day of judgment is frequent in 
the New Testament. 

auToo I. X., " God is faithful to his promises." A 
saying, Krause observes, frequent with the Apostle, 
and answering to the Hebr. nTl"^ \}2i^^. It is also 
found in the Rabbinical writers. (8ee Schoettgen's 
examples.) Ai' o5 is for tJ<p' o5, " by whom, by whose 
benevolent care." 'EKXvjSrjre, " ye were brought into 
the Christian Church, placed in the way of salva- 
tion." See Schleus. Lex. 

El? Koivoiviav Tou Xpto-rou, '' to the end that you 
might be partakers of the felicity which he has des- 
tined for his son," &c. 

10, 11. The Apostle now proceeds to complain of 
various schisms which had arisen in the body of the 
Corinthian Christians, with the intent, if possible, of 
restoring concord. (Krause.) The Apostle, too, en- 
deavours so to vindicate the simplicity of Christian 
doctrine, as well against the ambitious boasters of 
Greek Philosophy as against the superstitious Jews, 
that he may recal both of them to the truth, ver. 10. 
— ch. 4, 21. 

10. 81a TO'j oyojmaTOs* tou K'jpjoy v]'|^jlcov I. X., " in the 
name and by the mandate and authority of Jesus 
Christ committed to me." (Rosenm.) Doddr., how- 
ever renders : " by the venerable and endearing 
name of our Lord Jesus Christ." And he observes, 
(from Erasmus), that this is beautifully and properly 
opposed to the various human names under which 
they were so ready to enlist themselves. The same 
view of the sense is also taken by Locke, who adds : 
" A form that I do not remember the Apostle else- 
where uses :'* which ought to have made him suspect 
that the interpretation was ill founded. Yet it is 
also supported by Eisner. Mr. Slade, too, adopts 
this interpretation, and observes, " It could not be 
thought, that they should agree in opinion upon 
every question, but their being all members of one 
common head was a powerful argument for their 


maintaining '* a perfect unanimity of design,'* a ge- 
neral agreement on all matters of importance, a love 
of union and peace/* 

10. Iva, TO <x.x)TO 7^eyr]T€ Travres- In to uuro "Keyeiv is, I 
conceive, included to auVo cppoveiu ; as in Phil. 2, 2. 
So, among tlie Classical citations adduced by Wets., 
Thucyd. 6, 31. Bojcotoj 3e ku) MeyaoeTy to aoTo Xe- 
yovT€9 r^<T'j-^a^or where the Schol. explains ; t^ auTr^v 
■yvtofxr^v e;^ovTey. Polyb. 2, 62. oKa iv rols kolS' r^^ois 
Kaipoi^, €v oly 7rdvr€S' ev Koi rauro Atyoj/Tfy ixeyiarr^v Kao- 
TToua-^cti hoKouariv cvhafixoviav & 5, lOl. Oe7v jxaA/o-Ta 
[X€v fxvjSeVoTe TroXfjuteTv Tot)y eAXefay a?^,7;r]'Aoiy, aXXa 
/xeyaAvjV ^apiv €^€iv tq7s' 9eo7y, et 7\€yovT€f. kv kcCi to uuto 
7ravT€s, Koi (rvy.7r7\.€K0VT€9 Ta? p^fT^ay. Others confine 
it to agreement in doctrine. And so the Greek Com- 
mentators and Semler. But tliis is an undue limita- 
tion of the sense, which tlie Apostle himself more 
fully unfolds in the next words, in which he not only 
says '• that there may be no schisms among you/* 
but Ifvu r)T€ KartipTicr^evoi iv rto auVto vo/. 

The term a-yJariKara. is synonimous with ^i^o<rTa- 
<r»aj, ver. 33. and Gal. 5, 21. where also occurs aJpt- 
<r€i9, sects. And this seems to be the sense here,* 
though it may include broils, and disagreements of 
every kind. 

The Apostle, continuing the same metaphor, then 
uses the elegant term KarrjoTia- y.evoi, the force of which 
has been well illustrated by Eisner and Raphael. It 

* So Dr. Nott, who observes : " In this place the 'schism' ap- 
pears to have consisted in the formation of religious parties, which 
pretended to follow, one the cause of St. Paul, and another that of 
Apollos. In chap. 11, 18. the charge is grounded upon the adop- 
tion of new modes, which some had wantonly introduced in the 
administration of the sacrament. And in chap. VZ, 25. the offence 
of schism appears to have consisted in the violation of that subordi- 
nation of teaching, ministering, and governing, which was origi- 
nally appointed in the Church. ' Schism,' therefore, may be defined 
to be an open violation of cimrch unity, when individuals assume to 
themselves the power either of foi ming new communions, or of in- 
stituting new lites, or of creating a new ministry, in opposition to 
such as have been established by regular authority, as being the 
ministry and the ordinances originally of Apostolic institution." 


signifies "to repair a broken vessel, or restore a torn 
vestment ;" and thus metaphorically denotes to re- 
store concord, which has been interrupted. 

Rosenm. observes that voGy signifies union of minds 
or will ; yvai^ri, opinion, or the same judgment in 
fundamental points of religion. So the trite saying, 
*' Idem velle, et idem nolle, ea demum firma amicitia 

11. uTTo raiv XxoTjy. Subaud oj/ce»aJv or the like. So 
the Syr. " de domo Chloes." 

12. The Apostle now proceeds to more fully de- 
scribe those schisms. No one, he says, can easily be 
found who does not wish to be numbered with one 
sect or other, or does not give his especial approbation 
and support to the opinions of this or that doctor. 

The formula Xeyco 8e touto both in the New Tes- 
tament, and the Classical writers (see the passages 
cited by Raphael) has the force of explaining and 
more expressly indicating what has been before some- 
what obscurely said ; and answers to the Latin sci- 
licet, nimirum, hoc est. (Krause.) So Grotius. And 
this is, upon the whole, a correct statement of the 
force of the phrase ; but it may here signify, " I 
mean thus, that one of you says: 1 am of Paul," &c. 
"E/cao-ros" does not mean every one, but it is only to 
be understood o? \he generality. Aeyei is explained 
by Semler and Krause gloriatur, " pretendit in con- 
temptum." But this is wandering too far. The 
sense seems to be " professes this." In lyco UauT^oo 
some substantive is to be supphed, either [xa^rires or 

12. 'Eyco |xev el^xi IlauXou — Xpto-roC. There is some- 
thing here at which both antient and modern Inter- 
preters have stumbled. It has been thought sur- 
prising that Paul, who so discountenanced all secta- 
rism, should mention himself as the head of a sect. 
That Apollos and Peter should have been heads of 
sects they think improbable ; and of Christ it can in 
no sense be conceived. Hence many antient and 
modern Commentators think that Paul, from unvvil- 


is Polyb. T7}V 8e crdyKpitTiv rwv a\|/u^roi/ roi^ ejw,\f/up/0JS". 
Indeed they are, in general, unnecessary ; since they 
only tend to prove and illustrate the signification 
compare, which no one calls in question. 

14. ^f/up/j/cos" ^€ avbotoTos ou 0€^€Tai T. T. n. Now 
men are called -^u^iko), who follow only the impulses 
of nature common to the brutes ; who consider only 
objects which strike the senses, and the things of 
this life. For ^^x"^ is that sort of instinct which 
men have in common with the brutes, to follow which 
is equivalent to following concupiscence. Thus in 
Judg. 19. the •^ox^Ko) and the 7rveuju,a ep^ovrep are dis- 
tinguished. And in Jos. 1, 2. God is said to have 
instilled into Adam Trveujuta and \}/up^>)v. The ^uxiko), 
therefore, are those who are led merely by sensual 
impulses, and do not follow, as becomes rational 
beings, right reason ; and especially do not weigh 
the truth and authority of religion, neither attend to 
the representations of others, nor use the opportunity 
of learning ; neither examine what is offered to them 
for, nor make trial of what they have heard, so as to 
understand its value ; but rashly reject what they 
perceive to be contrary to their own opinions, James 
3, 15. 

From this very cause, (namely, that they follow 
their own opinions,) men of this kind do not admit 
(oo» Se;;^ou(n) the more perfect doctrine of revelation, 
but reject and account it foolishness. (Noesselt.) 
So Chrysost., from w^hom Theophyl. explains 4/y;^»- 
Kos avhpioTTOS by TO TTOLV ToTy rrj? 4'"P^^;f XoytCjtJioTy SiSouy, 
Kcti iKxi vofxi^iov 3e?(rQai rris avao^ev ^or^^e/as*, jXTj^e Trla-rei 
bh^cov (iex^rrSaiTi. He takes \|/u;^iKoff for (^urriKos' : and 
he adduces an apt illustration, " that as the eyes of 
the body, though the most beautiful and useful of 
its members, yet, without light, cannot see, so the 
ipuxri cannot discern unless enlightened by the Holy 
Spirit.*' And so Theodoret. See also Calvin, De 
Dieu, and Grot., which last Commentator observes, 
that y^ox^Kos here means animal or carnal, as opposed 
to spiritual ; men resting on their own reason only, 



such as were most of the Jews, and the Philosophers 
of the Greeks. So Hierocles calls that the i3/u^tKov 
(rayy.a which he afterwards explains the to §u)tikqv. 
The same opinion, too, is adopted by Salmasius 
(whom see, cited by Wolf), and also by Wets, and 
Doddr. De Dieu and Dickson, ap. Pole, however, 
take a somewhat different view of the subject, and 
especially Capellus ap. Crit. Sacr. He takes -^o^rj to 
answer to the Hebr. U?Di, the anhna common to all 
men, from which proceed the motions and affections 
common to all, and naturally corrupt." The 7rveGju,a, 
he says, is the mi, the Holy Spirit, or the mind re- 
formed and regenerated by its influences. And so 
Vitringa Obss. 163. and Schoettg. See also the 
learned Dissertation of Winckler ap. Wolf, whose 
opinion is adopted by Wolf himself, and thus briefly 
summed up. " Per -i/D-x^iKws h. 1. non irregenitos 
quosvis, quales v. c. sunt pravse vitse homines, sed 
doctores Judaeos ac Gentilos, iisque similes per 7rvet>- 
/xarj/couy autem non sanctos quosvis, sed Apostolos, 
tanquam singularibus Spiritus S. donis extra ordinem 
instructos, indicari. 

14. ofj oex^rai, '' admit, hear, follow." So the 
Hebr. npv, Prov, 4, 10. Mwpia yap auTw etrr*, scil. 
Toura TO. TTuevixaTiKa, " he thinks them foolish and 
useless." Wetstein compares Thucyd. 5, 41. to7s Se 
Aa/ceSaijtxovj'oj? to (xev tt pwrov ihoKei ^wpia eiVai raOra. 

14. Koi 00 ^ijvarai yvcovai, i. e. " he cannot Jully un- 
derstand their excellence." "• And that (says Parseus) 
both from defect of light, and from corruption of 
heart."* "On TrveuixariKai^ avaKpiverai, *' they," i. e. 
the ra Trveu/xaro?, " are discerned TrveujutaTiKaJs", by 
the mind only, and not the external senses, not i^o^i- 
Kfoy, by the spiritual intellect, and by the light of 
faith granted by the Holy Spirit." 

* For, as says Aristot. (cited by Bulkley), wickedness perverts 
the judgment, and makes men err with respect to practical princi-- 
ples } so that no one can be wise and judicious, who is not good." 
Bull\ley also cites Porj)h. de Abstin. p. 38. Am rod aXoyov eyepyoJv, 
(oufc) olos re eari deiopelv ra (caret rov vovv atcpaifyHs. 


15. 8e TTveujuiari/coff — avaKpiuerai. The Apostle 
here opposes the spiritual to the animal man, in re- 
spect to right judgment: and shews, that here the 
latter can stand no comparison with the former. 

The antithetical and popular cast of this sentence 
is es})ecially to be attended to. The Trveu/xari/cof, the 
man enlightened and guided by the Holy -Spirit, the 
rightly instructed Christian (it is said) avuKpivei [xev 
iravra, on the sense of which words Commentators 
are not quite agreed. Most recent ones, as Noesselt, 
Rosenm., and Krause, take iravra as a masculine, 
and render : " The spiritual man may convince the 
natural man, but he himself can be convinced, or 
convicted, by no natural one :" understanding by 
avuKp. convincere, argyere, ix^y^eiu, (see 14, 24.) 
q. d. " make him perceive his error and self-deceit, 
in arrogating to himself wisdom, and ascribing folly 
to the Christian doctrine : but he himself can be 
convinced, or convicted, of error, by no profane 
person." This, however, does not seem suitable to 
the preceding verse, nor does it appear to be the 
sense of the Apostle. Not to say that this w^ould 
demand a signification of Tras* unwarranted, and re- 
quire rather Trdvras : and such indeed is read by 
Theodoret and Irenaeus ; but without authority. I 
see no reason to desert the common interpretation, 
which takes Traura as the neuter plural, and avaKplvei 
in the sense discerneth. This is supported by Chry- 
sost., Theoph., Theodor., &c., and by some very 
eminent modern Commentators, as Beza, Grot., and 
Wolf. On the sense of Travra we need not too 
anxiously press. It must be confined to the case in 
hand, and mean spiritual things, and those relating 
to religion, and the revealed will of God. 

15. auToy 8e utt' oySevoy auaKplverai, " he himself is 
noty cannot be, discerned of any natural and animal, 
not spiritual, man." There may appear a slight in- 
coherence, by the former clause of this antithetical 
sentence having the neu.ier, antl the latter the mas- 
culine. And thus, Bos and Rosenm. remark, by the 

T 2 


lex disjunctionis, ttoLs must necessarily answer tb oi- 
SeJff. But both the Apostle, and indeed the Sacred 
writers in general, are little attentive to such petty 
niceties, which indeed are sometimes unobserved in 
the best Classical authors, in whom there is far less 
of regularity than in the modern writers. 

A passage of very similar turn of expression is 
cited by Eisner from Epictet. 64. KOL^airep 13 tov ;^§u- 
(Tov SoKtjuta^ouora X/Soy, ovKen KauTrj tt^o? too ^pua-ou 3o- 
Kii/.a^€rai' ootm koi to Kpirrjpiov e^cov. Other imita- 
tions, (or rather larcenies,) of this most eloquent and 
learned Empiric I have elsewhere pointed out. The 
sense of the passage Theophyl. illustrates by the fol- 
lowing beautiful comparison : "Qo-vrep ku) 6 opwv, at)- 
ros y-€V Koi ra oiKeia ^XcTrei, koi ra. rcSu fx-^ opwurcou' 
iKcivoi Se ry<pAoi ovres", obre ra eaurcov, oure tol eKeivou. 

16. Tis yoLp eyvcti vouv Ku^/ou, &c. Taken from Is. 
40, 13. where the interrogation has the force of a 
strong negation. On the sense of the words, how- 
ever, interpreters are not agreed. Rosenm., follow- 
ing the opinion of many recent Commentators, para- 
phrases thus : " No one of these men knows the 
mind and counsels ofGod, and therefore cannot judge, 
or decide upon those things which the Holy Spirit has 
taught us, and which we teach others." The sub- 
ject (he adds) is of profane men, none of whom under- 
stand the mind or will of the Lord, so as to be able 
to teach the spiritual man." But this interpretation 
(especially the latter part) seems not a little strained 
and harsh. It is to be observed, that Rosenm., with 
many other Commentators, as Justinian, Vorst., Scla- 
ter, Hamm., Locke, Wells, Hardy, Pyle, and Mackn., 
refers aurlv to the spiritual man.* Which may pro- 

* And for this he strongly contends, in the following words : 
Nam avrov de eodem dicitur, qui v. 15. avros appellatus erat, de 
Try €vjj.aTiKM videlicet s. Christlano. Accedit, quod partes commatis 
15, membris hujus commatis 16. haud dubie, quamquam inverso 
ordine respondent. jQuodsi enim queeritur : v. 15. Cur Christianus, 
s. edoctus a Spiritu agnoscere errofim prufnnorum hominum possit ? 
lespondet Paulus, v. 16. quoniam nos Christiani mentem si senten- 


bably be the true mode of interpretation. The an- 
tient Commentators, however, and some eminent 
modern ones, as Zeger, Grot., Whitby, and Doddr., 
refer it to Kvpiou. (See the paraphrases of Whitby and 
Doddr.) The sense (according to this interpreta- 
tion) is well expressed by Mr. Slade in the following 
paraphrase: '*No man, unassisted, can know the 
purposes of God, none can enter into counsel with 
him ; and therefore, by a necessary inference, 7io na- 
tural man can enter into the views of one that is 
spiritual, because they proceed from God, and are 
unintelligible without a divine communication : But 
we are not merely natural men ; for we have the 
mind, or spirit, of Christ, and are therefore able to 
instruct others, and to understand their spiritual 
concerns ; though the unconverted are incapable of 
appreciating our doctrine, or of forming any proper 
judgment of us." 

The o-t»|x)3i3a<re; must be interpreted according to 
the view taken of aurov. If it be understood of the 
spiritual man, it must signify convince ; as in Acts 9, 
i22.;* if to the Lord, it must denote teach, inform, in- 
struct. Which mode of interpretation is adopted by 
Schleus. Lex., who renders : " Quis enim cognovit 
mentem et consilia Dei, qui instructurus sit eum, 
aut, qui eum meliora docerepossit?" And he refers 
to a similar use in Exod. 4, 12 & 15. Levit. 10, 11. 
Judg. 13, 8. Ps. 32, 8. 

Doddridge observes, that this part of the Epistle 
is very artificially conducted. The Apostle (says 
he) is now aiming at the great point of establishing 

tiam Christi tenemus. Cur contra is (abros) a nullo profanorum 
erroris convinci ])otest." v. 15. Quoniam nemo profanorum men- 
tem Domini intelligit. (v. 16.) 

* At least, to that passage Rosenm. appeals. But (TVj.ift. there 
signifies to establish on good grounds, shew, demonstrate, prove. 
(See the note on that passage.) 

Theodor. explains thus : 'iKayws a-rrebei^et' to ttjs delas bibctfTKa- 
Xias avei'vees' el yap oii (.loyou afevhei^js 6 riov okwy Qeos, «\\a kciI 
avEf^iKTOv f^xei (Tocplao, ravres be kcu i]u~iv /j.erabebdjKei', vvbe j/yueTx 
(ipa Ttjs Tu>y KaXovfieyajy TOtpuJy bibaaKaX'tas beofxeda. 


his authority, which had been suspected, amongst 
them; yet he does not directly propose, but obliquely 
insinuate, arguments against such suspicions ; argu- 
ments which might possess their minds before they 
were aware of what he intended to effect by them." 


What follows closely coheres with the 13ih verse 
of the preceding chapter. The Apostle has there 
said that he celebrates the benefits conferred on men 
by Christ, and that what is known to us by the spi- 
rit of God, respecting his counsels for the promotion 
of human felicity, he expounds more fully roTy Trveo- 
|xar»KoTs. He now, then, proceeds to say, /cayco, &c. 

Verse 1. ku) iyay, aSeX<$>o<, ouk vjSyvv^Qijv XaXrJcrai 
u/xTv c69 TTveujutaTiKoTs', a. (6. <r., '* I could not (namely, 
when I was with you, to instruct you in the Chris- 
tian religion) discourse with you as with far ad- 
vanced and well-informed Christians." The Apostle, 
as it were, replies to a specious argument, which 
might be employed against him, namely, that the 
Corinthians had from him scarcely received the rudi- 
ments of the Christian religion, and that they there- 
fore did right in adhering to, and preferring those 
teachers who had communicated to them the capita 
rerum. The Apostle, then, now mentions the cause 
why he had only communicated to them the first 
elements. It seems, when Paul went to Corinth to 
instruct the infant Church, it consisted partly of 
Heathens, and partly of Jewish converts, somewhat 
backward in knowledge, and rude in civilization : 
therefore he could not treat them as if far advanced, 
or well informed ; but, as was incumbent on him, he 
spoke to them (os o-ap/c/zcoTs', ms vt^ttiois ev 'KpKrr<o. 

The term <rapKiK09 (from o-ag|, "^U?!, which signifies 
both the Jlesh, and the weakness and frailty of it) de- 
notes weak in intellect, and spiritual comprehension, 


as opposed to tlie -jrveOixaTiKo). Tlie other term vr,7noi 
€v XoKTTip, signifies " infants (i. e. of infantine un- 
derstanding) in Christian doctrine," these being as 
far inferior to the TrveujxaTifcoi as the mind of babes is 
to that of men. This sense of v>j7rtoy occnrs also in 
the Classical writers, especially the Poets, as Homer, 
Hesiod, and Pindar.* 

2. yaXct u'fxas" eToTJo-a. The Apostle continues the 
metaphor, which is taken from the cnstom of feeding 
infants with the lightest food, and that prepared for 
the stomach, as milk, pap, &c. Taka, therefore, re- 
presents the slighter, simpler, and elementary doc- 
trines of Christianity. So Theophyl. aTrXouTre/sav 
h^afTKaklav. See 1 Pet. 2, 2. There is a sentiment 
of similar metaphor-j- in Hebr. 5, 11 — 14. 

The ^pwixa answers to the a-repect Too<pri at Hebr. ; 
solid food, not comminuted and prepared for the sto- 
mach. Both these terms denote the more sublime 
and mysterious doctrines. Some Commentators here 
recognize an ellipsis of i^wKot. But Grot., more 
rightly, supposes there is a syllepsis ; the €7rori(ra re- 
ferring only to the yaXa, not to the ^^Sixa. In ttotI- 
^€iv, it must be observed, there is (as in some other 

* For (observes Grot.) discourses delivered before all must, of 
course, be accommodated to the comprehension of the greater part. 
Now the greater part of the Corinthian Cliuich had as yet made no 
great progress in the doctrine of Christ, which was spiritual: therefore 
they, at j)resent, needed rather to have instilled into them the pre- 
cepts of Christ, for the subduing the remains of evil affections, than 
to have explained to them the figures hidden in the Old Testament 
history, and the things thus adumbrated of the New Covenant. The 
latter are proper for tliose who are far advanced in godliness ; the 
former are necessary for those who are only entering upon the study 
of divine things." 

t Of which cxam|)les are found in the Classical writers. Wet- 
stein adduces the following from Artemid. 1,17- o (^e ns ydXa Xafi- 
pcivei — d(T0cicis yup elmy ol kv yoKQKTi iraibes' Kul /.ler bt) kcu ol 
reXeioi, brew I'oaovi'res rpocpji ^n) bvyai'rai ^fj/yerOot, ynXaK-t ^fjoirrat. 
Philo 1,301, 37. tTTct ^e vtjiriois yt<e«' Ian yaXa rpofi), TcXeiots be to. 
€K irvpuii' TTt'yu/iara" Kcu \pv)^i}s yaXuKTwbeis yu^>' ay etev Tpo<pal koto. 
T)]v TraiCiKtjy >/\tv/a»' rn rijs cyvuvX/ov f^iovtTiKijs TrpoTraibevi-inra, ri- 
Xciai c€ ical aybpaaiy evTrpene'is cii bin (ppoyt'ifrews Kiii awfpoavyijs, 
Kat airaarfs aperijs btprfyiiaeis. Sec also I, 521. 


Greek verbs) a kind of Hipli'tl sense ; and it is of the 
number of those verbs which carry two accusatives. 
See Matth. Gr. Gr. 

2. ouVo) yap 7]Ouva(rOe, scil. Trerrreiv, " bear, i. e. di- 
gest and turn to nutriment such solid food." Grotius 
remarks, that such elUpses (and he might have added, 
especialli/ after verbs of abiiity) are frequent in Scrip- 
ture. Nor are they unusual in the Classical writers. 

3. cOOC oure en j/uv Suvao-6e. These words imply 
more than they seem to express; q. d. " Nay, ye are 
not even now able (even when ye have had time to 
be thoroughly grounded in the faith), nor can I now 
expound the more recondite truths of the Gospel, 
with any expectation of promoting your spiritual 
improvement." Here Grotius aptly cites Origen c. 
Cels. 3. Tct €V TjjuiTv iKoKia-Tct KuXa Kcci ^elot. Tore roXjutco- 
juiev iv ToT? TTpos to koivov ^laTvoyoiS' <pepen/ ely ^e(rov, or' 
euTTopouixev (rvvercov aKpoarcvv ctTro/cpuTTTOjtxev 8e Kai vraoa- 
(na)7ra)[Ji€U ra ^aBorepa rovs (ruv€p^oixevou9 Koi Seo/xevouy 
7\.oycov rpoTTiKcSs oi/o|w,a^ojuieva)V yaCha.' yeypairrai yap Traoa. 
T(o Uao'Acp Tjjuicov Koptv^/oiS" aTTOfrreXAovTi, ' EaAt^cj jutev, 
ou KeKaScc^^€Vois Se ttu) to. eOvTj, FaAa u^a? €7rori(ra ku) 
ou |3pa)]ut,a ouTTO) yap eOuvaorQe, aXX' ouoe ert vuv SJvacroe* 
eri yap (rapKiKoi e<Tre. 

S. en yap — ^i^oaTaa-lai. The Apostle now shows 
the grounds on which this opinion of their inability 
is founded : ^'^ for ye are yet carnal," &c. 

"Orrou has here the sense, not oftvhere, but ivhereasy 
shice^ of which examples are not unfrequent in the 
Classical writers. (See St. Thes., Viger., Hoogeven, 
Matth. Gr. Gr., Krause, and Rosenm., or Schleus. 
Lex., to whose examples I add Thucyd. 6, 68. 2. 
and Plut. Rom. 25. With respect to the terms ^vJAoy, 
fpjy, and hi^oo-raa-iai, they are said by Krause to be 
mere synonymes. And he compares Sallust Catul. 
9, 2. jurgia, discordias, simultates. I have always 
regarded them as forming a climax : and this opi- 
nion is supported by the authority of Grotius.* Nay 

* V^^ho observes : " Nam invidia conieniionem peperant, contentio 


even the words of the above cited parallel passage 
are such. But, to turn to the examinations of terms 
themselves, ^r^Xoy answers to the Hebr. i^^p. It is, 
Justinian observes, a term of middle signification, and 
is used both in bonam partem; as in Tit. 2, 14., and 
in malum partem ; as here and in Acts .5, 17- 7> 9. 
13, 45. Rom. 13, 13. 2 Cor. 12, 20, "\I019 answers 
to the Hebr. l"^"! j and ^i)(^oL(rra<rlai, to the Hebrew, 


3. ov)(} (TOLOKiKoi ea-re ; ** does not the flesh yet too 
much prevail; are ye not yet a-aoKiKoi, compared to 
true and sincere Christians," (the Trveu/xaTJKoj just 
mentioned.) " For (observes Paracus) the envying, 
strife, kc. just mentioned, are by the Apostle at 
Galat. 5, 20. numbered among the works of the 
flesh ;" " reckoning among them (says Grot.) all 
those affections which do not wholly tend to the ho- 
nour of God, and the welfare of man, but are merely 
directed to our own gratification." 

3. Ka) Kara. avQpcuxov Trf^JTrareTre, " do ye not act 
like men ; is not your conduct correspondent to the 
usual habits of carnal men,* who live after the flesh." 
The above sense of TreoiTrareTv, which is formed on 
that of the Heb. *l7n, is very frequent in tlie New 
Testament. See Vorst. de Heb. N. T. 194. and 
Schl. Lex. 

4. orav yap T^eyj] r jy 'JLyco ^ev eljtxt HauXou — cap 
KiKQi€(rT€; It is thought by the Greek Commenta- 
tors, and also Grot, and Locke, that the Apostle 
uses these names to hint at some persons who were 
heads of factions. But see the note on ver. 10. 

" Thus (observes Justinian) tliey were not con- 
tent to entertain " preference of one over another, on 
the score of wisdom or eloquence, but to carry their 
preference to the extent of quarrels, dissensions, 
and scliisms." And llosenm. and Noesselt remark, 

scissuram." And he refers to 1, 10. 1 1, 18. Vi, '25. So also Theo- 
jihyl. 1S4. Havraxov be roy CfjXoy r^ epibi avycnrrei. Ylariip yap 6 
ii]\os Tijs ipibos, avTi] be tUs bfy^oaraffias yeyyci. 

* So Theophyl. aapKiica. Kai avOpbtmya kuI irpoayeia <ppoyelre. 


that the Apostle justly ascribes these dissensions 
and factions of the Corinthians to weakness of un- 
derstanding. " For those (continue they) who call- 
ed themselves Paullini or Apolloni, seem to have 
agreed among themselves on the chief' heads of Chrh- 
tian doctrine, only disagreeing on the preference 
which the one shewed to Paul, the other to Apollos ; 
not adverting to or understanding the essentials of 
Christian doctrine, on which Paul and Apollos per- 
fectly agreed, but only what was external and ac- 
cessary ; admiring ApoUos's eloquence, and con- 
temning Paul's tenuity of instruction ; or perhaps 
differing on the subjects of marriage, meats offered 
to idols, &c. But diversities of opinion on such 
points ought, surely, not to have been swelled to 
such importance as to occasion mutual offence and 
disagreement among Christians who entertained 
right notions as to the general principles of the reli- 
gion." These reflections of the learned Commenta- 
tors are, upon the whole, well founded. But I must 
take exception at their limitation of the term (ra&KiKo) 
(though supported by Schleus.), as if it merely re- 
ferred to weakness of understanding. What is im- 
puted to these Corinthians, implies more than that : 
and the term has reference rather to the heart and 
the affections, namely, denoting carnal, sinful, cor- 
rupt, i. e. compared to what Christians should be. 
So Rom. 7> 14^« eyfo Se a-upKiKos eljtxj, and elsewhere. 
How then (it may be asked) will this consist with 
what is said in 1, 5. and 2 Cor. 8, J. ? But those 
there mentioned (as Whitby suggests) may be re- 
stricted to some few superior members who enjoyed 
these graces for the good of the rest, and yet they 
might be generally babes in Christ." Whitby, too, 
thinks that these gifts might be bestowed for the 
confirmation of the Gospel and the good of others ; 
and yet be of small proficiency in the saving parts 
of that good spirit." This opinion, however, seems 
somewhat exceptionable. And though he urges that 
** these very persons are accused by the Apostle of 


conceit, ostentation, and envy, yet charity may 
incline us to suppose those vices were not carried 
to a very high pitch : and it would be unreasonable 
to expect any thing like perfection from Christian 
professors of any age. 

5, Tis ouv €(rTi lictuXos — eSojKev. It is rightly ob- 
served by Grot., that huKovos is here not a name of 
function, or office, but a general one, answering to 
the Heb. fY^tro, and suitable to all who furthered the 
dissemmation of the Gospel ; not designating Zor</^ 
to dommeer over their faith, but merely persons in' 
strumental in, and not the authors of, faith and con- 
version,* and who therefore could not, with pro- 
priety, be set up as heads of sects." I cannot, how- 
ever, assent to his position that the term differs ma- 
terially from euayyeXio-raj, as if the one referred to 
words ; the other to works : for the words of an 
euayy. carry with them the force of works. 

5. Koi €K(xa-rio, ms 6 Kupm eSai/cev. Grotius and 
Rosenm. notice that there is here a traject'w, or 
inverse construction, for Koi cos iKaa-ruy ^ Kugioy bco- 
K€u. So Rom. 12, 3. and supra 2, 7. 'There is, too 
an ellipsis of roo-oGror. The sense, then, is this- 
"even as the Lord hath given to each of them his 
share of spiritual gifts and evangelical success." 
Doddridge refers the words to the evangelized not 
the evangelizers : and Whitby makes them common 
to both. But this cannot be admitted on any sound 
Hermeneutical principles. The interpretation I 
have laid down is supported by the authority of the 
Greek Commentators. 

6. iyco e^uTejorUy 'ATroTiAa)^ e7rori(r€V, aXV Qeof 
>ju|avev. Of these words the sense is obvious. (See 
Rosenm. or the Paraphrasts.) The metaphors here 
employed are agricultural. 'ETr^Jno-a refers to irri- 
gation, which was practised, wherever possible in 
the parched countries of the East. Examples of the 

* So Theophyl 184. b.i.ovm .V^e. o^xi a^ro^pcCa .ai nrjyr) rQy 
ayadwy. Such, he observes, was Christ aloue ; hdyov yap Iotl to 
irdu rov Trapoxtws Twy ayadwy. 


metaphor are adduced by Krause, the most apposite 
of which is from Liban. Or. 13. p. 186. Reish. rouro 
yap KaAov iyai ec^ureyo-a, o-u 8' tSpevf/a?. Wets, here 
quotes, with seeming approbation, the opinion of 
some Fathers, as Nvss. c. Eunom. 2., August. Ep. 
48., Petihus ap. August. 3, 53., and Optatus Mil., 
that e^uTeoa-a refers to Paul's KOLrrj^ria-is or instruc- 
tion of them ; and eTrona-ev, to ApoUos's afterwards 
baptizing them. This, however, is too systematical 
and formal. Neither does it seem founded in truth. 
It is pretty certain that Apollos' labours did not 
commence until after Paul had left Corinth : and it 
is not probable that he would defer the baptism of 
the cafachumens (if they must be so called) for the 
space of almost a year and a half; which was the 
time of Paul's continuance at Corinth. See the note 
on 1, 14. 

In 7]6^. there is a use corresponding to that of the 
Heb. n>}2)^il. See 2 Cor. 9, 10. Col. 2, 19. Krause 
cites a similar Hiphil use of the Latin augeo from 
Cato. That is, however, merely a use of the intran- 
sitive for the transitive. 

7. co(rT€ ouT€ ^itTevwv e(rri Ti — ©eos". The sense 
of these words is plain, and we have only to attend 
to the force of the idiom eTva» t», which is evidently 
eUiptical, and occurs not unfrequently in the New 
Testament. See Acts 5, 36., and the note on Gal. 
2, 6, IVfany examples are adduced by Krause from 
the Classical writers. The usual subaudition is [J-iya, 
which most Commentators here supply. Grot., too, 
and others, take the expression as said comparate; 
q. d. *' nothings in respect to God." 

8. (pureucoi/ 2e Kca ttotI^mv ev el<riv. It is here 
only necessary to attend to the sense of ev elo-jv, 
w^hich signifies : ** they are, as it were, one and the 
same in office and purpose, ministers of the same 
Lord ; they are one, are united, by doing the same 
business, and being destined to forward the same 
doctrine ; serving the Lord with conjoint honour." 
So Grot., Beza, Sclater, and llosenm. The in/e- 


rence, left to be supplied, is this : " As, then, those 
who apply to the same business ought not to split 
into parties, so ought not you to be divided into 
factions ; thus they do ill who oppose minister to 
minister." So Estius, Sclat., and Grot., who com- 
pare Joh. 10, 30. 17, 11 & 22. 1 Joh. 5, 7 & 8. 
Others, as Krause, lay down the following : " Who- 
soever discharges what is committed to him by God, 
is a SiaKovo? or (ruvepyos &€ou : therefore neither ought 
any one to despise another, or be despised for the 
sake of another. 

8. €Ka(Tro9 06 tov 'ih^QV ]w,i(r9oj/ 7\.rf\i€Tai k. t. '/. k. The 
Greek Commentators and Crellius rightly notice 
that these words were added to repress sloth, as all 
the labourers would be on the same footing, and 
receive the same reward. The words therefore form 
an epanortJinsis ; q. d. " they are not so far owe, but 
that respect will be had to each one's labour and 
pains, and he will receive his own reward propor- 
tionably. It is labour to which the reward is pro- 
mised, not success of labour, which is not in any 
minister's power." 

1). 0€ou yao eo-ju-ev (ruveoyoi, See. Here we have a 
fuller explanation of what was said in the preceding 
verse. The sense is : ** for we ministers and teachers 
are fellow-labourers with God, discharging the same 
office committed to us by God.'* 8uch, too, at 3 
Joh. 8, are said to be a-uuepyo) rvj aT^rideia : and at 
Mark l6, 20. God is said o-uv^jsye^v a7roo-To7^oi?. X^v€p- 
yoy is simply for cruvalrios and crvixTrpaKTcop, instru- 
mental. (See the example in .Munthe.) Yet there 
seems to be an allusion to agricultural labour, which 
was properly called cpyov ; as in Hesiod Op. 

" Those (observes Grot.) whom he had just cast 
down, by comparing them with God, he now raises, 
by comparing them with men." 

9. ©eoG yecopyiov, ©eoG oIko5oju,i^ €tt€, '* i/e are," &c. 
For the pronouns in this verse arc emphatical ; and 
the people are here addressed by a double metaphor, 


both agricultural and architectural. By the yecopyiov 
is meant the ager cultus. So the Sept. in Gen. 26, 
14. Prov. 6, 7. 21, 30. 31, 16. (See Schl. Lex. and 
Philo.) There is a similar passage in Is. 6l, 3. c^d- 
reu^a Ku^/ou. This metaphor, by which Christians 
are compared to a field sown with seed, is often em- 
ployed by the sacred writers ; as Matt. 13, 38. In 
0€oG oi/coSo]u,i] there is an architechiral metaphor, used 
further on, and in 2 Cor. 6, 16. and Eph. 2, 21. The 
sentiment may be thus expressed : " Vou are, as it 
were, the field which God cultivates, and the build- 
ing which he erects ; we are his labourers in both 
works." The above metaphors are thought, by the 
Greek Commentators, to inculcate the duty of Chris- 
tian unity. 

10. Kara ttjv ^apiv tow 0eou, &c. The architec- 
tural metaphor is here continued, with the addition 
of some suitable tropes. (Krause.) 

The best Commentators, ancient and modern, are 
agreed that by p^a^sty St. Paul means the office of 
Apostleship among the Gentiles, graciously com- 
mitted to him by God. Now every builder begins 
with the foundation : and thus did St. Paul, like a 
judicious builder, commence with teaching his con- 
verts the simplest Christian truths. 

%o<pQSi like o-yveToy, signifies not only intellectual 
wisdom^ but, in a general sense, peritia : and this 
not only in the Scriptural, but the Classical *= writers. 
Then it is added, Sey-eT^iov tSciku, " I have laid the 
foundation, by communicating the first elements." 

10. aAXoy 8e eVoj/co8o|u,eT. Rosenm. (from Grot.) 
remarks that the metaphor is here further developed, 
what was before applied to Christians being now 
extended to the doctrines communicated to Chris- 
tians." Grot., too, observes that similar transitions, 

* From whom many examples are adduced by Wets. ; as Max. 

Tyr. 12, 4, 6 /j-avris crocpos, Kal 6 reKrwp ao(j>6s, iEschin. Dial. 1. 
01 (To<pol fiayeipoi — o'l crocpoi vfiCToyes. Aristaen, 2, 10. arofos re^vi- 
rris, AristOt. Nic. 6, 7- \idovpybv ao(j)6y. Crates, tck-mv oh (To^os. 


wlieie part of the similitude is retained, and part 
changed, occur in Matt. 13. Mark 4. Joh. 10., and 

10. €Kaa-TOf 0€ &k€Tr€Ta) ircos eTrojKoSo^ae?, " yet let 
every one look and mind how he forms the super- 
structure ; with what sort of doctrines he follows up 
the first elements, that they may square with the 
former, and be suitable thereto." 

1 1 .^ QeiUT^iov ya^ oixkov otiSe)? Sumrai 5e?i/a< x. r. k. 
By SuWrat, Grot, observes, is here meant " can, con- 
sistently ivith ivhat is right, i. e. ought " as in Matt. 
9, 15. and elsewhere. Uap^ ro Kelfxevov. This use of 
Trapa for 75 is partly derived from the Hebrew, and is 
thought to be Hellenistical. Yet it occasionally 
occurs in the Classical writers. Thus Plato Phced. 
(cited by Krause) ouSe /xr> TroteTv n ouSe ti 7rao-;^6,v 
aXAo, Trap a dv e/ceTva 7) ttoiyj r^ Traa-^j]. To which I 
add Heliodor. 1, 74, 8. After r^v Keli^cuou must be 
supplied 'jTTo T(Su ocTroa-ToT^aiv, " by us Apostles, sub- 
serviently to the purposes of God." 

1 ^}',J^J^'^^^ ^' ° ^' '^'"^ ^'s wrongly rendered 
by L Lnfant : *' which is, that Jesus is the Christ." 
Ihis IS domg violence to the construction. The 
true sense, and that required by the construction, is, 
doubtless, the one commonly ascribed to the words' 
namely, '* which is Jesus Christ :" meaning (as Gro- 
tius and others have seen) the histori/ of Christ 
comprehending the doctrines and precepts, the pro- 
mises and threatenings of the Gospel. (See the note 
on 2, 2.) These fundamental points, the Apostle 
means to say, must remain undisturbed, nor ou^ht 
any thing to be added but what is perfectly agreeable 

^12. €\ 8e Tis- €7roiKo^o^€7 — ;^po-ov, ocpyu^iov. The 
Apostle here shows the reason why every one should 
mind what superstructure he erects. (Crellius.) 

The sense of the passage is somewhat obscure by 
a confusion of metaphor resulting from the hio<h 
wrought mental feelings of the writer. The (lues- 
tioii seems to hinge upon this, whether the Apostle 


intended to represent oney or two buildings. The 
former is the common opinion, and is supported by 
Grotius.* But this has, I tliink, tended more than 
any thing else to throw obscurity over the whole 
passage. The latter is, with far greater semblance 
of truth, maintained by Chrysost., Theophyl., and 
several eminent modern Commentators, as Crellius, 
Wets., Doddridge, Rosenm., and Macknight; and 
it has been recently adopted by Krause and Slade. 
The Apostle meant to suggest that on the founda- 
tion of those elementary principles two very different 
buildings might be erected : thus the metaphorical 
expressions are meant to designate the good and the 
had superstructure. The punctuation, therefore, 
may be as follows : ^pua-ov, apyupiov x/Qouy nixlous' 
^uT^ot, ^oprov, KaT^afxriv — e/cao-roy. The passage is well 
paraphrased by Uoddr. thus : " if (i^^y man hiuld^ I 
say, upon this foundation, let him look to the mate- 
rials and nature of his work ; whether he raise a 
stately and magnificent temple upon it, adorned, as 
it were, like the house of God at Jerusalem, with 
gold and silver^ \_and'] large, beautiful, and cos fit/ 
stones : [or] a mean hovel, consisting of nothing 
better than planks of wood roughly put together, 
and thatched with hai/ \_and] stubble; that is, let 
him look to it, whether he teach the substantial, vital 
truths which do indeed belong to Christianity, and 
which it was intended to support and illustrate; or 
set himself to propagate vain subtilties and conceits 
on the one hand, or legal rites and Jewish traditions 
on the other ; which, though they do not absolutely 
destroy the foundation, disgrace it, as a mean edifice 
would do a grand and extensive foundation, laid 
with great pomp and solemnity." 

* His words are these : " Fingit sibi sedificium Paulus partim re- 
gale, partim rusticum : quia quanquam tale fieri moris non est, 
tamen naturae non repugnat, et id requiril anoboins. Proponit 
ergo nobis domum cujus parietessunt ex marmoTe, columnce partim 
ex auro, et partim ex argento, trabea ex ligno, fastigium vero ex 
stramine et culmo." 


And by Rosenm. thus : "As, when the founda- 
tion is hiid, the superstructure may be either a royal 
edifice or a rustic cottage, so also to the elementary 
principles of Christianity, rightly laid down by me, 
may be superadded a fuller instruction, either true, 
or false, of greater or less worth and moment. 

On the sense of y^pvcrdi', apyvpioy, and \iO. rif-i. it is not necessary 
to press ; since the two former niay designate either the gilded co- 
lumns and beams, or the silver ornaments which were used in the con- 
struction of palaces of old, or, as the materials are afterwaids said 
to be tried in the fire, we may suppose them solid. By the Xid. tijx. 
are not meant precious stones, i. e. gems, but precious and sump- 
tuous marbles. On which Grotius refers to Is. 54, 11. an<l hi.^'-note 
there. Wetstein, too, aptly compares Tibull, 3, 3, 16. Quidve do- 
mas prodest Fhrygiis innixa columnis, Auratseque trabes, marmore- 
umque solum ? Hor. Carm. 2, IS. Non ebur, neque aureum meft, 
renidet in domo lacunar, non trabes Hymettise premunt columnas 
ultimae recisas Africae. Cic. Paradox. 6, 3. I Hi aurata tecta in villis, 
et sola mormorea facienti, et signa, tabulas, supellectiltm et \estem 
infinite concupiscenti. The general idea, then, is that of materials 
precious and solid, which will aptly represent doctrines and princi- 
ples, true, lasting, instructive, useful, salutary. 

In the words ^vXk, x^pToy, there is an allusion to slight and tem- 
porary buildings, many of which, for various agricultural and other 
purposes, are in use in the East, This, again, is well illustrated by 
Wets, from the following passages. Petron. 135. El paries circa 
palea satiatus inani, Fortuitoque luto clausos munibat agrcstcs. 
Vitruv. 7, 3. Cum paries totus luto inquinatus fuerit, tunc in eo 
opere cannae clavis muscariis perpetuo tigantur, deinde iterum luto 
inducto, ei prioies transversariis ordinibus fixse sunt, secundae e 
rectis figantur. The KuXa/i)) signifies stipula, stubble, and is sup- 
posed to refer to the thatched roofing. So Seneca, Ep. 40. (cited 
by Wets.) Culmus liberos texit, sub marmore atque auro servitus 
habitat — quid ergo? non quamlibet virgeam cratem texuerunt 
manu, et vili obleverunt luto, deinde stipula aliusque silvestribus 
0|)eruere fastigium ? And yet Wetstein seems to have thought it 
might refer to the walls, since he compares Herodot. 1, 179. ^la 
Twv i(Toh6^u)v TrXirdujv rapaovs KaXa/uuju biaaroifta^oyres ebeifiaiTO.* 

13. eKotcrou to epyov 4>avepov ycvrja-CTai, i. e. " it will 
be manifest of wdiat sort the work may be which is 
erected on any foundation." "Epyov, " the edifice." 
In the application of the similitude, we are to under- 

* But that passage is of a totally different nature ; since in the 
most anlient times stubble or straw was used to fdl up the in- 
terstices of stones even of the most stupendous size; as in those 
used in building the Temple of Jupiter Bchis at Babylon, and other 
Babylonian and i^igyptian buildings. 



Stand the edifice of the Gospel ; q. d. '^ As the event 
shows which edifices are firmly, and which are 
weakly built, so it will, in its time, become manifest 
what sort of value is to be set on this or that sort of 
doctrine erected on the fundamental truths laid 
down by me." (Rosenm.) So the Latin adage, dies 
docebit, et dies diem docef. Crotius compares Soph. 
"AttuvS' i^iKpos KavapidiJ.riTOS' ^pouos^uei r a^rfKix. And 
Simonid. Ouk ea-riu ixel^cov jdota-avo^ ^povou otJSevoy €^yov. 
Krause adds Xen. Cyr. 3. vj'Se tj -/jy-epa Se/^6« wv ci^ios 
€Ka(TTQS icTT^v. But that passage is of a different 

Theophyl. and some modern Commentators un- 
derstand this of the day of judgment. 

13. OTJ ev TTup) a7roKoi.7^u7rT€Ton. Wells, Pearce, and 
Slade suppose that airoKOLX. refers to -^[/.epa. But this 
is contrary to the construction of the sentence ; for 
the words vj' yap v]'p,epa Si^XfoVej are plainly parentheti- 
cal. I see no reason to desert the common opinion 
(supported by all the antient and most modern Com- 
mentators) that axoKa'K. is to be referred to to epyov, 
the edifice before mentioned. This, indeed, is re- 
quired by the following words, in which there is a 
repetition of the same sentiment. 

13. Koi e/cacToy ro kpyov ottqIov ecri, to rrdp So/ci]"e», 
" the fire shall try the solidity and value of the mate- 
rials employed." For (as Grot, observes) Gold, is 
insoluble by fire,* (at least such fire as it here sup- 
posed,) and silver and marble scarcely yield to it; 
but wood and stubble are immediately consumed. 
The application is obvious.-}- 

* Nay it is tried by fire. See Is. 1, 25. 4,4. 9,4, 15. Zach. 13, 9. 
Juflilh 8, '27. And so Jerem. 9, 7. " I will melt them and try 
them." Pind. Pyth. 105. TreipwpTi be /cat -^pvcros Iv fiaaavt^' 
irpeTrei Ka\ i'oos opdus. 1 Pet, 4, 12. jxi] ^evi^ecrde ry er vfily Trvpw- 
irei Trpos Treipaty^ov itfiuiy yevoiie%>r}. 

f It is thus expressed by Rosenm. " And so, as respects religion, 
what is true remains, i. e. is found firm, and calculated to purify 
the heart, tranquillize the mind, and call forth and strengthen our 
patience under all the events of life. On the contrary, what, in 
religion, is uncertain and unpiofitable, is soon cast away amidst 
the changes and chances of this mortal state." 


14 er r«/of— ^io-Soi/ x^xj/era/, " if any one's edifice 
(which he has erected on any evangelical founda- 
tion) shall remain (uninjured in the flames), he shall 
receive a reward for his labour, both here, in lastincr 
glory and honour among men, and hereafter, from 
his heavenly employer, who will recompense his 
zeal, abour, and patience." The passage is thus 
paraphrased by Grotius : " Si quis Doctor nraecepta 
speciaha dederit, quae, considerata re, loco, tempore, 
circumstantns, conveniant cum generalibus Christi 
prasceptis, is honorem apud Ecclesias omnes conse- 
quetur." And he remarks: 'Mncendio igitur re- 
spondet lux qu* ab Ecclesiis omnibus uni^Ecclesi^ 
laborantiallucet Sic Dei judicia igni comparantur 
Esai^ 4, 4. 66, 16. Et Spiritus Ecclesi^ primum in 
Ignis forma datus." 

15. €)' rivoy—§ri^iaj^a-€rai, '*but if the edifice he 
hath erected shall yield to the flames, ?,3.a,a>^r>era,, 
1. e htei-ally, '; he shall be mulcted * in the reward 
of his labour, i. e. he shall forfeit the reward of it" 
Ihe above seems to be the only true sense, which 
though it was missed by most of the early Commen- 
tators, but, upon the whole, was distinctly seen by 
the Lrreek Commentators and Grotius. 
^^ Kara/car;a-6ra; is well esplained by Theophyl. o'jK 
oure^ TOO rrupos rrtv pcv„, ^XA' eX6y;^5r>6ra; Tro.r^olu oV. 
Grotius paraphrases: -If by other churches any 
ones doctrine be found repugnant to that of Christ 
either du'ectly or indirectly," &c. ' 

15. aorhs ^UcoSy^a-erui, o^Vcoy §6 coV h^ rrupl^. Some 
Of the antient Commentators, who explain the whole 
ot this passage as belonging to Christians in ireneral 
are here put to great straits, and run into manifest 

, * It is well observed by Grotius, that a„u. is a Jaw term and 
s^Sn.Res,nnnabUur, scil. opere sua And To Justin In SdaJ^i 

" fi mn to ""■' ?'• ^'''""' ''"" ''"'^^ "--Jy parlphrases ; 
b qu,= ^e.o speculat.ones philosophicas, huinan.4 sapientiae 
tenum, eloquent.a. verbosae stipulam, pr^dicationibus suis adu f- 
cuent; v^l quodcuncjue aliud conunentuni suum addide^h quod 
divini judicn sententiam ferre non poterit " &c ''"'''"^'"' 4^°^' 

u 2 


absurdity. (See O^cumen. and Theoph.) But it is, 
I think, plain that the Apostle has only in view 
Christian teachers. The sense of the clause now 
under our consideration is somewhat obscured by a 
confounding of the physical and the metaphorical 
parts of the comparison, the Jirst of which repre- 
sents a builder, whose house is, as it were, burnt 
over his head, and who with difficulty escapes 
through the fire : the second represents a Christian 
teacher, the superstructure of whose doctrine does 
not consist with the fundamental principles of Chris- 
tianity previously laid down, and accordingly is re- 
duced to nought ; thus then he loses his labour, and 
is saved with great difficulty. That such is the sense 
of this (as it seems) adagial phrase, 3ia rou ttujso? (T(6- 
^ea-^ai,* most Commentators are agreed. The passage 
is well paraphrased by Doddridge as follows: "He 
will find he has been spending his time and strength 
to little purpose, and has lost a great deal of that 
reward which he might, through Divine grace, have 
secured, had he applied himself with vigour and 
zeal to the proper labours of a Gospel minister. Yet 
if he be upon the whole a good man, who hath built 
upon Christ as the foundation, and, on the terms of 
the Gospel, committed his soul to him, he shall be 
saved, and find mercy of the Lord ; though in com- 
parison with that more abundant entrance into his 
kingdom which others will have, it may be said that 
he is saved with extreme difficulty." Schoettgen, 

* Of this ihe Philological Illustrators adduce many examples. 
They confound, however, two phrases of different nature, namely, 
to go through fire, and to be saved through fire. Now many of 
their Classical citations are of the former class, and only denote 
danger. (And so Ps. 66, 1^. Is. 43, 1.) The following passages, 
however, ate sufficiently apposite, as denoting both difiicuUtj and 
danger. Artemid. On. 1, 50. darroy yap, kuI ws eiireiy, €k irvpos 
apirdSovai ra cTKeXr). Liban. Or. I. de vita su&., p. 62. ed. Reisk. 
brt (poftos i]vdyKa$.e Tzarepas rovs avrwy KuXav icnp eavrovs, wairep 
€K TTvpos. Liv. 20, 35. In yEmiliuni Paullum, qui — ex damna- 
tione collegae et suk prope ambustus evaserat. And 40. Se populare 
incendium — semiustum effugisse. Jud. ^3. Wolf here refers to J. 
H. Maji, Obss. "^^cr. 4. p 133. 


too, correctly represents the sense thus: '* Talis 
Doctor animam siiam quidem eripere potest, sed ex 
periculo prsesentissirno." The Schol. ap. Matth. ex- 
plains : TCL o-rJftavT§a rrj? /cauo-rj/oj? eTrKpepoixevoy 

This language, metaphoiical as it is, has been most unwarrant- 
ably applied by the Roman Catholic Commentators to prove the 
doctrine of Purgatory; thougli manifestly without a semblance of 
foundation in any princi|)le of enlightened interpretation, and with- 
out any countenance from the Fattiers, at least those of the earlier 
and best ages; and in others, not without a suspicion of interpola- 
tion. Thus in the commentary of Theodoret in i) 1. they ewc/ea- 
voiireil, though unsuccessfully, to foist in the words, roOro Trvp 
iruTr€vof.iey KuOaprt'ipiny, ki' w KcidapiCovTcu at xpvxni (os xpycrioy ey 
Tu xi^t'evrTiplw. (See the note at toin. 3. p. 183. edit. Noesselt.) 
On Purgatory it has been well remarked by Eisner, that this Ji^. 
meittum Papislicum was derived from the dregs of Rabbinical non- 
sense and absurdity. And he refers to Eisenmenijer's Judaismus 
Dttectus, P. 2. C. 6. p. 337. 

