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

EMMANUEL

\ 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&lt;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

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&gt;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&gt; (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 &lt;ro&lt;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&gt;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&gt;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.&lt;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&gt; yvvaiKos JU.T) aTrrta-Oai (vii. l),
TTttVTe? yvcocrtv e^o/Aer (viii. l), Trdvra ce&lt;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\&gt;, 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.

Lighlfoot.

Wieseler.

The Crucifixion .

29 or 30

Conversion of St Paul .

35 or 36

First visit to Jerusalem

Second visit to Jeru

salem

...

First missionary

journey .

46 or 47

45-57

Third visit to Jeru

salem ; the Apostolic

Council .

Second missionary

journey .

5 1

Corinth reached late in

S 2

Epistles to the Thessa-

lonians

48-50

50-52

51-53

52-53

Fourth visit to Jeru

salem

S 2

54.

Return to Antioch

Third missionary

journey .

In Ephesus; I Corin

thians

5-53

52-55

53-56

54-57

In Macedonia ; 2 Corin

thians

In Corinth ; Epistle to

Romans .

53, 54

55, 56

56,57

57,58

Fifth visit to Jerusalem ;

arrest

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&lt;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&lt;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&gt; 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&lt;O/X&gt;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&gt;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)&lt;rtai out
siders (tSiu&gt;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 &lt;j&gt;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&lt;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&lt;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&lt;n a and tStornjs ought to be added to the first
group, and dKpar&gt;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 ; &lt;ivai tos, vi. 2 ; di&gt;aia&gt;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-^&gt;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&gt;, V. 13; eopTda&gt;, v. 8; e7ri0ai/drios, iv. 9;
eTriOvfJLrjTrjs, x. 6; tTrto-Trdo/xat, vii. 18; ep/^i/i a, xii. IO, xiv. 26;
? * eppr)VVTTJ&lt;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&gt;)
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&gt;, 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/&gt;j, xv. 31 ; * vrj-n-La.^, xiv. 20; * dXo0peuT?js,
X. 10; 6/xtXi a, xv. 33; * o&lt;r&lt;p?70-i9, xii. 17; 7rcua&gt;, 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&lt; 33 ^ &lt;n;/x.&lt;/)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 ; &lt;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&gt;.

The number of words which are found in this Epistle and
elsewhere in N.T., but not in any of the other Pauline Epistles,!
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&gt;, 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&lt;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&gt;, 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&lt;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 /&lt;ei/Aai, ix. 16; tcroTrrpov, xiii. 12; euyei^s,
i. 26 ; * eiWtpe co, xvi. 12 ; evo-x^wv, vii. 35, xii. 24 ; 0a7rra&gt;, xv. 4 ;
/, iv. 9; ^va&gt;, v. 7, x. 20 ; tepoi/, ix. 13; tx^ /9 &gt; 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; &lt;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; &lt;nWpxo/xcu, seven times; (TWCTOS, i. 19; orw^eta,
viii. 7, xi. 16; o-vi/o-rcAAo), vii. 29; * o-;c o-/&gt;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; &lt;vreuto, iii. 6, 7, 8, ix. 7 ;
XaA/cos, xiii. i ; xP T s iii- 1 2 ; ^cvSo/xaprus, xv. 15; i/a&gt;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&gt;, v. 7 ; * o-vi//:?ao-i\va&gt;, 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&gt; alwvwv, ii. 7.

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

cov o-vvcpyoi, iii. 9.

TOVTO Se &lt;?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^&gt;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&lt;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 &lt;ro&lt;f&gt;w for
uvfyjojTrtoi/, or in i. 19 = Isa. xxix. 14, where he substitutes
d#er/o-a&gt; 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&lt; ? $* &lt; ? X"-P L&lt;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&lt;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&lt;-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) &lt;poveii&gt;, 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&gt;7//,&lt;oo-9, B* D* G, Chrys. Thdt.

&lt;i/A&lt;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 &lt;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&gt;, 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&gt; 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 &lt;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

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\&lt;f&gt;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]&lt;rov X/&gt;. (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&lt;$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&lt;; 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&gt;u?j/ois iv X/&gt;. 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&gt; cro&lt;/&gt;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&lt;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
&lt;TO&lt;J&gt;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 &lt;ro&lt;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&lt;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&lt;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&lt;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&lt;m. Origen asks, n s /?e/?&lt;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&lt;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&lt;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&\&lt;/&gt;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 &lt;f&gt;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 &lt;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)&lt;f&gt;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&gt; 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&gt; 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&lt;i&gt; (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&lt;$ 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 (&lt;?.,?. 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&lt;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&lt;&gt;4&gt;ia Xoyou. See note on v. 5. Preaching was St
Paul s great work, but his aim was not that of the professional
rhetorician. Here he rejects the standard by which an age of
rhetoric judged a speaker. The Corinthians were judging by

* The translation of eva.yyf\ife&lt;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&gt;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&lt;j&gt;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 &lt;ro&lt;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&gt;evyw,a or
or o-o^ta (i. 4, ii. 3, ix. 15).

TOO oraupou. "This expression shows clearly the stress

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&gt;. * 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&lt;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 &lt;ro0ia GeoO tffrlv. To omit the
rip.lv is to omit a characteristic touch ; and to insert KOU &lt;ro&lt;f&gt;La rather spoils
the point.

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

the O.T. Scriptures; v. 31, ii. 9, iii. 19, x. 7, xv. 45; 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-&lt;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&lt;|&gt;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&gt;oL &lt;rov ; and
Isa. xxxiii. 18, TTOV ei&lt;riv ol ypa/u./j.a.TiKoi ; irov cl(riv oi &lt;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 &lt;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&lt;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&lt;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&lt;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&&amp;lt;5KTj&lt;rei&gt;. 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&lt;rraupuji.eVoi&gt;. 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&lt;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&lt; : * 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
&lt;r&lt;oo/xei oi (18) : and that is why (17) my mission is to preach
OVK tv cro&lt;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&lt;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\&lt;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&lt;f&gt;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&lt;/&gt;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&gt;#f), v. 17, and /cci/wo-a, ix. 15.

Instead of ra tiyevr) rou K6&lt;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&gt;ia Tjfui . This is the central idea, in contrast with the
false o-o&lt;j&gt;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&lt;/&gt;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 &lt;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 &lt;ro&lt;t&gt;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&gt;7 Kav^dcrOw 6 &lt;ro&lt;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&lt;3 TrXoura)
avrov, dAA 77 ci&gt; Tovra) Kav \d(T (o 6 /cav^to/ACi/os, crui/iu&gt; /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&lt;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&lt;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&gt;. At the time of his first visit (Acts viii. i f.). We
have an analogous reference, i Thess. i. 5, ii. i.

dS\4&gt;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&lt;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&lt;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&lt;f&gt;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&gt;, 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 &lt;^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&gt;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 &lt;f&gt;6|3u&gt; Kal tV Tp6|A&lt;o iroXXw. We have &lt;/&gt;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 &lt;o/?ov K.
rpo/zou, which means with that conscientious anxiety that is
opposed to o&lt;#aA./xoSouAta (Conybeare and Howson).* No
other N.T. writer has this combination of &lt;o/2os and rpo /zos.
Some MSS. omit the second eV.

eyekop(]i&gt; 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&lt;? 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 &lt;iSos or &lt;ei8o? from
&lt;ei So/A&lt;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/?] &lt;rot/&gt;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&lt;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 &lt;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.

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&lt;ivr]&lt;s, causing men to believe what is false
(2 Thess. ii. n); but the false &lt;ro&lt;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&gt;0pwirii&gt;i]s (K C ACLP, Copt. AV.) before &lt;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&lt;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&gt; 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&lt;plai&gt;.

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&gt;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&lt;rT&lt;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/&lt;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&lt;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&lt;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^&gt;

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 &lt;ro&lt;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&lt;j&gt;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&gt;/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&gt;//,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&lt;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&gt; 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&gt;0aXjj,os OUK elSey. The relative is co-ordinate with fy in
v. 8, refers to o-o&lt;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&lt;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&gt;s ye ypaTrrai as introducing a quotation
from Isaiah.

We ought possibly to read 8&lt;ra -fjToljuacrev with ABC, Clem-Rom.
But d r)Tolfj.affet&gt; 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&gt;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&lt;0aA./xot ^xujv T S o v eov
rA^v crov KOL TO. tpya &lt;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, /./&gt;., 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? &lt;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&lt;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 &lt;ro&lt;ias Kal yvajaewg eov
(Rom. xi. 33), and contrast TO, /?a0ea roO ^arai/a, u&gt;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&gt;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, &lt;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&gt;, 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&gt;. F G omit the second TOV
TTOU. F G have ^7ca&gt;, 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 &lt;ro&lt;j&gt;ta
of v. 13, and homogeneous with the &lt;f&gt;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&lt;f&gt;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 &lt;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 &lt;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&gt; 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&gt; 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 &lt;T&lt;*&gt;[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&lt;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&gt; 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&gt;povtfj.o&lt;&gt;
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&gt; /xei&gt; OVTWV w? eoTi TWI/ Se /xr)
OVTMV u&gt;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&gt;) 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&gt;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\&lt;J&gt;oi. See on i. 10 and ii. i.

&lt;&gt;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&gt;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 &lt;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 &lt;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 &lt;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&lt; 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/&gt;u&gt;/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&lt;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 &lt;/&gt;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&gt;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&gt;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&lt;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&gt; (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 &lt;I&gt;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&gt;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&lt;?. 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&lt;f&gt;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&lt;s T0 ^ ^ "^ v f"&gt;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&gt;? o-wcpyovs /xou lv XpioT&lt;3 IrycroO (Rom. xvi. 3), which

* In LXX &lt;rvvepy6s is very rare ; 2 Mac. viii. 7, xiv. 5, of favourable
opportunities.

t Deienim sumus adjutores (Vulg.)j Etenim Deisumus administri($&gt;tv&)\
Denn wir sind Gottes Mitarbeiter (Luth.). In such constructions, &lt;rvvatX
fjLaXurbs pov, &lt;rtiv$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&gt;6s apxiTeKTuy. The same expression is found in LXX
of Isa. iii. 3, and o-d&lt;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 &lt;ro&lt;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 &lt;ro06y is more common in poets than in prose writers.
When &lt;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&lt;?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&lt;TT6s
Iijffovs (C 3 D E, Vulg.). Several cursives have Irjaovs 6 X/&gt;.

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 &gt;
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 &lt;?7rJ T. 0ejuAtoi&gt;, 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&gt; (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 &lt;Aoyo s (2 Thess. i. 8)
or fv &lt;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&gt;. 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&lt;r0o s :
the reward will be lost, but the worker himself will be saved.
If r7/Ai&lt;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-&lt;o0T7&lt;rT&lt;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 &lt;0epi TOVTOV o
eos are contradictory propositions, and they cannot be made
to apply to the same person, for &lt;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&gt;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&gt; 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&gt;0eipei . . . 4&gt;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&lt;/&gt;0eipcu TOVS SiatfrOcipov-
ras rrjv yfjv. Neither &lt;f&gt;6cipfiv nor Sta&lt;$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 &lt;f&gt;@eipiv or Sta-
&lt;j&gt;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.

&lt;J&gt;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 &lt;/&gt;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 &lt;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(/&gt;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&lt;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&gt;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&lt; 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&gt;s 6 8pacr(ro/Xvos o-Kopiriov :
and Ecclus. xxxiv. (xxxi.) 2, the man who has his mind upon
dreams is o&gt;s Spacrcro/xtvos O-KLO.&lt;;. 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 &lt;j&gt;povr)&lt;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 &lt;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&lt;/&gt;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&gt;, ^/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&gt;&lt;&gt; KTtV/xa eov, dAA d&gt;&lt; 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&gt; 5&gt; 5 2 &gt; 9&gt; 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&lt;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.*

&lt;53e (N A B C D* F G P 17, e Vulg.) rather than 5 5&lt;? (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 &lt;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 &lt; 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&lt;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&lt;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&lt;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 &lt;f&gt;am&lt;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.
&lt;l&gt;amu&gt; 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 &lt;j&gt;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. &lt;ayepow points
to the result of the revelation.

Kal TOTC 6 l-rran os. And then&gt; 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&gt; 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&lt;rru&gt; 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-
&lt;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 &lt;u&lt;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.

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 &lt;j&gt;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&lt;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&gt;6\&lt;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 &lt;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&gt;. 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&gt;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&gt; 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&gt;p&lt;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&lt;j$cu &lt;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&lt;J&gt;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&gt; 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 &lt;Wxe&lt;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&gt;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&lt;t&gt;TjtjLov/j.et&gt;oi (N B D E F
G L). The internal evidence turns the scale. It is more probable that
the unusual 8v&lt;r&lt;t&gt;. 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&gt;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&gt;, 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 &gt; Xpto-Tu) to qualify it, 7rtu8ay&lt;oyou&lt;? 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&gt;s irarrip vovQer&v doKl/j.a&lt;ras (Wisd. xi. 10), and vovOfTr/fffi
6[Ka.iov us vlbv ayair-r)(re&lt;&gt;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&gt; iyxa&lt;?, 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&gt; 22 &gt; 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&lt;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&gt;uai(o0T](rd&gt; 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&gt;v&lt;ri(i)[Ji,v(i)}&gt;, 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&lt;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&gt;. Exactly as in i Sam. xvii. 43, crv epxy ITT ip*
iv pa/38o) /cat Allots; and 2 Sam. vii. 14, cXe ya&gt; 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&gt;. 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 &lt;ro&lt;^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&gt;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&gt;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 &lt;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&lt;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).

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 &lt;rvv
TT) 8wa/x6t with TrapaSovVat, or both with crvva^Ofvrwv, or both
with TrapaSowcu, 0r v TW oVo /&gt;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&lt;
oVo/Acm rov Kvpiov I&gt;7&lt;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&lt;rToXos d\\ cos trpo&lt;f&gt;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&gt;, 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)&lt;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&gt; 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 &lt;}&gt;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&gt; 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&gt;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 &lt;J&gt;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 &lt;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 &lt;$opas avrrj KOI &lt;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 &lt;f&gt;i&gt;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&lt;/&gt;o&gt;, 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/&gt;oo/i/&lt;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) &lt;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)&lt;ravTo&lt;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&gt; (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 &lt;.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&lt;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&gt;. 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 &gt; 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, &lt;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/&gt;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 !

&lt;xmioi e&lt;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&lt;rQto eVt
tBviKov {Apost. Const, ii. 45). In papyri, ot CTTI TU&gt;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&lt;?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&gt; 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 &gt; 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&gt;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
&lt;rov (Gen. xxiii. 15). J. H. Moulton (Gr. p. 99) suspects a
corruption in the text, but dictation may account for the ab
breviation : Tuv a.8(\&lt;f&gt;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 &lt;ro06s
(N B C 17, Copt.) rather than ovde eh &lt;ro0&lt;5s (F G P) or &lt;ro06s o66i eh (D 3 L)
or ffo&lt;j&gt;6s without ovdt eh or ovdets (D* E, Aeth.). For roC dde\&lt;pov some
editors conjecture r&v d

6. dXXtt d8e\&lt;|)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&gt; 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&lt;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&lt;rov&lt;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 &lt;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^&gt;\ 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&gt; 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 &gt; 5 2 -

d\X ou iran-a au|i&lt;f&gt;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&gt; 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&lt;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&gt; 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&gt;/taTa to which it is related,
God will reduce both of them to nothingness. In the case of
the &lt;ra&gt;/xa, and the Kvptos to which it is related, God has raised
the Kvpios, and will raise up the &lt;r&lt;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&gt;, 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 /&gt;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/&gt;e&lt; 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&gt;
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. But the future harmonizes better with /AT) ycVorro.
AV., RV., Alford, Edwards, Ellicott, B. Weiss prefer the future.

* Origen says, /J.{\TJ r6rc yiverat XpurroD, 6Ve vavra Kara rbv avrov \6yov

126 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 15, 16

JIT) yeVoiTo. Like OUK otSare, this expression of strong dissent
is frequent in this group of the Pauline Epistles (Romans, ten
times ; Galatians, twice ; and here). Elsewhere in N.T., Luke
xx. 1 6. It is rare in LXX, and never stands as an independent
sentence: Gen. xliv. 7, 17; Josh. xxii. 29, xxiv. 16; i Kings xx.
[xxi.] 3. It is one of several translations of the same Hebrew,
another of which is fA.eu&gt;s (i Chron. xi. 19 ; 2 Sam. xx. 20 ; Matt,
xvi. 22). Neither /AT; yeVoiro nor tAeo&gt;s is confined to Jewish and
Christian writings : the former is frequent in Arrian, the latter is
found in inscriptions. In Horn. Od. vii. 316 we have ^ TOVTO
&lt;f&gt;i\ov Ait Tra.Tpl yeVoiro, of detaining Ulysses against his wish.
Cf. Di meliora. Here it expresses horror.

After rh. (rd/mra there is the common confusion between vfji&v (N 3 B C D
E F G K L P, Latt. ) and ^^v (N* A). S.pa (P and a few cursives) or $ S.pa
(F G) cannot be regarded as more probable than 5/ras (K A B C D E, etc.) ;
yet Baljon adopts it : A/&gt;as has much force, not only in marking the grievous
wrong done to Christ, but also in showing the voluntary, and even deliberate,
character of the act.

16. $ OUK oi8aT6. Again (v. 2) we have this reproachful
question. The Apostle proceeds to corroborate the TTOOJO-W

Tropics [JL\r] of V. 15*

6 KoX\w|iei&gt;os. The word may come from Trpoa-KoXXaorOai in
Gen. ii. 24, as in Eph. v. 31, or possibly from Ecclus. xix. 2, 6
KoXXo)/x,evo5 Tropvcus ToA/A^poYepos ecrrcu. Both the simple and the
compound verb are frequent in LXX ; in N.T. the compound is
very rare. In both, only the passive, with reflective sense, is
found. In N.T. the usual construction is the simple dat, as
here. In LXX the constr. varies greatly, and there (2 Kings
xviii. 6 ; cf. Ecclus. ii. 3) we have KoAAacr&u TO&gt; Kupiw, as here, to
express loyal and permanent adherence, resulting in complete
spiritual union. This is placed in marked contrast to the
temporary physical union which is so monstrous. The verb is
frequent in Ep. Barnabas (ix. 9, x. n, xix. 2, 6, xx. 2).

laorrai ydp, fy^aiv, ot 8uo eis &lt;T. fx. The subject to be under
stood with &lt;j&gt;rja-Lv must always depend upon the context. The
word may introduce the objection of an opponent (2 Cor. x. 10).
In Heb. viii. 5 we must understand God. Here we may do
the same, or (what amounts to the same) supply ^ ypa&lt;f&gt;rj. The
fLTTTj in xv. 27, and the Xe yei in 2 Cor. vi. 2, and Gal. iii. 16, and
Eph. iv. 8, are similar. In each case there is divine authority
for the statement. The quotation is direct from the LXX,
which has ot Svo, as in Matt. xix. 5 ; Mark x. 8; Eph. v. 31,
although it is not in the original. For etvat is = yu&gt;r0ai there
is perhaps no exact parallel in N.T., although the expression is
frequent; xiv. 22 ; 2 Cor. vi. 18; Eph. i. 12; Heb. i. 5, viii. 10;
etc. In most of these cases et? may mean to serve as. It is

VI. 18] THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION

manifest that here no distinction is to be drawn between
and crap.

18. &lt;f&gt;u yTe TT)f iropi eiai . * Do not stop to dispute about it :
make a practice (pres. imperat.) of flying at once. So also of
idolatry, which was so closely allied with impurity, x. 14. The
asyndeton marks the urgency. Cf. i Thess. iv. 3.

imf dfxdpTT]|ia K.r.X. The difficulty of this passage lies in the
distinction drawn between eWos r. o-w/xaros, the predicate of
1 every sin that a man doeth, and ci? T. iSiov o-ou/m, as marking the
distinctive sin of the fornicator. Commentators differ greatly
as to the explanation of cVros T. o-w/zaros, which is the specially
difficult expression. But the general meaning of vv. 23b-i8 is
plain. The body has an eternal destiny, TO crco/m TW Kupuu.
Fornication takes the body away from the Lord and robs it of its
glorious future, of which the presence of the Spirit is the present
guarantee (cf. Rom. viii. 9-11). In v. 18 we have the sharply
cut practical issue, * Flee fornication. Clearly the words that
follow are meant to strengthen the severitas cum fastidio of the
abrupt imperative: they are not an anti-climax. Any exegesis
which fails to satisfy this elementary requirement may be set
aside ; and for this reason the explanations of Evans, Meyer,
and Heinrici may be passed over.

It is obvious that CKTOS and cfc are related as opposites. The
meaning of either will help to determine the meaning of the
other; and the meaning of ts r. tSiov crcu/xa d/iapravct is fairly
certain. For d/xapravetv ets, by the common usage of secular and
Biblical Greek, means to sin against It cannot mean sin in?
or c sin by means of? or involve in sin. What then does to
sin against one s own body mean ? The axiom, TO O-UJ/AO, TW
Kvpi ui, /cat 6 Kupios TU&gt; o-u/xart, answers this question. To sin
against one s own body is to defraud it of its part in Christ, to cut
it off from its eternal destiny. This is what fornication does in a
unique degree.* While fornication is eis TO TSioj/ o-., other sins
are e/eros TOV or. The one phrase is the opposite of the other.
What St Paul asserts of fornication he denies of every other
sin.

In what sense does he deny of all other sins that they are sins
against a man s own body? If pressed and made absolute, the
denial becomes a paradox. He has just told us (vv. 9, 10) that

* Alford puts a similar view somewhat differently. The Apostle s
assertion "is strictly true. Drunkenness and gluttony are sins done in and by
the body, and are sins by abuse 0/"the body, but they are introduced from with
out, sinful in their effect, which effect it is each man s duty to foresee and avoid.
But fornication is the alienating that body which is the Lord s, and making
it a harlofs body ; it is not an effect on their body from participation of things
without, but a contradiction of the truth of the body, wrought within itself"

128 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 18, 19

there are many sins which exclude their doer from the Kingdom,
and which therefore deprive the body of its future life in Christ.
Obviously, he is here speaking relatively, and by way of com
parison. All other sins are C KTOS rov a-., in the sense that they
do not, as directly as fornication does, alienate the body from
Christ, its Life and its Goal.

This explanation gains in clearness if we compare the words
of Our Lord (Matt. xii. 31), Traa-a a/Jiapria KO.I /3\a.(r(f&gt;r)fjiLa afaOrj-
crcTat rots avOpwTTOLS r} Se rov nVev/naros /JAacr^ry/xta OVK afaOrjcrfrai,
K.T.\. There too the language may be comparative. We know
abundantly from Scripture that there is forgiveness for every
sin, if rightly sought. In the first clause the Saviour does not
proclaim an absolute indiscriminate amnesty for every other sin :
any sin, unrepented and unabsolved, is an aiuWoi/ a^aprr;/xa
(Mark iii. 29). Neither clause is to be pressed beyond its purpose
to an absolute sense. But sin against the Spirit is so incom
parably less pardonable than any other, that, by comparison with
it, they may be regarded as venial. He who sins against the
Spirit is erecting a barrier, insuperable to a unique degree, against
his own forgiveness. In like manner, the words CKTOS rov a:
fern are not absolutely nor unconditionally predicated of every
sin which a man doeth : * they merely assert that other sins
" stop short of the baleful import of sensual sin " with its direct
onslaught on the dominant principle, TO crw/xa TO&gt; Kvptw. Cf.
Hos. vi. 6, * I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, which does not
mean that sacrifice is forbidden, but that mercy is greatly
superior. Luke x. 20, xiv. 12, 13, xxiii. 28 are similar. Cf. ix.
10, x. 24, 33.

19. f\ OUK oiSare. Or, if you cannot see that unchastity is a
sin against your own body, are you ignorant that the body of
each of you is a sanctuary (John ii. 21) of the Holy Spirit (Rom.
viii. u ; 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; 2 Tim. i. 14)? What in iii. 16 he stated
of the Christian community as a whole, he here states of every
member of it. In each case he appeals to facts which ought to
be well known, as in vv. 2, 3, 9, 15, 16, v. 6, ix. 13, 24; Rom.
vi. 19, xi. 2. Excepting Jas. iv. 4, the expression is peculiar to
these Epistles. Note the emphatic position of dyiov : it is a Spirit
that is holy that is in you. In the temple of Aphrodite at
Corinth, iropvcta was regarded as consecration : the Corinthians
are here told that it is a monstrous desecration (Findlay).
Epictetus (Dis. ii. 8) says, "Wretch, you are carrying God with
you, and you know it not. Do you think I mean some god of
silver or gold ? You carry Him within yourself, and perceive not
that you are polluting Him by impure thoughts and dirty deeds."

* On f&v in relative sentences see Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 201 f.

VI. 19, 20] THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION 129

ou CXCTC diro 0. The relative is attracted out of its own case,
as often. Not content with emphasizing holy/ he gives further
emphasis to the preceding plea by pointing out that the in
dwelling Spirit is a gift direct from God Himself. Such a Spirit
cannot dwell in a polluted sanctuary. Ep. of Barnabas iv. u,
vi. 15.

For rd &lt;rtD/m, A 2 L 17, Copt. Arm. have ra (r^ara, and Vulg. has
membra.

cat OUK core eauTwy- I spoke of your body ; but in truth the
body is not your own to do as you please with it, any more than
the Spirit is your own. You have no right of property in either
case. Indeed, your whole personality is not your own property,
for God bought you with the life-blood of His Son. Acts xx. 28 ;
Rom. xiv. 8. Epictetus again has a remarkable parallel; "If
you were a statue of Phidias, you would think both of yourself
and of the artist, and you would try to do nothing unworthy of
him who made you, or of yourself. But now, because Zeus has
made you, for this reason you do not care how you shall appear.
And yet, is the artist in the one case like the artist in the other?
or the work in the one case like the other?" See Long s
translation and notes, i. pp. 156, 157, 288.

20. Tjyopd(r6T]T yap Ttfjujs. This buying with a price, which
causes a change of ownership, is a different metaphor from
paying a ransom (Xvrpov, avri.Kvrpov : AvVpwcri?, aTroAvr/xoo-ts),
which causes^ freedom. There is no need to state the price ;
OVK apyvpiu ^ xP V(r ^) ^AXa rt/u u&gt; ai/xart (i Pet. i. 19, where see
Hort). The Vulgate has pretio only in vii. 23, but here has
pretio magno, and the epithet weakens the effect. And there is
no person from whom we are bought (Abbott, The Son of
Man, p. 702).

8o|daaT 8f) T. 0. Iv T. crwjum up. As in V. 1 8, we have a
sharp practical injunction which carries us a great deal further,
and this same injunction is given in still more comprehensive
terms to close the question about partaking of idol-meats (x. 31).
Habitually to keep the body free from unchastity is imperative ;
but we must do more than that. Seeing that we belong, not to
ourselves, but to God, we must use the body, in which He has
placed His Spirit, to His glory. This verse goes far beyond the
negative injunction in v. 18, and hence the Srj enforcing the
imperative, as in Acts xiii. 2; Luke ii. 15; Judith xiii. n,
Avo^are, cWar &) rrjv TrvXyv : Horn. Od. xx. 18, TerAatfi 817,
KpaSiTfj. The * Therefore of AV. and RV. is not quite right ;
* therefore would be ow, as in x. 31: Be sure to glorify, 4 /
urge you to glorify is the force of the particle used here.
9

130 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 1-40

N*, deCopt. omit S?J. Vulg., Tert. Cypr. Lucif. Ambrst. have
glorifaate (or clarificate} et port ate (or tollite] deum (or domimim} in corpore
vestro. Lightfoot suggests that portate (or tolltte) may have arisen from a
reading Apaye (Matt. vii. 20, xvii. 26 ; Acts xvii. 27 ?) which was confused
with Apare. Marcion read 5o$-d&lt;ra.Te ti.pa.Te rbv Qe6v, which may be mere
dittography, or from &pa Se = &pa 5?j (Nestle, p. 307). Methodius read &pd
ye do^daare, omitting 8r/. Chrys. seems to have read do^dcrare 5r] &pa rbv
Qtbv.

The addition KOI ev r($ irve^fian V/JL&V Urivd effnv rov GeoG (C 3 D 3 D 3
K L P, Syrr. AV.) is rejected by all editors. The words are wanting in
all the best witnesses and are not required for the argument. The Apostle
is concerned with the sanctity of the body : the spirit is beside the mark.
Lightfoot thinks that this may possibly be a liturgical insertion, like that
of the doxology to the Lord s Prayer (Matt. vi. 13) and the baptismal
formula (Acts viii. 37). But the words do not occur in any liturgy that is
known to us, and the addition may be due to a wish to make the conclusion
less abrupt and more complete.

VII. 1-40. MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS.

We here begin the second main division of the Epistle, if the
Introduction (i. 1-9) is not counted. The Apostle, in a pre
amble (1-7), points out that marriage is a contract, and the
normal relations must be maintained, unless both parties agree
to suspend them. Ideally, celibacy may be better, but that is not
for every one. Then (8-40) he gives advice to different classes.
Superius (v., vi.) locutus fuerat deillicitis ; nunc vero (vii.) loquitur
de licitis (Atto).

VII. 1-7. Celibacy is Good, but Marriage is Natural.

As you ask me, I prefer my own unmarried condition ;
but for most of you it is safer to marry, and let husband and
wife observe conjugal duty to one another.

1 But now, as to the questions raised in your letter to me.
Continence, as you suggest, is doubtless an excellent thing.
2 But this ideal state is not for every one, and, as temptation is
inevitable, and abounds at Corinth, the right remedy is that
each man should have a wife of his own, and each woman a
husband of her own. 8 And the marriage should be complete,
each side always rendering to the other what is due. 4 A married
woman cannot do as she likes respecting her own person ; it is
her husband s. And in the same manner his rights are limited
by hers. 6 Abandon the attempt to combine celibacy with

VII. 1-40] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 131

matrimony. When both agree to it, continence for a limited
time may be a good thing, if you have the intention of devoting
yourselves the better to prayer, and then coming together again.
If the time is not limited, you will be giving Satan a permanent
opportunity of using your incontinence to your ruin. 6 But I
give this advice rather by way of permission and indulgence
than of injunction and command. 7 Still, my own personal
preference would be that all men should remain unmarried, as I
do myself. But people differ, and God s gifts differ, and each
must act as God s gift directs him.

It is clear from the words with which this section opens that
the discussion of the questions which were raised in the letter
sent by the Corinthians begins here. In the remaining chapters
(vii.-xvi.) we cannot always be sure whether he is referring to
their letter or writing independently of it : but in the first six
chapters there are no answers to questions asked by them.
With regard to the questions discussed here, it is likely enough
that every one of them had been asked in the letter. The
Apostle does not write a tract on marriage ; it would, no doubt,
have been different if he had done so. He takes, without much
logical arrangement, and perhaps just in the order in which they
had been put to him, certain points which, as we can see, might
easily have caused practical difficulty in such a Church as that
of Corinth.* In so licentious a city some may easily have
urged that the only safe thing to do was to abstain from the
company of women altogether, yvi/cu/cos /AT) a^Tca-Oat, like those
condemned in i Tim. iv. 3. Or they may have maintained that
at any rate second marriages were wrong, and that separation
from a heathen partner was necessary. Our Lord s words
(Matt. xix. u, 12), if they were known to the Corinthians, might
easily give rise to the belief that marriage was to be discouraged.
Quite certainly, some forms of heathen philosophy taught this,
and asceticism was in the air before the Gospel was preached.
In any case, it is unlikely that disparagement of marriage was a
special tenet of any one of the four parties at Corinth. No one
has conjectured this of the Apollos party : but for different
and very unconvincing reasons different commentators have
attributed this tenet to one or other of the three parties. Still,

* On Nietzsche s attack on St Paul, as a man of vicious life, see Weinel.
St Paul, pp. 85-93.

132 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 1, 2

some persons at Corinth had raised the question, " Is marriage
to be allowed?" They had not raised the question, "Is
marriage to be obligatory?" See Journ. of Th. -S 1 /., July 1901,
PP- 5 2 7-538.

1. riepl 8e wv eypctyaTe. An elliptical expression (such as is
common enough) for rrepl TOVTWJ/, a, or TTfpl TOVTUV, Trepl Stv :
cf. Luke ix. 36; John vii. 31. Bachmann quotes from papyri,

o&gt;v eypai^as, /xeX?jo-t /tot. Note that there is no /xot after
, and there is probably no /xot here : KB C 1 7, Am. RV.
omit. The 8e is perhaps merely transitional ; but it may
intimate that the subject now to be discussed is in opposition
to the one which has just been dismissed. He is passing from
what is always wrong to what is generally lawful. It is putting
too much meaning into the plural verb to say that we may infer
from it that the letter was written in the name of the whole
Church. It is probable that it was so written; but even if it
came from only a few of the members, the Apostle would have
to use the plural. There is nothing to show that the words
which follow are a quotation from the letter, but they express
what seems to have been the tone of it. Having in the two
previous chapters warned the Corinthians against the danger of
Gentile licentiousness, he here makes a stand against a spirit of
Gentile asceticism.

K.a\ov d^pojirw yumiicos fi?) airreo-Oau For a man,* he does
not say for a husband (dvSpi). A single life is not wrong ; on
the contrary, it is laudable, KaXov. This he repeats vv. 8 and
26; cf. v. 6, ix. 15; Gal. iv. 18. He is not dissuading from
marriage or full married life ; he is contending that celibacy may
be good.* For those who can bear it, it may be a bracing
discipline (ix. 24, 27) : but not all can bear it. For a-n-Tea-Oai see
Gen. xx. 6 ; Prov. vi. 29 ; and cf. virgo intacta.

2. Sid 8e TUS iropyeias. The plural (Matt. xv. 19 ; Mark vii. 21)
refers to the notoriously frequent cases at Corinth. Atto
paraphrases Neque enim ita volo prohibere licita^ ut per illicita
errentj and adds, Nota quia non dicitur, propter propaginem
filiorum, sed propter fornicationem. To Christians who believed
that the end of the world was very near, the necessity of pre-

* Orthodox Jews were opposed to celibacy, regarding marriage as a duty ;
but there were some who agreed with St Paul. " Why should I marry?"
asked Rabbi ben Azai : " I am in love with the law. Let others see to the
prolongation of the human jace " (Renan, p. 397). The second half of
Ps. cxx. 7 gives the common view.

VII. 2, 3] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 133

serving the human race from extinction would not have seemed
a very strong argument.

This passage is sometimes criticized as a very low view of
marriage. But the Apostle is not discussing the characteristics
of the ideal married life ; he is answering questions put to him
by Christians who had to live in such a city as Corinth. In a
society so full of temptations, he advises marriage, not as the
lesser of two evils, but as a necessary safeguard against evil. So
far from marriage being wrong, as some Corinthians were
thinking, it was for very many people a duty. The man who wrote
Eph. v. 22, 23, 32, 33 had no low view of marriage.

IicaoTos . . . eKdortj. This forbids polygamy, which was
advocated by some Jewish teachers.

T$JK eauTou YumiKa . . . rbv iBioy a^Spa. The Apostle seems
always to use ccumn), cavrwv, or OLVTOV (Eph. v. 28, 31, 33) of a
man s relation to his wife, but tSios (xiv. 35; Eph. v. 22; Tit.
ii. 5) of a woman s to her husband (i Thess. iv. 4 is doubtful).
Does this show that he regarded the husband as the owner and
the wife as being owned? Rom. xiv. 4 somewhat encourages
this. But the difference between eavrov and ?8to? was becoming
blurred : see J. H. Moulton, Gr. i. pp. 87 f. ; Deissmann, Bible
Studies^ pp. 122 f. A few texts omit KCU e/caorr; K.T.A..

e x^Tw. Have, not keep, as is clear from the use of
uj/fy&gt;(07ra) and not avSpi in v. i, where we should have had T/}S
ywat/cos and not ywaiKo?, if married people were under con
sideration. In w. 12, 13, t\ti cannot mean keeps, and e^cro&gt;
does not mean that married people are to continue to live
together, but that unmarried people are to marry. The im
perative is hortatory, not merely permissive.

3. TTJ yuroiicl 6 &vr\p. Here he is speaking of married
persons, and therefore ywauci has the article, and we have avrjp
and not aj/0ptu7ro5.

TT}y o^eiXi^. Not found in LXX, but frequent in papyri in
the common sense of debt (Matt, xviii. 32 ; Rom. xiii. 7). See
Deissmann, Bible Studies^ p. 221.

diroStSoTCi). Present imperative : the mutual recognition of
conjugal rights is the normal condition, and it is not the con
ferring of a favour (StSorw), but the payment of a debt
Cf. the change from Sovwu (the questioners view) to
(Christ s correction) in Matt. xxii. 17, 21.

(NABCDEFGPQi;, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) is to
be preferred to TT\V 6&lt;t&gt;ei\ij/j.tvr]v etivoia.it (KL, Syrr.), or T. 6&lt;p. TI^V (Chrys.),
or r. 6(f&gt;. Ti/j.^v ical etfvolav (40), which may have been euphemisms adopted
in public reading. Or they may be ascetic periphrases to obscure the plain
meaning of r. d^eiX?^. Cf. Rom. xiii. 7.
A, Copt. Arm. omit 5^ before Kal.

134 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 4, 5

4. rj y\ivr\. It is probably not in order to mark the equality
of the sexes that the order is changed : the wife is here men
tioned first because she has just been mentioned in the previous
verse. Equality between the sexes is indicated by using the
same expression respecting both, thus correcting Jewish and
Gentile ideas about women.

TOU ISiou o-wfiaros OUK eou&lt;ridci. The words involve, as
Bengel points out, elegans paradoxon. How can it be one s
own if one cannot do as one likes with it? See on vi. 12.
But in wedlock separate ownership of the person ceases. Neither
party can say to the other, Is it not lawful for me (e^co-riV /AOI)
to do what I will with mine own? (Matt. xx. 15). By pointing
out that the aim is to be, not self-gratification, but the fulfilment
of a duty which each owes to the other, St Paul partly anti
cipates the criticism mentioned above. He raises the matter
from the physical level to the moral.

5. jit) diroorepeiTe. After what has been stated it is evident
that refusal amounts to fraud, a withholding what is owed. The
pres. imperat. may mean that some of the Corinthians, in mis
taken zeal, had been doing this; cease to defraud. Three
conditions are required for lawful abstention : it must be by
mutual consent, for a good object, and temporary. It is
analogous to fasting. Even so, the advice is given very tentat
ively, et /xi/rt av. Temporary abstention for a spiritual purpose
is advised in O.T. ; Eccles. iii. 5 ; Joel ii. 16 ; Zech. xii. 12-14 : *
but it is an exception for certain circumstances, not a rule for
all circumstances : illud sane sdendum quia mundae et sanctae
sunt nuptiae, quoniam Dei jussu celebrantur (Atto). For eVi TO
auro cf. xi. 20, xiv. 23; Luke xvii. 35; Acts i. 15, ii. i, 44, 47,
iv. 26 ; for d/cpao-ta, Matt, xxiii. 25. Here &a rr)v d/cp. is probably
to be taken as co-ordinate with the clause Iva. /AT) Tretp., and as
giving a second aspect of the reason for limiting the time of
abstention. Aristotle made aKpaa-ca a frequent term in Greek
philosophy; in the Bible it is very rare. Calvin uses this
verse as an argument against monasticism : temere fariunt
qui in perpetuum renuntiant. To vow perpetual celibacy,
without certainty of having received the necessary x^piovAa, is
to court disaster. Forcing it on the clergy prevents good
men from taking Orders and causes weak men to break their
vow.

* ffx^& iv is ver y rare * n LXX (Ps. xlv. 10), and is nowhere used in
this sense ; but in class. Grk. it is frequent in the sense of being disengaged
for, or devoted to, a pursuit or a person. We find a similar idea Exod.
xix. 15; i Sam. xxi. 5; 2 Sam. xi. 4. Cf. Tibullus i. iii. 25. See also
i Pet. iii. 7, iv. 7. Z^^WJ/GS occurs nowhere else in N.T.

VII. 5, 6] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 135

The av after & ^TI (or el fi-ff ri) is omitted in B and bracketed by WH.
Before TV irpoo-evxy, KL, Syrr. Goth. Thdrt. insert TTJ vrjerela Kal : a
manifest interpolation similar to Kal vrjarela in Mark ix. 29, and vyareviav
Kal in Acts x. 30. In all three places ascetic ideas seem to have influenced
copyists, but the evidence differs in the three cases. In Mark ix. 29 the
words in question are omitted in X B K, a very strong combination. In
Acts x. 30 the words are wanting in K A B C, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth., a
much stronger combination. Here the evidence against rrj v. Kal is over
whelming ; N A B C* D* E G 17, Latt. Copt. Aeth. The case of Matt.
xvii. 21 is not parallel to these three. The whole verse is an interpolation
from Mark ix. 29 after that passage had already been corrupted by the
addition of Kal vrja-reia. The practice of fasting has sufficient sanction in
the N.T. (Matt. iv. 2, vi. 16-18, ix. 15 ; Mark ii. 20 ; Luke v. 35 ; Acts
xiii. 2, 3, xiv. 23), without introducing it into places where it was not
mentioned by the original writers, who, moreover, would not have placed
it on the same level with prayer. Fasting is an occasional discipline,
prayer an abiding necessity, in the spiritual life. Stanley attributes the
readings &lt;rxoXd^7;re (KL) for ffxo\d&lt;rr)re (N A B C D, etc.), and crvve pxecrOe
or &lt;rvvepx.-ri&lt;r6 (KLP) for yre (N A B C D, etc.) to ascetic influence : axoXd-
fare would refer to general habit, ordinary and not extraordinary prayer,
and Tjre refers to what is usual, not exceptional. In commenting on these
words, Origen makes a remark which is of no small liturgical interest. He
quotes the case of Ahimelech, who was willing to let David have some of
the shew-bread, ei ire&lt;f)v\a.y^eva ra iraiddpid evriv airb yvvaiws (LXX of
I Sam. xxi. 4). He assumes O&K olov de airb dXXorplas yvvaiKbs dXX airb
yafJLerrjs, and continues, efra tva pev aprovs irpodecrews Xd/3?7 rtj, Ka6apbs elvai
6&lt;J)d\ei airb yvvaiK.br Iva 5e TOVS /m-el^ovas TTJS irpode creus Xd/3?; aprovs, ^0*
&v ^TT LK K\i)Tat rb 6vop.a TOV Qeov Kal rov XptoroG Kal TOV
Ayiov II ve ti/maTO s, ou TroXXy TrX^ov &lt;50etXet ris elvai Kadap&repos, Iva
dXTj^ws et s (rarrripiav \d(3r) roi)s aprovs Kal fj.Tj els Kplpa. From this it is
evident that "invocation of the name of God and of Christ and of the Holy
Spirit " over the elements was regarded by Origen as the essential part
of their consecration.

This passage is one of the few in N.T. which touch on the private
devotions of Christians in the Apostolic age. See Bigg on i Pet. iii. 7,
iv. 7.

6. TOUTO 8e Xe yw. It is not clear how much the TOVTO covers ;
probably the whole of vv. 1-5. The least probable suggestion
is that it refers solely to the resumption of married life, Kal

TTOt/Vtl/ K.T.X.

&lt;ruryi wjiY)&gt;. Concession, or indulgence, or allowance. *
The word occurs nowhere else in N.T. and is very rare in
LXX.

ou KCXT tmrayriv. Not by way of command (2 Cor.
viii. 8).

* By permission (AV.) is ambiguous; it might mean, I am permitted
by God to say as much as this. It was translated venia in some Old Latin
texts, and this rendering, understood (by Augustine) as meaning pardon,
led to far-reaching error. It means By way of concession : he is telling
people that they may marry, not that they must do so : ex concessionc non ex
imperio (Beza). There is similar uncertainty as to the scope of the TOVTO in
xi, 17, and the atirTj in ix. 3. In I Tim. i. I, /car eirLray-qv is used in a
different sense : in obedience to the command.

136 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 7

7. 6e\u&gt; Se Train-as. This is in harmony with the KO.XOV a
from which he started. Surroundings so licentious as the
Apostle had at Ephesus and Corinth might well inspire him
with a longing for universal celibacy. For a similar wish about
his own condition being that of others see Acts xxvi. 29 (OTTOIOS
KOL cyto et/xi) : in both places we have the comparative use of
KCU, as again in v. 8 and x. 6.

dXXd. He admits that his own personal feeling is not
decisive; indeed, is not in accordance with conditions of society
which have their source in God. Here ^apio-/xa (see on i. 7) is
used in the sense of a special gift of God, a special grace to an
individual. Origen points out that if celibacy is a x L P L&lt;T t JLa &gt; so
also is marriage, and those who forbid marriage forbid what has
been given by God.

6 JACI&gt; OUTWS. One in this direction and one in that. The
recognition that opposite courses may each of them be right
for different individuals is more fully drawn out Rom. xiv. 1-12 :
and see Rom. xii. 6; i Pet. iv. 10. We have ovmos . . . OUTWS,
Judg. xviii. 4 ; 2 Sam. xi. 25, xvii. 15 : it is not classical.

We perhaps understand the Apostle s wish better if we assume
that it refers, not so much to the fact of remaining unmarried,
as to the possession of the gift of continence, without which
it was disastrous to remain unmarried. God had given him
this gift, and he wishes that all men had it : but it does not
follow that every man who has this gift is bound to a life of
celibacy. In the Apostle s day (v. 26) the xa/Hoyxa of continency
was specially valuable. Cf. Matt. xix. n.

We must read 0Aw 5&lt;? (X* ACD*F G 17, Am. Copt, Orig.) rather
than 6t\u yap (B D 2 K L P, Syrr. Arm. Aeth.). The 5e marks a slight
opposition to the concession just mentioned. That concession is not his
own ideal ; I rather wish that all men were as I myself also am. Failure
to see this has caused the substitution of yap for 5^.

K L, Arm. have x^P Lff ^ a before %x i %X CI xaptoyia is doubtless right :
so also 6 nlv . . . 6 &? (K* A B C D F P) rather than 5s ^v . . . 6s 6e
(K 3 K L).

VII. 8-40. Advice to Different Classes.

To the unmarried or widowed, to the married where
both parties are Christians , to the married where one of the
two is a heathen, I would advise, as a rule, that you should
remain as you are, or as you were when you became Chris
tians. The same principle would apply to circumcision, and
also to slavery ; but an opportunity for emancipation may
be accepted.

VII. 8-40] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 137

8 To the unmarried and to widows I affirm it to be an
excellent thing for them, if they should continue to remain
single, as I also remain. 9 If, however, they have not the
special gift of self-control, let them marry; for it is better to
marry than to be on fire. 10 But to those who have married as
Christians I give a charge and it is really not my charge, but
Christ s that a wife is not to seek divorce from her husband.
11 But if unhappily she does do this, she must remain single, or
else be reconciled to her husband. In like manner a man is not
to divorce his wife.

12 To those whose cases are not covered by these directions
I have this to say; and I say it as my own advice, not as
Christ s command : if any member of the Church has a wife
who is not a believer, and she consents to live with him, let
him not divorce her ; 13 and if a wife has a husband who is not
a believer, and he consents to live with her, let her not divorce
her husband. 14 And for this reason : the consecration of the
believing partner is not cancelled by union with an unbeliever.
On the contrary, the unbelieving partner is sanctified through
union with a believer. If this were not so, the children would
be left in heathen uncleanness ; whereas in fact, as the offspring
of a Christian parent, they are holy. 15 But if, on the other
hand, the unbelieving partner insists on a separation, separation
let there be. No servile bondage to a heathen yoke deprives
a Christian man or woman of freedom in such cases. There
need be no scruples, no prolonged conflict with the unbeliever
who demands separation : it is in peace of mind that we have
been placed by our calling as Christians. 16 For how can you
tell, O wife, whether, by keeping your heathen husband against
his wish, you will be able to convert him ? Or how can you
tell, O husband, whether you will be able to convert your
reluctant wife ?

17 Still, the general principle is this : In each case let people
be content with the lot which God assigned them, and with
the condition in which God s call has come to them, and let
them continue in that course so far as may be. This is the
rule that I am laying down in all the Churches.

18 This principle holds good with regard to circumcision.
Were you already circumcised at the time of your call ? Do
not attempt to efface the circumcision. Or have you been

138 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 8

called in uncircumcision ? Do not seek to be circumcised.
19 Neither the one nor the other is of any consequence. What
really matters is keeping God s commandments, and that is
vital. 20 Each one of you, I say, should be content to remain
in the condition in which God called him. 21 And this applies
to slavery also. Were you a slave when you were called ? Do
not be distressed at it ; yet, if you can become free, make use
of the opportunity.

22 I say that you need not be distressed at being a slave
when you became a Christian : every such slave is the Lord s
freed man. And the converse is true : he who was free when
he was called is Christ s slave. 23 You were bought with the
price of His blood, and to Him, whether you are bond or free,
you belong. Cease to regard yourselves as belonging to men
in the sense in which you belong to Him. 24 I repeat, Brothers,
the general rule. In that state in which each man was called,
let him be content to remain, remembering God s presence and
His protecting care.

8. rots dycxjAots KU rats x 1 !? 011 ? This includes bachelors,
widowers, and widows, but not unmarried girls, whose case is
discussed later (25-38), and who would not have much voice
in deciding the point in question. The conjecture of rots x^P 015
for rats x*lP ai&lt;s i s worth considering. A word not found else
where in N.T. might be changed to one that is common. Even
as I is more in place, if men only are addressed. "Aya/xos
occurs vv. u, 32, 34, and nowhere else in N.T.

Ka\6j&gt;. As in v. i, this introduces the Apostle s own ideal,
as illustrated by his own life. As TOIS dya/xois covers both single
men and widowers, this passage does not tell us whether St Paul
had ever been married. The very early interpretation of yvrja-ic.
&lt;rwvye (Phil. iv. 3) as meaning the Apostle s wife (Clem. Alex.
Strom, in. vi. p. 535, ed. Potter) may safely be set aside, for
this passage shows that, if he ever had been married, his wife
died before he wrote to the Philippians. And if he had been
married then, would he not have written yvrjo-La in addressing
his wife. The argument that, as a member of the Sanhedrin
(Acts xxvi. 10), he must have been a married man and a father,
is not strong. This rule (Sank. fo. 36 b), as a security for
clemency, may be of later date, and Kcm^ey/cci iffifov may be a
figurative expression for approving of the sentence. The proba
bility is that St Paul was never married (Tertull. De Monogam.
8; Ad Uxor. ii. i). In all his writings, as also in Acts, there

VII. 8-10] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 139

is no trace of wife or child.* The KO.I in o&gt;s Kayw, as in ws KCU
ffjiavTov (v. 7), is the comparative use of KCU. He compares his
own case with that of those whom he desires to keep unmarried,
and emphasizes it. The aorist (/xeiWru/) suggests a life-long and
final decision.

9. ei 8e OUK lyKpartuovrai. But if they have not power over
themselves (midd.). It is doubtful whether the negative coalesces
with the verb so as to express only one idea. In N.T. we more
often have el ov for if not than et /u,rj, which means unless.
"Where a fact has sharply to be brought out and sharply to be
negatived, there d ov seems to be not only permissible, but
logically correct" (Ellicott). See Burton, Moods and Tenses,
242, 261, 469; and compare Rom. viii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 10,
14, etc.

What is meant by this failure to have power over themselves
is partly explained by -n-vpovo-Oai (present tense in both verbs).
A prolonged and painful struggle seems to be intended, a con
dition quite fatal to spiritual peace and growth : cf. ix. 25 ; Gen.
xliii. 30; i Sam. xiii. 12. Elsewhere we have Trvpovv6ai of burn
ing with grief and indignation (2 Cor. xi. 29).! The advice
given here is similar to that given in v. 5, Sta rrjv aKpao-tW v/za&gt;i/,
and to the younger widows in i Tim. v. 11-15.

KpeiTTov (N B D E) is here the better reading, Kpeiwov in xi. 17, where
see note. It is not easy to decide between yaiidv (X* A C* 17) and
ya/j,f)ffai (N 3 B C 2 D E F, etc.). Editors are divided. Perhaps ya/j,r)&lt;Tai was
changed to ya^clv to conform to irvpovffQcu. But the change of tense is
intelligible ; better to marry once for all than to go on being on fire. In
this Epistle, as elsewhere in N.T., the later form of the aor. (^ydfjLr)&lt;ra) is
more common (w. 33, 34) than the earlier (tyr)/jt.a) ; in v. 28 both forms
occur.

10. TOIS Se YcyafATjKoan TrapayYeXXw. He passes from those
to whom it is still open to marry or not to marry. But to those
who have already married (since they became Christians) I give
command. To render, I pass on the order from Christ to you,
is giving too much force to the preposition. Christ does not
pass on the order. The meaning is, I give the order ; no,

* See Max Krenkel, Beitriige zur Aufhellung der Geschichte und der
Briefe des Apostels Pauhts, pp. 26-46, a careful examination of the question,
War Paulus jemals verheiratct? Baring Gould thinks that St Paul may have
married Lydia (Acts xvi. 14, 40), and that it was she who supplied him with
money (Acts xxiv. 26, xxviii. 30). This is not probable.

t Eph. vi. 16, it is used of the flaming darts of the evil one ; Rev. i. 15,
iii. 18, of what has been refined by fire. It is frequent in the latter sense in
LXX, and in 2 Mace., with rots 0v/j.ols added, of anger. Some understand
it here as meaning unsatisfied affection rather than aKpcuria. In ix. 25 we
have tyKparevcffdai again, but nowhere else in N.T. See IIos. vii. 4 and
Cheyne s note.

140 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 10, 11

not I, Christ gives it. In class. Grk. Trapayye AAto is used of the
military word of command: see xi. 17 ; i Thess. iv. n ; often
in 2 Thess., i Tim., Luke, and Acts. When the Apostle gives
directions on his own authority (v. 12), he says speak, not
command.

OUK eyw, dXXa 6 Ku piog. Christ Himself had decided against
divorce (Mark x. 9 ; Luke xvi. 18), and His Apostle repeats His
teaching: see also Mai. ii. 16. St Paul is distinguishing between
his own inspired utterances (v. 40) and the express commands
of Christ, not between his own private views and his inspired
utterances. And there is no need to assume (as perhaps in
i Thess. iv. 15) that he had received a direct revelation on the
subject. Christ s decision was well known. See Dobschiitz,
Probleme des Ap. Zeitalters^ Leipzig, 1904, p. 109; Fletcher,
The Conversion of St Pau/, Bell, 1910, p. 57.

yukcuKa diro dvSpos. The fact that he begins with the unusual
case of a wife divorcing her husband indicates that such a thing
had actually occurred or was mentioned in their letter as likely
to occur. Women may have raised the question.

Xwpt&lt;rdi]i&gt;a,t (X B C K L P) is certainly to be preferred to x w P^ ff ^ ai
(A D E F G) : patristic evidence is divided.

11. l&v 8e ical x*&gt;pur0jj. But if (in spite of Christ s com
mand) she even goes so far as to separate herself, she is not to
marry any other man. The divorce is her act, not her husband s.
" Christianity had powerfully stirred the feminine mind at Corinth
(xi. 5, xiv. 34). In some cases ascetic aversion caused the wish
to separate" (Findlay). With the KCU compare ct Se /cat in iv. 7.
Christ had forbidden marriage with a divorced wife (Luke xvi.
18), and His Apostle here takes the same ground. If the wife
who has separated from her husband finds that, after all, she
cannot live a single life, the only course open to her is to be
reconciled to the husband whom she has injured. For the con
struction (jcaraAA. c. dat.) see Rom. v. 10. Like i Se 6 aTrioros
(v. 15) and dAA et KCU Swacrcu (v. 2l), this ecu/ 8t Kal K.T.\. is a
parenthesis to provide for an exceptional case. He then con
tinues the Lord s command, that { a husband is not to put away
(d&lt;ieVcu = Kara\veiv) his wife. * St Paul, like our Lord, forbids
divorce absolutely : Tropi/eta in the wife is not mentioned here as
creating an exception; and it is possible that this exception

* The change from x u P l(T ^ vat f tne wife to dfaevai of the husband is
intelligible. The home is his : she can leave it, but he sends her away from
it. In LXX, x ( " } P lff ^^ vat is frequent of separation in place. In papyri it is
used of divorce ; e&v 5 x w P*-fa VTai ^ a\\rj\wv : so also xw/&gt;i&lt;r/t6s. Polybius
(xxxu. xii. 6) has /tex /" "/^" 7 ? & ir t&gt; r v avdp6s. See Deissmann, Bible Studies,
p. 247. In v. 13, dtpitvai is used of the wife, perhaps in order to make an
exact parallel with v. 2.

VII. H-14] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 14!

(Matt. v. 32, xix. 9 ; see Allen and Plummer ad loc.) was unknown
to the Apostle, because it had not been made by Christ.

12. roig Se Xoi-iroi?. Having spoken of those converts who
were still unmarried, and of those who had married since their
conversion, he now treats of those who belonged to neither class.
There were some who had married before their conversion and
now had a heathen wife or a heathen husband. Were they to
continue to live with their heathen partners? Yes, if the heathen
partner consents to the arrangement. St Paul elsewhere uses ot
A.OITTOI of a remainder which is wholly or largely heathen (Eph.
ii. 3; i Thess. iv. 13, v. 6).

Xe yw eyw, ofy 6 Ku pios. This is the right order (tf A B C P
17), not eyw A.yo&gt; (D E F G). He means that he is not now
repeating the teaching of Christ, who is not likely to have said
anything on the subject. He does not mean that he is speaking
now, not with Apostolic authority, but as a private individual.
All his directions are given with the inspiration and power of an
Apostle, and he speaks with confidence and sureness. He applies
Christ s ruling as far as it will reach in the case of a mixed union.
The Christian party must certainly not dissolve the marriage, if
the heathen party does not desire to do so.

yuycuKa exet amoro^. Here ZX* L must mean has, not c keeps,
retains/ and this shows the meaning of c^erco in v. 2. It is the
case of a Christian with a heathen wife whom he married when
he himself was an unbeliever.

oweuSoicci. Agrees in being content. The compound verb
(Rom. i. 32) indicates mutual consent, implying that more than
one person is satisfied (Acts xxii. 20) ; often with a dative of the
thing in which agreement is found (Luke xi. 48 ; Acts viii. i ;
2 Mac. xi. 24).

PJ &&amp;lt;Junu adnfjp. AV. has let him not put her away here,
and let her not leave him in v. 13 : RV. has leave in both
places. Perhaps put away would be better in both, as St Paul
is speaking of divorce. As in v. u, a^ieWi = aTroAvW, which in
class. Grk. would be diroTTtyiTreiv. Vulg. has dimittat throughout.

13. Kal OUTOS. The pronoun shows that avrr/, and not avrij,
is the right accentuation in v. 12. Here some inferior texts read
auTos instead of OUTOS, and O.VTQV instead of rov ai/Spa. The latter
term has point, because it was a strong measure for a wife to try
to divorce her husband. But the Apostle puts both sexes on
a level by using d^ieVoo, which is more commonly used of the
husband, of both.

14. TJYiaaTcu. This refers to the baptismal consecration (i. 2,
vi. n), in which the unbelieving husband shares through union

142 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 14

with a Christian wife. The purity of the believing partner over
powers (VLKO.) the impurity of the unbelieving one (Chrys.), so
that the union is pure and lawful ; there is no profanation of
matrimony. The principle cis a-dpKa n-iav holds good in mixed
marriages (vi. 16), but not to the detriment of the believing
partner ; as an unlawful union desecrates, so a lawful union con
secrates . pluris enim est pietas unius ad conjugium sanctificandum,
quam alterius ad inquinandum (Calv.). But he goes beyond
what is written when he adds, interea nihil prodest haec sancti-
ficatio conjugi infideli.* Note the eV in both cases ; the Christian
partner is the sphere in which the sanctification takes place, and
the heathen partner may be influenced by that sphere. There
is no such intolerable difference of sphere as to necessitate dis
solution of the marriage.

eirel apa. Since it would then follow, i.e. if it was the im
purity of the heathen partner which prevailed on the analogy of
Hag. ii. 11-13; there it is uncleanness that is communicated,
while consecration is not communicated. The Apostle argues
back from the children to the parents. The child of a parent
who is ayios must ipso facto be aytos : that he assumes as axio
matic. He is not assuming that the child of a Christian parent
would be baptized ; that would spoil rather than help his argu
ment, for it would imply that the child was not ayios till it was
baptized. The verse throws no light on the question of infant
baptism. He argues from the fact that the Corinthians must
admit that a Christian s child is holy. Consequently, it was
born in wedlock that is holy. Consequently, such wedlock
need not be dissolved. But he is not approving such wedlock.
Marriages with heathen are wrong (2 Cor. vi. 14). But, where
they have come into existence through the conversion of one
partner in a heathen marriage, the Christian partner is not to
seek divorce.

D E F, Latt. add rfj iriffrrj after yvvaixl, X A B C K L P omit.
(H*ABCD*EFGP i7, Copt. RV.) is to be preferred to dvdpl (K 3 D 3
K L, Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth. AV. ), an unintelligent gloss by one who did
not see the point of d5eX0y and wanted to make the usual balance to the
preceding yvvaud. Vulg., Iren. Tert. add T&lt; iriffT&lt;p to dvSpL, making it
equivalent to d5eX0. For vvv 8t, D E F G have vvvl, which at the begin
ning of a clause is always in N.T. followed by tie.

With the argumentative use of eirel, since, if that were so, cf. xv. 29
and see note on Rom. iii. 6. In v. 10, n we have a similar eirel followed
by vvv, as here. See Burton, Moods and Tenses, 229, 230.

* As Evans says, " He stands upon the sacred threshold of the Church :
his surroundings are hallowed. United to a saintly consort, he is in daily
contact with saintly conduct : holy association may become holy assimilation,
and the sanctity which ever environs may at last penetrate. But the man s
conversion is not a condition necessary to the sanctity of the subsisting con
jugal union." Origen compares such a union to a mixture of wine and water,

VII. 15] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 143

15. el 8e 6 amoTTos x w P^ TCU - * But ^ i* ls tne unbeliever
that is for separating. The emphasis is on 6 aTnoros, and the
present tense indicates the heathen partner s state of mind.
What follows shows that 6 aTrio-ros covers both sexes, and in such
cases the Apostle has no injunction to give to the unbeliever.
* For what have I to do with judging them that are without ?
(v. 12); so the responsibility rests with them, and they may do
as they please, xo&gt;pic&lt;r0a&gt;. If, therefore, the heathen partner
seeks divorce, the Christian partner may consent. The Christian
partner is under no slavish obligation to refuse to be set free.
Just to this extent the law against divorce has its limits.
Marriages between Jews ought not to be dissolved, and
marriages between Christians ought not to be dissolved ; but
heathen marriages stand on a different basis. These ought to
be respected as long as possible, even when one of the parties
becomes a Christian. But if the one who remains a heathen
demands divorce, the Christian is not bound to oppose divorce.
In such matters the Christian ov SeSov Aomu, has not lost all
freedom of action ; independence still survives.

We cannot safely argue with Luther that ov SeSovAwrou implies
that the Christian partner, when divorced by the heathen partner,
may marry again. And Luther would have it that this implies that
the Christian partner, when divorced by "a false Christian," may
marry again. Who is to decide whether the Christian is " false "
or not ? And the principle, which is far older than Luther, that
" reverence for the marriage-tie is not due to one who has no
reverence for the Author of the marriage-tie " will carry one to
disastrous conclusions. Basil (letter to Amphilochius, Canonica
Prima, Ep. clxxxviii. 9) does not write with precision. All that
ov SeSovAwrcu clearly means is that he or she need not feel so
bound by Christ s prohibition of divorce as to be afraid to depart
when the heathen partner insists on separation.

eV Se tpt]j/Y] KeKXTjKey upi?. It is in an atmosphere of peace
that God has called you. This is ambiguous. To what is the
peace opposed? If to bondage, which seems natural, then the
meaning will be that to feel bound to remain with a heathen
partner, who objects to your remaining, would violate the peace
in which you were called to be a Christian. If * peace is op
posed to separation, then the meaning will be that you ought to
do your utmost to avoid divorce. The former is probably right :
cf. Col. iii. 15. Heathen animus against Christianity would
greatly increase the difficulty of insisting upon living with a
heathen who was anxious for a divorce. In such a state of
things Christian peace would be impossible. With lv elprjvr)
compare eV dytacr/Aw, i Thess. iv. 7. The Se supplies the positive
complement to the negative ov SeSov Aomu.

