A FE POPES De OOO LF peg Po -S eae ids Oe ania ere eae CS See oe —— —— oe ca oo — et ee tt ES ee ae a ee ae se SEITE CROP ae opt Se PS OO ot ae eee Se ket a Ot Oe ere ee ee ed - , - \ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 https://archive.org/details/notesonepistlesoOOligh — ————— See ——— r — NOTES ON Pio tS VOR ad) bw FROM UNPUBLISHED COMMENTARIES. Other Titles in the CLASSIC COMMENTARY LIBRARY COMMENTARY ON GENESIS (in two volumes) by Robert S. Candlish THE PSALMS TRANSLATED AND EXPLAINED by J. A. Alexander COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH by J. A. Alexander COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF MARK by J. A. Alexander COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF LUKE by F. L. Godet COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN by F. L. Godet COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES by J. A. Alexander COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS by F. L. Godet COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS by F. L. Godet (in two volumes) COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE GALATIANS by J. B. Lightfoot COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS by John Eadie COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS by J. B. Lightfoot COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS by John Eadie COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL’S EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON by J. B. Lightfoot NOTES ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL (I and II Thessalonians, I Corinthians 1-7, Romans 1-7, Ephesians 1:1-14) by J. B. Lightfoot COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THE THESSALONIANS by Charles John Ellicott COMMENTARY ON THE PASTORAL EPISTLES by Patrick Fairbairn THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES by Joseph B. Mayor COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN by Robert S. Candlish AONE. EPISTLES OF St Paul ( I and II Thessalonians, I Corinthians 1-7, Romans 1-7, Ephesians 1:1-14) Based on the Greek Text from Previously Unpublished Commentaries ZONDERVAN PUBLISHING HOUSE GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 1957 Originally published by the trustees of Dr. Lightfoot’s estate, but never be- fore available as a formal book publi- cation, this work is based on Dr. Light- foot’s lectures on the epistles of Paul and is reproduced from the 1895 edition au- thorized by the trustees of the Lightfoot Fund through MacMillan and Company. Printed in the United States of America INETRODUCLIORY NOTE: HE present work represents the fulfilment of the under- taking announced in the preface to ‘ Biblical Essays’ a year and a half ago. As that volume consisted of introduc- tory essays upon New Testament subjects, so this comprises such of Dr Lightfoot’s notes on the text as in the opinion of the Trustees of the Lightfoot Fund are sufficiently complete to justify publication. However, unlike ‘Biblical Essays,’ of which a considerable part had already been given to the world, this volume, as its title-page indicates, consists entirely of unpublished matter. It aims at reproducing, wherever possible, the courses of lectures delivered at Cambridge by Dr Lightfoot upon those Pauline Epistles which he did not live to edit in the form of complete commentaries. His method of trusting to his memory in framing sentences in the lecture room has been alluded to already in the preface to the previous volume. But here again the Editor’s difficulty has been considerably lessened by the kindness of friends who were present at the lectures and have placed their note- books at the disposal of the Trustees. As on the previous occasion, the thanks of the Trustees are especially due to W. P. Turnbull, Esq., formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge and now one of Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Schools, and to the Rev. H. F. Gore-Booth, Rector of Sacred Trinity, Salford; and the notes lent for the present work by the Right Reverend F. Wallis, D.D., Senior Fellow of Gonville val INTRODUCTORY NOTE. and Caius College and Lord Bishop of Wellington, New Zealand, and by the Rev. A. Lukyn Williams, Chaplain and Head of the London Mission of the Jews’ Society, have been of great service. Those who attended Dr Lightfoot’s lectures will recollect that he was accustomed te deliver them slowly, thus rendering it possible for a fast writer to take them down almost word for word. The materials thus rendered available have been carefully compared with the original draft. The Editor feels confident that the result may be accepted as representing with fair accuracy the Bishop’s actual words. The above explanation applies to the notes on the Two Epistles to the Thessalonians, and on the first seven chapters (for no more is here published) of the First Epistle to the Corinthians and of the Epistle to the Romans. In the case of the fragment of the Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. i. I—1I4) no qualification is necessary; for in this case the Bishop’s manuscript is written out fully, just as he intended it for publication in his contemplated edition of that Epistle. It thus represents his final judgment on these verses. In a few places, quotations, carefully specified, have been inserted from Dr Lightfoot’s book ‘On a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament’ (3rd Edition with an additional appendix, 1891), a work which, though published with a special purpose, yet contains a great amount of New Testa- ment exegesis of permanent value. . The Trustees gladly take the opportunity of again ex- pressing their thanks to the officers and workmen of the University Press for their intelligent criticism and their un- failing courtesy. } i ee CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, Feast of the Conversion of St Paul, 1895. EXTRACT FROM THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE LATE JOSEPH BARBER LIGHTFOOT, LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM. “T bequeath all my personal Estate not hereinbefore other- “wise disposed of unto [my Executors] upon trust to pay and “transfer the same unto the Trustees appointed by me under “and by virtue of a certain Indenture of Settlement creating “a Trust to be known by the name of ‘ The Lightfoot Fund “for the Diocese of Durham’ and bearing even date herewith “but executed by me immediately before this my Will to be “administered and dealt with by them upon the trusts for the “purposes and in the manner prescribed by such Indenture [or Settlement.” EXTRACT FROM THE INDENTURE OF SETTLEMENT OF ‘ THE LIGHTFOOT FUND FOR THE DIOCESE OF DURHAM.’ “WHEREAS the Bishop is the Author of and is absolutely “entitled to the Copyright in the several Works mentioned in “the Schedule hereto, and for the purposes of these presents “he has assigned or intends forthwith to assign the Copyright “in all the said Works to the Trustees. Now the Bishop “doth hereby declare and it is hereby agreed as follows :— “The Trustees (which term shall hereinafter be taken to “include the Trustees for the time being of these presents) Vill EXTRACT FROM BISHOP LIGHTFOOT’S WILL. “shall stand possessed of the said Works and of the Copy- “right therein respectively upon the trusts following (that is “to say) upon trust to receive all moneys to arise from sales “or otherwise from the said Works, and at their discretion “from time to time to bring out new editions of the same “ Works or any of them, or to sell the copyright in the same or “any of them, or otherwise to deal with the same respectively, “it being the intention of these presents that the Trustees “shall have and may exercise all such rights and powers in “respect of the said Works and the copyright therein re- “spectively, as they could or might have or exercise in re- “lation thereto if they were the absolute beneficial owners PARELCOL <2 “ The Trustees shall from time to time, at such discretion “as aforesaid, pay and apply the income of the Trust funds “for or towards the erecting, rebuilding, repairing, purchas- “ing, endowing, supporting, or providing for any Churches, “ Chapels, Schools, Parsonages, and Stipends for Clergy, and “other Spiritual Agents in connection with the Church of “England and within the Diocese of Durham, and also for “or towards such other purposes in connection with the said “Church of England, and within the said Diocese, as the “ Trustees may in their absolute discretion think fit, provided “always that any payment for erecting any building, or in “relation to any other works in connection with real estate, “shall be exercised with due regard to the Law of Mortmain; “it being declared that nothing herein shall be construed as “intended to authorise any act contrary to any Statute or “other Law.... “In case the Bishop shall at any time assign to the “ Trustees any Works hereafter to be written or published by “him, or any Copyrights, or any other property, such transfer EXTRACT FROM BISHOP LIGHTFOOT’S WILL. 1X “shall be held to be made for the purposes of this Trust, and “all the provisions of this Deed shall apply to such property, “subject nevertheless to any direction concerning the same “which the Bishop may make in writing at the time of such “transfer ; and in case the Bishop shall at any time pay any “money, or transfer any security, stock, or other like property “to the Trustees, the same shall in like manner be held for “the purposes of this Trust, subject to any such contempo- “raneous direction as aforesaid, and any security, stock or “property so transferred, being of a nature which can lawfully “be held by the Trustees for the purposes of these presents, “may be retained by the Trustees, although the same may “not be one of the securities hereinafter authorised. “The Bishop of Durham and the Archdeacons of Durham “and Auckland for the time being shall be exv-officzo Trustees, “and accordingly the Bishop and Archdeacons, parties hereto, “and the succeeding Bishops and Archdeacons, shall cease to “be Trustees on ceasing to hold their respective offices, and “the number of the other Trustees may be increased, and the “power of appointing Trustees in the place of Trustees other “than Official Trustees, and of appointing extra Trustees, “shall be exercised by Deed by the Trustees for the time “being, provided always that the number shall not at any “time be less than five. “The Trust premises shall be known by the name of “*The Lightfoot Fund for the Diocese of Durham.’” Pee OUT i STF RU ae os ee b i ; Vian iy oa bay puke 0 ; A Pea Oy ee | hse a ata ' uf ay ; \ yun. f Jaa i ; an ; , ie Hy i , Wie i : eh At a V4 5 , at a Ry! : .: RR ek 8 2 ‘ ' i tie ANE ae VSM) Patty mel neta ny i \' oan J ang, Z ; +» LA ASE OTS. Ty Cee TR Re iy an cer ' RE Bae é ry ; E ho) a } 5 id : J i eed oar ; caved “irae ae ) rat vA ; aif es) it} : ah , s i r - é Lae , r Ase PW ‘ { , ' ; >) j - ¢ i ‘ i : } | 2 ‘ ag ‘ . ‘ ody ‘ ' i: III. IV. TABLESOPr CON TENS: THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ; : 3 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY (Chaps. I—VII) THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY (Chaps. I—VII) THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. COMMENTARY (Chap. I, 1—14) . ; ‘ INDICES . PAGES I—92 93—136 137—235 237—3095 3907 —324 325—336 . , f | se Liew ms i a4 =, 7 y a . i ¥ vi ‘Va ¥ y ' 5 1 TAN ie: EPLS PVE SiO Shek A Oe: If. hike sSkCOND APOSTOLIC jOURNEN I. PRS) EPISTLE, TO THE THESSALONIANS: SURELY I COME QUICKLY. Surely He cometh, and a thousand voices Shout to the saints and to the deaf are dumb; Surely He cometh, and the earth rejoices, Glad in His coming, Who hath sworn, I come. Ad hoc regnum me vocare, Juste Judex, tu dignare, Quem expecto, quem requiro, Ad quem avidus suspiro. ANALYSIS. i SALUTATION: <1. 1. II. NARRATIVE PORTION. i. 2—illl. 13. ill. The Apostle gratefully records their conversion to the Gospel and progress in the faith, i. 2—r0. He reminds them how pure and blameless his life and ministry among them had been. il. r—12. He repeats his thanksgiving for their conversion, dwelling especially on the persecutions which they had endured. ii. 13—16. He describes his own suspense and anxiety, the consequent mission of Timothy to Thessalonica, and the encouraging report which he brought back. ii, 17—ill. Io. The Apostle’s prayer for the Thessalonians. iii. 11—13. III. HORTATORY PORTION. iv. I—v. 24. re il. ill. vi. Warning against impurity. iv. r—8. Exhortation to brotherly love and sobriety of conduct. iv. g—12. Touching the Advent of the Lord. iv. 13—v. 11. (z) The dead shall have their place in the resurrection. iv. 13—18. (2) The time however is uncertain. v. 1—3. (c) Therefore all must be watchful. v. 4—11. Exhortation to orderly living and the due performance of social duties. v. 12—15. Injunctions relating to prayer and spiritual matters generally. v. 16—22. The Apostle’s prayer for the Thessalonians. v. 23, 24. IV. PERSONAL INJUNCTIONS AND BENEDICTION. v. 25—28. LPR iG 9) } j ; ‘ , Se be }! : ad " i ¥ ri f nae | jig a oan ea Py + ae i. tl Pe Na ee ee iT Peal | haat 2? All Vee wa t am rae “wt %, By yh "7 e "5 Ny F Utne BO 3 5 + Tie r Ds ‘ { \ i : ; a ws Ca pi * 7 5 ' ® om Ute Kal A : - ' n ) a aL } ae \ a St ee Lh . J CHAPTER 1. SALUTATION, i.. 1. THE prefatory salutations in all the acknowledged Epistles of St Paul are the same in their broad features, though exhibiting minor variations often very significant. These variations may most frequently be traced to the peculiar relations existing between the Apostle and those whom he addresses. Even in other instances where the motives which have influenced the choice of the particular expression are too subtle to be apprehended, the differences of expression are still significant from a chronological point of view, as denoting a particular epoch in the Apostle’s life. We have examples of both kinds in the salutation to the Epistle; of the former in the omission of any allusion to his Apostleship, of the latter in the expression rj éxkAnoia. In this salutation the Apostle attaches the names of Silvanus and Timotheus to his own. They were staying with him at Corinth at the time when the letter was written (see Acts xvili. 5, 2 Cor. i. 19), and as they were joint founders of the Thessalonian Church (see Acts xvi. I—3, xvii. 4, 10, 14), are naturally named in conjunction with him. The degree of participation in the contents of the letter on the part of those, whose names are thus attached, will vary according to the circumstances of the case. Here, for instance, the connexion is close; for Silvanus and Timotheus (the former especially) stood very much in the same position as St Paul himself with respect to the claim which they had on the obedience of their Thessalonian converts: and thus the Apostle through- out uses the plural ‘ze beseech,’ ‘we would not have you ignorant’ (iv. 1, 13). On the other hand, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the name of Sosthenes appears with that of St Paul in the introductory salutation simply as a Corinthian brother who was with St Paul at the time. Accordingly, as he did not stand in any position of authority, he has no special connexion with the contents of the Epistle, and does not reappear again directly or indirectly, but the Apostle at once returns to the singular, ‘7 thank my God’ (1 Cor. i. 4). 6 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [Trae The name of Silvanus is placed before that of Timotheus, not only because he held a superior position in the Church generally—he was a leading man among the brethren dvyp ryovpevos év trois adeAdois (Acts xv. 22), while Timotheus was only a young disciple (Acts xvi. 1 sq.)—but also because he took a more prominent part in founding these very churches of Macedonia (Acts xvi. 19, 25, 29, xvii. 4, IO). 1. ILatdos] On the omission of the official title amdarodos in both Epistles to the Thessalonians, as well as in those to the Philippians and to Philemon, see the note on Phil. i. 1. Zirovavés] So called wherever he is mentioned by St Paul (e.g. 2 Thess. i. I, 2 Cor. i. 19), is to be identified with Silas of the Acts. This appears from the identity of situation ascribed to the two in the historical narrative and the allusions in the Epistle. Later tradition distinguishes Silas from Silvanus, making the former Bishop of Corinth, the latter of Thessalonica. The multiplication of persons is not un- common in ecclesiastical legends, where it was necessary to make up a list of bishops—though in the parallel instance of Epaphras and Epaphroditus there is better ground for the distinction of persons. The name Silas is contracted from S:Aovaves, aS Aovxas from Aovkavos, Tlappevas from Tappevidns, Anas from Ayjpapxos or Anunrptos, this con- traction applying equally to Greek and Latin names and without respect to their termination. See the note on Nuydas (Colossians, p. 242), where instances are given from inscriptions. Similar con- tractions are found in classical writers also, "AXeéas for ’AXe~avdpos, Kryos for Krnoias, Nixis for Nuxias, SiBvpris for SBvprios (see the examples given in Schoemann on Isaeus p. 274 quoted by Koch p. 50). Waddington (Voyage en Asie-Mineure, 1853, p. 32) instances the form ’Apras (Thuc. vii. 33, Boeckh C. /. G. 111. no. 3960 4) as a further contraction of ’Aprepas, itself contracted from ’Aprepidwpos. Letronne (Recueil des Inscriptions Grecques et Latines, 1848, Ul. p. 54) gives among other examples Mnvas for Mnvodwpos, KXeoras for KAedrarpos, Znvas for Znvodwpos, and a number of words in -as contracted from -éas, Ipwras, Pid@ras, ’"Apioras, Swras, Savpas etc., with genitives in -aros. On the other hand Jerome (de nom. Hebr. s.v.) considers Silas to be the original Hebrew name p\>yy equivalent to ‘apostolus’; comp. his commentary on Gal. i. 1 (Op. VII. p. 374). It appears as a Jewish name in Josephus (Awz. xiv. 3. 2, xviii. 6. 7, xix. 7. 1), and in inscriptions, e.g. Boeckh C. 7. G. II. no. 4511 Saporyépapos 6 kat Seikas (Emesa). The name Silvanus also is not uncommon in inscriptions; it occurs e.g. Orelli no. 2566 and on an inscription found at Ancyra (Boeckh III. no. 4071). Silas first appears in the narrative of the Acts in the account of the Apostolic Congress (xv. 22), on which occasion he is employed with Judas, as bearer of the letter to the Gentile Christians at Antioch. He subsequently accompanies St Paul, as it would appear, during the whole of his second missionary journey, only parting from him in order to Er} FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 7 maintain his intercourse with the Macedonian Churches (see &zb/ical Essays, p. 245 sq.). He is not mentioned as accompanying St Paul, when the Apostle left Corinth at the close of this second missionary journey, nor is his name found subsequently in St Luke’s narrative. He was obviously a Jewish Christian (Acts xvi. 20), but, like St Paul, a Roman citizen (Acts xvi. 37, 38). Hence his Roman name Silvanus. The Silvanus mentioned as the bearer of St Peter's first Epistle (1 Pet. v. 12) is probably the same person, but the name is too common to allow of the identity being pressed. See on this point Bleek, Hedy. I. B, p. 408, and on Silas generally Cellarius, assert. de Sila viro apost. 1773, referred to by Koch ad /oc., Cureton, Syriac Gospels, p. vili.. Zimmer, Jahrb. f, Prot. Theol. 1881, p. 721, Jiilicher 26. 1882, p. 538, Seufert Zeztsch. f. Wiss. Theol. XXVI, 1885, p. 350, and Klopper, Zheol. Stud. u. Skizz. 1889, p. 73 Sq- Tipé0cos] Timotheus appears prominently in ten out of the thirteen Epistles of St Paul, the exceptions being Galatians, Colossians and Titus. Having joined St Paul about a year before this, his earliest Epistle, was written, he remained with him with occasional interruptions to the end of his life. TH &xkAnola @.] This form of address is peculiar to the five earliest of St Paul’s Epistles, 1, 2 Thessalonians, 1, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. His later letters to Christian communities are addressed trois ayios or rois ddeAgois, Or in some similar way. Until a satisfactory explanation is given of this variation, we must be content with its significance as a chronological mark. Dr Jowett accounts for the omission in the later Epistles as follows, ‘perhaps because to the Apostle, in his later years, the Church on earth seemed already passing into the heavens’ (Zhe Epistles of St Paul, \. p: 43, 2nd ed.). @ccoadovikéwv] The history of Thessalonica and of the establishment of Christianity there is treated fully in Azd/ical Essays, pp. 235 sq-, 251 sq. év Oc warpl...Xpiord] It is doubtful whether these words should be taken (1) with r7 éxxAnoia ©., as denoting the sphere in which the Church moved ; or (2) separately, as applying to the word understood in the ellipsis, whether yaipev or ypapovar. The clause amo Geov marpés k.t.A. is probably not genuine: otherwise it would decide in favour of the first construction by which a meaningless tautology would be avoided. On the other hand the absence of the article r7 before ev Oce@ x.r.A. is by no means decisive against the first construction, for the New Testament usage is far from uniform in this respect; see ii. 14, iv. 16, 2 Thess. iii. 14, and the note on Gal. i. 13 (avaorpopyv more). On the whole probably we should connect with rq éxxAnoia; for frst it is more in accordance with St Paul’s manner, in designating those whom he addresses, to add some words expressive of their calling in God and Christ, as a comparison with the salutation in his other Epistles will show; and secondly the word TH €xxAngia can scarcely have been stamped with so definite a Christian 8 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. (I. 2. meaning in the minds of these recent and early converts to the Gospel, as to render the addition of the words év Ge@ marpi x.r.A. superfluous. As St Chrysostom says, who adopts the construction here preferred in his comment on the passage, it was necessary to distinguish it from moAAat éxxAnoiat Kat "Iovdaixal cat “EAAnuxai. See e.g. 1 Thess. ii. 14, and the note there on the word ékxxAngia. xdpis tpiv Kal elprjvn] This peculiarly Christian greeting is generally regarded as a blending together of the heathen form of salutation xaipew, and the Jewish nydvi. But xdpis has only the very slenderest connexion with yaipew in respect to meaning, though derived from a common root. Xdpis is the source of all real blessings, eipyyn their end and issue. This is the form of greeting adopted in all St Paul’s Epistles (with the exception of those to Timothy), and in the Epistles of St. Peter In the two Pastoral Epistles above, and in 2 Joh. 3, the form is xapis, €Aeos, ciprjym. Perhaps it is no idle fancy to trace in the additional touch of tenderness communicated by €deos in these later Epistles a sense of the growing evils which threatened the Church. Clement of Rome begins his genuine epistle with the salutation ydpis viv kal eipyvn dro TavroKparopos Gcod bua "Inood Xpiorov mAnOvvbein, probably following the First Epistle of Peter, which he quotes frequently. On the other hand, in the Ignatian Epistles the regular expression is 7Aeiora xaipew. 2. NARRATIVE PORTION, i. 2—iii. 13. i. Grateful record of their conversion and progress (i. 2—10). 2. In almost all the Epistles of St Paul the salutation is followed immediately by a thanksgiving, generally in the form evxapiord, evyapt- arovpev TH Oe@ (in 2 Thess. evxaptoreiv oeidoper), but twice (2 Cor. and Ephesians) ehoyyr os 6 @cds. This was always St Paul’s first thought (rparoyv pev evxaptora, Rom. i. 8), and how lofty a view he took “of the - duty of thanksgiving appears from 2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 11, 12, and below v. 16, where see note. This thanksgiving is omitted only in the Pastoral Epistles (with the exception of 2 Timothy, where it is found in a modified form) and Galatians. In the Epistle last mentioned its place is occupied by a rebuke Gavpalw dri odrw raxéws x.r.A. In this, as in other cases (see e.g. above on ver. 1), the expressions in our Epistle most resemble those in the Philippian letter in the strength of language and the earnest reite- ration of the sentiment: see PAzlipfpians, pp. 66, 82. Pelagius well marks: ‘In indesinenti oratione, memoriae quantitas et dilectionis ostenditur, quam eorum merita postulabant.’ Dr Jowett points to this passage (i. 2-—10) as thoroughly characteristic a. FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 9 of St Paul’s style. He remarks admirably: ‘A classical or modern writer distinguishes his several propositions, assigning to each its exact relation to what goes before and follows, that he may give meaning and articulation to the whole. The manner of St Paul is the reverse of this. He overlays one proposition with another, the second just emerging beyond the first, and arising out of association with it, but not always standing in a clear relation to it’ (I. p. 45). edxaptorotpev] ‘We,’ i.e. Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus. On this word it may be remarked, as to (1) z¢s occurrence, that it seems to be very rare in authors of the classical period and no instance has been pointed out of it in Attic Greek. It appears in Hippocrates £Z/. Il. p. 1284, calor avOpwmovus Kepavvois evyapiotnra, and in inscriptions, especially a very old one Boeckh, C. 7. G. I. no. 34, and in the decrees (if they be genuine) attached to Demosthenes (e.g. p. 257, 2, the wydiopa Xepporvnairey in the de Corona, p. 92). Evyapioros however is found in Xen. Cyvop. viii. 3. 49 and dxapioretv is common. (2) J/¢s wse. The original meaning of the verb is ‘to do a good turn to,’ hence ‘to return a favour,’ ‘to be grateful’; but the sense ‘to express gratitude’ seems to be confined to later writers from the time of Polybius onwards. See Lobeck on Phrynichus, I. p. 18. In Demosth. de Cor. 92 otc éAdeiet evxapioray Kal moray 6 re av Sdvnrat ayaGov, it is unnecessary to assign this meaning to the word. The exact punctuation of these verses is doubtful. If the second vpov (after pveiay) were genuine, the first clause would naturally end with mept mavrwy vuov. But vuov is not read by NAB etc. and should be omitted here and in Eph. i. 16. Accordingly the words rept mavrov vpov are better taken with what follows; because the words pyeiav sovovpevor cannot well stand alone, but need some explanation, such as-is found e.g. in Plato, Protag. 317 E, where they are constructed with the genitive. It is more difficult to determine whether dd.aX\eitrws is to be taken with what precedes or what follows. A comparison with Rom. i. 9 ds adsaXeizr- Tws pvelav Uuoy Totovpa Supports the former view: but in all such cases the requirements of the sentence itself are a safer guide than parallel passages ; and the position of the words seems at first sight to favour the construction with pynpovevovres as the Greek commentators appear generally to have done. But on the whole it is more forcible to connect the word with what goes before, and this view is borne out by 2 Tim. i. 3 @s adiadevTTov €xw@ THY TEP TOU pve iar. pvelay totovpevor] While pynun is ‘memory’ generally, pvela is ‘remembrance’ in a special case, and may be defined to be ‘the direction of pvjun to some particular object.’ Thus, while pyjun may be used for pveia, it is not true conversely that pveia can take the place of pyjun. Mveiay rroveto Oar is found in three other passages of St Paul (Rom. 1. 9, Eph. i. 16, Philem. 4), and always, as here, in connexion with prayer. In 2 Pet.i. 15 the words are pynuny roetcoOa. Bruder indeed mentions a v. 1. pvetav, but it has very little textual support. It is questionable IO FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [I. 2. whether pveiav rovetaOac means ‘to remember,’ or ‘to mention.’ Either sense would equally suit the passages where the phrase occurs. In favour of ‘remember’ it may be urged (1) that pynyny moteicda_ has certainly this sense in 2 Pet.l-c., and (2) that in a parallel passage in 2 Tim. i. 3 St Paul speaking in the same way of his thanksgiving uses pvelav Exe, which can only mean ‘to remember.’ On the other hand, Plato (Protag. 317 E, Phaedr. 254 A) employs pyreiav roveioGac for ‘to mention,’ and so do other writers (e.g. AZschines and Andocideés). “It is safer therefore to give the phrase this meaning in St Paul. Certainly it makes better sense here, ‘making mention incessantly, as we remember.’ It will be seen that this signification of ‘mention’ is not contained in pveia, but is derived from roetoba. For prnpny moceiaOa in the sense of ‘making mention’ comp. Clem. Hom. i. 16 mavra yap...nuiv avréBadre BapvaBas, oxedov xa” juépay thy ayabyv cov movovpevos prynpuny. adiadkelmrws| See the note on v. 17. 3. pwnpovedovtes] ‘xemembering. The word is sometimes translated ‘making mention of’; but verbs of ‘informing’ (according to Winer, § 30, 10, p. 257 ed. Moulton) are never found in the New Testament with a simple genitive but with mepi, and pynpovevew is always used by St Paul in the sense of ‘remember’ (Gal. ii. 10, Col. iv. 18; comp. Eph. ii. 11, 2° Thess: ii. 5, 2: Tim: 11. 8). tpav] is the possessive genitive referring to all three clauses which follow—rod é€py. T. m., TOU Kom. THS dy., THS UTop. THs €Atr. tov épyou tis mlorews x.7.A.] The three genitives micrews, ayamns, éridos are best regarded as cases of the same kind describing the source—‘the work which comes of faith, the labour which springs from love, the patience which is born of hope.’ This triad of Christian graces is distinctly enunciated by St Paul in 1 Cor. xiil. 13 only, but the same conception underlies the Apostle’s language frequently, even where the words are not directly mentioned. The combination is especially to be noticed as occurring in this his earliest Epistle. .The same order is found in Col. i. 4, 5 dkovcavres riv_mioriw vpav...cai THY adyarny...dua THY é\rida and in Gal. v. 5,6, where see note. On the other hand, in 1 Cor. xiii. 13 the sequence is different, dydmn being placed last. Each order is equally natural in its place. Here we have /rst faith, the source of all Christian virtues, secondly love, the sustaining principle of Christian life, lastly hope, the beacon-star guiding us to the life to come. This prominence given to hope is in accordance with the pervading tenour of the Thessalonian Epistles, where the Apostle is ever leading the minds of his hearers forward to the great day of retribution (see 1 Thess, v. 8, where again the triad is found). ’Edmis is closely connected with owrnpia (1 Thess. v. 8) and with 8ééa (Rom. v. 2, Col. i. 27), and indeed is some- times used as equivalent to éAmis cwrnpias ‘the hope of glory, of salvation,’ e.g. Acts xxiii. 6 (a speech of St Paul’s) mepi eAmidos kai avaoracews vexpav yo xpivoua. In 1 Cor. xiii. 13, on the other hand, the prominent position I. 3.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. If is given to aydmn, which alone shall abide when faith is swallowed up in sight and hope is dissolved in fulfilment. On the fundamental distinction of the two graces in the present passage Severianus (in Cramer’s Catena) says well, 7 pev miotis éyeipes mpos Kapdrous, 7 S€ dydmn emipévery moet Tois novos. Compare Ignatius Polyc. 6 4 miorts os mepixepadaia, 7 ayarn ws ddpv, 7 Umopovn ws mavorAia, and Polycarp’s own words (PAz/. 3) miorw, Aris €oTW pyTNp Tavrov juar, émaxoAovbovens THs €Amidos, mpoayovans THs ayanns, where mpoayovons is used in reference to eAmis, not to miotis, for miotis precedes dyamn: see Ign. Ephes. 14 apyn pev miotts, rédos S€ ayarn. In the Epistle of Barnabas the same triad is also found, § 1, dre peyddn miotis Kat ayamn €ykaTotket ev vuiv €Amidt (wns avrov. See the notes on Col. i. 5, Polyc. 1. c. and comp. Reuss 7héol. Chrét. Iv. 20, vol. II. p- 219. On the order of these results (€pyov, xomos, vmouovn) see Rev. il. 2 oda Ta €pya cov kal Tov Komov Kat THY Umopovny cov. The words are distinguishable in meaning, and are arranged in an ascending scale as practical proofs of self-sacrifice. “Epyoy is simply active work ; xémos is a greater exhibition of earnestness, for it is not work only but fatiguing work ; vzonory is higher evidence still, for it involves a notion of indignity offered, of suffering undergone without any present countervailing result. Thus it is Baowis rav aperav, as Chrysostom says (see Trench, /V. 7. Syz. § lili. p. 197 ed. 9). On the appropriateness of the results to the graces, notice that €pyor is elsewhere represented as the practical fruit and evidence of faith, see Gal. v. 6, James ii. 18 ; xdzos is closely connected with dyazn in Rev. 1. c., where in ver. 4 tyv dyamny cov thy mpwrny seems to be a direct reference to Tov Korrov of ver. 2 (see also a v. 1. in Heb. vi. 10, where however the words tov xomov should probably be omitted). Again vmoporvn ‘the patient endurance which bides its time’ implies the existence of hope, comp. Rom. viii. 25 eAmi¢opev 8: vropovns amexSexoueOa and xv. 4; and indeed is sometimes found where we should expect ¢Amis, as in 2 Thess. iii. 5 eis THY vmoporvny Tov Xpiorov, and Tit. ii. 2 ry wiorer, ty dyamn, TH vropory. See the note on Ign. Rom. 10 év vmopovn “I. X., and on the distinction between vzopovn and paxpodvpia the note on Col. i. 11. 4 7ov Kvuplov jpav I. X.] As it would be somewhat harsh to make these /words depend on all three words riotews, ayamns, éAmidos, we must suppose i the parallelism of the three clauses interrupted by the third being ) lengthened out by means of the explanatory words rov Kupiov KA, Ay i.e. / ‘the hope of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ tmpoor ey Tov Geod kal tarpds jpav] Is this clause to be taken (1) with pynpovevortes, Or (2) with rod epyov...Xpiorov, or (3) only with ris vroporns ..Ingov Xpuorov? In favour of the first view may be urged the fact that in lll, 9 we have éumpooOev rov Geov juav in a similar connexion. But on the other hand pynpovevovres €umpoocbev rod Oeov would be unnecessarily tautological after evxapiorotpev ro Oeg, nor is it easy to see why éumpoobev 12 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, [I. 3. tov Geov should stand so late in the sentence. Again the two other constructions are much more in accordance with the general use of €umpoobev Tov Geov, évamiov tov Geov, appealing to God’s witness and judgment of conduct concealed from, or misinterpreted by men, It is thus equivalent to ‘ your righteous conversation in the sight of God.’ It is less easy to choose between (2) and (3). On the whole, if rod Kupiov nu. I. X. is restricted to ris vmouovns ths eAmidos, the same restriction probably applies to €umpoodev rod Geov ‘the patient endurance of hope which reposes in the coming of Christ and is manifested in the sight of God.’ The words éumpooGev rod cod kai mr. jp. are then complementary to "Incov ste as so frequently ir in S St Paul, eg. 2 Cor. ii. 17 Karévavre cov ev Xptotre@ Aadoupev (so aga again xil. 19); and the ‘Expression clover resembles 1 Thess. iil. 13, apéumrous éumpoobev TOO Oeou_kal marpos Nav év TH mapovoia Tov Kupiouv yay ‘Invod. The sentence for the sake of the parallelism should have closed with éAmidos; but St Paul runs off, so to speak, on the third clause of the triplet, to introduce the hallowed names in and through and for whom all good things are done. Tov @eov kal matpds nav] ‘before Him, who is not only our Supreme Ruler, but has also all the tenderness and affection of a father towards us, who watches all our actions with a fatherly solicitude.’ See note on Gal. i. 4, where the same phrase occurs, and comp. ver. 4, jyamnpevoe vd cov. elSdres] ‘for we know, giving the reason, whereas the previous participles explain the circumstances, of evxapiorodpev. 4. Hyarnpévor td Oeov] ‘beloved by God, comp. 2 Thess. ii. 13, nyamnuévot vo Kupiov, where see the note. Both expressions occur in the LXX., ny. tro Geov, Sir. xlv. 1; ny. vro Kupiov, Deut. xxxiii. 12, Sir. xlvi. 13. The construction of the E.V. is quite inadmissible, though supported by some respectable commentators ancient and modern. ékdoyyv] On this word, which is never used in the New Testament in the sense of election to final salvation, see the note on Col. iii, 12 - éxXexTol Tou Geov. 5. rt] is generally translated in this passage with the E.V. ‘for.’ But the meaning which the phrase eidévat te Gre universally bears in the New Testament, and the idiomatic character of the expression, seem decisive in favour of the interpretation ‘knowing the circumstance or manner of your election, how that.’ Comp. Acts xvi. 3, Rom. xiil. 11, 1 Cor. xvi. 15, 2 Cor. xii. 3, 4, and below ii. 1. So mpoyeyvdoxew Sr Acts xxvi. 5: Brérew Sri, 1 Cor. i. 26 BXérere rhv KAjow vay Gre ov modAoi cool x.r.d., and see the note there. 7d edayyftov par] ‘the gospel we preach’; as in Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25, 2 Cor. iv. 3, 2 Tim. ii. 8, and see the note on 2 Thess. ii. 14. els (v. 1. mpds) tpas] Both readings «is and mpos are supported by parallel passages. For els compare Acts xxi. 17, xxv. I5, xxviii. 6, and especially Gal. iii. 14, from which passages it will appear that yiyveoOat 5.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 13 eis is ‘to arrive at,’ ‘reach.’ For mpos see I Cor. li. 3, kayo é€v aoOeveia Kat év PoBw kal ev Tpdu@ TOAAG eyevounv mpos vpas, ‘exhibited myself in my dealings with you, which seems however to suggest taking ev Aoy@ with éyevn6n here ‘exhibited itself not in word only’ (compare 2 Cor. iii. 7, 8) ; mpos vpas meaning apud vos. But yéverOat mpos vuas would be a legitimate construction. However in this passage manuscript evidence is un- doubtedly in favour of eis. On the fundamental difference between eis and mpos see the notes on 2 Thess. iii. 9g and Philem. 5 mpos rov Kupcov "Incovy kal eis mavtas Tovs dyiovs, and comp. Winer, § 49, p. 494, Meyer on i Cor, ii. 3. éy Aéyw pdvov...rAnpodop{a wodkAqG] The preposition should probably be repeated before each substantive, except wAnpodopia, though the MS. authority is not unanimous on this point. Each word is an advance upon the preceding, and the repetition of «ai év expresses this gradation. Comp. aAXa in 2 Cor. vii. II. The passage may be paraphrased thus : ‘Our preaching was not mere declamation, a hollow and heartless rhetoric: in it there was earnestness and power. Yet this is not enough. There may be a power which is not from above, a fearful earnestness which is not inspired by God. Not such was ours, for we preached in the Holy Spirit. Still even the holiest influences may be transitory, the noblest inspirations may waver from lack of faith. Far otherwise was it with us, for we preached in a deep conviction of the truth of our message, in a perfect assurance of the ultimate triumph of our cause.’ ASyw] The same opposition of Aoyos and dvvayis is found in 1 Cor. ll. 4 kal 6 Adyos pou Kal TO Kypvypd pou ovk ev TeLOols codias Aoyots, GAN’ ev amrodeifee mvevparos Kal Suvdpews. Sivaper] has here no direct reference to the working of miracles, which would require the plural évvapeou (cf. 1 Cor. xii. 10, Gal. ili. 5). There are but few allusions in St Paul to his power of working miracles, partly because he assumes the fact as known to his hearers, and partly because doubtless he considered this a very poor and mean gift in comparison with the high spiritual powers with which he was endowed. Compare a similar case, 1 Cor. xiv. 18. tAnpodopla] IAnpopopia and mAnpodopety are found seven times in St Paul and only three times in the rest of the New Testament (Luke i. 1, Hebr. vi. 11, x. 22). The noun, which occurs in Clem. Rom. 42 peramAn- poopias mvevpuaros, is not found in the LxXx., but the verb appears once, Eccles. viii. 11 éAnpopopy6n xapdia vidy tov avOpwrov ev avrois Tov mojoat TO movnpov, where the corresponding Hebrew is 35 xbp ‘the heart was full to do etc.’ mAnpodopia may mean either (1) ‘fulfilment,’ or (2) ‘ con- viction, assurance.’ The meaning (1) must be discarded, because St Paul is still speaking of the character of the message, not yet of the acceptance of it. IAnpodopia is therefore ‘conviction, confidence’ on the part of St Paul and his fellow-preachers. For wAnpodopia see the note on I4 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, [1. ‘5. Col. ii. 2; for mAnpodopeiy the note on Col. iv. 12. The words seem to be confined almost exclusively to biblical and ecclesiastical writings. Ka0ds olSare] He appeals to the Thessalonians themselves to bear witness to the character of his preaching ; comp. ii. 5. Thus xcaéds oidare must not be regarded as correlative to eiSores above. Such a corre- spondence could only confuse the order of thought in the passage. éyevOnpev] Not yer ‘we were,’ but éyevnOnuev ‘we became, were made’ by the transforming power of Christ. On the distinction of yiyver@a: and etvac see the notes on Col. i. 18 iva yévnra and 1 Cor. i. 30 éyevn6n, with references in both places to Christ. 6. Kal tpets x.7.A.] The fact of their election by God was evinced in two ways; /irst by the divine character of the message imparted to them (ver. 5), and secondly by their sincere acceptance of it: in other words, not only by the offer of the Gospel, but by their response to the offer. This last evidence is given in the words kal vpeis x«.r.A. which, though logically dependent on eiddres rv éxXoyny ort, are thrown into the form of an independent sentence as regards their grammatical structure. kal tov Kvplov] For the spirit in which these words are added to soften and qualify the preceding expression pyznrai nuav see I Cor. xi. I pupnrai pou yiverOe, kabds kayo Xpicrov. SeEdpevor K.t.A.] ‘zasmuch as ye received the word, explaining the feature in which the invitation consisted. They endured tribulation with a holy joy, as Paul had set them the example, who, after the pattern of Christ, rejoiced in his sufferings (Col. i. 24). The degree in which the believer is allowed to participate in the sufferings of his Lord, should be the measure of his joy; see 1 Pet. iv. 13 ka06 xowwveire Trois rod Xpiorod ma@npact, xaipere. On the privilege of sharing in Christ’s sufferings, comp. Phil. i. 29 dre dpiv eyapiocdn ro Umép Xpiorovd ov povoy rd els avrov miorevety, GAAd kal TO UTep avToU Tacyxetv, Where see the note. OAtfe.] The persecutions instigated by the Jews in Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 5 sq.) doubtless continued long after the Apostle had left, for the pertinacity with which they followed St Paul to Berea (Acts xvii. 13) shows their determination ; see zblical Essays, p. 262 sq. But though the Jews were the instigators, the heathen population did not stand aloof, as appears from 1 Thess. ii. 14. TIvetiparos ‘Aylov] ‘ proceeding from, inspired by the Holy Ghost.’ 7. twvmov] ‘an ensample of a Christian community.’ The singular is more forcible than rvmovs, and should be read, though rvmous has strong support. Comp. for the expression and for the singular number Barnabas 19. 7 vroraynon kuplos ws TUT@ Ocod ev alaxvvy Kal PoBo. mac. tots motevovow] Used substantively, ‘to all believers,’ without any special reference of present time. év tT MaxeSovla kal év rq *Axatg] The repetition of the preposition and article is in place here, because St Paul speaks of them as two distinct provinces, ‘not only in Macedonia, but also in the neighbouring province I. 8.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 15 of Achaia’: but in the next verse év ry is correctly omitted by some of the best authorities, because there the two are classed together, in opposition to the rest of the world. The peninsula of Greece under the Roman dominion included parts of three provinces—Macedonia, Achaia, and Illyricum. 8. dd’ tpayv] i.e. ‘spreading from you onward.’ ‘Amo is simply local here. éjxnrat] ‘has sounded forth, like thunder. A strong word and especially used in this metaphor: Pollux i. 118 é€&nynoev Bpovrn, comp. Ecclus. xl. 13 ws Bpovri peyadn ev vero €Enxjoet, where the goods of the unjust are said to exhaust their power, to roar themselves out, as thunder in rain. ‘Non verba sed tonitrua’ says Jerome of St Paul’s writings: he seems to hear them as he reads them. The verb appears to be a middle here. 6 Adyos tou Kuplov] This expression occurs again in 2 Thess. iii. I (cf. €v Noyw Kupiov, 1 Thess. iv. 15 and note there). Comp. also ro pyya Kupiov, I Pet. i. 25, and 6 Adyos rov Xpiorov, Col. iii. 16 (on the meaning of which last passage see the note ad /oc.). ‘O Adyos rod Geod is tolerably frequent in St Paul. Are these genitives then, Geov, Kupiov, subjective or objective? i.e. do the expressions mean ‘the word uttered by God, the message of the Lord,’ or ‘the tidings which speak of God, of the Lord’? An answer seems to be supplied to this question by the fact that the expressions are derived from the Hebrew prophets, e.g. Is. xxxviil. 4, ‘Then came the word of the Lord unto Isaiah,’ which is equivalent to ‘thus saith the Lord’ of the following verse, and is rendered in the LXx. Aoyos Kupiov. This Old Testament usage is decisive in favour of the subjective use here. GAN’ év travtl téw k.t..] The opposition is restricted to év r7 Mak. k. “Ax. and ev mavti ror@ as the position of ov pdvov shows. It does not extend also to 6 Adyos row K. and 9 miotis 7 mpos Tov Oedy, aS Some would take it. The sentence, if grammatically regular, would have stopped at év ravi tor@. But the addition of a new subject and predicate (7 miotis...e&eAnAvbev) should create no difficulty in St Paul, whose characteristic earnestness is often exhibited in thus lengthening out a sentence in order to enforce a lesson or dwell upon an important fact. See e.g. ver. 3 above. adda] The omission of kai, besides being best supported by the Mss. (e.g. B, which shows the superiority of its reading over the received text by omitting also ey ry before ’Ayaia above), is also internally more probable, as preparing us for the new form which the sentence is to take. Had it stopped with é¢y marti romw, then adda xai would have been more natural. év navtl témw] The favourable position of Thessalonica situated as it was on the Via Egnatia, and its mercantile importance, will explain the rapid spread of the tidings ; see Biblical Essays, p.254 sq. Wieseler (Chronol, 16 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. (I. 8. p. 42) suggests that St Paul may have learnt from Aquila and Priscilla, who had recently arrived at Corinth from Rome (Acts xviii. 2), that the faith of the Thessalonians was known there. The expression év zavrt tom@ is of course not to be pressed. For a similar hyperbole see Col. i. 6 ev mavtt TS Koop, Rom. i. 8 ev GX@ TG Koop, Phil. i. 13 rots Aourois wacw, and 2 Cor. 11. 14, where the same expression éy rravri rom@ occurs. eeAndvbev] ‘has spread abroad” Comp. Rom. x. 18, 1 Cor. xiv. 36, where the verb is found in the same sense. 9. avrol] ‘of themselves’ Their minds are so full of the subject that unasked they proffer us the information. The substantive to which avrot is to be referred is contained implicitly in év wavti Tora, i.e, ‘strangers from all parts.’ ela o8ov] ‘approach, access. We are tempted by the recollection of St Paul’s favourite metaphor of a door being opened (1 Cor. xvi. 9, 2 Cor. ti. 12, Col. iv. 3, where see the note: comp. Acts xiv. 27 a reference to St Paul’s language) to take eicodos here in a metaphorical sense ‘access to your hearts’: but a comparison of ii. 1 renders the literal meaning more probable. mpos Tov Ocdv dd trav elSdAwv] showing that the majority at least of the Thessalonian converts were heathen and not Jews: comp. 1 Thess, il. 14, 16. That this was the case appears likewise from the fact that St Paul refrains from any direct allusions to the Old Testament, which would certainly have occurred had he been addressing Jews chiefly or prose- lytes. Again, had the mass of the converts been Jews or proselytes the expression would have been not mpos rov Oeov but mpos tov Kupuov. Contrast Acts ix. 4 ris et, Kupse the cry of the proselyte Saul with xv. 19 aro tov edvav éemartpépovow emi tov Gedy: and comp. Gal. iv. 8 ovk eidores @cov of the Galatian idolaters, Acts xiv. 15 dmd tovtwy Tév pataiwy emotpépew ent Gedy Cavra in St Paul’s speech to the people at Lystra. Qc Ldvri kal ddAnOiwo] ‘a living and real God’: as opposed to the phantom and senseless gods of the heathen. See Acts xiv. 15, already cited. The E.V. here by translating ‘the living and true God’ has weakened the passage, just as some Greek transcribers in Acts l.c. by writing Tov Ocdv Tov Cdvra for Gedy (avra followed by the Textus Receptus. The word ddnOwes occurs in this passage only in St Paul’s writings : it is found as a v.l. in Heb. ix. 14 els rd Aarpevew Ged Cavri kai anu, doubt- less from a reminiscence of this passage. On the difference between ddnOis and dAnOwos see Trench, M. 7. Syz. § 8, p. 26. 10. Kal dvapévery tov vidv airod ék tav otpavav] This appeal well illustrates the doctrinal teaching of this Epistle. It is thus, ‘Live a holy | life, that you may be prepared to meet your Lord.’ In St Paul’s later Epistles, his appeal generally assumes a different form, ‘Christ died for you: therefore die with Him to sin.’ Both the one lesson and the other have their office in the instruction of the Church through all ages, addressing themselves to different minds, and frames of minds—the one iE: \r0. ] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 17 making itself heard where the other would be ineffective. The ‘coming of the Lord’ is the refrain, as it were, with which St Paul clenches paragraph after paragraph in this Epistle. See Biblical Essays, p. 224 sq., where the characteristics of the groups of the Pauline Epistles are treated at length. ovpavav] The plural ovpavoi is not classical. Neither was the Latin caeli which, though occurring once in Lucretius for a special reason {II. 1097 caelos omnes, where see Munro’s note), is condemned by Julius Cesar in Aulus Gellius xix. 8. 3—5. On the other hand the Hebrew equivalent has no singular, the plural being always used, with a reference perhaps to successive heavens receding one beyond the other (2 Cor. Xli. 2 €ws rpirov ovpavod) ; see Koch’s note here. dv ayerpev x vexpov] This clause is generally considered to be added as a decisive proof of His Sonship, as in Rom. i. 4. It seems however to be appealed to here rather as an earnest of His coming again in judgment and of the general resurrection, ‘ He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained: whereof he hath given assurance unto all men in that he raised him from the dead, Acts xvii. 31, in St Paul’s speech before the Areopagus which was delivered within a few months of the writing of this Epistle. The parallel therefore from this almost contemporaneous speech may fairly be allowed to decide the train of thought here, even if the context were not so strongly in favour of this interpretation. *Incoty tov pudpevoy x.7.A.] ie. Jesus, Who, as His name betokens, is our deliverer etc., an allusion to the meaning of the name Jesus, ‘the Saviour.’ In Isai. lix. 20 cited in Rom. xi. 26, 6 puopevos is the LXx. translation of 9813. So also in Gen. xlviii. 16, and o pucdpevos frequently (Isai. xliv. 6, xlvii. 4, xlviii. 17, xlix. 7, 26, liv. 5, 8). ts opyjs] used thus absolutely of the divine wrath, as in ii. 16, Rom. iii. 5, v. 9, ix. 22, xiii. 5. Compare especially Rom. xii. 19, ddre rozoy th opyy where rj opyn cannot refer to one’s adversary, for it is not a question of his wrath, but of his injustice. The difficulty of the phrase has led to explanatory glosses, 1 Thess. ii. 16 rod Geov, Rom. iii. 5 avrov. THs épxopévns] ‘which is even now approaching.” Comp. v. 2 npepa Kuplov ws kAdémrns ev vukti ovrws épxeta, Eph. v. 6 épyerat 7 dpy) Tov Geod émt Tovs viovs ths ametOeias, Col. ili. 6 80 a epyerar 7 opyn Tov Geod. The word may refer either to the present and continuous dispensation or to the future and final judgment. The present épyeoOa: is frequently used to denote the certainty, and possibly the nearness, of a future event, e.g. Matt. xvii. 11, Joh. iv. 21, xiv. 3, whence o épyopevos is a designation of the Messiah: see Winer § xl. p. 332, and Bzblical Essays, p. 149. L. EP. 2 CHAPTER. (Il. ii. Character of the Apostle’s life and mintstry among them (ii. 1—12). 1. St Paul in the former chapter had alluded to two proofs, which convinced him of the election of the Thessalonians, frs¢ the conduct of the preachers (ver. 5), and secondly the reception of the message by the hearers (vv. 6—10). He now enlarges on the same topics, and in the same order, speaking of the preachers (ii. I—12), and of the hearers (vv. 13 sq.), but of the latter more briefly, because he had already spoken at some length on this head, while he had dismissed the other topic more summarily. Airol yap] The explanation of yap is to be sought rather in the train of thought which was running in the Apostle’s mind, than in the actual expressions: ‘I speak thus boldly and confidently as to my preaching, for \ have a witness at hand. You yourselves know, etc.’ There seems to be no contrast implied in avroi to the external testimony alluded to in i. 8, 9. Such a contrast would only interfere with the explanation of yap. The emphatic position of avroi is quite characteristic of this group of Epistles ; comp. iii. 3, v. 2, 2 Thess. iii. 7. xevi}] Not ‘fruitless, ineffective’ (uaraos), but ‘hollow, empty, wanting in purpose and earnestness.’ The context shows that xev) must refer to the character of the preaching, not to its results; in fact ov xev7 is equiva- lent to the ovk ev Ady povoy adda xal ev Suvdue: of i. 5. Kevos and paratos nowhere occur together in the New Testament, though in 1 Cor. xv. 14, 17 (kevov TO knpvypa—paraia 7 miotts) they appear in close proximity; but they are found in combination in Clem. Rom. 7 amoAcimwpev ras Kevas kai paraias dporridas, where the former epithet points to the quality, the latter to the aim or effect of the action. For instances of the combination in the LXx. and classical Greek see the note on Clem. Rom. Lc. yéyovev| ‘has proved, has been found, not as E.V. ‘was.’ Does the perfect here glance obliquely at the lasting effects of his preaching, or does it imply that his sojourn in Thessalonica was recent? On the former supposition we may compare 2 Cor. xii. 9 etpnxev, on the latter 2 Cor. il. 13 €oxnka. If. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. I9 2. dGdAdAG mpoTabdvres «.t.A.] ‘On the contrary, though we had had a foretaste of what awaited us in the sufferings and indignities which we underwent, as ye know, at Philippi, yet were we nothing daunted but were bold, etc. Our courage under adverse circumstances is a sufficient proof that there was nothing hollow, specious or unreal in our preach- ing.’ mpomraQévres Kal UBpioSévres] ‘having before been maltreated and that with contumely.” The force of the preposition mpo- in the first participle is carried on to the second, or rather the preposition having been expressed in the first instance, it is unnecessary to repeat it. Comp. probably 1 Cor. xvi. 16 mavri r@ cuvepyourti Kat komi@ytt, Where kal Komiovre is equivalent to dore kal xomav. For this classical idiom of an additional feature comp. Demosth. Conon p. 1256 uBpicbeis, @ avdpes Stxacrai, Kal mwaav vro Kovwvos quoted by Wetstein, and such passages as Soph. Azz. 537 Kat cuppeticxw kat Pepe tis airias where see Blaydes’ note. UBpicbévtes] i.e. we experienced not only bodily suffering (raOovres), but indignity superadded. This word vBpicOévres indicates the same feeling which prompted St Paul, on the occasion especially alluded to, to demand that the magistrates should in person escort himself and Silas from prison, ov yap’ adda €AOovres avroi nuas eEayayérwoay, Acts xvi. 37. It was the consciousness of an zudignity offered. St Paul was not above (or, should we not say, below) entertaining a sense of what was due to his personal dignity. His social position had been contemned. It was in the essence of vBps that it could not be done to slaves: Ar. hez. ii. 24, § 9 (p. 1402) et tis hain To TUmTew Tors éAevOepovs TBpw eivat, Demosth. Vicostr. p. 1251 iy ef xatadaBay avroy eyo mpos opynv Snoawu 7 wardéaupe ws Soddov Ovta, ypapnv pe ypaawro vBpews, with the comment of Meier and Schémann A ?Zz. Proc. p. 325. Thus this one word embodies the incident in the Acts. It was the contumely which hurt St Paul’s feelings arising from the strong sense of his Roman citizenship. é& @ilmmois] See Acts xvi. 19—40, Phil. i. 30. érappyoiacdpela AaAyjoar] Comp. Eph. vi. 20. On mappnoia (rav- pnoia, so Steph. 7hes.), the boldness of speech which suppresses nothing, see on Col. ii. 15, and Eph. iii. 12. The verb mappyovateoOac however is always found in the New Testament in connexion with speaking, and so it is best to translate it here ‘were bold of speech’ (and so Eph. vi. 20), not simply ‘took courage.’ év t@ @ed ypav] ‘This boldness however was not our own. We were courageous in our God, in spite of our sufferings and yet in some sense by reason of them. For we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us (2 Cor. iv. 7). For when I am weak, then am I strong (2é. xii. 10).’ Aadyjoat] Not equivalent to dare Aadjoa (‘we were bold of speech, so that we told’); but simply the objective infinitive, as the run of the sentence points to a closer connexion with émappno.tacayeba, ‘we were 2 20 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. (II. 2. bold of speech to tell.’ Aadeiy is stronger than Aéyew, see Trench XN. 7. Syn. § 76, p. 286. 7d evayyAtov tov Oeot] Is rov Geod the objective or the subjective genitive? Or is it not idle in many cases, and perhaps in this, to seek to limit the genitive to one sense, when it is in itself comprehensive, and includes several senses, all of which will suit the context? Certainly, whatever may be the case with the corresponding phrase ro evayyéAcov rod Xpiorod (Gal. i. 7), the subjective genitive seems more natural with rod Qcov. év TWOMA@ aya] ‘amidst much conflict, i.e. beset by much opposition. The Christian sufferer is an athlete who contends for the victor’s chaplet. Sometimes the aydv takes the form of an outward, as Phil. i. 30; some- times, as Col. ii. 1, of an internal conflict. The allied words a@Xeiv, @éAnots occur in this connexion in 2 Tim. ii. 5, Heb. x. 32, and the idea is constantly present to St Paul’s mind. The metaphor was speedily taken up: e.g. Clem. Rom. 5 €A@apev emi rovs éyyiora yevouévouvs abAnras, Ign. Polyc. 1, 2, 3 wavrwv tas vooovs Bacrale ws tédAevos aOAnTHs...vApe ws Oeod aOAntns: ro Ogua adpGapcia...peyadou €otiv adbAntrod rd SépecOar cai way, where see the notes and also that on Ign. EDA. 3 (vrarerPOjvac). 3. % yap tapdKAnots] ‘I said that we were bold in our God, and that it was the Gospel of God we preached, and I said rightly. For our appeal is not to be traced to error or impurity or to any human passions, or human imperfections. It has received the sanction of God, and His commission is upon us.’ TapdxAnots may perhaps be translated ‘ appeal’ : it is an exercise of the powers of persuasion, either in the way of (1) comfort, or (2) encouragement, or (3) exhortation, according as the reference is to (1) the past, what has happened, (2) the present, what is happening, or (3) the future, what is to happen. ovx éx mAdvns] ‘/¢ does not arise from error. Tarn is used either in an active sense ‘deceit,’ ‘the leading astray,’ or in a passive ‘ error,’ ‘ the being led astray.’ But in the New Testament it seems always to have the latter meaning, and this is better suited to the context here. For €x mAayns will thus be distinguished from év ddA@. The preposition éx as opposed to éy likewise points to this meaning. False teachers are ‘de- ceived’ as well as ‘deceivers’ (2 Tim. iii. 13 mAavavres cal mAav@pevor). ot8t & axaapolas] ‘or yet from impurity,’ i.e. from sensuality. This disclaimer, startling as it may seem, was not unneeded amidst the im- purities consecrated by the religions of the day. The meaning of the Hebrew or rather Phoenician words W7P fem. NYP from YIP ‘to be holy’ (Deut. xxiii. 18), properly ‘the consecrated ones,’ tells its own terrible tale. St Paul was at this very time living in the midst of the worship of Aphrodite at Corinth, and had but lately witnessed that of the Cabiri at Thessalonica (see Biblical Essays, p. 257 sq.). The religion of Rome, again, though in its origin far purer than those of Greece or the East, had been corrupted from extraneous sources : and we II. 4.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 21 need not go farther than the Roman moralists and satirists to learn how much of the vice and impurity which hastened the decline of Rome was due to the introduction of foreign religious systems. How naturally prone the early converts were to sensualize even the religion of Christ may be inferred from many passages in St Paul’s Epistles (e.g. 1 Thess. iv. 3 where the ‘idea of holiness is regarded as almost equivalent to abstinence from the commission of fornication’: see Jowett I. p. 88), and is seen in the monstrous aberrations of some forms of Gnosticism, i.e. of Simon Magus. The word dxa@apaia is frequently interpreted in this passage to mean “covetousness’ (comp. the Latin sordes, sordidus); but no instance is produced to show that axaOapoia, dxadapros are ever used in this sense. In 1 Esdras i. 42 indeed dxaOapoia is used of the spoliation of the temple, but here the word points to the defilement, not to the avarice involved in the act. In Barnab. 19. 4 ov py cov 6 Adyos Tov Ceov e&€Abn ev axabapoia twav the context shows that the language is not a warning against preaching for money, but against ruining the effectiveness of preaching by personal impurity. By the analogy of the figurative language of the O.T. dxaOapros in the mouth of a Jew might get to mean ‘idolatrous, profane,’ but scarcely ‘sordid, avaricious.’ There is as little ground for asserting conversely that mAeove&ia is equivalent to dxaapcia : see note on Col. ili. 5. For axafapcia of the pollution of the temple see Mestomi. Patr. Lzve 15. ov8t év 86Aw] The better supported reading ovée, if not actually required for grammatical reasons (see Hermann Ofusc. Ill. 143), gives a much better sense than ovre. Each clause disclaims an entirely distinct motive, and therefore the disjunctive particle ovde is preferable: ‘not from error, nor yet from impurity, nor again in guile.’ See the note on Gal. i. 12. 4. adda] On the contrary, so far from its being due to human passions and imperfections, it is in accordance with the test which we _ have satisfied in the sight of God. SeSoxipdopeda] The word Soxpatew signifies properly to examine an object with a view to its satisfying a certain test, and hence naturally glides into the meaning ‘to approve.’ In Sedoxiydaopeda this latter signification is prominent, in r@ doxidgovr: it is kept in the background. Still, as Trench remarks (VV. 7. Sym. § 74, p. 278 sq.), there is always the underlying sense not merely of a victorious coming out of trial, but of the implication that the trial is itself made in the expectation that the issue would be favourable—an implication wanting in the word mepa¢ew. Thus the word most nearly approaches the classical sense of a£:ovv. muorrevOjvar Td evayyéArov] ‘to be trusted with the gospel, ‘to have the gospel committed to us.” For the construction see Rom. iii. 2, 1 Cor. ix. i7, Gal) it.-7, © Tim. ‘i. 11, Tit: i.3,:2 Thess. i. 1o:(v. 1), Not only do verbs which in the active take an accusative of both person and thing retain the latter in the passive, e.g. 2 Thess. ii. 15 mapaddoets as ecdayOnre: 22 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. {II. 4. but also those which in the active are constructed with a dative of the person and an accusative of the thing, e.g. muorevOjvat To evayyediov here, and Acts xxvili. 20 rv GAvow tavrnv mepixesat, see Winer § xxxii. p. 287. ovtws| ‘accordingly, in accordance therewith,’ i.e. with this commis- sion, answering to xa@ws. This correspondence of xaOws, xadarep, and ovras is frequent in the New Testament: comp. e.g. in St Paul, 2 Cor. viii. 6, x. 7, Col. ili. 13. “Qs has no dependence on otras. For though ovras...as ‘in such a manner...as’ is a frequent combination in St Paul, odras here cannot well refer both to xa@#s and ws, inasmuch as it would require to be taken in two different senses. It is better therefore to treat ovy os avOpamos k.T.A. as an independent clause, explanatory of xaes...oUrws. For this use of ws comp. especially 2 Cor. vi. 8—1Io. avOparois apéokovtes] Compare Gal. i. 10 and the notes on Col. i. 10 (dpéoketav), iii. 22 (avOpwrdpecor). Tas kapSlas yyav] It has been maintained by some (e.g. Conybeare and Howson Il. p. 95 note I, p. 419 note 3) that St Paul uses ‘ we’ ‘according to the idiom of many ancient writers’ where a modern writer would use ‘I? Or as it is expressed elsewhere, ‘He uses eyo frequently interchange- ably with jets, and when he includes others in the reis he specifies it.’ On this point the following facts may be worthy of consideration. (1) The Epistles which are written in St Paul’s name alone are the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, 1, 2 Timothy, and Titus. In all of these the singular is used when the writer is speaking in hisown name. The plural is never so used. It is only employed where he speaks of himself as the member of a class, whether embracing either the other preachers of the Gospel (Gal. i. 8, ii. 9), or the persons to whom the letter is addressed, or the whole body of Christians generally. (2) Ofthe other Epistles, those to Philippians and to Philemon (after the opening salutation) adhere to the singular throughout. The others use the plural. In 1 Corinthians the plural occurs every nowand then, It is very common in 2 Corinthians, and in I, 2 Thessalonians it is very seldom departed from. As a general rule we may say that wherever the communication is more direct and personal, there the singular is used; wherever it is more general, the plural is preferred. (3) In every instance where the plural is used, we find that it will apply to those who are associated with the Apostle, as well as to the Apostle himself. (4) There are passages where it is quite impossible to refer the plural to St Paul alone without making havoc of the sense. The passage in the text is one of these instances. 2 Cor. vii. 3 mpoeipnka yap Ore ev rais kapdias Hay eore eis TO GuvaTrobaveiv Kal cuvtiy is another instance. For though no one will deny that a king or a reviewer may employ the plural ‘we’ with propriety, it may fairly be questioned whether the one would talk of ‘our crowns’ or the other of ‘our pens,’ when only one of each class was meant. And thus, though the Apostle might say ‘we,’ he could not call himself ‘Apostles’ os Xpirrod dmdarodor | (1 Thess. ii. 6) or speak of his ‘hearts.’ (5) In other passages St Paul’s own TES 6] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 23 language shows that by the use of the plural he does generally include more than himself, for in particular cases where he refers to himself personally he takes care to substitute the singular for the plural or in some other way to qualify the expression. Thus below ii. 18 Score 7OeAn- capev €AOetv mpos Vuas, eyo pev TlavAos Kal ama kat dis, kal evexowev nas 6 Saravas, St Paul is careful to distinguish himself from the others who are included in the plural—‘ we were desirous of visiting you (for my own part I have entertained the desire more than once), but Satan hindered us.’ We may conclude therefore that a case for an epistolary plural in St Paul’s Epistles has not been made out. 5. é Adyw Kodakelas éyerOnpev] ‘were we found employed in words’ etc. For the construction yiyveoOa. €v compare I Tim. ii. 14, and see the note on i. 5. kodakelas, meovetlas] are probably subjective genitives, ‘the words, which flattery uses, the pretext of which avarice avails itself. It is objectionable to apply a different sense of the genitive to the two clauses when the same will hold. Kodakxeia, a word which occurs here only in the New Testament, is defined both by Theophrastus (Chay. 2) and Aristotle (Eth. Nic. iv. 12) to involve the idea of selfish motives. It is flattery not merely for the sake of giving pleasure to others but for the sake of self- interest. The words of Aristotle are 6 d€ draws dédera Tis aito ylyynrat eis xpnuara kal dca dia xpnuara@r, koda&. For mAeoveEia see Col. iii. 5. mpopace] ‘pretext. The word mpodacis (from zpodaivw) signifies generally the ostensible reason for which a thing is done (comp. Joseph. Ant. xvi. 6. 5 quoted in Wetstein); sometimes in a good sense (e.g. Thuc. i. 23, Vi. 6 aAnOeoratn mpddacis), but generally otherwise, the false or pretended reason as opposed to the true, and so, as here, ‘a pretext,’ and takes the genitive. @cds paptus] He had appealed to the Thessalonians themselves (xaOds oidare) to testify to his outward conduct (éy Adyw xodakeias). Of his inward motives (rpopace: mAcovegias) God alone could bear witness. So Chrysostom and others interpret the passage. Comp. ver. Io, where we have the double appeal vets paprupes kai 6 Ceds. 6. There is a slight difference in the force of the prepositions éé avOpénev, ad vuey, which may be expressed by the paraphrase ‘to extract (€€) glory from men,’ ‘ deriving it (amo) either from you or, etc.’ *Ex is the preposition which would naturally be attached to (nrotrres: and for an explanation of the adoption of dzo in the next clause we need not perhaps go farther than the natural desire of a change, though amo brings the source (€k) more prominently forward as an agent. Compare John xi. I amo Bn@avias, éx ths kopns x.t.A., where Bethany is perhaps the district which would explain the awd. See Winer § xlvii. p. 453 sq. On the other hand, Rom, ili. 30 should not have been classed by Winer among these examples, for there is a marked emphasis in the change of expression from ex riotews to dia THs ricTews. 24 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [Tk G: Suvdpevor év Bdpe elvar «.7.A.] ‘though we might have been burdensome, oppressive. What sense are we to attribute to év Bape: etvac here? Does it refer to the levying of pecuniary aid, or to the assumption of authority and the exaction of respect to one’s office? In other words, does it refer specially to év mpohaces mdeove€ias, or rather to (nrotvtes &€€ avOpwrav dofav? In favour of the former sense is the fact that the kindred phrases in St Paul are used in this connexion : comp. ver. 9 mpos TO pr) émiBapjoat Tiva vpay repeated again 2 Thess. ili. 8, 2 Cor. xil. 16 xareBapnoa, xi. 9 dBap} éuavrdv éripnoa. On the other hand the position of duvdpevor ev Bape eivac in close connexion with (nrotvres dofay speaks strongly on behalf of the other sense, and Bapos, like dyxos, can fairly have this mean- ing. See 2 Cor. iv. 17 Bapos 8d€ns and comp. Diod. Sic. iv. 61 da ro Bapos Ths moAews, Where the writer is speaking of Athens. Perhaps it is safer to assign to ev Bapec elvac a comprehensive meaning, including both these royal prerogatives, so to speak, of the apostleship, the assertion of authority and the levying of contributions. On the supplies sent to him from Philippi at this time see the note on Phil. iv. 16. as Xpurrov améarodor] ‘dy virtue of our office as Apostles of Christ” So strongly does St Paul assert the right of the teacher to be provided for by the taught, that writing to the Corinthians he, with a touch of irony, expresses his fear lest, by having failed to assert this claim, he might have led them to question his authority (2 Cor. xi. 7 sq.). The twofold anxiety displayed here to indicate his own disinterested- ness and at the same time not to compromise his rightful claims as an Apostle, is expressed so entirely in the spirit of St Paul that it is strange such a proof of the authenticity of the Epistle could be overlooked by those who have denied the Pauline authorship. 7. wxymror] ‘children, babes’ This is by far the best supported read- ing, being found in NBC*D*FG it. vg. cop. aZ, nor does it present any con- siderable difficulty. The inversion of the metaphor which it introduces, the Christian teacher being first compared to the child and then to the mother, is quite in St Paul’s manner: e.g. v. 2, 4 where the day of the Lord is compared to a thief and then the idea is reversed and the unpre- pared Christians become the thieves (ws xAémras xaraddBy, the true reading). Compare also the use which is made of the allegory of the vailed face of Moses (2 Cor. iii. 13—-16), where the vail is represented first as on the law, then as on the hearts of the Jewish nation; of the metaphor of second marriage (Rom. vii. I sq.) where we should expect not vpeis OavarwOnre TS vou (ver. 4) but 6 vopos éBavaraOn vuiv ; and of the idea of the triumphal procession in 2 Cor. ii. 14 sq., where the Apostles are compared, first to the captives led in triumph, then to the odour of the incense : see for a less striking example Rom. vi. 5, and the notes on Gal. ii. 20, iv. 19. St Paul’s earnestness and rapidity of thought led him to work his metaphor to the utmost, turning it about and reapplying it, as it suggested some new analogy. It was of no importance to him, as it II. 8.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 25 would be to a modern writer, that his image should cut clean. This disregard of rhetorical rules it was which made his ‘speech contemptible’ (2 Cor. x. 10 6 Aoyos é£ovPevnuévos, comp. I Cor. ii. I, 4). Rhetorical rules were as nothing to him compared with the object which he had in view. The word vy was read here by Origen Matth. i. p. 375 ed. Huet (quoted by Bentley Crt, Sacr. p. 61) 0 amoarodos éyévero vnmios Kai Trapa- mAnawos tpopeo Oadrrroven TO €avtis maidiov Kai Aadovan Aoyous ws tratdiov dia rd madiov, followed by Pelagius facti sumus parvult. So too Clement of Alexandria (Paed. i. 5. 19 p. 108) quotes the passage as given in the text, and explains the distinction between the two words thus: ovk émi dppovev TATTETAL TO VITLOY, yNTUTLOS pev yap OUTS, vymLos BE O VeENTLOS, Ws Amos O araddpor, oloy Amos vewori Kal mpGos T@ Tpore@ yevouevos: Compare also Paed. i. 6 p. 117. Compare also Irenzus (iv. 38. 2) speaking of Christ, dca TovTo cuverntriatey vios TOU Oeov TéAeLos OY TO avOparr@...d1a TO TOV avOpadrrov yyTLOY OUT® yYwpovpevos, ws avOpwros avTov xwpeiv ndvvaro. The same reading 7moe for yymioe occurs in A on Eph. iv. 14, showing the readiness with which the words would be confused. On the other hand, jor makes very excellent sense, as this is a word specially used to express ‘fatherly tenderness,’ e.g. Hom. Od. ii. 47 marnp & os Amos jev, comp. //. xxiv. 770. It occurs 2 Tim. ii. 24 dovAov Kupiou ov det payeoOar ddAa Fmov etvat, where again the variant yymoy is found. éy péow tpav] not simply ev vuiv or rap’ viv, but more fully, ‘as though I were one of you, mixing freely among you.’ The expression here used indirectly hints at the terms of equality on which the Apostle placed himself with his converts : comp. St Luke xxii. 27 of his Master éyo de év Béow tua eiul ds 0 Staxovar. If yymeot is the correct reading, a colon should be placed after ev péeow vpov: if Ame is adopted, perhaps even then it should be so punctuated. It may however be a question in this case, whether ws éav rpodos x.t.A. should not be connected with what goes before, though it has an apodosis of its own. For such a construction see Soph. Ajax 839. os éav OdAry] For ws avy see Hermann on Soph. Ajax 1096, and comp. Winer § xlii. p. 385 ; on éay for av see Winer § xlii. p. 390. ra éavtis téxva] Thus by rpodos here is meant a mother who suckles and nurses her own children. This use is not unclassical: e.g. Soph. Ajax 849 yépovrt marpt tH te Svotnve tpops. Theocr. xxvii. 66 yuva parnp texewy tpodos (see Steph. Zhes. s. v.). 8. dspetpdpevor] This is the best supported reading and the word occurs also in Job iii. 21 (LXxX.), Psalm Ixii. 2 (Symmachus), in both passages however with the same variety of reading (ipeipeoOa) as here. Two explanations are given of the form. 7zrs¢, that it is derived from opovu and eipew, and means ‘to be attached to’ (so Theophylact and others). To this there are two objections: (1) that the verb would in this case take a dative instead of a genitive. Perhaps the instances of ovAAapBaver Oat, drrecOa, etc. are not exact enough parallels to meet this 26 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. (II. 8. objection. (2) That verbs compounded with oyod are always derived from substantives as duodpopeiv, opevvereiv, ouireiv, etc. and there is no substantive to which to refer opueiper@a. Secondly, as the form peiperOat (=ipetper@a) is found in Nicander Ther. 402, it is supposed that opeipe- 6a is a lengthened form from this, as odvpopac from dvpopa, éxéAAw from KéAho, etc. Against this it is urged that no instance is adduced of a verb so lengthened by an aspirated vowel. But on the other hand too much stress must not be laid on this in the New Testament, where éAmis for instance is written Amis (see note on Phil. ii. 23 d@idw). In this case the word may have arisen from iveipeoOa by an imperfect articulation of a very short vowel, as in the case of KoAaooaeis for KoXooaoeis ; or lastly the reading may be opecpopevor (Lobeck Path. 4. 4. 