16. ouK o'/Sare QT^ vaoy 06ou ia-re. There is here 
(Kraiise remarks) a transition to what had been be- 
gun at verse 9- ''from which (observes Grotius) 
the Apostle had digressed to other things, though 
nearly connected with the preceding." Yet I assent 
to Crellius, that it seems to have been partly suo-. 
gested by the architectural metaphor just used, 
which the Apostle yet continues. Jt is also re- 
marked by Justinian : " Hactenus de structoribus et 
materia dixit ; nunc de ipso aedificio." 

What is here said is not to be understood of indU 
viduals* but of the whole commiuiity of Christians, 

* In this view, then, the farrago of Classical citations adduced 
by Wets, (chiefly from Eisner,) are of little value; thouirh, as em- 
bodying the opinions of some eminent antients on an mteresting 
subject, they are deserving of attention. Of these 1 have selected 
the following. Ovid de Ponto 2, 1, 34. iUo quae templum pectore 
semper habet. And 3, 6, 26. Justitiam— jam piidem posuit men- 
tis in ffide suce. Valer. Max. 4, 7- Vires amicitiaj — quibus pene 
tantum venerationis, quantum deorum immortalium ceremoniis de- 
betur— ut illarum aedes sacra domicilia, ita harum fida hominura 
pectora quasi quodam sancto spirit u referta templa sunt. Anton. 
€7reid>t7rep aofiaruts els rdv ;//vx'> X'^f'O'' elabverai 6 Qevs, Trapa- 
aKevudwfiey riv tottov iKeivov w% heart KuWiarov a^ioxpewv ly. 


at least at Corinth ; and on this occasion the Apostle 
follows the mode of speaking adopted in the Old 
Testament, where God is said to dwell among the 
Jews, and they are said to be the temple and habita- 
tion of God ; by which is suggested their obligation 
to worship him, and his gracious favour and protec- 
tion of them. (Compare Levit. 26, 11 & 12. Ez. 37, 
27.) This metaphor is occasionally employed by 
Philo and the Rabbinical writers. So Rabbi Aschek 
on Haggai 2. remarks that the Israelitish people 
are said to be the Temple of God. 

Some of the Greek Commentators suppose that 
Paul meant by this to pave the way for his censure 
of the incestuous person.* But that depends on the 
interpretation here adopted. 

16. Kou TO YlveZ^Ka rod 0eoG ojKeT iv u^xlv ; and that the 
Spirit of God dwelleth in you; namely (explains 
Rosenm.) as it did formerly dwell, first in the Ta- 
bernacle, and afterwards in Solomon's Temple, and 
manifested His especial presence, so now, by the va- 
rious operations of the Holy Spirit, He is present 
with you.*' By o1k6T is meant kvepyei: and I cannot 
assent to the position of many recent Commenta- 
tors as (Rosenm. and Krause) that by :rveC]aa toG 0eou 
is meant the Christian religion, and the benefits and 
virtues attending it : which is too vague and gene- 
ral. The common interpretation was supported by 
all Commentators up to the time of Vitringa. I 
must also observe, that when the Apostle mentions 

biairrj/ia Qeov yeyr](T6^evoy' el be j^d), Xijfferai iieraraaras els ^repov 
oIkov 6 Qevs. Hierocl. Aur. Carm. p. 24. cat rcwr els v-Koho-)^i]v 
rov Qelov (pcjro^ toi> eavrov Trapaai^evdSoji' vovy. 

* And this does not materially differ from the view taken Wolf, 
whose words are these : " Triplici argumento hie utitur Paulus ad 
Christianos a fornicatione abducendos, quod a tribus divinitatis 
personis ordine est repetitum. Primiim desumitur a Patre, tan- 
fjuam qui non minus corpora nostra aliquando, quam olim Ohristi 
corpus excitavit, in lucem sit producturus : v. 14. alterum ab arc- 
tissimk unione nostrCim, tanquani meinbrorum cum Christo : v. 15 
■ — 18. tertium ab inhabitalione Spiritus S. quem nacti simus a Deo, 
i. e. Patre, qui scilicet ilium in nomine Filii miserit." 


the body of Corinthians as being tliat wherein the 
Holy Spirit exerted its influence, it must be sup- 
posed that he considered at least the bulk of them 
to be under that Divine influence ; and therefore, 
in that metaphorical sense, every individual so fa- 
voured might be said to be the temple or habitation 
of the Holy Spirit : and so far the common interpre- 
tion of the precerling clause, and that which, on the 
authority of several eminent Critics, I have adopted, 
come to the same thing. 

This whole passage is well illustrated by Arrian, 
Epict. Diss. 2, 8. (cited by Raphel.) o-u aTroo-Trao-joia 
6» tolJ yeoy, €}(€i9 ri iv (reanTcp [xeooy €K€ivou. Tj oZu 
ayvQ€7f (Tou rvj v euyeyelav ; Ti ouk oUrxs Trohev 67.r;Xu5as' ; 
— aeov Trepi^epei? TraAay, /cat ayvoels ; — 'Ev a-auno i^epei^ 
aurov, KOLi /xoAuvcov ouk alo-^avv^, a.Ka(iaoTOi9 [xev ^tavov^- 
[J.a<ji, puTTaoais 6€ 7rpa^€(ri. Ka* a-ya.y^y.aTOS' roG OeoG 
TrapovTo?, ou/c av ro7\[t.ri(Tai^ ri roorcov ttojoi/, wv Troiery 
avToo ToG OeoG TrapovTo^ €<raiQeu, ko) i^opc^vros Travra, 
Kat €7raKovovTO^, oui< aia-^dvy] raura eQuixo'jfxevo^ koi 
TTOiojy. And Hierocl. p. ^4. •^u)/r,s' Aca^a&as" ro-ou 
o\K€i(jr€pov €7r) yrjy ^eoy ouk e;^ei. Jos. Ant. 6, 8, 2. 6 fxeu 
7rpo<^rir€'j€iv Tip^aro, too beio'j Trvevixaros' ely ccutov jtxe- 
ToiKi(raix€vov. 1 cannot but suspect that both the 
above Philosophers had this passage of St, Paul 
in mind. That they had attentively perused the 
New Testament I have adduced frequent proofs. 

17. e'/rtyrov vaov — Qeo^. The A])ostle now directs 
an admonition and threatening, forewarning them 
against the corrupters of the Church. (Crell.) This 
corruption might take place, 1. by false doctrines; 
2. by evil examples in morals; 3. by factions and 
dissentions. (Grot. Calov. and others, ap. Pole.) 

<l>9etper is for ^lai^Selpei, which is common in the 
best Greek writers.* 

* And especi.iUy when user! of tlie sack and plunder of a city or 
country; or tlie corruption of female virlue, to which latter sense 
all Wetstein's exampks tend. By which it would appear that he, in 
common with Locke, supposed the Apostle intended this language 
against the incestuous person. 


4>Sep€T, i. e. aTroXeVe/, " him will God punish 
most severely." So Rosenm. This, however, scarcely 
represents strongly enough the perdition which 
awaits corrupters of the Temple of God, unless they 
hearken to warnings, and avert it by timely repent- 

17. yap vaos tou 06oG ayios ia-riv. This clause 
gives a reason for the preceding : " For the Temple 
of God is Jwlij'* The wore ayios is emphatic, and 
carries with it a clause left to be supplied ; viz. 
" and therefore not to be violated with impunity." 
Of this signincation of ayios, namely inviolate, Eisner 
(whom see) has learnedly treated, adducing examples 
from Strabo, Julian, and Plutarch. It may be com- 
pared with the Latin sanctus. Theophylact observes 
on the term c^SepeT, that it is not imprecatory, but 
only predictive. 

17- oiVivey e(rT€ 6/xeTy, " whose temple ye are." The 
relative, as Crellius observes, follows the number of 
its consequent. Hardy, too, remarks, that the rela- 
tive placed between two substantives sometimes re- 
ceives the gender and number of the preceding, and 
sometimes of the following. (See Matth. Gr. Gr.) 
This Doddridge rightly applies both to the body of 
the Corintiiian Church and to the individuals who 
composed it. 

18. The Apostle now proceeds to lay open the 
origin of the broils and dissensions which had 
harassed the Corinthian Church. (Crellius.) 

18. p.rj SeTy eauTov e^aTrar ctTw, "let no one deceive 
himself," i. e. by resting on the vain opinion of his 
own wisdom, or of wisdom in general, which, with- 
out aids and lights, cannot but deceive. Theophyl. 
supplies, voiKi^mv on aXKoiS €)(€i to Trpay^a, kou oh-/_ coy 
elxov. But this seems too arbitrary an ellipsis, and 
the sense too limited. The question, however, is, 
whether the admonition is to be considered as appli- 
cable to what has been saidyV-om ver. 10. or to what 
follows. Some recent Interpreters prefer the/or- 
7ner ; assigning to the words this sense : " Nemo 
igitur se ipsum decipere et putare velit, plane idem 


esse, quidquid alios dociierit, et quo animo quove 
consilio hoc fecerit/' The latter is adopted by the 
antient, and almost all modern Commentators, and 
is especially supported by Grotius, who explains 
thus : " See that you do not attribute too much to 
your wisdom and learning, by resting on it, and thus 
deceive your ownselves." This interpretation has, 
I think, all the marks of truth. 

It is well observed by Grotius, that all human 
philosophy repugnant to the Gospel is but deceit. 

IS. e'/ T19 OQKei <to(P''js ehai, &c. Here again the 
interpretation is uncertain, and will depend upon 
the construction and punctuation. The clause kv 
rfj aicovi rouro) may be taken either with the preced- 
ing, or with the following words. The latter method 
was formerly pursued by Origen and Cyprian, and 
afterwards adopted by Beza, Grotius, Hammond, 
and Locke, and has been followed by most recent 
Commentators, who assign to the words this sense : 
"If any one of you thinks himself wise, let him not 
scruple to be a fool in the opinion of this age, that 
may be really wise." (See Rosenm. and Krause.) 
And this interpretation is thought to be confirmed 
by the verse following. But the ^rsf exposition 
is equally supported by it : and as this clause can- 
not, without great violence, be separated from the 
preceding, so that interpretation seems to deserve 
the preference. If I mistake not, too, it is more 
assimilated to the Scriptural style and manner. 

Ao/ceT (Tocpoy elvat. Dr. Macknight renders this, 
"thinketh to be wise." But this is neither English 
nor an accurate translation of the Greek. In So/ceTv 
there is an idiom, by which it signifies ** to be 
thought to be ; to have the credit or reputation of 
being ;"* and this whether on good grounds or not. 

* As this idiom is little known or illustrated by Critics, the fol- 
lowing examples, out of a great number which have occurred to 
me in my own reading, may be acceptable. Thucyd. 1, 19. arTjp 
£,vv€Tds boKdv elrai (ruxppwv, " who had the reputation of being a 
man of sense and moderation." Dion. Hal. p. 653. ret ttoXltlkU 


18. €V rep aiaivi toutco, i. e. "in the things of this 
world," and especially in learning, eloquence, phi- 
losophy, &c. 

18. fxcopoy yeveVQa), "let him begin to think himself 
ignorant (of many things)." "Iva yevrira (ro<^o9, " in 
order that he may thereby become really wise; that 
being the likeliest mode of attaining wisdom." 
Wolf aptly compares a similar sentiment of Epict. 
Enchir. c. 18. el irpoKo-i^ai be7\€i9, uwo^xeivov eve/ca twv 
€KTo^ avous So^at Koi Tj'x/Seoy ftr^Sev '^a-j'hou ^ok€iv iyri- 

19. ■»] yoLp — rco ©eo) eari, "for the wisdom of this 
world (only) is (but) foolishness in the estimation of 
God." By (7o(pla is meant the wisdom of men who 
rest on their own intellectual powers, without a re- 
ference to God ; a wisdom which has no more effect 
in procuring salvation than foil)'.* llapa rw 0€(p. 
This sense of Trapa, <7/?z/f/, is found not only in the 
Scriptural and the Ecclesiastical writers, but in the 
Classical ones. Thus Xenoph. Mem. 1, 6, 13. (cited 
by Krause.) Trap T^fxiv voy,l§eTai, rr^v cvpav Koi T7]V(ro(piav. 
See also Acts '26, 8. 

This truth the Apostle then proves and esta- 
blishes from the testimony of Scripture. 

19-0 '^pa<T(roiK€vo9 tovs coc^ous" €v ty). tt. a. Taken 
from Job 13. where the Sept. has, KaTa7\.aix(iavcov 
rou9 (TQ'iiovs iv rfj (ppovrj(r€i, which yields the same 
sense; though 8^ao-o-. is a stronger term. It signi- 
fies properly to ctench ivith the fist, gripe, grasp; and 
then to seize hold of, catch, hold fast. So Hesych. 

hoKu)V ehni (ppoyifAWTaros. Xen. Hist. p. 1, 31. Xeyeiy re boKwv 
ical joovXeveiv to. vportoro. And 3, 1. ai'»)p boiCuJr elvai ^ciXa 
f^iri\ariKus. Eurip. Troad. 395. b6t,as aiz/p iipia-ros (of Hector?) 
o'ly^eTUi QavLJv, '' he died vvith the reputation of being," &c. Be- 
sides many other passages, which, I find, I have cited on Maik 
10, 4'2. 

* And on this it is well observed by Theophyl. Ov jiovov yap 
ovhev (rvrreXei rrpus t))v aXr)divi\v iTO(j)iav, uXXa ku) /.iciXXoy k^irohi- 
<2et, are ti, oh'jaews cnraUovira fiadelr, Kai bia tovto Iv ayyoi(jt elrai 
ttet TraparrK€va$.ovaa top tuvt^ \pi)jJievoy^ oOev Kul ais f^iwpol virocrKe- 
XiCioi'rai iraph rov Qcov. 


explains ^paa-a-ofxcvoi by /coaroCvrfy. Numerous ex- 
aiD^ples of the word are"' adduced by Wets. 

The eo-re is here omitted, by a Hebraism. Ua- 
vovpyia 13, ni this instance, a more exact version than 
(Ppr^y^ei. 'Ev (answering to the Hebr. 1) is put for 
oia, by. * 

The sentiment is too obvious to need illustration, 
(bee the 1 araphrasts.) Theophyl. expresses it thus : 
rois oiKCiQis 07rXoi9 ayrous" ;^;e<po'jTaj. 

^20. yiVMfTKei ro'J9 OiaT^oy 10-1X0^9 rwv (To<pwv, on cltri 
[xarmoi. Taken from Ps. 91, 11. where see the Com- 
mentators. A/aAoyjo-^ouy, counsels, plans. The word 
is properly a vox medicr significationis, hut is o-ene- 
ral y used by the Apostle in malum partem. See 
bchl. Lex. or Wahl's Clavis. Here again the senti- 
ment is obvious. See the Paraphrasts. 

21. Now comes the Epilogu^^ in which the Apostle 
returns to his former proposition. He here o-ives 
them a general admonition, not to boast of or trust 
m this or that teacher; for this would be absurd, 
since from all they might derive very considerable 
spiritual benefits. (Krause.) 

21. /xr,§e)s> Kaoy^a(T(ico iv (for eTrl) cxvl, '' boast on no 
account of men;" " as was common (says Grotius) 
among the Jews, who either followed Hi|lel or Sa- 
muel ; and also among the Greeks, as the Pythao-o- 
reans, Platonists, Aristotelians, Epicureans." *^ 

The Apostle then subjoins the reason: Trctvra y^p 
uixwv eo-Tiv. Here many Commentators think the 
neuter is for the masculine; q. d. *'all ;?ze/?," '' all 
creatures." This, however, is little suitable. It ra- 
ther seems to me that the neuter may refer to the 
quahficat^ions^and endowments of the Apostles. So 
lorv^ who thus paraphrases: r» o 

* And so Hanty, from the earlier Commentators : " All (hini,-9 


Here Wetst.ein compares Diog. L. 7, 1, 25. Kotircov 
(roCfxvv he TravTcc elvai. And 6, 72. tcov Qecov eo-rj Travrct, 
<p/Xo» 8e oj <ro<poi ToTy OeoTs', Koiva. Ze rdiv ^i'Kwv^ iravr aga 

22. e'/re IlaGAoff, eVre 'AttoXXcos*, elVe Ki]<pay. The 
general sense of this passage is tolerably clear; yet 
to adjust it to any rules of construction is by no 
means easy. The difficulty is occasioned chiefly by 
the highly elliptical cast of the sentence ; and that^ 
together with the abruptness, seems owing to the 
high-wrought feeling that dictated these words, 
which are, therefore, not to be tied down to the 
rules of ordinary composition. Without reason, 
then, was it that Markland stumbled at /coVju.os'. *' If 
(says he) by Koo-jtAoy St. Paul means the ivhole world, 
as it is commonly explained, he does not usually ex- 
press himself in that manner ; especially as he had 
just before said Travra yaq v[jt.wu ia-ri, and then de- 
scends to particulars, one of which is koo-|xo$'." But, 
apage ! apage I Was ever such dry and formal cri- 
ticism ! The first words may be thus paraphrased : 
*' Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, be the 
'preachers, all their endowments are yours ; all tend to 
your advantage ; or whether the world and all the 
people thereof, all must, under God's direction, tend 
to your advantage." After /coVju-os" I would place a 
colon, thus distributing these nouns into two classes; 
as follows : eire KO(ry.os, ('Ire §air}, eire Gavaroy, tire 
evea-Twra, e'lre juteXAovra. These highly elliptical and 
obscure words seem intended to express the follow- 
ing sentiment; (for of their actual sense who can be 
positive?) "All things whether in life or death, 
whether in this life or the next, are yours, as meant 
to be subservient to your good, both in producing a 
peaceful and tranquil life, and a placid and resigned 
death." So Rom. 8, 28. "All work together for 

were destined by the Almighty to be subservient to your advantage 
and salvation 31 you do not exist for the sake of teachers, but they 
for the sake of you ; God bestowed gifts on them for your advan- 
tage." See also Whitby. 


pood in the end to tliem that love God." (See 

2c3. 'JaeTy oe, X_t»G-ToG- X^jo-ros' 0€, 0€o'j. Here again 
we can do little more than approiimate to the sense. 
(.See the Commentators.) Considering what pre- 
ceded, I assent to those Interpreters who tiiink that 
uiLeis 0€, Xpia-roZ, is intended as a reproof for their 
pronencss to follow different masters ; cj. d. *' You 
are bound under the spiritual dominion of Christ 
alone, who is your only Lord." 

XpicTTos 0€, 0€oy. Hardy and Rosenm. paraphrase: 
"Christ is the minister of God, as far as respects his 
mediatorial office, and he does all things after the 
will of God ; and, so far, he is subject, and is his le- 
gate. Therefore ye are bound to venerate and wor- 
ship God only, and Christ, as your supreme Lord, 
and not any nian, whoever he be." The passage is 
well paraphrased by Whitby thus : "All things are 
your's by ministering to your good; Christ is God's 
bv ministering to his glorv."* 

Wolf compares a similar gradation in Philemon, 
frag. p. 306. where a servant says : 'Eao-j yap k-jpios 
fj.€v els' oiyr^p, To'jtwv 66 Ka.i coy ju.'j5itov r ccXXcov vo(j.os, 
'Erepcov T'Joavvoy, raiv T'j&ctvvo'jvrcov <po3o?, Ao'jXoi )3ao"i- 

* To the learned Commentator's arguments in refutation of the 
Socinian position, that Christ is here represented as inferior to the 
Father, 1 shall merely refer the reader, in order to be able to intro- 
duce the excellent illustration of Theojthylact 190. which is chiefly 
founded on Chrysostom. Ov\ wj 'Vf *>"» Xptoroi/, ovTd) Kal 6 Xpicr- 
Tos, Oeov' fifiels fiey yap Xpiarov, us epyov av-ov Kal irotij^a' 6 
be XptoTos, Tov Qeov, 6 vlos ~poaiil)yios, Kal ws airtov e^uy ror Ua- 
Tcpa. "iioTC el Kal fiia if \elis, ctWa bta<poc>os r; eyyoia' exet oi/be 
TO iravTa ovtws ktrrty i]^wy, ws iifiels rov Xotorou. 'lifjels fiey yap 
covXoi cff^JCK TOV XpiOTOv, Kal T7oiT]f^a' TO. be Trdyra, ov bovXa rifiiv, 
ovbk TToirjf^n, 'Qcrre ov *:a\«i>s jrotelre, aydpunrois eavroi'i irpooye- 
fxovres, Kal ravra \pi<TTov oiTes. 

" Doubtless, (to u-e the words of Mr. Slade.) in many passages, 
Christ, as a Mediator, is represented as coming from the Father, 
and taking upon himself the nature of man. Joh. 7, 16. S, 2S. IS, 
49. 14, 10. 1 Cor. 11,3. But the question is, not whether Chrut 
is ever spoken of as man, (for no one can deny it,) but whether he 
is not also spoken of as God, (which is equally clear)." 



This fourth chapter is made to commence at a 
somewhat improper phice ; since the six verses vvhicii 
commence it closely cohere with the preceding, 
being a sort of corollary, shewing what followed 
from the preceding, namely, the degree of estima- 
tion in which Christian teachers ought to be held, 
to whom the Corinthians had hitherto assigned 
either too much, or too little honour. See 1, 12. 3, 
4 & 5. (Krause.) The same view is taken by Ro- 
senm., and, I think, rightly. 

Verse 1. ourcos r^iJ^as T^oyi^ea-^w av^pwrros, oiS vTrrjpe- 
ray X^jo-Toy, "let a man (11?"^^, eKaa-ros or rjy), or 
every man,* so or thus regard us," i. e. in this man- 
ner, in the following manner, -{- Aoyt^eVQa), reckon^ 
think. A frequent sense in the Classical writers, 
who, however, do not use this syntax of the accusa- 
tive of person. 'i2 uTrriperas, *' as servants of Christ, 
not Lords of your faith." (See 1 Pet. 5, 3.) 'TTrripe- 
ra? is for Sta/covous". Theophylact well paraphrases: 
E-Treihr) uTn^perui €(ry.€u ol 8<Sa(r/caXo», ri rov ^ecnrorr^v 
a^evr€9, a.<^ ij^-coa ructv 67rr)plra)v oyojy.a§'eo-5e ; And 
Iheodoret thus : o nixr^a-ai ^o<j7\,of/.€VOS' ril^oi^, cos utttj^c- 
ray ri^aro), aly oiKouo^cvS' aioelaSco, y.eTp€irco r-ij <^J(ret 
TO yepa^. 

Ihe words oTrrjpeTois ^pia-rod, koI oj/covoju,ou9 fxuo-rr]- 
qlcov 0eou, Grot, observes, are meant by the Apostle 
to elevate those whom he might seem to have depre- 
ciated at 3, 7.; q. d. "It is a great thing to be a 
servant of Christ and a steward of the mysteries of 

1. Ka) okovo^ouy ju,. 6., "and stewards to dispose 
and deal out the benefits thereof." Properly the 
ol/covo/xoy was the administrator or manager of do- 

* This ellipsis is frequent in the best Classical writers, and espe- 
cially Thucyd. See Hardy. 

t Macknight ill rendera the ourws ihtn. 


mestic affairs (see Pignor de Servis 1, 326.) and 
tluis came to mean administrator in general. It is 
not, however, merely synonymous witli the preced- 
ing term, but a stronger and more definite one, and 
as suggesting a principal part of their ministerial 
dnty. For, as Theophylact well observes, ioei^ev or* 
ouK avoKovoixr^rwS' ttolcti ^prj tov Tifjyov yopriyelu, rxX7C oTy 
Se<, Ka) ore oe7, kou cos 0€7. 

By the fj-ua-rripia (as Rosenm. remarks) are meant, 
not the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Sup- 
per, but the doctrines of the Christian religion, 
which are called hi(/de?i, because they would have 
been unknown to all men, had not God revealed 
them. (See Rom. 16, 25.) Theophylact thinks 
there is here suggested another duty; namely, of 
not revealing these fxua-Tripia ecjually to all; which 
is not the part of a prudent o]/covoju,oy." But perhaps 
this opinion is not well founded. Possibly no more 
is intended than simply to denote the doctrines of 
the Gospel as what could not have been discovered 
by men, but were wholly a revelation from God. 
So Matt. 13, 11. yvivvai ra fAucry^oja r^y [t)a(Ti7\€ias 
raa'j ouoavcov ] and often elsewhere. See Eph. G, 9. 

2. Of "koiTTOV ^tjTelTai iv to?? ol/covo'|txojy, j'va ttkttos 
Ti9 eooe^Yi. It is well observed by Grotius, that the 
Se XoiTov is a formula^ which often, as here, im- 
plies no more than Xojttov, i.e. citterum: and is a 
mere connective.* Doddridge has very injudiciously 
pressed on its sense. I would paraphrase: "And 
now (remember) it is required," &c. 

ZrjTeTraj €V ro7s oiKovoixoi^. This is thought by 
Grotius to savour of a Latinism. But Latinisms are 
rarely met with in St. Paul. (See Kappe de Latinis- 
mis Nov. Test. p. 24.) It seems to me merely an 
Hellenistic idiom. -J- 

* And so it is considered by the Greek Commentators, who lay 
no stress upon it. Our common Translators have not ill rendered 
it 7noreover. I have myself rendered it now, which, I find, is the 
sense assigned to it by Mackniirht. 

f Krause indeed compaies a passage of Isocrates. But that 


The iW is for otj, "tliataman approve himself 
faithful." The Philological Commentators, as Loes- 
ner and Krause, take eup/o-Keo-Qaj for ehai ; com- 
paring Hebr. t«^!J^i. But this seems poor peddling 
criticism. It is plain that both the evplaKea^ai and 
the ^^!JOi are far stronger terms : on which point it 
is unnecessary for me to enlarge. 

There are many points on which the duty of an 
o\kovo^q9 and of a minister of the Gospel may be pa- 
ralleled, on which this is no place to dilate. (See 
the Doctrinal and Practical Commentators, and also 
Raphel.) There is one to which the Apostle now 
especially intends to advert ; and this is well stated 
by Theophylact from Chrysostom : iW /xyJ ra Zea-Tro- 
riKa (ri^€T€pl§rjTcn, Hvcc fxri toV Seo-TTorvj? ra 7rpuyy.aT(x. ]w.e- 
TOLveipl^riTai, aXX' toy cOO^nrpia Koi hecTTTOTiKo. olKovo|xa)V 
ouK oI/ceTa Xeycov eluai ra hea-TroriKa, ctXAa rouvavTiov, ra 
oi/ceTa ^etT-rroTiKOL. 

The circumstances of the Corinthian Church are 
here ably adverted to by Chrysostom and Theophyl. 
from whose illustrations we are supplied with mate- 
rials for showing the Apostle's drift, and tracing the 
connection, which seems therefore to be this : " But 
whether you who sit in judgment on pious and zea- 
lous ministers will avoid me the praise of fidelity, I 
neither know nor care." 

Ely eXa^ia-TQV ia-riu. This phrase, Capell and 
Grotius remark, is from the Hebr. ^J?D7. See Job 
15, 11. 2 Par. ^9, 34. Hagg. 1, 9. ; eiy and 7 being 
redundant. Or rather, perhaps, the sense of the 
preposition in that phrase had ivorn out. Rosenm. 
and Krause compare Themist. Orat. 19* «> Trap oySew 
rjV KO.) €V <payXcp avQpwTrou oLTroTC^elv K€<pa7^if]v. 

3. Iva ucj)' upov avuKpiQa). Many Commentators, 
as Grot, and Rosenm., interpret W for el. This, 

is not to the purpose, as the verb is merely in the active infinitive. 
Wetstein, indeed, more appositely quotes some passages from 
Aristid., Galen, and Sext. Emp. ] but neither are those quite to the 


however, seems too arbitrary. It is for ot» ; as just 
before. Tiie sense may be tluis expressed : " That 
I should be, as I learn I am.' 'AvuKplveiv properly 
denotes to examine the qualities of any thing or 
person ; and sometimes it denotes, as here, the 
result of that judgment, whether for praise or blame. 
Now the result of the avaKf>Kn9 would, in the Paul- 
lini, be praise; in the followers of Apollos and Ce- 
phas, blame. To soften the seeming harshness of 
this, the Apostle adds : rj utto a^^pcoTrlur,^ r^jaepay, i. e. 
" or of any 7«f//?'A- judgment." For 'Tj/xe^a is, by a 
Hebraism, used to denote a dai/ of judgment and 
simply judgment.* So the Latin dicere diem. It 
must be observed, too, that cty^ocoTrlvr^^ is emphatical. 
So the Syriac Version : " aut ab ullo filio hominis." 

In order again to soften the seeming arrogance of 
this, he adds : aXX' oJoe €[xauTov avaKolvco ; which 
words Ilosenm. paraphrases thus: "I cannot so 
judge myself, nor can I venture to say for a cer- 
tainty, w^hetiier I am superior or inferior to those 
whom you think superior or inferior to me." Schoett. 
observes, that the Apostle ventures not to do this, 
since such judgment is apt to be warped by self-love. 

4. ouOeu yap fjULayrto o-'jvoj^a. This is well para- 
phrased by Grot, as follows : " For though I am not 
aware of having ever done any thing wrong in the 
ministry committed to me ; yet it does not follow 
that I am entirely free from blame. -j- At ovoh there 
is (as is usual in such phrases) an ellipsis (through 
delicacy) of Ka/cov or 4>auXoi/ ; as in the Latin nil con- 
scire sibi : or of ctStKov, which is sometimes supplied ; 

* As QV in Joel 1, 15. 2, 1. 11, 3. 4, 19. Mai. 3, 19. I's. 37, 
13. Job '24, 1. 

f So Chrysost. (cited by Grot ) kot -l bt'iTrore, e't /n/ftj' iav-^ 
aupoibey, ou hebtKiiiojTctt : on avrtlJaivei' ///inori/irGat [jey ourtp 
Tiya (ii-tap-ti^iaTa, /Jt) ^o/r avrov e'lbivai raiira ret a/iapr//^(ara. 
And so riicophyl. ovk e'lf^ti undupos citto ciftapricis' e'lKos yho iif^iap- 
rfjaOat yitti' noi Ttra, efje bi ayi'oelv ravra. Tliere is a similar sen- 
timent in James 3, '2. " In many tliinH;s we oflend all." And also 
one in Clem. Alex. Bpor-ii/s uKovaas //^7^a/Jws Troppw (pvytjs, fiijbey 
crvveibios ahrus avT({), iitTTiOra. 



as in the passages of Heliodor. Aristoph., and Plato, 
cited by Wets., who has copiously illustrated the use 
of the word, both in construction and sense. In the 
best Greek writers the verb takes an accusative of 
the thing, and a dative of the person ; though some- 
times the accusative is omitted, from ellipsis ; as in 
Simplic. on Epict. 276. (cited by Wets.), which pas- 
sage I introduce on account of the sentiment : 6 Se 
a7roXoyotj|xevos', koi) jxt) rto eauroxj cruveihoTi apKov^evos-, KOii 
T-r) Kf>l(r€i rod Travra €\^6tos QeoG, h^T^os €(rTiV a.f>^(rK€iv av- 
^poiTTOis jSouXoju.fvos'. 

4. cOOC o\jK €v TouTco S€§iKa/a>]u,aj, " it does not, how- 
ever, follow that I am justified, and free from all 
blame." So eu rooro) in 2 Cor. 3, 2. And so Sjk. in 
Acts 12, 39. and Roiu. 6, 7- 

4. 6 he avuKpivcov |ut,e, KopioV €(rriv, " but whether I 
deserve praise, or blame, that must be decided by 
another being. He that judgeth me is the Lord.* 
My only judge, or he alone that hath a right to 
judge me, is the Lord." 

The above appears to be the true sense of this 
most difficult passage, on which Commentators, both 
ancient and modern, are little agreed. Chrys., 
Theophyl., Grot,, and Macknight, have egregiously 
failed in their endeavours to trace the sense. 

The words are thus ably paraphrased by The- 
odoret : T/ yag Aeyco rouy aXAouy ; iyw to, kclt ifxauTov 
aKpi(d(vf eTiCTapevoy Koi toj Tra^avojitov oySev ejxavro) cuv- 

ave^o^oLi' ava^evco 8e ttjv tou Kupj'ou \J/^<$)ov ju.rjSe/s' 8e 
oletrSoj iuavriov eivai to^ ouk €V touto) SeSi/ca/cojaai, tc5 
ouhev iy^aoTip (rvvoihoL' ou yap ecrriv ivavriov, aXAa a/co- 
XouQoV o"U|x/3a»vet ya^ TroAXa/cjy ko.) ayvooOvras a^a^rav€iv, 
l(rou ehai toGto kou ^ikoliov v]yoL»|xevouy' aXX' iT€pco9 opa. 
roirjTo tSv oXwv ©eos". 

5. to(rr€ ^Tj TT^o KajgoG tj Kplvere. The Apostle takes 

* Grotius paraphrases it : " Is est, qui detectis non actibus tan- 
tum, sed et cogitationibus exactissimuni, et de me et de aliis judi- 
cium feret." So Tiieophyl. 6 ^e Kvpios fioyos ktrriv, b dvpt/3<Iis cat 
d(y0aXw$ Kptt'ior. 


this opportunity to inculcate on them an important 
lesson. " Pass no judgment or decided opinion be- 
fore the time of judgment, namely, the great dm/ (as 
is explained by the words following, eo)? exQ^j o KJ- 
^loy), namely, the Lord's second advent to judge 
the world." 

Kpii/6iv is here used for avaKpiv€iv. 

Most Commentators apply the words solely to the 
case of judgment as to preference respecting teachers. 
But the Apostle, doubtless, intended to couch under 
it an admonition of universal application. 

5. oy Koi <P(iiri(r€i — Kapoicov. <Pcoti^€iv here signi- 
fies to bring to light, i, e. in a popular sense, i. e. to 
rnake known (as Suidas explains). By ra /cpuTrra toG 
a-KoTO'Js are meant things hidden in the heart ; as is 
explained by the next clause, which is explanatory of 
the preceding : ras (SouXas" twv Kap^iwv.* The sense 
of the passage is admirably illustrated by Chrysost. 
and Theophyl. 

Rosenm. thinks that the Apostle hints at some 
evil counsels and plans of innovations in the Corin- 
thian church which had not yet come to light. But 
this seems precarious and doubtful. 

5. Kou ToVe 6 eTrajvoy yevryceTat eKUCTco ctTro tou 0eou. 
The word eTraivoy is here (and occasionally elsewhere) 
used with a reference to its primary sense, which, as 
it is a word of middle signification, is simply any 
one's character^ tvhat he is thought of, whether for 

* Or we may supply ftovXevna-a. The complete phrase occurs 
in Dionys. Hal. 10, 10. 7/ bk rov bia/soiiov — ra KeKpviJfxera joov- 
XevfiaTa els (pws c'lyei. 

The phraseology is illustrated by Wets, from many Classical pas- 
sages ; as Athen. 599. lt,6r anvir^iv, k-^u- (tkotu) KpvTrreiy rube. Dio- 
nys. Hal. 5, 54. TCI k-pv-rrra els <pws €t,€yeyKOi'T€s, Arrian, Ep. 1, 4. 
aXT]deiay ftj-icrayri doi els Trayras aydpwrrovs eteyKMyri. To which 
I add Dionys. Hal. 320, 24. e^oicrei els (pws ret tcovTrrd. Liban. de 
ulc. nece Jul. 15. ^e^piv civ els <pws eXdij ri) Kei:pvf.iijeya. iiischyl. 
Ch. 811. (of Mercury) TroXXa h' aXXa (parel xP'/'-wv (si velit) 
Soph. Aj. 646". "Avayd' 6 fxaicpos KayapiB^r]Tos ■)(p6yos <pv€i KpvKT 
b' ubrjXa, Ka\ (pdyeyra Kpvirrerai. 

X 2 


good or evil ;* and also, by an Iiypallagc, \vhat is 
said or pronoinivvd upon his actions. JSo llesycli. 
i7ra.ivou9' ray Kpitrciy. The Common tators compare a 
simihir use of the Latin cA;^'//////, and, indeed, most 
langnao-es have many sneh words. '1 heopiiyl. (1 
think, from Chrysost.), has, with great taste, pointed 
out why the Apostle nsed this idiom,! namely, through 
delicacy, fly to eu^rjixrWepov aireO^ro rov Xoyov. Tiiis 
idiotu being admitted by the best Commentators, 
both ancient and modern, it is strange that Drs. 
Wells and l^^otldr. should iiave adoj)ted the vulgar 
and uncritical notion that it signiiies: " every man 
shall receive praise (namely, "tlnit which he de- 

None of the Commentators, I think, remark the 
force of the article, which here, as often, stands for 
the pronoim possessive : '' his eVaJvos*, the tVaivoy 
which fa Us to him.'' 

G. raura — [X€T€a-^rjixaTi(ra fly t/xaurov, " tiiese 
things (namely, " which 1 have now written, on the 
authority of teachers," 3, Sd. seqq.), I have in figure 
a})plietl to myself and Apollos, for your sakes, for 
your instruction ;" q. d. " 1 have brought forward 
this in my own person, and that of Apollos, as if 
what was saitl of others whom I, out of delicacy, 
forbear to mention, were a})j)licable to //.v." 8o the 
Syriac version : " IIivc })osui ile })ersonA mea et 
Apolline." Ami so 'llK'0])hyl. and 'I heodoret. Such, 
too, is the interpretation atlo})ted by Grot., who j)a- 
rnphiases : ♦' Quia hi vestri Doctores meo etiam et 
Ai)ollo nomine abutuntur, in nostra persona ipsis 

* W'itli which limy be comiiarcd fidiu Tlitn^ph. Sim. 10() b. ey to 
<j)ixye(H)v Tih tTis xl^i'xrja tTnl-iovXaa vv nu^)ei^i:iKnie, whoiv i'oi tTrtpvv- 
Xds I woiihl iv.n\ iTvipoXus. 

t And tliis IVom its oiipn u/rov per ano, aittlio, to he spoken of; 
Nvhieh I am suipri.^ed (he l^tymologist? ^liould not have seen. Lennep 
has here, as often, reached the very acme of ahsurtlity. 

Among- these words of middle si';nitieaU()n may be reckoned 
TToiit) ; as in Find. Nem. 1, 107., where it is said tliat //(ti»x'« is tbe 
va/imrwj' fuyaXtar trotra. 


ostendi, quam niodest(!i de se ac de aliis judicare 
debeant : qiiantaniqiic curam gererc vestri et pacis." 
And by Wets., who paraphrases: " IIiec quoL* de 
aiictoritate doctorum modo scripsi, ad me et Apollo 
transtuli, quos doctorcs piiinos habiiistis (supra 3, 5 
Sc 6. et coin 111. 1. y^iJ-oif) noti lit vos docereni, quoiiiodo 
nos gcsserimus, id cuini onmibiis notiini est ; scd ut 
nostro exemjilo compararetls arrogantiam jiscudo- 
postoloruiii, qui se f'also jactant meos vel Apollo dis- 
cipulos esse, et intelligeretis, quantniii mores illorum 
a iiostrisdiscrepeut. i, 19 & ^0. 2 Mace. 9, V2. 

Others, referring to 1, 8., pursue another mode of 
interpretation, and maintain that the Apostle means 
to say, that he himself brought forward the dissen- 
sions and schisms in the Corinthian church, so that 
it might seem that he and Apollos were the authors 
of them, although they were the farthest removed 
from any such character. But this seems very 
harsh. (See the note supra 1, 12.) MeTaa-^rj^arl^fiv 
signifies properly to change the a-^iiixoi, or habit* (as 
1 Sam. 28, S. and Phil. 3, 21. and elsewhere) ; and it 
seems here metaphorically ap[)lied to changing the 
form of .speech, which is also called by the Rhetori- 
cians (r-/r^ij.a. See Ernesti Lex. Tech. Rhet. 

'ATToAAro. The old form of the accusative for 
'ATToXXcom, on which see Matth. Gr. Gr. 

6. 7va iv r^[Kiv p-aOvjre to ixyj oTrep o yeypaTrrat <^poveiv. 
In the interpretation of these words Commentators 
vary in opinion. Most ancient and modern ones 
take them to mean " being wise above what is writ- 
ten," -i* viz. in Scripture, in which are so many ad- 

* So Grot. " Meroo-x';/'f"'*'^e'»' prnprib est HiJ//«re habit am : ut 
vidcrc est 1 Sam. '28, 8. Intle transfertur ad orationem, quae aliud 
vidctur dicere, aliud innuit : cujusmodi locutiones vocari a (irtiecis 
solent Xoyoi t«r^»//[<ar<iT^/t)'0(, quas conlrovcrsutsji'^urdlas dixit Quin- 
tilianusD, 11. etjiguras Suetonius Vespasiano el Domitiano : Hie- 
ronymus epistola 6(). ad Ilufinum. Philostiatus de Herode Atlieo, 
(Tyj]j.iari(Tas tui' Xoyay, fit^uratii oratione usus. Chrysostonuis de 
hoc loco agens in seimone De non vul^aiulis poccatis ; (rvrerrKiaae 
Tt)y KnTr]pyopiar." See also Doddr. and Mackn. 

t To which purpose the following passages are very apposite : 


monitions and exhortations to humiJity, And they 
remark that yiypajTran is often so used by the sacred 
writers. (See Grot.) This, however, has been by 
others thought harsh : and they take the o yeypaTrrai 
to mean, '* what has been written in tiiis Epistle.'* 
So CrelL, Just., Vorst., Menoch., and Semler. And 
this opinion has been ably defended by Eisner, Heu- 
man, Wolf, and others, and is adopted by Doddr., 
Macknight, and most recent Interpreters ; and, upon 
the whole, seems to be the best founded. The an- 
cient Fathers and Greek Commentators, too, may be 
considered as favourable to it, since they lay no stress 
on yeyoairrai , which they certainly would have done, 
had they adopted the other interpretation. 

With respect to the <Ppov., those who adopt this 
latter interpretation assign to it the sense tumidus 
esse, to be puffed up ; in which sense the word has 
often after it an uTrep. See the numerous examples 
cited by Eisner and Wets. 

6. Tva ]u,'>] ely oTreg toG ivos (pvo'ioua'Qe Kara rov erepou. 
This clause is expressed in a somewhat unusual 
manner. Hence on its meaning Interpreters differ. 
It may be translated : *' that no one may be puffed 
up, or proud of, or on account of, any one teacher 
to the prejudice of another." (See Rosenm. and 
Krause.) This syntax (namely the Indicative for 
the Subjunctive) is very rare : yet it is defended by 
Kypke and others; though perhaps on insufficient 
grounds: as there is reason to suspect many of the 
passages cited to be corrupt. (See Michael. Intr. T. 
Ch. 4. §. 12.) In fact, in such slight matters, MSS. 
are very inconclusive evidence ; and the best Critics 
for the last half century have thought that in such 
minutiae the analogy of the language is of far greater 
weight than MSS. 

6. Kara rou ircpoo, " to the prejudice or injury of 
the other teacher, who is thereby depreciated." On 

Philostr. V. Ap. 7> 33. firid' ws <ppouaiy vTrep rovs yo/xovs' and Thu- 
cyd. L. 1, 84, 3. afxcKrOenripoi tSjv v6[Hs)v — (Ti))(j>poy€tTT€poi. 


this signification of Kara, Krause refers to Zeun. on 
Viger. p. 611. On the above sense of cpua-ioua-^at 
and. of inflari, in tlie Latin, the philological illus- 
trators have much dilated. (See Wets., Loesner, and 

7. ris yap (re ^tuKpij^ei ; The Apostle here apos- 
trophizes an inflated teacher, designating under that 
character all who so acted. 

The words Th yap, &c. literally signify : " who 
hath separated thee from the common herd ;* who 
hath made thee superior to others." This use of 
^iaKoiv€iv the Commentators compare with the Latin 
secernere. No apt example, however, from any 
Greek Classical writer, has been yet adduced. 

7. rl he €x^^^) i- e. what hast thou, in the way of 
learning and knowledge, that thou didst not receive," 
viz. either from us Apostles, or especially from God. 
So Hom. II a. 178. (cited by Wets.) el jtiaXa Kapre- 

pOS €(T(ri, oeoS" TTOU (TOl TOO €6(OK€V. 

7. ei Se Ku) kXa&e^, ri Kau^oifrai a/y fXT] 7\a^cov ; This 
is expressed /;o;?w/(i;/</ and colloquiallij, but is strongly 
put. *' If thou didst even (/ca)) receive this know- 
ledge, why dost thou boast, as though thou hadst 
received it not, but had derived it from thy own 

genius.'' It is righly observed by Mr. Slade, that 
the Apostle is speaking of spiritual gifts bestowed 
on teachers, and does not mean to disparage human 
exertion. Theodoret, too, well remarks : OJSeis' kyr 
aXKoTpiais 7rap(XK0LTab7}KaiS' [J^eya 0pov€7' kiraypxjTrvei Ze 
raurai^, 'iva. (^vXa^ri rco heocoKori. 

The whole passage is admirably illustrated by 
Chrysost. and Theophyl., whom see. 

8. 7)^7) KeKopca-fxevoi da-re, 75 ^73 €7r7\.ouTr}a'aTe. 

A bitter irony and indignant sarcasm ; f directed chiefly (we may 
suppose) agiinst the conceited teachers, Paul's adversaries; q. d. 
" I see ye are like |)ersons who are satiated at a feast ; ye think ve 
have all, and need no more teaching or knowledge.'' 

'E7r\oiir//o-are — f.pnmXevfrare. By these expressions the Apostle 
merely places the same idea in different lights, by varying the niela- 

* So the Horatian secernere pnpulo. 

■f So Theophyl. observes : Bapvyofxeyov ktrn rd pj'/yuara. 


})hor thrice. It may be observed, too, that there is a clituax. The 
Jirst metaphor is taken from persons///ed with food, so as neither 
to need nor desire more. Tlie second, from persons so rich as to 
have no want of, or desire for more. The Ihird and highest degree 
of the climax, is derived from one who, fiom being a private person, 
is raised to the throne, and, having therefore attained the liighest step 
in the ladder, has nothing further to wish. 

Xiopis lifiwy, "without us," i.e. "through the means of other 

The above mode of interpretation is founded on the view of the 
sense which was taken by the ancient Commentators, and has been 
adopted by many eminent modern ones, especially Grot.,* and almost 
all recent Interpreters. And this seems the only interpretation 
that will bear examination. For as to the opinion of those who 
take lj3ac-i\. in its physical sense, and refer it (as does Macknight) 
to the domineering of a (dUe teacher or teachers, it is too strained 
and harsh. And the same may be said of inter[)reting KCKop. 
and uTzXovT. in the natural sense, Whitby, oddly enough, mingles, 
or jumbles together the natural and metaphorical sense in kirXov-l]- 
cruTe. Lastly, I must remark, that I know not why our English 
Translators should render: " ye have reigned." Why not, " now 
ye reign, like princes." For they had lightly rendered eTrXovrriaare 
" ye are rich." These Aorists, indeed, mu^t all be taken as pre- 
sents ; than which nothing is more common : and this is required 
by (he next words. f 

8. KOLi ^(p^kov y€ i^(x.cri7^€v(ra.r€, " I would to God 
ye did reign." Here again the Commentators above 
mentioned take e^'k. in the physical sense, and 
render the words thus : " I wish ye had the autho- 
rity of princes, that ye might afford shelter and pro- 
tection in our persecution and troubles :" or (as 
Macknight explains) " reign over the Church with 
you." It is strange that some Commentators of emi- 
nence, as Grot., Whitby, Locke, and Rosenm., should 
have embraced so absurd an interpretation ; inso- 
much, that even Doddr., who explains the other 

* Who compares similar sentiments in Hos. 1'2, 8, Is. 47, 7 & 8. 
See also Wets., who has given many examples of a similar rnetaj)h()r 
in the Latin regnare ; as Hor. Ep. 1, 10, 8. Quid qiijeris ? vivo ac 
regno, simul ista reliqui. 

t The passage is admirably paraj)hrased by Theophyl. as follows. 
O'vTU) ra-^v ovbei'OS tare tv XP^'? 5 «A\' //^j; tKopeerOijre, cu oXiyui 
^(pov^ eis TO reXeiof (jidaauvres, Kai tuv irXovrov irav-a Ttjs re yvw- 
trews Kcii tCjv ■^apKrjJLaTuyv XafSorres ; Kairotye ev rw yueXXoiTt tan 
TO reXeiov' vj-ieTs be avro ribrj, ws eoiKey, e^ere' // yap Kav^ijais 
rovTO btjXol, on eh avrl^v e^^aaare rijy reXeiorrjra. 


words in the natural sense, here cannot digest such 
a sense of e^atrik. " For (observes he gravely) one 
can hardly think the Apostle did indeed vvisli eacli 
of them a prince, or the civil power in their hands." 
No, truly ! 

The Greek Commentators have here, as in most 
other occasions, seized on the right interpretation. 
(See Chrysost., Theophyl,, GEcumen., & Theodor.) 
They notice (which is the only true clue to t!ie sense) 
that here the irony is dropped, and the sentiment is : 
" I wish from my heart that ye were so abundant in 
all spiritual improvements: for then I migiit partake 
of your prosperity, in the credit and honour which I 
should enjoy from having converted and taught you. 
since the fame of the pupil tends to the honour o 
the teacher." So Theopliyl. 194. 'H yap u/xo^v So Ja 
€[J.rj ea-TiV ivre) /cat ttuvt) OioarrKaT^ip, 73 twu ^adr^rcov re- 
T^eiorris^ iTriTroSrjTOS. 

Among tlie few modern Commentators who have 
seen the true sense, are Calvin, Light., Tiron., He- 
noch., and Krause. Doddr., in his paraphrase, ab- 
surdly makes it a reference to Christians being 
" Kings and Priests, a royal priesthood. An idea not 
applicable here ; though it seems to have entered 
into the mind of Theodoret, and confused his per- 
ceptions of the trutli. 

9. ^oKco yap oTi ©eoy 73'. t. a. e. a. w. k Sec. The- 
ophyl. well remarks, that these are the words Ad^to'j- 
fxevof>, (xaAXov oe evrpevrovTos' ; or, as CEcumen. says, 
/caraio-p^uvovToff. On their scope and force Chrysost. 
has treated with his usual ability and taste. lie re- 
marks, that the words are written jmera TrXei'ovoy ^ap^j- 
S'j^ioc^. And he notices tiie strong emphasis in rj^aa?. 