144 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 16, 17

Editors are much divided as to whether i /xas (X*ACK, Copt.) or
(N 3 B D E F, Latt. Syrr. AV. RV. ) is the better reading.

16. TI yap ot&as, yu mi. As in v. 15, the case of the heathen
husband desiring to divorce his Christian wife is uppermost,
although the other case is also considered. And this verse is
as ambiguous as the concluding part of v. 15. Either, Do not
contend against divorce on the ground that, if you remain, you
may convert your heathen partner ; for how do you know that
you will do that? Or (going back to /XT) d&lt;ieVa&gt; in 13, 14, and
treating 15 as a rare exception to the almost universal rule),
1 Avoid divorce, for it is possible you never know that you
will convert your heathen partner. This latter interpretation
involves the rendering, How knowest thou whether thou wilt
not save ? See the LXX of Esth. iv. 14 ; Joel ii. 14 ; Jon. iii. 9 ;
i Sam. xii. 22. On the ground that these four passages express
a hope rather than a doubt, Lightfoot prefers the interpretation
that the chance of saving the unbelieving partner is " worth any
temporal inconvenience." So also Findlay. But the other
interpretation is probably right. The sequence of thought is
then quite clear. If the unbeliever demands divorce, grant
it : you are not bound to refuse. If you refuse, you will have
no peace. The chance of converting your heathen spouse is too
small a compensation for a strained and disturbed life, in which
Christian serenity will be impossible. To call the latter
"temporal inconvenience" is a serious understatement. See
Stanley. For o-weu/ see Rom. xi. 14; i Tim. iv. 16; and for
the history of the idea, Hastings, DB. iv. pp. 360 f. ; DCG. 11.
p. 556. The ei prj (v. 17) is almost decisive for this view.

17. This verse may be taken either as a summing up of
what has just been stated, or as a fresh starting-point for what
is to follow (18-24). It states the general principle which de
termines these questions about marriage, and this is afterwards
illustrated by the cases of circumcision and slavery. Conversion
to Christianity must make a radical change in the moral and
spiritual life, but it need not make any radical change in our
external life, and it is best to abide in the condition in which
the call came to us. Therefore the Christian partner must not
do anything to bring about a dissolution of marriage, any more
than the Christian slave must claim emancipation. But if the
heathen party insists on dissolution, or grants emancipation, then
the Christian may accept freedom from such galling ties.*

* There is no good reason for suspecting with Baljon that w. 17-22 are
an interpolation, or with Clemen that they come from some other Pauline
Epistle. Beza proposed to place them after v. 40. Equally needlessly,
Holsten suspects that v, 14 is an interpolation.

VII. 17] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 145

El pj tKacrTu&gt; u&gt;s fiejxe piKey 6 Ku pios, eKaaToy K.T.X. Only as
our Lord has appointed to each, as God has called each, so
let him walk. In both clauses each is emphatic; and while
the assignment of circumstances to each individual is attributed
to Christ, the call to become a believer comes from the Father,
as in Rom. viii. 28. The ei ^rj (introducing an exception or
correction) defines and limits the somewhat vague is not under
bondage in such cases. There remains some obligation, viz.
not to seek a rupture. One is not in all cases free to depart,
simply because one cannot be compelled to stay. But nothing
is here said against the improvement of one s circumstances after
embracing Christianity. What is laid down is that, unless one s
external condition of life is a sinful one, no violent change in it
should be made, simply because one has become a Christian.
One should continue in the same course (TrepiTraremo), glorifying
God by a good use of one s opportunities ; status^ in quo vocatio
quemque offendit^ instar vocationis est (Beng.). This general
principle seems to the Apostle so important that he states that
he has established it in all the Churches under his care, and then
goes on to illustrate it by two frequent examples of its application.
On TrepiTraTetv and dvacrrpec^eiv of daily conduct, see Hort on
i Pet. i. 15 and Lukyn Williams on Gal. i. 13. See on iii. 3.

The verse reads better as a fresh starting-point (WH., Way,
Weymouth, B. Weiss) than as a summary of what precedes
(Alford, Ellicott). But even if the latter arrangement be
adopted, there is no close connexion between vv. 16 and 17.
Some join ei ^17 with ei rrjv yuvatKo, crdxrei?, whether thou shalt
save thy wife, whether not. But that would require 17 ou, as in
Matt. xxii. 17. Others understand xajpt^erat after et ^77, If he
does not depart ; others again understand o-oxms, If thou
shalt not save her. This makes very bad sense, and would
almost certainly require ei Se /to}. Theodoret runs the two
verses into one sentence, How knowest thou . . . except in
so far as our Lord has apportioned to each? This is very
awkward, and gives no good sense. * Only or Save only is
the best translation of et /xrj. It introduces a caution with regard
to what precedes, and this forms a preface to what follows. St
Paul is opposing the restless spirit and desire for further change
which the Gospel had excited in some converts.

KCU OUT&lt;I&gt;S . . . 8iaTaaaojj.au As in xi. 34 ; Tit. i. 5 ; Acts
xxiv. 23, we have the middle ; in ix. 14, xvi. i he uses the active.
This is evidently spoken with Apostolic authority, and it indi
cates that the restlessness and craving for change, against which
he here contends, was common among Christians. He lets the
Corinthians know that they receive no exceptional treatment,
either in the way of regulations or privileges. This checks
10

146 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 17-19

rebelliousness on the one hand and conceit on the other.
Odiosum fuisset Corinthiis arctiore vinculo quam alios constringi
(Calv.). Cf. iv. 17.

Ought we to read pcfitpiKw (K* B) or eptpurev (K 8 A C D, etc.)? Aor.
might be changed to perf. to harmonize with /ce/cX^/cci/, and perf. (being less
common) might be changed to aor. The perf. is preferable. Certainly
6 Ktpios ... 6 9f6s (N A B C D E F) is to be preferred to 6 Qe6s ... 6
Ku/nos (KL). Elsewhere it is God who calls (i Thess. iv. 7; Rom.
iv. 17, viii. 30; 2 Tim. i. 9), while the Lord distributes the gifts (xii. 5 ;
Eph. iv. 11). D* F, Latt. substitute diddffKw for 8ia.Tdffffo/j.ai.

18. nepiTCTfXTj/AeVos Ti? K\r)6r]. The sentence is probably
interrogative (AV., RV.), not hypothetical (Tyndale). The sense
is much the same. A man who was circumcised before con
version is not to efface the signs of his Judaism. Jews did this
sometimes to avoid being known as Jews in gymnastic exercises
in the palaestra (i Mace. i. 15; Joseph. Ant. xii. v. i).* And
an uncircumcised Gentile is not to seek circumcision ; Gal.
v. 2, 3 ; Acts xv. i, 5, 19, 24, 28. St Paul, while proclaiming
Gentile liberty, acts as a Jew to Jews (ix. 20). See Dobschiitz,
Probleme, p. 84.

rts (NABP), ns K^XTJTCU (D F G), rts K\-fi6r) (E K L).
rts is doubtless right ; the perf. may indicate that these cases
were generally earlier, Jews converted before Gentiles.

19. f\ TrepiTOjjiT) ouSeV 60TIP, KCU TJ a,Kpoj3uori a ouSeV earir. The
Apostle repeats this in two somewhat different forms in Gal. v. 6
and vi. 15 , *v yap Xpio-ru) Irjfrov ovrt TrepLTOfjirj TL icr^uet ovre
aLKpo(3v&lt;TTi,CL t aAAa WMTTIS ot dyaTr^s ei/epyou/xei/ry, and cure yctp
TrepiTOfJi-q TL ecrrtv OVTC aKpo/Sva-Tia, aXXa Kaivr) KTI CTIS. Having
previously proclaimed the folly of adopting circumcision, when
the freedom of the Gospel was open to them, as he has just
done here in simpler terms (firj Tre/wre/weo-flo)), he points out that
the difference between circumcision and uncircumcision is a
matter of small moment. Those who have it need not be
ashamed of it, and those who have it not certainly need not
seek it. "The peculiar excellence of the maxim is its declara
tion that those who maintain the absolute necessity of rejecting
forms are as much opposed to the freedom of the Gospel as
those who maintain the absolute necessity of retaining them "
(Stanley).

Photius, G. Syncellus, and others say that the maxim is a
quotation from an Apocalypse of Moses. It is extremely un
likely that such a principle would be contained in any Jewish
book earlier than St Paul. Such a book, however, might after-

* St Paul s prohibition must be understood in a wider sense. A Jew,
when he becomes a Christian, is not ostentatiously to drop all Jewish customs
and modes of life. The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T.

VII. 19-21] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 147

wards be interpolated by a Christian with these words of the
Apostle. See Lightfoot on Gal. vi. 15 ; Weinel, St Paul, p 56;
and consider the Apostle s action in circumcising Timothy and
not circumcising Titus.

dXXd TrjpTjcris K.T.X. * But keeping of the commandments of
God is everything As in iii. 7 and x. 24, the strongly advers
ative dAAu implies that the opposite of the previous negative is
understood. In Gal. v. 6 and vi. 15 the u AAa introduces two
different things (see above), both of them different from this.
Of all three of them we may say, in his stat totus Christianismus
(Beng).* TrJ/^o-is eVroAtiV occurs Ecclus. xxxii. 23, rqp. vd/aon/,
VVisd. vi. 18: rrjpflv ras eVroAtts, Matt. xix. 17; i Tim. vi. 14;
i John ii. 3, where see Westcott. On eVr. eov see Deissmann,
Light, p. 381.

20. Repetition of the principle laid down ; In the secular
surroundings of the calling in which he is called, in these let him
abide ; and eV ravry emphasizes the charge to make no change
of condition.! In N.T., KA??o-is is almost exclusively Pauline, and
it means either the act of calling (Phil. iii. 14) or the circum
stances in which the calling took place ( i. 26 and here) : it does
not mean vocation. Lightfoot quotes Epictetus (i. 29 46),
yu-aprvs V7TO TOV @eov Ke/cA^/zeVo?, and ( 49) ravra /xe AAeis
pfiv /ecu /car aiff xyvtw rr]v /cA^criy rjv Ke/cAry/cev [6

21. SoGXos eicXrj0T]s; * Wast thou a slave when thou wast
called ? Do not mind that. A slave can be a good Christian
(Eph. vi. 5; Col. iii. 22; Tit. ii. 9). Thackeray quotes the
iambic line in Philo, Quod omn. prob. liber 7, Soi Aos Tre ^vKas; ow
/xeVco-Tt o-ot Adyov. Here again, the clause might be either inter
rogative or hypothetical.

dXA* et Kal . . . jAaXXoy xpTJ&lt;mi. * But still, if thou canst also
become free, rather make use of it than not. The KCH affects
i, not et : if thou art also able to become free as well as

to remain a slave ; if the one course is as possible as the other ;
then what ? It is remarkable that the Apostle s advice is inter
preted in opposite ways. He says, Rather make use of it.
Make use of what? Surely, TU&gt; 8vva&lt;rOai e Aeu tfepos yeVeo-tfat, the
possibility of becoming free. This was the last thing mentioned ;
and make use of suits a new condition better than the old
condition of slavery. Still more decidedly does the aorist

* Stanley has an interesting, but rather fanciful note, connecting this
passage with the Father, Gal. v. 6 with the Son, and Gal. vi. 15 with the
Holy Spirit.

f Manufacturers of idols who became Christians claimed this principle as
justifying their continuing to earn a living in this way. "Can t you starve?"
says Tertullian ; fides famem iion timet (De Idol. 5, 12).

148 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 21, 22

not xpty imply a new condition. The advice, thus interpreted,
is thoroughly in keeping with the Apostle s tenderness of heart
and robustness of judgment * Do not be miserable because you
are a slave ; yet, if you can just as easily be set free, take advan
tage of it rather than not. He regarded marriage as a hindrance
to the perfection of the Christian life (vv. 32-35). Was not
slavery, with its hideous temptations, a far greater hindrance ? *

Nevertheless, various commentators, ancient and modern,
insist on going back to SoOAos for the dat. to be supplied with
Xprjo-at. and understand rrj SovAei a. Utere servitute quasi re bona
et utili : servitus enim valet ad humilitatem servandam et ad
patientiam exercendam (Herv.) It is urged that in this way
the Apostle remains consistent with his rule, Abide in the
calling in which thou wast called. But dAA ei KCU . . . xpw ai -
is a parenthetic mitigation given in passing; like cav & KGU . . .
KaraAAay^TO) in v. n, it mentions a possible exception. The
meaning will then be, * Slavery is not intolerable for a Christian,
but an opportunity for emancipation need not be refused.
The Christian slave is not to rebel against a heathen master,
any more than a Christian wife against a heathen husband ; but
if the heathen is ready to grant freedom, the Christian slave,
like the Christian wife, may take it without scruple. For this
view, which is that of Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, and Beza, see
Evans, Lightfoot, and Goudge ; for the other, which is that of
Bengel, Meyer, De Wette, and Edwards, see Alford, Ellicott
and Schmiedel ; but Schmiedel admits that xpw ai &gt; if T i? SovAetoi
is to be understood, hat allerdings etwas Seltsames.

22. 6 yap tV Kuptw K\Tj6eis 806X09. For he who, while in
slavery, was called to be in the Lord is the Lord s freedman. f
Or we may take 6 with SouAos, For the slave who was called in
the Lord ; but the next clause is against this. A slave called
in the Lord is in relation to Christ a freedman : u7TAeu&lt;9epo&lt;?,
like libertuS) is a relative term, used c. gen. of the emancipator.
Although in his secular condition he remains a slave, in his
spiritual condition he has been set free : he is KA^ro? ayios (i. i),
and is free from the bondage of sin (Rom. vi. 6). There is no
hint here that his master, if he were a Christian, would be sure
to set him free ; and even Philem. 21 does not imply that. See
Harnack, Mission and Expansion^ i. pp. i67f. ; Deissmann,
Light, pp. 323, 326-333, 382, 392.

* Bachmann admits that the Apostle s recommending people to disregard
an opportunity of being freed from slavery zweifellos etwas Uberraschendes hat.

t In ordinary language, aire\ev6epos Kvplov would mean that he had been
the Lord s slave and that the Lord had manumitted him. He had been in
slavery and the Lord had freed him from it, and this justifies the expression.
The Lord was his

VII. 22, 23] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 149

4 In like manner, he that was called being free is Christ s
slave ; or, the free man by being called is Christ s slave,
he can no longer do as he likes to his own hurt; he is
bound to obey his new spiritual Master and Lord. Such a
bondservant of Christ was the Apostle himself, and he gloried
in the fact (Rom. i. i ; Phil. i. i ; Tit. i. i). Nowhere else in
the Bible is aTreXev tfeo? found.

K L, Copt. Aeth. Arm. add icai after o/xotas : D E F G add 3 na.1 :
K A B P 17, Vulg. omit, xai or 3 Kai is usual after 6/xoiws, and hence the
insertion ; but here neither is required.

23. TtjjLfjs T)Yopda9Y]T. This recalls vi. 20 and applies it to
both classes. The social slave, who has been set free by Christ,
and the social freeman, who has become enslaved to Christ, have
alike been bought by God, and are now His property. In one
sense Christ s death was an act of emanicipation, it set free
from the thraldom of sin ; in another sense it was a change of
ownership.* It is a mistake to suppose that the words are
addressed only to those who are socially free, charging them not
to lose their freedom. Such a charge would be superfluous.
Moreover, the change from the singular to the plural intimates
that both classes are now exhorted. See below.

In commenting on this verse, Origen lets us know that he
was not the first to comment on this Epistle. He speaks of
what 01 AOITTOI cpfj.r)vtvrai say on the subject. See on ix. 20.

P) ylvevQe SoGXoi dkOponruK * Do not become, do not show
yourselves to be, bondservants of men. The words are obscure.
It is very improbable that the prohibition is addressed to those
who are free, and that it forbids them to sell themselves into
slavery. Such a prohibition could not be needed. Moreover,
the change from the 2nd pers. sing, to the 2nd pers. plur. shows
that he is now addressing all his converts. Origen strangely
interprets the slavery as meaning marriage, in which neither
partner TOV 18101; o-w/xaro? eoi;o-ia, and from which both partners
should seek freedom e* O-V/JL^VOV. The bondage must mean
some condition of life which is likely to violate God s rights of
ownership (Lev. xxv. 42, 55). The interpretation, Do not
become enslaved to any party-leader J is remote from the context.
More probably, * Do not let social relations or public opinion or
evil advisers interfere with the absolute service which is due to
Him who bought you with His Son s blood.

* " In the time of St Paul, Lord was throughout the whole Eastern world
a universally understood religious conception. The Apostle s confession of
his Master as our Lord Jesus Christ, with the complementary idea that
Christians were dearly bought slaves, was at once intelligible in all the
fulness of its meaning to every one in the Greek Orient " (Deissmann, New
Light on the N. T., p. 79). See Lietzmann, Greek Papyri, p. 4.

150 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 24

24. The general principle is stated once more with the
addition of -n-apa e&lt;3. This may mean * in the presence of God,
or in God s household, or on God s side. The last agrees
well with /x-evcrw, and makes a good antithesis to avOpuTruv : l let
your attachments be heavenwards, not earthwards. With that
proviso, all secular conditions, whether of family life, or caste, or
service, are capable of being made the expression of a Christian
character. Deissmann, Light, p. 330.

VII. 25-40. Respecting unmarried ^vomen, the transitory
and trying character of the present world is against a change
of condition. The unmarried state leaves people more free
for God s service.

25 With regard to unmarried daughters, I have no charge
from the Lord to pass on to you \ but I offer my opinion as that
of a man who through the Lord s mercy is not unworthy of your
confidence, and who perhaps knows Christ s mind, although he
cannot quote any words of His. 2G Well then, I think that
owing to the distressful times that are upon us, it is an excellent
thing for people to remain as they are. 27 Are you united to a
wife? Do not seek to be freed from the tie. Are you at
present free from this tie ? Do not seek to be bound by it.
But if you do marry, you have committed no sin ; 28 and if a
maiden marries, she has committed no sin. Yet people who
make these ties are sure to have increased affliction in the affairs
of this life. But I, as your adviser, would spare you this, if I
could. 29 This, however, I do affirm, Brothers. The time
allowed before the Advent is now very narrow. This means that
henceforth those who have wives should serve as strictly as those
who have none, 30 that those who weep should live as though no
sorrow disturbed them, those who are enjoying life as not
absorbed in their enjoyment, those who buy as not taking full
possession, 31 and those who use this world as not eager to use
it to the full: for transitory indeed is the outward fashion of
this world. 32 Yet I want you to be free from the anxieties
which the world produces. When a man is unmarried, he is
anxious about our Lord s interests, studying how he may please
our Lord ; 33 but when once he is married, he is anxious about
worldly interests, studying how he may please his wife. 34 Parted
also by a similar division of interests are the married and the

VII. 25] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS I$l

unmarried woman (?). For the unmarried woman is anxious
about our Lord s interests, striving hard to be holy both in body
and in spirit ; but when once she is married, she is anxious about
worldly interests, studying how she may please her husband.
86 Now I am saying all this simply for your own spiritual profit.
I have no wish to throw a halter over you and check Christian
liberty. On the contrary, I want you to choose what is seemly,
and, like Mary, to wait upon our Lord without Martha s
distractions.

36 That is my opinion ; but there are limitations. If a father
think that the way in which he is acting towards his unmarried
daughter is not seemly, because she has long since reached a
marriageable age and ought now to marry without delay, seeing
that her nature seems to require it, he must do as he thinks
best. There is nothing sinful in it ; let the marriage take place.
37 But when a father has settled convictions that a single life is
best for his daughter, and has no need to surrender these, but
has full right to carry out his own wishes, and has decided in his
own mind to do so, he will act rightly if he keeps his daughter
free. 38 It comes to this, therefore, that both of them act rightly.
The father who gives his child in marriage does well, and he who
does not do so will be found to have done still better.

39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives ; but if he is
dead, she is free to marry any one she pleases, provided it be in
holy matrimony with a Christian. 40 But a widow is a happier
woman if she abides as she is to the end, according to my
judgment. And I believe that I, no less than others, can claim
to have the guidance of God s Spirit.

25. riepl 8e T&V irapOeVwi/. It is clear from the use of
s in vv. 28, 34, 36, 37, 38, that the word here applies to
women only; contrast Rev. xiv. 4. On this subject no tradi
tional teaching of Christ had reached the Apostle (v. 10); he
could not frame a judgment partly based upon His teaching
(v. 12); nor did he feel justified in giving an independent
Apostolic decision (v. 17), for the responsibility of deciding must
rest with the father. He is willing, however, to state his own
opinion ; and he intimates that his wonderful conversion and
call are strong evidence that the opinion of one who has been so
divinely favoured is worthy of trust. As in i Pet. ii. 10 (see
Hort), fjXerjfjiwos is used " in reference to the signal mercy of the
gift of the Gospel " ; and this in his case included the call to be

152 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 5, 26

an Apostle. We have a similar use of ^Xoj^/Aei/ in 2 Cor. iv. i,
and of rj\^0r]v in i Tim. i. 13, 16. Here TTIO-TOS, trustworthy,
is used as in iv. 2 and i Tim. i 12 ; cf. f) p-aprvpia Kvptov TTICTTT;
(Ps. xix. 8) ; not as in 2 Cor. vi. 15 and i Tim. iv. 10.

We have the same contrast between 7riTay&gt;j and yi/w/xr? in
2 Cor. viii. 8, 10. Here the Vulgate has praeceptum and con-
silium to distinguish the words, which led to the later distinction
between precepts and * counsels of perfection (Stanley).

26. yojju&&amp;gt; ovv. I think therefore. He does not mean that
he is not sure : what is stated in v. 25 shows that ow introduces
a decided conviction; and perhaps the use of virdpxw rather
than tlvai shows that the conviction is of long standing. He holds
that this is a sound axiom to start from ; it is good in principle.

oia TTJI ei/ecmoaaK dyayKTji/. These words are an important
qualification. The Apostle s opinion is determined by the
present necessity, the straitness now upon us (Heb. ix. 9),
owing to the disturbances and dangers which he saw ; and also
by the Advent which he believed to be very near (xvi. 22),
although not yet present (2 Thess. ii. 2). We cannot assume
that his opinion would have been the same in a more peaceful
period, and after experience had proved that the Advent might
be long delayed. For avdyK-q of external distress see Luke xxi. 23,
where the meaning is very similar to the meaning here ; 2 Cor.
vi. 4, xii. 10; i Thess. iii. 7 ; Ps. Sol. v. 8; Testament of Joseph
ii. 4. Thackeray (St Paul and Jewish Thought^ pp. 105 f.)
thinks that this passage may reflect Jewish beliefs in the " Woes
of the Messiah," the birth-pangs which were to precede His
Advent (2 Esdr. v. 1-12, vi. 18-24, lx - I- 9 j Jubilees xxiii. 11-25 &gt;
Assump. of Moses x. 3-6; Apoc. of Baruch xxvii. i f., where see
Charles, xlviii. 31-39, Ixx. 3-10). Lightfoot (on Gal. i. 4)
contends that cVeoroKrai/ means present rather than imminent,
but the difference is not great. A trouble which is believed to
be near and certain is already a present distress.

on KaXoK di/9p(uir(i&gt; TO ouVcos efoai. That it is good, I say, for
a person so to be. The construction of the verse is not regular,
but quite intelligible: on is that, not because, and the
second KaXov picks up and continues the first. But doubt
arises as to the meaning of TO OVTW? c?i/&lt;u. To be thus is vague,
and * thus may have three meanings : (i) as he is, i.e. he is to
remain without change of condition ; (2) as I am, or as at
TrapOevoi are, i.e. unmarried ; (3) as I now tell you, referring to
what follows. The first is probably right ; it is a repetition of
the principle already given in v. 24, of which principle v. 27 is an
illustration. The OVTWS in v. 40 and Rom. ix. 20 is similar.
There is not much difference in effect between (i) and (3).

VII. 26-28] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 153

Origen prefers (2), and points out that this is the fourth time
(vv. i, 8, 26 bis) that the Apostle has used KaAoV of celibacy,
whereas all that he says of marriage is that it is not sin.

27. S&eaai yuraiiu ; Like vv. 18 and 21, this may be either
interrogative or hypothetical. The perfect indicates the settled
condition of the marriage-tie, and yvvaiKi means * wife, not
* woman : betrothal to an unmarried woman is not included.
There could be no doubt about this case. The Lord had
prohibited divorce ; therefore /UT) fyrcl Avo-iv, never at any time
(pres. imperat.) seek freedom. The advice is permanent. No
where else in N.T. does AvVts occur. In LXX it is used only
of the solving of hard sayings (Eccles. viii. i ; Dan. xii. 8 ;
Wisd. viii. 8). See Milligan, Greek Papyri, p. 106.

Xe Xuom diro y. Here again the perfect means, * Art thou in
a state of freedom from matrimonial ties? It does not mean
Hast thou been freed from a wife by death or divorce ? The
verb is chosen because of the preceding Xvcriv, and bachelors as
well as widowers are addressed. Here it cannot be assumed
that such men are not to marry, because they were unmarried
when they were called to be Christians. The Lord had not
said this. But in the existing circumstances His Apostle advises
this. In neither clause need we translate /nr) &gt;/Ti * Cease to
seek. We do not know that any Corinthian Christians had
been trying to be divorced from their wives, though probably
some were trying to be married.

28. cay 8e K&lt;XI yajjLifj&lt;rr|s. He at once hastens to assure those
who have already done what he now advises them not to do, that
they have done nothing wrong : But if it be that thou do
marry. The KCU, as in v. u, intensifies the verb; if it has
already gone as far as that. See Evans on this aorist.

The and in but and if (AV., RV.) is not a translation of the ical,
but an archaic reduplication of the if. Perhaps and if is a corruption
of an if, for an if, as in the saying If ifs and ans were pots and
pans.

In this verse we have both the later (70^770-775) and the classical (777^77)
form of the aorist. But some texts (KL, Chrys. ) have altered 70/^7)0-775 to
yflMJS, while D E F G have XCI/STJS yvva iKa, Vulg. acceperis uxorem. In
ix. 21, 22 we have both Kep5avu&gt; and

The thought goes on to the marriage as a fact ;
* there was no sin in that. This sounds incongruous in English,
and we must say thou hast not sinned. Origen remarks that
Paul does not say eav ya/xTJo-^s, KaAoV.

TJ irapOlros. If the article is genuine, it is generic : a reference
to some particular case at Corinth is not likely.

OXtyii 8c TTJ aapxl C^OUO-IP ol T. * But affliction for the flesh

154 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 28, 29

will be the lot of those who act thus. Quum diceret, habituros
tribulationem carnis, vel in carnc, significat, sollititudines et
angustias, quibus conjuges implicantur, ex negotiis terrenis pro-
venire. Caro igititr hie pro homine externo capitur (Calv.). This
would be specially true in the persecutions which were to
precede the Advent. As Bacon says, " He that hath wife and
children hath given hostages to fortune " ; and " children sweeten
labours, but they make misfortunes more bitter." Origen makes
0A.M/as refer specially to the wife, quoting Gen. iii. 16. The
dative may be locative ; in the flesh (AV., RV.) ; tribulationem
carnis (Vulg.); pressuram carnis (Tert.) ; afflictionem in came
(Beza). Cf. 0-KoA.oi/f rfj o-apKi, thorn for the flesh (2 Cor. xii. 7).
eyw 8e ujxwi &lt;j&gt;ei8ojj.at. * But I for my part spare you : this
is his aim as their spiritual adviser. The emphatic eycu makes
I won t pain you by saying more an improbable interpretation.
In what way does he spare them ? Nolo vos illam tribulationem
sentire (Herv.). Ideo quia, secundum indulgentiam conjugia non
omnino prohibeo (Primasius). Atto admits both reasons, but the
former is probably right, and it almost excludes the latter. He
aims at keeping them from affliction by persuading them not to
marry. Cf. 2 Cor i. 23, xii. 6, xiii. 2.

7CI/AT70-77S (S B P [ya/JLfor) A] 17) rather than 71^477? (K L, Orig. Chrys.) to
agree with the following 7^77, or Xd/itys yvvaiKa (D F, Latt. acceperis
uxorem), Tert. duxeris uxorem. It is less easy to decide whether 17 before
irapetvos should be inserted (K A D E K LP) or omitted (B F G). D* F
insert tv before ry vapid.

29. TOUTO 8e &lt;|&gt;T]fxi. But this I do declare. The change from
Aeyw (v. 6, i. 12, vi. 5) to &lt;j&gt;r)/jiL should be marked in translation,
whether the change has significance or not ; but even the RV.
fails to do this. The change probably gives special seriousness
to the assertion. * But, though I counsel none to change their
state, I do counsel all to change their attitude towards all
earthly things. We have the same expression, introducing a
solemn warning, xv. 50; cf. x. 15, 19 : nowhere else in N.T. or
LXX does the ist pers. sing, occur. The TOVTO does not refer to
what precedes ; he is not repeating what he has just said. He is
reminding them of a grave fact, which has to be considered in
connexion with marriage, and indeed with the whole of life. He
has been insisting on the dvay*?; already present : he now insists
on the (supposed) shortness of the interval before the Advent.
Both facts confirm the advice which he gives.

6 Ktupos au^o-raXixeVos e cr-ny. The allotted time has become
short, lit. * has been drawn together so as to be small in
amount. As in Rom. xiii. n, 6 Kaipos is used almost as a
technical term for the period before the Advent (Westcott on
Heb. ix. 9). Hort (on i Pet. i. u) thinks that it was owing

VII. 29] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 155

probably to its use in Daniel (ix. 27, etc.) that in our Lord s time
it was specially used with reference to national religious expecta
tions. But St Paul by no means always uses it in this special
eschatological sense, although he commonly uses it of * a fixed
and limited time or a fitting period, while x/x&gt;vos is time
generally, and is unlimited. That he still believed that the Second
Coming was near is evident from x. n, xv. 21 ; but a little later
his view seems to be changing (Sanday and Headlam, Romans,
p. 379; Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent Research, p. 113).
Calvin and others explain the words here of the shortness of
human life ; you are sure to die before long. This makes good
sense, but probably not the right sense.

Some texts (D E F G) ins. on before 6 /ccup&lt;5s : the best omit. A more
important point is the punctuation of what follows. Should a stop,
comma, or colon be placed after iarlv^ and rb \Qiir6v be taken with iVa
cc.T.X. ? Or should it be placed after rb \o(.irt&gt;v, and r6 \onr6v be taken with
what precedes? Editors are divided; but the former is better for two
reasons. In the Pauline Epp. TO \OLTTOV commonly leads (Phil. iii. I, iv. 8 ;
2 Thess. iii. l), as also does \OLTTOV (2 Cor. xiii. 1 1 ; I Thess. iv. I ; 2 Tim.
iv. 8). And rb \oiir6v is weak after avvea-T. forty, is straitened as to its
residue.

TO Xomw Ivo, Kal ol e x. y. * So that, henceforward those also
who have wives may be as though they had none. St Paul
rather frequently puts words in front of Iva for emphasis ; 2 Cor.
ii. 4; Gal. ii. 10 ; Rom. vii. 13; Col. iv. 16. It is quite clear
that, if the conditions of the time are such that those who have
wives ought to be as if they had none, then it is foolish to
marry ; for as soon as one had taken a wife one would have to
behave as if one had not got one, i.e. one would undertake a
great responsibility, and then have the responsibility of trying to
be free from it. Far better, in such circumstances, never to under
take it. In 2 Esdr. xvi. 40-48 there is a good deal that resembles
this passage ; but 2 Esdr. xv., xvi. are an addition made by a
Christian about A.D. 265, and the writer very likely had this
passage in his mind when he wrote.

The force of the KCH is not quite certain. He has been
saying that in such times the unmarried state is best, and then
goes on to say that not only the married, but also all bound in
any earthly circumstances, should practise detachment ; then
the Kat would mean both (AV., RV.). Even when three or
four things are strung tog-ether in Greek, the first may have KO.L as
well as the rest. In Acta Fault et Theclae (p. 42, ed. Tisch.)
we have fta/&lt;apioi ol e^oi/res ywaiKas a&gt;s pr) l^oi/res, on auroi
ayycAoi tov yevrycrovTai.

The meaning of the illustrations is fairly clear. Married men
are apt to become absorbed in domestic cares, mourners in their
sorrow, buyers in the preservation of what they have bought. A

156 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 29-32

Christian, with dangers all round him and the Advent close at
hand, ought not to be engrossed in any of his surroundings,
knowing how temporary they are. He should learn how to sit
loose to all earthly ties.

30. u&gt;s /AT) KdTc xoi Tes. * As not entering upon full ownership,
or keeping fast hold upon (xi. 2, xv. 2 ; 2 Cor. vi. 10 ; i Thess.
v. 21, where see Milligan, p. 155). Earthly goods are a trust,
not a possession.

31. ws fxT) Kcu-axpufxei/oi. As not using it to the utmost ;
lit. using it down to the ground, and so, using it completely
up. We are not to try to get all we can out of externals. The
rendering abusing or misusing is not the right idea.* Here
and in x. 18 only: in Ep. Jer. 28 of the idolatrous priests using
up for their own profit the sacrificial offerings. The man who
remembers that he is only a sojourner in the world is likely to
remember also that worldly possessions are not everything, and
that worldly surroundings cannot be made permanent. Lightfoot
quotes from Seneca (Ep. Mor. Ixxiv. 18), "Let us use them, let
us not boast of them : and let us use them sparingly, as a loan
deposited with us, which will soon depart."

n-apdyei yap TO &lt;rxTJ[Aa T. K. T. For transitory is the fashion of
this world. There is no need to take the yap back to 6 /caipos
crvvo-Ta\fjLvo&lt;; CCTTLV. Indeed, this does not make very good
sense. The yap explains the reason for the preceding counsels,
especially the last one. To &lt;r^%a T. K. is not a mere periphrasis
for 6 KOO-/AOS : the phrase expresses the outward appearance,
all that can be apprehended by the senses. This may change,
and does change, season by season, although the world itself
abides. Praeterit figura mundi, non natura, ut in aliam speciem
mundus vertatur (Herv.).f Cf. 2 Esdr. iv. 26; and see Deiss
mann, Light, p. 281 ; Resch, Agrapha, p. 274.

Because %pa(r#cu commonly has the dative (2 Cor. i. 17, iii. 12) some
texts have corrected rbv Koajmov (the reading of N* A B D* F G 17) to ry
Kfo/jup. Even in class. Grk., /faraxpatrtfcu often has the accusative: in ix.
18 it has the dative.

32. dfxcpifxfous. Free from anxieties, such as choke the
word (Mark iv. 19) and distract from the thought of that Day
(Luke xxi. 34). * Without carefulness (AV.) is not the meaning :
cf. Matt, xxviii. 14; Wisd. vi. 15, vii. 23. Carefulness formerly

* The Vulgate has tanquam non utantnr, which seems to imply different
Greek : Beza, ut non abutentes, which is right, for abuti often means to use
up. Misusing would be irapaxpu/uievoL. In Philo (De Josepho xxiv.) we
have XP&lt;^ M irapa.xpuiJ.evos.

t Excepting Phil. ii. 8, crxvf jt - a occurs nowhere else in N.T., and, excepting
Isa. iii 17, nowhere in LXX. The destruction of the material universe is
not a Pauline idea.

VII. 32, 33] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 157

meant * anxiety (Ps. cxxvii. 3). Bacon couples it with trouble
of mind, and Latimer calls it * wicked (Wright, Bible Word-
Book^ p. 1 1 1). In papyri the wish that a person d/xept^i/os yivy is
common. The Apostle goes on to give examples, and to show by
his wording that there is a right kind of n-tpipva as well as a wrong.
TTWS dpeo-T] TW Kupiw. The thought of pleasing Christ and
God is frequent in the Pauline Epp. (Rom. viii. 8 ; i Thess. ii.
15, iv. i ; Col. i. 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 9). See on x. 33. Through
out vv. 32-34 cipecrr/ (tf A B D E F G) is certainly the right
reading, not d/jcW K L P). See Matt. vi. 24 and 2 Tim. ii. 4.

33. 6 8e yapicms. The aorist points to the time when the
change of interest took place: once a man is married.
Epictetus (Enchir. 18) holds that the care of external things (TO.
is fatal to devotion to one s higher nature : a man is sure
avdyK-rj) to neglect the one in caring for the other.

After rrj yvvaiKi there is much doubt as to punctuation and reading.
Does Kal fjicfjifpiffTai belong to v. 33 or v. 34 ? The Vulg. takes it with
v&gt; 33 ft divisus est, and he is a divided man, he is no longer single-
hearted. This spoils the balance of TTWS dp. T.K. and irws dp. rrj y. More
over, it is a weak addition to the latter. The arrangement in AV. and
RV. seems better. Some texts (D 3 E F G K L) omit the Kal before fj.efi.e-
pttrrcu, and with that omission /ic/i^pwreu must belong to what follows : but
this Kal is probably genuine (K A B D* P 17, Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth.). So
also the Kal after fie/j.. (K A B D 3 F G K L P, Vulg. Aeth.). The position
of rj ayafj.os is uncertain. Should it be inserted after i) yvvr} only (B P
Vulg.), or after TJ irapOevos only (D E F G K L Syrr. Arm ), or in both
places (K A F 2 17, Aeth.)? This third reading cannot be right, and the
evidence for r? ayauos after i] yvvr} is thereby weakened. If, however, rj
ayafjios be read after 77 yvvr} only, then Kal fiefiepicrTai. must be taken with
v. 33. The alternative readings therefore are : rrj yvvaiKi Kal fie fie purr at,
Kai i] yvvr] i] ayafj-os Kai rj rrapdevos fiepifivq. T. T. K. (Lach. Treg. \VH.) and :
rrj yvvaiKi, Kai /ie/xepurrai Kal i) yvvr) Kal TJ irapdtvos, rj &ya/jios fj.cpifj.vy, T.T.K.
(Tisch. Alf. Rev. Ell.). Lightfoot (writing before the appearance of WH.)
says: "I venture to prefer this latter reading, though supported chiefly
by Western authorities, from internal evidence ; for the sentences then
become exactly parallel. There is just the same distinction between the
married woman and the virgin as between the married and the unmarried
man. The other view throws sense and parallelism into confusion, for
Kal nefttpiffTai is not wanted with v. 33, which is complete in itself. It also
necessitates the awkward phrase 17 yvvrj Kal i) irapdtvos fjt.epi.fj.vq.. The
reading ij yvvy i) ayapos Kal i] irapdevos TJ ayauos illustrates the habitual
practice of scribes to insert as much as possible, and may be neglected."
Heinrici proposed a second fie^piffrai : ry yvvaiKi Kal /j-e^piffTai, fj.efj,f-
PICTTCU Kal TJ yvvr}. rj &yaft,os Kal i) irapdtvos fiepifj-vq., K.T.\. This is pure con
jecture ; but it restores the balance of clauses and accounts for the double
Kai. Findlay thinks it "tempting." Bachmann tabulates the confusing
evidence. See Resch, Agrapha, pp. 8, 183.

On the other hand, see Introd. "Text." The question of reading
must precede and determine that of punctuation. The MS. evidence for
Kal before /tie/u^purrcu is overwhelming ; that for 17 ayapos immediately after
yvvr} scarcely less so. The sense given to ^e/xepto-rat in AV. is " ill attested
and improbable" (WH.) and would require a plural verb.

158 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 34-36

34. Ivo. rj dyia. Bengel remarks that ayi a here means more
than it does in v. 14 : what is set apart from the world for God
ought to conform to the purity of God and not to the defilements
of the world : Trench, Syn, 88 ; Cremer, pp. 598 f. See i Tim.
v. 5, and the art. Heiligung in Herzog (Hauck). Stanley quotes
Queen Elizabeth, who said that England was her husband.

35. -n-pos TO ufiwi/ auTwi auji^opoj . His aim is not to glorify
his ministry as Apostle of the Gentiles (Rom. xi. 13), but to keep
them free from cares (v. 32). Cf. x. 33, the only other place in
N.T. in which cru/u&lt;opos occurs. The reading o-u/x&lt;e p&lt;n&gt; is pro
bably wrong, as in x. 33.

Ppoxoi ufjuy empdXw. Cast a snare upon you (AV., RV.)
gives a wrong idea : fipoxos is a halter or lasso, not a trap (here
only, in N.T.). He has no wish to curtail their freedom, as one
throws a rope over an animal that is loose, or a person that is to
be arrested : accesserat lictor injiciebatque laqueum (Livy i. 26).
Cf. Philem. 14; Prov. vi. 5. Laqueo trahuntur inviti (Beng.).

dXXa irpos TO K.T.\. On the contrary, with a view to : what
follows is an expansion of d/aepiynvovs : cf. Rom. xiii. 13.

euTrdpeSpok. Cf. TrapeSpciWrcs in ix. 13, and Give me wisdom,
that sitteth by Thy throne, TT)V T&lt;OV o-wv 6p6vw irdpeSpov (Wisd.
ix. 4). The word occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX. Com
bined with ctTreptcrTrao-Tcos it suggests the contrast between Mary
sitting at the Lord s feet and Martha distracted by much serving,
Trepteo-Traro Trept, TroXX^v SiaKowav (Luke X. 40). Cf. iva aTrepi cr-
Trao-Tot ye vwvTat T?)S crfjs evepyctnas, that they might never be
distracted from Thy goodness (Wisd. xvi. n); and see Ecclus.
xl. i, 2. The reading evVpoo-e8poi&gt; has hardly any authority.*

36. The verse indicates that the Corinthians had asked him
about the duty of a father with a daughter of age to marry. The
question is what he ought to do, not what she ought to do : his
wishes, not hers, are paramount. This is in accordance with the
ideas of that age, and the Apostle does not condemn them.

There is no need to place a comma after vo/u et : her being
of full age is what suggested to the father (who may have been
warned also by friends) that he is not behaving becomingly
towards his child in not furthering her marriage. Apparently
i/o/u ct, like vo/u w in v. 26, is used, not of a hesitating opinion
but of a settled conviction ; and verbally curx^ovetV looks back

* See the remarkable parallel in Epictetus (Dis. iii. 22 ; Long s transla
tion, Bell, 1903, II. p. 87) : " But in the present state of things, which is like
that of an army placed in battle order, is it not fit that the philosopher should
without any distraction (aTreplaTraffTov} be employed only on the ministration
(StaKovig.) of God, not tied down to the common duties of mankind, nor
entangled in the ordinary relations of life?"

VII. 36] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 159

to v&lt;rxwov in v. 35 ; but perhaps only verbally, because the
spheres are so very different. * Past the flower of her age is
perhaps too strong for vTrepaKjjios (Vulg. siiperadulta) : Luther is
right ; weil sie eben wohl mannbar zV/, and in Corinth there was
danger that a girl, who was old enough to marry and anxious to
marry, might go disastrously astray if marriage was refused. In
Ecclus. xlii. 9 the father is anxious ev VCOTTJTL avTjjs p.-fi TTOTC
7rapa.KfjLa.a-y. Plato (Rep. 460 E) speaks of /xerpios xpoi/os a.KfJif)&lt;;
as being 20 for a woman and 30 for a man. Ao-^r/yuoveti/
occurs nowhere else in N.T., and vWpaK/xo? nowhere else in the
Bible.

OUTWS 64&gt;ei Xet yircaBai. That he had better let her marry,
not simply propter voluntatem puellae (Primasius), but because of
the possible consequences of refusing. * Let him do what he
will does not mean that it is a matter of indifference whether
he allows the marriage or not, and that he can please himself; it
means that he is free to do what his conviction (i o/u et) has led
him to wish. It is wholly improbable that TI&lt;?, avrov and os (v. 37)
refer to the suitor, the prospective bridegroom. The Corinthians
would not have asked about him. It is the father s or guardian s
duty that is the question. Still more improbable is the conjecture
that the Apostle is referring to a kind of spiritual betrothal
between unmarried persons. It is supposed that Christian
spinsters with ascetic tendencies, in order to avoid ordinary
marriage, each placed themselves formally under the protection
of a man, who was in some sense responsible for the woman.
She might or might not share the same house, but she was
pledged to share his spiritual life. And the meaning of v. 36
would then be that the man who has formed a connexion of this
kind may, without sin, turn it into an ordinary marriage. In this
way the plural ya/mYoxrav is free from all difficulty. But, quite
independently of the improbability that St. Paul would sanction
so perilous an arrangement, there is the obstacle of ya/u o in
v. 38, which everywhere in N.T. (Matt. xxii. 30, xxiv. 38 ; Mark
xii. 25 ; Luke xvii. 27, xx. 35) means * give in marriage (in LXX
it does not occur). In spite of this, some make it mean marry ;
while others accept the absurdity that the man who has formed a
special union with a woman may give her in marriage to another
man. The ya/u&lt;ov is decisive : the Apostle is speaking of a
father or guardian disposing of an unmarried daughter or ward.

yafxeiTwcrai . The plural is elliptic, but quite intelligible ;
Let the daughter and her suitor marry. Cf. /utVaxru , i Tim.
ii. 15.

To avoid the awkwardness, D* F G, Arm., Aug. read ya.fj.elTw, while
def Vulg., Ambrst. have non peccat si nubat, he sinneth not if she
marry.

160 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 37-39

37. 8s 8e lorrjicey . . . eSpcuos. It is assumed that a father
would originally be of the Apostle s opinion, that 8m TT/V eve&lt;rru&gt;-
a-av aVayKr/v, it is better for a daughter to remain single ; and the
case is now stated of a father who is able to abide by that con
viction, because his daughter s circumstances do not compel him
to change it. There is in her condition no o&lt;etAet ywea-Oai, no
dtxi-yKr] to determine the father to act against his general principle.
In N.T., eSpcuos is peculiar to Paul (xv. 58 ; Col. i. 23) ; in LXX
it does not occur, but is frequent in Symm. Cf. i Tim. iii. 15.

eouoriay 8e ?xi irepl TOO i&i ou 9. * He can do as he likes
about his personal wishes (eeo-riv, vi. 12, x. 23), cum virgo non
adversaretur sed assentiretur huic paternae voluntati (Herv.).
The repetition of iSios respecting his will and heart, and the
change to eaurov respecting his daughter, seem to mark the
predominance of the father in the matter. Similarly, in v. 2 we
have rr)v euuroO yuvcuKa, and in V. 4 TOV iSiov crto/zaTO&lt;r. With
KKpiKi/ compare /ce/cpi/ca in v. 3, and with the emphatic TOVTO
preparing for what is to follow, compare i Thess. iv. 3.

Ttjpeik. To keep her as she is, guard her in a state of
singleness, not to keep her for himself. On Troujo-ei see v. 38.

eSpcuos comes last in its clause with emphasis (K A B D E P), not im
mediately after eVrTj/cei (K L) : F G, d e Aeth. Arm. omit edpaios. KL
omit ai/roD before e^paios. After /ceVpi/cej/, eV T. idia. /c. (K A B P) is to be
preferred to eV T. K. avrov (D E F G K L). rou before rypciv (D E F G K L)
should be omitted (K A B P 17, e d).

38. xai 6 ya|Atwy . . . KCU o jurj. This probably means Both
he who does and he who does not : they both act well. Or,
// is equally true that A. acts well, and that B. will act better.
By a dexterous turn, which perhaps is also humorous, the Apostle.
gives the preference to the one who does not give his daughter
in marriage. The change from Trout to TTOI^CTCI is also effective :
the one does well, the other will be found to do better, for
experience will confirm his decision. This KaXws and

may be said to sum up the results of the whole chapter.

ya.fji.Lfai&gt; (KABDE 17) rather than tKya.fj.ifav (K L P). Tr/j
irapOtvov (X A P) is perhaps preferable to T. TT. eavrov (B D E, Vulg.
virginem suam) : K L, AV. omit the words. KaXcDs TTOICI (K A D E K L P,
Vulg.) rather than /c. Trotiytret (B) ; and Kpelvvov 7roi??(m (NAB 17, Copt.)
rather than icp. Troiet (D E F G K L P, Vulg. ). Copyists thought that both
verbs must be in the same tense ; some changed Troiet to iroirjcrei, and others
Troiet, as in AV.

39. A few words are added about the remarriage of widows.
As their case is covered by vv. 8 and 34 we may suppose that
the Corinthians had asked about the matter. In Rom. vii. 1-6
the principle stated here is used again metaphorically to illustrate
the transition from law to grace : t&lt;f&gt; ocrov xpoYov appears in both

VII. 39, 40] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS l6l

passages. Romans was written soon after i Corinthians. There

we have eat/ 8e a-rroBavri o ai/rjp : for KOi/xrjflr; see on xi. 30.*

P.OVOV Iv Kupuu. Only as a member of Christ, which implies
that she marries a Christian.! To marry a heathen, especially in
Corinth, would make loyalty to Christ very difficult: cf. v. 22,
ix. i, 2, xi. n, xv. 58, xvi. 19. For the ellipse of the verb after
see Lightfoot on Gal. ii. 10 and v. 13.

Rom. vii. 2 has influenced the text here. N 3 D 2 E F G L P ins.
after 5&lt;f5eTtu, but N* A B D* 17, Am. Copt. Aeth. Arm. omit. For Koifj.r]0ri
A, Orig. Bas. have d-rrodavr].

40. fiaKapiGJTepa. In the same sense as
Acts xx. 35. She will have more real happiness if she does not
marry again. There is no inconsistency between this and i Tim.
v. 14. The younger widows come under the rule given in
v. 9.

OUTWS. In statu quo, as in 2 Pet. iii. 4, TTOLVTCL oirroos Sia/zcVei.
Here the word refers to the condition which she entered when
her husband died. This confirms the interpretation of OUTWS in
v. 26. In both cases the person had better make no change.

Kara ri}v cpr\v yvup^v. The e/xiji/ is emphatic, and implies
that there are other opinions.

SOKOJ 8e Kdyw. Non dubietatem significat (Primasius) any more
than vo/u o&gt; (v. 26). And I also think, not I think that I also
(RV.). Other people may believe that their views are inspired,
but the Apostle ventures also to believe that he is guided in his
judgment by God s Spirit. It seems to be clear from this that
some of those who differed from him appealed to their spiritual
illumination. See Goudge, p. 68 ; Stanley, pp. 1 1 7 f. ; Dobschiitz,
p. 64.

On the authority of B 17, Aeth. and some other witnesses, WH. read
yap in preference to 5e (K A D E F G K L P, Latt. Copt.), placing S&lt;? in
the margin. A few texts have no conjunction.

F G and some Latin texts (habeo or habeani) have ^x&lt;*&gt; f r *X&gt;
Alford remarks on ch. vii., " In hardly any portion of the Epistles has
the hand of correctors and interpolators of the text been busier than here.
The absence of all ascetic tendency from the Apostle s advice, on the point
where asceticism was busiest and most mischievous, was too strong a testi
mony against it to be left in its original clearness."

Saepe apostoli in epistolis de conjugio agunt : unus Paulus,
scmel, nee sua sponte, sed interrogate, coelibatum suadet, idque
lenissime (Beng.). These words are an excellent summary of the

* Hernias seems to have w. 39, 40, and 28 in his mind in Mand. iv. iv. i.

t Harnack disputes this ( Mission and Expansion, i. p. 8l). Tertullian
(Ad Uxoiem, ii. I, 2) implies that marriages between Christians and heathen
did take place. See Cyprian ( Test. iii. 62) ; matrimonium cum gtntilibus
non jttngendum .
II

1 62 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VIII. 1-13

teaching in this chapter as to the comparative value of marriage
and celibacy : the preference given to celibacy is tentative and
exceptional, to meet exceptional conditions. " No condemnation
of marriage, no exclusion of the married from the highest bless
ings of the Christian life, finds a place in the N.T." (Swete on
Rev. xiv. 4, which he says " must be taken metaphorically, as the
symbolical character of the Book suggests.") See also Goudge,
pp. 63-65.

VIII. 1-XI. 1. FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS.
VIII. 1-3. General Principles.

An idol represents nothing which really exists. Conse
quently, eating what is offered to such a nonentity is a matter
of indifference : yet, in tenderness to the scruples of the weak&gt;
we ought to abstain from eating.

1 Now, as to the subject of food that has been offered in
sacrifice to idols, we are quite aware (as you say) that we all have
knowledge ; we all are acquainted with the facts and understand
them. But do not let us forget that knowledge may breed conceit,
while it is love that builds up character. z If any one imagines
that he has acquired knowledge, he may be sure that he has
not yet attained to the knowledge to which he ought to have
attained. 3 But if any one has acquired love of God, this is
the man who is known by God, and God s recognition of him
will not breed conceit. 4 Let us return then from these thoughts
to the subject of eating the flesh of animals that have been sacri
ficed to idols. About that we are quite aware that there is no
such thing in the world as the being that an idol stands for, and
that there is no God but one. 6 For even if so-called gods do
really exist, if you like, in heaven, or, if you like, on earth ;
and, in fact, there are many such gods and many such lords,
6 nevertheless, for us there is but one God, who is the Source of
all things and our Final End, and but one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom the whole universe was made and through whom
we were made anew. 7 Still, as I have intimated, we do not find
in all men the knowledge to which you appeal. On the contrary,
some of you, through being accustomed all their lives to look
upon an idol as real, partake of sacrificed meat as if it were a
real sacrifice to a god, and their conscience, being too weak to

VIII. 1] FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 163

guide them aright, is defiled with the consciousness of having
done something which they feel to be wrong. 8 But surely it is
not food that will affect our relation to God : if we do not eat,
we are none the worse in His sight, and if we do eat, we are
none the better. 9 Always take care, however, that this freedom
of yours to do as you like about eating or not eating does not
become an obstacle to the well-being of the weak. 10 For if any
such person sees you, who have the necessary knowledge, not
only eating this meat, but sitting and eating it in the court of the
idol, will not the very fact of his weakness cause his conscience
to be hardened hardened into letting him eat what he still
believes to be a sacrifice to an idol ? n This must be wrong ;
for it means bringing ruin to the weak man through your know
ledge ruin to the brother for whom Christ died. 12 But in thus
sinning against your brethren, and in fact giving their conscience
a blow which it is too weak to stand, ye are sinning against
Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat puts a stumbling-block in my
brother s way, I will never eat meat again, so long as the world
lasts, rather than put a stumbling-block in my brother s way.

1. riepl 8e T&gt;V eiSwXoOuTuy. St Paul is probably following the
order of the Corinthians questions, but the connexion between
this subject and the advisability of marriage (vii. 2-5, 9, 36) is
close. Impurity and the worship of idols were closely allied
(Rev. ii. 14, 20), especially at Corinth, and either evil might lead
to the other (see Gray on Num. xxv. i, 2). By TO. eiSwXo^vra is
meant the flesh that was left over from heathen sacrifices. This
was either eaten sacrificially, or taken home for private meals,
or sold in the markets (4 Mace. v. 2 ; Acts xv. 29, xxi. 25 ; Rev.
ii. 14, 20). In x. 28 we have IcpoOvrov, which, like OcoOvrov, gives
the heathen point of view.*

oiSajACK. See Rom. ii. 2, iii. 19, and Evans on i Cor. viii. i,
additional note, p. 299. The expression is frequent in Paul.

irdrres yv&vw eyop ev - Perhaps a quotation, made with gentle
irony, from the Corinthians letter. See Moffatt, Lit. of N.T.^
p. 112. They had claimed enlightenment so dear to Greeks
on this subject of the true nature of idol-worship. They knew
now that there were no gods ; the worship of them was a nullity.
The Apostle does not dispute that, but enlightenment is not
everything : and in the gift which is better than enlightenment
the Corinthians are lacking. Some commentators take Trarres
to mean all Christians, which has point. It can hardly mean

* In Aristoph. Aves 1265, mortals are forbidden to send lepbQvrov Kairv6t&gt;
to the gods through the air which belongs to the birds.

1 64 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VIII. 1

the Apostle and all who are similarly illuminated : he is urging
that knowledge is not the prerogative of a privileged few.

T| yyoxris &lt;j&gt;uo-un. Enlightenment is not merely insufficient for
solving these questions ; unless it is accompanied by love, it is
likely to generate pride. While love builds up, mere knowledge
puffs up. Thus in Col. ii. 18 (the only place outside i Cor. in
which the verb occurs) we have, etVrj &lt;/&gt;vcn.ov //.ei 09 vtrb rov voo?
TT?S o-apKo?. The Apostle once more glances at the inflated
self-complacency which was so common at Corinth (iv. 6, 18,
19, v. 2). Puffed up is just what dyd-Try is not (xiii. 4). Cf.
&lt;OO/ACU, i Tim. iii. 6, vi. 4 ; 2 Tim. iii. 4. Est genus scientiae, quo
homines tumescunt ; quae quia charitate non est condita, ideo inftat.
file qui putat se scire, propterea quia intelligit omnia /in fa, et non
inquinare quod in nos intrat (Matt. xv. 1 1, 20), ditm ad scandalum
fratris lirita sumit, nondum cognovit quemadmodum oporteat cum
scire (Atto). Loving consideration for the weakness of others
buttresses them, and strengthens the whole edifice of the
Church (Rom. xiv. 15). Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolic Church,
P- 257.

TJ 8e dyd-mr) oiKoSojxei. For the first time in this letter St Paul
uses this verf) : but oiKo8o/x7J occurs iii. 9 and 7roiKo8o^eii/ iii. 10.
The earliest use of it in his writings is i Thess. v. n, where he
charges the Thessalonians to build up each the other, and it
becomes one of his favourite metaphors, especially in this Epistle
(v. 10, x. 23, xiv. 4, 17), with oiKoSo/xT? still more frequent. It is
possible that our Lord s use of the metaphor of building up His
Church (Matt. xvi. 18) may have suggested it to the Apostle ; but
it is a natural metaphor for any one to use. We find it in Acts
ix. 31, xx. 32 ; i Pet. ii. 5 ; Jude 20; cf. Acts iv. n. It is used
of building up individuals, building up a society, and building
up individuals to form a society (Hort on i Pet. ii. 5).* The
metaphor is elaborately worked out Eph. ii. 20, 21 ; cf. i Cor.
iii. 10-14. Jeremiah was set apart from his birth cu/oi/coSo/xeu/
KCU KaTacf&gt;vTevciv (Jer. i. 10; cf. xviii. 9, xxiv. 6; Ecclus. xlix. 7).
In the hymn in praise of dyd-Try (xiii.) this characteristic is not
mentioned. Cf. Aristotle (Eth. Nic. i. iii. 6), TO re Xos ea-rlv ov
yvujcris dAAa Trpugts : (ii. ii. i) rj Trapovcra Trpay^iareia ov ^ccopta?
kKa COTIV . . . aAA. tv" aya$oi yei/oj/xe$a : also X. ix. I. See
Butler s "Thirdly" in the Sermon on the Ignorance of Man.
On ayaTn; see Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. i98f. ; Light,
p. 1 8.

* In Spencer and other contemporary and earlier writers, edify and
* edification are used in their original sense of constructing buildings. See
Church on Faery Qucene, I. i. 34, and Wright, Bible IVord-Book, p. 219.
It is found as late as 1670, "the re-edifying Layton Church" (Izaac Walton,
Life of G. Herbert, sub fin.).

VIII. 1-3] FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 165

The punctuation of Griesbach, Bengal, etc., oiSa/j-ef 8ri, Now about
things offered we know ; because we all have knowledge, is intolerably
harsh. It would be almost impossible in v. 4, and oi8a/j.cv 8ri in the two
places are evidently parallel. Lachmann conjectured that the original
reading was oida/mev on ov iravrts K.T.\. See Alford.

St Bernard (In Cantica, xxxvi. 3) quotes Persius (i. 27), Scire tuum
nihil est, nisite scire hoc sciat alter, in commenting on this passage, and re
marks : Sunt qtii scire volunt, tit sciantiir ipsi ; et turpis vanitas est. Et
sunt qtti scire vohint, ut scientiam suam vendant ; et turpis quaestus est.
Sed sunt quoque qtii scire volunt ut aedificent ; et charitas est.

2. et TIS SOKCI. If any one fancies (existimat, Vulg. ; sibi
vtdetur, Beza) that he knows anything. The Corinthians fancied
that they knew ; eyva&gt;Keva.L (perf.) that they had acquired know
ledge, and that the knowledge was complete. If they had had
more real knowledge they would have been less confident. It
is the man of superficial knowledge that is ready to solve all
questions ; and this readiness is evidence of want of real know
ledge, for it shows that he does not know how ignorant he is..
Cf. iii. 18, xi. 16; i Tim. i. 7. In O^TTOJ there is no reference
to a future life.

3. et 8e TIS dyaira. This is the sure test, love ; and love of
the highest of all objects, which is the highest form of love,
the love of Love Itself. This is a very different thing from
thinking that one knows something.

OUTOS eY* /w&lt;TTat "^ aurou. The sentence is ambiguous in
grammar, for either pronoun may refer to the man, and either
to God ; but there is no reasonable doubt that OVTO? is the man,
who is recognized and acknowledged by God as His. In a
special sense, The Lord knoweth them that are His (2 Tim.
ii. 19 ; Ps. i. 6 ; Nahum i. 7 ; Jer. i. 5 ; Isa. xlix. i). To Moses
He said, I know thee by name, OtSa o- irapa. Wi/ras (Exod.
xxxiii. 12, 17). It is in this sense that the man who loves God
is known by God. We might have expected the Apostle to say,
either, * He who knows God is known by Him (Gal. iv. 9), or
He who loves God is loved by Him (i John iv. 19): but the
combination of the two verbs is more telling, and more to his
purpose. One who in this special sense is known by God may
safely be assumed to possess what may rightly be called yvukrts
and not something which merely generates pride. He has the
highest recognition of all in being known by God, and is not
eager to show off in order to gain the recognition of men. file
veram habet scientiam qui Deum diligit ; ei gut diligit Deum^
fratris, ut suam, diligit salvationem (Atto). Consequently, the
man who loves God is the one who can rightly solve the question
about food offered to idols. What effect will his partaking of
it have on his fellow-Christian s progress in holiness?

166 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VIII. 4

4. riepl rfjs {Spwo-ews ou^. After these preliminary considera
tions (vv. 1-3), which indicate the direction in which a solution
of the question is likely to be found, he returns with a resump
tive ovv (Gal. iii. 5) to the question mentioned in v. i, and states
it more definitely. We now learn that it was respecting the
lawfulness of eating what had been offered to idols that the
Corinthians wanted to have his decision. It was a question of
very frequent occurrence. In private sacrifices certain portions
of the animal were the perquisite of the priests, but nearly all
the rest might be taken away by the offerer, to be eaten at home
or sold. In public sacrifices made by the state the skins and
carcases, which at Athens sometimes amounted to hundreds,
were an important source of revenue and patronage, the skins
being sold for the state (TO Sep/xtm/coV), and the flesh being
distributed to magistrates and others, who would sell what they
did not need for home consumption. Smith, Diet, of Grk. and
Rom. Ant. n. p. 585. In the markets and in private houses
etScoAo0imx were constantly to be found.

oiSajick. Here again he seems to be quoting from the
Corinthian letter ; What you say about the nullity of idols is
quite true, but it does not settle the matter. Cf. i Tim. i. 8.

on ou&ey ei&wXoy ... on ouSels eos. These two clauses
are parallel, and they should be translated in a similar way;
and, as ouSa s cannot be the predicate, ouSeV is not the predicate,
although most versions take it so (quia nihil est idolum in mundo,
Vulg. ; dass ein Gotze nichts in der Welt set, Luth.). Either,
that there is no idol in the world, and that there is no God
but one, or that nothing in the world is an idol, and that no
being is God except one, is probably right, and the former is
far better: cf. Mark x. 18; Luke xviii. 19. An idol professes
to be an image of a god, not of the only God, and such a thing
does not, and cannot, exist, for you cannot represent what has
no existence. If there is no Zeus, an et8w/W of Zeus is an
impossibility. It represents a no-god (see Driver on Deut.
xxxii. 17, 21), and the maker of it tTrXao-tv avro xwi/eu/xa, &lt;/&gt;ai/-
Tacmii/ i//vSr) (Hab. ii. 18). This is what is meant by they ate
the sacrifices of the dead (Ps. cvi. 28; cf. cxv. 4-8, cxxxv.
15-18), deaf and dumb idols (xii. 2) in contrast to the living
God. They are called vcicpof, Wisd. xiii. 10, xv. 17. Jews
regarded them as * nothing (aven\ mere lies (eliUm).

