(logo)
(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Open Source Books | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections

Search: Advanced Search

Anonymous User (login or join us)Upload
See other formats

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

EMMANUEL 

i 




\ STUOIA IN 



This book belongs to 

THE LIBRARY 



VICTORIA UNIVERSITY 

Toronto 5, Canada 



*f - - 






Cntual (0mnuntarg 



0n % IMg Scriptures 0f % ($(& attfr 



UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF 



THE REV. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D. 

Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics 
Union Theological Seminary, Neiv York 



THE REV. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D. 

Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford 

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

Late Master of University College, Durham 



The International 

Critical Commentary 

On the Holy Scriptures of the Old and 
New Testaments 



EDITORS PREFACE 

THERE are now before the public many Commentaries 5 
written by British and American divines, of a popular 
or homiletical character. The Cambridge Bible for 
Schools, the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students. 
The Speaker* s Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff), 
The Expositor 1 s Bible, and other similar series, have their 
special place and importance. But they do not enter into the 
field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such series of 
Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum 
A. T, ; De Wette s Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum 
N. T. ; Meyer s Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar ; Keil and 
Delitzsch s Biblischer Commentar ilber das A. T. ; Lange s 
Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack s Handkommentar 
zum A. T. ; Holtzmann s Handkommentar zum N. T. Several 
of these have been translated, edited, and in some cases enlarged 
and adapted, for the English-speaking public ; others are in 
process of translation. But no corresponding series by British 
or American divines has hitherto been produced. The way has 
been prepared by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, 
Kalisch, Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the 
time has come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enter 
prise, when it is practicable to combine British and American 
scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive 
Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholarship, 
and in a measure lead its van. 



THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY 



Messrs. Charles Scribner s Sons of New York, and Messrs. 
T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a series 
of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, under the 
editorship of Prof. C. A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., in America, and 
of Prof. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., for the Old Testament, and 
the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., for the New Testament, in 
Great Britain. 

The Commentaries will be international and inter-confessional, 
and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias. They 
will be based upon a thorough critical study of the original texts 
of the Bible, and upon critical methods of interpretation. They 
are designed chiefly for students and clergymen, and will be 
written in a compact style. Each book will be preceded by an 
Introduction, stating the results of criticism upon it, and discuss 
ing impartially the questions still remaining open. The details 
of criticism will appear in their proper place in the body of the 
Commentary. Each section of the Text will be introduced 
with a paraphrase, or summary of contents. Technical details 
of textual and philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept 
distinct from matter of a more general character ; and in the 
Old Testament the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as 
possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted with 
Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books will be 
dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, with critical 
notices of the most important literature of the subject. Historical 
and Archaeological questions, as well as questions of Biblical 
Theology, are included in the plan of the Commentaries, but 
not Practical or Homiletical Exegesis. The Volumes will con 
stitute a uniform series. 



The International Critical Commentary 



ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS 
THE OLD TESTAMENT 

GENESIS. The Rev. JOHN SKINNER, D.D., Principal and Professor of 
Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church 
of England, Cambridge, England. [Now Ready. 

EXODUS. The Rev. A. R. S. KENNEDY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
University of Edinburgh. 

LEVITICUS. J. F. STENNING, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. 

NUMBERS. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
Mansfield College, Oxford. [Now Ready. 

DEUTERONOMY. The Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro 
fessor of Hebrew, Oxford. \Now Ready. 

JOSHUA. The Rev. GEORGE ADAM SMITH, D.D., LL.D., Principal of the 
University of Aberdeen. 

JUDGES. The Rev. GEORGE MOORE, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Theol 
ogy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready. 

SAMUEL. The Rev. H. P. SMITH, D.D., Professor of Old Testament 
Literature and History of Religion, Meadville, Pa. [Now Ready. 

KINGS. The Rev. FRANCIS BROWN, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., President 
and Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological 
Seminary, New York City. 

CHRONICLES. The Rev. EDWARD L. CURTIS, D.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [Now Ready. 

EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. The Rev. L. W. BATTEN, Ph.D., D.D., Pro 
fessor of Old Testament Literature. General Theological Seminary, New 
York City. 

PSALMS. The Rev. CHAS. A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., Graduate Pro- 
fe*or of Theological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics, Union Theological 
Seminary, New York. [2 vols. Now Ready 

PROVERBS. The Rev. C. H. TOY, D.D., LL.D., Prof essor of Hebrew, 
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Rtady. 

IOB. The Rev. S. R. DRIVE*, D.D., D.Lht., Regius Professor of He- 



THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY 



ISAIAH. Chaps. I-XXXIX. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Pro 
fessor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. [In Press. 

ISAIAH. Chaps. XL-LXVI. The Rev. A. S. PEAKE, M.A., D.D., Dean 
of the Theological Faculty of the Victoria University and Professor of Bib 
lical Exegesis in the University of Manchester, England. 

JEREMIAH. The Rev. A. F. KIRKPATRICK, D.D., Dean of Ely, sometime 
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England. 

EZEKIEL. The Rev. G. A. COOKE, M.A., Oriel Professor of the Interpre 
tation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev. CHARLES F. 
BURNEY, D.Litt., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John s College, 
Oxford. 

DANIEL. The Rev. JOHN P.PETERS, Ph.D., D.D., sometime Professor 
of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael s 
Church, New York City. 

AMOS AND HOSEA. W. R. HARPER, Ph.D., LL.D., sometime President 
of the University of Chicago, Illinois. [Now Ready. 

MICAH TO HAGGAI. Prof. JOHN P. SMITH, University of Chicago; 
W. HAYES WARD, D.D., LL.D., Editor of The Independent, New York; 
Prof. JULIUS A. BEWER, Union Theological Seminary, New York, and 
Prof. H. G. MITCHELL, D.D., Boston University. [In Press. 

ZECHARIAH TO JONAH. Prof. H. G. MITCHELL, D.D., Prof. JOHN P. 
SMITH and Prof. J. A. BEWER. [In Press. 

ESTHER. The Rev. L. B. PATON, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hart 
ford Theological Seminary. [Now Ready. 

ECCLESIASTES. Prof. GEORGE A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of Bibli 
cal Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. [A r ow Ready. 

RUTH, SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS. Rev. CHARLES A. 
BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopaedia 
ind Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 

ST. MATTHEW. The Rev. WILLOUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and 
Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. [Now Ready. 

ST. MARK. Rev. E. P. GOULD, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testa 
ment Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. \_Now Ready. 

ST. LUKE. The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., sometime Master of 
University College, Durham. [N<sw Ready. 



THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY 

ST. JOHN. The Very Rev. JOHN HENRY BERNARD, D.D., Dean of St. 

Patrick s and Lecturer in Divinity, University of Dublin. 

HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. The Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., 
LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, ana the Rev. WlL- 
LOUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew, 
Exeter College, Oxford. 

ACTS. The Rev. C. H. TURNER, D.D., Fellow of Magdalen College, 
Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. BATE, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the 
Bishop of London. 

ROMANS. The Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret 
Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. 
A. C. HEADLAM, M.A., D.D., Principal of King s College, London. 

[Now Ready. 

I. CORINTHIANS. The Right Rev. ARCH ROBERTSON, D.D., LL.D., 
Lord Bishop of Exeter, and Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., late Master of 
University College, Durham. [Now Ready. 

II. CORINTHIANS. The Rev. DAWSON WALKER, D.D., Theological 
Tutor in the University of Durham. 

GALATIANS. The Rev. ERNEST D. BURTON, D.D., Professor of New 
Testament Literature, University of Chicago. 

EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. The Rev. T. K. ABBOTT, B.D., 
D.Litt., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, 
now Librarian of the same. [Now Ready. 

PHILIPPIANS AND PHILEMON. The Rev. MARVIN R VINCENT, 
D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New 
York City. [Now Ready. 

THESSAI.ONIANS. The Rev. JAMES E. FRAME, M.A., Professor of 
Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. 

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. The Rev. WALTER LOCK, D.D., Warden 
of Keble College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. 

HEBREWS. The Rev. JAMES MOFFATT, D.D., Minister United Free 

Church, Broughty Ferry, Scotland. 

ST. JAMES. The Rev. JAMES H. ROPES, D.D., Bussey Professor of New 
Testament Criticism in Harvard University. 

PETER AND JUDE. The Rev. CHARLES BIGG, D.D., sometime Regius 
Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 

\_Now Ready. 

THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. The Rev. E. A. BROOKE, B.D., Fellow 
and Divinity Lecturer in King s College, Cambridge. 

REVELATION. The Rev. ROBERT H. CHARLES, M. A., D.D. , sometime 
Professor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin. 



FIRST EPISTLE OF ST PAUL 
TO THE CORINTHIANS 



\ 



THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY 

A 

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 

ON THE 

EIKST EPISTLE OE ST PAUL 
TO THE COKINTHIANS 

BY THE 

Right Rev. ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON, D.D., LL.D. 
BiSHO^Jf^ .1. ,R 

LATE PRINCIPAL OF KING S COLLEGE, LONDON 

FORMERLY PRINCIPAL OF BISHOP HATFIELD s HALL, DURHAM 

HONORARY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD 

AND THE 

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

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



NEW YORK 
CHARLES SCRIBNER S SONS 

1911 



1 UNION 

THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE 
TORONTO, 



EMMANUEL 



The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are Reserved. 



MORE than fourteen years ago 1 promised to Dr. Plummer, 
Editor of the " International Critical Commentary," an 
edition of this Epistle, of which I had the detailed 
knowledge gained by some years of teaching. Almost 
immediately, however, a change of work imposed upon me 
new duties in the course of which my predominant 
interests were claimed, in part by administrative work 
which curtailed opportunities for study or writing, in part 
by studies other than exegetical. 

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

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

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

vii 



viii PREFACE 

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

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

A. EXON: 
EXETER, 

Conversion of St Paul^ 
1911. 



CONTENTS 



INTRODUCTION: 

PAGE 

I. CORINTH . . . . . . xi 

II. AUTHENTICITY . . . . . xvi 

111. OCCASION AND PLAN . . . . xix 

Analysis of the Epistle .... xxv 

IV. PLACE AND DATE ..... xxvii 
Aretas to the Apostolic Council . . xxviii 

Apostolic Council to the End of Residence at 

Ephesus ...... xxix 

From Festus back to I Corinthians . . xxx 

Resultant Scheme ..... xxxi 

Bearing of St Paul s Movements on the Question 

of Date ..... xxxi 

Table of Pauline Chronology . . xxxiii 

V. DOCTRINE ..... xxxiv 

The Apostle s Relation to Christ . . xxxiv 

The Resurrection .... xxxvi 

The Person of Christ . . . xxxviii 

The Christian Life .... xxxviii 

The Collective Work of the Church . xxxix 

The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit . . . xlv 

VI. CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE . xlvi 

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

Words peculiar to I Corinthians in the Pauline 

Epistles . . . . . . li 

Phrases peculiar to i Corinthians in the N.T. . lii 
Quotations from the O.T. . . . .lii 



CONTENTS 



VII. TEXT liv 

General Features . . . . .liv 

The Pauline Epistles . . . Iv 

Authorities for this Epistle .... Ivii 

Illustrative Readings . . lix 

VIII. COMMENTARIES ..... Ixvi 

Patristic and Scholastic .... Ixvi 

Modern ...... Ixvii 

COMMENTARY I 

INDEX: 

General ...... 403 

Greek Words ..... 413 

Latin and English Words . . 424 



INTRODUCTION 



I. CORINTH. 

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

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

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



xii INTRODUCTION 

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

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

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



* Kopiv8id?ea6ai, Kopivdta K6ptj, Kop. TTCUS : ov iravTfa avdpbs e$ K6pii>6ov 
ted 6 TrXoOs, a proverb which Horace (Ep. i. xvii. 36) reproduces, non cuivis 
homini contingit adire Corinthum. Other references in Renan, p. 213, and 
Farrar, St Paul, i. pp. 557 f. 



INTRODUCTION xiii 

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

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

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



xiv INTRODUCTION 

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

It was from Athens that St Paul came to Corinth, and the 
transition has been compared to that of passing from residence 
in Oxford to residence in London; that ought to mean from 
the old unreformed Oxford, the home of lost causes and of 
expiring philosophies, to the London of our own age. The 
difference in miles between Oxford and London is greater than 
that between Athens and Corinth; but, in St Paul s day, the 
difference in social and intellectual environment was perhaps 
greater than that which has distinguished the two English cities 
in any age. The Apostle s work in the two Greek cities was 
part of his great work of adapting Christianity to civilized 
Europe. In Athens he met with opposition and contempt 
(Acts xvii. 1 8, 32),* and he came on to Corinth in much 
depression and fear (i Cor. ii. 3); and not until he had been 
encouraged by the heavenly vision and the experience of con 
siderable success did he think that he would be justified in 
remaining at Corinth instead of returning to the more hopeful 
field in Macedonia. During the year and a half that he was 
there he probably made missionary excursions in the neigh 
bourhood, and with success : 2 Corinthians is addressed unto 
the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints 
which are in the whole of Achaia. 

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

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

t It is possible that this is one of the beloved physician s medical words. 
Doctors are said to have spoken of one another as dfidrexvoi (Hobart, Med. 
Lang, of St Luke^ p. 239). 



INTRODUCTION XV 

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

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

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

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



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



xvi INTRODUCTION 

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

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

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



II. AUTHENTICITY. 

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



INTRODUCTION xvii 

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

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



xviii INTRODUCTION 

being quite beyond dispute, give increase of probability to the 
rest. In Polycarp there are seven such echoes, two of which (to 
i Cor. vi. 2, 9) are quite certain, and a third (to xiii. 13) highly 
probable. In the first of these (Pol. xi. 2), Paul is mentioned, 
but not this Epistle. The passage in Hermas (Mand. iv. 4) 
resembles i Cor. vii. 39, 40 so closely that reminiscence is more 
probable than mere coincidence. Justin Martyr, about A.D. 147, 
quotes from i Cor. xi. 19 (Try. 35), and Athenagoras, about 
A.D. 177, quotes part of xv. 55 as Kara TOV arroo-ToXov (De Res. 
Mart. 1 8). In Irenaeus there are more than 60 quotations; in 
Clement of Alexandria, more than 130 ; in Tertullian, more than 
400, counting verses separately. Basilides certainly knew it, and 
Marcion admitted it to his very select canon. This brief state 
ment by no means exhausts all the evidence of the two centuries 
subsequent to the writing of the Epistle, but it is sufficient to 
show how substantial the external evidence is. 

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

The integrity of i Corinthians has been questioned with as 
much boldness as its authenticity, and with as little success. On 
quite insufficient, and (in some cases) trifling, or even absurd, 
grounds, some sections, verses, and parts of verses, have been 
suspected of being interpolations, e.g. xi. 16, 19 b, 23-28, xii. 2, 
13, parts of xiv. 5 and 10, and the whole of 13, xv. 23-28, 45. 
The reasons for suspecting smaller portions are commonly better 
than those for suspecting longer ones, but none are sufficient to 
warrant rejection. Here and there we are in doubt about a 
word, as Xpiorov (i. 8), I^o-ov (iv. 17), fjpuv (v. 4), and TO, Wvt] 
(x. 20), but there is probably no verse or whole clause that is an 
interpolation. Others again have conjectured that our Epistle is 
made up of portions of two, or even three, letters, laid together 
in strata; and this conjecture is sometimes combined with the 
hypothesis that portions of the letter alluded to in v. 9 are 
imbedded in our i Corinthians. Thus, iii. 10-23, vu - I 7~ 2 4) 
ix. i-x. 22, x. 25-30, xiv. 34-36, xv. 1-55, are supposed to be 



INTRODUCTION xix 

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



III. OCCASION AND PLAN. 

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

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

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



XX INTRODUCTION 

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

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



INTRODUCTION xxi 

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

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

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

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

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



xxii INTRODUCTION 

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

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

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

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

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



INTRODUCTION xxiii 

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

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

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

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



xxiv INTRODUCTION 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Apostle at once writes i Corinthians. 

The Plan of the Epistle is very clear. One is seldom in 
doubt as to where a section begins and ends, or as to what the 
subject is. There are occasional digressions, or what seem to 
be such, as the statement of the great Principle of Forbearance 
(ix. 1-27), or the Hymn in praise of Love (xiii.), but their con 
nexion with the main argument of the section in which they 
occur is easily seen. The question which cannot be answered 
with absolute certainty is not a very important one. We cannot 
be quite sure how much of the Epistle is a reply to questions 
asked by the Corinthians in their letter to the Apostle. Certainly 
the discussion of various problems about Marriage (vii. 1-40) is 
such, as is shown by the opening words, Trcpi Se o>v eypa^are : and 
almost certainly the question about partaking of Idol-meats 
(viii. i-xi. i) was raised by the Corinthians, -n-cpl 8c run/ 



INTRODUCTION xxv 

0vTo>v. The difficulty was a real one and of frequent occurrence ; 
and, as the Apostle does not refer to teaching already given to 
them on the subject, they would be likely to consult him, all the 
more so as there seem to have been widely divergent opinions 
among themselves about the question. It is not impossible that 
other sections which begin in a similar way are references to the 
Corinthian letter, Trepi Se TWV nreu/xaTiKcov (xii. l), Trept, 8e TTJS Ao-yt a? 
T?7S ets TOVS aytous (xvi. l), and Trepl Se ATroXXw rov d8eA.<o$ 
(xvi. 12). But most of the expressions which look like quotations 
from the Corinthian letter occur in the sections about Marriage- 
and Idol-meats ; e.g. KaXov dv0puJ7ru> yvvaiKos JU.T) aTrrta-Oai (vii. l), 
TTttVTe? yvcocrtv e^o/Aer (viii. l), Trdvra ce<mv (x. 23). The direc 
tions about Spiritual Gifts and the Collection for the Saints may 
have been prompted by information which the Apostle received 
by word of mouth. What is said about Apollos (xvi. 12) must 
have come from Apollos himself; but the Corinthians may have 
asked for his return to them. 

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

Epistolary Introduction, i 1-9. 

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

B. Preamble of Thanksgiving a?id Hope, i. 4-9. 

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

A. The Dissensions (^x(.(T^a.Ta.), i. lo-iv. 21. 

The Facts, i. 10-17. 

The False Wisdom and the True, i. 1 8-iii. 4. 
The False Wisdom, i. i8-ii. 5. 
The True Wisdom, ii. 6-iii. 4. 

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

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

iii. 5~iv. 21. 

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

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

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

v. 1-13. 



xxvi INTRODUCTION 

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

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

D. Fornication, vi. 12-20. 

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

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

Celibacy is good, but Marriage is natural, 

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

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

General Principles, viii. 1-13. 

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

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

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

The Danger of Idolatry, x. 14-22. 

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

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

xiv. 40. 

A. The Veiling of Women in Public Worship, xi. 2-16. 
, B. Disorders connected with the Lord s Supper, 
xi. 17-34. 

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

The Variety, Unity, and true Purpose of the 

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

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

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

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

A. The Resurrection of Christ an Essential Article, 

xv. i-n. 

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

xv. 12-34. 

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



INTRODUCTION xxvii 

Consequences of accepting the Resurrection of 

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

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

xv - 35~5 8 - 
The Answers of Nature and of Scripture, 

xv. 35-49- 

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

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

The Collection for the Poor at Jerusalem, 

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

xvi. 5-9. 

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

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

xvi. 19-24. 

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



IV. PLACE AND DATE. 

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

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



xxviii INTRODUCTION 

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

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

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

Aretas to the Apostolic Council. 

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

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



INTRODUCTION xxix 

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



Apostolic Council to the end of Residence at Ephesus. 

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



XXX INTRODUCTION 



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

From Festus back to I Corinthians. 

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

We have, then, for the events of Acts xix. 21 -xxiv. 27, the 
interval from about March 55 to Pentecost (?) 58, or till Pente 
cost 56 for the remainder of St Paul s stay at Ephesus, the 
journey from Ephesus to Corinth, the three months spent there, 
the journey to Philippi, the voyage thence to Troas, Tyre, and 
Caesarea, and arrival at Jerusalem. This absolutely precludes 
any extension of St Paul s stay at Ephesus until 56. The 
Pentecost of i Cor. xvi. 8 must be that of 55, unless indeed we 
can bring down the recall of Felix till 58-59, which though by 
no means impossible, has the balance of probability against it. 
Still more considerable is the balance of likelihood against 60 or 
even 61 as the date for Felix s recall, and 58 or 59 for St Paul s 



INTRODUCTION xxxi 

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



Resultant Scheme. 

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

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

Bearing of St PauVs movements on the question of Date. 

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



xxxii INTRODUCTION 

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

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

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

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

spent there, the start for Jerusalem with the brethren makes 

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



INTRODUCTION 



XXXlll 



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

of 55- 

The following table gives the schemes adopted by Harnack 
in his Chronologic (supra), Turner (DB. as above); Ramsay, 
St Paul the Traveller and Expositor, 1896, p. 336, A fixed 
date, etc.; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 216-233; Wieseler, 
Chronologic d. Apost. Zeitalters (Eng. tr.) ; Lewin, Fasti Sacri. 
See also^Blass, Acta Apostolorum, 1895, pp. 21-24; Kennedy 
(as above). See also Ency. Brit., nth ed., in. pp. 891 f., vn. 
p. IS 1 - 





Harnack. 


Turner. 


3 


Lighlfoot. 


Wieseler. 


c 


The Crucifixion . 


29 or 30 


29 


30 




30 


33 


Conversion of St Paul . 


30 


35 or 36 


32 


34 


40 


37 


First visit to Jerusalem 


33 


38 


34 


37 


43 


39 


Second visit to Jeru 














salem 


... 


46 


45 


45 


45 


44 


First missionary 














journey . 


45 


47 


46 or 47 


48 


45-57 


45 


Third visit to Jeru 














salem ; the Apostolic 














Council . 


47 


49 


50 


51 


50 


49 


Second missionary 














journey . 


47 


49 


50 


5 1 


50 


49 


Corinth reached late in 


48 


5 


51 


52 


52 


S 2 


Epistles to the Thessa- 














lonians 


48-50 


50-52 


51-53 


52-53 


52-53 


52 


Fourth visit to Jeru 














salem 


50 


S 2 


53 


54. 


54 


53 


Return to Antioch 


5 


52 


53 


54 


54 


53 


Third missionary 














journey . 


5o 


52 


53 


54 


54 


54 


In Ephesus; I Corin 














thians 


5-53 


52-55 


53-56 


54-57 


54-57 


54-57 


In Macedonia ; 2 Corin 














thians 


53 


55 


56 


57 


57 


57 


In Corinth ; Epistle to 














Romans . 


53, 54 


55, 56 


56,57 


57,58 


57,58 


57,58 


Fifth visit to Jerusalem ; 














arrest 


54 


56 


57 


58 


58 


58 



xxxiv INTRODUCTION 



V. DOCTRINE. 

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

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

First of all, we must take note of the Apostles relation to 
Christ. He is a called Apostle of Jesus Christ (i. i), and 
asserts this claim in the face of those who call it in question 
(ix. 3). He rests it, firstly, on having seen Jesus our Lord (ix. i), 
clearly at his Conversion ; secondly, on the fruits of his Apostle- 
ship, which the Corinthians, whom he had begotten in the Lord 
(iii. 6 sqq., iv. 15, see notes on these passages), should be the 
last to question (ix. 2). This constituted his answer to critics 
(ix. 3). As far, then, as authority was concerned, he claimed to 
have it directly from Christ, without human source or channel 
(as in Gal. i. i, 12). But this did not imply independence of 
the tradition common to the Apostles in regard to the facts of 
the Lord s life, death, and Resurrection. In regard to the Institu 
tion of the Lord s Supper (see below), the words 7rapt\a/3ov a-n-o TOV 
Kvpiov have been taken as asserting the contrary. But they do 
not necessarily, nor in the view of the present writer probably, 
imply more than that the Lord was the source (airo) of the 
7ra/oa<Wis. The circumstantial details here, as in the case of the 
appearances after the Resurrection, would most naturally come 
through those who had witnessed them (xv. i-io), in common 
with whom St Paul handed on what had been handed on to him. 
So again in dealing with marriage, he is careful to distinguish 
between the reported teaching of the Lord and what he gives as 



INTRODUCTION xxxv 

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

The passages in question have an important bearing upon 
St Paul s knowledge in detail of the earthly life, ministry, and 
words of Christ. It is not uncommonly inferred from his nearly 
exclusive insistence upon the incarnation, passion, death and 
Resurrection of our Lord that he either knew or cared to know 
nothing of the historical Jesus (2 Cor. v. 16 ; i Cor. ii. 2).* But 
the appeal of ch. vii. 10, 25 is a warning that the inference from 
silence is precarious here. The pre-existence of Christ is clearly 
taught in xv. 45-48.! That St Paul taught pre-existence only 
as distinct from the Divinity of Christ (His pre-existence in the 
Unity of the Godhead), was the view of Baur, followed in sub 
stance by Pfleiderer (Paulinism, Eng. tr. i. 139 sqq.), Schmiedel, 
in loc., and many others. It is bound up with the old Tubingen 
theory which restricts the Pauline homologumena to i and 2 Cor 
inthians, Romans, and Galatians. If we are allowed to combine 
the thoughts of Phil. ii. 5 sqq., and Col. i. 15-18, ii. 9, with i Cor. 
xv., it becomes impossible to do justice to the whole thought of 
St Paul by the conception of an ai/fyxoTros e ovpavov (xv. 47), pre- 
existent in the Divine Idea only. The fundamental position of 
Christ and that crucified (ii. 2 ; cf. iii. 10, n) in the Apostle s 
preaching is only intelligible in connexion with His cosmic 
function as Mediator (viii. 6, 8Y ov TO. ai/ra) which again stands 
closely related with the thought expanded in Col. i. 1 5 f. In a 
word, it is now admitted that, according to St Paul, Christ, as 
the Mediator between God and man, stood at the centre of the 
Gospel. Whether this equally applies to the teaching of Christ 
Himself, as recorded in the Gospels, or whether, on the contrary, 
the teaching of Christ is reducible to the two heads of the 
Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man, without any 
proclamation of Himself as the Mediator of the former, as 
Harnack in Das Wesen des Christentums and other recent writers 
have contended, is a question worthy of most careful inquiry, 
but not in this place.:}: It belongs to the study of the history 
and doctrine of the Gospels. 

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

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

% That there is no such essential difference between the teaching of Christ 
and the teaching of St Paul as Wrede (Paulus, 1905) has contended, is urged 
by Kolbing (Die geistige Einwirkung der Person Jesu auf Paulus, 1906) and 
A. Meyer ( Wer hat das Christentum begriindet, Jesus oder Paulus, 1907), no 
less than by more conservative scholars. See A. E. Garvie, The Christian 
Certainty, pp. 399^ 



xxxvi INTRODUCTION 

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

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



INTRODUCTION xxxvii 

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

St Paul, on the other hand, contrasts the mortal (^Oaprov) or 
animal (i/or^Kov) body with the risen or spiritual body. The 
former is eViyeiov, \diKov t and cannot inherit the kingdom of 
God. It will be the same individual body (^as, vi. 14; see 
Rom. viii. 12), but yet not the same; it will be quickened, 
changed (v. 51), will put on incorruption, immortality; it (the 
same body) is sown as an earthly body, but will be raised a 
spiritual body. 

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

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

The Resurrection of Christ, then, occupies the central place 



xxxviii INTRODUCTION 

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

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

The doctrine of grace, so prominent in other Epistles of this 
group, is for the most part felt rather than expressly handled in 
our Epistle. The passing reference in xv. 56 (17 Se &W/us TTJ<S 
tt/xa/mas 6 vo/xos) may be compared with that in ix. 20, 21, where 
he explains that the Christian, though not VTTO vo/xov, is not 
UVO/AOS eoC but evvo/u,os Xpicrrov (for which see Rom. viii. 2). It 
may be noted that a passage in this Epistle (iv. 7, TI St lx ei ? v* 
eXa^Se?) turned the entire course of Augustine s thought upon 
the efficacy of Divine grace, with momentous consequences to 
the Church (Aug. de div. quaest. ad Simplic. i. ; cf. Retract, n. i. i ; 
de don. Persev. 52). 

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



237 



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



INTRODUCTION xxxix 

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

Not less instructiveas our Epistle as to the Collective Work of 
the Church. No other book of the N.T., in fact, reflects so 
richly the life of the Christian body as it then was, and the 
principles which guided it (see Weizsacker, Apost. Zeitalter, pp. 
575-605). We note especially the development of discipline, of 
organization, and of worship. 

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



xl INTRODUCTION 

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

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

1. ciTroWoXoi (Cor., Eph.). 

2. Trpo^rat (Cor., Eph. ; Trpo^Teia, Rom.). 

[euayyeXurrai (Eph.) 

(Eph.). 
ia (Rom.).] 

3. SiScur/caXoi (i Cor., Eph.); Si8ao-*a>i/ (Rom.). Then follow 
TrapaKaXwi/ (Rom.), Swayaeis, ta/xara (Eph.), avrtX^/x^ets (i Cor.) 
ftcraSiSovs (Rom.); Kvfitpvrjcrfis (i Cor.), TrpowrTayaci/os (Rom.), 
eXeaiv (Rom.), ytvf) yXaxrcrooj/ (i Cor.). 

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



INTRODUCTION xli 

in ch. xv. 7). The office of prophet is not strictly limited to a 
class, but potentially belongs to all (ch. xiv. 30-32). That 
presbyters, here as elsewhere (Phil. i. i ; Acts xiv. 23, xx. 17, 
etc.), had been appointed by the Apostle, would be antecedently 
likely, but there is no reference to any such permanent officers 
in this, nor in the second, Epistle, not even in places where (as 
in v. i sqq., vi. i sqq., xiv. 32 sq.) the context would suggest the 
mention of responsible officers. The low place in the list 
occupied by administrative gifts (Kv/?epv?jo-ei9, cf. Trpoio-ra/xei/o? 
in Rom.) seems to imply that administrative offices are still 
voluntarily undertaken ; so in xvi. 15 the household of Stephanas 
have a claim to deference (cf. i Thess. v. 12), but on the ground 
of their voluntary devotion to the Sia/covia (era^ai/ eavrovs). 
The work begun by St Paul at Corinth was carried on by 
successors (Apollos alone is named, iii. 6), who water where 
he had planted, build upon the Stone which he had laid : 
they are TrcuSaywyo/ , while he remains the one * Father in 
Christ. The Epistle, however, refers to them only in passing, 
and in no way defines their status. Probably they are to be 
classed with the prophets and teachers of ch. xii. 28 (cf. Acts 
xiii. i). Church organization, like public worship, was possibly 
reserved for further regulation (xi. 34). 

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



xlii INTRODUCTION 



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

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

Quod in caena Christus gessit 
Faciendum hoc expressit 

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

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



INTRODUCTION xliii 

(Beet, in loc.). This assumption is a reaction from the ana 
chronism of introducing the * Agape of later times in explanation 
of this passage. (The name Agape, see Diet, of Chr. Antiq. s.v., 
is occasionally used for the Eucharist, but more properly for the 
Common Meal from which the Eucharist had been wholly 
separated.) The Lord s Supper (so named only here in N,T.) 
is not the Eucharist proper, still less the Agape, but the entire 
re-enactment of the Last Supper^ with the Eucharistic acts occurring 
in the course of it, as they do in the paschal meal recorded in 
the Synoptic Gospels.* In the early Church the name * Lord s 
Supper was not the earliest, nor the commonest, name for the 
Eucharist. It was primarily (though not quite exclusively) 
applied to the annual re-enactment of the Last Supper which 
survived after the Agape had first been separated from the 
Eucharist and then had gradually dropped out of use (Diet, of 
Chr. Antiq. art. Lord s Supper ). In any case * the Lord s Supper 
at Corinth would be already in progress when the Eucharistic 
Bread and Cup were blessed. St Paul s censure (eKao-Tos yap 
7rpoAa/x,/3dVei, v. 21), and his remedy (fc&xf<r0c, v. 33), relate to 
the supper which was over before (/ACTO. TO SeiTrv^o-cu, v. 25) the 
blessing of the Cup, and was doubtless (see note on xi. 23, 27) 
well advanced when the Eucharistic Bread was broken : what 
he blames and what he enjoins are alike compatible with the 
supposition that the procedure of the Last Supper was closely 
adhered to at Corinth. Whose duty it was to preside (as did 
the head of the family at the Passover, our Lord at the Last 
Supper, and the Trpoeorws in Justin s time) we do not know, but 
it may be taken as certain that some one did so. In v. 34, Et 
TIS Ticiva K.T.A., we notice the first step towards the segregation 
of the Eucharistic acts proper from the joint meal in which they 
were still, as it were, embedded. The Supper, if the direction of 
v. 34 was observed, would cease to have its original character of a 
meal to satisfy hunger (still traceable vet Did. x. i, /xcra TO e/xTrXryo-- 
Oyvai) ; it dropped out of use in connexion with the Eucharist, 
except in so far as it left traces in the ritual. As a separate, 
non-Eucharistic sacred meal (Diet, of Chr. Antiq. art. Agape ) it 
survived for a time. This separation of the Eucharist from the 
Supper, of which we here trace the origin only, was a step towards 
the shifting of the former, later than any N.T. evidence, to the 
" ante-lucan " hour which had become usual in Pliny s time. 

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

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



xliv INTRODUCTION 

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



The narrative of the Institution in the two first Gospels, 
though they record no express command to repeat it, renders 
the last-named suggestion somewhat gratuitous. Our Lord was 
keeping an annual feast, and His disciples certainly at that time 
expected to keep it in future : in view of this fact, of the refer 
ences in the Acts of the Apostles (ii. 42, xx. 7) to the repetition 
of the Supper, and of its thoroughly Hebraic and Palestinian 
antecedents (cf. Bickell, Messe und Pascha; Anrich, Antike 
Mysterienwesen, p. 127), it is much more probable that St Paul 
is here the representative of a common tradition than the author 
of an institution traceable to himself alone. The whole tone of 
the passage, in which their coming together to eat is not 
inculcated but taken for granted, supports this view against any 
hypothesis of a practice initiated by the Apostle himself. See 
also Andersen, D. Abendmahl in d. ersten 2 Jahrhund. 1906). 

The doctrine of the Eucharist presupposed in our Epistle is 
simple, but, so far as it goes, very definite. The Bread and the 
Cup are a partaking (/cou/owa) of the Lord s Body and Blood 
(x. 16, xi. 27); and to eat or (v. 27; and, v. 29) drink 
unworthily, not discerning the Body (v. 29), is to eat and 



INTRODUCTION xlv 

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

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

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



xlvi INTRODUCTION 

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



VI. CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE. 

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

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

In our Epistle these phenomena are less acutely present than 
in the other two. The doctrinal issue, which in Galatians stirs 
the Apostle to the depths, is felt rather than apparent (xv. 56, 
vii. 1 8, 19); the personal question is more prominent (iv. 3, ix. 



INTRODUCTION xlvii 

2, 3, etc.), but less so than in Galatians, far less so than in the 
Second Epistle. 

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

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

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

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



xlviii INTRODUCTION 

forbids the completion of a clause (e.g. ix. 15). The scope of 
the Epistle, practical direction rather than theological argument, 
explains the absence of the characteristic apa ow so common in 
Romans ; generally, in fact, the argument here is less abstruse, 
and is comparatively easy to follow (see below). But it is not 
always in the form that we should expect in a modern writer. 
In x. 30, for example, he asks, Why do I incur blame for that for 
which I give thanks ? meaning, Why give thanks for what 
involves me in blame? just as in Rom. vii. 1 6, where he means 
that * if I hate what I do, I (by hating it) assent to the law, he 
similarly inverts the ideas, saying, If / do what I hate, etc. 
At times, again, he assumes a connexion of ideas obvious perhaps 
to his readers, but no longer so to the modern reader, as in xi. 10 
(Sia TOUS dyye Aovs). The same consideration to some extent 
applies to his enigmatic reference (xv. 29) to the practice of 
* baptizing for the dead. It may be added that the mention of 
such a practice with no word of blame does not, in view of St 
Paul s style, justify the inference that he sanctioned or approved 
it. He is so engrossed in his immediate point that the Resurrec 
tion is presupposed by the whole life of the Christian community, 
that he does not turn aside to parry any wrong inference that 
might be drawn from his words. Similarly, in viii. 10 he insists on 
the bad example to the weak of taking part in a sacrificial feast, 
as if the action were in itself indifferent, whereas we learn later 
on (x. 14 and following) that the act is per se idolatrous. Or 
again, in xi. 5, from the prohibition against a woman prophesying 
unveiled, it has been inferred that she might do so if properly 
veiled, whereas in xiv. 34 we find this entirely disallowed. It is, 
in fact, St Paul s manner to hold a prohibition as it were in 
reserve, producing it when the occasion demands it. 

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



INTRODUCTION xlix 

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

The extent to which St Paul s thought has been influenced 
by Greek thought has been sometimes exaggerated. But the 
influence of Hellenism in shaping the forms in which he ex 
pressed his thought can be clearly traced in some cases. We 
can see that he becomes gradually familiar with certain philo 
sophical terms. None of the following are found in the Epistles 
to the Thessalonians : yvwo-is, o-o<i a, tnWris, trwciSgo iS, o-x^/w-a, 
all of which are found in i Corinthians and later Epistles. The 
following also are not found in the Epistles to the Thessalonians, 
but are found in one or more of the Epistles which are later 
than i Corinthians : aur^o-is, Siavota, etorry?, /w-op^TJ, opeis. 
Perhaps d*pa<n a and tStornjs ought to be added to the first 
group, and dKpar>js to the second. In his essay on "St Paul 
and Seneca," Lightfoot has shown what parallels there are 
between expressions in the Pauline Epistles and expressions 
which were in use among the Stoics. The meaning may be 
very different, but there is a similarity which is perhaps not 
wholly accidental in the wording (see notes on iii. 21, iv. 8, vi. 7, 
19, vii. 20, 31, 33, 35, viii. 4, ix. 25, xii. 14, xiii. 4). 

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



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

aya/xo?, vii. 8, II, 32, 34; * dycv^s, i. 28; * aScuravo?, ix. 18 ; 
* a8?jAa)S, ix. 26; aiviy/xa, xiii. 12; cucaTaKaAvTTTOs, xi. 5, 13; 
aK(ov, ix. 17; * tt/xera/aVryTos, xv. 5 8 ; <ivai tos, vi. 2 ; di>aia>s, 

t An asterisk indicates that the word is not found in the LXX. 
d 



1 INTRODUCTION 

xi. 27; dp3pto/iat, xvi. 13; di/Ti Xr//z^t5, xii. 28; * a; 
vii. 22; * aTrepta-Traarws, vii. 35; aTrdSei^is, ii. 4; dp^n-eWcm/, 
iii. 10; doTarea), iv. ii; do^/Aoi/ecu, vii. 36, xiii. 5; do-x^/Awi/, 
xii. 23 ; drojaos, xv. 52 ; avXds, xiv. J , * A^at/cds, xvi. 17 ; d^v^os, 
xiv. 7; /^po^os, vii. 35; yewpyiov, iii. 9; * yv/jti/trcvw, iv. ii; 
oWpecris, xii. 4, 5, 6; ? * 8iep/x??j/VT7J5, xiv. 8; SioVep, viii. 13, 
X. 14 ; * SouXaywyew, ix. 27 ; Spdo-crofiat, iii. 19 ; 8uo-^>7/p,OJ, iv. 13 ; 
eyKparet o/xai, vii. 9, ix. 25; etSooXroi/, viii. 10; e/cv^w, xv. 34; 
eKTpw/m, xv. 8 ; * eye pyry/xa, xii. 6, I o ; * ev/coTr?;, ix. 1 2 \ errpOTr^, 
vi. 5, XV. 34; eatpci>, V. 13; eopTda>, v. 8; e7ri0ai/drios, iv. 9; 
eTriOvfJLrjTrjs, x. 6; tTrto-Trdo/xat, vii. 18; ep/^i/i a, xii. IO, xiv. 26; 
? * eppr)VVTTJ<s, xiv. 28; erepdyXwo-o-os, xiv. 21 ; * evTrdpeSpos, vi. i. 
35 ; evcrT/fios, xiv. 9 ; evcr^/AGo-w^, xii. 23 ; ^$os, xv. 33 ; v)\to>) 
xiii. i; * 0ripiofJiaxto, XV. 32; ta/xa, xii. 9, 28, 30; * Upoflvros, 
x. 28; KaXd/x;, iii. 12; KaTaXvTrro/xat, xi. 6, 7; Karao-TpoWv/xai, 
x. 5; /caraxpdoyaat, vii. 31, ix. 18; ? * /c^doo, ix. 9; * Ko/xda>, xi. 
14, 15; K0/tt?s xi. 15; Kvfiepvrjons, xii. 28; KvpfiaXov, xiii. i; 
fo, xvi. i, 2 ; XotSopos, v. ii, vi. 10; XvVt?, vii. 27; */xd/c- 
x. 25; /xe^uo-05, v. n, vi. 10 ; /-ojriyc, vi. 3; /xwpta, i. 18, 
21, 23, ii. 14, iii. 19 ; i/>j, xv. 31 ; * vrj-n-La.^, xiv. 20; * dXo0peuT?js, 
X. 10; 6/xtXi a, xv. 33; * o<r<p?70-i9, xii. 17; 7rcua>, x. 7; ?rapa- 
fAvOia, xiv. 3; TrapeSpeveii/ (ix. 13); TrapoSog, xvi. 7; * Triads, ii. 4; 
7Tpi/cd#ap/xa, iv. 13; Trepii/oy/xa, iv. 13; * TrepTrepcvo/x-ai, xiii. 4; 
TTTrjva., XV. 39; *7rvKTt;a), ix. 27; pnrrj, XV. 52; crv /x^opov, vii. 35, 
x< 33 ^ <n;/x.</)aji/os, vii. 5 ; (rvvyvwfjL r), vii. 6 ; * aruvfyjrtjTijs, i. 20 ; 
crvj /xcpt^o/xac, ix. 13 ; rdy/xa, XV. 23 ; * TVTTIKWS, x. 1 1 ; * vTrepaK/xos, 
vii. 36 ; <iXoVeiK05, xi. 16 ; ^p^jv, xiv. 20 ; XOI KOS, xvi. 47, 48, 49 ; 
^jprjO Tf.vo^aLy xiii. 4 ; * axTTrepe/ , XV. 8. 

None of these words (nearly 100 in all) occur anywhere else 
in N.T. But a few of them are doubtful, owing to uncertainty 
of text ; and a few of them occur in quotations, and therefore 
are no evidence of St Paul s vocabulary, e.g. ^0os, 6/xiXta, Spdo-- 
cro/xat, catpa>. 

