LIBRARY
OF THK
University of California.
Mrs. SARAH P. WALSWORTH.
Received October, 1894.
z/lccessions No.SZ/lC^ ^ Class No.
^
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/biblicalcomnnentaOOolshrich
CLARK'S
FOREIGN
THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY,
VOLUME XX
<!^l»fiaii»ett*s CDommentare on %t pmV&;ffmt antu Jfeeconln
EDINBURGH :
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET ;
LONDON : SEELEY AND CO. ; WAKD AND CO. ; AND JACKSON AND WALFORD.
DUBLIN : JOHN ROBERTSON. NEW YORK : WILEY AND PUTNAM.
PHILADELPHIA : J. A. MOORE.
MDCCCLI.
Sl^C^j
PRINTED BY
M'COSH, PARK, AND DEWARS,
DUNDKE.
BIBLICAL COMMENTARY
ST PAUL'S
FIRST AND SECOND EPISTLES
CORINTHIANS.
HERMANN OLSHAUSEN, D.D.,
TROFESSOR OP THEOLOGy'iN THE UNIVERSITY OP ERLANGEN.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES,
r.Y THE
EEV. JOHN EDMUiND COX, M.A., F.S.A .,
OF ALL soul's COLL., OXFORD.
VICAR OF ST Helen's, bishopsgate, London.
EDINBURGH :
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
LONDON : HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO. ; SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, & CO. J
SKELEY & CO. ; WARD & CO. ; JACKSON & WALFORD, ETC.
DUBLIN : JOHN HOBERT.SON.
MDCCCLI.
^'ot
1.7^
TKANSLATOR'S PREFACE
In preparing an English version of Olshausen's valuable ex-
position of St Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians, no pains have
been spared to render its exegetical and critical language into
such plain and simple phraseology, as may present ample means
to the English reader for appreciating the Author's capabilities
as a Commentator upon the infallible truths of Holy Scripture.
The chief difficulty in preparing this version has been found
to arise from the impossibility — acknowledged by all students —
of infusing the genius of the German language into the ex-
pressions of our own, and of adopting phraseology as simple, yet
as comprehensive, — as copious, yet as emphatic as the original.
The peculiarities of the author's style have also added very con-
siderably to the labour, — whilst his originality of thought has, in
many instances, appeared almost to defy anything like an ade-
quate rendering. However, notwithstanding all these impedi-
ments, they have yielded before au earnest desire to make the
value of Dr Olshausen's Scriptural investigations still further
known, than they have been already by the previous translation
of his Commentaries on the four Gospels, and on the Epistle to
the Romans.
In attempting to elucidate the causes for the divisions of the
church at Corinth, the author has assumed that the ol rod Xptcr-
Tov, whom divines of our own country for the most part have
supposed to be the true believers in Christ, were a distinct schis-
matical party, and as such he has treated them throughout his
Exposition. As no known term equivalent to that which he uses
for his designation of this party exists in our language, the
German appellation has been retained, so that wherever the
Christianer, or the Christus partJiei is mentioned in the original,
it is rendered by the former of these words in the translation. It
vi translator's preface.
is hoped that this explanation will remove a difficulty which might
otherwise have been felt had an English word, or words, been
employed to give expression to the Author's meaning.
In bringing this English version to a close, the translator feels
that he should be deficient both in gratitude and courtesy were
he not to acknowledge the valuable assistance he has had, and
the obligation he is under, to J. E. Taylor, Esq., the learned
translator of several German works of deep research, who has
kindly revised the proof-sheets as they have passed through the
press. Without the aid of this friend, the work would have been
far less complete in its several parts.
London, Dec. 31. 1850.
rii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION.
Page
1. Character of Corinthian Community, ... 1
2. Connexion of Paul with Corinthian Church, . . 14
3. Genunineness and Integrity of the Epistles, . . 19
4. Contents of the Epistles, . . ... 23
FIRST EPISTLE.
FART FIRST (i. 1— iv. 21.)
§ 1. Of Human Wisdom (i. 1—31), . . • . 27
§ 2. The Wisdom of God (ii. 1—16), ... 47
§ 3. The Building of God (iii. 1—22), ... 60
§ 4. Human Judgment, (iv. 1 — 21), ... 74
PART SECOND (v. 1— xi. 1.)
§ 5. Of Incestuous Persons (v 1 — 13), ... 87
§ 6. Law Suits (vi, 1 — 20), .... 96
§ 7- Marriage (vii. 1 — 40), .... 112
§ 8. Christian Liberty (viii. 1 — xi. 1), . . . ]33
PART THIRD (xi. 2— xiv. 40.)
§ 9. The Suitable Apparel (xi. 2—16), ... 171
§ 10. The Holy Communion (xi. 17— 34), ... 178
§11. The Gift of Tongues, xii. 1— xiv. 40), . . 189
PART FOURTH (x. 1— xvi. 24.)
§ 12. The Resurrection of the Body (xv. 1 — 58) . . 235
§ 13. The Collection (xvi. 1—24) . . . 264
Vll
CONTENTS.
SECOND EPISTLE.
PART FIRST (i. 1— iii. 18.)
1. The Consolation (i. 1—14:)
2. The Plan of Paul's Journey (i. 15— ii. 17)
3. The Apostolic Office (iii. 1 — 18)
Page
271
278
292
PART SECOND (iv. 1— ix. 15.)
§ 4. The Conflict (iv. 1—18)
§ 5. The Glorification (v. 1—21)
§ 6. The Admonition (vi. 1 — vii. 1)
§ 7. Godly Sorrow (vii. 2—16)
§ 8. The Collection (viii, 1— ix. 15)
305
313
326
332
338
PART THIRD (x. 1— xiii. 13.)
§ 9. False Apostles (x. 1 -18) .
§ 10. The True Apostles (xi. 1—33)
§ 11. The Vision (xii. 1—21) .
§ 12. The Conclusion (xiii. 1—13)
347
356
366
377
INTRODUCTION.
^^^^
§ 1. CHARACTER OF THE CORINTHIAN COMMUNITY.
In the Epistle to the Romans, doctrine decidedly predomi-
nates; in the Epistles to the Corinthians, practical directions,
on the contrary, prevail. The Epistles of Paul to the Christians
at Corinth arose out of the pressure of circumstances ; and while
displaying to us the wisdom of the great apostle of the Grentiles,
they make us especially acquainted with his power of arranging
and controlling involved and difficult questions. To the second
Epistle we are indebted for our acquaintance with St Paul as an
individual ; to the first, for an account of the condition of the
ancient church. Without the possession of the latter, any idea
which we are enabled to collect of the important movements in
the apostolic church would be much more general, as it gains
more life and form from this Epistle than from the remaining
Epistles of Paul collectively. This is to be accounted for by the
character of the Corinthian community that is to say, although
a powerful and living principle animated the entire church from
the period of the assumption of man's nature by the Son of God,
by which light and darkness, good and evil, were aroused from
their inmost depths, to array themselves against each other, yet
Corinth was the spot in which this principle manifested the most
striking appearances.
The city of Corinth stood on the confines of both west and
east, blending internally the peculiar properties of each ; her
wealthy trade, and industrious pursuit of objects connected with
science and art, drew within her walls men of every degree^ and
1 Compare WiJken8 Specimen antiquitaium Corinthiacarum selectarum ad illustra-
tionem utriusque epistolae Paulinae ad Corinthios. Bremae 1747. J. Ernest. Imm.
Walch antiquitates Corinthiacae. Jenae 1761.
a
2 • INTRODUCTION.
Upon this stirring and intelligent mass Christianity exercised the
most powerful influences, and thus produced the most varied
effects. The Christian church in that city may be viewed as a
prefiguration of the Apostolic church ; all the directions put
forth by the latter were already to be found in the former ; the
rules which served to direct them, at the time Paul made his
appearance in Corinth, were drawn from the same spiritual source,
although those charged with the work had not been able fully
to -emancipate themselves from their early errors, in order to
dedicate themselves in all purity to the novelty of the Gospel ;
they rather mingled what was new with the elements of the old,
and thus perverted the nature of that doctrine whose professed
principles are ever at variance with error and corruption. This
blending of the new and the old gave occasion to the formation
of sects in the church of Christ, and their appearance is referred
to, even in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, which is a brief
history of the sects from the earliest moment of the existence of
such schisms.
One of the principal questions to which the Introduction, to
these Epistles has to reply, and a right understanding of
which must be of primary importance, is this — " What were the
doctrines already propagated in the Corinthian church V The
obscurity of expression used by the apostle in describing these
doctrines, and the various hypotheses to which this consequently
gave rise, render it a most difficult question to approach, inas-
much as it requires a satisfactory and clear explanation to enable
us to understand the contents of the Epistles, which principally
refer to the disputes and controversies which then agitated the
church of Corinth.
We propose, therefore, first to explain the opinions we have
adopted, upon what appears to be just grounds, and then to in-
stitute a comparison of the same, with the most important views
of others upon the same subject.
Paul distinctly points out four different parties in Corinth, —
those of Peter, Apollos, Paul, and ol tov Xpiarov (1 Cor. i. 12, iii. 4,
iv. 3, 22, 2 Cor. x. 7), and we have as little reason to suppose that
there existed more than these four parties, as that there were
less (compare the remarks upon i. 12.) In the passages quoted
the apostle does not simply name several parties, as if for the
INTRODUCTION. cJ
sake of exemplification, but he gives many historical particulars
relative to their condition as members of the Corinthian church,
so that there is no difficulty in discovering the tendencies of some
of them. They who said I am of Paul were orthodox in be-
lief; to this Paul assents, but chiefly blames them for attaching
themselves too much to his person, and for depending on his
human characteristics ; for which reason, and to prevent any mis-
use of human authority, he continually enjoins them to have
faith in the Lord. (i. 1, 13, et sqq.) Very closely allied to'
the party attached to Paul, was that of Apollos. This man,
"eloquent and mighty in the Scriptures," (Acts, xviii. 24), himself
taught in Corinth, (Acts xix. 1), finding there, as might have been
expected, willing hearers, and as Paul was intimately associated
with Apollos himself in the work, (i. 4, 6, xvi, 12), he had nothing
of more importance to reprove in the followers of Apollos than this
same respect to his human individuality. This involuntary ad-
herence may have occasioned a formal diff'erence between the
followers' of the two teachers, they being probably both inclined
to put forth a claim for their own manner of interpreting the Old
Testament, of which the Epistle to the Hebrews (which, if not
written by Apollos, proceeded from a completely analogous order
of mind), aflfords an example ; at all events they vied with each
other in striving to obtain a deeper knowledge of evangelical truth,
in the form of a more perfect Jewish Gnosis, with a bias towards
the views of the Alexandrian school. The third party, which called
itself after Peter, is doubtless the Pharisaic Jewish sect, which
Paul so strongly opposes in his Epistle to the Galatians. Peter
partook neither of their errors nor of their enmity to Paul ; but
this party took advantage, nevertheless, of the position of Peter,
as the chief of the apostles, appointed for the people of Israel,
and used his name in order to sanction their proceedings.^ At the
time the first Epistle was written, this party was yet weak, or its
ultimate character was not entirely developed ; but in the second
Epistle, especially in chap, xi., it is distinctly pointed out and
opposed, together with the fourth party. We now come to in-
1 This party did not assume tbe name of Peter in consequence of the presence of Peter
in Corinth (for the abode in Corinth mentioned by Eusebins [Hist. Eccl. ii. 25], oc-
curred long after the Epistles to the Corinthians were drawn up), but on account of the
public position which he occupied in the church of Christ.
4 INTRODUCTION.
quire wlio were meant, under the name ol rod Xptarov, and tliis
question is as difficult to decide as the inquiry, with reference to
the three first named sects, is easily to be disposed of. From the
name itself nothing* with certainty can absolutely be deduced, since
members of the Corinthian church may haye taken occasion, under
a variety of circumstances, to name themselves '*' of Christ," just as
in the same manner, from the word Jesuit, nothing of tlie spirit or
regulation of the order could possibly be learned, unless we pos-
sessed some other information upon the point. It appears,
therefore, that the only way to arrive at a well-grounded reply to
the question, is to ascertain if anything may be inferred con-
cerning the condition of those who esteemed themselves direct
disciples of Christ, from the manner in which the apostle expresses
himself in the Epistles with regard to them. The apostle ex-
pressly wrote with reference to existing sects in Corinth, and
mention is made of these throughout the whole Epistle ; it is
therefore natural to suppose that he viewed their errors in a
polemical light. Now, against which of the sects already men-
tioned did Paul especially argue % Evidently not against the
followers of Paul and Apollos, for at the most, erroneous or ill-
directed striving after knowledge is imputed to the latter, in the
passages wherein Paul at once mentions and preaches against it
(compare 1 Cor. chap. i. — iii.). Then possibly against the follow-
ers of Peter ? But of this not a trace is to be found in the first
Epistle to the Corinthians, inasmuch as it does not contain a
single argument similar to these which abound in the Epistle to
the Galatians. All that appears to be directed against the ad-
herents of Peter occurs in 1 Cor. ix., concerning the anxiety of
those who sought to avoid the use of meats offered to idols ; but
the reference to this error is merely incidental, for the real argu-
ment in this chapter is directed against those who, by wandering
into a bye-path, had fallen into a state of false liberty. In the
second Epistle, however, the case is quite different ; and had we
this Epistle alone, without the first, doubtless all the antitheses
against false and presumptuous teachers, of which it contains so
large a number (see 2 Cor. iii. 1, iv. 2,v. 12, xi. 13,sqq.xii.ll, sqq.)
must have been held to refer to the Judaists, who Avere everywhere
opposers of, and hostile to, the apostle ; and it is possible that the
teachers and representatives of this party, then in Corinth, might
INTRODUCTION. O
have been included. But, taking the first Epistle for our guide, we
can only understand 2 Cor. x. 7 to refer to the rovXptarov, and ac-
cordingly the preaching in the second Epistle against false teachers,
must include the heads of this party also, (which is likewise the
opinion of Baur — see his Comm., 2 Cor. x. 7), not to say that it
is entirely directed against them. Beyond this, the second Epistle
touches only upon personal circumstances, avoiding doctrinal or
ethical disputes ; therefore the first Epistle is the only source which
remains to us .for investigation, the most prominent contents
of which appear to be entirely directed against the Christianer}
It is true that Paul does not expressly indicate this sect, but
speaks as if he addressed all the Christianer in Corinth without
distinction, but the sole motive for this was in order to preserve
a recollection of their unity in the church. To have addressed
one party alone would have been to regard the division as per-
fected, and thus to have made the evil without remedy .^ But by
the form of remonstrance which Paul adopted, he promoted a
spirit of concord, and encouraged as long as possible the hope of
leading back the misguided. From this circumstance it is so
much the more indispensable to the correct understanding of the
first Epistle, that he should become intimately acquainted with
the character of the sect who named themselves of Christ. From
a consideration of the character of the city of Corinth as the
centre of heathen life generally, and heathen art and science
particularly, it appears probable that if in anyplace the coalition
of Christianity with these elements was probable it would take
place in this city.^ Further, if we endeavour to take a compre-
hensive view of all the dogmatic and ethic points adverted to by
1 As in Galatia, the followers of Peter became afterwards the most dangerous, so were
the Christianer now in Corinth. In 1 Cor. i. 12, a climax is therefore to be observed
in which the most threatening party takes the last place.
2 Even in the second Epistle, where the division had now more strongly exhibited
itself, the parties were not separately distinguished, although the different character of
the first and second pai-t of this Epistle strongly displays its referenee to them. (Compare
further § 3.)
3 Had the party named by Paul ol tov XpiaTou been designated by the name of an
apostle, they must have been called oi tov loaiuvov, for .John preached the doctrine in
tbe true, which this party put forth in the erroneous form. By the name ol rov Xpi-
(TTou, which these sectarians doubtless applied to themselves (2 Cor. x. 7), they wished to
make themselves noted above all others as the true irviVfiaTiKoi, the real and peculiar
Christians.
2
6 INTRODUCTION.
the apostle in the first Epistle, it shews us that it is exactly the
over-estimation of human science and art, together with the endea-
vour to establish independence of, and freedom from, the burden-
some fetters of the law, which discloses itself in heathenism. In
the first four chapters Paul plainly speaks against the foolishness
of human wisdom, which without doubt refers to the Greek philo-
sophy and science so highly prized among the Corinthians ; and
it is possible that the followers of Apollos are incidentally in-
cluded among those to whom the apostle addresses himself In
the 5th chapter the special reference is to the existence of incest
among them ; and the reason that the Corinthians themselves,
from their own sense of morality, had not repressed the practice, is
to be found in the very lax opinions of the Gentile Christians rela-
tive to the sexes, as may be plainly seen in 1 Cor. x. 8, 2 Cor.
xij. 21, while, on the contrary, the Jews and Jewish Christians were
very strict on the subject. Yet their immorality can excite no
astonishment when we are told that belonging to the temple of
the Isthmia Dione, upon the Acrocorinth, there were more
than a thousand votaresses whose excesses, far from being for-
bidden, were regarded as an acceptable offering to the goddess.
The new Christians naturally renounced all gross offences upon
their entrance into the church ; yet it was natural that a more
refined feeling should only gradually arise in both sexes, as to
their mutual relation to each other ; for which reason Paul felfc
himself constrained (xi. 5, sqq., xiv. 35), to address several
precepts to the women regarding their conduct. The contents
of the succeeding chapters refer to law proceedings, before
heathen judges, to marriage, and to the use of meats offered
to idols, the apostle enjoining that all false liberty in such things
should be avoided. In the tenth chapter the evil consequences
of this licence is distinctly described and exemplified from the
Old Testament. It will be perceived that these articles bear
reference not to doctrine, but to the manner of life, and the
exhortations which follow concerning the Lord's supper, its worthy
celebration (xi. 17, sqq.), and the right use of spiritual gifts (xii.
1, sqq., xiv. 1, sqq.), possess no dogmatic character; never-
theless, the arguments referring to the resurrection (cap. xv.),
in which the ideal error is distinctly refuted that the resurrec-
tion was only to be received in a spiritual sense (xv. 12), are
INTRODUCTION. 7
equally applicable to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. This pre-
cise error (?'. e. respecting the doctrine of the resurrection) was
one which agreed exactly with the principles of philosophic Gentile
Christians,! who cultivated this opinion, as well as the materialism
of the Jewish Christians, leaving us no room to doubt who were to
be understood under the name ol rov Xpiarov, for to neither of
the other three parties can this error be attributed. Paul, in
Romans, chaps, xiv. xv., describes certain persons in Rome who
appeared under precisely similar circumstances to the Christianer
in Corinth, asserting their freedom in opposition to a strict Jew-
ish practice, and differing only from the latter in adopting less
extreme opinions. The supposition that these opponents of the
doctrine of the resurrection had formerly belonged to the Sadu-
cees is by no means tenable : not a trace exists of any coalition
between Sadduceism and Christianity. Like Epicureanism
among the heathen, the principles of the sect were so completely
at variance with the spirit of the Gospel, that it was utterly im-
possible for the converted Sadducee to unite the elements of his
former belief with those of his new faith. In addition to this,
the Sadducees entirely denied the existence of a. spiritual world
(Acts xxiii. 8), therefore they could not interpret the doctrine of
the resurrection spiritually, they could only entirely reject it.
This view of the Corinthian Christianer, which to us seems the
only correct one, has also been put forth by Neander^ in its most
important points, and the conviction of its accuracy does not rest
alone upon the evidence adduced in its favour, but also upon the
impossibility of sustaining any other. The conjecture of Eich-
horn is that, by the Christianer, the neutral party was meant ; that
is to say, it signified those who, not receiving Christianity me-
1 It is as well to remark, that in this place the weakness of Baur's hypothesis strik-
ingly exhibits itself (compare the leading observations of this learned man, 79 sqq.)
which, setting aside the followers of Peter, as well as the Christianer, considers the refer-
ence is to Greek influence. But is it not more natural to suppose that, in a city like
Corinth, this influence would not have shewn itself with regard to the doctrine of the
resurrection alone, but may rather be supposed to have been concentrated in the Chris-
tianer, leaving to that of Peter the strict ceremonial observance of the Jewish Chris-
tians, together with the opposition to the apostolic authority of Paul, exactly as we see
it in the Epistle to the Galatians?
2 Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel.
Hamburg, 1832. Part i. p. 296, sqq. Jager also declares himself iu favour of this
view in its main points. See his work (iiber die Korinthierbriefe) upon the Epistles to
the Corinthians, pnge 86.
3
8 INTRODUCTION.
diately throiigli the apostlejs, had drawn it from the primitive
Gospel (!). This hypothesis, the fomidation of which had already
been laid by the fathers, especially Chrysostom, and afterwards de-
fended by Pott, Schott, Einleitung ins Neiie Testament (Introduc-
tion to the New Testament), and Riickert, Commentar zum
ersten Briefe an die Korinthier (Commentary upon the first
Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 43, 447), may be regarded as
long since refuted, for, according to 1 Cor. i. 12, 2 Cor. x. 7, it is
clear that Paul blamed the Christianer regarding them as the
cause of division, which, if they remained neutral in the proj^er
sense of the word, certainly could not have occurred.^ There
remains, consequently, only the hypothesis of Storr and Baur
which may claim a closer examination. The substance of Storr's
hypothesis is,^ that the expression ol rod Xpicrrov refers to the
disciples of James, the brother of our Lord ; as followers of this
kinsman of Christ, Storr considers that they had added the appel-
lation, " belonging especially to Christ," as a mark of superiority.
Billroth and Baur have already proved that to this the name
01 rod XptaTov is in no degree suitable. The brothers of Christ,
and especially James, are never called ol dS6X(j)ol rod Xpicrrov,
but Tov Kvplov. It follows, therefore, that the Christianer in
Corinth must be termed ol tov Kuplov, or tov Irjaov, for ol tov
XpKTTov could not possibly be applied to the brothers of Jesus ;
and we may further infer, that the followers of James were not to
be distinguished from those of Peter, consisting as they did of
strict Christian Jews. In short, all positive grounds for this
hypothesis fail, not only in the original form as laid down by
Storr, but also in the modification adopted by Bertholdt, who
considers the reference to be made not to James alone, but to
several brothers of our Lord. That the brethren of Christ and
James are mentioned 1 Cor. ix. 5, xv. 7, signifies nothing, inas-
much as this mention of them has no connection with any ani-
madversion against the Christianer, or indeed against any
one in particular, the allusion to them being merely incidental.
1 The hypothesis of Eiclihorn, which Pott rauks before all others, is best supported
by 1 Cor. ili. 22. Here all the four parties seem to be mentioned, and that of the Chris-
tianer with praise. But that this is only in appearance, the explanation of the passage
will show.
2 This is detailed in the treatise Notitiae historicae epistol. ad Cor. interpretation! ser.
vientes. It is printed in Storr's Opnsc. Acad., vol. ii.
INTRODUCTION. 9
(Compare the Commentary on tin's place.) But had a polemic
reference existed in this passage, we should have been far more
justified in attributing it to the adherents of Peter, if it had not-
been expressly directed against the Christianer, for the whole of
chapter ix. agrees with their character ; and as the doctrine of
James, the brother of our Lord, was likewise Christian Jewish,
he may certainly be placed, together with Peter, at their head.
The yLvooa/ceiv Xpiarbv Kara crdpKa (2 Cor. v., 16) bears other
reference (as the further exposition of the passage will shew)
tha^n to the family circumstances of the Redeemer ; this expres-
sion places Christ's entire human nature in opposition to his
everlasting and heavenly being. The supposition of Baur (very
ingeniously developed in the Tiibinger Zeitschrift, 1831, pt. iv )
and for which also Billroth, with some slight modification, has
decided, is so far identified with that of Storr, in that it connects
the sect of Christ with that of Peter ; so that Paul, in 1 Cor. i. 12,
only indicates two principal parties, viz., that of Paul, includ-
ing also the followers of Apollos, and that of Peter, in which the
peculiar disciples of Peter and the Christianer have to be
numbered. But Baur attributes a very different derivation from
Storr to the name ol rov Xpcarov, and besides defines much more
closely the character of those who bore it. First of all, the dis-
tinguishing characteristic of the Judaists was a strict fulfilling of
the outward law ; according to Baur, this was the criterion by
which the followers of Cephas were known.^ Then they placed
themselves in a polemic position with regard to Paul, attacking
not only his teaching, but his apostolic authority, asserting that he
was not a genuine .disciple of Christ, but an apostate, styling
themselves real disciples, because converted by those apostles
who were chosen by Christ himself. Fundamentally, therefore,
the party of Cephas and that of Christ were one and the same,
though circumstances in Corinth seem to have been less favour-
able to those who held strict views. But if the question should
occur, why, under these circumstances, any distinction should be
made between the party of Cephas and that of Christ — why
both should not have been included under the latter appellation —
1 When Heiilenreich considers the Christianer iu the same light as these Judaists, he
sets aside any distinction between the adherents of Cephas and tlie toD Xpia-rov, and
takes up Storr's position, that no diflFerence between these two parties was evident.
10 INTRODUCTION.
it may be replied that, by admitting this, the first Epistle con-
tains nothing against the Christianer, for Paul does not therein
explicitly defend his apostolic authority, and, besides this, the
greater proportion of the subjects which are brought under con-
sideration would thereby have no reference to the sects mentioned
1 Cor. i. 12, none of the latter having the particular tendency
which, as we have shown above, so strongly marked the party of
Cephas.-^ By admitting the supposition, however, that all the
points touched upon in the Epistle have no reference to the par-
ticular divisions of the church, it requires a somewhat unconnected
and inconsequent character, not to say that it is psychologically
quite improbable, that such errors as the apostle opposes in the
first Epistle were what might be termed sporadic, or without
connection with those fundamental doctrines, from which they
might rather be considered to emanate, as branches from one
stem. Upon these grounds we cannot decide in favour of Baur's
hypothesis, without acknowledging that more can be urged in its
favour than for Eichhorn's or Storr's, and Billroth justly remarks
that some passages in the second Epistle appear to support it.
In 2 Cor. iii. a literal as well as a spiritual parallel is instituted
between the Old and New Testaments, in order to convince those
persons who had as yet gained no view of the specific peculiarity
of the Gospel. The important passage, x. 7, stands in such
connection with the controversy against false apostles (xi. 13,
sqq. xii. 11), that the whole train of argument is very similar
to that in the Epistle to the Galatians.2 Paul here, as there,
defends strongly his apostolic authority against false and treacher-
ous apostles, who had attacked and cast suspicion upon it, and
precisely because the expressions are so strong (especially in chap,
xi. 13), one cannot conceive that they are applied to the real
apostles (which are understood in Galatians ii. under SoKovvresi),
for it is impossible that Paul could call these -^evhaTroaToKoi.
1 Except a few general remarks upon 1 Cor. i.— iv. Baiir only quotes from the first
Epistle, ix. 1, in which Paul says of himself toi; Kvpiov itipa/ca, which he considers may
be referred to the opponents of the apostle, who made it a subject of reproach to him
that he had not seen the Lord. (See refereuce already mentioned, p. 85-88.) From
the second Epistle, on the contrary, he deduces arguments which occupy from p. 89-114.
But can that hypothesis be considered valid, which, casting aside the first and most
important Epistle, rests for support upon the second alone ?
2 I pass over the passage 2 Cor. v. 16, so copiously treated, because the proof deduced
therefrom by Baur appears very precarious. (See exposition of the passage.)
INTRODUCTION. 11
Besides, this name is equally applicable to the usurping heathen
heterodox teachers, as to the Jewish, since they both alike con-
tested Paul's authority, as may be seen in the Epistle to Timothy,
(2 Tim. j. 15), and it is certain the opponents there named were not
of Judaised, but rather heathen heretical opinions. Should it be at-
tempted to prove anything for Baur's hypothesis as modified by
Billroth, from 2 Cor. x. 7, in connection with cap.xi. and xii.,it can
only be done by asserting that the passages quoted are applicable
solely to Jewish heteredox teachers ;^ this is however impossible,
and Baur himself allows (p. 99) that in 2 Cor. x. 7, not only the
Christianer, but all the sects in Corinth collectively are intended ;
his views, therefore, derive no corroboration from the passages
indicated. In short, weighing well the improbability of narrow-
minded Jewish opinions predominately asserting themselves in a
city like Corinth, whilst the more lax heathen principle (so much
more acceptable) made no approach to an extreme point, we
feel called upon to declare that, as no decided grounds for this
view exist in the Epistles themselves, we do not feel inclined
to entertain it. But by the supposition that the Christianer
were an Ethnic party, the first Epistle especially gains an
internal coherence which any other conjecture would fail to be-
stow. In the second Epistle, according to Baur, this harmony
of connection is not so deficient, and his theory appears con-
siderably clearer, hy admitting the correctness of our conjecture
that the apostle opposes equally the representatives of both
the false sects, and directs his reproofs against the Christianer
and likewise the adherents of Peter , who, whatever their inter-
i The use that Baur makes of tiie vision, mentioned by Paul in the 12th chapter, in
defending his hypothesis, is very ingenious. He considers that Paul intended to oppose
to the materialist opinions ol the Jewish Christians, vvlio asserted a personal instruction
througli Christ, the ideal effect - viz., the immediate production of faith by the working
of the Spirit. But I fear that this would prove too much ! It is by no meajis the inten-
tion of the apostle to si^y, that the Spirit is able to raise at pleasure the church of Christ
in any spot. " Faith comes only out of preaching.'' (See my Exposition, Kom. x. 14. )
Paul himself did not become a member of the church by the appearance oi the Lord to
him at liamascus ; he was only led thereby to desire to be received into the church, and
for this reception the word of Ananias and baptism were necessary. (See Comm., Acts
ix. 17, sqq.) The parallels likewise which Baur quotes from the Clementines do not
appear to me entirely applicable. It is probable Paul's motive for appealing to his vision
was, that his opponents did the same; he will, consequently, as it were, say, " Behold, I
can allege the same, and yet greater." The manner in which Paul speaks, in 1 Cor.
cap. xii.— xjv., of the misuse of the gifts, renders this not improbable.
12 INTRODUCTION.
nal differences, were yet linked together in the attempt to obtain
opportunity for the propagation of their errors, by undermining
the authority of the great apostle of the Gentiles. It is true
that Baur has likewise expressed his dissent from this view in
the Tiibing. Zeitschr. 1836, part iv. ; and though this learned
man may assert, with some show of reason, that Riickert errs in
stating that the identity, which the former supposes to exist be-
tween the partisans of Peter and Christ, is injurious to his own
hypothesis, his remarks, nevertheless, upon the views of Nean-
der and myself must be considered to have failed. He has evi-
dently misunderstood Neander when he states that he ascribed
to the Christianer similar views to those entertained by the fol-
lowers of Carpocratesi at a later period — that is to say, they
ranked Christ with Socrates as a great investigator of truth, and
therefore did not deserve the name of a Christian sect. That
this was by no means the position of the Christianer is so appar-
ent that it could not be Neander's opinion, for under such circum-
stances Paul would not have troubled himself to maintain the
unity of the church, but would have immediately required the ex-
l [The philosophy of this schismatic '•' did not differ in its general principles from that
of the other Egyptian Gnostics. For he admitted one supreme God. ^uiis, the offspring
of God, eternal and malignant matter, the creation of the world from evil matter by
angels, divine souls unfortunately enclosed in bodies, and the like. But he maintained
that Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary, in the ordinary course of nature, and that he
was superior to other men in nothing but fortitude and greatness of soul. He also not
only gave his disciples licence to sin, but imposed on them, besides, a necessity of sinning,
by teaching that the way to eternal salvation was open to tliose souls only which had
committed all kinds of enormity and wickedness. But it is utterly beyond credibility
that any mini who believes that there is a God, that Christ is the Saviour of man-
kind, and v.ho inculcates any sort of religion, should hold such sentiments. Besides,
there are grounds to believe that Carpocrates, like the other Gnostics, held the Saviour
to be composed of the man Jesus, and a certain .^on called Christ ; and that he imposed
some laws of conduct on his disciples. Yet undoubtedly, there was something in his
opinions and precepts that rendered his piety very suspicious. For he held that eoncxi-
piscence was implanted in the soul by the Deity, and is therefore perfectly innocent;
that all actions are in themselves indifferent, and become good or evil only according to
the opinions and laws of men ; that in the purpose of God all things are common pro-
perty, even the women, but that such as use their rights, are by human laws counted
thieves and adulterers. Now, if he did not add some corrective to the enormity of these
principles, it must be acknowledged that he wholly swept away the foundations of all
virtue, and gave full license to all iniquity. See Irenaeus, contra Hceres. 1. 1. c. 25 ;
Clemens Alex. Stromal. 1. iii. p. 510, and the others. (Mosheim de Rebus Christi, &c.,
p. 361-371; C. W. F. Walch, Histore der Ketzer, vol. i. p. 309-329; A. Neanderr
Kirchengesch. vol. i. pt. ii. p. 767 — 773; Mosheim's Tnstitufes of ErcL Hist., vol. i. pp.
198, 9. Ed. (Soames) Lond. 1845 ]
INTRODUCTION. 13
pulsion of the heterodox teachers from their body. (See Gal. v.
4 ; Tit. iii. 10.) Neander doubtless intends only to say (p. 301)
that the Christianer were willing to profess the doctrine of Christ,
omitting the Jewish form ; and indefinite as the expression may
be, it is probable that the words of Neander, '* Christ appeared
to them a second, perhaps more perfect, Socrates," would only
declare that they had looked upon Christ as something more than
human. In the more recent article of Baur's, before alluded to,
there occurs nothing of weight or consequence affecting the cor-
rectness of the supposition that the Christianer entertained
Ethnic opinions. The members of this sect were very likely con-
verted by those who looked to Paul as their head, and believing
themselves called upon to free themselves from all human at-
tachments and national prejudices, they consequently shaped for
themselves a course of living and doctrine, without however as
yet touching upon the limits of heresy. It would be surprising
if, in the ancient church, and especially in a city like Corinth,
such a party had not formed itself. The Marcionites and other
Gnostic sects prove the early existence of such tendencies, from
which their own rise at a subsequent period, may be dated.
What, therefore, more natural than to perceive here a trace of
their existence, especially as the supposition of the identity with
the followers of Cephas, only a slight difference laid down by
Baur and Billroth, is undeniably something very like a forced
conclusion ?
According to this view it is irrefragable that the Epistles to
the Corinthians were excited by circumstances which had refer-
ence purely to the apostolic time, while in the Epistle to the Bo-
mans the contents of the Gospel as objective are brought under
consideration. Not that we are justified in inferring from them
that the former have only an historical importance ; many pas-
sages are pregnant with meaning for the later periods of the
church, and especially for the present age. In the condition of
the Apostolic church the state of the church at every period is
reflected, and above all under its present circumstances, The
principal danger which threatened so many members of the exist-
ing church in Corinth is likewise the chief evil of our own times
• — an over-estimation of human wisdom, instead of godly ever-
lasting truth, an universal laxity and indifference in the most im-
14 INTRODUCTION.
portant social ties, viz., in the relation between the sexes, a
neglect of powerful biblical realism, and a predominance of the
subjective restraints assigned to them instead of the objective.
For this reason, precisely at the present moment, the Epistles
to the Corinthians possess an inclusive and palpable import-
ance, and this will be daily more acknowledged as the con-
viction spreads, that for everything contained in the Scriptures
the final norm is given. The weighty discussion of the Charis-
mata (1 Cor. xii. 14.) only remains as unintelligible to our times
as to earlier ages, since, from the period of the apostles, these
gifts are lost, and even the intuition of many among them — for
example, the gift of tongues has long since vanished. But as
the looking for these has begun again to exhibit itself, it may be
inferred that the gifts themselves may be restored to the church
of Christ as the final development of the same draws nigh, by
which the end is to be made conformable to the beginning in the
chief points. The internal development of the church will there-
fore also in this respect assist to perfect the exposition.
I 2. CONNEXION OF PAUL WITH THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH.
The question which occurs next in order to that referring to
the position of the various parties in Corinth is, how Paul con-
ducted himself towards the Corinthian Church, — that is to say,
how often he visited them, and how many Epistles he wrote
to them. The Acts of the Apostles, and the accounts con-
tained in the Epistles to the Corinthians, convey to us the follow-
ing particulars.