As a preface to a brief philological analysis of this 
passage (which is obscure from the high-wrought 
feeling of the writer) I will lay before my readers the 
excelleiit paraphrase of Theophyl. (founded chiefly 
on Chrysost.) : 'iiy opui yup, e^ c6v i/xeTy ToJtTre. r/xeig 
oi 'AttoVtoXoj ha-^aroi TravTcov Trapa. 0eou aTreoe/^^r^fAev 
Ka» eViSavaxjoj, toutctti, KciraoiKoif Trpos" to ^avaroyo-Qat 


7rap€(rK€ua(ry,€VQi' k^ wv yap ui>,eis "^Stj, e3a<riXeu<raT^, 
(TTd^a^ofJLOLi an "Kanrov 7]y.€ls KO(.raK€Kpi^€^oi, eVp^aroi ehocif 
Ku) ojy Kard^iKQi' rlfxei^ oi dtToVroXoi, tout i(rTiv, ol roa"- 
auTct U7r€p ^pKTTov TreTTovSoTes*. 

It must be observed, with Chrysost., that the turn 
of the whole passage is ironical; and the force of 
the irony (as Grot, has rightly noticed) chiefly rests 
with hoKcd, which is used, Hke the Latin credo, paren- 
thetically. In fact, it has nearly the same sense with 
toy So/ceT; and thus we may render, "God has, it 
seems,'" &c. Grot, well paraphrases : " If, at least, 
as you seem to think, God's favour may be inferred 
from success," &c. 

9. "jifAay Tovs aTOOToXouy etrp^arou otTreS., has set US, 
the Apostles, in the last place.'* This sense of ctTro- 
86</cvL»jut<i (by which it signifies to show any one his 
place, set him there, appoint, &c.) is frequent both 
in the Scriptures and the Classical writers j and ex- 
amples are adduced by Krebs and Raphel. 

'Efrp^arous", " lowest, last, of the most inferior con- 
dition." It literally signifies the lowest of any row, 
and it is used in the same manner as the Latin extre- 
mus and postremus, of which Krause gives examples 
from Cicero and Apulejus. It may be sufficient to 
consult Facciol. Lex. 

9. o)9 eTjQavariW. This is commonly interpreted 
hestiarios, or those exposed to wild beasts. So Ter- 
tull., and, of the modern Commentators, Scaliger, 
Grot., Calvin, Estius, Beza, Eisner, and others. But 
it has been justly doubted whether this signification 
of the term can be established. At all events, it 
would here be harsh. There is, surely, no necessity 
to desert the signification suggested by the nature of 
the word itself, and assigned to it by Chrysost., 
namely, " men condemned to death." The word is, 
indeed, rare ; yet is has been adduced, and in this 
very sense, from Dionys. HaL Ant. 57- where it is 
said of the Tarpeian rock : eo-n 8e to ^copiov Kprifxvoy 
e^aiVioy, oSeu auroTy eOoy j3aA7y.ejv tous* ViOavariouy. 
Other examples from ^lian and Demosth. may be 


seen in Scbl. Lex. The word is also found in Suidas 
and Hesych. Here, therefore, it is to be taken, in a 
metaphorical sense, for the most abject and exposed 
to derision * ;" which signification has been adopted 
by most recent Commentators, including Schleus. 
Lex. To the same metaphor, Kypke thinks, /coXacp/- 
§€(rQai at ver. 11. and Xo»8opeT(rQaj at ver. 12. are to be 
referred. But this seems too formal and hypothe- 

The words following, on Searpov iy€vri$i^ix€v t(£ koo-- 
[/.ip Kou ayyeXoiy k. a. involve no little difficulty. It is 
the opinion of most recent Commentators, that the 
Apostle here continues the metaphorical and ironical 
representation commenced in the verses preceding. 
And to the objection, how angels can be thought 
appropriate to a spectacle ? they answer that the ex- 
pressions, Kotr^co Ka) a.yy€7<oi^ ku) avQ^toVoj?, are meant, 
by a ix€pi(TixQs often used by St. Paul, to denote the 
whole universe. (See Eph. 1, 10. Rom. 8, 58 & 39. 
Matt. 5, 10. 11, 25.) And they compare Cic. Ep. 
ad Fam. 1, 9. neque solum dixi, sed etiam sa^pe fa- 
cio, Diis hominibusque approbantibus. Krause, who 
adopts this interpretation, renders thus (after Ro- 
senm.) : "NosApostoli tanquam ii, qui ignominias 
suppliciique causa in theatro producuntur, foed^ at- 
que miser^ tractamur, in conspectu omnium." And 
he compares Sallust. Jugurth. IJ. At ego infelix in 
tanta mala praecipitatus — rerum humanorum specta- 
culum praebeo. 

This, however, seems too bold, and taking an un- 
warrantable liberty with the sacred text. 1 am there- 
fore inclined to think (though it seems not to have 
occurred to any of the Commentators) that there 
ought to be a colon or a period at eTriQavariou^, and 
that the Apostle, after having before spoken figura- 
tively and ironically, suddenly makes a transition to 
the serious and the literal ; though the idea con- 

* For criminals used, previous to execution, to be led about the 
town, that this ignominy might be increased. 


tained in these words was suggested bv the preceding 
metaphor. The sentence may, then, be thus para- 
phrased : "and in one point of resemblance, we may 
truly be called eTnSavarjof for we, like them, are 
become a sight and gazing stock to the whole^ uni- 
verse, both to angels and to men." For the Apostle's 
toils and sutferings were (as Chrys. says) TraXajV/xara 
kol) T^y 0Lyy€7^7^iK^s Qecopi'ay oi^ia. And tliat great mas- 
ter of Scripture seems to have been not unaware of 
the transition just mentioned. For, with his usual 
acuteness and fine taste, he remarks: ''O^a acp' cov 
iauTQV €^€ur€7^i^€i, wws Trakiv y^lyav ^€iKvu<nv a.<^ wv oe 
€K€iVoi u,€ya tppovoucri, ttcos^ aJrouy eure'Keis GL7rQ(palv€i' 
eTei^eyao to [Kuypov^ eivai rou c^^ovip-ouy (paiv€(rQoti, koi to 
acQevej? elvai roG Icr^upovy yiv€(rbai, Koti to aTi[xous eivai 
ToG kvho^ous Koi Trepiipavel^ eGreXe^rre^ov €lvai e^o/ce/, ko.) 
rot. tx,6V iK€ivoi9 ju.eAAej Tr^ocrpi^rretv, ra he auTos Kcirede^- 
aro' heiKvufTiv oti raGra a<€ivcov a[X€ivco, elye Sia raGra 
i)jr\ U.OVQV avBpwTTcov, dtXXct kcx.) aoraiv rwv ayyeXojv tov Srj- 
U.OV TTgoy Triu ^ewpiav eTcea-rpe-^e tyjV eaurujv. 

With respect to dearpov, many eminent Commen- 
tators (as Grot, and Kypke) have rightly noticed 
that it is to be taken figuratively for Sedtjuta, a sights 
or gazing stock;* as in Arrian. Epict. 3, 22. (cited 
by Krause,) os* y^ eve/caX7\.a)7r/^6To tois Trepia-Taa-ea-i, ko) 
$ea^a. ehoii r^^lou tcuv TraQiovTcov. There is the very 
same thing expressed in a kindred passage of Hebr. 
10, 33. <pa)T^a■6€vr€S 7ro70\r\v a^'kr\(Tiv u7r€y.€ivaTe 7raQriy.a.- 
Tcov — weihio-ixol^ T€ Ka) SXixf/ecTi Bearpi^oixcvoi. It is 
therefore a frivolous question which has been asked, 
whether by angels are to be understood good or had 
angels. We may, of course, understand both, so far 
as God may have seen fit to permit this, with respect 
to the latter. 

10. Tj^aeTs" y.a)po] Ota 'KpiO'Tov, G^xeTy 3e <^p'iVi^oi kv 


The Apostle, some thinkj again returns to the ironical ; and 

* So Theophyl. p. 194. ovk ev ywriq. fiiq. ira(7^of.i€v, itWd izav- 
Ta^ov yiis' Kal deojvTcit >/jucts ovtc ardpwTroi jiovol (pv yap ovttws €v- 
reXij rd yirojuei'a) aWd Kai oyyeXot. 


Ihey render : " We (i. e. T, Barnabas, Sosthenes, and Tiinotheus,)* 
are tools, bid Xpiaroi', i. e, quod attinet ad Christum, ivitli respect to 
(as Roni. 3, 2*. S, 10.) Cluist and his Gospel, or ihe knowledge and 
comumnicalion of his Religion." Thus bid Xpiarov will be syno- 
nymous with e^ XptoTwin the antithetical clause : and the following 
clauses will be, in some measure, exegetical of the preceding. 

But to the supposing an irony in ihe lirst clause it has been ob- 
jected, that the following ones by no means admit of it. Most 
Commentators indeed think there is no irony at all. And they in- 
terpret thus: " We have become, or we make ourselves, fools for 
Christ's i-ake and for the furtherance of the Gospel, by the abandon- 
ment of all aims at eloquence, even encountering the chaige of being 
illiterate." 'Ihe aadere'is will thus have the same sense as at c. '2, 3. 
(where see the note.) But, upon mature consideration, 1 cannot 
accede to this latter view of the sense. The^'ra/ clause, >7/ie7s fjiopol 
bid XpiaTor cannot hut be ironical, since the antithetical one, v/xels 
be (ppovifioL tv Xptarcp scarcely admits of any other inter|)retation ; 
and if tliis be the case, the following ones too, which form part of 
the same cluster, (namely, ?/^ie7$ dcideyels — drif.wi) must also be so 

The right clue to the Apostle's meaning has alone been seized by 
the antient Commeiitators, especially CEcumen., who says, that up to 
the words j/^uels ^e drifioi the irony extends, and there ceases. The 
same view of the subject is taken by Chrysost. and Tlieophyl., the 
latter of whom (chiefly from Chrysost.), among much other para- 
phrastical matter, has the following : llws bvyarbv rd h'avTia avv 
eXdelr iy rols ret aird ^poiovcrii' ; OvKour dyiiyKe >/ »//ic7s yu>/ Kara 
XpiffToy <ppoye~ty, ?/ vf.tds' dWd i.i>)y dyd^ioy tovs diroaroXovs rov 
XpifTTOv fi)) Kurd Xpiaruy (ppoyely vfiels dpa eare ol (T<paX\6fieyoc. 
And the words ?//<e7s daOeyels — dri/j-oi he explains : l/nels eXavyo^ 
f.ieOu, biioK6[.ie6a' vfAels bt dbeias diroXavere. 'V^eTs ficy 'iyboi,oi, kuX 
evyeyela' ///lels be ky dTif.ii(f. Finally, he lays down the following 
as the general sense : IT<I»$ eiKos i/f^ids ^ey Kai^oKadely, vj^us be dwo- 
Xaveiy ubeius, ical tv dyadols elyai •"Qiffre irpobeXoy, on ovk ey aya- 
dols kare, dXXd viiy fxdXXoy kukms kat av'as/ws rioy d~oa~6Xwy eyere. 
O'uK upa ofpeiXere inaipeadaL eTrirovrois. And SO Atto Vercellensis^ 
referred to by Sender. The passage is thus paraphrased by Ilo^enni. 
" Vos in honore estis apud vestios, nos autem ob nostra studia in 
commendand'i et projjagandfi religioneChristi non honore, sed con- 
tumelia afficimur. (Cf. sujjra 2, 2 & 3. 1, 23.) Abstinebant illi 
doctores, ut verb simile est, a doclrina de morte et cruce Christi,ne 
Judceos et Philosophos oftenderent, idque sibi laudi ducebant ; Pau- 
lum verb stultfe agere putabant, quod tradendo doctrinam de cruce 
Christi se et religionem Christ ianam ludibrio exponeret et calamita- 
tibus." He observes, that the false teachers in question probably 
abstained from inculcating tlie doctrine of the death and crucifixion 
of CInist, lest they should throw a stumbling block in the way of the 
Jews and the enlightened heathens ; and of this management prided 
themselves, imputing folly to Paul, for exposing the Christian reli- 
gion to ridicule by needless disclosures. 

* Or rather it slioidd be /am. 


11. a-x^i rr\i apri Spas, &c. The Apostle now 
drops the irony. *' Nay (not to mention past afflic- 
tions) up to this present day we suffer hunger and 
thirst, and are in want of necessary clothing." For 
this is the sense of ywjavTjTeuojuiev. And so the word 
is used by Basil (cited by St. Thes. 3085.), o Treivwv 
'rrJKeTo.l, b yo[xvr}T(Eua)V Trvj-yvuraj, is starved. So the 
Gloss. Sum nudus. The word signifies properly to 
be lightly clothed, like the yvixvrjTai, or light infantry : 
and hence, by catachresis, it Was used to denote 
being ill clothed. Thus it is not necessary (with 
many Commentators) to resort to that hyperbolical 
sense of yufj-vos, by which it signifies /// clothed, or of 
yu/xvoTT^yin Rom. 8, 35. and 2 Cor. 11, 27- 

On the thing itself Doddridge finely remarks : 
*' Surely one cannot imagine any more glorious 
triumph of the truth than what it gained in these 
circumstances, when St. Paul, with an impediment 
in his speech, and a personage rather contemptible 
than graceful, appeared in a mean, and sometimes 
tattered dress, before persons of the highest rank, 
and yet commanded such attention, and made such 

11. Ka) /coXa<pjJo|xeQa. This is, by almost all the 
modern Commentators, explained as said, by a sy- 
necdoche of species for genus, to denote any harsh 
or ignominious treatment ; as 2 Cor. 12, 7« " buffets, 
insult." But I see no reason why it may not be 
taken in the fhysical sense, (as in Matt. 26, 20. Koi 
€Ko'Ka0Krav auTov, and 1 Pet. 2, 20. ; though the lat- 
ter passage is by Schleus. placed under the metapho- 
rical head ; and one may also add 2 Cor. 11, 23.) : 
at least, this must be included, and personal ill treat- 
ment must be understood. 

11. Ko.) a.(rTarouy,€v, " and have no fixed or stated 
abode ;" which was perpetually the case with our 
Apostle, throughout the whole of his life from his 
conversion. The Greek Commentators render it 
eXaovo^e^oL, ^eoyoi^eu. But this seems wandering too 


12. KOI.) /co7r<<o|M,ev, ipya^ofxevoi r. \, x* The words 
may be thus paraphrased : " And yet, far from gain- 
ingany thing by these trials, we earn our own subsis- 
tence in tlie most laborious manner, by the labour of 
our hands." See Acts 18, 23. On jS., as often, no 
stress to be laid. 

12. 7\oi^oporjiJ.€voi, €uXoyQuix€v. These words up to 
etoy apTj appear to me an independent cluster of an- 
tithetical clausulas, and ought, in "the punctuation, 
to be so expressed. They are, indeed, introduced 
somewhat abruptly ; and Theophyl. well supplies : 
*' and what is more, we do not bear this indignantly 
or impatiently. Nay we even to those who treat us 
ill return good." Aoj^. euAoy. may be rendered : "being 
insulted and reviled, we give good words.** So Theo- 
phyl. €u(pr)]w,ou|xev. And SO Gloss Albert. Kako'KoyoZ- 
p,ev. All modern Commentators render euXoy. bless, 
on which Krause makes a very pompous, but need- 
less display of Classical references. 

In this elegant accumulation of antithetical clauses 
there appears to be a climax. 

12. Sjo^Ko/xet^oi, av€-)(o[K€^a. The word Ihokco is pro- 
perly a forensic term signifying to -prosecute : but it 
is popularly used in the sense of persecute ; which 
imports provocations and harassing treatment of 
every kind. (See Schl. Lex.) *Ave;^o^e9a, " we bear 
it (patiently)." The word is very rarely used thus 
absolutely •, and therefore the citations of the Com- 
mentators are little to the purpose. I am surprised 
they did not remember the av6;^ou, a7re;^ou of Epic- 
tetus, who, indeed, seems to have been indebted for 
the maxim to Scripture, and possibly to this very 

13. 3Aao-^7)|xo(j|xevot, iraq^aKCLkav^ev. This elliptical 
sentence has not been very well understood by the 
modern Commentators. Some supply (dehv. i. e. " we 
pray to God for them." But this neither the syntax 
nor the true sense of iraoaK. will permit. Others 
paraphrase : " we gently deny the charge brought 
against us." But this sense cannot well be elicited 


from the word. It is, I think, best rendered by 
Theophyl. Trpaoreoois' "^oyois, koc) [KaKaKTiKois ap-ei^o- 
ju,e8a. He observes, too, that the (dXa(r(pTiy.ia is the 
roayyrkpoL Cjdpi^ ; and t!ie TraoaKXrycns', the Trpauvoua-a 

As to tiie reading Suo-(?5'>3|U(,oG]u,e9a, which is, by Gries- 
bach, put on a footing with the text, it is mere gloss. 

We now arrive at the highest* step of the climax, 
coy TrepiKohapiKara roC koVjuiou eyevrjQrJixev. On the sense 
of TreoiKaQapixrxra Commentators are not quite agreed. 
Most of the more eminent modern ones take it to be 
a sacrificial term, and containing an allusion to the 
expiatory sacrifices among the Greeks and Romans, 
offered up for the people, and which, being selected 
from the very vilest and refuse of the populace, were 
called by that name. But to this I cannot assent. 
Such persons were almost always called KaSapixara 
with reference to the purification or expiation, which 
can have no place here. There can only be a refe- 
rence to the abject vileness of the victim ; which 
would be too remote; nor are such allusions to 
heathen rites common in St. Paul's writings. I 
grant, indeed, that Floder, in a Dissertation on this 
passage (Upsal I764.), referred to by Schl. Lex., 
cites two examples of this word from Diog. Laert. 6, 
32. fin., and Arrian Ep. 3, 22., where 7r€piKaBa2[J.a is 
used in this sense: but I suspect the reading to be 
corrupt. Therefore in the present passage I would, 
(notwithstanding what Wets, urges for oiWeo KaSap- 
fxara,) retain the common reading, which is defended 
by almost all the MSS. and other authorities ; and is 
supported by the antithesis. For the reasons above 
mentioned, I must also reject the interpretation of 
TrepiKaSapixara, adopted by most recent Commenta- 
tors. It is not necessary to suppose so remote an 
allusion. A very good sense is made by adverting 
to another, and indeed the primitive, sense of the 

* So Chry?., who observes that the Apostle strikes the hardest 
blow at the end (namely of the climax). 


word, which has been well illustrated by Theophyl, 
He explains it by aTroa-TroyyKr^ot,, i. e. the dirt or filth 
proceeding from any thing on being scoured about. 
He also observes that Treol^ri^oc has the same signifi- 
cation. He then lays down the following as the 
sense : axof>pl7rr€<r^ai a^io» ia-^JLev cos ^SeXuyjxa Aoy/- 

It is plain that Traurcav Trepivj/ryjtxa is a parallelism 
corresponding to rrep/vl/rjpa roG koo-^ou ; and tliat ecos 
apri has the same sense as ci^^i r^y oipri wpay at ver. 
11., which is the complete phrase. 'Eyevi^Q^/xev sig- 
nifies : *' we have been and are." 

Finally, the passage has been imitated by Barna- 
bas (cited by Wets.) iyw 7r€^/\}/r]|xa r^y ayaTrvj? vixcoV 
and Ignat. on Ephes. 8. TrepiyS/rnxa. ufxcou eydi. 

14. otjK evrp^TTdiV ujutccy — voyQeroJ. The Apostle 
here turns the discourse from the teachers to the 
Corinthian Christians in general; and, in order to 
somewhat soften the seeming harshness of the pre- 
ceding expressions, says : " I write not thus to you," 
as €vro€7roov, " as shaming you (for evTge\J/wv)," " with 
a view to shame you, in your own eyes and those of 
others." This sense* of evrpeVco is found in the best 
Classical writers ; as Plut. Vit. Horn. 

14. aAAa — vo'/krco, " but I admonish, warn, counsel 
you." The word vou^erelv properly signifies to instil 
wisdom, suggest counsel to the mind," and it occurs 
frequently in the Scriptural and Classical writers. 
Theophyl. well paraphrases : " I say not these things 
out of hatred, or in a rebuking spirit. Therefore 
forgive me any thing harsh. It is from love. I 
address these remonstrances to you as a father to his 
beloved children : and who would not attend to re- 
presentations from such a (juarter?" He remarks 
that the Apostle calls them sons, as having spi- 
ritually begotten them." 

* Viz. " to put to shame," DH2, to hash. The word properly 
wgnifies to make any one turn away his eyes for shame, by looking 
him full in the face. 

VOL. vr. Y 


15. iav yap ixooiou^ Trai^ayayyovy ep^vjre iu X., &C., 
** for though ye have numerous instructors, yet ye 
have not many fathers." Tliese words are parenthe- 
tical, and seem to have been suggested by the tckvcc 
preceding, which they are meant to explain. Or, 
as Crellius suggests, this may be meant to meet an 
objection : such as : " we have many instructors and 
spiritual fathers :" To .which the answer is : " If 
(as it seems) ye have jaup/ouy TraiSaywyouy, numerous 
instructors," &c. This use of a certain for' an un- 
certain, but larger number, is very frequent both in 
Greek, Latin, and English. See Krause's examples. 

naiSayfoyoy signifies properly the grave, elderly 
personage who conducted children to and from 
school, and who superintended their behaviour out 
of school hours. (See Pignor. de Servis p. ^33 & 
234., and Schoettg. on Gal. 3, 24., and especially 
Wetstein's examples on this passage.) Afterwards, 
however, it came to designate the informator, the 
instructor, or teacher. 

15. ev XpKTTM, '* in the Christian doctrine." 'Axx', 
attamen,yet. This use of the conjunction is chiefly 
found" after particles of concession, as iav et, &c. ; of 
which Kypke gives many examples. I am surprised 
the Commentators should not have seen that after 
TTurepas is to be repeated from the context ev 'Kpicmo, 
q. d. *' ye have many spiritual instructors, but not 
many spiritual fathers."* In ou ttoXXo-js" there is a 
delicate meiosis for tva [xovov. The words following, 
€V yap ^pi<rrip 'Ir^coG 8ta too e'jayyeTvlou eyco ufnas iyev- 
vr](ra are exegetical. Their general sense, indeed, is 
plain ; but on the exact force of kv Xp^rro) TrjcoG 

* This metaphorical sense of irariip, by which It signifies the 
author ot" any thing, he who originates it, and thus here, *' he who 
first instructs any one in the Gospel," is not merely an Orientalism, 
though frequently occurring in the Scriptures, but is also found in 
the Classical writers, from whom examples are adduced by Krause. 
It maij, however, be doubted whether this sense be here applicable. 
The term may here denote one who is parentis in loco, by having the 
authority of a parent, &c. See Schl. I^'X. 


Commentators are not agreed. Rosenm. takes it to 
mean, " by the doctrine of Christ; and regards the 
following phrase oia toG euayyeT^iou as explanatory of 
it. It seems not necessary, however, to resort to 
this uncommon sense of iv. I prefer, with others, 
to regard iv X^kttw 'I. as signifying, '* in the things 
pertaining to Christ.'* 

15. 8ta rou euayyeT^lorj eyco uju-ay eyevvr^o'a, " I begot 
you by means of the Gospel," i. e. (as most recent 
Commentators explain) " 1 first taught you the 
Gospel." So c6?jivi7v, Gal. 4, 19. Philem. v. 10. And 
so Slinhedr. fol. 19, 2. (cited by Wets.) Quicunqne 
filium socii sui docet legem, ad eum scriptura refert, 
tancjuam si enm genuisset. Doddr. explains: "I 
was the means of your spiritual birth." If this be 
the sense of the passage, it strongly supports the 
doctrine of baptismal regeneration. 

The eyu) is emphatic. 

IG. Tra^ajcaXoJ oov uy.6is [xiy.riTal [xou ylveaSe. Most 
Commentators here seem to too much limit the 
sense. Some think the Apostle means by i/.i;xr,T. 
imitators of the modesty he had previously shewn in 
this Epistle. Others take /xoy to be emphatic, and 
su])j)ose the Apostle means : "be imitators of ?/zp, 
and not of the J'alse teachers in question, and thus 
preserve the unity of the Church." But it seems 
simj)Jy the Apostle's intention to deduce from his 
spiritual paternity the inference, that tliey should 
be imitators of him ; just as parents and teachers 
are to their children the exemplar by which they are 
to model their character. The imitation, therefore, 
in question, is to be extended to every branch of 
Christian doctrine and duty. So Thcophyl. : Mjixr^- 
(xacrSe ev ttolo-iv ejtxe. And this interpretation is con- 
firmed by the words following. 

Wets, here aptly compares Herodian G, 8. wV [xrj 

€K€lvo\J avCp€la9. 

17- 3»a TouTo fTre^avj/a — X^icrrto, " for which rea- 
son," i. c. " thill ye may be the better able to trace 



my exemplar in doctrine and duty. 'O? €<rT», &c., 
'* who is my well-beloved and faithful trusty son in 
the Lord, convert. The construction is : hs eVri 
r€Kvov jw,ou ayaTTTiTov iv Kwp/o) Koi ttkttov (ep,oi). See 2 
Tim. 2, 2. And this is adopted by the best Com- 
mentators. Others, indeed, join Tna-rlv with Kug/o) : 
but the former method is best supported by the usus 
loquendi of Scripture, and is more agreeable to the 
words following, oV ujuta? avaju-vrjo-ej ia^ oSous" jxou Tay e. 
X., " and who may therefore be relied on in his re- 
presentations, and who will remind you," &c. 

The words ras- oSouy jutou ev Xpjo-ro> might refer to 
conduct and mode of action or conversation in general ;* 
but here they are limited by the context, and espe- 
cially by the following words, which seem exegetical, 
to denote " my methods of Christian instruction." 
So Theophyl. ray ev tm Kr}p6yiJ.aTi oI/coj/ojUL/ay, roi»y ku- 
vovas, TO. eQrj, rouy vo^ous rouy ^elous- And so Chrysost. 
and the other Greek Commentators, as also Rosenm. 
and Krause. In the same manner aywyri is used, 
2 Tim. 3, 10. Acts 24, 14 & 22. 

The Greek Commentators notice the delicacy with 
which the Apostle says remind, not teach; as Ti- 
mothy was but a young man. I, however, appre- 
hend that the Apostle rather means to hint that they 
have not well remembered his doctrines. A yet 
greater delicacy may be noticed in 2 Pet. 1, 2. "I 
put you in remembrance of these things, though ye 
know them," &c. 

These words are exegetical of the preceding, and 
moreover (as the Greek Commentators observe) are 
meant to suggest that these are no new, or special 
injunctions, but such as are common to all the 
Churches, and therefore what they ought to be 
ashamed to have deviated from. 

18, 19. ois jut.7) e/5;^oju,evou 8e /xou Trios' u/^as*, €<^u(nw- 
6r)o-av rives. There is something of the idiotical 

*AndsoPiscat.. Cam., Est., and Menoch., who also subjoin : *' and 
how it fares with me," &c. This, however, is too restricted a sense. 


or popular style in this sentence ; as in €p)(^o[X€VQo for 
eXeuo-ojotevoy (though M'e use the same idiom J, which 
literally signifies : " as I am not coming to you :" 
also in et^uo-jw^Tjcrav, which is a vox praegnans, and 
signifies : " some, puffed up with a vain confidence, 
are so bold as to say,'' Sec. 

The Apostle had been hitherto prevented, by his 
continual journies, from visiting his converts at 
Corinth ; and now some fancied he would not dare 
to encounter so formidable an opposition as he would 
there find. In order to preclude the suspicion that 
by this Epistle, and the mission of Timothy, he only 
meant to previously try how they were disposed, 
before he ventured to come to them, the Apostle 
boldly adds : (" But they are mistaken) : for (by 
God's permission) I will quickly come unto you."* 

He then subjoins a sentence (ku) ou tov 
X070V, &c.) which cannot, I think, in nerve and vigour, 
or dignity, and composed confidence, be easily pa- 
ralleled, even in Demosthenes himself. In the inter- 
pretation of it the Commentators are at issue. Most 
recent ones, as Semler, llosenm., and Krause, and, 
of the ancient ones, CEcumen. and Theodoret, take 
Trjv huvafxiv to denote power of performance, and good 
worksy as opposed to mere words. But this is ex- 
ceedingly harsh, both here and in the next verse. 
Chrysost., I think, has rightly explained it of the 
power of ivorking miracles. And so Theophylact, 
who well observes : 'KireiZyi ctt euyT^coTrla Sappouvrey 
€^oo^lvouv TOV IlauXov ftjy loicorr^v, (pri(r)v, on o\f/OjU,ai, ou 
TTJv euyT^coTTiav u^wV o'JSe yao ra^trr^s ^peiot' aXXa 
huvafxecos rr]S iv (rr^^eloi^. 0(3 yap S»a 2.6you /co]U,\}/oy 
eKr^pv^Bv] r) 3a<rjXei'a roG 0eoG ku) e^e^aJwQvj, a7vXa 81a 
a-n]^eiuiv rf, Suvajxet toG Hveu^aTos yivoixevcov. This in- 

* He had before intended this; but was compelled to delay the 
journey longer than he had foreseen ; so that before his visit there 
was an interval in which he thought fit to write another Epistle. 
See 2 Cor. 1, 23. The Apostle is supposed to have at length reached 
Corinth, at the expiration of a year after the period when he wrote 
this Epibtle, (Rosenni.) 


terpretation, too, is adopted by Crellius, Grotius, 
Whitby, and Locke, Others, indeed, take it of the 
power of' the Holy Spirit, as shown either in preach- 
ing with the demonstration of the Spirit and of 
power, 2, 4. (as is the opinion of Calvin), or (as 
Vorst.) in its efficacy on the doctrine and life. But 
both these expositions are too hrnited. The expres- 
sion evidently refers to the efficacy of the Holy 
Spirit, as shewn both in miracles and in irresistible 
power of preaching, as well as unerring soundness of 

Macknight, absurdly, interprets it of the power to 
defend themselves from the punishment of the 

Tivio(TKoiKai. A vox praegnans, signifying : *' I 
shall fry and put to the proof, and thereby know." 
For, according to Glass's Canon (Phil. Sacr. 828.) 
verbs of knowledge often denote, not knowledge 
alone, but certain motions, affections, and effects, 
which are conjoined therewith. See his examples, 
among which is the passage in question. 

20. 00 yap ev Xoyo) — Suva^uiej. Here again Com- 
mentators are not quite agreed on the sense. One 
thing is certain, and ought never to have been ques- 
tioned, namely, that these words have reference only 
to teachers, not to Christians in general. By j3ao-t- 
X6j'a rorj 0eoG is evidently meant the promulgation of 
the Christian religion. And there is here an ellipsis of 
eo-j I, in the sense consist. As to the ellipsis proposed 
by Mosheim, ot/coSo/xelraj, it is too arbitrary. Most 
recent Commentators assign to the passage this sense: 
'* In the propagation of the Christian religion we 
are not so much to consider the words, promises, 
boasts of the teacher, as what he can do and show." 
But thus the words would be applicable to all 
teachers of every age: whereas they can only be 
meant to apply to those under the miraculous dis- 
pensation of the primitive and Apostolic age: and 
therefore Chrysost. and most modern Commentators, 
rightly understand power to work miracles. Thus, 


for instance, (and these certainly not chargeable 
with superstition,) Grotiiis renders: " Vi niiraculo- 
rmn, (iiiaiia ab hiimana ope proficeri ne.iieiint:" 
and Locke, "consists in tlie miraculous operations 
of the Holy Spirit." This interpretation is also 
adopted by Creliius. See Semler, who perversely 
ratiier than ignorantly confounds the present times 
and the primitive ages. 

^1. Ti (i€'A€T€ ; €v f^al^oio fXSfo. T/ is for Ti 7ror€pov. 
The €v is for o-ui/, after the Hebrew usage. The 
above was, if I mistake not, a proverbial expression, 
and Schoettgen rightly tliinks there was reference 
to tiie discipline of the Jewish church, of which 
he gives an example from R. Elijahu. " Castigant 
eum primo verbis, deinde virga, quia scriptum est 
Deuter. 21, 18. ini« "11D''1 (et castigabunt eum). 
At si nihilominus pergat, redeatque ad ingenium, la- 
pidanilum tradunt." With respect to its sense here, 
the Greek Commentators, and many modern ones, 
as Grotius, understand it of the power to strike with 
death, or disease (as blindness); and they advert to 
the cases of Ananias and Sapphira, and Elymas. 
But such punishments were very rare, and had been 
only once employed by St. Paid ; nor would they 
have been suitable to the faults of which the Corin- 
thians are accused. I therefore assent to Chrysost. 
and Tiieophylact, that the term only means ev /coAa- 
<r€i in a general way, and, as Theodoret well remarks, 
designates the Tai^euriK^v eveoyelav, referring to ec- 
clesiastical chastisements and censures of every kind. 

In the expressions ev ayctTry), Trveu^art re Tr/jaorryTOf, 
there is, I think, an hendiadis : or the latter may 
have been added by way of explication. Not but 
that the other course might be (as Chrysostom ob- 
serves) €v ctyaTTY), i. e. we/l meant correction, but this 
would be also iv Trvey/xaTJ TrpaorriTos.* 

* Of this remark John Calvin has availed himself in the follow- 
ing \vell-exj)resse(l sentiment : " Etiam virga ex charitate proficisci- 
tur, cui tatuen hie opponitiir, ([uia occultatur charitas ista severi- 
tate, vultus tristitia et verborum asperitate." One might, however. 


CMaP. V. 

The Apostle now proceeds to lay to their charge 
something more serious than schism, sectarism, spi- 
ritual pride, &c. even gross immorahty. 

Verse 1. oT^cds aKouerai iv ojuv Tro^ve/a. The phrase- 
ology is here altogether idiotical, or popular. No- 
thing like it is, I think, found in the Classical style. 
For as to the passages of Heraclides cited by Wets., 
they only contain examples of oXcos* in the sense 
omnino. The force of the idiom hinges on the el- 
lipsis of elvat and the use of a/coJeo-Qaj in the sense 
he reported. Wetstein paraphrases: "nihil aliud 
auditur." Rosenm. renders: " fama fert inter vos 
esse hominem scortationi palam adhuc deditum." 
But it is not quite certain from the Apostle's words 
whether he does not first advert, in a general way, 
to the existence of fornication among them, and 
then specify one case as a flagrant instance of this. 

P Kai TOLavTT] Tropveia ijris ovhe kv rols eOvecriy Svofia^erai, &C. 
Whatever may have been the immorality which prevailed among 
the Greeks and Romans (who are here esi)ecially meant), it must 
be acknowledged that no such connections as those here adverted to 
were permitted among them; and indeed almost all that we Christians 
regard as forbidden, were by them always admitted to be unlawful. 
In proof of this the Philological Commentators adduce a great 
variety of evidence.* It is true that their practice did not always 
correspond to their principles : yet the few instances adduced 
(some three or four) are chiefly of royal personages (see Plut. De- 
metr. 907- and Justin. 8, 3.) whose high situation afforded a licence 
to enormities of every kind, and at a time when private morals 
were at the lowest ebb. As to the custom mentioned by Sext. 

ask our modern Austin whether his roasting of Servetus proceeded 
from the virga ex charitate ? Did he not rather act upon the Popish 
doctrine of burning the body to save the soul ! Pudct hsec opprobria 
dici, et non potuisse refelli. 

* As Jambl, de Vit. Pythag. C, 13. p. 1/2. where is mentioned 
the institute to /u//rc fiTjrpaai avyyiveadai, fxifre dvyarpi, j-irir 
abe\<l>]]. Virg, Mn. 10, 388. Cic, pro Cluent. 5, 6. Nubit genero 
socrus, nullis autoribus, funestis ominibus omiuium. O mulieris 
scelus incredibile, et pra^ter banc unam, in omni vita inauditumf 
See in Wets. Calpurn. Dial, 22., IE,\. Spartian. Carac, Marcell. ad 
Hermog., Longin. dc Subl. 23,, and Philo 301 , 36, 


Jilrap. (cited by Eisner) as prevailing among the Persians, fiyjrepas 
ya^ely, the thing would not be credible even on higher authority. 
Then as to the story of Procop. Bell. Gall, 10, 4. '' Varnis novercam 
ducere licebat," it is of precarious authority, and has not much 
bearing on the words of the Apostle, who did not intend them to 
be applied to every savage tribe of barbarians. * Whether it were 
customary among the Egyptians ("except among royal personages), 
is not certain. Other examples, though of no more weight, may 
be seen in Spanh. Numism. p. 294, or Mali Obss. 146. 

The question, however, is, how we are to justify the Apostle's 
words, which, it must be granted, cannot be defended as they are 
rendered in our Common Version. One cannot suppose that this and 
such like incestuous connections, were not named among Heathens, 
or that they should not be namecl among Christians. Under this diffi- 
culty, many Critics (iis Bp. Pearce) would render the oro/jacerai 
reported, or said to be. And Rosenm. " vix reperitur.'* These, how- 
ever, in general, (as Bp. Pearce, Hamm., Grot., Salmas., and Slade,) 
would cancel the ovopaze-ai, on the authority of about eight MSS., 
the Vulg., and gome Versions dependent upon it, as also a few 
Latin Fathers. Hence it is thrown out of the text by Krause. But 
this seems very rash, since the common reading is supported by the 
authority of hundreds of MSS., the Syr. and other Versions, and the 
Greek Fathers and Commentators, especially Chrysost. (who inter- 
prets the words in a manner accordant with our Common Version): 
and a very good reason can be offered for their omission, namely, 
the fear of some over timid persons that the expression could not 
be justified. Since, then, it must be retained, what sense is to be 
assigned to it ? As to the interpretations adopted by Bp. Pearce 
and Rosenm. they too much confine the meaning. Eisner renders : 
"cum laude commemoratur." But the Classical authorities on 
whicli he builds this inteipretation are chiefly poetical, or prose 
that is of a poetical cast, as Isocrates. The Scriptui-al examples 
(as Rom. 15, 20. oirov oropdaOri Xpiirros) prove nothing. Besides, 
how could it be supposed that the Gentiles should mention with 
praise such enormities. 

The above interpretations, however, in some degree merge into 
each other. But I beg to suggest another, which will, perhaps, be 
thought better founded than any one of them. May it not be sup- 
posed that the Apostle (whose Greek is Hellenistical, and in many 
respects deviating from the Classical standard,) has here, by a very 
slight lapse, used oiopu^ecrdai for »'o^t5eo-0at, f usurpari, to be ap- 
proved by law and custom, &c. ; examples of which signification 
are frequent in the best writers; as Thucyd. 2, 15. es aWa twv 
lepwf voplcerai rw vbari xP^jaQai. And Plut. above referred to. 

* So Hammond and Estius : " Non loquitur de gentibus in uni- 
versum, sed de gentibus moratis, et tunc notis, qua; ut plurimum 
Romanis regebantur legibus, apud quos priscae illae barbarorum 
consuetudines vel moribus, vel legibus, correctae erant." 

t The sense and projjricty of which term, in this connection, 
will be instantly seen and acknowledged by every Classical scholar. 


So that, upon tlie whole, the sense has been very well represented 
by Dr. Wells, who renders: "such uncleanness as is not piaclibcii, 
or allowed even among the Heathens." As to what is said by 
Whitby, on the authority of Maimonides, that the Jews, though 
strict enough in forbidding such enormities,* yet made an excep- 
tion in favour of proselytes to their religion, who were accounted 
to have lost kindred, and to be at liberty lo marry their mothers or 
sisters, the thing would not be credible on much higher testimony, 
and still less ought it to be believed (asj it is liy many Conunenta- 
tors) to have been so common as to have afforded occasion for 
Tacitus, Hist. 5 init., to say of the Jews, " Concessa apud iilos, 
quae nobis incesta." There is no reason to press on the sense of 
incesta; and our limited information of the actual customs of the 
Jews of that day, and the ignorance of the Historian on every point 
respecting them, leaves us not the ttov ariL on which to form any 
decided opinion. 

It is still more improbable that (as Whitby conjectures) the Ni- 
colaitans and Carpocratians derived their licentious doctrines on 
the community of alt women from Chrysippus. And as it has never 
been satisfactorily proved that these had yet any existence as a 
society, it is very utdikely that (as Mr. Slade thinks) " the enormity 
complained of by St. Paul, as well as the toleration of it, is to be 
ascribed to their principles and doctrines." 

There is another point to which I must advert, (though without 
more information than we possess concerning the circumstances of 
the cases in point, it scarcely admits of any determination,) namely, 
whether the mart her- in-law of the person in question lived with 
him as a wife, or concubine. Commentators take different sides. The 
antient, and many modern ones (as Mede, Vorst,, J. Capell., Tirin., 
Lightf., Hamm , Pearce, &c. and most for the last century) adoi)t the 
latter opinion j and they marshal up Classical passages exemplify- 
ing the sense exeiy de re venerea ; as in the joke of Aristippus : 
exw Aaiba, aX\' ovk eyonai. Such an euphemism in t'^w and Ihibeo 
is indeed common in the Classical writers ; but there is scarcely 
one authentic example of it in the Scriptural ones. I am therefore 
inclined to adopt (with the Syr., Grot., Crell., Wolf, and Doddr.) 
the former interpretation. The father, it is probable, (and such is 
the opinion of Sender,) had repudiated the woman, or, the woman 
the father, t and then the son had married her. That the father was 
vet alive is probable from 2 Cor. 7, 12. 

"It is not (observes Crellius) credible that the Corinthian congre- 
gation would have endured that one of their body should live with a 
harlot, especially his mother-in-law. But because this ilhcit con- 
nection had been palliated by the name of matrimony, therefore 
the Corinthians might connive at it, especially if there were any 
who were the man's zealous friends, and endeavoured to soften the 

* So Sanhedrim 7, 4. (cited by Wets.) " Isti sunt lapidandi, qui 
coit cum rnatre suk — et qui coit cum uxore patris sui, quia uxor 
patris est, et quia uxor alterius, sive vivus sit pater, sive morluus." 

■f Which it is certain that by the laws of Corinth she could do. 


basec'.fss of the thing." To which I would add, that the person in 
queiiion is suj)|)osed to have been rich and powerful, and therefore 
wculd not want such friends; and there niii^lit be some who under- 
took, upon principle, to defend such a connection. Had it, on the 
contiary, been concubinage, it is not probable that any would have 
attempted his defence. It is, indeed, urged on the contrary side, 
that the Gentile laws did not permit such a niarriige. But this is 
of little weight ; since mariiages within the degrees foi bidden by 
the Sciipture are in this Kingdom, indeed, forbidden by the laws, 
but are perpetually entered into. For, as )he I'oet says, jQuid leges 
sine moiibus vaniE proficiunt. Now the coiruf)tion of murals in 
Greece is undeniable, and, as far as regards Corinth, was prover- 
bial. Hence KopirOiuieii' was as proverbial for lewdness as Grecis- 
sare for drunkenness. It is urged, 2dly, that no Christian could 
have entered into such a matrimonial connection. But this is 
begging the question. 3dly, that it is here called irnpveia. True; 
but TTopreia is a general term to denote all illicit venereal connec- 
tion. And moreover, there is the same use of the word in Matt. 5, 
3'-2. " whosoever marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.'* 
.See also 19, 7. Luke 16, IS, iVIark 10. 11. 

2. Kcu ufxelf 7r€(pu(ricoix€VQi ecrre. Here the general 
sense is plain ; but the phraseology is so elliptical as 
to require rather a paraphrase than a translation. 
The following will, I think, represent the Apostle's 
meaning: "And yet, while such enormities are 
committed in your society, ye are yetpufted up with 
spiritual pride, as if all things were right among you, 
and do not (as ye ought) rather mourn over this 
fall and your disgrace, and take measures that he 
who hath done this deed should be removed from 
your society." 

Ka» is here for kolItoi, and yet. The ellipsis at 
orj-/} ju.aXXoy is sometimes found both in the Scriptiual 
(see Rom. 3, 8.) and the Classical writers. The 
u/xeTf is by some referred to the teachers of the con- 
gregation : by others, to the congregation itself; 
which is far more probable. The reading ^^clo^t^ for 
for cto^f, is, I think, a gloss. And the examples cited 
by the Commentators of the compound rather than 
the simple in this sense, only confirm the suspicion, 
which is further increased by one of the antient MSS. 
being the interpolated and emended Cod. Cantab. 

The reading irpa^as for Tro/rjcras- is, doubtless, also 
u gloss. The common reading is supported by 2 


Sara. 12, 5. av-^p OS Troirja-ag touto : which passage 
seems to have been in the mind of the Apostle. 

With respect to tpyov, it is not necessary to press 
on its sense, which is simply, *' this deed,'* i. e. mar- 
riage; or, according to the other interpretation (see 
note on ver. 1.) concubinage.* 

The erevQ^Vare must be understood of that ybr/wa/ 
mourning over the scandal drawn to the whole body, 
which accompanied the excommunication of any 
member. Hence under the idea of mourning is also 
couched that of excommunication. So Grot. " Lu- 
gere dicitur pro excommunicare, per meton. adjuncti, 
quia Ecclesia, cum aliquem esset a suo consortio ex- 
clusura, lugentium sumebat habitum, eumque ut 
mortuum lugebat, ait Origines, c. Cels. 3." On this 
figure of speech, by which one verb stands for fivoy 
see Glass. Phil. Sacr. and Gatak. Adv. 81 & 329. 

This custom, of accompanying excommunication 
with solemn mourning was, together with many 
others, borrowed from the Synagogue, and, as we 
find from ecclesiastical history, (see Grot.) long re- 

* Krause, however, with a judgment unworthy of a Critic, takes 
it to denote the opus venereum, and, with an indelicacy disgraceful 
to a Commentator of Scripture, seeks occasion to drag forward per- 
haps the most filthy passage to be found in that sink of impurity, 
Ovid. Amor. This, indeed, is a fault into which almost all the Ger- 
man Sacred Commentators run. Indeed I scarcely know any who 
in their works evince an adequate impression of reverence for the 
Sacred Volume except the venerable Dr. Tittmann. Writing, as I 
do, chiefly for Students, and the younger part of the Ministry, it 
cannot be improper for me to touch on this subject : but my limits 
will only permit me to advert to a sentiment of that most eminent and 
Orthodox Theologian and Orientalist, Pareau, in his excellent work, 
entitled, Institutio Interp. Vet. Test., where, in a highly important 
chapter (c. 11.) de prsecipuis animi virtutibus quae decent Veteris 
Testament! interpretatorem, he commences thus: " Primam igi- 
tur animi virtutem, bono Veteris Testament! interpret! uti- 
lis&imam. immo necessariam, justam esse arbitramur librorum, 
gwi sacro hoc codice continentur, venerationem." This position 
he establishes and illustrates from p. 147 — 150, to which I must 
refer my readers, at the same time respectfully recommending the 
work to the perusal of all those who cultivate the study of th« He- 
brew language. 


tained in the Church. See Vitringa de Synag. L. 3. 

p. 737. ,,,,,,„, 

3. iyo) y.€V yap cos* arrcou T(p (Ttoixarij &C. The yap 
is here a mere particle of transition, and may be 
rendered then. The ju-ev answers to the he follow- 
ing. The sense is: "I, then, as absent indeed ev 
<rajii.aTi, in person, but present iv Trveufxari, in heart, 
mind, thought, affections," namely, in solicitude 
and care."*^ So (among the Classical passages ad- 
duced by Wetstein) Ovid, Leand. Heroni 18, 30. 
Et quo non possum corpore, mente feror. And Phit. 
2. p. 797 ^' xav fXTj TrapayevrjTai ru> crtoju-ari, Traoovra 
rfi yvuj^j.r]. I add D. Hal. 1, 207, b. and Theoph. 
Sim. 105 D. raura iyco, cos Trapcov, yoa<pa)v, 7rpo(r(^bky- 

The (OS is omitted in some seven or eight MSS. 
and a few Versions and Fathers, and is rejected by 
almost all Critics. But the authority for its omission 
is very slight ; and be it remembered, moy^e is neces- 
sary for the omission than the insertion of a word. 
As to the Versions, they are in such a case of little 
weight. And if it were, what the Critics tell us, 
pleonastic^ that would be no reason why it should be 
cancelled. For the redundancy usually implies no 
more than a non correspondence to any foreign lan- 
guage in some expression. But, in fact, toy is here 
not redundant. It rather is elliptical for cos eijtxi ; 
q. d. " Being (as I am) absent in person. 

3. i]hr) K€KpiKa, ** I have decided, do hereby decide 
and determine." So Menoch. " statuo et impero." 
Theoph. paraphrases : -^hr} i^-iqveyKa ri^v a7ro<pa(riv, Ka\ 
ouSev erepov Set yeueaSai. Wets, here adduces several 
examples, not quite, however, to the purpose, the word 
there signifying, " I am resolved ; am determined." 

This is not to be regarded as a sentence of excom- 
munication, but only an intimation that if they are 

* The Greek Commentators, indeed, and Grotius, think it im- 
plies a supernatural knowledge of their actions ; as when Elisha 
said to Gehazi : " Went not mine heart with thee, when the man 
turned to meet thee." But this seems to be more than the Apostle 
meant to express. 


not wanting in their duty they will use this his 
Apostolical authornfy, to take the measures necessary 
for separating the noxious member from their body. 
Then are suggested the steps to be taken. 

3. ouTco Touro. Here there may seem to be a ple- 
onasm, and some MSS. and Versions omit ourw ; but 
not, I think, on good grounds: for, as the early mo- 
dern Commentators observe, it seems to advert to 
some vircumsfanccs accompanying the action, as its 
having been done openly, impudently, perseveringly. 
One may compare ^ Sam. 12, 6. " the man that hath 
done this thing shall surely die.'* 

YioLref^y., perpetrated. For the word is generally 
used in sensu deteriori, especially when united with 
€pyov. So (among the examples cited by Wetstein) 
Soph. Antig. 389- >i 3' eo-r ki/^eivn] roupyov r,^€ipyaa-(j,evrj. 
Pausan. Attic. So. Uepa-ea to ej? Medova-av €pyou 

4. €v ra> wo^ari tou Kupiov 'I. X., &c. On the con- 
struction of this whole sentence Commentators are 
not quite agreed. That part of the words are pa- 
renthetical is obvious ; but how far the parenthesis 
ought to extend is not so certain. Chrysostom and 
some others include iv tm Ivo^an — Trvevixaroy. 
Others, and indeed the most eminent Commen- 
tators, only take cruva^^evTcov — Trveuixaro^. And 
this latter seems the true mode. The whole sen- 
tence, iv rip ovojuta-j — 'Itjo-oG, indeed, depends upon 
the former. The vinculum seems to be an (va-re. or 
€\s TO omitted ; so that ely to -nrap. may be rendered, 
"in order to your delivering him," "that ye deliver 
him," &c. The passage, then, may be rendered 
thus : " That ye (being assembled together, and I 
being spiritually, mentally, virtually * present with 
yoLi, by the signification of this ray opinion) do eV 
T<o ovojuiari too Kvplou tJ. 1. X., in the name, and in be- 
half, of our Lord Jesus Christ, trvv ttj ^uva(x€i too 
Koplou 7)|w.(ov 'I. X., and withal acting by the power of 

* So Liv. 10, 397. (cited by Wets.) Absentis collcgJE consiiia 
omnibus gerenclis intererant rebus. 


our Lord Jesus Christ, do deliver, rlv toioOtov the 
person so described, &c.* ' 

d. Trapaoouvcci r. r. rui XoLTotva, &c. On the true 
meaning and the exact force of these words Com- 
mentators vary. Beza and others (from Austin and 
some other Latin Fathers) maintain that the words 
are only a periphrastic expression of excommunica- 
tion. " As," say they, (for so Macknight states their 
reasoning,) " there are only two families or kin^nloms 
in the moral world, the kingdom of God and the 
kingdom of the Devil, the expelling of a person from 
the family or kingdom of God is a virtual deliverino- 
of him nito the hands of Satan, to share in all the 
miseries resulting from his usurped dominion, and a 
deprivmg him of all those advantages which God 
hath provided in his church, for defending men 
against the snares of the Devil, and the machina- 
tions of his instruments." They moreover take as 
oXeSpou Tr,9 a-apKhs metaphorically for the suppression 
or destruction thereby of pride, lust, and other 
/ieshlt/ passions, which they think would be mortified 
by the evils it was supposed to bring with it, namely 
when he found himself despised and shunned by all* 
But this interpretation seems not a little harsh ; noi- 
ls the word ever so used by the Apostle. 

Others, as Lightfoot and Slade, think that the 
present passage has no reference to excommunica- 
tion at all. Yet excommunication is plainly alluded 
to at ver. ^2. ; and here are suggested the ?neasures 
tor carrying it into execution. 

