YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY Gift of
Prof. William H. Brewer
1911

AN EXPOSITION

FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.

CHARLES IIODGE, D.D.,
PROFESSOR IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, PRINCETON, n. J.

NEW YORK:
ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS,
530 BROADWAY.
1860.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1857, by
EOBEET CAETEE & BEOTHEES,
In the Clerk's Office ofthe District Court of the United States for tho Southern District
of New York.

JOHN F. TEOW,
PEINTEE, STEREOTYPES, AND ELEOTROTYPEB,
87T & 879 Broadway, cor. White-st,

INTRODUCTION.

§ 1. Corinth.
The Grecian Peloponnesus is connected with the continent by
an isthmus from four to six miles wide. On this isthmus stood
the city of Corinth. A rocky eminence, called the Acrocorin-
thus, rises from the plain almost perpendicularly, to the height
of two thousand feet above the level of the sea, and is suffi
ciently broad at the summit for a town of considerable size.
From the top of this abrupt hill the eye reaches towards the
east over the expanse of the __Egean sea, with its numerous
islands; and westward, towards the Ionian sea, a prospect
scarcely less inviting was presented. Looking towards the
north, the eye rests on the mountains of Attica on the one
hand, and north-eastern Greece on the other. The Acropolis
of Athens was clearly visible at a distance of forty-five miles.
As early as the days of Homer, Corinth was an important city.
Its position made it, in a military point of view, the key of the
Peloponnesus ; and its command of a port on two seas, made
it the centre of commerce between Asia and Europe. The
supremacy enjoyed by one Grecian State after another, had at

IV INTRODUCTION.

last faUen to the lot of Corinth. It became the chief city of
Greece, not only in authority but in wealth, magnificence,
literature, the arts, and in luxury. It was characteristic of
the place, that while the temple of Minerva crowned the
Acropolis of Athens, the Acrocorinthus was the site of the
temple of Venus. Of all the cities ofthe ancient world it was
most notorious for licentiousness. It was entirely destroyed
by the Roman consul Mummius, 120 years B. C, its inhabi
tants were dispersed, and the conqueror carried with him to
Rome the richest spoils that ever graced the triumph of a
Roman General. For a century after this event it lay in ruins,
serving only as a quarry whence the Roman patricians gath
ered marble for their palaces. Julius Caesar, recognizing the
military and commercial importance of the position, deter
mined to rebuild it, and for that purpose sent thither a colony
consisting principally of freed men. This accounts for the
predominance of Latin names which we meet with in connec
tion with the Christians of this city. Erastus, Phoebe and
Sosthenes are Greek names ; but Gaius, Quintus, Fortunatus,
Crispus, Justus, Achaicus are of Roman origin. This colony,
however, was Uttle more than the nucleus of the new city.
Merchants flocked thither from all parts of Greece ; Jews also
were attracted by the facilities of commerce; wealth, art,
literature and luxury revived. The Isthmian games were
again celebrated under the presidency of the city. It was
made the capital of Achaia, wliich, as a Roman province, in
cluded the greater part of Greece. Under the fostering care of
Augustus, Corinth regained much of its ancient splendour, and
during the century which had nearly elapsed since its restora
tion, before it was visited by the apostle Paul, it had reached
a preeminence which made it the glory of Greece. It was at
this time under the rule of the Proconsul GaUio, the brother
of Seneca ; — a man distinguished for integrity and mildness.
His brother says of him : Nemo enim mortalium uni tam did-
eis est, quam hie omnibus. His refusal to entertain the frivo
lous charges brought by the Jews against Paul (Acts 1 8, 1 4-i q) .

INTRODUCTION. V
is in keeping with the character given of him by his contem
poraries. He was one ofthe victims ofthe cruelty of Nero*
§2. Paul's Labours in Corinth.
As Corinth was not only the political capital of Greece,
but the seat of its commercial and inteUectual Ufe ; the place
of concourse for the people not only of the neighbouring cities
but of nations ; a source whence influences of aU kinds ema
nated in every direction, it was speciaUy important for the
diffusion of the gospel. Paul therefore, leaving Athens, which
he had visited in his second missionary journey, went alone to
Corinth, where he was soon after joined by SUas and Timo
theus, who came from Macedonia. (Acts 18, 5.) A stranger in
this great city, and without the means of support, he associat
ed himself with Aquila, a Jew lately come from Italy in con
sequence of the edict of Claudius banishing the Jews from
Rome. WhUe living in the house of Aquila, and working
with him at his trade of tent making, Paul attended the syna
gogue every Sabbath, and " persuaded the Jews and Greeks."
But " when they opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook
his raiment and said unto them, Tour blood be upon your own
heads. I am clean : henceforth I wUl go unto the Gentiles.
And he departed thence and went into a certain man's house
named Justus, one who worshipped God, and whose house
joined hard to the synagogue. And Crispus, the chief ruler
of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with aU his house ;
and many of the Corinthians hearing it beUeved and were
baptized. Then spake the Lord to Paul by night, by a vision,
* Several monographs, proceeding from German scholars, are devoted to
the description and history of Corinth. Wilchen's " Eerum Corinthiarum spe
cimen ad illustrationem utriusque Epistola. Paulinas." 1747. Barth's " Corin-
thiorum Comraercia et Mercaturae particula." Berlin, 1844. A very inter
esting chapter in Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of Paul is devoted
to this subject. Vol. 1 : ch. 12. See also Winer's Real Worterbuch and Ar
nold's Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians.

VI INTRODUCTION.
Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: for I am
with thee, and no man shaU set on thee to hurt thee ; for I
have much people in this city. And he continued there a
year and six months, teaching the word of God among them."
(Acts 18, 1-11.) The success of Paul aroused the enmity of
the Jews, who determined to arraign him before the Roman
Governor. As soon as the governor ascertained the nature of
the charge he refused to listen to it, and dismissed the accusers
from the judgment seat with evident displeasure, which encour
aged the bystanders to beat the Jews. Thus the opposers of
the apostle were ignominiously defeated. After remaining some
time longer in Corinth he sailed from Cenchrea, the eastern
port of the city, to Ephesus, with AquUa and PrisciUa. Leav
ing his friends in that city he safled to Csesarea, and thence
went up to Jerusalem. After remaining a short time in the
Holy City he went to Antioch, and thence through Phrygia
and Galatia again to Ephesus. Shortly after Paul left Ephe
sus the first time, ApoUos, an Alexandrian Jew, having been
more fuUy instructed in the doctrine of Christ by Aquila and
PrisciUa, went to Corinth, and there " mightily convinced the
Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the Scripture that Jesus
was the Christ." (Acts 18, 24-28.) It is altogether probable,
considering the constant commercial intercourse between
Corinth and Ephesus, that the apostle had frequent opportu
nities of hearing of the state of the Corinthian church during
his three years' residence in the latter city. The information
which he received led him, as is generaUy supposed, to write
a letter no longer extant, exhorting them " not to keep com
pany with fornicators." (See 1 Cor. 5, 9.) Not satisfied with
this effort to correct an alarming evU, he seems himself to
have made them a brief visit. No record is indeed found in
the Acts of his having been to Corinth more than once before
the date of this epistle ; but there are several passages in his
second epistle which can hardly be understood otherwise than
as implying an intermediate visit. In 2 Cor. 12, 14 he says,
" Behold the third time I am ready to come to you." This

INTRODUCTION. Vll
may indeed mean that for the third time he had prepared to
go to Cormth, but this the context does not suggest, and
would really amount to nothing. It was not how often he
had purposed to visit them, but how often he had actually
made the journey, which was the point on which stress is laid.
In ch. 13, 1 he says, "This is the third time I am coming to
you," whicli is stiU more explicit. In ch. 2, 1 he says, " I de
termined I would not come again to you in heaviness." This
supposes that he had already made them one sorrowful visit,
i. e. one in which he had been obUged to cause sorrow, as weU
as to experience it. See also ch. 12, 21, and 13, 2, where further
allusion seems to be made to a second visit. Notwithstanding
his frequent injunctions, the state of things in Cormth seemed
to be getting worse. The apostle therefore determined to
send Timothy and Erastus to them (1 Cor. 4, IT. Acts 19, 22.)
Whether Timothy reached Corinth at this time is doubtful ;
and it would seem from 1 Cor. 16, 10, that the apostle himself
feared that he inight not be able to accomplish aU that had
been appointed him hi Macedonia, and yet get to Corinth be
fore the arrival of this letter. After the departure of Timothy,
Paul received such intelUgence from the household of Chloe,
and from a letter addressed to him by the Corinthians them
selves (1 Cor. 7, 1), that he determined at once to write to
them. § 3. State or the Church in Corinth.
The state of the church in Corinth may be partiaUy inferred
from the character and chcumstances of the people, but with
certainty only from the contents of this and the foUowing
epistles. As remarked above, the population of the city was
more than ordinarily heterogeneous. The descendants ofthe
colonists sent by JuUus Ca?sar, the Greeks who were attracted
to the principal city of then- own country, Jews and strangers
from aU parts of the Roman Emphe, were here congregated.
The predominant character ofthe people was doubtless Grecian.

viii introduction.
The majority of the converts to Christianity were probably
Greeks, as distinguished from Jews. (See ch. 12, 1.) In all
ages the Greeks were distinguished by their fondness for
speculation, then- vanity and love of pleasure, and their party
sphit. A church composed of people of these characteristics,
with a large infusion of Jewish converts, educated in the midst
of refined heathenism, surrounded by aU the incentives to in
dulgence, taught to consider pleasure, if not the chief good,
yet in any form a good, pUed on every hand by "philoso
phers and false teachers, might be expected to exhibit the
very characteristics which in this epistle are brought so clearly
into view.
Their party sphit. " One said I am of Paul, another I am
of ApoUos ; another I of Cephas, another I of Christ." Much
ingenuity and learning have been expended in determining
the nature of these party divisions. What may be considered
as more or less satisfactorily determined is, 1. That there
were factions in the church of Corinth which called themselves
by the names above mentioned, and therefore that the names
themselves give a clew to the character of the parties. The
idea that the names of Paul, ApoUos and Cephas are used
figuratively, when other teachers were reaUy intended, is so
unnatural and has so Uttle to sustain it, that it is now almost
universaUy repudiated. 2. There can be Uttle doubt that
those who caUed themselves by the name of Paul, or made
themselves his partisans, were in the main the GentUe con
verts ; men brought up free from the bondage of the Mosaic
law, and free from the influence of Jewish ideas and usages.
They were disposed to press to extremes the Uberty of the
gospel, to regard as indifferent things in themselves sinful, and
to treat without respect the scruples of the weak. 3. The in
timate relations which subsisted between Paul and ApoUos, as
indicated in these epistles, authorizes the inference that it was
not on doctrinal grounds that the foUowers of the latter dif
fered from those of the former. It is probable that those who
objected to Paul that he did not preach with the " wisdom of

INTRODUCTION. IX
words" were thoso attracted by the eloquence of ApoUos.
4. It is scarcely less certain that those who said " We are of
Peter " were the Judaizers, as Peter was speciaUy the apostle
of the circumcision. There is no evidence, however, from this
epistle, that the leaders of this party had attempted to intro
duce into Corinth the observance of the Jewish law. But
they were determined opponents of the apostle Paul. They
had come to Corinth with letters of commendation (2 Cor. 2,
1.) They were Hebrews (2 Cor. 11, 22) ; they professed to
be ministers of Christ (ch. 11, 23) ; they were false apostles
(ch. 11, 13) ; the ministers of Satan, holding the word of God
deceitfully. These men, as is evident from the defence which
the apostle makes of his divine commission (1 Cor. 9, 1-3.
2 Cor. 12, 11. 12), caUed in question his apostieship, probably
on the ground that he was not of the original twelve. On
this ground also, to give themselves the greater authority,
they claimed to be disciples of Peter, who was the first of the
apostles. They also accused Paul of inconstancy and insinceri
ty (2 Cor. 1, 17-24). In short they sthred up against him all
the elements of discord which they could find in a congrega
tion composed of such incongruous materials. 5. With regard
to those who said We are of Christ, only two things are cer
tain. First, that they were as much to blame as the other
parties. It was in no Christian spirit that they set up their
claim to be of Christ. And secondly, that they assumed to
have some relation to Christ, which they denied to others.
Whether it was because they had seen and heard him ; or be
cause they claimed connection with " James, the brother of
the Lord ; " or because they were the only genuine Christians,
inasmuch as through some other channel than the apostles, they
had derived, as they pretended, their knowledge of the gospel,
is a matter of conjecture. BiUroth and Baur regard this class
as identical with the foUowers of Peter, who claimed to be of
Christ because Paul was no apostle, and therefore his disciples
were not " of Christ." According to this view there were
only two, instead of four, parties in Corinth, the foUowers of

INTRODUCTION.

Paul and ApoUos belonging to one class. This, however, does
violence to the plain meaning of the passage in 1 Cor. 1, 12.
These neutrals were probably the worst class in the congrega
tion, as is commonly the case with those who claim to be
Christians to the exclusion of aU others.
Another great evU in the Corinthian church was the viola
tion of the seventh commandment in various forms. Educated
as we are under the Ught ofthe gospel, in which the turpitude
of such sins is clearly revealed, it is impossible for us to appre
ciate correctly the state of feeling in Corinth on this subject.
Even by heathen phUosophers offences of this kind were re
garded as scarcely deserving of censure, and by the pubUc
sentiment of the community they were considered altogether
indifferent. They were in fact so associated with their re
hgious rites and festivals as to lose their character as immorali
ties. With such previous training, and under the influence of
such a public sentiment, and surrounded by aU incitements
and facilities to evil, it is surely not a matter of surprise that
many of the Corinthians should take the ground that things
of this class belonged to the same category with questions of
food (1 Cor. 6, 12.) It is certain from numerous passages in
these epistles that the church of Corinth was not only very
remiss in the exercise of discipline for such matters, but also
that the evU was widely extended.
Another indication of the latitudinarian sphit of one por
tion of the church was their conduct in reference to the sacri
ficial offerings and feasts of the heathen. They had been
accustomed not only freely to eat meat which had been offered
in sacrifice to idols, but to attend the feasts held in the tem
ples. As they were told as Christians that the distinction
between clean and unclean meats was abolished, and that the
gods of the heathen were nothing, they insisted on their right
to continue in theh accustomed habits. This gave rise to great
scandal. The stricter portion ofthe church, whether Jews or
GentUes, regarded all use of sacrificial meat as involving in
some form connection with idolatry. This, therefore, was°one

INTRODUCTION. XI
ofthe questions of conscience which was answered differently
by different parties, and no doubt contributed to promote the
divisions existing among them.
The turbulent and independent sphit of the people also
was conspicuously manifested in their pubhc assemblies. In
stead of foUowing the instructions of the apostles and the
usages of the church, they converted the Lord's Supper into a
disorderly common meal ; in violation of the pubUc sentiment
and the custom of aU the churches, they aUowed women to
appear unveUed in theh congregations and to speak in pubUc ;
and in the spirit of emulation and ostentation they exercised
their gifts of prophecy and speaking with tongues, without
regard to order or edification. Besides aU this, under the
influence probably of the heathen philosophy, some among
them denied the doctrine of the resurrection, and thus sub
verted the very foundation of the gospel.
Such is the picture presented in this epistle of one of the
most flourishing churches of the apostohc age, drawn not by
an enemy but by the apostle himself. With all this, however,
there were not only many pure and exemplary members of the
church, but much faith and piety even in those who were
more or less chargeable with these disorders. Paul therefore
addressed them as sanctified in Christ Jesus, thanks God for
the grace which he had bestowed upon them, and expresses
his confidence that God would preserve them blameless untU
the day of the Lord Jesus. This shows us how the gospel
works in heathen lands. It is Uke leaven hid in a measure of
meal. It is long before the whole mass is leavened. It does
not transform the character of men or the state of society in a
moment ; but it keeps up a continual conflict with evU untU
it is finaUy overcome.
§4. Date. Contents of the Epistle.
The date of this epistle is determined by its contents. It
was evidently written from Ephesus towards the close ot

XU INTRODUCTION.
Paul's protracted sojourn in that city. He teUs the Corinthi-
ans that he was to visit Macedonia, and would then come to
Corinth, but that he must tarry in Ephesus till Pentecost
(ch. 16, 5-8.) Comp. also v. 19, which agrees with the account
given in Acts 19, 20. 20, 1. 2. After the uproar excited by
Demetrius, Paul, as we learn from these passages, did go to
Macedonia and then to Greece ; and thence, with the contri
butions of the saints, to Jerusalem. Accordingly, in his epis
tle to the Romans, written from Corinth, he says, " Now I go
unto Jerusalem to minister to the saints. For it hath pleased
them of Macedonia and of Achaia to make a certain contribu
tion for the poor saints which are in Jerusalem." (Rom. 15,
25. 26.) These and other data seem to fix the date of the
epistle about the year 57, or five years after his first visit to
Corinth. There are no indications of a later date, unless any
one should find it hard to beheve that Paul had aheady suf
fered aU that is recorded in 2 Cor. 11, 23-28. Five times he
had received of the Jews forty stripes save one, thrice he had
been beaten with rods, once he was stoned, thrice he had suf
fered shipwreck, a day and a night he had been in the deep.
These and the other dangers there enumerated seem enough
to fiU a lifetime. But this only shows how smaU a part of the
labours and sufferings of the apostles is recorded in the Acts.
It furnishes no sufficient reason for referring this epistle to a
later period of the apostle's career.
As this epistle was written to correct the various disorders
which had arisen in the Corinthian church after the apostle's
departure, and to meet the calumnies and objections of the
false teachers by whom the peace of the church had been dis
turbed and his own authority called in question, its contents
are to a corresponding degree diversified. The apostle begins
with the assertion of his divine commission, and with the usual
salutation, ch. 1, 1-3. Then foUows the general introduction
to the epistle, commendatory and concihatory in its tone and
intention, 1, 4-9. He then introduces the subject ofthe party
divisions by which the church was disturbed, and showed how

INTRODUCTION. X_h
inconsistent they were with the relation which believers bear
to Christ and to each other ; and how careful he had been to
avoid aU appearance of desiring to be a party leader among
them. He had even abstained from baptizing lest any should
say he baptized in his own name, ch. 1, 10-16. He had bap
tized only a few among them, for his business was to preach
rather than to baptize.
As one class of his opponents directed their attacks against
his want of phflosophy and rhetorical refinement as a preacher,
he for a time leaves the subject of their party contentions, and
addresses himself to these objections. He tells them that he
did not preach the wisdom of this world, because God had
pronounced it to be foUy, because aU experience proved it to
be inefficacious to bring men to the knowledge of God, be
cause God had determined to save men by the preaching of
Christ as crucified, because theh- history showed that it was
not the wise who embraced the gospel, but God so adminis
tered his grace as to force all men to acknowledge that it was
of him, and not of themselves, that they became united to
Christ, and thereby partakers of the true wisdom, as well as
of righteousness, holiness and redemption, 1, 17-31. Such
being the case, he had come among them, not with the self-
confidence of a philosopher, but as a simple witness to bear
testimony to the fact that the Son of God had died for our re
demption. Under a deep sense of his insufficiency, he spoke
to them with fear and trembhng, relying for success not on
his own powers of persuasion, but whoUy on the power with
which the Holy Spirit accompanied the truth ; knowing that
the true foundation of faith was not argument, but the witness
of the Spirit with and by the truth, 2, 1-5. Howbeit, although
he repudiated human wisdom, the gospel which he preached
was the true wisdom, a system of truth which God had made
known, which was far above the power of man to discover,
but which the Spirit of God had revealed. This divine wis
dom he preached not in the words which the rhetorician pre
scribed, but which the Holy Ghost dictated. Both the truths

XIV INTRODUCTION.
which he taught, and the words which he used in communi-
eating that truth were taught by the Holy Ghost. If any
man neglected what was thus presented, the fault was neither
in the doctrines taught nor in the mode in which they were
exhibited, but in the objector. The things of the Spirit must
be spirituaUy discerned, 2, 6-16.
After this defence of his mode of preaching the apostle re
sumes the subject of theh divisions. He had preached to
them in as high a strain as they were able to bear. They
were but babes in Christ and had to be fed with milk. That
they were in this low stage of the Christian Ufe was manifest
from theh contentions, 3, 1-4. As these contentions had
reference to theh rehgious teachers, Paul endeavours to cor
rect the evU by showing what ministers reaUy are. First, he
says, they are mere instruments, — servants ; men sent to de
liver a message or perform a given work ; not the authors of
the system of truth which they taught. AU authority and
efficiency are in God. Secondly, ministers are one. They
teach the same doctrine, they have the same object, and stand
in the same relation to God. Thirdly, every one wiU have to
answer for his work. If he attempt to lay any other founda
tion than Christ, he is not a Christian minister. If on that
foundation he buUds with sound doctrine, he shaU receive a
reward ; if with false doctrine, he shaU be punished. Fourth
ly, human wisdom in this matter must be renounced. A man
must become a fool in order to be truly wise. Fifthly, such
being the relation of ministers to the church, the people should
not place their confidence in them, or regard themselves as
belonging to their ministers, since aU things were subordinate
to the people of God, ministers as weU as other things, 3, 5-20.
Sixthly, ministers being stewards, whose office it is to dispense
the truth of God, fidehty on their part is the great thino- to
be demanded. So far as he was himself concerned it was a
small matter what they thought of his fidelity, as the only final
judge was the Lord. The true character of the ministerial
office he had illustrated by a reference to himself and Apollos,

INTRODUCTION. Xt
that they might learn to estimate ministers aright, and not
contend about them. He then contrasts himself as suffering,
labouring and despised, with the false teachers and their fol
lowers, and exhorts the Corinthians to be followers of him,
and intimates his apprehension that he would have to come to
them with a rod, 4, 1-21. This is the end of that portion ofthe
epistle which relates to the divisions existing in the church.
The second evU which it was the design of this epistle to
correct, was the remissness of the Corinthians in the exercise
of church discipUne. Fornication was not only tolerated, but
they aUowed a man who had married his father's wife to retain
his standing in the church. Paul here interferes, and in the
exercise of his apostohcal authority, not only pronounces on this
incestuous person a sentence of excommunication, but delivers
him to Satan, 5,1-5. He enforces on the church the general duty
to exclude immoral members from their communion, 5, 6-13.
Thirdly, the practice which some of them had introduced
of going to law before heathen magistrates, he severely con
demns, 6, 1-11. Fourthly, the principle that aU things are
lawful, which the apostle had often uttered in reference to the
ceremonial distinction between clean and unclean meats, some
of the Corinthians had perverted as an argument to prove that
fornication is a matter of indifference. The apostle shows the
fallacy ofthis argument, and assures them that no sin is so great
a desecration ofthe body, or more fatal to its union with Christ,
and participation ofthe benefits of redemption, 6, 12-20.
Fifthly, marriage was another subject about which the
minds of the Corinthians were disturbed, and on which they
sought the advice of the apostle. They wished him to teU
them whether marriage was obhgatory, or lawful, or expedi
ent ; whether divorce or separation was aUowable ; and espe
ciaUy whether a Christian could consistently remain in the
conjugal relation with a heathen. AU these questions are an
swered in the seventh chapter, in which the apostle lays down
the principles which are applicable to aU cases of conscience in
reference to that subject, 7, 1-40.

Xvi INTRODUCTION.
Sixthly: Surrounded as the Corinthians were by idolatry,
whose institutions pervaded all the relations of society, it be
came a question how far Christians might conform to the
usages connected with heathen worship. The most important
question was, whether it was lawful to eat meat which had
been offered in sacrifice to idols. On this point Paul agreed
in principle with those who took the affirmative side in this
controversy. He admitted that the idols were nothing, and
that what was offered them was nothing, i. e. received no new
character from its having been a sacrifice, and that the use of
it involved no communion with idolatry. A regard, however,
to the spiritual welfare of others, should lead them to abstain
from the use of such meat under circumstances which might
encourage others to act against their own convictions, 8, 1—13.
In exhorting them to exercise self-denial for the benefit of
others, Paul urged them to nothing which he was not himself
willing to do. Although he enjoyed all the liberty which be
longs to other Christians, and had aU the rights belonging to
ministers or apostles, he had abstained from claiming them
whenever the good ofthe church required. For example, al
though entitled on aU the grounds of justice, usage, and of
divine appointment, to be supported by those to whom he
preached, he had sustained himself by the labour of his own
hands ; and so far as the Corinthians were concerned, he was
determined stiU to do so. He was determined that his ene
mies in Corinth should not have the slightest pretext for ac
cusing him of preaching the gospel from mercenary motives,
9, 1-18. This, however, was not a sohtary instance. In aU
things indifferent he had accommodated himself to Jews and
Gentiles, to the strong and to the weak. He had exercised
the self-denial and self-control which every combatant in the
ancient games was obhged to submit to who hoped to win the
prize, 9, 19-27. What he did, other Christians must do. The
history of the church shows that the want of such self-denial
was fatal even to those who were the most highly favoured.
The ancient Israehtes had been dehvered out of Egypt by tho

INTRODUCTION. XVII
direct and manifest intervention of God ; they had been mira-
culously guided and miraculously fed in the wUderness, and
yet tho great majority perished. Their experience should be
a warnmg to the Corinthians not to be overcome by similar
temptations, and especiaUy to be on their guard against idola
try, 10, 1-13. Their danger in this respect was very great.
They knew that the Grecian deities were imaginary beings ;
they knew that things offered to those deities had no contami
nating power ; they knew that it was, under some circumstan
ces, lawtul to eat meat which had been thus offered ; they
were, therefore, in danger of being led to eat it under circum
stances which would render them gmlty of idolatry. As they
were constantly exposed to have such meat set before them,
it became a matter of the highest importance to know when
it might, and when it might not be eaten with impunity. The
general principle which the apostle lays down on this subject
is, that all participation in the rehgious services of a people,
brings us into communion with them as worshippers, and
therefore with the objects of their worship. Consequently, to
eat of heathen sacrifices under chcumstances which gave a re
ligious character to the act, was idolatry. It is not necessary
that they themselves should view the matter in this light.
They might worship idols, and incur the guUt and penalty of
idolatry, without knowing or suspecting that they did so. To
prove this he appealed to their own convictions. They knew
that all who came to the Lord's table did thereby join in the
worship of Christ ; and that aU who attended the altars of the
Jews, and eat of the sacrifices, did thereby unite in the wor
ship of Jehovah. By parity of reasoning, those who took part
in the religious festivals of the heathen, joined in the worship
of idols. And although the idols were nothing, stUl the wor
ship of them was apostacy from God, and the worship of devUs,
10, 14-22. On the other hand, to eat of these sacrifices under
circumstances which precluded the idea of a religious service,
was a matter of indifference. Therefore, if meat offered to
idols was exposed for sale in the market, or met with at
private tables, it might be eaten with impunity, 10, 23-33.

Xviii INTRODUCTION.
Seventhly: grave abuses had been introduced into the
celebration of pubhc worship at Corinth. The women spoke
in pubUc unveUed ; the Lord's supper was degraded into a
common meal, and the use of spiritual gifts gave rise to great
disorder. With regard to the first of these abuses, the
apostle teaches that, as by the divine constitution the woman
is subordinate to the man, and as the veU was the conven
tional symbol of that subordination, for a woman to appear
in public unveUed, was to renounce her position, and to forfeit
the respect due to her sex, 8, 1-16. As to the Lord's supper,
it seems probable that it was, in Corinth at least, connected
with an ordinary meal in which aU the Christians met at a
common table. For this meal each one brought what provi
sions he was able to contribute. Instead, however, of its
being a feast of brotherly love, the rich ate by themselves,
and left their poorer brethren no part in the feast. To cor
rect this abuse, destructive of the whole intent of the sacra
ment, the apostle reminds his readers that he had communi
cated to them the account of the original institution of the
ordinance, as he himself had received it of the Lord. Accord
ing to that institution, it was designed not to satisfy hunger,
but to commemorate the death of Christ. It was therefore a
rehgious service of a pecuharly solemn character. The bread
and wine being the appointed symbols of his body and blood,
to eat and drink in a careless, irreverent manner, making no
distinctions between the consecrated elements and ordinary
food, was to be guUty of the body and blood of the Lord,
11, 17-34.
With regard to spiritual gifts, the apostle, after reminding
the Corinthians that the possession of these gifts was one of
the distinctive marks of theh Christian as distinguished from
their heathen state, teaches that aU these extraordinary mani
festations of the Holy Ghost have a common origin ; that'
they were all given, not for the exaltation of those who re
ceived them, but for the edification of the church, and that
they were distributed according to the good pleasure of God.

INTRODUCTION. xix
He illustrates aU these points by a reference to tho human
body. As the body is one, being animated by one soul ; so
the church is one, being animated by one Spirit. And as the
vital principle manifests itself in different forms in the different
members of the body, for the common good ; and as the dif
ferent members have theh office assigned to them by God,
and are mutuaUy dependent, being bound together as a com
mon life, so that one part cannot be injured or honoured,
without aU sharing in the joy or sorrow, so it is in the church.
There should, therefore, be no discontent or envy on the part
of those who have subordinate gifts, and no pride or ostenta
tion on the part of those more highly favoured ; especially as
the more showy gifts were not the most useful. So far, there
fore, as theh gifts were objects of desire, they should seek
those which were the most useful, 12, 1-31.
There was, however, one thing more important than any
of these gifts, and without which aU others, whether faith,
knowledge, or the power to work miracles, would be of no
avaU ; and that is Love. The love which renders its pos
sessor meek, kind, humble, disinterested, forbearing, and en
during. This is the highest grace, which is to endure when
aU these extraordinary endowments have passed away, 13, 1-
13. The two gifts which were most conspicuous in the church
of Corinth, were those of prophecy, and the gift of speaking
in foreign tongues. The latter being the more wonderful,
and exciting more admiration than the other, was unduly cov
eted and ostentatiously exercised. The apostle shows that it
was very subordinate to the gift of prophecy, because the
prophets were inspired to communicate, in an intelligible man
ner, divine truth to the edification of the church. Whereas,
theh speaking with tongues, where the language they used
was not understood, could only edify themselves, 14, 1-40.
Eighthly : certain persons in Corinth denied the Resurrec
tion. Whatever were the grounds on which this doctrine
was rejected, the apostle shows that its denial involved the
destruction ofthe gospel, for if the dead cannot rise, Christ is

XX INTRODUCTION.
not risen ; and if Christ be not risen, we have no Saviour.
He therefore proves, first, the fact of the resurrection of
Christ, and then shows that his resurrection secures that of
his people, 15, 1-36 ; and finaUy, that the objection that ma
terial bodies such as we now have, are unsuitable to the future
state, is founded on the false assumption, that matter cannot
be so refined as to furnish material for bodies adapted to the
soul in its highest state of existence, 15, 36-58. The sixteenth
chapter is devoted to directions relative to the coUection for
the poor, and to certain admonitions and salutations.

§ 5. Importance of this Epistle.
Paul's relation to the church in Corinth was in some re
spects pecuhar. He was not only the founder of the congre
gation, but he continued in the closest relation to it. It
excited his sohcitude, caUed for the wisest management, tried
his patience and forbearance, rewarded him at times by signal
evidence of affection and obedience, and fiUed him with hopes
of its extended and healthful influence. His love for that
church was therefore of special intensity. It was analogous to
-.hat of a father for a promising son beset with temptations,
whose character combined great exceUencies with great de
fects. The epistles to the Corinthians, therefore, reveal to us
more ofthe personal character of the apostle than any of his
other letters. They show hhn to us as a man, as a pastor, as
a coimseUor, as in conflict not only with heretics, but with
personal enemies. They reveal Hs wisdom, his zeal, his for
bearance, his liberality of principle and practice in aU matters
of indifference, his strictness in aU matters of right and wrono-,
his humihty, and perhaps above aU, his unwearied activity and
wonderful endurance.
There is another consideration which gives a special inter
est to these epistles. They show more clearly than any other
portion of the New Testament, Christianity in conflict with

INTRODUCTION. XXI
heathenism. We see what method Paul adopted in founding
the church in the midst of a refined and corrupt people ; how
he answered questions of conscience arising out of the rela
tions of Christians to the heathen around them. The cases
may never occur again, but the principles involved in their
decision, are of perpetual obhgation, and serve as Ughts to the
church in aU ages. Principles relating to church discipline, to
social relations and intercourse, to pubhc worship, the nature
of the church, and of the sacraments, are here unfolded, not
in an abstract form, so much as in theh apphcation. These
epistles, therefore, in reference to aU practical measures in the
establishment of the church among the heathen, and in its
conduct in Christian lands, are among the most important
portions of the word of God.

I. CORINTHIANS.

CHAPTER I.

Salutation, vs. 1-3. Introduction, vs. 4-9. The divisions whioh existed in
the Church at Corinth, vs. 10-1G. Defence of the Apostle's mode of
preaching, vs. 17-31.
Introduction to the Epistle. Vs. 1-9.
Paul declares himself to be a divinely appointed messenger
of Christ, v. 1. Iu this character he addresses the church at
Corinth, as those who were sanctified in Christ, and called to
be saints. lie includes in his salutation aU the worshippers of
Christ in that vicinity, v. 2 ; and invokes upon them the bless
ings of grace and peace, v. 3.
The introduction is as usual commendatory. He thanks
God for the favour shown to the Corinthians ; for the various
gifts by which the gospel had been confirmed among them,
and by which they were placed on a fuU equaUty with tho
most favoured churches, vs. 4-7. He expresses his confidence,
founded on the fidelity of God, that they would be preserved
from apostasy until the day of the Lord, vs. 8, 9.
1. Paul, called (to be) an apostle of Jesus Christ
through the will of God, and Sosthenes (our) brother.
Paul, so called after his conversion and the commence-
1

2 I. CORINTHIANS 1, 1.2.
ment of his labours among the Gentiles. His Jewish name
was Saul. It was common for the Jews to bear one name
among their own people, and another among foreigners.
Called (to be) an apostle, that is, appointed an apostle.
The apostieship being an office, it could not be assumed at
pleasure. Appointment by competent authority was absolute
ly indispensable. The word apostle means hterally a messen
ger, and then a missionary, or one sent to preach the gospel.
In its strict official sense it is apphed only to the immediate
messengers of Christ, the infallible teachers of his reUgion and
founders of his church. In calling himself an apostle Paul
claims divine authority derived immediately from Christ.
_By the will of God, that is, by divine authority. Paul
was made an apostle neither by popular election, nor by con
secration by those who were apostles before him ; but by imme
diate appointment from God. On this point, see his explicit
declaration, Gal. 1,1.
And Sosthenes (our) brother. In the Greek it is the bro
ther. He was a brother well known to the Corinthians, and
probably one of the messengers sent by them to the apostle,
or whom they knew to be with him. In Acts 1 8, 1 7 a man
by this name is mentioned as the ruler of the synagogue in
Corinth, and a leader of those who arraigned Paul before the
judgment seat of GaUio. This identity of name is not a suf
ficient proof that the person was the same, especially as the
name was a common one. The companions of the apostles,
whom he associates with himself in his salutations to the
churches, are not thereby placed in the position of equahty of
office and authority with the apostle. On the contrary, they
are uniformly distinguished in these respects from the writer
of the epistles. Thus it is " Paul the apostle," but " Sosthenes
the brother ; " or, " Paul the apostle and Timothy the brother,"
Col. 1,1, and elsewhere. They are associated in the saluta
tion, not in the epistle. Very probably Sosthenes was the
amanuensis of Paul in this instance, and Timothy in others.
2. Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to
them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called (to be)
saints, with all that in every place call upon the name
of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.
To the church of God. The word church is used in Scrip
ture as a collective term for the people of God, considered aa

I. CORINTHIANS 1, 2. 3
called out from the world. Sometimes it means the whole
number of God's people, as when it is said, Christ loved the
church and gave himself for it, Eph. 5, 25. Sometimes it
means the people of God as a class, as when Paul said, he per
secuted the church of God, Gal. 1, 13. Sometimes it means
the professing Christians of any one place, as when mention is
made of the church in Jerusalem, Antioch, or Corinth. Any
number, however smaU, of professing Christians coUectively
considered may be called a chureh. Hence we hear of tho
church in the house of PhUemon, and in the house of Aquila
and PriscUla, Rom. 16, 5. It is called the church of God, be
cause it belongs to him. He selects and caUs its members,
and, according to Acts, 20, 28, it is his, because he has bought
it with his blood.
To them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus. This is ex
planatory of the preceding clauses, and teaches us the nature
ofthe church. It consists ofthe sanctified. The word (6.yiAt,_>)
translated to sanctify, means to cleanse. And as sin is present
ed under the twofold aspect of guflt and poUution, to sanctify,
or to cleanse from sin, may mean either to expiate guUt by
an atonement, or to renew by the Holy Ghost. It is used for
expiation by sacrifice in Heb. 2, 11. 10, 14. 13, 12, and else
where. The word also means to render sacred by consecrat
ing any person or thing to the service of God. In the present
case all these ideas may be united. The church consists of
those whose guflt is expiated, who are inwardly holy, and who
are consecrated to God as his pecuhar people.
In Christ Jesus, that is, in virtue of union with him. It
is onlv in him that we are partakers of these inestimable bless
ings. " It is because we are in him as our head and representa
tive, that we are justified by his righteousness ; and it is be
cause we are in hhn as a branch is in the vine, that we are
purified by his Spirit.
CaUed (to be) saints, that is, by the effectual call of the
Holy Spirit constituted saints. "The called" always mean
the effectuaUy called as distinguished from the merely e.ytei-
naUy invited. Sai>its. The original word (ayios) sometimes
signifies sacred, set apart to a holy use. In this sense the
temple, the altar, the priests, the prophets, and the whole
theocratic people, are caUed holy. In the New Testament the
word is commonly expressive of inward purity, or cousecia-
tion of the soul to God. Believers are saints in both senses
of the word ; they are inwardly renewed, and outwardly con-

4 I. CORINTHIANS 1, 2.
secrated. It is not to be inferred from the fact that the apos.
tie addresses all the nominal Christians in Corinth as saints
and as sanctified in Christ Jesus, that they were all true be-
Uevers, or that those terms express nothing more than external
consecration. Men are uniformly addressed in Scripture
according to their profession. If they profess to be saints,
they are caUed saints ; if they profess to be believers, they are
called believers ; and if they profess to be members of the
church, they are addressed as reaUy belonging to it. This
passage teaches also, as Calvin remarks, the useful lesson that
a body may be very corrupt both as to doctrine and practice,
as such corruptions undoubtedly prevaUed even in Corinth, and
yet it may be properly recognized as a church of God. Locus
dihgenter observandus, ne requiramus in hoc mundo ecclesiam
omni ruga et macula carentem : aut protinus abdicemus hoc
titulo quemvis coetum in quo non omnia votis nostris respon
deat. With all that in every place call on the name of Jesus
Christ our Lord. To call upon the name of any one is to
invoke his aid. It is properly used for rehgious invocation.
Compare Acts 9, 14, 21, and 22, 16. Rom. 10, 12, 13. 2 Tim.
2, 22. To call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, is to
invoke his aid as Christ, the Messiah predicted by the prophets,
and as our almighty and sovereign possessor and ruler. It is
in that sense Jesus is Loed. AU power in heaven and earth
has been committed unto him ; and he died and rose again
that he might be the Lord of the dead and ofthe Uving; that
is, that he might acquire that pecuhar right of possession in
his people which arises from his having purchased them with
his blood. To caU upon the name of Jesus as Lord is there
fore to worship him. It is to look to him for that help which
God only can give. AU Christians, therefore, are the wor
shippers of Christ. And every sincere worshipper of Christ
is a true Christian. The phrase expresses not so much an in
dividual act of invocation, as an habitual state of mind and its
appropriate expression.
It might at first view appear from this clause that this
epistle was addressed not only to the church in Corinth, but
to all the worshippers of Christ. This would make it a catho
lic, or general epistle, which it is not. To get over this diffi
culty some explain the connection thus : ' CaUed to be saints
together with aU who call upon the name of Christ : ' that is,
the Corinthians as well as aU other worshippers of Christ were

I. CORINTHIANS 1, 2. 3. 5
called to be saints. A reference to 2 Cor. 1, 1 suggests a bet
ter explanation. It is there said, "To the church of God
which is at Corinth with aU the saints which are in all Achaia."
The same limitation must be supplied here. This epistle was
addressed not only to the Christians in Cormth, but also to
aU their brethren in the province of which Corinth was the
capital. Theirs and ours. These words admit of two connections.
They may be connected with the word Lord, ' Their Lord and
ours.' There were certain persons in Corinth who claimed a
peculiar relation to Christ, and said, " We are of Christ ; " to
whom Paul said, " If any trust to himself that he is Christ's,
let him of himself think this again, as he is Christ's, so are we
Christ's," 2 Cor. 10, 7. It is possible that he may have in
tended at the very opening of his epistle, to rebuke this ex
clusive spirit, and to remind his readers that Christ is the
common Lord of aU who caU upon him. The position of the
words however renders it more natural to understand the
apostle to mean, " in every place, theirs and ours." If this
be the true construction, then the sense may be, ' In every
place of worship theirs and ours.' This interpretation sup
poses that the divisions known to exist in Corinth had led to
the separation of the people into different worshipping assem-
bUes. There is, however, not only no evidence that such ex
ternal separation had occurred, but clear evidence in ch. 11,
18 to the contrary. Others understand the sense to be, ' Li
every place, theirs and ours,' i. e. 'where they are, and
where I am.' This supposes the epistle to be general. A
third interpretation has been proposed. The epistle is ad
dressed to ah Christians in Cormth and Achaia, wherever
they might be. Every place is at once theirs and ours. Their
place of abode, and my place of labour.
3. Grace (be) unto you, and peace from God our
Tather, and (from) the Lord Jesus Christ.
Grace is favour, and peace its fruits. The former includes
all that is comprehended in the love of God as exercised
towards sinners ; and the latter all the benefits which flow
from that love. All good, therefore, whether providential or
spiritual, whether temporal or eternal, is comprehended in
these terms : justification, adoption and sanctification, with aU
the benefits which either accompany or flow from them.

6 I. CORINTHIANS 1, 3.4.5.
These infinite blessings suppose an infinite source ; and as they
are sought no less from Christ than from God the Father,
Christ must be a divine person. It is to be remarked that
God is caUed our Father, and Christ our Lord. God as God
has not only created us, but renewed and adopted us. God
in Christ has redeemed us. He is our owner and sovereign,
to whom our aUegiance is immediately due; who reigns in
and rules over us, defending us from all his and our enemies.
This is the peculiar form which piety assumes under the gos
pel. All Christians regard God as their Father and Christ as
their Lord. His person they love, his voice they obey, and
in his protection they trust.
4. I thank my God always on your behalf, for the
grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ.
Paul expresses his gratitude for the grace of God given to
the Corinthians. The word grace, as just remarked, means
favour, and then the blessings of which that favour is the
source ; just as we use the word favour sometimes for a dis
position of the mind, and sometimes for gifts ; as when we
speak of receiving favours. The latter is the sense of the
word in this place.
By Christ Jesus, or rather, in Christ Jesus. This limits
and explains the kind of iavours to which the apostle refers.
He renders thanks for those gifts which God had bestowed
upon them in virtue of their union with Christ. The fruits
of the Spirit are the blessings referred to. These inward
spiritual benefits aro as much gifts as health or prosperity,
and are, therefore, as properly the grounds of gratitude. AU
virtues are graces, gifts of the grace of God.
5. That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in
all utterance, and (in) all knowledge.
This verse is explanatory of the preceding. Paul gives
thanks for the grace which they had received, i. e. that in
every thing they were enriched. In every thing (lv -n-avrC), in
every respect they were richly endowed with the gifts of the
Spirit. In all xitterance and in all knowledge / that is, with
ah. the gifts of utterance and knowledge. Some were prophets,
some were teachers, some had the gift of tongues. These
were different forms of the gift of utterance. In all know-

I. CORINTHIANS 1, 5. 6. 7. 1
ledgc,%h_._ is, in every kind and degree of religious knowledge.
This interpretation gives a good sense, and is the ono very
generally adopted. The word (\o'yoS) translated utterance,
may however be taken in the sense of doctrine, and the word
(yWuo-is) translated knowledge, in the sense of insight. Tlie
meaning would then be, that the church in Corinth was rich
ly endowed with divine truth, and with clear apprehension or
understanding of the doctrines which they had been taught.
They were second to no other church either as to doctrinal
knowledge or spiritual discernment. Adyos, according to this
view, is the truth preached ; yiwis, the truth apprehended. —
Meter. 6. Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed
in you.
Even as, i. e. because, inasmuch as. They were thus en
riched, because the testimony of Christ, that is, the gospel, was
confirmed among them. The gospel is called the 'testimony
of Christ,' cither because it is the testimony concerning God
and divine things, which Christ bore ; or because it is the testi
mony which the apostles bore concerning Christ. Either ex
planation is agreeable to the analogy of tho Scripture. Christ
is called the true witness ; and is said to have borne witness
ofthe truth. Compare John 3, 11. 32. 33. 8, 13. 14. On the
other hand, the apostles are frequently called the witnesses of
Christ, and are said to have borne testimony concerning him.
The gospel, therefore, is, in one view, the testimony which
Christ bore ; and, in another, the testimony which the apos
tles bore concerning him. The former is the higher, and
therefore, the better sense. It is good to contemplate the
gospel as that system of truth which the eternal Logos, or
Revealer, has made known.
Was confirmed in you,. This may mean either, was firmly
established among you; or was firmly established in your
faith. The gospel was demonstrated by the Holy Spirit to be
true, and was firmly settled in their conviction. This firm
faith was then, as it is now, the necessary condition of the en
joyment of the blessings by which the gospel is attended.
Therefore the apostle adds,
7. So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

8 I. CORINTHIANS 1, 1.
Such was theh strength of faith that the gifts of the
Spirit were bestowed upon them as abundantly as upon any
other church. This connection of faith with the divine bless
ing is often presented in Scripture. Our Lord said_ to the
father who sought his aid in behalf of his demoniac child, " If
thou canst beheve, aU things are possible to him that behev-
eth," Mark 9, 23. And on another occasion, " According to
thy faith be it unto thee," Matt. 9, 29. In his own country,
it is said, he did not many mighty works " because of their
unbehef," Matt. 13, 58. The Holy Ghost, therefore, confers
on men his gifts in proportion to theh faith. The word
(xapio-iJ.a) gift, is used both for the ordinary and extraordina
ry gifts of the Sphit ; most frequently for the latter. Here it
includes both classes. The Corinthians had not only the in
ward gifts of repentance, faith and knowledge, but also those
of miracles, of healing, of speaking with tongues, of prophecy,
in rich abundance. No church was superior to them in these
respects. The extraordinary gifts, however, seem to be princi
pally intended. Paul's commendation has reference to their
wisdom, knowledge and miraculous gifts, rather than to theh
spiritual graces. Much as he found to censure in theh state
and conduct, he freely acknowledged theh* flourishing con
dition in many points of view.
Waiting the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wait
ing (aTre.K_\_-)(pii._vov_) patiently expecting, comp. 1 Pet. 3, 20, or
expecting with desire, i. e. longing for. Comp. Rom. 8, 19. 20.
23. The object ofthis patient and earnest expectation of be
lievers is the corning (a.iroKd_\_nfjiv) i. e. the revelation of our
Lord Jesus Christ. The second advent of Christ, so clearly
predicted by himself and by his apostles, connected as it is
with the promise of the resurrection of his people and the
consummation of his kingdom, was the object of longing ex
pectation to all the early Christians. So great is the glory
connected with that event that Paul, in Rom. 8, 18-23, not
only represents all present afflictions as trifling in comparison,
but describes the whole creation as looking forward to it with
earnest expectation. Comp. PhU. 3, 20. Tit. 2, 13. So gene
ral was this expectation that Christians were characterized as
those " who love his appearing," 2 Tim. 4, 8, and as those
" who wait for him," Heb. 9, 28. Why is it that this longing
for the coming of Christ is awakened in the hearts of his peo
ple ? The apostle answers this question by saying that the
"first fruits of the Spirit" enjoyed by believers in this hfe

I. CORINTHIANS 1, 7. 8. 9
are an earnest, that is, a foretaste and pledge, of those bless
ings which they are to receive iu their fulness at the second
advent. The Spirit, therefore, awakens desire for that event.
See Rom. 8, 23. Eph. 1, 14. The same truth is here implied.
The Corinthians had received largely the gifts of the Spirit :
the consequence was they waited with patience and desire for
the revelation of Christ, when they should enter on that in
heritance of which those gifts are the foretaste and pledge.
If the second coming of Christ is to Christians of the present
day less an object of desire than it was to their brethren dur
ing the apostohc age, it must be because they think the Lord
is " slack concerning his promise," and forget that with him a
thousand years is as one day.
8. Who shall also confirm you unto the end, (that
ye may be) blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus
Christ. Who most naturaUy refers to God as its antecedent, be
cause he is the prominent subject in the context ; and because
the reference to Christ would make the apostle say ' Christ
shall confirm unto the day of Christ ; ' and because in the
foUowing verse, God is expressly mentioned. ' Because God
is faithful, he will confirm you,' is the clear meaning of the
passage. Besides, vocation and perseverance are, in the work
of redemption, specially referred to the Father.
Shall also confirm you. God had not only enriched them
with the gifts of the Spirit, but he would also confirm them.
The one was an assurance of the other. Those to whom God
gives the renewing influence of the Spirit, he thereby pledges
himself to save ; for " the first fruits of the Spirit " are, as just
remarked, of the nature of a pledge. They are an earnest, as
the apostle says, of the future inheritance, Eph. 1,14. 2 Cor.
1, 21. 22. Shall confirm (f3_fSa.iw_r.i) i. e. shaU make steadfast,
preserve from faUing. The word is used in reference to per
sons and things. God is said to confirm his promises, when
he fulfils them, or so acts as to prevent their failing, see Rom.
15, 8, or when he demonstrates their truth, Mark 16, 20. He
is said to confirm his people when he renders them steadfast
in the belief and obedience of the truth, 2 Cor. 1, 21. Unto
the end, may mean the end of Ufe, or the end of this dispensa
tion, i. e. to the end of the period which was to precede the
advent of Christ ; or it may be understood indefinitely as we
1*

10 I. CORINTHIANS 1, 8. 9.
use the expression " final perseverance." Unblamable, i. e.
not arraigned or accused. He is unblamable against whom
no accusation can be brought. In this sense it is said " a
bishop must be blameless," Titus 1, 6. 7. God wfll confirm
his people so that when the day of judgment comes, which is
the day of our Lord Jesus, i. e. the day of his second advent,
they shaU stand before him blameless, not chargeable with
apostasy or any other sin. They are to be ' holy and without
blame.' Compare 1 Thess. 5, 23. When we remember on the
one hand how great is our guUt, and on the other, how great
is our danger from without and from within, we feel that
nothing but the righteousness of Christ and the power of God
can secure our being preserved and presented blameless in
the day ofthe Lord Jesus.
9. God (is) faithful, by whom ye were called unto
the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
God is faithful, one in whom we may confide ; one who
will fulfil all his promises. The apostle's confidence in the
steadfastness and final perseverance of believers was founded
neither on the strength of their purpose to persevere, nor on
any assumption that the principle of religion in their hearts
was indestructible, but simply on the fidehty of God. If God
has promised to give certain persons to his Son as his inheri
tance, to deliver them from sin and condemnation and to make
them partakers of eternal life, it is certain he will not allow
them to perish. This is plain enough, but how did the apos
tle know that those to whom he wrote were included in the
number of those given to Christ, and that the fidelity of God
was pledged to their salvation ? It was because they were
called. Whom he caUs, them he also justifies ; and whom he
justifies them he also glorifies, Rom. 8, 30. The call intended
is the effectual caU of the Holy Spirit, by which the soul is re
newed and translated from the kingdom of darkness into the
kingdom of light. The only evidence of election is therefore
vocation, and the only evidence of vocation, is holiness of
heart and life, for we are called into the fellowship of his Son
Jesus Christ our Lord. Compare again Rom. 8, 29, where
believers are said to be " predestinated to be conformed to
the image of his Son." To this they are effectuaUy caUed.
They are made hke Christ. Fellowship includes union and
communion. The original word (/coivoWa) signifies participa-

I. CORINTHIANS l, 9. n
tion, as in 10,16, "participation of the blood of Christ," 2
Cor. 13, 13, "participation of the Holy Ghost." We are
called to be partakers of Christ ; partakers of his life, as
members of his body; and therefore, partakers of his charac
ter, of his sufferings here and of his glory hereafter. This last
idea is made specially prominent. BeUevers are caUed to be
partakers of the glory of Christ, Rom. 8, 17. 23. 2 Thess. 2,
14. It is because believers are thus partakers of Christ, that
the apostle was assured they could never perish. The person
with whom believers are thus intimately united, is the Son of
God, of the same nature, being the same in substance and
equal in power and glory. He is also Jesus, a man ; conse
quently he is both God and man, in two distinct natures, and
one person. This incarnate God, the Saviour, is the Christ,
of whom the Old Testament says and promises so much. He
is also our Lord, we belong to him ; he is our possessor, our
sovereign, our protector. How can they apostatize and per
ish who stand in this relation to the eternal Son of God ?
Of tice Divisions in the Church of Corinth. Vs. 10-16.
As one of the principal objects of this epistle was to cor
rect the evils which had arisen in the church of Corinth, the
apostle adverts, first, to the divisions which there existed.
He exhorts the members of that church to unity, v. 10. The
reason of that exhortation was the information which he had
received concerning their dissensions, v. 11. These divisions
arose from their ranging themselves under different religious
teachers as party leaders, v. 12. The sin and folly of such
divisions are manifest, in the first place, because Christ is in
capable of division. As there is one head, there can be but
one body. As there is but one Christ, there can be but one
church. And in the second place, because reUgious teachers
are not centres of unity to the church. They had not re
deemed it, nor did its members profess allegiance to them in
baptism, v. 13. These divisions, therefore, arose, on the one
hand, from a forgetfulness of the common relation wliich aU
Christians bear to Christ ; and, on the other, from a misappre
hension of the relation in which believers stand to their reli
gious teachers. Paul expresses his gratitude that he had not
given any occasion for such misapprehension. He had bap
tized so lew among them, that no man could suspect him of a
desire to make himself the head of the church or the leader
of a party, vs. 14-16.

12 I. CORINTHIANS 1, 10.
10. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing,
and that there be no divisions among you, but (that)
ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and
in the same judgment.
There is but one exhortation in this verse, which is ex
pressed first in general terms, '' that ye aU say the same
thing ; " and is then explained in the negative form, " that
there be no divisions among you ; " and then positively, " that
ye be perfectly joined together."
By ihe name of our Lord Jesus Christ, i. e. out of re
gard to Christ, Rom. 12, 1. 15, 30. 2 Thess. 4, 12. Their
reverence and love of Christ, and regard for his authority as
their Lord, should induce them to yield obedience to the
apostle's exhortation. It was not out of respect to him, but
out of regard to Christ they should obey. This renders obe
dience easy and elevating. To say the same thing (to avrb
Xeyeiv) is a phrase of frequent occurrence to express agreement.
It may be so understood here, and then the foUowing clauses
are explanatory. Or, it may be understood in reference to v.
12, of outward profession. 'Do not say I am of Paul, and I
of ApoUos, but aU say the same thing.' The former explana
tion appears the more natural.
And that there be no divisions among you, literaUy,
schisms. The word ((rx«r/xa) means, 1. A rent, as in a garment,
Matt. 9, 16. 2. Difference of opinion, John 7, 43. 3. Alienation
of feeling, or inward separation. 4. In its ecclesiastical sense, it
is an unauthorized separation from the church. The schisms
which existed in Corinth were not of the nature of hostUe
sects refusing communion with each other, but such as may
exist in the bosom ofthe same church, consisting in ahenation
of feeling and party strifes.
But (that) ye be perfectly joined togetlier. The original
word (KarapriZoy) means to repair, or to mend, Matt. 4, 21, to
reduce to place, as a dislocated limb ; to render complete, or
perfect (aprtos) ; then figuratively, to restore or set right those
in error ; to prepare, to render perfect. Hence in this place
the sense may be, ' That ye be perfect,' as the Vulgate ren
ders it ; or, ' that ye be united,' as in our translation ; or,
' that ye be reduced to order.' The context shows that the
idea of union is what the apostle intended. They were not to

I. CORINTHIANS 1, 10. 11. 12. 13
be divided, but united. This union was to be both in mind
and in judgment (vov_- and yvi_\jxrf). The former term may
refer either to the intellect or feehngs. The latter in the Now
Testament always means judgment or opinion. When the
words are united, the former is most naturally understood of
feeling, a sense in which the word mind is often used by us.
The unity which Paul desired was a union in faith and love.
Considering the relation in which Cliristians stand to each oth
er as the members of Christ, dissensions among them are as in
consistent with their character, as conflict between the mem
bers of the human body.
11. Por it hath been declared unto me of you, my
brethren, by them (which are of the house) of Chloe,
that there are contentions among you.
This verse contains the reason of the foregoing exhortation.
He urges them to union because he had heard they were di
vided. By those of Chloe, whether the persons referred to
were the chUdren or domestics of Chloe is left undetermined.
Chloe was a Christian woman weU known to the Corinthians ;
whether a member of the church in Corinth whose people had
come to Ephesus where Paul was ; or an Ephesian whose
famfly had been to Corinth, and learned the state of things
there, is a matter of conjecture. AU Paul wished was to as
sure the Corinthians that he had sufficient evidence of the ex
istence of contentions among them. This word (epiSes) strifes,
wranglings, explains the nature of the schisms referred to in
the preceding verse. These strifes, as appears from what fol
lows, were about their rehgious teachers.
12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I
am of Paul ; and I of ApoUos ; and I of Cephas ; and
I of Christ.
This explains the nature of these contentions. In almost
all the apostohc churches there were contentions between the
Jewish and GentUe converts. As Paul was the apostle of the
GentUes, and Peter of the Jews, Gal. 2, 8, it is probable that
the converts from among the GentUes claimed Paul as their
leader, and the Jewish converts appealed to the authority of
Peter. It is plain from the contents of this and of the follow
ing epistle, that these contentions were fomented by false

x4 I. CORINTHIANS 1, 12. 13.
teachers, 2 Cor. 11, 13 ; that these teachers were Hebrews, 2
Cor. 11, 22, and that they endeavoured to undermine the au
thority of Paul as an apostle. The two principal parties in
Corinth, therefore, were Gentiles caUing themselves the disci
ples of Paul, and Jews claiming to be the foUowers of Peter.
The Gentile converts, however, were not united among them
selves. While some said, we are of Paul ; others said, we are
of ApoUos. As Apollos was an Alexandrian Jew, distinguished
for literary culture and eloquence, it is probable that the more
highly educated among the Corinthian Christians were his
peculiar followers. Apollos is a shortened form of Apollonius,
as Silas is of Silvanus. The first governor of Egypt appointed
by Alexander bore that name ; and probably on that account
it became in that country so exceedingly common. As the Ju
daizers objected to Paul that he was not an apostle, these fol
lowers of Apollos undervalued him as a preacher. He was nei
ther a phUosopher nor a rhetorician after the Grecian school.
We shall find the apostle defending himself against both these
classes of objections. Who those were who said, we are of
Christ, it is not so easy to determine. It is plain that they
were as much to blame as the other parties mentioned. They
must therefore have claimed some pecuhar relation to Christ
which they denied to their feUow believers, 2 Cor. 10, 7.
Whether this exclusive claim was founded, as some suppose,
on the fact that they had themselves seen and heard Christ ;
or whether they asserted their superior and more intimate
relation to him on some other ground, is altogether uncertain.
It would appear from the frequency with which Paul speaks
of certain persons in Corinth " glorying in the flesh," and "in
appearance," that this party claimed some peculiar external
relation to Christ, and that their views of him were " carnal,"
or worldly. 13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you ?
or were ye baptized in the name of Paul ?
The grounds of our aUegiance to Christ are, first, that he
is the Christ, the Son of the living God ; second, that he hath
redeemed us ; third, that we are consecrated to him in bap
tism. _ All these grounds are pecuhar to Christ. To no oth
er being in the universe do believers stand in the relation
which they all sustain to their common Lord. As, therefore,
there is but one Christ, but one redeemer, but one baptism,

I. CORINTHIANS 1, 13. 14. 15. 16. 15
Christians cannot be divided without violating the bond which
binds them to Christ and to one another.
Is Christ divided ? Of course the answer must be in the
negative. As Christ is incapable of division, as there can be
but one Christ, the church cannot be divided. It is contrary
to its nature to be spht into hostile parties, just as it is con
trary to the nature of a family to be thus divided. As the
head is one, so are the members.
Was Paid crucified for you ? Did Paul redeem you ?
Were you purchased by his blood, so as to belong to him ?
If not, then you are not his, and it is wrong to say, We are
Paul's. Believers bear no such relation even to inspired
teachers, as to justify their being caUed by theh names. They
are caUed Christians, because they are the worshippers of
Christ, because they belong to him, and because they are con
secrated to him.
Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? (ek to ovo/xa),
UteraUy, xinto the name, i. e. in reference to Paul, so that he
should be the object of your faith and the one whose name
you were to confess. By baptism we are brought into the
number of the disciples and foUowers of him into whose name,
or in reference to whom, we are baptized. As, therefore, aU
Christians are baptized unto Christ, and not unto the apostles,
much less any uninspired teacher, it is Christ whom they
should confess, and by his name they should be caUed.
14. 15. I thank God that I baptized none of you,
but Crispus and Gaius ; lest any should say that I had
baptized in mine own name.
Although it was the duty of the apostles to baptize, Matt.
28, 19, yet Paul rejoiced that it had so happened that he had
administered that ordinance to only a few persons in Corinth,
as thus all pretext that he was making disciples to himseltj
was taken away. Paul did not consider this a matter of
chance, but of providential direction, and, therefore, a cause
of gratitude. Crispus was the chief ruler ofthe synagogue in
Corinth, whose conversion is recorded in Acts 18, 8. Gaius
is mentioned in Rom. 16, 23, as the host ofthe apostle.
16. And I baptized also the household of Stepha
nas ; besides I know not whether I baptized any other.

16 I. CORINTHIANS 1, 16.
Stephanas was one of the three messengers sent to inform
the apostle of the state of the church in Cormth, and to de
liver the letter to which reference is made, ch. 7, 1, comp. 16,
15. 17. Paul says he baptized the household or famUy of" Ste
phanas. Under the old dispensation, whenever any one pro
fessed Judaism or entered into covenant with God as one of
his people, all his children and dependents, that is, aU to whom
he stood in a representative relation, were included in the
covenant and received circumcision as its sign. In like man
ner under the gospel, when a Jew or GentUe joined the
Christian church, his children received baptism and were re
cognized as members ofthe Christian church. Compare Acts
16, 15 and 33.
Besides I know not whether I baptized any other. The
nature of inspiration is to be learnt from the declarations ofthe
Scriptures and from the facts therein recorded. From these
sources we learn that it was an influence which rendered its
recipients infalhble, but it did not render them omniscient.
They were preserved from asserting error, but they were not
enabled either to know or to remember aU things.
Paid's defence of his manner of preaching. Vs. 17-31.
The apostle having been led to mention incidentally that
he had baptized very few persons in Corinth, assigns as the
reason of that fact that his great official duty was to preach
the gospel. This naturaUy led him to speak of the manner of
preaching. It was one of the objections urged against him
that he did not preach " with the wisdom of words," that is,
that he did not preach the doctrines taught by human reason,
which he calls the wisdom of the world. Through the re
mainder of this, and the whole of the following chapter, he
assigns his reasons for thus renouncing the wisdom of the
world, — and resumes the subject of the divisions existing in
the church of Corinth at the beginning of the third chapter.
1. His first reason for not teaching human wisdom is that God
had pronounced all such wisdom to be folly, vs. 19. 20. 2.
Experience had proved the insufficiency of human wisdom to
lead men to a saving knowledge of God, v. 21. 3. God had
ordained the gospel to be the great means of salvation, vs.
21-25. 4. The experience of the Corinthians themselves
showed that it was not wisdom nor any other human distinc
tion that secured the salvation of men. Human wisdom could
neither discover the method of salvation, nor secure compli-

I. CORINTHIANS 1, 16.17. 17
ance with its terms when revealed. They were in Christ (i. e.
converted), not because they were wiser, better, or more dis
tinguished than others, but simply because God had chosen or
called them, vs. 26-30. The design of God in all this was to
humble men so that he who glories should glory in the Lord.
v. 31. 17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to
preach the gospel : not with wisdom of words, lest the
cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
For indicates the connection. ' I baptized few, for I was
not sent to baptize, but to preach.' The commission was,
" Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature." This does not mean that baptism was not included,
but it does mean that baptizing was very inferior to preaching.
It is subordinated in the very form ofthe commission, " Go ye
therefore, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them," &c.
The main thing was to make disciples ; recognizing them as
such by baptism was subordinate, though commanded. Bap
tism was a work which the apostles seem to have generaUy
left to others, Acts 10, 48. During the apostohc age, and in
the apostolic form of religion, truth stood immeasurably above
external rites. The apostasy of the church consisted in mak
ing rites more important than truth. The apostle's manner
of speaking of baptism in this connection as subordinate to
preaching is, therefore, a wonder to those who are disposed
unduly to exalt the sacraments, as may be seen in Olshausen's
remarks on vs. 13-16. We must not infer from this that bap
tism is of little importance, or that it may be safely neglected.
Although Paul controverted the Jewish doctrine that circum
cision secured salvation and was necessary to its attainment,
he nevertheless admitted that its advantages were great every
way, Rom. 3, 2. And in the Old Testament it is expressly
said that the uncircumcised man-chUd should be cut off from
the people, i. e. deprived of the benefits of the theocracy.
While therefore it is unscriptural to make baptism essential to
salvation or a certain means of regeneration, it is nevertheless
a dangerous act of disobedience to undervalue or neglect it.
His preaching Paul describes by saying it was " not with
the wisdom of words," (ovk iv ao<f>la \6yov). So far as the sig
nification of these words is concerned, the meaning may be,
1. Not with skilful discourse, that is, eloquence. 2. Or, not
with philosophical discourse, that is, not in an abstract or

18 T. CORINTHIANS 1, 17. 18.
speculative manner, so that the truth taught should be pre
sented in a philosophical form. According to this view the
doctrine taught would still be the gospel, but the thing re
jected and condemned would be merely the phUosophical
mode of exhibiting it. 3. The meaning may be, not with a
discourse characterized by wisdom ; that is, the contents of
which was human wisdom, instead of truths revealed by God.
The context is in favour of the interpretation last mentioned.
In this whole connection the apostle contrasts two kinds of
wisdom. The one he describes as the wisdom of the world,
the wisdom of men, or of the rulers of the world. By this he
means human wisdom, that which has a human origin. This
he pronounces to be folly, and declares it to be entirely ineffi
cacious in the salvation of men. The other kind of wisdom,
he calls the wisdom of God, i. e. derived from God ; the hid
den wisdom, consisting in truths which human reason never
could discover. The former he repudiates. He says, he did
not come to preach the teachings of human reason, but the
testimony of God. He was among them in the character, not
of a phUosopher, but of a witness. As in what foUows the
apostle argues to prove that human wisdom is foUy and can
not save men, and gives that as the reason why he came
preaching the doctrine of the cross, it seems plain that this is
the meaning of the passage before us. ' Christ sent me to
preach, not with wise discourse, that is, not with human wis
dom — not as a philosopher, but as a witness.' His preaching
therefore was the simple exhibition of the truth which God
had revealed.
Lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect, i. e.
rendered powerless and inoperative. If Paul in preaching
had either substituted human wisdom for the doctrine of the
cross, or had so presented that doctrine as to turn it into a
phUosophy, his preaching would have been powerless. It
would lose its divine element and become nothing more than
human wisdom. Whatever obscures the cross deprives the
gospel of its power.
18. Por the preaching of the cross is to them that
perish, foolishness ; but unto us which are saved, it is
the power of God.
The preaching of the cross, or, the doctrine (6 \6yos) of the
cross, that is, the doctrine of salvation through the crucifixion

I. CORINTHIANS 1, 18. 19. 20. 19
of the Son of God as a sacrifice for the sins of men. This
doctrine, though to one class, viz., those who are lost, i. e.
those certainly to perish, foolishness ; yet to another class,
viz., those certainly to be saved, it is the power of God. That
is, it is that through which the power of God is manifested
and exercised, and therefore it is divinely efficacious. AU the
hearers of the gospel are divided into two classes. To tha
one, the doctrine of salvation through a crucified Redeemer
appears absurd. They are called " the lost," not only because
they are certainly to perish, but also because they are in a
lost state whUe out of Christ, John 3, 18. To the other, this
doctrine is divinely efficacious in producing peace and holiness.
These are caUed " the saved," not only because they are cer
tainly to be saved, but also because they are now in a state
of salvation. Compare 2 Cor. 2, 15.
This verse contains the reason why Christ sent the apostle
to preach, and why he preached the doctrine of the cross, and
not human wisdom. That reason is, because the doctrine of
the cross alone is effectual to salvation. This proposition he
proceeds to establish by a series of arguments designed to
prove that the wisdom of the world cannot save men. His
first argument is derived from the express declaration of the
word of God to this effect.
19. Por it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of
the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding
of the prudent.
This is not to be considered as the citation of any one par
ticular passage of the Old Testament, so much as an appeal to
a doctrine therein clearly revealed. In a multitude of pas
sages, and in various forms, God had taught by his prophets
the insufficiency of human reason to lead men to the know
ledge of the way of salvation. In Isaiah 29, 14. nearly the
same words are used, but with a more Umited application.
" The wisdom of the wise," and " the understanding of the
prudent," are paraUel expressions for the same thing.
20. Where (is) the wise ? where (is) the scribe ?
where (is) the disputer of this world ? hath not God
made foolish the wisdom of this world ?
This is a chaUenge to the wise of every class and of every

20 I. CORINTHIANS 1, 20.21.
nation to disprove what he had said. It was too plain to be
denied that God had made foohsh the wisdom of this world,
i. e. he had showed it to be foohsh, and dealt with it as such.
Among the Jews there were three classes of learned men, dis
tinguished by terms correspondhig to those which the apostle
here uses. It is not probable, however, that Paul refers to
that classification, because he is not speaking specially of the
Jews. The first term (cro<j>6_), wise man, is probably to be
taken in a general sense including that of the two following
words. ' Where is the wise, whether Jewish scribe or Grecian
sophist ? ' The word scribe is the common designation of the
learned class among the Jews. It was origmaUy applied to
the secretaries whose business it was to prepare and issue de
crees in the name of the king (2 Sam. 8, 17. 20, 25. 2 Kings
12, 10. 19, 2). Afterwards, and. especiaUy in the New Testa
ment, it was used as the designation of those learned in the
law, who were charged not only with its transcription, but
also with its exposition, and at times with its administration.
The same title was given in many of the Asiatic states to the
magistrate who presided over the senate, took charge of the
laws, and who read them when necessary to the people, Acts
19, 35. Where is the disputer f (o-v£,rrn]Trj_) inquirer, questioner,
sophist / the appropriate designation of the Grecian philoso
pher. Of this world, or age. This qualification belongs to
aU the preceding terms. ' Where is the wise of this world,
whether scribe or sophist ? '
21. Por after that in the wisdom of God the world
by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the fool
ishness of preaching to save them that believe.
This and the following verses contain the apostle's second
argument in proof of the insufficiency of human wisdom. The
argument is this : experience having shown the insufficiency
of human wisdom, God set it aside, and declared it to be
worthless, by adopting the foolishness of preaching as the
means of salvation. This argument therefore includes two
distinct proofs. First, that derived from experience ; and
secondly, that derived from God's having appointed the gos
pel^ as distinguished from human wisdom, to be the means of
saving men.
For after that. It is to be remarked that the word for in

I. CORINTHIANS 1, 21. 21
Paul's writings very often refers to something implied but not
expressed in the context ; most commonly it refers to the
answer to a preceding question. It is so here. 'Hath not
God made foohsh the wisdom of this world ? He has, for, &c.'
After that («Vei8ij) properly, since. This particle, though in
the Greek writers generaUy used of time, in the New Testa
ment is almost uniformly used in a causal sense. This is its
meaning here. ' For, inasmuch as, or because?
In the icisdom of God. This means either, in the wise
ordination of God, or, in the midst ofthe manifestation ofthe
wisdom of God. If the former interpretation be adopted, the
meaning is, that it was a manifestation of divine wisdom to
leave the world for four thousand years to test the power of
human wisdom, that thus its insufficiency might be clearly
demonstrated. The latter interpretation is generally adopted,
and gives a better sense. ' In the wisdom of God, that is,
although surrounded by the manifestations of the divine wis
dom in creation and providence, man faUed to attain any
saving knowledge of God.' The world by (its tt}s) wisdom
knew not God. This is not inconsistent with Rom. 1, 20,
where the apostle says, God's eternal power and Godhead are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.
In this latter passage Paul speaks of the revelation which God
had made of himself; in the former, of the use which men
had made of that revelation. The revelation was clear, but
men, through their imbecility and perverseness, did not com
prehend it. In the midst of hght they continued blind. The
fault was in them, and not in the revelation. They did not
hke to retain God in their knowledge, Rom. 1, 28. Besides,
sometimes the knowledge of God, in Scripture, means that
speculative knowledge which human reason is adequate to de
rive from the works of God, and which renders their idolatry
inexcusable ; at other times, it means saving knowledge.
Hence it is perfectly consistent to say in the former sense, that
men by wisdom may attain the knowledge of God ; and, in
the latter sense, that they cannot attain that knowledge.
Paul is here speaking of the knowledge which is connected
with salvation. Such knowledge the world by wisdom had
faUed to secure. Therefore, it pleased God by the foolishness
of pyreaching to save them that believe. " The foolishness of
preaching " means the preaching of foolishness, that is, the
cross. The doctrine of the cross was foolishness in the esti
mation of men. God thus put to shame aU human wisdom

22 I. CORINTHIANS 1, 21.22.23.
by making a doctrine which the wise of this world regarded
as absurd the means of salvation. This passage in its connec
tion clearly teaches two great truths ; first, that the cross, or
the doctrine of Christ crucified, is the substance ofthe gospel,
that in which its vitality and power consist ; and secondly,
that it is the preaching, or public proclamation (Kripvyfia) of
that doctrine which is the great means of salvation. To this
all other means, however important, are either preparatory
or subordinate. It is to be remembered, however, that preach
ing, in the Scriptural sense ofthe term, includes the inculcation
of the truth, whether to an individual or to a multitude —
whether by the road side, or in the school, or lecture-room, or
the pulpit. PhUip, as he rode in the chariot with the eunuch,
" preached to him Jesus," Acts 8, 35.
22. 23. Por the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks
seek after wisdom ; but we preach Christ crucified, unto
the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks fool
ishness. This passage is parallel to the preceding. ' Since the
world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the fool
ishness of preaching to save them that believe — and since the
Jews ask a sign and the Greeks seek wisdom, we preach, &c.'
That is, since human reason in all its developments, Jewish
or Grecian, had failed, we preach Christ.
The Jews require, or, ask (ah-ova-i) a sign* This was
characteristic of the Jews. They required external superna
tural evidence as the ground of their faith. Their constant
demand was, " What sign showest thou ? " Matt. 12, 39. Mark
8, 11. John 6, 30. To this disposition our Saviour referred
when he said, " A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh
after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it, but the
sign of the prophet Jonas," Matt. 16, 4. The Greeks, on the
other hand, seek after wisdom. They required rational evi
dence. They would receive nothing as true which they could
not understand, and see the rational grounds of. These are
types of permanent classes of men.
But we preach Christ crucified. This doctrine met tho
* Instead of arn_.7ov, a sign, the MSS., A. B. C. D. E. F. G., besides many
others of later date, read <rrti_.1a, signs, whioh almost all the modern editors
adopt.

I. CORINTHIANS 1, 23.24. 23
demands of neither class. It satisfied neither the expectations
of the Jews, nor the requirements of the Greeks. On the
contrary, it was to the Jews a stumbl'mg-block. They had
anticipated in the Messiah a glorious temporal prince, who
should dehver and exalt theh nation. To present to them
one crucified as a malefactor as their Messiah, was the great
est possible insult. He was to them, therefore, a stone of
stumbling and a rock of offence, Rom. 9, 33. 1 Pet. 2, 8. To
the Greeks this doctrine was foolishness. Nothing in the ap
prehension of rationalists can be more absurd than that the
blood ofthe cross can remove sin, promote virtue, and secure'
salvation; or that the preaching of that doctrine is to convert
the world. 24. But unto them which are called, both Jews and
Greeks, Christ the power of God., and the wisdom of
God. The called (kAijtoi) always mean vhe effectuaUy called, as
distinguished from those who are merely externally invited.
There is a twofold caU of the gospel ; the ono external by the
word ; the other internal by the Spirit. The subjects of the
latter are designated "the caUed," Rom. 1, 7, 8, 28. Jude 1.
Rev. 17, 14. compare Isaiah 48, 12. The Jews desired an ex
hibition of power ; the Greeks sought wisdom : both are found
in Christ, and in the highest degree. He is the power of God
and the wisdom of God.. In his person and work there is the
highest possible manifestation both of the divine power and
of the divine wisdom. And those who are called not only
see, but experience this. The doctrine of Christ crucified
produces effects on them which nothing short of divine power
can accomplish. And it reveals and imparts to them the true
wisdom. It makes them divinely wise ; it makes them holy ;
it makes them righteous; and it makes them blessed. It
does infinitely more than human wisdom could ever conceive,
much less accomplish. It has aheady changed the state of
the inteUigent universe, and is to be the central point of influ
ence throughout eternity. This is the doctrine which the
wise of this world wish to see ignored or obscured in behalf
of their speculations. Just as the heathen exchange the true
God for birds and beasts and creeping things, and think them
selves profound.

24 I. CORINTHIANS 1, 25. 26.
25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than
men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
This is a confirmation of what precedes. The gospel is thus
efficacious, because the lowest manifestation of divine wisdom
exceeds the highest results of the wisdom of men ; and the
lowest exercise of God's power is more effectual than all
human strength. Or, instead of taking the verse in this gen
eral sense, the foolishness of God, may mean the gospel. The
meaning then is, ' The doctrine of the cross, though regarded
as absurd and powerless, has more of power and wisdom than
any thing which ever proceeded from man.'
26. Por ye see your caUing, brethren, how that
not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty,
not many noble (are called).
The connection is not with the preceding verse but with
the whole preceding context. The apostle introduces a new
argument in proof of the uselessness of human wisdom. The
argument is derived from their religious experience. ' You
see, brethren, it is not the wise who are caUed.'
Your calling (kXtjo-is) does not mean mode of hfe, profes
sion, or station, as the word vocation often does with us. The
Greek word is never used in this sense in the New Testament,
unless 1 Cor. 7, 20 be an exception. It always refers to the
call of God by his word and Spirit. It is to be so understood
here. ' You see, brethren, your conversion, that not many
wise are converted.' In this sense we speak of " effectual
calling." Wise after the flesh, i. e. wise with human wisdom. Flesh
in Scripture often means human nature. There are two kinds
of wisdom, the one human, the other divine. There are,
therefore, two classes of wise men ; those possessing the wis
dom which is from men, and those who have the wisdom
which comes from God. Few of the former class become
Christians ; therefore it is not by wisdom that men find out
God, which is what the apostle designs to prove.
Not many mighty, i. e. the great (ol Swarol, those having
Sw<x/u5, in the sense of power and authority). The opposite
class is designated as the weak or uninfluential, see Acts 25,
5. _ Not many noble, i. e. well-born. The converts to Christi
anity were not in general from the higher ranks hi society.

I. CORINTHIANS 1, 26.27.28. 25
The things which elevate man in the world, knowledge, influ
ence, rank, are not the things which lead to God and salva
tion. As there is no verb in the original to agree with these
nominatives, "the wise," "the mighty," "the noble," wo may
either supply the simple substantive verb are : ' You see your
calling, not many of you are wise, or mighty, or noble ; ' or,
we may supply, as in our version, the word called, ' not many
wise are called ; ' or, the word chosen, ' not many wise are
chosen, for God hath chosen, &o.> The sense remains the same.
Human distinctions are insignificant and inefficacious in the
sight of God, who is sovereign in the distribution of his grace.
27. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the
world to confound the wise, and God hath chosen the
weak things of the world to confound the things which
are mighty.
In this and the foUowing verses the apostle asserts affirma
tively what he had just stated negatively, ' God does not
choose the wise, but he chooses the foolish.'
The foolish things of tlie world, (to. //.copa tov Koo-fiov) the
foolish portion of mankind. In this and in the following
clauses the neuter is used although persons are intended, be
cause the reference is indefinite. God hath chosen the foohsh,
the weak, the insignificant, &c. Hath chosen. It is implied in
this form of expression, which is repeated for the sake of em
phasis, that as, on the one hand, the wise and the great were
not chosen on account of their wisdom or greatness, so, on the
other, the foolish and the weak were not chosen on account of
their want of wisdom or greatness. God chose whom he
pleased. He chose the ignorant that he might confound the
wise ; and the weak, that he might confound the mighty.
That is, that he might put them to shame, by convincing them
of the Uttle value of the things on which they prided them
selves, and by exalting over them those whom they despised.
28. And base things of the world, and things which
are despised, hath God chosen, (yea) and things which
are not, to bring to nought things that are ;
The base things, i. e. the base, the ignoble (tc. ayevrj), those
without family, as opposed to the noble. Things which are
despised, i. e. men in low condition, whom the rich and noble
2

26 I. CORINTHIANS 1, 28.29.30.
look upon with contempt. Things which c.re not, (ra ^ ovra,)
those who are entirely overlooked as though they had no ex
istence. There is a climax here. God has chosen not only
plebeians, but ofthe plebeians those who were objects of con
tempt, and even those below contempt, too insignificant to be
noticed at all. These, and such as these, does God choose to
make kings and priests unto himself. To bring to nought,
(Karapyyjcrri), literaUy, that he might bring to nought. This is
a stronger term than that used in the preceding verse, and
here speciaUy appropriate. God brings to nothing the things
that are (ra ovra), i. e. those who make their existence known
and felt, as opposed to those who are nothing. It is apparent
from the dispensations of grace, that knowledge, rank, and
power do not attract the favour of God, or secure for their
possessors any pre-eminence or preference before him. This
should render the exalted humble, and the humble content.
29. That no flesh should glory in his presence.
The design of God in thus deahng with men, caUing the
ignorant rather than the wise, the lowly instead of the great,
is that no man should boast before him. No one can stand in
his sight and attribute his conversion or salvation to his own
wisdom, or birth, or station, or to any thing else by which he
is favourably distinguished from his fellow-men.
30. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God
is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanc
tification and redemption.
To be in Christ Jesus is to be united to him, 1. Repre
sentatively, as we were in Adam, Rom. 5, 12-21. 1 Cor. 15,
22. 2. Vitally, as a branch is in the vine, or a membor in the
body, John 15, 1-7. 3. Consciously and voluntarfly by faith,
Rom. 8, 1, et passim. Of this uuion with Christ, the apostlo
teaches us here, first, its origin, and secondly, its effects. As
to its origin, it is of God. Of him ye are in Christ Jesus.
It is (c*. airov) of him as the efficient cause. It is to be referred
to him alone that ye are in Christ. Your conversion or sav
ing union with Christ is not due to yourselves ; it is not be
cause you are wiser, or better, or more diligent than others
that you are thus distinguished. This which is the turning
point in theology, and therefore in religion, is here most ex-

I. CORINTHIANS 1, 30. 27
plicitly asserted. And it is not only asserted, but it is de
clared to be the purpose of God to make it apparent, and to
force all men to acknowledge it. He so dispenses his grace
as to make men see with regard to others, and to acknow
ledge with regard to themselves, that the fact that they are
in Christ, or true Christians, is due to him and not to them
selves. The effects of this union, as here stated, are, that
Christ is of God (a-n-6 ©eoO), as the author, made unto us,
1. Wisdom. Christ is the true wisdom. He is the Logos,
the Revealer, in whom dwells aU the fulness of the Godhead,
and all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. No man
knoweth tlie Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son
shall reveal him, John 1, 18. Union with him, therefore,
makes the believer truly wise. It secures the knowledge of
God, whose glory is revealed in tho face of Christ, and whom
to know is eternal life. All true rehgious knowledge is de
rived from Christ, and it is only those who submit to his
teaching who are wise unto salvation.
2. The second effect of union with Christ, is righteousness
and sanctification (SiKaioavvr] t_ ko.1 dyiacry-ids) ; these are inti
mately united (re /ecu) as different aspects of the same thing.
Righteousness is that which satisfies the demands of the law
as a rule of justification ; sanctification, or holiness, is that
which satisfies the law as a rule of duty. Christ is both to us.
He is our righteousness, because by his obedience and death
he has fully satisfied the demands of justice, so that we are
"the righteousness of God in him," 2 Cor. 5, 21. When we
stand before the judgment-seat of God, Christ is our righteous
ness. He answers for us ; he presents his own infinite merit
as the all-sufficient reason for our justification. Rom. 3, 21. 22.
5, 19. Phil. 3, 9. He is also our sanctification. His Spirit
dwells in aU his people as the Spirit of holiness, so that they
are transformed into his likeness from glory to glory. Wher
ever the Spirit dwells there are the fruits of the Spirit. Acts
26, 18. Rom. 8, 9. 10. Gal. 5, 22. Eph. 2, 5. 10.
3. The third effect is redemption, i. e. deliverance from
evil. This term sometimes includes all the benefits received
from Christ. When he is called our Redeemer he is present
ed as our deUverer from guilt, from hell, from sin, from the
power of Satan, from the grave. But when redemption is
distinguished from justification and sanctification, it refers to
the final deliverance from evU. The " day of redemption " is
the day when the work of Christ shall be consummated in 1he

28 I. CORINTHIANS 1, 30.31.
perfect salvation of his people as to soul and body. Rom. 8,
23. Eph. 1, 14. 4, 30. Heb. 9, 12.
Those, then, who are in Christ have divine wisdom or tne sav
ing knowledge of God and of divine things ; they have a right
eousness which secures their justification. There is no condem
nation to those that are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8, 1. They are
renewed after the image of God, and shall finaUy be presented
without spot or blemish before the presence of his glory. And
they are partakers of eternal redemption or fuU debverance
from all the evils of sin, and are introduced into the glorious
liberty of the chUdren of God. These infinite blessings can be
obtained only through Christ. Union with him is the neces
sary, and the only necessary, condition of our participation of
these blessings. And our union with Christ is of God. It is
not of ourselves, by our own wisdom, goodness, or strength,
but solely by his grace ; and therefore must be sought as an
unmerited favour.
31. That, according as it is written, He that glori-
eth, let him glory in the Lord.
TJiat, i. e. in order that. The design of God in making
wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption depend
ent on union with Christ, and union with Christ dependent,
not on our merit, but on his own good pleasure, is that we
should glory only in him ; that is, that our confidence should
be in him and not in ourselves, and "that all the glory of our
salvation should be ascribed to him and not to us. Such be
ing the design of God in the work of redemption, it is obvious
we must conform to it in order to be saved. We must seek
wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption only in
Christ ; and we must seek union with Christ as an undeserved
favour. The passage quoted is probably Jeremiah 9, 23. 24, the
sense of which is condensed. In quoting the Old Testament
the apostle frequently cites the words as they stand, without
so modifying them as to make them grammatically cohere
with the context. As in the Septuagint, which he quotes, the
imperative mood is used, the apostle here retains it, and in
stead of saying, ' In order that he who glories should glory in
the Lord,' he says ' That, He that glories let hhn glory in the
Lord.' Comp. 2, 9. Rom. 15, 3.

I. CORINTHIANS 2, 1. 29

CHAPTER n
Continues his defence of his mode of preaching. In vs. 1-5 he shows that he
acted on the principles set forth in the preceding paragraph. In vs. 6-9
he shows that the gospel is the true wisdom. The source of this know
ledge, as externally revealed and as spiritually apprehended, ia the Holy
Spirit, vs. 10-16.
Continuation of his defence of his mode of preaching.
Vs. 1-16.
As God had determined to save men not by human wisdom
but by the gospel, Paul, when he appeared in Cormth, came
neither as an orator nor as a phUosopher, but simply as a wit
ness, vs. 1, 2. He had no confidence in himself, but rehed for
success exclusively on the demonstration of the Spirit, vs. 3,
4. The true foundation of faith is not reason, but the testi
mony of God, v. 5.
Though what he preached was not the wisdom of men, it
was the wisdom of God, undiscoverable by human reason, vs.
6-9. The revealer of this divine wisdom is the Holy Ghost,
he alone being competent to make this revelation, because he
only knows the secret purposes of God, vs. 10-12. Iu com
municating the knowledge thus derived from the Spirit, the
apostle used words taught by the Spirit, v. 13. Though the
knowledge communicated was divine, and. although communi
cated in appropriate language, it was not received by the
natural man, because the things of the Spirit can be discerned
only by the spiritual, vs. 14-16.
1 . And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not
with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto
you the testimony of God.
And I, i. e. accordingly I. ' In accordance with the clear
ly revealed purpose of God to reject the wisdom ofthe world
and to make the cross the means of salvation.'
Excellency of speech or of wisdom. As speech and wis
dom (Aoyos and cro<f>la) are here distinguished, the former
probably refers to the manner or form, and the latter to the
matter of his preaching. It was neither as a rhetorician nor
as a philosopher that he appeared among them. This clause

30 I. CORINTHIANS 2, 1.2. 3.
may be connected either with the word came, ' I came not
with excellency of speech ; ' or with the word declaring, 'I
came not declaring with excellency of speech, &c.' The
former mode is generaUy preferred, not only because of the
position of the words in the sentence, but also because of the
sense. Paul does not mean to say merely that he did not de
clare the testimony of God in a rhetorical or phUosophical
manner ; but that what he declared was not the wisdom of
men, but the revelation of God.
The testimony of God may mean either the testimony
which Paul bore concerning God, or God's own testimony,
i. e. what God had revealed and testified to be true. " The
testimony of God" is, in this sense, the gospel, as in 2 Tim. 1,
8. The latter interpretation best suits the connection, as
throughout these chapters Paul contrasts what reason teaches
with what God teaches. He did not appear as a teacher of
human wisdom, but as announcing what God had revealed.
2. Por I determined not to know any thing*
among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
For is confirmatory. 'I came not with exceUency of
speech or of wisdom, for I determined, <fec.' The negative
particle in this sentence may be connected either with the
word to know, ' I determined not to know ; ' or with the
word determined, ' I did not determine, i. e. I had no inten
tion or purpose.' The position of the words (oi yap _Kpiva) is
in favour of the latter interpretation. The meaning in either
case is the same.
Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Paul's only design in
going to Corinth was to preach Christ ; and Christ not as a
teacher, or as an example, or as a perfect man, or as a new
starting point in the development of the race — aU this would
be mere philosophy ; but Christ as crucified, i. e. as dying for
our sins. Christ as a propitiation was the burden of Paul's
preaching. It has been weU remarked that Jesus Christ re
fers to the person of Christ, and him crucified, to his work ;
which constitute the sum ofthe gospel.
3. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear,
and in much trembling.
* The common text here is toO eiMmi t!. The tou is omitted in the MSS.,
A, B. C. D. E. F. G. The reading adopted in the recent editions is t_ ci'SeW

I. CORINTHIANS 2, 3. 4. 31
_ I came to you, iy_vop,rjv irpos fyias, I came to you and was
With you, see John 1, 2. The weakness of which he here speaks
was not bodily weakness ; for although he elsewhere speaks
of himself as weak in body, 2 Cor. 10, 10, and as suffering un
der bodily infirmity, Gal. 4, 14, yet here the whole context
shows he refers to his state of mind. It was not in the con
sciousness of strength, self-confident and self-relying, that he
appeared among them, but as oppressed with a sense of his
weakness and insufficiency. He had a work to do which he
felt to be entirely above his powers.
In fear and trembling, i. e. in anxiety, or solicitude of
mind arising out of a sense of his insufficiency, and of the
infinite importance of his work, 2 Cor. 7, 15. PhU. 2, 12.
Eph. 6, 5.
4. And my speech and my preaching (was) not with
enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration
of the Spirit and of power.
My speech and preaching (Xoyos and Kijpvyp.a) . If these
terms are to be distinguished, the former may refer to his pri
vate, and the latter to his public instructions ; or, the former is
general, including all modes of address, and the latter specific,
limited to pubhc discourse. ' My instructions in general, and
my pubUc preaching in particular.' Both terms, however,
may designate the same thing under different aspects.
His mode of preaching is described, first, negatively, and
then positively. It was not with the enticing words of man's
wisdom, i. e. the persuasive words which human wisdom
would suggest. In his endeavours to bring men to the obedi
ence ofthe faith, he did not rely upon his own skill in argu
ment or persuasion. This is the negative statement. Posi
tively, his preaching was in (or with, iv ; the preposition is the
same in both clauses, though rendered by our translators in
the former, with, and in the latter, in) the demonstration of
the Spirit and of power. This may mean, ' The demonstration
ofthe powerful Spirit;' or, 'The demonstration of the Spirit
and of (miraculous) power ; ' referring to the twofold evidence
or proof of tbe gospel, viz., the internal influence of the Spirit,
and the external evidence of miracles. Tho word (8wa.ju.is),
rendered power, often means miraculous power, but as such
cannot be its meaning in the following verse, it is not probable
it was intended to have that sense here. The phrase probably

32 I. CORINTHIANS 2, 4.5.
means ' The demonstration of which the Spirit is the author,
and which is characterized by power ; ' so that the sense is;
the powerful demonstration ofthe Spirit.
Demonstration (air___*i£__) setting forth, exhibition of proof.
Paul rehed, therefore, for success, not on his skill in argument
or persuasion, nor upon any of the resources of human wisdom,
but on the testimony which the Spirit bore to the truth. The
Holy Ghost demonstrated the gospel to be true.
5. That your faith should not stand in the wisdom
of men, but in the power of God.
That, i. e. in order that. The design ofthe apostle in act
ing as stated in the preceding verse, was that the faith of his
hearers might not rest upon human reason, but on the testi
mony of God. It might have been easy for him to argue the
Corinthians into a conviction of the truth of the Gospel, by
appealing to its superiority to heathenism and to the evidence
of its divine origin afforded by prophecy and miracles. He
might have exhibited the folly of idolatry, and the absurdity
of pagan rites and ceremonies, and convinced them of the his
torical truth of Christianity. The conviction thus produced
would be rational and important ; but it would not be saving
faith. Faith founded on such evidence is merely speculative.
The true foundation of faith, or rather, the foundation of true
faith, is the power cf God. This is explained by what he had
before caUed " the demonstration of the Sphit." That exer
cise of divine power, therefore, to which he refers as the
ground of faith, is the powerful operation of the Spirit, bear
ing witness with and by the truth in our hearts. A faith
which is founded on the authority of the church, or upon ar
guments addressed to the understanding, or even on the
moral power of the truth as it affects the natural conscience,
such as Fehx had, is unstable and inoperative. But a faith
founded on the demonstration of the Spirit is abiding, infalh
ble, and works by love and purifies the heart.
In these verses, therefore, we are taught, 1. That the pro-
er method to convert men in any community, Christian or
'agan, is to preach or set forth the truth concerning the per
son and work of Christ. Whatever other means are used
must be subordinate and auxihary, designed to remove obsta
cles, and to gain access for the truth to the mind, just as the
ground is cleared of weeds and brambles in order to prepare

K

I. CORINTHIANS 2, 5.6. 33
it for the precious seed. 2. The proper state of mind in which
to preach the gospel is the opposite of self-confidence or care
lessness. The gospel should be preached with a sense of
weakness and with great anxiety and sohcitude. 3. Tho suc
cess ofthe gospel does not depend on the skill ofthe preacher,
but on the demonstration of the Spirit. 4. The foundation of
saving faith is not reason, i. e. not arguments addressed to tho
understanding, but the power of God as exerted with and by
the truth upon the heart.
6. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are
perfect : yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the
princes of this world, that come to nought.
Paul had in the preceding chapter, vs. 17-31, asserted the
insufficiency of human wisdom, and in vs. 1-5 of this chapter,
he had said he was not a teacher of human wisdom. Was it to
be inferred from this that he despised knowledge, that he was
an iUiterate contemner of letters, or that he taught nonsense ?
Far from it ; he taught the highest wisdom. It is plain from
this whole discussion, that by the wisdom of the world, Paul
means that knowledge of God and divine things which men
derive from reason. It is also plain that what he says of the
worthlessness of that knowledge has reference to it as a means
of salvation. The objection urged against him was, that he
did not teach phUosophy. His answer is, phUosophy cannot
save men. Whatever may be its value within its own sphere
and for its own ends, it is worse than useless as a substitute
for the gospel. He was not for banishing philosophy from
the schools, but from the pulpit. Let the dead bury tho
dead ; but do not let them pretend to impart life.
Howbeit, nevertheless, i. e. ' although we do not teach hu
man wisdom, we teach the true wisdom.' Among them that
are perfect (iv tois TeAeiois), i. e. the mature, the full-grown, the
competent. The iv here is not redundant as though the sense
were to the perfect ; but has its proper force among. Among
one class of men the doctrine which he preached was regarded
as foolishness, but among another it was seen to be divine wis
dom. Who are meant by the perfect ? There are two an
swers to this question. Some say they were the advanced
or mature Christians as distinguished from the babes in Christ.
Others say, they were believers as opposed to unbeUevers ;
those taught by the Spirit and thus enabled to understand the

34 I. CORINTHIANS 2, 6.
truth, as opposed to the unrenewed. According to this view,
Paul means to say that the gospel, although foolishness to the
Greek, was the highest wisdom in the estimation of the truly
enlightened. In favour of this view of the passage, and in
opposition to the other, it may be argued, 1. That those who
regarded Paul's doctrine as foohshness were not the babes in
Christ, but the unrenewed, " the wise of this world ; " conse
quently those to whom it was wisdom were not advanced
Christians, but believers as such. Throughout the whole
context, the opposition is between " the caUed " or converted,
and the unconverted, and not between one class of believers
and another class. 2. If " the perfect " here means advanced
Christians as distinguished from babes in Christ, then the wis
dom which Paul preached was not the gospel as such, but its
higher doctrines. But this cannot be, because it is the doc
trine ofthe cross, of Christ crucified, which he declares to be
the power of God and the wisdom of God, 1, 24. And the
description given in the following part of this chapter of the
wisdom here intended, refers not to the higher doctrines of
the gospel but to the gospel itself. The contrast is between
the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God, and not be
tween the rudimental and the higher doctrines of the gospel.
Besides, what are these higher doctrines which Paul preached
only to the elite of the church ? No one knows. Some say
one thing, and some another. But there are no higher doc
trines than those taught in this epistle and in those to the
Romans and Ephesians, all addressed to the mass of the peo
ple. The New Testament makes no distinction between
(7rto-Tts and yiwts) higher and lower doctrines. It does indeed
speak of a distinction between milk and strong meat, but that
is a distinction, not between kinds of doctrine, but between one
mode of -instruction and another. In catechisms designed for
children the church pours out aU the treasures of her know
ledge, but in the form of mUk, i. e. in a form adapted to the
weakest capacities. For aU these reasons we conclude that
by " the perfect " the apostle means the competent, the people
of God as distinguished from the men of the world ; and by
wisdom, not any higher doctrines, but the simple gospel,
which is the wisdom of God as distinguished from the wisdom
of men. The apostle describes this wisdom, first negatively, by say
ing it is not the wisdom of this world, or, wisdom not of this
world, i. e. it belongs not to the world, and is not attained by

I. CORINTHIANS 2, 6.7. 85
the men of the world. Nor of the princes of this world. This
designation includes all who take the first rank among men ;
men of influence, whether for their wisdom, birth, or power.
He does not refer exclusively to magistrates, or princes, in the
restricted sense of that term. This seems plain from the con
nection, and from what foUows in v. 8. Who come to nought,
i. e. whom it is God's purpose to confound, as taught above,
1, 28. 7. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery,
(even) the hidden (wisdom), which God ordained before
the world unto our glory.
Having in v. 6 stated what this wisdom is not, he here
states what it is. It is, first, the wisdom of God ; secondly, it
is mysterious, or hidden ; thirdly, it is a system of truth which
God from eternity had determined to reveal for the salvation
of his people. In other words, it is the revelation of the coun
sels of eternity in reference to the redemption of man.
The wisdom of God, i. e. the wisdom derived from God ;
which he has revealed, as distinguished from any form of
knowledge of human origin. In a mystery. The word mys
tery always means something into which men must be initi
ated ; something undiscoverable by human reason. Whether
its being undiscoverable arises from its lying in the future, or
because hid in the unrevealed purposes of God, or from its
own nature as beyond our comprehension, is not determined
by the signification of the word, but is to be learned from the
context. The most natural connection of the words here is
with what precedes, " wisdom in a mystery," for mysterious,
or hidden wisdom, as is immediately explained by what fol
lows. As there is no connecting article (between _ro<j>iav and
p.vo-Trjpiw) in the original, some prefer connecting this clause
with the verb. ' We speak in a mystery,' i. e. as declaring a
mystery or matter of revelation.
Which God before the world (-n-po twv alwvuiv), before the
ages, i. e. before time, or from eternity, preordained to our
glory — predetermined in reference to our glory. The word
glory is often used for aU the benefits of salvation. It includes
aU the excellence and blessedness which Christ has secured
for his people, Rom. 5, 2. The idea that the scheme of re
demption, which the apostle here calls the wisdom of God,
was from eternity formed in the divine mind, far out of the

36 I. CORINTHIANS 2, 7. 8.
reach of human penetration, and has under the gospel been
made known for the salvation of men, is one often presented
by the apostle, Rom. 16, 25. 26. Eph. 3, 9.
8. Which none of the princes of this world knew :
for had they known (it), they would not have crucified
the Lord of glory.
Which refers to wisdom, and not to glory ; because the
former, and not the latter, is the subject of discourse. _' Which
wisdom none of the princes, i. e. the great men, of this world
knew.' The reference is here principaUy to the rulers of the
Jews, the authors of the crucifixion of Christ, and the repre
sentatives of the class to which they belonged. It was the
world in its princes who rejected Christ.
Lord of glory is a title of divinity. It means, possessor of
divine excellence. " Who is the King of glory ? The Lord
of hosts, he is the King of glory," Ps. 24, 10. Acts 7, 2. James
2, 1. Eph. 1, 17. The person crucified, therefore, was a divine
person. Hence the deed was evidence of inconceivable blind
ness and wickedness. It was one that could only be done
through ignorance. " And now, brethren," said the apostle
Peter to the Jews, " I wot that through ignorance ye did it,
as did also your rulers," Acts 3, Vi. The fact that the princes
of this world were so blind as not to see that Christ was the
Lord of glory, Paul cites as proof of their ignorance of the
wisdom of God. Had they known the one, they would have
known the other.
This passage Ulustrates a very important principle or usage
of Scripture. We see that the person of Christ may be desig
nated from his divine nature, when what is affirmed of him is
true only of his human nature. The Lord of glory was cruci
fied ; the Son of God was bom of a woman ; he who was equal
with God humbled himself to be obedient unto death. In hke
manner we speak of the birth or death of a man without
meaning that the soul is born or dies ; and the Scriptures
Bpeak of the birth and death of the Son of God, without mean
ing that the divine nature is subject to these changes. It is
also plain that to predicate ignorance, subjection, suffering,
death, or any other limitation of the Son of God, is no more
inconsistent with the divinity of the person so designated,
than to predicate birth and death of a man, is inconsistent
with the immateriality and immortality of the human soul.

