~ Aol deet aude ‘p* ale - aie nie ee Ce tie i “si ‘ih J rere is +k ter Ones | i) a ivi) . AOU Gal tL 7] : a 3 5 oo . Ris a 4 a drut rae “My velanas writ tay J “ é ” = ‘72% on ae f 4. } d Pi g iti: “abl fe Wea a We F / Si ; Sa, A as oes Hie D } t Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic46robe FIRSTOSPISTLEOe ST PAUL TO 4HE CORINTHIANS The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are Reserved. Eioe PACE —$—— More than fourteen years ago I promised to Dr. Plummer, Editor of the “International Critical Commentary,” an edition of this Epistle, of which I had the detailed knowledge gained by some years of teaching. Almost immediately, however, a change of work imposed upon me new duties in the course of which my predominant interests were claimed, in part by administrative work which curtailed opportunities for study or writing, in part by studies other than exegetical. I had hoped that in my present position this diversion of time and attention would prove less exacting; but the very opposite has been the case. Accordingly my task in preparing for publication the work of past years upon the Epistle has suffered from sad lack of continuity, and has not, with the exception of a few sections, been carried beyond its earlier chapters. That the Commentary appears, when it does and as it does, is due to the extraordinary kindness of my old friend, tutor at Oxford, and colleague at Durham, Dr. Plummer. His generous patience as Editor is beyond any recognition I can express: he has, moreover, supplied my shortcomings by taking upon his shoulders the greater part of the work. Of the Introduction, also, he has written important sections; the Index is entirely his work. While, however, a reader versed in documentary criticism may be tempted to assign each nuance to its several source, we desire each to accept general responsi- vii Vili PREFACE bility as contributors, while to Dr. Plummer falls that of Editor and, I may add, the main share of whatever merit the volume may possess. It is hoped that amidst the exceptional number of excellent commentaries which the importance of the First Epistle to the Corinthians has called forth, the present volume may yet, with God’s blessing, have a usefulness of its own to students of St Paul A. EXON : EXETER, Conversion of St Paul, IgII. COM REN ls + INTRODUCTION : § I. CORINTH ° . . ° ° § II. AUTHENTICITY : 4 . §$ III. OCCASION AND PLAN : . Analysis of the Epistle ° ° : $:1V. PLACE AND Date . Aretas to the Apostolic Geraci . XXVil XXVill Apostolic Council to the End of Residence at Ephesus . : From Festus back to 1 Goeuniane: Resultant Scheme toghie . BONG eX Bearing of St Paul’s Movements on the ucsuen of Date . : E C Table of Pauline Chuonaiees : - § V. DocTRINE : : . The Apostle’s Beleucd to Christ . . The Resurrection . = F The Person of Christ : : - The Christian Life. - “ The Collective Work of the Gharcks ' The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. . § VI. CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE Words peculiar to 1 Corinthians in the N.T. XXXl XXXlll XXX1V XXXIV XXXVI XXXVIll XXXVIil XXXIX Ex; « xivi xlix Words peculiar to 1 Corinthians in the Pauline Epistles . Phrases peculiar to 1 Cosuthaen in ie N. T. Quotations from the O.T. . : 4 ix < li ee lt Sir CONTENTS §. Vil. “fear 4 General Features The Pauline Epistles Authorities for this Epistle . Illustrative Readings § VIII. COMMENTARIES Patristic and Scholastic Modern ~ COMMENTARY - 2 INDEX : General . . Greek Words A Latin and English Words INT ROM UC RION ap § I. CORINTH. WuatT we know from other sources respecting Corinth in St Paul’s day harmonizes well with the impression which we receive from 1 Corinthians. The extinction of the ¢otius 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 Cortinthus.* 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 Corinthiz. 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 advetds (Hom. Z7/. ii. 570; Pind. Fragg. 87, 244), evdaipwv (Hdt. ili. 52), and oAPra (Pind. O/. xiii. 4; Thue. 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. xi xii INTRODUCTION on the ‘bridge’ or causeway between two seas ; movTOU yepup” dxdpavros (Pind. Vem. vi. 67), yépuvpav rovridda rpd KopivOov retxewv (Jsth. iii. 35). Like Ephesus, it was both on the main com- mercial route between East and West and also ata 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. /.£. iv. 22). So also it is called the zepiraros 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 Gallio 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 * Kopw6idterbar, Kopiv6la xdpn, Kop. mais: ob mavrds dvdpds és KépwBov &c8’ & mois, a proverb which Horace (£9. 1. xvii. 36) reproduces, mon 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 tiepddovAo. 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 tich in temples and idols of various kinds, Greek and foreign ; but he calls the temple of Aphrodite a vaidiov (vill. vi. 21): see Bachmann, p. 5. It is therefore possible that we ought not to quote the thousand tepodovAo 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 xviil. 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 Gai. 36; cf. Justin, 77y. 1. 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. g) to remain there a year and a half. Nor need we wonder that, having succeeded in finding the ‘ people’ (Aads) 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. 18, 32), and he came on to Corinth in much depression and fear (1 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, 70 épuorexvov (Acts xviii. 3).— On the other * This attitude continued long after the Apostle’s departure. Fora century cr two Athens was perhaps the chief seat of opposition to the Gospel. + It is possible that this is one of the beloved physician’s medical words. Doctors are said to have spoken of one another as 6uérexvot (Hobart, Jed. 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; 1 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, Zxtr. to VT, i. p. 266). Acts xvili. 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 (1 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. ro-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 (xil., 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. 1-11), in the repeated mention of the wAecovéxtys as a common kind of offender (v. 10, 11, 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 yv@ous (viii. 1, 7, 10, I1, * Justus, as a surname for Jews or proselytes, meant (like Sikasos in Luke i. 6) ‘careful in the observance of the Law.’ It was common in the case of Jews (Acts i. 23; Col. iv. 11). Josephus had a son so called, and he tells us of another Justus who wrote about the Jewish war (V7¢a, 1, 9, 65). It is said to be frequent in Jewish inscriptions, xvi INTRODUCTION xiii. 2, 8) and godéa (i. 17, ili. 19), by the long section which treats of the false and the true wisdom (i. 18-ili. 4), and by the repeated rebukes of their inflated self-complacency (iv. 6, 18, 19, Ve 2; Ville © 5 Ch. “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. 1-xi, 1). 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, /aetum 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 1 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). § Il. 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, Gloél, Wrede, and Lindemann; and the English reader will find all that he needs on the subject in Knowling, Ze Witness of the Epistles, ch. il., or in Zhe Testimony of St Paul to Christ, lect. xxiv. and passim (see Index). But the student of 1 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” (Pau/us, Stuttg. 1845, li. Lznlect., 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: “Ina word, until better reasons are produced, one may really trust oneself to the conviction that one has before one writings of Paul” (Hand-Commentar sum NV.T., i. 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 1 Corinthians as ‘‘the letter of the blessed Paul, the Apostle” by Clement of Rome about a.p. 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. 11 we have words which seem to recall 1 Cor. ili. 1, 16, 18; and in the Didache x. 6 we have papav a6a, enforcing a warning, as in 1 Cor. xvi. 22. But in neither case do the words fvove 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 1 Corinthians, and it is highly probable that Hermas did. “Tgnatius 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” (Zhe .7. in the Apostolic Fathers, 1905, p. 67). We find in the Epistles of Ignatius what seem to be echoes of 1 Cor. i. 7, 10, 18, 20, 24, 30, ll. 10, 14, lll. I, 2, IO— BG, £6, iv. 3,4) V..7, Vi. 9, 10, Thy VilitO,e2 4) 20, 1x. 05, 272 eral 17, Xli. 12, xv. 8-10, 45, 47, 58, xvi. 18; and a number of these, b XVill INTRODUCTION being quite beyond dispute, give increase of probability to the rest. In Polycarp there are seven such echoes, two of which (to 1 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 1 Cor. vil. 39, 40 so closely that reminiscence is more probable than mere coincidence. Justin Martyr, about A.D. 147, quotes from 1 Cor. xi. 19 (Z7y.. 35), and Athenagoras, about A.D. 177, quotes part of xv. 55 as kara Tov amdarodov (De Res. Mort. 18). 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 1 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 Xpiorot (i. 8), Inood (iv. 17), judy (v. 4), and ra vy (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. g are imbedded in our r Corinthians. Thus, iii. 10-23, vii. 17-24, ix. I-X. 22, X. 25-30, xiv. 34-36, xv. I-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 (S ABD), or in any Version. We have seen that Ignatius shows acquaintance with every chapter, with the possible exception of viil., 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 1 Corinthians is patent from the Epistle itself. ‘Two things induced St Paul to write. (1) 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. Ina short time the infant Church was split into parties, each party claiming this er 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, Barth, Weiss, Zahn) treat the integrity of 1 Corinthians as certain. xx INTRODUCTION (i. 10, 11). 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 (S¢ 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. 11, 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. 11), 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 XXl 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 Bney.. Brit, vith ed. arts‘ Bible? ip. 8733 “arts ‘Corinthians,’ pp. 151 f. It is quite certain that our 1 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. 14—vii. 1, 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-xili. 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 1 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. (1) It took place before 1 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 Xxli 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 frvzori 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 1 Cor. xvi. 7 ; 2 Cor. il. 1, Xii. 14, 21, xiii. 1, 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. il, 1 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 év Avzy 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 év Avwy. 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, xili. 1, 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 zx¢entions to come, or willingness ~ to come, and not to an actual visit ; or again that he is counting a letter as avisit. That is possible, but it is not natural. Again, the preposition in rots zponuapryxoow is more naturally explained as meaning ‘who were in sin before my second visit’ than ‘before their conversion.’ Wieseler (Chronologie, p. 232) con- siders that these passages render the assumption of a second visit to Corinth indispensable (xothwendig). Conybeare and Howson INTRODUCTION XXili (ch. xv. sud init.) maintain that ‘this visit is proved’ by these passages. Lightfoot (Bvdlical Essays, p. 274) says: ‘There are passages in the Epistles (e.g. 2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1, 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 (Havd.- Comm. li. 1, 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 (Zzcy. Bibl. i. go3) 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 (Zxfosttor’s Grk. Test.), Julicher (Zutrod. to N.T. p. 31), Massie (Century Bible), G. H. Rendall (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. Many modern writers place it between 1 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 év Avry. 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 1 Corinthians was written, the commentator on that Epistle need not do more than mention it. See Zncy. Brit., 11th 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). + For the arguments against the supposed visit see the section on the Date of this Epistle. XX1V 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 defore 1 Corinthians. Some place it before the letter mentioned in 1 Cor. v. 9. This has decided advantages. The lost letter of v.g 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 1 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 toa 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 1 Cor. v. 9. (6) Bad news arrives from Corinth brought by members of Chloe’s familia, perhaps also by the bearers of the Corinthians’ letter, and by Apollos. The Apostle at once writes 1 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, zepi d¢ dv éypaware: and almost certainly the question about partaking of Idol-meats (vill. 1-xi. 1) was raised by the Corinthians, zepi 5¢ rav cidwdo- INTRODUCTION XXV @’7twv. 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, wepi d& trav rvevparixay (xil. 1), wept dé THs Aoylas THs els Tovs adyious (xvi. 1), and epi 5€ “AroAAW Tod addeAhod (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. kadov dvOparw yuvatkds py) Grtec Oar (vii. 1), mavrTes yvaou éxoner (viii. 1), tavta eLeorw (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 and Hofe, i. 4-9. I. Urgent Matters for Blame, i. 10-vi. 20. A. The Dissensions (Xxiopara), i. 10-iv. 21. / The Facts, i. 10-17. 2 The False Wisdom and the True, i. 18-iii. 4. > The False Wisdom, i. 18-11. 5. The True Wisdon, ii. 6—i11. 4. The True Wisdom described, ii. 6-13. The Spiritual and the animal Characters, lil. I4—lll. 4. The True Conception of the Christian Pastorate, lll, 5-lVv. 21. . » General Definition, iii. 5-9. “ The Builders, iii. ro—15. The Temple, i. 16, 17, Warning against a mere ‘human’ Estimate of the Pastoral Office, iii. 18—iv. 5. « Personal Application ; Conclusion of the sub- ject of the Dissensions, iv. 6-21. B. Absence of Moral Discipline; the Case of Incest, Vv. I-13. XXVi INTRODUCTION C. Litigation before Heathen Courts, vi. 1-11. 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. I-7. Advice to Different Classes, vii. 8—4o. B, Food offered to Idols, viii. 1-xi. 1. General Principles, viii. 1-13. The Great Principle of Forbearance, ix. 1-27. These Principles applied, x. 1—xi. 1. The Example of the Israelites, x. 1-13. The Danger of Idolatry, x. 14-22. Practical Rules about Idol-meats, x. 23-xi. 1. III. Disorders in Connexion with Public Worship, xi. 2- xiv. 40. A. The Vetting of Women in Public Worship, xi. 2-16. B. Disorders connected with the Lord’s Supper, xi. 17-34. C. Spiritual Gifts, xii. 1-xiv. 40. The Variety, Unity, and true Purpose of the Gifts, xii. I-11. 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-II. B. Lf Christ is risen, the Dead in Christ will rise, XV. 12-34. Consequences of denying the resurrection of the Dead, xv. 12-19. INTRODUCTION XXVil 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. 35-58. 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, XVl. I-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 1 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 pracf. aad éfécov ris “Aoias, also by B*P in their subscriptions. The subscriptions of D?>K Ld 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 XXVill 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. 18, tov mdvta ypovov: 31, Tpletiay vixta Kal jpepar), which falls within the middle or Aegean period of his ministry. The first, or Antiochean period extends from Acts xi. 25- XViil. 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. 1. 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 Chronologte 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 (jpepas tuvds, 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 dceréa 6An of Acts xxvill. 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 Counatl. 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. 18), z.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. 1). (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—r3 to 36. This result—4g a.p. 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 1., which took place in 44 (see Turner, p. 416b), 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.p. (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 ov« éAtyov (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. 11) 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, xpovov twa): 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 zperta (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 tperia (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 (1 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 1 Corinthians. That Felix became procurator of Judaea in 52 A.D. may be taken as fairly established (Hastings, DA. 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 zoAAa érn of Acts xxiv. Io 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, ze. at Pentecost (Acts xx. 16) 56 (for the details see Turner in Hastings, DA. 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 1 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 XXX] 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 Gallio, 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 Paul's 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, DAZ. artt. ‘1 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 XXXil INTRODUCTION (Weizsicker, Afost. 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 (€v Avy, 2 Cor. ii. 1). If, then, such a visit had been paid before 1 Corinthians was written, to what was this Avery due? Not to the cxiopara, of which St Paul knew only from Chloe’s people (i. 11). Not to the ropveéa, nor to the disorders at the Lord’s Supper, of which, he expressly tells us, he knew by report only (v. 1, 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 (€v paBdw, iv. 21) was before the Apostle’s mind as a possible necessity. But there is no 7aXw, 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. 