Upon the whole, I think the opinion of the Greek 
Fathers and Commentators,which is also confirmed by 
Grotius, Newcome, Pearce, Crellius, Locke, Hardy 
Whitby, Kosenm., Mackii., Pyle, Schleus., Jaspis! 
Maltby (Serm. 2, 574.)^ ^nd other eminent Com- 
mentators, is the only defensible one. They recog- 
nize in the passage a formal excommunication (which 

* For Piscator and Crellius rightly remark, that this is an ppa- 
nalepsis tor roy ov-uj tovto Karepy,,<Tafieyoy. Yet 1 agree with Beza 
that It also suggests the onormitv of the man's offence 


is comprehended in Trapa^ouvai roi ^arava) and also, 
2i punishment of the Jlesh, which is evidently implied 
in the words ely oXeSpov r^y a-apKos. That the Apos- 
tles had the power, and were authorised to punish 
notorious offenders with death and disease in a su- 
pernatural manner, few will deny. (See Joh. 20, 23. 
Acts 13, 11. and infra, 11, 21.) And if so, may we 
not (asks Mackn.) believe, that the command which 
the Apostle on this occasion gave to the Corinthians, 
to deliver the incestuous person to Satan, for the 
destruction of the flesh, was an exertion of that 
power? especially as it was to be done, not by their 
own authority, but by the power of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and of the Spirit who inspired Paul to give 
the command." 

Again, as this is plainly implied, we are warranted 
in supposing (as do the Greek Fathers and Com- 
mentators) that the offender was visited with some 
painful and wasting disease. Those who maintain 
the contrary opinion indeed urge, that no mention 
is made of the removal of any bodily malady, when 
the Corinthians were ordered to forgive and re-admit 
him into the Church. But that will not prove that 
no such was ever inflicted. He might then have re- 
covered of it. For the Apostle's intention was only, 
by the infliction of some disease immediately and 
suddenly consequent upon the act of excommunica- 
tion, to shew the reality of the power committed to 
him and the other Apostles by Jesus Christ, (which 
would evince the divine nature of their mission), and 
thus strike an awe into the hearts of all reflecting 

Crellius has here a long and masterly annotation, 
in which the view of the sense above adopted is ably 
illustrated. * Rosenm. judiciously comments on 

* He says (inter alia) that Satan is here compared to an execu- 
tioner, or tormentor, into whose hands a criminal is delivered for 
punishment. " So (continues he) Job was delivered to Satan, 
though not for punishment, but for a trial of his faith and patience. 
And in 2 Tim. 1, '20. Phygellus and Hermogenes are by St. Paul 


the passage thus: " Affirmat igftiir Paulus, se affec- 
turiim esse incestum Isetali morbo in ipso Christiano- 
rum conventu, cui animo interfuturus erat juvante 
Christi virtute, quae miracuium non modo eftectura, 
sed ita etiam patratura erat, ut morbum sceleratus 
homo in ipsa concione nancisceretur, eumque igitur 
ob morbum, in quern subito ceciderit, ex consilio 
suo removere cogerentur, qui propter scelus expellere 

5. 'ivcL TO 7rv€u[xoi, crcu^fi iv rf, -^[J-epa too K.vpioo 'Ir^o-ow, 
"that his soul, corrected, 'humbled, and reformed 
by these sufferings, may be saved at the day when 
Christ shall come to judge the world." See Dr. 
Hamm. ap. D'Oyley and Mant. 

6. ou KuXov TO Kau-xr^ixa. uixdiv. Some Commentators, 
as Locke, Grot., Whitby, and Mackn., refer this to 
the individual in question; q. d. "your glorying in 
such a teacher is not well founded." And this is 
partly supported by the Greek Commentators, who 
take it to mean, " your glorying is not good for him, 
by preventing his repentance." But aurip would 
thus be required. As to the former interpretation, 
it is a very strained one, notwithstanding what Mr. 
Locke urges, that if their leader had not been guilty 
of this miscarriage, it had been out of St. Paul's way 
to have reproved them for glorying in him." Which 
seems somewhat sophistical. 

I rather assent to Bp. Hall, Menoch., Hardy, Ro- 
scnm., Krause, and Jaspis, that it is a general objur- 
gation ; (as at ver. 2. u^aeTy Tre^ucriwiKevoi ea-re) q. d. 
'* ye have no cause for boasting, while such foul sins 
are committed among you.'* 

6. orjK oiOare on {xiKpa ^u^xtj, o. t. a>. §. A proverbial 

delivered to Satan, i.e. to be chastised and afflicted,*' I woidd add, 
that a similar metaphor occurs in Pind. Pyth. 3, 63, C. 

'Es (iTo^o*/ Tpexj/ais ebafiu- 

^aro J v^. Kai yeirovtjy IloWo'i tiravpov, afid 

A' eipdnpev, ttoXXuv t opei irvp et, eios 

^irepj-iaTos ej'Bopov aiaTdxrev vXav. 
Abp, Newcome very properly remarks that this mode of punish- 
ment was to be confined to the age of miracles. 


saying, found also at Gal. 5, 9. By ^ofXT) the Hebrews 
metaphorically understood whatever has the power 
of corrupting, whether doctrine^ example, or any 
thing else. So Neve Schalom. fol. 191, 2. (cited by 
Wets.) Rabbini nostri vocant concupiscentiam nrialam 
fermentum in massa ; quod sicuti paululum fermenti 
fermentat totam massam magnam et corrumpit: sic 
corrumpit totum hominem. Nor was this confined 
to the Jews. In Plut. Quaest. Rom. 2, 289 e. (cited 
by Wets.) it is asked : ^lari rep lepeT rou Aioy, ov <I>Xa- 

Kol yeyovev eK <p9ooa? aurri, kou (pSeipei to (pupa|xa ixiyvu- 
jutev"*], ylverai yap cLtovov kou aSgave?, Kai oT^cos^ koiKe 
(T-^ypiS 73' ^u^(o(ri9 ehai' 7rXeova(ra<ra yovv airo^uvei Travra- 
Traa-i, Koi (p^eipei ro a7\.€upov. 

The ^Jju.7] has an especial reference to the incest 
committed : but the Apostle may also intend to hint, 
that one vice, like Tropi/e/a, draws many others after it. 
Theophyl. well paraphrases : "Qa-Trcp yap 7] §v[xrj ixiKpa 
ou(ra, TO <pupa[t.a irav §rjixoi koi irpos eauT-^v |u,era(3aXXef 
ouTco Ka) 7) TOVTQU u^apTia TTpos iauTYiv TToXAouy iTTKnra- 

The reading SouXoT, though supported by the Cod. 
Cant., the Vulg., and almost all the Latin Fathers, is 
a manifest gloss. 

7- €KKaSa^ar€ oitv t-^v Tra'Kaiav ^ofxriV. The Apostle 
takes occasion from the above similitude to exhort 
the Corinthians (under a new allegory, derived from 
the Jewish custom of putting away leaven at the 
Passover,) to forsake vice, and, besides vice, vicious 
men ; since vice will never be banished from the 
Church, unless those who will not abstain from it 
are banished with it. (Crell.) 

The Apostle has in view not only the person above 
mentioned, but all sinners like him 5 as appears from 
ver. 11. (Rosenm.) 

7. <W Tire v€ov (^uqa^La, " that ye may be, like vmto 
a recent <pt>pa/xa before the leaven is put to it.'* In 
eKKaQdpare the e/c is intensive. Doddridge, however, 
pushes the principle too far. 

7. Ka$cds eVre a§vy.otf " as ye are, or by your Ciu'is- 


tian profession are bound to be, unleavened, and to 
abstain from vice and vicious persons." So Chry- 
SOSt. KCidws 7rp€7r€i eivai u/jtay . 

7. Kcti yap TO 7ra<r;^a rjacov u vj. e. X. By the Traarya 
is meant (by metonymy) tiie paschal lamb ; q. d. 
" We Christians have also a paschal lamb, even 
Christ, who died for the expiation of our sins: which 
sacrifice obliges us to greater purity of life than the 
Jews were bound to observe." There is evidently 
an allusion to the whole work of atonement and ex- 
piation accomplished by Jesus Christ: and the late 
learned, able, and judicious defender of that fun- 
damental doctrine (Abp. Magee) has, in his invalua- 
ble work on the Atonement, excellently treated on 
this passage. In his Illustr. No. S5. he has (I think) 
satisfactorily proved that the Passover was asacrijice, 
as possessing all the essential characteristics of a sa- 

For eJuBr] the true reading is irvSt}^ wJiich, indeed, 
is not found in some of the best MSS., but is requii'ed 
by analogy. (See Matth. Gr. Gr.) Wets, here cites 
two elo{|uent passages from that most spiritual and 
enlightened Jew, Philo de Sacrif. Abelis et Caini, t. 

I. p. 177, 38. & 18^, 24. 

8. coVre €opTa§a)ixev, &c., " thus (therefore) let us 

* His words are these : It was a corhati, or offering, brought to 
the tabernacle, or temple, Deut. 16, 2. 5. G. 2 Chron. 35, 5, 6. 10, 

II. 2. The paschal lamh was slain in the tempie 5 its blood was 
poured out, sprinkled, and offered at the altar by the priests, in like 
niauncr as the blood of the victims usually slain in sacrifice, as ap- 
pears from Exod. 23, 18. 34, 25. 2 Chron. 30, 15, IG. 35, 1 1. And 
in this sprinkling of the blood consisted, as we are told by the Jewish 
doctors, the very essence of a sacrifice. See Cudworth's " True 
Notion of the Lord's Supper." ch. 11,3. The fat and entrails 
were burnt upon the altar, as may be collected fiom the passages 
above relerred to, as also from the declaration of the Jewish doctors, 
the descriptions of the Paschal Sacriiice in the Misna of the Talmud, 
and the testimony of the Karaites, who are known to reject all the 
Talauidical traditions not founded on Sciipture. Cudw. ut supra, 
Beausob. Introd. pp. 134, 135. ed. 1790. and Sykes's Essay on Sa- 
crifices, p. 41. .''ee also Syn. and Bp. Patrick on Exod. 12, 27. 
nOB f he passed J of the Hebrew is written KnDS in the Chaldee, 
from which the Greek 7ra(TX" ''^^ immediately Howed." 

Z 2 


keep our feast, (namely) not," &c. The Apostle 
still continues in the metaphor taken from the Pass- 

'EopTa.§€iVf which properly signifies to celebrate a 
feast, is applied to denote worship in general ; and 
because the celebration of feasts involves the idea of 
rejoicing, the word also signifies *' to be occupied, 
with great delight, in the worship of God, and en- 
deavour after virtue and holiness of life ;'* or " to be 
as willingly occupied in these as in keeping feasts on 
holy days," (Loesner.*) 

8. fxrihe €v 8e §uy,y) TraT^aia, "not with the leaven yet 
remaining in you ;" whether of the incestuous person, 
or of fornicators, or any immoral and sensual per- 
sons, all of whom seem included in the words KaKias 
K(u TTOuripias. 

8. dtXX' ev a^yjULOJ? eiT^iKpivelas Koi aXv^Se/ay, " but in 
the society of persons who are studious of integrity 
and true virtue." Elxj/cp. signifies integrity in gene- 
ral. The word indeed, by its eti/mology,-\- signifies 
virtue that will bear tlie closest examination : but in 
use elTiiK^iv^s' referred rather to what is pure, unmixed, 
(See Suid., Hesych., and Etym. Mag.) And so Ba- 
sil Mag. (cited by Rosenm.) elXiKpivey Xoy/^ojxai ehai 
TO ajutiyes*, Kal aKpcos /ceicaSa^juievov oltto Travroy evavriov. 
And in this light the Apostle evidently views the 
word ; since he alludes to the dough when mixed 
with leaven or ferment. It therefore signifies gene- 
rally integrity^ probity. 

* The learned Philolopst has illustrated the metaphor by a kin- 
dred passage of Philo 477 d. ^"^X*'^ eopn), ^ijXos, 6 tCjv apiarivy 
Kttl TeXeeTipopov/ueywy tvovos. Wets., too, appositely cites Philo 1, 
185, 6 eopTi) yap \pv)(^)']s >/ ev aperals eixppocrvvr} TcXelais. TeXeiat 
be at KrjXibwf ajuero^oi, ocras to ay6p(x)7ripov yevos "^lopel, fxovos hk 
eonTuS.eL t))v roinvrrjv eopTf]p 6 arcxpos, tuv S' aXXtiJV ovheis. I add 
Thucyd. 1, 70. (speaking of the Athenians) t. 1. 128. Bav, K«i 
aiToXavovaiv eXaytara riJJv v-rrapyoyrwv , hui to ciel KTciadai, Kai }xi]T€ 
i:opT})v iiXXo) Ti fjyelcrdai y to tci beovTa irpu^ai. ^ 

t From eiXi) and Kph'oj : so that 6 elXiKpivrit properly signifies (as 
Longin. de Subl., referred to by Schleus. Lex., suggest) one whose 
purity will bear the closest examination, like that of an article exa- 
mined by the full light of the sun. 


'Ax7]5e/a denotes true virtue ; a use of the word 
borrowed from the Hebr. nt2^^, (see Gesen. Lex. 
Hebr.), and found in Joh. 3, 21. 6 ttojcov t^v aXvj^e/av, 
(where see the note,) and Rom. 1, 18. and 2, 8. 
where tJ aXrjQe/a is opposed to ahiKia. (See the note 

Some Commentators, as Mackn., rightly (I think) 
conclude from this and 16, 8. that when the Epistle 
was written the Jewish Passover was at hand. "And 
if so (continues Mackn.) this verse makes it proba- 
ble, that the disciples of Christ began very early to 
celebrate the Lord's Supper with peculiar solemnity, 
annually on the day on which he suffered, which was 
the day of the Jewish Passover, called in modern 
language, Easter, 

9. €ypu-^a J/xTv ev tt] €7Vi(TroKfi^ /x-jj <ruva|x/yvu<r9a» 

Having expressed his wonder that they had not expelled from 
their society a noxious member, whose example could only serve to 
encourage immorality, the Apostle again adverts to the subject of 
■Kopveia generally, (on which he had touched at ver. 2. and hinted 
at ver. 6.) in order that he may give them some /wr/Aer admonitions, 
and especially remove what might l\ave been made a difficulty ; the 
expression ucv/jol seeming to imply that they were to have ?w con- 
nection with the immoral. 

The above is, I conceive, the true scope of the Apostle in the re- 
maining portion of the Chapter. Yet on this point Commentators 
are by no means agreed. The decision of the question depends in- 
deed much on the interpretation of the words ev rrj eTriaroXri, which 
almost all modern Commentators unite in rendering " an epistle," 
" an earlier epistle :" and they suppose it to have reference to some 
former Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians 5 though no such has 
come down to us, nor has the existence of any such been on any 
credible evidence of Ecclesiastical antiquity. Indeed, this hypothesis 
involves much difficulty, and is liable to many objections. Why 
(for example) should it not have been preserved as well as the later 
ones. Now, those who dress up the above-mentioned nation in its 
most specious shape, tell us, that the Epistle in question was a very 
brief one, and just sent off, when the messengers from the Corinthians 
aA'ived. All this, however, is gratis dictum. There is not a par- 
ticle of evidence in support of it. For, as to the words themselves, 
they can by no means be tortured to signify any such thing, even by 
implication. To admit this interpretation, something ought to 
have been before said of this Epistle, which, as they pretend, almost 
passed the messengers on the road, and of which, had there been 
such an Epistle so written and so sent, the Apostle could not but 


directly have made mention. Besides, who can tolerate such a licen- 
tious use of the article, which would be unparalleled in irregularity. 
For the above reasons 1 must accede to the opinion of the mino- 
rity, though numerous, namely, the Greek Commentators, most Latin 
ones, and, of the moderns, Glass, Terin., Est.,Vorst., Hamm , Wolf, 
and most of the Dutch Divines, Fabricius, Gothofred, Olearius, Lard- 
ner,Pyle, Hardy, Mackn , Bps.Tomline and Middieton, and Mr. Slade, 
that rrj is for ravrij; as in kindred passages at Hom. 16, 2. 2Thess. 
3, 4. Col. 4, 66 1 Thess. 5, 27. And many other examples of this 
idiom are adduced by Glass Phil. S. p. 131 — 133. and Mackn. Prel. 
Diss. § 71. "EypnxPa, " I have (alieady, or just,) written to you," 
namely, at ver. 2 & 7. of this chapter. That eypaxpa may have this 
signification none can doubt who know the force of the Aorist ; and 
so it occtnsin 9, 15. 1 Joh. 2, 12, 14. Otherwise, as Bp. Middleton 
observes, the sentence at ver. 11. vvrl be eypaipa would have been 
vvf} be ypacpu). And though in 2 Cor. 7.8. ep ry eTriaroXij has re- 
ference to the former Epistle, yet there the Epistle had been men- 
tioned. Mr. Slade (after Bp. Middleton) renders e-ypaxpa, " I have 
been writing to you ;" which comes to much the same sense. 

The chief difficulty in the last-mentioned interpretation is in- 
volved in vvp), which Middleton and Slade elude by rendering: 
" But on the present occasion 1 have been wiiting to you :" or, " my 
purpose in writing to you in this," There is, however, something 
so languid in this signification of vvv\, and so arbitraiy in the sense 
thus elicited from eypa\pa vfi'iv, that it is utterly inadmissible. In- 
deed, it cannot be true. For it was not the main purpose of St. 
Paul in writing this Epistle to forbid Christians from associating with 
immoral brethren, (See the introduction of Krause & Mackn. to this 
Epistle.) I prefer to adopt the opinion of Wolf, that the rwl is not 
opposed to the preceding phrase eypai^a ev rij eTriTroXy, but is rather 
explicatory of it; or (as Olearius says) proprioris designationis. 

Fabricius ap. Wolf has briefly, but not unfaithfully, rendered the 
passage thus : " Scripsi vobis hac praesente epistola, propterea ne 
fornicariis communicetis. Non loquor de Ethnicis, qui ferendi vo- 
bis sunt : verum scripsi ista, ne tanquam fratri communicetis, qui 
est fornicarius." And so Mackn. : *' but now more particularly I 
wrote, or I have thought proper to write." So also Theodoret. 

Having enlarged so much on the sense of this passage, which, in 
a certain point of view, is very important, I can do no more than 
refer my readers to the masterly exposition of Chrysost. and the 
Scholia of fficumen.. Phot., and Theodoret. I am not aware that 
any of the antient Fathers ever referred the words of any other Epis- 
tle than the present ; yet Theodoret seems not to have been igno- 
rant of the opinion ; for he says, ey Troiq. evKJToXri ; Iv avrij Tuvrrj. 
And he then observes, that the whole passage is explanatory of 
what was meant in the preceding one. 

9. o-uvavajut-jyviJo-Qai, *' to mingle in familiar society 
with." The verb is often used by the Sept. (See 
Schl. Lex.) Krause compares Demosth. o-u^/x/Jai 


novrjpois dvS^wTToif. And he refers to Plotin. Therset. 
29., and observes, that the word often occurs in He- 
rodot. (See Ernesti on Callim. H. in Jov. 13. p. 8.) 

The word wopvos in the Classical writers usually 
signifies a catamite : but in the Scriptures it has a 
more extensive sense, and denotes chiefly a whore- 
monger, or, in a general way, a lewd person. And 
in this sense I agree with Doddr. it ought here to be 
taken, though (as he remarks) " the Apostle's argu- 
. ment concludes yet more strongly against some other 
species of lewdness than what is called simple forni- 
catioriy detestable as that is." Rosenm. and Krause, 
following Semler, think it is plain that the word 
was meant to have reference to persons of both 
sexes. Now, I think the very contrary is apparent. 
In all the other passages where the Apostle uses the 
word, it is evidently applied to males: and at ver. 11. 
we have eav ns a^eXi^idy. Indeed, to have applied it 
io females would have been irrelevant. For, from 
the restraints of Grecian society, females had very 
little intercourse beyond the society of their family 
and near friends. Neither was it necessary; since 
the Apostle's admonition would apply a fortiori to 

Krause here compares Xen. Hierom. 4. who men- 
tions a similar law among certain states : TreTrolrivrai 
ttoaXo) V01/.0V TTOJ y.iai<^6va> jxijSe rov vo/xov (tououto. KaSa- 

10. The Apostle now explains his meaning. Kat 
o'J (scil. y^eyui), " I mean or meant not that ye should 
have wo connection with immoral persons."' Tou kqo-- 
jtAoy ToJrou, "of the Gentiles.'* For that is a peri- 
phrasis of Gentile, or Non- Christian. (See Joh. 15, 
19. and 17, 14.) The same expression must be un- 
derstood with each of the following terms. 

The sentiment intended by the Apostle is well ex- 
pressed by Xen. Ages. 11,4. 

10. r^ rois 7r\€oveKrai9, &c. " or (for instance) the 
covetous, extortioners." For these are given as ex- 
amples of the vices which chiefly stained the Hea- 


thens. On each of these terms the early modern 
Commentators have written copiously. It may suffice 
for the student to consult Schl. Lex. and Steph. Thes. 
'ApTT. is a stronger term than the former, and de- 
notes rapacity. 

10. eirii o$e/Aer6, " since, (otherwise)," &c. This 
ellipsis of aAXojy is not unfrequent after eVe* ; as 
Kom. 3y Q. 11, G & 22. where see the notes. The 
words kirci ocpe/Xere — e^exSeTv have the air of a pro- 
verbial diet, in which, of course, o(p. is not to be 
pressed upon, but has the same signification as in 7, 
f 6. Hebr. 2, 17- 5, 3. Luke 17, 10. Chrys. explains 
it: erepav oiKou^evr^v eoe* ^rirrja-ai. I must observe that 
Aristid. 1, 175. elegantly expresses this by c^oiKeiv 
T^y oiKoxjixizv-q^. The Apostle, then, means to say, 
that it would be absurd to expect this, and wicked 
to wish it, since it would involve the neglect of the 
social duties. It is evident how powerful an argu- 
ment may hence be drawn against monastic institu- 
tions, except under such regulations as should per- 
mit none to retire until a period of life when they 
might be presumed to have discharged the most im- 
portant duties of life. 

11. vuv\ Se eypoL-i^a ujxTv ju-t] (TuvavaixlyvuorQai. On the 
sense of this clause see the note supra, ver. 9. Suva- 
vap/yvuo-Qaj, iav Tty a. o. ^. This is an Hellenistic 
phrase, importing, " associate with any brother 
Christian who is," &;c. By aoeXcpoy oyo/xa.^o/xej/oy some 
think is meant no more than a86X<p. a»v. And indeed 
this sense of oi/o/x. does sometimes occur ; but here the 
context may induce one to suppose that the Apostle 
intended a stress to be laid upon the word ; and 
therefore I assent to the Greek Commentators and 
the early modern ones, that it signifies one who 
makes a profession of Christianity, is a Christian, at 
least in name. For, as Theophyl. (from Chrysost.) 
observes : ovojma fxovou aSeXcpou ep^ei, ouk ecrri ^e T-i] aKri~ 
Sela Tray o toTs" QCTTTipiSfxi^ixevois evo^of. 

In enumerating the vices on account of which any 
Christian brother ought to be avoided, the Apostle, 


it may be observed, does not strictly follow the for- 
mer list of the heathen vices, because far more is 
retjuired in a Christian. Thus he omits a^7r., as sup- 
posing that no such Christian would be retained in 
the society. And, as to etOoX., that must be accom- 
modated to the nature of the case, and denote that 
kind of idolatry in which some, though retained in 
Christian societies, indulged themselves, namely, in 
frequenting the idol feasts, or so eating of the meat 
provided there as to offend weak brethren. (See the 
Epistle to the Romans.) The Apostle inserts ?io/So- 
pos and y.e^ucro9, though not found in the heathen 
list, for the reason above suggested. The former 
term is explained u^ia-rr^^, /ca/coAoyoy. It, however, 
answers to our hlachguard, and, as it is associated 
with pt-eQuo-of, it can require no explanation. Krause 
absurdly supposes that it implies glidtotit/ as well as 

With respect to oLpira^., I strongly suspect that it 
has crept in from the former list, especially as it is 
out of place. 

Here Grot, aptly cites from Charonidas: alUio av- 
8p< ry yjvcLiKi ixTj oiKi'keiv ixrjOevu, -^ ove»3j'^ecr6ai coy oWa 

11. Tcp TQiouTu) (X7i^€ (ruu€(r(ii€iv, "witli such a sort 
of person, no, not to eat," i. e. (as some explain) 
*' not use their familiar intercourse.'* But the ]ut,7]8e 
will not permit this : for that the Apostle could not 
have been expected to allow, and it fell under the 
former (ruvava[xiyvja-SGLi. And moreover, the Apos- 
tle is here bringing forward some new direction. 
The sense is, I think, riglitly pointed out by Grot., 
who renders : " with such an one, no, not to eat at 
the same table ;" which is, he observes, the lowest 
sort of connection, or intercourse ; as Gal. 2, 12. 
Here Wets, compares Seneca Ep. 19. Epicuri — ante, 
inquit, circumspiciendum est, cum quibus edas ac 
bibas, quam quid edas et bibas. 

12. ri yaq fxoi ku) Tohse^co Kplveiv. I'here is, in this 
sentence somewhat of abruptness, arising from the 


omission of a clause, which depends upon yao, and 
assigns the reason why he does not advert to sinners 
of the heathen. The interrogative, too, involves a 
strong negation. T< yap i^oiy scil. ju,eA6t or wpoa-i^Kei. 
Krause compares Arrian. Epict. 4, 6. t/ yap a-oi Ka) 
rouTo elrrelv. Many examples of this ellipsis are cited 
by Wets. 

Kplveiv signifies to judge, pass sentence on. The 
Tou? e§a) and the too? eVco are those within, and with- 
out the pale of Christianity, Christians, and Non- 
Christians, (See Schoettg.) Kypke compares Jo- 
seph. Ant. 4, 13. where the Jews, o\ o\k€7oi, are op- 
posed ToTy €^(o^ev. This, Krause observes, the Apos- 
tle proceeds to illustrate by an example drawn from 
common life. And he renders : " nonne vos (in 
causis forensibus) modo judicatis de intraneis, i. e. 
civibus vestris?" So Scinilz ap. Rosenm. : *' Nonne 
vos etiam in communi vita sic agitis, ut in eos tan- 
tum animadvertatis, qui ad forum vestrum perti- 
nent?" And so Jaspis. Others, as Crell. and Mackn., 
render : " do ye not possess a right to judge those 
that are within the Church ?" Many Commenta- 
tors, as Pyle and Rosenm., adopt the punctuation 
and interpretation of Theophyl., as follows : " Have 
I any thing to do to judge those that are without ? 
No. Judge ye them that are within (but those that 
are without God judgeth), and ye shall take away the 
evil from among you." Other conjectures and inter- 
pretations may be seen in Bowyer. 

But, after all, I see no reason to desert the common 
punctuation and interpretation, which is confirmed 
by Chrysost., Theodoret, and Photius ap. Qilcumen. 
4-6^. ^jjuteTf Se rouy aSeX^pous" ^looQouixe&a, iv rip Kplveiu Ka\ 
avaKpiveiv auTwv tov ^lov ctt) hiopScocrei' €^ CKeiucov yap 
€^a)pi<r$Yiy.€V. Tous* 8e e^co c6 Qeos Kplvei. The sense 
is well expressed by Mr. Slade, as follows: "What 
have I to do with Heathens ? (And how could I 
give directions respecting your judgment of them?) 
Is it not your exclusive concern to judge those that 
are within? The heathens God will judge (but 


exercise the judgment that belongs to you), and cut 
off'that wicked person from your community." 

13. Koi e^apeTre tov Trovrjpov e. u. a. Future for Im- 
perative. There is a reference to Deut. 2i, 7* Ka) 
i^apeis rov Trovriphv e^ J^aajv aurcou. The sense is : 
*' excommunicate him, expel him from your society." 
Many copies omit the koi, which is cancelled by some 
Critics, but not on good grounds. It is equivalent 
to " and (so),'' i. e. as you have the power : this con- 
firms the common interpretation at ver. 12. Let it 
be remembered, too, that though it is omitted in some 
dozen MSS., yet their authority, in such a case, is of 
little weight : for who would have thought o? insert - 
ing a KOLi ? whereas, as there is some harshness and 
difficulty connected with it, that would cause the 
corrector of the Cod. Cant., and some other such 
bold emendators, to cancel it, 


1. ro'k^a. Ti^ ujxcov, Trpayfxoi e^cov tt. r. e. The 
Apostle now proceeds to quite another subject, and 
connected with what he had written in the preceding 
Chapter only by the association of ideas. (Krause.) 
The vinculum may perhaps be the Kplveiv at ver. 12., 
which suggested to the Apostle the idea of that 
litigious spirit which he well knew existed among 
the Corinthians. 

1. roXjaa. There is no reason, with the old Com- 
mentators, to press upon the sense of this word, 
which, as in Rom. 5, J. and 2 Cor. 10, 12., denotes : 
" sustinet, in animum inducit," '' can any one bring 
himself." (See the note on Rom.) The above sense 
was first seen by Erasmus, who adduces examples of 
this signification ofsustineo, as does Krause of roX/Aato. 
(See Bp. Pearce.) 

1. Trpoiyixa, like negotium, is a forensic term, sig- 
nifying the lis, controversia, suit. It must here mean 
such a charge as would afford grounds for a suit at 
law. Krause compares Lys. p. 109. 7zpayn.a €)(eiv* 


and Plato Gorg. aXXa 8eT ku) Trp^yixarcc Ka\ avSga/Trouy, 
KGLi 7]Sovay, KoCi T^VTTUS (peuyeiv, Koi hiwKeiVy /cat u7ro]ut,€Vovra 
Kaprepeiv ottou SeT. 

1. Trpoy Tov erepov. For /caret tou ercpoi», Matt. 5, 
23. Estius observes, that the Apostle's censure is 
directed against the plaintiffs not the defendant; 
and that for an obvious reason. 

1. K^iv€<rBai €7rt rcov a^iKcov. Kg/veo-Qaj, like the 
Heb. 1'^"^, signifies litigare, to 7>zoz;e a suit, as in Matt. 
.5, 39« 'Ettj, 5?/^, coram, under the jurisdiction of. 
Of this sense Wets, adduces several Classical exam- 
ples. Twv aliKcov, " the heathens ;" as opposed to 
tiri rmv aylcov just after. (See Acts 25, 9* 10, 1. 
Tim. 6, 13.) That this merely denotes profane 
judges is plain, notwithstanding what Paulus and 
Krause have urged to the contrary. The best Com- 
mentators admit that by aS//coj are meant aTria-ro), as 
opposed to the oi ayioi, orChristians. Now these are 
so called, not (as Rosenm. supposes) because unbe- 
lievers do not pay what they owe to God (which 
would be very frigid), but from their being gene- 
rally a^iKoi (just as they are sometimes called aixapToi- 
Xot), though many of them were by no means such, 
but (especially in their judicial capacity) of approved 
integrity. (See Mackn. and Bp.Pearce.) So Theo- 
phyl. 'Aytous Se rohs Tricrrovs (^r^G'iv, e^ aurcov rcvv ovo^ot,- 
rotiv Se/Kvy? rriv ^lat^opav oI |xev yap aSi/cot eto-jj/, oI oe 
ayioi. Rosenm. thinks there is a paronomasia be- 
tween the names here given them, and that which 
they usually bore, oI hiKaa-ral. And he appeals to 
Max. Tyr. 9, 4. (cited by Wets.) But the remark 
seems ill founded. That eloquent sophist abounds 
in such concetti as are not found in our Apostle. 

In illustration of the thing, it is observed by the 
Commentators, and especially Rosenm., that as the 
Jews had permission from the Romans to hold 
courts for the decision of the suits at law of their 
brethren, so this privilege had been granted to the 
Christians, especially the Jewish Christians : but 
that some Corinthian Christians, despising the Chris- 


tian Judges, had recourse to the Heathen ones, from 
some false notions respecthig Christian liberty, and 
that they might not assimilate themselves with Jews." 
In which view Wetstein (among other Rabbinical 
passages) cites Tanchuma, fol. 92, 2. Statutnm est, 
ad quod omnes Israelitas obligantur, euni qui litem 
cum alio habet, non debere eum tractare coram gen- 
tilibus. All this, however, seems to be too hypo- 
thetical. The persons addressed were few of them 
Jewish Christians : nor is it likely that any such 
permission as that in question would be granted to 
the Gentile Christians by the Romans, or be ac- 
cepted hi) them : since this would eifectually assimi- 
late them with Jews ; which they would have many 
reasons to deprecate. 

It would appear that by eV< rcov ayUov are meant, 
not Christian Judges authorized to finally decide 
suits, but private arbitrators,* by whose decision 
they were not obliged to abide, and often did not 
abide, but brought their suits before the Roman 

2. ouK oloare ort, &c. This formula is of frequent 
occurrence, and chiefly serves to strengthen an asse- 
veration, and rouse attention. 

On the sense of the present passage various have been the opi- 
nions of the Commentators. The generally received one, and that 
supported by some few Latin Fathers, as Cyi)rian, and, of the mo- 
derns, Beza, Calvin, Erasmus, Justinian, Casaubon, Estius, Selden, 
Wolf, Doddridge, and Pearce, is, that that is meant of the Christians 
being assembled round the tribunal of Christ at the last day; and 
thus taking a part in the judgment to be pronounced on the un- 
believing world — " tanquam adsessores Christi." To which inter- 
pretation strong objections are made by Lightfoot, Macknight, and 
others. " It is repugnant (says Mackn.) to all the accounts given 
of the general judgment ; and particularly to our Lord's own ac- 
count of that great event. Matt. 25., where the rig^hteous are repre- 
sented as all standing before his tribunal, along with the wicked, 
and as receiving their sentence at the same time with them. Be- 

* And so Theophyl. '204. cnreibii ol ttlittoI Ibiuirai ovres ovk c't^icJ- 
TTitTTOi tbvicovy Trpvs TO TCfieii' vvruOecriv, &C. So also Wets. ; " Po- 
tius quam ut judices ex gentibus adeatis, eligite litium vestrarum 
arbitros ex coetu vestro, vel illos, quos ad judicandum ineptissimos 
existimatis," And he refers to Cor. 11, 22. James 2,6. 1 Sam. 
8, T. Dan. 4, 14. 2 Cor. 9, 5. Mark 12, 10. Joh. 3, 2G. 


sides, for what purpose are the saints to be Christ's assessors at the 
judgment ? Is it to give him counsel, or only to assent to the sen- 
tence he will pass on the wicked ? To found a docirine of this 
magnitude merely on two obscure passages of Scripture, which can 
easily admit of a different and better interpretation, seems not a 
little rash." To the above objections it is replied by Mr. Slade, that 
it appears from Matt. 25, 33., that the saints shall be judgedjirst , 
and we find from 1 Thess. 4, 16., that " the dead in Christ shall rise 
first ; and therefore theie is no contradiction in supposing that, 
after the sentence of blessedness has been passed upon them, they 
may join the attendant angels round the throne of judgment, and 
thus bear a part in that great transaction." " And though (conti- 
nues he) Christ alone is the Judge, and needs no assistants, still it is 
for him to prescribe what forms of judicature he may think best j 
and there is no reason why he should not be surrounded with glo- 
rified saints, as well as with angels." But this, however ably put, 
is no sufficient answer. We admit that there is nothing unreason- 
able in the supposition : but how can the fact be proved from the 
words of the Apostle. And when it is said, it is for Christ to jjre- 
scribe what forms of judicature he may think best, &c., that is beg- 
ging the question. Such a sense cannot, I think, be elicited from 
the words. How harsh to interpret Kpirovai merely of assistance 
and approbation, standing by, and hearing a part in ; and this is yet 
harsher, when applied, as it must be, to the words of ver. 3. " Ye 
shall j«(/ge angels." 

2. Others, as Lightfoot, Vitringa, Amelius, Whitby, and Bengel, 
suppose it to be an allusion to Christian magistrates being gover- 
nors, and so judges of the world. But on the time when this will 
take place they are not agreed. Most understand it of the don)i- 
nion of Christian princes and judges, at the demolition of Pagan 
superstition. But this is making the passage })rophetical ; thus it 
has been, by the Popish Commentators, pressed into the service in 
order to defend their hierarchy ; on which Semler has a very 
spirited and not ill-founded tirade. 

Others, as Wetsius, refer it to the Millenium. But how angels 
are to be judged by the Christians of the Millenium, is more than 
we can comprehend. 

3. Whitby and Mackn. take it to mean : " they shall judge and 
condemn the world, by the faith preached for a testimony unto 
them ; as did Noah, Heb. 11, 7. See Joh. IG, 8. 12, 31. Mac- 
knight, however, would read Kpivovm, in the present tense, with 
this sense : " Do ye not know that the inspired teachers amonsr you 
judge the world by the laws of the Gospel which they pronmlgate." 
But both these interpretations are harsh and strained, and cannot 
be applied to the judgment of angels without involving manifest 
absurdity. Semler, indeed, had before devised the conjecture Kpi- 
vovai (which must, however, require icpiyopey at ver. 3.) : but he 
(as usual) explains away the sense. 

The most favourite interpretation for the last half century has 
been that to be found in Noesselt, Rosenm., Krause, Jaspis, and 
(as it seems) Slade, who interpret it : " Christians can rightly judge 


of heathens." i.e. perceive their errors in things pertaininir to reli- 
gion. See 2, 15. & J, 16. Slade proposes to read KpwoDat, and 
interpret : ' the saints have power to discern, and authority to pass 
judgment on, the actions of mankind." But this sense cannot I 
think, be elicited from the words on any correct Hermeneutical 
principles. In this respect the two last interpretations are liable 
to far greater objection than the first mentioned one : since it is 
certain, from ver. 3., that the judgment mentioned must be the 
hna judgment. Now this interpretation has found an able de- 
tender where one shouhl least expect it, namely, in Crellius. But 
he IS compelled to maintain it by reasonings extremely sophistical 
He thinks the passage is parallel to Matt. 19, 2S., where it is said 
that the twelve Apostles shall sit on twelve thrones, to judge the 
twelve tribes of Israel. Yet he admits that there are propda auada.n 
ac pecuharia Apostolis. And so also both the expressions have been 
explained by Cameron. But though that interpretation may be ad- 
nntted at Matt. 19, 28. (where see the note), yet here it is incon- 
sistent with the adjuncts, as judging angels, &c. 

I shall now proceed to detail another interi)retation, which as it 
IS the most ancient, will, after all (I think) be found the truest. 
It IS that of the Greek Fathers and Commentators, and nearly all 
the Latin ones, though countenanced by scarcely any modern Com- 
mentator, except Semler. This is ably supported by Chrysost., 
rheophyl., I heodoret, and Photius. They take Kpu'o'J,, (as often) 
tor KaraKpn'ovmy, condemn; and explain : " will afford matter for 
their condemnation (namely by the comparison) ;" " shall be the 
means of increasing their condemnation :" iirav yhp (says Chrys ) 
Tov iiXioy opwyre,, kcu Tu,y abrwy /xerexovres Truyrujy, i,ue~i, n^y 
evpeUw^iey Trifrrevaarres, e^eTj'ot bt i'/TriarTjKores, ov bv,',',>royraie}s 
ayyoiav Karaipvyely Ka~,r/op>,ao^€y yap avrQy {„.iels bi' aWwr, ^y 
erpa^afiey- Kai ttoXXu roiadra evpiicreL ns t/cel KpiTimia. Or, as 
Iheophylact expresses it :''Ora»' yap ofioiOTradel, iiyres, elpedwcrcy 
av-ot fiey TrKTrevcrarres, ov Kardicpiffis rovro rwv cnritTTwy ; Finally 
Photius ap. (Ecumen. 463 b. oray avrol iiydpoj^ot c^yres b^iocona- 
tfe(s ii^iy Kai tTTiarevtray, ^cal XPVrriiP eirebei^ayTO TroXirelay ro.y 
A^/) ToiovTwy yiyofieywy <ipa ovk ecrovrat Kar^yopoi ; bieXeyyovm yhp 
it^ias, OTiov Kara aaOeyday <pvcr€io<i, «XX« Kara paBviday hunnrir- 
axtfxep. Chrysost. aptly compares Matt. 12, 41. " The men of 
Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall con- 
demn It, because they repented at the preaching of Jonas;" & ver 
42. " The Queen of the South shall rise up in the judgment with 
this generation, and shall condemn it ; for she came from the utter- 
most jiarts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon." And he 
might have added, Matt. 12, 29., " therefore shall they be your 
judges. •' ^ 

I see not what objection can i)e made to the above intemretation 
when properly understood ; and one advantaije is, that it enables us' 
to give the only inter|)retation at all satistacVory of the perplexin*' 
words of ver. 12., " judge the angels." ° 

Yet to this the modern Commentators have paid little attention 
only slightly objecting that this is no more than may be said of the 


wicked; as in the case of the Ninevites, and the Queen of the South. 
Chrysost., however^ adduces those passages in proof oi the interpre- 
tation ; and very rightly. For how can those persons be reckoned 
among the wicked, of the former of whom it is said that they re- 
pented at the preaching of Jonah ; and of the latter, that she came 
from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the preaciiing of Solo- 
mon ; which necessarily carries with it the idea of her embracing 
the true faith. Selden, indeed, objects that there is required some- 
thing more appropriate and peculiar to the saints. But by ayioi are 
only meant all true Christians : and we see with what ill success that 
"something more appropriate" has been aimed at. Thus it is, and 
ever will be, when men attempt " to be wise above what is written." 
Let us, then, leave to the Apostle his own modes of argument and 
illustration. In this view it is very well observed by Creliius : 
" Etiamsi vero haec judicandi ratio sit impropria, nihilominus tamen 
ex ea argumentum ducere potuit Paulus." Macknight, indeed, 
boldly asserts that this sense has no relation to the Apostle's argu- 
ment. But that depends upon the sense assigned to the words fol- 
lowing. Surely Chrysost. was a far better judge of the scope of the 
Apostle than Macknight, or perhaps any other modern Theologian 

After all, it is not necessary to too anxiously /9?-css on the inference 
couched in the following words, koi el kv vpiv Koiverai o Koapos, 
avalioi core (cp«r>;p«'wv tXo^^^t'orwv, such being (more Judaico) some- 
what tortuous, though popular, and therefore suitable to the pur- 
pose. It is well remarked by the Greek Commentators, that we 
have kv vplv, not c0' vpwv, i.e. (as Theophyj. explains) v-o rov 
Qeov per Kpiyerui, ev vplv be KaraKpiverai, viz. " by the example you 
believers have set them." The tcplverai must be taken populariter, 
" is to be condemned," " will be condemned.'' So Creliius. " Verbum 
actum designans, pro facultate et jure, seu potestate accipitur." 
And he renders ; " If ye are to be judges of the world (i. e. the un- 
believers), are ye unworthy (i, e. unfit J for deciding in the smallest 
matters.'' So our common version. But I apprehend that tA«x- 
has not here the superlative force, but merely denotes things of ex- 
ceedingly small moment, i.e. (as the Apostle just after explains) 
ijiojTim, things of this life only, and therefore comparatively inconsi- 
derable ; namely, of disputed claims, inheritances, &c. Kpiri'ipiov 
here signifies the lis, controversia ; though it usually denotes the 
place of judgment. The argument, (hen, may be thus stated ; " If 
you have shown such judgment as to appreciate and embrace the 
Christian faith, and such integrity and probity as it enjoins, and 
thereby will put to shame, and condemn by comparison, those of 
greater talents, learning, and ac(juirements, are you unfit to exercise 
judicial and arbitrary functions on petty matters." 

In ver. 3. there is a. sort oi climar. The Apostle (Creliius ob- 
serves), " assurgit in ostendend^ Christianorum dignitate." On 
the words therein contained, Krause remarks that, owing to the 
extreme brevity of the Apostle in speaking his mind, they are so ob- 
scure, that on their sense nothing certain can be determined." And 
so D'Oyley and Mant : " What particular judgment is here meant 


it is not easy to assign or determine." But, though I deny not, 
nimiam esse brevilateiii, the obscurity seems chiefly to have origi- 
nated in the false views which the modern Conimentators have taken 
of ver. I., and which cannot very well be imputed to the interpre- 
tation I have adopted. Thus some interpret the verse of the (Jiiris- 
tians (or rather the Apostles and ministers of the Gospel) prevailing 
over evil spirits in this life, and depriving them of their dominion j 
or, by ayyeXovs, they understand " crafty and powerful men," as 
resembling evil ar)gels, or assisted by demoniacal influence. Schulz, 
yet more unwarrantably, wraps all up by observing, that in these 
words there is no more than universality expressed.* By which 
notable device he silences, and in effect cancels, the troublesome 
word. It is evident how this is to be applied to angels (by whom 
must be understood bad ongels, as, in the former step of the climax, 
bad men), namely, to use the words of Chrysost. 34!2, 40. orav yap 
ai uarwfiaroi bvydfieis nvrai eXarroi' tji-iuii' evfjedwaif e-)(pv(Tai twv 
aapica irepipepXij^ei'uiy, ^uXeTrwrepay bcjcrovai tiK7]i', feo Theoph. 
AyytXovs rovs b<iti^ioids <1)1](ti' kui tovtovs ovv KnraKpivov^ev, urav 
oi ^v aapKL'i'i twv iKTiOfiarwy avruiy TrXeou evpeOwjjev e-^orres. 
And so J heodoret : Ka-akpLyovm be avrovs o'l I'lyioi, utl aiona rrept- 
K€tf.teyoi rijs Oeias Oepaneias etjypoi'Tiaay, et^eiyujy ev a< (l)vaei 
T})i' TTOfrjpiay iKnTwrafteywy. Photius aj). CEcumen. has an elaborate 
disquisition on this subject, to which 1 can only refer my learned 

4. ^imTiKu fxkv ouv KpiTYipia. — Ka.^i§eT€. This sen- 
tence is susceptible of more than one sense, accord- 
ing as tlie verb be taken in the indicative or the im- 
perative. Tile former mode is adopted b}' most 
modern Commentators, as Luther, Cameron, Vorst., 
CastelUo, and ahiiost all the Commentators of the 
last century, as Wolf, Whitby, Wells, Doddridge, 
Hardy, and Eisner. Thus a mark of interrogation 
is placed at the end of the sentence, and by rouy 
€^otj^€vrjtx€vovs are understood Heathen inagisfrates; 
which is supposed to be most agreeable to the words 
following. And this may possibly be the true inter- 
pretation : yet it is liable to soine objections. Do 
interrogative sentences often commence with ixevouv? 
I think not. Is it not harsh to consider the Gentile 
Judges as e^ouQevry,aevouy by the Christians ; (which 
is contrary to the Apostle's maxim, "Honour to 

* 1 had occasion to reprobate a similar false interpretation, supra 
•1, 9., " a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men (where see 
the note)." 

VOL. VI. 2 A 


■wliom honour is due?) and docs it not violate purity 
of language to say, that they were t^ouO. iv t'^ cKKT^ri- 
(Ttn.^ for uTTo Ty\s €KK7\.rj(rla^? And then (as Kypke 
suggests) how can Kudl^ere be suitable to the Corin- 
thian Cluistians, who did not appoint the Gentile 
Judges, but might appoint and choose arbiters and 

I therefore greatly prefer the common interpreta- 
tion, by which kuQ. is taken in the imperative : and 
this is confirmed by the Syr., Vulg., and some other 
antient Versions, as also by the Greek Fathers and 
Commentators and most of the Latin ones, and, of 
the modern Commentators, by Calvin, Beza, Grot., 
Drus., Est., De Dieu, Crell , Hamm., Pearce, Wets., 
Kypke, Mackn., Pyle, Storr, Schleus., and several 

15y Touy e^ouB. is meant, " even the least esteemed 
amongst you," i. e. " if ye have not wise and prudent 
men, or if they be otherwise occupied." * 

Some Commentators, as Knatchbull, have fancied 
a harshness in the pleonasm of toutous-. But others, 
more ])ioperIy, regard it as empliatic. In rouy i^ovQ, 
Lightfoot and Locke recognize an allusion to a sort 
of petty court of referees, not formally appointed by 
the Sanliedrim, but acting as arbitrators. This, how- 
ever, seems too hypothetical. It appears, indeed, 
from the Rabbinical passages cited by the former, 

* So Chrysost. 343. Me0' i;7rep/3o\>7s ///nets bibaEai /SovXoyL/fj'os, 
on ovb' ay iriovi' /), ro'is e^wQei' havrovs bibuvai XP')> '"')*' boKovaav 
eJyai ayridfaiv Kive.nrns, ir^iorjyovfi.tvws ravTrji' eXvcrei'' o yap \eyet 
TOiovTui' l(TTir' 'icrws fpei ris, on ovbels ey vj.i~iy (tu(J)os, ovbe iKarcs 
buikp'iyai, evKnTa(j)f)(')f7]T0i Trarres. Kal n tovto ; Kf^v yap]b€is j) 
cfn<j)(')S, <j)r]ai, to7s fX<t')^iaTois tTrtrpcTrere. And Tlieophyl. 505. 'E/c 
irepiovaias fiovXofiei'os anocrTfiaai avrovs ru)v t:t,it) biKacrTrjpiMv, (pr](T\y, 
on 'Irriiis e'i ttoi ns ay, on ovk en <T0(j)6s ns kv rij tKKXijtrlif, 6 
biakph'ai hvyaf^teyos. E( yap Kara Twy vjidy Xoyov ovk tVi fro(l)vS, 
TOVi iiovOe.yi]j^ifiovs fiaXXoy bikaaTua kftOi$€Te, i) tovs inricTrovs. 
"The Apostle does not (says Tlicodoret) bid them choose the least 
esteemed, but only take those rather tlum the Heathen Judges." 
So that tliere is no diflieulty, except in tlie omission of the words, 
" if there be no wise man among you." But such ellipses are fre- 
quent in St. Paul. 


and from what De Dieii has brought forward, that 
it was usual for causes of property to be referred to 
tliree lay arbitrators, called miDVlH, from the Greek 
word l^KvTui. So Sanhedrim, fol. 3, 1. Judicia pe- 
cuniaria per tres judices idiotas, judicia rapinarum et 
la3sionis per probatos. IV. 2. omnes idonei sunt, ut 
judicent lites pecuniarias. 

The word KaQl§€iv is properly used o^ judges (on 
which see Kypke); but it is equally applicable to 
arbitrators who exercise a judicial function. 

5. TT^oy evrpoTT-^v uixiv T^eyco. It is rightly remarked 
by Chrysostom, that this is eT^c-y^ovroy toutcoi^ avri^i- 
o-jv, (JOS o-/cyy\|/)v oZ(rav TrepiTTr^v. The sense is : "I say, 
or have said, this (namely, supposing* you have not 
an highly-esteemed man among you) to your shame;" 
i. e. " what I have said of you tends to your shame." 
So 4, 14. ivTpcTTcov J^ay ypacpco. 

5. ouTcos ouK ea-Tiv, &c. " but is it really so ; is there 
not one man of wisdom and judgment among you, 
(not one) who shall be able ^luK^lvai ava fxecrov tou 
aSeX<^oy aurov. This use of ourco? for itane? siccine? 
always imports wonder mixed with indignation or 
reprobation. Compare Mark 7> 18. Gal. ^3, 3. In 
the repetition of the negative and the dialysis ouSe eh 
for ou^fiy there is an intensive force. 

Sovpoy, prudent, of sound judgment (not, as Vi- 
tringa su})poses, a doctor of law, D^H). The words 
following are, in some measure, exegetical of the 
preceding : so that there is no occasion to render 
hCvoLTai vacatj as do Grotius and Hardy : though the 
word sometimes denotes the having leisure as well 
as skill to do a thing. 

.5. ZiaKolvai ava ^ecrov rod aSeX<pou aoroO ; As two 
persons must be supposed, hetiveen whom the re- 
feree would have to decide, many stumble at the use 
of the singular, and some, as Beza and Rosenm., 
would read ahe'K^cov (from Ambrose) ; and others, 

* That is, (as Theophylact paraphrases,) avvrpi^wv rtj \pevbel 
irpo<f>da€i vfjLCjy. 



with the Syr. and Arab., aSeXc^oG koi rou ctSeXcpow 
auTod. But the authorities in both cases are of no 
weight, since in points of idiom (and this is one) 
Translators use too great Hcense to enable us to 
judge of the words of their original. With respect 
to the senscy Ambrose has correctly represented it 
by rendering, '' inter fratres." And so our Common 
Translators and Mack night : " between his bre- 
thren."* As to the reading of the Syr., it only 
shews that the Translator recognized an ellipsis, 
which he has well filled up, as appears from the fol- 
lowing verse : but the genius of the Western lan- 
guages scarcely tolerates this. There is, in fact (as 
Glass and Estius have seen) a Hebraism. 