I. CORINTHIANS 2, 8. 9. 87
Whatever is true either of the soul or body may be predicated
of a man as a person; and whatever is true of either tho di
vine or human nature of Christ may be predicated of Christ
as a person. We need not hesitate therefore to say with Paul,
the Lord of glory was crucified ; or even, in accordance with
the received text in Acts 20, 28, " God purchased the church
with his blood." The person who died was truly God, al
though the divine nature no more died than the soul of man
does when the breath leaves his body.
9. But as it is written, Pye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the
things which God hath prepared for them that love
him. The meaning of this verse is plain, although there are sev
eral difficulties connected with it. Paul had said, he preached
the hidden wisdom of God, which none of the princes of this
world knew ; he taught what no eye hath seen, nor ear hoard,
nor heart conceived. That is, he preached truth undiscover
able by human reason. To enter into the heart means to occur
to the mind. Compare in the Hebrew, Isaiah 65, 17.
The first difficulty connected with this verse is a gram
matical one, which does not appear in our version because of
the freedom of the translation. LiteraUy the passage reads,
' What no eye saw, and no ear heard, and no heart conceived,
what God has prepared for those who love him — .' The sen
tence is incomplete. This difficulty may be met either by a
reference to the usage referred to in the note on the last verse
of the preceding chapter, v. 31, the custom of the apostles to
quote passages from the Old Testament without weaving them
grammaticaUy into their own discourses. Or, we may supply,
as many do, the word (\akovp.cv) ' we speak what God hath
prepared for those who love him.' Or this verse may be con
nected with what follows : ' What eye hath not seen — what
(namely) God hath prepared for his people, he hath revealed
to us by his Spirit.' — The first of these explanations is gener
aUy adopted and is the most satisfactory.
The second difficulty relates to the passage quoted. As the
formula, " As it is written," is never used by the apostles except
in the citation ofthe canonical books ofthe Old Testament, it
cannot be admitted that Paul intended to quote either some
book now lost, or some apocryphal writing. If it be assumed

38 I. CORINTHIANS 2, 9. 10.
that he intended to quote Isaiah 64, 4, the difficulty is twofold,
first, the language or words are different, and secondly, the
sense is different. Isaiah 64, 4, (or 3 in the Hebrew) as hter
ally translated by Dr. J. A. Alexander, is : " And from eter
nity they have not heard, they have not perceived by the ear,
the eye hath not seen, a God beside thee (who) wUl do for
(one) waiting for him." The idea is, that men had never
known any other God than Jehovah who did, or could do,
what he threatened to do. The Septuagint expresses the same
idea. The meaning in Isaiah as connected with what pre
cedes, seems to be that the reason why such fearful things as
had been predicted were to be expected from Jehovah is, that
he alone had proved himself able to perform them. To get
over this difficulty some propose a different interpretation of
the passage in the prophet. By connecting it with what fol
lows, and by taking the word God in the vocative, the sense
may be, ' From eternity they have not heard, nor perceived
by the ear, eye hath not seen, O God, without thee, (i. e. with
out a revelation) what he, (or, by change of person) what thou
hast prepared for those that wait for thee.' This is the ver
sion given in the Vulgate, and brings the passage into har
mony with the apostle's quotation.
Others, assuming the first-mentioned interpretation of the
passage in Isaiah to be the true one, consider the apostle as
using scriptural language without intending to give the sense
of the original. This we often do, and it is not unfrequently
done in the New Testament, Rom. 10, 18. As it is written is
not, in this case, the form of quotation, but is rather equivalent
to saying, ' To use the language of Scripture.'
A third explanation of this difficulty is, that the apostle did
not intend to quote any one passage of scripture, but to appeal
to its authority for a clearly revealed truth. It is certamly
taught in tho Old Testament that the human mind cannot
penetrate into the counsels of God ; his purposes can only be
known by a supernatural revelation. This is the truth for
which the apostle cites the authority of the Old Testament.
There is, therefore, not the slightest ground for imputing fail
ure of memory, or an erroneous interpretation to the inspired
apostle. 10. But God hath revealed (them) unto us by his
Spirit * for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep
things of God.

I. CORINTHIANS 2, 10.11.12. 39
What was undiscoverable by human reason, God hath
revealed by his Spirit. Unto us, i. e. unto those to whom this
revelation, was made, viz. " the holy apostles and prophets,"
Eph. 3, 5. This revelation was made by the Spirit, for he
alone is competent to make it ; for he alone searches the deep
things of God. Searches, i. e. explores, accurately and thor
oughly knows. The word does not express the process of
investigation, but rather its results, viz., profound knowledge.
Thus God is said to search the hearts of the chUdren of men,
to intimate that there is nothing in man that escapes his notice,
Rom. 8, 27. Rev. 2, 23. So there is nothing in God unknown
to the Spirit. The deep things, i. e. depths of God, the inmost
recesses, as it were, of his being, perfections and purposes.
The Spirit, therefore, is fully competent to reveal that wisdom
which had for ages been hid in God. This passage proves at
once the personahty and the divinity of the Holy Ghost. His
personality, because intelUgent activity is ascribed to him ; he
searches ; his divinity, because omniscience is ascribed to him ;
he knows aU that God knows.
11. Por what man knoweth the things of a man,
save the spirit of man which is in him ? even so the
things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
This verse is designed to iUustrate two points : First, as no
one knows the thoughts of a man but the man himself, so no
one knows the thoughts of God, but God himself. Therefore
no one but a divine person is competent to make a revelation
of the thoughts and purposes of God. Second, as every man
does know his own thoughts, so the Spirit of God knows the
thoughts of God. His knowledge of what is in God is analo
gous to that which we have of tho contents of our own con
sciousness. The analogies of scripture, however, are not to be
pressed beyond the point which they are intended to illustrate.
The point to be illustrated here is, the knowledge of the Spirit.
He knows what is in God, as we know what is in ourselves.
It is not to be inferred from this that the Spirit of God bears
in other points the same relation to God, that our spirits do
to us. 12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the
world, but the Spirit which is of God ; that we might
know the things that are freely given to us of God.

40 I. CORINTHIANS 2, 12. 13.
The apostle had set forth two sources of knowledge, the
one, human ; the other, divine ; the one, the informing prin
ciple which is in man; the other, the informing principle
which is of God. And he asserts that the source of that wis
dom or knowledge which he communicated, was not the
former, but the latter. It was not human reason, but the
Spirit of God. The spirit of the icorld does not here mean
a worldly disposition or temper; but spirit is that which
knows and teaches. The spirit of the world is therefore a
periphrase for reason, which is the principle of knowledge in
men. When Paul says he had not received that sphit, he
means that human reason was not the source of the know
ledge which he communicated. The Spirit which is of God,
is the Holy Spirit as proceeding from him and sent by him as
the instructor of men. To receive the Spirit is to be the sub
ject of his influence. It, therefore, depends upon the context
and on the nature ofthe influences spoken of, who are intended
by those who receive the Spirit. Here the whole connection
shows that the apostle is speaking of revelation and inspira
tion ; and therefore we must mean we apostles, (or Paul him
self,) and not we Christians.
That, i. e. in order that, we might know the things freely
given to us of God, i. e. the things graciously revealed by
God. This clause does not refer to inward spiritual blessings
now enjoyed by believers, nor to the future blessedness of the
saints, except so far as these are included in the general sub
ject of Paul's preaching. The connection is with v. 10.
' What human reason could not discover, God hath revealed
to us apostles, in order that we might know what he has thus
graciously communicated.' The subject is the wisdom of God,
the gospel, as distinguished from the wisdom of the world.
This is clear both from what precedes and from what foUows.
13. Which things also we speak, not in the words
which man's wisdom teacheth, but wliich the Holy
Ghost teacheth ; comparing spiritual things with
spiritual. Which things ; the things revealed by the Spirit. We
also speak. We do not only know, we also communicate the
things which God has revealed. How is this done ? What
language did the apostle use in communicating what he had
¦•¦eceived by divine revelation ? He answers, according to his

I. CORINTHIANS 2, 13. 41
usual method, first, negatively ; and then, positively. It was
not done " in the words which man's wisdom teacheth." This
includes two things. The words used by the apostle were
neither such as the skfll of the rhetorician would suggest, nor
such as his own mind, uninfluenced by the Spirit of Gfod, sug
gested. The affirmative statement is, that the words used
were taught by the Holy Ghost. This is verbal inspiration,
or the doctrine that the writers of the Scriptures were con-
troUed by the Sphit of God in the choice of the words which
they employed in communicating divine truth. This has been
stigmatized as "the .mechanical theory of inspiration," de
grading the sacred penmen into mere machines. It is objected
to this doctrine that it leaves the diversity of style which
marks the different portions of the Bible, unaccounted for
But, if God can control the thoughts of a man without making
him a machine, why cannot he control his language ? And
why may he not render each writer, whether poetical or
prosaic, whether pohshed or rude, whether aphoristic or
logical, infalhble in the use of his characteristic style ? If the
language of the Bible be not inspired, then we have the truth
communicated through the discolouring and distorting medium
of human imperfection. Paul's direct assertion is that the
words which he used, were taught by the Holy Ghost.
Comparing spiritual things with spiritual / or rather,
joining spiritual things to spiritual words, or, explaining the
things ofthe Sphit in the words ofthe Spirit. For the use of
crvyKptvuv in the sense of interpreting or explaining, see Gen.
40, 8. 16. 41, 12. 15. Dan. 5, 12. in the LXX. This interpre
tation is demanded by the connection. The apostle had said
that the truths which he taught were revealed by the Spirit ;
and that the words which he used were taught by the Spirit,
which he sums up by saying, he explained spiritual things in
spiritual words. This view of the passage is perfectly consist
ent with the signification of the words. The original word
(crvyKplva>) means not only mentaUy to combine and hence to
compare, but also to join together ; and also to explain. It
is used in the Septuagint to express the act of interpreting
dreams or enigmas. The clause in question may, therefore,
be translated either, combining spiritual things with spiritual
words ; or, explaining the one by the other. Besides, the
word spiritual (TrvevpMTiKot.), which has no substantive con
nected with it, most naturaUy agrees with words (Ao'yo.s) un
derstood, which immediately precedes.

42 I. CORINTHIANS 2, 13. 14.
The other interpretation, comparing spiritual things with
spiritual, whether it means comparing the Old Testament with
the New, as some say ; or, as others understand it, comparing
one portion of the Spirit's teaching with another, is inconsist
ent with the context. Much less can be said in favour of a
third interpretation of this clause adopted by many, who un
derstand the apostle to say, he explains spiritual things to
spiritual persons. This anticipates what follows.
14. But the natural man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God; for they are foohshness unto
him-, neither can he know (them), because they are
spiritually discerned.
Although the things of the Spirit, that is, the truths of his
word, are so clearly revealed ; and although they have been
communicated in language taught by the Spirit, yet, by a cer
tain class of men, they are rejected. That is, they are not
believed, appreciated, and obeyed. This class of men is called
natural. The meaning of this term cannot be determined by
the mere signification of the word (i/a^tRo's), for it signifies
both sensual (i. e. under the influence of the lower animal
principles of our nature), and also natural, i. e. under the in
fluence of what belongs to the nature of man as it now exists,
as distinguished from the Spirit of God. Many commentators
say that the (ij/vxt-Koi) natural are the sensual, and the opposite
class the (Trvevp.ari.Koi) spiritual are the inteUectual, the rational,
those under the influence of the (irvefyia) spirit in the sense of
the higher, as distinguished from the lower, principles of our
nature. According to this view, Paul means to say, that
although sensual men do not receive the tilings of the Spirit,
intellectual men do. This interpretation, however, cannot be
correct. 1. Because it gives a meaning to the passage not
only inconsistent with the direct assertion of the apostle, but
opposed to the whole drift and design of his argument. He
not only declares that it was not the wise, the refined and cul
tivated who received the gospel — but his whole object is to
prove that the reason of man, or man in the highest develop
ment of his nature, can neither discover " the things of the
Spirit," nor receive them when revealed. It is of God, and
not because of their superior culture or rp.finp.m_.nt, that men
are in Christ, 1, 30. These things are hid from the wise and

I. CORINTHIANS 2, 14. 43
prudent, and revealed unto babes, Matt. 11, 25. 2. Because
the word spiritual, when used in the New Testament of per
sons, never means intellectual. It always means one under
the influence ofthe Holy Spirit. It therefore must havo that
meaning here. 3. The very distinction designed to be ex
pressed here and elsewhere by the terms natural and spiritual,
is that between nature and grace, between the natural and
supernatural, James 3, 15. Jude 19. 4. The reason assigned
why the natural man does not receive the things of tho Spirit,
viz., because " they are spiritually discerned," does not mean
' because they are rationally discerned,' and therefore it is not
the want of due cultivation of the reason that characterizes
the natural man, but the want of the Spirit. By natural man,
therefore, we must understand the unrenewed man ; the man
under the influence of human nature, as distinguished from
those who are under the influence of the Holy Spirit. The
natural or unrenewed man does not receive the things of the
Spirit. As the things which the Holy Ghost has revealed
address themselves not only to the intellect as true, but to
the conscience as obUgatory and to the affections as excellent
and lovely, not to receive them, is not to recognize, in our
inward experience, their truth, authority, and excellence.
For they are foolishness unto them. The word (p,a>p6s)
foolish, as an adjective, means in Greek, dull, insipid, taste
less ; as a substantive, one that is dull, or stupid ; that is, one
on whom truth, duty and excellence do not produce their
proper effect. Foolishness (pwpla) is that which is to us ab
surd, insipid, powerless. When, therefore, it is said that the
things ofthe Sphit are foolishness to the natural man, it means
that they are to him absurd, insipid and distasteful.
And he cannot know them. To know is to discern the
nature of any thing, whether as true, or good, or beautiful.
This is in accordance with the constant usage of scripture.
To know God is to discern his truth and excellence ; to know
the truth is to apprehend it as true and good. The wise are the
good, that is, those who discern the truth and excellence of
divine things. The fools are the wicked, those who are insen
sible to truth and goodness. What, therefore, the apostle here
affirms of the natural or unrenewed man is, that he cannot
discern the truth, exceUence, or beauty of divine things. He
cannot do it. It is not simply that he does not do it ; or that
he wiU not do it, but he cannot. We do not say of a clown
that he wfll not discern the truth, exceUence, and beauty of a

44 I. CORINTHIANS 2, 14.15.
poem. The difficulty is not merely in his will but in his whole
inward state. The thing is foolishness to him. So the scrip
tures do not say of the natural man merely that he will not
discern the things of the Spirit, because the difficulty in his
case is not in the wUl alone, but in his whole inward, state.
He cannot know them. And the reason is,
Because they are spiritually discerned. That is, because
they are discerned through the Sphit. Therefore those who
have not the Spirit cannot discern them. If the effect of sin
on the human soul is to make it blind to the truth, exceUence
and beauty of divine things; if, as the apostle asserts, the
natural, or unrenewed, man is in such a state that the things of
the Spirit are foohshness to him, absurd, insipid and distaste
ful, then it follows that he can discern them only through the
Spirit. His inward state must be changed by the influence of
the Spirit before he can apprehend the truth and exceUence
of the gospel. There must be congeniality between the per-
ceiver and the thing perceived. Only the pure in heart can
see God. If our gospel be hid, says the apostle, it is hid to
them that are lost. The only hope of the unrenewed, there
fore, is in doing as the blind did in the days of Christ. They
must go to him for spiritual discernment ; and those who go
to him he wUl in no wise cast out.
15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet
he himself is judged of no man.
To judge here means to discern, to appreciate, and thus
pass judgment upon. As the original word is the same in this
as in the preceding verse, there is no good reason why the
translation should vary. The spiritual man discerns the
things which are spirituaUy discerned, though he himself is
not discerned or properly appreciated by any natural man.
The all things here spoken of are limited by the context
to the things of the Spirit. It is not of the officers of the
church only, nor of the church coUectively, but of each and
every man in whom the Holy Spirit dweUs, that the apostle
affirms this abihty to discern the truth, excellence and beauty
of divine things. It is as impossible that one man should dis
cern for another what is true and good, as that one man
should see for another. We must see for ourselves or not at
all. The right of private judgment in matters of rehgion, is
inseparable from the indwelling of the Spirit. Thoso who can

I. CORINTHIANS 2, 15. 16. 45
see, have the right to see. It is the office of the Holy Spirit
to reveal the truth, to open our eyes to discern it in its true
nature, and to feel its power. It is on this demonstration of
the Spirit, as taught above, that saving faith is founded. And
as this demonstration is granted to every one who has the
Spirit, the faith of the Christian is founded neither on the
wisdom of men nor on the authority of the church, and is
subject to neither.
Yet he himself is judged of no man. This again is limit
ed by the context. He is appreciated by no man who has
not the Spirit. Paul afterwards says it was to him a smaU
matter to be judged by man's judgment, 4, 3. He is not
here speaking of the legitimate subjection of* the believer to
his brethren ; for he elsewhere teaches that those who have
the Spirit may sit in judgment on those who profess to be
spiritual, and determine how far they are really led by the
Spirit. And he gives the rule by which that judgment is to
be directed, 5, 9-12. 12, 3. Gal. 1, 8. If any man profess to
be spiritual, and yet does what the Spirit in his word forbids,
or denies what the Spirit teaches, we know that he deceives
himself, and that the truth is not in him. We must try the
spirits, whether they be of God. This is true, and is perfectly
consistent with what the apostle here says, which only means
that the spiritual man cannot be discerned or estimated aright
by those who are not spiritual.
16. Por who hath known the mind of the Lord,
that he may instruct him ? But we have the mind of
Christ. This is a confirmation of what precedes. No one can
judge a spiritual man, for that would be to judge the Lord.
The Lord had revealed, certain doctrines. The spiritual dis
cern those doctrines to be true. For any man to pronounce
them false, and to judge those who held them, supposes he is
able to teach the Lord. As no one can do this, no one can
judge those who have the mind of Christ, that is, those whom
Christ by his Spirit has taught the truth. SyUogisticaUy
stated, the argument would stand thus : No one can instruct
the Lord. We have the mind of the Lord. Therefore no one
can instruct or judge us. The first member of this syllogism
is expressed in the language of Isaiah 40, 15, according to
the Septuagint. The phUosophers of Greece and the scribes

46 I. CORINTHIANS 2, 16.
among the Jews had sat in judgment upon Paul, and pro
nounced his preaching foohshness. He tells them they were
not competent judges. The natural man cannot discern the
things of the Spirit, and is incompetent to judge those whom
the Spirit has taught. As what we teach is the mind of the
Lord, to condemn our doctrine, or to judge us as the teach
ers of* those doctrines, is to condemn the Lord.
What in the Old Testament is said of Jehovah is often in
the New Testament apphed to Christ. This is the case here.
Who hath known the mind of the Lord ? means, who hath
known the mind of Jehovah ? We have the mind of Christ,
therefore, means, we have the mind of Jehovah. What is
true of the one is true of the other. The same person who is
revealed in the New Testament as the Son of God, was re
vealed of old as Jehovah. This teaches how firm a foundation
the believer has for his faith, and how impossible it is for any
one taught by the Spirit to give up his convictions to the au
thority of men.

CHAPTER HI.

Transition from the defence of his mode of preaching to the subject of their
divisions, V3. 1—5. The true relation of ministers to the church as ser
vants, and not party leaders, vs. 7-23.
Reproof of the Corinthians for their dissensions about their
religious teachers. Vs. 1-23.
The apostle resumes the subject of the contentions in the
church of Corinth. He passes to that subject from the de
fence of his mode of preaching by a natural association. One
of the objections against him was, that his preaching was too
simple. He answers, he could not make it otherwise, because
theyweremere babes in Christ. The proof of their being in
this infantile or carnal state was that strifes and divisions exist
ed among them ; one saying, I am of Paul ; and another, I am
of ApoUos, vs. 1-4.
As their dissensions had reference to their rehgious teach
ers, the apostle endeavours to correct the evU by presenting

I. CORINTHIANS 5, 1. 47
the ministerial office in its true light. 1. Ministers were not
heads of schools or rival sects as were the Grecian philoso
phers, but mere servants, without any authority or power of
theh own. One may plant, and another water, but the whole
increase is of God, vs. 5-7. 2. Ministers are one. They have
one master and one work. They may have different depart-
ments in that great work, but they are like feUow-labourers on
the same farm, or fellow-buUders on the same temple, vs. 8. 9.
3. In the discharge of their respective duties they incur a great
responsibihty. If they attempt to buUd up the temple of God
with the rubbish of their own wisdom, they wiU be severely'
punished. If they employ the materials which God has furnished,
they will be rewarded, vs. 10-15. 4. It is because the church
is the temple of God, that ministers will be held to this strict
account for the doctrines which they preach, and for the way
in which they execute their office, vs. 16. 17. 5. No minister
need deceive himself in this matter. He cannot preach a
higher wisdom than the wisdom of God ; and to learn that
wisdom he must renounce his own, vs. 18-20. 6. Therefore
the people should not place theh confidence in ministers, who
belong to the church, and not the church to them. To the
interests and consummation of the church, all things, visible
and invisible, are made subservient, vs. 21-23.
1. And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as
unto spiritual, but as unto carnal,* (even) as unto babes
in Christ. There were two classes of opponents of the apostle in
Corinth. The false teachers, some of whom he denounces as
anti-Christian, and others he speaks of as only errorists ; and
secondly, those members of the church whom these false
teachers had seduced. As against the false teachers and the
unconverted Jews and Greeks he upheld the simple gospel as
higher than the wisdom of the world. His only answer to
their objection that he did not preach with "the wisdom of
words," was that the wisdom of the world was foohshness with
* Instead of oa.pK.Kois, unto carnal, ach, Tischendorf and others read
(rapxlvois, to those made offlesli, comp. 2 Cor. 3, 3. The latter term, used in a
moral sense, would be stronger than the former, as indicating the very nature
as carnaL In all the places ia the New Testament where the form acipKivos
appears, except in 2 Cor 3, 3, the reading is doubtful. Rom. 7, 14. Heb. 7,
16, and here.

48 I. CORINTHIANS 3, 1.2.
God. To the objection, as urged by believers, that his preach
ing was too elementary, he answered, it was adapted to theh
state. He could only speak to them as to chUdren.
They were babes in Christ, that is, chUdren in Christian
knowledge and experience. This idea he expresses by saying
they were not spiritual but carnal. Now as all Christians
are spiritual, in the sense in which that term is used in the
preceding chapter, to say that men are not spiritual in that
sense, would be to say they are not Christians. Here, how
ever, the apostle tells those whom he admits to be Christians,
and whom he calls brethren, that they are not spiritual. He
must use the word therefore in a modified sense. This is a
very common usage. When we predicate spirituality of a
Christian as compared to other Christians, we mean thpt he is
eminently spiritual. But when the distinction is between
Christians and the world, then every Christian is said to be
spiritual. In hke manner we speak of some Christians as
worldly or carnal, without intending to deny that they are
Christians. It is obvious that the apostle uses the terms here
in the same manner. He is not speaking of Christians as dis
tinguished from the world, but of one class of Christians as
distinguished from another.
2. I have fed you with milk and not with meat;
for hitherto ye were not able (to bear it), neither yet
now are ye able.
As they were children, he had treated them accordingly.
He had fed them with milk ; UteraUy, ' I gave you mflk to
drink and not meat.' A concise form of expression. What
is the distinction which the apostle here makes between milk
and meat ? It is evidently not the distinction between the
wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God. Paul did not
preach the wisdom of the world to babes in Christ, and the
wisdom of God to advanced Christians. Neither does he
sanction any thing of the nature ofthe Disciplina Arcani, cr
doctrine of the hidden essence of Christianity, which was in
troduced in later times. For tho sake either of conciliating
the_ heathen, or of preventing beginners from forming false
notions of the gospel, it became common dehberately to con
ceal the truth. This is the foundation of the doctrine of re
serve, as it is caUed, which the Romish, church has so exten-

I. CORINTHIANS 3, 2. 3. 49
sively practised and taught, inculcating a blind faith, and
keeping the people in ignorance. Neither is the distinction
that which also extensively prevaUed in the early church after
the age of the apostles, between truth as the object of faith
and truth as the object of knowledge. This is a distinction
true in itself, but as then understood, it meant nothing less
than the difference between the doctrines ofthe Bible and the
speculations of men. Philosophers of our own, and of every
other age, have been willing to aUow the people the truth as
presented in the Scriptures, provided they themselves were
allowed to explain them away into phUosophical formulas.
The true nature of the distinction is to be learnt partly from
the import of the figure, and partly from paraUel passages.
The import of the figure leads to the conclusion that the dif
ference is rather in the mode of instruction, than in the things
taught. The same truth in one form is milk, in another form
strong meat. " Christ," says Calvin, " is milk for babes, and
strong meat for men." Every doctrine which can be taught
to theologians, is taught to children. We teach a chUd that
God is a Spirit, every where present and knowing all things ;
and he understands it. We teU him that Christ is God and
man in two distinct natures and one person for ever. This to
the chUd is milk, but it contains food for angels. The truth
expressed in these propositions may be expanded indefinitely,
and furnish nourishment for the highest inteUects to eternity.
The difference between mUk and strong meat, according to
this view, is simply the difference between the more or less
perfect development of the things taught. This view is con
firmed by those passages in which the same distinction is
made. Thus in Hebrews 5, 11-14, the apostle speaks of his
readers as having need of mUk and not of strong meat. The
reference is there to the distinction between the simple doc
trine of the priesthood of Christ and the full development of
that doctrine. The important truth is that there are not two
sets of doctrine, a higher and a lower form of faith, one for
the learned and the other for the unlearned ; there is no part
of the gospel which we are authorized to keep back from the
people. Every thing which God has revealed is to be taught
to every one just so fast and so far as he has the capacity to
receive it.
3. Por ye are yet carnal : for whereas (there is)
3

60 I. CORINTHIANS 3, 3.
among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not
carnal, and walk as men ?
Their unfitness to receive any other nourishment than that
adapted to chUdren, is proved by their being carnal ; and theh
being carnal is proved by the divisions existing among them.
Ye are yet carnal, i. e. under the influence of the flesh, or cor
rupt nature. They were imperfectly sanctified. Even Paul
said of himself, ' I am carnal.' This term therefore may bo
apphed even to the most advanced Christians. Its definite
meaning depends on the context.
The existence among them of the evils mentioned was
proof of their low religious state. Of these evfls the first was
envying (trjkos). The word means zeal, fervid feeling. Whether
good or bad, and of what particular kind depends on the con
nection. Here party spirit would seem to be the special evil
intended. This gives rise to strife (epi.), and that again to
divisions (Si^oo-rao-ia), UteraUy, standing apart ; here not sects,
but parties. If these things are among you, asks the apostle,
are ye not carnal, and walk as men f ' To walk as men ' is to
be guided by principles which belong to men, as distinguished
from the Spirit of God. The doctrine that human nature is cor
rupt, and that aU hohness in man is due to the influence of the
Spirit, is taken for granted every where in the Bible. There
fore "the world" means the wicked or the unrenewed; to be
worldly, or to act after the manner of men, is to act wickedly.
The description here given of the state of the church of
Corinth is not inconsistent with the commendations bestowed
upon it in the beginning of the first chapter. Viewed in com
parison with the heathen around them, or even with other
churches, the Corinthians deserved the praise there given
them. But judged by the standard of the gospel, or of theh
privUeges, they deserved the censures which the apostle so
faithfully administers. Besides, in addressing the same
church, the apostle has sometimes one class of its members in
view, and sometimes another. He therefore sometimes speaks
as if they were all Jews, at other times as though they were
aU GentUes ; sometimes as though they were weak and nar
row-minded, and sometimes as if they were latitudinarian —
one time he addresses them as if they were in a high state of
piety, and at another, as if they were in a very low state.
His language is to be limited in its application to those for
whom the context in any case may show it was intended.

I. CORINTHIANS 3, 4.5. 61
4. Por while one saith, I am of Paul ; and another,
I (am) of Apollos ; are ye not carnal ?
This confirms the fact that there were such divisions among
them as proved thom to be governed by unholy feelings, and
also explains the nature of those divisions. There were in
Corinth, as appears from 1, 12, more parties than two ; but
the apostle confines himself to thoso here mentioned, because
throughout the whole discussion he has had reference to the
opposition ofthe Grecian element in the church ; and becauso
from the intimate relation between himself and Apollos, he
could speak of him as freely as he did of himself. As the
party spirit wliich disturbed the peace of the Corinthian
church arose from wrong views ofthe relation of ministers to
the church, the apostle endeavours to correct the evU by pre
senting that relation in its true hght.
5. Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but min
isters by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to
every man .
This passage may read, ' Who then is Paul, and who is
Apollos ? ministers by whom ye believed,' &c. Ministers are
mere instruments in the hands of God. The doctrines which
they preach are not their own discoveries, and the power
which renders their preaching successful is not in them. They
are nothing ; and therefore it is an entire perversion of their
relation to the church to make them the heads of parties. In
the oldest MSS. the name of Apollos stands first ; and some
of them have ri instead of tis. ' What then is Apollos, and
what is Paul.' Both these emendations are adopted by the
later editors.
Paul and Apollos, men of the highest office and of the high
est gifts, are ministers (Siixkovoi) waiters, attendants, servants ;
so called, not from their relation to God merely, as those who
serve him, but also because of their relation to the church,
whose they are, to whom they belong, and whom they serve.
By whom, i. e. by whose instrumentality, ye are believers,
or, became believers. The design of the ministry is to bring
men to "the obedience of faith," Rom. 1, 5. It is appointed
for that end by God himself, and therefore it is of the greatest
importance and value. This Paul does not deny. He admits,
and. often urges the necessity of the office for the extension

62 I. CORINTHIANS 3, 5. 6. 7.
and edification of the church, Eph. 4, 11-16. The people,
therefore, are bound to regard the ministry as a divine insti
tution, and to value its services ; but preachers are not to be
regarded as party leaders, or as lords over God's heritage.
Even as the Lord gave to every man ; literaUy, to each
one, i. e. to each minister. They are aU servants, and each
has his appointed work to perform, Rom. 12, 3. The Lord
here probably refers to God, though elsewhere the appoint
ment of ministers and the distribution of their various gifts
are referred to Christ. Here, however, vs. 9. 10, the refer
ence is to God. In scripture the same act is sometimes refer
red to one, and sometimes to another of the persons in the
Trinity, because they are one God.
6. I have planted, Apollos watered : but God gave
the increase.
This illustrates two points ; first, the diversity of service
on the part of ministers, spoken of in v. 5, one plants and
another waters ; and secondly, the entirely subordinate and
instrumental character of their service. As in nature, plant
ing and watering are not the efficient causes of vegetation ; so
in the church, ministerial acts are not the efficient causes of
grace. In both cases aU the efficiency is of God. And as in
nature, planting and watering by human instrumentality, are
not the necessary conditions of vegetation, so neither are min
isterial acts the necessary conditions of faith. On the other
hand, however, as the work of the husbandman is the ordi
nary and appointed means of securing a harvest, so the work
of the ministry is the ordinary means of conversion.
7. So then, neither is he that planteth any thing,
neither he that watereth : but God that giveth the in
crease. This is the conclusion. Ministers are nothing. They are
the instruments in the hands of God. He only is to be looked
up to as the source of truth, of strength, or of success. To
him is to be referred aU the good ministers may be the instru
ments of effecting. If this be so, if ministers are thus ineffi
cient, why should any one say, I am of Paul ? as though Paul
would save him ; or, as though a mere instrument could for
give sin or impart grace.

I. CORINTHIANS 3, 8. 9. 53
8. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are
one : and every man shall receive his own reward, ac
cording to his own labour.
Are one. Ministers have the same office ; they have the
same work, they stand in the same relation to God and to his
Church. They are feUow-labourers. To array the one against
the other, is, therefore, inconsistent with their relation to each
other and to the people whom they serve.
Every man shall receive his own reward. Diversity and
unity is the law of all God's works. Ministers are one, yet
they have different gifts, different services to perform. One
plants and another waters, and they have different rewards.
According to his own labour. The rule of reward is not
the talents or gifts, nor the success of ministers, but their
labours. This brings the humblest on a level with the most
exalted ; the least successful with the most highly favoured.
The faithful, laborious minister or missionary who labours in
obscurity and without apparent fruit, wfll meet a reward far
beyond that of those who, with less self-denial and effort, are
made the instruments of great results. Corinth was the field
of labour of a multitude of teachers, some faithful, and some
unfaithful ; some laborious, and others indolent and self-indul
gent. Each would have to answer for himself, and would re
ceive a reward proportioned to his fidehty and self-denial.
9. For we are labourers together with God : ye are
God's husbandry, (ye are) God's building.
For we are labourers together with God. This is at once
the reason why ministers are one, and why they are to be re
warded according to their labours. They are one because
they are aU co-workers with God in the same great enter
prise ; and they are to be rewarded according to their labour,
because that is the rule according to which labourers are re
warded. The propriety of this representation is apparent,
because the church is God's husbandry, or farm, which he
renders fruitful by the light of truth and the dew of his grace,
and on which his servants labour. This is a famUiar scriptural
iUustration, as the church is often caUed the vineyard of the
Lord, in which his ministers are labourers. A labourer who
does not labour is a contradiction ; and a minister who is not
a worker cannot expect a labourer's reward. Ye are God's

54 I. CORINTHIANS 3, 9. 10.
building. A still more frequent figure ; as the church is so
often compared to a temple which is in the course of erection,
and of which ministers are the builders, Eph. 2, 20-22. 1 Pet.
2, 5. Union and fidehty in labour are required of those en
gaged in tilling the same farm, or in the erection of the same
building ; and they are no less requhed in those engaged in
cultivating the vineyard of the Lord, or in erecting his tem
ple. The apostle drops the former, and carries out the latter
figure. 10. According to the grace of God which is given
unto me, as a wise master-builder, I have laid the foun
dation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man
take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
According to the grace of God given unto me. Paul often
speaks of his apostohc office as a grace or favour which he had
received of God, but here, as in 15, 10, the reference is more
general. By the grace of God he means all the gifts and in
fluences of the Spirit, which not only quahfied hhn for his
work, but rendered him so laborious and faithful. Here, as
elsewhere, he attributes to God aU he was, and aU that he was
enabled to accomplish.
As a wise master-builder. Wise (<ro<j>6_), i. e. skilful. The
word is familiarly used of artificers. Paul was not only a la
bourer, but an (dpx«"eKTa>v) architect. To him was revealed
the whole plan of the buUding, and he was inspired to de-
velope that plan, and to prescribe the way in which it should
be carried out. He laid the foundation. The same idea as
was expressed above by saying, " I have planted, ApoUos wa
tered." He began the work in Corinth. Those who came
after him were to carry on the edifice which he had com
menced. The building must be erected upon the foundation
and according to it. And, therefore, he adds, Let every man
(i. e. every buUder) take heed how he buildeth thereupon. In
the whole context he is speaking of ministers, and therefore
this clause must be considered as a warning addressed to them.
They are to take heed how, i. e. with what materials, they
carried on the building of this holy temple. FideUty as well
as dUigence is required in a minister. No matter how labori
ous he may be, unless he employs the proper materials, he will
lose his reward. Nothing but truth can be safely used, hi the
development of Christian character, or in building up the

I. CORINTHIANS 3, 10. 11. 55
Church. To mix the wisdom of men with the wisdom of God
in this work, is, as the apostle afterwards says, like using al
ternate layers of straw and marble in the erection of a temple.
Let no man deceive himself in this matter. He wUl prove
himself a fool, if he attempts to substitute philosophy for the
gospel in the work of saving men.
11. Por other foundation can no man lay than that
is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
For, others can only carry on the work already begun, for
the foundation cannot be changed. The foundation of the
church is Christ. Is. 28, 16. Acts 4, 11. Eph. 2, 20. 1 Pet. 2,
6. This may be understood either of the person or of the
doctrine of Christ. In either way the sense is good. Christ,
as the incarnate Son of God, according to one scriptural figure,
is the head of the church which is his body, that is, he is the
source of its life ; according to another figure, he is its founda
tion or corner-stone, because on him aU the members of the
church, considered as a temple, rest for salvation. On the
other hand, however, it is also true that the doctrine concern
ing Christ, is the fundamental doctrine of the gospel. We
may, therefore, understand the apostle to say, that the work
of the ministry is to buUd up the church on the foundation
which God has laid in the person and work of Christ. There
can be no other ground of confidence for the justification,
sanctification, and salvation of men. Or we may understand
him to say, that the work of those who foUowed him in Co
rinth was simply to bufld on the foundation which he had laid,
in preaching the doctrine of Christ and him crucified, for there
can be no other foundation of the church than that doctrine.
The former interpretation, which is adopted by many distin
guished commentators, is more in accordance with the com
mon representations of Scripture which speak of God having
constituted Christ the corner-stone of the church. It is also
perhaps more in accordance with the form of expression here
used. Jesus Christ himself is the foundation, which was al
ready laid. The second interpretation, however, is certainly
more consistent with the context. In v. 10 Paul says, he had
laid the foundation. This can only mean that he had in
Corinth taught the doctrine concerning the person and work
of Christ. This is the only sense in which he can be said to
have laid that foundation which is Jesus Christ. Besides, the

56 I. CORINTHIANS 3, 11. 12. 13.
whole passage has reference to doctrine. Paul had preached
the truth ; those who came after hhn must take heed what
they preached.
12. 13. Now, if any man build upon this foundation
gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble ; every
man's work shall be made manifest : for the day shall
declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire ; and the
fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is.
In consistency with the context, gold, sUver and precious
stones, can only mean truth ; and wood, hay and stubble,
error. If by the foundation which Paul had laid were intend
ed the first converts in Corinth, then the above terms would
naturaUy be understood of good and bad members of the
church. The sense would then be, ' I laid the foundation of
the church in Cormth by receiving true behevers to its com
munion ; let others take heed with what kind of members they
build up the church.' But as the foundation which Paul laid.
is expressly declared to be Jesus Christ, or the truth concern
ing his person and work, the words above mentioned must
refer to true and false doctrines. ' I have laid the foundation
of Christ crucified ; do you take heed with what kind of doc
trine you carry on the work.' Besides, the whole discussion
has reference to preachers and their duties. Precious stones
here mean stones valuable for buUding, such as granite and
marble. Gold and sUver were extensively employed in adorn
ing ancient temples, and are therefore appropriately used as
the symbols of pure doctrine. Wood, hay, and stubble are
the perishable materials out of which ordinary houses were
buflt, but not temples. Wood for the doors and posts ; hay,
SXopros,) dried grass mixed with mud for the waUs ; and straw,
KaXdp.r],) for the roof. These materials, unsuitable for the tem-
dle of God, are appropriate symbols of false doctrines.
Every man's work shaU be made (or, become) manifest.
In this hfe it may be disputed whether a man's doctrines are
true or false. He may have great confidence in their truth,
and set himself above his brethren and even above the Bible.
But his work hereafter will appear in its true character. Fot
the day shall declare it. The day does not mean indefinitely
time, ' Time shall declare it ; ' nor the day of tribulation ; nor
the day of hght and knowledge as distinguished from the

I. CORINTHIANS 3, 13. 14. 15. 57
present ignorance ; but the great day, the day of judgment,
or, as it is so often called, the day of the Lord. That day shall
make manifest the truth or falsehood of the doctrines taught,
because it is (i. e. is certainly to be) revealed by fire ; hterally,
in or with fire (ivirupl). In 2 Thess. 1, 8, it is said, "The
Lord Jesus shah be revealed in flaming fire," i. e. in the midst
of flaming fire. Fire is the constant symbol of trial and judg
ment. The meaning therefore is, that the day of the Lord
¦will be a day of severe trial. Every work wfll then be sub
jected to a test which nothing impure can stand. The con
text shows that the word day, and not work, is the nominative
to revealed. ' The day of judgment shall declare every man's
work, because that day shaU be revealed with fire.'
And the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
The figure is that of a building on which many workmen are
engaged. Some use proper materials, others wood, hay and
stubble. The buhding is to be subjected to the test of fire.
The wood, hay and stubble wUl be burnt up ; only the solid
materials will stand. False doctrine can no more stand the
test of the day of judgment, than hay or stubble can stand a
raging conflagration.
14. 15. If any man's work abide which he hath
built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any
man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss : but
he himself shall be saved ; yet so as by fire.
This is an amphfication of what precedes. If the materials
employed by a spiritual builder stand the test of the day of
judgment, he shall receive the reward of a faithful servant.
Which he hath built thereupon, i. e. upon the foundation.
Comp. v. 12. If any man's work shall be burned (KaraKarjo-e-
Tttt for KaraKavSrjo-erai) ; that is, if the materials used by any
buUder shaU not stand the test of that day, he shall suffer loss
(<rrip,___dri(T<;rai, see 2 Cor. 7, 9. PhU. 3, 8). That is, he wiU lose
his reward. But he himself shall be saved. Just as a man who has
buUt his house of combustible materials, though he may escape
when the fire comes, his property is lost, and aU his labour
comes to nothing. The apostle is here speaking of those
teachers who, although they retain the fundamental doctrines
of the gospel, yet combine them with error. This is plain
from v. 12, "If any man shall build on this foundation." It is
3*

58 I. CORINTHIANS 3, 15. 16.
not enough, therefore, that a minister hold fast to fundamental
truth ; he must take heed what he teaches in connection with
that truth. If he mingles with it the wood, hay and stubble
of his own phUosophy, he wiU find himself a loser on the day
of judgment. Many ofthe Fathers understand a-wS-rja-.Tai here
in the sense of shall be preserved. His work shall be consumed,
but he himself shaU be kept alive in the midst of the fire. It
is not then the salvation, but the final perdition of the false
teacher that the passage teaches. eThis, however, is contrary
to the uniform meaning of the word in the New Testament.
The common interpretation is therefore to be preferred.
Yet so as by fire, i. e. with difficulty. Comp. 1 Pet. 3, 20.
Jude 23. Zech. 3, 2. He will just escape with his life, as a
man is rescued from a burning building. His salvation wUl
not only be effected with difficulty, but it will be attended
with great loss. He will occupy a lower place in the kingdom
of heaven than he would have done. Romanists found their
doctrine of purgatory on tradition rather than on Scripture.
They are glad, however, to avaU themselves of any semblance
of scriptural support, and therefore appeal to this passage to
prove that men are saved through fire. But, 1. Paul is here
speaking of ministers and of their doctrines, and not of be
lievers in general. 2. The fire of which he speaks is not a
state of trial preceding the judgment, but the judgment itself.
3. The fire is that in the midst of which Jesus Christ is to ap
pear. 4. Paul does not say, the man is to be saved by being
purified by fire, but simply ' with difficulty,' as the expression
" so as by fire " familiarly means.
16. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God,
and (that) the Spirit of God dweUeth in you ?
The apostle justifies the representation given above ofthe
responsibUity of ministers. The unfaithful builders deserve
to be thus punished, because they are engaged in the erection
of no ordinary buUding. They are not raising up a house for
themselves, to be constructed of what materials and on what
ever plan may suit their taste. They are building the temple
of God. This truth the Corinthians seem to have forgotten, for
they regarded their teachers as men allowed to preach their own
speculations, and valued them according to their proficiency
in " the wisdom of words." He, therefore, asks them, " Know
ye not that ye are the temple of God ? " See 6, 19. 2 Cor. 6,

I. CORINTHIANS 3, 16. 17. 18. 59
16. Eph. 2, 21. A temple is a house in which God dwells;
and therefore, it is added, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth
in you. This indweUing of the Sphit constitutes each be
liever, every separate church, and the Church collectively the
temple of God. As in the Jewish temple, in its inmost recess,
the Shechinah, or glory of God, was constantly present, and
conferred on the budding its awe-inspiring power, and ren
dered any profanation of it a direct offence to God ; so does
the Holy Spirit dwell in the Church, the profanation of which
by false doctrine is therefore sacrilege.
17. If any man defile the temple of God, him shall
God destroy : for the temple of God is holy, which
(temple) ye are.
The word translated defile in the first clause of this verse,
is the same as that rendered destroy in the second clause. It
(<f>9eip_.) has the general meaning to bring into a worse state.
In the LXX. as well as in the New Testament it means to mar.
The passage may, therefore, be rendered, ' If any man injure
the temple of God, him wfll God injure.' The temple cannot
be injured with impunity. Under the old dispensation the
penalty for defiling the sanctuary was either death, Lev. 15,
31, or excision from the people, Num. 19, 20. God is not less
jealous of his spiritual temple, than he was ofthe typical tem
ple, built of wood and stone by the hands of men. Ministers
injure the souls of men and injure the church when they
preach false doctrine, and therefore they defile the temple of
God, and wfll certainly be punished.
For the temple of God is holy, i. e. sacred ; something
which cannot be violated with impunity. In this sense every
thing consecrated to God is holy, and especially any place or
person in which he dwells. Which (temple) ye are. As the
word for temple is not in the text (which reads on-ivc's io-re
v/xeis) the reference may be to the word holy. ' The temple
is holy, which ye also are.' The same reason exists why the
church cannot be defiled or injured, that there is that the
temple could not be profaned. Both are sacred. The view
given in our version is commonly preferred.
18. Let no man deceive himself. If any man

60 I. CORINTHIANS 3, 18. 19. 20.
among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him
become a fool, that he may be wise.
Let no man deceive himself. ' Let no man doubt the truth
of what I have said of the worthlessness of human wisdom,
and of the danger of substituting it for the wisdom of God.
If he does, he wUl find himself mistaken.'
If any man among you seemeth to be wise, (Soku cro^os
eTvai), thinks himself to be wise. In this world may be con
nected with the word wise, ' wise with the wisdom of this
world.' Or, it may be connected with the whole preceding
clause. ' If any imagines he is wise among you, in this world.'
The former explanation is more in keeping with the whole
context. " Wise in this world " is equivalent to " wise after
the flesh," 1, 26.
Let him become a fool, that he may be (or, become) wise.
Let him renounce his own wisdom in order that he may re
ceive the wisdom of God. We must be empty in order to be
fiUed. We must renounce our own righteousness, in order to
be clothed in the righteousness of Christ. We must renounce
our own strength, in order to be made strong. We must re
nounce our own wisdom, in order to be truly wise. This is
a universal law. And it is perfectly reasonable. We are
only required to recognize that to be true, which is true.
We would not be requhed to renounce our own righteous
ness, strength, or wisdom, if they were reaUy what they as
sume to be. It is simply because they are in fact worthless,
that we are called upon so to regard them.
19. 20. Por the wisdom of this world is foohshness
with God. Por it is written, He taketh the wise in their
own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the
thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
We must renounce our own wisdom because it is folly.
The infinite mind sees that to be folly which we children think
to be wisdom. There are two senses in which this is true, or
in which wisdom may be said to be foUy. Even truth or true
knowledge becomes folly, if employed to accomphsh an end
for which it is not adapted. If a man attempts to make men
holy or happy; if he undertakes to convert the world, by
mathematics, or metaphysics, or moral phUosophy, he is foolish,
and his wisdom, as a means to that end, is folly. He must

I. CORINTHIANS 3, 20. 21. 61
renounce aU dependence on those means if he would accom
plish that end. But in the second place, much that passes for
wisdom among men is in itself, and not merely as a means to
an end, foohshness. Both these ideas are evidently compre
hended in the apostle's statement. He means to say that hu
man knowledge is entirely inadequate to save men ; because
that end can only be accomphshed by the gospel. And he
means also to brand as foUy the speculations of men about
" the deep things of God."
In proof of the assertion that the wisdom of men is fool
ishness with God, he quotes two passages of Scripture. The
first is from Job 5, 13, the second is from Ps. 94, 11. The for
mer is a fragment of a sentence containing in the Greek no
verb. Our translation renders the participle (6 8pao-o-6p*vo_-)
as though it were a verb. Those passages clearly express the
same sentiment which the apostle had uttered. They declare
the impotency and insufficiency of human wisdom.
21. Therefore let no one glory in men : for all
things are yours.
To glory in any person or thing is to trust in him or it as the
ground of confidence, or as the source of honour or blessed
ness. It is to regard ourselves as blessed because of our rela
tion to it. Thus men are said to glory in the Lord, or in the
cross ; because God, or Christ as crucified, is regarded as the
ground of confidence and the source of blessedness. Others are
said to glory in the flesh, in the law, or even in themselves
The apostle having shown that ministers are mere servants,
nothing in themselves, and that the wisdom of the world is
foohshness with God, draws from these premises the inference
that they are not the ground of the believer's confidence.
The Corinthians did glory in men, when they said, I am of
Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas. They forgot their own
dignity when they regarded as masters those who were their
servants. For all things are yours. The amplification of these words,
given in the next verse, shows that they are to be taken in
their widest sense. The universe is yours. How unworthy
then is it, that you should glory in men. Paul often appeals
to the dignity and destiny of the church as a motive to right
action. " Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world ? "
6, 2. There are two senses in which the declaration, "AU

02 I. CORINTHIANS 3, 21. 22. 23.
things are yours," may be understood. It means that all
things are designed to promote the interests of the church.
The consummation ofthe work of redemption is the great end
to which aU things are dhected, and to which they are to be
made subservient. And secondly, the church is the heir of
the world, Rom. 4, 13. AU things are given to Christ as the
head of the chur h, and to the church in him. For his people
are to reign with him, Rom. 8, 17, and the glory which the
Father gave him, he gives them, John 17, 22. The church,
which is to be thus exalted, is not any external society with
its hierarchy, nor is it the body of poor, imperfect believers as
they now are, who for their own good are despised and down
trodden. But it is the consummated church to be formed out
of materials now so unpromising. The people of God, how
ever, should not be unmindful of theh high destiny, nor act
unworthily of it.
22. Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the
world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to
come ; all are yours ;
This is the amplification of the preceding verse. In the
" all things " there mentioned are included, 1. The ministry,
which belongs to the church and is designed for its edification.
The church does not belong to the ministry, as a kingdom
belongs to a king, but the reverse. 2. The world (xdoyxos) in
its widest sense. The present order of things is maintained
and directed to the promotion of the great work of redemp
tion. 3. Life and death. This means not merely that the
question whether the people of God live or die, is determined
with reference to their own good ; but also that life and death
are dispensed and administered so as best to fulfil the designs
of God in reference to the church. The greatest men of the
world, kings, statesmen and heroes, ministers, individual be
lievers and unbelievers, hve or die just as best subserves the
interests of Christ's kingdom. 4. Things present and things
to come, i. e. the present and the future. It is no temporary
subjection of all things to the church which is intended. The
plan of God contemplates the permanent exaltation of the
redeemed. 23. And ye are Christ's : and Christ (is) God's.
As all things are subject to the church and belong to it,

I. CORINTHIANS 3, 23. 63
the church itself can be subject and belong to none but Christ.
In him, therefore, only can it glory.
Christ is God's. As the church is subject only to Christ,
so Christ is subject only to God. The Scriptures speak of a
threefold subordination of Christ. 1. A subordination as to
the mode of subsistence and operation, of tho second, to the
first person in the Trinity ; which is perfectly consistent with
their identity of substance, and equality in power and glory.
2. The voluntary subordination of the Son in his humbling
himself to be found in fashion as a man, and becoming obedi
ent unto death, and therefore subject to the limitations and
infirmities of our nature. 3. The economical or official sub
jection of the theanthropos. That is, the subordination of
the incarnate Son of God, in the work of redemption and as
the head ofthe church. He that is by nature equal with God
becomes, as it were, officially subject to him. The passages
the most directly paraUel with the one before us are 11, 3, and
15, 28, but in Phil. 2, 6-11. Heb. 1, 3, and in many other pas
sages, the same truth is taught.

CHAPTER IV.
Deduction from the preceding discussion, teaching the proper light in which
the people should regard the ministry, vs. 1-6. Contrast between the
apostles and the false teachers, vs. 6-21.
Ministers, as stewards, should be faithful, as Paul had
proved himself to be, vs. 1-21.
It foUows, from what was said in the preceding chapter, that
the people should regard their ministers as the servants of
Christ, and dispensers of the truths which God had revealed,
v. 1. The most important qualification of a dispenser is fidel
ity, v. 2. It is a small matter how men may estimate the
fideUty of ministers. The only competent judge is the Lord ;
and, therefore, to his judgment the decision of that question
should be referred, vs. 3-6.
What the apostle had said of himself and of Apollos, in
the foregoing exhibition of the true nature of the ministerial

64 I. CORINTHIANS 4, 1.
office, was intended to apply to aU ministers, that the people
should not estimate them unduly, and that all emulous con
tentions might be avoided, vs. 6, 7. The false teachers in
Corinth, and the people under their influence, considered
themselves to be in a high state of religious prosperity, and
were disposed to self-indulgence, v. 8. The apostles were in
a very different condition, at least as to theh external chcum
stances. They were despised, afflicted, and persecuted ; while
their adversaries were honoured, prosperous, and caressed,
vs. 9-13. Paul presented this contrast not to mortify, but to
admonish his readers, v. 14. He, if any one, had a right to
admonish them, for he was their spiritual father, v. 15. They
should therefore imitate him ; and, to that end, he had sent
Timothy to remind them of his instructions and example,
vs. 16. 17. He himself intended soon to visit Corinth; and it
depended on them whether he should come with a rod, or in
the spirit of meekness, vs. 18-21.
1. Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers
of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
This is the conclusion or deduction from the preceding
discussion. Ministers are the servants of Christ, and stewards
of God. Let a man, i. e. every one. Account of us, (Aoyt-
tJLaSui) let him think of us, or regard us as being. The min
isters of Christ. Literally the word (vrnqpirrj.) means an
under-rower, or common sailor ; and then, subordinate servant
of any kind. It is generaUy and properly used of menials, or
of those of the lower class of servants. This is not always the
case, but here the idea of entire subjection is to be retained.
Ministers are the mere servants of Christ; they have no
authority of their own ; theh whole business is to do what
they are commanded.
And stewards of the mysteries of God. Stewards (okovo-
p,o_) were generaUy slaves appointed as managers or overseers.
It was theh business to direct the affairs of the household,
and dispense the provisions. It is as dispensers ministers are
here caUed stewards. They are to dispense the mysteries of
God, that is, the truths which God had revealed, and which,
as being undiscoverable by human reason, are caUed mysteries,
into the knowledge of which men must be initiated. Myste
ries here do not mean the sacraments. The word is never used
in reference to either baptism or the Lord's Supper in the New

I. CORINTHIANS 4, 1.2. 65
Testament. And such a reference in this case is forbidden by
the whole context. In the second chapter, the mystery which
Paul speaks of is declared to be the gospel considered as a
revelation of God. In the Romish church, the principal func
tion of ministers is to dispense the sacraments to which they
are assumed to have the power, in virtue of the grace of
orders, to give supernatural power. In the apostohc church
they were regarded as the dispensers of the truth. This verse,
therefore, contains two important truths : Ministers have no
arbitrary or discretionary authority in the church. Neither
have they any supernatural power, such as is attributed to
them in the Romish church. Their authority is merely minis
terial, hmited by the commands of Christ, and, therefore, to
be judged by the standard of those commands, which are
known to the whole church. And secondly, they are not, hke
Aristotle or Plato, the originators of theh own doctrines, or
the teachers of the doctrines of other men, but simply the dis
pensers ofthe truths which God has revealed.
2. Moreover, it is required in stewards, that a man
be found faithful.
Moreover, (o Se Xonro'v) but what remains is ; as to the rest.
Instead of the words just mentioned Lachmann and Tischen
dorf adopt the reading uiSe, here, i. e. in the earth, or, in this
matter. The most ancient MSS. are in favour of this reading,
and the sense is good. The great requisite for the discharge
of the office of a steward is fidehty. As he is a servant he must
be faithful to his master ; as he is a dispenser, he must be
faithful to those subject to his oversight. He must not neglect
to dispense to them their food ; neither may he adulterate it,
or substitute any thing in the place of that which is given
them to distribute. The application of this to the case of
ministers is plain. The great thing required of them is fidel
ity. Fidehty to Christ as servants ; not arrogating to them
selves any other than ministerial power, or venturing to go
beyond his commands. Fidehty also to the people, not faU
ing to dispense to them the truths which God has revealed, nor
mixing those truths with their own speculations, much less
substituting for those doctrines human knowledge or wisdom.
3. But with me it is a very small thing that I

66 I. CORINTHIANS 4, 3. 4.
should be judged of you, or of man's judgment : yea, 1
judge not mine own self.
Fidelity to duty supposes responsibUity to some one. As
ministers are required to be faithful, who is to judge of their
fidehty ? Paul says, so far as he was concerned, it was not
the Corinthians, not the world, not himself — but, as he adds in
the next verse, the Lord.
But with me, (ipol 8e') ; to me, i. e. in my estimation. It
is a very small thing (eis Ikaxvurov am), it amounts to nothing.
" That I should be judged of you." This does not refer to
the judicial judgment of the church, but simply to the opin
ions which the Corinthians entertained of Paul. It mattered
little to him whether they thought him faithful or unfaithful.
His responsibihty was not to them. They had not sent him ;
they had not told him what doctrines to preach. He was not
their steward, but the steward of God. Or of man's judg
ment (vtto avSptinrlvr).- 77/xcpas) hterally, by human day. As ' the
day of the Lord' means the day of God's judgment, so 'the
day of men' means the day of man's judgment. The sense is
obvious, though the expression no where else occurs. The
apostle, although denying his responsibihty to the Corinthians,
or to any human tribunal for his fidehty as a minister of
Christ, does not mean to assert that he was his own judge.
He therefore adds, " I judge not my own self." Many men
think themselves faithful, who are most unfaithful. It is not
enough that our own conscience does not condemn us. Con
science is a partial, and often an unenhghtened judge. We
may justify ourselves, and be at last condemned by God. But,
if our heart condemn us, how can we stand before hhn who
knows aU things ?
4. Por I know nothing by myself ; yet am I not
hereby justified : but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
For I know nothing by myself, (ovSev -yap ip.avrS ovVoioa)
I am conscious of nothing. That is, my conscience does not
accuse me of any thing. Paul is speaking of his fideUty as a
steward. He says, he was not his own judge, for though his
conscience did not accuse him of want of ministerial fidehty,
that did not justify him. Iam not thereby justified. That is,
I am not thereby acquitted. My judgment of myself is not
final. The only impartial, competent, and final judge is the

I. CORINTHIANS 4, 4. 5. 67
Lord. This interpretation of the verse is suited to the mean
ing of the words and to the connection, and has the sanction
of general approbation. The connection indicated by for is
between what precedes and the latter part of the verse,
'I judge not myself, for he that judgeth me is the Lord.' It
need hardly be remarked, that when Paul says, he was con
scious of nothing wrong, the declaration is to be limited by
the connection. He speaks of himself elsewhere as the chief
of sinners, which is perfectly consistent with his saying that
his conscience acquitted him of failure in fidelity as a minister.
The clause, I am not hereby justified, must also be ex
plained in reference to the connection. He is not speaking
of the doctrine of justification ; and, therefore, is not to be
understood to say, ' My justification is not thereby secured.'
That is, he does not mean to say that ministerial fidehty is not
the ground of his justification. This would be entirely out of
keeping with the context. AU he means is, that the question
whether he was faithful, was one not to be decided by his
conscience, but by the Lord. Lord here evidently means
Christ, who is therefore a higher judge than conscience. As
a moral agent, as a behever, and as a minister, Paul felt him
self accountable to Christ. This inward allegiance ofthe con
science is the highest form of worship. The Lord Jesus was
to the apostle the object of aU those sentiments and feeUngs
which terminate on God. And he must be so to us, or we are
not Christians ; because, what makes a man a Christian, is to
feel and act towards Christ as God.
5. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until
the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden
things of darkness, and will make manifest the coun
sels of the hearts : and then shall every man have
praise of God.
As the Lord is the only judge, we must wait for his ap
pearance, and neither assume his prerogative, nor anticipate
his decision. Judge nothing before the time (/catpds), i. e. the
appropriate, or appointed time. What time is intended is in
timated in the next clause. Until tlie Lord come, (eu>s h> eX^y,
shaU have come,) i. e. untU the second advent of Christ, which
in the New Testament is constantly represented as contempo
raneous with the resurrection of the dead and the general

68 I. CORINTHIANS 4, 5.
judgment. He is to come for judgment, Matt. 24, 30. 46.
2 Pet. 3, 4. 12. Jude 14. Rev. 1, 7. The reason why the
coming of the Lord is the appropriate time for judgment is,
that he will then do what cannot be done before, or by any
creature. He will bring to light (shed hght upon) the secret
things of darkness ; that is, things which are now hidden in
darkness. This includes acts which are now unknown, and
those principles of action which he concealed in the recesses
of the heart, where no human eye can reach them. This is all
the context requires. In other connections the secret things,
or the works of darkness, means wicked works ; works done
in the dark to avoid detection ; or works which spring from
moral darkness, Eph. 5, 11. But the apostle is here speaking
of the reason why judgment should be deferred until the com
ing of Christ. The reason is that he alone can bring to light
the secret acts and motives of men. These secret works and
motives, and not merely outward acts, are the grounds of
judgment. Whether a man is faithful in preaching the gos
pel depends upon his motives ; for some preached Christ of
contention, Phil. 1, 16. This view ofthe passage is confirmed
by the explanatory clause which foUows, and will make mani
fest the counsels of the hearts. The former expression is gen
eral, this is special. The ' counsels of the heart ' are included
in the ' secret things of darkness.' He who sheds hght on the
secret things of darkness not only reveals acts done in secret,
but makes manifest the counsels of the heart. What a work
is here ascribed to the Lord Jesus ! He will bring to hght
the secret acts and hidden motives of every human being.
He wUl exercise the prerogative of judging the heart and con
science ; a prerogative which none but an omniscient being
can rightfully claim or possibly exercise. It is therefore in
Scripture always spoken of as pecuhar to God, Ps. 26, 2. Jer.
11, 20. 20, 12. Rev. 2, 23. Paul appealed from the fallible
judgment of short-sighted men, to the infaUible judgment of
his omniscient Lord.
And then ; not before, because not untU then will the full
truth be known. Shall every man have praise (eWivos, much
praise, applause, a loud and clear acclaim of commendation ;
Well done, thou good and faithful servant !) The reason why
Paul uses the word praise, and not the general term recom
pense, probably is, that he is throughout the passage speaking
of himself. The Corinthians had sat in judgment on his fidel
ity. He teUs them that neither they nor he could competently

I. CORINTHIANS 4,5.6. 69
decide whether he was faithful, or not. The Lord was the
only judge. When he comes, the truth wiU be known, and
then there shall be praise. He knew there was laid up for him
a crown of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous judge
would give him in that day, 2 Tim. 4, 8. Still, as what is
true of him is true of others, he expresses himself in general
terms. Then shall every man have praise. That is, every
faithful servant. Praise of God, i. e. from God. He is the
ultimate source of aU good. He is in Christ ; and Christ is in
God. The Theanthropos, as final judge, is the representative
of the Godhead, so that his decisions and. awards are the deci
sions and awards of God. As remarked above, 2, 15, what
the apostle says of his independence of human judgment, and
his command not to anticipate the judgment of the Lord, is
consistent with his frequent recognition of the right and duty
ofthe church to sit in judgment on the qualifications of her own
members. He is here speaking of the heart. The church
cannot judge the heart. Whether a man is sincere or in
sincere in his professions, whether his experience is genuine
or spurious, God only can decide. The church can only judge
of what is outward. If any man profess to be holy, and yet
is immoral, the church is bound to reject him, as Paul clearly
teaches in a foUowing chapter. Or if he profess to be a Chris
tian, and yet rejects Christianity, or any of its essential doc
trines, he cannot be received, Tit. 3, 10. But "the counsels
ofthe heart" the Searcher of hearts only can judge.
6. And these things, brethren, I have in a figure
transferred to myself and (to) Apollos for your sakes ;
that ye might learn in us not to think (of men) above
that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up
for one against another.
These things refers to what was said in the preceding
chapter of preachers, especiaUy to what is said from 3, 5, and
onwards. These things he had in a figure transferred to him
self and Apollos. That is, instead of teaching in an abstract,
general form, that ministers were mere servants, he had
presented the truth in a concrete form, saying that he and
Apollos were servants, mere instruments in the hand of God.
This was the (p.e.raoxTip.aTio-p.6.), the change of form which he
had adopted. He did this, he says, that they might learn in

70 I. CORINTHIANS 4, 6. 7.
ms, i. e. by what I have said of Apollos and myself, not to think
above that which is written. That is, not to estimate ministers
above the scriptural standard. As Paul had been treating of
this subject, above that which is written, might seem naturally
to refer to what he himself had just written. But as the
phrase always elsewhere refers to the Old Testament, which
were the writings recognized as of divine authority, such is
probably the reference here. He does not appeal to any one
passage, but to the doctrine taught in the Scriptures concern
ing ministers of rehgion. The Corinthians were not to think
of their ministers more highly than the Bible authorized them
to think. Comp. Jer. 9, 23, 24. The particle ("va), rendered
that, has its ordinary force, in order that, although the follow
ing verb (d>vcriovarS-_,) is in the indicative, a combination which
occurs nowhere else except in Gal. 4, 1 7. The connection is
with the preceding clause, ' That ye may learn to think cor
rectly, in order that,' &c.
That no one be puffed up for one against another; hteral
ly, that ye be not puffed up one for one against another. This
admits of two interpretations. It may mean, ' That ye be not
inflated one on account of one teacher, and - against another.'
The Corinthians were proud of their connection one with one
teacher, and another with another. And this led to the
strifes and divisions which existed among them. Paul taught
them that ministers were servants, in order that they might
not thus contend about them. This, although it gives a good
sense, is neither consistent with the structure of the passage
nor with what follows. The meaning is, ' Be not puffed up
one above another,' (as wep tou ei/os), comp. in the Greek 1
Thess. 5, 11. The foUowers of Apollos exalted themselves
over those of Paul, and those of Paul over those of Cephas.
One exalted himself above another and against him. He not
only thought himself better than his brother, but assumed a
hostile attitude towards him. This view is confirmed by the
next verse, which is directed against the self-conceit of the
Corinthians and not against their zeal for theh teachers.
7. Por who maketh thee to differ (from another)?
and what hast thou that thou didst not receive ? Now,
if thou didst receive (it), why dost thou glory, as if
thou hadst not received (it) ?
Who maketh thee to differ ? This may mean either, ' Who

I. CORINTHIANS 4, 7. 8. 71
thinks you are better than others ? ' Vour superiority over
your brethren is mere self-conceit and inflation. The differ
ence between you is only imaginary. Or, it may mean, ' Who
is the author of this superiority ? ' Admitting you to be as
superior to others as you imagine, to whom are you indebted
for it ? According to the latter explanation the verse con
tains but one argument against their pride, viz., that all distin
guishing advantages are derived from God. According to
the former, there are two distinct considerations urged : first,
that they had no ground for thinking themselves better than
others ; and second, if they had any superiority it was due not '
themselves, but to God. So that in either case their inflation
was absurd and unchristian. It is here assumed that every
thing, whether natural or gracious, by which one man is fa
vourably distinguished from another, is due to God ; and be
ing thus due to him and not to the possessor, is a cause of
gratitude, but not of self-complacency or of self-applause.
This is true even of those things which are acquired by great
self-denial and exertion. Paul was as much self-formed as any
man ever was, and yet he said, By the grace of God I am
what I am.
8. Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned
as kings without us : and I would to God ye did reign,
that we also might reign with you.
Having, says Calvin, repressed their self-conceit, he here
derides it. That the passage is ironical, and even sarcastic,
cannot be denied. This is not the only instance in which
these weapons are used by the inspired writers. The prophets
especially employ them freely in their endeavours to convince
the people of the foUy of trusting to idols. The propriety of
the use of weapons so dangerous depends on the occasion and
the motive. If the thing assaUed be both wicked and foohsh,
and if the motive be, not the desire to give pain, but to con
vince and to convert, their use is justified by Scriptural exam
ples. There is an evident climax in the verse. Ye are not
only fuU, but more than full ; ye are rich, you have more than
enough ; and ye are not only rich, ye are as kings. Now (jSr/)
already. ' You have reached the goal of perfection very quick ;
and that without us. You have left us poor apostles far be
hind you.' The reference is to the benefits of redemption.
Paul represents the Corinthians as thinking that they had al-

72 I. CORINTHIANS 4, 8. 9. 10.
ready attained the full blessedness of the Messiah's reign;
that they had already attained, and were aheady perfect. He
therefore adds, Iwoidd ye did reign. ' I would that tne con
summation of Christ's kingdom had reaUy come, for then I
would share with you in its glories.' I would to God is a
translation not authorized, or at least not demanded, by the
original, o<f>_\ov, which in the later Greek, and in the New-
Testament, is a particle of wishing or an interjection; would
that, O that. So the Greek phrase (pr) yivoiro) so often ren
dered in our version, " God forbid ! " is simply an expression
of aversion, " Let it not be." The Scriptures do not counte
nance such appeals to God as seem to have been common
when our version was made.
9. Por I think that God hath set forth us the apos
tles last, as it were appointed to death : for we are made
a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
For. ' I would that the consummation were reaUy come,
for we apostles are now very far from being treated as kings.'
God hath set forth, i. e. publicly exhibited. He has made us
conspicuous as the last, the lowest, the most afflicted of men.
The original does not admit of the translation proposed hy
many, us the last apostles, i. e. those last appointed — referring
to himself, who was, as he says, born out of due time. The
emphasis, from the coUocation of the words, is thrown on
apostles and not on last. What foUows is explanatory. As
appointed unto death. This does not merely mean that they
were exhibited as men daUy exposed to death ; .which indeed
was true, 15, 30. 31. 2 Cor. 1, 8. 9. 11, 23 ; but also that they
were treated as men condemned to death, that is, as convicts,
men to whom aU comforts were denied. ' We have become a
spectacle (Searpov, literaUy, a theatre ; here metonymicaUy, a
show exhibited in a theatre) to the universe (/coV/im), as well
to angels, as to men.' Such were the sufferings of the apostles
that men and angels gazed on them with wonder, as people
gaze on a spectacle in a theatre. The word angels when used
without qualification always means good angels, and must be
so understood here.
10. We (are) fools for Christ's sake, but ye (are)
wise in Christ ; we (are) weak, but ye (are) strong ; ye
(are) honourable, but we (are) despised.

I. CORINTHIANS 4, 10. 11. 12. 13. 73
In amplification of what he had just said, he contrasts, in
this and the following verses, his situation with theirs. There
are two things included in these contrasts. The opinion which
the Corinthians entertained, and that which was entertained
by others. We are fools on account of Christ ; our devotion
to the cause of Christ is such that you and others regard us as
fools ; ye are wise in Christ ; your union with Christ is such
that you regard yourselves and are regarded by others as wise.
We are weak, we feel ourselves to be so, and are so considered ;
ye are strong, you so regard yourselves, and are so regarded.
You are honoured, you are objects of respect, we of contempt.
AU this doubtless has special, though not exclusive, reference
to the false teachers, whose state in Corinth he contrasts with
his own. 11. Pven unto this present hour we both hunger,
and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have
no certain dwelling-place ;
That a man should freely subject himself to hunger, thirst,
and nakedness, and submit to be buffeted, and homeless, for
no selfish purpose, but simply to preach Christ, was indeed., in
the eyes ofthe world, foolishness. The fact that Paul gladly
submitted to aU these afflictions, presented his case in glaring
contrast with that of his opposers in Corinth, who exposed
themselves to no such sufferings out of zeal for Christ.
12. 13. And labour, working with our own hands.
Being reviled, we bless ; being persecuted, we suffer it ;
being defamed, we entreat : we are made as the filth
of the world, (and are) the off-scouring of all things
unto this day.
Working with our own hands. The apostle, in a subse
quent chapter, proves at length his right, and that of other
ministers to an adequate support from the church. But he
did not avail himself of that right in Corinth, 9, 15.
Being reviled (XoiSopovpevoi), being railed at, or made the
object of scurrility. We bless, i. e. we speak well of, or im
plore good upon. We return abuse with kind words, or, with
good wishes and prayers. Being persecuted. As the former
term refers to injurious words, this refers to injurious acts.

74 I. CORINTHIANS 4, 12. 13
We suffer it, i. e. we patiently submit to it without resistance
or complaint. Being defamed, i. e. having evU deeds or mo
tives ascribed to us. We entreat (n-apo-Kakovpiv), we exhort.
That is, we endeavour to meet with kindness such injurious
imputations, instead of repelling them with anger and indig
nation. In all this the apostle followed the example of his dl-
vine master, who when he was reviled, reviled not again ;
when he suffered, he threatened not, but committed himself
to him who judgeth righteously, 1 Peter 2, 23.
We are made as the filth of the earth, or rather of the
world (Koo-pov). That is, we are regarded as the filthiest of
mankind. And the off-scouring of all things, or of aU men.
That is, as tho refuse of society. The words (TreptKtLSappa and
TT-piifj-qpa) rendered^/sft/i and off-scouring, signify, the former,
what is carried off by rinsing, and the latter, what is scraped
off. They both express the general idea of refuse. This is all
the context demands or suggests. The apostle sums up all
he had previously said, by saying, ' We are regarded as the
dregs or refuse of the world.' As both of these words, how
ever, and especially the former, are used of victims chosen
from the lowest class of the people, who in times of calamity
were offered in sacrifice to the gods, it is very generally as
sumed that Paul here refers to that custom ; and means to
say that he was regarded as one of those who were considered
only fit to be put to death for the good of others. This brings
out the same idea in a different form. It is not probable,
however, that any such allusion is here intended ; because the
custom was not so common as to be famihar to his readers
generaUy, and because the word commonly used for such
sacrifices was not TreptKaSappa, which Paul uses, but KaSappa.
In Prov. 21, 18, however, it is said, The wicked is a ransom
(TrepLKoS-appa) for the righteous. Paul certainly did not con
sider himself or his sufferings as a propitiation for other men.
The point of comparison, if there be any aUusion to the custom
in question, is to the vileness of such victims, which were always
chosen from the worthless and despised. This and other pas
sages of Paul's writings (comp. 2 Cor. 11, 23-27) present in a
very strong light the indignities and sufferings which he en
dured in the service of Christ, and may well put us to shame,
as well as the self-satisfied and self-indulgent Corinthians.
What are we doing for him for whom Paul did and suffered
so much ?

I. CORINTHIANS 4, 14. 15. 75
14. I write not these things to shame you, but as
my beloved sons I warn (you).
Not as shaming you (ivrp_Tr_>v) write I these things. The
word used signifies to invert, to turn round, or back ; and
then, generally, to move, and especially to move to shame.
It may be rendered here, ' I write not these things as moving
you,' i. e. to work upon your feeUngs. The use of the word
in 2 Thess. 3, 14, and Tit. 2, 8, is in favour of the common
interpretation. Paul's object in drawing such a contrast be
tween their case and his, was not to mortify them ; but as his
beloved sons, i. e. out of love to them as his sons, he says, I
warn you. The word (vov3_tIio) is that generally used to ex
press parental admonition and instruction. His design was to
bring the truth to their minds, and let them see what they
really were, as contrasted with what they imagined them
selves to be.
15. Por though ye have ten thousand instructors
in Christ, yet (have ye) not many fathers : for in Christ
Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Paul was entitled to admonish them as sons, for he was
their spiritual father. The words in Christ are not connected
with instructors, as though the sense were, ' instructors who
are in Christ,' i. e. Christian instructors. The position of the
words in the original show that they belong to the verb.
' Though ye may have in Christ, i. e. in reference to Christ,
or as Christians, many teachers, ye have not many fathers.'
The pedagogues (TraLSaycoyol) among the Greeks were usually
slaves, who were the constant attendants, rather than the
teachers, of the boys of a family. They had, however, the
charge of their education, and therefore the word is used in
the New Testament for instructors. Paul contrasts his rela
tion to the Corinthians as their spiritual father, with that of
their other teachers. The point of the contrast is not that he
loved them, and they did not ; or that they were disposed to
arrogate too much authority, and he was not ; but simply,
that he was the means of their conversion, and they were not.
His relation to them preceded theirs and was more intimate
and tender.
He was their father, "for in Christ Jesus he had begotten
them." That is, in virtue of his union to Christ, as his apostle

76 I. CORINTHIANS 4, 15. 16. 17.
and minister. In himself he could do nothmg. It was only
as an instrument in the hand of Christ that he was successful
in bringing them to the obedience of faith. Comp. Gal. 2. 8.
By the gospel, i. e. by means of the gospel. There are three
agencies in the conversion of men. The efficiency is in Christ
by his Spirit ; the administrative agency is in preachers ; the
instrumental in the word. What God has joined together, let
not man put asunder. We cannot do without the first and the
third, and ought not to attempt to do without the second.
For though multitudes are converted by the Spirit through
the word, without any mhusterial intervention, just as grain
springs up here and there without a husbandman, yet it is the
ordinance of God that the harvest of souls should be gathered
by workmen appointed for that purpose.
16. Wherefore, I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
Wherefore, i. e. because I am your father. Be ye follow
ers (ptpT]Tal, hteraliy, imitators) of me. He does not exhort
them to become his followers or partisans, instead of being the
followers of ApoUos or of Cephas. But as he had spoken of
himself as being humble, self-denying and self-sacrificing in the
cause of Christ, he beseeches them to follow his example. In
11,1 he says, " Be ye imitators of me, as I am of Christ."
Comp. 1 Thess. 1, 6. 2, 14. Eph. 5, 1.
17. Por this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus,
who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who
shall bring you into remembrance of my ways whicli
be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.
For this cause, that is, to secure your imitating my exam
ple. This end, Timothy, whom he commends as his son, and
as faithful, was to accomplish by vindicating the apostle from
the aspersions which had been cast upon him, by reminding
the Corinthians of his conduct and teaching as a minister of
Christ. Nothmg more was necessary than to appeal to their
own knowledge of what Paul had been among them. My
son ; not only the object of my love, but my child ; one whom
I have begotten through the gospel. This is implied from the
use ofthe word in v. 14. Comp. 1 Tim. 1, 2, where he speaks
of him as " his own son in the faith." The fact that Timothy
stood in this endearing relation to Paul, was a reason for Ms

I. CORINTHIANS 4, 17. 18. 77
sending him, and also a reason why they should receive him
with confidence. He was, however, not only Paul's son, but
faithful in the Lord. And this was a further reason both for
his mission and for their regard and confidence. Faithful in
the Lord means faithful in the service of Christ, or as a Chris
tian. The words in the Lord admit of being connected with
the word son, so as to give the sense, " My faithful son in
the Lord."
The work which Timothy was to do was to remind the
Corinthians of what they seem to have forgotten, viz., of
Paul's ways which were in Christ, how he taught, &o. The
latter clause hmits and explains the former. It was not so
much his ways or deportment in general, as his character and
conduct as a teacher, which were to be brought to mind.
This, however, included his consistency, his zeal, humUity and
fidelity. It is evident from 2 Cor. 1, 17-20 that inconsistency
and instabihty both as to his doctrines and plans, was one of
the objections urged against Paul in Cormth, as in other
places, comp. Gal. 5, 11. My ways which be in Christ, means
the ways which I foUow in the service of Christ. It was his
official conduct as an apostle and teacher which Timothy was
to bring to their recollection. As (ko^us), in the sense of
how. Acts 15, 14. 3 John 3. He is to remind you as, i. e.
how, I teach every where in every church. Paul's doctrine
and mode of teaching were every where the same. And to
this fact Timothy was to bear testimony, and thus vindicate
him from the aspersions of his enemies.
18. Now some are puffed up, as though I would
not come to you.
His sending Timothy was not to be considered as any in
dication that he himself did not intend to visit Corinth, as some
in their pride and self-confidence supposed. It appears from
numerous passages in this and the foUowing epistle, that the
false teachers in Cormth in various ways endeavoured to un
dermine Paul's authority. They called in question his apostie
ship, 9, 1-3. 2 Cor. 12, 12 ; they accused him of lightness, or
instabUity, 2 Cor. 1,17; they represented him as weak in
person and contemptible in speech, 2 Cor. 10, 10. These were
the persons who were pxiffed up, that is, so conceited as to
theh own importance, and as to the effect of their injurious
representations respecting the apostle, us to give out that he

78 I. CORINTHIANS 4, 18. 19. 20.
was afraid to come to Cormth, and therefore sent Timothy in
his place. 19. But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord
will, and will know, not the speech of them which are
puffed up, but the power.
In opposition to this boasting of his opponents, Paul de
clares his purpose soon to visit Corinth, if the Lord (i. e.
Christ) will. Comp. 16, 7, and Acts 16, 7. This is a recogni
tion both of the providential and spiritual government of
Christ. It supposes the external circumstances, and the
inward state of the apostle, his purposes and convictions of
duty, to be determined by the providence and Spirit of Christ.
Thus constantly did Paul hve in communion with Christ as
his God, submitting to him and trusting to him at aU times.
And ivill know not the speech but the power of those who
are puffed tip. That is, not what they can say, but what they
can do. By power (Swa/xis) some understand miraculous
power, which does not suit the context. Others confine it to
spiritual power, that is, the power derived from the Spirit.
The word is sometimes used for the essential power, or true
nature and efficacy of a thing. And this sense best suits the
antithesis between speech and power. Paul meant to put to
the test, not what these men could say, but what they really
were and did; that is, their true character and efficiency:
Comp. 1 Thess. 1, 5. 2 Tim. 3, 5. " Having the form of god
liness, but denying the power (Svvap.v) thereof," i. e. its real
nature and efficacy.
20. Por the kingdom of God (is) not in word, hut
in power. The idea expressed by the phrase " kingdom of God," in
the New Testament, is very comprehensive and manifold, and
therefore indefinite. The two senses under which most, if not
all, its applications may be comprehended are, 1. The royal
authority or dominion exercised by God or Christ ; and 2.
Those over whom that authority extends, or who recognize
and submit to it. In the former sense, the word (/5W(Aew)
kingdom is used in such expressions as, Thy kingdom come,
Of his kingdom there is no end, The sceptre of his kingdom,
&c, &c. In such expressions as, To enter the kingdom of

I. CORINTHIANS 4, 20. 21. 79
God ; The chUdren, or members of the kingdom, the phrase
means the community over which God reigns, whether in this
world, or in tho world to come. In the former sense the
meaning is equivalent to the reign of God. Hence to say,
Thy kingdom come, aud to say, May God reign, is the same
thing. Now as God reigns in the hearts of his people — as
weU as in the church, and in heaven — so this inward spiritual
dominion is called the kingdom of God. In this sense the
passage, " the kingdom of God is within you," may be under
stood ; and also Rom. 14, 17, "The kingdom of God is not
meat and drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in the
Holy Ghost ; " which is equivalent to saying that true religion
docs not consist in external observances, but in inward graces.
This is the form of the idea which seems best suited to the
passage before us. ' God's reign, his dominion in the heart,
or true reUgion, does not consist in professions, but in reahty.'
The word power is to be taken in the same sense here as in v.
19. Paul says, 'I wiU know, not what these men say, but
what they really are ; for the kingdom of God (or religion)
does not consist in what is apparent and outward, but in what
is inward and real.' It is not a semblance,, but a reality.
21. What will ye ? shall I come unto you with a
rod, or in love, and (in) the spirit of meekness ?
Paul, so far from being afraid to go to Corinth, as his ene
mies imagined, was prepared to go there with authority. He
was their spiritual father aud ruler. He had the right and the
ability to punish them. It depended on themselves in what
character he should appear among them ; whether as a pun-
isher or as a comforter — whether in the exercise of discipUne,
or as a kind and tender parent. The prejiosition (iv) rendered
with in the first clause, is the same as that rendered in in
those which follow. It has the same force in them aU. It
means furnished with, attended by. That is, it marks the at
tending circumstances. The expression " spirit of meekness "
is commonly understood to mean a meek or gentle spirit or
disposition of mind. As, however, the word spirit, when con
nected with an abstract noun, always refers to the Holy Spirit,
as in the phrases Spirit of truth, Spirit of wisdom, Spirit of
adoption, Spirit of love, of fear, or of glory, it should be so
understood here. Paul asks whether he should come with se
verity, or filled with the Sphit as the author of meekness. It

80 I. CORINTHIANS 4, 21.
is plain from this, as from numerous other passages, that the
apostles exercised the right of discipUne over aU the churches ;
they could receive into the communion of the church, or ex
communicate from it, at their discretion. This prerogative was
inseparable from their infaUibUity as the messengers of Christ,
sent to establish and to administer his kingdom. The foUow
ing chapter furnishes a notable instance of the exercise of this
authority.

CHAPTER V.
The case of the incestuous memher of the church, vs. 1-5. Exhortation to
purity, and to fidelity in discipline, vs. 6-13.
Reproof for retaining an unworthy member in the church.
Vs. 1-13.
The second evil in the church of Corinth, to which Paul di
rects his attention, is aUowing a man guflty of incest to remain
in its communion. He says it was generaUy reported that
fornication was tolerated among them, and even such fornica
tion as was not heard of among the heathen, v. 1. He re
proves them for being inflated, instead of being humbled and
penitent, and excommunicating the offender, v. 2. As they
had neglected their duty, he determined, in the name of
Christ, and as spiritually present in theh assembly, to dehver
the man guUty of incest to Satan, vs. 3-5. He exhorts to
purity, in language borrowed from the Mosaic law respecting
the passover. As during the feast of the passover aU leaven
was to be removed from the habitations of the Hebrews, so the
Christian's life should be a perpetual paschal feast, all maUce
and hypocrisy being banished from the hearts and from the
assemblies of behevers, vs. 6-8. He corrects or guards against
a misapprehension of his command not to associate with the
immoral. He shows that the command had reference to
church communion, and not to social intercourse ; and there
fore was limited in its application to members of the church,
Those out of the church, it was neither his nor their preroga
tive to judge. They must be left to the judgment of God,
vs. 9-13.