With ei/ KOO-/XO) here compare Rom. v. 13. In the ordered
universe there can be only one God, viz., the God who
made it.

D 3 E 17, Vulg. read irepl 8t TTJS ppAaeus without otiv. D* has Trepl 5t
rrjs 7vu&gt;crews, and P 121, irfpl rrjs yvtlxreus o$v. After ovdels 0e6s, X 3 K L,
Syrr. add ^repos, as in AV. None of these readings is likely to be right.

VIII. 5, 6] FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 167

5. KCU yap etirep K.T.\. For even granted that there are so-
called gods, whether in heaven or upon earth, just as there are
gods many and lords many. Here tt-n-cp do-w and oxrTrep eto-tV
are correlative, and CMTIV must be taken in the same sense in
both clauses. If both refer to what really exists, the meaning
will be, If you like to say that, because there are super
natural beings in abundance, as we all believe, therefore the
so-called gods of the heathen really exist, nevertheless for us
Christians there is only one God. * If both refer to heathen
superstition, the meaning will be, Granted that there are so-
called gods, as there are plenty of them ; still for us, etc. He
seems to mean that to the worshippers the idol is an object
of adoration ; so that, while actually they worship a nonentity,
ethically they are worshippers of Scu/zoVio, (x. 20). Jehovah is
God of gods and Lord of lords (Deut. x. 17; Ps. cxxxvi. 2, 3),
and therefore the second eru&gt; probably refers to actual existence.
Moreover, St Paul, while denying that the heathen gods existed
(see Lightfoot on Gal. iv. 8), yet held that heathen sacrifices
were offered to beings that do exist (x. 19-21); there were
supernatural powers behind the idols, although not the gods
which the idols represented. It is perhaps too much to say
that etTrep, which in N.T. is peculiar to St Paul (2 Thess. i. 6 ;
Rom. iii. 30, viii. 9, 17), is used of what the writer holds to
be true or probable, yet it certainly does not imply that the
hypothesis is improbable : granted that is the meaning. See
Sanday and Headlam, p. 96 ; Thackeray, p. 144. Whether in
heaven or on earth gives the two main divisions of the KOO-/ZO?
in v. 4. Dicuntur dii in caelo, ut sol, luna et varia sidera ; in
terra, imago Jovis, Mercurii atque Herculis (Atto). More pro
bably the latter are the heavenly, while the earthly are the
nymphs, fauns, etc. See Stanley s notes on this verse.

6. dXX TjfjLip els 0e6s 6 iron-rip. * Nevertheless (whatever may
the truth about these), for us believers (emphatically) there is
one God, the Father, from whom come all things, while we tend
towards Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all
things, we also through Him.f There are two parallel triplets;
$eoi 7roAA.oi, els cos, TO, Trdvra : KvpLoi TroAAoi, ts Kvptos, TO,
Trai/ra. The one God is compared on the one side with many
gods, on the other with the sum total of the universe : so also
the one Lord. The comparison results in opposition in the one
case, in harmony in the other. The iroXXot are intolerable rivals

* Qrwcutique te flexeris, ibi ilium videbis occurrentem tibi ; nihil ab illo
vacat, opus suum ipse iniplet (Seneca, De Benef. iv. 8 ; compare M. Aurelius,
xii. 28 ; Xen. Mem. iv. iii. 13). There is a close parallel in I Tim. ii. 5.

f With efirep . . . dXXd here compare tav . . . dXXd in iv. 15. The context
implies only one God. See Deissmann, New Light on the N. T. p. 8l.

1 68 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [vin. 6, 7

to the is CD? and els Ku ptos : TO. WI/TO. are welcome creatures.
The T7/XUS, like the previous VIMV, means we Christians. Bruta
animalia et infideles homines in terrain curvantur et terrena quae-
runt y* nos vero per fidem et desiderium tendimus in eum a quo
descendimus (Herv.). God is the central Fount and the central
Goal : all beings proceed from the former ; only believers
consciously work towards the latter. See Resch, Agrapha,
p. 129.

In the case of Jesus Christ we have the same preposition
(8ta c. gen.) with both TO. TTO.VTO. and ly/xets.t But 8t .ou does
not refer to the same fact as 6Y avrov. The former points to
the Son s work in creation, the latter to His work in the new
creation of mankind. * If any man is in Christ there is a new
creation (2 Cor. v. 17; see Lightfoot on Gal. vi. 15). "This
verse contains the earliest statement in the N.T. as to the work
of our Lord in creation. This is stated more fully in Col. i.
1 6-1 8. There, as here, the work of our Lord in creation and
His work for the Church are spoken of together" (Goudge).
Per quern creati sumus ut essemus, per ipsum recreati sumus ut
unum Deum intelligeremus, atque idolum nihil esse recognos-
ceremus (Atto). The statement is clear evidence of the Apostle s
belief in the pre-existence of Christ ; see on x. 4, where we have
similar evidence. Schmiedel remarks that Paul nowhere else
ascribes to Christ a share in the work of creation ; but, as he
frequently teaches the pre-existence, it is not going much further
to ascribe to Him this work. Wace & Schaff, Nicene Library,
IV. Athanasius, p. Ixxi. n. ; Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent
Research, p. 131; J. Kaftan, Jesus u. Paulus, p. 64; Weinel,
St Paul, p. 45.

B, Fay. omit d\\ before TJIMV. K* omits 0eos. B, Aeth. have 5t ov
for 81 o5.

7. A\X OUK iv Trdaiv rj yi/wats. c But not in all people is
there the knowledge which is necessary for eating idol-meats
without harm. They do not know the principle on which the
more enlightened do this. Non omnes sciunt quod propter con-
temptum hoc fadatis, sed putant vos propter venerationem hoc
facere (Primasius) ; and they know that any veneration of an
idol must be wrong. There is perhaps a difference intended

* But the unbelieving heathen must not be wholly excluded from the efr
O.VTUV. While the Jew was being drawn by a special revelation through the
Prophets towards God, the Gentile was groping his way in a general revelation
through the order of Nature towards Him, till the course of both was com
pleted by the revelation in Christ (Gwatkin, Early Church History, p. 15).

t The AV. is very inaccurate, translating s in instead of unto, and
Sid by instead of through. B. W. Bacon regards vv. 6 and 8 as quotations
from the Corinthians letter.

VIII. 7] FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 169

between having knowledge (v. i) and its being in them as an
effective and illuminating principle.

Ti^es 8e rfj o-unrjOeia cws apri TOU ei&wXou. To take eo&gt;s apri
with eo-Oiowriv, continue the practice of eating such food even
until now, simplifies the translation, but it is not correct: rfj &lt;r.
ews apn T. ciS. is all one expression, in which ecus apri (iv. 13,
xv. 6) qualifies rrj or. It is the force of habit which lasts even
until now. They have been so accustomed to regard an idol
as a reality, as representing a god that exists, that even now,
in spite of their conversion, they cannot get rid of the feeling
that, by eating food which has been offered to an idol, they
are taking part in the worship of heathen gods ; they cannot
eat t/c TrurTews (Rom. xiv. 23). Consequently, when the example
of other Christians encourages them to eat meat of this kind,
they do what they feel to be wrong. But some, through the
force of habit which still clings to them respecting the idol, eat
the meat as being an idol sacrifice. Missionaries at the present
day have similar experiences. A belief in witchcraft long con
tinues to lurk in otherwise well-instructed Christians, and
(against their reason and their conscience) they allow them
selves to be influenced by it. Note the emphasis on rfj a-wrjOfiq.
oo&lt;? apn, and compare the datives in Gal. vi. 12 and Rom. xi. 31.

KCU rj auyi&T]&lt;ns aurwi daOe^? ouaa fioXuVeTCii. And so their
conscience, being weak, is defiled. It is defiled, not by the
partaking of polluted food, for food cannot pollute (Mark vii.
1 8, 19; Luke xi. 41), but by the doing of something which the
unenlightened conscience does not allow. Cf. 2 Cor. vii i. An
uninstructed conscience may condemn what is not wrong, or allow
what is ; but even in such cases it ought to be obeyed. See notes
on Rom. xiv. 23. It is not quite clear what is meant by ao-fovr/s.
It may mean too weak to resist the temptation of following
the example of others, or weak through being unilluminated. *
In either case it is defiled by a consciousness of guilt. The
man feels that he is doing what is wrong ; and, until he knows
the real merits of the case, he is doing what is wrong. For
crwrjOcia see xi. 16; John xviii. 39; 4 Mac. ii. 12 (6 yap j/o/xos
KCU TT?&lt; &lt;i A.(uv orvvrjGtias 8ecr7roei, Sia irovrjpLas avrovs t^eAey^wv),
vi. 13, xiii. 22, 27 ; and for crwct$?/&lt;rts see notes on Rom. ii. 15
and Westcott on Heb. ix. 9, p. 293 : crwet S^crts is rare in LXX,
frequent in the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews. See Hastings,

* Perhaps xi. 30 indicates that dadevris here means unhealthy, morbid,
and so incapable of healthy action : cf. Luke x. 9; Acts v. 15. Words
signifying w eakness of body easily become used of mental and moral weak
ness. A healthy conscience would not be uneasy about eating such food,
and eating would then cause no defilement. In Ecclus. xxi. 28 the slanderer
jUoXum TT)v eavrov \frvxr)v : in blackening his neighbour s character he violates
and blackens his own conscience.

I/O FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VIII. 7, 8

DB. I. pp. 468 f. The weakness consists in giving moral
value to things that are morally indifferent. That must lessen
the power of conscience.

ffvvr)deiq (N*ABP 17, Copt. Aeth.) is to be preferred to &lt;rvvei8ri&lt;ri
(K 3 D E F G L, Vulg. Arm. ), and ws &pn should precede TOV d5u\ov
(NBDEFG, Latt.), not follow it (ALP). With conscience of the
idol (AV.) is hardly intelligible, and with consciousness of the idol is
not much better. If ffvveidrjcrei be adopted, we must expand the meaning ;
with the scruple of conscience which they feel about the idol (Evans).

8. PpoJjjia 8e TjfJius ou TrapaoTTJaei TU&gt; 0eu&gt;. Commend (AV.,
RV.) is perhaps a trifle too definite for TraptW^/xt : present is
accurate, meaning present for approbation or condemnation.
In this passage the Apostle probably had approbation chiefly
in his mind, but in what follows both alternatives are given.
Food will not bring us into any relation, good or bad, with God :
it will have no effect on the estimate which He will form respect
ing us, or on the judgment which He will pronounce upon us.
It is not one of the things which we shall have to answer for
(Rom. xiv. 1 7). It is the clean heart, and not clean food, that will
matter ; and the weak brother confounds the two. The question
of tense (see small print below) is important. The future can
hardly refer to anything but the Day of Judgment. For the
verb cf. Rom. vi. 13, xiv. 10; 2 Cor. iv. 14. The translation
commend obscures the reference to a judgment to come :
* will not affect our standing before God is right.

OUTC lay fJiT) 4&gt;dy&lt;ofAei&gt;, ucrrepoufieOa. If we abstain from
eating we are not prejudiced (in God s sight), and if we eat
we have no advantage. We lose nothing by refraining from
using our liberty in this matter, and we gain nothing by
exercising it. Others explain va-rfpovpcOa of being inferior to
the man who does not abstain, and Tre/aeoro-cvo/xei/ of being
superior to the man who does abstain. This explanation is
somewhat superficial and loses all connexion with the preceding
sentence. Almost certainly TO&gt; eu) is to be understood in both
clauses. See Alexander, The Ethics of St Paul, p. 239.

For T?/ms the evidence is overwhelming, but K* 17, 37 read u/ias. The
two words are often confused in MSS. Trapao-r^cret (& A B 17, Copt.) is
to be preferred to TrapiffTrjffi (K ;J D E L P, Latt.). The yap after the first
otfre (D E F G L P, Vulg-Clem.) should be omitted (N A B 17, Am. Copt.
Arm. Aeth.). And probably cure tav JJLT) 0. , VVT. should precede of/re lav
0., ircp. (A* B, Am. Copt. Arm.) rather than vice versa (K D F L P, Syrr.).
The interchange of the verbs, iav /JLT) 0., 7re/x, otfre lav &lt;., WTT. (A 2 17),
is not likely to be right, although adopted by Lachm. The interchange
of the clauses was a natural correction, in ordtr to put the positive before
the negative hypothesis. The Apostle puts the negative first, because that
is the course which he recommends ; If we do not eat, although we may,
we are in no worse position before God. The form Trepicr&lt;retofjLeda
(B, Orig.), adopted by the Revisers, is probably a mechanical assimilation
to wrre/&gt;oy/ie0a.

VIII. 9, 10] FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS I/I

9. pXe irere 8e pr] irws *j c^ouata ujj.ui . * Take heed, however,
lest this liberty of yours prove a stumbling-block to the weak.
It is lawful for those whose consciences are enlightened to do
as they like about it (lo\xria.v as in vii. 37, ix. 4, and as e^ecmv
in vi. 12); their eating will not do them any harm. But it may
do harm to others^ and thus may bring the eaters into a worse
position before God. See notes on Rom. xiv. 13, 20: excepting
the quotation in i Pet. ii. 8, Trpoo-Ko/x/xa in N.T. is confined to
this passage and Romans ; in LXX it is not rare. It is that
against which the man with weak sight stumbles ; it is no
obstacle to the man who sees his way; but the weak-sighted
must be considered.*

(N A B D E F, etc.), as in v. 7 ; foetvowriv (L, Chrys. Thdrt.)
perhaps from v. n. P

10. eV elSuXiu KaraKcifj.ei oi . In order to show how the
offendiculum (Vulg.) arises, he takes an extreme case. A Cor
inthian, in a spirit of bravado, to show his superior enlightenment
and the wide scope of his Christian freedom, not only partakes
of idol-meats, but does so at a sacrificial banquet within the
precincts of the idol-temple. This was per se idolatrous ; but
St Paul holds the more severe condemnation in reserve : see on
x. i4f.f The rbv cxpvra -yvwo-Lv may mean either that this is the
man s own belief about himself, or that it is the weak brother s
opinion of him. EiScoXtov, vocabulum aptum ad deterrendum
(Beng.), is not classical : in LXX it occurs i Esdr. ii. 10 ; Bel 1 1 ;
i Mac. i. 47 (v./. ei8o&gt;A.a), x. 83 ; and in i Sam. xxxi. 10 we have
the analogous Ao-TapTciov, like ATroAAaweioi , IlocretSwvctoi , etc. I
Such words are frequent in papyri.

daOerous orros. Seeing that he is weak. It is just because
he is feeble in insight and character that this following of a
questionable example builds up his conscience in a disastrous

* "The stronger one can, for the sake of the weaker, refrain from using
this liberty ; but the weaker cannot, on account of his conscience, follow the
example of the stronger" (B. Weiss).

t Grenfell and Hunt (Oxyrhynchus Papyri, I. p. 177) give an invitation
to sup at the K\ivij of the Lord Serapis in the Serapeium. There is another
invitation to a meal in honour of Serapis in a private house. See Bach-
mann, p. 307 ; also Deissmann, Light, p. 355.

+ It is possible that St Paul used the unusual word elduXiov, because he
was unwilling to put words with such sacred associations as iepov or VO.QS to
any such use (Edwards). But ft8(a\ov (v. 4) suggests cld&Xtov, and no other
word would have expressed the meaning so clearly. It is also possible that
olKoSofL-rjdrjcreTai (a strange word in this connexion) is a sarcastic quotation
of a Corinthian expression. Perhaps they talked of edifying the weak
brethren by showing them to what lengths they could go. This was
"educating their consciences," but it was a ruinosa aedificatio (Calv.). The
best MSS. have ei SwXty, not et SwXet y : compare ddviov, Matt, xviii. 27. In
Luke x. 34, TravSoxiov is well attested.

1/2 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VIII. 10-12

way. His conscience is not sufficiently instructed to tell him
that he may eat without scruple, and yet he eats. Doing
violence to scruples is no true edification: it is rather a pulling
down of bulwarks. Tertullian seems to have had this passage
in his mind when he says of those who are seduced into heresy ;
Solent quidem isti infirmiores aedificari in ruinam (De Praescr.
Haer. 3). Atto paraphrases ; provocabitur manducare idolothyta,
non tamen ea fide qua tu. It is ruinosa aedificatio^ quae in sana
doctrina fundata non est (Calv.).

The a before TOV ^x VTa is omitted by B F G, Vulg. Some editors
bracket it, but it is well attested (tf A D E L P, Syrr. Copt. Arm).
65o7roi77#77creTGU is an insipid conjecture for oiKo8ofj.r]flri(TeTai, which is
deliberately chosen with gentle irony, and needs no mending.

11. diroXXuTcu yap 6 avQevwv iv r. a. yv. For it is destruc
tion that he who is weak finds in thy knowledge. Ruin, and
not building up, is what he is getting by following the example
of one who is better instructed than himself. There is the
tragedy of it; that the illumination of one Corinthian is pre
cisely the field in which another Corinthian takes the road to
ruin. And the tragedy reaches a climax in the fact that the
one who is led astray is the brother in Christ of him who leads
him astray, and is one whom Christ died to save from ruin.
The last clause could hardly be more forcible in its appeal ;
every word tells ; * the brother, not a mere stranger ; for the
sake of whom, precisely to rescue him from destruction ;
Christ, no less than He; died, no less than that: cf. Rom.
xiv. 15. Tu en s occasio mortis ejus propter quern Christus^ ut
redimeret, mortuus est (Herv.). See Matt, xviii. 6.

d,7roX. yap (N* B 17, Copt. Goth.) is to be preferred to KCU ctTroX.
(K ( D*, d e) or ctTroX. obv (A P 39). And /ecu ctTroXemu, though well sup
ported (D 3 E F G L, Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth.), looks like a correction to
assimilate the tense with oiKoSo^d-fifferai and carry on the question through
v. II. The question ends at effdieiv, and what follows is explanation.
The emphatic position of ciTrdXXurcu, and also the tense, have force ; it
is no less than destruction that results, and the destruction is already at
work.

12. OUTWS Se djxapTdVorres is TOUS d&. But by sinning
against your brothers in such a way as this : OUTWS is emphatic.
This verse confirms the view that cts T. tS. o-uj/Aa a/xa/rr. (vi. 18)
must mean sins against his own body.

KOLI Tuirroi Tes. And by inflicting blows upon their conscience
in its weakness. The KCU makes the d/naprai/oj/Tes more definite,
by showing the kind of injury. The force of the present
participles should be noted : the wounding is a continued pro
cess, and so also is the weakliness ; not dcrflei/r;, but aa-Oevovo-av.
Nowhere else in N.T. is TVTTTW used in a metaphorical sense :

VIII. 12, 13] FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 173

elsewhere only in the Synoptists and Acts. But this sense occurs
in LXX (i Sam. i. 8; Prov. xxvi. 22 ; Dan. xi. 20). Wounding
and * weakening are in emphatic contrast : what requires the
tenderest handling is brutally treated, so that its sensibility is
numbed. The wounding is not the shock which the weak
Christian receives at seeing a fellow-Christian eating idol-meats
in an idol-court, but the inducement to do the like, although he
believes it to be wrong. His conscience is lamed by being
crushed. This is the third metaphor used respecting the weak
conscience ; it is soiled (v. 7), made to stumble (v. 9), wounded
(v. 12). The order of the words is a climax; inflicting blows,
not on the back, but on the conscience, and on the conscience
when it is in a weakly state.

cis Xpioroy &lt;XJA. Like OUT(DS and TVTTTOVTZS, eis Xp. is emphatic
by position : * it is against Christ that ye are sinning. St Paul
may have known the parable of the Sheep and the Goats
(Matt. xxv. 40, 45), but Christ Himself had taught him that an
injury to the brethren was an injury to Himself (Acts ix. 4, 5).

13. Sio-n-cp. For this very reason, i.e. to avoid sinning
against Christ ; the trip strengthens the Sio : here and x. 14 only,
in N.T. See 2 Mac. v. 20, vi. 27.

et ppw|j.a K.r.X. If food causes my brother to stumble, I will
certainly never eat flesh again for evermore, that I may not make
my brother to stumble. The declaration is conditional. If the
Apostle knows of definite cases in which his eating food will lead
to others being encouraged to violate the dictates of conscience,
then certainly he will never eat meat so long as there is real
danger of this (x. 28, 29). But if he knows of no such danger,
he will use his Christian freedom and eat without scruple
(x. 25-27). He does not, of course, mean that the whole practice
of Christians is to be regulated with a view to the possible
scrupulousness of the narrow-minded. That would be to sacrifice
our divinely given liberty (2 Cor. iii. 17) to the ignorant pre
judices of bigots. The circumstances of this or that Christian
may be such that it is his duty to abstain from intoxicants,
although he is never tempted to drink to excess ; but Christians
in general are bound by no such rule, and it would be tyranny
to try to impose such a rule.

The change from fipwjjLa to /cpe a is natural enough. If such
a thing as food (which is always a matter of indifference)
causes ... I will never again eat flesh (which is in question
here), etc. Note how he harps on d8cA&lt;ds.

In dealing with both the question of fornication and that of
eating idol-meats, the Apostle brings the solution ultimately from
our relation to Christ. Fornication is taking from Christ what
is His property and giving it to a harlot. Reckless eating of idol-

174 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 1-27

meats is an injury inflicted on Christ. In neither case does he
appeal to the decree of the Apostles at the conference in Jerusalem
(Acts xv. 20, 29). The principles to which he appeals were far
more cogent, especially for Greeks.* Compare carefully Rom.
xix. 14, 17, 21.

In his recent (1908) paper on the Apostolic Decree (Acts xv. 20-29),
Dr. Sanday says ; " The decree was only addressed in the first instance to a
limited area : and I can well believe that it soon fell into comparative disuse
even within that area. It is true that, as we read it in the Acts, the decree
has the appearance of a very authoritative document. Something of this
appearance may be due to a mistaken estimate on the part of St Luke him
self. But, even so, we are apt to read into it more than it really means.
For the moment the decree had a real significance : it meant a united
Christendom, instead of a disunited. Many an official document has had
a temporary success of this kind, which the course of events has soon
caused to become a dead letter. That was really the fate of the decree.
The tide of events ebbed away from it, and it was left on the beach
stranded and lifeless lifeless at least for the larger half of the Church, for
that Gentile Church which soon began to advance by leaps and bounds."

"As to any further difficulty from St Paul s treatment of meats offered
in sacrifice to idols, I confess that I think little of it. He could upon
occasion become a Jew to the Jews. But the decree, we may be sure,
made no impression upon his mind. It "contributed nothing" to his
Gospel. It was no outcome of his religious principles. It was just a
practical concordat, valid in certain specified regions and under certain
definite conditions. But when he was altogether outside these, among his
own converts, he dealt with them by his own methods, and without any
thought of the authorities at Jerusalem."

The inference, from St Paul s silence, that Acts xv. belongs to a period
later than this Epistle, is quite untenable.

IX. 1-27. THE GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE.

I have not asked you to forego more rights than I forego
myself. For the sake of otJiers I surrender, not only what
any Christian may claim, but what I can claim as an
Apostle.

1 Can it be denied that I am a free agent, that I have the
authority and independence of an Apostle? I have seen our
Lord face to face and He made me His Apostle, and you who
were won over to Him through me are a standing proof of my
Apostleship. 2 It may be possible for other Christians to
question whether I am an Apostle or not, but you at least
cannot do so, for your very existence as a Christian Church is
the seal which authenticates my Apostleship. 3 There you have
my answer to those who challenge my claim.

* See Gwatkin, Early Church History y i. 57, 63.

IX. 1-27] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 175

4 Surely we are free to do as we think best about eating and
drinking at the cost of the Churches, 5 to do as we think best
about taking with us on our journey a Christian sister as a wife,
as also the rest of the Apostles do, and the brethren of the
Lord, and Peter. 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas that are not
free to do as we think best about working no longer for a living ?
7 No soldier on service finds his own outfit and rations. If you
plant a vineyard, you expect to partake of the produce, and if
you tend cattle, you expect to get a share of the milk.

8 I am not saying all this merely from a worldly point of
view. 9 The Divine Law assumes just the same principle. In
the Law of Moses it stands written, Thou shalt not muzzle the
ox while it is treading out the grain. Do you think that it was
merely out of consideration for the oxen that God caused that to
be written ? 10 Surely He was looking beyond them, and it is
really for us preachers that He says this. No doubt it was in
our interest that this law was enacted ; because thus the
principle is laid down that the plougher ought not to plough, and
the thresher ought not to thresh, without a good prospect of
sharing in the profit. n Well then, if it is we who in your
hearts sowed the seeds of spiritual life, is it a very outrageous
thing that we out of your purses shall reap some worldly benefit ?

12 If others get their share of this right of maintenance from you,
have not we who taught you first a still better right ? Neverthe
less, we did not avail ourselves of this right. On the contrary,
we put up with every kind of privation, rather than cause the
spread of the Glad-tidings of Christ to be in any way hampered.

13 Of course you know that those who are engaged in the
temple-services are maintained out of the temple-funds ; those
who serve at the altar share the sacrifices with the altar. H On
the same principle the Lord directed that those who proclaim the
Glad-tidings should out of this work get enough to live on.
15 But I have availed myself of none of these pleas.

Now do not think that I write all this in order that the
maintenance due to preachers should henceforth be granted in
my case. Indeed not ; for it would be better for me by far to
die than submit to that : no one shall make void my glorying in
taking nothing for my work. 16 It is quite true that I do preach
the Glad-tidings ; but there is no glorying about that : it is a
duty which I must perform, must, because it will be the worse

I?6 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 1-27

for me if I do not perform it. 17 If I did this spontaneously, I
should have my pay : but seeing that I do it because I must, it
is a stewardship which has been entrusted to me. 18 What pay
then do I get ? Why, the pleasure of being a preacher who gives
the Glad-tidings free of charge, so as not to use to the full a
preacher s right to maintenance.

19 So far from claiming my full rights, I submit to great
curtailments. For, free and independent though I am from all
men, yet I made myself all men s slave, in order that I might
win more of them. 20 Thus to the Jews I became as a Jew, that
I mi^ht win Jews. That means that to those under the Mosaic
Law I became like one of themselves (although, of course, I am
nothing of the kind), that I might win those under the Law.
21 To the Gentiles who are free from the Law I became like one
of them (although, of course, I am not free from God s law ; on
the contrary, I am under Christ s law), that I might win those
who are free from the Law. 22 To the men of tender scruples
I became like one of them, that I might win such people as
these. In short, to all kinds of men I have assumed all kinds of
characters, in order at all costs to save some. 23 But all this
variety I practise for one and the same reason, that I may not
keep the Gospel to myself but share its blessings with others.

24 You know that the competitors in a race all run, but only
one gets the prize. 25 You must run like him, so as to secure it.
Now, every one that competes in the games is in all directions
temperate. They verily aim at winning a perishable crown, but
we one that is imperishable. 26 1 accordingly so run as being in
no doubt about my aim ; I so fight as not wasting blows on the
air. 27 Far from it ; I direct heavy blows against my body, and
force it to be my slave, lest my preaching to others should end
in my own rejection.

It is a mistake to regard this chapter as an independent
section in defence of the writer s claim to be an Apostle. It is
part of the discussion of the question as to eating food that has
been offered to idols, in the midst of which it is inserted.
Christians may eat such food, without fear of pollution ; but in
doing so they may harm other Christians : therefore, where there
is risk of harming others, they should forbear. To show that
this forbearance ought not to seem hard, he points out that his
habitual forbearance is greater than that which he would

IX. 1] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 177

occasionally claim from them. As in vi. i, he begins with
animated questions. The conjecture that ix. i-x. 22 is part of
the letter mentioned in v. 9 is not probable.

1. OUK eifil \eu 6epos ; OUK CIJJLI dirooroXos ; This is the order of
the questions in the best texts (see below). Have I not the
freedom of a Christian ? Have I not the rights of an Apostle ?
Logically, this is the better order ; but even if it were not, the
evidence for it is too strong to be set aside on such grounds. It
is the thought that he forbears to claim, not only what any
Christian may claim, but also the exceptional claims of an
Apostle, that makes him digress on an explanation of what an
Apostle may claim. In v. 19 he glances back at his general
independence. Cf. Gal. ii. 4, 5.

ouxl I. T. K. f\pC)v ewpaica ; This question and the next
vindicate the claim made in the second question. He is
certainly an Apostle, for he has the essential qualification of
having seen the Risen Lord (Acts i. 22, ii. 32, iii. 15, iv. 33, etc.),
and his preaching has had the power of an Apostle (2 Cor. iii. i f.,
xii. 12). The reference is to the Lord s appearance to him on
the way to Damascus, w&lt;f&gt;0ri *d/W (xv. 8); an appearance
which he regarded as similar in kind to the appearances to the
Eleven on the Easter Day and afterwards. Whether he is also
referring to the experiences mentioned in Acts xviii. 9, xxii. 17,
and 2 Cor. xii. 2-4 is uncertain. It is a mistake to say that we
are not told that he saw the Lord who spoke to him on the
way to Damascus. This is expressly stated, Acts ix. 1 7 (o&lt;0etY),
27 (eTSev), xxii. 14 (tSeti ).* Note that in this important question
we have the stronger form of the negative, which is specially
frequent in this argumentative Epistle (i. 20, iii. 3, v. 12, vi. 7,
viii. 10, x. 1 6, 1 8). In the N.T. Epistles it is almost confined
to this group of the Pauline Epistles.

Nowhere else does St Paul use the expression I have seen
Jesus the Lord, and he seldom uses the name Jesus without
Christ either before or after. See notes on Rom. i. i, pp. 3 f.
When he does use the name * Jesus he commonly refers to our
Lord s life on earth, especially in connexion with His Death or
Resurrection (i Thess. i. 10, iv. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 10-14). In
Rom. iv. 24 we have Jesus our Lord, as here, and in both
cases the reference is to the risen Jesus. The use of Jesus
without Christ is very rare in the later Epistles : once in
Philippians (ii. 10), once in Ephesians (iv. 21), and not at all
in Colossians or the Pastoral Epistles. See J. A. Robinson,
Ephesians, pp. 23, 107; Milligan, Thessalonians, p. 135; Selbie,

* See Weinel, St Paid, pp. 79 f. ; A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of
St Paul. pp. 39 f., a valuable chapter.

1/8 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 1, 2

Aspects of Christ, pp. 71 f., a careful discussion of the question
whether it is possible to separate the Christ of St Paul from
the Jesus of history. See also the lectures of Dr. MofTatt and
Dr. Milligan in Religion and the Modern World, Hodder, 1909,
pp. 205-253. The Christ who appeared to Saul on the road
to Damascus declared Himself to be the historic Jesus whom
Saul was persecuting, and he thus not merely saw Jesus our
Lord, but received a voice from His mouth (Acts xxii. 14).
That rested on his own testimony ; but the fact of his conversion
and the work that he had done since that day was known to all
(iv. 15 ; 2 Cor. xii. 12).

TO epY&lt;&gt;y JJLOU. The founding of the Corinthian Church was
a work worthy of an Apostle : ab effectu jam secundo loco probat
suum Apostolatum (Calv.). Edwards quotes meum opus es (Seneca,
Ep. 34). Lest he should seem to be claiming what he disclaims
in iii. 5-7, he adds in the Lord : only in that power could such
a work have been accomplished (iii. 9, iv. 15).

The order of the first two questions adopted above (t\ev6epos before
dTToo-roXos) is that of K A B P, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth., Orig. Tert. The
other is that of D E F G K L, Goth., which with P, Arm. insert Xpivrbv
either before or after IT/O-OU* . K A B, Am. and other versions omit XpHrrdv.

2. ci aXXois OUK i|AL cbrooToXos. The emphatic v/xets of the
previous clause leads to an argumentum ad hominem. The
Corinthians are the very last people who could reasonably
question his claim to be an Apostle : at any rate to them he
must be one.* For my certificate of Apostleship are ye 1
(2 Cor. iii. 2). They themselves are a certificate of the fact, a
certificate the validity of which lies in the same sphere as the
success of his work; it is in the Lord. Authentication is the
idea which is specially indicated by the figurative &lt;r&lt;payi9. No
where in N.T. does o-^payis seem to be used, as often in later
writings, with reference to baptism. See notes on Rom. iv. n,
p. 107; Lightfoot, Epp. of Clem. ii. p. 226; Hastings, DB.
Art. Seal. Preachers who were not Apostles might convert
many, but the remarkable spiritual gifts which Corinthians
possessed were a guarantee that one who was more than a mere
preacher had been sent to them. Paulus a fructu colligit se
divinitus missum esse (Calv.). The aAXot? may allude to the
Galatians.

* dXXct ye occurs nowhere else in N.T., except Luke xxiv. 21, where see
footnote, p. 553. He could not prove to any one that he had seen the Lord ;
but Corinthians at any rate had no need of such evidence to convince them
that he was an Apostle. He seems to be glancing at the rival teachers who
questioned his claim to the title. See Dobschiitz, Probleme des Ap. Zeitalters,
p. 105 ; Fletcher, The Conversion of St Paul, pp. 63 f. ; Ramsay, Pictures of
the Apostolic Age, pp. iO2f.

IX. 3, 4] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 179

IJLOV TTJS d-rroffToXrjs with X B P 17, Orig., rather than rrjs /j.rjs air. with
D E F G K L. A few inferior witnesses have

3. rj e jAT) diroXoyta . . . l(niv aurrj. WH. follow Chrysostom
and Ambrose in making this verse refer to what follows ; so also
AV. and the Revisers. RV. leaves it doubtful. But it is more
probable that it refers to what precedes. That I have seen the
Risen Lord, and that you are such a Church as you are, there
you have my defence when people ask me for the evidence of
my Apostleship. What follows tells us that he refrained from
making his converts maintain him, and no one disputed his right
to do that : but the Judaizers did dispute his right to be
accounted an Apostle. The e//,?? and e/W look back to &lt;r&lt;j&gt;payi&lt;:
/AOV TT/S dTroo-ToA^?. M} reply to those who examine me is this :
e/t, not fie. Moreover vv. 4-11 are not so much a defence as a
statement of claims. Defence begins in the middle of v. 12 ; but
a superfluous defence. People blamed him for maintaining his
independence, but they could not deny his right to do it. See
Alford, Findlay, Edwards, and B. Weiss : for the other view see
Bachmann.

Both uTToAo-yt a and dva/cptVovcrii/ are forensic expressions,
perhaps purposely chosen to indicate the high hand which the
Judaizers assumed in challenging St Paul s claim. But in its
strictly forensic sense, of a judicial investigation, cU/a/cpu/co is
peculiar to Luke in N.T. See on Luke xxiii. 14, and cf. Acts iv.
9, xii. 19, etc. It does not much matter whether we take QVTT/
as predicate (so better), or subject : in either case it means just
what I have stated. Cf. TOVTO in vii. 6 and xi. 17, and avrr) in
John i. 19, xvii. 3. For the dative cf. Acts xix. 33 ; 2 Cor. xii. 19.

4. MTJ OUK Ixo/Aey eouaia&gt;; The /&gt;oj is the interrogative num\
the OVK belongs to the verb. Do you mean to say that we have
no right? Numquid non habemus potestatem (Vulg.) : cf. xi. 22 ;
Rom. x. 19. Here, as often in the Pauline Epistles, we are in
doubt whether the plur. includes others with the Apostle : he
may mean himself and Barnabas. Where he means himself
exclusively he commonly uses the singular: but it is more
certain that the singular is always personal than that the plural
commonly includes some one else. See Lightfoot on i Thess. ii. 4.

&lt;f&gt;ayi Ktu ircik. * To eat and drink what those to whom we
preach provide for us. He is not now thinking of eating idol-
meats : that subject is for the moment quite in abeyance. Still
less is he contending that preachers are not bound to be ascetics.
He says that although he personally refuses entertainment at the
cost of those to whom he ministers, yet he has a right to it. He
can do as he likes (ee&lt;m fun) about it ; he has the privilege of
being maintained. See Clem. Horn. iii. 7 1 ; Luke x. 7.

l8o FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 5

iTflv (or TTIV) as 2nd aor. inf. of irivw is well supported here and x. 7
(K B* D* F G) against irieiv (A B 3 D 3 E K L P), and appears everywhere
as a variant, except Matt. xx. 22. It is frequent in MSS. of LXX. See
WH. n. Notes y p. 170.

5. dSeX^j y um ^ Ka Trepiay 611 Do you mean to say that we
have no right to take about (with us on our missionary journeys)
a Christian person as a wife ? A sister ( = Christian woman)
as wife is right. Even if yvvaiKa in this construction could
mean woman, it would be superfluous. The Vulgate encour
ages the mistranslation * woman with mulierem sororem. The
Apostle is not contending that a missionary had a right to take
about with him a woman who was not his wife. The fact that a
group of women ministered to Christ could not be supposed to
justify such indiscretion. But there is an early tradition that
very few of the Apostles were married, and hence the temptation
to make ywcuKa, mean woman rather than wife. Tertullian
{Exhort. Cast. 8) translates rightly, licebat et apostolis nubere et
uxores circumducere, and again (Monogam. 8), potestatem uxores
circumducendi ; but in the latter passage he suggests that only
mulieres, such as ministered to the Lord, may be meant. This
misinterpretation is followed by Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose,
and others. It led to a great abuse, not confined to the clergy,
in the early ages of the Church. Some Christians contracted a
sort of spiritual union with unmarried persons, and the two lived
together, without marriage, for mutual spiritual benefit. The
women in such cases were known as dSeX^ai, ayaTrr/rat, and
o-uvei craKToi. Under the last name they are strictly forbidden, in
the case of any cleric, by the third Canon of the first Council of
Nicaea (Hefele, Councils, p. 379; Suicer, Thesaurus, under all
three words and under ywrj).

St Paul is not here claiming that Apostles had a right to
marry ; no one in that age would be likely to dispute that. He
is claiming that they have a right to maintenance at the cost of
the Church, and that, if they are married, the wife who travels
with them shares this privilege. The whole of this passage
(5-18) is concerned with the privilege (of which he refused to
make use in his own case) of being maintained at the charges of
the congregations. But here, as in Gal. i. 19 and elsewhere, we
are left in doubt as to the exact meaning of uTroo-ToAoi : see on
xv. 5, 7.

The Sophists blamed Socrates and Plato for teaching gratuit
ously, thus confessing that their teaching was worth nothing
(Xen. Mem. i. 6; Plat. Gorg. 520, Apol. 20; Arist. Eth. Nic.
ix. i. 5). This kind of charge may have been made by the
Judaizers at Corinth. Other Apostles accepted maintenance.
Why did Paul refuse it ? Because he knew that he was no true

IX. 5] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE l8l

Apostle ; or, because he set up for being better than the Twelve ;
or, because he was too proud to accept hospitality."*

For Tre/Huyeti/ transitive see 2 Mac. vi. 10.

ws KCU oi Xotirol dirocTToXoi. It is probably on this that the
interpolator of the Ignatian Epistles (Philad. 4) bases his state
ment that Peter and Paul and ot aAAoi aTroo-roAot were married ;
where the words et Paulus are omitted in some Latin texts. See
on vii. 8. The only Apostles of whose marriage we have direct
evidence on good authority are Peter and Philip (Papias in Eus.
H.E. iii. 39) : see Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 45. This passage
would certainly lead us to suppose that most of the Apostles
were married men ; it contends that all had the privilege of
having themselves and their wives maintained by the Church,
and it implies that some used the privilege, and therefore were
married. The exact meaning of AOITTOI is not clear : it may dis
tinguish those who are included from * the brethren of the Lord
and Kephas, or from Paul and Barnabas (v. 6). In the former
case * the brethren of the Lord are Apostles, for the Apostolic
body is divided into three parts ; Kephas/ * the brethren of the
Lord, and the rest of the Apostles. f But it is possible that,
without any strictly logical arrangement, he is mentioning persons
in high position in the Church who availed themselves of the
privilege of having their wives maintained as well as themselves,
when they were engaged in missionary work. See Lightfoot,
Galatians, p. 95. In dictating, he mentions Peter, by himself,
at the end, as a specially telling instance ; but we cannot safely
infer from this that Peter had been in Corinth with his wife :
i. 12 does not prove it. See Harnack, Mission and Expansion ,
i. p. 323, ii. 99.

ol d8eX&lt;|&gt;o! TOU Kupiou. Here only does St Paul mention them,
though he tells us (Gal. i. 19) that James was one. The question
of their exact relation to Christ has produced endless discussion,
and the question remains undecided. There is nothing in Scrip
ture which forbids the natural interpretation, that they were the
children of Joseph and Mary born after the birth of Christ. To
some students of the problem, Matt. i. 25 seems to be decisive
for this interpretation: see Plumrner, S. Matthew, pp. 9, 10, and
the literature there cited. There is wide agreement that Jerome s

* There was, of course, another reason. Owing to the influence of St
Paul, a good deal of money that had previously supported Judaism now went
elsewhere. The Jews said that he was making a fortune out of his new
religion. Hence his protests that he never took maintenance.

f Here, as in 2 Cor. xii. 13 and Luke xxiv. 10, AV. ignores the article;
other apostles, other churches, other women.

With ws Kal compare Kadus KO.I, i Thess. ii. 14 : it introduces an argument
from induction ; v. 7 is an argument from analogy ; v. 8 is an appeal to
authority.

1 82 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 5-7

theory, that they were our Lord s first cousins, children of a Mary
who was sister to His Mother, cannot be maintained. But see
Chapman, JTS. April 1906, pp. 41 2 f. The choice lies between
the Helvidian and the Epiphanian theories. The decision does
not affect the argument here. In any case they were persons
whose close relationship to the Lord gave them distinction in
the primitive Church : what they did constituted a precedent.
, as almost always in Paul (i. 12, iii. 22, xv. 5).

6. r\ (ic^os cyw KCU B. The rj, as in vi. 2, 9, puts the question
from the other point of view ; that it adds " some degree of
emotion " is not so clear. Or is it only I and Barnabas that
have not a right to forbear working with our hands for a living ?
The reason for including Barnabas is uncertain, and it seems to
be an afterthought ; hence the singular /xovos. It implies that
Barnabas, like Paul, had refused maintenance ; and it is possible
that there had been an agreement between them that on their
missionary journey (Acts xiii. 3) they would not cost the Churches
anything. It seems also to imply that the practice of Barnabas
was well known.

e pYtxe&lt;70ai. Manual labour, to earn a livelihood, is com
monly meant by the word, with (iv. 12; i Thess. iv. n) or
without (Matt. xxi. 28; Luke xiii. 14; Acts xviii. 3) TCU? x P^ v
added. Here again Greek sentiment would be against the
Apostle s practice. That a teacher who claimed to lead and to
rule should work with his hands for a living would be thought
most unbecoming: nothing but the direst necessity excused
labour in a free citizen (Arist. Pol iii. 5). Contrast 2 Thess. iii.
6-12.

7. Three illustrations add force to the argument, and they
are such as are analogous to the Christian minister, who wages
war upon evil, plants churches, and is a shepherd to congrega
tions.* It is perhaps accidental that in each case the status of
the worker is different ; but this strengthens the argument. The
soldier works for pay; the vine-planter is a proprietor; the
shepherd is a slave. But to all alike the principle is applicable
that labour may claim some kind of return. Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 6.

6vj/uviois. Though applying primarily to the soldier s food,
it may cover his pay and his outfit generally. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 8 ;
Rom. vi. 23 ; Luke iii. 14, where see note. The word is late
(i Esdr. iv. 56; i Mac. iii. 28; xiv. 32), and is sometimes
extended to mean the supplies of an army. See Lightfoot on
Rom. vi. 23 ; Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 226.

. . . e* TOU ydXaKTos. The change of construction

* Origen points out that it is as a disciple of the Good Shepherd, who laid
down His life for the sheep, that the Apostle uses this illustration.

XI. 7-10] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 183

is perhaps intentional. A proprietor disposes of the whole of the
produce ; a slave gets only a portion of it. Cf. Tobit i. 10. In
some texts rov Kap-rrov has been corrected to e/c TOV Kap-n-ov (E K L,
Latt. Syrr. Copt. Arm.). See Prov. xxvii. 18.

8. Mf) Kara ayOpwiroy. * Do you think that I am speaking
these things by man s rule ? It is not merely in accordance with
human judgment of what is fitting that he lays down the prin
ciple that labour has a right to a living wage. There is higher
authority than that. The expression Kara ai/0pa&gt;7rov occurs thrice
in this Epistle (iii. 3, xv. 32) and thrice in the same group
(Rom. iii. 5; Gal. i. n, iii. 15), with slightly different shades of
meaning : from a human point of view is the leading idea.

r\ KCU 6 i/o fios. * Or (v. 6) does the Law also not say these
things? Perhaps some one had urged that 6 i/o /zos ravra ov
Aey * is silent on the subject : it is not laid down that con
gregations must maintain Apostles. The change from AaAoi to
Ae yei is perhaps intentional, the one referring to mere human
expression, the other to the substance of what is said. As in OVK
(v. 4), the negative belongs to the verb.

Neither Vulg. (dico . . . dicif) nor AV. distinguishes the verbs : they
apparently follow D E F G in reading Xy for XaXw. K L P have f) ou^i
Kal 6 i&gt;6/ios ravra \tyei : G have ^ el Kai 6 v.r.\. Doubtless % icai 6 V.T.
ov X. (K A B C D E, Vulg. Copt.) is right.

9. Philo (De Hum ami ate) quotes this prohibition as evidence
of the benevolence of the Law; and Driver (on Deut. xxv. 4)
says that it is " another example of the humanity which is character
istic of Dt." Cf. Exod. xx. 10, xxiii. 12; Prov. xii. 10. Oxen
still, as a rule, thresh unmuzzled in the East. Conder says that
exceptions are rare. Near Jericho, Robinson saw the oxen of
Christians muzzled, while those belonging to Mahometans were
not. Driver quotes these and other instances. Cf. 2 Sam. xxiv.
22; Isa. xxviii. 27 f . ; Mic. iv. I2f. Elsewhere (De Spec. Leg.)
Philo says, ou yap vrrep dAoywi/ 6 VO/AO?, aAAa rd)i&gt; Ovovrwv.

It is not easy to decide between &lt;f&gt;ifi6ffis (K A B 3 C D 3 E K L P) and
(E* D* F G). There is the same difference of reading i Tim. v.
18, but there 0i//.uxret$ is unquestionably right, as in LXX of Deut. xxv. 4.
How could K7]/j.u&lt;reLs be so well attested, if it were not original ? If it were
original it would readily be corrected to the LXX, esp. as icrj/j.6a) is rare :
K-rifj.fa is found in LXX (Ps. xxxi. 9 ; Ezek. xix. 4, 9), but not Ki)fj.6u.
Here Chrys. and Thdrt. support

10. JAY) rwy QoStv fxe Xei TW 0ew ; Do you suppose that it is
for the oxen that God cares ? St Paul does not mean that God
has no care for the brutes (Ps. civ. 14, 21, 27, cxlv. 9, 15 ; Matt.
vi. 26, x. 30). Nor does he mean that in forbidding the
muzzling, God was not thinking of the oxen at all. He means

1 84 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 10

that the prohibition had a higher significance, in comparison
with which the literal purport of it was of small moment. Jewish
interpreters sometimes abandoned the literal meaning of Scripture,
and turned it entirely into allegory. They not merely allegorized
the words, but said that the literal meaning was untrue. In
some cases they urged that the literal meaning was incredible,
and that therefore the words were intended to be understood
symbolically and in no other way. Thus Philo (De Somn. i. 16)
says that Exod. xxii. 27 cannot be supposed to be meant literally,
for the Creator would not be interested about such a trifle as a
garment : and elsewhere (De Sacrif. i ) he says that the Law was
not given for the sake of irrational animals, but for the sake of
those who have mind and reason. Cf. Ep. Barn. x. i, 2, xi. i.
St Paul elsewhere allegorizes the O.T., as Hagar and Sarah
(Gal. iv. 24), and the fading of the light on Moses face (2 Cor.
iii. 13), but in neither case does he reject the literal meaning. It
is not probable that he does so here ; even if TraVrws be rendered
entirely, it need not be pressed to mean that the oxen were
not cared for at all. Weinel, St Paul, p. 59.

r\ Si Tjjxas irarrw? Xe yei ; * Or is it for our sakes, as doubtless
it is, that He saith it ? See RV. marg. For TraWws Vulg. has
utique ; Beza, omnino : utique is probably right. It emphasizes
the truth of this second suggestion assuredly ; cf. Luke iv. 23 ;
Acts xviii. 21, xxi. 22, xxviii. 4. In Rom. iii. 9, ou TraVrwq
means entirely not, not at all/ rather than not entirely, not
altogether. See Thackeray, pp. 193 f. The i?/xas probably
means Christians;* but it may mean the Jewish nation, or
mankind, to teach them to be just and humane. Origen prefers
the former interpretation ; OVKOVV 6Y ly/xas TOUS TYJV Kaw
7rapeiX^&lt;^oras ccprjraL ravra, KOU irfpl avOpwTrwv yeypaTrrat,

TIKWS TOV pr)TOV 1/OOV/M6VOU /CttTtt TOV OtlOV aTTO(TTO\OV.

Christians, Christian missionaries are specially meant. We
might expect ov Aeyet, as in v. 8. B. Weiss makes the sentence
categorical ; Rather for our sakes absolutely (v. 10) He says it.

Si TjjAas yap ^YP^n- 1 he Y a V&gt; as m * Thess. ii. 20, implies
an affirmative answer to the previous question. Yes indeed for
our sakes it was written. It was with an eye to men rather than
to oxen that this prohibition was laid down. Weinel, St Paul,
p. 53; Resch, Agrapha, pp. 30, 152, 336.

on 6&lt;|&gt;eiXei eir e XiriSi. The on is explanatory : to show that
it is in hope that the plougher ought to plough and the thresher
(ought to thresh) in the hope of having a share (of the produce).
The sentence is condensed, but quite intelligible : cV cAirt St is
emphatic by position, and is then repeated for emphasis when

* The record of what was preparatory to the Gospel was made for the
sake of those who received the Gospel.

IX. 10-12] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 185

the thing hoped for is stated. RV. renders on because, as if
the meariing were that the prohibition must have an eye to men,
because it is in accordance with common notions of what is fair :
which is unlikely. The that of AV. is too indefinite. "Few
particles in the N.T. give greater difficulty to the interpreter
than OTL " (Ellicott). Retaining Christian teachers or Apostles
as the meaning of i7/xas, we must understand the ploughing and
threshing as metaphors for different stages of missionary work.
Such work, and indeed teaching of any kind, is often compared
to agriculture. Some of the processes of agriculture represent
mission-work better than others, and St Paul would perhaps have
taken reaping rather than threshing, had not the quotation about
threshing preceded. But threshing may represent the separation
of the true converts from the rest.* To take typd&lt;f&gt;r) as referring
to what follows, and introducing another quotation, is a most
improbable construction : there is no such Scripture.

o0ei\ei &lt;?TT 6\iriSi 6 dp. dp. (K* A B C P 17, Vulg., Orig. Eus.) is to
he preferred to e^r e \TriSi o&lt;/&gt;. 6 dp. dp. (tf 3 D 2 K L, Chrys. Thdrt. ), where
the desire to make ttr ArtSt still more emphatic has influenced the order.
Other texts are much confused.

KO.I 6 d\ouv eir t\Tri5i rot yLter&lt;?x" (&* A B C P 17, Syrr. Copt. Arm.
Aeth., Orig. Eus.) is to be preferred to K. 6 d\. TTJS ATriSoy avrov ^er^en/
eir Airt Si (J^D 3 E K L, Chrys. Thdrt.) and to K. 6 d\. TTJ? eX-rridos avrou
/ ucT^xf / (D* F G, Ambst.). Some scribe did not see that dXopj must be
understood, and thus took /j,T^x elv to be the verb after o^eiXei, making
alterations to suit this construction.

11. Ei TJjicts jfu&gt; . . . et YJfieis UJAWI . The ^/xcts in both places
is emphatic and by juxtaposition is brought into contrast with the
pronoun which follows. Cf. a-v /xov viVreis TOUS Tro Sas (John xiii.
6). There is possibly a slight vein of banter in the question.
* If it is we who in your hearts sowed spiritual blessings, is it an
exorbitant thing that we out of your possessions shall reap
material blessings ? What the Apostle gave was incalculable in
its richness, what he might have claimed but never took, was a
trivial advantage : was it worth disputing about ? Was a little
bodily sustenance to be compared with the blessings of the
Gospel? With pcya *&lt; c ^ 2 Cor. xi. 15 : with ra &lt;ra/j/a/ca cf. ra
o. (vi. 3); all that is necessary for our bodily sustenance.

depl(rofj.ev (K A B K) seems preferable to depiffu^ev (C D E F G L P).
The future indicative marks the reaping as more certain to follow, for
which reason Evans prefers the subjunctive. The Apostle refused to reap.
See Lightfoot on Phil. iii. II : he thinks that there is only one decisive
instance of ei with subj. in N.T.

12. et aXXoi T^S up.uii e^ouaias jj.T xoucrii&gt;. If Others (the
Judaizing teachers) have a share of the privilege which you

* Cf. the separation of the fruit of the Spirit from the works of the flesh,
Gal. v. 19-23.

1 86 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 12

bestow, viz. the privilege of being maintained by the congregation.
It seems better to make v/zwi/ the subjective genitive. Yet most
commentators make it the objective genitive ; have a share of
the right exercised over you (Mark vi. 7). But throughout the
passage the egovo-La is looked at from the Apostles side, the
advantage which rightly belongs to them. This implies power
over the Corinthians to make them supply the maintenance ;
but that is not the side under consideration. And to have a
share in power over people is a somewhat strange expression :
* to have a share of a privilege which people allow is natural
enough. But the sense is the same, however the genitive is
interpreted. We have a better claim than others to the right
of maintenance. Some conjecture fjfjiuv for tyxou/.

dXX OUK expT)o-(xjjie0a TTJ eouaia T. Nevertheless, he triumph
antly exclaims, we never availed ourselves of this privilege ;
after elaborately demonstrating his right to the privilege, as if he
were about to say, Therefore I hope that you will recognize the
right and give the necessary maintenance for us in future, he
declares that he has never accepted it and never means to do
so ; * and he seems to include Silvanus and Timothy.

dXXd irdn-a oTeyoiJ.ei . * On the contrary, we endure all
things ; we bear up under all kinds of privations and depriva
tions, sooner than make use of this privilege. The verb may mean
we are proof against, but it may be doubted whether Trdvra
means " all pressure of temptation " to avail ourselves of mainten
ance. See on xiii. 7, and Milligan on i Thess. iii. i. Beza
needlessly conjectures o-repyo/Aev.

tea p-f] rim evK-otrty Swfjtc^. In order that we may not furnish
any hindrance to the Gospel of Christ. Neither in LXX nor
elsewhere in N.T. does CVKOTT-TJ occur, and the word is rare in
class. Grk. It is literally an incision, and hence an inter
ruption or violent break, as rrjs dp/xovta?. It is perhaps a
metaphor from breaking bridges or roads to stop the march of
an enemy. The English hamper had a similar origin, of
impeding by means of cutting. That we may not in any way
hamper the progress of the Gospel is therefore the meaning.
Obviously, if he took maintenance, he might be suspected of
preaching merely for the sake of what he got by it. Moreover,
those who had to maintain him might resent the burden, and be
unwilling to listen to him. Chrysostom uses dm/JoArj, &lt;a mound
thrown up to stop progress, as equivalent to IvKoirrj. St Paul s
passionate determination to keep himself independent, especially

* Dix fois il revient avec fierte" sur ce detail, en apparence putril, qu il n a
rien coutt a personne, quoique il eut bien pufaire comme les autres et vivre
de Vautel. Le mobile de son zele e"tait un amour des ames en quelque sorte
infni (Renan, S. Paul, 237).

IX. 12 14] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 187

at Corinth, appears in various places ; 2 Cor. xi. 9, 10; i Thess.
ii. 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8. He must be free to rebuke, and his praise
must be above the suspicion of being bought. While labouring
at Corinth, he could accept help from Macedonians, but not from
Corinthians. When Ignatius \Philad. 6) says that no one can
accuse him of having been oppressive (e /Jap^o-a), he probably
refers to the suppression of opinion rather than the enforcing of
maintenance. Cf. ei/cVoci/, i Thess. ii. 18.

The MSS. vary between fytow eoirias (N A B C D E F G P) and e.
V/JLUV : between riva eyx. (tf A B C) and eyK. riva : between eyKoirrjv (A C D 3
E F G K P), tvKoir-fiv (B* F G) and tKKOTr-fjv ( K D* L). There is no authority

13. He has reminded them that he has never in the past
taken maintenance. Before stating what he means to do in the
future, he strengthens the proof that he has a right to it.
There is a higher and closer analogy than that of the soldier or
of the different kinds of husbandmen. The other analogies may
have escaped their notice, but surely they must be aware of the
usages of the Temple, which in this matter did not differ from
heathen usage. See Gray on Num. xviii. 8-20.

OUK oi&are ; Do you not know that those who perform the
temple-rites eat the food that comes out of the temple, those
who constantly attend on the altar share with the altar what is
offered thereon ? The second half is not an additional fact ; it
repeats the first half in a more definite form. See Num.
xviii. 8-20 of the priest s portions, and 21-24 of the Levite s
tithe, and contrast Deut. xiv. 23 (see Driver, p. 169). Nowhere
else in N.T. does o-uv/xepio/zai occur.

TCL K TOV lepov (K B D* F G, Copt.) is preferable to tic TOV lepov, without
TCI (A C D 3 E K L P, Syrr. Arm. ) : and Trapcdpetovrcs (K* A B C D E F G P)
to TrpocredpevovTes (K 3 K L). Neither verb occurs elsewhere in N.T., and
there is little difference of meaning between them. See LXX of Prov.
i. 21, viii. 3.

14. Just as God appointed that the priests and Levites should
be supported out of what the people offered to Him, so did
Christ also appoint that missionaries should be supported out
of the proceeds of missions. For the parallel between Christian
preachers and Jewish priests see Rom. xv. 16. It is clear that
6 Kvpios means Christ ; the Lord also? just as Jehovah had
done. St Paul was familiar with what is recorded Matt. x. 10 ;
Luke x. 7, 8. See on vii. 10 and xi. 23.

cyw 8e ou Ke xpT]|j,ai ouSe^l TOU TWI . He repeats, in a stronger
form, the statement of v. 12. The change of tense brings it
down to the present moment : I did not avail myself, OVK
and I have not availed myself, ov /ce^p^at. More-

188 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 14

over, the addition of the pronoun makes the statement more
emphatic ; /, however, have not availed myself of any of these
advantages. Others may have done so, but he has not. He
now thinks no longer of Silvanus and Timothy, who were per
haps included in OVK e xp&gt;?o-a/A0a (v. 12), and speaks only of
himself. Even the close analogy of the maintenance of the
priests has not induced him to do that. He has now com
pletely justified the plea that he is not asking them to forego
more than he foregoes himself. Si ego propter aliorum salutem
a debitis sumptibus abstinui, saltern vos ab immolatis carnibus
abstinete, ne tnultos fratrum praeripitetis in interitum (Herv.). But
v. 13 may possibly have been introduced for the sake of another
parallel. * Like the priests who partake of what has been sacri
ficed, I have a right to partake of offerings, but for the sake of
others I forbear. Then may I not ask you, although you have
a right to partake of what has been sacrificed, for the sake of
others to forbear ?

Having emphatically reminded them of his practice in the
past, he now declares that he means to make no change. All
this argument is not a prelude to requiring maintenance from
them in future.

OUK eypavj/a 8e raura. Now I did not write all this, viz. all
the pleas which he has been urging (vv. 4-14). Or Se may be
yet, * however, and cypa\f/a may be the epistolary aorist, like
rjyrja-di^rjv and eTrc/x^a (Phil. ii. 255 28), aveVe/ti^a and eypai/^a
(Philem. n, 19, 21); Yet I am not writing all this : Winer,
p. 347. Deissmann gives examples from papyri, Light &gt; pp.
157, 164.

Iva. OU TWS y4vr\ra,i ev ep&gt;i . That it may be so done (for the
future) in my case : not unto me, as A. V. Vulg. has in me
rightly, and in eo, Matt. xvii. 12, where both AV. and RV. have
unto him.

KaXoy y&lt;*p /AOL . . . ouScis Kcvwcrei. Both reading and con
struction are doubtful. WH. make a rather violent aposiopesis
after /xaAXov airoOavelv 17 : For a happy thing (it were) for me
rather to die than No one shall make void my glorying,
i.e. his repeated declaration that he has never used his privilege
of free maintenance. Lachmann s punctuation is still more
violent ; For a happy thing it were for me rather to die than
that my glorying should do so: no one shall make it void. *
The alternative is mentally to supply iW, which with the fut.
indie, is unusual, but not impossible (see v. 18). This difficulty
led to the reading Iva. TIS Kevtocn/. It is impossible to get a
satisfactory construction out of what seems to be the true text.

* Lachmann conjectures VT\ TO Kavxy/J-d- pov : cf. xv. 31. Michelsen con
jectures VT] r6 K. /J.QV 6 ovdeis

IX. 15-18] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 189

of&gt; KfypW* 1 ovSevl (N* A B C D* E F G P 17) may safely be adopted :
other texts vary the order, and some have xpT}&lt;J&M v from z/. 12. And
ovSfls Kevdxrei (K* B D* 17) is to be preferred to Ivo. rts Kcvuffy or /cevaxj-ft
(K 3 C D 2 K L P). But whatever text or construction we adopt the sense
remains the same ; I would rather die than be deprived of my independ
ence. But rather die of hunger than accept food is not the meaning.
For KO.\OV . . . -fj see Swete on Mark ix. 43 ; Winer, p. 302 : the con
struction is not rare in LXX.

16. There must be no misunderstanding as to what he con
siders a matter for glorying. There can be no glory in doing
what one is forced to do ; and he is forced to preach the Gospel,
because if he refused to do so, God would punish him. But he
is not forced to preach the Gospel gratis ; and he does preach
gratis. In this there is room for glorying. See Chadwick,
Pastoral Teaching, pp. 306 f.

di/dyKT] ydp poi ciriKcirai. He refers to the special com
mission which he had received on the way to Damascus (Acts
ix. 6). He was a chosen vessel to bear Christ s name before the
Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel (Acts ix. 15); he
was separated for the work to which the Holy Spirit had called
him (Acts xiii. 2) ; and this commission had been repeated in
the Temple (Acts xxii. 21). It was impossible for him to reject
it: Rom. i. 14; Gal. i. 15 f.; Ezek. iii. 17 f. Is laid (AV.,
RV.) is not accurate for eViWrat : Mies or presses upon me
is the meaning (Luke v. i, xxiii. 23; Acts xxvii. 20): cirtjccmu
rj/iuv TO. TT}S /?a&lt;nAeias (i Mac. vi. 57): Kparfprj 8 errc/ceicrer
avdyK-r] (Horn. //. vi. 458). But St Paul s dvay/o; is the call
of God, not the Greek s driving of blind fate.