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

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



INTRODUCTION li 

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

Words peculiar to i Corinthians in the Pauline Epistles. 

dyvwcrt a, XV. 34 ; dyopaa>, vi. 2O, vii. 23, 30 ; acfyAos, xiv. 8 ; 
av/xos, V. 7, 8 ; aKpacri a, vii. 5 ; dAaAdu), xiii. I ; dyaepi/zi/os, vii. 
32; d/x7reA<ov, ix. 7; dvaKptVw, ten times; di/a/AVT/o-ts, xi. 24, 25; 
aTroc^epw, xvi. 3; dpyupiov, iii. 12; dporpia a), ix. 10; ap7ra, v. IO, 
II, vi. 10 ; appwo-Tos, xi. 30; dcmyp, xv. 41; an/xos, iv. 10, 
xii. 23 ; auAeo/xai, xiv. 7 ; aupioy, XV. 32 ; ya/u a>, vii. 38; SciTiWo), 
xi. 25; SctTn/ov, xi. 20, 21 ; Sicupc w, xii. 12; StSa/crds, ii. 13; 
Step^euw, xii. 30, xiv. 5, 13, 27; SwSeKa, xv. 5; caw, X. 13; 
eiS(joAo$vros, viii. i, 4, 7, 10, x. 19; i/cocri, x. 8; K/?ao-ts, x. 13; 
eK7reipa<o, x. 9; eAceivos, XV. 19; tWo/xos, ix. 21 ; evo^os, xi. 27 ; 
:eo-Tn/, vi. 12, xii. 4; eovcrta(D, vi. 12, vii. 4; eVdVa), xv. 16; 
7rt/3aAA(o, vii. 35; e7ri /<ei/Aai, ix. 16; tcroTrrpov, xiii. 12; euyei^s, 
i. 26 ; * eiWtpe co, xvi. 12 ; evo-x^wv, vii. 35, xii. 24 ; 0a7rra>, xv. 4 ; 
/, iv. 9; ^va>, v. 7, x. 20 ; tepoi/, ix. 13; tx^ /9 > xv - 39^ 
xiii. 3; Kara/cat oo, iii. 15; KaraKctyuat, viii. 10; Kara/xeva), 
xvi. 6 ; /a0apa, xiv. 7 ; Ki^api^w, xiv. 7 ; /avSwe^w, xv. 30 ; /cAato, 
x. 1 6, xi. 24 ; KOKKO5, xv. 37 ; KopeWuyu,cu, iv. 8 ; KT^VOS, xv. 39 ; 
os, xi. 20; /aatvo/xat, xiv. 23; /xaAaKO9, vi. 9; [jirjvvw, X. 28; 
vi. 9; /ioAww, viii. 7; /xvpios, iv. 15, xiv. 19; I/IKO?, 
xv-^j 55^ 575 ZvpaojjMi, xi. 5, 6; oAws, v. i, vi. 7, xv. 29; 
6o-aKt9, xi. 25, 26; ouat, ix. 16; ouSeVoTe, xiii. 8; o^eAos, xv. 32; 
Trapayw, vii. 31 ; Trapo^wo/xat, xiii. 5 ; Trao-^a, v. 7 ; Trei/raKocrioi, 
XV. 6 ; Trei/Trj/coo-rry, xvi. 8; 7repi/3oAaioi/, xi. 15 ; 7reptri^r//xt, xii. 23 ; 
TrAetoros, xiv. 27 ; Trvev/xariKa)?, ii. 13, 14 ; 7rot/Wi/eo, ix. 7 ; TTOI /XI/I;, 
ix. 7; TroAe/xo?, xiv. 8; 7ro/za, x. 4; Tropvevw, vi. 18, x. 8; Tropi^, 
vi. I5 l6; TTOTT/pioi/, eight times; TrpocrKwea;, xiv. 25; Trpo^reua;, 
eleven times; TrwAew, x. 25; pa/SSos, iv. 21; <raA7u(D, xv. 52; 
o-cATjvr/, xv. 41 ; o-raStov, ix. 24; (TVft^cuVcr), x. 1 1 ; crvvayoo, v. 4; 
o-vi/et8oj/, iv. 4; <nWpxo/xcu, seven times; (TWCTOS, i. 19; orw^eta, 
viii. 7, xi. 16; o-vi/o-rcAAo), vii. 29; * o-;c o-/>ia, i. 10, xi. 18, xii. 25 ; 

ttco, vii. 5; TTJprjcris, vii. 19; Tt/xto?, iii. 12; rotVw, ix. 26; 

tTijs, iv. I ; * V7ra)7riaw, ix. 27; <vreuto, iii. 6, 7, 8, ix. 7 ; 
XaA/cos, xiii. i ; xP T s iii- 1 2 ; ^cvSo/xaprus, xv. 15; i/a>xiK09, 
ii. 14, xv. 44, 46 ; i^w/i^w, xiii. 3. 

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

| As Schmiedel says about i Thessalonians : Begnugt man sick nicht mil 
tnechanischem Ziihlen, alphabetischem Atifreihen tind dem fast werthlosen 
Achten auf die cnrafc \ey6jj.eva. 



lii INTRODUCTION 

else in N.T. These are, dflai/ao-i a, xv. 53, 54; aXoao, ix. 9, 10 
(in a quotation) ; eKKa0ai pa>, v. 7 ; * o-vi//:?ao-i\va>, iv. 8 ; vn-cpoxn, 
ii. i. There are a good many more which are common to this 
Epistle and one or more of the Pastoral Epistles, and which 
are found elsewhere in N.T., although not in other Epistles of 
St Paul. But these are of less importance, although all links 
between the Pastoral Epistles and the unquestionably genuine 
Epistles are of value. 

Phrases peculiar to i Corinthians in N. T. 

f) croifiia. TOV Kooyxov, i. 2O, iii. 1 8. 

01 apxovTfS TOV cuoivo? TOVTOV, ii. 6, 8. 

rrpo TWI> alwvwv, ii. 7. 

TO TTj/ev/xa TOV KOCT/AOV, ii. 12. 

cov o-vvcpyoi, iii. 9. 

TOVTO Se <?7/u, vii. 29, xv. 50; cf. x. 15, 19. 

Iryo-ow TOV Kvpiov -fjfjiwv eo paKa, ix. I ; cf. John XX. 25. 

TO TTOT^ptOV TT}? CvAoytttS, X. 1 6. 

Trorrjpiov Kvpi ov, X. 21. 

KVplCLKOV SetTTVOV, xi. 2O. 

ets TT)V ffJLrjv avdfjivrja-tv, xi. 24, 25 : ? Luke xxii. 19. 

TO TrorrfpLov TOV Kvptov, xi. 27. 

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

TO TrAeto-Tov, xiv. 27. 

fv arofjua, cv pLTry 6^>6a\fjiov, xv. 5 2. 

Mapai/ d^a, xvi. 22. 

Quotations from the O.T. 

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



INTRODUCTION Hii 

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

If, with Swete, we may count as direct quotations those 
which (though not announced by a formula, such as *a0<os 
yeypaTTTat) appear from the context to be intended as quotations, 
or agree verbatim with some context in the O.T., then at least 
half the quotations in i Corinthians are direct.* They are 

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

i. 31 = Jer. ix. 24 x. 26 = Ps. xxiv. i 

(i Sam. ii. 10) 

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

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

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

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

vi. 1 6 = Gen. ii. 24 xv. 54 = Isa. xxv. 8 

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

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

The quotations which are in agreement with the LXX are 
these 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ii. 1 6 = Isa. xl. 13 xi. 25 = Exod. xxiv. 8 ; 

Zech. ix. n 

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

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

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

xxii. 24 

x. 5 = Num. xiv. 16 xv. 47 = Gen. ii. 7 

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



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



liv INTRODUCTION 

Perhaps under the same head should be placed 

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

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

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

i. 20 = Isa. xix. II f., xxxiii. 18 xiv. 25 = Isa. xlv. 14 

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



In xv. 57) T< ? $* < ? X"-P L<S TC ? 8i8oi/Ti yfuv TO vt/co? resembles 
2 Mace. X. 38, evAoyow TO) Kupi u) TO) TO VIKOS CLVTOLS SiSovri, but this 
is probably an accidental coincidence. 



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

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



GENERAL FEATURES. 

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



INTRODUCTION lv 

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

WESTERN TEXT. 

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



ALEXANDRIAN READINGS. 

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



THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 

(i) Syrian Readings. 

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

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



Ivi INTRODUCTION 

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



RESIDUAL EARLY TEXT. 

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

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

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

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



, INTRODUCTION Ivii 



AUTHORITIES FOR THIS EPISTLE. 

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



Greek Uncial MSS. 

N (Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, 

the only MS. containing the whole N.T. 
A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus ; now at the 

British Museum. 

B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS. 

C (Fifth century.) The Codex Ephraem, a Palimpsest ; now 
at Paris. Lacks vii. 18 eV d/c/3o/?voTia-ix. 6 rov py 
tpyd&a-Oai : xiii. 8 Trava-ovrat-xv. 40 dAAa erepa. 
D (Sixth century.) Codex Claromontanus ; now at Paris. A 
Graeco-Latin MS. xiv. 13 Sio 6 A.aA.ojv-22 o-^ctov coriV 
is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subse 
quent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected 
the MS. (see Gregory, Prolegomena, pp. 418-422). 
E (Ninth century.) At St Petersburg. A copy of D, and 

unimportant. 

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

F a (Seventh century.) Coisl. i. ; at Paris. A MS. of Gen.- 
Kings, containing N.T. passages added by the scribes as 
marginal notes, including i Cor. vii. 39, xi. 29. 
G (Late ninth century.) The Codex Bornerianus ; at Dresden. 
Interlined with the Latin (in minuscules). Lacks i Cor. 
Hi. 8-1 6, vi. 7-14 (as F). 

H (Sixth century.) Coisl. 202. At Paris (the part containing 

x. 22-29, xi- 9~i6). An important witness, but unhappily 

seldom available. The MS. is scattered in seven different 

libraries, having been employed for bindings. 

I 2 (Fifth century.) Codex Muralti vi. At St Petersburg. 

Contains xv. 53 rouro-xvi. 9 dvew. 
K (Ninth century.) Codex S. Synod, xcviii. Lacks i. i-vi. 13 

ravryv KOU: viii. 7 TIVCS Sc-viii. II aareOavev. 
(Ninth century.) Codex Angelicus. At Rome. 
M (Ninth century.) Harl. 5913*; at the British Museum. 
Contains xv. 52 craATmm to the end of xvi. The MS. 
also contains fragments of 2 Corinthians and (in some 
leaves now at Hamburg) of Hebrews. 



Iviii INTRODUCTION 

P (Ninth century.) Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest 
acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. 
Lacks Vli. 15 v/xas 6 eos-l7 TrepLTrartl : xii. 23 TO 
O"w/xaTos-xiii. 5 ou A.oyt : xiv. 23 rj aTrto-TOi 39 TO XaXeiv /xr;. 
A good type of text in St Paul s Epistles. 

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

i. 17 oyov iva fjirj-a-vv^TTfr (20); vi. 13 Tf o 09-15 /xar 

[a VJJUDV jjic\r)]X[pL<rTo]v, vi. 16-18 (fragmentary), vii. 3-14 

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

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

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

xiii. 8 tire Se 7rpo<-xvi. 24. 

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

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

Cursive MSS. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Versions. 

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



INTRODUCTION lix 

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

The Epistle is also contained in 

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

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

The two last named contain fragments only. 

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



ILLUSTRATIVE READINGS. 

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

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

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

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

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



Ix INTRODUCTION 

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

Typical Syrian Readings. 

In such passages as (i) vi. 20, where C 3 D 1 * K L P, Syrr., 
Chrys. add the words which follow V/AOH/, we have a typical 
Syrian reading, and the shorter text is supported by N B in 
common with the vast preponderance of MSS. and versions. 
A similar example is (2) the inversion of eo? and Kvpios, in 
vii. 17, in K L, the later Syriac, and later Greek Fathers. This 
was probably due to the desire to place eos first in order, over 
looking the decisive fact that KK\rjKev calls for cos rather than 
6 Kvpios (v. 15 and elsewhere). In (3) iii. 4 o-o/m/coi, (4) viii. 2 
eiSeVai for eyvofcei/at, eyvw/ce for eyvw, the case is the same, K B, 
with an ample host of allies, ranged against a text which gained 
later currency but which lacks early attestation. 



Typical Western Readings. 

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

Affinities of P. 

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



INTRODUCTION Ixi 

in the Syrian text) is (9) ix. 2 /xov -njs, where D G K L (and 
Latin MSS., apostolatus mei) have TTJS cfuys (A omits this 
verse). 

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

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

T0\) 

TO Aonrov eo-TiV, D c K L, Eus. (another place) Chrys. 
eo-TiV XOLTTOV ea-riv, G 67**, d e f g m Vulg., Orig. Tert. 
Hieron. Aug. 

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



Possible Alexandrian Readings. 

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

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

(12) iv. 6 (add after ye ypaTrrai) <poveii>, K C D c L P Syrr. Copt. 

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

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

(13) ix. 9 K>7//,<oo-9, B* D* G, Chrys. Thdt. 

<i/A<oo-ets, K A B 3 C D 2 and 3 K L P al. omn., Orig 
Chrys. Euthal. 



Ixii INTRODUCTION 

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



(14) xv. 5 1 TmWes /uteV, K A C 2 D c G K L P, f g Vulg. Copt. Syr.*** 

Ephr. (?) Greek Fathers, Euthal. 
(om. /ieV) B C* D* d e Arm. Aeth. Syr." 14 Greek MSS. 
known to Jerome. 

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

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

Iren. Chrys., etc. 
Kvpiov, K B C P 17, etc., Syr. postmg Copt. cod Arm. Aeth., 

Dam., etc. 
eoV, A, Euthal. 

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

(16) ix. 15 ovSeis, N* B D* 17, d e Sah. Basm., and early Latin 

Fathers. 

is /XT;, A. 
, G. 26. 

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



(All MSS. except K read Kfvwo-ei here, the later cursives only 
reading Kevwo-ry with most late Greek Fathers.) 

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



( 1 7) xi. 24 KXw/Aei/ov, K c C 3 D b c G K L P, d e g Syr., Euthal. Greek 

Fathers (Opwrro^. D*). 

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



INTRODUCTION Ixiii 

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

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



Western Element in B. 

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

(18) ii. i /Avorr/piov, K* A C Copt. (Boh.), Amb. Aug. Ambrst., 

etc. 
/xaprvpiov, K c B I) G L P, Latin and other verss., Cyr.- 

Alex. 

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

(19) xi. 19 (post wo) /cat, B D 37 71, de Vulg. Sah., Ambrst. 

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

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

(20) xv. 14 (after moris) v/^". NAD bc GKLP, defg Vulg. 

verss. 

iuv, B D* 17 67**, Sah. Basm. Goth. 



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

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



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



Ixiv INTRODUCTION 

Singular Readings of B. 

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

(23) xiii. 4 (after r?Aot) y ayainj, KACDGKL, degm Syr., 

Orig. Cyr. Cypr. 

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

(24) viii. 8 ircpio-o-cvo/jLeOa, B, Orig. (all the rest o/v). But for 

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



(25) xiii. 5 TO M lavr^s B, Clem. paed . The rest, including 

Clem. strom , have TO, eavr^?. The latter is probably right, 
but the reference in Clempaed. shows that the variant is 
of high antiquity. 

(26) xv. 49 <opeVo/xv, B 46, Arm. Aeth., Thdt. and a few Fathers. 

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

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



Combined Witness of KB in disputed Readings. 

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

(27) xiii. 3 Kavxrja-ufJLai, NAB 17, Boh., Ephr. Hieron. (and 

Greek MSS. known to him). 
Kavflrjo-w/tai, C K, d e f g m Vulg. verss., Orig. Ephr. 

Meth. Chrys., etc. 
KavQrjcrofjLai, D G L, Bas. Euthal. Cyr. Max. 

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



(28) vii. 34 (before /Ae/xepiorai) *ai, K A B D* P 17, 67, f Vulg. 

Sy r . pst c optij Euthal and Early Fathers. 
om. D C GKL, degm, Chrys. Thdt. Dam. Amb. 
Ambrst. Hieron. 



INTRODUCTION Ixv 

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

(29) vii. 34 (after yu-e/zep.) KCU, K A B D a G K L P, d e g Vulg., Meth. 

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

The omission is here purely Western and of limited range. 

(30) vii. 34 (after ywrj) fj aya/xos, K A B (C is lacking) P 17, Vulg. 

Copt, Euthal. Hieron. (and Gk. MSS. known to). 
om. DGKL, defgm fuld. Syr. Arm. Aeth., Meth. 

This omission again is clearly * Western. 



(31) vii. 34 (after iraptfe vos) ^ aya/xos, sADGKL, defg fuld. 

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

Reviewing as a whole the evidence (28-31) bearing upon this 
verse, the KO.L both before and after /ie/xe piorai must be admitted 
as thoroughly attested. The omission of fj aya/xos after rj ywrj is 
inferior in attestation to its presence (additionally attested by N A) 
in both places. This latter reading, again, is clearly not original, 
but conflate; its support by K A, Euthal. may point to an 
Alexandrian origin. Jerome, on the evidence before him, 
believed the reading fj y. fj ay. KOL fj irapO. to be what St Paul 
actually wrote apostolica veritas. Moreover, the apparent diffi 
culty of this reading explains the early transference of ^ aya//.os 
from after ywrj to follow 7rap#ei/os. [The unmarried woman is 
generic, including widows; the virgin (under control) is the 
special case whose treatment is in question.] Me/ze prrai, both 
in number and in sense, fits ill with what follows it. The 
question of punctuation, as to which the MSS. give no help, 
must follow that of text. The crucial points, on which N B are 
agreed, are the KCU in both places and the genuineness of 17 ay. 
after -YJ yvvr). 

Our last example shall be the d/j^v, xvi. 24. 



(32) xvi. 24 d/x,7?V, KACDKLP, de vg clem verss., Chrys. Thdt. 

Dam. 

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

The MSS. support d/x?Jv conclusively at the end of Galatians, 

Rom. xvi. 27, and at the end of Jude. Elsewhere, in view of the 

strong liturgical instinct to add it where possible, the witness of 

even a few MSS. is enough to displace it. The other leading 

e 



Ixvi INTRODUCTION 

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



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



VIII. COMMENTARIES. 

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

Patristic and Scholastic : Greek. 

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

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

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

*t Theophylact (d. after 1 1 18). Migne, P. G. cxxv. He follows 
They have been translated in the Oxford Library of the Fathers. 



INTRODUCTION Ixvii 

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

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

Patristic and Scholastic : Latin. 

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

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

* Primasius. Migne, P.L. Ixviii. Bishop of Adrumetum in 
the sixth century. 

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

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

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

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

Modern Latin. 

Faber Stapulensis, Paris, 1512. 

Cajetan, Venice, 1531. 

t Erasmus, Desiderius (d. 1536). 

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

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



Ixviii INTRODUCTION 

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

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

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

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

English* 

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

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

C. Hodge, New York, 1857. Calvinist. 

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

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

P. J. Gloag, Edinburgh, 1874. 

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

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

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

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

D. Brown in Schaff s Commentary, 1882. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Translations into English. 

The Twentieth Century New Testament^ Part II., Marshall, 
1 900. 



INTRODUCTION Ixix 

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

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

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



German. 

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

Ruckert, Leipzig, 1836. 

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

J. E. Osiander, Stuttgart, 1849. 

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

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

Neander, Berlin, 1859. 

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

*f Meyer, 5th ed. 1870 ; Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1877. Re- 
edited by B. Weiss, and again by * Heinrici, 1896 and 1900; 
again by J. Weiss, 1910. 

Maier, Freiburg, 1857. Roman. 

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

Schnedermann, in Strack and Zockler, 1887. 

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

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

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

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

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

French. 

E Reuss, Paris, 1874-80. 

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



General. 

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



Ixx INTRODUCTION 

Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St Paul 

Farrar, Life and Work of St. Paul. 

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

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

J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays. 

Hort, Judaistic Christianity ; The Christian Ecclesia. 

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

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

Ropes, The Apostolic Age, 1906. 

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

Pfleiderer, Paulinism, Eng. tr. 1877. 

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

W. E. Chadwick, The Pastoral Teaching of St Paul, 1907. 

A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of St Paul, 1909. 

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

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

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

Rabiger, Kristische Untersuchungen iiber i and 2 Kor., 1886. 

Weizsacker, Apost. Zeitalter, 1886. 

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

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

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

Zahn, Einleitung in das TV. T., Eng. tr. 1909. 

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

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

Ency. Brit, (nth ed., Dec. 1910), articles, Apologetics 
(p. 193), Apostle, Atonement (pp. 875 f.), Baptism (pp. 
368 f.), Christianity (pp. 284 f.), Church History (pp. 334 f.), 
Corinthians, Eschatology (pp. 762 f.), Eucharist. 

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



THE FIRST 
EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 


I. 1-3. THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION. 

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

1 Paul, an Apostle called by divine summons equally with 
the Twelve, and Sosthenes whom ye know, 2 give greeting to 
the body of Corinthian Christians, who have been consecrated 
to God in Christ, called out of the mass of mankind into the 
inner society of the Church to which so many other Christian 
worshippers belong. 8 May the free and unmerited favour of 
God, and the peace which comes from reconciliation with Him, 
be yours! May God Himself, our Heavenly Father, and the 
Lord Jesus Messiah, grant them to you 1 

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

1. K\T)TOS. Elsewhere only Rom. i. i. As all are called to 
be ayiot, so Paul is called to be an Apostle : see on v. 2, and note 
the same parallelism, Rom. i. i, 6. In O.T. the idea of /cA^cri? 
is often connected with prophets.* 

8i& OeXVjjxaTos 0oG. As in 2 Cor., Eph., Col., 2 Tim. ; ex 
panded, with emphasis on his divine call to the exclusion of any 
human source or channel, in Gal. i. i. Sua ipsius voluntate 
nunquam P. factus esset apostolus (Beng.). Per quod tangit 
etiam illos, quos neque Christus miserat, neque per voluntatem Dei 

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



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

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

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

6 a8e\<f>os. A Christian : xvi. 1 2 ; 2 Cor. i. i ; Col. i. i ; 
Philem. i ; Rom. xvi. 23 ; Heb. xiii. 23. The article implies 
that he was well known to some Corinthians. Deissmann (Bible 
Studies , pp. 37, 142) has shown that dSeX^ot was used of 
members of religious bodies long before Christians adopted it 
in this sense. It is remarkable that Apollos is not named as 
joining in sending the letter (xvi. 12). 

A D E omit K\ijr6s. XPWTOI) Irjcrov (B D E F G 17, Am.) is to be pre 
ferred to lt]<rov X/>. (K A L P, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) : see note on Rom. 
i. i. Contrast w. i, 2, 4 with 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, where Ktfpios is added. 

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

rfj ouag. See Acts xiii. i. 

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

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

ow iraai. This is generally connected simply with rf f 
KK\r]cria, as if St Paul were addressing the Corinthian Church 
along with all other Christians. But this little suits the in- 

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



I. 2, 3] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 3 

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

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

iv iram, T<$TTW. Cf. 2 Cor. i. ib; but it is hardly possible to 
read into the present expression the limitation to Achaia. This 
consideration confirms the view taken above of the force of crvv 
Trturi K.T.A., in spite of the parallels given by Lightfoot of Clem. 
ad Cor. 65, and the Ep. of the Church of Smyrna on the death 
of Polycarp, KCU Trao-at? TCUS Kara Travra TOTTOV rr}? dyi ^s /cat KOL@O- 
XLKTJS lKK\rj(rfa<; Trapoi/aeu?. Cf. 2 Cor. ii. 14; I Thess. i. 8. 

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

B D* E F G place r$ otay iv Koplvdy after ^y0>u?j/ois iv X/>. lyaov. 
K A D 2 L P, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth. place it before. A omits 
D 3 



K 8 A* D 3 E L P, Arm. Aeth. insert re after abrdv, probably for 
the sake of smoothness. Such insertions are frequent both in MSS. and 
versions. 



3. x^P 1 ? vfiv Kal elprjyT]. This is St Paul s usual greeting, 
the Greek xaipct? combined with the Hebrew Shalom, and both 
with a deepened meaning. In i and 2 Tim., and in 2 John 3, 
cAeos is added after xdpi?. St James has the laconic and 
secular xatpcw (cf. Acts xv. 23). St Jude has eAeos fytv Kal 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [l. 4-9 

KOL dyaTn/. In i and 2 Pet. we have x a/ P t5 fyw Ka * 
j, as here. The fact that grace and peace or grace, 
mercy, and peace is found in St Paul, St Peter, and St John, 
is some evidence " that we have here the earliest Christian 
password or symbolum. Grace is the source, peace the con 
summation " (Edwards). The favour of God leads naturally to 
peace of mind. Enmity to God has ceased, and reconciliation has 
followed. Quae gratia a non offenso ? Quaepax a non rebellato ? 
asks Tertullian (Adv. Marc. v. 5). See on Rom. i. 5 and 7. 
In Dan. iii. 31 [98] we have as a salutation, dprjvrj vplv irXyO-vv- 
OfLTj. See J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 221-226. In 2 Mace, 
i. i we have x at V eiv . . . fl^v-^v ayaOrfv, and in the Apoc. of 
Baruch Ixxviii. 2, " mercy and peace." Such greetings are not 
primarily Christian. 



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

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

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

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



I. 4, 5] THANKSGIVING AND HOPE 5 

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



4. euxapiorw. Sosthenes seems to be at once forgotten ; this 
important letter is the Apostle s own, and his alone : contrast 
fvxapio-TOVjJitv, I Thess. i. 2 ; uxrirtp ovi/ Trarrjp CTTI viol s 

or av vyiaivoxnv, rov avrov rpoTrov or av ySAeV^ StSaavcaAos 
d/cpoaras TrAourovi/Tas Aoya> cro</>ia9, fv^aptcrrfl TTO.VTOT*. Trepl avroiv 
(Orig.). With this Thanksgiving compare that in 2 Mace. ix. 20 
(AV.). See also Deissmann, Light from the Anc. East, p. 168. 
St Paul s cv^o/HOTM is uttered in full earnest : there is no irony, as 
some think. In the sense of thanksgiving, the verb belongs to 
Hellenistic rather than to class. Grk. (Lightfoot on i Thess. i. 2): 
?rai/TOT as in i Thess. i. 2 ; 2 Thess. i. 3. 

rfj x^P 171 T - e - T - 8o0eunj. Special gifts of grace are viewed as 
incidental to, or presupposing, a state of grace, i.e., the state of 
one living under the influence of, and governed by, the redemp 
tion and reconciliation of man effected by Jesus Christ ; more 
briefly, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor. viii. 9 ; cf. 
VTTO X^P IV J Rom. vi. 14). The aorists (SoOcio-y . . . lirXovrur&rjTt 
. . . e7? /3aioj0v?) sum up their history as a Christian community 
from their baptism to the time of his writing. 

r$ 0ey fjiov (H 1 A C D E F G L P, Latt. Syr. Copt. Arm. ) ; N* B, Aeth. 
omit pov. A* and some other authorities omit roO GeoD after -x6.pi.Ti. 

5. on iv iram. Cf. 2 Cor. viii. 7, wcnrep ev iravri 7repi(r<rVT 
TriVrei KOL Xoya) *at yvwcret. The two passages, though doubtless 
addressed to different situations, bring out strikingly by their 
common points the stronger side of Corinthian Christianity, 
Xoyos and yi/oja-is, both true gifts of the Spirit (xii. 8), although 
each has its abuse or caricature (i. i y-iv. 20 and viii. i f.).* 
Aoyos is the gift of speech, not chiefly, nor specially, as manifested 
in the Tongues (which are quite distinct in xii. 8 f.), but closely 
related to the teacher s work. It was the gift of Apollos 
(Acts xviii. 24). The Ao yos o-o^a? is the gift of the Spirit, while 
<TO<J>LO. \6yov cultivating expression at the expense of matter 
(v. 1 7) is the gift of the mere rhetorician, courting the applause 
(vanum et inane <ro<s !) of the ordinary Greek audience. St 
Paul, according to his chief opponent at Corinth, was wanting 
in this gift (2 Cor. x. 10, 6 Aoyos c^ov^evry/xeVos) : his oratorical 
power was founded in deep conviction (v. 18, ii. 4, iv. 20). 

* St Paul does not hesitate to treat 7vw<rts as a divine gift (xii. 8, xiii. 2, 
xiv. 6), and this use is very rare in N.T., except in his Epistles and in 2 Pet. 
When St John wrote, the word had worse associations. This is the earliest 
use of it in N.T. In the Sapiential Books of O.T. it is very frequent. 



6 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 5-7 

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

irdo-Tj y^wo-ci. See 2 Cor. xi. 6, where St Paul claims for 
himself eminence in the true yvoxns, and also i Cor. viii. i f. 

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

TO jLiaprupioK TOU Xp. * The witness borne [by our preaching] 
to Christ ; genitivus objecti. Cf. xv. 15. Origen takes it .of the 
witness borne by the Scriptures to Christ, and also of the witness 
borne by Christ, who is the dpx^ a P TU? through His death. 

e|3e|3auu0T]. Either (i) was established durably (fttflaiua-d, 
v. 8) in or among you (Meyer); or (2) was verified and estab 
lished by its influence on your character (2 Cor. iii. 2) ; or 
(3) was brought home to your deepest conviction as true by the 
witness of the Spirit (ii. 4).* This last is the best sense. 

B* F G, Arm. have roD 0eoi5 for TOV Xptorou. 

7. wore ujAcis fif] uoTepeu70cu. With the infin., wore points to 
a contemplated result ; with the indie., to the result as a fact 
(2 Cor. v. 16; Gal. ii. 13). What follows, then, is a statement 
of what was to be looked for in the Corinthians as the effect of 
the grace (v. 4) of God given to them in Christ ; and there was 
evidently much in their spiritual condition which corresponded 
to this (xi. 2 ; Acts xviii. 10). 

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

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



* Deissmann (Bible Studies, p. 104 f.) thinks that the meaning of "a legal 
guarantee," which /Je/3cuu<m has in papyri, lies at the basis of the expression. 



I. 7, 8] THANKSGIVING AND HOPE 7 

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

(2) of any special grace or mercy, vii. 7 ; 2 Cor. i. 1 1 ; and 

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

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

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

8. os Kal |3eJ3auo<m. Origen asks, n s /?e/?<uot; and answers, 
XpifTTos iTycrovs. The os refers to TOV Kvpi ou T^/X. *I. Xp. ; cer 
tainly not, as Beng. and others, to eos in v. 4. This remote 
reference is not made probable by the words Iv rrj rjfixpq. r. K. 
?7/x. I. Xp. instead of simply V ry T//A. avrov. We have Christ s 
name ten times in the first ten verses, and the solemn repetition 
of the sacred name, instead of the simple pronoun, is quite in 
St Paul s manner; v. 3, 4; 2 Cor. i. 5 ; 2 Tim. i. 18. Cf. Gen. 
xix. 24, which is sometimes wrongly interpreted as implying a 
distinction of Persons. The /cat points to correspondence on 
His part, answering to f^e^atw^, cTre/cSexo/AeVovs, in vv. 6, 7. 

J3ep<xiwo-ei. Cf. 2 Cor. i. 21, and, for the thought, Rom. 
xvi. 25; i Thess. iii. 13, v. 24. If they fail, it will not be His 
fault. 

cws re Xous. The sense is intenser than in 2 Cor. i. 13 ; 
cf. ets KLvrjv rrjv yuepav (2 Tim. i. 12). Mortis dies est uni- 
cuique dies adventus Domini (Herv.).f 

dyeyKXrJTous. * Unimpeachable, for none will have the right 
to impeach (Rom. viii. 33 ; Col. i. 22, 28). The word implies, 
not actual freedom from sins, but yet a state of spiritual renewal 
(ii. I2f. ; Phil. i. 10; 2 Cor. v. 17 ; Rom. viii. i). This pro- 
leptic construction of the accusative is found in i Thess. iii. 13, 
v. 23 ; Phil. iii. 21. Connect ev rfj rj^pa. with 



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

t The doctrine of the approach of the end is constantly in the Apostle s 
thoughts : iii. 13, iv. 5, vi. 2, 3, vii. 29, xi. 26, xv. 51, xvi. 22. We have ?wj 
TAovs in 2 Cor. i. 13 with the same meaning as here, and in I Thess. ii. 16 
the more common ets reXos with a different meaning. See Abbott, Johannin* 
Grammar, 2322. 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 9 



if TV wtpq. (X ABCLP, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) rather than iv 
irapovfftq. (D E F G, Ambrst.). B omits 



9. The confident hope expressed in v. 8 rests upon the faith 
fulness of God (x. 13 ; i Thess. v. 24; Rom. viii. 30; Phil. i. 6) 
who had been the agent, as well as the source, of their call. 
With oY ov cf. Heb. ii. 10, and also e avrov /ecu 8V avrov /cat eis 
avrov TO, TrdVra, Rom. xi. 36. Aia with genitive can be applied 
either to Christ or to the Father,* but e ov would not be applied 
by St Paul to Christ. " Wherever God the Father and Christ 
are mentioned together, origination is ascribed to the Father 
and mediation to Christ" (Lightfoot, who refers especially to 
viii. 6). By St Paul, as by St John (vi. 44), the calling is specific 
ally ascribed to the Father. 

els Mivuviav. This fellowship (Rom. viii. 17; Phil. iv. lof.) 
exists now and extends to eternity : it is affected by and in the 
Spirit (Rom. viii. 9 f.) ; hence KOIVOWO, (TOV) 7n/eu/w,a.Tos (2 Cor. 
xiii. 13; Phil. ii. i). Vocatiestis in sodetatem non modo apostolorum 
vel angelorum, sed etiam Filii ejus J. C. Domini nostri (Herv.). 
The genitive TOV vlov is objective, and "the KOIVWVUL TOV vioO 
avrov is co-extensive with the /3a<ri\cia TOV eou " (Lightfoot). 

D* F G (not d f g) have &$ off instead of Si off. 

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



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



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

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



I. 10] THE DISSENSIONS 9 

God Himself, do be unanimous in professing your beliefs, and 
do not be split up into parties. Let complete unity be restored 
both in your ways of thinking and in your ultimate convictions, 
so that all have one creed. n I do not say this without good 
reason: for it is quite clear to me, from what I was told by 
members of Chloe s household, that there are contentions and 
wranglings among you. 12 What I mean is this; that there is 
hardly one among you who has not got some party-cry of his 
own ; such as, " I for my part stand by Paul," " And I for my 
part stand by Kephas," "And I stand by Apollos," "And I stand 
by Christ." 13 Do you really think that Christ has been given to 
any party as its separate share ? Was it Paul who was crucified 
for you ? Or was it to allegiance to Paul that you pledged 
yourselves when you were baptized? H Seeing that you thus 
misuse my name, I thank God that not one of you was baptized 
by me, excepting Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, and my 
personal friend Gaius. 15 So that God has prevented any one 
from saying that it was to allegiance to me that you were pledged 
in baptism. 16 Yes, I did baptize the household of Stephanas, 
my first converts in Achaia. Besides these, to the best of my 
knowledge, I baptized no one. 17 For Christ did not make me 
His Apostle to baptize, but to proclaim His Glad-tidings : and 
I did this with no studied rhetoric, so that the Cross of Christ 
might prevail by its own inherent power. 

In these verses (10-17) we have the facts of the case. The 
Apostle begins with an exhortation to avoid dissensions (v. 10), 
then proceeds to describe (n, 12) and to show the impropriety 
of ( 1 3- 1 7 ) their actual dissensions. Quorum prius salutem narra- 
verat, postmodum vulnera patefedt (Herv.). 

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

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



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



8iA TOU oVfyctTos. We should have expected the accusative, 
for the sake of the Name. The genitive makes the Name the 
instrument of the appeal (Rom. xii. x, xv. 30; 2 Cor. x. i): 
cf. Iv ovo/xcm, 2 Thes. iii. 6. It is not an adjuration, but is 
similar to Sia T. wpiov I?7o-o (i Thess. iv. 2). This appeal to the 
one Name is an indirect condemnation of the various party- 
names. 

fro. This defines the purport rather than the purpose of 
the command or request, as in Matt. iv. 3, ewre Iva. ol \$oi OVTOL 
aproi ycvwvTcu. 

TO auro Xe YTjTe. The expression is taken from Greek political 
life, meaning * be at peace or (as here) make up differences. 
So Arist. Pol. III. iii. 3, BOIWTOI 8e KOL Meyap^s TO avro Ae yorres 
rjwxa&v, and other examples given by Lightfoot ad he. Cf. TO 
avro <f>povciv (Rom. xv. 15 ; Phil. ii. 2), and see Deissmann, Bible 
Studies, p. 256. The Traces comes last with emphasis. St Paul 
is urging, not unison, but harmony. For his knowledge of Greek 
writers see xv. 34 ; Rom. ii. 14 ; Acts xvii. 28. 

P) rf. That there may not be, as there actually are : he 
does not say yeVi/Tcu. 

axio-fiaTa. Not schisms, but c dissensions (John vii. 43, 
ix. 1 6), * clefts, splits ; the opposite of TO OLVTO Ae yr/Te irai/res. 

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

voi . . . yv6pj\. Nos is temper or frame of mind, 
which is changed in fj.fTa.voLa and is kindly in cvvoio, while yvw/x?; 
is judgment on this or that point. He is urging them to give 
up, not erroneous beliefs, but party-spirit. 

11. Si]X(6T). Not was reported, but was made (only too) 
evident. The verb implies that he was unable to doubt the 
unwelcome statement. In papyri it is used of official evidence. 
For dSeXc^ot see on v. 10. 

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



I. 11, 12] THE DISSENSIONS I 1 

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

cpi&es. More unseemly than <r;(icr/Aara, although not neces 
sarily so serious. Nevertheless, not o-xtV/xara, unless crystallized 
into aipco-cis, but epiSes, are named as * works of the flesh 
in Gal. v. 19, 20, or in the catalogues of vices, Rom. i. 29-31 ; 
2 Cor. xii. 20 ; i Tim. vi. 4. The divisions became noisy. 

12. Xe yw 8e TOUTO. * Now I mean this : but perhaps the 
force of the 8e is best given by having no conjunction in 
English; I mean this. The TOVTO refers to what follows, as 
in vii. 29, xv. 50, whereas in vii. 35 it refers to what precedes, 
like avT-rj in ix. 3. 

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

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

* It is a skilful stroke that the offender s own words are quoted, and each 
appears as bearing witness against himself. What each glories in becomes 
his own condemnation ; K TOV ffT6fj.ar6s (TOV. 



12 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 12 

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

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

We need not, therefore, consider seriously such considera 
tions as that eyw 8c XpiaroC was the cry of all three parties 
(Rabiger, misinterpreting /xe/xcpio-rat) ; or that St Paul approves 
this cry (Chrysostom, appealing to iii. 22, 23); or that it is 
St Paul s own reply to the others; or that it represents a 
1 James party (in which case, why is James not mentioned ?) ; 
or that it marks those who carried protest against party so far 
as to form a party on that basis. In iii. 23 St Paul says v/ms 
Se Xpio-Tov most truly and from his heart; that is true of all: 

* The conjecture that the original reading was ^y& 5 Kpl(nrov is not very 
intelligent. Could Crispus have been made the rival of Paul, Apollos, and 
Peter ? Could Clement of Rome have failed to mention the Crispus party, 
if there had been one? He mentions the other three. And see w. 13 
and 14. 



I. 12, 13] THE DISSENSIONS 13 

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

It is difficult to decide between virtp V<i> (K A C D 2 E F G L P, pro 
vobis Vulg. ) and irepi vfj.uv (B D*). The former would he more likely to 
be substituted for the latter, as most usual, than vice versa. But ircpl is 
quite in place, in view of its sacrificial associations. See note on Rom. 
viii. 3. 

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

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

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



After euxa/Hcrrw, N 3 A C D E F G L P, Vulg. add TV Gey, while A 17, 
Syrr. Copt. Arm. add r<$ 9e /*ou a very natural gloss. K* B 67, 
Chrys. omit. 



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

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



1.15-17] THE DISSENSIONS 15 

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

{pairriff0TiTc (K A B C*, Vulg. Copt. Arm. ) rather than tBdirTiaa 
(G 5 D E F G L P). RV. corrects AV. 

16. e j3dimcra 8e icai. A correction which came into his 
mind as he dictated : on reflexion, he can remember no other 
case. Possibly his amanuensis reminded him of Stephanas. 

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

Xonrok. The neut. sing. ace. (of respect) used adverbially ; 
quod superest (Vulg. caeteruni) : TO AonroV is slightly stronger. 
See Lightfoot on Phil. iii. i and on i Thess. iv. i. Cf. iv. 2 ; 
2 Cor. xiii. u. St Paul forestalls possible objection. 

17. ou yap d-nreoreiXeV jxc. This verse marks the transition to 
the discussion of principle which lies at the root of these o-^tV- 
ftara, viz. the false idea of ero<ia entertained by the Corinthians. 
The Apostle did not as a rule baptize by his own hand, but by 
v7r?jpTat,. Perhaps other Apostles did the same (Acts x. 48). 
See John iv. i, 2 for our Lord s practice. Baptizing required no 
special, personal gifts, as preaching did. Baptism is not dis 
paraged by this ; but baptism presupposes that the great charge, 
to preach the Gospel,* has been fulfilled; Matt, xxviii. 19; 
Luke xxiv. 47 ; [Mark] xvi. 15 : and, with special reference to St 
Paul, ix. 16, 17; Acts ix. 15, 20, xxii. 15, 21, xxvi. 16. AWfr- 
TciAei/ = sent as His uTrdoroAos. 

OUK iv a<>4>ia Xoyou. See note on v. 5. Preaching was St 
Paul s great work, but his aim was not that of the professional 
rhetorician. Here he rejects the standard by which an age of 
rhetoric judged a speaker. The Corinthians were judging by 

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

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



1 6 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 18-24 

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

Iva, firj Kka>6f). To clothe the Gospel in o-o^ta Aoyov was to 
impair its substance: KCVOW, cf. ix. 15; Rom. iv. 14; 2 Cor. ix. 
3, and ek KWOV, Gal. ii. 2 ; Phil. ii. 16. In this he glances at the 
Apollos party. 



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

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

18 To those who are on the broad way that leadeth to destruc 
tion, the message of the Cross of course is foolishness ; but to 
those who are in the way of salvation, as we feel that we are, it 
manifests the power of God. 19 For it stands written in Scripture, 
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of 
the discerning I will set at nought. 20 What, in God s sight, is 
the Greek philosopher? What, in God s sight, is the Jewish 
Rabbi ? What, be he Jew or Gentile, is the skilful disputer of 
this evil age ? Did not God make foolish and futile the profane 
wisdom of the non-Christian world ? 21 For when, in the provi 
dence of God, the world, in spite of all its boasted intellect and 
philosophy, failed to attain to a real knowledge of God, it was 
God s good pleasure, by means of the proclaimed Glad-tidings, 
which the world regarded as foolishness, to save those who have 
faith in Him. 22 The truth of this is evident. Jews have no 
real knowledge of the God whom they worship, for they are 
always asking for miracles ; nor Greeks either, for they ask for a 
philosophy of religion : 23 but we proclaim a Messiah who has 
been crucified, to Jews a revolting idea, and to Greeks an absurd 
one. 24 But to those who really accept God s call, both Jews 



I. 18] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE \J 

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

26 For consider, Brothers, the circumstances of your own call. 
Very few of you were wise, as men count wisdom, very few were 
of great influence, very few were of high birth. 27 Quite the 
contrary. It was the unwisdom of the world which God specially 
selected, in order to put the wise people to shame by succeeding 
where they had failed ; and it was the uninfluential agencies of 
the world which God specially selected, in order to put its 
strength to shame, by triumphing where that strength had been 
vanquished; 28 and it was the low-born and despised agencies 
which God specially selected, yes, actual nonentities, in order to 
bring to nought things that are real enough. 29 He thus secured 
that no human being should have anything to boast of before 
God. 30 But as regards you, on the other hand, it is by His will 
and bounty that ye have your being by adoption in Christ Jesus, 
who became for us wisdom manifested from God, wisdom which 
stands for both righteousness and sanctification, yes, and redemp 
tion as well. 31 God did all this, in order that each might take 
as his guiding principle what stands written in Scripture, He that 
glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. 

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



18. 6 \6yos. In contrast, not to Xoyos o-o^tas (v. 5, ii. 6), 
but to cro<j>ia Aoyov (v. 17); the preaching of a crucified 
Saviour. 

The AV. spoils the contrast by rendering the wisdom of 
words and the preaching of the Cross. The use of <ro<ia in 
these two chapters should be compared with the ayiov 
TTveu/xa in the Book of Wisdom (i. 5, ix. 17), Trvcv/xa aortas 
(vii. 7), etc. St Paul had possibly read the book. We have in 
Wisdom the opposition between the o-w/xa and the 7n>evyw,a or 
or o-o^ta (i. 4, ii. 3, ix. 15). 

TOO oraupou. "This expression shows clearly the stress 

2 



1 8 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 18, 19 

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

TOIS jxey diroXXufxeVois. For them who are perishing (dativus 
commodi\ not * In the opinion of those who are perishing 
(Chrys.). Compare carefully 2 Cor. ii. 16, iv. 3 ; 2 Thess. ii. 10. 
The verb (John iii. 16) is St Paul s standing expression for the 
destiny of the wicked (xv. 1 8). The force of the present tense 
is axiomatic, of that which is certain, whether past, present, or 
future : OLTTO TOV reAous ras Karrjyopias Tibet s (Theodoret). The 
idea of predestination to destruction is quite remote from this 
context : St Paul simply assigns those who reject and those who 
receive * the Word of the Cross to the two classes corresponding 
to the issues of faith and unbelief; and he does not define 
perishing. It is rash to say that he means annihilation ; still 
more rash to say that he means endless torment. Eternal loss 
or exclusion may be meant. 

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

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

i^fui>. * As we have good cause to know. The addition of 
the pronoun throws a touch of personal warmth into this side 
of the statement : * you and I can witness to that. * 

SuVafiis ecu eoriV. See Rom. i. 16. Not merely a demon 
stration of God s power, nor * a power of God, but * God s 
power. The contrast between SuVa/xis (not o-o<t a) eou and 
/xwpia belongs to the very core of St Paul s teaching (ii. 4 ; cf. iv. 
20). Wisdom can carry conviction^ but to save, to give illumina 
tion, penitence, sanctification, love, peace, and hope to a human 
soul, needs power, and divine power. 

19. yeypaTrrat yap. Proof of what is stated in v. 18, i.e. as 
regards the failure of worldly cleverness in dealing with the things 
of God. By yeypaTrrai, used absolutely, St Paul always means 

* Both Irenaeus (I. iii. 5) and Marcion (Tert. Marc. v. 5) omit the ij/wp, 
and Marcion seems to have read 8vva.fj.is ical <ro0ia GeoO tffrlv. To omit the 
rip.lv is to omit a characteristic touch ; and to insert KOU <ro<f>La rather spoils 
the point. 