1 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 awhole. (On this aspect of the matter the present writer would refer to Hastings, DZ. vol. i. pp. 492-5, S$ 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 (Zhe 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 (1 Cor. iv. 17, Xvi. 10) from his (later) mission with Erastus ‘to Mace- donia’ (Acts xix. 22), makes our Epistle the pre/ude to the painful visit (xvi. 5), and breaks up the Second Epistle so as to obtain a scheme into which that visit will fit. 1 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 XxX. I-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 XXXiil 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; #e. in the spring of 55. The following table gives the schemes adopted by Harnack in his Chronologie (supra), Turner (D&B. as above); Ramsay, St Paul the Traveller and Expositor, 1896, p. 336, A fixed date, etc.; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 216-233; Wieseler, Chronologie d. Apost. Zeitalters (Eng. tr.); Lewin, Fasti Sacrt. See also Blass, Acta Apostolorum, 1895, pp. 21-24; Kennedy (as above). See also Lucy. Brit, 11th ed., ul. pp. 891 f., vu. Oe A ra s a 3 o g es: co g fel < re] n rae, a 5 = oo | é x cal 4 4A = 4 The Crucifixion . . |29 or 30 29 30 st 30 33 Conversion of St Paul . 30 35 or 36 32 34 40 37 First visit to Jerusalem 33 38 34 37 43 39 Second visit to Jeru- salem Et aie > ane 46 45 45 45 44 First missionary 1) pee ies 45 47. |460r47| 48 |45-57| 45 Third visit to Jeru- salem ; the Apostolic Council . : ; 47 49 5° 51 50 49 Second Byeeiouary journey . 47 49 50 51 50 49 Corinth reached late in 48 50 SL 52 52 52 Epistles to the Thessa- lonians . 48-50 | 50-52 | 51-53 |52-53|52-53] 52 Fourth visit to " Jeru- salem. , 50 52 53 54 54 SG Return to Antioch - 5° 52 53 54 54 53 Third missionary journey . 5° 52 53 4 uy In Ephesus; 1 Corin- ? : i thians . 50-53 | 52-55 | 53-56 Fa rs ¥ In Macedonia ; 2 Corin- See eon ed thians . 53 55 56 7, In Corinth ; Epistle to : ih ay Romans . 53, 54 | 55, 56 | 56, 57 |57, 58/57, 58/57, 58 Fifth visit to Jerusalem ; 2 , arrest . 4 - 54 56 57 58 58 58 XXXIV INTRODUCTION § V. DocTRINE. The First Epistle to the Corinthians is not, like that to the Romans, a doctrinal treatise; nor is it, like Galatians, the docu- ment of a crisis involving far-reaching doctrinal consequences. It deals with the practical questions affecting the life of a Church founded by the writer: one great doctrinal issue, arising out of circumstances at Corinth (xv. 12), is directly treated ; but doctrine is, generally speaking, implied or referred to rather than enforced. Yet, none the less, the doctrinal importance and instructiveness of the letter can hardly be overrated. In its alternations of light and shadow it vividly reproduces the life of a typical Gentile- Christian community, seething with the interaction of the new life and the inherited character, with the beginnings of that age- long warfare of man’s higher and lower self which forms the under-current of Christian history in all ages. The Apostle recalls to first principles every matter which engages his attention; at every point his convictions, as one who had learned from Christ Himself, are brought to bear upon the question before him, though it may be one of minor detail. At the least touch the latent forces of fundamental Faith break out into action. First of all, we must take note of the Afostle’s relation to Christ. He is ‘a called Apostle of Jesus Christ’ (i. 1), 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. 1), 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. 1, 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 zapéAaPBov azo Tod Kvpéov 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 (a0) of the mapadoots. 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. 1-10), 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. 163; 1 Cor. ii. 2).* But the appeal of ch. vii. 10, 25 is a warning that the inference from silence is precarious here. The /ve-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 im the Unity of the Godhead),—was the view of Baur, followed in sub- stance by Pfleiderer (Pau/dinism, Eng. tr. i. 139 sqq.), Schmiedel, in loc.. and many others. It is bound up with the old Tubingen theory which restricts the Pauline omologumena to 1 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 1 Cor. xv., it becomes impossible to do justice to the whole thought of St Paul by the conception of an av@pw7ros é€ otpavod (xv. 47), pre- existent 7” the Divine Idea only. The fundamental position of Christ ‘and that crucified’ (ii, 2; cf. ili. 10, 11) in the Apostle’s preaching is only intelligible in connexion with His cosmic function as Mediator (viii. 6, 50 ot ra ~=dvra) which again stands closely related with the thought expanded in Col. i. 15f. Ina 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, 7he Conversion of St Paul, pp. 55-57; by Cohu, St Paul in the Light of Modern Research, pp. 110-116; by Jiilicher, Paulus u. Jesus, pp. 54-56. + See also what is implied in ‘the rock was Christ’; note on x. 4: and Swete, Zhe Ascended Christ, pp. 61, III, 157- { That there is no such essential difference between the teaching of Christ and the teaching of St Paul as Wrede (Pau/us, 1905) has contended, is urged by Kolbing (Dre gezstige Einwirkung der Person Jesu auf Paulus, 1906) and A. Meyer (Wer hat das Christentum begrtindet, Jesus oder Paulus, 1907), no less than by more conservative scholars. See A. E, Garvie, Zhe Christian Certainty, pp. 399 f. 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. 1-11). 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 (rues) 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), and 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 XXXVIl Mediatorial Kingdom. This is in harmony with the earlier teaching of the Apostle in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and there is nothing in any of his Epistles out of harmony with it. But the thought of the eav/y Return of Christ (v. 51) is already less pro- minent. The ‘time is short’ (vil. 29), but instead of ‘we that are alive,’ it is now ‘we shall not all sleep.’ This i borne out by 2 Cor. v. 3, where the possibility that the great change will find us in the body (0d yupvo/) is still contemplated, but only as a possi- bility. The remainder (vv. 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 (@@aprév) or animal (Wvxexov) body with the risen or spiritual body. The former is értyeov, xoixov, and ‘cannot inherit the kingdom of God.’ It will be the same individual body (jas, 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; 1 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 ‘last 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 kexouwnpévor (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 XXXViil 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’ (vili. 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 (7 d€ dvvayus tis dpaptias 6 vozos) may be compared with that in ix. 20, 21, where he explains that the Christian, though not t7d vépor, is not dvopos @eov but evvoyos Xpiorod (for which see Rom. viii. 2). It may be noted that a passage in this Epistle (iv. 7, 7/52 €xeus 6 odK édaBes) turned the entire course of Augustine’s thought upon the efficacy of Divine grace, with momentous consequences to the Church (Aug. de div. guaest. ad Simplic.i.; cf. Retract. U1. 1. 1 ; de don. Persev. 52). i 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. 1, 25, 40, GéXw, vouifw St Kaddy, etc.), as representing the Apostle’s own mind, but coupled with solemn and lofty insistence (oi« éya dAAG 6 Képios) on the obligations of married life. His ‘ascetic’ counsels rest on the simple ground of the higher expediency. This latter principle (ro ovpdopov) 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), z.e. of the benefit the Gospel declares, namely, * See A. B. D. Alexander, The Ethics of St Paul, esp. pp. 115-125, 231, 237-256, 293-297 ; Stalker, Zhe Ethic of Jesus, pp. 175, 351. INTRODUCTION XXX1X 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. ili. 23, vili. 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 eidwAc@ura ;—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 ‘law’ (Rom. vi. 14). But many Chris- tians are under law (iil. 1 sqq.) rather than under grace: they need stern warning against sin, and of such warnings the Epistle is full (vi. 9, 10, viil. 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 instructive is 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 Weizsadcker, Apost. Zettalter, pp. 575-605). We note especially the development of discipline, of organization, and of worship. As to Discipline, the classical passage is v. 1 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. xl. 30; Acts v. 1 sqq.) is assumed to be terrible (6A¢Opos), 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. 1, 2, 5, v. 12), without recourse to heathen magistrates (ad:xor, vi. 1); for St Paul, who regards submission to the magistrate in regard to the criminal law as a duty (Rom. xili, 1 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. 1. Moreover, if we compare the list in 1 Cor. xii. 28 sqq. with those of Rom. xii. 6-8 and of Eph. iv. 11, the coincidence is too close to be accidental. The following table gives the three lists in synoptic form :— I. azoaroXot (Cor., Eph.). 2. mpopyrat (Cor., Eph. ; zpopyreia, Rom.). [evayyeAurrat (Eph.) rouzeves (Eph.). divaxovia (Rom.). | 3. O8doKaXor (1 Cor., Eph.) ; ddacxcwv (Rom.). Then follow mapaxadoav (Rom.), duvapes, iqapata (Eph.), avrAjpwes (1 Cor.) peradioovs (Rom.); KxuBepynoes (1 Cor.), mpovrrapevos (Rom.), eAcov (Rom.), yer) yAwooav (1 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 ismade. 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, ave 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. 1) 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. 1; 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. 1 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 (kvBepyjcets, cf. mporrrapevos 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. 1 Thess. v. 12), but on the ground of their voluntary devotion to the diaxovia (éragav éavrors). 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 zaidaywyo/, 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. 1). 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 ék«xAnota (xi. 18), 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 éxxAnoiar out- siders (id.@ra1, probably unbaptized persons, corresponding to the ‘ devout Greeks’ at a synagogue) might be present (xiv. 16, 23), or even heathens pure and simple (amorov); yet this would be not at the xvpiakor detzvov, but at a more mixed assembly (ody, xiv. 23). That the assemblies «is rd dayely (xi. 33) were distinct and periodical was apparently the case in Pliny’s time (see Weizsacker, Afost. Zeitalter, 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 (xli. 1 sq.) rather than the sfafus of the speaker. Prayer and xlii INTRODUCTION praise, é€v yAdooy (see Hastings, DZ. 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 éxxAyoia (see above). The purpose of this assembly was to break the bread, and drink the cup, of the Lord. In xi. 17-34 we have the /ocus 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, Afo/. i. § 56 ; the difference consisting in the previous consecration of the elements, in Justin’s account, by the zpoeords, and reception by the communicants at his hands. At Corinth, on the other hand, (vv. 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 toiro oveire, ‘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 gess#t Faciendum hoc expressit is an accurate expression of the characteristic which from the first differentiated the Common Meal into the Christian edxapioria. The words ‘do this’ were certainly part of the ‘tradition’ handed on by St Paul at Corinth (see below); and had it been “ft 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 Zord’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, Zhe Apologies of Justin Martyr, 1911, pp. Xxxix= xliv, 98-101. INTRODUCTION xliii (Beet, zx Zoc.). 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 Dict. 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, dut 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 (Dict. of Chr. Antig. 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 (€xaoros yap tporAap ave, v. 21), and his remedy (exdéxeoGe, v. 33), relate to the supper which was over before (era 7o darvjoa, 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 zpoeorus in Justin’s time) we do not know, but it may be taken as certain that some one did so. Inv. 34, Ei Tis Tee k.T.X., 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 in Did. x. 1, pera 10 éurdAno- Ojvat); 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 (Dict. of Chr. Antiq. art. ‘ Agape’) it survived fora 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 1 Cor. we have a description of the Agape alone, without the Eucharist (Zucharistze und Agape im Urchris- tentum, 1909). But see Cohu, S¢ Paul, pp. 303 f. xliv INTRODUCTION Last Supper the two first Gospels stand by themselves ove 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, 76 iép tpav ... exyuvopevor) is (if with WH. we adopt the Western Text) an importation from 1 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 (azo) authority for the Rite. It has been argued, on the assumptior that St Paul claims direct revelation to himself as the authority for the Christian Eucharist, that this claim is the sole source ot 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, Zhe Origin of the Lords Supper, 1903). 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, Axtike 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. Adendmahl 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 (kowwvia) 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 (dévayvyo.s) of the Lord, and is a proclaiming (xatayyeAAew) 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, érv@y) 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 eidwAdGvra) 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 theiz 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 (Hom. 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, xil. 13; cf. vi. 11), but the doctrinal reference in each case is indirect. The dzeAovcace of vi. 11 (‘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. 11 at least includes baptism ; comparing then the év ro mvevpart there with xil. 13, €v €v mvevpari, 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. 11, ka6&s BovAerac ; while in ch. ii. 11, 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, Zhe 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. 18, 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 oyicpara 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. 11 of the fundamental assertions which go before. Then, after the sombre earnestness of vv. 12-20, the Resurrection and its sequel are enforced ina 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 xlvili 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 dpa oty 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 thai for which I give thanks ?’—meaning, ‘ Why give thanks for what involves me in blame ?’—just as in Rom. vii. 16, where he means that ‘if Z hate what I do, I (by hating it) assent to the law,’ he similarly inverts the ideas, saying, ‘If Z do what J 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 (da trois dyyéAovs). 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. Heis 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. ro 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 fer 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 Z%azs 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, Zutrod. to V.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 phz/o- sophical terms. None of the following are found in the Epistles to the Thessalonians: yvoo.s, copia, otveots, cvveidyots, oxnpa, all of which are found in r 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 Hes than 1 Corinthians : aicOnows, didvova, @evrys, poppy, dpecis. Perhaps dxpacia and iduirys ought to be added to the first group, and dxparijs 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, PQs Vil; 315033, 35): Vl. 4, 1X. 25, Xl. 14, xiil4)): 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 ts a list of words peculiar to 1 Corinthians in N.T.F dyap.0s, Vila 5); EX," 32, 343 * dyevys, i. 28; * adazavos, ix. 18 ; * ddjAws, ix. 26; aiviypa, Xlil. 12; dkataxddvmros, xi. 5, 133 dkwv, ix. 173 * dperaxivytos, xv. 58; dvagis, vi. 2; dvatiws, + An asterisk indicates that the word is not found in the LXX. ad l INTRODUCTION xi. 273 dvOpiloua xvi. 135 dvtiAnpyis, xil. 28; * dreevOepos, Vil. 223 * drepirmdotws, Vil. 353, dr ddeukts, ll. 43 Gpyxerextov, til TO} dorarew, iv; 325 do xnpovew, vil. 36, Xill. 53 aoxnpwr, Xl. 233 Gropos, xv. 52; adds, xiv. 73 ; * Axaids, XVi. 17 dipuxos, XIV. qs Bpoxos, Vii. 35> yewpytor, ili. 9; 3 Be a Nant TV; |e ; Satneots, Xil. 4, 55 6; a= Seaway evTis, XIV. ; duozrep, Viil. 13; x P45 * dovdaywyew, i ix. 27; dpdocopat, ili. ee Svrgn peer lV. 13; éykpatevouat, Vil. 9, 1X. 253 eldwAtov, Vili. 10; exvydw, XV. 343 ee xv. 8; * évépynpa, xii. 6, 10; * Extath, 1X. 12 5 evTpo7n, Bs) RV. 34.5 “eaipw, Vv. 133 coptalo, v. 8; exifavarcos, IV. 9; hai: x. 6; erurmdopat, Vil. 18; Eppyvia, il.) vO," Rive BOs 2* éppqverrys, xiv. 28; érepoyAwogos, xiv. 213; * edadpedpos, Vi. i. 35.3 vonpos, XIV. 9; edo xnpoovvy, Mil. 235 Ades, XV. 333 7XEW,; xl. 15 * Onpiopaxew, XV. 323 tapa, xil. 9, 28, 30; * tepoOuros, x oe kaha, iii, 12% katadvmropat, Xi; 46, 73 KATATTPUVVYpAL, Bais KaTaxpaopar, Vil; Gi, AXA TS.s ?* knusu, 1x..9)5 * kopdw, Xi. 14, 153 Kopy, Xi. 15; mugeiee, xii. 285 xvpBadov, ri 1; * Noyta, xvi. I, 2; Aoidopos, V. II, Vi. 103 Soke Vil. 273 * pak- edAov, X. 253 peOvoos, Vv. II, Vi. 10; jbrasjes Vl. 33 pwpila, 1. 18, 21, 23, ll. 14, lil. 19; vy, xv. 313 * vnmalu, xiv. 20; * dAoOpeuris, x. tos optria, XV. 335 * ooppyots, Xil. 17; mailw, X. 7; Tapa- pvoia, xiv. 3; mapedpevery (ix. 13); wdipodos, Evi. 7 ; 5 * miBos, il. 43 mepixdbappa, Ive 03 5 Teptynpa, iv. 133 * mepmepevopat, poh) a TTNVA, XV. 39; * ruKrevo, bea 3 puri), XV. 523 ovpopor, Vil. 35, x 33,5 Tippwvos, Vil. he cwyvapyn, Vil. 6; * cuvlyntyntys, i. 20; ouvpeptCopar, I 1k, he's Thy [LA XV. 235 Eades xX, IT 5 * brépakpos, vil. 30; prdoverxos, xl. 16; Ppyy, xiv. 20 3 xolkds, xvi. 47, 48, 49 ; * ypynorevopat, xiii. 4; *ineceenes 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. 700s, é6uiALa, Spac- cvopat, eEaipw. 