17, 18. Various explanations have been given of these rather
obscure verses, and it is not worth while to discuss them all.
The following is close to the Greek and fits the context. For
if by my own choice I make a business of this (as other teachers
do), I get a reward (as they do). As a matter of fact the
Apostle does not do this ; he preaches because he must, and
does not make a business of it or take any reward. But in
order to make the argument complete, he states an alternative
which might be a fact. He then states what is a fact. If,
however, it is not of my own choice, then it is a stewardship
that has been entrusted to me. What, then, is the reward that
comes to me ? Why, that in preaching the Gospel I shall
render the Gospel free of charge, so as not to use to the utter
most my privilege in the Gospel. Or we may explain thus :
(i) St Paul had a //.to-0o s (v. 18); therefore cl yap eKwi/ ... is
not a rejected alternative ; (2) his /xta#os is practically the same
as his Kat x^/xa (v. 15). Thus the alternatives of z;. 17 are both
true. He preached of obligation, but also in a way he was not

190 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 17-19

obliged to adopt, i.e. without pay. The latter, not the former,
secured him a reward. If he wished to exercise his privilege
as an Apostle for all that it was worth (/caTa^pr/o-acr^ai), he
would insist upon full maintenance as his /Aicr06s. But the
/Atones which he prefers and gets is the delight of preaching
without pay, of giving the Glad-tidings for nought, and taking
no money for them. The idea of his /xio-flos being the com
mendation which he will receive at the Day of Judgment is
quite foreign to the passage. Some editors carry the interroga
tion on to evayyeA.i o&gt;. This makes a question of awkward length,
and leaves the question to answer itself. To put the question
at 6 /ZIO-00S, and make what follows the answer to it, is more
pointed. * What is the pay that I get ? Why, the pleasure of
refusing pay. An OIKOVO/AOS was often a slave (Luke xii. 42).
With Tr7rt erTVju,ai compare Gal. ii. 7 and Lukyn Williams note
there; also i Tim. i. n ; Tit. i. 3; and see Deissmann, Light,
p. 379. Nowhere else in the Bible does dSaVai/ov occur, and
nowhere else in N.T. does OLK.W occur. See on vii. 31 for

fj.oi t&lt;rrlv (K 3 B L P) rather than larlv pot (D 3 E), or /*ou terlv (* A C K),
or ftrrai poi (D* F G). After rb efayyfriov, D 2 E F G K L P, Syrr. add
TOV Xpiarov : K A B C D*, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit.

19. E\eu0epos yap &v. l For although I am free from all, yet
I made myself a bondservant to all, in order that I might gain
the more. * He is about to show other ways in which he
waives his rights, in order to serve others and help the spread
of the Gospel. Others take these verses (19-23) as explaining
the ways in which he gets his recompense by refusing recom
pense. But eAeutfepos &lt;5i/ seems to look back to v. i and to
prepare the way for further instances of his forgoing his eAev0epi a.
Note the emphatic juxtaposition of irdvrtov TTOLO-LV by chiasmus.
Both TravTtoi/ and Trao-tv are ambiguous as regards gender ; but
Trao-tv is almost certainly masculine, and that makes it almost
certain that TTO.VTWV is masculine; all men 1 (AV., RV.);jeder-
mann (Luther) ; so also Calvin, though he regards the neuter
as possible. Origen adopts the neuter as if it were certain.
"To be free e/c Trdvrwv" he says, "is the mark of a perfect
Apostle. A man may be free from unchastity but be a slave
to anger, free from avarice but a slave to vanity ; he may be
free from one sin but a slave to another sin. But to say,
* Although I am free from all, is the mark of a perfect Apostle :
and such was Paul." Strange that Origen should suppose that
the Apostle would make any such claim. He rightly points

* The K expresses more strongly than &irb (Rom. vii. 3) that he is freed
out of all dependence on others ; he is extricated from entangling ties.

IX. 19, 20] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE Ipl

out that there was no harm in Paul s going to Jewish synagogues
and observing Jewish customs, for he did not do this deceitfully,
dAAa Orjpevwv riyas e aura&gt;v. In interpreting^ Origen inserts the
article before vopov, and each time writes ot VTTO TOV VO/JLOV.
He says that people asked what was the difference between ot
lovSaloL and ot VTTO TOV v6jj.ov, and he thinks that the latter refers
to such people as the Samaritans, But, in quoting^ he omits the
article. He points out that St Paul does not say /X,T) o&gt;j/ lovScuos,
for he was a Jew, although OVKCTI lv TW &lt;/&gt;avepaj : but he does say
fjir) wv VTTO vo /xoj/, for he was not a Samaritan. The meaning
of it all is, that he could find in all men something with which
he could sympathize, and he used this to win them. This was
hard work for one with so strong and pronounced an individu
ality as he had.

TOUS irXetoyas. He could not expect to win all; but rovs
TrAetovas does not mean the majority of mankind, nor more
than any other Apostle, but more than I should have gained if
I had not made myself a slave to all. This is best expressed
by the more (AV., RV.). With /cep&lt;$?jo-&lt;D cf. Matt, xviii. 15;
i Pet. iii. i.*

20. He now gives examples of his becoming a slave to all.
He is the slave of Christ, and becomes a slave to others, in order,
like a faithful ot/co vo/xo?, to make gains for his Master. An
ot/cbVo/xos (see above) might be a slave. And (/cat epexegetic)
I behaved to the Jews as a Jew, e.g. in circumcising Timothy
at Lystra (Acts xvi. 3). Cf. Acts xxi. 26.

TOIS UTTO vopov ws uiTo vo\LQv. To them that are under Law
I behaved as one under Law. The context shows clearly that
vo/xos here means the Mosaic Law as a whole : but the sentence
is not a mere explication of the preceding one. The one
refers to nationality, the other to religion ; and there were some
who were under the Mosaic Law who were not Jews by race.
The Apostle includes all who are not heathen.

JAY) WK auros UTTO vopov. * Though I knew that I was not
myself under Law. He does not say OVK oh/, which might refer
to a fact of which he was not aware : but ou with participles
is rare in N.T. The parenthesis is remarkable as showing how
completely St Paul had broken with Judaism. See Dobschiitz,
ProblemC) p. 82. In commenting on this verse Origen indicates
that he was not the first to do so ; nvts e^rjr^crav rts rj oia&lt;j&gt;opa

TCUV V7TO TOV VOfMOV TTa/OO, TOt&gt;S lovScUOVS. See On i. 24.

This parenthesis is omitted in D 3 K, Copt. Aeth. AV., but is clearly to
be inserted with KABCD*EFGP, Vulg. Arm. RV. The omission
is probably due to homoeoteleuton, vo/j.ov to

* It is just possible that there is an allusion to the charge of making a gain
(2 Cor. xi. 12, xii. 17) : his only gain was winning souls.

192 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 21, 22

21. TOLS d^ojAois. He goes a good deal further, and says
that he was willing to behave as a heathen to heathen (cf.
Gal. ii. 19). He did this, as Origen remarks, when he quoted
heathen poets, and took as a text the inscription on a heathen
altar, dy^wo-Tw ew. See also Acts xiv. 15, xxiv. 25, where
his arguments are such as a heathen would appreciate. Here
avo/xos does not mean * lawless in the sense of disregarding
and transgressing law (Luke xxii. 37 ; Acts ii. 23 ; i Tim.
i. 9), but = 01 fj.r) VTTO vofjiov, those who were outside Law ;
Rom. ii. 14. Evans (following Estius, exlex, inlex) translates,
To God s outlaws I behaved as an outlaw, not being (as I
well knew) an outlaw of God, but an inlaw of Christ ; and
Origen explains the latter as meaning rrjpw ryv TroXtTetW rrjv
Kara. TO evayye Aiov. But even outlaw has too much of the idea
of lawlessness to be quite satisfactory. The genitives, eou and
Xpiorov mean in relation to. Qui est ayo/xos eu&gt; est etiam
avo/zos Xpiorw : qui est IVVO/AO? Xpiaru&gt; est CV^O/AO? e&lt;5 : and (on
Gal. vi. 2) lex Christi, lex amoris (Beng.). It was the lex amoris,
as followed by himself, that the Apostle would enforce on the
Corinthians with regard to eating idol-meats ; and this thought
brings him to the last illustration of his forbearing conformity,
TOIS ao-Oeveo-iv do-#i/^9. The Law of Christ, while freeing him
from the Law of Moses, did not leave him free to do as he
pleased : it restrained him, and kept him from wandering to
other objects than the service of God and man (2 Cor. v. 14).

Qeov and Xptorou (K A B C D* F G P, Latt. Copt. , Orig. Chrys. ) rather
than e&lt;f&lt; and X/H&lt;TT (D 3 K L, Arm. Thdrt.) : see Blass, 36. II. Kepddvu
or Kepdavw (K* A B C F G P 17) rather than KepSriaw (R ! D E K L, Orig.
Chrys. Thdrt.), which is from vv. 19, 20. rous av^ovs (K A B C D E P 17,
Orig. ) rather than avb^ovs (K :i F G K L, Chrys. Thdrt.), perhaps to conform
with

22. TOIS curOece o-ti daOe^s. To the weaklings I became a
weakling (no w?). When he had to deal with the over
scrupulous, he sympathized with their scruples, abstaining from
things which seemed to them (though not to him) to be wrong.
Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 29; Rom. xiv. i, xv. i. Certainly this is the
meaning, not " those who had not strength to believe the
Gospel." Origen says that he was weak to the weak when he
allowed those who burn to marry. He points out that Paul
does not say /n) wi/ awos do-0evrfc, which would have been
dA.aoviKdV and V7rcpr)&lt;j&gt;avov : yet surely not so much so as Origen s
own interpretation of eXe^epos ex Travrcoi/ (see on v. 19). See
Resch, Agrapha, p. 132.

TOIS irao-iy ylyoro irdn-a. To them all I am become all
things. The change from aorist to perfect is significant ; this is
the permanent result of his past action ; he is always all-sided in

IX. 22-24] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 193

all relations. His accommodation has no limit excepting the
one just stated, that he is Wo/xos Xptarov. See Lightfoot on
Gal. ii. 5, where we see this limit operating ; also On Revision,
p. 92. Tarsus taught him to be many-sided. (Ramsay, Pictures
of the Apostolic Church, pp. 3461".)

u&gt;a Trdmos ru/ds aakrw. Another significant change ; from
KepSrjo-o) to crwcro). When he sums up the various conciliations
and accommodations he states the ultimate aim ; not merely to
win this or that class to his side, but, by every method that was
admissible, to save their souls. Peter sacrificed a Christian
principle to save himself from Jewish criticism (Gal. ii. 12-14).
Cf. for the TTOLVTUS Tobit xiv. 8 ; 2 Mac. iii. 13. See the remark
able comment on vv. 20 22 in Cassian, Conf. xvi. 20.

Before d&lt;r0ej/?7s, K ;? C D F G K L P, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth. insert ws
from w. 20, 21 : K* A B, Latt. Orig. omit. Before TraVra, D 2 K L P,
Orig. Thdrt. insert rd : K A B C D* F G omit. For Trdz/rws rti/ds some
texts (DEFG, Latt.) have Trdi/ras, or (17, Clem-Alex.) TOI)J Trdiras.
Clem-Alex. (Strom, v. 3) has three variations from the true text ; TTOLVTO.
eyevd/j.rii iva roi)s Travras KepS^crw. Orig. varies between TOI)S Trdvras, iravra.*
?} rivds, and trdfra. Calv., rejecting ut omnes facerem salvos (Vulg.) for
ut otnnino aliquos serve m, remarks ; quia successu interdum caret indul
gent ia cujus Paulus vieminit, optiine convenit haec restrict : quamvis non
projicerft apud omnes, non tamen destitisse, quin paucorum saltern utilitati
consuleret.

23. irdrra 8e TTOIW 8ia TO euayyeXio^. { Yet all that I do, I do
because of the Gospel. * Not, for the Gospel s sake, in order
to help its progress, but because the Gospel is so precious to
himself. He has just been stating how much he does for the
salvation of others ; he now adds that he is also careful of his
own salvation, and thus anticipates the conclusion of v. 27.
What follows shows that this is the meaning ; he must secure his
share in that eternal life which the Gospel offers.

im auyKoikuyos aurou ycVoj/jiai. In order that I may prove to
be a fellow-partaker thereof, i.e. not lose his share in the salva
tion which he tries to bring to others.f Even in speaking of his
own salvation he does not regard it as the main thing, or as
something apart by itself. Salvation is offered by the Gospel to
all ; and he must strive to be one of those who receive it. The
prize is not yet won : trw et ytyi/o/xat magnam habent modestiam
(Beng.).

24. The thought of possible failure, where failure would be
so disastrous, suggests an exhortation to great exertion, which is

* This I do (AV.) comes from a wrong reading; rouro (K L, Syrr.),
instead

t This gives some support to the view that, in iii. 9, 0eoO &lt;rvvfpyoi means
sharers in work for God, but it does not make that view probable.

194 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 24, 25

illustrated by the practice of runners and boxers in the Isthmian
games. These were held once in three years close to Corinth.
See Hastings, DB. art. * Games ; Smith, D. of Grk. and Rom.
Ant. art. Isthmia. The reference to the games is certain ;
such contests were common everywhere. The reference to the
Isthmian games is much less certain. See Ramsay, Pauline
Studies, p. 332, Pictures of the Apostolic Church, p. 363.

ot iv oraSiw Tpe xorrcs . . . PpajSeloy. The runners in a
race-course all of them run, but one taketh the prize. * Does
that mean, asks Origen, that only one Christian is saved, while
the rest of us are lost ? Not so, for all who are in the way of
salvation are one, one body. It is the Christian Church that
runs, and there is a prize for each of its members. But the prize
is not in all cases the same : God gives to each according to his
merit. The derivation of /3pa/?etoi/ (brabeum, brabium, bravium)
is unknown. It occurs Phil. iii. 14; Clem. Rom. Cor. 5;
Tatian, Ad Grace. 33.

25. OUTWS rpe xcTc, Iva, K&lt;xTa\dif3Y)T. So run, that ye may
secure it. The OUTWS may look back to the successful com
petitor ; run as he does : or it may simply anticipate the tW.t
The change from Aa/x/3aVet to Kcn-aXa/S^re marks the difference
between mere receiving and securing as one s own possession,
and this play on words cannot be reproduced in English. Evans
suggests * take and overtake. This would be excellent, if we
had OUTOOS Sito/cere, tva Ka,Ta\d/3r)T, for StwKeii/ and KaraAa/z/Javeiv
are common correlatives for pursue and overtake. But here
the idea of one Christian overtaking another is alien to the
context, and to overtake a prize is not a natural expression.
In Phil. iii. 12 we have the same play on words, but there we
have SKOKO), as also in Rom. ix. 30.

?ras 8e 6 dyw^iiofAeros. It is easy to talk about securing the
prize, l but every one who enters for a contest, in everything
practises self-control ; he goes into strict training, which for a
Greek athlete lasted ten months. The verb occurs vii. 9, and
nowhere else in N.T. Cf. Hor. Ars Poet. 41 2 f. AV. puts a
colon, RV. a full stop, here, so that what follows is an inde
pendent sentence. More probably, eKeti/oi pAv and ^ets Se are
two classes which make up the whole company of athletes, Tras 6
ayamo/Ai/os. With WH. put only a comma after ey/cpa/re^ erai.
Emphasis On Tras and Travra.

4&gt;Qap-rov &lt;n$a.vov. In the Isthmian games a pine-wreath :
cf. i Pet. v. 4; Wisd. iv. 2. Philo (De Migr. Abr. 6), "Thou

* Compare the contrast between irdvres and O&K tv rots irXeloviv (x. 1.5).

t In any case it means perseveranter nee respidentes retro. Recte dictum
esf, Deum adverbia, non verba rcmunerare ; neinpe eos qui fortiter et juste,
non autein quifortia et justa operatur (Salmeron in Denton).

IX. 25] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 195

hast proved thyself to me a perfect athlete, and hast been deemed
worthy of prizes and wreaths (/fya/SetW KO! &lt;rre&lt;ai/wj/), while
Virtue presides over the games and holds forth to thee rewards
of victory." Even Pindar has not succeeded in making the
wreath of glory a.(f&gt;0apro&lt;s : the victors in the games are not those
who are remembered in history. Non solum corona, sed etiam
memoria ejus perit (Beng.). The ovv is independent of the fieV,
which anticipates the following 8c (contrast vi. 4, 7); they
verily, or they of course, in order to receive a perishable

e a4&gt;0apToy. The exact expression is not found else
where in N.T., but we have a^apavnvov rfjs 86r)S arrecfravov
(i Pet. v. 4), where made of immortelles is perhaps the mean
ing rather than which fadeth not away : see Bigg ad loc. But
amaranth and immortelles are flowers that do not fade, so
that the meaning is much the same. Elsewhere we have TOV
crr&lt;/&gt;avoi&gt; 7779 &lt;ju7}s ( Jas. i. 12; Rev. ii. i o), 6 T?}S St/caiotrwr/s
arfyavos (2 Tim. iv. 8). In all these places, as here, it is a
crown of victory that is meant, rather than a royal crown,
Stcufy/Aa (Rev. xii. 3, xix. 12 ; Isa. Ixii. 3; i Esdr. iv. 30; i Mac.
xi. 13, xiii. 32). The contrast between &lt;/&gt;#apros and a&lt;/&gt;0apTos
occurs in i Pet. i. 23. In LXX of Zech. vi. 14 we have 6 cte
&lt;rre&lt;/&gt;avos corai rots vTro/xevovo-tv : but more to the point is the
description of Virtue in Wisd. iv. 2, cV r&lt;3 cuaii/i crrf^avrj^opova-a
Tro/ZTreva, TOV raiv a/u.tavTooi aOXwv dyujj a viKrja-a&a. The figure IS
frequent in 4 Mac.

Lightfoot (6 1 / Paul and Seneca) quotes from Seneca (Ep. Mor.
Ixxviii. 16) a remarkable parallel; "What blows do athletes
receive in their face, what blows all over their body. Yet they
bear all the torture from thirst of glory. Let us also overcome
all things, for our reward is not a crown or a palm branch or
the trumpeter proclaiming silence for the announcement of our
name, but virtue and strength of mind and peace acquired
ever after."

Epictetus also (Dis. iii. 21) has a fine passage on the
qualifications and responsibilities of teachers ; " The thing is
great, it is mystical, not a common thing, nor is it given to every
man. But not even wisdom perhaps is enough to enable a man
to take care of youths : a man must have a certain readiness and
fitness for this purpose ; and above all things he must have God
to advise him to occupy this office (vv. 16, 17 ; vii. 40), as God
advised Socrates to occupy the place of one who confutes error.
Why then do you act at hazard in things of the greatest import
ance ? Leave it to those who are able to do it, and to do it
well." And again (iii. 22), " He who without God attempts so
great a matter, is hateful to God."

196 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 26, 27

20. eyw roivw. Instead of going on with his exhortation to
others, he looks to himself. He cannot dispense with painful
effort. * I for my part, therefore, am so running, as one with no
uncertain course. He knew the goal quite well, and he knew
the road which led to it (Gal. ii. 2). Here ourws anticipates ws
(iv. i), which adds weight to the view that in v. 24 OVTWS
anticipates &lt;W. But ourws rp^ay does not make it probable that
OVTWS Tpe xeTe is indicative. To render OVK dS^Xw? * not without
certainty of reaching the goal makes it almost contradict the
fear expressed in ^ TTWS dSo/a/xos yeVw/zat. Scio quod petam et
quomodo (Beng.) is better. In N.T., roiwv generally begins a
sentence (see on Luke xx. 25 and cf. Heb. xiii. 13): St Paul
has the usual classical order (cf. Wisd. i. n, viii. 9). Nowhere
else in the Bible is dS^ Aws found : but see 2 Mac. vii. 34 ;
Phil. in. 14.

OUTWS iruKTeuw. I so box as smiting not the air. It is
unlikely that he means I do not smite the air, but I beat my
body] in which case /xov TO croj/xa would have preceded V7ra&gt;7ridoj,
and it is rash to say that OVK negatives depot, because the negative
of Sepwi/ would have been /xv}. We may regard OVK depot Sepooi/ as
one term, no air-smiter : he uses his fists as one in deadly
earnest, and does not miss : he plants his blow. And ov with
participles still survives in N.T., where the writer feels " that the
proper negative for a statement of downright fact is ov."

There are eleven other instances in Paul : four in 2 Cor. iv. 8, 9 ; two
in a quotation in Gal. iv. 27 ; one each in Rom. ix. 25 ; Gal. iv. 8 ; Phil.
iii. 3 ; Col. ii. 19 ; i Thess. ii. 4. See also Matt. xvii. n ; Luke vi. 42 ;
John x. 12; Acts vii. 5, xxvi. 22, xxviii. 17, 19; Heb. xi. i, 35; i Pet.
i. 8 (see Hort), and a quotation in ii. 10. J. H. Moulton (Gr. i. p. 231)
gives numerous illustrations from papyri, and concludes with a remark
which applies to this passage. " The closeness of the participle to the
indicative in the kinds of sentence found in this list makes the survival of
ov natural." See Blass, 75. 5.

Beating the air, whether literally or metaphorically, is common in
literature. Virgil s Dares (Aen. v. 377), verberat ictibus auras, and
Entelius vires in ventutn effudit (446) may occur to any one ; also
ventosijue lacessit ictibus (xii. 105 ; Geor. iii. 233). Ovid, Met. vii. 786,
vacnos exercet in aera morsus. Valerius Flaccus, Arg. iv. 302, vacuas
agit inconsulta per auras brachia. Horn. //. xx. 446, r/ois 8 -fit pa rtf^e
fia6fla.v. Cf. also et s dtpa XaXetV (xiv. 9). But we are not to under
stand the Apostle as speaking of practising boxing : both rpcx u ar &gt;d
irvKTfi it) refer to the actual contest. We see the close of it in 2 Tim.
iv. 7, 8.

27. dXV uirumci^u . . . SouXaywyw. But I bruise my body
black and blue and lead it along as a bond-servant. The
renderings of V7rto7ndaj (lit. give a black eye by hitting TO
vTrcoTTtov) are various; casttgo (Vulg.), lividum facio (d), contundo
(Beza), subigo (Calv.). See on Luke xviii. 5, where Vulg. has

IX. 27] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 197

sugillo.* It is perhaps too much to say that St Paul regards his
body as an antagonist. Rather, it is something which becomes
a bad master, if it is not made to be a good servant. It is like
the horses in a chariot race, which must be kept well in hand by
whip and rein if the prize is to be secured. The Apostle was
no Gnostic, regarding the body as incurably evil, and here he
says 0-oj/x.a and not a-dp. But the body must be made the 8oi)A.os of
the spirit. Nowhere else in the Bible does SouAaywytu occur : cf.
in Rom. vi. 18, 22. The purpose of SouAaywyw is rov
8ov\tvew r-f) a/xapn a (Rom. vi. 6). Ignatius recalls what
follows (Trail. 12). See Lietzmann, Greek Papyri, p. 6.

p) irws aXXois KT]puas auros dSoicifAos yeVwjxai. The thought
of possible failure, which is just discernible in v. 23, is here
expressed with full distinctness, and the metaphor of contests in
the games perhaps still continues. There was a Krjpv at the
games who announced the coming contest and called out the
competitors : " Then our herald, in accordance with the prevail
ing practice, will first summon the runner" (Plat. Laws, viii. p.
833). This the Apostle had done in preaching the Gospel ; he
had proclaimed, OUTWS Tpe xere, lira KaraAa/fyre. But he was not
only the herald to summon competitors and teach them the
conditions of the contest ; he was a competitor himself. How
tragic, therefore, if one who had instructed others as to the rules
to be observed for winning the prize, should himself be rejected
for having transgressed them ! f Excepting Heb. vi. 8, dSo /a/xos
is found only in Paul: 2 Cor. xiii. 5-7 ; Rom. i. 28; Tit. i. 16;
2 Tim. iii. 8 : SO KI/AO? also(xi. 19) is mainly Pauline. Manifestly
exclusion from the contest, as not being qualified, is not the
meaning ; he represents himself as running and fighting : it is
exclusion from the prize that is meant. \ He might prove to be
disqualified. His effective preaching and his miracles (x. 9-11,
xiv. 18, 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Rom. xv. 18, 19; Gal. iii. 5) will
avail nothing if he has broken the rules of the course (see on
Matt. vii. 22, 23). In quo monentur omnes^ ut time?ido sperent et
sperando timeant, quatenus spes foveat laborantes et timor indtet
negligentes (Atto). Ita certus est de praemio, ut timeat illud
amittere ; et ita metuit amittere, ut certus sit de eo (Herv.). Potest

* Cf. Cic. Tusc. ii. 17, Inde pugiles caestibus contusi ne ingemiscunt
qufdem, gJadiatores quas plagas perferunt, accipere plagam mahmt quam
turpiter vitare.

t There is one that is wise and teacheth many, and yet is unprofitable to
his own soul (Ecclus. xxxvii. 19), /u&lt;rui ffo&lt;f&gt;i&lt;rTT)v Sorts oi/x avr$ ao&lt;j&gt;6s
(Menander).

There was a herald who proclaimed the victors, and was himself crowned
for his services. Nero proclaimed his own success at the games, and thus
competed with the heralds. Victorem se ipsc pronunciabat : qua dc causa et
praeconio ubique contcndit (Suet. Nero, 24).

198 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 1-13

etiam conjunct cum superiors dicto, in hunc niodum ; Ne Evangelic
defrauder, cujits alii mea opera fiunt participes (Calv.).

dfa (KA B C D* 17) is to he preferred to viroiridfa (F G K L P),
(D a ), or viroTTL^d) (22). Keep under (AV.) is from virowidfa.
For (Tu&gt;/xa F has (rro/ia. For d56/a/xos, reprobus (Vulg. ), rejectanetts (Beza).
Schmiedel suspects vv. 24-27 as an interpolation.

X. 1-XI. 1. THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED.

The fear expressed m ix. 27 suggests the case of the
Israelites, who, through want of self-control, lost the promised
prize. They presumed on their privileges, and fell into idolatry,
which they might have resisted (1-13). This shows the danger
of idolatry : and idol-feasts are really idolatry, as the parallels of
the Christian Eucharist and of the Jewish sacrifices show. Idol-
feasts must always be avoided (14-22). Idol-meats need not
always be avoided, but only when the fact that they have been
sacrificed to idols is pointed out by the scrupulous (23~xi. i).

X. 1-13. Take warning from the fall of our fathers in
the wilderness. Distrust yourselves. Trust in God.

1 The risk of being rejected is real. Our ancestors had
extraordinary advantages, such as might seem to ensure success.
They were all of ihem protected by the cloud, and they all
passed safely through the sea, 2 and all pledged themselves to
trust in Moses by virtue of their trustful following of the cloud
and their trustful march in the sea ; 3 all ate the same supernatural
food, 4 and all drank the same supernatural drink ; for they used
to drink from a supernatural Rock which attended them, and the
Rock was really a manifestation of the Messiah. 5 Yet, in spite
of these amazing advantages, the vast majority of them frustrated
the good purpose of God who granted these mercies. This is
manifest ; for they were overthrown by Him in the wilderness.

6 Now all these experiences of theirs happened as examples
which we possess for our guidance, to warn us against lusting
after evil things, just as those ancestors of ours actually did.
7 And so you must not fall into idolatry, as some of them fell ;
even as it stands written, The people sat down to eat and to
drink, and rose up to sport. 8 And let us not be led on to
commit fornication, as some of them committed, and died in a
single day, 23,000 of them. 9 And let us not strain beyond all

X. 1] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED

199

bounds the Lord s forbearance, as some of them strained it, and
were destroyed, one after another, by serpents. 10 Nor yet
murmur ye, which is just what some of them did, and were
destroyed forthwith by the destroying angel. n Now all these
experiences by way of example occurred one after another to
them, and they were recorded with a view to admonishing us,
unto whom the ends of the ages, with their weight of authority,
have come down. 12 Therefore if, like our forefathers, you think
that you are standing securely, beware lest self-confidence cause
you, in like manner, to fall. 1;{ And you can avoid falling. No
temptation has taken you other than a man can withstand. Yes,
you may trust God : He will not let you be tempted beyond your
strength. While He arranges the temptation to brace your
character, He will also arrange the necessary way of escape, and
the certainty that He will do this will give you strength to
endure.

1. OuOeXw . . . d8e\4&gt;oi. See on xii. i. The ydp shows the
connexion with what precedes : Failure through lack of self-
discipline is not an imaginary peril : if you lack it, your great
spiritual gifts will not save you from disaster. *

ol irarepes TJpoi&gt;. Just as Christ spoke of the ancestors of the
Jews as your fathers (Matt, xxiii. 32 ; Luke xi. 47 ; John vi.
49), so the Apostle calls them our fathers : some members of
the Church of Corinth were Jews, and the expression, was literally
true of them, as of St Paul. But he may mean that the Israelites
were the spiritual ancestors of all Christians. In Gal. vi. 16
the Israel of God means the whole body of believers. Clem.
Rom. (Cor. 60) uses rot? -rrarpdo-Lv ^/xoii/ in the same sense, and
speaks to the Corinthians of Jacob (4), and Abraham (31) as
6 Trarr/p rjfjLMv. See on Rom. iv. i.

Traces. The emphatic repetition in each clause marks the
contrast with OVK eV rots ir\cio&lt;riv (v. 5). All, without exception,
shared these great privileges, but not even a majority (in fact
only two) secured the blessing which God offered them. No
privilege justifies a sense of security : privilege must be used
with fear and trembling.

u-n-6 TT)i/ v&lt;J&gt;\T]i . Under the cloud which every one
remembers (Exod. xiii. 21, 22, xiv. 19, 24, xl. 38 ; etc.). The

* The Moreover of AV. is from a false reading 5&lt;? i N ! K L, Syrr. ) : the
evidence for yap is overwhelming. It introduces further justification of his
demand that they should imitate him in his forbearance and Entsa^ung
The off 6. i^as dyv. (xii. i; 2 Cor. i. 8; Rom. i. 13; i Thess. iv. 13)
implies no reproach : contrast oikoi Sare (iii. 16, v. 6, vi. 2, etc.).

20O FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 1-3

acc. perhaps indicates movement. They marched with the
cloud above them.* The pillar of fire is not mentioned, as
less suitable for the figurative efiaTrriaavTo which follows:
Wisd. xix. 7.

2. els TOV Mwuorji 0. * They received baptism unto Moses,
as a sign of allegiance to him and trust in him ; or 4 into Moses,
as a pledge of union with him. Comparison with baptism * into
Christ (Rom. vi. 3 ; Gal. iii. 27) is suggested, and it is implied
that the union with Moses which was the saving of the Israelites
was in some way analogous to the union with Christ which was
the salvation of the Corinthians. Throughout the paragraph,
the incidents are chosen from the Pentateuch with a view to
parallels with the condition of the Corinthian Christians. The
Israelites had had a baptism into Moses, just as the Corinthians
had had a baptism into Christ. For a contrast between Christ
and Moses, see Heb. iii. 1-6. With the aor. mid. compare
aTreAovo-curtfe, vi. 1 1 ; with the ets, Acts xix. 3.

iv Ttj i/e4&gt;e\T) KCU iv rfj OaXaaar]. Both cloud and sea
represent " the element in which their typical baptism took
place." To make the cloud the Holy Spirit and the sea the water
is forced and illogical ; both are material and watery elements, and
both refer to the water in baptism. In what follows it is the
material elements in the Eucharist which are indicated.

Editors are divided between ^aTrrlaavTo (B K L P) and j3airTlcr0r]&lt;ra,i&gt;
(N A C D E F G). But the latter looks like a correction to the expression
which was generally used of Christian baptism (i. 13, 15, xii. 13 ; etc.).
Cf. vi. ii.

3. TO auro Ppcjfjia iri eujj.aTiKoV. The manna which typified the
bread in the Eucharist (Jn. vi. 31, 32) was spiritual as being
of supernatural origin, apros dyyeAwi/ (Ps. Ixxviii. 25), dyyeAwi/
rpoffrrj (Wisd. xvi. 20). In all three passages, as here and Neh.
ix. 15, 20, the aorist is used throughout; quite naturally, of an
act which is past, and the repetition of which is not under
consideration. It is possible that Tn/eu/xaTiKoV also means that
"the immediate relief and continuous supply of their bodily
needs tended to have an effect upon their spirit ; that is, to
strengthen their faith " (Massie). Israelites, una cum cibo corporis,
alimentum animarum datum est (Beng.). Others take it as
meaning that the manna and the water had a spiritual or
allegorical meaning. It is remarkable that St Paul chooses the
manna and the rock, and not any of the Jewish sacrifices, as

* Onkelos paraphrases Deut. xxxiii. 3 ; " With power He brought them
out of Egypt, they were led under Thy cloud ; they journeyed according to
Thy word." Onkelos is said to have been, like St Paul, a disciple of
Gamaliel. Cf. Ps. cv. 30.

X. 3, 4] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 2O1

parallels to the Eucharist. In class. Grk. Truj/xa is more common
than

WH. bracket the first TO ai/ro", which K*, Aeth. omit, while A C* omit
ai/r6 : but TO aur6 is very strongly attested (K 3 B C 2 D E F G K L P, Latt.).
MSS. vary between irv. /3p. &lt;?0. (K* B C 2 P), /3/. irv. &lt;?0. (K 3 D E F G K L),
and irv. ^0. ^3p. (A 17). A omits the second avr6, and again there is
difference as to the order ; irv. tir. Tr6fj.a (K A B C P), ir6/m irv. ^TT.
(DEFGKL).

4. tTrivov yap * * Try. dicoXouOouaTjs Trfrpas. For they used to
drink from a spiritual rock accompanying them, or from a
spiritual accompanying rock. The change to the imperfect is
here quite intelligible : they habitually made use of a source
which was always at hand. It is not so easy to determine the
thought which lies at the back of this statement. That the
wording of the passage has been influenced by the Jewish legend
about a rock following the Israelites in their wanderings and
supplying them with water, is hardly doubtful ; but that the
Apostle believed the legend is very doubtful. In its oldest form,
the legend made the well of Beer (Num. xxi. i6f.) follow the
Israelites; afterwards it was the rock of Kadesh (Num. xx. i f.)
which did so, or a stream flowing from the rock. St Paul seems
to take up this Rabbinic fancy and give it a spiritual meaning.
The origin of the allusion is interesting, but not of great import
ance : further discussion by Driver (Expositor, 3rd series, ix. pp.
i5f.); Thackeray, pp. 195, 204 f. ; Selbie (Hastings, DB. art.
Rock ); Abbott (The Son of Man, pp. 648 f., 762).

Of much more importance is the unquestionable evidence of
the Apostle s belief in the pre-existence of Christ. He does not
say, And the rock is Christ, which might mean no more than,
And the rock is a type of Christ, but, And the rock was
Christ. In Gal. iv. 24, 25 he uses the present tense, Hagar and
Sarah * are two covenants, i.e. represent them, are typical of
them. Similarly, in the interpretation of parables (Matt. xiii.
19-23, 37-38) we have is throughout. The fy implies that
Christ was the source of the water which saved the Israelites
from perishing of thirst ; there was a real Presence of Christ in
the element which revived their bodies and strengthened their
faith. The comment of Herveius, Sic solet loqui Scrip tura, res
significantes tanqam illas quae significantur appellant, is true, but
inadequate ; it overlooks the difference between eVrt and yv.
We have an approach to this in Wisd. xi. 4, where the Israelites
are represented as calling on the Divine Wisdom in their thirst,
and it is Wisdom which grants the water. Philo (Quod deterius
potiori, p. 176) speaks of the Divine Wisdom as a solid rock
which gives imperishable sustenance to those who desired it ;
and he then goes on to identify the rock with the manna. The

202 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 4-6

pre-existence of Christ is implied in eVTo ^evfrer (2 Cor. viii. 9),
in eu7mrriAci o eos rov vlov avrov (Gal. iv. 4), and in 6 to? TOJ/
taurou viov W/xi/ras (Rom. viii. 3). Cf. Phil. ii. 5, 6, and see
Julicher, Pan his u. Jesus, p. 31 ; J. Kaftan, Jesus u. Paulus,
p. 64; Walther, Pauli Christentum Jesu Evangelhtm, p. 24.
Justin (Try. 114) probably had this passage in his mind when
he wrote of din

e^ wrote ^ of dying for the name TT&gt;
TCU&lt;? K ap&L&lt;J-i&lt;; /fywn o-r/9, KUI 7r&lt;mov o-?7&lt;; rou?
w?}9 uStop TTU&lt;V. By the statement that the life-saving rock was
a manifestation of the power of Christ, present with the Israelites,
the Apostle indicates that the legend, at which he seems to
glance in aKo\ov6ova-r)&lt;s, is not to be believed literally. What
clearly emerges is that, as the Israelites had something anal
ogous to Baptism, so also they had something analogous to the
Eucharist ; and this is the only passage in N.T. in which the
two sacraments are mentioned together.

MSS. vary between 77 ir^rpa 5e (K B D* 3 ), 7} dt Trerpa (A C D 2 K L 1 )
and irtrpa 5t (KG).

5. d\X OUK eV TOIS TrXet oony auroik TjoSoK^aei/ o Oeos. Howbeit,
not with most of them was God well pleased. Although all of
them had great blessings (and, in particular, those which re
sembled the two sacraments which the Corinthian Church
enjoyed), there were very few in whom God s gracious purpose
respecting them could be fulfilled. In o* V TO?? TrAei oo-ti/ we

have a mournful understatement : only two, Caleb and Joshua,
entered the Promised Land (Num. xiv. 30-32). All the rest
thousands in number, though they entered the lists, were dis
qualified, aSoKi/xot eyeVorro (ix. 27), by their misconduct.

In the Epistles, the evidence as to the augment of evdoK&lt;?u varies greatly ;
in i. 21, evd6icr}ffei&gt; is undisputed ; here the balance favours ??i 5. (A B* C) :
see VVII. II. Notes p. 162.

The construction i&gt;5. ft/ TIVL is characteristic of LXX and N.T., while
Polybius and others write ei 5. nvi : but exceptions both ways are found
(2 Thess. ii. 12; I Mac. i. 43). In Matt. xii. 1 8 and Heb. x. 6 we have
the accusative.

caTearTpoi6T)cra&gt; yap eV TT) tp^fxw. The yap introduces a justi
fication of the previous statement. God cannot have been well
pleased with them, for Kareo-rpoxrej/ avrovs tv rrj fpjj/jno (Num.
xiv. 16). They did not die a natural death; their death was
a judicial overthrow. The verb is frequent in Judges and
2 Maccabees ; cf. Eur. Her, Fur. 1000 : nowhere else in N.T. It
gives a graphic picture, the desert strewn with dead (Heb. iii. 17).

6. TauTa 8e TUTTOI r\^S)v eyei r)0T](rai&gt;. Now these things came
to pass as examples for us to possess. The examples were of
two kinds ; beneficia quae populus accepit et peccata quae idem

X. 0, 7] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 2O3

admisit (Beng.). The one kind was being followed; the Cor
inthians had sacraments and spiritual gifts : they must take can-
that the other kind was avoided. This is better than undt-r
standing TU TTOC in the sense of types, the Israelites being types
and the Corinthians antitypes ; in which case fyw would be the
subjective genitive.* Origen understands it in the sense of
examples to warn us. The transition from TVTTOS (TVTTTW) as the
mark of a blow (John xx. 25) to the stamp of a die, and
thence to any * copy, is easy. But a copy may be a thing to
be copied, and hence TV TTOS comes to mean * pattern or example.
See Milligan on i Thess. i. 7. Deus, im/uit, illos puniendo
tanquam in tabula nobis severitatem suam repraesentavit, ut ind?
cdocti timere discamus (Calv.). Ea potissimum delicta memorantur.
t/uae ad Corinthios admonendos pertinent (Beng.). See Weinel,
St Paul, pp. 58, 59.

eis TO jit) drat. This confirms the view that TV TTOS does not
mean types, but examples for guidance, to the intent that we
should not be. In saying elvtu cVi^/Mr/ras rather than eTriflv/xeu/
he is probably thinking of e^cei Watya.v rnv Xaov TOV brtOviufryv
(Num. xi. 34). The substantive occurs nowhere else in N.T.

ica6ws KdKelroi f-n-eOufATjaaK. Even as they also lusted. The

KUI is not logical, and perhaps ought to be omitted in translation ;
it means they as well as you, which assumes that the Corinthians
have done what they are here charged not to do : cf. i Thess. iv.
i 3. Longing for past heathen pleasures may be meant.

7. fiTjSe eifcioXoXarpcu yii/eaOe. Neither become ye idolaters.
The /AT/Se is not logical ; it puts a species on a level with its genus.
Lusting after evil things is the class, of which idolatry and
fornication are instances ; and the /xr/Se, nor yet, implies that
idolatry is a new class. It was, however, the most important of
the special instances, because of its close connexion with the
Corinthian question. But this is another point in which Greek
idiom is sometimes rather illogical. We should say Therefore
do not become. The rti/es is another understatement, like or*
eV TGI? TrXfLoa-Lv i the passage quoted shows that the whole people
took part in the idolatry. St Paul seems to be glancing at the
extreme case in viii. 10, of a Christian showing his superior
yvwo-i? by sitting at an idol-banquet in an idol-temple. Such
conduct does amount to taking part in idolatrous rites. The
Apostle intimates, more plainly than before, that the danger
of actual idolatry is not so imaginary as the Corinthians in their
enlightened emancipation supposed.

irai ieu . The quotation is the LXX of Exod. xxxii. 6, and

* This would imply that the Corinthians were predestined to fall as the
Israelites did.

204 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 7, 8

we know that the play or * sport included xP ot &gt; which Moses
saw as he drew near.* These dances would be in honour of the
golden calf, like those of David in honour of the Ark of God, as
he brought it back (2 Sam. vi. 14). The quotation, therefore,
indicates an idolatrous banquet followed by idolatrous sport.

Calvin asks why the Apostle mentions the banquet and the
sport, which were mere accessories, and says nothing about the
adoration of the image, which was the essence of the idolatry.
He replies that it was in these accessories that some Corinthians
thought that they might indulge. None of them thought that
they might go so far as to join in idolatrous worship.

No doubt (bcrirep (X A B D 3 L) before ytypairrcu is to be preferred to ws
(C D* K P), and perhaps irelv (B* D* F G) to TTIW (A B 3 C D 3 E K L P) :
trlv (K) supports irelv. See on ix. 4.

8. The relationship of idol-worship and fornication is often
very close, and was specially so at Corinth (Jowett, On the
Connexion of Immorality and Idolatry, Epp. of St Paul, n. p.
70). Hence fornication is taken as the second instance of
lusting after evil things. In the matter of Baal-Peor (Num. xxv.
1-9), to which allusion is made here, it was the intimacy with
the strange women which led to participation in the idolatrous
feasts, not vice versa as the RV. suggests ; the people began to
commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab : for they called
the people unto the sacrifices of their gods. It is remarkable
that precisely at this point the Apostle changes the form of this
exhortation and passes from the 2nd pers. (yu/eo-tfe) to the ist
(iropvcvwtJLev), thus once more putting himself on a level with his
readers. But there is nothing in the brief reference to the sins
of the Israelites to show that, when the Moabite women invited
the Israelites to the sacrifices of their gods, immoral intercourse
had preceded the invitation.! In Wisd. xiv. 12 the connexion
between idolatry and fornication and the consequent destruction
are pointed Out ; Ap^r) yap Tropi/etas tTTiVota eiSojAwi/, ev/oe creis Se
aurwi/ &lt;f&gt;6opa 00175, where the rendering * spiritual fornication
(AV.) is unnecessary, and probably incorrect.

!ireaai&gt; jua rjfA^pa eucoai rpels x i ^ l( *& s- Here we have, in the
most literal sense, &lt;/&gt;0opa co^s. In Num. xxv. 9 the number is

* Aristoph. Ran. 450? T&V fjfjdrcpov rpoirov rbv /caXXt%o/3t6raroi
The verb is found nowhere else in N.T. In LXX it is frequent.

t But in Num. xxv. we have two different stories combined and somewhat
confused : w. 1-5 come from one source, W. 6-18 from another. The
locality in one case is Shittim, in the other Peor ; the god in one case is
presumably Kemosh the God of Moab, but he is called in both cases the
Baal of Peor ; the punishment in one case is execution by the judges, in the
other plagues sent by God ; the cause of the evil in one case is Moal: ite, in
he other Midianite. See Gray, Niunbcrs, pp. 380 f., and cf. the interchange
of Ishmaelite with Midianite, Gen. xxxvii. 25-36.

X. 8, 9] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 2O5

24,000. St Paul quotes from memory, without verifying, the
exact number being unimportant. But harmonizers suggest that
1000 were slain by the judges ; or that 23,000 and 24,000 are
round numbers for a figure which lay between the two ; or that,
of the 24,000 who died of the plague, 23,000 died on one day.*
All these suggestions are the result of a weak (viii. 9 f., ix. 22)
theory of inspiration ; and the first does not avoid the charge of
error, for we are told that * those that died by the plague were
24,000. For tTreo-av see i Chron. xxi. 14.

For iropvevwfjiev (K A B D 3 E) and tir6pvev&lt;rai&gt; (ibid.) D* F G have

and ei-tirbpvev(ra.v from LXX of Num. xxv. I. Excepting Jude 7,
the compound is not found in N.T. ^weffav (K A B C D* F G P 17) is to
be preferred to tireaov (D 3 K L) : see W H. n. Notes p. 164. K 3 A C D 2
KLP insert tv before /u : K*BD*FG, Latt. omit. In one day
augments the terror of the punishment.

9. (ATjSe KireipdwjAy TOV Ku piof. * Neither let us sorely tempt
the Lord, try Him out and out, provoke Him to the uttermost,
till His longsuffering ceases. This the Israelites did by their
frequent rebellion. It is rather fanciful to connect this with v. 8,
as v. 8 is connected with v. 7. It is true that " fornication leads
to tempting God " ; but is that the Apostle s reason for passing
from 7ropvv&lt;D[jLcv to cK7Tipaw/Aev ? The compound occurs (in
quotations from LXX of Deut. vi. 16) Matt. iv. 7 ; Luke iv. 12 ;
also Luke x. 25 ; in LXX, both of man trying God (Ps. Ixxviii.
1 8), and of God trying man (Deut. viii. 2, 16). It implies pro
longed and severe testing. See on iii. 18. Here the meaning is
that God was put to the proof, as to whether He had the will
and the power to punish. In class. Grk. e\7mpa&lt;r#ai is used.
It is doubtful whether the Apostle is thinking of anything more
definite than the general frailty and faultiness of the Corinthian
Christians. Misuse of the gift of tongues (Theodoret) and a
craving for miracles (Chrysostom) are not good conjectures.

uiro TWV ofaoiv &lt;virwXXui&gt;To. Perished day by day by the
serpents. The imperfect marks the continual process, and the
article points to the well-known story. * Perished = were de
stroyed, and hence VTTO is admissible. In class. Grk. VTTO is
used of the agent after an intrans. verb, but it is not very
frequent in N.T. We have Tracr^civ VTTO, Matt. xvii. 12 and
i Thess. ii. 14, where Milligan quotes from papyri, j3iav
VTTO EKV OTCCOS. See Winer, p. 462.

We may safely prefer rbv Ktpiov (K B C P 17, Aeth. Arm.) to rbv
Xpi&lt;rr&lt;5i&gt; (D E F G K L, Latt. ) or r6v &e6v (A). No doubt Xpi&lt;7r6i&gt;, if
original, might have been changed to Kvpiov or Qe6v because of the diffi-

* The /u TjfJLtpq. increases the horror : otiinia ademit Una dies i- fata tibi
tot praemia vitae (Lucr. iii. 9, Ii) : cf. Rev. xviii. 8.

206 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X 10

culty of supposing that the Israelites in the wilderness tempted Christ.
On the other hand, either Xpurov or 6f6v might be a gloss to explain
the meaning of Kvpiov. Kpiphanius says that Marcion substituted \PKTTOV
for Ki pioi , that the Apostle might not appear to assert the lordship of
Christ. Whatever may be the truth about this, it is rash to say that
" Marcion was right in thinking that the reading Kvpiov identifies the
Lord Jehovah of the narrative with the hi-torical Jesus Ch ist." It is safer
to say with Hort on I Pet ii. 3, " No such identification can be clearly
made out in the N.T." But see on Rom. x. 12, 13. In the N.T. 6 Kvpios
commonly means our Lord ; but this is by no means always the case, and
here it almost certainly means Jehovah, as Num. xxi. 4-9 and Ps. Ixxviii. 18
imply. There seems to be no difference in LXX between Kvpios and
6 Ki ptos, and in N.T. we can lay down no rule that KI//HOS means God
and 6 Ki ;pios Christ. See Bigg on I Pet. i. 3, 25, ii. 3, iii. 15; Nestle,
Text. Crit. of N.T. p. 307.

Kadus rives (KABCD*FGP 17) rather than /ca#t6s icai rives
(D 3 EKL). ireipa.aa.v (A B D 3 K L) rather than e^fireipaffav (K C D*
F (T P 17), the latter being an assimilation to cKirfipafafj-ev. It is more
difficult to decide between a.-rru\\vvTO (K A B) and d-rruXovTO (CD E V G
K L P) : but dir&\\vi&gt;To would be more likely to be changed to airuXovro
(v. 10) than vice versa.

10. jATjSe YoyyueT. Rebellious discontent of any kind is
forbidden ; and there is nothing said as to the persons against
whom, or the things about which, murmuring is likely to take
place. But the warning instance (KaflaTrep ni/es) can hardly
refer to anything but that of the people against Moses and
Aaron for the punishment of Korah and his company (Num.
xvi. 41 f.), for we know of no other case in which the murmurers
were punished with death.* From this, and the return to the
2nd pers. (yoyy^erc), we may conjecture that the Apostle is
warning those who might be disposed to murmur against him
for his punishment of the incestuous person, and for his severe
rebukes in this letter.t

UTTO TOU 6\o6peuToG. Not Satan, but the destroying angel
sent by God to smite the people with pestilence. The Apostle
assumes that there was such an agent, as in the slaying of the
firstborn (TOV oXtfymWra, Exod. xii. 23), and in the plague that
punished David (2 Sam. xxiv. 16; ayyeXos Kvpiov e^oAeflpevwi/,
i Chron. xxi. 12), and in the destruction of the Assyrians
(2 Chron. xxxii. 21 ; Ecclus. xlviii. 21). Cf. Acts xii. 23: Heb.
xi. 28. Vulg. has ab exterminatore, Calv. a vastatore ; in Heb.
xi. 28 Vulg. has qui vastabat, in Exod. xii. 23 percussor. The
angelology and demonology of the Jews was confused and
unstable. Satan is sometimes the destroyer (Wisd. ii. 24). By
introducing sin he brought men under the power of death ;

* The murmuring against the report of the spies can hardly be meant, for
that was punished by the murmurers dying off in the wilderness, not by any
special f estruction (Num. xiv. i, 2, 29).

t It is perhaps for this reason that he changes from uairep to Kaddirep,
which implies the very closest resemblance, exactly as.

X. 10, 11] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 2O/

Rom. v. 12; Heb. ii. 14; John viii. 44. Nowhere else in tin-
Bible does oXoOpcvrrjs occur.

Assimilation has produced foui corruptions of the text in this verse :
yoYyvfcrc (A B C K. L P, Vulg. Syrr. Aeth.) has been corrected to 70771 -
fw/xe (K I) E E G) : Ka6direp (K B P) has been corrected to *a0u&gt;s (A C D
EEC! K L) : KL inserts ical before rives : and A corrects airuXovTo to

11. raura 8e TUTTIKWS owe|3aii&gt;y eKiVoi. * Now these things
by way of lesson happened one after another to them : em
phasis on cKctVcu?. The imperfect sets forth the enumerated
events as in process of happening; the singular sums them up
as one series. In v. 6 we had the plural, tyeyr/^v/trui , attention
being directed to the separate TV TTOI in w. 1-5 ; moreover, there
may be attraction to rvTrot, Winer, p. 645.

eYpd&lt;f&gt;T] 8e IT. v. TJJA. And were written for our admonition,
ne si mi liter peccant es similia patianmr. The written record was
of no service to those who had been punished ; quid enim
mortuis prodesset historia ? vivis autem quo modo prodesset^ nisi
aliorum exemplis admoniti resipiscerent ? (Calv.). Note the
change from imperfect to aorist.

IS OUS TO. T\T] TOJy oA.UVUV KO.TQ.VT1\CrtV. UtttO whom the Cllds

of the ages have reached. The common meaning of KCLTUVTO.^
in N.T. is * reach one s destination : see on xiv. 36. The point
of the statement here is obscure. The ages are " the successive
periods in the history of humanity, and perhaps also the parallrl
periods for different nations and parts of the world " (Hort on cV
eVxuTov i-toy xpoVon/, i Pet. i. 20).* In what sense have the ends
of these ages reached us as their destination ? The ends of
them implies that each one of them is completed and summed
up ; and the sum-total has come down to us for whom it was
intended. That would seem to mean that we reap the benefit
of the experience of all these completed ages. Such nn inter
pretation comes as a fit conclusion to a passage in which the
Corinthians are exhorted to take the experiences of the Israelites
as lessons for themselves. Pluralis habet vim magnam : omnia
concurrunt et ad summa m veniunt ; beneficia et pericula, poenae
et praemia (Beng.).

Or it may meun that the ends of the ages have reached us,
and therefore we are already in a new age, which is the final

* The education of the Gentiles went on side by side with the education
of the fews, and both streams met in the Christian Church. "The Church
is the heir of the spiritual training of mankind (Eindlay). The temptation
to make rd r. rCiv at. singular produced corruptions ; in quos finis saicnlorui
devenil (Iren. IV. xiv. 3), /;/ quos finis secnlorum obvenit (Aug. De cat. rmi&gt;
3). Tert. preserves the plural ; ad nos cotnmotiendos, in quos fines aevorum
decttcurrerunt (Marc. v. 7); also Vulg. ; ad correptionem nostrum, in quos
fines seculorum devenerunt.

208 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 11-13

one and will be short (vii. 29 : see Westcott on Heb. ix. 26 and
i John ii. 1 8). The interpretation will then be that "the last
act in the drama of time is begun" (Rutherford), and therefore
the warnings contained in these examples ought at once to be
laid to heart. The Day of Judgment is near and may come at
any moment (xvi. 22) ; it is madness not to be watchful.

AV. has Now all these things, and all is well supported ; ravra 5
TT&.VTO. (C K L P, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm. ) ; ifavra dt raOra (K D E F G,
Aeth.) ; AB 17, Theb. omit wavra : Orig. and Tert. sometimes omit.
The fact that vavra is inserted in different positions, and that insertion is
more intelligible than omission, justifies exclusion. TUTTIKUS (tf A B C K P,
Vulg. inpgura) is to be preferred to TI /TOI (DEFGL), and ffwtpcuvev
(K B C K L) to &lt;rvvtfiat.vov (A D E F G L), which looks like assimilation to
v. 6 ; also KaT^rrjKev (K B D* F G) to Ka.rr\vTT]atv (A C D 3 K L).

12, 13. The Apostle adds two admonitions : to those who
are so self-confident that they think that they have no need
to be watchful ; and to those that are so despondent that they
think that it is useless to struggle with temptation.

12. "nore. See on iii. 21. So then, let him that thinketh
that he is standing securely beware lest he fall ; i.e. fall from
his secure position and become dSo/a/xos. The Apostle does
not question the man s opinion of his condition ; he takes
the security for granted : but there is danger in feeling secure,
for this leads to carelessness. Perhaps there is special reference
to feeling secure against contamination from idol-feasts. It is
less likely that there is a reference to one who " thinks that
through the sacrament he ipso facto possesses eternal life with
God." See Rom. xi. 20, xiv. 4. Mij roivvv eVl rfj crao-ei
/xe ya, dAAa &lt;f&gt;v\a.TTOv rrjv TTTUJO-IJ/ (Chrys.).

Both AV. and RV. disregard the difference between
here and SioVep in v. 14, translating both wherefore. In
Phil. ii. 12, AV. has wherefore, and RV. so then, for owrre.
Vulg. rightly distinguishes, with itaque here and propter quod in
v. 14. Aio -n-ep indicates more strongly than wore that what
follows is a reasoned result of what precedes.

13. iretpaorfjLos ujxas OUK et\T]&lt;j&gt;ei&gt;. An appeal to their past
experience. Hitherto they have had no highly exceptional,
superhuman temptations, but only such as commonly assail
men, and therefore such as a man can endure. The TVTTOI just
mentioned show that others have had similar temptations.
This ought to encourage them with regard to the future, which
he goes on to consider. It is reading too much into the verse
to suppose that Corinthians had been pleading that they must
go to idol-feasts ; otherwise they might be persecuted and
tempted to apostatize. In three of his letters, however (to the

X. 13] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 2OQ

Alexandrians, to the clergy of Samosata, and to Acacius and
others), Basil applies this text to persecution (Epp. 139, 219, 256).
With fL\rj&lt;j&gt;w compare Wisd. xi. 12 ; Luke v. 26, vii. 16, ix. 39.

TUOTOS 8e 6 Gefo. On the contrary, God is faithful, id cst
verax in hac promissione^ ut sit semper nobiscum (Herv.). Both
AV. and RV. have but for 8e. But the opposition is to what
is negatived in what precedes ; this clause continues the en
couragement already given. The perfect tense (OUK JA^ev)
brings us down to the present moment; there never has
been Treipcur/xos fjirj avOpuinvos. In addition to this there is the
certainty that God will never prove faithless : est certus custos
suorum (Calv.).

os OUK e daei fyas. And therefore He will not suffer you to
be tempted beyond what ye are able to endure. This follows
from His faithfulness, as being one who will not allow, etc.
For a similar use of os see i Tim. ii. 4.

dXXa iroiTJaet K.T.\. But will provide, with the temptation,
the way of escape also. A way to escape (AV.) ignores the
article before eK/Sao-iv, * the necessary way of escape, the one
suitable for such a difficulty. The trvv and the articles imply
that temptations and possibilities of escape always go in pairs :
there is no irtpao-/xo s without its proper K/3cum, for these pairs
are arranged by God, who permits no unfairness. He knows
the powers with which He has endowed us, and how much
pressure they can withstand. He will not leave us to become
the victims of circumstances which He has Himself ordered
for us, and impossibilia non jubet. For K/?acris Vulg. has pro-
ventus ) Beza and Calv. (better) exitus^ which Vulg. has Heb.
xiii. 7 ; egressus might be better still. On the history of irtipd&iv
see Kennedy, Sources, p. 106. As to God s part in temptation,
see Matt. vi. 13 ; i Chron. xxi. i ; Job i. 12, ii. 6 ; Exod. xvi. 4 ;
Deut. viii. 2 ; and, on the other side, Jas. i. 13.

TOU SuVaaOcu uTreKcyKeii/. This rov with the infinitive to
express purpose or result* is very frequent in Luke (i. 77, 79,
ii. 24, where see note) and not rare in Paul (Gal. iii. 10; Phil,
iii. 10; Rom. i. 24, vi. 6, vii. 3, viii. 12, xi. 8, 10). c Y7ro&lt;epii/
means to bear up under, to endure patiently (2 Tim. iii. n ;
i Pet. ii. 19 ; Prov. vi. 33 ; Ps. Ixix. 7 ; Job ii. 10). Temptation
is probation, and God orders the probation in such a way that
ye may be able to endure it. The power to endure is given vvv
TO) 7Tipacr/x(I), the endurance is not given; that depends on

* J. H. Moulton (Gr. I. p. 217) prefers to call this use of TOU c. in/in.
epexegetic, and thinks that " when Paul wishes to express purpose he uses
other means." Bachmann makes TOU dvvaffdai the genitive of the substantival
infinitive, dependent on ttcpaffiv, the escape of being able to bear it ; i.e.
the tKpcuris consists in the power to er.dare.

210 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 14-22

ourselves. On the liturgical addition to the Prayer, Lead us
not into temptation which we are not able to bear] see Resch,
Agrapha, pp. 85, 355 ; Hastings, DB. in. p. 144.

Cassian (fusf. v. 16) says that "some not understanding this testimony
of the Apostle have read the subjunctive instead of the indicative mood :
tentatio vos non af&gt;r&gt;rehcndat nisi htimana" (so Yulg.). The verse is a
favourite one with Cassian.

A few texts insert 01) before 5iW0-0e and vireveyKelv after it: a few
insert i /xds before or after virfveyKtlv : K* A B C D* F L P 17 omit vf

14-22. The Lord s Supper and the Jewish sacrifices may
convince you of the fact that to participate in a sacrificial
feast is to participate in worship. Therefore, avoid all
idol-feasts, which are a worship of demons.

14 Yes, God provides escapes from temptations, and so my
affection for you moves me to urge you to escape from tempta
tion to idolatry ; avoid all contact with it. 15 1 appeal to your
good sense ; you are capable of judging for yourselves whether
my arguments are sound.

16 The cup of the blessing, on which we invoke the benediction
of God in the Lord s Supper, is it not a means of communion
in the Blood-shedding of Christ? The bread which we break
there, is it not a means of communion in the Body of Christ?
17 Because the many broken pieces are all one bread, we,
the assembled many, are all one body ; for we, the whole con
gregation, have with one another what comes from the one
bread. 18 Here is another parallel. Consider the Israelites,
as we have them in history with their national ritual. Is it
not a fact that those Israelites who eat the prescribed sacrifices
enter into fellowship with the altar of sacrifice, and therefore
with Him whose altar it is? The altar unites them to one
another and to Him. 19 You ask me what I imply by that.
Not, of course, that there is any real sacrifice to an idol, or that
there is any real idol, such as the heathen believe in. 20 But
I do imply that the sacrifices which the heathen offer they offer
to demons and to a no god : and I do not wish you to enter
into fellowship with the company of demons. 21 Is my meaning
still not plain? It is simply impossible that you should drink
of a cup that brings you into communion with the Lord and
of a cup that brings you into communion with demons; that
you should eat in common with others at the table of the Lord

X. 14-16] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 211

and at the table of demons. --Or do we think so lightly of
this, that we persist in doing just what the Israelites did in the
wilderness, provoking the Lord to jealousy by putting Him on
a level with demons? Are we able, any more than they were,
to defy Him with impunity?

14. Aioirep. Here and viii. 1 3 only. Wherefore, my
beloved ones (the affectionate address turns the command into
in entreaty), flee right away from idolatry. Flight is the sure
Kfiaa-is in all such temptations, and they have it in their own
power: all occasions must be shunned. They must not de
liberately go into temptation and then expect deliverance. They
must not try how near they can go, but how far they can fly.
fotgite idolatriam : omnem utique et totam (Tert. De Cor. TO).
This might seem a hard saying to some of them, especially after
expecting a wide measure of liberty, and he softens it with
dyuTrr/roi /xou. It is his love for them that makes him seem to
be severe and compels him to lay down this rule. Cf. xv. 58 ;
2 Cor. vii. i; Phil. ii. 12, etc. St Paul more commonly has
the simple accusative after &lt;u yu&gt; (vi. 18; i Tim. vi. n;
2 Tim. ii. 22), and it is not clear that &lt;/&gt;iryeu/ O.TTO, which is more
common in Gospels and Rev., is a stronger expression. The
accusative would not have implied that the Corinthians were
already involved in idolatry : that would require CK.

15. ws 4&gt;poi/4Aoi9. Cf. iii. i ; Eph. v. 28. There is no
sarcasm, as in 2 Cor. xi. 19. They have plenty of intelligence,
and can see whether an argument is sound or not, so that pauca
verba sufficiunt ad judicandum (Beng.). Yet there is perhaps
a gentle rebuke in the compliment. They ought not to need
any argument in a matter, de quo judicium ferre non erat
difficile (Calv.). Resch, Agrapka, p. 127.

icpiVare u/ieis o 4 &gt;T lf JU - The t&gt;//,ei&lt;j is emphatic, and the change
from Ae yw to &lt;r//u should be marked in translation, although
it may be made merely for variety; Judge for yourselves what
I declare. Vulg. has loquor and dico\ in Rom. iii. 8 aiunt
((/&gt;ucri) and dicere

16. To TroT^piov TTJS euXoyias. The cup of the blessing,
i.e. over which a benediction is pronounced by Christian
ministers, as by Christ at the Last Supper. It does not mean
the cup which brings a blessing, as is clear from what follows.
We know too little about the ritual of the Passover at the time
of Christ to be certain which of the Paschal cups was the cup
of the Institution. There was probably a Paschal cup of the
thanksgiving or blessing, and the expression here used may

212 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. ]6

come from that, but the addition of which we bless in our
Christian assemblies shows that the phrase is used with a fuller
meaning. Cf. TTOTIJ/OIOI/ a-uTrjpiov (Ps. cxv. 4). EvAoyeu/ and
euxapio-Teiv express two aspects of the same action : see on xi. 24.
The plurals, eyXoyovpev and /cAoi/xei/, do not necessarily mean
that the whole congregation took part in saying the benedic
tion or thanksgiving and in breaking the bread, except so
far as the minister represented the whole body. The Apostle
is speaking of Christian practice generally, without going into
details. See notes on xi. 23-25, where he does give some
details, and cf. Acts ii. 42, 46. Evans enlarges on the ev in
cvAoyov/xev, over which we speak the word for good? and con
cludes, " the bread and wine, after their benediction or consecra
tion, are not indeed changed in their nature, but become in
their use and their effects the very body and blood of Christ
to the worthy receiver."

ouxi Kou/oma early T. atjx. T. Xpiarou ; Is it not communion
in the Blood of Christ ? The RV. margin has * participation
in. But partake is ftere^eiv: KOIVUVCW is to have a share
in ; therefore Koivwia is fellowship rather than participation.
This is clear from what follows respecting the bread. It is
better not to put any article before communion or fellow
ship. AV. has the, which is justifiable, for Kowtavia, being
the predicate, does not need the article. RV. has a, which
is admissible, but is not needed. Strangely enough, Vulg.
varies the translation of this important word; communicatio
sanguiniS) but participatio carports : communio (Beza) is better
than either. As Koivan/ti/ is to give a share to as well as to
have a share in, communicatio is a possible rendering of /coti/owa.
The difference between participation and fellowship or
communion is the difference between having a share and
having the whole. In Holy Communion each recipient has a
share of the bread and of the wine, but he has the whole of
Christ : ou yap TU&gt; p.Te\eiv /xovov /cat /xtToAa/A/Jui/eiv uAAa TU&gt;
evovcrOai KOLVOV^V (Chrys.).*

Here, as in Luke xxii. 17, and in the Didache 9, the cup
is mentioned first, and this order is repeated v. 21 ; but in the
account of the Institution (xi. 23) the usual order is observed.
This may be in order to give prominence to the Blood shedding,
the characteristic act of Christ s sacrifice, and also to bring the

* Ellicott says that this distinction between /ter^eiy and Koivuvelv "cannot
be substantiated. All that can properly be said is that Kowuvelv implies more
distinctly the idea of a community with others": and that is sufficient. See
Cremer, p. 363. Lightfoot points out the caprice of AV. in translating
Kowuvoi first partakers and then have fellowship, while Koivuvia is com
munion, and fjiT^x eiv is to be partakers (On Revision^ p. 39).