On the cause of this indisposition to settle such 
matters among them, it is sensibly observed by Ro- 
senm. (partly from Storr.) " Ceterum hoc malum, ut 
Corinthii coram judicibus ethnicis litigare inciperent, 
inde fluxisse videtur, quod inter diversarum pariium 
Christianos facile et erebro lites fierent. In his au- 
tem litibus vix erant in ecclesia, qui talum apud liti- 
gantes fidem haberent, ut dirimere possent contro- 
versias inter fratres, quia neutra pars litigans alteri 
satis fidebat, sed eos, quos forte una pars arbitros 
dari vellent, altera continuo tanquam adversariee fac- 
tioni addictos, et in alienge sectai hominum iniquiores 
futuros, perhorrescebat." 

6. aAXa ctSeAc^oy p-era a6eX<^oy KOiVerai. Kpiv. here 
signifies litigare; as supra ver. 1. (where see the 
note.) Kai TouTo CTTJ aTTia-rcov. Wolf rightly sup- 
plies ylverai. This ellipsis also has place in TaGrot. 
And so the Latin idque. In both languages the 
idiom has, I think, almost always an intensive force: 
and such is here ascribed to it by Chrysostom and 
the other Greek Commentators, and, of the mo- 
derns, by Crellius and Raphel. But it is not clear 
to me that the Apostle intended any great stress to 
be laid upon it. 

* Doddridge, scrupulously adhering to the original, renders, 
" his brother}" which is absurd. 


In some MSS. there is added, ko.) ouk eTri ay)cov. 

On this sense of e7r}, coram, Krause refers to Dor- 
ville on Charit. p. iH2. and VVess. on Diod. Sic. 
16, 93. 

It is rightly remarked by Tlieodoret, that this is 
not at variance with the injunction in Romans, "not 
to resist magistrates." The Apostle only bids the 
injured not to have recourse to them: for that 
depended upon themselves. 

7. rf^T] [Kev oZv oXa)9 ■^'rTTJiut.a iu vfxiv €(rriv. The 
Apostle now proceeds to a more general censure of 
their disposition, which seems to have been too liti- 
gious and grasping. 

On TJ^jr} Krause remarks: "Adhibetur orationi, in 
qua id (piod minus est ponitum, ut majus ex eo col- 
ligatur." ''OAojy, "upon the whole," generally speak- 
ing, (though there may be exceptions,) there is an 
v^TTYiixa among you, €v* uyAv. 'TIrr7]fxa signifies gene- 
rally a diminution, defect, &c., and also an inferiority 
of condition, like eXarrco/xa ; as in Chrysost. (cited 
by Grot.) Ai/cato? ia-nu, eXerjjtxcov e<rTiv, (piXoTTTCD^o^ 
i(TTiv oiXk' ex^i Tt iT^aTTcofxa. This use is not easily 
paralleled either in the Scriptural or the Classical 
writers. The sense may be thus expressed : " Ye 
are, in this respect, inferior in Christian dispositions 
to that which the Gospel requires." "Or», *' namely 
that." Kpj'aara e^ere |xe^' kaurcov. Here Kp/fx-a evi- 
dently signifies lis, suit; like the Koir-fi^ia at ver. 4. 
All this was at variance with the spirit of the Gos- 
pel, which inculcates forbearance. See Matt. 5, 40. 

7. oiuTi 00-^1 ixoKkov aOiKela-be — aTToa-repelG-Se. This 
use of these two verbs, namely, bear to be injured,'^- 
&c. (viz. rather than resort to Heathen judges,) 
somewhat varies from the common one. Grotius 
thinks that ahK. relates to general and personal in- 

* Many MSS, and Fathers omit the ey ; perhaps ex emcndatione ; 
for the conmion reading savours more of the Hellenistical style. 

\ Grotius remarks, tliat such is the use of u'bLKelaQaL n\ Plato 
and Menandcr, from the latter of whom Krause cites r Olros Kpw 


suit and injury; aTroor., to injury in property. Per- 
haps, however, they both refer chiefly to the latter, 
and there is perhaps a climax : or the latter may be 
added exegetically. 

Here Grotius compares Lysias Adv. Diag. EiSwy 
oTi 00 ^ovov 01 aSi/coGvTey "/^eipms ^ixiv ehai. 8o/coGo-»v, aXXa 
Koti d) Tiv€s OLV eXarrov utto rcov wpotre^ovTiov ep^ovres", 
ave)(€(rbai jw-r] Suvavrat * And Schulz. cites Joseph. 
Ant. 15, 5, 3. %^iov ixev r^v — ou'Se rouy 'Apa^as — aS//ce»v 
J/xa? OL7ro(rT€povvTaSi koli tto-Vtcl ou TroT^ejfjtj'ouy ovra?, a?vXa 
(^/aou?. To which I add Arist. Ethic. 5, 10. (where 
he thus describes the eTrjei/oj) o ^j.^^ a/c§»3oS"<a'^os' ^ttI to 
"//ioaV oKhot. €XaTT(OTiK09, Kaiirep k^cou vo^ov ^arfiov. 

8. oKKoL ujULeTy aSi^'eTre, &c. " non modo fertis, 
sed ipsi inferth injuriam," as Grotius paraphrases 
it. Ka) raGra, for /cai fxaXia-Ta, "and th'dt," idqtte. 
Of this idiom numerous examples are adduced by 
Wetstein and Krause. It has usually an intensive 
and emphatic force. 

9. r] ouK o'/Sare on. A frequent formula for '* ye 
ought to know." ^Ori aSi/coj |3ao-iXe/av Qeou ou KXrjpo- 
voixr^Toua-i ; Here SihKoi is for oi a^iKoi, i. e. such sort 
of persons as those just mentioned. It is not neces- 
sary, with Grotius and Rosenm., to assign to it the 
latiorem s\gn\^C2itiowQva, Jiagitious, with reference to 
the vices which the Apostle proceeds to enumerate. 
It rather seems, that he proceeds to lay down a more 
general position, which he introduces with the for- 
mula /Aig TrXavao-Qe. 

As to the words 3a<r»Xe/av ©eoo ot> K'krioovo[K,ri<rou(ri, 
they cannot have the sense ascribed to them by 
some recent Interpreters, "must not be admitted 
into the Christian society." For they are said with 
reference to those who were already Christians^ and 
the context shews that they must be understood of 
the happiness obtained for men by Jesus Christ, 

TLdTOs ead' avj/p, 'H Topyia, "Ooris abiKeiadai TrXelar eiriaraTm 

* It may be observed, that what Lysias says of relations Paul 
says of Christian brethren. 


which, according to the custom of the writers of the 
New Testament, is represented as an inheritance^ in 
order to indicate (it should seem) the certainty 
thereof to those who observe the conditions of the 
Christian covenant./ 

9. it-y\ TrXavdaSe. These words, some think, are a 
general admonition to abstain from sin, or avoid 
evil example, or beware of being deceived by the 
impunity extended by the magistrate to some of the 
following sins. All these subauditions, however, are 
too arbitrary. It is a formula^ the force of which 
Grotius has well illustrated thus : " Solet hac Prae- 
fatione uti Christus, ut Luc. 21, 8. et Paulus, ut in- 
fra 15, 38. Gal. 6, 7- Jacobus quoque 1, l6, quoties 
aliquid dicturi sunt quod ignoratum aut non obser- 
vatum maximo stabit malo." Krause aptly com- 
pares Philemon : MrjSev TrXavjJ^Tjy eVrat Kav "Aoou 

9, 10. On the sins which the Apostle now pro- 
ceeds to enumerate, it is remarked by Grotius, that 
*' they are of such a sort as not to be understood of 
habit of action, but of some single act, unless washed 
away by repentance and reformation." *' Thus (adds 
he) in law we call him an adulterer or a thief who 
has committed only one act of adultery or theft." 
Such sins are finely termed by Augustin peccata 
vastantia conscientiam, mortifera, quae una ictu jjeri- 
munt. Yet of these there were certain ones on 
which some doubt might exist. For simply fornica- 
tion was by the Heathens scarcely accounted a sin ; 
and, as to idolatry, in the sense which must here be 
ascribed to it, viz. participation in idol-feasts, (see 
the note on 5, 11.) some might and did think it no 
sin. Therefore the Apostle rightly prefaces his enu- 
meration of the sins with the caution fti] TrXavatrSe. 

On the terms which express these sins it will not 
be necessary for me to enlarge, since they are, in 
general, sufficiently well understood, or, if not, 
iSchleus. Lex. may be consulted. 

rio^voj, fornicators, tvhoremongers. See the note 


on 5, 10. EISoX. I have already explained. Moi^o), 
adulterers. MaXa/co). Such as were called by the 
Latins the molles,* the cinoedi, pathics, or catamites; 
as is clear from D. Hal. 7. Thus Ciirysyst. rightly 
explains it by i^raiprjKore^, and Theophyl. ala-^poTroc- 
bouvT€9. So that there is no reason, with the Syriac 
Translator and some modern Commentators, to un- 
derstand it of self pollution : indeed the former in- 
terpretation is confirmed by the following word, 
apa-evoKoirai, with which is coupled what is admitted 
by all to denote the paederast^e, the ai(r^po7roiouvT€s, 

These sins, I must observe, seem to be classed by 
the Apostle, and thrown into groups; as Tropvo* and 
ehcoT^oT^arpai — (xoi^o), juiaXaKo), apa-evoKoirai — icXeTrraj, 
TT'KeoveKrai — p.e^u(rot,f T^oi^opoi, apTrccyes. On the term 
TrXeoveKrai I have before treated. As to the three 
last, namely, [xe^ua-oi, Xo/So^oi, and ap7ray€9, they may 
perhaps be paralleled by our drunhards^ brawlers, 
blachguards, and ruffians. Some think it strange 
that the drunkard and the brawler should be put on 
the same footing with those guilty of much greater 
crimes, as the app-firtTroioi. But as vices go in clus- 
ters, it is rare to find drunkenness unattended with 
vices of uncleanness, brutality, and violence ; nay, 
even extortion and rapacity are often united. Thus Sal- 
lust describes Catiline as both profuse and rapacious. 
Besides, as Chrysostom remarks, the Apostle is here 
only speaking of those who will be excluded from 
the kingdom of heaven, not o? punishment. '* Whe- 
ther (adds he) there will be any difference in hell 
we are here not concerned to enquire." On which 
point see Paley's Moral Philosophy. 

11. KoCi TauToi rives ^re. Here we have, as not un- 
frequently, the neuter for the masculine. There is, 
indeed, a reference to those vices considered as 
things. Of this idiom Kypke adduces examples, the 

* Which force of the word is illustrated with needless minuteness, 
and with too littlj regard to decorum, by Grotius and Wetstein. 

t This word is, by an unpardonable carelessness, omitted in 
the text of Krause. 


most apposite of which is from Aristoph. Nub. where 
8trepsiades, on reckoning up the many criminal 
charges that might be made against him, adds: 
ravT el fxe Xeyoucrtv ctTravrtovrey, &c. 

11. aXAa a7reXotj(raor(9e, a'KXa T^yiaaSrire, cOO^a. ioiKai- 
wSrjTe. The first of these words is too much ex- 
plained away by our recent Commentators. Thus, 
for instance, Rosenm. renders : "Ye have obtained 
pardon of your sins by our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
by the Divine religion :" for so he interprets iv ra> 
TTj/eufxari toG 0eou rnxwv ; which is doing manifest vio- 
lence to the words, and is contrary to the view taken 
by all Interpreters for nearly seventeen centuries. 
This mode of explanation had, indeed, been proposed 
by Vorst., but was well refuted by Whitby. Nor 
can there, I think (notwithstanding what some may 
urge), be any question but that these words have a 
direct reference to baptism. This, indeed, is plain 
from the turn of expression, which alludes to the 
/brm of baptism; though from the other terms, 
7]yia(T(ir]T€ and € 3 iKCi JO) Ot] re, which are subjoined, it 
should seem that the effects of baptism are desig- 
nated. For I cannot assent to several Commen- 
tators, (as Vorstius,) that the terms are synony- 
mous ; though they all liave reference to the gra- 
tuitous remission of sins and free justification ob- 
tained by Christ. Thus they are, very properly, 
kept distinct by Chrysost. 344, 30. S^oSjSa kurpex- 
TiKcog kxriyaye T^eycou, evvoTQirare r{KiKctiV u^ay i^eiT^ero 
KaKcov ©eoy, o(rr}v ujaTv (^ikav^paiTrlas Traoea-^ero jreTgav 
KOii arro^ei^JV kou otjSe |^e;^§» t^? aTzoKT^ayr^g rriv avrl- 
ao(riv eOwKev, aXX' €7r) ttoXu ttJv euepyealav -xporiyaye /cat 
yap KohoLphv €7roiri(r€V' ap' oh rouro /xovov ; o'Jc»ap,a>?, 
ctAT^a Ka) r^yiaa-er aXTC o'j3e rouro ixovoV aXXa Ka) eSt- 
Konwa-e. And so Theophylact, Theodorct, and CEcu- 
menius, and, indeed, the Greek and Latin Fathers in 

* In accordance with those venerable Interpreters, the great Bp, 
Bull, in Harm. Apost. 1. cli. 1. § 3. thus distinguishes the terms; 
" Lavatio signiRcat primam a vitiis per Baptismvmi purgationem ; 


Griesbach and most recent Commentators inter- 
pret : " Sed baptismo suscepto purificati, et sanctorum 
justorumque coetui aggregati estis." They regard 
the terms as synonymous, and tlie whole as import- 
ing neither pardon of sin nor reformation of heart 
and life, but merely their being separated from the 
herd of Heathens, and received, by baptism, into 
the visible Church. But this is manifestly explain- 
ing away the strong phraseology of the Apostle. Be 
it remembered, that it is not necessary to suppose 
the words strictly applicable to every member of the 
congregation ; it signifies, " ye are all, or ought to 
fee," &c. It is frivolous to dwell upon the verbs be- 
ing all put in past tenses, since the recently past and 
the present so unite themselves, especially in the 
aorist, that either or both might be applicable. 

'Ev Tip TTveviKari roo 0eoG must mean ; "by the 
Holy Spirit proceeding from and imparted to us by 
God the Father." It is well remarked by Theophyl., 
that there is an allusion to the three persons of the 
Sacred Trinity. 

12. The Apostle now makes a transition to an- 
other class of vices which had arisen among the Co- 
rinthians from the abuse of their Christian liberty. 
(Rosenm.) The transition has been thought abrupt ; 
but the ratio of it is thus ably traced by Krause 
(from Crellius) : *' Contra ea quae Paulus hactenus 

^andi^crt^io praeparationem et quasi formationem honiinis pergratiam 
Spiritus opera bona facienda, vitarr.que sanctam degendamj 
justificatio denique amorem ilium Dei, quo jam sanctam vitani degen- 
tes complexitur, eosque in Christo vitee eternse prsemio dignos cen- 
set." And so Dr. Isaac Barrow, cited by D'Oyley ; '• Here having been 
washed in Christ's name doth, in congruity with what is said in 
other i)]aces, denote baptism in his namej being justified and sanc- 
tified do express the first benefits accompanying that baptism. 
And, indeed, wherever a general remission of sins, or a full sanctifi- 
cation, or consecration, and justification of men's persons in God's 
sight, are mentioned, that remission of sins, that separation, or 
dedication unto God's service, that reception into grace, which are 
consigned in baptism, are, I conceive, understood ; there being no 
oilier reason or occasion wherein ordinarily and visibly God doth 
exhibit those benefits." 


vehementi objurgatione, de causis forensibus deriiie 
aliis rebus admonuerat, poterat quis doctrina de 
libertate Christiana, quam Apostoli* pro temporum 
illorum ratione diligenter commendare coacti erant, 
abuti (cf. Pom. 8, 2. Galat. 5, 1. 1 Petr. 2, 16. al.) 
et objicere : Travra (xoi e^eo-rjv, omnia, soil, qua? sunt 
a^ia<p€pa, mihi Ikita sunt. Ad speciosam banc ob- 
jectionem respondet : aXX' ot^ Travra (ru(x<p€0€t, at non 
omnia prosunt ; rect^ quidem ad libertatem christia- 
rem provocas, sed ha^c libertas abiisu nocerc potest : 
tenendus igitur in rebus omnibus est modus, ne ex 
abusu detrimentum oriatur et tibi et aliis." 

By the Travra are evidently meant '* all things 
here treated of,'' i. e. all things a.lia<^ooa, media, or 
indifferent, especially meaning all meats * It is 
rightly remarked by Grotius, that these are sup- 
posed to be the words used by those Corinthians 
who anxiously sought admittance to the tables of 
the rich, and, to indulge sensuality, used to visit the 
idol-feasts. To this the answer (couched in cOoC) 
is : " True ; all things are given us to enjoy, but, &c. 
oKTC ou TravTcc (roix<p€0€i. Examples of aXAa in the sense 
i/es, but, may be seen in Devar. and Hoogecv. de 

♦ Many eminent early Commentators, (especially Crellius and 
Locke,) and most recent ones, suppose that the Apostle had here 
furnicalion particularly in view, and means to argue, that its law- 
fulness can never be put on a footing with the lawfulness to eat of 
all wholesome food. But this seems a very strained interpretation. 
Mr. Slade unites loth; It appears (says he) that the false teachers 
had allured their disci[)les to sensual and lustful practices, by affirm- 
ing tliat they were as requisite for the body as meat; and that, as 
all meats were sent and allowed for the use of nature, so were sen- 
sual indulgences, on the same grounds." The antient Commenta- 
tors, however, and almost all the early modern ones, more rightly 
maintain, that the Apostle has here reference only to meat; though 
from sensualitij the Apostle quickly passes to the kindred vice of 
lewdiiexs. So Theophyl. 207. (from Chrysost.) 'ETretc^?/ t:a\ el-re Tre^ji 
Tov ireTrnpyevKOTOs, Kiii avOis jieXXei e'nre'ii' Trcpt avrov, irapeujidWei 
XoiTvuy Kat roy irepl rffs yaTrpifiapyias Xuyoy. 'En: yitp ravrrjs ws 
irriTOTToXv TO riji irnpyetas ttuOos. ^r]a\y ovv, on e^eari uoi (hayely 
Kui iroiely, uW ov nvfiipepei /.leru nfierpias ravra Troiely. Of the 
inudern Commentators see especially Grotius. 


12. 00 TravTOL (rvix^€f>€i, " all tilings (in themselves 
indifferent) are not. expedient." Grotius paraphra- 
ses : " Adhibendum modum : Non enim omnem 
usum talium conducere aut valetudini, quas sapienti 
negligenda non est, aut recto usui rationis. Nam — 
Corpus onustum Hestemis vitiis animum quoque 
degravatr Hardy (from the early Commentators) 
thus : " If they throw a stumbling-block in the wav 
of others; if they give occasion for wounding the 
conscience ; if they hinder others in the course of 
piety ; then, though they may be in themselves law- 
ful, yet they are to be abstained from by good and 
pious men ; for Christian liberty is to be measured 
by the rules of edification and charity." This Ro- 
senm*. exemplifies from the case of Paul himself. 

12. TTOLvroL JUI.OJ e^ea-riv. The Apostle repeats the 
objection (a method often occurring in Seneca and 
the best writers), in order to answer it the more ef- 
fectually. (Grot, and Rosenm.) 

12. oKTC ouk eyco k^Qua-iaa-brio-o^ca urro Tjvoy. Many 
suppose a paronomasia between e^ea-ri and e^oomaa-. 
This, however, seems to be too fanciful. The Com- 
mentators seem not to perceive the popular idiom 
which prevails in this sentence : for it is equivalent 
to " I must not," i. e. we must not, &c. Here 
there is especial reference to sensuality in eating 
and diinking, by which he who yields to such temp- 
tations, loses that power over himself which was 
committed to him by God, and becomes the basest 
of slaves. This obvious truth is unnecessarily en- 
larged on both by the ancient and modern Com- 

Tivos is not masculine (as some take it), but 
neuter, i. e. " any such thing (namely, as food or 

13. rot jSpfOjtxara ryj KoiT^la, ko.) tJ KOjX/a roTs" ^pu)^a(nv. 
This verse contains a further explanation and illus- 
tration of the sentiment before expressed. The 
Apostle here circumscribes the liberty with whicli 
he had granted that Christians were free, and illus- 


tratcs his meaning from the different parts of the 
body, and their functions. 

In the first clause there is an elh'psis of co-tj, which 
may be taken populariter for av^^Vej, *' are destined 
for." The dative (as Grot, observes) answers to 
the Heb. 7. The sense, then, is : " Ail ahments are 
destined to the sustenance of the body, and the 
body is likewise adapted to the reception and diges- 
tion of such foods. Eating and drinking are actions 
both natural and necessary to the support of the 
body." The KoiT^ia. evidently denotes the stomach ; 
as in Matt. 15, I7. Mark 7, 19. Luke 15, 16., and 
also Thucyd. 2, 49- In the same manner the pas- 
sage is taken by Theodoret, Grotius, Wolf, and 
others. Chrysost. and the other Greek Commenta- 
tors (together with some modern ones) take koiT^'kx. 
figuratively for yaorpojuiagyja, g^ula. But this throws 
an obscurity over the whole sentence. Ilosenm. 
well supplies, after the first clause : '^ In se itaque 
indifferens est, sive edas sive non edas hoc vel illud 
ciborum genus." Then the Apostle subjoins per ap- 
positionem : " but God will (soon) destroy both the 
one and the other," i.e. will soon destroy the body, 
and thereby the use and the need of food will 
cease. It is rightly remarked by Grot., that the 
purpose of the words is to excite us to take thought 
rather for things eternal, than for what would so soon 
perish and come to nought.* 

18. TO 8e (Tw[t.a ou ryj Tropveioc — crui^ari. The 8e 

* So Rosenm. : " Post hanc mortalem vitam nee cibis nee ven- 
triculo amplius opus erit ; Quare his rebus non niultum est tribu- 
endum; et graviter peccant, qui tantillic rei caussa, quai in hanc 
hun)ilein duntaxat niortalenique conditioneni cadit, infirmioiibus 

•' What is said (observes Grot.) of God's causing the belly to cease, 
some understand of tlie use of the belly. But from the writings of 
the ancients on this passage it appears, that Ihey believed men would 
indeed recover their bodies; or that it is does not follow that there 
will be in that body parts whose offices are then to cease. To which 
purpose Plutarch Conv. Sap. says : "Ap owv a^ioy avyetc-efieTy ttj 
d6tk/^ KOiXiui' Kcii oTo^ta^oj' kqu ('/Trap, h t:u\ov ovbeyos aiadijfxiy. 


expresses opposition ; q. d. " On the contrary, the 
body is not destined for fornication, but is meant to 
be consecrated to the service of the Lord." Here it 
is well remarked by Crelliiis : " His verbis docet, 
longe aliam esse scortationis, quam ciborum pro- 
miscui usus rationem. Hunc cjuidem suapte natura 
liberum esse; illam vero omnium minime esse." 
And so Grotius : " Lest any one should apply what 
had been said of meats, to fornication likewise, as if 
its use were permitted, together with that of meats 
(as some persons, rather Philosophers than Chris- 
tians, maintained), the Apostle opposes himself to 
this error, and shows that the same reasoning is not 
applicable to both." Theophyl. observes, that one 
should have expected, not Tropveiu, but ouroTy ^pui- 
[xa(nv, ofjoe t^ KoiXia '. but rro^vela is put, in order to 
show that it is the aroreXec/xa r^o^r^s. 

By T(o Kup/m is meant, " destined to serve him," 
viz. (says Grot.) per continentiam aut conjugium. 
This, however, is too arbitrary a subaudition. I 
would state the argument thus: " To serve him 
impHes obedience to his will. Now the will of God 
is our sanctification, that we should abstain from 

13. Koi b Kupto? Tco (Tcoixari. There are several 
ways in which the Lord may be considered as being 
TCO a-io^ari,Jor the body. It may he,Jbr raising and 
glorifying it ; as most modern Commentators (so 
Whitby) interpret : or, as the Greek Commentators 
explain, as being the head of the body, namely, the 
Church. So Theophyl., who paraphrases the whole 
sentence thus : To a-co^a ou Sia touto Tr^TrT^aa-Tai, *W 
rpo(^a Kou el? Tro^veloLV e^TrlTrrji' aXX' ivoc rw Xptoraj 
a.Ko'hovQrj ws" K€^a7\.yi auToG, /cat at) o Kugioy coy K€(paXri 
eTTiKaSr^TOLi aurw. And so Mr. Locke. 

14. 6 Se &€o^ KOU rov K^upiov 7}y€i^€, kou "^fxas €^€y€^€if 
" and (accordingly) God will raise up,'' &c. (Whitby.) 
*' And (thus this scheme shall be effected) ; for God 
shall," &c. (Doddr.) In either of these two ways 
the connection may be traced. The sense is : '* As 


God hath, by his power, raised up and exalted 
Christ, so will he raise us up, and reward us." 

15. ooK oi^ctre on ra (rco^ara vy.a}v jot. X. 6. Tile 
Apostle returns again to the admonition before 
brought forward respecting fornication. (Theophyl.) 
And now he uses another and most powerful (nay 
even awful) argument against it. 

It is rightly remarked by Vorstius and Rosenm., 
that by ra erco^xara v(x(ov is meant yourselves, i. e. 
" the whole of you, both body and soul :" since both 
together constitute the Christian person, who is 
considered as a member of Christ's mystical body, 
namely the Church, of which he is head, and the 
rest, members inserted by baptism, and consecrated 
to him." 

15. apa? ouv to. it.e'hri rou X., 7roirj(rio 7ropvr}g y.€7^r} ; 
" shall I take the members of Christ, and make 
them the members of an harlot. That would be 
contrary to our most sacred duty." These words 
admit of being taken in two senses: 1st, literally: 
and then they will require no explanation : 2dly, 
metaphorically; q. d. " for in fornication the mem- 
bers are, as it were, made subservient to the lust of 
the TTopv-^, and thus cease to be the Lord's ; since 
they cease to be devoted to his service." Krause 
remarks on the pleonasm of apa^. But it is not, 
properly speaking, a pleonasm : and as to the exam- 
ples he adduces, namely apa? e^all^eiv and apuvres 
■^T^auvov, they are of quite another kind. 

16, 17. ouK o'/Sare on KoXkcoixevo^ t. tt. This pas- 
sage is meant for the confirmation and illustration of 
the preceding. It is not, I think, necessary, with 
many eminent Interpreters, to take koa\. strictly in 
the physical sense : for the word is often used in a 
metaphorical sense ; as we say '* to be attached to :" 
and in the passage of Genes. 2, 24. the metaphorical 
sense can alone have been intended. So Ovid says 
(Trist. 4, 4.) " Qui duo corporibus mentibus unus 
erat." Grotius has here illustrated the force of the 
term from two not very decorous passages of Latin 


writers. The following illustrations, from the best 
Greek writers, will be more apt. Pint, de Legg. 5. 
p. 839 ?• tq'^^s Se TrpoKoXkaa-^ai, ^iwKovra Kara ray ^ov- 
ouo-/ay. Nicarchus ap. Br. Anal. 4. T. 2, 350. 
(speaking of the allurements of harlots) Iraipa — /coXXa- 
ra; Kvl^ei, TraQj/ceuerai. Plut. Anton. 66. okTC wa-n-epris 
7rai§cov el-jre, TrjV \J/yp^7)v rou e^fovros' €U aT^Tvorpicp ccoixaTi 

o-uju,7re§j4^egopi.6voy. Aristot. de Republ. 2. KOL^carep iv 
rois eqcoTiKois '/(rfxev Xeyoi/rot rov 'Api<rro<pavriv, cos^ rwv 
iocovrcov hioi to <r(^ohpOL (piXelv €7ri^uixouvTcov o-ujui(pwva», 
Koi yeveo-Qai e/c rwv ^6o ovrwv ay.'^oTe^ou^ eva.. A then. 
258 B. iTQ^oa-KoTO^oia-^oLi, tous oju-iXjaiy. So also Liv. 
23, 18. scortis implicit!. 

17. 8e Ko7\.y\.wy.€V09 r«j Kupito ev 7rveu[xa ia-ri, " he 
who adheres obediently and devotedly to the will of 
the Lord, is united in spirit and disposition." A 
metonymy ; as when friends are said to be -^^x"^ Z^''"* 
There is a beauty and propriety in this elegantly 
antithetical passage not inferior to the finest ex- 
amples of it to be found in the best Greek writers. 
The inferences and application, in both members, are 
too obvious to need suggestion. 

18. Trav a|xapTr]|xa eav 7rojv]o-v) — eis to itiov (rwfxa 
aixapTOLvei. In the interpretation of this sentence it 
is necessary to advert to a certain idiom, by which 
things are expressed generally, which require a more 
exact definition, or when all is put for mam/ ; or 
when an action is meant to be predicated /car eJo;^r;v, 
and comparate. Bengel has here well observed: 
" Tales sententiiE morales non morose urgendee sunt, 
nee secundum summam aKpi^eiav.'* And in this 
view Krause refers to Heyn Praef ad Glandorfii 
Poet. Gnom. p. I7. note. Thus, when it is said that 
every sin committed is e/croV too o-al/xaros', i. e. does 
not belong to, or affect the body ; but he who, &c., 
this is to be understood comparate-, and thus it is 
meant that 6 Tropvevoiv especially sinneth his body; 
q. d. " Other sins may be said comparatively to not 
affect the body, but he that committeth fornication 


especially, and beyond all others sinneth against, 
disgraceth, and injureth his own body,"* viz. by 
using it for purposes not intended by its Maker, and 
such purposes as are highly injurious to its well- 
being. So that, after all, there is not much to 
deduct from the general position ; for, doubtless, 
there is no other sin by which (considering all the 
consequences, immediate and remote, which usually 
follow it) the body is so much injured. So the 
proverb, Xwo-j/xeA-)]? 'A<P^oSitt). 

With the phrase afxa^r. eiy rov Uiov craiiJioi., Wets. 
compares passages from Demosth., ^schin., and 
Isocrates,-!" where e^ot^a^Taveiv ely <ra) is said of 
sodomy (which is, perhaps, included by the Apostle 
under the term Tropvela). 

On the general statement Wets, has aptly com- 
pared Xen. Mem. 1., where, speaking of intempe- 
rance generally, he says: kol) yap oZv aia-Tr^p ol TrXeo- 
veKTUi Tcvv olXKcov a<paj|2ouju,evoj ^pTj^xara eoturouy ^oKodcri 
7r7\,ouri§€iv' ourcoy 6 aACpaT^jy rois ^€V aXXoiy /3Aa3epos", 

eauToG Se ttoXu KOLKQupyorepos' fi'ye KaKoupyorarov etrri 
^Yj fxovov Tov oIkou tov iauTou (^Seipciv, aXkoi Koi to (r(oy.a 
Koi rriv \J/up^7)v. 

* " Every other sin (to use the words of Slade) however injurious 
to the body, docs not so immediately dishonour and disgrace it, does 
not so directly destroy its union with the holy body of Christ. And, 
moreover, the body of the fornicator is peculiarly concerned in 
ministering to its own pollution and disgrace." 

f To which I add Pollux G, 127. ulayhiwv to (rw^ia, -6 awfiu 
cKbebwKcoy eh ai(r')(yy^)v. Musonius ap. Stob. Serm. 83, 14 seqq. 
eyw 5e e'^w ^ev Xeyeiv, ws irds os ris auapTarei, kui oStkel evOvSf el 
Kai i.u]beva raJr TreXas, oW avroi' ye iray-ws yeipova cnro^aiywv /cat 
arifiorepov , 6 yap u/.uipTdyw}', rrop' ocr:)}' ajxapravei, ■^eipwi' Kai ari- 
fiorepos' 'Ipa ovv ew rijv uhiKiuy, c'tW uKoXaaiav ye Trdaav arayKij 
7raPT(i)s TrpoareTt'ai tm iirrwfxevw alrj-^pds iiburijs, Kai \aipoyTi r^y 
fioXweaOai wcnrep al ves. Isajus, p. 33. (speaking of those who are 
seduced to marry harlots) aKparuis e^^^oj-es avrwy tireidrjaay vw' 
urnias ets avrovs ro k^a^upTavelv. 

The phrase sinning against one's own body, in the sense of in- 
juring one's body, is seldom found in the Classical wiiters, and seems 
to be an Oiiental idiom. Thus it occurs in a passage of Midrasch, 
cited by Schoettgen on Luke 10, 30. p. 271). 
VOL. VI. 2 IJ 


19. The Apostle here lays down two arguments 
by which Christians ought to be led to the practice 
of chastity ; 1. on to cSfLa vixwv vao^ rou ev v[xiv aylot> 
nveu/xaros",* " ye are enlightened by the influence of 
the Holy Spirit, and therefore have a complete know- 
ledge of right and wrong." 2. " Christ hath laid 
down his life to procure your salvation ; and there- 
fore ye are bound, as servants bought with a price, 
to glorify God in your lives, by moral obedience, both 
in soul and body, which are God's." 

19. o5 €-)(€re OLTTQ 0eoG, for ov, " which spirit ye have 
from God, and owe to him." Hardy subjoins : " To 
God therefore ye would be ungrateful and injurious, 
if, by fornication, ye expelled from you the Holy 
Spirit ; guilty, too, of sacrilege would ye be, to put 
a thing consecrated to God to an impure use." See 
the excellent note of Dr. Whitby. 

19- Kou ouK €(rT€ iavTwv. A popular mode of ex- 
pression for : '* Ye are not at your own discretion." 
(See Rom. 14, 7 & 8-) Piscator supplies, per anti- 
thesin : " but Christ's and God's." And he sub- 
joins : " So that to defile the body by fornication 
is to abuse what is not your own." 

^0. y^yopao-Oyjre yap rifxri?, " for ye have been re- 
deemed and freed from sin and sorrow at a price.'* 
The riixTJ^ is not a mere Hebrew pleonasm, as Grot, 
thinks, but has great emphasis,'t~ namely, as denoting 
thai of the only begotten and well beloved Son of 
God, sent by the Father into the world for the very 
purpose of procuring human salvation. The senti- 
ment may be thus expressed: " Ye are therefore bound 
to his service, as a bought skive to that of his pur- 
chaser." Grot, observes, that the Apostle omits the 

* This the Apostle had befure (3, 1/.) said of the whole man; 
but now he limits it to the body, as being more accommodated to 
the present case. 

f Thus the Latins said, " pretio emere ;" of which Wets, cites 
several examples, wherein the word pretio is thought by the old 
Scholiasts to be emphatical, for pretio mapto. It would appear, 
then, that the magno added in theVulg. is derived from the mar<i;in. 


right from creation^ because the other was more re- 
cent and special." A remark which seems not charac- 
terized by the usual ability of the great Commenta- 
tor. Surely the other benefit lays us under very 
f-dY greater obligations, as being infinitely more pre- 
cious. Indeed, creation without redemption would 
have been rather an evil. 

20. 6o^ot.(rctTe Si^ rov 0eov ev rto (ru^ixari u., *' make 
your body subservient to the glory of God, and let 
your life tend to his honour," Rom. V2, 1. For, 
according to the usus loquendi of the writers of the 
New Testament, those are said Zo^a^eiv rw 0eov, tvlio 
do what is agreeable to the will and counsels of God. 
Compare Rom. 4, 10. Acts 13, 48. 1 Pet. 4, 16. 
Joh. 17, 4. (Krause.) Theophyl. well explains, ray 
aya^as Tfoa^eis oioi row (Tw^xaros T€7vOuvres', Koi ayiov 
auTO Tr}po\jVT€Si Koi KaSapov. Ao^a^era* yap Qeo9, ra 
KocXa epya 'jixwv bpcovrcov rcov ai/BpcoTTCuu, kou aKoAouOwy 
ho^a^ovTCDV a-jTou. 

The last words of the verse, koi ev 7rv€uixari ufxciiv, 
uTivoL ia-ri roG 0eou, are thrown out of the text by 
Krause and Griesbach (and had been rejected by 
Mill and Bengel) ; but, I think, on insufficient 
grounds. They are omitted only in eleven MSS. 
(and those not of the most ancient), some Versions, 
as the Vulg., Ital., Copt., and ^thiop., and some 
Latin Fathers. Rut they are defended not only by 
an immensely greater number of M8S., but by both 
the Syriac \''crsions, by Chrysost., and the other 
Greek Fathers, and all the Greek Commentators. 
Indeed, tlie clause seems required to complete the 
antithesis ; aViva fVxj tou corresponding to r^yopafrbrje 
yap Tj/xv^y. Of its genuineness Wets, (an excellent 
judge of such matters) seems to have entertained no 
doubt. The nature of my plan forbids me to enlarge 
further on this question ; otb.erwise it would not be 
difficult for me to satisfactorily account for the omis- 
sion of the words in some MSS. and Versions. 

With respect to the sense of the words, it is not 
very well expressed by our modern Commentators. 



Thus, for instance. Doddr. and Mackn. make it too 
general. The Apostle doubtless intended what he 
says to be applied to the case of fornication just 
mentioned. See the excellent exposition of Chrys., 
from whom Theophyl. Sll. gives the following Scho- 
lium. AeiKvucnv ort ov (ra>ju,ar» jtxot/ov ^p-^ (^^vyeiv t-^v Trop- 
velav oKXoL Koi "i^^xff '^^ jW-^J^f Kara ^iccvoiav jutoXtivetr^ai. 
ITveu/xa yap rr^v Oiavojav e/caAe(re' kou t) iv rfi Kaphia yap 
jU-oi^eta iv euayyeT^ioif aTn^yopeurai, 

The words ariva ia-ri toG 0eoy are an antithetical 
repetition of the former Ka) ou/c ia-re iaoTwv. 


From the words which coiDmence this chapter it is plain (hat the 
Corinthians (perhaps those of the Paulinian and Apollonian parties) 
had written a letter to the Apostle, in which they had consulted 
him on various matters. He now, then, proceeds to answer the va- 
jious questions, 1. concerning matrimony, on which, as appears 
from his answer, there had arisen at Corinth a controversy. M'hat 
were the different opinions of the Corinthians on this subject, is not 
clear. There were perhaps some among the Jewish Christians who 
too much extolled matrimony and its necessity. For to this day the 
Jews hold the opinion, that he who, at the age of twenty years, 
without being prevented by natural defect, or profound study of the 
Law, has not entered into wedlock, sins against the Divine precept. 
See Iken. Antiq. Judais. p. 3. c. 1. § 1. But, even among the Ph'ilo' 
sophers, it had been a (question often agitated, whetlier wise men 
ought to marry. Those who considered how untractable the tem- 
jiers of women often are, how troublesome, and how fraught with 
danger is the education of children, counselled an abstinence from 
marriage. And this side of the question was taken by Lycurg., 
Thales, Antiphanes, Socrates, and others. Those, on the other 
hand, who considered public utility, maintained that the procreation 
and education of children was a debt which, like other trihula, was 
due, and should be paid to the publick. This side of the question is 
ably supported by some dicta illustrata of Musonius and Hierocles. 
So Menand. says -. Tafielv eav tis tijv a\i]Qeiar' tcuKov jxiv earn', aW 
avayKcCwi' kukov. And Metellus Num., in an oration which lie held 
as censor: " Si sine uxore possemus, jQuirites, esse, omnes ea mo- 
lesliS. careremus. Sed quoniam ita natura tradidit, ut nee cum illis 
satis commode, nee sine illis ullo modo, vivi possit, saluti perpetuae 
pntius quam brevi voluptati consulendum." (Grot, and Rosenm.) 

On the party horn whence the (juestions were proposed, the Com- 
mentators are not quite agreed. Grot, thinks the Epistle was occa- 
sioned by some Gentile converts who discussed this controverted 
point more like Philosophers tlian Christians : at which some well- 
meaning persons taking offence, addressed the Apostle on this sub- 


ject. In his answer, it may ba observed, the Apostle, considerini^ spi- 
ritual things and the Christian Church rather than political society, 
gives such an answer as paviicularly had in view the good of the 
former, and was especially suited to the tiien situation of Christian 

Otiiers, as Roscnm. and Krause, tliink the discussion had arisen 
from the Jewish Christians, Pseudo-apostles, who, over-rating the 
excellence and necessity of matrimony, recommended it from the 
examples of St. Peter and St. James, and that, with a tacit censure 
of the celibacy of St. Paul. Hence the party zeal of the PauHni 
would easily drive them into the contrary extreme. " 

Of these hypotheses neither rises beyond probability, and both are 
plainly inca{)able of proof. For I am not aware that the annals 
of Ecclesiastical History supply any certain information on the sub- 
ject. Chrysostom, in his Homily on this subject, does not enter 
into the question ; but beseems to think that the cpieries arose from 
the congregation generally, which is, perhaps, the safest opinion. 

Verse 1. 7r€o\ 8e Jyv eypa-^are [xoi, " as to what you 
wrote to me about." In this sense, Krause remarks, 
Trepi is frequently used in this Epistle ; as ver. 25. 8, 
1. 12, 1. 16, 1. And he adduces examples of this 
use from Xen. de Repub. Ath. init. and Diod. Sic. 
2i5. Trep) 0€ rv^y ^copas, r\v eVtVp^r^vraj OcoVeiv, on 7ra- 
rplo^f itTTi Trjy eXAry(r«, fxrj 8ia kukIuu, aXXa Si' aoer^v 
KTOLaSui ^(opav in which ])assage, as in the present 
one, there is an ellipsis of ocTroKplvea-^ai. Krause also 
subjoins examples of a similar use of the de in the 
Latin Classics. 

'1. KoXov dvdpcuTTUi yxjvaiKOS |U,'»2 aT7T€(T^ai. On the 
sense of kcoCov the Commentators are not agreed. 
Some interpret it /lonorrficum, res prcvclara et eximia, 
a sense chiefly supported by the Roman Catholic 
Commentators. The most eminent Interpreters, more 
rightly, assign the sense (rijtx<fj€(jov, com?iwdiim* utile ; 
which may include the notion oi melius. Or perhaps 
the Apostle only answers the question with reference 
to the words thereof, UTre^ea-^ai yuvaiKos' Be^irlv ea-ri j 
to which the reply is, kuJJjv ia-Ti, " it is not only law- 
ful, btit expedient." That such is the Apostle's 
meaning, Krause thinks is plain from ver. 26, 28, 32. 
seq. Sc 35. And from these also it is evident that 

* In illustration of which Krause cites Xen. Mem. Socr. 4. to 
■^pi]tnf.ivi' (inci vaXor lari, rrpos buv /'/ \pTjrTifx6y, 


the present passage is not to be considered as con- 
taining a moral precept, but, as it were, the counsel 
of a friend suited to those times ; and that it is to be 
understood not so much as treating the question ^e- 
nerallg, as specially^ with a view to ivliich condition, 
under the existing circumstances of the Gospel, was 
easier and more suitable. 

On the sense of aVreo-^aj the Commentators vary 
in opinion. Some take it to mean marry : and this 
interpretation is pertinaciously maintained by Krause, 
but on very insufficient grounds, it does not follow, 
because the verb is sometimes used in the sense ex- 
ordiri, tentare, amplecti, that this use can here apply. 
The best Commentators rightly (I think) regard it 
as intended by the Apostle for an euphemism, the 
force of which Grot., Wets., Kypke, and others, 
have illustrated with altogether unnecessary minute- 
ness. The term must undoubtedly denote all sexual 
intercourse with a woman, whether in marriage, or 
out of it. And the reason why the Apostle chose 
the word seems to have been, (though none of the 
Commentators appear to observe it) that his admo- 
nition might apply not to marriage only, but also to 
concubinage, and all those illicit connections which 
too frequently stood in the place of matrimony, such 
as were then common both in Greece and every part 
of the civilized world. 

The use here of avQpcoTroy for avrip is found in Matt. 
19, 3. and sometimes in the Classical writers. Many 
Interpreters, as Beza, Casaub., and Drus., rightly (I 
think) suppose that in one sex the other is included. 
If so, this may account for the general term avQpai- 
TTos being used by the Apostle. 

2. Sia Se ray Tropvei'a?. Some MSS. for ray wopv. 
have rr^v Tropveiav. But this is evidently e glossd, or 
ex emendatione. 

The Apostle is thought to have reference to the 
various kinds of impurity mentioned at 5, 9. But 
there may possibly be reference to the two sexes 
here adverted to. 

1 COllINTHIANS, CHAP. \ II. 3^5 

2. eKacrros' rrjV eaurow yuvalKa i^eTOi^ Kai e. r. \. a. e. 
Examples oi'e^eiv in the sense to have in ?}wtrhfi07n/* 
are frequent. The term is used of botli sexes. On 
the sentiment Grot, cites Lactant. : Quisquis affec- 
tus illos frainare non potest, cohibeat intra priBscrip- 
tum legitimi tori. And Cin'vtost. : rafAoy, a.a-^a'keia. 
(Tco^poa-uvris. And Wets. compares Dionys. Hal. Ars 
llhet. 2, 4. yao yaiK09 ejhxjg /cot) (Tco(^prj(T'jvr]9 oo^av 7re- 
^irlSri(ri roTy auQocuTroi^, Koi oi roiovroi ooKourri rrjy fxev 

Tvjv eaurou e/cao-roy yovaiKa. 

'EaoTov and 'loiov are synonymous lerms, and indi- 
cate property ; which involves the reciprocal duty of 
fideliti/ : and by the terms ymaiKa and av^pa are ex- 
cluded and forbidden polygamy and concubinage. 
The whole is by some, wrongly, I think, regarded 
as a permission to marry : for this was certainly not 
necessary, marriage being of Divine appointment, 
and sanctioned by Christ. It is only an admonition, 
and is merely meant for those who cannot lead a life 
oi' virtuous celibacy. 

3. rfi yovaiKi o av^p rriv o<pe»Xoju.ev>;v euvoiav uTro^i^oTco, 
"let the husband render to the wife the sexual kind- 
ness which is her due." That such is the mode in 
which the euvoiav is to be interpreted, is plain from 
the next verse. One cannot but admire the delicacy 
which the Apostle shows on this as on all similar 
points, and at the same time be disgusted at the ivant 
of it in most of our Commentators, who on such oc- 
casions take an op])ortunity to overwhelm us with 
filth raked together from the grossest impurities of 
the antient world. In one thing, however, they 
have done rightly, namely, in noticing similar eu- 
phemisms; as in Homer: (piXoVv]?- Plut. (pi7^o(ppo(ruvr}' 
and in other writers ;/a/5iy.'|~ They also notice a law 
of Solon : Tiix-;^ Ti? ccv^po9 ot-urTj 7r&oy (rwiftpova, yuvaiKO. 
Koi <i>iM<^po(ruvri. Schoettgen remarks the use of the 

* Which, notwithstanding the refinements of sohjc Critics, is all 
that is here meant. 

f 1 add Herodot. 5, 40. nciiTd I'lrrn jTi' irnpfyfis -rrnpty^e. 


similar term U?''?2tr)l, which signifies both concublfus 
and officium. He refers for examples to Buxtorf's 
Lex. and Selden Uxor. Hebr. To which may be 
added something more apposite from Jambl. Vit. 
Pyth., where it is mentioned that Pythagoras de- 
clared that when admitted to view the infernal re- 
gions, he saw there husbands punished royi" jm-tj SeXov- 
ray (rovelvai raTy ayrcov yuvai^iv. 

There is here a somewhat remarkable various 
reading. About twelve MSS., the Vulg. and ^thiop. 
Versions, Clem., Orig., and some Latin Fatiiers, 
read o<p€i7^riu instead of o'^^eiXo^aevr^v euuoiav. And this 
reading was preferred by Grot., Mill, and Bengel, 
and has been received by Krause and Griesbach ; 
but, I think, on insufficient grounds. The chief 
argument they use is, that the old reading seems to 
be a gloss of o<p€i7v^v. But if a reading supported by 
such slender authorities is to be preferred on that 
principle, the fact ought surely to be made clear. Now 
this I apprehend is here not the case : for o(p6JX^ 
so closely corresponds to the well-known expression 
debitum conjugale, that it appears to be itself a gloss, 
proceeding from some to whom the Latin phrase was 
familiar. We find it, too, especially in such MSS. as 
have been tampered with by Correctors; and cer- 
tainly rrjv Q(^€i7^-^v is a much neater phrase. The fre- 
quency of the expression debitum conjugale in Latin 
must weaken the authority of the f^ulg. and the 
Latin Fathers, who chiefly followed it. I must, 
moreover, correct a misstatement which has been 
made by Krause in summing up the evidence for 
o<^ei7\.y\v. He says, that Chrysost. so reads in his Com- 
mentary (meaning his Homily) : which is not true. 
If Krause had examined the words themselves, p. 
358, 8. he would have seen that the word o0e<x^^v 
only occurs in his Paraphrase, viz. 8ia yap touto kou 
o(^€i7aiV TO Trpayfxa eKctXecev, iW ^fl^j} ii.r]^eva Kopiov ovra 
eauTou, axx' dtXXvjXojv houXou^. * Which therefore 

* So Theophyl. 21'2. "On o^etXj) Kal xpe^os eariv >/ irpos aWi]\ovs 
evvoia, viiv belkPviTiP. 


strongly confirms my suspicion, that it is but a gloss. 
That Chrysost. did not read oi^eo^riv is certain, from 
the commencing words of his exposition, where it is 
plain that he did read ©(peiAoju-evajv tjjui^v, which might 
be defended, were it necessary. Under these cir- 
cumstances, the few authorities in favour of the new 
reading will be of little weight, and the old one must 
be restored. Indeed, it is supported by internal as 
well as external evidence, since in its simple and 
unaffected delicacy it must be thought strongly cha- 
racteristic of the Apostle. There are, moreover, 
numerous Classical passages adduced by Wets., all 
which, more or less, confirm or illustrate Ihis read- 
ing.* That Wets, himself decidedly gave it the 
preference, is plain. Semler, too, after weighing the 
evidence on both sides, determines in its favour. It 
is (he says) undoubtedly the more antient reading. 

4. i^yuvn — €^ou(rid^€i. These words are evidently 
exegetical of the former. 'E^ouo-ja^eiv signifies to 
have power, by which (Grot, says) is meant complete 
power or right; since (adds the great Civilian) " in 
re sociali nemo sociorum jus plenum habet," viz. of 
abstaining from the conjugal embrace. -j- This is all 
that can need explanation ; though Commentators, 
especially Augustin, Estius, and Menoch., are unne- 
cessarily, and offensively, minute. Bp. Pearce's inser- 
tion of the words only and also is quite unnecessary. 

* Thus Joseph, Ant. 16, 7j3. ovhe rt)y eavrfjs dvyaTepa (rvyoiKov- 
(Tay ApicrrolJOvXu) darepo) tCjv vtaiioKwi' e'ia rfj rov yafiov irpos eKel- 
vov evyol<^ ^pj/cOat. & 7. I'^i. 4. ctW oi/fc eyioye Xi/Oriy Troii'ifTofjai 
evyoias rFfs cris. Dio Chrysost. 3. p. 5^ d. koi tu a<ppohitTLa ravra 
i'lcinrn Kal ayvjipitrTorara, oaa yiyerni i-iera <pi\ias ruiy avyvvTwy, 
Kai baa jj-aarevovaiv evyoiar dvdpioTrois enfjXdey. 

t This right, or duty, be it remembered, is one resulting from 
the terms of the marriage covenant, and is founded on one of the 
chiff purposes which marriage was intended to serve, and to which 
the Apostle lumself adverts. Mackn., too, truly remarks, that the 
right of the wife to her husband's body is a perfect right, being 
founded on the ends of maniage, namely, the procreation of cliil- 
dren, their proper education, and the prevention of fornication. But 
these ends would in a great measure be frustrated if the wife had 
not an exclusive right to her husband's person." 


(See CEcumen.) A very similar expression to the 
one in question is used by Eurip. Med. 230. where a 
husband is called Seo-Trorvjy to5 crwjaaroy. To which 
may be added Philostr. Ap. 7? 42. p. 321. rou o' cjixoy 
(Tcou^aros iyco SecTTroTTjy, ko.) (puT^a^co auTov ao"uXov. The 
sentiment seems to be borrowed from the Apostle 
here and at 6, 19- Schoettg. compares the use of 
^^^'Q)'^ for the conjugal right. 

Theodoret prettily observes, that the wife is men- 
tioned first, since the virtue of continence is more 
expected in her than in the husband.* 

Whitby remarks, that from hence we may prove 
the unlawfulness of polygamy. (See his note, for 
the substance of which he wtis indebted to Crellius.) 
And so Mackn. But it was quite needless to em- 
ploy any long-drawn arguments on such a point, 
since the Apostle, following the example of his Di- 
vine Master, every where recognizes only a single 

5. The Apostle here again enforces the injunction 
at ver. 3., but with the limitation, that the aTroa-Teor}- 
o-j? be by mutual consent. 