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

the O.T. Scriptures; v. 31, ii. 9, iii. 19, x. 7, xv. 45; Rom. i. 
17, ii. 24, iii. 4, 10, etc. 

diroXw Tt\v ao^iak. From Isa. xxix. 14 (LXX), substituting 
tt#TTJcraj for /cpu^aj, in accordance with St Paul s usual freedom 
of citation."* The Prophet, referring to the failure of worldly 
statesmanship in Judah in face of the judgment of the Assyrian 
invasion, states a principle which the Apostle seizes and applies. 
Possibly d0er?o-<D comes from Ps. xxxiii. 10. 

avvtaiv. Worldly common sense (Matt. xi. 25). It has its 
place in the mind that is informed by the Spirit of God (Col. i. 9), 
and the absence of it is a calamity (Rom. i. 21, 31). On crvVccris 
and aroffria. see Arist. Eth. Nic. VI. vii. 10. 

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

20. TTOU ao<|>6s ; A very free citation from the general sense 
of Isa. xxxiii. 18 (cf. xix. 12) : St Paul adapts the wording to his 
immediate purpose. The original passage refers to the time 
following on the disappearance of the Assyrian conqueror, with 
his staff of clerks, accountants, and takers of inventories, who 
registered the details of the spoil of a captured city. On the 
tablet of Shalmaneser in the Assyrian Gallery of the British 
Museum there is a surprisingly exact picture of the scene described 
by Isaiah. The marvellous disappearance of the invading host 
was to Isaiah a signal vindication of Jehovah s power and care, 
and also a refutation, not so much of the conqueror s scribes, 
as of the worldly counsellors at Jerusalem, who had first thought 
to meet the invader by an alliance with Egypt, or other 
methods of statecraft, and had then relapsed into demoralized 
despair. St Paul s use of the passage, therefore, although very 
free, is not alien to its historical setting. See further on ii. 9 
respecting examples of free quotation. For TTOV; see xv. 55; 
Rom. iii. 27. The question is asked in a triumphant tone.f 

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

* He quotes from Isa. xxix. in Col. ii. 22 and Rom. ix. 20. Our Lord 
quotes from it Matt. xi. 5, xv. 8 f. 

t He may have in his mind Isa. xix. 12, TTOU dffiv vvv ol ao(f>oL <rov ; and 
Isa. xxxiii. 18, TTOV ei<riv ol ypa/u./j.a.TiKoi ; irov cl(riv oi <ru/^3oiAetfoi Tes ; No 
where else in N.T., outside Gospels and Acts, does ypa^arevs occur. 
Bachmann shows that there is a parallel between the situation in Isaiah and 
the situation here ; but TOV cuwj/os TOVTOV goes beyond the former. 



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

Ellicott, which makes o-o <os generic, while ypa^/xarevs is applied 
to the Jew, and O-W^TT/TT}? to the Greek. But it is unlikely 
that St Paul is here making an exact classification, or means any 
one of the terms to be applied to Jew or Gentile exclusively. 

au^TjTTjT^s. A a7ra Aeyo/xevov, excepting Ign. Eph. 18, from 
this passage. 

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

ouxl lp.6pa.vev ; Nonne stultam fecit (Vulg.), infatuavit (Tertull. 
and Beza). Cf. Rom. i. 22, 23, and Isa. xix. n, xliv. 25, 33. 
The passage in Romans is an expansion of the thought here. 
God not only showed the futility of the world s wisdom, but 
frustrated it by leaving it to work out its own results, and still 
more by the power of the Cross, effecting what human wisdom 
could not do, not even under the Law (Rom. viii. 3). 

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



After Kfo/JLOv, K 3 C 3 D 3 EFGL, Vulg. Syrr. Copt, add rotrov. 
K* ABC* D* P 17, Orig. omit. It is doubtless an insertion from the 
previous clause. 



21. ^irei&f) ydp. Introduces, as the main thought, God s 
refutation of the world s wisdom by means of what the world 
holds to be folly, viz. the word of the Cross, thus explaining 
(yap) what was stated in vv. 19, 20. But this main thought 
presupposes (eVei&j) the self-stultification of the world s wisdom 
in the providence of God. 

iv TTJ ao<fu a TOU 0oC. This is taken by Chrysostom and 
others (e.g. Edwards, Ellicott) as God s wisdom displayed in His 

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



1.21,22] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 21 

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

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

u&<5KTj<rei>. Connects directly with yap. The word belongs 
to late Greek : Rom. xv. 26 ; Gal. i. 15 ; Col. i. 19. 

8i& rfjs fJLupias TOU KTjpuYfAaros. Cf. Isa. xxviii. 913. K^pvy/xa 
(Matt. xii. 41) differs from /cr?pvis as the aorist does from the 
present or imperfect : it denotes the action, not in process, but 
completed, or viewed as a whole. It denotes, not the thing 
preached (RV. marg.), but the proclamation itself (ii. 4; 
2 Tim. iv. 1 7) ; and here it stands practically for the word of 
the Cross (v. 18), or the Gospel, but with a slight emphasis 
upon the presentation. Krjpva-o-ftv, which in earlier Greek meant 
to herald, passes into its N.T. and Christian use by the fact 
that the Good-tidings proclaimed by Christ and His Apostles 
was the germ of all Christian teaching (Matt. iii. i, iv. 17). 
The foolishness of preaching is a bold oxymoron (cf. v. 25), 
presupposing and interpreting v. 18. In N.T., /xcopio, is peculiar 
to i Cor. (18, 23, ii. 14, iii. 19). 

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



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



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



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

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



The AV. has require a sign. L, Arm. have tn^etoi . Beyond question 
fia. (N A B C D, etc.) must be read : ask for signs is right. B. Weiss 
prefers 



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

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

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

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

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



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

ing, not even plausible : he was not, like the Jew, bent on 
righteousness (Rom. ix. 3o-x. 3). Compare Cicero s horror of 
crucifixion (Pro Rabir. 5), Lucian s reference to our Saviour 
(De mort. Peregr. 13) as TOJ/ di/ccrKoXoTrtcr/xeVov tVetvor cro^tcrT^v, 
and the well-known caricature, found on the Palatine, of a slave 
bowing down to a crucified figure with an ass s head, inscribed 
A\fajjLcvo<s 



A few authorities (C 3 D 3 , Clem-Alex.) have "EXXT/o-t instead of 
Orig. seems to have both readings. 



24. auTois corresponds to rjfjLiv in v. 18, as rots K\T)TOIS to TOIS 
o-G)o/xeVoi< : * to the actual believers in contrast to other Jews 
and Gentiles. The pronoun is an appeal to personal experience, 
as against objections ab extra. 

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

The Divine Power and Wisdom, at their seeming lowest, are 
far above man s highest (25) ; for this reason (22-24) ur Gospel 
a poor thing in the eyes of men, is, to those who know it, the 
Power and Wisdom of God. This exemplifies (21) the truth 
underlying the history of the world, that man s wisdom is con 
victed of failure by the simplicity of the truth as declared by 
God. This is how God, now as of old, turns to folly the wisdom 
of the wise (19, 20), a principle which explains the opposite look 
which the word of the Cross has to the aTroXXv /zei/oi and the 
<r<oo/xei oi (18) : and that is why (17) my mission is to preach 
OVK tv cro<ia Xoyou. 

As a chain of explanatory statements, the argument might 
have gone straight from v. 18 to v. 22 ; but St Paul would not 
omit a twofold appeal, most characteristic of his mind, to Scrip 
ture (19, 20), and to the religious history of mankind (21), the 
latter being exhibited as a verification of the other. 

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

26. pXc irere yap. An unanswerable argumentum ad hominem, 
clinching the result of the above passage, especially the compre 
hensive principle of v. 25. The verb is imperative (RV.), not 
indicative (AV.), and governs ryv K\rj(nv directly. It is needless 
subtlety to make r. *X. an accusative of respect, Behold with 
reference to your call how that not many, etc. 

TT)f K\r\<riv upiy. * Summon before your mind s eye what took 
place then ; note the ranks from which one by one you were 
summoned into the society of God s people ; very few come from 
the educated, influential, or well-connected class. With AcX^crts 
compare fcAqrot, vv. 2, 24 : it refers, not so much to the external 
call, or even to the internal call of God, as to the conversion 
which presupposes the latter : Trdvrwv avOpuiTnov /ce/cX^ei/wv ot 
viraKOvcrai (3ov\Trj6VTVS K\rjrol wvopdcrO-qo-av (Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 

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



I. 26-28] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 2$ 

d&eX<f>oi. As in v. 10, the affectionate address softens what 
might give pain. 

on ou iroXXoi. A substantival clause, in apposition to K\rjo-iv 
as the part to the whole: they are to behold their calling, 
specially noting these facts which characterized it. From * not 
many we may assume that in each case there were some : but 
x. 5 warns us against interpreting ov TroXAoi as meaning more 
than very few. 

Kara adpica. This applies to Sui/arot and cvyevct? as well as to 
o-o^oi. Each of the three terms is capable of a higher sense, 
as evyei et? in Acts xvii. n ; each may be taken either (i) as a 
predicate, not many of the called were wise/ etc. ; or (2) as 
belonging to the subject, the predicate being understood, * not 
many wise had part therein ; or (3) like (2), but with a different 
predicate, not many wise were called* (AV., RV.). The last is 
best. 

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

27. ra jxwpa. Cf. Matt. xi. 25. The gender lends force to the 
paradox : TOVS tro</>ovs leads us to expect TOVS icrxvpovs, K.T.A., but 
the contrast of genders is not kept up in the other cases. 

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



28. eou9en^Va. See on vi. 4; also 2 Cor. x. 10. 
here only. 

Kat rd jxTj oVra. Yea things that are not. The omission of 
the /cat (N* A C* D* F G 17) gives force to the (then) "studi- 

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



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

ously unconnected " and hyperbolical TO, firj ovra : but the /cat 
(K 8 B C s D 3 E L P, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) is quite in St 
Paul s style. The yd] does not mean * supposed not to exist, but 
non-existent, prj with participles being much more common 
than ov. 

KarapyTio-Y]. The verb means * to reduce a person or thing to 
ineffectiveness, to render workless or inoperative, and so to 
bring to nought. It is thus a stronger word than Karaiaxwy, 
and is substituted for it to match the antithesis between ovra 
and p.r) ovra. It is very frequent in this group of the Pauline 
Epistles. Elsewhere it is rare (2 Thess. ii. 8 ; 2 Tim. i. 10; 
Luke xiii. 7 ; Heb. ii. 14) ; only four times in LXX, and very rare 
in Greek authors. Cf. K/u>#f), v. 17, and /cci/wo-a, ix. 15. 



Instead of ra tiyevr) rou K6<r/j,ov, Marcion (Tert. Marc. v. 5, inhonesta et 
minima) seems to have read rd dyevrj /ecu rd 



29. oirws IXTJ Kau^aTjTai iraaa aap. For the construction see 
Rom. iii. 20; Acts x. 14. The negative coheres with the verb, 
not with Trao-a : in xv. 39 (ou Trao-a a-dp) the negative coheres 
with Trao-a. Houra o-dp is a well-known Hebraism (Acts ii. 17), 
meaning here the human race apart from the Spirit ; that all 
mankind should abstain from glorying before God. * 

ivumov TOU 0ou. Another Hebraic phrase. Non coram illo 
sed in illo gloriori possumus (Beng.). 

In His presence ( AV. ) comes from the false reading tv&irtov avrov 
(C, Vulg. Syrr.). The true reading (K A B C 3 D E F G L P, Copt. Aeth.) 
is a forcible contrast to trdcra crdp. 

30. e aurou 8e ujjieis core . But ye (in emphatic contrast) are 
His children (another contrast). This is their true dignity, and 
the 8e shows how different their case is from that of those just 
mentioned. The wise, the strong, the well-born, etc. may boast 
of what seems to distinguish them from others, but it is the 
Christian who really has solid ground for glorying. Some would 
translate But it proceeds from Him that ye are in Christ Jesus, 
i.e. your being Christians is His doing. But in that case tyxet? 
la-re (note the accentuation) is hard to explain : the pronoun is 
superfluous : we should expect simply eV Xpicrrw Ir/o-ov co-re. 
Moreover, the sense given to e avrov is hard to justify. It is 
far more probable that we ought to read {yxeis cVrc (\VH., Light- 
foot, Ellicott) and not /ms cVre (T.R.). The meaning will then 
be, But from Him ye have your being in Christ Jesus. The 

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



I. 30] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 27 

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

09 eyei^0T|. This shows what the previous words involve. 
Not who is made (AV.), nor who was made (RV.), but who 
became by His coming into the world and by what He accom 
plished for us. He showed the highest that God could show to 
man (v. 18, ii. 7), and opened the way to the knowledge of God 
through reconciliation with Him. 

ao4>ia Tjfui . This is the central idea, in contrast with the 
false o-o<j>ia in the context, and it is expanded in the terms which 
follow. For the dative see vv. 18, 24. 

diro ecu. The words justify e aurov and qualify cycvrjOr) . . . 
rjfjuv, not o-o</>ta only. The d points to the source of ultimate 
derivation. See Lightfoot on i Thess. ii. 3. 

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

Kal diroXuTpwats. Placed last for emphasis, as being the 
foundation of all else that we have in Christ (Rom. v. 9, 10, 
viii. 32 ; cf. iii. 24). Others explain the order by reference to 
the thought oifi?ialor completed redemption (Luke xxi. 28 ; Eph. 

* See Deissmann, Die neufestamentliche Formel " in Christo Jesu." 
Chrysostom remarks how St Paul keeps "nailing them to the Name of 
Christ." 

t It was probably in order to co-ordinate all four that L, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. 
Arm. have rjfuv before <ro<t>la. 



28 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 3O, 31 

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

81. tw Kd0ws yeypairrai. Cf. v. 15. We have here a case 
either of broken construction, a direct being substituted for a 
dependent clause (ix. 15), or of ellipse, a verb like yeVryrat being 
understood (iv. 6, xi. 24; 2 Thess. ii. 3; Gal. i. 20, etc.). 

6 icauxwfAeyos. A free quotation, combining the LXX of Jer. 
ix. 23, 24 with i Sam. ii. 10, which resembles it. Jer. ix. 23, 24 
runs, /x>7 Kav^dcrOw 6 <ro<6s iv TT) tro^ta avrov KCU fjirj Kav^do-Oio 6 
IO-^V/DO? iv rrj icr^vt avrov KOLL fjirj KavKacrOu) 6 TrAoutrios iv T<3 TrXoura) 
avrov, dAA 77 ci> Tovra) Kav \d(T (o 6 /cav^to/ACi/os, crui/iu> /cat 
yiVwo-Ktv on eyw ei/xt Kvptos 6 TTOIWV cA.eos. In I Sam. ii. 10 WC 
have S wares and Swa/x,t for tV^vpos and lo-xyi, with the ending, 

ytVCOCTKeiJ/ TOV KvptOV Kat TTOtcTv Kpl/JLO, KOL &lK.a.lO<TVVTr)V Iv /X,(T(3 T^S 

y?/s. The occurrence of the wise and the strong and * the 
rich (as in v. 26 here) makes the quotation very apt. 

Clement of Rome (Cor. 13) quotes the same passage, but 
ends thus } dAA 17 6 /cav^w/xevos iv Kvptw Kav)(d(r6(a TOV eK^ryreti/ 
avroi/ Kat Troietv Kpi/xa Kai SiKaioarvvrjv, thus approximating to 
St Paul s quotation. Probably he quotes the LXX and un 
consciously assimilates his quotation to St Paul s. Lightfoot 
suggests that both the Apostle and Clement may have had a 
Greek version of i Sam. which differed from the LXX. For a 
false glorying in God see Rom. iii. 1 7, and for a true glorying, 
Ecclus. xxxix. 8, 1. 20. 

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

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



II. 1] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 29 

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



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

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

1 And (in accordance with this principle of glory only in the 
Lord) when I first came to Corinth, Brothers, it was as quite an 
ordinary person (so far as any pre-eminence in speech or wisdom 
is concerned) that I proclaimed to you the testimony of God s 
love for you. 2 For I did not care to know, still less to preach, 
anything whatever beyond Jesus Christ; and what I preached 
about Him was that He was crucified. 8 And, as I say, it was 
in weakness and timidity and painful nervousness that I paid my 
visit to you: 4 and my speech to you and my message to you 
were not conveyed in the persuasive words which earthly 
wisdom adopts. No, their cogency came from God s Spirit and 
God s power ; 5 for God intended that your faith should rest on 
His power, and not on the wisdom of man. 

1. Kdyw. And I, accordingly. The K<H emphasizes the 
Apostle s consistency with the principles and facts laid down in 
i. 18-31, especially in 27-31. His first preaching at Corinth 
eschewed the false o-o^ux, and conformed to the essential character 
of the Gospel. The negative side comes first (vv. i, 2). 

e\0wi>. At the time of his first visit (Acts viii. i f.). We 
have an analogous reference, i Thess. i. 5, ii. i. 

dS\4>ot. The rebuke latent in this reminder, and the affec 
tionate memories of his first ministry to souls at Corinth (iv. 15), 
combine to explain this address (i. 10, 26). 

tjXOoi . The repetition, eAflwv Trpos vfias . . . rjX6ov, instead of 
rj\0ov Trpos v(j.a<s, is not a case of broken construction, still less 
a Hebraism. It gives solemn clearness and directness to St 
Paul s appeal to their beginnings as a Christian body. 

K<x0 uirepoxV- Most commentators connect the words with 
KarayytAAon/ rather than yXOov. Compare Kara /cparos (Acts xix. 
20), Kaff vTrep/ifoATJv (i Cor. xii. 31). Elsewhere in N.T. v 



30 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 1, 2 



occurs only i Tim. ii. 2 ; cf. v-rrfp^iv, Rom. xiii. i, etc. Pre 
eminence is an exact equivalent. 

Xoyou $jo-o<f>icis. See on i. 5, 17. 

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

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

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



ov (K 3 B D E F G L P, Vulg. Sah. Aeth. Arm. AV. RV. marg.) 
is probably to be preferred to ^mr-rjpiov (N* A C, Copt. RV.). WII. 
prefer the latter; but it may owe its origin to v. 7. On the other hand, 
. may come from i. 6. 



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

TI eiSe rai. Not quite in the sense of eyvw/ctVcu TI (viii. 2), 
to know something, as Evans here. In that case d /x>J would 
mean but only. But TI simply means anything whatever. 



II. 2, 3] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 31 

ITJO-OUK Xpicnw. As in i. i ; contrast i. 23. In the Epistles 
of this date, Xpio-ro? still designates primarily the Office ; Jesus, 
the Anointed One, and that (not as King in His glory, but) 
crucified. 

Kal TOUTOI eoTTaupcofAtVoy. The force of KOL TOVTOV is definitely 
to specify the point on which, in preaching Jesus Christ, stress 
was laid (6 Aoyos r. o-ravpou, i. 1 8), the effect being that of a 
climax. The Apostle regards the Person and Work of Jesus 
the Messiah as comprising in essence the whole Gospel, and 
the Crucifixion, which with him involves the Resurrection, as 
the turning-point of any preaching of his work. This most vital 
point must not be forgotten when considering w. 6 f. below. 

TI eidtvai (B C P 17) is to be preferred to ctf&cu TI (NAD 2 FGL). 
D 2 L ins. TOV before eidtvai TI. 

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

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

tv <f>6|3u> Kal tV Tp6|A<o iroXXw. We have </>o/?o5 and rpo/xo? com 
bined in 2 Cor. vii. 15 ; Phil. ii. 12 ; Eph. vi. 5. The physical 
manifestation of distress is a climax. St Paul rarely broke new 
ground without companions, and to face new hearers required 
an effort for which he had to brace himself. But it was not the 
Gospel which he had to preach that made him tremble : he was 



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

not ashamed of that (Rom. i. 16). Nor was it fear of personal 
danger. It was rather "a trembling anxiety to perform a duty." 
In Eph. vi. 5, slaves are told to obey their masters /xera <o/?ov K. 
rpo/zou, which means with that conscientious anxiety that is 
opposed to o<#aA./xoSouAta (Conybeare and Howson).* No 
other N.T. writer has this combination of <o/2os and rpo /zos. 
Some MSS. omit the second eV. 

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

4. ica! 6 Xoyos jxou. See on i. 5, 17. Various explanations 
have been given of the difference between Aoyos and K^pvyyua, 
and it is clear that to make the former * private conversation, 
and the latter public preaching, is not satisfactory. Nor is the 
one the delivery of the message and the other the substance of 
it: see on i. 21. More probably, 6 Xoyos looks back to i. 18, 
and means the Gospel which the Apostle preached, while 
Kr/puy/ta is the act of proclamation, viewed, not as a process 
(K?jpWris), but as a whole. Cf. 2 Tim. iv. 17. 

OUK tV m9ois o-ocfuas Xoyois. The singular word 7ri0o<? or 
Trio s, which is found nowhere else, is the equivalent of the 
classical TnOavos, which Josephus (Ant. vm. ix. i) uses of the 
plausible words of the lying prophet of i Kings xiii. The only 
exact parallel to Tritfo s or TTCI^O? from 7m 0co is <iSos or <ei8o? from 
<ei So/A<u, and in both cases the spelling with a diphthong seems 
to be incorrect (WH. App. p. 153). The rarity of the word has 
produced confusion in the text. Some cursives and Latin 
witnesses support a reading which is found in Origen and in 
Eus. Praep. vang. i. 3., Iv TreiOou [dv^pwTriVi/?] <rot/>ias Aoyoov, in 
persuasione sapicntiae \humanae\ verbi, or sermones for sermonis ; 
where irtiOol is the dat. of 7m#w. From this, iv TrciOoL o-o^i as 
has been conjectured as the original reading ; but the evidence 
of N A B C D E L P for eV TTI&HS or 7ra0ots is decisive ; f and while 
o-o(i as Aoyois almost certainly is genuine, dv^pwTrtVrys almost 
certainly is not, except as interpretation. 

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

* Three times in Acts (xviii. 9, xxiii. u, xxvii. 24) St Paul receives en 
couragement from the Lord. There was something in his temperament which 
needed this. In Corinth the vision assured him that his work was approved 
and would succeed. He not only might work, he must do so (ix. 16). 

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



II. 4] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 33 

throughout this passage, was specially directed to the art of 
persuasion : cf. TriOavoXoyia. (Col. ii. 4). 

dTro8ei|ei. Not elsewhere in N.T. It has two very different 
meanings: (i) display or showing off (cf. iv. 9 and Luke 
i. 80), and (2) demonstration in the sense of stringent proof. 
The latter is the meaning here. Aristotle distinguishes it from 
cruAAoyioyxo s. The latter proves that a certain conclusion follows 
from given premises, which may or may not be true. In a-rro- 
Seii5 the premises are known to be true, and therefore the 
conclusion is not only logical, but certainly true. In Eth. Nic. 
i. iii. 4 we are told that to demand rigid demonstrations (a-n-o- 
Seieis) from a rhetorician is as unreasonable as to allow a 
mathematician to deal in mere plausibilities. Cf. Plato Phaed. 
77 C, Theaet. 162 E.* St Paul is not dealing with scientific 
certainty : but he claims that the certitude of religious truth 
to the believer in the Gospel is as complete and as objective 
equal in degree, though different in kind as the certitude of 
scientific truth to the scientific mind. Mere human o-o&a may 
dazzle and overwhelm and seem to be unanswerable, but assensum 
constringit non res ; it does not penetrate to those depths of the 
soul which are the seat of the decisions of a lifetime. The 
Stoics used d,7ro8eiis in this sense. 

Tryeufxaros ica! Suyajxews. See on i. 1 8. The demonstration 
is that which is wrought by God s power, especially His power 
to save man and give a new direction to his life, As it is all 
from God, why make a party-hero of the human instrument? 
Some Greek Fathers suppose that miracle-working power is 
meant, which is an idea remote from the context. Origen 
refers Trvev/xaros to the O.T. prophecies, and oWa//,ews to the 
N.T. miracles, thus approximating to the merely philosophic 
sense of <x7ro8ais. And if 8iW//,ecos means God s power, TTVCV- 
/xaros will mean His Spirit, the Holy Spirit. The article is 
omitted as in v. 13 (cf. Gal. v. 16 and Phil. ii. i with 2 Cor. 
xiii. 13). See Ellicott ad loc. The genitives are either sub 
jective, demonstration proceeding from and wrought by the 
Spirit and power of God, or qualifying, demonstration con 
sisting in the spirit and power of God, as distinct from per 
suasion produced by mere cleverness. The sense of Trvcv/xaros 
is well given by Theophylact : dpp^ro) rua rpoVo) TTI OTIV evcTrotet 
rots d/covovo-tv. For the general sense see i Thess. i. 5 and 
ii. 13; our Gospel came not in word only, but also in power 
and in the Holy Spirit ; and ye accepted it not as the word 
of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also 

* In papyri, ct7r6etts is used of official evidence or proof. Bachmann 
quotes; dirbSeij-iv 5oi)s TOV inLffTaadai icpaTtKO. ypafj-fjura (Tebt. Pap. ii. 291, 
40. 

3 



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

worketh in you that believe. St Paul s appeal is to the strong 
conviction and deep practical power of the Gospel. Not that 
strong conviction is incompatible with error: there is such 
a thing as ivepycia 7rX<ivr]<s, causing men to believe what is false 
(2 Thess. ii. n); but the false <ro<ta engenders no depth of 
conviction. Lightfoot quotes Longinus, who describes St Paul 
as Trpcorov . . . Trpoicrra/u.ei ov Soy^aros di/aTroSeiVrov meaning 
philosophic proof, whereas St Paul is asserting a proof different 
in kind. " It was moral, not verbal [nor scientific] demonstra 
tion at which he aimed." This epistle is proof of that. 

di>0pwirii>i]s (K C ACLP, Copt. AV.) before <ro0tas is rejected by all 
editors. 

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

/XT) Vj lv ao<Jua dyOpcuirui . The preposition marks the medium 
or sphere in which faith has its root: cf. eV TOVTW irtorcuofiev 
(John xvi. 30). We often express the same idea "by depend 
on rather than by rooted in ; that your faith may not 
depend upon wisdom of men, but upon power of God. What 
depends upon a clever argument is at the mercy of a cleverer 
argument. Faith, which is at its root personal trust, springs 
from the vital contact of human personality with divine. Its 
affirmations are no mere abstract statements, but comprise the 
experience of personal deliverance ; ol8a yap u> iren-io-TcvKa (2 Tim. 
i. 12). Here the negative statement is emphasized. 

(ii.) II. 6-III. 4. The True Wisdom. 
II. 6-13. The True Wisdom described. 

To mature Christians we Apostles preach the Divine 
Wisdom, which God has revealed to us by His Spirit. 

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



II. 6] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 35 

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

6. locfucu 8e Xa\oGjjiK. The germ of the following passage is 
in i. 24, 30 : Christ crucified is to the KXyroi the wisdom of 
God. This is the guiding thought to be borne in mind in 
discussing St Paul s conception of the true wisdom.* There 
are two points respecting XaXov^tv. Firstly, St Paul includes 
others with himself, not only his immediate fellow-workers, 
but the Apostolic body as a whole (xv. n). Secondly, the 
verb means simply * utter : it must not be pressed to denote 
a kind of utterance distinct from Adyos and Krjpvyjj.a (v. 4), 
such as private conversation. 

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

* See ch. x. in Chad wick, Pastoral Teaching, pp. 356 f., and note the 
emphatic position of cro<plai>. 

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



36 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 6 

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

It is quite clear that St Paul distinguishes two classes of 
hearers, and that both of them are distinct from the aTroX-Xv^vot 
of i. 1 8, or the Jews and Greeks of i. 22, 23. On the one 
hand, there are the re Aeioi, whom he calls lower down Trveu/xa- 
riKot (v. i3-iii. i); on the other hand, there is the anomalous 
class of o-apKivoi, who are babes in Christ. Ideally, all Chris 
tians, as such, are Trj/cv/xariKot (xii. 31; Gal. iii. 2, 5; Rom. 
viii. 9, 15, 26). But practically, many Christians need to be 
treated as (u>9, iii. i), and to all intents are, o-dpKivoi, 1/7777-101, 
if/vxt-Koi (v. 14), even o-ap/a/coi (iii. 3). The work of the Apostle 
has as its aim the raising of all such imperfect Christians to 
the normal and ideal standard ; Iva. TrapuoT^o-w/Aev Trdvra avOpta- 
TTOV Te Aetoi/ eV Xpi<rT<S (Col. i. 28, where see Lightfoot). St Paul s 
thought, therefore, seems to be radically different from that 
which is ascribed to Pythagoras, who is said to have divided 
his disciples into reAaoi and vfjirioi. It is certainly different 
from that of the Gnostics, who erected a strong barrier between 
the initiated (reA-etoi) and the average Christians (^u^tKot). 
There are clear traces of this Gnostic distinction between 
esoteric and exoteric Christians in the school of Alexandria 
(Eus. H.E. v. xi.), and a residual distinction survives in the 
ecclesiastical instinct of later times (Ritschl, Fides Implicita). 
The vital difference is this: St Paul, with all true teachers, 
recognizes the principle of gradations. He does not expect 
the beginner at once to equal the Christian of ripe experience ; 
nor does he expect the Gospel to level all the innumerable 
diversities of mental and moral capacity (viii. 7, xii. 12-27; 
Rom. xiv.). But, although gradations of classes among Christians 
must be allowed, there must be no differences of caste. The 
wisdom is open to all; and all, in their several ways, are 
capable of it, and are to be trained to receive it. So far as 
the Church, in any region or in any age, is content to leave 
any class in permanent nonage, reserving spiritual understanding 
for any caste, learned, or official, or other, so far the Apostolic 
charge has been left unfulfilled and the Apostolic ideal has 
been abandoned. 

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

TOU alamos TOUTOU. See on i. 20. 

Twy dpxornm It is quite evident from v. 8 that the 
are those who took part in the Crucifixion of the Lord 
of Glory. They, therefore, primarily include the rulers of the 



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

Jews. Peter says, KCU vvv, dSeA^oe, oTSa ort Kara ayvoiav 7rpaaT, 
wcrTrep KOL ol ap^ovTeg vfjiMv (Acts iii. 17); and if St Luke is 
responsible for the form in which this speech is reported, the 
words may be regarded as the earliest commentary on our 
passage. But Pilate also was a party to the crime : and the 
rulers of this dispensation includes all, as well ecclesiastical 
as civil. 

Some Fathers and early writers, from Marcion (Tert. Marc. 
v. 6) downwards, understand the ap^ovTcs TOV a twos TOV TOV to 
mean demons : cf. Koo"//,o/<paTopas TOV CTKOTOVS TOV auoi/o? TOVTOU 
(Eph. vi. 12). Perhaps this idea exists already in Ignatius; 
2A.a0ev TOV ap^ovra TOV auLvos TOVTOV ... 6 8dva.TO<s TOV Kvpi ov. 
See Thackeray, The Relation of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish 
Thought, pp. i56f., 230 n. But this interpretation is wholly 
incompatible with v. 8, as also is the very perverse suggestion 
of Schmiedel that St Paul refers to Angels, whose rule over 
certain departments in God s government of the world belongs 
only to this dispensation, and ceases with it (/caTapyov/xeVwv), 
and who are unable to see into the mysteries of redemption 
(Gal. iii. 19; i Pet. i. 12). See Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 5. 

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



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

0oG (rofyiav. The cov is very emphatic, as the context 
demands, and nearly every uncial has the words in this order. 
To read o-oc/uav eov (L) mars the sense. 

iv fiucmjpuj). We may connect this with AaAov/xev, to charac 
terize the manner of communication, as we say, to speak in a 
whisper, or to characterize its effect while declaring a mystery. 
Or we may connect with o-o<piW : and this is better, in spite of 
the absence of TTJV before iv /AVO-T^PIU) (see Lightfoot on i Thess. 
i. i). The wisdom is iv /AVO-T^PI W, because it has been for 
so long a secret, although now made known to all who can 
receive it, the ayioi (Col. i. 26) and KXvrroi. 

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



38 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 7 

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

T^f diroKeKpufifAeVT]! . For the sense see Eph. iii. 5 ; Col. i. 26 ; 
Rom. xvi. 25. The words are explanatory of eV /xva-r^pio). The 
wisdom of God had been hidden even from prophets and 
saints (Luke x. 24), until the fulness of time: now it is made 
manifest. But it remains hidden from those who are not pre 
pared to receive it; e.g. from Jews (2 Cor. iii. 14) and the 
diroAAufici oi generally (2 Cor. iv. 3-6). This contrast is followed 
up in vv. 8-1 6. 

fy Trpoupiack 6 0e6s. To be taken directly with the words 
that follow, without supplying a-rroKaXvif/ai or any similar link. 
The wisdom is Christ crucified (i. 18-24), fore-ordained by 
God (Acts iv. 28; Eph. iii. u) for the salvation of men. It was 
no afterthought or change of plan, as Theodoret remarks, but was 
fore-ordained avuOev *ou * a.px^> 

els &6ay rjjxwi/. Our eternal glory, or complete salvation 
(2 Cor. iv. 7 ; Rom. viii. 18, 21, etc.). From meaning opinion, 
and hence public repute, praise, or honour, Sda acquires in 
many passages the peculiarly Biblical sense of splendour, 
brightness, glory. This glory is used sometimes of physical 
splendour, sometimes of special excellence and pre-eminency ; 
or again of majesty, denoting the unique glory of God, the 
sum-total either of His incommunicable attributes, or of those 
which belong to Christ. In reference to Christ, the glory may 
be either that of His pre-incarnate existence in the Godhead, 
or of His exaltation through Death and Resurrection, at God s 
right hand. 

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

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



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

Christ, but by Christians of full growth? Some weighty con 
siderations suggest the former view, which is adopted by Clement, 
Origen, Meyer, and others ; especially the clear distinction made 
in iii. i, 2 between the yaAa and the ySpw/xa, coupled with the 
right meaning of iv in v. 6. On the other hand, the frequent 
assertions (i. 18, 24, 30) that Christ crucified is the Power and 
Wisdom of God, coupled with the fact that this Wisdom was 
fore-ordained for our salvation (see also o-oxrai in i. 21), seem 
to demand the equation of the wisdom uttered by the Apostle 
with the /awpt a rou Krjpuy^taTos, and the equation of cov <ro<iav 
in ii. 7 with eov o-o^tav in i. 24 (cf. i. 30). These considera 
tions seem to be decisive. With Heinrici, Edwards, and others, 
we conclude that St Paul s wisdom is the Gospel, simply. 
With this Chrysostom agrees ; tro<j>iav Aeyet TO KTjpuy/za *ai rov 
rfjs (Twr^pias, TO Sia TOU o~raupou crwO^jvcu TtAeiovs ot TOUS 



But the yaAa and the /?po>/x.a of iii. 2, and the distinction 
between TeAeioi and VYJTTIOI iv Xpio-Tw, must be satisfied. The 
Te Aeioi are able to follow the * unsearchable riches of Christ and 
manifold wisdom of God (Eph. iii. 8, 10) into regions of 
spiritual insight, and into questions of practical import, to which 
VIJTTLOL cannot at present rise. But they may rise, and with 
proper nurture and experience will rise. There is no bar to 
their progress. 

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

8. r\y ou&els . . . eyvuKtv. The j]v must refer to o-o<i av, which 
wisdom none of the rulers of this world hath discerned. 

cl yap- Parenthetical confirmation of the previous statement. 
Had they discerned, as they did not, they would not have cruci 
fied, as they did. It is manifest from this that the apxoi/Tcs are 



40 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 8, 9 

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

TOI> Kupioy -rijs 8o|fjs. Cf. Jas. ii. i ; Eph. i. 1 7 ; Acts vii. 2 ; 
also Ps. xxiv. 7 ; Heb. ix. 5. The genitive is qualifying, but the 
attributive force is strongly emphatic, bringing out the contrast 
between the indignity of the Cross (Heb. xii. 2) and the majesty 
of the Victim (Luke xxii. 69, xxiii. 43).* 

9. d\Xd. On the contrary (so far from any, even among the 
great ones of this world, knowing this wisdom, the event was) 
just as it stands written. There is no difficulty in understanding 
ye yovei/, or some such word, with Ka0ws ye ypaTrrat. But the con 
struction can be explained otherwise, and perhaps better. See 
below, and on i. 19. 

& 64>0aXjj,os OUK elSey. The relative is co-ordinate with fy in 
v. 8, refers to o-o<i a, and therefore is indirectly governed by 
XaXov/ter in v. 7 (so Heinrici, Meyer, Schmiedel). It might (so 
Evans) be governed by aTreKaXvi^ej/, if we read r^lv Se and take 
v. 10 as an apodosis. But this is awkward, especially as a does 
not precede Ka0ws yeypaTrrat. The only grammatical irregularity 
which it is necessary to acknowledge is that a serves first as an 
accusative governed by eTSei/ and T/KOVO-CJ/, then as nominative to 
di/e/??7, and once more in apposition to oo-o. (or a) in the accus 
ative. Such an anacoluthon is not at all violent. 

eirl KapSi af . . . OUK di^j3i). Cf. Acts vii. 23; Isa. Ixv. 17; 
Jer. iii. 16, etc. * Heart in the Bible includes the mind, as 
here, Rom. i. 21, x. 6, etc. 

o<ra. In richness and scale they exceed sense and thought 
(John xiv. 2). 

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

* Crux servorum supplicium. Eo Dominum gloriae affccerunt (Beng. ). 
"The levity of philosophers in rejecting the cross was only surpassed by 
the stupidity of politicians in inflicting it (Findlay). The placing of T.K.T. 
OT?S between OVK &v and the verb throws emphasis on the words ; * they would 
never have crucified the Lord of Glory* : cf. Heb. iv. 8, viii. 7 ( Abbott, Johan* 
nine Gr. t 2566). 



II. 9] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 41 

TOIS dycurwffii OLUTQV. See Rom. viii. 28-30. Clement of 
Rome (Cor. 34), in quoting this passage, restores TOIS inrofMcvovo-iv 
from Isa. Ixiv. 4 in place of rots ayaTrwviv. This seems to show 
that he regards the Ka0u>s ye ypaTrrai as introducing a quotation 
from Isaiah. 

We ought possibly to read 8<ra -fjToljuacrev with ABC, Clem-Rom. 
But d r)Tolfj.affet> is strongly supported (tt D E F G L P, Clem- Alex. Orig. 
Polyc-Mart.). Vulg. has quae with d e f g r. 

The much debated question of the source of St Paul s quota 
tion must be solved within the limits imposed by his use of /ca0o>s 
ye ypaTmu. See on i. 19 and 31. The Apostle unquestionably 
intends to quote Canonical Scripture. Either, then, he actually 
does so, or he unintentionally (Meyer) slips into a citation from 
some other source. The only passages of the O.T. which come 
into consideration are three from Isaiah, (i) Ixiv. 4, airo rov 
cuon/og OVK f) KOV or a fAev ouSe ot o<0aA./xot ^xujv T S o v eov 
rA^v crov KOL TO. tpya <rov, a Trot^aets TOIS vTro/xevoucriv e/Veov (Heb. 
* From eternity they have not heard, they have not hearkened, 
neither hath eye seen, a God save Thee, who shall do gloriously 
for him that awaiteth Him ). (2) Ixv. 17, KOL ov ^ e ire A. #77 
avrwv eTri rrjv KapSiav (observe the context). Also (3) Hi. 15, 
as quoted Rom. xv. 21, a passage very slightly to the purpose. 
The first of these three passages is the one that is nearest to the 
present quotation. Its general sense is, * The only living God, 
who, from the beginning of the world, has proved Himself to be 
such by helping all who trust in His mercy, is Jehovah ; and it 
must be admitted that, although germane, it is not very close to 
St Paul s meaning here. But we must remember that St Paul 
quotes with great freedom, often compounding different passages 
and altering words to suit his purpose. Consider the quotations 
in i. 19, 20, 31, and in Rom. ix. 27, 29, and especially in Rom. 
ix. 31, x. 6, 8, 15. Freedom of quotation is a vera causa; and 
if there are degrees of freedom, an extreme point will be found 
somewhere. With the possible exception of the doubtful case 
in Eph. v. 14, it is probable that we reach an extreme point here. 
This view is confirmed by the fact that Clement of Rome, in the 
earliest extant quotation from our present passage, goes back to 
the LXX of Isa. Ixiv. 4, which is evidence that he regarded that 
to be the source of St Paul s quotation. At the very least, it 
proves that Clement felt that there was resemblance between 
i Cor. ii. 9 and Isa. Ixiv. 4. 

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



42 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 9 

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

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

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

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

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

* Lightfoot, S. Clement of Rome, i. pp. 389 f., 11. pp. io6f. ; Hammond, 
Liturgies Eastern and Western, p. x. Neither Origen nor Jerome know of 
any liturgical source. 



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

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

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



10. fjfui yap. Reason why we can utter things hidden from 
eye, ear, and mind of man : Because to us God, through the 
Spirit, unveiled them, or, For to us they were revealed by God 
through the Spirit. The i)/uv follows hard upon and interprets 
rot? dyaTToucrii/ avroV, just as fjfuv on rot? <rwo/xevots (i. 1 8) : cf. 
fjfuv in i. 30 and vm&v in ii. 7. The ^/AIV is in emphatic contrast 
to the rulers of this world who do not know (v. 8). God 
reveals His glory, through His Spirit, to those for whom it is 
prepared. See note on v. 7 ; also Eph. i. 14, 17 ; 2 Cor. i. 22. 

If 8e be read instead of yap, we must either adopt the awkward 
construction of a 6<0aA//.os K.T.A.. advocated by Evans and rejected 
above, or else, with Ellicott, make 6e introduce a second and 
supplementary contrast (co-ordinate with, but more general than, 
that introduced by aXXa in v. 9) to the ignorance of the 
apxorres in v. 8. On the whole, the "latent inferiority" of the 
reading 8e is fairly clear. 

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

TO yap ir^eujjia. Explanatory of 8ta TOV Tri cu/xaros. The o"coo- 
uei/ot and the dyaTrw^Tes TOV eoV possess the Spirit, who has, and 
gives access to, the secrets of God. 

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

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



44 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 10, 11 

activity of divine knowledge " (Edwards) ; or rather, it expresses 
the activity of the Spirit in throwing His light upon the deep 
things of God, for those in whom He dwells. Scrntatur omnia, 
non quia nescit, ut inveniat, sed quia nihil relinquit quod nesciat 
(Atto). For the form see Gregory, Prolegomena to Tisch., 
p. 8 1. 

rot |3ci0T]. Cf. O fidOos TrXovrou KOLL <ro<ias Kal yvajaewg eov 
(Rom. xi. 33), and contrast TO, /?a0ea roO ^arai/a, u>s Aeyou(riv (Rev. 

ii. 24 ).* 

Tjfuv yap (Band several cursives, Sah. Copt., Clem- Alex. Bas.) seems to 
be preferable to TJ/U" ^ (NACDEFGLP, Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth., 
Orig.), but the external evidence for the latter is very strong. Certainly 
dTre/faXu^ec 6 9e6s (K A B C D E F G P, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) is 
preferable to 6 Geos air. (L, Sah. Orig.). After Tn/ei^aros, N 3 D E F G L, 
Vulg. Syrr. Sah. Arm. Aeth. AV. add avrov. K* A B C, Copt. RV. omit. 



11. TI S Y^P oi&cv dyOpwircoi . This verse, taken as a whole, 
confirms the second clause of v. 10, and thereby further explains 
the words 8ta TOV Tn/cv/xaros. The words avOpu-mav and di/0pe>7rov, 
repeated, are emphatic, the argument being a minori ad ma/us. 
Even a human being has within him secrets of his own, which 
no human being whatever can penetrate, but only his own spirit. 
How much more is this true of God ! The language here 
recalls Prov. XX. 27, <ws Kvpiov Tn/or) avOpuTrwv, os epawa Ta/ma 
KotXias. Cf. Jer. xvii. 9, 10. The question does not mean that 
nothing about God can be known ; it means that what is known 
is known through His Spirit (v. 10). 

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

TO irveupa. TOU &v9p. TO iv auTw. The word Trvevpa is here used, 
as in v. 5, vii. 34; 2 Cor. vii. i ; i Thess. v. 23, in the purely 
psychological sense, to denote an element in the natural con 
stitution of every human being. This sense, if we carefully 
separate all passages where it may stand for the spirit of man as 
touched by the Spirit of God, is not very frequent in Paul. See 
below on v. 14 for the relation of Trrcv/u-a to i/a^r;. 