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 1 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 1 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, + 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. Words peculiar to 1 Corinthians in the Pauline Epistles. ayvocia, a 345 dyopate, vi. 20, Vil. 23, 303 adn Aos, xiv. 8; aks Wayso s dxpacta, Vii. a iaddlo, Xiti. Es d[LEplyLvos, Vil. = dpmeov, ix: 7 dvax piven, ten times ; dvapvyots, xe 24, 25; em XVI. 33 ; dpyvpiov, ill, 12; 3 dporprdw, i LOl dpras, Velo: IT, Vi. Io ; Appwaros, xi: oo? come XV. 41; drips, IV. IO, xii. a3: pavennias XIV. 73 aUpwov, XV. 32; ‘yapuilor, Vil. 38 ; Ceara xi. 253 deimvov, xi, 20, 21; diaipéw, xii. 12; Bean ds, is ne dreppenvevor, mii. 39, XIV. 5, 13, 235 dudexa, xy. 55 eau, xX. 135 cidwAOGuTos, Vill. I, 4, 7, 10, X. 19 ; eikoot, x. 8; exBaors, me 135 exeipaco, x2 Q) edecwds, XV LOG EVVO}LOS, ik Da VOXOS, Seize éfeoriv, Vi. 12, Xii. 43 ecovrtalw, Viera) will, As éravu, XVe LOS State vile 35; errikerpa, ix: 26" écorTpor, Riles ze: oe 1 265 nee XVi, 12} EDO AMMO, Vii. 355 Xil. 24; Oarrw, xv. 4; Géarpor, i - 93 Go, Vv. 7, X 20; Lepov, IX. 135 ixvs, xv. 39; are Xill. es KATAKALo, iil. 15; KOTAKELLAL, Vill. 10; KaTapevo, xvi. 6; xiGapa, xiv. 7; xibapilu, XIV. 7 Kuvdvvever, XV. 30; KAdw, Ty xt, 24} KOKKOS, XV. 373 Kopevvupat, iY. 8; KTTVOS, KV! 26;5 KUPLAKOS, Xl. 20; paivopat, XiV. 23; padaxos, Vi. 9; payvbor, RzOr potxos, Vl. 93 poAdtvw, Vill. 7; Sr guke LV WIG, SRV OR wikos. XV. 54, 55, 573 Evpdopar, xi 55540: oAws, Way CHA Fe XV ae. doakis, XL. 25, 26; oval, 1x. 16; ovderore, xill. 8 ; Soden, Vas 2. Tapaye, Vil. Bye mapogvvopat, Xl. 53 TAXA, Vv. 7; TEVTAKOTLOL, xv. 6; wevtnKoaTy, Xvi. 8 ; 3 TeptBoAavov, > a Wy mepuriOnpr, Xil. (233 mAeiaros, SiVi 27 3 3 TVEVPATLKOS, ii, 13, EA; Towpatver, ix: Toipvn, ix. 73 70Aepos, xiv. 8; mopa, X. 4; Topvevin, vi. 18, x. 8; mopvn, Vi. 15, 163 zornptov, eight times ; TpOTKUV EW, XIV. 25)5 Daan cla, eleven times ; mwrew, X. 25; aapeon iv, 215 carrito, xy. 527 oeAnvn, XV. 41; oradtov, ix.) 2405 cup Batver, X. IL; ovvayw, Vv. 4; guveidoy, | IV. 43 ovvépxopat, seven a ; cvveros, i TQ ; ovv7deua, Wi 7,51: 16-5 oworerhu, Vil. 29; * oxiopa, TO, xi iO, Ail. 25: oxoAalw, Vil. 5; } THpHOLWS, Vil. IQ 3 Tiptos, ill. 12; Toivuv, 1X. 26; trnperys, iv. ee * trwmalo, ix. 27; hurevw, iii. 6, 7, 8, ix. 7; XaAxos, Xlli. I xopros, ili, 12; Veubondeme XV. 153 Yuxikds, ll. 14, XV. 44, ey Yopilo, xii. 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 1 Thessalonians: Begniigt man sich nicht mit mechanischem Zihlen, alphabetischem Aufreihen und dem fast werthlosen Achten auf die timaké Neyopeva. lil INTRODUCTION else in N.T. These are, aparain, XV. 53, 543 ddodw, i 1X. 9, 10 (in a quotation) ; éxxafaipw, v. 7; * cvvBacrevu, iv. 8; trepoxy, il, 1. 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 1 Corinthians in N.T. 9 copia Tov KOTjLOV, 1. 20, lil. 18. ol dpxovtes TOV ai@vos TovTou, li. 6, 8. T™po TOV aidver, il. 7. TO TVEvpLA TOU KOo[LOV, ll. 12. @cod cvvepyoi, iil. 9. Touro b¢ pup, Vil. 29, XV. 503 ef. ‘Ss 15,<56: Inootv TOV KUptov npov édpaxa, ix. 1; cf. John xx. 25. TO ToTHpLov THS EvAoyias, xX. 16. motnpiov Kupiov, x. 21. Kupiakov Seimvov, Xi. 20. cis THY epnv avapvynou, Xi. 24, 25: ? Luke xxii. 19. TO ToTHpLov TOU KUpLoV, Xi. 27. ei TUXOL, XIV. 10, XV. 37; Cf. Tuxdv, xvi. 6. 70 1A€loToV, XIV. 27. ev atop, ev pity dpOadpod, xv. 52. Mapav aa, 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, Jntroduction to the O.T. in Greek, pp. 381-405. The number of quotations in 1 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 1 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 lili 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 xadds yéypamrar) 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 1 Corinthians are direct.* They are— 1 LO sayy XXIX,, 14 Xo 7 — Hxod. xxxily 6 ire seri. 24: x. 26 = Ps, xxiv. I (1 Sam. ii. 10) ii. 9 = Isa. lxiv. 4 (?) SVey 2 SAV Mt) —slsa. Xi ehs V2 7 — See VALS ii.) 19)— JOb)Vv. 13 XV S29 sa Xx tS 120s XClva Dd Sve 5 Genuellye7 vi. 16 = Gen. ii. 24 XV. 54 = Isa. xxv.S Ix.O)—e Deut axxve 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 ili, 20=Ps. xciv. 11, where he substitutes copay for avOpo7wv, Or in i. 19=Isa. xxix. 14, where he substitutes abernow for kpvw (cf. Ps. xxxill. 10). The quotations which are in agreement with the LXX are these— vi. 16 = Gen. ii. 24 Xx. 2h = Maly 7n12 ix. 9 = Deut. xxv. 4 Xe) 200 E Seem Te LOC XXXII O 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 :— PetOp— isa, xxix. 14 xX. 22) =) Deut xxx 21 iy Si == OG ws ap x17 Geneve yr Meetor— sae xle 13 xi, 25 = Exod. xxiv. 8; Zech. ix. UL ills) 20) — E's, XCiV., Tt xili, § = Zech, viii. 17 v. 7 = Exod. xii. 21 Xv. 25 = Ps, cx. 1 v. 13 = Deut. xvii. 7, xxl. 21, XV, 27) —sPSevieO xxii. 24 x 5 — Num: xiv. 16 xv. 47 = Gen. il. 7 x0) — NUM. x15. 345 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— li, 9 = Isa. Ixiv. 4, Ixv. 17; and xiv. 21 = Isa. xxviii. 11. 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. e207 — Gay KIX.) City XXX, TO mv. 2h — Isa, Xlv, 4. LO — J OD v.03 xv. 54 = Isa. xxv. 8 In xv. 57, 73 d€ Ged xapis 7H SiddvTe Hiv 7d vixos resembles 2 Mace. x. 38, evAdyouv TH Kupiw 76 76 vixos abrots didovr, 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 Zextus 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, xil. 2 6re, where zoré, not preserved in any document, was very likely written by St. Paul (see note 7 /oc.). 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. (1) 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 x ABCODG, 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 lvi 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 § or B. Readings confined to DEFG, the Old Latin, or patristic quotations (apart from Alexandria), are probably ‘Western.’ The dis- tinctively Alexandrian readings will be attested by 8 AC P, some cursives, Alexandrian Fathers, and Egyptian Versions. But these authorities do not zpso 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. &, 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 lvii AUTHORITIES FOR THIS EPISTLE. The First Epistle to the Corinthians is preserved in the following main documents :— yA QW P} Fa a =o Greek Uncial MSS. (Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T. (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the British Museum. (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS. (Fifth century.) The Codex Ephraem, a Palimpsest ; now at Paris. Lacks vii. 18 év dxpoBvorig—-ix. 6 Tod py epyaleoOar: xiii. 8 ravoovtat—xv. 40 GdAG €repa. (Sixth century.) Codex Claromontanus ; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. xiv. 13 616 6 AaAGy—22 onpetov éoriv 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). (Ninth century.) At St Petersburg. A copy of D, and unimportant. (Late ninth century.) Codex Augiensis (from Rey now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G; any case, secondary to G, from which it very ely varies (see Gregory, p. 429). (Seventh century.) Coisl. i.; at Paris. A MS. of Gen.- Kings, containing N.T. passages added by the scribes as marginal notes, including 1 Cor. vii. 39, xi. 29. (Late ninth century.) ‘The Codex Bornerianus ; at Dresden. Interlined with the Latin (in minuscules), Lacks 1 Cor. ili. 8-16, vi. 7-14 (as F). (Sixth century.) Coisl. 202. At Paris (the part containing X. 22-29, xi. 9-16). An important witness, but unhappily seldom available. The MS. is scattered in seven different libraries, having been employed for bindings. (Fifth century.) Codex Muralti vi. At St Petersburg. Contains xv. 53 Tovro—-xvi. 9 avéw. (Ninth century.) Codex S. Synod. xevili. Lacks i. 1-vi. 13 tavTnv Kai: Vill. 7 Teves de—vill. 11 dwéBaver. (Ninth century.) Codex Angelicus. At Rome. (Ninth century.) Harl. 5913*; at the British Museum. Contains xv. 52 cadmice to the end of xvi. The MS. also contains fragments of 2 Corinthians and (in some leaves now at Hamburg) of Hebrews. lviii INTRODUCTION P (Ninth century.) Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. Lacks vil. 15 tpas 6 @eds—17 wepiraret: Xii. 23 Tov owpatos—xill. 5 ov Aoyi—: xiv. 23 7) arurTo—3g TO AadAEiV pay. A good type of text in St Paul’s Epistles. ® (Fifth century.) [Papyrus] Porfirianus Chiovensis. Contains i. 17 oyov wa py-ovvlyntyt (20); vi. 13 Te 0 Ocos—15 par [a vpwy peAdy |X| piorolv, vi. 16-18 (fragmentary), vii. 3-14 (fragmentary). The only papyrus uncial MS. of the N.T. Ww (Eighth or ninth century.) Codex Athous Laurae, 172 (or B 52). S (Same date.) Codex Athous Laurae. Contains i. 1-v. 8, xiii. 8 etre 5€ zpop—xvi. 24. 3 (Fifth century.) Vatic. Gr. 2061. Contains iv. 4-vi. 16, Xll. 23—-XiV. 21, XV. 3—xvi. r. A palimpsest, from Rossano, perhaps originally from Constantinople. Its readings are not yet available. It will be seen that 8 ABL¥® contain the whole Epistle, CDFGKP nearly the whole, while F*HI?MQSaQ contain but small portions. The oldest MSS. are s B of the fourth century, AC I?Q dof the fifth, and D H of the sixth. Marks of punctua- tion are very few in 8A BC D H;; they are more frequent in G. (On the punctuation see Scrivener (ed. 4), vol. 1. p. 48; Gregory, vol. ili. 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., Zztrod. S§ 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 Op Latin of this Epistle is transmitted in the Graeco- Latin uncials D E FG, the Latin of which is cited as defg. d has a text independent of D, but in places adapted to it; € approximates more to the Vulgate; g is a Vulgate text except in Romans and 1 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 some 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- tanum. 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. Ixvisq. As to the Syriac, it should be noted that the later (or Harclean) Syriac has some more ancient readings (Westcott and Hort, Zztrod. 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 (¢.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 pvima facie less certain. + Such a group is 8B. 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. + The readings discussed below are treated independently of the notes on che several passages ; in a few cases the view taken differs from that expressed in the notes, Ix INTRODUCTION distinct originals. The text of & 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 & 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 (1) vi. 20, where C2? D* K LP, Syrr., Chrys. add the words which follow tuév, we have a typical ‘Syrian’ reading, and the shorter text is supported by & B in common with the vast preponderance of MSS. and versions. A similar example is (2) the inversion of @eds and Kvpsos, in vii. 17, in K L, the later Syriac, and later Greek Fathers. This was probably due to the desire to place eds first in order, over- looking the decisive fact that xéxAnxey calls for Oeds rather than 6 Kvpuos (v. 15 and elsewhere). In (3) iii. 4 wapxuxol, (4) vill. 2 eidévar for éyvwxévar, éyvwxe for éyvw, the case is the same,—s 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 & B has some early currency, mainly ‘Western’ in character. Such cases are (5) ili, 1 capxivos, §X ABC D* 17, 67**, Clem. Orig., where D°GLP, Clem. Orig. (in other places) read capxixots. 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 gapkixot against D* and G, which have capxivo. 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) vili. 7 where we have® ABP 17, 67**, and the Egyptian and Aethiopic Versions supporting ovv7- Geta against the ‘Western and Syrian’ ovvedyoe. The same holds good of (8) xii. 2 dre (see note there). Another passage where P joins x B (and 17) against a Western reading (adopted INTRODUCTION Ixi in the Syrian text) is (9) ix. 2 pov rys, where DGKL (and Latin MSS., afostolatus met) have rys éuns (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 éoriv ro Aourdv, 8 AB D*>P 17 Copt. Syr. Arm., Eus. (in one place) Ephr. Bas. Euthal. (D omits 70.) 76 Aourov éotiv, DS K L, Eus. (another place) Chrys. éotiv Aourov éativ, G 67**, def gm 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 & B. ‘This, however, is not always the case. In (11) xvi. 23 the omission of Xpicrov, 8 B 17, f, some MSS. of Vulg. Goth., Thdt., is probably right, though x* A’C D GKLMP, 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 x* AC LP, 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 & B. We will next consider some few possible examples of ‘ Alex- andrian’ editing. (12) iv. 6 (add after yéyparrat) ppovetv, 8 C D°L P Syrr. Copt. Arm. Goth., Greek Fathers, Euthal. om. XABD*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 knpwoes, B* D* G, Chrys. Thdt. gywoes, & A BC D? 47 3 K LP al. omn.,, Orig Chrys. Euthal. Ixii INTRODUCTION This is the first example we have taken of B differing from X&, and prima facie 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 ¢ipwoes 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. 51 mavres pev, 8 AC? DG K LP, fg Vulg. Copt. Syr.?* Ephr. (?) Greek Fathers, Euthal. (om. pev) B C* D*, de Arm. Aeth. Syr.’" Greek MSS. known to Jerome. The perv, if (as probable) not genuine, illustrates once more the significance of the combination 8 ALP, 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 Xpworov, DGKL, Vulg. Syr.PretPostt Copt., Marcion Iren. Chrys., etc. Kvpwov, § B C P 17, etc., Syr.P* ™= Copt.~4 Arm. Aeth., Dam., etc. @eov, A, Euthal. There is no question but that Xpuorov is of inferior and Western attestation. @edv looks like, and may possibly be, an Alexandrian correction (assimilation to Ps. Ixxvii. 18, LXX). (16) ix. 15 ovdets, 8* B D* 17, de Sah. Basm., and early Latin Fathers. ovbeis py, A. tis, G. 26. iva tus, NC D>°K LP, f Vulg., many Greek and Latin Fathers. (All MSS. except K read xevéoe here, the later cursives only reading xeviéon with most late Greek Fathers.) The reading tva tus, 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. (17) xi. 24 KAwpevov, NC? D?© GK L P, de g Syr., Euthal. Greek Fathers (@purop. D*). om. 8* A BC 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 aérpos). 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. 1 = puorypiov, S* A C Copt. (Boh.), Amb. Aug. Ambrst., Cle: papripiov, 8° B D GL 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 pvort., B may here betray Western admixture. The reading is one of the least certain in this Epistle. (19) xi. 19 (post ta) kai, B D 37 71, de Vulg. Sah., Ambrst. (om. cat) SAC D°°GK LP f g, 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 riots) indv, SA D?°GK LP, defg Vulg. verss. pov, 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 dyvoeirw, supported by the correctors of 8 A D, and by K L, Syr. Arm. Aeth., Orig. against &* A* 1)* 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 mévres in SC G17. 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 €6vy, 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 GyAot) 7 ayary, RACDGKL, degm Syr., Orig. Cyr. Cypr. om. B 17, etc., f Vulg. Copt. Arm. By no tneans improbable. (24) vili. 8 weprroevoueba, B, Orig. (all the rest—opev). 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 7d py éavtas B, Clem.?***. The rest, including Clem.*°", have ra é€avrjs. The latter is probably right, but the reference in Clemfaed. shows that the variant is of high antiquity. (26) xv. 49 hopécopnev, B 46, Arm. Aeth., Thdt. and a few Fathers. The weight of evidence, and transcriptional probability, is here wholly on the side of & and all other MSS. against B. The above examples (13, 14, 18-26) show that where & 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 8 B in disputed Readings. We will lastly take some passages where 8 and B are again at one, and probably right, though they are less clear than those mentioned at the outset. (27) Xlll. 3 Kavyjowpat, SAB 17, Boh., Ephr. Hieron. (and Greek MSS. known to him). kavOjnowpna, CK, defgm Vulg. verss., Orig. Ephr. Meth. Chrys., etc. kavOyocopna, D GL, Bas. Euthal. Cyr. Max. The latter reading is Western in its attestation, while xcavy. has the important indirect (but quite clear) support of Clem.- Rom. 55, a witness of exceptional antiquity. Transcriptional probability is, moreover, on the side of xavynowpa. (28) vil. 34 (before peneporar) kar, SA BD* P 17, 67, f Vulg. Syr.?°* Copt., Euthal and Early Fathers. om. D°GKL, degm, Chrys. Thdt. Dam. Amb, Ambrst. Hieron. INTRODUCTION Ixv There can be no doubt that this omission is ‘ Western’ and ‘Syrian.’ (29) vil. 34 (after peep.) kat, SA BD* GK LP, deg 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 yuv7)) 7) dyapos, 8 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) vil. 34 (after wapOévos) 7 adyapos, SADGKL, defg fuld. Syr. Arm. Aeth., Bas. Latin Fathers. om. BP, several mss. Vulg. Copt. Basm., Eus. Hieron. (with reasons). Reviewing as a whole the evidence (28-31) bearing upon this verse, the xa both before and after peuepusrat must be admitted as thoroughly attested. The omission of 77 d@yapos after 9 yuvy is inferior in attestation to its presence (additionally attested by 8 A) in both places. This latter reading, again, is clearly not original, but conflate; its support by s& A, Euthal. may point to an Alexandrian origin. Jerome, on the evidence before him, believed the reading 7 y. 7) ay. kai 7 map6. to be what St Paul actually wrote—afostolica veritas. Moreover, the apparent diffi- culty of this reading explains the early transference of 7 dyapos from after yuv7 to follow zapOévos. [The ‘unmarried woman’ is generic, including widows; the virgin (under control) is the special case whose treatment is in question.] Mepepuorar, 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 x B are agreed, are the cai in both places and the genuineness of 7 ay. after 7 yvv7. Our last example shall be the apy, xvi. 24. (32) xvi. 24 duyv, SACD KLP, de vg" verss., Chrys. Thdt. Dam. om. B M 17, fgr fuld. tol., Euthal. Ambrst. G has yeveOyjrw: yevebijrw (sic). The MSS. support dv conclusively at the end of Galatians, Rom. xvi. 27, and at the end of Jude. Elsewhere, in view of the strong liturgical instinct to add it where possible, the witness of even a few MSS. is enough to displace it. The other leading e Ixvi INTRODUCTION uncials, in varying combinations, add it at the end of most of the Epistles, and some MSS. in every case. It is noteworthy that (except in Galatians, Romans, Jude) B, wherever it is available, is the one constant witness against this interpolation. The one exception to this in the whole N.T. is at the close of St Luke’s Gospel, where the ayyv 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, DZ. i. p. 491, ili. p. 731; Lucy. 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. XCVill.—C1x. Patristic and Scholastic: Greek. *+ 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. *+ Chrysostom (d. 407). The Homilies on 1 and 2 Corin- thians are considered the best examples of his teaching.t They show admirable judgment, but sometimes two or more interpreta- tions are welded together in a rhetorical comment. He generally illuminates what he touches. *+ Theodoret (d. 457). Migne, P.G. Ixxxii. He follows Chrysostom closely, but is sometimes more definite and pointed. *+ Theophylact (d. after 1118). 