I. CORINTHIANS 5, l. 81
1. It is reported commonly (that there is) fornica
tion among you, and such fornication as is not so much
as named among the Gentiles, that one should have
his father's wife.
Having dismissed the subject of tho divisions in the church
of Corinth, he takes up the case of tho incestuous member of
that church. It is reported commonly (oAus &Kov_rai). This
may mean what our translation expresses, viz., it was a matter
of notoriety that fornication existed among them. "OA.cos may
have the force of omnino, ' nothing is heard of among you ex
cept, &c.' Or it may mean, ' In general, fornication is heard of
among you.' That is, it was a common thing that fornication
was heard of; implying that the offence, in different forms,
more or less prevaUed. This is the less surprising, consider
ing how httle sins of that class were condemned among the
heathen, and how notorious Cormth was for its licentiousness.
To change the moral sentiments of a community is a difficult
and gradual work. The New Testament furnishes sad evi
dence, that Jewish and Gentile converts brought into the
church many of the errors of their former behef and practice.
The word fornication (iropveia) is used in a comprehensive
sense, including aU violations of the seventh commandment-
Here a particular case is distinguished as peculiarly atrocious.
The offence was that a man had married his step-mother. His
father's wife is a Scriptural periphrase for step-mother, Lev.
18, 8. That it was a case of marriage is to be inferred from
the uniform use of the phrase to have a woman in the New
Testament, which always means, to marry. Matt. 14, 4. 22,
28. 1 Cor. 7, 2. 29. Besides, although the connection con
tinued, the offence is spoken of as past, vs. 2. 3. Such a
marriage Paul says was unheard of among the Gentiles, that
is, it was regarded by them with abhorrence. , Cicero, pro
Cluent. 5, 6. speaks of such a connection as an incredible
crime, and as, with one exception, unheard of. It is probable
from 2 Cor. 7, 12, that the father ofthe offender was stiU alive.
The crime, however, was not adultery, but incest ; for other
wise the apostle would not have spoken of it as an unheard of
offence, and made the atrocity of it to arise out of the relation
of the woman to the offender's father. We have here there
fore a clear recognition of the perpetual obligation of the Le
vitical law concerning marriage. The Scriptures are a perfect
rule of duty ; and, therefore, if they do not prohibit marriage
4*

82 I. CORINTHIANS 5, 1.2.
between near relatives, such marriages are not sins in the
sight of God. To deny, therefore, the permanency ofthe law
recorded in Lev. 18, is not only to go contrary to the authori
ty of the apostle, but also to teach that there is for Christians
no such crime as incest.
2. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather
mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be
taken away from among you.
They were puffed up, i. e. elated with the conceit of their
good estate, notwithstanding they were tolerating in their
communion a crime which even the heathen abhorred. Some
have endeavoured to account for the occurrence of such an
offence, and for the remissness of the church in relation to it,
by supposing that both the offender and the church acted on
the principle taught by many of the Jews, that aU bonds of
relationship were dissolved by conversion. The proselyte to
Judaism became a new creature. He received a new name.
His father was no longer his father, or his mother his mother.
The Rabbins therefore taught that a proselyte might lawfully
marry any of his nearest kindred. It is possible that such a
notion may have partiaUy prevailed among the Jewish portion
of the church; but not very probable, 1. Because of its ab
surdity ; 2. Because its prevalence among the Jews was only
after their reprobation as a people ; 3. Because the wiser class
of the Jews themselves condemned it. It is more probable,
if the crime was defended at all, it was on the principle that
the Scriptures and nature condemn intermarriages on the
ground only of consanguinity and not also of affinity. A prin
ciple opposed to Leviticus 18, and to what the apostle here
teaches. And have not rather mourned (iirtvSyjo-are), i. e. grieved
for yourselves. Your condition, instead of filling you with
pride, should humble you and make you sad. TJiat (Im), not
so that, but in order that, as expressing the design which the
apostle contemplated in their humUiation and sorrow. Comp.
John 11,15. 'I would that ye were grieved and sorry for
yourselves, in order that he who had done this deed might he
taken away.' The ha may depend on a word implied. ' Ye
have not mourned, desiring that, &o.' Chrysostom says the
idea is, that they should have acted as they would have done
had a pestilence appeared among them which called for

I. CORINTHIANS 5, 2. 3. 4. 5. 83
mourning and supplication in order that it might be removed.
It is a right inherent in every society, and necessary for its
existence, to judge of the qualification of its own members ;
to receive those whom it judges worthy, and to exclude the
unworthy. This right is here clearly recognized as belonging
to the church. It is also clear from this passage that this
right belongs to each particular church or congregation. The
power was vested in the church of Corinth, and not in some
officer presiding over that church. The bishop or pastor was
not reproved for neglect of discipline ; but the church itself,
in its organized capacity.
3-5. Por I verily, as absent in body, but present in
spirit, have judged already, as though I were present,
(concerning) him that hath so done this deed, in the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ ; when ye are gathered
together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord
Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the
destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in
the day of the Lord Jesus.
These verses constitute one sentence, and must be taken
together in order to be understood. The construction of the
principal clauses is plain. Paul says, ' I have determined to
deliver this man unto Satan.' All the rest is subordinate and
circumstantial. The connection of the subordinate clauses is
doubtful. Perhaps the best interpretation of tho whole pas
sage is the following : ' I, though absent as to the body, yet
present as to the spirit, have determined as though present, in
the name of the Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and
my spirit being with you, with the power (i. e. clothed or
armed with the power) of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver
this man to Satan.' There was to be a meeting ofthe church,
where Paul, spiritually present, would, in the name of Christ,
and in the exercise of the miraculous power with which he
was invested, deliver the offender to the power of Satan. The
connection with what precedes is indicated by the particle for.
' I would ye were in a state of mhid to remove this offender,
for I have determined to cut him off.' I verily (piv), or I at
least. ' Whatever you do or leave undone, I at least will do
my duty.' Absent in body, but present in spirit. Neither
Paul's capacity nor his authority to judge, nor his power to

84 I. CORINTHIANS 5, 3. 4. 5.
execute his judgment, depended on his bodily presence. He
was present in sphit. This does not mean simply that he was
present in mind, as thinking of them and interested in their
welfare ; but it was a presence of knowledge, authority, and
power. Have judged already. That is, without waiting
either for your decision in the matter, or until I can be per
sonally present with you.
Him that hath so done this deed. This is one of the clauses,
the construction of which is doubtful. Our translators insert
the word concerning, which has nothing to answer to it in the
text, unless it be considered a part of the translation of the
preceding verb, (/<e'Kpi/<a,) I have judged concerning, i. e. 'I
have judged or passed sentence upon him.' This, however,
creates embarrassment in the explanation of the fifth verse.
The best explanation is to make this clause the object of the
verb to deliver, in v. 5. 'I have already determined to de
liver him who did this deed.' As, however, so much inter
venes between the object and the verb, the object (such an
one) is repeated in v. 5.
In the name of Christ, means by the authority of Christ,
acting as his representative. The phrase includes, on the one
hand, the denial that the thing done was done in virtue of his
own authority ; and on the other, the claim of the right to act
as the organ and agent of Christ. This clause may be con
nected with what foUows. ' Ye being gathered in the name
of Christ.' Agamst this construction, however, it may be
urged, 1. That the words would in that case most naturaUy
have been differently placed. That is, it would be more nat
ural to say ; ' Assembled in the name of Christ,' than ' In the
name of Christ assembled.' 2. It is a common formula for ex
pressing apostolical authority, to say, ' In the name of Christ.'
3. The sense and paralleUsm of the clauses are better if these
words are connected with the main verb, ' I have determined
in the name of Christ to deliver,' <fec. Paul was acting in the
consciousness of the authority received from Christ. Compare
2 Thess. 3, 6. Acts 16, 18. When ye are gathered together,
and my spirit. The church was to be convened, and Paul
spiritually present. The sentence was not to be passed or
executed in secret, but openly. It was to have the solemnity
of a judicial proceeding, and, therefore, the people were con
vened, though they were merely spectators. With the power
of our Lord Jesus Christ. This may be connected with the
immediately preceding words, 'My spirit invested with the

I. CORINTHIANS 5, 3.4.5. 85
power of Christ being present.' Or with what foUows, 'I
have determined to deliver such an one with the power of
Christ to Satan.' The sense is substantially tho same. Tho
sentence was to be passed and carried into effect in the name
of Christ and by his power.
To deliver such an one unto Satan. There have from the
earliest times been two prevalent interpretations of this ex
pression. According to one view, it means simply excom
munication ; according to the other, it includes a miraculous
subjection of the person to the power of Satan. Those who
regard it as merely excommunication, say that " to deliver to
Satan " answers to " might be taken away from you," in v. 2,
and therefore means the same thing. The Corinthians had
neglected to excommunicate this offender, and Paul says he
had determined to do it. Besides, it is argued that excom
munication is properly expressed by the phrase " to deliver
to Satan," because, as the world is the kingdom of Satan, to
cast a man out of the church, was to cast him from the king
dom of Christ into the kingdom of Satan. Comp. Col. 1, 13.
In favour of the idea of something more than excommunica
tion, it may be argued, 1. That it is clearly revealed in scrip
ture, that bodily evfls are often inflicted on men by the agency
of Satan. 2. That the apostles were invested with the power
of miraculously inflicting such evfls, Acts 5, 1-11. 13, 9-11.
2 Cor. 10, 8. 13, 10. 3. That in 1 Tim. 1, 20, the same for
mula occurs probably in the same sense. Paul there says, he
had dehvered. Hymeneus and Alexander unto Satan, that they
might learn not to blaspheme. 4. There is no evidence that
the Jews of that age ever expressed excommunication by this
phrase, and therefore it would not, in all probability, be un
derstood by Paul's readers in that sense. 5. Excommunica
tion would not have the effect of destroying the flesh, in the
sense in which that expression is used in the following clause.
Most commentators, therefore, agree in understanding the
apostle to threaten the infliction of some bodily evil, when he
speaks of deUvermg this offender to Satan. For tlie destruc
tion of the flesh. This is by many understood to mean, for
the destruction of his corrupt nature, so that the end contem
plated is merely a moral one. But as flesh here stands op
posed to spirit, it most naturaUy means the body. ' The man
was delivered to Satan that his body might be afflicted, in
order that his soul might be saved.' In the day of the Lord
Jesus. That is, the day when the Lord Jesus shah come the

86 I. CORINTHIANS 5, 5. 6. 7.
second time without sin unto salvation. It appears from
2 Cor. 7, 9-12, that this solemn exercise of the judicial power
of the apostle, had its appropriate effect. It led the offender
himself, and the whole church, to sincere and deep repentance.
6. Your glorying (is) not good. Know ye not
that a httle leaven leaveneth the whole lump ?
Your boasting, (Kavxop0-,) ground of boasting. You have
no good reason to boast of your reUgious state ; on the con
trary, you have abundant reason to be alarmed. Enow ye
not / do ye not consider the obvious and certain danger of
this evil spreading ? A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
This proverbial expression is not here intended to express the
idea that one corrupt member of the church depraves the
whole, because, in the following verses, in which the figure is
carried out, the leaven is not a person, but sin. The idea,
therefore, is, that it is the nature of evU to diffuse itself. This
is true with regard to individuals and commimities. A single
sin, however secret, when indulged, diffuses its corrupting in
fluence over the whole soul ; it depraves the conscience ; it
alienates from God ; it strengthens all other principles of evil,
whUe it destroys the efficacy of the means of grace and the
disposition to use them. It is no less true of any community,
that any one tolerated evil deteriorates its whole moral sense.
7. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may
be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. Por even Christ
our passover is sacrificed for us :
Purge out the old leaven is an exhortation to purity, as the
old leaven is afterwards said to be mahce and wickedness.
This leaven is said to be old, because in the present apostate
state of our nature, what is old is evU. Hence, the old man
is a scriptural designation of our corrupt nature. That ye
may be a new lump. New, i. e. pure — as the new man is the
renewed nature. As ye are unleavened. Leaven hi this con
nection is a figurative expression for sin. To say, therefore,
that they were unleavened, is to say that they were holy.
This was their normal state — as Christians. A Christian is a
new or holy man. The argument, therefore, is drawn from
She acknowledged fact that Christians, as such, are holy.
Purge out the leaven of wickedness, that ye may be pure,

I. CORINTHIANS 5, 7. 8. 87
for beUevers are holy.' For even, (ko.1 yap,) or, for also. This
is a second reason why they should be pure; for Christ our
passover is slain for us. Is slain / rather, is sarrificcd, as
6vu> means to kill and offer in sacrifice, or, to slay as a vic
tim. When the paschal lamb was slain, the Hebrews woro
required to purge out aU leaven from their houses, Ex. 12, 15.
The death of Christ imposes a similar obligation on us to
purge out the leaven of sin. Christ is our passover, not be
cause he was slain on the day on which the paschal lamb was
offered, but because he does for us what the paschal lamb did
for the Hebrews. As the blood of that lamb sprinkled on the
door-posts secured exemption from the stroke of the destroy
ing angel, so the blood of Christ secures exemption from the
stroke of divine justice. Christ was slain for us, in the same
sense that the passover was slain for the Hebrews. It was a
vicarious death. As Christ died to redeem us from all ini
quity, it is not only contrary to the design of his death, but a
proof that we are not interested in its benefits, if we hve in
sin. Our passover, viz., Christ. The words irrip -fjpZv, (for
us), are omitted in aU the older manuscripts, and. are not
necessary to the sense.
8. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old
leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wicked
ness ; but with the unleavened (bread) of sincerity and
truth. Let us therefore keep the feast. That is, since our pass-
over Christ is slain, let us keep the feast. This is not an ex
hortation to keep the Jewish passover— because the whole
context is figurative, and because the death of Christ is no
reason why the Corinthians should keep the Jewish passover.
Christians are nowhere exhorted to observe the festivals of
the old dispensation. Neither is the feast referred to the
Lord's Supper. There is nothing in the connection to suggest
a reference to that ordinance. A feast was a portion of time
consecrated to God. To keep the feast means, ' Let your
whole Uves be as a sacred festival, i. e. consecrated to God.'
As a feast lasting seven days was connected with the slaying
of the paschal lamb ; so a life of consecration to God should
be connected with the death of our passover— Christ This
feast is not to be celebrated with the old or corrupt leaven,
which is explained to mean the leaven of malice and lacked-

88 I. CORINTHIANS 5, 8. 9.
ness. Hovripi.a, wickedness, is a stronger word than ;Wa.
badness. Any one who does wrong is Kaxos, bad ; but he
who does evil with delight and with persistency, is vovi\po%.
Hence Satan is called 6 irov-qpo., " The evil one." But with
the ttrileavened bread of sincerity and truth. Sincerity and
truth are the unleavened bread with which the Christian's Ufe-
long feast should be celebrated. Sincerity, (eiAiKpiWa,) is
purity, transparent clearness ; something through which the
sun may shine without revealing any flaw. Truth is in scrip
ture far more than veracity. In its subjective sense, it means
that inward state wliich answers to the truth ; that moral con
dition which is conformed to the law and character of God.
9. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company
with fornicators :
This may be understood to refer to what he had written
above in this epistle. Comp. Rom. 16, 22. 1 Thess. 5, 27.
Col. 4, 16, where the epistle, 17 izna-rok-^, means tho epistle he
was then writing. Calvin, Beza, and almost all the modern
commentators, understand it to refer to an epistle no longer
extant. This is obviously the more natural interpretation,
first, because the words (iv rrj ima-Tok-ij), in the epistle, would
otherwise be altogether unnecessary. And, secondly, because
this epistle does not contain the general direction not to com
pany with fornicators ; which, it would seem from what fol
lows, the Corinthians had misunderstood. There is, indeed,
a natural mdisposition in Christians to admit that any of the
inspired writings are lost. But nothing is more natural than
the assumption that the apostles wrote many short letters,
not intended as pastoral epistles designed for the church iu
all ages, but simply to answer some question, or to give some
direction relative to the peculiar circumstances of some indi
vidual or congregation. ' I wrote to you in the epistle,' natu
rally means here as in 2 Cor. 7, 8, the epistle which you have
already received, and not the one which he was then writing ;
and it is not wise to depart from the natural meaning of the
words simply to avoid a conclusion we are unwilling to admit.
The church has all the inspired writings which God designed
for her edification ; and we should be therewith content.
Not to company with, (pi] o-vvavapiywaSai), not to be mixed
up together with. That is, not to associate with. See
2 Thess. 3, 14. This may have reference either to social in

I. CORINTHIANS 5, 9. 10. 89
tercourse or to church communion. This hidofinite command
Paul explains, first, by stating that he did not mean to forbid
social intercourse ; and then saying he did intend to prohibit
Christian fellowship with the wicked.
10. Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this
world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with
idolaters ; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
Not altogether. This limits the prohibition. The apostle
did not intend to prohibit all intercourse with the fornicators
of this world. This would be an impossibihty ; while in the
world we must have more or less intercourse with the men of
the world. Or, the words (oi 7rdvru>_-), not altogether, may be
connected with the words I wrote, in the sense of by no means.
Comp. Rom. 3, 9. 'I by no means wrote to you not to asso
ciate with the wicked.' This, although perhaps the more
common explanation, does not give so good a sense. It is not
so much a positive denial of having so written, as a limitation
ofthe apphcation of his command, that the apostle designs to
give. The world means mankind as distinguished from the
church, Gal. 4, 3. Eph. 2, 2. Col. 2, 8. The prohibition, such
as it was, was not limited to any one class of the immoral ; it
included all classes. The covetous ; those who will have
more (ttAcovckt^s) ; and especiaUy those who defraud for the
sake of gain. In the Scriptures the controlling love of gam is
spoken of as a sin speciaUy heinous in the sight of God. It is
called idolatry, Eph. 5, 5, because wealth becomes the object
supremely loved and sought. The man, therefore, who sacri
fices duty to the acquisition of wealth ; who makes gain the
great object of his pursuit, is a covetous man. He cannot be
a Christian, and should not, according to the apostle, be recog
nized as such.
Or with extortioners, i. e. the ravenous ; those who exact
what is not justly due to them, or more than is justly due.
The sin is not confined to exactions by force or open robbery,
but to aU undue exactions. The man who takes advantage of
another's poverty, or of his necessities, to secure exorbitant
gain, is an extortioner. Or with idolaters, those who either
professedly worship false gods, or who do what, in its own
nature, and in the common judgment of men, amounts to such
worship. This is said to be the earliest known instance of the
use of the word _l8a>kokarpr]_ ; it is never used in the LXX,

90 I. CORINTHIANS 5, 10. 11.
although e"So-Xov is constantly employed hi that version in the
sense of false gods. For then ye must needs go out of the
world. This is the reason why the apostle did not prohibit
all intercourse with wicked men. We should have to seek
another world to Uve in.
11. But now I have written unto you not to keep
company, if any man that is caUed a brother be a forni
cator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunk
ard, or an extortioner ; with such an one no not to eat.
But now (mi Se). If taken in the ordinary sense, these
particles refer to time. ' In the former epistle I wrote to you
so and so, but now I write to you, &c.' They may have an
inferential sense — tlierefore. ' Since ye cannot go out of the
world, therefore I wrote unto you.' The apostle is explaining
the meaning of what he had written. ' I did not write this,
but I wrote, i. e. I meant, this.' This explanation best suits
the context, and agrees better with the force of the tense
(_ypa>j/a) here used ; for although the aorist ofthis verb is used
in the epistolary style in reference to the letter in the pro
cess of writing, it is not used to express what is about to be
written. The command is not to associate with any one who
is called a brother, and yet is a fornicator, or covetous, or an
idolater, or a railer (slanderer), or a drunkard, or an extor
tioner. A man in professing to be a Christian professes to re
nounce all these sins ; if he does not act consistently with his
profession, he is not to be recognized as a Christian. We are
not to do any thing which would sanction the assumption that
the offences here referred to are tolerated by the gospel. It
may appear strange that Paul should assume that any one call
ing himself a Christian could be an idolater. By idolatry,
however, he understands not merely the intentional and con
scious worship of false gods, but doing any thing which,
according to the common judgment of men, expresses such
worship. Thus eating sacrifices within the precincts of a
temple was an act of heathen worship, as much as par
taking of the Lord's supper is an act of Christian worship.
And yet some of the Corinthians did not hesitate to eat of
heathen sacrifices under those circumstances, 10, 14-22. The
principle laid down by the apostle is, that to join in the reh
gious rites of any people is to join in theh worship, whether
We so intend it or not.

I. CORINTHIANS 5, 11. 12. 13. 91
With such an one no not to eat. This does not refer to the
Lord's supper, which is never designated as a meal. The
meaning is, that we are not to recognize such a man in any
way as a Christian, even by eating with him. It is not the act
of eating with such persons that is forbidden. Our Lord eat
with publicans and sinners, but he did not thereby recognize
them as his followers. So we may eat with such persons as
are here described, provided we do not thereby recognize
their Christian character. This is not a command to enforce
the sentence of excommunication pronounced by the church,
by a denial of all social intercourse with the excommunicated.
The command is simply that we are not, in any way, to recog
nize openly wicked men as Christians. This passage, there
fore, affords no plea for the tyranny of Romanists in refusing
all the necessaries of life to those whom they cast out of the
church. 12. Por what have I to do to judge them also that
are without ? clo not ye judge them that are within ?
Those without ; those out of the church. Mark 4, II.
Col. 4, 5. 1 Thess. 4, 12. The command of the apostle had
reference only to those within the church, for it was not his
prerogative to judge those that are without. The Corinthians
acted on the same principle. They confined church discipline
to church members, and therefore should not have understood
his injunction not to company with the wicked to apply to
others than to those within the church.
13. But them that are without God judgeth.
Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked
person. God, and not the church, is the judge of those who are
without. The verb may be accented so as to express either
the present or the future. God judges (kPIv€.) ; or, God will
judge (/cptvei). The present gives the better sense, as express
ing the divine prerogative, and not merely the assurance of a
future judgment. Therefore put away, literally, according to
the common text (nai i£ap__Te), and ye shall put away; which
seems to have been borrowed from Deut. 24, 7. The better
reading is (impart) put away. It is a simple imperative in
junction, or necessary apphcation ofthe principle of Christian

92 I. CORINTHIANS 5, 13. 6, 1.
communion just laid down. This passage is not inconsistent
with the interpretation given to verses 3-5. In consequence
of their neglect of duty, Paul determined to deliver the in
cestuous member of the Corinthian church to Satan. He calls
upon them to recognize the validity of that sentence, and to
carry it into effect. The sentence was pronounced ; they, so
far as it involved theh communion, were to execute it.

CHAPTER YI.

This chapter consists of two distinct paragraphs. The first, vs. 1-11, relates
to lawsuits before heathen magistrates. The second, vs. 12-20, to the
abuse which some had made ofthe principle, "All things are lawful."
On going to law before the heathen. Ys. 1-11.
Paul expresses surprise that any Christian should prosecute
a feUow Christian before a heathen judge, v. 1. If Christians
are destined to judge the world, and even angels, they may
surely settle among themselves their worldly affairs, vs. 2. 3.
If they had such suits, must they appoint those whom the
church could not esteem to decide them ? Was there not one
man among themselves able to act as, a judge? vs. 4-6. It
was a great evil that they had such lawsuits. It would be
better to submit to injustice, v. 7. Instead, however, of sub
mitting to wrong, they committed it, v. 8. He solemnly as
sures them that the unjust, or rapacious, or corrupt should
not inherit the kingdom of God, vs. 9. 10. They had been
such, but as Christians they were washed from these defile
ments, and justified through Christ and by his Spirit, v. 11.
1. Dare any of you, having a matter against an
other, go to law before the unjust, and not before the
saints ?
The third evU in the church of Corinth which the apostle
endeavours to correct, was the prosecuting legal suits before
heathen judges. There was no necessity for this practice.
The Roman laws aUowed the Jews to settle their disputes

I. CORINTHIANS 6, 1. 93
about property by arbitration among themselves. And the
early Christians, who were not distinguished as a distinct class
from the Jews, had no doubt the same privUege. It is not
necessary, however, to assume that the apostle has reference
here to that privilege. It was enough that these civU suits
might be arranged without the disgraceful spectacle of Chris
tian suing Christian before heathen magistrates. The Rab
bins say, " It is a statute which binds all Israelites, that if one
Israelite has a cause against another, it must not be prosecuted
before the Gentiles." Eisenmenger's Entdeckt. Judenth. ii.
p. 427. Dare any of you ? Is any one so bold as thus to shock
the Christian sense of propriety? Having a matter. The
Greek phrase (irpaypa ex«>/) means to have a suit, which is
obviously the sense here intended. To go to laic before the
imjust. It is plain that by the unjust are meant the heathen.
But why are they so caUed ? As the terms holy and righteous
are often used in a technical sense to designate the professed
people of God without reference to personal character ; so the
terms sinners and unjust are used to designate the heathen as
distinguished from the people of God. The Jews as a class
were holy, and the GentUes were unholy ; though many of
the latter were morally much better than many of the former.
In Gal. 2, 15, Paul says to Peter, " We are by nature Jews,
and not sinners of the Gentiles ; " meaning thereby simply
that they were not Gentiles. The reason why the heathen as
such are caUed the unjust, or sinners, is that according to the
Scriptures the denial ofthe true God, and the worship of idols,
is the greatest unrighteousness ; and therefore the heathen,
because heathen, are called the unrighteous. The word mi-
just is too limited a word to answer fully to the Greek term
(¦xSikos), which in its scriptural sense means wicked, not con
formed to the law of God. In this verse the opposite term,
saints, or the holy, designates Christians as a class; and,
therefore, the unjust must mean the heathen as a class. The
complaint against the Corinthians was not that they went to
law before unjust judges, but that they appealed to heatlien
judges. It is true their being heathen proved them to be un
righteous in the scriptural sense of the term ; but it was not
their moral character, so much as their religious status, that
was the ground of the complaint. It was indeed not to be
expected that men governed by heathen laws and principles
of morals, would be as fair and just as those governed by

94 I. CORINTHIANS 6, 1.2.
Christian principles ; but what Paul complained of was, not
that the Corinthians could not get justice at the hands of
heathen magistrates, but that they acted unworthily of their
dignity as Christians in seeking justice from such a source.
Paul himself appealed to Cesar. It was, therefore, no sin in
his eyes to seek justice from a heathen judge, when it could
not otherwise be obtained. But it was a sin and a disgrace
in his estimation for Christians to appeal to heathen magis
trates to settle disputes among themselves.
2. Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the
world ? and if the world shah be judged by you, are ye
unworthy to judge the smallest matters ?
Do you not know ? a form of expression often used by the
apostle when he wishes to bring to mind some important truth,
which his readers knew but disregarded. It was a conceded
point, one which entered into the common faith of Christians,
that the saints are to judge the world. The saints (ol ayioi),
the people of God, who are called saints because separated
from the world and consecrated to his service. Those, there
fore, who are of the world and devoted to its pursuits, are not
saints. The saints shall judge the world. This does not
mean that the time would come when Christians would be
come magistrates ; nor that the conduct of the saints would
condemn the world, as it is said the Queen of the South would
condemn those who refused to Usten to the words of Christ,
Matt. 12, 42. The context and spirit of the passage require
that it should be understood ofthe future and final judgment.
Saints are said to sit in judgment on that great day for two
reasons ; first, because Christ, who is to be the judge, is the
head and representative of his people, in whom they reign
and judge. The exaltation and dominion of Christ are their
exaltation and dominion. This is the constant representation
of Scripture, Eph. 2, 6. In Heb. 2, 5-9 the declaration that
all things are subject to man, is said to be fulfilled in aU things
being made subject to Christ. Secondly, because his people
are to be associated with Christ in his dominion. They are
joint heirs with him, Rom. 8, 17. If we suffer, we shaU reign
with him, 2 Tim. 2, 12. In Dan. 7, 22 it was predicted that
judgment (the right and power to judge) should be given to
the saints of the Most High. Comp. Matt. 19, 28. Luke 22,

I. CORINTHIANS 6, 2. 3. 95
30. Rev. 2, 26. 27. If then, asks the apostle, such a destiny
as this awaits you, are ye unfit to decide the smallest matters ?
If the world (mankind) shall be judged by you (lv vpiv), i. e.
before you as judges. Are ye unworthy (dvdfioi), i. e. of too
httle weight or value, having neither the requisite dignity nor
ability. Unworthy of the smallest matters. The word (Kpi-
rrjpiov), here rendered matters, in the sense of causes, or
matters for judgment, means, 1. A criterion or test ; a rule >
of judgment. 2. A tribunal or place of judgment, and then,
the court or assembled judges. Ex. 21, 6. Judges 5, 10. Dan.
7, 10, and in the New Testament, James 2, 6. 3. The trial,
i. e. the process of judgment. 4. The cause itself, or matters
to be tried. This last sense is doubtful, although it is gene
raUy adopted here because it suits so well the fourth verse,
where the same word occurs. The second sense would suit
this verse. ' If ye are to sit with Christ on the seat of uni
versal judgment, are ye unworthy of the lowest judgment
seats.' But the fourth verse is in favour of the explanation
adopted in our version. ' Are ye unfit for the least causes ? '
3. Know ye not that we shall judge angels ? how
much more things that pertain to this life ?
As, according to Scripture, only the faUen angels are to be
judged in the last day, most commentators suppose the word
must here be restricted to that class. Not only men, but fall
en angels are to stand before that tribunal on which Christ
and his church shall sit in judgment. If agreeably to the con
stant usage of the Scriptures, according to which (as remarked
above, 4, 9) the word when unqualified means good angels, it be
understood of that class here, then the explanation is probably
to be sought in the comprehensive sense ofthe word to judge.
As kings were always judges, and as the administration of jus
tice was one ofthe principal functions of their office, hence to
rule and to judge are in Scripture often convertible terms. To
judge Israel, and to rule Israel, mean the same thing. And in
Matt.l 9, 28," sitting on twelve thrones j udging the twelve tribes
of Israel," means presiding over the twelve tribes. So in the
case before us, " Know ye not that we shall judge angels ? "
may mean, ' Know ye not that we are to be exalted above the
angels, and preside over them ; shall we not then preside over
earthly things ? ' This explanation avoids the difficulty of
supposing that the good angels are to be called into judgment ;

96 I. CORINTHIANS 6, 3. 4. 5.
and is consistent with what the Bible teaches of the subordi
nation of angels to Christ, and to the church in him.
4. If then ye have judgments of things pertaining
to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed
in the chinch.
Paul laments that there were htigations among them ; but
if they could not be avoided, Christians should act in reference
to them in a manner consistent with their high destiny.
Here the word (xptr^pia), rendered judgments, seems so natu
raUy to mean causes, things to be tried, that that sense of the
word is almost universaUy assumed. It may, however, mean
trials, judicial processes ; which is more in accordance with
the established use of the words. Set them to judge who are
least esteemed in tlie church. The original admits of this
translation. If the passage be so rendered, then it has a sar
castic tone. 'Set your least esteemed members to decide
such matters.' It may, however, be read interrogatively,
'Do ye set as judges those least esteemed in (i. e. by) the
church (that is, the heathen) ? ' This translation is generaUy
preferred as best in keeping with the context. The sentence
is emphatic. 'Those despised (see 1, 28) by the church, —
those do you set to judge ? ' It is an expression of surprise
at their acting so unworthfly of their high caUing.
5. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is
not a wise man among you ? no, not one that shall he
able to judge between his brethren ?
I speak to your shame. That is, I deshe to produce in
you a sense of shame. This may refer either to what precedes
or to what foUows. It was adapted to make them ashamed
that they had acted so unworthily of their dignity as Chris
tians ; and it was no less disgraceful to them to suppose that
there was not in the church a single man fit to act as arbitra
tor. Who shall be able. The future here expresses what
should or may happen. Between his brethren ; UteraUy, be
tween his brother ; i. e. between his complaining brother and
him against whom the complaint was brought.

I. CORINTHIANS 6, 6. 7. 8. 97
6. But brother goeth to law with brother, and that
before the unbelievers.
Instead of referring the matter to the arbitration of a ju
dicious brother, ye go to law, and that before unbehevcrs.
There are here two grounds of complaint. First, that they
went to law (Kpi.ve.o-Ha.) instead of resorting to arbitration
(SiaKpiva.). Secondly, that they made unbelievers their judges.
By unbelievers are to be understood the heathen. In this
connection the heathen are designated under one aspect, the
unjust; under another, the despised; and under a third, the
unbeheving, i. e. not Christians — but, as the implication in
this particular case is, pagans. And that (koi tovto), a form
of expression often used when particular stress is to be laid on
the circumstance indicated. v
7. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among
you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do
ye not rather take wrong ? Why do ye not rather
(suffer yourselves to) be defrauded ?
Now therefore (^§17 p_v ovv), already indeed therefore.
That is, these lawsuits are aheady, or in themselves (oAus),
an evU irrespective of their being conducted before heathen
judges. The word r/rr-qpa does not so properly mean fault
as loss or evil. It is a loss or evU to you to have these litiga
tions. See Rom. 11, 12, where the rejection of the Jews is
called their (-ip-Typa) loss. Why do you not, &o. That is,
why, instead of going to law with your brethren, do you not
rather submit to injustice and robbery ? This is a clear inti
mation that, under the circumstances in which the Corinthians
were placed, it was wrong to go to law, even to protect them
selves from injury. That this is not to be regarded as a gen
eral rule of Christian conduct is plain, because, under the old
dispensation, God appointed judges for the administration of
justice ; and because Paul himself did not hesitate to appeal
to Cesar to protect himself from the injustice of his country
men. 8. Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that (your)
brethren. Instead of having reached that state of perfection in which
5

98 I. CORINTHIANS 6, 8. 9. 10.
ye can patiently submit to injustice, ye are yourselves unjust
and fraudulent. This must have been the case with some of
them, otherwise there would be no occasion for these lawsuits.
Their offence was aggravated, because their own brethren
were the object of their unjust exactions.
9. 10. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not
inherit the kingdom of God ? Be not deceived : nei
ther fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effem
inate, nor abusers cf themselves with mankind, nor
thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
The tendency to divorce religion from morality has mani
fested itself in all ages of the world, and under all forms of
religion. The pagan, the Jew, the Mohammedan, the nomi
nal Christian, have all been exact in the performance of reli
gious services, and zealous in the assertion and defence of
what they regarded as religious truth, while unrestrained in
the indulgence of every evil passion. This arises from look
ing upon rehgion as an outward service, and God as a being
to be feared and propitiated, but not to be loved and obeyed.
According to the gospel, all moral duties are religious ser
vices ; and piety is the conformity of the soul to the image
and will of God. So that to be religious and yet immoral is,
according to the Christian system, as palpable a contradiction
as to be good and wicked. It is evident that among the mem
bers of the Corinthian church, there were some who retained
their pagan notion of rehgion, and who professed Christianity
as a system of doctrine and as a form of worship, but not as a
rule of life. All such persons the apostle warned of their fatal
mistake. He assures them that no immoral man, — no man
who aUows himself the indulgence of any known sin, can be
saved. This is one of the first principles of the gospel, and
therefore the apostle asks, Enow ye not that, the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God ? Are ye Christians at
all, and yet ignorant of this first principle of the rehgion you
profess ? The unrighteous in this immediate connection,
means the unjust ; those who violate the principles of justice
in their dealings with their feUow-men. It is not the unjust
alone, however, who are to be thus debarred from the Re-

I. CORINTHIANS 6, 10. 11. 99
deemer's kingdom — but also those who break any of the com
mandments of God, as this and other passages of Scripture dis
tinctly teach.
Believers are, in the Bible, often called heirs. Their in
heritance is a kingdom ; that kingdom which God has estab
hshed, and which is to be consummated in heaven, Luke 12,
32. Matt. 24, 34, &c. &c. From this inheritance aU the im
moral, no matter how zealous they may be in the profession
of the truth, or how assiduous in the performance of religious
services, shaU be excluded. Let it also be remembered that
immorality, according to the Bible, does not consist exclusively
in outward sins, but also in sins of the heart ; as covetousness,
malice, envy, pride, and such like, Gal. 5, 21. No wonder
that the disciples, on a certain occasion, asked their master,
Lord, are there few that be saved ? or that the Lord answered
them by saying, " Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way
that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it," Luke 13, 24.
11. And such were some of you: but ye are
washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in
the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our
God. And such were some of you. This is understood by many
as equivalent to Such were you. The word (rive's) being re
dundant, or the idea being, ' Some were impure, some drunk
ards, some violent, &c, or ravrd Tives being taken together as
equivalent to toiovtoi. The natural explanation is, that the
apostle designedly avoided charging the gross immoralities
just referred to upon all the Corinthian Christians in their
previous condition. With regard to the three terms which
follow, washed, sanctified, justified, they may be taken, as by
Calvin and others, to express the same idea under different
aspects. That idea is, that they had been converted, or com
pletely changed. They had put off the old man, and put on
the new man. Their sins, considered as filth, had been washed
away ; considered as pollution, they had been purged or puri
fied ; considered as guUt, they had been covered with the
righteousness of God, Rom. 1, 17. The majority of commen
tators take the several terms separately, each expressmg a
distinct idea. In what precise sense each of these words is to
be understood, becomes, then, somewhat doubtful.

100 I. CORINTHIANS 6, 11.
But ye are washed. The word here used (dTreXou'ow.Je)
is in the middle voice, and therefore may be rendered, ye
have washed yourselves, or, permitted yourselves to be washed;
or, as the majority of commentators prefer, on account of the
following passives, ye were washed. This use of the Fhst
Aorist Middle in a passive sense is very unusual, but not un
authorized; see 1 Cor. 10, 2. It does not seem to be of much
moment whether the word be taken here as active or as pas
sive, for the same thing may be expressed in either form. Men
are called upon to wash away their suis, Acts 22, 16 ; to put
off the old man, etc. and to put on the new man, Eph. 4, 22.
24 ; although the change expressed by these terms is elsewhere
referred to God. The reason of this is, that a human and a
divine agency are combined in the effects thus produced. We
work our own salvation, whUe God works in us, PhU. 2, 12. 13.
With equal propriety, therefore, Paul might say to the Co
rinthians, ' Ye washed yourselves ; ' or, ' Ye were washed.' To
wash means to purify, and is frequently used in Scripture to
express moral or spiritual purification. Is. 1, 16, "Wash ye,
make you clean." Ps. 51, 7, " Wash me, and I shaU be whiter
than snow." Jer. 4, 14. In these and many other passages
the word expresses general purification, without exclusive
reference to guUt or to pollution. There is no reason why it
should not be taken in this general sense here, and the phrase
be rendered, either, ' Ye have purified yourselves,' or, ' Ye
are purified.' The reference which so many assume to bap
tism, does not seem to be authorized by any thing in the
context. But ye are sanctified. This clause is either an ampUfica-
tion of the preceding one, expressing one aspect or effect
of the washing spoken of, viz., theh holiness ; or, it is to be
understood of their separation and consecration. 'Ye have not
only been purified, but also set apart as a peculiar people.'
In Scripture, any thing is said to be sanctified that is devoted
to the service of God. Thus, God blessed the seventh day
and sanctified it, Gen. 2, 3. Moses sanctified the people,
Ex. 19, 14, &c. &c.
But ye are justified. As to justify in Scripture alway?
means to pronounce righteous, or to declare just in the sight
of the law, it must be so understood here. The Corinthians
had not only been purified and consecrated, but also justified,
i. e. clothed in the righteousness of Christ, and on that ac
count accepted as righteous in the sight of God. They were

I. CORINTHIANS 6, ll. ioi
therefore under the highest possible obligation not to re
lapse into their former state of pollution and condemnation.
In the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our
God. These clauses are not to be restricted to the preceding
word, as though the meaning were, ' Ye have been justified
in the name ofthe Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.'
They belong equally to aU three ofthe preceding terms. The
believers were indebted for the great change wliich they had
experienced ; for theh washmg, sanctification, and justifica
tion, to Christ and to the Holy Ghost. The Spirit had ap
plied to them the redemption purchased by Christ. In the
name of the Lord Jesus. " The name of God," or " of Christ,'
is often a periphrase for God or Christ himself. To call upon
the name of God is to caU on God. To baptize unto the name
of Christ, and to baptize unto Christ, are interchanged as
synonymous expressions. So here, to be justified or sanctified
in the name of Christ, means simply by Christ ; see John 20,
31, "That believing ye might have life through his name."
Acts 10, 43, "That through his name whoso beheveth in him
might have remission of sins." Though these forms of ex
pression are substantiaUy the same as to their import, yet
the " name of God " means not strictly God himself, but God
as known and worshipped. The Holy Ghost is caUed the Spi
rit of our God ; that is, the Spirit of our reconcUed God and
Father, by whom that Sphit is sent in fulfilment of the prom
ise ofthe Father to the Son. Christ hath redeemed us from
the curse of the law in order that we might receive the prom
ise ofthe Spirit, Gal. 3, 13. 14.
Abuse of the principle of Christian liberty. Vs. 12-20.
The principle of Christian hberty, or the doctrine that
" aU things are lawful," is to be Umited in its application to
things indifferent ; first, by considerations of expediency ; and
secondly, by regard to our own spiritual freedom, v. 12. From
that principle it is legitimate to infer, because of the adapta
tion ofthe stomach to food, that all things suited for food are
lawful. The one is obviously designed for the other, during
the temporary condition of the present life. But no such ap
phcation of the principle is aUowable in the case of fornica
tion ; because the body is not designed for that end, but
belongs to the Lord, with whom it stands in an indissoluble
connection, so that he who raised him up wfll also raise up our

102 I. CORINTHIANS 6, 12.
bodies, vs. 13. 14. It is because of this intimate relation
of our bodies to Christ as his members, that fornication is so
great a crime, inconsistent with our union to him as partakers
of his Spirit, vs. 1 5-1 7. It is, in a peculiar manner, a sin against
the body, destructive of its very nature, v. 18. The body is
a temple in which the Spirit dweUs, but it ceases to be such
if profaned by hcentiousness, v. 19. Believers must remem
ber that they, even their bodies, are the objects of redemp
tion, having been purchased by the blood of Christ, and
therefore they should be devoted to his glory, v. 20.
12. All things are lawful unto me, but all things
are not expedient : all things are lawful for me, but I
will not be brought under the power of any.
Having in the preceding paragraph declared that the im
moral cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and having given
special prominence to sins against the seventh commandment,
the Apostle comes in this paragraph to consider the ground
on which the violations of that commandment were defended
or palliated. That ground was a gross perversion of the
principle of Christian hberty. Paul was accustomed to say
in reference to the ceremonial or positive enactments of the
Jewish law, and especially in reference to the distinction be
tween clean and unclean meats, " All things are lawful to me."
As the Greeks and Romans generaUy regarded fornication as
belonging to the class of things indifferent, that is, not im
moral in themselves ; it is not surprising that some of the
Corinthians educated in that belief should retain and act on
the principle even after their profession of Christianity. They
reasoned from analogy. As it is right to eat aU kinds of food
wliich are adapted to the stomach, so it is right to gratify any
other natural propensity. Paul's answer to this argument is
twofold. He first shows that the principle of Christian liberty
in things indifferent is to be restricted in its apphcation ; and
secondly, that there is no analogy between the cases men
tioned. Food is a thing indifferent ; whereas fornication is in
its own nature a profanation and a crime.
The first limitation to which the principle " all things are
lawful " is subject in its application to things indifferent, is
expediency. All lawful things are not expedient. It is both
absurd and wicked to do any thing which is injurious to our
selves or others, simply because it is not in its own nature sin-

I. CORINTHIANS 6, 12. 13. 103
ful. This principle of expediency the Apostle enforces at
length in Rom. 14, 15-23, and 1 Cor. 8, 7-13, and 10, 23-33.
The second limitation of our liberty in the use of things indif
ferent, is self-respect. Because it is lawful to eat, that is no
reason why I should make myself a slave to my appetite. " I
will not," says Paul, " be brought under the power of any
thing." I will not make myself its slave. It is of great im
portance to the moral health of the soul that it should pre
serve its self-control, and not be in subjection to any appetite
or desire, however innocent that desire in itself may be. This
is a scriptural rule which Christians often violate. They are
slaves to certain forms of indulgence, which they defend on
the ground that they are not in themselves wrong ; forgetting
that it is wrong to be in bondage to any appetite or habit.
13. Meats for the beUy, and the belly for meats :
but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the
body (is) not for fornication, but for the Lord ; and
the Lord for the bodv.
Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats. The one is
evidently adapted and designed for the other. It is a legiti
mate inference from this constitution that it is lawful to eat,
and to eat every thing adapted for food. But this is a mere
temporary arrangement. God will destroy both it and them.
The time shall come when men shaU no more be sustained by
food, but shaU be as the angels of God. The fact that the
present constitution of the body is temporary, is a proof that
meats belong to the class of things indifferent. They can
have no influence on the eternal destiny of the body. This is
not true with regard to fornication. The body was never de
signed for promiscuous concubinage. And such a use of it is
inconsistent with the design of its creation and with its future
destiny. The body is for tlie Lord ; and the Lord for the body.
The one stands in an intimate relation to the other. The body
is designed to be a member of Christ, and the dwelling-place
of his Spirit. And he so regards it ; redeeming it with his
blood, uniting it to himself as a member of his mystical body,
making it an instrument of righteousness unto holiness. With
this design of the body the sin in question is absolutely in
compatible, and destructive of the rolation which the body
sustains to the Lord.

104 I. CORINTHIANS 6, 14. 15. 16.
14. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and
will also raise up us by his own power.
The destiny of the body being what is stated in the pre
ceding verse, it is not to perish, but is to share in the resur-
rection of Christ. " He who raised Christ from the dead
shaU also quicken our mortal bodies by his Spirit that dweUeth
in us,"* Rom. 8. 11. This verse is parallel to the second
clause of v. 13. Of the stomach and meats, it is said, God
wiU destroy both it and them ; of the Lord and the body it is
said, As he raised up the one, he wUl also raise up the other.
The cases, therefore, are widely different. The relation be
tween our organs of digestion and food is temporary ; the re
lation between Christ and the body is permanent. What
concerns the former relation is a matter of indifference ; what
concerns the other touches the groundwork of our nature and
the design for which we were created. On this destiny of the
body compare 15, 15. 20. 35-56. Phfl. 3, 21. Rom. 8, 11. 2
Cor. 4, 14. 1 Thess. 4, 14.
15. 16. Know ye not that your bodies are the mem
bers of Christ ? shall I then take the members of Christ,
and make (them) the members of an harlot ? God for
bid. What ! know ye not that he which is joined to
an harlot is one body ? for two, saith he, shall be one
flesh. The design of these verses is to estabUsh two points.
First, that the relation between our bodies and Christ is of
the intimate and vital character which had just been stated.
And second, that the sin in question was inconsistent with
that relation, and incompatible with it.
Enow ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ ?
This is a conceded and famUiar point of Christian doctrine,
one with which they were supposed to be acquainted ; and
which proved aU that the Apostle had said of the relation be-
* Instead of the future il_y.pCi, will raise up, Lachmann and Tischendorf
after A. D. read i^syelpei, he raises up. Meyer after B. 67, prefers Q-fiy_ip<_,
lie raised up. According to this last reading tho resurrection of believers is
represented as involved in that of Christ. As they died when he died, so
they rose when he rose. The common test however is the best supported,
and gives a good sense.

I. CORINTHIANS 6, 16. 17. 105
tween the body and Christ. Our bodies are the members of
Christ, because they belong to him, being included in the re
demption effected by his blood ; and also because they are so
united to him as to be partakers of his life. It is one of the
prominent doctrines of the Bible that the union between
Christ and his people includes a community of life ; and it is
clearly taught that this hfe pertains to the body as well as to
the soul, Rom. 8, 6-11. Eph. 2, 6. 7. 5, 30. This is the truth
which the Apostle recalls to the minds of the Corinthians,
and makes it the ground of his indignant condemnation ofthe
sin of which he is speaking. That fornication is incompatible
with the relation of the bodies of believers to Christ, arises
out of the pecuhar nature of that sin. The parties to it be
come partakers of a common life. Whether we can under
stand this or not, it is the doctrine of the Bible. Therefore
as we cannot be partakers of the hfe of Christ, and of the
life of Belial, so neither can our bodies be the members of
Christ, and at the same time have a common Ufe with " one
who is a sinner," in the scriptural sense of that phrase.
17. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one
spirit. That is, has one Spirit with him. This does not mean has
the same disposition or state of mind, but the same principle
of Ufe, v. 12, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is given with
out measure unto Christ, and from him is communicated to
all his people who are thereby brought into a common hfe
with him, Rom. 8, 9. 10. 1 Cor. 12, 13. John 17, 21. 23. Eph.
4, 4. 5, 30. This being the case, it imposes the highest con
ceivable obhgation not to act inconsistently with this intimate?
and exalting relationship.
18. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth
is without the body ; but he that committeth fornica
tion, sinneth against his own body.
This does not teach that fornication is greater than any
other sin ; but it does teach that it is altogether peculiar h?
its effects upon the body ; not so much in its physical as in its
moral and spiritual effects. The idea runs through the Bible
that there is something mysterious in the commerce of the
sexes and in the effects which flow from it. Every other sin,
5*

106 I. CORINTHIANS 6, 18. 19. 20.
however degrading and ruinous to the health, even drunken
ness, is external to the body, that is, external to its life. But
fornication, involving as it does a community of life, is a sin
against the body itself, because incompatible, as the Apostle
had just taught, with the design of its creation, and with its
immortal destiny.
19. What ! know ye not that your body is the tem
ple of the Holy Ghost (which is) in you, which ye have
of God, and ye are not your own ?
There are two things characteristic of a temple. First, it
is sacred as a dwelling-place of God, and therefore cannot be
profaned with impunity. Second, the proprietorship of a
temple is not in man, but in God. Both these things are true
of the beUever's body. It is a temple because the Holy
Ghost dwells in it ; and. because it is not his own. It belongs
to God. As it is a temple of the Holy Ghost, it cannot be pro
faned without incurring great and peculiar guUt. And as it
belongs in a peculiar sense to God, it is not at our own dis
posal. It can only be used for the purposes for which he de
signed it.
20. Por ye are bought with a price : therefore
glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are
God's.* Ye are bought. The verb is in the past tense, -rjyopdo-Srjre,
ye were bought, i. e. delivered by purchase. The deliverance
of men from the power and condemnation of sin was not
effected by power or by truth, but by a ransom. We were
justly held in bondage. We were under the penalty of the
law, and until that penalty was satisfied, we could not be de
hvered. The blood of Christ is our ransom, because it met
all the demands of justice.
The proprietorship in believers asserted at the close ofthe
preceding verse, does not arise from creation or preservation,
but from redemption. 'Ye are not your own, for ye are
bought with a price,' Rom. 6, 17. Gal. 3, 13. Eph. 3, 13. Acts
* The last clause of this verse is omitted by all the modern editors from
Gnesbach down. They are not found in the MSS. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. nor
in several of the ancient versions.

I. CORINTHIANS 6, 20. 107
20, 28. The price of redemption is the blood of Christ, Matt.
20, 28. Rom. 3, 24. Eph. 1, 7. 1 Pet. 1, 18. 19, and every where
where the subject is spoken of in Scripture. Therefore, i. e.
because redeemed, and because redeemed at such a price ;
glorify God, i. e. honour him, and so act as to cause him to
be honoured by others. In your body as a temple consecra
ted to his worship, and employed only in his service.
The following words, and in your spirit, which are God's,
may have been added, because the body alone k not the object
of redemption, and therefore the obhgation of the redeemed
to be devoted to the service of God pertains also to the soul.
As however these words are not found in the great majority
of the oldest manuscripts, most modern editors omit them.

CHAPTER VII.
Instructions relative to marriage, vs. 1—17. The Gospel was not designed to
interfere with the ordinary relations of men, vs. 18-24. Concerning vir
gins and widows, 25—40.
Instructions concerning marriage and other social relations.
Vs. 1-24.
The Corinthians had written to the Apostle, seeking his ad
vice in reference to the state of things in their church. It
appears from this chapter that one ofthe subjects about which
they were in difficulty, and respecting wliich they sought di
rection, was marriage. On this subject the Apostle teUs them,
1st. That, as they were situated, marriage was inexpedient to
them. But as a general law every man should have his own
wife, and every woman her own husband, vs. 1. 2. 2d. That
the obhgation of the parties to the marriage covenant is mu
tual ; the one therefore has no right to desert the other.
Temporary separation, for the purpose of devotion, is aUow-
able ; but nothing more, vs. 3-5. 3d. What he had said
either in reference to marriage or temporary separation, was
not to be considered as any thing more than advice. He
could only tell them what, under the circumstances, was expe
dient ; each one must act according to the grace given to hhn,

108 I. CORINTHIANS 7, 1.
vs. 6-9. 4th. With regard to the married the Lord had already
taught that divorce was unlawful ; the husband could not put
away his wife, nor the wife her husband, vs. 10. 11. 5th. As
to the case not speciaUy contenrplated in our Lord's instruc
tions, where one of the parties was a Christian and the other
a Jew or Pagan, the Apostle teaches, first, that if the unbe
lieving party is willing to remain in the marriage relation, it
should not be dissolved. Secondly, that if the unbehever de
parted, and refused to continue in the marriage connection,
the marriage contract was thereby dissolved, and the beheving
party was at Uberty, vs. 12-15. 6th. Such separations, how
ever, are, if possible, to be avoided, because the gospel is a
gospel of peace. It was not designed to break up any of the
lawful relations of life. As a general rule, therefore, every
man should continue in the same condition in which he was
called. If a man was caUed being circumcised, his becoming
a Christian did not impose upon him the obhgation to become
uncircumcised ; and if caUed being uncircumcised, he was not
required to be circumcised. In like manner, if a slave is
caUed to be a Christian, he may remain a slave, because every
slave is the Lord's free man, and every free man is the Lord's
slave. These social distinctions do not affect our relation to
Christ. Redemption, in raismg aU to the relation of slaves to
Christ, that is, making them aU his property, has raised them
into a sphere where all earthly distinctions are insignificant.
Therefore, let every man abide in the relation wherein he was
called, vs. 1G-24.
1. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote
unto me : (It is) good for a man not to touch a
woman. It is evident that there was a diversity of opinion on the
subject of marriage among the Corinthian Christians. Proba-
Dly some of them of Jewish origin thought it obhgatory,
while other members of the church thought it undesirable, if
not wrong. Paul says, It is good for a man not to marry.
The word good (Kak6v) here means expedient, profitable, as it
does frequently elsewhere, Matt. 17, 4. 18, 8. 9. 1 Cor. 9, 15.
That the Apostle does not mean to teach either that marriage
is morally an evU as compared with cehbacy, or that as a gen
eral rule it is inexpedient, is evident. 1. Because in the fol
lowing verse he declares directly the reverse. 2. Because in

I. CORINTHIANS 7, 1.2. 3. 109
V. 26 he expressly states that " the present distress," or the
peculiar circumstances of trial and difficulty in which tho
Christians of that day were placed, was the ground of his
advice on this subject. 3. Because in 1 Tim. 4, 3, he specifics
" forbidding to marry " as one of the signs of the great apos
tasy wliich he predicted was to occur. 4. Because marriage
is a divine institution, having its foundation in the nature of
man, and therefore must be a good. God accordingly de
clared, " It is not good for man to be alone," i. e. to be un
married, Gen. 2, 18. Paul cannot be understood in a sense
which would make him directly contradict the word of God.
5. Because throughout the Scriptures marriage is spoken of
as honourable, Heb. 13, 4, and is used to iUustrate the relation
between God and his people, and between Christ and his
church. 6. Because aU experience teaches that it is, as a
general rule, necessary to the fuU development of the charac
ter of the individual, and absolutely essential to the virtue
and the weU-being of society. To depreciate marriage would
be to go contrary both to nature and revelation, and such de
preciation has never fafled to be attended by the most inju
rious consequences to the church and to the world. If, there
fore, Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture, we must un
derstand the Apostle as intending to say : ' Considering your
pecuhar circumstances, it is expedient for you not to marry.'
2. Nevertheless, (to avoid) fornication, let every
man have his own wife, and let every woman have her
own husband.
As a general rule, says the Apostle, let every man have his
own wife, and every woman her own husband. Whatever
exceptions there may be to this rule in particular cases, or in
peculiar conditions of society or of the church, the rule itself
stands. There is undoubtedly an increase of worldly care and
anxiety connected with marriage, and therefore it may be expe
dient for those to remain single to whom freedom from such
cares is specially important. This however does not alter the
great law of God, that it is not good for man to be alone.
Celibacy is to be the exception, not the rule.
3-5. Let the husband render unto the wife due

110 I. CORINTHIANS 7, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
benevolence -. * and likewise also the wife unto the hus
band. The wife hath not power of her own body, but
the husband : and likewise also the husband hath not
power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not
one the other, except (it be) with consent for a time,
that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer ; and
come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your
incontinency. There is abundant evidence in the New Testament of the
early manifestation of those principles of asceticism which
soon produced such wide-spread effects, and which to so great
a degree modified the reigning spirit of the church. The idea
that marriage was a less holy state than cehbacy, naturally
led to the conclusion that married persons ought to separate ;
aud it soon came to be regarded as an evidence of eminent
spirituaUty when such separation was final. The Apostle
teaches that neither party has the right to separate from the
other ; that no separation is to be allowed which is not with
mutual consent, for a Umited time, for the purpose of special
devotion, and with the definite intention of reunion. Nothing
can be more foreign to the mind of the Apostle than the
spirit which filled the monasteries and convents of the mediaeval
church. 6. 7. But I speak this by permission, (and) not
of commandment. Por I would that ah men were
even as I myself. But every man hath his proper
gift of God, one after this manner, and another after
that. The reference of the word this in v. 6, is a matter of doubt.
Some refer it to the immediately preceding clause, 'Your
coming together again I speak of as permitted, not as com
manded.' But that clause is an entirely subordinate one ; and
the sense thus given to the passage is not consistent with the

* Instead of b<t>m\oti.ei/7iv eiivoiav ofthe received text, A. B. C. D. E. F. G.
have the simpler reading, 6<p.i\-fip, which most editors adopt. The same au
thorities omit the words rrj vT\tn.[q khI, in the latter part of the passage.

I. CORINTHIANS 7, 6. 7. 8. 9. ill
context. It was not a matter permitted, but commanded
that husbands and wives should live together. Others refer
it to the whole of v. 5. ' Your separating yourselves only by
consent and for a limited time for the purpose of devotion, is
a matter of permission, not of command ; you may separate
for other purposes and for an unlimited time.' But to this
also it is an obvious objection, that it conflicts with the man
datory character of vs. 3. 4, aud with the meaning of v. 5 itself;
for that verse has not the form of a command. The refer
ence to tbe 5th verse may be made under a different aspect.
' What I have said of your separating by consent for a season,
is a matter of permission, not of command.' But this is not
consistent with the reason assigned in the next verse. The
most natural reference is to v. 2, and to what follows. His
saying, ' Let every man have his own wife and every woman
her own husband, and let them remember their mutual obh-
gations,' was permissive and not a matter of command. Mar
riage, in other words, is permitted, not commanded. For I
would that all were as I am. The sense is not materially dif
ferent, if with many editors we read 3ik_> Si instead of
&lk_> yap. ' Marriage is not commanded, but I would,' etc.
The Apostle did not take sides with the extreme Jewish party,
who regarded marriage as obligatory. He admitted the ex
pediency of aU remaining single in those times of persecuti m
to whom God had given the requisite grace.
8. 9. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows,
It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if
they cannot contain, let them marry : for it is better to
marry than to burn.
This is the application of the principle laid down in v. 1 to
the Corinthians. ' I say to the unmarried and to the widows
among you, it is well not to marry.' Tlie unmarried is not to
be limited to widowers, as is commonly done on account of
the word widows foUowing, because the word does not admit
of that hmitation ; and because the word married in the fol
lowing verse includes all classes. ' To the unmarried, and
specially to widows, I say so ; to the married I say so.'
If these verses and others of like import, are to be under
stood of men generally, and not of men in the peculiar cir
cumstances of the early Christians, then it must be admitted
that Paul depreciates marriage, and that he represents it as

112 I. CORINTHIANS 7, 9. 10. 11.
scarcely having any higher end than the sexual intercourse of
brutes. This cannot be his meaning; not only because it is
contrary to Scripture, but also because Paul elsewhere, Eph
5, 22-33, represents marriage as a most ennobling spiritual
union ; which raises a man out of himself and makes him hve
for another ; a union so elevated and refining as to render it
the fit symbol of that bond between Christ and his people,
by which they are exalted to the full perfection of their being.
Marriage, according to Paul, does for man in the sphere of
nature, what union with Christ does for him in the sphere of
grace. The truth is that the apostle writes to the Corin
thians as he would do to an army about to enter on a most
unequal conflict in an enemy's country, and for a protracted
period. He teUs them, ' This is no time for you to think of
marriage. You have a right to marry. And in general it is
best that all men should marry. But in your circumstances
marriage can only lead to embarrassment and increase of suf
fering.' This is the only view of the matter by which we can
reconcile the apostle with himself, or with the truth of Scrip
ture and of fact. This must therefore be borne in mind in
the interpretation of this whole chapter.
10. 11. And unto the married I command, (yet)
not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from
(her) husband : But and if she depart, let her remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to (her) husband : and let
not the husband put away (his) wife.
The first part of the 11th verse is a parenthesis, the con
struction goes on with the last clause. To the married I
command, ' Let not the wife depart from her husband ; and
let not the husband put away his wife.' The distinction which
he here and in v. 12 makes between his commands and those
of the Lord, is not a distinction between what is inspired and
what is not ; nor is it a distinction between what Paul taught
and what the Scriptures teach as Calvin understands it ; but
Lord here evidently refers to Christ ; and the distinction in
tended is between what Christ had taught while on earth, and
what Paul by his Spirit was inspired to teach. He tells the
Corinthians that so far as the matter of divorce was concerned,
they had no need to apply to him for instruction ; Christ had
already taught that the marriage bond could not be dissolved

I. CORINTHIANS 7, 10. 11. 113
at the option of the parties. The wife had no right to leave
her husband ; nor had. the husband the right to repudiate his
wife. But although the marriage bond cannot be dissolved
by any human authority, because it is, in virtue of the law of
God, a covenant for life between one man and one woman ;
yet it can be annuUed, not rightfuUy indeed, but stUl effect
ually. Adultery annuls it, because it is a breach of the specific
contract involved in marriage. And so does, for the same
reason, wilful desertion, as the apostle teaches in a following/'
verse. This is the Protestant doctrine concerning divorce,
founded on the nature of marriage and on the explicit instruc
tions of our Lord, Matt. 5, 32. 19, 3-9. Mark 10, 2-12. Luke
16, 18. According to this doctrine nothing but adultery or
wilful desertion is a legitimate ground of divorce, first, be
cause the Scriptures aUow of no other grounds ; and secondly,
because incompatibiUty of temper, cruelty, disease, crime, and
other things of like kind, which human laws often make the
occasion for divorce, are not in their nature a destruction of
the marriage covenant. Romanists teach that divorce a vin
culo matrimonii, where both parties were baptized, is never
allowable. As this rule is contrary to Scripture, it is found
injurious in practice ; and therefore it is evaded by declaring
marriages on frivolous grounds void ab initio ; or by granting
separation without dissolution of the marriage tie, for reasons
not sanctioned by Scripture. The plain doctrine of the pas
sage before us, as well as other portions of the word of God,
is that marriage is an indissoluble covenant between one man
and one woman for life, admitting neither of polygamy nor
of divorce. If the covenant be annuUed, it can only be by
the sinful act of one of the parties.
But and if she depart. The law of Christ is that she
should not depart ; but ff in violation of that law, or if from
necessity she be obhged to depart, she has but two things to
choose between, — she must remain unmarried, or she must be
reconcUed to her husband. This is not intended as an excep
tion to the law, but it contemplates a case which may occur
in despite of the law. ' In case a woman has actually de
parted, with or without just cause, then she must remain un
married, or be reconcUed. to her husband.' There are cases
undoubtedly which justify a woman in leaving her husband,
which do not justify divorce. Just as there are cases which
justify a chUd leaving, or being removed from, the custody

114 I. CORINTHIANS 7, 12. 13. 14.
of a parent. The apostle teaches, however, that in such cases
of separation, the parties must remain unmarried.
12. 13. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If
any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be
pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
And the woman which hath an husband that believeth
not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not
leave him.
But to the rest ; i. e. to those married persons not con
templated in the preceding class. The context makes it clear,
that the distinction between the two classes was, that in the
former, both parties were Christians ; and in the latter, one
was a Christian, and the other a Jew or heathen. With re
gard to these mixed marriages our Lord had given no specific
command ; therefore Paul says, I speak, not the Lord. The
rule which the apostle lays down is, that such marriages are
lawful, and therefore there is no obligation on the Christian
party to dissolve the connection. And if he is not bound to
do it, he has no right to do it. If, therefore, the unbelieving
party consent (o-weuSo/cet) to remain, the marriage may not be
dissolved. _ The Christian husband is forbidden to repudiate
(dc^teVai) his heathen wife ; and the Christian wife is forbid
den to repudiate her heathen husband. The same word is
used in both cases, because, by the laws both of the Greeks
and of the Romans, the woman as weU as the man, had, on
legal grounds, the right of divorce. Having said that these
mixed marriages might be lawfully continued, he proceeds to
remove the scruples which the Christian party might enter
tain on that point. He shows there is nothing unholy in such
a connection. 14. Por the unbelieving husband is sanctified by
the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the
husband : else were your children unclean ; but now
are they holy.
The proof that such marriages may properly be continued,
is, that the unbelieving party is sanctified by the believing ;
and the proof that such is the fact, is, that by common con
sent their children are holy ; which could not be, unless the

I. CORINTHIANS 7, 14. lis
marriages whence they sprang were holy ; or unless the prin
ciple that intimate communion with the holy renders holy,
were a correct principle.
The assertion of the apostle is, that the unbelieving hus
band or wife is sanctified in virtue of the marriage relation
with a believer. We have already seen that the word (dytd-
fev), to sanctify, means, 1. To cleanse. 2. To render morally
pure. 3. To consecrate, to regard as sacred, and hence, to
reverence or to hallow. Examples of the use of the word in
the third general sense just mentioned, are to be found in
all parts of Scripture. Any person or thing consecrated to
God, or employed in his service, is said to be sanctified. Thus,
particular days appropriated to his service, the temple, its
utensils, the sacrifices, the priests, the whole theocratical peo
ple, are caUed holy. Persons or things not thus consecrated
are called profane, common, or unclean. To transfer any per
son or thing from this latter class to the former, is to sanctify
him or it. "What God hath cleansed (or sanctified), that
call not thou common," Acts 10, 15. Every creature of God
is good, and is to be received with thanksgiving, " For it is
sanctified by the word of God and prayer," 1 Tim. 4, 5. This
use of the word is speciaUy frequent in application to persons
and communities. The Hebrew people were sanctified (i. e.
consecrated), by being selected from other nations and de
voted to the service of the true God. They were, therefore,
constantly called holy. AU who joined them, or who were
intimately connected with them, became in the same sense,
holy. Their chUdren were holy ; so were their wives. " If
the first-fruits be holy, the lump is also holy ; and if the root
be holy, so are also the branches," Rom. 11, 16. That is, if
the parents be holy, so are also the chUdren. Any child, the
circumstances of whose birth secured it a place within the
pale of the theocracy, or commonwealth of Israel, was, accord
ing to the constant usage of Scripture, said to be holy. In
none of these cases does the word express any subjective or
inward change. A lamb consecrated as a sacrifice, and there
fore holy, did not differ in its nature from any other lamb.
The priests or people, holy in the sense of set apart to the
service of God, were in their inward state the same as other
men. Children born within the theocracy, and therefore holy,
were none the less conceived in sin, and brought forth in ini
quity. They were by nature the children of wrath, even as
others, Eph. 2, 3. When, therefore, it is said that the UDbe-

116 I. CORINTHIANS 7, 14.
lieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the
unbelieving wife by the beheving husband, the meaning is,
not that they are rendered inwardly holy, nor that they are
brought under a sanctifying influence, but that they were
sanctified by their intimate union with a believer, just as the
temple sanctified the gold connected with it ; or the altar the
gift laid upon it, Matt. 23, 17. 19. The sacrifice in itself was
merely a part of the body of a lamb, laid upon the altar,
though its internal nature remained the same, it became some
thing sacred. Thus, the pagan husband, in vhtue of his union
with a Christian wife, although he remained a pagan, was
sanctified ; he assumed a new relation ; he was set apart to
the service of God, as the guardian of one of his chosen ones,
and as the parent of chUdren who, in virtue of theh beheving
mother, were chUdren ofthe covenant.
That this is so, the apostle proves from the fact, that if the
parents are holy, the children are holy; if the parents are un
clean, the children are unclean. This is saying hterally what
is expressed figuratively in Rom. 11, 16. "If the root be
holy, so are the branches." It wfll be remembered that the
words holy and unclean, do not in this connection express
moral character, but are equivalent to sacred and profane.
Those within the covenant are sacred, those without are pro
fane, i. e. not consecrated to God. There are two views which
may be taken of the apostle's argument in this verse. The
most natural, and hence the most generaUy adopted view is
this : ' The children of these mixed marriages are universally
recognised as holy, that is, as belonging to the church. If
this be correct, which no one disputes, the marriages them
selves must be consistent with the laws of God. The unbe
lieving must be sanctified by the beheving partner. Other
wise, your chUdren would be unclean, i. e. born out of the
pale of the church.' To this it is indeed objected by several
modem commentators, that it takes for granted that the
Corinthians had no scruples about the church-standing of the
chUdren of these mixed marriages. But this, it is said, is very
improbable so soon after the establishment of the church,
when cases of the kind must have been comparatively few.
The principle in question, however, was not a new one, to be
then first determined by Christian usage. It was, at least, as
old as the Jewish economy ; and famUiar wherever Jewish
laws and the facts of the Jewish history, were known. Paul
circumcised Timothy, whose father was a Greek, while his

I. CORINTHIANS 7, 14. 117
mother was a Jewess, because he knew that his countrymen
regarded circumcision in such cases as obligatory, Acts 16,
1-3. The apostle constantly assumes that his readers were
famUiar with the principles and facts of the Old Testament
economy. Comp. 10, 1-13.
The other view of the argument is this : ' If, as you ad
mit, the children of believers be holy, why should not the
husband or the wife of a believer be holy. The conjugal re
lation is as intimate as the parental. If the one relation se
cures this sacredness, so must the other. If the husband be
not sanctified by his believing wife, children are not sanctified
by believing parents.' This, however, supposes a change in
the persons addressed. Paul is speaking to persons involved
in these mixed marriages. Your chUdren naturaUy means
the children of you who have unbelieving husbands or wives.
Whereas this explanation supposes your to refer to Christians
generaUy. In either way, however, this passage recognises as
universally conceded the great scriptural principle, that the
chUdren of beUevers are holy. They are holy in the same
sense in which the Jews were holy. They are included in the
church, and have a right to be so regarded. The chUd of a
Jewish parent had a right to circumcision, and to aU the priv
ileges of the theocracy. So the chUd of a Christian parent
has a right to baptism and to all the privUeges of the church,
so long as he is represented by his parent ; that is, until he
arrives at the period of life when he is entitled and bound to
act for himself. Then his relation to the church depends
upon his own act. The church is the same in all ages. And
it is most instructive to observe how the writers of the New
Testament quietly take for granted that the great principles
which underlie the old dispensation, are stUl in force under
the new. The children of Jews were treated as Jews ; and the
chUdren of Christians, Paul assumes as a thing no one would
dispute, are to be treated as Cliristians. Some modern Ger
man writers find in this passage a proof that infant baptism
was unknown in the apostohc church. They say that Paul
could not attribute the hohness of children to their parentage,
if they were baptized — because their consecration would then
be due to that rite, and not to their descent. This is strange
reasoning. The truth is, that they were baptized not to make
them holy, but because they were holy. The Jewish child
was circumcised because he was a Jew, and not to make him
one. The Rabbins say : Peregrina si proselyta fuerit et cum

118 I. CORINTHIANS 7, 14. 15.
ea filia ejus — si concepta fuerit et nata in sanctitate, est ut
fiha Israelita per omnia. See Wetstbin in loc. lo be born
in hoUness (i. e. within the church) was necessary in order to
the child being regarded as an Israelite. So Christian chU
dren are not made holy by baptism, but they are baptized be
cause they are holy.
15. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart.
A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such
(cases) : but God hath called us to peace.
The command in the preceding verse was founded on the
assumption, that the unbelieving party consented to remain
in the marriage relation. If the unbeliever refused thus to
remain, the believer was then free. The behever was not to
repudiate the unbelieving husband or wife ; but if the unbe
liever broke up the marriage, the Christian partner was there
by liberated from the contract. This is the interpretation
which Protestants have almost universally given to this verse.
It is a passage of great importance, because it is the founda
tion of the Protestant doctrine that wUful desertion is a legiti
mate ground of divorce. And such is certainly the natural
sense of the passage. The question before the apostle was,
' What is to be done in the case of these mixed marriages ? '
His answer is, ' Let not the believer put away the unbeliever,
for Christ has forbidden a man to put away his wife for any
cause except that of adultery, Matt. 5, 32. But if the unbe
liever breaks up the marriage, the behever is no longer bound.'
There is no conflict here between Christ's command and Paul's
instructions. Both say, a man cannot put away his wife (nor
of course a wife her husband) on account of difference of re
ligion, or for any other reason but the one above specified.
The apostle only adds that if the beheving party be, without
just cause, put away, he or she is free.
A brother or sister is not in bondage (oi 8.8ovk_rra., equivar
lent to oi SeSeTai, v. 39), i. e. is not bound ; if the unbeliever
consent to remain, the believer is bound ; if the unbeliever
will not consent, the believer is not bound. In the one case
the marriage contract binds him ; in the other case it does
not bind him. This seems to be the simple meaning of the
passage. _ Others understand the apostle as saying that the
believer is not bound to continue the marriage — that is, is
under no obligation to Uve with a partner who is unwilling to

I. CORINTHIANS 7, 15. 16. 119
hve with him. But the one part of the verse should be
allowed to explain the other. An obligation which is said to
exist in one case, Paul denies exists in another. If the un
believer is willing to remain, the believer is bound by the
marriage contract ; but if she be unwilling, he is not bound.
But God hath called us in peace (iv dp-qvy, i. e. dore elvat
ev dp-rpry). Peace is the state in which the called should hve.
The gospel was not designed to break up famihes or to sepa
rate husbands and wives. Therefore, though the believer is
free if deserted by his unbeheving partner, the separation
should be avoided if possible. Let them live together if they
can ; and let aU proper means be taken to bring the unbeliev
ing party to a sense of duty, and to induce him to fulfil the
marriage covenant. This is the common view of the meaning
of this clause. Others understand it in a directly opposite
sense, viz., as assigning a reason why the separation should
take place, or at least why the attempt to detain an unwilling
husband or wife should not be pressed too far.' ' As God hath
called us to hve in peace, it is contrary to the nature of our
vocation to keep up these ill-assorted connections.' This,
however, is contrary to the whole animus of the apostle. He
is evidently labouring throughout these verses to prevent aU
unnecessary disruptions of social ties.
16. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou
shalt save (thy) husband? or how knowest thou, O
man, whether thou shalt save (thy) wife ?
The meaning of this verse depends on the interpretation
given to the preceding. If Paul there said, ' Your call to Uve
in peace forbids the continuance of the marriage relation with
an unwilhng husband or wife ; ' then this verse must give a
further reason why (supposing one of the parties to be unwil
ling) such marriages should not be continued. That reason
is, the utter uncertainty of any spiritual good flowing from
them. ' Why persist in keeping up the connection, when, O
wife, you know not whether you can save your husband ? ' If,
however, the common mterpretation of v. 15 be adopted, then
the meaning is, ' Live in peace if possible, for how knowest
thou whether thou shalt not save thy husband ? ' &c. We
have here, therefore, an additional reason for avoiding separa
tion in the case supposed. Compare 2 Sam. 12,22. Joel 2,
14. Jonah 3, 9, in the Septuagint, where the phrase ri. 6t8_v ei,

120 I. CORINTHIANS 7, 16. Vi.
who knows if, is used to express hope. So here the idea is,
' Who knows, O wife, but that thou shalt save thy husband i >
17. But as God hath distributed to every man, as
the Lord hath called every one,* so let him walk. And
so ordain I in all churches.
Paul was not only averse to breaking up the conjugal re
lation, but it was a general ordinance of his that men should
remain in the same social position after becoming Christians,
which they had occupied before. We can very imperfectly
appreciate the effect produced by the first promulgation of
the gospel. The signs and wonders, and diverse miracles and
gifts of the Holy Ghost by which it was attended ; the perfect
equahty of men which it announced ; the glorious promises
which it contained ; the insignificancy and ephemeral charac
ter which it ascribed to every thing earthly ; and the certain
ty of the second coming of Christ which it predicted, produced
a ferment in the minds of men such as was never experienced
either before or since. It is not surprising, therefore, that
men were in many instances disposed to break loose from
their social ties ; wives to forsake theh unbelieving husbands,
or husbands their wives ; slaves to renounce the authority of
their masters, or subjects the dominion of theh sovereigns.
This was an evil which caUed for repression. Paul endea
voured to convince his readers that theh relation to Christ
was compatible with any social relation or position. It mat
tered not whether they were circumcised or uncircumcised,
bond or free, married to a Christian or married to a Gentile,
their fellowship with Christ remained the same. Their con
version to Christianity involved, therefore, no necessity of
breaking asunder their social ties. The gospel was not a
revolutionary, disorganizing element ; but one which was de
signed to eliminate what is evU, and to exalt and purify what
is in itself indifferent.
As God (or the Lord) hath distributed to every man, i. e.
whatever lot in life God has assigned any man. As the Lord
(or God) hath called every man, i. e. whatever condition or
station a man occupied when caUed by the word and Spirit of
God, let him remain in it. His conversion, at least, does not
* The MSS., A. B. C. D. E. F. G., read _ Kvpios with i/j.epio-_, and 6 Ste6s
with k4kA7ik.v.

I. CORINTHIANS 7, 17. 18. 121
render any change necessary. The principal difficulty with
regard to this verse does not appear in our version. The
words (el prj), rendered but at the beginning of the verse,
mean except or unless, and this meaning they have so uniform
ly that many commentators insist that they must be so ren
dered here. Some of them say the meaning is, ' What do you
know except this, that every man should remain in the condi
tion in which he was caUed ? ' But in this way the verse does
not cohere with the preceding one. ' How knowest thou, O
man, whether thou shalt save thy wife ? except let every man
remain as he was caUed.' This every one feels to be intolera
bly harsh. It would be better with others, to supply some
thing at the beginning of the verse. ' What is to be done
except.'' ' Do not favour the separation of husbands and wives
on account of difference in religion. God has caUed us to
peace. The wife may save her husband, and the husband his
wife. What then is to be done, except to remain in the con
dition in which you were caUed.' Others get over the diffi
culty by separating the el and pur} and connecting the latter
with a verb understood. 'How knowest thou, O man, but
that thou shalt save thy wife ? If not, i. e. if thou shalt not
save her, stiU the principle holds good that every man should
remain in the state in which he was called.' This gives a good
sense, but it would require et Se prj. As it is undeniable that
the Greek of the New Testament, especially in the use of the
particles, is in a measure conformed to the usage of the He
brew, a freer use of these particles is aUowable, when the
context requires it, than is common in classic writers. Most
commentators therefore render the words in question as our
translators have done. And so I ordain in all the churches.
That is, this is the rule or order which I lay down in all
churches. The apostles, in vhtue of theh plenary inspiration,
were authorized not only to teach the doctrines ofthe gospel.
but also to regulate aU matters relating to practice.
18. Is any man called being circumcised? let him
not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncir-
cumcision ? let him not be circumcised.
This is the first apphcation ofthe principle just laid down.
Let every man remain as he is, circumcised or uncircumcised.
The Jews were wont, when they abandoned their religion, to
endeavour to obUterate the mark of circumcision. The Juda-
6

122 I. CORINTHIANS 7, 18. 19. 20.
izers were disposed to insist on the circumcision of the Gentile
converts. Both were wrong. Paul's command is that they
should remain as they were. Instead of the interrogative form
adopted in our version, the preferable translation is, " One was
caUed (iKky]Hv) being circumcised ; let him not become uncir-
cumcised. Another was called in uncircumcision ; let him not
be circumcised." To call, throughout the doctrinal portions
of the New Testament, is to convert, to caU effectuaUy.
19. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is
nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
This is the reason why they should be treated with indif
ference. They are nothing ; they have no influence either
favourable or unfavourable on our relation to God. No man
is either the better or worse for being either circumcised or
uncircumcised. The gospel has raised men above aU such
things. The question to be asked is not whether a man is
circumcised or uncircumcised ; but whether he keeps the com
mandments of God. The things, therefore, about which the
Christian ought to be sohcitous, are not such external matters,
which have no influence on his spiritual state, but conformity
in heart and life to the revealed wfll of God. Rom. 2, 25. 29.
Gal. 5, 6. " In Christ Jesus neither circumcision avaUeth any
thing (is of any worth), nor uncircumcision ; but faith which
worketh by love." ' Faith that worketh by love,' and ' keep
ing the commandments of God,' are the same thing. They
express the idea of holiness of heart and hfe under different
aspects. 20. Let every man abide in the same calling where
in he was called,
This is a repetition of the sentiment contained in v. 17,
which is again repeated in v. 24. The word caUing (Kkrjo-i_),
always in the New Testament means the call of God, that effi
cacious operation of his Spirit by which men are brought into
the kingdom of Christ. It is hard, however, to make it bear
that sense here. The meaning is plain enough. 'As he was
called, so let him remain.' But this is the idea detached
from the form in which it is here expressed. The great ma
jority of commentators agree in giving the word in this place
the sense of vocation, as we use that word when we speak of

I. CORINTHIANS 7, 20.21. 123
ihe vocation of a mechanic or of a farmer. In whatever sta
tion or condition a man is caUed, therein let him remain.
This of course is not intended to prohibit a man's endeavour
ing to better his condition. If he be a labourer when con
verted, he is not required always to remain a labourer. The
meaning ofthe apostle evidently is, that no man should desire
to change his status in life simply because he had become a
Christian ; as though he could not be a Christian and yet re
main as he was. The gospel is just as well suited to men in
one vocation as in another, and its blessings can be enjoyed
in aU theh fulness equally in any condition of life. This is U-
lustrated by an extreme case in the foUowing verse.
21. Art thou called (being) a servant? care not for
it : but if thou mayest be made free, use (it) rather.
Here again the general sense is plain. A man's being a
slave, so far as his being a Christian is concerned, is a mat
ter of no account. It need give him no concern. The inter
pretation of the latter part of the verse is somewhat doubtful.
According to most of the Fathers the meaning is, ' Care not
for being a slave ; but even if you can be free, prefer to remain
as you are.' This interpretation is adopted by several of the
modern German commentators. It is urged in its favour that
the original demands it. Paul does not say but if (dkk' el),
but, but if even (aXk' el Kai). ' Care not for your slavery ; but
if even you can be free, use it rather ; ' or, ' although (et Kai )
thou canst be free, &c.' The English version overlooks the
Kai. Besides, it is said the common interpretation is in con
flict with the context. The very thing the apostle has in view
is to urge his readers to remain in the condition in which they
were caUed. ' Art thou called being circumcised, remain cir
cumcised ; art thou called being free, remain free ; art thou
called being a slave, remain a slave.' There is not much force
in this argument ; because, as before remarked, Paul's object
is not to exhort men not to improve their condition, but sim
ply not to aUow their social relations to disturb them ; or
imagine that their becoming Christians rendered it necessary
to change those relations. He could, with perfect consistency
with the context, say to the slave, ' Let not your being a slave
give you any concern ; but if you can become free, choose
freedom rather than slavery.' A third argument urged in fa-
vour ofthe interpretation above mentioned, is that it is more

124 I. CORINTHIANS 7, 21.22.
consistent with the spirit ofthe apostle, with his exalted views
ofthe equality of all men in Christ, and with his expectation
that all earthly distinctions would soon be swept away. The
advice to slaves to avail themselves of the opportunity to be
come free, it is said, would be trivial in the estimation of one
who believed that those slaves might, at any moment, be ex
alted to be kings and priests to God. It must be admitted
that this interpretation is plausible. It is not, however, de
manded either by the language used, or by the context. The
conjunction (Kai), overlooked in our version, maybe rendered
also. ' Wast thou caUed being a slave ? care not for it ; but
if also (i. e. in addition to your being called) thou canst become
free, use it rather.' Luther, Calvin, Beza, and the great body
of commentators from their day to this, understand the apos
tle to say that liberty was to be chosen if the opportunity to
become free were offered. That the context does not conflict
with this view of the passage, which our translators evidently
adopted, has already been shown.
22. Por he that is called in the Lord, (being) a
servant, is the Lord's freeman : likewise also he that is
called, (being) free, is Christ's servant.
The connection is with the first, not with the last clause of
v. 21. 'Care not for your bondage, /or,' &c. He that is
called in the Lord ; or, as the words stand, ' The slave caUed
in the Lord.' That is, the converted slave. Is the Lord's
freeman, i. e. is one whom the Lord has redeemed. The pos
session of that liberty with which Christ makes his people
free, is so great a blessing, that aU other things, even the con
dition of slavery, are comparatively of no account. Paul, in
Rom. 8, 18-23, says that the afflictions of this life are not
worthy to be compared with the glorious hberty of the sons
of God, towards which the whole creation, now subject to
vanity, looks with longing expectation. A man need care
little about his external condition in this world, who is freed
from the bondage of Satan, the curse ofthe law, the dominion
of sin, and who is made a child and heir of God ; that is, who
is conformed to the image of his Son, and made a partaker of
his exaltation and kingdom. Likewise also he that is called,
being free, is the Lord's servant (i. e. slave, SovAos). The dis
tinction between master and slave is obliterated. To be the
Lord's freeman, and to be the Lord's slave, are the same thing.

I. CORINTHIANS 7, 22.23.24. 125
The Lord's fi-eeman is one whom the Lord has redeemed from
Satan, and made his own ; and the Lord's slave is also one
whom Christ has purchased for himself. So that master and
slave stand on the same level before Christ, Comp. Eph. 6, 9.
23. Ye are bought with a price ; be not ye the
servants of men.
Ye (i. e. all Christians, bond and free,) were bought with a
price. That is, purchased by Christ with his most precious
blood, 1 Pet. 1, 18. 19. Ye belong to him ; ye are his slaves,
and should therefore act accordingly ; and not be the slaves
of men. The slave of one master cannot be the slave of
another. One who is redeemed by Christ, who feels that he
belongs to him, that his witt is the supreme rule of action, and
who performs all his duties, not as a man-pleaser, but as doing
service as to the Lord, and not to men, Eph. 6, 6. 7, is in
wardly free, whatever his external relations may be. This
verse is a proper sequel to the preceding one. The apostle
had exhorted aU beUevers, even slaves, to be contented with
their external condition. As a motive to such contentment,
he had said they were aU equaUy the subjects of redemption.
They all belonged to Christ. To him their aUegiance was due.
They, therefore, whether bond or free, should act in obedi
ence to him, and not in obedience to men. There is a very
important sense in which even slaves are forbidden to be the
servants of men — that is, they are not to be men-pleasers, but
in aU things should act from a sense of duty to God.
24. Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called,
therein abide with God.
That is, as aU these external relations are of no account,
and especiaUy, as a man may be a slave and yet a freeman, let
every man be contented with the station which God has
assigned him in this Ufe. With God (napa. Se<i>) ; near him,
perpetually mindful of his presence and favour. In other
words, in communion with God. This would secure their
contentment and happiness. They would find his favour to
be life, and his loving-kindness to be better than Ufe. To live
near to God is, therefore, the apostle's prescription both for
peace and holiness.

126 I. CORINTHIANS 7, 25.
Of Virgins and Widows. Vs. 25-40.
In this portion ofthe chapter the apostle treats principaUy
ofthe marriage of virgins — including, however, the young of
both sexes. On this subject he says he was not authorized to
speak with authority, but simply to advise, v. 25. His advice
was, on account of the impending troubles, that they should
not marry, vs. 26. 27. It was not wrong to marry, but it
would expose them to greater suffering, v. 28. Besides, they
should consider the transitory nature of all earthly ties. The
fashion of the world was passing away, vs. 29-31. StiU fur
ther, a single life was freer from worldly cares. The unmar
ried could consecrate themselves without distraction to the
service of the Lord, vs. 32-35. To parents he says, that, if
circumstances render it desirable, they might without hesita
tion give theh daughters in marriage, v. 36. But if they were
free to act on their own judgment, his advice was to keep
them unmarried, vs. 37. 38. Marriage can only be dissolved
by death. After the death of her husband, a woman is at
hberty to marry again ; but she should intermarry only with
a Christian ; and in Paul's judgment, her happiness would be
promoted by remaining single, vs. 39. 40.
25. Now concerning virgins I have no command
ment of the Lord -. yet I give my judgment, as one
that hath obtamed mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
Now (Se, but,) serves to resume the connection broken off
by the preceding digression. 'But to resume my subject,'
which in this chapter is marriage. Concerning virgins, (irap-
-SeW.) The word properly means maidens, though as an ad
jective it is used of both sexes, Rev. 14, 4. I have no com
mandment of the Lord. That is, neither Christ himself, nor
the Spirit of Christ, by whom Paul was guided, had commis
sioned hhn to do any thing more than to counsel these per
sons. He was inspired, or led by the Spirit, in this matter,
not to command, but to advise. His advice, however, was
worthy of great deference. It was not merely the counsel of
a wise and experienced man ; but of one who had obtained
mercy of the Lord to be faithful, i. e. worthy of confidence,
one who could be trusted. This is a sense the word (fiords)
often has, as in the expressions, " faithful saying," " faithful
Witness." Paul felt himself indebted to the mercy of Christ

I. CORINTHIANS 7, 25. 26. 127
for those inward graces and qualities which entitled him to
the confidence of his readers. He recognised Christ as the
giver of those gifts, and himself as undeserving of them. Had
he been left to himself, instead of being the wise, disinter
ested, and faithful counsellor of Christians, he would have
been a blaspheming persecutor. PhUosophy would teach us
that moral excellence must be self-acquired. The Bible teach
es us that it is the gift of God ; and being the gift of Christ,
Christ must be God. As such, Paul blessed him for having
been so merciful to him as to convert him, and bring him to
the knowledge and obedience of the truth.
26. I suppose therefore that this is good for the
present distress, (I say,) that (it is) good for a man so
to be. I suppose therefore, (voptZfa ovv,) i. e. I think then. The
being so, i. e. as you are, unmarried, is good, in the sense of
expedient. There is a shght grammatical inaccuracy, or
change of construction, in this verse. ' I think then this to
be expedient on account of the coming necessity ; that is, I
think that it is expedient for a man so to be.' Paul here ex
pressly states the ground of his opinion that it was inexpedi
ent for his readers to marry. It was on account of the present
distress, (ivearutrav dvdyK-rjv,) the distress standing near, whether
actuaUy present, or impending, depends on the context, Luke
21, 23. 2 Cor. 6, 4. 10, 12. 1 Thess. 3, 7. In the present case
it was probably not so much the troubles in which Christians
were then actuaUy involved, as those which the apostle saw to
be hanging over them, which he refers to. The Scriptures
clearly predicted that the coming of Christ was to be preceded
and attended by great commotions and calamities. These
predictions had reference both to his first and second advent.
The insight even of inspired men into the future was very im
perfect. The ancient prophets searched dihgently into the
meaning of their own predictions, 1 Pet. 1, 10-12, and the
apostles knew little ofthe times and seasons, Acts 1, 7. They
knew that great calamities were to come on the earth, but how
or when it was not given to them clearly to see. The awful
desolation which was soon to faU upon Jerusalem and on the
whole Jewish race, and which could not but involve more or
less the Christians also, and the inevitable struggles and per
secutions which, according to our Lord's predictions, his fol-

128 I. CORINTHIANS 7, 26.27.28,
lowers were to encounter, were surely enough to create a deep
impression on the apostle's mind, and to make him solicitous
to prepare his brethren for the coming storm. It is not neces
sary, therefore, to assume, as is so often done, that the apostle
anticipated the second advent of Christ during that genera
tion, and that he refers to the calamities which were to pre
cede that event. Such expectation would not, indeed, be in
compatible with his inspiration. It was revealed to him that
Christ was to come the second time ; and that he was to come
as a thief in the night. He might, therefore, naturaUy look
for it. at any time. We know, however, that in the case of
Paul at least, it was revealed, that the second advent was not
to occur before the national conversion of the Jews, Rom. 1 1,
25 ; or before the great apostasy and rise of the man of sin,
2 Thess. 2, 2. 3. StiU, he knew not when those events inight
occur, and therefore he knew not when Christ would come.
It was not, however, to the calamities which are to precede
the second advent, to which Paul here refers, but rather to
those which it was predicted should attend the introduction
ofthe gospel.
27. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be
loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife ? seek not a wife.
Marriage, in the present circumstances of the church, wiU
prove a burden. Although this fact wfll not justify the disso
lution of any marriage, it should dissuade Christians from get
ting married.
28. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;
and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Neverthe
less such shall have trouble in the flesh : but I spare
you. If thou marry, or, ' If thou shalt have married, thou didst
not sin ; and if a virgin shall have married, she did not sin.'
Marriage is mexpedient, not sinful. It is not because there
is any thing wrong in getting married that Paul dissuades
from it, but because such shall have trouble (Skl'ifns, suffering)
in the flesh ; that is, external, as opposed to inward or spirit
ual afflictions. The reference is to the afflictions which must
attend marriage in times of trouble. The word flesh is often
used in this sense for what is external. John 6, 63. Eph. 6, 5.

I. CORINTHIANS 7, 29-31. 129
2 Cor. 11, 18. But I spare you. Tho design of my dissuad
ing you from marriage is to spare you these sufferings.
29-31. But this I say, brethren, the time (is)
short ; it remaineth, that both they that have wives be
as though they had none ; and they that weep, as
though they wept not ; and they that rejoice, as though
they rejoiced not ; and they that buy, as though they
possessed not ; and they that use this world, as not
abusing (it) : for the fashion of this world passeth
away. ' This is another reason why you should not marry. You
wfll soon have to leave your wives. It is nothing relating to
your permanent and eternal interests which I urged you to
forego, but only something which pertains to the fleeting rela
tions of this changing world.'
But this I say, i. e. This I would have you bear in mind,
as giving force to my advice. The time, i. e. the appointed
time («aipds, not xpdvos) is short (o-vvearakp.evo_). The verb
properly means to roll or wind up, Acts 5, 6, then to contract or
shorten. ' The time is shortened.' Comp. Matt. 24, 22. Mark
13, 20, where the idea is the same, though the word used is
different. This interpretation is on the whole preferable to
another almost equally common. 'The time is calamitous ; '
for this use of the word, however, no certain authority can be
given. The words rendered, it remaineth, properly belong to
the preceding clause. The meaning is not, ' It remaineth that,'
but ' The time henceforth ( to Aot7rdv) is short.' That is, the
aUotted time is brief. That does not depend on This I say,
as though the sense were ' I say that ; ' but on what imme
diately precedes. ' The time is shortened in order that, &c.'
It is the design of God in aUowing us but a brief period in this
world, or in this state, that we should set hghtly by all earthly
things ; that those who have wives should be as though they
had them not, and those that weep, as though they wept not ;
those who rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; those who
buy, as though they possessed not ; those using the world, as
though they used it not.' We should set our affections on
things above, and not on the things on the earth. Col. 3, 2.
The clause rendered ' they that use this world as not abusmg

130 I. CORINTHIANS 7, 31. 32. 3f. 34.
it,' is properly so translated, as Karaxpdopai means to use veer-
much. The only reason for preferring the other translation is
the analogy of the other passages. Either version is consistent
with the usage of the word. For the fashion of this world
passeth away, i. e. is in the act of passing away. The fashion
(o-Xnpa), the external form, the essence as it appears, the
present state of things. The figure is derived from the scenes
of a theatre, in the actual process of change. The fact that
the present condition of the world is not to last long, and that
our participation in its joys and sorrows is to be so short
lived, is the reason which the apostle urges why we should
not be wedded to earthly things.
32. 33. But I would have you without carefulness.
He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong
to the Lord, how he may please the Lord : but he that
is married careth for the things that are of the world,
how he may please (his) wife.
This is the third reason why Paul wished the early Chris
tians to remain unmarried. The first was, the increased suf
fering marriage would probably bring with it. The second
was, the transitory nature of aU earthly things. And the
third is, the comparative freedom from care connected with
a single Ufe. The unmarried man may devote himself to the
things of the Lord, i. e. to the service of Christ. Having no
family to provide for and to protect in times of distress and
persecution, he is less encumbered with worldly cares. Christ,
and not his wife is, or may be, the great object of his sohcitude.
34. There is difference (also) between a wife and a
virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things
of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in
spirit : but she that is married careth for the things of
the world, how she may please (her) husband.
What is true of men is true also of women. Tliere is a
difference between a wife and a virgin. The difference is, that
the virgin may devote her whole time to the Lord ; the whe
must be involved in worldly cares for the sake of her husband.
The Greek hterally rendered is, Divided is a wife and a vir
gin. Their interests are diverse. The one has a husband to

I. CORINTHIANS 7, 34.35. 131
divide her attention ; the other is free from such distraction.
The reading adopted by Lachmann and Ruckert modifies the
sense of this passage, and reheves some of its difficulties. They
connect pepepiorai with the preceding sentence, ' He that is
married careth for the things of the world, how he may please
his wife, and is divided, i. e. distracted between the service of
the Lord and his social duties.' In the foUowing clause they
read ' r) ywr) r) ayapos ko.1 ij ira.p-i.evos rj ayapos, the unmarried
woman and the virgin care for the things of the Lord.' Jerome
pronounces in favour of this reading, which he says he found
in his Greek MSS., and it is also adopted by Calvin. The
common text, however, is generaUy preferred. The virgin
cares for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in
body and in spirit. That is, that she be consecrated as to
body and spirit. The word holy has the sense here that it
has in v. 14, and so often elsewhere. It is not in purity and
spirituality that the virgin is said to have the advantage of the
wife ; but in freedom from distracting cares. In v. 14, even
the unbelieving husband or wife is said to be sanctified or made
holy. And it is in the same general sense of consecration, that
holiness is here predicated of virgins as distinguished from
wives. It would be to impugn a divine ordinance, and to con
tradict aU experience, to say that married women, because
married, are less holy than the unmarried. Paul advances no
such idea.