X. 16] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 213

eating of the bread into immediate juxtaposition with the eating
at heathen sacrifices. As regards construction, TO Trorijpiov and
rov aprov are attracted to the case of the relatives which follow.

OK K\wfjLK. It is clear from fvx a P La " r W a&lt;s ( XL 2 4) tnat St Paul
does not mean to limit vA.oyov//,ev to the cup : there was a
benediction or thanksgiving over this also. There is no action
with regard to the cup which would be parallel to breaking the
bread, and therefore we cannot say that /cXw/xev is equivalent
to, or a substitute for, cvAoyouyu-cv. Nor would "Trivopw corre
spond to KAw/xev": eating would correspond to drinking, and
both are assumed. The transition from the Body of Christ to
the Church, which in another sense is His Body, is easily made,
but it is not made here : that comes in the next verse.

It is evident from xi. i8f. that the mention of the cup
before the bread here does not imply that in celebrating the
rite the cup ever came first. Here he is not describing the rite,
but pointing out a certain similarity between the Christian rite
and pagan rites. Ramsay (Exp. Times, March 1910, p. 252)
thinks that he names the cup first "partly because the more
important part of the pagan ceremony lay in the drinking of
the wine, and partly because the common food in the pagan
ceremony was not bread, but something eaten out of a dish,"
which was one and the same for all. To this we may add that
in the heathen rite it seems to have been usual for each wor
shipper to bring his own loaf. The worshippers drank out of
the same cup and took sacrificial meat out of the same dish,
but they did not partake of the same bread : ets apro? was not
true of them (Hastings, DB. v. p. 132 b). This is said to be
"the usual practice of simple Oriental meals, in which each
guest has his own loaf, though all eat from a common dish."
There was therefore less analogy between the heathen bread
and the Christian bread than between the heathen cup and the
Christian cup, and for this reason also the cup may have been
mentioned first. For this reason again he goes on (v. 17) to
point out the unity implied in the bread of the Christian rite.
The single loaf is a symbol and an instrument of unity, a unity
which obliterates the distinction between Jew and Gentile and
all social distinctions. There is only one Body, the Body of
Christ, the Body of His Church, of which each Christian is a
member. That is the meaning of This is My Body.

The main point to which the Apostle is leading his readers,
is that to partake ceremonially of the Thing Sacrificed is to
become a sharer in the Sacrificial Act, and all that that involves.

It is not easy to decide whether the first &lt;TTIV should follow
(A B P, Copt. Arm.) or XpioroD (K C D E F G K L P, Latt.). Probably
the latter order arose through assimilation to the position of the second

214 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 16, 17

t&lt;jT\.v. A and a few other authorities put the second ianv after the second
Koivwia, probably for assimilation. KBCDFKLP have the second forty
after XpioroD. For the second XptoroO, D* F, Latt. have Kvpiov.

17. on i apros, ey au&gt;jj.a 01 iroXXoi eojiei . It is not difficult
to get good sense out of these ambiguous words, but it is not
easy to decide how they should be translated. Fortunately
the meaning is much the same, whichever translation is adopted.
The OTI may = because and introduce the protasis, of which
eV o-tu/xa . . . eV/zei/ is the apodosis ; Because there is one
bread, one body are we the many, i.e. Because the bread,
although broken into many pieces, is yet one bread, we, although
we are many, are one body. Vulg. seems to take it in this way ;
guoniam unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus.* The awkward
ness of this is that there is no particle to connect the statement
with what precedes. The Syriac inserts a therefore ; as,
therefore, that bread is one, so are we one body. Or (better)
on may = for (AV.), or seeing that (RV.), and be the
connecting particle that is required ; Seeing that we, who
are many, are one bread, one body (RV.). But, however
we unravel the construction, we have the parallel between
many fragments, yet one bread, and many members, yet one
body. See Lightfoot on Ign. Eph. 20, where we have TTCIVTCS
o-wepxe(r#e fv JJLLO. TTIGTCI /cat evi Irjarov Xpi(rr&lt;2 followed by Iva
aprov jcAwires. See also Philad. 4. The Apostle s aim is to show
that all who partake of the one bread have fellowship with Christ.
This is plain from what follows. See Abbott, The Son of Man,
p. 496.

ot yap irdrrcs K TOU e^os aprou pfTlxopev. For we all have
our share from the one bread, i.e. the bread which is the means
of fellowship with Christ. Nowhere else have we pcrex*-! with
CK : the usual construction is the simple genitive (21, ix. 12),
which may be understood (30, ix. 10); but compare e* in xi. 28.
The meaning seems to be that we all have a share which is taken
from the one bread, and there is possibly a suggestion that the
one bread remains after all have received their shares. All have
communion with the Body, but the Body is not divided. The
idea of Augustine, that the one loaf composed of many grains of
corn is analogous to the one body composed of many members,
however true in itself, is foreign to this passage. We have the
same idea in the Didache 9 ; "As this broken bread was scattered
(as grain) upon the mountains and gathered together became one,
etc." " How the sacramental bread becomes in its use and effects
the body of Christ, is a thing that passes all understanding :

* Quoniam units est panis, unum corpus nos, qiti multi sumus (Beza).
Weil Ein Brod es ist das wir brechen, sind Ein Leib wir, die Vielen
(Schmiedel).

X. 17-19] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 215

the manner is a mystery " (Evans). He adds that 01 TTCU/TCS
= all as one, all the whole congregation. It is remarkable
how St Paul insists upon the social aspect of both the sacra
ments ; * For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body
(xii. 13).

18. The sacrifices of the Jews furnish a similar argument
to show that participation in sacrificial feasts is communion with
the unseen.

p\6ircT6 TOV lapaTjX Kara crapKa. Look at Israel after the
flesh, the actual Israel of history. Christians are a new Israel,
Israel after the Spirit, TOV lo-pai/A. TOV eov (Gal. vi. 16, iii. 29;
Phil. iii. 3), whether Jews or Gentiles by birth.

oux ol eadioires K.T.\. * Are not they who eat the sacrifices
in fellowship with the altar? They are in fellowship with the
altar, and therefore with the unseen God, whose altar it is. To
swear by the Temple is to swear by Him that dwelleth therein
(Matt, xxiii. 21), and to have fellowship with the altar is to have
fellowship with Him whose sacrifices are offered thereon. As
in the Holy Communion, therefore, so also in the Temple
services, participating in sacrificial feasts is sacrificial fellowship
with an unseen power, a power that is Divine. There is some
thing analogous to this in the sacrificial feasts of the heathen ;
but in that case the unseen power is not Divine. See Lev.
vii. 6, 14, vi. 26, and Westcott on Heb. xiii. 10.

19. TI oui/ 4&gt;T)fu; What then do I declare? This refers
back to the typi in v. 15 and guards against apparent incon
sistency with viii. 4. Do I declare that a thing sacrificed to an
idol is something, or that an idol is something? In neither
case was there reality. The dSuXoOvrov professed to be an
offering made to a god, and the etSoAoi/ professed to represent
a god. Both were shams. The dbuXoOvrov was just a piece
of flesh and nothing more, and its being sacrificed to a being
that had no existence did not alter its quality ; the meat was
neither the better nor the worse for that. The etSoAoi/ was just
so much metal, or wood, or stone, and its being supposed to
represent a being that had no existence did not alter its value ;
it was neither more nor less useful than before. As a sacrifice
to a god, and as the image of a god, the eiSwAoflvToi/ and the
eiSo&gt;Aoi&gt; had no reality, for there was no such being as Aphrodite
or Serapis. Nevertheless, there was something behind both,
although not what was believed to be there.

AV., following KL, Syrr., has idol first; and, without authority,
inserts the article, * the idol. tf B C D E P, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. have
STL fl8(a\60VTO . . . on eiSuXov. The accentuation of Tisch., STL ei5u\6-
6vTov TL ZffTiv, ^ 6 ri etd&lt;j}\6v TI ZGTLV, is probably wrong : better, rl ecrrii/

2l6 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 19,20

in each case ; that it is something* (aliijttid] is the meaning, not that any
such thing exists. The omission of r) Sri iSa)\6v rl &lt;TTI.V (K* AC*) is
no doubt owing to homoeoteleuton, rL tanv to ri eVni&gt;.

20. d\X cm a Ououaiy ra lvi\. But (what I do declare is)
that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice. Here (according
to the best texts), as in Rom. ii. 14, xv. 27, Wv-rj has a plural
verb : in Rom. ix. 30 it has the singular. As TO. IQvt) are
animate and numerous, the plural is natural. On the history
of the term cflvos see Kennedy, Sources^ p. 98.

8cujjioi&gt;uHs Ka! ou 0ew Qvovvw. The Apostle seems to have
LXX of Deut. xxxii. 17, Wvaav Scu/xovtois KCU ov 0ew, 0eois ots
OUK flSeio-ai/, * They sacrificed to demons (Shedim) and to a no-
god, to gods whom they knew not, in his mind. That *al ou
0ea&gt; means and to a no-god rather than * and not to God is
confirmed by Deut. xxxii. 21 ; avrol Trape^ A-wo-ay /xe CTT ov 0&lt;3
. . . /caya) Trapa^r/Awo-to avrovs CTT OVK ZOvtL, They have made
me jealous with a no-god . . . and I will make them jealous
with a no-people ; see Driver s notes. In Bar. iv. 7 we have
the same expression, probably based on Deut. xxxii. 1 7 ; Ovo-avrts
Sat/xoi/i ois /cat ov 0ew by sacrificing to demons and no-god.
The Shedim are mentioned nowhere else, excepting Ps. cvi. 37,
a late Psalm, possibly of the Greek period : according to it
human sacrifices were offered to the Shedim ; see Briggs ad loc.
In Ps. xcvi. 5, * All the gods of the nations are idols, LXX
ot 0eoi TWJ/ vcov Sai/AoVia, the word rendered * idols and
means things of nought (Lev. xix. 4, xxvi. i ; Ps. xcvii. 7 ;
cf. Is. xl. i8f., xliv. 9 f.). Asmodaeus, the evil spirit of Tob.
iii. 8, vi. 14, is called in the Aram, and Heb. versions king of
the Shedim ; and it is possible that St Paul has the Shedim in
his mind here. See Edersheim, Life and Times, n. pp. 759-
763. Here, the translation, and not to God, introduces a
thought which is quite superfluous : there was no need to
declare that sacrifices to idols are not offered to God. But
to a no-god has point, and is probably a reminiscence of O.T.
The Apostle is showing that taking part in the sacrificial feasts
of the heathen involves two evils, sharing in the worship of
a thing-of-nought, and (what is still worse) having fellowship
with demons. This latter point is the main thing, and it is
expressly stated in what follows. See Hastings, DB. art.
Demon ; Thackeray, p. 144. The primitive and wider-spread
idea that there is, in sacrifice, communion between deity and
worshippers, and between the different worshippers, greatly
aided St Paul in his teaching.

The idea that evil spirits are worshipped, when idols which represent
non-existent pagan deities are worshipped, was common among the Jews,
and passed over from them into the Christian Church, with the support

X. 20, 21] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 21?

of various passages in both O.T. and N.T. In addition to those quoted
above may be mentioned Is. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14, where both AV. and RV.
have satyrs and LXX dai/j.6via. In Lev. xvii. 7 and 2 Chron. xi. 15,
AV. has devils, RV. he goats, RV. marg. satyrs, and LXX /j-drata :
see Curtis on 2 Chron. xi. 15. In Enoch xcix. 7, "Others will make
graven images of gold and silver and wood and clay, and others will
worship impure spirits and demons and all kinds of superstitions not
according to knowledge," quoted by Tertullian (De Idol. 4). Book of
Jubilees i. II, "They will worship each his own (image), so as to go
astray, and they will sacrifice their children to demons " ; and again,
xxii. 17, "They offer their sacrifices to the dead and they worship evil
spirits." In Rev. ix. 2O, iva ^ TrpoffKwf}ffovff(.v ra dat/j.6via KO.I ra e/5w\a.
In the Gospels, and probably in the Apocalypse, Sai/m.6via seem to be the
same as irvf\&gt;iJ.ara a.Ka.6apTa, and that is likely to have been St Paul s view.
The close connexion between idolatry and impurity would point to this
(see Weinel, St Pattl, pp. 31-34). By entering into fellowship with
demons or unclean spirits, they were exposing themselves to hideous
temptations of terrific violence.

ou 0Aw 8e K.r.X. * And I do not wish that you should become
fellows of the demons : have fellowship with (AV.) or have
communion with (RV.) does not give the force of yt vccrftu.
The article shows that the demons are regarded here as a
society, into which the worshipper of idols is admitted.

The text of v. 20 has been much varied by copyists, and some points
remain doubtful. Movaiv (K A B C D E F G P) is to be preferred to 6vei
(KL), which is a grammatical correction in both places. After the first
Ovovffiv, X A C K L P, Vulg. Syrr. Copt, have TO. tBvt\ : B D E F omit.
WH. bracket. The second dvovviv follows Kal 01) 6e$ (K A B C P, Arm.),
not precedes (D E F G, Vulg. Syrr. Copt.). For KOIVWVOVS TWV daiftovluv,
D* E F G have Saipovluv KOLVUVOVS. For ylve&lt;r6at, F, Syrr. Copt, have

21. ou SuVaaOe. Of course it is not meant that there is any
impossibility in going to the Lord s Supper, and then going to
an idol-feast : but it is morally impossible for one who has real
fellowship with Christ to consent to have fellowship with demons.
For one who does so consent OVK &lt;TTIV KvpiaKov SetTri/ov &lt;ayetV.
Only those who do not realize what the Supper is, or do not
realize what an idol-feast is, could think of taking part in both :
cf. 2 Cor. vi. 15 ; Matt. vi. 22. The genitives may be possessive
genitives, but the context indicates that they mean the cup
which brings you into fellowship with, genitives of relation.

Tpa-n-e^Tjs Kupiou. In Mai. i. 7, 12, My table, i.e. the Lord s
table, means the altar; see also Ezek. xli. 22, xliv. 16. Here it
can only mean the Lord s Supper, table (as often) including
what was on it, especially food ; hence the expression, rpcnrl^
yaeTe xeiv. Wetstein quotes Diod. iv. 74, /xeTao-^wv KOIVTJS Ty&gt;a7re ?7&lt;j.
Deissmann (New Light on the N. T,, p. 83 ; see also Light,
p. 355) quotes the invitation to "dine at the K\ivi) of the Lord
Serapis in the house of Cl. Serapion." Probably from this

218 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 21-22

passage, and perhaps also from Luke xxii. 30, the Lord s Table
came to mean the Lord s Supper. Augustine calls it the table
of Christ and that great table ; Ambrose and Gregory
Nazianzen, the mystical table ; etc.

22. r\ irapaT]\ou|Ai TOV Ku pioi/; A reminiscence of Deut.
xxxii. 21 quoted above; see on Rom. x. 19, xi. n : Or are we
provoking the Lord to jealousy ? Is that what we are engaged
in trying whether the Lord will suffer Himself to be placed on
a level with demons ? In Deut. the Lord of course means
Jehovah, and some understand it so here; but v. 21 almost
necessitates a reference to Christ. The rj introduces the alter
native, * Or (if you think that you can eat of Christ s table and of
the table of demons) are we going to provoke His jealousy?

/AT) icrxuporepoi aurou eajAey ; Surely we are not stronger than
He? His anger cannot be braved with impunity; Job ix. 32,
xxxvii. 23; Eccles. vi. 10; Isa. xlv. 9; Ezek. xxii. 14; some of
which passages may have been in the Apostle s mind when he
thus reduced such an argument 19 O.TOTTOV. It is as when
Jehovah answers Job out of the whirlwind. Cf. i. 13.

x. 23-xi. 1. Idol-meats need not always be avoided, but
brotherly love limits Christian freedom. Abstain from idol-
meats when an over- scrupulous brother tells you that they
have been sacrificed to idols. In this and in all things seek
Gods glory. That is my ride, and it keeps one from injuring
others. And it is my rule because it is Christ s.

23 As was agreed before, In all things one may do as one
likes, but not all things that one may do do good. In all things
one may do as one likes, but not all things build up the life of
the Church. 24 In all open questions, it is the well-being of the
persons concerned, and not one s own rights, that should deter
mine one s action.

25 See how this works in practice. Anything that is on sale
in the meat-market buy and eat, asking for no information that
might perplex your conscience ; 26 for the meat in the market,
like everything else in the world, is the Lord s, and His children
may eat what is His without scruple. 27 Take another case. If
one of the heathen invites some of you to a meal, and you care
to go, anything that may be set before you eat, asking for no
information, as before. 28 But if one of your fellow-guests should
think it his duty to warn you and say, This piece of meat has
been offered in sacrifice, then refrain from eating it, so as to

X. 23] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 219

avoid shocking your informant and wounding conscience. 21) Of
course I do not mean your own conscience, but the conscience
of the over scrupulous brother who warned you. For to what
purpose should I, by using my liberty, place myself in a false
position, judged by the conscience of another? 30 Fancy saying
grace for food which causes offence and involves me in blame !

31 In short, that aim solves all these questions. Whether you
are eating or drinking or doing anything else, let your motive
always be the promotion of God s glory. 8 J Beware of putting
difficulties in the way of Jews by ill-considered liberty, or of
Greeks by narrow-minded scruples, or of the Church of God by
unchristian self-seeking. 3:i That is just my own principle. I try
to win the approval of everybody in everything, not aiming at
my own advantage, but at that of the many, that they may be
saved from perdition. 1 In this I am only following in the foot
steps of Christ. Will not you follow in mine ?

The whole discussion of et8a&gt;Ao#uos, accordingly, issues in
three distinct classes of cases, for each of which St Paul has a
definite solution :

(1) Eating at sacrificial feasts. This is idolatry, and absol
utely forbidden.

(2) Eating food bought in the shops, which may or may not
have an idolatrous history. This is unreservedly allowed.

There remains (3) the intermediate case of food at non-
ceremonial feasts in private houses. If no attention is drawn to
the "history" of the food, this class falls into class (2). But if
attention is pointedly called to the history of the food, its eating
is prohibited, not as per se idolatrous, but because it places the
eater in a false position, and confuses the conscience of others.

23. ndrr&lt;x 2e0Tit . A return, without special personal refer
ence, to the principle stated (or perhaps quoted) in vi. 12; where
see notes. Of course he means all things indifferent, with regard
to which a Christian has freedom. He repeats this principle,
with its limitation, before dealing finally with the question of
idol-meats. See Moffatt, Lit. of N.T., p. 112.

ou irdrra oiKoSofAci. This explains ou iravra o-v/x^epct. There
are some things which do not build up either the character of
the individual, or the faith which he professes, or the society to
which he belongs. A liberty which harms others is not likely to
benefit oneself, and a liberty which harms oneself is not likely
to benefit others. Cf. xiv. 26; Rom. xiv. 19.

220 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 23-26

Before tl-eo-Tiv, in both clauses, K :5 H K L, Syrr. AV. insert /-tot from
vi. 12: K* A B C* D E, Am. Copt. omit. Through homoeoteleuton,
to iravra, F G omit the first clause and 17 omits the second.

24. jjujoels TO eauroG T)TCITU. This is the practice which
really o-iyx^e pet and oiKo8o//,et: Let no one seek his own good.
The prohibition is, of course, relative : seeking one s own good
is not always wrong, but it is less important than seeking the
good of others; and when the two conflict it is one s own good
that must give way: cf. v. 33, vi. 18; Luke x. 20, xiv. 12, 13,
xxiii. 28.

dXXa TO TOU eTcpou. The fjLrj&tLs of course is not the subject,
but ?Kacrros, understood from the //j/Sci s. Such ellipses are as
common in English as in Greek. Here, as in iii. 7 and vii. 19,
the aAAct implies the opposite of the previous negative. Here,
D 2 E K L add KCKTTOS after tTcpov. The Apostle now returns to
viii. 1-13 to finish the subject.

25. lv u.aKe \Xu). The word occurs nowhere else in Biblical,
and is rare in classical, Greek ; = macellum, which may be derived
from macto = slaughter or maceria = enclosure. It means
* provision-market, and especially meat-market. Probably a
great deal of the meat offered for sale (TT^XOV^VOV) came from
the sacrifices, especially what was sold to the poor. See Deiss-
mann, Light, p. 274.

u.T)8e&gt; dvciKpiVorres. Making no inquiry as to whether the
meat had been offered in sacrifice. It is not likely that the
meaning is, not examining any piece of meat, because of v. 27.
In the market, it might be possible to distinguish sacrificial meat,
but not after it had been served at table.

8ict TTJI&gt; &lt;T\)veL^f](Tiv. Out of regard to conscience. Is this
clause to be taken with /xr/Sci/ araK/nVoires, or with di/aKptVoi/res
only ? If the latter, the meaning is making no conscientious
inquiries, asking no questions prompted by a scrupulous con
science. Had the order been /ar/Sei/ Sto. T. &lt;rw. dva*p., this would
no doubt be the meaning. As the words stand, the former con
struction is better ; * For the sake of your conscience making no
inquiry, asking no questions which might trouble conscience.
It is not wise to seek difficulties. The connexion with cohere,
eat, because your conscience is an enlightened one, may safely
be rejected.

26. TOU Kuptou yap. Quotation from Ps. xxiv. i to justify
the advice just given. The emphasis is on roC Kvptov, To the
Lord belongs the earth. Meat does not cease to be God s
creature and possession because it has been offered in sacrifice :
what is His will not pollute any one. This agrees with Mark
vii. I Q, Ka9apid)v irdvTa TO. /fyoo/xara, arid with Acts X. 15, a 6

X. 26-28J THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 221

cos iKaOdpia-ev. It is stated that the words here quoted are
used by Jews as grace at meals. Whether or no they were so
used in St Paul s day, the principle laid down in i Tim. iv. 4
was recognized ; Every creature of God is good, and nothing to
be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving.

TO irXifau/xa auTTJs. * That which fills it, its contents. See
J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, p. 259. Cf. Ps. xcvi. u, The sea
and dll that therein is, 17 OaXaa-aa Kal TO TrXr/pw/xa av-n}?.

27. KaXet u^ias. The pronoun here has a slight change of
meaning. He has been addressing all the Corinthian Christians,
but this V/JLOLS can only mean some of you. All of them had
heathen acquaintances, one of whom might invite several of
them. And the emphasis is on KaXei : he suggests that without
an express invitation they surely would not go.

Kal 6e\eT iropeueo-Ocu. * And you care to go : an intimation
that he does not advise their going, though he does not forbid
it ; satius fore si recusarent (Calv.).

iraf TO TrapaTi0/fXkoj . Placed first with emphasis, like irav TO
iv //,. TTwX. : Anything that is put before you ; Anything that
is for sale, etc. Cf. Luke x. 8.

er -as (KABD*FGP, Latt.) is to be preferred to el dt rts (CD 8
EHKL, Syrr.).

28. lav Se* TIS ujj.Ii&gt; ciTTY]. The change from et to ecu/ is
perhaps intentional, although the difference between the two is
less in late Greek than in earlier. If any one invites you, a
thing which is very possible and may have happened. If any
one should say to you, a pure hypothesis, and not so very
probable. In Gal. i. 8, 9 we have a change from lav to ei. See
J. H. Moulton, Gr. p. 187. This shows clearly that the meal is
a private one, and not such as is mentioned in viii. 10. The
Apostle has already ruled that banquets Iv ct8o&gt;A.tu&gt; must be
avoided, and at such a banquet there would be no need to say
TOVTO IcpoOvTov IVTIV. It is less easy to decide who the speaker
is. Certainly not the host, whose conscience would not be
mentioned, but a fellow-guest. And we are almost certainly to
understand a fellow-Christian, one of the weak brethren, who,
being scrupulous himself about such things, thinks that he ought
to warn others of what he chances to know. That a heathen
would do it out of malice, or amusement, or good-nature (" I
dare say, you would rather not eat that "), is possible, but his
conscience would hardly come into consideration. And his
using LpoOvTov rather than dSuXoOvrov would seem to indicate
that he was a Gentile Christian : when he was a heathen and
regarded sacrifices to the gods as sacred, he would use i

222 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 28, 29

and not d8w\66vTov : and he uses the old word still.* It shows
how St Paul has realized the situation. The word occurs
nowhere else in Bibl. Grk. See Deissmann, Light^ p. 355 n.

jit) ecrOieTe. This cannot mean Cease from eating. As
&rdtcr (v. 25) means make a practice of eating, /AT) lo-OUrc
means make a practice of abstaining from eating.

8t* JKCIPOV . . . KCU ri)v aui eiSrjcnj . We expect avrov after
o-weibrjo-Lv, but the Apostle purposely omits to say whose con
science is considered, in order to leave an opening for the
emphatic statement which follows : out of regard to your
informant and to conscience. He would be shocked, and the
shock would be a shock to conscience.

ifp66vTov (K A B II, Sah.) is to be preferred to eldu\6evTov (C D E F
G K L P, Copt. Arm.), which is a correction to a more usual and apparently
more correct term. There would be little temptation to change cidw\66vToi&gt;
into iepoduTov, which occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX. The AV.,
following H 2 KL, Goth., Chrys. Thdrt., adds from v. 26 The earth is the
Lords, etc. KABCDEFGH*P, Latt. Copt. Aeth. Arm. omit.

29. aui/i8T]&lt;ni 8e Xe yw. Now by conscience I mean, not
one s own, but the other s, not the guest s who received the
information, but the fellow-guest s who gave it. There is no
need to regard lavrov as second person ( thine own, AV., RV.)
for a-avTov: it maybe indefinite, one s own. In the plural,
eavrwv, etc. is regularly used in N.T. for ^^v avrwv and vfjuov
avrou/, etc. (xi. 31 ; Phil ii. 12, etc.) ; but, in the singular, there
is not one decisive example of this use. In Rom. xiii. 9 ; Gal.
v. 14; Matt. xxii. 39, o-eauroV is the better reading; in John
xviii. 34, o-cauTov. Here, eavrov is the right reading.

Ivo, ri yap rj e XeuOepia p&gt;u ; The Apostle graphically puts
himself in the place of the Christian guest who has been placed
in a difficulty by the ofificiousness of his scrupulous informant ;
ex sua persona docet. Iva ri yap : the force of the Iva is lost
in most explanations of this clause (except Godet). Iva. ri (see
small print) never means by what right, but rather for what
object ? St Paul s main point in the context is /AT; eo-fliVrc, for
which ydp introduces a reason : Eat not, ... for what good
will you gain ? (cf. viii. 8). What follows is really a characteriza
tion of the act of eating. The clue to the tense is in Rom. xiv. 16,
where the same verb, /JAao-^tmo-floo, is used in a very similar
connexion, What good shall I gain by (eating, i.e.) by suffering
my liberty to incur judgment (as xi. 31 ; Rom. ii. 12 ; Acts xiii.

* See Origen (Cels. viii. 21 sub tnit.}, where he says that Celsus would
call iepoBvra what are properly called et 5wX6^ura, or, still better, dcufj-ovtoOvra.
There is no improbability in a weak Christian accepting the invitation of a
heathen. There would be plenty of food that had never been sacrificed : and
he might avoid the wori d5w\6dvTov out of consideration for his entertainer.

X. 29-31] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 223

27) at the hands of another s conscience? Why incur blame
for food for which I give thanks, if I " say grace " for it ? In the
last clause, the point is in the incongruity of saying grace for
what places rre in a false position ; the structure exhibits a slight
logical inversion closely similar to that in Rom. vii. 16 (see
Introd. on Style).

For eavrov (K A B C D 2 E, etc.), D*, Latt. (tttam) have (reavrov, and H
has ^uauroO, which are manifest corrections. For AXXrjs, F, d g Goth.,
Ambr. have airLffrov, which is wrong both as reading and as interpretation.

The interrogative iVct rt (with ytvrjTai or ytvoiro understood) is found
in several places, both in N.T. (Matt. ix. 4, xxvii. 46; Luke xiii. 7 ; Acts
iv. 25, vii. 25) and in LXX (Ruth i. II, 21 ; Ecclus. xiv. 3 ; i Mac. ii. 7) ;
also in Plato and Aristophanes. Cf. ut quid? and in quid? and ad quid?

30. el eyw x&lt;*P lTt fTe xw. If I with thanksgiving partake,
why do I receive reviling about that for which I give thanks?
This suggests, if it does not imply, that one s being able to
thank God for it is evidence that the enjoyment is innocent.
One cannot thank God for a pleasure which one knows to be
wrong. The connexion between ^apin and ev^apto-rw should be
preserved in translation. Apparently both refer to grace at
meals, and the meaning is that all food, whether sacrificial or
not, is sanctified, if it be received with thanksgiving, jucra t\&gt;xa-
purrtaf, dyta^erai yap Sta Aoyou eov KOL cVrcu^ews (i Tim. iv. 4).
Evans translates, If I with grace said have meat with others,
why am I evil spoken of for having meat for which I have said
grace? AV. and RV. render x^P LTL by grace, which means
by God s grace (xv. 10), either His grace in providing food, or
His grace in enlightening the conscience (Chrys.). So also
Calvin ; quum Dei beneficium sit, quod omnia mihi licent. But
this is less likely than thanksgiving. See Ellicott.

The 3&lt;? between el and eyu (C D 3 E H K L, Syrr.) may be safely
omitted (K B D* F G P, Latt.). AV. has For, which has no authority.
No connecting particle is required, and 5^ interrupts the sense. In any
case tyu is emphatic, If I for my part. For x^P LTI - without the article cf.
Eph. ii. 5 ; Heb. ii. 9, xiii. 9.

31. Eire ouv &lt;T0iT. The ovv gathers up the results of the long
discussion, and introduces a comprehensive principle which
covers this question and a great many other things. All is to
be done to God s glory ; and this aim will be a good guide in
doubtful cases.* It has been suggested before, vi. 20.

iT TI TToietre. Or do anything ; the active side of life as
distinct from enjoyment and refreshment. Cf. o TI lav

Iv ovofjLari Kvpiov IT/O-OV, and o lav Troi^re, pyttc&lt;r$ &lt;Ls

* Epictetus (Arr. Dis. ii. 19) says ; "I have this purpose, to make you
free from constraint, compulsion, hindrance, to make you free, prosperous,
happy, looking to God in everything small and great," ets Qebi&gt; d0o/3ujvraj ev
Kttf /cat

224 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 31-33

(Col. iii. 17, 23). Foregoing our rights out of Christian
charity would illustrate this. Abstaining from action, for a good
motive, is included in n-oietre as well as deeds, whether simple
or heroic. Ignatius repeatedly has the phrase, ets TL^V Oeou
(Eph. 21 biS) Smyrn. n, Polyc. 5; cf. Magn. 3, Trail. 12).
Here again, as in v. 28, we have the refrain interpolated; For
the earth is the Lord s, etc. (C 3 ). See Deissmann, Light, p. 459.

32. cbrpoaKoiroi yiVeaOe. Behave without giving offence, prove
yourselves to be averse to causing others to stumble ; sine
offensione esfofe (Vulg.). The term here, as in Ecclus. xxxii. 21,
is certainly transitive, not making to stumble : in Acts xxiv. 16
it is certainly intransitive, without stumbling : in Phil. i. 10 it
may be either, but is probably intransitive. The use of the term
here, in continuation of the great principle set forth in v. 31,
shows that refraining from doing is much in his mind when he
says tT n Troieire.

Kai louScuois Y- KO ^ "EXXtjarik Kai rfj cKK\r)(ria TOU Oeou. These are
three separate bodies ; the third does not include the other two.
Therefore unconverted Jews and unconverted Greeks are meant ;
they are ot !&lt;o (v. 12), and it is an Apostolic principle that
Christian conduct must be regulated with reference to those
outside the Church as well as those within : Iva TrepiTrar^Te evo-^iy-
/xoVws Trpos TOVS eu&gt; (i Thess. iv. 12 ; cf. Col. iv. 5). An ill-
advised exhibition of Christian freedom might shock Jews and
an ill-advised rigour about matters indifferent might excite the
derision of Greeks, and thus those who might have been won
over would be alienated. In KCU rfj IK. TOU @. (i. 2, xi. 16, 22,
xv. 9) he is again thinking of the weak brethren who have
needless scruples.* See on xii. 12.

Kai lofScuois ylvtaOt is the order in K* ABC 17, Orig. There would
be obvious temptation to correct to ylveade rots I., as in M :i D E F G K L P ;
and versions follow suit.

33. Ka0ojs Kdyw . . . dpeaKw. Just as I also am ready to
render service to all men in all things. The rendering please
for dpe o-Kw is somewhat misleading, for it seems to mean that
the Apostle habitually curried favour with every one and tried to
be liked by all. Cf. Gal. i. 10. Please is used from his own
point of view of what ought to please, f ApeWeu/ is sometimes
almost to be a benefactor to. "In monumental inscriptions
the words dpeVaj/res rfj Tro Xei, rrj TrarptSc, etc. are used to describe
those who have proved themselves of use to the commonwealth,

* There is no "harsh note of ecclesiasticism " here. It is the glory of
God that is put in the first place, and, after that, the good of others.

f Ignatius recalls these words and iv. I, when he writes (Trail. 2), 5a 5
Kai TOI)S 5ta/c6roi&gt;s fij ras /JLVffTrjpiuv I. XpurroO /card irdvTa Tpbirov Traaiv

XI. 1] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 225

as in O. G. I. S. 646, 12, aptcravTa rrj re avr-rj (3ov\-fj Kal rta 877^10)"
(Milligan on i Thess. ii. 4). What follows shows that his aim
was not popularity.

JIT) T]TWI&gt; TO cjiauTou avpfyopov. The conclusion shows what
kind of o-vfjL&lt;f&gt;opov is meant, viz. spiritual profit. The saving of
his own soul is not his main object in life ; that would be a
refined kind of selfishness. He seeks his own salvation through
the salvation of others. The unity of the Church as the Body of
Christ is such that the spiritual gain of one member is to be
sought in the spiritual gain of the whole (v. 17, xii. 12, 25, 26).
It is for this reason that he prefers inspired preaching to speaking
in a Tongue (xiv. 4, 19). It is a commonplace among philo
sophers that the man who seeks his own happiness does not
find it : it is in seeking the happiness of others that each man
finds his own. See Phil. ii. 4 ; Rom. xv. i. Josephus (B.J. iv.
v. 2) praises Ananus as irpo TWI&gt; tSiW AixrireAaw TO

Ira aw6a&gt;(7n&gt;. As in ix. 22. This effort must be to the glory
of God, for it is carrying on His work (Col. i. 13, 14). Cf. i. 21 ;
i Thess. ii. 16 ; i Tim. ii. 4. This shows what Tra&Lv dpeo-Koj means.

As in vii. 35, crvufopov (to* ABC) is to be preferred to
(K 3 D E F G K L P). Nowhere else in N.T. does &lt;ri^0opos occur ; in LXX
only I Mac. iv. 5. Hence the change to a more familiar word. In xii. 7,
(rv/Ji&lt;ptpov is right : (rvpfapeiv is frequent.

XI. 1. The division of the chapters is unfortunate. This verse
clearly belongs to what precedes. He has just stated his own
principle of action, and he begs them to follow it, because it is
Christ s : Hincapparet, quam ineptae sint capitum sectiones (Calv.).
There is no connexion with what follows.

jufAT)Tcu fiou yiceo-Oe. * Become imitators of me. Excepting
Heb. iv. 12, /zi/x^Tfl s is in N.T. peculiar to Paul (iv. 16 ; Eph. v.
i ; i Thess. i. 6, ii. 14): not found in LXX. Everywhere it is
joined with ytVecrftu, which indicates moral effort ; * Strive to
behave as I do. Everywhere the more definite imitator (RV.)
is to be preferred to follower (AV.) : Be ye followers of me
is doubly defective. Cf. foo-nrcp KOL Ton/ aAAwv cpyan/ ot StSao-KaAoi
TOVS fia6rjTa&lt;s /u/x^Tas eavTaiv a.7ro8et/cvvov&lt;rtv (Xen. Mem. I. vi. 3).

Ka0ws Kdyw XpioroG. This addition dispels the idea that it is
in any spirit of arrogance that he asks them to imitate him ;
once more he is only asking them to do what he does himself,
to follow the example of one whom they recognized as their
teacher : nihil praescribit a/its quod non prior observaverit ;
deinde se et altos ad Christum, tanquam unicum rede agendi
exemplar revocat (Calv.). It is as an example of self-sacrifice
that he takes Christ as his model : the whole context shows this.

226 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 2-16

And it is commonly this aspect of Christ s life that is regarded,
when He is put before us in N.T. as an example : Rom. xv. 2, 3 ;
2 Cor. viii. 9; Eph. v. 2; Phil. ii. 4, 5. " The details of His
life are not generally imitable, our calling and circumstances
being so different from His. Indeed, the question, What
would Jesus do? may be actually misleading" (Goudge). The
wiser question is, * Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? It is
seldom that St Paul mentions any of the details of our Lord s
life on earth, and it is therefore unlikely that he is thinking of
anything but the subject in hand sacrificing one s own rights
and pleasures for the good of others. Nevertheless, the know
ledge which St Paul displays of details is sufficient to show that
he knew a great deal more than he mentions, and exaggerated
statements have been made respecting his supposed ignorance.
See Knowling, The Testimony of St Paul to Christ, Lect. x. ;
Jacquier, Histoire des Livres du N.T., n. 22-24; The Fifth
Gospel, pp. 75, 195 f. On the supposed difference between the
teaching of Christ and that of St Paul see Kaftan, Jesus und
Paulus, Tiibingen 1906, esp. pp. 24, 32, 58; Walther, Fault
Christentum Jesu Evangelium, Leipzig, 1908, esp. pp. 25-30;
Jiilicher, Paulus und Jesus, Tubingen, 1907, esp. pp. 35 f.

XL 2 -XIV. 40. DISORDERS IN CONNEXION WITH
PUBLIC WORSHIP AND THE MANIFESTATION OF
SPIRITUAL GIFTS.

This constitutes the third * main division of the Epistle, and
it contains three clearly marked sections; respecting (i) the
Veiling of Women, xi. 2-16; (2) Disorders connected with the
Lord s Supper, xi. 17-34; (3) Spiritual Gifts, especially Pro
phesying and Tongues, xii. i-xiv. 40. At the outset there is a
possible reference to the Corinthians letter to the Apostle ; but
the sections deal with evils which had come to his knowledge in
other ways.

XI. 2-16. The Veiling of Women in Public Worship.

Although in respect of religion men and women are on
an equality, yet the Gospel does not overthrow the natural
ordinance, which is really of Divine appointment, that woman
is subject to man. To disavow this subjection before the con
gregation must cause grave scandal ; and such sJiamelessness
is condemned by nature, by authority, and by general custom.
* The fourth, if the Introduction (i. 1-9) be counted.

XI. 2-16 DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP

2 Now, as to another question, I do commend you for re
membering me, as you assure me you do, in all things, and for
loyally holding to the traditions just as I transmitted them to
you. 3 But I should like you to grasp, what has not previously
been mentioned, that of every man, whether married or un
married, Christ is the head, while a woman s head is her husband,
and Christ s head is God. 4 Every man, whether married or
unmarried, who has any covering on his head when he publicly
prays to God or expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours
his head : 5 whereas every woman, whether married or unmarried,
who has her head uncovered when she publicly prays to God or
expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours her head ; for she
is then not one whit the better than the wanton whose head is
shaven. 6 A woman who persists in being unveiled like a man
should go the whole length of cutting her hair short like a
man. But seeing that it is a mark of infamy for a woman to
have her hair cut off or shorn, let her wear a veil. 7 A man has
no right to cover his head ; he is by constitution the image of
God and reflects God s glory : whereas the woman reflects man s
glory.

8 Man was created first ; he does not owe his origin to
woman, but woman owes hers to him ; 9 and, what is more, she
was made for his sake, and not he for hers. 10 For this reason
she ought, by covering her head, publicly to acknowledge her
subjection. Even if she does not shrink from scandalizing men,
she might surely fear to be an offence to angels.

11 Nevertheless, this dependence of the woman has its limits :
in the Lord neither sex has any exclusive privileges, but each
has an equal share. 12 For as, at the first, the woman came into
being from the man, so, ever since then, the man has come into
being by means of the woman ; and, like everything else, both
are from God.

13 Use your own powers of discernment. Is it decent that a
woman should have her head uncovered when she publicly offers
prayer to God ? 14 Surely even nature itself teaches you that for
a man to wear his hair long is degrading to him ; 15 whereas this is
a glory to a woman, because her long hair is God s gift to her,
to serve her as a covering. 1G Yet, if any one is so contentious
as to dispute this conclusion, it will suffice to say that both
Christian authority and Christian usage are against him.

228 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 2

2. Eiraivcj 8e ujj.as. Now I do praise you that in all tilings
ye remember me and hold fast the delivered instructions exactly
as I delivered them to you. The verse is introductory to the
whole of this division of the letter which treats of public worship.
With his usual tact and generosity, the Apostle, before finding
fault, mentions things which he can heartily and honestly praise.*
The 8e marks the transition to a new topic, and perhaps from
topics which the Corinthians had mentioned in their letter to
others which he selects for himself. ETTCLLVW looks forward to
OUK ITTCLIVU which is coming (v. 17) : here he can praise, in some
other matters he cannot. He may be referring to his own letter
(v. 2) ; * Now, it is quite true that I praise you. Or he may be
referring to their letter, Now, I do praise you that, as you tell
me, in all things you remember me ; comp. viii. i. Primasius,
in any case, gives the right key ; Quid erat, quod subito laudat
quos ante vituperavit ? Ubi legis auctoritatem non habet, blandi-
mentis provocat ad rationem. The translation, that ye remember
everything of mine, is possible but not probable : /xe /xt/^/xai c.
ace. is fairly common in classical Greek, but is not found in
N.T. Both irdira and Ka0ws irape &wKa ujuy are emphatic : their
remembrance of him was unfailing, and they observed with loyal
precision what he had told them by word of mouth or in the
lost letter. Neither 7ra/aaSt8w/xt (in this sense) nor TrapaSocm
(Gal. i. 14; Col. ii. 8 ; 2 Thess. ii. 15, iii. 6) are common in the
Pauline Epp. It is possible that in some of these passages, as
in v. 23 and xv. 3, we have an allusion to some rudimentary
creed which was given to missionaries and catechists f : comp.
2 Thess. ii. 5. There had been a Jewish TrapaSocm of monstrous
growth, and it had done much harm (Matt. xv. 6 ; Mark vii. 8 ;
Gal. i. 14). There is now a Christian TrapaSocris to supersede it,
and it was from the first regarded as precious (i Tim. vi. 20;
2 Tim. i. 14). See Mayor, St Jude and 2 Peter, pp. 23, 61 ;
A. E. Burn, Intr. to the Creeds, ch. ii. This TrapaSotm contained
the leading facts of the Gospel and the teaching of Christ and
the Apostles. As yet there were no written Gospels for St Paul
to appeal to, although there may have been written collections
of the Sayings of our Lord. For /car^ere cf. xv. 2 ; i Thess. v.
21 ; Heb. x. 23; Luke viii. 15 ; and see Milligan, Thessalonians,
p. 155. There may be a reference to v. i ; in this they are
imitating him ; or a reference to their own letter.

* Atto of Vercelli seems to be mistaken in saying, Haec nempe verba per

ironiam dicta sunt. So also Herveius ; Per ironiam incipit loqui. His

verbis plus illos tangit, quam si manifeste increparet eos. Quasi diceret ;

Vos obliti estis mei, et traditiones meas non tenetis, sed volo ut ista quae sub-

j ungo, sciatis. There is no sarcasm. Cf. i. 4-9.

t See Basil De Spir. xxix. 71. The /^/uj&gt;7?cr0e rather implies a consider
able time since he had been at Corinth. It may have been over two years.

XI. 2-4] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 22p

The brethren in AV., following D E F G K L, Latt., is an interpola
tion : K A B C P Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit.

3. 0eXw 8e upis ci&eVai. * But I would have you know
something not previously mentioned, but of more importance
than they supposed, because of the principles involved. In Col.
ii. i we have the same formula, but more often ov $c Ao&gt; v/xus
dyvoetv (x. i, xii. i ; 2 Cor. i. 8 ; Rom. i. 13, xi. 25), which is
always accompanied by the affectionate address, dSeA.&lt;/&gt;oi. He
feels bound to insist upon the point in question, and perhaps
would hint that the Corinthians do not know everything.

iran-os dy&pos. * Of every man Christ is the head : iravros is
emphatic, every male of the human family. He says dvSpos rather
than avOpwTrov (xv. 45) to mark the contrast with ywrj, and he
takes the middle relationship first ; man to Christ comes
between woman to man and Christ to God. By K^aXrj is
meant supremacy, and in each clause it is the predicate ; Christ
is the head of man, man is the head of woman, and God is the
head of Christ : iii. 23; Eph. i. 22, iv. 15, v. 23, comp. Judg.
xi. 1 1 ; 2 Sam. xxii. 44. God is supreme in reference to the
Messiah as having sent Him. This was a favourite Arian text ;
it is in harmony with xv. 24-28, and, like that passage, it
implies more than the inferiority of Christ s human nature ;
John vi. 57. See Ellicott, i Corinthians, pp. 64, 65; H. St
J. Thackeray, St Paul atid Contemporary Jewish Thought , p. 49;
Godet, ad loc.

4. TrpoaeuxojAcyos TJ Trpo&lt;|&gt;T)Teu&lt;ui Kara Ke^aXrjs t\&lt;&gt;&gt;v. When he
prays or prophesies having (a veil) down over his head. The
participles are temporal and give the circumstances of the case.
With Kara. Ke&lt;f&gt;. c^wv comp. AUTTOU/-UVOS /cara Kc&lt;f&gt;. of Haman
(Esth. vi. 12), Vulg. operto capite; here velato capite. The
prophesying means public teaching, admonishing or comfort
ing ; delivering God s message to the congregation (xiii. 9, xiv. i,
3, 24, 31, 39). Such conduct dishonours his head because
covering it is a usage which symbolizes subjection to some
visible superior, and in common worship the man has none :
those who are visibly present are either his equals or his inferiors.
There is no reason for supposing that men at Corinth had been
making this mistake in the congregation. The conduct which
would be improper for men is mentioned in order to give point
to the censure on women, who in this matter had been acting as
men. It is doubtful whether the Jews used the tallith or veil
in prayer as early as this. We need not suppose that the
Apostle is advocating the Greek practice of praying bare-headed
in opposition to Jewish custom : he is arguing on independent
Christian principles. Tertullian s protest to the heathen (Apol.

230 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 4, 5

30), that the Christians pray with head uncovered, because they
have nothing to be ashamed of, is not quite in point here.

If in dishonoureth his head (not Head ) there is any
allusion to Christ (v. 3), it is only indirect. The head, as the
symbol of Christ, must be treated with reverence ; so also the
body (vi. 19), as the temple of the Spirit. And there may be a
hint that, in covering his head in public worship, the man would
be acknowledging some head other than Christ. See Edwards
and Ellicott; also Art. Schleier in Kraus, Real-Ency. d. christ.
Alt. ii. p. 735.

5. Praying or prophesying must be understood in the same
way in both verses : it is arbitrary to say that the man is
supposed to be taking the lead in full public worship, but the
woman in mission services or family prayers. Was a woman to
be veiled at family prayers ? Yet in public worship women were
not to speak at all (xiv. 34; i Tim. ii. 12). Very possibly the
women had urged that, if the Spirit moved them to speak, they
must speak ; and how could they speak if their faces were veiled ?
In that extreme case, which perhaps would never occur, the Apostle
says that they must speak veiled. They must not outrage
propriety by coming to public worship unveiled because of the
bare possibility that the Spirit may compel them to speak. *
Comp. Philip s daughters (Acts xxi. 9), and the quotation from
Joel (Acts ii. 18). In neither men nor women must prophesying
be interpreted as speaking with Tongues. The latter was
addressed to God and was unintelligible to most hearers ;
prophesying was addressed to the congregation. The women
perhaps argued that distinctions of sex were done away in Christ
(Gal. iii. 28), and that it was not seemly that a mark of servitude
should be worn in Christian worship ; or they may have asked
why considerations about the head should lead to women being
veiled and men not. And perhaps they expected that the
Apostle who preached against the bondage of the Law would
be in favour of the emancipation of women. See De Wette,
ad loc.

The unveiled woman dishonours her head, because that is the
part in which the indecency is manifested. Also by claiming
equality with the other sex she disgraces the head of her own
sex; she is a bare-faced woman, for she is one and the same
thing (neut. Blass, Gr. 31. 2) with the woman that is shaven,
either as a disgrace for some scandalous offence, or out of
bravado. Aristoph. Thesm. 838; Tac. Germ. 19; and other
illustrations in Wetst. The Apostle has married women chiefly

* See Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, II. pp. 65,
395-6, ed. 1902. See also Tert. De Virgin vel. 13; De Orat. 21.

XI. 5-9] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 231

in view. In Corinth anything questionable in Christian wives
was specially dangerous, and the Gospel had difficulties enough
to contend against without shocking people by breaches of usage.
Christianity does not cancel the natural ordinances of life ; and
it is by the original ordinance of God that the husband has
control of the wife. Only here and #.13 does aKara/caXvTrros
occur in N.T. Having decided the matter in question (vv. 4, 5),
St Paul now proceeds (vv. 6-16) to justify his decision.

6. If a woman refuses to be veiled, let her be consistently
masculine and cut her hair close ; no veil, short hair : the verbs
are middle, not passive, and express her own action (Blass, Gr.
55. 2). If she flings away the covering provided by Divine
ordinance, let her also fling away the covering provided by
nature (Chrys.). The combination of the aor. mid. with the
pres. mid. (icetpcurtfat &gt;) i&gt;pao-0ai) is so unusual that some editors
prefer vparr#ai, aor. mid. from v pw, a late form found in
Plutarch (Veitch, s.v. ; Blass, Gr. 24).

7. The connexion between 6&lt;ei A.i (v. 10) and OUK o&lt;ei A.et
here must be marked : the woman is morally bound, the man is
not morally bound, to veil his head. But not bound to may be
an understatement for bound not to ; comp. Acts xvii. 29 : St
Paul can hardly mean that the man may please himself, while the
woman may not magts liber est viro habitus capitis quam mulieri
(Beng.) ; for he has just said that the man puts his head to
shame by covering it, as a woman puts her head to shame by not
doing so. Sicut vir professione liber tatis caput suum honor at, ita
mulier, subjectionis (Calvin). The man ought not to wear a
covering, since he is by original constitution (vTrap^wi/) God s
image and glory, reflecting the Creator s will and power, while
the wife is her husband s glory. This she is as a matter of fact
(eoriV, not uTrapxa) See Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 674.
She also was made KO.T et/coVa cot), for in Gen. ii. 26 avOpw-n-ov
includes both sexes, but this fact is omitted here, because it is
the relation of woman to man, not of woman to God, that is
under consideration ; and, as she has a superior, she does not
so well represent Him who has no superior. Moreover, it
is the son, rather than the wife, who is the eiKon/ of the man.
Comp. i Tim. ii. 13.

8. 9. Parenthetical, to confirm the statement that the
woman is man s glory by an appeal to both initial (&lt;rV) and final
(Sta c. ace.} causes. Woman was created out of man, and more
over (KOL yap) for man, not vice versa. The articles in v. 9, rrjv
ywalKa . . . rov oV8pa, may mean the woman and the man in
Gen. ii. 18-22, Eve and Adam. For /cat yap see Blass, 78. 6.

232 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 10

10. Sia TOUTO. Because* man is a reflexion of the divine
glory, while woman is only a reflexion of that reflexion, " there
fore the woman (generic) is morally bound to have [the mark of
his] authority upon her head." The passage is unique, no
satisfactory parallel having been found. There is no real doubt
as to the meaning, which is clear from the context. The diffi
culty is to see why the Apostle has expressed himself in this
extraordinary manner. That * authority (e^ovcrwx) is put for
4 sign of authority is not difficult; but why does St Paul say
1 authority when he means subjection ? The man has the
symbol of authority, no veil on his head ; the woman has the
symbol of subjection, a veil on her head. For eovo-ia we should
expect vTToray?/ (i Tim. ii. n, iii. 4, of the subjection of women),
or vTrci^is (Plut. 2. 75 ID of the subjection of women; comp.
vTretKetv, Heb. xiii. 17), or v-rraKorj (Rom. v. 19, vi. 16, xvi. 19).
Is it likely that St Paul would say the exact opposite of what he
means ? The words put in square brackets can scarcely be the
true explanation. For conjectural emendations of e^oucriW (all
worthless) see Stanley, ad loc. p. 184.

In Rev. xi. 6, otxrtav fypwrw CTTI TU&gt;I&gt; vSarwv means have
control over the waters ; xiv. 18, e^wv eovo-iW lirl TOV Trupos,
having control over fire ; XX. 6, CTTI TOV TWV 6 Sev repos 0ai/aros OVK
xt c^ovo-iav, over these the second death has no control.
Comp. Rom. ix. 21 ; i Cor. vii. 37 ; the LXX of Dan. iii. 30 (97).
Can the meaning here be, ought to have control over her head,
so as not to expose it to indignity ? If she unveils it, every one
has control over it and can gaze at her so as to put her out of
countenance. Her face is no longer under her own control.

Ramsay (The Cities of St Paul, pp. 202 ff.) scouts the
common explanation that the * authority which the woman
wears on her head is the authority to which she is subject, " a
preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at any
where except in the N.T." Following Thomson (The Land and
the Book, p. 31) he explains thus. " In Oriental lands the veil is
the power and the honour and dignity of the woman. With the
veil on her head she can go anywhere in security and profound
respect. She is not seen ; it is a mark of thoroughly bad
manners to observe a veiled woman in the street. She is alone.
The rest of the people around are non-existent to her, as she
is to them. She is supreme in the crowd. . . . But without the veil
the woman is a thing of nought, whom any one may insult. ... A

* One might say, * Precisely for this reason, 5ta TOVTO being stronger
than o$i&gt;, and introducing a special, if an exclusive reason. This helps to
decide the explanation of Sia TOVS ayyt\ov$, which must mean something that
is at least a very important reason for women being veiled in public worship,
if not the only reason.

XI. 10] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 233

woman s authority and dignity vanish along with the all-covering
veil that she discards. That is the Oriental view, which Paul
learned at Tarsus." In his Preface (vi.) Ramsay adds; "In the
Hebrew marriage ceremony, as it is celebrated in modern
Palestine, I am informed that the husband snatches off the
bride s veil and throws it on his own shoulder, as a sign that he
has assumed authority over her." Was Rebekah s veiling
herself a sign of subjection? Gen. xxiv. 65. See Glover, The
Conflict of Religions in the Roman World, p. 154.

Bid TOUS dyY ^ ou S These words have produced much
discussion, but there is not serious doubt as to their meaning.
They are not a gloss (Baur), still less is the whole verse an
interpolation (Holsten, Baljon). Marcion had the words, and
the evidence for them is overwhelming.* An interpolator would
have made his meaning clearer. Accepting them, we may
safely reject the explanation that angels here mean the bishops
(Ambrose) or presbyters (Ephraem) or all the clergy (Primasius).
Nor can evil angels be meant (Tert. De Virg. vel. vii., xvii.); the
article is against it : ot ayyeXot always means good angels
(xiii. i ; Matt. xiii. 49, xxv. 31 ; Luke xvi. 22 ; Heb. i. 4, 5, etc.).
And the suggestion that the Apostle is hinting that unveiled
women might be a temptation to angels (Gen. vi. i, 2) is some
what childish. Is it to be supposed that a veil hides a human
face from angels, or that public worship would be the only
occasion when an unveiled woman might lead angels into
temptation? It is a mistake to quote the Testament of the

XII. Patriarchs (Reuben v. 6), or the Book of Jubilees (iv. 15,
22), or Theodotus (Frag. 44; C. R. Gregory, Enletf. in d. N.T.,
p. 151), in illustration of this passage. The meaning is plain. If
a woman thinks lightly of shocking men, she must remember
that she will also be shocking the angels, who of course are
present at public worship. Compare iv. 9, and Ivavriov ayycAwv
\f/a\d O-OL (Ps. cxxxviii. i), and O ye angels of the Lord, bless ye
the Lord (Song of the Three Children, 37). Ancient liturgies
often bear witness to this belief, as does our own ; " Therefore with
Angels and Archangels," etc., Chrysostom says, " Knowest thou
not that thou standest in the midst of the angels? with them
thou singest, with them thou chantest, and dost thou stand
laughing?" See Luke xv. 7, 10, xii. 8, 9.

One other suggestion is worth considering, viz. that 8ia r.
dyye Aov? might mean because the angels do so. Angels, in
the presence of their direct and visible Superior, veil their faces

* St Paul assumes, as obvious to his readers, a connexion no longer
obvious to us. We can hardly regard the reason intended as falling outside
the scope of the 3t&lt;i TOVTO (see above). The question is, what point of
contact for 5id T. dyy. is furnished in vv. 3-9 ?

234 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 10-13

(Isa. vi. 2) ; a woman, when worshipping in the presence of her
direct and visible superior (man), should do the same.

Conjectural emendations (all worthless) are quoted by Stanley : see
also Expositor, ist series, xi. p. 20. " None of the known emendations
can possibly be right ; and the intrinsic and obvious difficulty is itself
enough to set aside the suggestion that the whole verse is an interpolation "
(WH. App. p. 116).

11. ir\r\v. Limitation. Although by original constitution
woman is dependent on man, yet he has no right to look down
on her. In the Christian sphere each is dependent on the other,
and both are dependent on God (viii. 6 ; Rom. xi. 36) ; and it
is only in the Christian sphere that woman s rights are duly
respected. Each sex is incomplete without the other.

cV Kupuo. There can be no separation between man and
woman when both are members of Christ. Cf. for cv
i Thess. iv. i ; 2 Thess. iii. 4; Gal. v. 10; Eph. iv. 17.

K A B C D* D 3 E F G H P, RV. have otfre yvrf X - . before otfre
X- 7. D 2 K L, Vulg. AV. transpose the clauses.

12. This mutual dependence of the sexes is shown by the
fact that, although originally woman sprang from man, yet ever
since then it is through woman that man comes into existence :
if he is her initial cause (c), she is his instrumental cause
(8Ya c. gen.}. But (another reason why man must not be con
temptuous) the whole universe man and woman and their
whole environment owes its origin to God. Cf. xv. 27; Eph.
v. 23 ; and see Basil, De Spiritu, v. 12, xviii. 46.

13. In conclusion he asks two questions, the second of
which clinches the first. He appeals to their general sense of
propriety, a sense which is in harmony with the teaching of &lt;vVis
and is doubtless inspired by &lt;ucri?. Their ideas of what is
TrptTrov are in the best sense natural. It should be noted that
both in AV. and RV. the second question is brought to a close
too soon. The note of interrogation should be placed after
it is a glory to her, as in the Vulgate, Luther, Tyndale, and
Coverdale. Beza and others make three questions, breaking up
the second into two.

Iv ufxti/ aurots KpiVare. In their own inner judgment (vi. 2),
cannot they decide (x. 15)? Is it becoming that a woman
should pray to God unveiled ? Usually Trpoo-ei^o/xcu has no
case after it, but here TOJ eo&gt; is added to emphasize the prin
ciple that when she is addressing God she ought not to be
asserting her equality with men or trying to draw the attention
of men : comp. Matt. vi. 6. For Trpiirov see Westcott on Heb.
ii. 10.

XI. 14, 16] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 235

14. A further argument, supporting the previous one. In
stinctively they must feel the impropriety; and then external
nature confirms the instinctive feeling. Even if the internal
feeling should not arise, does not even nature by itself show
that, while doubtless man, being short-haired, is by Divine order
unveiled, woman, being long-haired, is by Divine order veiled?
Naturae debet respondere voluntas (Beng.).* While fanaticism
defies nature, Christianity respects and refines it ; and whatever
shocks the common feelings of mankind is not likely to be
right. At this period, civilized men, whether Jews, Greeks, or
Romans, wore their hair short. * Long hair is a permanent
endowment (8e8orat) of woman, to serve as an enveloping
mantle (Heb. i. 12 from Ps. ci. 27; Judg. viii. 26; Ezek.
xvi. 13, xxvii. 7; Isa. lix. 17). Note the emphasis on av-^p
and ywrj, also on the clause introduced by Se. Nowhere else in
Biblical Greek does KO/XCUO occur. Milligan, Grk. Papyri^ p. 84.

16. This is best taken as concluding the subject of the
veil ; it makes a clumsy opening to the next subject. But if
any one seemeth to be (or is minded to be) f contentious, we
have no such custom, nor yet the Churches of God. There
are people who are so fond of disputing that they will contest
the clearest conclusions, and the Corinthians were fond of dis
putation. But the Apostle will not encourage them. If such
should question the dictates of decorum and of nature in this
matter, they may be told that the teachers have no such usage
as permitting women to be unveiled, a thing unheard of in
Christian congregations. It is possible that ^ets means only
himself, but he probably means that he knows of no Apostle
who allows this.J

Throughout the section he appeals to principles. The
wearing or not wearing a veil may seem to be a small matter.
Everything depends upon what the wearing or not wearing
implies, and what kind of sanction the one practice or the
other can claim. He does not use Set about the matter;

* Was the obscure metaphor of the veil, which Dante (Purg. xxix. 27)
uses of Eve, Non sofferce di star sotto alcun velo, suggested by the revolt
of the women of Corinth against "standing under any veil" in public
worship ?

t Comp. iii. 1 8, viii. 2, and especially xiv. 37, where we have a summary
conclusion similar to this.

% Herveius interprets r^els as we Jews. Postrationes ponit auctorilatem^
ut contentiosos vincat, -jtiia neque Jndaismus hoc habuit, nee Ecclesia Dei^
ostendens quia neqite Moyses neqtie Salvator sic tradidit. Atto has the same
idea. Nos propter Judaeos, Ecclesia dicit propter gentes. Qnapropter,
si hanc consuctudincm habetis, non soluin non Christi, sed nee Moysi discip-
ulos fore monstralis. Nowhere else in N.T. or LXX is tf)i\6vftKos found,
excepting Ezek. iii. 7, where all Israel are said to be such.