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

eyi wicei . This seems to be purposely substituted for the 
weaker and more general otSei/. For the contrast between the 
two see 2 Cor. v. 16; i John ii. 29. "The lyvw/cev seems to 
place Ta TOV eov a degree more out of reach than oTScv does TO. 
TOV avOpu-n-ov " (Lightfoot, whose note, with its illustrations from 
i John, should be consulted). This passage is a locus dassicus 

* Clem. Rom. (Cor. 40) has irpo8rj\wv ofa r//iiV &VTUV TOVTUV, /cat 4yiteKV- 
$6res els ra f3d0r) rrjs deias yvuxrewj. 



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

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

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

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



A 17, Ath. Cyr-Alex. omit dv6puirti)i>. F G omit the second TOV 
TTOU. F G have ^7ca>, while L has oldev, for tyvwuev (N A B C D E P, 
Vulg. cognovit}, 

12. rjfxeis 8e. See on rjfuv in v. 10: we Christians. 
ou TO TTkcujia TOU KoajAou . . . aXXd. An interjected negative 
clause, added to give more force to the positive statement that 
follows, as in Rom. viii. 15. What does St Paul mean by the 
spirit of the world ? 

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

(2) Heinrici, Lightfoot, and others understand of the temper 
of the world, "the spirit of human wisdom, of the world as 
alienated from God " : non sumus instituti sapientia mundi (Est.). 
On this view it is practically identical with the avOpwrnvrj <ro<j>ta 
of v. 13, and homogeneous with the <f>p6vr)fJM T^S o-apKos of Rom. 
viii. 6, 7 : indeed, it may be said to be identical with it in 
substance, though not in aspect. In both places in this verse, 
therefore, Tn/ev/za would be impersonal, and almost attributive, as 
in Rom. viii. 15; but there the absence of the article makes a 
difference. Compare the Tn/efym erepov o OUK cXa/ScTt in 2 Cor. 
xi. 4. On the whole, this second explanation of the spirit of 
the world seems to be the better. 

\d|3ofAK. Like aTreKaXui/^v (v. 10), this aorist refers to a 
definite time when the gift was received. " St Paul regards the 
gift as ideally summed up when he and they were ideally included 
in the Christian Church, though it is true that the Spirit is 
received constantly" (Lightfoot). Cf. xii. 13. 



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

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

Iva. eiowp-v. This is the result to which w. 10-12 lead up. 
The words reproduce, under a different aspect, the thought in 
o eos, and give the foundation for v. 13, a KCU 



a, f\piv. The same blessings appear suc 
cessively as &6av -(7/xtoi/ (v. 7), ocra rjTOifJMO-cv K.T.A.. (v. 9), and ra 
xapLo-Owra (v. 12). The last perhaps includes " a little more of 
present reference " (Ellicott). The connexion of thought in the 
passage may be shown by treating w. n and 12 as expanding 
the thought of v. 10 into a kind of syllogism; major premiss, 
None knows the things of God, but only the Spirit of God; 
minor premiss, We received the Spirit which is of God; con 
clusion, So that we know what is given us by God. The 
possession of the gift of the Spirit of God is a sort of middle 
term which enables the Apostle to claim the power to know, and 
to utter, the deep things of God. 

After rou xAr/tou, D E F G, Vulg. Copt. Arm. add rorfrov. K A B C L P, 
Syrr. Aeth. omit. 

13. a KCU XaXoupcp. This is the dominant verb of the whole 
passage (w. 6, 7 : see notes on yv, v. 8, a and oo-a, v. 9). The 
Kat emphasizes the justification, furnished by the preceding 
verses, for the claim made ; Which are the very things that we 
do utter. The present passage is the personal application of 
the foregoing, as w. 1-5 are of i. 18-31. 

Si&dKTois dkOpwmnrjg o-o<f>ias. Taught by man s wisdom. 
We have similar genitives in John vi. 45, SiSaxrol eov, and in 
Matt. xxv. 34, cuAoy^/tcvot roC Trarpos. In class. Grk. the con 
struction is found only in poets ; /mVrjs StSaKTa (Soph. Elect. 343), 
SiSa/crats avOpwTruv aperats (Pind. OL ix. 152). Cf. i. 17. 

StSaKTois Tn/eu fxaTo?. See on v. 4, where, as here and i Thess. 
i. 5, Trvevjua has no article. The Apostle is not claiming verbal 
inspiration ; but verba rem sequuntur (Wetstein). Cf. Luke xxi. 
15; Jer. i. 9. Sapientia est scaturigo sermonum (Beng.). Bentley, 
Kuenen, etc. conjecture ev dStSa/crots Trvev/xaros. 

Tr^eufiaTiKois TTkeujAaTiKa auyKpiyorres. Two questions arise 
here, on the answer to which the interpretation of the words 
depends, the gender of 7n/ev/x,aTiKots, and the meaning of <rw- 



II. 13] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 47 

KptVciv. The latter is used by St Paul only here and 2 Cor. x. 1 2, 
where it means * to compare. This is a late use, frequent from 
Aristotle onwards, but out of place here, although adopted in 
both AV. and RV. text. Its classical meaning is to join 
fitly, compound, combine (RV. marg.). In the LXX it has 
the meaning to interpret, but only in the case of dreams 
(Gen. xl. 8, 16, 22, xli. 12, 15; Judg. vii. 15; Dan. v. 12, 
vii. 15, 1 6). We have, therefore, the following possibilities to 
consider : 

(1) Taking Tri/c^art/cot? as neuter; either, 

(a) Combining spiritual things (the words) with spiritual 

things (the subject matter) ; or, 
(ft) Interpreting (explaining) spiritual things by spiritual 

things. 

This (ft) may be understood in a variety of ways ; 
Interpreting O.T. types by N.T. doctrines. 
Interpreting spiritual truths by spiritual language. 
Interpreting spiritual truths by spiritual faculties. 
Of these three, the first is very improbable; the third is 
substantially the explanation adopted by Luther; und richte?i 
geistliche Sachen geistlich. 

(2) Taking irv^v^anKoi^ as masculine ; either, 

(y) Suiting (matching) spiritual matter to spiritual 

hearers ; or, 
(8) Interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual hearers. 

In favour of taking Tn/ev/xartKoIs as neuter may be urged the 
superior epigrammatic point of keeping the same gender for both 
terms, and the naturalness of Tn/ev/AariKots being brought into 
close relation with the <rw- in a-uvKpivovrts. These considera 
tions are of weight, and the resultant sense is good and relevant, 
whether we adopt (a) or the third form of (ft). As Theodore 
of Mopsuestia puts it, 8ta rail/ rov Trrcu/xaros a7ro8eiea)i> rrjv rov 
Tryev/xaro? SiSacr/caAi av 7ricrTOv/A$a. 

On the other hand, in favour of taking Tr^cv/xartKo?? as mascu 
line, there is its markedly emphatic position, as if to prepare the 
way for the contrast with (J/V^LKO^ which immediately follows, and 
which now becomes the Apostle s main thought. This considera 
tion perhaps turns the scale in favour of taking Tn/cu/xaTi/cois as 
spiritual persons Of the two explanations under this head, one 
would unhesitatingly prefer (8), were not the use of trvvKptvcw in 
the sense of interpret confined elsewhere to the case of dreams. 
This objection is not fatal, but it is enough to leave us in doubt 
whether St Paul had this meaning in his mind. The other 
alternative (y) has the advantage of being a little less remote 
from the Apostle s only other use of the word. In either case, 
taking irv. as masculine, we have the Apostle coming back " full 



48 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 13, 14 



circle " to the thought of v. 6, ei> rots rcXciois, which now receives 
its necessary justification. 

Before concluding the discussion of the true wisdom, the 
Apostle glances at those who are, and those who are not, fitted 
to receive it. 

After Tn/ei^aros, D 3 E L P, Aeth. AV. add 07101;. K A B C D* F G 17, 
Vulg, RV. omit. 



II. 14-111. 4. THE SPIRITUAL AND THE ANIMAL 
CHARACTERS. 

Only the spiritual man can receive the true wisdom. 
You Corinthians cannot receive it, for your dissensions show 
that you are not spiritual. 

14 Now the man whose interests are purely material has no 
mind to receive what the Spirit of God has to impart to him : it 
is all foolishness to him, and he is incapable of understanding it, 
because it requires a spiritual eye to see its true value. 15 But 
the spiritual man sees the true value of everything, yet his own 
true value is seen by no one who is not spiritual like himself. 
16 For what human being ever knew the thoughts of the Lord 
God, so as to be able to instruct and guide Him ? But those of 
us who are spiritual do share the thoughts of Christ. 

iii. * And I, Brothers, acting on this principle, have not been 
able to treat you as spiritual persons, but as mere creatures of 
flesh and blood, as still only babes in the Christian course. 
2 1 gave you quite elementary teaching, and not the more solid 
truths of the Gospel, for these ye were not yet strong enough 
to digest. 3 So far from being so then, not even now are ye 
strong enough, for ye are still mere beginners. For so long as 
jealousy and contention prevail among you, are you not mere 
tyros, behaving no better than the mass of mankind ? 4 For 
when one cries, I for my part stand by Paul, and another, I by 
Apollos, are you anything better than men who are still 
uninfluenced by the Spirit of God ? 



14. \|/UXIKOS Se akOpwiTos. This is in sharpest contrast to 
Trveu/zcm/cots (v. 13), for i/o^t/cos means animal (animalis homo, 
Vulg.) in the etymological sense, and nearly so in the ordinary 
sense: see xv. 44, 46; Jas. iii. 15; Jude 19 



II. 14, 15] SPIRITUAL AND ANIMAL CHARACTERS 49 



The term is not necessarily based upon a supposed 
trichotomous psychology, as inferred by Apollinaris and others 
from TO TTVfvfjia KCU rj ^ v x^) Kct T <T<*>[ji.a in Thess. v. 23 (see 
Lightfoot s note). It is based rather upon the conception of 
tyvxn as the mere correlative of organic life. Aristotle defines it 
as 7rp<OT?7 evTcXc ^cta (raj/mro? (J^VCTLKOV 6pya.viK.ov. In man, this 
comprises Tn/ev/xa in the merely psychological sense (note on 
v. n), but not necessarily in the sense referred to above (note 
on v. 12). See, however, v. 5; Phil. i. 27 ; Eph. vi. 17; Col. 
iii. 23 ; i Pet. iv. 6. In Luke i. 46, ij/vxv an( ^ irvevpa seem to be 
synonymous. The 1/^77 ranges with i/ovs (Rom. vii. 23, 35 ; 
Col. ii. 1 8), in one sense contrasted with o-ap, but like o-dp in 
its inability to rise to practical godliness, unless aided by the 
7ri/cv/xa. We may say that i/^x*j is the * energy or correlative 
of crap. 

Although, therefore, tyvxn is not used in N.T. in a bad sense, 
to distinguish the animal from the spiritual principle in the 
human soul, yet i/or^xo ? is used of a man whose motives do not 
rise above the level of merely human needs and aspirations. 
The \I/V\IKOS is the unrenewed man, the natural man 
(AV., RV.), as distinct from the man who is actuated by the 
Spirit. The word is thus practically another name for the 
crap/aKos (iii. i, 3). See Kirkpatrick on Wisd. ix. 15. 

ou Sc xeTcu. Not is incapable of receiving, but does not 
accept, i.e. he rejects, refuses. Ae ^ecrflai = to accept, to take 
willingly (2 Cor. viii. 17 ; i Thess. i. 6, etc.). 

on TtveujAaTiKuis dmKpiVerat. The nature of the process is 
beyond him ; it requires characteristics which he does not 
possess. The verb is used frequently by St Paul in this 
Epistle, but not elsewhere. It is one of the 103 N.T. words 
which are found only in Paul and Luke (Hawkins, Hor. Syn. 
p. 190). Here it means judge of, sift, as in Acts xvii. n of 
the liberal-minded Beroeans, who sifted the Scriptures, to get at 
the truth : Dan. Sus. 13, 48, 51. 



15. 6 Se -nrcupiTiKos. The man in whom Tryeu/xa has its 
rightful predominance, which it gains by being informed by, and 
united with, the Spirit of God, and in no other way. Man as 
man is a spiritual being, but only some men are actually 
spiritual ; just as man is a rational being, but only some men are 
actually rational. Natural capacity and actual realization are 
not the same thing. 

ei irdi/ra. He judges of everything, sifts every- 



* Cf. Juvenal (xv. I47f.), Mundi Principio indtihit communis conditor 
tilts Tantum animas, nobis animuni quoque. See Chadwick, Pastoral 7*eack- 
**g> P- 153- 
4 



50 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 15, 16 

thing, i Thess. v. 21 ; Phil. i. 10; contrast Rom. ii. 18. The 
whole Epistle exemplifies this principle in St Paul s person (vii. 25, 
viii. i, x. 14, xi. i, etc.). Aristotle, in defining virtue, comes back 
to the judgment formed by the mature character : ws a.v 6 rf>povtfj.o<> 
optWei/ (Eth. Nic. ii. vi. 15). Judgeth (AV., RV.) does not 
quite give the meaning of what is expressed here : * examines is 
nearer to it. 

auros 8e uir* owSeyos d^aKpi^erai. This perhaps means by no 
non-spiritual person (cf. i John iv. i). It does not mean that 
the spiritual man is above criticism (iv. 3, 4, xiv. 32 ; Rom. 
xiv. 4). St Paul is not asserting the principle of Protagoras, 
that the individual judgment is for each man the criterion of 
truth ; Trai/rwv /xeVpov avOpwTros, rtoi> /xei> OVTWV w? eoTi TWI/ Se /xr) 
OVTMV u>s OVK eo-Ti. He is asserting, with Bishop Butler, the 
supremacy of conscience, and the right and duty of personal 
judgment. But it is the spiritual man who has this vantage- 
ground. The text has been perverted in more than one 
direction ; on the one hand, as an excuse for the licence of 
persons whose conduct has stamped them as unspiritual, e.g. the 
Anabaptists of Miinster; on the other, as a ground for the 
irresponsibility of ecclesiastical despotism in the mediaeval 
Papacy, e.g. by Boniface vin. in the Bull Unam sanctam, and by 
Cornelius a Lapide on this passage. The principle laid down by 
St Paul gives no support to either anarchy or tyranny ; it is the 
very basis of lawful authority, both civil and religious ; all the 
more so, because it supplies the principle of authority with the 
necessary corrective. 

dytucpiverai. c Is judged of, subjected to examination. 
See on iv. 3, 4, 5, ix. 3, x. 25, 27 ; also on Luke xxiii. 14. Ava- 
Kpto-ts (Acts xxv. 26) was a legal term at Athens for a preliminary 
investigation, preparatory to the actual KptVts, which for St 
Paul would have its analogue in the day (iv. 5). Lightfoot 
gives examples of the way in which the Apostle delights to 
accumulate compounds of /cptW (iv. 3, vi. 1-6, xi. 29-32 ; 2 Cor. 
x. 12 ; Rom. ii. i). By playing on words he sometimes 
illuminates great truths or important personal experiences. 



K* omits the whole of this verse. A C D* F G omit 
irdvTOi (N 1 B D 2 E F G L) is to be preferred to ra iravra (A C D* P). 

16. TIS y-P Y l w - Proof of what has just been claimed for 
the TTvev/w-aTt/cos : he has direct converse with a source of light 
which is not to be superseded by any merely external norm. 
The quotation (n s . . . auroV) is from the LXX of Isa. xl. 13, 
adapted by the omission of the middle clause, KOI TI S avrov 
crw/JouAos eyeVcro ; This clause is retained in Rom. xi. 34, while 
os crvv/fySao-ei avrov is omitted. The aorist (?yva>) belongs to 



II. 16-111. 4] SPIRITUAL AND ANIMAL CHARACTERS 51 

the quotation, and must not be pressed as having any special 
force here; hath known (AV., RV.). On the other hand, the 
immediate transition from vovv Kvpi ou to vow Xpicrrov as equivalent 
is full of deep significance. Cf. Wisd. ix. 13; Ecclus. i. 6; 
Job xxxvi. 22, 23, 26 ; and see on Rom. x. 12, 13. 

vow Kupi ou. The vovv (LXX) corresponds to the Hebrew 
for -jrvcvfjia in the original. In God, vov? and Tn tC/xa are identical 
(see, as to man, on v. 14), but not in aspect, vovs being suitable 
to denote the Divine knowledge or counsel, Tn/ev/xa the Divine 
action, either in creation or in grace. 

os auvpijSdffci auroV. The relative refers to o-w/?ovAos in Isa. 
xl. 13. As St Paul omits the clause containing o-w/3ovAo?, the 
os is left without any proper construction. But it finds a kind 
of antecedent in TI S; Who hath known . . . that he should 
instruct (RV.). 2w/?i/3ov occurs several times in N.T. in its 
classical meanings of join together, conclude, prove ; but in 
Biblical Greek, though not in classical, it has also the meaning 
of * instruct. Thus in Acts xix. 33, where the true reading 
(K A B E) seems to be trwtfttftaarav AA-e ^avSpoi/, Alexander is 
primed with a defence of the Jews, for which he cannot get a 
hearing. This meaning of instruct is frequent in LXX. In 
class. Grk. we should have tvj3ij3dcLv. 

rjfiels 8e vouv XpioroG Ixcpe^. We have this by the agency of 
the Spirit of God ; and the mind of the Spirit of God is known 
to the Searcher of hearts (Rom viii. 27). The mind of Christ 
is the correlative of His Spirit, which is the Spirit of God (Rom. 
viii. 9 ; Gal. iv. 6), and this mind belongs to those who are His by 
virtue of their vital union with Him (Gal. ii. 20, 21, iii. 27 ; Phil. 
i. 8; Rom. xiii. 14). The thought is that of v. 12 in another 
form : see also vii. 40 ; and 2 Cor. xiii. 3, TOV eV e/xoi XaAowros 
Xpto-Tov. The emphatic ^/zets (see on i. 18, 23, 30, ii. 10, 12) 
serves to associate all Trvev/xartKot with the Apostle, and also all 
his readers, so far as they are, as they ought to be, among ol 
o-u>o//.evoi (i. 1 8). 

We ought probably to prefer Xptarov (N A C D 3 E L P, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. 
Arm., Orig.) to Kvpiov (BD*FG, Aug. Ambrst.). Xpiarov would be 
likely to be altered to conform with the previous Kvplov. 

III. 1-4. In following to its application his contrast between 
the spiritual and the animal character, the Apostle is led back to 
his main subject, the a^iV/taTa. These dissensions show which 
type of character predominates among his readers. The passage 
corresponds to ii. 13 (see note there), and forms its negative 
counterpart, prepared for by the contrast (ii. 13-16) between the 
spiritual and the animal man. 



52 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ill. 1, 2 

Kdyu, d8e\<J>oi. See on i. 10 and ii. i. 

<>s -nreufAaTiKois. Ideally, all Christians are Tri/eu/xariKoi (xii. 3, 
13 ; Gal. iv. 3-7) : but by no means all the Corinthians were such 
in fact.* Along with the heathen, they are in the category of 
i/ojx Koi or o-apKiKot , but they are not on a level with the heathen. 
They are babes in character, but babes in Christ ; and, apart 
from the special matters for blame, there are many healthy 
features in their condition (i. 4-9, xi. 2). 

dXV u>s aapKiVois. The word is chosen deliberately, and it 
expresses a shade of meaning different from o-ap/a/cos, placing the 
state of the Corinthians under a distinct aspect. The termination 
-ivos denotes a material relation, while -1*05 denotes an ethical or 
dynamic relation, to the idea involved in the root. In 2 Cor. 
iii. 3 the tables are made of stone, the hearts are made of flesh 
(see note on dv#pw7riVos, iv. 3). Accordingly, o-apjaVos means of 
flesh and blood, what a man cannot help being, but a state to 
be subordinated to the higher law of the Spirit, and enriched and 
elevated by it. We are all a-apKivoi ( V crap/a, Gal. ii. 20), but 
we are not to live Kara <ra/oKa (xv. 50; Rom. viii. 12; 2 Cor. 
x. 2, 3). The state of the VJJTTIOS is not culpable in itself, but it 
becomes culpable if unduly prolonged (xiii. ii, xiv. 20). 

There are two other views respecting <rap/aVos which may be 
mentioned, but seem to be alien to the sense. Meyer holds that 
the word means * wholly of flesh, without any influence of the 
spirit (John iii. 6). In the <rap/aKos, although the flesh still has 
the upper hand, yet there is some counteracting influence of the 
spirit. This view makes the state of the erap/aKos an advance 
upon that of the o-ap/a i/os, and is really an inversion of the true 
sense. Evans regards o-apKi vos as a term free from any reproach. 
It is " the first moral state after conversion, in a figure borrowed 
from an infant, which to outward view is little more than a living 
lump of dimpled flesh, with few signs of intelligence." This is 
an exaggeration of the true sense. Cf. Arist. Eth. Nic. HI. ix. 2. 

ffapKivois (K A B C* D* 17) is the original reading, of which ffapKiKols 
(D 3 E F G L P) is obviously a correction. 

2. yd\a ujids eiroTKm, ou |3pw|Aa. Cf. Heb. V. 1 2, where crrepea 
-rpo^ri takes the place of /3pco/xa. The verb governs both sub 
stantives by a very natural zeugma : it takes a double accusative, 
and the passive has the accusative of the thing (xii. 1 3). The yaXa 
is described ii. 2, the Ppupa, ii. 6-13, and the distinction corre 
sponds to the method necessarily adopted by every skilful teacher. 
The wise teacher proves himself to be such by his ability to 
impart, in the most elementary grade, what is really fundamental 



* Cf. yevAfteda irvevfj-ariKol, yevwfteda vabs r^Xeioj T< 0ey (Ep. of Barn. 
iv. Ii), a possible reminiscence of this and v. 16. 



III. 2, 3] SPIRITUAL AND ANIMAL CHARACTERS 53 

and educative what is simple, and yet gives insight into the full 
instruction that is to follow. The milk, or 6 TTJS apx^s TOV 
Xpio-Tov Ao yos (Heb. vi. i), would be more practical than doctrinal 
(as ii. 2), and would tell of temperance and righteousness and 
judgment to come before communicating the foundation-truths 
as to the person and work of Christ. Christ Himself begins in 
this way ; Thou knowest the commandments ; Repent ye, for 
the kingdom of God is at hand. The metaphor was current 
among the Rabbis, and occurs in Philo (see Lightfoot s note). 
The aorist cVono-a refers to a definite period, evidently that 
which began with the rj\6ov of ii. i, viz. the eighteen months of 
Acts xviii. ii. 

OUTTW yap ^SuVaaOc. For ye had not yet the power. The 
verb is used absolutely, as in x. 13.* This use is not rare in 
LXX, and is found in Plato, Xenophon, etc. The tense indi 
cates a process. This process was one of growth, but the growth 
was too slow. 

D E F G L, Arm. Aeth. AV. insert Kal before ov ]3/>u>/xa. N A B C P, 
Vulg. Copt. RV. omit. 

3. d\X ou8e In vuv 8uma0e. The new verse (but hardly a 
new paragraph) should begin here (WH.). B omits m, but the 
omission may be accidental. It adds force to the rebuke, but 
for that reason might have been inserted. The external evidence 
justifies its retention. The dAXa has its strongest ascensive 
force ; Nay, but not yet even now have ye the power (vi. 8 ; 
2 Cor. i. 9 ; Gal. ii. 3). The impression made by this passage, 
especially when combined with w. 6, 10, ii. i, and d^overac in 
v. i, is that St Paul had as yet paid only one visit to Corinth. 
The apTi in xvi. 7 does not necessarily suggest a hasty visit 
already paid. The second visit of a painful character, which 
seems to be implied in 2 Cor. xiii., may have been paid after this 
letter was written. Those who think it was paid before this letter, 
explain the silence about it throughout this letter by supposing 
that it was not only painful, but very short. 

oirou yap ^f fij^ The adverb of place acquires the force of 
a conditional particle in classical authors as here : cf. Clem. 
Rom. Cor. 43. In Tudor English, where is sometimes used for 
whereas. But here the notion of place, corresponding to V 
V/AIV, is not quite lost ; seeing that envy and strife find place 
among you. Cf. Ivi in Gal. ii. 28. 

fj\os KCU epis. Strife is the outward result of envious feeling : 
Gal. v. 20; Clem. Rom. Cor. 3. There is place in Christian 
ethics for honourable emulation (Gal. iv. 18), but fj\o<s without 



* Irenaeus (IV. xxxviii. 2) has ovSt yap rjdfocKrde /Jcurrd^etJ/ (from John 
xvi. 12), and his translator has nondum enim poteratis tscam pcrcipere. 



54 FIRST EPISTLE. TO THE CORINTHIANS [ill. 3, 4 

qualification, though ranked high by Aristotle* (Rhet. ii. n), 
is placed by the Apostle among * works of the flesh. Lightfoot 
gives other instances of differences in estimation between heathen 
and Christian ethics. 

ouxt o-apKiKoi e ore; See above on trapKivoi, and cf. ix. n ; 
Rom. xv. 27. Here, as in 2 Cor. i. 12, o-ap/aKot means con 
formable to and governed by the flesh, actuated by low motives, 
above which they ought by this time to have risen. 

Kara avtipwirov irepnraTeiTe. Walk on a merely human level 
(xv. 32; Gal. i. n, iii. 15; Rom. iii. 5): contrast Kara edV 
(2 Cor. vii. 9-1 1 ; Rom. viii. 27). This level cannot be dis 
tinguished from that of the I/^XIKOS oV0pw7ros (ii. 14). neptTraretV, 
of manner of life, is frequent in Paul and 2 and 3 John, while 
other writers more often have dvao-Tpe </>iv and avao-rpo^rj : cf. 
opOoSotrovv (Gal. ii. 14), iropeveo-Oai (Luke i. 6, viii. 14) and see 
vii. 17. Cf. Jn. xii. 35. 

D* F G have (rapKivoi. for aapKiKol. D E F G L, Syrr. AV. add Kal 
dixoaraaiai after pts. K A B C P, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. RV. omit. 
See Iren. IV. xxxviii. 2. 

4. O-TO.V yap Xe yit] 719. c For whenever one saith : each such 
utterance is one more verification (yap) of the indictment.! Cf. 
the construction in xv. 27. 

eyw piv . . . Ircpos 8e. The /xeV and the Se correspond logi 
cally, although not grammatically. St Paul mentions only himself 
and Apollos by name (cf. iv. 6), because he can less invidiously 
use these names as the point of departure for the coming analysis 
of the conception of the Christian Pastorate (iii. 5~iv. 5). 

OUK ayOpwiroi e ore ; Are ye not mere human creatures? 
They did not rise above a purely human level. The expression 
is the negative equivalent of o-ap/ctKot in the parallel clause, 
negative, because implying the lack, not only of spirituality, but 
even of manliness. The lack of spirituality is implied in the 
whole context, the lack of manliness in the word itself, which 
classical writers contrast with avijp. In xvi. 13 this contrast is 
implied in ui>Spiecr0e. See Ps. xlix. 2 and Isa. ii. 9 for a similar 
contrast in Hebrew. The Corinthians were avOpuiroi in failing to 
rise to the higher range of motives ; and they were cmp/a/co/ in 

* He contrasts it with envy, which is always bad and springs from a mean 
character ; whereas the man who is moved by emulation is conscious of being 
capable of higher things. Wetstein distinguishes thus ; 77X05 cogitatione, 
pis verbis, SixoaTacriai opere. 

t Abbott renders, In the very moment of saying ; by uttering a party- 
cry he stamps himself as carnal ; so also in xiv. 26 (Johan. Gr. 2534). There 
is here nothing inconsistent with i. 5-7. There he thanks God for the gifts 
with which He had enriched the Corinthians. Here he blames them for the 
poor results. 



III. 4] SPIRITUAL AND ANIMAL CHARACTERS 55 

allowing themselves to be swayed by the lower range, a range 
which they ought (tf yap) to have left behind as a relic of 
heathenism (vi. n, xii. 2). 

" In all periods of great social activity, when society becomes 
observant of its own progress, there is a tendency to exalt the 
persons and means by which it progresses. Hence, in turn, 
kings, statesmen, parliaments, and then education, science, 
machinery and the press, have had their hero-worship. Here, 
at Corinth, was a new phase, minister-worship. No marvel, 
in an age when the mere political progress of the Race was felt 
to be inferior to the spiritual salvation of the Individual, and to 
the purification of the Society, that ministers, the particular 
organs by which this was carried on, should assume in men s 
eyes peculiar importance, and the special gifts of Paul or Apollos 
be extravagantly honoured. No marvel either, that round the 
more prominent of these, partizans should gather" (F. W. 
Robertson). Origen says that, if the partizans of Paul or 
Apollos are mere oVfyxoTroi, then, if you are a partizan of some 
vastly inferior person, SfjXov on ov/ceVi ov&e avOpuiros et, dAAa KCU 
Xtpov TJ avOpomos. You may perhaps be addressed as yewrj/jLara 
fX&vw, if you have such base preferences. Bachmann remarks 
that, although the present generation has centuries of Christian 
experience behind it, it can often be as capricious, one-sided, 
wrong-headed, and petty as any Corinthians in its judgments on 
its spiritual teachers and their utterances. 

We should read OVK (K* ABC 17) rather than the more emphatic, and 
in this Epistle specially common oi>xL (D E F G L P), which is genuine in 
v. 3, i. 20, v. 12, vi. 7, etc. And we should read Avdpuiroi (K* A B C D E F G 
17, Vulg. Copt. Aeth. RV.) rather than ffapKtKoL (K 3 LP, Syrr. AV.). 
(iv. 3, x. 13) is pure conjecture. 



We now reach another main section of this sub-division 
(i. lo-iv. 21) of the First Part (i. lo-vi. 20) of the Epistle. 
St Paul has hitherto (i. ly-iii. 4) been dealing with the false and 
the true conception of cro<ia, in relation to Christian Teaching. 
He now passes to the Teacher. 

III. 5-IV. 21. THE TRUE CONCEPTION OF THE 
CHRISTIAN PASTORATE. 

(i.) General Definition (iii. 5-9). 

(ii.) The Builders (iii. 10-15). 
(iii.) The Temple (iii. 16, 17). 

(iv.) Warning against a mere human estimate of the Pastoral 
Office (iii. i8-iv. 5). 



56 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [III. 5 

Personal Application of the foregoing, and Conclusion of the 
subject of the Dissensions (iv. 6-21). 

III. 5-9. General Definition of the Christian Pastorate. 

Teachers are mere instruments in the liands of God, who 
alone produces the good results. 

5 What is there really in either Apollos or me ? We are not 
heads of parties, and we are not the authors or the objects of 
your faith. We are just servants, through whose instrumentality 
you received the faith, according to the grace which the Lord 
gave to each of you. 6 It was my work to plant the faith in you, 
Apollos nourished it ; but it was God who, all the time, was 
causing it to grow. 7 So then, neither the planter counts for 
anything at all, nor the nourisher, but only He who caused it to 
grow, viz. God. 8 Now the planter and the nourisher are in one 
class, equals in aim and spirit ; and yet each will receive his own 
special wage according to his own special responsibility and toil. 
9 God is the other class ; for it is God who allows us a share in 
His work ; it is God s field (as we have seen) that ye are ; it is 
God s building (as we shall now see) that ye are. 

The Apostle has shown that the dissensions are rooted, firstly, 
in a misconception of the Gospel message, akin, in most cases, 
to that of the Greeks, who seek wisdom in the low sense of clever 
ness, and akin, in other cases, to that of the Jews, who are 
ever seeking for a sign. He goes on to trace the dissensions 
to a second cause, viz. a perverted view of the office and function 
of the Christian ministry. First, however, he lays down the true 
character of that ministry. 

5. TI ouV larriv ; A question, Socratic in form, leading up 
naturally to a definition, and thus checking shallow conceit 
(v. 1 8, iv. 6) by probing the idea underlying its glib use of words. 
What is Apollos ? i.e. What is his essential office and function ? 
How is he to be accounted of ? (iv. i). The two names are 
mentioned three times, and each time the order is changed, 
perhaps intentionally, to lead up to Iv eiVii> (v. 8). The ow 
follows naturally upon the mention of Apollos in v. 4, but 
marks also a transition to a question raised by the whole matter 
under discussion, a new question, and a question of the first 
rank. 

8idKOkoi. The word is used here in its primary and general 



III. 5-7] CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIAN PASTORATE 57 

sense of * servant. * It connotes active service (see note on 
v^per^s in iv. i) and is probably from a root akin to SKOKW (cf. 
pursuivant ). See Hort, Christian Ecclesia, pp. 202 f. 

81* &v ImareucraTe. Per quos, non in quos (Beng.). The aorist 
points back to the time of their conversion (cf. xv. 2 ; Rom. xiii. 
u), but it sums up their whole career as Christians. 

Kal licdorTw ws 6 Ku pios eSuicey. As in vii. 17; Rom. xii. 3. 
The construction is condensed for e/cao-ros <I>s 6 K. ISwKev avrw. 
It may be understood either of the measure of faith given by the 
Lord to each believer, or of the measure of success granted by Him 
to each SIOLKOVOS. Rom. xii. 3 favours the former, but perhaps 
6 cog r)vavw favours the latter. We have eKaoro? five times in 
w. 5-13. God deals separately with each individual soul: cf. 
iv. 5, vii. 17, 20, 24, xii. 7, n. And whatever success there is 
to receive a reward (v. 8) is really His ; Deus coronat dona sua, 
non merita nostra (Augustine). It is clear from the frequent 
mention of eos in what follows that 6 Kvpios means God, and it 
seems to be in marked antithesis to 



We should read rt in both places (N* A B 17, Vulg. d e f g Aeth. RV.), 
rather than rls (C D E F G L P, Syrr. Copt. Arm. AV.). D- L, Syrr. Arm. 
Aeth. place IlaCXos first and A.7roXXu>s second, an obvious correction, to 
agree with w. 4 and 6. D E F G L, Vulg. Arm. Copt, omit tariv after 
T. 5<?. D 2 L P, Syrr. AV. insert d\X $ before diaKovoi. K A B C D* E F G, 
Vulg. Copt. Arm. RV. omit. 

6. eyw e<f>uTucm K.T.\. St Paul expands the previous state 
ment. Faith, whether initial or progressive, is the work of God 
alone, although He uses men as His instruments. Note 
the significant change from aorists to imperfect. The aorists 
sum up, as wholes, the initial work of Paul (Acts xviii. 1-18) and 
the fostering ministry of Apollos (Acts xviii. 24-xix. i) : the 
imperfect indicates what was going on throughout \ God was all 
along causing the increase (Acts xiv. 27, xvi. 14).! Sine hoc 
incremento granum a primo sationis momento esset instar lapilli : 
ex incremento statim fides germinat (Beng.). See Chadwick, 
Pastoral Teaching, p. 1 83. 



7. eariy TI. Is something, est aliquid, Vulg. (cf. Acts v. 36 ; 
Gal. ii. 6, vi. 3) ; so Evans ; quiddam, atque adeo, quia solus, omnia 
(Beng.). Or, mV TI, * is anything (AV., RV.j. 

Nos mercenarii sumus, alienis ferramentis operamur, nihil 
dcbctur nobis, nisi merces laboris nostri, quid de accepto tale?ito 
operamur (Primasius). 

* " There is no evidence that at this time SiaKovla or StaKoveiv had an 
exclusively official sense" (Westcott on Eph. iv. 12) ; cf. Heb. vi. 10. 

f Latin and English Versions ignore the change of tense ; and the difference 
between human activities, which come and go, and divine action, which goes 
on for ever, is lost. 



58 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ill. 8, 9 

aXX 1 6 autdvwv 0e6s. The strongly adversative dXXa implies 
the opposite of what has just been stated ; 4 but God who giveth 
the increase is everything? See on vii. 19, and cf. Gal. vi. 15. 
To refer tVorto-ev and 6 TTOTL^V to Baptism, as some of the 
Fathers do, is to exhibit a strange misappreciation of the con 
text. See Lightfoot s note, eos is placed last with emphasis ; 
but the giver of the increase God. 

lv slaw. Are in one category, as fellow-workers ; conse 
quently it is monstrous to set them against one another as rivals. 
As contrasted with God, they are all of one value, just nothing. 
But that does not mean that each, when compared with the other, 
is exactly equal in His sight. The other side of the truth is 
introduced with 8e. 

Kaoro9 Se. Yet each has his own responsibility and work, 
and each shall receive his proper reward. The repeated toW 
marks the separate responsibility, correcting a possible misappre 
hension of the meaning of lv : congruens itcratio, antitheton ad 
l unum (Beng.). The latter point is drawn out more fully in 
w. 10 f. 

9. OeoG ydp. The yap refers to the first half, not the second, 
of v. 8. The workers are in one category, because they are ov 
orwcpyoi. The verse contains the dominant thought of the whole 
passage, gathering up the gist of vv. 5-7. Hence the emphatic 
threefold eov. The Gospel is the power of God (i. 18), and 
those who are entrusted with it are to be thought of, not as rival 
members of a rhetorical profession, but as bearers of a divine 
message charged with divine power. 

0coG aufepyou This remarkable expression occurs nowhere else: 
the nearest to it is 2 Cor. vi. i ; the true text of i Thess. iii. 2 
is probably OIUKOJ OV, not o-wepyoV.* It is not quite clear what 
it means. Either, fellow-workers with one another in God s 
service ; or, fellow-workers with God. Evans decides for the 
former, because " the logic of the sentence loudly demands it." 
So also Ellicott and others. But although God does all, yet 
human instrumentality in a sense co-operates (ocra eVofycrev 6 eos 
fMT auraiv, Acts xiv. 27), and St Paul admits this aspect of the 
matter in 17 x^P i<s T0 ^ ^ "^ v f">i, xv. 10, and in crwepyowrcs, 
2 Cor. vi. i. This seems to turn the scale in favour of the more 
simple and natural translation, fellow-workers with God. f 
Compare TOI>? o-wcpyovs /xou lv XpioT<3 IrycroO (Rom. xvi. 3), which 

* In LXX <rvvepy6s is very rare ; 2 Mac. viii. 7, xiv. 5, of favourable 
opportunities. 

t Deienim sumus adjutores (Vulg.)j Etenim Deisumus administri($>tv&)\ 
Denn wir sind Gottes Mitarbeiter (Luth.). In such constructions, <rvvatX 
fjLaXurbs pov, <rtiv$ov\oi avrov, ffvv^Kdrj/j.0^ TtfJ-Giv, the aw- commonly refers to the 
person in the genitive : but see ix. 23. 



III. 9] CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIAN PASTORATE 59 

appears to show how St Paul would have expressed the former 
meaning, had he meant it 

cou ycwpYioy, 0eoG oiKoSojii]. The one metaphor has been 
employed in w. 6-8, the other is to be developed in w. 10 f. 
St Paul uses three metaphors to express the respective relations 
of himself and of other teachers to the Corinthian Church. He 
is planter (6), founder (10), and father (iv. 15). Apollos and the 
rest are waterers, after-builders, and tutors. The metaphor of 
building is a favourite one with the Apostle. On the different 
meanings of oiVoSo/xrj, which correspond fairly closely to the 
different meanings of * building, see J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, 
pp. 70, 164 : it occurs often in the Pauline Epistles, especially in 
the sense of edification, a sense which Lightfoot traces to the 
Apostle s metaphor of the building of the Church. Here it is 
fairly certain that yewpyioi/ does not mean the * tilled land (RV. 
marg.), but the husbandry (AV., RV.) or tillage (AV. marg.) 
that results in tilled land, and that therefore oiKoSo/xrJ does not 
mean the edifice, but the building-process which results in an 
edifice. The word yewpyioi/ is rather frequent in Proverbs; 
elsewhere in LXX it is rare, and it is found nowhere else in N.T. 
In the Greek addition to what is said about the ant (Prov. vi. 7) 
we are told that it is without its knowing anything of tillage 
(e/cetVo) ycwpyiou /AT) mrapxovTos) that ^ provides its food in 
summer. Again, in the Greek addition to the aphorisms on a 
foolish man (Prov. ix. 1 2), we are told that he wanders from the 
tracks of his own husbandry (TOVS aovas TOO) iSiov yccopyiov TrcTrXa- 
VT/TCU). In Ecclus. xxvii. 6 it is said that the * cultivation of a 
tree (yew pytov &Xov) is shown by its fruit. The meaning here, 
therefore, is that the Corinthians exhibit God s operations in 
spiritual husbandry and spiritual architecture; Dei agricultura 
estis, Dei aedificatio estis (Vulg.).* It is chiefly in i and 2 Cor., 
Rom., and Eph. that the metaphor of building is found. See 
also Acts ix. 31, xx. 32 ; Jude 20; i Pet. ii. 5, with Hort s note 
on the last passage. In Jer. xviii. 9, xxiv. 6, and Ezek. xxxvi. 9, 
10 we have the metaphors of building and planting combined. 



HI. 10-15. The Builders. 

I have laid the only possible foundation. Let those who 
build on it remember that their work will be severely tested 
at the Last Day. 

10 As to the grace which God gave me to found Churches, I 
have, with the aims of an expert master-builder, laid a foundation 
* Augustine (De cat. rud. 21) rightly omits the first estis. 



60 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ill. 10 

for the edifice ; it is for some one else to build upon it. But, 
whoever he may be, let him be careful as to the materials with 
which he builds thereon. n For, as regards the foundation, there 
is no room for question : no one can lay any other beside the 
one which is already laid, which of course is Jesus Christ. 
12 But those who build upon this foundation may use either 
good or bad material ; they may use gold, silver, and sumptuous 
stones, or they may use wood, hay, and straw. But each 
builder s good or bad work is certain to be made manifest in the 
end. For the Day of Judgment will disclose it, because that 
Day is revealed in fire; and the fire is the thing that will as 
suredly test each builder s work and will show of what character 
it is. 14 If any man s work the superstructure which he has 
erected shall stand the ordeal, he will receive a reward. 15 If 
any man s work shall be burnt to the ground, he will lose it, 
though he himself shall be saved from destruction, but like one 
who has passed through fire. 

St Paul follows up the building-metaphor, first (v. 10) dis 
tinguishing his part from that of others, and then (11-15) dwell 
ing on the responsibility of those who build after him. 



10. Kara TTJ^ x&pw K.T.\. The necessary prelude to a refer 
ence to his own distinctive work (cf. vii. 25). The grace is 
not that of Apostleship in general, but that specially granted to 
St Paul, which led him to the particular work of founding new 
Churches, and not building on another man s foundation (Rom. 
xv. 19, 20). 

ws ao(j>6s apxiTeKTuy. The same expression is found in LXX 
of Isa. iii. 3, and o-d<os is frequent of the skilled workmen who 
erected and adorned the Tabernacle (Exod. xxxv. 10, 25, xxxvi. 
i, 4, 8). It means peritus. Aristotle (Eth. Nic. vi. vii. i) says 
that the first notion of <ro<ia is, that, when applied to each 
particular art, it is skill; Phidias is a skilled sculptor.* See 
Lightfoot ad loc. Apx"" 6 *" occurs nowhere else in N.T. 

OcjAeXtoy 20T)Ka. The aorist, like e^u rcuo-a (v. 6), refers to the 
time of his visit (rjXOov, ii. i) : 0e/xeA.tov is an adjective (st. \LOov\ 
but becomes a neuter substantive in late Greek. In the plural 

* This use of <ro06y is more common in poets than in prose writers. 
When <rotj)6s became usual of philosophical wisdom, deiv6s took its place in 
the sense of skilful. Herodotus (v. xxiii. 3) uses both words of the clever 
and shrewd Histiaeus. Plato (Politicus 259) defines the apxtrticTW, as 
distinct from an epyaffTiK6s, as one who contributes knowledge, but not 
manual labour. Tertullian (Adv. Marc. v. 6) interprets it here as depalator 
disciplinae divinae, one who stakes out the boundaries. 



III. 10, 11] THE BUILDERS 6l 

we may have either gender ; ot 0/xc A.ioi (Heb. xi. 10, Rev. xxi. 
14, 19), or TO. Otfji&ia (Acts xvi. 26 and often in LXX). No 
architect can build without some foundation, and no expert will 
build without a sure foundation. Cf. Eph. ii. 20. 

aXXos 8e. The reference is not specially to Apollos : The 
superstructure I leave to others. But they all must build, 
according to the rule that follows, thoughtfully^ not according to 
individual caprice. 

irws e lroiKoSofxet. Refers specially, although not exclusively, 
to the choice of materials (vv. 12, 13). The edifice, throughout, 
is the Church, not the fabric of doctrine ; but cTroi/coSo/xetV refers 
to the teaching both form and substance which forms the 
Church, or rather forms the character of its members (Gal. iv. 19). 

t0r, K a (N*ABC* 17) is to be preferred to r<?0eca (K 3 C 3 D E) or 
redrjKa (L P). D omits the second 8e. There is no need to conjecture 
iroiKod6/j.ri for the second TroiKo8o/j,ei (all MSS). In vii. 32 the balance 
of evidence is strongly in favour of TTWS a 



11. OejmeXioi y&p. A cautionary premiss to v. 12, which con 
tinues the thought of the previous clause : Let each man look 
to it how he builds upon this foundation, because, although (I 
grant, nay, I insist) none can lay any foundation irapa rov KcCpevov, 
yet the superstructure is a matter of separate and grave responsi 
bility. ejue Xiov stands first for emphasis. There can be but 
one fundamental Gospel (Gal. i. 6, 7), the foundation lies there, 
and the site is already occupied. By whom is the foundation 
laid? Obviously (v. TO), by St Paul, when he preached Christ 
at Corinth (ii. 2). This is the historical reference of the words ; 
but behind the laying of the stone at Corinth, or wherever else 
the Church may be founded, there is the eternal laying of the 
foundation-stone by God, the * only wise architect of the Church. 
See Evans. 