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. + 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.” Ambrosiaster’s text of the Pauline Epistles is ‘‘ equivalent to a complete fourth century pre-Vulgate Latin codex of these epistles ” (Souter, 4 Study of Ambrosiaster, p. 196). 7 Pelagius. Migne, ?.Z. xxx. Probably written before 410. * Primasius. Migne, ?.Z. lxviii. Bishop of Adrumetum in the sixth century. Bede (d. 735). Mainly a catena from Augustine. * Atto Vercellensis. Migne, P.Z. cxxxiv. Bishop of Vercelli in Piedmont in the tenth century. Depends on his predecessors, but thinks for himself. * Herveius Burgidolensis (d. 1149). Migne, P.Z. 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). 7 Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274). Modern Latin. Faber Stapulensis, Paris, 1512. Cajetan, Venice, 1531. 7 Erasmus, Desiderius (d. 1536). *+ 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. tT Beza, Theodore (d. 1605), Paris, 1594. t t Ixvili INTRODUCTION Cornelius a Lapide, Antwerp, 1614. Roman (Jesuit). * Estius, Douay, 1614. Roman (sober and valuable). + Grotius, Amsterdam, 1644-1646. *+ Bengel, Tubingen, 1742; 3rd ed. London, 1862. Fore- most in Scriptural insight and pithy expression. *t+ Wetstein, Amsterdam, 1751, 1752. Rich in illustration. English. + H. Hammond, London, 1653, ‘The father of English commentators.” ‘ Historical.’ + John Locke, London, 1705-1707. ‘ Historical.’ Edward Burton, Oxford, 1831. T. W. Peile, Rivingtons, 1853. C. Hodge, New York, 1857. Calvinist. + C. Wordsworth, Rivingtons, 4th ed. 1866. * F, W. Robertson, Smith & Elder, 5th ed. 1867. *+ 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 £/licot?s 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. *+ 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 Zxfosttor’s Bible. * J. B. Lightfoot (posthumous), Notes on i.-vii. 1895. Important. * G. G. Findlay in the Exfositors Greek Testament, Hodder, 1900. Thorough grasp of Pauline thought. * J. Massie in the Century Bible, n.d. W. M. Ramsay, Historical Commentary in the Zxfositor, 6th series. New Translations into English. The Twentieth Century New Testament, Part II., Marshall, 1g00. ~~ INTRODUCTION Ixix R. F. Weymouth, Zhe WV.T7: in Modern Speech, Clarke, 2nd ed. 1905. A. S. Way, The Letters of St Paul, Macmillan, 2nd ed. 1906. *W. G Rutherford (posthumous), Zhessalonians and Cor- inthians, Macmillan, 1908. German. Billroth, 1833 ; Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1837. Rickert, Leipzig, 1836. Olshausen, 1840 ; Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1855. J. E. Osiander, Stuttgart, 1849. *+ De Wette, Leipzig, 3rd ed. 1855. G. H. A. Ewald, Gottingen, 1857. Neander, Berlin, 1859. * Heinrici, Das Erste Sendschreiben, etc., 1880. S| er 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 Bzbe/werk, 1861; Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1869. Schnedermann, in Strack and Zockler, 1887. H. Lang, in Schmidt & Holzendorff ; Eng. tr., London, 1883. Thin. * Schiniedel, 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 * Zexthkritth d. paul. Briefe (xiv. 3 of Texte und Unter- suchungen), 18096. * P. Bachmann, in Zahn’s Kommentar, Leipzig, 1910. Also Schafer, 1903; Bousset, 1906; Lietzmann, +1907; Schlatter, 1908. French. E. Reuss, Paris, 1874-80. *+ 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, Zhe 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, Zhe Relation of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, 1900. Ramsay, St Paul the Traveller, 1902; Pauline and other Studies, 1906. Ropes, Zhe Apostolic Age, 1906. Weinel, S¢ Paul, the Man and his Work, Eng. tr. 1906. Pfleiderer, Pau/inism, Eng. tr. 1877. Du Bose, Zhe Gospel according to St Paul, 1907. W. E. Chadwick, Zhe Pastoral Teaching of St Paul, 1907. A. T. Robertson, Zpochs 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, Kvistische Untersuchungen tiber 1 and 2 Kor., 1886. Weizsacker, Afost. Zettalter, 1886. Holtzmann, Linleitung in das N.T., 1892. Jilicher, Zinleitung in das N.T., 1894; Eng. tr. 1904. Krenkel, Beitrdge z. Aufhellung d. Geschichte und a. Briefe d. Afostels Paulus, 1895. Zahn, ELinleitung in das N.T., Eng. tr. 1909. Hastings, DBZ., 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. (11th ed., Dec. 1910), articles, ‘ Apologetics’ (p. 193), ‘Apostle,’ ‘Atonement’ (pp. 875f.), ‘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. Litteratur, 1897, and also in Lietzmann’s excellent Materials for the use of Theological Lecturers and Students, 1905. See also Moffatt, Zntr. to the Lit. of the N.T. (pp. 129 f.). THE, FIRST EPISTLE FO. THE,CORINTHIANS see I. 1-8. THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION. Paul, a divinely chosen Apostle, and Sosthenes our brother, give Christian greeting to the Corinthian Church, ztself also divinely called, 1Paul, an Apostle called by divine summons equally with the Twelve, and Sosthenes whom ye know, *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. °%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! The Salutation is in the usual three parts: the sender (z. 1), the addressees (v. 2), and the greeting (z. 3). 1. kAntés. Elsewhere only Rom.i. 1. As all are called to be dyzot, so Paul is called to be an Apostle: see on v. 2, and note the same parallelism, Rom. i. 1,6. In O.T. the idea of xAjous is often connected with prophets.* Sia OeAjpatos Ocod. 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. 1. 1. Sua ipsius voluntate nunguam 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, Zhe Pastoral Teaching of St Paul, p. 76. I 2 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS fe 1,2 praedicabant (Herveius Burgidolensis), viz., the self-constituted teachers, the false apostles. ZXwo8évys He was not necessarily the amanuensis, for Tertius (Rom. xvi. 22) does not appear in the Salutation. In Gal. i. 1, 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 (1) subsequently become a Christian, (2) migrated from Corinth to Ephesus, 5 adekgos.. A Christian: xvi. 12; 2 Gor, 1. 1; Col 2 5; Philem. 1; Rom. xvi. 23; Heb. xiii. 23. The article implies that he was well known to some Corinthians. Deissmann (47é/e Studies, pp. 37, 142) has shown that ddeAXgoi 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). ADE omit kAnrés._ Xpicrod "Inoot (B DE FG 17, Am.) is to be pre- ferred to ’Inood Xp. (WS AL P, Syrr. Copt. Arm, Aeth.): see note on Rom. i. I. Contrast vv. I, 2, 4 with 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, where Kupios is added. 2. TH exkAnola Tod Oeod. The genitive is possessive: x. 32, x1, 16, 22, xv.'o 3. 2 Cor. 1,-1.3 Gal. 1.13; ete. (Gh, Deatvageae xxiii. 1; etc. As Chrysostom remarks, the expression is at once a protest against party-spirit ; ‘the Church of God,’ not of any one individual. TH ovon. See Acts xiii. 1. Hytacpévois év 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. 11) as members of Christ. The perfect participle indicates a fixed state. KAntots dytos. 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 dy; also Chadwick, Pastoral Teaching, pp. 96, 98. The active xaXeiv is never used of the human instrument, but only of God or Christ. Admonet Cor- inthios majestatis tpsorum (Beng.). aiv mac. This is generally connected simply with 77 éxxAnaia, 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 xAnrois dylows (contrast 2 Cor. i. 1). 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. Tots émxkadoupevors. 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 Lorp God of Israel. To be a believer is to worship Christ. év wavrt témw. Cf. 2 Cor. i. 1b; 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 ody maou «.T.., 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, cai rdoas tats kata wavta Térov THS ayins Kat KaGo- Aiks ekxAnolas waporkiars. Cf. 2 Cor. 11. 14; 1 Thess. i. 8. adtév kal Hpdv. Connected either with tézw or with Kvpiov. The latter (AV., RV.) would be by way of epanor- thosis ; ‘our Lord’—rather ‘theirs avd ours.’ In itself jor 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 tézw (Vulg. #2 omnt loco ipsorum et nostro) 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. BD*EFG place rq otop év KopivOw after Ayidopévos ev Xp. Inood. NAD?LP, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth. place it before. A omits Xporod. &* A* D?ELP, Arm. Aeth. insert re after a’r&v, probably for the sake of smoothness. Such insertions are frequent both in MSS. and versions. 3. xdpis Spiv kat eipyvn. This is St Paul’s usual greeting, the Greek xaipew combined with the Hebrew Shalom, and both with a deepened meaning. In 1 and 2 Tim., and in 2 John 3, éXeos is added after xapis. St James has the laconic and secular xaipew (cf. Acts xv. 23). St Jude has édcos iy kal 4 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 4-9 elpjvn Kat dydrn. In 1 and 2 Pet. we have xdpis tyiv Kat eipyvn, 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? Quae pax 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, eipyvy ipiv mAnbuv- Gein. See J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 221-226. In 2 Mace. i. 1 we have xaipev .. . elpyvnv dyabyv, 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. I thank God continually for your present spiritual con- dition. Christ will strengthen you to the end according to Divine assurance. 4T never cease thanking God, because of the favours which He bestowed upon you through your union with Christ Jesus, 5 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. ® 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; 7so 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. ®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. ®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 v/e//ectual gifts, and preparing the way for candid dealing with their inconsistencies. 4, edxapior@. Sosthenes seems to be at once forgotten ; this important letter is the Apostle’s own, and his alone: contrast evxapiotodmev, I Thess. i. 2; dorep ovv watip él viots edyapirret or ay tyiaivwou, Tov aitov tpdrov Or av Bryn SiddoKados Tors axpoaras wAouTotvtas Adyw codias, evyapiorel mavToTE Tepl aitav (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 evxapioro 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 1 Thess. i. 2): aavrote as in 1 Thess. i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 3. TH xdpite T. ©. 7. S08eion. Special gifts of grace are viewed as incidental to, or presupposing, a state of grace, z.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. id xdpw, Rom. vi. 14). The aorists (do6c/on . . . erAouticOnre . . . €BeBard6y) sum up their history as a Christian community from their baptism to the time of his writing. 7T@ Beg wov(S1 AC DEF GLP, Latt. Syr. Copt. Arm.) ; S* B, Aeth. omit ov. A* and some other authorities omit rod Ocod after xdputt. 5, ote év mavtit. Cf. 2 Cor. viii. 7, domep ev mavtt repiooevere miote kat Noyw Kal yvdoet. The two passages, though doubtless addressed to different situations, bring out strikingly by their common points the stronger side of Corinthian Christianity, Adyos and yvacus, both true gifts of the Spirit (xii. 8), although each has its abuse or caricature (i. 17-iv. 20 and viii. 1 f.).* Adyos 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 teachers work. It was the gift of Apollos (Acts xviii. 24). The Adyos codéas is the gift of the Spirit, while copia Adyou—cultivating expression at the expense of matter (v. 17)—is the gift of the mere rhetorician, courting the applause (vanum et inane codpas!) of the ordinary Greek audience. St Paul, according to his chief opponent at Corinth, was wanting in this gift (2 Cor. x. 10, 6 Adyos eLovfevnpevos): his oratorical power was founded in deep conviction (v. 18, ii. 4, iv. 20). * St Paul does not hesitate to treat yvGots 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 itin 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. mdon yvwoe. See 2 Cor. xi. 6, where St Paul claims for himself eminence in the true yvéous, and also 1 Cor. viii. 1 f. 6. xa0ds. It introduces, not a mere parallel or illustration, but rather an explanation of what precedes: ‘inasmuch as’; z. 7 ; John xiii. 34, xvii. 2. But 1 Thess. i. 5 (quoted by Lightfoot) is less strong. 7) paptupioy tod Xp. ‘The witness borne [by our preaching] to Christ’; genttivus objecti. Cf. xv.15. Origen takes it of the witness borne by the Scriptures to Christ, and also of the witness borne éy Christ, who is the dpy/yaprus through His death. éBeBars6n. Either (1) was established duradly (BeBaioe, 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 Q¢eo0 for rod Xpiorod. 7. dote bpas py botepetobar. With the infin., dere points to a contemplated result ; with the indic., to the result as a fact (2 Cor. v. 16; Gal. ii. 13). What follows, then, is a statement of what was ¢o de 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). botepetoba. ‘ 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 rea/ize his state of want (torepetaGa, Luke xv. 14), while the young questioner appealed to an external standard (ré ér torep®; Matt. xix. 20). xapioparr. Cf. Rom. i. 11, where it is in context with ornpx9jva, as here with BeBaw6jva. Philo uses the word * Deissmann (Aid/e Studies, p. 104 f.) thinks that the meaning of ‘‘a legal guarantee,” which S«Salwors has in papyri, lies at the basis of the expression, tr. 7, 8] THANKSGIVING AND HOPE 7 of divine gifts (De adleg. deg. ili, 24), and in N.T., excepting t Pet. iv. ro, it is peculiar to Paul. It is used by him (1) of God’s gift of salvation through Christ, Rom. v. 15, vi. 23; (2) of any special grace or mercy, vil. 7; 2 Cor. i. 11; 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. daexdexopévous. As in Rom. vii. r9. For the sense ef. Col. iii. 3 f.; 1 Pet. i. 7; 1 John iii. 2, 3; and see Mapayr da, 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 Christiant veri vel falst revelationem Christi vel expectare vel horrere (Beng.). dtroxdduyiv. See Rom. villi. 19; 1 Pet. i. 13. Quite need- lessly, Michelsen suspects the verse of being a gloss. 8. ds kat BeBawwoe. Origen asks, ris BeBacot; and answers, ° Xpiords “Incots. The os refers to rod Kupiov nm. “I. Xp. 3; cer- tainly not, as Beng. and others, to @eds in v. 4. This remote reference is not made probable by the words év rH nmépa tr. K. nu. “I, Xp. instead of simply év 77 7. avrod. 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. 1.5; 2 Tim. i. 18. Cf. Gen. xix. 24, which is sometimes wrongly interpreted as implying a distinction of Persons. The xaé points to correspondence ‘on His part,’ answering to €BeBawGy, érexdexomevors, in vv. 6, 7. BeBadoer. Cf. 2 Cor. 1. 21, and, for the thought, Rom. xvi. 25; 1 Thess. iii. 13, v. 24. If they fail, it will not be His fault. €ws tédous. The sense is intenser than in 2 Cor. i. 13; cf. eis exetvnv tv nepav (2 Tim. 1. 12). Mortis dies est uni- cuique dies adventus Domini (Herv.).+ dveykdyjtous. ‘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. 12f.; Phil. i. 10; 2 Cor. v. 17; Rom. viii. 1). This pro- leptic construction of the accusative is found in 1 Thess. iii. 13, v. 23; Phil. iii. 21. Connect ev 77 yépa with aveyxArjrovs. * ** 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 fws réXous in 2 Cor. i, 13 with the same meaning as here, and in 1 Thess. ii. 16 the more common els ré\os with a different meaning. See Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 2322. 8 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [1.9 év rn nuépa (SN ABCLP, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) rather than év 79 mapovola (D EF G, Ambrst.). B omits Xpiorod. 9. The confident hope expressed in v. 8 rests upon the faith- fulness of God (x. 13 ; 1 Thess. v. 24; Rom. viii. 30; Phil. i. 6) who had been the agent, as well as the source, of their call. With 8v of cf. Heb. ii. 10, and also é€ atrod cai 8 atrod kai eis avrov Ta mavra, Rom. xi. 36. Aud with genitive can be applied either to Christ or to the Father,* but e€ ob 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. eis kotwwviay. This fellowship (Rom. viii. 17; Phil. iv. 10 f.) exists now and extends to eternity: it is affected by and in the Spirit (Rom. viii. 9 f.); hence xowwvia (rod) wvevparos (2 Cor. xiii. 13; Phil. ii. 1). Vocatd estis in societatem non modo apostolorum vel angelorum, sed etiam Filit ejus J. C. Domini nostri (Herv.). The genitive rod viot is objective, and “the xowwvia rod viod airod is co-extensive with the BacvAcla rod Ocod” (Lightfoot). D* F G (not d fg) have b¢’ of instead of 6’ of, 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. 1), 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 (z. 5) have we airds 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 (xicpara). 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. 1° 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. 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. 1*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.” 18 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? 14Seeing 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. So that God has prevented any one from saying that it was to allegiance to me that you were pledged in baptism. 1¢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. 17For 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 (z. 10), then proceeds to describe (11, 12) and to show the impropriety of (13-17) their actual dissensions. Quorum prius salutem narra- verat, postmodum vulnera patefectt (Herv.). 10. wapaxah@ 8é. ‘But (in contrast to what I wish to think, and do think, of you) I earnestly beg.’ Iapaxadciy, like mapaitéopat (Acts xxv. 11), 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. éSedpoi. Used in affectionate earnestness, especially when something painful has to be said (vii. 29, x. 1, 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 81a tod dvépatos. We should have expected the accusative, ‘for the sake of the Name.’ The genitive makes the Name the instrument of the appeal (Rom. xii. 1, xv. 30; 2 Cor. x. 1): cf. év évouart, 2 Thes. iii. 6. It is not an adjuration, but is similar to 8a 7. xvpiov Inood (1 Thess. iv. 2). This appeal to the one Name is an indirect condemnation of the various party- names. iva. This defines the purport rather than the purpose of the command or request, as in Matt. iv. 3, eimé va of AG obrou aprou yevwvrat. 76 adtd A€ynte. The expression is taken from Greek political life, meaning ‘be at peace’ or (as here) ‘ make up differences.’ So Arist. Po/. III. iii. 3, Bowwrot d€ kai Meyapiys 7d abrd A€yovTes yovxacov, and other examples given by Lightfoot ad Joc. Cf. 76 aitd dpovety (Rom. xv. 15; Phil. ii. 2), and see Deissmann, Brdb/e Studies, p. 256. ‘The wdvres 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. pi) y- «= That there may not be,’ as there actually are: he does not say yévyrat. oxiopata. Not ‘schisms,’ but ‘dissensions’ (John vii. 43, ix. 16), ‘clefts,’ ‘splits’; the opposite of 76 airo A€ynre wavtes. katnptiopevor. 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 1 Thess. iii. 10. Cf. 2 Cor. xiii..11; Gal. vi. 1; Heb. xiii. 21: apte et congruenter inter se compingere (Calv.). vot... yvapn. Novs is ‘temper’ or ‘frame of mind,’ which is changed in perdvoia and is &indly in etvora, while youn is ‘judgment’ on this or that point. He is urging them to give up, not erroneous beliefs, but party-spirit. 11. é5nddOn. 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 adeAdoi see on v. I0. ém5 tav XAofs. 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. 1, 14, 15) she was of the freedman class (see Lightfoot, ad /oc.). She is mentioned as a person known to the Corinthians. There is no reason to suppose that she e, 11,12] THE DISSENSIONS 11 was herself a Christian, or that the persons named in xvi. 17 were members of her household. Evidence is wanting. épides. More unseemly than oxiopara, although not neces- sarily so serious. Nevertheless, not cxiopara, unless crystallized into aipéces, but épides, 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; 1 Tim. vi. 4. The divisions became noisy. 12. h€yw 8€ todto. ‘Now I mean this’: but perhaps the force of the é€ is best given by having no conjunction in English; ‘I mean this.’ The rotro refers to what follows, as in vil. 29, xv. 50, whereas in vil. 35 it refers to what precedes, like avry in ix. 3. éxaotos. 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 xvili. 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).* Knoa. Excepting Gal. il. 7, 8, St Paul always speaks of Kyndas, never of Ilerpos. He was unquestionably friendly to St Paul (Gal. ii. 7-9; and wv. 11-14 reveal no difference of doctrine between them). But amo..g 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 isa 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 ; ék Tov orduarés cov. 12 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 12 Robertson, Efochs 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. Xptorod. The ‘Christ’ party may be explained in the light of 2 Cor. x. 7, 10, 11, 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, ze. during His life on earth. Doubtless the situation in 2 Cor. goes beyond that which is presupposed in this Epistle. But éya 6 Xpuorod 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. East, p. 382. We need not, therefore, consider seriously such considera- tions as that éyd 8& Xpuorod was the cry of a// three parties (Rabiger, misinterpreting peneprorar) ; 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 ‘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 ili. 23 St Paul says tpets d¢ Xpiorod most truly and from his heart; that is true of a//: * The conjecture that the original reading was éy® 6¢ Kplovov 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 vv. 13 and 14. I. 12, 13] THE DISSENSIONS 13 what he censures here is its exclusive appropriation by some. To say, with special emphasis, ‘Z am of Christ,’ is virtually to say that Christ is mine and not yours. In Acts xviii. 24 and xix. I, 8, 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. pepéprorat. 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 pepeptatat is ‘has been apportioned,’ ze. 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 xegative answer, gives very little point. Lightfoot suggests that an affirmative answer is implied ; ‘Christ has been and is divided only too truly.’ 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). Sz mem- bra divisa sunt, et totum corpus (Atto Vercellensis). This mean- ing is hardly so good as the other. pi) Maddos éoraupaiOy «.t.A. To say éy® TavAov would imply this. To be a slave is dAAov eivat, another person’s property (Arist. Pol. I.). A Christian belongs to Christ (iii. 23), and he therefore may call himself dotAos “Inood Xpicrod, as St Paul often does (Rom. i. 1, etc.): but he may not be the dodAos of any human leader (vii. 23; cf. ili. 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, xil. 29, 30. eis TO 6vopa. He takes the strongest of the three expressions : the eis (Matt. xxviii. 19; Acts viii. 16, xix. 5) is stronger than érit (Acts ii. 38, v2.) or ev (Acts x. 48). ‘Jnto 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. Von 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 of 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, Azd/e Studies, pp. 146, 196; Light from the Anc. East, p. 123. It is difficult to decide between trép tbuav (RN ACD? EF GLP, fro vobis Vulg.) and zepl tuav (BD*). The former would be more likely to be substituted for the latter, as most usual, than wsce versa. But mepl is quite in place, in view of its sacrificial associations. See note on Rom. vill. 3. 14. edxapioro. A quasi-ironical turn; ‘What difficulties I have unconsciously escaped.’ Kpionov. One of the first converts (Acts xviii. 8).* Ruler of the synagogue. Tatov. 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 frae- 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 evyapicrd, 8? AC DEFGLP, Vulg. add rg Oe, while A 17, Syrr. Copt. Arm. add r@ Geg mwov—a very natural gloss. N* B 67, Chrys. omit. 15. iva py tis etry. 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. 11; 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 wore 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 (e.g. Gaius, Crispus, Fortunatus, Achaicus, xvi. 17; Tertius, Rom. xvi. 22; Quartus, Rom. xvi. 23; Justus, Acts xviii. 7)” (Hcy. 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. I. 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 Det regnat saepe in rebus guarum ratio postea cognoscitur. éBarric@nre (NABC*, Vulg. Copt. Arm.) rather than éBdmrica (CDEFGLP). RV. corrects AV. 16. éBdmroa S€ kai. 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. Erepava. 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 erepo. 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. hourdv. The neut. sing. acc. (of respect) used adverbially ; guod superest (Vulg. caeterum): 16 Xovrdv is slightly stronger. See Lightfoot on Phil. iii, 1 and on 1 Thess. iv. 1. Cf. iv. 2; 2 Cor. xiii. 11. St Paul forestalls possible objection. 17. od yap dméorerhév pe. This verse marks the transition to the discussion of principle which lies at the root of these oxic- pata, viz. the false idea of codia entertained by the Corinthians. The Apostle did not as a rule baptize by his own hand, but by imyperat. Perhaps other Apostles did the same (Acts x. 48). See John iv. 1, 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. 1g; Luke xxiv. 47; [Mark] xvi. 15: and, with special reference to St Pail, ix. 16, 17; Acts 1x. 15, 20, XXil. 1g,2n eave go. “Acres- retXev = ‘sent as His dzéarodos.’ ou év copia Adyou. 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 evayyeNifer@a varies even in RV. ; here, ‘ preach the gospel’; Acts xiii. 32, xiv. 15, ‘bring good tidings’; Acts xv. 35, Gal. i. 16, 23, ‘preach’; 1 Pet. i. 25, ‘ preach good tidings.’ The old explanation, that missionary preaching requires a special giit, whereas baptizing can be performed by any one, is probably right. 16 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. DPévangile n'est pas un sagesse, est une salut (Godet). iva ph Kevw0H. To clothe the Gospel in codia Adyou was to impair its substance: xevody, cf. ix. 15 ; Rom. iv. 14; 2 Cor. ix. 3, and «is xevov, Gal. ii. 2; Phil. ii. 16. In this he glances at the Apollos party. I. 18-IIl. 4. THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE. (i) I. 18-II. 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, tt ts God's power and God's 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. } 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. 2° 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 evilage? Did not God make foolish and futile the profane wisdom of the non-Christian world? 2! 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. %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: but we proclaim a Messiah who has been crucified, to Jews a revolting idea, and to Greeks an absurd one. * But to those who really accept God’s call, both Jews I. 18] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 7 and Greeks, this crucified Messiah is the supreme manifestation of God’s power and God’s wisdom. *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. #6 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 ; *8and 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. * 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. *%!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 Adyos. In contrast, not to Adyos codias (v. 5, ii. 6), but to copia Adyov (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 co¢éa in these two chapters should be compared with the dytov mvedpa in the Book of Wisdom (i. 5, ix. 17), mvedua codias (vii. 7), etc. St Paul had possibly read the book. We have in Wisdom the opposition between the cpa and the zvedya or Yuxy or codia (i. 4, ii. 3, ix. 15). Tod otavpov. “This expression shows clearly the stress 2 18 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. Zp. 18. Tots pev Gmokupevors. ‘ 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. 18). The force of the present tense is ‘axiomatic,’ of that which is certain, whether past, present, or future: amd Tov téAovs Tas Katynyopias tLHels (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. pwpia. See on v. 21 and 2 Cor. iv. 3. tots 8€ owlouévors. It is not quite adequate to render this ‘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. vill, 24), is a fact now (Eph. ii. 5, 8), and characterizes our present state (Acts il. 47); but its inalienable confirmation belongs to the final adoption or dzroAvrpwors (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. 275) Gal) v. 45, Mate oat. aes jpiv. ‘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.’ * Suvapis Geos eotiv. 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 dvvayis (not codia) @cod and pwpia 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. yéyparta ydp. Proof of what is stated in v. 18, te. as regards the failure of worldly cleverness in dealing with the things of God. By yéyparra, used absolutely, St Paul always means * Both Irenaeus (I. iii. 5) and Marcion (Tert. Mare. v. 5) omit the jpiv, and Marcion seems to have read dtvayus xal copia Geo éorly, To omit the juiy is to omit a characteristic touch; and to insert xal copia rather spoils the point. I. 19, 20] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 19 thewOvd.. Scriptures 5.0; 91,/1. 9,1. 19,°x:. 7, xv. 45.3 Romi: & P7j il. 24, 111, 4, ro, etc. amok Thy gopiay. From Isa. xxix. 14 (LXX), substituting adernow for kpvyw, 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 a6er70w comes from Ps. xxxiii. 10. avveow. 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 ovveows and cod¢ia see Arist. Eth. Wic. VI. vii. to. é8ermow. 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. mod copds; 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 rod; see xv. 55; Rom, iii. 27. The question is asked in a triumphant tone.t 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. 8f. + He may have in his mind Isa. xix. 12, rov elow viv oi copol cov; and Isa. xxxiii. 18, rod elow ol ypauparixol; mov elaw ol cupBovdevortes ; No- where else in N.T., outside Gospels and Acts, does ypaupare’s occur. Bachmann shows that there is a parallel between the situation in Isaiah and the situation here ; but tov alwvos rovrov goes beyond the former. 20 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 20, 21 Ellicott, which makes od¢os generic, while ypapparevs is applied to the Tew, and ovvfyryntys 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. ouvintms. A dag Acyopevov, excepting Ign. ZPA. 18, from this passage. ToG aidvos tovrov. This is certainly applicable to Jews (see on ii. 8), but not to them exclusively (Gal. i. 4; Rom, xii. 2). The phrase 1 is rabbinical, denoting the time before the Messianic age or ‘age to come’ (Luke xvili. 30, xx. 35). Z/is aidv, the state of things now present, including the ethical and social conditions which are as yet unchanged by the coming of Christ, is i (vii. 31), and is saturated with low motives and irreligion (ii. 6 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. ii, 2). As aiwv, “by metonymy of the container for the contained,” denotes the things existing in time, in short the world, 6 aiwy otros may be rendered ‘this world’ ; hujus saeculi quod totum est extra sphaeram verbi crucis (Beng.). See Grimm-Thayer s.v. aidv, and the references at the end of the article; also Trench, Syz. §lix. The genitive belongs to all three nouns. obxt épdpavev; Wonne stultam fecit (Vulg.), infatuavit (Tertull. and Beza). Cf. Rom. i. 22, 23, and Isa. xix. 11, 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). tod kéopou. Practically synonymous with tod aidvos tovrou (ii, 12, iii. 18, 19): but we do not find 6 xdécpos 6 méAXAwv, for xéapos is simply the existing universe, and is not always referred to with censure (v. 10; John iii. 16).* After xécuov, 8?C3D'*EFGL, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. add rovrov. 8* A BC* D* P 17, Orig. omit. It is doubtless an insertion from the previous clause. 21. émeid} 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 (yép) what was stated in vv. 19, 20. But this main thought presupposes (ézed)) the self-stultification of the world’s wisdom in the providence of God. év ti sofia tod Ocod. This is taken by Chrysostom and others (e.g. Edwards, Ellicott) as God’s wisdom displayed in His *St Paul uses xécpos nearly fifty times, and most often in 1 and 2 Cor. With him the use of the word in an ethical sense, of what in the main is evil, is not = (ii. 12, iii, 19, v. 10, xi. 32). See Hobhouse, Bampton Lectures, pp: 352f. Zr. 21, 22 THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 2I works (Rom. i. 20; Acts xiv. 17), by which (év quasi-instrumental) the world ought to have attained to a knowledge of Him. But this sense of codia would be harsh and abrupt ; and the order of the words is against this interpretation, as is also the context (€udpavey, evdodxnoev 6 eds). ‘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. oux éyyw. 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 co¢éa 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. ed8dxnoev. Connects directly with yép. The word belongs to late Greek: Rom. xv. 26; Gal. i. 15; Col. i. 19. Std THs pwpias Tod Kynpypatos. Cf. Isa. xxvili.g—13. Kypvypa (Matt. xii. 41) differs from xypvgéis 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. 17); and here it stands practically for ‘the word of the Cross’ (v. 18), or the Gospel, but with a slight emphasis upon the presentation. Kypvooewv, 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. ili. 1, iv. 17). ‘The foolishness of preaching’ is a bold oxymoron (cf. v. 25), presupposing and interpreting v. 18. In N.T., pwpia is peculiar to 1 Cor. (18, 23, ii. 14, ili. 19). tovs muotevovras. 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, ili. 25). He does not say trois muorevocavtas, which might mean that to have once believed was enough. 22. éweidj. This looks forward to v. 23, to which v. 22 isa 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 vv. 18, 21. The repeated xaé 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 doAAvpevor, the xoopos 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 ‘¢he Jews,’ ‘¢he Greeks,’ as in AV.) the terms connote characteristic attributes rather than denote the individuals. There were many exceptions, as the N.T. shows. onpeta aitovow. 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. 18, 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.t See Deissmann, Light from the Anc. East, p. 393. The AV. has ‘ require a sign.’ L, Arm. have cnueiov. Beyond question onueta (NW A BCD, etc.) must be read: ‘ask for signs’ is right. B. Weiss prefers onueiov.t 23. Xpiotév éotavpwpévov. ‘A crucified Messiah’ (ii. 2; Gal. iii. 1). ‘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, ef ra6yros 6 Xpuords. Cf. Gal. ii. 21, v. 11). The Jews demanded a victorious Christ, heralded by oneia, 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, 11). 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. €Oveowy 8€ pwpiav. The heathen, prepared to weigh the ‘fros 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- * Gratos, gui vera reguirunt (Lucr. i. 641). t See also Biblical Essays, pp. 150f., and Edwards ad Joc. t 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. 30-x. 3). Compare Cicero’s horror of crucifixion (Pro Radir. 5), Lucian’s reference to our Saviour (De mort. Peregr. 13) as tov averxodXoritpevov exeivoy coduatiy, and the well-known caricature, found on the Palatine, of a slave bowing down to a crucified figure with an ass’s head, inscribed AXe~apevos Geov oeBerat. A few authorities (C® D*, Clem—Alex.) have "EAXyor instead of €@veouw. Orig. seems to have both readings. 24. adrois corresponds to yyy in v. 18, as tots KAnTots to Tots owlouevors: ‘to the actual believers’ in contrast to other Jews and Gentiles. The pronoun is an appeal to personal experience, as against objections aé ex/ra, Xpiotov. This implies the repetition of eoravpwpeévov. It is in the Cross that God’s power (Rom i. 16) and wisdom (z. 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 frviori 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. g).* 25. 76 p@pov tod Geod. 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. Jnfirmitas Christi magna victoria est (Primasius). Victus vicit mortem, quam nullus gigas evasit (Herv.). Mortem, quam reges, gigantes, et principes superare non poterant, tpse mortendo victt (Atto). Throughout the above passage (17-25) we may note the close sequence of explanatory conjunctions, ydp (18, 19, 21), éretdy (22), dr. (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, 7he 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 or, 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) our 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 azoAAvevor and the owlopevor (18): and that is why (17) my mission is to preach ovk ev copia Aoyov. 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 éeriv in the first clause of v. 25, and also in the second clause. In the second, 8* B 17 omit éoriv, and it is probably an interpolation from the first. 26. Bdéemete ydp. 