236 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 17-34

there is no intrinsic necessity (v. 19): but he does use both
6&lt;a A (7, 10) and TrpeVoi/ 0-71(13); f r there is both moral
obligation and natural fitness. His final appeal to the practice
of all congregations would be of special weight in democratic
Corinth. For ai eK/cAr/cmu rov eov com p. 2 Thess. i. 4. See
Hort, The Christian E celesta, pp. 108, 117, 120. There is no
need to conjecture that v. 16 is an interpolation, or that
a-wyOcia refers to contentiousness. Would St Paul think it
necessary to say that Apostles have no habit of contentious
ness?

For Greek and Roman customs respecting the hair and veils,
see Smith, Diet, of Ant. Artt. Coma, Flammeum, Vestales.
The cases in which males, both Greek and Roman, wore long hair
do not interfere with the argument* Such cases were either
exceptional or temporary; and they were temporary because
nature taught men otherwise. For men to wear their hair
long, and for women to wear it short, for men to veil their
heads in public assemblies, and for women not to do so, were
alike attempts to obliterate natural distinctions of sex. In the
Catacombs the men are represented with short hair.

XI. 17-34. Disorders connected with the Lord s Supper.

There are abuses of a grave kind in your public worship ;
a chronic state of dissension, and gross selfishness and
excess in your love-feasts and celebrations of the Lord s
Supper. This profanation brings grievous judgments on
you. Avert the judgments by putting a stop to the pro
fanation.

17 Now, in giving you this charge about the veiling of
women, I do not commend you that your religious gatherings
do you more harm than good. 18 First of all, when you meet
as a Christian congregation, you are split into sets : so I am
told, and to some extent I am afraid that it is true. 19 Indeed,
party-divisions among you can hardly be avoided if men of
proved worth are not to be lost in the crowd.

20 Well then, as to your religious gatherings : it cannot be
said that it is the Lord s Supper that you eat. 21 For everybody s
first thought is to be beforehand in getting his own supper; and
so, while the poor man who brings nothing cannot get enough even

* Horn. //. ii. 472, 542 ; Hdt. i. 82, v. 72 ; Aristoph. Eq. 580. Cf. our
Cavaliers.

XI. 17-34 J DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 237

to eat, the rich man who brings abundance takes a great deal too
much even to drink. 22 Surely you do not mean that you have no
homes in which you can satisfy hunger and thirst ? Or do you
think that you need have no reverence for God s congregation ;
or that because a man is poor you may treat him with contempt?
What am I to say to you? Do you expect me to commend
you? In this matter that is impossible.

23 Quite impossible; for I know that you know better. I
myself received from the Lord that which in turn I transmitted
to you, namely, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which He
was being delivered up, took bread : 24 and when He had given
thanks, He brake it, and said, This is My Body, which is for
you. This do ye, in remembrance of Me. 25 In like manner
also the cup, after supper was over, saying, This cup is the new
covenant in virtue of My Blood. This do ye, as often as ye
drink it, in remembrance of Me.

26 Yes, He gave this command ; for as often as you eat this
bread and drink this cup, it is the death of the Lord that you
are proclaiming, nothing less than that, until His return.

27 It follows, therefore, that whoever eats the bread or drinks the
cup of the Lord in a way that dishonours Him, shall be held
responsible for profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.

28 But, in order to avoid this profanation, let a man scrutinize
his own spiritual condition and his motives ; then, and not till
then, let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he
who eats and drinks is thereby eating and drinking a sentence
on himself, if he fails to recognize the sanctity of the Body.
30 The proof of this is within your own experience ; for it is
because people fail to recognize this sanctity that so many of
you are sick and ill, while not a few have died. 31 But if we
recognized our own condition and motives, we should escape this
sentence. 32 Yet, when we are thus sentenced, we are being
chastened by the Lord, to save us from being involved in the
final condemnation of the world.

33 So then, my brothers, at your religious gatherings for a
common meal, wait until all are ready. 84 If any one is too
hungry to wait, let him stay at home and eat ; so that your
gatherings may not have these fatal results. All the other
matters in which you need instruction I will regulate whenever
I come.

238 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 17

The shocking desecration of the Lord s Supper by the dis
orders which St Paul here censures was, no doubt, the primary
reason why he is so severe in his condemnation of the conduct
of those Corinthians who profaned it by their selfish mis
behaviour, but it was not the only reason for distress and
indignation. " In the whole range of history there is no more
striking contrast than that of the Apostolic Churches with the
heathenism round them. They had shortcomings enough, it is
true, and divisions and scandals not a few, for even apostolic
times were no golden age of purity and primitive simplicity.
Yet we can see that their fulness of life, and hope, and promise
for the future was a new power in the world. Within their own
limits they had solved almost by the way the social problem
which baffled Rome, and baffles Europe still. They had lifted
woman to her rightful place, restored the dignity of labour,
abolished beggary, and drawn the sting of slavery. The secret
of the revolution is that the selfishness of race and class was
forgotten in the Supper of the Lord, and a new basis for society
found in love of the visible image of God in men for whom
Christ died" (Gwatkin, Early Church History, p. 73). The
Corinthian offenders were reviving the selfishness of class, were
treating with contumely the image of God visible in their fellow-
men, and were thus bringing into serious peril the best results
of this blessed revolution. The Apostle does not hesitate to
declare (w. 30-32) that this evil work of theirs is bringing upon
them the manifest judgments of God.

It is worth noting that he appeals to what the Lord Jesus
did at the Supper, not to what Jesus did. There is no basis
for the hypothesis that St Paul did not regard Jesus as the Son
of God until after His Resurrection, comp. v. 4, 5. See Intro
duction, * Doctrine.

17. TOUTO Sc TrapaYYeXXo)!/ OUK firaicu. The reading is some
what doubtful (see below), as also is the meaning of TOVTO. If
TOVTO refers to the charge which he gives respecting the Love-
feasts (28-34), then the interval between this preface and the
words which it anticipates is awkwardly prolonged. It is not
impossible that TOVTO refers to the charge about women wearing
veils.* The connexion between the two subjects is close, both
being concerned with proper behaviour at public worship. Now
in giving you this charge I do not praise [you], that your
religious gatherings do you harm instead of good. It is an

* There is similar doubt as to the scope of the TOVTO in vii. 6, and the
O.VTT] in ix. 3. Here the doubt is considerable. The irapayy. about veiling
was prefaced by praise (v. 2) : and TOVTO dt may introduce another irapayy.
where praise is impossible ; In giving this charge I have no praise to give.

XI. 17-19] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 239

understatement, purposely made in contrast to v. 2, that he
does not praise them. He censures them severely. What was
intended for their wealth they had made an occasion of falling.
These gatherings, instead of quickening their spiritual life, had
led to grievous misconduct and consequent suffering. For eis,
of result, comp. Col. iii. 10.

The evidence for ira.pa.yyt\\ijv OVK tiralvd) is somewhat stronger than for
irapayy\\ti) OVK ^Traivuv. B is neutral with Trapayy^XXuv OVK tTraivuv, and
D with Trapayyt\\(*) OVK ^Traivu) : Vulg. praecipio -non landans. There is
no v/j,ds in the Greek ; but neither AV. nor RV. put you 1 in italics.

Both the Attic Kpelrrov (vii. 9) and the un-Attic Kpetaaov (here and
vii. 38) are well attested : rb ?i&lt;T&lt;rov here only ; comp. 2 Cor. xii. 15. It is
possible that both Kpdaaov and f)o-&lt;rov were pronounced in a similar way
(kreesson heesson) ; if so, we have a play upon sound.

18. * For, to begin with. The Apostle hastens to justify his
refusal to give praise. The irpurov /ncV has no Sevrcpov 8e or
7retra oV afterwards, and possibly there is no antithesis; but
some find it in the section about spiritual gifts (xii. i f.) : cf.
Rom. i. 8, iii. 2, x. i, xi. 13; 2 Cor. xii. 12: Blass, Gr.
77- 12.

iv 6KK\T](Tia. In assembly, i.e. in a gathering of the members
of the Corinthian Church. "This use is at once classical and a
return to the original force of qahdl" (Hort, The Chr. Eccles.
p. 118) : xiv. 19, 28, 35 ; comp. 3 John 6 and / o-waywyj, John
vi. 59, xviii. 22. Church in the sense of a building for public
worship cannot be meant ; there were no such buildings.

dKou w axiajxara eV UJJLII/ uTrdpxeiy. I continually hear (pres.)
that dissensions among you prevail (not simply eivcu) : these splits
are the rule. In the Love-feasts they seem to have been chiefly
social, between rich and poor. Possibly what St James con
demns (ii. 1-4) took place ; the wealthy got the best places at
the tables. Yet neither a-xto-para (see on i. 10) nor atpe o-eis are
separations from the Church, but dissensions within it. Wherever
people deliberately choose (alpdv) their own line independently
of authority, there is cupeo-ts : Gal. v. 20.

jjiepos TI iriorcuo). The Apostle has the love which hopeth
all things (xiii. 7), and he will not believe that all that he hears
to their discredit is true ; miti sermone utitur (Beng.).

The reading tv rfj KK\. (TR., in the Church AV.) is found only in a
few cursives. There is no reason for suspecting that Iv KK\. (all uncials)
is an interpolation.

fj.{pos TI is the accusative of the extent to which the action applies :
comp. iravTa irdffiv dpfoKw (x. 33). We might have had K [j.tpovs (xiii. 9,
12).

19. Sel yap Kal alpe aeis. Comp. Matt, xviii. 7. In the
nature of things, if there are splits of any kind, these are sure

240 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 19, 20

to settle down into parties, factions with self-chosen views.
Human nature being what it is, and Corinthian love of faction
being so great, if a division once became chronic, it was certain
to be intensified. But here perhaps there is not much difference
between cr^iV/xaTa and tupe crtis. Justin M. (Try. 35) mixes the
words o-oi/Tcu o-^tV/xaTa KCU alp. with Matt. xxiv. 5, 1 1, 24, vii. 15,
and attributes them to our Lord. Comp. Clem. Horn. xvi. 21,
and see Resch, p. 100. For cupeo-is comp. Acts v. 17, xv. 5,
xxvi. 5, etc.

tm [KCU] ot OOKIJXOI (Jxn/epo! yeVwrrcu. Divine Providence turns
this evil tendency to good account : it is the means of causing
the trusty and true to become recognizable. Either by coming
to the front in the interests of unity, or by keeping aloof from
all divisions, the more stable characters will become manifest :
2 Thess. ii. u, 12. To have religious zeal, without becoming a
religious partizan, is a great proof of true devotion. Contrast
dSo/a/xos (ix. 27).

D F G, Latt. omit tv V/MV before eZVcu. B D, Latt. insert /cat before ol
56/a^oi : tfACEFGKLP, Syrr. omit. The 56/a/xot are those who have
been accepted after being tested like metals or stones (Gen. xxiii. 16) ;
hence proved and approved (Rom. xvi. 10 ; 2 Cor. x. 18, xiii. 7).
See Origen, Con. Cels. iii. 13, Philocalia xvi. 2. Quite needlessly, some
suspect that iVa . . . iv vfuv is an interpolation.

20. Zui epxofxeVtoi ouv ujAwf em TO auro. * When therefore you
come together to one place (Acts i. 15, ii. i, 44, iii. i), when
you are assembled lv eK/cAr/o-ia, i.e. for a religious purpose. Or
7Tt TO avTo might (less probably) mean for the same object.
The place is not yet a building set apart. In any case, eVi TO
avTo emphasizes the contrast between the external union and the
internal dissension. Compare vii. 5, xiv. 23.

OUK eoriy Kupicucoy Senryok (Jxxyeiy. The adjective is emphatic
by position : there is no eating a Lord s supper. A supper they
may eat, but it is not the Lord s : OVK CO-TIV, there is no such
thing, for such conduct as theirs excludes it. Hence OUK TTU/
may be rendered it is not possible, non licet (Ecclus. xiv. 16);
but this is not necessary. At first, the Eucharist proper seems to
have followed the Agape or Love-feast, being a continuation of
it. Later the Eucharist preceded and was transferred from
evening to morning. Here, KvpiaKw Sclirvov probably includes
both, the whole re-enactment of the Last Supper including the
Eucharist. Placuit Spiritui Sancto ut in honorem tanti sacramenti
in os Christiani prius Dominicum corpus intraret quam exteri cibi
(Aug. Ep. cxviii. 6, 7, ad Januar.). See Hastings, DB. in.
p. 157 ; Smith, D. Chr. Ant. i. p. 40; Ency. Bibl. n. 1424. We
cannot be sure from the use of KvpiaKov instead of TOV Kvpcov that
the name KvptaKov ^ITTVOV was already in use. The expression

XI. 20-22] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 241

must have had a beginning, and this may be the first use of it.
Inscriptions and papyri show that, as early as A.D. 68, Kvprn/co s
was in use in the sense of pertaining to the Emperor, imperial
(Deissmann, New Light on the N.T. p. 82, Bible Studies^ p. 217,
Light, p. 361). The word Scl-rrvov occurs only here and Rev.
xix. 9, 17, outside the Gospels; in LXX, only in Daniel and
4 Mace.

21. eKaaTos y^P T0 iSio" SeiTiroi Trpo\a|i|3dfi. For each one
takes before the rest (instead of with them) his own supper : he
anticipates the partaking in common, and thus destroys the
whole meaning and beauty of the ordinance. It was thus not
even a KOLVOV SeiTrvov, much less KVpiaKov. The ei/ TU&gt; &lt;f&gt;ayelv is
not an otiose addition : it is a mere eating, which he might just
as well or better have done elsewhere and elsewhen.*

Kal os fJieK ireim. The consequence is that one man cannot
even satisfy his hunger, while another even drinks to excess.
These are probably respectively the rich and the poor. The
poor brought little or nothing to the common meal, and got
little or nothing from the rich, who brought plenty ; while some
of the rich, out of their abundant supplies, became drunk. There
is a sharp antithesis between deficiency in necessary food and
excess in superfluous drink. There is no need to water down
the usual meaning of fitOvcw (Matt. xxiv. 49; John ii. 10;
Acts ii. 15; i Thess. v. 7). Even in a heathen epai/os such
selfish and disgusting behaviour would have been considered
shameful, as the directions given by Socrates show; they are
very similar to those of St Paul (Xen. Mem. in. iv. i). Certainly
such meetings must have been for the worse ; hungry poor
meeting intoxicated rich, at what was supposed to be a supper of
the Lord ! In these gatherings the religious element was far
more important than the social ; but the Corinthians had
destroyed both. For this late use of the relative, 8s fiey . . .
os Be . . . comp. Rom. ix. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 20; Matt. xxi. 35,
xxii. 5, xxv. 15. Coincidence is implied.

For irpoXafjLpdvfi (tfBCDEFGKLP) A and some cursives have
irpo&lt;r\a/j.^di i, the active of which does not occur in the N.T., except as a
variant here and Acts xxvii. 34.

22. fuj yap oiKias OUK ex T - * For surely you do not mean
that you have not got houses to eat and to drink in ! Comp.
/AT) OVK Zxf JLV (* x - 4&gt; 5&gt; 6), and ets TO ... icrQUw (viii. 10); and

* Comp. " And no prophet that orders a table in the spirit eats of it
himself: but if he does, he is a false prophet" (Didache xi. 9). This calling
for a Love-feast in a state of ecstasy (tv irvev/j.aTi) is a curious possibility,
which had probably been experienced. Only a false prophet would do this
in order to get food for himself.

242 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 22, 23

see Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 2702 b. Well, then, if that is
not true (and of course it is not), there is only one alternative,
which is introduced by rj. Ye despise the congregation that is
assembled for the worship of God, and ye put the poor to shame.
They treated a religious meal as if it were a licentious entertain
ment, and therein exposed the poverty of those who were in need.
There can be little doubt that, as ot cx oi/TS = tne r i c V * M
Xovres= the poor. Here it might mean those who have not
houses for meals (Alford) ; so also Wiclif, han noon ; but this
is very improbable. The rov eoG is added with solemnity (v. 16,
x. 32) to give emphasis to the profanity. The addition is frequent
in the two earliest groups of the Pauline Epistles (Hort, The Chr.
Eccles. pp. 103, 108, 117): KaTa&lt;j)povtTe, as Rom. ii. 4; Matt,
xviii. TO; Karaio-xuVere, as Rom. v. 5. The majority of the
Corinthian Christians would be poor.*

TI euro* UJAII&gt;; eiraiveao) ufxas ; Deliberative subjunctives:
What am I to say to you ? Am I to praise you ? The cy
TOUTW may be taken with what precedes (AV., RV.), or with
what follows (Tisch., WH., Ell.). The latter seems to be better,
as limiting the censure to this particular, and also as preparing
for what follows.

23. eyu yap TrapeXajBoy diro TOU Kupiou. I cannot praise you,
for what / received from the Lord, and also delivered to you,
was this. We cannot tell how St Paul received this. Neither
does the eyo&gt; imply that the communication was direct, nor does
the (XTTO that it was not direct, although, if it was direct, we
should probably have had -n-apd (Gal. i. 12 ; i Thess. ii. 13, iv. i ;
etc.). The eyw balances v/xiv : the Apostle received and trans
mitted to them this very thing, so that both know exactly what
took place. He was a sure link in a chain which reached from
the Lord Himself to them. They did not receive it from the
Lord, but they received it from one who had so received it, and
therefore they have no excuse. This is one of the TrapaSoo-cis
which they professed to be holding fast (v. 2). See Ramsay,
Exp. Times, April 1910; Jiilicher, Paulus u. Jesus, p. 30.

It is urged that in a matter of such moment a direct revela
tion to the Apostle is not incredible. On the other hand, why
assume a supernatural communication when a natural one was
ready at hand ? It would be easy for St Paul to learn every
thing from some of the Twelve. But what is important is,
not the mode, of the communication, but the source. In some
way or other St Paul received this from Christ, and its authen-

* Rutherford translates ; Or do you think that you need stand on no
ceremony with the Church of God ; that because men are poor you may
affront them ?

XI. 23, 24] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 243

ticity cannot be gainsaid ; but his adding a-n-o TOV KV/HOV is no
guide as to the way in which he received it. More important
also than the mode are the contents of the communication, and
it is to them that TrapaXa^aveiv frequently points (i Thess. ii. 13 ;
2 Thess. iii. 6; i Cor. xv. i, 3): see Lightfoot on Gal. i. i, 13.
It certainly does not point to anything written : St Paul does
not say that he had read what he delivered to them. See
Knowling, The Testimony of St Paul to Christ, pp. 275 f. Zahn
and Schmiedel are here agreed that St Paul is appealing to
historical tradition. See also Camb. Bibl. Ess. pp. 336 f. ;
Mansfield College Essays, pp. 48 f.

8 Kal irapeSuKa ujxli . Which I also delivered to you.
He transmitted to them the very thing which he had received
from the Lord, so that they were well aware of what ought to
have made these disorders impossible. This would be St Paul s
own reply to the assertion that he, and not Jesus, is the founder
of Christianity.

iv TT] yuKTi rj irapeSi ScTo. f In the night in which He was
being delivered up. St Paul mentions the sad solemnity of
the occasion in contrast to the irreverent revelry of the Cor
inthians. Neither AV. nor RV. keeps the same translations
for 7rapaSi 8&lt;o/u in this verse, nor marks the imperfect. The
delivery to His enemies had already begun and was going on
at the very time when the Lord instituted the Eucharist.
Moreover, to translate c was betrayed confines the meaning to
the action of Judas ; whereas the Father s surrender of the Son
is included, and perhaps is chiefly meant, and the Son s self-
sacrifice may also be included (E. A. Abbott, Paradosis, 1155,
1202, 1417). It is plain that St Paul assumes that his readers
are acquainted with the details of the Passion; and the pre
cision with which he writes here and xv. 3-8 is evidence that
"he is drawing from a well-furnished store" (Sanday, DCG. n.
p. 888). He himself is well acquainted with the chief facts in
the life of Christ (A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life oj
St Paul, p. 89; Fletcher, The Conversion of St Paul, pp. 55f.).

IXajScy aprov. Took a loaf, one of the thin cakes of bread
used for the Paschal meal. It was perhaps more like our
biscuit or oatcake than ordinary loaves. Hastings, DCG. i.
pp. 2 3 of.

24. cuxapumrjaas K\aaK. All four accounts of the Institu
tion have &gt;cXao-ev here, a detail of Divinely-appointed ritual.
Luke also has e^a/aicr-r^o-as, for which Mark and Matthew
substitute ev\oyr)cra&lt;s. The two words doubtless refer to the
same utterance of Christ, in which He gave thanks and blessed
God, and both contain the significant v : comp.

244 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 24

t a, and see T. S. Evans ad loc. Mark has these features,
which are omitted here; as they were eating, Take ye,
they all drank of it, which is shed for many. For the third
of these Matthew substitutes Drink ye all of it ; he has the
other three. Luke has none of them. Mark, Matthew, and
Luke have eu^aptcrrryo-a?, of the cup also, and here txravTux;
covers it. The three, moreover, give, what is omitted here, I
say to you I will in no wise drink of the fruit of the vine until
. . the Kingdom. The details which are common to all
four accounts are (r) the taking bread, (2) the giving thanks,
(3) the breaking, (4) the words, This is My Body, (5) the
cup ; and, if the disputed passage in Luke be retained, (6) the
words blood and covenant. The disputed passage is almost
verbatim as vv. 24, 25 here, from TO virep V/AOOI/ . . . af/xan.

Of the four accounts of the Institution this is the earliest
that has come down to us, and the words of our Lord which
are contained in it are the earliest record of any of His utter
ances ; for this Epistle was written before any of the Gospels.
It is, however, possible that Mark used a document in giving
his account, and this document might be earlier than this
Epistle.

TOUTO JAOU co-Til TO awjjLa TO uiTcp fifiM?. All carnal ideas
respecting these much-discussed words are excluded by the
fact that the Institution took place before the Passion. Our
Lord s human Body was present, and His Blood was not yet
shed. What is certain is that those who rightly receive the
consecrated bread and wine in the Eucharist receive spiritually
the Body and the Blood of Christ. How this takes place is
beyond our comprehension, and it is vain to claim knowledge
which cannot be possessed, or to attempt to explain what
cannot be explained. "If there is a point on which the witness
of Scripture, of the purest ecclesiastical tradition, and of our
own Church, is more express and uniform than another, it is
the peculiar and transcendent quality of the blessing which
this Sacrament both represents and exhibits, and consequently
of the Presence by which that blessing is conferred. How this
Presence differs from that of which we are assured by our
Lord s promise, where two or three are gathered together in
His name whether only in degree or in kind it is beyond
the power of human language to define and of human thought
to conceive. It is a subject fit, not for curious speculation,
but for the exercise of pious meditation and devotional feeling ;
and it is one in which there is a certainty that the highest
flight of contemplation will always fall short of the Divine
reality" (Bishop Thirlwall, Charges, vol. i. p. 278; see also
pp. 245, 246). " I could not consent to make our Church

XI. 24] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 245

answerable for a dogma committing those who hold it to the
belief that, in the institution of the Supper, that which our
Lord held in His hand, and gave to His disciples, was nothing
less than His own Person, Body, Soul, and Godhead" (Ibid.
vol. ii. p. 251; see also the appendix on Transubstantiation,
pp. 281 f.). The notes of Ellicott and Evans ad loc., with
Gould on Mark xiv. 22; Westcott on John vi. and xiii. ; Gore,
Dissertations, pp. 230 f. ; Hastings, DB. iii. pp. 148 f., with
the bibliography there given, may be consulted. Excellent
remarks and summaries of doctrine will be found in Beet,
A Manual of Theology, pp. 380-96. Happily, no theory of
the manner of Christ s Presence in the Eucharist is necessary
for the fruitful reception of it, and to have this demonstrated
would not make us better Christians, any more than a know
ledge of the chemical properties of bread makes us better able
to digest it. Stanley, Christian Institutions, ch. vi.

TOUTO iroieiTc ts TTjk ^^\v dmjinrjaiK. Perform this action
(continue to take bread, give thanks, and break it) in remem
brance of Me (Num. x. 10; Ps. xxxviii. i, Ixx. i). This
implies that hereafter He is to be absent from sight. The
words are not in Mark or Matthew, nor in Luke, except in
the disputed verses. Therefore the command to continue the
celebration of the Lord s Supper rests upon the testimony of
St Paul. This, however, does not for a moment imply that
he was the first to repeat the celebration, or the first to teach
Christians to do so. This passage plainly implies that repeated
celebrations were already a firmly established practice. The
authority of St Paul was quite inadequate to this immense
result. Nothing less than the authority of Christ would have
sufficed to produce it. See Knowling, pp. 2795.

The proposal to give to TOVTO Troietre the meaning { sacrifice
this* must be abandoned. As the Romanist commentator
Estius says, it is plane praeter mentem Scripturae* So also
Westcott; "I have not the least doubt that TOVTO TTOICITC can
mean only do this act (including the whole action of hands
and lips), and not sacrifice this] and that the Latin also can
have only the same rendering " (in a letter quoted in his Life,
H - P- 353) : a "d Bachmann, TOVTO geht auf die ganze Handling,
wie sie durch das Tun Jesu und seiner Jiinger dargestellt ist :
and Herveius ; Hoc facitej id est, corpus meum accipite et
manducate per successione?n temporis usque in finem saeculi, in
memoriam passionis meae. See Ellicott and Goudge ad loc. ;
Expositor, 3rd series, vii. 441 ; T. K. Abbott, Essays on the

* Hoc facile, id est accipite et date (Card. Hugo de Sto. Caro, d. 1263) ;
Mandat fieri quod ipse fecit, scilicet accipere pattern, gr alias agere, f r anger e,
consccrare, sumere, ac dare (Card. Thomas de Vio, Caietanus, d. 1534).

246 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 24, 25

Original Texts of O. and N.T. p. no; A Reply to Mr. Supple s
and other Criticisms ; and notes on Luke xxii. 19 in the Int.
Crit. Com. p. 497.

Edwards translates -rt\v e^v &vd^vK]dcv, ( My commemora
tion, in contrast to that of Moses (x. 2), thus making TT)V C/XTJI/
parallel to Kau/rj (v. 25). See Blass, Gr. 48. 7. The Eucharist
perpetually calls to mind the redemption by Christ from the
bondage of sin, as the Passover recalled the redemption from
the bondage of Egypt. Christ did not say, in remembrance
of My death. The recorded words, as My memorial, are of
wider import ; they imply * in remembrance of all that I have
done for you and all that I am to you. The early Christians
seem to have regarded the Eucharist as a commemoration of
the Resurrection as well as the Death, for they selected the
first day of the week for this memorial. Wetstein compares
the address of T. Manlius to the troops after his colleague
Decius had devoted himself to secure their success ; Consurgite
nunc, memores consults pro vestra victoria morte occumbentis
(Livy, viii. 10).

AefySere, (^dyere (C 3 K L P, Syrr. Aeth. ) are an interpolation from
Matt. xxvi. 26 ; K A B C* D E F G, Lat-Vet. Aegyptt. Arm. omit. ^ After
T& virtp vjJiCjv, N 3 C 3 E F G K L P insert K\&lt;J}fj.evov, D* inserts Opvirro/Jievov,
Vulg. (quod . . . tradetur) and some other versions have a rendering
which implies didopevov. ft* A B C* 17 and other witnesses omit. The
interpolation of any of these words weakens the nervosa sententia (Beng.),
T& birtp vpuv, which means for your salvation (Mark x. 45). AV. inserts
Take, eat, and broken ; RV. gives the latter a place in the margin.

25. wo-auTus TO iroT^pioi . He acted with the cup as with
the bread: He took it, gave thanks, and administered it to
the disciples. * The cup means the usual cup, the well-
known one (x. 1 6). The addition of fura TO Scnrvfjo-ai shows
that the bread was distributed during the meal, eo-^tovrojv avrw
(Mark xiv. 22): but it was after supper was over, postquam
caenatum est (Aug.), not postquam coenavit (Vulg.), that the
cup was administered. Perhaps the Apostle is pointing out
that the cup, against which they had so grievously offended
by intoxication, was no part of the meal, but a solemn addition
to it. But we must not translate, the after-supper cup, which
would require TO /ACTO, TO 8. iror-^ptov. Thomas Aquinas would
give a meaning to the fact that the bread was distributed
during the meal, while the cup was not administered till the
meal was over. The one represents the Incarnation, which
took place while the observances of the Law still had force ;
but the other represents the Passion, which put an end to the
observances of the Law. And Cornelius a Lapide regards
Christ s taking the cup into His hands as a token of His

XI. 25] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 247

voluntarily taking death for us. Such thoughts are admissible,
if it is not maintained that they are the meaning which is
intended in Scripture.*

TOUTO TO norqpioi r\ KO.IVT] SiaO-qicT) lariv iv TW ejxw CUJJ.O.TI.
Hie calix novum testamentum est in meo sanguine. The position
of eo"Ttv is against combining cv TO* e//.u&gt; at/xart with fj Kaivrj
SLaOyKV]. Rather, This cup is the new covenant, and it is so
in virtue of My Blood. In My Blood is an expansion or
explanation of the is, and is equivalent to an adverb such
as mystically. The cup represents that which it contains,
and the wine which it contains represents the Blood which
seals the covenant. The Atonement is implied, without which
doctrine the Lord s Supper is scarcely intelligible. Only
St Paul (and Luke?) has the Kaiv-ij. The covenant is fresh
as distinct from the former covenant which is now obsolete.
It is KQ.IVY) in its contents, in the blessings which it secures,
viz. forgiveness and grace : and TW e/xw afyi. is in contrast to
the blood with which the old covenant was confirmed (Exod.
xxiv. 8). See Jer. xxxi. 31, the only place in O.T. in which
SiaQriKr) KCUVTJ occurs. The choice of Sia0?j/o7, rather than awOrjKTf],
which is the common word for covenant, is no doubt deliberate,
for crwOyKr) might imply that the parties to the covenant con
tracted on equal terms. Between God and man that is impossible.
When He enters into a contract He disposes everything, as a
man disposes of his property by will : hence Sia&j/o? often
means a testament or will. In the LXX a-wOrJKrj is rare; in
the N.T. it does not occur. Westcott, Hebrews ; p. 299. On
the meaning of blood, which is the life, in connexion with
Christ s Sacrifice, see Westcott, Hebrews, pp. 293 f. ; Epp. oj
St John, pp. 34 f. ; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. 89, 91.

TOUTO TToien-e K.T.\. St Paul alone has these words of the
cup. In the disputed passage in Luke they are wanting.

60-dius lav mKTjTc. This makes the command very compre
hensive ; quotiescunque : comp. oo-a/as e ai/ OeXya-vcriv (Rev. xi. 6).
Every time that they partake of the sacramental cup (TOVTO TO
TTOTT^HOV), they are to do as He has done in remembrance of
Him. He does not merely give permission; He commands.
It is perverse to interpret this as a general command, referring
to all meals at which anything is drunk. What precedes and

* On the other hand, "the crude suggestion of Professor P. Gardner (The
Origin of the Lord s Supper, 1893), that St Paul borrowed the idea of the
Eucharist from the Eleusinian Mysteries, which he may have learned about
at Corinth," is not admissible. The theory ignores the evidence of the
Mark -tradition, and involves misapprehension of the Eleusinian Mysteries.
See E. L. Hicks, Studio, Biblica, iv. 12. Ramsay thinks that the interval
between the bread and the cup " was occupied with instruction in the
meaning of the symbolism" (Exp. Times, March 1910).

248 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 25

follows limits the meaning to the cup of blessing. The Lord
commands that the Supper be often repeated, and His Apostle
charges those who repeat it to keep in view Him who instituted
it, and who died to give life to them. In liturgies these words
are transferred to Christ; ye proclaim My death till /come.

With regard to the Lord s presence in Holy Communion,
Bishop Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of York, 8th Oct. 1900 ;
" The circumstances of the Institution are, we may say, spiritu
ally reproduced. The Lord Himself offers His Body given and
His Blood shed. But these gifts are not either separately (as
the Council of Trent) or in combination Himself ... I shrink
with my whole nature from speaking of such a mystery, but it
seems to me to be vital to guard against the thought of the
Presence of the Lord in or under the forms of bread and wine.
From this the greatest practical errors follow " (Life and Letters
of B. F. Westcott, n. p. 351).

It is very remarkable that " the words of institution " differ
widely in the four accounts. There is substantial agreement in
meaning ; but the only clause in which all four agree is This
is My Body ; and even here there is a difference of order
between Tovro /i/ov tcrriv TO o-u)//,a (i Cor.) and TOVTO ecrrtv TO crwfjid
/xov (Mark, Matt, Luke). It is quite clear that in all four
accounts these words are words of administration, not of con
secration. This is specially manifest in Mark, where they are
preceded by Take ye (Aa/JeTc), and in Matt., where they are
preceded by Take, eat (Aa/?eTe, &lt;/&gt;ayTc). The same may be
said of This is My Blood (Mark, Matt): they are words of
administration, not of consecration. The consecration has
preceded, and would seem to be included in ev^a/no-nyo-a? or
euXoyr;o-as. " All liturgies of every type agree in bearing witness
to the fact that the original form of consecration was a thanks
giving " ; and the form of words in which our Lord gave thanks
has not been preserved. In the Eastern liturgies " the words of
institution were not recited as of themselves effecting the con
secration, but rather as the authority in obedience to which the
rite is performed" (W. C. Bishop, Ch. Quart. Rev., July 1908,
pp. 387-92). In the main lines of Eucharistic teaching in the
fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, " The moment of consecration
is associated with the invocation of God the Word (Serapion, i),
or with the invocation of God the Holy Ghost (St. Cyril of
Jerusalem, Cat. xxi. 3), or with the Invocation of the Holy
Trinity (Ibid. xix. 7),* or with the recital of the words recorded
to have been used by our Lord at the institution (Pseudo-
Ambrose, De Sacr. iv. 21-23)" (Darwell Stone, Ch. Quart. Rev.

* To this may be added the still earlier testimony of Origen ; see on
vii. 5.

XI. 25, 26] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 249

Oct. 1908, p. 36). Cyril of Jerusalem quotes St Paul as saying
(v. 25), "And having taken the cup and given thanks, He said,
Take, drink, this is My Blood," which is wide of St Paul s words,
and agrees exactly with none of the other accounts (Cat. xxi. i).
It would thus appear that we know the exact words of institu
tion only very imperfectly, and the exact words of consecration
not at all. Again, just as we do not know the manner of our
Lord s Presence in the rite as a whole, so we do not know
"the supreme moment of consecration." It is lawful to believe
that we should not be in a better position for making a good use
of this mystery if all these things were known.*

26. oadKts yap lav &lt;r6u]T. In Apost. Const, viii. 12, 16
these words are put into Christ s mouth, with the change, " My
death, till /come." The ydp introduces the Apostle s explana
tion of the Lord s command to continue making this commemor
ative act. Or possibly yap refers to the whole passage (23-25);
" Such being the original Institution, it follows that as often as
ye eat," etc. To make the ydp co-ordinate with the ydp of
v. 23, as giving an additional reason for ov/c cTrcuvoj, is very
forced. St Paul gives no directions as to how frequently the
Lord s Supper is to be celebrated, -but he implies that it is to be
done frequently, in order to keep the remembrance of the Lord
fresh. We may conjecture that at Corinth celebrations had been
frequent, and that it was familiarity with them that had led to
their being so dishonoured. By this bread (TOF dprov TOVTOV)
would seem to be meant bread used in the manner prescribed
by Christ (w. 23, 24).

The TOVTO with rb irorrjpiov ( this cup, AV.) is a manifest interpolation :
K* A B C* D* F G, Latt. Arm. omit. Note the chiasmus between icQl^e
and TrivijTc, but the change of order seems to have no significance. What
is significant is the addition of nai rb iroTTjpiov iriv-rjTe, which can hardly be
reconciled with the practice of denying the cup to the laity.

roy Qdvcnov TOU Kupiou K&lt;na.yye\\Tf. Ye proclaim ( shew
is inadequate) continually (pres. indie.) the death of the Lord.
The Eucharist is an acted sermon, an acted proclamation of the
death which it commemorates ; f but it is possible that there
is reference to some expression oj belief in the atoning death of
Christ as being a usual element in the service. The verb is
indicative, not imperative.

ou eXO. The Eucharist looks backwards to the Cruci-

* See art. Abendmahl in Schiele, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegen-
wart, in which the doubtful points in the history of the institution are clearly
stated ; also Plummer, S. Matthew, pp. 361 f. ; Dobschiitz, Problems d. Ap.
Zeitalters, p. 73 ; Hastings, DB. iii. p. 146, DCG. II. p. 66.

t Comp. Cyprian (De zelo et tivore, 17) ; De sacramento crucis et cibum
suwt s

250 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 26, 27

nxion and forwards to the Return : hoc mysterium duo tempora
extrcma conjungit (Beng.). But at the Second Advent Euchar
ists will come to an end, for the commemoration of the absent
ceases when the absent returns. " No further need of symbols
of the Body, when the Body itself appears " (Theodoret). Then
instead of their drinking in memory of Him, He will drink with
them in His Kingdom (Matt. xxvi. 29).

The &v between &xpi or &XP 1 ^ $ an( 3 ^^V 1S not likely to be genuine :
tf * A B C D* F and Fathers omit. If it were genuine, it would indicate that
the Coming is uncertain, and this can hardly be the Apostle s meaning.
How near the Coming may be is not here in question ; but Eucharists
mast continue till then.

27. wore . . . eyo)(09 lorai. Consequently ... he will be
guilty. Seeing that partaking of the bread and of the cup is
a proclaiming of the Lord s death, partaking unworthily must
be a grievous sin. No definition of unworthily is given; but
the expression covers all that is incompatible with the intention
of Christ in instituting the rite. It is quite certain that selfish
and greedy irreverence is incompatible. But what follows shows
that not only external behaviour but an inward attitude of soul
is included. There must be brotherly love towards all and sure
faith in Christ. Weinel fails to notice this (p. 259).

^ irtnf]. As the cup followed the bread at a considerable
interval, it was possible to receive one unworthily without
receiving the other at all. In either case the whole sacrament
was profaned. It is on the use of rj here, and not K&lt;U, that an
argument is based for communioa in one kind only ; and it is
the only one that can be found in Scripture. But the argument
is baseless. Because profaning one element involves profaning
both, it does not follow that receiving one element worthily is
the same as worthily receiving both.* It is eating this bread
and drinking the cup that proclaims the death of the Lord
(v. 26) : we have no right to assume that eating without drinking,
or vice versa, will suffice. The whole passage, especially w. 22,
26, 28, 29, may be called proof that we are to eat and drink.
And see Blass, 77. n on the quasi-copulative sense which f)
has in such sentences : vel (Vulg.), aut (Calvin).

TO iroT^pioi TOU Kuptou. The cup which has reference to the
Lord and brings us into communion with Him, as the cup of
demons (TTOTT^HOI/ &u/x,oviW) brings the partakers into com
munion with them (x. 21) : comp. /cvpia/coi/ SCLTTVOV (v. 20). No
where else in N.T. does di/atws occur : in vi. 2 we have dvaios.
carat TOU O-WJACITOS K.T.\. Shall be under guilt of

* To break one commandment is to break the whole Law, but to keep one
command is not to keep the whole Law. See Abbott, Johannine Grammar^
2 759 f&gt; an( i comp. ij in Rom. i. 21.

XI. 27, 28] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 251

violating, be guilty of a sin against, the Body and the Blood of
the Lord. The dignity of that of which they partake (x. 16) is
the measure of the dignity which their irreverence profanes.
He does not say ei/o^os eo-rai TOV Oavdrov r. K., par farit, quasi
Christum truddaret (Grotius). The guilt is rather that of
deliberate injury or insult to the king s effigy or seal, or profane
treatment of a crucifix. Dishonour to the symbols is dishonour
to that which they represent ; and to use the bread and the
wine as the Corinthians used them was to treat the memorials
of Christ s death, and therefore that which they commemorated,
with insult.

The use of tvoxos is varied : c. gen. of the offence (Mark iii. 39), of
that which is violated (here and Jas. ii. 10), and of the penalty (Mark
xiv. 64; Heb. ii. 15); c. dat. of that which is violated (Deut. xix. 10),
and of the tribunal (Matt. v. 21, 22).

After rbv Aprov, K L P, Vulg. AV. add TOVTOV : NABCDEFG,
Lat.-Vet. RV. omit. For -fj before wivy A, Aegypt. Aeth. AV. read Kal,
a manifest correction. After dra^ws, D L, Pesh. Goth, add TOV Kvptov.
A few unimportant witnesses support the TR. in omitting TOV before
alfjiaTos. The AV. inserts this before cup of the Lord, without
authority.

28. SoKifia^eVo) & ayOpamos eauTOV. * But (in order to avoid
all this profanity) let a man (iv. i ; Gal. vi. i) prove himself
(i Thess. v. 21 ; Gal. vi. 4). Let him see whether he is in a
proper state of mind for commemorating and proclaiming the
death of the Lord. The emphasis is on SoKipxeTo&gt;. It is
assumed that the result of the testing will either directly or
indirectly be satisfactory. This is sometimes implied in So/a/xa-
eii/ as distinct from irupafauv : Lightfoot on i Thess. v. 2 1 ;
Trench, Syn. Ixxiv. The man will either find that he is already in
a right condition to receive, or he will take the necessary means
to become so. Nothing is said here either for or against employ
ing the help of a minister, as in private confession : but So/aju,ae ra&gt;
cavroi/ shows that the individual Christian can do it for himself,
and perhaps implies that this is the normal condition of things.*
Those who are unskilful in testing themselves may reasonably
seek help; and confession, whether public or private, is help
supplied by the Church to those who need it. But when the
right condition has been reached, by whatever means, then and
not till then (ovrw?) let him come and partake.

CK TOU aprou . . . K TOU TroTTjpiou. The prepositions seem to
imply that there are other communicants (x. 17); but the change
of construction in ix. 7 renders this doubtful. Evans interprets
the IK of " the mystical effects of the bread eaten."

* Chrysostom insists on this; "He does not order one man to test
another, but each man himself ; thus making the court a private one and the
verdict without witnesses. " Unicuique committitur suimet judicium (Cajetan).

252 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 29

29. It is impossible to reproduce in English the play upon
words which is manifest in these verses (29-34), in which changes
are rung upon Kpt/xa and npivw with its compounds : Blass, Gr.
82. 4. Such things are very common in 2 Cor. (i. 13, iii. 2,
iv. 8, vi. 10, x. 6, 12, xii. 4). The exact meaning of this verse is
uncertain. Either (i) For the (mere) eater and drinker, who
turns the Supper into an ordinary meal ; or, (2) For he who
eats and drinks (unworthily, or without testing himself). There
is not much difference between these two, and in either case JIT)
SiaKpiVo)! must mean * because he does not rightly judge, or
without rightly judging. Or else, (3) He who eats and drinks,
eats and drinks judgment to himself, //he does not rightly judge.
In any case KpCfw. is a neutral word, judgment or sentence,
not condemnation, still less * damnation. The context implies
that the judgment is adverse and penal (v. 30) ; but it also
implies that the punishments are temporal, not eternal. These
temporal chastisements are sent to save offenders from eternal
condemnation. For Kpi^a, not fcptVts, comp. Rom. iii. 8, v. 16;
Gal. v. 10 ; and see Thayer s Grimm.

It seems to be safe to assume that 8iaKpCv&lt; has the same
meaning in w. 29 and 31. In that case discern or dis
criminate (RV. and marg.) can hardly be right, for this meaning
makes poor sense in v. 31. Judge rightly makes good sense
in both places. Of course one who forms a right judgment will
discern and discriminate (in this case, will distinguish the Body
from ordinary food), but distinguish is not the primary idea.
Chrysostom paraphrases, /XT/ cwowv, ws xPVi T /^ y 6 ^ 05 T&lt; ^ v 7r P Kt ~
ju,eVo&gt;i , firj Aoyio /u,ei/os. It is not likely that, because the bread
symbolizes the many grains of Christian souls united in one
Church, TO o-S/xa here means the body of Christians ; * still less
that it means the substance which is veiled in the bread, as
some Lutherans interpret.

The addition of drata&gt;s after irivuv, and of TOV Kiyu ou after rb &lt;r&fj.a in
a number of texts, are obvious interpolations. Why should N* A B C* and
other authorities omit in both cases, if the additions were genuine ?

Editors differ as to the accent of Kplfj-a. In classical Greek Kp1fj.a is right,
but in this later Greek the earlier witnesses for accents give Kpi/^a. Much
the same difference is found with regard to ffrvXos, which Tisch. accents
trrOXos. See Lightfoot on Gal. ii. 9, v. 10.

On the insoluble problem as to what it is that the wicked receive in the
Lord s Supper, see E. H. Browne and E. C. S. Gibson on article xxix ;

* Stanley strongly contends for this meaning ; it was " the community and
fellowship one with another which the Corinthian Christians were so slow to
discern" ; and he appeals to xii. 12, 13, 20, 27 ; Rom. xii. 4, 5; Eph. ii.
16, iii. 6, iv. 12, 16 ; Col. i. 18, ii. 19, iii. 15 {Christian Institutions, p. in).
In any case we may compare the striking saying of Ignatius (Rom. vii.,
Trail, viii.), that "the Blood of Jesus Christ is love."

XI. 29, 30] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 253

the correspondence between Keble and Pusey at the end of vol. iii. of The
Life of Pusey ; and J. B. Mozley, Lectures and other Theological Papers,
p. 205. "If he receive unworthily, he verily rejects the Body and Blood
of Christ" (Khomiakoff, Essay on the Church, in Birkbeck, Russia and
the English Church, p. 207). Some problems respecting the Eucharist are
the result of theories (which may be erroneous) respecting the manner
of Christ s Presence in the Eucharist : if the theory is relinquished, the
difficulty disappears. It is clear from w. 28, 29, which have Kal and not
ij between taQ. and iriv., that communion in both kinds was usual, and
there is no mention of special ministers who distributed the bread and the
wine. But these abuses might suggest the employment of ministers.

30. Sia TOUTO. He proceeds to prove the truth of

al Trivet from the Corinthians own experiences. It is
because of their irreverence at the Lord s Supper that many
among them have been chastised with sickness, and some even
with death. To interpret this of spiritual weakness and deadness
is inadequate ; and no ancient commentator thus explains the
words. Their spiritual deadness produced the irreverence, and
for this irreverence God chastised them with bodily suffering.
Had spiritual maladies been meant, we should probably have
had tv TrveuyaaTi, or ev rats KapStcus U/AUJV. Perhaps at this time
there was much sickness in the Church of Corinth, and St Paul
points out the cause of it. We need not assume that he had
received a special revelation on the subject. It is possible that
the excess in drinking may have led in some cases to illness.
Both do-#i/is and appwo-rot imply the weakness of ill-health (Mark
vi. 5, 13 ; Matt. xiv. 14), and it is not clear which is the stronger
word of the two : infirmi et imbecilles (Vulg.) ; but appuorrelv
(2 Chron. xxxii. 24) is perhaps more than our#eveu/. By IKO.VOI is
meant enough to be considerable : in this sense the word is
frequent in Luke and Acts, and in i and 2 Mac., but is rare else
where : in Rom. xv. 23 the reading is somewhat doubtful. See
Swete on Mark x. 46.

Koifiwvrai. Are sleeping (in death), dormiunt, rather than
are falling asleep, obdormiunt: here and elsewhere the Vulg.
has dormio. The word was welcomed by Christians as harmon
izing with the belief in a resurrection, but it was previously used
by Jews and heathen without any such belief. Test, of xn.
Patr. Joseph xx. 4, iKoiprfi-rj VTTI/W icaAtp, where some texts read
e/c. VTTVOV alwviov . COmp. OTTO;? Kapw^oxriv Kal v7rv(i)(T(DorLv VTTVOV
aiwviov, and virvuxrovcnv VTTVOV euowov /cat /AT; l^eyepOwo-iv (Jer. li.
39&gt; 57)j* Book of Jubilees xxiii. i; Turn consa?iguineus Lett
Sopor (Virg. Aen. vi. 278. See Milligan on i Thess. iv. 13).
Calvin points out that these consequences of profanation must

* With alwvios here comp. /cot^Tjo-aro x^ KOV VTTVOV (Horn. //. xi. 241);
ferreus urget somnus (Virg. Aen. x. 745 )&gt; perpetuns sopor urget (Hor. Od. I.
xxiv. 5). These illnesses and deaths would be all the more remarkable in a
Church which had a x^oia/J-a ia/j-druv (xii. 9).

254 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 30-33

be regarded as admonitions : neque enim frustra nos affligit Deus,
quia malts nostris non dekctatur ; argumentum copiosum et amplum.
He also seems to regard solitary masses as a repetition of the
offence in v. 2 1 ; ut unus seorsum epulam suam habeat, abolita
communications.

31. el 8c laurods SieKpiyofxey. But if we made a practice
(imperf.) of rightly judging our -selves : eavrov s is emphatic, and
eavrovs Stexp. is stronger than the middle. The reference is to
v. 28. If we habitually tested ourselves, and reached a right
estimate, we should not receive judgment (such as these sick
nesses and deaths). For the construction comp. John v. 46,
viii. 19, 42, xv. 19, xviii. 36; and for eaurov s with the ist pers.
Acts xxiii. 14; i John i. 8. In using the ist pers. the Apostle
softens the admonition by including himself. What follows is
much less stern than what precedes. He is anxious to close
gently.

el te (X* A B D E F G, Vulg, Aeth. Goth. RV.) is certainly to be pre
ferred to el yAp (tf 3 C K L P, Syrr. Aegyptt. AV.).

32. Kpii/ojieyoi 8 But when we do receive judgment (as is
actually the case by these sicknesses), we are being chastened by the
Lord, in order that we may not receive judgment of condemnation
(be judged to death) with the world. These temporal sufferings
are indeed punishments for sin, but their purpose is disciplinary
and educational (i Tim. i. 20), to induce us to amend our ways
and escape the sentence which will be pronounced on rebels at
the last day. The KOCT/AOS here is, not God s well-ordered
creature, but His enemy, as commonly in St John. I beseech
therefore those who read this book, that they be not dis
couraged because of the calamities, but account that these
punishments were not for the destruction, but for the chastening
of our race (2 Mac. vi. 12). For 7raiSevo //,e0a (as implying
moral training as distinct from mere teaching), see Westcott on
Heb. xii. 7 ; Trench, Syn. 32 ; Milligan, Grk. Papyri, p. 94.*

33. ware, d8e\&lt;f&gt;oi jiou. In vv. 31, 32 he has been regarding
offences generally. He now returns to the disorders in con
nexion with the Lord s Supper in order to close the subject, and
in so doing he repeats the affectionate address (i. n) which
still further migitates the recent severity. This conclusion
indicates where the great fault has been : in the common meal
of Christian love and fellowship there has been no love or fellow
ship. Having charged them to secure the necessary internal

"The Apostle did not say KoXa^6/x.e0a, nor riyuw/jou/ic^a, but 7rateu6/te0a.
For his purpose is to admonish, not to condemn ; to heal, not to requite ;
to correct, not to punish" (Chrys.).

XI. 33, 34] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 255

feeling by means of self-examination, he now insists upon the
necessity for the external expression of it. To the last he harps
upon &lt;rwpx((T0ai. These are meetings^ Christian gatherings, the
object of which is to manifest mutual love. Moreover, the
purpose of the congregational meal is spiritual, not physical ; not
to satisfy hunger, but to commemorate and to hold communion
with Christ. Let them cease to come together ets fjcro-ov, eis
KpLfjia. As in v. 21, TO &lt;ayH&gt; is a general expression for a
common meal.

dXXrjXous ic8e x&lt;T0e. Wait for one another, invicem expectate
(Vulg.). This is the usual meaning of the verb in the N.T.
(xvi. ii ; Heb. x. 13, xi. 10; Acts xviii. 16; Jas. v. 7). The
meaning receive ye one another (common in the LXX and in
class. Grk.) is less suitable : for this he would perhaps have used
7r/3oo-Aa/A/?aveo-0a(. (Rom. xiv. i, xv. 7). The waiting would
prevent the greedy TrpoKa^d^v (21): and Chrysostom points
out the delicacy of the expression. It is the rich who are to wait
for the poor ; but neither rich nor poor are mentioned.

34. The mere satisfying of hunger should be done ev
(xiv- 35), not lv KK\rja-La (y. 18). Comp. KO.T OLKOV (Acts ii. 46,
v. 42). The abrupt conclusion is similar to the conclusion of
the discussion about women wearing veils (v. 16). He is not
going to argue the matter any further; the difference between
the Supper and ordinary meals must be clearly marked : that is
final.

The St after ef, eJ 5^ rts (S 8 D 3 EKLP, Syrr. AV.) is a manifest
interpolation (tf* A B C D* F G, Latt. RV. omit). The asyndeton makes
an abrupt conclusion.

rot 8e Xoiird. One may guess for ever, and without result, as
to what things the Apostle was going to set in order, just as one
may guess for ever as to what directions our Lord gave to the
Apostles respecting Church order during the forty days. Here
all the other matters possibly refers to matters about which the
Corinthians had asked, and probably to matters connected with
the Love-feasts and the Eucharist. The use of Stara^o/xat (vii.
17, ix. 14, xvi. i ; Tit. i. 5) suggests that these had reference to
externals, evra^ux, rather than to the inner meaning of the rite.
But the evidence is slight, and does not carry us far.

ws av eX0w. Whensoever I shall have come, or according
as I come. The av makes both event and time uncertain.
Comp. &lt;Ls av iropevw /xat ets rrjv Srraviav (Rom. XV. 24) ; ws av
uTttSa) ra ircpl e/xe (Phil. ii. 23). J. H. Moulton, i. p. 167.
Meanwhile there seems to be no overseer or body of elders to
act for him.

256 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 17-34

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON XL 17-34.

This passage throws considerable light upon the manner of
celebrating the Lord s Supper in St Paul s day. On the negative
side we have important evidence. As J. A. Beet in loc. points
out very incisively, the Apostle says nothing about consecration
by a priest ; and, had there been anything of the kind, would
he not have said, Wait for the consecration/ rather than Wait
for one another (v. 33)? Beet points out further (Manual of
Theology, p. 388) that private members were able to appropriate
beforehand the food designed for the communion, which implies
that they were not in the habit of receiving the bread and wine
from the church officers. And St Paul does not tell them that
they must not help themselves to the bread and wine, although
this would have effectually put a stop to the abuses in question ;
which shows that he did not look upon reception of the elements
as essential to the validity of the rite. From this we infer with
certainty that, when Christ ordained the Supper, He did not
direct, and that, when i Corinthians was written, the Apostles
had not directed, that the sacred rite should be administered by
the church officers and them alone. Nor have we in the N.T.
any evidence that the Apostles afterwards gave this direction.
What we have is evidence that a body of church officers was
being developed : and it is reasonable to suppose that, when a
distinction had been made between laity and clergy, the duty of
celebrating the Lord s Supper would very soon be reserved fi-r
the clergy.

On the positive side we may assume from TOVTO Troitn-e that
the Christian Supper was closely modelled, in all essentials, on
what Christ did at the Paschal Supper. This carries with it

(a) The Blessing and Breaking of Bread and the Blessing of
a Cup, as then by Christ, so later by a presiding person.

(/3) The Meal itself, originally meant, like the Passover, to be
a genuine meal, for satisfying hunger and thirst.

But (v. 22) St Paul began a change which tended to make
the meal connected with the Lord s Supper a mere ceremony.
The genuine meal, for satisfying hunger, is to be taken at home,
and the Lord s Supper is not to be used for that purpose by all
communicants as a matter of course, although the poor are to
have an opportunity of satisfying their appetites. This change
naturally tended to the goal which was ultimately reached,
viz., the complete separation of the Eucharist from the Supper,
which became a mere Agape. The contributions of food
brought by the worshippers survived in later times as the First
Oblation, the EvAoywu. See Diet, of Chr. Ant. Artt. Agape,
Eulogia, Eucharist ; Kraus, Real-Enc. d. christ. Alt. i. Artt.

XII. 1-XIV. 4O] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 257

Eucharistie, Eulogien ; Hastings, DB. and DCG. Artt.
Lord s Supper, Communion.

XII. 1-XIV. 40. SPIRITUAL GIFTS, ESPECIALLY
PROPHESYING AND TONGUES.

This is the third and longest section of the fourth main
division of the Epistle ; and, as at the beginning of this
division (xi. 2), there is a possible reference to the letter of the
Corinthians to the Apostle ; but he would no doubt have
treated of a number of the topics which are handled, even if
they had not mentioned them.

In all three of the sections we are reminded that he is
dealing with a young Church in which some of the faults of their
former state of life are reappearing. This is specially the case
with the Corinthian love of faction. There were rivalries,
cliques, and splits, hardening sometimes into parties with party-
leaders. About the veils, there was the rivalry between men and
women. At the love feasts, there was the rivalry between rich
and poor. And here we have evidence of rivalries as to the
possession of spiritual gifts, and especially as to those which
were most demonstrative, and therefore seemed to confer most
distinction.

The difficulty of this section lies in our ignorance of the
condition of things to which it refers. The phenomena which
are described, or sometimes only alluded to, were to a large
extent abnormal and transitory. They were not part of the
regular development of the Christian Church. Even in
Chrysostom s time there was so much ignorance about them as
to cause perplexity. He remarks that the whole of the passage
is very obscure, because of our defective information respecting
facts, which took place then, but take place no longer. Some
members of the Corinthian Church, in the first glow of early
enthusiasm, found themselves in possession of exceptional
spiritual endowments. These appear to have been either wholly
supernatural endowments or natural gifts raised to an extra
ordinarily high power. It seems to be clear that these endowments,
although spiritual, did not of themselves make the possessors of
them morally better. In some instances the reverse was the
case ; for the gifted person was puffed up and looked down on
the ungifted. Moreover, the gifts which were most desired and
valued were not those which were most useful, but those which
made most show.

The chapter falls into two clearly marked parts : (i) The
Variety, Unity, and true Purpose of Spiritual Gifts, i-ii; (2)

258 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII. 1-11

Illustration from Man s Body of the truth that, though the Gifts
may be various, those who possess them are one organic Whole,
12-31. The first three verses are introductory, to supply a test
which a Church consisting chiefly of converts from heathenism
would be likely to require. Converts from Judaism might know
from their own history and previous experience what manifesta
tions of power were divinely inspired, and what not. But
converts from idolatry would not be able to distinguish :
incantations and spells were all alike to them. Then follows
(4-11) the paragraph on the oneness of the origin of all gifts
that are beneficial.

A sure test of the origin of any spiritual gift is, Does it
promote the glory of Jesus Christ ? What dishonours Him
cannot be from above. The good gifts are very various in
their manifestations , but they have only one Source God s
Holy Spirit.

1 Now concerning spiritual manifestations, Brethren, I am
anxious that you should be under no delusions. 2 You remember
that, when you were heathens, you were led away, just as the
impulse might take you, to the dumb idols that could tell you
nothing. 3 Those experiences do not help you now ; and therefore
I would impress upon you this as a sure test. No one who is
speaking under the influence of God s Spirit ever says, Jesus is
anathema ; and no one can say, Jesus is Lord, except under the
influence of the Holy Spirit.

4 Now there are various distributions of gifts ; but it is one
and the same Spirit who bestows them. 5 And there are various
distributions of ministrations; and it is to one and the same
Lord that they are rendered. 6 And there are various distribu
tions of effects ; yet it is the same God who causes every one of
them in every Christian that manifests them. 7 But to each
Christian the manifestation of the Spirit is granted with a view
to some beneficent end. 8 For to one man is granted through
the Spirit the utterance of wisdom ; to another, the utterance of
knowledge according to the leading of the same Spirit; 9 toa
third, potent faith by means of the same Spirit ; and to another,
manifold gifts of healings by means of the one Spirit ; 10 and to
another, various miraculous effects; to another, inspired utter
ance; to another, powers of discriminating between inspirations;
to yet another, different kinds of Tongues ; and to another,

XII. 1, 2] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 259

the interpretation of Tongues. n But every one of these mani
festations of power is caused by one and the same Spirit, who
distributes them to each individual singly, exactly as He wills.

1. flepl 8c TWI&gt; irkcujxariKtoi . c Now concerning spiritual
powers or gifts. The TTC/OI , as in vii. i and viii. i, probably
refers to topics mentioned by them ; and the 8e, as in xi. 2,
marks the transition from one topic to another, and probably
from one topic about which they had asked to another about
which they had asked. With less probability some make the Se
antithetical, as distinguishing what he deals with at once from
what he has decided to postpone ; * But, while I postpone TO.
Aowra, I must not delay to instruct you about TO, 7rveu/m/ca.
Some again would make ruv irvt\)^a.riK^v masculine, as in ii. 15
and xiv. 37 ; but it is certainly neuter, as in xiv. i. What
follows treats of the spiritual gifts, rather than those who are
endowed with them ; but the difference is not very important.
Spiritualia dona vocat, quia solius Spiritus Sancti opera sunt,
industria humana nihil ad hoc conferente (Natalis Alexander) :
see Denton on the Ep. for loth Sunday after Trinity.

ou 6e\o) ujxas ayvoclv. As in x. i ; comp. Rom. i. 13, xi. 25 ;
2 Cor. i, 8 ; i Thess. iv. 13. The formula marks the introduction
of an important subject which must not be overlooked, and is
always softened by the addition of the affectionate dScA^ot: he
will not leave his brethren in ignorance. Moreover, this addition
reminds them that there ought to be no jealousies between
brethren as to the possession of spiritual gifts.

2. otSare on ore ... dirayofickoi. The sentence is not
grammatical, and the simplest remedy is to understand ^re with
dTrayo/xevot, which is not a violent supplement. The main
Sentence in that case is olSare on Trpbs TO. eiSwAa aTrayo^tevot
(^re). Ye know that, when ye were heathen, ye were led away,
as from time to time ye might be led,* to worship the idols, the
speechless things. They were hurried along, like dumb brutes,
to pay reverence to the dumb idols, objects of worship which,
so far from inspiring others to speak, could not speak themselves.
They had no revelation to give, and could not have communi
cated it, if they had. They have mouths and speak not 1
(Ps. cxv. 5; Hab. ii. 18 ; Wisd. xiii. 17-19; Baruch vi. 8), and
can neither answer questions nor make known their own will :
coed ad mutos ibatis, muti ad coecos (Beng.). The insertion of as
at any time ye might be led, added to aTrayo/xevoi, emphasizes
the idea of senseless, and almost unconscious following. They

* This is one of the places in which the old iterative force of &v seems to
survive in the N.T. Comp. Acts ii. 45, iv. 35. J. H. Moulton, p. 167.

260 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII. 2, 3

were led, not by any revelation of Divine will, but by local
custom, or by the command of priests or rulers.* But aurayo-
fju-voi does not mean led astray : the heathen were not seduced
from a better religion to idolatry. Here only is aTrayetv found in
the N.T., except in the Synoptics and Acts ; and there the
common meaning is to lead away by force, rather than by
seductive guile, to trial, prison, or punishment (Matt. xxvi. 57,
xxvii. 2, 31 ; etc. ; Acts xii. 19, xxiv. 7). The agent who led
them on to the worship of idols is not mentioned; but we
are probably to understand the evil one as at the back of custom
or command, Satan, "the wily wire-puller of moral mischief"
(Evans). Contrast Tri/cv/xart ayeor#ai (Gal. v. 18; Rom. viii. 14),
and with ore Wvf] r)Tt COmp. ore r///,ei/ vrj-moi (Gal. iv. 3). On the
verse as a whole Calvin rightly remarks, perturbata est construct,
sed tamen clarus est sensus.

We may safely adopt u&gt;s &v tfyeade rather than ws av/iyevde. Other
doubts are not so easily settled.

Some regard ws &v fjyeade as a resumption of the clause introduced by
#ri : Ye know that, when ye were heathen, how ye were led to those
voiceless idols, being carried away. This makes the dTrayo/mevoi come in
very awkwardly. Both 6 rt and 6Ve are found in K A B C D E L P, Vulg.
Arm., but some texts omit 3re and some omit ort. WII. suspect a
primitive error, and for 6 ri 8re conjecture on TTOTC. The error might easily
arise in dictation. This is very attractive ; it gets rid of all grammatical
difficulty and is in accordance with Pauline usage ; Ye know that once ye
were heathen, carried away to those voiceless idols, as on occasions ye
might be led. St Paul often contrasts his readers previous unhappy
paganism (irore) with their happy condition as believers (vvv) : Rom. xi. 30 ;
Col. i. 21, vii. 8; Eph. ii. 11-13, v. 8. But whichever reading or con
struction we adopt, the import of the verse is clear : it is because they once
were idolaters that he is so anxious that they should be properly instructed
about ra

3. 816 Yi&gt;upiw ufAt&gt;. On which account I make known to
you (xv. i ; Gal. i. n). Excepting the Pastoral Epistles, Sid is
frequent in the Pauline Epp. Seeing that in their heathen state
they could know nothing about spiritual gifts, nor how to discern
whether a person was speaking by the Spirit or not, he must tell
them by what kind of spiritual power God makes revelations to
man.f No utterance inspired by Him can be against Christ.
Every word for Christ is inspired by Him.