Compare the use of Kfi^vij of the city that is already there, and 
of the lamp which has to be placed (Matt. v. 14, 15). 



irjaous Xpurnfc. Both name and title are in place, 
and neither of them alone would have seemed quite satisfying : 
see on ii. 2. He is the foundation of all Christian life, faith, 
and hope.* In Eph. ii. 20 He is the chief corner-stone, 
aKpoy (aviates , the basis of unity : cf. Acts iv. 1 1 . It is only by 
admitting some inconsistency of language that the truth can be 
at all adequately expressed. There is inconsistency even if we 
leave Eph. ii. 20 out of account. He has just said that he laid 
the foundation in a skilful way. Now he says that it was lying 
there ready for him, and that no other foundation is possible. 
Each statement, in its own proper sense, is true ; and we need 
* See Lock, St Paul, the Master -Builder, pp. 69 f. 



62 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ill. 11, 12 

both in order to get near to the truth. As in Gal. i. 8, -n-apd 
means besides, not contrary to, at variance with. 

Irjvovs Xpi(rr6s (K A B L P Sah. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) rather than Xpt<TT6s 
Iijffovs (C 3 D E, Vulg.). Several cursives have Irjaovs 6 X/>. 

12. el 8 TIS K.T.X. The various kinds of superstructure 
represent various degrees of inferiority in the ministry of the 
* after-builders, i.e. according as they make, or fail to make, a 
lasting contribution to the structure. With regard to the whole 
passage, three things are to be noted : 

(1) The metaphor is not to be pressed too rigidly by seeking 
to identify each term with some detail in the building. This 
Grotius does in the following way : proponit ergo nobis domum 
cujus parietes sunt ex marmore, columnae partim ex auro partim 
ex argentO) trades ex ligno^ fastigium vero ex stramine et culmo ; 
all which is very frigid.* The materials are enumerated with 
a rapid and vivid asyndeton^ which drives each point sharply 
and firmly home. 

(2) The wood, hay, stubble do not represent teaching that 
is intentionally disloyal or false (avros Se a-w^o-erai), but such 
as is merely inferior. 

(3) The imagery alternates between the suggestion of teaching 
as moulding persons, and the suggestion of persons as moulded 
by teaching (Evans), so that it is irrelevant to ask whether the 
materials enumerated are to be understood of the fruits of 
doctrine, such as different moral qualities (Theodoret), or of 
worthy and unworthy Christians. The two meanings run into 
one another, for the qualities must be exhibited in the lives of 
persons. We have a similar combination of two lines of thought 
in the interpretation of the parable of the Sower. There the 
seed is said to be sown, and the soil is said to be sown, and in 
the interpretation these two meanings are mingled. Yet the 
interpretation is clear enough. 

XpuVioy, dpyupioy. As distinct from xptxros and apyupos, 
which indicate the metals in any condition, these diminutives 
are commonly used of gold and silver made into something, such 
as money or utensils ; as when by gold we mean gold coins, 
or by silver mean silver coins or plate (Acts iii. 6, xx. 33). 
But this is not a fixed rule. See Matt, xxiii. 16 and Gen. ii. n. 

Xi 6ous Tijjitous. Either costly stones, such as marble or 
granite, suitable for building, or precious stones, suitable for 
ornamentation. Isa. liv. n, 12 and Rev. xxi. 18, 19, combined 

* It is perhaps worse than frigid. Obviously, it would be unskilful to 
use both sets of material in the same building ; Origen regards i;Xct as worse 
than xP T S} an d X^P TOS than Ka\dfji-rj, which can hardly be right. See Chase, 
Chrysostom % pp. 186, 187. 



III. 12, 13] THE BUILDERS 63 

with the immediate context ( gold and silver ), point to the 
latter meaning. It is internal decoration that is indicated. 

XO PTOI , KaXdfiTjy. Either of these might mean straw or dried 
grass for mixing with clay, as in Exod. v. 12, KaAa/x^i/ cts ax v P a > 
stubble instead of straw ; and either might mean material for 
thatching. Romuleoque recens horrebat regia culmo (Virg. Aen. 
viii. 654). Luther s contemptuous expression respecting the 
Epistle of St James as a right strawy epistle was made in 
allusion to this passage. Nowhere else in N.T. does KaAa/xT? 
occur. 

After <?7rJ T. 0ejuAtoi>, K 3 C 3 D E L P, Vulg. AV. add TOVTOV. X* A B C*, 
Sah. Aeth. RV. omit. We ought probably to read \ptiaLov (N B) and 
&pyijpioi> (K B C) rather than xpv ffov an d &pyvpov (A D E L P). B, Aeth. 
insert naL after 



13. ^Kdorou TO epyov. These words sum up the alternatives, 
standing in apposition to the substantival clause, ei 8e TI? . . . 
Ka\dfj.r]v. Individual responsibility is again insisted upon : we 
have ?/cao-Tos four times in w. 8-13. 

YI yap Tjnepa SirjXwaei. The Day (as in i Thess. v. 4 ; 
Rom. xiii. 12; Heb. x. 25), without the addition of Kvpi ov 
(i Thess. v. 2) or of Kpurews (Matt. xii. 36) or of CKCIVIJ (2 Thess. 
i. 10; 2 Tim. i. 12, 18, iv. 8), means the Day of Judgment. 
This is clear from iv. 3, 5, ubi ex intervallo, ut solet, darius 
loquitur (Beng.). The expression * Day of the Lord comes from 
the O.T. (Isa. ii. 12 ; Jer. xlvi. 10 ; Ezek. vii. 10, etc.), and perhaps 
its original meaning was simply a definite period of time. But 
with this was often associated the idea of day as opposed to 
night : the Day would be a time of light, when what had 
hitherto been hidden or unknown would be revealed. So here. 
And here the fire which illuminates is also a fire which burns, 
and thus tests the solidity of that which it touches. What is 
sound survives, what is worthless is consumed. 

eV irupl diroKaXu irrTu. The nominative is neither TO cpyov 
nor 6 Kuptos, but fj fjfjicpa. The Day is (to be) revealed in 
fire (2 Thess. i. 7, 8, ii. 8; Dan. vii. 9 f. ; Mai. iv. i). This is 
a common use of the present tense, to indicate that a coming 
event is so certain that it may be spoken of as already here. 
The predicted revelation is sure to take place. See on a-rroKa- 
AVTTTCTCU in Luke xvii. 30, Lightfoot on i Thess. v. 2, and Hort 
on i Pet. i. 7, 13. 

St Paul is not intending to describe the details of Christ s 
Second Coming, but is figuratively stating, what he states without 
figure in iv. 5, that at that crisis the real worth of each man s 
work will be searchingly tested. This test he figures as the 
fire of the Second Advent, wrapping the whole building round, 
and reducing all its worthless material to ashes. The fire, 



64 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ill. 13-15 

therefore, is regarded more as a testing than as an illuminating 
agent, as tentatio tribulationis (August. Enchir. 68), which by its 
destructive power makes manifest the enduring power of all 
that it touches. There is no thought in the passage of a penal, 
or disciplinary, or purgative purpose; nor again is there the 
remotest reference to the state of the soul between death and 
judgment. Hie locus igncm purgatorium non modo non fovet 
sed plane extinguit, nam in novissimo demum die ignis probabit. 
. . . Ergo ignis purgatorius non praecedit (Beng.). The cv sug 
gests that fire is the element in which the revelation takes place. 
At the Parousia Christ is to appear eV TTU/H <Aoyo s (2 Thess. i. 8) 
or fv <Aoyt Trvpo s (Is. Ixvi. 15). In the Apocalypse of Baruch 
(xlviii. 39) we have, "A fire will consume their thoughts, and 
in flame will the meditations of their reins be tried \ for the 
Judge will come and will not tarry." But elsewhere in that 
book (xliv. 15, lix. 2, etc.) the fire is to consume the wicked, 
a thought of which there is no trace here. There are no wicked, 
but only unskilful builders; all build, although some build 
unwisely, upon Christ. 

Kal ^ica crrou. Still under the on. It is better to regard TO 
Ipyov as the ace. governed by SoKi/xao-et, with avro as pleonastic, 
than as the nom. to eWu>. A pleonastic pronoun is found with 
good authority in Matt. ix. 27; Luke xvii. 7; and elsewhere: 
but the readings are sometimes uncertain. To take avro with 
7ri5p, the fire itself, has not much point. In all three verses 
(13, 14, 15), TO tpyov refers, not to a man s personal character, 
good or bad, but simply to his work as a builder (12). 

K D E L, Vulg. Sah. Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit avrti, but we ought 
probably to read it with A B C P 17 and other cursives. 

14. jxeyeu It is doubtful, and not very important, whether 
we should accent this word as a future, to agree with KaTa/caryo-t-Tat 
and other verbs which are future, or /teVet, as a present, which 
harmonizes better with the idea of permanence : cf. /xVet in 
xiii. 13. 

jiiaOoV. Compare v. 8 and Matt. xx. 8: in ix. 17, 18 the 
reference is quite different. The nature of the reward is not 
stated, but it is certainly not eternal salvation, which may be 
won by those whose work perishes (v. 15). Something corre 
sponding to the * ten cities and five cities in the parable may 
be meant ; opportunities of higher service. 

15. KdTaKaTJaeTai. This later form is found as a v.l. (AL) in 
2 Pet. iii. 10, where it is probably a correction of the puzzling 

(N B K P). In Rev. xviii. 8 the more classical Kara- 
is found. The burning of Corinth by Mummius may 
have suggested this metaphor. 



III. 16] THE BUILDERS 65 



It does not much matter whether we regard 
this as indefinite, He shall suffer loss (AV., RV.), detrimentum 
patietur (Vulg.), damnum farict (Beza), or understand TOJ/ /juo-Oov 
from v. 14, He shall be mulcted of the expected reward. In 
Exod. xxi. 22 we have eVt^rJ/xiov (^/uwtfiprcTcu. The avros is in 
favour of the latter. 

auros Be awO^acTai. The avros is in contrast to the /u<r0o s : 
the reward will be lost, but the worker himself will be saved. 
If r7/Ai<o0T}(reTai is regarded as indefinite, then avro s may be in 
contrast to the Ipyov : the man s bad work will perish, but that 
does not involve his perdition. The o-w^o-cTat can hardly refer 
to anything else than eternal salvation, which he has not for 
feited by his bad workmanship : he has built on the true 
foundation. Salvation is not the /uo-0os, and so it may be 
gained when all /-uo-0os is lost. But it may also be lost as 
well as the /ucrdos. The Apostle does not mean that every 
teacher who takes Christ as the basis of his teaching will neces 
sarily be saved : his meaning is that a very faulty teacher may 
be saved, and will be saved, if at all, so as through fire. See 
Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xxi. 21, 26. 

OUTWS & ws Sia irupos. * But only as one passing through fire 
is saved : a quasi-proverbial expression, indicative of a narrow 
escape from a great peril, as * a firebrand pluckt out of the fire 
(Amos iv. 1 1 ; Zech. iii. 2). It is used here with special reference 
to the fire which tests the whole work (v. 13). The Sia is local 
rather than instrumental. The fire is so rapid in its effects 
that the workman has to rush through it to reach safety : cf. 81* 
vSaros (l Pet. iii. 20), and 8o;A.$o/xv Sta TTV/DOS KCU vSaros (Ps. 
Ixvi. 12). To explain crcoflrJo-tTai Sia Trvpo? as meaning shall be 
kept alive in the midst of hell-fire is untenable translation and 
monstrous exegesis. Such a sense is quite inadmissible for 
0-<o0T7<rT<u and incompatible with OVTODS ws. Moreover, the fire 
in v. 13 is the fire alluded to, and that fire cannot be Gehenna. 
Atto of Vercelli thinks that this passage is one of the things 
hard to be understood alluded to in 2 Pet. iii. 16. Augustine 
(Enchir. 68) says that the Christian who * cares for the things of 
the Lord (vii. 32) is the man who builds with gold, silver, and 
precious stones, while he who cares for the things of the world, 
how he may please his wife (vii. 33), builds with wood, hay, 
stubble/ 

III. 16-17. The Temple. 

St Paul now passes away from the builders to the Temple. 
The section is linked with vv. 10-15 both by the opening words, 
which imply some connexion, and by the word vaos, which is 
5 



66 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ill. 16 

doubtless suggested by the building of w. 9 f. (cf. Eph. 
ii. 20-22). On the other hand, it is quite certain that there is 
a change of subject : avros (rw^TJo-erat (v. 15) and <0epi TOVTOV o 
eos are contradictory propositions, and they cannot be made 
to apply to the same person, for <0et petv cannot be attenuated 
to an equivalent for frrjfjuovv (v. 15). 

The subject of the a-x^ara still occupies the Apostle s mind, 
and he seems to be thinking of their ultimate tendency. By 
giving rein to the flesh (v. 3) they tend to banish the Holy 
Spirit, and so to destroy the Temple constituted by His presence. 

16. OUK oi&are; Frequent in this Epistle, and twice in 
Romans; also Jas. iv. 4. As in v. 6, vi. 16, 19, the question 
implies a rebuke. The Corinthians are so carnal that they 
have never grasped, or have failed to retain, so fundamental a 
doctrine as that of the indwelling of the Spirit* 

mos 0oG care. Not a temple of God, but God s Temple. 
There is but one Temple, embodied equally truly in the whole 
Church, in the local Church, and in the individual Christian ; 
the local Church is meant here. As a metaphor for the Divine 
indwelling, the vao s, which contained the Holy of Holies, is more 
suitable than upo v, which included the whole of the sacred en 
closure (vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. ii. 21). To converts from 
heathenism the vaos might suggest the cella in which the image 
of the god was placed. It is one of the paradoxes of the Christian 
Church that there is only one vaos eov and yet each Christian 
is a vaos : simul omncs unum templum et singula templa sumus^ 
quia non est Deus in omnibus quam in singulis major (Herv.). 
Nao s is from vat eiv, to dwell. 

Kal TO TTKcGjxa. The /cat is epexegetic. Both Gentile and Jew 
might speak of their vaos cou, but, while the pagan temple was 
inhabited by an image of a god, and the Jewish by a symbol of 
the Divine Presence (Shekinah), the Christian temple is inhabited 
by the Spirit of God Himself. 

iv ufuy oiket. In you hath His dwelling-place. In Luke 
xi. 51 we have OIKOS, where, in the parallel passage in Matt. 
xxiii. 35, we have vaos. Tore ouv /txaXto-ra eao//,#a vaos eo), eav 
vs eavrovs Karao-Kevao-w/xev TOU Ilvcv/xaros TOV ov (Orig.). 



* On the very insufficient ground that Kephas is not mentioned in vv. 5 
and 6, but is mentioned in v. 22, Zahn regards w. 16-20 as directed against 
the Kephas party. He says that St Paul knows more than he writes about 
this faction, and fears more than he knows (Introd. to N. T. i. pp. 288 f.). 

See on v. I for the resemblance to Ep. of Barn. iv. ii. Ignatius (Eph. 
15) has TrdvTa oiV TrotcD/ie?, wj atfroO iv ij/uv K(LTOIKOVI>TOS, tVa w/xci avrov, faoi 
iv i^uv 0e6$. 



III. 16, 17] THE TEMPLE 67 

It is not easy to decide between tv vfuv otVcet (B P 17) and o//cet i> b/juv 
(tf A C D E F G L, Vulg.). The former is more forcible, placing the 
permanent dwelling last, with emphasis. 

17. ei TIS . . . 4>0eipei . . . 4>0epei. The AV. greatly mars the 
effect by translating the verb first defile and then destroy. 
The same verb is purposely used to show the just working of the 
lex talionis in this case : one destruction is requited by another 
destruction. The destroyers of the Temple are those who banish 
the Spirit, an issue to which the dissensions were at least tending. 
Here the reference is to unchristian faction, which destroyed, by 
dividing, the unity of the Church : a building shattered into 
separate parts is a ruin. In vi. 19 the thought is of uncleanness 
in the strict sense. But all sin is a defiling of the Temple and is 
destructive of its consecrated state.* We have a similar play on 
words to express a similar resemblance between sin and its 
punishment in Rom. i. 28 ; /ca0ws ov/c eSo/a/xacrai/ rov eov l^etv 
eV cTrtyvwcrci, Trape Sw/ccv aurovs 6 cos ets dSo/a/xov vovv. And there 
is a still closer parallel in Rev. xi. 1 8 ; Sia</>0eipcu TOVS SiatfrOcipov- 
ras rrjv yfjv. Neither <f>6cipfiv nor Sta<$t pei;/ are commonly used 
of God s judgments, for which the more usual verb is aTroAAvW 
or aTToAAwai : but both here and in Rev. xi. 1 8 <f>@eipiv or Sta- 
<j>0ctpciv is preferred, because of its double meaning, corrupt 
and destroy. The sinner destroys by corrupting what is holy 
and good, and for this God destroys him. We have $6tipw in 
the sense of corrupt, xv. 33 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3 ; Rev. xix. 2. 

<J>6epei TouToy 6 eos. The Vulgate, like the AV., ignores the 
telling repetition of the same verb : si quis autem templum Dei 
violaverit, disperdet ilium Deus. Tertullian (Adv. Marc. v. 6) 
preserves it : si templum Dei quis vitiaverit, vitiabitur, utique a 
Deo templi ; and more literally (De Pudic. 16, 18) vitiabit ilium 
Deus. But neither </>0epei here, nor oAefyos in i Thess. v. 3, nor 
oXcOpov cuwviov in 2 Thess. i. 9, must be pressed to mean anni 
hilation (see on v. 5). Nor, on the other hand, must it be 
watered down to mean mere physical punishment (cf. xi. 30). 
The exact meaning is nowhere revealed in Scripture ; but terrible 
ruin and eternal loss of some kind seems to be meant. See 
Beet s careful examination of these and kindred words, The Last 
Things, pp. 122 f. 

ayios tarif. It is holy, and therefore not to be tampered 
with without grave danger. Both the Tabernacle and the 
Temple are frequently called ayto?, and in the instinct of archaic 
religion in the O.T. the idea of danger was included in that of 

* This is a third case, quite different from the two cases in w. 14, 15. 
A good superstructure wins a reward for the builder. A bad superstructure 
perishes but the builder is rescued. But he who, instead of adding to the 
edifice, ruins what has been, built, will himself meet with ruin. 



68 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ill. 17, 18 

holiness. See Gray on Num. iv. 5, 15, 19, 20, and Kirk- 
patrick on i Sam. vi. 20 and 2 Sam. vi. 7 ; and cf. Lev. x. 6, 
xvi. 2, 13. 

CITIES <rre ujxets. It has been doubted whether vaos or aytos 
is the antecedent of omves, but the former is probably right : 
1 which temple ye are (AV., RV.).* The relative is attracted 
into the plural of v/xet?. Edwards quotes, rov ovpavov, ovs Srj 
TrdAovs KaXovcriv (Plato, Crat. 405). The meaning seems to be, 
4 The temple of God is holy ; ye are the temple of God ; therefore 
ye must guard against what violates your consecration. As 
distinct from the simple relative, otrives commonly carries with 
it the idea of category, of belonging to a class ; * and this is what 
ye are, and such are ye : cf. Gal. v. 19, where the construction 
is parallel. 



B C, d e f g Vulg.) rather than 00e(/>et (D E F G L P, Am.) 
where the difference between Greek and Latin in bilingual MSS. is remark 
able : see on iv. 2. TOVTOV (K B C L P) rather than avr6v (A D E F G). 



III. 18-IV. 5. Warning against a mere * Human Estimate 
of the Pastoral Office. 

Let no one profane God s Temple by taking on himself 
to set up party teachers in it. Regard us teachers as simply 
Christ s stewards. 

18 1 am not raising baseless alarms ; the danger of a false 
estimate of oneself is grave. It may easily happen that a man 
imagines that he is wise in his intercourse with you, with the 
wisdom of the non-Christian world. Let him become simple 
enough to accept Christ crucified, which is the way to become 
really wise. 19 For this world s wisdom is foolishness in God s 
sight, as it stands written in Scripture, Who taketh the wise in 
their own craftiness ; 20 and in another passage, The Lord 
knoweth the thoughts of the wise that they are vain. 21 If this 
is so, it is quite wrong for any one to plume himself on the men 
whom he sets up as leaders. For yours is no party-heritage; 
it is universal. 22 Paul, Apollos, Kephas, the world, life, death, 
whatever is, and whatever is to be, all of it belongs to you; 
23 but you you belong to no human leader ; you belong to 
Christ, and Christ to God. Between you and God there is no 
human leader. 

* We find the same thought, on a lower level, even in such a writer as 
Ovid (Epp. ex Ponio, II. i. 34) ; quae templum pectore semper habet. 



III. 18] HUMAN ESTIMATE OF PASTORAL OFFICE 69 

IV. l The right way of regarding Apollos, myself, and other 
teachers, is that we are officers under Christ, commissioned to 
dispense the truths which His Father has revealed to us in Him, 
just as stewards dispense their masters goods. 2 Here, further 
more, you must notice that all st^ej^axds are required to prove 
their fidelity. 3 But, as regards myself, it is a matter of small 
moment that my fidelity should be scrutinized and judged by you 
or by any human court. Yet that does not mean that I constitute 
myself as my own judge. 4 My judgments on myself would be 
inconclusive. For it may be the case that I have no conscious 
ness of wrong-doing, and yet that this does not prove that I am 
guiltless. My conscience may be at fault. The only competent 
judge of my fidelity is the Lord Christ. 5 That being so, cease 
to anticipate His decision with your own premature judgments. 
Wait for the Coming of the Judge. It is He who will both 
illumine the facts that are now hidden in darkness, and also 
make manifest the real motives of human conduct : and then 
whatever praise is due will come to each faithful steward direct 
from God. That will be absolutely final. 

The Apostle sums up his case against the o-^tV/uara, com 
bining the results of his exposure of the false wisdom, with its 
correlative conceit, and of his exposition of the Pastoral Office 
(18-23). He concludes by a warning against their readiness to 
form judgments, from a mundane standpoint, upon those whose 
function makes them amenable only to the judgment of the Day 
of the Lord. 

18. MrjSels laurov cnraT<Tu. A solemn rebuke, similar to 
that of fji-r] TrXavaa-Sf. in vi. 9, xv. 33, and Gal. vi. 7, and even 
more emphatic than that which is implied in ov/c oiSare (v. 16). 
He intimates that the danger of sacrilege and of its heavy penalty 
(vv. 1 6, 17) is not so remote as some of the Corinthians may 
think. Shallow conceit may lead to disloyal tampering with the 
people of Christ. That there is a sacrilegious tendency in faction 
is illustrated by Gal. v. 7-12, vi. 12, 13 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3, 4, 13-15, 
20 ; and the situation alluded to in Galatians may have been in 
the Apostle s mind when he wrote the words that are before us 
words which have a double connexion, viz. with w. 16, 17, 
and with the following section. St Paul is fond of compounds 
withjE/c: v. 7,^13, vi. 14, xv. 34. 

e! rig SOKCI oro4>os ctrai. Not, seemeth to be wise (AV.), 
videtur sapiens esse (Vulg.) ; but, * thinketh that he is wise (RV.), 



70 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ill. 18, 10 

sibi videtur esse sapiens (Beza). He considers himself an acute 
man of the world, quite able to decide for himself whether Paul, 
or Apollos, or Kephas is the right person to follow in matters of 
religion. We have the same use of So/cei in viii. 2, x. 12, xiv. 37. 
Excepting Jas. i. 26, e? TIS 8o/ct is peculiar to Paul; and there 
the AV. makes the same mistake as here, in translating seem 
instead of think. Here ca7rarar(o, and there dTrartov, may be 
regarded as decisive. It is the man s self-deceit that is criticized 
in both cases : his estimate is all wrong. See J. B. Mayor on 
Jas. i. 26. It is perhaps not accidental that the Apostle says e? 
TIS . . . fv vfuv t and not et TIS v/xwj/. The warning suggests that 
the self-styled o-o^os is among them, but not that he is one of 
themselves : the wrong-headed teacher has come from elsewhere. 
iv ufuy iv TW aluia TOVTW. We might put a comma after iv 
fyui/, for the two expressions are in contrast; in your circle, 
which has the heavenly wisdom and ought to be quite different 
from what is in this world and has only mundane wisdom. 
The latter is out of place in a Christian society (i. 20, 22, ii. 6, 8). 
Epictetus (Enchir. 18) warns us against thinking ourselves wise 
when others think us to be such ; /xr/Sev (3ov\ov SOKCU/ tinonurfar 
KO.V So^fls Ticriv flvai TIS, dirurrct 



Cyprian (Test. iii. 69, De bono patient. 2) takes iv r aluvi TOVT^ with 
pds ytveffdu : mundo huic stultus fiat. So also does Origen (Cels. i. 13 ; 
Philoc. 1 8) ; and also Luther : der werde ein Narr in dieser Welt. This 
makes good sense ; If any man thinks himself wise in relation to you 
Christians, let him become a fool in relation to this world : but it is not 
the right sense. It is crowds, not ywwp6s, that is qualified by 4v T< aluvi r. : 
If any man thinks himself wise in your circle I mean, of course, with this 
world s wisdom. From 4v vfuv, in a Christian Church, it might have 
been supposed that he meant the true wisdom, and he adds v r. ai. T. to 
avoid misunderstanding. 

jjiojpos y&eaOw. Let him drop his false wisdom, the conceit 
that he has about himself: i. 18-20, 23, ii. 14. 

Iva. yeVTjTat aocjxSs. So as to be brought unto all riches of 
the full assurance of understanding, unto full knowledge of the 
mystery of God, even Christ (Col. ii. 3).* 

19. He explains the paradox of the last verse by stating the 
principle already established, i. 21, ii. 6. 

impd TW 0ew. Before God as judge; Rom. ii. 13, xii. 16; 
Acts xxvi. 8. Although /xwpo? is common in N.T. and LXX, 
fKopia occurs, in N.T., only in these three chapters; and, in 
LXX, only in Ecclus. xx. 31, xli. 15 

6 SpaaaojAe^os K.r.X. From Job v. 13; a quotation inde 
pendent of the LXX, and perhaps somewhat nearer to the 

* Cf. Oval 01 ffvverol eavrots Kal tvuiriov favruv ^Trtorry/xoj ej : Barnabas 
(iv. ii) quotes these words as ypaQj. 



III. 19-21] HUMAN ESTIMATE OF PASTORAL OFFICE 71 

original Hebrew. Job is quoted only twice in N.T., both times 
by St Paul; and both here and in Rom. xi. 35, and in no other 
quotation, he varies considerably from the LXX. Like 6 TTOIWV 
in Heb. i. 7, 6 Spao-o-o//ei/os here is left without any verb. It 
expresses the strong grasp or grip which God has upon the 
slippery cleverness of the wicked : cf. Ecclus. xxvi. 7, where it is 
Said of an evil wife, 6 Kparwv avTrjs d>s 6 8pacr(ro/Xvos o-Kopiriov : 
and Ecclus. xxxiv. (xxxi.) 2, the man who has his mind upon 
dreams is o>s Spacrcro/xtvos O-KLO.<;. The words in Ps. ii. 12 which 
are mistranslated Kiss the Son are rendered in the LXX, 
Spdgao-6* TrcuSeia?, Lay hold on instruction. The verb occurs 
nowhere else in N.T., and in the LXX of Job v. 13 we have 6 



Versatile cleverness, readiness for anything in 
order to gain one s own ends. Craftiness, like astutia (Vulg.), 
emphasizes the cunning which Travovpyia often implies. The 
LXX has cV <j>povr)<reL, a word which commonly has a good 
meaning, while iravovpyia. almost always has a bad one, although 
not always in the LXX, e.g. Prov. i. 4, viii. 5. The adjective 
Travoupyo? is more often used in a better sense, and in the LXX 
is used with <po vi/xos to translate the same Hebrew word. 
Perhaps cleverness would be better here than craftiness 
(AV., RV.). See notes on Luke xx. 23 ; Eph. iv. 14. 

20. Kupios yivwatiti. From Ps. xciv. 1 1, and another instance 
(i. 20) of St Paul s freedom in quoting : the LXX, following the 
Hebrew, has avOpuTrw, where he (to make the citation more in 
point) has o-o</>eoi/. But the Psalm contrasts the designs of men 
with the designs of God, and therefore the idea of credo s is in the 
context. 

SiaXoyio-jiou s. In the LXX the word is used of the thoughts 
of God (Ps. xl. 6, xcii. 5). When used of men, the word often, 
but not always, has a bad sense, as here, especially of questioning 
or opposing the ways of God (Ps. Ivi. 5 ; Luke v. 22, vi. 8 ; Rom. 
i. 21 ; Jas. ii. 4). 

21. wore fjLT)8ts KauxaaOw. Conclusion from vv. 18-20. The 
connexion presupposes an affinity between conceit in one s own 
wisdom and a readiness to make over much of a human leader. 
The latter implies much confidence in one s own estimate of the 
leader. Consequently, the spirit of party has in it a subtle 
element of shallow arrogance. We have wore, so then, with 
an imperative, iv. 5, x. 12, xi. 33, xiv. 39, xv. 58. Outside this 
argumentative and practical Epistle the combination is not very 
common ; very rare, except in Paul. It seems to involve an 
abrupt change from the oratio obliqua to the oratio recta. It 
marks the transition from explanation to exhortation. 



72 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ill. 21, 22 



Iv d^pwirois. To * glory in men is the opposite of glorying 
in the Lord (i. 21). The Apostle is referring to their wrong- 
headed estimation of himself, Apollos, and others (as in iv. 6), 
not to party-leaders boasting of their large following. Leaders 
might glory in the patience and faith of their disciples (2 Thess. 
i. 4), but not in that as any credit to the leaders themselves. 
All partizan laudation is wrong. 

irAvTa. ydp up&v Ivriv. * You say, I belong to Paul, or, I 
belong to Apollos. So far from that being true, it is Paul and 
Apollos who belong to you, for all things belong to you. 
Instead of contenting himself with saying * We are yours, he 
asserts that and a very great deal more; not merely Travres, all 
servants of God, but Trai/ra, all God s creatures, belong to them. 
Yet his aim is, not merely to proclaim how wide their heritage is, 
but to show them that they have got the facts by the wrong end. 
They want to make him a chieftain ; he is really their servant. 
The Church is not the property of Apostles ; Apostles are 
ministers of the Church. Quia omnia vestra sunt, nolite in 
singulis gloriari ; nolite spedales vobis magistros defendere, 
quoniam omnibus utimini (Atto). Omnia propter sanctos creata 
sunt, tanquam nihil habentes et omnia possidentes (Primasius). 

The thought is profound and far-reaching. The believer in 
God through Christ is a member of Christ and shares in His 
universal lordship, all things being subservient to the Kingdom 
of God, and therefore to his eternal welfare (vii. 31 ; Rom. viii. 
28 ; John xvi. 33 ; i John v. 4, 5), as means to an end. The 
Christian loses this birthright by treating the world or its 
interests as ends in themselves, i.e. by becoming enslaved to 
persons (vii. 23; 2 Cor. xi. 20) or things (vi. 12; Phil. iii. 19). 
Without God, we should be the sport of circumstances, and the 
world would crush us, if not in * life, at least in c death. As it 
is, all these things alike * are ours. We meet them as members 
of Christ, rooted in God s love (Rom. viii. 37). The Corinthians, 
by boasting in men, were forgetting, and thereby imperilling, 
their prerogative in Christ. There is perhaps a touch of Stoic 
language in these verses ; see on iv. 8. Origen points out that 
the Greeks had a saying, Ilai/ra TOV cro^oO eariV, but St Paul was 
the first to say, Hdvra rov ayi ou e 



22. eire . . . eiTe . . . tire. The enumeration, rising in a 
climax, is characteristic of St Paul (Rom. viii. 38) : the -rravra is 
first expanded and then repeated. We might have expected a 
third triplet, past, present, and future ; but the past is not ours 
in the sense in which the present and future are. We had no 
part in shaping it, and cannot change it. In the first triplet, he 
places himself first, i.e. at the bottom of the climax. 



III. 22, 23] * HUMAN ESTIMATE OF PASTORAL OFFICE 73 

etre Koa/j-og. The transition from Kephas to the *oa/i,os is, as 
Bengel remarks, rather repentinus saltus, and made, he thinks, 
with a touch of impatience, lest the enumeration should become 
too extended. But perhaps alliteration has something to do 
with it. This Bengel spoils, by substituting Peter for Kephas. 
The world is here used in a neutral sense, without ethical 
significance, the world we live in, the physical universe. 

eire uf] cere OdmTos. If KooyAos is the physical universe, it is 
probable that w7J and tfavaros mean physical life and death. They 
sum up all that man instinctively clings to or instinctively dreads. 
From life and death in this general sense we pass easily to wor- 
Tcora. It is by life in the world that eternal life can be won, and 
death is the portal to eternal life. In Rom. viii. 38 death is 
mentioned before life, and tveorumi and /xe AAovra do not close 
the series. 

iT eVeoTuTa eire jjieXXorra. These also ought probably to be 
confined in meaning to the things of this life. They include the 
whole of existing circumstances and all that lies before us to the 
moment of death. All these things are yours, i.e. work together 
for your good. It is possible that /xeXWra includes the life 
beyond the grave ; but the series, as a whole, reads more con 
sistently, if each member of it is regarded as referring to human 
experience in this world. 



For v/j.G)v t v/j.^, B and one or two cursives read r)nui>, ^/xe??. After 
, D 2 E L, f g Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm. add tarlv. 



23. ufms Be XpurroG. These words complete the rebuke of 
those who said that they belonged to Paul, etc. They belonged 
to no one but Christ, and they all alike belonged to Him. 
While all things were theirs, they were not their own (vi. 20, 
vii. 23), and none of them had any greater share in Christ than 
the rest (i. 13). Christians, with all their immense privileges, are 
not the ultimate owners of anything. There is only one real 
Owner, God. On the analogy between XpioroC here and 
Kcuo-a/3os= "belonging to the Emperor" in papyri see Deissmann, 
Light from the Anc. East, p. 382. Cf. xv. 23 ; Gal. iii. 29, 
v. 24. 

Xpioros Be 0eoO. Not quite the same in meaning as Luke 
ix. 20, xxiii. 35 ; Acts iii. 18; Rev. xii. 10. In all those passages 
we have 6 Xpio-ros TOV eov or avrov. Here Xpioro s is more of a 
proper name. The thought of the Christian s lordship over the 
world has all its meaning in that of his being a son of God 
through Christ (Rom. viii. 16, 17). This passage is one of the 
few in which St Paul expresses his conception of the relation of 
Christ to God (see on ii. 16). Christ, although cV /nop^ eov 
(Phil. ii. 6, where see Lightfoot and Vincent), is so 



74 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 1 

derivatively (Col. i. 15, where see Lightfoot and Abbott): His 
glory in His risen and exalted state is given by God (Phil. ii. 9 ; 
cf. Rom. vi. 10), and in the end is to be merged in God (see on 
xv. 28). Theodoret says here, ofy o><> KTtV/xa eov, dAA d>< vtos 
TOV eov. There is no need to suppose, with some of the 
Fathers and later writers, that St Paul is here speaking of our 
Lord s human nature exclusively ; there is no thought of separat 
ing the two natures ; he is speaking of Christ, the Divine 
Mediator in His relation to His Father and to His many 
brethren. See many admirable remarks in Sanday, Ancient and 
Modern Christologies, on the doctrine of Two Natures in Christ, 
PP- 37> 5> 5 2 > 9> l6 5, and especially p. 173 ; see also Edwards 
and Stanley s notes ad loc. 



IV. 1. OUTWS Tj/ias XoyiieVdw. The thought of iii. 5 is resumed, 
and the reproof of the tendency to * glory in men is completed 
by a positive direction as to the right attitude towards the pastors 
of the Church. The Corinthians must regard them ut ministros 
Christi^ non ut aequales Christo (Primasius). The ourws probably 
refers to what follows, as in iii. 15, ix. 26. The ly/xas certainly 
refers to all who are charged with the ministry of the New 
Testament or Covenant (2 Cor. iii. 6). But we get good sense 
if we make ovrws refer to what precedes : * Remembering that 
we and everything else are yours, as you are Christ s, let a man 
take account of us as men who are ministers of Christ This 
throws a certain amount of emphasis on ^/xa?, the emphasis being 
removed from oiWf : but i^uas may receive emphasis, for it is 
the attitude of the Corinthians towards the Apostle and other 
teachers that is in question. 

a^pwiros. Almost equivalent to TIS (xi. 28), but a gravior 
dicendi formula. This use is rare in class. Grk. 

uiTTjpeTas. Substituted for SIUKOVOI in iii. 5. The word origin 
ally denoted those who row (cpco-o-cw) in the lower tier of a 
trireme, and then came to mean those who do anything under 
another, and hence simply underlings. * In the Church, St 
Luke (i.2) applies it to any service of the word ; later it was used 
almost technically of sub-deacons. See on Luke iv. 20, and 
Suicer, s.v. St Paul uses the word nowhere else. 

OLKOVOJJLOUS. The OLKOVO/JLOS (o*Kos and ve /Aeu/) was the respons 
ible head of the establishment, assigning to each slave his duties 
and entrusted with the administration of the stores. He was a 
slave in relation to his master (Luke xii. 42), but the eVtT/aoVos or 
overseer (Matt. xx. 8) in relation to the workmen (see on Luke 

* St Paul is probably not thinking of the derivation ; Christ is the pilot ; 
we are rowers under Him. By Xpurrou he may mean not of any earthly 
master. 



IV. 1-3] * HUMAN ESTIMATE OF PASTORAL OFFICE 75 

xii. 42 and xvi. i ; in the latter place, the OIKOI/O /AOS seems to be a 
freeman). God is the Master (iii. 23) of the Christian household 
(i Tim. iii. 15), and the stores entrusted to His stewards are the 
mysteries of God. These mysteries are the truths which the 
stewards are commissioned to teach (see on ii. 7). Between the 
Master and the stewards stands the Son (xv. 25 : Heb. iii. 6), 
whose underlings the stewards are. See on otKoi/o/xtav in Eph. 
i. 10 and Col. i. 25. 

2. J&. Here, i.e. on earth and in human life, or perhaps 
in these circumstances. See on i. 16 for Aourov. 

T)T6iT<u K.T.X. The AV. cannot be improved upon; It is 
required in stewards that a man be found faithful. See on i. 10 
for this use of iva : the attempts to maintain its full * telic force 
here are too clumsy to deserve discussion : see further on v. 2, 
and compare cvpeOfj in i Pet. i. 7. 

irwrros. Cf. Luke xii. 42, xvi. 10; Num. xii. 7; i Sam. xxii. 
14: the meaning is trustworthy. To be an OIKOI/O/XOS is not 
enough.* 

<53e (N A B C D* F G P 17, e Vulg.) rather than 5 5<? (D 3 E L). In 
Luke xvi. 25 there is a similar corruption in some texts. fi;Treu (B L, 
d e f g Vulg. Copt. Syrr.) rather than ftyretre (K A C D P and F G -tire). 
Here, as in <j)6epe1 (iii. 17), d e f g support the better reading against D E F G. 
Lachmann takes u)5e at the end off. i, an improbable arrangement. 

3. ejio! 8e. The 8e implies contrast to something understood, 
such as I do not claim to be irresponsible ; inquiry will have to 
be made as to whether I am faithful ; but (Se) the authority to 
which I bow is not yours, nor that of any human tribunal, but 
God s. 

eis eXaxurToy eonf. It amounts to very little, it counts for 
a very small matter. Cf. eis ov&v XoyurOrjvai (Acts xix. 27). 
He does not say that it counts for nothing. "I have often 
wondered how it is that every man sets less value on his own 
opinion of himself than on the opinion of others. So much 
more respect have we to what our neighbours think of us than to 
what we think of ourselves " (M. Aurelius, xii. 4). 

W di/aKpi0w. To be judged of, or to be put on my trial, 
or to pass your tribunal (see on ii. 14, 15). The verb is 
neutral, and suggests neither a favourable nor an unfavourable 
verdict. The dominant thought here, as in ii. 14, 15, is the 
competency of the tribunal. The clause is almost equivalent to 
a simple infinitive, the Iva defining the purport of a possible 
volition, whether of, for, or against what is named. He does 

* Chadwick, The Pastoral Teaching of St Paul, p. 164 f. He does not 
say be judged trustworthy, but be found actually to be so. In I Pet. iv. 10 
every Christian is a steward. 



76 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 3, 4 

not mean that the Corinthians had thought of formally trying 
him, but that he cares little for what public opinion may decide 
about him. 

?j UTTO dyOpwmnrjs TJjxe pas. The phrase is in contrast to ^ 
fjfjiepa (in. 13), which means the Day of the Lord, the Lord s 
Judgment-Day. That is the tribunal which the Apostle recog 
nizes ; a human tribunal he does not care to satisfy. He may 
have had in his mind the use of a word equivalent to * day in 
the sense of a court, which is found in Hebrew and in other 
languages.* Daysman in Job ix. 33 means arbitrator or 
umpire : compare diem dicere alicui. From dies comes dieta 
diet ; and hence, in German, 7b < g r = diet, as in Reichstag, 
Landtag. Man s judgment (AV., RV.) gives the sense suffi 
ciently. Jerome is probably wrong in suggesting that the 
expression is a Cilicism, one of St Paul s provincialisms. 
Humanus dies dicitur in quo judicant homines, quia erit et dies 
Domini, in quo judicabit et Dominus (Herv.). Atto says much 
the same. 

dXV ou8c ep-auroy dvaKpiVw. Nay, even my own verdict 
upon my conduct, with the knowledge which I have of its 
motives, is but a human judgment, incompetent definitely to 
condemn (i John iii. 20), and still more incompetent to acquit. f 
" We cannot fail to mark the contrast between this avowal of 
inability to judge oneself and the claim made in ch. ii. on 
behalf of the spiritual man, who judges all things. Self-know 
ledge is more difficult than revealed truth " (Edwards) : Ps. 
xix. 12. 



4. ou&ey yap ejAauTU) auyoiSa. * For (supposing that) I know 
nothing against myself, Suppose that I am not conscious of 
any wrong-doing on my part. The Apostle is not stating a fact, 
but an hypothesis ; he was conscious of many faults ; yet, even 
if he were not aware of any, that would not acquit him. No 
where else in N.T. is the verb used in this sense (see Acts v. 2, 
xii. 12, xiv. 6): it means to share knowledge, and here to 
know about oneself what is unknown to others. It expresses 
conscience in the recording sense. As conscience can condemn 
more surely than it can acquit, the word, when used absolutely, 
has more frequently a bad sense, and hence comes to mean to 
be conscious of guilt : nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa 



* Aesch. in Ctes. p. 587 ; Els rpla ^p-rj diaipeirai ^ yfJ-tpa,, STCLV 
ypa<pT] irapavd/Mov els rb SiKaaT-fjpiov, where i) -rj^pa means the time of the 
trial. 

t We might have expected d\X ovSt avrbs 4/j.avrbv avaKpLvw, but the 
meaning is clear. He does not base his refusal to pass judgment on himself 
on the difficulty of being impartial. Such a judgment, however impartial and 
just, could not be final, and therefore would be futile. 



IV. 4, 6] HUMAN ESTIMATE OF PASTORAL OFFICE 77 

(Hor. Ep. i. i. 61) illustrates the same kind of meaning in the 
Latin equivalent. See on y K<U, Rom. ii. 15. The archaic I 
know nothing by myself (AV.) has caused the words to be 
seriously misunderstood. In sixteenth-century English by 
might mean against, and means against here. Latimer says, 
" Sometimes I say more by him than I am able to prove ; this is 
slandering" (i. 518). Jonson, in the Silent Woman^ "An 
intelligent woman, if she know by herself the least defect, will 
be most curious to hide it" (iv. i), which is close to the use 
here. T. L. O. Davies (Bible Words ^ p. 81) gives these and 
other examples.* 

d\X OUK Iv TOUTU. * Nevertheless, not hereby, But yet not 
in this fact, not therefore. This eV TOU TW is frequent in St John, 
especially in the First Epistle and in connexion with yii/wo-Kctv 
(John xiii. 35 ; i John ii. 3, 5, iii. 16, 19, 24, iv. 2, 13, v. 2), but 
also with other verbs (John xv. 8, xvi. 30). The ov* is placed 
away from its verb with special emphasis; sed non in hoc (Vulg.), 
non per hoc (Beza). Without difference of meaning, Ignatius 
(Rom. 5) has oAA ov TT a p a TOVTO 8eSiKaia)/A<u. 