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 tiv xAnow directly. It is needless subtlety to make r. xX. an accusative of respect, ‘ Behold—with reference to your call—how that not many,’ etc. Tv KAjow duav. ‘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 «Ajots compare kAyroi, 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: wdvrwv avOpwirwv KexAnpevwy ot traxodvoat BovAnbevtes KANTO! dvouacOnoav (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 25 aSedpoi. As in v. 10, the affectionate address softens what might give pain. drt ob oddoi. A substantival clause, in apposition to x«Ajow 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 xX. 5 warns us against interpreting od rodAoé as meaning more than ‘very few.’ kata odpxa. This applies to dvvaroé and edyevets as well as to gopot. Each of the three terms is capable of a higher sense, as evyevets in Acts xvii. 11; each may be taken either (1) 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 ad part therein’; or (3) like (2), but with a different predicate, ‘not many wise weve 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. Afo/. Bee; Orig. Cels.. it. 70, * 27. Ta pwpd. Cf. Matt. xi. 25. The gender lends force to the paradox: tovs codovs leads us to expect tots ixyvupovs, x.7.A., but the contrast of genders is not kept up in the other cases. éfehefato. The verb is the correlative of xAjows (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 oxevos éxAoy7s, of St Peter to admit the first Gentiles (Acts xv. 7). The emphatic threefold éfeAéfato 6 @eds 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. efoulevnueva. See on vi. 4; also 2 Cor. x. 10. "Ayers here only. kat Ta p17) Svta. ‘Yea things that are not.’ The omission of the cai (§* A C* D* FG 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 multé omnis ordinzs 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 ra py dvta: but the kai (8° BC? D'E LP, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) is quite in St Paul’s style. The py does not mean ‘supposed not to exist,’ but ‘non-existent,’ yy with participles being much more common than ov. katapyyjoyn. ‘The verb means ‘to reduce a person or thing to ineffectiveness,’ ‘to render work/ess or inoperative,’ and so ‘to bring to nought.’ It is thus a stronger word than xaratoyvvy, and is substituted for it to match the antithesis between dvra and pi dvra. 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. xevw6y, v. 17, and Kevisoe, ix. 15. Instead of ra dyev7] Tod Kbcmov, Marcion (Tert. Marc. v. 5, zhonesta et minima) seems to have read ra ayev7) kal Ta EX XLOTA. 29. omws pi) Kavxjonta waca odp—t. For the construction see Rom. iil. 20; Acts x. 14. The negative coheres with the verb, not with aoa: in xv. 39 (ov waca odpé) the negative coheres with waéca. Iladoa oadpf 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.’ * évwtov Tod Geod. Another Hebraic phrase. Von coram illo sed in illo gloriori possumus (Beng.). ‘In His presence’ (AV.) comes from the false reading évwmiov abrod (C, Vulg. Syrr.). The true reading (8 ABC? DEFGLP, Copt. Aeth.) is a forcible contrast to méoa odpé. 30. && adtod S€ Guets eore. ‘ But ve (in emphatic contrast) are fits children’ (another contrast). This is their true dignity, and the d€ 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, éwf 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,’ ze. ‘your being Christians is His doing.’ But in that case tpets éore (note the accentuation) is hard to explain: the pronoun is superfluous: we should expect simply év Xpio7é “Inood éore. Moreover, the sense given to éé avrod is hard to justify. It is far more probable that we ought to read ipets éoré (WH., Light- foot, Ellicott) and not ipeis éore (T.R.). The meaning will then be, ‘But from Am ye have your being in Christ Jesus.’ The * Renan (5, Paul, p. 233) gives xavydouat 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: um mot Pobsede ; tl le raméene dans une page & 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 é 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’ (iy. 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.* ds eyerny. 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, il. 7), and opened the way to the knowledge of God through reconciliation with Him. sofia ypiv. This is the central idea, in contrast with the false copia in the context, and it is expanded in the terms which follow. For the dative see vv. 18, 24. dmé Geod. The words justify éé airot and qualify éyevyby . . . Helv, not copia only. The azo points to the source of x/timate derivation. See Lightfoot on 1 Thess. ii. 3. Stxatocdvy Te Kal... dmoddtpwois. The terms, linked into one group by the conjunctions, are in apposition to coda and define it (RV. marg.): the four terms are not co-ordinate (AV., RV.).t Lightfoot suggests, on not very convincing grounds, that re kai serve to connect specially éd:catoovvn and aytacpos, leaving doAvtpwois “rather by itself.” The close connexion between dix. and day. is, of course, evident (Rom. vi. 19), dix. 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. lii. 9), and ay. being used of the same state viewed as progress towards perfect holiness (v. 2; 1 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 (4) Righteousness in the abstract sense of a right relation between persons (Acts x. 35, XXIV. 25). kat Gmohttpwors. Placed last for emphasis, as being the foundation of all else that we have in Christ (Rom. v. 9, 10, Vili. 32; cf. ili. 24). Others explain the order by reference to the thought of fiza/ or completed redemption (Luke xxi. 28 ; Eph. *See Deissmann, Die neutestamentliche Formel ‘‘in Christo Jesu.” Chrysostom remarks how St Paul keeps ‘‘ nailing them to the Name of Christ.” P + It was probably in order to co-ordinate all four that L, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm. have 7jyiv before codia. 28 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [LI. 30, 31 i. 14, iv. 30). Redemptio primum Christi donum est quod inchoatur in nobis, et ultimum perficitur (Calv.). The former is better, but it does not exclude the latter. 81. tva xabws yéypamra. 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 yévyrac being understood (iv. 6, xi. 24; 2 Thess. ii. 3; Gal. i. 20, etc.). 5 kavydpevos. A free quotation, combining the LXX of Jer. ix. 23, 24 with 1 Sam. ii. 10, which resembles it. Jer. 1x. 23, 24 runs, 7 Kavyacbw 6 codos ev tH codia airov kai py Kavyacbw 6 ioxupos év TH icxvt airod Kat py KavxdoOw 6 rAovoLos ev TH TAOUTW avtov, add’ 7 ev ToUTw KavVXacOw 6 KaVXwpEVOS, TuVLEV Kal ywodoxew Ore éyd eipt Kipios 6 rovdv €Xeos. In 1 Sam. ii. 10 we have dvvardés and duvaye for ioxyvpds and ic ii, with the ending, ywadokew Tov Kipiov Kat rrovetv Kpipa Kai duxatoovvnv ev peod THs yns. The occurrence of ‘the wise’ and ‘the strong’ and ‘the rich’ (as in v. 26 here) makes the quotation very apt. Clement of Rome (Cov. 13) quotes the same passage, but ends thus; add’ 7 6 Kavywpevos ev Kupiw xavxacOw tod exlyreiv avrov Kal oveivy Kpiva Kat dixacoovvny, 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 1 Sam. which differed from the LXX. For a false ‘glorying in God’ see Rom. iii. 17, 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. 11; Rom. x. 13. Hort’s remarks on 1 Pet. ii. 3, where 6 Kvpuos 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 xpyororns of the Son that the xpyororns 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 (ew Light on the N.T., p. 7) remarks that the a 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 zt 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. *ForI 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. *%And, as I say, it was in weakness and timidity and painful nervousness that I paid my visit to you: 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 ; °for God intended that your faith should rest on His power, and not on the wisdom of man. 1. xdéys. ‘And I, accordingly.’ The kat 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 copia, and conformed to the essential character of the Gospel. ‘The negative side comes first (vv. 1, 2). e€h@dv. At the time of his first visit (Acts viii. 1f.). We have an analogous reference, 1 Thess. i. 5, ii. 1. &8edpoi. 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). HdOov. The repetition, €AGov mpos tyuads . . . #APov, instead of RAGov mpos twas, 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. xa@ bmepoxnv. Most commentators connect the words with katayyéAAwy rather than 7AGov. Compare xara xpdros (Acts xix. 20), ka’ imepBodnv (1 Cor. xii. 31). Elsewhere in N.T. tarepoyy 30 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [1I. 1,2 occurs only 1 Tim. ii. 2; cf. twepéxew, Rom. xiii. 1, etc. ‘ Pre- eminence’ is an exact equivalent. Adyou Haopias. See oni. 5, 17. katayyeAhwv. 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 upas awhole. Lightfoot suggests that dyyeAAew after verbs of mission or arrival (Acts xv. 27) is commonly in the fvesent participle, as meaning ‘to dear, rather than to deliver, tidings.’ But this does not always suit katayyeAAew in N.T.; see xi. 26; Acts iv. 2; Rom. i. 8; Phil. i. 17; and ayyéAXev, uncompounded, occurs only John xx. 18, with amayy. as v./. paptupiov. ‘He spoke in plain and simple language, as be- came a witness’ (Lightfoot). Zestimonium simpliciter dicendum est: nec eloquentia nec subtilitate ingenti opus est, guae testem sus- pectum potius reddit (Wetstein). Cf. xv. 15; 2 Thess. i. 10; 1 Tim. il. 6; 2 Tim. i. 8. The first reference is decisive as to the meaning here. — Tod Ocod. genitivus objectias 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 papzivpiov t. @eod as well as a papr. rt. Xpicrov. There is, of course, a witness from God (1 John v. 9), but the present connexion is with the Apostolic message about God and His Christ. papripov (XN? BDEFGLP, Vulg. Sah. Aeth. Arm. AV. RV. marg.) is probably to be preferred to wvorjpiov (N* AC, Copt. RV.). WH. prefer the latter; but it may owe its origin to v. 7. On the other hand, papt. may come from i. 6. 2. od yap Expiwa tu eidevar. ‘Not only did I not speak of, but I had no thought for, anything else.’ Cf. Acts xviii. 5, ovvei- xeTo TO Adyw, ‘he became engrossed in the word.’ For xpivew of a personal resolve see vii. 37; Rom. xiv. 13; 2 Cor. ii. 1. Does the od connect directly with ékpwa or with te eidévar, as in AV., RV.? The latter is attractive on account of its incisive- ness ; ‘I deliberately refused to know anything.’ But it assumes that ov« expwa=éxpwa ov, on the familiar analogy of od dnp. Apparently there is no authority for this use of ovx éxpwa: ovK «0, 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. tT eidevar. Not quite in the sense of éyvwxévar te (viii. 2), ‘to know something,’ as Evans here. In that case ei wy would mean ‘but only.’ But 7 simply means ‘anything’ whatever. a II. 2, 3] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 31 *Ingodv Xpiorév. As ini. 13 contrast i. 23. In the Epistles of this date, Xpuoros still designates primarily the Office ; ‘Jesus, the Anointed One, and that (not as King in His glory, but)— crucified.’ kat TodTov €otaupwpévov.* The force of kat rodrov is definitely to specify the point on which, in preaching Jesus Christ, stress was laid (6 Adyos 7. oravpov, i. 18), 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 vz. 6 f. below. tt eldévac (BC P 17) is to be preferred to eldévac 71 (NAD? FGL). D* L ins. tod before efSévac 71. 3. kdydé. He now gives the positive side—in what fashion he did come (3-5). As in v. 1, the éyd is emphatic; but here the emphasis is one of contrast. ‘Although I was the vehicle of God’s power (1. 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. 1; as if the Apostle had been interrupted after dictating v. 2, and had then begun afresh. Lightfoot regards xéyé as simply an emphatic repetition, citing Juvenal i. 15, 16, Z¢ nos ergo manum ferulae subduximus, et nos Consilium dedimus Sullae. ev doGeveta. 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 xvil. 15, Xvill. 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). €v $oBw kal €v tpdpw ToAAG. We have $dfos and tpopuos 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 pera poBov x. tpopov, which means with that conscientious anxiety that is opposed to éfOadrpodovAia (Conybeare and Howson).* No other N.T. writer has this combination of ¢dBos and tpdpos. Some MSS. omit the second év. €yevouny tpds buds. 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 vist to you was in weakness,’ preserves both the shade of meaning and the force of the tense. Cf. 2 John 12; 1 Thess. ii. 7, 10. 4. nal 6 ddyos pou. See on i. 5, 17. Various explanations have been given of the difference between Adyos and xypvypa, 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 oni. 21. More probably, 6 Adyos looks back to i. 18, and means the Gospel which the Apostle preached, while Kypvypa is the act of proclamation, viewed, not as a process (kypvéts), but as a whole. Cf. 2 Tim. iv. 17. odk €v mois copias Adyos. The singular word més or me.Ods, which is found nowhere else, is the equivalent of the classical aavés, which Josephus (Amz. vil. ix. 1) uses of the plausible words of the lying prophet of 1 Kings xiii. The only exact parallel to wids or weibds from reiOw is pidds or pedds from geidoua, 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. Evang. i. 3., ev webot [avOpwrivys| codpias oywv, in persuasione saptentiae [humanae| verbi, or sermones for sermonts ; where zrefot is the dat. of wes. From this, évy weot codias has been conjectured as the original reading ; but the evidence of Ss ABCD EL P for ev ziOots or wreiBois is decisive ; + and while gopias Adyors almost certainly is genuine, dvOpwrivys almost certainly is not, except as interpretation. The meaning is that the false codia, the cleverness of the rhetorician, which the Apostle is disclaiming and combating * Three times in Acts (xviii. 9, xxiii. 11, 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. THe not only might work, he must do so (ix. 16). _t 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. mifavoAoyia (Col. ii. 4). dmodeiter. Not elsewhere in N.T. It has two very different meanings: (1) ‘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 avdXoyicpos. The latter proves that a certain conclusion follows from given premises, which may or may not be true. In dzo- devéis the premises are known to be true, and therefore the conclusion is not only logical, but certainly true. In Z¢h. Nic. I. ill. 4 we are told that to demand rigid demonstrations (dzro- defers) from a rhetorician is as unreasonable as to allow a mathematician to deal in mere plausibilities. Cf. Plato Phaed. 77C, 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 codia 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 azoddevéis in this sense. mvevpatos Kal Suvdpews. See on i. 18. 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 zvevpatos to the O.T. prophecies, and duvdpews to the N.T. miracles, thus approximating to the merely philosophic sense of azodeéis. And if dvvapews means God’s power, zvev- patos will mean His Spirit, the Holy Spirit. The article is omitted as in v. 13 (cf. Gal. v. 16 and Phil. ii. 1 with 2 Cor. xiil. 13). See Ellicott ad Joc. 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 zvevparos is well given by Theophylact: dppyjry tut tpdrw riotw éveroie Tots axovovow. For the general sense see 1 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, dmédeés is used of official evidence or proof. Bachmann quotes ; dwédeéiv Sods Tod érlaracbat ieparixa ypappara (Tebt. Pap. ii. 291, 41). 3 — 34 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS {II. 4-6 worketh in you that believe.’ St Paul’s appeal is to the strong conviction and deep practical power of the Gospel. Not that strong conviction is incompatible with error: there is such a thing as évepye(a mAdvys, causing men to believe what is false (2 Thess. ii. 11); but the false cofia engenders no depth of conviction. Lightfoot quotes Longinus, who describes St Paul as mpOtov .. . Tpoiorapevov doypatos dvarodeixrov — 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. avOpwrivns (NCA CLP, Copt. AV.) before codias is rejected by all editors. 5. tva. 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 éxpwa 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 ziorts is more intimately Christian than the xavynous of the O.T. quotation. py év copia dvOpdrwy. The preposition marks the medium or sphere in which faith has its root: cf. év rovrw micrevopev (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 ; oida yap © weriarevxa (2 Tim. i. 12). Here the negative statement is emphasized. (ii.) IZ. 6-III. 4. The True Wisdom. Il. 6-13. Zhe True Wisdom described. To mature Christians we Apostles preach the Divine Wisdom, which God has revealed to us by His Spirit. ®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. ‘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. &% 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. 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. 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. 1!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. 12Yet 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. } 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. Lopiav Sé Aadodpev. The germ of the following passage is in i. 24, 30: Christ crucified is to the xAyroé 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 AaAotpev. Firstly, St Paul includes others with himself, not only his immediate fellow-workers, but the Apostolic body as a whole (xv. 11). Secondly, the verb means simply ‘utter’: it must not be pressed to denote a kind of utterance distinct from Adyos and xypvypa (v. 4), such as private conversation. év tois tedeiots. 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 réAeoe St Paul means the mature or full-grown Christians, as contrasted with vimor (iii. 1). + 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 Chadwick, Pastoral Teaching, pp. 356f., and note the emphatic position of codiav. + This sense is frequent in papyri and elsewhere, ‘Initiated’ would be TereNeo uevol, 36 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ II. 6 would know that his teaching was really philosophy of the highest kind. The év means, not merely ‘in the opinion of,’ but literally ‘among,’ 7” 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 dvoAAvpevoe of i. 18, or the Jews and Greeks of i. 22, 23. On the one hand, there are the réAeor, whom he calls lower down zvevpa- tixol (v. 13-ill. 1); on the other hand, there is the anomalous class of odpxuwo, who are babes in Christ. Ideally, all Chris- tians, as such, are mvevparixol (xil. 31; Gal. ill. 2, 5; Rom. viii. 9, 15, 26). But practically, many Christians need to be treated as (as, iii. 1), and to all intents are, odpxwo, vireo, Wuxixol (v. 14), even capxcxol (iii. 3). The work of the Apostle has as its aim the raising of all such imperfect Christians to the normal and ideal standard; wa rapacrynowpev ravta avOpw- mov TéAeov ev Xpiotd (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 réAeoc and vymo. It is certainly different from that of the Gnostics, who erected a strong barrier between the initiated (réAeor) and the average Christians (Wvyexo/). There are clear traces of this Gnostic distinction between esoteric and exoteric Christians in the school of Alexandria (Eus. .