1 p. 72). evSoxodpev| The imperfect tense. On the omission of the augment see Lobeck Phryn. pp. 140, 456; but the best manuscripts of the New Testament are not agreed on this point, and probably nvdoxodper should be preferred here. On the verb evdoxeiy see the note on Col. i. 19. It is not found in the writers of the classical epoch. kal tas éavtdv Wuxds| ‘Zo give even our own lives. The simple verb Sovva is to be understood from the compound peradovva of the former clause. For the zeugma compare Kiihner, II. p. 606, and on the word Wux7 see note on 1 Thess. v. 23. dyarnrol] The metaphor is still preserved in the term which is specially used of an only or favourite child (see e.g. Hom. Od. ii. 365 povvos €ov dyamnros x.r.A.) and consecrated in this sense by its application to the Son of God Himself; comp. Matt. iii. 17, and the note on yymioe above (ver. 7). On the term 6 dayamnros, as a complete title in itself, see the note on Col. iv. 14. 9. pvnpovetere yap] referring to evdokodpev peradodva ras €avray uyas- ‘You will not regard this declaration of our readiness to lay down our lives as a mere idle vaunt, for you have a proof of our self-sacrificing spirit in the recollection of our toils and labours when among you.’ Or the yap may refer back to ver. 5. | Tov Kétrov kal tov pdxG0v] ‘our tozl and our struggling. The words occur together also in 2 Thess. iii. 8 and 2 Cor. xi. 27 (so too in Hermas Sim. v. 6.2), and we must seek for some distinction of meaning between the two expressions. Koos (from xomr@) is properly a ‘ blow’ or ‘ bruise,’ and hence signifies ‘wear and tear,’ the fatigue arising from continued labour, and hence the labour which brings on lassitude. In poxOos on the other hand the leading notion is that of struggling ~ to overcome difficulties. It is connected with poyos, poyrs and perhaps pods, p@dos, in all of which words the same idea is prominent. Thus Korros 1S pasSive, xoxOos active, and the distinction may perhaps be repre- sented by the two words ‘toil and moil.’ See Trench Seven Churches, p. 65. HH. 10.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. ay vuxros kal npépas «.7.A.] This clause is added, as an epexegesis of rov Komov nuav Kai tov poxdov, and therefore has no connecting particle. Some even of the best MSs. have supplied the apparent deficiency with yap. ‘Laborem manuum nocte et fatigationem verbi die: caeterum semper operabatur, quando docebat’ says Pelagius. The explanation of the order vukxrés xai nuépas is not to be sought in the fact that the Jews, as did also the Athenians (Plin. Vat. A7st. ii. § 79), commenced their reckoning with sunset. For we find the Jewish writers, both in the Old and New Testaments, frequently adopting the reverse order ‘day and night’ (e.g. Jer. xvi. 13, xxxlii. 25) ; while the Romans, who reckoned from sunrise, as often as not speak of ‘night and day’ (e.g. Cic. de fin. i. 16. 51, de orat. i. 16, 260, Czesar de bell. Gallic. v. 38. 1). The latter however is the order always observed by St Paul (Lobeck Paral. p. 62 sq.), and by Luke in the expression wixra kai nuépay (e.g. Luke ii. 37), but not when he uses the genitive (e.g. Luke xviii. 7). St John, who uses the genitive only, always employs the order nyépas xal vuxros, and his style is the most Hebraic of New Testament writers. épyatépevor] St Paul himself doubtless worked while at Thessalonica at his trade of tent-maker, on which we find him employed at Corinth about the time when this Epistle was written (Acts xviii. 3). It was a recognized custom of every Jewish parent, enforced by many maxims of the Rabbins, to teach his son a trade. This fact therefore does not imply any inferiority of social position in the case of St Paul (see the note on 2 Thess. iii. 10, where St Paul reiterates this proof of his disinterestedness). The choice of this particular trade was probably determined by the fact that canvas for tents was largely manufactured from the goat’s hair of his native country from which it got its name cz/iciwm (Conybeare and Howson, I. p. 58). St Paul however during his stay at Thessalonica was not entirely supported by the labour of his own hands. He more than once received contributions from Philippi (Phil. iv. 15). In the same way, while at Corinth, he received contributions from Macedonia to make up a sufficient sum to support him, see 2 Cor. xi. 9, where ro vorépnua pou means ‘ what was wanting, after I had plied my trade.’ Besides Thessalonica and Corinth (Acts xviii. 3), we find him labouring with his own hands also at Ephesus (Acts xx. 34). On the bearing of these facts on the question of the length of his stay at Thessalonica, see Biblical Essays p. 259. 10. tpets pdptupes kal 6 Weds] ‘You are witnesses of our outward actions, God of our inward thoughts.’ See ver. 5. dorlws Kal Sixalws] ‘how holily towards God and how justly towards men.’ The two words often occur together and represent, dciws one’s duty towards God, dicaiws one’s duty towards men. See Plato Gorg. P. 507 B kal pny rept pev avOpamovs ra mpoonkorta mpatrwy Oikat av mparrot, mepi d€ Geovs dara (comp. Theat. p. 176 B), and so St Paul’s contemporary 28 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. {II. 10. Philo éotorns pev mpds Gedv Sixacocvyyn S€ mpos avOpdrovs Oewpetra. Simi- larly Marcus Antoninus says (vii. 66) of Socrates that he was dixawos ra mpos avOpwrous, Gavos Ta mpos Oeovs. Cf. Luke i. 75, Tit. i. 8, Ephes. iv. 24, where see Wetstein. It is not intended however to be implied that this meaning always attaches to dixaos, which in its technical legal sense is used of righteousness before God, i.e. having fulfilled the terms of the compact with Him, but only generally and more especially when distin- guished from datos. See Trench WV. 7. Syn. § Ixxxviii. p. 328. The combi- nation is found in Clem. Rom. 48 xarevOdvovres ryv mopeiay ara €v OoLoTnTe kat Sixavoovvy and [2 Clem.] 5 ro ociws kai dixaiws avaorpéperba, where see the notes. In the present passage the correspondence is inverted by chiasmus, égiws referring to 6 Geos, Sixaiws to vets paprupes. duéumrtws|] is more comprehensive, including both ociws and dixaiws contemplated from the negative side. The word is coupled with dots in Clem. Rom. 44 as descriptive of a blameless Christian ministry. ipiv tots morresoveiv] If this dative could mean ‘in the opinion of,’ then all difficulty arising from rois musrevovow would cease. The sense would then be, ‘much as our conduct has been misinterpreted by the unbelievers, at least in the sight of you who believe’ etc. But the sense would be sacrificed to get over this one difficulty, for St Paul would then be made to say ‘We call you to witness (and God also), how in your opinion we acted holily, etc.,’ which is inconceivably flat and unmeaning. The sense ‘towards you who believe’ is at once a very natural interpre- tation of the Greek and better suits the context. Tots mortetovow] Not that his conduct had been otherwise towards unbelievers, but that believers had a special claim upon him. There was here an additional motive for uprightness. Comp. Gal. vi. 10, ‘Let us do good unto all men, but especially unto them who are of the household of the faith.” Thus the words are especially connected with dpéyumrras. The Apostle’s obligations had been loyally fulfilled. éyevr}Onpev] For this use of yiyveo@ac with an adverb ‘how holily we conducted ourselves, etc.’ see on i. 5. "EyevyOnuev is here not a simple copula, but has a fuller meaning, ‘we presented ourselves, behaved our- selves’: comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 10 va dpdBws yévnrat mpds vas. See Kriiger’s Sprachlehre § 62. 2, p. 269 (cited by Koch). For this idiomatic use comp. Thucyd. ii. 14 yaXerds avrois 7) avacraots éeyeyover, and see Matth. Gr. GY”. ii. § 309 ¢. 11. The construction in the sentence beginning with ws €va €xaorov x.r.A. is defective from the absence of a finite verb. There are two ways of supplying the ellipsis, either (1) by a verb such as €vovderotpev to govern | éva éxaorov, or (2) by understanding éyeryOnuev with mapaxadovvres Kai rapapvOovpevo, in which case these participles have a double accusative éva éxaorov and uuas. This double accusative would present no difficulty ; for even if no exact parallel is to be found in St Paul, it is still so entirely after his manner, that it would need no such support. The real difficulty I]. 12.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 29 in this construction consists in the harshness of éyevnOnpev mapaxadoirtes : and probably the correct explanation is to supply some such verb as évov6e- rovpev Suggested above. The sentence is so suspended by the insertion of the participial clause, that the finite verb which ought to close the sentence is lost sight of. On ellipses in St Paul see Journal of Class. and Sacr. Philol. iii. p. 85. @s matyp tékva] It is remarked by the commentators from St Chry- sostom downwards, on ver. 7, that when the Apostle wishes to dwell on his tenderness and affection for his converts he uses the figure of a mother ; while here, where he is dwelling on his teaching and advice, he adopts that of a father as more appropriate. ‘Parvulos nutrix fovet: proficientes vero pater instituit’ says Pelagius. mapakadovvres kal mrapapv0otpevor] Compare I Cor. xiv. 3 0 d€ mpodn- revov avOpamots ade oixodouny Kal mapakAnow Kat mapapvbiay. Perhaps there is this difference that wapaxaXei is ‘to exhort to a particular line of conduct,’ while wapapvOeicOa is rather ‘to encourage to continue in a course.’ The sense of ‘consolation’ which some would here attribute to mapauvOetoOa is not more inherent in this word than in wapaxadeiv. See above, ii. 3 (with the note), below v. 14 mapaxadotpev b€ vpas...napapvbeiobe Tovs oAvyoWvyous, Col. ii. 2, and the notes on mapaxAnois and mapapvdcov CP hils ist): paptupopevor] This is a better supported reading than paprupovpevor, and is certainly required by the sense. The distinction between paprv- petoOa (the passive of paprupeiv) ‘to be borne witness to,’ and paprupecOar ‘to invoke witnesses’ and so ‘to appeal to as in the sight of witnesses, to charge, protest,’ ought not to require restatement: for it holds equally in classical authors, and in the New Testament without, so far as I am aware, a single exception. Compare e.g. Rom. ili. 21 paprupovpevor ume Tov vopov With Gal. v. 3 papripowa: d€ madw mavti avOpore x.t.rA. and see note there. MaprupetoOa, the middle, seems to be used for the active in Lucian de Sacr. c. 10 (I. p. 534), but with a sort of middle sense, ‘testifies in himself, bears evidence in himself.’ Probably at a later period the two words were confused, and hence the various readings in the MSS. here and in Acts xxvi. 22, where however the preponderance of authority is de- cidedly in favour of paprupopevos the right reading. Maprvpeo6a bears the same relation to paprupeiy as éper Gai to epeiv. 12. tov kadovvros] the present participle, as below, v. 24, though the aorist is more frequently used. Either tense may be employed indiffer- ently. Compare Gal. i. 6 amo tod Kadécavtos vas with Gal. v. 8 ék rod ka\ovvtos vuas. The fact that we never find the present of the finite verb in this sense, but always a past tense, as éxadecev, KéxAnnev, exAnOnre, suggests as the true explanation of the present participle that it is used substantively, without any idea of time, referring to the person and not the act, ‘your caller’ like 6 rikrwy etc. See note on Gal. i. 23 6 didkwr nas tore. 30 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [II. x4, Tiv éavrod Bacirelay] not the future heavenly kingdom of Christ, but the actual spiritual kingdom of which they were present members. Comp. 2 Thess. i. 5 ris BaotAelas rou Ocov. It is a state of things which has already begun. Adfay on the other hand points to the glorious develop- ment of that kingdom in which they hoped to participate hereafter. iii. Repetition of thanksgiving at their conversion and patience under persecution (il. 13—16). 13. 8a tovro] ‘for this reason, ‘seeing that we have bestowed so much labour and affection upon you, we are the more thankful that we have laboured to some purpose.’ This seems better than referring da rovro solely to the dependent clause rod xadotvros vuas x«.r.A. which is not prominent enough to introduce it. A new paragraph may be supposed to begin at ver. 13. kal npets] ‘we also, we on our part—as you bear witness to our devotion in your service, so we zm return thank God that you have listened to our teaching.’ The words kai jyets correspond in some sense to avrol yap otdare (ii. 1); and fitly introduce the new paragraph, in which St Paul turns away from the teachers to speak of the taught. The same expres- sion occurs in Col. i. 9, where see the note. mapadapévres éS¢6acbe] Any attempt to translate these words into the corresponding English, as e.g. mapaAapBavew ‘to take,’ déxerOar ‘to accept,’ tends to exaggerate the distinction. Nevertheless it must not be lost sight of. AéyeoOa implies a slight degree of acquiescence or appropriation, or at least consciousness, which is absent in mapaXapBavew ; or in technical language, while zapaAapBavew denotes simply the objective fact, déyerOar presents the subjective aspect of the act of receiving. Compare Demosth. F. L., p. 384 ovx ed€£avro ov& €dXaBov raira of rdv OnBaiwy mpéoBets, ‘they did not snap at nor would they even accept the money,’ and Xen. Cyrof. i. 4. 26 rovs pévroe AaBovras xat Sefayévovs ra Sapa A€yerae *Actrvayet dmeveyxeiv, quoted by Koch. See also the Commentators on the parable of the sower, Luke viii. 13 pera xapas déyovra rov Adyov, and Mark iv. 16 pera yapas \apBavovow avrov. The distinction is significant here : ‘when the word of hearing was delivered to you, you took it to yourselves as the word of God.’ See Acts xi. 1, where the word dé£ac@a is coupled with rov Adyov, as here, and the note on Col. ii. 6. Aéyov dows] The word dxofs is not an idle addition here, but derives its force from the accompanying expressions ¢d¢fac0e and ds cal evepyeirat. ‘The word of hearing was delivered to you, but it became something more than the word of hearing to you. You appropriated it. It sank into your hearts, and produced fruits in your practice.’ The phrase 0 Adyos ris axons occurs also in Heb. iv. 2 dAX’ ove apeAnoev 6 Aoyos Ths axons éxeivous, mi) TvyKexepaopévous Ti miote Tois axovcaow, where, as here, it 10 7 | FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 31 stands in contrast to the faithful reception of the Gospel. Compare also Rom. x. 17 dpa 7) mioris €& axons, 7 dé axon dia pyyatros Xpiorov. map’ pov] naturally attaches itself to mapadaPorres, and not to axojs, a harsh construction which however has found favour with many. rov cov] is emphatic by its position, and is intended to deprecate any false deduction from map’ nuov. ‘Ye received the word of hearing from us, albeit it came in fact from God.’ Tov Geov is therefore a subjective genitive ‘ proceeding from God, having God for its author,’ as its emphatic position requires; and not ‘about God, of which God is the object,’ as we might otherwise be disposed to take it. cumenius explains the phrase rightly wap’ nuav pev mapeddBere, ovx nuerepoy Se dvra, GAAa TOU Oeod. The Apostle betrays a nervous apprehension that he may be unconsciously making claims for himself; the awkwardness of the position of the words rov Geov is the measure of the emphasis of his disclaimer. ov Adyov dvOpérwv] ‘Ye received it not as the word of men, but as etc.’ i.e. ‘with the respect and obedience due to it, as the word of God. It was to you in your welcome of it the word of God.’ For the omission of os comp. Kiihner II. p. 226, Lambert Bos £7/zfs. p. 781 ed. Schafer 1808. That this is the sense of the passage appears not only from the general context, but especially from the phrase xaOds adnOas éeoriv, which would be rendered meaningless if the words were translated, ‘ye received not the word of men, but the word of God,’ as it is taken by some. ds Kal évepyetrat ] This is to be referred not to Geds, but to Aoyos; for, Jjirst, St Paul observing a very significant distinction always uses the active evepyetv of God, and so by contrast of the spirit of evil (Ephes. li. 2), and the middle évepyeioOa: in other cases (see the note on Gal. v. 6): and, secondly, the natural sequence in the passage is preserved by taking the verb with Adyos. (1) The word received into the ears, (2) the word appropriated in the heart, (3) the word fructifying in good works—these are the stages which the Apostle here expresses. év ipiv trois murtevovow] Iioris and axon are contrasted in the passages cited above in the note on Adyor dkops. This passage, like Gal. v. 6, miotis dt ayanns évepyoupern (iaxver), Supplies the link which connects the teaching of St Paul on faith and works with that of St James. 14. tpeis yap] ‘for you showed signs of the active working of the Gospel, in the persecution which you endured.’ ‘pets ydp pipnral «7.A.] This passage, implying an affectionate admiration of the Jewish Churches on the part of St Paul, and thus fully bearing out the impression produced by the narrative in the Acts, is entirely subversive of the theory maintained by some and based ona misconception of Gal. ii. and by the fiction of the Pseudo-Clementines, of the feud existing between St Paul and the Twelve. The staunchest main- tainer of this theory by a sort of fetitio principiz uses this passage as a strong argument against the authenticity of the Epistle (Baur Paulus p. 482 sq.). 32 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, [IL se trav &kAnoiav} The word éxxAngia, as most other terms relating to the ministry and organization of the Christian community, e.g. émicxoros, Aecroupyia, is borrowed from the civil polity of the heathen, their religious terms having been so indelibly stamped with a meaning of their own as to render them unavailable for the purposes of Christianity. Just in the same way, at a later stage, for the most part the basilicas, not the temples, were employed for Christian worship. At the same time however, though this was the original and prominent signification of the €xxAngia, it was not unknown as applied to religious assemblies among the Jews, e.g. Acts vii. 38 7 éxkAnoia ev rH épyjue, and is in fact the word used to translate ?np, e.g. in Psalm xxii. 22. We must remember however that in the theocracy ‘political’ and ‘religious’ were convertible terms. And, though the word ovvaywyy was used for a meeting in a fixed place for purposes of prayer by the Jews and even by the Jewish Christians (James ii. 2), so that the heretical Ebionite sect clung to the term for some centuries (Epiphan. xxx. 18 cuvaywy7jv dé otro. Kadéovee Thy €avtayv exkAnoiay kal ovxt exxAnoiay), still the word éxxAnoia might fairly apply to a Jewish religious assembly. Hence it was not sufficient to describe the Christian communities in Judza as ai exxAnoiat, or even as ai éxxAnoiat Tod Geov, for these expressions would apply equally well to the Jews; but it was necessary to specify them as évy Xpior@ “Incod ‘the Christian Churches in Judea.’ The same fear of misapprehension is observable elsewhere, e.g. Gal. i. 22 rais éxxAnoiais Tis "Iovdaias rais év Xpior@, where see the note : see above, i. 1; and further in the next note. éy Xpiorr@ "Incodt] Not to be taken with pipnral éyernOnre, but with rav €xkAno.av ovoay ev Tp “lovdaia. The absence of the article is no objection (see i. 1, iv. 16). The reason why these words are added is given in the last note, and applies equally to the parallel passages, Gal. i. 22, 1 Cor. i. 2, which serve to explain the construction here. kal ipets...kal avrol] The comparison is strengthened by the insertion of cai in both clauses. Compare Eph. v. 23 ws xai o Xpuoros (where see Ellicott’s note), Rom. i. 13 kali ev viv Kabds kai ev trois Aowrois Ebverw. Kai avroi ‘they themselves,’ to be understood from ray éxxAnotwy k.t.d. ocvpdvdrerav] That the Gentiles are here meant is clear from the marked opposition to vo ray “Iovdaiwy, further enforced as it is by dior. Though the Jews appear in the Acts as the chief persecutors of St Paul at Thessalonica, yet we cannot doubt that the course of events was the same there as elsewhere; the opposition to the Gospel instigated by the Jews was taken up by the native population, without whose cooperation the Jews would have been powerless. The words cupdvaAeray, "Iovdaiwv denote rather national than religious limits. Thus cupdvdAerav would include such Jews as were free citizens of Thessalonica. See Paley, Horae Paul. ix. 5. Upon the word the grammarians remark that the earlier writers adopt the simple forms in this and similar cases, e.g. @uAérns, moAirns, Snworns 1S i FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 33 (Arist. Av. 367 dvre Evyyevn xal pudéra), and that the compounds cupdu- Aerns, cuproXirns, cvvdnworns are of later introduction. This is true asa general rule, but the word cuugvdérns is apparently an exception, oc- curring in Isocr. Panathen. 27 (p. 263 A) if the reading be not doubtful. See Lobeck Phrym. pp. 172, 471, Herodian p. 471, ed. Lobeck, and the note on Gal. i. 14 cvymAckoras. kaQads| is equivalent here to dep, and corresponds to ra avra above, ‘the same...as.’ See Lobeck PAryz. p. 426 sq., Kiihner ii. p. 571. 15. What account can we give of this digression on the conduct of the Jews, so unexpected and startling at first sight? What was the impulse at work in the Apostle’s mind? A ready answer to these questions suggests itself in the circumstances of this period of his life. At no other time probably did he suffer more from the hostility of the Jews. They had driven him from Thessalonica, had tracked him out at Berea, and expelled him thence, and they still continued their persecution of him at Corinth on the occasion of the visit during which these Epistles were written. They were to him therefore the embodiment of the opposition to the Gospel, the very type of Antichrist himself. tov Kal Tov Kipiov amoxtewdvrwy k.t.d.| ‘who killed both the Lord Fesus and the prophets” Kaibefore rov Kvpioy couples it with cai rovs rpoprras. The emphatic word from its position in the sentence is not rov Kipuop, as is generally assumed, but “Incody, ‘they killed the Lord, for they killed Jesus.’ Compare St Peter’s words in Acts ii. 36 dre kat Kvptov avrov Kal Xpiorov eroincey 6 Geos TovToy Tov "Incovy ov vpeis eoravpwcare, where the emphatic words are placed last; and above i. 10, where a like prominence is given to the name. Kal robs mpodprjtas] They are the same from first to last. They killed the Lord Jesus in the end, as they had killed the prophets before Him, in whose case at least they could not plead the excuse of ignorance (Matt. xxiii. 29 sq.). Thus the parable of the Unjust Husbandmen applies to them. Tertullian (adv. Marc. v. 15) accuses Marcion of inserting i8/ous in the text before mpodnras (‘ swos adjectio haeretici’) with the intent to show that the prophets belonged not to the Church of Christ, but to the Jews. Tertullian however is so reckless in his charges against Marcion, that no stress can be laid upon this as a fact. The authority of the MSS. is certainly in favour of omitting iSfovs, and there is a tendency to the insertion of the word elsewhere, e.g. iv. 11, Ephes. iv. 28 (where possibly it may stand), v. 24. This is a transcriber’s trick for the sake of pre- cision, and is quite innocent of any doctrinal bias. See the note on Col. iii. 18 rois av8paow, where again idfors is an unwarrantable insertion. éxSiwEdvrwv] A.V. ‘persecuted.’ More than this, ‘persecuted and drove us out, stated generally, but doubtless with a special reference (which would be caught up by his readers) to his expulsion from Thessa- lonica (Acts xvii. 5—I0). | De OF 3 34 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. (II. 15. maciv avOpmros évavtiwv}] This expression at once recals the language of Tacitus (A/zs¢. v. 5) speaking of the Jews ‘adversus omnes alios hostile odium.’ Nor is this a mere resemblance of expression, though the two phrases are not coextensive. The spirit in which Tacitus so describes them may be inferred from the account given by Juvenal (xiv. 103, 104) of this unfriendly race, which denied even the commonest offices of hospitality to strangers—‘non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra tenenti, Quaesitum ad fontem solos deducere verpos. Comp. Philostr. Vit. Apoll. Tyan. v. 33 ot “lov8aior Biov dutxrov evpovres, cai ois pnre Kown mpos avOpw@rous tparea pyre orrovdal pyre evyat pyre Ovoia mrA€ov aheoraow nyov 7) Sovoa x.t.A., Diod. Sic. xxxiv. I rods "Iovdaious povovs amavtwv €bvav dkowevyrous eivar THs mpos GAO COvos emyuklas Kal moAEuious UToAauBavew mavtas x.t.A. St Paul on the other hand views their hostility to mankind as exemplified in their opposing the extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles (see next note). But both the one and the other characteristic— their exclusiveness in the matter of spiritual privileges, and their selfish narrowness in the common things of life—were due to the same unloving and illiberal spirit, all the more odious in that it was a caricature and an unnatural outgrowth of the isolated purity of their old monotheism. 16. Kwdrvdvtwv] ‘22 that they hinder us. This clause is most naturally taken as explanatory of maow avOpérois évavtiwv, otherwise it would have been rov KwAvoyvrey Or Kal cwAvovrwy. This was the ground of the opposition of the Jews to St Paul as recorded in the Acts, elsewhere (xiii. 48 sq.), and at Thessalonica itself (xvii. 5 (nAdoartes S€ of Iovdaiot K.TA.)- Aadyjoat tva cwldorw] is capable of two interpretations, either (1) ‘to speak to them, to the end that they may be saved’ or (2) ‘to tell them to be saved,’ as if the infinitive had been used. The latter, though not a classical usage of iva, is quite legitimate in New Testament (see Winer, § xliv. p. 420 sq.), and in modern Greek its equivalent va has displaced the infinitive in common use. Here however the former sense seems required to give force to the passage, and is borne out by corresponding passages in St Paul: e.g. 1 Cor. x. 33, where the same phrase occurs ; see also the note on v, 4. avatAnpacat| Not exactly equivalent to the simple verb mAnpaaaz, ‘to fill the measure’; but ‘to fill «2 the measure’ of their sin, implying that the process of filling had already begun, drop after drop being poured into the cup of their guilt. Compare the Lxx. of Gen. xv. 16, where the word is a translation of pbv. On the other hand in Gal. vi. 2 avatrAn- pwoere TOY vopov Tov Xprorov the idea of completeness is uppermost ; see the note there. els 7d avatAnpaca] ‘so as to fulfil” The preposition eis with the infinitive in the New Testament generally, it is true, signifies the purpose ‘with a view to,’ ‘in order to,’ but it sometimes expresses nothing more than the consequence ‘so that.’ Comp. e.g. 2 Cor. vili. 6 els ro mapaxa- II. 16.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 35 Aéoar Hpas Tiroy x.r.A., and perhaps Hebr. xi. 3. We cannot therefore insist in this passage on the idea of a conscious intention on the part of the Jews, or even of a divine purpose overruling their conduct, though the latter is not an improbable interpretation either grammatically or theologically. mavrote| ‘at all times;’ by the persecution of the prophets before Christ, by the persecution of Christ Himself, and by the persecution of His disciples after Him. [avrore is condemned by the Atticists; see Lobeck Phrynx. p. 103, Moeris, p. 319. épOacev St] This verb occurs seven times in the New Testament. In five of these the construction is @éavew emi or eis, the exceptional cases being 1 Thess. iv. 15, 2 Cor. x. 14, and in all seven passages but 1 Thess. iv. 15 @Oavew means ‘to arrive.’ The original notion of anticipation, or surprise is sometimes weak in the New Testament, as 2 Cor. x. 14, Phil. ili. 16; but here it may well bear that meaning, compare also Matt. xii. 28. It is doubtful whether ¢pOaxev or ¢pOacey is the right reading. The perfect is easier of explanation, denoting a judgment which had already arrived but was not yet completed. The aorist however has somewhat the stronger support from the manuscripts, and is usually explained either (1) as a prophetic anticipation, but there is no prophetic colouring in the diction here ; or (2) as a reference to the foreordained counsels of God, but there is nothing in the expression itself, or the context, to lead to such an interpretation. If therefore we prefer this reading, it is better to adopt (3) the simple explanation that it denotes merely past time, without any thought of the continuance of the action itself or of its effects (the notion conveyed by the perfect), such continuance however not being negatived, and in fact it must from the circumstances of the case be understood. There may however be a special reference to the act of infatuation on the part of the Jews evidenced by slaying the Saviour. Their conduct towards our Lord may well be regarded by the Apostle as the beginning of the end. In the Zest. xz Patr. Levi 6 the passage is quoted with the reading ¢6acev. % opyy] See the note on i. 10, and compare 4 jyépa (om. éxelvn), teclhess; Vv. 4) Feb: x. 25; eis tédos] ‘to the uttermost. This meaning of es rédos is indeed unsupported elsewhere in the New Testament, where apparently it always signifies ‘to the last,’ ‘for ever,’ as John xiii. 1; comp. Ignat. Ephes. 14 eay Tis evpeOn cis TeAos. It is however frequent in the Lxx. (e.g. Ps. xii. 1), and elsewhere, e.g. Ep. Barnabas, § 19. II eis réAos puoroers Tov movnpov, Hermas V7s. 3. 10. 5 itapa eis réXos. The sense ‘at last’ would be appro- priate here, ‘at last they were overtaken in the midst of their wicked- ness ;’ but the only biblical passage quoted in support of this meaning (Luke xviii. 5) is capable of another interpretation. For the sentiment comp. Wisdom xix. I rois d€ doéBeor péxype TéAous avedenpov Ovpds eréorn. What was this divine judgment, which the Apostle speaks of as Se 36 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [Ths se: having already fallen on the Jews? We might be tempted to think that he foretold the final overthrow of the nation and the destruction of their city and temple. But this is an inadequate explanation. There is no sign of any kind that the inspiration of the Apostle here assumes a directly predictive character. There is no prophetic colouring in the passage. On the contrary, he spoke of some stern reality which was already working before his eyes: and even to one not gifted with an Apostle’s prophetic insight, yet endowed with average moral sensibilities, there was enough in the actual condition of this nation to lead him to regard them as suffering under a blow of divine retribution. There were the actual physical evils, under which they were groaning. There was the disorganization of their internal polity. There was their utter dis- regard of all moral distinctions, to which their own historian Josephus draws attention. There was above all their infatuated opposition to the Gospel, than which no more decisive proof of judicial blindness, or it might be of conscious and headlong precipitation into ruin, could be conceived by the Christian mind. The maxim ‘Quem deus vult perdere, prius dementat’ is not a Christian maxim; but it has a Christian counter- part, in that those who ‘like not to retain God in their knowledge, God gives over to a reprobate mind’ (Rom. i. 28). God’s wrath then was no longer suspended; it had already fallen on the once hallowed, but now accursed, race. We may suppose moreover that the prophecies of our Lord relating to the destruction of Jerusalem were floating before St Paul’s mind—prophecies dim and vague indeed and, we may fairly assume, not fully understood even by St Paul—but sufficiently portentous to arouse fearful anticipations. They would give new meaning and importance to the actual evils of which he was an eyewitness. The end was not yet, but the beginning of the end was come. For a similar anticipation compare i. Io. iv. Anxiety of St Paul on their behalf, until reassured by the report brought by Timothy (ii. 17—iii. 10). 17. mpets 8] ‘But we.” To return from this digression about the Jews (vv. 15, 16) and speak once more of ourselves. drophavicbévres] ‘ ereft of and separated from,’ as children deprived of their parents. The word dpdavis (Latin ‘orbus’), though most frequently applied to the bereavement of a child who has lost a parent, is in itself quite general in meaning, denoting the loss of any friend or relation and including the bereavement of a parent. Probably however here the best and most touching sense is to render as above, carrying out the Apostle’s metaphor of yymuou ii. 7 and to translate, ‘we are like children who have lost their parents.’ See Aisch. Choefh. 249, where the word occurs in this sense. In any case, the aspect of the word here would not be perceptibly in- fluenced by ddeAqoi; see above ver. 9. II. 18.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. a7, mpos Kaipov wpas] ‘for the measure of a season, i.e. for a brief period. This is a stronger expression than mpos xarpov and mpds pay, both of which phrases are found, in St Paul (1 Cor. vii. 5 ; 2 Cor. vii. 8, Gal. ii. 5, Phil. 15). On kaipos see the note on v. 1. The word dpa is connected with dpos, denoting properly ‘a limited time.’ The signification of an hour is of comparatively late introduction, dating from about the second century B.C. mporomw ov kap8(q| is parenthetical, and qualifies the expression dmoppauaGevres, ‘though in one sense we are always with you’: comp. I Cor. v. 3 admav T@ copart, mapay d€ TS mvevpart, and Col. il. 1, 2, § (with the notes). mepioootépws| here, as always in St Paul, is strictly comparative, referring to aroppavcOévres. ‘Separation, so far from weakening our desire to see you, has only increased it. When we could see you day by day, our yearning was not so intense.’ On the word itself see Gal.i. 14 (with the note). 18. Sidr] ‘because.’ This is the best supported reading and is generally translated ‘therefore,’ as if 610 : comp. 1 Pet. ii. 6, where also it is the best supported reading. But it is questionable whether it can bear this meaning, though Fritzsche on Rom. i. 18 (1. p. 57) adopts this view, translating it ‘hanc ob rem.’ Elsewhere in the New Testament, as always in classical writers, the word has one of three meanings, either (1) ‘oz what account, (2) ‘because, or (3) ‘that, but never ‘therefore.’ This distinction from 6&6 is due to the indefiniteness of dz. If di07e then be the right reading, it must be taken ‘ because,’ i.e. ‘in proof whereof,’ ‘that.’ Avore in the sense of or ‘that’ occurs in several spurious documents in Demosthenes, e.g. de Corona pp. 279, 284, 290. éyd pev IIatdos x.t.d.] ‘I Paul at least desired it more than once, whatever may be the feelings of Silvanus and Timotheus.’ The suppressed clause with d€ might have run oi d5€ adda wepi éavray Aeyé- twcav. For this suppression of the second member compare Col. ii. 23 dtwa €otw éoyov pev €xovra codias (with the note). Thus eyo is not coextensive with juets. The genius of the language will not admit it. The words eyo péy IlavAos then do not simply give the subject of nOeAnoapev, for then pev would be robbed of any meaning, but they explain and qualify the general assertion ‘we desired ;’ and the following words kai amwaf xai dis must be taken, not with 7OeAjoapev, but with éyad pev IlavAos, for the order shows that the pev clause includes them. Accordingly the comma in the E. V. after ‘ Paul’ should be omitted. On the whole question of St Paul’s supposed use of the epistolary plural, see above, ii. 4. kal amaf Kal Sls] Not necessarily ‘twice only,’ but ‘sore than once,’ ‘again and again.” Comp. Phil. iv. 16 (with the note). évéxopev] On this word see the note on Gal. v. 7, The same metaphor is employed below, iii. 11 karevOdvar thy dddv Hyer. 6 Zaravds] with a genitive Zarava, is the form always found in the New Testament, except possibly 2 Cor. xii. 7, where some manuscripts read ‘Zaray indeclinable. Theophil. ad Aut. ii. 28, 29 has Saray and Saravas in 38 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. (II. 18. two successive chapters. Saray is the pure Hebrew form }0¥, Saravas seems to be derived from the Aramaic N3pY. The shorter form is found in 1 Kings xi. 14, the longer form in Ecclus. xxi. 27, It is idle to enquire what was the nature of this hindrance. The most likely conjecture refers it to the opposition of the Jews. Or it might have been some illness, with which the Apostle was afflicted. Or again many other solutions are conceivable. The ‘temptation in the flesh’ alluded to elsewhere (Gal. iv. 14) refers to the same period in St Paul’s life. Weare tempted at once to connect it with the thorn in the flesh which St Paul represents as ‘an angel of Satan given to buffet him’ (2 Cor. xii. 7). But Satan works in many ways; and even if we were sure that the hindrance was the same in both cases, we are still far from a result, for the ‘thorn in the flesh’ is an expression which itself admits of more than one explanation. See the note on St Paul’s infirmity in the flesh (Galatians, p. 186 sq.). 19. xapa, orépavos}] He uses similar language in addressing the other great Church of Macedonia, which he regarded with even greater affection, Phil. iv. 1 ddeA@oi pov ayarnrot Kat émimoOnrot, yapa Kat oredaves pov. For the ideas conveyed by the word orédavos and its distinction from d:adnpa, see the note on the passage, and add to the references there given 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8, Ep. Veenn. et Lugd. éexpnv yotv rovs yevvaious aOAnras...dmoAaBeiv rov péyav tis apOapaias arépavoy, and a little below of Blandina péyav cai dxarayoucrov dOAnthv Xpiorov evdedupérn...xai dv ayavos rov tis apOapaias oreWapuéern orépavov (Routh #. S. I. pp. 309, 311). &mls 7 xapa «7.A.] St Paul is not speaking here of the prospect of a reward or of any selfish rejoicing or triumph. The Thessalonians are his hope and joy, and the crown of his glory, as a child is of its parent. So Chrysostom: ris ovx dv éri rocavtn modvmaidia Kai evradia aydddorro ; orépavos Kavxyaews| A phrase borrowed from the Lxx. Ezek. xvi. 12, XX. 42, Provexvi. 31. kavx1oews] ‘wherein we boast, the subject of our boasting.’ 7) odxl Kal ipets}] The E. V. following the vulg. (‘nonne’) takes 4 as an interrogative particle ; and this is so far unobjectionable that it fulfils the conditions of # interrogative in that it is preceded by another interrogative. But this interpretation makes no account of the kai. Hence it is better to consider 7 here as a disjunctive particle, ‘or (if others are our joy, etc.), are not ye a/so,’ in other words, ‘if you are not our joy, no one else is.’ So St Chrysostom ov yap elrev ‘vpeis’ amdds GAAa ‘kai Upeis, peta TOY Gov. tumpoorbev tov Kvplov x.t.\.] refers to the whole of the preceding sentence ris yap...vpeis, i.e. ‘in the presence of the Lord, when all things will appear in their true light.’ éy rq abrod mapovela| ‘at His advent.’ For mapovoia see the note on 2 Thess. ii. 8. 20. tpets yap] ‘ Ves truly, ye are’ For this use of yap introducing areply, comp. Acts xvi. 37 ov yap adda x.r.A., I Cor. ix. 10, and see Winer, § lil. p. 559. CHAPTER iit: 1. Awd] ‘On which account, i.e. ‘on account of this very fervent desire, which I was unable to gratify.’ pykért] The frequent use of py with a participle in later authors, where in writers of the classical epoch we should have found ov, is too marked to escape notice. We are not however justified on this account in saying that later writers are incorrect in their use of the negatives. The distinction of ov as the absolute and yp as the relative, dependent or conditional negative, is always observed, at least in the New Testament. M7 for instance is never used in a direct, absolute statement. But in participial clauses it is most frequently possible to state the matter in either way, either absolutely, or in its relation to the action described by the finite verb of the sentence. Here, for instance, ovxér: oréyovres might easily stand, in which case the sense would be, ‘we could no longer contain and we thought fit ;’ whereas pyéri oréyovres is ‘as being able no longer to contain, we thought fit.’ This phenomenon of the displacement of ov by pz in the later Greek may perhaps be explained by the general tendency in the decline of a language to greater refining and subtlety in contrast to the simplicity of the earlier syntax. In the earlier stages of a language, and in languages whose growth has been for some cause arrested (the Hebrew, for instance, and in a still greater degree the Chinese), as in the talk of children, the sentences consist of a number of absolute, finite statements strung together, with little or no attempt to express their relation or interdependence by any grammatical expedient. As the syntax is developed, it is enabled to express these relations with more or less nicety. In the case before us the earliest form of the sentence would be ovxérs €oréyouev kai nvdoxnoapuev, which simply states the two facts side by side without expressing any connexion: the next advance is ovkére aréyovres nudoxnoaunev, which synchronizes the two facts, yet does not state any other relation but that of time, though it may suggest such. At this stage the language had arrived in the classical period. The third and later form is unxért oréyovres nvdoxnoapuey, which not only synchronizes the two facts, but also expresses that ‘the inability to contain’ was a motive which determined the ‘determination.’ See Winer § lv. p. 593 sq., Madvig Syntax § 207. 40 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [TIE 2% oréyovtes] The verb oréyew ‘to cover,’ ‘to shelter,’ means primarily either ‘to keep in’ or ‘to keep out’ (compare the expression ‘to be water- tight, air-tight’) ; and, like the Latin ‘defendere,’ takes an accusative either (1) of the thing protected or (2) of the thing against which the shelter is extended. It thus gets two different meanings, (a) ‘to protect, contain,’ (4) ‘to ward off, keep out.’ Thus a tower is said oréyev modw (Soph. Gd. Col. 15), and also oréyew Sopu (Asch. Sept. c. Theb. 216). In the same way the English word ‘leak’ has two senses ‘to let water in,’ and ‘to let water out.’ To one or other of these leading ideas all the subordinate uses of oréyewv, either with the case or absolutely (i.e. with the accusative suppressed as here), may be referred. In the passage before us oréyovres can be taken with almost equal propriety in either of these two meanings: (1) ‘no longer able to keep our feelings tight in’: comp. Plato Gorg. p. 493 C, where the soul is compared to a sieve unable to hold anything in by reason of its fickle and forgetful nature (ov duvapévny aréyew S¢ dmioriay te kai AjOyv, where see Thompson’s note, and comp. Ecclus. viii. 17 of the fool od durjcera Adyor oréEat) ; or (2) ‘no longer able to bear up against the pressure of this desire.’ On the whole however the usage of the word in later Greek seems decidedly in favour of the sense ‘to keep off, ‘to bear up under’ and so ‘to endure,’ see Philo zz Flacc. § 9 p. 526 (ed. Mangey) pyxére oréyew Suvapevor ras evdeias: and this agrees with St Paul’s use elsewhere, I Cor. ix. 12 mavra oréyouev, which must, and 1 Cor. xili. 7 wavra oréyec which may bear this meaning. e’Soxjoapev] ‘we,’ referring to St Paul and Silvanus: see the note above (ii. 4) on St Paul’s use of the plural in his letters. karadepOjvat] ‘to be left behind, more definite than AaPOjva. In order to give its proper significance to the compound verb, we must suppose that Timotheus had joined St Paul at Athens, though in the Acts (xvii. 15) we only read of St Paul’s expecting him there, not of his actual arrival; and had been despatched thence to Thessalonica. If Timotheus had been sent to Thessalonica from Berea, without seeing the Apostle at all at Athens, the proper word would have been pevew or at most Aew- 6jva. On the probable movements of the party see the next note, 2. éméurpapev] ‘we,’ i.e. again Paul and Silvanus. So Bengel rightly. In order to reconcile the expressions here with the account in the Acts, the occurrences may be supposed to have happened in the following order. St Paul is waiting at Athens for Silvanus and Timotheus, having left them at Berea, and charged them by message to join him without delay (Acts xvii. 15, 16). They join him at Athens. Paul and Silvanus despatch Timotheus to Thessalonica (1 Thess. iii. 2). Silvanus is. despatched on some other mission to Macedonia, perhaps to Berea. St Paul goes forward to Corinth (Acts xviii. 1). After he had been in Corinth some time, Silvanus and Timotheus return to him from Mace- donia (Acts xviii. 4, 5). Thereupon the Apostle writes from Corinth to the Thessalonians, in the joint names of himself, Silvanus and Timotheus. BIT 3) ] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 41 Though this mission of Timotheus was the joint action of Paul and Silvanus, yet St Paul, as might be expected, was the prime mover and most urgent promoter of it. See ver. 5 cdy« and the note there. tov adeAov ypav] The same phrase is also used of Timotheus, as dis- tinguished from dzoaroXos, in the salutations of 2 Corinthians, Colossians, and Philemon, and by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii. 23). He was not therefore, it would seem, an ‘Apostle,’ a term which, while applying to others besides St Paul and the Twelve (Acts xiv. 14), would appear to be restricted to those who had received their commission directly from the Lord. See the note ‘on the name and office of an Apostle’ in Galatians, p. 92 sq. ovvepyov Tov Oeod] ‘a fellow worker with God, as the usage of cuvepyos with the genitive elsewhere requires, e.g. Rom. xvi. 3, 9, 21, Phil. ii. 25, iv. 3, Philem. 1, 24. The same expression occurs in I Cor. ili. 9 Geotv yap éopev auvepyoit. It was so startling however that the copyists here have tampered with the text in order to get rid of it, some (as B) omitting row @cod, others (as &) substituting dudkovoy for cuvepyov. mapakadéora.] Not to ‘comfort,’ as E.V.; but rather to ‘exhort’ or ‘encourage,’ for the opposition to caiverOa: (ver. 3) requires this meaning. ‘We sent Timotheus,’ the Apostle explains, ‘not only to confirm you in your present conduct (ornpiéa), but also to exhort you to fresh efforts (mapaxadéca)’. See the note on ii. II. tmp tis mlorews tpav] ‘for the establishment, furtherance of your faith? Here, as in many other passages, the less usual vmép has been altered by the scribes into mepi. Though dep in the later stages of the language approaches nearer to wept in meaning, it does not (at least in the Greek of the New Testament) entirely lose its proper sense of ‘interest in.’ See the note on Gal. i. 4 wept trav dpapriav. 3. 1d pySéva calverOar] The reading of this passage presents some difficulty. Tov, r@ and 70 are all possible constructions with the infinitive —the genitive expressing the motive, ‘with a view to,’ the dative ex- pressing the instrument, ‘by means of,’ the accusative expressing the end or result, ‘that so as a consequence.’ This distinction is in accordance with the well-known characteristics of the three cases in Greek, motion from, rest at, motion towards. In the present instance the reading of the Textus Receptus r@, rejected on the ground of MS. authority, is moreover incapable of any satisfactory grammatical explanation. If it could stand at all, it must mean ‘in no one’s being moved,’ a sort of dative of the manner or means of accomplishment. On the other hand, both ro and tov give good sense, the difference consisting in this that the genitive views the result definitely as the motive of the action, which the former does not. Manuscript evidence however is decisive in favour of 70 pundéva aaiveoOa. The expression is sometimes explained as in apposition with TO oTnpiga x.t.A. and so governed by eds. But it is more correctly taken as _ dependent on the clause eis ro ornpiéat...iuayv, or perhaps better the whole 42 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. (IIT. 3. sentence from émréuWapev...vuov describing the result or consequence. Translate ‘to the end that, and compare iv. 6 ro yy vmepBaivew with the note. calverBar] ‘de led astray, allured from the right path” Saivew (derived from oda, veiw, see Blomfield on Seft. c. Thed. 378 and Donalds. Craty/. § 473) is originally ‘to shake or wag,’ e.g. Hes. Theog. 771 ovpy te kai ovacw of a dog: hence it is used especially of a dog wagging the tail (Hom. Od. xvi. 4, 6, 10, comp. the words caivoupos, catvovpis in Hesych.), and frequently even with an accusative of a person ‘to wag the tail at, to fawn upon.’ Hence caivew gets to signify ‘to fondle, caress, flatter, coax, wheedle, allure, fascinate, deceive’ (AEsch. Choeph. 186, Pind. Olymp. iv. 7), and even ‘to avoid’ (Aésch. Sept. c. Thebd. 378, 701). This seems to be the meaning here ; ‘that no one, in the midst of these troubles, desert the rough path of the truth, drawn aside and allured by the enticing prospect of an easier life.’ This is the temptation alluded to in ver. 5. Observe also it is év rats O@Aitfeow ravras, Not vrd Trav Oripewv rovrwv, Comp. Mart. Ign. 9 (p. 356, ed. Dressel) odds fv vrocaivey kai xatayay said of Trajan. On the other hand it is taken by some in the sense ‘to be disturbed, disquieted’ (e.g. Chrysostom and Theophylact dopuBSeicGa), with a refer- ence to its root cefew; but the history of the word, showing that its derivation was entirely lost sight of in its later usage, is quite averse to this interpretation, nor can any passages be produced where it bears this meaning. Those commonly adduced may be otherwise interpreted, e.g. Diog. Laert. VIII. 41 cawvopevor tois Aeyopevors eSdxpvov Kai @pawor, cited by Ellicott from Elsner, where the sense of ‘under the influence of?’ is adequate. Again in Eur. Rhes. 55 the idea is rather of encouragement, or at least attraction, than of disquietude, and so Soph. Avtig. 1214. Lachmann reads doaiveoOac in the sense of ‘to be disgusted,’ a verb connected with dodopa from don fastidium (see Steph. 7%es. s. v. dodopat). Hesychius explains doaivwy as vBpiter, Aurey, and acaiverOa as AvTeio Oat. See also Cobet Pref ad Cod. Vat. p. xc. Severianus in Cramer’s Catena explains as ré pndéva Eevi¢erOa. Theodore of Mopsuestia is here translated ‘cedere.’ éy rais OAtbeow tabrais] ‘27 the midst of these afflictions which befal us and you alike. avrol] i.e. ‘without my repeating it.’ els rovro] i.e. rd OAiBeoOat. ke(ueOa] ‘we are appointed, ordained,’ see the note on Phil. i. 16 Keipat. 4. mpds tpas] The use of mpds with the accusative is not uncommon after verbs implying rest ; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 5, Gal. i. 18, 1 Cor. xvi. 6, Mark vi. 3. Sri péXopev OA(BerGar] ‘we are about to,’ or perhaps better, for the oidare seems to require it, ‘are destined to suffer persecution.’ MéAdAopev 5.) FIRST) EPISTLE TO) THE -THESSALONIANS: 43 is used rather than éeyweAAopev, because the Apostle’s words are given in the oratio recta, for which we are prepared by érz. See e.g. Acts xv. 5 éfaveotnaay tives Aéyovres Ott Set wepiréuvey and other examples given by Winer (§ xli. p. 376). For the whole passage compare Acts xiv. 22, where it is said of Paul and Barnabas émornpifovtes ras Wuyas Tov pabnTay, mapakadovrtTes eppevery TH Tiare Kat Ore Sia TOAAGY GAivewy Set nuas eioeAOeiv eis THY Bacwdeiav Tov @cov. Observe here, beyond the general resemblance to the passage in the Thessalonian Epistle, the occurrence of the same words (ém1)ornpifew, mapakanelv, miortis, OAivrers, and of dre introducing the direct narrative in the same way as here. The completeness of the parallel is an undesigned coincidence of no ordinary importance. And it does not stand alone. It recurs, with more or less marked emphasis, wherever St Luke reports St Paul’s words, showing that he repeats them with the accuracy of an ear-witness. In this case, as the Apostle tells us in this verse, the language employed had been often used to the Thessalonian converts ; St Paul had dwelt on this topic (dre mpos vas quev mpvedcyoper). pAdopev] i.e. all Christians, as the parallel passage just cited shows. Ka0as Kal éyévero Kal olSare] ‘as indeed it came to pass and ye have learnt from bitter experience.’ It is better not to take xal...xal as cor- relative ‘both...and, because that would imply a greater distinction between éyévero and oidare than the sense of the passage warrants. 5. 8d rovro]i.e. ‘ because these persecutions had already befallen you.’ kayo] ‘7 on my pari, seeing what you were suffering. Compare the note on ii. 13, where xat nets is used in the same way. Kayo here is not intended to limit the plural of ver. I pyxére oréyovres to St Paul himself, but simply to give greater prominence to the part which he took in despatching Timothy, though Silvanus acquiesced in and sympathized with the project. Exactly in the same spirit he adds ey pév Taidos kai ara€ xai dis after the plural 74eAjncapey in ii. 18. pyres érelpacev...kal...yévnrat] For the change of moods compare Gal. li. 2 pnas eis Kevov rpéxw 7) eSpayov, where tpexo is the subjunctive, see the note there. The indicative emeipaoev describes a past action, now inevitable, which St Paul could not have affected in any way; yevnra a possible future consequence of that past action, hence is strictly a hypothetical mood. It is unnecessarily harsh to assign different meanings to pyres in the two clauses, as though it meant ‘an forte,’ ‘to see whether’ when applied to éeipacey, and ‘ne forte’ ‘to prevent by any chance’ as applied to yévnra: (Fritzsche Ofusc. p. 176). Comp. Eur. Phen. 92 énicxes ws Gv mpovkepevvncw atiBov, My tis moduray ev tpiBo gavraferar, Kapot pev €AOn pavdos, ws SovdA@, Poyos, Soi & ws avacon. Here too the first clause represents something out of the control of the speaker, the second a contingency still future, which could be guarded against. See too Arist. Eccles. 495 and Winer $ lvi. p. 633 sq. els kevov yévnrat| The expression els xevdy is not unfrequent in St Paul, 44 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [IITI. 5. occurring twice with his favourite metaphor of rpéyew (Gal. ii. 2, Phil. ii. 16), and three times elsewhere (2 Cor. vi. I eis xevov d€£arOa, Phil. ii. 16 eis kevov €xomiaca and in the present passage). It is found in the Lxx. (Is. xxix. 8, xlv. 18, Jer. vi. 29, xviii. 15, Mic. i. 14, Hab. ii. 3), especially of fruitless labour (Job xxxix. 16, Is. lxv. 23, Jer. li. 53), amd occurs in post-classical Greek, e.g. Lucian, Zpigr. 32 eis xevov e&éxeas, Heliodor. x. 30. For a similar weakening of e’s in adverbial expressions compare els Kowdr, eis katpov (Bernhardy Syzz. V. 2, p. 221). 6. dpre St EXOdvros Tipodéov] “Apri denotes simultaneity and may apply either (1) to the actual moment of reference, ‘at this very time,’ i.e. ‘just now’ or ‘just then’ (as the case may be), e.g. Matth. ix. 18; 1 Cor. xiii. 12; or (2) to a preceding moment, ‘a short time ago’ or ‘a short time before ;’ but never (3) to a future time, ‘a short time hence or after.’ See Lobeck PAryn. p. 18. This limitation pointed out by Phrynichus is strictly observed in the New Testament. Ellicott (ad Joc.) appears to confine the first of the two meanings given above to later Greek; but the word is not unfrequently used of present time by classical writers, e.g. Pind. Pyth. iv. 158 cov & avOos Bas apre Kupaiver, Asch. Sept. c. Theb. 534 oreiyes 8 tovdos apt Sia rapnidwy, Soph. 47. 9, occasionally with the addition of viv, e.g. Arist. Lys. 1008 apri vuvi pavOave. It is more natural here to take adore with eA@dvros, which immediately follows, than with aapexAnOnuev, which is far distant and has moreover an ‘adjunct’ (Ellicott) of its own in 8a rodro. It seems to be generally assumed that Gpri €A@ovros Tysobéov must mean ‘Timotheus having arrived not long ago,’ i.e. ‘not long before the present time, when I am writing this letter,’ thus furnishing a chrono- logical datum. But may not it signify ‘Timotheus having just arrived’ (comp. peta&v, Gua etc.), ie. ‘as soon as Timotheus arrived we were comforted’; for dpre need not be ‘a short time ago’ referring to the actual present, but may also be ‘a short time defore’ in relation to some other point of time (here that of mapexAnOnuev) to which everything is referred. Cf. Philo, Vit. Moys. i. § 9 (11. p. 88, ed. Mangey) dpre mparov advypeévos ay €arovdacev (cited by Lobeck, |. c.) and see also Rost and Palm, s. v. And this seems to me the more natural interpretation, as the prominent time of reference in the passage is that of mapexAj@nuev. Perhaps a feeling of this awkwardness has led to the substitution of mapaxexArpeba in A and one or two cursives. evayyedccapévov] This word is not elsewhere used by St Paul in any other sense than that of preaching the Gospel; and rarely by any other New Testament writer (Luke i. 19 is an exception). Chrysostom remarks . on this passage ovx elmev amayyeidavros, aA evayyeAurapuévov'’ rorotrov ayabdy nyeiro Thy exeivwv BeBaiwow Kal Thy ayarny. THY wloriv kal THY aydmrny] i.e. yours was not a speculative, intellectual faith only, but a working principle of love: comp. Gal. v. 6 iors 80 ayanns évepyoupern. EO a IIT. 8.] FIRST (EPISTLE TO’ THE THESSALONIANS, 45 ayabyv] ‘that ye retain a kindly remembrance of us always, for this seems to be the force of dya@nv: comp. I Pet. ii. 18, Tit. ii. 5, and Rom. v. 7, where the point of the sentence seems to depend on this sense of dyads (see the note on this last passage). éruroSovvres] Stronger than wofotvres: for though the preposition is not strictly intensive, but points out the direction (e.g. Ps. xlil. 1 émurobei 7% €Xagos ext ras mnyas Tov vddrwy, and see Fritzsche on Rom. i. 11), still the very expression of this direction ‘yearning after’ has the same effect as an intensive preposition. The simple words moos, wodeiv etc. do not occur in the New Testament, see the notes on Phil. i. 8, ii. 26. 7. 8a Todo] i.e. ‘on account of this good news.’ avadyky kal @AGfer] The same metaphor underlies both of these words ; dvaykn (a word akin to ayx@, ‘angor,’ ‘anxious,’ ‘ Angst,’ etc.) ‘the choking, pressing care’ and 6diWis ‘the crushing trouble.’ But avaykn is especially applied to physical privations, while 6Aijis refers to persecution, and generally to positive sufferings inflicted from without. The inverted order of the words in the Textus Receptus, though insufficiently sup- ported, is in accordance with 2 Cor. vi. 4, where see Stanley’s note. On the difference between OAiyus and another kindred word orevoywpia, see Trench WV. 7. Syn. § lv. The two latter words are perhaps to be dis- tinguished as the temporary and the continuous. OdAiyus, though ex- tremely common in the LxXx., occurs very rarely in classical writers even of a late date, and in these few passages has its literal meaning. The same want in the religious vocabulary, which gave currency to 6driis, also created ‘tribulatio’ as its Latin equivalent. On the accent of Oris see Lipsius Gramm. Unters. p. 35- 8. viv {apev] ‘For now that we have received good tidings of your faith and love, we live, if only you stand firm, do not fall off from your present conversation, as thus reported to us.’ Or the meaning of viv may be ‘now, this being so’; for in a case like this it is almost impossible to distinguish the temporal sense of vi» (‘now’) from the ethical (‘under these circumstances’). The one meaning shades off imperceptibly into the other. tapev] ‘we live once more’ i.e. in spite of this distress and affliction. In his outward trial ‘he died daily’ (1 Cor. xv. 31), but the faith of his converts inspired him with new life. Compare Horace £7s¢. I. 10. 8 ‘vivo ac regno.’ orjkere] ‘stand fast’: comp. Phil. i. 27, iv. 1, Gal. v. 1. Brew, a later form derived from the perfect €ornxa, and not found earlier than the New Testament, is a shade stronger than éordva, involving an idea of fixity— ‘stehen bleiben,’ not ‘stehen’ simply. This idea however is not always very prominent ; see Mark xi. 25 drav ornjxere mpocevxopevor, the only passage out of St Paul in the New Testament where the word occurs, unless, as is probable, éornkev is to be read for éornxev in John vill. 44 ev TH adnOeia ovx Eatnxev. The reading ornkere (for otjxnre) is generally 46 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. (III. 8. regarded as a solecism, but it certainly has overwhelming manuscript authority here and in other passages (Acts vili. 31, Luke xix. 40, 1 John v. 15), and édy seems certainly to be found with an indicative in later writers, and very probably the usage may have come in before this time: see Winer § xli. p. 369, and on the similar use of éray with the indicative § xlii. p. 388. St Paul speaks with some hesitation here ‘if so be ye stand fast.’ Their faith was not complete (ver. 10). There was enough in the fact that they had been so recently converted, enough in the turn which their thoughts had recently taken, absorbed so entirely in the contem- plation of the future state, to make the Apostle alarmed lest their faith should prove only impulsive and transitory. Such appears to be the connexion of the thought with what follows. 9. tlva yap] ‘I call it Ze, for it is our highest blessing. There is nothing for which we have greater reason to thank God, nothing for which our gratitude must give a more inadequate return.’ avtatoSoiva| ‘fo give back as an eguivalent’—not ‘to repay’ simply (dmrodotvvac) but ‘to recompense.’ Comp. Rom. xii. 17 pydevi Kaxov avri kakov dmodiovres with xii. 19 epuol éxdiknots €ya dvramodwow, where the words in the E. V. would be better if interchanged. The ayri is im- portant, for it implies the adequacy of the return. ‘What sufficient thanks can we repay?’ dyvramodogcrs is ‘retaliation, exact restitution, the giving back as much as you have received.’ Compare especially Arist. Eth. Nic. ix. 2 (IX. p. 177, ed. Bekker), where we have Sotva, drodotvat, avrarodovvac and Herod. i. 18 ovroe dé TO opotoyv avrarodidovres eryuw@peor. Philo marks the difference between dovva: and drodotva, Vit. Moys. iii. § 31, Ul. p. 172 (ed. Mangey). See also Luke xiv. 12, 14. 1 xalpopev] As yaipew yapayv (Matt. ii. 10) is a construction equally admissible with yaipew yapa (John iii. 29), we might take 7 as by at- traction for 7». But the other construction (with the dative) is perhaps better both as being simpler and more forcible, for in 7 xaipouey the verb dwells anew upon the rejoicing, whereas jv yaipoper is little more ex- pressive than ny ¢yoper. Sv tpas] ‘for your sakes, expressing a less selfish interest in the object of their rejoicing than the more common phrase xaipew emi rux. Comp. John iii. 29 yapa yxaiper dia thy horny rov vupiov. tumpoobev tod Oeod] ‘ Our rejoicing is of that}pure and unselfish kind, that we dare lay it bare before the searching eye of God.’ 10. tepexrepiooov|] The expression ex mepioootd Or ek mepitrov is classical and occurs several times in Plato, ‘abundantly, superfluously,’ eg. Protag. 25 B 6 yap Gpotos nuiv Guoia kal rromoer dore ek TeEpiTTod © npnoera. The compound vmepexmepioood occurs once in the LXx., Dan. iii. 23 (Theodot.) » xapiwos e&exavdOn vmepexrepiooov. The fondness of St Paul for cumulative compounds in vép has often been noticed, and is especially remarkable in the second chronological group of his Epistles, III. 10.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 47 written in what may be regarded as the most intense period of his life. Ellicott on Eph. iii. 20 draws attention to the fact that of the twenty- eight words compounded with vmep found in the New Testament, twenty- two occur in St Paul’s Epistles, and twenty of them there alone. Instances are Urepavéavew (2 Thess. i. 3), vrepAiav (2 Cor. xi. 5), vrepyixay (Rom. viii. 37), umeprepiaoevery (Rom. Vv. 20), Umepuyody (Phil, ii. 9). See further on Rom. v. 20. Sedpevor| is not to be attached to riva evyapioriay dvvapyeOa (ver. 9), but to xalpouev, with which it is more easily connected in the train of thought which may be supposed to have passed through the Apostle’s mind. The mention of his joy in his converts reminds him of the prayerful desire he has to see them face to face and to assist them. Thus the attachment of Sedpevor to xaipopey is not of an argumentative kind, but is simply due to the association of ideas. eis Td iSeiv] ‘fo the end that’: comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2 eis ro py Taxéws cadevOnvar vmas. katapticat}| The prominent idea in this word is ‘fitting together’; and its force is seen more especially in two technical uses. (1) It signifies ‘to reconcile factions,’ so that a political umpire who adjusts differences between contending parties is called xaraptiotyp ; e.g. Herod. Vv. 28 7) MiAnTos...vooncaca és Ta pddiota GTact péxpe ov puyv Tapio Karyptt- gay" ToUTous yap Katapticthpas ex mavtayv “EAnvev eidovto of MiAjotoe (comp. iv. 161). (2) It is a surgical term for ‘setting bones’: e.g. Galen Op. xix. p. 461 (ed. Kihn) xaraptiopos €ort petaywy? doTov } doTay ek Tot mapa vow rorov eis Tov kata vow. In the New Testament it is used, (1) literally, e.g. Mark i. 19 xaraprifovras ta Sixrva: but (2) generally metaphorically, especially by St Paul and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, sometimes with the meaning of ‘correct, restore,’ the idea of punishment being quite subordinate to that of amendment (see the note on Gal. vi. I catapricere Tov Tovodtoy ev mvevpari mpaitntos), Sometimes with the sense of ‘prepare, equip’ (Rom. ix. 22, 1 Cor. i. 10, Heb. x. 5, xi. 3, xill. 21), sometimes, as here, in the sense of avamAnpodv, a word which either simply or compounded occurs in five other passages closely connected with vorépnua (1 Cor. xvi. 17, 2' Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9, Phil. ii. 30, Col. i. 24). This sense of completion is borne out by a not uncommon application of xarapri¢ew to military and naval preparation, e.g. in Polybius, where it is used of manning a fleet (Polyb. i. 21. 4, 29. I, lll. 95. 2), of supplying an army with provisions (i. 36. 5) etc. Ta vorepypata] ‘the short-comings, from vortepeicba ‘to be left behind.’ These vorepjuara were both practical and spiritual. For the wish ex- pressed comp. Rom. i. II. ‘“Yorépnua is opposed to mepioaevpa, 2 Cor. Vili. 14. 48 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. _ [III rr. v. The Apostle's prayer for the Thessalonians (iii. 11—13). 11—13. The first great division of the Epistle closes with a supplica- tion suggested by the main topics which have been touched upon. The second division likewise concludes in the same way (v. 23, 24), the prayer in each instance commencing with the same words Avrés 6€ 6 @eds. In both cases there is a reference to the Lord’s Advent, and a wish that the Thessalonians may appear 4/ame/ess on that great day. II. avtds 8 6 Oeds| Comp. v. 23, 2 Thess. iii. 16, 2 Cor. x. 1, which passages show that in avrds de we are not to look for a strong or direct contrast to anything in the context, as for instance to deouevor ; but that it is simply an outburst of the earnest conviction which was uppermost in the Apostle’s mind of the utter worthlessness of all human efforts without the divine aid. ‘But after all said and done, it is for God Himself to direct our path’ etc. ‘Opds ty paviay rhs ayanns thy axdOexrov thv dia Tov pnuarev Secxvupévnv; Wdcovara, pyoi, kai meprroevoa, avti rod avénoat. ‘Qs ww elo tis €k TEplovoias mwas emOupet ireicOa wap’ avroy is the comment of Chrysostom. In 2 Thess. ii. 16 on the other hand the context supplies a direct antithesis (if such were needed) in jyd@r (ver. 15). See the note on the passage. Tratip ypav| suggesting the divine attribute of mercy (see the note on i. 3). kal 6 Kipuos 7pav "Incots] It is worthy of notice that this ascription to our Lord of a divine power in ordering the doings of men occurs in the earliest of St Paul’s Epistles, and indeed probably the earliest of the New Testament writings: thus showing that there was no time, however early, so far as we are aware, when He was not so regarded, and confirming the language of the Acts of the Apostles, which represents the first converts appealing to Him, as to One possessed of divine power. The passage in 2 Thess. ii. 16 of the same kind, is even more remarkable in that 6 Kiptos nuay is placed before 6 G¢cds kal ratjp. The employment of the singular (xarevOvvac) here enforces this fact in a striking way; comp. trapaxadéoa 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17 and see the note on the passage. katevOivat THY o8dv nav] ‘airect our path to you, make a straight path from us to you, by the levelling or removal of those obstacles with which Satan has obstructed it’ The metaphor here is the same with that of evéxoweyv li. 18 (see note there). 12. mreovdoat kal mepioceboar| ‘zucrease you and make you to abound, where repiooevoa is stronger than mAeovaca, and the two together are equivalent to ‘increase you to overflowing.’ TAeovagew has no reference to increase in outward numbers, but both it and mepiooevew refer to’ spiritual enlargement, and ry aya is attached to both. lAcovacae and repiooevoa are naturally taken as optatives, like karevOvva. In this case they are both transitives, contrary to ordinary Ill. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 49 usage. Aeova¢ew however is so found in LXx. as e.g. Numb. xxvi. 54, Ps. xix. 10, xx. 21, 1 Mace. iv. 35 etc., though never in St Paul, Tlepioceveww also occurs as a transitive verb in 2 Cor. ix. 8 Suvarei 6 Ocvs macav xapw Tepiooedoa, and perhaps in 2 Cor. iv. 15 rHv evxapioriay mepiaoevon, but always with an accus. of the ¢#zzg made to abound. Otherwise we might accentuate mepiocedoa, and take both words to be infinitives, understanding tpas d€ don mAcovdoa Kai meptoaedoar—such an ellipse being common in prayers or wishes in classical writers, see Jelf § 671 b, p. 338. But this or any similar use of the infinitive (e.g. yalpew and Phil. iii. 16 r6 avr@ orowyeiv) is too rare in the New Testament to encourage the adoption of it here. See Winer, § xliii. p. 397. eis GAArAOvs Kal eis ravtas] Had it been eis ddAnAous only, it would have been @iAadeAdia. But they were to extend their love to all, in St Peter’s words (2 Pet. i. 7) to add to ‘their brotherly kindness charity.’ Compare the directions on didadeAdia given below (iv. 9). mpets eis dyads] We may supply the ellipsis by some general word as dver€Onpev (Theodoret) ; or more precisely from the context by m\eovdfoper kal trepiooevoper, for in support of the change from the transitive to the intransitive meaning in the same passage there is authority in 2 Cor. ix. 8 mepiocetoa xapw followed by iva mepicoednre. But why should we attempt in such cases to discuss the exact expression to be supplied, when it is at least not improbable that the thought did not shape itself in words in the Apostle’s mind ? 13. els 74 ornplfar] ‘Zo the end that He may stablish, i.e. 6 Kuépwos above, comp. 2 Thess. ii. 17; not ‘that we may stablish.’ For the addition of the words éumpooOev tov Ceov x.r.A. need not lead us to look for a different subject to ornpiéa: in a writer like St Paul, and the whole point of the passage requires that Christ should be regarded as the sole author of the spiritual advancement of the Thessalonians. tas kapSlas] ‘your hearts” Something more than an outward sanctity is required. Gpéuarrous k.7.d.] ‘so that they may be blameless in holiness in the sight of God at the coming of Christ.’ For this proleptic use comp. 1 Cor. i. 8 dveykdyjrovs, Phil. iii. 21 ovppopdov, and below v. 23 odoreXels. aywotvy] The correct form, not aywocvvy. In such compounds the o is lengthened or not, according as the preceding syllable is short or long, thus dcxnpooiyn, cwppocvvn, but dyabooivn, weyadkwovyn, iepwodtvn. ‘Aytorns is the abstract quality (Hebr. xii. 10); dytwovvn the state or condition, i.e. the exemplification of dysrns working; dy:acpos is the process of bringing out a state of ay.drys, and sometimes the result, but always with a view to a certain process having been gone through. The distinction between the three words roughly corresponds to that between *sanctitas, ‘sanctitudo’ and ‘sanctificatio.2 Compare the difference between dya@wovrvn and dyaorns. It is worth notice that in the New Testament forms in -cvyn are much more frequent than those in -drns. L. EP. 4 50 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. | [III. 13. There is a reference in év aytwovvn to ravtrwy tov ayiwy, as if he had said, ‘in sanctity that ye may be prepared to join the assembly of the saints, who will attend the Lord at His coming.’ tumpoofev Tod Ocod x.7.4.] to be attached to dpéumrous ev ayworvy ‘that your holiness may not only pass the scrutiny of men, but may be pronounced blameless by God, Who is all-seeing.’ mévrwv tov aylwv] ‘all His saints” Not only the spirits of just men made perfect, but the angels of heaven also. For though the angels are never called simply oi dysoc in the New Testament, yet the term is found in Ps. lxxxix. 5, Zech. xiv. 5, Dan. iv. 10 (13), and the imagery of Daniel has so strongly coloured the apocalyptic passages of the Thessalonian Epistles, that this passing use of the expression is not surprising. The presence of the angels with the returning Christ is expressly stated in several passages (Matt. xiii. 41 sq., xxv. 31, Mark viii. 38, Luke ix. 26, 2 Thess. i. 7), and in two of these (Mark l.c., Luke 1. c.) the epithet dy.o: is applied to them in this connexion. avtov] i.e. rod Kupiov "Incov, as the close proximity of the word demands. Compare 2 Thess. 1. 7 per’ dyyéAwv Suvapews adrod. CEASE IPERS OEY. 3. HORTATORY PORTION, iv. 1—v. 24. i. Warning against impurity (iv. 1—8). 1. Adourév ovv k.7.4.] ‘ Now then that I have finished speaking of our mutual relations, it remains for me to urge upon you some precepts.’ Aouroy ‘for the rest’ here marks the transition from the first or narrative portion of the Epistle to the second and concluding part, which is occupied with exhortations. On this peculiar province of Aourov and 70 Aouroy thus to usher in the conclusion see the note on Phil. iii. 1. In the passage before us this conclusion is extended over two chapters ; in the Philippian Epistle the Apostle is led on by his affectionate earnestness so far that he has, so to speak, to commence his conclusion afresh (Phil. iii. 1 compared with Phil. iv. 8). It is strange that the Greek commentators here give a temporal sense to Aoroyv ‘continually,’ ‘from this time forward.’ The E. V., which elsewhere rightly renders the word ‘finally,’ translates it here ‘furthermore,’ which is misleading. To Ao:zov is slightly stronger than dourev, as will be seen by a comparison of such passages as 2 Thess. fe tand: Phil, Ik. ce. with, 1 Corsi. 16, 2°Cor. xi. 11; 2 Timeay. 84) )/On the difference between rd Aouwroy and rov Aorod see the note on the latter word on Gal. vi. 17. ovv] if indeed the word is not to be omitted with B and some early versions, may perhaps be explained by what immediately precedes, ‘seeing that we shall have to face the scrutiny of an all-seeing God, I entreat you etc.’ But inasmuch as the change of subject is very complete here, it is better not to attach ovy to any single clause or sentence, but to the main subject of the preceding portion of the Epistle: ‘seeing that such has been our mutual intercourse, that we have toiled so much, and ye have suffered for the Gospel’s sake, that God has done so much for you.’ épwtapev] ‘we ask, request you, a signification which épwray never bears in classical Greek, being always used of asking a question, ‘interrogare’ not ‘rogare.’ ’Epwray however in the New Testament is not exactly 4—2 52 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [FV. 1- equivalent to aireiy, but denotes greater equality, more familiarity, dif- fering from aireiy as ‘rogare’ from ‘petere.’ See Trench WV. 7. Syn. § xl. p. 143. épwraGpev kal mapaxadotpev] ‘We entreat you as friends, nay, we exhort you with authority in the Lord’; ev Kupi@ Incod perhaps belonging only to wapaxaXotpev, as Liinemann suggests. mapedaBere] The word is used here of practical precepts, not of doctrinal tenets. See the note on 2 Thess. ii. 15 mapadoors. +o mas] ‘the lesson how. The atticle ro gives precision and unity to the words which it introduces. Compare Acts iv. 21 pndev evpioxovres TO mos ko\aowvTa avtovs, Mark ix. 23 elrev avr@ 76 ei Svvy, and Winer § xviii. Pp. 135. mepuratety Kal dpécketv Oecd] equivalent to mepurarodvras dpéokew Oca, ‘how ye ought to walk so as to please God, Kaas kal wepirareitre] The continuity of the sentence is broken after dpéoxev Ge, and the apodosis is confused. The irregularity is twofold. (1) Feeling that the bare command might seem to imply a condemnation of the present conduct of the Thessalonians, he alters the sentence from oUTw Kal mepirarnte into KaOas kal mepuraretre with his usual eagerness to praise and encourage where praise and encouragement are due. (2) This change of form involves the substitution of mepiooevnre for mepurarqre in the apodosis, and the repetition of iva in order to resume the main thread of the sentence, which has been suspended by the lengthening out of the parenthesis. For the repetition of iva compare the repetition of 6éru, 1 John iii. 20 év rour@...meioopev thy kapdiav nav OTe €ay karaywodoKn Nuaov 7 Kapdla Ort peiCwy eat 6 Geos THs Kapdias nuav, Eph. ii. 11 pynpovevere dre MOTE VpELS...0TL FTE TH KaLp@ exeiv@ xwpls Xpiorov. The transcribers, not appreciating the spirit of the passage, have altered the text in various ways to reduce it to grammatical correctness; thus the Textus Receptus strikes out the first iva and the sentence xaOods xat mepurateire. For a similar irregularity see Col. i. 6 with the notes. mepiooetnre pGaAAov] SC. ev TS ovTw mepirareiv—‘advance more and more in this path of godliness in which you are walking,’ 2. ol8are yap] ‘The lesson which ye received of us, I say, for ye know what precepts we gave you : commands not of our own devising, but prompted by the Lord Jesus Himself (81a rod Kupiou “Inaov),’ 3. totro yap] ‘ Hor this—this precept which I am going to mention.’ Tovro is the subject and @&Anya rod Oeod the predicate, 6 adyacpds vay being in apposition with roiro. The following words, améyeo@at x.1.X., are added in explanation of 6 dy:acpos vor. : BAnpa trod Ocod] ‘a thing willed of God’: comp. Col. iv. 12 év mavri Oednpart rou Oeov (with the note). ‘Non subjective facultatem aut actionem, qua deus vult [6éAnors], sed objective id quod deus vult, designat,’ Fritzsche on Rom. ii. 18, xii. 2. Both OéAnois and Oé€Anpua are words of the Alexandrian period, and are not found in classical authors. IV. 4.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 53 They are related to each other as the action to the result, and are always used in the New Testament with proper regard to their terminations. See Lobeck Piryz. pp. 7, 353; Pollux 5. 165. The omission of the article before OéAnpa is to be explained on the ground that the sanctification of the Thessalonians is not coextensive with the whole will of God; compare Bengel, ‘multae sunt voluntates.’ The grammarians (see Ellicott ad Joc.) notice the fact that the article is omitted frequently ‘after verbs substantive or nuncupative,’ but do not offer any explanation of this. On the difference between OéAew and BovAecOa. see the note on Philem. 13. dyads] is used almost as the direct opposite to dxa@apcia (see ver. 7), inasmuch as ‘ purity’ is so large an ingredient in holiness of character. améxeoGar «.t.d.] This ayvacpos is explained negatively in the clause améxeo Oa x.7.A., and positively in the phrase eidévar €xacrov k.T.d. mopve(as]| Compare the language of the Apostolic ordinance Acts xv. 20 Tov améxeoOar Tay adioynpatav Tay cidddwy kal THs Topveias k.t.A. The Apostolic decree was only issued a year or two before the present Epistle was written, and St Paul had subsequently been distributing copies of it among the Churches of Asia Minor (Acts xvi. 4). To this fact may perhaps be referred the similarity of expression here; it is sufficiently natural though to have occurred accidentally. In both passages the sin is somewhat unexpected. It is clear that those addressed were only too ready to overlook its heinousness. If in the Acts we are startled to find it prohibited among things indifferent in themselves and forbidden only because the indulgence in them would breed dissension, it is scarcely less surprising here to find that the Apostle needed to warn his recent converts, whose very adhesion to the Gospel involved a greater amount of self-denial than we can well realize, against a sin, which the common voice of society among ourselves strongly reprobates. The contrast to the Christian idea presented by the Roman Empire at the time when St Paul wrote can be seen from the passages from classical writers quoted by Wordsworth ad doc., and by Jowett’s Essay ‘On the State of the Heathen World,’ S¢ Pauls Epistles, 1. p. 74 sq. On the consecration of this particular sin in religious worship something has been said already in the note to ii. 3. See too Seneca de /raii. 8, a passage cited by Koch (p. 306) below on Mer, 5. 4. iS€var] ‘Zo £x0w, i.e, to learn to know; for purity is not a momentary impulse, but a lesson, a habit (uaOnoews mpaypa, see Chrysostom). 3n- pet@oat kai 70 eid€var* Seixyuar yap Ori dokynoews Kai pabnoeds Eat TO TwpPpoveiy, Theophylact. For this sense of eidévac comp. Soph. Ajax 666 (quoted by Koch) Tolyap TO Aourov eiaopedOa perv Bevis Etkeuy. TS €avTov okevos KTac@ar] Two interpretations are given of ckedos 54 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [IV. 4. xrac6a, between which it is difficult to make a choice, not because both are equally appropriate, but because neither is free from serious objections. (1) Zxedos means ‘the body.’ This interpretation is as early as Tertullian (de Resurr. Carnis 16 ‘Caro...vas vocatur apud Apostolum, quam jubet in honore tractari’; comp. adv. Marc. v. 15), and is adopted by Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damascene, Ccumenius, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Rabanus Maurus, Primasius and others. This sense of oxevos is unobjectionable; for though there is no exact parallel to it in the New Testament, the expression in 2 Cor. iv. 7 €youev rov Onoavpov Tovrov ev daTpakivors oxeveow (Comp. I Cor. vi. 18) is sufficiently near, and the term ‘vessel of the soul, vessel of the spirit,’ which is commonly applied to the body by moralists (e.g. Lucret. iii. 441 ‘corpus quod vas quasi constitit ejus’ sc. animae, Philo guod det. fot. ins.§ 461. p. 223 Td Ths Wuxis ayyeiov 7b copa, de Migrat. Abrah. § 36 1. p. 467, who interprets rots oxeveou Of I Sam. xxi. 5 as bodies, rots dyyelos ths Wuyijs, Hermas J. v. 1, Barnabas Ep. §§ 7, 11 rd cKetos rod mvevparos, § 21 €ws @re TO KaAdOv oKevos €or. ped dpov), is a fair illustration; nor is a qualifying adjective or genitive needed, as the sense suggests itself at once. But the real difficulty lies in xrac6a, which cannot possibly have the meaning ‘to possess or keep’ (xexrno6at) as the sense would require, if oxevos were so interpreted. Seeing this difficulty, Chrysostom and others have explained xrac6a as equivalent to ‘gain the mastery over,’ ‘to make it our slave.’ ‘Hyeis avr xrapeba, drav peévn xaOapov kal €orw ev dy.ac pad, Srav d€ dxabaprov, dyapria® eixoras, od yap 4 BovddpeOa mparret hourov GAN & éxeivn emirdrre. Comp. Luke xxi. 19 év rH vmopovn vpadv xrncecbe (‘ye shall win’) ras uyds duorv. This interpretation introduces a new difficulty, as év dyiacp@ x.7.A. is not adapted to such a meaning of crac Oat. (2) xedos means ‘wife.’ This is the interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and of Augustine (contra Julian. iv. 56 and other references given by Wordsworth), and is mentioned by Theodoret as held by some. In favour of this interpretation it is urged (1) that xr@oOa is used of marrying a wife, e.g. in the LXx. Ruth iv. 10, Ecclus. xxxvi. 24 0 Krodpevos yuvaika évapxerar krnoews (see Steph. Thes. s. v. xrao@at), and (2) that oxevos is found in this sense in Rabbinical writers—as Megilla Esther fol. 12 (11. p. 827 ed. Schéttgen) ‘vas meum quo ego utor, neque Medicum, neque Persicum est, sed Chaldaicum,’ and Sohar Levit. fol. 38, col. 152. See Clem. Recogn. p. 39, 1. 14 (Syr.) {42049 LS, and Shakespeare Othello iv. Sc. 2, 1. 83 ‘If to preserve this vessel for my lord’ etc. The passage in I Pet. iii. 7 bs doOeveorép@ oxever TH yuvaixei@ arroveporres Tiny ought not to be adduced in favour of this interpretation, for the woman is there called oxedos not in reference to her husband, but to the Holy Spirit whose instrument she is. This interpretation certainly clears the general sense of the passage, which will then be ‘that ye abstain from illicit EV.)5-] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 55 passions, and that each man among you (who cannot contain) marry a wife of his own.’ Compare esp. I Cor. vii. 2 dua 5€ ras mopveias Exaoros THY €avrov yuvaixa éxérw, where marriage is set forth as the appointed remedy for incontinence in language closely resembling this. Nor is it any valid argument against this interpretation that the Apostle’s precept would thus apply to men only: for the corresponding obligation on the part of the woman is inferentially implied in it. The real objection to this view of the passage is that by using such an expression aS oxevos xragGa in this sense the Apostle would seem to be lowering himself to the low sensual view of the marriage relation, and adopting the depreciatory estimate of the woman’s position which prevailed among both Jews and heathen at the time, whereas it is his constant effort to exalt both the one and the other. Possibly however the term oxevos did not suggest any idea of deprecia- tion or contempt as used in late: writers; and at least any impression of the kind that might be conveyed by it is corrected by the following words, ev dytagu@ Kat Tif K.T.A. De Wette does not overcome the difficulty, when he says that the wife is called rd cxevos not as a wife absolutely, ‘sondern vom Werkzeuge zur Befriedigung des Geschlechtstriebes.’ For the question then arises, why present her in this depreciatory light: 714] On the other hand dripafecOa is used of unbridled desire; Rom. i. 24 rov dripaterOar ra ow@pata a’rav ev avrois. The honour due to the body as such is one of the great contrasts which Christianity offers to the loftiest systems of heathen philosophy (e.g. Platonism and Stoicism) and is not unconnected with the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. 5. év made émvOuplas] Lust has at first the guise of a temptation from without, but at length the indulgence of it assumes the character of an inward habit, ‘a passion,’ or affection of the man’s nature. In this case it is maOos emiOvpias. Then sin is said ‘to reign in our bodies that we obey its lusts’ (Rom. vi. 12). Thus though mafos and md@npa are generally distinguished from émOupia, as the passive from the active principle (e.g. Gal. v. 24, Col. iii. 5, where see the notes), here the two are combined as is the case frequently, e.g. Athenagoras Legat. 21 maOn opyns kal émiOupias of the passions of the heathen gods. kal ta, €yn] The appearance of xai is very frequent after comparative clauses where a comparison is affirmed or commanded : e.g. Eph. v. 23 drt aynp éotw Kehadn THs yuvatkos ws Kal 6 Xpioros Kehadr THs éxkAnoias, where Ellicott rightly remarks that the fact of being head is common to both ayjp and Xpioros, though the bodies to which they are so are different. The insertion however is much more rare where, as here, a comparison is prohibited or denied. Compare however iv. 13 Ba py Aumnade Kaas Kal oi Aourol of py Exovres eAmida. Ta py elSdra tov Ocdv] ‘that know not God.’ For the expression eidévac Geov see 2 Thess. i. 8, Gal. iv. 8. In what qualified sense the 56 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. _ [IV. 5. heathen are said here to know not God appears from Rom. i. 19, 28. He was present to them in the works of His creation: and they could not but recognize Him there; yet they did not glorify Him as such, they turned to idols, did not retain Him in knowledge, and so He gave them over to lust and dishonour. The same idea, which is there developed at length, is briefly hinted at here: viz. that the profligacy of the heathen world was due to their ignorance of the true God, and to their idolatrous and false worship. St Paul knows nothing of the common (but shallow) distinction of religion and morality. He regards the two as inseparable. See Jowett’s Essay ‘On the Connexion of Immorality and Idolatry,’ in St Paul's Epistles, U. p.70s8q. ‘Ignorantia impudicitiae origo,’ says Bengel. 6. Td par) trepBalvew K.7.A.] ‘so as not to go beyond etc. For this use of ro in the sense of dare see the note on iii. 3 above, and comp. Phil. iv. 1o and Winer § xliv. p. 406. This is better than taking ro py vrepBaivew «7-A. in apposition with 6 ayacpos tuorv ; for (1) the insertion of the article before tmepBaivew when it is omitted before améyeoOar and ecidéva is not easily explicable, if the clauses are parallel ; and (2) the special aspect of the sin presented in ro py) vrepBaive as an act of fraud is much more appropriate as an appendage to ro €avrov oxeios xracGa, than as an independent clause brought prominently forward and emphasized by the unexpected insertion of the article. trepBalvev] The subject of utmepBaive is éxacrov vay, or rather perhaps a subject understood from éxaoroy uueyv such as twa. “YrepBaivew may either be taken (1) absolutely, in the sense, ‘exceeds the proper limit’ or ‘to transgress’; compare e.g. Hom. //. ix. 501 ore xev rus vmrepByn kat dyaprn, Soph. Antig. 663 doris & vrepBas 7 vopovs Bratera, or (2) it may possibly govern rov adeAdov. But vrepBaivew with an accusative of a person has the sense rather of ‘to get the better of, to override.’ Compare Demosth. adv. Aristocr. p. 439 €re roivuy meurrov dixaornpiov ado Oeacace otov vrepBeBnxe, Plutarch de Amore, Prol. p. 439. Thus the sense of the passage is in favour of the absolute use, though our first impulse is to consult the continuity of the sentence and adopt the second alternative. The paraphrase of Jerome well gives the meaning of vrepBaivew (on Ephes. v. 3) ‘ transgredi [?] concessos fines nuptiarum.’ mdeovextetv| ‘20 overreach,’ ‘defraud.’ He who is guilty of fornication sins only against the law of purity: but the adulterer in addition to this is guilty of a breach of the law of honesty also, for he defrauds his neighbour of that which is rightfully his. This connexion between mAeovefia and dxa@apoia is an accidental one arising from the context, and there is no ground for the assertion that mAeoveEia is used in the sense of impurity. The case is the same in Ephes. iv. 19 éavrods mapédwxay eis épyaciay axabapoias mdaons év mAcovefia. On this whole question see the note on Col. iii. 5 ryv mAcoveElav iris eoriv elSwAodXarpeia, and the Yournal of Classical and Sacred Philology, U1. 97. On con- nexions of mAeove€ia illustrating the passages in the New Testament see LV. 6s) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. ay Theoph. ad Autol. i. 14, where it is named between sins of impurity and idolatry, porxetas Kat mropveiats Kal dapoevoxoirias Kai mAcove§tais Kai tais Gbepirors eiSwdodXarpetas, and Test. xiz. Patr. Nepth. 3 my omovdalere ev mreovegia Siapbeipar tas mpagers vpav. The position of meove§ia in its ordinary sense in the catalogue of sins, Eph. v. 3—5, Col. ili. 5, is as natural as in other instances (e.g. 1 Cor. v. 10, II, vi. 10). In Eph. iv. 19 eis épyaciav dxabapaias maons év mdeovefia and in the passage before us the notion of sensuality is, as I have said, contained in the context, not in the word itself. Thus it is surely arbitrary to assign here this special sense to mAcovexreiy and not to vmepBaiver. On the assumption that conversely dxaOapcia is used for mXeoveEia see the notes above on ii. 3, 5. It is strange that several able commentators have supposed that the sin of ‘avarice’ is here reproved. év t@ mpdypari] ‘272 the matter, the meaning of which is sufficiently defined by the context. This expression is suggested by a delicacy of feeling leading to the suppression of a plainer term: see 2 Cor. vii. II ev T® mpaypart. A somewhat similar use is cited from Iszeus de Ciron. hered. § 44 (p. 116 ed. Schémann) és potyos AnpOeis...ovd Gs dmadAarrerat Tov mpayparos. The translators of the E. V. at first sight seem to have read r@ (=rw) for r@, but there appears to be no support for this except perhaps the Armenian version; and it is perhaps better to suppose that both here and in I Cor. xv. 8 womepel ro (others dorepet ro) extpdpare the rendering arises from an imperfect acquaintance with the Greek article (see Ox a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament, p. 107 sq.). There seems to be no instance of tov, rm for rivos, tux in the New Testament. See Winer, § vi. p. 60 sq. tov dSeAdov airov| Not ‘his Christian brother,’ but ‘his neighbour.’ For the brotherhood intended must be defined by the context, and this is a duty which extends to the universal brotherhood of mankind, and has no reference to the special privileges of the close brotherhood of the Gospel. &Sixos] Compare Rom. xiii. 4 &xdixos eis opynv t@ TO KaKov mpaccorTt. In the older Greek writers &kd:xos is used in the sense of ‘unjust,’ e.g. Soph. Gd. Col. 917 08 yap hirotow avdpas exdixovs rpéperv. The meaning ‘an avenger’ occurs first in Diocles epiyr. i. 3 n&et Tis Tovrov xpdvos éxduxos (Antholog. 11. p. 167 ed. Jacobs), followed by Herodian, vii. 4 «i TwWes 7 oTpatriwray 7 Snporay avrois emiorey ExdiKor TOU yernoopevov Epyou, Aristzenet. i. 27 etc. In this sense it is found as a Latin word, e.g. Pliny, £f. x. 111 ‘Ecdicus Amisenorum civitatis.’ It is found instead of the more usual éxdicnr7s in the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament, Wisd. xii. 12 and Ecclus. xxx. 6. It seems to mean ‘one who elicits justice or satisfaction,’ and is appropriate here in connexion with the words vmepBaivew kal mAcovexreiv. 58 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [IV. 6. wep wavtwy tovrwy] i.e. all these sins, which fall under the general head of dxa@apcia. For the construction €xd:cos wept compare 1 Macc. xiii. 6 éxdixjow rept Tov €Ovous pov. Stenaptrupdpeda] ‘carnestly protested. On the meaning of papriperda and its distinction from paprupety see above ii. 12 and the note on Gal. v. 3. 7. od yap ékddeoev] ‘Impurity is disobedience to God’s commands: for He called us etc., and therefore it will bring down His vengeance.’ It is better perhaps thus to connect this verse with what immediately precedes (€xdixos mept mavrwy rovrev) than with O€Anpa rov Geod, ver. 3. érl dxalapoia, ddd’ év ayiacpd] The change of the preposition is significant : ‘not for uncleanness, but in sanctification.’ Holiness is to be the pervading element in which the Christian is to move. "Ev aywaope after éxddeoey is a natural abbreviation for dore efvar nuas ev dy.iacpo, as the sense requires. Compare 1 Cor. vil. 15 &v & elpyyy KéxAnkev vpas 6 Oeds, Eph. iv. 4, and see Winer, § 1. p. 518 sq. Possibly é€v ayvacp@ kai tyup ver. 4 may be so taken, but see the note there. 8. ovdKk dvOpwrov aberet, dAAA Tov Oedv] ‘rejecteth not any individual man, but the one God. On the article comp. Gal. i. 10 dptt yap avOp@rovus TrelOw 7) Tov Oeov; where Bengel pointedly remarks: ‘ avOpwmous, homines ; hoc sine articulo: at mox tov Gedv, Deum, cum articulo. Dei solius habenda est ratio.’ Compare also Gal. iv. 31 ovk éopev madioxns Téxva, adAa THs eAevOépas with the note. rov 88évTa 1d mvetpa «.7.A.] ‘This gift of the Spirit leaves you ina different position with regard to God from that which you held before. It is a witness in your souls against impurity. It is a token that He has consecrated you to Himself. It is an earnest of vengeance, if you defile what is no longer your own.’ The appeal is the same in effect here as in 1 Cor. iii. 16 ‘Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy ; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.’ Compare also 1 Cor. vi. 19. rov &:86vra] i.e. who is ever renewing this witness against uncleanness in fresh accessions of the Holy Spirit. If rdv cai Sdvra be retained, xai will refer to é«adeoev, ‘who not only called you to be sanctified, but also gave you His Spirit.’ But the manuscript evidence alike and the context are against the reading of the Textus Receptus. The gift of the Spirit by one decisive act (Sovra) does not suit the argument. rd Trveipa atrod rd Gyov] St Paul uses this stronger form in prefer- ence to the more usual mvedpa Gyr or rd ayov mvevua, as being more emphatic, and especially as laying stress on rd G@yov in connexion with i IV.10.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 59 the ay:acpos which is the leading idea of the passage. Compare Clem. Rom. 30 ‘Ayiou ovv pepis Umdpxovres TompTwpev TA TOU aytagpod Taya. els ipds] is better than els jyas, for it brings the general statement (6 aGerav x.r.A.) more directly home to the Thessalonians themselves. ii. Exhortation to brotherly love and sobriety of conduct (iv. 9—12). 9. iraSeddlas] Not ‘brotherly love,’ as E.V., but ‘love of the brethren, i.e. the Christian brotherhood, and thus narrower than ayamy which extends to all mankind. See 2 Pet. i. 7; and comp. Rom. xii. 9, 10 and the note on 1 Thess. ili. 12. ov xpelav exete] is probably the right reading as being the best supported, though it may have arisen from v. 1. The very fact that éyere introduces a grammatical irregularity is in its favour, for it was less likely to be substituted for €youey than conversely. Comp. Heb. v. 12 mad xpetay éxere Tov Siddokew vas for a somewhat analogous instance ; but there the construction of d:ddoxew requires a different subject to be understood from that of éyere. In the passage before us, the con- struction with twa supplied before ypadetvy, though irregular, is quite tenable, and in a writer like St Paul ought to create no difficulty. The more natural usage occurs a few verses lower down, v. I ov xpelav exere vpiv ypadherOa. avtol yap] ‘for of yourselves, without our intervention.’ BeoS(Saxror] ‘Zaught of God. The word occurs Barnab. Ef. § 21, Athenag. Leg. § 11, Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 9. Compare also the expression d:dakroi [rov] Geod in John vi. 45, and 1 Cor. ii. 13 €v Sudaxrots mvevparos. This word @eodidaxrou has no reference to any actual saying of our Lord, such for instance as that recorded in John xiii. 34, or to any external instruction: but it signifies the spiritual teaching of the heart, which supersedes all external precepts, though in the first instance it may have been conveyed by the medium of such. Both elements of the compound are emphatic: (1) the 6eo- is brought out by what precedes, in contrast to jas understood, (2) the -8/8axrot by what follows in the moveire. The prophecy of Isaiah liv. 13 here receives its fulfilment, kai mdvras Tovs viovs gov didaxtovs Geov : comp. Jer. xxxi. 34. eis Tb dyamgv dAAqAous] i.e. to cultivate this gudadeAdia, for dAAnAovs is applied to the Christian brotherhood. See iii. 12 77 dydmn eis ddAjAovs kat eis mavras, V. 15 and Rom. xii. 10 77 pitadeAdia eis ddAjAous Pidc- oTopyot. Io. Kal yap] ‘for also, for indeed.’ The xai marks this statement as an advance upon the preceding one. ‘You are not only taught the lesson, but you also practise it, and that, to every one of the brethren throughout Macedonia, i.e. all the brethren with whom you can possibly come in contact.’ 60 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, . [IV. ro. avd] i.e. ro dyamav addAndovs. oAy TH Maxedov(a] The history of the Acts only records the foundation of three Churches in Macedonia previously to this time, viz. those of Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea. It is probable, however, that in the interval between St Paul's departure from Macedonia and the writing of this letter other Christian communities were established, at least in the larger towns, such as Amphipolis, Pella, etc., either by the instrumentality of the more active of his recent Macedonian converts, such perhaps as Aristarchus (Acts xix. 29, xx. 4), or by missionaries of his own sending, such as Luke, Silvanus, and Timotheus, all of whom seem to have been actively engaged in Macedonia during this interval. See the essay on the Churches of Macedonia in 4zdlical Essays, p. 237 sq. mepiocetey paddov] See above on ver. 1. II. Kal giroripetoGa.] It is clear from the form of the sentence (contrast the cai here with 颀 ver. 9) that this injunction had some close connexion in the Apostle’s mind with that which goes before. What this connexion was it is impossible to say. A thorough know- ledge of the condition of the early Thessalonian Church would alone enable us to supply the missing links in the chain of thought with any degree of confidence. We may however conjecture that the large and ready charities of the richer brethren had caused some irregularities : that there were those who availed themselves of these means of support to the neglect of their lawful occupations ; and that thus relieved from the necessity of working, they went about preaching fantastic doctrines and exciting feverish anxieties and thus disturbing the simpler and pure1 faith of others. It is probable that they asserted the immediate coming of Christ (see the notes on ver. 13 and 2 Thess. ii. 2). That there were such idlers in the Thessalonian Church appears from the Second Epistle, where St Paul condemns in plain terms those ‘which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies’ (2 Thess. iii. 11 pndev €pyafopuevous, GAAa treptepyaouevous), language which seems to imply that the evil had gained ground in the interval. And the assumption made above in accordance with the requirements of the context that these were spiritual busybodies is very natural in itself, and is further borne out by Tit. i. 10, 11 (though the form which the evil assumes there is grosser). What evils the extensive charity of the early Christians might, and probably did, to some extent, give rise to, may be seen from Lucian’s satire of Peregrinus, see especially $§ 12, 13 7 ye GAAn Oepareia aca ov mapépyws adda adv omovdy eyiyveto...eira Seimva roxina eioekopifero....Kai 5) wai tO Ilepeypivw modAa Tore Ke xpnuata map’ avtay émi mpopdace . trav decpav Kal mpoaodoy ov pixpay ra’tny éroujoato x.T.A. irotipetorGar] The original idea of diAormia ‘the pursuit of honour, the love of distinction’ (typical of Athens, see Pericles’ speech in Thuc, ii. 44 TO iAdtipov aynpwv povov) is more or less obscured in its later IV. 12.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 61 usages (e.g. Rom. xv. 20, 2 Cor. v. 9) and the verb comes to signify ‘to make the pursuit of a thing one’s earnest endeavour,’ ‘to strive restlessly after’ a thing, and the substantive ‘restless energy’ (see e.g. Athenag. de resurr. § 18 ov yap pidrorupias TO karayew f Siatpety viv). Thus though the meaning ‘ambition’ would well suit the context here, it is unsafe to press it. The oxymoron however of diAoripeioGa jovyatew is equally strong whichever meaning we attach to @AoripetoGa, and the verbal paradox reminds us forcibly of the Horatian ‘strenua inertia,’ of Grotius’ complaint that he had spent his life ‘operose nihil agendo,’ and of Pericles’ estimate of woman’s true ambition (Thuc. ii. 45) peyadAn 7 Sofa fis Gy em €Adxorov apetns mépe 7} Woyovu vy Tois dpaect Kdéos 77. For other examples of mapampoodoxiay in St Paul compare Rom. xiii. 8 pydevi pndev oeirere, ef pr) TO GAANAOvs ayamav, and see the note on Phil. iv. 7 4 elpyyn Tov Geov ppovpyaet Tas kapdias vpar. mpacoey ta t6a] For the juxtaposition compare Plato Rep. 496 D novxiav €y@v Kal ra avTov mpartwy, Dion Cassius lx. 27 thy novyxiav ayov kal Ta €avTov mpaTTov. rais xepolv] The word dias has been wrongly inserted by some authorities both here and in the parallel passage Eph. iv. 28 épyaCopevos rais [idias] yepolv ro ayabov, where however the authority for its retention is somewhat stronger. On this characteristic interpolation see the note on il. 15 Kal rovs mpognras. 12. va wepimaryte «.t.A.] This is a precept dictated by prudence, and does not fall under the head of iradeAdia or ayamn: but it was doubtless suggested by this topic, for St Paul was led from it to speak of the one flaw which disfigured their ‘love of the brotherhood,’ and hence to consider how it would affect their dealings with the heathen. They were not to appear as worthless vagabonds and beggars. The precept has nothing to do with their conduct towards heathen magistrates, as Wordsworth imagines. Luther’s comment, quoted by Koch, is very characteristic, ‘ Nahret euch selber und lieget nicht den Leuten auf dem Halse, wie die faulen Bettelmdénche, Wiedertaufer, Landlaufer, denn solche sind unniitze Leute und argern die Unglaubigen.’ evox npdves] ‘ decorously’; vulg. ‘honeste.’ The E.V. has ‘honestly,’ which is rather an archaism than a mistranslation : comp. Rom. xiii. 13, where evoxnpoves is similarly rendered. tous tw] ‘the unbelievers, opposed to oi écw, ‘the Christian brethren.’ See the note on Col. iv. 5. pndevds xpelav exnre] It is not easy to say whether pndevos is neuter or masculine here. Perhaps the fact that ypelav ¢yew is frequently used with a genitive of the thing will turn the scale in favour of the neuter. In Rev. iii. 17 however the right reading is memAovrnka kai ovdev (not ovdevos) xpeiav €yw. Otherwise it would be a decisive instance, In either case the meaning is the same. The Apostle is enforcing the necessity of 62 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. _ [IV. 12. manual labour, in order that his converts may have sufficient for the wants of life, and may not appear before the unbelievers in the light of needy idlers. iii. Zhe Advent of the Lord (iv. 13—v. 11). (a) The dead shall have thetr place in the Resurrection (iv. 13—18). 13. Though there is an apparent change of subject here, the new topic is not entirely unconnected with the old. The restlessness which agitated the Church of Thessalonica, and led to a neglect of the occupations of daily life, was doubtless due to their feverish anticipations of the immediate coming of Christ; see Biblical Essays, 264 sq. This view can scarcely be considered a mere conjecture, supported as it is by 2 Thess. ii. 2; but, even if it were, the supposition is so natural as to commend itself, and we are not without instances of the disturbing effects of such an unchastened anticipation in later ages of the Church. In the tenth century for instance the expectation of the approaching end of the world in or about the year I000 A.D. was almost universal. This event was to usher in the seventh sabbatical period of a thousand years, the preceding six millennia being calculated as five between Adam and Christ, and one after the Nativity. See on this matter Trithemius Chronic. Hirsaug. ad ann. 960, Glaber Rudulphus /7zs¢. iv. 6. Again, amidst the plagues and famines of the fourteenth century the Flagellantes were prominent in their announcements of the speedy approach of the end. The anticipation of Christ’s coming then is the connecting link between the former subject and the present. It reminds the Apostle that he has to meet a difficulty respecting the position of the dead at the coming of Christ. This can scarcely be an imaginary difficulty which the Apostle has here started, and yet on the other hand from the indirect way in which the subject is introduced it does not seem to have been formally propounded to him by the Thessalonians, In this respect it presents a contrast to 1 Cor. vii. 1. The intermediate view is the most probable, that Timotheus had learnt during his visit to Thessalonica that this question agitated the Church, and had reported the fact to St Paul. That such questions were propounded in the early Church is evident from the interrogation put by Clement to St Peter in the Clem. Recogu. (1. 52), ‘Si Christi regno fruentur hi quos justos invenerit ejus adventus, ergo qui ante adventum ejus defuncti sunt, regno penitus carebunt?’ It is not necessary to suppose any lengthened existence of the Church | of Thessalonica at the time when this letter was written, in order to account for this difficulty. If only one or two of the converts had died meanwhile, it was sufficient to give rise to the question. Indeed it is IV. 13-.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 63 one much more likely to be started in an early stage of the Church’s growth than at a later period. Od Géd\opev 88 tpGs dyvoetv] An emphatic expression of St Paul, charac- teristic of his earlier Epistles, and used especially when he is correcting false impressions, or solving difficult questions (e.g. Rom. xi. 25, 1 Cor. x. I, xli. 1), or dwelling on personal matters (e.g. Rom. i. 13, 2 Cor. i. 8; comp. Col. ii. 1 €Aw yap vpas eiS€var): never it would appear without a special reference to something which had occurred. It is frequently used with yap ; but it does not even with d¢ necessarily imply an abrupt transition, but generally introduces a subject more or less connected with what precedes. See the passages above referred to, erg.) Rom. 1.013: kotpopéevev] ‘Zyzzg asleep.” The reading is somewhat doubtful, ex- ternal testimony being divided between koimopevwy and kekowunpévor. However komwpévwv is the more probable, for (1) it is favoured by the older manuscripts, including NB; (2) it is more likely to have been altered into xexowunuévwy than conversely, the latter being the usual expression, comp. Matt. xxvii. 52, 1 Cor. xv. 20; (3) it is a more expressive term, pointing forward to the future awakening and so implying the Resurrection more definitely than kexowunuévov. This last consideration no doubt it was which induced the transcriber of D to substitute cowara for Kexoipnrac in John xi. 12 ei Kekolunta, Tw@Onoerat. KaQads Kal of Aowrol] This sentence has been taken, after Augustine (Serm. 172) and Theodoret, to express not a total prohibition of grief, but only of such excessive grief as the heathen indulged in, and is accordingly translated ‘may not grieve to the same extent as the heathen.’ The Greek is thus strained to obtain a more humane interpretation. That St Paul would not have forbidden the reasonable expression of sorrow at the loss of friends we cannot doubt. But here, as elsewhere, he states his precept broadly, without caring to enter into the qualifications which will suggest thernselves at once to thinking men. On xai see the note on iv. 5 kal ra €Oyn. ot Aourrol] i.e. ‘the heathen’; as Ephes. ii. 3 cal queOa réxva pices opyis ws kal of Nouwroi: comp. Rom. xi. 7. oi py exovres €Arr(Sa] The contrast between the gloomy despair of the heathen and the triumphant hope of the Christian mourner is nowhere more forcibly brought out than by their monumental inscriptions. The contrast of the tombs, for instance, in the Appian Way, above and below ground, has often been dwelt upon. On the one hand there is the dreary wail of despair, the effect of which is only heightened by the pomp of outward splendour from which it issues. On the other the exulting psalm of hope, shining the more brightly in all ill-written, ill-spelt records amidst the darkness of subterranean caverns. This is a more striking illustration than any quotations from literature which could be produced. Yet such testimony is readily available also. Such is the passage in 64 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. _[IV. 13. Catullus v. 4 ‘Soles occidere et redire possunt, Nobis, cum semel occidit brevis lux, Nox est perpetua una dormienda,’ or the lament of Moschus (iii. 106 sq.) over the death of his friend Bion, if possible even more pathetic in its despair, At, at, rai padayar pev émay Kara Karov Odwvrat, *H ra xyAwpa céAwa, 76 7” evOadres ovdov avnOov, "Yorepov av (wovre kal eis eros GdXo pvovte’ "Aupes 8, of peyddou Kai kaprepoi 7} coot avdpes, ‘Omrore mpara Odvwpes, avaxoor ev yOovi koiha Evdopes ed pdda paxpoy arépuova vyyperov Urvov. In these and similar passages we cannot fail to observe how the very objects in nature, which Christian philosophers, e.g. Butler (Analogy, Pt. 1. ch. 1), have adduced as types and analogies of the resurrection of man, as for instance the rising and setting of the sun, and the annual resuscitation of plants, presented to the heathen only a painful contrast, enforcing the inferiority of man to the inanimate creation. This triumphant application of natural phenomena by Christian writers to support the doctrine of immortality begins at once. In a striking passage Clement of Rome employs the succession of day and night, the rotation of crops, etc. as analogies pointing to the Resurrection (kaipot é€apwot kat Oepivoi Kai peTor@pwoi kai xeElmepwoi ev elpnvn perarapadidoaaw dAAnAots K.T.A. § 20). Had St Paul been addressing a Jewish population, he could not have spoken so strongly. If the doctrine of the Resurrection is not brought prominently forward in the Old Testament, still the Messianic hopes, there suggested, could not but tend to its taking deep root in the minds of the people. There was an instinctive feeling that the coming of Messias was not a national revival only, but that it must have some reference to themselves individually, that they were to partake in it. Hence the distinctness, with which the doctrine of the Resurrection presented itself to the Jewish people, kept pace with the growth of the expectation of a coming Deliverer. 14. ovrws kal 6 Oeds «.t.d.] The apodosis to be in conformity with the protasis ought to have run otras Set morevew x.7.A.; but the protasis having been stated in a hypothetical form ‘2z/ we believe etc.,’ St Paul is instinctively led to correct any impression of uncertainty, by throwing the apodosis into the form of a direct assertion and thus clinching the truth on which he is dwelling. Sia tov ’Incot| Though there is some difficulty in explaining 8:4 if we connect these words with rovs xowunOevras (as Chrysostom and apparently Ambrosiaster), yet the arguments in favour of this connexion are so strong that it is to be preferred to the otherwise simpler construction attaching them to a@fec ody avr. For (1) the parallelism of the sentence (and consequently the sense which is guided by this parallelism) requires that the words should be so taken—’Incots dméOave being answered by rovs KoysnOévras 51a Tov “Inood, and ['Inaovs| avéarn by a&ee atv ait@. (2) It was necessary in some way to limit and define ray Kexoisnuévwv SO as to show that not all the dead were meant, but only ‘the dead in Christ.’ IV. 15.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., 65 How then is dia to be explained? Such passages as 1 Cor. xv. 18 oi Kounbévres €v Xpior@ (comp. Apoc. xiv. 13) only illustrate generally the meaning: for the difficulty is in assigning its proper signification of instrumentality to the preposition. Such expressions as ‘to live through Christ,’ ‘to be raised through Christ’ are natural enough of Him who is the Resurrection and the Life ; but ‘to die through Christ’ is startling, for He is always represented in St Paul as in direct antagonism to death (e.g. 1 Cor. xv. 26). The justification of 6:a however is probably to be sought in the fact that xo.unOjvac is not equivalent to daveiy, but implies moreover the idea frst of peacefulness, and secondly of an awakening. It was Jesus who transformed their death into a peaceful slumber. Or it may be the case that d:a here is not the dia of instrument, but the d:a of passage. As a state of spiritual condition is év Xpior@, so a transition from one state to another is 6a Xpuarov. Professor Jowett (on ver. 13) speaks of kotpaoOa as ‘a euphemism for the dead which is used in the Old Testament and sometimes in classical writers.’ But indeed it is more than a euphemism in the New Testa- ment, which speaks also of their awakening: compare August. Sevm. 93 ‘Quare dormientes vocantur? nisi quia suo die resuscitabuntur’ cited by Wordsworth, and a remarkable passage in Philo Fragm. 11. p. 667 ed. Mangey. Photius (Quaest. Amphil. 168) remarks émi peév odv tod Xpiorod Oavaroy kadei, iva TO TdO0s MucT@onTa* eri Sé nuay Koipnow, wa THY ddvynv mapapvOnonra. €vOa pev yap mapexopnoev 7 avacracis Oappav Kadet Bavaro" évOa dé ev €Amiow ere peéver Koipnow Kael k.T-r. afer civ aird] is best explained by vv. 17,18. It is not a pregnant expression for ‘ will take so as to be with Him’: but ‘ will lead with Him’ to His eternal abode of glory. ‘afer ducet, suave verbum: dicitur de viventibus,’ Bengel. For the general sentiment compare 2 Cor. iv. 14, Ign. Tradl. 9 os ai ddnOds ryépOn amd vexpdv...kaTa TO Cpoloua Os Kal nas TOUS TLOTEVOVTAS AUTO OUTS eyepEl O TaTHP a’TOU ev XpioT@ "Inaod. 15. év Aéyw Kvplov] This expression has been explained as a refer- ence to some recorded saying of our Lord, transmitted either in writing or orally. The nearest approach to the passage here in the canonical Gospels is found in Matt. xxiv. 31, where however the similarity is not great enough to encourage such an inference. It is perhaps more probable that St Paul refers to a direct revelation, which he had himself received from the Lord. The use of the phrase ‘the word of the Lord’ in the Old Testament is in favour of this meaning. On the expression Adyos Kupiov generally, see the note on i. 8. See also below on v. 2 axpiBas oidare. The same question arises with reference to 1 Cor. vii. 10 ovk €y® adda 6 Kipios, and it ought probably to be decided in the same way. nets oi Lavres] This expression suggests the question to what extent and in what sense it may be said that St Paul and the Apostles generally looked for the speedy approach of the advent of Christ. It is difficult in 1G Joye 5 66 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. | [IV. 15. attempting an answer to this question to avoid exaggerating on one side or the other, but the facts seem to justify the following remarks. (1) It should create no difficulty, if we find the Apostles ignorant of the time of the Lord’s coming. However we may extend the limits of inspiration, this one point seems to lie without those limits. This is indeed the one subject on which we should expect inspiration to exercise a reserve. It is ‘I, not the Lord, who speaks here. ‘For we are told that the angels of heaven—and even the Son Himself, otherwise than as God— are excluded from this knowledge (Mark xiii. 32). On this subject then we might expect to find the language of the Apostles vague, inconstant and possibly contradictory. (2) The Apostles certainly do speak as though there were a reason- able expectation of the Lord’s appearing in their own time. They use modes of expression which cannot otherwise be explained. Such is the use of the plural here: comp. 1 Cor. xv. 51 according to the received text, which seems to retain the correct reading. Nor does it imply more than a reasonable expectation, a probability indeed, but nothing ap- proaching to a certainty, for it is carefully guarded by the explanatory of Cavres, of meptXeuopevot, which may be paraphrased, “ When I say ‘we,’ I mean those who are living, those who survive to that day.” Bengel says very wisely and truly : ‘Sic ré mos hic ponitur, ut alias nomina Cazus et Zitius: idque eo commodius, quia fidelibus illius aetatis amplum temporis spatium usque ad finem mundi nondum distincte scire licuit. Tempus praesens in utroque participio est praesens pro ipso adventu Domini, uti Act. x. 42, et passim.’ (3) On the other hand, they never pledge themselves to a positive assurance that He will so come: but on the contrary frequently qualify their expression of anticipation by declaring that the time is uncertain (as 1 Thess. v. I, 2); and sometimes when pressed even guard against the idea that the day is immediate (as 2 Thess. ii. 2), or justify the delay by reference to the attributes of God (as 2 Pet. iii. 8). (4) With regard to St Paul it is scarcely true to say that the expecta- tion grows weaker in his later Epistles, that in these he seems to delay the coming of the Lord (for see e.g. Phil. iv. 5, 1 Cor. xvi. 22). It is rather that the expectation remains about where it was, but is not brought so prominently forward, and this for two reasons. /7rst. The Apostle’s own dissolution in the ordinary course of things was drawing nearer, and therefore his own chance of being alive at the time was diminished. Secondly. The doctrine of Christ’s coming, essentially and necessarily brought forward in the Apostle’s teaching to the Church in its earliest stages in connexion with the Resurrection and the Judgment, resigns its special prominence at a later period to other great doctrines of the Faith. See the Essay ‘On the chronology of St Paul’s life and Epistles’ in Biblical Essays, p. 215 sq. esp. p. 228. (5) There is no ground for the assumption that ecclesiastical organi- IV. 16.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 67 zation was deferred in the infancy of the Church owing to this belief. This organization appears to have kept pace with the growing needs of the Church and not to have received any unnatural check. Moreover such a supposition would be little in accordance with the tone always maintained by St Paul in speaking of the Lord’s coming; for he urges the sober application to the ordinary duties of life, and deprecates any restless extravagances built upon the supposition of its near approach. Whatever the converts may have done, the Apostles themselves seem never to have given way to any such feeling. It is significant here for instance that obedience to rulers follows after this explanation about the Lord’s day. (6) The tone and temper exhibited by the Apostles in relation to this great event is intended as an example to the Church in all ages. She is to be ever watchful for the Advent of her Lord, and yet ever to pursue the daily avocations of life in calmness and sobriety. od pr) POdowpev] ‘shall in no wise prevent, or be before. On ov py in the New Testament see Winer § lvi. p. 634 sq. 16. avrtds 6 Kiptos| ‘ The Lord Himself, i.e. not by any intermediate agency, but in His own person He will come. ‘avrés Jpse, grandis sermo’ Bengel. There is nothing more certain than that the New Testament represents the general judgment of mankind as ushered in by an actual visible appearance of our Lord on earth. ‘This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as (ovrws €Xevoerat bv tpomov) ye have seen Him go into heaven’ (Acts i. 11). And the an- nouncement of the angels is not more explicit on this point than the universal language of the New Testament. Indeed, independently of revelation, it would be not unreasonable to infer that, as the redemption of mankind had an outward historical realization in His appearance in the flesh, so also the judgment of mankind should be manifested out- wardly in the same way in time and space by His coming in person— that in short there should exist the analogy suggested by the angels’ announcement. But in filling in the details of this great event, into which even the Apostles themselves saw but dimly, we are apt to be led into idle and unprofitable fancies; and in interpreting individual expressions, it is perhaps safer to content ourselves with pointing out parallels from apocalyptic imagery, than to attempt to realize and define figurative language with too great minuteness. év KeXevopatt] KeAevopa (from xeAevery ‘to summon’) is a classical word used (1) generally of ‘commands’ e.g. A°sch. Eum. 226 Aokiov KeXevopacw xo, Soph. Antig. 1198, (2) ‘a shout of encouragement’ Thuc. li. 92 amd évos xehkevopuaros euBoncavres, with special reference to the encouragement of rowers by the xeAevorns, e.g. Asch. Pers. 397, or of horses, dogs etc., e.g. Xen. Cyrof. vi. 20, (3) ‘a summons for the purpose of gathering together,’ e.g. Diod. iii. 15 ro mA7O0s dOpoiterat xabarep ad’ €vos Kehevoparos. It occurs once in the LXx. of the marshalling of the 5—2 68 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. _[IV. 16. locusts, Prov. xxx. 27 (xxiv. 62) orparevec ad’ évos KeAevoparos evTaKT@s, The nearest approach to the meaning of the passage before us is perhaps Philo de praem. et poen. § 19, I. p. 427 avOparous €v eoxariais dr@xiopéevous padios dy évi cedXevopate cuvayayot Geos amo mepdrwv. It would seem then that the xéAevopa of which St Paul speaks is the summons to all, both living and dead, to meet their Lord. Such a summons is expressed in figurative language in Matt. xxv. 6 ‘Behold the bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet him.’ The preposition éy signifies the attendant circumstances rather than the time (1 Cor. xv. 52 év r7 €oxatn oadmvyyt); see Winer § xlviii. p. 482. dove dpxayyédov] i.e. of one of the leaders of the heavenly host. Later Judaism busied itself with idle speculation about the number and names and functions of the angelic host, see Gfrérer Fahré. der Heil. 1. p. 352 sq. : but St Paul gives no encouragement to such speculations, though his lan- guage necessarily takes its colour from the imagery which was common in his day, e.g. Ephes. i. 21, Col. i. 16. évy oddmiyy: Ocot] The same figure, if it be a figure, is repeated in 1 Cor. xv. 52 ev rH €oyxatn oadmeyyt’ cadrioe yap k.t.A. The trumpet was the signal of the approach of the Lord at the giving of the law (Exod. xix. 16); see also Zech. ix. 14, which suggests the doubt whether the expression is more than an image here, ot vexpol év Xpior@| The whole phrase is to be kept together. On the omission of the article see the notes on i. I €v Ge@ marpi and ii. 14. The question how are the dead raised is touched upon in I Cor. xv., where the change from corruption to incorruptibility is described as coincident with their rising (ver. 52). mparov] ‘first, in relation to émrecra which follows. There is no refer- ence here to the ‘first resurrection’ (Apoc. xx. 5). 17. Gpa] is not to be taken apart from ody avrois in the sense ‘at the same time, together with them’; for the combination dua ovv is too common to allow of the separation of the two words (see v. 10, and comp. e.g. Eur. /om 717 vuxtumodos Gua ovv Baxxas). The distinction of Ammonius (quoted by Ellicott) dua pev éote xpovxdy erippnua, opod dé romuxov may be correct, but does not decide the construction here or in Rom. iii. 12. On the other hand Moeris (p. 272) states ouoce, Gua, ondbev romov dndwrika’ TO pev yap dua ev TO ar@ Sydoi, TO b€ opdce els Td avTO, TO dé oudbev ex rov avtrov. In Matt. xiii. 29 the sense seems to require that dpa avrois should be interpreted of place rather than of time, and instances of a local meaning are frequent in the classics, e.g. Herod. vi. 138 rovs dpa Odartt, Thuc. vii. 57 rovs dua TvAimm@, Appian. Hsp. vi. 8 o Shpos dpa Tois Katnyopovow eylyvero. é& vedédats] ‘7 clouds, on which as on a chariot they would be borne aloft. Compare the expression in Acts i. 9 veéAn UméaBev adrov amo rav 6pOarpav a’rév. Christ is represented as coming ‘o# the clouds of heaven’ én rav vepeday (Matt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64). In Apoc. i. 7 the idea is somewhat different (wera rav veeA@v) ; the clouds are the accompani- IV. 18.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 69 ment not the throne, and according to Trench (Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches ad loc.) ‘belong, not to the glory and gladness, but to the terror and anguish of that day.’ He compares Ps. xCViii. 2, Nah. 1. 3. amdvrnocw v. 1. irdvrnsw] The distinction commonly given between aravrnots and vravrnots, viz. that the former signifies a casual, the latter a premeditated meeting (see Bornemannon Xen. Cyrof. 1. 4. 22), is only approximately true. It would be more correct to say that dmavrnots is a meeting absolutely, whereas vmdvyrnots involves a notion of ‘looking out for, ‘waiting for,’ ‘waylaying. In most places where either word occurs there is the same variety of reading, cvvayrnots being also found as a variant. The comparison of authorities shows that amavrnats is to be preferred in Matt. xxv. 6, Acts xxviii. 15 and here, vmavrnovs in Matt. viii. 34, Matt. xxv. 1 and John xii. 13. The two passages in Matt. xxv. are significant of the variety in meaning of the two words. eis aépa] ‘z7to the air. The distinction in classical writers between aiéjp ‘the pure zther,’ and anp ‘the atmosphere with the clouds etc.’ is strictly observed. Compare e.g. Hom. //. viii. 558 ovpavodev & Gp’ vmeppayn Goreros aiOnp, xvii. 371 (where evxndor vm aidépe is distinguished from Od. viii. 562 népe cal vepéAn), Plato Phaedo Ul. BO S€ nyiv o anp, exeivois Tov aidépa, and as late as Plutarch de esur. carn. or. 1 § 2 (p, 230 ed, Hutten) ére pev ovpavoy éxpumrev. So too in Christian writers, e.g. Athenag. Leg. 5 rov d€ amo trav épyav de. Trav ddndov vodv Ta utvopeva, aépos, aidépos, yns. In the New Testament indeed the word ai@énp does not occur, but still ajp seems to be used in its proper sense: e.g. Eph. ii. 2 Tov dpxovra ths e€ovoias Tov dépos, an expression which we cannot well explain unless ajp presented some contrast to the pure heaven, the ovpavos, which is the abode of God and of Christ. Thus then eis dépa here denotes that the Lord will descend into the immediate region of the earth, where He will be met by His faithful people. Of the final abode of His glorified saints nothing is said here ; for the Apostle closes, as soon as he fulfilled his purpose of satisfying his Thessalonian readers that the dead will participate in Christ’s coming. The comment however of Augustine (de czvit. Dez xx. 20. 2) is worth recording : ‘non sic accipien- dum est tanquam in aere nos dixerit semper cum Domino mansuros, quia nec ipse utique ibi manebit, quia veniens transiturus est; venienti quippe ibitur obviam, non manenti’; comp. Origen de Princ. ii, 11 (I. p. 104). otras] ‘accordingly, i.e. ‘having thus joined our Lord.’ ‘ Paulus, quum quae scribi opus erat ad consolandum scripsit, maximas res hac brevitate involvit.’ Bengel. 18. éy tots Adyous] ‘wth these words, i.e. ‘this my account of the Lord’s coming.’ The instrumental use of éy is noticeable, the action being ‘conceived of as existing in the means’ (Ellicott ad /oc., who refers to Wunder on Soph. PAiloct. 60). GAP TER ve (6) The time however ts uncertain (vy. I—3). I. Tov xpévev kal Tav Katpav] ‘ the times and the seasons.’ Compare Acts i. 7 ovx vuav early yvavat xpovous f Katpovs, 1 Pet. i. 11, and Dan. ii. 21, Wisd. viii. 8, Eccles. iii. 1. Also Demosth. Olynth. 3 § 32 riva yap xpovov i) riva xaipov, @ Gvdpes "AOnvaioe rov mapovtos Bedtiw (nteioGe ; and Ign. Polyc. 3 rovs kaipods karapavOave* Tov Umep Katpov mpoadoka, Tov axpovoy (with the notes). The common distinction that ypévos means a longer, xaipos a shorter period of time is erroneous, though it contains an element of truth. The real difference is correctly given by Ammonius p. 80 6 pev kaipos OnAot movornra, xpovos d€ moadrnra. In fact ypdvos denotes a period of time whether long or short, and hence in reference to any particular event ‘the date.’ Kazpos on the other hand applies equally to place as to time (perhaps primarily to place rather than to time, as is generally the case), and signifies originally ‘the fit measure’ (compare the use of xaipuos, e.g. AEsch. Agam. 1343 wém\nypat katpiay mAnynv). Hence in reference to time it is ‘the right moment,’ ‘the opportunity for doing, or avoiding to do, anything,’ involving the idea of adapéation. Now the opportunity for doing a thing is generally of brief duration (Demosth. Fads. Leg. p. 343. I moAdakis upBaiver TOAAGY Mpayparwv Kat peyadov Kaipov ev Bpayxet xpovm yiyverOa), and hence xa:pos may frequently signify ‘a short period of time’; but this is accidental, and it is best distinguished from ypovos (as by Ammonius) as pointing to guality rather than guantity. There are some good passages in Trench WV. 7. Sym. p. 209 s. vv., but he does not seem quite to hit off the distinction. Augustine Zfzs¢. 197 (quoted by Wordsworth) draws attention to the inadequacy of the Latin language to express the distinction between the two words ‘ibi (Acts i. 7) Graece legitur xpovous } xapovs. Nostri utrumque hoc verbum ¢empora appellant, sive xpdvous sive xatpovs, cum habeant haec duo inter se non negligendam differentiam, xaipot’s quippe appellant Graece tempora quaedam...quae in | rebus ad aliquid opportunis vel importunis sentiuntur...ypdvovs autem ipsa spatia temporum vocant.’ Tertullian’s translation (de resur, carn. 24. 19) ‘de temporibus autem et temporum spatiis’ is utterly misleading. Ve 2:]] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 71 Here xypovo. denotes the period which must elapse before and in the consummation of this great event, in other words it points to the date : while xa:pot refers to the occurrences which will mark the occasion, the signs by which its approach will be ushered in (comp. Matt. xvi. 3 ra onpeia TOY KaLpaOr). 2. akptBas olSare] The resemblance in this passage to the saying of our Lord recorded in two of the Evangelists (Matt. xxiv. 43, Luke xii. 39) makes it probable that St Paul is referring to the very words of Christ. The introductory words dxpiBos oidare seem to point to our Lord’s authority. There is no ground however for supposing the existence of a written gospel at this time, since the same facts which were afterwards committed to writing would naturally form the substance of St Paul’s oral gospel. Had such a written gospel existed and been circulated by St Paul, in the manner which has sometimes been supposed, he could scarcely have referred to his oral teaching in preference five years later in I Cor. xi. 23 $q., xv. I, when a reference to the written document would have been decisive. There is probably the same reference to our Lord’s saying in 2 Pet. iii. 10 7£ee dé juepa Kupiov ws kAénrns, for several such are embedded in St Peter’s Epistles. npépa Kvplov] In this expression, which is derived from the Old Testament, the word nuépa seems originally to have involved no other notion than that of “me. It is of frequent occurrence in the prophets to designate the time of the manifestation of God’s sovereignty in some signal manner by the overthrow of His enemies (e.g. Is. ii. 12, Jer. xlvi. 10, Ezek. vii. 10), and thus is used specially of the judgment day, of which these lesser imitations are but types. So Joel (ii. 31) distinguishes ‘the great and terrible day of the Lord’ from ordinary visitations. As the day of the Lord was the day far excellence, we find 7 npépa (Rom. xiii. 12, Heb. x. 25) and 7 nyépa éxeivn (2 Thess. i. 10, 2 Tim. i. 12, 18, iv. 8) without the distinguishing Kupiov or xpicews, of the judgment day. From this accidental connexion of meaning, nuépa is sometimes used in the sense of judgment or verdict: 1 Cor. iv. 3 vmd avOpwmivns npépas, a meaning the currency of which would be facilitated by the analogy of the Latin ‘ diem dicere,’ see Stanley ad Joc. Compare Acts xvii. 31 éorncev npépay x.T.d. i.e. appointed a day to vindicate Himself. On the collateral idea which has attached itself to 7 nuépa, see the note on ver. 4. The omission of the article, which the received text has inserted on inferior authority, is justified by Phil. i. 10, ii. 16 jyépa Xpiorod, where see the notes, and 2 Pet. iii. 10 jépa Kupiov, where there is the same varia- tion of reading as here. év vuxrl] On the ecclesiastical tradition see Jerome on Matt. xxv. 6 cited by Liinemann, p. 135, and compare Brblical Essays p. 153 for the Jewish expectation of the midnight appearance of the Messiah. pxerar] ‘cometh.’ The present tense denotes rather the certainty of its arrival, than the nearness. Similar instances of this usage are 1 Cor. 72 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [V. a. ili. 13 dmoxadvmrera, Heb. viil. 8 id00 nuépar épyovra (cited from Jer. xxxi. 31), 1 John ii. 18 ayrixypioros €pxera, 1 John iv. 3. See further on 2 Thess. li. 9 od eotiv 7 mapovaia. It is akin to the prophetic present. See Winer § xl. p. 331 sq. 3. Orav A€yworv] It is difficult to explain the d€ of the Textus Receptus before Aé€ywo.v, supposing it to be genuine. It cannot well mark the opposition between the faithful Thessalonians, who were waiting for the coming of the Lord, and the careless who would be taken by surprise ; for the absence of any expressed subject to \éywow shows that the antithesis is not that of persons. If the conjunction is to be retained, the meaning is rather this : ‘though men have been warned that the Lord cometh as a thief in the night and should therefore be watchful and prepared, yet they will be taken by surprise.’ On the whole however manuscript evidence is rather in favour of omitting the word. If, as seems not unlikely, the sentence is a direct quotation from our Lord’s words, the reference implied in the word avrois is to be sought for in the context of the saying from which St Paul quotes. elpyjvn Kal dopddera] Compare Ezek. xiii. 10, Jerem. vi. 14. tote aldv(Stos avrois k.7.A.] The resemblance of this passage to one of the apocalyptic discourses of our Lord recorded by St Luke (xxi. 34, 36) has not escaped observation, mpocéyere éavtois.. py...€mictn ep vpas aipvidios 7 Hepa exeivn...ivakatisxvonre exuye Tavita mavra. This is only one out of several special points of coincidence between St Paul’s Epistles and the Third Gospel, where it diverges from the others. Compare for instance the account of the institution of the Eucharist (1 Cor. xi. 23—26) with Luke xxii. 19, 20, and the Lord’s appearance to St Peter (1 Cor. xv. 5) with Luke xxiv. 34; also the maxim in 1 Tim. v. 18 with Luke x. 7, where St Luke unites with St Paul in reading rod pic Got, as distinct from the rns tpopyns of Matt. x. 10. This confirms the tradition that the compiler of that Gospel was a companion of St Paul, and committed to writing the Gospel which the Apostle preached orally. #8tv] ‘the birth-throe of some new development,’ a frequent metaphor in the Old Testament : e.g. Psalm xlviii. 6, Jerem. vi. 24. The dissimilarity which this verse presents to the ordinary style of St Paul is striking. We seem suddenly to have stumbled on a passage out of the Hebrew prophets. This phenomenon appears frequently in the New Testament writers where they are dealing with Apocalyptic questions and with denunciations of woe, and in fact explains anomalies of style which otherwise would create considerable difficulty. The writers fall naturally into the imagery and the language. Such is the case in some degree with the second chapter of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (see also 2 Thess. i. 7); and to a still greater extent with a large portion of St Peter’s Second Epistle, where the Apocalyptic portion is so different in style from the rest, that some have thought to settle the question of its genuineness by rejecting this portion and retaining the remainder. It V. 4.J FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 73 explains also to a great extent the marked difference in style between the Revelation of St John and his other writings. (c) Watchfulness therefore ts necessary (v. 4—I11). 4. ‘Ye are living in the daylight now. Therefore there will be no sudden change for you. You will not be surprised by the transition from darkness to light, when the secret sins of men shall be revealed.’ tpets 88] ‘but ye, as opposed to the careless and unbelieving of the former verse. Compare Eph. iv. 20 vpeis b€ odx ottws euabere Tov Xpioror. The opposition is still further enforced by the emphatic position of vuas below, preceding the verb which governs it. tva] It is possible to assign to iva here its original force of purpose or design, ‘in order that’; and to explain it as used in reference to the counsels of God. But the word is better taken here, as simply expressing the result or consequence, a meaning which in the decline of the Greek language gradually displaced its original signification, An analogous case is Gal. v. 17 ratra yap dAAnAous dvTixecrat, va pu) a eav OeAnre Tada moujre : see also above ii. 16 (with the note). 1 ypépa] ‘che day’ of judgment, ‘the day’ par excellence. As we have seen above, the primary meaning of ‘the day’ as applied to the coming of the Lord involved only a notion of time (see note on ver. 2): but the word came naturally to imply an idea of revelation, enlightenment (1 Cor. iv. 5), and thus to suggest a contrast between the darkness of the present world and the light of the future—the one being related to the other as night to day. This is the predominant notion of 7 juépa here. See 1 Cor. iii. 13 7 yap nuépa Sndooer, Rom. xiii. 12 7 vvE mpoexower, 7 OE nHEepa iyycxey (the whole passage strongly resembling this), compared with Heb. x. 25 roaovr@ paddov dom Brérete eyyifoveay thy juépav. In the first of these passages the further notion of ‘fire’ comes in (see the note on I Cor. ili. 13 dre ev wupt amoxadvmrerat). kA€rtas| The reading xAémras, though perhaps insufficiently supported by external authority (being read only by AB and the Egyptian versions), has a claim to preference on the ground of its being the more difficult and on internal grounds is rendered probable. It is extremely unlikely that a transcriber would alter xAemrns into kAémras, while (in face of ver. 2) the converse is highly probable, and indeed natural. The inversion of the metaphor in xAémrns, kAémras is quite after St Paul’s manner. See the note on ii. 7 and the examples collected there. The Apostle’s way of dealing with metaphors may be still further illustrated by the different lights in which juépa is presented here, and by the double figurative application of ypnyopeiv, xabevdew, first to the spiritually watchful and careless in ver. 6, and then to the physically living and the dead in ver. 10. Nothing, in short, is farther from his aim than to present a simple and consistent metaphor. No application which 74 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [V. g suggests itself is discarded on rules of rhetoric. All things are lawful to him, if only they are expedient ; and wherever a great spiritual lesson is to be enforced, the first instrument which comes to hand is made use of, even though it might offend the more refined and exact taste of some. This, we may suppose, was one of the characteristics of his eloquence which made him appear ‘rude of speech’ (2 Cor. xi. 6) to the critical ears of a Greek audience. Moreover the reading xAémras is better adapted to what follows : ‘that the day should surprise you as if ye were thieves: for ye are all sons of light etc.’ For the whole idea see a remarkable coincidence in Euripides (ph. in Taur. 1025, 6) I®. ws bn oxdros AaBovtes exowOeipev dv; OP. kderrav ydp 7 vv&, ths 8 addnOelas ro pas. 5. viol dwrés éore] ‘sons of light, as opposed to the unenlightened, whether heathen or Jews; but to the former especially, see Eph. v. 8 re yap mote okdtos, viv be pas ev Kupig’ ws tTéxva Poros wepurareire. For the expression vioi gwros compare also Luke xvi. 8 (where of viot rod gwrds are opposed to of viol rov aidvos rovrov), and John xii. 36. Is the expression found, and, if found, is it at all common previously to the New Testament? In the earliest utterances which usher in the new dis- pensation, the songs of Zachariah (Luke i. 78) and of Simeon (Luke ii. 32), the idea of the Messiah as a light is impressively dwelt upon; though there, as might be expected, from an Israelite pre-Christian point of view, as one ‘to lighten the Gentiles,’ the contrast being rather between the Jews and the heathen, than between the believer in Christ and the unbeliever. viol jpépas] This is a slight advance upon viol dwros. ‘Not only have ye an illumination of your own, but you are also living and moving in an enlightened sphere.’ Christ is the @@s; the Church or (in the frequent language of scripture) the kingdom of God is the jyépa, of the believer. To the believer the boundary-line between darkness and light is the time of his being brought to the knowledge of Christ. Here, rather than at the moment of his dissolution, or of the Second Advent of Christ, is the great change wrought. From this time forward he is living in the light. And the revelation of a future state presents no such contrast of light and darkness as that which he had already passed. The view which St Paul here presents of jpépa, first in the revelation of Christ at His Second Advent, and then as the present illumination of the faithful, is exactly akin to the double significance of 7 BaotAeia rod Ceod (or Trav ovpavar) which runs through the New Testament. vuxrds ot8t oxérous] ‘we belong not to night, neither to 'darkness, oxdrovs corresponding to peros, and vuxros to nuépas by the figure called chiasm. For this diagonal correspondence see Jelf Gr. 904. 3, Madvig Lat. Gr. 473.a, Winer § 1. p. 511, § lix. p. 658. 6. In this passage the metaphor of ‘sleep’ is applied to the careless V. 8.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 75 and indifferent, that of ‘drunkenness’ to the reckless and profligate. The one is to the other as negative to positive sin. éopiv| In the preceding verse ¢ore had been employed. For a similar interchange of the first and second persons see Gal. ili. 25, 26 €XOovons S€ tis Tictews ovKeTL UTS Tabaywydy eopev* TavTes yap viol Ocov ¢oré x.t-A. Other examples are given in the note on Col. ii. 13. Here-as there St Paul is eager to share with his disciples the responsibilities entailed by his Christian privileges. apa] in classical usage never commences an independent sentence. But in later Greek it assumes a more strictly argumentative sense than in the earlier language, and so frequently occupies the first place. The combination dpa ody is frequent in St Paul, especially in the Romans (e.g. v. 18, vii. 3 etc.). On the difference between dpa and dpa see the note on Gal. ii. 17. as kal of Aourol] See the note on iv. 5. yenyopapev kal vidwpev] For the collocation see 1 Pet. v. 8 wiware, yenyopnoarte. 7. ob yap kabetSovres x.7.A.] No figurative meaning is to be attached to this verse. It is simply a general explanation of the circumstances employed in the metaphor. ‘Night is the time when men sleep and are drunken.’ peOvokdpevor...peOtovow] ‘those who get drunk...are drunk. Bengel remarks rightly: ‘Me@voxowa notat actum, pedvw statum vel habitum.’ The difference of meaning however between the two words is scarcely perceptible and does not affect the sense of the passage. Elsewhere the distinction between the action of becoming drunk and the state of being drunk is obvious: e.g. Luke xii. 45 mivew kai peOvoxecOa, Acts ii. 15 ov... ovrot peOvovow : and so in the classics Plutarch Symp. iii. qu. 3 (p. 650 A) dca ti yuvaixes fecota pe’ oxovra, Taxiota dé of yéporres; Aristoph. Plut. 1047 peOvav ws €oixev o€UTEpov Bree. 8. évBSvcdpevor @dpaka] The train of thought which suggested the transition from the mention of sobriety to that of the Christian armour is not very obvious. And yet there is exactly the same connexion in Rom. xili. 12, 13 ‘H wé& mpoéxower, 7 b€ nuépa iyytkev’ arrowpeba ovv Ta Epya Tov axorous, kai évdvodpeOa Ta Grda Tov pwrds* ws ev ruepa, evoynudves Tepi- matnowpev. Perhaps the mention of vigilance suggested the idea of a sentry armed and on duty. With this account of the parts of the Christian armour, compare Ephes. vi. 13—17, where the metaphor is more fully drawn out. The differences between the two passages are such as to show that it would be unsafe to lay too much stress on the individual weapons in applying the lesson. Corresponding to the ‘breast-plate of faith and love,’ we have in Ephesians ‘the breast-plate of righteousness’ and a little lower down ‘the shield of faith,’ love not being mentioned at all. Answering to meptxeadaiay eArida cwtnpias, the Ephesian epistle has mepixehadaiav roo 76 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [V.8. cwtnpiov. Perhaps without attempting any minute application of the metaphor, we may still go so far as to recognize the common distinction of heart and head, the seat of the feelings and affections, and the seat of the intellect. Compare Philo Zeg. AZZ. i. § 22 I. p. 57, ed. Mangey. The base of both passages is to be found in Isaiah lix! 17 évedUoaro Stkatoovyny ws Odpaka Kai mwepieOero Trepixetbadaiay awtnpiou emi Ths Kehadijs. Compare also a kindred passage, Wisdom v. 17 sq AnpwWera tavomXiav tov (HAov avrov, Kal OmAoToTE THY KTiow eis Guuvay exyOpav. evdUcerat Oadpaxa Sixacoovyny Kai meptOnoerar KopvOa kpiow avuToxpirov" Anpera dorida axatapayntov oatnta, o€vvet d€ amoropov opynv eis poucaiay x.t.d. The language of St Paul is loosely imitated by Ignatius Polyc. 6, who SayS 1) mloTis ws mepiKesadaia, 7 ayarn ws Sop, 7 Umoporn ws Tavoria k.T.A., a passage which corresponds more closely to Ephes. vi. than to the verses under discussion. On the mention of the triad of Christian virtues, and the position occupied by éAmis see the note on i. 3. miotews Kal aydarns| For faith is not fulfilled except by love. For this connexion which exists between faith and love and thus accounts for their conjunction here, compare Gal. v. 6 miatis O60 ayamns évepyoupern (with the note). g. ott] ‘which hope is reasonable, for God appointed us not to wrath ete. els mepiro(now owrnpias| This expression is capable of two interpre- tations. First. It may mean ‘for the acquisition of salvation, i.e. that we may obtain salvation, the mepuroinots being regarded as our own act. This has the advantage of simplicity here, as also in 2 Thess. ii. 14, Heb. x. 39, in which latter passage perhaps it is necessary. Secondly. It may be rendered ‘for the adoption of salvation, the mepuroinots being the act of God, and owrnpias signifying ‘ which consists in salvation.’ In favour of this may be urged the almost technical sense which the words repuroeioOa, mepuroinois bear in the New Testament, being used to denote the act of God in purchasing, or setting apart, for Himself a peculiar people. Compare Acts xx. 28 rv é€xxAnoiav rov Geod, iv mepterroinaato 1a Tov aiparos tov idiov, 1 Pet. ii. 9 Aads els weperoinow, and Ephes. i. 13, 14 éodpayiaOnre...eis aoAUTpwow THs mepuToncews (which passage is further useful as illustrating the use of the genitive owrnpias here, see the note). Thus mepiroinois is almost equivalent to é€xAoyn. See the Old Testament usage also, Isaiah xliii. 21 Aaov pou ov meprerouy- capny, Mal. iii. 17 kai €covrai pot...eis mepimoinow. On the LXX. equivalent of m53p, which is rendered by the two phrases els meperoinow and | mepovaos, see the discussion on the words mepiovovos, meprovocagpos in Appendix I. of the work On a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament p. 260 sq (3rd ed. 1891). Sd Tov Kvplov x.7.A.] to be taken with els mepuroinow owrnpias. V. 10.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. Tia Io. This verse is remarkable as enunciating the great Christian doctrine of the Redemption, to which elsewhere there is no allusion in the Epistles to the Thessalonians, though it forms the main subject of St Paul’s teaching in the second chronological group of his Epistles. It is presented moreover, as it is there, in its double aspect: /rs/, as implying an act on the part of Christ (rod dmo@avortos epi nuoy); and secondly, as involving the union of the believer with Christ (iva...dua ody aire (jowpev). On this double aspect of the scheme of the Redemption, and on the position occupied by the doctrine in St Paul’s teaching generally, see Bzblical Essays, p. 229 sq. Here the mention of it is important as showing that in his earliest writings this doctrine was present to St Paul’s mind, though he has busied himself generally in these Epistles with other matters. It was not therefore, as has been maintained, an aftergrowth of his maturer reflections. Tov amroCavéyros tept ypav] describing the means by which this sal- vation is obtained for us. As the preposition is zrepi, not ayti, the sense of a vicarious death cannot be insisted upon here. It is otherwise in 1 Tim. il. 6 Sovs éavrov avridvtpov imép mavtwv, where see the note. But the whole passage points to the death of Christ as being the one essential act by which eternal life was purchased for us. On the fundamental difference between zepi and vmep see the note on Gal. i. 4 rov dovros €avtov repli tav dpapriav nuav. Here, as there, there is a strongly sup- ported variant vmép; but wepi is read by SB, and should be preferred. elre ypnyopapev eite kaOedSwpev] i.e. ‘whether we are alive or whether we are dead at the time of His appearing.’ In these words St Paul again reverts to the difficulty felt by the Thessalonians relative to the dead (iv. 13) whence this whole paragraph arose. Thus the resemblance to Rom. xiv. 8 édy re odv Caper, eav Te GToOvnTKw@peEY, TOU Kupiouv éopév iS rather one of expression than of substantial meaning. Observe in ypnyopepev, kabevdwpev an entirely different application of the metaphor from that which applied to ver. 6. It is not now of the spiritual slumber that the Apostle speaks, but of the slumber of death. See the extract from Photius quoted on iv. 14 dca rod "Inood. elre] The use of ef with a subjunctive is extremely rare in Attic Greek, but becomes more common at a later epoch. A few authenticated instances may be produced from the New Testament : e.g. in the Pauline Epistles, Phil. iii. 11 ef mos xatavtnow (where see the note) and 1 Cor. Xiv. 5 exros et pn Steppnvevn. In other alleged examples the future is probably to be read: e.g. Rom. i. Io, 1 Cor. ix. 11. Here however the subjunctive may perhaps be explained by a sort of attraction to the subjunctive (jc@pev of the clause on which this depends. See Moulton in Winer § xli. p. 368, who explains the passage here as I have done. apa ov aire] ‘together with Him. “Apa can scarcely be separated from civ avr : see the note on iv. 17. 78 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [Ve are 11. 80] ‘wherefore, referring to the main lesson of the paragraph (iv. 13—v. 11) respecting the condition of the dead at the coming of the Christ. This lesson has been accidentally summed up in the concluding words of the preceding verse, iva, etre ypnyop@pev etre xabevdwpev, dua ovv avTeé (jowper. mapakadeite] ‘comfort, not ‘exhort,’ this being in fact a reiteration of the precept in iv. 18. olkoSopetre] ‘edify, duzld up, as a temple for the Holy Spirit ; see the note on 1 Cor. iii. 12. This metaphor runs throughout the different chronological groups of St Paul’s Epistles, the figure of a temple being applied sometimes to the individual believer (1 Cor. vi. 19), sometimes to the collective church, each individual being a stone in the building (Ephes. ii. 2o—22). The passage last cited well illustrates the metaphor : see the notes there. els tov va] Compare 1 Cor. iv. 6. It is a rather late, though not unclassical, expression for dAA7jAous (iv. 18), than which however it is somewhat stronger. The earliest writer in whom any analogous ex- pression seems to occur is Theocr. xxii. 65 eis évi yeipas Gepov. The passages cited by Winer (p. 217) from Herod. iv. 50, and by Ellicott ad loc. from Plat. Legy. i. p. 626C, are scarcely to the point. The oc- currence however of the phrase in classical Greek shows that it is not sufficient to explain the expression here and 1 Cor. iv. 6 els umep rot évos as an Aramaism with Hoffmann (Gramm, Syr. 111. p. 330) and others ; though this may account for the kindred phrase, Ezek. xxiv. 23 mapaxa- Aéoere Exagros Tov ddeApoy avrov, which is a translation of nN bys Wn, and Jer. xxxi. (xxxviii.) 