The old city of Corinth, as is well known, was destroyed by
Mummius B.C. 146, and remained in ruins until Julius Caesar
planted a Roman colony in it, endowing it with great privileges.
Paul first appeared in Julius Caesar's newly-restored city, while
prosecuting his second journey in connection with his mission
(Acts xviii. 1, sqq.) He found there Aquila and Priscilla,
who, by the command of the Emperor Claudius, had been driven
out of Rome (Suet. Claud, c. 25), and preached one year and six
months, after receiving in a vision the assurance that in this city
a large number were to be found, of whom God was known, and
INTRODUCTION. , 15
whom it was his purpose to protect. The consequences of his
preaching were so extraordinary, that, deeply sunk as that city
was in pleasures and excess, a large Christian community arose
therein, and eyen Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, included
himself therein. In consequence of this a tumult, directed
against Paul, arose among the Jews, which required the wisdom
and mildness of Gallio, the proconsul, a brother of the celebrated
philosopher Seneca, to allay (Tacit. Annal. xvi. 7.). After
the lapse of a year and a half, taking Aquila and Priscilla with
him, Paul passed over into Ephesus, where he left them, on his
way to Jerusalem, but the apostle himself stayed there only a
short time, promising before long to return thither, (Acts xviii.
18, sqq.) In the meantime there came to Ephesus a learned
Alexandrian Jew, the famous ApoUos, a true disciple of John
the Baptist, viz., one who viewed him only as the forerunner of
the Messiah, and not as the Messiah himself, as some of John's
disciples falsely asserted him to be. This man, convinced by
Aquila of the Messiahship of Jesus, and filled with the new faith,
passed over into Corinth, taking with him written commendations
to the disciples there, and soon distinguished himself. While
Apollos was thus labouring in Corinth, Paul came back to Ephe-
sus from Jerusalem, to which place Apollos also returned at a
later period (Acts xix. 1 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 12 ;) and here the apostle
remained two years and three months (Acts xix.. 8, 10.) During
this time Paul received sorrowful information respecting the con-
dition of the church in Corinth. A member of this body was
living in illicit intercourse with his father's wife, consequently his
own stepmother ; and the other members had so little right or
moral feeling relative to such matters, that they nevertheless suf-
fered the offender to continue one of their body. This impelled
the apostle to address an epistle to the Christians in Corinth, in
which he exhorts them to avoid the company of sinners and the
dissolute (1 Cor. v. 9.) This first Epistle is lost. It is true that
there exists another Epistle to the Corinthians, differing from
either of those we possess, as well as one from the latter to Paul,
both in the Armenian language, but Carpzov (Leipsic 1776) has
already triumphantly proved that they are not genuine.^ More
1 The Epistles of Paul first appeared in *' Histoire Critique de la Eepublique des
Lettres," Amsterd. 1714, torn, x., but incomplete. William Wbiston published them
16 INTRODUCTION.
recently Rink, who was long an evangelic preacher in Venice,
edited the Epistles (Heidelberg, 1823. 8.), and the Armenian Monk
Ancher, of the Convent of San Lazaro, near Venice, at the con-
clusion of his Armenian Grammar, has critically revised and re-
published the Armenian text (Venice, 1819) ; but Rink's attempt
to defend the authenticity of the Epistles has been fundamentally
confuted by UUman (Heidelberger Jahrbuch, 1823, pt. vi). The
first Epistle of Paul therefore remains lost to us. The Corin-
thians replied to it, and it is probable that this was delivered
to the apostle by the hands of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achai-
cus (1 Cor. xvi. 18, 19.) Partly by means of this reply, and the
verbal information of the messengers specified, and partly through
the slaves of the Corinthian matron Chloe (1 Cor. i. 11), Paul
received further intelligence of the circumstances of the Corin-
thian church, which drew from him the second Epistle, preserved
in our first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. When the apostle
composed it he w^as still in Ephesus, purposing to remain there
until Pentecost (1 Cor. xvi. 8). and it is probable that the season
in which he wrote was either spring or autumn, and undoubtedly
in the year 59. But Paul had scarcely dispatched our first
Epistle to Corinth when the tumult occasioned by the goldsmith
Demetrius broke out in Ephesus, which compelled the apostle to
leave the city before Pentecost and to depart into Macedonia
(Acts xix. 1, sqq.), where he anxiously awaited intelligence of
the efi'ect produced by the letter referred to (2 Cor. ii. 13, 14),
being desirous of ascertaining the feeling of the various parties in
reference to this before he himself appeared in Corinth as he pro-
posed. Paul, therefore, was expecting the return of Timotheus to
Macedonia from Corinth, whither he had sent him (1 Cor. i v. 17.) But
whether it was that Timotheus had already quitted that city before
the arrival of Paul's Epistle, or that he had not yet reached it, it is
certain that the apostle did not receive the desired intelligence
through him, for which reason he sent Titus to Corinth, and during
the interval of his absence journeyed through Macedonia (2 Cor.
ij. 13.) Upon the return of Titus, Paul wrote our second epistle,
entire, together with the pretended letter of the Corinthians to Paul, at the end of his
Historia Armeniae Mosis Choronensis. Lond. 1736, 4. Carpzov's Work bears the title :
Epjstolae duae apocryphae, altera Corinthiorum ad Paulum, altera Pauli ad Corinthios.
Lips. 1776, 8.
INTRODUCTION. 17
in order to awaken the frame of mind which he desired to behold
among the Corinthians when he himself should visit them (2 Cor. vij.
7, sqq.), and in it the apostle praises the well-intentioned mem-
bers of their church (viz., the followers of Paul and ApoUos) for
their obedience to his commands, and likewise for their re-
pentant spirit ; but, on the contrary, he strongly reproves the con-
tumacious (viz., the adherents of Peter, and the C^ristianer hboje
all), because they had despised his most serious exhortations,
and their presumption had only increased. This, our second
Epistle, was sent by Titus and two brethren, not mentioned by
name, (2 Cor. viii. 16, sqq.) to Corinth. The apostle intending
shortly to follow one of their brethren was possibly Luke, and
this is inferred partly because the description in the place above
indicated is directly applicable to him, and also because his name
stands in the subscription at the conclusion of the Epistle ; and
as Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles (xx. 1), recommences his
narration in the third person, having hitherto written in the first,
we may conclude that he must have left the apostle in Macedonia.
This is the original account of the occasion upon which the
Epistles to the Corinthians were written, as well as the periods
at which they were composed. In the most important points it
is thoroughly correct, for it rests upon passages to be found in the
Acts of the Apostles, as well as in the Epistles themselves. But
more recently, the scrutiny instituted by Bleek and Schrader^
into the events which, according to our canon, took place between
the drawing up of the first and second Epistle, has elicited re-
sults, which undoubtedly claim a preference over the older and
more uncertain account. According to these, at the period the
apostle wrote our second epistle, he had not been again in Corinth,
but this supposition is negatived by several places in this Epistle,
viz., xii. 14, xiii. 1, in which a third coming is mentioned. It is
true that the first of these places is usually explained by the
rpiTov being understood of the wish for the coming, and not the
coming itself, but this does not agree with the context, which
undoubtedly refers to a fact, adverted to in xiii. 1, as decided
upon (compare further the exposition of this place) ; and there is
the more reason for taking this view of the passage, as the follow-
1 Bleek, in an Article in the Stud, und Kritiken, .Tabrg. 1830. page 614, sqq. Schra-
der Der Apostel Paulus. 1. Pt. p. 9f), sqq.
h
18 INTRODUCTION.
ing verse (xiii. 2), contains an intimation announced during the
second stay, viz., that proofs of forgiveness and indulgence would
not be repeated.
If we assume only one residence of Paul in Corinth, at the
time of the establishment of the church itself, then there could
have arisen no occasion for forgiveness ; and this supposition could
by no means be made to agree with the passage ii. 1, xii. 21, in
which mention is made of the renewal of the grief of the Corin-
thians upon the occasion of his coming, which of course bore no
reference to his appearance iimong them as an individual. Con-
sequently, Paul must undoubtedly have made a second journey to
Corinth, but when did it take place ? The original account may
be adopted if we suppose that when Luke mentions a stay of a
year and a half in Corinth made by Paul, he has taken together
two separate periods of residence. But to this one objection
presents itself, as in this case we must allow that in the short
period which elapsed between the first and second stay, all the
errors which became the subject of reproof had opportunity to
develope themselves. The only remaining inference, therefore, is,
that the second visit to the Corinthians is perfectly distinct from
the one of a year and a-half's duration, and that it occurred either
hefore the writing of the first, or hetiveen the sending of the first
and second Epistle. We may imagine the course of events to have
been this. As soon as Paul had received the intelligence from
the slaves of Chloe as to the condition of the Corinthians, he
wrote our first Epistle, and shortly after quitted Ephesus for
Corinth. He here expressed himself in strong terms against his
adversaries, but, from some cause unknown to us, he soon left the
city, returning again into Macedonia. Now, in decided opposi-
tion to this view, are the passages 2 Cor. i. 15, 16, 23, which
shew that Paul could not have been in Corinth in the period that
occurs between the writing of our two Epistles.^ The most
1 Tbis circumstance, it cannot be (lenied. is unfavourable to tbe whole hypothesis,
since the first Epistle (1 Cor. i. 11, v. 1, xi. 18), supposed to be wi-itten after the second
personal abode of the apostle in Corinth, represents the apostle as becoming acquainted
with the affairs of the Christian church in that place from report only, and not from
personal inspection. 7'his is also the opinion of De Wette, in the criticism upon Bill-
roth's Commentary in the Stud. Jahrg. 1834, part 3, page 683. An explanation of this
is oflFered by Bbttger (Beitr. part 3, p. 28), who supposes that Paul intentionally re-
frained from going to Corinth, visiting only Achaia and the churches in tbe neigh-
bourhood of Corinth.
INTRODUCTION. 19
probable inference, therefore, is, that upon receiving these evil
reports, the apostle immediately proceeded from Ephesiis to Co-
rinth, and returning to the former place wrote and sent from thence
our first Epistle. Bleek, howeyer, imagines, that before the pend-
ing of our second Epistle, the apostle wrote an Epistle from Ma-
cedonia to the Corinthians, couched in terms of strong reproof,
which has not been preserved, (so that Paul wrote to them in all
four Epistles, two being lost and two preserved), and I am much
inclined to support this conjecture,^ for the apprehension experi-
enced by Paul in regard to the impression produced upon the
Corinthians by his Epistle, which the arrival of Titus allayed, (2
Cor. vii. 2 — 10), is not to be accounted for by the subject of the
first Epistle. The contents are by no means of a nature to justify
Paul in his fears of an unfavourable reception ; but by assuming
that Titus was likewise the bearer of the lost Epistle, we account
in the most simple manner for the motive of his journey, and all
the difficulties relative to this which present themselves by fol-
lowing the old conjecture, at once vanish.
§ 3. GENUINENESS AND INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLES.
The Epistles to the Corinthians, as well as that to the Ro-
mans, may be classed with those in which the spirit of Paul stands
forth so pre-eminently, that an attempt to dispute their authen-
ticity has never been made, either in ancient or modern times.
Contents and form correspond alike with the ideas and style of
Paul, and the strictest coincidence exists between the historical
notices of the Acts of the Apostles and those occasionally found
1 Riickert (Comm. upon the 2d Epis, Cor. p. 417, sqq.) opposes this hypothesis of Bleek's,
relative to the sending of an Epistle between the first and second of our canonical Epis-
tles, and it must be allowed that the grounds upon which this is laid down are not
sufficient to furnish any positive proof of the same. Nevertheless the conjecture itself
is by no means improbable, as Riickert admits no internal traces of the condition of
mind which Paul describes as existing in himself, characterising the early Epistle in
question. But this learned man has inferred too much from 2 Cor. vii. 8, in stating
that as Paul wrote kXinrn<Ta vfxcl^ kv ttj eiriaToXy, he could only liave written one let-
ter in heaviness of mind, and not two. The expression naturally concerns only the
last Epistle, bearing not the slightest reference to an earlier one, otherwise Paul must
have used the plural form, for, according to 1 Cor. v. 9, he had already written an Epistle
whose contents were those of sad reproof.
• ?>2
20 INTRODUCTION.
in these Epistles. The style of the second Epistle is very striking,
on account of a certain ruggedness of speech, occasioned by the
powerful agitation of spirit under which he wrote, and the
hast# with which it was composed during his journeys in various
parts of Macedonia. But, notwithstanding the roughness of
style, the second Epistle bears too strongly the impress of Paul's
peculiarities to be mistaken, though we are not disposed to pro-
ceed as far as Eiickert, who views it as a masterpiece of elo-
quence, worthy of comparison with the orations of Demosthenes
de Corona. (See his exposition of the second Epistle, p. 427.)
But although the genuineness of the Epistles to the Corinthians
is fully established and undisputed, we cannot premise as much
of their integrity, at least of the second. It was J. S. Semler
whofirst drew attention to the diiferenceinthe first (2 Cor. i. — viij.)
and second division (ix. — xiij.) of the Epistle. In the first eight
chapters Paul speaks mildly and persuasively, praises his readers
for their repentance and faithful observance of his exhortations,
while in the latter chapters the tone is that of reproach and
severity. He reprehends the refractory spirit of the Corinthians,
and complains of the charges which they had dared to bring
against him. Besides this, the same subjects seem to be dis-
cussed in the first (cap. viii.) and second part of the Epistle (cap. ix.),
which leads Semler to suppose that an interpolation in the latter
Epistle might have taken place.i According to him the real
Epistle is formed by the chapters i. — viii. inclusive, to which may
be annexed from the 11 — 13 ver. of the xiii. cap., and very singu-
larly Rom. xvi. 1 — 20, and therefore the passages ix. 1 — 15, and
x. 1 — 13, 10. are interpolations. Weber and Dr Paulus, however,
rather consider the second half of the second Epistle as another
letter, agreeing in all necessary points with the usual form^ ; and
this opinion may stand in connection with Bleek's views, which
we recently investigated (§ 2) as to Paul's position towards the
Corinthian church. We see that probably between our first and
1 See Semler De duplice appendice epist.ad Koraanos. Halae 1767, and the Paraphrasis
poster, epist. ad Corinthios. Halae 1776, Zieglor wrote against this in the Theolog. Ab-
handl. vol. ii. p. 107, sqq. ; also Gabler in the Neuesten Theolog. Journal, vol. 1.
2 See Weber's work De numero Epistolarum ad Corinthios rectius constiiuendo.
Wittebergae, 1798. Weber considered the Epistle to the Hebrews directed likewise to
the Corinthians, and therefore reckons four Epistles to the Corinthians in the canon.
Consult the Heidelberg Chronicle ( H< idolberger Jahrbiieher, 5, p, 703, sqq.)
INTRODUCTION. 21
second Epistle another had been composed by the apostle. II" we
consider this to exist in the first half of our second Epistle (2 Cor. .
j. — viij.), then only one Epistle is lost, that alluded to 1 Cor. v. 9.
But the decided admission of this supposition is forbidden by the
fact that in 2 Cor. vii. 2 — 10 the apostle makes allusion to a
prior Epistle (which must have been written between our first and
second), containing words of strong reproof, while 2 Cor. j. — viij.
is distinguished throughout by gentleness and forbearance ; and
an inversion appears far from probable, which placed the reprov-
ing Epistle, 2 Cor. ix. — xiij., and the milder one which succeeded,
2 Cor. i. — viij. Again this would materially afi"ect the chronologi-
cal connection of the Epistles, passing over the additional fact that
this fusion of two Epistles, with omission of the greeting and con-
cluding form of one of them, is not by any means to be explained.
To this may be added that the repetition alluded to (the exhor-
tation to the collection) in chapters viii. and ix. is nothing more
than the continuous exposition of a thought, the tone of the
ninth chapter is precisely similar, the change occurring in the
tenth. In the meantime the establishment of the integrity of
the Epistle is certainly preferable to any attempts at reconciling
the various hypotheses, and this would be best promoted by ex-
plaining satisfactorily the reason of tlie diff'erence of tone in the
first and second half of it.
This explanation would be furnished by supposing that the
apostle was addressing different members in the Corinthian
church in the two divisions of the Epistle. His first Epistle had
drawn the well-disposed more towards him, while at the same
time it aroused in the unfriendly a stronger spirit of opposition,
thus occasioning a separation of the elements in Corinth. In the
firsthalf of the second epistle he had the better-disposed part of the
community in view, viz., the partizans of Paul and Apollos ; in the
second, on the contrary, he directs himself especially to the adverse
party, consisting of partizans of Peter, and, above all, the Christi-
aner. Should any one observe upon the improbability that Paul ad-
dressed a catholic letter to elements so dissimilar, or that having
done so, he should not have plainly indicated the different persons
he was addressing, but write as if in both first and gecond parts he
had still the same individuals in view, it would be as well to
remind such persons, that Paul's compassion and charity restrained
22 INTRODUCTION.
him from marking out the erring members, or even distinctly
warning them, so long as they abstained from attacking the fun-
damental articles of the faith. He rightly judged, too, that such
a particularization would greatly increase the difficulty of free-
ing them from their errors, and winning them back to the truth
(an object he seems ever to have had in view), and he con-
tinued therefore to treat them as an integral part of Grod's
church, addressing the latter as an united body, without com-
pletely distinguishing the composing elements. Exactly as a wise
pastor would deal with a believing, but in many respects erring
individual, he joyfully acknowledged what was improved in him,
and while reproving what was reprovable, did not on this account
reject the whole man. The very form of the Epistles to the
Corinthians exhibits strongly the wisdom of the apostle, and his
faithful love towards erring brethren, who so frequently in the
church (and, alas, the same may be observed in our days), were
hindered by an unholy and intemperate zeal in the face of the
brightest Gospel light. Had Paul commanded the expulsion
from the church of his adversaries in Corinth, either on account
of their Gnostic spiritual views regarding the resurrection, or of
their errors with respect to the holy communion, he would only
with more certainty have given currency to the corruption.^ He
treated them therefore as weak members, not knowing what they
said or ventured ; bore even with indulgence their opposition
to his apostolic authority (although, had not his humility ren-
dered it impossible, he might easily have persuaded himself that
therein God was resisted), and yielded nothing of the sacred
truths ; but upon the suspicion evincing itself that he com-
mended himself, and boasted of his extraordinary calling, he
openly declared what the Lord had done to and by him, and
1 This is most important in proving that Paul did not hold the opinion concerning
the Lord's Supper as fuudamental ; for which reason dogmatic differences concerniug
the same, and the variation in the theory of Luther and Calvin upon the same subject,
which afiect not the dogma itself, but simply a point of the doctrine, do not justify the
exclusion of any one from the community. Paul declares in the Epistle to the Galatians
tliat whoever suffered himself to be circumcised in order thereby to attain salvation, to
him Christ had become of none effect "(Galat. v. 3, 4), not so he who erred in the doc-
trine of the Lord's Supper. The real ground of the separation of the reformers from the
Catholic church, was not the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, but the doctrine of free
grace in Christ, and the reformers had a perfect right to separate themselves, on account
of the errors in this doctrine.
2
INTRODUCTION. 23
showed that his care and intention was to preserve the funda-
mental articles of the Christian faith uninjured.
§ 4. CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS.
The first Epistle is transmitted to us in four parts ; the first of
which extends from i. 1 — iv. 21, the second from v. 1 — xi. 1, the
third from. xi. 2 — xiv. 40, and the /owr^^ from xv. 1 — xvj. 24.
In the first division, which treats of the general condition of
the Corinthians, the apostle mentions the cause of his writing,
the division of the church into numerous parties, and warns
against a too high estimation of the wisdom of this world, since
all real wisdom rests in the cross of Christ (i. 1 — 31.). Paul
then continues the subject, saying that he has only preached to
them the Lord crucified, as the source of perfect wisdom, but that
the spiritual man alone, and not the natural, is capable of acknow-
ledging His gloriousness (ii. 1 — 16.). That the ground of their
errors was, that this spiritual man was so little developed in them,
that they attached themselves not to Christ himself, but to the
human organ whom Christ had made use of to extend the preach-
ing of the Gospel, ^nd that they were therefore in imminent
danger of building upon a perishable foundation (iii. 1 — 23.). He
himself felt so firmly persuaded of his apostolic calling, that human
judgment produced no effect upon him, and that the numerous
sufferings he was called upon to endure, were evidence in his
favour, instead of the contrary, as tending to his perfectness ;
therefore Paul implores the Corinthian Christians not to sufler
themselves to be drawn aside to any other gospel than that which
he, their father in Christ, had preached to them.
In the second part (v. 1 — xi. 1), which concerns the private
circumstances of several individuals, Paul first exhorts the Co-
rinthians to exclude the incestuous person from their society, and
at the same time defines more closely the command previously
given in the last Epistle, not to have any intercourse with the
dissolute, intending thereby such persons who nevertheless con-
sidered themselves believers (v. 1 — 13.). Paul then bestows
advice to the faithful with reference to heathen rulers ; and con-
siders it imsuitable to permit the settlement of their differences
24
INTRODUCTION
before the latter, but he soon returns to the relation of the sexes,
and adds that the sanctification of the body as a temple of the
Holy Ghost, is the Christian's task (vi. 1 — 20.) The various
relations of the married and unmarried state are then brought
under consideration (vii. 1 — 40), and he concludes with instruc-
tions upon the subject of Christian freedom, having especial
reference to the use of meats offered to idols. The apostle ad-
duces his own course of life as an example to the Corinthians, of
the necessary self-restriction in the use of freedom ; and exhibits
the sad consequences of its misuse in the history of the Israelites
in the wilderness (viii. 1 — xi 1.)
The third part (xj. 2 — xjv. 40.) concerns the public relations of
the Christians, viz., their conduct in the assemblies; and the apostle
first gives directions relative to the appearance of men and women
in their meetings, (xj. 1 — 16.) but especiallyforthe worthy celebra-
tion of the holy Sacrament, which the Corinthians had not solemnized
with due dignity (xi. 17 — 34.). After this he enters upon the sub-
ject of the gift of tongues, and its connection with the Charismata,
which seems to have displayed themselves in the Corinthian church
under the most varied forms, and were not unfrequently applied in a
measure alien to the design. Paul lays down as a principal rule that
all these. gifts originating from one Spirit, must be employed to
one great end, viz., the edification of the whole body (xii. 1 — 31),
and that with an especial regard to the unity in Christ. The
apostle then inculcates the exercise of Christian love as of more
value than all gifts, the latter being, as it were, worthless without
the accompaniment of the former ; and Paul defines its nature in
the most animated description, drawn from his own experience,
placing it with faith and hope as the third cardinal virtue (xiii.
1 — 13.) In conclusion, Paul enlarges upon the true use of the
gift of tongues and prophecy, showing that from its nature
the first required a very cautious application, while the quality of
the second was in itself a hindrance to its abuse (xiv. 1 — 40.).
In the fourth part (xv. 1 — xvi. 24) the apostle finally discourses
upon the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, which the Chris-
tians had not been able to receive in its spiritual application,
(xv. 12.) He proves the reality of the corporeal resurrection, show-
ing its close connection with the existence of the Christian faith
(xv. 1 — 58), and concludes by requesting contributions for the
3
INTRODUCTION. 25
poor Christians in Jerusalem, and with sundry exhortations and
blessings (xvi. 1 — 24.).
By this it will appear that the points treated by the apostle in
his writing are extremely yaried in their nature ; nevertheless a
strong thread of connection is evident throughout, in the polemic
directed against the followers of Peter, and, above all, the Chris-
tianer who, by their leaning towards a false freedom and spiritual
gnosis, were preparing a dangerous crisis for the church.
The second Epistle to the Corinthians divides itself into ihree
parts, th.Q first of which may be included from i. 1 — iii. 18, the
second from iv. 1 — ix. 15, and the third from x. 1 — xiii. 13.
In the firs>t part Paul commences with the comfort he has ex-
perienced in his afflictions, referring it to the power of the inter-
cessions of the Corinthian Christians (i. 1 — 24.) He then declares,
with reference to the incestuous person already excommunicated,
that upon proof of sufficient punishment, he may be received back
into the church (ii. 1 — 17.) He next speaks of his OAvn personal
position relative to the Corinthians, and entering into a compari-
sion of the ministration under the old and the new law, proves
that the latter is far more glorious (iii. 1 — 18.)
In the second part (iv. 1 — ix. 15) the apostle describes his life
and labour as a minister preaching reconciliation through Christ,
(iv. 1 — 18.) and draws consolation in all the afflictions and dangers
which arise from the office, from the conviction that a resurrec-
tion of the body awaits the believer, perhaps even a clothing
upon (v. 1 — 21.) In the expectation of this exceeding glorious-
ness, which renders all earthly persecutions of little moment, the
apostle exhorts his readers to deny the world and its lusts, and to
dedicate themselves wholly to the Lord (vi. l^vii. 1.) In this
he hopes to have prepared them by his former Epistle, the un-
easiness which he experienced as to its reception having been al-
layed by Titus (s\\. 2 — 16.) Then follows an ample exhortation
to contribute to the collection making for the poor Christians at
Jerusalem (viii. 1 — ix. 15.)
In the thirdi^vi\i(x.l — xiij.J.3.)Paul directs himself against the
false teachers, namely, those among the Christianer, and defends
himself from their attacks (x. 1 — 18. ) He then adduces his sufferings
and struggles as a proof that he had done more, and effected greater
things in God's cause than those arrogant, but treacherous workers
who ranked themselves among the apostles of Christ, without
26 INTUODUCTION.
being really so (xi. 1 — 33.) He reminds them of the especial in-
stances of favour accorded to him by God, as a proof that he stood
in grace, but adds that he would rather glory in his weakness,
for thereby he would best know his strength in the Lord. He
had therefore a legal right to rank himself with the chiefest
apostles, and requires the Corinthians to acknowledge his aposto-
lic authority (xij. 1 — 21).
An exhortation to repentance, love, and peace, concludes the
second Epistle to the Corinthians (xiii. 1 — 13.)
§ 5. LITERATURE.
The Epistles to the Corinthians are naturally comprehended in
all the preceding general works upon the entire New Testament,
and also in the expositions of Paul's Epistles. But there exist
fewer special examinations of these very Epistles than of the
Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, for example, and those
which we do possess leave us much to desire. A favourable
period for the interpretation of the Epistles to the Corinthians
(and the Catholic Epistles likewise) has yet to present itself.
Upon the two Epistles to the Corinthians we have commentaries
from Mosheim (Flensburg, 1741 and 1762, 2 vols. 4to) ; Baum-
garten (Halle, 1761, 4to) ; Semler (Halle, 1770 and 1766, 2 vols.
8vo) ; Moldenhawer (Hamburg, 1771, 8vo) ; Schulz (Halle,
1784, 2 parts 8vo) ; Morus (Leipsig, 1794, 8vo) ; Flatt Tu-
bingen, 1827) ; Billroth (Leipsig 1833) ; Eiickert (Leipsig,
1836-37) ; and Jaeger (Tubingen, 1838.)
The j^rs^ Epistle only has been treated upon by Sahl (Copenha-
gen, 1779) ; Fr. Aug. Wilhelm Krause (Frankfort, 1792, 8vo) ;
Heidenreich (Marburg, 1825 and 1828, 2 vols. 8vo) ; Pott (in
Koppe's Neuen Testament, Gottingen, 1836. But up to the pre-
sent time only the first half has appeared, containing ch. i. — x.
The second Epistle only has been explained by Leun (Lemgo,
1804), and Emmerling (Leipsig, 1823.) Treatises upon parti-
cular passages of the second Epistle have appeared from Gabler
(Gottingen, 1782, upon chap. ix. — xiii.) ; J. F. Krause (in his
Opusc. Acad., Konigsberg, 1818); Royaards (Utrecht, 1818);
Fritzsche (Leipsig, 1824.)
EXPOSITIOiX
FIKST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS,
I.
PART FIRST.
(i. 1— iv. 21.
§ 1. OF HUMAN WISDOM.
(i. 1-31.)
After the greeting (1 — 3) the apostle mentions immediately
the reason of his writing, namely the divisions in Corinth ; he then
proceeds to warn his readers in the most impressive manner
against that particular worldly wisdom which he considers the
cause of the dissensions, and places before them as a pattern the
true godly wisdom, " Christ crucified," whom he has preached to
them (4—31.)
Paul commences the first Epistle to the Corinthians, as usual,
with a salutation and blessing (1 — 3), but if we compare this
salutation with that which begins the Epistle to the Eomans, it
appears far more concise and incomplete than the latter. It is
only in the second verse that the apostle makes some reference
to his readers, and even this is wanting in the second Epistle, as
well as in the greater part of the lesser Epistles of Paul. Theo-
phylact. considers, and with reason, that in the Bca OeXrj^aTo^
Qeov, a reference, though slight (compare the stronger expressions
in Galatians i. 1), may be found to the opposition offered to his
apostolical authority. The addition of the epithet K\7}T6<i in
this place is less difficult to account for, than its omission in
A.D.E. would be, where it is not to be found ; and this leads us
28 FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 1 — 31.
to entertain doubts of its genuineness, for we cannot conclude
with Heidenreich that kXtjto^; should immediately join Sea OeXrj'
yLtaro? @6ov; had this been intended «:\7;to? would have been
placed before these words, and after Xptarov. In addition to
which the expression kXtjto^ has not here, as in ver. 2, the peculiar
dogmatic signification, according to which the Christians, as elect,
are described as called to an entrance into the kingdom of God ;
but it rather stands in opposition to those who on their own
authority gave themselves out as apostles (2 Cor. xi. 13.) Paul
must undoubtedly have already felt that he had received a mission,
and that he likewise was called to fulfil it, but he probably also re-
membered that such a charge might be self-assumed by men, as the
Old Testament shews, by speaking of those who prophesied in their
own spirit (Ezek. xiii. 1, sqq.), and were yet distinguished from
those evil prophets out of whom the spirit of darkness spake. —
Sosthenes, whom the apostle names with himself in the salutation,
is probably the writer of the Epistle, to whom Paul dictated. He is
sometimes considered to be the chief ruler of the synagogue, men-
tioned in Acts xviii. 17, who must then have been subsequently con-
verted ; but as we find no further trace of this individual, nothing
certain can be concluded as to the identity of the persons. By sup-
plying 'XfjuLpeiv Xiyovcn, in the second verse, it becomes-unnecessary
to admit with Billroth an anacoluthon in the %a/9ts and elprjvr] of
ver. 3, as if the accusative must be placed, and is therefore to be
preferred. All the apostle's salutations are arranged to compre-
hend himself in the blessing, by supplying eWw, and Paul again
distinguishes the church of God^ in Corinth {i.e. those belonging
1 Calvin very strikingly remarks in this place : " Miram forsan videri queat, cur earn
liominum rnultitudinem vocet ecclesiam Dei, in qua tot morbi invaluerant, ut Satan illis
potius regnum occuparet, quam Deus. Respoudeo, utcunque multa vitia obrepsissent,
ot variae corruptelae tarn doctrinae quam morum, exstitisse tamen adhuc quaedam verae
ecclesiae signa. Locus diligenter observandus^, ne requiramus in hoc mundo ecclesiam
omni ruga et macula carentem, aut protiuus abdicomus hoc titulo quemvis coetum, in
quo uon omnia votis nostris respondeant. Est enim haec periculosa tentatio, nuilam
ecclesiam putare, ubi non Spparcal perfecta puritas. Nam quicunque hac occupatus
fuerit, necesse tandem erit. ut, discessione ah aids omnibus facta, solus sibi sanctus
videatur in mundo, aut pecuUarem sectam cum paucis hypocritis inslituat. Quid ergo
causae habuit Paulus, cur ecclesiam Dei Corinthi agnosceret? nerape quia evangelii
doctrinam, baptismnm, coenam Domini, quibns symbolis censeri debet ecclesia, apud eos
cernebat." Most important words ! which in these times we have great reason to lay
much to heart.— [See Calvin's Comment, on 1 Cor. cap. i. 2, pp. 50, 1.— Ed. Calv. Transl.
Soc]
FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 1 — 31. 29
to God, whom he hath purchased with his own blood (Acts xx.
28) as r)'yia<jfievoL ev Xpio-rw, and as KX/qrol dycoo, upon which
the necessary observations have been made at Rom. i. 7.^ It
might appear that the placing together ^Laa-fievoi, and aycot was
tautology,^ but the second expression is first in concrete opposition
to the abstract eKKkrjcrla 0eov, and then it is to be so connected
with what follows, that the idea of sanctification, especially as
extended to believers, again presents itself The text might be
thus translated, " Those sanctified in Christ, by communion with
him, who, as likewise all who call upon the name of the Lord,
are called to be saints ;" that is to s^y, according to the apostle's
meaning, should be, for the following remark involves an exhorta-
tion to the Corinthians (as shall be presently shewn), to make
manifest their calling by their works. The phrase a-vv iraa-t
K.T.X., is, however, quite peculiar to the commencement of this
Epistle. First, it is clear that the words are not to be understood
as if Paul wrote primarily to the Christians in Corinth, and
secondly, it also was intended for the instruction of others else-
where ; for the whole contents of the Epistle are specially ad-
dressed to the Corinthian church.^ The phrase only represents,
by the repetition of kXtjtoU dyiOL<; and its connexion with o-vv
'7Td(TL, the universal Christian character of sanctification, and
describes the calling thereunto as familiar to and common to them
all. ^ETTiKaXelaOat ovo/jlu = Q^jJ^l ^1{^ ^^' liowever, a very usual
mode of expressing a life of faith, the necessary expression^ of
which is continual calling upon God.
The question now occurs, as to the reasons which led the
apostle to enter upon the subject precisely in this place 1 With-
1 [See Olshausen's Exposition of the Et)istle to the Romans, p. 69, F.T. Lib.]
2 Liioke (Gott. Pfingstprogramm, vom J. 1837) considers vyiaafiiuoiv might be
removed as simply gloss, but we see no reason to adopt his supposition.
3 Billroth considei's that the words may be connected with the whole salutation, and
thus construed, "to you, and to all believers, mercy and peace," without inferring that
the Epistle is addressed to all ; but certainly the 6ui)position is untenable, the greeting
of an Epistle can only be directed to those to whom tlie Epistle is written. It would be
better to place the words kXtjtoIs aytos — avTcov tc kuI tj/ulmij in brackets, as in the
additions to the greeting of the Epistle to the Romans.
4 The supposition of Mosheim, that in ver. 2 three distinct classes of Corinthian
Christians are indicated, viz., in the expression hyiacfxivoi kv XpKTTtp the old approved
Christians, in kXjjtoi ayioi, the newly baptised, and in tirLKoXnvfiivoi'i, those who were
so in appearance without beijig virtually so, needs no especial refutation.
30 FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 1 — 31.
out doubt he intended to bring to the remembrance of the Corin-
thians the unity of the church over the whole earth, in order to
awaken a spirit of repentance for the divisions among themselves.
To this end he reminded them that they, as all believers, were
called to manifest a holy unity, and not a church divided by sects.
(Upon the use of ovoijua comp. Comm. pt. 1. Matt, xviii. 21, 22.
pt. 2, John xiv. 11 — 14. — "Ovofjua eiriKkriOev icj) vfxa^; in John ii. 7
is not to be brought in parallel with these ; then the allusion is
to the name of the Christians. ) The words tv nravrl tottoo avrcov
T€ Kol rjfjiojv require an especial examination. ^Ev Travrl tottw con-
veys only an idea of universality with respect to space, as a-vv
TrdcL does with regard to number. But how is avTcov re kol rjfju&v
to be understood ? Eichhorn and other learned men take T67ro<^
in the signification of " place of assembly," and think that the
divisions in Corinth had already proceeded so far that the mem-
bers of the various parties assembled in different localities. Avrcov
refers to the antagonists, rjfMCJv to the followers of Paul, (comp.