SeSiKcu wjAai. Am I acquitted. The word is used in a 
general sense, not in its technical theological sense. To intro 
duce the latter here (Meyer, Beet, etc.) is to miss the drift of the 
passage, which deals, not with the question as to how man 
is justified in God s sight, but with the question as to who is 
competent to sit in judgment on a man s work or life. St Paul is 
not dealing with the question of his own personal justification 
by faith, as though he said I am justified not by this, but in 
some other way : he is saying in the first person, what would 
apply equally to any one else, that an unaccusing conscience does 
not per se mean absence of guilt. 

6 8e dmKpu wi JJLC Kupios eoriv. But he that judgeth me is 
the Lord, i.e. Christ, as the next verse shows. The Se goes back 
to ovSc e/tavrov draKpiVo), what intervenes being a parenthesis ; 
not I myself, but our Lord, is the judge. 

5. wore. With the imperative (see on iii. 21), So then. 
fw/j TI Kpiyere. Cease to pass any judgment, or Make a 
practice of passing no judgment (pres. imper.). The TI is a 
cognate accusative, such as we have in John vii. 24. As far as 
I am concerned, you may judge as you please, it is indifferent 
to me; but, as Christians, you should beware of passing any 
judgment on any one, until the Judge of all has made all things 
clear. All anticipation is vain. 

rrpo KcupoG. Before the fitting time, or the appointed 

* The use is perhaps not yet extinct in Yorkshire. "I know nothing by 
him " might still be heard for "I know nothing against him." 



78 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 5 

time, when ol ayiot rov KOO-^OV Kpivova-w (vi. 2). Kaipos has 
no exact equivalent in English, French, or German. Cf. Matt. 
viii. 29. 

Iws o.v e\0fl. The addition or omission of av after cos in the 
N.T. is somewhat irregular, and this fact precludes any sure 
generalization as to particular shades of meaning. In later 
Greek the force of av is weakened, and therefore the difference 
between its presence and absence is lessened. Here, not the 
coming, but the time of it, is doubtful ; till the Advent, when 
ever that may be. See Milligan on 2 Thess. ii. 7, where there 
is no av, and Edwards here. In Rev. ii. 25, axpt ov av fjgw, it is 
doubtful whether ^w is fut. indie, or aor. subj. At the Day of 
Judgment they will take part in judging (vi. 2, 3), with all the 
facts before them. 

os Kal <f>am<rei. Who shall both throw light upon, shall 
illumine, lucem inferet in (Beng.). But the difference between 
bringing light to and bringing to light is not great. The KCU 
is probably both, not also ; but if * also, the meaning is, will 
come to judge and also will illumine, which is less probable. 
<l>amu> points to the source of the revelation. 

TO, KpuTTTa TOU OXOTOUS. Abscondita tenebarum (Vulg.); occulta 
tenebrarum = res tenebris occultatas (Beza). The genitive may be 
possessive or characterizing, the hidden things which darkness 
holds, or the hidden things whose nature is dark. The point 
is, not that what will be revealed is morally bad, although that 
may be suggested, but that hitherto they have been quite secret, 
hidden, it may be, from the person s own conscience. 

Kal <j>aypwau Two things are necessary for an unerring 
judgment of human actions, a complete knowledge of the facts, 
and full insight into the motives. These the Lord will apply 
when He comes ; and to attempt to judge men without these 
indispensable qualifications is futile arrogance. <ayepow points 
to the result of the revelation. 

Kal TOTC 6 l-rran os. And then> and not till then, the measure of 
praise that is due will come to each from God. He will have 
his praise (RV.), what rightly belongs to him, which may be 
little or none, and will be very different from the praise of 
partizans here. We have the same thought in 2 Cor. x. 18; 
Rom. ii. 29 ; and Clem. Rom. reproduces it, Cor. 30. Compare 
/xto-009, iii. 14, and 6 /AKT#OS, Rom. iv. 4, and see Hort on i Pet. 

i- 7> P- 43- 

diro TOU 06oO. At the end, with emphasis ; the award is final, 
as aTTo intimates ; there is no further court of appeal : and it is 
from God that Christ has authority to judge the world (John 
v. 27). Cf. 2 Esdr. xvi. 62-65. With cKa<rru> compare the fivefold 
in iii. 5-13. 



IV. 6-21] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 79 

D E F G, Aug. omit the 8s before Kal. D omits the rov before GeoP. 
The conjecture of VTTO for (for6 before rov Qeov has no probability of being 
right. Christ is the wpiff^vos virb rov Qeov Kpir-rjs (Acts x. 42) : cf. /i^XXei 
Kpiveiv TT)V oinoviicvyv tv avopl $ tipiffev (Acts xvii. 31) : so that the judg 
ments pronounced by Christ are airb rov Qeov. 



IV. 6-21. Personal Application of the foregoing- Passage 
(III. 5-IV. 5), and Close of the Subject of the Dis 
sensions. 

My aim in all this is to correct party-spirit and conceit. 
Do compare your self-glorification with the humiliations of 
your teachers. This admonition comes from a father wJiom 
you ought to imitate. I really am coming to you. Is it to 
be in severity or in gentleness f 

6 These comments I have modified in form, so as to apply to 
myself and Apollos, without including others, for you certainly 
have made party-leaders of him and me. And I have done this 
for your sakes, not ours, in order that by us as examples you 
may learn the meaning of the words, Go not beyond what is 
written; in short, to keep any one of you from speaking boast 
fully in favour of the one teacher to the disparagement of the 
other. 7 For, my friend, who gives you the right to prefer one 
man to another and proclaim Paul and Apollos as leaders? 
And what ability do you possess that was not given to you by 
God? You must allow that you had it as a gift from Him. 
Then why do you boast as if you had the credit of acquiring it ? 
8 No doubt you Corinthians are already in perfect felicity ; already 
you are quite rich ; without waiting for us poor teachers, you 
have come to your kingdom ! And I would to God that you 
had come to the Kingdom, that we also might be there with you ! 
But we are far from that happy condition. For it seems to me 
that God has exhibited us His Apostles last of all, as men 
doomed to death are the last spectacle in a triumphal procession : 
for a spectacle we are become to the universe, to the whole 
amphitheatre of angels and men. 10 We poor simpletons go on 
with the foolishness of preaching Christ, while you in your 
relation to Him are men of sagacity. We feel our weakness ; 
you are so strong as to stand alone. You have the glory, and 
we the contempt. n Up to this very moment we go hungry, 
thirsty, and scantily clothed ; we get plenty of hard blows and 



80 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 6 

have no proper home; 12 and we have to work hard with our 
hands to earn our daily bread. Men revile us, and we bless 
them ; they persecute us, and we are patient ; they slander us, 
and we merely deprecate. 13 We have been treated as the scum 
of the earth, the refuse of society, and are treated so still. 

14 1 am not writing in this tone to put you to shame : you are 
my dearly loved children, and I am showing you where you are 
wrong. 15 For you may have any number of instructors in Christ, 
yet you have not more than one father : for in Christ Jesus it was 
I, and no one else, who begat you through the Glad-tidings 
which I brought you. 16 1 have, therefore, the right to beseech 
you to follow my steps. 17 And because I wish you to follow my 
example, I have sent Timothy to you ; for he also is a child of 
mine, dearly loved as you are, loyal and trusty in the Lord, and 
he will bring back to your remembrance the simple and lowly 
ways which I have as a Christian teacher, not only at Corinth, 
but everywhere and in every Church. 18 Some of you boastfully 
declared that my sending Timothy meant that I did not dare to 
come myself; so they would do as they pleased. 19 But I do 
mean to come, and that soon, to you, if the Lord pleases ; and 
I will then take cognizance, not of what these inflated boasters 
say, but of what they can do. Have they any spiritual power ? 
20 For the Kingdom of God is not a thing of words, but of 
spiritual power. 21 Which is it to be then ? Am I to come to 
you rod in hand, or in love and a spirit of gentleness ? 

After a brief, plain statement of his purpose (6, 7) in the 
preceding exposition of the Pastoral Office, the Apostle severely 
rebukes the inflated glorying of his readers (8-13), and then, in 
a more tender strain (14-16), but still not without sternness 
(17-21), explains the mission of Timothy, the precursor of his 
own intended visit. 

6. TaGra Se. * Now these things, viz. the whole of the 
remarks from iii. 5 onwards, the 8e introducing the conclusion 
and application of the whole. 

dScX^ou As in i. 10, iii. i. 

jATo-x^aTio-a. * I put differently, * transferred by a figure ; 
lit. altered the arrangement (o-x^a). The Apostle means 
that he used the names of Apollos and himself to illustrate a 
principle which might, but for reasons of tact, have been more 
obviously illustrated by other names. In LXX the verb is 
found once (4 Mac. ix. 22), in N.T. in Paul only; of false 



IV. 6] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 8 1 

apostles fashioning themselves into Apostles of Christ, like 
Satan fashioning himself into an angel of light (2 Cor. xi. 13-15) ; 
and of the glorious change of our body of humiliation (Phil, 
iii. 21). The meaning here is different from both these, and the 
difference of meaning in the three passages turns upon the 
implied sense of o~x^ a in each case. See Lightfoot ad loc. and 
also on Phil. ii. 7 and iii. 21 ; Trench, Syn. LXX. ; Hastings, 
DB. ii. p. 7. In the present passage there seems to be a 
reference to the rhetorical sense of o^/Aa ( =figurd) to denote a 
veiled allusion. The meaning here will be, * I have transferred 
these warnings to myself and Apollos for the purpose of a 
covert allusion, and that for your sakes, that in our persons you 
may get instruction. The /MeTaorx^aTicr/xos, therefore, consists 
in putting forward the names of those not really responsible for 
the o-Tcto-ets instead of the names of others who were more to 
blame.* 

lv r^iiv fAaOfjre. * May learn in us as an object-lesson, in our 
case may learn. They could read between the lines. 

TO JAT] uirep & yeypaiTTai. The article, as often, has almost the 
effect of inverted commas ; the principle or the lesson 
" Never go beyond," etc. The maxim is given in an elliptical 
form without any verb, as in ne sutor ultra crepidam : cf. v. i, 
xi. 24; 2 Pet. ii. 22. Here, as elsewhere, some texts insert a 
verb in order to smooth the ellipse. By a yiypairrai the Apostle 
means passages of Scripture such as those which he has quoted, 
i. 19, 31, iii. 19, 20. It is possible that there was a maxim of 
this kind current among the Jews, like /xr/Scv ayav among the 
Greeks. It is strange that any one should suppose that 
a ye ypaTTTcu can refer to what St Paul himself has written or 
intends to write, or to the commands of our Lord.f It was 
perhaps a Rabbinical maxim. 

iva JIT) K.T.X. This second iva introduces the consequence 
expected from /xa^re, and so the ultimate purpose of /zcrc- 
<rx?7/AaTio-a, viz. to avoid all sectarian divisions. The proposal to 
take Iva in the local sense of where, in which case, l wobei, 
may be safely dismissed. Even in class. Grk. this sense of Iva 
is chiefly poetical, and it is quite out of keeping with N.T. 
usage and with the context here. It is less easy to be certain 
whether <u<rioixr0e is the present indicative, which would be very 
irregular after Iva, or an irregularly contracted subjunctive. 
Gal. iv. 7 is the only certain instance in N.T. of Iva with the 

* That there was no jealousy or rivalry between St Paul and Apollos is 
clear from iii. 6, 8-10, xvi. 12. It is possible that it was the factious conduct 
of his partizans that drove Apollos from Corinth (Renan, 6*. Paul, p. 375). 

t Rudolf Steck would refer this to Rom. xii. 3 ; an extraordinary con 
jecture. 

6 



82 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 6, 7 

present indicative; but some of the best editors admit it in 
John xvii. 3 ; Tit. ii. 4 ; i John v. 20. The double Iva is Pauline ; 
Gal. iii. 14, iv. 5. 

The sense is an expansion of glorying in men (iii. 21): 
party-spirit, essentially egoist, cries up one leader at the expense 
of another leader. Some take cros and ere/sou, not as leaders, but 
as members, of the respective parties. This is not the probable 
meaning. To cry up a favourite leader of your own choosing is 
to betray an inflated self-conceit. See on v. 18. With els vTrep 
TOV ej/os maybe contrasted oiKoSo/zetrc el? rov Iva (i Thess. v. n), 
where the opposite cause and effect are indicated, the union, 
which results from mutual edification. Here wip means on 
behalf of or in favour of. We have a similar use of v-n-ep and 
Kara, in Rom. viii. 31. See Blass, 45. 2. 

For iv ij/j.iv, D 17, Copt, read tv 6fuv. virtp & (N A B C P 17) is to be 
preferred to virep 6 (D E F G L). After yeypairrai, X 3 D 3 L P, Syrr. 
Copt. Arm. AV. insert (ppovtlv to avoid the ellipse: K*ABD*EFG, 
Vulg. RV. omit. Some editors propose to omit TO /m-rj vtrtp A yeypaTrrat as 
a marginal gloss. The sentence is intelligible without these words, but a 
gloss would have taken some other form. The <j>povelv may come from 
Rom. xii. 3. 



7. TIS Y^P CT SiaKpii/ei ; The ydp introduces a reason why 
such conceit is out of place ; For who sees anything special in 
you ? The verb has a variety of meanings (see Acts xv. 9 and 
on trwKpLVLV in ii. 13), and these meanings are linked by the 
idea of separate in one sense or another: here it means to 
distinguish favourably from others. Who gives you the right to 
exalt one and depress another ? No one has given you such a 
right : then do you claim it is an inherent right ? Tu t qui 
amplius te accepisse gloriaris, quis te ab eo qui minus accepit 
separavit, nisi is qui tibi dedit quod alteri non dedit ? ( Atto). 

TI 8e exeis 6 OUK IXapcs. The 8e adds another home-thrust, 
another searching question. * Let us grant that you have some 
superiority. Is it inherent ? You know that you have nothing 
but what you have received. Your good things were all of them 
given to you. Origen suggests that the question may mean, 
Why do you pretend to have a gift which you have not received 
from God? But he prefers the usual interpretation. The 
question is a favourite one with Cyril of Alexandria, who quotes 
it nine times in his commentary on St John. 

ei Se KCH IXafcs. But if thou didst receive it. The KCU 
throws an emphasis on eAa/fo, and d /cat represents the insist 
ence on what is fact (2 Cor. iv. 3, v. 16, xii. n), while /cat et 
represents an assumed possibility ; but it is not certain that this 
distinction always holds good in Paul. 

It has been urged that the usual interpretation of !A,a/3es as 



IV. 7, 8] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 83 

* received from God, the Giver of all good gifts is not suitable 
to the context ; and that the Apostle means that such Christian 
wisdom as the Corinthians possessed was not their own making, 
but came to them through ministry of their teachers. But, after 
iii. 5-7, 21 (cf. xii. 6, xv. 10), St Paul would not be likely to make 
any such claim. The main point is, whatever superiority you 
may have is not your own product, it was a gift ; and St Paul 
was much more likely to mean that it was God s gift, than any 
thing derived from himself and Apollos. 

The question which he asks strikes deeper than the immediate 
purpose of this passage. It is memorable in the history of 
theology for the revolution which it brought about in the 
doctrine of Grace. In A.D. 396, in the first work which he 
wrote as a bishop, Augustine tells us : " To solve this question 
we laboured hard in the cause of the freedom of man s will, but 
the Grace of God won the day," and he adds that this text was 
decisive {Retract. 11. i. i ; see also De divers, quaest. ad Simplici- 
anum, i.). Ten years before the challenge of Pelagius, the study 
of St Paul s writings, and especially of this verse and of Rom. 
ix. 1 6, had crystallized in his mind the distinctively Augustinian 
doctrines of man s total depravity, of irresistible grace, and of 
absolute predestination. 

The fundamental thought here is that the teachers, about 
whom the Corinthians gloried, were but ministers of what was 
the gift of God. The boasting temper implied forgetfulness of 
this fact. It treated the teachers as exhibitors of rhetorical skill, 
and as ministering to the taste of a critical audience, which was 
entitled to class the teachers according to the preferences of this 
or that hearer. "EAa/fo here coincides with eTrio-Teu craTe in iii. 5. 



8. The Apostle now directly attacks the self-esteem of his 
readers in a tone of grave irony. * You may well sit in judgment 
upon us, from your position of advanced perfection, whence you 
can watch us struggling painfully to the heights which you have 
already scaled. Hate verba per ironiam dicta sunt : non enim 
sunt affirmantiS) sed indignantis, et commoti animi. Illos quippe 
regnare, saturates et divites factos, in quibus superius diversa vitia 
et plures err ores redarguit (Atto). It spoils the irony of the 
assumed concession to take the three clauses which follow as 
questions (WH.). That the three argumentative questions 
should be followed by three satirical affirmations is full of point. 
Six consecutive questions would be wearisome and somewhat 
flat. 

TjSrj KeKOpeajifVoi ^ore, rJSir] eirXourrjcraTe, X W P^S TJ|Awy ejSacrtXeuaaTC. 
The RV. might have given each of the three clauses a note of 
exclamation. The Vulg. gives one to the last, and it covers the 



84 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 8 

other two. It is evident that the three verbs form a climax, and 
the last gives the key to the allusion. These highly blessed 
Corinthians are already in the Kingdom of God, enjoying its 
banquets, its treasures, and its thrones. The verbs stand for 
the satisfaction of all desires in the Messianic Kingdom 
(Luke xxii. 29, 30; i Thess. ii. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 12). The attitude 
of the 7r<vo-iw//,eVoi amounted to a claim to be already in 
possession of all that this Kingdom was to bring. They have 
got a private millennium of their own. Like the T/ST/ in the two 
first clauses, x^pis fjp.w is emphatic. Without us, who taught 
you all that you know of the Gospel, and who are still labouring 
to enter the Kingdom, you are as Kings in the Kingdom. 
1 Without us does not mean * without our aid, but * without our 
company. The contrast is between the fancied beatitude of the 
Corinthians and the actual condition of the Apostles. The 
Corinthians pose as perfected saints ; their teachers are still very 
far indeed from perfection.* 

In TrXovreiv and pacriXevcw we have a coincidence with the 
language of the Stoics, as in iii. 21. There iravra v^v CCTTIV has 
parallels in Zeno and Seneca ; emittere hanc dei vocem, Haec 
omnia mea sunt (De Benef. vii. ii. 3). But, whether or no 
St Paul is consciously using Stoic expressions, there is no 
resemblance in meaning. The thought of victory over the 
world by incorporation into Christ is far removed from that of 
independence of the world through personal avrapKfia. Here 
again we have the difference between the true and the false 



KOI o4>6\<5 Y ej3aaiXeuCTaT. In this late Greek this un- 
augmented second aorist has become a mere particle, an 
exclamation to express a wish as to what might have happened, 
but has not, or what might happen, but is not expected. Hence 
it is followed by the indicative without av. In LXX it is often 
followed by the aorist, as here, especially in the phrase ofaXov 
aTTfOdvo^v. In 2 Cor. xi. i and Gal. v. 12, as here, the wish 
has a touch of irony. The ye emphasizes the wish ; * As far as 
my feelings are concerned, would that your imaginary royalty 
were real, for then our hard lot would be at an end. 

ira . . . oruypaanXeu crwjiei . In ironical contrast to x w P* s 
You seem to have arrived at the goal far in front of us 



* Chrysostom points out that "piety is insatiable." A Christian can 
never be satisfied with his condition ; and for those who were as yet scarcely 
beginners to suppose that they had reached the end, was childish. 
Bachmann quotes the well-known Logion preserved by Clement of 
Alexandria (704 ed. Potter, and found in a somewhat different form in 
Oxyrhynchus papyri ; ov TrcuVercu 6 ^rdv ?ws &v evpr), evp&v 5 6a/j.jSr)creTa.i, 
0a/j.p-r)deh St jScurtXetfcrei, fiaaiXeixras 5 tTravairaveTat. See Deissmann, Light, 
p. xiii. 



IV. 8, 9] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 85 

poor teachers : indeed I wish that it were so, so that we might hope 
to follow and share your triumph. The only other place in 
N.T. in which <rw/3ao-i\eveiv occurs is 2 Tim. ii. 12, where it is 
used of reigning with Christ. 

9. SOKW ydp, 6 Gees . . . dir$eii>. For it seems to me, 
God has set forth us, the Apostles, as last. There is a great 
pageant in which the Apostles form the ignominious finale, con 
sisting of doomed men, who will have to fight in the arena till 
they are killed. St Paul is thinking chiefly of himself; but, to 
avoid the appearance of egoism, he associates himself with other 
Apostles. Perhaps airtSeL^tv is used in a technical sense ; placed 
upon the scene, made a show of, exhibited ; or, possibly, 
nominated, proclaimed, as if being doomed men was an 
office or distinction : cf. eSeovro aTroSei^at TWO. avroV (3acri\ta. 
(Joseph. Ant. vi. iii. 3). This latter meaning increases the 
irony of the passage. In 2 Thess. ii. 4, dTroSct/cvwra seems to 
be used in this sense. 

u>s m6amTious. The adjective occurs nowhere else in N.T. ; 
but in LXX of Bel and the Dragon 31 it is used of the con 
demned conspirators who were thrown to the lions, two at a time, 
daily ; TWV crriftwaTiW orw/xara 8vo. Dionysius of Halicarnassus 
(A.R. vii. 35), about B.C. 8, uses it of those who were thrown 
from the Tarpeian rock. Tertullian (De Pudic. 14) translates it 
here, veluti bestiarios^ which is giving it too limited a meaning. 
Cf. ^pto/xa^o-a, xv. 32. Spectandos proposuit, ut morti addictos 
(Beza).* 

on OearpoK eycn^Tjfjiey. Seeing that we are become a 
spectacle ; explaining exhibited (or nominated ) us as doomed 
men. Here Qiarpov = 0e a/xa : the place of seeing easily comes 
to be substituted for what is seen there, and also for ot fcaraf, as 
we say the house for the audience or spectators. Cf. 06arpid- 
/ucvoi, spectaculum facti (Vulg. both there and here), Heb. x. 33. 

TU> Koo-jxu). * The intelligent universe, which is immediately 
specified by the two anarthrous substantives which follow : 
angels and men make up the KOO-/X.OS to which the Apostles are 
a spectacle. See on xiii. i. It is perhaps true to say that, 
wherever angels are mentioned in N.T., good angels are always 
meant, unless something is added in the context to intimate the 
contrary, as in Matt. xxv. 41 ; 2 Cor. xii. 7 ; Rev. xii. 7, 9, etc. 
Godet remarks here that of course Us mauvais ne sont pas exclus, 
and this is also the opinion of Augustine and Herveius. 

* The Epistle contains a number of illustrations taken from heathen life ; 
here and vii. 31, the theatre; the idol-feasts, viii. 10, x. 20; racing and 
boxing in the games, with a crown as a prize, ix. 24-27 ; the syssitia, x. 27 ; 
the fighting with wild beasts, xv. 32. 



86 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 9-11 

Strangely enough, Atto supposes that St Paul means evil angels 
only. The Apostle thinks of the ayyeAoi as wondering spectators 
of the vicissitudes of the Church militant here on earth (cf. 
Eph. iii. 19; i Pet. i. 12). Origen thinks of them as drawn to 
the strange sight of a man still clothed in flesh wrestling with 
principalities and powers, etc. 

After Sow ydp, N 3 B 8 D E L P add STI : N* A B* C D* F G omit. 

10. Tj|j.eis pwpol . . . UJJLCIS & 4>p<m/Aoi. Est increpatw cum 
ironia (Herv.). The three antitheses refer respectively to teaching, 
demeanour, and worldly position. The Apostles were fools on 
account of Christ (2 Cor. iv. n; Phil. iii. 7), because it was 
owing to their preaching Christ that the world regarded them as 
crazy (i. 23; Acts xxvi. 24). The Corinthians were wise in 
Christ, because they maintained that as Christians they had 
great powers of discernment and possessed the true wisdom ; Bid 
in servos^ iv in consortes convenit (Beng.) : ravra Aeywi/ eipcovt/cco? 

avTors yei e<j$cu <pori/zous ev Xpicrraj (Orig. ). Cf. X. 15. 

&O^OI, TJJACIS Se aripu. The order is here inverted, not 
merely to avoid monotony, but in order to append to ^/ACI? 
art/xoi the clauses which expand it. Chiasmus is common in 
these Epistles (iii. 17, viii. 13, xiii. 2 ; 2 Cor. iv. 3, vi. 8, ix. 6, 
x. 12, etc.). "EvSoo5 is one of the 103 words which are found 
only in Paul and Luke in N.T. (Hawkins, Hor. Syn. p. 191). 



11. axpi rps apn (Spas. Their un/xux is without respite, and 
is unbroken, up to the moment of writing. This is emphatically 
restated at the end of v. 13: privation, humiliation, and utter 
contempt is their continual lot. 

YujikiTcuofiCk. We are scantily clothed ; fv t/a ^ei KCU yv^ro- 
TfjTi (2 Cor. xi. 27). The word generally means * to go light-armed 
(Plut., Dio. Cass.) ; it occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX, 
Cf. Jas. ii. 15, where yv/Ws means scantily clad. 

Ko\a<J>i6ne0a. We are buffeted, are struck with the fist. 
The verb is late, and probably colloquial (i Pet. ii. 20; Mark 
xiv. 65 ; Matt. xxvi. 67). The substantive Ko Xa^os is said to be 
Doric = Attic Ko^SuXos. The verb is possibly chosen rather than 
Se peiv (ix. 26 ; 2 Cor. xi. 20), or rvVretv (Acts xxiii. 2), or vTrojTrta- 
av (ix. 26, 27), or KorSiA^eiv (Amos ii. 7 ; Mai. iii. 5), to mark 
the treatment of a slave : velut servi ; adeo non regnamus (Beng.). 
Seneca, in the last section of the Apocolocyntosis, says that 
Caesar successfully claimed a man as his slave after producing 
witnesses who had seen the man beaten by Caesar flagris, ferulis, 
colaphis. In 2 Cor. xii. 7 the verb is used of the ayyeAos ^arava, 
* buffeting the Apostle. 

Are homeless, have not where to lay our 



IV. 11-13] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 8/ 

head (Matt. viii. 20; Luke ix. 58). The verb occurs nowhere 
else in N.T. or LXX, but is used by Aquila for ao-reyos in Isa. 
Iviii. 7. It certainly does not mean instabiles sumus (Vulg.), but 
nusquam habemus sedem (Primasius). The Apostles fugabantur 
ab infidelibus de loco in locum (Atto) ; IXawofjifOa yap (Chrys.). 
Their life had no repose ; they were vagrants, and were stigmatized 
as such. 

yvfj,viTvo/j.ei> is accepted by all editors, L alone reading yvfj.vrjTvo/j.ev. 
Gregory, Prolegomena to Tisch., p. 81. 



12. KoiuujAci cpy. T. iSuus x e P a1 1 - Again and again he 
mentions this (ix. 6 ; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ; i Thess. ii. 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8 ; 
cf. Acts xviii. 3, xx. 34). See Knowling on Acts xviii. 3, Deiss- 
mann, Light, p. 317, and Ramsay, St Paul, pp. 34-36. He had 
worked for his own living when he was at Corinth, and he was 
doing this at Ephesus at the time of writing. He must maintain 
his independence. Graviter peccat, et libertatem arguendi amittit, 
qui ab eo aliquid accipit, qui propterea tribuit nc redarguat (Atto). 
The plural may be rhetorical, but it probably includes other 
teachers who did the like. Greeks despised manual labour; 
St Paul glories in it. 

XoiSopou jAei/oi cuXoyoujjiei , SiuKOfxcyoi d^xoficOa. He is perhaps 
not definitely alluding to the Lord s commands (Matt. v. 44; 
Luke vi. 27), but he is under their influence. Here again, Greek 
prejudice would be against him. In the preliminary induction 
which Aristotle (Anal. Post. n. xii. 21) makes for the definition 
of pcyaXoif/yxia, he asks what it is that such /LuyaA-oi/a^oi as 
Achilles, Ajax, and Alcibiades have in common, and answers, TO 
W <Wxe<70ai v/?pid/u,i/ot. In his full description (Eth. Nic. iv. 
iii. 17, 30), of the high-minded man, he says that he -n-a^Trav 
oAiywpTJo-ei the contempt of others, and that he is not fjivrjo-tKaKos ; 
but this is because he is conscious that he never deserves ill, and 
because he does not care to bear anything, good or ill (and least 
of all ill), long in mind. Just as the Greek would think that the 
Apostle s working with his own hands stamped him as /?ai/auo-os, 
so he would regard his manner of receiving abuse and injury as 
fatal to his being accounted ueyaA(tyvxos he must be an abject 
person. 

13. Sua4>T]fAoujAi ou In i Mac. vii. 41 the verb is used of the 
insults of Rabshakeh as the envoy of Sennacherib, but it is not 
found elsewhere in N.T. 



We deprecate, obsecramur (Vulg.). The 
verb is very frequent in N.T., with many shades of meaning, 
radiating from the idea of calling to one s side in order to 
speak privately, to gain support. Hence such meanings as 
exhort, entreat, instruct, comfort. Exhort is certainly 



88 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 13, 14 

not the meaning here, as if insulting language was requited with 
a sermon ; yet Origen and Basil seem to take it so. To give the 
soft answer that turns away wrath (Prov. xv. i) may be right, but 
it is not a common meaning of TrapaKaXeu/. Tyndale and other 
early versions have * we pray, which again is not the meaning, if 
pray means pray to God. * 

os irepiKaOdpjjiaTa. The uncompounded KaOappa is more 
common in both the senses which the two forms of the word 
have in common. These are (i) sweepings, rubbish, and, (2) 
as in Prov. xxi. 1 8, scapegoats, i.e. victims, piacida, lustramina, 
used as exp iationis pretium, to avert the wrath of the gods. At 
Athens, in times of plague or similar visitations, certain outcasts 
were flung into the sea with the formula, Trepti/^/ui T^/XCUV yeVou 
(Suidas), to expiate the pollution of the community. These were 
worthless persons, and hence the close connexion between the 
two meanings. Demosthenes, in the De Corona, addresses 
Aeschines, w Ka6apfjia, as a term of the deepest insult. It is not 
quite certain which of the two meanings is right here ; nor does 
the coupling with 7rcpu/r?//xa settle the matter, for that word also 
is used in two similar senses. Godet distinguishes the two words 
by saying that 7repiKa0ap/xaTa are the dust that is swept up from 
a floor and Trepu/^/xa the dirt that is rubbed or scraped off an 
object. Neither word occurs elsewhere in N.T. On the whole, 
it is probable that neither word has here the meaning of scape 
goat or ransom (aTroXuVpuxris) : and in Tobit v. 18 Trepty-rjfjLa. 
is probably refuse (AV., RV.). See Lightfoot on Trepu/^/m 
(Ign. Eph. 8), and Heinichen on Eus. H.E. VH. xxii. 7, Melet. 
xv. p. 710, who shows that in the third century 7repu//77yua crov 
had become a term of formal compliment, your humble and 
devoted servant. See Ep. Barn. 4, 6. 

TOU Koajiou . . . -iran-am Whatever the meaning of the two 
words, these genitives give them the widest sweep, and TTCU/TWV is 
neuter (AV., RV.), unless the meaning of scapegoat is given 
to 7repL(f/7][JLa. f 



. (N*ACP 17) rather than p\arr<t>TjtjLov/j.et>oi (N B D E F 
G L). The internal evidence turns the scale. It is more probable that 
the unusual 8v<r<t>. would be changed to the common /SXao-0. than vice 
versa. 

14. OUK ivrpetruv ujxas. The severity of tone ends as abruptly 
as it began (v. 8). Aspera blandis mitigat, ut salutaris medicus. 

* Plato (Crito 49) puts into the mouth of Socrates; "We ought not to 
retaliate or render evil for evil to any one, whatever evil we may have suffered 
from him. . . . Warding off evil by evil is never right." But returning good 
for evil goes far beyond that. 

t Tertullian and the Vulgate transliterate, peripsema ; Beza has sordes, 
Luther Fegopfer (Auswurf). 



IV. 14, 15] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 89 

These sudden changes of tone are much more common in Paul 
than in other N.T. writers. The section that follows (14-21), 
with its mingled tenderness and sternness both alike truly 
paternal, forms a worthy colophon to the whole discussion of the 
orxiV/uara. The root-meaning of evrpt-rreiv is perhaps to turn in, 
and so to make a person hang his head, as a sign, either of 
reverence (Matt. xxi. 37; Luke xviii. 2, 4; Heb. xii. 9) or of 
shame, as here (cf. errpoTn?, vi. 5, xv. 34). In these senses it is 
frequent in late writers, in LXX, and in Paul. The participle 
expresses the spirit in which the Apostle writes ; not as shaming 
you, * not as making you abashed. What he had written might 
well make them hang their heads, but to effect that was not his 
purpose in writing; he wrote to bring home to their hearts a 
solemn fatherly warning. 

K>u0eTwk. The duty of a parent, as appears from Eph. vi. 4.* 
Excepting in a speech of St Paul (Acts xx. 31), vovOeretv and 
vovQta-La. do not occur in N.T. outside the Epistles of St Paul, 
and they cover all four groups. Novflcrai/, to put in mind, has 
always a touch of sternness, if not of blame ; to admonish, or 
warn. We have vovOtreiv TOVS KUKOJ? Trpaero-orras (Aesch. Pr. 
264), and vovOtrav KovSu Aots (Aristoph. Vesp. 254). Plato 
(Gorg. 479a) combines it with KO\OLCLV. See Abbott on Eph. 
vi. 4 and Col. i. 28. 



(K A C P 17, RV.) rather than vov6erS) (B D E F G L, Vulg. 
AV. ); but the evidence is not decisive. Lachm. and Treg. prefer 



15. lav yrfp. The reason for his taking on himself this duty ; 
If, as time goes on, ye should have in turn an indefinite number 
of tutors in Christ, yet ye will never have had but one father. 
The conditional clause, with a pres. subjunct. and ai>, in the 
protasis implies futurity as regards the apodosis. As there is but 
one planting and one laying of the foundation-stone (iii. 6, 10), 
so the child can have but one father. 

TraiSaywyous . . . Iv Xpiajw. The words are closely con 
nected. Without > Xpto-Tu) to qualify it, 7rtu8ay<oyou<? would have 
been too abrupt, if not too disparaging. There is no hint that 
they have already had too many. The TraiSaywyo s (Gal. iii. 24) 
was not a teacher, but the trusty slave who acted as tutor or 
guardian and escorted them to and from school, and in general 
took care of those whom the father had begotten.^ He might be 

* Cf. Totfrous u>s irarrip vovQer&v doKl/j.a<ras (Wisd. xi. 10), and vovOfTr/fffi 
6[Ka.iov us vlbv ayair-r)(re<>i)s (Pss. Sol. xiii. 8). Excepting Timothy (v. 17 ; 
2 Tim. i. 2), St Paul nowhere else calls any one T&KVOV dyainjTov. Spirilualis 
paternitas singularem nccessitudincm et affectionem conjunctam habet, prae 
omni alia propinquitate (Beng. ). 

t See Ramsay, Galatians^ p. 383 ; Smith, Diet, of Ant. ii. p. 307. The 
same usage is found in papyri. 



90 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 15-17 

more capable, and even more affectionate, than the father, but 
he could never become father. The frequent eV Xpioru) gives 
"the ideal sphere of action" (Ellicott).* 

dXX* ou iroXXous TTarepas. Still (viii. 7) not many fathers. 
The verb to be understood must be future, for the possibility of 
/xvpi oi TratSaywyoi is future : however many these may be, yet ye 
will not have (or, have had) many fathers. 

eV yap Xpiorw I. The whole process, first and last, is cV 
Xpio-Tw.f That was the sphere, while the Gospel was the means 
(Sia ToG evayy.). The two pronouns, eya> iyxa<?, are in emphatic 
proximity; whoever may have been the parent of other Churches, 
it was I who in Christ begat you. The thought is that of eyw 
tyvrevo-a (iii. 6) and of fle/xe Atov etf^/ca (iii. 10), while the TraiSaywyot 
are those who water the plant, or build the superstructure. 

16. irapaKaXw ouv. Therefore, as having the right to do so, 
I call upon my children to take after their father. Si filii estis, 
debitum honorem debetis impendere patri, et imitatores existere 
(Atto). Cf. i Thess. i. 6, 7, ii. 7, n. 

JIIJATJTCU fxov yiyeaOe. Show yourselves imitators of me ; by 
your conduct prove your parentage. Here and xi. i (see note 
there), imitators rather than followers (AV.). The context 
shows the special points of assimilation, viz. humility and self- 
sacrifice (uv. 10-13). In Phil. iii. 17 we have O-W/U/XT/TTJS. The 
charge is not given in a spirit of self-confidence. He has received 
the charge to lead them, and he is bound to set an example for 
them to follow, but he takes no credit for the pattern (xi. i). 

17. Aict TOUTO. Because I desire you to prove imitators of 
me, I sent Timothy, a real son of mine in the Lord, to allay the 
contrary spirit among you. Timothy had probably already left 
Ephesus (Acts xix. 22), but was at work in Macedonia, and 
would arrive at Corinth later than this letter (Hastings, DB. i. 
p. 483). It is not stated in Acts that Corinth was Timothy s 
ultimate destination, but we are told that the Corinthian Erastus 
(Rom. xvi. 23) was his companion on the mission. It is not 
clear whether 7re/xi^a is the ordinary aorist, I sent or have 
sent, or the epistolary aorist, I send. Deissmann, Light, p. 157. 

re ityok. Child in the same sense as eyeW^o-a (v. 15). St 
Paul had converted him (Acts xvi. i), on his visit to Lystra 
(Acts xiv. 7 ; cf. i Tim. i. 2, 18; 2 Tim. i. 2). This dyaTrrjTov 
Kai TTIOTOJ/ TCKVOV was fittingly sent to remind children who were 
equally beloved, but were not equally faithful, of their duties 
towards the Apostle who was the parent of both. The first 

* Findlay quotes Sanhedrin, f. xix 2; "Whoever teaches the son of his 
friend the Law, it is as if he had begotten him." 

f See Deissmann, Die mutest ament lie he For me I "in Christo Jesu" 



IV. 17-19] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 91 

os gives the relation of Timothy to the Apostle, the second his 
relation to the Corinthians; 6 dScX^os (2 Cor. i. i) gives his 
relation to all Christians. His sparing this beloved child was 
proof of his love for them ; i Thess. iii. i, 2. 

dmfJLnrjcrei. XrjOrjv St. OLVTWV 6 Xoyos Ktrr^yopct (Orig.). They 
had forgotten much of what St Paul had taught them in person : 

(XV. 2). 

ooou s fjiou. The real Apostle had been superseded in 
their imagination by an imaginary Paul, the leader of a party. 
His ways are indicated i. 17, ii. 1-5, iv. 11-13, i x - J 5> 22 > 2 7- 

Ka6ws irarraxoG iv Trdcn] CK. Exactly as everywhere in every 
Church. There is a general consistency in the Apostle s 
teaching, and Timothy will not impose any special demands 
upon the Corinthians, but will only bring them into line with 
what St Paul teaches everywhere. This is one of several passages 
which remind the Corinthians that they are only members of a 
much greater whole (see on i. 2). They are not the whole 
Church, and they are not the most perfect members. On the 
other hand, no more is required of them than is required of 
other Christians. 

After dia TOVTO, X A P 1 7 add auro :N*BCDEFGL omit, pov rti<vov 
(XABCP 17) rather than renvov /AOU (D E F G L). After Iv 
D* F G add I^croO : A B D 3 E L P omit. 



18. fts pi epxofxeVou 8e jiou. Some of them boastfully gave 
out; Timothy is coming in his place; Paul himself will not 
come. The 6V marks the contrast between this false report and 
the true purpose of Timothy s mission. 

4>uai(o0T](rd> ri^es. Vitium Corinthiisfrequens, inflatio (Beng.); 
v. 6, 19, v. 2, viii. i.* The tense is the natural one to use, for 
St Paul is speaking of definite facts that had been reported to 
him. He cannot use the present tense, for he is ignorant of the 
state of things at the time of writing. But by using the aorist he 
does not imply that the evil is a thing of the past, and therefore 
are puffed up (AV., RV.), inflati sunt (Vulg.), may be justified. 
There is nothing to show whether he knew who the TII/CS were 
(cf. xv. 12; Gal. i. 7). Origen suggests that 6 Otcnriaios ITavXos 
does not mention any one, because he foresaw that the offenders 
would repent, and there was therefore no need to expose 
them. They are probably connected with the more definite 
and acrimonious opponents of 2 Cor. x. i, 7, 10, xi. 4, where 
a leader, who is not in view in this Epistle, has come on the 
scene. 



19. e\60(TO|jLai oe raxe cus. He intends remaining at Ephesus 

* The verb is peculiar to Paul in N.T., and (excepting Col. ii. 18) is 
peculiar to this Epistle. 



92 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 19-21 

till Pentecost (xvi. 8). His plans, and changes of plan, and the 
charges made against him about his proposed visit, are discussed 
in 2 Cor. i. 15, 16, 23. 

t&v 6 Ku pios OcX^a-fl. A solemn touch ; cf. xvi. 7 ; Jas. iv. 15. 
It is impossible, and not very important, to decide whether 6 
Kupios means our Lord or the Father. Our Lord has just been 
mentioned ; on the other hand, in connexion with 0eAeiv or 
O&rj/jLa, God is commonly meant. We have a similar doubt 
i Thess. iii. 12. 

Y^wo-opcn ou r. \6yov . . . dXXa r. Sumpi?. Their words I 
shall ignore ; they proceed from persons whose heads are turned 
with conceit ; but their power I shall put to the proof. This, 
as Godet remarks, is the language of a judge who is about to 
conduct a trial. The power certainly does not mean that of 
working miracles (Chrys.) ; but rather that of winning men over 
to a Christian life. In ii. 4, 5 we had the antithesis between 
Xdyos and Swa/us in a different form. 

For T&V TT(f>v<ri(i)[Ji,v(i)}>, L has T&V irciftwi6iievov : some cursives and 
Origen support the reading, but no editors adopt it. Before these words 
F inserts avruv. 

20. TJ |3a<nXeia T. 0eou. This expression has three meanings 
in the Pauline Epistles : (i) the future Kingdom of God, when 
God is all in all (xv. 28); akin to this (2) the mediatorial 
reign of Christ, which is the Kingdom of God in process of 
development; and so, as here (and see Rom. xiv. 17), we have 
(3) the inward reality which underlies the external life, activities, 
and institutions of the Church, in and through which the 
Kingdom of Christ is realizing itself. In the externals of Church 
life, word counts for something, but power alone is of 
account in the sight of God.* By power is meant spiritual 
power : see on ii. 5. 



21. iv pd|38u>. Exactly as in i Sam. xvii. 43, crv epxy ITT ip* 
iv pa/38o) /cat Allots; and 2 Sam. vii. 14, cXe ya> avrov iv pa/BSw 
Koi iv ou^ats : where the iv means accompanied by or pro 
vided with. Cf. Heb. ix. 25, iv at/xart dAAorpiw. To lift up 
his hand with a sling-stone, iirapai x f W a c v ^ l/ % o-^ei/Soi/i/s 
(Ecclus. xlvii. 5). Abbott (Johan. Gr. 2332) gives examples 
from papyri. The idea of environment easily passes into that 
of equipment. Cf. Stat. Tkeb. iv. 221, Gravi metuendus in hasta ; 
and Ennius, levesque sequuntur in hasta. The rod is that of 
spiritual rebuke and discipline ; cf. ou ^eio-o/uu (2 Cor. xiii. 3). 
It is strange that any one should contend, even for controversial 
purposes, such as defence of the temporal power, that a literal 

* See Regnum Dei, the Bampton Lectures for 1901, pp. 47-61, in which 
St Paul s views of the Kingdom are examined in detail. 