£. v. xi.), and a residual distinction survives in the ecclesiastical instinct of later times (Ritschl, Fides Jmplicita). 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 4€ is explanatory and corrective; ‘Now by wisdom I mean, not,’ etc. TOU al@vos ToUTou. See on i. 20. ov8€ tay dpxdvtw. It is quite evident from v. 8 that the dpxovres 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, cat viv, ddeA ot, otda dre kara dyvovav érpdtare, @omrep Kal of apxovres duov (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. arc. v. 6) downwards, understand the dpxovres tod aidvos tovrov to mean demons: cf. Koopoxpatopas Tov oKdTovs TOD aidvos TovToU (Eph. vi. 12). Perhaps this idea exists already in Ignatius; eAafev Tov dpxovta Tov ai@vos TovTov . . . 6 Odvaros Tod Kvpiov. See Thackeray, Zhe Relation of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 156f., 230n. But this interpretation is wholly incompatible with v. 8, as also is the very perverse suggestion of Schmiedel that St Paul refers to Azge/s, whose rule over certain departments in God’s government of the world belongs only to this dispensation, and ceases with it (xatapyoujévwr), and who are unable to see into the mysteries of redemption (Gal. ili. 19; 1 Pet. i, 12). See Abbott, Zhe Son of Man, p. 5. TOv kaTapyoupevwy. See oni. 28. The force of the present tense is ‘axiomatic.’ These rulers and their function belong to the sphere of rpdéckaipa (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. GAG Aadodpev. The verb is repeated for emphasis with the fully adversative ad\Ad (Rom. viii. 15; Phil. iv. 17); ‘But what we do utter is,’ etc. cod godiav. The @eov is very emphatic, as the context demands, and nearly every uncial has the words in this order. To read codiav @cod (L) mars the sense. év puotypiw. We may connect this with Aadoduev, to charac- terize the manner of communication, as we say, ‘to speak iz a whisper,’ or to characterize its effect—‘ while declaring a mystery.’ Or we may connect with co¢iav: and this is better, in spite of the absence of ryv before év pvornpiw (see Lightfoot on 1 Thess. i. 1). The ‘wisdom’ is év pvornpiw, because it has been for so long a secret, although now made known to all who can receive it, the dycor (Col. i. 26) and KAnrol. Assuming that poaprvpiov is the right reading in v. 1, we have here almost the earliest use of pvorjpiov in N.T. (2 Thess. il. 7 is the earliest). See J. A. Robinson, Zphesians, pp. 234-240, 38 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ II. ef for a full discussion of the use of the word in N.T., also Westcott, Ephesians, pp. 180-182. thy daoxexpuppéeryy. For the sense see Eph. iil. 5 ; Col. i. 26; Rom. xvi. 25. The words are explanatory of év pvornptw. 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; eg. from Jews (2 Cor. iii. 14) and the dro\Avpevor generally (2 Cor. iv. 3-6). This contrast is followed up in vv. 8-16. iv tmpowpicey 6 Oeds. To be taken directly with the words that follow, without supplying doxaAvWae or any similar link. The ‘wisdom’ is ‘Christ crucified’ (i. 18-24), fore-ordained by God (Acts iv. 28; Eph. iii, 11) for the salvation of men. It was no afterthought or change of plan, as Theodoret remarks, but was fore-ordained dvwOev kat é€ dpyjs. eis Sdgav pay. Our efernal glory, or complete salvation (2 Cor. iv. 7; Rom. viii. 18, 21, etc.). From meaning ‘ opinion,’ and hence ‘public repute,’ ‘ praise,’ or ‘honour,’ d0€a 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 1 Pet. v. 1, this eschatological sense is almost peculiar to St Paul and is characteristic of him (xv. 43; 1 Thess. ii. 12; 2 Thess. ii. 1449 poms we 23 Phil. a. gs, ete pau 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’ (dppaBwy) 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 (réAevor)? Or does he mean the Gospel, ‘the word of the Cross,’ as it is apprehended, not by babes in i. 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 ili, 1, 2 between the ydAa and the Bpédpya, coupled with the right meaning of év 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@oau in i. 21), seem to demand the equation of the wisdom uttered by the Apostle with the prwpia rod Kypvyparos, and the equation of @cod codiav in ii. 7 with @ceod codiav 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; cod/av A€yer TO Kypvypa Kal Tov TpOTov THS TwTYpLas, TO va TOV GTa’pov GwOAvat: TereELovs 5é Tos TETLOTEVKOTAS. But the yda\a and the fpopa of iii. 2, and the distinction between réAcor and vy évy Xpiord, must be satisfied. The téXeot 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 vymiot 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 d0éa pov. The Epistle to the Romans, which is an unfolding of the thought of 1 Cor. i. 24-31, is St Paul’s completest utterance of this wisdom. It is Bpdpa, while our Epistle is occupied with things answering to yada, 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 Bpapa 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. fv oddeis .. . Eyvwxev. The nv must refer to codiay, ‘ which wisdom none of the rulers of this world hath discerned.’ ei ydép. 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 dpyxovres are 40 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 8,9 neither demons nor angels, but the rulers who took part in crucifying the Christ. tov Kuptoy tis Bo€is. Cf. Jas. ii. 1; Eph. i. 17; 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\\d. ‘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 yéyovev, or some such word, with xaos yéypamrat. But the con- struction can be explained otherwise, and perhaps better. See below, and on i. 19. & dpOadpos ovx eiSev. The relative is co-ordinate with 7 in v. 8, refers to oodia, and therefore is zxdtrectly governed by Aadodpev in v. 7 (so Heinrici, Meyer, Schmiedel). It might (so Evans) be governed by amexddvwev, if we read piv 6€ and take v.10 as an apodosis. But this is awkward, especially as a4 does not precede xaOws yéyparra. The only grammatical irregularity which it is necessary to acknowledge is that a serves first as an accusative governed by e@dev and jxovcer, then as nominative to dveByn, and once more in apposition to 6ea (or a) in the accus- ative. Such an anacoluthon is not at all violent. émt kapdiav ... odk dvéBy. 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. doa. In richness and scale they exceed sense and thought (John xiv. 2). HToipacev. Here only does St Paul use the verb of God. When it is so used, it refers to the blessings of fixa/ glory, with (Luke ii. 31) or without (Matt. xx. 23, xxv. 34; Mark x. 40; Heb. xi. 16) including present grace; or else to the miseries of final punishment (Matt. xxv. 41). See note on doga, 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 z. 7. * Crux servorum supplicium. Eo Dominum gloriae affecerunt (Beng.). ‘The levity of philosophers in rejecting the cross was only surpassed by the stupidity of poiiticians in inflicting it” (Findlay). The placing of 1.«.7. doé%s between ov dv and the verb throws emphasis on the words ; ‘ they would never have crucified ¢he Lord of Glory’: cf. Heb. iv. 8, viii. 7 (Abbott, Johan- nine Gr. 2566). II. 9} THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 4I Tots dyam@ow attév. See Rom. viii. 28-30. Clement of Rome (Cor. 34), in quoting this passage, restores rots Sropévovew from Isa. Ixiv. 4 in place of rots dyar@ow. This seems to show that he regards the xa@ws yéyparra: as introducing a quotation from Isaiah. We ought possibly to read 80a jrolfuacey with A B C, Clem-Rom. But 4 jroluacev is strongly supported (N DEF GLP, Clem-Alex. Orig. Polyc-Mart.). Vulg. has guae with defgr, The much debated question of the source of St Paul’s quota- tion must be solved within the limits imposed by his use of xaOas yéypartat, 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. (1) Ixiv. 4, dad rod aidvos ovk WKOVTapmey ovde of 6POarpot puadv etdov Wcdy wAxv Gov Kal TaEpya Gov, & Tojoers Tols tropévovew eeov (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, kal od pi) Ew EXOD aitav éxi tiv kapdiav (observe the context). Also (3) lii. 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. vy. 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. lxiv. 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 1 Cor. ii. 9 and Isa. Ixiv. 4. Of other solutions, the most popular has been that of Origen (tn Matt. xxvii. 9); in nullo regulari libro hoc positum invenitur, nisi in Secretis Eliae Prophetae. Origen was followed by others, but was warmly contradicted by Jerome (¢# Zsai. Ixiv. 4: see also frol. in Gen. ix. and £/. lvii. [ci.] 7), who nevertheless allows 42 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [1I. 9 that the passage occurs not only in the Apocalypse of Elias, 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 (//aez. 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’saie, 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 Agvapha, 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 lxv. 17 —from Isa. lxiv. 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, 1. pp. 389 f., 11. pp. 106 f. ; 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 fer tacuriam, 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, 1. p. 390, and on Clem. Rom. Cor. 34; Resch, Agrapha, pp. 102, 154, 281; Thackeray, St Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 240f. On the seemingly hostile reference of Hegesippus to this verse, see Lightfoot’s last note 77 doc. 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; Schurer, /.P., 11. ili. pp. 129-132; Lacy. Bib. i. 210. 10. pty ydp. Reason why we can utter things hidden from eye, ear, and mind of man: ‘ Because to ws God, through the Spirit, unveiled them,’ or, ‘For to ws they were revealed by God through the Spirit.” The tv follows hard upon and interprets Tois dyaT@ow airov, just as yuty On Tots cwlopevors (i. 18): cf. qptv in i. 30 and 7por in ii. 7. The pty is in emphatic contrast to ‘the rulers of this world’ who do not know (z. 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 d¢ be read instead of ydp, we must either adopt the awkward construction of &@ 6p6adp0s x.7.X. advocated by Evans and rejected above, or else, with Ellicott, make d€ introduce a second and supplementary contrast (co-ordinate with, but more general than, that introduced by ddAd in v. 9g) to the ignorance of the apxovres in v. 8. On the whole, the “latent inferiority” of the reading 6¢ is fairly clear. dmexddupev. 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. Toyap mvedua. Explanatory of da rod rvevpartos. The owl6- uevor and the aya@vres Tov @eov possess the Spirit, who has, and gives access to, the secrets of God. épouva. The Alexandrian form of épevva (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. 1). It expresses “the * Is it true that ‘‘revelation is distinguished from ordinary spiritual in- fluences by its sddenness”? 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 [1I. 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. Scrutatur omnia, non quia nescit, ut inveniat, sed quia nihil relinguit quod nesciat (Atto). For the form see Gregory, Prolegomena to Tisch., p. 81. 7a Bdbn. Cf.’ Babos rrovrov Kai copias kai yvwocews Meod (Rom. xi. 33), and contrast ra Babéa rod Zarava, ws A€yovow (Rev. ii, 24).* hiv yap (Band several cursives, Sah. Copt., Clem-Alex. Bas.) seems to be preferable to myiv 6é (NACDEFGLP, Vulg. Syrr. Arm, Acth., Orig.), but the external evidence for the latter is very strong. Certainly dmexdduper 6 Ocds (NABCDEFGP, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) is preferable to 6 Oeds am. (L, Sah. Orig.). After rvetiuaros, 8? DEFGL, Vulg. Syrr. Sah. Arm. Aeth. AV. add airod, N* A BC, Copt. RV. omit. 1l. tis yap ot8ev dvOpdmwv. This verse, taken as a whole, confirms the second clause of v. 10, and thereby further explains the words da rod rvevparos. The words avOpizwv and avOperov, repeated, are emphatic, the argument being @ minori ad majus. 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, das Kupiov von avOpirwv, ds épavva tapeia kotA‘as. Cf. Jer. xvii. 9g, 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. ro). ta Tod dvOpuiou. The personal memories, reflexions, motives, etc., of any individual human being; all the thoughts of which he is conscious (iv. 4). TO veda Tod dvOp. Td €v adt@. The word zvedpa is here used, as in v. 5, vii. 34; 2 Cor. vii. 1; 1 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 zvedua to Yuy7. oUtws kai k.t.A. It is here that the whole weight of the state- ment lies. éyvwxev. This seems to be purposely substituted for the weaker and more general ofdev. For the contrast between the two see 2 Cor. v. 16; 1 John ii. 29. “The éyvwxey seems to place ra rod @eod a degree more out of reach than oldev does ra Tod avOpHrov” (Lightfoot, whose note, with its illustrations from 1 John, should be consulted). This passage is a /ocus classicus * Clem. Rom. (Cor. 40) has mpodjA\wy ody juiv bvTwv TolTwy, Kat éyKEKu- ores els TA BAOn Tijs Delas ywdoeuws. II. 11,12] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 45 for the Divinity, as Rom. viii. 26, 27 is for the Personality, of the Holy Spirit. et py. ‘But only,’ as in Gal. i. 7, and (probably) i. 19; cf. ii. 16. 76 Tvedpa Tod Geod. St Paul does not add 76 év airé, 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 dv@pérwr. F G omit the second roi dvApu- mov. FG have éyvw, while L has oldev, for éyywxey (NABCDEP, Vulg. cognovit). 12. ypets 8€. See on ypyiv in v. 10: ‘we Christians.’ ov T6 wveOpa Tod Kdopou .. . addd. 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 xécpos being “a system of organized evil, with its own principles and its own laws” (Evans) : fee Hiphi i. 2, vi ri; John xi 31; 1 John iv. wigs 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 xécpos has not fer 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: ¢#.¢. 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, Vii. 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 dvOpwxivy codia of v. 13, and homogeneous with the dpdvynpa tis capkos 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, zvedya would be impersonal, and a/mos¢ attributive, as in Rom. vili. 15; but there the absence of the article makes a difference. Compare the zvedpua erepov 6 oix éAdBere in 2 Cor. xi. 4. On the whole, this second explanation of ‘the spirit of the world’ seems to be the better. €kdBopev. Like azexddv ev (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 76 mvedpa To €x Tod Ocov. 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. 11), dwelling in man (Rom. viii. 11), 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 eiSGpev. This is the result to which vv. 10-12 lead up. The words reproduce, under a different aspect, the thought in Huiv arexdAvev 6 Weos, and give the foundation for v. 13, & Kat AaXotpev. Ta... xaptobévra fjpiv. The same blessings appear suc- cessively as d0éav jpav (v. 7), 60a Hroipacev x.7.A. (v. 9), and ra xapioGevra (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 vv. 11 and 12 as expanding the thought of v. ro 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 roi xécyov, D E F G, Vulg. Copt. Arm. add rovrou. NABCLP, Syrr. Aeth, omit. 13. & kat NKadodpev. This is the dominant verb of the whole passage (vv. 6, 7: see notes on 7, v. 8, ad and 60a, v. 9). The kai 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 vv. 1-5 are of i. 18-31. Si8axtois dvOpwrivns aopias. ‘Taught by man’s wisdom.’ We have similar genitives in John vi. 45, d:daxrot @cod, and in Matt. xxv. 34, etAoynpévor tod watpds. In class. Grk. the con- struction is found only in poets; xetvys didaxta (Soph. Lect. 343), didaxtais avOpwruwv dperats (Pind. O/. ix. 152). Cf. i. 17. SiSaktots mvevpatos. See on v. 4, where, as here and 1 Thess. i. 5, 7vevpa has no article. The Apostle is not claiming verbal inspiration ; but verba rem sequuntur (Wetstein). Cf. Luke xxi. 15; Jer.i.9. Sapcentia est scaturigo sermonum (Beng.). Bentley, Kuenen, etc. conjecture év adiddxrois tvevparos. TVEULATLKOLS TrYEULaTLKa auvKpivovtes. ‘Two questions arise here, on the answer to which the interpretation of the words depends,—the gender of wvevpatixots, and the meaning of ow- i, 13} THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 47 xpivew. The latter is used by St Paul only here and 2 Cor. x. 12, 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 feu x 0; £0.) 22; "xi. (r2,; 155) Pudg. vill 153° Dan. v. 12, vii. 15, 16). We have, therefore, the following possibilities to consider :— (1) Taking rvevparixots as neuter ;—either, (a) Combining spiritual things (the words) with spiritual things (the subject matter) ; or, (8) Interpreting (explaining) spiritual things by spiritual things. This (8) 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; umd richten getstliche Sachen geistlich. (2) Taking zvevparexots as masculine ;—either, (y) Suiting (matching) spiritual matter to spiritual hearers ; or, (8) Interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual hearers. In favour of taking zvevpatixots as neuter may be urged the superior epigrammatic point of keeping the same gender for both terms, and the naturalness of rvevyaticots being brought into close relation with the ovv- in ovvxpivovres. These considera- tions are of weight, and the resultant sense is good and relevant, whether we adopt (a) or the third form of (8). As Theodore of Mopsuestia puts it, dua rév trod mvevpatos drodeiEewv TH TOU mvevpatos SibackaXiay mirtovpeba. On the other hand, in favour of taking zvevparcxots as mascu- line, there is its markedly emphatic position, as if to prepare the way for the contrast with Wuxixds which immediately follows, and which now becomes the Apostle’s main thought. ‘This considera- tion perhaps turns the scale in favour of taking mvevparixots as ‘spiritual persons.’ Of the two explanations under this head, one would unhesitatingly prefer (6), were not the use of ouv«pivew 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 wv. 