Eichhorn's Introd. pt. 3, p. 110, sqq.) Hug considers that the
word roTTo^, according to the Hebrew Qi'^?:^* signifies party,^ and
that the passage refers to the dissensions in Corinth, (comp. Hug's
Einl. pt. 2, p. 245.) But it is evident that this application is
highly unnatural and forced ; without doubt the avrwv re koX rj/jLwv
only signifies the Christians in connexion with the apostle, and
those further removed, with a view to impress unity more rigidly
upon them, standing as irdvrore or iv irdafj rfj <yfj or oIkov-
fievT), as Billroth correctly writes after Theophylact. Bottger
(Beitr. pt. iii. p. 27. sqq.) mentions places in the neighbourhood
of Corinth and Ephesus to which Christianity had already spread
from the principal towns. But upon this point we are yet un-
certain whether the words avrcov re fcal rjfjiwv are better annexed
to TOTTft) or to Kvplov ^fjbdov. Grammatically, it were easier .to
join them to totto), but the thought contained in them appears
to require Kvplov rjficbv^^ For considerations of locality would
occupy little of the attention of believers, while much would be
devoted to the identity of the Redeemer of all Christians ; the
meaning therefore is this, " to all w^ho in any place call upon the
1 This use of a'ip>3 is besides rather doubtful, at least Buxtorf is unacquainted with
it (see his Lex. Rabb. p. 2000).
2 Liicke is also of this opinion in the Progrnmm already quoted.
FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 4 — 6. \
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is their Lord even as he
ours." — In the blessing the exhortation of elp-qvr) obtains an espe-
cial importance through the dissensions in Corinth. It is striking
that Paul in this place should desire the %a/3t9 for them, as it is
immediately said in ver. 4 that they are rich in grace, but it is
with the possession of grace as with that of love, the more one
possesses, the more may one receive. Besides this, grace does
not remain unchangeable and stedfast ; he who grows not in grace
loses insensibly what he already possesses ; therefore, under every
point of view, the increase of God's grace is a suitable wish.
Vers. 4 — 6. The apostle does not commence immediately with a
reproof to the Corinthian Christians (as in Gal. i. 6), but with a
hearty thanksgiving unto God for all the grace bestowed upon
them, and expresses a confident hope of their final acceptance at
the coming of the Lord. He thus appeals to the better feelings
of all Corinthian Christians, and so by means of the antithesis
(from cap. j. 10 sqq.), brings them to a knowledge of their sins.
Further, if we compare the commencement of other Epistles, viz.,
those to the Philippians, Colossians, and the first to the Thessalo-
nians, in which fellowship in the Gospel, faith, and love are
mentioned with commendation, it seems as if here, in exalting
knowledge,^ a slight intimation were contained, that the striving
of some, viz. the Christians after that which was new, required
restraining, as God had already fully opened to them the fountain of
true knowledge. With this the aorist in-XovTLadrjTe of ver. 5, and
w<7T6 fjLT) varepetadai, of ver. 6 perfectly agrees. (In ver. 4 Paul
writes ©€a> /jlov as in Phil. i. 3, as referring to the private prayer
which the apostle continually makes to God. — On irdvTore com-
pare Rom. i. 9. — The thanksgiving is not here made to God for
the gift of his grace to himself, but because it was likewise be-
stowed upon the Corinthians. The iv XpLo-ro) 'Irja-ov may be
joined with %aptTt rod ©eov, which then points out the grace of
God, more especially manifested in the work of Redemption; Bodeo-
arj v/jLLv must however be brought in strict connection, in order
that Christ himself, as preached to them, may clearly appear in
and through God's grace. ^Ev is not to be understood in the
signification of " through ;" we are to conceive Christ filled with
grace, and pouring out the same upon the human race. — In ver. 5
1 Concerning the relation of yvwariv to <ro^ia, see farther on 2, sqq.
32 FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 7 — 9.
€v iravTi is elucidated by \6fy(p and yvayaet. Both indicate godly
truth, but \6'yo<; objectively as the subject, yvwo-c^ subjectively as
the wisdom of the preaching: ; ird^, which finds a place by the two
expressions, adds in some degree to the generality and uncertainty,
for the subject and knowledge of preaching involves an idea suscep-
tible of various degrees of explanation. — Ver. 6 contains only the
opinion that the Gospel was not a temporary work in Corinth, but
would abide, through the power of God, bearing witness to the do-
minion of grace among the Corinthians, and the ready acceptance of
it on their part. The expression fjuaprvptov Xptarrov indicates the
preaching of Christ, inasmuch as they testify of him. — KTjpvyfjua
is correct as an explanation, though objectionable as a reading.
Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 1 ; 2 Thes. i. 10 ; 2 Tim. i. 2. The same may
may be observed of fiaprvpla. Compare Rev. xii. 11. — KaOm
has here, as in Acts vii. 17, the signification of siquidem, cum.
Vers 7 — 9. The appearance of the Charismata, as a result of the
universal possession of godly grace in the Corinthian church, is
next mentioned. varepetaOai, iv /jbijBevl ')(apL(TfjbaTi refers to the
manifold and unusual gifts of grace which even then displayed
themselves in Corinth (comp. on 1 Cor. cap. xii. and xiv ) In the
apostolic times these gifts, as a consequence, might be always
found the accompaniment of a lively, spiritual life ; and possibly the
Charismata in themselves A\^ not belong to the indispensable a^-
pearances in the church. But upon what grounds does Paul con-
nect the expectation of the coming of the Lord with the gifts 1
(Comp. the remarks in Matt. xxiv. 1, upon airoKaKvyjn'^ Kvplov.)
First, if the expectation of Christ's coming is a testimony of in-
ward spiritual life, and to be placed amongst the fruits of faith,
^en onreKhe'xecrOaL (see on Rom. viii. 19) is not a dry historical
assertion of the fact that the Lord will return again one day, but
becomes the expression of earnest desire for that which is not to
be conceived without love, faith, and hope (1 Cor. xiij. 13.) The
mention of aTTOKoXvyfrLf; /cuplov certainly comprehends a slight allu-
sion to the errors of the Christianer. From their peculiar views
they could hardly profess belief in Christ's resurrection or his
second coming. If the Christians had expressed any real doubts
on the subject, or maintained the doctrine of the second coming,
after abandoning the fundamental one of Christ's resurrection, the
apostle might have intended to awaken their perception of the
FIRST CORINTHTANS I. 10. 33
importance of this latter point by the hope here expressed.
And the rather, as in ver. 8, 'r]ixepa Kvpiov, tlie day of the Lord, is_
held forth to view as the decisive period (eitw? reXoi;?), and
the period when all must be decided, and for which therefore
there was the most urgent necessity that they should preserve
themselves blameless. Billroth justly remarks that 09 is not to
stand in connexion with the Xpto-ro? which immediately precedes
it, but with the ©eo? of ver. 4 ; in the former case the apostle
would certainly not have been able to write iv ry rjfiepa Kvplov,
but only avrov. — The parallel which ^e^accoa-ec forms with i/Be-
^atcodrj, in ver. 6, confirms this, where ©eo? is also to be supplied,
as if it were that Grod, in order to reward those who did not resist
the operation of grace, approved himself faithful in confirming and
maintaining their faith (ver. 9.). Be^aloco is to be found in the same
signification, in 2 Cor. i. 21 ; Col. ii. 7. ^Trjpl^o) is likewise so
used in Rom. i. 11, xvi. 25 ; 1 Pet. v. 10 ; 2 Pet. i. 12. As the
enemy to all Pelagianism, the apostle refers not only the com-
mencement of the work of man's regeneration, but also its con-
tinuation and accomplishment, to God alone, leaving to the indivi-
dual only the negative fact of non-resistance to grace. (Comp. on
Bom. ix. 1.). — Ilicrro^ 6 0eo9 is to be found in 1 Cor. x. 13 ;
1 Tliess. V. 24 ; 2 Thess. iii. 3. The KKrjcn^ of God is to be un-
derstood as a promise to mankind that God abides by his truth,
although man for a season prove untrue, (2 Tim.ii. 13.). This un-
faithfulness Paul tacitly attributes to many of the Corinthians ;
and reflecting upon it, and the divisions in Corinth that have
possibly been its consequence, he mentions also the icoivwvla.
Where a spiritual communion with the Redeemer is truly and
steadfastly held, there unity with the brethren will always exist
with his members ; but when insignificant facts are exalted into
importance, division will invariably be a necessary consequence.
Ver. 10. After this slight intimation, the apostle, leaving the
application to the reader himself, proceeds with more precise refer-
ence to the existing contentious, beseeching the Corinthians by the
name (i e. the person and existence) of Him with whom, as in
ver. 9, all believers, according to the intention of their calling
should have fellowship, to have unity among themselves, avoid-
ing divisions. Avto Xeyetv is not to be understood in the sense
of uniformity, or absolute similarity of speech, but rather as an
c
34 FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 11, 12.
acknowledgment of what is most important in doctrine and prac-
tice ; in fact, it is the expression of KaTT)pTiafjLevo<; elvat iv to) avro)
VOL KoX iv rfj avrf) ryvco/jLT). The vov<; indicates the theoretical,
yvco/jLT] the practical side of the Christian life, as Billroth has
already justly remarked. (The distinction of later times between
crxlo-juLa and aipeai<^, practical and theoretical error, is unknown to
the New Testament. Both expressions were indifferently used
with e/ot?, ver. 11.- — The to avro Xeyetv is the effect of the to avro
(j)povetv, comp. Phil. ii. 2, and shows the natural connection be-
tween mind and speech. — KarapTL^o), to arrange (in Matt. iv. 21,
it is said of the mending of the nets), thence to perfect or finish, may
illustrate his idea.. From this KaTr]pTLap,€.voL — Tekeioi. Unques-
tionably it is not perfection in itself which is here meant, but
perfectness in unity, which, springing from and requiring lowly sub-
missive hearts, may be found where a high degree of intellectual
development does not exist.
Vers. 11, 12. For this admonition, continues Paul, I have
unfortunately reason ; for I hear that contentions really exist among
yon ; and, as the source of his information, he here names ol
X\6r]<;. Of this Chloe nothing further is known ; possibly she
was a Corinthian matron, whose slaves alone, as was not unfre-
quently the case, belonged to the church. But the expression
would also justify the belief that the intelligence proceeded from
her kindred; however, the- want of more precise notice leaves the
subject in doubt. Paul then proceeds to name the four parties,
whose characteristics have already been treated of in the introduc-
tion (^§ 1.). Here the question may occur, are four parties really
specified, or are there not rather only three ? and in the words ijco
8e Xptarov, may not Paul have opposed the true position to the
false 1 so that the meaning of these words is, " Ye say, it is true,
every one of you, I am of Paul, of Apollos, of Peter, but I say, I
am of Christ, that ought ye all also to say." This supposition is
favoured by the passage iii. 22 ; there three parties only are
named, and all as of Christ. But, were the matter so, every in-
vestigation concerning the Christianer would be unnecessary ; but
such an explanation of the passage appears unwarranted, because
the fourth iyo) 8e is placed as parallel with the other three. Had
it been intended to place it in opposition, Paul would have writ-
ten auTo? iyco or iyo) Be JlaOXo?. Then 2 Cor. x. 7 distinctly
FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 13—16. 35
shows that the Christianer really existed in Corinth. (The form
X67a) Be TovTo is to be understood, I consider, I refer to the cir^-
cumstance. — '-'EKaaro^ vfitov is not to be urged. Undoubt-
edly there were some who comprehended the corruption of such
adherence to man ; in the meantime the great body of the Corin-
thian church was certainly split into parties. — K^^^a? is Peter
(John i. 43), and not an unknown man of this name, as some ex-
pounders wish to believe ; and the conjecture of Kpiairov for
Xpco-Tov need only be historically made known, there being not
the slightest critical authority in its favour to justify its reception.)
Vers. 13 — 16. That the apostle in mentioning the four parties
considered schism to exist among them is shewn by what fol-
lows. He asks whether Christ, that is the church, the body of
Christ (1 Cor. xii. 12), that can be but one alone, is divided, and
that they thence derive a sanction for dividing themselves into
parties. Lachmann has recently seen reason to suppose that
this sentence was to be understood as a declaration of Paul's, and
not as a question, " then is Christ through you divided." But
with this the questions which follow do not well agree. The
apostle first speaks of himself as rejoicing that of himself he had
not afforded the slightest occasion for these contentions. The
first question intentionally involves a contradiction, evidently
with a view to make the Corinthians sensible of the absurdity of
resting their faith on man, and to point to the crucified Saviour
as the sole foundation of their salvation. The second turns upon
a fact not impossible, though it could only arise through the
grossest misunderstanding. But ignorant persons might suppose
that, by baptism, they were placed in particular relation with
those who administered the rite, (comp. the remarks on Matt,
xxviii. 19 on the form jSaTmadfjvac el<; to 6vofj,d tivo<;, also on
1 Cor. X. 2) ; and the manner in which Paul refutes this idea is
striking. Instead of opposing to it the nature and intention of
baptism, he appeals to the incidental fact that he had baptised
very few persons in Corinth. (See further on ver. 17.). He names
at first only Crispus (the former ruler of the synagogue, men-
tioned in Acts xviii, 8), and Gains, in whose house he dw'elt
(Rom. xvi. 23.). Afterwards Stephanas occurs to him, named in
1 Cor. xvi. 15, 17, as a member of the deputation sent to
Ephesus ; and, in order that the account should be quite
c2
36 FIRST CORINTHIANS 1. 17.
correct, he is then also mentioned. (In ver. 15, i/SaTrrlaOrjv,
sometimes i/SaTrrlaOrjTe, and also i^aTrrladrj, is to be found for
i^dirriaa. Semler therefore thinks that Paul had not used any
verb, but had only written otl eh to ifjuov ovofxa. Pott, how-
ever, more reasonably concludes that the transcriber had made
the alteration because of the so frequently recurring epamTio-a.
The ha by no means countenances the deduction that " there-
fore now none may say" is intended by it ; for that Paul had
intentionally baptised so few, in order that it should not be said
he baptised in his own name, is highly improbable ; but in the
whole passage, yiz. in ev'^apio-Tw lies the reflection, " I rejoice
that I have so done, as now none can say," &c. In ver. 16 the
expression i/SaTTTCcra Be koI top ^re^avd oIkov is not to be un-
derstood as if the family of Stephanas were baptised without
him, but that he was included, just as in the well-known form oi
dfM(f>l, the party without the head is not signified. For infant
baptism nothing is to be deduced from the word oIko<;, as has
been already observed in the Comm. pt. ii. Acts xvi. 17, 18, for
the adult members of the family, or the slaves likewise might be
signified by it.
Ver. 17. Paul then proceeds to explain the reason he does not
baptize (in Corinth, ought to be supplied at ver. 16., for out of this
city he may certainly have baptised many, although still few in
proportion to the number converted by him), by saying that he was
commissioned by Christ to preach the Gospel, not to baptize.
But are the two functions irreconcileable ? Is not one necessarily
dependent on the other 1 Many critics, and Pott likewise, say that
the sense of this is, that the principal office of the apostle was to
preach, not to baptize. But Paul must intend more than this>
for he certainly wishes to justify his practice of not usually bap-
tising as well-founded. Doubtless a trace is here to be recognised
of the partition of the various duties among the servants of the
ancient church ; as is shewn in Acts viii., the apostles principally
preached and imparted the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands
on the baptised, while the office of baptism was performed by
the apostolic assistants themselves. However, we can assign no
especial reason for this, and the exercise of this sacrament can, in
and for itself, be of no less importance than preaching, for he who
preaches may convert, and those converted must be baptised ;
FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 17. 37
under some circumstances therefore, as the foregoing verses shew,
this was done by the apostles. But to Paul, under present)
circumstances, his abnegation of the custofii was of service,
by proving that he had given no occasion for undue personal
adherence, and what refers to him holds good also of Apollos
and Peter. — With the mention of the Gospel he was called
upon to preach, Paul immediately connects a remark upon
the manner in which he had delivered it, attacking thereby
the most mischievous party in Corinth, the Christianer, in the
very root of their error, and incidentally condemning the fol-
lowers of Apollos. Both of these considered that the simple
doctrine of the Gospel might be assisted by the ornament of ora-
tory, and the support of human wisdom. Paul, however, main-
tains the contrary, asserting that the cross of Christ, {aravpo^Y
Tov XpKTTov = X0709 rod (TTavpnv (ver, 18), meaning the doctrine
of the crucified Saviour, of the reconciling death of Christ, lost its
eiFect thereby (AC6z/ft)^77, that is, became spiritless, empty, and inef-
fectual: comp. Rom. iv. 14, 2 Cor. ix. 3.). It may here be asked,
what that aocpia \6yov really signified, from which Paul argued
so mischievous a consequence 1 It might be supposed that X0709
here meant reason, so that Paul admonishes against the wisdom
of reason in contradistinction to the wisdom which is of God.
But X0709 never signifies reason in the New Testament, for which
vot<i is used ; it has the sense of word, speech, doctrine, therefore
(To<f)ia \6<yov^ is " word wisdom," i.e., a wisdom in appearance, with-
out being so substantially; in ii. 4. therefore o-o(^la ivTrebOoU Xoyoi^i,
or iv SLSaKToU \6yoL<; (ii. 13) stands for this, publishing itself as
dvOpooTTLvrj, in opposition to the aocj)La airo Qeov (i. 30.). But
consult iv. 20 especially, where X0709 and BvvaiJ,L<; may be found
in opposition, as in vers. 17, 18. The words iv aoc^la \6yov,
therefore, do not express the true philosophy, which before Christ
was employed in the search after hidden truth, and, after his com-
ing, in striving to understand the truth which was manifested in
him, by means of regeneration through the power of God ; but they
1 ^Tavpd^ stands first for the death on the cross, and again for the crucified person.
(Gal. V. 11, vi. J2, 14 ; Phil. iii. 18.). The expression is stronger than simply dduaro^,
because it includes in it the pain and disgrace of the death, and in this place it is evi-
dent that the cross stands for the doctrine of the cross, since in itself its power could not
suffer through human wisdom, but only the doctrine.
2 The signification of the form Xoyo^ (ro(pia^ is entirely different ; for which see xii. 8.
38 FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 18, 19.
describe i\iQ false and delusive philosophy (Col. ii. 8), which pre-
sented the appearance of this desire without possessing the reality,
and sprung from vain conceit and pride, and not from a thirst after
the knowledge of the Eternal, This philosophy, therefore, truly
makes void the power of the cross of Christ, because the holy
doctrine of the forgiveness of sins through the blood of the Son
of God being inimical thereto, it sought to remove this belief,
instead of acknowledging it as necessary to salvation. It would
be just as erroneous to suppose that under the form ev o-o(^ia
\6you, simply a well-arranged speech, a close, logical explanation
was meant. The genuine oratory which is the noble expression
of inward conviction is not rejected by the operation of Christ ;
although unimportant in preaching, it does not nevertheless
gainsay it ; but all false ornament of speech, which is in no respect
the expression of inward life, but purely hypocrisy, seduces the
mind of the hearer from what is so important, and thus injures the
power of preaching. It is almost unnecessary to point out that
the apostle did not refer to oratory as an art, but to the false wis-
dom which the Christianer, not yet fully loosed from the trammels
of heathenism, exceedingly over- prized, and by means of which
the truth of the Grospel was materially altered. The passages ii.
4, 13, shew that the apostle had certainly the form of the dis-
course also in his mind, (if the expression ev ao<^la \6yov has no
immediate reference to it, it may be accepted in the sense of
word wisdom), for TretOol \6yoL indicates that which is intended
to persuade, not convince, and those views only which are directed
to proselytising could consent to make use of persuasion in mat-
ters of ftiith.
Vers. 18, 19. Paul passes somewhat suddenly to what fol-
lows ; an intermediate thought is evidently wanting, for in itself
the assertion, that the preaching of the cross of Christ is to them
that perish foolishness, affords no ground for the previous declara-
tion (to which the yap refers) that it is not to be furthered by
means of human wisdom. The reflection necessary to the con-
nection of the idea is this : the preaching of the Gospel can never
stand indebted to human wisdom, in fact the latter destroys fun-
damentally the power of the former, because both (viz., the Gospel
and human wisdom) are antagonistic elements, admitting of no
connection ; one depriving the other of its nature, and each striving
FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 20. 39
to annihilate the other. Where, therefore, human wisdom rules,
the Gospel appears as fiaypia, but where the Gospel has mani-
fested itself (i.e. as hvvafjbi^ 06ov, propagating itself among mankind
by the power of God), then the preaching of the cross appears
pure wisdom, and that which is human as fjLcopla. This opposi-
tion to the /jLcopla is indeed not expressed, but is included in the
expression Bvva/JLL^, for true wisdom is likewise power. Scripture
asserts the same concerning the eftect of the Holy Spirit upon the
fabrications of human school wisdom, (see Isa. xxix. 14), that it
destroys the pretended wisdom of the wise man. From airoK-
Xv/jLcvot and o-(o^6/jl€vol nothing can be construed favourable to
predestination ; he to whom the Gospel is foolishness is only so
long lost, as he persists in the denial of Divinity ; let him but
abandon his erroneous view, and he may become a o-cotpixevo^. —
Billroth correctly remarks, that the after placing of rj^lv permits
an interpretation, expressing more forbearance, than if it had been
placed before the rest of the sentence ; in the latter situation the
rejection of the opponents would have seemed more vigorous, but
the words roh Se o-co^ofi6voL<; rjfjLcv may be thus understood, " the
saved, among whom we may reckon ourselves. "^ — The quotation
from Isa. xxix. 14, follows neither the Hebrew nor the LXX.
closely. In the Hebrew, God does not speak in the tirst person,
but the meaning of the words is : Wisdom is fallen, prudence is
concealed. The LXX. has the passage on the whole similar,
yet read Kpvyfrco instead of dOenjaco. The real meaning of
the words, as used by the prophets, refers to the wisdom of man,
whose opposition to the wisdom of God, though under the most
varied forms, always remains the same. The (TO(f)ia is the result
of the vov<;, as avveat^ is of <f>p6v7](TL<^i i.e. understanding. In the
Old Testament n?:2Dn ^^^ 11^5 h^iVQ precisely the same relation.
X : T T •
See my treatise De Trichotomia Nat. Hum. in the Opusc. Acad,
p. 158, sqq. — The cro^ot and crvvefol are evidently those held
wise and prudent by men, and by themselves. The seeds of true
wisdom and genuine prudence are not, however, destroyed by God
where they exist among men who have applied the true test, and
hold themselves for no more than they are, but, on the contrary.
He lends his aid to perfect the work.
Ver. 20. The fulfilment of this prophecy was beheld by Paul
in his own time, in that knowledge of Christ which laid prostrate
40 FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 20.
all other wisdom. 'Ev XpiarA must therefore be added here to
the efjicopave, as ver. 21 shews, in connection with ver. 23. In
Christ was manifested the oo(f>La tov aldovo^ /jLeWovTo<;, before
whose power the aocl)La tov alcovo<; or Koafjiov tovtov was com-
pelled to retire. The influence of Christ, wiiich, at the time Paul
wrote, first entered upon the conflict with human wisdom, was
viewed by the apostle in a prophetic spirit, as triumphant, a
fulfilment which has so far advanced in our times, since philo-
sophy itself is compelled by the omnipotence of the Gospel to
include its characteristic doctrines in the circle of its inquiries.
" Where is the wise," exclaims the apostle, " since the true wis-
dom has been revealed ?" At an earlier period, one may suppose
a wisdom was to be found which was considered really such by
him, that which was absolute being yet hidden, but, after the
unveiling of the latter, this belief was no longer possible. Re-
specting the agreement of o-o(/)09, jpafji/xarevfi, and av^r]Tr}r7](i, Bill-
roth adopts the idea entertained by Theophylact, that ao(j)6<i
referred to the Hellenes, and ^pap^^iaTev^ to the Jews, among
whom wisdom was made to consist in an intimate acquaintance
with the sacred writings. But, in the first place, the import of
av^7]T7jT}]<i then becomes exceedingly uncertain, for the words of
the Father alluded to, av^rjTTjra^ oovopiaae rov^i XoyiafjioU koX
ipevvai^ tcl iravra eTTLTpeTTOvra^, are just as applicable to the
ao(j)ov(; ; and further, it cannot be said that the term " false wis-
dom" is to be applied to the knowledge of the sacred writings of
the Old Testament. For this reason, others conceive the expres-
sion "wise men" to mean the moral philosophers, such as So-
crates, ypafjLfjLarel^i to signify the grammarians and investigators
of history, and o-u^rjTrjTal rod alwvo^ tovtov the natural philoso-
phers, such as Empedocles, Anaximenes, and others, styled by
Cicero the speculatores, venatoresque naturae. But tov al&vo<i
TOVTOV is just as applicable to all three, as to the latter category,
in addition to which objection neither aXwv nor icoafjio^ ovtos signify
nature, as they have a fixed dogmatical meaning in the Greek
language. We therefore feel obliged to retain the reference of
the term " wise men " to the Greek philosophers, and of the
<ypapbfxaTeh to rabinnical erudition ; but observing, with respect
to the latter, that it is not investigation of the sacred volume
which is condemned, but the manner in which it was conducted
FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 21. 41
by those wlio pursued it, the sifting of words, and trifling spirit
which, making camels out of gnats, characterised their inquiry^
likewise the self-approbation which ^tended their labours, pre-
cisely as described in Matt, xxiii. In short, the o-v^TjrrjraL may
be best distinguished by supposing that the first two expressions
describe the learning of the schools, and that skill in classifying,
which prevailed among heathens and Jews, but the latter intended
that diletanteism in research, then so prevalent, and which pro-
pounded itself in an universal spirit of disputation and speculation.
To restrict this supposition to the Jewish enquirers of this kind,
called ^^"^"T, who amused themselves with the mystical scriptural
expositions named QV^2J-^*-f^, as Schleusner and Pott appear to do,
is unwarranted ; we must rather include both Greek and Jewish
lovers of speculative disputation, and observe, that the controversy
is directed first against the Christianer, and then against the
followers of Apollos and Peter.
Ver. 21. The words which follow, according to the usual ex-
planation of the passage, do not show a just connection with
what precedes them. In the expression ao(f)la rod 0eov, the
Kifjpv^iJba of the Gospel is generally understood, which makes the
sense " hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world ?"
Certainly, for since the world in its (pretended) wisdom, did not
receive God in his (true) wisdom by means of the Gospel, it pleased
God, by the foolishness of preaching (i.e., deemed such by the
world), to save them that believe." To this exposition, however,
there is this objection, that the preaching of the cross, which
is also the /jbaypla rov Kr)pv^fjbaTo<^, then appears as a consequence
of the non-acceptance of godly wisdom on the part of the world,
but this is evidently an error. Besides, then, not eireihr] ovk er^vw,
but rytpcoaKet would have been used. It may be said that the
stress does not justly belong to Bta rrj<; fji(opla<i rov /CTjpvy/jLaro^,
but to the (Tcocrat tou? TTLaTevovra^, which would make the sig-
nification " As the world would not acknowledge God in the
wisdom of the Gospel, it pleased God by this (apparently) foolish
preaching to save those who believed in it, and thus their
pretended wisdom was made foolishness, because they were there-
by excluded from salvation." It must be confessed that, by
adopting this explanation, the difficulties of the passage are con-
siderably lessened ; but, according to our conviction, the position
42 FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 21.
of the words does not admit of this exposition. Without doubt,
when Paul wished to describe the opposition between the world
and believers, he might hav% written aoiaai tqv^ inarevovTa<i Bta
T179 /jLcopLa<; Tov Krjpiry/jLaro^, meaning, that by means of the /jucopla
rov KTjpv^iJiaTo^ itself, he made human wisdom to become folly,
not through the fact, that the faithful accepted the /ncopia tov
K7jpiiyfjLaTo<;. The consequence then is, that eTreiBr) yap iv ry oro(i>La
TOV &60V must be received in a signification different from that
usually adopted, that is to say, that the iv Tfj aocj^la Oeov must
be understood to refer, not to the Gospel, but to the wisdom of
God, as Billroth has already pointed out ; in short, to the circum-
stances under which, according to E-om. i. 18, 19, any result is
to be expected from human research, viz., that it be conducted
in sincerity with a desire to attain to a knowledge of the true
God. Then the eTrecBi] becomes beautifully connected with the evBo-
KiTjaev, and the apostle says, *' Because men made so ill an use of
their power of discovering truth, that they attained only to an ap-
parent wisdom, God, as it were in punishment, has published
salvation by means of the foolish preaching of the cross, which
they have now no power to understand, being blinded by their
own false wisdom." It is true the preaching of the cross has
also its inward and needful foundation, but Paul has here no
occasion to discourse upon it ; he merely brings forward the side
which appears to him calculated to show the vanity of confiding in
human wisdom. Ruckert has propounded an anomalous view of the
passage ; he explains ev tjj o-otpU tov Oeov thus : " by the guid-
ance and disposition of godly wisdom, the world did not compre-
hend God through its own wisdom." But the thought that the
non-acknowledgment of God on the part of mankind was a con-
trivance of godly wisdom, is entirely contrary to Paul, as Bom.
chaps, i. and ii. show ; and besides this, the reception of the iv as
grounds for this explanation is highly questionable, on account of
its connexion with eyvco. This verb cannot be separated from
the iv Trj aocpla, because, in the second part of the verse, it is
stated that the believers recognised the true wisdom in the fool-
i.shness of the Gospel. (Billroth finds the expression, " hindered
Oy means of their wisdom, the world knew not God," in the Bta T779
cro(/)m9 ; but I rather agree with Winer (Gr. p. 327), who retains
Bid in its accustomed signification, in the sense of, " by means of
FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 22—24. 43
their wisdom they knew not God ; i. e., their wisdom was not the
fitting means for the perception of truth." — The evhoKrjorev 6 0eo9_
stands according to the well-known "piy^"^ TTTy^ instead of the
• T : T T
Greek eho^e rw Sew).
Vers. 22 — 24. Billroth considers that the phrase beginning
with the eTreiBrj should be a second proposition to the principal
point of the sentence evBoKrjaev 6 ©eo?, which latter accordingly-
must have a double protasis, one preceding and the other follow-
ing it. From this proceeds the explanation of the ev rfj o-ocpla
Tov Qeov (ver. 21), as one to which the learned men mentioned
gave the preference. Both the premises introduced with iTreiSrj
must certainly express a kindred thought, but if aTj/juela and aocj)La
(ver. 22), as well as o-icdvhaXov and /jboypla (ver. 23), concern the
Gospel, crocpia rod Qeov must consequently refer to the same,
which, as we have already seen, is not tenable. Therefore eireihri
does not in this place, as in ver. 21, signify " after," but " for,"
as in pure Greek eirei is often used, but never eTreiBrj (see Pas-
sow Lex.) In the New Testament iirethrj is to be found in the
sense of " for," in the passages Matt. xxi. 46 ; Luke xi. 6 ; 1 Cor.
V. 21, xiv. 16 ; Phil. ii. 26. It would be better, therefore, to
place the second eireihrj in connexion with what follows, and con-
sider vers. 22 — 24, as the declaration of the e/jLcopavev 6 Qeo^
(ver. 20), which is represented in ver. 21 as well merited. The
foolishness into which God permitted them to fall was, that
their aims Avere directed towards false objects, and that the true
one, which indeed contained the thing they sought, was mistaken
by them. The o-rj/jyeio/jLavla of the Jews prevented their acknow-
ledging Christ, because, although himself the greatest o-rj/jLecov,
and surrounded as it were with a halo of miracles, he neverthe-
less did not perform them in a manner which accorded with their
expectation, neither did he descend from the cross, but died
thereon ; this was destructive of the glorious picture of the Mes-
siah they had taught themselves to contemplate with exultation,
therefore Christ crucified was to them a aKavSdXov, an unaccept-
able stumbling-block. The Greeks, on the contrary, required a
speculatively founded and well-arranged argument for the Gospel ;
when this was wanting, the source of all wisdom, and the depths
of sound speculation, was to them a /.ccopla. It was only to those
among Jews and Greeks, who from their hearts obeyed the call-
44 FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 25 — 27.
ing of Godjj that the crucified Saviour was discernible as a divine
source of power, from which the greatest aTj/juela, (but of a spiri-
tual hidden kind), incessantly proceeded, and as the origin of that
wisdom, in comparison with which all human knowledge is folly.
Ver. 25. This effect of the Gospel the apostle deduces from
the fact of the difference between what is divine and that which
is merely human, since the most unapparent divine influence is
more powerful and wise than the mightiest and wisest human
display. The expressions to fjuwpov, to aaOevh rod &eov have
something important in them : they are equal to an Oxymoron.
Paul certainly did not intend to affix this idea to the Divine
Being, but only to the appearance of certain divine schemes, the
redemption through the death of Christ for example. Even
this might appear to men foolish and weak without being so.
It would therefore be erroneous to refer to aaOevh tov Qeov to
the humiliation of Christ, the veiling of his divine power, as Bill-
roth appears to do ; this is opposed by the parallel /jLcopov. To
the genitive tmv avOpcoircov may <jo<^La^ and hvvdfieayf; be sup-
plied.
Vers. 26 — 27. It appears striking that the apostle should draw
the argument for the wisdom of the /icopov rod ©eov, and the
strength of the aaOevh tov ©eov, from the condition of the faith-
ful. It proceeds, however, from this cause, that both being exhibited
in them, it is clear that it is not the question of the humiliation of
God in Christ that is here to be considered, but the property of
the doctrine of salvation. The ISccoTao, or illiterate and ignorant
members of the church, confounded the wisdom of the wise and the
power of the mighty. But how was Paul able to say this at that
period 1 It might agree with the times subsequent to Constantine,
but not during the rule of Nero. But it was in the existence of the
Christian church itself, and the spiritual power which pervaded
it, that Christianity represented itself triumphant. The Christians
1 The repetition of the XpiaTov in ver. 24 is striking, to wbicb, from ver. 23,
Kijpvcra-ofitv must be supplied. At tbe first glance, the thought will then appear con-
structed as if Paul preached two Christs, first the crucified one for the unbelieving, then
the glorified, i.e. the risen Saviour, for the believing. It is, however, not to be so
understood but that unbelievers, having no faith in Christ's resurrection, make as it were
to themselves another, a dead Christ, whom they reject; while believers, receiving his
death only in connexion with his resurrection, possess in the crucified also a living
Saviour.
FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 28, 29. 45
could effect what neither philosopher, prince, nor potentate were
able to do, create men's hearts anew, and out of sinners and eyiW
doers form children of God. (In yer. 26, /cX^o-i? stands somewhat
abstract for the concrete kXijtoI, but it signifies, as in 1 Cor. vii.
20, the external circumstances, the calling. Rtickert thinks with
Beza that it should be received in the sense of ratio quam dominus
in vohis vocandis secutus est, and with this the opinion possibly
agrees, that Oeo^ i^eXe^aro forms the principal idea in what fol-
lows. But Paul would certainly have expressed this idea diffe-
rently. — Kara adp/ca, antithesis to Kara irvev^ia, see Rom. ii. 28,
29, signifies here only " in respect to the exterior," for, regarded
inwardly, Christians are in the true sense of the word wise, strong,
noble. Billroth regards adp^ as /coa/jLOf; ovto<;, and this in general
corresponds with the sense, but here it seems not so suitable on ac-
count of the words Swaroi Sind evyevelf;, which in themselves indi-
cate nothing sinful. 'Ev^eveh refers to noble condition ; the greater
proportion of the first Christians were slaves and illiterate men,
and the whole history of the growth of the church is fundamentally
a progressive triumph of the unlearned over the learned, the lowly
over the great, until the emperor himself laid his crown at the
foot of the cross. — In ver. 27, fj^wpa, daOevrj, and d'yevy) corres-
pond closely with the three expressions in ver. 26, and the change
of the masculine to the neuter is unimportant, as in ver. 27 roh
ao<l>ov<i comes again between ; the masculine is only considered
less abstract, the neuter more so. In the i^eke^aro is simply
indicated the summoning, distinguishing efficacy of election, with-
out any reference to absolute predestination. According to God's
intention the summons is general, and it is only owing to the
opposition which individuals are free to exercise to his grace, that
it assumes the form of selecting.)
Vers. 28, 29. Paul carries the representation yet further, in
the endeavour to realize the striking idea ; he adds yet the words
i^ovOevijixeva, certainly /jlt] ovra, and substitutes for Karaia'xyi'ei'i'
the stronger Karapyelv. The addition of /niya tl to the form
fjiT) ovra is quite wrong. Paul intends to describe believers as not
only not great, but as in effect things that are not, as in Rom. iv.