V. 1-13] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 93 

rod is meant. But cf. Tarquini, Juris eccles. inst. p. 41, igth ed. 
An allusion to the lictor s rod is not likely.* 

2X0o>. Deliberative subjunctive ; Am I to come ? It is 
possible to make the verb dependent upon fleAere, but it is more 
forcible to keep it independent (AV., RV.). Cf. cTri/icVo/iev rfj 
apapTia ; (Rom. vi. l). 

eV dyaTTT/. The preposition here is inevitably eV, and it was 
probably the antithesis with V ayd-n-rj that led to the expression 
v pctySSw here, just as the bear-skin led to Virgil s Horridus in 
jaculis, the rest of the line being et pelle Libystinis ursae (Aen. 

v - 37)- 

nreujjuxTi re TrpauTTjTos. Either the Spirit of meekness, i.e. 
the Holy Spirit, manifested in one of His special gifts or fruits 
(Gal. v. 23), or a spirit of meekness, i.e. a disposition of that 
character (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 13). The latter would be inspired by 
the Holy Spirit (Rom. viii. 5). The absence of the article is 
in favour of the latter here. Contrast TO 7rj/v/xa r^ dXi^ctas 
(John xiv. 17, xvi. 13) with 7n/v/u,a <ro<^tas (Eph. i. 17), and see 
J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 38, 39, and the note on Tri/ev/xa 
dyiaxrwT?? (Rom. i. 4). Had the Apostle meant the Holy Spirit, 
he would probably have written Iv TO) TTV. TT}S Trp. By TrpavTTys is 
meant the opposite of harshness or rudeness. Trench, Syn. 
xlii., xliii., xcii. ; Westcott on Eph. iv. 2. 



(ABC 17) rather than TT/X^TTJTOS (N D E F G P). In Gal. 
v. 23, K joins A B C in favour of trpavTys. In Eph. iv. 2, N B C 17 sup 
port Trpavrris, in 2 Cor. x. I, K B F G P 17 do so, in Col. iii. 12, N A B C P 
17. Lachmann, following Oecumenius and Calvin, makes iv. 21 the 
beginning of a new paragraph : it is a sharp, decisive dismissal of the 
subject of the 



V. 1-13. ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE. 

There is a case of gross immorality among you, and 
your attitude towards it is distressing. Have no felloiv- 
ship with suck offenders. 

1 It is actually notorious among you that there is a case of 
unchastity of a revolting character, a character so revolting as 
not to occur even among the heathen, that a man should have 
his step-mother as his concubine. 2 And you, with this monstrous 
crime among you, have gone on in your inflated self-complacency, 
when you ought rather to have been overwhelmed with grief, 

* This has been suggested by Dr. E. Hicks, Roman Law in the N. T. 
p. 182. But the rod as a metaphor for correction is common enough (Job 
ix. 34, xxi. 9; Ps. Ixxxix. 32 ; Isa. x. 5, etc.). 



94 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 1-13 

that it should have become necessary that the person who was 
guilty of this dreadful offence should be removed from your 
midst. 3 As for my view of it, there must be no uncertainty. 
Although absent in body yet present in spirit, I have already 
pronounced the sentence, which I should have pronounced had 
I been present, on the man who has perpetrated this enormity. 
4 In the Name of our Lord Jesus, when you are all assembled 
in solemn congregation and my spirit is with you armed with 
the effectual power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have given sentence 
that such an offender is to be handed over to Satan for the 
destruction by suffering of the flesh in which he has sinned, so 
that his spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord. 6 Your 
glorying is not at all to your credit. Do you really not know 
that a very little leaven affects the whole lump of dough? 7 You 
must entirely cleanse away the old leaven, if you are to be (as, 
of course, as Christians you are) as free from leaven as a new 
lump of dough. You are bound to make this new start for 
many reasons ; and above all, because Christ, our spotless 
Paschal Lamb, has been sacrificed, and therefore everything 
which corrupts must be put away. 8 Consequently we should 
keep our feast, not with leaven from our old lives, nor yet 
with leaven of vice and wickedness, but with bread free from 
all leaven, the bread of unsullied innocence and truth. 

9 1 said to you in my letter that you were not to keep 
company with fornicators. 10 I did not exactly mean that you 
were to shun all the fornicators of the non- Christian world, any 
more than all the cheats, or extortioners, or idolaters. That 
would mean that you would have to go out of the world 
altogether. n What I meant was, that you were not to keep 
company with any one who bears the sacred name of Christian 
and yet is given to fornication, or cheating, or idolatry, or 
abusive language, or hard drinking, or extortion ; with such a 
man you must not even share a meal. 12 Of course I did not 
refer to those who are not Christians ; for what right have I to 
sit in judgment on them? I confine my judgments to those 
who are in the Church. 13 Do not you do the same ? Those 
who are outside it we leave to God s judgment. Only one 
practical conclusion is possible. Remove the wicked person 
from among you. 

The Apostle now comes to the second count of his indict- 



V. 1] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 95 

ment. It is not merely that a particularly flagrant case of 
immorality has occurred. That this should happen at all is 
bad enough. But what makes it far worse is the way in which 
it is taken by the community. Their morbid and frivolous 
self-conceit is untroubled. They have shown no sign of proper 
feeling : still less have they dealt with the case, as they ought 
to have done, by prompt expulsion (w. 1-5). In view of the 
infectiousness of such evil, they ought to eliminate it, as leaven 
from a Jewish house at the Passover (6, 7) ; for the life of the 
Christian community is a spiritual Passover (8). His previous 
warning has been misunderstood. It means that for grave and 
scandalous sins a Christian must be made to suffer by isolation ; 
and this, in the case in question, must be drastically enforced 

(9-13). 

The passage is linked to the section dealing with the crxiV/zaru 
by the spiritual disorder (TO ^vo-uu^ycu) which, according to 
St Paul s diagnosis, lies at the root of both evils. Inordinate 
attention to external differences, and indifference to vital 
questions of morality, are both of them the outcome of self- 
satisfied frivolity. But the passage is more obviously linked 
with ch. vi., and especially with the subject of iropveia which 
occupies its last portion (vi. 12-20). 

This indictment, following upon iv. 21 without any con 
necting particle, bursts upon the readers like a thunder-clap. 

1. *O\o>s. Not * commonly (AV.), but actually (RV.). 
The word means altogether, most assuredly, incontrovert- 
ibly ; or, with a negative, at all. Such a thing ought not to 
be heard of at all (exactly as in vi. 7 ; cf. xv. 29), and it is 
matter of common talk : oAcos nulla debebat in vobis audiri scor- 
tatio ; at auditur oAtos (Beng.). 

dKouerai iv ujxir. The eV v/uV grammatically localizes the 
report, but in effect it localizes the offence : it was among them 
that the rumour was circulating, because in their midst the sin 
was found: unchastity is reported [as existing] among you. 
The report may have reached the Apostle through the same 
channel as that which brought information about the factions 
(i. IT), or through Stephanas (xvi. 17). The weight of the 
Apostle s censure falls, not upon the talk about the crime 
within the community, but upon its occurrence, and the failure 
to deal with it. 

TTopkeia. Illicit sexual intercourse in general. In Rev. xix. 2, 
as in class. Grk., it means prostitution: in Matt. v. 32, xix. 9 



96 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 1, 2 



it is equivalent to /xoi^ct a, from which it is distinguished Matt. 
xv. 19 and Mark vii. 21 : cf. Hos. iii. 3; Ecclus. xxiii. 23, where 
we have lv Tropveta e/iot^etwc. 

Kal roiauTT). And of so monstrous a character as does not 
exist even among the heathen. The ovSe intensifies h TOII 
201/co-u , and d/cou erat is not to be understood: is not so much 
as named among the Gentiles (AV.) is wrong, based on a 
wrong reading. Cf. novum crimen et ante hunc diem inauditum 
(Cic. Pro Lig. i. i) ; and scelus incredibile et praeter hanc unam in 
hac vita inauditum (In Cluent. 6), of Sassia s marriage with her 
son-in-law, Melinus.* 

wore YumiKa riya TOU Trarpos ex 611 * The placing of nva 
between ywaiKa and Trarpos throws emphasis on to these two 
words (Blass, Gr. 80, 2). Chrysostom suggests that St Paul 
uses ywaLKa rov 7raiy>os rather than /x^rpwai/ in order to emphasize 
the enormity. More probably, he chooses the language of 
Lev. xviii. 8. The Talmud prescribes stoning for this crime. 
Cf. Amos ii. 7 ; Lev. xviii. 8. The woman was clearly not the 
mother of the offender, and probably (although the use of 
iropvcLo, rather than ^OL^LO. does not prove this) she was not, at 
the time, the wife of the offender s father. She may have been 
divorced, for divorce was very common, or her husband may 
have been dead. There is little doubt that 2 Cor. vii. 12 
refers to a different matter, and that 6 d8uo/0eis there is not the 
offender s father, but Timothy or the Apostle himself. As 
St Paul here censures the male offender only, the woman was 
probably a heathen, upon whom he pronounces no judgment 
(v. 12). The ex eu/ implies a permanent union of some kind, 
but perhaps not a formal marriage : cf. John iv. 8. Origen 
speaks of it as a marriage (ya //os), and tx 00 is used of marriage in 
vii. 2 ; Matt. xiv. 4, etc. In the lowest classes of Roman society 
the legal line between marriage and concubinage was not sharply 
defined. 

After Wvtffiv, N 3 L P, Syrr. AV. add <W/utferat : N*ABCDEFG 
17, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit. 

2. Kal filets. The pronoun is emphatic ; * you, among whom 
this enormity has taken place and is notorious, you are puffed 
up. He does not mean that they were puffed up because of this 
-outrage, as if it were a fine assertion of Christian freedom, but 
in spite of it. It ought to have humbled them to the dust, and 
yet they still retained their self-satisfied complacency. WH., 
Tisch., Treg. and RV. marg. make this verse interrogative; Are 
ye puffed up ? Did ye not rather mourn ? But the words are 

* There is also the case of Callias, who married his wife s mother. 
Andocides (B.C. 400), in his speech on the mysteries, asks whether among 
the Greeks such a thing had ever been done before. 



V. 2, 3] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 97 

more impressive as the statement of an amazing and shocking 
fact: ouxt is not always interrogative (x. 29; Luke xii. 51, xiii. 
3, 5, xvi. 30; John ix. 9, xiii. 10, n). Their morbid self- 
importance, which made them so intolerant of petty wrongs 
(vi. 7), made them very tolerant of deep disgrace. 

iirevQr\(Ta.T. Mourned, as if for one who was dead. 

!Va ap0T). The Iva indicates, not the purpose of the mourning, 
but the result of it, contemplated *& its normal effect (see on i. 15). 
A proper Christian instinct would have led them to have expelled 
the guilty person in irrepressible horror at his conduct. 

6 TO Ipyoy TOUTO 7rpd|as. Qui hoc facinus patravit (Beza). 
The language is purposely vague, but the context suggests a bad 
meaning : Trpa^as (not Troojo-as) indicates a moral point of view. 
The attitude of the Corinthian Christians towards such conduct 
is probably to be accounted for by traditional Corinthian laxity.* 
It is said that the Rabbis evaded the Mosaic prohibitions of 
such unions (Lev. xx. 1 1 ; Deut. xxii. 30) in the case of prose 
lytes. A proselyte made an entirely new start in life and cut 
off all his former relationships ; therefore incest, in his case, was 
impossible, for he had no relations, near or distant. It is not 
likely that this evasion of the Mosaic Law, if already in exist 
ence, was known to the Corinthians and had influenced them. 

L has #Ap0v for &p6y (N A B C D E F G P) ; and B D E F G L P have 
Tronjcrcts for 7rpdas (SAC 17, and other cursives). It is not easy to decide 
in this latter case, and editors are divided. Compare 2 Cor. xii. 21 ; Rom. 
i. 32, ii. 1-3. 

3. fyw JXCK y&p. For /, with much emphasis on the pronoun, 
which is in contrast to the preceding fyms : my feelings about 
it are very different from yours. The yap introduces the justifi 
cation of iva apOr], showing what expulsion involves. St Paul 
does not mean that, as the Corinthians have not excommunicated 
the offender, he must inflict a graver penalty : this would be 
punishing the offender for what was the fault of his fellows. He 
is explaining what he has just said about their failing to remove 
the man. No 8e follows the /xeV : the contrast which fiev marks is 
with what goes before (v. 2), not with anything that is to follow. 
The correlation of /ACV . . . 8e is much less common in N.T. 
than in class. Grk. In some books ptv does not occur, and in 
several cases it has no 8e as here : i Thess. ii. 18; Rom. vii. 12, 
x. i, etc. See Blass, Gr. 77. 12. 

d-iTuf T<O awjAan. Although absent in the body. Again a 
contrast : you, who are on the spot, do nothing ; I, who am far 
away, and might excuse myself on that account, take very serious 
action. Origen compares Elisha (2 Kings v. 26). 

* What Augustine says of Carthage was still more true of Corinth ; 
circumstrepcbal me undique sartago flagitiosorum amorum (Conf. iii. i). 

7 



98 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 3, 4 

TW TTpeufj.aTi. His own spirit, as in v. 4 : cf. v. 5 and ii. 1 1. 
In Col. ii. 5 we have a similar utterance, but there adp takes 
the place of O-GJ/AO. It is the highest constituent element in 
man s nature, and his point of contact with the Spirit of God. 

t]8r] KCKpiKa ws irapwi rov K.T.X. Either, have already, as if 
I were present, judged the man ; or, have already, as if I were 
present, decided with regard to the man ; or, l have already 
come to a decision, as if I were present : with regard to the 
man, etc. In the last case, which is perhaps the best, rov . . . 
KarpyacrdfjLvov is governed by Trapaoowai and is repeated in TOV 



Before dirtbv, D 3 E F G L, AV. insert tbs : N A B C D* P 1 7, Vulg. 
Copt. Aeth. RV. omit. 



4. iv TW ofofAan K.T.X. Here we have choice of four con 
structions. Either, take ei/ TO) wo/urn with o-wa^eVrwv and <rvv 
TT) 8wa/x6t with TrapaSovVat, or both with crvva^Ofvrwv, or both 
with TrapaSowcu, 0r v TW oVo />u with TrapaSowat and o-vv T# 8uv. 
with (TwaxOfvrwv. If the order of the words is regarded as 
decisive, the first of these will seem to be most natural, and 
it yields good sense. Lightfoot adopts it. The Greek com 
mentators mostly prefer the second construction, but neither it 
nor the third is as probable as the first and the fourth. It is 
not likely that either o-wa^^eVrojv or TrapaSowai is meant to have 
both qualifications, while the other has none. The fourth con 
struction is the best of the four. The solemn opening, eV T< 
oVo/Acm rov Kvpiov I>7<rov, placed first with emphasis, belongs to 
the main verb, the verb which introduces the sentence that is 
pronounced upon the offender, while o-w rfj Swa/xei r. K. T^UOI/ "I. 
supplies a coefficient that is essential to the competency of the 
tribunal. The opening words prepare us for a sentence of grave 
import, but we are kept in suspense as to what the sentence will 
be, until the conditions which are to give it validity are described. 
Graviter suspensa manet et vibrat oratio (Beng.). We translate, 
therefore ; With regard to the man who has thus perpetrated 
the deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ you being 
assembled and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ 
to deliver such an one to Satan. The TOV TOIOVTOV is not 
rendered superfluous by the preceding rov . . . /caTcpyaaa/xevoi/ : 
it intimates that the Apostle is prepared to deal in a similar way 
with any similar offender. 

* Evans thinks that ws -rrap&v does not mean as if I were present in the 
body, but as being really present in the spirit. His spirit had at times 
exceptional power of insight into the state of a church at a distance : oik wj 
d7r6<rToXos d\\ cos trpo<f>r]Tr]s elirev (Orig.). 



V. 4, 5] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 99 

After 6v6fj.aTi T. Kvpiov, B D E F G L P have ^/uDj>, and it is probably 
genuine, but K A and other witnesses omit, and it might easily be inserted 
from the next clause. P and some other witnesses omit the second rj/iwj . 
After first I-r)<rov, K D 3 E F G L P, Vulg. Syrr. add Xpicrrov : A B D*, Am. 
omit. After second lyvov, D 3 F L add Xpurrov : X A B D* P, Vulg. omit, 
AV. inserts Christ in both places ; R V. omits in both. 

5. TrapaSoGmi T. T. TW laram. This means solemn expulsion 
from the Church and relegation of the culprit to the region 
outside the commonwealth and covenant (Eph. ii. u, 12), 
where Satan holds sway. We have the same expression i Tim. 
i. 20. It describes a severer aspect of the punishment which 
is termed alpf.iv oc /xrov (v. 2) and e^aipeiv e tyxcov (v. 13). 
Satan is the ap\^v rov KOO-/XOV TOVTOV (John xii. 31, xvi. n), and 
the offender is sent back to his domain ; ut qui auctor fuerat ad 
vitium nequitiae, ipse flagellum fieret disciplinae (Herv.). St Paul 
calls Satan the god of this age (2 Cor. iv. 4), an expression 
which occurs nowhere else ; and a Christian, who through his own 
wickedness forfeits the security of being a member of Christ in 
His Church, becomes, like the heathen, exposed to the malignity 
of Satan (i John v. 19) to an extent that Christians cannot be. 

els o\e0poi> TTJS aapKos. There is no need to choose between 
the two interpretations which have been put upon this expres 
sion, for they are not mutually exclusive and both are true. 
The sinner was handed over to Satan for the mortification of 
the flesh, i.e. to destroy his sinful lusts ; TO <}>p6vr)p.a T^S o-u/Ws 
is Origen s interpretation. This meaning is right, for the punish 
ment was inflicted with a remedial purpose, both in this case 
and in that of i Tim. i. 20 : and the interpretation is in harmony 
with the frequent Pauline sense of crdfj (Rom. viii. 13 and Col. 
iii. 5), as distinct from crtu/xa. But so strong a word as oAc^/ao? 
implies more than this. Unto destruction of the flesh includes 
physical suffering, such as follows spiritual judgment on sin 
(xi. 30; Acts v. if., xiii. n).* The Apostle calls his own 
thorn for the flesh an ayyeAos ^arai/a (2 Cor. xii. 7 ; cf. Luke 
xiii. 6). We have the same idea in Job, where Jehovah says to 
Satan, I8oi> TrapaSiSw/xi o-ot avrov (ii. 6). And in the book of 
Jubilees (x. 2) demons first lead astray, and then blind and kill, 
the grandchildren of Noah. Afterwards Noah is taught by 
angels how to rescue his offspring from the demons. See 
Thackeray, SY Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thought, p. 171. 
Here the punishment is for the good, not only of the community, 
but also of the offender, upon whom the suffering inflicted by 
Satan would have a healing effect. 

tra TO wcGjjia. The purpose of the suffering is not mere 



* Renan, Godet, and Goudge regard the expression as meaning sentence 
of death by a wasting sickness. Expulsion is not mentioned here ; hence the 
sharp command in z/. 13. 



IOO FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 5 



destruction ; it is remedial, Iva a-^Ofj. Cf. avros 
(iii. 15). Here TO Trvc^/xa, as the seat of personality, is suggested 
by the context instead of avros.* As in 2 Cor. vii. i, TO Trveu/xa 
is used in contrast to y o-dp, and as the chief and distinctive 
factor in the constitution of man, but as not per se distinctive of 
a state of grace. Strong measures may be needed in order to 
secure its salvation. See Abbott, The Son of Man, pp. 482, 791. 

iv TTJ TjjAe pa T. Kuptou. i. 8 ; 2 Cor. i. 14 ; i Thess. v. 2, etc. 

It is sometimes assumed that, while the Corinthian Church 
was competent, by itself, to expel an offender (v. 2), it was by 
virtue of the extraordinary power given to St Paul as an Apostle 
that the delivery to Satan was inflicted. There is nothing in the 
passage to prove this ; and the yap in v. 3 rather points the other 
way. Why should St Paul inflict a more severe punishment 
than that which the Corinthian Church ought to have inflicted ? f 

It is still more often assumed that the sequel of this case is 
referred to in 2 Cor. ii. 5-11, vii. 12. It is inferred from these 
passages that the Corinthian Church held a meeting such as 
the Apostle prescribes in this chapter, and by a majority (2 Cor. 
ii. 6) passed the sentence of expulsion, whereupon the offender 
was led to repentance ; and that the Corinthians then awaited 
the Apostle s permission to remit the sentence, which permission 
he gives (2 Cor. ii. 10). This view, however, is founded on two 
assumptions, one of which is open to serious question, and the 
other to question which is so serious as to be almost fatal. The 
view assumes that 2 Cor. i.-ix. was written soon after i Cor., 
which is very doubtful. It also assumes that 2 Cor. ii. 5-1 1 
and vii. 12 refer to this case of incest, which is very difficult to 
believe. 2 Cor. vii. 12 certainly refers to the same case as 
2 Cor. ii. 5-11, and the language in vii. 12 is so utterly unsuit 
able to the case of incest that it is scarcely credible that it can 
refer to it. See Hastings, DB. i. p. 493, in. p. 711, and iv. 
p. 768; G. H. Kendall, The Epistles to the Corinthians, pp. 63, 
71 ; Goudge, p. 41 ; Plummer on 2 Cor. vii. 12. 

F has avTbv for rbv TOLOVTOV. After TOV Ki;p/ou, X L add iTjcrou, D adds 
ITJCTOU XpKTrou, A F M add ri^iJov I?7croO XptcrroO : B has simply TOV Kup/oi;, 
which may be the original reading, but TOV Kvplov Iijaov is not improbable ; 
so AV., RV., WH. marg. 

* d-rrb TOV KpelTTOvos ovo^aaa^ b\ov TOV avdpuirov (ruTypiav (Orig. ). There 
was no need to add the / I X 7 ? an d the crcD^a. The penalty is for the good of 
the community as well as of the offender. A shepherd, says Origeo, must 
drive out a tainted sheep that would infect the flock. 

f The resemblance of this passage to various forms of magic spells and 
curses is sometimes pointed out. The fundamental difference is this, that all 
such spells and curses aim at serious evil to the persons against whom they 
are directed. The Apostle aims at the rescue of the offender from perdition. 
Moreover, he desires to rescue the Corinthian Church from grave peril. 



V. 6, 7] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE IOI 



6. Ou KaXoy TO Kau xTjjAo, ujuuy. Not seemly is your boast : 
it is ill-timed, and it is discreditable to all who share in it.* 
Where a revolting crime is bringing disgrace and peril to the 
community, there can be no place for boasting. St Paul does 
not mean that the subject of their glorying, the thing they glory 
in (e.g. their enlightenment, or their liberty) is not good ; but 
that in such distressing circumstances overt glorying is very 
unsuitable. As Evans elaborately points out, Kair^ia is not 
materies gloriandi, but glonatio (Beza, Beng.), or (more accur 
ately) gloriatio facta^ boasting uttered, f So also in 2 Cor. 

V. 12. 

pKpa U JJ.Y). The fjuKpd comes first with emphasis, and hence 
implies an argument a fortiori: if even a little leaven is so 
powerful, if even one unsatisfactory feature may have a septic 
influence in a community, how much more must a scandal of 
this magnitude infect the whole life of the Church. The simile 
of leaven is frequent in the N.T. See Gal. v. 9. Here the 
stress of the argument lies less in the evil example of the offender 
than in the fact that toleration of this conduct implies con 
currence (Rom. i. 32) and debases the standard of moral 
judgment and instinct. To be indifferent to grave misbehaviour 
is to become partly responsible for it. A subtle atmosphere, 
in which evil readily springs up and is diffused, is the result. 
The leaven that was infecting the Corinthian Church was a 
vitiated public opinion. Cf. 2 Thess. iii. 6 ; also the charge of 
Germanicus to his soldiers as to their treatment of insubordinate 
comrades : discedite a contactu, ac dividite turbidos (Tac. An?i. 
i- 43). 

Both here and in Gal. v. 9 we find the reading 5oXo? for v/j.oi in D 
with corrumpit in Vulg. and other Latin texts. 



7. 6KKa6dpaT6 T*\V TT. tup)?. A sharp, summary appeal: Rid 
yourselves of these infected and infectious remains of your 
unconverted past, even as a Jewish household, in preparation 
for the Passover, purges the house of all leaven (Exod. xii. i5f., 
xiii. 7). This was understood as a symbol of moral purification, 
and the search for leaven as symbolizing infectious evil was 
scrupulously minute, e.g. with candles to look into corners and 
mouse-holes for crumbs of leavened bread. Zeph. i. 12 was 
supposed to imply this. The penalty for eating leavened bread 

* Some Latin texts omit the negative, making the statement sarcastic 
(Lucif. Ambrst. and MSS. known to Augustine). The ou may easily have 
been lost owing to the preceding Kvpiov or XptoTou. 

t If he had meant materies gloriandt, he would probably have said that 
they had none, OVK x erc Kai/x nfJ.a.. Like OUK tirali>u (xi. 17, 22), ou Ka\6v 
is a reproachful litotes. 



102 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 7 

during the feast was scourging. On compounds with ex see on 
Hi. 1 8, and cf. 2 Tim. ii. 21. 

TV n-aXaidj 1*1*171 . It was their acquiescing in the scandal 
which revealed the presence of a remnant of heathen corrup 
tion. The summons to thoroughly purge away all sinful taints 
cuts deep into the corporate and individual conscience. Each 
knows the plague-spot in himself. The verb occurs again 
2 Tim. ii. 21, and nowhere else in N.T. ; also Deut. xxvi. 13. 
With TraXaidv here cf. Tra/Vcuos avOpurtro^ Rom. vi. 6 ; Eph. iv. 22 ; 
Col. iii. 9. Ignatius (Magn. 10) says, vTrepOto-O* ovv rrjv KUK^V 
^vfjirjv ryv TraXatcotfeio-av KCU eVo^uraorav. By the evil leaven which 
has become stale and sour he means Judaism. Note the ovv. 

Iva. rJT viw <J>u pa|xa. That you may be a new lump of 
dough, i.e. may make a new start in sanctification free from 
old and evil influence.* Cf. olvov viov (Matt. ix. 17), and see 
Trench, Syn. 60. There is only one <jWpa//,a, only one body 
of Christians, just as there is only one loaf (x. 17). See on 
Luke xii. i for the evil associations connected with leaven: 
yeyovev CK <$opas avrrj KOI <0et pa TO (^vpa^a. (Plutarch). See 
Hastings, DB. in. p. 90. 

KaOws core aupu. This is the proper, the ideal condition 
of all Christians. Ye are unleavened, having been baptized 
and made a Kaivy KTIO-IS in Christ (2 Cor. v. 17; Eph. iv. 24; 
Col. iii. 10), and are becoming in fact what you are in principle 
and by profession (vi. n). St Paul habitually idealizes, 
speaking to Christians as if they were Christians in the fullest 
sense, thus exemplifying Kant s maxim that you should treat a 
man as if he were what you would wish him to be. 

It is utterly wrong to take av/xoi literally ; ye are without 
leaven, because (it is assumed) they were at that moment 
keeping the Passover, (i) In the literal sense, av/xos is used 
of things, not of persons. (2) The Corinthian Church consisted 
almost entirely of Gentile Christians. (3) The remark would 
have no point in this context. But the imagery in this passage 
suggests, though it does not prove, that St Paul was writing 
at or near the Passover season (cf. xvi. 8). See Deissmann, 
Light, p. 333. 

KCU yap TO irdaxa TJJAUJ eruBv). Directly, this is the reason 
for the preceding statement ; You are av/xoi, purified from the 
leaven of your old self, by virtue of the death of your Saviour. 
Indirectly and more broadly, this is a reason for the practical 
summons at the beginning of the verse: It is high time for 

* The Vulgate has the curious rendering, ut sitis nova conspersio. This 
rare substantive is found, with the same unexpected meaning, twice in 
Tertullian (Marcion. iv. 24, Valent. 31), in the sense of a lump of dough, 
and once in Irenaeus (v. xiv. 2), probably as a translation of <f>i>pa/j.a. 



V. 7, 8] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 103 

you to purge out the old leaven ; for the Lamb is already slain 
and your house is not yet fully cleansed : you are late ! See 
Deut. xvi. 6; Mark xiv. 12 : Luke xxii. 7.* The rj^v serves to 
link the Christian antitype to the Jewish type. 

Xpioros. Even Christ ; last for emphasis, like 6 KpiVwi/ 
(Rom. ii. i) and 6 Trarptapx^s (Heb. vii. 4). The force of the 
Apostle s appeal is in any case obvious, but it gains somewhat 
in point if we suppose him to have in mind the tradition which 
is embodied in the Fourth Gospel, that Christ was crucified on 
the 1 4th Nisan, the day appointed for the slaying of the paschal 
lamb. We may say that the Pauline tradition, like the Johannine, 
makes the Death of Christ, rather than the Last Supper, the 
antitype of the Passover, but we can hardly claim St Paul as 
a definite witness for the i4th Nisan. f On this difficult subject 
see Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ, p. 146 ; Hastings, DB. 
i. p. 411, DCG. ii. 5 ; and the literature there quoted. 

Nor, again, can this passage be claimed as evidence for the 
Christian observance of Easter, although such observance would 
probably be coeval with that of the Lord s Day. As in Mark 
xiv. 12 ; Luke xxii. 7, ii ; John xviii. 28, Trao-^a is here used of 
the paschal lamb, not, as commonly, of the paschal supper or 
of the paschal octave. 



without connecting particle (N* A B D E F G, Vulg. Copt. 
RV.) rather than eKKaedpare oiV (W CLP, Aeth. AV.). On still stronger 
evidence, virep V/JL&V must be omitted after rb Trdax a v^dv. Cursives have 
e6v6r) for ervdrj. Did Ignatius (see above) have oiV in his text ? 

8. wcrre. With cohortative subjunctive as with imperative, 
see on iii. 21. 

eoprd^wfi.ei . " Our passover-feast is not for a week, but for 
a life-time " (Godet), on Tras 6 xP vo * eoprr/s cVrt /coupes rots 
Xpio-Tiarots (Chrys.). The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T., but 
is frequent in LXX. Ir/trous 6 Xp ioros lanv rj via. ^vfjirj (Orig.). 

eV u fifl. See on iv. 2 1 for this use of h. 

KaKias Kal ironrjpias. Trench, Syn. ii, makes KaKia the 
vicious principle, irovypia. its outward exercise. It is doubtful 
whether this is correct. In LXX both words are used indiffer 
ently to translate the same Hebrew words, which shows that to 
Hellenists they conveyed ideas not widely distinct. In the 
Vulgate both malitia and nequitia are used to translate both 
words, malitia being used most often for xaKta, and nequitia for 
for which iniquitas also is used. Malice may trans- 



* In Mark xiv. 12 the AV. has * kill the Passover, with * sacrifice in 
the margin ; in Luke xxii. 7, kill, without any alternative ; here sacrifice, 
with slay in the margin : the R. V. has sacrifice in all three places. 

t On the general relation between the two traditions see J. Kaftan, 
fesus u. Paulus, pp. 59-69. 



104 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 8, 9 

late K(Wa in most places in the N.T., but not in Matt. vi. 34, 
where Vulg. has malitia (!), nor in Acts viii. 22, where it has 
nequitia. It is noteworthy that pravitas is not used for either 
word. Luke xi. 39 shows that -rrovrjpia may mean thoughts or 
purposes of wickedness; cf. Mark vii. 22. The genitives are 
genitives of apposition. 

du fAois. Perhaps unleavened bread (AV., RV.) is right, 
with reference to the unleavened cakes eaten at the Passover ; 
eVra T^/xepas duyu.a 2oW$e (Exod. xii. 15). But av//,a is very 
indefinite; unleavened elements. Origen refers this to i. 2. 

eiXiKpikias. The word is a crux as regards etymology, but 
it seems to mean transparency, limpid purity, and hence 
ingenuousness. 

d\T)0eias. In its wider sense, rectitude, integrity ; cf. 
xiii. 6; Eph. v. 9; John iii. 21.* 

copra fa^ (K B C F G L, d e Vulg.) rather than coprdfrnev (A D E P). 
For TrovT/ptas F has iropveias. 

9. "EypavJ/a vp.lv ev rfj cmaroXfj. Pursuing the main purpose 
of the passage, viz. to rebuke their indifference respecting moral 
scandal, the Apostle corrects a possible misapprehension of his 
former directions ; or at any rate he shows how what he said 
before would apply in cases more likely to occur than the one 
which has just been discussed. I wrote to you in my letter, 
in the letter which was well known to the Corinthians, a letter 
earlier than our i Corinthians and now lost. It is true that 
eypai/fa might be an epistolary aorist (Gal. vi. n ; i John ii. 14) 
referring to the letter then being written. But eV ry e-ma-ToXr} 
(cf. 2 Cor. vii. 8) must refer to another letter. Rom. xvi. 22 ; 
Col. iv. 16; i Thess. v. 27 are all retrospective, being parts of 
a postscript. In this letter he has not given any direction 
about not keeping company with fornicators ; for a summons 
to expel a member who has contracted an incestuous union 
cannot be regarded as a charge not to associate with fornicators. 
It is evident that here, as in 2 Cor. x. 9 f., he is making reference 
to an earlier letter which has not been preserved. So also Atto ; 
non in hac epistola sed altera : and Herveius ; in alia jam epistola. 
Some think that 2 Cor. vi. i4-vii. i may be part of the letter 
in question. See notes there and Introduction to 2 Corinthians 
in the Cambridge Greek Testament. Stanley gives two spurious 

* It is possible that these two words are meant to prepare for what 
follows. Perhaps the Apostle saw that there had been some shuffling and 
evasion about the injunction in the former letter. They said that they did 
not understand it, and made that an excuse for ignoring it. How St Paul 
heard of the misinterpretation of his earlier letter we are not told. Zahn 
suggests the Corinthians letter, of which he finds traces even before vii. I 
(Introd. to N.T. p. 261). 



V. 9, 10] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE IO$ 

letters, one from, the other to, St Paul, which are not of much 
interest, but which have imposed upon the Armenian Church 
(Appendix, p. 591 f.).* 

fit] aumi/ap.iY^u(70ai. Lit. not to mix yourselves up together 
with : ne commisceamini (Vulg.). This expressive combination 
of two prepositions with the verb occurs again in a similar con 
nexion 2 Thess. iii. 14; also in the A text of Hos. vii. 8. Cf. 
2 Thess. iii. 6. 

10. ou Iran-US- * Not altogether, not absolutely, not in 
all circumstances. It limits the prohibition of intercourse with 
fornicators, which does not apply in the case of fornicators who 
are outside the Christian community. The Apostle is not 
repeating the prohibition in another form, which would have 
required /n??, as before. The ov = not, I mean, or I do not 
mean. The meaning is quite clear. 

TOO KOOTJJLOU TOU TOU. * Of the non-Christian world. 

r\ TOIS TrXeoyeKTais. Or here is equivalent to our any 
more than. 

TOIS irXcokeKTcus Kal &piraii . These form a single class, 
coupled by the single article and the *cu, and separated from 
each of the other classes by rj. This class is that of the 
absolutely selfish, who covet and sometimes seize more than 
their just share of things. They exhibit that amor sui which is 
the note of this world, and which usurps the place of amor 
Dei, until TrXeoveliu becomes a form of idolatry (Eph. v. 5). 

eiSuXoXdrpais. In the literal sense; x. 14; i John v. 21. 
This is the first appearance of the word (Rev. xxi. 8, xxii. 15), 
which may have been coined by St Paul. In Eph. v. 5 it is used 
in a figurative sense of a worshipper of Mammon. The triplet 
of vices here consists of those which characterize non-Christian 
civilization ; lax morality, greed, and superstition. The last, in 
some form or other, is the inevitable substitute for spiritual 
religion. 

eirel w^eiXerc apa. Since in that case you would have to ; 
cf. vii. 14. ETTCI implies a protasis, which is suppressed by an 
easy ellipse ; since, were it not so, then, etc. "Apa introduces 
a subjective sequence, while ovv introduces an objective one. 
is in an apodosis, where the idiomatic imperfect marks 



* There is little doubt that a number of the Apostle s letters have perished, 
especially those which he wrote in the early part of his career, when his 
authority was less clearly established, and the value of his words less under 
stood ; 2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 17. See Renan, S. Paul, p. 234. 

Ramsay points out the resemblance between this passage (9-13) and 
2 Thessalonians, which guards against misconception of his teaching that 
had arisen owing to the strong emphasis which he had laid on the coming of 
the Kingdom (Pauline Studies, p. 36). 



106 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 10, 11 

the consequence of a state of things that is supposed not to exist ; 
and the av which is usual in such an apodosis is commonly 
omitted with such verbs as ox^a Aere, ISei, KaXov rjv, etc. 

K TOU Koapou c^eXOeij . This for most people is impossible ; 
but at Corinth in St Paul s day it was well for Christians to see 
as little of the heathen world as was possible. In x. 27 he does 
not forbid the presence of Christians at private entertainments 
given by heathen, but he implies that they ought not to wish to 
go to them. 



(N* A B C D* E F G 17, Vulg.) rather than Kal ov 
N 3 D 3 L P, Arm. Aeth. ). The yet in AV. seems 10 represent /cat. ACCU 
&piraiv (X* A B C U* F G P 17, Aeth) rather than ?} &piraiv (N 3 D 3 E L, 
Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm.), an alteration to conform to ij on each side. AV. 
has or, RV. and. ux^Xere (X A B* C D E F G L 17, Latt.) rather than 
60et Xere (B 3 P, Chrys. Thdrt.), another mistaken correction, the force of 
the imperfect not being seen. 

11. vuv & lypaij/a. But, as it is, I wrote (RV. marg.), not 
* But now I write (RV.). The latter is grammatically possible 
and makes good sense, but it is unlikely that lypa\l/a is in v. 9 
historical, of an earlier letter, and here epistolary, of the present 
letter. The vw is logical, not temporal, now you see, now 
you understand that the earlier letter meant something different. 
Had the Apostle meant the vvv to be temporal and the verb to 
refer to the present letter, he would have written ypa</>o>, as in 
iv. 14. He has stated what the earlier letter did not mean (ov 
Trai/Tws), and he now very naturally states what it did mean.* 

cdv . . . t}. The form of protasis covers all cases that may 
come to light : see on iv. 15. Almost all editors prefer rj to rj 
before iropvos. 

6cojxa6|jieyog. * Any who bears the name of a brother, 
though he has forfeited the right to it. He is called a brother, 
but he really is a TTO/DI/OS or, etc. Some early interpreters take 
oj/o/Aa^o /xei/os with what follows ; if any brother be called a 
whoremonger, or be a notorious whoremonger. The latter 
would require oVo/xao-Tos, and we should have d&X^os TIS rather 
than Tt5 dSeA^o s. Evidently aSeX^os and oVo/zao /xei os are to be 
taken together. He is called a Christian, and he really is a 
disgrace to the name ; that is a reason for shunning him. But if 
he is a Christian and is called some bad name, that is not a 
reason for shunning him : the bad name may be a slander. 

TrXeo^KTTjs. There is no good ground for supposing that, 
either here, or in v. 10, or anywhere else, TrAeoveVr^s means 
sensual (see on Eph. iv. 19). The desire which it implies is 
the desire for possessions, greed, grasping after what does not 
belong to one. 

* Abbott, Johan. Gr. 2691, gives other examples. 



V. 11, 12] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE IO? 

ei8wXciTpT]s. Stanley would give this word also the meaning 
of * sensual. But there is no improbability in Corinthian converts 
being tainted with idolatry. Origen says that in his time the 
plea that idolatry was a matter of indifference was common 
among Christians serving in the army. Modern experience 
teaches that it is very difficult to extinguish idolatrous practices 
among converts, and Chrysostom may be right in suggesting 
that the Apostle inserts idolater in his list as a preparation for 
what he is about to say on the subject (viii. 10, x. 7, 14 f.). The 
Corinthians were evidently very lax. 

XoiSopos. Origen notes with what very evil people the Xot So- 
pos is classed : fjXiKois KaKols rov Xot Sopoi/ cruv^pi^/xr/crci . The 
word occurs vi. 10, and in LXX in Proverbs and Ecclus., but 
nowhere else. Chrysostom (on vi. 10) says that many in his day 
blamed the Apostle for putting Xoi Sopot and ptOvo-oi into such 
company. Matt. v. 21, 22 ; i Pet. iii. 9. 

p- 0uaos. Rom. xiii. 13. In Attic writers applied to women, 
men being called peOvo-TiKoi, 7ra/>oo/i/<oi , or irapoivioi. Cf. opyrj 
/xeyaA.77 ywr? yLutfucros (Ecclus. xxvi. 8) ; but elsewhere in LXX it is 
used of men (Ecclus. xix. i ; Prov. xxiii. 21, xxvi. 9). It some 
times means intoxicated rather than given to drink. The 
and the Xoi Sopos are additions to the first list. 

ui/eaOieiy. An emphatic intimation of what he means 
by fj,rj (rwava/jLiyvva-Oai. Cf. Luke xv. 2; Gal. ii. 12. The 
Apostle is not thinking of Holy Communion, in which case the 
/xT/Se would be quite out of place : he is thinking of social meals ; 
Do not invite him to your house or accept his invitations. But, 
as Theodoret points out, a prohibition of this kind would lead to 
the exclusion of the offender from the Lord s Table. Great 
caution is required in applying the Apostle s prohibition to 
modern circumstances, which are commonly not parallel. The 
object here, as in 2 John 10, is twofold : to prevent the spread of 
evil, and to bring offenders to see the error of their ways. In 
any case, what St Paul adds in giving a similar injunction must 
not be forgotten ; KCU /XT) <Ls e\6pov fjyflcrOe, dXXa vov^ereire ws 
dSeX^oV (2 Thess. iii. 15). Clement of Rome (Car. 14) says of 
the ringleaders of the schism, xP r ) arva ^l J -^ a a^rois Kara rrjv 
ev(r7r\ayxviav /cat yXvKvrirjra rov 7roir)<ravTo<s ^a?, perhaps in 
reference to Matt. v. 45, 48. 

vvv (N 3 ABD 3 EFGLP) rather than vwl (N*CD*D 3 ): the more 
emphatic form might seem to be more suitable. Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Aeth. 
Goth, support 77 against ij before irbpvos. For fj-rjfit, A has /i^ and F has 



12. TI yap JJLOI TOUS eu KpiVeif ; For what business of mine 
is it to judge those that are outside? Quid enim mihi (Vulg.) : 
Ad quid mihi (Tert.) ; Quid mea interest (Beza). Gives the 



108 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 12, 13 

reason why they ought never to have supposed that he ordered 
them to shun the company of heathen who were fornicators : the 
meaning given in v. \ i is the only possible meaning. The phrase 
TOVS !o> (i Thess. iv. 12; Col. iv. 5) is of Jewish origin. Jews 
applied it to Gentiles ; our Lord applies it to Jews who are not 
His disciples (Mark iv. n); St Paul applies it to non-Christians, 
whether Jews or Gentiles. In i Tim. iii. 7, where he speaks of 
non-Christians judging Christians, he uses 01 <.t;w9tv. The 
expression states a fact, without any insinuation of censure. 
How could they suppose that he claimed jurisdiction over heathen 
and placed a stigma upon them for heathen behaviour ? Epictetus 
(Enchir. 47) tells those who are continent not to be severe upon 
those who are not, or to claim any superiority. 

ouxl TOUS eaw ujjieis Kptyere ; TOVS Icrw and {yxet<j are in emphatic 
juxtaposition : Is it not those that are within that you judge ? 
They are your sphere of jurisdiction. The present tense is 
axiomatic, stating what is normal. The proposal to put a 
colon at ou^t and make jcpiVcrc an imperative ( No; judge ye 
those who are within ) is unintelligent. Ov\C is not an answer to 
TI; and the sentence is much less telling as a command than as 
a question. Ou^t is one of the words which is far more common 
in Paul and Luke than elsewhere in N.T. 

13. 6 0? Kpipei. The verb is certainly to be accented as a 
present : it states the normal attribute of God. And the sentence 
is probably categorical ; But them that are without God judgeth. 
This is more forcible than to bring it under the interrogative 
OV\L ; Is it not the case that you judge those who are within, 
while God judges those who are without? But WH. and 
Bachmann adopt the latter. 

eapaT rov iroiT]p6j>. A quotation from Deut. xvii. 7, bringing 
to a sharp practical conclusion the discussion about the treat 
ment of Tropvtia, and at the same time giving a final rebuke to 
them for their indifference about the case of incest. The offender 
must be at once expelled. Origen adds that we must not be 
content with expelling the evil man from our society ; we must 
take care to expel the evil one (TOV Troi/^poV) from our hearts. Note 
the double c : the riddance must be complete. See on iii. 1 8. 

Vulg. Arm. Copt. Aeth. take Kpivei as a future, tt-dpare (S A B C D* 
F G P, Vulg.) rather than /cat e^apelre (D* E L), or KCU e^dpare (17). The 
verb occurs nowhere else in N.T., but is very frequent in LXX. 



VI. 1-11. LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS. 

The Apostle passes on to a third matter for censure, and in 
discussing it he first treats of the evil and its evil occasion (1-8), 



VI. 1-11] LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS IOQ 

and then, in preparation for what is to follow, points out that 
all unrighteousness is a survival from a bad past which the 
Corinthians ought to have left behind them (9-11). 



1-8. The Evil and its Evil Occasion. 

How can you dare to go to law with one another in 
heathen caurts ? If there must be suits > let Christian judge 
Christian. 