* " Much of the immorality which St Paul so graphically describes was
associated with religious worship. So that the Apostle assigns as the cause
of the universal condition of moral corruption in the world the universal
prevalence not so much of no religion as of false religion" (Du Bose, The
Gospel according to St Paul, p. 63). On the idea of Christians ceasing to
belong to the tdvi), see Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity,
i. pp. 60, 89.

f Chrysostom thinks that he is contrasting Christian inspiration with the
frenzy of the Dionysiac and other mysteries ; this may be true in part.

XII. 3] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 26l

iv n^eujjiaTi ecu. The cV may express either sphere or
instrumentality : comp. Rom. ix. i, xiv. 17, xv. 16; Luke iii. 16.
Although it is perhaps more common to have the article where
direct agency is meant (vi. u), yet active influence rather than
surrounding element seems to be implied here. See J. A.
Robinson on Eph. v. 18. The difference between AaAeu/ and
Aeycu&gt; may be noted, the one of uttering sounds, the other of
articulately saying something : comp. ch. xiv. passim ; Acts ii. 4,
6, 7, u. The blasphemous Ai/a^e/Aa I^o-ovs would be more
likely to be uttered by a Jew than a Gentile ; faaebant gentes,
sed magis Judaei (Beng.). It is possible that it was uttered
against Jesus by His bitter enemies even during His life on
earth. It is not improbable that Saul himself used it in his per
secuting days, and strove to make others do so (Acts xxvi. n).
When the Gospel was preached in the synagogues the fanatical
Jews would be likely to use these very words when Jesus was
proclaimed as the Messiah (Acts xiii. 45, xviii. 6). Unbelievers,
whether Jews or Gentiles, were admitted to Christian gatherings
(xiv. 24), and therefore one of these might suddenly exclaim in
the middle of public worship, Ava0e/&gt;ia I^crous. To the inexperi
enced Corinthians a mad shout of this kind, reminding them of
the shrieks of frenzied worshippers of Dionysus and the
Corybantes, might seem to be inspired : see Findlay ad loc. St
Paul assures them that this anti-Christian utterance is absolutely
decisive : it cannot come from the Spirit.* For di/afle/xa comp.
xvi. 22 ; Gal. i. 8, 9 ; Trench, Syn. v. ; Cremer, p. 547 ; Suicer,
268. It is one of the 103 words which in N.T. are found only
in Paul and Luke (Hawkins, Hor. Syn. p. 190). It is less likely
that St Paul is thinking of cases of apostasy. Fifty years later,
those who denied that they were Christians were required to
blaspheme Christ : this was the crucial test. Qui negabant esse
se Christianas aut fuisse, cum praeeunte me deos appellarent et
imagini tuae ture ac vino supplicarent, praeterea male dicerent
Christo, quorum nihil posse cogi dicuntur qui sunt re vera Chris-
tiani, dimittendos esse putavi (Pliny to Trajan, Ep. x. 96).

Kuptos Irjaous. This comprehensive utterance is as wide as
Christendom : every loyal Christian is inspired. Those who
have received special gifts, such as those which are mentioned
below (4-11), must not regard those who have not received them
as devoid of the Spirit. This is one of the ways in which the

* Origen says that the Ophites required this utterance from those who
joined them : (an rts afyecris rfrts ov Trpocrlerat rbv irpoffiovTa. et /J.T) &va6e/j.aTlcrri
rbv \r)ffovv . SeeyyiS 1 . x. 37, p. 30.

Here the RV. is right in making Jesus is anathema and Jesus is Lord
the oratio recta: S A B C have dvd6e/jt.a. lyvovs, not lijaovv, and Kvpios
IijcroDs, not \Upt.ov

262 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII. 3, 4

Spirit glorifies Jesus (John xvi. 14), by enabling many to confess
Him as Lord. Comp. the similar double test, negative and
positive, given in i John iv. 2-4 ; but while St John has in view
those who denied the humanity of Christ, St Paul has in view
those who denied His Divinity. In Gal. iv. 6 we have the
parallel cry, * Abba, Father, as a mark of Christian adoption ;
and in Acts viii. 16, xix. 5 we have the formula, baptized into
the name of the Lord Jesus. *

4-6. These verses give the keynote of the passage. Having
given the negative and positive criterion of genuine spiritual
endowments as manifested in speech, the Apostle goes on to
point out the essential oneness of these very varied gifts. In
doing so he shows clearly, and perhaps of set purpose, that
Trinitarian doctrine is the basis of his thought. We have the
three Persons in inverse order, the Fount of Deity being reached
last, Ilvev/xa, Kv/olog, eos. We have the same order, and
similar thought in Eph. iv. 4-6 ; one body, quickened by one
Spirit, dependent upon one Lord, and having the origin of its
being in one God and Father of all. And there, as here, the
Trinitarian Unity is at once followed by a statement of the
distribution of grace to each separate individual ; tVt Se eKuara&gt;
ry/xan c866r) rf x L P L&lt;s - Still more clear is the benediction at the
end of 2 Cor. (xiii. 14); see notes in the Camb. Grk. Test.
Comp. Clem. Rom. Cor. xlvi. 3 ; " one God and one Christ and
one Spirit of grace " ; and Iviii. 2 ; "as God liveth, and the Lord
Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit." See also Sanday in
Hastings, DB. n. p. 213; Goudge, i Corinthians, pp. xxix ff.
This language of St Paul, in which the Trinitarian point of view
is not paraded, but comes out quite naturally and incidentally,
gives confirmation to the authenticity of Matt, xxviii. 19. This
Epistle was written a dozen years or more before the First
Gospel ; but St Paul s language is all the more intelligible if it
was well known that our Lord had spoken as Matt, reports.

4. Aicupe aeis 8e xapicrpdrw iau&gt;. Although every one who
knows the significance of * Jesus is Lord, and can heartily affirm
it, is inspired, yet there are distributions of special gifts -
divisiones gratiarum (Vulg.). Aiat/aeo-is occurs nowhere else in
the N.T., and it may mean either differences, distinctions, or
distributions, apportionings, dealings out. f The use of

* Our Lord uses a similar argument (Mark ix. 39 ; Luke ix. 50). It is
quite possible that, at baptism, the convert made some short confession of
faith, such as Ktfptos I??&lt;roOs. He confessed the Name, when he was baptized
in the Name.

fit is frequent in LXX, especially in Chronicles, of the courses of
priests, Levites, and troops.

XII. 4, 5] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 263

vv in v. ii seems to decide for the latter. In all three
cases here the word refers to the gifts being distributed among
different individuals rather than to the distinctions between the
gifts themselves. Both meanings are true ; but it is the dealing
out of the gifts, rather than the variety of them, that is insisted
upon here.* Xapto-^a is almost exclusively a N.T. word, and
(excepting i Pet. iv. 10) is peculiar to Paul. It is found as a
doubtful reading twice in Ecclus. ; in vii. 33 x a/ P ts i probably
right, and in xxxviii. 34 (30) xpicr//,a may be right. The word is
frequent in i Cor. and Rom., and is found once each in 2 Cor.
and i and 2 Tim. See especially Rom. xii. 3-8, which was
perhaps written when the Apostle had this chapter in his mind.
From neither passage can we gather that there were definite
ministers, differing in function, and each endowed with special
and appropriate ^apttr/wtrcu The impression conveyed is that
these gifts were widely diffused, and that perhaps there were not
many Christians at Corinth who were not endowed with at least
one of them. See J. A. Robinson, Ency. Bibl. iv. 4755 f. ; Hort,
The Chr. Eccles., pp. 153^ ; VV. E. Chad wick, The Pastoral
Teaching of St Paul, ch. iii. ; J. Wilhelm in The Catholic Cyclo
paedia, iii. Art. Charismata ; Sanday and Headlam, Romans,
pp. 358 f.; Cremer, p. 577; Suicer, 1500. The word is some
times used in a wider sense of any gift of grace, e.g. continence
(vii. 7), or faith (Rom. i. u).

TO 8e auro rii/eujjia. The Se marks the antithesis between the
one Fount and the many streams. The Spirit which bestows all
these special gifts is the same as that which enables Gentile or
Jew to confess Christ; consequently the test given in v. 3 is
available in each case. See Dale, Ephesians, pp. 133 ff.

5. Siaxoi iui . Like ^dpio-pa, the word has both a general
and a special meaning: (i) any Christian ministration or service
(here; Rom. xi. 13; Eph. iv. 12), whether of an Apostle or of
the humblest believer; (2) some special administration, as of
alms, or attendance to bodily needs (xvi. 15; 2 Cor. viii. 4).
"Spiritual service of an official kind" is not included in the
meaning, but may be implied in the context. See Hort,
Christian Ecdesia, pp. 202 f.

KCU 6 auros Kupios. Here there is no antithesis (KCU, not Sc)
between the many and the one : the two facts are stated as
parallel. On the one side are the apportionments of ministra
tions ; on the other is He who * came not to be ministered
to, but to minister (Mark x. 45), but who counts all service
to others as service done to Himself (Matt. xxv. 40). Ye serve

* Comp. Maharbal s words to Hannibal ; NOH omnia nimirum cidcm dii
dedere (Livy, xxii. 51).

264 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII. 5-7

the Lord Christ (Col. iii. 24) : it is He who is glorified by the
diverse distribution of ministries.

6. IvepyiuL&Tw. These are the results or effects of the e
yeia given by God (Eph. iii. 7; Col. i. 29, ii. 12), the outward
manifestations of His power. Among these eVepy. are certainly
Xapioyxara la^dr^v. The word occurs again v. 10, but nowhere
else in Biblical Greek : it is almost co-extensive with xapioy/,aTa,
but it gives prominence to the idea of power rather than that of
endowment. Cremer, pp. 262, 713; he quotes Polyb. iv. 8. 7,
at TOJV dv^pwTroov ff&gt;vcri&lt;s l\ov(ri n TroAvetSe?, coo-re TOV avrov ai/Spa
/XT) /AOI/OV ev rots Sia^epovo-ii/ TOJV Ivepyrj/AaTiov : and Diodor. iv. 51,
TCOJ/ Se eVepyty/xarcov inrep TTJV avOpwTrivrjv (frvcriv &lt;avei/T&lt;oj/.

6 8e auros 0e6*s. If this is the right reading, we again have
a contrast between the oneness of the Operator and the multi
plicity of the operations, as before in v. 4. The Operator
(6 eWpywi/) is always God : every one of the gifts in every person
that manifests them (TO. irai/ra eV Tracnv) is bestowed and set in
motion by Him. See J. A. Robinson, Eph. p. 241 ; Westcott,
Eph. p. 155.

6 8 aur&lt;5s is the reading of N A K L P, Latt. Syrr. Arm., and the U is
supported by the 6 afrrbs d of D E F G. But icai 6 ai/r&lt;5s is found in B C,
some cursives, and Origen. If Kal 6 auros may be due to assimilation to
v. 5, 6 d ai/r6s may be due to assimilation to v. 4. St Paul would be as
likely to repeat the Kal as to go back to the 5t.

7. The emphasis is on the first word and on the last. One
and the same Divine Unity works throughout, as Spirit, Lord,
and God : * but to each one is being given the manifestation of the
Spirit with a view to profiting? The purpose of all these various
gifts, like their origin, is one and the same the good of the
congregation ; they are bestowed to be exercised for the benefit
of all: Eph. iv. 7-16. The AV. is unfortunate; to every man
is wrong and wrongly placed. In f\ ^apepuois (2 Cor. iv. 2 only)
TOU nueu jAttTos, the genitive is probably objective, the operation
which manifests the Spirit, rather than subjective, the mani
festation which the Spirit produces. There are many such
doubtful genitives; Moul.-Win. p. 232.

Trpos TO aufj^epoc. With a view to advantage, i.e. the profit
of all. We are probably to understand that it is common weal
that is meant, not the advantage of the gifted individual. These
charismata are not for self-glorification, nor merely for the
spiritual benefit of the recipient, but for that of the whole Church.
Here o-u/A^epov is certainly right ; comp. Acts xx. 20 ; Heb. xii.
10 : in vii. 35 and x. 33 o-vft&lt;/&gt;opov is to be preferred, but in x. 33
the Revisers have ooyx^e pov, as here.

The import of vv. 6 and 7 is, that the very various gifts,

XII. 7, 8] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 265

bestowed not for merit but of free bounty gratiae gratis datae,
are being distributed to each individual according to his capacity ;
and he must use the new powers, opportunities, and activities for
the well-being of the whole. They are talents out of one and the
same treasury of love, and must be used for the profit of the
one body. What follows is the explanation of eKcicr &t8&lt;mu
(8-1 1 ), and then we have an amplification of Trpos TO o-v/x^epov

(I2ff.).

8-11. The details of the continual giving are now stated. It
is by no means certain that St Paul is consciously classifying the
nine gifts which he mentions ; still less is it certain that the
Tepo&gt; in vv. 9 and 10 marks the beginning of a new class. The
change to ere pu) may be made merely to break the intolerable
monotony of aAAu&gt; eight times in succession ; and we might
render the first erepw to a third, and the second to a seventh.
Comp. aAXo&gt; . . . aAAw . . . eTepw . . . aAAw in Horn. //. xiii.
730-2. Nevertheless, if we take each re pu&gt; as marking a new
division, we get an intelligible result. Of the three classes thus
made, the first is connected with the intellect, the second with
faith, and the third with the Tongues. Note that the Tongues
come last. For Origen s comment, seeyjlS". x. 37, p. 31.

8. w fxey . . . Xoyos crcxjuas, aXXw 8e Xoyos yvuvGus. In each
case it is the Aoyo? which is divinely imparted, the power of
communicating to others : the o-o&lt;/ua and the yi/coo-is may come
from above, or from human study or instruction. The Ao yos
o-o&lt;i as is discourse which expounds the mysteries of God s
counsels and makes known the means of salvation. It is a
higher gift than Aoyos yi/wo-ews, and hence is placed first, and is
given by the instrumentality (Sta TO) of the Spirit, whereas the
latter is given in accordance with (Kara TO) the Spirit. Com
mentators differ as to the exact differences between o-o&lt;f&gt;a and
yi/coo-is; but cr. is the more comprehensive term. By it we know
the true value of things through seeing what they really are ;
it is spiritual insight and comprehension (Eph. i. 17 ; 2 Esdras
xiv. 22, 25). By yi/. we have an intelligent grasp of the prin
ciples of the Gospel ; by o-. a comprehensive survey of their
relations to one another and to other things. Contrast the
shallow o-o&lt;/&gt;ta Aoyou, so valued at Corinth (i. 17). In itself, yv.
may be the result of instruction guided by reason, and it requires
no special illumination ; but the use of this knowledge, in accord
ance with the Spirit, for the edification of others, is a special
gift. But our ignorance of the situation makes our distinctions
between the two words precarious : to the Corinthians, among
whom these two gifts were of common occurrence, the difference
between o-. and yv. would be clear enough.

266 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII. 9, 10

9. Ircpw mans. * To a third, faith. This cannot mean the
first faith of a convert s self-surrender to the truth, nor the saving
faith which is permanently possessed by every sincere Christian,
but the wonder-working faith (xiii. 2 ; Matt. xvii. 20) which mani
fests itself in epya rather than in Aoyos ; potent faith ; ardentissima
et praesentissima apprehensio Dei in ipsius potissimum voluntate
(Beng.) ; iritrTiv ov rrjv TUJV Soytiarooi/, dAAa TT^V TIOV cr^tiecooi/
(Chrys.); the faith which produces, not only miracles, but
martyrs. We are perhaps to understand the next four gifts, or
at any rate the next two, as grouped under Triorts. If TTIOTIS is
thus regarded as generic, and as including some of the gifts
which follow, then the six gifts which follow Trams, like the two
which precede it, fall into pairs : Aoyos &lt;r. and Aoyos yi/., ^apto-
/xara la^arwv and evepyry/xara oWa/xecov, Trpo^^reta and Sia/cpum?

, ycvrj yAoJcrcrcov and ep/x^veia yAwtrcrtov.

ji.dTwi . Gifts of healings, gifts which result in
healings : ta/xa in this chap, only, in the N.T., and always in
this phrase (w 28, 30), but frequent in the LXX. Cf. Acts
iv. 30. The plur. seems to imply that different persons each had
a disease or group of diseases that they could cure : that any one
could cure Traa-av voarov KOL Tratrav /xaAaKiav (Theophyl.) is not
stated. The means may have been supernatural, or an excep
tionally successful use of natural powers, such as suggestion :
see Jas. v. 14.*

eVepyrjiAaTci 8umjAew&gt;. This may be added to cover wonderful
works which are not healings, such as the exorcizing of demons ;
and such chastisements as were inflicted on Elymas the sorcerer,
or on Hymenaeus and Philetus may be included. Cf. Gal. iii. 5 ;
Heb. ii. 4.

10. irpo&lt;f&gt;T]Teia. Not necessarily predicting the future, but
preaching the word with power (xiv. 3, 24, 30) : comp. Didache
xi. This gift implies special insight into revealed truths and a
great faculty for making them and their consequences known to
others. It was about the two pairs of gifts mentioned in this
verse that the Corinthians were specially excited. See Ency. Bibl.
in. 3886, iv. 4760.

* Harnack holds that St Luke was "a physician endowed with peculiar
spiritual gifts of healing, and this fact profoundly affects his conception of
Christianity" (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 133). Again, "whose own we-
account shows him to have been a physician endowed with miraculous gifts of
healing" (p. 143; comp. p. 146).

It is remarkable that although there are allusions to signs and wonders in
the Apostolic age (2 Cor. xii. 12 ; Gal. iii. 5 ; Rom. xv. 9 ; Heb. ii. 4), there
is no allusion to miracles wrought by Christ. It cannot be said that in the
age in which the Gospels were being framed there was a tendency to glorify
Christ by attributing miracles to Him. See L. Ragg, The Book of Books,
p. 221.

XII. 10] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 267

The gift of discerning in various cases
(hence the plur.) whether extraordinary spiritual manifestations
were from above or not ; they might be purely natural, though
strange, or they might be diabolical. An intuitive discernment
is implied, without the application of tests. Perhaps the expres
sion chiefly refers to the prophetic gift, which might easily be
claimed by vainglorious persons or by those who made a trade
of religion. The Didache (xi. 8) says that " not every one that
speaks in the spirit is a prophet, but only if he has the ways of
the Lord. By their ways therefore the false prophet and the true
shall be known." The whole chapter should be read in this
connexion : but the Didache gives certain external tests, about
which St Paul says nothing either here or i Thess. v. 19-21.
He implies that the discrimination between true and false mani
festations of power is a purely spiritual act (ii. 15). Dollinger
(First Age of the Chruch, p. 312) remarks; "How St Paul
distinguished the gift of wisdom, which he claimed for himself
also, from the gift of knowledge, must remain doubtful. The
special gift of faith which he mentions can only have consisted
in the energetic power and heroic confidence of unlimited trust
in God. The gift of discerning spirits enabled its possessor to
discriminate true prophets from false, and judge whether what
was announced came from God or was an illusion. Such a gift
was indispensable to the Church at a time when false prophets
abounded, forced their way into congregations, and increased
every year in numbers and audacity. There were false teachers,
as St John intimates (i John iv. i f.), who preached their own
doctrine as a revelation imparted to them from above."

yeVif] yXwo-awi . St Paul places last the gifts on which the
Corinthians specially prided themselves, and which they were
most eager to possess, because they made most display. Their
enthusiasm for the gift of Tongues was exaggerated. The
undisciplined spirit which had turned even the name of Christ
into a party-cry (i. 12), and the Lord s Supper into a drunken
revel, turned spiritual gifts into food for selfish vanity, instead
of means for the good of all. And here again they would not
wait for one another, but each was eager to take his turn
first, and numbers were speaking all at once (xiv. 27). The ycvrj
indicates that the manifestations of this gift varied much ; comp.
ycvr) &lt;j&gt;tov&lt;av (xiv. 10) : but it seems to be clear that in all cases
persons who possessed this gift spoke in ecstasy a language
which was intelligible to themselves, but not to their hearers,
unless some one was present who had the gift of interpretation.
The soul was undergoing experiences which ordinary language
could not express, but the Spirit which caused the experiences
supplied also a language in which to express them. This

268 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII. 10, 11

ecstatic language was a blissful outlet of blissful emotions, but
was of no service to any one but the speaker and those who
had the gift of interpretation. The gift of interpreting these
ecstatic utterances might be possessed by the person who
uttered them (xiv. 5, 13); but this seems to have been excep
tional: comp. Acts x. 46, xix. 6; [Mark] xvi. 17. From
xiv. 27, 28 it seems to be clear that this ecstatic utterance was
not uncontrollable: it was very different from the frenzy of
some heathen rites, in which the worshipper parted with both
reason and power of will. And whatever may be the relation
of this gift to the Tongues at Pentecost, the two are alike in
being exceptional and transitory (see below on xiv.).

The conjunctions in these two verses (9, 10) are somewhat uncertain.
In -v. 9 there should probably be no dt after erfyy : X* B D* E F G, Latt.
Arm. omit. In v. 10 there should perhaps be no 5^ until the last clause,
#XXy {pp. 7\. But there is considerable authority for a 5^ after the
first and the second fiXXy : yet B D E F G, Latt. omit.

In v. 9, tv T evl (A B, cursives, Latt.) is to be preferred to Iv T$
ai/ry, which comes from the previous clause. The temptation to alter
evl to avT$ would be great ; and v. II confirms the evl. In v. 10 Sia/cpkrets
(A B K L) is to be preferred to dtd/cpicm (X C D* F G P). The plur. would
be changed to the sing, to harmonize with irpoQrjTda and eppyvla. Ep/j-yvLa
occurs again xiv. 26, and nowhere else in N.T.

11. irdrra 8e Taura. The Travra is very emphatic, and the
Se marks the contrast of transition from the manifold gifts and
powers to the one Source of them all. This Source is the Spirit
of God ; so that there is no contradiction between v. 6 and v. 10.
What God works, the Spirit works. Nor is there any contra
diction between v. 10 and v. 31. Our earnest desire for the
best gifts is one of the things which fits us to receive them,
and each man receives in proportion to this desire, a desire
which may be cultivated. The Spirit knows the capacity of
each; iii. 8, vii. 7, xv. 23.

TO \v Kal TO auTo n^eujjia. This is a combination of TW kvi
IIv. with TOJ OLVTU nv. in v. 9, and is so far a confirmation of
the reading, TW kvi This one and the same Spirit has already
been defined as God s Spirit (v. 3), who is here said to do
what God does (v. 6). But here there is something added;
the Spirit distinguishes and distributes severally to each, exactly
as He willeth. Throughout the verse, but especially in the
last words (KO^CO? /SoAerai), the personality of the Spirit is
implied.* It is in the will that personality chiefly consists.

* St Paul commonly uses tvepyeiv with a personal subject (v. 6 ; Gal. ii. 8,
iii. 5 ; Eph. i. II, 20, ii. 2, as here; Phil. ii. 13), but tvepyelo-Oai with an
impersonal subject (Rom. vii. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 6, iv. 12 ; Gal. v. 6 ; Eph. iii. 20 ;
Col. i. 29; i Thess. ii. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 7). See J. A. Robinson, Ephesians&gt;
p. 246. See also Basil, De Spir. xvi. 37, xxvi. 61, and Ef. xxxviii. 4.

XII. 12-31] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 269

The Apostle here teaches the Corinthians that they ought not
to plume themselves upon the possession of one or more of
these gifts. They may be evidence of capacity, but they are
no proof of merit. It is the will of the Spirit that decides, a
will which discriminates, but which cannot be compelled by
anything which man can do : singuhs dat singula, vel aliqua,
varia mensura (Beng.). The Church consists of many persons
very variously endowed, and the gifts bestowed upon individuals
benefit the whole. Atcupeoo in NT. is found only here and Luke
xv. 12.

The addition of Idiq. (sc. 8d$) emphasizes the fact that the Spirit deals
with men, not en masse, but one by one, * to each according to his several
ability (Matt. xxv. 15 ; Rom. xii. 6 ; Eph. iv. 11). In N.T. we commonly
have /car I5iav in this sense : here only iSlq., and 2 Mac. iv. 34 only in
LXX. But idiq. is not rare in class. Grk.

12-31. We pass on to an illustration (taken from the human
body) of the truth that, though the gifts of God s Spirit may
be many and various, yet those who are endowed with them
constitute one organic whole. The illustration is a common
one, and is used several times by the Apostle : Rom. xii. 4, 5 ;
Eph. iv. 1 6, v. 30; Col. ii. 19. See J. A. Robinson on
Eph. iv. 1 6. The difference between the famous parable of
Menenius Agrippa (Livy ii. 32) and this simile of St Paul is
that the Apostle does not say anything about a centre of
nourishment : it is not the feeding of the body, but its unity,
and the dependence of the members on one another, that is
the lesson to be instilled.* In the brute creation, as Buckland
taught his Oxford pupils, and among brutalized men, it is the
stomach that rules the world. The ultimate aim of the violence
and cunning of each animal is to feed itself, and often at the
cost of the lives of other animals : this determines its activities.
r~The ultimate aim of the Christian is the well-being of the whole
body, of which the controlling power is Christ, who is at once
I the Head and the Body, for every Christian is a member of
*-Him (vi. 15; Eph. v. 30), and represents Him (Matt. xxv.
40, 45). Hence, inter Christianas longe alia est ratio (Calvin).
The Church is neither a dead mass of similar particles, like
a heap of sand, nor a living swarm of antagonistic individuals,
like a cage of wild beasts : it has the unity of a living organism,
in which no two parts are exactly alike, but all discharge different

* The Emperor Marcus Aurelius frequently insists on this ;
yap irpbs crvvepyiav, ws Trades, u&gt;s xelpes, ws /3X^0a/&gt;a, ws ol ffroixot T&V &v(
TU&gt;V /cdrco 656vT&lt;j}V rb oftv avrnrpdcrcreiv aXXTjXots, Trapa &lt;f&gt;ij(nv (ii. l). To, \oyiKa
fcDa a\\r)\wv Zvexcv ytyove (iv. 3). Ol6v &rri tv Tjvwfjitvois rd /i^X?/ roO
&lt;rwjuaros, TOVTOV tx t T ^ v ^6yov iv Stecrrwcrt TO. XoyiKa, irpbs fj,tav TWO. avvepylav
a (vii. 13).

270 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII. 12-31

functions for the good of the whole. All men are not equal,
and no individual can be independent of the rest : everywhere
there is subordination and dependence. Some have special
gifts, some have none; some have several gifts, some only
one ; some have higher gifts, some have lower : but every
individual has some function to discharge, and all must work
together for the common good. This is the all-important point
unity in loving service. The Church is an organic body, an
organized society, of which all the parts are moved by a spirit
of common interest and mutual affection. Weinel, St Paul,
pp. 130-133.

In considering these various gifts, remember that there
is in the Christian body, just as there is in the frame of
the living man, a divinely ordained diversity of members,
combined with a oneness in mutual help and in devotion to
the whole : so that no member can be despised as useless,
eitlier by himself or by other members ; for each has his
proper function, and all are alike necessary. This unity
involves mutual dependence, and therefore it excludes dis
content and jealousy on the one hand, arrogance and contempt
on the other.

12 Just as the human body is one whole and has many
organs, while all the organs, although many, form only one
body, so is it with the Christ, in whom all Christians are one.
13 For it was by means of one Spirit, and in order to form one
body, that we all of us were baptized Jews and Greeks, slaves
and freemen, without distinction, and were all made to drink
deeply of that one Spirit. 14 For, I repeat, the human body
consists, not of one organ, but of many. 15 Suppose the foot
were to grumble and say, * As I am not as high up as the hand,
1 do not count as part of the body, not for all it can say does
it cease to belong to the body. 16 And suppose the ear were
to grumble and say, As I am not as well placed as the eye,
I do not count as part of the body, not for all it can say does
it cease to belong to the body. 17 If the whole body were one
monstrous eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole
were hearing, where would the smelling be ? 18 But, as a
matter of fact, God gave every one of the organs its proper
place in the body, exactly as He willed. 19 Now, if all made
only one organ, where would the body be ? 20 But, as it is,

XII. 12] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 2/1

although there be many organs, there is only one body. 21 And
the eye has no right to look down on the hand and say, Thou
art of no use to me ; nor the head to look down on the feet
and say, * Ye are of no use to me. 22 On the contrary, it is
much truer to say that those organs of the body which seem
to be somewhat feeble are really as indispensable as any, 23 and
the parts of the body which we regard as less honourable are
just those which we clothe with more especial care, and in
this way our uncomely parts have a special comeliness ;
24 whereas our comely parts have all that they need, without
special attention. Why, yes ; God framed the body on prin
ciples of compensation, by giving additional dignity to whatever
part showed any deficiency, 25 so as to prevent anything like
disunion in the body, and to secure in all organs alike the
same anxious care for one another s welfare. 26 And, accord
ingly, if one of them is in pain, all the rest are in pain with it ;
and honour done to one is a joy to all. 27 Now you are a body
^ the Body of Christ, and individually you are His members.
28 And God gave each his proper place within the Church,
Apostles first, inspired preachers next, teachers third ; besides
these, He gave miraculous powers and gifts of healing, powers
of succouring, powers of governing, ecstatic utterance. 29 Surely
you do not all ot you expect to be Apostles, or inspired preachers,
or teachers : surely you do not all of you expect to have all
these wonderful gifts, and even more than these ! 31 What
you ought to do is persistently to long for yet greater gifts.
And accordingly I go on to show you a still more excellent
way by which you may attain to them.

12. ircirra Be TO, fieXr]. While all the members of the body,
though they be many, are one body, so also is the Christ, in
whose Nature they share, in whom they all form one body
(v. 27), and whom they all serve (v. 5). From one point of
view Christ is the Head, but that is not the thought here.
Here He is the whole Body, as being that which unites the
members and makes them an organic whole. We might have
had OUTWS KCU 17 cKK\rj&lt;rta, for Christ or the Church is only one
Body with many members. The superfluous TOV o-w/xaros after
TO. fjt,\tj emphasizes the idea of unity; and some texts make
this still more emphatic by interpolating TOV evos after TOV
o-co/ActTos. The human body is a unique illustration of unity
in diversity. Comp. Justin M. Try. 42. In Eph. and Col.

2/2 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII. 12, 13

TO O-W/AO, has become a common designation of the Church.
The congregation, having to serve one and the same Lord,
must be united.

13. Kai yap lv ivl FlveujjiaTi. The c one body suggests the
one Spirit, for it is in a body that spirit has a field for its
operations. For in one Spirit also we all were baptized so
as to form one body. An additional reason (*ai yap, v. 7,
xi. 9) for the oneness of the many. The Spirit is the element
in (eV) which the baptism takes place, and the one body is
the end to (ets) which the act is directed : ut simus unum
corpus uno Spiritu animatum (Beng.) ; eVt Tcnmp wore ets tv
crania reAetv (Theod.). St Paul insists here on the social
aspect of Baptism, as in x. 17 on the social aspect of the
Eucharist.

IT louSaiOl IT "EXXl^eS, IT SoGXoi LT 6\6U0epOl. The

insertion of this parenthetical explanation shows in the clearest
way how diverse were to be the members and how close the
oneness of the body. The racial difference between Jew and
Greek was a fundamental distinction made by nature; the
social difference between slave and freeman was a fundamental
distinction made by custom and law : and yet both differences
were to be done away, when those who were thus separated
became members of Christ. In Gal. iii. 28 this momentous
truth is stated still more broadly, and with more detail in
Col. iii. ii. In each case the wording is probably determined
by the thought of those to whom the Apostle is writing. See
Lightfoot on Col. iii. n, and cf. vii. 22 ; Rom. x. 12 ; Eph. ii. 14,
with J. A. Robinson s note.

ira/Ts v -nreGjAa eTroTicr6r]fxi&gt;. ( Were all watered, saturated,
imbued, with one Spirit. The TTO.VTIS and the Zv are placed
together in emphatic antithesis. The Christ is the tv o-ofyia, and
this suggests ev Ilj/ev^a, for in man crtu/xa and irvf.v^a. are correla
tives. Comp. ATToAAws eTrorto-ev.

The verse is taken in three different ways, (i) The whole
refers to Baptism under two different figures, being immersed
in the Spirit, and being made to drink the Spirit as a new elixir
of life. But, as TTOTL&LV is used of irrigating lands, there is
perhaps not much change of metaphor. (2) The first part refers
to Baptism, the second to the outpouring of spiritual gifts after
Baptism. (3) The first refers to Baptism, the second to the
Eucharist (Aug. Luth. Calv.). This is certainly wrong; the
aorists refer to some definite occasion, and drinking the Spirit
is not used of the Eucharist. Both parts refer to Baptism.
Compare the thought in Gal. iii. 26 f., and seey/lS., Jan. 1906,
p. 198.

XII. 13-17] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 273

Before lv trv. eVor., K L, Vulg. AV. insert eis, to agree with the first
clause: K B C D* F P, Syrr. Aeth. Arm. RV. omit. For fr TTV. &lt;?TTOT., A
has tv &lt;ru)fj.d teuev. For tTroriffdr)fj,ev, L and some cursives have tywrlaQi]-
fj.ei&gt;, a verb which in ecclesiastical Greek is often used of baptism.

In the active TTOT^O; has two accusatives, yd\a vfj.as ^Trortcra, and therefore
retains one ace. in the passive : comp. 2 Thess. ii. 15 , Luke xii. 47, xvi. 19.

14. Kal yap TO a. Additional confirmation ; For the body
also is net one member, but many. *

15. If the foot should say, Because I am not hand, I am
not of the body, it is not on account of this (discontented
grumbling) not of the body. The Trapa TOVTO ( all along of
this, 4 Mac. x. 19) refers to the pettish argument of the foot,
rather than to the fact of its not being a hand. In each case it
is the inferior limb which grumbles, the hand being of more value
than the foot, and the eye than the ear. And Chrysostom
remarks that the foot contrasts itself with the hand rather than
with the ear, because we do not envy those who are very much
higher than ourselves so much as those who have got a little
above US ; ov rot? o-&lt;f&gt;6opa inrepf^ovo-LV, dAA.a rot? o\iyov di/a/?e-
ySr/KoVi. For ifu eK, belong to/ and so * dependent on, see
John iv. 22: and for the double negative, 2 Thess. iii. 9.
Bengel compares Theoph. Ant. (ad Autol. 3) ; ov -rrapa TO ////

ySAeTTClV TOV? TVff&gt;\OVS Tjcfy KCU OVK O~Tl TO &lt;lGs TOV r)\LOV (fiCUVOV I

and Origen (con. Cels. vii. 63) ; ov Sta TOVTO ov jjLoixtvovo-w.
Some would take ov Trapa TOVTO in w. 15, 16 interrogatively, as
in the AV. But this would require JJLTTJ.

17. el SXoy TO o-wjjux. If the whole body (Luke xi. 34) were
eye (Num. x. 31), where were the hearing? Each member has
a function which it alone can discharge, and no organ ought to
think little of its own function, or covet that of another organ. f
In class- Grk. oa^pTjais is common, but it occurs nowhere else in
the Bible.

* M. Aurelius, as we have seen, says that we are made to co-operate with
one another, as feet, and hands, and eyelids, and upper and lower jaws. To
act in opposition to one another is unnatural (ii. i). Socrates points out
how monstrous it would be if hands and feet, which God made to work in
harmony, were to thwart and impede one another (Xen. Mem. II. iii. 18).

f Wetstein quotes Quintilian, viii. 5 &gt; Neque oculos essetoto corpore velim^
ne caetera membra suum offidum perdant. Cic. De Off. i. 35 ; Principio
corporis nostri niagtiam natura ipsa videtur habuisse rationem, quae formatn
nostram, reliquamque ji^tram, in qua essct species honesta, earn posuit in
promptu ; quae partes autem corporis ad naturae necessitatem datae adspccium
essent deformen habiturae atque turpem, eas contexit atque abdidit. De Off.
iii. 5 ; Si unumquodque membrutn sensum hunc haberet, ut posse putaret se
valere, si proximi membri valettidinem ad se traduxisset, debilitari et interire
totum corpus necesse est.

Primasius turns v. 17 thus ; Si toti docentes^ ubi auditores ? Si toti
auditores, quis sciret discernere bonum vel malum ?

2/4 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII. 18-21

18. vuv 8e 6 eos e0ero. * But, as it is, God placed the members,
each one of them, in the body, even as He willed. As we see
from manifest facts, God made unity, but not uniformity; He
did not level all down to monotonous similarity. The aorists
refer to the act of creation, and there is no need to turn either
into a perfect ( hath set, AV., RV.). From the very first it was
ordered so, as part of a plan ; therefore placed rather than
set. Every member cannot have the same function, and
therefore there must be higher and lower gifts. But pride and
discontent are quite out of place, for they are not only the out
come of selfishness, but also rebellion against God s will. This has
two points ; it was not our fellow-men who placed us in an
inferior position, but God ; and He did it, not to please us or
our fellows, but in accordance with His will, which must be
right. Who is so disloyal as to gainsay what God willed to
arrange? Rom. ix. 20. Compare Ka$o&gt;s /SouAerat (v. n), but
the change of verb and of tense should be noted : it is not mere
repetition. Deissmann (Bible Studies, p. 252) quotes d&gt;s 6 eos
from a private letter of about 200 A.D.

19. * Now, if they all (TO, Trai/ra) were one member, where
were the body ? This is the second absurdity : the first was
where were the other members ? The very idea of body implies
many members, and if all the members tried to have the honour
of the highest member, the body would be lost. Quanta ergo
insania erit, si membrum unum, potius quam alteri cedat, in suum
et corporis interitum conspiret (Calv.). See Pope, Essay on Man,
i. 259 f., " What if the foot," etc.

20. But, as it is (But now you see), there are many
members, yet one body. Perhaps there was already a proverb
TToXXa jLtcAr;, cv a-a)/xa. St Paul reiterates this truth, for on it
everything which he desires to inculcate turns. From the oneness
of the whole the mutual dependence of the parts follows of neces
sity. See M. Aurelius, ii. 3 ; in the universe, part and whole must
co-operate.

vvv 8t is specially frequent in I Cor. (v. n, vii. 14, xii. 20, xiv. 6) ; but
both here and elsewhere authorities are divided between vvv and vvvi : in
xiii. 13 and xv. 20 vvvi is probably right. In v. 19, B F G omit the TO,
before Trdvra, and in v. 20 the fj*v after TrdXXa is omitted by B D*, Arm.
Goth. If we retain /JL^V, yet one body or but one body may be
strengthened to yet but one body (AV.), unum vcro corpus (Beza).

21. Hitherto he has been regarding the inferior organs, who
grumbled because they were not superior. Now he takes the
superior, who looked down on the inferior. All, of course, with
reference to evils at Corinth. * But the eye cannot say to the

XII. 21-22] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 2/5

hand cannot, without stultifying itself: it is manifestly untrue.
What would become of the desire of the eyes if there were no
hand to grasp it ? There is no such thing as independence
either in an organism or in society. All parts are not equal, and
no one part can isolate itself. From the first there is dependence
and subordination.

The article before (500"X/xos is certainly genuine (tf A B C D E F G L P),
and the 5^ before o 6&lt;f)0a\/j.ds is probably genuine (tf B D E K L, Latt.).
Arm. omits both.

22. Nay, on the contrary (uAAu), much rather those members
of the body which seem to be naturally (vTrdpxw) somewhat
feeble, are necessary. The humbler parts not only are indis
pensable, but are as indispensable as the rest. So also in society.
It is the humblest workers, the day-labourers in each trade, that
are not only as necessary as the higher ones, but are more
necessary. We can spare this artizan better than this poet ;
but we can spare all the poets better than all the artizans.
With this use of the comparative to soften the meaning, comp.
2 Tim. i. 8; Acts xvii. 22. St Paul does not specify the some
what feeble members, and we need not do so.

23. ical & SoKoujiey drifAorcpa . . . TrepmOejxei . And the
parts of the body which we deem to be less honourable, these we
clothe with more abundant honour. Elsewhere in the N.T.
Trepm &yfu occurs only in the Gospels and there only in the
literal sense, and generally of clothing (Matt, xxvii. 28), or the
crown of thorns (Mark xv. 17), or a fence (Matt. xxi. 33 ; Mark
xii. i), etc. ; but in the LXX we have this same metaphor ; KCU
OUTWS Trcurai at yvvaiKCS Trepi^rycrovcriv Ti/xr/y rots avSpdcrw eavTwy
(Esth. i. 20) : TI/X^ eavTU) ircptridci? (Prov. xii. 9).

The division of the verses is unfortunate, and the punctuation
of the AV. is wrong, while that of the RV. might be improved.
Put a comma at the end of v. 23, and a full stop at the end of
the first clause of v. 24. And so our uncomely parts have a
comeliness more exceeding, whereas our comely parts have no
need. This is the result of giving more abundant honour to the
less honourable ; acting on that principle, we give most honour
to the least honourable. The more exceeding comeliness
refers to the abundance of clothing, which, even when other
parts are unclothed, ra aa^lfiova receive. For these the Vulg.
has inhonesta, Beza indecora^ Calv. minus hones ta. There are
three classes ; ra evVx^oi/a, which have no need of clothing or
adornment, and are commonly exposed to view ; ra
which are usually clothed and often adorned ; and TO.
which are always carefully clothed, ut membra quac turpiter

276 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII. 23-25

paterent, latea?it honeste (Calv.). The least honourable are not
only not despised, they are treated with exceptional care.*
There is no doubt that here, as elsewhere, evVx^/xoo-uVry refers to
external grace, elegance, or decorum. It does not refer to
dignity of function. It is true that fatherhood has high responsi
bility, and that the womb and the breast are sacred, but evVx^o-
crvvrj is not the word to express that. Throughout the passage the
Apostle is thinking of the members of the Church, and therefore
more or less personifies the organs of the body. We might
render ovxp^v x et l f ee / s n need, no need of anything additional,
nullius egent (Vulg.), which is better than the more definite it s
decore non est opus (Beza). We do not adorn the eye, or protect
the face as we protect the feet. Ao-x^wv occurs several times
in LXX, but nowhere else in N.T. ; evVx^/xoo-v^ in 4 Mac. vi. 2,
but nowhere else in N.T. or LXX. See Abbott, Son of Man,
p. 178.

24. dXXd 6 cos owKe paore TO awjAa. The nominative is
emphatic. But the fact is, it was God who compounded
(blended) the body together, by giving to that which feeleth lack
more abundant honour. The two aorists are contemporaneous,
Sous with crw/cpacrev : in giving, or by giving, He tempered ; and
in tempering, or by tempering, He gave. In the LXX and N.T.
a-vyKtpavvvvai is rare (Dan. ii. 43 ; 2 Mac. xv. 39 ; Heb. iv. 2),
but it is common in class. Grk. Comp. the speech of Alcibiades
(Thuc. VI. xviii. 6) ; vo/xtVare vcorr/ra /xei/ KCU yfjpas aveu aAA.r;A.(ov
/AT/Scv Svvacr&u, 6/xov Se TO TC &lt;cu5Aoi/ Koi TO /xecrov KCU TO TTCXI/V
aKpi/?es av ^vjKpaOtv ^aXiar av ia"xytiv : also o-vy/cpao-ts ri&lt;s ecrrw eV
n-aa-Lv (Clem. Rom. Cor. 37). In v. 23 the Apostle shows how
men, led by a natural instinct, equalize the dignity of their
members. Here he shows that it is in reality God who blends
and balances the whole by endowing men with this instinctive
sense of propriety. What is in accordance with the common
feelings of mankind is evidence of what is right (xi. 14).

We should read ry vaTepov^tvip (tf A B C) rather than T
(D E F G K L). The former expresses the member s sense of inferiority.

25. tra fJtT) Vf axiajjia iv T. &lt;r. * That there should be no
disunion in the body, but that (on the contrary) the members
should have the same care one for another : TO auTo is emphatic,
and jiepiiAvwo-iy is plural because the argument requires that the
members be thought of as many and separate : i Tim. v. 25 ;
Rev. v. 14; Luke xxiv. n. The verb implies anxious care,
thoughtful trouble.

* Atto of Vercelli illustrates this principle by the honour which is paid to
those who, out of humility, go bare-footed and wear shabby clothing.

XII. 26, 27] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 277

26. icai. And so (as a consequence of the perfect blending),
whether one member suffereth, all the members rejoice with it.
Not only are the members united to one another and careful for
one another, but what is felt by one is felt by all. See St Paul s
own sympathy, 2 Cor. xi. 28, 29. Plato (Repub. v. 462) points
out that when one s finger is hurt, one does not say, " My finger
is in pain," but "/have a pain in my finger"; and Chrysostom
(ad loc.) graphically describes how the various organs are affected
when a thorn runs into the foot, and also when the head is
crowned. Is glorified may mean either by adornment, or
by healthy action, or by special cultivation. In o-vy^atptt the
personification of the organs is complete : congaudent (Vulg.),
congratulantur (Beza). But Beza, by substituting simul dolent for
compatiuntur (Vulg.), makes o-v/ATrao-xet imply as much personifica
tion as o-uyxcupei. The Christian principle is the law of sympathy.
The interests of all individuals, of all classes, and of all nations
are really identical, although we are seldom able to take a
view sufficiently extended to see that this is so : but we must
try to believe it. The benefit of one is the benefit of every
one; and a wrong done to one is a wrong done to every
one. Salva esse societas, nisi amore et custodia partium, non
potest (Seneca).* The verb in N.T. is found only in Paul
and Luke.

God, in the nature of its being, founds
Its proper bliss, and sets its proper bounds :
But as He framed a whole the whole to bless,
On mutual wants built mutual happiness.
Thus God and nature linked the general frame,
And bade self-love and social be the same.

Pope, Essay on A/an, iii. 109, 217.

27. ujjiets 8e core aw/jia XpioroG. Nowjtf are Body of Christ :
no article. Body of Christ is the quality of the whole which
each of them individually helps to constitute. Comp. 6 0eos &lt;/&gt;oj&lt;;
ecrrt (i John i. 5), 6 @05 ayuTr?; mV (l John IV. 8), Trycv/xa 6
eo5 (John iv. 24), eos ty 6 Aoyos (John i. i) ; i Cor. iii. 9, 16.
It does not mean, Ye are the Body of Christ, . although that
translation is admissible, and indicates the truth that each
Christian community is the Universal Church in miniature ; nor,
Ye are Christ s Body, which makes Christ s emphatic, whereas
the emphasis is on o-w/xa as the antithesis of \*.*Xt}. Least of all

* " One of the most remarkable sides of the history of Rome is the growth
of ideas which found their realization and completion in the Christian Empire.
Universal citizenship, universal equality, universal religion, a universal
Church, all were ideas which the Empire was slowly working out, but which
it could not realize till it merged itself in Christianity " (Ramsay, The Church
in the Roman Empire, p. 192).

278 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII. 27, 28

does it mean, Ye are a Body of Christ, as if St Paul was insisting
that the Corinthians were only a Church and not the Church, a
meaning which is quite remote from the passage. Nowhere in
the Pauline Epistles is there the idea that the one Ecclesia is
made of many Ecclesiae. " The members which make up the
One Ecclesia are not communities but individual men. The
One Ecclesia includes all members of partial Ecclesiae ; but its
relations to them all are direct, not mediate. . . . There is no
indication that St Paul regarded the conditions of membership
in the universal Ecclesia as differing from the conditions of
membership in the partial local Ecclesiae" (Hort, The Chr. Eccl.
pp. 168-9). He means here that the nature of the whole of
which the Corinthians are parts is that it is Body of Christ,
not any other kind of whole. Consequently, whatever gift each
one of them receives is not to be hidden away, or selfishly
enjoyed, or exhibited for show, but to be used for the good of
the whole community. The Se marks a return to what was laid
down in v. 12.

jUL\Tj IK. fiepous. membra de membro (Vulg.) ; membra ex parte
(Calv.); membra particulatim (Beza). The meaning is uncertain,
but probably, members each in his assigned part/ apportioned
members of it. Chrysostom and Bengel explain that the
Corinthians were not the whole Church, but members of a
part of the Universalis Ecclesia. This seems to Calvin to be
sensus coactior, and he prefers the other interpretation. Still
less satisfactory is the explanation partial members of it,
i.e. imperfect members, which does not suit the context at
all. Cf. Eph. iv. 16.

The Vulgate, with d ef Arm., supports D* in reading /j.t\v) K /uAoi/s.
Origen and Eusebius commonly have ptpovs, but once each has yuAous :
Theodoret the same. Chrysostom always pepovs.

28. Kal 085 ptt&gt; I0TO 6 cos Iv rfj KK\T)aia. The correspond
ence with v. 1 8 is manifest, and it must be marked in translation.
And some God placed in the Church, or in His Church
(i. 2, x. 32, xi. 16, 22, xv. 9). Just as God in the original con
stitution of the body placed differently endowed members in it,
so in the original constitution of the Church He placed (Acts
xx. 28) differently endowed members in it. The mid. implies
that He placed them for His own purpose, /ca#w&lt;&gt; rjO&rjcrcv. The
Church is the Church Universal, not the Corinthian Church ;
and this is perhaps the first Epistle in which we find this use :
comp. x. 32, xi. 22, xv. 9; Hort, p. 117. The sentence should
have run, ous ^Iv aTrocrroAovg, ov&lt;s Se 7rpo&lt;/&gt;7Jra&lt;?, but the original
construction is abandoned, perhaps intentionally, because
an arrangement in order of dignity seemed better than a

XII. 28] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 279

mere enumeration, the last place being again reserved for the
Tongues. Later he drops into a mere enumeration. Moul.-
Win. p. 710.

npurov dirooroXous. Not to be restricted to the Twelve.
The term included Paul and Barnabas, James the Lord s brother
(xv. 7; Gal. i. 19; comp. ix. 5), apparently Andronicus and
Junias (Rom. xvi. 7), and probably others (xv. 5, 7). There
could not have been false apostles (2 Cor. xi. 13) unless the
number of Apostles had been indefinite. From this passage,
and from Eph. iv. 1 1 (comp. ii. 20), we learn that Apostles were
the first order in the Church ; also that St Peter is not an order
by himself. Apparently it was essential that an Apostle should
have seen the Lord, and especially the risen Lord (ix. i, 2 ;
Luke xxiv. 48; Acts i. 8, 21-23): he must be a witness of
His resurrection. This was true of Matthias, James, and Paul ;
and may easily have been true of Barnabas, Andronicus, and
Junias ; but not of Apollos or Timothy. The Apostles were
analogous to the Prophets of the O.T., being sent to the
new Israel, as the Prophets to the old. They had admini
strative functions, but no local jurisdiction : they belonged to
the whole Church. Nevertheless various ties made local
Churches to be more under the control of one Apostle than of
others. See Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 92 f. The evangelists
and * pastors of Eph. iv. 1 1 are perhaps included here under
prophets and teachers. But evangelists are not ad rem here,
because the subject is the spiritual life of members of the
Church, and their relations to one another in the Church, rather
than their external activity among the heathen. The enumera
tion here is more concrete than that in vv. 8-10, but less
concrete than in Eph. iv. n. The first three are explicitly in
order of eminence ; but the ^mra with the next two probably
means no more than that these come after the first three. The
gifts that follow the first three are not connected with particular
persons, but are distributed at will for the profit of the whole
congregation ; and it is remarkable that SiW/xeis and x a P t/ f"/ jtaTa
ta/Aarw are placed after StSacncaAou?. See Dobschiitz, Probleme^
p. 105.

irpo&lt;f&gt;rJTas. See on v. 10 and xiv. 3, 24, 25. They were
inspired to utter the deep things of God, for the conviction of
sin, for edification, and for comfort ; sometimes also for pre
dicting the future, as in the case of Agabus.

SiSacTKctXous. Men whose natural powers and acquired know
ledge were augmented by a special gift. It is evident from Are
all teachers? (7;. 29) that there was a class of teachers to which
only some Christians belonged, and the questions which follow
show that teachers, like workers of miracles, were distinguished

280 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII. 28

by the possession of^some gift.* In Eph. iv. n we are not
sure whether pastors and teachers means one class or two, but
at any rate it is probable that whereas Apostles, prophets,
and evangelists instructed both the converted and the uncon
verted, pastors and teachers ministered to settled congregations.
In Acts xiii. i we are equally in doubt whether prophets and
teachers means one class or two. St Luke may mean that of
the five people mentioned some were prophets and some were
teachers, or he may mean that all were both. Teacher might
be applied to Apostles, prophets, and evangelists, as well as to
the special class of teachers. In i Tim. ii. 7 St Paul calls
himself a preacher (KT}PU), an Apostle, and a teacher. In
the Didache the teacher seems to be itinerant like the
prophet (xiii. 2). When the ministry became more settled
the bishops and elders seem to have become the official
teachers; but perhaps not all elders taught (i Tim. v. 17). In
the Shepherd of Hernias the teachers are still distinct from the
bishops; "The stones that are squared and white, and that fit
together in their joints, these are the Apostles and bishops and
teachers and deacons " ( Vis. iii. 5). See Hastings, DB. iv.
p. 691 ; Ency. BibL iv. 4917.

eTTCtra Sui/djuieis, lirciTa ^apio-para tajxaTwi/. Change from the
concrete to the abstract, perhaps for the sake of variety ; in
Rom. xii. 7 the converse change is made. We must not
count cTreira, eTreira as equivalent to fourthly, fifthly : the
classification according to rank ends with teachers, but ytvy
yAwo-o-un/ are purposely placed last. Gifts of healing are
a special kind of miraculous powers : see on v. 9, where the
less comprehensive gift is placed first, while here we descend
from the general to the particular. It would be a lesson to the
Corinthians to hear these brilliant gifts expressly declared to be
inferior to teaching ; the eTmra clearly means that.

diTiXrjp|/eis. This and the next gift form a pair, referring to
general management of an external character. This term occurs
nowhere else in the N.T., but it comes from aimAa//,/?aVcr0ai
(Luke i. 54; Acts xx. 35 ; i Tim. vi. 2; comp. Rom. viii. 26),

* "It is impossible to determine exactly how people were recognized as
teachers. One clue, however, seems visible in Jas. iii. I. From this it
follows that to become a teacher was a matter of personal choice based, of
course, upon the individual s consciousness of possessing a charisma"
(Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, I. p. 336 ; p. 243,
ed. 1902). The whole chapter (ist of the 3rd Book) should be read. It
shows that the order Apostles, prophets, and teachers is very early.
" St Paul is thinking without doubt of some arrangement in the Church
which held good among Jewish Christian communities founded apart from
his co-operation, no less than among the communities of Greece and Asia
Minor."

XII. 28] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 28l

which means to take firm hold of some one, in order to help.
These helpings therefore probably refer to the succouring of
those in need, whether poor, sick, widows, orphans, strangers,
travellers, or what not ; the work of the diaconate, both male
and female. We have those who need axr&ijfu/ns (Ecclus. xi. 12,
li. 7). The word is fairly common in the Psalms and 2 and
3 Mac. See also Psalms of Solomon vii. 9, xvi. title.

Kupcp^TJo-eis. Governings or administrations. This pro
bably refers to those who superintended the externals of organ
ization, ot 7rporra/&gt;ti/ot (Rom. xii. 8; i Thess. v. 12), or ot r/yov-
fjifvoL (Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24: Acts xv. 22; Clem. Rom. Cor. i).
See Hort, The Chr. Eccl. p. 126. The word is derived from the
idea of piloting a ship (Acts xxvii. n ; Rev. xviii. 17), and hence
easily acquires the sense of directing with skill and wisdom : ols /XT)
vTrdpxti /cv/?epi/r;iri9, TTLTTTOVO-IV u&gt;&lt;j &lt;/&gt;uAAa, ubi non est gubernator,
populus corruet(Pro\. xi. 14). The term, which is found nowhere
else in N.T., may be equivalent to eVur/coTroi and Trpccrfivrfpoi.
We must, however, remember that we are here dealing with
gifts rather than with the offices which grew out of the gifts.

These two classes, ai/TiAry/xi/^ct? and Kv/Sepi r^rct?, are not
mentioned in w. 5-10; nor are they repeated in vv. 29, 30.
But Stanley would identify the former with the help rendered in
the * intepretation of tongues, and the latter with the guidance
given in the discerning of spirits. This is not at all probable.
See Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 92.

With regard to the subordinate position which these two
gifts have in the one list which contains them, Renan (Saint
Paul, pp. 409, 410) has a fine passage. " Malheur a celui qui
s arreterait a la surface, et qui, pour deux ou trois dons chimer-
iques, oublierait que dans cette etrange enumeration, parmi les
diaconies et les charismata de 1 Eglise primitive, se trouve le soin
de ceux qui souffrent, 1 administration des deniers du pauvre,
1 assistance rciproque ! Paule enumere ces fonctions en dernier
lieu et comme d humbles choses. Mais son regard percent sait
encore ici voir le vrai. Prenez garde, dit-il ; nos membres
les moins nobles sont justement les plus honores. Prophetes,
docteurs, vous passerez. Diacres, veuves devoue es, vous
resterez ; vous fondez pour 1 eternite." *

. . . ^Trctra is right (X A BC), not ^Treira . . . elra (K L, f Vulg.
deinde . . . exinde\ nor ^Treira, without either to follow (DEFG).
Vulg. after genera linguarum adds interpretationes sermomim from v. 10.
But whence comes the change \osermonnml Tertullian (Adv. Marcton.
v. 8) has genera Itngiiarum . . . interpretatio . . . linguarum.

* The shortness of the list of charismata in Eph. iv. 1 1 as compared with
the list here is perhaps an indication that the regular exercise of extraordinary
gifts in public worship was already dying out. Hastings, DB. in. p. 141.

282 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII. 9-31

29. p] irarres cVirocrroXoi ; Surely all are not Apostles ?
These rhetorical questions explain /xe A^ e/c pepovs (v. 27) and
look back to TO croi/xa OVK fv /xe Aos dAAa TroAAa (v. 1 4). God did
not give all these spiritual gifts to all. That would have been to
make each member a kind of complete body, independent of the
other members ; and this would have been fatal to the whole.
He has made no one member self-sufficient ; each needs much
from others and supplies something to them. See Godet. Here
all the illustrations are concrete, with the possible exception of
8iW/xeis. But seeing that Suj/a/xeis and x a P- */*aTo&gt;j/ form a pair,
we may put the two questions together and take Zx ovcrLV w ^ tn
both terms ; Have all (the power of working) miracles, all
gifts of healing? The Vulgate may be taken in a similar
manner ; Numquid omnes virtutes, numquid omnes gratiam habent
curationum ? but again, why the change from gratias (v. 28) to
gratiamt For the third time the gift of Tongues is placed
last.

30. The compound verb Siep/m.T]i&gt;tvi&gt;} here has led to the reading 5te/&gt;-
/jujvtia (or -ta) in v. 10 (AD*). The compound (xiv. 5, 13, 27; Luke
xxiv. 27 ; Acts ix. 36) is more common in the N.T. than the more classical
fp/jiyvfi u (John i. 43, ix. 7 ; Heb. vii. 2). As language weakens, the ten
dency to strengthen by means of compounds increases. With the general
sense of the two verses compare Horn. //. xiii. 729 ; AXX otf TTWS dfj.a
TT&VTO. dvvrjcreat aurds cXtvOai, and the familiar non omnia possumus omnes.

31. ^TjXouTe Sc TO, xapurjmTd T d jjLioka. * Continue to desire
earnestly (pres. imperat.) the greater gifts. The Corinthians
coveted the greater gifts, but they had formed a wrong estimate
as to which were the greater. The Hymn of Love, which follows,
is to guide them to a better decision : not those which make
most show, but those which do most good, are the better. As
members of one and the same body they must exhibit self-
sacrificing love, and they must use their gifts for the benefit of
the whole body. This is the lesson of ch. xiv. We cannot all
of us have all the best gifts ; but (8e) by prayer and habitual
preparation we can strive to obtain them : and a continual
desire is in itself a preparation. MeVcTe eVi#v/xowTes x a P lo 7m Ta)J/ &gt;
as Chrysostom says. For fyXovre comp. xiv. i, 39 ; and e^Awora
TO dyaOov (Ecclus. li. 18). The verb is also used in a bad
sense, be moved with envy or hatred (xiii. 4 ; Acts vii. 9,
xvii. 5). See Hort and also Mayor on Jas. iv. 2. It is perhaps
with a double entendre that it is used here, as an indirect rebuke
to the jealousy with which some of them regarded the gifts
bestowed on others. Chrysostom (Horn. xxxi. 4) has some
strong remarks on jealousy, as the chief cause of dissension,
and as even more deadly in its effects than avarice. Hucusque
revocavit illos a schismate ad concordiam et unionem, ut nullus

XII. 31] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 283

glorietur de charismate superiori, nullusque doleat de inferiori.
Hinc eos in charitatem innuit, ostendens sine ea nihil caetcra
valere (Herveius). Sicut publica via excelsior est reliquis viis ac
sewitisj ita et charitas via est directa, per quam ad coelestem
metropolis tenditur (Primasius).

Kal en Ka0 uTTepf3o\T]y 686y ufuy BCUCPVIU. There is no con
trast with what precedes ( And yet, AV.): on the contrary, K&lt;U
means And in accordance with this charge to desire what is
best, while In belongs to what follows; And a still more
excellent way show I to you, KO.&" vTTfppoXrjv being equivalent
to a comparative, exccllentiorem viam (Vulg.). If In be taken
with KCU, it means moreover, et porro (Beza) ; And besides, I
show you a supremely excellent way. What is this way Kar
ioxqv? Is it the way by which the greater gifts are to be
reached? Or is it the way by which something better than
these gifts may be reached? The latter seems to be right.
Yearn for the best gifts ; that is good, as far as it goes. But
the gifts do not make you better Christians ; and I am going to
point out the way to something better, which will show you the
best gifts, and how to use them. * xiv. i confirms this view.

There is considerable evidence (D E F G K L, Vulg. Arm.) for Kpelrrova
or Kpficraova, and Chrys. expressly prefers the reading ; but /j.dfova (tf A B C,
Am. Aeth., Orig.) is probably right.

In the N.T. virepfidKri is confined to this group of the Pauline Epp.
(i and 2 Cor. Gal. Rom.), and generally in this phrase, Kad virfpfioKyv.
Comp. Rom. vii. 13.

Klostermann adopts the reading of D* ; Kal ei ri Kad virep^o\^v, 88ov
vjj.lv delKWfii, And if (ye desire earnestly) something superlatively good,
I show you a way. But the earliest versions confirm the other MSS. in
reading ri.

The Spiritual Gifts.

In this chapter we have had three enumerations of these gifts (w. 8-10,
28, 29-30) ; and in Romans (xii. 6-8) and Ephesians (iv. u) we have other
lists. It will be useful to compare the five statements.

i Cor. xii. 8-10

xii. 28

xii. 29, 30

Xo705

(ro0/aj

aTroVroXoi

aTrdtrroXot

Xo7os

yvdxrews

jrpofirjTat.

7rpo0^rat

7TIO-

X a P-
evcpy.
Trpo(f&gt;t

TIS

:a/j.dT(t}v
dwdjAeujv
jreia

dvvdfjieis

YCtp. IciLiCiTtjJV

3-
4-
5-

5wd/xet5
^;ap. ta/idrwi

dia&gt;
ytvy
ipp. 1

&lt;p. TTVV/JidT(j}V

yXuxrcrcDj

8!
9-

y^ftj y\wffff(jjv

8.
9-

7Xt6cra ais XaXeT^
dtep/jnjvvei.v

* Comp. the use of 17 656s, the Way par excellence, for Christianity
(Acts ix. 2, xix. 9, 23, xxii. 4, xxiv. 14, 22). Bengel has via maxime vialis :
it has the true characteristic of a way in perfection.

284 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII. 31

Rom. xii. 6-8. Eph. iv. n.