34, quoted in Heb. viii. 11. kads Kal tovetre] Compare iv. I, 10, where similar encouragement is given to the Thessalonians. St Paul again guards himself against seeming to rebuke, while he intends but to exhort. iv. LExhortation to orderly living and the due performance of social duties (v. 12—15). 12. The thread of connexion with the last topic, though slender, may yet be traced. Having charged his converts to edify one another, the Apostle is reminded of those on whom the office of instruction especially devolved, and is led to speak of the duty of the whole body of Christians towards these their teachers. St Chrysostom however goes too far in representing the connexion with the preceding verses as one of contrast, as if St Paul would say, ‘while you edify one another, do not usurp the functions of your appointed ministers.’ Such an interpretation smacks rather of later ecclesiastical feeling, and is scarcely suited to the very primitive condition of the Thessalonian Church. The train of thought is rather a return to the subject of the restlessness of the Thessalonians connected with the immediate expectation of the Second Advent. Vayiait FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 79 eSéva.] ‘fo know,’ with a pregnant meaning, i.e. ‘to see in their true character, to recognize the worth of, to appreciate, to value.’ Compare the expression eidévac rov Geov, eidévar tov marépa, and with the same meaning as here 1 Cor. xvi. 18 éemuywwonete ov Tovs roovrous. This sense of ‘appreciation’ probably underlies the verb eidévat in such passages as 1 Cor. ll. 2 ov yap €xpiva re eid€vae ev viv ef pn Incouv Xpiorov, and 12 iva eid@pev Ta vd Tov Geod xapioOévra jpiv. A similar phrase is found in Ign. Smyrn. 9 kad@s Eyer Oeov kal émicxorov eidévat. The Hebrew verb }'7’ is used in the same sense, e.g. Job ix. 21. To’s KoT@vTas...kal mpoiotapévous...kal vouvderotvtas] The fact that the article is not repeated here before mpoiorapévovs and vovéerovvras makes it probable that some single office is thus designated. If so, it can scarcely be any other than that of the presbytery, which would involve all the duties specified in komiwvtas, mpoiaramevouvs, vovOerovvtas, Compare especially 1 Tim. v. 17 of xadkos mpoeorartes mpecBvrepor dimAns tysns agwicOwcav, pddiota of Komi@vrTes €v Aoyw Kal didacKaXia, (for there iseno reason for supposing that the offices of ruling and of teaching were in separate hands), and the functions of the émicxozo: (i.e. mpeoBurepor) as described in 1 Timothy and Titus. See Phzlippians p. 194 sq on these twofold duties of the presbyters. It is probable also that St Paul intended to designate the presbytery collectively in Ephes. iv. 11 under the term rovs d€ moumévas xai didacKadous, where again the article is not repeated before the second title. See the note on that passage, and compare Schatf History of the Apostolic Church, i. p. 134 sq (1876). It is much more likely that local officers, such as the presbyters, are here intended, than any other spiritual functionaries, such as prophets or evangelists (Ephes. iv. 11, I Cor. xii. 28). We read of ‘presbyters’ in the church of Jerusalem, some seven or eight years before this time (Acts xi. 30). And on St Paul’s first Apostolic journey we find him ordaining elders in every church (Acts xiv. 23), though these churches had been only recently founded during this same journey, and can have been in existence only a few months at most. kom.avras] is a general term, which is further explained by mpoiora- pévous vua@v and vovOerovrvtas vuas, these two functions corresponding roughly to those assigned to the presbyters in Ephes. iv. 11 mowpeévas kat didackadous, the duties namely of ruling and of teaching. év Kvplw] to show that he is speaking here of their spiritual, not of their political rulers. 13. Kal nyeto@ar attots x.t.A.] The sentence may be taken in two ways, according as ev dydmn Or Umepexmepioood is attached to nyetoGar— (1) “Hyeto@a €v dyarn ‘to hold (or to esteem) in love’ This con- struction however is deficient in support. For Job xxxv. 2 ri rodro nyjow €v kpice: is a parallel in form only and not in meaning, jyjow being there equivalent to ‘cogitasti’: and in Thuc. ii. 18 év dpyn exew twa the parallelism vanishes in the difference of the verbs, for the real difficulty 80 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [Vs 1e here consists in attaching its proper significance to nyeto a (‘to hold,’ in the sense of ‘to consider, regard’) in connexion with év ayarp. (2) ‘HyeioOa vmepexrepicood ‘to esteem very highly’—in which case 1yeicfar assumes something more than a neutral meaning, and implies more or less the ‘looking with favour upon.’ Compare Thuc. ii. 42 TO GuiverOar kai mabeiv paddov nynoapevor 7} TO evdovres cdCerOa ‘preferring rather to suffer in self-defence etc.’ ; where, as here, jyeio Aa is found with an adverb. On the whole this interpretation is perhaps better than the former, but it were to be wished that other parallels could be produced. eipnvetere év éavtois] St Paul here glides off from special precepts into a general and comprehensive one. So below, ver. 14 paxpoOupeire mpos Travras, Ver. 22 dro travros etdous Tmovnpov x.t.A. Perhaps the correction eipnvevere ev avrois, which has the support of ND and was read by Chrysostom and Theodoret, arose from not appreciating this fact, and from a desire to restrict the precept to the matter in hand. At all events it can scarcely mean what it is interpreted by some to mean: ‘Be at peace in your intercourse with them’ (da ro épyov avra@y eipnvevere ev avrois Chrysostom, p1) avtiéyew tots map’ avtav Aeyouevors Theodoret). 14. mapakadotpev 8 tpds «.7.A.] The Greek commentators regard these exhortations as addressed to the presbyters ; but there is nothing in the form of the sentence to indicate this restriction. On the contrary the terms of the appeal are exactly the same as in ver. 12. Such a change of subject lays an undue stress on vpas. In illustration of the three special points in this exhortation, we may refer (1) for vovOereire rods araxrovs to 2 Thess. iii. 6, 11, and the note on iv. 11, where the nature of this dragia is discussed ; (2) for rapayvbeciobe rovs oAvyowvyous to iv. 13, 18, and (3) for dvréyecOe trav aobevay to iii. 3, 5 (see especially the note on caiveo@a). At the same time the exhortations do not apply to these alone; for there could be other disorderly members, others faint-hearted, and others weak in the faith, besides those who are hinted at in these passages. atakrovs| is properly a military term, ‘one who leaves his rank.’ See the note on 2 Thess. iii. 6 araxras. ddtyoptxous] Compare LXx. Is. lvii. 15 ; Ecclus. vii. 10, Prov. xviii. 14. acSevav| i.e. the spiritually weak; as in Rom. iv. 19 pn doOevnoas rH mioret, xiv. I, 2, I Cor. viii. 7—12, ix. 22. For the difference between aobevns and mrwyxos see the note on Gal. iv. 9. avtéxerGe] ‘Jay hold of, i.e. ‘remain firm towards, stand by, give support to.’ The word is used of the man who endeavours to serve two masters ‘he will hold to the one’ (€évos av@efera: Matt. vi. 24, Luke xvi. 13): so of steadfastness to doctrine (Tit. i. 9). 15. For this passage compare Rom, xii. 17—19, I Pet. iii. 9. The repetition of the phrase jy) dmodiSovat Kaxdv avri kaxod in all three passages would seem to point to some saying of our Lord as the original. Very. FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. SI 7d ayadv] Not ‘what is absolutely good, good in a moral point of view, which would be ro xaAov; but what is beneficial, as opposed to xaxoy in the sense of injury or harm. See iii. 6, and the note on ayaénv there; also the contrast below, ver. 21 ro xadov Karéyere. els ddAnAovs Kal els mavras] ‘to the Christian brotherhood and to mankind generally... Compare ili. 12, iv. 9 with the notes. On the heathen view of retaliation, of which the exhortation above is the direct denial, see Soph. Antig. 643, 4 ws kal tov éyOpov advrapvvwvTat Kakois, Kal A ~ cd tov dirov Tieow e€& toov trarpi. v. Injunctions relating to prayer and spiritual matters generally (v. 16—22). 16. mdvrote xalpere] This precept again may have been suggested by the preceding, though the connexion between the two is not very close. The maxim of universal well-doing just enunciated leads the Apostle’s thoughts to the frame of mind which naturally results from it. There is something startling in the command zavrore yaipere. It is strange that the disciples of Him, Who was preeminently ‘a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,’ should be bidden to ‘ rejoice always.’ Yet ‘joy’ is elsewhere no less distinctly attributed to the Christian character—‘joy in the Holy Ghost’ (Rom. xiv. 17). Admitted to a fuller insight into the dispensations of providence, the Christian sees the token of God’s goodness in all things, even in persecution and sickness. This is a never-failing source of joy to him. Onthe other hand, it may be said no less truly that sorrow is especially the Christian’s heritage. For with a fuller sense of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, of the fearful significance of death, he has more abundant matter for sorrow in the scenes amidst which he moves, than those whose convictions are lessdeep. Yet the two attitudes are not antagonistic. They may, and do, coexist. How much of the purest joy is mingled with the most heartfelt sorrow in the higher types of Christian mourning! On this injunction to rejoice see further on Phil. 11 )0S, ill. 1; lve 4s 17. ddiarelrrws tpooetxerbe] It is not in the moving of the lips, but in the elevation of the heart to God, that the essence of prayer consists. Thus amidst the commonest duties and recreations of life it is still possible to be engaged in prayer. And in this sense the command to pray without ceasing must receive its noblest and most real fulfilment ; for though from a necessary cgndition of our nature the duty of expressing our aspirations to God in words is laid upon us, yet this is only as a means to an end or as the letter to the spirit. It is in the spirit alone that it is possible to ‘pray without ceasing.’ Origen remarks characteristically, Tept EvxNS 12, advadeintws mpoceEvxeTal...0 TuvanTav Tois S€ovow Epyos THY evxyny Kal TH UX Tas mpemovoas mpdkels. oVTw yap povws TO ad.adeinTas L. EP. 6 82 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [V. 17. mpocevxerbe exdeEacOar Suvayeba ws Suvarov iv eipnpevor, ei mavra Tov Biov Tov dayiov play ouvarromevny peydAny etrotmev edxnv x.t.A. See the whole passage, and compare Tertullian de Oratione, 29. dSitakelrtws| This adverb occurs above, i. 2, il. 13,and Rom. i. 9: the adjective, Rom. ix. 2, 2 Tim. i. 3. Both are peculiar to St Paul in New Testament writings. The adverb however is found four times in the Maccabees (e.g. 1 Macc. xii. 11, 2 Macc. iii. 26), and there only of the LxxX. The form, which is a late one, occurs in Plutarch more than once, e.g. ad Afpoll. 10 (p. 106 E), 37 (121 E), the adverb being frequently applied to military attack, e.g. Josephus B. F. v. 6. 4, 7. 2 etc. St Paul’s employment of the words made them popular in early Christian writings, and the expression ad:adeirtws tpocevyeoOa is found in Ignatius (ZPA. 10, comp. Polyc. 1 mpocevxais cxoAa¢e adiadeinrois) and Hermas (S7mz. ix. 11. 7 adtaXeintas mpoonvxopny). 18. év mwavtl evxapioretre] ‘272 every thing give thanks’; for there is no event of our lives, which has not its bright side as well as its dark; no incident which may not be turned to good account, and therefore nothing for which we have not reason to thank God, if we view it in a right spirit. This is one form of St Paul’s constant practice of referring all our thoughts and actions, all the dispensations of providence, to the glory of God, as their ultimate end and aim: e.g. Rom. xv. 6, 7, 1 Cor. x. 31, Ephes. i. 6, 12, 14. For what is thanksgiving but a recognition of His Majesty, and a tribute to His divine power? This is St Paul’s view markedly in 2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 11, 12, On evyapiorety see the note On. 1.* 2, rovto yap] It is difficult to decide whether rovro refers to the three preceding precepts, or to the last only. But as these three precepts are so closely connected together both in form and in purport, it is perhaps better to include them all under rotro. ty XpiorS "Inocot] ‘For the will of God is manifested in Christ, not only by His life and death in the flesh, but also because through Him all God’s government of the world (whether moral or physical) is carried on.’ See John i. 3, 18. els tpas] ‘40 you-ward.’ 19. Td mveijpa ph oPévvure] Having dwelt on duties which are especially of a spiritual character, St Paul naturally turns to speak of the obligations of his converts to the Holy Spirit generally. It has been thought strange however that the exhortation not to ‘quench the Spirit’ should be needed. On the contrary, much more danger might reasonably be apprehended from an unchastened enthusiasm in the first flush of their devotion to the Gospel. To meet this difficulty it is supposed that a reaction had taken place among the more sober- minded against the spiritual arafia which beset the Church, and that among such there was a disposition to disregard the gifts of the Spirit. V. 20.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 83 It is perhaps better however to give the exhortation a wider signifi- cance. We need not assume a direct reference to the special manifes- tations (yapicpara) of the Apostolic age. The meaning may well be: ‘Quench not the Spirit, whether by carelessness, or hardness of heart, or immorality.’ Compare Ephes. iv. 30 kat py Aumeire TO mvevpa Td Gytov Tod Gc0d, ev & éofpayicOnre x.r-A. In this case we need not seek to account for the precept in any special circumstances of the Thessalonian Church, and we may compare the Apostle’s injunction to Timothy avapmyycke ce dvatwmupeiv TO xaptopa Tou Oeod (2 Tim. i. 6). Bengel’s view is not quite clear. He begins: ‘rd mvedpa sfiritum i.e. charismata.’ In the next note however he appears to give a wider interpretation to the metaphor : ‘spiritus, ubi est, ardet: ideo non exstinguendus, nec in nobis, nec in aliis.’ 20. From the general mention of the Spirit, the Apostle passes on to speak of one of the special gifts of the Spirit. mpodnrelas pr, eovdevetre] It would seem that there was the same tendency among the Thessalonians to underrate ‘prophecy’ in comparison with other more striking gifts of the Spirit, which St Paul condemns in writing to the Corinthians. See especially 1 Cor. xiv. I (ndovre ta mveupatikd, padAov Oe va mpodynrevnte, 2—5, 22, 24, 25, 39. In the words mpognu, mpopytns, mpopnteia etc., according to their classical usage, the meaning is that of forth-telling rather than of /ore- telling. The mpopnrns was one who pronounced or enunciated to men the will or command of the deity whose minister he was. Though he might at times be charged with the prediction of future events, as the manifestation of that will, and thus be a ‘prophet’ in the common acceptance of the term, still this was only an accident of his office. The Hebrew term zadz (which is translated by mpodyrns in the LXX.) originally signified nothing more, though the idea of prediction is most frequently associated with it. See Gesenius s. v. x'33 and especially Stanley’s Jewish Church (first series), Lecture xix. p. 415 sq. In the New Testament the notion of foretelling is kept in the background; rarely appearing (as Acts xi. 28 of Agabus), except in reference to the prophets of the Old Dispensation. When any of these words are used by St Paul of the special gift of the Spirit, there is not the slightest allusion to the anticipation of future events. ‘Prophesying’ is closely connected with ‘praying’ (1 Cor. xi. 4, 5). ‘He that prophesieth, speaketh unto men edification and exhortation and comfort’ (zd. xiv. 3), The conviction of sin, the manifestation of the secrets of the heart, are attributed to this gift as its work (zd. xiv. 24, 25). Prophecy is in short the impassioned and inspired utterance of the deep things of God. The Greek zpognreia is sometimes rendered in the Authorized Trans- lation by ‘prophecy,’ sometimes by ‘prophesying.’ In this passage all the early English Versions seem to have ‘prophesyings.’ And the word would convey quite the correct idea, as it was used in the English of the 6—2 84 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [V. 20. time. The religious revivals or ‘ prophesyings’ of the reign of Elizabeth are a matter of history, and Taylor’s Liberty of Prophesying is a store- house of information as regards the interpretations put upon the word and idea in his own and in earlier times. 21. mdvra St Soxipdtere] ‘yet at the same time prove, test, all things’: i.e. ‘do not be led away by counterfeits.’ The disjunctive particle d¢ is almost necessary for the sense; and, where omitted, as in AN, may have been absorbed in the following syllable. ‘The simple fact of a preternatural inspiration is not enough to establish the claims of a spirit to be heard. There are inspirations from below as well as from above.’ With such a conviction at least the injunction here is given, and St John says more explicitly uy marti mvevpate muorevere, GAAA Soxipatere Ta mvevpata ef ex TOU Ceod eaTiv, Ste moAdol WevdorpopHara eEeAnAvOaow eis Tov Koopoy (1 John iv. 1). And such also is the universal language of the early Church in relation to spiritual manifestations. Witness the case of miracles to which Justin Martyr makes allusion (AZo/. 1. § 14, Trypho S$ 7, 69, 85). The test, of which St Paul speaks here, however, is not that of an intellectual criticism or a balance of evidences. He is contemplating not so much a logical as a spiritual criterion. It is by a spiritual standard that things spiritual are to be tried (avevparixois mvevpatixa ouvKpivorres 1 Cor. ii. 13 and see the whole passage in which this expression is embedded). The discrimination of spirits (Staxpiots mvevparwy) was no less a spiritual gift of the Spirit than ‘prophesying’ (mpo@nreia) itself. See 1 Cor. xii. Io. aévta}] Not ravra ra mvevpara ‘all spirits,’ or ravra ta ris mpodnreias ‘all kinds of prophesyings’; but ‘all things whatsoever,’ for a general precept is required to introduce the following words ré xadov xaréxere, amo mavros eidovs movnpovd dméxerGe. The sentence might be paraphrased thus: ‘Quench not the Spirit, nor despise prophesyings: but on the other hand do not rashly give heed without testing them. In fact test all things. This is an universal law from which spiritual experiences are not exempt.’ The possibility of a Wevdorpopnyreia (see Chrysostom) is alluded to also in the Second Epistle (2 Thess, ii. 2 pyre d:a mvevparos pyre dua Adyou pyre dC emitodjs os SC yydy). Thus the admonition, though called forth to meet the special case of spirits, assumes a general form. Soxipatere] ‘ ¢es¢,’ a metaphor probably derived from assaying precious metal, as the word is frequently used in this sense; e.g. Isocrates Pana- then. p. 240 D rov xpvody Oewpodpev Kai Soxipafouer Erepa mrapadetkvuorTes. The metaphorical use also is classical; e.g. Plato Resp. vill. p. 546 E dp- xovres ov mdvu puAakixol Karaorncovratmpos TO Soxiudgew Ta ‘Howodou re Kai ra map’ vpiv yévn, xpucodv re Kal dpyupody Kal yadxouv Kai ordnpodr, Xen. Cyrop. viii. 4. 30 etc. From this notion of ‘proving’ come the further ideas of ‘approval’ (Plutarch Jor. p. 18 F ravra ovx érawovvres ovde Soxipatorres), Voor FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 85 of ‘choice, selection’ (Plut. de Justit. p. 3 D omovdaious rirOas Soxipacréov éori), and of ‘expression of an opinion’ (Thuc, ii. 35 émesdn rots mada ovrws edoxidcOn Tatra Kad@s exe). All these senses, except the last, occur in the New Testament (see Trench JV. 7. Syz. § Ixxiv. p. 278 sq.) ; viz. ‘testing’ (1 Cor. iii. 13), ‘approving’ (1 Thess. il. 4), ‘ choosing’ (Rom. i. 28); and there is perhaps a further sense of ‘allowing, suffering’ (Rom. xiv. 22). See the note on il. 4 dedoxipacpeba. The passage under consideration has been not inaptly connected by eaily Christian writers with the saying traditionally attributed to our Lord, though not contained in the canonical Gospels, yiver@e Soxipor tpareCira, a saying which is well supported by external testimony and bears in itself the marks of genuineness (see Westcott, /itroduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 453 sq. ed. 5). The one passage is rarely quoted without the other, and the two were so closely associated in the mind of early writers that Dionysius of Alexandria for instance (in Euseb. vii. 7) quotes the second as an ‘apostolic saying’ (dmocroAtkn porn), and Cyril of Alexandria (Com. im Tsai. iii. 4, p. 56) cites it as from St Paul yiveobe Soxuot tparelirar: mavra Soxuatere, TO kadOv KaréxeTe (and so again Com. tn Johan. lib. Iv. ch. v. p. 407, though not of. cz¢. lib. Iv. ch. iii. p. 374). In the same way Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 28. 177, p- 425 Potter), though he does not name the author, connects it with the context here. Basil also (Com. zm Jsaz. v. 20, p. 503) with an obvious reminiscence of the saying writes doxiuou tpameCirov (€arl) TO kadov KaTéyewy aro O€ mavTos eldovs movnpod améyeoOa, deriving the context from this epistle : compare also zz princ. Proverb. § 6, p. 103, where 1 Thess. v. is again quoted. So too Athanasius (Hom. zn Matth. xxi. 8,11. p. 662), Ambrose (Com. iz Luc. i. 1, p. 1265) and others. Cyril of Jerusalem also (Catech. vi. 36), who converts it into the singular yivov Soximos rpareCirns, continues in the language of the Epistle ro cadov xaréxwv amo mavTos etdous Tommpov amexouevos. On the other hand, Origen ascribes the saying to our Lord by name and connects it with St Paul’s teaching (zz Evang. Johan. xix. Ul. p. 153 ed. Lommatzsch), rnpovytav thy evrodny “Incov Aéyouoay Aokysor tpameCirar yiverOe* Kat tHv TavAou didaynv hackovtos Tlavra Soxiatere, TO KaAov KaTéxeTE, amo TavTos elbous movnpod améxeobe, and he is followed in this ascription by Cassianus (Co//at. i. 20, p. 186), Cwzsarius and others. Epiphanius (aer. xliv. 2, p. 382) gives Apelles as his authority for the attribution of the saying to our Lord; while in the Pistis Sophia the utterance is our Lord’s to the Virgin Mary, but it is followed as usual by the Pauline admonition ‘bonum suscipite, malum ejicite’ (ed. Schwartz and Petermann 1851, p. 353). In the Clementine Homilies it is quoted no less than three times (Clem. Hom. il. 51, iii. 50, XVili. 20), and in every case is ascribed to our Lord by the interlocutor St Peter; in the Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum edited by Lagarde (p. 42) it is included among the admonitions to bishops, and it reappears in the Afostolical Constitutions (ii. 36). 86 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [V. 21. Td Kaddov Karéxete] ‘hold fast the good.” ‘The metaphor of assaying coin, which was discernible in doxiuagere, is not to be pressed upon these or the following words. The expression is quite general, and none of the terms used have any connexion with money. To kaddv is used in Aristotle in two distinct senses arising from the twofold aspect of the word physical and moral ; e.g. Arist. Rhe?. i. 7. 24, p. 1364 TO Kaddv €otw Aroe TO 760 7 TO KaG aro aiperov. In the moral aspect of the word, with which alone we are concerned here, it differs from ro ayaGov in that it regards the good in itself, ro dya@oy rather in its results, Arist. Rhed. i. 9. 3, p. 1366 Kadov eorw oO ay S¢ avdro aiperov by érawveroy 7 Contrast with this Plato Hipp. Major 296 E rot dyabod ap’ air.oy €ote TO Kadov and the whole passage. This distinction between the two adjectives is common in the classics; e.g. Xen. Memor. ili. 5. 28 Kai gow Kadov €orat kat TH modes adyabov. Hence the definition of the two qualities which combined make up the true gentleman (rov xadov xdyaOcv), where 7 pév kados eri THs €v cwpatt @pas* TO de ayabos emi THs ev Wuy7 (Suidas) has no application here. Perhaps it is not merely idle fancy to dwell on the change of expres- sion from rd xadov ‘the good’ to wavros eidous movnpov ‘every evil form, or every form of evil’; for ‘the good’ is one and the same essentially, while vice is manifold and variable. The change would suggest itself instinc- tively to the writer. Comp. Arist. 7h. WVic. ii. § 5, 1X. p. 32 re TO pév auap- rave ToAdaxas eaTiv (ro yap Kakov Tod drreipov, ws of TvOaydpetor eikafov, Td 3° dyabov rod memepacpévov), To de katopOovv povaxds. 22. amd travrds elSouvs trovnpov] In the interpretation of this phrase two questions arise; jist, what is the meaning of eiSous, and secondly, is movnpov to be taken as an adjective with eidous, or as a substantive after it? As the answer to the first question seems to depend in some measure on the solution of the second, the second will best be considered first. The absence of the article before wovypov is in itself no argument against the word being taken substantively. Compare Plato Resf. il. 358 C rpirov eidos ayabov, Heb. v. 14 mpds dtaxpiaw Kadovd re Kai xaxod, Gen. ii. 9. But though zovnpod might without offence be taken as equivalent to movnpias in the expression wav «iSos movnpov, the case is somewhat different in mavros eidovs movnpov where such a construction would sever rovnpov from the preceding genitive with which we instinctively connect it. Iovnpod is therefore probably an adjective with eiSovs. For the order compare Rom. iii. 4 ras dvOpwros Wevortns, Ephes. i. 3 €v macn evdoyia mvevparikys iv. 29, 1 Tim. v. 10, 2 Tim. ii. 21, iii. 16, 17, Tit. i. 16, ili. 1, and especially 2 Tim. v. 18 pdaerai pe 6 Kupios ard mavris épyou moyvnpod. For the first part of the expression Zfist. Vien. et Lyon. wav el8os dvediopod (Routh R. S. 1. p. 296). On the whole question of the use of [6] xovnpds in the - New Testament see Appendix 1. ‘on the Last Petition of the Lord’s Prayer’ printed in A Fresh Revision of the English New Testament, 3rd ed., 1891, p. 269 sq., especially p. 277 where this passage is referred to. Vi..23.| FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 87 Eidovs may mean either (1) ‘the outward form,’ ‘that which is presented to view,’ ‘appearance’; in this sense without any notion of unreality, comp. Luke iii. 22, ix. 29, John v. 37, and so probably 2 Cor. v. 7, dia miorews...ov dia etSovs. Or it may mean (2) ‘appearance,’ i.e. semblance, as opposed to the reality, as the E. V. seems to take it, i.e. not only were they to abstain from any actual evil, but from anything which men might consider evil, and which might thus give offence, see 2 Cor. viii. 21 mpovooupev yap KaAa ov povoy évamiov Kupiov adda kai évdmiov avOperav. This interpretation however lays a stress upon etSovs which there is perhaps nothing in the context to justify. (3) We may translate the word ‘sort, kind, species,’ comparing Joseph. Amz. x. 3. I may eidos movnpias and the passage from the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons quoted above. Evdos will thus be used in its very frequent quasi- philosophical sense ; for it would be absurd to assign to the word here its strictly technical meaning of ‘species’ as opposed to ‘genus’ (see Grote, Plato 1. 467). In support of the first interpretation is the fact that it is more in accordance with the usage of eidos elsewhere in the New Testament ; and if wompov is to be taken as an adjective, this seems to be decisive in its favour, at least as against the last of the three alternatives. 23. ards 8 6 Ocds}] ‘Yet without God all your strivings will be in vain: therefore I pray that God Himself may interpose to sanctify you.’ The particle 5€ recals the minds of his hearers to the true Author and Source of all spiritual progress. For the expression see the note on iil. 11. Tis etpyvns|] God is further specified as the God of peace, inasmuch as peace is the end and fulfilment of all blessings. ddoteXets] This word is sometimes taken as equivalent to ddovs, in the sense of ‘every part of you.’ But though vpas dAovs might bear this meaning, it will not apply equally well to duas odoredeis, for odoredeis not only implies entirety (which exhausts the meaning of dAovs), but involves the further idea of completion. It is therefore better to consider oAoreXeis as proleptic, in the sense of ware oAoredeis civar ‘may He sanctify you so that ye be entire,’ in a qualitative rather than a quantitative sense. The connexion with what follows is then: ‘May God not only make you perfect, but keep you so.’ ‘Odoredeis occurs in Plut. Mor. 909 B, and oAoteAd@s in Aquila’s version of Deut. xiii. 17. oddkAnpov] The distinction between this word and réAeuos is traced by Trench WV. 7. Syx. § xxii. p. 74. sq. The two adjectives occur together in James i. 4. While cAcxAnpos denotes the presence of all the parts, téhevos signifies the full development, perfect growth of the whole. Like réXevos the epithet odcxAnpos is applied especially to sacrifices; e.g. Philo de Vict. § 4 (11. p. 240 ed. Mangey) 6vciay odokArp@ kal mavredet (Bed) pndev emipepopévny THs Ovntns pidavtias oAoKAnpoy kat mavreAq, 20. § 14, p. 250 odO- KAnpov kat travredh Siabecwv, Hs 7 OACKavTOS Oucia avpBorov, de A gricult. § 29, I. p. 320, Cherub. § 28, in all of which passages oAoxAnpos and mavreAns Occur 88 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. _ [V. 23. together. Soalsode Vict. Of: § 1,11. p.251 and Plato 77. 44 C odokAnpos, vyujs te mavredds, and doubtless St Paul had here also the image of a sacrifice in his mind. Compare Rom. xii. I. ‘OXdkAnpov is to be taken with rnpydein ‘be preserved entire’; not as the E. V. ‘your whole spirit,’ which is objectionable both on account of the order of the words and also as identifying oAdxAnpoy in meaning with dXov. The epithet, though applying to the three substantives by a sort of attraction, agrees with the first only. This peculiarity of construction, together with the fact of the singular verb rypndein, expresses the integrity of each part separately. rd mvevpa kal 1 Wux7} kal t6 oGpa] Human nature is most frequently spoken of in the New Testament as consisting of two parts—the flesh, or body, and the soul, or spirit—i.e. the material and the immaterial part. Thus, for example, in Matt. x. 28 the opposition is odpa, Wuxyn; in Rom. viii. 10, 13, 1 Cor. v. 3, vii. 34, James il. 26 odpa, mvedpa; in 2 Cor. vii. 1, Matt. xxvi. 41, John vi. 63, Rom. i. 3, viii. 4 sq., I Cor. v. 5, Gal. iii. 3, v. 16 sq., vi. 8, Col. ii. 5, 1 Pet. iii. 18 cap& and mvedpa; in Rom. vii. 25 capé and voids. But sometimes, as here, a tripartite division is recognized, odpua, Wy?) and mvedpa; the immaterial part being sub- divided into the lower part, Wvy7, including the feelings, impulses etc., and the ruling faculty, the mwvedy~a (sometimes voids), by which alone communication is maintained with God. Yux7 and rvedyua are distinguished in Hebr. iv. 12 Gype pepiopod uyxis Kal mvevparos (see also Phil. i. 27), and Wuyikos is markedly opposed to mvevyarixos as the natural to the spiritual in 1 Cor. ii, 14 sq., xv. 44—46. And not in St Paul only; compare also James ili. 15, ovx...7) copia avwbev Karepyopuern add’ emiyeros, uxixy, Jude 19 ovrol elow Wuxixol, mvetpa pn Exovres: and in the Old Testament, Ecclus. v. 2pun eLaxodovber TH Wux7n gov Kal TH laxvi Gov, TOU mopevet Oar Ev emOupiats kapdlas gov, and xviii. 30. Such a threefold division of the nature of man is not peculiar to Christianity. It appears in the heathen philosophers, as for instance in Plato 7ima@us 30 B votv pev ev Woxn, Wuxny be ev o@pare Evviotas TO Tay Evverexraiveto (6 Oeds), and in the Neoplatonists as Plotinus (see Nemesius ap. Wetstein) ; and in the Stoics (see Marc. Anton. iil. 16 capa, Wuxn, vous’ ceparos aicOnoets, Wuyis opal, vod Soypara k.T.A.). It was familiar also to Jewish speculators, whether of the Rabbinical type or of the Alexandrian School. See Eisenmenger’s Lxfdecktes Fudenthum i.,p. 887, cited by Ellicott. Philo indeed sometimes speaks of human nature as twofold, body and soul (or mind), e.g. Leg. Adleg. iii. § 55, 1. p. 119 M.dvo eoriy €& dv cuvéoraper, Wyn Te kal o@pa K.T.A. ; sometimes he subdivides the soul into three parts after Plato, the Aoycxov, the @vyixov and the eémiOuuntixov (Adyos Or vows, Ovpos, emOvpia), e.g. Leg. Alleg. i. §§ 22, 23, 1. pp. 57, 58 (where there is a reference to Plato’s chariot in the Phedo), de Concupisc. § 2, 11. p. 350; sometimes he makes V. 24.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 89 four elements of man’s nature, de Som. i. § 5,1. p. 624 capa, aicOnars, Adyos, vovs. But he frequently considers the soul as composed of two parts, de Vict. § 5, 11. p. 241 To pev NoyiKdy THs Appevos yeveas eotwy, OrEp vous kai Aoyiopos KeKANpwrat, TO dé GAoyor THs yuvatkav, Smep EXaxev aicOyors. The same is essentially the division in Fvagm. 11. p. 668 M., though confusedly stated there. This would make human nature threefold. The division however is not exactly the same as in St Paul, inasmuch as atocénors could scarcely fall under Wvyx7, but under odya as in Marc. Anton. 1. c. On Philo see Gfrérer Phz/o I. c. xii. p. 373 sq. and Dahne Gesch. Darstell. d. jiid. alexr. Relig. Philos. 1. p. 317 Sq. Weare not surprised to find that this threefold organization, sanctioned by such scriptural authority, was generally recognized by the Early Fathers. See especially Iren. v. 6 and Origen Comm. in Foani. i. p. 433 ed. Lommatzsch and other passages cited by Ellicott, pp. 169, 170. On the use to which Origen applied it see Neander, Church History i. p. 365 sq. (Bohn). When Apollinaris made it subservient to his own heresy (see Neander Iv. p. 101), it began to be looked upon with dis- favour. On the whole question see Ellicott’s Sermons v. and notes, Delitzsch Psychology, English version, p. 109 sq., Beck 8267. Seelenl., Introduction to the Epistles by a Bishop’s Chaplain, p. 88, Trench WV. 7. Syn. § 1xxi., and especially Olshausen de nature humane trichotomia given in his Opusc. p. 157. Even if it be granted that the Apostle here had no intention of laying down a metaphysical distinction, yet still less are the words here to be treated as a mere rhetorical expression. The spirit, which is the ruling faculty in man and through which he holds communication with the unseen world—the soul, which is the seat of all his impulses and affec- tions, the centre of his personality—the body, which links him to the material world and is the instrument of all his outward deeds—these all the Apostle would have presented perfect and intact in the day of the Lord’s coming. dpéprrws] is added to strengthen odoxAnpov tnpnbein ‘be preserved entire beyond the reach of complaint.’ MéudeoOa (differing from péyeuv) signifies properly ‘to find fault with,’ i.e. ‘to blame as defective,’ and thus dpuéurrws iS appropriately used to define odoKAnpor. év tq tapovolg|] The preposition ev, where cis might be expected, is probably to be explained by a brachylogy, ‘be preserved entire and be found so in the day etc.’ Cf. 1 Cor. xi. 18 ocuvepyouévoy vuav ev exkAnoia. 24. motos o Kadov vas x.t.A.] ‘The fact that you were called by God to a knowledge of the Gospel should be an assurance to you that He is ready to sanctify and perfect you to the coming of the Lord, If His first work is rendered fruitless, it must be in spite of Him.’ © kahav twas] ‘your caller, 6 Kkada@yv, not o ckadeoas, because the Apostle gO FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [V. 24. is dwelling rather on the person, than on the act. See the similar expression in Gal. v. 8 (with the note). 8s Kal roujoet] ‘who besides calling you will also doit” The meaning of soumoe is to be sought in the whole sentence from dy:aca: vas to tpn Gein. 4. PERSONAL INJUNCTIONS AND BENEDICTION, v. 25—28. 25. This and the remaining verses form a sort of postscript to the Epistle. See the note on ryv émicroAny ver. 27. It is questioned whether vv. 26, 27 are addressed to the whole Thessalonian Church, or to the Elders only. This will depend in part on the meaning assigned to mavres oi adeAgot in these verses. If it is restricted to the Christians who were in the habit of assembling at Thessalonica, as in the case of the Colossian Epistle which was to be read by the Laodiceans (Col. iv. 16), then the injunction must be addressed to the Elders only ; if it signifies the whole body of Christians, then the entire church of Thessalonica may be addressed. But the latter interpretation of mavres oi adeApoi seems to be excluded by ev giAjpare ayi (ver. 26), which implies personal intercourse. Thus then, though there is no notification of the restriction, doracacbe, évopxitw vas must refer solely to those to whom the letter was directly sent, i.e. probably the Elders. See verse 12. 26. domwdoace x.t.4.] The expression, as found elsewhere, is slightly different, domdcacOe ddAndous €v hidrnparte ayia (Rom. xvi. 16, I Cor. xvi. 20, 2 Cor. xiii. 12) or €v hidnpare ayanns (1 Pet. v. 14); but in all these passages it occurs in close juxtaposition with personal salutations sent from the writer, or from his friends, to the Church addressed or to individual members of it. This fact perhaps points to a pregnant meaning in the expression as used here, ‘Salute all the brethren Jrom me with a holy kiss, and let this kiss be a token of brotherly love among yourselves.’ There seems to be no direct reference to any liturgical rite, though the kiss of love would naturally be exchanged on the first day of the week, when they met together for prayer and for celebrating the Holy Communion. Hence it is not surprising that the ‘holy kiss,’ thus accidentally connected with it in the first instance, should in the next age be incorporated in the eucharistic ceremony. See Justin Mart. Afo/. i. 65 adArjAous Pidjpart aora{opeOa mavoauevoe TOY evxav, Tertull. de Orat. 18 ‘osculum pacis, quod est signaculum orationis,’ and ad Uxor. ii. 4, Const. Apost. ii. 57 rd ev Kupim piAnua and vill. If. | Comp. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. xxiii., Myst. v. 3, Chrysost. passim e.g. Hom. xx. 7 Matth. p. 205, Clem. Alex. Paedag. iii. 11, § 81 (p. 301 ed. Potter) dyarn 8€ ovx év pirnpate GAN ev evdvoia kpivera: of be ovdev dX’ y grdrpare xaraopovat ras éxkAnoias rd idobv evSov ovk éxovres avro with V. 28.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, QI evident allusion to this custom. See on its use in the Eucharist Bingham Ant. viii. 10. 9, xv. 3. 3, and Stanley on 1 Cor. xvi. 20. It was also given at baptisms (Bingham xii. 4. 5), at the ordination of bishops (Bingham ii. II. Io) and priests (Bingham ii. 19. 17), and at espousals (Bingham xxii. 3.10)! 27. It has been found difficult to account for the strength of the Apostle’s language here. The explanation is perhaps to be sought, not in any supposed differences existing between the Elders and the laity of the Thessalonian Church (comp. vv. 12, 13) which might lead to the suppres- sion of the letter; but in a sort of presentiment or suspicion, which St Paul may be supposed to have entertained, that a wrong use might be made of his name and authority. Such a suspicion was entirely justified by subsequent occurrences (2 Thess. ii. 2; see Bzblical Essays, p. 265 sq.), and doubtless sufficient grounds for it had already appeared. Hence it was of infinite importance that his views should be known to all. The same feeling is exhibited in the second Epistle in the Apostle’s anxiety to authenticate his letter (111.17). In its solemnity this closing adjuration may be compared with the ef ris ov didet rov Kupiov, 7Tw dvaOeua of 1 Cor. xvi. 21, Or Tov Aourov, Korous por pndels mapexérw of Galivi- 17. évopkit{w| This, the better supported reading, is not found elsewhere except in a Cephallenian inscription, Boeckh C. /. G. 11. no. 1933, though evopkovy occurs in an obscure place (Schol. Lucian. Cazap/. 23). In Tobit ix. 20 the reading is évopxws. It is probably stronger than opkifw ‘I appeal to you by an oath,’ which occurs twice in the New Testament (Mark v. 7, Acts xix. 13) and is read by the bulk of manuscripts here. Thus the compound form will signify ‘I bind you by an oath.’ Of the forms opkovy and opxifew, the former is more strictly Attic, the latter belongs rather to late Greek. See Lobeck, Phryz. pp. 360, 361. THY emetoAny] ‘the letter’, not ‘this letter’ (rjvd_ rv), for the Epistle is regarded as already concluded, and these words occur in the postscript. Compare Rom. xvi. 22 éy@ Téprios 6 ypawas rv éemioroAny, Col. iv. 16. On the other hand in 1 Cor. v. 9 the sentence éypaya tiv ev r7 éemiaroAy Cannot refer to the first epistle itself, occurring as it does in the main body of the letter. See the notethere. On the significance of 2 Thess. iii. 14 d:a rips emtotoAns see the note on the passage. 28. The main body of the Epistle would probably be written by an amanuensis, and the Apostle would here take up his pen and add the benediction (7 yapis rod Kupiov x.r.A.) in his own handwriting. See the note on the conclusion of the Second Epistle. The salutation as here given may be regarded as the typical form in St Paul’s Epistles. The longest form occurs in 2 Cor. xiii. 13, the shortest in most of the later Epistles as Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. In all however the ascription of grace is the leading feature. St Paul seems to have regarded this salutation as his characteristic token Q2 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [V. 28. (see 2 Thess. iii. 17); and it was adopted after him by those especially who were his companions or disciples, as by the inspired writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii. 25), and by Clement in his Epistle to the Romans. Compare likewise the conclusion of the Epistle of Barnabas 6 Kuptos ris d0€ns cal maons xapiros pera Tov mvevparos vuoy. Afterwards it became the common salutation or benediction of the Church in her liturgies. iar eels Poles Ol St) Raw. ii. tHe SECOND: APOSTOLIC. JOURNEM Qe SECOND) EPISTLE TO) THE, THESSALONGANS: YE MEN OF GALILEE, WHY STAND YE GAZING UP INTO HEAVEN? IN QUIETNESS AND IN CONFIDENCE SHALL BE YOUR STRENGTH. I SHALL SEE HIM, BUT NOT NOW: I SHALL BEHOLD HIM, BUT NOT NIGH. AN MEN SIS, ee SAL ULATION e152 II. THANKSGIVING AND DOCTRINAL PORTION. i. 3—1l1. 17. A general expression of thankfulness and interest, leading up to the difficulty about the Lord’s Advent. i. The Apostle pours forth his thanksgiving for their progress in the faith; he encourages them to be patient under persecution, reminding them of the Judgment to come, and prays that they may be prepared to meet it. i. 3—12. ii. He is thus led to correct the erroneous idea that the Judgment is imminent, pointing out that much must happen first. ii. r—12. iil. He repeats his thanksgiving and exhortation, and concludes this portion with a prayer. ii. 13—17. III. HORTATORY PORTION. ili. I—16. i. He urges them to pray for him, and confidently anticipates their progress in the faith. iii. I—5. ii, He reproves the idle, disorderly and disobedient, and charges the faithful to withdraw from such. iii. 6—15. ili. Prayer to the Lord of Peace. iii. 16. IV. SPECIAL DIRECTION AND BENEDICTION. iii. 17, 18. | OE Gets) 4a eee rie hie nl . VALE ree iy iH t Y - i‘ ‘ J cs) ' Ly ie - | Si : " ’ a +/ : 5 oq } p al a \ ia _- ‘ + « ia i ts ‘ y | ad 4 } 7.) { } i] 5d f e 7 - 2 r r > Raina Oe Oa Seats 4 HO is . of a ‘ i vie ai ie i) CHAPTER iL i SAUUPALION. i. 1,2. I, 2. The commencement of this Epistle is identical with that of the former, except that in the first verse nuéy is inserted here after warpt and in the second verse the clause amo Geov rarpos...’Incod Xpiorov, which is more than doubtful in the first Epistle, is genuine here. For the expla- nation of these verses see the note on the opening of the first Epistle. 2. THANKSGIVING AND DOCTRINAL PORTION, i. 3—ii. 17. i. LEucouragement to patience from thoughts of the Judgment to come (i. 3-12). 3. ebxapioretv] See the note on 1 Thess. i. 2. Kabds déiov éorwv] The addition of this phrase after ddeiAoper illus- trates St Paul’s vehemence of language, leading him to accumulate cognate expressions, where an ordinary writer would adopt a simple form ; compare e.g. Phil. i. 9, 14, 23, il. 2, ili. 9, iv. I, 2, 17 with the notes. Still the sentence is not strictly speaking pleonastic. We may say that odeiAouey points rather to the divine, xaOds aficv ears to the human side of the obligation. We may paraphrase thus: ‘It is not only a duty, which our conscience prescribes as owed to God; but it is also merited by your conduct.’ In the words of our Anglican Liturgy, ‘It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty that we should at all times and in all places give thanks.’ As expressed in the Greek Liturgies the original of these words does not show much correspondence with the language of St Paul given above: see Swainson, The Greek Liturgies, 1884, pp. 28, 80, 128, 267. ért] Two grammatical questions arise here. rst, Is dre to be taken with evyapioteivy odeidopev, or with Kaas akéiov éori? Secondly, if the former construction is to be preferred, has the conjunction a definitely L. EP. 7 98 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [I. 3- causal signification ‘because,’ or is it merely objective describing the matter of evyapioreiv, ‘that’? In answer to the first question, we may say that xa@ads a&idv éore seems to be parenthetical, so that ore is attached to edyapioreiv dcheihopev. The flow of the language appears to require this connexion. There would be a certain halt in the sentence, if evxaptotety cpeidopev, the emphatic clause, were unexplained, and the explanation attached to the subordinate xa@as agfwv éazt. Besides, the construction of edyapioretv with 6r is confirmed by the parallel passages, Rome. 6, 1 Cor. 1. 44,5- The second question is more difficult. The causal signification of drt runs almost imperceptibly into the objective. By translating the two into different words (‘ because’ and ‘ that’) in English, we give a distinct- ness to them which a Greek probably would not recognize. The only distinction in Greek can have been one of emphasis, the causal being the more emphatic, the objective the less so. As 6rz here seems to be very unemphatic, we may assume that it leans to the objective meaning, and is best translated by ‘that.’ On the other hand, if dre were attached to Kaas a€oy é€art, it must signify ‘ because.’ umepavédver] It has been thought that a reproof is implied in vzepav- €aver, as if the Apostle would warn his converts that their zeal had outrun their discretion. Such however is not the necessary or even the general meaning of compounds with this preposition, as used by St Paul, see the note on I Thess. iii. 10 vmepexmepiooov. Nor indeed would he speak of any one as having an excess of faith, The words vtmepav&aver and mAeovater are carefully chosen ; the former implying an internal, organic growth, as of a tree; the other a diffusive, or expansive character, as of a flood irrigating the land. For St Paul’s habit of rapid transition in metaphor compare the note on Col. ii. 6 mepurareire éppiftwpévor kat €TrotkoOopovpeEvol. Avéavew is elsewhere a transitive verb in St Paul, though generally intransitive in the other New Testament writers. The future intransitive avénow in Ephes. iv. 15 may come from ava, which is also intransitive in Ephes. ii. 21. ets ddAtjAovs] These words are perhaps better taken with mdcovater than with 7 dyann évos éxaorov mavrwv vuedv. Compare the phrase repo- cevery eis Twa in Rom. v. 15, 2 Cor. i. 5, Ephes. i. 8. 4. Gore «.7.A.] In this clause St Paul loses sight of mdcovater 7 aydann, and dwells exclusively on the former head vmepavédver 4 riots. On the collocation of mioris and dyamn see the note on I Thess. 1. 3. aitovs nas] ‘we ourselves’; i.e. Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus, who, as the human instruments through whom this change had been wrought, would be backward to sound the praises of the Thessalonians, lest they should seem to be boasting of themselves. évkavxao@at] Though supported by SABP only against the bulk of manuscripts, évxavyaoOa, a word which occurs here only in the New i 5] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 99 Testament, is the most expressive reading and is certainly to be preferred to the simple xavyac@a.. The preposition of the compound corresponds to év vuiv, not to ev rats exkAnoias. In other words it describes the sphere of the boasting of St Paul and his companions. Compare évockeiy év (2 Cor. vi. 16), éevdquety év (2 Cor. v. 6), éupéve év (Heb. viii. 9); but evepyeiv ev 1S somewhat different, see the notes on Phil. ii. 13, Gal. ii. 8. év tats éxkAnolats] As St Paul, after leaving Macedonia, seems not to have travelled out of the province of Achaia before writing this letter, he must here allude chiefly to the Church of Corinth and the affiliated communities, see 2 Cor. i. I ry éxxAnoia Tod Gcod tH ovon ev KopivOe adv Tots ayiows macaw Tois ovow ev OAn TH Axaia, though by letter and by other than direct personal communication he may have boasted also to distant churches. See the note on 1 Thess. i. 8. Polycarp undoubtedly had this passage in mind, when, writing to the Philippians, he says ‘Ego autem nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus Paulus qui estis in principio epistolae eius (comp. 2 Cor. iil. 2): de vobis etenim g/oriatur im omnibus ecclesizs, quae solae tunc Dominum cognoverant’ (PAz/zp. 11). A little lower down he quotes 2 Thess. iii. 15. He may have confused the Epistles to Philippi and to Thessalonica ; or, as Wordsworth suggests, he may have ‘regarded the Epistles to Thessalonica, the capital of Macedonia, as addressed to all the Macedonian Churches, and therefore to Philippi.’ mlorews| ‘fazth, which was especially manifested in their patient endurance under affliction. ‘Ymouovn is generally connected with éAmis (see on 1 Thess. i. 3), but here with mioris. The line of separation between the two is not easily drawn. Stwypots, OAteorv] The former is a special term for external persecu- tions inflicted by the enemies of the Gospel; the latter is more general, and denotes tribulation of any kind. See the notes on 1 Thess. i. 6, iii. 2, Phils a7. ats dvéxerGe] The construction of dvéyecOa: with a dative is quite possible (see Eur. Azdrom. 980 Evydopais & nvetxounv) ; but we have here doubtless an attraction for as or rather dv avéyeoGe, the genitive being the case with which the verb is always found in the New Testament; e.g. 2) Corxd. 1, 10; Eph. iv. 2;-Col. aii. 13. The first Epistle speaks of the persecutions attending their first acceptance of the Gospel as past, i. 6, ii. 14. Here the Apostle alludes, not perhaps to any fresh definite outbreak of rigorous persecution, but rather to the daily trials which as Christians they had to endure. 5. evderypa tis Stkalas Kploews x.t.A.] For the sentence compare Phil. i. 28 kai pr) mrupopevor ev pndevl Urb Tov avTikemmevov: ris early avrois évderEts am@A€elas, Uuyav dé carnplas, kal TovTO amo Geod: Ste Uplv éexapiobn TO imép Xpiorov, ov povoy TO els avrov mioTevev, dAda Kal TO Umép avTov macyxecy, another point of coincidence between the Thessa- lonian and Philippian Epistles. See the notes on 1 Thess. i. I HavtAos, 2. O ea 100 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. _ [I.5. This parallel passage shows that evderyya rhs Sixaias xpioews here refers not to their being subject to persecution (i.e. not to ais dvéyeoOe solely), but to their Aatzence under persecution, i.e. to the whole sentence Umép Tis Umopovns...avéxerOe. It still however remains a question whether évSevypa is a nominative or an accusative case. If itis a nominative, the sentence is elliptical, and may be supplied 6re (or dmep) éorw évderypa on the model of the passage from the Philippians. But the word is more probably an accusative by a loose sort of construction not without a parallel in classical writers, the sentence with which it is in apposition having assumed an objective form. Compare Rom. xii. I mv Aoyuny Aarpelav, 1 Tim. ii. 6 To papripsoy Karpois idiots. Winer however (§ lix. p. 669) prefers to consider €vdevypa a nominative. What then is meant by the dcxaia xpiots of God? and what is the évderypa of it? The d:xala kpiovs involves (1), and prominently, the law of compensation by which the sufferers of this world shall rest hereafter and the persecutors of this world shall suffer hereafter. Compare our Lord’s saying in the parable (Luke xvi. 25): ‘Thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.’ Contrast the offensive form in which the thought is expressed in Tertullian (de Sfectac. 30 praesides persecutores dominici nominis saevioribus quam ipsi flammis saevierunt insultantibus contra Christianos liquescentes, and the whole chapter). But (2) the simple suffering does not in itself constitute a claim to future joy. The suffering must come of faith. The sufferer must endure for the kingdom of God’s sake (vmép ns kai maoxere). The évdevypa, the ‘ evidence’ or ‘token’ of this first judgment of God, is found in the confident endurance and patient waiting of the Thessa- lonians. This strong practical belief in the judgment was fro fantoa proof of its truth. Compare the parallel expression in the Philippian Epistle (l.c.) mrupopevor ev pndevi...qris €oriv evderkis k.7.d. éySerypa] This word occurs here only in the New Testament. On the analogy of other substantives in -ya formed from the passive perfect, évdevypa must have a passive sense. It must signify not ‘a thing proving,’ but ‘a thing proved,’ ‘a proof’ See the note on mArjpopa Colossians p. 257 sq., where other examples of this form are adduced. On the other hand éydeEis, which is more usual with St Paul (Rom. iii. 25, 26, 2 Cor. viii. 24, Phil. i. 28), lays stress rather on the act or process of proving. The E.V., which translates évSevypu here ‘a manifest token,’ renders évderges in Phil. l.c. ‘an evident token.’ So in Acts i. 3 it translates rexunpioy an ‘infallible proof.’ Amodeéis occurs once in the New Testament, I Cor. ii. 4 év drodeife mvevparos kai Suvdpews. It differs from évdecéis as considering the proof rather from the point of view of its acceptance by others, than of its inherent truth; thus it means ‘demonstration.’ Compare the technical senses of the word both in mathematics and dialectic: Pollux iv. 33 mépn Tov pyropiKod Noyou mpooimor, Suyynots, miotts, amroderkes. 1a 18 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, IOI els Td KaTafiwOqvar] The only construction which renders the sentence logically smooth, though slightly awkward grammatically, is that which connects these words with d:kaias xpicews. If evderypa ris Sixaias kpicews Tov Geov is treated as a parenthesis and eis rd xara€éiwOqvae attached to any part of the preceding verse, a new awkwardness is introduced in etreo Sixavov, which is thus deprived of its proper reference to d:kalas kpiceas. The preposition eis will therefore denote either the result or the purpose (see note on 1 Thess. ii. 16) of the dixaia xpiots, ‘the first judgment of God which contemplates your being counted worthy etc.’ Tis Bacdelas tod Ocod] ‘the kingdom of God, the new order of things as established under Christ, though with a special reference to its final and perfect development in His future kingdom. tmp as] Not ‘to gain which,’ but ‘for the establishment, promotion and maintenance of which.’ Compare again the passage in the Philip- pians (i. 29) cited above, vpiv eyapicOn rd imep Xpiorov...rdo yee. kat mécxete] The «ai still further enforces the connexion between present suffering and future glory. Compare 2 Tim. ii. 12 ef dmopévoper, kal cupBacirevooper. 6. elmep|i.e. ‘assuming that it is just in the sight of God.’ The word is purely hypothetical and in itself seems to imply neither probability nor improbability. So far is it from implying the latter, that wherever it occurs in the New Testament, it is used of what the writer regards as the true or probable hypothesis : comp. Rom. viii. 9, 17, 1 Cor. viii. 5, except perhaps 1 Cor. xv. 15 eiep dpa vexpot ovk éyeipovrat, where the introduction of apa refers the assumption to the opinion of others, who took it for granted. On the difference between cimep and etye see the note on Gal. ili. 4 ef ye kai eikj, and compare 2 Cor. v. 3, where the reading varies. Consult also Hermann ad Viger. p. 834, Klotz Devar. 11. pp. 308, 528 and Winer § liii. p. 561. elmep S{katov mapa Gc] This clause is to be referred to Scxaias kpicews Tov Qcov els 70 katakimOjvar vas «.r.X. Thus the sense of the passage will be: ‘the first judgment of God which purposes your admission to his kingdom, granting that it is just in the sight of God etc.’ 7. averw] ‘relief? The word is properly used here, as elsewhere, in opposition to Adis. See 2 Cor. vii. 5, viii. 13 and compare 2 Cor. ii. 13 ovK €oxnka Gveow TO mvevdparr with ii. 4 €k moAAAs OdriWews kal ouvoyxns kapdias éypaa. So too Act. Paul. et Thecl. § 37. “Aveors is ‘a slackening, relaxation, relief,’ just as OAiyws is ‘a crushing, a constraint.’ On Oriyns and words of similar import such as orevoywpia, dvaykn, ovvoy? see the note on: 1 Thess. iit. 7. peO” npav] ‘wth us, the writers of the Epistle, Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus. Their community in present suffering was an earnest of their community in future glory. In the same spirit St Paul elsewhere associates the sufferings of his converts with his own. So especially 2 Cor. i. 7 eidores Gre ws Kowwyoi éeote Tov TabnuaTwy, ovTws Kai THs 102 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., [i: % mupakAjoews, and Phil. i. 30 rov avrov ayava exovtes oiov eidere ev epol, a continuation of the passage which has already been quoted on ver. 5 as a close parallel to this. év Tq atrokadier] On the resemblance of apocalyptic passages in point of language and imagery to the Old Testament see the note on 1 Thess. v. 3. In the passage before us we have chiefly to notice the fearlessness with which the Apostle applies the phenomena represented in the Old Testament as the symbols of the divine presence, the attendant angels (Ps. Ixviii. 17) and the flame of fire (Ex. iii. 2, xix. 18, Deut. iv. 11, Ps. civ. 4, Is. Ixvi. 15, Mal. iv. 1, also Dan. vii. 9, 10 where both images are found combined), to the Appearing of our Lord. In some cases the very expressions used in the Hebrew prophets of God have been adopted by St Paul in speaking of Christ. We have a remarkable instance of this in the words a6 mpoo@rov Tod Kupiov kal do tis Sdéns ths ioxvos avtov borrowed from Isaiah (ii. 10, 19, 21, x1x. 16, cited by Jowett). The term dzoxaAvyts is used here of the Lord’s coming, as 1 Cor. i. 7 and 1 Pet. i. 7, 13, iv. 13, in place of the more usual word rrapovaia. The common term for this great event in the Pastoral Epistles is éemupaveca (see note below on ii. 8), neither aroxaAvyes nor mapovoia occurring in them. per ayyAov Suvdpews adrod] ‘wth the angels, the ministers of His power. This expression is translated in the E. V. and by others ‘with his mighty angels,’ duydyews being made to serve the turn of an epithet according to the common Hebrew idiom. Jowett who supports this view instances viol Suvduews (Judges xviii. 2, 1 Sam. xviii. 17, 2 Chron. xxv. 13), dpxovres Suvauews (1 Kings xv. 20, 2 Kings xxv. 23). But the interpreta- tion must be discarded, though the Hebraic tinge of the passage is pro zanto in favour of it; for the position of avrod would thus be rendered extremely awkward. Moreover on this supposition the Apostle would dwell rather on the power of subordinate beings than of the Lord Himself. 8. év amvpl pdroyds] This is probably the true reading in this passage and in Exod. iii. 2 of which it is a reminiscence. On the other hand ev doyt mupos is on the whole to be preferred in Acts vii. 30. There is a similar variation of reading in all three passages. Whether these words are to be attached to the preceding or the following sentence is doubtful. The flow of the sentence seems to be in favour of the second alternative, and the sense is somewhat assisted by this construction. In this case the ‘flame of fire’ will be regarded at one and the same time as a revelation of the divine presence, and as an instrument of vengeance, though ey is not to be taken in the instrumental sense. Compare Malachi iii. 2, iv. 1, 2. This double aspect will hold equally whether the ‘fire’ be taken in a literal or a figurative sense: for the revelation of Christ will in itself inflict the severest punishment on the wicked, by opening their eyes to what they have lost. 9-4 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 103 SiSdvtTos exSlkynow] ‘awarding retribution” Again an expression borrowed from the Old Testament and there applied to God. See Ezek. xxv. 14 émiyvdcovta thy éxdixnoiv pov, Aéyer Kupuos. rots pr) eiSédou K.7.A.] That two distinct classes are here meant is clear, from the repetition of the article. These classes are generally taken to correspond to the unbelieving heathen and the unbelieving Jew respectively. But if by rots pr) eiSoot Geov are meant the heathen who rejected the Gospel when offered to them, they are not distinct from rots 1) Umaxovovot; and if on the other hand the heathen world generally is signified, this is opposed to the doctrine which St Paul teaches in Romansii. The classification seems to be somewhat different, viz. ‘those who, not having the Gospel offered to them, yet reject the light of natural religion, which in a certain sense reveals God to them ; and those who, whether Jews or Gentiles, hearing the Gospel preached yet refuse to accept it. This seems to give a more adequate explanation of rots pn eiddat Geov (compare Rom. i. 18, 28); and the two classes will then correspond to those condemned in the opening chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. On rois py eiSoou compare Gal. iv. 8, 1 Thess. iv. 5 with the notes, and on eidévac see 1 Thess. v. 12. g. otrives| ‘2ze2 who. While the simple of would define the persons themselves, oirwes regards them as members of a class, and points to their class characteristics. It may be paraphrased, ‘for they and such as they.’ See further on Gal. iv. 24 rus éoriv "Ayap, Phil. i. 28 Aris early avrois evOeréis am@deias, iv. 3 aitwes cuvnOAnoayv po. with the notes; and comp: Rom, 11. :15, vi.'2, Gal. iv..26, v.19, Phil/ii..20, 1 Tim. 1.;4, €te- odeBpov] Lachmann’s reading oAéO@puov, if better supported by external authority, would deserve some consideration; for the accumulation of epithets compare I Tim. i. 17. amd mporétov x.t.A.] It has been questioned what sense should be assigned to dao, whether it should be taken ‘by reason of,’ or ‘shut out from, removed from.’ The latter is grammatically much more probable, and on all accounts to be preferred. The expression is borrowed from Isaiah il. 10, 19, 21 amo mpoowmov tov PoBov Kupiov kai amo Sdoéns tijs igxvos avTov Oray avaotn x.t.\., aS was observed by Tertullian (adv. Marc. v. 16 ‘quos ait poenam luituros exitialem, aeternam, a facie Domini et a gloria valentiae eius’), and there azo is clearly in this sense. It is thought that the second clause dé ras dogéns is in favour of the other meaning ‘by reason of’; but Sofa is here used, as elsewhere, of the visible glory, the bright light which is the symbol of the divine presence. Compare 2 Cor. iil. 7 sq., Luke ii. 9 d50£a Kupiou mepiéXayev, I Cor. xv. 41 GAAn So€a nAiov, and more especially 1 Kings viii. 11 émAnoe d0€a Kupiov rov oixov. The opinion of some critics that do in the sense of ‘apart from’ should be accentuated amo seems not to rest on sufficient grounds. The severest punishment of the wicked is here represented to be exclusion from the presence of God. Compare Luke xiii. 27 ‘Depart 104 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [I. 9. from me, all ye workers of iniquity,’ and the corresponding phrase in St Matthew viii. 12 ro oxoros to eédtepov (so Matt. xxii. 13, xxv. 30). The idea is not confined to the New Testament : it is met with in the Old Testament also; see Ps. li. 11 and other passages quoted by Liinemann ad loc. Whatever may be meant by the ‘worm that dieth not and the fire that is not quenched’ (Mark ix. 48 quoted from Isaiah lxvi. 24), we are at least led by such passages as these to hold the essence of the future punishment of the wicked, as indeed seems to be the case in the present world also, to consist rather in a moral and spiritual condition than in any physical sufferings undergone. 10. évSofacOAvar] Used with a reference to do rijs doéns of the preceding verse. ‘The object of His coming is that He may be glorified in His saints; and yet from that glory the wicked, your persecutors, will be shut out. Thus have they hindered the high purposes of God, and been untrue to the end for which they were created.’ éy rots aylos avrod|] Not ‘amidst,’ nor yet ‘by,’ ‘through’ (ey instru- mental), but ‘zz Hzs saints” They are the mirror in which His glory shines. His infinite perfections are reflected in those finite beings exalted and purified through Him. Similarly the Father is said to be glorified in the Son (John xiv. 13), though in a far higher sense, because there the mirror is perfect, and the reflection is ‘the express image of His person’ (Hebr. i. 3). That this is the meaning of the preposition is shewn by the com- pound évdoéacOjva. Though only used in the New Testament here and ver. 12, the word is not uncommon in LXxX.: compare Exod. xiv. 4 évdoéac Onoopa ev Papad, Ecclus. xxxviil. 6 évdogager@ar ev trois POavpaciors avtov etc. trois aylois avtov] See note on 1 Thess. ili. 13. évy mac tots mortetoaciw] The preposition ev here clearly has the same meaning as in the parallel clause éy rots ayiou. ‘His marvellous attributes are displayed in the believers” But for the parallelism of the clauses, a different interpretation might have been assigned to @avpacOjvat ev Tact TOLS TioTEevoacly. morevcaciv| The word morevew signifies not merely ‘to believe,’ as a continuous state of mind, but also ‘to accept the Gospel,’ as a single definite act. Compare 1 Cor. xv. 2, 11, 2 Cor. iv. 13 (from LXx.). Hence the past 6 muorevoas is ‘one who has accepted the Gospel, a believer,’ as e.g. in Acts iv. 32, xi. 17. It is simpler so to explain it, than to suppose that the past tense is used here to denote that faith would then have been absorbed in sight and ceased to be. The correction morevovow adopted by the Textus Receptus probably arose from an inability to grasp this meaning of the aorist. Compare similar usages in Madv, G7 Syn. § 11. Rem. d@. p. 90, as €Bacirevoe, €Botdevoe etc., who however confines it to the aorist; see also Donaldson Gr. G~., p. 411 sq. (ed. 3). Ort emeretOn] ‘Lecause it was believed’ The sentence is elliptical. Tat] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 105 If completed it would have run, ‘in all them that believed, and ¢herefore zm you, for our testimony was believed by you.’ The suppressed clause naturally supplies itself from what has gone before, the participation of the Thessalonians in the glories of Christ’s coming being the leading idea of the context; see especially ver. 7 vpiv rots OAiBouevors dvecw. More- over racy points to the ellipsis, as if he had said: ‘for all, you included’; and perhaps still further the dead, as well as the surviving, see 1 Thess. iv. 13 sq. ép’ tas] is generally taken strictly with rd paprvpiov judy, ‘our testimony addressed to you was believed’; but the point of the sentence is rather ‘you believed,’ than ‘you had the Gospel offered to you’ as this construction would make it. In other words, we look for a direct con- nexion between the Thessalonians and a de/zef in the Gospel rather than between the Thessalonians and the preaching of the Gospel. Nor is the construction émurev6n éf vas grammatically indefensible. The preposi- tion has a notion of ‘direction towards,’ ‘belief in our testimony directed itself to reach you.’ Compare 2 Cor. ii. 3 memoiOds emi ravras dpas bre €un xapa mavrav vor éoriv and the construction éAmitew emi, 1 Pet. i. 13, I Tim. v. 5. The language of Bengel however ‘ad vos usque, in occidente,’ goes too far. é&v Tr Mpépa exelvy] ‘27 that day’; to be attached to éevdofacOjvar k.T.d., the clause 6ri émorev6n...ep vas being parenthetical. This suspension of év TH nuépa exeivy, giving it greater emphasis by making it clinch the sentence, is in accordance with the pervading tone and purport of the Thessalonian Epistles, which enforce the duty of waiting for the Lord’s coming. On the expression npépa eéxeivy see the notes on mehess. ve 2. A: 11. els 8] ‘to which end, i.e. cis TO kataki@bjvat judas (ver. 5). tva vas «.7.A.] This still further defines the meaning of eis 6. The particle iva seems to be used here rather in its classical sense, denoting the purpose, ‘in order that,’ than to imply simply the substance of the prayers ‘pray that God may etc.’ according to the meaning which it bears in later Greek. But the one meaning shades off into the other, and it is often difficult to discriminate between them. See the notes on Thhessedl: 16,v. 4; THs KAijoews] As the verb déwty never signifies ‘to make worthy,’ but always ‘to account worthy,’ r7s kAnoews cannot denote ‘calling’ according to the accepted meaning of the term (i.e. the being included in the fold of Christ), as it is usually found (e.g. 2 Tim. i. 9); but must refer to something future. It is in fact capable of the same differences of meaning as exAoy7 (see the note on 1 Thess. i. 4), and is here used of ‘final acceptance.’ The Apostle’s prayer therefore for his converts is that God may deem them worthy to be called to the kingdom of His glory. This higher and future ‘calling’ differs rather in degree than in kind from the calling whereby they have been already called, and therefore is denoted 106 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. _ [I. 11. by the same word. Just so the Bacw\ela rod Gcod of the future is but a higher development of the BaovAeia rod Geod of the present. 5 Ocds tpav] ‘the God of us all” By the pronoun the Apostle once more asserts his fellowship with his converts. Compare ver. 7, dveow ped nav, and the note on 1 Thess. v. 6 éopev. kal tAnpdoy] After the mention of rs kAjoews we might have expected some reference to external happiness or to outward glories. But it is not so. The essence of their ‘calling’ consisted in their being perfected morally and spiritually. The end of it was that the Lord might be glorified in them (ver. 12). evSoxlav dyadwotvys] ‘ delight in well-doing” If the phrase had stood alone, we should naturally have translated it ‘the good pleasure of His goodness,’ referring both evdoxiav and ayafwavms to God; as the E. V. in accordance with the common usage of evdoxeiv, evdoxia of the divine will. But its parallelism with épyov miorews, which cannot be interpreted here of God but must apply to the Thessalonians, shows that it must be taken in the same way, ‘all delight, all gladness in well-doing.’ It is something to do good, but it is a higher stage of moral progress to delight in doing good. For the opposite to this compare Rom. i. 32, ov povov avTa rowovow dAda kal cuvevdoxovar Tois mpaccovew. On ayabwovrn and its difference from dya@drns and ypnororns see the notes on 1 Thess. iii. 13 and Gal. v. 22 respectively. On evdoxia see the note on Phil. i. 15, and compare Eph. i. 5. %pyov mlorews] ‘work, activity of faith. It must not be simply a passive, dead faith. See James ii. 18, and the note on 1 Thess. i. 3. év Suvdper] ‘powerfully, effectively, referring to mAnpdon above. 12. 1d dvona rou Kvplov] In this expression we have another instance of the adoption of the language of the Old Testament originally referring to Jehovah, and its application to our Lord, see vv. 8,9. The name of the Lord (min) ov) is a frequent periphrasis for ‘the Lord.’ In this expression, ‘the name’ seems to imply idea of ‘title, dignity, majesty, power,’ better than of ‘personality.’ Indeed ‘the name’ (own and some- times even without the article, OW) is at times found absolutely for ‘the Lord,’ e.g. Levit. xxiv. 11, 16; compare also Deut. xxviii. 58, poSeicda To bvyopa TO evrimov Kai TO Oavpacrov ToiTo, Kupiov Tov Oeov gov (LXX.). From a misinterpretation of these passages of Leviticus came the super- stitious fear of the Jews of pronouncing the word Jehovah. See Drusius on Ecclus. li. 4 cited by Schleusner Vet. Test. s. v. dvopa. It does not appear that a similar periphrasis is used in the Old Testament of any other person, or office. Instances like rd évopa tod Baoidéws, or rd évopa rod Aapelov for 6 Baowevs or 6 Aapeios are not parallels; and so far the expression may be regarded as one confined to the Divine Being. On the ‘name’ belonging to our Lord compare Phil. ii. 9 éxapicaro avr@ ré Svopa To Urep wav dvoua, Heb. i. 4 baw Sivapopadrepov trap’ avrovs KexAnpovo- unxev Svoua, and for a remarkable and reiterated use of the periphrasis I.12.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. rO7, applied to Him, Acts iii. 16 17 miores tod dvoparos avtotv rovrov dv Oewpeire...eorepéwoev TO Svoya avrov. For more on this subject see the notes on Phil. ii. 9 76 dvoua and Io éy r@ évopati. kal dpets év att@] The similarity in spirit and expression here to St John has not escaped notice. Compare John xvii. 1, 10, 21—26. kata tv xdpiv] i.e. ‘the source, whence all glorification springs.’ An instance of St Paul’s anxiety to exclude human merit. This desire appears frequently (Rom. iv. 16, xi. 5, 6, Ephes. ii. 5, 8). Kvplov *Incot Xpirrov] Since Kupiov may be regarded as a proper name and therefore frequently stands without the article, it is not safe to take Geod and Kupiov as referring to the same Person because the article is not repeated. The translation of the E. V. is rendered much more probable by the common connexion of Kupuos "Incots Xpicrds. See the matter fully discussed in Middleton ad doc. CoAT TER IE ii. Much must happen before the Fudgment (ii. 1—12). I. *Epwrapev] ‘we beseech you.’ On the sense which this word bears in the New Testament, see the note on 1 Thess. iv. I. 8] The Apostle had spoken of the day, when the Thessalonians should be glorified and their persecutors punished. He now turns aside (dé) to correct any mistakes which his mention of this day may have occasioned, to calm any feverish desires which it may have excited. He bids his converts be aware that, though come it will, yet it will not come yet. Their persecutions must be endured yet awhile. They must not give up their patient watchfulness, their sober judgment. tmép] The E. V., following the Vulgate and the Latin authorities generally, translates this as a particle of adjuration, ‘dy the coming.’ But there is no support for this sense in the New Testament. ‘Yzeép is here almost equivalent to mepi, to which however it superadds an idea of advocacy (see the note on Gal. i. 3) more or less prominent in different passages, and here probably very faint. Roughly and broadly para- phrased, vmép tis mapovcias would be, ‘to correct mistaken notions,’ or ‘to advocate the true view of the coming.’ émurvyaywyjs| The verb émicvvayew is used in the Gospels of the gathering together of the elect at the Lord’s coming (Matt. xxiv. 31, Mark xiii. 27), and the substantive éemuvvaywyn seems to have acquired a precise and definite meaning in relation to the great event, corresponding to that attached to mapovoia. It has this sense in 2 Macc. ii. 7, though there the éemovvaywyy is regarded from a Jewish point of view, as the gathering into a temporal kingdom of Messiah. 2. taxéws| Not ‘soon’ (i.e. ‘after so short a time’) in regard to a previous point of time, as e.g. their conversion; but ‘hasézly,’ ‘ readily, ‘unhesitatingly,’ describing the manner of gaXevOjva. Compare I Tim. v. 22, and so perhaps the word is used in Gal. i. 6 Oavpafw ore otrws tayéws perariOeaGe ‘I marvel that ye are so ready in changing.’ See the note there. i 2.) )) SECOND) EPISTLE, TO: THE THESSALONIANS. 109 cahevOjvar] i.e. ‘not to be driven by feverish expectations from your sober senses, as a ship drifts away under a tempest from its moorings.’ The E. V. ‘shaken in mind’ is quite wrong. The phrase cadeveoOar emt dyxvpas is not an uncommon one, signifying ‘to ride at anchor.’ The opposite to it is amocakevew dykvpas, Or cadevew amo dykvpas. Compare especially Plut. Op. Mor. ii. p. 493 D dpeéw tov xara hvow drocadevovear, followed almost immediately by ws én ayxipas ths piaews carever. tov vods] ‘7udgment, reason, sober sense,’ as opposed to any fit of enthusiasm, or any feverish anxieties and desires. Novs is here used ina similar sense to 1 Cor. xiv. 15 mpocevEopuar TO mvevpati, mpocevEouar dé Kat tT@ vot. Generally in St Paul mvedya and vois are regarded as closely allied, and almost convertible, being opposed to cap& or cépua; but in I Cor. l.c., as here, the intellectual element in vovs is the prominent one. See the note on 1 Thess. v. 23. pndt] is the best supported reading. Nor indeed does pyre suit the context, where the disjunctive, not the adjunctive, negative is required. There is the same variation of reading, with a similar preponderance of authority in favour of the more grammatical particle, in Eph. iv. 27 pnde didore torov r@ StaBOAw. On the difference between ovdé, undé, and ovre, pyre see the notes on Gal. i. 12, and 1 Thess. ii. 3. The same phenomenon of pnde followed by a triple pyre occurs in the Epistle on the Martyrs of Lyons and Vienne given in Eusebius H. £. v. 1. 