17, and for this reason, because the natural man has generally no
real being or existence ; but as the following rd ovra means like-
wise the natural man, it would doubtless be better to reflect upon
46 FIRST CORINTHIANS I. 30, 31.
the state as such. The natural man indeed has no part in the
true life, nevertheless he stands with a certain degree of power,
and a perfect consciousness of it. In the transition from the old
to the new state, in the repentance and wrestlings with the old
nature which ensue, the remnant of the strength of the natural
man escapes, and that of the new life not heing yet effective, he
is indeed a firj 6v, a being now produced by God's creative power.
The ef avrov vixel<^ iare in ver. 30, refers to this new birth in re-
generation ; the honour and glory being alone of God and of no
created being. (In ver. 28, ayevrj^; means ignohili loco natus ; in
profane writers it also signifies " childless" or " degenerate,"
degener. — In ver. 29, the iracra o-dp^, like fjur] Tra?, is formed after
the well-known Jewish text ^^5 ^j^ and ^5 ^^. For rev Geov
the teM. rec. reads avrov, in favour of which much indeed might be
urged, as some one might easily be supposed to have made the
alteration on account of the avrov immediately following. But
the Codd. A.C.D.E.F.G.I. and many minuscida read Qeov, so that
this text must be retained. — ^Evwrnov — ^s^^*^, before God, 2.e.,
in his presence, before his face, as if the creature had an individual
merit of his own.)
Vers. 30 — 31. The first of these two verses forms an accessory
thought, (for ver. 31 is a continuation of the subject of ver. 29),
and places in contrast to their outward debasement the internal
gloriousness of Christians. From the Father through the Son
(comp. Rom. xi. 36), have believers their existence, not only as
regards their creation, but especially referring to their being
created anew, i.e. their new birth, Christ being the step there-
unto. This last idea lies in the 09 ejevrjdTj r/fitp, which words
imply not only that Christ by his doctrine and example teaches
us wisdom, &c., or that it operates in us through his spirit, but
that he is in fact become (after effectual and suffering obedience),
wisdom, righteousness, sanctification. and redemption, and that
therefore all these in his followers are only the unfolding of gifts
received in him. (Comp. the remarks upon the rereKearat in the
Comm. Joh. xix. 30.) The diro Oeov must be connected with the
eyevT^Or], so that Christ himself in his human nature may appear as
a gift from God to men, but the idea which expresses the being of
Christ stands as a climax, and comprehends the phases of the Chris-
tian life from its commencement to its completion. In the ao<f)La
FIRST CORINTHIANS II. 1, 2. 47
is intimated the real, essential knowledge of God, which is
identical with the feeling of one's own nothingness, and, to n
certain extent, it is the beginning of a true way of life, the
real fjuerdvoia, for it leads to BLKaioa-vvrj, and thereby to a perfect
enlightenment of the man as a regenerated creature. (See on
Rom. iii. 21.). The ajLaa/jbo^; is furthermore the gradual develop-
ment of this new life, not the gradual improvement or purifying
of the old man, for that must be given up in death ; in short,
the dTroXvrpcoat^, which occasionally comprehends in its meaning
the commencement of the new life, refers here especially to its
end and accomplishment. (See this idea further explained in
Comm. on Eom.iii. 25.). The perfect inward deliverance from
the power of sin, is now expressed together with the aTroXurpwcrt?
rov crayfiarof; (Rom. viii. 23), because the mortal body always
remains a source of temptation. Paul then again repeats the
thought in ver. 29, in conjunction with the scripture from Jerem.
ix, 23, signifying that no creature may glory in himself, but
only in the Lord ; which according to the context would bear this
construction, that the Christian is indebted to the Lord alone,
and not to himself, for the whole work of his moral perfection, a
doctrine destructive of all Pelagianism. Regeneration is entirely
God's w^ork, as was the Creation, both in the commencement,
means, and accomplishment. — (Ver. 31 is an anacoluthon ; to the
iva, yiv7]rat may be supplied. — Kav^daOaL is generally coustrued
in the New Testament with iv, but also with irepl, vTrep, Kara).
§ 2. THE WISDOM OF GOD.
(ii. 1—16.)
After exposing to view the vanity of human wisdom, the
apostle describes more closely the properties of that which is
divine from ver. 6 — 16, having beforehand plainly signified to the
Corinthians (ver. 1 — 5), with an allusion to ver. 17, chap, i., that
this wisdom, pure and without any admixture of the human ele-
ment, was what he had faithfully preached to them.
Vers. 1, 2. Paul commences by saying that, upon his appear-
ance among them in Corinth, he preached to them with no human
excellency of speech or of wisdom, but that he had simply re-
48 FIRST CORINTHIANS II. 1, 2.
vealed to them an historical, and, above all, the crucified Christ,
exposing to full view the [xcdpia of divine preaching (ver. 21.) instead
of veiling it in mystery. This contains the great truth, not suffi-
ciently reflected upon, that the Gospel, in its essence, is neither
theoretic, abstract, or reflective, nor even imaginative, hut that it
is historical, and the history is divine. The preaching of the
Gospel is a revelation of God's doings, and especially of the one
great act of God's love, the gift of his only Son for the sins of the
world. When belief is well established, then alone may this act
of God become the subject of theory or research among the mem-
bers of the church ; and even then only so far as the whole in-
vestigation proceeds from faith. (See on ver. 6, sqq.). Faith
could never be a consequence of this enquiry. It has its origin
in God's Spirit alone, which ever shows itself most effectual by
the simple preaching of the divine history. It is not improbable,
from the materialism of the false teachers among the Corinthians,
that evidence of supposititious ideas of Christ was to be discerned
among them (see on xv. 12), and that the apostle intended to
oppose this by holding the historical Christ up to view. (In
ver. 1 the v7r€po')(rj \6yov rj aocj^la^ is an explanation of the rheto-
rical and speculative elements united in the expression ao(f)La
\6yov (i. 17.). This is plainly shown by ii. 4. The substantive
vwepo'xr}, is to be found in 1 Tim. ii. 2. It indicates here the
exaggeration arising from vanity, which permits that which is
unimportant to usurp the place of that which is valuable. — Upon
fiapTvptov Tov Qeov see comm. on i. 6. The reading jjivarripLov
appears to be borrowed from ver. 7. — In ver. 2, iKpuva is not to
be rendered, as Billroth does, '' I determined," but, " I judged
in myself, i. e.,I had the fullest, most perfect conviction." The
elBevat iv vfuv is not to be understood as if Paul expressed his
conviction that in Corinth only he must have no other knowledge
than Christ, while elsewhere, and in himself, he might know
many things ; but that, as in Corinth, so everywhere, and also in
himself, Christ was all in all ; the elBevai, that is to say, refers
to the knowledge of the true and everlasting, and is by no means
comprehensive, but is applied to one alone, the revealed God in
Christ (Col. i. 16, 17.). In this knowledge there are no degrees ;
it is either possessed in full or is entirely wanting. But it can-
not be denied that this sole knowledge of the Eternal is capabl e
3
FIRST CORINTHIANS II, 3 — 5. 49
of progression in itself, though it has in no part of its develop-
ment the character of variety. This latter belongs more espe^
cially to the knowledge of what is earthly, and it is from the con-
junction of the latter with the more exalted knowledge that a
harmonious whole is formed. Further, it is not to be passed over
that Paul does not say that he knows anything of or concerning
Christ, but that he knows himself, he preaches himself. The
historical Christ is also the living one, who abides by his own
until the last day. He works personally in each believer, and is
begotten again in each. Therefore is Christ himself, the crucified
and the risen, everywhere the object of preaching and also wisdom
itself (i. 31), for his history repeats itself throughout the church
and in every member of it, not becoming old thereby, for as
what is divine can never decay, it exists in the present day in the
same fulness of power in which it revealeditself at the foundation
of the church.
Ver. 3 — 5. As the individual has to work out his own salvation
with fear and trembling, God working in him to will and to do,
and inspiring thus a holy sense of God's presence (Phil. ii. 12,
13), so Paul, in perfect consciousness of the divine strength work-
ing through him, with fear and trembling, and acknowledging his
own weakness, appeared in Corinth to preach God, without any
admixture of what was human. It must be here observed, how-
ever, that it is not slavish fear that is spoken of, but the tender
concern which is in the nature of love, and the holy awe which
accompanies the love of God. It involves no idea of persecution,
mortification , or disorder, because the kuI directly joins verses 2
and 3, so that the force is, " and therefore," or " in this conscious-
ness." As he therefore preached a Saviour in weakness (viz. as cru-
cified), so he declared himself to be weak. (The idea of his coming
among them is included in the i'yevojj.rjv irpo^ vjnd^ of ver. 3. — In
ver. 4 the first kol is to be understood as adversative. Paul lays
down the antithesis in himself weak, but strong in God. — ^0709
refers to free dissension, Krjpvy/jLa to preaching, properly speaking
as exposition. — TletdoLis a reproving epithet, which indicates
the peculiar human persuasion, wiiich should find no place in
the promulgation of the Gospel ; believers should be converted by
the divine power alone. The form does not occur again ; the
Greeks have iridavo^ for it, and likewise TretcrTo?, 7reto-Tt/co9, and
d
50 FIRST CORINTHIANS II. 6, 7.
if some Codd. adopt these forms, or evTretOol, it is clear that these
readings originate only in the endeavour to substitute a more
usual for the unaccustomed form. The dvOpcoTrLvr}^; is also a spu-
rious addition, borrowed, without doubt, from rer. 13. The correct
antithesis to ireiOol ao(j)ia<;\6yoL is clearly iv aocpla ©€ov, instead
of which it represents it to be the operation of godly wisdom.
n.vevfjbaro'^ Koi hwd^ew^ is best comprehended as a hendiadyoin.
The operation is to be supposed as first internal, because the
Gospel has power to reform sinners, then it is external, us dis-
playing itself in the Charismata. — In ver. 5 the y refers to the
rise and lasting existence of faith. It is in the first instance the
creation of the Spirit, in which the will of man has no part,
(although he may obstruct its progress) ; but he finds a continual
support in the divine Spirit, which, as it were, carries on conti-
nually the work of his regeneration.)
Vers. 6, 7. After this, the apostle commences his important
exposition of the characteristics of godly wisdom as manifested
in Christ. The connection with what precedes is this : if the
Gospel possesses nothing of what is called wisdom by the world,
it is by no means to be considered devoid of this property, having
that which is far higher, viz., the wisdom which is from God.
But to obtain a correct understanding of the following explana-
tion, an examination of the relation of the Tr/crri? to the G-ocfyla
and to the ^vwai^ is indispensable.^ Paul makes a predominant
use of the first expression, but in i. 5 we have already met with
fyvMdi^, a,Tid yvcjvat is to be found in ii. 14 ; indeed the ideas are so
closely linked that it is scarcely possible rightly to comprehend
one without the other. The Trto-rt? is, according to the observa-
tions upon Rom. iii. 21, the basis of Christian living, to which
(TO(f>La and ryvcbaif; may be advantageous. It is, received as Chris-
tian TTLari,^, God's life in man, the influence of Christ's Spirit in
his heart, and consequently presupposes the gift of man to Christ.
Then faith is next planted in the KapSla, since it certainly is not
without knowledge, though it is not original, but proceeds from
inward experience. In the progress of the life now regularly
1 It is scarcely necessary to observe that iriarn^, aocf)ia, yvuicn^ are discussed here
only as they necessarily belong to the constitution of the internal life of every believer,
(one or other prevailing as it may be), and not as Chai-ismata. In the latter quality the
reader is referred to the remarks on xii. 7, sqQ.
FIRST CORINTHIANS II. 6, 7. 51
developed, the whole man is swayed more and more by the power
of Christ, and consequently his thoughts likewise are sanctified.
Thus the yvwa-i^ is formed as fruit of the Triart^, and the one is
ever borne by the other, as the fruit by the branch, for the view
which the Tr/o-rfc? alone can elevate is extended beyond the exist-
ence on this earth. The church collectively being a repetition of
the course of individual life, so likewise then a ^vwat^ must arise
for it, that is to say, a theology in the true meaning of the word.
But the yvcbcrt^; will prove a ylrevScovv/juo^i if not founded upon a
life of faith and growing inward experience, but upon elements
liable to error, because alien to the faith. In the expressions
yvSycTL^ or iirl'yv(oaL^ (Eph. i. 17, iv. 13 ; Eom. i. 28) knowledge,
as such, is also distinctly adverted to, not a knowledge appa-
rent and ideal, but a knowledge of the being of Ood, grounded
upon a real possession of him, upon the revelation of his divine
nature to men. This knowledge can never be impracticable,
since truth beholds with a correct eye outward circumstances,
and tempers the energy of the will to work effectually accord-
ing thereto ; in this practical view the yv(0(TL<; becomes o"o</>ta. One
side can never exist without the other, the theoretical without
the practical, and vice versa ; therefore these two expressions
might be used indifferently, when a precise distinction was not
the object ; but Paul here especially and intentionally employs
a-o(f)La because the deviations of the Corinthians were in general
of a practical kind, and betrayed themselves in practice, though
indeed they ultimately rooted themselves, and became as usual
dogmatic errors. Paul again opposes the wisdom of God in the
abstract, i. e. as proceeding from God, to the wisdom of the
world, but its divine properties are only recognised by the per-
fect, meaning the true believers (the irvev/juaTLKoi, iii. 1), who
be^r the principle of perfectness in themselves, without its being
entirely developed (Phil. iii. 12-15.). In this view the Gospel
has, and ever retains the nature of a mystery, which the Almighty
has prepared for men from the beginning of the world, but
which should not be discerned of the natural man (ver. 14.). In
ver. 6, the construction cro(f>lav iv toI<; Te\eLOL<; is not like the dative
" wisdom for the perfect," but equivalent to ovaav iv rot<^ reXetot?,
" which only among the perfect is esteemed what it is in effect."
— In that case the aocjyla rov alcovo^ tovtov is == the (ro(f>La tov
d2
52 FIRST CORINTHIANS II. 8, 9.
KoafXQv TovTov of i. 20 ; and if the ap^ovre^ is separated, it is only
for the purpose of more strongly displaying the triumph of divine
oyer human wisdom ; for the expression does not signify evil
spirits (in which case this form is always in the singular), but
rulers and princes, in the learned, as in the political world, as ver.
8 shews. They had crucified Christ, but were Karapyovfievoi,'
since he was arisen again, and the church had continually ex-
tended itself; and the connexion between influence in the state
and learning proceeds in some degree from the circumstance that
cultivation among the higher classes is in general extended by
means of their learned men. — Ver. 7 has eV iMVGTrjpiw and airoice-
Kpvfifjievr), which is not to be accepted in the sense of an absolute
want of the power of discerning, otherwise no aocjyLa ©eov could
ever exist among men, but only of the impossibility of its nature
being understood without the peculiar limits of the circle of the
Christian life. (See the remarks upon Rom. xvi. 25 ). — But the
expressions are not synonymous ; the iv /jLvarrjpla) is more appli-
cable to men, *' a wisdom in mysterious form, not discernible of
man in his natural power," but the airoKeicpv^jjbevr} to God, " hid-
den in God and in his being, consequently it is itself of a divine
nature." Ver, 9 pursues the subject of this idea, and Heiden-
reich supplies r^vwplaai to Trpocopiaev. In some passages, as
Eph. iii. 4^ 5, Col. i. 26, 2 Tim. i. 9, this idea is prominent
throughout, but- here the apostle appears to have intended by the
use of irpocopLo-ev to declare, that God had previously destined to
man the gift of salvation through Christ, because the design of
revelation was sufficiently evident throughout the whole argumen-
tation.— ^tcoi/ has not literally the sense of eternity, it signifies
only a long period ; but irpo tmv alcovcov, i.e. before all ages, indi-
cates the metaphysical notion of eternity. — The Bo^a is here not
glory, but glorification, for in i. 29, 31, Paul had completely cf^n-
demned that which is of men ; but the yficov does not only apply
to the apostles, but to all believers to whom the promises of ages
past were fulfilled.)
Vers. 8, 9. That by the ap^oi^re? rov alwuo<; tovtov the
worldly great in knowledge and tradition were indicated, ver. 8
clearly shows, where they are represented as having crucified the
Lord of Glory. Yet it is by no means to be inferred that this ex-
pression referred to the Jews alone :• without doubt the apostle
FIRST CORINTHIANS LI. 8, 9. 53
beheld in Pilate the representative of heathen sections, and
therefore both Jews and heathens, in their scientific and politicai
representatives, were alike included. Th« apostle proves the
assertion (in agreement with Luke xix, 42, xxiii. 34; Acts iii.
17, xiii. 27), that they had not known the Lord Christ, from the
fact that they had crucified him. This they could not Justify, for
had they rightly used the means afforded, they might have at-
tained to a knowledge of Christ, as Acts xiii. 27 clearly shows ;
but it shall intimate and likewise mitigate their guilt, that the
natural man, as such (ver. 14), ever thus acts, and consequently
continually, as it were, crucifies Christ anew. However far the
meaning of yivcoaKeLV might extend, it is restricted and defined
by the expression Kvpto^ t?}? ho^r}^. As a guiltless, and at the
same time richly gifted being, they knew him well; therefore
their guilt must ever remain great, as they delivered him through
envy ; but they really believed he was not the Son of God, be-
cause their notions of God were thoroughly false, and with such
notions Christ's conduct by no means agreed. Ao^a is here the
entire fulness of the glories of the eternal world, divine power, and
glory, just as God is named, Acts vii. 2 ; Eph. i. 17. Oeo?,
or iTUTT^p T7]<i S6^7]<i aud Kvpia T/}9 8o^7y?, marks the divine nature
of Christ, the knowledge of whom, indeed, is beyond the power
of man, and only to be conferred upon the human race through
the gift of God's Spirit, though the operation of this grace
may be hindered by man's own resistance. In addition, iarav-
pcoaav Tov Kvpiov ttj^ B6^r}<; is one of the passages in the New
Testament, in which an exchange of the predicate of the two na-
tures is plain, thereby arguing that a correct principle lies in the
doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, although the form of
its exemplification may not be suitable. — The quotation which
follows (ver. 9) connects itself, as in i. 31, in the form of an
anacoluthon. Theophylact considered that the addition ofyeyove
would restore the construction ; Billroth viewed the whole as an
exposition of the oro^la Qeov of ver. 7. But it appears more cor-
rect to understand the aXXa as introducing the antithesis to the
words rjv ovBeU tmv dp'^ovroyv rod alo)vo(; tovtov eyvwKev (ver. 8.),
This Paul states impressively, not in his own words, but in those
of Scripture ; so that the meaning is this, " Which wisdom none of
the rulers of this world understood, but it was prepared by God
64 FIRST CORINTHIANS II. 10.
for those who love him, seeing that by human power it can never
be attained unto." For 6(f>6akixo^, ou?, Kaphla indicate the modes
by which man, as such, attains either idea or notion ; the love
so apparent in all God's dealings conducts to a far richer world
of knowledge and feeling than earthly means could open to our
conception. The quotation therefore refers only to man in his
natural state, the following verse representing him under the in-
fluence of the divine Spirit, by means of which he perceived es-
sentially the truth of God's things. The aXkd alludes to the
previously-mentioned ouSel? eyvcoKe. (See Winer's Gr. p 421.). —
In the rjroifjbaae is intimated the fact forming the subject of the
communication, but the second a stands for roiavra. — AvafBaivetv
iirl KapSiav = y^ ^^ rhv> ^^^ ^^^ rising of an earnest desire
— T T
in the heart. — In the Old Testament there is literally no such
passage ; it is possible that Paul had Isa. Ixiv, 3, 4, in his mind,
quoting from memory; and something very similar is found in the
passages Isa. Hi. 15, and Ixv. 17. The form /caOco^; jiypaTTTat
does not permit us to view the reference as to an apocryphal
scripture, for it always signifies the Old Testament, Nevertheless
Origen, Chrysostom, and Theodoret imagined that Paul had bor-
rowed these words from an apocrypha of Elias. It is quite pos-
sible that these words existed in such a book, now lost to us ; but
as the book itself was doubtless the work of later times, it appears
more probable that the words were quoted from our epistle by the
apocrypha in question.)
Ver. 10. Paul then derives the o-ocpLu of believers from a similar
exercise of God's grace ; they knew God through the revelation of
his Holy Spirit. Of course this is not to be understood as limited to
the twelve apostles, but including all believers, who certainly at
Pentecost received the gift of the Holy Spirit at the same time ; yet
the words strictly refer to the regenerate, and not to ail the mem-
bers of the church community. Concerning the airoKaXvTrreLv ha
TTvevfjbaTOi; see Matt. xvi. 17. The question here is not of the one
great fact of the appearing of Christ, but of the individual effect
which each experiences in himself proceeding from the power of
Christ ; just as in the same manner the process of seeing is not
a consequence of the creation of the sun, but it rather requires
that the ray of light reach the eye. (To aireKokir^e may be
added from ver. 7 ao<^iav aTroKeKpvfifjbevrjv.) This revealing effect
FIRST CORINTHIANS II. 11. 55
of the Spirit is deduced by the apostle from his general nature.
The Spirit, i.e. the Spirit of God, searches likewise the depths^
of the Godhead, and can thence impart true knowledge con-
cerning God. In consequence of the climax kuI ra fidOrj tov
Seov, iravra must be taken in its widest sense, so that nothing
may be excluded from the penetrating knowledge (Jpevvav) of
the Spirit. Besides this, as the Spirit of God is God himself,
the ^dOr] TOV ©€ov not only intimates the decrees of God, the acts
of his will, but must also signify the divine Being itself. The
Father is in his everlasting fulness and depth known in the Son
and the Spirit, just as a man, (ver. 11), in the spirit of a man,
knoweth the things that are in him, and there is also that in
God which may be understood of man in his natural power (Bom.
i. 19, 20.). The rd ^olOtj in connection with kuI; *' likewise the
depths of God," signifies that w^hich is absolutely beyond the
limits of human understanding, e.g. the Trinity. But from the
fact that the Spirit of God knows all, it is not to be inferred that
he reveals all to men, but that it is only those things which con-
cern Christ, called in ver. 12, rd vtto tov 0eov 'x^aptaOevTa rj/julv :
and even this, according to the apostle's idea, is everything, (see
iii. 22.). He who knows Christ knows God and all besides ; for
in Christ lie all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Col. ii.
3.). In i John ii. 20, 27, it is said of those who have the
anointing of the Spirit, ov XP^^^^ ^X^^^' "^^ '^^^ BtBdaKj} vjjud^, they
know all ! In this idea is not to be included all the minutiae of
earthly wisdom, but only the knowledge of the Eternal, in which
all other is contained. How far the declarations of Paul in 1 Cor.
xiii. 9, 12 agree with this, will be farther shown in the explana-
tion of that passage.
Ver. 11. Paul illustrates what follows in a remarkable man-
ner by means of a parallel deduced from human knowledge. One
would have supposed that the connexion between the divine Spirit
and the divine Being was completely incomparable. Paul judges
otherwise. Man, as the image of God, bears within himself ana-
logies in certain relations, and similar parallels (see the Conim.
on John i. 1) are sanctioned thereby. Upon a due consideration
of the thought irvev/jia dvdpcoirov olBev to eV auTft), that is to say,
in the '^v^v as the centre of individuality, one might hesitate, be-
cause men so seldom truly know themselves, and self-knowledge is
56 FIRST CORTNTIIIANS II. 12, 13.
found with few. But it is uot the meaning of Paul, that the
spirit of men can know all that is in men, as the divine Spirit knows
all that belongs to God ; his idea is rather this : let a man know
much or little as he may, it is ever by meansofhisown.spirit that
he becomes acquainted with what he knows ; no stranger can inves-
tigate the depths of another's soul. Thus understood, the parallel is
equivalent, " as Grod's Spirit rules over all, so does the spirit of
man bear sway in himself, as in a microcosm." The construction
which Billroth puts on the words of the apostle in this place is
evidently forced ; and we should have thought the difference be-
tween the divine and human spirit would have prevented his dis-
covering anything in this passage concerning their identity. At
least the mode of expression chosen by him is easily misunder-
stood, as TTvev/xa Oeov, or i/c Geov and irvevfjua rov dvOpcoirov are
here as expressly separated as in Eom. viii. 16, (compare the ex-
planation to the passage). It would be more plain to say
that the human spirit is allied to the divine ; and as originality
is in some degree necessary to a correct understanding, thus is
the human spirit the organ whereby man receives the divine
Spirit, and is enlightened through his influence But without
the divine Spirit (ver. 14) and, with his natural spirit alone, he
could never know God, — -The ovSeh olBev, el firj to Trvevfjua rov Oeov.
is, after what precedes, naturally to be received with the addition,
" and he, to whom the Spirit imparts knowledge," precisely as in
Matt. xi. 27, it is said, " No one knows the Father, save the Son,
and he to whom the Son will reveal him." (See the Comm. on
this passage). Although elSevat is used in this and the follow-
ing verse for divine knowledge, it is, as verse 14 shows, completely
synonymous with yvcovai.
Vers. 12, 13. By means of the comparison with an earthly
standard, the apostle endeavours to make the condition of the
regenerate mind, really knowing God, more comprehensible.
Over the former the Trvevfxa rov Koa/xov rules, whose spirit is so far
identical with that of the kingdom of darkness, as the latter may
be said to govern the world. (Ephes. vi. 12.). The irvevfia e/c rov
©eov is substantially the same as the irvev^a mentioned before,
only the tK more strongly expresses the power proceeding from the
divine Spirit, revealing itself in the heart of man, in order that the
•TTvev/jua 7rpocf}opLK6v may be in contradistinction to the evhidOerov,
FIRST CORINTIJIANS II. 14. 57
if we may use the expression. The aim of this communication of the
Holy Spirit is theoretical as well as practical, the knowledge of.
God's mercy in Christ (ja yapiGOevTa — xa/3i9, see i. 5, the gift of
the Holy Spirit being falsely understood by some to be included
therein) which is proclaimed by preaching, without any admixture
of earthly wisdom. (Human should stand in opposition to godly wis-
dom. Paul, however, expresses it by irvevfia, as in ii.4., the motive
of wisdom. — AihaKToh is in both cases derived from the genitive
ao(j)La<; and Trvevfiarof;, and indicates the source of the instruction ;
the expression is also found in John vi. 45, Bc^afcrol 0eov. The
reading SiSaxy would only remove the difficulty which occurs in
connexion with the genitive). Some difficulties are to be found
in the concluding sentence irvevixaTiKol^ irveufxaTLKa av^/cpivovTe^,
The verb cri;'y/(:p6Wti/ implies to mix, combine, propound something,
from thence to bring, as it were, the proper argument in connec-
tion with the individual present. But the dative irvevixaTLKoh
requires consideration. The translation, " propounding to the
spiritual, things spiritual," does not appear suitable, for in iii. 1,
Paul says that he could not speak to the Corinthians as with spi-
ritual persons, although he had delivered unto them the Gospel ;
and certainly the Gospel is commonly preached to those who are
yet unbelievers, with a view to their conversion. But the follow-
ing verses require this explanation, viz. that the Corinthians,
being carnal, cannot prevent his labouring spiritually among
them, and the Spirit everywhere present may be awakened by
spiritual efficacy. Grotius would refer Trvev/jbariKd to the Old Tes-
tament and TTvevjjbaTiKoh to the New, in the sense of explaining
things spiritual by that which is spiritual. But the question is
not here of the Old Testament ; and I should hesitate to adopt,
with Beza, the \6yoi<; with the irvevp.aTLKol^, making the idea,
" delivering spiritual things in a truly spiritual form," because
then the iv would be absolutely necessary.
Ver. 14. The mention of the delivery of the Gospel leads the
apostle naturally to the condition of man with reference to the
same. He indicates accordingly two classes of men, '\^v')(lkoI
ftnd TrvevjiiaTtKOL, and, taking the former into consideration, de-
clares, tirst, that they would not receive the operation of the divine
Spirit because it was foolishness to them ; but, secondly, that they
also were not capable of receiving it, since it must be spiritually dis-
58 FIRST CORINTHIANS TI. 14.
cerned. The question is, how the idea of the dv6pct)7ro<; '\|ri;;^fc«:o9
is to be defined, and why in one place it refers to aapKiKo^^ (iii. 1),
and in the other to TTi^eu/xart/co?. First, we must bear in mind
that these terms do not indicate unchangeably fixed and distinct
classes of men, in which it would be impossible for transition
from one to the other to take place, but conditions which in them-
selves men have the power of changing ; no one is by birth a irvev-
fjLaTLK6<i, and there are moments in which every one is aapKiKo^.
If we attempt to define first the extreme, it is clear that with the
aapKLKo^i, the adp^ prevails, and with the 7rv6VfjLaTLK6<; the Trvevfjua
Tov ©€ov. The domination of the one principle does not, how-
ever, exclude the stirring of the other ; on occasion, the Spirit
may be perceived working with the aapKiKo^, and the flesh with
the regenerate ; the character of an individual defines itself ac-
cording as the one or the other of these principles decidedly pre-
dominates. But according to the situation of the '^vxn with
respect to the adp^ and the wvevfjua (see my Treatise de Trichot.
Nat. Hum. in the Opusc. Acad. p. 154, sqq.), the o/ru^^iA:©? is
he in whom neither adp^ nor irvevfia decidedly prevail, but the
intellectual life presents itself as such. It might be asserted that
where this immaterial life predominated, the flesh would certainly
ever powerfully exhibit itself as Paul represents, Rom. vii. 14,
sqq. This is correct in many respects ; nevertheless, even the
natural man can maintain a certain StKaLoavvrj, and thus aapKt-
k6^ indicates a deep degree of moral depression, called forth by
actual sin ; but then the two expressions are so distinguished
that aapKLKo^ intimates the ethical principle, yjrvxi'KO'i the intel-
lectual. If the natural man is to be< designated, without the
TTvevfia TOV ©eov, and as the transgressor of the v6fio<;, he is called
aapfCLKo^ ; but if, on the contrary, he is to be represented in his
incapability to know the Lord, he is named i/ry^^t^o?. (See James
iii. 15 ; Jude ver. 19 : in the latter passage the yfrvxi'Kol are ex-
pressly called TTvevfjba fxr] 'i^ovTe^.). It is precisely so here ; as
long as the yjrvxt^fco^; remains what he is, carnal, he cannot ac-
knowledge what is divine, for the requisite organ is wanting in
him. No man can of his own power arrive at a knowledge of
the truth in Christ ; it is the work of God whenever accomplished.
The knowledge here spoken of is not to be understood as a com-
prehensive reception of the doctrine of faith, (which might be ac-
FIRST CORINTHIANS II. 15, 16. 59
quired by natural exertion,) but as an insight proceeding from
inward enlightenment and experience. Nevertheless man in his
natural condition is not without the mind, which belongs essen-
tially to his nature, but it slumbers in him, and only the animal
life is awake ; yet, when the divine operation of the Gospel ex-
cites the human spirit, the -^v^iko^ ceases, and the Trvev/xaTL-
/CO?, being capable of spiritually discerning, is living. It is true,
it can also be otherwise, and that man, by continued sin, may
sink below the beasts ; then even the capacity for spiritual fervour
is lost, and his state is that of hardened obduracy. (See Comm>
on Rom. ix. 18.)
Vers. 15, 16. One might now expect that Paul would con-
tinue, 6 Be 7rv6VfjLaTtK0<i Se^erat ra rov 7rv€VfMaT0<i, as antithesis to
the 'y^rvx^Ko^ ' but the presence of the Spirit being assumed to
exist in him, (the transition between the condition being the
mysterious act of regeneration), Paul only describes the irveviia-
tlk6<; as he who judges all, without being judged of any. The
lofty station which Paul occupies enables him, as it were, to in-
clude the lower sphere, through which he had himself passed in
his supervision; but to the '\/ri;^fc/co9 as well as the aapKiK6<; the
view of the higher sphere is absolutely denied, as the world of
light is withheld from the blind. Paul adduces this fact of the
high comprehensive position as characteristic of the power of a
judgement which includes all in its grasp, because the Corinthians
would not concede it to him, the true Trvev/jLariKo^;, usurping to
themselves, although yjrvxcfcoL, even aapKCKol (iii. 1.) the liberty
of judging Paul, for which they possessed in themselves no stand-
ard.^ As a proof of the unlawfulness of these proceedings, Paul
appeals to Isa. xl. 13., where the Lord is described as incompre-
hensible to man. (This passage is also quoted in Rom. xi. 34,
but likewise, as here, concisely, as from memory. The LXX.
read o-v/x/Scfia for avfi^i^da-ei, i.e. the Attic form of the future of
avfjL^L^d^o), which the LXX more frequently use for nilri' " *^
T
teach, to instruct." See Exod. iv. 12, 15 ; Lev. x. 11 ; Ps. xxxii. 8.
1 It might appear contradictoi-y to this, that Paul judges, nay condemns, Peter and
Barnabas, ^ho must nevertheless be considered Trvau/naTi/foi (see Gal. ii.). But this
incident is thus reconcileable with the principle here laid down; that it is not the spi-
ritually regenerate man who is condemned in the TTfEw/xaTi/fos, but the natural man,
who is co-existent in him.
60 FIRST CORIIsTHIANS III. 1, 2.
The Attic dialect in this sense prefers the form Trpoa^iffd^eLv.)
Between i>ov^ fcvplov, and vov^; Xptarov no express difference can
be stated ; vov<; is synonymous with Trvevfia, only the former ex-
pression implies spirit more than ability, as an ingredient in ra-
tional knowledge. Paul therefore ascribes to himself, as Trvev/jta-
Tt/co9, the divine incomprehensible vov<; : and, as mankind can
neither know nor instruct God, neither can the '>^v')(ik6<^ know or
guide the 7rvevfiaTLfc6<i, for God is in him, and is spiritually the
living principle in the regenerate. How decidedly Paul held the
idea of the indwelling of God in believers, is shown in 1 Cor. xiv. 25,
as well as in the present passage, according to which unbelievers
shall acknowledge that God truly was in them. But the apostle
is far from comparing himself with God and Christ ; he rather
represents himself as only the organ of God in Christ, in whom
the subjection to sin has been destroyed, though his thought is
often fearfully misused by enthusiasts and fanatics. In spiritual
darkness making themselves like God, as regenerate and true
TTvev/jLariKot, they introduce the most terrible compulsion of con-
science in their circle, reqiiiring unconditional obedience to their
dictates, which they publish as operations of the vov^ Xpiorrov.
Paul, on the contrary, will admit of no adherence to his person,
but only to the truth which he preaches. (See on iii. 5 — 7, iv. 1.).
Still the decision whether what he preaches is the truth, cannot
be left to men (iv. 3.) ; the divine Spirit must verify it by the
issue, through the a7ro8eif^§ Bwd/jueco^ (ii. 4.), as it has already
done beyond measure.
§ 3. THE BUILDING OF GOD.
(iii. 1-22.)
Paul proves, from the existing divisions in Corinth (iii. 1- — 4.),
that the Christians there were yet far removed from the true spi-
ritual standard, and displayed themselves rather as carnal-minded.
They had mistaken the instruments in building, for the heavenly
Architect himself, and so laid waste God's temple in the church,
which was advancing towards completion, even although the true
foundation, once laid in it, yet remained uninjured, (iii. 5 — 17.).
FIRST CORINTHIANS III. 1, 2 61
They might, neyertheless, upon ahandoning their false wisdom, and
showing themselves to be willing to lose everything for Christr
receive all again (iii. 18 — 22.).