2. irpo(f&gt;riTfLa.

2. Trpo(f&gt;r)Ta.i

3. di8affKa\la ei)ayyeXt(rra(

Trot/z^es /cat

It will be observed that in four of the lists there are at least two gifts
which are not mentioned in the other lists : in I Cor. xii. 8-10, TTIO-TIS and
diaKpiffis TrvVfj.dT(i)v ; in xii. 28, dvTi\r)jj.\j/ets and Kv^fpvrjffeis : in Rom. xii.
6-8, diaKovla, TrapaK\-rj(Tis, fj.Tadi86vat, and irpotffTaadai. ; and in Eph. iv. II,
evayyf\iffTai and 7rot/x^i&gt;es, if Troi^ves is a separate class from SiSdcr/caXot. We
must not assume that in all cases the difference of name means a difference
of gift or of function. We may tentatively identify OLO.KOVLO. with djmX?7/&gt;t!//is,
and ot irpoiffTa.iJ.fvoL with Kv(3fpvrj&lt;reis, and perhaps with Troi/j,tves. We have
St Paul s own authority for placing cbroaToXoi, TT/H^TCU, and 5i5d&lt;r/caXoi
above all the rest, and in that order ; and for placing yev-r) y\wa&lt;rwv with
tpfirivela y\u&lt;T&lt;ruv last. Taking xii. 28 as our guide, we notice that, of the
nine gitts enumerated, three are those in which teaching is the common
element, two are wonder-working, two are administrative, and two are
ecstatic. The three pairs are valuable, especially the first two, yet they are
not indispensable ; but powers of teaching are indispensable. If there is no
one to teach with sureness and authority, the Christian Church cannot be
built up and cannot grow. But it must be remembered once more that we
are treating of various gifts bestowed upon various persons, some of whom
had more than one gift, and that some Christians had no special endowment.
We are not dealing with classes of officials, each with definite functions ;
munus in the sense of donum has not yet passed into munus in the sense of
officium, and the process of transition has scarcely begun. In correcting the
errors into which the Corinthians had fallen, the Apostle does not tell any
officials to take action, but addresses the congregation as a whole. The
inference is that there were no officials in the ecclesiastical sense, although, as
in every society, there were leading men. See Ency. BibL I. 1038, in. 3108,
IV. 4759 ; Hastings, DB. in. 377 ; Hort, Chr. Eccles. pp. 203 f.

Novatian (De Trinitate xxix. ) paraphrases this passage thus; Hie est
enim qtii prophetas in ecclesia constituit, magistros erudit, linguas dirigil,
virtutes et sanitates facit, opera mirabilia gerit, discretiones spirituum por-
rigit, gubernationes contribute^ consilia suggeril, quaeque alia sunt charis-
matum dona componit et di^erit ; et ideo ecclesiam domini undique et in
omnibus per] ectam f t consummation facit ; where (as in ix. and xii. ) Novatian
evidently uses sanitates in the sense of cures.

On our scanty knowledge of the organization of the Apostolic Churches
see Gwatkin, Early Church History, i. pp. 64-72.

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON XII. 3.

If the theory is correct that the Christ party were docetists, who used
the name of Christ in opposition, not merely to the names of Paul, Apollos,
and Kephas, but also to the name of Jesus, then the cry Jesus be
anathema might express their contempt for knowing Christ after the flesh.
They would have nothing to do with any external or material reality, and
in this spirit perhaps denied that there could be any resurrection of the
body, either in the case of Christ or of any one else. See B. W. Bacon,
Introd. to N. T. p. 92. There may have been docetists at Corinth, whether
they belonged to the Christ party or not.

XIII. 1-13] A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE 285

XIII. 1-13. A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE.

The thirteenth chapter stands to the whole discussion on
Spiritual Gifts in a relation closely similar to that of the digression
on self-limitation (ch. ix.) to the discussion of eiSwAdtfura. Either
chapter raises the whole subject of its main section to the level
of a central principle, The principle is in each case the same
in kind, namely, that of subordinating (the lower) self to the
good of others; but in this chapter the principle itself is raised
to its highest power : from forbearance, or mere self-limitation,
we ascend to love.

The chapter, although a digression, is yet a step in the
treatment of the subject of Spiritual Gifts (xii. i-xiv. 40),
and forms in itself a complete and beautiful whole. After
the promise that he will point out a still more surpassing
way, there is, as it were, a moment of suspense ; and then jam
ardet Paulus et fertur in amorem (Beng.). Stanley imagines
" how the Apostle s amanuensis must have paused to look up in
his master s face at the sudden change in the style of his dicta
tion, and seen his countenance lit up as it had been the face of
an angel, as this vision of Divine perfection passed before him "
(p. 238). Writer after writer has expatiated upon its literary and
rhythmical beauty, which places it among the finest passages in
the sacred, or, indeed, in any writings.* We may compare
ch. xv., Rom. viii. 31-39, and on a much lower plane the
torrent of invective in 2 Cor. xi. 19-29. This chapter is a
divine Trpo^Tei a, which might have for its title that which dis
tinguishes Ps. xlv., A Song of Love or * of Loves. And it is
noteworthy that these praises of Love come, not from the Apostle
of Love, but from the Apostle of Faith. It is not a fact that
the Apostles are one-sided and prejudiced, each seeing only the
gift which he specially esteems. Just as it is St John who says,
This is the victory which overcometh the world, even our faith,
so it is St Paul who declares that greater than all gifts is Love.

No distinction is drawn between love to God and love to
man. Throughout the chapter it is the root-principle that is
meant; dyaTn; in its most perfect and complete sense. But it
is specially in reference to its manifestations to men that it is
praised, and most of the features selected as characteristic of it
are just those in which the Corinthians had proved defective.

* "The greatest, strongest, deepest thing Paul ever wrote" (Harnack).

" I never read I Cor. xiii. without thinking of the description of the
virtues in the Nicomachean Ethics. St Paul s ethical teaching has quite an
Hellenic ring. It is philosophical, as resting on a definite principle, viz. our
new life in Christ ; and it is logical, as classifying virtues and duties according
to some intelligible principle" (E. L. Hicks, Studio, Biblica, iv. p. 9.

286 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIII. 1-13

And this deficiency is fatal. Christian Love is that something
without which everything else is nothing, and which would be
all-sufficient, even were it alone. It is not merely an attribute
of God, it is His very nature, and no other moral term is thus
used of Him (i John iv. 8, 16). See W. E Chadwick, The
Pastoral Teaching of St Paul, ch. vi. ; Moffatt, Lit. of N.T.,

PP- 57, 58).

This hymn in praise of love is of importance with regard to
the question of St Paul s personal knowledge of Jesus Christ.
It is too often forgotten that Saul of Tarsus was a contemporary
of our Lord, and the tendency of historical criticism at the
present time is to place the date of Saul s conversion not very
long after the Ascension. Furrer and Clemen would argue for
this. Saul may not have been in Jerusalem at the time of the
Crucifixion and Resurrection ; but he would have abundant
means of getting evidence at first hand about both, after the
Appearance on the road to Damascus had made it imperative
that he should do so ; and some have seen evidence of exact
knowledge of the life and character of Jesus of Nazareth in this
marvellous analysis of the nature and attributes of Love. We
have only, it is said, to substitute Jesus for Love throughout the
chapter, and St Paul s panegyric " becomes a simple and perfect
description of the historic Jesus" (The Fifth Gospel, p. 153).
Intellect was worshipped in Greece, and power in Rome ; but
where did St Paul learn the surpassing beauty of love ? " It was
the life of love which Jesus lived which made the psalm of love
which Paul wrote possible" (ibid.}. In this chapter, as in Rom.
xii., " we note that very significant transference of the centre of
gravity in morals from justice to the sphere of the affections."
See Inge, in Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 271.

Most commentators and translators are agreed that here, as in the
writings of St John, ayaTrrj should be rendered love rather than charity ;
for the contrary view see Evans, p. 376. In the Vulgate, aydirr) is usually
translated caritas, but dilectio is fairly common, and to this variation the
inconsistencies in the AV. are due. The RV. has abolished them, and the
gain is great. Charity has become greatly narrowed in meaning, and
now is understood as signifying either giving to the poor or toleration of
differences of opinion. In the former and commonest sense it makes v. 3
self-contradictory, almsgiving without charity. SeeSandayand Headlam,
Romans, p. 374 ; Stanley, Corinthians, p. 240.

The chapter falls into three clearly marked parts, (i) The
Necessity of possessing Love, 1-3 ; (2) Its glorious Character
istics, 4-7 ; Its eternal Durability, 8-13.

The one indispensable gift is Love. If one were to have
all the special gifts in the JiigJiest perfection, without having
Love, one would produce notJiing, be nothing, and gain

XIII. 1-13] A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE 287

nothing. Love includes all the most beautiful features of
moral character, and excludes all the offensive ones. More
over, it is far more durable than even the best of the special
gifts. They are of use in this world only ; Love, with
FaitJi and Hope, endures both in this world and in the next.

*I may talk with the tongues of men, yea of angels; yet,
if I have no Love, so far from doing any good to a Christian
assembly, I am become like the senseless din in heathen
worships. 2 And I may have the gift of inspired preaching, and
see my way through all the mysteries of the Kingdom of God
and all the knowledge that man can attain ; and I may have all
the fulness of faith, so as to move mountains ; yet, if I have no
Love, so far from being a Christian of great account, I am
nothing. 3 1 may even dole out with my own hands everything
that I possess, may even, like the Three Children, surrender
my body to the flames ; yet, if I have no Love, so far from
becoming a saint or a hero, or from winning a rich recompense
from Heaven, I am not one whit the better. Love is the one
thing that counts.

4 For Love is patient and kind ; Love knows no hatred or envy.
It is never a braggart in mien, or swells with self-adulation ;

5 It never offends good feeling, or insists on all it has claim to;
It never blazes with rage, and it stores up no resentment.

6 It delights not over the wrong that men do,
But responds with delight to true dealing.

Unfailingly tolerant, unfailingly trustful,
Unfailingly hopeful, unfailingly strong.

8 The time will never come for Love to die.
There will be a time when our prophesyings will be useless ;
There will be a time when these Tongues will cease ;
There will be a time when our knowledge will be useless.

9 For our knowledge is but of fragments,
And our prophesyings but of fragments.

10 But when absolute completeness shall have come,
Then that which is of fragments will have no use.
The difference is far greater than that which distinguishes
childhood from manhood ; and yet, even there, how marked the

288 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIII. 1-3

change ! n When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, to
think as a child, to reason as a child. Since I am become a
man, I have done away with childhood s ways. 12 In a similar
way, what we now see are but reflexions from a mirror which
clouds and confuses things, so that we can only guess at the
realities ; but in the next world we shall have them face to face.
The knowledge that I now have is only of fragments ; but then
I shall know as completely as God from the first knew me.

13 So then, Faith, Hope, and Love last on just these three :
but chiefest and best is Love.

1-3. All four classes of gifts (xii. 28) are included here : the
ecstatic in v, i ; the teaching (Tr/uoc/^reia) and the wonder-working
(TrtVrts) gifts in v. 2 ; and the administrative in v. 3. The
Apostle takes the lowest of these special gifts first, because the
Corinthians specially needed to be set right about them, and
also because the least valuable of the special gifts made the
strongest contrast to the excellence of Love. Speaking with
Tongues and having no Love was only too common at Corinth.
There is a climax in the succession, yXojo-o-ai, Tr/xx/^raa, Tricr-ris,
^(jo/zuroo /cat Tra/mSai. To mark this one may perhaps translate KCU
cdV in v, 3 even if ; but in strict grammar /cat eaV is throughout
simply * and if.

Ea.v rats Y^woxrais . . . XaXu. A mere objective possibility
connected with the future ; * If I should speak with the tongues
of men and of angels, not * Though I speak (AV.). The
addition of /cat TWJ/ dyycAcui/ gives the supposition about rapturous
utterances the widest possible sweep ; Supposing that I had all
the powers of earthly and heavenly utterance. The reference
to the Tongues need not be questioned. For the combination,
* angels and men, comp. iv. 9. The language of angels was a
subject which the Jews discussed, some Rabbis maintaining that
it was Hebrew. Origen suggests that it is as superior to that of
men as that of men is to the inarticulate cries of infants ; but
^wpts dyaTrrys, yXiocrcra /cav dyyc/Voov Iv dv^pojTrot? /ca$ vTroBeariv rj t
drpdVtoTo? larnv (JTS. x. 37, p. 33), Ambrose (Z)e off. ministr.
ii. 27), Si volumus comwendare nos Deo, caritatem habeamus. See
Chadwick, Pastoral Teaching^ p. 245. With the supposition here
comp.

OuS ct p,oi Se/ca yu-tv yAcocrcrai oe/ca O OTO^UXT iv,
&lt;f&gt;&lt;Dvrj 8 ap/377/cros, xaA/ccov &* f^ OL ^Top even;.

Horn. //. ii. 489.

Non, mihi si linguae centum sint, oraque centum,
Ferrea vox. Virg. Georg. ii. 44 ; Aen. vi. 625.

XIII. 2] A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE 289

Godet has useful warnings against the " religious sybaritism "
which, especially during the excitement of religious " revivals," is
apt to turn Christianity into sentiment and fine speaking. The
gift of Tongues might lead to this. The Apostle sets an example
of love and of humility in taking himself as the illustration of
failure. He might have said, If you should speak, or Although
you speak. But he remembers his own gift of Tongues (xiv. 18),
and gives the warning to himself all through these three verses.

dyd-m^ 8e pt) e\u, yeyova K.T.\. And should not have love
(viii. i), or, while I have not love, on that assumption I am
become (Gal. iv. 16) sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. The
XaXxos probably means something of the nature of a gong rather
than a trumpet ; and dXaXdl^oi imitates loud and prolonged noise,
often of the shout of victory (Josh. vi. 20; i Sam. xvii. 52), but
sometimes of grief (Jer. iv. 8; Mark v. 38). Cymbals are often
mentioned in the O.T., but nowhere else in the N.T. ; and in
St Paul s day they were much used in the worship of Dionysus,
Cybele, and the Corybantes. Seeing that he insists so strongly
on the unedifying character of the Tongues (xiv.), as being of no
service to the congregation without a special interpreter, it is
quite possible that he is here comparing unintelligible Tongues
in Christian worship with the din of gongs and cymbals in pagan
worship. Or he may be pointing out the worthlessness of
extravagant manifestations of emotion, which proceed, not from
the heart, but from hollowness. Cymbals were hollow, to
increase the noise. Or he may be merely saying that Tongues
without Christian love are as senseless as the unmusical and
distracting noise of a soulless instrument. AwSwvcuW ^aXKctov is
said to have been a proverbial expression for an empty talker ;
and it was probably on account of his vainglorious loquacity that
Apion the grammarian, against whom Josephus wrote, was called
by Tiberius cymbalum mundi: &lt;/&gt;OPTIKOS TIS /cat eira\6r^ rots
TroAAots, as Chrysostom paraphrases here.

1 On dyd-in) see above ; Trench, Syn. xii. ; Cremer, pp. 13 f. ;
Suicer, i. pp. 18 f. ; Hastings, DB. iii. p. 156; Deissmann, Bible
Studies, p. 199, Light, pp. 18, 70, and see 150, 399. H^eii/ is
frequent in LXX, but is found nowhere else in N.T.

2. K.&V IXGJ Trpo&lt;f&gt;YjTiav K.T.X. And if I should have the gift
of prophesying (preaching with special inspiration), and should
know all the mysteries (of God s counsels and will), and all
possible knowledge about them (xii. 8), and if I should have all
possible faith (xii. 9), so as to remove mountains, while I have^
no love, I am nothing spiritually a cipher. Having said thatN.
the ecstatic gifts are worthless without love, he now says that the /
teaching gifts are equally worthless ; and perhaps he is here

FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIII. 2, 3

indicating the three kinds of spiritual instructors (xii. 8, 10, 28),
for TO. fjLvarrrjpLa TTO.VTO. may refer to the aofyia. of the aTroVroAoi,
and -rraa-av rrjv yva&gt;(nv to the yvwois of the 8i8d&lt;TKa\oi. Comp.
Rom. xi. 33, xv. 14. By TTIO-TIS is meant wonder-working faith,
not saving faith ; * enough to displace mountains : comp. TO. oprj
/xeracrTrycreo-flat. (Isa. liv. 10). It is possible that St Paul is
alluding to our Lord s saying (Mark xi. 22 ; Matt. xvii. 20, xxi.
21), although of course not to Gospels which were not yet
written. But it is quite as probable that both He and the
Apostle used a proverbial expression, moving mountains being a
common metaphor for a great difficulty. See Abbott, The Son
of Man, p. 387. In N.T. the verb is found only in Paul and
Luke. Balaam and Samson were instances of persons who had
supernatural gifts and yet were morally degraded. For the com
bination of faith and knowledge, comp. 2 Cor. viii. 7, and for the
emphatic repetition of Tras, 2 Cor. ix. 8. The abruptness of
ovOev eifjii, after the prolonged hypothesis of three clauses, is
impressive.

In vv. 2 and 3 the MSS. differ considerably between K&V and Kal ta.v
and Kal &v. But it is proboble that K&V is right throughout, the evidence
for it being stronger in v. 3 than in v. 2, but not decisive. For /medio-Tdvai
(KBDEFG) the external evidence is stronger than for pediardveiv
( A C K L, Orig. Chrys. ) ; but, on the other hand, the unusual fj.e0La-T6.veiv
would be likely to be altered to the common form. And ovdtv (tf A B C L)
is to be preferred to ovdtv (D* F G K).

3. We now pass on to the administrative gifts, di
(xii. 28), ministering to the bodily needs of the brethren, and
that in what seems to be a specially self-denying form.

K&y 4/GJfju aw TrdfTa TO, uirapxoi Ta JAOU. And if I should give
away in doles of food all my possessions. There is no need to
say anything about the recipients of the bounty, TOUS TreVr/ras
(Chrys.), pauperum (Vulg.), the poor (AV., RV.) : it is the
giver, not the recipients, that is in question. The verb implies
personal distribution to many, and that the act is done once for
all : he could not habitually give away all his goods. The all
continues the emphatic repetition of Tras : throughout he makes
the supposition as strong as possible. We have ^o&gt;/uci&gt; in Rom.
xii. 20 and in the LXX (Num. xi. 4, 18; Deut. viii. 3, 16 of the
manna ; and often). In class. Grk. it is used of feeding
children and young animals with ^W/KOI, morsels (freq. in LXX) :
i/ w/ztW, sop, John xiii. 26. Si distribuero in cibos pauperum
(Vulg.), insumam in alimoniam (Calv.), insumam alendis egenis
(Beza).

K&k irapaSw . . . Iva. Kau9i]&lt;TO|iai. * And (even) if I deliver up
myself to be burned. Literally, * deliver up my body, so that I
shall be burned. In the N.T. Iva is often used where result is

XIII. 3] A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE 2QI

prominent and purpose in the background. It expresses a
"purposive result," the subjective intention shading off into the
objective effect; and hence the use of the future : ix. 18; Gal.
ii. 4 ; John vii. 3, xvii. 2, etc. True love, as he proceeds to
show, does not need the supreme crises which call for the
sacrifice of all that one possesses or of one s life, a sacrifice
which might be made without true love : it manifests itself at all
times and in all circumstances. Sacrifices made without love may
profit other people, but they do not profit the man himself.
Non charitas de martyrio, sed martyrium nascitur ex charitate
(Primasius). St Paul is not thinking of burning as a punishment,
which it was not, nor of the branding of slaves, but of the most
painful death which any one can voluntarily suffer. It was from
this text that Dr. Richard Smith, Regius Professor of Divinity,
preached at Oxford before the burning of Ridley and Latimer,
1 6th October 1555. Comp. TrapeSw/cav TO, (rco/Aara cumov ets Trvp
(Dan. iii. 28, Theod. 95), which may be in the Apostle s mind, and
Trvpl TO o-cS/xa 7ra/3a8ovTe9, of the Indians (Joseph. B.J. vii. viii. 7).
In each of the three suppositions we have a different result :
* I produce nothing of value (v. i) ; * I am of no value (v. 2) ;
I gain nothing of value (v. 3). The man who possessed all the
gifts mentioned might be useful to the Church, but in character
he would be worthless, if the one indispensable thing were
lacking. The gifts are not valueless, but he is.

It is by no means certain that Kavdr)crofji.ai (D E F G L, Latt. Syrr. Arm.
Aeth. Goth., Method. Bas. Tert.), to which Kavdr}&lt;rufj.ai (C K, Chrys.) give
additional support, is the right reading. The evidence for /caux^w/uat
(SAB 17, Aegyptt., Orig. Lat. MSS. known to Jer.) is very strong, and
WII. (App. p. 117) argue strongly in favour of it. Clement of Rome (Cor.
Iv. ) may be referring to the passage with this reading when he says,
" Many gave themselves up (eavrovs traptSuKav) to slavery, and receiving
the price paid for themselves fed (\f/&lt;j)/j.i&lt;ra.v) others." If /cai XTjcru^at be

adopted, it belongs to both clauses, not to the second only ; If I should
dole away my goods in alms, and if I should give up my very body, all
for the sake of glory, while I have no love, I am not a whit the better.

But, as in the case of fj-edia-rdveiv (v. 2), we must consider more than the
external evidence. Which would the Apostle be more likely to write, and
which would be more likely to be changed by a copyist ? Surrender my
body, without saying how or to whom, is an unlikely expression. In the
two preceding verses nothing is said about the presence of an unworthy
motive, but only the absence of the one indispensable motive. And the
introduction of the unworthy motive spoils the all-important and have no
love. No need to say that, if the motive is self-glorification. If the
thought of Dan. iii. might have led a copyist to change /cai^x^w/xai into
Acau077&lt;rw/ia,t, it might equally well have led the Apostle to write Kav6r)crii)/j.ai
or Kav6r]a-o/j.ai : comp. t(r[3ecra.v dvva/miv trvpos (Heb. xi. 34). And if the
original reading had been /cai XTja w/u.cu, would not Kavd-^aw/uiai have been a
more common reading than Kav&faofJULt ? Cyprian twice quotes, si tradidero
corpus meum ut ardeam, ctiritatem ant em non habeam (Test. iii. 3 ; De
cath. eccl. unit. 14), and the author of the tract on Re-baptism (13) has

292 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIII. 3, 4

etsi corpus meum tradidero^ ita ut exurar igni, dilectionem aufem non
habeam.

The attractive suggestion of Stanley (p. 231) and of Lightfoot
Cohssians, p. 156, ed. 1875 ; p. 394, ed. 1892) that St Paul is thinking of
"the Indian s tomb," with its boastful inscription, which he may have seen
at Athens, confirms the reading KO.V&. rather than KO.VX-, but it suits either.
The tomb was still to be seen in Plutarch s time (Alexander 69), and the
inscription ran thus ; " Zarmano-chegas, an Indian from Bargosa, according
to the traditional customs of Indians, made himself immortal, and lies here "
(fcti TOP diraOavaricray /cemu). He had burnt himself alive on the funeral
pyre. But it is more likely that St Paul would think of Jewish examples
(i Mace. ii. 59).

i/ w/u i w (K) for i/ WytuVw (K A B C D, etc.) is the correction of a copyist
who did not see the significance of the aorist.

With ovdtv (B C D F K L, notovtf^, X A) u&gt;0e\oD/icu, comp. Matt. vi. i,
vii. 22, 23, xvi. 26.

4-7. The Apostle, having shown the moral worthlessness
and unproductiveness of the man who has many supernatural
gifts and performs seemingly heroic acts without love, now
depicts in rapturous praise the character that consists of just this
one indispensable virtue. Every one of the moral excellences
which he enumerates tells, for they are no mere abstractions, but
are based on experience, and are aimed at the special faults
exhibited by the Corinthians. And just as he personifies Sin,
Death, and the Law in Romans, so here he personifies Love.
The rhythm becomes lyrical.

We have fourteen descriptive statements in pairs. The
first pair of characteristics has both members positive. Four
pairs of negative characteristics follow, the last member being
stated both negatively and positively (v. 6) ; and then we have
two more pairs of positive characteristics (v. 7).

H dyaTTi] /j.a.Kpodvu.e i, xP 7 ] a " reuerctL

H aydirr) ov ^Xot, ov TrepirepeveTai,

ov (fivaiovrai, OVK do X rjfJ.ove t,

oi&gt; ftyrei TO. eavrys, ov Trapo^uverai,

ov \oyifrerai rb KO.KOV, ov ^cupet tirl rfj

ffw^aipei o rfj
irAvra (TT^yei, iravra.
irii TTO.VTO.

4. fiaKpoOujxei. Is long-suffering, long-tempered, longanimis
(Erasm.) : it is slow to anger, slow to take offence or to inflict
punishment.* While vTrofjLovtj (2 Cor. i. 6, vi. 4, xii. 12; Luke
only in the Gospels, etc.) is endurance of suffering without
giving way, /xaKpotfv/ua (2 Cor. vi. 6; Rom. ii. 4, ix. 22, etc.;
not in the Gospels) is patience of injuries without paying back.

* Quod si te illud movet, quod solemus earn quam Graeci
vocant, longaniitiitatem interpretari, animadvertere licet a corpore ad animurn
multa verba transferri, sicut ab animo ad corpus (Aug. De quantitate animae
xvii. 30).

XIII. 4, 5] A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE 293

It is the opposite of ou0iyua, quick or short temper :
comp. Jas. i. 19, and the adaptation of these verses in Clem.
Rom. Cor. 49.

XpTjoTeu eTcii. Is kind in demeanour, plays the gentle
part. While //,a*po0. gives the passive side in reference to
injuries received, XPW 7 " gives the active side in reference
to benefits bestowed. Nowhere else in the Bible is xprio-Teu eo-flcu
found, but xpr/o-TOT??? and xPW* are frequent in both the LXX
and N.T. See Clem. Rom. Cor. 18.

TJ dydTTTj ou TJ\OI. H ayd-m] is repeated at the beginning
of the negative characteristics ; it is to be taken with ov 17X01,
not with xpTja-TtvcTdL. Love knows neither jealousy nor envy.
The verb covers both vices, and perhaps others ; boil (e o&gt;)
with hatred or jealousy is apparently the original meaning
(Acts vii. 9, xvii. 5; Jas. iv. 2). Contrast xii. 31, xiv. i, 39;
2 Cor. xi. 2. To covet good gifts is right, to envy gifted
persons is wrong; for envy and jealousy lead to division and
strife (iii. i).

ou irepTrepeu eTau Does not play the braggart (Trep-n-epo?) ;
late Greek, and not elsewhere in the Bible. Marcus Aurelius
couples it with yAicr^evccr^at, /ecu KoAaKsveiv, KCU dpearKfvca-Ocu
(v. 5). Ostentation is the chief idea. Clem. Alex. (Paed. in.
i. p. 251) says; IlepTrepeia yap 6 /caAXajTrioyxos, TreptTTOTT^ro?
KCU dxpeio-n/Tos x wv l/x^acrii/. Origen applies it especially to
intellectual pride; Cicero (Epp. ad Attic, i. xiv. 4) uses it of
rhetorical display. Tert. (De Pat. 12) translates; non protervum
sapit, which is not so very different from Chrys. (ad loc.} ou
TrpoTTCTCverai. Hesychius says that the WpTrepos is /xera /JAaKa as
eVaipo /Aevos. Evidently the word had various shades of meaning :
see Wetstein and Suicer. But the idea of ostentatious boasting
leads easily to the next point.

ou &lt;J&gt;u(nouTai. Does not puff itself out (iv. 6, 18, 19, v. 2,
viii. i; Col. ii. 18; and not elsewhere in the N.T.). "He
who subjects himself to his neighbour in love can never be
humiliated" (Basil to Atarbius, Ep. 65).

A third TJ aydin} between ot; f 77X01 and ou irepirep. (SACDEFGKL,
Syrr. Goth.) is probably not genuine (om. B 17 and other cursives, Vulg.
Copt. Arm. Grk. and Lat. Fathers). H tiydTrrj at the beginning of the
positive and of the negative characteristics is in place ; a third is super
fluous. If it be inserted, it belongs, like the other two, to what follows.
The punctuation, 97 ayd-jri) fj.a.Kpo6vfj.ei, xp"n ffT ^ fTai "h ^ydTrrj, ov 77X0? 77
j, is clumsy.

5. OUK daxTju.oj et. Comp. vii. 36. In both places behave
unmannerly/ rather than suffer shame or seem vile (Deut.
xxv. 3), is the meaning. Love is tactful, and does nothing
that would raise a blush : non agit indecenttr (Calv.), indecore

294 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIII. 5, 6

(Beza), rather than non est ambitiosa (VvAg.), fasfidiosa (Erasm.).
The verb occurs in LXX, but nowhere else in N.T., excepting
vi. 36. M. Aurelius (xi. i) assigns properties to the rational
soul (XoyucT/ ^xt) which remind us of those which the Apostle
assigns to dydV&gt;7, e.g. TO &lt;iAeV rot-s TrXr/o-tov, KCU aA.7J0e6&lt;x, /cat

TO, ^auTTJs. Its own interests : x. 24, 33. This makes
nobler sense than the reading TO p.rj cam-vys (B, Clem-Alex.).
That Love does not try to defraud would be bathos here.
This statement perhaps looks back to the law-suits in ch. vi.

ov Trapo^uVerai. Not merely does not fly into a rage, but
does not yield to provocation : it is not embittered by
injuries, whether real or supposed. Elsewhere in N.T. only
of St Paul s spirit being provoked at the numerous idols in
Athens (Acts xvii. 16): in LXX frequent of great anger. The
contention between Paul and Barnabas (Acts xv. 39) was a
7rapovo7Ao s : see Westcott on Heb. x. 24.

ou Xoyi^erai TO K.O.KOV. When there is no question that it
has received an injury, Love doth not register the evil ;
it stores up no resentment, and bears no malice. Comp. r^v
KttKiav TOV TrXrjcrLOv /AT/ Xoyi&uQf. f.v rats KapSiais fyiaiv (Zech.
viii. 17). For this sense of reckoning see 2 Cor. v. 19;
Rom. iv. 8; cf. Philem. 18. Neither non cogitat malum (Vulg,)
nor non suspicatur malum (Grot.) does justice to either the
verb or the article : TO KO.KOV is the evil done to it.

6. ou x"P 61 * &SIKIO. * Rejoiceth not over unrighteous
ness, the wrongdoing committed by others (Rom. i. 32). It
cannot sympathize with what is evil. Chrys. misses the point
in saying that Love does not rejoice over those who suffer
wrong, Tots KaKws Wo-xovo-i. It is quite true that there is no
Schadenfreude in Love, no gloating over the misfortunes of
others ; but that is not the meaning here. Love cannot share
the glee of the successful transgressor.

owxcupei oe TTJ d\T)0eia. So far from feeling satisfaction
at the misdeeds of others, Love rejoices with the Truth.
Here Truth is personified, and Love and Truth rejoice together :
comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 8 ; Jas. iii. 14 ; i John v. 6. The truth of
the Gospel is not meant, but Truth in its widest sense, as
opposed to doWa (2 Thess. ii. 12; Rom. ii. 8), and therefore
equivalent to Goodness. The change of preposition, from CTTI
to &lt;rvv-, is ignored in the AV. Non gaudet super iniquitatem,
congaudet autem veritati (Vulg.). Love sympathizes with all
that is really good in others.

The seven negatives would become monotonous if they
were continued. By giving an affirmative antithesis to the

XIII. 6-8] A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE 295

last of them St Paul prepares the way for a return to positive
characteristics.

7. ircirra aWyei. The meaning of the verb is somewhat
uncertain. It occurs only Ecclus. viii. 17 in LXX, of the fool
who will not be able to conceal the matter, Ao yoi/ &lt;rre ai: and
only here, ix. 12, and i Thess. iii. i, 5 in N.T. Covereth,
and so excuseth would make sense here, but not such good
sense as the other meaning of the verb, is proof against, and
so forbeareth, endureth, which seems to be the meaning in
all four places in the N.T. The second meaning springs from
the first. To cover is to protect, and to protect is to
keep off rain, foes, troubles, etc., and therefore to be proof
against them or endure them. See Lightfoot on i Thess. iii. i,
where the Vulg. has non sustinentes, v. 5, non sustinens, and in
ix. 12, omnia sustinemus^ while here it has omnia suffert. The
root is connected with tegere, deck, thatch.

irdrra moreuei. This does not mean, as Calvin points out,
that a Christian is to allow himself to be fooled by every
rogue, or to pretend that he believes that white is black. But
in doubtful cases he will prefer being too generous in his
conclusions to suspecting another unjustly. While he is patient
with (orTcyti) the mischief which his neighbour undoubtedly
does, he credits him with good intentions, which he perhaps
does not possess.

This characteristic, with the next pair, forms a climax.
When Love has no evidence, it believes the best. When
the evidence is adverse, it hopes for the best. And when
hopes are repeatedly disappointed, it still courageously waits.
The four form a chiasmus, the second being related to the
third as the first to the last. While o-re yei refers to present
trials, vTTo/^eW covers the future also. It is that cheerful and
loyal fortitude which, having done all without apparent success,
still stands and endures, whether the ingratitude of friends or
the persecution of foes. Throughout the Pauline Epistles it
is assumed that the Christian is likely to be persecuted ; i Thess.
i. 6, iii. 3, 7 ; 2 Thess. i. 4, 6 ; Rom. v. 3, viii. 35, xii. 12, etc.

One result of all this is closely connected with the subject
of the preceding and of the following chapter the well-being
of the Christian body, as a whole consisting of many unequally
gifted members : praecipuus scop us est quam sit necessaria caritas
ad conservandam ecdesiae unitatem (Calvin).

8-13. Having shown the worthlessness of supernatural gifts,
if love is absent, and the supreme excellence of a character
in which love is dominant, St Paul now shows that love is
superior to all the gifts, because they are for this world only,

296 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIII. 8

whereas love is for both time and eternity. "This is the
crowning glory of love, that it is imperishable" (Stanley); it
abides until and beyond the supreme crisis of the Last Day.

8. C H dya-mr) ouSeirorc mirrei. In making this new point
the nominative is again repeated, and with good effect. And
the new point is reached without difficulty. From vrro/Ae vet to
ov8. TriTTTfL is an easy transition. That which withstands all
assaults and is not crushed by either the shortcomings of
comrades or the violence of opponents, will stand firm and
unshaken. In the N.T., Trnrreti/ is nearly always literal; but
comp. rov vo/xov fuav Kcpaiav 7re&lt;reu/ (Luke xvi. 17). In class.
Grk., ovSeVore is stronger than OVTTOTC; but in late Grk. strong
forms lose their strength and become the common forms :
ouSeVore occurs fifteen or sixteen times in the N.T., ov . . .
TTOTC only 2 Pet. i. 21; comp. Eph. v. 29; i Thess. ii. 5;
2 Pet. i. 10.

From the statement that * Love never faileth but abideth
after death, has been inferred the doctrine that the saints at
rest pray for those on earth. Calvin vigorously attacks this
inference, as if it were harmful to believe in such a result
of love. The inference is, no doubt, somewhat remote from the
context.

The reading TT/Trret (tf* A B C* 17, 47, Nyss. Ambrst. Aug.) is to be
preferred to ^Kirlirrei (D E F G K L P, Vulg. , Tert. Cypr.), which perhaps
comes from Rom. ix. 6. Chrys. reads ticirtirTei, and explains that
Christians must never hate their persecutors. They hate the evil deeds,
which are the devil s work, but not the doers, for they are the work of
God. But obdeTroTe irlirTfi means more than this, as what follows shows.

iT Se irpo&lt;|&gt;T]Ticu, K.a.rapyv}Qri(TOVTa.i. St Paul now takes up
again the comparison between Love and the special gifts.
Tested by the attribute of durability, Love exceeds all these
XaptV/zara. And here the AV. improves on the Greek. The
varied rendering of Karapyio-0ai, fail, vanish away, be done
away, is more pleasing than the repetition of the same word ;
and the making the first Karapy. a verbal contradiction of

OvSeTTOTC 7T17TT61 is effective.

The repeated en-e is depreciatory; it suggests indifference
as to the existence of gifts of which the use was at best
temporary. But as to prophesyings, if there be any, they
shall be done away. Excepting Luke xiii. 7 and Heb. ii. 14,
KaTapye/V, to put out of action/ is wholly Pauline in the N.T.
It is found in all four groups, but is specially common in this
group of the Pauline Epp. In the LXX, only in Ezra. Three
prominent ^apt o^ora are taken in illustration of the transitory
character of the gifts: to have gone through all would have

XIII. 8-11] A TSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE 297

been tedious. And the yAwo-o-ai are dropped in v. 9. Obviously,
they will be rendered idle. Tongues were a rapturous mode
of addressing God; and no such rapture would be needed
when the spirit was in His immediate presence. But Tongues
seem to have ceased first of all the gifts. The plur. Trpo^ryretat
indicates different kinds of inspired preaching; but yvwo-9
(N A, etc.) is a corruption to harmonize with the preceding
plurals.

9. Again we have a chiasmus : prophesyings, knowledge
(v. 8), know, prophesy (9). Both will be done away, for it is
from a part only, and not from the whole, that we get to know
anything of the truth, and from a part only that we prophesy.
We cannot know, and therefore cannot preach, the whole
truth, but only fragments. Knowledge and prophecy are useful
as lamps in the darkness, but they will be useless when the
eternal Day has dawned ; 6 yap /xcAAxoy fiios TOVTW aVev8e?^&lt;j.
In both clauses IK fxepous is emphatic. Bishop Butler has
shown that here complete knowledge even of a part is imposs
ible, for we cannot have this until we know its full relation
to the whole; and, in order to do that, we must have full
knowledge of the whole, which is impossible.*

10. But when there shall have come that which is com
plete, that which is from a part will be done away ; chiasmus
again. Ubi perventum ad metam fuerit^ tune cessabunt adjumenta
cursus (Calv.). We might have expected St Paul to put it in
this way, yet he does not. He does not say, * But when we
shall have come to the perfection of the other world, etc. He
is so full of the thought of the Second Advent, that he represents
the perfection as coming to us. When it shall have come ;
then, but not till then. The Apostle is saying nothing about
the cessation of xapur/xaTa in this life : prophesyings and know
ledge might always be useful. All that he asserts is, that
these things will have no use when completeness is revealed ;
and therefore they are inferior to Love. Luther renders TO IK

, das Stuckwerk.

In order to make the then and not till then clearer, K L, Syrr.
Chrys. and some other witnesses insert rore before 7-6 ^/c /j.dpovs : om.
K A B D* F G P, Latt. Arm. Aeth. Goth., etc. Chrys. points out that it
is only the partial, fragmentary knowledge that will be done away.

11. Illustration suggested by TO TC\CIOV : it is very inadequate,
but it will serve. The difference between a VTTTIOS and a

* Ecc /ufyoi s is fairly common in both LXX and N.T. Other adverbial
expressions are airb fiepous, which marks a contrast with the whole less
clearly than ^/c /*. (2 Cor. i. 14, ii. 5), dvA /tfyos (xiv. 27), and /card
(Heb. ix. 5).

298 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIII. 11, 12

is as nothing compared with the difference between the twilight
of this world and the brightness of the perfect Day, but it will
help us to understand this. In order to confirm vv. 8-10, the
Apostle appeals to personal experience. When I was a child,
I used to talk, think, and reason as a child : now that I am
become a man, I have done away with the child s ways. RV.
has c felt for I&lt;j&gt;p6vow, which is no improvement on the under
stood of AV. A mental process is meant (xi. 20, xii. 3, etc.),
of which e A.oyt^o/xr/1/, calculated (2 Cor. v. 19, xi. 5, etc.) is a
development. Loquebar, sapiebam, cogitabam (Vulg.) ; but ratio-
cinabar (Beza, Beng.) is better than cogitabam. Comp. Numera
annos tuos, et pudebit eadem velle quae volueras puer (Seneca,
Ep, 27).

The antithesis between rAetos (ii. 6) and vy-mos (iii. i) is freq. (xiv. 20 ;
Eph. iv. 13, 14). The mid. imperf. 1^771 is not found, except as a doubtful
reading, in class. Grk., but it is not rare in later writers : Gal. i. 10 ; Matt,
xxiii. 30. xxv. 35, 36, 43 ; Acts xxvii. 37, and perhaps xi. II. See Veitch,
p. 200. The perf. KaTr)pyt]Ka indicates a change of state which still con
tinues ; the emancipation from childish things took place as a matter of
course, ultra, libenter, sine labore (Beng.), and it continues.

In each case ws J^TTIOS follows the verb (S A B 17, Vulg. Aeth.), and
the 5^ after fire is an interpolation (om. X* A B D*) ; the contrast is more
emphatic without it.

12. JSXeirofAcy yap apri 81* eaoirrpou ei/ amyjAaTi. * For we see

at present by means of a mirror in a riddle. The yap confirms
the preceding illustration ; for as childhood to manhood, so this
life to the life to come. The argument is a fortiori. If adults
have long since abandoned their playthings and primers, how
much more will the reflected glimpses of truth be abandoned,
when the whole truth is directly seen. Almost certainly, oV ecroTr-
rpov means by means of a mirror, not through a mirror. Ancient
mirrors were of polished metal, and Corinthian mirrors were
famous ; but the best of them would give an imperfect and
somewhat distorted reflexion, and Corinthian Christians would
not possess the best (i. 26). To see a friend s face in a cheap
mirror would be very different from looking at the friend. This
world reflects God so imperfectly as to perplex us ; all that we see
is iv aivty/xart. The word occurs nowhere else in the N.T., but
is freq. in the LXX. Probably Num. xii. 8 is in St Paul s mind :
OTO//.O, Kara crroyaa AaXrycrw aura), Iv et6ei KOL ov 01 ati/ty^tttrcui/.*
Other words for * mirror are (.voirrpov and /caroTrrpov. Comp.

* This passage led to the Rabbinical tradition that Moses had seen God
through a clean window, but the Prophets through a dirty one (Bachmann,
ad loc. p. 409 n. ). There are two metaphors in Num. xii. 8, which St Paul
mixes : p\tirii&gt; tv dtv^art is somewhat incongruous. But to condemn iv
aiv. as a gloss is a violent expedient. A gloss would have been more
harmonious with the text.

XIII. 12, 13] A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE 299

2 Cor. iii. 18. Tertullian wrongly thinks of a window-pane made
of horn, which is only semi-transparent ; per corneum specular.
But a window with horn or lapis specularis would be SioTrrpoy, not
co-oTTTpoi/. See Smith, D. Ant. i. p. 686. Others explain the Siet
as meaning that in a mirror one seems to see through the surface
to the reflected objects.

TOTC 8e irpotromoi irpos Trpocrwiroi . * But then (when TO TtAeioi/
shall have come) face to face ; irpocruTrov TT. irp being an adverb
after /^AeVo/xei/. The expression is Hebraistic ; Gen. xxxii. 30 :
comp. 7iy&gt;. Kara 7iy&gt;. Deut. xxxiv. io.

Our knowledge of divine things in this life cannot be direct :
all comes through the distorting medium of human thought and
human language, figures, types, symbols, etc. Even those who
are illumined by the Spirit can give only a few rays of the truth,
and those not direct, but reflected. Even the Gospel is a riddle,
compared with the full light of the life to come. Here our
knowledge is mediate, the result of inference and instruction ; it
is partial and confused ; a piecemeal succession of broken lights.
There it will be immediate, complete, and clear; a connected
and simultaneous illumination. The imperfection of our know
ledge, even of revealed truth, is not sufficiently recognized ; and
hence the rejection of Christianity by so many thoughtful people.
Christians often claim to know more than it is possible to know.
They forget how much of the Bible is symbolical. See Goudge,
p. 122.

apri yn/wo-Kw IK fxe pous. In realizing what is true of all of us,
St Paul returns to his own personal experience ; At present I
get to know from a part only, but then I shall know in full even
as I was known also in full, once for all, by God from all eternity.
Or the aorist may refer to Christ s knowledge of him at his
conversion. For eViyivcoKcii/, which is very frequent in Luke
(i. 4, v. 22, etc.) and in St Paul (Rom. i. 32 ; 2 Cor. vi. 9, etc.),
see Lightfoot on Col. i. 9, and J. A. Robinson on Eph. i. 17,
p. 248. It is difficult to believe that here the compound is not
meant to indicate more complete knowledge than the simple
verb : but it does not follow from this that the compound always
does so. In any case, Ka#o&gt;s KCU iircyvuHrOijv is a bold way of
expressing the completeness of future illumination; human
knowledge is to equal (/catfajs, * exactly as ) divine. Comp.
Philo (De Cherub. 32, p. 159 ;) vvv ore w/x,ev yva&gt;pio/ze0a paXXov
17 yi (opco/xei/. In this verse we have yu/wcr/cw in all three voices.

D* F G, Vulg. Arm. Goth., Tert. Cypr. omit, ydp, but it is well
attested (g A B K L P, Copt.).

13. wvl 8e jjicVei. So then, when all the other gifts have
been reduced to nothing by the glories of the Return, there

30Q FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIII. 13

remain just these three. The wvi is not temporal, but logical,
and the Se expresses the contrast between the transitory gifts just
mentioned and those here ; * But, as you see, there abideth :
comp. xii. 1 8, 20; Heb. ix. 26. The singular /xeVei is not a slip
in grammar : the three virtues are a triplet distinguished by a
durability which the brilliant x a P t 7 xaTa &gt; so coveted by the
Corinthians, do not possess; for the triplet will survive the
Second Advent.* In the progress which is possible in the other
world there will be room for Faith and Hope, but there will be
no room for Tongues, prophesyings, healings, or miracles. The
character which is built upon those three survives death and
abides in eternity. Goodness is far more enduring, because far
more akin to God, than the greatest capacities for usefulness.
Even in this world these gifts are not indispensable. One can
be a good Christian without Tongues or prophesying ; but one
cannot be a good Christian without Faith, Hope, and Love.

fxio&gt;i 8e TouTcui T) dydTTT). And out of these (partitive
genitive) Love is greater. Mentally, perhaps, the Apostle puts Love,
about which he has said so much, into one class, and the other
two virtues into another. But, however we explain the com
parative (cf. Mt. xxiii. n), and the simplest explanation is that
/xeyioros had become almost obsolete (J. H. Moulton, Gr. i.
p. 78), there is no doubt about the meaning; Love is superior to
the other two. Why is it superior, seeing that all three are
eternal? Not perhaps because Faith and Hope concern the
individual, while Love embraces the whole Christian society : sua
enim cuique fides ac spes prodest ; caritas ad altos diffunditur
(Calv.). Rather, Love is the root of the other two ; Love
believeth all things, hopeth all things. We trust those whom
we love, and we hope for what we love. Again, Faith and Hope
are purely human ; or, at most, angelic ; the virtues of creatures.
Love is Divine. Deus non dicitur fides aut spes absolute, amor
diritur (Beng.).

For the triplet comp. i Thess. i. 3, v. 5 ; Gal. v. 5, 6 ; Col.
i. 4, 5 ; Heb. vi. 10-12; Resch, Agrapha, pp. 155 f. Comp.
also St John s triplet, Light, Life, and Love.

* But "when a verb occurs in the 3rd person in an introductory manner
it is often used in the singular number, though the subject may be in the
plural." Thus " what cares these roarers for the name of king ? " Yet, even
without this inversion, two or more kindred subjects may have a singular verb
(Mark iv. 41 ; Matt. v. 18, vi. 19). J. H. Moulton, Gr. i. p. 58; Blass,
ii. 3, 44. 3.

XIV. 1-40] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 3&lt;DI

XIV. 1-40. THE SUBJECT OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS
CONCLUDED.

In ch. xii. the human body was given as an intsructive
illustration of a Christian Church. In xiii. it was shown that the
principle which ought to quicken and regulate every member of
the Church is love. In xiv. the influence of this principle is
traced in the selection of the gifts that are most useful to the
whole body, and also in the manner of employing them.
Following after love does not impede the desire for special gifts,
but it regulates it. The love which seeks not its own advantage
must prefer a gift which benefits all to one which is a delight and
a help to no one but its possessor. Not that the latter is to be
despised ; God does not bestow worthless gifts : but it is possible
to mar any gift by misusing it.

The chapter has four divisions : (i) Prophesying or inspired
preaching is superior to Tongues, both in reference to believers
and to unbelievers, 1-25. (2) Regulations for the orderly
exercise of these two gifts in Christian assemblies, 26-33. (3)
Regulations respecting women, 34-36. (4) Conclusion of the
subject, 37-40.

In the first and main portion of the chapter the superiority
of inspired preaching to Tongues is stated at once (2-5) ; and
this is supported by two series of arguments (6-n and 14-19)
connected with two exhortations (12, 13). The whole chapter
shows that * prophesying is not the gift of prediction, but that
of preaching; and that Tongues are not foreign languages,
but a mode of utterance different from all human language.

The main result of the chapter is that, just as it is love which
gives value to character and conduct (xiii.), so it is love which
teaches the true value and proper use of the charismata. See
Zahn, Intro d. to N. T. i. p. 280.

You are right in desiring these supernatural gifts, but
take care that you do so from the right motive ; and the
right motive is love. Those gifts which benefit others are to
be preferred to those which glorify ourselves ; hence inspired
preaching is more to be desired than Tongues. In the
congregation^ Tongues (unless interpreted at once) are a
hindrance to worship. Even the experienced cannot join in

302 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIV. 1-40

devotions which they do not understand, while the inex
perienced or the unbelievers, if any be present, are lost in
contemptuous amazement. But inspired preaching is a great
help to all who hear it, whether believing or unbelieving.

Unless an interpreter is present, Tongues should be
exercised in private. In public worship, all who are inspired
to preach may do so in turn, and the whole Church, including
themselves, will be the gainer.

This does not apply to women. So far from preaching,
they ought not even to ask questions.

In all matters of public worship decorum and order must
be studied.

1 What you have to do, therefore, is persistently to strive to
make this love your own, while you continue to long to have the
gifts of the Spirit, and especially to be inspired to preach. z For
he who speaks in a Tongue is speaking, not to men, but to God,
for no man can understand one who in a state of rapture is
speaking mystic secrets. 8 It is otherwise with one who is
inspired to preach : he does speak to men, and to good purpose,
words of faith to build them up, words of hope to quicken
them, words of love to hearten and console. 4 Not that Tongues
are useless; one who exercises this gift may build up his own
spiritual life by it : but the inspired preacher builds up the
spiritual life of the Church. 6 Now I could wish that you should
all have the gift of Tongues ; but I would greatly prefer that you
should be inspired to preach, this being far more important,
unless, of course, the Tongues should at once be interpreted,
so that the Church may thereby receive spiritual advantage.
6 But, Brethren, seeing that Tongues without explanation are
useless, suppose that, when next I visit you, I speak with
Tongues, what good shall I do you, if I shall fail to explain
to you some glimpse of the unseen or some knowledge of truth,
the one to inspire you, the other to instruct you ? 7 Why, there
are instruments which, although lifeless, make a sound, a pipe,
for instance, or a harp ; yet if they make no distinction in the
notes, how is one to know the tune which the pipe or the harp is
playing? 8 A trumpet-blast is a still stronger instance: if that
gives an uncertain sound, who will get ready for battle ? 9 It is
just the same with you : if with your tongue you do not make

XIV. 1-40] SHRITUAL GIFTS 303

intelligible speech, how is one to know what you are saying ?
For you might as well be saying it to the winds. n Well, then,
if I show that I do not understand the meaning of the language
used, the person who speaks to me will conclude that I talk
gibberish, just as from my point of view he is talking gibberish
to me ; and we both wish that we could talk to some advantage.
12 It is just the same with you : seeing that you are so enthusiastic
for inspirations, let it be for the spiritual advantage of the Church
that you seek to abound in them. 13 Therefore he that speaks in
a Tongue should pray that he may be able to interpret what he
utters. 14 For if I am praying in a Tongue, it is quite true that
rny spirit is praying, but my understanding is doing no good.
15 What does that imply? I must go on praying with the spirit,
that, of course, for my own sake : but for the sake of others I
must pray with the understanding also. I must sing with the
spirit, but I must sing with the understanding also. 1 9 Else,
suppose that you are blessing God in ecstasy, how is he who
has no experience of such things to say the Amen at your giving
of thanks, seeing that he does not know what you are saying ?
17 For although you are giving thanks beautifully, yet the other is
getting no spiritual advantage. 18 1 thank God I have the gift
of Tongues in a higher degree than all of you. 19 Nevertheless,
in public worship I would rather speak five words with my under
standing, and thereby give others also some solid instruction,
than thousands and thousands of words in an ecstatic Tongue.

20 My brethren, do not behave as if you were still children in
mind : and it is childish to prefer what glitters to what does
good. Of course, in jealousy and ill-will be children, nay, be
very babes ; but in mind behave as full-grown men. 21 In the
great Prophet of the old Covenant it stands written that, because
Israel would not obey God s word spoken in language which
they could understand, thay would be punished in being conquered
by Assyrians whose language they could not understand, and
that even this sign would fail to teach them obedience.
22 This shows us that unintelligible Tongues are a sign, not of
course to those who believe, but to those who fail to do so;
while inspired preaching is for the benefit, not of those who do
not believe, but of those who do. 28 Consequently, if, when you
all meet together in one place for public worship, you one after
another do nothing but speak with Tongues, and there come in

304 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIV. 1-40

those who have no experience of such things, and still more so
if unbelievers come in, will they not say that you must be mad ?
24 Whereas, if one after another you utter inspired teaching, and
there comes in an unbeliever, and still more so if an inexperi
enced brother comes in, by preacher after preacher he is con
vinced of his sinfulness, his heart is searched, 25 its secret evils
are revealed to him, and the blessed result will be that he
humbles himself before God and man, and from that moment
proclaims that, little as he thought so till then, it is God who is
with you.

26 How then does the matter stand, Brethren ? Whenever
you meet together for worship, each of you is ready to manifest
some gift, to sing a song of praise, to give instruction, to reveal
a truth, to utter a Tongue, or to interpret one. By all means
exercise the gifts with which you have been endowed, always
provided that they are exercised to build up the spiritual life of
others and not to glorify yourselves. 27 If those who speak with
Tongues are preferred, let only two, or at most three, speak in
any one meeting, and one at a time, and let one interpreter serve
for each. 28 But if no interpreter be present, let whoever has
this gift be silent in public worship, and exercise it in private
between himself and God. 29 And of those who are inspired to
preach, let two or three speak in each meeting, and let the rest of
them exercise the gift of discernment as to what is being spoken.
30 But if a revelation be made to one of those who thus sit
listening, let the preacher give place to him. 31 For he can stop
and be silent, and in this way it will be in the power of all of
the inspired to preach one by one, so that all, whether inspired
or not, may learn something and be quickened. 32 Yes, he can
stop : an inspired man s spirit is under the inspired man s control,
for the God who inspires him is a God, not of turbulence, but of
peace. This holds good of all the assemblies of His people.

34 When I say that all in turn may preach, I do not include
your wives. They must keep silence in the assemblies. Utter
ance, whether in a Tongue or in preaching, is not allowed to
them, for this would violate the rule of subjection which has been
imposed upon them since the Fall. 35 Even their asking questions,
which might seem to be compatible with subjection, cannot be
allowed in the assemblies. Let them ask their own husbands at
home, and the husbands can ask in the assembly. It is shameful

XIV. 1, 2] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 305

for a woman to speak there. 36 Perhaps you think that you have
the right to do as you please in such matters. What ? are you
the Mother-Church, or the only Church, that you make such
claims?

37 If any one claims to be inspired as a preacher or in any
other way, let him give evidence of his inspiration by recognizing
that what I am writing to you is inspired ; it is the Lord s
command. 38 But if any one fails to recognize this, I have no
more to say. God deals with such. 38 So then, my Brethren,
the sum of the whole discussion is this. Long earnestly to be
inspired to preach, and if any one has the gift of Tongues, do
not forbid him to use it. But let everything be done in accord
ance with natural feelings of propriety as well as established
rule.

1. AiwKcre -ri]v &yditT]v t T)\OUT 8e TO, -nreujxaTiKd. This verse
looks back to xii. 31, and sums up the two preceding chapters.
The Corinthians are to follow with persistence (Rom. ix. 30, 31,
xiv. 19; i Thess. v. 15, etc.) the more excellent way, and to
desire with intensity (xii. 31, xiv. 39; 2 Cor. xi. 2; Gal. iv. 17)
supernatural gifts ; but (more than all the rest) that they may be
inspired to preach. The Iva. is definitive, not telic. For the other
meaning of frjXovv, boil with envy and hatred, comp. xiii. 4.
Love is a grace, which all Christians by earnest endeavour can
attain. Prophesying, Tongues, etc. are gifts, which may be
eagerly desired, but which no amount of effort can secure.
Those alone receive them to whom they are given (xii. n). The
Apostle assures them that his praise of love does not mean that
the gifts are to be despised. But no man is made morally the
better by a gift, for character depends upon personal effort. Yet
the gifts may be instruments of personal improvement, as well as
of service to others, although the latter is of higher importance :
hence /xaXXov Se ?va 7rpo&lt;f&gt;rjTvrjT. For ^r/Xovre see Mayor on
Jas. iv. 2, p. 128.*

2. ( For he who speaketh in a Tongue, not to men doth he
speak, but to God, for no man heareth him (to any purpose).
This meaning of a/covW comes out clearly in comparing Acts
ix. 7 and xxii. 9. In the one place the men hear the voice ; in
the other they did not hear the voice of Him who was speaking
to Saul, i.e. they heard a sound but did not hear it as words

* Magna distantia est inter res temporales et spiritales : temporales enim,
cum non habentur, multum desiderantnr ; si vero habeantur, fastidiunt atque
vilescunt : spiritales autem, cum non habentur, minus dcsiderantur ; cum vero
habentur, magis magisque desiderium in nobis accendunt ( Atto of Vercelli).

306 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIV. 2, 3

addressed to any one. Also in the story of Babel ; ^

(Gen. xi. 7 ; comp. xlii. 23). Verse after verse shows
that speaking in foreign languages cannot be meant. Tongues
were used in communing with God, and of course this was good
for those who did so (v. 4). Tongues were a sort of spiritual
soliloquy addressed partly to self, partly to Heaven. Compare
the proverb, Sibi canit et Musis It is equally clear that ovSeis
OLKOVCL does not mean that Tongues were inaudible, or that no
one listened to them, but that no one found them intelligible.
One might as well have heard nothing.

wcujiaTi 8e XaXel pxmipia. As it is in the spirit that he
speaketh what are in effect mysteries. Explanatory use of Se ;
not uncommon after a negative, but in v. 4 without a negative.
In the spirit, but not with the understanding (v. 14), and
therefore unintelligible to others. Mwnjpioi/ in the N.T. com
monly means truth about God, once hidden, but now revealed.
In this sense it is very common in St Paul : see Lightfoot on
Col. i. 26 and Swete on Mark iv. n; Beet on i Cor. iii. 4,
p. 40. Mysteries must be revealed to be profitable ; but in the
case of Tongues without an interpreter there was no revelation,
and therefore no advantage to the hearers. See Hatch, Essays
in Bibl Grk. pp. 5 7 f.

3. 6 8e irpo&lt;J&gt;Y]Teu a)j&gt;. Whereas he who exerciseth the gift of
prophesying does speak to men, what is in effect edification and
exhortation and consolation. With XaXel oiKoSop^i comp. Kpl^a
IvQUi and TOVTO /AOV eo-ri TO o-to/xa (xi. 24, 29) : in each case what
is in effect* is the meaning. The metaphorical sense of oi/coSo/o?,
building up the spiritual life, is peculiar to St Paul in the N.T.,
in Rom., i and 2 Cor., and Eph. : elsewhere (Matt. xxiv. i ;
Mark xiii. i, 2) of actual buildings or edifices. Hapa/cA^o-is, a
calling near, is sometimes supplication (2 Cor. viii. 4),
exhortation (Phil. ii. i), consolation (2 Cor. i. 4-7) or a
combination of the last two, encouragement (Heb. vi. 18,
xii. 5). Exhortation or encouragement is right here. Con
solation or comfort must be reserved for TrapapvOia, which
occurs nowhere else in the N.T. ; in the LXX, Wisd. xix. 12.
But in Phil. ii. i we have irapo/tvdtov coupled with
and in i Thess. ii. 1 1 we have Trapa/caAovi/Tcs /ecu
Prophesying was the power of seeing and making known the
nature and will of God, a gift of insight into truth and of power
in imparting it, and hence a capacity for building up men s
characters, quickening their wills, and encouraging their spirits.
The three are co-ordinate : not build up by quickening and
encouraging, nor build up and quicken in order to encourage.

XIV. 3-5] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 307

Compare Barnabas = son of prophecy = inos TrapaKAryVews (Acts
iv. 36). Exhortatio tollit tarditatem, adhortatio timiditatem. See
VV. E. Chadwick, The Pastoral Teaching of St Paul, ch. ix. ;
VVeinel, St Paul, ii3f.

4. 6 XaXwi yXwao-fl eaurok oiKoSofiet. By communing with
God in supernatural language the man who spoke in a Tongue
built up himself. But, as Chrysostom says, What a difference
between one person and the Church ! Although there is no
nyV before e/cKA^on ai/, the Church is nearer the meaning than
a Church/ or a congregation ; yet either of the latter is ad
missible. See Alford and Ellicott, ad loc. But there is no
sarcasm; se ipsum aedificat, ut ipse quidem putat ; sibi placet.
Revera autem neminem aedificat.

In both v. 2 and v. 4, D E with Arm. and other authorities have 7\c6(r-
&lt;rais for 7X160-0-77. Some (A E K L) insert T&lt; before Oey in v. 2, but here
none insert Trjv before tKK\-rjffia.v.

5. 0eXa&gt; 8e irakTas up.ds XaXciK yXwaaais, fxaXXoK 8e Iva. Trpo&lt;J&gt;Tj-
TUT]T. The change from the infinitive to Iva is perhaps meant
to make the wish more intense ; but this is sufficiently expressed
by the /xaAAov. See J. H. Moulton, Gr. p. 208. Nowhere else
does St Paul use 0eAw &lt;W, but it is not rare (Matt. vii. 1 2 ; Mark
vi. 25, ix. 30; Luke vi. 31 ; John xvii. 24): in such cases the
telic force is lost, and the Iva gives the object of the wish.
Now I wish that all of you might speak with Tongues, yet I
wish still more that ye should prophesy ; as (Se as in v. 2) greater
is he, etc. The for of AV. is a little too pronounced, but is
defensible, even without yap for Se : see below. The Corinthians
are exhorted ne, praepostero zelo, quod praecipium est minoribus
postponant (Calv.). As M. Aurelius (viii. 59) says, " Men are
made for one another." As for the unsatisfactory ones, "either
teach them better or put up with them."

The apodosis (ri v/xas u&gt;&lt;eA^cno ;) is placed between two pro
tases, which are co-ordinate, the second, on the negative side,
being complementary to the first, on the positive side; If I
come speaking with Tongues, instead of speaking either in the
way of revelation, etc.

KTos ct JUL^) SicpjxTji ein]. Pleonastic combination of eVros ei and
et py : with this exception, unless he interpret ; comp. xv. 2 ;
i Tim. v. 19. The man who spoke in a Tongue might also have
the gift of interpreting Tongues, and st accedat interpretatio, jam
erit prophetia (Calv.). The &a- in Siep/x^etM-iv may indicate either
being a go-between or thoroughness. One who interprets his
own words intervenes between unintelligible utterance and the
hearers: comp. 13, 27, xii. 30.

308 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIV. 5-7

fj.elfav 5t (X A B P, Copt.) is to be preferred to fteifav ydp (D F K L,
Latt. Syrr. Arm. Aeth. ), Nisi forte interpretetur (Vulg.), unless possibly
he should interpret, is not exact : this would require ia.v. Omit forte : the
d intimates that his interpreting decides the point. It would be known
that he possessed the gift of interpretation. On ^/cr&lt;5? et ^ see Deissmann,
Bible Studies &gt; p. 118, and on ei with the subjunctive see J. H. Moulton,
Gr. i. p. 187, and Ellicott on I Cor. ix. n, where some good texts have
Bepivunev. This is the only sure instance in the N.T., and it means that
his subsequent interpretation is regarded as quite possible.

6. The first of a series of three arguments, drawn from their
experience of him as a teacher. They are hoping to see him
again. What good would he do them, if all that they got from