20 dare pndé To iSiov Kareureiy dvoua pyre COvous unre modAcws SOev rv pyre ei SovAOS x.T.A., Where again pyre is found as a variant for pnde. Bpocio Bar] ‘or yet be confused, without actually losing your mind. OpoetcOa: seems to be weaker, not stronger, than aadevOjvat dro Tod vods ; and this we might expect after pnédé. os 80 ypav] It is questioned whether these words refer to émiroAjs only, or to Adyou and emorodjs, or to all the three mvevparos, Adyou, émuotoAjs. The sense seems to require us to extend the reference to Adyov as well as éemoroAjs ‘oral tidings no less than the written letter’ ; and having done this we are almost forced by the parallelism of the clauses to include mvevparos also. Nor is dia mvevparos incapable of an explanation, when connected with ws 6: yueév. There are three ways in which the pretended authority of the Apostle might be brought forward by false or mistaken teachers. They might represent his opinion as communicated to them by some spiritual revelation (6a mvevparos) ; or they might report a conversation pretended to have been held with him (d:a Adyov) ; or they might produce a letter purporting to come from him (80 emtoroAjs). In this way dca mvevparos might as well be used of spiritual communication, as opposed to d:a Adyou, dv éemicroAjs the instruments of outward intercourse. Nor need this mvetya have been a fabrication of the false teachers ; but they may have been deceived themselves by spiritual hallucinations which they mistook for true revelations, the d.dxpuots mvevpatwy being indispensable in the Early Church, and Paul having ETO SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. {II. 2. himself warned the Thessalonians that they must try the spirits. See the notes on I Thess. v. 19-21. Do the words 8v/ émorodjs here refer to the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, some passages of which (as iv. 13sq) being misunderstood might not unnaturally give rise to the expectation that the day of the Lord was close at hand? Or do they point to a forged epistle circulated in the Apostle’s name? The former opinion is maintained and lucidly set forth by Paley (Hore Pauline c. x. § 3) who accordingly translates ‘ quasi nos quid tale aut dixerimus aut scripserimus.’ But the words will scarcely bear this interpretation : for as no mention has gone before of the purport of the tidings or letter, the expression ws 60 nua, ‘as if coming from us,’ cannot be intended to throw discredit on the interpretation of this purport, but on the letter or tidings themselves. The expression is different where he confessedly speaks of his own letter as below, ii. 15. We have therefore to fall back upon the supposition of a forged letter. Whether St Paul actually knew that such a letter had been forged, it is impossible to say. If he had, probably he would have spoken more strongly ; and the whole sentence is couched in the vague language of one who suspected rather than knew. But he must at least have had reasons for believing that an illicit use had been made of his authority in some way or other: and the suspicion of a possible forgery seems to have crossed his mind at an earlier date, when he wrote the first epistle (see the note on 1 Thess. v. 27); and he guards against it at the close of this epistle also (iii. 17). és Sn] ‘vepresenting that.” The expression in this passage throws discredit on the statement. Compare 2 Cor. xi. 21 xara dripiav Néyw os dre jets nobevnxaper, Isocr. Busir. Arg. p. 220 katnydpovy avtov ws srt cava Saipoma eiapépet, Xenophon /He//. iii. 2. 14 etc. The idea of misrepre- sentation or error is not however necessarily inherent in the combination of particles ds dru; but the os points to the subjective statement as distinguished from the objective fact, and thus this idea of untruth is frequently implied. It is not however universal: see 2 Cor. v. 19 os dre Ocds nv ev Xpior@ koopov KaradAdoooy €avTs. évérrnkev] ‘2s cmminent. For ra éveorora ‘things present’ as opposed to ra péAdovra ‘things future’ see Rom. vill. 38, 1 Cor. iii. 22, and for éveotos in the sense of ‘ present’ compare I Cor. vil. 26, Gal. i. 4. The Apostle then does not deny that the day of the Lord may be near. He asserts that it is not imminent. Certain events must take place before it arrives; and though they may be crowded into a short space of time, still they demand the lapse of some appreciable period. 7 jpépa tou Kvplov] See the notes on 1 Thess. v. 2, 4. 3. Katd pydéva tpérov] i.e. whether by the means specified in the preceding verse, or in any other way. on] ‘for (the day shall not come). We have here an instance of the ellipsis so common in St Paul. Another instance occurs just below, ver. 7 tl 3:] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 1 povov 0 katéyov apt k.t.A. Other examples are Gal. i. 20 iSov évamtov Tod Gcotd drt, il. 4 dia S€ rovs mapecodkrovs WevdadéAgovs «.7.r., ii. 9 wa Hyets eis ra €Ovn (and of ellipse after iva again 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. viii. 13, Rom. iv. 16), V. 13 povov pr tiv edevbepiay eis dbopuny ty capki, I Cor. iv. 6 pH Umép a yéypanrat, V. I TovavTn Topveia HTLs ovde ev Tois EOvecty, Xi. 24 TO TGpa TO umép vuov, 2 Cor. ix. 7 éxaotos Kabas mpoypntar ty Kapdia, Rom. xiii. 7 etc. Another interpretation attaches ori to é£amarnon ‘let no man deceive you by saying that,’ sc. the day will not be delayed. But this is extremely harsh, as obviously the words éav pn €A6y «.7.A. suggest a different way of supplying the ellipsis. 4 dmootacla] ‘the revolt, rebellion. The word implies that the opposi- tion contemplated by St Paul springs up from within rather than from without. In other words, it must arise either from the Jews or from apostate Christians, either of whom might be said to fall away from God. On the other hand it cannot refer to Gentiles. This consideration alone will exclude many interpretations given of the ‘man of sin.’ The word dmooracia is a later form for dmdcracis. See Lobeck Phryx. p. 528. Kal drokadvdbq] It is impossible to pronounce on mere grammatical grounds whether this ‘revelation’ is spoken of as the consequence and crowning event of the dmocracia, or is the same incident regarded from another point of view. The interpretation will depend mainly on the conception entertained of 6 dv@pw7os THs dvowias as denoting a person or otherwise. One of the important features in this description is the parallel drawn between Christ and the adversary of Christ. Both alike are ‘revealed,’ and to both alike the term ‘mystery’ is applied. From this circumstance, and from the description given in ver. 4 of his arrogant assumption, we cannot doubt that the man of sin in St Paul is identical with the avriypicros of St John, the preposition in the latter term expressing the idea of antagonistic claims. 6 dvOpwrros Tis avoplas, 6 vids THS dmwrelas] The one term expresses the intrinsic character, the other the ultimate destination of the person or thing intended. The expression 6 avOpwros ris dvopias is to be traced originally to the Hebrew idiom, where the genitive supplies the place of epithet. ‘O vids ris dmwXelas again is a Hebraism: e.g. ‘the son of death, 1 Sam. xx. 31 (LXX. 6rt vids Oavdrov obros i.e. ‘destined to die’), ‘son of stripes,’ Deut. xxv. 2. So arrows are called ‘sons of the quiver,’ ‘sons of the bow,’ Lam. iii. 13, Job xli. 20 (28). Yet these expressions, when transferred to the Greek, would have a depth and freshness of significance, which from having become idiomatic they had probably lost in the original Hebrew. The Apostle, we may suppose, would employ them (1) as being more forcible than the idiomatic expressions corresponding to them in the Greek; (2) because speaking in a prophetic view he would naturally fall into the language of 112 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. | [II. 3 the Hebrew prophets : see especially the note on 1 Thess. v. 3. (3) It is not improbable that St Paul is adopting the recognised phraseology in reference to the events of the last day. Thus Judas is called 6 vids rijs amadAecias, John xvii, 12. Does the Apostle intend an actual person by these expressions, or do they represent the impersonation of some evil principle or movement? The first is the Arzmd facie view, but there are good reasons for preferring the latter. (1) The ‘man of sin’ is obviously distinguished from Satan (ver. 9), and yet it is difficult to see how any other person could be spoken of in such terms. (2) From the interchange of ro xaréyov and o xaréyov we may infer that in this case at least a principle, not a person, is meant, inasmuch as it is much more natural to personify a principle than conversely. And this suggests that 6 av6pwmos ths avouias may be a personification also. (3) The language which St John uses in 1 Joh. ii. 18, where he speaks of ‘many Antichrists, apparently as elements of 6 avtixpioros, Seems to point to the same result. (4) The ‘man of sin’ is spoken of as existing and working at the time when St Paul wrote, though still unrevealed (6 dvtixeipevos Kat vrepaipopevos k.T-X.). Perhaps St Paul may have seen in some actual adversary of the Gospel a type of the antichristian spirit and working ; and this may have facilitated the personification. 4. 6 avtikeluevos| Not to be taken with emi wayra x.r.X., but absolutely ‘the adversary.’ It is equivalent to 6 dyriypioros. Umepaipépevos emi] Not to be translated as E. V., but ‘exalteth himself exceedingly against. The verb vmepaipeoOa occurs in the sense ‘to be exalted above measure’ in 2 Cor. xii. 7 610 va pr Urepaipwpat, €506n pot oxoAoy TH capki. The images and to a certain extent the expressions are drawn from Dan. xi. 36 kai 6 Baciwteds V@Onoerar Kai peyaduyOnoera €ri mavra Oedv Kai AadAnoe Urépoyxa «.T.A., referring primarily at least to Antiochus Epiphanes. mavra deySpevov Ocdv] i.e. whether the true God, or so-called gods of heathendom. St Paul inserts the word Aeyouevov, where Daniel has simply zravra Oedy, lest he should seem to allow the claim and so derogate from the majesty of the true God. Compare 1 Cor. vili. 5 kal yap eirep clot Aeydpevor Oeoi...adrX’ piv cis Oeds 6 matyp «.7.A. The writer of the Clementine Homilies (xi. 12, 13, 15) uses o¢8dopara and Aeyopevor Geol in close connexion, possibly having this passage in his mind. Elsewhere he employs the words separately, Aeydpevor Oeoi V. 29, ix. 15, X. 9, 11, 7€Bacpa iv. 8, ix. 18, x. 8, 21, 22. See also Polybius xxxi. 3, 13, Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 1 §2(p. 829 ed. Potter), ceBaopare. 4 oBacpal ‘or object of reverence. A more comprehensive expression than Aeydpevoy Gedy, since it includes things as well as persons. 2¢Saopa only occurs elsewhere in the New Testament in St Paul’s speech on the Areopagus (Acts xvii. 23), which was nearly coincident in point of time 1.62] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. I1l3 with the writing of this Epistle. In the E. V. of Acts 1. c. oeBdopara is wrongly translated ‘ devotions.’ The epithet Aeyouevoy does not refer to c¢Bacpa, but is confined to Oeov. ore aitov...kaSlcat] The verb xafi¢ew is here intransitive as gene- rally in the New Testament. In 1 Cor. vi. 4, Eph. i. 20 it is transitive, and possibly in John xix. 13 also. gore] denotes here not the purpose of vepapopuevos, in which case avrov would be inadmissible; but the result, ‘so that it ends in his sitting etc.’ eis Tov vadv TOV Oeov] The figure may have been suggested by the insane attempt of the emperor Caius to set up his statue in the temple at Jerusalem (Joseph. Azz. xvii. 8. 2). But the actual temple can scarcely under any circumstances be meant here, as has been supposed by many from Irenzus (H/aer. v. 30. 4) downwards. Indeed if the ‘man of sin’ be regarded merely as a personification, such a view is at once precluded. Naos is properly the shrine, the inner sanctuary, as opposed to iepov which would include all the outer buildings. The expression 0 vads tod Ocod is always figurative elsewhere in St Paul, e.g. 1 Cor. ili. 16, 17 (comp. Wi 19), 2 Cor vi. 10, and see Ephes, ii, 21: tov Ocov] After these words the received text adds ws Ceov, which however must be rejected on the testimony of the ancient authorities. dmosekvivta éavtov] The word azodekviva is used frequently to denote either the nomination of a person to office, or the proclamation of a sovereign on his accession. Compare Philo z# Flacc. § 3 (II. p. 518 ed. Mangey) Taiouv Sé drodetyOévtos avtoxparopos, together with the passages quoted in Wetstein. The word seems to have attained this technical sense at a later than the classical period. ott éorily Ocds| The deification of the Roman Emperor may to a certain extent have supplied the image here ; see the note on els rov vay Tov Ceov above. Wetstein mentions a coin of Julius Cesar, having on the one side his head with the inscription 6eds, on the other the word Gecaadou- kev. 5. pvypovetere]| On this verb see the note on 1 Thess. i. 3. tr. Sv mpds tas] That the purport of St Paul’s preaching at Thessa- lonica had mainly reference to the second coming of Christ, appears also from Acts xvil. 7, ‘These all do contrary to the decrees of Cesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.’ See more fully in Bzblical Essays, p. 260 sq. For the construction eiva: mpos twa see the note on 1 Thess, ill. 4. 6. xal viv] The viv appears on the whole to be logical and not temporal : ‘ Well then, ye know.’ These particles are frequently so used. Instances are Acts vii. 34 (LXX.), x. 5, xili. 11, xx. 22, xxll. 16, 1 John ii. 28 (in all of which passages the temporal sense of viv is more or less eclipsed). This usage is particularly noticeable with oiSa following, e.g. LEP: 8 ris SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [II. 6. Acts iii. 17 xal viv, ddeAol, otda Gre kata Ayvoav empagare and probably xx. 25 cal viv dod eye oida Ste ovKére eaOe k.T.A. It is possible however that viv may be temporal here as opposed not to éru dv, which would give no good sense, but to ev r@ avTov xaipo. For though in this case we should naturally expect ro viv xar€xov, the displace- ment of viv is to be explained by the desire of emphasizing the adverb : ‘and as to the present time ye know what it is that restraineth.’ Compare John iv. 18 kali viv bv exers ovK €oTw gov avnp, Where the more natural order would certainly be dv viv gxeus. See instances of displacement especially in temporal adverbs given in Winer § Ixi. p. 692 sq. Observe this is a very different thing from saying that viv ro caréxov is equivalent to ro viv karéyov. In the case before us the viv is taken absolutely. rd katéxov] ‘he restraining power, afterwards personified in 6 xaréyav. The Apostle seems to intend some intermediate power, between Christ and Antichrist, which, without being directly Christian, acts as a check upon Antichrist ; such as the principle of law or order, civil government and the like. Of this restraining principle he would find a type in the Roman Empire. els Td drroKadvpojvat] The preposition signifies the purpose of God: ‘to the end that he, the man of sin, may be revealed at his proper, destined, season, and not before it.’ 7. rd ydpx.t.A.] ‘Revealed, I say, rather than called into existence ; for in fact the evil is already working, though in secret.’ To pvotypsov tis dvopias may be contrasted with ro pvornpiov rhs evoeSetas in 1 Tim. ili. 16 and with 7d pvotypiov tis wiorews in 1 Tim. ili. 9, by which terms St Paul describes the Christian dispensation with especial reference to the revela- tion of God in the Incarnation. The parallelism between Christ and Antichrist is thus kept up: see especially ver. 9. Compare also Joseph. B. ve 1 24.5 TOV * Avrurarpou Biov oUk ay apaptou Tus el @v Kakias puoTnploy. On the word pvortnprov see the note on Col. i. 26. évepyetrat] See the note on 1 Thess. il. 13. rijs dvoulas] The genitive is thrown back to the end of the sentence, in order to give priority to the words of logical importance in the sentence—viz. ‘mystery,’ ‘ already,’ ‘is active’; in antithesis to ‘revealed,’ ‘in his own time,’ ‘ that which hindereth.’ pévov k.r.4.] The sentence is elliptical, but the ellipsis is supplied in the wrong place in the E. V. which renders ‘only he that now letteth (will let), until he be taken out of the way.’ The true ellipsis is after povoy, and 6 xaréywy apr is connected with what follows as the nominative to yérnta. Render: ‘Only it must work in secret, must be unrevealed, until he that restraineth now be taken out of the way. For an exact parallel both to the ellipsis after pdévor, and to the position of o xaréxov dpre before the relative word éws for the sake of emphasis, see Gal. ii. 10 povov Tay mraxav iva pynwovedwpev with the note. é xaréxwy &pr.] The hindrance which was before spoken of as a II. 8.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. Il5 principle (ro xaréxov) is here personified. Ifa person were contemplated, it is extremely improbable that the neuter gender would have been used in the other passage, whereas conversely it is a natural figure of speech in all languages to ascribe a personality toa thing. In this instance the way was paved for such personification by the fact that one of the contending powers is embodied in a person in Christ. On dGpzz see the note on 1 Thess. iii. 6. éws yévntat}] The omission of ay with éws and the conjunctive seems to be more frequent in later writers than in earlier; see Winer § xli. p. 370. The distinction which Hermann gives (de Pariic. av pp. 103, 109), that the insertion of the av makes the time more indefinite and therefore in many cases the action less immediate or less certain, is just in principle, and the passages in the New Testament, if they do not strongly confirm it, seem to be not inconsistent with it. The English expressions ‘ until it be removed’ and ‘until it may be removed’ would represent €ws yévnrat and €ws av yévnra here respectively. 8. 6 dvopos| The same with 6 dvépwros tis dvouias of ver. 3, and probably a personification like 6 xaréxwv. 6 Kiptos] The word "Inaods is omitted in the received text with BKL and several other MSS. The weight of authority however, especially of the versions, is in its favour; it is retained in NA and D frimad manu, and it was perhaps omitted on the supposition that St Paul was quoting directly from Is. xi. 4 (see the next note) instead of, as is the case, para- phrasing the passage. dvedet] This reading is much better supported than the received dvadooet and is the reading in Is. xi. 4 Kal marager ynv TO A0y@ TOU oOTdpaTos adrov (originally 1% ww ‘by the scourge of his mouth’) cat év mvevpare Oia xetAéwy dvedei doeBj. Moreover avaddce is more likely to be a gloss than dvedei, being the more definite word. It is however worth considera- tion whether the avadot of the Sinaitic manuscript be not the original reading, since it explains both variants. The Hebrew is mn‘) ‘he shall slay.’ It is a question here whether r@ mvevpate Tov ordparos avrov is to be taken (1) as a single phrase, ‘ by His mere command’: or (2) as an image of power, ‘by the breath of His lips.’ The former seems to be certainly the sense in the original passage of Isaiah, judging by the parallelism. Indeed it was a common Hebrew expression in this sense: see the Rabbinical passages cited in Wetstein. On the other hand, the latter is the image present to the mind of the Apostle, if we are to be guided by the context. The phrases ‘the breath of His lips, ‘the brightness of His presence,’ will point to some physical manifestation of the Divine power. For the image compare Plautus 27. Glor. i. 1. 16 sq. ‘nempe illum dicis cum armis aureis, Quoius tu legiones difflavisti spiritu, quasi ventus folia.’ katapyyoe.] A word more than once used by St Paul in opposition to ‘light’ as if with a sense of ‘darkening,’ ‘eclipsing’: e.g. 2 Tim. i. 10 katapyjoartos pev Tov Oavarov, poticavros b¢ wry kai apOapciay, 2 Cor. iii. 8—2 116 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [II. 8. 7 diva tiv So€ay tov mpoodrov avtov thy Katapyouperny, I Cor. ii. 7 copiav 0U...T@V GpYovT@Y Tov ai@vos To’TOV T@Y KaTapyoupéevoy* aAXAQ...copiar...qv mpowpioev o Geds...eis So£av nuoy with the notes on the last passage. For the word xarapyeiy generally see Vaughan on Rom. iii. 3. TH émipavela THs Tapovelas aitod| The word émavea is a recognized term even in heathen writers for the appearance of a God at a critical moment. Compare especially Wesseling on Diod. Sic. i. 25. In the New Testament it is used by St Paul alone, and with this single exception only in the Pastoral Epistles, referring either to the First (2 Tim. i. 10) or the Second Advent (1 Tim. vi. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8, Tit. ii. 13) of our Lord, Hence it became a common word with the Fathers in this signification. It is moreover sometimes applied in ecclesiastical writers to saints or martyrs : see Greg. Naz. Oraz. ill. p. 77 A(cited by Wesseling), For more on the word emidavera and the corresponding @eodaveca (or -wa) see Suicer s. vv. The word seems always to involve an idea of that which is striking and conspicuous, and so ultimately of splendour or glory—an idea to a certain extent implied in the compound emdaivw (comp. Tit. ii. 11 emecbavn yap 7 xapis Tov Oeod and iii. 4, of the revelation of God’s purpose in Christ). And this is further enforced here by the accumulation of words 17 émipaveia THs mapovoias. See the note on xarapynoer above, which points to brightness as a prominent idea in the word here. The language of Milton (Par. Lost vi. 768) ‘Far off His coming shone’ is appositely quoted by Alford. mapovolas| The word mapovoia of the Lord’s Advent occurs in St Paul only in the Thessalonian Epistles and possibly 1 Cor. xv. 23. In 1 Cor. i. 8 the right reading is nuépa. Elsewhere it is found in St James, the Second Epistle of St Peter and 1 John. It would seem to be the strictly Jewish term; while éripavera appealed more directly to the Greek mind, and was used more frequently by St Paul, when he became more thoroughly busied with the conversion of the Greeks. It will be observed that St Paul here, speaking in prophetic language, falls instinctively into the characteristic parallelism of Hebrew poetry. For St Paul’s change of style in apocalyptic passages see above on 1 Thess. v. 3 wdiv, 2 Thess. i. 7. 9. The counterfeit character of the Antichrist, which has been alluded to before (especially vv. 3, 4), is still further enforced here. He too like the true Christ has an Advent; he too works in obedience to a superior power ; he too has his miracles and signs. éorly| The present tense is used here, as below in wéyae: ver. 11, in accordance with the ordinary language of prophecy. See the note on 1 Thess. v. 2 €pxerat. Zarava] See the note on 1 Thess. ii. 18. év racy Suvdpe K.7.A.] Both maon and Wevdovs seem to refer to all the three substantives, binding them, as it were, together. For a similar If. 1r.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 117 instance see ver. 17 év mravti epyw kal Ady ayabo. For the combination of terms Suvdyer Kai onpelois kat tépacw, compare Acts il. 22 duvapecu cab Tépac. kat onpeious and 2 Cor. xii. 12 onpetows kat tépacw kal duvapecu, Hebr. ii. 4 onpeiows te Kai tépacw Kai totkidats Suvaecw, Rom. xv. 19 ev Suvdpet onueiwy Kal teparwv. Of these three words the first (Svvayis) points to the author of the miracle, absolutely ; while the two last relate to the impression made on the witness, whether as enlightening his understanding (cnpeta), or as arresting his moral sense (répara). Thus onpeta and répara are connected closely together where they occur, while dvvauis (-evs) is independent of either. For a full discussion of these words see Trench Ox the Miracles ch. 1 and NV. T. Syn. § xci. Io. aSiklas}] Here used in its most general sense of wrong-doing. Any act which disturbs the moral balance is an act of déia. Compare the account of the 6Ay déiia given by the Aristotelian author of Bk v. of the Micomachean Ethics ch. 1 ad fin. adtn pév odv 7 Sixatocivn ov pépos dpetis GAN’ oAn apetn eatw* ovd 7 évavtia ddikia pépos Kakias GAN’ An kaka. This comprehensive sense of Sixavoovvn and déixia would be adopted the more naturally in the New Testament from the technical meaning attached to dicaos as one who fulfilled the law. rots amodAvpévois] The participle is connected closely with dmarn, for the ev of the received text is to be rejected on overwhelming authority. For the present tense of daoAAvpévors see the note on I Cor. i. 18, where the same phrase occurs. av’ av] ‘because, the sense which it always bears in the New Testament except Luke xii. 3. It will signify either ‘because’ or ‘ where- fore,’ according as the relative is supposed to contain the antecedent in itself, or is referred to the preceding clause as its antecedent. mv aydrny tes dAnelas] Stronger than ryv dAydevay simply, and corresponding therefore to the evSoxnoavres ty adixia of ver. 12. For the different gradations which would be expressed by riy ddnOeay and ry ayannv ths ddnOcias compare Rom. 1. 32 ov povoy avra zrovovowy, adda kal cuvevdoxovow Tots mpaaaovow. Not only did they reject the truth, but they have no desire to possess it. 11. Three stages are here described in the downward career of the wicked. fF%rst, their obstinately setting themselves against the truth: this is their own act (rv ayamny THs dAnOeias ovk edéEavro). Secondly, the judicial infatuation which overtakes them at a certain point: they are then scarcely their own masters, it is a d@vime judgment (d:a rotro méuret av’rois 6 Qeds évépyetav hans). Thirdly, their final punishment, for which the second stage was an ordained preparation (iva kpiOaow martes k.T.X.). The same three stages are portrayed in the description of the heathen world in the first chapter of the Romans, the second being there dwelt on with a fearful earnestness and, as here, represented as a visitation from God; 81d mapédaxev adrods 6 Oeds év Tais éemiOvpiats TAY Kapdtav avTay els aKa- Oapoiap (ver. 24). 118 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, [Il. 11. For the discussion of this and similar expressions see the notes on the Epistle to the Romans ad Joc. Sia Tovro] i.e. because they did not welcome the love of the truth. méyrre.] the prophetic present (see note on é¢oriy ver. 9), which not having been understood is altered into wéwyer in the received text. évépyecav mAdvys] A strong expression which it is difficult to render adequately in English. It is not only that they resign themselves passively to the current of deceit. They are active as the champions of falsehood. They begin by closing their hearts to the truth. They end by being strenuous promoters of error. els To murteVoat] The phrase sets forth the immediate purpose of their delusion, as iva xpiOdow describes its ultimate end and object. It is of little consequence here to enquire how far the particular expression eis ré murtrevoa denotes a purpose of the divine agent, and how far merely a result (see note on I Thess. ii. 16 eis ro avamAnpéoa). It is clear that the main sentence implies a divine leading, and such moreover is the language elsewhere used by St Paul of this judicial blindness. ro ebSe] ‘the /ze’ The universe is divided between the false and the true, the one ranged against the other. Hence 76 evddos is opposed to 7 GAnOeva. The frequency in St Paul, and more especially in St John, of the representation of the contrast between belief and disbelief as one of truth and falsehood suggests two reflections. (1) Inasmuch as 7 ad7jOea is not in itself an obvious term for a particular dispensation or system, its adoption is a token of the deep impression which the Gospel made upon the Apostles, as answering to their natural cravings and satisfying their difficulties, thus producing the conviction of its truthfulness. (2) The use of these words is a striking example of the New Testament doctrine of the connexion between faith and practice. To believe is to act. ‘Truth’ and ‘falsehood’ are terms belonging not more to the intellectual than to the moral world. Wrong-doing is a lie, for it is a denial of God’s sovereignty ; right-doing is a truth, for it is a confession of the same. Compare especially for this thought Rev. xxii. 15 mwas gidov kai moov Wevdos, and again Ephes. iv. 25 610 droOéuevor ro Wevdos, AaXeire dAnOevav Exaotos peta tov mAnociov adrod where the Apostle is speaking chiefly of profligacy of life. In short, ‘truth’ and ‘falsehood’ cover the whole domain of morality. So it is here more the moral than the intellectual aspect which is contemplated, as the opposition in the next verse shows, ‘who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteous- ness.’ 12. xKpWaor] ‘de judged, ‘called to account, and so condemned. On the Pauline use of xpivew and its compounds and the distinction in meaning between them see Ox a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament (ed. 3 p. 69 sq.). esSoxioavres TH ASikia] The weight of authority is in favour of omitting II. 13.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., I1l9Q ev before r7 aduxia, and probably it should be omitted. The constructions of the word in the LXX. are rc and év rum frequently, émi ru (Judith xv. 11) and run (1 Macc. i. 45), these last two constructions apparently only once each. In the New Testament we find generally & ri, eis re once (2 Pet. i. 17), re twice (Matth. xii. 18 and Heb. x. 6, both being quotations from the Old Testament), but never simply rux. On the other hand the simple dative is the common use in profane writers. Thus there is no improbability in evdoxnoavres rj adixia here, and perhaps the preposi- tion was added to conform to the ordinary New Testament usage. iii. Thanksgiving and exhortation repeated; a prayer for their strengthening in the faith (ii. 13—17). 13. ‘But far different is our fortune. While they are awaiting their condemnation, it is our business to rejoice over your salvation.’ npets 88] ‘we, i.e. Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus. The more natural opposition to rots amoAAvpévots would have been wyeis, yet the interests were sufficiently identified with those of their converts to admit of the language in the text. nyarnpévor td Kvuplov] i.e. ‘the Lord Jesus Christ,’ as seems probable both (1) from the fact that the word Kupvos is almost universally so applied by St Paul ; and (2) from its occurrence here between r@ Ge@ and 6 Gevs. If on the other hand in 1 Thess. i. 4 the expression is ddeAqgot nyamnpevor vd Geov, this will not weigh strongly, the love of God in giving His own Son and the love of Christ in dying for us equally affording matter for contemplation, and the latter being introduced even more frequently than the former at least by St Paul. Compare Rom. viii. 37, 2 Cor. v. 14, Gal. iis) 20;,15DNeS., Til. IO, V. 2, 25, as against, Rom: v. 8, 2 Cor xiii. 13, Ephes. ii. 4. eXkXaro] The word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament in this meaning, which is generally expressed by éxdéyeaOat or mpoopitew. Indeed aipetoOa is a rare word in any sense, being found only in two other passages, Phil. i. 22, Heb. xi. 25. It is not common in the Lxx. either : compare however Deut. xxvi. 18. On the Alexandrian form efAaro, which is probably correct here, see Lobeck Phryn. pp. 183, 724, Winer § xiii. p. 86. Other examples found in St Paul are e€€AOare (2 Cor. vi. 17), and the aorist of wimrew and its compounds émecay (1 Cor. x. 8), émémecay (Rom. xv. 3), eferéoare (Gal. v. 4). an’ dpxjjs] is perhaps the best supported reading, and on the whole is better suited to the context, bringing out the distinction between the original purpose of God and the historical fulfilment of that purpose. The phrase itself however does not occur elsewhere in St Paul, who expresses the eternal decrees of God by such phrases as mpo ray aidvev (1 Cor. li. 7), mpd xaraBodjs Koopou (Ephes. i. 4) and the like. On the I20 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. | [II-. 13: other hand, the reading drapynv has very considerable support, including B, and is very unlikely to have been substituted for am dpyjs, if the latter had stood in the original text. The Thessalonians converted on this his first visit (of which he speaks elsewhere as dpyn rod evayyedXiov Phil. iv. 15) might fairly be classed among the ‘ firstfruits’ of Macedonia or of Europe, no less than those Philippians whose conversion preceded that of the Thessalonians by a few weeks. For amapx7 (a rather favourite word with St Paul) compare 1 Cor. xvi. 15 dmapxn rhs "Axaias, and Rom. Xvi. 5 dmapx? Tis "Acias, where the Codex Bezz has an’ dpyns prima manu and is followed in this by some western authorities. éy dytacpe x.r.d.] The sentence is to be connected with eidaro eis ootnpiav, describing wherein the call to salvation consisted. év dyiacpe mvetpartos] ‘27 sanctification of (or by) the Spirit’: mvedpa being here the Holy Spirit, an interpretation to which the absence of the article will offer no impediment. Such appears certainly to be the meaning of the same expression in I Pet. i. 2, a passage which has many points of resemblance with this, dmdarodos...cara mpoyvarw Beov TaTpos, ev aylagpe Tvevparos, els Umakony Kal pavTispov aipatos ‘Incov Xpiorov, where the mention of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity cannot fail to be noticed. Moreover, if the expression be so interpreted here, the difficulty in the order of the words vanishes. The operation of the Spirit is first mentioned (év dyracpé mvevparos), then the reception of the truth on the part of the person influenced (év miore: adnOeias). dAndelas] is the objective genitive; ‘the faithful acceptance of the truth,’ in contrast to of pu) muorevoavtes TH GAnOeia ver. 12, thus explaining the opposition expressed in mpeis dé. 14. eis 8] ‘ whereunto, ‘to which state? referring to the whole expres- sion eis owrtnpiay év ayiacpe@ K.T.A. edderev] ‘called you, as the fulfilment of the fore-ordained purpose expressed in efAaro. The Gospel preached by us was the instrument whereby He accomplishes His purpose. Compare Rom. viii. 30 obs d¢ Tpowpioer, TOUTOUS Kat exdAecev. vpas] The authority in favour of jyas (Lachmann’ s reading) is some- what strong: but the context so obviously requires duas and the confusion between the two words is so frequent, that we can scarcely hesitate to retain vuas with the received text. Lachmann places a comma after nas, and this is necessary if we adopt this reading; but in any case da rob evayyediov jpav does not go so well with eis owrnpiav x.r.A. as with exdAecer. rod evayyedlou jpav] ‘the gospel which we preach. See the references given in the note to 1 Thess. i. 5. The term evayyéAvov seems first to have been applied to a written Gospel by Irenzeus (//aer. iii. 11. 8). jpav] i.e. of Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus. The different usage of ro evayyéAtov pov and 7d evayyéAvoy npoy in St Paul is a crucial test of the force of his first person plural: see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 4 ras xapdias nor. bea)” SECOND: EPISTLE, TO THE THESSALONIANS: E25 els mepitro(now Sdctns| This may mean either (1) ‘in order that we might obtain the glory,’ or (2) ‘in order that He might adopt us into, invest us with, the glory.’ For the expression itself see the note on 1 Thess. v. 9 eis mepuroinow oartnpias. The three stages here enumerated are (1) the predestination on the part of God (etAaro); (2) the historical fulfilment of that purpose (exdAecev) ; (3) the glorious consummation (eis mepiroinow Sd€ns). The same gradations occur, with steps interpolated, in Rom. viii. 29, 30 (part of which has been already quoted) ovs mpoéyyw kai tpowpicer...ovs dé mpowploev ToUTOUS Kal EkaAETEV" Kal Ovs exadecer, ToUTOUS Kal edikalwaev" ovS d€ edtkaiw@oev, ToUTous Kat eSofacev. See the notes on Eph. i. 4—11, a pas- sage which presents many affinities with the above. 15. dpa otv oryKere] For dpa ovy see the note on 1 Thess. v. 6: for otjkere the note on I Thess. iil. 8. The drift of the Apostle’s ‘therefore’ is best apprehended by Phil. ii. 12, 13 ‘work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to work etc.’ ‘ Your election should be an encouragement to you in well-doing, and not an occasion of carelessness.’ Tas tapaddces| The passage before us is a direct negative of the distinction which gained ground in later times between the written word and oral tradition, as if the authority of the latter were sanctioned by the use of mapddoovs in scripture. ‘Tradition’ in the scriptural sense of the word may be either written or oral. It is a synonyme for ‘teaching,’ implying on the part of the teacher a confession that he was not expressing his own ideas, but delivering or handing on a message that he had received from heaven. Compare the use of the words sapaéd.dovat, mapadauBavew, mapayyéAdew (the last being used in classical Greek of transmitting the word of command); and see especially 1 Cor. xi. 23 eyo yap mapéXaBov ao rod Kupiov, 6 Kat tapédaxa, of the institution of the Eucharist. The prominent idea of mapadoors then in the New Testament is that of an authority external to the teacher himself. The opposition between rapadoors, as aypados, and ypad7 does not exist in the word itself, and is not sanctioned by the New Testament usage. Such an opposition in fact was impossible under the circumstances of the case before the era of the written Gospels, when instruction was still mainly conveyed by word of mouth. The matter of a mapddoc.s would be various. What class of subjects were included under the term may be seen from 1 Cor. x1. 23, already cited, or 1 Cor. xi. 2 (of certain practical regulations), xv. 3 (of the facts of the Resurrection). On the ecclesiastical sense of the word see Suicers. v. Ellicott (ad /oc.) refers to Méhler’s Symbolik § 38, p. 361 sq. for a defence of the Roman Catholic doctrine. See also his other references. elre Std Adyou k.7.A.] Not as E. V. ‘whether by word or our epistle,’ for jyav refers to both substantives: render ‘whether by word or by letter of ours. ’EmwtoAns may refer solely to our first Epistle, but in 122 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. | [II. 15. itself is quite general. On the question whether any of St Paul’s Epistles have been lost see the note on ili. 17 €v maon émoroAy, and a fuller treat- ment of the subject in PAzlippians, p. 138 sq. Observe the difference of expression here and il. 2 emiaroAns ws bv nyo. 16. avrds 8] is opposed to nudy. The Apostle suddenly checks himself. ‘All our instructions,’ he says, ‘will be in vain, unless the Lord Himself stablish you.’ With avros d¢ here compare 1 Thess. iii. 11, v. 23, and 2 Thess. iii. 16, and see the note on the first of these passages. We cannot fail to be struck with the similarity of structure between the first and second Epistles. Both are divided into two parts, the first being chiefly narrative or explanatory, and the second hortatory: the second part in both commences in much the same way (compare I Thess. iv. I Aouroy ovv, adeAgol x.7-A. With 2 Thess. iii. I ro Aowrdy mpowevxer be, adeAdol) : and each part in both Epistles concludes with a prayer couched in similar language, avros S€ k.r.X. There are considerable variations in the MSS., chiefly as to the position of the articles: but on the whole the weight of evidence is in favour of reading 6 Kipios nuav "Incots Xpiotos Kat eds 6 matnp nov. Lachmann still further inserts the article before Xprards on the slenderest authority (A and one cursive), apparently for the sake of the parallelism "Incovs 6 Xpioros and Geos 6 matnp. But the chiasm in the reading adopted, 6 Kupwos nuoy answering to 6 warnp nuev and Gcds corresponding to Ingots Xpisros, is much more after St Paul’s manner. Of the variants the insertion of the article before Ges is the most worthy of consideration, and has the support of B K and D prima manu. The usual order of the names of the Father and Son is reversed here, as in the apostolic benediction 9 yxapis rov Kupiov “Incod Xpicrod Kai 4 ayann Tov Geov k.t.A. (2 Cor. xiii. 13). 6 watip jpav] When 7pyév is added there seems always to be a more emphatic reference to His fatherly tenderness and protection, as here. 6 dyatijoras jas] These words ought probably to be referred to Geds 6 matnp juov alone; though it is difficult to see how St Paul could otherwise have expressed his thought, if he had intended it to refer to the Son, as well as the Father. There is probably no instance in St Paul of a plural adjective or verb, where the two Persons of the Godhead are mentioned. At least both here and in 1 Thess. iii. 11 the singular verb is, as it would seem, designedly employed. See also the note on 1 Thess. l.c. The aorist dyamjoas (not dyarayv) refers to the act of His love in giving His Son to die for us. Compare John iii. 16 odrws yap jyarnoev 6 Ocds Tov Koopov, dare k.r.A. This act is the source of all our consolation and hope. mapakAnow, ér(Sa] ‘consolation and encouragement in the present, hope for the future.’ alwviav] ‘ xever-failing, ‘inexhaustible. Aidnos is generally an adjec- tive of two terminations, Hebr. ix. 12 being the only other exception in the New Testament. i174) SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 123 év xdpitt] Sas an act of grace, i.e. without any claims or deserving on our part. These words refer to the whole clause 6 dyamjoas Hpuas kat Sovs «.r.A. They are used in this sense in Rom. v. 15, 2 Cor. i. 12, Gal. i. 6. Other passages however, as Col. iii. 16, iv. 6, 2 Tim. ii. 1, 2 Pet. iii. 18, perhaps suggest a different interpretation, ‘by the posses- sion of grace, as a Christian virtue, and possibly the E. V. intended this by the rendering ‘through grace.’ The former interpretation how- ever iS more natural, 17. otnpl—a] A furtherance and confirmation of the work begun in mapakadéoat. On mapaxadew see the note on I Thess, ii. II. taytl tpyw kal Ad6yw dya@@] Here the adjectives ravri and dyaO@ refer to both the intervening nouns. For a similar instance of a sentence bound together by the first and last words see ver. 9 above. The order €py kat Ady» is much better supported than that of the received text which reverses the words, and is capable of an easy explana- tion. ‘May the grace of God extend not to your works only, but to your words also,’ i.e. be exhibited in minor as in greater matters. CHAPTER fit: 3. HORTATORY PORTION, iii. 1—16. i. LExhortation to prayer, and anticipation of their progress tn faith (ili. I—5). I. Td dAowrdv] ‘ Fzzally.” On the meaning of this phrase and the position it occupies in St Paul’s Epistles, as ushering in the conclusion, see the note on 1 Thess. iv. I. mpocetxeoOe mepl jpav] literally ‘make us the subject of your prayers’ ; and so the phrase becomes equivalent to, though slightly weaker than, mpooevxerbe Umep Nuav. 6 Aéyos TOU Kuplov] See the note on 1 Thess. i. 8. Tpéxy Kal Sofd{nrat] ‘may have a triumphant career? Tpéxn ‘may speed onward,’ with an allusion apparently to Ps. cxlvii. 15 €ws rayous Spapeirac 6 Aoyos avTov. Aokéatnra ‘may be received with honour.’ See Acts xill. 48 edd€agov rov Adyov rod Geov, of the heathen population of the Pisidian Antioch. 2. va pucOdpev] It is surely a mistaken zeal for the honour of the Apostle, which refuses to see in this prayer a ‘shrinking of the flesh,’ in other words an instinct of self-preservation. No one else would be blamed for praying to be delivered from his enemies, irrespectively of any great work which depended on his life; and it is not easy to see how such a desire is unworthy of an Apostle. That the personal feeling does come in here appears from the form of the sentence iva...rpéyp... kai va puoOopev. If the Apostle had had no further motive in wishing to live than the furtherance of the Gospel, we might expect the words to run iva pucOdpev...cai tpéxn. For the form and purport of this prayer compare Rom. xv. 30, 31. atémwv|] The word signifies ‘out of place,’ and hence in later writers ‘impracticable, perverse, irregular, outrageous.’ Hence aroma movety and mparrew is not an uncommon phrase in later Greek for ‘to commit an outrage,’ both in profane writers and in the Lxx. Indeed this moral sense of dromos seems to be the common one in the later Greek. See Philo Leg. Adleg. iii. § 17, 1. p. 97 (ed. Mangey) dromos Aéyerat elva 6 paidAos* Gromoyv 8€ €are kaxdv dvcOerov, and other references given in Ellicott. III. 3.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 125 od yap mdvrav y mloris] ‘for the faith, i.e. the Gospel, ‘zs not the portion of all’ The ordinary usage of 7 wicris in the New Testament seems to require this translation here, e.g. Gal. vi. 10 rovs oikelous ris miotews. See the note there, and for a discussion of the word ziotts, Galatians, p.154.sq. The expression ‘not all’ is a common litotes in all languages for ‘the few,’ as in the proverbial expression ov rravrés dvdpos ets Kopw6ov eo 8 0 mods. To what enemies does St Paul here allude? The answer must be supplied by a comparison of the passage before us with the notices in the Acts relating to this period of the Apostle’s life. (1) The enemies here spoken of are without the pale of the Church. They are not of ‘the household of the faith.” There is no reason to suppose that St Paul had much to fear at this early stage from the Judaizing Christians, from whom he suffered so much persecution subsequently ; nor is it probable that their hostility, though systematically attacking his influence, ever endangered his life. It is arbitrary to explain ov mavray eorly 7 iors ‘all who profess Christianity are not genuine believers’; and still more unjustifiable to interpret oi amevOovvres ev tH “lovdaia (Rom. xv. 31) of Judaizing Christians. (2) The narrative in the Acts points to the Jews, as the authors of St Paul’s sufferings during this visit to Greece. They persecuted him at Thessalonica itself (xvii. 5) and Berea (xvii. 13). His preaching at Corinth, from which city this letter was written, was likewise interrupted, and his life endangered, by them (Acts xviii. 12 sq.). And throughout these Epistles it is evident that St Paul regards them, rather than the heathen, as the most determined opponents of the Gospel. See 1 Thess. ii. 14 and the notes there. 3. murtds 8] Suggested by the foregoing ov yap ravtoy 7 riotis. ‘Men may be faithless, but God is faithful.’ Compare 2 Tim. ii. 13 ef amlioTouper, eketvos TLaTOs pevet, Rom. iii. 3 py) 1) amioria avta@y Thy TidTW TOU @cov karapyjoe: ; At the same time, this opposition should not lead us to give to 7 miotts in the preceding verse the sense of ‘fidelity,’ while other considerations are strongly in favour of the objective sense ‘the faith.’ For (1) the Gospel is a life, and the objective (‘the faith’) and subjective (‘faith’) are so closely bound together that the one more or less involves the other. (2) Even setting aside this indirect antagonism of meaning, the appeal to the ear would be sufficient to recommend this paronomasia, as a means of riveting attention. For instances of this imperfect connexion in sense in St Paul, compare 1 Cor. iii. 17 et tus Tov vady Tov Gcov Pbeiper, POepet TovTov o Ceds, xi. 29 Kpipa éavT@ eoOier Kat Tiver, py diaxpivwy ro adpa. See also the note below on ver. II. kal puvddte] i.e. ‘He will not only place you in a firm position, but also maintain you there against assaults from without.’ dm Tov movnpov] It is questioned whether this phrase should be rendered ‘from evil’ or ‘from the Evil One.’ The latter seems the more probable rendering, for as in an Attic writer the genius of the language 126 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. | [III. 3. would at once point to ro movnpoy ‘evil’ as a principle; so on the other hand in the New Testament the frequency of 6 movnpos compared with ré movnpov is strongly in favour of the masculine. There are but two certain instances of the neuter, Luke vi. 45 6 mwovnpos ék tov movnpod mpodéper Td movnpov and Rom. xii.Q dmoarvyotvres To movnpov, where in both cases it is directly opposed to ro dya@ov. On the other hand the masculine is certainly employed in no less than eight passages (Matt. v. 37, xiii. 19, 38, 49, Eph. vi. 16, 1 Joh. ii. 13, 14, iii. 12, v. 18, 19). In Matt. v. 39 wy avriotivat TS movnp@ (E. V. ‘that ye resist not evil’) the context seems to support the rendering ‘the evil man’ (comp. I Joh. v. 19), for it goes on G\N éorts x.7.A. In John xvii. 15 iva rypyons avrovs €k Tov rrovnpod, as in the present passage, there seems to be an indirect allusion to the Lord’s prayer. The rendering adopted in the clause of the Lord’s prayer ought probably to decide the meaning in these two last cases ; but here again there is an ambiguity. The question must be decided mainly on two issues : (1) the comparison of any Jewish formularies, which our Lord may be found to have sanctioned and embodied in this compendium of prayer ; and (2) the traditional interpretation of the prayer itself, for this is exactly an instance in which tradition would be especially valuable and might be expected to be tolerably consistent. With regard to Jewish formularies the passages collected in Wetstein on Matth. vi. 13 are on the whole in favour of the masculine. That the expression ‘the Evil One’ was not uncommon in early Rabbinical writings is evidenced from its use in such passages as Midrash Shemoth Rabbah c. 21 ‘God delivered me over to the Evil One,’ Midrash Debarim Rabbah c. 11 ‘the Evil One, the head of all Satanim,’ and Baba Bathra 16a, where Job ix. 24 is quoted ‘the earth is given into the hands of the Evil One.’ And this seems also to have been the traditional interpretation. Among Greek writers there is absolute unanimity on this point: see Clem. Hom. xix. 2, Origen de Orat. 30 (I. p. 265), Sel. in Psalm. ii. § 3 (Il. p. 661), Dionysius of Alexandria Fragm. (p. 1601 ed. Migne), Cyril of Jerusalem Cazech. xxiii. 19 (p. 331), Gregory of Nyssa de Orat. Dom. 5 (I. p. 760), Didymus of Alexandria zn 1 Johan. v. 19 (p. 1806 ed. Migne), c. Manich. 11 (p. 1100), Chrysostom zz Matt. Hom. xix. (VII. p. 253), Isidore of Pelusium Z7zs¢. iv. 24 (p. 425). With the Latin fathers there is not the same agreement. But the two great ante-Nicene Western fathers treat the word as masculine ; e.g. Tertullian in de Orat.§ 8 and de fuga § 2, and Cyprian in de Domin. Orat. 25. ‘The other interpretation was apparently started by Augustine (Zfzst. 130, de Serm. Dom. ii. 35 etc.) and spread through his influence. Again, the evidence of early versions (the Syriac and Sahidic certainly, the Memphitic and Old Latin probably) and of the Eastern Liturgies points decisively to the masculine rendering. On all these grounds therefore it is highly probable that rod movnpod is here ‘ the Evil One.’ See the subject treated at length in Appendix 11. of the work On a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament (ed. 3) p. 269 sq. Hins.)]. /SECOND) EPISTLE, 10) HE THESSALONIANS. ey The ‘Evil One’ is the father of the ‘evil men’ of ver. 2. Their assaults are instigated by him. On the manner in which St Paul turns from himself to his converts, see Calvin here: ‘de aliis magis quam de se anxium fuisse Paulum, ostendunt haec ipsa verba.’ 4. terol@apev 8] ‘But if we have enjoined you to pray for us, it is not from any distrust of your doing so.’ The most common constructions with wemoéva: in the New Testament are tux and émi ru: but the verb also takes émi twa (2 Cor. il. 3), els rwa (Gal. v. 10) and év rium (Phil. ili. 3, 4 ev capki memobéva) of the objects of trust. This being the case, two constructions are possible here. (1) We may consider ev Kupi as the more immediate object of trust (compare éy capxi Phil. 1. c.), and paraphrase: ‘I put my trust in the Lord, this trust being directed towards you.’ Or (2) we may take ed’ was as giving the more immediate object of memosOéva, while €v Kupiw describes the element in which it is exercised according to the common New Testament usage of ev Kupia, ev Xpirto, removing trust from the domain of worldly calcula- tions and motives. Thus the sentence becomes almost equivalent to ‘my trust in you comes from the Lord.’ Compare Rom. xiv. 14 ofa kat nérevgpat ev Kupig. The order is perhaps in favour of the former connexion : the parallel passage in Gal. v. 10 émo.Oa eis vas ev Kupio ore k.T.A. supports the latter. & mapayy&Aopev] ie. the charge just given that they should pray for him. The received text is probably correct, except that external authority (including »BD) is strongly in favour of the omission of vjuiv. Lachmann introduces the words vyiv kai érouoare cat in brackets after mapayyeAAopev on the strength of two important manuscripts (B and F) ; but the insertion is not justified either on external or internal grounds of probability. 5- © 8 Kipwos x.7.A.] The force of the particle may be expressed somewhat as follows: ‘In this, as in other things, I trust you: only may the Lord be your guide.’ katevdivar] On the metaphor conveyed in this word see the note on Pelhess: sie. tov Qeov, tov Xpiorov}] Are the genitive cases here subjective or objective? In other words: does ‘the love of God’ signify ‘the love which God has shown towards them, or ‘the love which they should feel towards Him, or something between the two? By ‘the patient waiting of Christ’ does the Apostle mean ‘such patient endurance under persecution as Christ exhibited in the flesh,’ or ‘the patient waiting for the coming of Christ’? May we not say with regard to the first of these expressions 7 ayamn Tov ©eov, that the Apostles availed themselves, either consciously or unconsciously, of the vagueness or rather comprehensiveness of language, to express a great spiritual truth : that they use the expression ‘the love of God,’ not only of that which is external to us of the divine attribute itself, 128 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. | [III. 5. but also of that same principle as imparted to us and so reflected back on its author, as ‘love towards God’: and that these senses are so combined and interwoven, that it is very seldom possible, where the expression occurs, to separate the one from the other? So only can we explain the language of St Paul and St John, where the two senses of ‘the love of God,’ as God’s love towards us and our love towards God, are regarded as logically convertible. Any one who will compare I John ii. 5 ev rour@ 7 dyamn Tov Ocod reTedelwrat, 15 €dv Tis dyawa TOY KOGpHOY, OUK EoTLW 7 ayaTn TOU TaTpos €v avT@, lil. 16 ev TOUT eyveKapev THY ayarny OTL, 17 Tas n Ayam Tov cod peéver ev avr ; and especially iv. 7—12, 16—19, v. 3, will feel the difficulty of separating between the two usages. A signal instance of this we have in St John himself, who, from being ‘the beloved disciple,’ became himself the great preacher of love. That the same comprehensive significance may attach to the expression in St Paul will, I think, appear from Rom. v. 5 7 dyamn tov Geov exxexuTar €v tais kapdiais compared with its context, and from Rom. vill. 35, 39. Compare also Ephes. ili. 19, 2 Cor. v.14. In the same wide sense should probably be taken 1 ayamn rod mvevparos (Rom. xv. 30), and 7 dyamn Tov Gcou in the benediction (2 Cor. xili. 13). Thus then 7 dyarn tod Gcod here will signify ‘the love of God,’ not only as an objective attribute of deity, but as a ruling principle in our hearts ; including perhaps the idea of love towards God, this however not being the most prominent idea. Analogously to this, 7 vzopovy rod Xpucrod will be best explained not exactly as ‘ patience like that of Christ,’ which would not exhaust its mean- ing ; but ‘the patience of Christ,’in which the believer participates. Compare the expression in 2 Cor. i. 5 mepiooever Ta madnpata Tod Xpicrov els pas, exemplifying the close union of the believer with Christ, 7 dsxavoovyn trod Xpiorov, and kindred phrases. The interpretation of the E. V. however ‘the patient waiting for Christ,’ in the same sense as rijs vropovis THs €Aridos tov Kupiov (1 Thess. i. 3), accords well with the tone of the whole Epistle, and is not to be hastily rejected. But there is no instance of this use of vzopuovy, the verb employed to express this meaning being avapévew (1 Thess. i. 10), not vropévery : and the reference to the coming of Christ, the leading topic of these Epistles, is implied, though less directly, in the more natural interpretation of dropovn. See Ignat. Nom. 10 (with the note) éppwade cis TéAos ev Uropovp7 “Incov Xpiorodv, where probably the expression is derived from St Paul. On dsopory in its connexion with Amis see the note on 1 Thess. i. 3, and on the word generally see on Col. i. 11. ii. Reproof of the idle, disorderly and disobedient (iii. 6—15). 6. The comparison of St Paul’s language here with his brief charge on the same subject in the first Epistle (v. 13, 14) is instructive. What was at the earlier date a vague suspicion is now an ascertained fact. The Ill. 6.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 129 disorderly conduct of certain members has become patent. Hence the stress laid on the charge here, both in the solemn adjuration with which it is introduced, and in the greater length with which he dwells on the subject. On the nature of this drafia see the notes on 1 Thess. iv. Ee and vol 3 mapayyAdouev] We cannot altogether lose sight of the classical sense of mapayyéAXev here, as referring to ‘the word of command,’ in connexion with the drdxrws which follows. Ignatius has this same form of adjuration Polyc. 5 dpuoiws Kai tots adeApois pov mapayyeddXe ev ovdpate ‘Incod Xpiotod dyarav Tas gupBiovs. See the note on draxras below. The passage may be paraphrased thus. ‘ Your title of brethren should remind you of your mutual obligations. The name of the Lord Jesus Christ should be your watchword of unity.’ Compare the note on 1 Cor. i. 10, where exhorting the Corinthians to unity in the same way he Says : mapakad@ S€ vpas, adeAdoi, dia TOU ovopatos Tov Kupiov jnuav ‘Inaod Xpicrov, va TO avTo A€ynTE TarTes. oré\der ar] The active verb oréAXew (and sometimes the middle form aréd\Aeo Ga also), is used especially of furling sails (Hom. 77. i. 433) and of girding up a robe (Ap. Rhod. Argon. iv. 45). Thus oréAAeo@a absolutely signifies ‘to gather oneself together,’ ‘to shrink into oneself, and so ‘to hold back, withdraw.’ The metaphor then is not directly nautical, though vmooréAXeoOa is very common in this sense. It occasionally takes an accusative of the object shunned, as in 2 Cor. viil. 20 creAAopevon TOUTO, wn TLs Has pwunontac: on the other hand vmooreAAeoOa with this construction is found not unfrequently in classical writers. For oréAAeo Oar amo compare Malachi ii. 5 awd mpoowrov ovdpards pou oréAXecOat avrov. mavrTos adeApov| with a slight reference to ddeAdoi above. ‘ Your duty to the brotherhood requires you to withdraw from a disorderly brother, because he is a brother.” Compare I Cor. v. 11 éay tis adeAdbos dvopaCopevos 7] TOpVOS...T@ ToLovT@ pnde cvverOiery. ataktws| ‘disorderly’; a metaphor borrowed more especially from military discipline, ara€ia meaning ‘insubordination.’ It may be worth while to compare the address (mapayyeAya) of Germanicus to the army on the occasion of the mutiny related in Tacitus (Amm. 1. 43) ‘discedite a contactu, ac dividite turbidos: id stabile ad paenitentiam, id fidei vinculum erit,’ where the terms used present affinities to St Paul’s language here. The same must be the conduct of the Christian soldier (2 Tim. ii. 3), however different the character of his orpareia (2 Cor. x. 4). Kata THY TapdSocwy K.t.A.] For mapadoors and wapadauBavew see the note on il. 15. There is great diversity in reading here, the authorities varying between mapeAdBocay, ékaBocav, mapéAaBov, mapeAaBere, mapeAaBe. The choice lies ultimately between zrapeAaBooay and rapeddBere, the other readings having obviously been derived from one or other of these. Where the weight of authority on either side is very evenly balanced, it seems better to choose RARE, 9 130 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. _[III. 6. the third person mapeAaBocayr, for the frequent occurrence of mapeAaBere (e.g. 1 Thess. iv. 1) was likely to suggest the alteration. On the form mapeAaBooay see Winer § xiii. p. 91. Other examples in the New Testament are eiyooay (John xv. 22, 24), édiSecav (John xix. 3) and ¢SoAvotcav (Rom. iii. 13), the last a quotation from the Lxx., where the use is not uncommon. It may perhaps have been suggested by a striving after conformity with the first aorist ; though probably it does not differ very much from the original termination of the 3rd plur. 2nd aorist, the first and second aorists having grown out of the same primary form. 7. avrol ydp«.t.A.] ‘For you know of yourselves by your own observa- tion, without my urging it upon you.’ The yap is probably explained by ért. For the expression see I Thess. ii. 1 with the note. mas Set prpetoOar pas] an abridged expression for ‘how ye ought to walk, so as to imitate us’ (ras det vuas mepurateiy ore piyeioOat nuas). ort] seems here to be ‘for,’ explaining avroi yap oiSare. This construc- tion is simpler than taking the last clause dre ov jraxrnocapev x.t.A. in the sense ‘how that,’ as an explanation of mas det pupetoOar nuas. Perhaps however such indirectly analogous instances as I Thess. i. 4, 5 eidores ryv exAoyny vay ort, Which are frequent in St Paul, may seem to favour the other construction. 8. ot8t] ‘ we were not disorderly, nor yet were we tale.’ mapa tivos] To be taken with the whole sentence dwpeay dprov €ddyouev—an expression equivalent to dwpeay aprov éAdBopey ov epayopev ‘did we receive the bread we ate,’—rather than with either dwpeay or dprov singly. On dwpeav see Gal. ii. 21 with the note. év kétrw kal 6x8] For these words see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 9; as also for the order vixra cai nuépay and for the subject of St Paul’s manual labour. The words here are almost a repetition of the language in that passage. The motive however in introducing the subject is different: there the Apostle is dwelling on his labour as a sign of his disinterestedness, here, as an example to be followed by others. vixra kal rjpépav] The reading vuxrods kal nuépas tia the support of the two oldest MSS. (NB); but it may have been introduced to conform to 1 Thess. ii. 9. The accusative cases are stronger than the genitives, implying the uninterruptedness of the labour. g. The anxiety with which the writer guards against misapprehension, as if the work of the ministry should be gratuitous, is characteristic of St Paul. See especially 1 Cor. ix. 3—18, where the assertion of his right, and the waiving of his claim in the particular case, are dwelt upon side by side with great force. éovelav] St Paul speaks of this same right as efovoia in the parallel passage referred to in the last note (see 1 Cor. ix. 4, 12). The word éfovoia, which originally signified merely ‘liberty to act’ whether conferred by law or not, shifted its meaning, and as time Ill. z1.] SECOND EPISTLE TO* THE THESSALONIANS: 131 advanced obtained more and more the signification of a definite, positive and acknowledged right, implying control over others. For power over means follows as a necessary consequence upon liberty of action. This meaning, which is perceptible in classical writers, is more definitely stamped on the word in the New Testament, e.g. Luke po 4 OR GAN tva] ‘out we waived it that’; another of St Paul’s ellipses. See the note on li. 3, 7, where examples are given. titov S4pev] In another connexion, and probably with no reference to this passage, Clement of Rome (§ 5) says of St Paul vroporis yevopevos péyloTos Umoypapypos. eis Td pipetorOar pds] On the other hand a different preposition is used above: mpds ro wn éemiBapnoa. Something has been said on the distinction between the two words in the note on Philemon 5. The fact seems to be that, while mpds always denotes a purpose (at least in the New Testament), efs points to the end of the action; whether as implying a purpose (as is frequently the case, here for instance), or not. See the note on 1 Thess. il. 16 ets ro dvarAnpdoa. In two passages, Ephes. vi. 11, James iil. 3, in both of which a purpose is implied, the reading varies between pos and eis, mpos being more strongly supported in the first case, eis in the second. This distinction between the two prepositions arises out of the composition of the words, since mpos contains a reference to the source of the action (mpo-r. see Mew Crat. § 171) which is not directly involved in eis (ev-s). Thus Aristotle’s category of ‘relation’ (Donalds. Gv. Gr. § 486) is expressed by mpés ru not by eis tu. 10. Kal yap] ‘for also’; i.e. ‘not only did we set before you our own example, but we gave you a positive precept to this effect, when at Thessalonica.’ el tus od O€Aet K.7.A.] St Paul seems to be repeating a favourite maxim of the Rabbins. See the passages in Wetstein, especially Bereshith R. ii. 2 ‘ego vero si non edo,’ xiv. 12 ‘ut, si non laborat, non manducet.’ This book however dates in the fourth century A.D., and possibly the form which the precept has taken may have been derived from St Paul. In spirit at least this honorable feature in the teaching of the Rabbins accords with St Paul: see the notes on 1 Thess. ii. 9 épya¢éuevor, and on roy éavtav aptoy below (ver. 12). For the change to the direct narrative, the exact words as spoken being introduced by ér, compare Acts xiv. 22 mapakadodvres eupévery TH mioret kat OTe dia ToAAOY OAiewy Set ruas eioedOeiv eis THY Baoidelay Tod Ocov, xxill. 22, Gal. i. 23 (with the note), and see the examples given in Winer § Ix. p. 683. od Oéra] ‘2s unwilling, refuses. ‘Nolle vitium est’ is Bengel’s comment. II. pndév épyafouévous GAAd mepiepyafouévous] Compare Afer’s saying O——2 132 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [III. 11. reported by Quintilian (vi. 3. 54) of Mallius Sura, a bustling lawyer, ‘non agere dixit sed satagere’ (quoted by Jowett), and Demosthenes Phil. iv. p. 150 cot pev e& av epyatn Kat meptepyatn Tos €oxatouvs drtas xwOvvovs. For other instances of this play on words see the note on Phil. iii. 3 xararoun, mepiroun: and add the following examples from St Paul, 1 Cor. vii. 31 of xp@pevoe Tov Koopoy ws pn KaTaxp@pevot, 2 Cor. i. 13 & dvaywookere 7} Kal emvywwackere, ill. 2 ywwwoKopern Kal avaywwoko- pévn, Vi. 10 ws pndev €xovtes Kat mavta Karéxovtes, X. 12 ov ToOAU@pmeEV evxpivat 7) ovvkpivac €avtovs, and from the Epistle to the Hebrews (v. 8) éuabev ad’ av erabev thy vmaxony (comp. ‘where pain ends, gain ends too’). 12. Kal rapakadotpev] Sc. avtovs : ‘yea, and we even entreat them. év Kuplw "Inootd Xpioro] This is by far the best supported reading ; and as there was no more likelihood of its being substituted for dia row Kuplov juav Inood Xpiorov than conversely, it must be adopted in place of the reading of the received text. twa] See the notes on 1 Thess. ii. 16, v. 4. TlapaxaXeiv and rapayyéd- Xe iva are very frequent combinations, and link together the later use of wa with the earlier. Compare I Cor. i. 10, xvi. 12, 15, 2 Cor. viii. 6, sit: 8,10 Phess. ivengvete, pera yovxlas épyafopevor] The direct opposite to pndey epyafouevous GANA teptepyatopévous, pera novxias being opposed to meprepyafopevous. tov éavtev Gptov] A Rabbinical phrase apparently, like the precept in ver. 10. Compare the references in Wetstein and Schottgen. 13. ‘On the other hand, we exhort the rest of you, who have hitherto lived soberly, to persevere in your honorable course.’ yr) éykaxyjonte] Wherever the word éyxaxeiy or evxaxeiv occurs in the New Testament (Luke xviii. 1, 2 Cor. iv. 1, 16, Gal. vi. 9, Eph. iii. 13), it is always with the form exkaxeiy as a various reading ; the same authorities substantially being ranged on either side, but the weight of testimony being in favour of éyxaxeiv. The form éxxaxeiy indeed seems to be later, though it was in use in the time of the Greek Commentators, Chrysostom etc. (see Tischendorf on 2 Cor. iv. 1); and, it may be conjectured, arose in the first instance from a faulty pronunciation, rather than as a distinct compound. There can be little doubt that €yxaxeiy is correct, and it is supported by the analogous use of ev in €AAeime. “Eyxaxeiv occurs in the versions of Symmachus (Gen. xxvii. 46, Numb. xxi. 5) and of Theodotion (Prov. iii. 11), and in Polybius iv. 19, Io. The word azroxaxeiy, which is found once in the LXx. (Jer. xv. 9) as equivalent to ‘ exspiro,’ might seem to favour ékkakeiv. kadorovovvres] ‘27 well-doing, i.e. ‘in your honorable course’: a ama§ Aeyspevov in the New Testament. It must not be rendered, as it is sometimes taken, even by Chrysostom and the Greek commentators generally, ‘in your charitable course ’—a restricted sense which ayaborotetv frequently has, but which xadozrocety could not admit. In Levit. v. 4 the reading seems to be xad@s moujoa. The substantive xaAomotia occurs in Lil. 14.) SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 133 Theophyl. ad Aufol. i. 3. Compare Gal. vi. 9 ro d€ Kadov mowodvres p27) eykak@pev. 14. 8d THs érurroArs] must be attached to r@ Adyw yuay Sour charge conveyed by our letter” The insertion of the article r@ dca ths emioroAns would define the construction more precisely, but its absence is no objection to this rendering in the Greek of the New Testament. See the note on I Thess. i. I €v Ged warpi and the references given there. On the other hand. it is proposed by some to attach da ris emiatoAjs to what follows, ‘mark him in (or ‘by’) your letter.’ But this is doubly objection- able, (1) as laying an emphasis on the letter, which is not easy of explanation ; and (2) because ‘ your letter,’ where we should expect ‘a letter,’ assumes a reply on the part of the Thessalonians, which assumption is not borne out by any hint in this Epistle. It is better therefore to suppose that 7 émoroAn refers to the present Epistle, as it does elsewhere ; though generally, as here, only at the close of the letter (comp. 1 Thess. v. 27, Rom. xvi. 22, Col. iv. 16). On the other hand, this explanation will not apply to 1 Cor. v. 9 (see the note there). The words d.a tys emioroAns are added, because the Apostle feared that the unruly members might presume on his absence: comp. 1 Cor. v. 3, 2 Cor. x. 11. His written commands, he would say, are of equal authority with his personal commands. The New Testament writers nowhere betray any consciousness, either on their own part, or on the part of their hearers, that their written teaching was inspired in any higher sense than their oral teaching. onperovobe] ‘set your mark on.’ The word onpecovoda, in itself neutral, got to imply more or less the idea of disapprobation, though not so definitely as the corresponding Latin word ‘notare,’ ‘to brand,’ ‘repro- bate.’ Compare Dion. Hal. de adm. vi dic. Dem. p. 1127 ed. Reiske oi & bs duaprnua Tov pyropos é€onuetioarto, Polyb. v. 78 of a sinister omen, onetwodpevot TO yeyovos. The form onpecotodac is condemned by the Atticists (Thomas Mag. p. 791, Herodian p. 420 ed. Koch, these references are from Ellicott), who gave dmoonuaiveoOa as the correct Attic word ; and probably with justice, for the derivation of onpewicda from a secondary substantive (onpeiov from ofjpa) points to a later origin. Compare the old ‘acknow’ with the modern ‘acknowledge.’ Snpecovo ba however occurs as early as Theophrastus at least (Caus. Plant. i. 21.7 MpooemAr€yet Tots Eipnevors kal TA TOLAUTA ONperovpevos OTL k.T.A. if the present text may be depended upon). I cannot trace the reference to Hippocrates given in De Wette. The language of Aristotle and Theophrastus often forms a link between the pure Attic and the xow7) of later writers. It is difficult to decide between the claims of the readings p17) cvvavapty- vuoGa (omitting cal) and kal y) cuvavayiyvucbe. The former on the whole is the more probable, the weight of external testimony (NABD® copt.) being in its favour. The order of the variants would then be (1) onyec- ovale py cvvavapiyvuaba, (2) onpevodobe pt) cvvavaptyrvvode, the ordinary 134 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [III. 14. error between e and at, (3) onpetotode cal pn ocvvavapiyrvuade, the kai being added in order to obviate the abruptness. If this be so, the reading of some few MSS. (as D*F) onpewotobe kai pn ovvavauiyyucda is to be regarded as a mere transcriptional error, -o Oa: for -ae, arising out of (3). Otherwise it would point to cai pp) cvvavaplyvva Ge as the original reading. pr) cvvavaplyvucbar] ‘so as not to mix freely with them.’ The double compound is expressive ; the first preposition avy denoting ‘combination,’ the second dva ‘interchange.’ It is used in the same connexion in 1 Cor. v. 9, 11, and never elsewhere in the New Testament. It is found however in a quotation from Clearchus given in Athenzeus (Dezgm. vi. 68, p. 256) of professional flatterers moving about among the townsfolk (cvvavapryvipevor rois kara THY 7oAw) in order to report what they heard to their patrons. 15. wal] The use of xai, where we should expect adda, is easily explained, if we regard vovOeretre as the leading word of the sentence, and the rest as qualifying it. The sense will thus be, ‘and reprove him, but as you would reprove a brother, not regarding him as an enemy.’ The anxiety of St Paul to soften the severity of his censure has led to a confusion in the form of the sentence; the qualifying clause, which ought to have been subordinate, taking the first place. Novereiy implies a greater or less shade of blame, meaning ‘to remind another of his duty,’ but always with some idea of ‘admonition.’ Compare Tit. ili. 10 piay kat Sevrépav vovbeciav, and see Trench NV. 7. Sy. § xxxii. p. 111 sq. For the spirit of the charge given to the Thessalonians here, compare the analogous case of the Corinthian offender (2 Cor. ii. .6, 7). ee ovvavapiyyucGa seems not itself to mean the absolute ignoring of the delinquent, but the refusal to hold free intercourse or have familiar dealings with him. In 1 Cor. v. 11 the separation was much more strict, and so it is enforced by adding ré roovr@ pnde cvverOiew. Polycarp repeats the words of St Paul when dealing with the case of some offenders at Philippi (P27. 11 ‘non sicut inimicos tales existimetis, sed sicut passibilia membra et errantia eos revocate’). iii. Prayer to the Lord of Peace (iii. 16). 16. avrds 8] ‘only may the Lord of peace Himself” The disjunctive particle Se is slightly corrective of the preceding. Itimplies: ‘Yet without the help of the Lord all your efforts will be in vain’; see the note on 1 Thess. v. 23, where the same phrase occurs in the corresponding position in the Epistle. It is doubtful whether by 6 Kvpsos here is meant ‘God the Father,’ or the ‘Lord Jesus Christ.’ In favour of the former may be urged the corresponding 6 @ecds ris elpyyns at the close of the first Epistle (v. a5}'s in favour of the latter the almost universal meaning of Kvpws in St Paul. tv wavtl rémw v. 1. tp6mw] The external authority is evenly balanced between rém@ and rpdom@, though somewhat favouring the latter reading. II. 17.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 135 But on the whole réz@ is perhaps to be preferred as suiting the context somewhat better, ‘at all times, in all places,’ i.e. ‘wheresoever you are.’ For é¢v mavti tromm Comp. I Cor. 1. 2, 2 Cor. ii. 14, 1 Thess, i. 8, 1 Tim. ii. 6. On the other hand it may be argued that the original reading was év mavri tpor@, altered by transcribers into rom@ to conform to a common ex- pression. The preposition ¢v however is awkward where the simple zravrt tpor@ (Phil. i. 18), or even xara mavra tpézov (Rom. iii. 2, cf. 2 Thess. ii. 3), would be more natural. peTa Tavtov tpav] ‘7th you all, not excluding those who are walking disorderly. 4. SPECIAL DIRECTION AND BENEDICTION, iii. 17, 18. 17. St Paul here takes the pen from the amanuensis, and adds the two last verses containing the salutation in his own handwriting. ‘ By this,’ he says, ‘they may know that the letter is his own and not a forgery. This is his practice in every Epistle.’ 6 dotacpos TH éuq xerpt IlatAov] seems to be incorrectly rendered in the E. V., apparently as if HavAov were the genitive with aomacpos. It should be ‘dy the hand of me Paul, according to the common Greek idiom, e.g. Soph. Gd. Col. 344 raya dvornvov xaxa, and other references given in Matthize Gr. § 466. 