35. And this I speak for your own profit ; not that
I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is
comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without
distraction. The object ofthe apostle was their advantage. In urging
them to remain single, he had no intention " to cast a snare
upon them," i. e. to restrain their liberty. Or the meaning of
the figure is, ' I do not wish to raise scruples, to make you
afraid to move lest you faU into a snare.' The former explana
tion, however, is preferable. An animal ensnared was con
fined ; it had no hberty of action. Paul did not wish to bring
his readers into that state. They were perfectly free to do as
they pleased. There was no moral obhgation upon them to
remain single ; no superior holiness in celibacy. He was only
saying what in his judgment would be most to theh ad van-

132 I. CORINTHIANS 7, 35.36.
tage under existing circumstances. That is, as he expresses
it, his design was to promote what was becoming and proper
in them ; that is, to promote assiduous, undistracted devotion
to the Lord. In other words, that they might be free from
any thing to divert their minds from the service of the Lord.
The literal translation is, ' For devotion to the Lord without
distraction.' Every where the apostle is careful to show that
celibacy was preferred merely on the grounds of expediency,
and not on the ground of its being a higher state of virtue.
AU assumption or imposition of vows of celibacy, is a restric
tion of the hberty wHch the apostle was solicitous not to in
vade. Such vows are a snare ; and those who take them are
like an animal in a net.
36. But if any man think that he behaveth himseh
uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of
(her) age, and need so require, let him do what he will,
he sinneth not : let them marry.
This and the following verse are addressed to fathers, for
with them, according to the usage both of Jews and Greeks,
rested the disposal of the daughters of the famfly. Though
the apostle regarded marriage at that time as mexpedient, he
tells fathers that they were perfectly free to exercise theh own
judgment in giving their daughters in marriage, or keeping
them single. If any man (i. e. any father) thinketh he behaveth
himself uncomely towards his virgin. The word (do-^ripovetn)
may be taken either actively or passively. The meaning may
therefore be, ' If any father think he exposes himself to dis
grace by keeping his daughter unmarried ; ' as it was consid
ered a reproach to be unmarried. Or, ' If he think that he
exposes her to disgrace.' The latter interpretation is to be
preferred because agreeable to the common use of the word,
and because it is required by the preposition (e7rt), which in
dicates the object of the action of the verb. If she pass the
flower of her age. This is one of the conditions of the case
on which Paul gives his advice. The daughter must be of
full age ; and secondly, there must be some reason why in her
case marriage is necessary : if need so require. The daugh
ter's happiness may be involved. Under these circumstances
the father may do what he will; he does not sin in giving his
daughter in marriage, and, therefore, let them (i. e. the parties)

I. CORINTHIANS 7, 36.37.38.39. 133
marry. In all cases of indifference, where no moral principle
is concerned, our conduct must be regulated by a wise con
sideration of circumstances. But where a thing is in its own
nature either right or wrong, there is no room for discretion.
37. Nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his
heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own
will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep
his virgin, doeth well.
He that standeth steadfast in his heart, i. e. whose judg
ment is settled and firm, being fully persuaded of the inexpe
diency of his daughter's marrying. Having no necessity, i. e.
being controUed by no external necessity ; nothing, in other
words, rendering it necessary for him to act contrary to his
own judgment. But hath power over his own will, i. e. is
able to act as he pleases, or according to his judgment. And
hath so decreed in his heart, i. e. has fully made up his mind,
to keep his virgin, i. e. to keep his daughter unmarried ; he
doeth weU.
38. So then he that giveth (her) in marriage doeth
well; but he that giveth (her) not in marriage doeth
better. As there is no sin in marriage, and no superior virtue in
cehbacy, it is a mere question of expediency, to be determined
by the circumstances of each particular case. AU Paul says
is that, other things being equal, it is better (i. e. wiser) not to
marry than to marry ; on account, as he before said, of im
pending calamities.
39. The wife is bound by the law as long as her
husband liveth ; but if her husband be dead, she is at
hberty to be married to whom she will ; only in the
Lord. The uniform doctrine of the New Testament is, that mar
riage is a contract for life, between one man and one woman,
indissoluble by the will of the parties or by any human au
thority ; but that the death of either party leaves the survivor
free to contract another marriage. See Rom. 7, 1-3. Such

134 I. CORINTHIANS 7, 39.40.
being the doctrine of the Bible, no civfl or ecclesiastical body
can rightfully establish a different rule, or prescribe another
or (as they pretend) a higher rule of morality. AU attempts
to be better than the Bible, on this or any other subject, only
render men worse. Paul, therefore, teaches that a woman on
the death of her husband, is free to marry whom she wfll —
only in the Lord. There are two ways in which this restric
tion may be understood. First, that she should marry only
one who is in the Lord, i. e. a Christian. Though mixed mar
riages between Christians and Jews or GentUes should not,
when formed, be broken up (as taught above, vs. 12-15) ; yet
no such marriage ought to be contracted. Or, secondly, the
phrase may be taken adverbially as expressmg manner, as be
comes those who are in the Lord, i. e. in a Christian maimer.
She is to marry as becomes a Christian. This interpretation
includes the other. Compare Rom. 16, 2. 22. Eph. 6, 1, &c.
The former explanation is the more simple and natural.
40. But she is happier if she so abide, after my
judgment : and I think also that I have the Spirit of
God.
Happier, freer from exposure to suffering, v. 28 ; and freer
from worldly care, v. 32. After my judgment ; it was an
opinion founded, as he says, on the peculiar circumstances of
the time, and not intended to bind the conscience or to inter
fere with the liberty of others, v. 35. Nevertheless, it was
the opinion of a holy and inspired man, and therefore entitled
to the greatest deference. To have the Spirit, means to be
under the influence ofthe Spirit ; whether as a Christian or as
an apostle, depends on the context. The meaning here clear
ly is, that the apostle was led by the Spirit to give the advice
in question ; so that his advice is, so to speak, the advice of
the Spirit. But is not the advice of the Spirit obligatory ?
Certainly, if he meant it to be so ; but if he meant simply to
lay down a general rule of expediency, and to leave every one
to judge of its apphcation to his or her peculiar case, then it
leaves all concerned free. It would cease to be advice if men
could not act contrary to it, without irreverence or disobe
dience. I think (8okS>) I have, is only, agreeably to Greek
usage, an urbane way of saying I have, comp. Gal. 2, 6.
1 Cor. 12, 22. Paul was in no doubt of his being an organ of
the Holy Ghost. I also, i. e. I as weU as others. This is

I. CORINTHIANS 7, 40. 135
generaUy considered as referring (somewhat ironically) to the
false pretenders in Corinth. ' I thmk I have the Spirit of God
as weU as those among you who make such high pretensions.'

CHAPTER Vin.
Eating of sacrifices offered to idols is not in itself wrong, vs. 1-7. But it
should be avoided if it gave offence, vs. 8-13.
On eating of sacrifices. Vs. 1-13.
The second subject on which the Corinthians had requested
the advice of the apostle was the lawfulness of eating of the
sacrifices offered to idols. To the discussion of that question
in its different aspects the eighth, ninth and tenth chapters of
this epistle are principaUy devoted. At the councU of Jerusa
lem it was decided by the apostles, elders and brethren, that
the GentUe converts should abstain " from meat offered to
idols, from blood, and from things strangled, and from forni
cation," Acts 15, 29 ; and this decree was referred to the
Holy Ghost as its author, v. 28. Yet Paul, though present in
that councU, not only does not refer to it, but goes directly
against it. That decree forbade the eating of meat offered to
idols ; Paul, in ch. 10, teUs the Corinthians that when exposed
for sale in the market, or found on private tables, they might
eat it without scruple. These facts do not prove any discre
pancy between the apostles gathered in Jerusalem and Paul ;
nor that the decisions of that council were not obligatory on
the church. They only serve to explain the true intent and
meaning of those decisions. They show, 1. That there was
no permanent moral ground for the prohibition of meat offered
to idols. 2. That the ground of the prohibition being expe
diency, it was of necessity temporary and limited. It had
reference to Christians in the midst of those to whom eating
such meat was an abomination. It, therefore, ceased to be
binding whenever and wherever the grounds of the prohibi
tion did not exist. It is analogous to Paul's condemnation of
women appearing in church without a veU. The decisions of

136 I. CORINTHIANS 8.
that councU, therefore, were no barrier to Paul's discussmg
the question on its merits. In this chapter the subject is
viewed in two aspects ; first, considered in itself; and second
ly, in its bearing on the weaker or less enhghtened class of
Christians. Most of the questions which disturbed the early
church had their origin in the conflicting prepossessions and
prejudices ofthe Jewish and Gentile converts ; or at least, of
the more and less enhghtened of the Christian converts. For
it is probable that many of those who had been educated as
heathen belonged to the class of weaker brethren. As a
body, however, the GentUes were disposed to latitudinarian
ism ; and the Jews to superstitious scrupulousness. So far as
general principles were concerned, Paul sided with the Gentile
party. Their views about meats and drinks, and holy days,
and ceremonies were derived from the apostle himself, and
were therefore approved by him. But the spirit and practice
of this party he severely condemns. Thus, in the present in
stance, he admits that an idol is nothing ; that a sacrifice is
nothing ; that all enlightened Christians know this ; that, con
sequently, eating of the heathen sacrifices was a matter of in
difference, it made a man neither better nor worse ; and yet
eating of them might be, and in their case it was, sinful ; be
cause injurious to their weaker brethren. He begins the
chapter with the admission, therefore, that all enlightened
Christians have knowledge. He reminds them, however, that
there is something higher than knowledge ; that knowledge
without love is, after all, only another form of ignorance.
The main thing to be known is not apprehended, vs. 1-3. He
admits, however, that Christians know that the gods of the
heathen are vanities and lies, that there is but one only, the
living and true God, v. 4. For although the heathen acknow
ledge a whole hierarchy of deities, celestial and terrestrial,
Christians acknowledge but one God and one Mediator, v. 6.
Al this is admitted. It is, however, nevertheless true that
many Christians, though they know that there is but one
God, yet are not persuaded that the heathen deities are
nothing, and therefore they stand in awe of them, and could
not help beheving that eating of sacrifices offered to idols was
an act of worship, or in some way defiling, v. 7. The apostle
also admits the second principle relied upon by the GentUe
converts, viz., that meat does not commend us to God, that it
can have no influence on our spiritual state, v. 8. It is not
enough, however, that an act should be in its own nature in-

I. CORINTHIANS 8, 1. 137
different to justify us in performing it. If our doing what is
in itself innocent be the occasion of leading others iuto sin, it
is for that reason sinful for us, v. 9. If, therefore, a weak
brother should be led, against the convictions of his own mind,
to join his stronger brethren in eating such sacrifices, he would
bring himself into condemnation. It was, therefore, a breach
of charity and a sin agamst Christ, to eat of the heathen
sacrifices under circumstances which emboldened others to
sin, vs. 10-12. The apostle avows his own determination
never to eat meat at aU, if by so doing he should cause his
brethren to sin, v. 13.
1. Now as touching things offered unto idols, we
know that we ah have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth
up, but charity edifieth.
The idolatry of the Greeks and Romans pervaded their
whole life. Theh social intercourse, theh feasts, the adminis
tration of justice, the pubhc amusements, the offices and hon
ours ofthe government, were all more or less connected with
rehgious services. Christians, therefore, were constantly ex
posed to the danger of being involved in some idolatrous
homage without even knowing it. This gave rise to nume
rous and perplexing questions of conscience, which were often
decided differently by different classes of Christians. One of
the most perplexing of these questions related to the use of
things offered to idols. Some had no scruples on this point ;
others thought it sinful to eat of such sacrifices under any ch
cumstances. This was a question which it was necessary to
have authoritatively settled, because it came up every day for
decision. The victims offered in sacrifices were usually divided
into three parts. One was consumed on the altar, another
was given to the priest, and a third was retained by the offerer.
The portion given to the priest, if not needed for himself, was
sent to the market. The portion retained by the offerer was
either eaten at his own table, or within the precincts of the
temple. The Christians, therefore, if they bought meat in the
market, or if invited to the houses of their heathen friends, or
to the festivals in the temples, were hable to have these sacri
fices placed before them. The two grounds on whicli the
more hberal of them defended the use of such meat, were,
first, that the idols were nothing, they were not reaUy gods ;
and secondly, that meat cannot commend us to God. Both

138 I. CORINTHIANS 8, 1.
these principles are true, and therefore the apostle_ concedes
them, but at the same time corrects the practical inferences
which the Gentile converts drew from them. There were
really two distinct questions relating to this subject. The
first was, whether eating such sacrifices was lawful ? the other,
whether it was lawful to eat them within the precincts of the
temple? The apostle does not distinguish these questions
until the tenth chapter. Here he speaks of the subject only
in its general aspects.
Now as touching things offered unto idols. LiteraUy, But,
concerning idol-sacrifices. The particle (8e',) but, serves to in
troduce a new topic. As the fourth verse begins, concerning
therefore the eating things offered to idols, the intervening
words are a logical parenthesis. This parenthesis may begin
immediately after the word idols, or after the word know
ledge, so that the first two clauses of the verse are connected.
" But concerning idol-sacrifices, we know we aU have know
ledge." This claim to knowledge, though a claim of the
Corinthians, and the ground on which they defended the eat
ing of those sacrifices, is not put forward as a point to be con
tested. The apostle adopts it, or makes it his own, and then
proceeds to qualify and limit it, precisely as he did with the
aphorism, " AU things are lawful," in 6, 12; see also 10, 23.
The subject of the two verbs know and have in this verse are
not necessarily the same. The sense may be : ' I know we aU
have knowledge.' The knowledge intended is determined by
the context. It is the knowledge concerning idols. In this
verse Paul says, " We aU have knowledge ; " but in v. 7, he
says, " This knowledge is not in aU." This apparent contra
diction may be explained by supposing, what is perfectly
natural, that the apostle has reference to different classes of
persons in the two passages. In v. 1 he may intend himself
and his followers. We all, that is, aU the stronger or more
enhghtened class of believers. Whereas, in v. 7, he may refer
to Christians generaUy, including the strong and weak. ' This
knowledge is not in all, for the weak have it not.' Or the dis
tinction may be between theoretical and practical knowledge.
AU Christians admit, as a matter of theory, that an idol is
nothing, but this knowledge is not in aU believers practical
and controUing. This also is natural and satisfactory. It is
analogous to the statements of this same apostle in reference
to the heathen. In Rom. 1, 23, he says, 'They know God,'
but in 1 Cor. 1, 21, he says, they 'know not God.' These

I. CORINTHIANS 8, 1. 139
statements are perfectly consistent, because the word know
has different senses. There is a sense in which all men know
God ; they all, from the constitution of their nature, and from
the works of God, know that there is a being on whom they
are dependent, and to whom they are responsible. But this
is not the knowledge of God which is said to be " eternal
life." It is therefore perfectly consistent to attribute the for
mer knowledge to the heathen, though he denies to them the
latter. So here it is consistent to say that aU Christians have
a theoretical knowledge of the truth that there is but one
God, and that idols are nothing, and yet say that this know
ledge is not practical and controlling in aU. It is one of the
great beauties of the Scriptures, that the sacred writers in the
calm consciousness of truth, in the use of popular, as distin
guished from philosophical language, affirm and deny the same
verbal proposition, assured that the consistency and. intent of
theh statements wUl make their way to the heart and con
science. That the apostle is here speaking of theoretical, as dis
tinguished from true, practical knowledge, is plain from what he
says of it. It puffeth up. The Greek word here used (<f>vcn6_>,)
is, in the New Testament, employed in the sense of the word
(<j>vo-d_>,) which means to blow, to fiU with wind, to inflate;
and then, to render vain and conceited. Mere theoretical or
speculative knowledge, that is, knowledge divorced from love,
tends to inflate the mind, i. e. renders it vain and conceited.
It is a great mistake, therefore, to suppose that mere know
ledge, without rehgion, elevates and refines men, or can purify
society. It is essential, but it is insufficient.
Charity edifieth. Charity is an inadequate and unhappy
translation of the Greek word (dyd-Trrj), because, agreeably to
its Latin derivation, it properly means the feeling which arises
from the perception of the wants and sufferings of others, and
the consequent desire to reUeve them. Love (dydm], a word
pecuhar to HeUenistic Greek,) is much more comprehensive
than this, not only because it may have God for its object, but
also because, when exercised towards men it includes compla
cency and dehght as weU as benevolence. It is of this com
prehensive virtue the apostle treats at length in the thirteenth
chapter of this epistle, and of which he here says, it edifies.
It does not terminate on itself, as knowledge does, but goes
out of itself, and seeks its happiness in another, and lives and
acts for others. It is, therefore, something incomparably

140 I. CORINTHIANS 8, 1.2. 3.
higher than knowledge, when the two are separated and
distinguished. 2. And if any man think that he knoweth any
thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to knoAV.
The knowledge which puffs up is not true knowledge.
One is constantly astonished at the profound remarks which
every where occur in the sacred writings ; remarks which do
not directly refer to the mysteries of the gospel, but philoso
phical remarks ; that is, such as reveal the deepest msight
into the nature of man and the workings of his constitution.
Philosophy and theology are inseparably connected. The
former is an element of the latter. A system of philosophy
might be constructed by collecting and classifying the apho
risms ofthe Bible. And the reason why the philosophy which
underhes Augustinianism has stood as a rock in the ocean,
while other systems rise and fall Uke waves around it, is, that
it is derived from the word of God, and not from the specula
tions of men. The relation between the cognitive and emo
tional faculties is one of the most difficult problems in phUo
sophy. In many systems they are regarded as distinct. Paul
here teaches, that with regard to a large class of objects,
knowledge without feehng is nothing ; it supposes the most
essential characteristics ofthe object to be unperceived. And
in the foUowing verse he teaches that love is the highest form
of knowledge. To know God is to love him ; and to love him
is to know him. Love is inteUigent, and knowledge is emo
tional. Hence the apostle says, If a man thinketh that he
knoweth any thing ; that is, if he is proud or conceited, he is
ignorant. He does not apprehend the true nature of the ob
jects which he pretends to know. He does not see their vast-
ness, their complexity, theh majesty and exceUence. These
are the attributes of religious truths whicli are the most essen
tial, and without the apprehension of which they cannot be
known. 3. But if any man love God, the same is known of
him. To love is to know and to be known. Compare 1 John 4,
7. 8, " Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth
God ; he that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is love."

I. CORINTHIANS 8, 3. 141
This is the precise sentiment of the text. Love is essential to
knowledge. He that loves God, knows God. The apostle in
this connection interchanges love of the brethren and the love
of God, because the love of the brethren is only one of the
forms in which the love of God manifests itself. When he
said, " Love edifieth," he meant love to the brethren, and
without that love, he says, there can be no true knowledge ;
but if a man love God, (which includes love to the brethren,)
the same is known of Mm. What is meant by this last expres
sion, is not easy to determine. To be known of God may,
according to scriptural usage, mean, 1. To be selected or
approved by him, Exod. 33, 12. 17. Nahum 1, 7. Matt. 7, 23.
2. To be recognized as belonging to a particular class. So
here, the sense may be, ' Is recognized by him as one of his
disciples, or as one of his chUdren. 3. To be the object of
God's knowledge ; but what this can mean in this connection,
unless it include the idea of approbation, it is not easy to see.
4. According to others, the word (eyv&jcn-ai) is to be taken in
a Hophal sense — 'has been caused to know.' 'If any man
loves God, the same has by him been brought to the true
knowledge.' This view certainly suits the context. ' If a man
is without love, he has not true knowledge ; but if he love
God, he has the right kind of knowledge.' The later gram
marians deny that the passive form of Greek verbs ever has
a causative sense analogous to the Hophal of Hebrew verbs.
But as intransitive verbs in Greek often have a causative sig
nification, (see Matt. 5, 45. 28, 19. 2 Cor. 2, 14,) it is not
unreasonable that the passive form should be so used, if the
context require it. In Gal. 4, 9, Paul says, " If after that ye
have known God, or rather are known of God ;" where the
sense may be, ' or rather have been taught of God..' Whether
the general principle be admitted or not, that the passive of
Greek verbs can have this causative force, it is not improbable
that Paul assumed that the particular verb yivooo-Keiv might
mean cognoscere facere, (i. e. to teach,) a sense attributed to
it by Stephanus in his Thesaurus ; and if so, the passive as
here used may mean, was taught. It is to be noticed, that it
is only this verb that he appears to use in this way. If, how
ever, this interpretation be rejected, as is done by the major
ity of modern commentators, as contrary to Greek usage, the
first explanation given above gives a good sense. ' If any love
God, the same is approved of him, i. e. is recognised as having
the right kind of knowledge.'

142 I. CORINTHIANS 8, 4.
4. As concerning therefore the eating of those
things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know
that an idol (is) nothing in the world, and that (there
is) none other God but one.
Concerning then. The particle (<&v,) then serves to re
sume the subject of v. 1 after the interruption occasioned by
the preceding parenthesis. For the general expression m v. 1,
" Concerning idol-sacrifices," we have here the more definite
one, " Concerning the eating of idol-sacrifices ; " which was the
point in dispute. To determine whether it was proper to eat
of these sacrifices, it must be determined, first, what an idol
is ; aud secondly, what effect the eating would have. As to
the former, Paul says, there is no idol, (or an idol is nothing;)
and as to the latter, that the eating could have no effect on
our rehgious state ; it could make us neither better nor worse,
v. 8. From this it foUows, that eating or not eating is a mat
ter of indifference. Nevertheless, if our eating causes others
to sin, we ought not to eat. It is worthy of remark that the
apostle, in answering questions of conscience, does not give a
categorical reply, but gives the reason for his decision. So
here ; and in ch. 11 he does not simply say it was wrong for
Grecian women to appear in public unveUed, but he unfolds
the principles vahd for aU time, on which the decision of that
particular question rested.
As to the question, What is an idol ? it is obvious that the
word (effioAov, image?) is used metonymically for the deity
which the image was intended to represent. It is of such
deity, or rather of the heathen gods generaUy, the apostle
here speaks. His words are, " We know that oiSev etSwAov ev
Koo-pm," which may mean, either, an idol is nothing in the
world ; or, there is no idol in tlie world, i. e. the universe. If
the former version be adopted, the sense may be, either,
' these deities are nonentities,' they have no existence ; or,
they are powerless, they have no influence over the affairs of
men. In favour of that translation is the analogy of Scripture.
In the Old Testament the gods of the heathen are frequently
said to be nothing, vanities, hes, &c, Is. 41, 24. 44, 8. 9. Jer.'
10, 14. Ps. 115, 4. 8. So the Rabbis also said, Noverant1
utique Israehtae, idolum nihU esse, Sanhdr. 63. 2. But this
explanation is not suitable here. As oiSets «Jeds in the next
clause means there is no God, oiSev eiSmkov must mean, there is
no idol. This does not mean that the heathen gods are either

I. CORINTHIANS 8, 4. 5. 143
nonentities or powerless, for in 10, 19 Paul says they are
demons. But it means, there are no such beings in the uni
verse as the heathen conceived their gods to be. There was
no Jupiter, Juno, or Mars. There is no God, no real divine
being but one. The objects of heathen worship were neither
what the heathen took them to be, nor were they gods hi the
true sense of that term.
5. Tor though there be that are called gods, whether
in heaven or in earth, as there be gods many, and lords
many, This verse admits of two interpretations. It is commonly
understood to mean, that although there are many imaginary
gods in heaven and earth, i. e. beings whom the heathen re
gard as divinities, yet in fact there is but one God. When he
says, there are many gods and many lords, he is to be under
stood to mean that such is the fact in the mythology of the
heathen. A large number of commentators, however, under
stand the passage thus : ' There is but one true God ; for al
though it be admitted that there are many beings caUed gods,
as in fact there are gods many and lords many, yet to us there
is but one.' The apostle concedes that, in the wide sense of
the term, there are many gods and lords ; and, therefore, if it
should be admitted (what he does not admit) that the whole
hierarchy of divinities, as conceived of by the heathen, actually
existed, it is nevertheless true that there is but one God, the
creator and end of aU things. In favour of this interpretation
is the usage ofthe O. T. Deut. 10, 17, "The Lord your God
is God of gods and Lord of lords." Jos. 22, 22. Dan. -8, 47.
Ps. 136, 2. 3. These passages show that the words god and
lord are applied in a wide sense to other beings than to the
true God. 2. The position and force of the words are in fa
vour of this view. They mean, Sunt qui dii dicuntur ; there
are powers and beings who are caUed gods, as there are gods
many, and lords many. To make this mean, there are in the
estimation of the heathen many gods, is to insert something
which is not in the text. 3. In 10, 19. 20, the apostle asserts
that the objects of heathen worship are real and powerful
beings. 4. The apparent contradiction between saying, there
is no idol in the icorld, and saying, there are many gods, is
easUy removed. The meaning is, ' There is no such being in
the universe as Jupiter or Mars ; for although there is a mul-

144 I. CORINTHIANS 8, 5.6.
titude of supernatural beings, called gods and lords, not only
by the heathen, but also in Scripture, yet there are no such
beings as those which the heathen imagine.' The whole hea
then mythology is a fable, the work ofthe imagination. There
are no such gods in existence, though there are demons in
abundance, of various ranks and powers, called gods. There
are two things which the apostle means to deny. 1. The ex
istence of such beings as the heathen conceived theh gods to
be. 2. That the supernatural beings who do really exist, and
who are caUed gods, are reaUy divine. They are mere crea
tures. 6. But to us (there is but) one God, the Father,
of whom (are) all things, and we in him ; and one Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom (are) all things, and we by him.
Though there are many creatures caUed gods, there is but
one true God, the creator of aU things. To us, i. e. to Chris
tians. There is one God, i. e. only one being who is eternal,
self-existing and almighty. This one God is, first, the Father ;
not the first person of the Trinity, but our father. The word
does not here express the relation of the first to the second
person in the Godhead, but the relation of God as such to us
as his chUdren. When we say, " Our Father who art in
heaven," the word Father designates the Supreme Being, the
Triune Jehovah. Secondly, of this one God it is said, of him
are all things. He, the one God, is the source of the whole
universe, and aU that it contains. He created aU things by
the word of his power. All other beings are his creatures.
Thirdly, we are to him. He is our end ; for his glory we were
created, and redeemed. Our version rendering the words eis
airov, in him, is an unnecessary departure from their proper
meaning. As there is but one divine Being, so there is but one Lord,
i. e. one administrator of the universe, into whose hands all
power in heaven and earth has been committed, and who is
the only mediator between God and man. This one Lord is
Jesus Christ, Jesus the Messiah, the historical person, born
in Bethlehem and crucified on Calvary. Of this one Lord it
is said, first, all things are by him. The all things in this
clause must be coextensive with the all things in the preceding
one, i. e. the universe. Comp. Eph. 3, 9. Col. 1, 16. Heb. 1, 2.
The universe was created through Jesus Christ, i. e. the energy

I. CORINTHIANS 8, 6. 7. 145
of the one God was exercised through the Logos, who became
flesh, assuming our nature into personal union with himself,
and is therefore caUed Jesus Christ. This passage affords a
striking Ulustration of the fact that the person of Christ may
be denominated from his human nature, when what is affirmed
of him is true only of his divine nature. He is here called
Jesus Christ, though the work of creation attributed to him
was the work of the Logos. Secondly, it is said of this one
Lord, that we are by him. This does not mean we were cre
ated by him ; for we Christians are included in the all things.
It would be tautological to say, He created all things, and he
created us. The meaning is, we as Christians (not, we as
creatures, for that had been said before), we as the children of
God are by him. We were redeemed by him ; we are brought
unto God by him.
7. Howbeit (there is) not in every man that know
ledge : for some with conscience of the idol unto this
hour eat (it) as a thing offered unto an idol ; and their
conscience being weak is defiled.
The context shows that (r\ yiwts), the knowledge, means
the particular kind of knowledge of which he had been speak
ing, viz. the knowledge that there is no idol in the world, or
that the gods of the heathen are imaginary beings. Though
the weaker behevers knew that there is but one true God,
they were stUl not fuUy persuaded that the gods of the hea
then had no existence. With conscience of an idol. The
word a-vvei&rjcri's unites the meanings of our words conscience
and consciousness, being sometimes the one and sometimes
the other. Here the former meaning is better suited to the
context. Conscience of an idol means a conscience under the
influence of an idol ; as in 1 Pet. 2, 19 conscience of God
means a conscience under the influence of God.* The moral
judgments and feelings of the persons referred to, were stiU
influenced by the apprehension that the heathen gods might
be real beings. Unto this hour. The words (ecus apri) until
* Instead of aweiSiiaei the MSS. A. B. 17. 46, and the Coptic, Ethiopic and
Syrian versions read aw-qbeta, which reading is adopted hy Lachmann and
Tischendorf. The meaning would then be ' through custom of an idol,' i. e. from
being long accustomed to believe that there were such beings. The great
weight of authority, however, is in favour of the common reading.

146 I. CORINTHIANS 8, 7.8.
now, in the common Text stand after the word for idol; most
modern editors of the Greek Testament, on the authority of
the older MSS., place them before that word. In the one po
sition, they naturally quaUfy the word to eat ; ' until now they
eat,' i. e. they continue to eat. In the other, they qualify the
word conscience ; with a conscience still under the influence
of an idol, which gives a better sense. Having this persua
sion, or at least this apprehension of the reahty of the idol,
they eat the sacrifice as a sacrifice. That is, they do not re
gard it as ordinary meat, but as something which had a reli-
' gious character and influence, from the fact of its having been
offered in sacrifice. Hence their conscience being weak was
defiled. A weak conscience is one which either regards as
wrong what is not in fact so ; or one which is not clear and
decided in its judgments. According to the Scriptures,
" whatever is not of faith is sin," Rom. 14, 23 ; therefore
whatever a man does, thinking it is wrong, or doubtful whether
it be wrong or not, to him it is sin. Thus the man who eats
an idol-sacrifice, uncertain whether he is doing right or not,
defiles his conscience. The conscience is said to be defiled,
either when it approves or cherishes sin, or when it is bur
dened by a sense of guilt. The latter form of pollution is that
here intended. The man who acts in the way supposed feels
guilty, and is reaUy guUty.
8. But meat commendeth us not to God : for nei
ther, if we eat, are we the better ; neither, if we eat not,
are we the worse.
This verse is analogous to v. 1, in so far that it contains a
principle adopted by the apostle as his own, which the Co
rinthians urged to justify their latitudinarian practice with
regard to these sacrifices. It is not introduced as an objec
tion, or as a point to be contested, but as an admitted truth,
the application of which is to be regulated by other principles
no less true. It is admitted that meat does not commend us
to God. Literally, does not cause us to stand near to God ;
which involves the idea expressed in our version. For eating
makes us neither better nor worse. It neither causes us to
excel (•jrepto-creu'eti/) nor to come behind (vo-repel'v).
There is another view ofthe bearing ofthis passage which
has much to commend it, and which has many advocates. It
is regarded as assigning a reason why the strong should have

I. CORINTHIANS 8, 8. 9. 10. 147
respect to the weak. ' If meat were a matter of importance, if
it really commended us to God, there would be a valid reason
why you should eat these sacrifices. But as it is a matter of
indifference, you should not cause your brethren to offend.'
This would be a natural interpretation if the caution which
follows were introduced as an inference. That is, if the apos
tle had said, ' Eating is a matter of indifference, therefore you
should use your liberty with due regard to your brethren.'
His language, however, is, ' Meat does not commend us to
God ; it makes us neither better nor worse ; but take heed
how you use your liberty.' It is evidently a concession Umited
by what follows ; comp. 6, 12, " Al things are lawful, but aU
things are not expedient ;" see also 10, 23.
9. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of
yours become a stumbhngblock to them that are weak.
Admitting you have the right to eat of these sacrifices,
take care lest your eating become an occasion of sin to your
weaker brethren. Your liberty. The word (efouo-ta) means,
1. AbUity or power. 2. Lawful power or right. 3. Author
ity ; ' Who gave thee this authority ? ' 4. Power over others,
dominion or rule. Here the second sense is the one in which
the word is to be taken. Stumblingblock, (-n-p6_-Koppa,) else
where rendered offence, in a moral sense is that which is an
occasion to sin, or which causes men to faU. In the same
sense the word (o-KavSakov, literally, a trap-stick,) scandal is
used, Luke 17, 1. Rom. 14, 13. 1 John 2, 10. The weak are
the doubting, the undecided, those " not having knowledge,"
as is imphed in the next verse.
10. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge
sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience
of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things
which are offered to idols ;
This verse is designed to show how eating these sacrifices
might be an occasion of sin to others. For serves to intro
duce the illustration. See thee having knowledge. This is the
description of the strong. They were those whose views were
clear and theh convictions decided. Sit at meat, (KaraKeipe-
vov,) hterally, lying down, according to the ancient custom of

148 I. CORINTHIANS 8, 10. 11.
reclining on a couch at table. The word avdKeip.ai, to lie up,
is also used, as the couches were usually higher than the table.
In the idol's temple. In the tenth chapter the apostle teaches,
that as eating of things offered to idols was a matter of indif-
ference, there was no harm in buying such meat in the mar
ket, or in partaking of it at a private table ; but that to eat it
within the precincts of the temple was an act of idolatry, and
brought them into communion with demons, and therefore
utterly broke off their connection with Christ. Here he views
the matter simply under the aspect of an offence, or in refer
ence to its effect on the weaker brethren, and therefore says
nothing of the sinfulness of the act in itself. In Uke manner,
in the eleventh chapter, speaking of it as a matter of deco
rum, he simply condemns women speaking in church unveiled,
as though he had no objection to their speaking in pubhc ;
but hi the fourteenth chapter he condemns the thing itself, and
not merely the manner of doing it. Shall not the conscience
of him being weak (i. e. being uncertain whether he was
doing right or wrong,) be emboldened ; literaUy, be edified.
This must either be understood ironicaUy, which is out of
keeping with the whole tone of the passage, or the word must
be taken in the sense of built up, carried forward to the point
(eis) of eating of the idol-sacrifices. That is, he might be led
to do what his conscience secretly condemned.
11. And through thy knowledge shah the weak
brother perish, for whom Christ died ?
That is, shall your knowledge be the occasion of the per
dition of a weak brother ? There are three forms in which
the apostle expresses the consequence of doing what the con
science is not satisfied is right. In v. 7 he says, the conscience
is defiled ; here, he says, the man perishes or is lost ; in Rom.
14, 23, he says, "He that doubteth is damned (condemned) if
he eat." All these forms of expression amount to the same
thing. GuUt, condemnation and perdition are connected.
The one implies the other. Whatever brings guilt on the
conscience exposes to condemnation, and condemnation is
perdition. For whom Christ died. There is great power and pathos
in these words. Shall we, for the sake of eating one kind of
meat rather than another, endanger the salvation of those for
whom the eternal Son of God laid down his life ? The infinite

I. CORINTHIANS 8, 11. 149
distance between Christ and us, and the almost infinite dis
tance between his sufferings and the trifling self-denial re
quhed at our hands, give to the apostle's appeal a force the
Christian heart cannot resist. The language of Paul in this
verse seems to assume that those may perish for whom Christ
died. It belongs, therefore, to the same category as those
numerous passages which make the same assumption with re
gard to the elect. If the latter are consistent with the cer
tainty of the salvation of all the elect, then this passage is
consistent with the certainty of the salvation of those for
whom Christ specificaUy died. It was absolutely certain that
none of Paul's companions in shipwreck was on that occasion
to lose his life, because the salvation of the whole company
had been predicted and promised ; and yet the apostle said
that if the sailors were allowed to take away the boats, those
left on board could not be saved. This appeal secured the ac
complishment ofthe promise. So God's telling the elect that
if they apostatize they shall perish, prevents their apostasy.
And in hke manner, the Bible teaching that those for whom
Christ died shaU perish if they violate theh conscience, pre
vents theh transgressing, or brings them to repentance. God's
purposes embrace the means as weU as the end. If the means
fail, the end wiU faU. He secures the end by securing the
means. It is just as certain that those for whom Christ died
shaU be saved, as that the elect shaU be saved. Yet in both
cases the event is spoken of as conditional. There is not only
a possibility, but an absolute certainty of their perishing if
they faU away. But this is precisely what God has promised
to prevent. This passage, therefore, is perfectly consistent
with those numerous passages which teach that Christ's death
secures the salvation of aU those who were given to him in the
covenant of redemption. There is, however, a sense in which
it is scriptural to say that Christ died for all men. This is
very different from saying that he died equaUy for all men, or
that his death had no other reference to those who are saved
than it had to those who are lost. To die for one is to die for
his benefit. As Christ's death has benefited the whole world,
prolonged the probation of men, secured for them innumera
ble blessings, provided a righteousness sufficient and suitable
for all, it may be said that he died for all. And in reference
to this obvious truth the language of the apostle, should any
prefer this interpretation, may be understood, ' Why should
we destrov one for whose benefit Christ laid down his life ? '

150 I. CORINTHIANS 8, 11. 12. 13.
All this is perfectly consistent with the great scriptural truth
that Christ came into the world to save his people, that hia
death renders certain the salvation of aU those whom the
Father hath given him, and therefore that he died not only
for them but in their place, and on the condition that they
should never die.
12. But when ye sin so against the brethren, and
wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
We sin against our brethren when we wound theh weak
conscience. The one phrase explains the other. To wound a
man's conscience is to give it the pain of remorse. When we
bring on him a sense of guUt we inflict on him the greatest evU
in our power ; not only because a wounded spirit is worse
than a wounded body ; but also because a sense of guilt alien
ates us from God and brings us under the power of Satan.
He who thus sins against his brother, sins against Christ.
This is true in two senses. An injury done to a child is an
injury to the parent, both because proper regard for the pa
rent would prevent one from injuring his chUd; and also
because the parent suffers in the child. They are so united
that the injury of the one is the injury of the other. So also
it is a manifestation of want of love to Christ, an insult and
injury to him, to injure his people ; and moreover, he and
they are so united that whatever of good or evil is done to
them is done also to him. " Inasmuch as ye have done it unto
one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto
me," Matt. 25, 40. If we beheved this aright it would render
us very careful not to wound our feUow Christians, and make
us also feel it to be an honour to reheve their wants.
13. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend,
I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make
my brother to offend.
The word o-KavSaAi'£<_> means either to offend, or to cause to
offend. That is, either to provoke, or to cause to sin. The
EngUsh word is also used in both these senses. Matt. 17, 27,
" That we may not offend them," i. e. provoke them. Matt.
5, 29, " If thy eye offend thee," i. e. cause thee to sin ; and
Matt. 18, 6, "Whoso shall offend (i. e. cause to sin) one of
these little ones which beheve in me, it were better for him

I. CORINTHIANS 8, 13, 151
that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he
were drowned in the depth ofthe sea." This last quoted pas
sage shows how serious a matter our Lord considers it to lead
even the weakest Christian into sin. It is stiU worse to lead
him into error, for error is the mother of many sins. It shows
also how great an evil sin is, and justifies the strong language
ofthe apostle that he would never eat flesh rather than cause
his brother to offend. It is morally obligatory, therefore, to
abstain from indulging in things indifferent, when the use of
them is the occasion of sin to others. This is a principle the
application of which must be left to every man's conscience in
the fear of God. No rule of conduct, founded on expediency,
can be enforced by church discipline. It was right in Paul to
refuse to eat flesh for fear of causing others to offend ; but he
could not have been justly exposed to discipUne, had he seen
fit to eat it. He circumcised Timothy, and refused to circum
cise Titus. Whenever a thing is right or wrong according to
chcumstances, every man must have the right to judge of
those circumstances.

CHAPTER IX.
The apostle illustrates tbe duty of foregoing the exercise of our rights for the
good of others, by a reference to his giving up his undoubted right to be
supported by the church, vs. 1-18. He shows that in other ways he ac
commodated himself to the opinions and prejudices of others, 19-23. He
reminds his readers that nothing good or great could be attained without
self-denial, vs. 24-27.
The right of ministers to an adequate maintenance. Tl\e
necessity of self-denial. Vs. 1-27.
Having in the preceding chapter urged on the strong the
duty of foregoing the use of their rights for the sake of their
weaker brethren, the apostle shows how he had acted on that
principle. He was an apostle, and therefore had aU the rights
of an apostle. His apostieship was abundantly clear, because
he had seen the Lord Jesus and was his immediate messenger ;
and his divine mission had been confirmed, at least among the
Corinthians, beyond dispute. They were the seal of his apos-

152 I. CORINTHIANS 9, 1.
tleship, vs. 1-3. Being an apostle, he had the same right to
be supported and to have his family supported, had he chosen
to marry, as Peter or any other apostle, vs. 4-6._ This right
to adequate support he proves, First, from the principle which
hes at the foundation of society, that the laborer is worthy of
his reward, v. 7. Secondly, from the fact that this principle
is recognized in the Old Testament, even in its apphcation to
brutes, vs. 8-10. Thirdly, from the principles of commutative
justice, v. 11. Fourthly, from the fact that the Corinthians
recognized this right in the case of other teachers, v. 12.
Fifthly, from the universal recognition ofthe principle among
aU nations. Those who served the temple were supported
from the temple, v. 13. Sixthly, from the express ordinance of
Christ, who had ordained that those who preached the gospel
should live by the gospel, v. 14. This undoubted right Paul
had not availed himself of, and he was determined, especially
at Cormth, not to avail himself of it in the future. By so do
ing he cut off occasion to question his motives, and gave him
self a ground of confidence in resisting his opponents which
he was determined not to relinquish, vs. 15-18. This was not,
however, the only case in which he abstained from the exer
cise of his rights for the good of others. He accommodated
himself to Jews and Gentiles in every thing indifferent, that
he might gain the more, vs. 19-23. Such self-denial the hea
then exercised to gain a corruptible crown — should not Chris
tians do as much to gain a crown that is incorruptible ? With
out self-denial and effort the prize of their high calling could
never be attained, vs. 24-27.
1. Am I not an apostle ? am I not free ? * have I
not seen Jesus Christ our Lord ? are not ye my work
in the Lord ?
The order ofthe first two of these questions is reversed by
most editors on satisfactory external and internal evidence.
Am I not free ? That is, am I not a Christian, invested with
aU the hberties wherewith Christ has made his people free ?
Am I not as free as any other behever to regulate my conduct
according to my own convictions of what is right ; free from
* The MS. A. B., the great majority of the ancient versions, and many of
tbe Fathers put iXei&epos before a-n-6crTo\os, which is the natural order of the
words, and which, after Griesbaoh, has been adopted by almost aU editors.

I. CORINTHIANS 9, 1.2. 153
any obhgation to conform to the opinions or prejudices of
other men ? This, however, is a freedom which I have not
availed myself of. Nay more, Am I not an apostle ? Be
sides the rights which belong to aU Christians, have I not all
the prerogatives of an apostle ? Am I not on a level with the
chief of the apostles ? Who of them can show a better title
to the office ? There were three kinds of evidence of the
apostieship. 1. The immediate commission from Christ in the
sight of witnesses, or otherwise confirmed. 2. Signs and won
ders, and mighty deeds, 2 Cor. 12, 12. 3. The success of their
ministry. No man could be an apostle who had not seen the
Lord Jesus after his resurrection, because that was one of the
essential facts of which they were to be the witnesses, Acts 1,22.
Neither could any man be an apostle who did not receive his
knowledge of the gospel by immediate revelation from Christ,
for the apostles were the witnesses also of his doctrines, Acts
1, 8. 10, 39. 22, 15. Gal. 1, 12. The necessity of this immedi
ate mission and independent knowledge is insisted upon at
length in the epistle to the Galatians. In proof of his apostie
ship Paul here appeals only to two sources of evidence ; first,
to his having seen the Lord Jesus ; and second, to the success
of his ministry. Ye are my work in the Lord. That is,
either, you in the Lord, your being in the Lord (i. e. your
conversion), is my work; or, the words (ev xvptu) may mean
by the Lord, i. e. by his co-operation. The former explanation
is to be preferred, as the apostle's object is to state in what
sense they were his work. It was as being in the Lord. The
connection of this verse, and of the whole chapter, with what
precedes is obvious. His design is to show that he had him
self acted on the principle which he urged on others. Neither
as a Christian nor as an apostle had he insisted upon his rights,
without regard to the prejudices of others or the good ofthe
church. 2. If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless
I am to you : for the seal of mine apostieship are ye in
the Lord.
If to others, i. e. in the estimation of others, I be not an
apostle, surely Iam to you. Whatever pretence others may
have to question my apostieship, you certainly can have none ;
for the seal of my apostieship are ye in the Lord. Your con
version is the seal of God to my commission. The conversion
7*

154 I. CORINTHIANS 9, 2. 3. 4.
of men is a divine work, and those by whom it is accomplished
are thereby authenticated as divine messengers. It is as much
the work of God as a miracle, and therefore, when duly au
thenticated, has the same effect as an evidence of a divine
commission. This, although vahd evidence, and as such
adduced by the apostle, is nevertheless very hable to be
abused. First, because much which passes for conversion is
spurious ; and secondly, because the evidence of success is
often urged in behalf of the errors of preachers, when that
success is due to the truth which they preach. StUl there are
cases when the success is of such a character, so undeniable
and so great, as to supersede the necessity of any other evi
dence of a divine caU. Such was the case with the apostles,
with the reformers, and with many of our modern missionaries.
3. Mine answer to them that do examine me is this :
That is, what precedes, and not what foUows ; for what
foUows is no answer to those who caUed his apostieship in
question. Both the words here used, (dvaKpivu)) to examine,
and (a.7roXoyt'a), apology, or answer, are forensic terms. Paul
means that when any of his opponents undertook to question
him, as it were, judicially, as to his apostieship, he answered,
' I have seen the Lord Jesus, and he has set his seal to my com
mission by the success with which he has crowned my labours.'
This answer satisfied Peter, James and John, who gave to
Paul the right hand of fellowship, seeing that to hhn had
been committed the apostieship unto the GentUes, Gal. 2, 8. 9.
4. Have we not power to eat and drink ?
Power here as above, 8, 9, means right. Have we not the
right to eat and drink ? This, taken by itself, might mean,
' Have we not the same right that others have as to meats and
drinks ? AU distinctions on this subject are abolished as much
for us as for others. Are we not free ? ' The context shows,
however, clearly that such is not the apostle's meaning. The
right in question is that which he goes on to establish. It is
the right to abstain from working, and of being supported by
the church. Having proved his apostieship, he proves his
right to be supported, and then shows that he had not availed
himself of that right. He could, therefore, with the greater
freedom urge the Corinthians to forego their right to eat of
things offered to idols for the sake of their weaker brethren.

I. CORINTHIANS 9, 5. 155
5. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a
wife, as well as other apostles, and (as) the brethren
of the Lord, and Cephas ?
This is an amplification of the preceding verse. Have we
not tlie power, i. e. the right. To lead about, a form of expres
sion chosen because the apostles were not stationary ministers,
each with his own parish or diocese, but were constantly tra-
veUing from place to place. A sister, i. e. a Christian woman.
A wife, this determines the relation which this travelling com
panion sustained. It is as much as saying, 'A sister who
is a wife.' Many of the Fathers explain this passage as refer
ring to the custom of rich women attending the apostles on
their journeys in order to minister to their support. In this
interpretation they are followed by many Romanists in order
to avoid the sanction which the ordinary and only legitimate
interpretation gives to the marriage of the clergy. As other
apostles ; hteraUy, " the other apostles." This does not neces
sarUy imply that aU the other apostles were married ; but the
implication is that as a body they were married men. Ols-
hausen and others understand the apostle, in the vs. 4-6, as
asserting his Uberty as to three points ; 1. As to meats, ' Have
I not the same Uberty that you claim as to eating and drink
ing ? ' 2. As to marriage, ' Have I not the right to marry ? '
3. As to support. But this introduces more into the text
than the connection warrants. There is no question about
the right of marriage aUuded to in the context ; and what fol
lows is a defence neither of his liberty to disregard tho Jewish
laws about meats and drinks, nor of* his right to be married.
And the brethren of the Lord. Whether these were the
children of Joseph and Mary, or the children of Mary, the
sister of our Lord's mother, is a point very difficult to deter
mine. Tradition, or the general voice of the church, is great
ly in favour of the latter opinion. The former, however, is
probably the opinion embraced by a majority of modern com
mentators. The discussion of this question belongs properly
to the evangehcal history* The foUowing passages may be
compared on this subject: Matt. 1,25. 12,46. 13,55. Luke
* The question is discussed by Neander, in his Planting of the Church, p.
551; by Winer, in Real Worterbuch, under the head of Jacobus; by Prof.
Schaf, who has devoted to it a volume ; and by many other writers, ancient
and modern.

156 I. CORINTHIANS 9, 5.6.7.
2, 7. John 2, 12. Acts 1, 14. Gal. 1, 19. And Cephas; this
is the name by which Peter is called whenever he is mentioned
by Paul, except in the epistle to the Galatians ; and Lachmann
reads Cephas instead of Peter in Gal. 1, 18. 2, 9. 10. 14, leav
ing Gal. 2, 8. 9 the only exception. That Peter was married
is clear from Matt. 8, 14. Mark 1, 30.
6. Or I only and Barnabas, have we not power to
forbear working ?
The power to forbear working ; literally, the right of not
working. ' Is there any reason why I and Barnabas should
be the only exceptions to the rule that preachers of the word
are to be supported by the churches ? ' From this it appears
that Barnabas, whUe the apostle's missionary companion, fol
lowed his example in working with his own hands, that he
might make the gospel of Christ without charge. Paul pro
ceeds to demonstrate the right in question, not on grounds
peculiar to the apostles or to that particular age ofthe church;
but on grounds applicable to all ministers and to all ages.
His first argument is from the universaUy recognized principle
that labour is entitled to reward. This principle is illustrated
in the foUowing verse.
7. Who goeth a warfare any time at his own
charges ? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not cf
the fruit thereof ? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth
not of the milk of the flock ?
Here are three illustrations, taken from the common occu
pations of men, of the principle in question. The soldier, the
agriculturist, the shepherd, aU live by theh labour; why
should not the minister ? His work is as engrossing, as labo
rious, and as useful as theirs ; why should not it meet with a
similar recompense ? Who goeth to war, i. e. who serves in
war, as a soldier, at his own charges (ISt'ots 6fo>vioi_), on his
own rations. What soldier in war is caUed upon to support
himself? If you force him to do it, you make him a robber ;
and if ministers be required to support themselves, the danger
is that they wiU be forced to become men of the world. It is
not, however, the evU consequences, so much as the mjustice

I. CORINTHIANS 9, 7. 8. 9. 157
of such a course, that the apostle has hi view. What is true
of the soldier is true of the farmer and of the shepherd, and
of every other class of men.
8. Say I these things as a man ? or saith not the
law the same also ?
Say I these things as a man ? This phrase (koto. av_\p_m-ov
XaXeiv), to speak as a man, or after the manner of men, means
in general, to speak as men are wont to speak, to utter their
thoughts, or prmciples, or to use Ulustrations derived from
their customs. Rom. 3, 5. Gal. 3, 15. comp. Rom. 6, 19. The
apostle means here to ask whether it was necessary to appeal to
the usages of men in support of the principle that labour should
be rewarded. Does not the law also say the same ? i. e. does
not the word of God sanction the same principle ? The laio
(6 vopoi) means in general that which binds. It is apphed to
the law of God, however revealed, whether in the heart, the
decalogue, the Pentateuch, or in the whole Scriptures. The
context must determine the specific reference in each particu
lar case. Here the law of Moses is intended.
9. Por it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt
not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the
corn. Doth God take care for oxen ?
For refers to the answer implied to the preceding question.
' Does not the law say the same ? It does : for it is written,'
&c. The passage quoted is found in Deut. 25, 4, where it is
forbidden to put a muzzle on the oxen which draw the thresh
ing machine over the corn, or which tread it out with their
feet ; as both methods of threshing were common in Palestine
as well as the- use ofthe flail or rods. Comp. Is. 28, 28. 41, 15.
Hosea 10, 11. Doth God take care of oxen? It is perfectly
certain that God does care for oxen ; for he feeds the young
ravens when they cry; Job 38, 41. Ps. 147, 9. Matt. 6, 26.
Luke 12, 24. This, therefore, the apostle cannot intend, to
deny. He only means to say that the law had a higher refer
ence. Although the proximate end of the command was that
the labouring brute should be treated justly, yet its ultimate
design was to teach men the moral truth involved in the pre
cept. If God requires that even the ox, which spends his
strength in our service, should not be defrauded of his reward,

158 I. CORINTHIANS 9, 9. 10.
how much more strict will he be in enforcing the application
of the same principle of justice to his rational creatures.
10. Or saith he (it) altogether for our sakes? For
our sakes, no doubt, (this) is written : that he that
plougheth should plough in hope; and that he that
thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
" He sayeth it altogether." This is not the meaning here ;
for this would make the apostle assert that the command in
question had exclusive reference to men. The word (irai'To.s)
should be rendered assuredly, as in Luke 4, 43. Acts 18, 21.
21,22, and frequently elsewhere. 'This command was as
suredly given, says the apostle, for our sakes,' i. e. for the sake
of man — not, for us ministers, or us apostles. It was intended
to enforce the principle that labour should have its reward, so
that men may labour cheerfully. That (on) ; because. ' It is
written on our account, because he that ploughs should (6<f>eikei,
2 Cor. 12, 11,) plough in hope,' i. e. of being rewarded. "And
he that threshes should thresh in hope of partaking of his
hope," i. e. of what he hoped for. The text is here doubtful.
The reading preferred by most editors gives a simpler form to
the passage * — ' He that thresheth (should thresh) in hope of
partaking,' (or e/Vut'St rov perexeiv). The sense is the same.
Some of the ancient, and not a few of the most distinguished
modern commentators assume that Paul gives an aUegorical
mterpretation to the passage in Deuteronomy. They under
stand him to say that the passage is not to be understood of
oxen, but of us, ministers. ' This command was given on ac
count of us ministers, that we ploughors might plough in hope,
and we threshers might thresh in hope.' But this is entirely
foreign from the manner of the New Testament writers, f
They never argue except from the true historical sense of
Scripture. Gal. 4, 21-31, is no exception to this remark; for
that passage is an iUustration and not an argument.
* The common text is rrjs _\7r'8os auToD ix.rexetv e7r* iX-jrlSt. Griesbach,
Lachmann, Scholz and Tischendorf all read eir' e\iwi$i rov fierix*1", on the au
thority ofthe MSS. A. B. C.
t In reference to this mode of expounding the passage, Calvin says : Neque
etiam quasi velit allegoriee exponere praeoeptum illud : quemadmodmn non-
nulli vertiginosi spiritus occasione,m hinc arripiunt omnia ad allegorias trans-
fcrendi : ita ox canibus faciunt homines, ex arboribus angelos, ct totam Scrip-
turam ludeudo pervertunt.

I. CORINTHIANS 9, 11. 12. 13. 15&
11. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, (is
it) a great thing if we shah reap your carnal things ?
That is, if we have bestowed on you one class of benefits,
is it unreasonable that we should receive from you another
class ? And if the benefits which we bestow are spiritual,
such as knowledge, faith and hope, the fruits ofthe Spirit, and
therefore of infinite value, is it much that we should derive
from you carnal things, i. e. things necessary for the support
ofthe body? On every principle of commutative justice, the
minister's right to a support must be conceded.
12. If others be partakers of (this) power over you,
(are) not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used
this power ; but suffer ah things, lest we should hinder
the gospel of Christ.
This is an argument dhected speciaUy to the Corinthians.
They had recognized in other teachers the right to a support ;
they could not, therefore, with any show of reason, deny it to
the apostle. This power over you (tt}s ipuiv efouo-tas), i. e. the
right of which you are the objects. For this use of the geni
tive, (power of you, for power over you), compare Matt. 10, 1.
John 17, 2. Undisputable as this right was in the case of
Paul, he did not exercise it, but suffered all things, i. e. en
dured aU kinds of privations. The word means to bear in si
lence. Lest we should hinder (place any hinderance in the
way of,) the gospel of Christ. Under the circumstances in
which Paul was placed, surrounded by implacable enemies, it
would have hindered the gospel had he done any thmg which
gavo the least ground to question the purity of his motives.
He was willing to suffer any thing rather than to give his op
ponents the slightest pretext for their opposition to him.
13. Do ye not know that they which minister about
holy things live (of the things) of the temple . and they
which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar ?
What Paul here says is true of all religions, though his
reference is probably only to the Jewish. Those which min
ister about holy things (ol to tepa. epya£o/xei/oi) ; those who per
form the sacred services, i. e. those who offer sacrifices. Eat

160 I. CORINTHIANS 9, 13. 14. 15.
of the temple, i. e. they derive their support from the temple,
Those attending the altar share with the altar, i. e. the priests
receive a portion of the sacrifices offered on the altar. If this
was an institution ordained by God himself, under the old dis
pensation, it has the sanction of divine authority.^ The apos
tle's concluding and conclusive argument on this subject is
contained in the foUowing verse.
14. Even so hath the Lord ordained that they
which preach the gospel should hve of the gospel.
Even so (ovr_> Kai), so also, i. e. as God had ordained under
the Old Testament, so also the Lord (i. e. Christ) had ordained
under the New. Christ has made the same ordinance respect
ing the ministers of the gospel, that God made respecting the
priests of the law. The Lord hath ordained that, &c, (Ste-
Tafe toIs), he commanded those who preach, &c. It was a com
mand to ministers themselves not to seek theh support from
secular occupations ; but to live of the gospel, as the priests
lived of the temple. Matt. 10, 10. Luke 10, 8. This is the
law of Christ, obligatory on ministers and people ; on the lat
ter to give, and on the former to seek a support from the
church and not from worldly avocations. There are circum
stances under which, as the case of Paul shows, this command
ceases to be binding on preachers. These are exceptions, to
be justified, each on its own merits ; the rule, as a rule, re
mains in force. If this subject were viewed in this hght, both
by preachers and people, there would be little difficulty in sus
taining the gospel, and few ministers would be distracted by
worldly pursuits.
15. But I have used none of these things : neither
have I written these things, that it should be so done
unto me : for (it were) better for me to die, than that
any man should make my glorying void.
None of these things, may refer to the various arguments
above mentioned. ' I have avaUed myself of none of these
arguments ; ' or, it may refer to the right itself, which was
manifold, the right of a recompense for labour, v. 7 ; the right
to an equivalent for benefits conferred, v. 11 ; the right to be
treated as other ministers were, v. 12; the right to be dealt

I. CORINTHIANS 9, 15.16.17. 161
with according to the law of God in the Old Testament, and
of Christ in the New. ' I have used none of these rights."
Neither have I written these things that it should (in future)
be so done (i. e. according to what I have written) unto me
(iv ipoi), in my case. Paul had no intention of changing his
course in this matter. The reason for this determination he
immediately assigns. For it were better for me to die than
that any man should make my glorying void, that is, deprive
me of my ground of glorying. What enabled Paul to face his
enemies with joyful confidence, was his disinterested self-deni
al in preaching the gospel without reward. And this he calls
his (Kavxripa), or ground of boasting. That this, and not
merely preaching the gospel, was the proof of his integrity to
which he could confidently refer, he shows in the foUowing
verses. 16. Por though I preach the gospel, I have nothing
to glory of •. for necessity is laid upon me ; yea, woe is
unto me, if I preach not the gospel !
The reason why it was so important to him to refuse aU
remuneration as a minister was, that although he pleached the
gospel that was no (Kav^pa), ground of boasting to him.
That he was bound to do, yea, woe was denounced against
him unless he did preach it. Nothing could be a ground of
boasting, but something which he was free to do, or not to do.
He was free to receive or to refuse a remuneration for preach
ing ; and therefore his refusing to do so was a ground of glo
rying, that is, a proof of integrity to which he could with
confidence appeal.
17. For if I do this tiling willingly, I have a reward :
but if against my will, a dispensation (of the gospel) is
committed unto me.
This is the proof that preaching was no ground of boasting.
If he preached willingly, i. e. if it were optional with him to
preach or not to preach, then it would be a ground of boast
ing ; but if he did it unwillingly, i. e. if it was not optional
with him, (as was in fact the case), he was only discharging
an official duty, and had nothing to boast of. That Paul
preached the gospel willingly, that he esteemed it his highest

162 I. CORINTHIANS 9, 17.
joy and glory, is abundantly evident from his history and
his writings. Rom. 1, 5. 11,13. 15,15.16. 1 Cor. 15, 9.
10. Gal. 1, 15. 16. Eph. 3, 8. The difference, therefore, here
expressed between (eKuiv and o.k_>v), willing and unwilling, is
not the difference between cheerfuUy and reluctantly, but be
tween optional and obligatory. He says he had a dispensation
or stewardship (oiKovopla) committed to him. These stewards
(oLKovopoi) were commonly slaves. There is a great difference
between what a slave does in obedience to a command, and
what a man volunteers to do of his own accord. And this is
the precise difference to which the apostle here refers. The
slave may feel honoured by the command of his master, and
obey him gladly, stUl it is but a service. So Paul was com
manded to preach the gospel, and he did it with his whole
heart ; but he was not commanded to refuse to receive a sup
port from the churches. The former, therefore, was not a
ground of boasting, not a thing for which he could claim the
reward of special confidence ; the latter was. He could ap
peal to it as a proof, not only of his obedience, but of the
purity ofthe motive which prompted that obedience. A phy
sician may attend the sick from the highest motives, though
he receives a remuneration for his services. But when he at
tends the poor gratuitously, though the motives may be no
higher, the evidence of their purity is placed beyond question.
Paul's ground of glorying, therefore, was not preaching, for
that was a matter of obhgation ; but his preaching gratuitous
ly, which was altogether optional. If, says he, my preaching
is optional, I have a reward ; not in the sense of merit in the
sight of God, but in the general sense of recompense. He
gained something by it. He gained the confidence even of
his enemies. But as preaching was not optional but obligato
ry, he did not gain confidence by it. Mere preaching, there
fore, was not a (Kav^pa) ground of boasting, but preaching
gratuitously was. A dispensation of the gospel is committed
to me ; in the Greek it is simply, ' I am intrusted with a stew
ardship (comp. Gal. 2, 7, i. e. an office), which I am bound to
discharge. I am in this matter a mere servant.' The princi
ple on which the apostle's argument is founded is recognized
by our Lord, when he said, " When ye shaU have done all
those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofit
able servants : we have done that which was our duty to do,"
Luke 17, 10.

I. CORINTHIANS 9, 18. 19. 163
18. What is my reward then? (Verily) that, when
I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ
without charge, that I abuse not my power in the
gospel. To do what he was commanded was no ground of re
ward ; but to preach the gospel without charge was something
of which he could boast, i. e. make a ground of confidence.
What then is my reward ? i. e. what constitutes my reward ?
in the sense explained ; what gives me a ground of boasting ?
The answer follows, (lva being used instead of the exegetical
infinitive ; comp. John 15, 8. 1 John 4, 17.) that preaching I
should make the gospel free of charge. In other words, that
I should not use my right in the gospel. In other words,
Paul's reward was to sacrifice himself for others. He speaks
of his being permitted to serve others gratuitously as a re
ward. And so it was, not only because it was an honour and
happiness to be aUowed to serve Christ in thus serving his
people ; but also because it secured him the confidence of
those among whom he laboured by proving his disinterested
ness. The common version, that I abuse not, although agree
able to the common meaning of Kara)(pdopai, is not consistent
with the context, and is not demanded by the usage of the
word; see 7, 31. It was not the abuse, but the use of his
right to be supported, that the apostle had renounced.
19. Por though I be free from ah (men), yet have
I made myself servant unto ah, that I might gain the
more. The apostle's self-denial and accommodation of himself to
the weakness and prejudices of others, was not confined to the
point of which he had been speaking. He constantly acted
upon the principle of abstaining in things indifferent, from in
sisting on his rights. Though free from all, i. e. independent
of all men, and under no obligation to conform my conduct to
their opinions, I subjected myself to all. In what way he did
this, and to what extent, is explained by what foUows. His
motive in thus accommodating himself to others, was, that lie
might gain the more, or the greater number, the majority ;
comp. 10, 5. No one was more yielding in matters of indiffer
ence, no one was more unyielding in matters of principle than

166 I. CORINTHIANS 9, 21.22.23.
sisted the Judaizers, in order that the truth of the gospel
might remain with them, Gal. 2, 5.
22. To the weak became I as weak, that I might
gain the weak : I am made ah things to ah (men), that
I might by ah means save some.
By the weak many understand the Jews and Gentiles con
sidered under another aspect, i. e. as destitute of the power to
comprehend and appreciate the gospel. The only reason for
this interpretation is the assumption that to gain in this con
nection must mean to convert, or make Christians of, and
therefore, those to be gained must be those who were not
Christians. But the word means merely to win over, to bring
to proper views, and therefore may be used in reference to
weak and superstitious beUevers as weU as of unconverted
Jews and Gentiles. As in the preceding chapter the weak
mean weak Christians, men who were not clear and decided
in theh views, and as the very design of the whole discussion
was to induce the more enhghtened Corinthian Christians to
accommodate themselves to those weaker brethren, it is alto
gether more natural to understand it in the same way here.
Paul holds himself up as an example. To the weak he became
as weak ; he accommodated himself to theh prejudices that
he might win them over to better views. And he wished the
Corinthians to do the same. I am made all things to all men.
This generahzes aU that had been said. It was not to this or
that class of men, that he was thus conciliatory, but to all
classes, and as to aU matters of indifference ; that he might at
all events (irdvwi) save some.
23. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I
might be partaker thereof with (you).
T/iis I do ; or, according to the reading now generally
adopted (wavra instead of toCto), Ido all things ; 'my whole
course of action, not merely in thus accommodating myself to
the prejudices of others, but in every thing else, is regulated
for the promotion of the gospel.' This gives a better sense ;
for to say, This Ido, would be only to repeat what is included
in the preceding verse. Paul lived for the gospel. He did all
tilings for it. 'That I may be a joint-partaker thereof, i. e. a
partaker with others ; not, with you, as there is nothing to

I. CORINTHIANS 9, 23.24.25. 167
confine the statement to the Corinthians. To be a partaker
ofthe gospel, means, of course, to be a partaker of its bene
fits ; the subject of the redemption which it announces. It is
necessary to hve for the gospel, in order to be a partaker of
the gospel. 24. Know ye not that they which run in a race
run all, but one receiveth the prize ? So run, that ye
may obtain. ,,
An exhortation to self-denial and exertion, clothed in fig
urative language. As the exhortation is addressed principally
to the Gentile converts, the imagery used is derived, from the
public games with which they were so famihar. These games,
the Olympian and Isthmian, the latter celebrated every third
summer in the neighbourhood of Corinth, were the occasions
for the concourse of the people from aU parts of Greece. The
contests in them excited the greatest emulation in aU classes
of the inhabitants. Even the Roman emperors did not refuse
to enter the lists. To be a victor was to be immortalized with
such immortahty as the breath of man can give. To Greeks,
therefore, no aUusions could be more intelUgible, or more
effective, than those to these institutions, which have nothing
to answer to them in modern times.
Enow ye not. He took for granted they were famUiar
with the rules of the games to which he referred. That those
running in a race ; hteraUyinthe stadium or circus in which
the games were celebrated, so caUed because it was a stadium
(a Uttle more than two hundred yards) in length. All run,
but one obtains the prize. It was not enough to start in this
race ; it was not enough to persevere almost to the end ; it
was necessary to outrun all competitors and be first at the
goal. But one took the prize. So run that ye may obtain.
That is, run as that one runs, in order that ye may obtain.
The greatest self-denial in preparation, and the greatest effort
in the contest, were necessary to success. In the Christian
race there are many victors ; but the point of the exhortation
is, that all should run as the one victor ran in the Grecian
games. 25. And every man that striveth for the mastery is
temperate in ah things. Now they (do it) to obtain a
corruptible crown ; but we an incorruptible.

166 I. CORINTHIANS 9, 21.22.23.
sisted the Judaizers, in order that the truth of the gospel
might remain with them, Gal. 2, 5.
22. To the weak became I as weak, that I might
gain the weak : I am made ah things to ah (men), that.
I might by ah means save some.
By the weak many understand the Jews and GentUes con
sidered under another aspect, i. e. as destitute of the power to
comprehend and appreciate the gospel. The only reason foi
this interpretation is the assumption that to gain in this con
nection must mean to convert, or make Christians of, and
therefore, those to be gained must be those who were not
Christians. But the word means merely to win over, to bring
to proper views, and therefore may be used in reference to
weak and superstitious behevers as weU as of unconverted
Jews and GentUes. As in the preceding chapter the weak
mean weak Christians, men who were not clear and decided
in their views, and as the very design of the whole discussion
was to induce the more enhghtened Corinthian Christians to
accommodate themselves to those weaker brethren, it is alto
gether more natural to understand it in the same way here.
Paul holds himself up as an example. To the weak he became
as weak ; he accommodated himself to their prejudices that
he might win them over to better views. And he wished the
Corinthians to do the same. I am made all things to all men.
This generahzes aU that had been said. It was not to this or
that class of men, that he was thus conciliatory, but to aU
classes, and as to aU matters of indifference ; that he might at
all events (irdvrcos) save some.
23. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I
might be partaker thereof with (you).
This I do ; or, according to the reading now generally-
adopted (TrdvTa. instead of rovro), I do all things ; ' my whole
course of action, not merely in thus accommodating myself to
the prejudices of others, but in every thing else, is regulated
for the promotion of the gospel.' This gives a better sense ;
for to say, This Ido, would be only to repeat what is included
in the preceding verse. Paul hved for the gospel. He did all
things for it. That I may be a joint-partaker thereof, i. e. a
partaker with others ; not, with you, as there is nothing to

I. CORINTHIANS 9, 23.24.25. 167
confine the statement to the Corinthians. To be a partaker
of the gospel, means, of course, to be a partaker of its bene
fits ; the subject of the redemption which it announces. It is
necessary to hve for the gospel, in order to be a partaker of
the gospel. 24. Know ye not that they which run in a race
run all, but one receiveth the prize ? So run, that ye
may obtain.
An exhortation to self-denial and exertion, clothed in fig
urative language. As the exhortation is addressed principally
to the GentUe converts, the imagery used is derived, from the
pubhc games with which they were so familiar. These games,
the Olympian and Isthmian, the latter celebrated every third
summer in the neighbourhood of Corinth, were the occasions
for the concourse of the people from aU parts of Greece. The
contests in them excited the greatest emulation in aU classes
of the inhabitants. Even the Roman emperors did not refuse
to enter the hsts. To be a victor was to be immortalized with
such immortality as the breath of man can give. To Greeks,
therefore, no aUusions could be more intelhgible, or more
effective, than those to these institutions, which have nothing
to answer to them in modern times.
Enow ye not. He took for granted they were familiar
with the rules of the games to which he referred. That those
running in a race ; literaUyin the stadium or circus in which
the games were celebrated, so caUed because it was a stadium
(a Uttle more than two hundred yards) in length. All run,
but one obtains the prize. It was not enough to start in this
race ; it was not enough to persevere almost to the end ; it
was necessary to outrun all competitors and be first at the
goal. But one took the prize. So run that ye may obtain.
That is, run as that one runs, in order that ye may obtain.
The greatest self-denial in preparation, and the greatest effort
in the contest, were necessary to success. In the Christian
race there are many victors ; but the point of the exhortation
is, that aU should run as the one victor ran in the Grecian
games. 25. And every man that striveth for the mastery is
temperate in ah things. Now they (do it) to obtain a
corruptible crown ; but we an incorruptible.

168 I. CORINTHIANS 9, 25.26.27.
Every one who striveth, &c. (iras 6 ay<_rvi_[6p.evo_) every one
accustomed to contend, i. e. every professional athlete. The
word includes all kinds of contests, whether in running,
wrestling or fighting. Is temperate in aU things, i. e. controls
himself as to aU things. He exercises self-denial in diet, in
bodily indulgences, and by painful and protracted discipUne.
The ancient writers abound in rules of abstinence and exercise,
to be observed by competitors in preparation for the games.
They indeed for a corruptible crown, we for an incorruptible.
If the heathen submitted to such severe discipline to gain a
wreath of olive or garland of pine leaves, shaU not Christians
do as much for a crown of righteousness which fadeth not
away? 26. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight
I, not as one that beateth the air :
I therefore, i. e. because so much effort is necessary to suc
cess. So run, i. e. run not in such a manner as one who runs
uncertainly (dSrjkws). That may mean unconspicuously, not
as one unseen, but as one on whom all eyes are fixed. Or more
probably the idea is, not as one runs who is uncertain where
or for what he is running. A man who runs uncertain as to
his course or object, runs without spirit or effort. So fight I.
The allusion is here to boxing, or fighting with the fist. Not
as one beating the air. Here again the figure is doubtful. A
man who is merely exercising, without an antagonist, may be
said to smite the air. A man puts forth Uttle strength in such
a sham conflict. Or the man who aims at his antagonist, and
fails to hit him, smites the air. This is the better explanation.
Virgil has the same figure to express the same idea. He says
of a boxer who missed his antagonist, " vires in ventum effu-
dit." -5£n. v. 446. In either way the meaning is the same.
Nothing is accomphshed. The effort is in vain. In 14, 9, the
apostle says of those who speak in an unknown tongue, that
they speak into the air. That is, they speak to no effect.
27. But I keep under my body, and bring (it) into
subjection : lest that by any means, when I have
preached to others, I myself should be a cast-away.
In opposition to the fruitless or objectless fighting just de
scribed, Paul says, I keep under my body; hterally I bruise

I. CORINTHIANS 9, 27. 169
my body. (wr_nrid£,_>, to smite under the eye, to bruise, to
smite, Luke 18, 5.) His antagonist was his body, which he so
smote, i. e. so dealt with, as to bring it into subjection ; hter
ally, to lead about as a slave. Perhaps in reference to the
custom of the victor leading about his conquered antagonist
as a servant ; though this is doubtful. The body, as in part
the seat and organ of sin, is used for our whole sinful nature.
Rom. 8, 13. It was not merely his sensual nature that Paul
endeavoured to bring into subjection, but aU the evil propensi
ties and passions of his heart. . Lest having preached to others
(icripv^ai). Perhaps the apostle means to adhere to the figure
and say, ' Lest having acted the part of a herald, (whose office
at the Grecian games was to proclaim the rules of the contest
and to summon the competitors or combatants to the lists,)
he himself should be judged unworthy of the prize.' As, how
ever, the word is so often used for preaching the gospel, he
may intend to drop the figure and say, ' He made these strenu
ous exertions, lest, having preached the gospel to others, he
himself should become (aSoKipos) a reprobate, one rejected.'
What an argument and what a reproof is this ! The reckless
and listless Corinthians thought they could safely indulge
themselves to the very verge of sin, whUe this devoted apostle
considered himself as engaged in a hfe-struggle for his salva
tion. This same apostle, however, who evidently acted on the
principle that the righteous scarcely are saved, and that the
kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, at other times breaks
out in the most joyful assurance of salvation, and says that he
was persuaded that nothing in heaven, earth or heU could ever
separate him from the love of God. Rom. 8, 38. 39. The one
state of mind is the necessary condition of the other. It is
only those who are conscious of this constant and deadly
struggle with sin, to whom this assurance is given. In the
very same breath Paul says, " O wretched man that I am ; "
and, " Thanks be to God who giveth us the victory," Rom. 7,
24. 25. It is the indolent and self-indulgent Christian who is
always in doubt.

1Y0 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 1,

CHAPTER X.
A continuation of the exhortation to self-denial and caution, vs. 1-13. Ex-
press prohibition of joining in the sacrificial feasts of the heathen, vs.
14-22. Particular directions as to the use of meat sacrificed to idols, vs.
23-33.
The necessity of self-denial argued from the case of tlie
Israelites. Vs. 1-13.
At the close of the preceding chapter the apostle had exhorted
his readers to self-denial and effort, in order to secure the
crown of life. He here enforces that exhortation, by showing
how disastrous had been the want of such self-control in the
case of the Israehtes. They had been highly favoured as well
as we. They had been miraculously guided by the pUlar of
cloud ; they had been led through the Red Sea ; they had
been fed with manna from heaven, and with water from the
rock ; and yet the great majority of them perished, vs. 1-5.
This is a solemn warning to Christians not to give way to
temptation, as the Israehtes did, v. 6. That is, not to be led
into idolatry, v. 7, nor into fornication, v. 8, nor into tempting
Christ, v. 9, nor into murmuring, v. 10. In aU these points
the experience of the Israelites was a warning to Christians;
and therefore those who thought themselves secure should
take heed lest they faU, vs. 11. 12. God is merciful, and would
not suffer them to be too severely tempted, v. 13.
1. Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should
be ignorant, how that ah our fathers were under the
cloud, and ah passed through the sea ;
Moreover. The true reading is not (Se') moreover, but (yap)
for, which marks the connection with what precedes. ' We
must use self-denial and effort ; for, brethren, our fathers, not-
withstanding all they experienced, perished.' I would not
have you ignorant, Rom. 1, 10. 11,25, a formula used when
something specially important is to be presented. That (not
how that). All our fathers. The emphasis is on all. 'AU
our fathers left Egypt ; Caleb and Joshua alone entered the
promised land.' All run, but one obtains the prize. The his
tory of the church affords no incident better suited to enforce
the necessity of guarding against false security, than that se-

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 1.2. 171
lected by the apostle. The Israelites doubtless felt, as they
stood on the other side of the Red Sea, that aU danger was
over, and that their entrance into the land of promise was se
cured. They had however a journey beset with dangers be
fore them, and perished because they thought there was no
need of exertion. So the Corinthians, when brought to the
knowledge of the gospel, thought heaven secure. Paul re
minds them that they had only entered on the way, and would
certainly perish unless they exercised constant self-denial. Our
fathers. Abraham is our father, though we are not his natural
descendants. And the Israehtes were the fathers of the Co
rinthian Christians, although most of them were Gentiles.
Although this is true, it is probable that the apostle, although
writing to a church, many, if not most, of whose members
were of heathen origin, speaks as a Jew to Jews ; as he often
addresses a congregation as a whole, when what he says has
reference only to a part.
Were under the cloud, not underneath it, but under its
guidance. Ex. 13, 21. "The Lord went before them by day
in a pillar of cloud, to lead them ; and by night in a pillar of
fire to give them light, to go by day and night." See Num.
9, 15. 23. 14, 14. Deut. 1, 33. Ps. 78, 14. &c. No more deci
sive evidence could have been given of their election as a peo
ple, than this supernatural guidance. The symbol of the divine
presence and favour was before theh eyes day and night. If
any people ever had reason to think their salvation secure, it
was those whom God thus wonderfully guided. They all
passed through the sea. Would God permit those to perish
for whom he had wrought so signal a deUverance, and for
whose sake he sacrificed the hosts of Egypt ? Yet their car
casses were strewed in the wilderness. It is not enough, there
fore, to be recipients of extraordinary favours ; it is not enough
to begin weU. It is only by constant self-denial and vigilance,-
that the promised reward can be obtained. This is the lesson
the apostle intends to inculcate.
2. And were all baptized * unto Moses in the cloud
and in the sea ;
Baptized unto Moses, i. e. in reference to Moses, so as by
* The MSS. A. C. D. E. F. G. all read ifia-irTt&rio-av, were baptized, instead
of (fra-mlcai/To, allowed themselves to bs baptized ; and yet the majority of edi
tors prefer the latter reading as the more difficult.

172 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 2.3.
baptism to be made his disciples. See 1, 13. Rom. 6, 3. In
the cloud and in the sea. The cloud and the sea did for them,
in reference to Moses, what baptism does for us in reference
to Christ. Their passage through the sea, and their guidance
by the cloud, was theh baptism. It made them the disciples
of Moses ; placed them under obhgation to recognize his di
vine commission and to submit to his authority. This is the
only point of analogy between the cases, and it is aU the apos
tle's argument requires. One class of commentators says that
they were immersed in the sea, and therefore it was a bap
tism ; another says, the cloud rained upon them, and on that
account they are said to have been baptized. Both sugges
tions are equaUy forced. For the people were baptized as
much in the cloud as in the sea ; but they were not immersed
in the cloud nor sprinkled by the sea. There is no aUusion to
the mode of baptism. Neither is the point of analogy to he
sought in the fact, that the cloud was vapour and the sea
water. The cloud by night was fire. The point of similarity
is to be found, not in any thing external, but in the effect pro
duced. The display of God's power in the cloud and in the
sea, brought the people into the relation of disciples to Moses.
It inaugurated the congregation, and, as it were, baptized
them to him, bound them to serve and follow him.
3. And did ah eat the same spiritual meat;
As they had their baptism, so they had their eucharist ;
and they all had it. They all eat the same spiritual meat.
They were all alike favoured, and had therefore equal grounds
of hope. Yet how few of them reached the promised rest !
The reference is here obviously to the manna, which the
apostle calls spiritual meat. Why it is so called is very doubt
ful. 1. The word spiritual may mean, partaking of the nature
of spirit, a sense attributed to the word in 15, 44, where, "spir
itual body " is assumed to mean a refined, aetherial body.
The manna, according to this view, is called spiritual meat, be
cause it was a refined kind of food ; much in the way in wliich
we use the word celestial as an epithet of exceUence. This in
terpretation derives some support from Ps. 78, 25, where the
manna is called " angels' food." By Josephus, A. HI. 1, 6, l4
is called, " divine and wonderful food." 2. A second inter
pretation assumes that spiritual means having a sphitual im
port. " Sphitual meat " would then be equivalent to typical.
\ ' They eat of that bread which was the type of the true bread

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 3. 173
from heaven.' Neither of these views, however, is consist
ent with the scriptural use of the word. Spiritual neither
means refined nor typical. In 15, 44, "spiritual body " means
a body adapted to the spirit as its organ. 3. Others give the
word here its very common sense, pertaining to the spirit ; as,
in the preceding chapter, " carnal things " are things pertain
ing to the body, and " sphitual things " are things pertaining
to the soul. The manna, according to this interpre cation, was
designed not only for the body, but for the soul. It was spir
itual food ; food intended for the sphit, because attended by
the Holy Sphit and made the means of spiritual nourishment.
This is a very commonly received interpretation. Calvin as
sumes it to be the only possible meaning of the passage, and
founds on it an argument for his favourite doctrine, that the
sacraments of the Old Testament had the same efficacy as
those of the New. But this exalts the manna into a sacra
ment, which it was not. It was designed for ordinary food ;
as Nehemiah (9, 15) says, " Thou gavest them bread from
heaven for their hunger, and broughtest forth for them water
out of the rock for theh thirst." And our Lord represents it
in the same hght, when he said, " Your fathers did eat manna
in the wUderness and are dead." John 6, 49. He contrasts
himself, as the true bread from heaven which gives life to the
soul, with the manna which had no spiritual efficacy. 4. One
of the most common meanings of the word spiritual in Scrip
ture is, derived from the Spirit. Spiritual gifts and spiritual
blessings are gifts and blessings of which the Spirit is the
author. Every thing which God does in nature and in grace,
he does by the Spirit. He garnished the heavens by the
Sphit ; and the Spirit renews the face of the earth. When
therefore it is said, God gave them bread from heaven to eat,
it means that the Spirit gave it ; for God gave it through the
Spirit. Thus God is said to renew and sanctify men, because
the Sphit of God is the author of regeneration and sanctifica
tion. The manna therefore was spiritual food, in the same
sense in which the special gifts of God are caUed spiritual gifts.
That is, it was given by the Spirit. It was not natural food,
but food miraculously provided. In the same sense, in the
next verse, the water is caUed spiritual drink, because miracu
lously produced. In Gal. 4, 29, the natural birth of Isaac i_
said to have been after the Spirit, because due to the spe
cial intervention of God. As the miraculous debverance and
miraculous guidance of the Israehtes was theh baptism, so

174 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 3.4,
their being miraculously fed was their Lord's Supper. They
were as signal marks of the divine presence and favour as sa
craments are to us. If their privUeges did not prevent their
perishing in the wilderness, ours wiU not save us. If the want
of self-denial and vigilance destroyed them, it wfll destroy us.
4. And did ah drink the same spiritual drink ; for
they drank of that spiritual Rock that fohowed them :
and that Rock was Christ.
The water which they drank was spiritual, because derived
from the Spirit, i. e. by the special intervention of God. They
aU drank (emov) of it once when first provided, and they con
tinued to drink (emvov) of it, for it followed them. Whatever
difficulties may be connected with the interpretation of this
verse, two things are therein plainly taught. Fhst, that the
Israelites were constantly suppUed in a miraculous manner
with water ; and secondly, that the source of that supply was
Christ. The principal difficulties in the passage are, the de
claration that the rock foUowed the Israehtes ; and that the
rock was Christ. How are these statements to be under
stood? 1. Some take the passage UteraUy, and assume that
the rock smitten by Moses actually roUed after the Israehtes
during all their journey. Such was the tradition ofthe Jews,
as is abundantly proved by the quotations from their writings,
by Wetstein, Schoettgen and Lightfoot.* According to the
local tradition, as old at least as the Koran, the rock smitten
by Moses was not part of the mountain, but a detached rock,
pierced with holes whence the water is said to have flowed.
This view of the passage makes the apostle responsible for a
Jewish fable, and is inconsistent with his divine authority.
Those who adopt this interpretation do not suppose that the
rock actuaUy foUowed the Israelites, but that the apostle was
misled by the tradition of his times. 2. Others say that by
the rock following them is meant that the water out of the
rock followed them. There is nothing unnatural in this. To
say that the vines of France foUow the people wherever they
go, would be no violent figure to express the fact that the
wine produced by those vines foUowed them. No man at
least would be disposed to understand the expression hterally.
* Fuit (ille puteus Num. 21, 16) sieut petra, sicut alveus apum et globosus,
St volutavit, &c, ct ivit cum ipsis in itincribus ipsorum. Bammidhbar R. S. 1.

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 4. 175
In Ps. 105, 41, it is said, " He opened the rock, and the waters
gushed out ; they ran in dry places like a river," which at least
proves that the supply of water was very cojflous, and flowed
to a considerable distance. 3. It is not necessary, however, to
assume that either the rock or the water out of the rock fol
lowed them. The rock that followed them was Christ. The
Logos, the manifested Jehovah, who attended the Israelites
in their journey, was the Son of God who assumed our nature,
and was the Christ. It was he who supplied their wants.
He was to them the fountain of living waters. He was the
spiritual rock of which they drank. The word spiritual may
have the same general force here as in the preceding clauses.
The bread and water are caUed sphitual because supernatural.
So the rock was a supernatural rock, though in a somewhat
different sense. The manna was supernatural as to its origin ;
the rock, as to its nature. It is not uncommon for a word to
be taken in the same connection in different, though nearly
allied senses. Compare the use ofthis word spiritual in 2, 15
and 3, 1 ; and <p&elpei and tfrSepe? in 3, 17. But in what sense
was the rock Christ ? Not that Christ appeared under the
form of a rock ; nor that the rock was a type of Christ, for
that does not suit the connection. The idea is not that they
drank of the typical rock ; it was not the type but the anti
type that suppUed their wants. The expression is simply
figurative. Christ was the rock in the same sense that he is
the vine. He was the source of aU the support which the
Israehtes enjoyed during their journey in the wUderness.
This passage distinctly asserts not only the preexistence
of our Lord, but also that he was the Jehovah of the Old
Testament. He who appeared to Moses and announced him
self as Jehovah, the God of Abraham, who commissioned him
to go to Pharaoh, who dehvered the people out of Egypt, who
appeared on Horeb, who led the people through the wUder
ness, who dwelt in the temple, who manifested himself to
Isaiah, who was to appear personaUy in the fulness of time, is
the person who was born of a virgin, and manifested himself
in the flesh. He is called, therefore, in the Old Testament, an
angel, the angel of Jehovah, Jehovah, the Supreme Lord, the
Mighty God, the Son of God. — one whom God sent — one with
him, therefore, as to substance, but a distinct person. Our
Lord said, Abraham saw his day, for he was before Abraham,
John 8, 58 ; John says, 12, 41, Isaiah beheld his glory in the
temple ; Paul says, the Israehtes tempted him in the wilder-

176 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 5.6.
ness, 1 Cor. 10, 9, and that Moses suffered his reproach, Heb.
11, 26 ; Jude 5. says, the Lord, or (asLachmann, after the an
cient MSS. and versions, reads) Jesus, saved his people out of
Egypt. This truth early impressed itself on the mind of the
Christian church, as appears from the prayer in the ancient
Liturgies, O Adonai (Supreme Lord), et Dux Domus Israel,
qui Mosi in igne flammeo rubi apparuisti, et ei in Sina aquam
dedisti, veni a|J redimendum nos in brachio extracto.
5. But with many of them God was not well
pleased : for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
But, i. e. notwithstanding they had been thus highly fa
voured. With many ; hteraUy, with the greater number.
God was not weU pleased, that is, he was displeased. The
proof of his displeasure was that they were overthrown in the
wilderness. LiteraUy, they were strewed as corpses in the wil
derness. Their path through the desert could be traced by
the bones of those who perished through the judgments
of God. 6. Now these things were our examples, to the in
tent we should not lust after evil things, as they also
lusted. These things were our examples ; hterally, our types. A
type is an impression ; any thing produced by blows ; then an
impression which has a resemblance to something else ; then
a model to which some other person or thing should be, or in
point of fact would be, conformed. The IsraeUtes and the
facts of their history were our types, because we shall be con
formed to them if we do not exercise caution. Our doom will
correspond to theirs. They therefore stand as warnings to us.
The particular thing against which their fate was designed to
warn us, is lusting after evil. According to Num. 11, 4, the
people lusted after, i. e. they inordinately longed for, the flesh-
pots of Egypt, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat ? God
gave them their desire — " but while the flesh was yet between
theh teeth, he smote them with a great plague, and the place
was caUed the ' graves of lust,' for there they buried the peo
ple that lusted," Num. 11, 34. Comp. Ps. 78, 27-31, and 105,
14. 15. This was a perpetual warning against the indulgence
of inordinate desires for forbidden objects. It was specially

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 6.7.8. 177
appropriate as a warning to the Corinthians not to desire par
ticipation in the sacrificial feasts of the heathen in which they
had been accustomed to indulge.
7. Neither be ye idolaters, as (were) some of them ;
as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink,
and rose up to play.
The Corinthians were as much exposed to temptation on
this subject as the Israehtes had been, and were quite as hable
to faU into idolatrous practices. The Israehtes did not con
sider themselves as idolaters when they made the golden calf;
they did not believe that the second commandment forbade
the worship of the true God by images, and it was Jehovah
whom they designed to worship. The feast was proclaimed
as a feast to Jehovah, Ex. 32, 6. They made the same excuse
for the use of images as the Romanists now do ; and the same in
effect as that which the Corinthians made for theh comphance
with heathen usages. The latter did not consider the partici
pation of the feasts in the idol's temple as an act of idolatry.
As the Israelites perished for their sin, their excuse notwith
standing, so those who are in fact idolaters, whether they so
regard themselves or not, must expect a hke fate. It is not
enough to make a thing right, that we think it to be so. Things
do not change their nature according to our thoughts about
them. Murder is murder, though man in his self-conceit and
pride may caU it justifiable homicide.
They sat down to eat and to drink, i. e. of the sacrifices
offered to Jehovah in the presence of the golden calf, as a
symbol of creative power — and rose up to play, i. e. to dance,
as that amusement was, among the ancients, connected with
theh rehgious feasts. Homer, Od. 8, 251.
8. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of
them committed, and feh in one day three and twenty
thousand. Idolatry and fornication have always been so intimately
connected that the former seldom faUs to lead to the latter.
This was iUustrated in the case of the Israelites. Num. 25,
1-9, " And the people began to commit whoredom with the
daughters of Moab ; and they caUed the people unto the sacri
fices of their gods. . . . And Israel joined himself unto Baal-
peor." This was a god of the Moabites, who was worshipped
8*

178 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 8. 9.
by the prostitution of virgins. Idolatry and formcation were
in that case inseparable. In Corinth the principal temple was
dedicated to Venus, and the homage paid to her was almost
as corrupt as that rendered to Baal-peor. How could the
Corinthians escape this evU if they aUowed themselves to at
tend the sacrificial feasts within her temple — under the pre
tence that an idol is nothing ?
And were slain in one day three and twenty thousand. In
the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint, by PhUo, Josephus
and the Rabbis, the number is given as twenty-four thou
sand. Both statements are equaUy correct. Nothing de
pended on the precise number. Any number between the
two amounts may, according to common usage, be stated
roundly as either the one or the other. The infalhbUity ofthe
sacred writers consists in their saying precisely what the Spirit
of God designed they should say ; and the Sphit designed that
they should speak after the manner of men — and caU the hea
vens solid and the earth flat, and use round numbers, without
intending to be mathematicaUy exact in common speech. The
Bible, although perfectly divine, because the product of the
Spirit of God, is perfectly human. The sacred writers spoke
and wrote precisely as other men in their circumstances would
have spoken and written, and yet under such an influence as
to make every thing they said correspond infalhbly with the
mind of the Spirit. When the hand of a master touches the
organ we have one sound, and when he touches the harp we
have another. So when the Spirit of God inspired Isaiah we
had one strain, and when he inspired Amos, another. Moses
and Paul were accustomed, like most other men, to use round
numbers ; and they used them when under the influence of in
spiration just as they used other famihar forms of statement.
Neither intended to speak with numerical exactness, which
the occasion did not require. What a wonderful book is the
Bible, written at intervals during a period of fifteen hundred
years, when such apparitions of inaccuracy as this must he
seized upon to impeach its infaUibUity !
9. Neither let us tempt Christ,* as some of them
also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
* Instead of Xpi<rr6v, the MSS. B. C, and the Coptic and Ethiopic versions
read Kvpwv. The MS. A. has Ss_6v. The common text is sustained by the
MSS. D. E. F. 0. H. I. K, by the Syriac, Vulgate, the old Latin and Sahidic ver-

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 9. 179
To tempt is to try, either in the sense of attempting, or of
putting to the test, with a good or evil intent. God is said to
tempt his people, when he puts their faith and patience to the
test for the sake of exercising and strengthening those graces,
Heb. 11, 17. Satan and evil men are said to tempt others,
when they put theh vhtue to the test with the design of se
ducing them into sin, Gal. 6, 1. James 1, 3. Matt. 4, 1, &c
Men are said to tempt God when they put his patience, fideli
ty or power to the test. Acts 5, 9. Matt. 4, 7. Heb. 3, 9. It
was thus the Israehtes tempted him in the wilderness. They
tried his forbearance, they provoked him. The exhortation is
that we should not thus tempt Christ. This supposes that
Christ has authority over us, that he is our moral governor to
whom we are responsible, and who has the power to punish
those who incur his displeasure. In other words, the passage
assumes that we stand in the relation to Christ which rational
creatures can sustain to God alone. Christ, therefore, is God.
Whether the Corinthians are warned against tempting Christ
by their impatience and discontent, as the Israehtes did in the
particular case here referred to ; or whether they are cautioned
against putting his fideUty to the test by running unnecessa
rily into danger (see Matt. 4, 7), is uncertain. Probably the
former. As some of them also tempted. As Christ is mentioned in
the immediate context, it is most natural to supply the pro
noun him. ' Let us not tempt Christ, as they tempted him?
This is not only the most natural explanation, but it is sus
tained by a .reference to v. 4, and bythe analogy of Scripture,
as the Bible elsewhere teaches that the leader of the Israelites
was the Son of God. It is only on theological grounds, that
is, to get rid of the authority of the passage as a proof of our
Lord's divinity, that others interpret the passage thus, ' Let us
not tempt Christ, as they tempted God.' It is only one form
ofthe argument, however, which is thus met. For according
to this view the passage stfll teaches that we sustain the rela
tion to Christ which the Israehtes sustained to God. And
were destroyed of serpents. Num. 21, 6. The people pro
voked God by their complaints and by their regretting their
debverance out of Egypt. " And the Lord sent fiery serpents
sions, and by Chrysostom and other Fathers. It is retained, therefore, by the
majority of editors. As the more difficult reading it is the more likely to be
the original one. The temptation was strong to change xpiariv into Kvpiov,
but no one would be disposed to put the former word for the latter.