Vers. 1, 2. The transition from the 2d to the 3d chapter is
incorrectly conceived, when thus understood, " If the spiritual
are not to be judged, how can you, Paul, then judge us !" to
which the apostle replies, " Because ye are not truly spiritual :"
but there exists no trace of the Corinthians desiring to reject
the judgement of the apostle, although they, so incompetent,
passed judgement on him. Unquestionably the precipitate opinion
of the Corinthians was restrained (see iv, 3) by the information
that they were not competent to judge in the matter. Accord-
ing to the form the Ka^cb ovk r)hvvr}67]v XaXrjaac is connected in
ver. 13 with the 7rv6v/jbaT0L<; TrvevfiariKa G-\rfKpLvovTe<^. Paul in-
tended to say that he was not yet able to submit his discourse
to the Corinthians in a form corresponding to the elevation of
the subject, but was compelled to present it, as they were able
to bear it. It is however important to observe, that Paul con-
siders the Corinthians as regenerate, as vrjircot iv XptarM, and
nevertheless calls them aapKOKol, which seems contradictory. It
is however strictly agreeable to the remarks made on ii. 14,
that even the irvevfiaTLKO'^ can upor^ occasion be aapKLKo^. The
Corinthians were upon the whole, according to their standard,
believers, regenerate men, Christ the true foundation being laid in
them (ver. 11) ; but they were not faithful as to the gift they had
received ; for, reverting to their carnal standard, they mingled
their old views with the new element of life, and this is what the
apostle reproves. That this fact had been the subject of remark
at a preceding period is shewn by the '^SvvrjOijv and e-rroTLaa, (in
the aorist lies a reference to a second presence of Paul in Corinth,
for to the first, when the church there was founded, the expres-
sion cannot refer ; at that period the life of faith was in progress
among the Corinthians, and it would not have been made a sub-
ject of reproach to them, that it was only in the first stage of
development, which however happens here,) and that jt still
continued is plain from the words ovZe en vvv hvvaaOe. Paul
therefore makes use of degrees in describing the progress of the
Christian life, as in 1 John ii. 13. Children, young men, and
men in Christ, are separately addressed in the passage quoted.
62 FIRST CORINTHIANS III. 1, 2.
In each of these gradations salvation is attainable, but the degree
of salvation is measured by the gradation attained unto in sanc-
tification. (See on iij. 15.) What is the connection here between
7tt\a and ^payfjua ? Some say, that the former expression signifies
the easy, and the latter the more diiSicult doctrines of the Gospel.
According to this it would be important to observe, that Paul, in
the Epistle to the Corinthians, treats of many subjects which
cannot be included in the former category. In Heb. vi. 3,
the doctrine of the resurrection is reckoned among the fun-
damental doctrines of the Christian belief; but the discussion
upon the Charismata (1 Cor. xij. 14) does not certainly belong
to the simple doctrines of the Gospel. It may be said that
this doctrine is difficult to be understood by us, because the
power of discerning the gifts is wanting, but I think it would be
better to understnnd the r^aXa and Ppw^ia differently. We can-
not correctly say that one doctrine, as such, is comprehensible,
and another is difficult ; it is rather with all doctrine the purely
positive side which is simple, and the speculative which presents
difficulty. Paul had preached to the Corinthians the crucified
Saviour as their Redeemer, as he himself declares (ii. 2.) : this
was milk for the babes in spirit, whereby they might grow ; but
when he revealed to them in what manner Jesus was the Re-
deemer of men, the food proved more unpalatable. To this
deeper knowledge men were introduced in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, Paul being yet unable to bring it before the Corin-
thians, because of the pride of their human wisdom and capa-
city for deep investigation. (In ver. 1, Kayw stands opposed
to what precedes, ?7yu,et9 Se vovv Xplarov e^ofxev, in the sense
of, " I have truly the knowledge, but cannot impart it to you,"
The text. rec. reads aapKiKoh, Griesbach and Lachmann have
preferred aapKivol^i, and A.B.C.D. have the latter reading.
But as aapKivo^ properly signifies " fleshy, of flesh," as is shewn
in 2 Cor. iii. 3, and the form aapKLKo^ on the contrary " fleshly,"
we must suppose an exchange of the two forms to have taken
place .in the later Greek, which it was not needful for the
LXX. and the New Testament to demonstrate. I decide there-
fore in favour of the usual reading, and believe that the varia-
tion had its origin in the oversight of the transcriber, and the
little care taken to distinguish the forms which prevailed in later
FIRST CORINTHIANS III. 3 — 7. 63
times ; and I the more incline to this opinion, because im-
mediately in what follows, aapKCKol must be read. — NrjirLoc =r
Trauhia, 1 John ii. 13. — In ver. 2 the connection of the last word
of ver. 1 with vfia^ by means of vrjirlov^ has too slight a critical
foundation to claim to be received. Concerning the Zeugma
yaXa vfid^ eTroTLcra, ov ^pco/jua, see Winer's Gr. p. 540.)
Vers. 3, 4. As a proof of their slight spiritual progress, the
apostle adduces their divisions, in which the excessive apprecia-
tion of what was human was displayed in preference to that
which was divine, and likewise the blindness of their minds with
respect to things eternal. (In ver. 3, oirov, " where," takes the
meaning of " as far, therefore ;" see Viger 430 sqq. — ZrjXo^i is
the inward transport of anger, ept^ the exhibition of it by oppo-
sition to others, hL'Xparaaia (Eom. xvi. 17 ; Galat. v. 20) is the
consequence of this expression, the existing dissensions. — Kara
dvOpcoTTov TT ep LIT ar elv =■ Kara adpKa irepuraTelv, Rom. viii. 4. The
antithesis is Kara 0e6v or Kara irvevfia irepLiraTelif. — In ver. 4
and ver. 5, Paul mentions only himself and ApoUos, for the reason
assigned in iv. 6.).
Vers. 5 — 7. In order to express fully the perversion which
exists, in this adherence to what is simply human, the apostle
explains by what follows the position of all promulgators of the
Gospel, to God the Lord ; they are only servants, (iv. 1.). He
it is who works through them, who is all in all ; and on him alone
must all depend (iii. 22.). (In ver. 5, the rt? ovv has, like hia-
Kovo^, something of under-estimatiou. Ver. 7 replies to the first
question, they are nothing ; Kvpto^ is in opposition to servant. —
According to critical authority, the reading aXXJ r) BtaKovot is re-
jected, although the greater part of minuskela MSS. defend it,
and in itself the reading is not objectionable ; aXX rj stands for
nisi, see Luke xii. 51., Herrn. ad Viger, p. 812., who remarks
that the supposition of the omission of ovhiv further explains it.
— 'EKd(TT(p ft)9 stands for &)? 6 Kvpio^; eKdarw eScoKev. Paul
makes this addition, in order to represent the variety of the gifts,
and the efficacy arising therefrom, as a disposition of the Lord,
and not as arbitrary. Pursuing the simile of the husbandman,
with him is found the gift of (jyureveiv, and with Apollos that of
TTOTi^etp. In the first expression, the faculty of opening the way
to a new life, which was so prominent in Paul, is implied. John
64 FIRST CORINTHIANS III. 8 — 11.
had it not, nor had ApoUos. (See Introd. to Gospel of St John).
But these had the gift of advancing the life already kindled, as the
expression irorl^eiv seems to signify. But the gifts can effect as
little in spiritual, as diligence and expertuess in temporal matters,
without God's blessing : he it is who gives the increase and sanc-
tification.)
Vers. 8, 9. The different gifts stand then equal in the church,
as the various members to the body, and certainly, according
to their faithful employment, shall every man receive his re-
ward. We labour together for the things of God ; ye are his
husbandry, his building ; every one is therefore rewarded, ac-
cording as he has laboured in his field. The avvepfyot iap^ev and
yecopycov icrre leave no doubt that Paul here distinguishes the
teachers from the taught, and that also verse 8 speaks of the
reward of faithful teachers ; but in the church of Christ,
where each may become (1 Pet. ii. 5.) a living, self- erected stone
of the temple of God (ver. 16), this distinction is merely a
current one ; and, in ver. 12, we may perceive that Paul proceeds
to general observations, and represents every believer as charged
to proceed with the building of the temple, whose foundation is
laid in him. But, instead of admitting this, if in what follows
the foundation is understood like the (pvTeueLv, the iTTOiKohofielv
like the irori^eiv, the representation which succeeds may form
a polemic against ApoUos, and a justification of himself, which
certainly never formed part of his plan, which was rather in what
succeeds to animate the Corinthians to follow after Christ, and in
him to attain salvation. (In ver. 8. the eV elat declares the im-
partiality of the standard ; no one has any preference before the
other, and it is only their faithfulness in the employment of the
gifts which places them higher or lower. The parable of the
talents (Matt. xxv. 14, sqq.) illustrates at large the idea Xhiov
fjLiaOov \rjyfreTaL Kara rov tScov kottov, (see the explanation of the
passage). — In ver. 9. Oeov a-vvepyoiis not to be understood " la-
bourers with, with God," for he effects all (ver. 7.), but, "labourers,
who work with each other, for the things of God." — The expression
yecopytov refers to the earlier image, olKoho^mj to the new one of
the temple, (ver. 16.) as will sufficiently appear in what follows.
Vers. 10, 11. Leaving the subject of Apollos, Paul now
addresses the members of the Corinthian church collectively,
FIRST CORINTHIANS III. 8 — 11. 65
upon more enlarged views, (not the teachers alone among them,
although ver. 16, sqq. shows that he had them still before his
eyes), and declares how he was chosen of God, as master-builder,
to lay the foundation, that only may be laid, viz. Christ ; and
that every one had now to take heed how he builded upon this
foundation. The question here is, what the apostle intended by
the foundation, that as a wise master-builder he had laid,^ and_
which he designates the only one which may be laid ? " The
doctrine of Jesus, as the Christ V This doctrine may certainly
be the foundation of a theology, but not of a living church ; be-
lievers themselves are the temple of God (ver. 17.). Consequently
it is the living Christ himself who calls himself the corner-stone,
which the builders have rejected, but who nevertheless is appoint-
ed by God as the foundation to the whole building of God (see
Comm. on Matt. xxi. 42), and is therefore named 6 Keifievo^,
meaning, laid by God ; for which reason no one can lay any other
foundation without resisting him. But if this is the meaning,
how can Paul say : According to the grace given unto me I have
laid the foundation ? The apostle might so far say it, as Jesus
Christ, the foundation of the whole church upon earth, must de-
clare himself in his life-inspiring power at the rise of every indi-
vidual church, nay in every heart, if it would be sanctified. The
state of the great universal temple of God is thus repeated in
every church, in every heart ; everywhere must the living Christ
be the corner-stone, the new man, born in regeneration. With-
out the evidence of this inward life of Christ in man, it is not
possible to imagine either Christian or church, but where it
exists in even two or three, there is the germ of a church, (Matt,
xviii. 20.). This indwelling of Christ is, however, produced by
the word of preaching, declared through his messengers, and
therefore a continual activity in the church is necessary for this
purpose. Paul in this respect was able to say that he had laid
the foundation in Corinth, although it was indisputably God who
granted the success ; but it pleased God to work in Corinth by no
1 Eiickert endeavours, tliougli erroneously, to discover in the epithet '• wise" master-
builder a reference to the nature of Paul's spiritual labours. But the apostle calls him-
self so, because in the power of the Spirit he had preached the only true groundwork,
Christ; and had not desired, like the false teachers in Corinth, to weaken the power of
Christ by human knowledge.
e
66 FIRST CORINTHIANS III. 12, 13.
other than the apostle ; his mouth vas, as it were, the door of
grace by which the living strength had streamed towards the
Corinthians. According to this, it must he clear that, in saying
€KacrTo<i Be /3Xe7reTft>, 7rw9 eTToiKohojjbel, all the Christians in
Corinth are intended ; not the teachers alone have the Christ as the
foundation of the temple in them, but every one who will believe,
must have this groundwork ; it is not the teachers only who con-
struct the building upon the foundation already laid, but it is the
task of every individual believer to perfect the work.
Vers. 12, 13. The activity of the faittiful in continuing the
work upon the imperishable foundation may be exercised upon
imperishable materials, but it is also possible to be the reverse
of this, and both forms will nevertheless have the appearance of
laudable activity. The apostle comprehends both in his repre-
sentation, because according to the nature of the thing they are
connected ; they who work for others under a wrong impression
will never labour differently for themselves, since outward action
must ever flow from the impulse of the whole mental condition.
This is the reason for the authority which Paul gives the teachers
(whom he ever specially had in view) over believers, which was
so much the more necessary, because those who allowed them-
selves to be falsely persuaded were prevented by their perversion
from rightly discriminating between what was true and false; and
when we come to ver. 15 we shall perceive with certainty what
the apostle intended in the figurative expressions which contained
his idea. We shall therefore only now remark, that the single
words 'xpvabv, dpyvpov, XlOov; TifiLov;, and again ^uXa, ^(oprovy
KoXdfjbrjv, imply the materials necessary for costly and durable
buildings (see Isa. liv. 11 ; Rev. iii. 18), and that which is more
common and combustible, it being scarcely necessary to add that
they are not parallel, as if gold and straw could be equally used
in the same house, but that all three of the expressions are anti-
thetical, as if it were called, rj ^v\a, ^oprov, fcakdfjLTjv. The nature
of every man's work will certainly be known, continues Paul, for
with fire, the element of trial, shall the day of judgement declare
it. The fxiaOov Xirfy^erai and ^r^p^LwOrjaerai leave us no doubt
that rjp^epa is not to be received in the usual signification of
" time" or " light," in opposition to darkness, but that it refers
to the day of judgement, as the agent whereby every thing, and
FIRST CORINTHIANS HI. 14, 15. 67
being, in its true ttoiottj';, will be manifest. We must then only
supply rjfjbepa to aTTOKaXvirreTai, so that irvp is the element-iiv
which that decisive day shall reveal itself, in exact conformity
with2 Thess. i. 8 ; 2 Peter iii. 10 — 12. (The present airoKa-
Xvirrerat is quite conformable with the preceding future hrfSudxrei,
since it is a description of the nature of the day in itself, and
need not therefore to be understood as futurascens, as Billroth
asserts.
Vers. 14,15. The nature of the building is revealed by fire ; that
built with gold, silver, and precious stones stands (fjievei) the proof,
while that constructed with wood, hay, and stubble burns ; the one
produces advantage, the other injury. So far the image is sim-
ple and comprehensible, and doubtless the whole passage would
have far less occupied annotators if the obscure sentence avro^; Se
awOrjaerai, ovtco<; Se o)? Bia 7rvp6<; were wanting. Without these
words one would be able, according to the context, tovtov cfyOepel
6 ©€0^ (ver. 17), to refer ^yfjULcoOrjo-erat to condemnation, and
the fjbtaOov XrjyjreraL to everlasting happiness ; but the words av-
To? (T0)6r}(TeTai forbid this ; they manifestly distinguish the
builder from his building. No proof is necessary to refute the
supposition of the Fathers that acodrjaerat signified preservation
in fire, i.e. an everlasting torment in fire, which must be ex-
pressed by G-(o6rj(TeTai ev nrvpl} The question consequently
arises, of which of the capacities for building does the apostle
here speak, the result of which may perish yet the builder be
saved, i.e. beatified ? One might suppose that Paul spoke of the
teachers, and not of the individual working for salvation on the
part of each believer. Whoever builds up hay and stubble upon
the real foundation laid in his heart must perish ; although we
may suppose that a teacher would not from an evil intention
build falsely upon a good ground the work laid in the church, but
rather from misapprehension, and his work would then, to his
sorrow, perish, although he himself would be saved on account of
his faith. But it has already been shown (ver. 12) that all believ-
ers were included, and that the reference was not only to teachers
as such ; in fact the latter were only so far comprehended as they
were likewise believers. The following account of the temple of
1 This unreasonable explaimtiou of Theoplijiact. is grounded upon the form o-w^etci
l^vXov iv TTvpi, one wood is preserved in the fire something longer than another.
e2
68 FIRST CORINTHIANS III. 14, 15.
God shows that the teachers, together with them, belonged to the
one great universal temple, every violation of which Paul would
reprove in himself and others. We must therefore confess that
although Pauls argument first commenced with the teachers (ver.
5), it nevertheless gradually shaped itself so in its continuance
that it acquired an universal character, and that altogether the
reference to teachers, as well as learners, is in part simply a
current one. Under any circumstances, however, the preceding
reference to teachers could not be employed in the explanation
of the present passage ; for a teacher who could build what was
false upon a just groundwork for others, must, in order to be ca-
pable of this, have already fallen into the same error as regards
himself. But if this nevertheless will not prevent his salvation,
though the building in others is destroyed, he may also be saved,
if the false building in himself is destroyed by fire ; and what is
possible for him is practicable for all. Now, as this salvation is
the consequence of the true foundation, Jesus Christ, what is the
eTTOLKoho^elv ^uXa, ')(opTov, KoXd/jirjv V It has been erroneously
supposed that it was a life of crime and transgression of the law,
for the absolute rule of sin would again break up the foundation
itself and lead to desertion from Christ (see 1 Cor. v. 11.). Such
persons, in order to be saved, would need a new conversion, ie,
a new foundation of Christ in us. Others have supposed it was
the false doctrines, and, when these are corrupt in the funda-
mental dogmas, it is not inapplicable ; for gross and false doc-
trines are, as it were, intellectual vices, which, having their foun-
dation in the heart, destroy the groundwork of Gods building.
We may therefore say that to erect wood and stubble upon an
everlasting foundation, is indicative of a misplaced labour and
false working in the convert, because, being indiflferent and sloth-
ful in unsubstantial things, he does not proceed more strictly or
1 Jager (work already quoted, p. 6.) oousiders that tlie building thereon with wood,
hay, and stubble, does not intimate that which is erroneous, but only a less distinguish-
ed activity for the church ; the apostle imagines the building shall be constructed out
of precious and at the same time humbler materials (which is also the opinion of
Grotius) every one aiding it according to his power. But this does not agree well with
lije binning, whereby the destruction of this is intimated, nor in ver. 17, the £t xis
vaov (pdEipEi, which Jager without foundation refers to others than the builders with
wood upon the true foundation. The whole comparison is founded on this idea • upon
a beautiful firm foundation we do not raise a miserable edifice, hut, when Christ is
the corner-stone, the building must be continued with suitable muttfials.
FIRST CORINTHIANS III. 14, 15. 69
carefully in doctrine, but lays weight upon some things less essen-
tial to the practical life, the Charismata for example. (See on
xii. 14.). Such labour, whether for one's self or others, is ineffec-
tual ; if, however, the heart and the inward principle abide in the
Lord, the man himself may yet be saved although his work perish.
According to this, the important truth is to be found in this pas-
sage which the evangelical church has ever decidedly maintained,
that salvation is alone the condition of i}i% faith which is connected
with Christ as the foundation ; but the degree of salvation stands
in proportion to the degree of sanctification which the man attains ;
that is to say, that whosesoever work, together with the founda-
tion in him, shall stand the test in the day of the Lord, will
attain unto a higher reward than he who loses his labour and
is barely saved himself.^ According to this, the subject of this
passage cannot be,- as Scaliger, Grrotius, and others have sup-
posed, a hypothetical salvation, as if the sense of the words was,
i/he should be saved, it can only occur through fire ; on the con-
trary, salvation is assured and certain if the foundation remains,
and truly under these circumstances the path to salvation would
be a painful one, m ^ta 7rvp6<;. The &)?. alludes undeniably
to a figurative expression ; we have only to enquire what its sig-
nification may be. It might relate to that which was difficult, or
scarcely possible, in the act of saving, what in Jude 23 is called
ifc Tov 'TTvpo'; apTrd^etv, and in the analogous passage in Zach.
iii. 2, " to pluck one like a brand out of the fire." But it lies not
in the strain of the apostle's argumentation, that the saving is
hardly practicable ; he will rather maintain that salvation is cer-
tain, where the groundwork already laid abides. It would
therefore be better to lay the stress upon the pain which
would necessarily arise at the view of the destruction of the
building ; and as, according to the nature of the thing, there is
ever uncertainty as to the foundation being yet firm, the idea of
1 The objection, that none can be saved whopossess the consciousness that they have
not made the progress towards grace of which they were capable, proves too much, for
then none could be saved, since none have passed through life with a perfect fidelity,
and every imperfection obstructs the development of the inward life ; and as the degree
of salvation is conditional upon the inward susceptibility for the same, so does the excess
of joy that each experiences banish all saddening recollections arising out of the life
upon earth— the measure of the former being infinitely greater than that of the latter -
nevertheless every one shall receive into his bosom full and overflowing measure.
2
70 FIRST CORINTHIANS JII. 14, 15.
the uncertainty of being saved is included in the former idea. It
may here be asked, if in this conception the Catholic doctrine of ignis
purgatorius may not be found, to which Zoroaster (in theZendaves-
ta, Bundehesch, vol. iii. p. 113, 114, Kleuker's ed.)^ in his Duzath
has an analogy ? that purgatory being intended certainly for be-
lievers, not for unbelievers, who, as such, according to the Catho-
lic doctrine, are lost ; it purifies only the believers from the dross
which still adheres, in order to make them fit for the purity of
heaven. The Catholic dogmatisers were naturally desirous to
find in this passage a foundation for their doctrine of purgatory ;
but by a closer consideration of Paul's fundamental ideas, which
Ave must maintain to exist also in this passage, we shall perceive
that not the slightest similarity exists between the Catholic
theory of purgatory and the ideas mentioned, for it refers to the
cleansing from the dross of personal sin of believers not sanctified
here below ; but for purification from sin no other means exist
than Christ himself. In one passage the allusion is not to any
purifying of persons from sin, but the subject of it is, the test to
which their works, and their building must submit, and the works
which cannot stand in the day of judgement have their origin in
the old man of sin ; this however can never be purified by the day
of judgement and its trial. The apostle Paul never ceases to de-
clare that the original old man must die ; a gradual cleansing of
the same is as little possible as that an Ethiopian should change
his skin (Jer. xiii. 23.). The new man, on the contrary, requires
no purification, he is, as such, absolutely pure, he has the Blkui-
ocrvvT} Qeov : he may be said to exist in various grades of de-
velopment, but in each of these degrees he is, and remains, pure,
as born of God ; therefore throughout Paul cannot be speaking of
purification.^ The Pelagian Catholic view, however, does not
place the old and new man in this rugged opposition as the holy
writings do. According to them there is no new birth of the
1 Every soul, says Zoroaster, must pass through a sea of molten brass; to the holy,
this stream is like warm milk, but to the unholy very painful, consuming all the dross in
them.
2 Passages such as 2 Cor. vii. 1, must, agreeably to Paul's principles, be thus under-
stood : that the gradual extension of the new life which Christ kindles in men also brings
by degrees into view the purity of this principle. In this manner the old man gradually
dies, and the new man gradually becomes stronger; the individual identity, however, re-
mains the same, appearing as if the sinful creature were cleansed, while in fact the new
man dispossesses the old.
FIRST CORINTHIANS III. 16, 17. 71
sanctified creature of God, but the old purifies itself gradually ;
and they who do not proceed sufficiently far must atone for theit
neglect in the fire of purgatory for a longer or shorter period.
This accordingly appears a painful preparation for perfection, of
which the apostle makes no mention ; he speaks only of the re-
moval of the useless buildings.
Vers. 16, 17. The apostle here again reverts to the image of the
olkoSo/jlt] (ver. 9.) Semler says, not inapplicably, that the passage
may be understood hac comparatione commode usus sum. But
what has been said of the building (ver. 9) is heightened by the
consideration that this building is pointed out as God's temple.
The injury [cpdelpecv) of a building (by the addition of worthless
materials to it, ver. 12) is enhanced in guilt in proportion to the
dignity of the being who should inhabit the edifice; and inas-
much as the faithful constitute the living and holy temple of God
(1 Peter ii. 5), filled by the divine Spirit, any one who presumed
to degrade himself, or any other part of this temple, would sorely
commit himself. If the reference to teachers alone in this pas-
sage is maintained, the oIkcI ev v/jllv, o'iTi,ve<; iare vfieh must
mean the laity without the teachers, which is evidently not the
case. Paul addresses all teachers as well as learners, active and
passive members of the church, not speaking in his own person,
lest the power of the remonstrance should be weakened thereby,
although his own authority would stamp a value on it, for through
him God's Spirit spoke to the church. But the case of the indi-
vidual is precisely the same as with the entire temple of God.
What is addressed to the latter is also valid for the former. To
injure the temple of God stands parallel with building in wood
and stubble ; and it refers as much externally to mistaken labours
for others, as internally to the false working in and for one's self.
He who errs in one respect will not fail to do so in the other. In
ver. 17 is consequently to be found not only. They who as teachers
corrupt you, who are the temple of God, corrupt God also ; but
also, Whoever corrupts himself, building or permitting what is
false to be built upon the real foundation laid in his heart, cor-
rupts God, for to every one is the power given to oppose the
labours of others when based upon error. — In itself, as already
remarked, the <j)6epel tovtov 6 ©eo? is a strong expression,
but the context shows that it does not imply an absolute rejec-
72 FIRST CORINTHIANS III. 18 — 22.
tion. It is possible that the apostle only employed it because of
the preceding <f)6elpeL, in order to intimate that God requites
like with like.
Vers. 18 — 20. The apostle then returns to the warning against
human wisdom (see ii. 4 — 13) which so many, like wood and
stubble, have erected for themselves and others upon the sacred
foundation. Instead of the seeming wisdom, the apostle exhorts
them to choose the divine true wisdom ; because the wisdom of
the world, as foolishness before God, will be destroyed in the fire
of the divine judgement. (Had Paul, in ver, 18, spoken only of
teachers, he could not justly have written fiijSeU iavrbv i^a-
TraraTw : the warning is general, for all Corinthian Christians.
Concerning the form see Gal. vi. 7. — On cro(^o<^ ev to5 alo3VL tovtm,
and likewise /jucopo^, see i. 20, 21. — Ver. 19 is a quotation from
Job V. 13. The Hebrew words run Q^^^Vji D'^MH 1D*V'
which the LXX. translate 6 Kardkafifidvcov ao(j)ov<i ev ry ^po-
vrjcei. Paul seems to have intentionally passed over the strong
expression SpdcraeaOaL, i.e. grasp with the hand, and to have
chosen Travovpyla, in order to represent the misapplication
of wisdom to evil ends. — Ver. 20 is taken out of Psalm xciv.
11, and quoted literally according to the translation of the
LXX.)
Vers. 21 — 22. To this is again appended the exhortation not
to glory in men, (see i. 31), for all that men have and can
have is alone from the Lord. In ver. 21, according to what
follows, the eV dvOpcoiroLf;- h not to be understood as repre-
senting the heads glorying in the numerous followers, but con-
trariwise, the followers are to be understood as glorying in the
head, imagining themselves to acquire lustre from their pre-emi-
nence. For this reason Paul specifies Apollos and Peter, toge-
ther with himself, as those to whom the Corinthians especially
connect themselves, and openly expresses the opinion that they,
with all their privileges, belonged to them (the church). Indeed
the apostle goes further, and, passing beyond the things of this
world, adjudges all to them. It yet appears striking that Odvaro^
is used, as the sentence refers more especially to advantages ;
that it should be employed only to complete the antithesis is little
probable, it would be better to place ^wr) and iveajMra {= irdpov-
FIRST CORINTHIANS III. 18 — 22. 73
ra, 7rpoK€L/jL€va,B.om. viii. 38 ; 1 Cor. vii. 26 ; Gal. i. 4) and Odvaro^
and fjiiWovTa as parallels, so that death signifies all that follows a^
a consequence, future glorification likewise included ; for certainly
the death here spoken of is not intended to intimate spiritual
death, but rather the natural one, regarding it as a blessing, in-
asmuch as it conducts to Christ. The world here implies all
created things, and its external blessings, without an accessory-
notion of sinfulness, forming in some degree an antithesis to the
other objects named, which are things that represent inward
advantages. The idea is the same as that expressed in Mark x.
29, 30. The believer feels himself dependent on Christ alone,
and with him the Creator of all things, God himself — all things
created are his. Thus understood, iheiravTa vfxcov ea-rivis one of
the most singularly decided expressions employed by the apostle
in reminding his readers how abundantly Christ is the gnoynon
shadowed forth in the contents of the Gospel ;^ this explicitly
states the wondrous nature of the love poured into the hearts of
believers through the Spirit, by means of which man span^ the
world and partakes, with others, of all that is beautiful and excel-
lent therein, as if it were his own. This offers a complete con-
trast to all envyings and discord which give rise to isolation, as
well as to the disposition to view all blessings in others with in-
difference. The Gospel effects a genuine community of goods, free-
dom, and equality in a holy sense. It has been sufficiently shown
in the Introduction that it is an error to understand this passage
as praising the Christians, as Pott, Schott, and others imagine. In
the first place they are not mentioned, for the words vfieh he
XpKTTov cannot possibly refer to some of the Corinthian Christians,
but to all of them, precisely as the irdvra vfjucov ia-rcv includes all.
And further, the reason that only Peter, Paul, and Apollos are
specified, is to be found in the nature of the name belonging to
the fourth party ; and another reason that no express mention
is made of the Christianer, was owing to the form of the dis-
course, in which the name could not voluntarily be brought in
without appearance of constraint. It is true, Paul might have
1 This saying : " All is yours," is available for tbe church in all times. May it be heeded
now, iu tbe uewly awakened strife of creeds, and may the disputants never forgot that
every creed may possess a value which ought to be made available for the advantage of
the whole church I
74 FIRST CORINTHIANS IV. 1.
said, All that is Christ's is yours, or Christ himself is yours ; but
under no circumstances could he have placed Christ, through
whom all is, (Col. i. 16, sqq.), in the same category with Paul,
Peter, and Apollos, who only through him are what they are.
(The word Xpto-To?, which includes also the human nature, in the
person of the Lord (Matt. i. 1) proves, that the concluding words
of the chapter XpiaTo^ Be Seov contain no subordinate views fa-
vourable to the Trinity, and in reference to his manhood Scripture
everywhere expresses the dependence of the Son upon the Father.)
§ 4. HUMAN JUDGEMENT.
(iv. 1—21.)
Paul desires to be considered only as a servant of Clirist, the
universal Lord ; but for this very reason he refuses to permit
himself to be judged of his brethren, referring all to the future
judgement of Christ. (1 — 5.) Bringing forward Apollos and
himself as an example, the apostle exhorts the high-minded
among the Corinthians to humility, and, for this purpose exposes
to them a humiliating view of their despised apostolic life. (6 —
13.). He then assures them that these warnings proceed from his
paternal love for them, and that he intended shortly to come to
them, in order to punish the haughty if they refused to hear the
words of love (14 — 21.).
Ver. 1. The transition is by no means assisted by the formula
ovTO)^ r)/jLd<; \o<yL^6a6(o dvOpwrro^, co? k. t. \., nevertheless a very
strict connexion exists. After Paul had asserted (iij. 22) none
might glory in men, since they all stood in a common dependence
on Christ, he declares that he himself, in this same dependence,
will be recognised and received. But although he thus rejects
all appearance even of being over-estimated by his own party, on
the other side he refuses to submit to the judgement of his adver-
saries ; Christ is rather the judge of all, and, if declared faithful
by him, he is content. It is however certain that Paul did not
mean by this that an apostle was by no means to be judged of
men, for he himself commented upon the behaviour of Peter,
(Gal. ii.) ; still less is it to be supposed that all Christians
3
FIRST CORINTHIANS IV. 1. 75
without exception were intended, as if they were to be exempt
from all judgement, because they were Christians ; the meaning is
rather this : that every Christian, and in an especial sense the
teachers and apostles of the church, who, from their office, should
be able to exhibit the Christian character in its purity, shall, in
as far as they are truly Christians, not be judged, for they judge
all (1 Cor. vi. 2, 3.). But as in all believers, so long as they are
upon earth, a trace of their earthly nature remains, these not
only submit themselves to judgement, but even to punishment,
should the case require its faithful administration ; the Corin-
thians however judged the apostle labouring in the truth, with-
out being competent to the task of judging. The question now
arises, whether Paul indicates only the apostles, or all the teach-
ers in the church, or all believers without exception, as the vinj-
p€ra<i Xpiarov /cal oiKOvofjuovi /jivaTrjpicov Seov. The latter is
utterly improbable, because the Corinthians, to whom he wrote,
were certainly Christians, although he represents himself and Apol-
los (ver. 6.) as differing from them. Of the Christians especi-
ally this could only so far be said, as they were thought to oppose
the heathen world (or what is the same, that world which was
absolutely without impulse from the living element of Christ) to
whom every believer, being regenerate, must be opposed, as
stewards of God's mysteries, and of the whole church as a royal
priesthood (1 Pet. ii. 9.). In the church itself the words would sig-
nify teachers,^ but inasmuch as the external was not identical with
the true church, they can only refer to the office^ and not necessa-
rily to the^ersow invested with it. The notion too that the prero-
gative due only to the apostle is here intimated is assuredly false ;
for God has certainly not again taken back the mysteries from
his church siuce the apostolic times, and, if they still exist, the
1 This reference to teachers alone, found in iv. 1, sqq., in connexion with the para-
graph iii. 5 — 9, aflfords some colour for the opinion, that what occurs between these pass-
ages is also referable to the same, as decidedly maintained by Riickert. But I think I
have plainly shown, in the observations on vers. 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, that the paragraph iii
10—22 must be regarded as an extension of the preceding subject. From the teachers
only Paul passes over to all Christians, who collectively are called to build on the ground-
work laid for them, and to whom, in all important points, what has been said of the
instructors is applicable. Nevertheless the apostle has always the latter pre eminently
in view, and they are again mentioned alone in iv. 1, In iv. 6. the intention is ex-
pressed of speaking of and to all in the names of Paul and of Apollos.
76 FIRST CORINTHIANS IV. 2, 3.
heads of the church (according to the intention of their holy
office) must be their stewards. Thus much is however clear, that
this passage can only be understood by the admission that Paul
wished for the acknowledgment of an appointed ministerial state,
and does not recommend o^ democratic equality of all. Whilst
the expression vTrrjperat' Xpcarov ( = BovXol Xpicrrov) warns
them against making the servants equal to the Lord, on the
other hand the second name olKovofiot fMvarTjployv Oeov exalts the
greatness of the office of the Christian ministry ; and here evi-
dently the fMVo-TrjpLa (to which Paul sometimes adds evdyyeXiov,
7rio-Teft)9, Xptarov, or Oeov, see Eph. vi. 19; 1 Tim. iii. 9; Col. ii.
2, iv. 3.) is to be viewed as a treasure to be administered, whiclj,
according to Matt. xiii. 52, is entrusted to the church. In this
treasure, teaching, with its fullness of mysteries, is naturally to be
included, but not less so the sacraments, and all utterance of the
powers of the Holy Spirit, which only flow within the church, and
ought only to be distributed by the appointed servants of the same,
in their capacity of instructors. For the preaching of the word,
and the administration of the sacraments, Paul regarded himself,
and also the teachers generally, as responsible servants, but did not
consider that every one indiscriminately should teach (Jam. iii. 1.)
or distribute the sacraments. (Oi/t&)9 is not to be referred to the
foregoing, as if it were, ." so let every one then esteem us," but
to the &)9 which follows, so that it is equivalent to tolovtov^. —
''Av6pQ)7ro<i, according to the Hebrew Q*f^ stands for 6Ka(TTo<^.
See ISam. viii. 22; Prov. xiv. 12; 1 Cor. viT 18, vii. 1; Gal.i. 12.)
Vers. 2, 3. The apostle here as it were discontinues the sub-
ject, neither stating the position of the teachers in the church
nor what treasures were confided to their care. The further argu-
ment with reference to the idea of a steward merely asserts the
fact, that substantially he could not be made responsible for the
things entrusted to him as steward ; he was accountable but to
one, his Lord, who alone was capable of judging of the fidelity of
his stewards. In ver. 3 they are reminded that the Lord is at
the same time omniscient and omnipotent, and that therefore
human judgement is of small account. (Ver. 2. Billroth justly ex-
plains the o Se XoLTTov as an ellipsis of o Se Xocttov ianv, eVrt
TovTo. Heidenreich conceives the signification of Xglttov, agree-
ably to the Hebrew -j;-\*^, to be '' most especially ;" but in the pass-
FIRST CORINTHIANS IV. 4. . 77
ages quoted by him, 1 Cor. vii. 29, 2 Cor. xiii. 11, Ephes. vi. 10,
XoLTTov simply means " ceterum.'^ The reading wSe Xotirov in_
A.D. has originated solely from the difficulty existing in the
usual text. — The ^yTelrat iv is best expressed by "it is ex-
pected in stewards," not " among stewards it is expected, i.e.
stewards expect." The \^7)Telv expresses in this place the in-
quiring activity of the Kpiveiv. The reading ^rjrelTe must yield
both to external and internal evidence ; ^yTelrao is defended by
A.B.D.F.G.— If in Iva of vers. 2 and 3, as Winer and Billroth
seek to prove, the main reference is not entirely subordinate, we
cannot deny that the particle is employed in a weakened signifi-
cation. The infinitive construction would have undoubtedly ap-
proached nearer to the pur^ Greek form, which is supported by
Rlickert. — In ver. 3 ek ekd-^LorTov, according to the Heb ^^^7
Job XV. 11, Isa. vii* 13, Hag. i. 9. [See Winer's Gr. p. 170"].~
'H/jbipa = Q-^^i is the judgement-day. With the idea of what is
human is connected that of existing liability to error^ but every
judgement of man is not necessarily human ; the apostles had the
power to judge as God, so that, what they bound and loosed on
earth was also bound or loosed in heaven. See on Job. xx. 23 ).