1, Jelf Gv. § 467.4. The same words occur in RGCOrm XVi2i,Col. iv..18: 0 éotiv onpetov] What is the token by which his letters may be known? Not surely the insertion of the notice 6 domacpos ty eun yxeupt TlavAov which is found in only three of his Epistles, though this seems to be the interpretation put on the words by most commentators ; but the fact of the salutation being written by himself, whether he called direct attention to the fact, or not. See the following note. év mdoy émurto\g|] Two questions of some interest arise out of this expression. First. How far does St Paul adhere to this rule in his extant Epistles? The case seems to be this. Most of his letters, if not all, were written by an amanuensis (see Rom. xvi. 22). It was the practice of the Apostle himself to take up the pen at the end, and add a few words in his own handwriting to vouch for the authenticity of the letter. The salutation was always so written, but the Apostle not unfrequently added some words besides. Thus in I Cor. xvi. 22 an anathema is appended (‘If any man love not’ etc.) ; in Col. iv. 18 an appeal to their compassion (‘remember my bonds’); in Galatians vi. 11—-17 an earnest protest against Judaizing tendencies, and in Romans xvi. 25—27 perhaps the ascription of praise as a kind of afterthought. It was only rarely that St Paul called attention to the fact that the conclusion was in his own handwriting (as here, 1 Cor. xvi. 21, Col. iv. 18, and comp. Gal. 136 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [III. 17,18. vi. 11). When he did so, we may suppose that he had some special motive. As here, for instance, he had regard to the forgeries which he suspected to have been circulated in his name. See the notes on t. Thess: sv) 19; 207-2: Ehess-il, 2: It is generally assumed that only those letters contained his autograph salutations in which he calls attention to the fact (as here and in 1 Corin- thians and Colossians): and an explanation is sought for its absence in other cases in the fact that no such attestation was necessary, either owing to the circumstances of the letters themselves (e.g. the circular character of the letter to the Ephesians, and the letters addressed to private individuals): or to their having been delivered by accredited messengers (as 2 Corinthians by Timothy, and Philippians by Epaphro- ditus) : or in other ways. But the assumption is in itself unwarrantable, and is only consistent with a somewhat strained interpretation of the expression €y maon emioToA7. Secondly. Is the expression ‘in every letter’ capable of explanation, except on the supposition that the Apostle wrote many Epistles which have not been preserved to us? This question must be answered in the negative. The Epistles to the Thessalonians were written A.D. 52, 53. See Biblical Essays p.222sq. The active labours of the Apostle must have commenced not later than A.D. 45. Yet there is no extant Epistle written before the Epistles to the Thessalonians. The First Epistle to the Corinthians was written A.D. 57. This was the next in chronological order of all the extant letters after those to Thessalonica. Is it to be supposed that these two brief Epistles are the sole utterances of the Apostle, standing isolated in the midst of a period of twelve years, during which the Apostle was holding constant communications with the Gentile churches far and wide? If this were conceivable in itself, it is quite irreconcilable with the expression in the text. How could he speak of “every letter,’ if with the single exception of the first Epistle to the Thessalonians he had written nothing for the eight years preceding, and was destined to write nothing for five years to come? On the whole question of lost letters of St Paul see PAzlippians p. 138 sq. ovtws ypabw| The words probably refer to the handwriting itself: ‘this is my handwriting. Compare Gal. vi. 11, where he calls attention to the size of the characters, "Idere myXixors vuly ypaupaow eypawya tH €un xespi. Otherwise oUrws ypapw might be interpreted either (1) generally: ‘this is my practice in writing,’ i.e. to add the salutation in my own hand; or (2) referring specially to the formula used: ‘these are the words I use.’ But in this latter case it ought surely not to be referred to 6 domacpos x.T.A., but to the salutation itself. See the note on 6 éorw onpeiov x.t.X. 18. On the form of salutation see the note on 1 Thess. v. 28. There is only this difference that mavrwv is not found in the first Epistle. St Paul had a special reason for inserting it here. He would not run the risk of seeming to exclude those members whose conduct he had reprobated. See the note above on pera ravrov vpor ver. 16. Pie eis tL ES OFS. PAW II. tee PAR DcAPOSTOLIC: JOURNEY. I, PIRSE EPISTLE 10 LHe CORINTHIANS. ie Rainer: fe ‘Puget! mean mh bahia 7 IC ID ils SNe anid SMM Wie RS Pra eh Re ee ey nt kien te ee ie are : Namen phased: 0k, Ei nite Dogpetrintily’ Gur arrsistg| AabhCO hed Rae tee iy Ai a Ve eee a re ae er ehh Hay Wa? its Wile. Ca ai iit POL Vee ious, aly arene Ww “5 We ou AEA U8 Feel itd Ole as Fae AS, ie Ley SGN AGiha ia i, lie ¥ PA‘CiAia 7 od ae a ees ed 1a) Gena ge The Sei Te ry Vee p » ae on ok Saas, re wu Wa ns CL Ser eS Agia dyad or aid ia are tel TN Oe Grab Liat.) by 1 fies, Sor ry ied 40 ee ae AAT iat es a me | re Goth, | eile ay ON 09 = hak a) en f Lin, , eriviv Lyi tata i ae ipo ag: Wren ea tele: oe ne { 7 Le, 7 H|' re tre , rr ae esata a gi Db eh & : [oop egy arpa A Tees ! wave ena s.8 ity ivi » nY P ul wae i ig eee Va ‘ne 7 asl neoual Pe a ’ wi V] ; oa WA. ar. hi ; - " 5 A Dievesns, © Ono ' ol ; | y . ie | (ys? Ty Ot oe Tat ts ! EY mal : na re ht De ‘ Vis Sus 1%, a HL egte vi hy | area nest eT Week. rey j Pia Pos), =<) ; J Ais) #18) et Oe ne i¢ } g sat By ; Ye ) Lahr | tere Aa’ ay) wit hie | 117 yy La ad Viet . cs 4 Eh): v in a hee ' - ; ‘4 a : "y 7 7 ‘ : - 7 On } e, . 7 7 * eos peent hityr woul st jd | ete i <= : , } leah, soul | : r ‘ty @ at oh ae ak | i e vot. ahd 7 Fe Te : ee | i »/s | “or by Cory BA ’ | OY = ty 4) Line iA Oe ee | ner et ANA AD ge Wass wale. i eS o.9 + a a 2 ony wp Pmeint: tel rat Fhe she eR pate Ur Uo lyse oy a lire 7 aa ie (8) PARe G4 0)’ <8 spat es fh salad | sony iW te ny ; 4 y Rito cay? id, - oh ; eo as ian i dart Caner id ALLS EV SIS: I. INTRODUCTION. i. I—9Q. 17 ii. Salutation. i. 1—3. Thanksgiving. 1. 4—9. II. Bopy OF THE LETTER. i. Io—xv. 58. i. ii. Divisions. i. 1o—iv. 21. (z) He describes and deprecates these divisions. i. 1o—16. (2) The unhealthy craving after copia. God’s folly triumphant over man’s wisdom. The true and the false wisdom contrasted. The wisdom of God spiritually discerned. The Corinthians incapaci- tated by party spirit from discerning it. i. 17—iii. 3. (c) Their preference of Paul or of Apollos criminal. Paul and Apollos only human instruments. Human preferences worthless: the divine tribunal alone final. iii. 4—iv. 5. (Zz) Contrast between the self-satisfied temper of the Corinthians and the sufferings and abasement of the Apostles. This said not by way of rebuke but of fatherly exhortation. His own intentions respecting them. The mission of Timothy and his own proposed visit. iv. 6—21. The case of incest. v. I—Vi. 20. (z) The incest denounced. The offender to be cast out of the Church. Reference to the Apostle’s letter in which he had recommended them to treat similar offences in the same way. v. I—13. (4) [Episode. The Corinthian brethren apply to heathen courts to decide their disputes. This is monstrous.] vi. 1—g. Altogether their spirit, whether of sensuality or of strife and overreaching, is inconsistent with heirship in the kingdom of heaven. vi. I0, II. 140 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (c) The distinction between license and liberty. Fornication and Church-membership a contradiction in terms. The members of Christ cannot be made the members of an harlot. vi. 12—20. [(i) and (ii) are the result of reports received by St Paul. Now follow two answers to questions raised in a letter from the Corinthians. } iii. Marriage. vii. I—40. (a) To marry, or not to marry? The Apostle’s answer. vii. 1, 2. (6) About those already married. Mutual duties of husband and wife. vii. 3—7- (c) About the unmarried, the widows, the separated. Let them remain as they are. vil. 8—1I. (zd) On the marriage relations of the believer wedded with the un- believer. Let them not do any violence to their conjugal duties. vii. 12—16. And generally, do not be eager to alter the condition of life in which God has placed you. vii. 17—24. (e) On virgins specially. Are they to be given in marriage or not? The case to be decided on the same principles as before. Two principles to be kept in view: (1) to preserve continence, (2) to keep the soul disentangled ‘because of the present necessity.’ vii. 25—38. (7) On widows specially. vii. 39, 40. iv. Meats offered to idols. viii. 1—xi. I. (az) Meats offered to idols are indifferent in themselves : they are only important as they affect (1) our own consciences, (2) the con- sciences of others. viii. 1—13. (4) [Episode on Apostolic claims. St Paul asserts (1) his claim to support, and his disinterested renunciation of the claim: (2) his freedom and yet his accommodation to the needs of all: (3) his preaching to others and his discipline of self. ix. 1—27. This is an interruption to the argument, suggested we know not how. Perhaps the letter was broken off. Something then may have occurred meanwhile ; some outward event or some inward train of thought, of which when the letter was resumed the Apostle must first disburden himself, before he took up the thread where he had dropped it.] (c) The Israelites a type to us. All like you had the same spiritual privileges. They all were baptized like you: they all partook of their Eucharistic feast. And yet some perished for their fornica- tion and idolatry. x. I—12. (¢@) Therefore be on your guard against the abuse of this liberty. Do not entangle yourselves in idolatry. Do not cause offence to any. x. 13—xi, I. Vv. vi. ANALYSIS. I41 Regulations affecting Christian assemblies. xi. 2—xiv. 40. (az) The women to be veiled. xi. 2—16. (4) Disorders at the Lord’s Table to be checked. xi. 17—34. (c) Spiritual Gifts. xii. r—xiv. qo. (1) There are different kinds of gifts, each having its proper place. But there is one source of all, and we are members of one body. xil. 1—31I. (2) Charity is better than all. xiii. 1—r3. (3) The superiority of prophecy over tongues. xiv. I—25. (4) Due regulation in the exercise of spiritual gifts. Edification the end of them all. xiv. 26—4o0. The Resurrection of the dead. xv. 1—58. (az) Evidence for the Resurrection of the dead. xv. 1—34. (1) Testimony to Christ’s Resurrection. xv. I—II. (2) Christ’s Resurrection involves man’s Resurrection. xv. 12—28. (3) Testimony of human conduct to a belief in the Resurrection. Baptisms for the dead. Sufferings of the Apostles. xv. 29—34> (4) Difficulty as to the manner of the Resurrection. xv. 35—49. (c) Triumph of life over death. xv. 50—58. III. CONCLUSION. xvi. I—24. as li. iil. iv. Collections for the saints in Judzea. xvi. I—4. The Apostle’s intended visit to Corinth. Mission of his delegates. xvi. 5—I4. Recommendations and greetings. xvi. 15—20. Farewell charges. xvi. 2I—24. CHAPTER, J: 1. INTRODUCTION, i. 1—9. i. Salutation (i. I—3). BESIDES the standard commentaries on this Epistle, the following contributions to the study of some of its problems from German periodical literature chiefly will well repay investigation: Klopper exegetisch-kritische Untersuchungen tiber den zweiten Brief des Paulus an die Gemeinde zu Korinth, Gottingen, 1869, Hausrath der Vier-Cafitel-Brief an die Ko- rinther, Heidelberg 1870, Weizsacker Paulus und die Gemeinde in Korinth in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1876 xxi. p. 603 sq., Delitzsch on Light- foot’s Hor. Hebraic. in the Zettsch. f. Luth. Theol. 1877 p. 209 sq., Hilgenfeld die Christus-Leute in Korinth in the Zettsch. f. wiss. Theol. 1865 viii. p. 241 sq., 1872 xv. p. 200 sq., die Paulusbriefe und thre neusten Bearbeitungen ibid. 1866 ix. p. 337 sq., Paulus und die Korinth. Wirren ibid. 1871 xiv. p. 99 sq., Paulus und Korinth ibid. 1888 xxxi. p. 159 sq., Holsten zur Erklarung von 2 Kor. xi. 4—6 ibid. .1873 xvii. p. I sq, Heinrici Christengemeinde Korinths ibid. 1876 xix. p. 465 sq., Holtzmann das gegenseitige Verhdltniss der betden Korintherbriefe ibid. 1879 xxii. Pp. 455 sq., Curtius Studien zur Geschichte von Korinth in Hermes 1876 x. p. 215 sq. There are alsoarticles by Dickson in the Academy ii. p. 37, and by P. Gardner in the Journal of Hellenic Studies ix. p. 47 sq. (Countries and Cities in Ancient Art, esp. p. 61 sq.). 1. On the general form and special modifications of the super- scriptions and greetings of St Paul’s Epistles see the notes on 1 Thess. by Eyles KAnrds améarodos| ‘a called Apostle’; i.e. one whose apostleship is due not to himself, but to God. The translation of the E. V. ‘called to be an Apostle’ is as near as the English idiom will permit. The expres- sion is not to be regarded as polemical, that is to say, as directed against I. 1] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 143 those who denied St Paul’s apostleship. For in this case the words employed would probably have been much stronger, as in Gal. i. I admogroAos ovK am avOparav ovdée &: avOpdmov. That this is so may be seen (1) from a comparison with the opening of the Epistle to the Romans, where the same expression is used and no polemical meaning can be attributed to it, inasmuch as St Paul had no adversaries to attack in that Epistle; and (2) from the parallelism with the clause following, KAnrois ayios (ver. 2). His apostleship and their churchmembership were both alike to be traced to the same source, to the merciful call of God, and not to their own merits. There is the same parallelism in the opening words of the Epistle to the Romans, where IlatAos dovAos “Inaod Xpworov KAnros amdorodos (ver. 1) is followed by vpeis kAnroi (ver. 6). This preliminary consideration disposed of, we may say further that the phrase xAnros dmoorodos is here opposed not so much to human authorisation or self-assumption, as to personal merit. Both ideas indeed have their correspondences in the Pauline Epistles. For a reference to God as the source of all honours and privileges we may compare Rom. ix. 16 ov tov Oédovtos ovd€ Tov TpéxovTos GAAG Tov eAe@vTos Ceov. But a closer parallel, as it seems to me, occurs in the context of the passage from the Romans, ovx é& épywv aA’ ek rov kadovvtos (Rom. ix. 11). This feeling of self-abasement, though pervading all St Paul’s Epistles, is especially strong in those belonging to this chronological group. On the other hand, a strong polemical sense would be more in place in the second group than in the first. The significance of xAnros is still further enforced by the words following, da OeAnparos Geov. See the note on Eph t8 i. Bengel sees a double direction in St Paul’s language, combining these two last views: ‘Ratio auctoritatis, ad ecclesias; humilis et promti animi, penes ipsum Paulum. Namque mentione Dez excluditur auctora- mentum humanum, mentione voluntatis Dez, meritum Pauli.’ But for the reasons above stated, the assertion of authority, if it is to be recognized at all, must be quite subordinate and secondary. ZwoGévyns] The mention of Sosthenes naturally takes our thoughts back to the scene recorded in the Acts (xviii. 12—17) where the name occurs (ver. 17). By identifying the Sosthenes of the Acts with the Sosthenes of this Epistle, the notices of him hang together. He was a Jew by birth and ruler of the synagogue at Corinth. At the time when St Paul was brought before Gallio, he had either actually declared himself a Christian, or at least shown such a leaning towards Christianity as to incur the anger of his fellow-countrymen, who set upon him and beat him. It is not improbable that he retired from Corinth in consequence : and it may be conjectured that the hostility with which he was regarded there was a special inducement to St Paul to recommend him favourably to the Corinthians in this unobtrusive way, by attaching his name to his own in the opening salutation. It is of course impossible according to 144 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. {I. x. this view that he could have been one of the Seventy in accordance with an early tradition given by Eusebius(H. £.i.12). But patristic writers exer- cised so much ingenuity in making up the list of the Seventy (comp. the list published in the works of Hippolytus) that such a tradition is worthless. Thus e.g. Silas is distinguished from Silvanus, and Luke is included in the number (Hippol. Spur. in Migne P. G. x. p.955). See also Tillemont I. p. 26, and Baronius, s. am. 33, I. p. 113 (1738). We may at least infer that Sosthenes was well known to the Christians of Corinth, both from the position which his name occupies and from the designation 6 ddeAdos. The definite article implies some distinction, something more than ‘one of the brotherhood.’ The term appears to have been used in those cases where the person named, though distinguished, had no claim to a higher title, as e.g. Apostle. Thus for instance it is applied to Apollos (1 Cor. xvi. 12), Timothy (2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1, Philem. 1, Heb. xiii. 23), and Quartus (Rom. xvi. 23). Sosthenes may or may not have been St Paul’s amanuensis. The fact of his name occurring here proves nothing. For instance, Tertius (Rom. xvi. 22) is not named in the heading of the Roman letter. Again Timothy and Silvanus (1 Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess, i. 1) were not probably amanuenses of the Epistles to the Thessalonians. On the degree of participation in the contents of the letter implied by his being thus mentioned, see the note on 1 Thess, i. 1. In this letter Sosthenes is named and apparently disappears at once. St Paul immediately returns to the singular (evyapiore ver. 4) and loses sight of him. 2. Tq &kkAnolg tod Oeod] On this expression see the notes to 1 Thess. Bom ad ae jyacpévors év XpiorG "Incot] The authority of the best Greek Mss. must decide the question whether these words shall precede or follow the clause rj ovon €v KopivOm. In a case like this, where for purposes of interpretation there was every temptation to change the order, no great stress must be laid on the versions and citations from the fathers. But even if we decide in favour of the more awkward arrangement of interjecting nyacpevas ev Xprot@ "Incod between ry exkAnoia Tov Geod and r7 oven ev Kopiv@, the dislocation is quite characteristic of St Paul. The mention of God as the source of spiritual blessings does not satisfy the Apostle, unless supplemented by the parallel mention of Christ as the medium of that life. Consequently grammar is disregarded in his anxiety not to postpone this reference to our Lord. Again, there was another reason for inserting the words thus early. The expression 7 éxxAncia tov Qeov might be applied equally well to the Jews; and consequently, whenever St Paul uses it, he is careful to guard against this ambiguity. See 1 Thess. ii. 14, Gal. i. 22. There was therefore a double motive for the insertion of some such clause as ryraopevors ev Xp. "Ino., and the eagerness of the Apostle to bring this in has disturbed the sequence of the sentence. This parallel reference to the Source from Whom, and the Means through Is-2.] PIRSD EPISTLE: FO THE ‘CORINTHIANS. 145 Whom is too frequent in St Paul, where he has occasion to use terms like exkAngia ékXexrol kAntot and the like, to need special illustration, See however the notes on 1 Thess. l.c. A somewhat similar instance of the disturbance of grammatical order occurs just below in avrav kai judy (ver. 2). kAntois aylois] corresponds to kAntos amdarodos, as in Rom. i. 7. See the note on ver. I. On the words kAnros, ékAexros and the corresponding substantives, as used by St Paul, see the notes on 2 Thess. i. 11 and Col. ili. 12. In this connexion words such as nyacpevors, dyios denote the consecrated people, the Christians, as they denoted the Jewish people under the old dispen- sation. Compare I Pet. ii. 9, where many terms formerly applied to the Jews are transferred to the Christians. See also the note on Phil. i. 1. The ascription of ‘holiness’ to a community guilty of such irregularities as that of Corinth, reiterated in the words nyacpevors ev X. "I. KAnrois ayiots, is strikingly significant of St Paul’s view of the Christian Church, and of his modes of appeal. He addresses the brethren not as the few, but as the many. He delights to take a broad and comprehensive ground. All who are brought within the circle of Christian influences are in a special manner Christ’s, all who have put on Christ in baptism are called, are sanctified, are holy. Let them not act unworthily of their calling. Let them not dishonour and defile the sanctity which attaches to them. He is most jealous of narrowing the pale of the Gospel, and this righteous jealousy leads him to the use of expressions which to the ‘unlearned and unstable’ might seem to betoken an excessive regard for the outward and visible bond of union, and too much neglect of that which is inward and spiritual. The same liberal and comprehensive spirit is traced in his remarks on the alliance of the believer and unbeliever (vil. 12 sq.), and in his illustration drawn from the practice of baptism (xil. 2 sq.). civ Tao Tois émikadovpévors] ‘as also to all those who invoke.’ This clause cannot be attached to xAnrots in the sense of ‘ saints called together with all that invoke etc.’ For though this construction would obviate considerable difficulty in interpreting what follows, it is grammatically harsh, if not untenable, and would require a participle for «Anrois, or at all events a different order of words. There still remains the difficulty of interpreting atv maou rots émixadov- pévo.s k.T.A. év mavtl tom@. A comparison with the opening of the second Epistle, ctv rois dyiows maow Tois ovow ev OAy TH Axaia would suggest the restriction of ‘every place’ to ‘all the churches of Achaia’: but though the expression év mavri tomw elsewhere (e.g. 1 Thess. 1. 8, 2 Cor. ii. 14) must be taken with certain natural limitations, still the very definite restriction to ‘every place in Achaia’ receives no sanction from such examples. We must suppose then that St Paul associates the whole Christian Church with the Corinthians in this superscription. This L. EP. IO 146 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [I. 2. association would refer more especially to the benediction which im- mediately follows, but in some degree also to the main contents of the letter, which, though more special and personal than perhaps any other of St Paul’s Epistles, yet founds its exhortations on great general principles applying to all alike. It perhaps arose out of the idea of unity prominent in the Apostle’s mind, and was suggested by the dissensions which divided the Corinthian Church. For a similar superscription compare the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna on the death of Polycarp...rn éxxAnoia Tov Geot TH mapoikovon ev @iopnri@ Kat macais Tais KaTad tmavta TOorov THs aylas Kat KaOod.khs exkAnolas mrapotkiats, €Xeos Kal elpyvn Kal ayamn x.t.A. See also the close of St Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, “H yapis tov K. nav "Ino. Xp. pe? pov kal peTa TavT@Y TavTayy TOV KeKANLEVY U0 TOU Ceod k.T.A. (§ 65). érikadovupévors TO Svopa Tov Kuplov] A phrase which in the O. T. e.g. Gen. iv. 26, xiil. 4 etc., is applied to Jehovah, and therefore seems to imply a divine power and attributes. For the expression 10 6voya rov Kupiov see the notes on 2 Thess. i. 12, Phil. ii. 9, 10, and generally for the application to our Lord of phrases applied in the O. T. to God see on 2 Thess. i. 7,9. The practice is illustrated by the testimony of Pliny (Ep. xcvi.) ‘carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem.’ airay Kal pov] Is this clause to be taken with év ravti rom@ or with tov Kupiov nuov? The former is the interpretation adopted by most modern commentators after the Vulgate, which translates it ‘in omni loco ipsorum et nostro,’ as also do some other ancient versions. But all possible interpretations of the words so connected are extremely harsh. Thus it is explained by some to mean ‘both in Achaia (avrév) and in Asia’ (nov, for St Paul was writing from Ephesus) ; by others ‘in every part of Achaia, which Achaia belongs to us, as well as to them, inasmuch as we are their spiritual teachers.’ Other interpretations are still more arbitrary. It is better therefore to attach avtay kal judy to rod Kupiov, as taking up the foregoing nuov. This is the view of all the Greek commentators, from a sense, I suppose, of the fitness of the Greek. The words are an after-thought, correcting any possible misapprehension of nuoyv. ‘Our Lord, did I say—their Lord and ours alike.’ There is a covert allusion to the divisions in the Corinthian Church, and an implied exhortation to unity. The particle re after avroy if genuine (as is probably not the case) would assist this interpretation ; but even in its absence this is far less harsh than the alternative construction. 3. xdpis tpiv kal eipyvn] See notes on I Thess. i. 1. ii. Thanksgiving (i. 4—9). 4. evxapicrd x.7.A.] On the thanksgivings at the openings of St Paul’s Epistles and on the Hellenistic use of the word evxapiora see the i 55] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Ay notes on I Thess. i. 2. In this instance St Paul bears in mind a subject which will occupy a prominent place in the body of the Epistle, the spiritual gifts of the Corinthians. Sobeloy, erdoutloOnte] ‘which was given...ye were enriched” The aorists point back to the time of their baptism into the Christian Church, and generally of their admission to the privileges of the Gospel. The phrase 6ru év mavtit émdoutic@nre is an epexegesis of emt rH yapite TH d0beion. ore] ‘22 that, used after edyapiord, as in Rom. i. 8, 2 Thess. i. 3. év Xpicro Inood, ev atta] ‘22 Christ Fesus, ‘in Him’; not as the E.V. ‘by Jesus Christ,’ ‘by Him.’ God is represented here, as generally, as the ‘Giver of all good gifts.’ Christ is the medium through whom and the sphere in which these gifts are conferred. It is by our incorporation in Christ that they are bestowed upon us. 5. éy mavtl Aédyw kal mdoy yveoe| The distinction between these words is differently given, as follows. (1) 1o—-xVv." 50. L ) DEVISIONS, a. 1O— lv. 2: (a) He describes and deprecates these divistons (i. 10—17). 10. tapakado 8] The participle is slightly corrective. ‘Though I have commended your progress in the Gospel, yet I must rebuke you for your divisions.’ aSedpol] i.e. ‘ye who profess to be held together in the bond of brotherhood.’ The repetition of the term in the following verse, ddeAdoi pov, points to its significance here. For the use of this term in similar appeals compare Gal. vi. I, 18 (with the notes). See also especially 1 Cor. Wile 50s Sta ToD dvépartos tod K. ypav “I. X.] The exhortation to unity is still further strengthened. ‘I intreat by that one name which we all bear in common, that ye assume not divers names, as of Paul, and Apollos etc.’ For the adjuration comp. 2 Thess. iil. 6. tva] It is difficult in this passage, as elsewhere, to discriminate between the two senses of ta as denoting the purpose, design, or simply the object, consequence. Compare the notes on 1 Thess. il. 16, v. 4. 7d avtdo Aé€ynte] We have here a strictly classical expression. It is used of political communities which are free from factions, or of different states which entertain friendly relations with each other. Thus 7é avro Aéyerv is ‘to be at peace,’ or ‘to make up differences’; see Thuc, iv. 20 NOV Kal Upov TavTa heyovT@Y, V. 31 Bowwrol de kat Meyapys rd avTd éyorTes navyxagov, Aristot. Polzt. ii. 3.3, Polyb. ii. 62, v. 104 etc. Here the second idea to make up differences is the prominent one, and is carried out in katnpticpevor below, where the same political metaphor is used. On the application of classical terms relating to the body politic to the Christian community by the N.T. writers, see the note on trav éxxAno.oy I Thess. 4; The marked classical colouring of such passages as this leaves a much stronger impression of St Paul’s acquaintance with classical writers than the rare occasional quotations which occur in his writings. Compare especially the speech before the Areopagus (Acts xvil.). The question of St Paul’s general education is discussed in Bzblical Essays, p. 201 sq., see especially p. 205 sq. ox(opatra] This is said to be the earliest passage in which the word occurs of a ‘moral division’ (Stanley Covénthians ad loc.). It is here used as almost synonymous with épides, and in a later passage (1 Cor. xi. 18) it is distinguished from aipéces, the latter denoting a more complete separation than oyiopara. See the passage. The word does not occur 152 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [I. ro. elsewhere in the N. T. in this sense, except in St John’s Gospel (vii. 43, ix. 16, x. 19). In St Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians it occurs frequently, as might be expected, with more or less of reference to this Epistle. See §§ 2, 49, 54 and especially § 46 iva ti pets kat Ovpol Kal diyooracia Kai cxiopara Toepos Te Ev Univ, Where the words are arranged in an ascending scale. Ovyot are ‘outbursts of wrath,’ d:xooracia is weaker than cyioya, as it is stronger than oraois: as oraois developes into d:yooracia, So d:xooracia Widens into cxioua. See the notes on this passage, and on Gal. v. 20, 21. The word is apparently not found elsewhere in the Apostolic Fathers. katnpticpévor] On this word see the note on 1 Thess. ili. 10, It is especially appropriate here with reference to oxiopara (Matt. iv. 21, Mark 1. 19). tv 1 att vot Kal év tH atTh yvopn] Of these words vos denotes the frame or state of mind, yvdun the judgment, opinion or sentiment, which is the outcome of vows. The former denotes the general principles, the latter the special applications of those principles. The form vot is peculiar to St Paul in the N. T., but not uncommon with him (Rom. vii. 25, xiv. 5 1 Cor. xiv. 15). It is confined to late writers (Winer § viii. p. 72). II. tro tov XdAdyns] The expression may mean either (1) ‘the children,’ or (2) ‘the servants,’ or (3) ‘the relations of Chloe.’ We learn a good deal of the social condition of the early Christians from their names. Judging from her name, Chloe was probably a freedwoman. At least the name does not denote any exalted rank. Compare Horace Od. iii. 9. 9 ‘me nunc Thressa Chloe regit.’ Chloe is an epithet of the Goddess Demeter (Aristoph. Lyséstv. 835, compare evxAoos Soph. O. C. 1600) ; and it is not improbable that, as a proper name, it was derived from this use. Slaves and by consequence freedmen seem very frequently to have borne the Greek names of heathen divinities. Compare the instances of Phoebe (Rom. xvi. 1), of Hermes (xvi. 14), and of Nereus (xvi. 15). . Perhaps however the name is to be referred to the primary meaning of the word, as in the case of Stachys (ardayvs) (Rom. xvi. 9) and Chloris. On either supposition it would point to a servile origin, from which class a large number of the early converts to Christianity appear to have been drawn. Compare ver. 26, and see the notes on Cesar’s household in Philippians, p. 171 sq. The position of importance occupied by women in the Christian Church, even at this early date, is a token of the great social revolution which the Gospel was already working. See PAz/ippians, p. 55 sq. for the development of this feature in Macedonia especially, It is possible that Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (xvi. 17) are included in of XAéns; but there is no ground for the supposition, and all such identifications are hazardous. 12. é€yw && rotro ort] ‘J refer to the fact that, ‘my meaning ts this Le v2 FIRST EPISTEE TO) THE CORINTHIANS, 153 that’; not as E.V., ‘now this I say that... Compare Gal. ili. 17 1 Thess. iv. 15, and see [Clem. Rom.] ii. §§ 2, 8, 12 rovro Aéye ‘he means this.’ éxacros ipa] i.e. ‘there is not one of you, but has his party leader. The whole body is infected with this spirit of strife.’ *Amod\o] The name Apollos is contracted either from Apollonius, or Apollodorus, probably the first. So at least it is written in full in Codex D (Acts xviii. 24), and the variation seems to point to some very early tradition. Apollos was an Alexandrian (Acts 1. c.), and the name Apollo- nius was common in Alexandria, probably owing to the fact ‘that the first governor left by Alexander in his African province was so called’ (Arrian Aad. iii. 5). On the contracted names in -ds and -as, so frequent in the N. T., see Winer § xvi. p. 127, and the note on 1 Thess. i, I Sidovavés. This particular contraction is found elsewhere, though rarely ; see Conybeare and Howson, p. 364. We first hear of Apollos residing at Ephesus about the time of St Paul’s first visit to Corinth (A.D. 52, 53). Here he is instructed in the Gospel by Aquila and Priscilla. From Ephesus he crosses over to Corinth, where he preaches to the Corinthians and makes a deep impression upon the Corinthian Church. After his departure St Paul arrives at Ephesus, and remains there three years (from A.D. 54 to 57). See Acts xviii. 24—xix. 1. There is no notice of the return of Apollos from Corinth to Ephesus ; but he was with St Paul or in the neighbour- hood when this Epistle was written, i.e. about or after Easter 57 (see xvi. 12). For his subsequent movements see Tit. iii. 13 ; and on the subject generally Heymann in Sachs. Stud. (1843), Ul. p. 222 sq., Pfizer de Afpollone doctore apostol, Altorf (1718), Bleek Hebr. p. 394 sq., Meyer on Acts xviii. 24 and Stanley Corinthians ad loc. Kyda] The Aramaic word ~xH’D corresponding to the Greek Ieérpos (John i. 42). St Paul seems to have employed both forms indifferently. In this Epistle he always speaks of Knas ; in the Epistle to the Galatians, sometimes of Kydas (Gal. i. 18, ii. 9, 11, 14) sometimes of Ilérpos (Gal. 11. 7, 8). Here, as repeating the language of the Judaizers, he would naturally use Cephas. The question occurs, had St Peter been at Corinth before this time? Apollos had been there, but there is no indication that St Peter had been. In ix. 5 there is an allusion to him which points to his moving about at this time. The Romanist story of St Peter’s twenty-five years episcopate at Rome (A.D. 42 to 67), if true, would cover the time of St Paul’s im- prisonment at Rome, and also the period of the Epistles to and from Rome, so that the entire absence of any allusion to his being at Rome at this time is quite inexplicable, if he were there. Besides, St Paul speaks (Rom. xv. 20) as though no Apostle had previously visited it. It does not seem at all necessary that St Peter should have been at Corinth in order that his name should be taken by a party, He was naturally head of the Bey. 8 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [L.-cm Church of the circumcision. See the essay entitled ‘Saint Peter in Rome’ in Apostolic Fathers, Part 1., vol. 11. p. 481 sq. (1890). Observe the delicacy evinced by St Paul in treating of this subject. His ascending scale is Paul, Apollos, Cephas, Christ. He places himself in the lowest grade, next, that teacher who was especially associated with him, and highest of human instructors the Apostle who was represented as his direct antagonist. Again, when he wants to enforce the opposition between the servant and the master, between the human instrument and the divine source, he selects his own name, as the meanest of all, and therefore the best antithesis: peyepiorar 6 Xprords * ju) Waddos eoravpodn tmép vuov; so also in iii. 5 (ri ovv eat ’Amoddds; ri d€ éorw TlavAos ;) there is no mention of Cephas. His well-known friendly relations with Apollos allowed him, both here and in iv. 6, as it were to take liberties with his name. On the other hand, a true gentlemanly feeling led him to abstain from appearing to depreciate Cephas, his supposed adversary. This is an instance of his fine appreciation of what was due to his fellow-men. In the Epistle to the Galatians, where it was necessary for him to assert his Apostleship, his language is different. 13. pepéptorar 6 Xpiordés;] Lachmann omits the note of interrogation, as is done apparently in most of the ancient versions. Yet the sentence is more forcible taken interrogatively. Nor does the absence of yu in one clause, whilst it is present in the other, form any objection to this way of taking it. The form of the interrogative is purposely varied, because the reply suggested in each case is different. My interrogative implies a negative answer, whereas the omission of wy allows an affirmative answer. ‘Has Christ been divided?’ This is only too true. ‘Was Paul crucified for you?’ This is out of the question. On py interrogative as implying a negative answer see Winer § lvii. p. 641. The opposition in the form of the interrogative would have been still stronger, if St Paul had written ov peuépiora ; In what sense did the Apostle mean that Christ had been divided ? Christ is here identified with the body of believers. Thus ‘Has Christ been divided?’ is in effect ‘Have you by your dissensions rent Christ’s body asunder, tearing limb from limb?’ Compare 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13 ‘ For as the body is one, and hath many members and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.’ Compare also xii. 27. This passage seems to leave no doubt as to the interpretation here ; and so Clement of Rome evidently understands it, for speaking of the later factions at Corinth, he says (§ 46) iva ri dcéAxoper cai Staomapev ra péAn Tov Xprorod ; with an evident reference to St Paul’s language here. Immediately afterwards he alludes directly to this Epistle avadaSere ryv émiaroAny Tov paxaplov IlavAov rod arroardAov...€réoreiev vpiv wept avrov re Kal Knda re kal "AmoAA® «.7t.A. For an equally strong instance of the use of the PeArz.] BIRST EPISTLE TO THE. CORINTHIANS: Ss metaphor see Hebr. vi. 6 dvaoravpotvvtas éavtois Tov vidv Tov Oeov Kai mapadevypaticovras. Some would give to peyépurra the sense of ‘assigned as a share’ (‘ Has Christ become the badge of a party ?’), in which case the words would refer solely to the section described as éyw d€ Xprarov. It does not appear however that pepicew absolutely could well have this meaning ; though in certain connexions, as in the construction pepi¢ew rtiwi ti, it would be natural enough. pr Ilatdos éoravpd0n| ‘surely Paul was not crucified for you. The appeal is not simply to their gratitude towards one who has laid down his life for them, but to their sense of justice. ‘You were not purchased by the blood of Paul, you have not become the property of Paul.’ Compare 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20, vii. 23, where this idea of ownership is brought out. The idea will of course be more strongly implied here if the reading is vmép, than if mepi. The balance of evidence is slightly in favour of Umep. els Td dvopa Tlatdov] ‘zto the name of, not ‘in the name of’ as in the E.V. The preposition implies both ‘subjection to and communion with’ another. The phrase is sometimes emi r@ dvopare (Acts ii. 38 v. 1.), some- times €v r@® ovouari (Acts x. 48), but more frequently the stronger eis ro ovoua (Matt. xxviii. 19, Acts viii. 16, xix. 5). It is unsafe to infer from such expressions as this (comp. Acts x. 48, xix. 5 and Hermas / ill. 7. 3 OeXovres BamticOnva eis TO Ovopa Tod Kupiov) that the formula of baptism in the name of the Trinity (as commanded Matt. xxvill. 19) was dispensed with, and the name of Jesus alone pronounced. Baptism in or into the name of Jesus is to be regarded as an abridged expression to signify Christian baptism, retaining the characteristic element in the formula. Justin Martyr at least recognises only baptism in the name of the Trinity (AZo/. i. § 61, p. 94 A) and see Clem. Recogn. iii. 67, Tertull. c. Praxean § 27. Certain heretics however baptized solely in the name of Christ, and in the discussion on rebaptism it was a question whether such baptism was valid. See a full account in Bingham’s Christian Antiquities, XI. c. iii. § 1 and comp. Neander P/. u. Lett. § 276, Ch. Hist. (Bohn’s translation) 11. pp. 430, 446 sq., who however leans to the opinion that baptism in the name of Christ alone is intended in these passages of Scripture, as did St Ambrose also de Sfir. Saucer. 1. 3. 14. Kplrrov] The ruler of the synagogue whose whole household was converted, probably among the earliest Corinthian converts. Crispus (like Cincinnatus, etc. referring originally to the hair) is a common Roman cognomen, and occurs frequently also as a Jewish name. See the passages cited by Lightfoot and Wetstein here. Taiov] St Paul (Rom. xvi. 23) speaks of Gaius as ‘mine host and of the whole Church,’ so that he would appear to have lodged with him during his (now approaching) third visit to Corinth. Several persons 156 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [{I. 14. of the name appear inthe N. T. It was an ordinary prenomen among the Romans, and being common to several distinguished members of the Imperial family, like Julius, Claudius etc., was probably more in vogue than ever at this epoch. Whether this is the same with the Gaius addressed in 3 John, it is impossible to say. They are both commended in similar terms for their hospitality : comp. 3 John 5, 6. But the Gaius of St John seems to be spoken of as a younger man or at least a young disciple, whereas the Gaius of St Paul cannot have been either when St John wrote. The correct pronunciation and probably the correct form in Latin is Gaius, as it is always written in Greek. The same character in Latin originally stood for C and G: comp. Donaldson Varron. vii. § 3, p. 291. 15. va pr tis ely] is to be connected with the whole sentence evyapioTa...€8antica, not with ovdéva €Bamtica alone. ‘I am thankful it was so, that no one may have it in his power to say.’ It is not meant that St Paul at the time abstained from baptizing, foreseeing this result, but that afterwards he was glad that it was so. ‘ Providentia Dei regnat szepe in rebus, quarum ratio postea cognoscitur’ Bengel. eis Td éudv Svopa] as certain heretics actually did, or are reputed to have done, e.g. Menander (in Pseudo-Tertull. adv. omn. Her. c. 1.) and others. See the references in Bingham, XI. c. iii. § 5. €BarricOnre] the correct reading, not ¢Samrica. 16. The verse was an afterthought. He was perhaps reminded of the omission by his amanuensis, who may have been Stephanas himself or one of his household, for they were with him at the time (1 Cor. xvi. 15, 17). Perhaps Fortunatus and Achaicus were members of his household. The house of Stephanas is spoken of in 1 Cor. 1. c. as the first-fruits of Achaia. This will account for their being baptized by the Apostle’s own hand. On the undesigned coincidences between the Acts and Epistles lurking under these names see Paley Hor. Paul. il. § 8. 17. ov yap améoretke] Baptism might be performed by a subordinate. It presupposed no extraordinary gifts on the part of the performer, for its efficacy consisted in the spirit of the recipient and the grace of God, 9 yap mpoaipecis Tov mpoctovtos Aourdy epyaterat TO TGV, Kai 7 TOU Geod xapts : but successful preaching requires special gifts. Hence we find that our Lord did not baptize Himself, but left this work to His disciples (John iv. 1, 2). And the Apostles followed this precedent, as St Peter (Acts x. 48), and St Paul here. St Paul was generally attended by one or more of the brethren, who ministered to him and on whom this office would devolve (Acts xiii. 5 elyov "Iwavyny Umnpéerny, XixX. 22 8Vo rev Staxovo’vtwy avira Tyodeov cat "Epacroy, both phrases pointing to a recognised position, more or less official). otk év cola Adyou] St Paul is eager to obviate any misapprehension which might arise from his exaltation of the ordinance of preaching. There were many members of the Corinthian Church who would eagerly seize hold of this concession as they would regard it. It is not as a mere I. 18.] FIRST? EPISTLE TO! THE CORINTHIANS: Sig display of rhetoric, or of logical subtlety that he exalts it. This might require special gifts, but not the gifts of the Spirit. It is questioned whether év codia Aoyov refers to the form or the matter of the teaching. So far as it is possible to separate the two, this question is best answered by determining against which party the implied rebuke is directed. We can scarcely be wrong in assuming this to be the party which affected to follow Apollos the man of eloquence (dyyp Adytos, Acts xviii. 24). If so, the reference must be mainly to form, through the natural tendency of the Corinthian mind to attach too much import- ance to the graces of diction: for the substance of Apollos’ teaching cannot have differed from that of St Paul in any such degree as to have been exaggerated into a party question. The codia Aoyov then will refer not only to the luxuriant rhetoric, but also to the dialectic subtleties of the Alexandrian method, which we find to an exaggerated degree in the writings of Philo and some of the Alexandrian fathers. kevw0n | ‘ de empized, i.e. ‘dwindle to nothing, vanish under the weight of rhetorical ornament and dialectic subtlety.’ For xevodv compare I Cor. Ise 5-2 Cor, 1x. 3. (6) The unhealthy craving after copia. God's folly triumphant over mans wisdom (1. 18—ti1. 5). 18. Through this incidental allusion to preaching St Paul passes to a new subject. The dissensions in the Corinthian Church are fora time forgotten, and he takes the opportunity of correcting his converts for their undue exaltation of human eloquence and wisdom. He returns from this digression to his former theme almost imperceptibly at the beginning of the third chapter. The link of connexion in both cases is equally subtle. 6 Aédyos yap «.t.A.] The connexion is as follows: ‘For the preach- ing with which we are concerned—the preaching of the Cross—is the very antithesis to copia Aoyov. It has no triumphs of rhetoric or subtleties of dialectic to offer to those whose hearts are set on such trifles. To such it appears to be but foolishness : and this is a sign that they are on the way of destruction.’ On the repetition of Adyos see note ii. 6 codiav. 6 Adyos 6 TOU cravpod| here used as co-extensive with the preaching of the Gospel, just as 6 oravpos Tov Xpiorod in the previous verse denotes the substance of the Gospel. This expression shows clearly the stress 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. dmoddupévors, cwolopévors] ‘chose who are in the path of destruction, of salvation. ‘In the language of the New Testament salvation is a thing of the past, a thing of the present, and a thing of the future. St Paul says sometimes “ Ye (or we) were saved” (Rom viii. 24), or “ Ye have been saved” (Ephes. ii. 5, 8), sometimes “ Ye are being saved” (1 Cor. xv. 2), 158 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [I. 18. and sometimes “Ye shall be saved” (Rom. x. 9, 13). It is important to observe this, because we are thus taught that cwrnpia involves a moral condition which must have begun already, though it will receive its final accomplishment hereafter. Godliness, righteousness, is life, is salvation. And it is hardly necessary to say that the divorce of morality and religion must be fostered and encouraged by failing to note this, and so laying the whole stress either on the past or on the future—on the first call or on the final charge. On a Fresh Revision, p. 104, ed. 3 (1891). For aro\Avpévors Compare 2 Cor. il. 15, lv. 3, 2 Thess. ii. 10; for swlopevors 2 Cor. il. 15, Acts il. 47; see also Luke xili. 23 ef ddtyor of cwlopevor. Comp. also Clem. Rom. § 58, Clem. Hom. xv. 10, Apost. Const. viii. 5, 7, 8. The idea of final acceptance or rejection is obviously excluded in the present tense: nor is it at all necessarily implied by the past tense, if we remember that the knowledge of God is in itself cwrnpia, and those who are brought to that knowledge are cecwopeévor; just as they are said to belong to the Bacwdeia Tov Ceov, though they may not attain to the blissful consummation of their salvation, and may be excluded from the future kingdom of Christ by falling away. For St Paul’s way of speaking compare the note on ver. 2 nyvaopeévors and ver. 9 kowvwvia. tois St cwlopévois qpyiv] This order, which is somewhat unnatural, is adopted in order to bring out the opposition between of amodAvpevoe and of owtdpevoe Sharply. At the same time it serves to smooth down the prominence of nyiv. Sivapis Ocot] The direct opposition to pwpia would require copia @cod, but the word dvvayis is instinctively substituted to show that it is not the intellectual excellence so much as the moral power of the doctrine of the Cross on which the Apostle lays stress. At the same time, inasmuch as pepia involves the notion of vainness, inefficiency, dvvapis is no unnatural opposition. 19. dmod@ x.t.d.] A quotation from Isaiah xxix. 14. By this appeal to Scripture St Paul enforces the two points, which are brought out in the preceding verse: first, the opposition between the wisdom of the world and the power of God, and secondly, the destruction of the wise of this world. Compare droA6 with rots drodAvpévors Of ver. 18. The passage is taken from the LXX. with this difference that St Paul has substituted d@erjow for cpio. In the Hebrew the sentence is ina passive form: ‘the wisdom of their wise shall perish etc.’ The spirit of the application here is in exact accordance with the original context of the passage. The opposition there is between the evrdApyara avOperav kal d.dacxadlas (ver. 13, a passage cited by our Lord Matt. xv. 8, 9) and the power of God which shall be exerted to the ruin of those who trust in human teaching. The original reference however is to a temporary calamity, the invasion of Sennacherib; and the application which St Paul makes of the passage, in a spiritual and more comprehensive sense, is after the common analogy of the New Testament writers. I. 20.] FIRST EPISTLE CO; LHE (CORINTHIANS, 159 codlav, civerv] On the distinction between these two terms see the note on Col. i.9. They are explained in Arist. Eth. Nic. vi. 7, 10. The first is a creative, the second a discerning faculty. 20. mov codpés; K.t.A.] These words area loose paraphrase of Isaiah xxxill. 18. They are certainly not intended as a quotation, for the language diverges too much both from the Hebrew and Lxx. The original passage describes the overthrow of Sennacherib, who had attacked the people of God. It runs in the LXX. mod elow of ypauparikol; mob eiaiv of ovpBovdevovres ; mov eoTLv 6 apLOuay Tors TpEeouévous puKpdy Kal péyav Aacy ; perhaps translated from a corrupt text. The meaning of the Hebrew is given in Bishop Lowth’s translation: ‘Where is now the accomptant? where the weigher of tribute? where is he that numbereth the towers?’ The annihilation of the officers of Sennacherib’s army is intended by these words. In place of these St Paul substitutes the leaders in the world of thought, who war against the spiritual Israel. From this it will be seen that the passage in Isaiah will not aid us to the interpretation of the individual words coos, ypaupatev’s, cvrv(nrntns, the form of the sentence only being the same and the general application analogous, while the similarity of ypayparikoi of the LXx. in Isaiah and ypapparevs in St Paul is merely accidental, or at best suggested the paraphrase by its appeal to the ear. copes, ypappatets, cuvfnryris}] Two explanations of these words deserve consideration. +/77st, coos is the general term including both the Jewish and Greek teachers, ypayparevs is the Jewish scribe, cuv¢nrnris the Greek philosopher. But against this interpretation it may be urged (1) that coos more fitly designates the Greek philosopher than ouv¢nrnrjs, being the word specially reserved for this meaning among the Greeks themselves ; see Theodoret (ad loc.) xadei copov roy tH “EMAnuixy cr@pvAia Koopor- pevoy, Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 3. 23, p. 329, and above all Rom. i. 23 ddokovres eivat codot exwpavOnoay. Compare also the Jewish proverb quoted by Lightfoot (77. 77. ad loc.) ‘Cursed is he that herdeth hogs, and cursed is he that teacheth his son Grecian wisdom.’ (2) This interpretation seems to require tov ai@vos rovrov to be taken with all three words, whereas the repetition of mod separates the clauses. For these reasons it is better, secondly, to take gopds as the Greek philosopher, ypaypareds as the Jewish scribe, and cuv{ntntis rot aiévos rovTov as the comprehensive term, a general expression comprehending both, tov aidvos rov’rov being confined to the last of the three. The use of codia just below in the phrase ry gopiavy Tov koopov, as including both, is not a sufficient reason for discarding this interpretation. A stronger argument in favour of this explanation might be drawn from ver. 22, where godia is used of the Greeks alone. Both these senses recognise a special mention of Jew and Greek severally, and this seems to be required by the sequel emesd7 kat ‘Iovdaiou... kat “EdAnves (ver. 22). This in itself is decisive in favour of rejecting 160 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [I. 20. other distinctions, as for instance that coos is the ethical and meta- physical philosopher, ypapyparevs the historian and literary man, cuvtynrnrhs the naturalist and man of science—a distinction which has quite a modern smack. Moreover ypapparevs can only be a learned man when applied to the Jewish scribe: in the ordinary Greek vocabulary it denotes a civil officer, ‘a town-clerk’ or ‘secretary,’ e.g. Acts xix. 35; Ecclus. XXXViil. 24 codia ypapparéws ev evxatpia cxoAjs is not an exception. The Jewish writers (see the passages in Wetstein) included in their general picture of the corruption of the age at the time of Messiah’s coming the failing of Rabbinical wisdom, apparently with a reference to Isaiah xxxiii. 18. With regard to the heathen, we have here the germ of the thought which St Paul afterwards expands so strikingly in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, especially vv. 21, 22 euaradOnoav ev rois Siadoyiopots avtTav kal ecxotiabn n adovvetos avTayv Kapdia* pacKovres etvat codot euwpavOnoay, kat nAdakay x.t.A. See also the notes on odyt €uopavev 6 Geos below and on ey rn codia rod Geov in the next verse. For a similar instance of an expansion see xv. 56. Tov alavos rovrov] On this expression, as opposed to 6 aiwy 6 né\Nov or aidy éxeivos ‘ Messiah’s reign,’ compare Usteri Paul. Lehrb. p. 327 sq. The phrase had a temporal meaning, as originally employed by the Jews; but as St Paul uses it, it is rather ethical in its signification, there being no sharp division in time between ‘the age of the world’ and ‘the age of Messiah.’ odxl éudpavev 6 Ocds] ‘aid not God render vain’ ; and this in two ways, (1) by exhibiting its intrinsic worthlessness and corrupt results, and (2) by the power of the Cross set in opposition to it and triumphing over it, as explained in the following verse. The process of this pwpaivew in the case of the Gentiles is portrayed in the passage from the Romans quoted above. The hand of God is there distinctly recognised, 6:6 mapédaxev avtrovs 6 eds év Tais éemiOupias «.t.A. ‘While the reason strove to raise itself, remarks Neander, ‘above Polytheism, it was betrayed into Pantheism only to fall at last into scepticism.’ Yet it is rather their moral degradation, as resulting from their idolatry, that St Paul must have had in his mind, as the passage in the Epistle to the Romans shows. tov Kécpov] Omit rovrov, which has been introduced to conform to rod alavos rovrov above ; koopos is in itself ‘the existing order of things,’ and needs no specification like aidv. We never find 6 xécpos 6 péAdov. Kéopos is used as synonymous with aig, as in I Cor, ili. 18, 19: compare also 1 Cor. ii. 6 with ii. 12 and Eph. ii. 2, where we have xara rov aidva rou Koopov rovrov. So far as there is any difference between the two words, aldy would seem, like ‘ szeculum,’ to refer to the prevailing ideas and feelings of the present life, and xécpos to its gross, material character ; and the two would be contrasted, though not so sharply, in the same way as ‘the world’ and ‘the flesh.’ [. 22. ] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 161 21. éweSi yap] explaining the manner of éuwpavey in the preceding verse. év rq cola tod Ocod] is explained in two ways. (1) ‘When the world failed to recognise Godin the works of His wisdom’: godia denoting the wisdom of God as displayed in the works of creation to the Gentiles and in the Mosaic dispensation to the Jews. Or (2) ‘when owing to the wise dispensation of God the world failed to recognise Him etc.’ The first interpretation produces indeed a stronger resemblance to Rom. i. 18 sq. of which this passage is the germ; compare especially ver. 20 Ta yap adopara avrov amo KTivews KOopOV TOs ToLnpag voovpeva Kaboparat k.T.A., and see Wisd. xiii. 1. But everything else is in favour of the second rendering. For frst, it is harsh to attribute to codia a concrete sense, as ‘the works of His intelligence’: secondly, the position of ev r7 copia rod Gcod points to it, as giving the explanation of ovkc éyyw o Kocpos x.t.A.: and thirdly, the sense suits the context better, as accounting for éuwpavey 6 Geds which idea it assists the following evdoxnoev d1a THs pwpias in carrying out. Even the corruption of the world was in a certain sense God’s doing, inasmuch as He permitted it with a providential end in view: comp. Rom. xi. 32. 6 Kéapos] here includes Jew as well as Gentile. The Pharisee, no less than the Greek philosopher, had a codia of his own, which stood between his heart and the knowledge of God. Sid tis codlas| is taken either of ‘the wisdom of God,’ or of ‘the wisdom of the world.’ The latter is probably correct, as it presents the same opposition to da ris pwpias Tov Knpvyparos which runs through the context. Tov Knptypatos] ‘of the thing preached, ‘the proclamation’; not ris knpv&éews. It refers therefore to the subject, not to the manner of the preaching. There is only the very slightest approach in classical writers to this sense of the words knpvocew, knpvypa etc., as denoting ‘instruc- tion,’ ‘teaching.’ The metaphor, if it can be called a metaphor, is perhaps derived from the Jewish theocracy, and involves the notion of heralding the approach of a king (Matt. iii. 1, iv. 17), or of proclaiming an edict of a sovereign. But it seems to be very rarely used in a sense approaching to this, even in the Lxx. 22. The following verses (22—25) contain a confirmation and ampli- fication of the assertion in ver. 21, in its twofold bearing. They maintain jirst, that the preaching of the gospel is directly opposed to the wisdom of the world, whether displayed in the sign-seeking of the Jews, or the philosophical subtleties of the Greeks (the codia par excellence); and secondly, that this foolishness of God triumphs over the wisdom of the world. kal "IovSaior...cal “EAAnves] i.e. ‘the Jews no less than the Gentiles have gone astray.’ Compare Rom. ili. 9 mpontiacaueOa yap "Iovdaious re kat "EAAnvas mavras vp apapriav eva. The particles xal...«ai correspond to each other, and attach the two sentences together. The absence of a L. EP. II 162 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [T. 22. pev in this clause, answering to mueis dé, is to be accounted for by supposing that the Apostle had not cast the form of the latter part of the sentence in his mind, when he commenced it. TovSaior, “EXAnves] The absence of the article shows that they are spoken of rather with a view to their attributes than to their individuality, ‘Jews as Jews,’ ‘ Greeks as Greeks.’ onpeta] the correct reading, for which the received text has onpeiov. The whole force of the passage here comes from the meaning ‘ miraculous sign’ as applied to onpeiov. Compare Matt. xii. 38 sq., xvi. I sq., John ii. 18, vi. 30, incidents to which St Paul may be alluding indirectly, though doubtless the Apostles were frequently met by the Jews with the demand ‘give us a sign,’ as our Lord had been. It is not difficult to conjecture in what sense the Jews asked for ‘signs.’ Signs were vouchsafed in plenty, signs of God’s power and love, but these were not the signs which they sought. They wanted signs of an outward Messianic Kingdom, of temporal triumph, of material greatness for the chosen people. See id/ical Essays, p. 150 sq. for Jewish expectation of signs to be wrought by the Messiah, and the references in Wetstein on Matt. xvi. 1. With such cravings the gospel of a ‘crucified Messiah’ (Xpiorov éoravpwpévov) was to them a stumbling-block indeed. “EdAnves codlav] This characteristic of the Greeks was noted by Anacharsis in Herod. iv. 77, "EAAnvas mavtas doxoAous elvar mpos macav copinv. He excepts however the Lacedaemonians. aitoteiv, tnrotow] The same accurate appreciation of the difference between Jew and Gentile as regards the reception of the Gospel, which dictated the whole passage, is visible in these words. All the terms are carefully chosen. The importunity of the Jews is expressed by airety, the curious speculative turn of the Greeks by ¢nreiv. 23. An instructive commentary on this passage is furnished by the different arguments which Justin Martyr employs in combating Jewish and Greek assailants in the Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho. See Blunt Church in the First Three Centuries (1861), p. 120 sq. The Jews looked to material, outward privileges, the Greeks sought satisfaction for their intellectual cravings. The preaching of the Cross commended itself to neither. It is a moral and spiritual power. npeis 8 Kynptooopev] ‘but we preach, i.e. ‘we do not discuss or dispute.’ Xpirrdv toravpwpévoy] ‘a crucified Messiah, not as the E. V., ‘Christ crucified.’ The expression is a sort of oxymoron. It is not so much the person as the office which is denoted here by Xpiords. By suffering He was to redeem; by suffering He was to make many perfect. His Messiahship and His Cross were necessarily connected. To the Jew however Xpiords éoravpwpévos Was a contradiction in terms: to the Greek it would be simply meaningless. The great difficulty of the Jews in overcoming the idea of a crucified Messiah appears from the very first. I. 24.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 163 See Acts xxvi. 23, where St Paul states that one of the main theses which he had to maintain was that the Christ was to suffer. Consequently we find that the Apologists in arguing with the Jews had to explain this difficulty (Ariston of Pella in Routh A. S. 1. p. 95, Justin Martyr Dial. c. Tryph. c. 69, p. 323 C, Tertull. adv. Judaeos § 10). On this point see further in Galatians, p. 152 sq. An illustration of this difficulty we have in the fact that the later Jews, recognising the prediction of the prophets that the Messiah should suffer, were driven to the expedient of supposing two Christs, both a suffering and a glorified Redeemer, called respec- tively Ben Joseph and Ben David. There is no trace however of this distinction until Christian arguments from prophecy forced it upon Jewish apologists. See Bertholdt Ch7zstol. § 17, p. 75 sq., Gfrorer Jahr. des Fleils 11. p. 318 sq., and compare Stanley, p. 51. With regard to the general abhorrence of the Cross by the Gentiles see Cicero fro Radbirio, c. 5 ‘nomen ipsum crucis absit non modo a corpore civium Romanorum, sed etiam a cogitatione, oculis, auribus,’ comp. Verr. v. 64. That this ‘stumbling-block of the cross’ existed not only in the apostolic age but that it continued for generations later appears from many indications. Thus Lucian (de morte Peregr. c. 13) speaks of our Lord as ‘ the gibbeted sophist,’ tov avecxodomigpevov exeivov cod.iotyyv; but perhaps the best illustration of the popular feeling is the well-known caricature of a slave falling down before an ass hanging on a gibbet with the inscription AdeEapevos oeBete Oeov, found in the Paedagogium on the Palatine, and now in the Museo Kircheriano. So Celsus (Orig. c. Cels. iv. 7) speaks of the Christians as ‘actually worshipping a dead man’ (dvtws vexpov oéBov- tas), a veductio ad absurdum in his opinion. The Emperor Julian after his apostasy uses similar language. See also the note on Phil. ii. 8. oKkdvdadov| Sxavdadov corresponds to onpeta, pwpiav to codpiav. Instead of finding signs or tokens of the approach of Messiah’s Kingdom, finger-posts guiding them thereto, they found a hindrance to their belief in that approach. 24. awvtots 8 tots KAntois| ‘but fo the believers themselves) whatever it might be to others. ‘Though they see that those around them regard the cross as a stumbling-block or as foolishness, yet they themselves know it to be’ etc. This is the force of avrots, which is added because the passage is expressed from the standpoint of the believer. The meaning of avrois would have been more clear if St Paul had said avrois de nyiv, but he avoids the first person because he wishes no longer to restrict the application to the preachers (rpeis d€ knpvoocouev) of whom he has been speaking hitherto. Avdrois d€ rois KAnrois Cannot mean, ‘to them, viz. the called’; jrs¢, because this is very question- able Greek, and secondly, because there is nothing nearer than Tovs mtotevovras (ver. 21) to which to refer the pronoun. On rots KAntots see ver. 2 above, Xpirrév] The repetition of this word is emphatic. ‘Christ crucified’ 1I—2 164 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (I. 24. of the former clause is now ‘ Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.’ Sivapiv] corresponds to onueia of ver. 22, as aopiav does to aodiavy. The analogy between dvvayis and onpeia will appear, if we remember that the signs, which the Jews sought, were manifestations of kingly power. The terms dvvayis and codia applied to our Lord are suggested by what has gone before. He is the reality of that power of which the Jews were pursuing the shadow, of that wisdom for which the Greeks were substituting a counterfeit. At the same time they have a deeper meaning. They appeal to the theosophy of the day, and declare Christ to be the Eternal Word of God. For both dvvapis (Geov) and copia (Geov) are synonyms for Adyos in the phraseology of Jewish speculators. For dvvauis in the sense of an emanation of the Godhead see Acts vili. Io, for codia see Luke xi. 49. + 25. tav avOpdérwv] St Paul in abridging the comparison is ‘only following a common Greek idiom: e.g. Eur. Med. 1342, 3 A€away, ov yuvaixa, Tis Tuponvidos SxtdAns Exovcay dypiwrépavy piaw. See Jelf, Gr § 781 d, Winer, § xxxv. p. 307. At the same time the expression here is more forcible than if it had been written in full ris codias (rhs ioxvos) tov avOparev. The very foolishness of God is wiser than men and all that is in man. Tertullian’s comment is ‘Quid est stultum Dei sapientius hominibus, nisi crux et mors Christi? Quid infirmum Dei fortius homine, nisi nativitas et caro Dei?’ (c. Marcion. v.5). The separation however in this comment is not justified by the text. 26. ‘Is not this in accordance with your own experience? Thus not only in the means of redemption, but in the persons of the redeemed, is the weakness of God declared to be stronger than men. Not only is the power of God seen in the effect of the preaching of a crucified Messiah : it is evidenced also in the fact that preachers and believers alike are chiefly drawn from the weak and the despised of the world.’ Brérere yap] ‘for look at your calling, the circumstances under which ye were called to Christianity. Not an indicative but an imperative mood: compare viii. 9, x. 12, 18, xvi. 10, Phil. iii. 2 and frequently in St Paul. The passage is more vigorous when thus taken : ‘ excitat quasi torpentes ad rem ipsam considerandam’ says Calvin. And the emphatic position of BAérere seems to require it. Otherwise the order would probably have been rv kAjow vuov Bdérere, as in 2 Cor. xX. 7 Ta Kara mpoowmov BdErere. THY KAjoW bpav] ‘the manner of your calling’; here and elsewhere with a special reference to their station in life at the time of their calling. This idea however is not contained in the word xAjos itself, but is derived from the context, as also in vii. 20. KAjors in itself never signifies a ‘vocation’ or ‘calling in life,” It is the calling to the know- f.28.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 165 ledge of the Gospel, and it may or may not, according to the context, have reference to the circumstances under which the calling took place. On the Pauline interchange of xkAnows and éexAoyn see on Col. ili. 12 ws éxXexTol Tov Oeov, and compare 1° Thess, i. 4, 2 Thess. i. 11. It will be observed here that St Paul uses the verb éeeA¢Earo in ver. 27 as corre- sponding to the substantive kAjow. ott| ‘ow that. For this construction compare the note on 1 Thess. i. 5 (a passage which is mistranslated inthe E.V.). It is the or, which introduces the idea of manner or circumstances into kAjous. kata odpka| should probably be taken with all three words codoi, Suvaroi, evyeveis. The position of the qualifying phrase after the first of the three is much more in favour of this conjuncture than if it had been placed after the last, as for instance in ver. 20. Besides it applies equally well to all three. There is a spiritual dvvayis and a spiritual evyéveia, as well as a spiritual gofia. The Bereans are examples of this spfritual nobility (odro: foav evyeveorepor Tov ev Geaoadovikn Acts xvil. II). Lastly, rov xoopou is repeated with the opposites of all three in the next verse. ov moddol] ‘zot many.’ The phrase is not equivalent to ovdeis, for there were some few exceptions. In the Church of Corinth Erastus ‘the chamberlain of the city’ (Rom. xvi. 23) might perhaps be reckoned among the duvaroi. That the majority of the first converts from heathen- dom were either slaves or freedmen, appears from their names. Compare especially the salutations in the last chapter of the Roman Epistle (see on this PAziippians, p. 171 sq.), and the remarks of Merivale, Wzstory of the Romans (1858), vol. VI. p. 265 sq. The sentence is elliptical and a verb must be understood from the context. The reference however in ov modAol x.r.A. is probably to be confined neither to the teachers as such, nor to the taught as such (as dif- ferent commentators have maintained); but to be extended to the converts generally. Accordingly some less precise term is needed than éexAnOnoav or efehéyOnoav, though in one sense éxAnOyoar is applicable, for teachers and taught alike are ‘called.’ On the brachylogies of St Paul see the note on ver. 31, and on this passage Dr Ainslie in the Fournal of Philology (1868) 1. p. 158. This fact of the social condition of the early Christians is the constant boast of the first Apologists as the glory of Christianity. See especially Justin Martyr AZol. ii. 9 Xptord od Pirdcodor ovde Pidddoyor povoy érreicOnoav, adda kal xeporéxvat kal mavredas idi@rac Kal SoEns kai PoBov kat Oavarov Katappovncarres, ered Svvapis €ort TOU appyrov Tarpos x.t.A.; and Origen c. Cels. II. 79 kai ov Oavpaoroy ei trav dpovipwv: adda Kat Tov dhoywratwy Kat Tois madecw eéyxeipevov...ddAX eémet Svvayis tov Oeod o Xptoros Hv Kal godia tov Ilarpos, dua rovTo Tatra memoinkxev Kat ére mrovet oe 27,28, ddd x.7.A.] Mapa, aoOevn, ayer Kai ta eEovOevnuéva are the 166 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [I. 28. opposites of codoi, duvaroi, evyeveis. See the note on the reading kai ra py Ovra below. The omission of the words iva xaraoytvp rods codors, Kat Ta adaGevn Tov Koopou e&edAeEato 6 Beds in some uncial MSS. probably arises out of a confusion due to the repetition of the same words é£eX. 6 Geos. Origen is guilty of a different error. He omits from the first to the third efeX. 6 Oeds. The neuters (e.g. rad papa for oi pwpot) are adopted in preference to the masculines, as sinking the individuality and conveying an idea of meanness in the objects, and thus bringing out the point of the contrast more strongly. The repetition of é&ehé£aro 6 Geds is emphatic. The effect is the same as in the reiteration of xAnros ver. I (where see the note). St Paul is penetrated with the intense conviction that our calling is not of ourselves but of God; and expresses himself accordingly. Thus he is already preparing us for the precept with which he closes the paragraph, ‘O kavx@pevos ev Kupio xavxacbo. 28. +d py dvta] The omission of the particle xai before ra ux ovra is justifiable on external authority alone, though the evidence in its favour (S°BC°D°L) is considerable. It is however not found in NAC'D!FG and several of the early fathers. Certainly the sense gains by the omission. The three classes which are the opposites to cooi, duvaroi, evyevets have been already enumerated (though in the last the supplementary clause iva kataicxvvn Ta evyervr is not expressed and has to be supplied by the reader). The strong expression ra yw) d6vra is now added as at once a climax and a summary of what has gone before. The negative px is generally explained here as denoting not the objective fact (ra ovx dvra) but the subjective impression, ‘things reputed non-existent.’ So apparently Winer §lv, p. 608. This however would weaken the force of the contrast, and it is probable that it denotes simply the class-attributes, ‘such things as are not,’ according to its ordinary usage. Compare Xen. Amad. iv. 4. 15 otros yap éddxer kal mporepov mrodAa On GAnOedoa roaira, Ta dvTa Te Hs bvTa Kal Ta jy OVTA WS ovk ovra, where the sense is obvious and has nothing to do with the subjective impression. See also Jelf, Gr. §746. 2, and Eur. Troad. 608 (cited by Alford) ‘Opé ra trav Oedv, ds Ta pev mupyoio avw Ta pndev 6vra, ta 8€ Soxodvr’ drdédecav. In fact ra py dvra is much more usual than ra ovk dvra in the sense of ‘things not existing.’ katrapyyioy| ‘annzhilate, reduce to non-entity.’ This strong expression is substituted for the weaker xaraoyvvp, as the opposition to ra py dvra requires. 29. Otrws pr} Kavxyonra: aca rdpt] ‘that no flesh may boast, ‘ that all Jiesh may be prevented from boasting’? Compare Acts x. 14 ovdémore €payov wav kowov ‘I have always avoided eating everything common,’ Rom. ill. 20 ov SixarwOnoera maca cdp& éverv avtov. In such cases the negative is attached closely to the verb which it immediately precedes. This seems to be scarcely a classical usage of mas with the: negative, I.30.] PIRSL EPISTLE fO THE ‘CORINTHIANS. 167 and the analogy of the classical ov mavv (with which on the other hand compare od mavtws Rom. iii. 9) 1s apparent, rather than real. It is a common Hebraism, and the corresponding Hebrew (awa-b5), show- ing that waca oapé are to be regarded as one word, assists to explain how maca is unaffected by the negative which refers solely to the verb. éveémriov tov Ocod|] The preposition conveys an idea of boldness and independence. As Bengel says; ‘Non coram illo, sed zm illo gloriari possumus.’ See ver. 31. 30. ‘Nay, so far from there being any place for boasting, ye owe your existence as Christians to Him, as the Author of your being.’ The words é& avrov tpeis core €v Xprot@ ‘Incov are differently taken. Either (1) ‘From Him ye have your being (€& avrov éore), ye are born of Him in Christ Jesus,’ ‘ye are His children in Christ Jesus.’ So Chrysostom (ékeivou maidés €are dia Tov Xpiorov Tovro yevopevor), and in the same way the other Greek commentators. Compare xi. 8, 12, xii. I5. Or (2) ‘For it is His doing (é€ avrov) that ye are in Christ Jesus, are members of Christ (ésre €y Xpiot@ "Inaod). The latter of these inter- pretations is open to two objections ; jrs¢, that the sense attributed to e£ avrov is unusual at least in the New Testament, and secondly, the emphatic position of éore would scarcely be explicable, for the natural order would certainly be ev Xpiuct@ “Ingo eore. It was probably from an instinctive feeling of the requirements of the Greek that the Greek commentators seem all to have adopted the other interpretation. For the sentiment and even the form in which it is expressed, compare Gal. iii. 26 mavres yap viol Gcov éaré dia THs wicgtews ev Xpiat@ “Inoov. If the idea of a regeneration and spiritual sonship appears most frequently in St John, it was certainly not unknown to St Paul. érrt] Possibly an allusion to the preceding ra py dvra ‘you, who were not, now are.’ But in any case, éore is here best taken as a predicate, and accentuated, as in Lachmann’s edition. éyevy On] ‘decame’ (i.e. by His incarnation); not ‘was made.’ See the note on I Thess. i. 5 éyevnOnuev. ‘He showed us the way to all true knowledge, the knowledge of God and of our own salvation. He by taking upon Him our nature was manifested to us as the impersonation of all wisdom,’ or perhaps better ‘the representative of the wise dispen- sation of God.’ ams Ocot] To be taken with éeyevndn codia, not with oodia alone. St Paul accumulates words to intensify the leading idea of the sentence that everything comes of God. Stkatocivy Te Kal dyiacpes kal dtroAitpwors| ‘ that zs to say, righteousness and sanctification and redemption. These three words are an epexegesis of copia. Owing to the absence of any connecting particle between copia and Sixavocdvn, and especially considering the interposition of azo @cov, it is impossible to coordinate the four words, as is done in the English version and by many commentators. 168 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [I. 30. The connecting particles re xai...xai perhaps imply a close connexion between dixavoovvn and ayiacpos, whereas dmoAvrpwots stands rather by itself. ‘By becoming wisdom He became both righteousness and sancti- fication and also redemption.’ Compare Hom. Od. xv. 78 audorepov, xidos Te Kal ayAain, kal dvecap, Herod. vii. I kai véas te Kai immous Kal oirov Kal mdoia: and see Jelf, Gv. § 758, Hartung, Partikeln. i. 103. The order of the words d:xavocvvn, aysaopos is what might be expected. Atxatoovvn is used in its peculiar Pauline sense as ‘righteousness before God,’ ‘justification’; differing however from d:xaiwovs (Rom. iv. 25, v. 18) in that the latter is the verdict of God which pronounces a man righteous. ‘Ayacpos is the natural following up of dixatoovvn and is illustrated by Rom. vi. 19 mapactncare Ta péAn Vudy Sodda TH Sikatoodyy eis ayvaopov. On the terminations -cvvn, -ovs, -7os see I Thess. ili. 13. On the other hand we are scarcely prepared to find dmoAvrpwors following these words which we might expect it to precede, as e.g. Rom. ili. 24 Ssxacodpevor Swpeay tH avrov xapure dia THis amoduvtp@cews THs ev XpioT@ “Inoov. But ‘redemption’ is really used in two ways. Calvin very justly says, ‘Redemptio primum Christi donum est quod inchoatur in nobis, et ultimum quod perficitur’; and here the word is used not so much of the initiative act (the death of Christ, cf. Eph. i. 7), as of redemp- tion consummated in our deliverance from all sin and misery. In this sense it is almost equivalent to ¢w7 aidvios and is therefore rightly placed last. For the sense of dmodvrpwots see especially Eph. iv. 30 eis npépav aroAutpooews and compare Rom. viii. 23, Eph. 1. 