180 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 9. 10. 11.
among the people, and they bit the people ; and much people
of Israel died." Similar judgments awaited the Corinthians
if they exhausted the forbearance ofthe Lord.
10. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also mur
mured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. >
To murmur is to complain in a rebeflious spirit. The
reference is to Num. 14, 2, "And aU the children of Israel
murmured against Moses and against Aaron : and the whole
congregation said unto them, Would God we had died in the
land of Egypt ! or would God we had died in the wilderness."
Vs. 11. 12, "And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will
this people provoke me ? and how long will it be ere they be
heve me for aU the signs which I have shown among them ?
I wUl smite them with the pestUence, &c." V. 27, "How
long shaU I bear with this evU congregation which murmur
agamst me ? . . . Their carcasses shaU fall in the wilderness."
Or the reference is to Num. 16, in which the rebeUion of Ko
rah is related, and the subsequent murmuring of the people,
v. 41, in consequence of which fourteen thousand and seven
hundred were destroyed by a plague, v. 49. In both cases
the offence and punishment were the same. Were destroyed
of the destroyer, i. e. by an angel commissioned by God to use
the pestUence as an instrument of destruction. Hence some
times the destruction is referred to the pestilence, as in Num.
14, 14 ; sometimes to the angel, as here ; and sometimes both
the agent and the instrument are combined, as in 2 Sam. 24,
16. See Acts 12, 23.
11. Now all these things happened unto them for
ensamples : and they are written for our admonition,
upon whom the ends of the world are come.
All these happened (i. e. continued to happen) to them for
ensamples. Literally, they were types, see v. 6. They were
intended as historical pictures, to represent, as Calvin says,
the effects of idolatry, fornication, murmuring, &c. And they
are written, &c. They were recorded that we might have the
benefit of these dispensations, so that we might be admonished
to avoid the sins which brought such judgments upon them.
Upon tohom the ends of the ivorld (literally, of the ages) are
come. That is, upon us who hve during the last ages. Dura-

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 11. 12. 181
tion is sometimes conceived of as one, and is therefore ex-
pressed by the singular ald>v ; sometimes as made up of distinct
periods, and is then expressed by the plural cu'cuves. Hence we
have the expressions a-wrekeia rov atSvos, and rihv. amvw, Matt.
24, 3. Heb. 9, 26, both signifying the completion of a given
portion of duration, considered either as one or as made up of
several periods. Sometimes these expressions refer to the
close of the Jewish dispensation, and indicate the time of
Christ's first coming ; sometimes they refer to the close of the
present dispensation, and indicate the time of his second ad
vent. Matt. 13, 39, &c. See Eph. 1, 10, and Heb. 1, 1, for
equivalent forms of expression. As in Heb. 9, 26, the comple
tion of the ages means the end of the Jewish dispensation, so
the ends of the ages may have the same meaning here. Or
what, in this case, may be more natural, the meaning is that
we are living during the last of those periods wliich are allot
ted to the duration of the world, or of the present order of
things. One series of ages terminated with the coming of
Christ ; another, which is the last, is now passing.
12. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth,
take heed lest he fall.
This indicates the design of the apostle in referring to the
events above indicated in the history of the Israehtes. There
is perpetual danger of falling. No degree of progress we may
have already made, no amount of privUeges which we may
have enjoyed, can justify the want of caution. Let him that
thinketh he standeth, that is, let him who thinks himself secure.
This may refer either to security of salvation, or against the
power of temptation. The two are very different, and rest
generally on different grounds. False security of salvation
commonly rests on the ground of our belonging to a privileged
body (the church), or to a privileged class (the elect). Both
are equally faUacious. Neither the members of the church
nor the elect can be saved unless they persevere in holiness ;
and they cannot persevere in holiness without continual watch
fulness and effort. False security as to our power to resist
temptation rests on an overweening self-confidence in our own
strength. None are so liable to faU as they who, thinking them
selves strong, heedlessly run into temptation. This probably is
the kind of false security against which the apostle warns the
Corinthians, as he exhorts them immediately after to avoid
temptation.

182 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 13.
13. There hath no temptation taken you but such
as is common to man : but God (is) faithful, who will
not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able ;
but will with the temptation also make a way to escape,
that ye may be able to bear (it).
No temptation, i. e. no trial, whether in the form of seduc
tions or of afflictions, has taken you but such as is common to
man; literaUy human, accommodated to human strength,
such as men are able to bear. ' You have been subjected to
no superhuman or extraordinary temptations. Your trials
hitherto have been moderate ; and God wfll not suffer you to
be unduly tried.' This is the ordinary interpretation of this
passage, and one which gives a simple and natural sense. It
may, however, mean, ' Take heed lest ye faU. The tempta
tions which you have hitherto experienced are moderate com
pared to those to which you are hereafter to be subjected.'
In this view, it is not so much an encouragement, as a warning
that all danger was not over. The apostle is supposed to re
fer to those pecuhar trials which were to attend " the last
times." As these times were at hand, the Corinthians were in
circumstances which demanded peculiar care. They should
not run into temptation, for the days were approaching when,
if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived. As,
however, there is no contrast between the present and the fu
ture intimated in the passage, the common interpretation is
the more natural one.
But God is faithful. He has promised to preserve his
people, and therefore his fideUty is concerned in not allowing
them to be unduly tempted. Here, as in 1, 9, and every where
else hi Scripture, the security of believers is referred neither
to the strength of the principle of grace infused into them by
regeneration, nor to their own firmness, but to the fidelity of
God. He has promised that those given to the Son as his in
heritance, should never perish. They are kept, therefore, by
the power of God, through faith, unto salvation, 1 Peter 1, 4.
This promise of security, however, is a promise of security
from sin, and therefore those who fall into wilful and habitual
sin are not the subjects ofthe promise. Should they fall, it is
after a severe struggle, and they are soon renewed again unto
repentance. The absolute security of believers, and the ne
cessity of constant watchfulness, are perfectly consistent.

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 13. 183
Those whom God has promised to save, he has promised to
render watchful. Who will not suffer you to be tempted above
that you are able, i. e. able to bear. This is the proof of his fidel
ity. But will with the temptation make a way of escape. This
means either, that when the temptation comes, God will make
a way of escape ; or, that when God brings the temptation he
will also bring the way of escape. In the latter sense God is
regarded as the author of the temptation, in the former he is
not. The latter is to be preferred on account of the o-w, with.
' He wfll make with the temptation a way of escape,' i. e. he
makes the one, he wfll make the other. The apostle James in
deed says, " God cannot be tempted with evil, neither teinpt-
eth he any man," James 1, 3. To tempt there, however, means
to solicit, or attempt to seduce into sin. In that sense God
tempts no man. But he does often put their virtue to the
test, as in the case of Abraham. And in that sense he tempts
or tries them. What the apostle here says is, that when God
thus tries his people it wiU not be beyond their strength, and
that he wUl always make a way of escape that they may be
able to bear it. This expresses the design of God in making a
way of escape. (The genitive rov 8wao-3at, &c, is the genitive
of design).
Proof that attendance on sacrificial feasts in a heathen
temple is idolatry. Vs. 14-22.
This whole discussion arose out of the question whether it
was lawful to eat the sacrifices offered to idols. Paul, while
admitting that there was nothing wrong in eating of such
meat, exhorts the Corinthians to abstain for the sake of their
weaker brethren. There was another reason for this absti
nence; they might be led into idolatry. By going to the
verge of the allowable, they might be drawn into the sinful.
There was great danger that the Corinthians, convinced that
an idol was nothing, might be induced to join the sacrificial
feasts within the precincts of the temples. The danger was
the greater, because such feasts, if held in a private house, lost
their rehgious character, and might be attended without
scruple. To convince his readers, that if the feast was held in
a temple, attendance upon it was an act of idolatry, is the ob
ject of this section. The apostle's argument is from analogy.
Attendance on the Lord's Supper is an act of communion with
Christ, the object of Christian worship, and with all those who

184 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 14.
unite with us in the service. From its very nature, it brings
all who partake of the bread and wine into fellowship with
Christ and with one another, vs. 14-17. The same is true of
Jewish sacrifices. Whoever eats of those sacrifices, is thereby
brought into communion with the object of Jewish worship.
The act is in its nature an act of worship, v. 18. The conclu
sion is too plain to need being stated — those who join in the
sacrificial feasts of the heathen, join in the worship of idols.
Such is the import of the act, and no denial on the part of
those who perform it can alter its nature. It is not to be in
ferred from this mode of reasoning, that the objects of heathen
worship are what the heathen suppose them to be. Because
Paul argued that, as partaking of the Lord's Supper is an act
of Christian worship, partaking of an idol-feast must be an act
of heathen worship, it is not to be inferred that he regarded
Jupiter or Juno as much real beings as Christ is. Far from
it. What the heathen sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons ; and
therefore, to partake of their sacrifices under circumstances
which gave rehgious significance to the act, brought them
into communion with demons, vs. 19. 20. The two things are
incompatible. A man cannot be a worshipper of Christ and a
worshipper of demons, or in communion with the one whUe in
communion with the other. Going to the Lord's table is a
renunciation of demons ; and going to the table of demons is
a renunciation of Christ, v. 21. By this conduct the jealousy
of the Lord would be excited against them, as of old it was
excited against the Jews who turned aside after false gods,
v. 22. 14. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from
idolatry. Wherefore, i. e. because such severe judgments came upon
the idolatrous Israehtes ; because you, as weU as they, are in
danger of being involved in that sin ; and because your dis
tinguished privileges can protect you neither from the sin nor
from its punishment any more than their privUeges protected
them. My dearly beloved. Paul addresses them in terms of
affection, although his epistle is so fuU of serious admonition
and warning. Flee from idolatry, i. e. avoid it by fleeing
from it. This is the only safe method of avoiding sin. Its
presence is malarious. The only safety is keeping at a dis
tance. This includes two things ; first, avoiding what is ques-

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 14. 15. 16. 185
tionable ; that is, every thing which lies upon the border of
what is aUowable, or which approaches the confines of sin ;
and secondly, avoiding the occasion and temptations to sin ;
keeping at a distance from every thing which excites evil pas
sion, or which tends to ensnare the soul.
15. I speak as to wise men ; judge ye what I say.
Unto wise men ; i. e. as to men of sense ; men capable of
seeing the force of an argument. Paul's appeal is not to
authority, whether his own or that of the Scriptures. The
whole question was, whether a given service came within the
scriptural definition of idolatry. He was willing, as it were,
to leave the decision to themselves ; and therefore said, judge
ye what I say, i. e. sit in judgment on the argument which I
present. Should they differ from the apostle, that would not
alter the case. The service was idolatrous, whatever they
thought of it. But he takes this way of convincing them.
16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not
the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread
which we break, is it not the communion of the body
of Christ? It is here assumed that partaking of the Lord's Supper
brings us into communion with Christ. If this be so, partaking
of the table of demons must bring us into communion with
demons. This is the apostle's argument. It is founded on
the assumption, that a participation of the cup is a participa
tion of the blood of Christ ; and that a participation of the
bread is a participation of the body of Christ. So far Roman
ists, Lutherans, and Reformed agree in their interpretation of
this important passage. They all agree that a participation
ofthe cup is a participation of the blood of Christ; and that
a participation of the bread, is a participation of the body of
Christ. But when it is asked, what is the nature of this par
ticipation, the answers given are radicaUy different. The Re
formed answer, negatively, that it is " not after a corporal or
carnal manner." That is, it is not by the mouth, or as ordi
nary food is received. Affirmatively, they answer that it is
by faith, and therefore by the soul. This, of course, deter
mines the nature of the thing partaken of, or the sense in
which the body and blood of Christ are received. If the re-

186 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 16.
ception is not by the mouth, but by faith, then the thing re
ceived is not the material body and blood, but the body and
blood as a sacrifice, i. e. their sacrificial virtue. Hence aU Re
formed churches teach (and even the rubrics of the Church
of England), that the body and blood of Christ are received
elsewhere than at the Lord's table, and without the reception
of the bread and wine, which in the Sacrament are their sym
bols and the organs of communication, as elsewhere the word
is that organ. Another point no less clear as to the Reformed
doctrine is, that since the body and blood of Christ are re
ceived by faith, they are not received by unbelievers.
Romanists answer the above question by saying, that the
mouth is the organ of reception ; that the thing received
is the real body and blood of Christ, into the substance of
which the bread and wine are changed by the act of conse
cration ; and consequently, that behevers and unbehevers are
alike partakers. Lutherans teach, that although the bread
and wine remain unchanged, yet, as the body and blood of
Christ are locaUy present in the sacrament, in, with, and under
the bread and wine, the organ of reception is the mouth ; the
thing received is the real body and blood of Christ; and that
they are received ahke or equally by believers and unbe
lievers; bythe latter, however, to their detriment, and con
demnation ; by the former, to their spiritual nourishment and
growth in grace. Lutherans and Romanists further agree in
teaching, that there is a reception of the body and blood of
Christ in the Lord's Supper, which is elsewhere impossible.
These are the three great forms of doctrine which have
prevaUed in the Church on this subject ; and this passage is
interpreted by each party in accordance with their pecuhar
views. The passage decides no point of difference. If the
Romish doctrine of transubstantiation can be elsewhere proved,
then, of course, this passage must be understood in accordance
with it. And if the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation
can be estabhshed by other declarations of the Word of God,
then this passage must be explained in accordance with that
doctrine. But, if it can be clearly demonstrated from Scrip
ture and from those laws of belief which God has impressed
upon our nature, that those doctrines are false, then the pas
sage must be understood as teaching a spiritual, and not a cor
poral participation of Christ's body and blood. Al that
the passage asserts is the fact of a participation, the nature
of that participation must be determined from other sources.

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 16. 187
The cup of blessing. The word (_vkoye_>), to bless, means,
1. To speak well of. 2. To praise and thank ; as when we
bless God. 3. To confer blessings, as when God blesses us.
In virtue of the second of these meanings, the word is used
interchangeably with (eixapurreu.), to give thanks. That is,
the same act is sometimes expressed by the one word and
sometimes by the other. In Matt. 26, 26 and Mark 14, 22,
what is expressed by saying, having blessed, in Luke 22, 17.
19. and 1 Cor. 11, 25, is expressed by saying, having given
thanks. And in the account of the Lord's Supper in Matthew
and Mark, the one word is used in reference to the bread, and
the other in reference to the cup. They therefore mean the
same thing, or rather express the same act, for that act was
both a benediction and thanksgiving ; that is, it was an ad
dress to God, acknowledging his mercy and imploring his
blessing, and therefore may be expressed either by the word
benediction or thanksgiving. It is not necessary to infer that
in these cases (ei/voy>jo-as) having blessed is used in the re
stricted sense of (eixapia-rrjaa.-) having given thanks. This
cannot be the fact, because the object of (eu/VoyT/cras), at least
in some of these passages, is not God, but the bread or the
cup. The meaning is, 'having blessed the bread.' The
phrase, therefore, the cup of blessing, so far as the significa
tion of the words is concerned, may be rendered either — the
cup of thanksgiving (the eucharistical cup), or the cup of
benediction, the consecrated cup. The latter is no doubt the
true meaning, because the explanation immediately follows,
which we bless. The cup, and not God, is blessed. To take
the phrase actively, the cup which confers blessing is not only
inconsistent with usage, but incompatible with the explanation
which immediately follows. The cup of blessing is the cup
which we bless. In the Paschal service the cup was called
" the cup of blessing," because a benediction was pronounced
over it. The idea of consecration is necessarUy included.
Wine, as wine, is not the sacramental symbol of Christ's blood,
but only when solemnly consecrated for that purpose. Even
our ordinary food is said to " be sanctified by the word of God
and prayer," 1 Tim. 4, 5, because it is set apart by a rehgious
service to the end for which it was appointed. So the cup of
blessing is the cup which, by the benediction pronounced over
it, is u set apart from a common to a sacred use."
Which we bless. This is the explanation of the preceding
clause. The cup of blessing is the cup which we bless ; which

188 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 16.
can only mean the cup on which we implore a blessing ; that
is, which we pray may be blessed to the end for which it was
appointed, viz. to be to us the communion of the blood of
Christ. That is, the means of communicating to us the bene
fits of Christ's death. Just as we bless our food when we
pray that God would make it the means of nourishing our
bodies. The other interpretations of this clause are unnatu
ral, because they require something to be supphed which is
not in the text. Thus some say the meaning is, "taking
which," or " holding which in our hands," or " over which,"
we give thanks. All this is unnecessary, as the words give a
perfectly good sense as they stand (o eikoryovp.ev), which (cup) we
bless, This passage, therefore, seems to determine the mean
ing of such passages as Matt. 26, 26 and Mark 14, 22, " Hav
ing blessed (viz. the bread) he brake it." The bread or cup
was the thing blessed. Comp. Luke 9, 16, where it is said our
Lord, " having taken the five loaves and the two fishes, and
having looked up to heaven, he blessed them." This also
shows that " having given thanks " in such connections means
" having with thanksgiving implored the blessing of God."
The cup therefore is blessed by the prayer, in which we ask
that God would make it answer the end of its appointment.
Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? That is,
is it not the means of participating of the blood of Christ 1
He who partakes of the cup, partakes of Christ's blood. This,
of course, is true only of beUevers. Paul is writing to believ
ers, and assumes the presence of faith in the receiver. Thus
baptism is said to wash away sin, and the word of God is said
to sanctify, not from any virtue in them ; not as an external
rite or as words addressed to the outward ear ; not to aU in
discriminately who are baptized or who hear the word ; but
as means of divine appointment, when received by faith and
attended by the working of his Spirit. The beheving recep
tion of the cup is as certainly connected with a participation
of Christ's blood, as the believing reception of the word is
connected with an experience of its life-giving power. The
whole argument of the apostle is founded on this idea. He
wishes to prove that partaking of the sacrificial feasts of the
heathen brought men into real communion with demons, be
cause participation of the Lord's supper makes us reaUy par-
takers of Christ. The word Ko.vwvLa, communion, means par-
iicipation, from the verb Koivinvew, to partake of; in Heb. 2, 14,
it is said, Christ took part of flesh and blood. Rom. 15, 17,

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 16. 189
the GentUes took part in the spiritual blessings of the Jews.
Hence we have such expressions as the following : participa
tion of his Son, 1 Cor. 1, 9 ; participation of the Spirit, 2 Cor.
13, 13. Phil. 2, 1 ; participation of the ministry, 2 Cor. 8, 4;
of the gospel, Phil. 1, 5 ; of sufferings, PhU. 3, 5. Of course
the nature of this participation depends on the nature of its
object. Participation of Christ is sharing in his Spirit, charac
ter, sufferings and glory ; participation of the gospel is parti
cipation of its benefits ; and thus participation ofthe blood of
Christ is partaking of its benefits. This passage affords not
the slightest ground for the Romish or Lutheran doctrine of a
participation of the substance of Christ's body and blood.
When in 1, 9 it is said, "We are called into the feUowship or
participation of his Son," it is not ofthe substance ofthe God
head that we partake. And when the Apostle John says,
" We have feUowship one with another," i. e. we are (kowwoL)
partners one of another, 1 John 1, 7, he does not mean that
we partake of each other's corporeal substance. To share in
a sacrifice offered in our behalf is to share in its efficacy ; and
as Christ's blood means his sacrificial blood, to partake of his
blood no more means to partake of his literal blood, than
when it is said his blood cleanses from aU sin, it is meant that
his literal corporeal blood has this cleansing efficacy. When
we are said to receive the sprinkling of his blood, 1 Pet. 1, 1,
it does not mean his Uteral blood.
The bread ivhich we break, is it not the communion of the
body of Christ f That is, by partaking of the bread we par
take of the body of Christ. This is but a repetition of the
thought contained in the preceding clause. The cup is the
means of participation of his blood ; the bread the means of
participation of his body. The body of Christ cannot here
mean the church, because his blood is mentioned in the same
connection, and because in the institution of the Lord's supper
the bread is the symbol of Christ's hteral, and not of his mys
tical body. To partake of his body, is to partake of the bene
fits of his body as broken for us. Which we break. This is
in evident aUusion to the original institution of the sacrament.
Our Lord " took bread, and having given thanks, he brake it
and said, Take, eat ; this is my body which is broken for you."
1 Cor. 11, 24. The whole service, therefore, is often caUed th
" breaking of bread." Acts 2, 42. 20, 7. The custom, there
fore, of using a wafer placed unbroken in the mouth of the

190 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 16.17.
communicant, leaves out an important significant element in
this sacrament. 17. Por we (being) many are one bread, (and) one
body : for we are ah partakers of that one bread.
LiteraUy rendered this verse reads : Since it is one bread,
we the many are one body ; for we are all partakers of one
bread. We are not said to be one bread ; but we are one
body because we partake of one bread. The design of the
apostle is to show that every one who comes to the Lord's
supper enters into communion with all other communicants.
They form one body in virtue of their joint participation of
Christ. This being the case, those who attend the sacrificial
feasts of the heathen form one rehgious body. They are in
religious communion with each other, because in communion
with the demons on whom their worship terminates. Many
distinguished commentators, however, prefer the foUowing in
terpretation. " For we, though many, are one bread (and)
one body." The participation of the same loaf makes us one
bread, and the joint participation of Christ's body makes us
one body. This is, to say the least, an unusual and harsh
figure. Believers are never said to be one bread ; and to
make the ground of comparison the fact that the loaf is the
joint product of many grains of wheat is very remote. And
to say that we are literally one bread, because by assimilation
the bread passes into the composition of the bodies of all the
communicants, is to make the apostle teach modern physiology.
In the word Koivmvia, communion, as used in the preceding
verse, lies the idea of joint participation. 'The bread which
we break is a joint participation of the body of Christ ; be
cause (on) it is one bread, so are we one body.' The thing
to be proved is the union of aU partakers of that one bread.
Instead of connecting this verse with the 16th, as containing
a confirmation of what is therein stated, many commentators
take it as an independent sentence introducing a passing re
mark. ' The Lord's supper brings us into communion with
Christ. Because this is the case, we are one body and should
act accordingly.' But this not only breaks the connection,
but introduces what is not in the text. The idea is, ' Par
taking of the sacrament is a communion, because we the many
all partake of one br ;ad.'

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 18. 191
18. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they
which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar ?
Israel after the flesh, i. e. the Jews, as a nation, as distin
guished from Israel after the Spirit, or the spiritual Israel or
true people of God. As Israel was a favourite term of honour,
Paul rarely uses it for the Jews as a people without some such
qualification. Comp. Rom. 2, 28. 9, 8. Gal. 4, 29. 6, 16.
Are not they which eat of the sacrifices. With the Jews,
as with other nations, only a portion of most sacrifices was
consumed upon the altar ; the residue was divided between
the priest and the offerer. Lev. 7,15. 8,31. Deut. 12,18.
To eat of the sacrifices in the way prescribed in the Law of
Moses, was to take part in the whole sacrificial service. " Thou
must eat them before the Lord thy God, in the place which
the Lord thy God shall choose." Deut. 12, 18. Therefore the
apostle says that those who eat of the sacrifices are partakers
of the altar ; that is, they are in communion with it. They
become worshippers of the God to whom the altar is dedi
cated. This is the import and the effect of joining in these
sacrificial feasts. The question is not as to the intention of
the actors, but as to the import of the act, and as to the inter
pretation universally put upon it. To partake of a Jewish
sacrifice as a sacrifice and in a holy place, was an act of
Jewish worship. By parity of reasoning, to partake of a
heathen sacrifice as a sacrifice, and in a holy place, was of ne
cessity an act of heathen worship. As aU who attended the
Jewish sacrifices, to which none but Jews were admitted, pro
fessed to be Jews and to be the joint-worshippers of Jehovah,
and as they could not be in communion with the altar without
being in communion with each other, therefore all who at
tended the sacrificial feasts of the heathen brought themselves
into religious communion with idolaters. It need hardly be
remarked that this passage gives no ground for the opinion
that the Lord's supper is a sacrifice. This is not the point of
comparison. The apostle's argument does not imply that, be
cause the Jewish and heathen feasts were sacrificial feasts,
therefore the Christian festival had the same character. The
whole stress hes on the word Koivmvia. ' Because participation
of Christian ordinances involves communion with Christ, par
ticipation of heathen ordinances involves communion with
devils.'

192 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 19. 20.
19. What say I then ? that the idol is any thing,
or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any
thing ?
This is evidently intended to guard against a false inference
from this mode of reasoning. It was not to be mferred from
what he had said, that he regarded the professed objects of
heathen worship as having the same objective existence as the
God whom Jews and Christians worshipped ; or that he con
sidered the heathen sacrifices as having any inherent power.
The idol was nothing, and that which was offered to the idol
was nothing. This however does not alter the case. For al
though there are no such beings as those whom the heathen
conceive their gods to be, and although theh sacrifices are not
what they consider them, stfll their worship is real idolatry,
and has a destructive influence on the soul. How this is, is
explained in the following verse.
20. But (I say), that the things which the Gentiles
sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God : and
I would not that ye should have fehowship with devils.
That is, ' I do not say the gods of the heathen have a real
existence, that there are any such persons as Jupiter or Mi
nerva ; but I do say that the heathen worship is the worship
of demons.' This verse presents two questions for considera
tion. First, in what sense does Paul here use the word Saijuo-
vta, translated devils ; and secondly, in what sense can it be
truly said that the heathen worship devils.
The words Satpav and Saip.6viov were used by the Greeks
for any deity or god, or spirit, and generally for any object
of reverence or dread. The only case in the New Testament
where they have this sense is Acts 17, 18, (" He seems to be a
setter forth of strange gods.") Elsewhere they always mean
fallen angels. Our translators have not adhered to the dis
tinction which in the New Testament is constantly made in
the use of the words StdjSoAos and Saipovwv. They translate
both terms by the word devil, and hence, when the latter oc
curs in the plural form, they render it devils. The former,
however, is never applied in Scripture (except in its appellative
sense of accuser) to any other being than Satan. He is the
Devil, and the Scriptures never speak of more than one. By

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 20. 193
devils, therefore, in this case are to be understood demons, or
the fallen angels or evil spirits. That this is the sense in which
the Greek word is to be here taken is plain, 1. Because it is
its only scriptural sense. The passage in Acts 17, 18, being
the language of Athenians, proves nothing as to the usage of
Jews speaking Greek. 2. In the Septuagint we have precisely
the words used by the apostle, and in the same sense. Deut.
32, 17. See also Ps. 95, 5, where the Septuagint version is, on
Travres ot 3eol riov i&vmv Saipovia, all the gods of the heatlien are
devils. It can hardly be doubted that the apostle meant to
use the word in its established scriptural sense. Comp. also
Rev. 9, 20. 3. The classical sense of the word does not suit
the context. Paul had just said that the heathen gods were
nothing ; to admit now that there were deities in the Grecian
sense of the word haipoviov, would be to contradict himself.
We must understand the apostle, therefore, as saying on the
one hand, that the gods of the heathen were imaginary beings ;
and on the other, that their sacrifices were really offered to
evil spirits. In what sense, however, is this true ? The hea
then certainly did not intend to worship evil spirits. Never
theless they did it. Men of the world do not intend to serve
Satan, when they break the laws of God in the pursuit of
their objects of desire. StUl in so doing they are really obey
ing the wUl of the great adversary, yielding to his impulses,
and fulfilling his designs. He is therefore said to be the god
of this world. To him aU sin is an offering and an homage.
We are shut up to the necessity of worshipping God or Satan ;
for aU refusing or neglecting to worship the true God, or giv
ing to any other the worship which is due to him alone, is the
worshipping of Satan and his angels. It is true therefore, in
the highest sense, that what the heathen offer they offer to
devils. Although their gods have no existence, yet there are
real beings, the rulers of the darkness of this world, wicked
spirits in heavenly places (Eph. 6, 12), on whom their worship
terminates. And I would not that ye have fellowship with devils. By
feUowship or communion, the apostle means here what he
meant by the same term in the preceding verses. We are
said to have fellowship with those between whom and us there
are congeniality of mind, community of interest, and friendly
intercourse. In this sense we have feUowship with our fellow
Christians, with God and with his Son. And in this sense the
worshippers of idols have feUowship with evfl spirits. They

194 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 20.21.
are united to them so as to form one community, with a com
mon character and a common destiny. Into this state of fel
lowship they are brought by sacrificing to them ; that is, by
idolatry, which is an act of apostasy from the true God, and
of association with the kingdom of darkness. It was of great
importance for the Corinthians to know that it did not depend
on theh intention whether they came into communion with
devils. The heathen did not intend to worship devils, and
yet they did it ; what would it avail, therefore, to the reckless
Corinthians, who attended the sacrificial feasts of the heathen,
to say that they did not intend to worship idols ? The ques
tion was not, what they meant to do, but what they did ; not,
what their intention was, but what was the import and effect
of their conduct. A man need not intend to burn himself
when he puts his hand into the fire ; or to poUute his soul
when he frequents the haunts of vice. The effect is altogether
independent of his intention. This principle applies with aU
its force to compUance with the rehgious services of the
heathen at the present day. Those who in pagan countries
join in the rehgious rites of the heathen, are just as much
guUty of idolatry, and are just as certainly brought into fel
lowship with devils, as the nominal Christians of Corinth,
who, although they knew that an idol was nothmg, and that
there is but one God, yet frequented the heathen feasts. The
same principle also apphes to the comphance of Protestants in
the reUgious observances of Papists. Whatever their inten
tion may be, they worship the host if they bow down to it
with the crowd who intend to adore it. By the force of the
act we become one with those in whose worship we join. We
constitute with them and with the objects of theh worship one
communion. 21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the
cup of devils : ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's
table, and of the table of devils.
The cup of the Lord is that cup which brings us into com
munion with the Lord, v. 16 ; the cup of devils is that cup
which brings us into communion with devils. The reference
is not exclusively or specially to the cup of libation, or to the
wine poured out as an offering to the gods, but to the cup
from which the guests drank at these sacrificial feasts. The
whole service had a reUgious character ; aU the provisions,

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 21.22. 195
the wine as well as the meat, were blessed in the name of the
idol, and thereby consecrated to him, in a manner analogous
to that in which the bread and the wine on the Lord's table
were consecrated to him; comp. 1 Sam. 9, 12. 13. The table
of the Lord is the table at which the Lord presides, and at
which his people are his guests. The table of devils is the
table at which devUs preside, and at which aU present are
their guests. What the apostle means to say is, that there is
not merely an incongruity and inconsistency in a man's being
the guest and friend of Christ and the guest and friend of evU
spirits, but that the thing is impossible. It is as impossible
as that the same man should be black and white, wicked and
holy at the same time. In neither case is this attendance an
empty, ineffective service. A man cannot eat of the table of
demons without being brought under their power and influ
ence ; nor can we eat of the table of the Lord, without being
brought into contact with him, either to our salvation or con
demnation. If we come thoughtlessly, without any desire
after communion with Christ, we eat and drink judgment to
ourselves. But if we come with a humble desire to obey our
divine master and to seek his presence, we cannot fail to be
welcomed and blessed. Compare, in reference to this verse,
2 Cor. 6, 14-18.
22. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy ? are we
stronger than he ?
Jealousy is the feeling which arises from wounded love,
and is the fiercest of all human passions. It is therefore em
ployed as an Ulustration of the hatred of God towards idola
try. It is as when a bride transfers her affections from her
lawful husband, in every way worthy of her love, to some de
graded and offensive object. This iUustration, feeble as it is,
is the most effective that can be borrowed from human rela
tions, and is often employed in Scripture to set forth the hein-
ousness of the sin of idolatry. Deut. 32, 21. Ps. 78, 58 and
elsewhere. Or do we provoke, i. e. is it our object to provoke
the Lord to jealousy. The Corinthians ought not to attend
these feasts unless they intended to excite against themselves
in the highest measure the displeasure of the Lord. And they
ought not thus to excite his anger, unless they were stronger
than he. By the Lord is to be understood Christ, as the con
text requires. It was the Lord's table that was forsaken,

196 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 22.23.
and the same Lord that was provoked thereby to jealousy.
Here, again, the relation in which Christians stand to Christ,
is said to be analogous to that in which the Israehtes stood to
Jehovah. Christ is therefore our Jehovah. He is our hus
band, to whom our supreme affection is due, and who loves us
as a husband loves his wife. " Thy maker is thy husband,
Jehovah is his name," Is. 54, 5 ; see Eph. 5, 25-31.
Under wliat circumstances it was lawful to eat meat offered
to idols. Vs. 23-33.
The apostle having, in the preceding paragraph, proved
that eating of the sacrifices offered to idols under chcum
stances which gave a rehgious character to the act, was idol
atry, comes to state the circumstances under which those
sacrifices might be eaten without scruple. He begins by re
verting to the general law of Christian hberty stated with the
same limitations as in ch. 6, 12. The right to use things
offered to idols, as weU as other things in themselves indiffer
ent, is limited by expediency. We should be governed in this
matter by a regard to the good of others, and to our own
edification, vs. 23. 24. If the meat of sacrifices be sold in the
market, v. 25, or found at private tables, it may be eaten with
out any hesitation, v. 27. But if any one at a private table,
from scruples on the subject, should apprise us that a certain
dish contained part of a sacrifice, for his sake, and not for our
own, we ought to abstain, v. 28. We should not make such
a use of our liberty as to cause our good to be evil spoken of,
v. 29. The general rule of action, not only as to meats and
drinks, but as to aU other things is, first, to act with a regard
to the glory of God, v. 31 ; and secondly, so as to avoid giv
ing offence (i. e. occasion for sin) to any class of men, v. 32.
In this matter Paul presents himself as an example to his
fellow-believers, v. 33.
23. Ah things are lawful for me, but ah things are
not expedient : ah things are lawful for me, but all
things edify not.
The apostle had already, in ch. 6, 12, and in ch. 8, con
ceded that eating of the sacrifices offered to idols, was, in
itself, a matter of indifference. But the use of things indiffer
ent is limited by two principles ; first, a regard to the wehare

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 23.24.25. 197
of others ; secondly, regard to our own welfare. The word
(cmp^epei) is expedient expresses the one of these ideas, and
(oiKoSo/xeT) edifieth the other. All things are not expedient
or useful to others ; and aU things are not edifying to our
selves. The latter phrase might indeed have reference to
others as well as to ourselves — but as contrasted with the
former clause, it appears to be used here with this restricted
application. In this view it agrees with the clause, " I wUl
not be brought under the power of any thing," in 6, 12.
24. Let no man seek his own, but every man
another's (wealth).
That is, let every man, in the use of his liberty, have re
gard to the welfare of others. The maxim is indeed general.
It is not only in the use of things indifferent, but in au other
things we should act, not, in exclusive regard to our own in
terests, but also with a view to the good of others. Self, in
other words, is not to be the object of our actions. The con
text, however, shows, that the apostle intended the maxim to
be apphed to the subject under discussion. Another's wealth,
i. e. another's weal or welfare, according to the old meaning
of the word wealth.
25. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, (that) eat,
asking no question for conscience' sake :
The general principle that sacrifices might be eaten under
any chcumstances which deprived the act of a rehgious char
acter, is here, and in what follows, applied to particular cases.
Meat, when exposed for public sale in the market, lost its
character as a sacrifice, and might be eaten with impunity.
The word paKekkov is a Latin word which passed into the
Greek, and means a meat market.
Eat, asking no questions for conscience' sake. This clause
admits of three interpretations. 1. It may mean, 'When you
go to the market, buy what you want, and make no matter
of conscience about the matter. You need have no conscien
tious scruples, and therefore ask no questions as to whether
the meat had been offered to idols or not.' This is the sim
plest and most natural interpretation. These verses contain
the conclusion of the whole discussion. An idol is nothing ;
the sacrifices are nothing sacred in themselves ; but as the

198 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 25.26.
heathen are reaUy worshippers of evil spirits, to join in their
worship by eating their sacrifices as sacrifices, is idolatry ; but
to eat them as meat is a matter of indifference ; therefore do
not make it a matter of conscience. This interpretation is
confirmed by the following verse, which assigns the reason
why we need have no scruples in the case. 2. Or, the mean
ing may be, Ask no questions, for fear of awakening scruples
in your own mind. A man might eat with a good conscience
of meat which he knew not was a sacrifice, when he would
have serious scruples if informed that it had been offered to
an idol. Therefore it was wise, for his own sake, to ask no
questions. Paul, however, would not advise men to act blind
fold. If a man thought it wrong to eat meat offered to idols,
it would be wrong for him to run the risk of doing so by buy
ing meat in the markets where sacrifices were exposed for
sale. 3. Others say the apostle means to caution the strong
agamst instituting such inquiries, for fear of giving rise to
scruples in others. In favour of this view it is urged, that
throughout the whole discussion the object of the apostle is
to induce the strong to respect the conscientious scruples of
the weak. And in v. 29 he says expressly, that he means the
conscience of others. The former of these considerations has
not much weight, for we have here general directions suited
to all classes. Having shown in the preceding paragraph,
that it was idolatrous to eat of these sacrifices under certain
chcumstances, it was perfectly natural that he should teU both
the strong and the weak when they might be eaten without
scruple. As to the second argument, it is rather against than
in favour of this interpretation. For if, when he means the
conscience of another, he expressly says so, the inference is,
that when he makes no such explanation, he means the man's
own conscience. Besides, the foUowing verse gives the reason
why we need not have any scruples in the case, and not why
we should regard the scruples of others.
26. Por the earth (is) the Lord's, and the fulness
thereof. This was the common form of acknowledgment among the
Jews before meals. It was the recognition of God as the pro
prietor and giver of aU things, and specially of the food pro
vided for his children. The words are taken from Ps. 24, 1.
The fulness of the earth is that by which it is fiUed; aU the

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 26.17.28. 199
fruits and animals with which it is replenished ; which were
created by God, and therefore good. Nothing, therefore, can
in itself be polluting, if used in obedience to the design of its
creation. And as the animals offered in sacrifice were in
tended to be food for man, they cannot defile those who use
them for that purpose. This is the reason which the apostle
gives to show that, so far as God is concerned, the Corinthians
need entertain no scruples in eating meat that had been offered
to idols. It was a creature of God, and therefore not to be
regarded as unclean. Comp. 1 Tim. 4, 4, where the same doc
trine is taught, and for the same purpose.
27. If any of them that beheve not bid you (to a
feast), and ye be disposed to go ; whatsoever is set be
fore you, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake.
As the sacrifices lost their religious character when sold in
the market, so also at any private table they were to be re
garded not as sacrifices, but as ordinary food, and might be
eaten without scruple. The apostle did not prohibit the
Christians from social intercourse with the heathen. If invited
to their tables, they were at Uberty to go.
28. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in
sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it,
and for conscience' sake : for the earth (is) the Lord's,
and the fulness thereof:
This is an exception. They might without scruple eat any
thing set before them. But if any of the guests apprised them
that a particular dish contained meat which had been offered
to an idol, out of regard to the conscientious scruples of him
who made the intimation, they should abstain. But, on the
contrary, if any one. That is, any of your fellow-guests. The
only person likely to make the suggestion was a scrupulous
Christian. For his sake that showed it and for conscience^
sake ; the latter clause is explanatory. ' On account of him
making the intimation, i. e. on account of his conscience.'
Though it is right to eat, and though you know it to be right,
yet, to avoid wounding or disturbing the conscience of your
weaker brother, it is your duty to abstain. The union of the
most enhghtened liberality with the humblest concession to

200 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 28.29.30.
the weakness of others, exhibited in this whole connection,
may weU excite the highest admiration. The most enlight
ened man of his whole generation, was the most yielding and
concUiatory in aU matters of indifference.
The clause, " For the earth is the Lord's and the fulness
thereof," at the end of this verse, is not found in the best
manuscripts, and therefore omitted in aU the critical editions
ofthe Greek Testament. They seem to be here entirely out
of place. In verse 26 they assign the reason why the Corin
thians might eat without scruple whatever was sold in the
market. But here they have no connection with what pre
cedes. The fact that the earth is the Lord's, is no reason why
we should not eat of sacrificial meat out of regard to a
brother's conscience. There is little doubt, therefore, that it
should be omitted.
29, 30. Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of
the other : for why is my liberty judged of another
(man's) conscience ? Por if I by grace be a partaker,
why am I evil spoken of for that for wliich I give
thanks ?
As in the preceding vs. 25. 27 the word conscience refers
to one's own conscience, to prevent its being so understood in
v. 28, Paul adds the explanation, ' Conscience, I say, not thine
own, but of the other's.' That is, ' I do not mean your con
science, but the conscience of the man who warned you not to
eat.' For why is my liberty judged of another man's con
science ? These and the words foUowing admit of three inter
pretations. 1. If connected with the preceding clause, they
must give the reason why Paul meant " the conscience of the
other." ' Conscience I say, not one's own, but of the other ;
for why is my liberty (or conscience) to be judged by an
other man's conscience ? if I eat with thanksgiving (and with
a good conscience, why am I blamed ? ' ) The obvious objec
tion to this interpretation is, that it exalts a subordinate clause
into the principal matter. It was plain enough that Paul did
not mean the man's own conscience, and therefore it is unne
cessary to take up two verses to prove that he did not. Be
sides, this interpretation makes the apostle change sides. He
has from the beginning been speaking in behalf of the weak.
This interpretation makes him here speak almost in terms of

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 30.31. 201
indignation in behalf of the strong, who certainly need no ad
vocate. They did not require to be told that their liberty
was not to be restricted by the scruples of the weak. 2. A
much better sense is obtained by connecting this passage with
the 28th verse. ' Do not eat out of regard to the conscience
of your brother ; for why should my (your) Uberty be judged
(i. e. condemned) by another conscience ; why should I be
blamed for what I receive with thanksgiving ? ' That is, why
should I make such a use of my liberty as to give offence ?
This brings the passage into harmony with the whole context,
and connects it with the main idea of the preceding verse,
and not with an intermediate and subordinate clause. The
very thing the apostle has in view is to induce the strong to
respect the scruples of the weak. They might eat of sacrifi
cial meat at private tables with freedom, so far as they them
selves were concerned ; but why, he asks, should they do it so
as to give offence, and cause the weak to condemn and speak
evfl of them. 3. This passage is by some commentators re
garded as the language of an objector, and not as that of the
apostle. The strong, when told not to eat on account of the
conscience of a weak brother, might ask, ' Why is my Uberty
judged by another's conscience — why should I be blamed for
what I receive with thanksgiving ? ' (The yap, according to
this view, is not for, but intensive, tvari yap, why then.) This
gives a very good sense, but it is not consistent with the fol
lowing verse (which is connected with v. 30 by ovv, and not
by Se'). Paul does not go on to answer that objection, but
considers the whole matter settled. The second interpreta
tion is the only one consistent ahke with what precedes and
with what foUows. ' Do not eat when cautioned not to do so ;
for why should you so use your Uberty as to incur censure ?
Whether therefore you eat or drink, do aU for the glory of
God.' Why is my liberty judged (Kpiverai), i. e. judged unfa
vourably or condemned. If I by grace am a partaker ; hter
ally, if I partake with thanksgiving. The word x^PKt grace,
is here used in the sense of gratia, thanks, as in the common
phrase to say grace. See Luke 6, 32. 1 Tim. 1, 12, &c.
31. Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatso
ever ye do, do ah to the glory of God.
This may mean either, ' Do all things with a view to the
glory of God.' Let that be the object constantly aimed at;
9*

202 I. CORINTHIANS 10, 31.32.
or, ' Do aU things in such a way that God may be glorified.'
There is httle difference between these modes of explanation,
God cannot be glorified by our conduct unless it be our ob
ject to act for his glory. The latter interpretation is favoured
by a comparison with 1 Peter 4, 11, "That God in all things
may be glorified." See Col. 3, 17. AU the special directions
given in the preceding discussion are here summed up. ' Let
self be forgotten. Let your eye be fixed on God. Let the
promotion of his glory be your object in aU you do. Strive
in every thing to act in such a way that men may praise that
God whom you profess to serve.' The sins of the people of
God are always spoken of as bringing reproach on God him
self. Rom. 2, 24. Ezek. 36, 20. 23. It is by thus having the
deshe to promote the glory of God as the governing motive
of our hves, that order and harmony are introduced into aU
our actions. The sun is then the centre of the system. Men
of the world have themselves for the end of their actions.
Philosophers teU us to make the good of others the end; and
thus destroy the sentiment of rehgion, by merging it into phi
lanthropy or benevolence. The Bible tells us to make the
glory of God the end. This secures the other ends by making
them subordinate, whfle at the same time it exalts the soul
by placing before it an infinite personal object. There is all
the difference between making the glory of God (the personal
Jehovah) the end of our actions, and the good ofthe universe,
or of being in general, that there is between the love of Christ
and the love of an abstract idea. The one is rehgion, the
other is morahty.
32. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to
the Gentiles, nor to the church of God :
Give none offence, i. e. give no occasion to sin. An offence
is something over which men stumble. The exhortation is to
avoid being the cause of sin to others, 8, 9. Rom. 14, 13. 21.
They were to be thus careful with respect to aU classes of
men, Christians and non-Christians. The latter are divided
into the two great classes, the Jews and Gentiles. The church
of God, i. e. his people. Those whom God has called out of
the world to be his peculiar possession. They are therefore
distinguished as the Kkrjroi, the called, or, collectively consid
ered, the iKKk-qaia, the church. The first great principle of Chris
tian conduct is to promote the glory of God ; the second is

I. CORINTHIANS 10, 32.33. 203
to avoid giving offence, or causing men to sin. In other
words, love to God and love to men should govern aU our
conduct. 33. Even as I please ah (men) in aU (things), not
seeking mine own profit, but the (profit) of many, that
they may be saved.
What he urged them to do, he himself did. His object
was not his own advantage, but the benefit of others. He
therefore, in all things allowable, accommodated himself to all
men, that they might be saved. " I am made aU things to aU
men, that I might by aU means save some." 9, 22.
The principle which the apostle here avows, and which he
so strenuously recommends in the preceding chapters, is one
which has often been lamentably perverted. On the plea of
becoming aU things to aU men, Christians are tempted into
sinful conformity with the habits and amusements of the
world. On the same plea the church of Rome adopted hea
then festivals, ceremonies and rites, until the distinction be
tween Paganism and Christianity was Uttle more than nomi
nal. Heathen temples were called churches ; pagan gods
were baptized as saints, and honored as before. Modern
Rome, in the apprehension of the people, is almost as polythe
istic as ancient Rome. In like manner Romish missionaries
accommodate themselves to such a degree to heathen ideas
and forms, that the difference between what they caU Chris
tianity and the religion of the country is almost lost. Even
Protestant missionaries are often perplexed how to decide be
tween what is to be tolerated and what prohibited of the pre
vious usages and ceremonies of their converts. That the
principle on which Paul and the other apostles acted in refer
ence to this matter, is radically different from that adopted
by the church of Rome, is apparent from theh different re
sults. Rome has become paganized. The apostle so acted as
to preserve the church from every taint of either Paganism or
Judaism. The rules which guided the apostles may be easUy
deduced from the conduct and epistles of Paul. 1. They ac
commodated themselves to Jewish or GentUe usages only in
matters of indifference. 2. They abstained from all accommo
dation even in things indifferent, under circumstances which
gave, to those things a religious import. Thoy allowed sacri
fices to be eaten; but eating within a temple was forbidden.

204 I. CORINTHIANS 10,33. 11,1.
3. They conceded when the concession was not demanded as
a matter of necessity ; but refused when it was so regarded.
Paul said circumcision was nothing and uncircumcision was
nothing; yet he resisted the chcumcision of Titus when it
was demanded by the Judaizers. 4. The object of their con
cessions was not to gain mere nominal converts, nor to do
away with the offence ofthe cross, Gal. 4, 11, but to save men.
No concession therefore, whether to the manners of the world
or to the prejudices ofthe ignorant, can plead the sanction of
apostohc example, which has not that object honestly in view.
5. It is included in the above particulars that Paul, in becom-
ing all things to all men, never compromised any truth oi
sanctioned any error.
XL, 1. Be ye foUowers of me, even as I also (am)
of Christ.
This verse should belong to the tenth chapter, as it is the
conclusion of the preceding discussion, and as a new subject is
introduced with the following verse. Paul had referred to his
own concihatory conduct as an example to the Corinthians,
and he exhorts them to imitate him, as he did Christ, who is
the ultimate standard.

CHAPTER XI.

The impropriety of women appearing unveiled in the pnhlic assemhlies, vs.
2-16. The improper manner of celehrating the Lord's Slipper which pre
vailed in the Corinthian church, vs. 17—34.
On the impropriety of icomen appearing in public unveiled,
VS. 2-16.
Having corrected the more private abuses which prevailed
among the Corinthians, the apostle begins in this chapter to
consider those which relate to the mode of conducting pubhc
worship. The first of these is the habit of women appearing
in public without a veil. Dress is in a great degree conven
tional. A costume which is proper in one country, would he

I. CORINTHIANS ll, 2. 205
indecorous in another. The principle insisted upon in this
paragraph is, that women should conform in matters of dress
to aU those usages which the public sentiment of the commu
nity in which they hve demands. The veU in all eastern coun
tries was, and to a great extent stUl is, the symbol of modesty
and subjection. For a woman, therefore, in Corinth to dis
card the veU was to renounce her claim to modesty, aud to
refuse to recognize her subordination to her husband. It is
on the assumption of this significancy in the use of the veil,
that the apostle's whole argument in this paragraph is founded.
He begins by praising the Corinthians for their obedience in
general to his instructions, v. 2. He then reminds them of
the divinely constituted subordination of the woman to the
man, v. 3. Consequently it was disgraceful in the man to as
sume the symbol of subordination, and disgraceful in the
woman to discard it, vs. 4. 5. If the veil were discarded as
the symbol of subordination, it must also be discarded as tho
symbol of modesty. An unveUed woman, therefore, in Corinth
proclaimed herself as not only insubordinate, but as immodest,
v. 6. The man ought not to wear a veU because he represents
the authority of God ; but the woman is the glory of the man,
v. 7. This subordination is proved by the very history of her
creation. Eve was formed out of Adam, and made for him,
vs. 8. 9. and, therefore, women should wear, especiaUy in the
religious assembUes where angels are present, the conventional
symbol of their relation, v. 10. This subordination, however,
of the woman is perfectly consistent with the essential equahty
and mutual dependence of the sexes. Neither is, or can be,
without the other, vs. 11. 12. The apostle next appeals to
their instinctive sense of propriety, which taught them that,
as it is disgraceful in a man to appear in the costume of a
woman, so it is disgraceful in a woman to appear in the cos
tume of a man, vs. 13-15. Finally he appeals to authority;
the custom which he censured was contrary to the universal
practice of Christians, v. 16.
2. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember
me in ah things, and keep the ordinances, as I dehv
ered (them) to you.
Now I praise you. The particle (Se') rendered now, either
simply indicates the transition to a new subject, or it is ad
versative. ' Though I exhort you to imitate me as though

206 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 2. 3.
you were deficient, yet I praise you that you remember me.'"
The Corinthians, although backward in foUowing the self-
denial and concUiatory conduct of the apostle, were neverthe
less in general mindful of the ordinances or rules which he had
delivered to them. The word (7rapaSocrts) tradition, here ren
dered ordinance, is used not only for instructions orally trans
mitted from generation to generation, as in Matt. 15, 2. 3. 6,
but for any instruction, whether relating to faith or practice,
and whether delivered orally or in writing. 2 Thess. 2, 15.
3, 6. In reference to the rule of faith it is never used in the
New Testament, except for the immediate instructions of in
spired men. When used in the modern sense ofthe word tra
dition, it is always in reference to what is human and untrust
worthy, Gal. 1, 14. Col. 2, 8, and frequently in the gospels of
the traditions of the elders.
3. But I would have you know, that the head of
every man is Christ ; and the head of the woman (is)
the man ; and the head of Christ (is) God.
Though the apostle praised the Corinthians for their gen
eral obedience to his prescriptions, yet there were many things
in which they were deserving of censure. Before mentioning
the thing which he intended first to condemn, he states the
principle on which that condemnation rested ; so that, by as
senting to the principle, they could not fail to assent to the
conclusion to which it necessarily led. That principle is, that
order and subordination pervade the whole universe, and is
essential to its being. The head of the man is Christ ; the
bead of the woman is the man ; the head of Christ is God. If
this concatenation be disturbed, in any of its parts, ruin must
bo the result. The head is that on which the body is depend
ent, and to which it is subordinate. The obvious meaning of
this passage is, that the woman is subordinate to the man, the
man is subordinate to Christ, and Christ is subordinate to God.
It is further evident, that this subordination is very different
m its nature in the several cases mentioned. The subordina
tion of the woman to the man is something entirely different
from that of the man to Christ ; and that again is at an infinite
degree more complete than the subordination of Christ to God.
And still further, as the subordination of the woman to the
man is perfectly consistent with their identity as to nature, so
is the subordination of Christ to God consistent with his being

I. CORINTHIANS 11, 3.4. 207
ofthe same nature with the Father. There is nothing, there
fore, in this passage, at all inconsistent with the true and
proper divinity of our blessed Lord. For a brief statement
of the scriptural doctrine of the relation of Christ to God, see
the comments on 3, 23. It need here be only further re
marked, that the word Christ is the designation, not of the
Logos or second person of the Trinity as such, nor of the hu
man nature of Christ as such, but of the Theanthropos, the
God-man. It is the incarnate Son of God, who, in the great
work of redemption, is said to be subordinate to the Father,
whose wUl he came into the world to do. When Christ is
said to be tlie head of every man, the meaning is of every be
hever ; because it is the relation of Christ to the church, and
not to the human famUy, that is characteristicaUy expressed
by this term. He is the head of that body which is the church,
Col. 1, 18. Eph. 1, 22. 23.
4. Every man praying or prophesying, having (his)
head covered, dishonoureth his head.
Such being the order divinely established, (viz., that men
tioned in v. 3,) both men and women should act in accordance
with it ; the man, by having the head uncovered, the woman
by being veUed. As the apostle refers to their appearance in
pubUc assemblies, he says, Every man praying or prophesy
ing, i. e. officiating in public worship. Prophesying. In the
scriptural sense of the word, a prophet is one who speaks for
another, as Aaron is called the prophet or spokesman of Mo
ses. "Thou shalt speak unto him, and put words into his
mouth, . . . and he shall be thy spokesman," Ex. 4, 15. 16 ;
or, as he is caUed, 7, 1, thy prophet. The prophets of God,
therefore, were his spokesmen, into whose mouth the Lord
put the words which they were to utter to the people. To
propliesy, in Scripture, is accordingly, to speak under divine
inspiration ; not merely to predict future events, but to de
liver, as the organ of the Holy Ghost, the messages of God to
men, whether in the form of doctrine, exhortation, consola
tion, or prediction. This pubhc function, the apostle says,
should not be exercised by a man with his head covered ; lit
erally, having something on his head downward. Among the
Greeks, the priests officiated bareheaded ; the Romans with
the head veiled ; the Jews (at least soon after the apostolic
age) also wore the TaULs or covering for the head in their pub-

208 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 4.5.
lie services. It is not to be inferred from what is here said,
that the Christian prophets (or inspired men) had introduced
this custom into the church. The thing to be corrected was,
women appearing in pubhc assembhes unveUed. The apostle
says, the veil is inconsistent with the position of the man, but
is required by that of the women. Men are mentioned only
for the sake of iUustrating the principle.
Dishonoureth his head. It is doubtful whether we should
read his or his own head, (avToS or avrov). This is a point the
ancient manuscripts do not decide, as they are not furnished
with the diacritical marks. It depends on the connection. It
is also doubtful whether the apostle meant to say that he dis
honoured Christ who is his head, or that he dishonoured him
self. The latter, perhaps, is to be preferred, 1. Because, in
the immediately preceding clause the word is used literally,
' If he cover his head, he dishonours his head.' 2. Because,
in v. 5, the woman who goes unveiled is said to dishonour her
own head, i. e. as what follows shows, herself, and not her
husband. 3. It is more obviously true that a man who acts
inconsistently with his station disgraces himself, than that he
disgraces him who placed him in that station. A command
ing mihtary officer, who appears at the head of his troops in
the dress of a common soldier, instead of his official dress,
might more properly be said to dishonour himself than his
sovereign. For a freeman to appear in the distinguishing
dress of a slave, was a disgrace. So the apostle says, for a
man to appear with the conventional sign of subjection on his
head, disgraced himself. If the man be intended to represent
the dominion of God, he must act accordingly, and not appear
in the dress of a woman.
5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth
with (her) head uncovered dishonoureth her head ; for
that is even all one as if she were shaven.
Praying and prophesying were the two principal exercises
in the pubhc worship of the early Christians. The latter
term, as above stated, included all forms of address dictated
by the Holy Spirit. It was Paul's manner to attend to one
thing at a time. He is here speaking of the propriety of
women speakmg in public unveiled, and therefore he says
nothing about the propriety of their speaking in public in
itself. When that subject comes up, he expresses his judgment

I. CORINTHIANS 11, 5.6.7. 209
in the clearest terms, 14, 34. In here disapproving of the
one, says Calvin, he does not approve of the other.
The veUs worn by Grecian women were of different kinds.
One, and perhaps the most common, was the peplum, or man
tle, which in public was thrown over the head, and enveloped
the whole person. The other was more in the fashion of the
common eastern veU which covered the face, with the excep
tion of the eyes. In one form or other, the custom was uni
versal for all respectable women to appear veiled in publio. —
The apostle therefore says, that a woman who speaks in pub
lic with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head. Here
eavnjs is used, her own head ; not her husband, but herself.
This is plain, not only from the force of the words, but from
the next clause, for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
This is the reason why she disgraces herself. She puts her
self in the same class with women whose hair has been cut off.
Cutting off the hair, which is the principal natural ornament
of women, was either a sign of grief, Deut. 21, 12, or a dis
graceful punishment. The literal translation of this clause is :
she is one and the same thing with one who is shaven. She
assumes the characteristic mark of a disreputable woman.
6. Eor if the woman be not covered, let her also be
shorn : but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn
or shaven, let her be covered.
That is, let her act consistently. If she wishes to be re
garded as a reputable woman, let her conform to the estab
lished usage. But if she have no regard to her reputation,
let her act as other women of her class. She must conform
either to the reputable or disreputable class of her sex, for a
departure from the one is conforming to the other. These
imperatives are not to be taken as commands, but rather as
expressing what consistency would require. Shorn or shaven,
the latter is the stronger term ; it properly means to cut with
a razor. 7. For a man indeed ought not to cover (his) head,
forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God : but
the woman is the glory of the man.
The woman, and the woman only, ought to be veiled ; for
the man ought not to cover his head. This does not mean, he

210 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 7. 8. 9. 10.
is not bound to do it, but should not do it. The negative be
longs not to ocpeikei, but to KaTaKakmrrecr^ai. The reason is
that he is the image and glory of God. The only sense in
which the man, in distinction from the woman, is the image
of God, is that he represents the authority of God. He is in
vested with dominion. When, in Genesis 1, 26. 27, it is said
God created man in his own image, the reference is as much
to woman as to man ; for it is immediately added, " male and
female created he them." So far, therefore, as the image of
God consists in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, Eve as
truly, and as much as Adam, bore the hkeness of her Maker.
But in the dominion with which man was invested over the
earth, Adam was the representative of God. He is the glory
of God, because in him the divine majesty is specially mani
fested. But the icoman is the glory of the man. That is, the
woman is in this respect subordinate to the man. She is not
designed to reflect the glory of God as a ruler. She is the
glory of the man. She receives and reveals what there is of
majesty in him. She always assumes his station ; becomes a
queen if he is a king, and manifests to others the wealth and
honour which may belong to her husband.
8. 9. Por the man is not of the woman; but the
woman of the man. Neither was the man created for
the woman ; but the woman for the man.
The subordination ofthe woman to the man is here proved
from two facts recorded in the history of their creation. Fhst,
the woman was formed out of the man, and derived her origin
from him. He, and not she, was created first. Secondly, she
was created on his account, and not he on hers. In this way
does the New Testament constantly authenticate, not merely
the moral and reUgious truths of the Old Testament, but its
historical facts ; and makes those facts the grounds or proofs
of great moral principles. It is impossible, therefore, for any
Christian who beheves in the inspiration of the apostles to
doubt the divine authority of the Old Testament Scriptures,
or to confine the inspiration of the ancient writers to their
doctrinal and preceptive statements. The whole Bible is the
word of God.
10. For this cause ought the woman to have power
on (her) head because of the angels.

I. CORINTHIANS 11, 10. 11. 211
There is scarcely a passage in the New Testament which
has so much taxed the learning and ingenuity of commentators
as this. After all that has been written, it remains just as
obscure as ever. The meaning which it naturally suggests to
the most superficial reader, is regarded by the most laborious
critics as the only true one. By efoucria, power, the apostle
means the sign or symbol of authority ; just as Diodorus Sic.,
1. 47, speaks of an image as " having three kingdoms on its
head." The apostle had asserted and. proved that the woman
is subordinate to the man, and he had assumed as granted
that the vefl was the conventional symbol of the man's author
ity. The inference is that the woman ought to wear the or
dinary symbol of the power of her husband. As it was proper
in itself, and demanded by the common sense of propriety,
that the woman should be veUed, it was speciaUy proper in
the worshipping assemblies, for there they were in the pres
ence not merely of men but of angels. It was, therefore, not
only out of deference to pubhc sentiment, but from reverence
to those higher inteUigences that the woman should conform
to aU the rules of decorum. This is the common and only
satisfactory interpretation of the passage. Of those who dis
sent from this view, some propose various conjectural emenda
tions of the text ; others vainly endeavour to prove that the
word e£ovo-ta may be made to mean a veil ; others take the
word UteraUy. And as to the last clause, instead of taking
the word angels in its ordinary sense, some say it here means
the angels, or presiding officers, of the church ; others, that it
means messengers or spies from the heathen who came to ob
serve the mode in which the Christians worshipped, and would
report any thing they observed to theh disadvantage. The
great majority of commentators acquiesce in the interpretation
stated above, which satisfies aU the demands of the context.
11. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the
woman, neither the woman without the man, in the
Lord. That is, although there is this subordination ofthe woman
to the man, they are mutually dependent. The one cannot
exist without the other. In the Lord. This does not mean
that the one is not in the Lord to the exclusion of the other.
The apostle is not here speaking of the spiritual equahty of the
sexes. In Galatians 3, 28 and elsewhere he abundantly teaches

212 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 11. 12. 13.
that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female ; that
the one is as fully a partaker of aU the benefits of redemption
as the other. And it is also true that he teaches that this
equality of Jews and Greeks, bond and free, before God is per
fectly consistent with the social inequahties existing in this
world. But these truths, however important, and however
they distinguish the Christian doctrine of the equahty and
dignity of woman from all other forms of religious doctrine on
the subject, are foreign to this connection. The apostle's sin
gle object is to show the true nature and limitations of the
subordination of the woman to the man. It is a real subordi
nation, but it is consistent with their mutual dependence ; the
one is not without the other. And this mutual dependence is
ev Kvpiw, i. e. by divine appointment — according to the will of
the Lord. These words are used here, as so frequently else
where, as an adverbial qualification, meaning religiously, after
a Christian manner, or divinely, i. e. by divine appointment.
The same idea is substantiaUy expressed by those who explain
the words in tlie Lord as tantamount to " in Christianity ; "
in the sense that it is a Christian doctrine that the man and
the woman are thus mutuaUy dependent.
12. Por as the woman (is) of the man, even so (is)
the man also by the woman ; but ah things of God.
The one is not without the other, for as the woman was
originally formed out of the man, so the man is born of the
woman. This is a proof, not of the admitted equaUty of the
sexes in the kingdom of God, but of theh mutual dependence
in the kingdom of nature. It therefore confirms the interpre
tation given of the preceding verse. But aU things are of
God; these subordinate relations of one creature to another
are merged, as it were, in the supreme causality of God. It
matters Uttle whether the man was of the woman or the wo
man of the man, as both ahke are of God ; just as he before
said, it matters Uttle whether a man were a Jew or Gentile,
bond or free, since all are ahke before God.
13. Judge in yourselves : is it comely that a womau
pray unto God uncovered ?
This is an appeal to their own sense of propriety. The
apostle often recognizes the intuitive judgments of the mind

I. CORINTHIANS 11, 13. 14. 15. 213
as authoritative. Rom. 1, 32. 3, 8. The constitution of our
nature being derived from God, the laws which he has im
pressed upon it, are as much a revelation from him as any
other possible communication of his will. And to deny this,
is to deny the possibihty of aU knowledge. Is it comely (-n-pe-
rrov e'ort), is it becoming or decorous?
14. 15. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that,
if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him ? But
if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her : for
(her) hair is given her for a covering.
Doth not nature itself. The word (<f>v_n%), nature, some
times means essence or substance, sometimes the laws of nature
or of our natural constitution ; sometimes, the instinctive feel
ings or judgments which are the effects of those laws. The
form which these feehngs assume is necessarily determined in
a great measure by education and habit. The instinctive
sense of propriety in an eastern maiden prompts her, when
surprised by strangers, to cover her face. In an European it
would not produce that effect. In writing, therefore, to east
ern females, it would be correct to ask whether their native
sense of propriety did not prompt them to cover their heads
in public. The response would infaUibly be in the affirmative.
It is in this sense the word nature is commonly taken here.
It may, however, mean the laws or course of nature. Nature
gives the man short hair and the woman long hah ; and there
fore nature itself teaches that long hair is a disgrace to the
one and an ornament to the other ; for it is disgraceful in a
man to be hke a woman, and in a woman to be like a man.
Wearing long hair was contrary to the custom both of the
Hebrews and Greeks. The Nazarites, as a distinction, allowed
their hair to grow. Num. 6, 8 ; see also Ezek. 44, 20. It
was considered so much a mark of effeminacy for men to wear
long hair, that it was not only ridiculed by Juvenal, but in
after times seriously censured by church councUs. To a wo
man, however, in all ages and countries, long hair has been
considered an ornament. It is given to her, Paul says, as a
covering, or as a natural veil ; and it is a glory to her because
it is a veil. The veil itself, therefore, must be becoming and
decorous in a woman.

214 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 16.
16. But if any man seem to be contentious, wo
have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
The arguments against the custom of women appearing in
pubhc unveiled having been presented, the apostle says, if any
man, notwithstanding these arguments, is disposed to dispute
the matter, or appears to be contentious, we have only further
to say, that we (the apostles) have no such custom, neither
have the churches of God. To be contentious, i. e. disposed to
dispute for the sake of disputation. With such persons all ar
gument is useless. Authority is the only end of controversy
with such disturbers of the peace. The authority here ad
duced is that ofthe apostles and of the churches. The former
was decisive, because the apostles were invested with authori
ty not only to teach the gospel, but also to organize the
church, and to decide every thing relating to Christian ordi
nances and worship. The authority of the churches, although
not coercive, was yet great. No man is justified, except on
clearly scriptural grounds, and from the necessity of obeying
God rather than man, to depart from the established usages
of the church in matters of public concern.
Calvin, and many of the best modern commentators, give
a different view of this passage. They understand the
apostle to say, that if any one seems to be disputatious, nei
ther we nor the churches are accustomed to dispute. It is not
our wont to waste words with those who wish merely to make
contention. The only reason assigned for this interpretation,
is Paul's saying we have no such custom ; which they say can
not mean the custom of women going unveUed. But why
not ? The apostles and the churches constituted a whole —
neither the one nor the other, neither the churches nor their
infalhble guides, sanctioned the usage in question. Besides,
no other custom is mentioned in the context than the one
which he has been discussing. " If any one appear conten
tious," is not a custom and suggests nothing to which the
words such a custom can naturally refer.
Celebration ofthe Lord's Supper, vs. 17-34. I
This section relates to the disorders connected with the
celebration of the Lord's supper. These disorders were of a
kind which, according to our method of celebrating that
sacrament, seems almost unaccountable. It was, however,
the early custom to connect the Lord's supper in the strict

I. CORINTHIANS 11. 215
sense ofthe words with an ordinary meal. As this sacrament
was instituted by our Lord at the close of the Paschal supper,
so it appears to have been customary at the beginning for the
Christians to assemble for a common meal and to connect with
it the commemoration of the Redeemer's death. Intimations
of this usage may be found in such passages as Acts 2, 42.
" They continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fel
lowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer." In v. 46 it
is said, this breaking of bread was from house to house. In
Acts 20, 7, it is said, " The disciples came together on the first
day of the week to break bread," which, from the narrative
which follows, appears to have been an ordinary meal. What
ever may be thought of these passages, it is clear from the
paragraph before us that at Corinth at least, the sacrament of
the Lord's supper was connected with a regular meal. This
may have arisen, not so much from the original institution of
the Eucharist in connection with the Paschal supper, as from
the sacred festivals both of the Jews and Greeks. Both class
es had been accustomed to unite with their sacrifices a feast
of a more or less pubUc character. It is also evident that,
agreeably to a famihar Grecian custom, the persons assembled
brought theh own provisions, which being placed on the table
formed a common stock. The rich brought plentifully, the
poor brought httle or nothing. It was, however, essential to
the very idea of a Christian feast, that it should he a commu
nion ; that aU the guests at the table of their common Lord
should be on the terms of equahty. Instead of this fraternal
union, there were divisions among the Corinthians even at the
Lord's table. The rich eating by themselves the provisions
which they had brought, and leaving their poorer brethren
mortified and hungry. It is to the correction of these disor
ders that the concluding portion of this chapter is devoted.
It was no matter of praise that the assembhes of the Co
rinthians made them worse rather than better, v. 17. The
prominent evU was, that there were schisms even in their most
sacred meetings ; an evil necessary in the state in which they
were, and which God permitted in order that the good might
be made manifest, vs. 18. 19. The evil to which he referred
was not merely that they had degraded the Lord's supper into
an ordinary meal, but that in that meal they were divided
into parties, some eating and drinking to excess, and others
left without any thing, vs. 20. 21. This was not only making
the Lord's supper a meal for satisfying hunger — contrary to

216 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 17.
its original design, but a cruel perversion of a feast of love
into a means of humiliating and wounding their poorer breth
ren, v. 22. In order to show how inconsistent their conduct
was with the nature of the service in which they professed to
engage, the apostle recounts the original institution of the
Lord's supper, vs. 23-25. From this account it foUows, first,
that the Lord's supper was designed not as an ordinary meal,
but as a commemoration of the death of Christ ; secondly,
that to participate in this ordinance in an unworthy manner,
was an offence agamst his body and blood, the symbols of
which were so irreverently treated ; thirdly, that no one ought
to approach the Lord's table without self-examination, in order
that with due preparation and with a proper understanding of
the ordinance, he may receive the bread and wine as the sym
bols of Christ's body and blood, vs. 26-29. In this way they
would escape the judgments which the Lord had brought
upon them on account of theh profanation of his table, vs. 30-
32. In conclusion, he exhorts them to use theh houses for
their ordinary meals, and to make the Lord's supper a real
communion, vs. 33. 34.
17. Now in this that I declare (unto you) I praise
(you) not, that ye come together not for the better, hut
for the worse.
In v. 2 he said, I praise you. His praise was consistent
with grave disapprobation of many things in their condition
as a church. He did not praise them for the manner in which
they conducted their pubhc worship. Their assembhes were
disgraced not only by women appearing unveiled, contrary to
the established rules of decorum, but also by the unfraternal
and irreverent manner of celebrating the Lord's supper — and
also by the disorderly manner in which they used their sph
itual gifts. These evils he takes up in their order. Having
dispatched the first, he comes now to the second.
Now in this that I declare unto you.* The Greek is not
in this, but this. The passage may be rendered, Declaring
this I do not applaud. To this, however, it is objected that
* The common Text here reads vapayyeW-iv ovk e-rraiva. Lachniann
and Tischendorf read TrapuyyeWai out ewaivuv on the authority of the Msa.
A. C. F. G. and others of later date, and the Syriac, Vulgate, and Ethiopic
versions. The common reading is preferred by the majority of editors.

I. CORINTHIANS 11, 17.18. 217
¦irapayyekkeiv in the New Testament never means to declare,
but always to command. Hence, the better translation is,
Commanding or enjoining this Ido not applaud. It is doubt
ful whether this refers to what precedes or to what foUows.
If the former, then the sense is, ' WhUe I command what
precedes respecting women appearing vefled, I do not praise
you, that,' &c. If the latter, the meaning is, ' Commanding
what follows, I do not praise,' &c. That ye come together
not for tlie better, but for the worse. That is, your pubhc as-
sembUes are so conducted that evil rather than good, results.
The censure is general, embracing aU the grounds of complaint
which are specified in this and the following chapters.
18. Por first of ah, when ye come together in the
church, I hear that there be divisions among you ; and
I partly believe it.
For first of all, or, For in the first place. Paul often be
gins an enumeration which he does not follow out. There is
nothing to answer to these words in what foUows. According
to one view the first censure is dhected against the divisions,
and the second against their mode of celebrating the Lord's sup
per. , But the only divisions which he here refers to are those
connected with their pubhc worship, and especially with the
celebration ofthe sacrament. Besides, the subject of divisions
was treated in the beginning of the epistle. He is here speak
ing of their assemblies. The second ground of censure is to
be found in the foUowing chapter. When ye r ,ne together in
the church. The word (iKKkricria) church nev er means in the
New Testament, a buflding. The meaning is, when ye come
together in convocation, or assemble as a church. I hear that
there be divisions among you. LiteraUy, schisms. For the
meaning of that word, see 1, 10. The nature of these schisms
is described in what follows. They were cliques, not sects,
but parties, separated from each other by alienation of feehng.
It is evident that the rich formed one of these parties, as dis
tinguished from the poor. And probably there were many
other grounds of division. The Jewish converts separated
from the Gentiles ; those having one gift exalted themselves
over those having another. It is not outward separation, but
inward alienation, which is here complained of. And I partly
believe it. Paul intimates that he was loath to beheve all he
10

218 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 18.19.
had heard to their disadvantage in this matter ; but he was
forced to beheve enough to excite his serious disapprobation.
19. For there must be also heresies among you,
that they which are approved may be made manifest
among you.
This is the reason why he beheved what he had heard.
He knew that such things must happen, and that God had a
wise purpose in permitting them; comp. Matt. 18, 7, "It
must needs be that offences come." Evil as weU as good is
included in the divine purpose. It is purposed not as evil, hut
for the sake of the good which infinite wisdom evolves from
it. Also heresies. This does not mean heresies in addition to
schisms, as something different from them. But heresies as
well as other evils. ' I hear there are divisions (o-xlo-para)
among you, and I beheve it, for such divisions (atpeo-ets) must
occur.' What in the one verse are caUed schisms, in the next
are caUed heresies ; both words having the general sense of
divisions. The nature of these divisions is to be determined
by the context. The word (atpecns) heresy means hteraUy an
act of choice, then a chosen way of Ufe, a sect or party ; not
always in a bad sense, but in the sense of schools ; as, " the
heresies of philosophers" means "the schools or different
classes of philosophers." So in the New Testament it is re
peatedly used of " the sect of the Pharisees," or " ofthe Sad
ducees," Acts 15, 5. 5, 17. Here and in Gal. 5, 20 it means
dissension. The ecclesiastical sense of the word heresy, is,
the choice of an opinion different from that of the church, or
a doctrine contrary to Scripture. There is nothing to favour
the assumption that such is its meaning here.
That they which are approved may be made manifest.
This is the end which God has in view in permitting the oc
currence of such divisions. It is, that they which are approved
(ot SoKtpoi), the tried, those who have stood the test, and are
worthy of approbation. The opposite class are caUed (aSow-
/iot) reprobate. By the prevalence of disorders and other evils
in the church, God puts his people to the test. They are tried
as gold in the furnace, and their genuineness is made to ap
pear. It is a great consolation to know that dissensions,
whether in the church or in the state, are not fortuitous, but
are ordered by the providence of God, and are designed, as
storms, for the purpose of purification.

I. CORINTHIANS 11, 20.21. 219
20. When ye come together therefore into one
place, (this) is not to eat the Lord's supper.
Ye coming together then into one place. Verse 1 9 is an
interruption. The connection with v. 18 is resumed by the
particle (ovv) then. When you assemble it is not to eat the
Lord's suprper. This is not the real, though it is your pro
fessed purpose. ' You come together for a common, and that
too, a disorderly, unbrotherly meal.' The words, however,
admit of two other interpretations. We may supply, as our
translators have done, the word this. ' This is not to eat the
Lord's supper ; your meal does not deserve that sacred char
acter.' Or, 'Te cannot eat the Lord's supper.' The sub
stantive verb (ecu) foUowed by an infinitive often means can ;
ovk ecmv ehreiv, one cannot say ; ouk «rri <f>ayeiv, one cannot eat.
' Coming together as you do it is impossible to celebrate the
Lord's supper.' This gives a very pertinent sense. The
Lord's suptper is the supper instituted by the Lord, one to
which he invites the guests, and which is celebrated in com
memoration of his death. That was a very different service
from the Agapae, or love feasts, as they were afterwards
called, and which, on account of the disorders attending them,
were subsequently prohibited by the Councfl of Carthage.
These Agapae were feasts to which each one brought his con
tributions, during and after which (the bread during, and
the cup after) the consecrated elements were distributed.
See Augusti's Antiquities ofthe Christian Church, I. p. 299;
and Pool's Synopsis on Matt. 26, 26. Coleman's Ancient
Christianity, p. 443.
21. For in eating every one taketh before (other)
liis own supper: and one is hungry, and another is
drunken. For, i. e. the reason why the Corinthian suppers were not
the Lord's supper, is (so far as here stated) that there was no
communion, or eating together. They were not all partakers
of one bread, 10, 17. They did not wait; for each other. Comp.
v. 33. On the contrary, each one took beforehand, i. e. before
others could join with him, his own supper, i. e. that which he
had brought. The consequence was, that one was hungry;
the poor had nothing ; whUe another was drunk. Such is the
meaning of the word. Whether the apostle intended to say

220 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 21.22.
that any ofthe Corinthians actuaUy became intoxicated at the
table which they called the table of the Lord, or whether he
meant simply to say, that whUe one had more, another had
less, than enough, it is not easy to decide. As they seem to
have accommodated their service to the sacrificial feasts to
which they had, whUe yet heathens, been accustomed, it is
the less improbable that in some cases they were guilty of
actual excess. " It is wonderful, and weU nigh portentous,"
says Calvin, " that Satan could have accomplished so much in
so short a time. We may learn from this example, what is
the worth of mere antiquity ; that is, what authority is due to
custom unsustained by the word of God. . . . Yet this is the
firmest foundation of Popery : it is ancient ; it was done of
old, therefore it has divine authority ! " If, within twenty
years of its institution, the Corinthians turned the Lord's sup
per into a disorderly feast, although the apostles were then
alive, we need not wonder at the speedy corruption of the
church after their death.
22. What ! have ye not houses to eat and to drink
in ? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them
which have not ? What shah I say to you ? shaU I
praise you in this ? I praise (you) not.
The two grounds on which the apostle condemned this
conduct of the Corinthians were, first, that it was a perversion
of the Lord's supper ; and secondly, that it was disrespectful
and mortifying to theh poorer brethren. It was a perversion
of the Lord's supper, because it made it an ordinary meal de
signed to satisfy hunger. For that purpose they had their
own houses. The church comes together to worship God and
to celebrate his ordinances, not for the purpose of eating and
drinking. It is important that the church, as the church,
should confine itself to its own appropriate work, and not as
such undertake to do what its members, as citizens or mem
bers of famUies, may appropriately do. The church does not
come together to do what can better be done at home. Or
despise ye the church of God ? This was the second ground
of condemnation. Their conduct evinced contempt of their
brethren. They treated them as unfit to eat with them. Yet
the poor were constituent members of the church of God.
They were his people ; those whom he had chosen, whom he
had made kings and priests unto himself. These persons, thus

I. CORINTHIANS 11, 22.23. 221
highly honoured of God, the richer Corinthians treated with
contempt ; and that too at the Lord's table, where all exter
nal distinctions are done away, and the master is not a hair's
breadth above his slave. And shame those who have not.
To shame, i. e. to mortify and humble, by rendering conscious
of inferiority. Those who have not may mean, either those
who have not houses to eat or drink in, or simply the poor.
Those who have, are the rich ; those who have not, are the
poor. The latter interpretation is not only consistent with
the Greek idiom, but gives a better sense. Even the poorer
members of the church did not, and ought not, come to the
Lord's table for the sake of food. Much as Paul was disposed
to praise the Corinthians, in this matter he could not praise
them. 23. For I have received of the Lord that which also
I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the (same)
night in which he was betrayed, took bread :
' I cannot praise you, for your manner of celebrating the
Lord's supper is utterly inconsistent with its original institu
tion.' They were the more inexcusable in departing from the
original mode of celebrating this ordinance, first, because the
account of its original institution had been received by Paul
from the Lord himself; and secondly, because he had delivered
it to them. Theh sin was therefore one of irreverent disobe
dience, without the excuse of ignorance. For I have received
of the Lord. Paul asserts that he received from the Lord the
account here given. The whole context shows that he intends
to claim for this narrative the direct authority of the Lord
himself. As with regard to his doctrines generaUy, so with
regard to the institution and design of this ordinance, he dis
claims aU indebtedness to tradition or to the instructions of
men, and asserts the fact of a direct revelation to himself. Of
the gospel he says, " I neither received it of man, neither was
I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ," Gal. 1, 12.
To this interpretation, however, it is objected, 1. That he uses
the preposition into, which properly expresses a mediate deriva
tion (i.e. through the instrumentahty of others), and not7rapa,
which would imply a direct communication. This objection
supposes a refinement in the use ofthe Greek particles, which
is not consistent with the character of the Greek of the New
Testament. The Apostle John says : " This is the message

222 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 23.
which we have heard of him (air airov)," 1 John 1, 5, which
certainly does not refer to an indirect communication re
ceived through others. In this place a-n-b toC Kvpiov, from tlie
Lord, is evidently opposed to dif a.v$pd>mnv, from men. He
received his knowledge from the Lord, and not from men.
Comp. Gal. 1, 12. So in Gal. 1, 1, he says he was an apostle
not by men (oiK dir dvSpimwv), but by Jesus Christ (Sta hja-ov
Xpio-Tov). Must it be inferred from this latter expression that
Christ was only the medium of Paul's caU to the apostieship,
because 8i<£ expresses the instrumental cause ? This would he
as reasonable as to infer from the use of d-n-6 in the text, that
the knowledge of Paul was derived indirectly from the Lord,
The apostle however says in Gal. 1, 1, that he received his
apostieship, not only through Jesus Christ, but also through
God the Father ; must this also mean through the instrumen
tality of God ? is God the Father a mere instrument ? No
writer uses language with such strict grammatical accu
racy as this objection supposes ; much less did Jews writing
Greek. It is of course important to adhere as far as possible
to the exact meaning ofthe words ; but to sacrifice the sense
and obvious intent of the writer to such niceties is unreasona
ble. The use of diro, in this case, probably arose from the de
sire to avoid the triple repetition of irapd ; Trapikafiov, mpi,
¦n-apihtDKa. 2. It is objected that, as the Lord's supper had
been celebrated without interruption from the time of its in
stitution, the facts concerning it must have been universally
known, and therefore needed no direct revelation. The same
objection might be made to a special revelation of the gospel
to Paul. Why might he not have been aUowed to learn it
from the other apostles ? Besides, Paul, as he shows in the
first and second chapters of his epistle to the Galatians, had
no communication with the other apostles for three years after
his conversion. 3. It is objected that ideas and truths may
be communicated by visions and inward influences, but not
historical facts. Then a large part of the prophecies of the
Old Testament must be fabulous. The evidence is so strong
from the context, that Paul claims independent authority for
what he here says, that many who bow to the force of the
Greek preposition, say that the account received by Paul from
Christ through others, was authenticated to him by an inward
revelation. But this is not what he says. He says he re
ceived it from Christ, which, in the connection, can only mean
that he received it directly from Christ ; for his object is to

I. CORINTHIANS 11, 23. 223
give authority to his account of the ordinance. It was not
only of importance for the Corinthians, but for the whole
church, to be assured that this account of the Lord's supper,
was communicated immediately by Christ to the apostle. It
shows the importance which our Lord attributes to this ordi
nance. The account which Paul received was, Tliat the same night
in which he was betrayed, i. e. whUe he was being betrayed —
wldle the traitorous scheme was in progress. Under these
affecting circumstances the ordinance was instituted. This
fact, which Christ saw fit to reveal to Paul, must be of perma
nent interest to his people. It is not a matter of indifference,
that this sacred rite was instituted on the last night of our
Redeemer's life, and when he knew what the morrow was to
bring forth. This fact gives a pecuhar solemnity and interest
to the institution. Romanists, in answer to the objections
made by Protestants to the mass, that it is a departure from
the original mode of celebrating the Lord's supper, say that
if the example of Christ be obhgatory, we should celebrate
the ordinance at night, after a meal, and at a table covered
with provisions, &c. Protestants, however, do not hold that
the church in all ages is bound to do whatever Christ and the
apostles did, but only what they designed should be after
wards done. It is not apostolic example which is obligatory,
but apostolic precept, whether expressed in words or in exam
ples declared or evinced to be preceptive. The example of
Christ in celebrating the Lord's supper is binding as to every
thing which enters into the nature and significancy of the in
stitution ; for those are the very things which we are com
manded to do. They constitute the ordinance.
Took bread. Matt. 26, 26, it is said, " as they were eat
ing," i. e. during the repast, " Jesus took bread," that is, he
took of the bread lying on the table ; and as it was at the
time of the Passover, there is no doubt that the bread used
was unleavened. It was the thin Passover bread of the Jews.
But as no part of the significancy of the rite depends on the
kind of bread used, as there is no precept on the subject, and
as the apostles subsequently in the celebration of the ordinance
used ordinary bread, it is evidently a matter of indifference
what kind of bread is used. It was however for a long time
a subject of bitter controversy. At first the Latins and Greeks
used leavened bread; when the Latins introduced the un
leavened wafer from superstitious fear of any of the fragments

224 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 23.24.
being dropped, the Greeks retained the use of fermented
bread, and accused the Latins of Judaizing. Romanists and
Lutherans use unleavened wafers ; Protestants generally ordi-
nary bread.
24. And when he had given thanks, he brake (it),
and said, Take, eat ; this is my body, which is broken
for you : this do in remembrance of me.
Having given thanks. In Matt. 26, 26, and Mark 14, 22,
it is, " Having blessed it." In Luke 22, 19, it is as here. The
two expressions mean the same thing. Both express the act
of consecration, by a grateful acknowledgment of God's mercy
and invocation of his blessing. See the remarks on 10, 16.
He brake it. This circumstance is included in aU the accounts ;
in those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as weU as in Paul's.
This is one of the significant parts of the service, and ought
not to be omitted as is done by Romanists, by the Greek
church and by Lutherans. And said. The words uttered
by our blessed Lord at this moment are differently reported
by the different evangelists. In Matt. 26, 26, it is, " Take,
eat." In Mark 14, 22, the latter word (according to the best
authorities) is omitted. In Luke 22, 19, both are omitted.
Here, although both are found in the common text, yet, as
they are wanting in the oldest MSS., they should probably be
omitted ; so that Paul's account agrees as to this point with
that of Luke. The proper inference from this diversity is,
that the words were uttered by our Lord ; but as the ideas
which they express were sufficiently indicated by the gesture
of reaching the bread to his disciples, they were omitted by
some of the narrators as unnecessary. The idea, whether ex
pressed by words or gesture, is however of importance. The
bread was to be taken and eaten. — There must be a distribu
tion of the elements to those participating in the service.
Otherwise it is not a communion. This distribution is omitted
by Romanists in the ordinary celebration of the Mass. The
priest alone eats the consecrated wafer. The next words,
this is my body, are found in all the accounts. Probably the
history of the world does not furnish a parallel to the contro
versies occasioned by these simple words. The ordinary and
natural interpretation of them is, that the pronoun this refers
to the bread. ' This bread which I hold in my hand, and

I. CORINTHIANS 11, 24. 225
which I give to you, is my body.' That is, is the symbol of
my body ; precisely as we say of a statue, it is the person
which it represents ; or as the Scriptures say that the sign is
the thing of which it is the symbol, Ez. 5,4.5. Gal. 4, 24 ; or as
our Saviour says, I am the vine, ye are the branches. I am
the door ; or as in the preceding chapter it was said, " that
rock was Christ ; " or as in John 1, 32, the dove is said to be
the Holy Ghost ; or as baptism is said to be regeneration.
This is a usage so familiar to all languages that no one dis
putes that the words in question wUl bear this interpretation.
That they must have this meaning, would seem to be plain,
1. From the impossibUity of the bread in Christ's hand being
his literal body then seated at the table ; and the wine the
blood then flowing in his veins. 2. From the stUl more obvi
ous impossibUity of taking the words " this cup is the New
Testament " in a hteral sense. In Matt. 26, 28 it is said, " this
(cup) is my blood." But Romanists do not hold to a transub
stantiation of the cup, but only of the wine. But if the words
are to be taken hterally, they necessitated the behef ofthe one
as well as of the other. 3. From the utter subversion of all
the rules of evidence and laws of belief necessarily involved in
the assumption that the bread in the Lord's supper is UteraUy
the crucified body of Christ. 4. From the infidelity on the one
hand, and the superstitious idolatry on the other, which are
the unavoidable consequences of caUing upon men to beheve
so glaring a contradiction. It is only by denying aU distinc
tion between matter and spirit, and confounding all our ideas
of substance and qualities, that we can believe that wine is
blood, or bread flesh.
The Romish interpretation of these words is, that the
bread is the body of Christ, because its whole substance is
changed into the substance of his body. The Lutherans say,
It is his body, because his body is locaUy present in and with
the bread. Calvin says, It is Ius body in the same sense that
the dove (John 1, 32) was the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost
appeared under the form of a dove, which was the pledge of
his presence. So the bread is the symbol of Christ's body,
because with the one we receive the other. What is received,
however, and what Calvin caUs Christ's body, and sometimes
thu substance of his body, is not the body itself, which, he ad
mits, is in heaven only, but a life-giving power (vim vivificam)
which flows to us from the glorified body of our Lord. The
only presence of Christ's body hi the sacrament admitted by
IO*

226 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 24.25.
Calvin was this presence of power.* The Reformed churches
teach that the bread is called the body of Christ in the same
sense that the cup is caUed the new covenant. He who in
faith receives the cup, receives the covenant of which it was
the pledge ; and he who receives in faith the bread receives
the benefits of Christ's body as broken for sin. The one is the
symbol and pledge ofthe other.
Broken for you. li\__-vk.e\t is, given for you. In Matthew
and Mark these words are omitted. In some manuscripts f the
word (Kkwpevov), broken, is wanting in this passage ; so that it
would read simply for you, leaving the participle to be sup
plied from the context. Broken or given for you means slain,
or given unto death for you. The sacrificial character of the
death of Christ enters essentially into the nature of this ordi
nance. It is the commemoration of his death, not as a teacher,
or a benefactor, but as a sacrifice ; so that if this idea be kept
out of view the sacrament loses aU its significance and power.
This do in remembrance of me. These words are not found
in Matthew or Mark. They occur in Luke 22, 19, as they do
here. This do, i. e. 'Do what I have just done; take bread,
consecrate it, break it, distribute and eat it. In remembrance
of me, i. e. that I may be remembered as he who died for
your sins. This is the specific, definite object of the Lord's
Supper, to which all other ends must be subordinate, because
this alone is stated in the words of institution. It is of course
involved in this, that we profess faith in him as the sacrifice
for our sins ; that we receive him as such ; that we ackno w-
ledge the obligations which rest upon us as those who have
been redeemed by his blood ; and that we recognize ourselves
as constituent members of his church and all believers as our
brethren. We are thus, as taught in the preceding chapter,
brought into a real communion with Christ and with all his
people by the believing participation ofthis ordinance.
25. After the same manner also (he took) the cup,
when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testa-
* Hasc communicatio corporis Christi, quam nohis in coena exhiberi dico,
nee localem praesentiam, nee Christi descensum, nee infinitam extensionem,
nee aliud quicquam tale flagitat. . . . Locum non mutat, ut nobis adsit, sed e
coelo praesentera in nos carnis suae virtutem transmittat.
f The MSS. A. B. C. omit kK&h.vov, Griesbach questioned its genuineness,
Lachmann and Tischendorf reject it.