Ver. 4. With reference to his personal position, the humble-
minded apostle does not trust in the least degree to his own opi-
nion of himself, but leaves all judgement to his Lord. In order
however not to allow his Corinthian antagonists room for the
supposition that he possessed no good conscience, he adds to this
that at all events he had a good conscience, although he was not
justified thereby ; meaning, that his conscience was not yet suffi-
ciently accurate to discover the depths of his own soul, and that
the eye of the Omniscient might be capable of discerning what
was deserving of reproof in him, although he himself might be un-
conscious of it. Billroth thinks erroneously that in the words ovfc
iv TovTcp SeBcKaicj/jbaL exists a reference to justification by faith,
as if the sense were, " If I am pure, yet am I not justified by
means of this purity, but only through faith in the expiation of
Christ ;" but this is not properly the subject here. Of universal
remission of sins, and his state of grace, Paul was perfectly cer-
tain, and he is rather speaking of the state of sanctification.
How far this may have progressed is unknown even to the rege-
nerate, and in this respect he remains also uncertain what the
78
everlasting Judge may discover to condemn in him, how much of
his labour will prove to be only perishable wood and stubble.
AiKaiovadai therefore signifies " perfectly holy, to be righteous,
and acknowledged as such." The latter exists in the perfect
form, otherwise only BUaLo^ el/jbi would be used. Chrysostom has
already quite correctly expounded the passage. (The yap does
not refer alone to the ovBev i/navrw crvvoiha, but to the whole
phrase as far as SeBtKalco/jLai, which affords the ground for the
ovBe ifiavTov avaKplvoa) .
Ver. 5. The apostle ultimately sets aside rash human judge-
ment, by the assertion of the coming of the Lord, enjoining every
one to prepare himself for the judgement of that day in which no
deception would be possible, instead of engaging in matters for
which he had no calling. The apostle then glightly mentions the
praise that Jesus will award, and with this the idea naturally
connects itself that his justice will as certainly deal punishment
on those whom he cannot commend ; it is therefore clearly erro-
neous to understand eTrati/o? as vooc media, or indicating reproof
or praise indifferently. (Billroth asserts that there is nothing in
the words fjur) irpo Katpov Kplvere to imply that hereafter they
shall judge. But this may certainly be concluded from vi. 2, 3 ;
and see further on this subject the Comm. on Matt vii. 1. — In
the 0-/COT09 the idea of what is evil does not exist, but only of
what is concealed. See concerning the ra icpvirrd Rom. ii. \Q,
where the same idea is found. Christ is considered as the ^w?
(see John i. 4) who in the judgement-day, enlightening the most
inward recesses of the soul, will make manifest to men, both in
good and evil things, the origin and cause of their endeavours
and aspirations, which is frequently concealed even from them-
selves here below. See Comm. Matt, xxv. 37, sqq.).
Ver. 6. How closely Paul considered himself connected with
Apollos is especially shown by this passage. He does not refrain
from speaking of him precisely as of himself; and the manner in
which the subject is continued from ver. 9, though apparently
only referring to Paul, nevertheless admits perfectly of Apollos
being included ; and that Paul did not avoid this inference is
sufficiently corroborative of the degree of confidence which existed
between them. The apostle now proceeds again to address his
Corinthian readers without distinction, save that, as is shewn by
FIRST CORINTHIANS IV. 7. 79
what follows, he had his antagonists and their heads especially in
view. To these he points out that all the previous arguments^
which he had addressed with reference to himself apd to ApoUos
were intended for their instruction, and to abate their pride with
respect to themselves. This has been evidently the object from
iij. 5, and to this therefore the ravra applies. (Meraaxn-
/jLaTL^Q) signifies first to change the form, then generally to change,
as in Phil. iii. 21. From thence — eaOat, to change oneself, i.e. to
assume another form, is in 2 Cor. xi. 13, 14, 15. In the con-
struction TL ek Tivd nothing further presents itself; but this
combination is evidently to be understood as transferring some-
thing to somebody, or bestowing something upon another. This
clearly intimates that Paul was not treating of teachers only, in
what precedes, and only chose this form of representation as
being more indulgent to the parties. — Concerning the fxr^ virep
(ppovecv, see Rom. xii. 3, Phil, ii 2. — The o yeypaTrrai is best
referred to scriptural passages, as Deut. xvii. 20. Lachmann
prefers the reading a jeypaTrraL according to A. B.C., which does
not contain a reference to the previous subject, for which Trpoe-
ypa-^a would be employed, but to a passage in the Old Testament.
But, under all circumstances, according to A.B.E.F.G. (ppovelv is
to be omitted, though justly supplied in order to secure the con-
nexion. In the eh v'^ep rod ev6<; an excess of presumption is
signified, wherewith naturally a Kara rov erepovehaiis connected.
— ^vcrwa), really to swell up, from (j^vadco, to swell by blowing;
cj^vatovadai, to puff" oneself up, i.e. to be conceited. This expres-
sion is often found in these Epistles, see iv. 18, 19, v. 2, viii. 1,
xiii. 4, and again in Col. ii. 18. — The construction of the tva with
the indicative, as occurs again in Gal. iv. 17, is important.
Fritzsche takes it in the broad meaning, but against this is the
fact, that it does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament in
this signification, and likewise that such an explanation would not
suit either passage. The easiest supposition would be that of a
solecism ; the form (\>vaL0)(76e might be less familiar to the apostle.
Ver. 7. Paul proves the foolishness of such arrogance by re-
calling to their remembrance the disposition which must form
the groundwork of a true Christian life, the consciousness of the
worthlessness of all that was their own. The sentence tl he e;^ei9,
o ovK eka^e^ does not include simply all external and internal
80 FIRST CORINTHIANS lA'. 8.
good or qualities, but all the Christian gifts : faith, love, truth, all
is not of man, but of God in man. Augustine employs the pas-
sage upon innumerable occasions in his writings. See e.g, De
Spiv, et Liu., c. 9. (In the rt? ScaKpLvet; who distinguishes thee,
who acknowledges higher (qualities in thee 1 is naturally included
the negative reply. No one. Christians should all be brethren, and
have all in common (iii. 22.). The discourse would then advance
thus : Even if thou possessed in thyself so much that is valuable,
what hast thou that thou didst not receive ? This, however, the
apostle draws together and says, rl Be e^et? fc. r. X. The eXaySe?
is not applicable to the apostles, who are only the instruments of
the divine working, but to God alone.)
Ver. 8. Paul ironically reprehends this want of Christian
humility ; the wish for abundance and riches is too often (Matt.
V. 3 — 6 ; Eev. iij. 17.) the sign of spiritual deadness, of a lack
of earnest desire for better things ; and where this desire is
wanting, proud thoughts find an easy entrance into the human
mind. The aorist form i^ao-iXevaare compels us to receive the
verb in the signification of " to attain unto dominion ;" but it
is important to observe that Paul does not equally reprove the
^aaCkeveLv for the same reason, but only because they rule %ft)/3t9
r]ijb03v, i.e. (not as Rtickert supposes, " without our consent,
without our co-operation," but) " excluding us ;" indeed, he ap-
pears in the 6(j)eX6v ye e^aaiKevo-are expressly to approve of
their ruling over, as he adds : iva /cat rj/juel^; vjulIv ov/jL^aaiXev-
acofjuev, and this is to be explained by the Christian intention of
the ^aaiXevecv. The Christian must govern and desire to go-
vern, because there is in him a higher spirit than that which
obtains in the world, and this makes him equal to all things
appointed to him, thereby he rules. The Corinthians, who in
some degree counteracted the labours of the apostle, were not
willing to consider any other spirit than their own as the ap-
pointed one ; and had it been the spirit in all purity, there had
been nothing to admonish them of; but it was an exclusive, illi-
beral, criticising disposition, i.e. they wished to govern without
the brethren, neither would they allow the clear Spirit of God to
take eff'ect in all the forms of his revelation, but only their pre-
judiced conception thereof should have any value. They were there-
fore not rulers, kings in the kingdom of God (Rev. xx. 4), but slaves
FIRST CORINTHIANS IV. 9. 81
of their self-will and of sin. (Rev. xx. 4.). With this idea another
likewise mingles itself, viz. that although the spirit already exer-
cised a certain influence, the time of its true dominion was yet
far distant, and the Corinthians were anticipating a sway that in
the fullest sense of the words was to belong to the next world.
For this reason Paul enters upon the following description of his
sufferings. ("OcpeXov je ~ eWe is also found in 2 Cor. xi. 1 ;
Gal. V. 12 ; Eev. iii. 15. The LXX. use it for ^^ or ^hn^-
See Winer's Gr. p. 277.).
Ver. 9. The revelation of God's kingdom, in which the be-
lievers reign, has not yet taken place, continues the apostle
with bitter irony, for we have yet daily to suffer ; the light-
minded Corinthians, on the contrary, believe all to be ready. It
has already been remarked on ver. 6 that the subject here refers
especially to Paul, for of himself alone could he becomingly use
the expression ia^f^rov^;, and ver. 12 points alone at him. It is
true there is something striking in the use of the plural diroo-To-
Xoi;?, if this passage has reference to Paul alone ; but we sig-
nified before, on ver. 6, how this plural was to be explained by
the peculiar intimacy which existed between ApoUos and himself,
in consequence of which Paul employed words which in strict
sense could only be said of him, but which admitted the possibi-
lity of application to his friend. (Kiickert correctly remarks that
tlie choice of the word Bokw is ironical : " I presume the matter is
thus, ye precede, we follow." — In the ecrxdrov^ lies the idea not
only of being last summoned, but also of something subservient,
infimae sortis ; just as eiriOavuTLo^ is employed in speaking of
gladiators, and such men who, as worthless, were given a prey to
death. Indeed the whole passage presents strong evidence of
the gladiatorial show having occurred to the apostle's mind while
writing it. In this the combatants were led before [avreSetfe]
the assembled beholders, in whose presence they afterwards
fought. {^Qearpov implies not only the place, but also the object
of exhibition, otherwise Oea^ia would be employed.] In the de-
scription of his lowliness, nevertheless, a powerful feeling of the
greatness that arises from his office is mingled. As the Lord
himself, leaving heaven, and driven out from earth, hung there
on the cross between heaven and earth, a touching spectacle to
some, and one productive of malicious joy to others, so likewise
/
82 FIRST CORINTHIANS IV. 10 — 13.
are his own in the world [1 John iv. 17.] a spectacle to the uni-
Yerse [/coo-yt^o?] and its inhabitants, as well heavenly as earthly.
Angels and men indicate neither the good nor the bad only, but
both together. The sight of Christ suffering in his own person
awakens both good and bad, among angels and men, according to
the measure of their different feelings. The following descrip-
tion then proves nothing less than that the Corinthians were
wanting in the evident signs *of true believers ; for Paul by this
recital does not intend to express his dissatisfaction with his lot,
but rather to exhibit his resemblance to his suffering Lord.)
Ver. 10. The expressions fjLcopol, aaOeveh, aTC/jLoi indicate the
character of the true believer in his connexion with the world ;
(fypovLjjLOi, l(7')(vpol, evSo^oL that of the apparent Christian. But
we must enquire how the eV XpLarA is to be understood, which
is as applicable to all the latter expressions as hia Xpiarov is to
the former : certainly it expresses a true prudence, power, and
glory in Christ, which the apostle possessed ; but according to
the whole context, he cannot recognise them in the Corinthians
who opposed him. The idea can therefore only be ironically
understood, '' Ye commend yourselves as prudent, strong, wise in
Christ, without being really so ; be as I am, (iv. 16, xi. 1.) then
only will ye gain all this truly, of which ye now possess but the
shadow." The explanation of the ev XptaTw, which Grotius pro-
poses, viz. in ecclesia Christiana, as Chrysostom has already
expounded ev irpdj/jLao-i, Xpiarov, must be rejected as untenable;
for all that the Corinthians did in, and with reference to, the
church was naturally as Christians.
Vers. 11 — 13. Paul now enters, by means of a striking pic-
ture, upon a description of his earthly distresses, (see 1 Cor. xv.
8, 9), and remarks twice, at the beginning, and also at the con-
clusion of the representation, that his circumstances were still
the same, (eoj? dpri, axpi' tj)? apri a)pa<;, viz. from his own conver-
sion, which took place so long since, and which contrasted so
greatly with that of the Corinthians which had occurred more
recently), it would therefore be wrong to act as if the kingdom of
God had already come unto them. (In ver. 11 by the word 'yvfivr)-
revco, which only occurs here throughout the New Testament,
mean or shabby clothing is to be understood. — KoXacpi^eaOat, see
Matt. xxvi. 67, stands here for ill-treatment of every sort. — 'Aara-
FIRST CORINTHIANS IV. 14 — 16. 83
T€w, to have no certain place of abode, not to have where he
could lay his head. The parallel with Christ is obvious through-
out. The word is not again to be found in the New Testament. —
In ver. 12, concerning the labouring with his own hands, comp.
ix. 6 sqq., and also Acts xviii. 3, xx. 34 ; the mention of it in this
place is striking, as it was something self-imposed, and conse-
quently no real suflPering for Paul. But insofar as he believed
himself compelled to exercise it on account of his office, he was
able to enumerate it among the sufferings endured for Christ's
sake. The sentence XotBopov/xevoL evXoyov/jLev k.tX. presupposes
an acquaintance with our Saviour's injunctions. [Matt. v. 44.] —
In ver. 13, irepiKdOapfjua [the more usual form is Kadapfia, whence
the origin of the reading a^a-iTepel Kaddpfiara] signifies first a
sweeping out that which is rejected or removed as such purifica-
tions, purgamentum ; and then, such persons as at the time of
any common calamity, the plague for example, were put to death
by way of expiation for the public good. [See the Scholiast in
Aristophanes, Pint. v. 454,^ Equit, v. 353. Curt. viii. 5. x. 2.].
The latter calls them pur g amenta ; irepi'^'qfia is also similarly
used, which really means [from '>\rdw to shave] something worn
out and thrown away as useless. The true Kadap/ia for the world
is none other than Jesus ; does Paul then only figuratively call
himself so, or does he also ascribe power to his sufferings 1 There
can be no doubt that we must receive the latter supposition. But
hoAV is this reconcileable, or how can it be made to agree with
the all-sufficiency of Christ's sufferings 1 The replies to these
difficult questions we shall defer until we come to the considera-
tion of Col. i. 24.)
Vers. 14 — 16. After these serious reproaches the apostle re-
turns again to his purpose, and assumes a milder form of reproof.
He reminds his readers of the peculiar position in which they
were placed with regard to him, he alone being their spiritual
father, which conferred upon him an undoubted right thus ear-
nestly to admonish them, (Ver. 14. evrpeTro), to cause any one
to turn the face away, i.e. to make ashamed. Concerning the me-
dium, see Luke xviii. 2, For the ov, under the head " Participles,"
in Winer's Gr. 449 sqq. — In ver. 15, the Trarr/p and TracBajcoybfi
1 The words runs thus : Ka^rdpfxaTu iKiyovro o) iirl Ka^apati Xoifxov Ttvov fj Tti/os
sripai voaov SrvofiEvoi toIs 3'eoIs.
/2
84 FIRST CORINTHIANS IV. 17 — 21.
iv Xpc(TTa) relate to each other, as the <pvT6V6Lv and iroTi^eiv, see
iii. 6. — The Gospel is to he considered the creative power, wherehy
the new birth is effected. — In ver. 16, the position of father
confers a right and title to exact obedience to the command
which the apostle lays down, viz. that they should be his followers ;
the addition Ka0(b<i iyo) XpLarov originated no doubt from such as
were scrupulous in allowing an apostle to say that individuals
should follow his example. It was adopted from the parallel
passage xi. 1, and is therefore, according to the authority of the
MSS., an interpolation in this place. It will, however, readily
be perceived that Paul's command to all to follow him was to be
understood, not of himself, but of Christ living in him. Gal. ii. 20.)
Vers. 17, 18. In order to lead the Corinthians in the right way,
Paul continued, that he had sent Timotheus to them, who was
perfectly acquainted with his manner of proceeding and his doc-
trine, (Acts xix, 22) ; but that the blindness and conceit of some
of those in Corinth had led them to imagine that he himself dared
not to come to them. (Paul could not have long sent Timotheus,
whom Erastus accompanied at the time he wrote this epistle, for
according to xvi. 10, he was expecting his arrival there. — The
T6KV0V fjiov refers to the conversion of Timotheus by Paul. In
2 Tim. i. 1, Paul calls him "beloved son;" 1 Tim. i. 1, 'ireal
or own son." The predicate Trto-ro? is not to be translated " be-
lieving ;" the belief of Timotheus is not disputed, but " faithful"
and true in the Lord, i.e. in and through fellowship with him. —
In dvafivijaei is slightly implied that the Corinthians could also
have easily known the way of truth if they had faithfully observed
his words. The KaOoi^ iTavTa')(ov iv irdo-rj eKKXTjala SiSda-zcco al-
ludes clearly to a certain forin of teaching which Paul observed in
his apostolic operations, and from which other teachers of the
church had departed. — Ver. 18. In the co? firj ipj(op.ivov is to be
found the pregnant meaning according to the opinion of the puffed-
up Corinthians, " as if I dared not come." See 2 Cor. x. 1 0, 11.).
Vers. 19 — 21. Although he had sent Timotheus beforehand, he
only awaited a sign from God in order to follow also, and then he
would see whether a spiritual power, corresponding to their high
pretensions, would be displayed by his adversaries ; this being
ever manifest where the ruling power of God was really present.
Whether his appearance among them would be marked by severity
FIRST CORINTHIANS IV. 17, 18. 85
or mildness depended upon the posture they assumed at his com-
ing ; and when one considers that the apostle wrote these words
as a poor tentmaker, without the slightest earthly power to lend
fprce to his words, we can but wonder at his boldness. But the
consciousness of the divine work which he was labouring to ful-
fil, elevated him far beyond earthly circumstances, and enabled
him successfully to attack difficulties that were apparently invin-
cible. {Ao'yo^ and Svvafii^ form an antithesis, as do /ii6p4)(oai<i
and Svva/jLt,^ in 2 Tim. iii. 5. It signifies here an exhibition of
vain presumption, completely at variance with true inward power.
— The kingdom of God implies here, as it usually does in the lan-
guage of Paul, the living fellowship excited in the soul of which
Jesus was the author, but manifested in the nature of those be-
longing to it. [See Luke xvii. 21, Rom. xiv. 3 7.] — .In ver. 21,
pa^Bo^ is a symbol of the irathevTLKY] ivep^eia, as Theodorete
justly observes. See 2 Cor. xiii. 10. — The eV in the form iv
pd^Bcp eXOco is to be explained by its analogy to the Heb. ^. —
Concerning irvev^ia irpavTTjTO^ see Gal. vi. 1. The Codd. A.B.
read here, as in Gal. vi. 1, 7rpa6Tr)TO<;, which however Lach-
mann has not adopted in the present passage, as has been erro-
neously stated by Ruckert.)
( 87 )
II.
PART SECOND.
(v. 1— xi. 1.)
§ 5. OF INCESTUOUS PERSONS.
(V. 1-13.)
Vers. 1, 2. With a glance at the presumption of some of the
Corinthian Christians, Paul mentions, with a view to their humi-
liation, the fact that a member of their church lived in illicit in-
tercourse with his stepmother. It is undoubted that in the most
exalted and best constituted community, an individual may fall
into gross error ; but then it is requisite that the said body
should decidedly exhibit its displeasure against the offending
member. This, however, was not the case in Corinth ; the uni-
versal moral sluggishness displayed itself in the manner in which
this occurrence was viewed, for they still tolerated the sinner in
their community, and thus gave evidence that they were not sen-
sible of the enormity of his offence. Paul therefore justly re-
proves the church, not as a number of separate individuals, but
in one, all, as a living united body, and, together with directions
for the excommunication of the offender, delivers a serious rebuke
to the whole church. ("OXo)? can only mean "altogether, gene-
rally," as in vi. 7. The general idea of unlawful desire, expressed
here by iropvela, was more applicable then to the koX roLavri]
than to a form of this sin of rare occurrence even among heathens.
The reason of its standing first is to be found in what precedes.^
Paul had said : Shall I appear among you as a severe father, or in
the spirit of meekness 1 He continues : How can I act otherwise
1 In order to make this observed, Laclimann places tlie stop at Swdfiei, and connects
iv. 21 immediately to v. 1.
88 FIRST CORINTHIANS V. 1, 2.
than severely, when fornication commonly prevails among you,
and in such a form as the present one 1 Billroth's observatio;i
upon this, " that textually these remarks are unsupported, for,
according to unvarying custom, koI TOiavrr] implies nothing diffe-
rent to that before-mentioned, but merely gives a closer definition
of it," I cannot understand, as the subject here is certainly the
same ofi^ence, only more precisely stated. Calvin considers that
oXft)? refers to the certainty of the report ; but Riickert would con-
nect it with that which precedes, so that oX&)9 = yovv would stand
in the signification of certe quidem ; but in neither acceptation is
it clear. The only explanation of this difficult passage, which it
appears to me can be textually maintained, referring to what has
been already mentioned, is that oXw? should be received in the
sense of, I briefly say. (See Passow, in his Lex. concerning this
word. Then the connection would run thus : Shall I come unto
you with the rod or in love ? the former will, alas ! be certainly
requisite, or, I must alas ! enquire into things, for, let me briefly
add, we hear of fornication among you. — The expression 77 ^vvt)
Tov Trarpo^ certainly indicates the stepmother, as ^b^ ntl^b^* ^^^'
xxxvii. 2 ; Lev. xvii. 7, 8.~"E%6tz^, like habere [Suet. Aug. c.
63. Cic. ad div. ix. 26.] denotes euphemistically the intercourse of
the sexes. — In ver. 2 irevOelv is in some degree opposed to ^vai-
ovaOai, as it expresses the pain of penance, which of necessity ex-
cludes presumption. The sincere believer not only exercises a
painful repentance for his own sins, but in brotherly sympathy
also for those of others. The spirit of Christ enlarges confined
individual feeling and consciousness, causing it to extend itself
universally. — For apOfj etc /juecrov, the text. rec. has 6^ap6fj, but
the Codd. have decided for the simplex. The i^apOfj is possibly
taken up from ver. 13. The phrase alpeiv etc fiiaov can in this
place only signify exclusion from ecclesiastical communion. The
form really means " remove, i.e. kill," but the exclusion is to be
understood as a spiritual death, [see Lev. xviii. 29, xx. 11 ;
Deut. xvii, 7, 12, xix. 15, xxi. 21] as lopping off a member from
the body of Christ. The expression has its origin, without doubt,
in the passages of Deut. quoted, in which the crime here called
to account by the form ^ipyn ll?5i (in^T^i ^^ punished with
death. The temporal extirpation has been employed by the
apostle in a spiritual sense. See the observations on ver. 5.).
FIRST CORINTHIANS V. 3, 4. 89
Ver. 3, 4. This indifference and deadness on the part of the
Corinthians cognisant of the affair Paul contrasts with his spiri^
tual participation in the occurrences of their church, although
. absent in body, and, on this occasion, with the serious displea-
sure excited in his mind towards the immoral offenders, upon
whom he said he had immediately pronounced a decided judge-
ment, which they were yet to expect. By this resolution the
apostle aroused the idea in his readers that they, it was true,
stood outwardly in connexion with him, but were essentially
further removed than many who bore the appearance of being far
behind them in zeal. (Lachmann omits the first co? that stands
before airwv, and it certainly appears unseasonable, besides wliich
it is wanting in A.B.C.D. and in many other authorities.- — Xo)^ai
and TTvevfia stand here, as in Rom. viii. 10, 13. and EpU. iv. 4^
only to designate the inward and outward state. — The. neicpifca
does not imply that the apostle wishes his opinion to be<,*ifcoii^-
dered as a command, for that is contradicted by the succeeding
(7vva')(OevT03v vficov, but the expression is to be understood thus :
" I have already mentally determined, and have not for one mo-
ment wavered in the decision." — In ver. 4 the. ovrco may infer
that the act was accompanied by aggravating circumstances, but
the most simple way would be to refer it to the fact that the man
had committed the incest as a member of a Christian body. It
may likewise mean, " under these circumstances." — The eV roS
ovofiaTL K. T. X. is to be connected with avva')(OevTa>v k. t. X..,
but, on the contrary, avv rfj Svvdfiet k. t. X. with irapaSovvat.
The mention of power agrees better with the declaration of the
sentence, to which it gives impressiveness. The setting forth
the name of Christ suits better the gathering together, indicating
likewise the Spirit, in whom those assembled are or should be.
The words have an evident reference to Matt, xviii. 20, " Where
two or three are gathered together in my nam^, there am I in the
midst of them." But Paul speaks of this assembly, at which he
professes to be present in spirit, in order to indicate to them in
a delicate manner how they ought to conduct themselves in the
matter ; in the name, i e. in the mind and spirit of Christ, and,
at the same time, in obedience to his commands [Matt, xviii. 18,
John XX. 23,] they must assemble themselves together and re-
move the offender from among them. Besides this, the passage
90 FIRST CORINTHIANS V. 5.
may be classed among those in the New Testament in which there
exists a reference to all the members of the church upon a demo-
cratic equality, for it is exceedingly improbable that in the avv-
a')(BevT(ji)v vfM&v the question is only of presbyters and rulers
of the church.
Ver. 5. Here follows then what may be deemed an interpre-
tation of the passage in yer. 2, atpeiv gk /jbeaov. Paul desires
that they shall irapahovvaL to5 crarava the sinner, and indeed
eh oXeOpov Trj<i aapKo^^ %va to Trvevfia acodfj. It is of course to
be understood that any conclusions are censured which deny the
existence of Satan,i this being acknowledged by Paul and all the
writers of the New Testament. A form of excommunication
only, irapahovvac tw aarava cannot therefore be considered.^
But the form may certainly thus far indicate the exclusion from
the religious community, as it may signify a true separation from
the blessed participation in light, and a giving up to the unholy
principle of darkness. Christ exercises a twofold power; first, in at-
tracting those of a congenial mind ; secondly in rejecting those who
differ. But the addition eh okeOpov Tri<^ aapKo^, iva to Trvevfia
arwSfj, renders a closer definition of the form irapahovvai tm aa-
Tava necessary ; and, if it is not to be found, it will then be easy
to refer it to the total destruction of the man, eyen to the irvevfia.
Not that this is Paul's desire, which is rather that the flesh
may be deliyered a prey to Satan in order that the spirit may
thereby be saved. As the acoTTjpla is transferred to the last
judgement-day, the 6\edpo<i must be considered as temporal ruin,
and the irvevixa only received as antithetical to adp^, to convey
the true idea to the mind, the eaca avOpwiro^, in opposition to the
efftj dvOpcoTTo^. [See Eom. vii. 22.] But adp^ must not be re-
ceived in so limited a sense as to suppose only bodily sufferings
and diseases ; loss of worldly goods and relations, and all exter-
nal sorrows are to be included, as well as more especially the
painful consciousness of being cast out of the community of faith
and love, and the earnest desire of being again accepted. The
really difficult question is now this : how can Paul require any
1 As Grafe in three Konigsberg Festprogramme of 1799, 1800, and 1806, By Sntan
he understood a human accuser before the tribunal.
2 The reference to the tliree descriptions of Jewish excommunication I'lis (for thirty
days),n'^h (for ninety days), and sr>^tB (for ever;, required no interpretation in order to
understand the passage.
FIRST CORINTHIANS V. 5. 91
one to be given over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,
that the soul may thereby be saved, as this does not seem to
depend upon the excommunicating church, but upon the person
excommunicated and Satan ? If the person excluded does not
obey the admonition, he may be ruined in soul, and what should
restrain Satan from attacking only his body, and not his soul
likewise ? The first of these two points is, however, not so diffi-
cult, for it manifestly is. not to be found in the ha to irvev/xa
a-coOrj, that he must be saved, but only that he may, in fact that
the possibility of salvation shall be left to himself. But then,
indeed, the difficulty of the second is all the greater, for the
whole context sanctions the supposition that the act of exclusion
facilitates the saving of the soul. The body of the sinner shall
be given over to the destruction of Satan, that thereby, where it
is to be effected, his soul may be saved, which otherwise were
certainly lost. But it seems that the making the saving of the
soul to depend on Satan, would in all respects add to the diffi-
culty,^ first, by withdrawing the means of grace from the church,
and the power of the Holy Spirit ; and then by enhancing the
temptation proceeding from the element of darkness, to which he
was already sufficiently exposed within the protecting limits of
the church. If irapahovvai rm aaravd only were employed, we
must then suppose, as has been already observed, that the of-
fender should be entirely given up, as one that had sinned
against the Holy Ghost ; but by the addition, the punishment
rather appears the means of salvation, for which reason Paul in
2 Cor. ii. 6, himself proposes his re-admission, as the sinner had
suffered punishment. In the parallel passage, 1 Tim. i. 20, it is
also called 01)9 TrapeBcoKa rS aarava, iva iraihevOSiai fxr) ^Xaacprj-
jxelv, consequently the delivering over to Satan has also in this
place a pedagogic aim. But how is it supposed that the power
of Satan shall be limited to the flesh ? We may say that if the
God-fearing man pray, the Lord listens to his prayer, and that
he restrains the power of Satan, as in Job's case (chap, i.),
and the fulfilment of the prayer is presupposed. This is
Grotius' opinion. Or we may suppose that the apostle ascribes
. i Tertullian and Ambrose explain o-o/ok^s oXtQpos to signify everlasting damna-
tion, and refer the saving of tlie Tutvfxa to tlie clmreh, vifhiohliae the power, by exclud-
ing the evil. (Terf. de Ft<dic. cIS.)
92 FIRST CORINTHIANS V. 6 — 8.
to the cliurcli itself the power of limiting that of Satan, because
God dwells and works in it. I believe that the apostolic repre-
sentation tends to the latter view/ But if the subject had only
referred to prayer to God, it would have been differently ex-
pressed ; Paul is evidently speaking from a consciousness of the
power to bind and loose, that sins may be entirely or partially
retained. The former was the case with Ananias and Sapphira
(Acts v.), while to these Corinthian sinners they were partially
retained. In addition to this it may be supposed that with this
resolution of the church, to deliver him over to the power of
Satan,2 to the destruction of the flesh, to which also all the suf-
ferings of the 'ylrvxrj may be added, but to the saving of the soul,
continual prayer would be made by the church for the offender,
and thus his spiritual connection with the church would be main-
tained, and he could likewise be brought back into the way of
salvation. (Chrysostora discriminates between irapahovvaL and
iKBovvat, the latter signifying a perfect giving up, while the
former retains the hope of his restoration. Paul chose the
words, he says : dvoljcov avrtp t?;? fieravola^^ ra? 6vpa<; koX
coairep TraLSaycoyw rbv tolovtov irapahihov^i. In the hand of God,
even Satan can become an instructor for believers.)
Vers. 6 — 8."^ Under such circumstances of the Corinthian
church, continued the apostle, their glorifying (in their wisdom
and spiritual gifts) seemed singular. It is evident that Paul
really meant to say, this occurrence, and their behaviour on the
occasion, proved how much true spiritual life was wanting, to
permit so great a pollution to occur among them. He however
expresses it with forbearance, as if it might he the consequence
of such deficiency. The whole admonition is clothed in symbolic
language, based upon the typical signification of the Passover,
1 Clirysostom, Augustine, Lightfoot, Vitringa, Wolf, and others, have already ex-
pressed the same opinion. Only that they erroneously conceive this to be an especial
Charisma, while it rather arose only from the divine spirit filling the church. The same
were just as possible in the present day, if those who laboured in the church possessed
the same intensity which manifested itself in the apostolic times.
2 Billroth adopts Grotius' explanation of the passage, but treats the whole as a Jewish
representation. lie says, " It is presupposed of Satan that he desired to inflict pain upon
him;" this inference he appears to wish to prove false. But as in Christ is necessarily
the o-wTrjpia, out of him is 6\s.Qpo^, and indeed of the whole man, if the powers of dark-
ness are not expressly confined to the lesser powers of the (rdp^.
3 That the words o-rt fiiKpd k. r. X. can be read as an iambic trimeter, is only lo be
considered accidental. (See Winer's Gr. p. 562.)
FIRST CORINTHIANS V. 6 — 8. 93
and the ordination respecting it in the Old Testament. The
leaven is to be understood as the image of sin ; and in the com-
mand to purify the house from it, at the dawning of the Passover,
(Ex. xiii. 3 — 7), the moral commandment to walk purely and in-
offensively is implied. The image is not, however, equally carried
through, as often happens with the apostle, e. g. 2 Cor. iii. 7,
sqq. In ver. 7 the image is so applied, that the Corinthians
collectively constitute the dvpajna veov, from which all leaven
is to be banished ; in ver. 8, on the contrary, they are represented
as keeping the festival, but tasting no leaven. However these
are free applications of the idea, which by no means obscure the
principal thought. The fundamental principles of the apostle, as
well as the sentence kul yap to 'jrd(T')(a r/fxcov virep rj/ncov irvdr],
XpicrT6<i, afford sufficient evidence that the apostle will by no means
allow the reference to the authority of the Old Testament to be
considered as accidental, but as an ewplanation agreeing
in all respects with his own opinion. The words quoted show
clearly that Paul attaches the very highest importance to the
tuhole idea of the feast of the Passover. Christians likewise have
their paschal lamb (to irdo-xa = HDS signifies the paschal lamb,
and Passover, see Matt. xxvi. 17), of which they receive the benefit
in the holy communion, and they also avoid the leaven (sin),
bearing themselves as true d^v/noi, and walking in purity and
truth. It is possible that this passage originated in the design
to exhibit to the followers of Peter that the Christians possessed
the essentials of the old leaven, though without the Jewish form.
It is also possible that the period of the Easter festival gave oc-
casion to the apostle to make use of this explanation. But we
are not to deduce from the words Ka6co<; iare d^u/jbOL any meaning
like the following : " As ye even now abstain from leavened bread,
by reason of the feast of the Passover;" for it is not probable,
that in the uncorrupt church as founded by Paul, the Jewish
form of celebration would find place. The words can only be
translated : " As ye then are certainly determined to keep your-
selves free from the leaven of sin." (Grotius defends the other
acceptation of dfy^io^, and considers daiTo^ and doivo^ parallel.)
The passage therefore cannot be employed as a stringent proof
that already an annual Passover or Easter festival was celebrated ;
for the typical meaning of Paul agrees more with the exhortation
94 FIRST CORINTHIA-NS V. 9 — 11.
to keep the Passover always in the Gospel. But it is highly pro-
bable that, from an early period, the weekly celebration on Fri-
day and Sunday as Tracr^a aravpcoat/juov and dvacrrdai/jLov^ was dis-
tinguished by increased solemnity at the time of the Jewish Pas-
sover, and therein lay the idea of the festival. (In ver. 6, (f)vpa/jLa
is the church, ^vfirj the member that can infect the former. See
on Matt. xiii. 33, where the leaven is employed in a good sense. —
In ver. 7, the word e/cKaOdpare refers to the custom among the
Jews of thoroughly cleansing their dwellings, in order that no
leaven may remain, which is an image of moral strictness and
fidelity in purifying from sin. The terms new and old refer to
the new and old covenant. The virep rjiMOovhsiS very weighty au-
thorities against it, for which reason Lachmann has not retained
it. When we, however, consider how easily the preceding rjfjLwv
might lead to the omission of the second, but that there existed
little motive for the addition, it would nevertheless appear to be
genuine. For irvOr) the tea^t. rec. has eOvOi]. As this is the more
unusual form, it may be asked if it be not the more preferable. —
In ver. 8, ioprd^etp contains the idea of dedication, and especially
consecrated to God. — KaKia appears to correspond to elXiKpo-
vela^ and Trovrjpia to dXrjOeia : the two former words point out the
negative, the latter the positive side of good and evil.)