5. /x^ coioa-Topeire aXXT^Xoy?. Here the Apostle mo- 
destly omits what may easily be supplied. (See the 
Commentators.) The sense, which is obvious, is 
well explained by Chrysost. and Theophyl., the for- 
mer of whom truly remarks : "Otj [/.eyaka €k r^y ey- 
Kpareias raJxT]? rlKrerai KotKa. Ka» ya^ Koi ^oi^e/at, ko.) 
TTOpveiai, Koi qIkcov avarpoircCi ttoXaolki^ ivreu^ev iyeuovro. 

In the expression ei ixrj e/c cru/x<$a;vou there is an el- 
lipsis of the verb substantive. The r< (on which the 
Commentators say nothing) is for kuto. ti, quodam- 
modo. 'Ek o-oju,(pa)vou, " by agreement." This word, 

* In which view the following passage is aptly cited by Wets, 
from Plutarch. Prae. Conj. 140 c. Ackau'ct irnibitrKi] (a young mar- 
ried woman) Trvyduvofxevov vivos, el i'lbij urbp) TrpoaeXi'iXvdei' ; ovk 
tywye, eTwey, iiXX tuol eKe~ii'Os' ovros 6 rporroa oljjiaL olKoheairoivrfs, 
^nre (pevyeiy, unre bv(T-)(epaiveiv rii roiavra, rnv arbpos up-^of-ievov, 
yiifTe avTi)y Kar((pxe(TOui' to fxev yap eraipiKor Kcu ira/.i6y, to Oe 
vnepr](j>nroy kuI a<Pi\o(TTOpyoy. 


and also to o-uju,<pa)'vov, is found in the later Greek 
writers ; as Plut., Arrian, and Polyb. So also the 
Sept. in Coliel 7, 15. koI ye rouro o-u/x(pa)vo!/ Tounp IttoI- 
r}(r€v 06oy where I would read roCro to o-J/x(pa)i/ov. 
The TO was absorbed by the to preceding. 

" By consent (says Grot.) the abstinence might be 
perpetual ; for volenti non fit injuria"' And that 
such abstinence was practised by the early Chris- 
tians, is plain from the Ecclesiastical writers. Yet 
it appears that the Apostle did not think this expe- 
dient in the case of the Corinthians, since he adds 
the injunction, that this be done tt^o? Kaipw, " for a 
season (only)." Paraeus regards kui^ov as implying 
flir less than ^oovov : and rightly, since in the phrase 
Trpof Kaipov it is always implied that the time in ques- 
tion be short. Indeed, as to Trpo? ;;^co'vov, I am not 
aware that it ever occurs. Of tt^os* there is the use 
in TrpoV copav, 2 Cor. 7, 8. Gal. 2, 5. 8^c. 

S/coAa^ejv Tivi signifies vacate, operam dare alicui 
rei, to devote one's time and attention. It is used by 
the Classical writers, from whom examples are ad- 
duced by Wets, and Schl. Lex. There is here much 
propriety and force in the term, wiiich Wets, has 
well illustrated from Plut. Num. p. 69 c. ouToy <o6to 
Nou/txay ^^7]vai tou9 TroXjVas" jULVyTe ocKoueiv ti tcov SeuoV 
lxrtjT€ oqav iv Trapepyip koi ajLteX^os", aXka rr^oT^rv ayovra? 
0.770 Tctiv cLtO^cov, Ka) 7rpo(T€-)(ovTas Tr]V 8javo<av, cos Tvpa^ei 
[i.€yl<TT-r\ TY) 7re&j Tt]V eua-e&elav. 

The Commentators remark, that this sort of absti- 
nence was much practised by the Jews, on prepara- 
tion for solemn festivals, and at other times wJien 
they wished to devote themselves to religions duties, 
on which occasions tasting, too, was usually enjoined. 
(See Fabr. Bibl. Ant. 581 , Bought. Anal. Sacr., and 
other writers referred to by Wolf) The ditferent 
Schools of the Rabbins recommended various pe- 
riods for such vows of abstinence : the Schammaei, a 
fortnight; the Hilleliani, a week. (See Light., Wets., 
and Grot.) Nor was this custom unknown to the 
Heathens; as the copious Classical citations of Wet- 


stein will abundantly testify. Thus strict venereal 
abstinence was enjoined during the annual feast of 
Ceres, called the Cerealia, which continued for nine 

5. Tr, vrifTxela. Kcti rfi 7rpo(r€o^fi. The words tt} vi^o*- 
rela ko.) are omitted in six uncial and some other 
MSS., and also several Fathers.-)- They were re- 
jected by Mill and Bengel, and have been thrown out 
of the text by Krause and Griesbach ; but, I think, 
on insufficient grounds. Internal evidence is strongly 
in favour of the common reading ; since we know 
that in that age fasting usually, if not always, accom- 
panied a more than ordinary attention to prayer and 
other religious duties. But how shall we account 
for the omission ? Partly, I think, from the homoio- 
teleuton, and partly (as I conceive in the case of the 
Cod. Cantab.) from a paradiorthosis proceeding from 
doctrinal misapprehension of the common reading. 
One should, indeed, have expected the vr^crrela to 
come after Tr^oa-e^j^fi : but in a writer so little regular 
as St. Paul this may easily be tolerated. Here it is 
sensibly remarked by Theophyl.: '12y du oZv t] eu^ri 
(TTTO'jhixioTepoi. yevr^raiy aTrtp^ecSe, (prj(r)v, aXXr^Xa)v, ajy T^ff 

5. Kot) 7rd7^iv cTTt to auro cruveq^ea-de, " again come 
together to the same place," i. e. the same bed, viz. 
ad coitum. This sense of the word a-wep^eaSai oc- 
curs also in Matt. 1, 18., and is found in the Classi- 
cal writers, from whom examples may be seen in 
Wets. N. T. 1, 238. Griesbach may seem to have 
done well in putting ^^re in the place of a-uveo^. ; for 
<Tuv€f>-)(e(7^ai eTT/ to atiro has the air of a pleonasm, and 

* So Ovid. A. 3, 10, 1. Annua venerunt Cerealis tempora sacri ; 
secubat in vacuo sola puella toro. Juven. 6, 535. Ule petit veniam, 
quoties non abstinet uxor concubitu sacris observandisque diebus. 
Tibull. 9.,\, 11. Vos quoque abesse procul jubeo, disceciite ab aris, 
Qucis tulit hesternae gaudia nocte Venus. 

t Chrysostom's authority is adduced against the words. But 
they are found in his text, and there is no proof {hat he did not read 
them, except the negative one, that he does not touch upon them, 
which in a Commentator has little weight. 


savours of a gloss on irr) ro auVo ^re. St. Paul, how- 
ever, and the writers of the New Testament, fre- 
quently use such pleonasms, and the common read- 
ing is confirmed by 1 Cor. 11, 20. ff-uyepp^cojixes/ajv v(xa}v 
e;ri to auVo. & 14-, '23. and Acts 2, 1.; as also Josh. 
9j 2. Koii (TovrjxSov e/Ti to auTO ey to 7ro7^€{xr,(ra.i. So 
Thiicyd. 5. (cited by Wets ) o-^jvy^xSov es* to auTo- and 
1 lato de Re})ub. 1. TroXXa/cj? yotp (ruvep^^o^edct. tiv€9 els' 
rauTo TTotpoLTTXr^a-Kxv ii]7\.ikIuv €)^oyT€s.*' A similar use of 
N12 and convenire is noticed by the Critics. See 
Schl. Lex. 

5. 7va fXTj Treipa^fi ufjiois o SaTavas* S<a ti]v oLKpaa-lotu 
ujxcov, " lest Satan (the author of evil) tempt you," 
viz. to commit the sin in question, adultery. Aia. 
rriv (XKpacriav uixmv. I cannot think that aKpaa-iot, is 
well rendered Incontinence^ or intempcrantia ; though 
this sense is defended by Krause, who refers "to 
Sal mas. prasf. ad Ceb. Tab. 4., Perizon. ad ^lian 
y. H. 2, 21., and Fabr. Obss. p. SU. So also Schl. 
in his Lex. renders : " per vitam vestram inconti- 
nentem." I am more inclined to agree with Grot., 
who observes that in Aristot. those are said to be 
uKpaTeist who do not remain constant in a good re- 
solution, but succumb to the alliuements of vice. 
Tims he renders uKpacrlav injirmitateni^ i. e. "by 
means of your not being able to contain yourselves.' 
One should, indeed, rather have expected aKpariocv 
or oLKoarelav : but the words are often confounded in 
MSS., and by the best writers were used indiscrimi- 
nately. Of this Wets, adduces many examples from 
Plutarch, Philo, and Aristotle. 

On the sentiment Ilosenm. compares Catullus : 

* To which may be added Dionys. Hal. I, 234, 10. (rvreXdufiey 
eh TO avTv. Plut. Pisef. 3.5. kuI tovtois e'ls aird (poi-uKrcii. Kui'ip. 
Dan. frag. 28. evrrj avieXdely I'lfjovXero. Joseph. 831,2. r»)^ trvio- 
^oy T))}' yvraiKos. Phit. ap. Euseb. Piaep. 3. p. 8.5 n. (poir^v els to 
avru. Pausan. 10. p. Sb'S c. yviuiKwy 6-vaats els to ouro 'IloavXta 
acpiXeadai Xiyovaiy. The same thing is elegantly expressed in 
Horn. Od. »^. 296. Wana^jiui Xf.KT^)ois naXaiov Qetrfiov Ikovtu. 


" Nupta tu quoque, quae tuus vir petet, cave, ne 
neges : ne petitum aliunde eat." And so Jalkut 
Simeoni (cited by Wets.) " Qui sine uxore habitat 
— concupiscentia prava ipsum vincit, egrediturque 
cum ipso in plateam, Satan stat, ipsumque e mundo 
perdere cupit." 

6. roCro Se T^eycn Kara (ruyyva)ix7]v , ou /car' CTrirayrlv. 
It is not very clear whether the touto is to be re- 
ferred to what precedes, or to what follows. The 
/a^/er opinion is maintained by J. Capell., and many 
recent Commentators, as Rosen m., Krause, and 
Macknight, who refer to ver. 25., and adduce a si- 
milar mode of expression from Joel 1, 2. Ps. 49, 2. 
1 Cor. 10, 23. And undoubtedly this use is fre- 
quent in the Classical writers. But the context 
alone can determine our choice. Now, in all 
cases, it is more natural to refer it to the preceding, 
and here the use of the 8e, and of the yap in the next 
sentence, seems to require it. Yet it should not, I 
think, be referred to the immediately preceding 
(though this is done by many Commentators), but, 
with Calvin and Vorstius, to the more remote ; as 
ver. 1., where the Apostle counsels them not to 
marry, unless 8<a tt^v aK^areiav. Thus it will not be 
necessary to read le for yap\ which is found in some 
four or five MSS. and Fathers, and appears to be 
a paradiorthosis. 

6. /caret (Tuyyvcofxriv. On the sense of frvyyvw^:^ 
there exists some difference of opinion among Com- 
mentators. Beza, Grotius, Hamm., Bengel, Mackn., 
Rosenm., and Schleusner, take it to be nearly equi- 
valent to yvcoixrj, monitum. Grotius renders : *' id 
quod dixi, Habeat quisque suum, aut suam, conju- 
gem, non praecepi, sed suasi." And he observes : 
*' Praecepta omnes tangnnt, monita dantur prout 
cuique expedit." Beza, too, remarks that Aristot. 
Eth, 6. defines o-uyyvfyjULT] '* commodam dicti inter- 
pretationem, habita boni et a?qui ratione." Thus 
the /car eTriTay^v will refer, not to Christ, but to the 


Apostle himself . So Schleusner: " Hoc quod dixi 
SLiadere tantum volui, salvo judicio vestro, non prae- 

Krause renders kolto. (ruyyva)ixr,Vi " with indulgence ;" 
q. d. " dico animo cedente, non jubentc." But I 
see not how this version can be defended with any 
regard to the propriety and usage of the language. 

After all, the common interpretation, which refers 
both the o-uyyvfo[xr^v and the i7^iTayr^v to the Lordy 
may be defended ; and seems very agreeable to the 
Scriptural writers and the usus loqucndi (see Schl. 
Lex.), and, moreover, somewhat confirmed by ver. 
10 & 12., and 25. Trep} oe TrapBeucou iTriTuyr^v Kuplou 
o6k €-)(co. But see the note there. 

Carefully, then, must he that divideth the word 
of truth distinguish between the letter and the spirit 
of divine injunction, between counsels (as they have 
been called by the acute Montesquieu), which relate 
only to the time when the Apostles lived, and laws, 
which are of perpetual and universal obligation ; and 
discriminate between such precepts as were local, 
and such as were meant to be general. -f^ On which 
subject I would refer the reader to Rosenm. on 
Matt. 23, 8. T. 1, 450. and my note on Matt. 18, 
17-, and especially to Nitch. Comment, dejudicandis 
morum prasceptis in N. T. a communi omnium ho- 
minum ac temporum non alienis p. 101 & 165., also 
an admirable essay of Lord Clarendon on the reve- 
rence due to antiquity, vol. 2, 7C> — 138. 

7. ^eKo) yap Trauras' a.v^pcoTTOvs' eivai cos Koi i^otuTou. 
Grot., Vorst., and other eminent Commentators, re- 

* The Apostle (Rosenm. remarks), distinguishes his own opinion 
from the precepts of Christ. 

f And to thi* purpose it is justly remarked by Hurke (Works, 
vol. 10. p. 21.) : " We must sort out what is intended for example, 
what only as narrative, what to be understood literally, what figu- 
ratively, where one precept is to be controlled and modilied by 
another; what is used directly, and what only as an argument ad 
homiiiem, what is temporary, and what of perpetual obligation ; 
what appropriated to one state and to one set, and what the general 
duty of all Christ ians." 


mark, that the QeT^w is to be interpreted " non abso- 
lutae voluntatis, sed optativse." Thus the best Trans- 
lators render it, vellm, vellem. So Grotius. 

The expression ehai ws Kai ifxaurov (to be as my- 
self) cannot refer to the celibacy of the Apostle ; for 
(as Doddr. remarks) it would be a flagrant absurdity 
to suppose that St. Paul wished marriage might en- 
tirely cease ; ^ but is only to be interpreted of his 
wish, that all men had the same dominion over their 
passions and appetites that he had, so that they 
might be able to lead a life of celibacy whenever 
it was required by circumstances. It is remarked 
by Theophyl., that when the Apostle exhorts to 
any thing difficult, he usually adduces his own ex- 
ample. This, Rosenmuller thinks, has reference 
only to widows and widowers ; since the Apostle 
gives directions to virgins, infr. 0,5 seqq. But there 
is not, in the composition of St. Paul, sufficient re- 
gularity to enable us to pronounce, with certainty, 
in such a case. 

The Ka\ is said to be pleonastic. And Krause 
adduces examples from the Scriptural and Classical 
writers, in both which such pleonasms are frequent. 
But it rather seems to be emphatic, in the sense 
even ; and w-ith cos may be rendered even as. So our 
Common Version. 

" each hath its own proper gift." The Commentators 
seem, however, not to discern the admirable modesty 
with which this is said. The Apostle does not claim a 
merit in this mastery over his passions, but calls liis 
continency the gift of God. This was, Chrysost. 

* The same excellent Commentator subjoins the reflection, that 
" this shows how unfair and improper it is, in various cases, to 
strain the Apostle's words to the utmost rigour, as if he perpetually 
used the most critical exactness ; but, indeed, 9, 2'2., is so full an 
instance to tiie contrary, that it is not necessary to multiply re- 
marks of this kind." Tiiis, indeed, is a very just remark, and such 
as might be expected from his good sense and coi rect taste. It were, 
however, to be wished that he had himself more frequently acted on 
the principJe which he here so judiciously lays down. 


and Theophyl. remark, meant to console those who, 
from incontinency, were obliged to marry: and yet 
(as Tlieophyl. observes) r^y yfjaere/sa? ^teirai <r7ro'j6r;y ro 
'Trpayy.a.. And, in the same view, Grotius remarks, 
that not only the gifts of the Spirit, which are ob- 
tained by no exertion, may be termed ;^a&jo-/jiara, 
but also those which are attained by much labour." 
See James 1, IJ. How continence is a gift, see on 
Matt. 19, 11. and the note there. 

8. Xeyco 8e ToTy ayajutojy ku) raTy ^ifjpais, &C. It is 
rightly remarked by Crellius, that the Apostle here 
reduces into a compendium what he had hitherto said. 

On the exact sense of ayajtx. there has been no little 
discussion among Commentators. According to its 
literal and primitive meaning, it signifies one unmar- 
riedy without determining whether he has ever been 
before 7narried, or not. Many eminent Commenta- 
tors, as Grot, and Rosenm., contend that the term 
Iiere denotes widowers: and the former observes, 
that as the usage of language did not permit the 
Apostle to write ;^r;j50iy, so he employed the general 
term in a special application.* This, however, seems 
to be gratis dictum. The case of those who have 
never married is (they say) entered upon at ver. 25. 
But, as Mr, Slade truly remarks, " the Apostle does 
not always attend to such a nicety of distinction and 
arrangement," e. g. the argument in ver. 3-2 — 34. is 
equally applicable to all who are married. Besides, 
there is plainly an opposition between the aya/xoty 
and the roTs* yeya[x.r,Ko<Ti at ver. 10. : and so in ver. 32 
& 33. ayaikos and 6 yaixr,(ra9 are opposed. It 
should, then, seem that roTy ayd[xois denotes unmar- 
ried persons in general.-^ Then /caXov is to be inter- 
preted as at ver. 1. 

* They, moreover, reason from the Apostle being himself then a 
widower. But to th'.s it is replied by Macknight, that the advice 
being given to widows as well as widowers, the phrase, as I do, no 
more implies that the Apostle was a widower than he was a widow." 
This, however, seems not very solid reasoning. 

t To which purpose Schleusncr cites Anthol. 1, 13. 12, rols b' 
ayufAOis aippoi'Tis del fyios. 

VOL VI. 2 C 


9. et 8e ovK kyKparedovroLi. This is rendered by 
many : " non continent :" by others, " non continere 
possiint ;" which seems preferable. Pargeus says, it 
is used potentiaUter. The truth is, the potentiality 
is inherent in the very nature of the word. For 
iyKpo(.T-^9 signifies one who is ev Koarei, in possession 
of power. Thus el ouk kyparernvrai signifies : " if 
they are not in possession of power (namely, to ah- 
stain). So the term comes to be synonymous with 
ave)(e(rhai ; and Grot, remarks that both words an- 
swer to the Heb. pDt^. 

9. yafjirjo-aTojo-av, " let them marry." This terra, 
like our marry, is appropriate to both sexes : though 
the Latin nubere is properly applicable only to 

9. K^eKTorov yaq^ ea-Ti yaix,y](rai rj Trvpova-Qai. The force 
of this metaphor in Trupoua-Qai and the cognate terms 
in the Greek and Latin, the Commentators have 
illustrated with indefatigable, but misplaced, dili- 
gence. It is needless to remark that desire is, in all 
languages, compared to a fire. So Virg. ^n, 4, 68. 
uritur infelix Dido. IIupoGo-Sa/, indeed, does not 
necessarily indicate that any one shall be so burnt 
up as to yield to carnal appetites : yet it implies (i. e. 
in the case of some persons) such great proneness to 
evil as may require to be remedied in the way sug- 
gested by the Apostle, namely, by marriage. 

On the sense of KaXov the old Commentators trifle 
egregiously. Some recognize in it a catachresis. 
But it is to be taken in the plain and popular ac- 
ceptation. I know not whether the sense can be 
better expressed than in the following paraphrase of 
Sclater : " Etsi utile dico coelibem agere propter 
praesentem necessitatem, et solicitudines mundanas, 
commodius tamen est nubere quam uri ; etsi enim 
matrimonium (non quidem natura sua, sed ex acci- 
dente peccato hominis), mala aiiqua et incommoda 
secum trahat, plura tamen et graviora adfert libido, 
reatum scil. seternae mortis. Bulkley here aptly 
cites Maxim. Tyr. Diss. 41. p. 498. No(r€»Vw Sa/5§a- 


vrxTraXoy* ^eT^riov yap aiirto Sia voVov uTTOKctiea-^cii, fz-aXXov 
r, oia. rioovYjV. 

On the sentiment I would refer the reader to 
Nicostr. ap. Stob. Serm. 44-6, 9 et seqq. It has been 
very sensibly observed by IMacknight, that mairhige 
being an affair of the greatest importance to society, 
it was absolutely necessary that its obligation and 
duties should be declared by inspiration in the Scrip- 
tures. This passage, therefore, of the word of God 
ought to be read with due reverence, both because 
it was dictated by the \-\o\y Spirit, and because, 
throughout the whole of Ids discourse, the Apostle 
has used the greatest delicacy of expression." 

JO, 11. The Apostle now proceeds to consider the 
case of Christian married persons, and the continua- 
tion, or dissolution of that tie. 

10. ToTy ^e ycyaixTiKoa- 1 7rapa.yye7\.7vco, ovk kyco, olTO^ b 
Kujsioy, " not I only, but the Lord saith ; not so 
much I as the Lord." The Apostle, doubtless, ad- 
verts to the precepts recorded in Matt. 5, 32, & 19, 
3 — 10., where Christ lays down the law of marriage 
and of divorce. On the levity with which writings of 
divorcement were often given, Krause refers to Jo- 
seph. Ant. 4, 8, 23. ywaiKoy tt]? (ruvojicoucrryj (^ouT^ofxe- 
uos ^iu§€o^(irivon Kuh' ay SvjttotoJv alr/ay, TroXAa) 8' dv 
ToTy av^pcoTTOiy Toiotvrai yivoivro' ypaix^xacri fxev Trepi too 
/X7]§eVoTe cwveXOeiV ](r^upi^€(r(iai' T^aftioi yap dv ourais 
€^ou(rlav (TuvoiKeiv krepco^ wporeoov yap d(p€KT€ov. 

10. (x^ ^(opi(r(iT]vai, scil. 3eT. The Infinitive is here 
used for the Imperative. Grotius and Krause re- 
mark that ^copicrSriva.1 and d(^i€vai are appropriate 
terms; the former relating to the tvi/'e deserting or 
separating herself from her husband (for the passive 
is here, as often, used for the reciprocal ; see Matt. 
5, 32. 19, 4 — 9; and so Justin. Apol. 1, says of a 
woman e^^wpia-^r], disces.sit, divertil) : the latter to 
the husband putting aivay his wife. See Joseph, ubi 
supra, and Strabo, p. 428. -)(fioa<s a^kvras ras yjvaiKas. 
Grotius parallels the use of a7ro7rejX7retv and a7ro7^.€ iireiv 
among the Athenians. 

2 c 2 


It is, moreover, tlie opinion of several Commen- 
tators, asSelden, Grot., Vorst., Hardy, and Rosenm., 
that the Apostle is here speaking not o^ formal di- 
vorces effected before a magistrate, but only of such 
voluntary separations as often took place from dis- 
agreement between married persons. The law of 
Moses (Rosenm. observes) did not give the wife the 
power of legally separating herself from her husband. 
And that the first sort of separation is not here 
meant, is plain, Sclater thinks, from the words -if rw 
avlpi Kara70\oiy7]ra) which occur just after. " Now 
the Greek and Roman laws (says Rosenm.) did in- 
deed permit the wife to separate from her husband ; 
but the present precept respects couples both of 
whom were Christians^' Yet I see not how that 
would destroy the right of the wife, unless on the 
principle that no right was to be sought by restoring 
to the Heathen Judges ; which could not be meant ; 
since the Apostle seems only to have had in view 
such matters (chiefly pecuniary) as could be settled 
by arbitration : and this was not one of those. 

11. TO) av^fH KardXKayriTiOy " let her be reconciled 
to her husband. KaraAX. is synonymous with SiaXTc. 
Both words frequently occur in the best Greek wri- 
ters ; examples of which are adduced by Krause. 

12. ToTy Se XotTroTy eyco "keyco, oup^ o Kup;os*. The 
best Commentators, both ancient and modern, are 
agreed that rois "koiTrois must have reference to mar- 
riages where one party is Christian, and the other 
unbelieving. In which case it was a question much 
debated, whether conscience did not require the be- 
lieving party to separate from the unbelieving ; and 
whether all such marriages ought not to be dissolved. 
This the Apostle decides in the negative ; prefacing 
his answer with eyio keyco, o6^ o Ky^joy, the force of 
which words is not, I think, correctly represented 
by many of our recent Commentators. They make 
it equivalent to: " This is only my private opinion ; 
is not founded upon any revelation iiom Christ, and 
forms no part of his doctrine delivered personally 


while he was on earth." (See, besides other Com- 
mentators, Whitby, Rosenm., and Kraiise, and an 
able note of Mackn.) To this, however, strong ob- 
jections have been raised. " Certainly (says Mr. 
Shide) the Apostles, though they wrote the com- 
mandments of the Lord, 14, 37-, did not dehver every 
sentiment by immediate revehition ; and whetlier 
St. Paul so delivered these matrimonial directions, 
may depend, in a great measure, on the sense of 
^QK(v ep^ejv, ver. 40., which see. There could be no 
difference, in point of authority, between the com- 
mandments uttered by Christ, and those suggested 
by the Spirit ; the origin of both being divine." 
** At the same time, however (adds he), the injunc- 
tions which were laid down by our Lord on this sub- 
ject, might enable the Apostle more assuredly to 
declare, that he was speaking immediately and ex- 
pressly by divine command." Of such marriages as 
these Christ had said nothing, nor, indeed, without 
anticipating the designs of the Deity, could he. 

"Attio-tov, i. e. non Christian ; as perpetually in the 
New Testament. SuveuSo/ceT, thinks good, thinks 
well, consents, approves. This appears to be an 
idiotical use of the word ; though found also in 
Diod. Sic, cited by Munth in loc. Jt signifies, ge- 
nerally, " to unite in approbation of any thing ;" 
also '* to unite in any thing," whether good or evil. 
OIkciv ixer auTov, i e. (rvvoiKelu ; as it is expressed by 
the Classical writers. 

13. /cai yyi/^], subaud aScXiii^, taken out of the pre- 
ceding a^eXc^oy. By uvhpa aVio-rov is meant, Rosenm. 
says, non Cliristianum^ i.e. whether Jew or Heathen. 
But it may be doubted whether the Apostle had 
Jews in view. 

13. |xt] afpiero) aurlv. By using the same term as 
in the case of the husband putting away his wife, it 
is plain that the Apostle considered the wife as hav- 
ing the power of divorce, which, indeed, as being a 
Greek or Roman, she would have. Whitby remarks, 
that many Christian women thought it an impious 


thing to cohabit with a Heathen, espec'mlhj if he 
were addicted to unnatural lusts, since tiiey might 
partake in his iniquity and idolatry, as being "joined 
in one body." '' Hence (adds he) Justin Martyr gives 
an instance (with seeming approbation) of one of 
those Christian women who separated herself from 
her husband." But let it be remembered, that the 
being addicted to unnatural lusts alters the case ; 
that being a sort of adultery which might legally 
dissolve the marriage contract. If such were the 
case in the instance mentioned by Justin, he did 
right in approving it; ibr the woman did not sepa- 
rate herself from her husband for unbeliej', but for 
unfaithfulness to her bed. 

11. The Apostle now adds a reason why diversity 
of religion ought not to be a cause of divorce. 
(Krause.) And this by a sort of pre-occupation of 
the objection, " Shall I not be polluted by such 
close union with a profane and polluted person ?" 
To which the answer is : " No ; the believing wife 
is not polluted by the unbelieving husband, but 
rather the unbelieving is sanctified by the believing." 

On the sense of this passage, and especially of 
7}ylaa-Tai, there have been numerous opinions, all of 
which I cannot be expected to detail and review ; 
especially as there are scarcely more than two that 
have any semblance of truth. 

The opinion of most recent Interpreters, as Krause, 
Rosen m., and Schleus. (and formerly Est., Menoch., 
and Tirin.) is, that the sense is: *' mai/ easily be 
consecrated ; /*, in some measure, consecrated and 
numbered with Christians, and has an easier access 
to the jus Christianum, because of his believing 
wife." For examples of which sense of ayid§€(rQai, 
Schleus. refers to Acts 20, 32. 26, 18. Heb. 10, 14. 
1 Cor. 1, 2. Jud. ver. 1. And, indeed, this inter- 
pretation deserves the praise of simplicity ; but it is 
defective in critical proof. For where is ay. ever 
used in this limited sense ? Besides, how can it 


apply to the antithetical clause ? And thus the 
words eTrei apa ra. T€Kva u^cov uKa^apra iiTTi would be, 
I think, irrelevant. 

Some others adopt the interpretation of Semler 
(which had been before brought forward by Hamm.), 
and take the ay. in 2i future sense, and thus modified: 
*' will gradually become holy, by feeling more fa- 
vourably inclined to Christianity." But this is doing 
great violence to the words, and can by no means be 
admitted. Besides, that argument is touched on at 
V. 10.* Neither can I approve of Whitby's version : 
" hath been sanctified." Other Commentators, more 
rightly, regard the preterite as put for the present. 
The truth is, that in this idiom the preterite has an 
aorist sense, and denotes what is usual or accustomed, 
i. e. what has been, is, and will be. 

Upon the whole, the best founded opinion seems 
to be that of Crellius, Sclater, Camer., Beza, Calvin, 
almost all the Dutch Commentators, Whitby, Wolf, 
and Bengel, and which is partly confirmed by Chrys., 
namely, that this sanctification is not to be extended 
beyond what the subject matter requires, i. e. sanc- 
tification quatenus illi matrimoulo uti fas est. So 
Crellius. Or, as it is more familiarly expressed by 
Whitby : " He is to be reputed as sanctified, be- 
cause he is one flesh with her who is holy." Beza 
renders, " Pietas uxoris plus valet ut conjugium 
illud sanctum et purum habeatur, quam mariti infi- 
delitas ut profanetur, vel ut uxor bona conscientia 

* This interpretation, however, is in some measure supported by 
Theodoret, who paraphrases the words by: €)(^ei a-iorrjpUts iXiriba. 
He further observes, that the Apostle has ex|)ressed the sentiment 
hyperboHcally, with a view to persuade the believing party not to 
break the bond of wedlock." A somewhat dangerous and unsound 

It is also supported by Phot. ap. CEcumen. 479 c, who, after ob- 
serving that the unbelieving party, being swayed by the dutiful kind- 
ness shown by the believing one, and endeared thereby, is induced 
to feel strong conjugal affection, and to think more favourably of 
the Gospel : ware kuI ravrt] tyyvs eari rov eixre^e'iv avrov koX 
aylaadai bia rfjs (juKOt/c/;aews rod ttkttov. Yet this, 1 thiok^ is too 


marito uti non possit." The sense is well expressed 
by Doddr. thus : " The one is so sanctified by the 
other, that their matrimonial converse is as lawful as 
if they were both of the same faith.* See Dieteric 
Antiq. Bibl. 27., cited by Wolf, who himself re- 
marks : Paulus nempe indicat, conjugium ejusmodi 
impar ob conjugem alterutrum fidelem Deo placere. 
Hoc vero ad Scopum Pauli sufficiebat, qui eo spec- 
tabat, ut doceret, conjugem fidelem matrimoninm, 
cum infideli susceptum, solvere non debere." In 
the same viev*^, Mr. Slade thinks that by the infidel 
party being sanctified, the Apostle might mean the 
marriage itself being so sanctified, as to be entitled 
to all the advantages of a complete Christian mar- 
riage, particularly as to the state of the children, 
who would be considered as Christians, and become 
admissible to the right of baptism ; which would 
not have been the case, had both the parents been 
heathen and unclean." 

As to the Baptist interpretation, it has, undoubt- 
edly, not a foot to stand on. But I must hesitate 
whether to adopt the last detailed interpretation. 
Perhaps, however, it may be engrafted upon the one 
which precedes it. 

14. erei dqa. ra tckvo, u[x(ou aKa^Qapra. dcrri, vuv, &C. 
Many Commentators render a|5a alioquin. But it 
ratlier seems to have the sense of profectOy sane; 
and there appears to be an ellipsis of aXXo)?, which 
is not unfrequently found after certain conjunctions, 
and among the rest eVe). (See Rom. 11, 6. and the 
note there, and also consult Wets.) The sense, 
then, seems to be this : " For otherwise (namely, if 
one party be not sanctified) your children are consi- 
dered impure and profane. (See 2 Cor. 6, I7. Acts 
10, 28.) But now (i. e. in this case) they are holy,'* 
i. e. form part of God's people. So Hardy (from 

* The above interpretation, Macknight strongly contends, can- 
not be admitted. But his objections seem very far from conclusive, 
and his own interpretation surpasses in absurdity any one yet pro- 


Par.) "Foedere comprehensi, et membra ecclesiae 
reputantiir, et baptism! capaces, vigore promissionis 
illiiis, Ero Deus tuns, et seminis tui" It is obvious 
how strongly this supports the doctrine of Infant 

15. et he 6 aTria-ros x^^pi^eTon, ;^a)pj^6o-9a>, "but if 
the unbeheving party will separate himself from the 
believing, let him be separate." The meaning of 
the Apostle in these words is not very clear ; which 
has led some to suppose that the Apostle meant all 
such marriages were, by the desertion of the unbe- 
hevmg party, ipso facto annulled : so that a new 
one might take place. But this sense cannot fairly 
be elicited from the words ou MouAa>Ta», which ad- 
mit of a very different interpretation. Nay such an 
opinion would be at variance with both the letter 
and spirit of our Lord's decision, and indeed of 
the Apostle's himself in this very chapter: and 
such a material change in the law cannot well be 

r M ^!^- ^^"^'^ Doddridge has the following excellent annotation : 
' Nothing can be more apparent than that the word holy signifies 
persons who might be admitted to partake of the distinguishing 
rites of God's people. Compare Exod. 19, 6. Deut. 7, 6 14,2. 26 
19. 33, 3. Ezra 9, S. with Isa. 35, 8. 3, 1. Acts 10, 28, &c. And 
as tor the interpretation which so many of our brethren, the Bap- 
tists, have contended for, that holy signifies legitimate, and unclean, 
tUegilimate, (not to urge that this seems an unscriptural sense of 
the word,) nothing can be more evident than that the argument will 
by no means bear it; for it would be provintc a thing by itself 
idem per idem, to argue that the converse of the parents was lawful 
because the children were not bastards; whereas all who thouo-ht 
the converse of the parents unlawful, must of course think that the 
children were illegitimate." See also Mr. Slade's judicious remarks 
on this subject, and especially the annotation of Grotius on this 
whole passage, who, inter alia, observes: 'AKadapra et hyia (quEe 
hic opponuntur, quomodo apud Judteos t=3»'?Da et ontyj), non 
dlegitimationem et legitimationem denotant, sed Ethnicismum et 
Christianismum. Quaestio hic non erat an proles legitima esset 
sed an Christiana: quo sensu nirnp occurrit apud Talmudicos 
Eodem sensu hic sancti, i. e. in sanctitate geniti, dicuntur, h. 1. in- 
tra Christianismum, si vel pater vel mater sit Christianas." See Ca- 
pell in loc. and Wets., the latter of whom cites Plut. Is. et Osir. p 
364 D. TLvu fxaXXoy i'l ae yll'wa^C€lr, w (cXea, bi) Trpoo-j/voi/ ^(rri — roZs 
vaipuiKots Kadwerio/xeyrju iepo'is utto Trarpos Kal nrjrpos ; 


imagined, since it would render the abrogation of a 
marriage dependent on the will of the separating 
party ; which would destroy all security in the mar- 
riage bonds. This side of the question is ably de- 
fended by Wolf, whom see. 

The contrary opinion, namely, that the believing 
party was free to form another marriage, is main- 
tained by several eminent Commentators, as Grotius 
and others ap. Pole ; * as also by most of the recent 
ones. It is also imputed by Whitby to Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, Photius, &c. But perhaps their ex- 
pressions are only to be taken in a popular accepta- 
tion, namely, that the believing party is free from 
obligation to cohabit with the other. See Sclater 
ap. Pole, and especially Whitby. Upon the whole, 
Hammond seems to have correctly represented the 
sense thus: "If the infidel will not' live with the be- 
liever, unless she will forsake her religion, she is not 
then so enslaved or subjected that she may do acts 
prejudicial to her religion, and to the betraying 
thereof, in order that she may continue with her 
husband ; but she is blameless if she remain sepa- 
rate from him, upon such his desertion. "-j- 

The 0(3 he^Qu'kuiTai is well explained by Theophy- 
lact, "is not bound to bear with him in such a 
point," (i. e. when he quarrels with her on the score 
of religion.) 

15. €v Ze cipn^i^y) K€K7^riK€V Tjjoias' o ©eoy. It has been 
(I think) rightly noticed by Piscator, Pargeus, Scla- 
ter, and Crellius, that the Apostle here limits the 
liberty in question, lest it should run into license ; 
q. d. " God, however, hath called us (Christians) to 

* Thus Pareeus, Calvin, and Estius : " Liber est non solum a 
toro et mensS., sed etiam a vinculo deserentis, Non obligatur vel 
summd cum molest i^ invito cohabitet, vel ut coelebs maneat, et re- 
conciliationem exspectet ac procuret." 

f So Wetstein : " Si deserit uxorem, quia ilia Chrlsto nomen 
dedit ; non adeo alligata est marito, ut ejus gratia debeat Christum 
deserere. Thus Let him go will be taken in a popular acceptation, 
i. 6. " bring no action to recover your matrimonial rights j much 
less sacrifice your Christian faith for such a purpose." 


the cultivation of peace ; and therefore the believing 
must not afford the unbelieving party any cause for 
separation by an unyielding spirit and over precise 
scruples; nor, after separation, compel him or her 
to return, and thus hazard the breach of peace." 

1(5. Ti yap oloas, yuvixi, ei tov av^pa (rco(r^i9 ; The 
Apostle here assigns the reason why the believing 
party should not promote needless separation, but 
in every way cultivate peace; namely, since by this 
conduct the other party may probably be gained 
over to the Christian faith : for that is here the sense 
of (Ttojeij/, on which term see the note on Matt. 2, 
21. llosenm. observes, that the word was also used 
in this metaphorical sense by the Pythagoreans. 
And he refers to Jambl. de V. P. C.9. ^o Kepoalveiv, 
9, 22. Compare 1 Pet. 3, 1. 

Here Wetstein aptly cites Bereschith R. 17? 12. 
"Factum pii, qui duxerat uxorem piam, et non pro- 
crearunt liberos. Dixerunt. Deo nihil prosumus. 
Steterunt et fecerunt divortium. Ivit ille, duxit im- 
piam, quas ilium impium fecit. Ilia nupsit impio, 
quern pium fecit. Ecce omnia esse ex uxore.^' And 
Krause cites Clem. Alex. Strom. 4. e'koir dv q-jv -t) 
(Tco<^pcvVy TTproTOV [X€V TT^lbeiv TOV av^oa koivwvov ujt^ 
yiv€(rSui rcuv Trpos' (u^aifxoviav (pepovrcov. Et Oe aOuvarui^ 
€^01, ixovr] (TTreuoerco €7r aperr^Vy Trdvra [xev rep avopi 
9re»0o|xevv], a)V y-r^^kv aKovroy e/ceTvoy Trqct^ai "Trore^ 7rXr]j; 
0(TCL fTr' apery^v t€ ku) <TcoTt]plav 6ia<^t:peiv voju-t^erat. 

Many Commentators join the ei ]u,r) of the follow- 
ing verse to the end of the present one. So CEcu- 
menius, and, of the moderns, Hammond, Krause, 
and others. But for this there is, I think, very 
little authority ; nor can it be defended on critical 
grounds ; for the r^ jxt] is evidently the easier read- 
ing. Theophylact remarks that some copies had 
ri [XT], but that Chrysostom read and explained e» ju,t^, 
connecting it with the next verse ; which, he says, is 
far better. And he thus explains the sentence : ou 
yiverai b ^MpKr^os 3ia ttjv aTCKnictv, cl |X7^ e/cao"T«), avri 


Tou, aXXa eKCLcros o^tws ep^ero), cos i^ySoKvjo-ev aurov o 

17. f» jtJt''>l €Ka(rT(p o'y Cfxepia-ev ©toy — Treoj^aTeTro). 
Here el /xi) is for dtXXa. o«/«/, a^ /ea*^, a^ all events : 
a sense found both in the Scriptural (as Gal. 1^ 7« 2, 
17. Rom. 14, 14.) and in the Classical writers. Thus 
the Commentators cite Arist. Eq. 1103. ftrjSev aXX' 
el jULv) eVQje. And so wm in Plaut. and Cicero. (See 
Drak. on Liv. 24, 20.) 

On the scope of this and the following verse 
Krause (from Rosenm.) pertinently remarks: "Pau- 
lus, quod saepius facere solet, quaedam a proposito 
suo non plane aliena, interjicit et ex occasione eo- 
rum, quae de conjugio dispari disseruerat, locum de 
variis vitee ingreditur conditionibus, casque in ipsa 
re, et in religionis exercitio nihil mutare docet." 

But to advert to the construction of the present 
verse, Grotius has rightly remarked that in ws there 
is a double transition ; as at 3, 5. Rom. 12, 13. An 
idiom which, I must observe, occurs more than once 
in Thucydides. The sense is, "according as God 
hath assigned, apportioned to each his situation in 
life." Mep/^etv answers to the Hebr. pTTJ, to divide, 
apportion. Doddridge paraphrases, '* according as 
God hath cast their parts." Indeed it is a dramatic 
metaphor, which will bring to the mind of most of 
my readers a celebrated passage of Shakspeare's 
Hamlet. Grotius thinks that the Apostle has added 
the clause eKacrrov cos K€K7<riK€v Kop/os", to explain 
and illustrate the former ; as if /ceicXvj/cev signified no 
more than " called thee into the situation thou 
boldest." So Paraeus, who regards it as equivalent 
to, " distributed thy condition or calling." And thus 
Krause, and indeed most recent Commentators. 
Yet in KCKXr^Kev there is surely an allusion to the 
Christian calling. The two senses may, indeed, be 
thus united (as is done by Rosenm.) " Prout fuit 
externa conditio, in qua quemque Deus ad Christia- 
nam religionem perduxit." 


The sentiment is repeated at ver. 20 & 24. 

17. ouTO) 7r€pi7roLT€iTco, " SO Ict lilm Hve." HcFe Gro- 
tius and Krause aptly compare the Horatian : 
*' Qiiam tibi sortem Seu ratio dederit, seu sors ob- 
jeceiit, ilia contentus vivas." 

The words may be thus paraphrased: *' Nor is this 
admonition meant for 2/0 u only j since it is my strict 
injunction to all the Churches wiiich I superintend; 
namely, that the Christian religion does not interfere 
with or disturb the relations of civil polity." Aja- 
raa-a-. is properly a military term, and signifies, *' to 
place or dispose in order of battle;" (whence ray- 
ju-ara, regiments ;) but it also signifies, in a general 
way, to arrange, order, enjoin, &c.; as in Acts 20, 
13. and sometimes in the later Classical writers. 

The reading of some MSS., 8»3a(r/ca), is evidently a 

18. TrepireTjULTjjaevos' ng eK'hr^^ri ; ]!xi] iTnmraa-dco' " lias 
any one been converted, who had before been cir- 
cumcised, or from being a Jew," i^c. Mt^ eTria-Traa-Sai, 
This is by our common Translators rendered: "Let 
him not become uncircumciscd ;" which, as a popu- 
lar, and es))ecially as a decorous version, may be to- 
lerated. But, in fact, uncircumcised no one ever 
could become. The term in question refers to cer- 
tain means which were taken to remove the marks 
of circumcision. This (as the term suggests) was 
by drawing down the prepuce with certain surgical 
instruments. On which the Commentators refer to 
Cels. de Med. 7, 25. where the whole process is de- 
scribed. This passage is cited by Wetstein, toge- 
ther with numerous others illustrative of this sub- 
ject ; as Martial 7, 30, G. 9, 57, 4. 7, 82. Diosc. 2, 
101. &4, 157. and especially Epiphan. de Metris I6. 

KOil CtTTO 7r€piT0lXr,y OLKOoi^UCTTQl yivoVTOLl Te^Vfi TlVl lUTpiKT] 

8ia ToG KaXouix€vou (TTra^JCTTrjpoy ttjv tcov fx-eXwy uTrohep^oL- 
Ti'Sa uTToa-TradioSevTes, pa<pevT€9 re Koi koT^^.tiTIkoIs' Trepio- 
ZeuOevres oLKpo^oa-rlav ovhis a'Jrrjv a;roTeAoG<riv. The 
practice is often alluded to by the Rabbinical writers. 


(See Wetstein's examples.) That iTria-Traa-Qai was 
the term appropriated thereto, appears from Joseph. 
de Mace. 5. (cited by Wets.) TrpoKaQ/o-ay ye toi ixera 
rcov (Tme^puiV o Tvpavvos 'Avrjop^os" eiri rjvoy u\I/ryXoG tottoo 
— 7rapcx.K€7^€v(rev ctuToTs* eva e/cacrov rwu 'E|3ga/a)V ixi(r- 
7r6i<rQai, kou Kpecov veiatv Km ei^coT^o^oroiv avayKa^e iv 
aTTo-yevea-dai,* The tool with which this operation 
was performed was called a-Traa-^riTr^o, spaster. See 
Steph. Thes., BuxtorPs Lex. Tahn.'p. 1274., Fabr, 
"Bibl. Antiq. 282. and other writers referred to by 
Wolf, Hamm. in loc, and especially the learned and 
elaborate Dissert, of Groddeck on this subject, re- 
printed in Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. 

On the word aKpol^va-ria (which is here understood) 
see Rom. 2, 27, 30. and the notes. 

On the circumstances which had led the Apostle 
to advert to this subject, Rosenm. well remarks: 
" Videntur in eorum numero, qui Paulum amarent, 
et de variis rebus consuluissent, Exjudsei nonnuUi 
fuisse, qui per Pseudapostolorum, circumcisione sua 
gloriantium, et Corinthiorum, hujus forte laudis aemu- 
lorum, despicientiam et odium de ipso circumcisionis 
vestigio delendo cogitassent ; quum contra Exgen- 
tiles nonnulli, Pseudapstolorum auctoritate com- 
inoti, circumcidi vellent. Utrumque errorem jam 
corrigit Apostolus." 

19. "T) 7C€piro[Lri ouSev eo-rt — ®€od. The expression 
auhev €<rTi is a popular one, signifyirg to be of no 
moment, -\ "perinde est." See Pint, de Excit. (cited 
by Wets.) ro 8e ere ju-v] KaroiKeiv %aq}ieis ouhev i(rriv. 
And Eurip. Iph. A. 968. 

" 19. c(XkoL T-qo-qcns ivroT^aiv 0eoG. Supply ri ecrri, 
" is something oi' moment;" "it is the keeping the 
commandments of God that is of importance." Gro- 

* Yet the writers of 1 Mace. 1, 17. seems to have been unac- 
quainted with it; for speaking of the suns of Tobias, he simply 
says, eTvoirjirev eavrois ai:po[jvaTiai'. 

f Viz. in the business of salvation; since it is abolished^ the 
chief purpose of its institution being aheady fulfilled. See Rom. 4, 
Jl. (Hardy.) 


tius observes, that from this passage, compared with 
Gal. 5, (3. and (), 1.5. we learn, that it comes to the 
same thing whether we speak of the obedience to 
God's precepts in the Gospel, oy faith tvfiich ivorketh 
bij love, or the being a new creature : for tlie first 
denotes tlie thing; the second assigns to it parts; 
and the third indicates the primary cause.'" So also 
Crelhns, who adds, that it is clear from hence that 
the observance of God's precepts, which Christ re- 
quires of us, is both not impossible, and is the causa 
sine qua non of our salvation." See also Vorst in 
loc. Yet it is not, I think, quite fair to aim at deter- 
mining any doctrines that may be in dispute from 
passages like the present, which are expressed popu- 

Theophylact has here very soundly and judiciously 
expounded thus : Tlavra^^ou touto ^rjrelrai, jaera rrjy 

20, 521. The Apostle again lays down a general 
precept, and to that subjoins another special one. 

Grotius and Rosenm. remark on the paronomasia 
in K7^7]fr€i fi kKkrfiri ; since KArjO-et denotes condition^ 
state of life ^ (so Theophyl. 3<o? ray/xarj,) as we say 
calling ; whereas cKKT^r^Sri signifies, " was called to be 
a converted Christian ; and especially as to the two 
great distinctions of bond and free. Grotius also 
refers to a similar use of the Hebr. t^lp*". 

21. ^o[j7^oy eKXr'iSrj^ ; juiv] crot |xeXeTa). The sense of 
these words is not very clear. Hence they have 
been variously understood. Chrysostom and all the 
Greek Commentators take the ixr] a-oi fxeT^^ereu — ypr^a-ai 
to signify : " You need care so little, that if even 
you can gain your freedom, prefer your servitude, 
as a greater trial of Christian patience." And so 
Camerar., Schmidt, Starch, Estius, De Dieu, and 
the Syr. Translator. And this sense, they think, 
is confirmed by the following consolatory words : 
" For he," &c. The interpretation is also ably de- 


fended by De Dieu and Wolf. And Theodoret re- 
marks : TaJrryV Se rr^v V7r€p^o7\.-^v ou^ otTrXaJs* T€^€IK€V, 

7rooa-<p€f/€i 8e ku) erepav 7rapa\f/up^v]v. But (as I observed 
at ver. 14.) this principle, namely, of hyperbole, as 
employed for such a purpose, is precarious and un- 
sound: and, notwithstanding that the above inter- 
pretation may be defended, and is supported by 
high authorities, yet I must doubt whether it be the 
true one. There is a certain harshness about it to 
which nothing but necessity would reconcile me, 
and which I find no where else in our Apostle. 
Crellius has, I think, rightly remarked, that the 
Apostle did not mean to say, " Remain a slave," 
since slavery is a thing in its own nature bad, and in 
common life the two things are very different. 
And he might have added, that what is detrimental 
to human happiness cannot be promotive of virtue. 
Considering, then, the admirable good sense, and 
knowledge of the human heart shewn by the Apostle, 
I must regard that as the true interpretation which 
is supported by Beza, Grotius, Hamm., and most 
Interpreters since their time, indeed almost all re- 
cent Commentators. This I shall explain farther in 

The words [kti croi ^ehero) (on which see Eurip. 
Hel. 134. and the Commentators) must not be too 
much pressed.* It signifies, " Do not feel a too 
great trouble on that account, (ju,7] 0opu|3oG, as Theo- 
phylact explains,) as if it could materially affect 
your acceptance with God, and salvation ; and as if 
that were a condition unworthy of a Christian." 
Theodoret paraphrases : " Grace knows no distinc- 
tions of freedom or servitude; therefore bear it pa- 
tiently." -f- Grotius adds: "And, above all, let it 

* As is done by Drs. Goodwin and Doddridge. 

t So of Epict., Grotius tells us, it is said: AouXos 'ETr/zcrjjros 
yevoji-qv, Koi aiifiari Trrjpds Kai Treyirjv ipos, Kat (piXos adaydrois. 
It must, however, be observed, tliat the condition of slaves in 
Greece was little infejior to that of the lower orders of freemen. So 


not drive you to seek your freedom by unjustifiable 
means." And he remarks, that a misunderstanding 
of the nature of Christian liberty had made many 
Christian slaves not only murmur at their situation, 
but seek to throw off all bondage ; just as (he adds) 
the misunderstanding of some doctrines of Stoicism 
(that the wise man was a king) made some persons 
arrogant and turbulent; as we find from Tacitus, 
Annal. L. 14. 

21. aTOC e\ Koi — -^i^r^rTa^^ ^'but if thou hast the 
power of obtaining freedom, choose that state in 
preference." At yj^yicrai subaud eXeuGfp/av, which is 
included in iXeuSepo^ yeveaSai. This subaudition is 
far less harsh than that which is required by the 
first-mentioned interpretation. X^v^o-aj here signifies 
take, choose : a sense found in the best Classical 
writers. MaXXov may be well rendered the rather : 
which sense occurs in Polyaen. 1, 38. o oe Trepireiyia-- 
jmoy wi^ekrirre Koi [xoiT^T^ov, where Casaub. remarks : 
*' Hoc est jttvit vel maxime: id est enim koa |xaX?;ov; 
ut alibi docuimus." And Onosantl. p. 16. Trare^a 
he TTpouKpiva |u.aX7\.ov, ouSe rov uTrai^a TrapairoJjutevoy. 