I. CORINTHIANS 11, 25. 227
ment in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink (it),
in remembrance of me.
This second part of the service is introduced by Luke with
the same words which are here used, though our translators
there render them Likewise also tlie cup, after supper. This
latter version is the literal and simple rendering of the origi
nal. In Matthew and Mark it is said, "Having taken the
cup, and having given thanks." This explains what Paul and
Luke mean by likewise, or after the same manner. They in
tend to say that Christ did with the cup what he had done
with the bread, i. e. he took it, and pronounced over it the
eucharistical benediction, i. e. a blessing connected with
thanksgiving. In this particular there is a sUght departure in
our mode of administering this ordinance, from the example
of Christ. With us there is generaUy but one eucharistical
blessing at the introduction of the service, having reference
both to the bread and to the cup. Whereas it seems that our
Lord blessed the bread, and having broken, distributed it to
his disciples ; and then took the cup, and having blessed it,
gave it to them to drink. After supper, i. e. after the con
clusion of the paschal supper.
Saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. The
same words occur in Luke 22, 20. In Matthew and Mark the
corresponding expression is, " This is my blood of the New
Testament." The sense must be the same. " The blood of
the covenant " means here, as in Ex. 24, 8, the blood by which
the covenant was ratified and its blessings secured. The pas
sage referred to in Exodus shows the manner in which cove
nants were anciently ratified in the East. A victim was slain
and the blood sprinkled upon the contracting parties, by which
they were solemnly bound to their mutual engagements. The
word _tta3rJK7] so constantly, after the Vulgate, rendered Testa
ment by our translators, always in the New Testament means
a covenant, unless Heb. 9, 16 be an exception. Here that
sense is requhed by the context, as a covenant and not a tes
tament was ratified by blood. This covenant is called new in
reference to the Mosaic covenant. The latter was ratified by
the blood of animals ; the new, by the blood of the eternal
Son of God ; the one in itself could secure only temporal bene
fits and the remission of ceremonial offences ; the other secures
eternal redemption, and the remission of sin in tho sight of
God. As the Hebrews entered into covenant with God when

228 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 25.
the blood of the heifer was sprinkled upon them, and thereby
bound themselves to be obedient to the Mosaic institutions,
and as God thereby graciously bound himself to confer upon
them aU its promised blessings on condition of that obedience ;
bo, in the Lord's supper, those who receive the cup profess to
embrace the covenant of grace, and bind themselves to obedi
ence to the gospel ; and God binds himself to confer on them
aU the benefits of redemption. In receiving the cup, there
fore, they receive the pledge of their salvation. The death
of Christ, which is so often compared to a sin-offering, is here,
as weU as in the Epistle to the Hebrews, compared to a fede
ral sacrifice. The two, however, do not differ. The death of
Christ is the latter only in virtue of its being the former. It
ratifies the covenant of grace and secures its benefits, only be
cause it was a propitiation, i. e. because it was a satisfaction
to divine justice, as is so clearly taught in Rom. 3, 25. 26.
Every time, therefore, the consecrated wine touches the be
liever's lips, he receives anew the application of the blood of
Christ for the remission of his sins and his reconcUiation with
God. If the Bible says we are sprinkled with the blood of
Jesus, 1 Peter 1, 2, why may we not be said to receive his
blood ? If the former expression means the apphcation of the
benefits of his sacrificial death, why may not the latter mean
the reception of those benefits ? Here, as elsewhere, the diffi
culty is the want of faith. He who by faith appropriates a
divine promise recorded in the word, receives the blessing
promised ; and he who in the exercise of faith receives the
sacramental cup receives the benefits ofthe covenant of which
that cup is the symbol and the pledge. But what is faith?
or rather, what is it that we are required to believe, in order to
experience aU this ? 1. We must beheve that Jesus is the Son
of God, and that he loved us and gave himself for us. 2. That
his blood cleanses from aU sin. 3. That in the sacrament he
offers us, with the symbols of his broken body and his shed
blood, the benefits of his death ; and that he will certainly
convey those benefits to all those who hold out even a trem
bling hand to receive them.
In Luke, after the words in my blood, it is added, which is
shed for you. In Mark the explanation is, which is shed for
many ; and in Matthew, still more fully, which is shed for
¦many for the remission of sins. These are different forms of
expressing the sacrificial character of the death of Christ.
Though it was the blood of the covenant, yet it was at the

I. CORINTHIANS 11, 25.26. 229
same time shed for many, not merely for their benefit in the
general, but for the specific object of securing the remission
of sins. It was, therefore, truly a sin-offering. Thus does
Scripture explain Scripture. What is said concisely in one
place is more fully and clearly stated in another.
This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
These words do not occur in Luke. In Matthew the words
are, Drink ye all of it. Mark says, They all drank of it. In
each account the fact is made plain that the cup was distribut
ed to aU at the table and that aU drank of it. The words This
do are to be understood here as in v. 25, ' Do what I have
done, i. e. bless the cup and distribute it among yourselves.'
As oft as ye drink of it. This does not mean that every time
Christians drank wine together they should do it in commem
oration of Christ's death ; but, ' as often as this ordinance is
celebrated, do what I have done, to commemorate my death.'
The Lord's Supper is a commemoration of Christ's death, not
only because it was designed for that purpose, but also be
cause the bread and wine are the significant symbols of his
broken body and shed blood. In this ordinance therefore
Christ is set forth as a sacrifice which at once makes expiation
for sin and ratifies the covenant of grace.
26. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink
this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death thi he come.
What Paul had received of the Lord is recorded hi the
preceding verses. Here and in what follows we have his own
inferences from the account which the Lord had given him.
The first of those inferences is, that the Lord's supper is, and
was designed to be, a proclamation of the death of Christ to
continue until his second advent. Those who come to it,
therefore, should come, not to satisfy hunger, nor for the
gratification of social feelings, but for the definite purpose of
bearing theh testimony to the great fact of redemption, and
to contribute theh portion of influence to the preservation and
propagation of the knowledge of that fact. For indicates the
connection with what precedes. ' It is a commemoration of
his death, for it is in its very nature a proclamation of that
great fact.' And it was not a temporary institution, but one
designed to continue until the consummation. As the Pass
over was a perpetual commemoration of the deliverance out
of Egypt, and a prediction of the coming and death of the

230 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 26.27.
Lamb of God, who was to bear the sins of the world ; so the
Lord's supper is at once the commemoration of the death of
Christ and a pledge of his coming the second time without sin
unto salvation.
27. Wherefore whosoever shah eat this bread, and
drink (this) cup of the Lord, unworthily, shah be
guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
This is the second inference. Wherefore, i. e. so that,
hence it follows. If the Lord's Supper be in its very nature a
proclamation of the death of Christ, it foUows that those who
attend upon it as an ordinary meal, or in an irreverent man
ner, or for any other purpose than that for which it was ap
pointed, are guUty of the body and blood of the Lord. That
is, they contract guilt in reference to the body and blood of
Christ. See James 2, 10. The man who tramples on the flag
of his country, insults his country ; and he who treats with in
dignity the representative of a sovereign, thereby offends the
sovereign himself. In like manner, he who treats the symbols
of Christ's body and blood irreverently is guUty of irreverence
towards Christ. The idea that he is so evU that he would
have joined in the crucifixion of the Lord ; or that he makes
himself a partaker ofthe guilt of his death, does not he in the
words. It is also obvious that this passage affords no ground
for either the Romish or Lutheran view of the local presence
of Christ's body in the sacrament, since an insult to the ap
pointed symbol of his body, is an insult to his body itself
Neither does the passage countenance the doctrine held by
both Romanists and Lutherans, that unbelievers receive the
body and blood of Christ. If they do not receive them, it is
asked, how can they be guflty in respect to them ? By treat
ing them, in their appointed symbols, irreverently. It is not
necessary, therefore, in order to the guilt here spoken of, either
that the body of Christ should be locaUy present, or that the
unworthy receiver be a partaker of that body, which is re
ceived by faith alone. In our version it is, " whosoever shall
eat this bread and drink this cup ; " in the Greek it is (rf) or,
not and. And this the sense requires. The irreverent use of
either the bread or the cup in this ordinance involves the guilt
of which the apostle here speaks ; because the indignity ex
tends to the whole service.
But what is it to eat aud drink unworthily ? It is not to

I. CORINTHIANS 11, 27.28. 231
eat and drink with a consciousness of unworthiness, for such a
sense of iU-desert is one of the conditions of acceptable com
munion. It is not the whole, but the consciously sick whom
Christ came to heal. Nor is it to eat with doubt and misgiv
ing of our being duly prepared to come to the Lord's table ;
for such doubts, although an evidence of a weak faith, indicate
4 better state of mind than indifference or false security. In
the Larger Catechism of our Church, in answer to the ques
tion, whether one who doubts of his being in Christ, may come
to the Lord's supper, it is said, " One who doubteth of his
being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of
the Lord's supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he
be not yet assured thereof; and in God's account hath it, if
he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it,
and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart
from iniquity ; in which case (because promises are made, and
this sacrament is appointed, for the rehef even of weak ami
doubting Christians) he is to bewaU his unbehef, and labour
to have his doubts resolved ; and so doing, he may and ought
to come to the Lord's supper, that he may be further strength
ened." To eat or drink unworthily is in general to come to
the Lord's table in a careless, irreverent spirit, without the in
tention or desire to commemorate the death of Christ as the
sacrifice for our sins, and without the purpose of complying
with the engagements which we thereby assume. The way in
which the Corinthians ate unworthily was, that they treated
the Lord's table as though it were their own ; making no dis
tinction between the Lord's supper and an ordinary meal ;
coming together to satisfy their hunger, and not to feed on
the body and blood of Christ ; and refusing to commune with
their poorer brethren. This, though one, is not the only way
in which men may eat and drink unworthily. All that is
necessary to observe is, that the warning is directly against
the careless and profane, and not agamst the timid and the
doubting. 28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him
eat of (that) bread, and drink of (that) cup.
This is the third inference from the account of the Lord's
supper which Paul had received. It requires self-examination
and preparation in order to being worthUy received. If it be
a commemoration of Christ's death ; if we are therehi " made

232 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 28.29.
partakers of his body and blood ; " if we contract such guilt
by eating and drinking unworthily ; in other words, if such
blessings attend the worthy receiving^ and such guilt the
unworthy receiving of this ordinance, it is evident that we
should not approach it without due self-inspection and prepa
ration. Let a man examine himself. In other words, let him
ascertain whether he has correct views of the nature and de
sign of the ordinance, and whether he has the proper state of
mind. That is, whether he desires thankfully to commemo
rate the Lord's death, renewedly to partake of the benefits of
that death as a sacrifice for his sins, pubhcly to accept the cov
enant of grace with aU its promises and obUgations, and to
signify his feUowship with his brethren as joint members with
himself of the body of Christ. And so let him eat. That is,
after this self-examination, and, as is evidently implied, after
having ascertained that he possesses the due preparation. It
is not essential, however, to this preparation, as before re
marked, that we should be assured of our good estate, but
simply that we have the inteUigent deshe to do what Christ
requires of us when we come to his table. If we come humbly
seeking him, he wUl bid us welcome, and feed us with that
bread whereof if a man eat, he shaU never die.
29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily,*
eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discern
ing the Lord's body.
This verse assigns the reason why self-examination in pre
paration for the Lord's supjper is necessary. It is because he
that eateth and drinketh unworthUy (in the sense before ex
plained), eateth and drinketh judgment to himself. That is,
he incurs the manifestation of God's displeasure by the act of
eating. The word damnation, used in our version, originaUy
and properly means simply condemnation, and not hopeless
and finaly perdition, which is its modern and popular sense. In
the original the word is Kpipa without the article, and there-
* The word ava£'iws-, unworthily, is omitted by the MSS. A. C, and is re
jected hy Lachmann and Tischendorf. If discarded, the sense of the passage
is either, ' The eater and drinker, i. e. he who eats and drinks at the Lord's
table as at an ordinary meal, eats judgment to himself; ' or, ' He that eats,
not discerning the Lord's body, eats judgment to himself.' The common text
has in its support the majority of ancient MSS., and is followed hy most
editors.

I. CORINTHIANS 11, 29.30. 233
fore simply judgment, not the judgment. The meaning obvi
ously is, that the unworthy eater contracts guilt ; he exposes
himself to the judgments of God. What kind of judgments
the apostle had in his mind is plain from the next verse, where
he refers to sickness and death.* This verse is only a repeti
tion of the sentiment expressed in v. 27, where he who eats
unworthily is said to contract guilt in reference to the body
of the Lord. Not discerning, i. e. because he does not dis
cern the Lord's body. The word SiaKpivw, translated to dis
cern, means to separate, then to cause to differ, as 4, 7 ; and
also, judge of, either in the sense of discriminating one tiling
from another, or in the sense of estimating aright. This
passage may therefore mean, not discriminating the Lord's
body, i. e. making no difference between the bread in the
sacrament and ordinary food ; or, it may mean, not estimating
it aright, not reverencing it as the appointed symbol of the
body of the Lord. In either case the offence is the same.
The ground of the condemnation incurred is, regarding and
treating the elements in the Lord's supper as though there
was nothing to distinguish them from ordinary bread and
wine. Here, as before, it is the careless and profane who are
warned. There is, therefore, nothing in these passages which
should surround the Lord's table with gloom. We are not
caUed unto the mount covered with clouds and darkness,
from which issue the signs of wrath, but unto Mount Zion, to
the abode of mercy and grace, where all is love — the dying
love of him who never breaks the bruised reed.
30. For this cause many (are) weak and sickly
among you, and many sleep.
For this cause, that is, because those who partake of the
Lord's supper unworthily incur the judgment of God ; many
are weak and sickly. The distinction between these words
made by commentators, is, that the former designates those
whose strength decays as it were of itself, and the latter,
those rendered infirm by sickness. The latter term is the
stronger of the two. And many sleep, i. e. have already died.
As there is nothing in the context to intimate that these terms
* Bengel's remark on this clause is : Kpina. sine articulo judicium aliquod,
morbum, mortemve corporis, ut qui Domini corpus non discernunt, corpore
buo luant. Non dicit rh Kariicpi^a, condemnationem.

234 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 30.31.32.33.34.
are used figuratively of moral infirmities and spiritual declen
sion, they should be taken in their literal sense. Paul knew
that the prevailing sickness and frequent deaths among the
Christians of Corinth were a judgment from God on account
of the irreverent manner in which they had celebrated the
Lord's supper.
31. For if we would judge ourselves, we should
not be judged.
For, i. e. these afflictions are judgments from God, because
of your sin in this matter; for, if we judge ourselves, that is, if
we examine ourselves (see v. 28) and prepare ourselves for
the Lord's table, we should not be judged, i. e. thus afflicted.
It is because we do not sit in judgment on ourselves, that God
judges us.
32. But when we are judged, we are chastened of
the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the
world. These judgments were chastisements designed for the
benefit of those who suffered, to bring them to repentance,
that they might not be finally condemned with the world ;
that is, with unbehevers. The world often means mankind as
distinguished from the church, or those chosen out of the
world. " They are not of the world, even as I am not of the
world," John 17, 16. What Paul says of the design of these
judgments, proves that even the extreme irreverence with
which he charges the Corinthians in reference to the Lord's
supper, was not an unpardonable sin.
33. 34. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come
together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any
man hunger, let him eat at home ; that ye come not
together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set
in order when I come.
The two great evils connected with the observance of the
Lord's supper at Corinth were, first, that it was not a com
munion, one took his supper before another, v. 21 ; and sec
ondly, that they came to the Lord's table to satisfy their

I. CORINTHIANS 11, 33.34. 235
hunger. That is, they made it an ordinary meal. They thus
sinned against their brethren, v. 22, and they sinned agamst
Christ, v. 27. In the conclusion, therefore, ofthe whole discus
sion, he exhorts them to correct these evils ; to wait for each
other, and make it a joint service ; and to satisfy their hunger
at home, and come together only to commemorate the Lord's
death. MUdly as this exhortation is expressed, it is enforced
by the solemn warning already given, that ye come not to
gether to condemnation, that is, so as to incur the displeasure
of God. The rest will I set in order when (ichenever u>s dv) I
may come. There were, it seems, other irregularities of less
importance than those above mentioned, which the apostle
leaves to be corrected untU he should again visit Corinth.
The epistles of Paul abound in evidence of the plenary author
ity exercised by the apostles over the churches. The word
SiaTao-o-w, to set in order, implies authoritative direction ; see
7, 17. 16, 1. Matt. 11, 1. The apostles were rendered infal
hble, as the representatives of Christ, to teach his doctrines,
to organize the church and determine its form of government,
and to regulate its worship. And what they ordained has
binding force on the church to this day. What Paul teaches
in this chapter concerning the nature and mode of celebrating
the Lord's supper, has determined the views and practice of
evangehcal Christians in every part of the world. It is not at
aU wonderful, considering that the festivals of the Jews, and
especially the Passover, as well as the sacrificial feasts of the
Gentiles, were social repasts, and especially considering that
our Lord instituted this ordinance in connection with the
Paschal supper, that the early Christians should have so gener
ally combined it with a social meal ; or that this custom should
have continued so long in the church. Nor is it a matter of
surprise, that the social element in this combined service
should so often have prevaUed over the rehgious one. That
this was to a lamentable degree the case in Corinth, is evident
from this chapter ; and it is probable from Jude 12, that the
evU was by no means confined to Corinth. That apostle,
speaking of certain sensual persons, says, " These are spots in
your feasts of charity, when they feast with you without fear."
Hence the unspeakable importance of the instructions and di
rections given by St. Paul, which are speciaUy designed to
separate the Lord's supper as a reUgious rite from the social
element with which it was combined. The apostle urges that
neither the sacrament itself, nor any feast with wliich it might

236 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 33.34.
be connected, should be regarded as the occasion of satisfying
hunger. The communion of saints and the commemoration
of the death of Christ as a sacrifice for our sins, are the only
legitimate objects which could be contemplated in the service.
And by exhibiting the intimate fellowship with the Lord in
volved in the right use of this ordinance, and the dreadful
consequences of unworthily participating, he has raised it to a
purely religious service, and made it the highest act of wor
ship. From one extreme the church graduaUy passed over to
the opposite. From regarding it as it had been iu Corinth,
little more than an ordinary meal, it came to be regarded as
an awful mystery, a sacrifice which the people were to wit
ness, and in which they were to adore the Redeemer as locally
present in his corporeal nature under the form of a wafer ! So
strong a hold had this unscriptural view taken of the mind of
the church, that Luther found it impossible to emancipate
himself from the behef of the local presence of Christ's real
body in this sacrament. And even Calvin could not divest
himself of the conviction, not only of its supernatural charac
ter, which aU admit who regard it as a means of grace, but
also of its being truly miraculous. It was only after a severe
struggle that the Reformed church got back to the simple,
yet sublime view of the ordinance presented by the apostle
Paul. The danger has often since been that the church should
go back to the Corinthian extreme, and look upon the Lord's
supper as a simple commemoration, involving nothing super
natural either in its nature or effects. Our only safety is in
adhering strictly to the teachings of the Scriptures. The
apostle tells us, on the authority of a direct revelation from
the Lord himself, that whfle the ordinance is designed as a
memorial of Christ's death, it involves a participation of bis
body and blood, not of their material substance, but of theh
sacrificial efficacy, so that, " although the body and blood of
Christ are not corporaUy or carnaUy present in, with, or under
the bread and wine in the Lord's supper ; and yet are spirit
ually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and
really than the elements themselves are to their outward
senses ; so they that worthUy communicate in the sacrament
ofthe Lord's supper, do therehi feed upon the body and blood
of Christ, not after a corporal or carnal, but in a spiritual man
ner; yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and
apply unto themselves Christ crucified and aU the benefits of
his death." Larger Catechism.

I. CORINTHIANS 12. 237

CHAPTER XII.
Of Spiritual Gifts, vs. 1-31.
The ancient prophets had clearly predicted that the Messianic
period should be attended by a remarkable effusion of the
Holy Spirit. " And it shaU come to pass in those days," it is
said in the prophecies of Joel, " saith God, I wiU pour out of
my Sphit upon aU flesh ; and your sons and your daughters
shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and
your old men shall dream dreams." Our Lord, before his
crucifixion, promised to send the Comforter, who is the Holy
Ghost, to instruct and guide his church, John 14, &c. And
after his resurrection he said to his disciples, "These signs
shaU follow them that beheve. In my name shall they cast
out devUs; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall
take up serpents ; and ff they drink any deadly thing it shaU
not hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall
recover," Mark 16, 17. 18. And immediately before his as
cension he said to the disciples, " Ye shall be baptized with
the Holy Ghost not many days hence," Acts 1, 5. Accord
ingly, on the day of Pentecost, these promises and prophecies
were UteraUy fulfiUed. The peculiarity of the new dispensa
tion consisted, in the first place, in the general diffusion of
these gifts. They were not confined to any one class of the
people, but extended to aU classes ; male and female, young
and old; and secondly, in the wonderful diversity of these
supernatural endowments. Under circumstances so extraordi
nary it was unavoidable that many disorders should arise.
Some men would claim to be the organs of the Spirit, who
were deluded or impostors ; some would be dissatisfied with
the gifts which they had received, and envy those whom they
regarded as more highly favoured ; others would be inflated,
and make an ostentatious display of their extraordinary pow
ers ; and in the pubhc assemblies it might be expected that
the greatest confusion would arise from so many persons being
desirous to exercise their gifts at the same time. To the cor
rection of these evils, all of which had manifested themselves
in the church of Corinth, the apostle devotes this and the two
following chapters. It is impossible to read these chapters
without being deeply impressed by the divine wisdom with
which they are pervaded. After contrasting the condition of

238 I. CORINTHIANS 12.
the Corinthians, as members of that body which was instinct
with the life-giving Spirit of God, with their former condition
as the senseless worshippers of dumb idols, he, First, lays down
the criterion by which they might decide whether those who
pretended to be the organs of the Spirit were reaUy under his
influence. How do they speak of Christ ? Do they blaspheme,
or do they worship him ? If they openly and sincerely recog
nize Jesus as the Supreme Lord, then they are under the influ
ence of the Holy Ghost, vs. 1-3. Secondly, these gifts,
whether viewed as graces of the Spirit, or as forms of minis
tering to Christ, or the effects of God's power, that is, whether
viewed in relation to the Spirit, to the Son, or to the Father,
are but different manifestations of the Holy Ghost dwelUng in
his people, and are aU intended for the edification of the church,
vs. 4-7. Thirdly, he arranges them under three heads, 1. The
word of wisdom and the word of knowledge. 2. Faith, the
gift of healing, the power of working miracles, prophesying,
and the discerning of spirits. 3. The gift of tongues and the
interpretation of tongues, vs. 8-10. Fourthly, these gifts are
not only all the fruits of the Spirit, but they are distributed
according to his sovereign wUl, v. 11. Fifthly, there is there
fore in this matter a striking analogy between the church and
the human body. For, 1. As the body is one organic whole,
because animated by one spirit, so the church is one because
of the indwelhng of the Holy Ghost as the principle of its life.
2. As the unity of Ufe in the body is manifested in a diversity
of organs and members ; so the indweUing of the Spirit in the
church is manifested by a diversity of gifts and offices. 3. As
the very idea of the body as an organization supposes this di
versity in unity, the same is true in regard to the church. 4.
As in the human body the members are mutuaUy dependent,
and no one exists for itself alone but for the body as a whole,
so also in the church there is the same dependence of its mem
bers on each other, and their various gifts are not designed
for the exclusive benefit of those who exercise them, but for
the edification of the whole church. 5. As in the body the
position and function of each member are determined not by
itself, but by God, so also these spiritual gifts are distributed
according to the good pleasure of their author. 6. In the
body the least attractive parts are those which are indispensa
ble to its existence, and so in the church it is not the most at
tractive gifts which aro the most useful. Sixthly, the apostle
draws from this analogy the foUowing inferences. 1. Every

I. CORINTHIANS 12, 1.2. 239
one should be contented with the gift whioh he has received
of the Lord, just as the hand and foot are contented with
their position and office in the body. 2. There should be no
exaltation of one member of the church over others, on the
ground of the supposed superiority of his gifts. 3. There
should, and must be mutual sympathy between the members
of the church, as there is between the members of the body.
One cannot suffer without all the others suffering with it. No
one Uves, or acts, or feels for itself alone, but each in all tho
rest, vs. 12-27. In conclusion the apostle shows that what ho
had said with regard to these spiritual gifts, applies in all its
force to the various offices of the church, which are the organ*
through which the gifts of the Spirit are exercised, vs. 28-31.
1. Now concerning spiritual (gifts), brethren, I
woidd not have you ignorant.
Instead of beginning with, in tlie second place, in continu
ance ofthe enumeration begun in 11, 17, he passes to tho
second ground of censure, by the simple now (Se) as the parti
cle of transition. The misuse of the spiritual gifts, especially
of the gift of tongues, was the next topic of rebuke. Con
cerning spiritual, whether men or gifts, depends on the con
text, as the word may be either masculine or neuter. The
latter is the more natural and common explanation, because
the gifts rather than the persons are the subject of discussion ;
and because in v. 31, and. 14, 1, the neuter form is used. I
would not have you ignorant, i. e. I wish you to understand
the origin and intent of these extraordinary manifestations of
divine power, and to be able to discriminate between the true
and false claimants to the possession of them.
2. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away
unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
Here, as in Ephesians 2, 11, the apostle contrasts the for
mer with the present condition of his readers. Formerly,
they were GentUes, now they were Christians. Formerly,
they were the worshippers and consulters of dumb idols, now
they worshipped the living and true God. Formerly, they
were swayed by a bUnd, unintelhgent impulse, which carried
them away, they knew not why nor whither ; now they were
under the influence of the Spirit of God. Their former con-

240 I. CORINTHIANS 12, 2.3.
dition is here adverted to as affording a reason why they
needed instruction on this subject. It was one on which their
previous experience gave them no information.
Ye know that * ye icere Gentiles. This is the comprehen
sive statement of their former condition. Under it are includ
ed the two particulars which foUow. First, they were addict
ed to the worship of dumb idols, i. e. voiceless, comp. Hab. 2,
18. 19, "Woe unto him that saith unto the wood, Awake ;
unto the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach," and Ps. 115, 5.
135, 16. To worship dumb idols, gods who could neither
hear nor save, expresses in the strongest terms at once their
folly and their misery. Secondly, they were carried away to
this worship just as they were led, i. e. they were controUed
by an influence which they could not understand or resist.
Compare, as to the force of the word here used, Gal. 2, 13.
2 Pet. 3, 17. It is often spoken of those who are led away to
judgment, to prison, or to execution. Mark 14, 53. John 18,
13. Matt. 27, 21. Paul means to contrast this (d-irdyeo-.fa.) be
ing carried away, as it were, by force, with the (dyeo-Sai -_-vev-
pan), being led by the Spirit. The one was an irrational influ
ence controlhng the understanding and wfll ; the other is an
influence from God, congruous to our nature, and leading to
good. 3. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no
man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus ac
cursed : and (that) no man can say that Jesus is the
Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Wherefore, i. e. because I would not have you ignorant on
this subject. The first thing which he teaches is the criterion
or test of true divine influence. This criterion he states first
negatively and then positively. The negative statement is,
that no man speaking by the Spirit of God caUeth Jesus ac
cursed. To speak by (or in) the Sphit, is to speak under the
influence of the Spirit, as the ancient prophets did. Matt. 22,
43. Mark 12, 36. No one speaking (kakwv, using his voice),
calleth (keyei pronounces) Jesus to be accursed. Or, according
to another reading, utters the Avords, "Jesus is accursed."
* The common text is on, the MSS. A. C. D. E. F. I., and many of the
versions and Fathers have Stl ore (that when), which reading is adopted by
Laohraann, Scholz, and Tischendorf. The construction is then irregular.

I. CORINTHIANS 12, 3. 241
By Jesus, the historical person known among men by that
name is indicated. And, therefore, Paul uses that word and
not Christ, which is a term of office. Accursed, i. e. anathe
ma. This word properly means something consecrated to
God; and as among the Jews what was thus consecrated
could not be redeemed, but, if a Uving thing, must be put to
death, Lev. 27, 28. 29, hence the word was used to designate
any person or thing devoted to destruction ; and then with
the accessory idea of the divine displeasure, something devot
ed to destruction as accursed. This last is its uniform mean
ing in the New Testament. Rom. 9, 3. Gal. 1, 8. 9. 1 Cor.
16, 22. Hence to say that Jesus is anathema, is to say he was
a malefactor, one justly condemned to death. This the Jews
said who invoked his blood upon their heads. The affirmative
statement is, no man can say Jesus is the Lord, but by the
Holy Ghost. The word /cvptos, Lord, is that by which the
word Jehovah is commonly rendered in the Greek version of
the Old Testament. To say Jesus is the Lord, therefore, in
the sense of the apostle, is to acknowledge him to be truly
God. And as the word Jesus here as before designates the
historical person known by that name, who was born of the
Virgin Mary, to say that Jesus is Lord, is to acknowledge
that that person is God manifest in the flesh. In other words,
the confession includes the acknowledgment that he is truly
God and truly man. What the apostle says, is that no man
can make this acknowledgment but by the Holy Ghost.
This of course does not mean that no one can utter these
words unless under special divine influence ; but it means that
no one can truly believe and openly confess that Jesus is God
manifest in the flesh unless he is enUghtened by the Spirit of
God. This is precisely what our Lord himself said, when
Peter confessed him to be the Son of God. "Blessed art
thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed
it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven." Matt. 16, 17.
The same thing is also said by the apostle John. " Hereby
know ye the Spirit of God ; every spirit that confesseth that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God : and every sphit
that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is
not of God," 1 John 4, 2. 3 ; and in v. 15, "Whosoever shaU
confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him,
and he in God." To blaspheme Christ, maledicere Christo,
Plin. Epist. X. 97, was the form for renouncing Christianity
before the Roman tribunals ; and saying, " I beUeve that Jesus
11

242 I. CORINTHIANS 12, 3.4.5.6.
is the Son of God," Acts 8, 37, was the form of professing al
legiance to Christ. Men acknowledged themselves to be
Christians, by acknowledging the divinity of Christ. These
passages, therefore, teach us first, whom we are to regard as
Christians, viz., those who acknowledge and worship Jesus of
Nazareth as the true God ; secondly, that the test of the di
vine commission of those who assume to be teachers of the
gospel, is not external descent, or apostolic succession, but
soundness in the faith. If even an apostle or angel teach any
other gospel, we are to regard him as accursed, Gal. 1, 8.
And Paul tells the Corinthians that they were to discriminate
between those who were reaUy the organs of the Holy Ghost,
and those who falsely pretended to that office, by the same
criterion. As it is unscriptural to recognize as Christians those
who deny the divinity of our Lord ; so it is unscriptural for
any man to doubt his own regeneration, if he is conscious that
he sincerely worships the Lord Jesus.
4-6. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the
same Spirit. And there are differences of administra
tions, but the same Lord. And there are diversities
of operations, but it is the same God which worketh
ah in ah.
The second thing which the apostle teaches concerning
these gifts is, their diversity of character in connection with
the unity of theh source and design. He is not, however, to
be understood as here dividing these gifts into three classes,
under the heads of gifts, ministrations, and operations ; but
as presenting them each and aU under three different aspects.
Viewed in relation to the Spirit, they are gifts ; in relation to
the Lord, they are ministrations ; and. in relation to God, they
are operations, i. e. effects wrought by his power. And it is
the same Sphit, the same Lord, and the same God who are
concerned in them all. That is, the same Spirit is the giver;
it is he who is the immediate and proximate author of aU these
various endowments. It is the same Lord in whose service
and by whose authority these various gifts are exercised.
They are all different forms in which he is served, or minis
tered to. And it is the same God the Father, who having ex
alted the Lord Jesus to the supreme headship of the church,
and having sent the Holy Ghost, works all these effects in the

I. CORINTHIANS 12, 4. 5. 6. 7. 243
minds of men. There is no inconsistency between this state
ment and v. 11, where the Spirit is said to work aU these
gifts ; because God works by his Spirit. So in one place we
are said to be born of God, and in another to be born of the
Spirit. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity underlies the whole
scheme of redemption in its execution and apphcation as weU
as in its conception.
Those who understand this passage as describing three dis
tinct classes of gifts, one as derived from the Spirit, the other
from the Son, and the other from the Father, suppose that to
the first class belong wisdom, knowledge, and faith ; to the
second, church-offices ; and to the third, gift of miracles. But
this view of the passage is inconsistent with the constant and
equal reference of these gifts to the Holy Sphit ; they aU come
under the head of " sphitual gifts ; " and with what follows in
vs. 8-10, where a different classification is given. That is, the
nine gifts there mentioned are not classified in reference to
theh relation to the Father, Son, and Spirit ; and therefore it
is unnatural to assume such a classification here. They are all
and equaUy gifts of the Spirit, modes of serving the Son, and
effects due to the efficiency of the Father.
7. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to
every man to proht withal.
But, i. e. notwithstanding these gifts have the same source,
they are diverse in their manifestations. To each one, i. e. to
every beUever; or every recipient of the Holy Ghost, is given
a manifestation of the Spirit. That is, the Spirit who dwells
in aU beUevers as the body of Christ, manifests himself in one
way in one person, and in another way in another person.
The Ulustration which the apostle subsequently introduces is
derived from the human body. As the principle of life mani
fests itself in one organ as the faculty of vision, and in another
as the faculty of hearing, so the Holy Ghost manifests himself
variously in the different members of the church ; in one as
the gift of teaching, in another as the gift of heaUng. This is
one of those pregnant truths, compressed in a_ single sentence,
which are developed in manifold forms in different parts of
the word of God. It is the truth of which this whole chapter
is the exposition and the application. To profit withal fob.
ro _rvpcpepov),i. e. for edification. This is the common object
of aU these gifts. They are not designed exclusively or mainly

244 I. CORINTHIANS 12, 7.
for the benefit, much less for the gratification of their recipi
ents ; but for the good of the church. Just as the power
of vision is not for the benefit of the eye, but for the man.
When, therefore, the gffts of God, natural or supernatural,
are perverted as means of self-exaltation or aggrandizement,
it is a sin against their giver, as weU as against those for
whose benefit they were intended.
With regard to the gifts mentioned in the foUowing verses,
it is to be remarked, first, that the enumeration is not intend
ed to include aU the forms in which the Spirit manifested his
presence in the people of God. Gifts are elsewhere mentioned
which are not found in this catalogue ; comp. Rom. 12, 4-8,
and v. 28 of this chapter. Secondly, that although the apos
tle appears to divide these gifts into three classes, the princi
ple of classification is not discernible. That is, we can dis
cover no reason why one gift is in one class rather than in
another ; why, for example, prophecy, instead of being asso
ciated with other gifts of teaching, is connected with those of
healing and working miracles. The different modes of classi
fication which have been proposed, even when founded on a
real difference, cannot be apphed to the arrangement given
by the apostle. Some would divide them into natural and
supernatural. But they are aU supernatural, although not to
the same degree or in the same form. There are gifts of the
Spirit which are ordinary and permanent, such as those of
teaching and ruhng, but they are not included in this enume
ration, which embraces nothing which was not miraculous, or
at least supernatural. Others, as Neander, divide them into
those exercised by word, and those exercised by deeds. To
the former class belong those of wisdom, knowledge, prophecy,
and speaking with tongues ; and to the latter the gifts of
healing and miracles. Others, again, propose a psychological
division, i. e. one founded on the different faculties involved in
theh exercise. Hence they are distinguished as those which
concern the feelings, those which pertain to the intelUgence,
and those which relate to the wUl. But this is altogether
arbitrary, as all these faculties are concerned in the exercise
of every gift. It is better to take the classification as we find
it, without attempting to determine the principle of arrange
ment, which may have been in a measure, so to speak, fortui
tous, or determined by the mere association of ideas, rather
than by any characteristic difference in the gifts themselves.
The Scriptures are much more like a work of nature than a

I. CORINTHIANS 12, 7.8. 245
work of art ; much more like a landscape than a buflding.
Things spring up where we cannot see the reason why they
are there, rather than elsewhere, whUe every thing is in its
right place.
8. Por to one is given by the Spirit the word of
wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the
same Spirit ;
In v. 7, he had said, " To each one is given a manifestation
of the Spirit," for to one is given one gift, and to another,
another. What follows, therefore, is the Ulustration and con
firmation of what precedes. The point to be illustrated is the
diversity of forms in which the same Spirit manifests himself
in different individuals. " To one is given the word of wis
dom, to another the word of knowledge." The word of wis
dom, is the gift of speaking or communicating wisdom ; and
the word of knowledge is the gift of communicating know
ledge. As to the difference, however, between wisdom and
knowledge, as here used, it is not easy to decide. Some say
the former is practical, and the latter speculative. Others,
just the reverse ; and passages may be cited in favour of
either view. Others say that wisdom refers to what is per
ceived by intuition, i. e. what is apprehended (as they say) by
the reason ; and knowledge what is perceived by the under
standing. The effect of the one is spiritual discernment ; of
the other, scientific knowledge ; i. e. the logical nature and
relations of the truths discerned. Others say that wisdom is
the gospel, the whole system of revealed truth, and the word
of wisdom is the gift of revealing that system as the object of
faith. In favour ofthis view are these obvious considerations,
1. That Paul frequently uses the word in this sense. In ch. 2
he says, we speak wisdom, the wisdom of God, the hidden
wisdom which the great of this world never could discover,
but which God has revealed by his Spirit. 2. That gift stands
first as the most important, and as the characteristic gift of
the apostles, as may be inferred from v. 28, where the arrange
ment of offices to a certain extent corresponds with the ar
rangement ofthe gifts here presented. Among the gifts, the
first is the word of wisdom ; and among the offices, the first is
that of the apostles. It is perfectly natural that this corre
spondence should be observed at the beginning, even if it be
not carried out. This gift in its full measure belonged to the

246 I. CORINTHIANS 12, 8.9.
apostles alone ; partiaUy, however, also, to the prophets ofthe
New Testament. Hence apostles and prophets are often as
sociated as possessing the same gift, although in different
degrees. " BuUt on the foundation of the apostles and pro
phets," Eph. 2, 20. " As now revealed unto the holy apostles
and prophets by the Spirit," Eph. 3, 5 ; see also 4, 11. The
characteristic difference between these classes of officers was,
that the former were endowed with permanent and plenary,
the latter with occasional and partial, inspiration. By the
word of knowledge, as distinguished from the word of wisdom,
is probably to be understood the gift which belonged to teach
ers. Accordingly, they foUow the apostles and prophets in
the enumeration given in v. 28. The word of knowledge was
the gift correctly to understand and properly to exhibit the
truths revealed by the apostles and prophets. This agrees
with 13, 8, where the gift of knowledge is represented as per
taining to the present state of existence. By the same Spirit,
literally, according to the same Spirit, i. e. according to his
wfll, or as he sees fit ; see v. 11. The Spirit is not only the
author, but the distributor of these gifts. And therefore
sometimes they are said to be given (Sid) by, and sometimes
(Kara) according to, the Sphit.
9. To another faith by the same Spirit; to another
the gifts of healing by the same Spirit ;
There is a distinction indicated in the Greek which is not
expressed in our version. The main divisions in this enumera
tion seem to be indicated by trepos, and the subordinate ones
by aAAos, though both words are translated by another; the
former, however, is a stronger expression of difference. Here,
therefore, where irepto is used, a new class seems to be intro
duced. To the first class belong the word of wisdom and the
word of knowledge ; to the second, aU that foUow except the
last two. To another faith. As faith is here mentioned as a
gift pecuhar to some Christians, it cannot mean saving faith,
which is common to aU. It is generaUy supposed to mean the
faith of miracles to which our Lord refers, Matt. 17, 19. 20,
and also the apostle in the following chapter, " Though I have
aU faith, so that I could remove mountains," 13, 2. But to this
it is objected, that the gift of miracles is mentioned immedi
ately afterwards as something different from the gift of faith.
Others say it is that faith which manifests itself in aU the forms

I. CORINTHIANS 12, 9.10. 247
enumerated under this class, that is, in miracles, in healing, in
prophecy, and in discerning of spirits. But then it is nothing
peculiar ; it is a gift common to aU under this head, whereas
it is as much distinguished from them, as they are from eaoh
other. Besides, no degree of faith involves inspiration which
is supposed in prophecy. In the absence of distinct data for
determining the nature of the faith here intended, it is safest,
perhaps, to adhere to the simple meaning of the word, and
assume that the gift meant is a higher measure of the ordinary
grace of faith. Such a faith as enabled men to become con
fessors and martyrs, and which is so fully illustrated in Heb.
11, 33-40. This is something as truly wonderful as the gift
of miracles. To another the gifts of healing, i. e. gifts by
which healing of the sick was effected, Acts 4, 30. This evi
dently refers to the miraculous healing of diseases.
10. To another the working of miracles ; to another
prophecy ; to another discerning of spirits ; to another
(divers) kinds of tongues ; to another the interpreta
tion of tongues :
Working of miracles, literaUy, effects which are miracu
lous, or which consist in miracles. This is more comprehen
sive than the preceding gift. Some had merely the gift of
healing the sick, whUe others had the general power of work
ing miracles. This was exemplified in the death of Ananias,
in raising Dorcas, in smiting Elymas with blindness, and in
many other cases.
To another prophecy. The nature of this gift is clearly
exhibited in the 14th ch. It consisted in occasional inspira
tion and revelations, not merely or generaUy relating to the
future, as in the case of Agabus, Acts 11, 28, but either in
some new communications relating to faith or duty, or simply
an immediate impulse and aid from the Holy Spirit, in pre
senting truth already known, so that conviction and repent
ance were the effects aimed at and produced ; comp. 14, 25.
The difference, as before stated, between the apostles and
prophets, was, that the former were permanently inspired, so
that their teaching was at all times infaUible, whereas the
prophets were infaUible only occasionaUy. The ordinary
teachers were uninspired, speaking from the resources of their
own knowledge and experience.

248 I. CORINTHIANS 12, 10.
To another discerning of spirits. It appears, especially
from the epistles of the apostle John, that pretenders to inspi
ration were numerous in the apostohc age. He therefore
exhorts his readers, " to try the spirits, whether they be of
God ; for many false prophets are gone out into the world,"
1 John 4, 1. It was therefore of importance to have a class
of men with the gift of discernment, who could determine
whether a man was reaUy inspired, or spoke only from the im
pulse of his own mind, or from the dictation of some evil spirit.
In 14, 29, reference is made to the exercise ofthis gift. Com
pare also 1 Thess. 5, 20. 21.
To another divers kinds of tongues. That is, the abUity
to speak in languages previously unknown to the speakers.
The nature of this gift is determined by the account given in
Acts 2, 4-11, where it is said, the apostles spoke "with other
tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance ; " and people of
aU the neighbouring nations asked with astonishment, " Are
not aU these that speak Gahleans ? And how hear we every
man in our own tongue wherein we were born ? " It is im
possible to deny that the miracle recorded in Acts consisted
in enabUng the apostles to speak in languages which they had
never learnt. Unless, therefore, it be assumed that the gift
of which Paul here speaks was something of an entirely differ
ent nature, its character is put beyond dispute. The identity
ofthe two, however, is proved from the sameness ofthe terms
by which they are described. In Mark 16, 17, it was prom
ised that the disciples should speak " with new tongues." In
Acts 2, 4, it is said they spoke "with other tongues." In
Acts 10, 46, and 19, 6, it is said of those on whom the Holy
Ghost came, that " they spake with tongues." It can hardly
be doubted that aU these forms of expression are to be under
stood in the same sense; that to speak "with tongues" in
Acts 10, 46, means the same thing as speaking "with other
tongues," in Acts 2, 4, and that this again means the same as
speaking "with new tongues," as promised in Mark 16, 17.
If the meaning of the phrase is thus historicaUy and philolo-
gicaUy determined for Acts and Mark, it must also be deter
mined for the Epistle to the Corinthians. If tongues means
languages in the former, it must have the same meaning in the
latter. We have thus two arguments in favour of the old in
terpretation of this passage. First, that the facts narrated in
Acts necessitate the interpretation of the phrase " to speak
with other tongues " to mean to speak with foreign languages.

I. CORINTHIANS 12, 10. 249
Second, that the interchange of the expressions, new tongues,
other tongues, and tongues, in reference to the same event,
shows that the last mentioned (to speak with tongues) must
have the same sense with the two former expressions, which
can only mean to speak in new languages. A third argument
is, that the common interpretation satisfies all the facts of the
case. Those facts are, 1. That what was spoken with tongues
was intelligible to those who understood foreign languages, as
appears from Acts 2, 11. Therefore the speaking was not
an incoherent, uninteUigible rhapsody. 2. What was uttered
were articulate sounds, the vehicle of prayer, praise, and
thanksgiving, 1 Cor. 14, 14-17. 3. They were edifying, and
therefore intelligible to hhn who uttered them, 1 Cor. 14, 4.
16. 4. They admitted of being interpreted, which supposes
them to be intelUgible. 5. Though intcUigible in themselves,
and to the speaker, they were unintelligible to others, that is,
to those not acquainted with the language used ; and conse
quently unsuited for an ordinary Christian assembly. The
foUy which Paul rebuked was, speaking in Arabic to men
who understood only Greek. The speaker might understand
what he said, but others were not profited, 1 Cor. 14, 2. 19.
6. The Ulustration employed in 1 Cor. 14, 7. 11, from musical
instruments, and from the case of foreigners, requires the
common interpretation. Paul admits that the sounds uttered
were "not without signification," v. 10. His complaint is,
that a man who speaks in an unknown tongue is to him a for
eigner, v. 11. This illustration supposes the sounds uttered
to be intelligible in themselves, but not understood by those
to whom they were addressed. 7. The common mterpretation
is suited even to those passages which present the only real
difficulty in the case ; viz., those in which the apostle speaks
ofthe understanding as being unfruitful in the exercise of the
gift of tongues, and those in which he contrasts praying with
the spirit and praying with the understanding, 14, 14. 15.
Although these passages, taken by themselves, might seem to
indicate that the speaker himself did not understand what he
said, and even that his inteUect was in abeyance, yet they may
naturally mean only that the understanding of the speaker
was unprofitable to others ; and speaking with the understand
ing may mean speaking inteUigibly. It is not necessary, there
fore, to infer from these passages, that to speak with tongues
was to speak in a state of ecstasy, in a manner uninteUigible to
any human being. 8. The common interpretation is also con-
11*

250 I. CORINTHIANS 12, 10.
sistent with the fact that the gift of interpretation was distinct
from that of speaking with tongues. If a man could speak a
foreign language, why could he not interpret it? Simply,
because it was not his gift. What he said in that foreign lan
guage, he said under the guidance of the Spirit ; had he at
tempted to interpret it without the gift of interpretation, he
would be speaking of himself, and not " as the Spirit gave him
utterance." In the one case he was the organ of the Holy
Ghost, in the other he was not.
Fourth argument. Those who depart from the common
interpretation of the gift of tongues, differ indefinitely among
themselves as to its true nature. Some assume that the word
tongues (ykZo-crai) does not here mean languages, but idioms
or peculiar and unusual forms of expression. To speak with
tongues, according to this view, is to speak in an exalted
poetic strain, beyond the comprehension of common people.
But it has been proved from the expressions neio and other
tongues, and from the facts recorded in Acts, that the word
¦yXukro-ai (tongues) must here mean languages. Besides, to
speak in exalted language is not to speak unintelligibly. The
Grecian people understood the loftiest strains of their orators
and poets. This interpretation also gives to the word ykCia-o-ai
a technical sense foreign to all scriptural usage, and one which
is entirely inadmissible, at least in those cases where the sin
gular is used. A man might be said to speak in " phrases,"
but not in " a phrase." Others say that the word means the
tongue as the physical organ of utterance ; and to speak with
the tongue is to speak in a state of excitement in which the
understanding and will do not control the tongue, which is
moved by the Spirit to utter sounds which are as uninteUi
gible to the speaker as to others. But this interpretation
does not suit the expressions other tongues and new tongues,
and is irreconcilable with the accoimt in Acts. Besides it de
grades the gift into a mere frenzy. It is out of analogy with
all Scriptural facts. The spirits of the prophets are subject
to the prophets. The Old Testament seers were not beside
themselves, and the apostles in the use of the gift of tongues
were calm and rational, speaking the wonderful works of God
in a way which the foreigners gathered in Jerusalem easUy
understood. Others, again, admit that the word tongues
means languages, but deny that they were languages foreign
to the speaker. To speak with tongues, they say, was to
fcpeak in an incoherent, uninteUigible manner, in a state of

I. CORINTHIANS 12, 10. 251
ecstasy, when the mind is entirely abstracted from the external
world, and unconscious of things about it, as in a dream or
trance. This, however, is liable to the objections already ad
duced against the other theories. Besides, it is evident from
the whole discussion, that those who spake with tongues were
self-controUed. They could speak or not as they pleased.
Paul censures them for speaking when there was no occasion
for it, and in such a manner as to produce confusion and dis
order. They were, therefore, not in a state of uncontroUable
excitement, unconscious of what they said or did. It is un
necessary to continue this enumeration of conjectures; what
has already been said would be out of place if the opinions re
ferred to had not found favour in England and in our own
country. The arguments agamst the common view of the nature of
the gift of tongues, (apart from the exegetical difficulties with
which it is thought to be encumbered,) are not such as to
make much impression upon minds accustomed to reverence
the Scriptures. 1. It is said the miracle was unnecessary, as
Greek was understood wherever the apostles preached. This,
no doubt, is in a great degree true. Greek was the language
of educated persons throughout the Roman emph e, but it had
not superseded the national languages in common life ; neither
was the preaching ofthe apostles confined to the limits ofthe
Roman emphe. Besides, this supposes that the only design
of the gift was to facilitate the propagation of the gospel.
This was doubtless one of the purposes which it was intended
to answer ; but it had other important uses. It served to
prove the presence of the Spirit of God ; and it symbolized
the calling of the Gentiles and the common interest of all na
tions in the gospel. See the remarks on Acts 2, 4. 2. It is
said God is not wont by miracles to remove difficulties out of
the way of his people, which they can surmount by labour.
3. Others pronounce it impossible that a man should speak hi
a language which he had never learnt. But does it thence
follow that God cannot give him the abUity ? 4. It appears
that Paul and Barnabas did not understand the speech of
Lycaonia, Acts 14, 11-14. The gift of tongues, however, was
not the abUity to speak aU languages. Probably most of
those who received the gift, could speak only in one or two.
Paul thanked God that he had the gift in richer measure than
any ofthe Corinthians. 5. The gift docs not appear to have
been made subservient to the missionary work. It certainly

252 I. CORINTHIANS 12, 10.11.
was in the first instance, as recorded in Acts, and may have
been afterwards. 6. Paul, in 1 Cor. 14, 14-19, does not place
speaking with tongues and speaking in one's own language in
opposition ; but speaking with the understanding and speak
ing with the spirit ; and therefore to speak with tongues, is to
speak without understanding, or in a state of ecstasy. This
is a possible interpretation of this one passage considered in
itself; but it is in direct contradiction to aU those passages
which prove that speaking with tongues was not an involun
tary, incoherent, ecstatic mode of speaking. The passage re
ferred to, therefore, must be understood in consistency with
the other passages referring to the same subject. Though
there are difficulties attending any view of the gift in question,
arising from our ignorance, those connected with the common
interpretation are incomparably less than those which beset
any ofthe modern conjectures.
To another, the interpretation of tongues. The nature of
this gift depends on the view taken of the preceding. Com
monly, at least, the man using a foreign language was able to
understand it, see 14, 2. 4. 16, and may have had the gift of
interpretation in connection with the gift of tongues. It is
possible, however, that in some cases he did not himself un
derstand, the language which he spoke, and then of course he
would need an interpreter. But even when he did understand
the language which he used, he needed a distinct gift to make
him the organ of the Spirit in its interpretation. If speaking
with tongues was speaking incoherently in ecstasy, it is hard
to see how what was said could admit of interpretation. Un
less coherent it was irrational, and if irrational, it could not be
translated. 11. But ah these worketh that one and the self
same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
But all these, &c, i. e. notwithstanding the diversity of
these gifts they have a common origin. They are wrought by
the same Spirit. What therefore in v. 6 is referred to the
efficiency of God, is here referred to the efficiency of the
Spirit. This is in accordance with constant scriptural usage.
The same effect is sometimes attributed to one, and sometimes
to another of the persons of the Holy Trinity. This supposes
that, being the same in substance (or essence) in which divine
power inheres, they cooperate in the production of these ef-

I. CORINTHIANS 12, 11. 12. 13. 253
fects. Whatever the Father does, he does through the Spirit.
The Holy Ghost not only produces these gifts in the minds of
men, but he distributes them severally (LSta) to every mati as
ne will, i. e. not according to the merits or wishes of men, but
according to his own wfll. This passage clearly proves that
the Holy Spirit is a person. WiU is here attributed to him,
which is one of the distinctive attributes of a person. Both
the divinity and personahty of the Holy Ghost are therefore
involved in the nature of the work here ascribed to him.
12. For as the body is one, and hath many mem
bers, and ah the members of that one body, being
many, are one body : so also (is) Christ.
For introduces an Ulustration of the truth taught in the
preceding verses. Every organism, or organic whole, sup
poses diversity and unity. That is, different parts united so
as to constitute one whole. The apostle had taught that in
the unity of the church there is a diversity of gifts. This is
Ulustrated by a reference to the human body. It is one, yet
it consists of many members. And this diversity is essential
to unity ; for unless the body consisted of many members, it
would not be a (o-Zpa) body, i. e. an organic whole. So also
is Christ, i. e. the body of Christ, or the Church. As the
body consists of many members and is yet one ; so it is with
the church, it is one and yet consists of many members, each
having its own gift and office. See Rom. 12, 4. 5. Eph. 1, 23,
and 4, 4. 16.
13. Por by one Spirit are we ah baptized into one
body, whether (we be) Jews or Gentiles, whether (we
be) bond or free ; and have been ah made to drink
into one Spirit.
This is the proof of what immediately precedes. The
church is one, for by one Spirit we were aU baptized into one
body. The word is not in the present tense, but in the aorist.
'We were, by the baptism ofthe Spirit, constituted one body.'
This is commonly, and even by the modern commentators,
understood of the sacrament of baptism ; and the apostle is
made to say that by the Holy Ghost received in baptism we
were made one body. But the Bible clearly distinguishes be-

254 I. CORINTHIANS 12, 13.
tween baptism with water and baptism with the Holy Ghost.
" I indeed baptize you with water . . . but he shall baptize you
with the Holy Ghost," Matt. 3, 11. "He that sent me to bap
tize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou
shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the
same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost," John 1, 33.
" John truly baptized with water, but ye shaU be baptized
with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence," Acts 1, 5. These
passages not only disthiguish between the baptism of water
and the baptism of the Spirit, but they disconnect them. The
baptism to which Acts 1, 5 refers took place on the day of
Pentecost, and had nothing to do with the baptism of water.
It is not denied that the one is sacramentaUy connected with
the other ; or that the baptism of the Spirit often attends the
baptism of water; but they are not inseparably connected.
The one may be without the other. And in the present pas
sage there does not seem to be even an allusion to water bap
tism, any more than in Acts 1, 5. Paul does not say that we
are made one body by baptism, but by the baptism of the
Holy Ghost ; that is, by spiritual regeneration. Any commu
nication of the Holy Spirit is called a baptism, because the
Spirit is said to be poured out, and those upon whom he is
poured out, whether in his regenerating, sanctifying, or in
spiring influences, are said to be baptized. In all the passages
above quoted the expression is iv Trvevpan, by the Spirit, as it
is here.* It is not therefore by baptism as an external rite,
but by the communication of the Holy Spirit that we are
made members of the body of Christ. Unto one body means
so as to constitute one body (eh, unto, expressing the result).
No matter how great may have been the previous difference,
whether they were Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, by this
baptism of the Spirit, all who experience it are merged into
one body ; they are all intimately and organicaUy united as par
taking of the same life. Comp. Gal. 3, 28. And this is the
essential point of the analogy between the human body and
the church. As the body is one because pervaded and ani
mated by one soul or principle of hfe, so the church is one be
cause pervaded by one Spirit. And as aU parts of the body
which partake of the common Ufe belong to the body, so all
* It may he remarked in passing that &airTi£eo&ai ev vveinart cannot mean
to be immersed in the Spirit, any more than fia-n-Tif.a&cu vSari, Luke 3, 16,
Acts 1, 5, can hy possibility mean to be immersed in water.

I. CORINTHIANS 12, 13. 255
those in whom the Spirit of God dweUs are members of the
church which is the body of Christ. And by parity of reason
ing, those in whom the Spirit does not dwell are not members
of Christ's body. They may be members of the visible or
nominal church, but they are not members of the church in
that sense in which it is the body of Christ. This passage,
. therefore, not only teaches us the nature of the church, but
| also the principle of its unity. It is one, not as united under
one external visible head, or under one governing tribunal,
nor in virtue of any external visible bond, but in vhtue ofthe
indwelling of the Holy Spirit in aU its members. And this in
ternal spiritual union manifests itself in the profession of the
same faith, and in all acts of Christian fellowship.
And have all been made to drink into one Spirit. This is
a difficult clause. To drink into is an unexampled phrase,
whether in English or Greek. The text varies. In some
MSS. it is eis eV -7rvevpa, into one Spirit, in others, ev irvevpa, one
Spirit. The latter is adopted by Lachmann and. Tischendorf.
If this be preferred, the sense is, 'We have aU drank one
Spirit.' That is, we have aU been made partakers of one
Sphit. Compare John 7, 37, and other passages, in which the
Spirit is compared to water of which men are said to drink.
The meaning of the passage according to this reading is sim
ple and pertinent. ' By the baptism of the Holy Ghost we
nave aU been united in one body and made partakers of one
Spirit.' If the common text be preferred, the most natural
interpretation would seem to be, ' We have aU been made to
drink so as to become one Spirit.' The words (ek ev -m/evpa)
unto one Spirit, would then correspond to (eh ev crwpa) unto
one body. The aUusion is supposed by Luther, Calvin and
Beza to be to the Lord's Supper. ' By baptism we become
one body, and by drinking (of the cup, i. o. by the Lord's
Supper) we become one body.' But this allusion is not only
foreign to the context, but is not indicated by the words.
How can the simple word e7.oTio-.%1ev, made to drink, in such
a connection, mean to partake of the Lord's Supper ? Besides,
as the modern commentators all remark, the tense of the verb
forbids this interpretation. It must express the same time
with the preceding verb. ' We were all baptized (ipa-_-Tlo-$r)-
pev), and we were aU made to drink (i-n-orio-3rjpev).' _ It is
somethmg done in the past, not something continued in the
present that the word expresses. If any thing is to be sup-
pUed it is not the word cup, but the Spirit, i. e. the water of

256 I. CORINTHIANS 12, 13. 14. 15. 16.
life. ' We have been made to drink (i. e. of the Sphit) so as
to become one spirit.' Another interpretation of the common
text supposes that the preposition (eis) into belongs to the
construction of the verb— to drink into being equivalent to
drink of. The sense is then the same as in the reading with
out the ek, ' We have all drank of one Spirit.' _ The doctrine
taught is clear, viz., that by receiving the Spirit we are all
made members of the body of Christ, and that it is in virtue
of the indwelling of the Spirit that the church is one.
14. Eor the body is not one member, but many.
This is a proof that diversity of gifts and members is neces
sary to the unity of the church. The church no more consists
of persons all having the same gifts, than the body is aU eye
or aU ear. As the body is not one member, but many, so the
church is not one member, but many. The word member
means a constituent part having a function of its own. It is
not merely a multipUcity of parts that is necessary to the body ;
nor a multipUcity of persons that is necessary to the church ;
but in both cases what is required is a multiplicity of members
in the sense just stated. To a certain extent what Paul says
of the diversity of gifts in individual members of the church,
may, in the existing state of things, be applied to different
denominations of Christians. No one is perfect or complete in
itself; and no one can say to the others, I have no need of you.
Each represents something that is not so weU represented in
the others. Each has its own function to exercise and work
to perform, which could not so well be accompUshed without
it. As, therefore, harmony and cooperation, sympathy and
mutual affection, are required between individual Christians
as constituent members of Christ's body, so also should they
prevaU between different denominations. It is only when the
hand undertakes to turn the foot out of the body, that the
foot is bound in self-defence and for the good ofthe whole, to
defend its rights.
15. 16. If the foot shah say, Because I am not the
hand, I am not of the body ; is it therefore not of the
body ? And if the ear shah say, Because I am not
the eye, I am not of the body ; is it therefore not of
the body ?

I. CORINTHIANS 12, 15. 16. 17. 18. 257
The first and most obvious conclusion from the view which
Paul had given ofthe nature ofthe church is the duty of con
tentment. _ It is just as unreasonable and absurd for the foot
to complain that it is not the hand, as for one member of tho
church to complain that he is not another; that is, for a
teacher to complain that he is not an apostle ; or for a dea
coness to complain that she is not a presbyter ; or for one who
had the gift of healing to complain that he had not the gift of
tongues. This, as the apostle shows, would destroy the very
idea of the church.
17. If the whole body (were) an eye, where (were)
the hearing? If the whole (were) hearing, where
(were) the smelling ?
The obvious meaning of this verse is, that the very exist
ence of the body as an organization depends on the union of
members endowed with different functions. And the apphca
tion of this idea to the church is equaUy plain. It also re
quires to its existence a diversity of gifts and offices. If aU
were apostles where would be the church ?
18. But now hath God set the members every one
of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
But now, i. e. as the matter actuaUy is. Instead of the
body being all one member, God has arranged and disposed
the parts each in its place so as to constitute one living or
ganic whole. The eye did not give itself the power of vision,
nor the ear its abUity to discriminate sounds. Each member
occupies in the body the position which God has seen fit to
assign it, and which is most conducive to the good of the
whole. It is so also in the church ; the position and the gifts
of every member are determined by the Lord. One has one
gift and another another; one is a pastor and another is
a missionary ; one labours in a city, another in the wUder-
ness, not according to their relative merits, nor in virtue of
theh own selection, but as God wflls and orders. It is there
fore as inconsistent with the idea of the church that each
member should decide on his own position and functions, aa
that the members of the body should arrange themselves ac
cording to their own notions. The nature of the church sup-

258 I. CORINTHIANS 12, 18.19.20.21.
poses, that as in the body the principle of Ufe manifests itself
under one form in the eye, and in another form in the ear, so
the Spirit of God dwelling in the church manifests himself un
der one form in one member and under a different form in
another ; and that the selection of his organs and distribution
of his gifts are according to his sovereign pleasure. We
are contending agamst him, therefore, when we contend
against the position and the office which he has assigned us in
the church. It is easy to give this principle a wider applica
tion. One is born in Europe, another in Asia ; one in Ameri
ca, another in Africa ; one is rich, another poor ; one has ten
talents, another one ; not because one is better than the other,
but simply because God has so ordained. His will, as thus
manifested, is not only sovereign but infinitely wise and be
nevolent. It is on this diversity, whether in the world, in the
church, or in the human body, that the life and the good of
the whole depend. This verse thus contains the second prac
tical inference from the nature of the church as the body of
Christ. The place and gifts of each member are determined
by the Lord.
19. 20. And if they were all one member, where
(were) the body? But now (are they) many mem
bers, yet but one body.
These verses are a repetition of the idea that diversity of
organs in the body is essential to its nature as a body, i. e. as
an organization ; and that this diversity is perfectly consistent
with unity.
21. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have
no need of thee : nor again the head to the feet, I have
no need of you*
The third inference from the doctrine taught above, is the
mutual dependence of the members of the church. As in the
body the eye cannot dispense with the hand, nor the head
with the feet, so in the church the most highly gifted are as
much dependent on those less favoured as the latter are on
the former. Every thing like pride, therefore, is as much out
of place in the church as discontent.

I. CORINTHIANS 12, 22.23.24. 259
22. 23. Nay, much more those members of the
body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary :
and those (members) of the body, which we think to
be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abun
dant honour ; and our uncomely (parts) have more
abundant comeliness.
The fourth inference from the apostle's doctrine is, that the
least attractive gifts are the most important. As in the hu
man frame the heart is more important than the tongue, so
in the church the gift of prayer is more important than elo
quence. Those who in the closet, however obscure, wrestle
with God, often do more for his glory and for the advance
ment of his kingdom than those who fill the largest space in
the pubhc eye. What would the tongue do without the
lungs, which are neither seen nor heard ? God's thoughts are
not as our thoughts. The childish Corinthians prized the gift
of tongues, which, as they used it, could edify no one, to the
gift of prophecy by which the whole body of Christ could be
instructed and comforted. And those persons and offices in
the church which are most admired or coveted, are often of
little account in the sight of God. There is another idea pre
sented in these verses. It is an instinct of nature to adorn
most the least comely portions of the body ; and it is an in
stinct of grace to honour most those members of the church
who least attract admiration. Those members of the body
which we think to be less honourable, i. e. less hkely to be
honoured ; on those we bestow the more abundant honour, i. e.
we on that account honour them the more. It is thus with a
mother. The chfld which is the least admired, she cherishes
with special affection. And it is thus with the church. The
true people of God are only the more disposed to honour those
of theh number who are undervalued or despised. In the
body, as the apostle says, our uncomely parts have (i. e. they
receive) more abundant comeliness, i. e. are speciaUy adorned.
24. Por our comely (parts) have no need : but
God hath tempered the body together, having given
more abundant honour to that (part) which lacked :
Our comely parts have no need, i. e. of being thus adorned.
The face is uncovered ; the feet are clothed and decked. The

260 I. CORINTHIANS 12, 24.25.26.27.
former needs no adorning, the latter does. God hath tem
pered the body together, i. e. he has so adjusted it and com
bined its several members, as to secure the result that more
abundant honour should be given to those which lacked. By
making the uncomely parts essential to the well-being of the
rest, and by diffusing a common life through aU the members,
he has made the body a harmonious whole.
25. 26. That there should be no schism in the
body ; but (that) the members should have the same
care one for another. And whether one member suf
fer, ah the members suffer with it ; or one member he
honoured, ah the members rejoice with it.
God has so constituted the body that there should be no
schism in it, i. e. no diversity of feeling or interest. Schism
means simply division, but when spoken of an organized
body, or of a society, it commonly includes the idea of ahena-
tion of feeUng. Such was the schism which existed among
the Corinthians, see 1, 10. 11, 18. But that the members
should have the same care one for another. That is, that one
member should have the same care for another member that
it has for itself. The body is so constituted that the eye is as
solicitous for the welfare of the foot as it is for its own weU-
being. The consequence is that if one member suffers all the
members suffer with it ; and if one member be honoured, all
the members rejoice with it. This is the law of our physical
nature. The body is reaUy one. It has a common Ufe and
consciousness. The pain or pleasure of one part is common
to the whole.
27. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members
in particular. That is, coUectively ye are the body of Christ ; individual
ly or severally, ye are members. This is the apphcation of
the preceding analogy to the case of the Corinthians. What
had been said of the body, of its unity ; of the diversity of its
members ; of their mutual dependence ; of the greater import
ance of the weaker than of the stronger members ; ofthe com
munity of feehng and interest that pervades the whole ; is aU
true in its apphcation to the church. The body of Christ is

I. CORINTHIANS 12, 27. 28. 261
reaUy one, pervaded by one and the same spirit ; it consists
of many members of different gifts and functions, each accord
ing to the wiU of the Spirit ; these members are mutually de
pendent ; the humble and obscure are more necessary to the
being and welfare of the church than those distinguished by
attractive gifts ; and the law of sympathy pervades the whole,
so that if one Christian suffers all his feUow Christians suffer
with him, and if one beUever is honoured, all beUevers rejoice
with him. It is to be observed that Paul is not speaking of
what ought to be, but of what is. He does not say that it is
the duty of one member of the human body to care for another
member, but that it does thus care. Such is the law of our na
ture. The want of this sympathy in any part with aU the rest,
would prove that it was a mere excrescence which did not par
take of the common life. The same is true with regard to the
body of Christ. It is not merely the duty of one Christian to
have sympathy with another, to suffer when he suffers, and to
rejoice when he is honoured ; but such is the nature of their
relation that it must be so. The want of this sympathy with
our feUow Christians, no matter by what name they may be
caUed, is proof that we do not belong to the body of Christ.
In this, as in aU other respects, Christians are imperfect. The
time has not yet come when every beUever shaU have the
same care for another that he has for himself, and rejoice in
his joy and grieve in his sorrow as though they were his own.
The ideal is here set before us, and blessed are those who ap
proach nearest to the standard.
28. And God hath set some in the church, first
apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after
that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, govern
ments, diversities of tongues.
In Eph. 4, 11, Paul says, "God gave some apostles, some
prophets," &c. He began here to use the same form, ' God
nath set some in the church,' but varies the construction, and
says, First, apostles. This verse is an amplification ofthe pre
ceding one. In v. 27 he said the church is analogous to the
human body. He here shows that the analogy consists in the
common hfe of the church, or the indweUing Spirit of God,
manifesting itself in a diversity of gifts and offices, just as the
common life of the body manifests itself in different organs

262 I. CORINTHIANS 12, 28.
and members. In the church some were apostles, i. e. imme
diate messengers of Christ, rendered infallible as teachers and
rulers by the gift of plenary inspiration. Secondly, prophets,
i. e. men who spoke for God as the occasional organs of the
Spirit. Thirdly, teachers, i. e. uninspired men who had re
ceived the gift of teaching. Fourthly, miracles ; here and in
what follows abstract terms are used for concrete — miracles
mean men endowed with the power of working miracles.
Fifthly, gifts of healing, i. e. persons endowed with the power
of healing diseases. Sixthly, helps, i. e. persons quaUfied and
appointed to help the other officers of the church, probably in
the care of the poor and the sick. These, according to the
common understanding from Chrysostom to the present day,
were deacons and deaconesses. Seventhly, governments, i. e.
men who had the gift and authority to rule. As this gift and
office are distinguished from those of teachers, it cannot be
understood of the presbyters or bishops who were required
" to be apt to teach." It seems to refer clearly to a class of
officers distinct from teachers, i. e. rulers, or as they are caUed
in the Reformed churches, " ruling elders," and in the ancient
church, seniores plebis. FinaUy, diversities of tongues, i. e.
persons having the gift of speaking in foreign lauguages. This
is put last probably because it was so unduly valued and so
ostentatiously displayed by the Corinthians.
On this enumeration it may be remarked, first, that it was
not intended to be exhaustive. Gifts are mentioned in vs.
8-10, and elsewhere, which have nothing to correspond to
them here. Secondly, every office necessarily supposes the
corresponding gift. No man could be an apostle without the
gift of infaUibUity ; nor a prophet without the gift of inspira
tion ; nor a healer of diseases without the gift of healing.
Man may appoint men to offices for which they have not the
necessary gifts, but God never does, any more than he ordains
the foot to see or the hand to hear. If any man, therefore,
claims to be an apostle, or prophet, or worker of miracles,
without the corresponding gift, he is a false pretender. In
the early church, as now, there were many false apostles, i. e.
those who claimed the honour and authority ofthe office with-:
out its gifts. Thirdly, the fact that any office existed in thei
apostolic church is no evidence that it was intended to be per I
manent. In that age there was a plenitude of spiritual mani
festations and endowments demanded for the organization and
propagation of the church, which is no longer required. We

I. CORINTHIANS 12, 28.29.30. 263
have no longer prophets, nor workers of miracles, nor gifts of
tongues. The only evidence that an office was intended to be
permanent is the continuance of the gift of which it was the
organ, and the command to appoint to the office those who
are found to possess the gift. The only evidence that God
intended the eye to be a permanent organ of the body, is, that
he has perpetuated the faculty of vision. Had the gift of
sight been discontinued, it would avail Uttle that men should
caU the mouth and nose eyes, and demand that they should
be recognized as such. This is precisely what Romanists and
others do, when they caU their bishops apostles, and require
men to honour and obey them as though they were. Fourthly,
the only evidence of a caU to an office, is the possession of the
requisite gifts. If a man received the gift of prophecy, he
was thereby called to be a prophet ; or ff he received the gift
of healing, he was thereby caUed to exercise that gift. So if
any man has received ministerial gifts, he has received a caU
to the ministry. What those gifts are the Bible has taught us.
They are such as these : soundness in the faith, competent
knowledge, abUity to teach, the love of Christ and zeal for his
glory, an intelhgent conviction of an obligation to preach the
gospel, and in short the quahfications which are necessary in
one who is to be an example and guide of the flock of Jesus
Christ. The office of the church in the matter is, first to ex
amine whether the candidate for the ministry really possesses
ministerial gifts ; and then, if satisfied on that point, authori
tatively to declare its judgment in the appointed way. The
Bame remarks may be made in reference to a call to the mis
sionary work or to any other department of labour in the
church of Christ. The fundamental idea is that the church is
the body of Christ, fiUed by his Spirit, and that the Spirit dis
tributes to every one severally as he wUls, the gifts which he
designs bim to exercise for the edification of the whole.
29.30. (Are) ah apostles? (are) ah prophets?
(are) ah teachers? (are) ah workers of miracles?
Have ah the gifts of healing? do ah speak with
tongues ? do ah interpret ?
As in the body aU is not eye, or aU ear, so in the church
aU have not the same gifts and offices. And as it would be
preposterous in aU the members of the body to aspire to the

264 I. CORINTHIANS 12, 29.30.31.
same office, so it is no less preposterous in the members ofthe
church that aU should covet the same gifts. It is the design
ofthe apostle to suppress, on the one hand, aU discontent and
envy, and on the other, aU pride and arrogance. God distrib
utes his gifts as he pleases ; all are necessary, and the recipi
ents of them are mutually dependent.
31. But covet earnestly the best gifts : and yet
shew I unto you a more excellent way.
All cannot have every gift, but covet earnestly the better
ones. To covet (tvkow) is earnestly to desire, with the impli
cation of corresponding effort to obtain. The extraordinary
gifts of the Spirit were bestowed according to his own good
pleasure. But so also are his saving benefits. Yet both may
be, and should be sought in the use of the appointed means.
The best gifts ; literally, the better gifts, by which is meant,
as appears from 14, 5, those which were the more useful. The
Corinthians had a very different standard of excellence ; and
coveted most the gifts which were the most attractive, although
the least useful. And yet (or, moreover) I shew you an excel
lent way. The expression is not in itself comparative, more
exceUent ; but simply a way according to excellence, i. e. an
excellent way. Whether it is excellent compared to some
thing else, or most exceUent, depends on the context. Here
no comparison is implied. The idea is not that he intends to
show them a way that is better than seeking gifts, but a way
par excellence to obtain those gifts. The other view is indeed
adopted by Calvin and others, but it supposes the preceding
imperative (covet ye) to be merely concessive, and is contrary
to 14, 1, where the command to seek the more useful gifts is
repeated. The sense is, ' Seek the better gifts, and moreover
I show you an exceUent way to do it.'

CHAPTER XIII.
Christian Love. Vs. 1-13.
Love is superior to aU extraordinary gifts. It is better than
the gift of tongues, v. 1 ; than the gifts of prophecy and know
ledge, v. 2 ; and than the gift of miracles, v. 2. AU outward

I. CORINTHIANS 13. 265
works of charity without it are worthless, v. 3. Love has this
superiority, first, because of its inherent exceUence ; and sec
ondly, because of its perpetuity. As to its superior excellence,
it imphes or secures all other exceUence. 1. It includes ali
the forms of kindness. 2. It is humble and modest. 3. It is
unselfish. 4. It sympathizes with all good, vs. 4-7. It is per
petual — aU the extraordinary gifts mentioned in the preceding
chapter were designed for the present state of existence, or
were temporary. Love is never to cease, v. 8. Knowledge,
as a special gift, and perhaps also in the form in wliich it ex
ists in this world, is to pass away. It is now the apprehension
of truth as through a mirror — hereafter it wUl be lost in im
mediate vision, vs. 9-12. The permanent graces are faith,
hope, and love, and the greatest of these is Love, v. 13.
This chapter, although devoted to a single Christian grace,
and therefore not to be compared with the eighth chapter of
Romans, or with some chapters -in the epistle to the Ephesians,
as an unfolding of the mysteries of redemption, stUl has ever
been considered as one of the jewels of Scripture. For moral
elevation, for richness and comprehensiveness, for beauty and
felicity of expression, it has been the admiration of the church
in aU ages. — With regard to the word charity, as the transla
tion of the Greek dydiri), it has already been remarked in the
comment on 8, 1, that it is peculiarly unhappy. Neither in
its primary signification, nor in the sense which usage has at
tached to it, does it properly answer to the Greek term. The
latter occurs about one hundred and sixteen times in the New
'Testament, and is translated love in aU places except twenty-
three ; and in those the departure from the common usage is
altogether arbitrary. The word charity is just as inappropri
ate in this chapter as it would be in such phrases as, " the Son
of his charity," or, " the charity of God is shed abroad in our
hearts," or, " the charity of Christ." The Greek word dyd-rrq
is not of heathen origin. The heathen had no conception of
the grace which in the Scriptures is expressed by that term ;
neither epus nor <f>ikia answers to the Scriptural sense of dyd-irq ;
nor do the Latin words amor or caritas. It was the unsuita-
bleness of the former that induced Jerome to adopt the latter
as the -more elevated of the two. The one properly expresses
love founded on sympathy; the latter came to mean love
founded on respect. Its English derivative (charity) retains
more ofthe original force of the Latin word. Caritas (from
carus, a carendo, dear, i. e. costly) is properly dearness or
12

266 I. CORINTHIANS 13, 1.
costliness; and then it came to express the feeling arising
from the sight of want and suffering. And this is the com
mon meaning stiU attached to the English word, which ren
ders it unsuitable as the substitute of the comprehensive word
love. Many have been led to think that almsgiving covers a
multitude of sins, because charity is said to have that effect ;
and that kindness to the poor and the sick is the sum of aU
rehgion, because Paul exalts charity above faith and hope. It
is not of charity, but of love, of which the Bible thus speaks.
Superiority of Love to all other gifts.
1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of
angels, and have not charity, I am become (as) sound
ing brass, or a tinkhng cymbal.
The gift of tongues, on which the Corinthians so much
valued themselves, is mentioned first, because it was the prom
inent subject in this whole discussion. The tongues of men
are the languages which men speak. As this is the obvious
meaning of the expression, it serves to prove that the gift
of tongues was the gift of speaking foreign languages. The
tongues of angels are the languages which angels use. A
mode of expression equivalent to 'aU languages human or
divine.' Paul means to say, that the gift of tongues in its
highest conceivable extent without love is nothing. Without
love I am become, i. e. the mere want of love has reduced me,
notwithstanding the gift in question, to a level with sounding
brass ; not a musical instrument made of brass, which has
some dignity about it, but to a piece of clattering brass which
makes a senseless noise ; or, at least, to a tinkling cymbal, the
lowest and least expressive of all musical instruments. Tink
ling (aXc_kd_\ov), properly clanging, expressive of the loud
shrill noise made by the cymbal. These instruments were of
two kinds, one smaU, worn on the thumb and middle finger,
answering, it is thought, to the modern castanets ; the other
large, broad plates, like our common cymbals. Joseph. Ant.
7. 12. 3. Both kinds are perhaps referred to in Ps. 150, 5,
where the Septuagint distinguishes them as the sweet-toned
and the loud. The latter is the kind here specified. The
illustration was probably adopted from the shrill, discordant
noise made by the speakers with their tongues, each endeav
ouring to drown the voice of all the others, as seems from

I. CORINTHIANS 13, 1.2. 267
what follows to have been the case with the Corinthians. Paul
says, 14, 23, the meetings for worship in Corinth, if aU spoke
with tongues, would be so confused as to make strangers think
they were mad.
2. And though I have (the gift of) prophecy, and
understand ah mysteries, and ah knowledge; and
though I have ah faith, so that I could remove moun
tains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
There are three gifts here referred to, prophecy, "the
word of knowledge," and miracles. ' Though I have the gift
of prophecy, so as to understand aU mysteries, and (though I
have) aU knowledge, and aU faith,' &c. As the particle idv,
though, by which the distinction of gifts is indicated in the
context, is here omitted, the first two clauses are commonly
combined. ' Though I have the gift of prophecy, so as to un
derstand aU mysteries, and so as to p>ossess all knowledge.'
There are two objections to this. The passage UteraUy reads,
' that I may know aU mysteries and aU knowledge ; ' so that
the words mysteries and knowledge grammatically depend on
(eiSoi), I may know. But this would make Paul use an unex
ampled phrase, ' to know knowledge.' Something, therefore,
must be supplied, and it is as natural to borrow from the con
text the words, though I have, as simply, that I may have.
And secondly, Paul distinguishes between prophecy and know
ledge as distinct gifts, v. 8 and 12, 8-10. The understanding
or apprehension of mysteries, and not the possession of know
ledge, in its distinctive sense, was the result of the gift of
prophecy. Mysteries are secrets, things undiscoverable by
human reason, which divine revelation alone can make known.
And the gift of prophecy was the gift of revelation by which
such mysteries were communicated ; see 14, 30. All myste
ries, therefore, here means, all the secret purposes of God
relating to redemption. This limitation is required by the
context. Paul intends to say, that though he was the recipi
ent of all the revelations which God ever designed to make
concerning the plan of salvation and the kingdom of Christ,
without love he would be nothing.
And all knowledge, i. e. and though I have all knowledge.
By knowledge is meant the inteUectual apprehension or cogni
tion of revealed truth. It was the prerogative of the prophet

268 I. CORINTHIANS 13, 2.3.
to reveal, of the teacher to know and to instruct. Compare
14, 6, where Paul connects revelation with prophecy, and
knowledge with doctrine or teaching. And all faith, i. e. aU
degrees ofthe faith of miracles, so that the greatest wonders,
such as removing mountains, could be thereby accomplished.
Compare our Lord's language in Matt. 21, 21. I am nothing,
i. e. worthless. Neither intellectual gifts nor attainments, nor
power, without love, are of any real value. They do not elevate
the character or render it worthy of respect or confidence.
Satan may have, and doubtless has, more of inteUigence and
power than any man ever possessed, and yet he is Satan stfll.
Those, therefore, who seek to exalt men by the mere cultiva
tion of the intellect, are striving to make satans of them.
3. And though I bestow ah my goods to feed (the
poor), and though I give my body to be burned, and
have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Paul here advances one step further. AU outward acts of
beneficence are of no avaU without love. A man may give
away his whole estate, or sacrifice himself, and be in no sense
the gainer. He may do all this from vanity, or from the fear
of perdition, or to purchase heaven, and only increase his con
demnation. Rehgion is no such easy thing. Men would
gladly compound by external acts of beneficence, or by pen
ances, for a change of heart ; but the thing is impossible.
Thousands indeed are deluded on this point, and think that
they can substitute what is outward for what is inward, but
God. requires the heart, and without hohness the most hberal
giver or the most suffering ascetic can never see God. The
original word (\f/_.p,lt,_>) here used, hterally means, to feed by
morsels. It is generally foUowed by two accusatives, to feed
a person with something. Here the accusative of the person
is omitted, so that the passage stands, ' Though I feed out my
property,' i. e. distribute it in food. And though I give my
body to be burned, i. e. though I make the most painful sacri
fice of myself. A man may not only give his property but his
life, and be nothing the better. It is not probable that the
apostle refers to martyrdom, or that the idea is, that a man
may, from wrong motives, submit to be a martyr. The con
text requires that the reference should be to a sacrifice made
for the good of others. Some suppose that the reference is to
the branding of slaves to indicate their ownership. The

I. CORINTHIANS 13, 3.4. 269
meaning would then be, ' Though I not only give away aU my
goods, but should sell myself as a slave for the sake of tho
poor, it would profit mo nothing.' Had Paul intended to say
this, he would probably have used the appropriate term for
branding. We do not express the idea that an animal was
branded, by saying it was burnt. There is no necessity for
departing from the simple sense of the words. ' Though I
give my body to be burnt for others, i. e. though I should die
for them, without love it profiteth me nothing.'
4. Charity suffereth long, (and) is kind ; charity en-
vieth not ; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Almost aU the instructions of the New Testament are sug
gested by some occasion, and are adapted to it. We have
not in this chapter a methodical dissertation on Christian love,
but an exhibition of that grace as contrasted with extraordi
nary gifts which the Corinthians inordinately valued. Those
traits of love are therefore adduced which stood opposed to
the temper which they exhibited in the use of their gifts.
They were impatient, discontented, envious, inflated, selfish,
indecorous, unmindful of the feelings or interests of others,
suspicious, resentful, censorious. The apostle personifies love,
and places her before them and enumerates her graces, not in
logical order, but as they occurred to him in contrast to the
deformities of character which they exhibited.
Love suffereth long, i. e. is long-minded, or slow to_ be
roused to resentment. It patiently bears with provocation,
and is not quick to assert its rights or resent an injury. It is
kind, i. e. is inclined to perform good offices ; is good-natured.
The root ofthe verb (xp^otos, from xpaofiat) means useful, and
hence its primary sense is, disposed to be useful. The excel
lence here indicated is the positive side of that already men
tioned. Love is not quick to resent evil, but is disposed to do
good. It envieth not. The word (frkou) here used may ex
press any wrong feeling excited in view ofthe good of others ;
not only envy, but hatred, emulation, and the like. It vaunt
eth not itself (Trepnepe^era.), this includes aU forms ofthe desire
to gain the applause of others. Love does not seek to win
admiration and applause. Is not puffed up, i.e. conceited.
This is the root of the preceding. The man who has a high
conceit of himself is apt to be boastful and desirous of praise.
Love, on the other hand, is modest and humble ; modest be
cause humble.

270 I. CORINTHIANS 13, 5.6.7.
5. Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not
her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil ;
Doth not behave itself unseemly, i. e. does nothing of
which one ought to be ashamed. Its whole deportment is
decorous and becoming. Seeketh not her awn ; is disinterested,
10, 33. Is not easily provoked, i. e. is not quick tempered;
or, does not suffer itself to be roused to resentment. And,
therefore, it thinketh no evil, or rather, it does not think evil.
This may mean, 1. It does not plan or devise evU. But the
expression is (to kcikoV) the evil, and not (Kam) evil. Comp.
Matt. 9, 4. 2. It does not impute evil, i. e. attribute evil mo
tives to others, or is not suspicious. The sense is good in
itself, but not so suitable to the connection as, 3. It does not
lay the evil which it suffers to the charge of the wrong-doer.
Instead of being resentful, it is forgiving.
6. Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the
truth ;
The general sentiment of this verse is, that love does not
sympathize with evil, but with good. It rejoiceth not in
iniquity, i. e. in any thing which is not conformed to the
standard of right. The word is usuaUy translated unright
eousness ; but this is not to be limited to injustice, but in
cludes all forms of moral evU. Truth is often used antitheti
cally in Scripture to unrighteousness, as it is here. Rom.
1, 8. comp. John 3, 21. 1 John 1, 6, and other passages, in
which men are said to do the truth. Hence it is commonly
interpreted in such cases as meaning righteousness. ' Love
does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but it rejoices together
with (avyxaipei) righteousness,' i. e. sympathizes with it, and
has a common j oy with it. As, however, the word so commonly
hi Paul's epistles stands for religious truth as revealed in the
gospel, perhaps the majority of commentators so understand
it here. 'Love rejoices together with the truth.' This, how ¦
ever, not only destroys the antithesis, but introduces a disturb
ing element into the description ; for it is of love as a vhtue
of which Paul is speaking. Its sympathy with the gospel,
therefore, does not seem to be appropriate in this connection.
7. Beareth all things, believeth ah things, hopeth
ah things, endureth ah things.

I. CORINTHIANS 13, 7. 8. 271
Beareth all things. This may either mean, bears in silence
all annoyances and troubles, or covers up all things (as o-Teyw
may have either meaning), in the sense of concealing or ex
cusing the faults of others, instead of gladly disclosing them.
The latter interpretation harmonizes better with what foUows,
but it is contrary to Paul's usage as to this word. See 9, 12.
1 Thess. 3, 1. 5. With him the word always means to bear
patiently. Further, love believes all things, is not suspicious,
but readUy credits what men say in their own defence. Hopeth
all things, i. e. hopes for the best with regard to all men. It
would be contrary to the context to understand the faith and
hope here spoken of as referring to the truths and promises
of the gospel. Endureth all things. The word (viropeva) is
properly a mihtary word, and means to sustain the assault of
an enemy. Hence it is used in the New Testament to express
the idea of sustaining the assaults of suffering or persecution,
in the sense of bearing up under them, and enduring them pa
tiently. 2 Tim. 2, 10. Heb. 10, 32. 12, 2. This clause, there
fore, differs from that at the beginning of the verse ; as that
had reference to annoyances and troubles, this to suffering
and persecutions.8. Charity never faileth : but whether (there be)
prophecies, they shah fail ; whether (there be) tongues,
they shall cease ; whether (there be) knowledge, it shall
vanish away.
Love never fails, i. e. it endures for ever. It is not designed
and adapted, as are the gifts under consideration, merely to
the present state of existence, but to our future and immortal
state of being. Wliether there be prophecies, or be it prophe
cies, they shall fail, i. e. be done away with. The gift shall
cease to be necessary, and therefore shaU not be continued.
Be it tongues, &c, i. e. the gift of tongues shall cease. Be it
knowledge, it shall vanish away, i. e. cease to exist. It is the
same word as that used above in reference to prophecies. It
is not knowledge in the comprehensive sense of the term that
is to cease, but knowledge as a gift ; as one of the hst of ex
traordinary endowments mentioned above, 12, 8-11. Know
ledge considered as the inteUectual apprehension of truth, is,
as the apostle immediately states, hereafter to bo rendered
perfect. But the koyo. yviio-ews, the word of knowledge, 12, 8,

272 I. CORINTHIANS 13, 8.9.10.11.
l. e. knowledge in that form in which it was the foundation of
the office of teacher, is to be done away with. Whether this
means that hereafter there will be no need of the office of
teacher, and therefore that the gift which qualified for that
office shall cease ; or whether Paul means to say that the im
mediate vision of truth is to be hereafter so different from our
present discursive, obscure, and imperfect mode of cognition,
that it deserves to be called by a different name, may be mat
ter of doubt. Both are probably true. There will be no ig
norance in heaven to be removed through the intervention of
human instructors ; and there will probably be as great a dif
ference between knowledge hereafter and what we caU know
ledge here, as there is between hearing of an object and seeing
it. We may hear a description of a person or place and have
thereby a certain form of knowledge of him or it ; but that
form passes away, or is merged in a higher, as soon as we see
what we had before only heard about.
9. 10. Por we know in part, and we prophesy in
part. But when that which is perfect is come, then
that which is in part shah be done away.
This is the reason why knowledge and prophecy are to
cease. They are partial or imperfect, and therefore suited
only to an imperfect state of existence. The revelations grant
ed to the prophets imparted mere glimpses of the mysteries
of God ; when those mysteries stand disclosed in the full Ught
of heaven, what need then of those glimpses? A skUfifl
teacher may by diagrams and models give us some knowledge
ofthe mechanism ofthe universe ; but if the eye be strength
ened to take in the whole at a glance, what need then of a
planetarium or of a teacher ? The apostle employs two illus
trations to teach us the difference between the present and
the future. The one is derived from the difference between
childhood and maturity; the other from the difference be
tween seeing a thing by imperfect reflection, or through an
obscure medium, and seeing it directly.
11. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I un
derstood as a child, I thought as a child : but when I
became a man, I put away childish things.
When I was a child; not an infant, but as opposed to one

I. CORINTHIANS 13, 11.12. 273
of mature age, a child. I spake as a child. This does not
refer to the gift of tongues as something chUdish, but simply
to the mode of speaking characteristic of chUdren. I under
stood as a child, rather, I felt and acted as a chUd ; otherwise
too httle distinction is made between this and the next clause.
I thought as a child. My language, feelings and thoughts
were ah chfldish. The words (<f>pove_> and koyitppai), however,
are so comprehensive that the two clauses may be rendered,
' I had the opinions of a chUd and I reasoned as a chUd.' The
former word, however, is so often used to express feeling,
Matt. 16, 23. Rom. 8, 5. PhU. 3, 19. Col. 3, 2, that the first
mentioned mterpretation is to be preferred. When I became
a man, or having become a man, I have put away childish
things, i. e. my former chUdish mode of speaking, feeling and
thinking. The feehngs and thoughts of a chUd are true and
just, in so far as they are the natural impression ofthe objects
to which they relate. They are neither irrational nor false, but
inadequate. The impression which the sight of the heavens
makes on the mind of the chUd, is for the chUd a just and true
impression. The conception which it forms of what it sees is
correct in one aspect of the great object contemplated. Yet
that impression is very different from that which is made on
the mind of the astronomer. In hke manner our views of
divine things wUl hereafter be very different from those which
we now have. But it does not thence follow that our present
views are false. They are just as far as they go, they are only
inadequate. It is no part of the apostle's object to unsettle
our confidence in what God now communicates by his word
and Spirit to his chUdren, but simply to prevent our being
satisfied with the partial and imperfect.
12. Por now we see through a glass, darkly ; but
then face to face : now I know in part ; but then shah
I know even as also I am known.
This is a confirmation of what precedes. Our present
knowledge is imperfect, for we now see through a glass.
These words admit of three interpretations. 1. The preposi
tion (Sui) may have its ordinary instrumental sense, we see by
means of a glass; or, 2. It may have its local sense through.
Then assuming glass (io-oirrpov) to mean a window, the mean
ing is we see as through a window; and as the wmdows
were 'commonly made of mica, and therefore imperfectly
12*

274 I. CORINTHIANS 13, 12. 13.
transparent, to see through a window was to see dimly. As
the word, however, properly means a mirror, James 1, 23,
the best interpretation probably is, 3. We see as through a
mirror ; the optical impression is that the object is behind the
mirror, and the spectator seems to look through it. The
ancient mirrors were of imperfectly polished metal, and the
reflection which they gave was very obscure. Darkly, hteral
ly, in an enigma. This may be taken adverbially, as by our
translators, we see enigmatically, i. e. obscurely ; or the idea
may be that we see divine things as it were wrapped up in
enigmas. We do not see the things themselves, but those
things as set forth in symbols and words which imperfectly
express them. The reference seems to be to Num. 12, 8.
Of an ordinary prophet God said, " I wfll make myself known
unto him in a vision, and speak to him in a dream ; " but of
Moses he says, " With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even
apparently, and not in dark sayings," i. e. in enigmas. (The
Septuagint version is 8C alviyp-drmv). The clearest revelation
of the things of God in words is as an enigma, when compared
to sight. Every thing is comparative. The revelations made
to Moses were clear in comparison to the communications
made to others by visions and dreams. Paul says the writings
of Moses were enigmas compared to the revelations contained
in the gospel, 2 Cor. 3, 12. 13. And the gospel itself is ob
scure compared to the lucid medium through which we shall
see hereafter. But then face to face, i. e. no longer through
a mirror, but immediately. Comp. Gen. 32, 31. Num. 12, 8.
The word of God is a mirror wherein even how we behold the
glory of the Lord (2 Cor. 3, 18), but what is that to seeing
him face to face !
Now I kneno in part (imperfectly), but then shall I know
even as I am known, i. e. perfectly. As we are required to
be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect, Matt. 5, 48, so
we may be said to know even as we are known. We may be
perfect in our narrow sphere, as God is perfect in his ; and yet
the distance between him and us remain infinite. What Paul
wishes to impress upon the Corinthians is, that the gifts in
which they so much prided themselves, were small matters
compared to what is in reserve for the people of God.
13. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these
three ; but the greatest of these (is) charity.

I. CORINTHIANS 13, 13. 275
The words and now may either indicate time, now, during
the present state ; or they may be inferential, now, i. e. since
things^ are so, rebus sic stantibus. In the latter case, the
sense is, ' Since these extraordinary gifts are to pass away,
faith, hope, and love abide.' The former are temporary, the
latter are permanent. The only objection to this interpreta
tion arises from the apostle's speaking of faith and hope abid
ing in a future state, whereas elsewhere, Rom. 8, 24. 2 Cor. 5,
7, and Heb. 11, 1, faith and hope seem to be represented as
pertaining only to our present state of existence, and as being
hereafter merged, the one in sight, and the other in fruition.
This apparent inconsistency arises from the comprehensiveness
of the terms. The state of mind indicated by faith and hope
as now exercised, wUl not continue in the future life ; but the
state of mind, so to speak, of the saints in heaven, may be de
signated by these same terms, because confidence and expecta
tion will continue for ever. Faith in one form, ceases when
merged in sight ; but in another form it continues ; and the
same is true of hope. Or perhaps the same idea may be more
correctly expressed by saying that some exercises of faith and
hope are peculiar to the present state, while others wiU never
cease. Certain it is that there will always be room even in
heaven for confidence in God, and for hope of the ever ad
vancing and enlarging blessedness of the redeemed.
If, however, (wvl Se), but noio, be taken, as is commonly
done, as relating to time, the meaning is, ' Now, i. e. so long
as we continue in this world, there ' remain faith, hope and
love.' These are the three great permanent Christian graces,
as opposed to the mere temporary gifts of prophecy, miracles,
and tongues. But this does not seem to be consistent with
what precedes. The contrast is not between the more or less
permanent gifts pertaining to our present state ; but between
what belongs exclusively to the present, and what is to con
tinue for ever. In v. 8 it is said of love, as a ground or reason
of its pre-eminence, that it never fails ; and here the same
idea is expressed by saying, it abides. ' To abide,' therefore,
must mean, that it continues for ever. The same permanence
is attributed to faith, hope, and love. They are all contrasted
with the temporary gifts, and they are all said to abide. The
one is to continue as long as the others. The former mterpre
tation is, therefore, to be preferred. _
The greatest of these is love. In what souse is love greater
than faith ? Some say, because it includes, or is the root of

276 I. CORINTHIANS 13, 13.
faith and hope. It is said that we beheve those whom we
love, and hope for what we deUght in. According to Scrip
ture, however, the reverse is true. Faith is the root of love.
It is the beheving apprehension of the glory of God in the
face of Jesus Christ, that calls forth love to him. Others say,
the ground of superiority is in their effects. But we are said
to be sanctified, to be made the children of God, to overcome
the world, to be saved, by faith. Christ dwells in our hearts
by faith ; he that believes hath eternal life, i. e. faith as inclu
ding knowledge, is eternal life. There are no higher effects
than these so far as we are concerned. Others say that love
is superior to faith and hope, because the latter belong to the
present state only, and love is to continue for ever. But, ac
cording to the true interpretation ofthe verse, aU these graces
are declared to abide. The true explanation is to be found in
the use which Paul makes of this word greater, or the equiva
lent term better. In 12, 31, he exhorts his readers to seek
the better gifts, i. e. the more useful ones. And in 14, 5, he
says, ' Greater is he that prophesies, than he that speaks with
tongues ; ' i. e. he is more useful. Throughout that chapter
the ground of preference of one gift to others is made to con
sist in its superior usefulness. This is Paul's standard ; and
judged by this rule, love is greater than either faith or hope.
Faith saves ourselves, but love benefits others.