Vers. 9' — 11. The apostle now at once corrects a misunder-
standing of the Corinthians, with reference to a passage in his
earlier letter, which is lost. The warning which it contained to
avoid association with dissolute persons, and gross sinners, had
been applied by them to all men, instead of restricting its refer-
ence, as Paul intended they should, to those persons only who
gave themselves out as believers. Probably this was done by
Paul's adversaries, in order to represent his commands as imprac-
ticable. (Xwavafjii'yvvaOaL is again to be found in the New Tes-
tament in 2 Thes. iii. 14. In the LXX. it stands for ^^^Lf)!!'
e. g. Hos. vii. 8, " to have fellowship, intercourse," which must
always imply the interchange or communication of spiritual pro-
perties, on one side or the other. ^ — In ver. 10, I understand the
KoX ov iravTO)^, as does Winer (Gr. p. 457), thus : " And indeed
[as is apparent] I do not mean that ye should altogether avoid
1 See Suiceri Tlies. s. v. Trdcrxa, pag. 621.
FIRST CORINTHIANS V. 12, 13. 95
intercourse with the carnal of this world." Billroth however
supposes it to mean, " not certainly with the fornicators of this-
w^orld, but only not with carnal members of the church," which
appears to me rather difficult ; ttclvko^ according to this must be
inserted in a parenthesis, and mean, " as may be supposed." It
is true that it is included in the idea, nevertheless it is not found
in the single expression Traz^ro)?. — Koa-fjuo^ ovro^, according to the
analogy of aicjv ovro^, is really pleonastic ; Koa/juo^ alone were
sufficient, but as subsequently K6(T^o<i is employed in another
signification = oLKovfjievr], ovTo<i is added by Paul in order to mark
the difference. — For ocpelXere Lachmann reads ax^etXere. Accord-
ing to the sense, either might be used ; ye mt/st go out of the
world, or, ye must go out from it. Critical authorities, however,
incline more to the use of oc^e/Xere. — In ver. 11 vvvl does not refer
to the time, in contradistinction to ver. 9, but it indicates the
conclusion, " but I have rather written unto you.'' See vii. 14,
xii. 8, XV. 20. — The words which follow are not to be regarded
as a quotation from the earlier epistle, they only recapitulate
more precisely the substance of the subject contained therein. —
'Ovofia^ofjievo^ signifies here '' call themselves only without being
so :" ToiovTo^ is likewise to be understood reprovingly. — Mr^he
(Tvveo-Omv, which connects itself somewhat as an anacoluthon to
the preceding, heightens the fjurj o-vvavafjiuyvvo-dai, it indicates the
entire renunciation of familiar intercourse. [See Matt, xviii. 18.]
The severe ecclesiastical religious penance of the ancient church
is. here defined by the apostle himself,^ and we can only observe
therein a sign of the church's decline, for this charge is not only
now neglected, but cannot be carried into execution.)
Vers. 12, 13. Paul proves conclusively from his own position,
and that of all Christians with respect to him, that he was not
alluding to those without the church. From the complete dif-
ference which existed in their course of life, the Christians had
only to judge themselves, not others, and could thence only ex-
clude the profligate from their community. (The passage, vi. 2,
by no means contradicts the assertion, that God alone judgeth
them that are without the church, for the latter is spoken of
judgement in this life, while in the former passage the last judge-
1 Theodorete says in this place ti Sk Koivij^ Tpocpi]^ toIs toioutois ov del Koiviovilv,
fiTTov yt fivarTiKijt T£ Kal Oe/us, i. e. the holy Commuiiiou.
96 FIRST CORINTHIANS VI. 1.
raent is alluded to, which the Lord will accomplish in and through
his faithful followers. In ver. 12, Kai is probably an erroneous
addition ; it is wanting in A.B.C.F.G ; Lachmann also omits
it ; but on the other hand, Kpivel is decidedly preferable to
the usual Kplvet. It would be best to point it with Lachmann
thus: ov')(l Tov^ 6(70) vfieU Kpivere, tov^; Be e^co 6 ©eo? Kptvel; — Con-
cerning 01 e^co and ol eaco see Col. iv. 5 ; 1 Thes. iv. 12 ; the
representations in which are based upon the idea that the church
encloses the faithful like a temple, within whose hallowed pre-
cincts, strangers may not set a foot. — For i^dpare is to be found
i^apelre, i^atpeiTe, i^aipere, i^apere. But only the first two
forms can, from critical considerations, and w^ith respect to ver.
2, come under notice. Of these e^apelre is the usual text, while
e^dpare has the authority of tlie codices A.B.C.D.F.G., as well
as of others in its favour, and therefore doubtless deserves the
preference. — The conjecture of iropvov for Trovi^pov is very plausi-
ble, because the devil is commonly designated by the appellation
6 7rovr}p6<;. But the supposition is unsupported by critical autho-
rity.)
§ 6. LAW-SUITS.
(vi. 1—20.)
Ver. 1. The mention just made of the judging of unbelievers
leads the apostle to speak of another unbecoming custom of the
Corinthian Christians, which must be reproved ; they appealed to
the heathen authorities upon any difference which arose among
themselves. This is severely condemned by the apostle. The
Christians were not to erect themselves into judges over the
heathen, but it was yet more inconsistent that they, who were
some day to judge the world with Christ, should set the heathen
over themselves, as judges. ^ This discussion, like many others
1 In cousequence of the apostolic decisiou, it followed that the bishops obtained a
jurisdiction. (See Euseb. vita Const, iv. 27.). How this was exercised by woithy bishops
is shown by the example of Ambrose (August, conf. vi. 3.). But the right of jurisdic-
tion was from an early period restricted to civil causes, criminal cases were referred to
ordinary tribunals, as is proved by the Rescript of Arcadius and Honorius in the Cod.
Justin, lib. 1. tit. iv. lex 7.
FIRST CORINTHIANS VI. 2, 3. 97
of the apostle in the Epistles under consideration, was peculiarly
adapted to moderate the exaggerated representations respecting
the moral condition of the Corinthian church. Although so
short a period had intervened since the Christian church had
sprung into life in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, where the
believers were of one heart and one soul ; neither said any, of his
possessions, that they were his own (Acts iv. 32), the power of
the Spirit filling the church had lost so much in intensity, that in
Corinth they openly disputed before heathen rulers concerning
mine and thine (ver. 7.). And yet in this church the Charismata
ruled so powerfully ! But so much the bolder appeared the faith
of Paul, which, in a community where so much was to be desired,
could nevertheless distinguish the germ of the destined new
creation, which was appointed to give the world another form.
— Besides, it is well to observe, that this practice of the Corin-
thians, so much condemned by the apostle, of bringing their
differences before heathen judges, instead of Christian arbitra-
tors, was occasioned by their internal dissensions. Love and
confidence had vanished, and this is especially blamed by the
apostle (ver. 7) ; no such disputes among Christians should exist.
(n pay fid is here lawsuit, otherwise X6709, causa, — Concerning eVt,
coram, see Mark xiii. 9, Acts xxiii. 30, xxiv. 19. — For ahUiov
in ver. 6, stands airlcrTOiv. The expression is not intended to
iipply an idea of individual blame to heathen rulers, as if they
were intentionally unjust, but only of their general character, the
absence of Christian BcKatoavvr], precisely as the designation
dyioL indicates nothing individual among the Christians. See
on Rom. i. 7.).
Vers. 2, 3. The argument for the unlawfulness of such proceed-
ings is carried out by Paul, so as to direct attention to the higher
destiny of Believers, to judge the world, nay angels : but while
conscious of this, they should yet be competent to adjust inferior
differences. The form rj ov/c olhare, and likewise the ovk othare of
ver. 3, show that the apostle supposes the Corinthians already
acquainted with their lofty calling ; the words may be rendered,
ye know certainly right well ! Whatever this judging by the
believers may lead to, we have no foundation for unhesitatingly
receiving Kpiveiv for KaraKplveLV. As in speaking of angels,
9
98 FIRST CORINTHIANS VI. 2, 3.
good as well as badi must be included, the koct/jlo^ likewise,
although opposed to the church as under the practical dominion
of the saints, contains not only those upon whom eternal condem-
nation must fall, but also such, as not having yet received the
spirit of Christ, live nevertheless in a condition relatively faith-
ful. (See the remarks on Matt. xxv. 31, 37 ; Eoni. ii. 1.).
However this idea, in its simple form, as propounded by the
apostle, appears doubtful to most interpreters. They consider
that it would elevate the Christians too highly to make them
judges over the human and spiritual world ; while on the other
side, the scriptural doctrine of sin appears to many to degrade
man too low. But it is precisely in this that the sublimity of the
doctrines contained in the Bible consists, by extending in every
direction, and passing far beyond the narrow limits of the human
standard. Let us more closely consider this idea in connexion
with the Scripture doctrines generally. As the future is employed
upon both occasions (Kptvovac, KpLvovfjuev,) there can be no re-
ference to a present operation of the faithful ; the intermediate
present (^KpiveTai) is determined by means of the futures. In
the r]fxepa /cpia-eco^ the universal judgement of the world is of course
to be understood as the future judgement, and this is commonly
ascribed to Christ, (see on Acts xvii. 31 ; E/Om. ii. 16), which
agrees perfectly with the subject of our passage, inasmuch as
believers do not judge men and angels ivitJiout Christ, but with
him, indeed he in them, for the judging power in the faithful is
Christ in us. They come not into judgement, because whoever
believes in him is judged already (John iii. 18), and the Lord
himself says, agreeably to this unity of Christ with his faithful ;
in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne
of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the
twelve tribes of Israel. (See on Matt. xix. 28 ; Luke xxii. 30.).
Those whom the Lord here terms the twelve, as representatives
of the church, he calls in another passage, all the believers (see
on John xvii. 22.). All the prerogatives of Christ belong also to
the church, which both is and is called the true Christ. (See on
1 Cor. xii. 12.). It must be allowed that this vast thought,
1 Bad angels likewise are called on]y dyytXai, although seldom, as in 2 Peter ii. 4 ;
Kev. ix. 15. Also in 1 Cor. iv. 9 the expression implies good and bad angels.
FIRST CORINTHIANS VI. 2, 3. 99
which indeed eleyates man to a height hardly to be contemplated
becomes in some degree inadmissible when one would apply it to
every member of the external church. But in the apostolic
times the members of Christ's visible church agreed better with
its principles than at present ; Paul could therefore introduce the
thought objectively, without marking the difference of form and
of nature. But the Saviour himself (Matt. xiii. 47) found both
good and bad fish in the net of the kingdom of God, and the evi-
dence of our senses must have informed us that in the visible
church itself, a Kocrfio? exists, even unto the present day ; yes,
that in the true members of the invisible church, in those born
again of water and of the Spirit, there nevertheless still abides in
their old man the principle of the /cotj/io?, which it requires their
continual exertions to subdue. The full force of the assertion
therefore, that the saints shall judge the w^orld of men and angels,
can only apply to the spirits of the perfectly righteous (Heb. xii.
23), i.e. to the members of the invisible church in their perfect
state. In this mankind attains its true ideal, and to it applies
then in its fullest sense Ps. viii. 7, (according to the explanation in
Heb. ii. 6, sqq.) " all thingsh.a.&t thou put under his feet." Angels
themselves stand lower in the order of their being than those in
whose hearts is Christ's image. (See further on Heb. i. 14, xii.
23.). The only manner to remove the obstacles which the in-
terpretation of our passage presents to many, by the assertion
that believers shall judge with Christ, is this, to urge, as Chry-
sostom and Theodorete have done, the eV v/jllv Kpiverai. This
preposition signifies, (in which Billroth coincides), that, accord-
ing to the real idea,^ the judgement by the believers is simply the
effect produced by the operation in them of a higher standard of
living, upon the world, and upon angels, according to the analogy
in Matt. xii. 42, where it says : ^aaiXiaaa votov avaarrja-eraL
Koi KaraKpLvel rrjv yeveav ravTTjv, kol avhpe<iN Lvevlrai avaaTrjaov-
rac KOL Kara/cpivovac rrjv yeveav Tavrrjv. But Billroth is suffi-
ciently unprejudiced to allow that this negative kind of judgement
does not agree with the course of the argument, as Raphelius has
1 According to the form of the idea, Billroth admits that following the directiou of 3,
iv signifies "through," but according to the true sense " in;" the meaning therefore may
be, " your faith is the measure applied in judging the world." In a similar measure the
form of every view of the apostle might be changed at pleasure.
^2
100 FIRST CORINTHIANS VI. 4 — 6.
already ably proved the capability of actively judging in inferior
matters, is connected with the capacity for more refined discrimi-
nation ; the latter must therefore, according to Paul's views, have
been an essentially active quality. But it is impossible to consider
this as all that is included in the idea, but we should rather conceive
the just meaning to be, that if we hold stedfastly the doctrine of
the real communication of the divine nature to those who believe
(2 Pet. i. 4), there can be no hesitation in admitting them to be
rulers and judges with Christ (Matt. xxv. 40 ; 2 Tim. ii. 12 ;
llev. XX. 4), and him the firstborn among brethren. (See on
Rom. viii. 29.). (In ver. 2, rj is justified by the most weighty
authorities, viz., A.C.D.F.G. Then, according to the analogy
with ^rjTi ye ^LcoTiKa, the sentence Kal el k. t. X. must be under-
stood as a question ; without an interrogation, the sense would
be : " And if by you the world is to be judged, it is unworthy of
you to appear before such inferior judgement-seats." It is certain
that KpiTijpiov signifies first, tribunal [Jam. ii. 6], but in this
place, according to ver. 4, public proceedings at law, = Kpl^iara
in ver. 7. It would be best to understand the interrogatory in
the same sense with Billroth, viz. to leave it depending on on,
and erase the note of interrogation after Kpivovcrt accordingly. —
The epithet eKa^LCFTa places controversies concerning earthly
things in contrast with those of a spiritual nature. — In yer. 3
jBlos: has, like the Latin seculum in the language of the church,
an accessory idea of something sinful ; in a higher sense ^cotj is
used. The adjective form is found again in the New Testament,
Luke xxi. 34. — Mrjn ye, nedum, does not again occur in the New
Testament).
Vers. 4 — 6. The apostle in continuation reprehends the Corin-
thians for addressing themselves to strangers, in contentious
arising out of the affairs of ordinary life, and also because that
they, who would be so wise, could not find among themselves
one wise man, who could arrange such differences as an arbitra-
tor. (In ver. 4, the e^ovOevnjfjLevot ev ry eKKkrjala are the heathen
rulers. See on ii. 6. The expression is difficult, and may not be
referred to the office, for Paul by no means despised the heathen
authorities [see on Rom. xiii. 1.], certainly not to the person, for
the church of Christ despises none of God's creatures, but is ap-
plied only to the element in which they stand, to the koct/ho^.
FIRST CORINTHIANS VT. 7, cS. 101
The TovTov^, as in ver. 6 and ver. 8, serves only to indicate
more pointedly the error of applying to these judges. The recep-
tion of KaOl^€re as imperative, although defended by Chrysostom,
Theodorete, Grotius, Calvin, and Bengel, is less probable than
the supposition that it is in the indicative, for this reason : in the
former case the i^Qudevrj/jbivoc must refer to the Christians, which
evidently cannot be maintained on account of what folloAvs. —
In ver. 5, evrpoirrj, which occurs again at xv. 34, signifies " a
shaming," see on iv. 14. — The ovtcd^ and ovhe eh heightens the
idea considerably, " Is wisdom so entirely wanting among you,
that not so much as one wise man is to be found V — In the htaKpi-
v€Lv is signified the function of arbitrator, which presents the
particular KplveaOat, i. e. bringing a lawsuit before the judge. —
The form ava fzecrov rov aSeXcpov avrov presents some difii-
culty ; it is easy to imagine that on account of the avrov, koI
rov aBeXcfiov has been interpolated, as it is a reading by no
means sufficiently authorised. It would be best to take aSeX-
<ji6^ = aBeX(f>6T7j<; (1 Pet. ii. 17), for only in this manner can
ava fjbiaov^ and avrov agree. Billroth considers that the reason
one only of the two parties is mentioned is, that they were both
Christians, but I do not see how this explanation diminishes the
difficulty.).
Vers. 7, 8. After this description Paul proceeds a step farther,
and shows that, leaving the subject of disputes before the heathen
magistrates, lawsuits were unbecoming amongst Christians. The
principle among them should be, rather to sufferwrong than todo it.
The consideration of this subject leads us to enquire, whether the
precepts laid down by the apostle in this chapter were only avail-
able for the circumstances then existing, or whether they would
admit of application to those of the present day. One might
suppose that all magistrates and judges being now Christian, the
present condition of the church rendered the apostle's directions
singularly inapplicable to us. But that is not conclusive, for
the entire character of the judicial experience of the present day
presents all the prominent features of that in ancient times.
When Paul requires that the matters in question should be sub-
mitted to a brother, he intended by it, that forsaking the path of
1 For this form is nlso to be found Kara /nio-ov or iv /mia-uK See Matt. x. 16; xiii.
25; Acts xxvii. 27.
102 FIRST CORINTHIANS VI. 9—11.
the strict law, which may often prove higlily unjust, they should
consult only, and yield to the decision of the love and forbearance
which dwells in the hearts of brethren. Such a measure, however,
cannot be applied to the large masses of men contained within
the limits of the visible church of the present day, for these the
public law institutions are necessary. If it may therefore be
asserted that in the apostolic times, the contrast was greater be-
tween the heathen world and the church, than between the law
establishments of the present day and the regenerate ; we reply
that it is still essentially the same, and must accordingly declare,
that the admonitions of the apostle, as well as the analogous
commands pronounced by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount,
possess a significance for the sincere Christian in all ages ; Chris-
tian brethren ought not to carry their disputes with each other
concerning their rights before the authorities ; should any differ-
ence of the kind unfortunately arise, let them at least settle it
by way of composition, to avoid giving subject for public offence.
(Concerning 0X0)9 see on v. 1. — -Hrrijfjia, or 7]aar]fjLa, is properly
overthrow, injury, but here want of morality, like iXdrrcofia,
see Romr xi. 12. — That the subject before us is contentions
regarding earthly possessions, is especially shown by dTroa-re-
pela-Qe and by diroarepelTe. The whole passage is enlarged
upon and proved in Matt. v. 39, sqq. See the observations on
the passage in the Comm.)
Vers. 9 — 11 The remonstrance is strengthened by reminding
them of the character of the kingdom of God, which, as a king-
dom of righteousness and purity, rejects all unrighteousness ;
adding that being purified from all uncleanness by the power of
Christ, they would be doubly guilty in yielding themselves again
to the power of sin. In the enumeration of the many forms of
sin which exclude from the kingdom of God, he. passes beyond
a strict connexion with the subject before him ; this would only
have given him occasion to name the KXeTrrat, irKeoveKTai, dp-
7ray€<;. But referring to much that precedes, as well as what fol-
lows, he mentions all descriptions of immoral excesses. (In ver. 9
dZiKoi is to be understood of transgressors of positive commands,
a different sense to that occurring in ver. 1 ; and the ^aaiXeia
Seov refers here to its external appearance, such as will be tri-
umphantly manifested at a future period, for internally it was
FIRST CORINTHIANS YI. 9 — 11. . 103
already to be found in the hearts of believers, "which were under
its dominion, but the kingdom of God was not yet inherited by
them. See on Matt. iii. 2. — The form yu-r; TrXavdaOe, as pressing
exhortation, is to be found again in xv. 33 ; Gal. vi. 7 ; and also
Jam. i. 16. — In the Greek speech iropvo^ is properly synonymous
with fiaXaKo^, qui midiehria patitur : in this place it stands to-
gether with fjiOLxo'i for the lowest kind of debauchery, and sig-
nifies those persons w^ho allowed themselves licentious freedom
with unmarried persons : it bears the same signification in v.
10, 11. — The expression elScoXoXdrpao has here without doubt
especial reference to the voluptuousness connected with idol-
atrous services, more particularly in Corinth. — The passage v.
10, 11, shows that nothing may be argued from the series
of individual forms of sin which are there enumerated ; it
would be trifling to seek for the grounds upon which they are
mentioned in a different or very particular order. — The ov be-
fore K\r)povofMr]crovai is properly omitted by Lachmann. — Bill-
roth has certainly correctly explained the ravra rive^ rjre of
ver. 11 : the rcve^ expresses no degree of qualification, as if it
signified only some, not all ; for if all have not actually sinned
in every possible form, it is nevertheless certain that they have
offended against God's laws in some degree, and especially against
the Christian meaning of the law. The Tavrd rtve^; is rather to
be understood = tocovtol : " such people w^ere also ye." We
must allow that this connecting of two genders presents a ditfi-
culty, but it is possibly to be explained by an accessory notion of
something contemptible [see Winer's Gr. p. 152], which would
make the sense : " Ye were such people, practising these things,
beware that ye fall not back !" — The three words aTrekovaaaVe,
7]ryLd(j67)T€, €8iKaio)6r)T6 comprehond in the form of a climax,
progressive Christian generation, the thrice repeated dWd
adding strength to the expression. The direXovaaade must,
as well as the two other verbs, be considered passive [see Winer's
Gr. p. 232, where however this passage is omitted] ; be-
cause the negative operation of grace, forgiveness of sins, by
means of baptism, is understood by it ; but the latter is not to be
supposed a self-baptism, for the person bears himself entirely
passive in the celebration. The medial signification is onlv so
far maintained when translated, "Ye have permit+ed yours<^lves
104 . ^ FIRST CORINTHIANS VI. 12.
to be waslied."-^The dytd^ea-daL 'cannot here, as in i. 30, he
receiyed as Christian sanctification, else it must stand after ihuKai-
a)dr)T€. It signifies here only separated, to be reckoned-'
among the aycoi. See on Rom. i. 7. — In the BtKaicodrjvaL, then,
the positive side is defined, the portion with the EtKaioavvr)
Oeov. [See on Rom. iii. 21.]. — The iv rw ovofxaTU without
doubt refers to all three particulars, and the name Jesus again
points to his essence, and being communicated to man by him
in the BiKatocrvvrj. — The addition kuI iv tco TrvevfiarL rov Oeov
TjiJbmv cannot be understood of the universal power of God, as it
would never be secondary to the operation of Christ Jesus, but of
the Holy Spirit, which is also only called Trvevfxa ©eov, as in 1 Cor.
. vii. 40. The effect of the latter commences where the working
of Christ has made a place. In Matt. x. 20 the Holy Spirit is
called TO irvevfia rov Trarpo^ v/jlcov to \aXovv iv vjilv, and in Luke
xii. 12 is found rrvevfia aytov in reference to the same.)
Ver. 12. The whole section which follows this verse, as far as
ver. 20, is uncommonly difficult when considered with reference
to the context. Without proceeding further with the subject of
lawsuits, the apostle lays down in ver. 12 an universal principle
for certain other relations, which are again brought under consi-
deration in X. 23, and then proceeds in ver. 13 to the mention of
meats, and from 14 — 20 exhorts against fornication. As subse-
quently (chap. X.) the subject of meats is amply enlarged upon,
the verses 12, 13 in the present chapter appear in some degree
foreign to the subject, and as little suitable as the admonition
against fornication, which agrees better with the contents of
chapter v. It may be asserted that the warning is occasioned
by the mention which is made in ver. 9 of certain vicious prac-
tices, and introduces the remarks presently to be made upon
marriage, commencing vii. 2. But then, so much the more
striking are verses 12 and 13, and their entire contents. Bill-
roth does not appear to have found the difficulty of so much im-
portance, and thus explains himself concerning it : " The con-
nexion with what precedes is this. Some one may have alleged
Christian liberty as an excuse for these crimes, but therein he
would certainly err ; this may not be misused, even in Adia-
phora, e. g. in meats, how much less in things immoral in them-
selves, such as fornication." Nevertheless the supposition of
FIRST CORINTHIANS Vf. 12. 105
the learned man mentioned is too remarkable, that there really
existed in Corinth Christians who justified fornication on the
principle, iraina fioc e^eartv. He asserts in opposition to
Neander, who with reason declares this inconceivable, (Apost.
Zeitalt. vol. i, p. 307.), that it is not necessary to admit that this
offence was general. Throughout the Epistles Paul always ad-
dresses those alone whom the subject concerned ;i but if only one
of the parties which existed in Corinth, e. g. the Gnostic Chris-
tians, had defended such a principle, Paul would have as uncon-
ditionally commanded their exclusion from any connexion with the
church as he had done with the incestuous member. But if we can-
not consent to this acceptation of the passage, the question arises,
whether in any other way some direction as to its contents may
be discovered. Neander thinks that Pcaul intended to enter upon
the subject of meats offered to idols, of which mention is first
made in x. 23, but that, diverted by an idea which occurred on
the mention of KoCkla, he changed the subject of exhortation.
Perhaps, in order to guard his words concerning the perishable-
ness of meats, and of the organs of digestion, from misconstruc-
tion, on the part of those who denied the doctrine of the resur-
rection, he distinguished the form of the body, from its nature,
which led to the digression upon the iropveia. But although
the declarations concerning the resurrection, which immediately
follow, agree well with this supposition, we cannot but think that
by accepting Neander's views, the apostle's procedure is made to
appear unmethodical. First, the mention of fornication leads
him to discuss the relation of the sexes to each other ; then, at the
commencement of the eighth chapter, he returns from another
subject to the theme of eating meats offered in sacrifice to idols ;
and after numerous digressions, easy to explain by the subordi-
nate connexion of ideas, reaches at last in x. 23, a discussion
commenced in vi. 12. As this supposition has little to recom-
mend it, we must assume as a foundation, that Paul did not in-
tend in vi. 12, 13, to discourse concerning meats offered in sacri-
1 As sins of another character are named in vi. 9, Billroth must likewise suppose
that individuals among the Christians in Corinth had defended the commission of them
by the principle irdvTa fioi I^evtiv. But is it conceivable that Paul would have per-
mitted persons capable of sucli enormities to continue in the church ? Such Bileamites
or Nicolaitans would have been immediately expelled by his directions.
106 FIRST CORINTHIANS VI. 12.
fice ; but that the words in rer. 13 only serve to make clear the
difference of the Adiaphora, from positive prohibition. Accord-
ing to my own conviction, therefore, the transitions in the various
passages are to be thus understood : The apostle having the in-
tention to enter upon the question of sensual vices, from vi. 9,
mentions in that place not only such offences as regard property,
but also those of the former kind. The discussion upon the
iropveia serves as an introduction to the remarks upon marriage,
in which, according to God's ordinance, the passions are brought
under restraint, and are sanctified. Now although certainly
among the Christians in Corinth there was none sufficiently hardy
to assert that licentious connexions were allowable, there never-
theless reigned in that place a gross laxity in this respect. This
position of affairs, ^^InoM considerably tended to gross abuse of
Christian liberty, prompted Paul to publish the inapplicability of
the Christian principle of liberty to the circumstances of the
sexes. We thus accept what is correct in the views both of
Neander and Billroth, and cast aside what is untenable in both.
Riickert's supposition, that the apostle was interrupted at vi.
11, and upon reading again what he had so far written down, felt
himself induced to make the supplementary remarks which fol-
low, hardly commends itself to our attention ; without doubt, an
introduction to chap. vii. may be recognised. — If we examine ver.
12 more closely, the question presents itself: did Paul acknow-
ledge the principle irdvra fioi e^eariv, or, as it is written in x. 23,
Trdvra e^ecmv, as his own, and consequently as true or not I We
must certainly allow that Paul acknowledged it. The sentence in-
troduced with ak\d says, the principle is correct, but due caution is
required in the application. But is the principle really just?
Paul proves, immediately in what follows, that fornication is not
under any circumstances allowable, that Trdvra therefore seems
limited to the irdKkd. But under this exposition the sentence is
but meagre. " Much is lawful" has also the converse of the pro-
position, which is just as true, " much is unlawful." We there-
fore believe that the sentence may be thus understood : "All the
laws that we find in the Old Testament, with reference to the
prohibition of various meats, are no longer binding." The pas-
sage is thus explained by Flatt, but upon what ground do we add
so much to the original text, thereby depriving the Trdvra of all
I
FIRST CORINTHIANS VI. 13. 107
its force ? We must rather receive the idea in its most extensive
and likewise profound sense, as in iii. 22. Precisely as we may
say : to God and Christ, to the Son of the living God, all is free,
because it is an impossibility that he should will what is sinful,
so to him born of God, in whom Christ lives, is all lawful, for
God's seed is in him, he cannot commit sin (1 John iii. 9.). The
rrrdvra e^eariv, then, is only another expression for the state of
true libertas, the iXevOepia r?)? So^t)^ tcov rifcvcov r. 0. (Rom. viii.
21), of which the impossibilitas peccandi is the characteristic ;
and if this condition were even fully displayed in the believer,
here on earth, the sentence Trdvra e^ecrrtv would require no re-
striction, but this is not the case. First, even among the re-
generate backsliding is possible, and when this occurs, it is the
antithetical principle which must be quoted to the apostate : ovSev
e^eariv, for there being among the perfect no possibility of sin,
there is as little probability of what is good among the entirely
fallen. Therefore, even in the regenerate, as long as he dwells
upon earth, the old man is co-existent with the new, and for this
reason a limited application only can be made of the latter prin-
ciple in the Praxis. In the first place, it is utterly inapplicable
beyond the sphere of the paaCketa r. O., that is to say, within
the dominion of sins positively prohibited by the divine laws ;
because the becoming subject to this dominion leads to apostacy
from Christ, and even within the sphere of God's kingdom the
principle of liberty can only be applied here below in a restricted
sense. Secondly, the believer must act with consideration for
others, sparing the weak, and therefore for their sake he cannot
do all that would otherwise be permitted to him. The sen-
tence dX)C ov irdvTa av/ji(f>€p€L expresses this, likewise in x. 23,
dXX ov Trdvra oLKoSofjueL sc. a^eX^ou?.^ And bedsides this,
he must ever keep the old man in mind, even while enjoying what
is lawful, lest by means of his lusts he again become his prey ;
that is to say, the righteous sway of Christian principle may be
subverted, and the new man driven from its position, for sin once
more to assert its power. , The other sentence cautions against
this : aW ovK iyo) i^ovacaaOijao/jbaL viro nvo^.
Ver. 13. The principle of Christian liberty may be applied in
1 In this sentence the reference to himself is not to he disregarded, thus kixoi might
be added to avfKptpei.
108 FIRST CORINTHIANS YI. 13.
behalf of believers to the rules for meats, but this could not be
asserted with reference to any proceeding so clearly sinful as that
of TTopvela. This opinion is clear and perfectly intelligible ; not so
the argument which the apostle adduces to corroborate it. The
/Spcofjuara, and the KotXia appointed for the same (?'. e. the digestive
organs especially), will be destroyed by God; being perishable, they
will decay, like all things perishable (vii. 31) ; then comes the anti-
thesis, that the body itself (apart from the form) is however im-
perishable, and that God will raise it up. But can the perishable
nature of the organ become a reason for its being subjected to the
principle of liberty, or for that member being made Adiaphoron ?
Are not gluttony and immoderate drinking (distinctly named by
Paul in vi. 10), referable to the perishable body ? And may we
not say, that other organs necessary to the human species may
likewise be wanting in the glorified body (see on Luke xx. 36),
as well as those of digestion ? How then can we comprehend the
apostle's argument ? Possibly the sentence 6 Se ©eo? — Karapyi]-
aei does not refer to irdvra e^ecrrtv, but only to dWd ovk iyto
i^ovo-taadija-ofjiat vtto tivo^ ! So that the sense would be, that
we are not to allow ourselves to be brought under the power
of anything, least of all of that w'hich is so perishable as meat.
This construction would not however aid the elucidation ; for
there the antithesis between Karapr^rjcreL of ver. 13, and the
i^eyepel of ver. 14, would be lost ; likewise we should not be
under the dominion of the body, even of the glorified, but the
body is rather to be subject to the spirit under all its forms and
appearances. We must prefer looking to the antithesis, rd
J^poofjuara rfj KoCkla — to he aoyfjua ov rfj iropveCa. The organs
destined for the nourishment of the body, having their precise and
appointed office, it would be unnatural were the entire powers of
men to be engaged in eating and drinking ; for the whole soul
being thereby absorbed, gluttony and excess would be the result,
and that not only as to quantity, which may be relative. It is
quite otherwise with the sexual impulse ; this by no means affects
merely the organs through which it operates, any more than the
speech affects merely the tongue. The mere corporeal indulgence
of this impulse is rather sinful ; in its true form, as the highest ex-
pression of conjugal love, it concerns the whole man. The sexual
impulse therefore has its origin in a far profounder law of na-
2
FIRST CORINTHIANS VI. 14 — l?. 109
ture than eating and drinking, consequently offences against the
former are also evil deeds of the inward man, to which absolutely
no application of Christian liberty can be allowed. Thus 6eo9
KaTap'yi^aei ryv KoCkiav must be understood as expressing the
mean unimportant position, abifxa on the contrary the sign of
perfect individuality, the body in its necessary union with the
individual, the "^vxv-
Ver. 14. The resurrection of our body is proved as usual by
Paul, from the resurrection of our Lord. Our body belongs to
Christ, it must therefore be deemed holy, and employed accord-
ingly, nor is this inconsistent with the marriage state, which is
sanctified by God, and endowed with blessing. The introduction
here of 6 Kvpio^ tm aoofjiaTL is difficult to understand. The sup-
position that the Lord ministers to the body, provides for it (as is
said in Ephes v. 29), does not precisely and sufficiently state the
change of idea ; and without doubt, the only correct view to be
taken of this passage, which also renders intelligible that which
follows, of all bodies being members of Christ, is this: "the
Lord is appointed for the body," i.e. he himself is flesh (Johni.
14), endeavours to corporify himself in the body. By this act
of God, the body first obtains its true dedication ; it becomes an
abode of God, a temple of the Holy Spirit. (Lachmaun has de -
cided in favour of i^riyecpev and i^eyeipei, but for evident as well
as internal reasons the reading e^eyepet is preferable.).
Vers. 15 — 17. The apostle's warning against fornication (to
which all offences against morality, either of a gross or more re-
fined nature, must be appended) acquires unusual force from the
profound idea just mentioned. The bodies of believers are
Christ's members, he alone shall have dominion over them, there-
fore the impure deprive him of his own, making Christ's members
members of fornication ! This Paul proves by the connection
with Christ in spiritual unity, which is perfected through faith :
as the Son is one with the Father, so are believers one with him
in the Spirit (John xvii. 22) ; and, precisely as the body and soul
of men are dependent, is the body consecrated to Christ, through
the union of the spirit with him ; to him belongs the whole man,
spirit, soul, and body. It is however important to observe that
the apostle does not rest here, but that he also pursues the sub-
ject under another view. The apostle says, that as with Christ
110 FIRST CORlNTlilANS VI. 18, 19.
a holy spiritual union takes place, so with the harlot one of a con-
trary character ; and he then quotes Gen. ii. 24, which is a pas-
sage that might be considered referable to marriage, and not to
fornication. The specific character of marriage is ordained and
sanctified by God's command, but in the immoral relation alluded
to it is desecrated, and thereby becomes a curse ; in the former
state, the reciprocation of pure and deep feeling becomes hal-
lowed, while in the latter every exalted attribute disappears, and
nothing remains but what is fleshly and sinful. The whole pas-
sage is evidently grounded upon the comparison which is instituted
between Christ and his church (Ephes. v. 23, sqq.), and the rela-
tions of the married state ; and therefore it is not improbable
that, when the apostle said that he which is joined to an harlot
is one body with her, he had in view the great whore that sitteth
upon many waters (Eev. xvii. 1.). The sacred fellowship of
Christ with the church, which corresponds with God's ordinance
of marriage, stands then in direct opposition to the unholy asso-
ciation of the carnal, which, drawing into its circle all who ap-
proach, imprints upon them ineffiiceable marks of its evil nature,
while those who draw nigh unto Christ are adorned with his like-
ness. (Ver. 15 is perfectly intelligible, as out of apa<;, apa can
be formed, it appears pleonastic from the TTotrjaw which fol-
lows. It is used in analogy with the Hebrew p^p^, — Upon fir)
ryevoLTo, see on Kom. iii. 4. — In ver. 16, the earthly connexion is
implied, but grounded upon agreement of sentiment ; the offenders
must stand equal under one point of view, or, so far as this is not
the case, one party endeavours to effect the necessary analogy in
the other. With the sinful this bias assumes the form of tempta-
tion to profligacy, but in the good that of urging regeneration. —
In the quotation to (fytjai is to be added rj ypacfy)]. The Hebrew
nn^ ntr^l^ V11^ I'efers to the preceding ^nW2}2 "im, Eve
was taken from Adam to be again restored to him as his help-
mate. The ol Bvo is supplied by the LXX., and the w^ords
are quoted according to their rendering in the passages Matt,
xix. 5, 6; Mark x. 7, 8; and Ephes. v. 31. Doubtless they
are intended to comprehend a declaration against polygamy;
nevertheless we must confess that the occurrence of passages
speaking more decidedly against the practice is to be desired,
FIRST CORINTHIANS VI. 20. Ill
as there is no direct mention made in the New Testament of
polygamy being contrary to the principle of marriage.)