22. 6 yap ev Kupuo, &c. If the second interpreta- 
tion of the preceding verse be adopted, these words 
must be referred, not to what immediately preceded, 
but to the more remote ixri a-oi [xeXeTco, and are meant 
to console such as could not obtain freedom. (See 
Sclater.) The sense is : *' The Christian slave is a 
freeman of the Lord." Almost all recent Commen- 
tators, as Rosenm., Krause, and Jaspis, take this to 
mean : '* He who being, in a civil sense, a slave, has 
become a Christian, is, in a moral sense, free :" and 
vice versa. But the Greek Commentators, and of 
the moderns Locke, (rightly I think) suppose that 

Eurip. Ion. So4. ey y«p ri Tuls bov\oi(Tiy alcryyrriv (^epei Tovroua. 
TCI V iiXXa Trayra twv eXevOepioy Ovbeis Kai^iwy bovXos orrris ftrdXos 
^. That they were allowed in Greece, at the time of Euripides, to 
possess property, is plain from a passage of his Andromeda, pre- 
served by Stob. Tit. 81. ■^vaov paXiara ftouXop' ey bofiois e\eiy. 
Ka« bovXos uiy yap ri^noi irXovTwv av>)p. 
VOL. VI. 2 D 


by otTreT^eo^epos there is not only an allusion to the 
slavery unto sin under which they formerly lived, 
but to the liberty, freely and oraciously conferred 
upon them by their Lord and Master. (See Chrys. 
and Qj^cumen.)* 

Grotius remarks, that there is a combination of 
the antithesis and the oxymoron ; as in Rom. 2, 20. 
And he adds : " Vide quam brevi argumentatione 
Paulus servos liberos aequaverit/'-j^ Krause com- 
pares the expression aTreXeJOepoy Ku'oiou with one in 
Eph. 2, 12. ^efot Totv ^la^YjKwvj "strangers as far as 
regards the covenant." 

By SouAoy X/>»o-roG is meant one who is bound to 
obey the precepts of" Christ, whether of faith orlof 
practice. Krause refers to Eph. 6, 6. and cites Philo, 
1122 A. Kai i<rr\ to ^ouXeueiv r<Z 0ecp xdvrcov oi.pi(rTov. I 
add Arrian 4, J. p. 402. (cited by Kuin. on Joh. 8, 
32.) €19 €[X€ odoe)^ e^rtu(riav e^ei, oX6uQepa)pt,aj uttq tou 06oy, 


23. Some, as Hamm., Knatchbull, Hardy, and 
Whitby, read this sentence interrogatively, and sup- 

* So Theophyl. 218, 'AiveKevQepoi Xeye-ai, 6 cnro 8ov\elas 
eXevdepojdeis. ^rfulv ovv, on (tv 6 ev bovKelq. itiarTevaas, cnreXevdepos 
el Tov Xpiarov' riXevdepwcre yap ae Kal cnro rfjs cifxaprias, ical ano 
TTJs eLiwdef be ravrris bovXeias, el Kal boiiXos el brav yap ris TraQCJv 
aTrrjXXaKTai, Kal evyevrj e-)0 \pv)(^i))', ovk eari bovXos, kuv boKJj. TId~ 
XtVj dXXos eXevdepos top, €kX{]6j] els rriP iriariv, bovXos Xpiarov eariv. 
"^IcTTe el TO ovojjia Trjs bovXelas dopvfje'i tov bovXov, evvoehb) oti ev 
Xpi(TTf I'lXevdepiOTai' o ttoXXw jjeldov eari Ttjs ar6ptoirivr]S eXevdepias. 
AvOts be, el to ovo/ia Tiis eXevdepias, eirnipei tov eXevdepov , evvoeiTw, 

OTl bovXos e(TTl XpiCTOV, Kal (TV(7TeXXe(Tdw, WS VTTO beaTTOTTJV TrfXlKOV- 

TOV wv, Kai nvTM apeaKeiv ocpeiXwv. 'Opas ao(j)iav, Trios auipOTepois 
ToTs fiepecri tci Trpoai'iKovTa Trapaivei ; 

t He then cites Ignat. FAs bo^av, &c. ** Ad Dei gloriatn magis 
serviant, ut meliorem libertatem a Deo consequantur." Tertullian 
de corona: "Si libertas videtur, sed et servitus videbatur. Omnia 
imaginaria in seculo et nihil veri. Nam et tunc liber honiinis eras 
redemptus a Christo, et nunc servus es Christi, licet manumissus ab 
homine," Krause compares a similar sentiment of Apulej. 2. " Da 
nomen huic sanctae militiae — teque jam nunc obsequio religioni 
nostrse dedica, et niinisterii jugum subi voluntarium. Nam ctim 
ccEperis dese servlre, seniles fructum tuae liberlalis. 


pose that there is an allusion to some of the converts 
having been literally redeemed from slavery. Thus 
Whitby remarks, that we find from the Apologies of 
Justin and TertulHan, that the sacramental offerings 
were, amongst others, dedicated by the Christians 
to the purpose of buying their l3rethren out of 
slavery. But it is improbable that that had become 
the practice at so early a period. As to the other 
arguments employed by AVhitby for the establish- 
ment of this hypothesis, they are of little weight. 
And it is justly objected by Mr. Slade: *' 1. It ap- 
pears, from the change of number, as if all Christians 
were here addressed. 2. avdpcvTrcov seems to be op- 
posed, by implication, to X^ierrou understood after 
•jjyogao-^v^T-e. 3. It was not likely that the converts, 
after their escape from the miseries of slavery, should 
be desirous of returning to it." Doddridge, too, 
truly remarks, that the advice is unnecessarily re- 
strained thereby to those slaves who had been re- 
deemed ; which plainly as well suited those who 
had their freedom given them, and indeed suited all 
Christians who never had been at all slaves, and 
who might more easily have been prevailed upon, by 
their poverty, to bring themselves into a condition 
the evils and inconveniences of which they did not 
thoroughly know." In fact, not only is this inter- 
pretation unsupported by any eminent Biblical Cri- 
tics of modern times, but it was (as far as I can 
learn) utterly unknown to the antients, who all 
plainly inculcate that the admonition is general. So 
Theophyl. 219. thus excellently paraphrases: Ou 
Trpoy oj/ceray /xofous" tquto (pTjo-JV, aXXa Koi Trpo^ eXeuOfpoufj 
Trapaivaiv rroicri roT? ^pi(Triavois [t-'^ 7r§oy ctp€(TK€iav avSpai- 
TTcov TTOiiiv Ti, |X7]$e OTTCiKeiv coTOif TTa^avo^xa eTriTaTTorja-i. 
TouTo yap icTTi SouXeuejv av^pcoirois. See also the ad- 
mirable exposition of Theodoret. 

On the Tiju.T^s' ^jy ^^e the note on the parallel sen- 
timent at 6, 20. Both passages plainly allude to the 
redemption by the blood of Christ from that servi- 

2 D 2 


tude to sin which brings with it ignorance, supersti^ 
tion, and evil habits of every kind. 

23. ij.rj yivea-^ai SouXoj av^putTTdiV. These words may 
be taken either in a natural, or a metaphorical sense. 
The former mode is adopted by Hamm., Knatch- 
bull, and others, who also contend that the sentence 
is to be read interrogatively ; nay, by many who re- 
ject that punctuation, as JSalmasius, Wolf, and Dod- 
dridge. This, however, is supported by few emi- 
nent Critics, and no trace of it can I find in the Fa- 
thers and antient Commentators, who take the words 
in a metaphorical sense. So Theophyl. juti] Trgoy 
apec/ce/otv, av^^wTrtov Trnieiv ri, jU-^jOe uxeiKeiv auTois Traga- 
vo/xa eTTiTaTToua-i. See also Phot. ap. Q^cumen. 483 
B. and especially Chrys. in loc. And so, of the mo- 
derns, Lightfoot, Paraeus, and others. It is thought 
by Piscator, Vorstius, Beza, Grotius, Calvin, and 
most of the more recent Commentators, that the 
Apostle has an especial reference to the false teach- 
ers, v^hQihev Judaizers or others ; and means to cau- 
tion the Corinthians against putting on their necks 
an unnecessary yoke, by subjecting their consciences 
to such dogmatical directors. And even Wolf 
thinks that this interpretation may be admitted, by 
accotnniodation, namely, by considering this, as a re- 
commendation to liberty of conscience. For my 
own part, 1 consider the interpretation of Chrysost. 
as by far the soundest. 

24. €Koc.a-T09 — Trapa tm Sew. To the above special 
example the Apostle again subjoins the general in- 
junction, that each should remain in that state in 

which it had pleased God that he should be called, 
and become a Christian. (Crellius.) Theodoret, too, 
remarks that the Apostle makes this injunction the 
proitmium and the epilogus of his admonition ; and 
then passes to another subject. 

This confirms the interpretation which I have 
adopted of the preceding verse. 

On the last words, rrapa rto 0ea>, Commentators 
are not agreed. The early modern ones, as Camer., 


Beza, Grotius, and others, take them to be equiva- 
lent to the Hebr. niH'' ^2^h, in the sight of God, 
'*as it' in liis presence, and conscious of his omni- 
science." The Greek Commentators take it to be 
equivalent to *' conformably to the will of God," In 
fact, the two significations may be said to merge 
into each other. Theophylact well details the scope 
of the passage thus : Ay^cpore^MV yap Trpoi/oeTrai (scil. 
Apostolus), Tou jtxrjre rcov (r(u[xaTiKa)V ^e(nroTcov a<pl(rra- 
cQa* 7rpQ<Pa(r€i too Qeou' |X7]T6 ttuT^iv tou &€ou a7ro(rTa- 
reiuy UTreiKovTus uVeg to Seov roTy Seo-TroTaiy. 

25. 7r€p) Se tcov TrapSevcov iTnTayr^v Kugjou ouk €^a). 
The Apostle now returns to the subject from which 
he had diverged ; and, having treated of married 
and ividowed persons, he now adverts to the TrapSevoi. 

Ilep) 8e Twv TTocp^evcov, *' As to the virgins (of 
whom ye consult me)." For the air of the Apostle's 
words seems to indicate that some ijuestion had been 
proposed to him concerning them ; namely, whether 
they should continue in cehbacy ? With respect to 
the word itself, the most eminent modern Commen- 
tators are agreed that it must refer to both sexes, 
and thus be equivalent to our single persons; a 
sense not only recognized by the antient Lexicogra- 
phers, but occurring in the Classical writers. Krause 
refers to Gaulman de Vita Mosis, p. 223. and 
Lampe's Proleg. on Joh. p. 14: and Schleus. to Le 
Moyne's Var. Sacr. 589. and other Philological 

Concerning these, then, the Apostle adds ; eV*- 
Tayr^v Kyg/ou ouk c^^to, on the interpretation of which 
words there has been a similar diversity of opinion 
to that which subsists at ver. 6 & 10. (where see the 
note, and Slade on those passages, and the present 
one.) After carefully examining the arguments on 

* It is not a little surprising that the Philologists should have 
overlooked the following examples, which I have noted in my read- 
ing. Eurip, Ion. 270. Beck, eh irnpBeviov ■yeipas. Hipp. 1006. 
Beck. TrapQ. -ipvx'n'- Pausan. L. 1. The wojd is properly an ad- 
jective; as in tlic above passages^ and Eurip. Phoen. 85'2. 


both sides, I am inclined to agree with those who 
interpret the words €7nrayrjv Kvploo ovk e^^ of a 
direct command issued by Christ while on earth. 
The turn of the sentence seems indeed to be popu- 
lar, and may very well bear the sense, " I have no 
commandment of the Lord to urge ;" and is not 
irreconcileable with the parallel passages supra 6 & 
10. This mode of interpretation, too, besides being 
supported by many eminent modern Commentators, 
as Grotius, Piscator, Sclater, Paranis, Cajetan, Jus- 
tin, and Whitby, is confirmed by the authority of 
the Greek Fathers and Commentators, (see Chry- 
sostom, &c.) and especially Theophyl. 219- who thus 
explains : ^^vjcriv, or< o Kupioy ^ev ouk evoy-oSerria-ev, ooSe 

p^fype/ro). Ou/couv ou^e eyco toT^ikco eTrird^ai. And yet 
more decidedly by Theodoret. So also Qilcumen. 
and Photius. And the same view of the sense is 
taken by most recent Commentators, including Mac- 
knight, viz. '*I have no special precept common to 
all, either in the old Law, or in the Gospel of 
Christ.** There seems no reason, however, to sup- 
pose, with Whitby, that the latter clause asserts a 
Divine inspiration. 

25, yvcojitTjV Se 8/S<:oju,j, "I give you my opinion."* 
Grotius and Rosenm. supply, " which if you follow, 
I shall praise, but if you do not, I shall not con- 
demn you." This, however, seems too arbitrary and 
licentious a paraphrase. The sense appears to be 
more correctly represented in that of Estius : " I say 
what I think, and judge best for you." Beza and 
Calvin render; " Ex temporis, loci et circumstantiis 
trado quid expediat, ac voluntati Dei congruat." 
That such is the sense, appears, I think, from the 
words following, o's vjXevjjuevos', which, without press- 
ing on them, must imply (as Mr. Slade observes) 
that his judgment, even without a special revelation, 

* Here Wetstein compares Dio 56. yvw^-qv avrdls ec^wjce. And, 
what is more apposite, Dio, p. 386. uoi yvw/.irjv bovtai e'^w. 
Kypke, too, cites Diod. Sic. 894. and Dion. Hal. 600. 


is entitled, from his character and office as an inspired 
ApostFe, to peculiar attention and regard. The 
phrase ws^ ijXevj/x.evos' otto Kuplou TrKTrof chai is mani- 
festly Hellenistical. 'ExeeTo-Qat is regarded by the 
best Interpreters as equivalent to ''obtain a benefit.'* 
And so Hardy : /c6;^aptra;ja6vos'. The force of the 
expression in question can only be well represented 
in a paraphrase ; and the following seems to be its 
real sense: ** as one who hath been so graciously 
dealt with by the Lord, as to be entrusted by him 
with the office of teaching his religion." TlKrro^ 
here signifies trust- wort hi/ ; as in 1 Thess. 2, 4. and 
1 rim. 1, 12. ore ttkttov [j.€ t^yrjO-aro Sqxevos' ejs* SjaKo- 
vlau- which is altogether a kindred passage. Thus 
Theophyl. explains ma-roy by afios" 7rt(rreu6o-^ai. And 
Theodoret judiciously remarks: Mera t^? o-ui^rj^ouf 
^er^ioTTjTos' TY^v aTroa-ToXiKrjy a^lav uire^ei^ev a^io^^ecos 
elfxi (TDiK^Qxi'Kos <p-^o-i, Sja/u,6V Tov 7ro7\.uv tou Aeo-TTorou kXtj- 
5e)y eAeov, Tno-TeuQeiy 3e to Kripuy^a. 

Of the modern Commentators ^evf have discerned 
the full force of the expressions in this beautiful 

26. voixi^o) ouv TooTo KcoCov. Thc Romau Catholic 
Commentators press on the sense of vo^xi^w, and 
make it equivalent to, " I am very sure ;" imputing 
it to Paul's modesty. But for this there is no war- 
rant. Thus Theophyl. 219. explains : oa-ov /car €y,riv 
yv(o[xr}v. It is well observed by Mr. Slade, that vo- 
lxi§co seldom, if ever, denotes in Scripture an abso- 
lute authority or decree, but a matter of opinion, or 
privatejudgment, Matt. 5, 17. 10,34. 20, 10. Luke 
2, 44. 1 Tim. 6, 5. &c. ; not, however, that any 
doubt is implied in the truth or wisdom of that judg- 

26. S/a T7]V €V€(TT(v(rav avdyKr]v. The word avayicrj, 
like the Hebr. *l!?, is used of afflictions and calami- 
ties in general, not only in the Scriptural (see Schl. 
Lex.), but in the Classical writers ; as Plato 10. p. 
38. (cited by Krause) r^ 8' aury] havola KaTriyayero 
€§ 'Egfrp/ay cly Mapa^ava, cos €toi^qv <r<^l<Tiv or Koi 'AQtj- 


oiyeiv and Joseph. Ant. 2, 9, ^. r&acpei? TrapaSo^coy to 
'E^paicou yevos rvjy Trot^' h\yuxr, a.vayKr^9 aTToTLUcreJ. In 
Thucyd., too, it is frequently so used ; especially 4, 
98 & 120. and 4, 87. Kara Kto avayKas, " on two ur- 
gent necessities." Some recent Commentators un- 
derstand by the term the difficulties of life, and the 
inconveniences of matrimony. But this seems very 
harsh, and leaves no tolerable reason to be given why 
iveoTT. should have been said. So Whitby : " It can- 
not signify the troubles common to this life, for they 
are not always instant or present." Theophyl. inter- 
prets : Sutr/coA/as" ray iv yajtXT} ku) rot too yafxou o^T^yjou. 
But this is, I conceive, a mere Popish perversion. 
And it is in vain to attempt to change this from a 
special to a general admonition. The only interpre- 
tation that can be considered the true one, is that 
(supported by the most eminent Commentators) 
which refers avay. to some persecutions that had be- 
gun to take place:* though it must, I think, also com- 
prehend the peculiar difficulties in which a religion 
(so much at variance with the customs of the world) 
would involve its professors, and which would fall 
more severely on the married. Rosen m. thinks that 
the reverse of fortune which was coming on the 
Jews would affect the Christians, with whom they 
often intermarried, or with whom they might very 
well be confounded." (This, however, seems some- 
what sophistical.) " Be that as it may, however 
(adds he) the Apostle does not recommend absti- 
nence from marriage on account of any greater per- 
fection in celibacy." Theoph., too, observes that the 
Apostle does not impute it to any aKaSapa-iav. 

26. oTi KuXoVj " it seems to me, I repeat, good, or 
better," &c. This repetition is not to be considered 

* And this interpretation is confirmed by ver. 29. seq, and the 
Scholiast on Cod, A. : but ri)y evearwaav ijroi bta Tt)v roiy eTriKei- 
fiev(i)v biMyidiou eTri(popav' pq-ov yap av ris rovs Treipaajuiovs kcii ras 
d\i\peis eveyi^oi, fioros (i}v Kad^ eavroi', // yvycuKci Kui reKi'a (Tvvena 
yojtttj'Oi Kill Tola TOVT(x)v 7rd6e>Ti avj.ifXfpi'E.oj.i.f.vos. (See Doddl". ) 


a mere pleonasm. It is empliatic, and intensive. To 
ouVfoy eWj. This seems to be an idiotical or popular 
phrase, which is found also in our own language, to 
he as they are, viz. virgins, unmarried. The avS^coTro) 
is intended to comprehend both sexes ; and therefore 
siiould be rendered, not man, but person. 

or/, heha-ai — yuvouKu. This sense of Se'Sec-Saj, which 
is found also in Rom. 7) -•. occurs likewise in the 
Classical writers: as Jambl: V. P. 11,56. rrjv Trpo^ 
av^pa 3e§f|xevr]V. Ach. Tat. p. 41. uTO^r] ya.q ^€^€^ai 
Trap^evio. (Krause.) Theophyl, moreover well ob- 
serves, that the term oe^ea-ai is meant to suggest kol- 
K(o(Tiv. And he explains Xuo-<v by rr^v wapakoyov Sja- 
^eu^iv. He concludes by remarking, opoc 3e ttcos* Xe- 
'Xri^oTcos eJy rrjv TrapOeviav €\(rcoQei, but this saviours 
Strongly of Popish prejudice. It is true indeed that 
the Apostle does indirectly recommend celibacy to 
them : but he assuredly did not mean advice given 
on a special occasion to be interpreted as if general, 
and common to all times. 

27- XuVjv, separation, or divorce^ according as it 
might be. 

^7' T^eA'jcat uTTo yuvotiKof ; /xi] §i^r€i yuvoCiKu. Mackn. 
renders, ]w.t^ ^'iVfi yovouKot., " seek not a second wife." 
That, however, depends upon the sense given to Xe- 
T^ua-ai aTTQ yuvaiKo^, which, if strictly pressed, will 
compel us to interpret [x. §. y. of deuterogamy ; and 
indeed Q^cumen. notices, that T^eT^ua-ai may be taken 
in two ways, either on o'jttco oAw? ioe^r]?, or on XuSeif 
a^' oS €^iS-^9 Sfo-juLoG. But, considering the nature of 
the context, and the force of the antithetical clause, 
it must, I think, be taken in thej'orrner and more 
general sense, as applicable to single persons. So 
Grot, and most recent Commentators, who remark, 
that passives are often, in Hebrew and Greek, used 
as neuters. Of this sense of XeX. Schleus. cites an 
example from Xen. Venat. 1, 17* Thus it appears 
that our English Translators have done wrong in 
rendering it loosed J'royn. It should rather he, free 
from. The \\o\{\s freed andyVee (like^^^/ec? aiidj^/. 


&c.) will express the two senses of which y^i\v(rai is 

Here I would compare a passage of similar cast in 
Hipparchus ap. Stob. Serm. 575, 13. vauoLyls yeyoWy ; 
eS Tov va'jayov, *' play well the shipwrecked mariner :" 
7r€vrj^ €K euTTo^ou ; (art thou poor after being rich?'*) 
€0 TOV 7revr}Ta. So also Plut. de Vit. ^r. Al. § 6. 

28. iav he Koi yrj/xvjy, ouk 7]y.apT€9, " if, however, 
thou shouldst marry, thou wilt not have sinned,* viz. 
(as Clem. Alex, explains it) against the Christian 
covenant. From these words the Commentators 
rightly infer that there were among the Corinthians 
persons, like those elsewhere mentioned by the 
Apostle, (1 Tim. 4, 3.) forbidding marriage, as if 
marriage were sinful : and therefore the Apostle 
meant to correct this error. 

28. 0x/\f/ii' Se rfi cra^/c) e^oiKTiv ol roiouToi. The mo- 
dern Commentators rightly remark, that by a-apKi is 
meant (as the Hebr. 1U?n) the outward circumstances 
of man ; and therefore Oxi\{/. iv a-apKi will denote 
fleshly and outward distress and affliction, arising 
from poverty, distress, flight, persecution, &c. which 
would be far more severe on the married. Fleshly 
troubles here seem tacitly opposed to those spiritual 
consolations which the Christian religion brings. See 
Schoettg. Hor. Heb. 

28. eyo) 8e u/x.cov <j3e/§o;j(,a». These words are some- 
what indeterminate in their sense, and admit of more 
than one interpretation. Theophyl. (from Chry- 
sost.) explains : u^cov c^e/Sojuiat ws t^kvcov, ko.) l^o6Xo[xai 
u/xa? eXeo^eqovf ehat koi euXuTrouy. And so Grot. : *' ves- 
trum miseratione ducor." (Acts 20, 29.) And the 
same view of the sense is taken by almost all modern 
Commentators. And so Schleus. Lex. ; " ego vero 

* There is a similar passage in Diog. Laert. 5, 29. kirrivei rovs 
fieWovras yafielf, Kai yu/) yafiovvras, koI rovs fxeXXvPTas KarairXely , 
Kal fj.}) KaraTrXeuvras, Kal rovs fxiXXopras TroXireveadai, /cat fit) ttoXi- 
revofxevovs, Kal rovs Traiborpofely, Kal firj TraiboTpocpovyras, Kal tovs 
ivapaaKeva^oniuovs avfiftiovv toXs twaarals, Kal ixij irpoaiovTus. 


lubentissim^ tutos ac immunes praestarem ab his ca- 
lamitatibus." Yet such a subaudition is, I think, too 
liarsh to be admitted without necessity ; and I am 
not aware that any such here exists. I had myself 
supposed it to be a popular idiom for, " I spare you 
(the pain of dihiting on these evils) ;'' and I find that 
this interpretation is supported by Estius, from Au- 
gustine and other Latin Fathers, and also by Wells 
and Mackn. Hardy skilfully unites both, render- 
ing : " Haec nimis stricte urgere, vel pluribus con- 
jugii incommoda commemorare nolim ; opto autem 
vos calamitatum expertes esse, atque ideo continen- 
tiam suadeo." There is a parallel expression in 
2 Cor. 12, (3. (Pf/oo/xai Se* where a similar ellipsis has 
place : and where Schl. Lex. explains, " abstineo (ab 
illarum rerum commemoratione)." The latter inter- 
pretation, too, seems confirmed by the words follow- 
ing, rouro 8e <prj|x». 

This sentence is by the modern Commentators va- 
riously interpreted. Many recent ones, as Rosenm. 
(whom see), interpret o-uveo-raXjaevo?, " tristia ac tur- 
bulenta tempora tempora futura sunt ;" and so Schl. 
Nor is this sense destitute of authority from the 
Greek Translators of the Old Testament, and even 
from the Classical writers. But it seems not a little 
harsh. The most simple and natural interpretation 
appears to be that of the Greek Commentators, the 
Syr. and Vulg. Translators, and the early modern 
ones, who take o-yveo-raX/xevos' in the sense of con-- 
tracfed, short, (Sec. 

With respect to the words toZto 8e <p>3p, their sense 
has escaped most of the Commentators. It has been 
best seen by Theodoret, who says they are a formula 
tending to corroboration. Crell., too, has well re- 
marked : " Novo hie utitur argumento Paulus, quod 
ex abrupto quodammodo proponit : quemadmodura 
facere solemus, cum omissis, quae attulimus, argu- 
mentis, utpote de quibus multum litigare nolimus, id 
in quo praecipuum robur coUocamus, proponimus : 


quasi dicat, mittam id quod dixi, sed hoc imprimis 
urgeo." The connexion and sense is well laid down 
by Theophyl. (from Chrysost.) as follows; 'Ejreihri 
eiTrev, otj 6x/\{/<v €^ou(n rfj (rapKi, *W jw-ryTiS" eiTryj, aXKa 
KOLi rihovriv u7roTe]w-ve» ra ryis ^jSovvj^y, eK tov to koci^ov <rvu- 
ecTaXjw-evov eKyotyayeiv' Trpof T^utriv yap eTreiyovrai rot. 
Travra, KcCi y]yyiK€V rj 3a(r»A6<a toG Xpicrou, kcu T^oittov 
Trpos auTov ctTro^r^iKeiv o<^€i'koiKev. '^'Qtrre kcu el tjSovtj tis 
€(rTiv, aXXa (dpa^eicc ahrri, kcu okiyo-^povios' kcu touto Se 
auro 5?vi\}/jy. 

Here Wets, compares Nemesian Eel. 4. Omnia 
tempus alit, tempus rapit : usus in arto est. I add 
Eurip. Bacch. 395. ^pa^vs alcov i-Tr) tovtco 8e ris av 
ix€ya7\a hicoKcov to. Trapovr ou^i (pepoi. 

On the construction ofro'kQiTrov Commentators are 
not agreed. Some take it with the following words, 
thus : TO XotTTov icTTi, ha Ka) ol ey^ovres^ " It remaineth 
that those," &c. And thus there will be an ellipsis 
in the first clause. But this seems a very forced con- 
struction. It is more natural to connect it (as most 
Commentators antient and modern suggest) with the 
preceding, and assign to it the sense posfhac. Thus 
the Tvawill signify so that, or when; and the sense be 
this : " so that, or when, those who have wives must 
be as those that have them not." If, however, the 
TO XotTTov be taken with i\\e following words, the sense 
will not be materially different. Only in the former 
case the time in question will be, as the antient Com- 
mentators explain, the time of the world's continu- 
ance ; in the latter it will signify the time, or dura- 
tion, of our mortal existence ; both of which senses 
are sufficiently apt, but the former one would seem 
to be the more suitable to the Apostle's argument ; 
though, in a certain sense, the two interpretations 
merge into each other. 

Some recent Interpreters understand by Kaipos 
" tempus quietum.'" But this is too arbitrary a sub- 

The sense of cyo-r., like that of the Latin conti^ac- 


turn tenipus, is very frequent. (See the numerous 
examples of Krause.) 

Krause illustrates the sentiment from Arrian Diss. 
Epict. 4, 7- where the Galilseans, i. e. the Chris- 
tians, are said to be Trgos* ra t^kvcl Kcti t-j^v yovatKu. war 
iv fxri^ev) Troieio-^ai to '€^eiv radra ri juti] ^yeiv. 

30. Ka) ol K'kalovre^, ivf p-ig /cXa/ovrey. Most recent 
Commentators, as Krause and Rosenm., render: 
" And those who are afflicted with adversity, will be 
equal to those who have enjoyed prosperity." But 
this is a kind of argument which, however common, 
was not likely to have been used by the Apostle. 
Besides, the usus loquendi will not permit it. For 
that sense would require ol KT^aiovres o\ fx-^ ■/alpovres, 
8ic. And, what is more, this method cannot be ap- 
plied to the last clause of the sentence, ol ^pojixeuoi r. 
K. r., unless Kara^pwixevoi be taken for ^p(oy.€VQi ; 
which destroys the antithesis. Finally, this interpre- 
tation is not agreeable to what follows, Trapayei yotp. 
The scope of the Apostle (which was well discerned 
by the antient Commentators) is, to inculcate a sit- 
ting loose to the things of this world, great modera- 
tion, temperance, and self-command, ^or the reason 
which is subjoined by way of explanation to the im- 
pressive and elegant passage now under our consi- 

31. wapccyei yap TO <Tyriix.a too koVjuiol* rodrou. This 
sentiment is well expressed by Whitby as follows: 
*' To have and to use these things, as if we had them 
not, or did not^ use them, is to be moderate in the 
enjoyment of them ; not to be much affected with 
them when we have, or much afflicted when we want 
or lose them." And especially by Chrysost. (whom 
see) and Theophyl. who rightly explains the e;^a;o-jv 
by o^el'Aouariv ehai ; and the ot y-rj e^ovT€s by ou Trpoa-ri- 
Xfoftevoj, or Trpoa-KoTO^wiKevoi. He then paraphrases 
thus : coa-avTcos ot3Se Trep) tcov aXXcov, if Xutttj^cov, rj T€p7r- 
vu*vr) i} TCOV (TuvaXAayjuiarcov, o'c^f/Aej rty ttuvu (r(pohpoT€qov 
a-TTouha^ciu. So also CEcumen., and, in a mere gene- 
ral way, Theodoret. 'AxXoVpia, (pr^a-iv, y]y.wv ra 7ra- 


povrof fxeTul^ctlvoixev yap €VT€d$€U a/y Tap^jora* ju-Tj^eJ? 
rolvuv ^riT€ ivreo^ev wy rap^icra* fxri^ei^TOiviiu ii>rfre Trevlav 

TrXeltrra. KeKrri^evoi ely Tgucpvjv raura Ka» cl(ra)Tiav duaT^Kr- 

It is obvious that by weeping and rejoicing is 
meant, (by a common Hebraism,) sorrow and jo?/, 
prosperity and adversity. One thing must be observed 
(though it has been little attended to by the Com- 
mentators, which has led to much mistake), that the 
Apostle gradually deserts the construction employed 
at the commencement of the sentence, until at length 
the second participle is used like a verb. Thus the 
two last clauses Koi ol ayopa^ovre^, &c., and /cat ol XP^' 
/x€voi, &c. are of the same cast with the former ones, 
but are to be thus expounded: " Let those that buy 
(and sell and get gain, he, i. e. actj as those that are 
not long to retain their gains and possessions, but 
are (as Menoch. explains) usu fructuarii ad vitam, 
only for their own use and that of their family and 
neighbours." If, however. Kar€X^vT€9 be interpreted, 
with the Vulg. and most modern Commentators, 
possessing (as in 2 Cor. 6, 12.), there will be no irre- 
gularity in the clause. But why, then, should not 
the Apostle have said ep^^ovrey? The case is different 
in the passage of 2 Cor. wy [xri^h ep^ovrey, ku) Travra. 
Koi,T€xovT€9, since there there is a sort of antithesis. 

The next clause Ka) ol Karaxpcoy-^voi, &c. must, at 
all events, be taken in the way above suggested. In 
this there is evidently a paronomasia, and therefore 
the mode of interpretation adopted by many modern 
Commentators, who would shape tliis clause to a 
conformity with the preceding, is unnecessary ; 
though that Kare^p- is sometimes so used cannot be 
denied. But, I repeat, the paronomasia is evident, 
and the Apostle clearly intends a more direct and 
pointed admonition than the interpretation in ques- 
tion affords. Examples of the same paronomasia are 
adduced by Wets. ; as Philo 2, 61, 44. xp^'^i M ^^P^' 
p^pco/xevoy. Sopater (speaking of a treasure) : K€Xpri<yo 


auTto, Koi (imo) /fara;^§>30-o. Lysias : e/ceAeyce ^p7\(ra.t 
(rio otf^yo^lcp)' 6 Se ko.) rauraf T^a^cov KaTe^^yirraro. To 
which I add Synes. Epist. 63. ^prja-^ai oeT raTy rwy 
Suvarwv (^iXloiis, ou KaTa^pTi(r^ai. Aristot. ap. Plut. 
Pelop. 3. Tfov 7ro7\.7\.(vv oi jutev oJ ^pcovrai tm ttT^outm 
Sia {xiKpoXoyiav, ol 8e Trapa^pcovrai'^ 8j' d<Ta)~t]piav. 

I am not aware that any thing further needs be 
said, except that Hardy well explains /xt] KaTa^pc6[x€- 
voi: " non nimia sollicitudine et adhaesione affectuum, 
sed obiter tantnm utentes, et tanquam in transcursii 
quantum fert necessitas." And byTheophyl. : Trpoa-- 
€)(^Eiv aurco jtxera Tra^rv]? (TttouS^?, koi rri^y Trpos* aurov 
TrpocTTraSclaf. }^0LTa^^ri(Ti9 yap v) TrepiTTri XP^'^^^j '^°'* 

The observations of the Commentators are very 
copious, but they are, for the most part, either tri- 
vial, or obvious, or are formed on mistaken views of 
the scope of the passage. 

31. Trapayei ya^ to (r^rlixct too Ko(r[xov toutou. Now 
comes the reason why this moderation should be 

Here I cannot assent to the opinion of most mo- 
dern Commentators, as Krebs, ?'osenm., and Schl. ; 
that o-p^'^juia ToG Kocr^ou TotWoit is simply for KoVjOtoy. 
The word a-^^rjixcc seems to have great force, and 
suggests a particular mode in which the world may 
be considered as passing away. As to the similar 
passage of 1 Joh. 2, 17- o /coVfAoy TraootyeT ai, cited in 
support of that notion, it will only sliow that St. John 
used the idea in a general way : but this will be no 
reason why St. Paid should not have further un- 
folded the thought. Theophyl. has well pointed out 
the force ofo-p^>3[xa thus: X^rj'j.a ^e eKuT^ca-ev, €^<paivcou 

€Tl Cf^plS 0\}/6CoV elcTi TO. TOO TTapoVTO^ KOCT^OU, KOLl CTTITTQ- 

Aaia, jULTySev ^e^riKos' ko) o-j(nd)^€S' ep^ovrey. See also 
Q^cumen. The sentence is also excellently para- 
phrased by Theodoret as follows : ovkcti yao yeoipyia. 
Kcti vauTiXia, ouKeri jSatnXeTaj /cai G-TpotTriylai, ouketi 

* The reading of some MSS. Trafja;^. may seem to be confirmed 
by this passage and that of Philo ; but it is evidently a gloss. 


K€Ti Trevia koli ttXoGtos" €K yaq rovrwv koi rwv roiovrcov o 
Trapcov ^ios o-yye<rrr]/ce. He then refers to Is. 24, 2., 
and then adds ; aTOvriV yap h ixeT^T^wv j3/oy €^€i Tr^ay^a- 
roiv ^lat^opoLu. Grot, rightly notices that there is in 
(T^rjixa a metaphor taken from the Drama, where 
the expression Trapayeiv ro (r^rjixa Tr]y (TKr^vy]9 was used 
of the shifting of the scenes. It may be observed, 
too, that the Apostle very appropriately uses agonistic 
and dramatic metaphors when addressing those who, 
like the Corinthians, were accustomed to grand spec- 
tacles, both scenic, and agonistic* The force of 
the metaphor has been distinctly seen and well ex- 
pressed by Doddridge. To the other examples of it 
I add one more apposite from Artemid. Or. 1, 26. 
p. 42. 8<a TO 1^7} e^€iv ofjipara, ^a^re 7r€pic7\.KoiVTO out 
uTTo (r^Yjy.oiTa)v, our utto -^ocoiKdruiv. And especially 
Philostr. Vit. Ap. 8, 'J. KcCi n ro cr^r^fxa to Koa-fxou 
Tou^e, which I think an evident imitation of the 
present passage. 

32. 0eXa> he uju-ay ctjuiepf'/xvouy elvcti. The Se is not 
adversative, but has here the sense ofautem, or purrOy 

The Apostle recommends celibacy to them by 
another argument : and ^eXco here, as often, signifies, 
not voloy but velim, vellem ; q. d. " I would wish you 
to be aju,ep/avoys%" which (as Grot, observes) is to be 
understood comparafe, viz. as much as the state of 

* On this subject I may be permitted to introduce an appropriate 
observation from a Visitation Sermon delivered before the Bishop of 
Peterborough and the Clergy of Rutlaridshire ten years ago : (}>. 16'.) 
" Is not our faith confirmed, while our taste is gratified, when bt, 
Paul, addressing the Ephesians, seizes their attention and captivates 
their fancy by reiterated and splendid allusions to that temple which 
was the glory of their city." (See Ephes, 2, 21. 3, 17v where we 
have an accumulation of architectural terms.) And p- 17. " Surely 
it is the province of the sc/jo/ar to point out to his hearers the skilful 
and impressive manner in which St. Paul, after the enumeration of 
many interesting particulars, closes the two foregoing passages (Eph. 
2, 21. & 3, 17.) by a term borrowed from architecture, and there- 
fore striking to the imagination of an Ephesian reader. Such is 
also the peculiar beauty which characterizes many passages in the 
1st Epistle to the Corinthians." 


tlieir temporal concerns permitted.* 'A/xfp/ftv. may 
be rendered " undisturbed by cares." Sclater has 
well paraphrased thus ; " Quae dico eo pertinet, 
quod cupiam vos r|uain minimum destineri curis 

The words following, o ayafxos (xepiixva, &c., are 
iUustrative of the Apostle's meaning; and, more- 
over, there is a clause omitted, which Theophyl. thus 
expresses : Ildi^ 3' dv e'lrnxev afxepiixvot : EI ayajut,ot co^jlcv. 
The sense, then, is: '* The unmarried person, Jor 
instance," &c. Now the context shows that {X€pi[xva, 
must be taken emphatically : q. d. " He especially, 
and Kar €^o^-^u, careth for, employs his thoughts 
upon," &c. The present tense here, as often, ex- 
presses what is usual, and any other than this sense 
cannot be here intended. Grot., Vorst., and others, 
indeed, render it : " tnay, or can, care ;" but this is 
wandering too far. Ilcoy apea-ei r. k., " how he may 
so act as to please the Lord.'* The turn of the sen- 
tence is idiotical and popular; and seems to be thus 
expressed in conformity to the antithetical clause 7ra>9 
a.p€(T€i TY) yuvaiKi. (See Crellius.) 

33. ok yaixrjfras' |u.6^i|u,va r. r. /c., " the married 
man has to devote his attention to worldly cares, and 
especially to the support and comfort of his wife 
(and family;." 8o Crellius : " ut sic uxori placeat, 
dum scilicet et illi, et liberis, et toti familiae rect^ 
prospicit." Such apj)ears to be the Apostle's mean- 
ing, which is, however, expressed very briefly, in 
order, it should seem, to preserve the antithesis in 
the following clause, ttws apea-ei rw avop), more dis- 
tinct. Here Schoettgen cites a passage of similar 

* Here the unmarried person has Uie advantage ; whereas, the 
cares that overwhelm tlie niarrit-d one are, in a manner, proverbial. 
I'hus Wets., in illustration of the expression and the sentiment, 
aptly cites Anthol. 1, 13, 12. rols b' aydfiois afpot'ris aei ftios' & 3, 
dxeis ydjxor ; ovk a/jiepi^vos enaeaC & 19, 1. Ovh' v Zevs afiepifivos 
e/)^ei ■)(pv<^oOpoioi'"Hpriy. Menander. ap Stob. to yvyalK ex^iy, eh'ai 
re TTuibojy, [lapfieywy, Trartpa yue'ptytii'os 7W fiiu) ttoWUs ^epei. Ter. 
Adelph. 5, 4, 13. Duxi uxorem quam ibi iniseriam vidi nati fiiii alia 

VOL. VI. 2 E 


turn from Soliar Chadasch, fol. 7> 4. " Non potest 
operam dare servitio creatoris sui, sed tantum ser- 
vitio uxoris sua?." 

On the various readings of this verse (which are 
numerous, but unimportant) I must refer my readers 
to Wetstein, or Griesb., or Vater, and also Rosenm. 
3i<. jULfju-epicrrai 73 yvvr; kou t] Tra^Sevoy. On the sense 
of ]w,e|x. Commentators are not agreed. Several of 
the early modern, and of the more recent ones, as 
Wets,, Kypke, Noesselt, and Rosenm., adverting to 
the ]w,6pj]u,va which occurs both before and after, and 
to the etymology of the word jutf^., explain it : " is 
distracted by cares ;" q. d. ''both the wife and virgin 
are distracted with cares ; each has her cares, though 
different." But this seems not a little harsh, is by no 
means agreeable to the context, and destroys the 
regularity of the whole passage, the plan of which 
may be thus laid down. The Apostle first describes 
the situation, in this respect, of the married, and of 
the unmarried man ; and then proceeding to draw 
a similar comparison of the case of the married, and 
of the unmarried female, he introduces it with the 
expression : /cat (deinde, on the other hand) ixefxepiorrai 
73 -yvvr] Koi v] TrapUvof. It is evident, then, that the 
true sense of the word (xep. is that laid down by the 
Greek Commentators, and, of the modern ones, 
by Grot., Beza, and Casaub., including Schleus. Lex. 
Chrysost. well explains it oiaa-rriKaa-iv oKk-^'kcov : and 
Theophyl. '^la^epoixriv oXkriKcov. 

34. r^ aya/xoy ix€pi[xva. ra. roG Kugjou, »W rj ayia Koi 
(Tco^oLTi K. TT., " but she who is unmarried especially 
careth for the things of the Lord," &c. The Apostle's 
meaning is further unfolded by the words, iW ^ ayta 
Koi crco^ari koc) Tri/eujtxarj, " that she may not only be 
holy, and without blemish, in body, but in spirit, 
mind, and heart." The force of these words (which 
is not sufficiently attended to by the modern Com- 
mentators) is well pointed out by Theophyl. 222. 
ouK apKei (rcojxaTi elvai otylav, oKT^a 8eT KcCi Trveu^aTi' 
Touro yaq 73 dtXv^QvJy TrapBevla, 73 rrjs ypu^Yj^ Ka^oiporr}^' 
€7re) TToXXa to (twikol ayvcu kcu a^oT^xjvrai oOcrai, /caT€0"7rt- 


7^coy.€uai ei<r» t^u -J/n^riv. This purity of heart the 
Apostle evidently considers as more in the power of 
the virgin than the married woman. Here it is 
sensibly remarked by Theophyl,, that when we see 
such an one making profession of virginity, and 
having her heart devoted to the world, she is no 
true virgin. '* For," adds he (from Chrysost.) (and 
let those that calumniate marriage consider it) the 
Apostle has set bounds to each, by which they may 
be known, not marriage, and abstinence from mar- 
riage, but TToT^UTTpayixoa-uvr} and aTrpa^ju-ocruvrj.^ It is 
plain, therefore, that the Apostle did not consider 
marriage on the score of purity, or impurity, but 
solely with reference to the cares inseparable from it. 

Of the married woman it is said : [xepiixva. rk toO 
K6(r[j.o'j, TTws a.p€(r€t rco avS§}, which words Grot, para- 
phrases : comit se oculis mariti, ac mores suos ac- 
commodat." And on this point many Commenta- 
tors dilate. Yet it is not, I think, what the Apostle 
had principally in view. It should rather seem that 
these words are explanatory of the preceding. Into 
that error Grot, seems to have been led by Theoph., 
who explains : ru^ou ju-ev Koi KaT^'XofJS eTrjjtxeXoujuievrj. 
But then he adds : ro^lv 8e cia. ro olKoupov So/ceTv ehai 
ayaSrjv : which last point the Apostle seems chiefly 
to have had in view ; since a devoted attention to 
domestic cares would much more draw her mind 
from religion than the other. Crellius, judiciously, 
unites both, explaining: " the married woman is 
obliged to devote much time and attention to the 
things of this life, to her family, children, domestic 
concerns, and lastly her person, that by all this she 
may please her husband." 

On the sentiment Wets, aptly cites Stob. Serm. 22. 
S^avco 75 TTuGayopjKig c^iXoVocpoy e^ajxT^Qeica, ri Trpcorov elj] 
yuvaiKi ; to tio iS/o), €<pYi, apecTKeiv avop\. I add Melissa 
Epist. ad Cleareten, inserted in Pythag. frag. p. 

* For, adds Chrysost. (which Theophyl. ought not to have sup- 
pressed) ov yap i] f-U^is Trovripoi', aWu to e[.i7robi$€(Tdai irpos (piXoao- 



749- Galei. a^eV/ceiv rw aurris avS^l, eTrtreXeay 7ro<eG<raj/ 
ray €i<€lv(i) 9€Ar;(rias'. 

This also is the view taken by Doddr. " The 
Apostle, says he, in this text, and the counterpart to 
it, seems to declare that single persons of either sex 
have generally opportunities for devotion beyond 
those that are married, even in the most peaceful 
times of the church ; and that a diversity of humours, 
both in men and women, makes it difficult for them to 
please each other so thoroughly as is necessary, in or- 
der to make a married life delightful. So that it inti- 
mates a counsel to single people to value and improve 
their advantages, and to married people to watch 
against those things that would ensnare them, and in- 
jure their mutual peace and comfort." See also the 
excellent annotations of Mackn. and Slade respecting 
the advantages and disadvantages of marriage and 

35. rovTo Se — T^eyo)^ " I give you this counsel for 
your good, both temporal and spiritual." See ver. 
26, 28 & 32. 

35. oux '^^^ ^p'^X^v 'j^)v€7n^a.X(o. The Apostle here 
shows the purpose for which he has given this admo- 
nition : using an elegant metaphor, not unfrequent 
either in the Scriptural or Classical writers. This 
some Commentators, as Wets, and Krause, suppose 
to be a continuation of that at ver 27.: but without 
reason. The main question here is, whether the 
Apostle means by ^po-^- a rope, i. e. snare, or a yoke 
or bond. T\\q former opinion is supported by Vat., 
Pise, Erasm., Henoch., Beza, Kypke, Loesner, Ro- 
senm., and Krause, who take it for Trayts", a snare : 
a metaphor derived, they say, from bird-snaring or 
beast-catching. =^ But this seems little to the pur- 
pose. Greatly preferable is the opinion of the Greek 
Commentators, and some of the most eminent mo- 

* So Eurip. H. F. 153. Plut. 757. It was sometimes used in 
war. Thus Joseph. B. 7> 29. ftpoyov avrw ns Trvppuidey Trepi/jaXwr. 
See Mneas Pol. 39 p. 1714. and Potter on Lys. 155. The learn- 
ed Philologists have omitted what is perhaps the most important 
passage on this subject, namely, Thucyd. 2, 76. fipoxovs re Trepifia- 
Xorres ar€KXu)r (i.e. the battering-ram.) 


dern ones, as Vorst., Grot., Piscat., Locke, and most 
recent Interpreters, that it signifies a yoTie, or re- 
straint^ and is put for ^uyov -.* as in Acts 15, 10. 
imQelvai §oyov err) rwv r^a^r^Awv raiv ^.a^TiTcvv, & 1.5, 
i28. and Matt. 23, 4. And certainly a cord may be 
thrown over any one for coerciveli/ dragging him any 
where, as well as for binding him. Grot compares 
the Hebr. "^Di^. And he well observes : " Nam de 
re aliqua ut illicita hominem pressum, adstrictum et 
quasi iilaqueatum tenet. Cf. Prov. 6, 2." The sense, 
then, is : " My meaning is not to lay any unnecessary 
restraint upon you." So Theophyl. 222. explains : 
oJ^ tva ava-yKaa-o) v^as, kcCi [k-ti QeAovray, Trap^eveueiv. 
And he observes : (d^o^ov ya.^ Tr}v av(xyKr]v covoy-aa-ev. 

35. aXXa Trpo^ ro €i>(r^riy.ov Kot.) €u7ro6(r€Opov r. K. a. 
This is expressed populariter : " for your more deco- 
rous and assiduous service on the Lord," i. e. " that 
ye may assiduously serve him.*' The uiKcav is omit- 
ted, as being easily supplied, and the neuter adjec- 
tives are (as often), for substantives. The ro cug-^tj- 
[xov signifies decorum. With respect to eurrpoa-e^pov, 
instead of it many MSS. and Fathers read eoTraoe- 
hpov, which has been introduced by Krause and 
Griesbach ; but not, I think, on sufficient grounds. 
The MSS. which support this new reading are few in 
number, and many of them such as are filled with 
glosses. And the Fathers are here not direct evi- 
dence, since they often cite from memory, and such 
glosses would readily occur to them. Thus the au- 
thority of Chrysost. on Matt, is adduced in favour of 
the new reading; yet here, in his Commentary, he 
reads einrpoa-e^pov. Theophyl., too, is quoted in sup- 
port of euTTup. ; yet some MSS. read evyr^oa-. And 
were I to examine closely the other authorities al- 
leged from the Fathers, I should probably find much 
of the evidence equally inconclusive. There can 
be little question, then, but that the new reading is a 
gloss. It is undoubtedly more Classical, as may be 
seen by consulting Steph. 'J'hes. on that word, and 

* And be it remembered that the ancient yokes were often made 
of cord. 


the cognate terms: whereas euTrpocr. is a term not only 
found in the later Greek and Hellenistical writers ; 
and though it does not occur elsewhere in the New 
Testament, yet the cognate terms do ; as in 1 Cor. 9, 
13. 01 r(Z Bii(ria(rr7}pia> Trpoa-e^peuovres' where a very few 
MSS. (mostly the coj'rected MSS. I before mentioned) 
read Tra^eSpeJovrey. But for fhis no one has ventured 
to plead. Wets., too, as he was a far more learned Cri- 
tic, &c, so he is, in general, a much safer guide than 
Griesbach, here retains euTrpoa-. rightly observing, that 
it is " vox multo modestior et aptior." He also cites 
as examples of 7r§oo-e5peu<:o, Joseph, c. Ap. 1,7- ^fi 
0e§a7re/a roG 0eoO TvpoaSpeuovTas' and (to omit many 
others) Schol. on Soph. CEd. Tyr. elp-r]Tai 8' e/c [j^era- 
^oooiy Twv €V ToTy Seois )3a)ju,a)V, ely ous", ot€ (roix<pQpa kcctol- 
Xa^vj, 7rgo(re8peJovT6S' av^pcoxoi Su(rluis to SeTov e^iT^eouvro. 
See other examples in Kypke on 1 Cor. 9, 13. 

The Commentators observe that rip Kvplio depends 
on the preposition in composition. 

35. uTrepia-Trda-rcos. This is well explained by He- 
sych. afxeplixvcof, a^povTi<rrcoSi i^(ru^a)^. Examples of 
the word, and also of carepKnTOLo-roSy are cited by Ila- 
phel. Wets., and Bos. I shall only introduce one, 
and that from the similarity of sentiment : Arrian. 
Epict. 3, 22. (cited by W^ets. and Krause,) ju-t^Vot' 
OiTre^ia-Traa-Tov eivai SeT rov KuviKov oXov Trphs rfi hioiKovia. 
ToG 0eoG ; — ou TTjCoo-SeSe^evov Ka9r^/cou<r*v ISjcorj/coTy, oGS' 
(IKTre-Tr'KeyiJ.evov (r-)(€(Te(riv. 

3Q. et Se Tjy a.<T-^7\[Koveiv ctt) t'^v irap^evov auTov vo^i^ei^ 
Sec. The Apostle now subjoins directions to parents 
in giving their daughters in marriage. (Krause.) 