14. This is the earliest indication in St Paul’s Epistles of the doctrine which occupies so prominent a place in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, and in St Paul’s teaching generally. See Azdlical Essays, p-. 224sq. 31. twa KaOds yéypamrat K.7.A.] 62 order that it may be according to the language of Scripture.’ The sentence is frequently explained as an anacoluthon, as if St Paul had retained the imperative mood of the original (cavyao6w) instead of substituting kavxnonra. But it is more in accordance with St Paul’s usage to regard it as an ellipsis iva (yévnrat) xadas yéypanta x.t.A. His ellipses are often very abrupt (see the instances collected on 2 Thess. ii. 3), and have occasioned much trouble to the transcribers, who are at much pains to supply them. See a note in Fournal of Philology iii. p. 85. Of the ellipsis of a verb after va we have examples in Rom. iv. 16 8:4 rodro ex wiorews iva kara xapu, Gal. ii. 9 iva rpeis els ta €Ovn, adroit dé els THY meptrouny, 2 Cor. viii. 13 ov yap wa dddous dveots, vpiv Oris. Whichever explanation is given, the sentence in form very much resembles Rom. xv. 3 adda xados yeypantra* Ot dverdiopol Tav overdiCovtwy oé emémecov em’ eve, and I Cor. 11. 9 below. 6 Kavxdpevos «.7.A.] is not a direct quotation, but abridged from Jeremiah ix. 23, 24 ph xavxdcOw 6 copds ev rp copia avrov Kai pu) Kavxar bo 5 loxupods ev ry loxvi avrov Kai px) KavydoOw 6 mrovows év TO MOUTH avTod, I. 31.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 169 Gdn’ 7 ev ToiT@® KavxdcOw 6 Kavxdpevos, TUE Kal yiwdoKeELY OTL eyo Eipt Kupwos 6 rowdy édeos, combined with 1 Sam. ii. 10 py kavydoba 6 ppovipos év tn Ppovncet avrovd Kai py) KavyacOw o Suvatos ev tH Svvauer avTov Kat p27) kavyacOw 6 mAovaws €v TH TAOUT@ avrov, add’ 7h €v TovT@ KavxacOw 6 Kavx@pevos cuvieiy kal ywwdoKerv TOV Kvpioy Kal Trocety kpiva Kai Sicacorvwyy ev péow THs yns. It will be observed that the three classes, the wise, the strong and the wealthy, correspond roughly to the three enumerated in the passage above in ver. 26, and the reference is peculiarly apt here. St Paul repeats the words 6 kavywpevos €v Kupia kavxyaoOw in 2 Cor. x. 17, and St Clement of Rome (§ 13) quotes the passage from the LxXx. with the conclusion thus ddd’ #% 6 Kavy@pevos ev Kupio kavydcOw, Tov €x(nreiy avrov Kat rroteiv kpipa kal Suxacoovyny, words which, though diverging considerably from the corresponding passage in Jeremiah, approach nearly to the conclusion of 1 Sam. ii. 10 given above. The resemblance of St Clement’s language to St Paul may be explained in two ways; either (1) St Paul does not quote literally but gives the sense of one or other passage (1 Sam. il. Io or Jer. ix. 23 sq); and Clement, writing afterwards, unconsciously combines and confuses St Paul’s quotations with the original text; or (2) a recension of the text of Jeremiah (or Samuel) was in circulation in the first century which contained the exact words 6 xavywpevos €v Kupi@ xavyao6w. The former is the more probable hypothesis. Iren. Haer. iv. 17. 3 quotes Jer. ix. 24 as it stands in our texts. In neither passage does the Hebrew aid in solving the difficulty, In 1 Sam. ii. Io it is much shorter than and quite different from the Lxx. Lucifer de Athan. ii. 2 (Hartel, p. 148) quotes it ‘non glorietur sapiens in sua sapientia...nec glorietur dives in divitiis suis, sed in hoc glorietur qui gloriatur, inquirere me et intelligere et scire in Deum gloriari, quia ego sum Dominus qui facio misericordiam et judicium et justitiam super terram.’ As Cotelier (on Clem. Rom. § 13) remarks, he seems to have read éx¢ntety with Clement, for he has ‘inquirere’ three times in this context, but the coincidence may be accidental. On the other hand Antioch. Palest. Hom. xlii. (B72. Vet. Patr. p. 1097, Paris 1624) quotes directly from 1 Sam. ii. Io and betrays no connexion with Clement’s language. For St Paul’s quotations see further on ii. 9. CHAP LER EL, 1. ‘And this divine rule was illustrated in my case also. Just as God has ordained the weakness of the cross as the means of salvation (i. 22—25), just as He has chosen the weak of this world as the objects of salvation (i. 26—31), so I too observed the same rule among you.’ And this in two ways (introduced by kay). ‘Humility characterised my preaching (ii. 1, 2). Humility was stamped upon my person and pene- trated my feelings (ii. 3).’ é\Ody...748ov] Perhaps the aorist éA@dv is to be explained by supposing that the sentence was begun with the idea of ending it ov ka@ Umepoxy K.7.A. KaTyyyeAXov, and the form was abruptly changed after adeAdoi. For repetitions however somewhat analogous to this see Jelf, Gr. $705. 3, and better still Matth. $558, especially the instance from Plato Luthyd. p. 288D riva ror ovdv Gv krnodpevor emcoTnuny opOas Ktnoai- peba. At all events it is not to be compared with the Hebraism idev eidov. ov Kad’ irepoxiv Adyou 7 ~odlas] ‘of 7m excess of eloguence or wisdom, i.e. not in excellence of rhetorical display or of philosophical subtlety. The two are united lower down in ver. 4 €v mewois codias Adyots. ‘Corinthia verba’ was a proverbial expression for elaborate language (Wetstein on 1 Cor. ii. 4). The phrase here is better taken with xaray- yé\Aor than with 7AGov. katayyé&\kwv| A present participle, instead of the future which generally accompanies verbs of motion to express the object of the verb (Matth. $566. 6). As we find however that this exception occurs so frequently in the case of ayyéAXew and its compounds, we are led to look for the explanation in the special meaning of this verb, which is not so much ‘to announce, declare,’ as ‘to bear tidings.’ Compare Xen. Hed/. ii. 1. 29 és Tas "AOnvas Erdevo|ev ayyé\ovoa Ta yeyovora, Thucyd. i. 116 oiyspevat meprayyéAdovoat Bonbeiv, Eur. Med. 372; and so Acts xv. 27 aTreaTa\Kkapev...avuTous...amayyéAAovras. 7d papripiov] ‘¢ie testimony. He spoke in plain and simple language, as became a witness. Elaborate diction and subtlety of argument would ET .-3.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Lay fas only discredit his testimony. The various reading pvorjpiov, though strongly supported (NAC Syr. Memph. and some fathers), has probably crept in from ver. 7. Tov @eov] Tov Geod here is perhaps the subjective genitive, ‘the testimony proceeding from God,’ as rod Xpiorov in i. 6 (ro paprtipiov Tov Xpicrov) is the objective genitive, ‘the testimony borne to Christ.’ The expression of St John (1 Joh. v. 9) ‘This is the witness of God which He hath testified of His Son’ links the two together. It is the testimony borne by God (rov Geov) to Christ (rod Xpicrod). Maprupia and papripeoy differ as ‘the giving evidence’ and ‘the evidence given.’ But it is not easy in this case to separate the épyov from the évépyeca. 2. od yap ekpiwd te elSévar] ‘7 had no intent, no mind to know any- thing. It does not mean therefore ‘I steadfastly excluded all other knowledge,’ but simply ‘I did not trouble myself about the knowledge of anything else.’ For this sense of xpiveey compare vii. 37, 2 Cor. li. I, Acts xv. 19, Rom. xiv. 13. The other rendering ‘I determined not to know’ (E.V.) cannot be supported by the analogy of the common idiom ov gnui (‘I non-say it,’ ‘I say no to it’); unless it can be shown that ov kpivw is commonly so used. Thus e.g. ov Aéyw would not be equivalent to ov dni. Ovx ed again presents no correspondence, it being simply a softened expression for ‘I forbid.’ It is not necessary to understand e€eivac with ovk éxpwva (‘I did not judge it allowable’), as Lobeck contends (Phryn. p. 753)- wT eiS€var] in a pregnant sense, ‘to exhibit the knowledge of, recognise’; resembling its use in 1 Thess. v. 12 (see note there) and ver. 12 below. The reading of the received text rov eidévac 7u is a legitimate construction in late Greek (cf. Acts xxvii. I éxpi6n Tov dromdeiv juas), but is destitute of textual support here. *Incotv Xpicrv] i.e. both the Person (Incoty) and the office (Xpiorov) of our Lord. kal tovrov érravpadpevov| i.e. and Him too not in His glory, but in His humiliation; that the foolishness of the preaching might be doubly foolish, and the weakness doubly weak. The Incarnation was in itself a stumbling-block ; the Crucifixion was much more than this. 3. «dyo] ‘as in my ministerial teaching, so also in my own person, weakness was the distinguishing mark.’ For the repetition of kdyo... kayo compare Juvenal Saz. i. 15, 16 ‘et nos ergo manum ferulae sub- duximus, et nos Consilium dedimus Sullae.’ év doGevela] The meaning of doéévera should not be arbitrarily restricted to any one form of weakness. Whatever enhanced in the Apostle’s mind the contrast between the meanness and inability of the preacher, and the power and efficacy of the Gospel, would be included under do@évera. Thus it would comprehend (1) the physical malady, under which he was labouring at the time (see Gal. iv. 13 doOéveca rijs 172 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [TI. 3 gapkos), which is in all probability the same as ‘the thorn in the flesh’ mentioned 2 Cor. xii. 7 and in reference to which see Ga/atzans p. 186 sq: (2) the meanness of his personal appearance (2 Cor. x, 10) with which he was taunted, and which perhaps was the result of his complaint: (3) his inability as a speaker, whether this arose from imperfection of the physical organs or from some other cause (see again 2 Cor. x. Io): (4) a sense of loneliness, from which we may suppose him suffering before the arrival of Silvanus and Timotheus (Acts xvii. 15, xviii. 5 ws dé cat Oov...cuveixeTo T@ Oy i.e. perhaps ‘he grew more bold’), analogous to the feelings which oppressed him at a later date during the absence of Titus (2 Cor. ii. 13): (5) his unprotected condition, when assailed by persecution: and (6) his general inability to deliver his message worthily. év b6Bw kal év tpdp wokA@], Each word is an advance upon the other. The sense of weakness produced fear. The fear betrayed itself in much trembling. 0fos cai rpowos is a not unfrequent combination in St Paul, 2 Cor. vii. 15, Eph. vi. 5, Phil. ii. 12. See the note on the last named passage. Here the expression denotes the Apostle’s nervous apprehen- sion that he might not fulfil his ministry aright: i.e. fear and trembling in the sight of God rather than of man. éyevopnv] may be taken either (1) with ev doGeveia x.r.d. ‘I manifested weakness and fear, in my intercourse with you’; or (2) with mpos vas ‘I arrived among you in weakness and fear.’ There is the same ambiguity of construction in 1 Thess. i. 5 (see the note on that passage). Here probably the former is the preferable construction, not only as being the more usual, but also as better suited to the context. 4. Aédyos, Kipvypa] are not to be distinguished as his private and public instruction respectively: nor yet exactly as the form and the matter of his preaching; though the latter is not far from the right distinction. While xypuypa (not ‘my preaching’ as E.V., which would be knpvéis, see on i. 21) signifies the facts of the Gospel, e.g. the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection etc.; Aoyos is the teaching built upon this, whether in the way of exhortation or of instruction. meBois| ‘ persuasive, plausible. The word reds, which is equivalent to mOavos, is not found elsewhere in Greek literature, but was probably a colloquial form. Thus the word unconsciously illustrates the very fact which the Apostle states. It is formed on the analogy of deidos (from deiSopuar), which is apparently found only in the comic writers, Sooxos from Bookw, etc. Eusebius and Origen (though not consistently) quote the passage év meiOot codias Aoywy, and so apparently do some versions. On meiOos see the references in Meyer, also Lobeck Phryn. p. 434, Winer §xvi. p. 119. The whole expression includes both the rhetorical (Adyors) and the philosophical (codias) element, the two together producing rede (so ver. I vmepoxn Aoyou 4} codias), The received text inserts dv@pwmrivns before codias without sufficient authority. TG:] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 073 éy armodel&er «.7.A.] Here adders ‘demonstration’ is opposed to mevOw (in mevdois) ‘plausibility’; and mvetpa kai divauis to Aoyou aodias. Of these last, rvedua is opposed to Adyos as the inward spirit to the mere superficial expression; and dvvayis to copia as moral power to intel- lectual subtlety. Avyvayis is not to be taken in the sense of ‘ miracle- working.’ There is the same opposition, and in very similar language, in I Thess. i. 5 To evayyéAtov judy ovk eyevnOn eis Uuas ev hoy@ povov, dddd kal év Suvaper kal €v mvevpare ayi@ Kal mAnpodopia moAA7. It is questioned whether mvevparos kai Svvauews is a subjective or an objective genitive, i.e. whether it is ‘the demonstration which comes of spirit and of power,’ or ‘the demonstration which exhibits spirit and power. The former is the more probable meaning ; both because the form of the substantive amddecéis (a amaé Aeydpuevov in the N.T.) rather points to this, and also (which is a stronger reason) because the paral- lelism with codias Aoyors seems to require it. Weare reminded by these words of the criticism of Longinus (Fragment I. ed. Weiske p. 113), who describes St Paul as mpérov...mpoiorduevoy Soypatos avamodeixrov. It was moral, not verbal, demonstration at which he aimed. See Loesner Ods. p. 363 on Col. ii. 1, and compare the expression of Ignatius (Rom. § 3) ov meopovijs To Epyov dAda peyéOous K.T-A. 5. & copla dvOpamrwv] The preposition denotes the object of their faith, ‘that your faith may not repose in the wisdom of men.’ For this use of miotis with ev compare Rom. iil. 25 dca mictews €v TO avrov aipart, Gall 11.26, Eph: i..1551 Tim. iil. 13,2 Lim. 1. 13, i. 15: The true and the false wisdom. The former ts spiritually discerned (ii. 6—16). 6. ‘Though we eschew the wisdom of men, yet we have a wisdom of our own which we communicate with the perfect.’ For the manner in which the word codia is taken up here, compare Adyos in i. 17, 18 ovK ev copia Aoyov...0 Aoyos yap 0 TOU Gravpou k.T.A. év tots tedelois] TéAetos is properly that of which the parts are fully developed, as distinguished from odoxAnpos, that in which none of the parts are wanting. See James i. 4 where the words occur, Trench 1.7. Syn. § xxii. p. 74S8q, and the passages quoted on 1 Thess. v. 23. Hence it signifies ‘full-grown,’ and accordingly réAewos is used by St Paul as opposed to vamos or radia, though in a moral sense as réAetor €v Xpiore. Compare xiv. 20 r7 kakia vnmiatere, Tais de ppeci rédecoe yiverOe, Eph. iv. 13, Phil. iii. 15, Heb. v. 14. That it is used in this sense here will appear also from lil. I @s vytios é€v Xpior@. The distinction is somewhat the same as that which St John makes, dividing his hearers into marépes and veavioxot OY mradia (I Joh. il. 13, 14). Pythagoras also is said to have distinguished his disciples as réAecou and yymior. But besides this meaning of ‘ full development,’ the term here most 174 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [II. 6. probably bears the collateral sense of ‘initiated’ according to its classical usage, illustrating é€y pvotnpia below. See this side of the question treated fully in the notes on Col. i. 28 d:dackovtes mavra GvOpwroy ev racy codia iva rapaotnow@per ravra avOpwroy Tédevov ev Xpior@, a passage where, as here, both pvorjpiov and codia occur in the context. These words have been the subject of much dispute. On the one hand they have been adduced to justify the distinction of an exoteric and an esoteric doctrine, as though there were certain secrets withheld from the generality. This idea of a higher and a lower teaching seems early to have gained ground even among orthodox writers, and Clement of Alexandria (Eus. 4.£. v. 11) especially says that Christ communicated the inner yv@ovs to a few chosen disciples. This distinction became the starting-point of Gnosticism : see Lechler AZ. Zezt. p. 500 and note on Col. lic. The difference between yvaors and codia is discussed on Col. ii. 3. On the other hand several modern commentators, seeing how entirely opposed this system of religious castes is to the genius of Christianity and to the teaching of St Paul elsewhere, have avoided any semblance of it here, by putting a forced construction on the passage oodiav Aadovpev év Trois TeAeous ‘we teach a doctrine which is wisdom in the judgment of the perfect.’ But to say nothing of the harshness of this construction, it is clear from the whole context, especially iii. 1, 2, that St Paul was speaking of an actual distinction in the teaching addressed to the less and the more advanced believer. What is implied by the contrast between ‘babes’ and ‘grown men’ may be seen from iil. 1. It is the distinction of less or greater spirituality. What is meant by the codia may be gathered from a comparison of St Paul’s earlier with his later Epistles. The codia will involve especially the ampler teaching as to the Person of Christ and the eternal purpose of God. Such ‘wisdom’ we have in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians especially, and in a less degree in the Epistle to the Romans. This ‘wisdom’ is discerned in the Gospel of St John, as compared with the other Evangelists. Compare the note on yada ov Spoua (ili. 2). TOV dpxévTwv Tod aldvos TovTov] i.e. the great men of this world, as the whole context seems imperatively to demand; the princes whether in intellect or in power or in rank, so that of dpyovres x.r.A. would include the codoi, Suvaroi, evyeveis of i. 26. See further the note on ver. 8. On the other hand some of the fathers (e.g. Origen Hom7/. IV. in Matth., 1X. in Genes.) understood it of the powers of evil, comparing Eph. vi. 12 mpds rods Koopoxpdropas Tov oKdTous TovTOU, mpds Ta mvevpaTiKa Tis movnpias év trois €moupavios. In this sense the Gnostics availed them- selves of it to support their Dualism, see Tert. adv. Marc. v. 6. And it would almost seem as if St Ignatius were referring to this passage in Ephes. § 19 €\abev tov dpxovra tov aidvos rovrou 1 mapOevia Mapias xai 6 Toxeros avtns, Opolws Kai 6 Odavatos Tod Kupiov, tpia pvotrpia kpavyis, where however éAa@ev is probably intended as a paraphrase of ovdels Diss) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. E75 TOY apxXovT@Y TOU ai@vos TovTou éyvexev (ver. 8). At all events, the meaning is quite out of place here ; and ‘the princes of this world’ are to be under- stood as great men according to the world’s estimate of greatness. Tav KaTapyounévwv] is best explained by i. 28 ra py ovra iva Ta dvra katapyjon : i.e. who are brought to nought by the power of Christ, whose glory wanes before the advance of Messiah’s kingdom ; 06 aidy otros being the direct opposite of BaowWela rot Xpicrov, ‘ Messiah’s kingdom’ in its widest sense. Compare JJartyr. Vienn. c. 8 (in Routh &.S. I. p. 305) katapynOevrwy S€ tav Tupavukov KoAaoTypiwyv vo Tov Xprotod did THs Tav pakapiov vropovns. See also the note on dd€av judy in the next verse. 7. cov coplav] is the correct order, Geov being emphatic: ‘a wisdom not of this world, but of God.’ The received text has copiay Geov on the slenderest authority. év puornplw] ‘the wisdom which consists in a mystery. The phrase must be taken either (1) with codiay or (2) with Aadovpev. Perhaps the former is preferable. For the omission of the article see the note on 1 Thess. i. 1 év Ge@ marpi, and references there. If ev wvornpio is taken with Aadouper, the sense will be much the same; ‘ We speak a wisdom of God, while declaring a mystery. On the Pauline use of the word pvotnpiov, aS something which would not have been known without revelation, and its connexion with words denoting publication (as here npiv yap amexadvev 6 eds ver. 10) see the note on Col. i. 26. See also the note on 2 Thess. ii. 7: from the passage in Josephus there quoted, pivoTnptov appears to have the subordinate sense of something extra- ordinary and portentous. THY atroKkekpuppévnv] The article is frequently placed thus between the substantive and the accompanying adjective or participle when it is intended to give a definite reference to an indefinite statement. ‘A wisdom of God, that wisdom I mean, which was etc.’ Compare Gal. iii. 21 vomos 6 Suvayevos, with the note. fv mpodpirev] ‘which God foreordained’; absolutely. It is not necessary to understand dmoxaAvya or any word of the kind. The godia Geov is the scheme of redemption. eis Sdtav ryOv] i.e. the glory of inward enlightenment as well as of outward exaltation; for the word dd£a (like Baowela rod Geodv) involves the complex idea. Compare 2 Cor. ili. 8—18. Here there is an opposi- tion between ddfav nuoy and ray apxdvtwy Tot aidvos TovTov, Tay KaTapyou- pévov, ‘Our glory increases, while their glory wanes.’ This use of karapyeioGat in connexion with doa is illustrated by the passage from 2 Corinthians already referred to, and by 2 Thess. ii. 8 xarapynoe rH emupaveia THs mapovaias avtov (where see the notes). 8. iv] i.e. codiar. tyvaxev] ‘hath discerned.’ tov Kipuov...éotatpwoav] As types and representatives of the princes of this world, St Paul takes the Jewish and heathen rulers who crucified 176 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (II. 8. the Lord (comp. Acts iv. 27). Yet the rebuke is not confined to these; and he rightly says ovSeis rév apyovrewy, for all alike who oppose them- selves to the spread of the Gospel, all the princes of this world, as such, do in a certain sense ‘crucify the Lord afresh’ (Heb. vi. 6). tis 5éEns] The contrast present to the Apostle’s mind is that between the shame of the Cross (Heb. xii. 2) and the glory of the Crucified, between the ignominy which they seemed to be inflicting on Him and the honour which was intrinsically His. Q. GAAA Kabds yéyparrat| ‘but zt has come to pass according to the words of Scripture.” The sentence is elliptical. Foran exact parallel in form see Rom. xv. 3, and compare the note on I Cor. i. 31. & ép0adpds x.7.A.] The composition of the sentence is somewhat loose. Like 1 Tim. iii. 16 os éhavepwOn x.7.A. it begins with a relative, so that the construction is broken. The grammar also is irregular, a being the accusative after eidev and jKovcev, and the nominative to avé8n; and éca (the correct reading for the second a of the received text) in apposi- tion with @ Another construction is proposed which makes jyiy de amexadvwev (ver. 10) the apodosis, introduced by the particle 5¢; but this, even if yap is not to be read for dé, seems not to be after St Paul’s manner, being too elaborate and indeed requiring radra d€ nyiv. The whole of verse Io is best considered to be the Apostle’s own addition to the quotation. For dvéBn émi tnv xapdiavy, a Hebrew expression (nby ab Sy), see Acts vii. 23, Jerem. iii. 16, xliv. 21, li. 50. The distinction here is between things perceived by the senses, and things apprehended by the understanding. Compare the lines of Empe- docles otras ovr’ émidepxra tad’ dvdpdocw, ovr’ émaxovatd, ovte vow mepi- Anmra in Sext. Empir. adv. Matth. vii. 123 (Ritter and Preller, p. 126). The quotation, the words of which are not found in the existing text of the Old Testament, is generally considered to be a combination of Is. lxiv. 4, which runs in the LXX. do rov aldvos ovK jKovoaper ovd€ of dpOarpoi ray eiSov Gedy mAHY Gov Kal Ta Epya Gov, & ToNTELS ToIs VTOpMEVOU- ow €Xeov, but more nearly in the Hebrew, ‘From eternity they have not heard, they have not hearkened, neither hath eye seen a god [or ‘O God’] save thee (who) worketh [or ‘(what) He shall do’] to him that awaiteth Him’ (see Delitzsch ad /oc.), and Is. lxv. 16, 17 ovK dvaBynoerat avtav emi tv Kapdlav...ov pt) em€AOn adtay emi thy kapdiav. The passage, if we may trust St Jerome, occurred as given by St Paul, both in the Ascension of Isaiah and in the Apocalypse of Elias (Hieron. i /s. lxiv. 4, Iv. p. 761; Prol. in Gen. IX. p. 3). And Origen, tm Matth. xxvii. 9 (111. p. 916), says that St Paul quotes from the latter, ‘In nullo regulari libro hoc positum invenitur, nisi (ei pn, ‘but only’) in Secretis Eliae prophetae.’ This assertion is repeated also by later writers (see Fabricius Cod. Ps. V. T. 1. p. 1073) doubtless from Origen, but combated by Jerome (Il. cc. and Zist. lvii. § 9, 1. p. 314), who refers the quotation to Is. lxiv. 4. There does not seem any reason for doubting that the II. 9.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. L777 quotation occurs as Origen states, especially as Jerome, making a savage onslaught on this opinion, tacitly allows the fact; see more below. If it could be shown that these apocryphal books were prior to St Paul, this solution would be the most probable; but they would appear to have been produced by some Christian sectarians of the second century, for Jerome terms them ‘Iberae naeniae’ and connects them with the Basilideans and other Gnostics who abounded in Spain (ll. cc.; see also c. Vigil. 11. p. 393, and comp. Fabricius, p. 1093 sq.). If so, they incorporated the quotation of St Paul, as also another missing quotation (Eph. v. 14, see below), in order to give verisimilitude and currency to their forgeries. At all events both these works appear from the extant remains to have been Christian. For the Afocalypse of Elias see Epiphan. Aaer. xlii. (p. 372), who says that the quotation in Eph. v. 14 (which is obviously Christian) was found there; and for the Ascension of Isaiah, this same father Haer. Ixvii. 3 (p. 712), where he quotes a passage referring to the Trinity. Indeed there is every reason to believe that the work known to Epiphanius and several other fathers under this name, is the same with the Ascension and Vision of Isaiah published first by Laurence in an A*thiopic Version and subsequently by Gieseler in a Latin. The two versions represent different recensions ; and the passage ‘Eye hath not seen, etc.’ appears in the Latin (xi. 34) but not in the “Ethiopic (see Jolowicz Hzmmelfahrt u. Vision des propheten Tesaia, p. 90, Leipzig, 1854). The Latin recension therefore must have been in the hands of Jerome ; though this very quotation seems to show clearly that the AZthiopic more nearly represents the original form of the work (see Liicke Offenbarung d. Johannes, p. 179 sq.). Both recensions alike are distinctly Christian. Still in favour of Jerome’s view it may be said that St Paul’s quota- tions are often very free as e.g. in i. 31, and that there is no instance in St Paul of a quotation from an apocryphal writing being introduced by xadas yéyparra. The quotation from a Christian hymn in Eph. v. 14 is introduced by Aéyer, which is quite general. It is just possible moreover that some Greek version, with which St Paul was acquainted, gave a different rendering from the LXx. and more resembling the quotation in the text. It is at least remarkable that St Clement of Rome (§ 34) gives the quotation in almost the same words, though approaching somewhat nearer to the LXx. He reads rois vmopévovaw adroy for St Paul’s rois dyaraow avrov, and is followed by the Martyr. Polyc. § 2 avéBderov ra Tnpovpeva Tois Vropetvaoww ayaa, a ovTE ods KovTEV, O’TE OPOarpos Eider, ovTe émt kapdiay avOpwrov avéBn, passages which seem to suggest an original lying somewhere between the present LXx. rendering in Isaiah, and the quotation of St Paul, though nearer to the latter. In the other places where the quotation occurs, 2 [Clem.] S§ 11, 14, Clem. Ep, ad Virg. i. 9, it does not reach the point where Clement and St Paul diverge. Ze le I2 178 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [II. 9. An additional interest attaches to this passage from the words ascribed to Hegesippus in a passage of Stephanus Gobarus ap. Photius Bibl. 232 (see Routh R. S. 1. 219), who after quoting this passage says ‘Hyjourmos pévrot, apyaios Te avnp kal amooToNkds, ev TO TeuTT® TOV Uropynpdrov ovk 08 6 Te Kai ma@av parny pev eipnoOa ravra héyet, Kal cataevder Oa rovs Tavta papevous Tay Te Ociwv ypapay kai Tov Kupiov AeyorTos, Maxdpuot of dpOadrpol vudy of Br€rovres, kai Ta Sta Vay Ta axovovta Kal ééjs. Stephanus seems to regard this (at least Baur and Schwegler do so) as an attack on St Paul and a proof that Hegesippus was an Ebionite ; but he has probably misunderstood the drift of Hegesippus’ words. Hegesippus was attacking, not the passage itself, but the application which was made of it by certain Gnostics, who alleged it in support of an esoteric doctrine (see Routh #. S. 1. p. 281 and Galatians p. 334). We know from Hippolytus (Haer. v. 24, 26, 27, vi. 24) that it was a favourite text with these heretics and that the Justinians even introduced it into their formula of initiation. Perhaps she Revelation of Elias may have been an early Gnostic work itself, and embodied this quotation from St Paul for doctrinal purposes. In favour of this view, it may be remarked that Hegesippus elsewhere (af. Euseb. H. £. iii. 32) in attacking the Gnostic heresy avails himself of St Paul’s own words Wevddvupos yvdous (I Tim. vi. 20), and seems to have commended the Epistle of Clement and to have been satisfied with the orthodoxy of the Corinthian Church (Euseb. H. £. iv. 22, comp. ili. 16). 10. piv] ‘/o ws who believe’; not to the Apostles specially, but to believers generally. dmexddvev 6 Ocds] This order is perhaps better than that of the received text 6 @eds dmex., and is strongly supported (SABCD). The ‘revelation’ is the emphatic idea in the sentence. The aorist (amexa- Aver) is on a par with many aorists in St Paul. Its force is, ‘revealed it to us when we were admitted into the Church, when we were baptized.’ ’Arroxadvyis implies an extraordinary revelation, while davépwars is the general term, including e.g. the revelation of God in nature. 7d yap Tvedpali.e. the Spirit of God givento us. If we know the things of God, it is only by His Spirit dwelling in us. See Rom. viii. 9—27, where the same idea occurs in several forms and with several applications. kal ra Bd0n] ‘even the depths, which are manifold, the plural being stronger than the singular. On the other hand we have ra Badéa rov Sarava (Apoc. il. 24). 11. ‘For as a man’s self-consciousness reveals man’s nature to him, so it can be nothing else but the Spirit of God dwelling in him which reveals to him the nature and dealings of God.’ Ta rod dvépe@rov are ‘the things of man’ generally, of human nature. The emphatic repetition of avOpareav, avOpwrov, avOpamrov and of cov, Oeov is intended to enforce the contrasts. éyvwkev] is the correct reading for the second oidev of the received Tea FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 179 text. The words are carefully chosen. OidSev ‘knoweth’ denotes direct knowledge, while ¢yvaxey ‘discerneth’ involves more or less the idea of a process of attainment. Compare e.g. I Joh. iil. 29 éay eidfjre ort Sikatos eo, yww@okerTe OTL TAS O TroLdy THY SiKacoodyny €E avToU yeyévynrat, where ywooxere implies an inference. In this passage the distinction is not so marked, but the éyywxey seems to place ra rot Geov a degree more out of reach than oidev does ra rov dvépérov. Compare also 2 Cor. v. 16, and see for ywwoxew the notes on Gal. iii. 7, iv. 9, for eidevac I Thess. v, 12. The examination of the passages, where the two words are found in the First Epistle of St John, shows most clearly that they were employed with the same precision of meaning as in the classical age. While ofda is simple and absolute, yiwdoxe is relative, involving more or less the idea of a process of examination. Thus while ofa is used of the knowledge of the facts and propositions in themselves, yuveoxw implies reference to something else, and gives prominence to either the acquisi- tion of the knowledge or the knowledge of a thing in its bearings. It surely cannot be by chance, that where St John wishes to place in bold relief the fundamental facts of our religious conviction in and by themselves, he uses ofda (see ii. 20, 21, iii. 2, 5, 14, 15, and especially v. 18, 19, 20); that where he speaks of our knowledge not as direct but as derived from something prior to it, he almost always employs ywwoxao, both in the phrase ev rovt@ ywwoxew, which occurs repeatedly (ii. 3, 5, ill. 19, 24, IV. 2, 13, v..2, Cf. Ul. 16 ev rovt@ éeyydkayev: not once éy ror eidevar), and in other expressions (il. 18 o0ev ywookoper, ili. I ov ywooker nuads OTL, iv. 6 é€k rovrou ywwoKopuer, cf. iv. 7, 8); and that when the two words ywwoxew and eidévac are found together, as in the passage already quoted (comp. John xxi. 17, Eph. v. 5), they stand to each other in the relation which the distinction given above would lead us to expect. If there are also passages in which the difference of meaning is not so plain, the induction seems still to be sufficiently large to establish the facts. ovdels...et py] i.e. ‘no man, as man, knoweth, but only the Spirit of God.’ Ovdeis (sc. dvOpemav) as tis dvOperwv above. For this use of ei ur (€av pr) See on Gal. i. 7, 19, ii. 16. TO Tvevpa TOV cov] Not ro mvevpua To ev avr@ according to the analogy of the preceding part of the verse; for though the spirit of man is in him, a similar expression would not correctly apply to the Spirit of God. This change of phraseology may be regarded as a caution to us not to press the analogy beyond the point to illustrate which it was intro- duced. It may be true that the spirit of man takes cognizance of the things of man, just as the Spirit of God does of the things of God ; but it does not follow that the spirit of man has the same relation to man as the Spirit of God has to God. 12. pets Se] ‘but we received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit ae 180 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (II. 12. which cometh from God. ‘Hyeis includes the believers generally, but refers especially to the Apostles, as Paul and Apollos: for the reference is mainly to the teachers in the following verse. Td Tvedpa TOV Korpov] The interpretation of this expression will depend on the view taken of ray apyovrwy rod aidvos rovrov (ver. 6); see the note there. It seems therefore to be simply the spirit of human wisdom, of the world as alienated from God. €\dBopev] ‘vecezved, i.e. when we were admitted to the fold of Christ. The aorist ra yapioOevra below refers to the same time. St Paul regards the gift as ideally summed up when he and they were included in the Christian Church, though it is true that the Spirit is received constantly. Wa ¢iSdpev x.7.A.] i.e. ‘that we may be conscious of, may realize the spiritual blessings and hopes conferred upon us.’ For this sense of eiO€vac See ii. 2 and the note on 1 Thess. v. 12. Here ra yapioOévra will include miraculous gifts; but, like yapioya itself, the expression extends to all blessings conferred by the Gospel. See i. 7 above. 13. ‘Nor do we keep this knowledge to ourselves. As it is revealed to us, so also (kai) do we communicate it to others. And the manner of our communication is in accordance with the matter. Spiritual truths are expressed in spiritual language.’ The expression 4 kai Nadodpev is in a measure corrective of any impression which might have been left by the foregoing words, that the mysteries of the Gospel were the exclusive property of a few. The emphatic word in the sentence is Aadodyer, as the order shows; and the mention of the manner of communication (ovx év SiOaxrots x.7.A.) is quite subordinate. codtas| is the genitive governed by d:dakrots, as the form of the ellipsis in the corresponding clause év didaxrots mvevpatos shows. Com- pare John vi. 45 (from Is. liv. 13) mavres S:daxrot @eod. This construc- tion of the genitive with verbal adjectives of passive force is in classical Greek confined to poetry ; e.g. Soph. E/ectra 343 amavra yap cot Tapa vovbernuata keiyns SiOaxra, Pind. O27. ix. 152 (100). didaxrais avOporev dperais. ‘There is no display of human rhetoric in our preaching. The language, no less than the matter, is inspired.’ Indeed the notion of a verbal inspiration in a certain sense is involved in the very conception of an inspiration at all, because words are at once the instruments of carrying on and the means of expressing ideas, so that the words must both lead and follow the thought. But the passage gives no coun- tenance to the popular doctrine of verbal inspiration, whether right or wrong. mvevparikois mvevpatika cvyKplvovres| ‘combining the spiritual with the spiritual, i.e. applying spiritual methods to explain spiritual truths. It is excellently explained by Theod. Mops. here : 6a ray rot mvevparos drodet- Lewy Tiv Tod mvevparos SidacKkadiay microvpeba, This is the proper meaning Il. 15.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 181 of wvyxpivey ‘to combine,’ as duaxpivery is ‘to separate.’ Suyxpivery, it is true, sometimes gets the sense of ‘comparing,’ as in 2 Cor. x. 12 ; but it does not suit the context here, whether explained, as by Chrysostom and others, of comparing the types of the Old Testament with the tidings of the New, or more generally. Others again, taking mvevyarixois to be masculine, trans- late it ‘explaining spiritual things to spiritual men.’ Against this it may be urged, (1) that though ovyxpivec is frequently used of interpreting dreams, (cf. Gen. xl. 8, 22, xli. 12, Dan. v. 12), yet the leading notion which it involves is that of ‘finding out,’ ‘comparing’ the phenomena of the dream with the phenomena of common life (so xpivewv, éyxpive are used of dreams), which notion is out of place here : (2) the combination mvevyari- kols m@vevpatixa points to the neuter gender, as otherwise we should rather expect mvevpatixa Tots mvevpatixois : (3) the dative is naturally governed by the ody of cuyxpivovres, and (4) the qualifications of the recipient seem to be introduced first in the following verse by yuyixos dé. 14. ‘Though we communicate our knowledge freely, yet being, as I said, spiritual—spiritual in form as well as in matter—it addresses itself only to spiritual hearers, and therefore the natural man is excluded from it.’ The verse is connected with ver. 12, and St Paul comes round to the subject of ver. 6 once more. WuyiKds] ‘the natural man, as opposed to mvevparikos, and closely allied to capxixds. See note on I Thess. v. 23, where the triple division of man’s nature into copa, yuyyn, and mvedya is discussed. ov Séxerar] ‘re7ects,’ ‘does not receive’; not ‘is incapable of’ (a strictly classical usage of 5éyeo@ac which would be expressed in the N. T. by ov xwpei). The meaning which I have given is the universal sense of déyeoOac in the New Testament and is moreover better suited to the explanation pwpia yap x.r.A., which includes more than the incapacity of the hearer, and implies a disinclination also. OTL TvevpaTiKas dvakpiverar] ‘ for they’ (sc. ra Tov mvevparos) ‘are Spiritually discerned, i.e. the investigation is a spiritual process. This is an explanation of the whole sentence from powpia...yveva, and not of the latter clause only. 15. ‘On the other hand, the spiritual man is placed on a vantage- ground. He can survey and duly estimate the relative proportion of all things. He has a standard by which to measure others, but they have no standard which they can apply to him.’ avaxplver pev mavra] ‘examineth, ‘ sifteth everything, e.g. in the matter of meats or of the observance of days. In any case the same translation of the verb ought to have been preserved in the English version here, as in ver. 14. The leading idea of dvaxpivew is that of examination, investi- gation, sifting, while xpivew implies more prominently the pronouncing a verdict. The word adopted by the A. V. as an equivalent is unfortunate ; for, besides being a mistranslation of dvaxpiverat, it is quite untrue in fact to say that the spiritual man ‘is judged by no one.’ So vm’ ovdevos avaxpive- 182 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (II. 15. rat means ‘he is a riddle to the natural man ; they can make nothing out of him, cannot bring him to book at all.’ “St Paul especially delights to accumulate” the compounds of xpive, “and thus by harping upon words (if I may use the expression) to empha- size great spiritual truths or important personal experiences. Thus, he puts together ovyxpivery, dvaxpivew” here, “ xpivecv, dvaxpive, I Cor. iv. 3, 4: éyxpiveww, ovykpivew, 2 Cor. x. 12; xpiverw, dtaxpiverv, I Cor. vi. I—6; kpivew, Staxpivery, xaraxpiverv, Rom. xiv. 22, 23, 1 Cor. xi. 29, 31, 32; Kpivey, kataxpiveww, Rom. ii. 1. Now it seems impossible in most cases, without a sacrifice of English which no one would be prepared to make, to reproduce the similarity of sound or the identity of root; but the distinction of sense should always be preserved. How this is neglected in our English version, and what confusion ensues from this neglect, the following instances will show. In 1 Cor. iv. 3, 4, 5, the word dvaxpivew is translated throughout ‘judge’; while in 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15, it is rendered indifferently ‘to discern’ and ‘to judge.’ But dvaxpivew is neither ‘to judge,’ which is xpivey, nor ‘to discern,’ which is dcaxpivew; but ‘to examine, investigate, enquire into, question,’ as it is rightly translated elsewhere, e.g. I Cor. ix. 3, x. 25, 27; and the correct understanding of 1 Cor. iv. 3, 4, 5 depends on our retaining this sense. The avaxpuors, it will be remembered, was an Athenian law term for a preliminary investi- gation (distinct from the actual xpiovs or trial), in which evidence was collected and the prisoner committed for trial, if a true bill was found against him. It corresponded in short muéatis mutandis to the part taken in English law proceedings by the grand jury. And this is sub- stantially the force of the word here. The Apostle condemns all these impatient human f/raejudicia, these unauthorised dvaxpioes, which anticipate the final xcpiovs, reserving his case for the great tribunal where at length all the evidence will be forthcoming and a satisfactory verdict can be given. Meanwhile this process of gathering evidence has begun ; an avaxpiots is indeed being held, not however by these self-appointed magistrates, but by One who alone has the authority to institute the enquiry, and the ability to sift the facts (6 d€ dvaxpivey pe Kuptos €orw). Of this half-technical sense of the word the New Testament itself furnishes a good example. The examination of St Paul before Festus is both in name and in fact an avdxpiots. The Roman procurator explains to Agrippa how he had directed the prisoner to be brought into court (mponyayov avrov) in order that, having held the preliminary enquiry usual in such cases (rns dvaxpioews yevouévns), he might be able to lay the case before the Emperor (Acts xxv. 26). Again, in 1 Cor. xiv. 24 dvaxpiverat ind mavrwv, the sense required is clearly ‘sifting, probing, revealing,’ and the rendering of our translators ‘he is judged of all’ introduces an idea alien to the passage.” Ox a Fresh Revision of the English N. T. p. 69 sq. (3rd edit.). mavra| The article should be omitted, but the omission does not II. 16.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 183 affect the sense, because mavra must still be taken as neuter. Ta ravra would express with slightly increased force the comprehensiveness of the spiritual man. ‘All things whatsoever—even those out of his own sphere— not mvevparixa only but yuyexa also.’ 16. ‘For the mind in us is the mind of the Lord. Our spirits are one with His spirit : and we have Scriptural authority for saying that no one can penetrate and understand the mind of the Lord,’ tls yap ¢yvw k.t.d.] ‘for who hath perceived or apprehended etc.’ From the Lxx. of Is. xl. 13 ris &yyw vowv Kupiov; Kai tis avrov cipBovdos eyevero, 6s cupSi8a adtov; The middle clause is omitted in the quotation as being somewhat foreign to St Paul’s purpose. On the other hand, in Rom. xi. 34, where the same quotation occurs, the first two clauses appear and not the third, as they bear on his argument there. vow Kuplov] For the distinction between mvedpua and vois see Usteri Paul. Lehré. p. 384. In a man there might be an opposition between the vous and the mvevpa (1 Cor. xiv. 14), but in God the vovds would be identical with, or at least in perfect accordance with, the mvevya. It should be observed also that the original here translated vody is NI which is the common word for mvedua. Compare I Esdr. ii. 9, where éyelpeww Tov vodv is equivalent to éyeipew To mvedua of the preceding verse. Thus vovs was the familiar form in the ears of his hearers owing to the influence of the LEX. 8s cvpPiBdcer] ‘so that he shall instruct him.’ Compare Matth. Gr. Gr. § 479, Obs. I. SupBiBale in classical Greek generally means ‘to put together so as to draw an inference from, to conclude’; but here it is ‘to instruct,’ the sense which it usually bears in the LXx., where it occurs frequently. It thus represents the classical éuBiBacer. vow Xpirrov] equivalent to the vovy Kupiov of the preceding verse. The ‘ Spirit of God’ and the ‘ Spirit of Christ’ are convertible terms here as in Rom. vill. 9 etep mvedpa Ocov oixet ev vuiv. ei S€ Tis mvevpa Xptorov ovk éxer .r.A. (cf. Gal. iv. 6). And the substitution of Xpiorod for Kupiov in this passage and for @eov in the Romans has the same point: it suggests a practical test. ‘Ask yourselves whether the mind of Christ is in you.’ (Compare Phil. ii. 5.) CHAPTER III. The Corinthians incapable of discerning the wisdom of God (iii. 1~4), 1. The manner in which his readers are brought round after a long digression to their dissensions is characteristic of St Paul. One topic suggests another and he seems entirely to have lost sight of their subject : till accidentally, as one might say, the course of thought brings him within the range of its attraction, and he flies back to it at once. Thus the mention of party watchwords (in i. 12) leads him to speak of his abstaining from baptizing. He was sent not to baptize but to preach. What was the nature of his preaching? It was foolishness in the sight of the world. Yet it contained the truest wisdom. This wisdom however could not be revealed in all its depths, save to the spiritual. ‘But ye are not spiritual, so long as these dissensions last.’ And so he comes back to what he left. kay] ‘And I, individually, was subject to the prohibition implied in the general rule of ii. 6, copiav Aadodpev ev rots redelors. I was obliged to withhold from you the treasures of wisdom, which I possessed in myself.’ capk(vois] Unquestionably the reading here, as capkixol in ver. 3 where it occurs twice. Considering the strong tendency to alter one or other word for the sake of conformity, the consistency of the MSS. is the more remarkable and must decide the readings. Sapxuwos is ‘ fleshy, made of flesh,’ ‘ carneus’ ; while capxixds is ‘ fleshly, partaking of the characteristics of flesh, associated with flesh,’ ‘ carnalis.’ Hence capkixds is scarcely a classical word, because the idea is not classical. As an illustration of the difference of meaning in the two terminations -cxos and -.vos, compare rd Sepparixoy ‘the tax on hides’ with Seppatwov, which could mean nothing else but ‘made of hides.’ On these terminations cf. Matth. Gr. Gr. § 108, 110, Meyer’s reff. ad doc. and Buttm. 119. Ill, Fritzsche ad Rom. Il. p. 46. The proper meaning of oapxwos is seen in 2 Cor. iii. 3 ovx ev mAakw AcOivas GAN’ év wAaElv xapSias capxivacs, and that of capxicos in 1 Cor. ix. 11 id nets vuiy ra mvevpatixa eorreipaper, péya ei Nets Yuov Ta capKika Oepicopuer (cf. Rom. xv. 27), in neither of which passages there is a various reading, and in neither of which the other IG Cee FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS: 185 word would be suitable. In Heb. vii. 16, though we should expect capxuxijs, the vouos évroAns capkivns is intelligible because the commandment was, as it were, a part of the flesh, and thus of hereditary descent from the body of Aaron. See also Rom. vii. 14, where odpxivos is certainly right. &s capklvots] ‘Zo men of flesh. For the vigour of the expression compare Matt. xvi. 17 oap& Kal aiwa ovx amexaduwev aot. While capkivos here points rather to their original nature when St Paul first preached to them, capxixol (ver. 3) expresses their moral tendencies, their hankerings, even after their conversion, and implies more of a rebuke, though the less strong word in itself. vytlous év Xpirr@] the opposite to which is réAevoe ev Xpror@, Col. i. 28. See note on réAetos ii. 6. 2. yadda, ov Bpapa] Apparently a favourite image with the Rabbinical teachers, who styled their scholars ‘sugentes’ or ‘lactentes’ (see Wetst on I Pet. ii. 2). Compare Heb. v. 12 sq. yeyovare xpeiav €yovres yadaktos, ov oTepeds Tpopys* mas yap 6 peTexov yadakTos, Aretpos Aodyou Sixaocvvns* ynmios yap eotw* Tedelwy O€ eat 7 oTepea Tpopy, Where the resemblances are so close as to suggest that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews had seen this Epistle and 1 Pet. il. 2, The metaphor however was a common one at this time, see Philo de Agricult. § 2,1. p. 301 (ed. Mangey), emet O€ vn7riows ev €ate yada Tpodn, Tedeious S€ Ta ex TUpOY méwpara, Pinytus ap. Routh R. S. 1. p. 184. érética, ov Bpopa] For the zeugma compare Hesiod, 7heog. 640 véxtap T apBpocinu Te, Ta wep Oeot avroi €Sovor, Luke i. 64. étvacbe] is probably to be taken absolutely here, ‘for ye were not strong enough, a sense in which it appears to be not infrequently used in the Exe. ese) Cremi: vs) 4) xxxvill 5, Ps iexxvill:’ 2: add’] ‘Why should I say ye were not strong enough ; nay ye are not strong enough even now’; for adda in this sense cf. Winer G~. § liii. Pp. 551 Sq. ov8t rt viv] An interval of about five years had elapsed since St Paul first visited them. He seems to make no allusion here to his second visit, which was probably of short duration, and in which he had few opportunities of instructing them. We are led to enquire what teaching St Paul signified by yada and S8pepa respectively. Obviously the doctrine of Christ crucified belonged to the former, as he himself says that he made the preaching of this his sole object on this occasion (ii. 3). This was the basis of his teaching. The best comment on this passage is furnished by Heb. v. 11—vi. 2, where the writer, laying down the same distinction between yada and otepea Tpodn, describes the former thus : ‘not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of fazth towards God, of the doctrine of baptisms and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And thus the teaching of the Thessalonian Epistles, which does not go beyond this, may be taken as a sample of the ‘ milk’ 186 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [ITT ta for babes. The doctrine of justification by faith, which, as lying at the foundation of Christian teaching, would fall under the term yada, might still in its more complex aspects be treated as Bpeua, and so it is in the Epistle to the Romans. If it be asked again whether St Paul is speaking of doctrinal or spiritual truths, our reply is that the two cannot be separated in Christianity. Christianity, it is said, is a life, not a creed. It could be more truly called ‘a life in a creed.’ See more on this subject in note on godia ii. IT. 3. mov] introduces a condition. In itself it puts the case as purely hypothetical, and the fulfilment of the condition here is implied from the context, as in 2 Pet. ii. 11. {HAos kal pis] ‘ (7Aos cogitatione, €pis verbis, dtyooracia: opere. Sall. Catil, ix. 2 Jurgia, discordias, simultates,’ Wetstein. A regular sequence : ‘emulation’ engenders ‘strife,’ and ‘strife’ produces ‘divisions.’ Cf. ii. 3. But the words kai d:yooravia of the Textus Receptus should be omitted. For the terms see the notes on Gal. v. 20; and for a more complete sequence Clem. Rom. § 3 ¢mAos cai POovos, Kat Epis kal ardaots, Siwypos Kal dxaraoracia, ToAEpLos kal aiywadwoia (with the notes). It is instructive to observe how (jAos has been degraded in Christian ethics from the high position which it holds in classical Greek as a noble emulation (emteckés €orw 06 (Hros kal éemeckov Arist. Ahez. ii. 11), so that it is most frequently used in a bad sense of quarrelsome opposition. Compare especially Clem. Rom. S$ 4, 5. Similar to this is the degradation of evUtpameAia (Eph. v. 4 contrasted with Arist. £7. Vic. ii. 7, iv. 14) and the exaltation of rameivoppoovrn (e.g. I Pet. v. 5 compared with Arist. (?) £¢h. Eudem. iii. 3 cited by Neander P7. wz. Lezz. ii. p. 759). kata GvOpwrov|‘ with merely human motives or feelings’ : i.e. your walk in life conforms to a merely human standard. Compare Rom. ill. 5, I Cor. xv. 32, Gal. i. 11, iii. 15. The expression is confined to the Epistles of this group. The preposition denotes the measure or standard. (c) Paul and Apollos human instruments merely (iil. 4—23). 4. éyd pev, repos St] Observe the irregular position of the particles pev and 8, which correspond logically though not grammatically. On the omission of St Peter’s name here, see the note on i. 12. &vOpwrol torre] ‘are ye not mere men?’ ‘Is not the divine principle— the principle of love and unity—obliterated in you?’ The word is much more forcible than wapxcxoi, the reading of the Textus Receptus introduced from ver. 3 above, and links on better with the foregoing xara dvOpwmov. The distinction of meaning between dv@pwros, the lower, and avnp, the higher aspect of man, would be as present to St Paul’s mind, as it would to that of a Greek of the classical age. See Xen. Aad, vi. I. 26 éyw, 3 avdpes, HOopar per vd Upav Tysdpevos, etrep GvOpwrds elus, Philostratus Vta ITI. 6.] BIRST EPISTLE LO) THE CORINTHIANS. LO7 A poll. i. 7. 4 rous €v th xdpa avOparous vuar dé avdpav dvrar, 1. 19. "AvOpe- mos is equivalent to the Heb. DIN and avip to YN, as in the Lxx. of ESPlis Qrive bee XI. O. 5. wt ovv...tt 8] ‘Are Apollos and Paul then lords over God’s vintage, that you exalt them to party-leaders? No; they are but servants.’ Ti is the right reading both times, being much more emphatic than ris: it expresses greater disdain. ‘As though Apollos or Paul were anything.’ *Arroddds, TIatdos| This, the correct order, is perhaps to be explained as a-mark of respect to Apollos; or it may be that St Paul here, as elsewhere (e.g. iv. 10), picks up the last word from the preceding verse first—‘I am of Apollos, why what is Apollos?’ and then adds ‘and what is Paul?’ lest he should seem to exalt himself at the expense of Apollos. "AAN 7 must be omitted on strong external testimony, though gram- matically quite correct. This is one out of many instances where the received text enfeebles the style of St Paul, by smoothing his abrupt- nesses. Stdxovor] ‘ zeve servants, not leaders at all. The word is opposed to the Great Master (6 Kupios), Who is mentioned just below. 8’ wv] i.e. the instruments only, not the objects of your faith ; ‘ per quos, non in quos,’ as Bengel says. Therefore do not pin your faith on them. émrtetoate] ‘ye were converted, ye accepted the faith. This use of the aorist is common: see the note on 2 Thess. 1. Io mugrevoaow. ékdorw| The construction is cal éxaoros (not émiorevoerv but Sinkdver) os 0 Kuplos édwxev avt@ : comp. vil. 17, Rom. xii. 3. That the reference is here to the teachers and not to the taught, appears from the following words explaining the different ministrations assigned to each, ‘I planted, Apollos watered,’ and from éxacros below, ver. 8. 0 Kipios| ‘ the Lord, ‘the Master of the universe and of themselves’ ; opposed to of dsaxovor. We have the same play upon the word, so to speak, in Col. iii. 22, 23, where dovAo is opposed to rots Kara capka Kupiots, and then immediately follows @oSovpevor rov Kvpiov and in the next verse again t@ Kupi@ Xpiot@ SovAevere. See also Eph. vi. 5—9. Kupuos, which in Attic Greek is chiefly used for ‘a master’ with a technical legal meaning, is in the N. T. the common word rather than deomorns, which occurs comparatively seldom. On both words see Trench WV. 7. Syn. § XxViii. 6. eyo épitevoa x.7.A.] This is entirely in accordance with the account given in the Acts of the part taken by St Paul and Apollos respectively in the foundation of the Church of Corinth : Acts xviii. 1—18 with regard to St Paul, xviii. 24—xix. 1 with regard to Apollos. The Fathers put a very curious interpretation upon this passage: in order to refer emorifev to baptism they applied épurevoa to the work of educating the catechumens. Thus Gregory Nyssenc. Euzom. ii. (p. 565) 188 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, [III. 6. gurever pev dia THs KatTnxnoEws O amdaroXos, Torifer 8€ Bamrif{wy 6 AmoAXSS, Optatus, ‘de pagano catechumenon feci: ille catechumenon baptizavit,’ and Petilianus af. Aug. iii. 53, and Augustine himself, Z/zs¢. 48. The interpretation is instructive, as showing a general fault of patristic exegesis, the endeavour to attach a technical sense to words in the N. T. which had not yet acquired this meaning. nvgavev] Observe the change of tense from the aorist éepurevoa, éroticev, to the imperfect. ‘God ever gave the increase,’ this being a continuous and gradual process. 7,8. The argument is as follows: ‘Paul and Apollos are nothing : therefore you ought not to make them lords over you (ver. 7). Again, Paul and Apollos are one thing: therefore they ought not to be the occasion of dissension among you (ver. 8).’ Every word, especially in these earlier chapters, is charged with meaning. 7. gore] is explained by add’ 6 Geos nvéaver. It is as if the Apostle had said, ‘What are the planting and watering without the principle of growth? Therefore you ought not to regard the planter and waterer etc.’ The contrast is implied in the adversative adda. éorty m1] For eivai re see Gal. ii. 6, vi. 15, Acts v. 36, viii. 9. 6 avftdvwv Ocds] i.e. ra mavra €ott. Notice the order: ‘but He that giveth the increase, which is God.’ 8. 6 gvtedwy 8] The particle either marks the opposition to o avéavwv Geos which has just preceded, or introduces the second application ‘but again.’ & elow] ‘are one thing, i.e. ‘are working for one and the same end, are part of the same administration : and therefore ought not to be the cause of divisions.’ Observe how their independence is sunk in the form of the expression (éy). ékactos 8] Here the particle is corrective : ‘though they are one, yet they will each severally etc.’ Just as their individuality had been ignored in év eiow of the former clause, so now it is especially emphasized in this new aspect by éxagros and by the repetition of roy idwyr, ‘congruens iteratio, antitheton ad wzwm’ Bengel. 9. Qeod yap éopev ovvepyol] It is better to refer yap to the first clause in the preceding verse and to treat exaoros 6€...kdmov as parenthetical. ‘We are a part of one great scheme, for we are fellow-workers with God.’ Observe the emphatic @cov—emphatic both from its position and from its repetition. All things are referred to Him. ovvepyol] ‘labourers together with God, ‘fellow-labourers with God, as the E. V., not, as others take it, ‘ fellow-labourers in the service of God.’ See note on 1 Thess. iii. 2, where the transcribers have altered the text in order to get rid of so startling an expression as ‘fellow-workers with God.’ Ocod yedpyrov, Oeod olkoSopx éote] The former of these metaphors has been already applied (vv. 6—8): and now the latter is expanded (vv. DUT; ro.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 189 10o—17). Thus ‘God’s husbandry, God’s building’ is the link which connects the two paragraphs together. Of the two images yewpyoy implies the organic growth of the Church, oikodouy the mutual adaptation of its parts. Oixodoun is a later form of otxoddunua: see Lobeck Phryn. p. 481 sq., Buttm. Gv. § 121. Io. St Paul had hitherto dwelt on the metaphor of the husbandry ; he now turns to that of the building. The former metaphor was best adapted to develope the essential unity of the work, the latter to explain the variety of modes in which the workmen might carry out the labour. kata THv Xap Tov Oeod] This is not a mere empty form of words. It is emphatic from its position. ‘If I laid the foundation, I cannot take to myself the credit of the work. The honour is due to God.’ St Paul is still dwelling on the same idea, which he brings out in the thrice repeated @cov of the preceding verse. For the expression itself and for the emphatic position in which it is placed compare Acts xv. II adda d1a THs xapitos Tod Kupiov "Incod mortevo- pev cwOnva. Where it is necessary for him to speak of his work, he is careful to exclude boasting at the outset. Xdpis is the watchword of St Paul. It is the objective element, the divine counterpart, corresponding to the subjective element, the human correlative miors ; cf. Eph. ii. 3 r7 yap xapiti €ote cecwopevan Sia THs Tictews. It is opposed to vouos (Rom. vi. 14), aS miotts is to €pya. codes] ‘skz/ful,) the correct epithet to apply to proficiency in any craft or art. Cf. Arist. Ath. Nic. vi. 7 rhv 5€ codiay év rats réxvais Tots dxpiBeoratos tas Téxvas amodidopev*® otov ediay Aovpyov copov kai TIlodvkAetrov avdpiavtomowy. The expression coos dpyiréxrwy occurs in Tsai! 3: Oepédtov] The dictum of Moeris Oepédra kai Oepedtov ovderépws, atTiKds * OepeAror kal Oepedwos, kowas (cf. Thom. Magister) is not borne out by its usage in extant passages. For an instance of the neuter in the xow7 see Acts xvi. 26, and of the masculine in Attic see Thucyd. i. 93. The singular masculine and neuter seem equally rare in Attic writers (no instances given in the common lexicons), though not uncommon in the xouv7 (cf. e.g. Polyb. I. 40. 9, not cited in the lexx.). The word is properly an adjective and therefore when used in the masc. AiOos is understood. Cf. Aristoph. Av. 1137 yépavor Gewedlovs Kkatarem@xviat Aidous. €@nka] the better supported reading, is more appropriate here. The more absolute réOecxa ‘I have laid’ would savour somewhat of arrogance, and would better describe the office of God than of the human agent. See the note on keiwevoy ver. II. &Ados St] The reference is not solely to Apollos, for he was only one out of many teachers who had built up the Corinthian Church. Cf. ékacros de. At the same time, occurring as it does so soon after the mention of Apollos (ver. 6), it suggests the idea that St Paul feared that Apollos 190 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (III. ro. might not be quite free from blame: that he might have conceded too much to the cravings of the ears and intellect of the Corinthians. mas éroukoSopnet] ‘what zs the character of the building he erects thereupon’; including the character of the materials, which are specified afterwards, but not restricted to them. ‘ My caution,’ says St Paul, ‘has reference to the building up, for the superstructure may be built up in many ways (and therefore care is needed): but only one foundation is possible.’ St Paul refuses to conceive the possibility of any professedly Christian teacher laying any other foundation. The foundation is already laid for him. In exactly the same spirit he speaks of the impossibility of there being more than one Gospel in Gal. i. 6, 7 Oavpatw dri ovtws taxéws petatiderbe...eis erepov evayyeAtov 0 ovK Eat GAXo «.T.A. The word ddvarac here must not be emptied of its meaning. II, mapa tov kelpevov] ‘destdes that which lieth, stronger than roy teOevra which €6nxa (ver. 10) would lead us to expect, or even than rov reOeevov. The foundation is already laid, when the workman begins his work, Tov keiyevov asserts the position of the foundation stone to be absolutely independent of human interference. St Paul is here inconsistent in his language only that he may bring out the truth more fully. He had before spoken of himself as a skilful architect. Now he says that no one could have done otherwise than he has done. He had before asserted that he had laid the foundation stone. Now he affirms that the foundation stone was already laid for him. *Incots Xpirrds] The one only foundation stone is the personal Saviour, the historical Christ. Observe that it is not Xpicros alone—no ideal Christ—no theories or doctrines about Christ—not faith in Christ— but Jesus Christ himself, ‘the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever’ (Heb. xiii. 8). Our Lord is here represented as the foundation stone (OepeéAcos), else- where the chief corner stone, axpoywvaios (Eph. ii. 20).. He is the basis on which the Church rests, and the centre of her unity. 12. In the passage which follows there seems to be a clear allusion to the prophecy of Malachi iii. 1 sq. e£aidyns née eis Tov vaov €avtov Kuptos ...kal Tis Uropevel Nuepav eiaodov avrov...duore adros eiomopeverac as Trip xoveuTnplov...kal Kabteira xwvev@v Kai kabapi{wy as TO apyUpLov kai ws TO xpvaloy, iv. I dure dod nuépa Epyerar kacopévn ws KrAiBavos cat preter avrovs kal €vovrat...ol mowivres avowa KaXapn kal avawer avtovs 1 uépa 7 €pxopwevn, i.e. the fire shall purify the nobler materials, the silver and gold, and consume the baser material, the stubble. The application of the metaphor of the ‘fire’ and the ‘day’ here however is somewhat different. el 8€ tis] i.e. but on the other hand the character of the superstructure may vary, and these varieties will be made manifest. PE ss] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. IOI xpvolov k.t.A.] i.e. durable materials as gold, silver and costly stones, or perishable materials as wood, hay and stubble. The words go in threes, of a palace on the one hand, of a mud hovel on the other. The idea of splendour however seems to be included in the first triad. The structure is at once a palace adorned with gold and silver and precious stones no less than a palace firmly built of gold and silver and costly marbles. Tibull. i. 3. 16 ‘Quidve domus prodest Phrygiis innixa colum- nis, Aurataeque trabes, marmoreumque solum.’ Xpuoiov, apyvpiov, which represent the right reading here, differ from ypvcos, apyupos (gold and silver simply) in signifying gold or silver made up in some way, as in coins, plate etc. The AiOoz riuior are perhaps ‘costly marbles.’ Perhaps however ‘precious stones, jewels’ may be meant, and the description here is not intended to apply to any actual building, but to an imaginary edifice of costly materials as the New Jerusalem. Cf. Rev. xxi. 18, 19 kal 7 modus xpuciov KaOapov...oi Bepédsor TOU TELXOUS THs TOAEwS TaVTL AiOw Tsim KeKooUnwEvor. The LXX. use of the expression appears to vary between these two meanings. Thus in 2 Sam. X1l. 30 rdAavrov xpvaiou kai AiBov Tiuiov it is employed of a king’s crown, in I Kings x. 2, 2 Chron. ix. 1, 9 of the Queen of Sheba’s gifts. In other passages (1 Kings x. I1, 2 Chron. ix. Io) it seems to refer to marbles. Cf. also Ezek. xxvii. 12, 22 and esp. Dan. xi. 38. Evda, xdprov, kaAdunv] A hovel of which the supports would be of wood, and the hay and straw would be employed either to bind the mud or plaster together, or to thatch the roof. Compare Seneca £#. xc. 10, 17 ‘Culmus liberos texit...non quaelibet virgea in cratem texuerunt manu et vili obleverunt luto, deinde stipula aliisque silvestribus operuere fastigium ?’ The question is raised here whether ‘the building’ represents ‘the body of believers, or ‘the body of doctrine taught.’ In favour of the first view is the direct statement Oecov olxodopn éore (ver. 9): in favour of the second, the whole context, which certainly has some reference to the character of the teaching. Perhaps we should say that neither is excluded, that both are combined. The building is the Church as the witness of the truth. Thus it is the doctrine exhibited in a concrete form. From the metaphor is derived the use of oixodopy (-pety -pia -wnors) in the sense of ‘instruction,’ ‘edification.’ This meaning seems not to occur in the LXxX., and probably not in the classical writers. Indeed in the New Testament it is not found out of St Paul with the exception of Acts ix. 31 (for in Acts xx. 32 it occurs in a speech of St Paul); and therefore the prevalence of this metaphor of ‘ edification’ is probably due to the influence of his phraseology. See on 1 Thess. v. II. The idea of an allusion in the whole passage to the conflagration of Mummius is too far fetched to commend itself. 13. ékdorov «.t.A.] The apodosis is framed, as if the protasis had I9Q2 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [Tl 135 run otherwise—eire tis emoxodopet ypuciov k.t.A....eire EA k.7.A. ‘whether the superstructure has been raised of durable or of perishable materials,’ +o épyov] The plural ra epya is frequently used in a special sense of buildings, or ‘works’ as we say. That sense is less defined in the singular, but there may perhaps be a tinge of it here. Cf. e.g. Thuc. 1. 9O. 7 npépa] ‘Zhe day.’ See the notes on 1 Thess. v. 2, 4. ore év Tupl arokadtrrera.] The idea of manifestation, which is faintly involved in nuépa, having been more definitely insisted upon in davepov yernoerat and dndooe, the sanner of this manifestation is declared: ‘ it is revealed in fire’—a reference to Malachil.c. Cf. also 2 Thess. i. 8. éy wupt] The idea of fire here is the connecting link between the idea of illumination which has hitherto prevailed and that of burning which now takes its place. By its destructive property the fire will test the stability of the work, purifying the better material and consuming the baser. The application is thus to a certain extent different from that in Malachi l. c. dmokadinrerat] For this use of the present see the note on 1 Thess. Vv. 2 €pxera, and to the references there given add Luke xvii. 3o. éxdotov Td %pyov] may either be the accusative case after dSoxmacer, this being the more idiomatic construction; or on the other hand a suspended nominative. Rom. xii. 2 efs ro doxiyuatew vuas ri ro OeAnua is in favour of the nominative here; but a single passage should not weigh much, and the order of the words is against this construction. avrs] Though omitted in the T.R., avro is probably genuine, the weight of authority slightly preponderating in its favour. It is taken by Meyer closely with zip ‘the fire itself, but it is not easy to see the force of the expression. Rather should it be considered as referring to éxaorov ro épyov, the pronoun being added by a pleonasm not uncommon in the N. T. ‘The fire shall test it. This idiomatic use will account for its omission. Similar omissions of the pleonastic pronoun occur in some MSS. on Matt. ix. 27, xxvi. 71, Luke viii. 27, xvii. 7. In -other passages the stumbling block is removed by altering the form of the sentence. 14. péve] It is a question whether this verb is present or future. Though the future would accord with the following xaraxanoera, yet on the other hand the present is the more forcible here, the notion of permanence being better expressed by it. Compare John vili. 35, xii. 34, 1 Cor. xiii. 13 for pévewy in this tense. 15. {nprwOrjorerar] ‘shall be mulcted of his reward, sc. rov perddv understood from the previous verse. Cf. Deut. xxii. 19, Exod. xxi. 22, where (nutovv is used with an accusative of the fine inflicted. The idea can be illustrated by 2 Joh. 8 iva ph amod€ontre a jpyardpeba adda picOdov mAnpn dmoAdByre. aitds 8%] opposed to pio Aor His reward shall be lost, but his person shall be saved. DIT 052] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 193 ovtws St ds Sia mupds] ‘ but only as one passing through fire ts saved’: i.e. with such a narrow escape. ‘ Prope ambustus evaserat’ Livy xxii. 35. Much has been built on this passage. The Romish doctrine of purgatory has been supposed to be supported by it. But we must not press odrws ws as though the expression necessarily implies any actual fire. It is used equally to express a fact and a similitude. Thus in 1 Cor. iv. I odras npas AoyilécOw avOpwros ws umnperas Xpiorod it expresses a fact, they were ministers ; on the other hand in 1 Cor. ix. 26 odrws muxrevo os ovK dépa dépwyv it introduces a metaphor. But the context decides the meaning to be metaphorical here. From beginning to end we cannot treat any part as literal to the exclusion of the rest (the €vAa, ydpros, kaXaun). There is no stopping at one point. If any further argument were needed, it would be found in the fact that a moral and not a physical agency is obviously required here. It would be rash to deny that St Paul conceived of the Lord appearing amidst an actual flame of fire: but the outward appear- ance is only the symbol of a spiritual power. Thus the light which accompanies the Lord’s appearing is a symbol of that light which He will shed on the thoughts and deeds of all men, the revelation of the hidden things of darkness: the flame of fire, which surrounds Him, betokens the powerful agency which consumes the inefficient work, and spares only the substantial labour. Here St Paul sees the thing symbol- ized in the symbol. See the notes on 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17. Ava mupos is here local, not instrumental ; cf. e.g. Rom. xv. 28 80 dyuor eis Sraviavy, and see Winer § 51, p. 452. For it is clearly an allusion to the proverbial expression of ‘passing through fire.’ This expression is equally common in classical Greek (compare Eur. Andr. 487 81a mupos edOeitv, Eur. Electr. 1182 dca mupos podeiv) and in the Old Testament. See Is. xlili. 2, Ps. Ixv. 12 dteABeiv d1a updos, Zech. xiii. 9 duayewv dua updos, and for similar phrases Zech. ili. 2 ws dadds e&eoracpévos ex mupos, I Pet. iii. 20 dtea@Onoay dv vdaros. There is therefore no idea of purifying ‘by means of fire’ implied in the passage here. It simply denotes a hairbreadth escape. That the Apostle does not intend any purgatorial fire by this expres- sion will appear from the following considerations. (1) Fire is here simply regarded as a destructive agency. There is no trace here of the idea of refining or purging, an attribute elsewhere given to it, as in Malachi iii. 3, though even there the prophet seems to speak of purging the whole nation by destroying the wicked, not of purging sin in the individual man. (2) The whole image implies a momentary effect and not a slow, continuous process. The Lord shall appear in a flash of light and a flame of fire. The light shall dart its rays into the innermost recesses of the moral world. The flame shall reduce to ashes the super- structure raised by the careless or unskilful builder. The builder himself shall flee for his life. He shall escape, but scorched and with the marks of the flame about him. L. EP. 13 194 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (ITE. a6: 16. ov« olSare] The warning and the metaphor seem to come in somewhat abruptly, but there is a link of connexion, for vads is only a definition of the previous metaphor ofxodoun (ver. 9). The building has now become a temple. Compare Eph. ii. 20—22, where we have the same transition, first the building (éo:xodounOevres), then that building defined as a temple (eis vaov dyiov), lastly that temple described as the permanent abode (eis xarouxntnpiov) of God in the spirit. Here vads is more immediately suggested by the passage of Malachi which the Apostle has in his mind throughout, the temple there being one of the leading ideas (Mal. iii. 1). vads Qcod] ‘God's temple, not ‘a temple of God.’ The Apostle is speaking of the community, not of the individual Christian. There is an allusion in these verses to the dissensions which are a corrupting of God’s temple. The metaphor is not from the many temples of the heathen, but from the one temple of Jerusalem. So Philo Monarch. ii. 1 (Il. p. 223 ed. Mangey) mpoevonae S€ ws ovte mokAaxd& ovr’ ev TavT@ TwoAAa KaTackev- aoOnoerat iepa Sukadoas ered?) els eat Oeds kal fepov evar povoy. oixet] The vads, the inward shrine or sanctuary, was regarded as the abode of the deity (from vaiew ‘to dwell’). Of course this was the case with heathen deities, but in a certain sense it was also true of the temple at Jerusalem ; for though God ‘ dwelleth not in temples made with hands’ (Acts xvii. 24), yet the symbol of His presence, the Shechinah, was there. Hence St Luke (xi. 51) calls the inner temple the ofckos, where another evangelist has vads (Matt. xxiii. 35). Observe however that, in the case of the Christian community, the word is appropriate not because the image of the deity was there, as in heathen temples, nor the symbol, as in the Jewish temple, but because the Spirit of God was the Indweller. 17. @elper, pOepet] The same word is studiously kept to show that the offender is requited in kind. Compare Acts xxiii. 2, 3 eméragev rvmrew avrov TO oropa...TUnrew oe péAXAet 6 Geds, Where we must recollect that St Paul is speaking. The same English word then ought to have been preserved at all hazards in the A. V. For the metaphor compare Ign. Eph. § 16 pr mravacbe, ddeApoi pov, of oixopOdpor Baoireiav Beod ov KAnpovo- pnoovow x.r-A., following immediately after § 15 mavra ovv rotpev ws avTod €v july KaToLKovrTos, iva Gey avTov vaoi. A comparison with vi. 19 is instructive. Here it is a subtle and disputatious spirit, there moral impurity, which violates the temple of the Spirit. The two passages together condemn the leading vicious tenden- cies of the Corinthian character. 