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, év rots reAefors, 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 mvetuaros, D? EL P, Aeth, AV, add ayio. NABCD*FG17, Vulg. RV. omit. II. 14-III. 4. THE SPIRITUAL AND THE ANIMAL CHARACTERS, Only the spiritual man can receive the true wisdom. You Corinthians cannot receive tt, 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. 1° 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. ii. 1 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. 27 gave you quite elementary teaching, and not the more solid truths of the Gospel, for these ye were not yet strong enough to digest. %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. uxixds 8€ dvOpwros. This is in sharpest contrast to mvevparikors (7. 13), for Wuyikds means ‘animal’ (animalis homo, Vulg.) in the etymological sense, and nearly so in the ordinary sense: see xv. 44, 46; Jas. ili. 15; Jude 19 (Yvyicol rrvedpa ovx zr. 14, 15] SPIRITUAL AND ANIMAL CHARACTERS 49 éxovres).* The term is not necessarily based upon a supposed ‘trichotomous’ psychology, as inferred by Apollinaris and others from 7o mvetpa Kai 7» Yvxy Kat TO copa in Thess. v. 23 (see Lightfoot’s note). It is based rather upon the conception of Wuxy as the mere correlative of organic life. Aristotle defines it as mpwTn evTeX€xera Gupatos pvaixod dpyavikod. In man, this comprises zvedua in the merely psychological sense (note on v. 11), but not necessarily in the sense referred to above (note awe re). see, however, v.53 Phil. 1. 27> Epn. vip 19 ~ Col lil. 23; 1 Pet. iv. 6. In Luke i. 46, yvyy and wvedpa seem to be synonymous. The yyy ranges with vods (Rom. vii. 23, 35; Col. ii. 18), in one sense contrasted with ocapé, but like capé in its inability to rise to practical godliness, unless aided by the mvevua. We may say that wvyx7 is the ‘energy’ or correlative of oapé. Although, therefore, Yvx7 is not used in N.T. in a bad sense, to distinguish the animal from the spiritual principle in the human soul, yet Wvyikes is used of a man whose motives do not rise above the level of merely human needs and aspirations. The yuxexds 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 capkixos (iil. 1, 3). See Kirkpatrick on Wisd. ix. 15. od Sexetar. Not ‘is incapable of receiving,’ but ‘does not accept,’ z.e. he rejects, refuses. Aéyeofar=‘to accept,’ ‘to take willingly ’ (2 Cor. viii. 17 ; 1 Thess. i. 6, etc.). OTL TveupaTiK@s dvaxpiverat. 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. 11 of the liberal-minded Beroeans, who sifted the Scriptures, to get at the truth: Dan. Sus. 13, 48, 51. 15. 6 8€ mveupatixds. The man in whom zvedpa 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. dvakpiver pev mdvta. ‘He judges of everything,’ ‘sifts every- * Cf. Juvenal (xv. 147f.), Mundi Principio indulsit communis conditor ellis Tantum animas, nobis animum quogue. See Chadwick, Pastoral Teach- img, p. 153. 4 50 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [1I. 15, 16 thing,’ 1 Thess. v. 21; Phil. i. 10; contrast Rom. ii. 18. The whole Epistle exemplifies this principle in St Paul’s person (vii. 25, viii. 1, xX. 14, xi. 1, etc.). Aristotle, in defining virtue, comes back to the judgment formed by the mature character: as Gv 6 dpovipos épioeev (Eth. Nic. 1. vi. 15). ‘Judgeth’ (AV., RV.) does not quite give the meaning of what is expressed here: ‘examines’ is nearer to it. adtés 8¢ bm obSevds dvaxpiverat, This perhaps means ‘by no non-spiritual person’ (cf. 1 John iv. 1). 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 ; zdvrwv pérpov avOpwios, Tov pev ovTov ws éoTi Tov be pH évtwv ws ovK éeott. 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 medizval Papacy, e.g. by Boniface vil. in the Bull Unam sanctam, and by Cornelius 4 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. dvaxptverar. ‘Is judged of,’ ‘subjected to examination.’ See on iv. 3, 4, 5, ix. 3, X. 25, 273 also on Luke xxiii. 14. "Ava- kpuows (Acts xxv. 26) was a legal term at Athens for a preliminary investigation, preparatory to the actual xpiois, 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 xpivw (iv. 3, vi. 1-6, xi. 29-32; 2 Cor. x. 12; Rom. ii. 1). By playing on words he sometimes illuminates great truths or important personal experiences. &* omits the whole of this verse. AC D* FG omit pév after dvaxpiver. mwdyra (8! B D?E F G L) is to be preferred to 74 rdvra (A C D* P). 16. tis yap €yvw. Proof of what has just been claimed for the wvevyatixos: he has direct converse with a source of light which is not to be superseded by any merely external norm. The quotation (ris . . . adrdv) is from the LXX of Isa. xl. 13, adapted by the omission of the middle clause, xal ris airod aivBovdos éyévero; This clause is retained in Rom. xi. 34, while ds ow BiBdou airov is omitted. The aorist (€yvw) belongs to II. 16—IiT. 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 vodv Kupiov to votvy Xpiorod 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. vouv Kupiov. The vovvy (LXX) corresponds to the Hebrew for rvedua in the original. In God, vovs and zvedya are identical (see, as to man, on v. 14), but not in aspect, vods being suitable to denote the Divine knowledge or counsel, zvetuwa the Divine action, either in creation or in grace. ds ouvBiBdoe adtéy. The relative refers to ovvBovAos in Isa. xl. 13. As St Paul omits the clause containing ocvvBovdos, the és is left without any proper construction. But it finds a kind of antecedent in tis; ‘Who hath known... that he should instruct’ (RV.). SvyPuBalew 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 (s A BE) seems to be ovveBiBacav ’AXdeEavdpov, 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 évB.Palev. Hpets S€ vodv Xpiotod Exouev. 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. vill. 27). The mind of Christ is the correlative of His Spirit, which is the Spirit of God (Rom. vill. 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. xii. 14). The thought is that of v. 12 in another form: see also vii. 40; and 2 Cor. xiii. 3, tod é€v éuol AadodvTos Xpiorod. The emphatic jets (see on i. 18, 23, 30, ii. 10, 12) serves to associate all mvevparixoc with the Apostle, and also all his readers, so far as they are, as they ought to be, among oi owlopevor (i. 18). We ought probably to prefer Xpisrod (N A C D? EL P, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm., Ong.) to Kuplov (B D* F G, Aug. Ambrst.). Xpicrod would be likely to be altered to conform with the previous Kuplov. 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 oy/cpara, 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 [III.1, 2 Kaya, a8ehpoi. See on i. ro and ii. 1. ws mveupatixois. Ideally, all Christians are rvevjarixol (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 Yuxixol Or wapxixoi, but they are not on a level with the heathen. They are babes in character, but ‘babes 7 Christ’ ; and, apart from the special matters for blame, there are many healthy features in their condition (i. 4-9, xi. 2). GAN &s capxivots. The word is chosen deliberately, and it expresses a shade of meaning different from capxcxds, placing the state of the Corinthians under a distinct aspect. ‘The termination -.vos denotes a matvertal relation, while -cxos denotes an efhica/ 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 dv6pwrivos, iv. 3). Accordingly, capxivos 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 capxivor (6 év capxi, Gal. ii. 20), but we are not to live kata oapxd (xv. 50; Rom. viii. 12; 2 Cor. x. 2, 3). The state of the varios is not culpable 7 ztse/f, but it becomes culpable if unduly prolonged (xiii. 11, xiv. 20). There are two other views respecting capxivos 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 oapxixds, although the flesh still has the upper hand, yet there is some counteracting influence of the spirit. This view makes the state of the capxixés an advance upon that of the capxivos, and is really an inversion of the true sense. Evans regards capkivos as a term free from azy 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. £7. Vic, 111. ix. 2. capkivos (N A BC* D* 17) is the original reading, of which capxtxors (D* E F G L P) is obviously a correction. 2. ydha Spas erotica, ob BpOpa. Cf. Heb. v. 12, where oreped tpopy takes the place of Bp@ua. 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. 13). The ydéAa is described ii. 2, the Bpdpa, 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. yeviueba mvevuarixol, yevwoueba vads Té\eLos TS Beg (Ep. of Barn. iv. 11), 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 ris dpyjs rod Xpicrod Adyos (Heb. vi. 1), 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 érorica refers to a definite period, evidently that which began with the 76oyr of ii. 1, viz. the eighteen months of Acts xviii. 11. oUmTw yap éSuvac0e. ‘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. DEFGL, Arm. Aeth. AV. insert kal before od Bpdua. NABCP, Vulg. Copt. RV. omit. 3. GAN’ odd€ Err Ov SUvacbe. The new verse (but hardly a new paragraph) should begin here (WH.). B omits ém, 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 d\Ad 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 vz. 6, 10, il. 1, and dkoverau in v. I, is that St Paul had as yet paid only one visit to Corinth. The dpre 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 a/fer this letter was written. Those who think it was paid Jefore this letter, explain the silence about it throughout this letter by supposing that it was not only painful, but very short. Stou yap év duty. 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 év viv, is not quite lost; ‘seeing that envy and strife find place among you.’ Cf. éu in Gal. ii. 28. LAdos kal €pis. 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 &jAos without * Irenaeus (IV. xxxviii. 2) has odd€ yap ndvvacde Baordfew (from John xvi, 12), and his translator has nondum enim poteratis escam perctpere, 54 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [III. 3, 4 qualification, though ranked high by Aristotle * (7e/. ii. 11), is placed by the Apostle among ‘works of the flesh.’ Lightfoot gives other instances of differences in estimation between heathen and Christian ethics. obxi capkixol éote; See above on capxivor, and cf. ix. 11 ; Rom. xv. 27. Here, as in 2 Cor. i. 12, oapxixoc means ‘con- formable to and governed by the flesh,’ actuated by low motives, above which they ought by this time to have risen. kata dvOpwrov wepimatette. ‘Walk on a merely human level’ (xv. 32; Gal. i. 11, iii, 15; Rom. iii. 5): contrast xara ®edv (2 Cor. vii. 9-11; Rom. viii. 27). This level cannot be dis- tinguished from that of the Yuxixds dvOpwros (ii. 14). Mepurarety, of manner of life, is frequent in Paul and 2 and 3 John, while other writers more often have dvaorpédew and dvacrpody: cf. épOodoroov (Gal. ii. 14), mopeveoGac (Luke 1. 6, vill. 14) and see vuer7: . Cf. jn, ausk: D* FG have oapklvo. for capxixol. DEFGL, Syrr. AV. add xa dixooracla after gus. NABCP, Vulg. Copt. Arm, Aeth. RV. omit. See Iren. [V. xxxviii. 2. 4, drav yap A€yn tts. ‘For whenever one saith’: each such utterance is one more verification (yap) of the indictment.t Cf. the construction in xv. 27. ey pév . . . etepos 84. The pév and the d€ 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). obk dvOpwrot éore; ‘Are ye not mere human creatures?’ They did not rise above a purely human level. The expression is the negative equivalent of capxcxod 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 a@vjp. In xvi. 13 this contrast is implied in dvépilecOe. See Ps. xlix. 2 and Isa. ii. g for a similar contrast in Hebrew. ‘The Corinthians were dv@pw7ro: in failing to rise to the higher range of motives; and they were capxtxo/ 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; {fos cogztatione, tpis verbis, Sixooraclat opere. + 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 (ér. yap) to have left behind as a relic of heathenism (vi. 11, xii. 2). “Tn 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 avpwzrou, then, if you are a partizan of some vastly inferior person, d7jAov Oru ovKére OSE AVvOpwrros el, GAG Kal xetpov % dvOpwiros. You may perhaps be addressed as yevyypara éxdvav, 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 ovx« (8* A BC 17) rather than the more emphatic, and in this Epistle specially common o’x! (D EF GLP), which is genuine in Uv. 3, 1. 20, v. 12, vi. 7, etc. And weshould read dvOpwro(8* ABCDEFG 17, Vulg. Copt. Aeth. RV.) rather than capxixol (N83 LP, Syrr. AV.). dvOparivot (iv. 3, xX. 13) is pure conjecture. We now reach another main section of this sub-division (i. 10-iv. 21) of the First Part (i. 10-vi. 20) of the Epistle. St Paul has hitherto (i. 17-i11. 4) been dealing with the false and the true conception of codéa, 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. 18-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 hands 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. ®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. 7So 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 odv éoriv; A question, Socratic in form, leading up naturally to a definition, and thus checking shallow conceit (v. 18, iv. 6) by probing the idea underlying its glib use of words. | ‘What zs Apollos? ze. What is his essential office and function ? a How is he to be ‘accounted of’? (iv. 1). The two names are mentioned three times, and each time the order is changed, perhaps intentionally, to lead up to & eiow (v. 8). The ovy follows naturally upon the mention of Apollos in vw. 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. Sidxovot. The word is used here in its primary and general 4 III. 5-7] CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIAN PASTORATE 57 sense of ‘servant.’* It connotes active service (see note on iryperys in iv. 1) and is probably from a root akin to diwxw (cf. ‘pursuivant’). See Hort, Christian Ecclesia, pp. 202 f. Sv dv émortedoate. Per guos, non in quos (Beng.). The aorist points back to the time of their conversion (cf. xv. 2; Rom. xiii. 11), but it sums up their whole career as Christians. kal éxdotw Os 6 Kupios eSwxev. As in vil. 17; Rom. xii. 3. The construction is condensed for ékaoros ws 6 K. édwxev aire. 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 didxovos. Rom. xii. 3 favours the former, but perhaps | 6 @eds nvEavey favours the latter. We have éxaoros five times in vv. 5-13. God deals separately with each individual soul: cf. iv. 5, Vil. 17, 20, 24, xli. 7, 11. 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 @eds in what follows that 6 Kvpios means God, and it seems to be in marked antithesis to dudxovo.. We should read ti in both places (N* AB 17, Vulg. defg Aeth. RV.), rather than rls (C DEF GLP, Syrr. Copt. Arm. AV.). D* L, Syrr. Arm. Aeth. place IaiXos first and ’Avo\X\ws second, an obvious correction, to agree with vv. gand 6. DEFGL, Vulg. Arm. Copt. omit éorw after 7. dé. D*? LP, Syrr. AV. insert aAN # before didcova. NABCD*EFG, Vulg. Copt. Arm. RV. omit. 6. é€y® epvtevoa «.t.A. 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 xviil. 24—xix. 1): the imperfect indicates what was going on /Aroughout; God was all | along causing the increase (Acts xiv. 27, xvi. 14).¢ Sine hoc incremento granum a primo sationts momento esset instar lapilli : ex incremento statim fides germinat (Beng.). See Chadwick, Pastoral Teaching, p. 183. 7. €otw ti. ‘Is something,’ est aliguid, Vulg. (cf. Acts v. 36 ; Gal. ii. 6, vi. 3); so Evans ; guiddam, atque adeo, quia solus, omnia (Beng.), Or, éoriv 1, ‘is anything’ (AV., RV.). LVos mercenarii sumus, altenis ferramentis operamur, nthil debetur nobis, nist merces laboris nostri, quia de accepto talento operamur (Primasius). * «* There is no evidence that at this time d:axovla or dtaxovety had an exclusively official sense” (Westcott on Eph. iv. 12); cf. Heb. vi. 10. + 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 [IIL 8, 9 adn’ 6 adifdvev Oeds. The strongly adversative dAAa implies the opposite of what has just been stated ; ‘but God who giveth ee the increase is everything. See on vii. 19, and cf. Gal. vi. 15. To refer érétucrey and 6 zorilwy to Baptism, as some of the Fathers do, is to exhibit a strange misappreciation of the con- text. See Lightfoot’s note. @eds is placed last with emphasis ; ‘but the giver of the increase—God.’ év etow. 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 6¢. éxaotos 8¢€. ‘Yet each has his own responsibility and work, and each shall receive his proper reward.’ The repeated técov marks the separate responsibility, correcting a possible misappre- hension of the meaning of &: congruens tteratio, antitheton ad ‘unum’ (Beng.). The latter point is drawn out more fully in vu. 10 f. 9. Ocod ydp. The yap refers to the first half, not the second, _ of v. 8. The workers are in one category, because they are @eov rae Sy pte Pgs (Tae a auvepyot. The verse contains the dominant thought of the whole passage, gathering up the gist of vv. 5-7. Hence the emphatic threefold @cod. 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. ©co0 cuvepyot. This remarkable expression occurs nowhere else: the nearest to it is 2 Cor. vi. 1; the true text of 1 Thess. iii. 2 is probably duaxovov, not cuvepyov.* 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 SS human instrumentality in a sense co-operates (dca éroinoev 6 Ocds per airdv, Acts xiv. 27), and St Paul admits this aspect of the matter in 7 xapis Tov Meod adv epoi, xv. 10, and in cuvepyodvres, 2 Cor. vi. 1. This seems to turn the scale in favour of the more simple and natural translation, ‘fellow-workers with God.’ 7 Compare trois cuvepyovs pov ev Xpirrd Iyood (Rom. xvi. 3), which *In LXX cuvepyds is very rare; 2 Mac. viii. 7, xiv. 5, of favourable opportunities. t Det enim sumus adjutores (Vulg.); Etenim Det sumus administri (Beza); Denn wir sind Gottes Mitarbeiter (Luth.). In such constructions, suvvacy- bdrXwrds mov, cUvdovda abrod, cuvéxdnmos 7)uGv, the evy- 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. Geod yedpytov, Oeod oixoSouy. The one metaphor has been employed in vv. 6-8, the other is to be developed in wv. 1of. 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 oixodoyy, which correspond fairly closely to the different meanings of ‘building,’ see J. A. Robinson, Lphestans, 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 yewpywov 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 oixodou7y does not mean the edifice, but the building-process which results in an edifice. The word yewpyov 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 (éxetvw yewpyiov pH trdpxovtos) that it provides its food in summer. Again, in the Greek addition to the aphorisms on a foolish man (Prov. ix. 12), we are told that he wanders from the tracks of his own husbandry (rods afovas tov idiov yewpytov memAd- vyta). In Ecclus. xxvii. 6 it is said that the ‘cultivation of a tree’ (yewpyov