On the sense of aa-^iqix. Commentators are divided 
in opinion. Some render it, " acts unbecomingly." 
And in this sense the word occurs in 1 Cor. 13, 4. 
(See Whitby, Wells, and Doddr.) But this seems 
not a little harsh. Greatly preferable is the interpre- 
tation of the Greek Commentators and many eminent 
modern ones, as Grot., and indeed almost all recent 
Interpreters, viz. " if he think he incurs shame," i, e. 
" if he feels a sensation of shame €7r) rr^v TrapStvov au- 


ToD, with respect to his virgin daughter." Of this 
sense of aa-^T^fx. examples are cited by the Philolo- 
gists from Ezek. 16, 34. Eiirip. Hec. 407- where the 
Schol. explains aa-yyiiKovria-ai by ar<ju!,acr6^va». Nume- 
rous other examples may be seen in Wetstein and 
Kypke. 'Ett), in the sense on account of^ is frequent 
in the best writers. See Steph. Thes., Matth. Gr. 
Gr., and Schleus. Lex. I see no reason to take aar- 
^riiJLovelu, with most recent Commentators, for ol<t-/^- 
[jLovrja-eiv* For, as Grot, rightly observes, the disgrace 
(which, according to the opinions of the East, female 
celibacy involved) extended from the virgin to her 
father. So Ecclesiastic. 42,9- " The father waketh 
for the daughter, when no man knoweth ; and the 
care for her taketh away sleep ; when she is young, 
lest she pass away the flower of her age ; and being 
married, lest,'* &c. " So far (says Grot.) did the 
Jews carry their ideas of the expediency of parents 
marrying their daughters as quickly as possible, that 
the Rabbins tells us it was a saying, * If your daugh- 
ter be past a marriageable age, manumit your slave, 
to give him to her as a husband." 

That TTQV TrapSevov aurou be interpreted, " his virgin 
daughter" is required by the context ; and this sense 
is confirmed byEurip. Iph. A. 714. ejaeTo-' a-Tca^ei a-riv 
i^YjU re TTup^lvov. Soph. Q^d. Tyr. raiv 8' ah'klaiv oJk- 
rpoiAV re xapSevoiv e/xai"v. Corn. Nep. 3. Virgo amici 
nubilis. (all cited by Krause.) This being the case, 
it is astonishing that some Commentators, as Locke, 
Whitby, and Hardy, should interpret r7]v TrapQivov 
" thy virginity ;" a sense for which there is no autho- 
rity, and which is at variance with the context. This 
was, I suppose, to avoid the abruptness of the transi- 
tion from the unmarried persons to the parents. But 
such things are common in our Apostle. 

By eav f uTrepa/c/xo? is meant, " if she be past a 
marriageable age."* So (among the numerous ex- 

* So Theopbyl. ^23. e'ins vofxiElei drr-)(r]fxov elyai to vapdevov 
e^eiv Ovyarepa' ical Tuvra, vTrepa/vytov ovaav. 

t Drus, renders the word " pvaella pilosa," a stale virgin. And 
Strigil; " qui properat ad senium ;" and this lie endeavours to prove 


amples cited by Wets.) Anthol.S, 12, 10. andDioiys. 
Hal. tv aK[ ya^jLOo yevo[f.evr}. 

36. Kai (subaud eav) ourms o^ei'K€i yiV€<rQui. This 
is a popular expression, equivalent to our ** if it 
must be so ;" and will include reasons of all sorts, 
both on the side of the parent and the daughter. 
O $€X€i, TToielrco. This (as Grot, remarks) supposes 
the authority on this point to be solely with theyh- 
thevy according to the custom which prevailed both 
in Judea and in Greece. So Eurip. Twv 3' efxwu vuju.- 

(pevixuTcov Tlcx.T€pi lX€7\.ri(r€l. 

36. 00^' a^apravet, "■ he may do it without sin." 
Fa/Ae/rcoo-av, '* let them marry," i. e. "the maid and 
her suitor." So Grot., Erasm., Beza, and Henoch., 
who remark on the change of number : which, iiow- 
ever, is quite agreeable to the popular style. Whitby 
and Doddr. take thet/ to mean '* all virgins so situ- 
ated." But this would render the change in number 
yet harsher. 

37. OS he €(rTr}K€V eS^aToy iv ryj Kap^ta. The subject 
in this sentence must, by all the rules of composi- 
tion, be that of the last, namely, the father of the vir- 
gin ; and on this nearly all the most eminent Com- 
mentators are agreed. Some, however, as Locke, 
Whitby, and Hardy, understand a bachelor, or un- 
married person : but this would be very harsh. The 
best Commentators unite in referring it to the pa- 
rent. Yet there is, I grant, something in the words 
which would, at first, lead one to suppose that they 
referred to a bachelor ; and we do not perceive their 
relation to the parent without some reflection. 

^Os 3e eo-TTjKev elpoLm e. r. k. '* continues steadfast in 
his purpose," is tenax propositi."* So Col. 1, 23. kin- 

from {\\efive ages of Hijipocrates ! All which is truly ludicrous. The 
Apostle supposes the damsel past the age for marriage, in order to 
prevent their marrying their daughters before that age. This seems 
more natural than the reason assigned by Grot., that then they cp- 
yaxTi, and shew their disposition and temperament : which he illus- 
trates by a no very decorous passage of a Latin Poet. 

* This is a stronger expression than ehpdlos yoercu would be, 
which occurs in I Cor. 15, 58. Some recognise in it an agonistical 
metaphor. But there seems rather an allusion to a statue standing 


jxevere e^paioi. Sirach. 22, I7. Ka^hia rj^^ao-ju-evi]. Sym- 
mach. in Ps. 88, 37- e^pouos fxevel. Mac. Tyr. 13, 4. 
Tvi"y 3e ^'>;^'>5y eo-r. o^S^y- And so Hesych. and Gloss. 
Alb. eopaioi' (rrahepoi, arrakeurcn. 'tv rri Kap^ia, " in 
his mind," J?2. See Mark 12, 30. Luke 2, 51. and 
Marc. Anton. 2, 3. referred to by Krause. And so 
Soph. Antig. 1105. KapS/a? 8" i^irrrufxai. This phrase, 
as Rosenm. observes, is opposed to the levity, incon- 
sistency, and inconsiderateness of men who are not 
constant to their purpose. 

The words following, juit) e^cov avoLyKr]u, seem intro- 
duced to shew on what tliis steadfast purpose is 
founded : and I assent to tliose Commentators v.'ho 
think that the necessity is to be understood with re- 
ference both to the temper and inchnations* of the 
daughter, and to the domestic circumstances of both 
father and daughter. 

The following words are, by Grot, and Rosenm., 
regarded as a repetition of the same sentiment, such 
as, in earnest admonition, is very natural. Some 
Commentators, however, as Crellius, fancy in them 
a further explanation of the preceding. (See more 
on the sense in Camerar.) Certainly roGro kck^ikcu is 
a very strong term (in which the force of the prete- 
rite is to be attended to), and was used to ex>press 
unalterable determination. On i^ovcrla see Krause's 
classical citations, 'Lr^pelv rov TruQ^evov is a popular 
expression, signifying: " to keep her with him ; not 
wed her." To the above interpretation of the pas- 
sage Whitby indeed makes objections ; but all these 
proceed on a wrong view of the force of the idioma- 
tical and somewhat harsh phraseology of the original. 

firm on its pedestal: (so Stob. Serni. 1, 4. (cited by Krause) av- 
bpias ^e.v eVt fiarreios, airovbalos be a.vr]p evrt Ka\i)S Trpoa/pcffcws eff- 
rws afieTUKivr^Tos ofelXei eliai') or from a pillar, or column, stand- 
ing firm on its base (so 2 Tim. "2, IV. o arepeos (JefJ-eXina tov Oeou 
eareKeyjStundeth sure) ; as in the celebrated words of Dr. Young: 
" On reason build resolve, that column of true majesty in man." 

* To which purpose Wets, cites /Erumnce Cereris. Intacta duia 
est custodia jjubis; nee patiiur formosa moras. & iEschyl. Suppl. 
1005. repi]v onwpu b' evipOXciKTOs ovbdfiws. 


Certainly the Doctor's interpretation involves mvich 
greater difficulties than any it removes. Insomuch 
that Doddr., who had formerly (hke myself) em- 
braced that interpretation, was obliged to abandon 
it, from the violence it does to the original. For 
e/cya/xt^. cannot be taken for ya/xeTv, nor TrapSe:/©? for 
TragQev/a : and even if yaixi^cov were read in both the 
clauses (as Doddr. seems to have wished) it would 
make no difference, since yajx/Jco can only signify to 
give in marriage. (See Steph., Thes., and Schleus. 
Lex. in voc.) Had that been the sense, it might 
have been paralleled by a similar expression in Eurip. 
frag. 50. MaKapjoy, ckttjs" €utv^€i yafxav XajScov'EcrSXT]? 
yuvaiKos, euTu^ei 8' o ju-r] AajSfov (scil. yctjuiov). 

39. The Apostle now offers a conchiding admoni- 
tion respecting widows, tending to check their hasti- 
ness in forming second marriages. This is, with 
reason, supposed to be an answer to some inquiry on 
that head. 

39- y^vri Oe^erai vojtxo), " is bound by the law (viz. 
of God, respecting matrimony)." See Theophyl. 
and Rom. 8, 2. The vo/xo) is thrown out of the text 
by Griesbach, on the authority of about six MSS., 
and some Versions and Fathers ; which I can scarcely 
approve of. It seems to have been cancelled by some 
correctors, as in the Cod. Cantab. On the sense of 
8eS. here, see ver. 10. & 11, 27-, and the notes. 

KojixyjQyj. An euphemism for die, common in Scrip- 
ture. See Schl. Lex. 'EXeuSepa eVrJ — yapyjO^vat, 
This is (I conceive) a popular construction, exactly 
similar to one in our own language. Classical ex- 
amples of it are adduced by Wets. 

39. jw-ovov iv Kupuo, " only (let her marry) in the 
Lord." On themeaning ofevKup/co themodernCom 
mentators are not agreed. Most of them take it to 
signify : " to one within the Church." And so Grot., 
Vat., Henoch., Tirinus, and Estius, and the greater 
part of the Latin Fathers. Others regard this as too 
confined a sense, and explain : *' remaining a Chris- 
tian ; or, " so as not to violate the law of God by for- 
nication.'* But these two last interpretations are 


quite wide of the mark. And the first interpreta- 
tion seems to be too limited : yet as the expression 
can only mean " with a proper attention to her 
duties and obligations as a Christian," it must have 
been viost incumbent on her to avoid marrying an 
unbeliever. Besides, in his second Epistle, G, 14., 
the Apostle expressly forbids them to marry un- 
believers. Upon the whole, the sense has been most 
satisfactorily and briefly expressed by Theod. in four 
words : o^xottiVtw, eWe^el, a-aapf/ovcos, evvojULcoy. Theoph. 
well expresses the second part of the duty thus : 
jLcera <ra)<pf>Q<r6urj9i jxcra Koo-|U.joTryToy, eTTt TraidoTrota ku) 
Trpocracria, fxr] CTriTrcoSeia €7riSoy,las. 

40. [xaKocpicore^a Se ecrriv eav outco ixelur]. The ex- 
pression ixuKoipuoTepa ia-riv is a popular one for " it 
will be better for her (as ver. 38.) ;" and that in the 
respects, and for the reasons above suggested. *Eav 
ouTO) iKeiv-f]. This expression is similar to the kokIv 
av^poiTTcp TO ouTcoy elvui at ver. 26., signifyincj : ** to be 
or keep as she is, remain unmarried :" it being, 
however, supposed (as Grot, suggests) that she can 
preserve herself pure. 

40. Kara T7]v e^r^v yvw^riV Qokco Se Kayco irveufxa 0eou 
e;^eiv. It is the almost universal opinion of Commen- 
tators that the term ^okco e^eiv is an emphatic meiosis 
expressive of full persuasion and certainty. =^ So 
Grot, 'Sclater, Beza, Wolf, Whitby, Pyle, Doddr., 
and Mackn., who adduce several examples of this 
sense, both from the Scriptural and the Classical 
WTiters. But I assent to Slade, that " the sense of 
loKeiv does not, in any of these instances, so clearly 
denote a certainty, as to make them matter of indis- 
putable authority." " But even if it were so (ob- 
serves he), there is yet a question whether the con- 
text leads us to the same interpretation of it here : 
and, notwithstanding the great weight of opinion in 
favour of this sense, it is proper to consider what 

* Nay Theodoret goes so far as to say that the words import : 
" These are not my words, but proceed from the grace of the Holy 
Spirit, whose organ I am." 


may be urged against it. The words Kara rr^v ey-rlv 
yvcoixYjV do not suggest any idea of absolute, infallible 
assurance ; and if the Apostle had wished his deci- 
sion to rest upon such ground, by an appeal to the 
certain operation of the Spirit, it appears unlikely 
that he would have expressed it by the ambiguous 
phrase ookco €^€iv. St. Paul, indeed, though he had 
no doubt of his determinations and directions being 
conformable to the will of God, yet might not be 
enabled unequivocally to declare that he was speak- 
ing from immediate inspiration. The whole subject, 
indeed, appears to be treated rather in the language 
of private judgment, than of divine authority; see 
especially ver. 6, 10, 25, 35„ with the notes upon 
them. The present clause may be rendered : " And 
I trust that I also (or, even I) have the spirit of 
God." I entirely agree with this judicious Com- 
mentator on the general force of the expression, 
which seems to have been similarly understood by 
Theophyl., also by our venerable English Trans- 
lators, and Dr. Hammond. And so it is taken 
by Rosenm. Indeed, the phrase Kara rriv e^x-^v yvco- 
/xT^y ought to have prevented any misapprehension 
of the Apostle's meaning, since it is, as Palairet 
truly remarks, "formula modesti interpretantis suum 
de aliqua re judicium ;" of which several examples 
are given by the philological Commentators.* 

* In reference to this phrase, Krause has the following sensible 
remarks: " In the most ancient times, those who endeavouied to 
defend celibacy and monkery (compare Jerome c. Jov. Opp. T. 3. 
Ed. Erasm. and Tertull. de Monogam. c. 3.)> made this Chaptei- 
their grand fortress, not considering that the particular times in 
which all this was written must be had in view, and that the Apostle 
here does not so much give general precepts pertaining to the doc- 
trine of Christ (compare I Tim. 4.), as rather, on account of the ca- 
lamities which impended, offer friendly advice, so, however, that 
every one should be at liberty either to follow it, or not." 

Thus also Jaspis paraphrases : " Est hsec quidem n)era mea sen- 
tentia, sed ne repudietis sententiam viri, qui satis amplam habet 
scientiam, et auxilio divino gaudet." 



Vekse I. 7r€^\ ^€ T(OV €\6co7\.o(luTa)V. 

The be is transitive, and has the sf:Dse of ccrteruni. Fiom the turn 
of the expression TrefA, &('. (see note on 7, 1.), it should seem that 
the Corinthians had, in their letter, consulted the Apostle on the 
subject of Idolothyta. On the sense of this word I have treated in 
the noto on Acts 5, 20., to which I add (from Kratise), that " it was 
cnstonuiry among the Gentiles to have sacriKcial feasts in the temples 
themsel-'s, in honour of the Gods. So Herodot. 1, 31. ws edoaay 
re (cai ehw^rjOrifray tv uvru) rij lepu). Heliodor. 4. p. 190. Vire^. 
/En. 7 ',74. (speaking- of the ancient kiniis of Latium) : Hoc illis 
curia tcii;plun), Haec sacris sedes epulis, liic ariete cceso Perpetuis 
ftolili patrej considere mensis. Gell. Noct. Attic. 12, S. Spon. 
Miscell. brudit Anticjuit. p. 62. Ut Sacrificium facerent an 


9, 27. it is said of the Scheciiemites ; that they " went into the 
liouse of their god, and did eat anti drink" 

See more on this subject in the Tract on the Lord's Supper, sub- 
joined to Cudworth's Intell. System. 

That idol feasts were held in the temples to which the Heathens 
invited their friends, we find from ver. 10 & 10, 20&21. To these, 
it seems. Christians were invited, some of whom attended, desirous, 
as Mackn. observes, of preserving the fiiendship of their neighbours, 
and, perhaps, at the persuasion of the false teachers, who called it 
an innocent method of avoiding persecution." Now this would, in 
common acceptation, have seemed to imply approbation of idolatry. 
But it appears that some persons skilled in the dialectical subtleties 
of Greek philosophy, attempted to justify this |)articipation, on the 
ground that the idol was not a God, but a mere stock or stone, and 
that if this their opiniim of the idol was well understood, their par- 
taking of food in the temple consecrated to its worship, could not 
involve any acknowledgment of its godhead, and therefore could be 
no sin, being regarded only as a common meal. Such, we have 
reason io think from what is written in this and the next Chapter, 
were the arguments commonly used, and perhaps propounded by the 
Corinthians in their letter to Paul. Now these the Apostle confutes. 
See the illustrations of this Chapter by Storr, from whom Ilosenm. 
quotes the following remark with approbation. " Fortassis ea pars 
Corinthioriun, quie Paulo et Apolloni adha-rebat, per ipsum veri- 
tatis tuendie stiulium, vel per atTectuum inleni))erantiain, ut in aliis, 
sic in eo etiam deflcxit, ut hujus i):irtis exgentiles plurcs, Pauli ex- 
emplo noti non modo vietimarum idolis mactatarum reliquiis vena- 
libus, velsuie vel ctlmlcoruui domi vesci solerent, sed sacriHcis etiam 
epulis in idoli cujusdam dcluhro iiiteresse non dubitarent." 

In order, however, to fully understand the origin of this contro- 
versy on the ldoloth}ta, it will be proper to make more profound 
researches into Jewish .Antiquities than the Commentators have any 
of them dune. Here the learned labours ofSchoettg. in his Hor. 


Heb. come seasonably to our aid, but to which I can only refer my 

From these, Schoettgen thinks, will appear the reason why the 
Apostle has treated so largely of Idolothyta, namely, because of the 
over scrupulosity of the Jewish Christians, and the excessive licence 
claimed by Gentile Chiistians, who would not fail to be very offen- 
sive to the former, and cause disputes among them. 

Finally, in order to the full comprehension of this difficult sub- 
ject, it is desirable to know the opinions of the antients. Those of 
the Greek Fathers may be found in Suicer's Thes., and of the Latin 
ones in Petavius's Theol. Dogm. And here I must especially notice 
a long and masterly introduction to the Homily on this tirst verse 
by Chrysostom, to which I can only refer the reader. The follow- 
ing observations from Theophylact are, however, chiefly founded 
upon it, and deserve attention. "Mtrav rives Tzapix rdls Kopirdiois 
reXeioi, Kal elbores on ret et^epj^oyueva oh Koifol rbv arOpwrroy, Kal 
on TO. eih(i)Xa, ^vXa /cat Xidoi eltri, Kai ov bovayrat (jXaipai, ahio^o- 
pios eia^effav els ra elbwXela, Kal rCJv elhwXoQvruyv kre^opovvro. 
"Opwvres he rovrovs erepoi ciTeXearrepoi, eitryeaay /cat airot els ra 
elbwXe'ia, Kai elhwXoQvrovv, oh ixerarris ahrris ■yrcjjMqs, a\X ws twv 
elhioXwv njJLi(i)v ovrwv, /cat UL,iwv Qvaias he^^ecrdai. ToDro e'ls CffXov 
eKU'rjcre roy YlaiiXoy, are /cat ajdcporepovi ftXairrov' rovs re reXeiovs, 
ws baifxoyiKu>y uTroXavoyras rpaTre^wy' Kul rovs areXeis ws tn-t elb(i)Xo- 
rplay avyiodovfieyovs. ^Trevbei roiyvy biopBioiyaaQai rovro' Kai irpos 
rovs reXelovs biaXeyerai, acpeis rons areXea-repovs, oirep eOos aurio. 

1. o'l^aixev OTJ Travres yvwcriv e^cofxev. There has 
been some discussion raised as to the interpreta- 
tion of these words, and the construction and punc- 
tuation of the first four verses of this chapter, I 
must not omit to advert to an hypothesis brought 
forward by several modern Commentators, which 
professes to remove the difficulty and obscurity in 
which this passage is involved. Abp. Tillotson, Bp. 
Pearce, Wets., Saur., Mark., Noess., Rosen., Krause, 
and most recent Interpreters, consider the words of 
ver. 1. oi'^ajtjiev oTi 7ravT€9 yr^coa-iv e;^o)]xey, as an extract 
from the letter of the Corinthians, to w^hich the 
Apostle answers in the following words : 'H yvSa-i^, 
&c. And so again at ver. 4 — 6. o'l^afxev oti — 8*' aJrou, 
to which the Apostle answers : axx' Tjpy, &;c. And 
again at ver. 8. ^poo^a 8e iqfxois ou TragiVxTjcj np &€td — 
uo-re^oJjuieSa. To which the Apostle answers : (^XeTrere 
he iKriTTUis, &c. " And so also (adds Markland) at 
C. 6, 12 & 15. 7, 1. 10, 28. in all which the words 


of the Corinthians seem to be remarked upon '' 
(But see the notes there.) 

Thus they make the former part of the chapter a 
knu of dialogue between the Corinthians and St 
Taul (not much unhke that between the MeHans 
and Athenians in the fifth Book of Thncydides) 
JN'ow this hypothesis deserves the praise of in^e- 
miity and IS ably supported by the above dis- 
tinguished Critics: but I find nothing to coun- 
tenance it m the antient Commentators ; and, upon 
the whole, it seems too bold to be safely adopted and 
indeed it leads to more difficulties than it removes • 
as my notes will shew. Neither is it necessary] 
Ihere are many similarly constructed passages in 
the Epistle to the Romans, which some visionary In- 
terpreters throw into the form of dialogue : though 
by the more judicious this plan is almost invariably 

In the words now before us we have only to avoid 
pressing on the signification of o^^V^v, on which 
little stress is laid by the Greek Commentators 
Lhcumenius, indeed, passes it over altogether To 
me It seems equivalent to, "it is certain and indis- 
putable; "it is an acknowledged truth" With 
respect to the ;r^vT6^, it is by Chrysostom rightly 
considered as emphatical ; q. d. "we have all thi^ 
knowledge (of the nullity of idols, &c.), and not vou 
the reA.,0. only." (So Theophylact and OEcumenius.) 
He remarks, too, on the address shown by the 
Apostle, who does not say, "I have this knowledge 
in common with you ;" but " we all have ;" meanino- 
thegeneralili/ of Christians, not literally all. ^ 

Byyvco^iu is meant a knowledge of the matters in 

* Dr. Macknighr, however, tlunks tliat this y,u>m. was thp 
grand secret, of the knowledge of which the initiated in t e Heathen 
mysteries were exceedingly vain, and which they carefully concealed 
rom the nuddle and lower ranks of mankind/ Many Corimhians 
therefore puffed up w th that knowledge, embraced every op . 0^1 
n.ty of shewing ,t, and of expressing their contempt of idols 


No Commentator has, I think, expressed the im- 
port of the sentence so correctly as CrelHus, thus : 
*' Quod attinet ad idolothyta eorumque esum, nihil 
est necesse ut vos doceam, quid hac de re sentien- 
dum sit; an nimirum per se sit hcitus, an illicitus. 
Novimus enim nos omnes ejus rei sat gnaros esse." 

This was, as Chrysostom observes, meant to hum- 
ble them. And this the Apostle follows up with 
the weighty gnome, tJ yvcocris <$>i>o-»oT, vj ^-^ ayaTrr} ol/co- 
Soju-eT, introduced (it should seem for greater effect) 
without an aAXa, or any similar particle.* Theo- 
phylact supplies ttXvjv. By t] ywdcris (I am surprized 
the Commentators should not have seen) is meant, 
not Jinowledge in general, but the kind of knowledge 
just spoken of; at least this is especialb/ meant. -j- 
Rosenm. observe, that ij yvata-i^ is for aurr\ rj yvcoo-jy. 
" Now tJiis knowledge, the Apostle says, (pua-ioi, 73 8e 
ayairr^ oiKoooy-el. On which GEcumen. remarks : 00 
{xovov, (pr]cr)v, 73' yvcvm^ koivt} icrri Koi 0u(noi ayaTrri^ oixra 
^(v^iS, olT^tC ou66 reAe/a icTi KaScoy ehoii §eT. Here it 
has been well noticed by Beza, that there is an ar- 
chitectural metaphor ; the knowledge in question 
being compared to a mere pasteboard fabric, the 
other to a real and solid building. This metaphor, 
indeed, is very frequent in our Apostle, and I shall 
treat on it at large in the Epistle to the Ephesians. 

* Those who have read Longiiius, will remember tlnit he treats 
more than once on the povveriul effect produced by this abruptness, 
which he terms the affwherov. (On which see Ernesti, Techn. 
Rhet.) In no author are instances of tiiis figure more frequent 
(except Apollon. Tyn., who much affects it), than in Thucydides : 
which (1 remember) his Zoilus,. or fiaa-iii,, Uionys. Hal., often 
and bitteily censures, 

f It may se-mi stiange that tlie Apostle siiould not have ex- 
pressed himself more distinclly. Now C'rellius is the only Commen- 
tator who has perceived the reason. His words are these; " De 
Industrie videlur Apostolus non statim expressisse id, qu& in re 
stientia circa idolothyta consisterct, quemadmodum vers. 4. rem 
propositam resumens facit ; sed simpliciter tarttum scientiam illis 
in rebus trit)uisse ; ut hac occa^ione, quid scientia, si charitatem 
adjunctam non habeat, facilfe pariat, brevi quadam digressuncul^ 
doceret, et sic tacil^ moneret, ue sola scientia inflentur.'" 


The application is obvious ; and on this the modern 
Commentators have unnecessarily dilated.* 

2. el 8e Tjy ^oK€i el^lvai ri, ouSeVo), &c. In the in- 
terpretation of these words the antient Commenta- 
tors have not been so successful as usual ; and, of 
the modern ones, most take unwarrantable liberties 
wuth them. I know not any one who has distinctly 
seen the scope and connection, which appears to 
be as follows. The Apostle had in the preceding 
verse interwoven a general gnome^ or maxim, toge- 
ther with the particular person he especially meant 
to lay down. So here he seems to have intended to 
follow up the latter by inculcating another moral 
majim, which, however, being (as such are usually 
done) expressed very generally, must be defined and 
limited in the explanation. The knowledge spoken 
of is human knowledge generally^ and even that of 
religion, as far as it is a branch of science, and con- 
sidered as a matter of speculation only. The Tjy, 
therefore, has no reference to Peter, Paul, or any 
other Apostle (as Chrysostom supposes), but is said 
generally of all human beings, as far as it applies. 

By ri is meant " any branch of science ;"' and 
by So/ce? elSeWj, "supposes himself to' thoroughly un- 
derstand." Of him it is said, oJ8e;ra), &c. that " he 
yet knoweth neither that nor any thing else, kol^cus 
§67, as he ought to know it, as it ought to be known, 
i. e. perfectly, completely.'"'^ Such appears to be 
the true sense of this gnome generalis,'^ on which no 

* None of them, T think, have expressed so much in so short a 
compass as Thcophyl- (from Chrysos.) as follows. nX))i', >/ yrwais 
oil fioyoy ovbev w^eXel' iiWa fsdWov kqI fiXaTrrei, (pvaiovaa teal 
oyKovaa tov e)(^ovTa, Kal bih rovro cnrotT^iSovaa avroy tov TrX-qviov 
fieXuvs, eav yu>/ Kal rr/y a.yairr]v e^j; ^e0' avrov i^ris ayinrr) tov- 
vavTioy o'tKoho^ely hvvaraC oaa yap j/ X'^P*^ ayan-z/s yyuims Kadai- 
pel, ravTU // ayuTrr] ayeyeipei Kal olKobofiel, vdy-a inrep rod irK^aioy 


f So Thcodoret : TloXXj/s ii^'iv Set yiwo-ews, Kal ravTJjy \a(3€ly 
reXelay Kara roy trnpoyra filoy rCiy abvyariov. 

X With this one may parallel several pronounced by the antient 

VOL, VI. 2 F 


refinements are to be sought, nor petty exceptions 
taken. At the same time, the gnome has 3i spiri- 
tual application ; in laying down which, however, 
we must keep as close as possible to the natural 
sense. It is therefore unwarrantable to supply, with 
some, "and hath not charity." We may understand 
the person in question to be a ^o/crjo-Kro^poy, who is 
vain and proud of his knowledge, and rests in it, 
without applying it to practice, by the discharge of 
his duties to God and man, and who therefore knows 
nothing perfectly or practically. This, indeed, is 
suggested by the antithetical clause ei 3e rjy, &c.' 

8. e\ §6 riy ayaTza rov 0eov, ouroy kyvaycTTai utt aorou. 
The sense of this clause, which is somewhat vague, 
is best determined by the preceding one, to which 
it answers. Commentators, however, are not agreed 
as to what that sense is. Most modern ones, as 
Grotius, Crellius, Gataker, and Le Clerc, and also 
some Greek Fathers, ap. Suic. 1, 7^2. and Theodo- 
ret, suppose an ant-anaclasis in €yvuy<rrai, and inter- 
pret it, "is acknowledged, approved of, beloved, 
and favoured by him ;" as Matt. 7? ^7- " I never 
knew ye ;" and often. And so Schleus. Lex. in v. 

sages, some of which luay have been in the mind of the Apostle. 
Wetstein here adduces numerous passages from the Classical writers ; 
as Plaut, Trinum. I, "2, 162, Cic. Acad. jQ. 1,6. " Hie in omnibus 
fere sermonibus, qui ab iis, qui ilium audierunt, perscripii variti 
copiosfe sunt, ita disputat, ut nihil adfirmet ipse, refellat alios^; nihil 
se scire dicat, nisi id ipsum ; eoque pia^stare caeteris, quod illi, quae 
nesciant, scire se putent, ipse, se nihil scire, id ununi sciat ; ob 
eamque rem se arbiirari ab Apolline omnium sapientissimum esse 
dictum, quod haec esset una sapientia, non arbitrari scire quod 
nesciat. Quae ciim diceret constanter, et in eS. sententiS, permane- 
ret, omnis ejus oratio tuin in virtute laudanda, et in oamibus homi- 
nibus ad virtutis studium cohortandis consumebatur, ut e Socrati- 
corum libris, maximfe Platonis, inlelligi potest." Isocr. Panath. 
Th>v ayeXaiLJv (to(Pi(tto)V, cat irdyTU (pacxKuiTwy elbeyai. Dio Chry- 
60St. Or. 395. Trdyra elbevai <pa(riv. Epict. 72. crrifAeia wpoKoiTTOv- 
ros' ovber' Trepi eavrov Xeyeiv, ws oi'tos rii'us, kciI elboros ri. Lucian 
(of Isocrates) ; Kal Trdvro eypoiKevai' Kal Tcivra, bel yap olfiai h' 
aX-qdes Xeyeiv, ohbev e'lbora. Plato de Le!J;g. 5. ovk elbores, ws 
evos eirreli', o'iofiedn ra Truvra elbeyai. Themist. 13. p. 161. Aristid. 
% 364. Theogn. 221. 


^ 17. But there is something very harsh in this in- 
terjjretation, and little agreeable to the context. It 
makes the Apostle's words too much of an asnigma. 
Besides, ayaTra, to which it may be thought to refer, 
docs not so much signify love, as set^ve, obey (thus, 
"He that loveth me, keepeth my commandments ; 
and he that keepeth my commandments, he it is 
that loveth me) ; which obedience includes love and 
service to our neighbour, for God's sake. What, 
then, is the sense of fyvaxTrax ? That is not easy to 
say, or, at least, to prove. I formerly thought the 
difficulty might be successfully removed by suppos- 
ing the oyToy to relate to God; q. d. " If any man 
loveth God, by him God is known or understood.'* 
Which would require an emphasis to be laid upon 
auroG, and cyvaitrron to be interpreted, " by him 
(only) is God thoroughly known, or to any purpose'" 
This mode of interpretation (which has been also 
adopted by Pearce, Doddridge, and Pyle) certainly 
gives a very good sense ; but whether it be the sense 
intended by the Apostle may be doubted. Indeed 
it requires too much subaudition, and does too much 
violence to the construction : for (as any one versed 
in Greek literature will perceive) oSroy must be re- 
ferred to the subject of the preceding clause, ns. I 
must, therefore, acquiesce in an interpretation 
which, though apparently more difficult, has the 
merit of greater regularity, and is more agre€able 
to the context, namely, that of Augustin, Beza, 
Wolf, Parajus, Flacius, Glass, Schmidt, Locke, 
Schoettgen, Schulz, Rosenm., Macknight, Noesselt, 
Slade, and Krause, who assign to eyvwo-rat, by a He- 
braism, a Hiphil sense, viz. is made to hnoiv by him : 
is taught by him ; (as 1 Cor. 1^, 12. Gal. 4, y.) i. e. 
Q^fo^i^aKToy €(TTtv. This is not only confirmed by an 
antient Scholiast ap. Matthias, but, in some measure, 
by Chrysostom, Theophylact,* and Q^cumen. An 

* He explains : yrwerros avr^ tcai oiKelos KadiGTarai' yruarui b^ 
yevofieros rw Oe^, yyuxrii' naiJ avrov Xafjloavei. Thus we see he 

Q V Q 


example of this use of eyvroVju-evo? is adduced by 
Krause (or rather Schmidt) from Demosth. de Cor. 
€K yap auTou roGrou Trapoc^eiy^aroy co^oT^oyrjKe vuvi oy.a.9 
uTrapx^eiv €yva)(riL€vov9. The passage in |303, 27. of 
Reiske's Edition is by him explained as put for 

That the above interpretation is most agreeable to 
the context is certain ; since the words plainly an- 
swer to Kabais 8eT yvcovai. Now the former never 
knows God and his religion as he ought, serviceably 
to himself and others : the latter is truly taught of 
God, has learned God's religion aright, since he has 
so learned it as to produce the fruits of that know- 
ledge, in love and service both to God and man. 

4. wepi rT]s &p(o<T€a)s oCtv rcov elhoT^oQuTcov . It is here 
well observed by Vorst. *' Epanalepsis est sententiae 
ante propositae, ufia cum concessione." And by 
Grotius ; *' Generalia quaedam praefatus, redit rrpos 
TO el^iKov Kii^oKaiov. The force of the oSv epanalep- 
tica is illustrated by Raphel from Herodotus. 

The Apostle now refutes two arguments by which 
the Corinthians defended their opinion as to the 
right, or excused the custom, of eating idol-meats : 
the Jirst, ver. 4 — 7 ; the second^ ver. 8 seqq. I. that 
the Heathen Gods are no Gods, i. e. do not exist. 
This the Apostle concedes and confirms, 4 — 6.; but 
he shows that the conclusion drawn from this true 
proposition is/alse, v. 7' 

4. o'i^ay.€v — KoV/xfo. Here oUajxev must not have any 
emphasis, but be understood as at ver. 1. (where see 
the note.) By eUoD'Kov, as Crellius observes, is here 
not meant the image itself of the God worshipped 
under the image. Wolf refers to Voss. de Orig. et 
Progr. Idol. 1, 3. 

4. ou'hh eV KQ<rixip, scil. eVxj. On this many Com- 
mentators dilate to little purpose. It is best con- 
comes at the truth, though in a somewhat circuitous manner. In 
fact, he makes two strides for one, treating it as a sort o( verbuin 
pra^gnans; as also does Vitringa on Is. 11, 2. who explains 5 "he 
knows God, and is known by Iiim." But this is too harsh. 


sidered as a popular phrase*, to which we have 
one exactly corresponding in our own language. 
Chrysostom rightly explains it : ouV e^et riva. 'ia-yuv. 
And so TheophyJact, who adds : otJSe Seo) aa-i a'KT.i 
y^iQot Koi dcti[xov€9. We may render, "they are no- 
thing in the ivorld but stocks and stones." *' Thus 
(observes Rosenm.) they were called C^^^^ or 
£Z3*'7nrr, [/.arala., vanities, emptinesses. For Jupiter, 
Apollo, Venus, and the rest, were but human beings 
who had long perished." The outih ia-ri is well ex- 
plained by Le Moyne, Var. Sacr. II7., who appo- 
sitely compares Is. 41, 24. "Behold ye (i. e. idols) 
are from nothing, and your works are nothing." 
Eisner has a long note on ei'^coXov; but little to the 
purpose. In the passages he adduces the word only 
means a shadow. 

4. Koi) or I ou^€)s 0€of €T€pof, el ix.ri efy, « there is no 
God except the ONE, the Creator and Governor of 
all thmgs."^ So Joseph. 8, 3, 16. (cited by Krause.) 
7rpoa-€Kovouv eva Oeov, kcl\ [xeyia-rov kou aXrjS^ p^oVov a:ro- 
Ka7,ouvT€9, rohs 8' aXAouy oyojutara utto (pauXou KoCi avoajrou 
^o^ri9 7r€7roiri[j.€va., See Lactant. 2, 14. From this 
mode of speaking doubtless came the Mahomedan 
confession: "There is no God but one, and Mo- 
hammed is his Prophet." 

5. This is meant to explain the preceding, and 
anticipate an objection; q. d. "For though there be 
those who are styled Gods, and have the name of 
QTlT^^," &c. By ol Xeyo/xevoi is meant, " who are 
onlj/ called, vo^i§oix€voi, accounted so, are not really 
so," i. e. (as Gal. 4, 8.) are /xtJ (pJo-e* 0eo<. Here in 
a few MSS. is added^mi K6pioi. But this seems a 
gloss. The whole passage is well illustrated by 
Philo 122 B. (cited by Loesner.) OI §6 XeyoVe.o, 
Sea-TToroii 8o|y) ^6vov qu Trpos ak-^^eiav vojut/JovraC avayKt] 

^ * Of this Krause adduces examples from Arrian, Diss. 2, 20. ttws 
7/ hiKaiWGvvr] ovhh tare ; ttws ;, aib^s fuiopla e^ri ; ttws ttc'ittjo oiSey 
earn ; ttws vws ovbey tan ; And Wets, cites several Rabbinical writers • 
as Sanhedrim, fol. 63, 2. "Noverant utique Israelifse, idolum nihil 
esse.' Many others, too, are cited by Schoettgea. 


S'cay thr'^Koov ka) SoGXov ourajs" 'i^y e^ova iv too ttolvt) elmt 

©eoff o) Aeyetv 7}V Trpeirw^es ort Travra auroG KTrj[/.cLra. 
Krause refers to Hor. Carni. 1,1,4. and Cudworth's 
Syst. Intel, p. 454. 

On this passage Theophylact has a very instruc- 
tive remark. After observing that the ol Xtyojuievot 
0eol were but stocks and stones, or demons, he shows 
that it was the Apostle's intent to adapt these two 
clauses to the two classes of persons among the 
Greeks. The first is meant for the ISicorai ; the 
second for the o-oc^ot ; of whom the former ouUv r[3e- 
<rav TrXeol/ rwv Xldcov, the latter, Suvajut-eiy ^e/ay auroh 
€VoiK€7v eSo^a^of, oO's* (I conjecture ay) Kai06ou? e/caAouv. 
This last error J then, as well as thejirst, the Apostle 
refutes; and says there were no Gods, whether in 
Heaven, as the sun, moon, and stars, or on earth, as 
the deified mortals. 

" There were many (observes Rosenm.) who, by 
the custom of the Heathens, were called /cupioj and 
Domini, CD'^bi^l. In Syria there were almost as 
many of the Baalim as of regions, nay almost cities." 
In time, however, the title, which at first was appro- 
priated to the Demigods, and tutelary deities of 
cities, was at length ascribed to men; as HerculeSjj 
Coroebus, &c. ; and was at length extended to kings, 
princes, and nobles. 

6i aXkoL r^yAV eis Seos o ttcltt^p, e^ ou, &C. " But 
(whatever be their opinions) there is to us (there is 
believed by Us Christians to exist) but one God, the 
Father, from whom, as Creator and First Great 
Cause, all things have their origin." In this whole 
sentence the ellipsis of the substantive (and that to 
be accommodated in sense to the nature of the 
clause) is to be attended to.* At €\s olutIv Theophy- 

* Krause compares a similar phraseology in an Oracle ap, Ma- 
crob. Saturn. I, 18. els Zei/s, els Alhris, els "HXtos, eis ^lovvtros^ e^ 
bv TO. TvavTa. I cannot find the |)assage j but I suspect that the 
punctuation is defective, and that els Albj]s — i^Lowaos should be 
put in a parenthesis. Most of my readers will remember the 'Ek 


lact supplies, e7r€Trpa,a|xe^a, Koi ely wjrov ka-^ev r,pTrj^€- 
voi. It shews, he says, the tqv Xoyov rr^y ttoo^ aurov 

On the sense of the phrases distinctively applied 
to God the Father i^ o5, and ely olotov ; and, to Gad 
the Son^ 61 avTou, there are various opinions. By the 
.lecent Commentators they are, in a manner, ex- 
plained away. The best exposition (as far as explana- 
tion is practicable) is given by the antient Commen- 
tators. See, especially, Chrysost., from whom Theo- 
phyl. explains the Si' o5 and o»' aurou thus : A»a tou 
oioG ra Tcavra ei? to eivai Tra^r^^^rj, ku) rjfj.€7s oe 6»' auroo 
€Jff TO eivon 7rapr.^^r}fj.€v, kcu eiy to eit elvui' TouTeTTi^ 
TTKTToi yev6<r5a», Ka\ €K irT^avr,^ xpos" tt)v a^^r^Oetav jtxereX- 
QeTv. Thus in the Fatlier they recognize the origin 
of all things, and their continuance ; to the Son they 
ascribe, mediately, the creation of all things, and, as 
respects Christians, a twofold creation, natural and 
spiritual. Grot., Rosenm., and Krause explain 3i' 
o'j ra Travra, " by whom all things of the new crea- 
tion are," i. e. *' who is the author of our religion, 
and of our salvation." But the exposition of the 
antients is far more satisfactory. In the ra Travra, 
the universe^ are included human beings. In the kou 
>3/x€Ts", however, it is not necessary, with the antients, 
to recognise both a physical and moral creation, but 
only the latter. So that I assent to Grot, (and most 
Commentators for the last century) that r^[X€is oi' atJ- 
Tou signifies, " and we (Christians) are by him (what 
we are),*' namely, regenerated and saved. See 1 Pet. 
1, 21. This interpretation is, moreover, supported 
by Theodoret, who thus excellently explains : to 6e 
Kai r^ixclf Ot' wjToij, O'j tt^v or^'xioupyiav, a?0^a. tt^v (rco- 
TTiplav alviVrerar 0<' wjtou r^y (rcuTr^pias TeTuyr^KrxKev. 
See other interpretations of the Fathers in Suic. 
Thes. Eccl. 1, 1U38. 

Aios apx^'f'f^" of Theocritus. Max. Tyr. 17, 5. (cited by Wets.) 
very clearly shows the nature of the Heathen notions of the unity of 
the Deity; era 'ihiois uv tv ~ufTr} yjj 6ij6(pu)yoy' vofiov Kai Xuyov, on 
Seos e'ls TrdvTUJi' jlaaiXevs Ka'i Trarijp, kcu deoi TroWot, deov Trat^es, 

tTVyd.p\OPT€S d€(p. 


The mode of interpretation adopted by the an- 

,tients is ably defended, and learnedly illustrated by 

j Dr. Whitby, to whose annotation the reader is re- 

iferred. Grievous, however, it is to have to record the 

\apnstaci^ of one who had " known the truth, as it is in 

j Jesus ;" yet, on referring to his exposition of this 

portion of Scripture, in his Last Thoughts, (his Zeo- 

Tcpou (ppovTiSes-, but not, according to the adage, o-o- 

(pcore^ai,) that apostacy is but too apparent. Full of 

perversion and quibble is his whole exposition. *' Ah 

quantum mutatus ex illo Hectore," &c. In the words 

of the Prophet, " How is the gold become dim, and 

the fine gold changed." (Lam. 4, 5.) 

With respect to the distinction which is here laid 
down between the Father and the Son, and to which 
the Socinians so confidently advert, we do not (as Mr. 
Slade truly observes) detii/ that distinction, and yet we 
maintain that Christ forms apart of the divine natine 
and substance. " We (continues he) are as strenuous 
for the Unity of the Godhead, as the most decided 
Socinian can be : The question between us is, whe- 
ther or not, in this unity of nature, there is an in- 
comprehensible distinction of persons^ as it is called.'* 

7. aXX* oJ/c €v Tratnv 75 yvu)(Ti9^ "but all have not 
the knowledge (in question) ;'* '* all do not know 
these truths ;'* namely, that idols are nought, and 
have no virtue in them to sanctify or pollute food. 
These areXeTs- are supposed by Rosenm. to have been 
o? t\\e Ant i- Pauline ^avty, who had lent an ear to 
the Judaizers ; or also Gentile converts, who could 
not all at once lay aside the notion that the Gods 
existed, though they were false Gods." It is proba- 
ble that thev consisted of both these classes. 

7. riv€^ Se TT^ (Tuv€iZ7](T€i ToG el^coAo'j — ecS/ouo"/, " but 
some, in the consciousness or secret opinion of the 
idol, as being something (i. e. a real being, or a re- 
presentation of one) even yet eat of the food, as if 
of food offered to some really existing demon.'* 
Schoettg. here explains (ruvc/^rjo-iy an idea or obscure 


thought ; and he refers to Eccl. 10, 20. For other 
examples of the sense opinion , sentiment, judgment , 
Schleus. refers to 1 Cor. 10, 28 & 29. 2 Cor. 4, 2. 
and 5, 11. The var. lect. of some MSS., Versions, 
and Fathers, a-wrfiela, which is mentioned as proba- 
ble by Griesbach, is regarded by the Critics as a 
gloss. It rather seems a paradiorthosisy or false 

'* and their perception of riglit and wrong being 
weak, and ill-informed, their conscience is defiled, 
and they feel self-condemned." This seems to be 
the true sense of this difficult passage, of which the 
expositions of the modern Commentators are very 
vague and unsatisfactory. The obscurity of the 
sentence arose from its very elliptical nature, and 
from the word a-uvel^r^a-i^ being used as a vox prceg- 
nans. The kindred passage of Rom. 14, 23. he 
^ia.Kpivo[i.€vo9, f-Oiv <Pa77], KarcLK^Kpirai, on ovk €K TriVrfwy. 
riav 8«' ouKeK TTiVrecos', afxa^ria itrri is the best Com- 
mentary on this. Yet Hamm., Grot., and Vorst. 
may be consulted, and especially Chrysost. and 
Theophyl., who illustrate the subject from the case 
of a Jew converted to Christianity in respect to 
touching a dead body. 

8. ^pa) 8e v^jutay ou TrapKrrriG-i to) 06«>. The 
Apostle now proceeds to the other plea by which the 
Corinthians justified their eating idol, meat; and this 
is derived ex naturd rei; q. d. " food (you will say) 
does not commend us to God ;" i. e. " whether we 
chnse what food to eat, and what to avoid not, it 
signifies nothing: therefore we may eat idol meat 
without sin.'* Such is the mode of interpretation 
pursued by all those Commentators who adopt the 
hypotiiesis mentioned at ver. 1., and even by some 
who do not adopt it, as Mackn. And so, long ago, 
Calv. and Paraeus. And this tnaji/ be the true sense; 
yet the interpretation is somewhat strained, since it 
requires 8e to be taken in the sense at qui ^ for which 
I know of no authority. I prefer, with some others, 


as Hamm. and Slade, to suppose the words said by 
way of concession ; q. d. '* but though neither eat- 
ing," &c. Yet it is unauthorised to take he in the 
sense but though. So that, upon the whole, the best 
founded interpretation seems to be that of Chrysost., 
Theophyl.,and the other Greek Commentators, whom 
see. Theophyl. excellently details the scope of the 
verse thus : "Iva (xri e'lTrcoa-iv, or» eym KaQa^a. ia-bioi <ruv- 
ei^T^trei, ku) r< jxoj y.ev€i €j't»? 8ia aa-Qeveiau (TKai/SaXa^eo-- 
Bai ; heiKViKTiv on ko.) auro ro (^ayeiv oXfoy eVt KOLra<^po- 
vriarei rmv eiSojAtov, ou^ev eVri. Kotv yap b aSeX^ios' [xr) 
e^XccTrrerat, ouSe outco9 exalverov ti eTroieis Koi Qeagetrrov. 
Bpcojuta yap ou/c ol/coT" too &€(£. Crell., too, who 
has sifted the sense with his usual minute diligence, 
comes to the same opinion ; and so also does Grot., 
who observes : " Qui sine scrupulo talia convivia ini- 
bant, volebant credi sapientiores caeteris ; at ait Pau- 
lus non oh id Deo esse acceptlores." So also Whitby 
and Doddr. thus : " But why occasion this inconve- 
nience ? The great God does not so much esteem 
a man for being, or disapprove of him for not being, 
superior to such little scruples ; but the tenderness of 
his conscience, together with the zeal and charity 
of his heart, are the grand qualities he regards." 

Ilotpi<rTOLvm properly signifies to introduce to any 
one, as to a king, or great man ; and here signifies to 
introduce into the favour of God. (See Schl. Lex.) 
Il€pi(ra-€uoix€i/ is well explained by Theophyl. Trepia-a-ov 
Ti e^o^JLev, Ka) €uhoKi^ouy.ei> Trapa rep 06<o : and ixTrepoxj- 
/x€v by eXarrouju-e^a. These are properly military or 
agonistical terms, but are often used in this meta- 
phorical sense ; as in Rom. 3, 7. 2 Cor. 3, 9. and 
especially 8, 7' aAX' a^nreq ev ttuvt) 7r€pi<r(reu6Te — iW 
Koi €v raoTr rfj ^dpin TreplrrG-eure' and very often else- 
where. The sense is, therefore, well represented in 
our Common Version, which Dr. Mackn. has here 
by no means improved upon. Mr. Slade (with less 
than his usual prudence and judgment) has chosen 
to desert all preceding interpretations, and offers the 
following version : " It is true that, by eating, we run 


into no excess ; neither, by neglecting to eat, are we 
chargeahle ivifh any defect.'' This he supports by 
the argument, tliat TrepxTToy denotes excess of any 
kind ; referring to Scapula. But his good sense 
might have suggested to him how precarious and un- 
critical it is to argue from a primitive to a deriva- 
tive, or vice versa. And here there can be no rea- 
son to do it ; since the proposed interpretation is not 
only unsupported by the usus loquendi, but little 
agreeable to the context. 

9. |3>.e7reT€ Se ^rjTrcyy r^ €^ou(na. ui^cov ccuTr} Tr^oa-Koixfxa 
yevrirai. Grotius and others observe, that e^oucria. 
here signifies, by metonymy, the exercise of this 
liberty, or right. And in this view Beza renders, 
**istud quod vobis est licitum." But the Apostle 
evidently recognises no such right; and he shews 
it to be sinful at 10, 15^23. It should seem, 
therefore, that by i^oua-la is meant, not liberty or 
right strictly speaking, but what is claimed as a 
right; though, in fact, an abuse of right. I am 
surprised the modern Commentators should not 
have seen this, especially as it is plainly pointed out 
by Cln-ysostom, Theophylact, and Qi^cumen., who 
explain it, Tr^oTrere/a, auSaSe/a, oKa^ovda. " Not 
yv(Z<ris (says Chrysost.) much less reXeiorri^." This 
sense of e^ouo-/a is indeed found in the best Classical 
writers.* A similar use is found in the Latin licen- 
tia (which the Vulg. here rightly uses); from whence 
our licentious. 

Ylpo(rKoixi/.a, a stunibling-block, a o-/cavSaXov, caus- 
ing him to take offence, and perhaps desert liia 

* Thucyd. 1, 30. p. S6. Baver. vftpei be koI l^ovaia 
irXovTov which has been imitatefl byDemost. (See Med. 99. t7r' elov- 
fjias Kal ttXovtov vf^pio-i)y. Where I would cancel ^a!, as in Max. 
Tyr. Diss. '26, 7- vtt' cucoXucrov tlnvaias vl^piartjs. In lVoco|)iu3, 
Arc. Hist. 36. e^ovai<ji ivXovtio, I would read, e, irXoiirov. Thucyd, 
8, 45. >/ fiev Trevia avaytcrj r/)>' ToXfiay Trap^xovca, ij be eiiovata 
{l/3pet Tijv TrXeofet,lay, &c. which perhaps Aristotle has in. view in the 
following fine remark in his Rhet. p.[r)3. (rvnl^eftrfct rois ^ev xerr^ai, 
bia ^>)^ evbeiay tTriOvfielu ^(pi^fiaTiai', zois he TzXovaiom, hiu ttjp 
i^vvffiay (scil. tov nXuvrov) iwittviiiely rtTiv ^t»/ ayayKuiwv ifbovutv. 


Christian profession. (See Matt. 5, 29.) ToT? aa-Qe- 
vouo-iv, "to those who are less instructed on tiie real 
nature of Christ's kingdom, (which, as it is said in 
Hebr. 9, 10. does not consist ni meats and drinks,) 
and therefore wavering, and whom (as Chrysostom 
paraphrases) ye ought rather to reach out a hand to 
sustain, than push down or trip up." 

10. €OLv ya^ — (o-B