CHAPTER XIV.
Superiority of the gift of prophecy to that of tongues, vs. 1-25. Special
directions for the conduct of public worship, vs. 26-40.
Superiority ofthe gift of prophecy to that of tongues. Vs. 1-25.
The superiority of the gift of prophecy to that of tongues is
founded, 1. On the consideration that he who speaks with
tongues speaks to God, whereas, he who prophesies, speaks to
men, vs. 2. 3. 2. That he who speaks with tongues edifies
only himself, whereas, he who prophesies edifies the church,
vs. 4. 5. That this must be so, is proved, 1. By an appeal to

I. CORINTHIANS 14. 277
their own judgment and experience. If Paul came to them
speaking in a way which they could not understand, what
good could it do them ? But if, as a prophet, he brought
them a revelation from God, or as a teacher, set before them
a doctrine, they would be edified, v. 6. 2. From the analogy
of musical instruments. It is only when the sounds are un
derstood, that they produce the desired effect. If a man docs
not know that a given note of the trumpet is a signal for bat
tle, he wfll not prepare himself for the conflict, vs. 7-9.
3. From their experience in intercourse with strangers. If
a man conies to me speakmg a language which I cannot un
derstand, no matter how pohshed or significant that language
may be, he is a barbarian to me, and I to him, vs. 10. 11. In
their zeal, therefore, for sphitual gifts, they should have re
gard to the edification of the church, v. 12. Hence, he who
had the gift of tongues should pray for the gift of interpreta
tion ; as without the latter gift, however devotional he might
be, his prayers could not profit others, vs. 13. 14. It was not
enough that the prayers and praises should be spiritual, they
must be intelligible ; otherwise those who were unlearned could
not join in them, vs. 15-17. For himself, the apostle says, al
though more richly endowed with the gift of tongues than any
of his readers, he would rather speak five words so as to be
understood, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue,
vs. 18. 19. It was mere childishness in the Corinthians to be
so dehghted with a gift which they could not turn to any
practical account, v. 20. They should learn wisdom from the
experience of the Hebrews. It was as a judgment that God
sent among them teachers whom they could not understand.
So long as they were obedient, or there was hope of bringing
them to repentance, he sent them prophets speaking their own
language, vs. 21. 22. Their experience would not be dissimi
lar. If they came together, each speaking in an unknown
tongue, the effect would be only evU. But if, when they as
sembled, aU the speakers spoke so as to be understood, and
under the influence of the Spirit, then men would be con
vinced and converted, and God glorified, vs. 23-25.
In the comment on 12, 10, reasons have already been pre
sented for adhering to the common view, that the gift of
tongues of which the apostle here speaks, was the gift miracu
lously conferred, of speaking in foreign languages. Every
one must feel, however, the truth of the remark of Chrysos
tom in his commentary on this chapter : " This whole pas-

278 I. CORINTHIANS 14, 1.
sage is very obscure ; but the obscurity arises from our igno
rance of the facts described, which, though familiar to those
to whom the apostle wrote, have ceased to occur." That this
gift should be specially connected with prophesying, as in
Acts 19, 6, "they spake with tongues and prophesied," and
elsewhere, is to be explained from the fact that aU speaking
under divine, supernatural influence, was included under the
head of prophesying ; and as all who spake with tongues
" spake as the Spirit gave them utterance," in the wide sense
of the word they aU prophesied. But it is not so easy to
understand why this gift should have been so common, nor
why it should so often attend on conversion ; see Acts 10, 46.
19, 6. There are many things also in this chapter which it is
not easy to understand on any theory of the nature of the
gift. Under these circumstances it is necessary to hold fast
what is clear, and to make the certain our guide in explaining
what is obscure. It is clear, 1 . That the word tongues in this
connection, as already proved, means languages. 2. That the
speaker with tongues was in a state of calm self-control. He
could speak, or be sUent, 14, 28. 3. That what he said was
intelligible to himself, and could be interpreted to others.
4. That the uninteUigibleness of what was said, arose not from
the sounds uttered being inarticulate, but from the ignorance
of the hearer. The interpretation of particular passages must,
therefore, be controUed by these facts.
1. Follow after charity, and desire spiritual (gifts),
but rather that ye may prophesy.
In the preceding chapters Paul had taught, 1. That all the
extraordinary gifts ofthe Spirit were proper objects of desire.
2. That they were of different relative importance. 3. That
love was of greater value than any gift. In accordance with
these principles, the apostle exhorts his readers to follow after
love ; i. e. to press forward towards it, as men do towards the
goal in a race, Phil. 3, 12. 14. Pursue it earnestly as the great
est good. But at the same time, desire spiritual gifts. Be
cause love is more important than miraculous gifts, it does not
follow that the latter were not to be sought. The same word
is used here as in 12, 31. But rather that ye may prophesy.
The two gifts specially in the apostle's mind were the gift of
speaking with tongues, and that of prophecy, i. e. the gift of
speaking as the organ ofthe Spirit in a manner adapted to in-

I. CORINTHIANS 14, 1.2. 279
struct and edify the hearer. Of these two gifts, he says, tho
latter is to be preferred. The reason for this preference is
given in what follows.
2. Por he that speaketh in an (unknown) tongue
speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man
understandeth (him) ; howbeit in the spirit he speak
eth mysteries.
What is here taught is, Fhst, that he who speaks with
tongues speaks not to men, but to God. Second, that this
means that men do not understand him. Thirdly, that the rea
son of his not being understood is in the medium of communi
cation, not in the things communicated. Speaketh not unto
men, but unto God ; or, speaks not for men, but for God.
Sibi canit et musis, according to the Latin proverb. Caivest.
His communion is with God, and not with man. For no man
understandeth hhn. Literally, no man hears, i. e. hears any
articulate sounds. He hears the sound, but does not distin
guish the words. This, however, does not imply that the
sounds uttered were in themselves unintelligible, so that no
man living (unless inspired) could understand them. When
the apostles spake with tongues on the day of Pentecost, what
they said was understood. The meaning is, not that no man
living, but that no man present, could understand. It is not
the use of the gift of tongues that he censures, but the use of
that gift when no one was present who understood the lan
guage employed. Howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
Spirit does not mean the man's own spirit as distinguished
from his understanding. The Scriptures do not distinguish
between the voi)s and -nveipa as distinct faculties of the human
intelUgence. The latter is not the higher spiritual powers of
our nature, but the Holy Spirit ; comp. 2, 14. In favour of this
interpretation is, 1. The prevailing use ofthe word spirit m
reference to the Holy Ghost in all Paul's epistles, and especially
in this whole connection. 2. That the expression to spoak in
or by the Spirit, is an estabhshed Scriptural phrase, meaning
to speak under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 3. When
spirit is to be distinguished from the understanding, it desig
nates the affections ; a sense which would not at aU suit this
passao-e. 4. The meaning arrived at by this mterpretation is
natural, and suitable to the connection. ' Although he who

280 I. CORINTHIANS 14, 2.3.4.
speaks with tongues is not understood, yet, guided by the
Spirit, he speaks mysteries. Mysteries mean divine truths;
things which God has revealed. In Acts 2, 11, they are
called " the wonderful things (ra p.eyak_ta) of God." To make
the word mean, things not understood by the hearer, is con
trary to the usage of the word. A secret disclosed, is no
longer a secret ; and a mystery revealed ceases to be a mys
tery, for a mystery is something hidden. Besides, Paul would
then say, ' No man understands him, yet he speaks what is not
understood.' * The meaning obviously is, that although not
understood, yet what he utters contains divine truth. The
difficulty was in the language used, not in the absence of
meaning, or in the fact that inarticulate sounds were em
ployed. This verse, therefore, contains nothing inconsistent
with the commonly received view of the nature of the gift in
question. ' He who speaks with tongues, speaks to God and
not to men, for no one (in the case supposed) understands
him, although what he says is replete with the highest mean
ing.' The implication is that these tongues were foreign to
the hearers ; and therefore it is said, ' no man understands
him,' 3. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men (to)
edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
The prophet spoke in the native language of his hearers ;
the speaker with tongues in a foreign language. This made
the difference between the cases. The one was understood
and the other was not. The prophet spoke with a view to
edification. This is a general term including the sense of the
two foUowing. He edified the church either by exhortation
or comfort ; either by arousing believers to do or suffer, or by
pouring into their hearts the consolations of the Spirit.
4. lie that speaketh in an (unknown) tongue edi-
fieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifreth the
church. * Cai/vijj says, Mgsteria et res occultas, ideoque nullius utilitatis. Myste-
ria hie Chrysostomus accepit honorifice, pro eximiis Dei revelationibus : ego
vero in malam partem pro aenigmatibus ohscuris et involutis, quasi diceret,
loquitur quod nemo percipiat. Calvin's view of the gift of tongues seems to
have been very little higher than that of some of the moderns.

I. CORINTHIANS 14, 4.5. 281
This follows from what had been said. The speaker with
tongues did not edify the church, because he was not under
stood ; he did edify himself, because he understood himself.
This verse, therefore, proves that the understanding was not
in abeyance, and that the speaker was not in an ecstatic state.
5. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but
rather that ye prophesied : for greater (is) he that pro
phesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he
interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
I would that ye all spake with tongues. It was not to be
inferred from what he had said, that the apostle undervalued
this gift. He admitted its importance as one of the manifesta
tions of the Spirit, and he subsequently, v. 18, gives thanks
that he himself possessed it in rich measure. From this it is
evident that it was something of a higher nature than modern
theories would represent it. But rather that ye prophesied,
(SeXw iva). I would that. The same particle often foUows
verbs of wishing, praying, exhorting, &c. For greater is he
that prophesieth, &c, i. e. he is more useful than the speaker
with tongues, unless the latter interpret. " Nam si accedat
interpretatio, jam erit prophetia." Calvin. Speaking under
the supernatural influence of the Spirit was common to both
gifts ; the only difference was in the language used. If the
speaker interpreted, then he prophesied. Tliat the church
may receive edification. This proves that the contents of
these discourses, dehvered in an unknown tongue, were edi
fying ; and therefore did not consist in mysteries in the bad
sense of that term ; i. e. in enigmas and dark sayings. This
passage also proves that the gift of interpretation, although
distinct from that of tongues, might be, and doubtless often
was, possessed by the same person, and consequently, that he
understood what he said. The absence of the gift of interpre
tation does not prove that the speaker himself in such cases
was ignorant of what he uttered. It only proves that he was
not inspired to communicate in another language what he had
dehvered Had he done so, it would have been on his own
authority, and not as an organ ofthe Spirit. It is conceivable
that a man might speak connectedly in a foreign language
under the inspiration ofthe Spirit, so as to be perfectly under
stood by those acquainted with the language, though he him-

282 I. CORINTHIANS 14, 5.6.7.
self did not understand a word of what he uttered. But this
hypothesis, though it would suit some passages in this chap
ter, is inconsistent with others, and therefore cannot be
adopted. 6. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking
with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall
speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or
by prophesying, or by doctrine ?
Now (vwl Se'), since things are so, i. e. since speaking with
tongues without interpreting is unedifying, what shall I profit
you, asks the apostle, if I should come to you speaking in a
language which you do not understand ? He then varies the
question, ' What shall I profit you unless I speak to you as a
prophet, by (or rather with, kv) a revelation, or as a teacher,
with a doctrine.' There are not four, but only two modes of
address contemplated in this verse. Revelation and prophecy
belong to one; and knowledge and doctrine to the other.
He who received revelations was a prophet, he who had " the
word of knowledge " was a teacher.

7. And even things without life giving sound,
whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in
the sounds, how shah it be known what is piped or
harped ?
This verse in Greek begins with the word opos, yet, which
is variously explained. The most natural interpretation is to
assume that the word here, as in Gal. 3, 15, is out of its logi
cal place, and that the sentence should read thus : ' Things
without life giving sound, yet, unless they give a distinction
of sound, how shall it be known," &o. The obvious design of
the iUustration is to show the uselessness of making sounds
which are not understood. But what is the point of the
analogy ? According to some it is this, as musical instruments
emit a mere jargon of sounds, unless the regular intervals be
observed, so the speakers with tongues utter a mere jargon.
The sounds which they utter are not articulate words, but a

I. CORINTHIANS 14, 7. 8. 9, 283
confused noise.* From this it is mferred that the speakino-
with tongues was not the gift of speaking foreign languages.
This would make Paul wish (v. 5) that aU the Corinthfans
would utter unmeaning sounds, and give thanks that ho pro
duced more such jargon than any of them ! It is plain from
what foUows, as weU as from the drift of the whole discourse,
that the simple point of the analogy is, that as we cannot
know what is piped or harped, or be benefited by it, unless
we can discriminate the sounds emitted; so we cannot be
benefited by hstening to one who speaks a language which
we do not understand. It is not the nature of the gift, but
the folly of the use made of it, which is the point which the
apostle has in view.
8. For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who
shall prepare himself to the battle ?
This is a confirmation of the last clause of the preceding
verse. The sound emitted does not produce its proper effect
if it be unintelligible or uncertain. This teaches us the point
of the whole iUustration. The trumpet may sound the battle
call, but if that caU is not understood, who wUl heed it ? So
the speaker with tongues may announce the most important
truths, he may unfold mysteries, or pour forth praises as from
a harp of gold, what can it profit those who do not under
stand him ?
9. So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue
words easy to be understood, how. shah it be known
what is spoken ? for ye shah speak into the air.
This is the apphcation of the preceding illustration, and
affords another proof of what the apostle intended to iUustrate.
It was not the nature ofthe sounds uttered, but their unintel-
Ugibleness to the hearer, wliich was to be considered. By
the tongue, i. e. by means of the tongue as the organ of speech.
Words easy to be understood, or rather, an intelligible dis-
* Acsi diceret • Non potest homo dare citharae aut tibiae animam : vocem
tamen affingit ita temperatam, ut discerni queat; quam igitur absurdum est,
homines ipsos intelligentiae praeditos confusum nescio quid sonare ?-Calvm
This would seem to mean that the speaker wrth tongues uttered a confused
noise, with no more meaning in it than thrumming on a harp.

284 I. CORINTHIANS 14, 9. 10. 11.
course. This does not imply, as is contended by the advocates
of the modern theories, that those who spoke with tongues
uttered inarticulate sounds. The opposite of ey<rqpo_, is not
inarticulate, but uninteUigible, i. e. what is not in fact under
stood. Ye shall speak into the air, i. e. in vain. Your words
are lost in the air, no ear receives them. In 9, 26, the man
who struck in vain is said to smite the ah.
10. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices
in the world, and none of them (is) without signifi
cation. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices. The words
(et rvxol)i properly rendered, it may be, are often used to ren
der a statement indefinite, where precision is impossible or
unimportant. It was no matter, so far as the apostle's object
was concerned, whether the " kinds of sound " in the world
were more or less. There are so many, or, as we should say,
' There are ever so many, it may be, languages in the world.'
Kinds of voices. Calvin understands this of the voices or
natural cries of animals. All animated nature is vocal ; no
living creature is mute or utters uninteUigible sounds : tota
igitur naturse series quae est a Deo ordinata, hos ad distinctio-
nem invitat. The context, however, shows that the reference
is to human s.peech, therefore the words (yevv <f>_>v_.v) should
be translated kinds of languages, Gen. 1, 11. And no one of
them is without signification, i. e. inarticulate. The phrase
is (tfxDvr) dcjxovo,), a language which is no language, that is,
without significancy, which is the essence of a language. The
iUustration contained in this verse goes to prove that speaking
with tongues was to speak in foreign languages. The very
point is that as all languages are significant, so the languages
used by those who spoke with tongues were significant. The
difficulty was not in the language used, but in the ignorance
of the hearer. This is stfll plainer from what foUows.
11. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the
voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian,
and he that speaketh (shall be) a barbarian unto me.
Therefore, i. e. because the sounds uttered are significant ;
because the man does not make a mere senseless noise, but

I. CORINTHIANS 14, 11. 12. 285
speaks a real language, therefore, ff I know not the meaning
of the voice (1. e. the language), I shall stand in the relation
of a foreigner to him and he to me. Otherwise it would not
be so. If a man utters incoherent, inarticulate sounds, which
no man living could understand, that would not make him a
foreigner. It might prove him to be deranged, but not a
stranger. The word barbarian means simply one of another
country. Al other people, whether civUized or not, were
barbarians to the Greeks, or to the Romans. As ancient
civilization came to be confined to those nations, not to be a
Greek or Roman, was to be uncivilized, and hence barbarian
or foreigner came to mean without civiUzation. Just as the
true rehgion being confined to the Jews, Gentile (one not a
Jew) came to be synonomous with heathen. In this passage,
however, barbarian means simply foreigner. Comp. Rom. 1,
14. Acts 28, 24. Col. 3, 11.
12. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of
spiritual (gifts), seek that ye may excel to the edifying
of the church.
Even so ye. That is, as the man who speaks a language
which I do not understand, is a foreigner to me and I to him,
so are ye. You too are foreigners to those who do not un
derstand the language which you use. As all such unintelli
gible speaking is worthless, the apostle exhorts them to seek
to edify the church. As ye are zealous of spiritual gifts ;
UteraUy, of spirits. The most probable explanation of this
expression is to be sought from 12, 7, where it is said that
" to every one is given a manifestation of the Spirit." One
and the same Spirit manifests himself in different ways in dif
ferent persons ; and these different manifestations are called
spirits. Somewhat analogous are the expressions, " spirits of
the prophets," v. 32; "discernment of spirits," 12, 11 ; "try
the spirits," 1 John 4, 1 ; and " the seven Spirits of God,"
spoken of in the Apocalypse. In aU these cases spirits mean
manifestations of the Spirit, or forms under which the Spirit
manifests himself. It is not an unusual metonomy when the
effect receives the name of its cause. Comp. Gal. 5, 17, " The
spirit lusteth against the flesh," where spirit may mean the
renewed principle produced by the Spirit.
Seek that ye may excel (or abound) to the edifying of tlie
church. This is the common explanation of this clause. But

286 I. CORINTHIANS 14, 12.13.14.
taking the words in their order the passage reads, 'Seek
(these gifts) with a view to the edification of t,he_ church, in
order that ye may excel.' The former explanation is the more
natural. The end or object to be sought is not that they
might excel ; that is not the ultimate object, but the edificar
tion of the church. The words ^rp-elre Iva, ktA., therefore,
naturally go together. ' Seek that ye may abound unto the
edification of the church,' i. e. that ye may possess in rich
abundance those gifts which are useful.
13. Wherefore let him that, speaketh in an (un
known) tongue pray that he may interpret.
This is an inference not only from the preceding verse but
from the whole preceding argument, which was designed to
show how useless it is to speak in a language which no one
present understands. The verse admits of two interpretations.
It may mean that the speaker with tongues should pray for
the gift of interpretation ; or, that he should pray with the
purpose (IW) of interpreting what he said. The principal rea
son for this latter interpretation is the assumption that the
gift of tongues was exercised only in prayer and praise ; in
other words, that it consisted in an ecstatic but unintelligible
and unintelligent pouring out of the heart to God. It is there
fore inferred that "to speak with a tongue," v. 13, and "to
pray with a tongue," v. 14, mean exactly the same thing; the
former being no more comprehensive than the latter. But
this whole assumption is not only gratuitous but contrary to
Scripture. The gift of tongues was, according to Acts 2, 5-1 1,
exercised in declaring the " wonderful works of God." It is
also apparent from what is said in this chapter, vs. 22-25, and
v. 27, that the gift in question was not confined to acts of de
votion. The former interpretation is therefore to be preferred.
' Let him pray that (Iva) he may interpret.' For this use of
ha after verbs of entreating, &c, see Robinson's Greek Lex.
p. 352. i
14. Por if I pray in an (unknown) tongue, my
spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
This is the reason why the speaker with tongues should
pray for the gift of interpretation. Unless he interprets his

I. CORINTHIANS 14, 14. 287
prayer can do no good ; or, as the same idea is expressed in
vs. 16, 17, those who are unlearned cannot join in it. Prayino-
with a tongue is specified, by way of example, as one mode of
speaking with tongues. Though the general meaning of this
verse is thus plain, it is the most difficult verse in the whole
chapter. What does Paul mean by saying, His spirit prays ?
There are three answers given to this question. 1. That spirit
(my spirit) here means the higher intellectual powers of the
soul, as distinguished from the understanding. This verse
and those which immediately follow, are the principal founda
tion of the theory that the speaker with tongues was in a state
of ecstatic excitement in which his understanding was not
exercised, so that he knew not what he said or did. How in
consistent this theory is with the facts of the case has already
been shown. This view of the passage, therefore, cannot be
admitted. Besides, it has already been remarked, that the
Scriptures know nothing of this distinction between the reason
and the understanding. 2. Others say that spirit here means
the affections. ' My feehngs find utterance in prayer, but my
understanding is unfruitful.' This would give a good sense ;
but this meaning of the word spirit is of rare occurrence. In
most of the passages quoted by lexicographers as examples of
this use of the term, it reaUy means the Holy Spirit. And in
this whole discussion, spirit is not once used for the feehngs.
3. My spirit may mean the Holy Spirit in me ; that js, my
sphitual gift ; or, my spirit as the organ ofthe Spirit of God.
Each man has his own sphit, (comp. v. 12) i. e. his own spirit
ual gift. And Paul means to say, that when a man prays in
an unknown tongue, his spiritual gift is indeed exercised ; in
other words, the Holy Spirit is active in him, but others are
not profited. The speaker with tongues is not to be set down
as an enthusiast, or as a man in a frenzy, or, as the mockers
said, as- a man fuU of new wine. He is really the organ of the
Holy Ghost. But as the influence of the Spirit under which
he acts, is not irresistible, he should not exercise his gift where
it can do no good to others. He may pray in silence, v. 28.
This interpretation seems much more m accordance with the
use of the word and with the whole drift of the chapter.
What is meant by saying, my understanding is unfruit
ful ? It may mean, My understanding is not profited gams
no fruit • that is I do not understand what I say. Though
the words in themselves may have this meaning, this interpre
tation contradicts all those passages which teach that the

288 I. CORINTHIANS 14, 14.
speaker with tongues did understand himself. The words,
therefore, must be understood to mean, ' my understanding
produces no fruit,' i. e. it does not benefit others. This is in
accordance with aU that precedes, and with the uniforn use of
the word, Eph. 5, 11. Tit. 3, 14. 2 Pet. 1, 8. Matt. 13, 22.
Paul had, from the beginning, been urging his readers to have
regard to the edification of the church, and he here says, that
if he prayed in an unknown tongue, though he acted under the
guidance of the Spirit, his prayer could not profit others*
This interpretation is confirmed by vs. 16. 17, as remarked
above, where the same idea is expressed by saying, the un
learned could not say Amen to such a prayer. By his under
standing being unfruitful is therefore meant, that others did
not understand what he said.
The great objection to the preceding interpretation is, that
my spirit and my understanding must be explained in the
same way. If the latter means my own understanding, the
former must mean my own sphit. The Holy Ghost, it is said,
never is, and cannot be caUed my spirit, for the very reason
that it is distinct from the spirit of man. The mterpretation
given above, however, does not suppose that my spirit means
the Holy Sphit as a person, but the Holy Sphit as a manifest
ation ; it is the way in which the Spirit manifests himself in
me. In other words, it is my sphitual gift. The objection,
if it have any force, bears as much against the conceded mean
ing of the phrase, " the spirits of the prophets," as it does
against the explanation just given of the expression, " my
* Cai-vin" says, Sensus planus est. Si ergo idiomate mihi ignoto preces
concipiam, ac spiritus mihi verba suppeditet : ipse quidem spiritus qui lin-
guam meam gubernat, orabit ; sed mens mea vel alibi vagabitur, vel saltern
non erit orationis particeps. This implies, that the gift of tongues, at least
when disjoined from the gift of interpretation, was the power to speak in a
language which the speaker himself did not at the time understand. ' Accord
ingly just beforjD he had asked, Si douum linguae ab intelligentia separetur, ita
ut qui prouuntiat, sit ipse sibi barbarus, quid proficiet sic balbutiendo ? Yet
Calvin himself regarded this as ridiculous. Quam ridiculum fuisset, linguam
hominis Komani formari Dei Spiritu ad pronuntiandas voces Graecas, quae
loquenti essent prorsus ignotae : qualiter psittaci, et picae, et corvi humanas
voces fingere docentur ? It is very certain, however, that the gift of tongues
was possessed by those who had not the gift of interpretation, and yet, even in
those cases, it was edifying to the speaker. It therefore follows, that tins
view of tho nature of tho gift must be erroneous. Those speaking with tongues
were not parrots or ravens. The expression iu the text, my understanding k
unfruitful, consequently cannot moan. " I do not myself understand what I
say."

I. CORINTHIANS 14, 14.15. 289
spirit » The spirits ofthe prophets means the Holy Ghost as
manifested in the prophets or the spiritual influence of which
they were the subjects. And that is just the meaning Tmy
spirit in this passage. b y
15. What is it then ? I will pray with the spirit
and I will pray with the understanding also : I will
sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the under
standing also.
What is it then? i. e. what is the practical conclusion
from what has been said ? That conclusion is expressed by
Paul's avowal of his own purpose. The interpretation ofthis
verse of course depends on that of the preceding. Accord
ingly, some say, the meaning is, I will pray not only with the
reason, but with the understanding also, i. e. not only with
the higher powers of my nature in exercise, but also with such
a command ofthe understanding as to be able to comprehend
and to interpret what I say* 2. Others say the passage
means, ' I will pray with the heart and with the understand
ing ; my mind and feelings shall unite in the exercise.' A
very good sense, but entirely foreign to the context. The
sentiment is correct in itself, but it is not what Paul here says.
3. According to the thhd interpretation the sense is, ' I wfll
not only pray in the exercise of my spiritual gift, but so as to
be understood by others ; ' i. e. not only spiritually but intelli
gibly. If to! voi, with the understanding, may mean, as the
moderns say it does, ' with a view to interpret ' (Meter) ; it
certainly may mean, ' with a view to be understood.' That is,
this is what is implied and intended in what the apostle says.
When a man spoke ™ Trvevp.an, with the Spirit, the Spirit was
the principium inovens, the moving principle, determining
him to speak, and what to say. When he spake with t<3 voi,
with the understanding, the understanding was that control
ling principle. These two could be combined. The man
could so speak under the guidance of the Spirit as to be intel
ligible to others.
* This view of the subject supposes the speakers with tongues to have been
in a state somewhat analogous to that of somnambulists ; whose_ spiritual na
ture is in activity, but their ordinary intellectual consciousness is suspended,
so that when they are recovered, they do not remember any thing they said or
did when in their somnambulistic condition.
13

290 I. CORINTHIANS 14, 15.16.17.
I will sing. The word (if/dkkew) means to touch ; then^o
touch the cords of a stringed instrument, i. e. to play upon it ;
then to sing or chant in harmony with such instrument ; and
then to sing or chant. This last is its New Testament mean
ing. It appears from this as well as from other passages, that
singing was from the beginning a part of Christian worship.
Pliny, about forty years later, says, Christianos soUtos fuisse
canere antelucanos hymnos Christo.
16. 17. Else, when thou shalt bless with the spirit,
how shah he that occupieth the room of the unlearned
say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he under
standeth not what thou sayest ? Por thou verily givest
thanks well, but the other is not edified.
Else, i. e. since in that case. That is, in case you do not
speak intelligibly (™ voi as weU as t<3 rrvevparC). If thou shalt
bless with the spirit. That is, bless God, including praise and
thanksgiving. The word translated to give thanks, in the last
clause of the verse expresses the same idea. By the Spirit,
i. e. under the influence of the Spirit, or in the exercise of
your spiritual gift, as in the preceding verse. How shaU he
that occupieth the place of the unlearned, i. e. (tSidrrou) of a pri
vate person. The word is used to designate one out of office
in opposition to officers ; and in general, one who does not
possess the distinguishing characteristic of the class to which
it is opposed. It here designates the ungifted in opposition to
those who had the gift of tongues ; or rather, it is appUcable
to any one who was ignorant of the language used by the
speaker. Comp. vs. 23. 24. Acts 4, 13. 2 Cor. 11, 6. The
context shows that Paul does not refer to laymen in opposition
to church officers; forthe officers were just as likely to be
(tSicorat) unlearned as to the language used as others. To fill
the place means to occupy the position ; not a particular part
of the place of assembly assigned, to laymen, but to sustain the
relation to the speaker of one unacquainted with the tongue
which he uses. Say Amen at thy giving of thanks, i. e. assent
or respond to it. Amen is a Hebrew adjective signifying true
or faithful, often used adverbially at the end of a sentence to
express assent to what is said, in the sense of so let it be. In the
Jewish synagogue it was the custom for the people to respond
to the prayers by audibly saying Amen, by which they signi-

I. CORINTHIANS 14, 16. 17. 18. 19. 291
fied their assent and participation in the petitions which had
been offered. Buxtorf 's Talm. Lexicon, Vitringa de Synag.
Great importance was attached by the Jews to saying Amen.
Schoettgen quotes numerous passages to show to what a su
perstitious extreme this was carried. " He who says Amen is
greater than he that blesses." " Whoever says Amen, to him
the gates of Paradise are opened." " Whoever says Amen
shortly, his days shall be shortened ; whoever answers Amen
distinctly and at length, his days shall be lengthened." Ac
cording to Justin Martyr, Apolog. ii. 97, the custom passed
over to the Christian church. This seems also intimated in
this passage ; the expression is, " Say the Amen," i. e. utter
the famihar formula of assent. The unlearned cannot thus
assent, since he knows not what thou sayest. Men cannot
assent to what they do not understand, because assent implies
the affirmation of the truth of that to which we assent. It is
impossible, therefore, to join in prayers uttered in an unknown
tongue. The Romish church persists in the use of the Latin
language hi her public services not only in opposition to the
very idea and intent of worship, but also to the express pro
hibition of the Scriptures. For the very thing here prohibited
is praying in public in a language which the people do not un
derstand. It is indeed said that words may touch the feelings
which do not convey any distinct notions to the mind. But
we cannot say Amen to such words, any more than we can to
a flute. Such blind, emotional worship, if such it can be
called, stands at a great remove from the intelligent service
demanded by the apostle. Thou verily givest thanks well, i. e.
in a way acceptable to God and profitable to yourself. This
proves that the speaker must have understood what he said.
For if the uninteUigible is useless, it must be so to the speaker
as weU as to the hearer. If it was necessary that they should
understand in order to be edified, it was no less necessary that
he should understand what he said in order to be benefited.
This verse is therefore decisive against all theories of the gift
of tongues which assume that those who used them did not
understand their own words. The Scriptures recognize no
unintelligent worship of God, or any spiritual edification (m
the case of adults) disconnected from the truth; whether that
edification be sought by sounds or signs, whether by prayers
or sacraments. 18. 19. I thank my God, I speak with tongues

292 I. CORINTHIANS 14, 18. 19. 20.
more than ye all : yet in the church I had rather speak
five words with my understanding, that (by my voice)
I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in
an (unknown) tongue.
That Paul should give thanks to God that he was more
abundantly endowed with the gift of tongues, if that gift con
sisted in the abUity to speak in languages which he himself
did not understand, and the use of which, on that assumption,
could according to his principle benefit neither himself nor
others, is not to be beheved. EquaUy clear is it from this
verse that to speak with tongues was not to speak in a state
of mental unconsciousness. The common doctrine as to the
nature of the gift, is the only one consistent with this passage.
Paul says that although he could speak in foreign languages
more than the Corinthians, he would rather speak five words
with his understanding, i. e. so as to be intelligible, than ten
thousand words in an unknown tongue. In the church, i. e.
in the assembly. That I might teach others also, (Kan/xe'u)) to
instruct orally, Gal. 6, 6. This shows what is meant by speak
ing with the understanding. It is speaking in such a way as
to convey instruction.
20. Brethren, be not children in understanding :
howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding
be men.
There are two characteristics of children ; the one a dispo
sition to be pleased with trifles, or to put a false estimate on
things ; the other, comparative innocence. There is a great
* difference as to every thing evU between a little chUd and a
full-grown man. The former of these characteristics the
apostle wished the Corinthians to lay aside. The latter he
wished them to cultivate. They had displayed a childish dis
position in estimating the gift of tongues above more useful
gifts, and in using it when it could answer no good purpose.
A httle child, however, is some thing so lovely, and is so often
held up in Scripture for imitation, that he could not say, with
out qualification, Be not children. He therefore says, Be not
chUdren as to understanding ; but as to malice, a comprehen
sive word for evU dispositions, be ye children. So our Lord
said, Except ye be converted, and become as little chUdren,
ye shaU not enter into the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 18, 3.

I. CORINTHIANS 14, 21. 293
21. In the law it is written, With (men of) other
tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people ;
and yet for ah that will they not hear me, saith the
Lord. In the law. The word law signifies that which binds ; es
peciaUy that which binds the conscience as a rule of faith and
practice. That rule may be revealed in our hearts, in the
whole Scriptures, in the Pentateuch, or in the moral law ; and
hence the word as used in Scripture may refer to any one of
these forms in which the wfll of God is made known ; or it
may include them aU. The context must decide its meaning
in each particular case. Here, as in John 10, 34. Rom. 3, 20,
and elsewhere, the reference is not to the Pentateuch, but to
the Old Testament. The passage quoted is Is. 28, 11. 12,
which in our version stands thus, " For with stammering lips,
and another tongue, wfll he speak to this people. To whom
he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to
rest ; and this is the refreshing : yet they would not hear.''
The apostle gives the 11th verse in a free translation, and the
concluding words ofthe 12th. He does not quote the passage
as having any prophetic reference to the events in Corinth ;
much less does he give an allegorical interpretation of it in
order to make it a condemnation of speaking with tongues.
It is a simple reference to a signal event in the Jewish history
from which the Corinthians might derive a useful lesson. The
Jews had refused to hear the prophets speaking theh own
language, and God threatened to bring upon them a people
whose language they could not understand. This was a
judgment ; a mark of displeasure designed as a punishment
and not for their conversion. From this the Corinthians
might learn that it was no mark of the divine favour to have
teachers whose language they could not understand. They
were turning a blessing into a curse. The gift of tongues was
designed, among other things, to facilitate the propagation of
the gospel, by enabhng Christians to address people of vari
ous nations each in his own language. Used for this pur
pose it was a blessing ; but to employ it for the sake of display,
in addressing those who could not understand the language
employed, was to make it a curse. The Spirit of God often
confers gifts on men, and then holds them responsible for the
way in which they exercise them.

294 I. CORINTHIANS 14, 22.
22. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them
that believe, but to them that believe not : but prophe
sying (serveth) not for them that beheve not, but for
them which believe.
There are two inaccuracies in this version which obscure
-the sense. The first is the introduction of the word serveth
after prophesying. The clauses are paraUel. Tongues are for
a sign to one class, and prophesying to another. Nothing
need be supplied ; what is imphed is, that prophesying is for
a sign. The introduction of the word serveth is not only un
necessary, but contrary to the context. The second inaccura
cy is expressing the force of the datives (-n-urrevova-t, and dma-
tois) by to in the first member of the verse, and by for in the
second member. There is no reason for this change. The
relation expressed is the same in both cases. ' Tongues are
for the one, prophesying are for the other ; ' or, ' Tongues are
for a sign to the one, and prophesying to the other.' The
connection between this verse and what precedes is indicated
by the word wherefore, or so that. The inference may be
drawn either from the immediately preceding clause, viz.,
" For aU that they wUl not hear me, saith the Lord ; " or from
the historical fact referred to in the whole verse. If the for
mer, then the design of the apostle is to show that as teaching
the Hebrews by men of other tongues did not render them
obedient ; so speaking in other tongues would not profit the
Corinthians. If the latter, then the design is to show, that as
sending foreigners among the Hebrews was a mark of God's
displeasure, so speaking in the Christian assembhes in foreign
languages would be a curse and not a blessing. The latter
view is demanded by the whole context.
The inference from the preceding verse is that tongues are
a sign not to the believing but to the unbeUeving, and pro
phesying just the reverse. This difficult verse is variously
explained. 1. The word sign is taken in the sense of mark or
pyroof, as when it is said, " the signs of an apostle," 2 Cor. 12,
12, that is, the tokens by which an apostle may be known.
Comp. Luke 2, 12. 2 Thess. 3, 17. The meaning of the pas
sage would then be, ' Tongues are a proof that those among
whom they are used are not believers, but unbehevers ; and
prophesying is a proof that they are believers, and not unbe
hevers.' But when the word is used in this sense, the thing
Df which it is a sign is put in the genitive. It is a sign of,

I. CORINTHIANS 14, 22. 295
not to or for. 2. It may mean a prodigy or wonder. This is
a very common sense of the word, as in the familiar phrase,
" signs and wonders." The meaning is then commonly made
to be, ' Tongues are a wonder designed not for the benefit of be
Uevers, but for unbelievers ; and on the other hand, prophesy
is a wonder designed not for the benefit of unbelievers, but
for the benefit of believers.' But this is neither true nor in
accordance with v. 24. It is not true that the gift of tongues
was designed exclusively for the conversion of unbelievers.
Why should not that gift be exercised for the edification, as
well as for the conversion of men ? Their conversion would
not enable them to understand the native language of the
apostles. Much less is it true that prophecy was designed ex
clusively for the edification of beUevers. The prophets and
apostles were sent forth for the conversion of the world. And
hi v. 24 the conversion of unbehevers is specified as the very
effect to be anticipated from the use of this gift. A stiU more
decisive objection to this interpretation is, that it does not
give the true conclusion from the preceding verse. The na
ture of the premises must decide the nature of the inference.
It is not a fair inference from the fact that although God sent
foreigners to teach the Hebrews they stUl continued disobedi
ent, that foreign tongues were designed for the conversion of
unbehevers. The very opposite conclusion would naturally
follow from that fact. 3. Sign may here mean a warning or
sign of punishment. ' Tongues are a warning, designed not
for believers, but for unbehevers,' who are understood to be,
not those merely without faith, but positive infidels, or obsti
nate rejectors of the truth. To this, however, it may be ob
jected, that the word unbehever (dmo-ros) is used in v. 24 for
those without faith, and that to assume a change of meaning
in the same context is most unnatural. A still more serious
objection is, that this interpretation cannot be carried out.
It cannot be said that prophecy is a warning designed for be
lievers. The two members of the sentence are so related that
whatever is said of the gift of tongues, must be true, mutan
dis mutatis, of prophecy. If the one be a punishment de
signed for unbehevers, the other must be a punishment de
signed for believers. 4. The most satisfactory explanation is
to take sign in the general sense of any indication of the
divine presence. ' Tongues are a manifestation of God, hav
ing reference, not to beUevers, but to unbelievers ; and pro
phecy is a simUar manifestation, having reference, not to

296 I. CORINTHIANS 14, 22.23.
unbehevers, but to beUevers.' By tongues, however, is not to
be understood the gift of tongues, but, as v. 21 requires,
foreign languages, i. e. languages unknown to the hearers.
The meaning is, that when a people are disobedient, God
sends them teachers whom they cannot understand; when
they are obedient, he sends them prophets speaking their own
language. This is the natural conclusion from the premises
contained in v. 21. When the Hebrews were disobedient
God sent foreigners among them; when obedient, he sent
them prophets. Wherefore, i. e. hence it foUows, that unin
telligible teachers are for the unbelieving ; those who can be
understood are for the beheving. This view is also consistent
with what foUows, which is designed to show that speaking in
a language which those who hear cannot understand is the
cause of evil ; whereas speaking intelligibly is the source of
good. It must be remembered that it is not the gift of
tongues of which the apostle speaks, but speaking to people
in a language which they do not understand. And therefore
this interpretation does not imply any disparagement of the
gift in question. When used aright, that is, when employed
in addressing those to whom the language used was intelligi
ble, it was prophecy. The obscurity of the passage arises in
a great measure from the ambiguity of the expression to speak
with tongues. It means to speak in foreign or unknown lan
guages. But a language may be said to be unknown either
in reference to the speaker or to the hearer. It is said to be
unknown to the speaker, if not previously acquired ; and it is
said to be unknown to the hearers if they do not understand
it. The apostle uses the expression sometimes in one sense
and sometimes in the other. When it is said that the apostles,
on the day of Pentecost, spake with tongues, it means that
they used languages which they had never learned ; but when
Paul says he would rather speak five words intelligibly than
ten thousand words with a tongue, he means in a language
unknown to the hearers. Speaking with tongues in the one
sense, was a grace and a blessing ; in the other sense, it was a
foUy and a curse. It was of speaking with tongues in the lat
ter sense the apostle treats in these verses.
23. If therefore the whole church be come together
into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there
come in (those that are) unlearned, or unbelievers, will
they not say that ye are mad ?

I. CORINTHIANS 14, 23.24.25. 297
If therefore. The inference from the preceding representa
tion is, that speaking in languages not understood by the peo
ple is undesirable and useless. To show the justness of this
conclusion the apostle supposes the case which follows. If
the whole church be come together in one place. That is, if all
the Christians of the place, or the whole congregation, be as
sembled. _ This is one of the conditions of the hypothesis.
Another is, that all should speak with tongues. This does not
necessarUy imply either that aU present had the gift of tongues,
or that aU who possessed the gift spoke at one and the same
time, although from vs. 27 and 30 it maybe inferred that this
was sometimes done. All that the words here require is that
aU who spoke used foreign languages. To speak with tongues
must mean to speak in languages unknown to the hearers.
The third condition of the case supposed is, that unlearned
and unbehevers should come into the meeting. Who are the
(iSiwrai), the unlearned here intended? 1. Some say they
were Christians ignorant of the gift of tongues, because they
are distinguished from unbelievers, or those not Christians.
2. Others say that the unlearned are those who were ignorant
of Christianity, and the (a7rioT-oi) unbelieving, are those who
knew and rejected it, i. e. infidels. This is giving to the word
a force which it has not in itself, and which the context does
not give it. 3. The simplest explanation is that the unlearned
were those ignorant of the language spoken, and the unbeliev
ing those not Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles. Such
persons were doubtless often led, from curiosity or other mo
tives, to attend the Christian assemblies. The two classes
(the unlearned and the unbelieving) are not so distinguished
that the same person might not belong to both classes. The
same persons were either iSiuTai or chricrroi, according to the
aspect under which they were viewed. Viewed in relation to
the languages spoken, they were unlearned ; viewed in rela
tion to Christianity, they were unbelievers. The apostle asks
what impression such persons, in the case supposed, would re
ceive ? Would they not say ye are mad ? John 12, 20. Acts
12, 15. 26, 24.
24. 25. But if all prophesy, and there come in one
that believeth not, or (one) unlearned, he is convinced
of all, he is judged of ah -. and thus are the secrets of
his heart made manifest ; and so falling down on (his)
13*

298 X. CORINTHIANS 14, 24.25.
face he will worship God, and report that God is in
you of a truth.
This is another part of the inference from what was said in
vs. 21. 22. Speaking in languages unknown to the hearers is
not adapted to do good; speaking inteUigibly is suited to
produce the happiest effects. If all prophesy, i. e. if all the
speakers speak under the guidance of the Spirit in a language
which the hearers can understand. If one that believeth not,
or one unlearned. From these words it is manifest that the
unlearned were not Christians as distinguished from Jews or
GentUes here caUed unbeUevers, for the same effect is said to
be produced on both. The unlearned were therefore as much
the subjects of conversion as the unbelieving. The meaning
is, if any person, either ignorant or destitute of faith, should
come in, he would be convinced by all. That is, what he
heard from all would carry conviction to his mind. He would
be convinced of the truth of what he heard ; convinced of sin,
of righteousness and of judgment, John 16, 8 ; convinced that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Acts 9, 20. 22 ;
and that it is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation,
that Jesus Christ is come into the world to save sinners, 1
Tim. 1, 15. He is judged of all, i. e. examined, searched into
(dvaKpiveTai) ; for the word of God is a discerner (/cpn-ucds) of
the thoughts and intents ofthe heart, Heb. 4, 12. The result
of this searching examination is, that the secrets of his heart
are made manifest; that is, they are revealed to himself.
His real character and moral state, with regard to which he
Avas before ignorant, are made known to him. The effect of
this is humility, contrition, self-condemnation, and turning
unto God. This is expressed by saying, so i. e. in this con
dition of a convinced shiner who has been brought to the
knowledge of himself, falling down on his face, he will wor
ship God. The first step in rehgion is entire self-abasement ;
such a conviction of sin, i. e. of guilt and pollution, as shaU
lead to self-condemnation and self-abhorrence, and to a com
plete renunciation of aU dependence on our own righteousness
and strength. When the soul is thus humbled God reveals
himself sooner or later, in mercy, manifesting himself as recon
cUed in Jesus Christ ; and then we worship him. This ex
presses reverence, love and confidence. It is the return of the
soul to the favour and fellowship of God. One who has had
such an experience cannot keep it to himself. The apostle

I. CORINTHIANS 14, 24.25. 299
therefore describes the convert as declaring, i. o. proclaiming
aloud that God is in you of a truth. " With the heart man
believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession
is made unto salvation," Rom. 10, 10. It is not enough to be
lieve the truth, it must be publicly professed ; because confes
sion is the natural fruit of faith. When there is a proper
apprehension of the value of the truth, and a sincere appropri
ation of the promises of God to ourselves, there wUl be the
desire to acknowledge his goodness and to proclaim the truth
to others. The thing acknowledged is, that God is in you,
i. e. that Christianity is divine ; that Christians are not deluded
fanatics, but the true children of God, in whom he dwells
by his Sphit. The convert therefore joins himself to them to
share their fate, to take part in whatever of reproach or per
secution faUs to their lot. This confession is made with confi
dence. Declaring that God is in you of a truth. It is not a
mere conjecture, but a firm conviction, founded on experience,
i. e. on the demonstration of the Spirit, 2, 4.
Special directions as to the mode of conducting their public
assemblies, vs. 26-40.
The apostle concludes this chapter with certain practical
directions derived from the principles which he had laid down.
He neither denied the reality of the extraordinary gifts with
which the Corinthians were so richly endowed, nor forbade
their exercise. He only enjoined that mutual edification
should be the end aimed at, v. 26. With regard to those
having the gift of tongues, he directed that not more than
two, or at most three, should speak, and that in succession,
whUe one interpreted. But in case no interpreter was present,
there was to be no speakmg with tongues, vs. 27. 28. Of the
prophets also only two or three were to speak, and the rest
were to sit in judgment on what was said. In case a new
revelation was made to one of the prophets, he was not to in
terrupt the speaker, but wait untU he had concluded ; or the
one was to give way to the other. Both were not to speak at
the same time, for God did not approve of confusion. As the
influence of which the prophets were the subjects did not de
stroy their self-control, there could be no difficulty in obeymg
this injunction, vs. 29-33. Women were not to speak m pub
Uc ; but to seek instruction at home. This prohibition rests
on 'the divinely established subordination of the women, and

300 I. CORINTHIANS 14, 26.
on the instinct of propriety, vs. 34. 35. The Corinthians were
not to act in this matter as though they were the oldest or the
only church, v. 36. The apostle requires all classes, no matter
how highly gifted, to regard his directions as the commands
of Christ, vs. 37. 38. He sums up the chapter in two sen
tences. 1. Earnestly to seek the gift of prophecy, and not to
prohibit the exercise of the gift of tongues. 2. To do aU
things with decency and order.
26. How is it then, brethren ? when ye come to
gether, every one of you hath a Psalm, hath a doctrine,
hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation.
Let ah things be done unto edifying.
How is it then f i. e. as in v. 15, What is the conclusion
from what has been said ? What is the condition of things
among you ? How, in point of fact, do you conduct your
public worship ? When ye come together. That is, as often
as ye come together. Every one of you hath, &c. Every
one is used distributively ; one has this and another that. A
psalm, a song of praise to God. This can hardly mean one
of the Psalms of the Old Testament ; but something prepared
or suggested for the occasion. One was impeUed by the
Sphit to pour forth his heart in a song of praise. Comp. v. 15.
Hath a doctrine, i. e. comes prepared to expound some doc
trine. Hath a tongue, i. e. is able and impelled to deUver an
address or to pray in an unknown tongue. Hath a revelation,
i. e. as a prophet he has received a revelation from God which
he desires to communicate. Hath an interpretation, i. e. is
prepared to give the interpretation of some discourse previ
ously dehvered in an unknown tongue. This passage, and
indeed the whole chapter, presents a lively image of an early
Christian assembly. Although there were officers in every
church, appointed to conduct the services and especiaUy to
teach, yet as the extraordinary gifts of the Sphit were not
confined to them or to any particular class, any member pres
ent who experienced the working of the Sphit in any of its
extraordinary manifestations, was authorized to use and exer
cise his gift. Under such circumstances confusion could hard
ly faU to ensue. That such disorder did prevaU in the public
assemblies in Corinth is clear enough from this chapter. To
correct this evfl is the apostle's design in this whole passage.
It was only so long as the gifts of tongues, of prophecy, of

I. CORINTHIANS 14, 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 301
miracles, and others of a hke kind continued in the church
that the state of things here described prevailed. Since those
gifts have ceased, no one has the right to rise in the church
under the impulse of his own mind to take part in its services.
The general rule which the apostle lays down, applicable to
all gifts aUke, is that every thing should be done unto edifying.
That is, that the edification ofthe church should be the object
aimed at in the exercise of these gifts. It was not enough
that a man felt himself the subject of a divine influence ; or
that acting under it would be agreeable or even profitable to
himself, he must sit in sUence unless the exercise of his gift-
would benefit the brethren as a worshipping assembly.
27. If any man speak in an (unknown) tongue,
(let it be) by two, or at the most (by) three, and (that)
by course ; and let one interpret.
As to the use of the gift of tongues, the directions were
that only two or three having that gift should speak ; that
they were not to speak together, but in succession ; and. that
one should interpret what the others said.
28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep
silence in the church ; and let him speak to himself,
and to God.
If neither the speaker himself, nor any other person present,
have the gift -oi" interpretation, the former was to keep silence
in the church, i.'e. in the pubhc assembly. And let him speak
to himself, and to God, or, for himself, and for God. That
is, let him commune silently with God hi the exercise of his
gift. As, according to Paul, all true worship is inteUigent, it
is evident that if in the exercise of the gift of tongues, there
was communion with God, the understanding could not have
been in abeyance. In that gift, not only the words, but also
the thoughts and the accompanying emotion were communi
cated or excited by the Spirit. Those having that gift spake
as the Spirit gave them utterance, Acts 2, 4.
29. 30. Let the prophets speak two or three, and
let the others judge. If (any thing) be revealed to
another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
The number of prophets who were to speak at any one

302 I. CORINTHIANS 14, 29.30.31.32.
meeting was also limited to two or three. The others were
to judge, i. e. exercise the gift of " the discerning of spirits,"
12, 10. From this passage it may be inferred that this latter
gift was a concomitant of the gift of prophecy ; for the other
prophets, i. e. those who did not speak were to sit in judgment
on what was said, in order to decide whether those claiming
to be prophets were really inspired. The case, however,
might occur that a communication from the Sphit might be
made to one prophet whUe another was speaking. What was
to be done then ? As it was contrary to order for two to
speak at the same time, the one speaking must either at once
stop, or the receiver of the new revelation must wait until his
predecessor had concluded his discourse. The imperative form
ofthe expression (6 irpCrro.- o-iydru>), let the first be silent,is in fa
vour of the former view. This would suppose that the fact
of a new communication being made, indicated that it was
entitled to be heard at once. There are two reasons, how
ever, which may be urged for the second view. The inter
ruption of a speaker was itself disorderly, and therefore
contrary to the whole drift of the apostle's directions ; and
secondly, what foUows is most naturally understood as assign
ing the reason why the receiver of the new revelation should
wait. The meaning may be, ' Let the first be sUent before the
other begins.'
31. Por ye may ah prophesy one by one, that ah
may learn, and ah may be comforted.
This verse assigns the reason why two prophets should
not speak at the same time. They could all have the oppor
tunity of speaking one by one. Not indeed at the same meet
ing, for he had before hmited the number of speakers to two
or three for any one occasion. That all may learn, and all
may be comforted. This is the end to be attained by theh
all speaking. The discourse of one might suit the wants of
some hearers ; and that of another might be adapted to the
case of others. Thus all hearers would receive instruction
and consolation. The latter word (consolation) , however, is
not so comprehensive as the original, which means not only to
comfort, but also to exhort and to admonish.
32. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to
the prophets.

I. CORINTHIANS 14, 32.33. 303
_ This verse is connected by and to the preceding as con
taining an additional reason for the injunction in v. 31. ' You
need not speak together, because you can all have the oppor
tunity of speaking successively, and you are not compelled to
speak by any irresistible impulse.' The spirits of the prophets.
The word spirit is used here (comp. vs. 12. 14. 15) for the di
vine influence under which the prophets spoke. That influ
ence was not of such a nature as to destroy the self-control of
those who were its subjects. It did not throw them into a
state of frenzy analogous to that of a heathen pythoness. The
prophets of God were calm and self-possessed. This being the
case, there was no necessity why one should interrupt another,
or why more than one should speak at the same time. The
one speakmg could stop when he pleased ; and the one who
received a revelation could wait as long as he pleased. The
spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, i. e. under
their control. According to another interpretation the spirits
of the prophets means their own spirits (or minds), considered
as the organs of the Holy Sphit. But this is contrary to the
use of the word in the context ; and moreover it is inconsist
ent with the sense assigned to the word by the advocates of
this interpretation. They say that spirit means the higher
powers of the mind in distinction from the understanding. In
this sense every man, whether the subject of divine influence
or not, has a spirit. In other words, according to their theory
it is not because the higher powers of the mind are the organs
of the Spirit of God that they are called spirits. It is there
fore inconsistent to assign that reason for the use of the word
here. The interpretation above given of this verso is the one
commonly adopted. Many commentators, however, under
stand the apostle to say, that the spirits of the prophets are
subject to one another, i. e. to other prophets; and therefore
if one is speaking he should yield to another who wishes to
speak. This idea is not suited to the context. It would sug
gest merely a reason why one ought to yield to the other.
What the apostle says and wishes to prove is, that one can
yield to the other. A prophet was not forced to speak by the
sphit which he had received.
33. Por God is not (the author) of confusion, but
of peace, as in ah churches of the saints.
This is the reason why the spirits of the prophets must be

304 I. CORINTHIANS 14, 33.34.
assumed to be subject to the prophets. They are from God;
but God is not a God of disorder or of commotion, but of peace.
Therefore every spirit which is from him, must be capable of
control. He never impels men to act contrary to the princi
ples which he has ordained. If he wiUs order to prevaU in
the church, he never impels men to be disorderly. This is a
truth of wide apphcation. When men pretend to be influ
enced by the Spirit of God in doing what God forbids, whether
in disturbing the peace and order of the church, by insubordi
nation, violence or abuse, or in any other way, we may be
sure that they are either deluded or impostors.
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches :
for it is not permitted unto them to speak ; but (they
are commanded) to be under obedience, as also saith
the law.
The words as in all the churches of the saints, if connect
ed with verse 33, contain a proof of what had just been said.
' I may appeal to aU the churches of the saints in proof that
God is the God not of commotion, but of peace.' Most com
mentators, however, connect them with v. 34. ' As in all the
churches of the saints, let your women keep silence in the
churches ; for it is not permitted to them to speak ; but they
are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.'
The reasons for preferring this connection are, 1. That verse
33 has an appropriate conclusion in the words " God is not a
God of confusion but of peace." 2. The words as in all tlie
churches of the saints, if connected with v. 33, do not give a
pertinent sense. The apostle would be made to prove a con
ceded and undeniable truth by an appeal to the authority or
experience of the church. 3. If connected with v. 34, this
passage is paraUel to 11, 16, where the custom ofthe churches
in reference to the deportment of women in public is appealed
to as authoritative. The sense is thus pertinent and good.
' As is the case in all other Christian churches, let your women
keep sUence in the pubhc assemblies.' The fact that in no
Christian church was pubhc speaking permitted to women
was itself a strong proof that it was unchristian, i. e. contrary
to the spirit of Christianity. Paul, however, adds to the pro
hibition the weight of apostolic authority, and not of that only
but also the authority of reason and of Scripture. It is not

I. CORINTHIANS 14, 34.35.36. 305
permitted to them to speak. The speaking intended is public
speaking, and especially in the church. In the Old Testament
it had been predicted that " Your sons and your daughters
shall prophesy ; " a prediction which the apostle Peter quotes
as verified on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2, 1 7 ; and in Acts
21, 9 mention is made of four daughters of PhUip who prophe
sied. The apostle himself seems to take for granted, in 11, 5,
that women might receive and exercise the gift of prophecy.
It is therefore only the public exercise of the gift that is pro
hibited. The rational ground for this prohibition is that it is
contrary to the relation of subordination in which the woman
stands to the man that she appear as a pubhc teacher. Both
the Jews and Greeks adopted the same rule ; and therefore
the custom, which the Corinthians seemed disposed to intro
duce, was contrary to estabhshed usage. The scriptural
ground is expressed in the words as also saith the law, i. e.
the wfll of God as made known in the Old Testament. There,
as well as in the New Testament, the doctrine that women
should be in subjection is clearly revealed.
35. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask
their husbands at home : for it is a shame for women
to speak in the church.
The deshe for knowledge in women is not to be repressed,
and the facflities for its acquisition are not to be denied them.
The refinement and dehcacy of their sex, however, should be
carefully preserved. They may learn all they wish to know
without appearing before the public. For it is a shame for
women to speak in the church. The word_ used is ato-xpds,
which properly means ugly, deformed. It is spoken of any
thing which excites disgust. As the pecuhar power and use
fulness of women depend on theh being the objects of admira
tion and affection, any thing which tends to excite the oppo
site sentiments should for that reason be avoided.
36. What ! came the word of God out from you?
or came it unto you only ?
That is Are you the mother church? or are you the only
church? 'The word of God here means the gospel. Paul
means to ask, whether the gospel took its rise in Cormth ?

Soe I. CORINTHIANS 14, 36.37.
The disregard which the people of that church manifested for
the customs of their sister churches seemed to evince an as
suming and arrogant temper. They acted as though they
were entitled to be independent, if not to prescribe the law
to others. Paul takes the authority of the church for grant
ed. He assumes that any thing contrary to the general senti
ment and practice of the people of God is wrong. This he
does because he understands by the church the body of Christ,
those in whom the Holy Sphit dwells, and whose character
and conduct are controUed and governed by his influence.
37. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or
spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I
write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
If any man think, &c. That is, If any man, with or with
out just reason, assumes to be a prophet, i. e. inspired ; or
spiritual, i. e. the possessor of any gift of the Sphit, let him
prove himself what he claims to be by submitting to my au
thority. Here, as in 1 John 4, 6, (" He that knoweth God,
heareth us ; he that is not of God, heareth not us,") submission
to the infallible authority of the apostles is made the test of a
divine mission and even of conversion. This must be so. If
the apostles were the infalhble organs of the Holy Ghost, to
disobey them in any matter of faith or practice is to refuse
to obey God. The inference which Romanists draw from this
fact is, that as the apostieship is a permanent office in the
church, and as the prelates are the bearers of that office, there
fore to refuse submission in matters of faith or practice to the
bishops is a clear proof that we are not of God. This is the
chain with which Rome binds the nations to her car which
she drives whithersoever she wills. The inference which Pro
testants draw from the fact in question is, that as we have
the infalhble teaching of the prophets and apostles in the
Bible, therefore any man who does not conform in faith and
practice to the Scriptures cannot be of God. This is the rule
by which Protestants try aU who claim to have a divine com
mission. It is nothing to them what their ecclesiastical descent
may be. He that heareth not the Scriptures, is not of God.
The things which I write. There is not only no reason for
confining these words, as some do, to the preceding verse, but
every reason against it. It is not merely for the prohibition
agamst women speaking in the church for which the apostle

I. CORINTHIANS 14, 37.38.39.40. 307
claims divine authority. The specification of prophets and
spiritual persons shows that the reference is primarily to the
whole contents of this chapter. AU the directions which he
had given with respect to the exercise of spiritual gifts were
of divine authority. What is true, however, of this chapter,
is no less true of aU apostolical instructions ; because they all
rest on the same foundation. Are the commandments of the
Lord, i. e. of Christ, because he is the person known in the
Christian church as Lord. The continued influence of Christ
by the Spirit over the minds of his apostles, which is a divine
prerogative, is here assumed or asserted.
38. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ig
norant. That is, if any man be ignorant or refuses to acknowledge
the divine authority of my instructions, let him be ignorant.
Paul would neither attempt to convince him, nor waste time
in disputing the point. Where the evidence of any truth is
abundant and has been clearly presented, those who reject it
should be left to act on their own responsibUity. Further
disputation can do no good.
39. Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and
forbid not to speak with tongues.
Prophecy and the gift of tongues are the two gifts of which
this chapter treats. The former is to be preferred to the lat
ter. The one is to be coveted, i. e. earnestly desired and
sought after ; the exercise of the other, even in Christian as
semblies, was not to be prohibited ; provided, as stated above,
any one be present who possessed the gift of interpretation.
40. Let ah things be done decently and in order.
Decently, i. e. in such a way as not to offend against pro
priety. The adjective, the adverbial form of which is here
used, means well-formed, comely; that which excites the
pleasing emotion of beauty. The exhortation therefore is so
to conduct their worship that it may be beautiful ; in other
words, so as to make a pleasmg impression on all who are
rirfit-minded. And in order (Kara ra&), not tumultously as
in a mob, but as in a weU-ordered army, where every one

308 I. CORINTHIANS 14,40. 15.
keeps his place, and acts at the proper thne and in the proper
way. So far as external matters are concerned, these are the
two principles which should regulate the conduct of public
worship. The apostle not only condemns any church acting
independently of other churches, but also any member of a
particular church acting from his own impulses, without re
gard to others. The church as a whole, and. in every separate
congregation, should be a harmonious, weU-organized body.

CHAPTER XV.
The Resurrection of the Dead.
In treating this subject the apostle first proves the fact of Christ's resurrection,
vs. 1-11. He thence deduces, first, the possibility, and then the certainty
of the resurrection of his people, vs. 12—34. He afterwards teaches the na
ture of the resurrection, so far as to show that the doctrine is not liable to
the objections which had been brought against it, vs. 35-58.
The Resurrection of Christ as securing the Resurrection of
his People, vs. 1-34.
That certain false teachers in Corinth denied the resurrection
of the dead is plain, not only from the course of argument here
adopted but from the exphcit statement in v. 12. Who these
persons were, and what were the grounds of their objections,
can only be conjectured from the nature of the apostolic ar
gument. The most common opinion is that the objectors
were converted Sadducees. The only reason for this opinion
is that the Sadducees denied the doctrine of the resurrection,
and that Paul, as appears from Acts 24, 6-9 and 26, 6-8, had
been before brought into collision with them on this subject.
The objections to this view are of no great weight. It is said
that such was the hostility ofthe Sadducees to the gospel that
it is not probable any of their number were among the con
verts to Christianity. The case of Paul himself proves that
the bitterest enemies could, by the grace of" God, be convert
ed into friends. It is further objected that Paul could not, in

I. CORINTHIANS 15. 309
argument with Sadducees, make the resurrection of Christ the
basis of his proof. But he does not assume that fact as con
ceded, but proves it by an array of the testimony by which it
was supported. Others suppose that the opponents of the
doctrine were Epicureans. There is, however, no indication
of their peculiar opinions in the chapter. In v. 32 Epicurean
carelessness and indulgence are represented as the conse
quence, not the cause, of the denial of the resurrection. No
thing more definite can be arrived at on this point than the
conjecture that the false teachers in question were men of
Grecian culture. In Acts 17, 32 it is said of the Athenians
that " some mocked " when they heard Paul preach the doc
trine of the resurrection. From the character of the objec
tions answered in the latter part of the chapter, vs. 35-58, it
is probable that the objections urged against the doctrine
were founded on the assumption that a material organization
was unsuited to the future state. It is not unhkely that ori
ental phUosophy, which assumed that matter was the source
and seat of evil, had produced an effect on the minds of these
Corinthian sceptics as weU as on the Christians of Colosse.
The decision of the question as to what particular class of per
sons the opponents ofthe doctrine ofthe resurrection belonged,
happily is of no importance in the interpretation of the apos
tle's argument. As in 2 Tim. 2, 17. 18 he speaks of Hymeneus
and PhUetus as teaching that the resurrection was passed al
ready, it is probable that these errorists in Corinth also refused
to acknowledge any other than a sphitual resurrection.
After reminding the Corinthians that the doctrine of the
resurrection was a primary principle of the gospel, which he
had preached to them, and on which their salvation depended,
vs. 1-3, he proceeds to assert and prove the fact that Christ
rose from the dead on the third day. This event had been
predicted in the Old Testament. Its actual occurrence is
proved, 1. By Christ appearing after his resurrection, first to
Peter and then to the twelve. 2. By his appearing to upward
of five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom were
stiU alive. 3. By a separate appearance to James. 4. And
then again to aU the apostles. 5. Finally by his appearance
to Paul himself. There never was a historical event estab
lished on surer evidence than that ofthe resurrection of Christ,
vs 4-8 This fact, therefore, was included in the preaching
of" all the apostles, and in the faith of aU Christians, v. 11.
But if this be so, how can the doctrine of the resurrection be

310 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 1.2.
denied by any who pretend to be Christians? To deny the
resurrection ofthe dead is to deny the resurrection of Christ;
and to deny the resurrection of Christ, is to subvert the gos
pel, vs. 12-14; and also to make the apostles false witnesses,
v. 15. If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain, we are yet in
our sins, those dead in Christ are perished, and. all the hopes
of Christians are destroyed, vs. 16-19. But if Christ be risen,
then his people will also rise, because he rose as a pledge of
their resurrection. As Adam was the cause of death, so Christ
is the cause of life ; Adam secured the death of all who are in
him, and Christ secures the life of all who are in him, vs. 20-22.
Although the resurrection of Christ secures the resurrection
of his people, the two events are not contemporaneous. Christ
rose first, his people are to rise when he comes the second
time. Then is to be the final consummation, when Christ
shall deliver up his providential kingdom as mediator to the
Father, after all his enemies are subdued, vs. 23. 24. It is
necessary that Christ's dominion over the universe, to which
he was exalted after his resurrection, should continue until his
great work of subduing or restraining evil was accomplished.
When that is done, then the Son (the Theanthropos, the In
carnate Logos), wiU be subject to the Father, and God as
God, and not as Mediator, reign supreme, 25-28.
Besides the arguments already urged, there are two other
considerations which prove the truth or importance of the
doctrine of the resurrection. The first is, " the baptism for
the dead " (whatever that means) prevailing in Cormth, as
sumes the truth of the doctrine, v. 29. The other is, the inti
mate connection between this doctrine and that of a future
state is such, that if the one be denied, the other cannot, in a
Christian sense, be maintained. If there be no resurrection,
there is for Christians no hereafter, and they may act on the
principle, " Let us eat and drink for to-morrow we die," vs.
30-32. The apostle concludes this part of the subject by
warning his readers agamst the corrupting influence of evil as
sociations. Whence it is probable that the denial of the doc
trine had already produced the evil effects referred to among
those who rejected it, vs. 33. 34.
1. 2. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the
gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have
received, and wherein ye stand ; by which also ye are

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 1.2. 311
saved, if ye keep in memory what I have preached unto
you, unless ye have believed in vain.
There is no connection between this and the preceding
chapter. The particle Se', rendered moreover, indicates the in
troduction of a new subject. I declare unto (yvtopiiCfo), hteral
ly, I make known to you, as though they had never heard it
before. ' Moreover, brethren, I proclaim to you the gospel.'
This mterpretation is more consistent with the signification
of the word, and more impressive than the rendering adopted
by many, 'I remind you.' Comp. however, 12, 3. 2 Cor. 8, 1.
Ofthis gospel Paul says, 1. That he had preached it. 2. They
had received it, i. e. embraced it as true. 3. That they then
professed it. They still stood firm in their adherence to the
truth. It was not the Corinthians as a body, but only " some
among them," v. 12, who denied the doctrine of the resurrec
tion. 4. That by it they are saved. The present tense is
used to express either the certainty of the event, or the idea
that behevers are in this life partakers of salvation. They are
already saved. There is to them no condemnation. They are
renewed and made partakers of spiritual life. Their salvation,
however, is conditioned on their perseverance. If they do not
persevere, they wiU not only fail of the consummation of the
work of salvation, but it becomes manifest that they never
were justified or renewed. ' Ye are saved (ei Karkxere) if ye
hold fast: The word does not mean, if ye keep in memory.
It simply means, if ye holdfast; whether that be by a physi
cal holding fast with the hand, or a retaining in the memory,
or a retaining in faith, depends on the connection. _ Here it is
evident that the condition of salvation is not retaining in the
memory, but persevering in the faith. 'The gospel saves
you,' says the apostle, ' if you hold fast the gospel which I
preached unto you.'
The only difficulty in the passage relates to the words nvi
koyui, literaUy, with what discourse ; which in our version is
expressed by the word what. This may express the true
sense. The idea is, 'If you hold fast to the gospel as I
preached it to you.' The principal objection to this mterpre
tation is the position of the words. The order ___. which they
stand is, ' With what discourse I preached unto you if ye hold
fast.' The interpretation just mentioned reverses this order
This clause is therefore by many connected with the first
words of the chapter. ' I bring to your knowledge, brethren,

312 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 1.2. 3.
the gospel which I preached unto you, which ye received,
wherein ye stand, by which ye are saved, (I bring to your
knowledge, I say,) how, qua ratione, I preached, if ye hold
fast.' This, however, breaks the connection. It is, therefore,
better to consider the words rivi k6y<* as placed first for the
sake of emphasis. ' You are saved if you hold fast (the gos
pel) as I preached it to you.' Unless ye have believed in vain.
The word eiKrj, in vain, may mean either without cause, Gal.
2, 18, or without effect, i. e. to no purpose, Gal. 3, 4. 4, 11. If
the former, then Paul means to say, ' Unless ye beheved with
out evidence, i. e. had no ground for your faith.' If the latter,
the meaning is, ' Unless your faith is worthless.' The clause
may be connected with the preceding words, ' If ye hold fast,
which ye do, or wiU do, unless ye believed, without cause.'
The better connection is with the words ye are saved, &c.
' Ye are saved, if ye persevere, unless indeed faith is worth
less.' If, as the errorists in Corinth taught, there is no resur
rection, Paul says, v. 14, our faith is vain; it is an empty,
worthless thing. So here he says, the gospel secures salvation,
unless faith be of no account.
3. Por I dehvered unto you first of ah that which
I also received, how that Christ died for our sins ac
cording to the Scriptures :
For introduces the explanation of ' what he had preached.'
I delivered unto you first of all ; first, not in reference to
time ; nor first to the Corinthians, wliich would not be histori
cally true, as Paul did not preach first at Corinth ; but iv irpa>-
tois means, among the first, or principal things. The death
of Christ for our sins and his resurrection were therefore the
great facts on which Paul insisted as the foundation of the
gospel. Which also I received, i. e. by direct revelation from
Christ himself. Comp. 11, 23. Gal. 1, 12. "I did not receive
it (the gospel) from man, neither was I taught it ; but by
revelation of Jesus Christ." The apostle, therefore, could
speak with infaUible confidence, both as to what the gospel is
and as to its truth. That Christ died for our sins, i. e. as a
sacrifice or propitiation for our sins. Comp. Rom. 3, 23-26.
Some commentators remark that as im-ep dp.apriu>v, for sin, can
not mean in the place of shi, therefore mep i)pu>v, for us, cannot
mean in our place. This remark, however, has no more force
in reference to the Greek preposition, i-n-ep, than it has in rela-

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 3. 4. 313
tion to the Enghsh preposition, for. Whether the phrase, to
die for any one, means to die for his benefit, or in his place, is
determined by the connection. It may mean either or both ;
and the same is true of the corresponding scriptural phrase.
According to the Scriptures, i. e. the fact that the Messiah
was to die as a propitiation for sin had been revealed in the
Old Testament. That the death of Christ as an atoning sacri
fice was predicted by the law and the prophets is the constant
doctrine of the New Testament. Our Lord reproved his dis
ciples for not beheving what the prophets had spoken on this
subject, Luke 24, 25. 26. Paul protested before Festus, that
in preaching the gospel he had said " none other things than
those which Moses and the prophets say should come ; that
Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should
rise from the dead, and should show hght unto the people, and
to the Gentiles," Acts 26, 22. 23. He assured the Romans
that his gospel was "witnessed (to) by the law and the
prophets," Rom. 3. 21. The epistle to the Hebrews is an ex
position of the whole Mosaic service as a prefiguration of the
office and work of Christ. And the fifty-third chapter of
Isaiah is the foundation of aU the New Testament exhibitions
of a suffering and atoning Messiah. Paul and all other faith
ful ministers of the gospel, therefore, teach that atonement for
sin, by the death of Christ, is the great doctrine of the whole
word of God.
4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again
the third day according to the Scriptures :
There are two things taught in this, as in the preceding
verse. First, the truth of the facts referred to ; and secondly,
that those facts had been predicted. It is true that Christ
was buried, and that he rose again on the third day. These
facts were included in the revelation made to Paul, and the
truth of which he proceeds to confirm by abundant additional
testimony. That these facts were predicted in the Old Testa
ment, is taught in John 20, 9. Acts 26, 23. The passage espe
ciaUy urged by the apostles as foreteUing the resurrection of
Christ, is Ps. 16, 10. Peter proves that that Psalm cannot be
understood of David, because his body was allowed to see cor
ruption. It must, he says, be understood of Christ, who was
raised from the dead, and "saw no corruption," Acts 13, 34-
37. The prophetic Scriptures, however, are full of this doc-
14

314 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 4.5.
trine; for on the one hand they predict the sufferings and
death of the Messiah, and on the other his universal and per
petual dominion. It is only on the assumption that he was to
rise from the dead that these two classes of prediction can be
reconciled. 5. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the
twelve :
As the resurrection of Christ is an historical fact, it is to
be proved by historical evidence. The apostle therefore ap
peals to the testimony of competent witnesses. All human
laws assume that the testimony of two witnesses, when uncon
tradicted, and especially when confirmed by coUateral evidence,
produces such conviction of the truth of the fact asserted as to
justify even taking the life of a fellow-creature. Confidence
in such testimony is not founded on experience, but on the
constitution of our nature. We are so constituted that we
cannot refuse assent to the testimony of good men to a fact
fairly within their knowledge. To render such testimony irre
sistible it is necessary, 1. That the fact to be proved should be
of a nature to admit of being certainly known. 2. That ade
quate opportunity be afforded to the witnesses to ascertain its
nature, and to be satisfied of its verity. 3. That the witnesses
be of sound mind and discretion. 4. That they be men of in
tegrity. If these conditions be fulfiUed, human testimony
establishes the truth of a fact beyond reasonable doubt. If,
however, in addition to these grounds of confidence, the wit
nesses give their testimony at the expense of great personal
sacrifice, or confirm it with their blood ; if, moreover, the oc
currence ofthe fact in question had been predicted centuries
before it came to pass ; if it had produced effects not otherwise
to be accounted for, effects extending to all ages and nations ;
if the system of doctrine with which that fact is connected so
as to be imphed in it, commends itself as true to the reason
and conscience of men ; and if God confirms not only the testi
mony of the original witnesses to the fact, but also the truth
of the doctrines of which that fact is the necessary basis, by
the demonstration of his Spirit, then it is insanity and wicked
ness to doubt it. All these considerations concur in proof of
the resurrection of Christ, and render it the best authenticated
event in the history of the world.
The apostle does not refer to aU the manifestations of our

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 5. 6. 315
Lord after his resurrection, but selects a few which he details
in the order of their occurrence. The first appearance men
tioned is that to Cephas ; see Luke 24, 34. The second oc
curred on the same day " to the eleven and those who were
with them," Luke 24, 33-36. To this Paul refers by saying,
" then to the twelve ; " comp. also John 20, 19. On this occa
sion, when the disciples were terrified by his sudden appear
ance in the midst of them, he said, "Why are ye troubled?
and why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? Behold my hands
and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see ; for a
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when
he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet."
Luke 24, 38-40. The apostles collectively, after the apostasy
of Judas, are spoken of as the twelve according to a common
usage, although at the time there were only eleven.
6. After that, he was seen of above five hundred
brethren at once ; of whom the greater part remain
unto this present, but some are fahen asleep.
There is no distinct record of this event in the evangelical
history. It may have taken place on the occasion when Christ
met his disciples in Gahlee. Before his death he told them,
" After I am risen again, I wfll go before you into Galilee,"
Matt. 26, 32. Early in the morning of his resurrection he met
the women who had been at his tomb, and said to them, " Be
not afraid ; go teU my brethren, that they go into Galilee, and
there shall they see me," Matt. 28, 10 ; and accordingly in v.
16, it is said, "Then the eleven went away into GalUee, into a
mountain where Jesus had appointed them." This, therefore,
was a formally appointed meeting, and doubtless made known
as extensively as possible to his followers, and it is probable,
therefore, that there was a concourse of aU who could come,
not only from Jerusalem, but from the surrounding country,
and from Gahlee. Though intended specially for the eleven,
it is probable that aU attended who knew of the meeting, and
could possibly reach the appointed place. Who would will
ingly be absent on such an occasion ? Others think that this
appearance took place at Jerusalem, where, in addition to the
one hundred and twenty who constituted the nucleus of the
church in the holy city, there were probably many disciples
gathered from all parts of Judea in attendance on the pass-
over The special value of this testimony to the fact of

316 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 6.7.8.
Christ's resurrection, arises not only from the number of the
witnesses, but from Paul's appeal to their testimony whUe the
majority of them were stUl ahve. Some have fallen asleep.
This is the Christian expression for dying, v. 18, and 11, 30.
Death to the behever is a sleep for his body ; a period of rest
to be followed by a glorious day.
7. After that, he was seen of James ; then of ah
the apostles.
Which James is here intended cannot be determined, as
the event is not elsewhere recorded. The chronological order
indicated in this citation of witnesses, renders it improbable
that the reference is to our Lord's interview with the two disci
ples on their way to Emmau-s, and is inconsistent with the tra
dition preserved by Jerome, that Christ appeared to James
immediately after his resurrection. It has been inferred that
the James intended was James the brother of our Lord, who
presided over the church in Jerusalem, because he was so con
spicuous and universally known. Then to all ihe apostles.
This, for the reason given above, probably does not refer to
the appearance of Christ to the eleven on the day in which he
rose from the dead. It may refer to what is recorded in John
20, 26 ; or to the interview mentioned in Acts 1, 4. Whether
James was one of the apostles is not determined by any thing
in the verse. The word .rao-iv may be used to indicate that
the appearance was to the apostles coUectively ; and this, from
its position, is the most natural explanation. Or the meaning
may be, he appeared to James separately, and then to aU the
apostles including James. If the James intended was James
of Jerusalem ; and if that James were a different person from
James the son of Alpheus (a disputed point), then the former
interpretation should be preferred. For "the apostle" an
swers to " the twelve," and if James of Jerusalem was not the
son of Alpheus, he was not one ofthe twelve.
8. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one
born out of due time.
Last of all may mean last of all the apostles ; or, as is
more probable, last of all means the very last. As to an abor
tion, he appeared to me. Such is Paul's language concern
ing himselfi Thus true is it, that unmerited favours produce

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 8.9.10. 317
self-abasement. Paul could never think of the distinction
conferred on him by Christ, without adverting to his own
unworthiness. 9. Por I am the least of the apostles, that am not
meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the
Church of God.
The least, not because the last in the order of appoint
ment, but in rank and dignity. Who am not worthy to be
called an apostle. See Matt. 3, 11. Luke 3, 16. This deep
humihty ofthe apostle, which led him to regard himself as the
least ofthe apostles, was perfectly consistent with the strenu
ous assertion of his official authority, and of his claim to re
spect and obedience. In 2 Cor. 11, 5 and 12, 11, he says, he
was "not behind the very chiefest apostles;" and in Gal. 2,
6-9, he claims full equality with James, Cephas and John
Those of his children whom God intends to exalt to posts oi
honour and power, he commonly prepares for their elevation
by leading them to such a knowledge of their sinfulness as to
keep them constantly abased. Because I persecuted the church
of God. This is the sin which Paul never forgave himself.
He often refers to it with the deepest contrition, 1 Tim. 1,
13-15. The forgiveness of sin does not obhterate the remem
brance of it ; neither does it remove the sense of unworthiness
and Ul-desert. 10. But by the grace of God I am what I am :
and his grace which (was bestowed) upon me was not
in vain ; but I laboured more abundantly than they
ah : yet not I, but the grace of God which was with
me.
Christian humility does not consist in denying what there
is of good in us ; but in an abiding sense of ill-desert, and in
the consciousness that what we have of good is due to the
grace of God. The grace of God, in this connection, is not
the love of God, but the influence of the Holy Spirit consid
ered as an unmerited favour. This is not only the theological
and popular, but also the scriptural sense of the word grace
in many passages. By the grace of God I am what Iam.
That is divine grace has made me what I am. Had i been

318 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 10. 11. 12. 13.
left to myself, I should have continued a blasphemer, a perse
cutor, and injurious. It is owing to his grace that I am now
an apostle, preaching the faith which I once destroyed.' The
grace of which he was made the subject, he says, was not in
vain, i. e. without effect. But, on the contrary, I laboured
more abundantly than they all. This may mean either, more
than any one of the apostles, or more than all of them to
gether. The latter is more in keeping with the tone of the
passage. It serves more to exalt the grace of God, to which
Paul attributes every thing good ; and it is historicaUy true,
if the New Testament record is to be our guide. Yet not I,
i. e. the fact that I laboured so abundantly is not to be refer
red to me ; I was not the labourer — but the grace which was
with me. By some editors the article is omitted in the last
clause, r\ avv ip.oi. The sense would then be with me, instead
of, which was with me. In the one case grace is represented
as co-operating with the apostle ; in the other, the apostle
loses sight of himself enthely, and ascribes every thing to
grace. ' It was not I, but the grace of God.' TheologicaUy,
there is no difference in these different modes of statement.
The common text is preferred by most editors on critical
grounds ; and the sense, according to the common reading, is
more in accordance with the spirit of the passage, and with
Paul's maimer; comp. Rom. 7, 17. True, he did co-operate
with the grace of God, but this co-operation was due to grace
— so that with the strictest propriety he could say, ' Not I,
but the grace of God.'
11. Therefore whether (it were) I or they, so we
preach, and so ye beheved.
This verse resumes the subject from which vs. 9. 10 are a
digression. ' Christ appeared to the apostles and to me ;
whether therefore I or they preached, we aU proclaimed that
fact, and ye aU beheved it.' The resurrection of Christ was
included in the preaching of aU ministers, and in the faith of
all Christians. 12. 13. Now if Christ be preached that he rose
from the dead, how say some among you that there is
no resurrection of the dead ? But if there be no resur
rection of the dead, then is Christ not risen :

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 13.14. 319
The admission of the resurrection of Christ is inconsistent
with the denial of the resurrection of the dead. What has
happened, may happen. The actual is surely possible. This
mode of arguing shows that the objections urged in Corinth
bore equally against the resurrection of Christ, and against
the general doctrine of the resurrection. They, therefore,
could not have been founded on the pecuhar difficulties at
tending the latter doctrine. They must have been derived
from the assumption that the restoration to life of a body
once dead, is either an impossibility, or an absurdity. Most
probably, these objectors thought, that to reunite the soul
with the body was to shut it up again in prison; and that it
was as much a degradation and retrocession, as if a man should
again become an unborn infant. ' No,' these phUosophers
said, ' the hope of the resurrection " is the hope of swine."
The soul having once been emancipated from the defiling en
cumbrance of the body, it is never to be re-imprisoned.'
The argument of the apostle does not imply that the ob
jectors admitted the resurrection of Christ. He is not argu
ing with them, but agamst them. His design is to show that
their objections to the resurrection proved too much. If they
proved any thing, they proved what no Christian could admit,
viz., that Christ did not rise from the dead. The denial of
the resurrection of the dead involves the denial of the resur
rection of Christ. The question discussed throughout this
chapter is not the continued existence of the soul after death,
but the restoration of the body to life. This is the constant
meaning of the expression " resurrection of the dead," for
which the more definite expression " resurrection ofthe body "
is often substituted. Whether the false teachers in Corinth,
who denied the doctrine of the resurrection, also denied the
immortaUty ofthe soul, is uncertain. The probability is that
they did not. For how could any one pretend to be a Chris
tian, and yet not believe in an hereafter ? AU that is certain
is, that they objected to the doctrine of the resurrection on
grounds which logicaUy involved the denial ofthe resurrection
of Christ. 14. And if Christ be not risen, then (is) our preach
ing vain, and your faith (is) also vain.
This is the first consequence of denying the resurrection
of Christ. The whole gospel is subverted. The reason why

320 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 14.15.
this fact is so essential, is, that Christ rested the validity of all
his claims upon his resurrection. If he did rise, then he is
truly the Son of God and Saviour of the world. His sacrifice
has been accepted, and God is propitious. If be did not rise,
then none of these things is true. He was not what he
claimed to be, and his blood is not a ransom for sinners. In
Rom. 1, 3, the apostle expresses this truth in another form,
by saying that Christ was by his resurrection demonstrated to
be the Son of God. It was on account of the fundamental
importance of this fact that the apostles were appointed to be
the witnesses of Christ's resurrection, Acts 1, 22. Then, i. e. in
case Christ be not risen, our preaching is vain, i. e. empty,
void of all truth, reahty, and power. And your faith is also
vain, i. e. empty, groundless. These consequences are inevita-
bie. For, if the apostles preached a risen and Uving Saviour,
and made his power to save depend on the fact of his resur
rection, of course, their whole preaching was false and worth
less, if Christ were stUl in the grave. The dead cannot save
the living. And if the object of the Christian's faith be the
Son of God as risen from the dead and seated at the right
hand of God in heaven, they beheved a falsehood if Christ be
not risen. 15. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God;
because we have testified of God that he raised up
Christ : whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead
rise not.
This is the second consequence. The apostles were false
witnesses. They were guilty of deliberate falsehood. They
testified that they had seen Christ after his resurrection ; that
they had handled him, felt that he had flesh and bones ; that
they had put their hands into his wounds, and knew assuredly
that it was their Lord. We are found, i. e. we are de
tected or manifested as being false witnesses ; not such as
falsely claim to be witnesses ; but those who bear witness to
what is false, Matt. 26, 60. Because we testified of God;
literaUy, against God. We said he did, what in fact he did
not do, if so be the dead rise not. Here again it is assumed
that to deny that the dead rise is to deny that Christ has risen.
But why is this ? Why may not a man admit that Christ, the
incarnate Son of God, arose from the dead, and yet consistent
ly deny that there is to be a general resurrection of the dead ?

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 15. 16. 17. 18. 321
Because the thing denied was that the dead could rise. The
denial was placed on grounds wliich embraced the case of
Christ. The argument is, If the dead cannot rise, then
Christ did not rise ; for Christ was dead.
16. Por if the dead rise not, then is not Christ
raised :
This is a reassertion ofthe inseparable connection between
these two events. If there be no resurrection, Christ is not
risen. If the thing be impossible, it has never happened.
The sense in which Christ rose, determines the sense in which
the dead are said to rise. As it is the resurrection of Christ's
body that is affirmed, so it is the resurrection of the bodies of
the dead, and not merely the continued existence of their
souls which is affirmed. The repetition in this verse of what
had been said in v. 13, seems to be with the design of prepar
ing the way for v. 17.
17. And if Christ be not raised, your faith (is)
vain ; ye are yet in your sins.
This is the thhd consequence of the denial of Christ's resur
rection. In v. 14 it was said, your faith is Kevrj, empty ; here
it is said to be puarala, fruitless. In what sense the foUowing
clause explains ; ye are yet in your sins, i. e. under the con
demnation of sin. Comp. John 8, 21, "Ye shaU die in your
sins." As Christ's resurrection is necessary to our justifica
tion, Rom. 4, 25, if he did not rise, we are not justified. To
teach, therefore, that there is no resurrection, is to teach that
there is no atonement and no pardon. Errorists seldom see
the consequences of the false doctrines which they embrace.
Many allow themselves to entertain doubts as to this very
doctrine of the resurrection of the body, who would be
shocked at the thought of rejecting the doctrine of atone
ment. Yet Paul teaches that the denial of the one involves
the denial ofthe other.
18. Then they also which are fahen asleep in Christ
are perished.
This is the fourth disastrous consequence of the denial of
the doctrine in question. Al the dead in Christ are lost. To
14*

322 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 18.19.
fall asleep in Christ is to die in faith, or in communion with
Christ for salvation. See 1 Thess. 4, 14. Rev. 14, 13. Are
perished ; rather, they perished. 'They perished when they
died.' Perdition, according to Scripture, is not annihUation,
but everlasting misery and sin. It is the loss of hohness and
happiness for ever. If Christ did not rise for the justification
of those who died in him, they found no advocate at the bar
of God ; and have incurred the fate of those who perish in
their sins. Rather than admit such conclusions as these, the
Corinthians might well aUow philosophers to say what they
pleased about the impossibUity of a resurrection. It was
enough for them that Christ had risen, whether they could
understand how it can be that the dead should rise, or not.
19. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we
are of all men most miserable.
Not only the future, but even the present is lost, if Christ
be not risen. Not only did the departed sink into perdition
when they died, but we, who are ahve, are more miserable
than other men. This is the last conclusion which the apostle
draws from the denial of the resurrection. If in this life only,
the word p,6vov, only, admits of a threefold connection. ' Al
though it stands at the end of the clause it may be connected,
as in our translation, with the words " in this life." ' If in this
life only.' That is, if aU the good we expect from Christ is to
be enjoyed in this life, we are more miserable than other men.
We are constantly exposed to aU manner of persecutions and
sufferings, whfle they are at their ease. 2. It may be connect
ed with the word Christ. This is a very natural construction,
according to the position of the words in the common text,
for (iv Xpio-rcS p.6vov), in Christ only, stand together. The
sense would then be, ' If we have set all our hopes on Christ,
and he fails us, we are of all men most miserable.' This,
however, supposes the important clause, on which everything
depends (if he fails us), to be omitted. It also leaves the
words in this life without importance. 3. Recent editors,
foUowing the older manuscripts, place ev Xpior<3 before the
verb, and make povov qualify the whole clause. ' If we have
only hoped in Christ, and there is to be no fulfilling of our
hopes, we are more miserable than others.' Or, 'If we are
only such (nothing more than such) who in life, and not in
death, have hope in Christ,' <fcc. The apposition between the

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 19.20.