18. Soxet] ‘seemeth to himself? This is the usual (though perhaps not the universal) sense of doxeiv in St Paul: comp. vii. 40, vill. 2, x. 12, XIV. 37 etc. év ro alévt rosrw] The idea is not temporal, but ethical, moral: the mundane order of things as opposed to the eternal, the heavenly. Eitsa2.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 195 19. 6 Sparcdpevos k.t.d.] ‘he that setzeth the wise’; a quotation from Job v. 13, the only quotation from Job in the N. T. The Apostle however translates from the Hebrew himself, substituting two more forcible expressions for the LXX. 6 xarakapBavay codots ev ry hpovnae: adtav. St Paul’s rendering of Dy by ravovpyia is the more correct, as the adjective ony is generally translated mavodpyos in the LXx. The words, it will be observed, are the words of Eliphaz, but they are appropriated because of their intrinsic truth. Compare Gal. iv. 30, where the language of Sarah is cited as Scripture (7 ypady), and Matt. xix. 5, where apparently the words of Adam are quoted as the voice of God. 20. Kalmddww] Taken from the Lxx. of Ps. xciv. (xciii.) 11, rav copav however being substituted for rév dyOpdmwv. Here the Lxx. follows the Hebrew more closely, but ‘there seems to be a reminiscence of the original in the next words ev avOpwrors’ (Stanley). Stadoyiopovs] ‘the reasonings, ‘thoughts’: not ‘the disputations.’ This is the sense of the word in the original and therefore is decisive for us here, besides being the usual meaning of d:adoy:opol in the N.T. See the note on Phil. ii. 14. 21. év dv@pdrois] i.e. ‘in human teachers,’ returning to what he has said in i. 31. mwdévtTa yap tpav éor(v] The whole universe, as it were, lies at the feet of the true disciple of Christ. Compare Rom. viii. 28, where the same idea is expressed in not quite such strong language. This mode of speaking is perhaps borrowed from Stoic phraseology ; but though the Stoics certainly talked in this way, the application is different. Zeno (ap. Diog. Laert. vii, I. 25) may say cal rév copay 8€ ravra eiva, Cicero (Acad. ii. 44) ‘omnia, quae ubique essent, sapientis esse,’ Seneca (de Beef. vii. 2, 3) ‘emittere hanc dei vocem Haec omnia mea sunt’; but though the Stoic and Christian phraseology may be the same, how striking the real contrast of sentiment! Instead of assigning all virtues to the wise, it is just to the wise that St Paul denies them. They belong, so to speak, to the fools (oi pwpoi). Again, instead of assigning this universal dominion to the isolation of self, he bestows it upon the negation of self, the absorption or incorporation of self in Christ (év Xpior@). All things are the believer’s ; but they are only his, in so far as he is Christ’s, and because Christ is God’s. See Philippians, p. 304 sq. 22. Iladdos, *Amoddws, Knpas] He begins with the human teachers. ‘They a// belong to you, they are your slaves; you each individually take one of them as a party-leader, but they are a@// yours.’ He starts from this, as being the point at issue: and then he goes on, ‘ Indeed the whole universe, the whole order of things is yours.’ Here xécpos is best taken by itself, the rest hanging together in pairs. ‘Whether life or death.’ Again an exhaustive division, but this time with reference to the subjective state. Life and death are antagonistic to each other, are I13—2 196 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (III. 22. mutually exclusive; yet either state ministers alike to the good of the faithful. Compare Rom. viii. 38, Phil. i. 21, and for éveor@ra, weAAovra see the note on Gal. i. 4. 23. tpeis & Xpiorod] ‘But this mastery of the universe is only yours by virtue of your incorporation in Christ, your participation in His sovereignty.’ Xpirrds S$ Ocod] It is not the human but the divine nature of Christ to which the Apostle alludes. This interpretation is necessary for the proper understanding of the Nicene Creed ; necessary for the preservation of the Unity of the Godhead, while confessing the divinity of Christ. Compare St John xvii. 7, 8, 2I—23. CHAPTER Py. Human preferences worthless: the divine tribunal alone final (iv. I—5). I. ovtws] The adverb does not go with what precedes ‘this being so, ‘therefore’; but is to be taken closely with ws: comp. iii. 15, ix. 26, 2 Cor. ix. 5, Eph. v. 33. The order of the words seems imperatively to demand this, because otherwise we can give no account of the position of npas, which then becomes the principal word in the sentence. Eph. v. 28 ovtws odeidovow kal oi avdpes ayaray Tas €avTay yuvaixas os Ta €avTGY O@pata has a very different order and force. ‘So ought the husbands also to love their wives as their own bodies.’ If odrws be taken as the principal word and joined with os, nuas falls at once into insignificance, as the sense demands. oikovépous] ‘stewards of the mysteries, i.e. teachers of the revealed truths. The church is the oikos (1 Tim. iii. 15), God the oikodeamérns (Matt. xiii. 52), the members the oixetos (Gal. vi. 10, Eph. ii. 19, where see the notes). See also especially the notes on oixovouiay Col. i. 25, Eph. i., 10: 2. we] This reading has the vast preponderance of evidence. The same change into o de has been made in Luke xvi. 25, where it is quite impossible to connect with the previous sentence, as the reading o de would require. Compare also Rev. xiii. 18, xvii. 9. ‘Ode never has any other than a local sense in the N. T., ‘here,’ ‘in this matter’; but it must be taken with what follows, as is distinctly done by the principal versions (Vulg. Pesh. Memph.). Aourdyv k.t.d.] ‘for the rest, it 1s required (generally the force of ¢nreiv) that a man be found trustworthy’ (passive, see Galatians, p. 155). 3. epol St K.t.d.] ‘but to me tt amounts to the smallest of all matters that I should be examined by you or by man’s day. For eis after eiva in the sense of ‘it comes to’ compare vi. 16 €ovrat...eis capka piav. Some- what different is the expression in Col. ii. 22 d éorw eis POopay ‘ destined to, where see the note. On the technical sense of dvaxpivew here see above on ii, 15. 198 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [TV.c35 avOpwrlyns mpépas] The A. V. somewhat boldly translates ‘man’s judgment’; but the word is put here because it is in opposition to 7 npépa of iii. 13 ‘the Lord’s day.’ The meaning is ‘by any day fixed by man.’ The idea of a day as implying judgment is common in Hebrew, and would be directly assisted by such expressions as ‘diem dicere,’ ‘to fix a day for judgment.’ Compare the English ‘daysman,’ which contains the same idea (Wright’s Bible Word Book s. v.). 4. od8tv yap K.t.d.] ‘for though I know nothing against myself, yet. It is important to see exactly what the Apostle’s meaning is. It is simply a hypothetical case. ‘For supposing I am conscious of no guilt in myself, yet am I not thereby justified.’ The most saintly of men are the most conscious of guilt in themselves, and St Paul would be the last to make an absolute statement to the contrary. The sentence means ‘on the supposition that I am not conscious, though I am.’ Other instances of the second sentence qualifying the first are (1) Rom. vi. 17, where the force of the passage is ‘Thanks be to God that though we were slaves to sin, we have obeyed,’ (2) Matt. xi. 25 ‘that while thou hast concealed these things from the wise and prudent, thou hast revealed them’ etc., and (3) John iii. 19, where it is not true to say that the judgment consisted in the fact of the light coming into the world, but, light having come into the world, the judgment is this that men loved darkness rather than light. Here then the sentence is put as a pure hypothesis. ‘I know nothing by myself’ is simply an archaism: compare Cranmer’s letter to Henry VIII. quoted in Wright’s Bzb/e Word Book, ‘I am exceedingly sorry that such faults can be proved by the queen.’ For the idea cf. Horace Efvst. i. 1. 61 ‘nil conscire sibi nulla pallescere culpa.’ GAX ovk] Comp. Ign. Rom. § 5 adX ov mapa rovro Sedixaiwpa, a reminiscence of this passage. 5. mpd Kaipov] i.e. ‘do not therefore anticipate the great judgment (kpiovs) by any preliminary investigation (dvaxpiors), which must be futile and incomplete.’ 6 Kipios] There seems to be here a secondary allusion to the technical sense of xvpios as the properly constituted authority, e.g. Plato Legg. viii. p. 848C kvpios €otw ris vopis, Arist. Pod. ii. 9 (p. 1270 ed. Bekker) kxvptos elvae xpicewv peyaday, ii. 11 (p. 1273) aAAa KUpioe Kpivew eiat. See also the note on iii. 5 and cf. vii. 22. 8s Kal dorloe x.7.A.] i.e. ‘Who will reveal all the facts, bring all the evidence to light ; thus superseding the necessity of this human avaxpuocs ; and will make manifest the counsels of men’s hearts, and then shall his due praise accrue to each one from God. ‘O érawvos is ‘the praise due to him,’ whether small or great, whether much or none. Compare Rom. ii. 29 ob 6 erawwos ovk e& avOpamwv add’ ex Tov Ged, where the force of the article is lost in the A. V. LV.083) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 199 (2) Contrast between the self-satisfied temper of the Corinthians and the sufferings and abasement of the Apostles (iv. 6—21). 6. taira 8 «.7.A.] ‘But though I have spoken only of Paul and Apollos, you must not suppose that the remarks refer to these solely or chiefly. I used the name of Paul and Apollos : but I alluded especially to others’—the Judaizing factions doubtless, with whom probably the party-spirit, as such, was strongest. pereoxnpatioa] ‘J transferred by a figure to myself and Afollos, that taking us as an illustration ye might learn not to exceed what ts written in scripture.’ We find from both Greek and Latin writers that oxjpa (schema) was used at this time especially (and almost exclusively) to imply a rhetorical artifice, by which, either from fear or respect or some other motive, the speaker veiled the allusion to individuals under an allegory or a feigned name or in any other way. Thus Quintilian says (ix. 2) ‘Jam ad id genus ...veniendum est in quo per quandam suspicionem, quod non dicimus accipi volumus...quod et supra ostendi jam fere solum schema a nostris vocatur et inde controversiae figuratae dicuntur.’ It appears therefore that this sense of a ‘covert allusion’ had almost monopolized the meaning of schema in Quintilian’s day: compare Martial iii. 68. 7 ‘schemate nec dubio sed aperte nominat illam.’ Another Latin term equivalent to ‘schema’ was ‘figura.’ Suetonius Dom. 10 ‘occidit Hermogenem Tar- sensem propter quasdam in historia figuras,’ and this explains the ‘controversiae figuratae’ above. St Paul therefore says, ‘I have applied these warnings to myself and Apollos for the purpose of a covert allusion, and that for your sakes, that ye may learn this general lesson.’ év ypiv] ‘272 our case, ‘by our example, i.e. ‘by this peracxnpariopos to ourselves.’ pa) imp & yéypamrar| ‘70t to go beyond what ts written in scripture’ ; apparently a proverb, or at any rate in a proverbial form ; hence its elliptical dress : compare Terence Azdr. 1. 1. 61 ‘id arbitror Adprime in vita esse utile ut ne quid nimis.’ The insertion of dpoveiv after ux in the Textus Receptus illustrates the tendency to smooth down these ellipses of St Paul by insertions: see v. 1 dvoudterat, xi. 24 kAdpevor, and the notes on 2 Thess. ii. 3 drt, I Cor. i. 26 ov modXol, 31 iva Kabds yéypanrat. Passages in the Apostle’s mind would doubtless be those quoted by him ON 1°19; 31, 111s. 19) 2o: gvovovcbe] For the present indicative after iva comp. Gal. iv. 17 iva avtovs (ndovre with the note. It is conceivable however that in both these cases we have a dialectic form of the conjunctive of verbs in -o. 7. tls ydp oe Staxplve ;| ‘for who ts he that maketh a difference in thee ?’ ‘who differentiates thee from another?’ 8. The Apostle bursts out in impassioned irany. ‘You, it appears, are to be exalted by the Christian dispensation. You are eager to seize all 200 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [IV. 8. the advantages, to aim at all the elevation; but you will leave to us all the hard work, all the indignities, all the sufferings. It is a very easy thing to claim all the privileges of your calling.’ kekopeopévot] An allusion probably to Deut. xxxi. 20 cat dayovrat kat épmdnobévtes Kopjoovat Kai emtotpapyoorta emi Oeovs adAorpiovs, comp. Deut. xxxii. 15. They are filled and (as the Apostle implies) have waxed wanton. érdouticate, Baciketoate] The aorists, used instead of perfects, imply indecent haste. Here we meet with Stoic phraseology once more: see the note on iii. 21. cupBacikedowpev] For their triumph, supposing it to be genuine, would be his triumph also. They were his orégavos xavxjoews. Genuine however it was not: this is the force of the aorist after épeAov without dp. 9. Sox@ yap] ‘As it is, so far from being kings, we are the refuse of society. For, I fancy, God exhibited us, the Apostles, last of all as condemned criminals: for we were made a spectacle to the whole world, aye to angels and men.’ tovs dtoorédovs] He adds the words not to claim this position for himself alone. daréSerev] a technical word here, like the Latin ‘edere’ (Suet. Aug. 45 ‘edere gladiatores,’ Livy xxviii. 21 ‘munus gladiatorium’). ‘He brought us out in the arena of this world’s amphitheatre.’ We have the same metaphor in xv. 32 €O@nptouaynoa. Tertullian (de pudic. 14) takes up the idea ‘velut bestiarios.’ éoxdtous] ‘last of all) i.e. to make the best sport for the spectators. The Apostles were brought out to make the grand finale, as it were. The reference to éryaro: would be to the prophets and martyrs under the Old Covenant (Heb. xi. 33 s5q., esp. vv. 39, 40). émBavarlous}] ‘condemned criminals. In this sense Dionysius of Halicarnassus, speaking of the Tarpeian Rock, says (A. &. vii. 35) bOev avtois €B0s BaddXew Tovs émiOavariovs. @éarpov] The Greek word may mean (1) the place, (2) the spectators, (3) the actors in the spectacle, or (4) the spectacle itself. The last meaning is the one used here and is the rarest (Hesych. Oéarpov* Oéaya 7 otvaypa). kal dyyéAows] Kai is not exclusive of what went before, but singles out the d@yyeAo for special attention. Compare ix. 5 of Aouroi amdaroXor Kat of adeAot Tod Kupiov kai Knas, Acts i. 14 ody yuvacéiv kat Mapidp. For the angels as interested spectators of man’s doings see xi. 10, 1 Tim. v. 21. 12. épyafépevor] He had done this at Corinth before (Acts xviii. 3) ; he was doing it at Ephesus when he wrote (Acts xx. 34). 13. Svodnpovpevor] A rare word, and like yupmrevopev, dotarotpev above and repixaOdppara, repinua below, a drag Neyspevoy in the N, T. Hence the change in many MSS. to the common word PAaogdnpovpevot. It occurs however in 1 Mace. vii. 41. repixaddppara] ‘sweepings, offscourings. This is the primary meaning EV. 27.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE ‘CORINTHIANS. 201 of the word. But the Apostle is carrying on the metaphor of émOavarious above. Both mepixadappara and sepiynua were used especially of those condemned criminals of the lowest classes who were sacrificed as expia- tory offerings, as scapegoats in effect, because of their degraded life. It was the custom at Athens to reserve certain worthless persons who in case of plague, famine or other visitations from heaven, might be thrown into the sea, in the belief that they would cleanse away, or wipe off, the guilt of the nation. Hence they were called xa@appa. The word sometimes corresponds to dappakoi, those slaves who were sacrificed for the good of the state, as being too vile to live (see Hermann Grech. Alterth. Gottesdienst. § 60). Though the simple form is more common, zepixd- @appa occurs in Epictetus (ili, 22. 78) of Priam 6 revtjxovra yévynoas meptkabapyara, see also Prov. xxi. 18 mepixabappa Sixaiov avopos. Tov Koopov, mavtwv| These genitives refer to the people both from whom and for whom the lives are sacrificed. meptnpa}] On this word see the note on Ign. Z//. 8. It is not uncommon in the writings of the sub-apostolic age (Ign. ZAA. 8. 18, ED. Barn. 4, 6). 15. maSaywyots|] See the note on Gal. 111. 24. 17. &mepa] Probably a little before the letter, as xvi. 10 seems to imply. The aorist however is not decisive, nor is the notice in Acts xix. 22. Timothy appears not to have reached Corinth. On his movements at this time and those of Titus see Bzblical Essays, p. 273 sq. ‘The Mission of Titus to the Corinthians’ (especially p. 276 sq.). 21. év paBSo| The Hebraism is the more natural, as it is an O. T. phrase, 1 Sam. xvii. 43 od epxn em ene ev pad, 2 Sam. vil. 14, xxiii. 21, Ps. ii. 9, Ixxxvili. 32. The Apostle offers the alternative: shall he come as a father or as a maidaywyds? CEDAR ER: ae iii THE CASE OF INCEST, v. I—Vvi. 20. (a) The incest denounced: the offender to be cast out of the Church (v. I—I3). 1. We have come now to the main pivot of the letter, the leading motive of the Apostle in writing it. The Second Epistle likewise arises altogether out of this case and the way in which the Corinthians received St Paul’s rebuke. Who then was St Paul’s informant? Possibly the household of Chloe (i. 11), but more probably Stephanas and his household mentioned in xvi. 15 sq. For we notice an evident anxiety to shield them from the displeasure of the Corinthians. Hence the suppression of the informants’ names here. But this is pure conjecture. The connexion of this chapter with what precedes is twofold : (1) the condemnation of their vanity, involving the contrast between the spiritual pride of the Corinthians and the state of their Church, comp. iv. 18, 19 with v. 2; and (2) the character of his intended visit, should it be made in love or not, comp. iv. 18, 19, 21 with v. 3. dus] ‘altogether, ‘most assuredly’: almost equivalent to maytas, ‘prorsus. That dws bears this sense in the N. T. appears from vi. 7, xv. 29, Matt. v. 34, the only passages where the word occurs. It is nota common meaning in itself, but is found in classical writers also, e.g. Plato Philebus 368 ddyotv’ ddws 7) xalpovra, Arist. Top. ©. I. p. 152 ed. Bekker khv dds xphotpor 7. dxotverat] ‘2s reported, i.e. is commonly known to exist: €v vpiv to be connected with dxovera rather than with zopveia. mopvela] The context enables us to form some idea of what the crime was. (1) It was a lasting, not a momentary relation. This is inferred, not, as some take it, from mpdkas (ver. 2) or xarepyaoauevoy (ver. 3), but from éxew (ver. 1). It might have been concubinage or marriage. (2) The former husband and father was still living: see 2 Cor. vil. 12 rod ddixnOévros. (3) There had been a divorce or separation. The crime is called mopveia, not potyeia. (4) As no censure is uttered on the woman W535] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 203 in either Epistle, it may be inferred that she was not a Christian. Thus she was one of ‘those without,’ whom God would judge (v. 13). ATs ov8t] On this ellipse see iv. 6 above. If a word had to be supplied, dxoverac would be preferable to ovopatera of the Textus Receptus ; but probably nothing so definite was intended. ’Ovoywaterac comes ap- parently from Eph. v. 4. tveo.w] The heinousness of this form of sin among the Gentiles is well illustrated from Cicero fro Cluentio v. 14 ‘nubit genero socrus...o mulieris scelus incredibile, et praeter hanc unam...inauditum.’ See other passages given in Wetstein ad loc. We may well ask how was this crime possible? It was probably due to the profligacy of the Corinthian Church, but it may be accounted for in another way. The Mosaic Law was very stringent on this point (Lev. xx. 11, Deut. xxii. 30). But some of the Rabbis had invented a subterfuge to escape its stringency. They allowed such a connexion in the case of a proselyte. He had, as it were, they said, undergone a new birth; he had thus been taken out of his old relationships, and thus this intercourse was allowable (so Rabbi Akibah). It is quite possible that some subterfuge of this kind may have had its influence in excusing this crime to the man himself and to the Church. 2. pets mrepvotwmpévor éeoté] ‘You vaunt your higher wisdom, you are proud of your spiritual gifts, you are puffed up; while this plague-spot is eating like a canker at the vitals of the church.’ The vpeis prepares us for the following eyo pev (ver. 3). érevOnoate] ‘ye ought rather to have put on mourning, i.e. when it came to your ears. Observe the change of tenses. “Emev@noare is more than eAumnOnre. It involves the idea of the outward exhibition of humiliation and grief, and is especially used of funerals : see Matt. ix. 15 and Gen. 1. 10 émoince ro mévOos t@ tatpi avtov. ‘Ye should have clothed yourselves with sackcloth: ye should have humbled yourselves before God.’ 7d epyov totto mpdtas] This is the reading, not aouoas, which is weaker and less technical ; comp. év t@ mpaypart I Thess. iv. 6 (with the note). IIpa&as brings out the moral aspect of the deed. The whole expression is a sort of euphemism. 3. éyd pev yap] ‘for J for my part. He contrasts his feelings with theirs. atav] ‘albezt absent, i.e. ‘notwithstanding my absence, while you on the spot condoned the offence.’ The ws of the Textus Receptus is to be left out before awwv. It enfeebles the sense, and manuscript evidence is against it. For mapdv d€ ro mvedpare comp. Col. il. 5. 75n Kéxpika os tapav] ‘have already decided as though I were present. The proper punctuation is to put a colon after mapwy, and to take rov kaTepyacdpevoy aS a prospective accusative, governed by zapadotva and resumed in rov rowvrov. For xexpexa absolutely ‘I am resolved,’ a frequent use, see Pliny Z#. i. 12 ‘dixerat sane medico admonenti cibum 204 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [V.°3. kéxpixa, Epict. ii. 15 etc. The form of the sentence can be illustrated by Acts xv. 38 IladAos S€ néiov roy dmooravta am avteyv amd Tlappudias Kai pi ovveAOovra avrois eis TO Epyov pr) ovvTapadapBavew TovTov, where we seem almost to hear the Apostle’s own words. ovtws| The word aggravates the charge, ‘under circumstances such as these.’ 4. Ofallthe various possibilities enumerated by Meyer, the connexion of words suggested by the order appears most natural and best accords with the sense. By it év rd dvopari rot K. ’I. is to be taken with cvvay6év- tov vuov, and odvv rH Suvaper tov K. judy “I. with mapadoiva. Thus the inauguration of the proceedings, the gathering together, is in the name of the Lord, in accordance with Matt. xviii. 20; the action as the result is accompanied by His power. In the picture given, an imaginary court is formed and the Apostle’s spirit is represented as presiding. That some such a tribunal was actually held and the offender condemned appears from 2 Cor. ii. 6, where we learn the result in ‘the penalty inflicted by the majority.’ The bearing of this passage on the question of direct apostolic supervision in the earliest stage of the Church’s history is drawn out in Philippians, p. 198. 5. mapaSotvar roy Tovovtov] ‘that we (or ye) should deliver so rank an offender as this.’ He is described in the same vague way in 2 Cor. ii. 6, 7. The Apostle forbears to give his name. +S Zatava] We have just the same expression in 1 Tim. i. 20. Satan is here spoken of as the instrument of physical suffering, just as in 2 Cor. xii. 7 St Paul’s own malady is described as a@yyeos Zarava. This delivery to Satan is by virtue of the extraordinary power given to St Paul as an Apostle, and has its analogy in the cases of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts v. 1 sq.) and Elymas (Acts xiii. 8sq.). He alludes to this power again in 2 Cor. xiii. 10. That physical suffering of some kind is implied, the purpose being remedial, appears from 2 Cor. ii. 6, 7, 1 Tim. i. 20, 2 Cor. xiii. 10 eds olkoSopny Kai ovk eis kaBaipeow. Thus the instrumentality of Satan is used for a divine end. Of the two forms, Zaray and Saravas, the first is the Hebrew word ; the second, a Grecised form of the Aramaic, is alone employed by St Paul: see on 1 Thess. ii. 18. els SA€Bpov THs capKds] Not merely a crushing of fleshly lusts, though this is involved in the expression ; but physical suffering also. 6. 7d Katxnpa tpav] ‘the subject of your boasting.” What St Paul means is this: ‘there is nothing in you worth boasting about, as long as this plague-spot remains ; all your intellectual insight is worth nothing, is no matter of self-congratulation.’ For the contrast with xavynous see the notes on Gal. vi. 4, Phil. i. 26. pikpd {ipn] On the application of this proverb see the note on Gal. v. 9, where it occurs again. That (vy here is not the sinner, but the sin or sinfulness, appears from ver. 8. Philo de vict. off: 6 (U1. p. 256 ed. Mangey) takes leaven as the symbol of inflation, pride (@uon@els vm’ adafoveias). Weyl FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 205 This idea however is not present to St Paul’s mind here. Though pride is condemned in the context, yet the leaven here represents not the pride but the profligacy of the Corinthian Church. Elsewhere (de congr. erud. gr. 28 1. p. 542) Philo explains the metaphor otherwise rd pi oidetv kat avaceiy tais émiOvpias, which, he says, constitutes éopr? dvavoia prdbr. tupot] A various reading dodot occurs both here and in Gal. v. 9, chiefly in western authorities. Hence Jerome (on Gal. 1. c.) says ‘male in nostris codicibus habetur modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit.’ The accusation of the Greeks against the Latins (see Mich. Cerul. in Tischendorf), that they read éeiper, seems to be founded on a mistake. They retranslated ‘corrumpit,’ which was really a rendering, not of pbeiper, but of dorAo0t% Tertullian (de pudic. 13, 18, adv. Marc. \. 2) has * desipit.’ 7. ékka@dpare] A new turn is given to the metaphor, the mention of leaven suggesting the Paschal Feast. The reference is to the purging out the leaven on the eve of the Passover (Exod. xii. 15, xiii. 7). The word in Ex. xil. 15 (LXX.) agameire (vunv is very strong, ‘ye shall make it to vanish’ With what exactness this injunction was carried out appears from a passage in Chrysostom (p. 177 ed. Field pue@y omds reprepyacovrat, ‘they even scrutinise mouse-holes to see that there is no leaven in them’), and is confirmed by statements quoted in Lightfoot H. H. 1. p. 953 and Edersheim Z7emp/e, p. 188. The passage in Zeph. i. 12 was considered to authorise a search with candles on this occasion. véov] On the distinction between véos and kawvds see the note on Col. iii. 10, and for the contrast between the old and the new, comp. also AC Or. VoL 7, phi: 22 Sq: Kabds éore ALupor] ‘even as ye are unleavened, i.e. ‘by the very terms of your Christian profession’; in other words, ‘that ye may fulfil the idea of your being,—may be, as ye profess to be, catv7 xricts.’ Vain attempts have been made to give a(vuou the sense of ‘eating unleavened bread.’ These destroy the point of the image. There isa double application of the metaphor here. The Corinthians are (1) the vpaya itself, the lump which is leavened (vv. 6, 7), (2) then they become the keepers of the festival (vv. 7, 8), and the Apostle characteristically passes from the one to the other. Examples of these sudden inversions of metaphors have already been given in the note on 1 Thess. ii. 7. So here the Apostle has turned the metaphor about to find some new lesson which he could draw from it. kal yap] ‘/or besides.’ Here another analogy is introduced. Not only is there a Christian putting away of the leaven, but also a Christian paschal sacrifice. The passage gains much by the omission (with the best authorities) of the words tmép vuov, which blunt the point of the Apostle’s reference. All we want here is the fact of the sacrifice. ro wacxa] ‘the paschal lamb’ : as frequently in the Gospels, Matt. xxvi. 206 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [V.-7- 17 payeivy to macya, Mark xiv. 12 ro macyxa 6vov...iva payns TO macxa, comp. ver. 14, Luke xxii. 7, 11, 15. éri@n] ‘was sacrificed’ on the Cross. The A. V. loses the point by translating as a present or perfect. The reference is not to the passover as a type of Christ’s sacrifice, but rather to this sacrifice under the figure of the Paschal Feast. It is not the old as signifying the new, but the Paschal Lamb of the new dispensation. Xprords] ‘even Christ.’ 8. éoprdtwper] ‘let us keep perpetual feast.” Chrysostom grasps the point when he says (p. 175) €oprijs dpa 6 mapdy Kaipos...dekvds Ort mas 6 ypdvos €opTijs €orTe Katpos Tois Xpioriavois dia rHv vrepBornv trav Sobevrav ayabav. There is some resemblance to St Paul’s language here in Philo de sacrif. Abel. et Cain. 33 (1. p. 184 sq.) ro roivuy pipapa...nueis €opev avroi...povos dé coprater THY TovavTny éoprny 0 coos k.t.A., but he is not speaking of the passover. kaklas Kal tovnplas] ‘#zalice and villainy.’ Kakia is the vicious disposi- tion, zrovnpia the active exercise of it. The words occur together in Rom. i. 29. See Trench WV. 7. Syx.§ xi. p. 37 sq. and the note on Col. iii. 8 kakiay. ddnPelas] In the widest sense of the word: comp. John iii. 21 6 mowv tv adnOecav. This exercise of truth extends throughout.all the domain of moral life: see Eph. iv. 15 dAnOevovres év aydmn ‘holding the truth’ i.e. speaking and doing the truth. We have parallel applications of the metaphor in the sub-Apostolic age: Ign. (Zagm. 10 (where it applies to the leaven of Judaism) vmépOeaGe ody thy xakiv Cipnv tiv madawbeioay, Kat evoficacay, kat petaBadeobe cis véav Cvpny ds eat Incois Xpiords, Just. Mart. Dial. 14 p. 114 TovrTo ydp €ote Td ovpBorov trav atvpor, iva py Ta tadaa ths Kakns Cipns epya mpartnte x.t.d.. Clem. Hom. viii. 17 6 cds avtovs womep Kaxyy Cipuny e&edew €Bovdrero. For eiduxpwias see on Phil. i. 10 eiAckpuveis. It has been suggested with great probability that we have in this verse a hint of the season of the year when the Epistle was written. This was, we know, towards the end of the Apostle’s stay at Ephesus, which place he hoped to leave about Pentecost (1 Cor. xvi. 8). It is thus probable that the Jewish Paschal Feast was actually impending. The natural way, however, in which the mention of the Passover arises here out of the proverb just quoted, deprives this suggestion of much of its force. Similarly a passage in the Second Epistle may have been suggested by the Feast of Tabernacles. The reference in 2 Cor. v. I sq. seems to be a comparison between the removal into their permanent dwellings after the destruction of the temporary booths, and our removal to a ‘ house not made with hands’ after the destruction of ‘our earthly house of the tabernacle.’ If we follow the narrative in the Acts, we see that the Second Epistle would probably have been written about the time of the Feast of Tabernacles. V. 9.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 207, 9. typaa x.7.d.] ‘2 wrote unto you in my letter’ The Apostle is reminded here of general instructions which he had sent them in a former communication, and in the spirit of which he asks them now to act. The expression imperatively demands the hypothesis of a previous letter. This necessity does not lie in the word @ypawa, which might stand equally in the beginning or middle of a letter as at the end: see the note on Gal. vi. II mnAlkois vty ypaupaow éypaya, where the question of the epistolary aorist is gone into and instances given, Philemon 19, 21 ¢ypawa, Col. iv. 8 érexwWa with the notes, and Azblical Essays, p. 275 (note 1). In the Martyrdom of Polycarp for example immediately after the salutation occurs (§ I) an epistolary aorist éeypayayev vpiv, adeAdoi, Ta Kata Tovs paptupnoavras kal Tov paxdpioy TloAvKaproy «.tT.A., giving the purport of the letter of which it is the opening sentence. But the theory of a previous letter is rendered necessary by the words ey tm émiroAn, which are quite meaningless if applied to our extant Epistle. It is true that 7 émiatoAn is a phrase used sometimes of the letter itself in which it occurs (Rom. xvi. 22, 1 Thess. v. 27, Col. iv. 16, and probably 2 Thess. iii. 14, see the notes on the last three passages) ; but in all these cases the expression occurs in a postscript, when the Epistle is considered as already at an end. These instances therefore are not to the point, and the same can be said of Martyrdom of Polycarp § 20 rnv émarodny Sianéuwao be, where the document is regarded as concluded. But we have no example of the phrase occurring in the middle of a letter as here. Nor is the case met by the theory propounded by Stanley of a postscript note consisting of 1 Cor. v. 9—13 subsequently incorporated in the middle of the Epistle. For apart from the awkwardness of this hypothesis, the whole passage hangs together in close connexion of thought: ver. 9 wy cuvavaplyvya bat mopvos arising naturally out of the mention of the leaven in vv. 6—8, and vi. I xpiveoOa being directly suggested by the kpivewv, kpivere of VV. 12, 13. These links would not exist, if that theory were true. The hypothesis of a previous letter is as old as the first Latin commentator Ambrosiaster, and is accepted by Calvin, Beza, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Meyer and many others. It is likewise borne out by other expressions of St Paul to the Corinthians, viz. 2 Cor. vii. 8 ef cat €AUmnoa vpas ev TH émicroAn, Where the words cannot refer to the letter which he was inditing, but require a previous communication ; and especially 2 Cor. x. 10, 11, where the acknowledgement of the Corinthians that his ‘letters are weighty and powerful’ together with his own reply ‘Such as we are by letters when absent etc.’ cannot be explained quite satisfactorily by the single extant Epistle written before this date. See the whole question of lost letters of St Paul treated in PAzlippians, p. 138 sq. There are extant two letters, one purporting to be from St Paul to the Corinthians, the other from the Corinthians to St Paul, both obviously spurious, but held as canonical by the Armenian Church (see Stanley Corinthians, p. 591 sq. and my note on vii. 1 below). 208 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [V. ro. 10. ov wdvrws] ‘assuredly I did not mean. The ravras qualifies the ov, not the ov the mdvrws. This is at least an allowable meaning (probably the general meaning) in classical Greek, see Cope’s Appendix to Gorgias, p. 139sq., who however shows that ov mavv (we may extend the term to ov mavrws) need not necessarily mean ‘not at all’; and it becomes still more prominent in Biblical Greek as coinciding with a common Hebraism (Mark xiii. 20, Acts x. 14, I Joh. ii. 21, Apoc. vii. 16 etc., and 1 Cor. i. 21 above). Compare Clem. Hom. xix. 9 xai o Tlérpos, OU mavrws* opdpev yap TokAovs Tav avOparev ayabov’s bvras, Epist. ad Diogn. 9 ov mavrws édpndo- pevos Tois Guaptnuacw nuav Gd dvexouevos, where it would be impossible to give the sentence the meaning that God was ‘not altogether pleased’ with sin. Taken by itself the passage before us is not decisive, and might imply ‘it was not altogether my meaning’; but with the examples cited it is better to render it, as above, in the sense ‘it was altogether not, assuredly not, my meaning’: compare Rom. iii. 9. i] Tots tAeovéx tats Kal dpratw 7 elSwAoAdrpais] Kai is the right reading. On the false interpretation of wAcovéxracs here to denote sins of sensuality see the note on Col. ili. 5. The cai connects mAcovéxrais with dprakw, which together form one notion; efdwAoAarpas introduces another, though a kindred, idea, see Col. 1. c. and Eph. v. 5. elSwAoAdtpats] Here again Stanley without sufficient reason attempts to put into this word a reference to sins of sensuality. The fact is there was a strong temptation for Christians living among heathen to play fast and loose with idolatrous rites. These rites might be licentious or not, but this further idea is not conveyed by the word itself. We have a prospective reference here to the discussion which is introduced subse- quently (ch, viii.) upon eiSwAd6ura (see esp. x. 21 rpamétns Satpoviwv). That this danger of idolatry even in the Christian Church was not an imaginary one appears from the warning given in I Joh. v. 21 rexvia, puAakéare éavra dro tov €idadov. The word eiéwrov has a curious history. It originally means ‘a phantom, shadow,’ and so ‘unreality’ as opposed to genuine truth. This is the sense in which Bacon uses the word ‘ idols’ in his Vovum Organum, implying idle phantoms which lead men astray. It was then happily applied in the LXx. to false gods, as a translation, among other words, of the Hebrew 5*x, ‘ nothingness.’ In the next stage, the word was applied to anything used as a representation of these false gods, and thus had attached to it an idea the very reverse of its original meaning, viz. a tangible, material god as opposed to the Invisible God. The passage before us marks the first appearance of the compound eiSwAoAarpns. érel aeldere Gpa] The imperfect is the correct reading both from a vast preponderance of textual authorities and from the sense. ‘Ye ought to have done something, which has not been done,’ is the meaning of the imperfect, ‘ye ought to do something,’ of the present. The dpa declares the ewei to be conditional. ‘Since in that case it would have V. 13.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 209 been your duty, which it is not, to leave the world wholly.’ See vii. 14 below, and comp. xv. I5 etep dpa. II. vvv 8] is ethical not temporal, ‘as matters stand, ‘the world being what it is.’ Comp. Rom. iii. 21, and esp. 1 Cor. vii. 14 eet dpa...viv de, Heb. ix. 26 émet det...vuvi d€ dwa&. The misinterpretation of €ypaya (ver. 9) has been partly aided by taking vi» in its primary temporal sense. adeAdds dvopaLdpevos] ‘called a brother, but not really deserving the name: comp. Rom. ii. 17 "Iovdatos erovopagn. AolSopos] Here again Stanley (on vi. 10) sees a reference to sins of sensuality ; but there is no indication of any such connexion in the N. T., see esp. I Pet. ill. 9. pé0vcos] This is an instance of the not unfrequent phenomenon of a word used first in a comic sense, which in later times becomes part of the common stock of language, having lost its original ludicrous character. This is what is meant by grammarians who say that in Attic the word is never applied to men but to women. Pollux vi. 25 7 d€ yuvn pedvon Kal peOvotpia Tapa OcoTopr@ TO KopiK@: 6 yap péOvoos emi avdpav Mevarvdpo 65006, which we may illustrate from Meineke Comm. Fragm., Menander IV. p. 88 mavras peOvcous Tovs eumropous moet, quoted originally in Athen. x. Pp. 442 D. Thus it was originally ‘tipsy,’ rather than ‘a drunkard’—Lucian Timon 55 peOvoos kat mdpowos ovk axpis @ons Kal opxnotvos povoy adda kal Aowdopias Kat opyfs. Other examples of words casting off all mean associa- tions in the later language are Wouifew (1 Cor. xiil. 3) and yoprafey (Phil. iv. 12) : see also other instances in Lobeck Phrym. p. 151sq. The elevation of ramewodpoovwn under Christian influence is noticed in the note on Phil. ii. 3. 12. ovs tw] ‘ those outside the pale’ of the Church : see on Col. iv. 5. ovxt «.t.A.] Two points in the punctuation of this passage require a notice. (1) Is ovxi to be taken separately ‘nay, not so,’ in which case kpivere would become an imperative? No; for (a2) wherever ovyi is so taken in the N. T., it is always followed by adda (Luke xii. 51, xiii. 3, 5, xvi. 30, Rom. iii. 27): (4) the sentence is not a direct answer to Ti ydp pot k.T.A. Ovyt therefore is best taken with rots écw. (2) Is kpevet to be read or xpivec? The present tense is probably right, (@) because more suited to the context, preserving the parallelism better ; (4) because more emphatic and more in accordance with usage, comp. vi. 2 xpiverat, Rom. ii. 16, John viii. 50 6 (ynray kai Kpivor. 13. édpare «.t.A.] An adaptation of the command given Deut. xvii. 7 kat e€apetre Tov movnpoy e& vpay av’tav, and repeated elsewhere (with varia- tions €apeis, ro movnpov) of sins akin to this (Deut. xxii. 21 sq.). On eé vpov avtov Bengel remarks ‘antitheton exterios.’ CHAPTER (Vi (4) The Corinthian brethren apply to heathen courts to decide their disputes (vi. I—9). 1. The close of the last paragraph suggests a wholly different subject. The Apostle had incidentally spoken of the right and wrong tribunals for judging offences against purity. Hence he passes to the question of litigation in heathen courts. Todpa tis tpav mpadypa exwv] ‘ToAua grandi verbo notatur laesa majestas Christianorum’ says Bengel. Ipayua is the proper technical term for a lawsuit: for its forensic sense see the references in Meyer, and compare the technical sense of ‘negotium’ and ‘res.’ kplverOar] ‘Zo go to daw, as in Matt. v. 40 r@ Oedovti vor kprOnva. The propriety of the forensic terms used here by St Paul is noteworthy : it is otherwise in Gal. iv. 1 sq., where see the notes. tav ddlkwv, tov aylwv}] The word admo is borrowed from Jewish phraseology, just as Sikavos was a faithful Israelite. It is chosen here rather than any other word, (1) because it enhances the incongruity of the whole action of seeking justice at the hands of the unjust : (2) because of the alliteration : see the note on Phil. ii. 2. On the rabbinical prohibition, which was based on Ex. xxi. 1, see Meyer, p. 163. 2. tov Kdcpov Kpwwovow] A reminiscence of Wisdom iii. 7, 8 €v xaip@ erirkomys avtav dvadapwovow...kpwovtow €Ovn kal kpatnoovow daoy, of the souls of the righteous, which is decisive in favour of the future here: compare for the idea Daniel vii. 22 1d xpipa @xev ayios Uiorov. This office the saints will hold by virtue of their perfected emiyywors, their com- pleted communion with the judgments of the Great Judge. This is a neces- sary part of the ultimate triumph of good over evil. Just as the faithful shall reign with Christ as kings (2 Tim. ii. 12, Rev. xxii. 5), so shall they sit with Him as judges of the world. The thought is an extension of the promise made to the Apostles (Matt. xix. 28, Luke xxii. 30) : comp. Rev. xx. 4. vy piv] ‘dcfore you, among you, ‘in consessu vestro.’ This is a common use of év when speaking of tribunals: see Aristides de Socrat. I. WARP A FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 21. p- 128 ev nuiv mporos o Pidurmos expiveto, Thuc. i. 53. 1 év Siukacrais, and other references given in Wetstein and Meyer. kp(verat] The present tense denotes the certainty of the event. With Him is no before and no after: see the note on 1 Thess. v. 2 €pyeraz. dvdtvol éore x.1..] 1.e. unworthy to sit in the most trivial tribunals. kpitynplwv| The word xpirnpioy is said by grammarians to have two meanings, (1) ‘a tribunal, court of judicature’ (so in the LXx. Dan. vii. Io, Judg. v. 10), (2) ‘atrial’; but no passage quoted appears to demand this latter sense. Such instances as Lucian zz accus. 25 ovdév nyetrat kpirnpiov dAnes eivac can readily bear the meaning of a ‘court of justice.’ St Paul’s injunction here is echoed in Agost. Const. ii. 45 wn épxécOw eri Kpirnpiov €Ovikov. 3. pyttye] An elliptical sentence, ‘let me not say,’ and so, ‘much more.’ See the references collected in Winer § lxiv. p. 746 and Wetstein ad loc. It is frequent in the classics: e.g. Demosthenes Olyx¢h. B. p. 24 ovde Tots pidots emirarreiy Umep avTov TL TroLety, pnTuye O17 Tots Oeois. Biwrika] ‘things of this life The word occurs also in Luke xxi. 34 pepipvars Biwtixais, comp. Clem. Hom. i. 8 Biwtika mpaypata, Marc. Anton. vi. 2 rév Biwrixov mpafewv. There is an important difference between Bios and (#7. Zen signifies the principle of life, Bios the circum- stances and accidents of life ; thus ¢w7 is vita qua vivimus, Bios vita quam vivimus. With Aristotle Bios is the more important word of the two. He calls it Aoycxy wy: hence it follows that his conception of life was a low one. But when we come to the N. T., the principle of life is no longer physical but spiritual: accordingly ¢w7 is exalted, while Bios remains at its former level. In the N. T. (#7 is commonly, but not universally, used of the higher spiritual life, Bios is always employed of the lower earthly life, e.g. Luke vill. 14 rév ndovdy tod Biov, 2 Tim. il. 4 trois rot Biov mpay- patrias, I Joh. il. 16 9 dAagovia tov Biov, that is to say of the external concomitants of life. Thus Bios expresses the means of subsistence (Luke xv. 12, 30, xxi. 4,and 1 Joh. iii. 17, where it is contrasted with the (w7 of two verses earlier). For the contrast of the two words compare Origen c. Cels. il. 16 rept ths Ens TS Bi TovT@ (wis mpopyrevoartos, Clem. Hom. xli. 14 tov (nv Tov Biov peradAaga. See also the note on Ign. Rom. 7. 4. tots eovPevnyévous] Several modern commentators take the sen- tence as though xa@ifere were an indicative interrogative, and rovs e£ovbevnuevous ev tH ex. equivalent to ‘the heathen.’ But apart from the awkwardness of the interrogative coming at the end of so long a sentence, this rendering is open to two serious objections : (1) the force of pev odp ‘nay rather’ is obscured, and equally so if we take pév merely to corre- spond to an unexpressed 6€, (2) rods efouvSevnuévous is a strong phrase to apply to the heathen without any further explanation. It appears best to render as the E. V., and to consider the clause to mean ‘ those possessed of high spiritual gifts are better employed on higher matters than on settling petty wrongs among you, and thus serving tables.’ Compare 14—2 22.2 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [Vinge Origen c. Cels. iii. 29 ad fin. ris yap ovK av opodoynoa kai Tovs xeipous Tév amo THs exkAnolas Kai ovykpioer BeATLOvwy EXaTTOUS TOAAG Kpeitrous Tuyyavev Tay ev Tois Sjpots exkAnowwv; and the Jewish dictum (Samhedr. fo. 32 a) ‘omnes idonei sunt ut judicent lites pecuniarias.’ 5. ovtws] ‘has it come to this that,’ ‘is it to such a degree true that?’ The rendering of Meyer and others ‘things being so’ is less forcible. tu] ‘zs found, stronger than éore: see on Gal. iii. 28. Ovdeis coos os, i.e. ‘no one with sufficient wisdom to.’ ava pérov Tov adedhod avrot] ‘Zo decide between his brothers.” The sentence is much abridged: ordinary Hebraic usage would require at least the insertion of ddeApovd xai after ava pécov. The word rod adeAdov avrod conveys a reproach: ‘must his brothers go before strangers?’ This reproach is driven home in the next verse: ‘not only this, but brother goes to law with brother.’ Thus the very idea of brotherhood is outraged and a scandal caused in the sight of unbelievers. 7. 78] ‘¢o begin with, i.e. prior to the ulterior question of the fitness of Gentile courts. See Kiihner Il. p. 675, and comp. Xen. Cyr. iv. 1. 2 eyo péev Evpravras vyas 7dn érawa. pev] to be separated from ovv. It suggests a suppressed clause with dé, which would have run somewhat in this vein, ‘but ye aggravate matters by going before the heathen.’ ddws] ‘ altogether, i.e. ‘before whomsoever they are tried’; or perhaps ‘under any circumstances,’ i.e. ‘whatever the decision may be.’ qrrppa spiv éorlv] ‘2¢ zs a loss to you, a defeat. ‘You trust to overreach, to gain a victory: it is really a loss, a defeat, before the trial even comes on.’ In Is. xxxi. 8 the word jrrnya is equivalent to ‘clades’: in Rom. xi. 12 it is opposed to wAovros: thus the two ideas given above can be predicted of it. ped” éavtdav|] ‘wth yourselves. The Apostle does not say per’ d\AnAwv, for though the pronouns are often interchanged, the reciprocal éautav differs from the reciprocal dAAjAwv in emphasizing the idea of corporate unity. See the passage from Xen. Mem. (iii. 5. 16) quoted on Col. iii. 13. ’AAAjA@y here would bring out the idea of diversity of interest, éavrévy emphasizes that of identity of interest: ‘you are tearing yourselves to pieces.’ 8. pets] Emphatic: ‘you, Christians though you are.’ 9. Qcodt Bacidelav] The order, though unusual, is right here and adds to the force of the passage. ‘God is essentially just: unjust men may inherit the kingdom of this world, but God’s kingdom they cannot inherit. A similar transposition for the sake of emphasis occurs in Gal. ii. 6 mpdcwmov Gcds dvOparov ov AapBavet. Wan 12.) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 213 Their spirit, whether of sensuality or strife, is inconsistent with heirship in the kingdom of heaven (vi. 10, 11). II. GAA ateddvoacbe] ‘but ye washed yourselves’: a reference to baptism. They were voluntary, conscious, agents: comp. Acts xxii. 16 avacras Bantica Kai dmoAoveat tas aduaptias aov, where St Paul is narrating the circumstances of his own conversion. nydcOnre] ‘ye were consecrated’ The word is not to be taken in the technical theological sense of sanctification; but in that of e.g. EuGor vil. 14 nylaora yap 0 avnp 6 Gmioros ev ™ yvvarkl, comp. 12} This appears from the order of the words. BucardOynre] ‘ye were justified, i.e. by incorporation into Christ. The verb is used in Rom. vi. 7 also in connexion with the initial entrance into the Church by baptism. We have put ourselves in a new position: we are justified not simply by imputation, but in virtue of our incorporation into Christ. év T® dvépari, éy rH wvebpatt] There is a reference here to the external and to the internal essentials of baptism. Comp. Acts x. 48, xix. 5, BI COT, 1413; (c) The distinction between license and liberty applied to sins of the flesh (vi. 12—20). 12. The new subject arises out of the preceding. Certain members of the Corinthian Church defend their moral profligacy on the ground of Christian liberty. Such a contention seems to us extraordinary ; but the glaring immorality of Corinth, where sensuality was elevated into a cu/tus, may partly account for it. It was thus difficult for converts to realize their true position, and they ran into the danger of extending the Pauline doctrine of ddsapopa so as to cover these vital questions. The case of incest mentioned above obviously did not stand by itself (see 2 Cor. xii. 21): the sin of sensuality was the scourge of the Corinthian Church. In his reply the Apostle opposes the true principle of liberty to the false, the Christian to the heathen. mavta por terrw] This is the principle pleaded by his opponents. The Apostle admits the principle, but qualifies it by the words aAQ’ ov mavra cuppépet. The opponents then return to the charge ; and again the Apostle replies dN’ otc eyd x.7.A. This éyd points to a different person as being supposed to assert the principle. St Paul has an imaginary opponent before him. Not that St Paul denies the principle wavra pou efeorw: he himself asserts it quite as strongly. But the zavra, he says, are ravrta adudpopa, and he disputes the application to sins of the flesh by examining this qualifying word. What then are adsadopa? Two principles, he contends, are to be observed with regard to them: (1) scandal to others is to be avoided, (2) self-discipline is to be maintained. These are the main, though not the 214 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (VI. 12: sole, considerations in the two replies; (1) ov mavra cupdepet, i.e. expedient especially with regard to their effect on others, (2) ov« €£ovcracOnocopat vo twos, i.e. I shall not allow myself to be tyrannised over by any habit. This second idea therefore is the effect produced on one’s own moral character by the weakening of self-discipline. In x. 23 the same maxim is urged in the same form: but there both cvydepe and oixodopei refer to the effect produced on others, as the context seems to show (he is speaking of eiOwAo6ura) ; here the words are chosen so as to balance one aspect of the question with the other. Similarly, when the case of efdSwAd6ura is discussed at length (viii. 1—13), neither side is neglected: (1) o¥ oup- pepe (viii. 9—13), (2) od eEovoracOnoopa (viii. I—8). eovoracOycopat] The active efovo.¢@ occurs in Luke xxii. 25 with a genitive, the active in Lxx. (Neh. ix. 37, Eccles. ix. 17, x. 4). The present however is the only place where the passive appears, and in fact the use must be regarded as a slight straining of the Greek language. As a general rule we only find the passive of verbs which in the active take an accusative after them ; but this rule has numerous exceptions in later Greek : e.g. SvaxoveicOac (Matt. xx. 28), doypariter@a (Col. ii. 20). The subtle paronomasia of éfeor:, e€ovcracOjoowat should be noticed: ‘All are within my power ; but I will not put myself under the power of any one of all things.’ 13. These half-converted Gentiles mixed up questions which were wholly different in kind, and classed them in the same category; viz. meats and drinks on the one hand, and sins of sensuality on the other. We have traces of this gross moral confusion in the circumstances which dictated the Apostolic Letter (Acts xv. 23—29), where things wholly diverse are combined, as directions about meats to be avoided and a prohibition of fornication. It was not that the Apostle regarded these as the same in kind, but that the Gentiles, for whom the rules were framed, did so. St Paul here carefully separates the two classes. The cases are quite different, he says. 7st, as regards meats, there is a mutual adaptation, Bpdpara and xowWia, each made for the other and both alike perishable. Secondly, as regards fornication, we have on the contrary, the body not made for fornication but for the Lord: the body, again, not perishable but with an existence after death. Bpdpara] This may have herea threefold application. (1) To eidwAodura (chs. viii. ix.). (2) To the Mosaic distinction of meats. These had been abrogated for the Christian and he enjoyed liberty. (3) To certain ascetic prohibitions which appeared early in the Church, such as drinking no wine and eating no flesh (Col. ii. 16, 21 with the notes and Colossians, pp. 86sq., 104 sq.). We have other traces of the same ascetic tendency at this time in Rom. xiv. 2 Adyava éoie, and in ver. 21 of that chapter the Apostle deals with it on the principle laid down in this Epistle. Which thought then was uppermost in St Paul’s mind here? The large space which the eidwAc@ura occupy in Wile 13] FIRST EPISTLE ‘TO THE CORINTHIANS. PIS the latter part of the Epistle points more especially to these, and the repetition of the same maxim (x. 23) in connexion with meats sacrificed to idols confirms this view. But there is no reason to suppose that he is alluding to them solely. There was certainly an appreciable section of Judaizers in the Corinthian Church, and possibly there were ascetic Essene tendencies also. To all these alike the maxim would apply. kal tatryny kal tatta] The same argument is used in Col. ii. 20—22. 7d 8& capa x.7t.A.]| The case, argues the Apostle, is different here. It is the body and the Lord which stand to each other in the same relation as the Bpodpara and xotAia. They are each for the other. The argument depends upon the Christian doctrine of the resurrec- tion of the body, and would be discussed more appropriately in con- nexion with ch. xv. Two remarks will suffice here. F7rs¢, the idea of the resurrection of the body is in reality not a philosophical difficulty but a philosophical necessity to us. As far as we know of man, the union of the soul of man with an external framework is essential. We cannot conceive of man as not working through some such instrument. Hence the Christian doctrine commends itself to true philosophy. But, secondly, we must not suppose that the resurrection-body is like our present body. St Paul guards against this confusion (1 Cor. xv. 35 sq.); but it does add to the difficulty of most people that they cannot dissociate the idea of a body from the idea of flesh and blood. The resurrection-body need not have any particle the same as the present body. All we can say about it is that it must be a body which, if not imperishable, is at all events capable of constant renewal. Of its form, structure, size etc. we cannot form any conception. But we may affirm that it must be an external instrument through which the man acts, an instrument which has its position in space. Many of our difficulties arise from forgetting that St Paul carefully guards against any supposition that it resembles our material body. The Kova, With its eating and drinking, with its gratification of the senses, is perishable: the capa will live on always. The moral import of this doctrine of the resurrection of the body is sufficiently obvious. It was the fashion of the Platonists and Stoics to speak contemptuously of the body, but in Christian theology the body is glorified because destined to be conformed to Christ’s glorified body (Phil. ili. 21). This moral aspect has had great influence in banishing such sins as the Apostle is contemplating here. It is noticeable that these three verses (12—14) contain the germ of very much which follows in the Epistle: (1) the great principle which is to guide the Christian conduct, (2) the question of eiSwAcéura involved in Bpepara, (3) the conflict with sensual indulgences, (4) the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. +® Kvuplw] The Apostle does not argue this point. It is an axiom \ 216 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [Vi. xg: which has its roots in the Christian consciousness. It is involved in the very profession of a Christian. 14. kal tov Kipuov...xal pds} corresponding to the kat ravrny kai ravta of the preceding verse. ‘Hyas ‘and therefore our bodies,’ for the body is a part of the man. éeyepet] The manuscripts present some interesting variants: (1) éfeyepet NCDSEKL f vulg. (but see below), Pesh. Harcl. Memph. Arm. ‘Eth., Iren. (transl.), Tert. Archel. Method. Athan. etc., (2) e&eyeiper AD*¥PQ 37, 93 (but P 37, 93 e&eyepet) d e suscitat. (3) é&nyepev B 67 am. fuld. hari. suscitavit (but the confusion with suscitabit was easy). The choice must lie between the aorist and the future. If we prefer the former, we may compare Eph. ii. 6, Col. ii. 12, 13. This idea however, though strictly Pauline, is not the idea wanted here: for it is not the past resurrection of the spirit, but the future resurrection of the body, on which the argument turns, in accordance with other passages (as ch. xv. throughout, 2 Cor. iv. 14, Rom. viii. 11, 1 Thess. iv. 14). Still e&yecpev is not impossible in this connexion. The past spiritual resurrection might be regarded here as elsewhere, e.g. Rom. vi. 5, vili. II, as an earnest and an initiation of the future bodily resurrection. But on the whole ééeyepei is the more likely reading and has the best documentary support. avrov] The pronoun probably refers to Christ : comp. 1 Thess. iv. 14 dca Tov “Incod (in 2 Cor. iv. 14 the right reading is oiv "Incov). We have both dvvayis Geod frequently, and dvvayis Xpiorod (e.g. 2 Cor. xii. 9). The use of dia here rather points to the mediation of Christ in our resur- rection, but it cannot be considered as in any way decisive. 15. péAn Xpiorod] The earliest application of this metaphor which plays so important a part in this and later Epistles. ipas}] Not as the A. V. ‘take’ (which would be AaBwr), but ‘ Zake away. It is robbing Christ of what is His own. Aipew ‘tollere’ is (1) either ‘to take up,’ e.g. Mark ii. 9 dpov rov xpaBarrév aov, Luke ix. 23 dpdrw Tov aravpov avrov, John xi. 40 jpav odv rov Aidov: or (2) ‘to take away, e.g. Luke vi. 29 atpovros wou TO ipariov, Xi. 52 npate Thy KAeida THs yvéoews; but never simply ‘to take.’ i} yévorro] On this expression see Gal. ii. 17, vi. 14. Like ovx« oidare (of this and the following verse) it is confined to this chronological group of St Paul’s Epistles, where it occurs thirteen times; but it is found also in Luke xx. 16. 16. +g wépvy] The article marks the fact that she is considered no longer as an individual, but as the representative of a class. Compare John x. 12 6 piaOwrds, 1 Tim. ili. 2, Tit. i. 7 6 émioxoros etc. %rovra: yap «.7.A.] Taken from Gen. ii. 24. Several points require notice here. (1) As to the text. St Paul follows the LXx., for the Hebrew text has not the words of dvo nor have the older Targums. The additional phrase however appears, not only in the LXx., but also in the Samaritan Wi 195] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 27, Pentateuch, the Targum of Jonathan, the Peshito, in Philo (Leg. Allegor. § 14, I. p. 75 ed. Mangey, de Gigant. § 15,1. p. 272, L2d. 1 im Genes. § 29. 22 ed. Aucher), and invariably in the N. T. quotations (Matt. xix. 5, Mark x. 8, Eph. v. 31), and perhaps in some Rabbinical quotations also (e.g. possibly Beresh. Rab. 18). Still no such variant is at present known to exist in any Hebrew manuscript (see De Rossi Var. Lect. Vet. Test. 1. p. 4). But from this great number of independent authorities which contain the words we are disposed to think that they had a place at some time in the Hebrew text. (2) As to the interpretation. It is impossible to weaken the meaning of écovra eis here so as to make it imply less than the Hebrew idiom 5 yn ‘they shall become’: see esp. Matt. xix. 5, 6 écovrac ot dvo eis cdpxa piav, Where our Lord’s comment is explicit dare overt eiolv dvo adda capé pia. (3) As to the application. In Genesis l.c. the words are used of man and wife, the legitimate connexion of male and female. But, so far as regards the question at issue, there is no difference between the two cases. What applies to the one applies to the other also, for as Athanasius says €y yap kal TovTo kaketvo TH Pvoet Tov Tpayparos. (4) Lastly, as to the authority assigned to the passage. What are we to understand by gnoiv? Is o Geds to be supplied or 7 ypapyn? To this question it is safest to reply that we cannot decide. The fact is that, like Aéyer, dno when introducing a quotation seems to be used impersonally. This usage is common in Biblical Greek (Aéyee Rom. xv. 10, Gal. iii. 16, Eph. iv. 8, v. 14: @yow Heb. villi. 5, 2 Cor. x. 10 v.1.), more common in classical Greek. Alford, after Meyer, objects to rendering gyoiv im- personal here, as contrary to St Paul’s usage. But the only other occurrence of the phrase in St Paul is 2 Cor. x. 10, where he is not introducing scripture, but the objections of human critics and of more than one critic. If then dro be read there at all, it must be impersonal. The Apostle’s analogous use of Aéyes points to the same conclusion. In Eph. v. 14 it introduces a quotation which is certainly not in scripture, and apparently belonged to an early Christian hymn. We gather there- fore that St Paul’s usage does not suggest any restriction here to 6 Geos or 7 ypapn. But we cannot doubt from the context that the quotation is meant to be authoritative. In the original the words are Adam’s ; but Adam is here the mouthpiece of God. Compare Gal. iv. 30 where Sarah’s words are adopted in the same way, and the quotation from Job v. 13 given above (ch. iii. 19). 17. &y mvedpa] The union is an inner spiritual union (Eph. iv. 4). The converse truth appears in Eph. v. 30. 18. wav dpdprnal i.e. ‘every other sin.’ Even drunkenness and gluttony are in a certain sense éxros rov owparos. els 1d t8t0v oGpa] which is unnatural. See Eph. v. 29. 19. 7 ovK olSare] Of the ten occasions on which this expression is found in this Epistle, six occur in this chapter. The others are lii. 16, v. 6, 1x. 13, 24. It is used only twice elsewhere by St Paul 218 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [VI. 19. (Rom. vi. 16, xi. 2) and then in an Epistle of this group: but it appears in James iv. 4. The same truth is enunciated in iii. 16 in almost the same words: see the note there. The difference in application is mainly twofold: jfrs¢, here the expression 7d o@pua vyov means ‘the body of each one of you’ individually, while in iii. 16 the whole Christian brotherhood is regarded collectively as the shrine; secondly, there the sins attacked are hatred, strife and vainglory, here sensuality. 20. yopacOnre yap tings] ‘for ye were bought witha price. The aorist shows that the ransom was paid once for all: compare vii. 23, where the metaphor is developed. In the ordinary form of the metaphor, Christ’s blood is a Avrpoy (Matt. xx. 28, Mark x. 45) or dvriAurpov (1 Tim. ii. 6); and the process of redemption, arodvrpwots (Rom. ili. 24, Eph. i. 7, Col. i. 14, Heb. ix. 15), or simply Avrpwois (Heb. ix. 12). It is thus a ransom from slavery, from captivity, the purchase-money of our freedom. Here on the other hand it is spoken of as tiuy, that is to say, a trans- ference to another master, the purchase by which a new owner acquires possession of us, by which we become his slaves. In Rom. vi. 18, 22 the two ideas are combined, éAevOepwOévres Sé€ dro ths apaprias eSovA@OnTeE TH dixatocvvy...edevOepwbertes ard Ths auaptias SovAwGertes dé TH OE. 83] The word is hortatory, ‘now,’ ‘verily,’ ‘surely’; not ‘therefore’ as the A. V. renders it, which would be ovy in N. T. language. For this use of 67 compare Luke ii. 15 dséAOwper 5y, Acts xiii. 2 adopicate dy por, XV. 36 emirrpéwarres 57 Katnyyeihaper. évy tO odpatt tpav] So the Apostle’s genuine words end, as his argument requires. The addition of the T. R. kat €v r@ mvevpate dpav arwa é€orw Tov Geov is condemned by the vast preponderance of ancient authority. But how came it to be added? I venture to think from some ancient liturgical use of the passage, thus: V. dogacare 67 rov Ocdv ev TO gapatt tpav. R. xa ev TH mvevpate vuav atwa eotw Tov Oeod. The response would then be incorporated in the text by scribes who re- membered the versicle. The influence of liturgical forms on the reading of the N. T. appears in the doxology added to the Lord’s Prayer in Matt. vi. 13, and the baptismal formula in Acts viii. 37. The early and curious Latin reading ‘glorificate et portate’ (or ‘tollite’) found in g, in Tertullian, Cyprian, Lucifer and the Vulgate, may perhaps be traced to a similar source, or may have arisen from a reading dpaye (comp. Acts xvii. 27, Matt. vii. 20, xvii. 26) which was confused with dpare: see Reiche Comm. Crit. 1. p. 165, and the reading of Methodius, dpa ye Sofdcare (57 omitted), which goes far to justify this suggestion. Chrysostom (é# 1 Cor. hom. xviii. § 2, p. 153 E) reads d0€dcare 57 dpare rov Gecor, if his text is to be trusted (Saville read dpa re) ; but lower down (hom. xxvi. § 1, p. 227 D) dofdcare 51) dpa rov Gedy, which probably represents more nearly his true text in both passages. CEUA RAE salt: 3. MARRIAGE, vii. 1—40. (a) To marry or not to marry. (6) Duties of those already married. (c) Advice to the unmarried, the widows, the separated (vil. I—11). 1. Tlept 8 av éypdpare] Here we have the first reference to the letter written by the Corinthians to St Paul. This letter must obviously have reached him later than the date of the Apostle’s letter to the Corinthians to which he alludes in v.9: otherwise it would have received an answer in that letter. We may form a fairly complete idea of the contents of this letter of the Corinthians. It raised questions relating to marriage under various circumstances (see vii. I); it contained a reference to eidwAdéura, for we may infer from the way in which that topic is introduced that they had consulted St Paul about it (comp. viii. I mepi de Tov eidwdobvTwy with vii. 25 wept d€ tov mapOevwv: it is as though the Apostle were taking in detail the heads of their letter); it consulted him as to the conduct of women in church (xi. 2 shows that the connecting link is an allusion to something which the Corinthians had related); it raised the question of spiritual gifts. This also may be inferred from the form of the introduction of this topic in xii. I (wept d€ trav mvevparikar). We may suppose that the letter was brought by Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus, who by their presence ‘supplemented the deficiency’ of the Church (xvi. 17 To dpérepov vorépnua ovror davenAnpwoay), that is, explained more fully the condition of things by word of mouth. As I have already said (see on v. g), there is extant in Armenian a spurious correspondence consisting of an epistle from the Corinthians to St Paul and of an epistle from St Paul to the Corinthians. These are included in the canon of the Armenian Church, and the translations which we have are made from the Armenian. They are given in Stanley’s Corinthians (ed. 4) p. 593 sq. in the English translation made in 1817 from the Armenian by Lord Byron assisted by Aucher. See also Meyer, _ p. 6 and Fabricius Cod. Apocr. N. T. p. 918 sq. It is remarkable that 220 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [VII. 1. though this correspondence consists of two letters, and though St Paul mentions just two such letters, yet there is no analogy between the two sets of letters. There is no reason at all for believing that the forger intended to supply the lack ; or at least, if his work was suggested by the notices in 1 Corinthians, he has certainly performed it in a most slovenly way. Let us first take the spurious letter addressed by the Corinthians to St Paul. It begins in the name of Stephanus and the elders with him, no doubt intended to represent Stephanas and his companions (1 Cor. xvi. 17). They write to consult St Paul about certain heretics who are troubling the Church. Of these Simon (probably Magus) and Cleophas are mentioned by name. The heresies are described and St Paul’s advice asked. The Apostle is supposed to receive the letter at Philippi and to be a prisoner at the time. Thus the topics have nothing in common with the topics of the real letter of the Corinthians, and the circumstances are different, for the real letter must have been received by the Apostle at Ephesus. The so-called letter from St Paul to the Corinthians exhibits just the same divergencies from the real facts of the case. The one topic which we know for certain that St Paul’s letter must have contained is the direction quoted in 1 Cor. v. 9 pa cuvavapiyyvcba mopvos. There is however no reference whatever to this subject. The spurious letter of St Paul is an answer to the spurious letter to St Paul. The writer meets the case of the heresies by a declaration of the true doctrine of the Resurrection, and concludes with a warning against false teachers. Thus not only are the topics quite dissimilar from what we might have expected, but the order of the letters is reversed. The lost letter of the Corinthians was later in time than the lost letter of St Paul, whereas in the forged correspondence the letter of the Corinthians comes first in chronological order. Yet there is no flagrant anachronism in the Epistles. The heresies might very well be those of the end of the first or the beginning of the second century. In E£%. Paul. ad Cor. 30 ‘but these cursed men hold the doctrine of the serpent,’ there is probably an allusion to the Ophites ; but I have given elsewhere reasons for supposing that this form of heresy was closely connected with that combated by St Paul in the Pastoral Epistles, and if so it must have been widely prevalent in the latter half of the first century. See the excursus in Biblical Essays (p. 411 sq.), where this question is fully discussed. This spurious correspondence then was an early forgery probably of the second century, but a very obvious forgery. Its genuineness however is maintained by Rinck (das Sendschr. d. Kor. an a. Apost. Paul. Heidelb. 1823) who is answered by Ullmann in the Hetdelb. Fahrb. 1823. kaddv] ‘good, ‘right, comp. ver. 26; not ‘convenient.’ There is no qualification in the word itself; the qualifications are added afterwards in \'205 33) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 22 the context. They are twofold. (1) With what limitations is celibacy good? These limitations are given in verses 2 and g. Thus it is not good in all cases. (2) For what reasons is it good? These appear in vv. 26, 32sq. Celibacy therefore is only so far better than marriage in proportion as it fulfils these conditions. It may not however fulfil them in the case of particular men; and so with them it is not better than marriage, but the reverse. Further, the passage must not be taken alone, but in connexion with what the Apostle says elsewhere, Eph. v. 22—33, where he exalts marriage as a type of the union of Christ with the Church. In Heb. xiii. 4 ripsos 06 yapos ev maow x.t.X. the first clause is an imperative ‘let marriage be respected among all,’ as appears from the true reading of the next sentence mdpyovs yap; it can therefore only be adduced as an argument here by a misinterpretation. In the passage before us xaXoyp is not employed for caddy pév: the statement is made absolutely and the limitation va dé x.r.A. comes in as an after consideration. 2. tas mopvetas] The phrase hints at the profligacy of all kinds which prevailed in the dissolute city (2 Cor. xii. 21). ékactos, ékadoTn}] An incidental prohibition of polygamy. Such a prohibition was by no means unnecessary at this time, when polygamy was recklessly encouraged by the Jewish rabbis: see Justin Martyr, Dza/. 134 and the note on 1 Tim. iil. 2 puds yuvatxds dvdpa. The variation of the form rnv éavrod yuvaixa, Tov idiov Gvdpa is noticeable, the husband being, as it were, considered the lord of the wife. If this passage stood alone, it would be unsafe to build upon it; but this difference of expression pervades the whole of the Epistles ; e.g. Eph. v. 28, ras €aurav yuv., 31 thy yuv. avTov, 33 THY €avrov yuv., aS contrasted with Eph. v. 22, Tit. ii. 5, I Pet. ili. 1, 5 rots iSious avdpaaw, 1 Cor. xiv. 35 tous idiovs avdpas. 3. tv ddedrjv] Not a classical word in any sense: for though stated in Etym. Magn. to be used in Xenophon epi mopar, it does not occur in the present text of the treatise: see Steph. Zhes.s.v. It is found in Matt. xviii. 32, Rom. xiii. 7. 5. ei pnt av] If avis to be retained here, we must supply yevnra ‘it should take place,’ see Winer § xlii. p. 380. For ay for éavy see Winer § xli. p. 364, who quotes John xiii. 20, xvi. 23, xx. 23. The use is classical also, e.g. Eur. Alc. 181 coddpov pev ovk Gy paddor, edtrvxns & tows, quoted by Alford. cxordonte] ‘may devote yourselves to,’ literally, ‘may have leisure for.’ Thus the secondary meaning has eclipsed the primary, and cyoA7 which originally meant ‘leisure’ becomes ‘work,’ ‘school’ (as in Acts xix. 9). Sxotatew takes the dative (1) of the subject studied, didocodia, orpareia, pabjpaow, Tois pirors, TH TOU Adyou Staxovia (Chrysost. de sacris) ; or (2) of the person teaching, Sexpare:, [Aarwm, etc. It is used absolutely in Matt. xii. 44, Luke xi. 25 in its primary sense. Ti mpooevxg| The words 17 ynoreta cai, which precede t7 mpocevyy in the T. R., are to be omitted by the vast preponderance of ancient dp 47-1 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [VIL authorities. There are three other passages where similar insertions are made, supported by varying degrees of evidence. In the case of Matt. xvii. 21 the whole verse should be omitted; it is wanting in NB, some old Latin authorities (e ff ), the Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac, the Thebaic, in manuscripts of the Memphitic, and in the Eusebian Canons, a combination of authorities which shows decisively that the passage has been transferred from Mark ix. 29. In Acts x. 30 the words ynorevav kal are omitted in NBAC etc., the Vulgate, Memphitic, Armenian, etc., and where they occur are found in different positions, e.g. in D*, the oldest manuscript which contains them, yyorevoy ryv éevatny re Kai mpoo. Here again there can be not a shadow of a doubt that they are an insertion. In Mark ix. 29 the case is somewhat different. The words xal ynoreia are omitted in Bk, a small but very formidable combination; and here again authorities which contain them present them in different positions as év ynoteia kai mpocevx7n (Pesh. Arm. A&thiop.). Hence, if retained, the phrase should certainly be bracketed as doubtful. The four passages represent what may be called an ascetic addition of later scribes. Yet too much must not be made of this fact. Though the tendency of a later age was to exalt fasting to a level with prayer, yet the highest authorities for the practice itself still remain in the example (Matt. iv. 2) and directions of our Lord (Matt. vi. 16—18), and in the custom of the Apostles (Acts xiii. 2, 3, xiv. 23) in pursuance of our Lord’s prophecy (Matt. ix. 15, Mark ii. 20, Luke v. 35). We must not however adduce in this connexion such passages as 2 Cor. vi. 5, xi. 27, because the context shows that in both cases ey ynoreiais denotes involuntary fastings, like vnorecs in Matt. xv. 32, Mark viii. 3. Thus the practice of fasting has abundant sanction in the New Testament; but it holds a subordinate place to prayer, with only a secondary value in so far as it promotes self-discipline or conduces to spiritual growth. dxpaclav] We must carefully distinguish two words spelt in the same way, (1) axpaoia, a rare word, derived from xepdvyyye and akin to dxparos ‘unmixed,’ ‘untempered,’ used (Theophr. C. P. iii. 2. 5) of the climate or sky as opposed to evxpacia and equivalent to the Latin ‘intemperies’; and (2) dxpaoia, which we have here and in Matt. xxiii. 25, the character of the axpgrys (from xpareiv), opposed to éyxpdrea, and expressed in Latin by ‘impotentia,’ ‘the absence of self-restraint.’ That this is the word meant here is evident from the juxtaposition of €ykparevovrat (ver. 9). It is common in classical Greek (see Steph. Thes. s.v.. Wetstein ad loc., Lobeck Phryn. p. 524), and found in passages which set at rest the question of its derivation, e.g. Xen. Mem. iv. 5. 7 T@ axparei...avTa yap Symrov ra evavria cwoppoovtyns kal dxpacias €pya éori, Arist. Eth. Nic. vii. 1 passim where it is contrasted again and again with éeyxpdreca and associated with axparjs and dxpa- revecOa. It is apparently the usual form in Aristotle, though axpareca appears also (de virt. et vit. p. 1250 ll. 1, 22 ed. Bekker). It is found VII.:¥.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 223 likewise in Plutarch (Jor. p. 4468) associated with dxparns.