J The subject of judging brings me to another matter. Is it 
possible that, when one of you has a dispute with a fellow- 
Christian, he takes upon himself to bring the dispute before a 
heathen tribunal, instead of bringing it before believers. 2 Or is 
it that you do not know that, at the Last Day, believers will sit 
with Christ to judge the world ? And if the world is to be judged 
hereafter at your bar, are you incompetent to serve in the pettiest 
tribunals ? 3 Do not you know that we are to sit in judgment 
on angels ? After that, one need hardly mention things of daily 
life. 4 If, then, you have questions of daily life to be decided, 
do you really take heathens, who are of no account to those who 
are in the Church, and set them to judge you ? 5 It is to move 
you to shame that I am speaking like this. Have things come 
to such a pass that, among the whole of you, there is not a single 
person who is competent to arbitrate between one Christian and 
another, but that, on the contrary, Christian goes to law with 
Christian, and that too before unbelievers? 7 Nay, at the very 
outset, there is a terrible defect in your Christianity that you 
have lawsuits at all with one another. Why not rather accept 
injury? Why not rather submit to being deprived? But, so 
far from enduring wrong, what you do is this ; you wrong and 
deprive other people, and those people your fellow-Christians. 

The subject of going to law before heathen tribunals is linked 
to the subject discussed in the previous chapter by the reference 
to the question vi judgment (v. 12, 13).* The moral sense of a 
Christian community, which ought to make itself felt in judging 
offenders within its own circle, ought still more to suffice for 

* There may be another link. In v. 10, 1 1 St Paul twice brackets the 
Tr6pvos with the TrXeoi^/rrTjs, and he now passes from the one to the other. It 
was desire to have more than one had a right to (irXeove^la) which led to this 
litigation in heathen courts. See on Eph. iv. 19. 



1 10 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 1 

settling disputes among its members, without recourse to heathen 
courts, whose judges stand presumably on a lower ethical level 
than Christians. But there is no real argumentative connexion 
with the preceding section. The Apostle has finished two points 
in his indictment, and he now passes on to another. 

The Apostle s principles with regard to secular and heathen 
magistrates are perfectly consistent. In Rom. xiii. he inculcates 
the attitude of a good citizen, which is not only obedience to law, 
but the recognition of the magistrate as God s minister. This 
carries with it submission to the law as administered by the 
courts, and acceptance of the authority of the courts in criminal 
cases. St Paul had had experience of the protection of Roman 
Justice (Acts xviii. i2f., xxv. 16), and he himself appealed to 
Caesar. But to invoke the courts to decide disputes between 
Christians was quite another matter ; and he lays it down here 
that to do so is a confession of the failure of that justice which 
ought to reign in the Christian Society. Obey the criminal 
courts, but do not go out of your way to invoke the civil courts, 
is a fair, if rough, summary of his teaching. 

1. ToXfjia TIS iifjuoi . We know nothing of the facts, but it is 
clear from v. 8 that the Apostle has no merely isolated case in 
view : ToXpz grandi verbo notatur laesa majestas Christianorum 
(Beng.); Rom. xv. 18. The word is an argument in itself; 
How can you dare, endure, bring yourself to ? 

irpayfAa. In the forensic sense ; * a cause for trial, a case, 
Joseph. Ant. xiv. x. 7. 

TOK ercpoy. Not another (AV.), but his neighbour (RV.), 
his fellow (x. 24, xiv. 17 ; Rom. ii. i ; Gal. vi. 4). 

KpiraaOai. Middle ; go to law, seek for judgment. Cf. 
KpLOfjvai (Matt. v. 40; Eccles. vii. 10). The question comes 
with increased force after v. 12, 13. It is no business of ours 
to judge the heathen : and are we to ask them to judge us ? 

eirl rwk dSiKuf. Before the unrighteous. * The term is 
not meant to imply that there was small chance of getting justice 
in a heathen court ; St Paul s own experience had taught him 
otherwise. The term reflects, not on Roman tribunals, but on 
the pagan world to which they belonged. He perhaps chose the 
word rather than amortm/, in order to suggest the paradox of 
seeking justice among the unjust. The Rabbis taught that Jews 
must not carry their cases before Gentiles, and we may be sure 

* Augustine (De doct. Christ, iv. 1 8) seems to have read virb r. dS. He 
has, judicari ab iniquis et non apud sanctos. Vulg. has apud with both 
words, as also has Augustine, Enchir. ad Laurent. 78. 



VI. 1, 2] LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS 1 1 1 

that it was in the Greek majority at Corinth, and not in the 
Jewish minority, that this evil prevailed.* Greeks were fond of 
litigation, <tAoSiKoi (Arist. Rhet. n. xxiii. 23), and as there were 
no Christian courts they must enter heathen tribunals if they 
wanted to go to law. See Edwards. For cVt see 2 Cor. vii. 14 ; 
Mark xiii. 9 ; Acts xxv. 9. 

KCU ouxl eVi rwv ayiuv. He does not mean that Christian 
courts ought to be instituted, but that Christian disputants should 
submit to Christian arbitration. 

2. r\ OUK oiSare. Such conduct was incompatible with prin 
ciples which ought to be familiar to them. He first asks, How 
can you be so presumptuous? Then, on the supposition 
that this is not the cause of their error, he asks, * How can 
you be so ignorant ? The fj introduces an alternative explana 
tion. The formula OVK otSare occurs five times in this chapter 
(2, 3, 9, 1 6, 19 ; cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 5, etc.). 

ol fiyioi -rbv Koapov KpicoGoiK. Here, no doubt, the verb should 
be accented as a future; contrast v. 13. It is in the Messianic 
Kingdom that the saints will share in Christ s reign over the 
created universe. Judge does not here mean condemn, and 
the world does not mean the evil world. It is only from the 
context, as in Acts xiii. 27, that KptVeiv sometimes becomes 
equivalent to Karajc/>iVcii , and 6 KOCT/XOS frequently is used without 
any idea of moral, i.e. immoral quality; cf. iii. 22. Indeed, it is 
not clear that Kpivova-iv here means will pronounce judgment 
upon ; it is perhaps used in the Hebraic sense of ruling. So 
also in Matt. xix. 28. This sense is frequent in Judges (iii. 10, 
x. 2, 3, xii. 9, u, 13, 14, etc.). Wisd. iii. 8 is parallel; They 
shall judge the nations and have dominion over the peoples ; 
also Ecclus. iv. 15. St Paul may have known the Book of 
Wisdom. Cf. the Book of Enoch (cviii. 12), "I will bring forth 
clad in shining light those who have loved My holy Name, and 

1 will seat each on the throne of his honour." The saints are to 
share in the final perfection of the Messianic reign of Christ. 
They themselves are to appear before the Judge (Rom. xiv. 10 ; 

2 Tim. iv. i) and are then to share His glory (iv. 8 ; Rom. viii. 1 7 ; 
Dan. vii. 22; Rev. ii. 26, 27, iii. 21, xx. 4). The Apostle s 
eschatology (xv. 21-24) supplies hkn with the thought of these 
verses. He is certainly not thinking of the time when earthly 
tribunals will be filled with Christian judges, f 

KCU el iv ujjuy Kpiyerai 6 K. The /cat adds a further question, 



* To bring a lawsuit before a court of idolaters was regarded as blas 
phemy against the Law. 

t Polycarp quotes the question, Know we not that the saints shall judge 
the world ? as the doctrine of Paul (Phil. 1 1). 



112 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 2, 3 

and presses home the bearing of the preceding question. The 
i/ vfj.lv is less easy to explain ; among you, in your court, in 
your jurisdiction, may be the meaning. Or we may fall back 
on the instrumental use of eV. Like KpiVere in v. 12, /cpiverat 
expresses what is normal. The heathen are to be judged by 
you ; they are in your jurisdiction. How incongruous that you 
should ask to be judged by them ! 

<xmioi e<TT6 Kpmjpiwy IXaxioTui . Are ye unworthy of the 
smallest tribunals ? So in RV. marg. Cf. Jas. ii. 6 ; Judg. 
v. 10 ; Dan. vii. 10, 26; Susann. 49: also /AT/ ip\c<rQto eVt 
tBviKov {Apost. Const, ii. 45). In papyri, ot CTTI TU>V 
means those who preside in tribunals. The meaning 
case or cause is insufficiently supported. Avaios is found 
nowhere else in N.T. 

D 3 E L, AV. omit ij before OVK ot8are. 

3. The thought of v. 2 is repeated and expanded. To say 
that Christians will judge angels restates will judge the world 
in an extreme form, for the sake of sharpening the contrast. 
"AyyeXot are the highest order of beings under God, yet they are 
creatures and are part of the Koayxo?. But the members of 
Christ are to be crowned with glory and honour (Ps. viii. 6), and 
are to share in His regal exaltation, which exceeds any angelic 
dignity. He judges, 3 i.e. rules over, angels, and the saints 
share in that rule. The words may mean that the saints are to 
be His assessors in the Day of Judgment, that angels will then 
be judged, and that the saints will take part in sentencing them. 
If so, this must refer to fallen angels, for it is difficult to believe 
that St Paul held that all angels, good and bad, will be judged 
hereafter. But he gives no epithet to angels here, because it is 
not needed for his argument ; indeed, to have said fallen angels, 
or evil angels, would rather have marred his argument. As 
Evans rightly insists, it is the exalted nature of angels that is the 
Apostle s point. You are to judge the world. Nay, you are to 
judge, not only men, but angels. Are you unable to settle petty 
disputes among yourselves? St Paul s purpose is to emphasize 
the augustness of the judging to which members of Christ are 
called.* To press the statement in such a way as to raise the 
question of the exact nature, scope, or details, of the judgment 
of angels, is to go altogether beyond the Apostle s purpose. 
Thackeray (St Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 152 f.) 
has shown from Jude 6, Wisd. iii. 8, and Enoch xiii.-xvi. that 

* Godet remarks that Paid ne veut pas designer tels ou tels anges ; il veiit 
rtveiller dans Ftglise le sentiment de sa competence et de sa dignitt, en hit 
rappelant que des etres d une nature aussi tlev<?e seront nn jour sounris a sa 
jurisdiction. See also Milligan on I Thess. iii. 13, and Findlay here. 



VI. 3, 4] LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS I 13 

there is nothing in this unique statement to which a Jew of that 
day would not have subscribed. See Abbott, The Son of Man, 
p. 213. 

piny* Piwnxd. The ye strengthens the force of the MTI, 
which is that of a condensed question ; * need I so much as 
mention ? Nedum quae ad hujus vitae usum pertinent (Beza) : 
quanto magis saecularia. The clause may be regarded as part 
of the preceding question (WH.), or as a separate question 
(AV., RV.), or as. an appended remark, to say nothing at all of 
things of this life (Ellicott). The adjective occurs Luke xxi. 34, 
but is not found in LXX, nor earlier than Aristotle. Following 
the well-known difference in N.T. between (3ios and corj (see on 
Luke viii. 43), /2iumKa means questions relating to our life on 
earth on its merely human side, or to the resources of life, such 
as food, clothing, property, etc. Philo (Vit. Mas. iii. 18), Trpos 
ras fiuDTLKas xpetas vTrr/pereu/. See Trench, Syn. xxvii. ; Cremer, 
Lex. p. 272 ; Lightfoot on Ign. Rom. vii. 3. 

M 177-476 is written by different editors as one word, or as two (/J-^TI ye}, 
or as three. Tregelles is perhaps alone in writing /to) TI ye. 

4. j3i(UTiKa Kpirrjpia. Tribunals dealing with worldly 
matters. The adj. is repeated with emphasis, which is increased 
by its being placed first. That is the surprising thing, that 
Christians should have /3iomKa that require litigation. 

|Ai> oui/. Nay but, or Nay rather. The force of the 
words is either to emphasize the cumulative scandal of having 
such cases at all and of bringing them Vt rah/ dSiKwi , or (if 
Ka0iere is imperative) to advise an alternative course to that 
described in v. 2. 

lav CXTJTC. This form of protasis (cf. iv. 15) requires a future 
or its equivalent in the apodosis. Here we have an equivalent, 
whether we take /ca^ere as imperative or interrogative. If you 
must have such things as courts to deal with these petty matters, 
then set, etc. ; or do you set? Is that your way of dealing 
with the matter ? It is intolerably forced to put a comma after 
make it an accus. pendens^ and take e ai/ exn T w ^ tn 



TOUS |ou0eit]fjLej Ous iv TTJ eKK\r)cria. If Ka0ieT is imperative, 
then these words mean * those in the Church who are held of no 
account, i.e. the least esteemed of the Christians. The Apostle 
sarcastically tells them that, so far from there being any excuse 
for resorting to heathen tribunals, any selection of the simplest 
among themselves would be competent to settle their disputes 
about trifles. Let the insignificant decide what is insignificant. 

If /ca0terc is indicative and the sentence interrogative, then 
these words mean, those who, in the Church, are held of no 
8 



114 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 4, 5 

account, viz. the aSiKoi of v. i. The meaning is the same if the 
sentence is categorical. 

Both constructions are possible, and both make good sense. 
Alford, Edwards, Ellicott, Evans, and Lightfoot give strong 
reasons for preferring the imperative, as AV. In this they 
follow a strong body of authorities ; the Vulgate, Peshito, Coptic, 
and Armenian, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustine, Beza, Calvin, 
Estius, Bengel, and Wetstein. To mention only one of the 
arguments used ; it does seem improbable that St Paul would 
call heathen magistrates those who, in the Church, are held of 
no account. He has, it is true, spoken of the heathen in 
general (not the magistrates in particular) as aSt/cot : but here he 
is speaking of those who preside in the heathen tribunals. And 
if he wanted to speak disparagingly of them, is those whom 
Christians despise a likely phrase for him to use ? The Vulgate 
renders, contemptibiks qui sunt in eccksia, illos constituite ad 
judicandum ; but the Greek means contemptos rather than 
contemptibiks. Augustine also has contemptibiks > but he renders 
TOVTOVS Ka0iTe, hos collocate* 

Nevertheless, Tischendorf, WH. and the Revisers support a 
considerable number of commentators, from Luther to Schmiedel, 
in punctuating the sentence as a question. It is urged that the 
Apostle, after the reminder of w. 2, 3, returns to the question of 
v. i ; Will they, by going outside their own body for justice, 
confess themselves, the appointed judges of angels, to be unfit 
to decide the pettiest arbitrations ? f 

We must be content to leave the question open. The 
general sense is clear. The Corinthians were doing a shameful 
thing in going to heathen civil courts to settle disputes between 
Christians. 

irpos eVrpoTTTji ujui/ Xe yu. I say this to move you to shame ; 
see on iv. 14. As in xv. 34, the words refer to what precedes, 
and they suit either of the interpretations given above, either the 
sarcastic command or the reproachful question ; but they suit 
the latter somewhat better. Only here, and xv. 34 does 
f) occur in N.T., but it is not rare in the Psalms. 



5. OUTWS OUK Ivi K.r.X. * Is there such a total lack among you 
of any wise person that you are thus obliged to go outside ? 

* It is evident that /rafl^ere is a word which is more suitable for constitut 
ing simple Christians as arbitrators than for adopting heathen magistrates, 
already appointed, as judges of Christians. 

t There is yet another way, suggested by J. C. K. Hofmann and 
accepted by Findlay ; Well then, as for secular tribunals it you have men 
that are made of no account in the Church, set these on the bench ! The 
punctuation does not seem to be very probable. 

With the use of TOI;TOVS here we may compare TOVTOVS in xvi. 3 and 
TOVTOV in 2 Thess. iii. 14. 



VI. 5-7] LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS 115 

Or, * So is there not found among you one wise person ? The 
OVTWS refers to the condition of things in the Corinthian Church : 
Chrys., Tocravrr) (nrdvis avSpw orvveTwv Trap* V/JLLV ; it IS now 
commonly admitted that Zvi " is not a contraction from evecm, but 
the preposition ei/ or cvt, strengthened by a vigorous accent, like 
CTTI, irdpa, and used with an ellipse of the substantive verb " 
(Lightfoot on Gal. iii. 28; J. B. Mayor on Jas. i. 17): translate, 
therefore, is not found. 

Sicucpiyai dm pearov TOU dSe\4>ou auTou. A highly condensed 
sentence ; to decide between his fellow-Christian meaning * to 
act as arbitrator between one fellow-Christian and another. We 
want ova. fj,ccrov aStXtyov KCU rov dS. avrov, like ova jjLetrov e/xov Kai 
<rov (Gen. xxiii. 15). J. H. Moulton (Gr. p. 99) suspects a 
corruption in the text, but dictation may account for the ab 
breviation : Tuv a.8(\<f>wv CLVTOV is the simplest conjecture. The 
compound preposition dva /xe o-oi/ is frequent in papyri. As the 
Lord had directed (Matt, xviii. 17), the aggrieved brother ought 
to tell it to the Church. * 

Both here and in xv. 34 there is difference of reading between Xyw and 
XaXu). Here \tyw (X D E F G L P) is to be preferred to XaXtD (B, with C 
doubtful), evi (K B C L P) rather than earn* (D E F G). ovdeis <ro06s 
(N B C 17, Copt.) rather than ovde eh <ro0<5s (F G P) or <ro06s o66i eh (D 3 L) 
or ffo<j>6s without ovdt eh or ovdets (D* E, Aeth.). For roC dde\<pov some 
editors conjecture r&v d 



6. dXXtt d8e\<|)os K.T.X. We have the same doubt as that 
respecting /Lt^iye /3iomKa (v. 3). This verse may be a con 
tinuation of the preceding question (WH., RV.), or a separate 
question (AV.), or an appended statement (Ellicott). In the 
last case, dAAa is Nay, On the contrary. 

Kai TOUTO. This is the climax. That there should be dis 
putes about /?iam/ca is bad ; that Christian should go to law 
with Christian is worse ; that Christians should do this before 
unbelievers is worst of all. It is a scandal before the heathen 
world. Cf. KOI TOVTO (Rom. xiii. n; 3 John 5) and the more 
classical KOL ravra (Heb. xi. 12), of which Wetstein gives 
numerous examples. 

7. rjSir) pep oSf. Nay, verily there is at once, there is to 
begin with, without going any further : /xev ow, separate, as in 
v. 4, and with no Se to answer to the ^teV. 

oXws. * Altogether, i.e. no matter what the tribunal may be : 
or generally, under any circumstances, i.e. no matter what 
the result may be. 

A falling short of spiritual attainment, or of 



* Cicero (Ad Fam. ix. 25) writes to Papirius Paetus, Noli pati litigare 
fratres, et judiciis turpibus conflictari. 



Il6 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 7 

Christian blessings, a defect (RV.), or possibly a defeat. 
They have been worsted in the spiritual fight. Origen here 
contrasts ^TTao-flcu with VLKO.V* Cf. Isa. xxxi. 8, 01 Sc veaviV/cot 
ecroj Tcu eis rjrrrf^a. In Rom. xi. 1 2 the meaning seems to be 
defeat (see note there), and these are the only passages in the 
Bible in which the word occurs. See Field, Otium Norvic. 
iii. 97. 

KpijAara. Elsewhere in N.T. the word means decrees or 
judgments, but here it is almost equivalent to Kpmjpia (v. 4) : 
matters for judgment, lawsuits. 

fxeO eauTum Literally, with your own selves. It is pos 
sible that this use of fj^ff eavroji/ for /ACT* a. A. AT? Aw i/ is deliberate, 
in order to show that in bringing a suit against a fellow-Christian 
they were bringing a suit against themselves, so close was the 
relationship. The solidarity of the Church made such conduct 
suicidal. But the substitution occurs where no such idea can be 
understood (Mark xvi. 3). 

There are passages in M. Aurelius which are very much in 
harmony with these verses. He argues that men are kinsmen, 
and that all wrong-doing is the result of ignorance. Those who 
know better must be patient with those who know not what 
they do in being insolent and malicious. "But I, who have 
seen the nature of the good that it is beautiful, and of the bad 
that it is base (alvxpov), and the nature of him that does the 
wrong, that it is akin to me, not so much by community of 
blood and seed as by community of intelligence and divine 
endowment, I can neither be injured by any of them, for no 
one can fix on me what is base ; nor can I be angry with one 
who is my kinsman, nor feel hatred against him" (ii. i). "On 
every occasion a man should say, This comes from God : this 
is from one of the same tribe and family and society, but from 
one who does not know what befits his nature. But I know ; 
therefore I treat him according to the natural law of fellowship 
with kindness and justice" (iii. n). "With what are you so 
displeased ? with the badness of men ? Consider the decision, 
that rational beings exist for one another, and that to be patient 
is a part of righteousness, and that men do wrong against their 
will " (iv. 3). 

d8iKUT0, diroorepeiaOc. Endure wrong, endure depriva 
tion. The verbs are middle, not passive. 

* He says that the man who accepts injury without retaliating vei lKtjKfv, 
while the man who brings an action against a fellow-Christian r/rTarat. He 
is worsted, has lost his cause, by the very fact of entering a law-court. Simil 
arly, Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 14, which is a commentary on this section ; 
"To say then that the wronged man goes to law before the wrongdoers is 
nothing else than to say that he desires to retaliate and wishes to do wrong 
to the second in return, which is likewise to do wrong also himself." 



VI. 8] LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS 1 1/ 

tidy ni oiV (N :1 ABC I) 3 E L P, Aeth.) ; omit oiV (N* D* 17, Vulg. 
Copt. Arm.). The ovv is probably genuine. A omits oXws. The iv before 
vfui> has very little authority ; est in vobis (Vulg.). 

8. dXXd ufxeis. Whereas you, on the contrary. The em 
phatic pronoun contrasts their conduct with what is fitting. 
* Not content with refusing to endure wrong (and as Christians 
you ought to be ready to endure it), you yourselves inflict it, 
and that on fellow-Christians ; a climax of unchristian con 
duct. Matt. v. 39-41 teaches far otherwise; and the substance 
of the Sermon on the Mount would be known to them. The 
sentence is not part of the preceding question.* 

D transposes dStAreire and aTroaTepetVe. For roCro, L, Arm., Chrys., 
Thdrt. have raPra, perhaps to cover the two verbs. 



9-11. Unrighteousness in all its forms is a survival from 
a bad past, which the Corinthians ought to have left 
behind them. 

Evil-doers^ such as some of you were, cannot enter the 
Kingdom. 

9 Is this wilfulness on your part, or is it that you do not 
know that wrong-doers will have no share in the Kingdom? 
Do not be led astray by false teachers. No fornicator, idolater, 
adulterer, sensualist, sodomite, 10 thief, cheat, drunkard, reviler, 
or extortioner will have any share in God s Kingdom. n And 
of such vile sort some of you once were. But you washed your 
pollutions away, you were made holy, you were made righteous, 
by sharing in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the 
gift of the Spirit of God. 

These three verses conclude the subject of vv. 1-8 by an 
appeal to wider principles, and thus prepare the way for the 
fourth matter of censure (12-20). The connexion with vv. 1-8 
is definite, although not close. The Corinthians have shown 
themselves d&Kot, in the narrower sense of unjust, by their 
conduct to one another (dSiKctrt, v. 8). They need, however, 
to be reminded that uSi/a a in any sense (see note below) excludes 
a man from the heritage of God s Kingdom. The Apostle goes 
on to specify several forms of doWa which they ought to have 
abandoned, and finally returns to the subject of 



* It is remarkable that in six verses we have four cases in which there is 
doubt whether the sentence is interrogative or not ; w. 3, 4, 6, 8. hi this 
last case the interrogative is very improbable. See also on v. 13. 



Il8 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 9 

9. r\ OUK oi&are. See vv. 2 and 19. There is an alternative 
implied. [Is it from a reckless determination to do as they 
please regardless of the consequences,] or is it from real ignor 
ance of the consequences ? In either case their error is disas 
trous. 

aSiKoi. The word is suggested by the previous dSiKen-e, and 
this should be marked in translation ; ye do wrong . . . wrong 
doers shall not inherit. No English version preserves the 
connexion ; nor does the Vulgate, injuriam faritis . . . iniqui : 
but Beza does so, injuriam fatitis . . . injustos. Now the word 
takes a wider meaning ; it is wrongdoing of any kind, and not 
the special kind of being unjust in matters of personal rights, 
that is meant ; and here the Apostle passes to a more compre 
hensive survey of the spiritual state of his readers, and also to 
a sterner tone : cis aTrctXr/i/ KaraKAem T^I/ Tra/ocuWo-u/ (Chrys.). 
The evil that he has now to deal with is the danger of Gentile 
licentiousness. 

coo pdffiXeicu . When St Paul uses the shorter form, c God s 
Kingdom (v. 10, xv. 50; Gal. v. 21), instead of the more usual 
^ /3as. TOV . (iv. 20 ; Rom. xiv. 17^2 Thess. i. 5 ; cf. Eph. v. 5), 
he elsewhere writes /2as. eoC. Here eo is placed first, in order 
to bring aSi/coi and eov into emphatic contrast by juxtaposition : 
w rong-doers are manifestly out of place in God s Kingdom. 
Cf. TrpocrcoTTOK eos avOpwirov ov Aa/x/3ayei (Gal. ii. 6). * To inherit 
the Kingdom of God is a Jewish thought, in allusion to the 
promise given to Abraham ; but St Paul, in accordance with his 
doctrine of grace, enlarges and spiritualizes the idea of inherit 
ance. He reminds the Corinthians that, although all Christians 
are heirs, yet heirs may be disinherited. They may disqualify 
themselves. In iv. 20, the Kingdom is regarded as present. 
Here and xv. 50 it is regarded as future. It is both : see 
J. Kaftan, Jesus u. Pautus, p. 24; Dalman, Words^ p. 125; 
Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 576. 

Mr) uXamo-Oe. See on Luke xxi. 8. The verb is passive, 
* Do not be led astray, and implies fundamental error.* The 
revisers sometimes correct the deceived of AV. to led astray, 
but here and xv. 50 they retain deceived. The charge is a 
sharper repetition of rj OVK otSare. Some Jews held that the 
belief in one God sufficed without holiness of life. Judaizers 
may have been teaching in Corinth that faith sufficed.! 

* Origen illustrates thus; "Let no one lead you astray with persuasive 
words, saying that God is merciful, kind, and loving, and ready to forgive 
sins." 

t Duchesne thinks that there is nothing in I or 2 Corinthians " to lead to 
the conclusion that the Apostle s rivals had introduced Judaizing tendencies 
in Corinth" (Early Hist, of the Chr. Church, p. 23). That can hardly be 
maintained respecting 2 Corinthians, and is very disputable about this Epistle. 



VL 9-11] LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS 119 

The order of the ten kinds of offenders is unstudied. He 
enumerates sins which were prevalent at Corinth just as they 
occur to him. Of the first five, three (and perhaps four) deal 
with sinners against purity, while the fifth, idolaters, were 
frequently sinners of the same kind. Of the last five, three are 
sinners against personal property or rights, such as are censured 
in v. 8. All of them are in apposition to 0181*01, an apposition 
which would seem quite natural to Greeks, who were accustomed 
to regard SiKcuoo-uVr; as the sum-total of virtues (Arist. Eth. A/V. 
v. i. 15), and therefore dSuu a as the sum-total of vices (ibid. 19 : 
see on Luke xiii. 27). Several of these forms of evil are dealt 
with in this Epistle (w. 13-18, v. i, n, viii. 10, x. 14, etc.): 
cf. Rom. i. 27 and iii. 13; Gal. v. 19, 20; i Tim. i. 10.* 

For 0eoO /3a<rtXeai , L, d e f Vulg. have the more usual fiatr. 9eou. D* 
has ovdt throughout w. g, 10. ou /j^dvaoi (N AC P 17) rather than ovrt 
liAd. (B D 3 E L). L P insert ov before K\r]povofirj<rov<nv at the end of 
v. 10. 



11. Kai rau-ni Tiyes TJT - * And such dreadful things as these 
some of you were? While the neuter indicates a horror of what 
has been mentioned, the TU/S and the tense lighten the sad 
statement. Not all of them, not even many, but only some, 
are said to have been guilty ; and it is all a thing of the past. 
Cf. ?T in Rom. vi. 17. 

dXXd. The threefold But emphasizes strongly the contrast 
between their present state and their past, and the consequent 
demand which their changed moral condition makes upon them. 

direXouoracrOe. Neither ye are washed (AV.), nor ye were 
washed (RV.), nor ye washed yourselves (RV. marg.), but 
ye washed them away from you, ye washed away your sins ; 
exactly as in Acts xxii. 16, the only other place in N.T. in which 
the compound verb occurs ; avao-Tas ftairricrai KOI aTroAovo-ai ras 
cijaapTias <rov. Their seeking baptism was their own act, and 
they entered the water as voluntary agents, just as St Paul 
did. Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 21. 

TTjYido-StjTe, 8iKaio)0T]Te. The repetitions of the aorist show 
that these verbs refer to the same event as aTrtXovo-aa-O*. The 

* There is a manitest reproduction of w. 9, 10 in Ign. Eph. 16 ; also in 
Ep. of Polycarp, 5. On the general sense of the two verses see Sanday on 
St Paul s Equivalent for the Kingdom of Heaven, /7^>\ July 1900, pp. 481 f. 

Aristot. (Eth. Nic. VII. iv. 4) says that people are called fj.a\aicol in 
reference to the same things as they are called d/c6\ewTot, viz. irepl rds 
(Tw/iariKaj d7ro\ai50-s : Plato (Rep. viii. 556 B) ?rp6s -})dovd.s re Kal XuTras. 
Origen here gives the word a darker meaning. See Deissmann, Light , p. 150. 
He gives a striking illustration of the list of vices here and elsewhere, derived 
from counters in an ancient game. Each counter had the name of a vice or a 
virtue on it ; and in the specimens in museums the vices greatly preponderate 
(pp. 320 f.). 



120 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 12-2O 

crisis, of which their baptism was the concrete embodiment, 
had marked their transition from the rule of self to the service 
of God (consecration), and from the condition of guilty sinners 
to that of pardoned children of God (justification). Neither of 
the verbs here is to be taken in the technical theological sense 
which each of them sometimes bears : cf. aytot (i. 2) and ^yiWrat 
(vii. 14). Here c8iKaub0rjTe forms a kind of climax, completing 
the contrast with aSiKot (v. 9). The new life is viewed here as 
implicit in the first decisive turn to Christ, which again was 
inseparably connected with their baptism. Cf. Rom. vi. 7. 

eV TW oyojAcm T. K. I. Xp. As in Acts ii. 38, x. 48 ; cf. cts TO 
6i/., Acts viii. 16, xix. 5. Matt, xxviii. 19 is the only passage in 
which the Trinitarian form is found. See Hastings, DB. i. 
p. 241 f. This passage is remarkable as being an approach 
to the Trinitarian form, for eV roJ nVev /xaTi is coupled with in 
the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and TOU eoO is added ; so 
that God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit are all 
mentioned. But it is doubtful whether this verse can be taken 
as evidence of a baptismal formula. Godet certainly goes too 
far in claiming it as implying the use of the threefold Name (see 
on Matt, xxviii. 19). But it is right to take ev TO> ovo/Aan K.T.\. 
with all three verbs. Cf. "saved in His Name" (Enoch, xlviii. 7). 



BCPI7, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. insert -rj/j.Qv after rov Kvpiov : 
K A D E L omit. It is not easy to decide. N B C D* E P, Vulg. Copt. 
Arm. Aeth. insert X/wrroO after 1770-00 : A D 3 L omit. The word is pro 
bably genuine. In both cases the evidence of C is not clear : there is 
space for the word, but it is not legible. 



VI. 12-20. THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION IN THE 
LIGHT OF FIRST PRINCIPLES. 

Christian freedom is not licentiousness. Our bodies were 
not made for unchastity. The body is a temple of the 
Spirit. 

12 Perhaps I may have said to you at some time ; In all things 
I can do as I like. Very possibly. But not all things that I 
may do do me good. In all things I can do as I like, but I 
shall never allow anything to do as it likes with me. 13 I am 
not going to let myself be the slave of appetite. It is true that 
the stomach and food were made for one another. Yet they 
were not made to last tor ever : the God who made them will 
put an end to both. But it is not true that the body was made 
for fornication. The body is there to serve the Lord, and the 



VI. 12-20] THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION 121 

Lord is there to have the body for His service: 14 and as God 
raised Him from the dead, so will He also raise us up by His own 
power. 15 Is it that you do not know that your bodies are members 
of Christ ? Shall I then take away from Christ members which 
are His and make them members of a harlot ? Away with so 
dreadful a thought ! 16 Or is it that you do not know that the 
union of a man with his harlot makes the two to be one body ? 
I am not exaggerating ; for the Scripture says, The two shall 
become one flesh. 17 But the union of a man with the Lord 
makes the two to be one spirit. 18 Do not stop to parley with 
fornication : turn and fly. In the case of no other sin is such 
grievous injury done to the body as in this case : the fornicator 
sins against his own body. 19 Does that statement surprise you ? 
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, 
who makes His home in you, being sent for that very purpose 
from God ? And, what is more, you are not your own property, 
but God s. He paid a high price for you. Surely you are 
bound to use to His glory the body which He has bought. 

12-20. St Paul now passes to a fourth matter for censure. 
He has already taken occasion, in connexion with a specially 
flagrant case of iropveia, to blame the lack of moral discipline 
in the community. He now takes up the subject of Tropma 
generally, dealing with it in the light of first principles. The 
sin was prevalent at Corinth (v. 9, vii. 2 ; 2 Cor. xii. 21), and 
was virtually condoned by public opinion in Greece and in 
Rome. Moreover, the Apostle s own teaching as to Christian 
liberty (Rom. v. 20, vi. 14) had been perverted and caricatured, 
not only by opponents (Rom. iii. 8), but also by some emanci 
pated Christians at Corinth itself. The latter had made it an 
excuse for licence. He proceeds now to show the real meaning 
and scope of Christian liberty, and in so doing sets forth the 
Christian doctrine of the body as destined for eternal union 
with Christ. 



12. ndvTa. fxoi e^cony. These are St Paul s own words (see 
on x. 23). They may have been current among the Corinthians 
as a trite maxim. If so, the Apostle here adopts them as his 
own, adding the considerations which limit their scope. More 
probably they were words he had used, which were well known 
as his, and which had been misused by persons whom he now 
proceeds to warn. Of course, irdvra. is not absolute in extent : 



122 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 12 

no sane person would maintain that it was meant to cover such 
things as Tropm a and justify Travovpyta. It covers, however, a very 
great deal, viz. the whole of that wide range of things which are 
not wronger se. But within this wide range of things which 
are indifferent, and therefore permissible, there are many things 
which become wrong, and therefore not permissible, in view of 
principles which are now to be explained. 

JAOI I^eorii . Saepe Paulus prima persona singulari eloquitur, 
quae vim habent gnomes ; in hac praesertim epistola, v. 15, vii. 7, 
viii. 13, x. 23, 29, 30, xiv. n (Beng.). The saying applies to 
all Christians. On its import see J. Kaftan, Jesus u. Paulus ^ 

PP- 5 J > 5 2 - 

d\X ou iran-a au|i<f>epi. Liberty is limited by the law of the 
higher expediency, i.e. by reference to the moral or religious life 
of all those who are concerned, viz. the agent and those whom 
his conduct may influence. In this first point the Apostle is 
possibly thinking chiefly of the people influenced.* We have no 
longer any right to do what in itself is innocent, when our doing 
it will have a bad effect on others. Our liberty is abused when 
our use of it causes grave scandal. 

OUK eyci> eoucriaa0rjo-ojAcu uiro TI^OS. This is the second point ; 
really included in the higher law of expediency, but requiring to 
be stated separately, in order to show that the agent, quite apart 
from those whom his conduct may influence, has to be con 
sidered. What effect will his action have upon himself? We 
have no longer any right to do what in itself is innocent, when 
experience has proved that our doing it has a bad effect on our 
selves. Our liberty is abused when our use of it weakens our 
character and lessens our power of self-control. St Paul says 
that, for his part, he * will not be brought under the power of 
anything. The OVK is emphatic, and the eyoi slightly so, but 
very slightly : the eyeo is rendered almost necessary by the pre 
ceding fjLOL. We must beware of using liberty in such a way as 
to lose it, e.g. in becoming slaves to a habit respecting things 
which in themselves are lawful. The TWOS is neuter, being one 
of the Trdvra. 

The verb eov<riaii/ is chosen because of its close connexion 
with |m through eovo-t a : it is frequent in LXX, especially in 
Ecclesiastes ; in N.T., vii. 4 and Luke xxii. 25.! This play on 
words cannot be reproduced exactly in English ; perhaps * I can 
make free with all things, but I shall not let anything make free 



* In x. 23 f. , where St Paul again twice quotes his own TT&VTO. /tot 
he is certainly thinking chiefly of the people influenced. 

t Nowhere else does the passive occur. But in late Greek the rule that 
only verbs which have an accusative can be used in the passive is not observed. 
See Lightfoot on 5o7/xar/feo-0e (Col. ii. 20). 



VI. 12, 13] THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION 123 

with me may serve to show the kind of thought : mihi res non 
me rebus submittere conor. 

These two verses (12, 13) are a kind of preface to the subject 
of iropi/eia, to show that it is not one of those things which may 
or may not be lawful according to circumstances. It is in all 
circumstances wholly outside the scope of Christian liberty, how 
ever that liberty may be defined. While many things are lawful, 
and become wrong only if indulged (like the appetite for food) 
to an extent that is harmful to ourselves or to others, fornication 
is not a legitimate use of the body, but a gross abuse of it, being 
destructive of the purpose for which the body really exists. 



13. TOL ppwjjLara . . . rots {Bpuficunv. It is quite possible that 
some of the Corinthians confused what the Apostle here so 
clearly distinguishes, the appetite for food and the craving for 
sensual indulgence. " We have traces of this gross moral con 
fusion in the Apostolic Letter (Acts xv. 23-29), where things 
wholly diverse are combined, as directions about meats to be 
avoided and a prohibition of fornication " (Lightfoot). The 
Apostles, who framed these regulations, did not regard them as 
on the same plane, but the heathen, for whom they were framed, 
did. St Paul makes the distinction luminously clear. Not only 
are meats made for the belly, but the belly, which is essential to 
physical existence, is made for meats, and cannot exist without 
them. There is absolute correlation between the two, as long as 
earthly life lasts : but no longer, for both of them will eventually 
be done away. When the crwfjia ceases to be if/v^w and becomes 
TrvtvfjiaTLKov (xv. 44), neither the ^pw/xara nor the /cotAia will have 
any further function, and therefore God will bring to nought 
both of them. 

TO 8e awfAa ou rfj TTop^itt. No such relation exists between 
the O-W/AO. and Tropva a as between the KoiXia and /Spw/zara. The 
supposed parallel breaks down in two essential particulars. 
(i) The o-w/ta was not made for Tropveia, but for the Lord, in 
order to be a member of Christ, who lived and died to redeem 
it. (2) The crto/za is not, like the KoiAi a, to be brought to nought, 
but to be transformed and glorified (Phil. iii. 21). The body 
is contrasted with flesh and blood (xv. 37, 50), and the KoiXia 
belongs to the latter, and has only a temporal purpose, whereas 
the body has an eternal purpose. So far, therefore, from 
TTopm a standing to the body in the same relation as meats to the 
belly, it fatally conflicts with the body s essential destiny, which 
is membership with Christ. 

It is possible that in selecting the relation between appetite 
and food as a contrast to Tropveta St Paul is indirectly discourag 
ing Judaistic distinctions of meats, or ascetic prohibitions of flesh 



124 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 13, 14 

and wine. No kind of food is forbidden to the Christian. But 
even if there had been no Judaizers at work in Corinth, and no 
tendency towards asceticism, he would probably have selected 
the relation between /fyo^taTa and KotXia for his purpose. The 
argument is still used, " If I may gratify one bodily appetite, 
why may I not gratify another? Naturalia non sunt turpia. 
Omnia tnunda mundis" 

KCU 6 Kupios TU> o-cj/xart. A startling assertion of perfect corre 
lation : quanta dignatio I (Beng.). The Son of God, sent in the 
likeness of sinful flesh, has His purpose and destiny, viz. to 
dwell in and glorify the body (Rom. viii. 23) which is united 
with Him through the Spirit (v. 17); and it is lawful to say that 
He is for it as well as it for Him. 

14. 6 8e eos- This is parallel to 6 Se Qeos in v. 13, and puts 
the contrast between the two cases in a very marked way. In 
the case of the KoiAm, and the /3pa>/taTa to which it is related, 
God will reduce both of them to nothingness. In the case of 
the <ra>/xa, and the Kvptos to which it is related, God has raised 
the Kvpios, and will raise up the <r<o/m of every one who is a 
member of Him. The contrast between the two cases is com 
plete. On the other hand, the close relationship between the 
Lord and all true Christians is shown by the doubled conjunc 
tion ; Kal rov Kvptoy . . . KCU 7;//.as. See Sanday (The Life of 
Christ in Recent Research, p. 132) on the view that it was St Paul 
who deified Christ. 

The change from the simple (T/yetpev) to the compound verb 
(f&yepei) has perhaps little meaning. In late Greek, compounds 
do not always have any additional force, and the difference is 
not greater than that between raise and raise up. The com 
pound may be used to mark the future raising as not less sure 
than the one which is past, and it is well to mark the difference, 
as RV. does. AV., with raise up for both, ignores the change, 
as does Vulg., suscitavit . . . suscitabit, and Iren. int. (v. vi. 2). 
The compound occurs only here and Rom. ix. 17 in N.T. ; in 
LXX it is very frequent. See on ea7raTara>, iii. 18. 

8ia TT]S Suva/lews auToG. This may qualify both verbs, but is 
more appropriate to ecycpet. There was need to remind the 
Corinthians of God s power, in order to confirm their belief in 
their own future resurrection (xv. 12) ; but no one who believed 
that Christ had been raised needed to be reminded of that : cf. 
Matt. xxii. 29. It is worth observing that St Paul does not take 
any account of the quick who will not need to be raised. 
Contrast xv. 51 ; i Thess. iv. i5f. ; Rom. viii. u. 

(teyepfl (K C D 3 E K L, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Aeth.) is probably to be pre 
ferred to eeyei />ei (A D* Q, d e suscitat), or to eriyeipev (B, Am. suscitavit). 
ee7eipei(P) may be regarded as supporting either of the first two, of which 



VI. 14, 15] THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION 125 



may be safely set aside. It is possible that B has preserved the 
original reading, for no intelligent copyist would alter ee-ye/>e< into e^-^yeipev, 
but an unintelligent one might assimilate the second verb to the first. If 
ijjyeipcv is regarded as original it may be explained as referring to spiritual 
resurrection to newness of life, or possibly as referring to our resurrection as 
comprised potentially in that of Christ : God both raised the Lord and (by so 
doing) raised up us. But it is unlikely that the Apostle would have obscured 
the certainty of the future resurrection of the body by using language which 
would have encouraged Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim. ii. 17, 18). Qut 
dominum suscttavit, et nos suscitabit (Tert. Marc. v. 7). 

15. OUK ot&are K.T.\. He presses home the principle that * the 
body is for the Lord. By virtue of that principle every Christian, 
and every one of his members, is a member of Christ. The 
higher heathen view was that man s body is in common with the 
brutes, TO o-oj/xa KOIVOV Trpos TO. aa, and only his reason and 
intelligence in common with the gods (Epict. Dissert, i. iii. i); 
but the Christian view is TO o-w/xa /xe Aos rov Xpio-rov.* Epictetus 
speaks of both God and gods, and in popular language calls God 
Zeus. 5 In this chapter he speaks of God as the father of men 
and gods ; but, at the best, he falls far short of Christian Theism. 
The Christian view, which first appears here, is developed in 
another connexion in xii. and in Rom. xii. See also Eph. iv. 15, 
1 6, v. 30. 

apas ouy. The AV. misses a point in translating, Shall I 
then take the members of Christ ? The RV. has, * Shall I then 
take away the members of Christ ? Atpeiv is not simply, * to 
take, which is XafifldvcLv, but either to take up, raise (Acts 
xxvii. 17), or to take away (v. 2 ; Eph. iv. 31 ; Col. ii. 14; and 
nowhere else in Paul). The verb is very common in Gospels 
and Acts ; elsewhere rare in N.T. The Apostle assumes that 
union with a harlot, unlike union with a lawful wife, robs Christ 
of members which belong to Him. Union with Christ attaches 
to our body through the spirit (v. 1 7), and sin is apostasy from 
the spiritual union with Christ. This is true of all sin, but 
TTopvcLa is a peculiarly direct blow at the principle TO o-w/xa TU> 
Kvptu). Quantum flagitium est, corpus nostrum a sacra ilia con 
junctions abreptum ad res Christo indignas transferri (Calv.). As 
Augustine remarks (De Civ. Dei xxi. 25), "they cannot be at 
once the members of Christ and the members of a harlot." 

It is impossible and unimportant to decide whether 
is deliberative subjunctive ( Am I to take away . . . and 
make? ) or future indicative ( Shall I take away? etc.). The two 
aorists would mark two aspects, simultaneous in effect, of one and 
the same act. B