323

dead in v. 18, and the living in this verse, is in favour of the
first-mentioned explanation. 'Those who died in Christ, per
ished when they died. And we, if aU our hopes in Christ are
confined to this life, are the most miserable of men.' We have
hoped. The Greek is rjkTT.KOTes i_rp.lv, which, as the commen
tators remark, expresses not what we do, but what we are.
We are hopers. This passage does not teach that Christians
are in this life more miserable than other men. This is con
trary to experience. Christians are unspeakably happier than
other men. AU that Paul means to say is, that if you take
Christ from Christians, you take their aU. He is the source
not only of their future, but of theh present happiness.
Without him they are yet in theh sins, under the curse ofthe
law, unreconcUed to God, having no hope, and without God
in the world ; and yet subject to aU the pecuhar trials incident
to a Christian profession, which in the apostohc age often in
cluded the loss of aU things.
20. But now is Christ risen from the dead, (and)
become the first-fruits of them that slept.
But now, wvl Se', i. e. as the matter actually stands. AU
the gloomy consequences presented in the preceding verses
foUow from the assumption that Christ did not rise from the
dead. But as in point of fact he did rise, these things have no
place. Our preaching is not vain, your faith is not vain, ye
are not in your sins, the dead in Christ have not perished, we
are not more miserable than other men. The reverse of all
this is true. Christ has not only risen, but he has risen in a
representative character. His resurrection is the pledge of
the resurrection of his people. He rose as the first-fruits of
them that slept, and not of them only, but as the first-fruits of
aU who are ever to sleep in Jesus. The apostle does not mean
merely that the resurrection of Christ was to precede that of
his people ; but as the first sheaf of the harvest presented to
God as a thank-offering, was the pledge and assurance of the
ingathering ofthe whole harvest, so the resurrection of Christ
is a pledge and proof of the resurrection of his people. In
Rom. 8, 23 and 11, 16, the word dnaPXv, first-fruits,^ the
same force. Comp. also Col. 1, 18, where Christ is culled
"the first begotten from the dead," and Rev. 1, 5. Of the
ereat harvest of glorified bodies which our earth is to yield
Christ is the first-fruits. As he rose, so aU his people must ; as

324 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 20.21.22.
certainly and as gloriously, Phil. 3, 21. The nature of this
causal connection between the resurrection of Christ and that
of his people, is explained in the foUowing verses.
21. Por since by man (came) death, by man (came)
also the resurrection of the dead.
The connection between this verse and the preceding is
obvious. The resurrection of Christ secures the resurrection
of his people, for as there was a causal relation between the
death of Adam and the death of his descendants, so there is a
causal relation between the resurrection of Christ and that of
his people. What that causal relation is, is not here expressed.
It is simply asserted that as death is St' avSpimov, by means of
a man ; so the resurrection is Si' avSpairov, by means of a man.
Why Adam was the cause of death, and why Christ is the
cause of life, is explained in the foUowing verse, and abundant
ly elsewhere in Scripture, but not here. By death, in this
verse, is meant the death ofthe body ; and by the resurrection
is meant the restoration of the body to life. This, however,
only proves that the death of which Adam was the cause in
cludes physical death, and that the Ufe of which Christ is the
cause includes the future life of the body. But as the hfe
which we derive from Christ includes far more than the life of
the body, so the death which flows from Adam includes far
more than physical death.
22. Por as in Adam ah die, even so in Christ shah
ah be made alive.
This is the reason why Adam was the cause of death, and
why Christ is the cause of life. We die by means of Adam,
because we were in Adam ; and we live by means of Christ,
because we are in Christ. Union with Adam is the cause of
death ; union with Christ is the cause of hfe. The nature of
this union and its consequences are more fuUy explained in
Rom. 5, 12-21. In both cases it is a representative and vital
union. We are in Adam because he was our head and repre
sentative, and because we partake of his nature. And we are
in Christ because he is our head and representative, and be-
cause we partake of his nature through the indweUing of his
Spirit. Adam, therefore, is the cause of death, because his
6in is the judicial ground of our condenmation ; and because

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 22. 325
we derive from him a corrupt and enfeebled nature. Christ
is the cause of life, because his righteousness is the judicial
ground of our justification ; and because we derive from him
the Holy Ghost, which is the som-ce of life both to the soul
and body. Comp. Rom. 8, 9-11.
That the word all in the latter part of this verse is to be
restricted to aU beUevers (or rather, to aU the people of Christ,
as infants are included) is plain, 1. Because the word in both
clauses is hmited. It is the all who are in Adam that die ;
and the all who are in Christ who are made ahve. As union
with Christ is made the ground of the communication of hfe
here spoken of, it can be extended only to those who are in
him. But according to the constant representation of the
Scriptures, none are in him but his own people. " If any man
be in Christ, he is a new creature," 2 Cor. 5, 17. 2. Because
the verb (£o_o7roiea>) here found is never used of the wicked.
Whenever employed hi reference to the work of Christ it
always means to communicate to them that life of which he is
the source, John 5, 21. 6, 63. Rom. 8. 11. 1 Cor. 15, 45.
Gal. 3, 21. The real meaning of the verse therefore, is, 'As
in Adam aU die, so in Christ shall aU be made partakers of a
glorious and everlasting life.' Unless, therefore, the Bible
teaches that all men are in Christ, and that aU through him
partake of eternal life, the passage must be restricted to his
own people. 3. Because, although Paul elsewhere speaks of
a general resurrection both ofthe just and ofthe unjust, Acts
24, 15, yet, throughout this chapter he speaks only of the
resurrection of the righteous. 4. Because, in the parallel
passage in Rom. 5, 12-21, the same limitation must be made.
In v. 18 of that chapter it is said, "As by the offence of one
judgment came upon all men to condemnation ; even so by
the righteousness of one the free gift came upon aU men to
justification of lffe." That is, as for the offence of Adam all
men were condemned, so for the righteousness of Christ aU
men are justified. The context and the analogy of Scripture
require us to understand this to mean, as all who are in Adam
are condemned, so all who are in Christ are justified. _ No
historical Christian church has ever held that all men inchs-
criminately are justified. For whom God justifies them he
also glorifies, Rom. 8, 30. .
There are two other interpretations ofthis verse. Accord
ing to one the verb, shall be made alive, is taken to mean no
more than shall be raised from the dead. But this, as already

326 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 22.23.24.
remarked, is not only inconsistent with the prevailing use of
the word, but with the whole context. Others, admitting that
the passage necessarily treats of a resurrection to glory and
blessedness, insist that the word all must be taken to include
all men. But this contradicts the constant doctrine of the
Bible, and has no support in the context. It is not absolutely
all who die through Adam, but those only who were in him ;
so it is not absolutely aU who live through Christ, but those
only who are in him.
23. But every man in his own order : Christ the
first-fruits ; afterward they that are Christ's at his
coming. In his own order. The word rdyp.a is properly a concrete
term, meaning a band, as of soldiers. If this be insisted upon
here, then Paul considers the hosts of those that rise as divided
into different cohorts or companies ; first Christ, then his peo
ple, then the rest of mankind. But the word is used by later
writers, as Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians I. 37, and
41, in the sense of rafts, order of succession. And this best
suits the context, for Christ is not a band. AU that Paul
teaches is, that, although the resurrection of Christ secures
that of his people, the two events are not contemporaneous.
First Christ, then those who are Christ's. There is no intima
tion of any further division or separation in time in the process
of the resurrection. The resurrection of the people of Christ
is to take place at his coming, 1 Thess. 3, 13. 4, 14-19.
24. Then (cometh) the end, when he shah have de
livered up the kingdom to God, even the Pather ; when
he shall have put down ah rule, and ah authority and
power. This is a very difficult passage, and the interpretations
given of it are too numerous to be recited. The first question
is, What is the end here spoken of? The common answer is,
That it is the end of the world. That is, the close of the pres
ent order of things ; the consummation of the work of redemp
tion. In favour of this view, it may be urged, 1. That where
there is nothing in the context to determine otherwise, The
end naturally means the end of all things. There is nothing

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 24. 32.
here to limit the application, but the nature of the subject
spoken of. 2. The analogy of Scripture is in favour of this ex
planation. In 1 Pet. 4, 7 we find the expression " the end of
all things is at hand." Matt. 24, 6, " The end is not yet ; "
v. 14, "Then shaU the end come." So in Mark 13, 7. Luke
21, 9. In all these _ passages the end means the end ofthe
world. 3. The equivalent expressions serve to explain the
meaning of this phrase. The disciples asked our Lord, " What
shaU be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world ? "
(i. e. the consummation of the present dispensation.) In an
swer to this question, our Lord said certain things were to
happen, but " the end is not yet ; " and afterwards, " then
shaU the end come." See Matt. 24, 3. 6. 14. The same ex
pression occurs in the same sense, Matt. 13, 39. 28, 20, and
elsewhere. "The end," therefore, means the end of the
world. In the same sense the phrase " untU the restoration of
all things" is probably used in Acts 3, 21. 4. What immedi
ately follows seems decisive in favour of this interpretation.
The end is, when Christ shall dehver up his kingdom, after
having subdued aU his enemies ; i. e. after having accomphshed
the work of redemption.
Many commentators understand by the end, the end ofthe
resurrection. That work, they say, is to be accomphshed by
distinct stages. First the resurrection of Christ, then that of
his people, then that of the wicked. This last, they say, is
expressed by then cometh the end, viz., the end of the resur
rection. Against this view, however, are all the arguments
above stated in favour of the opinion that the end means the
end ofthe world. Besides, the doctrine that there are to be
two resurrections, one of the righteous and another of the
wicked, the latter separated from the former by an unknown
period of time, is entirely foreign to the New Testament, un
less what is said in the 20th chapter of Revelation teaches
that doctrine. Admitting that a twofold resurrection is there
spoken of, it would not be proper to transfer from that pas
sage an idea foreign to aU Paul's representations ofthe subject.
If that fact was revealed to John, it does not prove that it was
revealed to Paul. AU that the most stringent doctrine of in
spiration requires is, that the passages should not contradict
each other. The passage in Revelation, however, is altogether
too uncertain to be made the rule of interpretation for the
plainer declarations ofthe epistolary portions of the New Tes
tament On the contrary, what is doubtful m the former

328 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 24.
should be explained by what is clearly taught in the latter,
Secondly, it is clearly taught in the gospels and epistles that
the resurrection of the righteous and of the wicked is to be
contemporaneous. At least, that is the mode in which the
subject is always presented. The element of time (i. e. the
chronological succession of the events) may indeed in these
representations be omitted, as is so often the case in the pro
phecies of the Old Testament. But unless it can be proved
from other sources, that events which are foretold as contem
poraneous, or as foUowing the one the other in immediate suc
cession, are in fact separated by indefinite periods of time, no
such separation can properly be assumed. In the evangelists
and epistles the resurrection of the righteous and that of the
wicked are spoken of as contemporaneous, and since their sep
aration in time is nowhere else revealed, the only proper in
ference is that they are to occur together. In Matt. 24, 3, the
coming of Christ and the end of the world are coupled to
gether as contemporaneous. And throughout that chapter
our Lord foreteUs what is to happen before that event, and
adds, " Then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven
. . . and he shaU send his angels with the sound of a great
trumpet, and they shaU gather together the elect from the
four winds, from one end of heaven to the other," vs. 30.
31. In John 5, 28. 29 it is said, "The hour is coming when
aU (good and bad) who are in their graves shaU hear the voice
of the Son of Man, and shaU come forth, they that have done
good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done
evU unto the resurrection of damnation." In 2 Thess. 1, 7-10,
Christ is said to come to take vengeance on those who obey
not the gospel, and to be glorified in the saints. These events
go together. Besides, our Lord rejieatedly says that he will
raise up his people " at the last day," John 6, 39. 40. 11, 24,
and therefore not an indefinitely long period before the last
day. According to the uniform representations of the Scrip
tures, when Christ comes he is to raise all the dead and sepa
rate the wicked from among the just as a shepherd divides his
sheep from the goats. Or, according to another figure, he is
to send forth his angels and separate the tares from the wheat.
It has therefore been the constant faith of the church that the
second advent of Christ, the resurrection ofthe just and ofthe
unjust, the final judgment and end of the world — are parts of
one great transaction, and not events which are to succeed
each other at long intervals of time. AU this, however, is said

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 24. 329
with diffidence and submission. It may prove to be otherwise.
The predictions ofthe Old Testament produced the universal
impression that the first coming of Christ was to be attended
at once by events which we learn from the New Testament
require ages to bring about. Still, we are bound to take the
Scriptures as they stand, and events which are described as
contemporaneous are to be assumed to be so, untU the event
proves the contrary. We may be perfectly sure that the
Scriptures wfll prove infallibly true. The predictions of the
Old Testament, although in some points misinterpreted, or
rather interpreted too far, by the ancient church, were fully
vindicated and explained by the event.
The second question to be considered is, When is the end
ofthe world to take place ? According to some, at Christ's
coining ; according to others, at an indefinite period after his
second coming. It may be admitted that this verse is not de
cisive on this point. It marks the succession of certain events,
but determines nothing as to the interval between them.
Fhst, Christ's resurrection ; then the resurrection of his people ;
then the end of the world. But as it is said that those who are
Christ's shaU rise at his coming, and then cometh the end ;
the natural impression is that nothing remains to be done after
the resurrection before the end comes. This view is confirmed
by the numerous passages of the New Testament, several of
which have aheady been quoted, which connect the general
judgment and end ofthe world as intimately with the coming
of Christ as the resurrection of his people. Some of those who
assume that an indefinite period is to elapse between the com
ing of Christ and the end ofthe world, suppose that the inter
vening period is to be occupied not in the work of conversion,
but in the subjugation of the enemies of Christ spoken of in
the foUowing verses. The common opinion among those who
adopt this interpretation is, that the interval in question is to
be occupied by the personal reign of Christ on earth. This is
the doctrine of the ancient ChUiasts, and of modern MiUena-
rians. The form which this doctrine has commonly assumed
in ancient and modern times is only a modified Judaism, en
thely at variance with the spirituahty of the gospel and Avith
the teachings ofthe apostle in this chapter. He teUs us that
flesh and blood, i. e. bodies organized as our present bodies
are, i. e. natural bodies, cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
The whole design of the latter portion of this chapter is to
show that after the resurrection, the bodies of behevers will

330 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 24.
be like the glorious body of the Son of God, adapted to a
heavenly, and not to an earthly condition.
A third question which this verse presents is, In what sense
is Christ to deliver up the kingdom to the Father ? In the
common text the words are 6Vav 7rapaS<3, when he shall have
delivered up ; most of the modern editors read irapaStSuj, when
he delivers up. That is, when the end comes, Christ is to de
liver up the kingdom to his Father. What does this mean ?
The Scriptures constantly teach that Christ's kingdom is an
everlasting kingdom, and of his dominion there is no end. In
what sense, then, can he be said to dehver up his kingdom?
It must be remembered, that the Scriptures speak of a three
fold ldngdom as belonging to Christ. 1. That which necessa
rUy belongs to him as a divine person, extending over aU
creatures, and of which he can never divest himself. 2. That
which belongs to him as the incarnate Son of God, extending
over his own people. This also is everlasting. He wiU for
ever remain the head and sovereign of the redeemed. 3. That
dominion to which he was exalted after his resurrection, when
all power in heaven and earth was committed to his hands.
This kingdom, which he exercises as the Theanthropos, and
which extends over all principaUties and powers, he is to de
liver up when the work of redemption is accomplished. He
was invested with this dominion in his mediatorial character
for the purpose of carrying on his work to its consummation.
When that is done, i. e. when he has subdued aU his enemies,
then he wiU no longer reign over the universe as Mediator,
but only as God ; while his headship over his people is to con
tinue for ever. To God even the Father, i. e. to him who is at
once his God and Father. This is the Scriptural designation
of the first person of the Trinity. He is the God of the Lord
Jesus Christ, inasmuch as he is the God whom Christ came to
reveal, and whose work he performs. He is his Father in vir
tue of the eternal relation subsisting between the first and
second persons in the Godhead.
The fourth question which this pregnant verse suggests is
presented in the last clause. When he shall have put down
all rule, and authority and power. Calvin and others under
stand this to mean, ' When he shaU have abrogated aU other do
minion than his own.' Whatever authority is now exercised
by one man over others is at last to be abolished, and merged
in the all-pervading authority of God. Most commentators, in
obedience to the context, understand the passage to refer to

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 24.25.26. 331
aU hostUe powers, whether demoniacal or human. These are
to be put down, i. e. effectuaUy subdued ; not annihilated, and
not converted ; but simply deprived of all power to disturb
the harmony of his kingdom.
25. For he must reign, till he hath put ah enemies
under his feet.
This verse assigns the reason why Christ cannot relinquish
his dominion over the universe as mediator until the end
comes, and why he will then dehver it up. He must reign
until the purpose for which he was invested with this univer
sal dominion is accomplished. As in Ps. 110 it is said to the
Messiah, " Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy ene
mies thy footstool," many assume that God is the subject of
the verb has put. The meaning would then be, ' He must
reign untU God has put aU his enemies under his feet.' But
this is inconsistent with the context. Christ is to put d own
aU rule, authority and power, v. 24, and he reigns untU he has
accomplished that work. The two modes of representation
are perfectly consistent. The Father created the world,
though he did it through the Son, Heb. 1, 3. The work,
therefore, is sometimes ascribed to the one and sometimes to
the other. In hke manner the Father subdues the powers of
darkness, but it is through Christ to whom aU power in
heaven and earth has been committed. It is therefore equally
proper to say that God makes the enemies of Christ his foot
stool, and that Christ himself puts his enemies under his feet.
The enemies who are to be thus subdued are not only intelli
gent bemgs hostUe to Christ, but aU the forms of evU, physical
and moral, because death is specially included. By subduing,
however, is not meant destroying or banishing out of existence.
The passage does not teach that Christ is to reign untU aU evil
is banished from the universe. Satan is said to be subdued,
when deprived of his power to injure the people of God.
And evil in like manner is subdued when it is restrained with
in the limits of the kingdom of darkness.
26. The last enemy (that) shall be destroyed (is) death.
Death shall reign until the resurrection. Then men shall
nevermore be subject to his power. Then death shall be
swaUowed up in victory, Luke 20, 26. "Neither shaU they
die any more," 2 Tim. 1, 10. Rev. 20, 14.

332 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 27.
27. Por he hath put all things under his feet. But
when he saith, Ah things are put under (him, it is)
manifest that he is excepted, which did put ah things
under him.
The proof that death is finally to be destroyed is derived
from the 8th Psalm, where the subjection of all things to the
Messiah is predicted. There are two passages of the Old
Testament frequently quoted in the New Testament as fore
telling the absolutely universal dominion of the Messiah, Ps.
110 and Ps. 8. The former is quoted, or its language appro
priated, in v. 25. Matt. 22, 44. Acts 2, 34. Eph. 1, 22. Heb. 1,
13. 10, 12. 13. 1 Pet. 3, 22. In this there is no difficulty, as
that Psalm clearly refers to the Messiah and to none else.
The 8th Psalm is quoted and apphed to Christ in this passage,
and in Eph. 1, 22. Heb. 2, 8, and 1 Pet. 3, 22. As this Psalm
has no apparent reference to the Messiah, but is a thanksgiv
ing to God for his goodness to man, the use made of it in the
New Testament is to be understood, as an inspired exposition
of its hidden meaning. That is, when the Psalmist said,
" Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy
hands, thou hast put all things under his feet," we learn from
the New Testament that the Spirit of God intended by these
words far more than that man was invested with dominion
over the beasts of the field. There is no limit to the all things
here intended. Heb. 2, 8. Man is clothed with dominion
over the whole universe, over aU principalities and powers,
and every name that is named, not only in this world but also
in that which is to come. This is fulfilled in the man Christ
Jesus, into whose hands aU power in heaven and earth has
been committed. This may be called the hidden meaning of
the Psalm, because it never would have been discovered with
out a further revelation such as we find in the exposition given
by the inspired apostles. When he saith, orav ehrg. This may
mean either, when the Scripture saith, or when God saith.
The latter is better on account of what follows. The verb is
not to be translated as in the present tense, but, as the better
commentators agree, in the past future, see v. 24. Heb. 1, 6.
' When God shaU have said.' That is, when God shaU have
declared his purpose to subject all things to Christ accom
phshed, it will then be manifest that aU things are subject to
him, God only excepted.

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 28. 333
28. And when all things shall be subdued unto
him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto
him that put ah things under him, that God may be
all in ah.
When the work of redemption has been accomplished, the
dead raised, the judgment held, the enemies of Christ aU sub
dued, then, and not till then, will the Son also himself be sub
ject to him who put ah things under him. This passage is
evidently paraUel with that in v. 24. The subjection of the
Son to the Father here means precisely what is there meant
by his delivering up the kingdom to God even the Fa
ther. The thing done, and the person who does it, are the
same. The subjection here spoken of is not predicated ofthe
eternal Logos, the second person of the Trinity, any more
than the kingdom spoken of in v. 24 is the dominion which be
longs essentially to Christ as God. As there the word Christ
designates the Theanthropos, so does the word Son here desig
nate, not the Logos as such, but the Logos as incarnate. And
as the dehvery of the kingdom or royal authority over the
universe committed to Christ after his resurrection, is consist
ent at once with his continued dominion as God over all crea
tures, and with his continued headship over his people ; so is
the subjection here spoken of consistent with his eternal
equaUty with the Father. It is not the subjection of the Son
as Son, but of the Son as Theanthropos of which the apostle
here speaks. The doctrine ofthe true and proper divinity of
our Lord is so clearly revealed in Scripture, and is so in
wrought into the faith of his people, that such passages as
these, though adduced with so much confidence by the im-
pugners of that doctrine, give believers no more trouble than
the ascription of the bmitations of our nature to God. When
the Bible says that God repents, we know that it is consistent
with his immutability; and when it says the Son is subject or
inferior to the Father, we know that it is consistent with their
equality, as certainly as we know that saying that man is immor
tal is consistent with saying he is mortal. We know that both
ofthe last-mentioned propositions are true ; because mortality
is predicated of man in one aspect, and immortality in another
aspect. In one sense he is mortal, in another sense he is im
mortal In like manner we know that the verbally inconsist
ent propositions, the Son is subject to the Father, and, the Son
is equal with the Father, are both true. In one sense he is

334 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 28.
subject, in another sense he is equal. The son of a king may
be 'the equal of his father in every attribute of his nature,
though officiaUy inferior. So the eternal Son of God may be
coequal with the Father, though officially subordinate. What
difficulty is there in this ? What shade does it cast over the
full Godhead of our adorable Redeemer ? The subordination,
however, here spoken of, is not that of the human nature of
Christ separately considered, as when he is said to suffer, or
to die, or to be ignorant ; but it is the official subordination
of the incarnate Son to God as God. The words ovutos 6 mo's,
the Son himself, here designate, as in so many other places,
not the second person of the Trinity as such, but that person
as clothed in our nature. And the subjection spoken of, is
not of the former, but of the latter, i. e. not of the Son as Son,
but ofthe Son as incarnate ; and the subjection itself is official
and therefore perfectly consistent with equality of nature.
There is another difficulty connected with this verse which
it may be weU to notice. According to the Scriptures and
the creeds of all the great historical churches (Greek, Latin,
Lutheran and Reformed), the term Son, as apphed to Christ,
designates his divine nature. It is a term of nature and not
of office. He was from eternity the Son of God. Yet it is of
the Son that subjection is here predicated. This is urged as
an argument agamst his eternal sonship. The fact, however,
is, that the person of Christ may be designated from one na
ture, when the predicate belongs either to the opposite nature
or to the whole person. That is, he may be called God when
what is said of him is true only of his human nature or of his
complex person as God and man ; and he may be called man,
when what is said is true only of his divine nature. Thus he
is called the Son of Man when omnipresence and omniscience
are ascribed to him ; and he is called God, the Son of God, the
Lord of glory when he is said to die. These passages do not
prove that the human nature of Christ is every where present ;
or that his divine nature suffered and died. Neither do such
expressions as that in the text prove that the Son as such is
inferior to the Father, nor that the term Son is not a scriptural
designation of his divine nature. The principle here adverted
to is so important, and serves to explain so many passages of.
Scripture, that it wUl bear to be often repeated. ''
That God may be all in all. Before the ascension of
Christ, God reigned as God ; after that event he reigned and
stfll reigns through the Theanthropos ; when the end comes*,

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 28. 335
the Theanthropos wiU deliver up this administrative kingdom,
and. God again be aU in aU. Such is the representation of
Scripture, and such seems to be the simple meaning of this
passage. When our Lord ascended up on high all power in
heaven and earth was given to him. It was given to him then,
and therefore not possessed before. He is to retain this dele
gated power in his character of Mediator, God-man, until his
enemies are put under his feet. Then he, the God-man, is to
deliver it up. And God as God will reign supreme. The
phrase here used, to. -n-dvra (or -n-dvra) iv iraxnv, all in all, de
pends (as is the case with all simUar formulas), for its precise
meaning on the connection. If words be taken by themselves,
and made to mean any thing which theh signification will ad
mit, without regard to the context or to the analogy of Scrip
ture, then the authority of the word of God is effectually sub
verted. No book, human or divine, can be interpreted on a
principle so unreasonable. Some, however, regardless of this
universally admitted rule of interpretation, say that these
words teach that the whole universe is to be merged in God —
he is to become aU in aU — he wfll be all, and all will be God.
Others limit the last all to intelhgent creatures, and the sense
in which God is all is restricted to his gracious influence ; so
that whUe the continued personal existence of rational crea
tures is provided for, it is assumed that God is to reign
supreme in aU inteUigent beings. All sin and evU will thus be
banished from the whole universe. This interpretation is, in
the first place, perfectly arbitrary. If the meaning of the
words is to be pressed beyond the limits assigned by the con
text and the analogy of Scripture, why limit iv -rrdai to intel
hgent creatures, and rd -n-dvra to mere gracious control ? The
passage teaches pantheism, if it teaches universalism. Second
ly, this interpretation is contrary to the context. Paul is
speaking simply ofthe continuance ofthe mediatorial dominion
of Christ over the universe. That dominion was given to him
for a specific purpose ; when that purpose is accomphshed, he
will give it up, and God, instead of reigning through Christ,
wUl be recognized as the immediate sovereign of the universe ;
his co-equal, co-eternal Son, clothed in our nature, being, as
the everlasting head ofthe redeemed, officially subordinate to
him In other words, the whole question, so to speak, is
whose hands are to hold the reins of universal dominion.
They are now in the hands of Christ ; hereafter they are to be
in the hands of God as such. The passage does not teach us

336 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 28.29.
the design of redemption, but what is to happen when the re
demption of God's people is accomplished. Then the Messi
anic reign is to cease, and God is to rule supreme over a uni
verse reduced to order, the people of God being saved, and
the finaUy impenitent shut up with Satan and his angels in the
prison of despair. Thirdly, the interpretation which makes
this passage teach the restoration of aU intelligent creatures
to holiness, is contrary to the express declarations of Scrip
tures and to the faith of the church universal. This the most
accomphshed of its advocates virtuaUy admit. See for exam
ple Olshausen's commentary on this epistle. If the evidence
in support of the doctrine of the everlasting perdition of the
wicked were not overwhelming, it never could have become a
part of the faith of the universal church. And that doctrine
being once established on its own grounds, doubtful passages
must be interpreted in accordance with it.
There is another orthodox interpretation of this passage.
It is assumed to treat of the final result of the work of re
demption. God wiU reign supreme in aU. But the all is re
stricted to the subjects of redemption. The whole chapter
treats of those who are in Christ. It is of theh resurrection,
and of the effect of redemption in their case, the apostle is as
sumed to speak. ' AU who are in Christ shaU be made ahve,
v. 22, and God shall reign in them aU.' The sense is good,
but this interpretation overlooks what intervenes between vs.
22 and 28 concerning the kingdom of Christ and its being
given up.
29. Else what shah they do which are baptized for
the dead, if the dead rise not at ah ? why are they then
baptized for the dead ?
The apostle, after the preceding digression, returns to his
argument for the resurrection. ' The dead are certainly to be
raised, otherwise (eW) what shall they do who are baptized
for the dead ? ' This practice (whatever it was) of baptizing
for the dead, takes for granted that the dead are to rise.
What shaU they do, i. e. What account wUl they give of them
selves ? what explanation of their conduct can they make ?
The most important of the numerous interpretations of this
verse admit of being reduced to the following classes : 1. Those
which turn on the sense given to the word baptize. 2. Those
wliich depend on the explanation of the preposition ht-ip, for.

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 29. 337
3. Those which assume an elUpsis in the verse. 4. Those
which turn on the explanation of rwv veKp_.v, tlie dead. 1. The
simplest and most natural interpretation takes the word bap
tize in its ordinary sense. ' What do they do who allow them
selves to be baptized in the place ofthe dead ?' This supposes
that the custom of vicarious baptism, as afterwards practised
by the Cerinthians and Marcionites, had already been intro
duced into Corinth. Among those, heretical sects, if a cate
chumen died before baptism, some one was baptized in his
name, in order that he might be enroUed among Christians and
receive the benefit ofthe ordinance. The objections to this in
terpretation are, that the practice was superstitious, founded
on wrong views ofthe nature and efficacy of baptism. 2. That
there are no traces elsewhere of the prevalence of vicarious
baptism before the second century. 3. That it was universaUy
condemned by the churches as heretical. 4. That it cannot
be supposed that the apostle would refer to such a supersti
tious custom without condemning it. These objections are in
a measure met by the foUowing considerations : 1. Paul, so far
from intimating any approbation of the custom, distinctly sep
arates himself from its abettors. He does not say, ' What shall
we do ' — ' What shaU they do.' It was something with which
he had no feUowship. 2. That this method of arguing against
others from theh own concessions, is one which the apostle
frequently employs. 3. That when his mind is fuU of a partic
ular subject he does not leave it, to pronounce judgment on
things incidentaUy introduced. Thus, in chap. 11, 5, when
treating of women speaking in the church unveUed, he ex
presses no disapprobation of their speaking in pubhc, although
he afterwards condemned it. A stiU more striking example
ofthe same thing is to be found 10, 8, where he speaks of the
Corinthians " sitting at meat in an idol's temple," without any
disapprobation of the thing itself, but only of its influence on
the weaker brethren. Yet, in 10, 14-22, he proves that the
thing itself was an act of idolatry. 4. That the entire disap
pearance ofthis custom in the orthodox church, although other
superstitious observances not less objectionable soon prevailed,
is probably to be referred to the practice havmg been forbid
den by the apostle as soon as he reached Cormth. This may
have been one of the things which he left "to be set in order
when he came," 11,34. 5. The state of the church in Cormth,
as disclosed by this epistle, was not such as to render the
adoption of such a custom by a portion of the people, incredi-
15

338 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 29.30.
bie. Baptizing for the dead was not so bad as sitting at the
table of devils, 10, 21. A second interpretation under this
head gives the word baptize the figurative sense which it has
in Matt. 20, 22. Luke 12, 50, " I have a baptism to be baptized
with ; and how am I straitened until it be accompUshed ! "
According to this view, Paul here refers to the baptism of
afflictions. ' Why do men suffer so for the hopelessly dead ?
if the dead are not to rise, what is the use of suffering so much
for them ? i. e. of labouring so much, and enduring so much for
men who, when dead, are never to live again.' This, however,
evidently puts a sense on the word dead, which it will not bear.
It is assumed to designate not those actuaUy dead, but men
who when dead are not to rise again.
Of the second class of interpretations some propose to ren
der xmep by over. ' Why do they baptize over the dead ? i. e.
over their graves.' Sometimes, for the sake of expressing
their faith in the resurrection, Christians are said to have been
baptized over the graves of the martyrs. Others say that
vrrep means in the place of. ' Why should men be baptized in
place of the dead ? i. e. to supply their places in the church, and
thus keep up the ranks of beUevers.' A thhd class propose
to take veKpiav for the singular, and to read, ' Why are they
baptized for one dead ? ' Others say the meaning is, for the
dead, i e. for bodies. What is the use of being baptized for a
dead body ? a body which is never to five again. He that is
baptized receives the ordinance beUeving that his body is not
to remain dead. Calvin and others understand the dead to
mean here, those about to die. ' Why should baptism be ad
ministered for those on the verge of the grave — ff there be no
resurrection ? ' FinaUy, some suppose the passage is eUiptical.
Fully expressed it would be, ' What do they do who are bap
tized for the resurrection of the dead ? ' i. e. in hope of the
resurrection which was professed by aU who receive baptism.
The darkness which rests on this passage can never be entirely
cleared away, because the reference is to a custom of which
no account is extant. If the dead rise not at all belongs tc
the latter member of the verse. ' If the dead rise not at all,
why are they baptized for them ? ' Instead of tw veKpw, the
dead, modern editors read air_.v, them.
30. And why stand we in jeopardy every horn ?
Here Paul speaks for himself. With baptizing for the

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 30.31.32. 339
dead, he had nothing to do. ' Why do they allow themselves,'
he asks, 'to be baptized for the dead?' That, as would ap
pear, is what his opponents did. As an additional argument for
the doctrine which he is defending, he urges, that its denial
destroys at least one of the great motives to self-denial. ' If
there be no resurrection, on which aU our hopes as Christians
depend, why should we voluntarily encounter perpetual dan
ger ? ' It is to be remembered that, according to Paul's doctrine
and previous argument, if there be no resurrection, then Christ
is not risen, and if Christ be not risen, there is no atonement,
no reconcihation with God. We are in a state of final and
hopeless condemnation. What is the use of labouring to save
men, if there be no salvation ?
31. I protest by your rejoicing which I have in
Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
Paul solemnly assures his readers that he was constantly
in jeopardy, for, says he, I die daily, i. e. I am constantly ex
posed to death, 2 Cor. 4, 10. By your boasting which I have.
This is not the meaning, but, '¦By my boasting concerning you.'
That is, ' as surely as I boast of you, and rejoice over you.'
The pronoun iperepav, your, is to be taken objectively (as in
Rom. 11, 31 ; comp. also 1 Cor. 9, 12) the boasting of which
you are the object. Which Ihave in Christ Jesus, i. e. which
I have in communion with Christ. It was a rejoicing which
he, as a Christian minister, had over them as the seals of his
ministry. 32. If after the manner of men I have fought with
beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead
rise not ? let us eat and drink ; for to-morrow we die.
The apostle refers to one, and probably a recent instance
of his exposure to death. If after the manner of men,\. e.
with those views and interests which determine the conduct
of ordinary men, i. e. without hope in the resurrection. I have
fought with beasts at Ephesus. This may be understood
either literaUy or figuratively. Against tho literal interpreta
tion is urged, 1. The improbability that, as a Roman citizen,
he should have been subjected to that punishment. But his
being a Roman citizen did not prevent his bemg thrice beaten
with rods, by Roman magistrates, or at least, by others than

340 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 32.33.
Jews, and contrary to law, 2 Cor. 11, 25. 2. The silence of
The Acts on the subject. But we learn from 2 Cor. 11, 23-29,
that scarcely a tithe of what Paul did and suffered is recorded
in The Acts. 3. The omission of any reference to his exposure
to wUd beasts in the long enumeration of his sufferings in
2 Cor. 11, 23-29. This is a more serious objection. Consider
ing, moreover, that Paul was at Ephesus exposed to the vio
lent tumult of the people, and that this expression is often used
by the ancients figuratively for contests with enraged men,
the probabihty is, that it is to be so understood here. What
to me is the advantage ? ' If I have no other views or hopes
than ordinary men, whose expectations are confined to this
world, what is the use of incurring so many dangers ? ' If the
dead rise not. This clause does not belong to the one preced
ing, as it is pointed in our version, but to what follows. ' If
the dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.'
The natural consequence of denying the doctrine of the resur
rection, involving as it does the denial of the gospel, and the
consequent rejection of all hope of salvation, is to make men
reckless, and to lead them to abandon themselves to mere
sensual enjoyments. If man has no glorious hereafter, he nat
urally sinks towards the level of the brutes, whose destiny he
is to share.

33. Be not deceived : evil communications corrupt
good manners.
This warning flows naturally from what had been said. If
the tendency of the denial of the resurrection be to render
men reckless and sensual, then the Corinthians should not be
deceived bythe plausible arguments or specious conduct of
the errorists among them. They should avoid them, under
the conviction that all evil is contagious. Evil communica
tions. The word properly means a being together, companion
ship. It is contact, association with evil, that is declared to
be corrupting. This is a fact of common experience, and
therefore the apostle expresses it in a verse borrowed from
the Greek poet, Menander, wliich had probably become a
proverb. It is only when men associate with the wicked
with the desire and purpose to do them good, that they can
rely on the protection of God to preserve them from con
tamination.

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 34. 341
34. Awake to righteousness, and sin not ; for some
have not the knowledge of God : I speak (this) to your
shame. Surrounded by evU teachers, the Corinthians had need not
only of being on their guard against deception, but also of
,dgilance. Aicake. The word properly means, to become
sober, to arouse from a state of drunkenness or torpor. The
caU is to prompt exertion to shake off the delusion under which
they were lying as to their security. To righteousness, Uter-I
aUy, righteously, i. e. in a proper manner. ' Awake rightly,'
or, as Luther renders it, Wake right up. And sin not, i. e.
do not aUow yourselves to be carried away into sin. This was
the end to be answered by theh vigUance. There was need
ofthis exhortation, for some have not the knowledge of God ;
UteraUy, have ignorance of God. They are ignorant of God ;
and therefore they deny the resurrection. Comp. Matt. 22,
29, where our Lord says to the Sadducees who denied the
resurrection, " Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the
power of God." I speak this to your shame. It should make
you ashamed that there are men among you capable of calling
in question one of the great essential facts of the gospel — the
resurrection ofthe dead.
Nature of the resurrection body, vs. 35-58.
Having proved the fact of the resurrection, the apostle
comes to iUustrate its nature, or to teach with what kind of
bodies the dead are to rise. It seems that the great objection
against the doctrine in the minds of his readers rested on the
assumption that our future bodies are to be of the same nature
with those which we now have ; that is, natural bodies con
sisting of flesh and blood, and sustained by air, food and sleep.
Paul says this is a foolish assumption. Our future bodies may
be material and identical with our present bodies, and yet or
ganized in a very different way. You plant a seed ; it does
not come up a seed, but a flower. Why then may not the
future be to the present body what the flower is to the seed ?
vs. 35-37. Matter admits of indefinite varieties in organiza
tion. There is not only immense diversity in the vegetable
productions of the earth, but even flesh is variously modified
in the different orders of animals, vs. 38. 39. This is true not
only as to the earth, for there are heavenly as weU as earthly

342 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 34.35.
bodies. And even the sun, moon and stars differ from each
other in glory ; why then may not our future differ from our
present bodies in glory? vs. 40.41. Such not only may be,
but wfll be the case. The body deposited in the grave is cor
ruptible, mean, weak, and, in a word, natural ; as raised from
the grave, it will be incorruptible, glorious, powerful, and
spiritual, vs. 42-44. This is according to Scripture. Adam
was created with a natural body, adapted to an earthly state
of existence ; Christ, as a life-giving spirit, has a spiritual body.
As Adam was before Christ, so our earthly tabernacles are
before our heavenly ones. As we have borne the image of
the earthly, we shaU bear the image of the heavenly, vs. 45-49.
It is freely admitted that flesh and blood, i. e. bodies organ
ized as ours now are, are unfit for heaven. Corruption cannot
inherit incorruption, v. 50. But our bodies are to be changed.
This change shall be instantaneous and at the last day. It
shaU embrace both the living and the dead. Corruption shaU
put on incorruption, mortaUty shaU put on immortality, vs.
51-53. When this is done, the original promise that death
shall be swallowed up in victory, will be fully accompUshed,
v. 54. Death, therefore, to the beUever, has lost its sting, and
the grave is conquered. Death has no sting but sin ; sin has
no strength but from the law ; the law has no power over
those who are in Christ Jesus, therefore thanks be to God,
who giveth us the victory through Christ Jesus our Lord!
vs. 55-57. Seeing then that we have such a glorious here
after, we should be steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding
in the work ofthe Lord, v. 58.
35. But some (man) will say, How are the dead
raised up ? and with what body do they come ?
The discussion of the fact of the resurrection being ended,
the apostle comes to consider the manner of it. He supposes
some objector to ask, How are the dead raised up? This
may mean, How can a corrupted and disorganized body be
restored to life ? And the next question, With what body do
they come ? may refer to the result of the process. What is
to be the nature of our future bodies ? Or the latter question
may be merely explanatory of the former, so that only one
point is presented. How, i. e. with what kind of body are the
dead raised ? There are, however, two distinct questions, for
although the two are not connected by Kai, and, but by the

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 35.36. 343
particle Se', which might be merely explanatory, yet the apos
tle really answers, in what follows, both questions, viz., How
it is possible for life to come out of death, and, What is' to be
the nature ofthe body after the resurrection. The latter dif
ficulty was the main one, and therefore to that the most of
what follows refers. The great objection in the minds of the
Corinthians to the doctrine of the resurrection was evidently
the same as that of the Sadducees. Both supposed our future
bodies are to be like our present ones. Our Lord's answer to
the Sadducees, therefore, is the same as that which Paul gives
to the Corinthian objectors. The future body is not to be
like the present. To reject a plainly-revealed and most im
portant doctrine on such grounds as these is wicked as weU as
foolish, and therefore the apostle says in the next verse —
36. (Thou) fool, that which thou sowest is not
quickened, except it die.
It is not, Thou fool, but simply, Fool ! an exclamation
both of disapprobation and contempt. Luke 12, 20. Rom. 1,
22. Eph. 5, 15. It does not, however, necessarUy express any
bitterness of feehng ; for our blessed Lord said to his doubting
disciples, " O fools, and slow of heart to beheve aU that the
prophets have spoken ! " Luke 24, 25. It was the senseless
ness of the objection that roused the apostle's indignation.
The body cannot hve again because it dies. Fool ! says Paul,
a seed cannot hve unless it does die. Disorganization is the
necessary condition of reorganization. If the seed remain a
seed there is an end of it. But if it die, it bringeth forth
much fruit, John 12, 24. The seed is as much disorganized,
it as reaUy ceases to be a seed when sown in the ground, as
the body when laid in the grave. If the one dies, the other
dies. Death is not annihilation, but disorganization ; the pass
ing from one form or mode of existence to another. How
then can the disorganization of the body in the grave be an
objection to the doctrine of a resurrection ? It may be said
that the apostle does not pursue the objection ; that the body
is not only disorganized but dispersed ; its elements scattered
over the earth, and embraced in new combinations ; whereas
in the seed the germ remains, so that there is no interruption
of the organic life of the plant. To those who make this ob
jection our Saviour's answer is, that they err, "not knowing

344 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 36.37.
the power ©f God." Who knows where the principle of the
organic life of the body is ? It may be in the soul, which when
the time comes may unfold itself into a new body, gathering
or regathering its materials according to its own law ; just as
the principle of vegetable life in the seed unfolds itself into
some gorgeous flower, gathering from surrounding nature the
materials for its new organization. The identity between the
present and future body is imphed in the apostle's iUustration.
But it is his object neither to assert that identity, nor to ex
plain its nature. The latter is a very subordinate point. The
Bible clearly teaches that our bodies hereafter are to be the
same as those which we now have ; but it nowhere teaches us
wherein that sameness consists. In what sense is a sprouting
acorn the same with the fuU-grown oak ? Not in substance,
not in form, not in appearance. It is, however, the same indi
vidual organism. The same is true of the human body. It is
the same in old age that it was hi infancy. But in what sense ?
The materials of which the body is composed change many
times in the course of an ordinary life, yet the body remains
the same. We may rest assured that our future bodies wUl
be the same with those wliich we now have in a high and
satisfying sense, though until the time comes we may be as
little' able to explain the nature of that identity as we are to
tell what constitutes the identity of the body in this life. The
same body which is sown in tears, shaU be reaped in joy. To
doubt the fact of the resurrection, because we cannot under
stand the process, is, as the apostle says, a proof of folly.
37. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not
that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance
of wheat, or of some other (grain) :
The first clause of this verse stands, as it were, absolutely.
And as to that which thou sowest — thou sowest not the body
that shall be. That is, you do not sow the plant, but the bare
grain, i. e. the simple, naked grain — it may be of wheat, or of
some other grain. The point of the illustration is, that what
comes up is very different from that which is deposited in the
ground. You sow a seed, a plant appears. You sow a natu
ral, corruptible body ; a spiritual, incorruptible body appears.
Nature itself therefore teaches that the objection that the
future body must be like the present, is of no force.

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 38. 39. 40. 345
38. But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased
him, and to every seed his own body.
What is deposited in the earth is very different from that
which springs from it. Every seed produces its own plant.
The product depends on the will of God. It was determined
at the creation, and therefore the apostle says that God, in
•the continual agency of his providence, gives to each seed its
own appropriate product, as he willed, i. e. he originally pur
posed. The point of this is, if God thus gives to all the pro
ducts of the earth each its own form, why may he not
determine the form in which the body is to appear at the
resurrection ? You cannot infer from looking at a seed what
the plant is to be ; it is very foolish, therefore, to attempt to
determine from our present bodies what is to be the nature
of our bodies hereafter.
39. Ah flesh (is) not the same flesh : but (there is)
one (kind of) flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, an
other of fishes, (and) another of birds.
If even here, where the general conditions of life are the
same, we see such diversity in animal organizations, flesh and
blood appearing in so many forms, why should it be assumed
that the body hereafter must be the same cumbrous vehicle
ofthe soul that it is now ?
40. (There are) also celestial bodies, and bodies
terrestrial : but the glory of the celestial (is) one, and
the (glory) of the terrestrial (is) another.
There is no limit to be set to the possible or actual modifi
cations of matter. We not only see it in aU the diversified
forms of animal and vegetable life, but in the stUl greater di
versities of heavenly and earthly bodies. What Paul here
means by bodies celestial, is doubtful. 1. Many suppose the
reference is to angels, either on the assumption that they too
have bodies, or that the apostle refers to the forms in which
they appear to men. When they become visible they must
assume some material vehicle, which was always luminous or
glorious. Of the angel who appeared at the sepulchre of
Christ it is said, " His countenance was like lightning, and his
raiment white as snow," Matt. 28, 3. There is a great con-
15*

346 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 40.41.42.
trast between the bodies of these celestial beings and those of
men. 2. Others suppose that the reference is to the bodies
of the saints in heaven. There are many kinds of bodies here
on earth, and there are also celestial as well as terrestrial
bodies. The one differing from the other in glory. 3. The
common opinion is that the apostle means what is now gene
rally meant by " the heavenly bodies," viz., the sun, moon
and stars. To this it is objected that it is to make the apostle
use the language of modern astronomy. This, however, has
httle force ; for whatever the ancients conceived the sun, moon
and stars to be, they regarded them as bodies, and used the
word o-wpa in reference to them or to the universe. Galen,
who was born not more than sixty or seventy years after the
date of this epistle, uses nearly the same language as the
apostle does. He too contrasts rd av_> au>p,ara (meaning the
sun, moon and stars,) with to, yrflva <r_.p,ara. See Wetstein.
The common interpretation is also sustained by the context,
for the sun, moon and stars mentioned in the next verse are
evidently included in the heavenly bodies here intended.
41. (There is) one glory of the sun, and another
glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars ; for
(one) star differeth from (another) star in glory.
Not only do the heavenly bodies differ from the earthly
bodies in glory, but there is great diversity among the heaven
ly bodies themselves. How different is the sun from the moon,
the moon from the stars, and even one star from another.
Standing, therefore, as we do in the midst of this wonderful
universe, in which we see matter in every conceivable modifi
cation, from a clod of earth to a sunbeam, from dust to the
lustre of the human eye, how unutterably absurd is it to say
that if we are to have bodies hereafter, they must be as gross,
and heavy, and as corruptible as those which we have now.
42. So also (is) the resurrection of the dead. It
is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption :
So also is the resurrection of the dead. That is, as the
heavenly bodies differ from the earthly bodies, and as one star
differs from another star, so the resurrection body will differ
from our present body. The apostle does not mean that as
one star differs from another star in glory, so one risen believer

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 42.43.44. 347
wiU differ from another. This, no doubt, is true ; but it is not
what Paul here says or intimates. His object is simply to show
the absurdity ofthe objection founded on the assumption that
the body hereafter must be what it is here. He shows that it
may be a body and yet differ as much from what it is now as
the hght of the sun differs from a piece of clay. He therefore
proceeds to show wherein this difference consists. The body
is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. The
figure of the seed is again introduced. The bodies of the
samts are as seed sown in the ground, not there to be lost or
to remain ; but at the appointed time, to rise in a state the
very reverse of that in wliich they were committed to the
dust. It is sown in corruption, i. e. it is now a corruptible
body, constantly tending to decay, subject to disease and
death, and destined to entire dissolution. It is raised in in
corruption. Hereafter it wiU be imperishable ; free from all
impurity, and incapable of decay.
43. 44. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in
glory : it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power :
it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
The apostle contemplates the body as at the moment of
mterment, and therefore these predicates are to be understood
with special reference to its condition at that time. It is the
dead body that is sown in dishonour, despoiled of the short
lived attractiveness wliich it had while living. It is raised in
glory, i. e. in that resplendent brightness which diffuses light
and awakens admiration. It is to be fashioned like unto the
glorious body of the Son of God, PhU. 3, 21. It is sown in
weakness. Nothing is more absolutely powerless than a corpse
— it can do nothing and it can resist nothing. The weakness
which belonged to it in hfe, is perfected in death. It is raised in
power. The future body will be instinct with energy, endow
ed, it may be, with faculties of which we have now no concep
tion. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
This comprehends all that has been said. A natural body,
a-S>pa fuxtKov, is a body of which the ifoxV' or animal life, is the
animating principle ; and a spiritual body, o-wpa irvevpariKov, is
a body adapted to the nvevp-a, the rational, immortal principle
of our nature. We know from experience what a natural
body is. It is a body which has essentially the same proper-

348 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 44.45.
ties as those of brutes. A natural body consists of flesh and
blood ; is susceptible of pain and decay ; and needs air, food,
and rest. It is a mere animal body, adapted to the conditions
of an earthly existence. What a sphitual body is, we know
only from Paul's description, and from the manifestation of
Christ in his glorified body. We know that it is incorrupti
ble, glorious, and powerful, adapted to the higher state of ex
istence in heaven, and therefore not adapted to an earthly con
dition. Spiritual, in this connection, does not mean ethereal,
refined, much less made of spirit, which would be a contra
diction. Nor does it mean animated by the Holy Spirit.
But as o-S>pa ifoxiKov is a body adapted to the ifoxv or principle
of animal life, the uwpa TrvevpariKov is a body adapted to the
nvevpa or principle of rational life. The Bible uses these terms
just as we do, without intending to teach that the vjvxq ov
life, is a distinct substance or subject from the -nvevp-a or
rational spirit, but only that as we have certain attributes,
considered as living creatures, in common with irrational ani
mals, so we have now a body suited to those attributes ; and,
on the other hand, as we have attributes unspeakably higher
than those whicli belong to brutes, we shaU hereafter possess
bodies adapted to those higher attributes. The Bible recog
nizes in man only two subjects or distinct separable substances,
the soul and body. And. this has ever been a fundamental
principle of Christian anthropology.
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
This is a vindication of the apparently contradictory expres
sion, spiritual body, which, according to the letter, is tanta
mount to immaterial matter. If, however, it is proper to
speak of a-mpa \jn>xt-Kov, a natural body, i. e. a body adapted to
the principle of animal life ; it is right to speak of a _ru>pa
irvevpariKov, a spiritual body, i. e. a body adapted to the spirit.
Lachmann, Riickert, and Tischendorf, after the ancient MSS.
and versions, adopt the reading et eort, k.t.X. If there is a
natural body, there is a spiritual body. Just as certainly as
we have a body adapted to our lower nature, we shaU have
one adapted to our higher nature. If the one exists, so does
the other. 45. And so it is written, The first man Adam was
made a living soul ; the last Adam (was made) a quick
ening spirit.

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 45. 349
So it is written, i. e. the Scriptures are in accordance with
the preceding representation. They represent Adam as having
been created with an animal nature, and therefore as having
an animal body. Whereas, the second Adam is a person of
a far higher order. The proof with regard to the nature of
Adam does not rest exclusively on the words quoted, but on
the whole account of his creation, of which those words form
a part. It is evident from the entire history, that Adam was
formed for an existence on this earth, and therefore with a
body adapted to the present state of being ; in its essential
attributes not differing from those which we have inherited
from him. He was indeed created immortal. Had he not
sinned, he would not have been subject to death. For death
is the wages of shi. And as Paul elsewhere teaches, death is
by sin. From what the apostle, however, here says of the
contrast between Adam and Christ ; of the earthly and per
ishable nature of the former as opposed to the immortal, spi
ritual nature of the latter, it is plain that Adam as originally
created was not, as to his body, in that state which would fit
him for his immortal existence. After his period of prob_u-
tion was passed, it is to be inferred, that a change in him
would have taken place, analogous to that which is to take
place in those behevers who shall be ahve when Christ comes.
They shaU not die, but they shaU be changed. Of this change
in the constitution of his body, the tree of life was probably
constituted the sacrament. For when he sinned, he was ex
cluded from the garden of Eden, "lest he put forth his hand
and take ofthe tree of life, and eat, and live for ever," Gen. 3,
22. Some change, therefore, was to take place in his body, to
adapt it to hve for ever. He was made a living soul, fir^v
t,wa-av. He had a 1/0^, and therefore a body adapted to it.
Both the Greek word ifvxn and tne corresponding Hebrew
term are frequently used for the immortal principle of our
nature— the rational soul— but they also, and perhaps most
frequently, mean Ufe in that form which we have in commo»
with other animals. This idea is included in the passage
quoted from Genesis. It is to be remembered that the quota
tions siveninthe New Testament from the Old Testament
are not mere quotations, but authoritative expositions Paw
teUs us what the Spirit of God meant, when he called Adam a
hmnThe°kist Adam, i. e. Christ. This was not an unusual
designation for the Messiah among the Jews, though not found

350 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 45.
in Scripture elsewhere than here. The appropriateness of the
designation is evident. Christ is the second great head and
representative man, of whom Adam is declared to have been
tho type, Rom. 5, 14. Was made a quickening spirit. Adam
was in his distinctive character, that is, as distinguished from
Christ, an animal — a creature endowed with animal life,
whereas Christ has life in himself, and can give life to as many
as he will, John 5, 21. 26. This does not of course mean that
Adam had nothing more than animal Ufe. It does not deny
that he had a rational and immortal soul. Neither does it im
ply that our Lord had not, whUe on earth, a ^xv or principle
of life in common with us. The apostle simply contrasts the
first and second Adam as to their distinguishing characteris
tics. The one was a man ; the other infinitely more.
There are two questions suggested by this passage. The
first is, on what ground does the apostle assert that Christ was
made a quickening spirit ? When he says, at the beginning
of the verse, " So it is written," does he intend to appeal to
the support of Scripture not only for what he says of the
nature of Adam, but also for what he says of the person of
Christ ? If so, the proof cannot rest on the passage quoted,
for that relates exclusively to Adam. If the apostle intended
to cite the Scriptures for both parts of the declaration in the
preceding verse, " there is a natural body, and there is a spir
itual body," he must mean the Scriptures in express terms
declare Adam to have had a living soul, and they set forth
Christ as a life-giving Spirit. It is more commonly assumed,
however, that the quotation is Umited to the first clause.
' The Scriptures say that the first Adam " was made a living
soul ; " the last Adam (we know) was made a life-giving Spirit.'
The second question is, When was Christ made a quicken
ing spirit ? The apostle does not refer to what Christ was
before his incarnation, but to what he became. The subject
of discourse is, the last Adam. When did he become a quick
ening spirit ? Some say at his incarnation. This is undoubt
edly true. As the incarnate Son of God he was life-giving.
" It pleased the Father that he should have life in himself,"
John 5, 26. That is, that the divine and human nature should
be united in his person. And in this constitution of his per
son it was already determined that, although while on earth
he should have a body hke our own, yet his whole person, in
cluding ' his true body and reasonable soul,' should be adapted
to sit at the right hand of God. Adam was first formed for

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 45.46.47. 351
this earth, and had an earthly body ; the person of Christ was
constituted in reference to his reigning in heaven, and there
fore he has a spiritual body. The apostle argues from the na
ture of Adam to the nature of his body; and from the nature
of Christ to the nature of his body. This argument does not
involve the assumption that the body of Christ was here a
spiritual one — for we know that it was flesh and blood ; but
that such was the state to which, from the very constitution
of his person, he was destined, a spiritual body alone could be
suited to him. The last Adam, therefore, was made a quick
ening spirit, by the union of the divine with the human in the
constitution of his person. Others say that it was at his resur
rection ; and othors, at his ascension. As to the former opin
ion, it is enough to say, that no change took place at his re
surrection in the nature of Christ's body. It was necessary in
order to its satisfactory identification that it should remain
the same that it was before. He therefore not only called
upon his disciples to handle his risen body and to satisfy them
selves o*' its identity by probing the wounds in his hands and
feet, but he also repeatedly ate before them. He did not as
sume J)is permanent pneumatic state until his ascension. But
this 'J/d not make hhn a quickening sphit. It only affected
his iody, which then assumed the state adapted to its condi
tio in heaven.
46. Howbeit that (was) not first which is spiritual,
hv'_ that which is natural ; and afterward that which is
spiritual. This does not mean simply that the natural body precedes
t>e spiritual body. But it announces, as it were, a general
_aw. The lower precedes the higher ; the imperfect the per
fect This is true in all the works of God, in which there is a
development. Adam's earthly state was to be preparatory to
a heavenly one. The present life is like a seed time, the har
vest is hereafter. The natural comes before the spiritual ; as
Calvin says, we are born before we are regenerated, we live
nefore we rise.
47 The first man (is) of the earth, earthy : the
second' man (is) the Lord from heaven.
The general principle stated in the preceding verse, that

352 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 47.48.49.
the natural precedes the spiritual, is here illustrated by the
fact that Adam came before Christ. The first man was of the
earth, i. e. formed out ofthe earth, and therefore earthy. The
second man is the Lord from heaven. Here the text is doubt
ful. The authorities are about equaUy divided for and against
the reading 6 Kvpws, the Lord. The sentence is more simple
if that word be omitted. ' The first man was from the earth ;
the second man was from heaven.' If the common text be
retained, the word Lord is in apposition with the words the
second man. ' The second man, the Lord, was from heaven.'
This passage was used by the early heretics of the Gnostic
school to sustain their doctrine that our Lord was not reaUy
born of the Virgin Mary, but was clothed in a body derived
from heaven, in opposition to whom the early creeds declare
that he was as to his human nature consubstantial with man,
and as to his divine nature consubstantial with God. The
text, however, simply asserts the heavenly origin of Christ.
Adam was of the earth ; Christ was from heaven ; comp. John
3, 13. Adam, therefore, had a body suited to the earth;
Christ has a body suited to heaven.
48. As (is) the earthy, such (are) they also that are
earthy ; and as (is) the heavenly, such (are) they also
that are heavenly.
The earthy is of course Adam ; they that are earthy are
his descendants. The heavenly is Christ ; they that are heav
enly are his risen people. The descendants of Adam derive
from him an earthly body hke his. Those who are Christ's
are to have a body fashioned hke unto his glorious body,
Phil. 3, 21.
49. And as we have borne the image of the earthy,
we shah also bear the image of the heavenly.
In this passage, instead of the future <f>opeo-op.ev, we shall
bear, the great majority of the oldest MSS. read the conjunc
tive <f>opeo-<ap.ev, let us bear. The context, however, so evidently
demands the future, that the common reading is preferred by
almost aU editors. An exhortation here would be entirely out
of place. The apostle is evidently proceeding with his discus
sion. He is obviating the objection to the doctrine of the
resurrection founded on the assumption that our bodies here-

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 49.50. 353
after are to be of the same kind as those which we have here.
This is not so. They are to be hke the body of Christ. As
we have borne the image of Adam as to his body, we shall
bear the image of Christ as to his body. The idea that as we
have derived a corrupt nature from Adam, we derive a holy
nature from Christ, though true in itself, is altogether foreign
to the connection.
50. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God ; neither doth cor
ruption inherit incorruption.
This I say. These words admit of three interpretations.
1. They may be understood concessively. ' This I concede,
brethren. I admit that flesh and blood, our bodies as now
organized, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. But that is
not what I teach when I preach the doctrine of the resurrec
tion. Our bodies are to be changed.' 2. The sense may be,
' This is what I say, the sum of what I have said is that flesh
and blood,' &c. 3. The words may mean, 'This I assert,
brethren. I assure you of this fact, that flesh and blood,' &o.
In 7, 29 the expression is used in this sense. Comp. also Rom.
3, 8 and 1 Cor. 10, 19.
Flesh and blood means our body as now constituted, not
sinful human nature. The phrase never has this latter sense.
In Heb. 2, 14, it is said, " Inasmuch as the children are par
takers of flesh and blood, he (Christ) also himself likewise took
part of the same," Matt. 16, 17. Gal. 1, 16. Eph. 6, 12. It is
indeed true, that our unsanctified nature, or unrenewed man,
cannot inherit the kingdom of God. But that is not what the
apostle is speaking about. He is speaking of the body and of
its state after the resurrection. It is of the body as now con
stituted that he says, it cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven,
i. e. the kingdom of Christ as it is to exist after the resurrec
tion, Matt, 8, 11. Luke 13, 28. 1 Cor. 6, 9. Gal. 5, 21. 2 Tim.
4, 18 The same idea is repeated in abstract terms and as a
general proposition in the next clause, neither can corruption
inherit incorruption. The mortal cannot be immortal ; the
perishable imperishable. Incorruption cannot be an attri
bute of corruption. Our bodies, therefore, if they are to be
¦^ortarandiniperishable must be changed. .And tim the
aZtSin The next verse announces on the authority of a direct
revelation, is actuaUy to occur.

354 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 51.
51. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shah not
all sleep, but we shah ah be changed,
A mystery ; something revealed, and which could not
otherwise be known, Matt. 13, 11. 1 Cor. 4, 1, and often else
where. What is here expressed by saying, I show you a
mystery, is in 1 Thess. 4, 15 expressed by saying, 'This I say
unto you by the word of tlie Lord,' i. e. by divine revelation.
The revelation which Paul now declares, and to which he calls
special attention by the word, Behold ! is, that all are not to
die, but all are to be changed, i. e. so changed that their cor
ruptible body shaU be rendered incorruptible. The common
text is, fl-cures pev oi KoiprjS-qtjopeSa, the negative being con
nected with the verb, so that the literal sense would be, all
are not to die. This is said of all whom Paul addressed. The
apostle teUs them aU that they are not to die. To avoid this
impossible sense, for Paul certainly did not mean to assure the
Corinthians that it had been revealed to him that none of them
should die, most of the older commentators assume in com
mon with our translators a not unusual trajection of the nega
tive particle, mxvres oi standing for oi Trdvre^. Others explain
the verse thus : ' We aU — shall indeed not die (before the
resurrection) — but we shaU all be changed.' It is said this
is contrary to the context, inasmuch as being changed is some
thing pecuhar to those who should be alive at the coming of
Christ, and is not affirmed of the dead. This, however, is con
trary to the fact. Paul had said, v. 50, that flesh and blood
could not inherit the kingdom of God. Al, therefore, who
enter that kingdom, whether they die before the second ad
vent or survive the coming of Christ, must be changed. And
that is the fact which Paul says had been revealed to him.
Those who died before the advent would not fail of the bless
ings of Christ's kingdom, and those who should be ahve when
he came, would not be left in their corruptible bodies. Both
should be changed, and thus prepared for the heavenly state.*
* The difficulty, however, attending the common text, has given rise to a
great variety of readings in the MSS. and versions. A. C. F. G. have -niv-res
fiev Koipr.fr.o6pi.bii, ou -Travres Be a\Kayr]o-6iJ.e_r_. we shall indeed all die, but
we shall not all be changed. D. and the Vulgate have : irdvres fx.v bVpaorriffi-
u&a, ou irdvTes 5e a.AKay-_o6/j.e&c. we shalt all rise, but we shall not all be changed.
There are several l».ss important variations. These are all explained as at
tempts on the part of transcribers to escape making the apostle say that tlie
Christians of that generation wore not to die. But as the common text docs
not make him say that, there is no necessity for departing from it.

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 51. 355
Comp. 1 Thess. 4, 15-17. The modern commentators, both
German and English, understand the apostle as expressing the
confident expectation that he and others of that generation
should survive the coming of Christ. ' Though we (who are
now ahve) shaU not aU die, we shaU all be changed.' But
1. This is altogether unnecessary. The we all includes all be
Uevers who had lived, were living, or ever should hve. There
is nothing either in the form of expression or in the context to
Umit it to the men of that generation. In the same way Paul
says in 1 Thess. 4, 15, "We that are ahve at the coming of
the Lord shall not prevent them that are asleep." This does
not imply that he expected to be ahve when Christ came. In
his second Epistle to the Thessalonians he warns them against
the expectation of the speedy advent of Christ, teUing them
that a great apostasy and the revelation of the Man of Sin
were to occur before that event. 2. The plenary inspiration
of the sacred writers rendered them infaUible in aU they
taught ; but it did not render them omniscient. They could
not err in what they communicated, but they might err, and
doubtless did err, as to things not included in the communica
tions of the Spirit. The time of the second advent was not
revealed to them. They profess their ignorance on that point.
They were, therefore, as to that matter, on a level with other
men, and may have differed in regard to theh private conjec
tures on the subject just as others differ. It would not, in the
least, therefore, encroach on their authority as infaUible teach-
ers, if it should be apparent that they cherished erroneous
expectations with regard to that about which they professed
to know nothing. Knowing that Christ was to come, and not
knowing when he was to come, it was perfectly natural that
they should look on his advent as constantly imminent, until it
was revealed that certain events not yet accomphshed, were
to occur before Christ came. But aU this is very different
from any didactic statement that he was to come within a cer
tain period. Paul might exhort Christians to wait and long
for the coming ofthe Lord ; but he could not teU them by the
word of the Lord that he and others then Uving would be ahve
when he came. This would not only be teaching error, but it
would be claiming divine authority, or a special revelation, for
that error. It is" therefore, only at the expense of aU confi
dence in the inspiration of the apostle that the exposition above
mentioned can be adopted.

356 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 52.
52. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the
last trump : for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead
shah be raised incorruptible, and we shah be changed.
The change in question is to be instantaneous ; in a mo
ment, literally, an atom, i. e. in a portion of time so short as
to be incapable of further division. It is to take place at the
last trump, i. e. on the last day. As the trumpet was used for
assembling the people or marshaUing a host, it became the
symbol for expressing the idea of the gathering of a multitude.
So, in Matt. 24, 31, Christ says, "He wfll send his angels with
a great sound of a trumpet ; and they shaU gather his elect
from the four winds, from one end of heaven to another."
Comp. Is. 27, 13. 1 Thess. 4, 16. This trumpet is called the
last, not because several trumpets (the Jews say seven) are to
sound in succession, but because it is the last that ever is to
sound. In other words, the resurrection is to take place on
the last day. For the trumpet shall sound. This is a con
firmation of the preceding. That day shall surely come — the
voice of the archangel, the trump of God, shaU certainly re
sound as it did from Sinai, Ex. 19, 16. And, i. e. and then, in
consequence of the summons of God, the dead shall be raised
in the manner described in vs. 42. 43, incorruptible, glorious
and powerful. And we shall be changed. This is in exact
accordance with 1 Thess. 4, 15. Those who are alive when
Christ comes "shall not prevent them which are asleep."
The dead in Christ shaU rise first, and then the hving shall
undergo their instantaneous change. As remarked on the
preceding verse, it is not necessary to understand the apostle
as including himself and feUow behevers in Corinth, when he
says We shall be changed. The connection indeed is different
here from what it is there. There he says, " We shall not all
die." If that means that the men of that generation should
not all die, it is a positive assertion of what the event has
proved to he false. But here he simply says, all who are alive
when Christ comes shall be changed. If he hoped that he
might be of the number there would be nothing in that ex
pectation hiconsistent with his inspiration. Calvin, therefore,
so understands the passage.* Considering, however, his ex-
* Quum autem dicit, _Vbs immutabimur in eorum numero se comprehendit
qui victuri sunt ad Christi adventum ; quoniam jam erant postrema tempora,
expectandus fuit dies ille in singulas horas.

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 52. 53. 54. 55. 357
press teaching in 2 Thess. 2, 2-12 on the subject, it is far more
natural to understand him as contemplating the vast company
of beUevers as a whole, and saying ' Those of us who aro dead
shaU rise, and aU who are ahve shaU be changed.'
53. Por this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal (must) put on immortality.
This is the reason why we must be changed. ' We must
aU be changed, for this corruptible must put on incorruption.'
It is impossible that corruption should inherit incorruption.
This reason applies equaUy to the quick and to the dead.
With regard to both classes it is true that these vUe bodies
must be fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body.
54. So when this corruptible shah have put on in
corruption, and this mortal shah have put on immor-
tahty, then shah be brought to pass the saying that is
written, Death is swahowed up in victory.
When the change above described has been accomphshed,
when once the resurrection has taken place, then, according
to the language of Scripture, death shaU be completely con
quered. Not only shall those over whom he had triumphed,
and whom he had so long detained in the prison ofthe grave,
be dehvered from his power, but there shaU be no more death.
The passage quoted is Isaiah 25, 8, " He wUl swaUow up death
in victory." In Hebrew the last words mean hterally for
ever. They are, however, frequently translated by the LXX.
as they are here rendered by the apostle. The sense is the
same. The victory over death is to be complete and final.
55. 0 death, where (is) thy sting? O grave,
where (is) thy victory ?
The apostle places himself and his readers in presence of
the Saviour and of the risen dead arrayed in mmoi rtahty,
and in view of that majestic scene he ^aks out in q these
words of triumph : ' Christ has conquered. His people are
SeTrnea Shis disarmed. Hades is no more ' Death is
addrered under the figure of an anima ™^$W™£
ous stina- which pierces even to the soul ; foi that sting is sm.
TLgravl or the Greek word Hades, means, what is un-

358 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 55.56.
seen, the invisible world, the abode of the dead in the widest
sense. It depends on the context whether the immediate
reference be to the grave, the place of departed spirits, or
heU, in the modern sense of that word. Here where the spe
cial reference is to the bodies of men and to the dehvery of
them from the power of death, it is properly rendered the
grave. The only sense in which the body can be in Hades is
that it is in the grave. The apostle is not speaking ofthe de
livery of the souls of men from any intermediate state, but of
the redemption of the body. In Hosea 13, 14 God says, "O
death, I will be thy plagues ; O grave, I wUl be thy destruc
tion." This is a literal version of the Hebrew. The Vulgate
comes near to it, Ero mors tua, O mors ! Morsus tuus ero,
inferne ! The LXX. depart from the figure, " Where is thy
judgment (or vengeance), O death? where is thy sting, 0
grave ? " These are aU different forms of expressing the idea
that death and the grave are completely conquered. The
apostle does not quote the prophet. He expresses an analo
gous idea in analogous terms. In speaking of death as fur
nished with a sting, the most natural figure is that of a scor
pion. Others say that Kevrpov here means a goad, and that
death is compared to a man driving animals before him with
such an instrument. The power of a goad is as nothing to
that ofthe sting of a scorpion, Rev. 9, 5. 6. 10, and the figure
is therefore far more forcible as commonly understood.*
56. The sting of death (is) sin ; and the strength
of sin (is) the law.
The sting of death is sin ; that is, death would have no
power to injure us if it were not for sin. This is true for two
reasons. 1. Because if there were no sin there would be no
death. Death is by sin, Rom. 5, 12. 2. Because sin gives
death, when it has been introduced, aU its terrors. If sin be
pardoned, death is harmless. It can inflict no evil. It be
comes a mere transition from a lower to a higher state. The
strength of sin is the law. This must be the law of God in its
widest sense; not the Mosaic law, which would make the
declaration amount to nothing. The law is the strength of I
* The MSS. B. D. E. F. G., and most ofthe versions, read, irou oov, S)iva-
*/•_, to -.svTpov ; ttou oov, bdvare, rb vIkos ; where, 0 death, is thy sting ? where,
O death, thy victory ? A reading which Tischendorf and other modern editors
have adopted.

I. CORINTHIANS 15, 56.57. 359
sin for two reasons. 1. Because without law there would be
no sin, Rom. 4, 15. The very idea of sin is want of conformity
on the part of moral creatures to the law of God. If there be
no standard to which we are bound to be conformed, there
can be no such thing as want of conformity. Sin is the cor
relative, not of reason, nor of expediency, but of law. If you
take away law, men may act unreasonably, or in a way injuri
ous to themselves or others, but they cannot sin. 2. Because
if there be no law there can be no condemnation. Sin is not
imputed where there is no law, Rom. 5, 13. There is stUl
another reason, which, though presented elsewhere by the
apostle, is foreign to this connection, and that is, that the law
not only reveals and condemns sin, but it exasperates and ex
cites it, and thus gives it strength, Rom. 7, 8-12.
57. But thanks (be) to God, which giveth us the
victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
The victory here meant is, of course, the victory over
death and the grave. Thanks be to God, who deUvers us
from the power of death, redeeming even our bodies from the
grave, and making us partakers of everlasting life. This is
done through Jesus Christ our Lord, i. e. our divine possessor
and absolute ruler. It is through him, and through him alone.
1. Because he has satisfied the demands ofthe law. It has no
power to condemn those who are clothed in his righteousness.
There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,
Rom. 8, 1. Who shaU lay any thing to the charge of God's
elect? It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth ?
Rom. 8, 33. 34. Christ by his death hath destroyed him that
had the power of death, that is, the devU, and dehvered them
who through fear of death were aU their lifetime subject to
bondage, Heb. 2, 14. 15. That is, in virtue of the death of
Christ, by which the demands of justice are satisfied, Satan,
the great executioner of divine justice, has no longer the right
or power to detain the people of Christ under the power of
death. If, therefore, it be the law which gives sin its reality
and strength, and if sin gives death its sting, he who satisfies
the law destroys the strength of sin, and consequently the
sting of death It is thus that Christ deprives death of aU
power to injure his people. It is for them disarmed and ren
dered as harmless as an infant. 2. But Christ not only gives
us this victory through his justifying righteousness, but by his

360 I. CORINTHIANS 15, 57.58.
almighty power, he new creates the soul after the image of
God, and, what is here principally intended, he repairs aU the
evUs which death had inflicted. He restores us to that state,
and even to more than that state, from which sin had cast us
down. He rescues our bodies from the grave, and fashions
them hke unto his glorious body, even by that power whereby
he is able to subdue all things unto himself, Phil. 3, 21. Had
it not been for Christ, death would have reigned for ever over
our fallen race ; but thanks be to God, Christ hath given us
the victory ; so that the beUever may even now say, O death,
where is thy sting ? O grave, where is thy victory ?
58. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stead
fast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the
Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in
vain in the Lord.
Such being the truth and importance of the doctrine of
the resurrection, Christians should be firm in their adherence
to it, not suffering themselves to be moved by the specious
objections of philosophy falsely so called. They should re
member that if the dead rise not, then is Christ not risen ;
and if Christ be not risen, theh faith is vain, and they are yet
in the power of sin. But as Christ has risen, and as his resur
rection Ulustrates and renders certain that of his people, what
more natural and proper than that they should abound in the
work of the Lord. The work of the Lord is either that work
in which the Lord is engaged, the destruction of death by de
stroying sin ; or, it is the work which the Lord has given us
to do, as parents and children, as husbands and wives, as min
isters and Christians. In this work we should abound, i. e.
be abundant. As Paul says, 2 Cor. 11, 23, "In labours more
abundant." Forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not
in vain in the Lord. This with Paul was more than faith ; it
was knowledge. He knew that labour in the work of the
Lord would not be in vain. The reward secured for it by the
grace of God and merit of Christ is participation ofthe glories
of a blessed resurrection.

I. CORINTHIANS 16.

CHAPTER XVI.

361

Treats, 1. Of the collection to he made for the saints in Jerusalem, vs. 1-9
2. Of Timothy and ApoUos, whom the apostle commends to the confidence
ofthe Cormthians, vs. 10-14. 3. The third paragraph contains exhorta
tions and greetings, vs. 15-20. 4. The last paragraph is the salutation
written with Paul's own hand, vs. 21-24.
Concerning the Collection for the Saints at Jerusalem.
For some reason not now to be certainly ascertained, poverty
prevaUed in Jerusalem among the behevers more than in any
other part ofthe church. Almost all the special exhortations
to provide for the poor, in Paul's epistles, have primary refer
ence to the poor in Jerusalem. He had exhorted the churches
of Galatia to make a collection for their rehef ; and then those
of Macedonia, and he now addresses the Corinthians on the
subject. It is a very common opinion that the poverty ofthe
Christians in Jerusalem arose from the community of goods
introduced among them at the beginning; an error which
arose from an excess of love over knowledge. In thirty years
that mistake may have produced its legitimate effects. Per
fection in one thing requires perfection in all. Perfect equality
in goods requires perfect freedom from selfishness and indo
lence. The collection made by the Syrian churches, as record
ed in Acts 11, 29, was in consequence ofthe dearth the Chris
tian prophet Agabus warned his brethren was to come on all
the world. Whatever may have been the cause, the fact is
certain that the saints in Jerusalem stood in special need of
the assistance of their richer brethren. Paul, therefore, un
dervalued and suspected as he was by the Jewish Christians,
laboured assiduously in their behalf. He exhorts the Corintlii-
ans to adopt the same arrangements in reference to this matter,
which he had established in the churches of Galatia. A con
tribution was to be made on the Lord's day every week, pro
portioned to their resources, so that the collection might be
ready when he came, vs. 1. 2. He would either send it by
persons whom they might approve to Jerusalem, or if the sum
were of sufficient magnitude to make it worth while, he would
himself accompany their messengers, vs. 3. 4. He announces
his purpose to visit the Corinthians after having passed over
Macedonia, and perhaps to pass the winter with them. His
IG

362 I. CORINTHIANS 16, 1.2.
prospects of usefulness in Ephesus would detain hini in that
city until Pentecost, vs. 5-9.
As to Timothy and Apollos he exhorts them to treat the
former in such a manner that he might be free from fear
among them, for he was worthy of theh confidence, vs. 10. 11.
Of the latter he says he had urged him to go to Cormth with
the other brethren, but that he was unwilling to do so then,
but would go when a suitable occasion offered, vs. 12-14. He
exhorts them to submission to the household of Stephanas,
and to every one who was labouring in the good cause, vs. 15.
16. He expresses his gratification in seeing the brethren from
Corinth, and sends salutations from those around him to the
Christians in Achaia, vs. 17-20. The conclusion ofthe epistle
was written with his own hand as an authentification of the
whole, vs. 21-24.
1. Now concerning the collection for the saints, as
I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so
do ye.
But concerning the collection which is for the saints.
What saints were intended was already known to the Corin
thians. Instead of for the saints, in Rom. 15, 26 we have
the more definite expression, " for the poor of the saints who
are in Jerusalem," in whose behalf, he teUs the Romans, Mace
donia and Achaia had made a contribution. The Greek word
koyia, in the sense of avkkoyrj, collection, is only found in this
passage. As I have given orders, i. e. as I arranged or or
dered. This is the language of authority. For although
these contributions were voluntary, and were required to be
made cheerfully, 2 Cor. 9, 7, yet they were a duty, and there
fore both the collection itself, and the mode in which it should
be accomplished, were proper subjects for apostohc direction.
In the epistle to the Galatians there is no mention of this col
lection. It was probably ordered when Paul visited those
churches. So do ye, L e. adopt the same plan as to the mode
of making the collection. What that was, is stated in the
foUowing verse.
2. Upon the first (day) of the week let every one
of you lay by him in store, as (God) hath prospered
him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

I. CORINTHIANS 16, 2. 363
The collection was to be made every Lord's day evcrv
one was to contribute ; and the contributions were to be in
proportion to the means of the giver. These are the three
prmciples which the apostle had established amono- the
churches of Galatia, and which he urged the Corinthians to
adopt. Upon the first day ofthe week, hteraUy, upon one of
the Sabbath, according to the Jewish method of designating
the days of the week. The Hebrew word, sabbath (rest), is
used not only in the singular, but also in the plural form, both
for the seventh day, and for the whole week, Luke 18, 12.
That the first day of the week was, by divine appointment,
made the sacred day for Christians, may be inferred, 1. From
the distinction put upon that day by our Lord himself, John
20, 19. 26. 2._ From the greatness of the event which its ob
servance was intended to commemorate. The sanctification
ofthe seventh day of the week was intended to keep in mind
the great truth of the creation of the world, on which the
whole system of revealed religion was founded ; and as Chris
tianity is founded on the resurrection of Christ, the day on
which Christ rose became for that reason the Christian Sab
bath. 3. From its being called by the apostle John the Lord's
day, i. e. the day set apart for the service ofthe Lord, Rev. 1,
10. 4. From the evidence that it was from the beginning the
day on which Christians assembled for worship, Acts 20, 7.
5. From the uniform practice of the whole church, which
practice, having the clear evidence of apostohc sanction, is
authoritative. Let every one of you. It was an important feature of these
apostolic arrangements, that the contributions were not to be
confined to any one class of the people. The same amount
might perhaps have been raised from the rich few. But this
would not have answered one important end which the apostle
had in view. It was the reUgious effect which these gifts
were to produce in promoting Christian fellowship, in evincing
the truth and power of the gospel, and in calling forth grati
tude and praise to God, even more than the rehef of the tem
poral necessities of the poor, that Paul deshed to see accom
phshed, 2 Cor. 9, 12-14. Every one was to lay by himself ,
i. e. most modern commentators say, at home, -nap lav™. Com
pare 7rpb_ eavrov, in Luke 24, 12 ; see also John 20, 10. The
direction then is that every one should, on the first day of the
week lay aside at home whatever he was able to give, thus
treasuring up his contribution. To this interpretation it may

364 I. CORINTHIANS 16, 2. 3.
be objected that the whole expression is thus obscure and
awkward. ' Let every one at home place, treasuring up what
he has to give.' The words do not mean to lay by at home,
but to lay by himself. The direction is nothing more definite
than, let him place by himself, i. e. let him take to himself
what he means to give. What he was to do with it, or where
he was to deposit it, is not expressed. The word 9~r)o-avpl£_rv
means putting into the treasury, or hoarding up, and is per
fectly consistent with the assumption that the place of deposit
was some common treasury, and not every man's own house.
2. If Paul directed this money to be laid up at home, why
was the first day of the week selected ? It is evident that the
first day must have offered some special facility for doing
what is here enjoined. The only reason that can be assigned
for requiring the thing to be done on the first day ofthe week,
is, that on that day the Christians were accustomed to meet,
and what each one had laid aside from his weekly gains could
be treasured up, i. e. put into the common treasury of the
church. 3. The end which the apostle desired to accomphsh
could not otherwise have been effected. He wished that there
might be no collections when he came. But if every man had
his money laid by at home, the collection would be stiU to be
made. The probability is, therefore, Paul intended to direct
the Corinthians to make a coUection every Lord's day for the
poor, when they met for worship. As God hath prospered
him ; hteraUy, whatever has gone weU with him. He was to
lay aside what by his success in business he was able to give.
This is another principle which the apostle would have Chris
tians to act upon. Their contribution should be in proportion
to their means.
3. And when I come, whomsoever ye shah approve
by (your) letters, them will I send to bring your liber
ality unto Jerusalem.
Paul was not to receive the money himself. It was to be
given to men selected and approved by the Corinthians, whom
Paul promised to send, furnished with letters from hhnself, to
Jerusalem. The words 8C e-marokuiv, with letters, are not to be
connected with what precedes, " approved by your letters,"
but with what foUows, " I wiU send with letters." Otherwise
there would have been no need of Paul's sending them, i. e.
the persons approved by the Corinthians. The people wero

I. CORINTHIANS 16, 3.4.5. 365
to collect the mone}- ; it was to be committed to men of their
own selection ; but Paul, as the author of the coUection, was
to send, it to Jerusalem. If the apostle deemed it wise to
place himself above suspicion, and to avoid giving even the
most malicious the opportunity of calling his integrity in ques
tion, as is intimated here, and expressly stated in 2 Cor. 8, 1 9.
20, it must be wise for other men and ministers to act with
equal caution. If caUed to disburse the money of others or
of the church, let that money, if possible, be in some other
custody than their own, that others may know what is done
with it. Thus at least Paul acted.
4. And if it be meet that I go also, they shah go
with me.
And if it is deserving of my going ; that is, if the coUec
tion be of an amount to make it proper for me also to go with
it to Jerusalem, your messengers shall go with me. According
to Acts 19, 21, Paul purposed, after visiting Macedonia and
Achaia, to go to Jerusalem. But whether he would go at the
time the contribution of the Corinthians was sent, depended
on its amount. He would not modify his plans for the sake
of having charge of the distribution of an inconsiderable
sum. 5. Now I wih come unto you, when I shah pass
through Macedonia : for I do pass through Macedonia.
It appears from 2 Cor. 1, 15. 16, that Paul's original plan
was to go directly from Ephesus to Corinth, and from there
mto Macedonia, and then back again to Corinth, and thence
to Jerusalem. He now informs them that he would go to
Macedonia before going to Corinth. So eager were the false
teachers in Corinth to find grounds of complamt against him,
that they made this change of plan a grievous offence, and a
proof that he was not to be depended upon either as to his
purposes or his doctrine. This is apparent from the vindica
tion of himself in the second Epistle. For I do pass through
Macedonia; not, I am passing; the present tense expresses
the purpose of the apostle as settled. The mistake as to the
force of the tense here, probably led transcribers to date this
-pistle from Philippi ; whereas, it is clear from v. 8, that it
was written from Ephesus.

866 I. CORINTHIANS 16, 6.7.
6. And it may be that I will abide, yea, and winter
with you, that ye may bring me on my journey whither
soever I go.
' I pass through Macedonia, but I wUl abide with you.'
His visit to the former was to be transient, to the latter pro
longed. In the second Epistle he speaks of himself as in Mace
donia, and in Acts 20, 2. 3, we find that he left Ephesus after
the uproar in that city and went to Macedonia, and thence to
Greece, where he abode three months. The plan here sketched
was therefore executed. He would remain with them for the
winter, he says, in order that they might help hhn forward on
his journey, i. e. attend him on his way, which was the cus
tomary mark of respect. Paul wished to receive this courtesy
from the Corinthians rather than from others, as his affection
for them, notwithstanding the trouble and anxiety they occa
sioned him was, as is evident from his second Epistle, pecu
liarly strong.
7. Por I will not see you now by the way ; but I
trust to tarry a while with you, if the Lord permit.
By some dpn, noio, is connected with &eku>, I will. 'I do
not now wish, as I formerly intended.' Its natural connec
tion is with tSeii', to see. ' I do not wish to see you now in
passing.' " But I hope ; " instead of Se, but, tho older MSS.
read ydp ; ufor I hope to tarry with you." It seems that the
intelligence which Paul received in Ephesus concerning the
disorders in Corinth, determined him to write them this let
ter, instead of making them a passing visit, and to defer his
visit for some months in order that his letter might have time
to produce its effect. The same reason determined him, when
he did go to Corinth, to remain there some time, that he might
correct the abuses which had sprung up in his absence. The
second Epistle shows how anxious he was about the effect of
this letter, and how overjoyed he was when Titus brought him
the intelligence that it had brought the people to repentance.
If the Lord permit, (i-n-iTpe-nrj), or, 'If the Lord shall have permit
ted' (iinTpeifnj). The latter reading is adopted bythe later
editors. The Lord is Christ, whom Paul recognized as order
hig all events, and whose guidance he sought and always sub
mitted to.

I. CORINTHIANS 16, 8. 9. 10 367
8. 9. But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost.
For a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and
(there are) many adversaries.
There were two reasons, therefore, for his remaining at
Ephesus, his abundant opportunities of usefulness, and the ne
cessity of withstanding the adversaries of the gospel. Paul's
plan was to spend the spring at Ephesus, the summer in Mace
donia, and the winter in Corinth. The Pentecost of the fol
lowing year he spent in Jerusalem. He could not leave Ephe
sus soon, for, he says, a great and effectual door is opened to
me. A door is a way of entrance, and figuratively an oppor
tunity of entering into the possession of the convictions and
hearts of men. A great door was opened to the apostle, he
had a wide field of usefulness. The epithet effectual does not
agree with the figure, but the meaning is plain — the opportu
nities were such as could be turned to good effect. And there
are many adversaries. The opponents of the gospel varied
very much in character in different places. Those in Ephesus
were principally men interested in the worship of Diana. The
pressure of the heathen seems to have driven the Jews and
Christians to make common cause, Acts 19, 22. Whereas, in
Corinth, Paul's most bitter opponents were Judaizers. The
presence of such violent adversaries rendered the personal
support of the apostle more necessary to the church.
10. Now if Timotheus come, see that he may be
with you without fear : for he worketh the work of the
Lord, as I also (do.)
In Acts 19, 22, we read that Paul "sent into Macedonia
two of those who ministered to him, Timotheus and Erastus;
but he hhnself stayed in Asia for a season." Timothy, there
fore, at this time, was travelling through Macedonia, and ex
pected to reach Corinth, whither the apostle had sent him ;
see 4, 17. Besides this mission of Timothy there was anoth
er some time later, consisting of Titus and other brethren who
were sent to learn the effect produced by ^hi* --ettei , and
whose return the apostle so anxiously awaited, 2 Coi. 2,
7 T 13 Paul requests the Corinthians so to receive luno-
thv that he might be there without fear. It was not fear of
Personal vfoTence, but the ibar of not bemg regarded with
re™t and confidence. The reason by which he enforces his

368 I. CORINTHIANS 16, 10. 11. 12.
request shows the nature of the evU which he apprehended,
for he worketh the work of tlie Lord. If they would recog
nize this, Timothy would be satisfied. The work of the Lord,
as in 15, 58, may mean either that work in which the Lord
himself is engaged ; or that which he has prescribed. As I
also do. A comprehensive commendation. Timothy preached
the same gospel that Paul preached ; and with like assiduity
and fidehty. 11. Let no man therefore despise him : but con
duct him forth in peace, that he may come unto me :
for I look for him with the brethren.
Therefore, i. e. because he works the work of the Lord,
he is entitled to respect, and ought not to be despised. Per
haps it was Timothy's youth that made the apostle specially
solicitous on this account, 1 Tim. 4, 12. But conduct him
forth in peace ; i. e. attend him on his journey in a friendly
manner. That he may come to me. It was not Paul's wish
that Timothy should remain in Corinth ; but after having exe
cuted his commission, 4, 17, he was to return to the apostle.
He did thus return, and was with Paul when he wrote the
second Epistle, 2 Cor. 1,1. I expect him with the brethren,
i. e. the brethren whom Paul had appointed as Timothy's trav
elling companions. It is rare in the New Testament that we
read of any one going on a missionary tour alone.
12. As touching (our) brother Apohos, I greatly
desired him to come unto you with the brethren : but
his will was not at ah to come at this time ; but he
wih come when he shah have convenient time.
Either the Corinthians, among whom ApoUos had already
laboured, had requested Paul to send him to them again ; or
for some other reason, the apostle earnestly wished that he
would accompany the brethren from Corinth, who were to
carry this epistle back with them ; see v. 17. It appears from
this verse that ApoUos was not under Paul's authority. No
reason is given for his declining to go to Corinth but that he
was not wUling. Why he was not wUUng is matter of conjec
ture. Many suppose it was because his name had been mixed
up with the party strifes which disturbed the church there,

I. CORINTHIANS 16, 13. 14. 15. 16. 369
1, 12. I greatly desired him ; or, I often exhorted him, that
he woma come, <fcc. 'iva does not here mean, in order that,
but indicates the purport ofthe request.
13. 14. Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you
hke men, be strong. Let ah your things be done with
charity. These concise exhortations form a fitting close to the
epistle ;_ each being adapted to the pecuhar circumstances of
the Corinthians, though of course applicable to aU Christians
in their _ conflicts with the world. 1. He exhorts them to
watch, i. e. to be wakeful, constantly on the alert, that theh
spiritual enemies might not gain advantage over them before
they were aware of theh danger. 2. Beset as they were with
false teachers, who handled deceitfully the word of God, 2 Cor.
4, 2, he exhorts them to standfast in the faith. Do not con
sider every point of doctrine an open question. Matters of
faith, doctrines for which you have a clear revelation of God,
such for example as the doctrine of the resurrection, are to be
considered settled, and, as among Christians, no longer mat
ters of dispute. There are doctrines embraced in the creeds
of aU orthodox churches, so clearly taught in Scripture, that
it is not only useless, but hurtful, to be always caUing them
into question. 3. Quit you like men. The circumstances of
the Corinthians called for great courage. They had to with
stand the contempt of the learned, and the persecutions of the
powerful. 4. Be strong. Not only courage, but strength,
was needed to withstand their enemies, and to bear up under
the trials which were to come upon them. 5. Let aU your
affairs be conducted in love, i. e. let love prevaU, in your hearts,
in your famUies, in your assembhes. The preceding parts of
the epistle show how much need there was for this exhorta
tion ; as the church was rent with factions, and even the Lord's
supper, every where else a feast of love, had become in Corinth
a fountain of bitterness.
15. 16. I beseech you, brethren, [ye know the house
of Stephanas, that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and
(that) they have addicted themselves to the ministry of
the saints,] that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to
every one that helpeth with (us,) and laboureth.
16*

370 I. CORINTHIANS 16, 16. 17. 18.
The family of Stephanas was the first family in Achaia that
embraced the gospel. In Rom. 16, 5, Epenetus, according
to the common text, is said to have been the first fruits of
Achaia ; but there the true reading is Asia ; so that there is
no conflict between the two passages. Of the family of Ste
phanas it is said, that they addicted themselves to the minister
ing of the saints, i. e. devoted themselves to the service of
believers. The expression does not necessarily involve the
idea of any official service. The exhortation is, that ye also
submit yourselves to such. ' As they serve you, do you serve
them.' Nothing is more natural than submission to the good.
And io every one that helpeth with (such), and laboureth. This
may mean, submit yourselves to every one who co-operates with
such persons ; i. e. to aU who hi Uke manner are addicted to
the service of believers. Those who serve, should be served.
17. I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and
Fortunatus and Achaicus : for that which was lacking
on your part they have supplied.
These were members ofthe church in Corinth, who visited
Ephesus probably for the express purpose of seeing the apos
tle, and of consulting him on the condition of the church.
They were probably the bearers of the letter from the Corin
thians to Paul, to which he aUudes in 7, 1. The reason why
he rejoiced in their presence was, that they supplied what was
lacking on the part of the Corinthians ; or rather, the want
of you (rb vp.erepov vcrrep-rjpa ; vperepov being objective, as in
15, 31.) The presence of these brethren made up to the apos
tle, in a measure, the absence of the Corinthians. Another
explanation is, ' they have done what you failed to do,' i. e. in
formed me ofthe true state of things in Corinth. The former
view of the meaning is the common one, and is more in keep
ing with the tone of the passage, which is affectionate and
concihatory. This too is confirmed by what foUows.
18. Por they have refreshed my spirit and yours :
therefore acknowledge ye them that are such.
For, i. e. They have supplied your place, for their presence
has had the same effect as would have followed from our being
together. It has refreshed me, and it has had a corresponding
effect on you. ' To them,' as Meyer and others explam it,

I. CORINTHIANS 16, 18.19.20. 371
' you owe whatever in my letter serves to refresh you.' Others
think that the apostle refers to the effect of the return of these
brethren to Corinth, and the assurances they would carry with
them of the apostle's love. Or, Paul may mean, that what re
freshed him, must also gratify them. They would rejoice in
his joy. However understood, it is one of the examples of
urbanity with whicli this apostle's writings abound. There
fore acknowledge them that are such, i. e. recognize and ap
preciate them properly.
19. The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and
Prischla salute you much in the Lord, with the church
that is in their house.
Asia here means proconsular Asia, of which Ephesus was
the capital, and which included the seven apocalyptic churches.
To salute, in a general sense, is to wish safety to ; in a Chris
tian sense, it is to wish salvation to any one. This was in
cluded in the Hebrew formula of salutation, " Peace be with
you," which passed into the service of Christians. To salute
any one in the Lord, is to salute hhn as a Christian and in a
Christian manner. It is to salute him because he is in tho
Lord, and in a way acceptable to the Lord. AquUa and
PrisciUa, when driven from Rome, as mentioned in Acts 18, 2,
settled in Corinth. They accompanied the apostle to Ephesus,
and remained there, Acts 18, 18. The church which is in
their house, i. e. the company of Christians which meet in their
house. As the same expression is used Rom. 16, 5, in connec
tion with theh names, it is probable that both at Rome and
Ephesus, they opened their house as a regular place of meet
ing for Christians. Their occupation as tent-makers probably
required spacious apartments, suited for the purpose of such
assemblies. 20. All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one
another with a holy kiss.
As all the brethren in this verse are distinguished from the
church in tho house of AquUa and PrisciUa mentioned m v.
19 it may be inferred that only a portion, and probably a small
portion ofthe Christians of Ephesus were accustomed to meet
H +w nlice The apostle exhorts them to greet one another
with a holy 'kiss, Rom. 16, 16. 2 Cor. 13, 12. 1 Thess. 5, 20.

372 I. CORINTHIANS 16, 20.21.22.
This was the conventional token of Christian affection. In the
East the kiss was a sign either of friendship among equals, or
of reverence and submission on the part of an inferior. The
people kissed the images of their gods, and the hands of
princes. In the early church, the custom was for Christians
when they met to kiss ; and in their assembhes, especiaUy after
the Lord's supper, this token of Christian brotherhood was in
terchanged. Paul seems here to request, that when his letter
was pubUcly read, the members of the church would give to
each other this pledge of mutual forgiveness and love.
21. The salutation of (me) Paul with mine own
hand. As Paul commonly wrote by an amanuensis, he was accus
tomed to write with his own hand the concluding sentences
of his epistle as an authentication of them, Col. 4, 18. 2 Thess.
3, 17. He remarks in Gal. 6, 11, on his having written that
epistle with his own hand as something unusual, and as indi
cating a peculiar stress of feeUng.
22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let
him be Anathema. Maran atha.
This and what follows is what Paul himself wrote. They
are words which need no explanation. They carry with them
their awful import to every heart. If any man love not our
Lord Jesus Christ. If our Lord be " God over aU and blessed
for ever," want of love to him is the violation of our whole
duty. If he be not only truly God, but God manifested in the
flesh for our salvation ; if he unites in himself aU divine and all
human exceUence ; if he has so loved us as to unite our nature
to his own, and to humble himself and become obedient unto
death, even the death of the cross, that we might not perish,
but have everlasting life ; then our own hearts must assent to
the justness of the malediction pronounced even against our
selves, if we do not love him. We must feel that in that case
we deserve to be anathema. Nay, we thereby are a thing
accursed; we are an object of execration and loathing to all
holy beings by the same necessity that hohness is opposed to
sin. Maran atha are two Aramaean words signifying " The
Lord," or " our Lord comes." It is a solemn warning. The
Lord, whom men refuse to recognize and love, is about to

I. CORINTHIANS 16, 22.23.24. 373
come in the glory of Ms Father and with aU his holy angels,
to take \engeance on those who know not God, and who obey
not the gospel. So deeply were the apostles impressed with
the divinity of Christ, so fully were they convinced that Jesus
was God manifest in the flesh, that the refusal or inability to
recognize him as such, seemed to them a mark of reprobation.
If this truth be hid, they say, it is hid to them that are lost,
2 Cor. 4, 3-6.
23. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (be) with
you. As to be anathema from Christ, to be the subject of his
curse, is everlasting perdition ; so his favour is eternal hfe.
" May his love be with you," is a prayer for aU good.
24. My love (be) with you ah in Christ Jesus.
Amen.
" My love in Christ " is my Christian love. Paul in con
clusion assures them all, aU the believers in Corinth, even
those whom he had been caUed upon to reprove, of his sincere
love.

THE END.