Vers. 18, 19. The apostle in conclusion draws attention to
the specific nature of the sin under consideration, as being
directed against the offender's own body, against a portion of
that which is identified with himself. Nay more, as the believer
is no longer his own, but God's, so is also the body the Lord's.
Fornication is therefore a higher degree of sacrilege, or a mix-
ture of sins against himself, his neighbour, and his God. The
beneficent influence of the Bible realism here strongly displays
itself; spiritualism inculcates an indifference towards the body,
and even its pollution, but the Gospel teaches that the body is
to be honoured as an existing organ of the soul, glorified with it
through the Holy Spirit. (In ver. 18 idv stands for dv, as is
likewise found in profane writers. See Winer's Gr. p. 285.) —
In ver. 19 the rj ovk otBare is to be thus understood : The pecu-
liarity of this kind of wickedness cannot offend you, for ye cer-
tainly understand the importance of the body. — The body is truly
the sanctuary, the temple of the soul, but both coming under the
influence of the Holy Ghost are not only purified in their nature,
but the Holy Spirit thenceforward dwells in a human body, as in
a temple. — The ov e^ere cltto Geov forms the antithesis with ovk
iare iaurcov, " Ye belong no more to yourselves, that ye may go-
vern yourselves by your own wills, for God is your Lord, and ye
must be led by his Spirit.")
Ver. 20, The relation of believers with God, Paul thinks, is
this : being by Christ, who has paid the \vTpov. who is it him-
self, ransomed from the slavery of sin (Matt. xx. 28 ; 1 Pet. i. 18,
19), he has become the servant of God (Rom. vi. 17, 22.). For
through this reason the believer praises not himself for his pure and
moral life, but him who gave him power to lead it. (The rjyopd-
aOrire rt/xT}? is again found in vii. 23. The t^/zt}? is by no means
only pleonastic : " ye are bought for a price," but emphatic, for
a great price. — 'Ev ro) crcofjLart is here perfectly suitable, because
the subject of what precedes is the body and its sanctification.
The additional sentence Kal ev tm irvevfian v/jlmv, drivd ean rov
Geov, is wanting in the oldest and best Codd., and can therefore
only be regarded as a gloss, to which very possibly the passage
vii. 34 gave occasion.)
112 FIRST CORINTHIANS Vll. 1 — 40.
§ 7. MARRIAGE.
(vii. 1—40.)
With the exception of the detailed laws respecting marriage in
the Old Testament, this section is the most important treatise in
the Holy Scriptures on that highest institution in the social rela-
tions, the type as well of the state as of the church. St Paul was
led by the direct questions of the Corinthians in their epistle to
the apostle (ver. 1), to treat of this subject, and the question first
arises, to what the enquiries of the Christians in Corinth refer-
red ? what was the nature of their doubts on the marriage tie ?
from what did their scruples emanate 1 There are several points
of which the apostle treats. First, he speaks of marriage in itself
(vers. 1 — 9), and represents that it serves to prevent fornication,
and consequently that married people ought not to abstain from the
conjugal duty. In the second place (vers. 10 — 16), he speaks
against divorce, declaring it to be inadmissible even if one party
remain heathen, should this heathen party desire to continue in
the married state. This leads the apostle (vers. 17—24) to the
digression, that the Gospel in general does not interfere with the
outward position of Christians, and that every one is at liberty
to remain in the vocation which he held previous to his conver-
sion. Paul next treats of the unmarried (vers. 25 — 38), and, on
account of the existing difficult relations of the church, he counsels
them to remain in the single state. Finally (vers. 39, 40), he
briefly alludes to the second marriage of women. This last point,
however, appears rather as a supplementary remark, than as an
answer to any question seriously proposed : there remain there-
fore only three points for consideration. Of these, it must be
admitted that the question respecting divorce is of a nature to
be raised from a general Christian point of view. Whether it was
admissible to remain with a heathen in so close a relation as that
of marriage, was a question which might readily occur under any
circumstances. But it is different with the first and third points.
Whether marriage was allowable in itself, how married people
had to conduct themselves in that state, whether the unmarried,
especially of the female sex, were to engage in marriage, — these
I
FIRST CORINTHIANS VII. 1—40. 113
were questions which could not arise from a general Christian
point of view. Christianity indeed admitted no question as to
the allowability of marriage, and neither Jews nor heathens en-
tertained any doubts on this point. It may be said that the
Corinthians had no cause to entertain a doubt or scruple respecting
marriage in itself upon Christian principles ; they could only have
been uncertain as to whether it was advisable to raarry under
existing circumstances ; or, in other words, they might have enter-
tained the same view which Paul himself advocates, — that in the
difficult relations of the church at that period it was better to re-
main single, — and they might have questioned the apostle in their
letter upon this expression of his opinion. In fact I should see
no decisive reason against adopting this view, were it not for the
striking passage, vii. 3 — b, in which Paul recommends the con-
jugal duty not to be forborne, except during a short time for
prayer. Paul must have been led to remind the Corinthians thus
expressly, and in so special a manner, by peculiar circumstances :
doubtless there were ascetic views prevalent in Corinth, in accord-
ance with which many persons even in the married state believed
themselves obliged to abstain from sexual intercourse. But if
such was the case, it is more than probable that this ascetic
tendency occasioned the apostle's also treating of other points
relating to marriage. In this view chap. vii. acquires a marked
contrast with chaps, v. and vi. Whilst at ^rst a caution was held
but against false freedom, there is here likewise a warning against
self-imposed severity. But which of the parties in Corinth could
have fallen into this ascetic tendency ? Neander (Ueber Das
Apost. Zeitalt. Part I. p. 308, &c.) is of opinion that no ascetic
tendency was spread among the Judaizing Christians, but amongst
the followers of Paul. The addition : " The followers of St Paul
thought themselves in this respect likewise obliged to follow the
example of their apostle," appears to indicate Neander's opinion
that the single state of Paul was the cause of his disciples over-
estimating this condition. But this seems to me highly impro-
bable. Paul explains his unmarried state so distinctly as being
merely individual, and combats the mistrust of marriage so
emphatically (1 Tim. iv. 3), — indeed we find no traces in the
later period that the followers of Paul rejected marriage (for
the opposition to marriage amongst the Marcionites, who may
h
114 FIRST CORINTHIANS VII. 1—40.
be considered as ultra-Pauline, proceeded from their Gnostic
views of the nature of matter), — that we must seek some other ex-
planation. The most probable one is that the Christianer also
fostered this error. Their idealistic tendency, as we find it de-
veloped among the later Gnostics, might lead either to moral in-
diflference (as if the pollution of the perishable flesh were a trifling
consideration), or to false asceticism; and the two tendencies
might have co-existed in the germ, and not have been distinctly
separated until a later period. Before, however, taking a special
view of the subject, we must glance at a general point, on the
correct conception of which depends the comprehension of the
whole section. We find (vii. 6, 10, 12, 25, 40) that the apostle
distinguishes between what he says and what the Lord says ;
between a decided command {eTrtrayri) of Christ, and his sub-
jective opinion (yvcofjur)). Paul refers the whole contents of this
section, up to ver. 10, 11, merely to his own opinion, not to the
command of Christ. Billroth remarks upon this, following Usteri,
that the apostle does not distinguish between his own commands
and those received through inspiration, but between his own
commands and those preserved by tradition. In fact St Paul
speaks, xi. 2, 23, expressly of traditions, and the passage, vii.
10, refers to a command of Christ preserved to us. From vii. 40
it is also clear that the yvcofirf is not intentionally opposed in any
way to inspiration, for, it has its origin in the Divine Spirit ; but
this distinction is insufficient for the explanation of our section.
St Paul manifestly adduces the distinction to show that the com-
mand of Christ, but not his yvca/xTj, required an unreserved fulfil-
ment. His advice too could not be followed without thereby
sinning (vii. 36.). Let us suppose that Paul had received no tra-
ditional command of Christ upon any particular subject, we must
consider that his inspired conviction was equivalent to such a
command, since Christ created it within him by his Spirit ! In
the passage, xiv. 37, he openly lays claim to this right. It is
there said : ei rt? hofcel 7rpo(j)^T7}<; elvai, rj Trvev/jLartKo^;, eTnyLvo)-
atceTQ) a ypd(f)co vfuv, on Kvpiov ela-lv ipToXat. No traditional
commands of Christ can be here intended, for a person required
to be no prophet to perceive them; but the judgments of Paul are
called commands of Christ, insofar as Christ worked them in him
by his Spirit. Billroth's explanation (on xiv. 37) of the ivroXal
FIRST CORINTHIANS VII. 1. 115
Kvplov as referring to commands of God in the Old Testament,
is in the highest degree forced, nor can we on closer reflection-
agree with Billroth (although we have advanced a similar view on
Acts XV. 1), on the opinion that this passage is important for a
comprehension of Paul's doctrine of the agency of the Divine
Spirit in man ; as we here see that Paul explains the ypcofjurf
raised in him by the Divine Spirit as not absolutely binding, and
consequently as not absolutely true. The difficulty must rather
be explained by the distinction of positive commands and the
Adiaphora, Where dogmas or express commands are treated of,
St Paul continually lays claim to his apostolic authority ; his
yva)fjb7) is therefore here decisive, since it is enlightened by the
Divine Spirit. But in the Adiaphora it is true wisdom to avoid
decided commands, partly because the position of individuals to
them alters, and partly also because in the progress of develop-
ment the whole period takes an altered position with reference
to them. Fixed commands would therefore be only obstructive,
instead of furthering their object in Adiaphora, and we may say
that the wisdom of the holy Scriptures is manifested no less in
what they have not forbidden, than in what they forbid. The
only objection that might suggest itself against this view, is, that
St Paul would in that case have said : " / forbid it not, I merely
give good advice under existing circumstances ;" but he says in
ver. 25, iTrcrayrjv Kvplov ou/c e%&), yet this formula appears to
refer to the possibility, that the Lord might have given objective
commands also respecting these relations. But those words may
equally well be understood to mean, *' I have no command of the
Lord upon this point, because he has not seen good to give any ;"
his precepts are never purposely defective, — where Christ has
given no law, he intended there should be none. According to
this it is clear, that the advice given by the apostle in this sec-
tion is not intended by himself as objective rules applicable to all
times, and consequently that we are not at liberty to give to them
this extended application, unless they change their nature.
Ver. 1. According to what has been said, therefore, no absolute
validity can be ascribed to the words, koXov dvOpcoTrw yvvaLKb<;
fjLT) aTrrecrOai according to the apostle's view, as a false asceticism
pretends. The word of the apostle receives its comment in vers.
26, 29. The circumstances of the period rendered an unmarried
h 2
116 FIRST CORINTHIANS VII. 2 — 6.
life relatively desirable, yet several of the apostles (ix. 5) were
married. [KaXov has here no moral meaning ; it merely sig-
nifies " salutary." — " AirreaOaL = yy;^. Gen. xx. 6, xxi. 11.
Prov. vi 29 stands euphemistically for " to have conjugal inter-
course." The formula only occurs here in the New Testament,
but elsewhere frequently. The answer is directly connected with
the statement of the question, — otSare may be supplied.
Ver. 2. The apostle here apparently starts from a very low
view of marriage ; it is represented as a prevention of harlotry.
But the reason of this is clearly that Paul was induced by circum-
stances to dwell only upon the negative side. Recent investiga-
tors^ rightly attach weight to the positive side, namely, the spi-
ritual union, on which the bodily union, and the consequent pro-
creation of children, rest as on their basis. The apostolic view
involves an indirect exhortation to the haughty Ckristianer not to
sink deep in the mire of sin by affected sanctity in contemning
marriage.
Vers. 3, 4. Probably married men had already forgone con-
jugal intercourse with their wives, and hence this admonition,
which would otherwise be entirely superfluous. The manner in
which the apostle treats this point shows clearly that he finds the
specific of marriage in the sexual union, which must also be ad-
hered to in every high ideal conception of the relation. *• They
shall be one flesh,^^ not merely one spirit (which all believers
are), and one soul (which all friends likewise are.) Moreover,
not only does the wife appear here dependent on her husband,
but the husband likewise dependent on his wife. (For o^eikrjv
the received text reads 6(f)6iXo/jL6vr]v evvoiav, by which the special
meaning is extended to the more general one, " due kindness."
But the more general sense does not suit the connection. The
best Codd. from A. to Gr. are for 6(f>eCkrjv.)
Vers. 5, 6. St Paul does not desire the conjugal intercourse to
be discontinued, except in lengthened spiritual exercises. The
apostle therefore discountenances the opinion that such inter-
course was only allowable for the express purpose of begetting
1 Compare especially the instructive writings on marriage by Liebetrut (Hamburg,
1834) and Marklin (in tbe " Studien der Wiirtembergischen GeistlicLkeit.") On the
Catholic side, the clever work, " Adam und Christus, oder iiber die Ehe," by Pnpst,
(Vienna, 1835), is particularly remarkable. Compare the criticism of Goschel in the
Berlin Jahrbuch, 1836; number 8, &c.
i
FIRST CORINTHIANS Vll. 5, 6. 117
children. He sees in it only the outward expression of true in-
ward affect jon. This passage, however, gives the impression that
conjugal intercourse is a hindrance to the serious exercise of
prayer ; but the Christian should lead a life of prayer, conse-
quently this act must always be considered as a hindrance, al-
though a necessary one iiT the present state of sinfulness. If
indeed the Christian's life were presented in an absolutely pure
form, man would not require a time thus set apart for prayer, •
but it never does appear on earth in this pure form. The Saviour
himself passed whole nights in solitary prayer, although his holy
soul was continually engaged in prayer. But man has need of
such periods to suspend or to restrict the ordinary occupations
of life, and so it is also with conjugal intercourse. From these
words, therefore, no conclusion can rightly be drawn prejudicial
to the apostle's view respecting sexual intercourse and its inju-
rious effect on the spiritual life. The expression axokd^eiv rfj
'Trpo(76V')(fj moreover contains an indication of the requirement of
stated festivals in the ordinary course of life. Probably it was
an early custom, previous to the festivals, especially before Easter,
for people to devote themselves some time (for this is indicated
in the expression) to solitary prayer, in which beautiful custom
originated Lent. St Paul, however, does not regard all this
{tovto is not to be referred merely to verse 5, but also to the pre-
ceding verses) as a command, but as good advice, for it is all
continually modified according to different relations and indivi-
duals. (In ver. 5, with airoaTepelre is to be supplied tt}?
6([)€L\rj<;. — The dv stands, which is rarely the case, without a verb
[comp. Winer's Gr. p. 279] ; yevrjrai may be supplied. — 'E/c avfi-
(fxovov stands opposed to the isolated conclusion of the one part.
In the Septuagint (TVfjb(^oovov occurs adverbially ; compare Eccles.
vii. 15. In the New Testament it only occurs here. — The ex-
pression 7r/309 Katpov naturally conveys the idea, *' for a short
time ;" but the idea of the shortness is again determined by the
nature of the relation. — The reading <j^d\dG7)Te, and the omission
of TT) vrjareLa Kai before r?} Trpoaevxf}, are fully confirmed by the
great majority of critical authorities. The mention of the fasting
is quite in accordance with the meaning; but it is also, after the
ancient Christian custom, necessarily comprised in the idea of
prayer, as a lengthened exercise of prayer. — The readings a-vvep-
118 FIRST CORINTHIANS VJI. 7 — 11.
Xeo-Qe and a'vvep')(i]aOe are to be regarded as mere interpretations
of ijre. — The expression ireipafyiv hia ttjv aKpaaiav refers back
to hia he ra^ iropvela^; in ver. 2, and the above remarks likewise
apply to it : St Paul dwells only on the negative side of marriage,
but without intending to deny a higher positive one. — In ver. 6,
40, (Tvyyvcofjir) is here to be distinguished from yvrnfir} in ver. 25,
only so that the subjective opinion of the apostle, his good advice,
comprises at the same time the accessory notion of a concession.)
Vers. 7 — 9. This thought, that he was far from giving objective
commands in the name of the Lord (comp. ver. 35) on such rela-
tions, is more closely explained by St Paul's saying that the gifts
in reference to this are differently distributed. In the case of
unmarried people, he wishes (on their own account, as is further
explained in ver. 26, et sqq.) that they should remain single on
account of the impending troubles of the church ; but for him who
has not the gift of continency, it is better that he should enter
the ordinance of marriage, which is founded by God. The apostle
moreover here states the theme — especially in the words \e7ft)
Be rot? ar/d/jLOL<i koI tol^ X^P^^"^ — which he pursues further in
ver. 25, sqq., and 38, sqq. (In ver. 7. 6e\Q) contains only the
idea of wishing, which St Paul however himself acknowledges
to be impracticable. The words iravra^ av6p(07rov^ are of course
only to be referred to the members of the church, for they alone
were at that time called upon to suffer persecution. — Xdpicr/jLa
has here, but nowhere else, the meaning of a natural gift, which
the mercy of God imparts, not an extraordinary spiritual gift.
[Compare the particulars in 1 Cor. xii. 4.]. In Matt. xix. 12.
the Lord expresses the same thought. — In ver. 8 ayaixo^ is only
fully determined by the connection with %^pat9 : they are those
persons not yet married. The opinion that widowers were here-
by referred to is untenable ; they are rather to be classed with
the x^'/oat?, but are not particularly named, because widowers are
mostly compelled by circumstances to marry again, but not
so widows. — In ver. 9 irvpovaOai, for which the Greeks also use
KaieaOai and (pXijeaOac, is like the Latin uri, referring to the
sufferings from the force of sexual impulse.)
Vers. 10, 11. The apostle next turns to believers living in a
state of marriage, and reminds them shortly of the Word of the
Lord (Hatt. v. 31, sqq. xix. 9 ; Mark x. 9, 12), that among
FIRST CORINTHIANS VII. 12, 13. 119
Christians no divorce should take place either on the man's side
or on the woman's side, either from ascetic (1 Tim. iv. 3) or
other reasons. He makes no mention of adultery as a valid
cause of divorce, since this constitutes the divorce itself. (Com-
pare remarks in the Comm. on Matt. v. 32, and Tholuck's Ser-
mon on the Mount, p. 258.). The remarkable addition, iav B^
fcal ')((opL(T6fi^ shows the impossibility of absolutely carrying, out
this principle, valid as it was for the true Christians, in ilie
early and zealous state of the church at that time. The convic-
tion is therein expressed that, in the case of many persons be-
longing to the church, but not sufficiently penetrated with its
spirit, matrimonial differences would not be overcome by affec-
tion, and that separation would ensue ; in this case St Paul de-
sires that no fresh marriage should be contracted, or still better,
that reconciliation should be effected. This last thought, rj tm
dvSpl KaTaWayrfTO), shows that St Paul had in his mind sepa-
rations not only arising from ascetic motives, but from dissension,
and he regards these among the Christians of that time as by no
means impossible. But the second marriage of those persons
who have been divorced appears to be here absolutely forbidden,
and thus the separatio is here also reduced to a mere separa-
tion from bed and board ; a separatio quoad vinculum involved
the admissibility of marrying again. But from the more exact
determinations in the words of the Lord (Matt. v. and xix.) it
follows, that the second marriage of divorced persons is not
to be considered as absolutely forbidden for the dead mem-
bers of the outward church. This passage is to be explained
from the former, as St Paul himself grounds it upon them, but
not the former from this one. At all events the passage be-
fore us affords no argument to prove that malitiosa desertio
is a valid reason for divorce, for the jj^evirco dya/xo<i forbids
marrying again. (The expressions 'xcopLaOijvai- of the wife, and
acpievat of the husband, are carefully chosen. The wife is con-
tinually dependent on the husband ; she cannot therefore dis-
miss him, she can only withdraw from him ; the husband, on the
contrary, can dcptevac her, a milder expression for iKjSdXXeip,
Comp. remarks on ver. 13.).
Ver. 12, 13. In the peculiar circumstances, undoubtedly of
frequent occurrence in the first age of the church, when a por-
120 FIRST CORINTHIANS VII. 14.
tion was still heathen, St Paul does not venture to enforce the
command not to divorce, — an important hint to us, in our half-
heathen church relations, how we should moderate the importance
attached to the prohibition of divorce. St Paul rests the decision
on the consent of the heathen party ; on the side of the believ-
ing party, he presupposes willingness from the greater love which
is to animate the latter. A marriage with a heathen is to be con-
sidered binding on a believer, so long as the heathen party sepa-
rating him or herself does not contract another marriage. These
precepts have in modern times acquired a new importance in re-
ference to the labours of religious missions. Marriages, in which
one party remains heathen, are never to be dissolved ; it is in-
deed a diflGlcult question, what course should be pursued, when
a converted heathen has several wives. Since in the Old Testa-
ment God permitted polygamy to the holy patriarchs, it seems
proper not to compel those who are in this position to put away
their wives and children ; but, on the other hand, in the case of
new marriages, strictly to introduce monogamy. (In ver. 12, the
words Tofc9 \oi7ruL<; are to be explained from the apostle's view,
according to which he resolves the <y6yafM7jK6Te<; into certain
classes. He of course does not speak particularly of those in
whose marriage state there was no interruption of harmony, for
where dissension existed, he commands the parties not to sepa-
rate ; the rest, that is to say the remaining class of married
persons, in which one party was heathen, he allows under cer-
tain circumstances to separate, but counsels them to keep fast the
marriage tie wherever possible.^ In ver. 13, atfaivai is used of
the wife, insofar as in a mixed marriage the Christian party is
considered the ruling one.).
Ver. 14. In order to give importance to the admissibility of
such a union between a Christian and a heathen, the apostle ex-
presses a thought, which, especially in connexion with the fol-
lowing, where the children are also called holy for the sake of their
Christian parents, must have presented no ordinary difficulty to
the ancient commentators, with their notions respecting infant
1 A.S the apostle here expressly remarks, that in what follows he gives merely good
arfvice, it is clear that the subsequent passage can only be applied as the basis of the
Christian law of marriage, insofar as its precepts are confirmed by the express law of
Christ.
FIRST COEINTHIANS VII. 14. 121
baptism. Some critics have therefore arbitrarily understood t)ryi-
acTTat to refer to baptism, and the conversion effected by the
Christian party. But in verse 16 this is only represented as pos-
sible ; here, on the other hand, the continuation of the marriage
union is meant to be justified by the previous holiness in the hea-
then state. Others, who endeavour to maintain the claims of in-
fant baptism, allege that Christian children may be baptized, but
not heathen children, because the former only can be supposed
destined to this privilege. Here then is indicated the destination
of the heathen party for Christianity by union with a Christian.
This view is held by Calov, Vitringa, and others ; nor is it un-
suitable ; according to it the word dyid^eaOat might be taken in
its proper fundamental signification, " to be set apart for a sacred
purpose, to be dedicated" (compare remarks in the commentary on
John xiii. 31, 32.). But the following contrast of dKaOapra and
d<yLa shows, that in the word r]fylaaTai the real influence of the
Christian principle on the heathen party is rather to be considered,
than the ynere destination for this. At all events, the re-
ference of rj'ylao-TaL to marriage, and the following word dKa-
Oapra to bastards, is decidedly to be rejected ; for the apostles
never denied the reality of heathen marriages ; the validity of a
marriage, and the legitimacy of the children, could not therefore
have been first determined by the circumstance that one party
became Christian. This idea, however, is highly important, that
a relative sanctification (for the word dr/id^eaOat can only be un-
derstood here to refer to a slight infusion of the Christian prin-
ciple) can be effected merely by contact with those who possess
it. That is to say, in those who are closely united with believers,
without allowing themselves to be overcome by the power in them,
a certain resistance is always to be conceived ; and yet the mighty
power of Christ unites itself with the better part in them, and
elevates it to a certain grade. According to this view we may
conceive, that Judaism existing among Christians for cen-
turies, was imperceptibly operated on by the power of Christ,
the consequences of which will one day be gloriously revealed.
Nor is the second half of the verse less important, treating
of the sanctification of children by their parents. 'Eirel dpa
(comp. V. 10) presupposes the thought expressed in the fol-
lowing words as one generally recognized : ''for else were
122 FIRST CORINTHIANS VII. 15, ] 6.
your children unclean ; but now they are, as ye all know
and acknowledge, holy.")^ The v/jumv of course cannot re-
fer merely to the half-heathen marriages (for what was Yalid
in them must have been still more so in purely Christian mar-
riages), nor merely to the latter, as this would not suit tlie
line of argument; it refers to all Christian children/ The
ancient Christians therefore considered these as holy, on ac-
count of their descent from Christians. But this expression
cannot possibly, according to the contrast (aKadapra) be merely
rendered " dear, valued," as some interpreters maintain ; it must
rather be explained, according to the analogy of rjyLao-rai, " re-
latively sanctified by the influence of the parents, touched by
nobler influences." It is self-evident that it is not intended here
to deny the peccability of the children, any more than in the case
of the sanctified heathen party, who, according to ver. 16, has
yet to be converted ; but a destination for conversion, and a
means of facilitating this, is unquestionably included. This is
the blessing of pious ancestors. (2 Tim. i, 5.). It is moreover
clear that St Paul would not have chosen this line of argument
had infant baptism been at that time practised ; but it is certain
that in the thought which the apostle here expresses lies the full
authorization of the church to institute this rite. What per-
tains to the children of Christians in virtue of their birth is
affirmed to them in baptism, and is really and fully imparted to
them at their confirmation or spiritual baptism. It cannot be a
matter of indiff'erence to the child in what spiritual state its pa-
rents were when he was begotten. But the child of Christian
parents always requires a personal regeneration.
Vers. 15, 16. In these verses the apostle brings forward the
other side, which, in a mixed marriage of heathen and Christian,
must raise a question. A case might occur in which the heathen
party, on religious grounds (for we are here only speaking of
such) did not wish to remain in the married state, or, in other
words, required the Christian to forsake his or her faith. In such
1 According to the passages here cited by Wetstein and Schbttgen, the same view
holds good with the Jews. Children who are descended from a half-Jewish marriage
were treated as true Jews. The good is rightly considered stronger than evil.
2 De Wette (Stud. 1830, part iii. p. 669, sqq.) is quite right in considering the refer-
ence as not merely to the children of mixed marriages, nor only to those of purely Chris-
tian marriages ; the Cliristian principle operates stronglv from one oftlie parties.
3
FIRST CORINTHIANS VII. 15, 16. 123
a case the apostle declares that the Christian party shall con-
sent to a separation from the heathen ; that the Christian party,
(brother or sister) is, in such a case, not bound (ov BeBovKcorao iv
ToU TOLovTOL^.) But God has called believers to peace ; it is
therefore the duty of the belieying party to maintain peace as
long as possible, and to bear with the heathen party ; nor can
he indeed know, but that perhaps this very gentleness may win
over the unbelieving party, and bring him or her to salvation.
Viewed in this light, the passage appears to be quite simple, and
yet it has presented very grave difficulties to interpreters. Some
have imagined they detected in it a second ground for divorce, the
malitiosa desertio, whilst in Matt. v. 32, xix. 9, adultery is
stated to be the only sufficient ground ; here then appears to
arise a discrepancy between our Lord's words and the apostle's.
In this explanation the undetermined ov BeSovXoyrai iv tol<;
roiovTOL^ scil. irpd^iiaai} was understood to mean that the permis-
sion is herein conveyed for the Christian party, not only to dis-
miss the heathen party, who wishes to separate, hut also to
marry another. But this is evidently not conveyed in the
words.2 Ver. 15 forms a contrast to ver. 12.; the heathen
party who wishes to remain, says St Paul, shall not be allowed ;
but he who desires to go, he adds in ver. 15, shall not be
detained. That at the same time the permission to marry
again was granted by the apostle, is the less probable, since in
ver. 16 the possibility of the conversion of the heathen party is
dwelt upon. This passage indeed does not refer to the state
which is inferred by x^pi^eadat, for the words iv Be elprjvrf
K€fc\rjK€v '^fid^ 6 066<;, k. t. X. evidently contain a limitation of
the preceding thought : " The unbeliever may separate, hut the
main principle always remains to the Christian, that he is called
to peace, and therefore a peaceful disposition must always pre-
vail, in order not to give cause on his or her side for separation."
The possibility however cannot and must not be denied, that the
mind of the heathen party may also change after the separation.
It cannot, from this very possibility, be the apostle's meaning,
1 It is of course also possible, tlmt toioutol was used in the tnasuline,but it does not
seem to me probable on account of the iv. — Olsliausen Commentar., 2ud edit. iii.
2 Comp. the article in the Evangelische Kirchenreitung, for March 1829, p. 188,
sqq.
124 FIRST CORINTHIANS VII. 17.
that the Christian party is at liberty to marry again when the
heathen has left him or her (the re-marrying of the Christian
party would alwa"ys be according to Matt. v. 32, /juot'^^ela) ; the
Christian is only relieved from the obligation of living with a
heathen party, and this alone is intended to be enforced by the
words ov BeBovXayrat. That this passage has been understood to
imply that St Paul considered the malitiosa desertio as a valid
ground of divorce to Christians, may be explained by the feeling
of necessity in the existing state of the outward church, not to
limit divorces to the single case where adultery has been ac-
tually committed. It was felt that malicious desertion and im-
placable hatred might also form valid grounds for divorce, and
biblical sanction was sought for this opinion. But we have before
remarked on Matt. v. 32, that the New Testament absolutely
forbids divorce as well as oaths ; adultery forms only an apparent
exception ; this is not so much a ground of divorce as the divorce
itself Although nevertheless it is clear from experience that
this absolute prohibition is no blessing for the numerous heathens
in the net of the kingdom of God, yet we must say, that the New
Testament does not intend to apply this command to the hea-
thens likewise. It is moreover self-evident that the legislation
of Christian states must continually strive to approach the exalted
goal.
Ver. 17. The mention of the divine vocation, which is in the
first instance only cited in reference to marriage, leads the apostle
to its general consideration, which extends to ver. 24 He pro-
ceeds to observe, how in all congregations he acted on the princi-
ple, to leave every one in the outward vocation in which he was
before conversion. Among these outward vocations St Paul
reckons marriage. The mighty spirit of the Gospel produced an
immense excitement in the minds of all ; the glance at a higher
world which it opened, excited in many an indifference to the
outward world ; many Christians forsook their earthly vocation,
and would only live and work in the spirit (comp. remarks on
2 Thess. iii. 6, sqq.). Similar misunderstandings probably existed
at Corinth, especially among the Christianer, who were inclined to
a false conception of freedom, and led St Paul to this diatribe.
The apostle's wisdom opposed, by word and act, this proceed-
ing, which must have brought ruin on the church, by not him-
I
FIRST CORTNTHTANvS VIT. 18, 19. 125
self relinquishing his handicraft on assuming his apostolic voca-
tion. To this fanatical and revolutionary movement he opposed
calm discretion. He rightly conceived that the Gospel does not
seek to overthrow all that is ancient in a sudden and tumultuous
manner, but brings about a change by a slow process, penetrating
into all the relations of life. (The et firj is intended to render
prominent again the other side, namely that it is better for every
one to remain in the relations which God has allotted to him, and
consequently also in marriage, even when one party has remained
heathen. Billroth correctly explains el fjurj = ttXtjv. The course
of thought may be thus understood : '* But if the heathen party
wishes to separate, let him not be compelled to remain, his
conversion is always uncertain ; onii/ it is a fixed general
principle, that every one should remain in the vocation which
God has allotted to him." In idea Ritckert's conception of the
el fii] is the same ; he takes it for el Be koI jjut), " but even if
not," namely what precedes is the case, i.e. at all events. The
reading 7) ^rj \^ a simple correction, arising from the diffi-
culty which was conceived to exist in the expression el fjurj. — With
respect to the attraction in eKdarcp, compare Winer's Gr. p. 482,
sqq. — The passage already cited, 2 Thess. iii. 6, throws light,
on the words ovtoj? ev ral^ €KK\7]aLai<i irdcrat^; Bcardaao/jLaL, com-
pare the explanation.)
Vers. 18, 19. St Paul first touches on the great difference be-
tween Jews and heathens. The apostle is not in favour of abo-
lishing the outward means of recognition on entrance into the
Christian church, since in the New Testament this contract has
lost its meaning. The rr/prjo-t^ evroXoyv Oeov is here alone
valid,^ in which is embraced the belief in Christ and his redemp-
tion, since he also is an evroXr) Oeov. (The abominable custom,
to which the words fjur) eiriGirdadby refer, namely the renewal of
a foreskin in an artificial manner, is mentioned again in 1 Mace,
i. 15. According to Buxtorf [Lex. Talm. p. 1274] those Jews
who had abolished the token of their election from shame toward
1 The conception of the words, which Billroth proposes, seems to me erroneous.
" Circumcision and foreskin are nothing in themselves, they only acquire signification
when men believe that in them they keep the commands of God." But the strict Juda-
ists, believing circumcision to be a command of God, would have done quite right to at-
tribute importance to it, which however the apostle cannot have intended.
126 FIRST CORIKTHIANS VIT. 20 — 24.
the heathens were called Q^i^^^?^, in Latin recutiti [compare
Martial. Epigr. yii. 30.] Joseph. Ant. xii. 6 also speaks of such
a custom. According to Celsus [de Medic, vii. 25] a peculiar
instrument was employed for this purpose called the iiriaira-
(TTTjp. For more particulars compare an article in the Stud. 1835,
pt. 3. p. 657, sqq. — In ver. 19, in the expression aWa Tr}pr]cn^
ivToXoiv &60V, is to be supplied iarlTi. as it is called in iii. 7.)
Vers. 20 — 24. The general principle (ver. 20, 24) is here also
applied to the relation of slavery, which prevailed throughout the
whole ancient world. This is certainly opposed to the spirit of
the Gospel, which makes men free, and Paul advises also the con-
verted slaves to seek freedom if they can obtain it (of course in
a lawful and proper manner), and the free men in no manner to
trifle away their freedom. At the same time, if this is not
possible, he exhorts them not to vex themselves about it, since
the free man is also the servant of Christ. — This conception of
the passage differs from that which the Fathers of the church
have maintained since the time of Chrysostom, and in fact at first
sight the connexion seems rather to favour their explanation.
They supply in ver. 21, with fidXKov ')(^prjaaL, not eXevOepla, but
BovXela, so that the sense is : "If thou art called as a slave, care
nothing, much more although thou (el Kal = quanquam) canst
become free, yet serve rather ; for the believing slave is yet free
in the Lord, and the free man a slave of Christ." The connexion
appears, accoMing to the other and now usual explanation, not
to be rendered by any means so clear, and especially el fcai (ver.
21) and jdp (ver. 22) appear to be inappropriate. But the
words, fjur) ytveaOe SovXot dvOpcoTrcov (ver. 23), militate against
the opinion of the church Fathers ; beside which we may observe
that the apostle cannot possibly have expressed the idea, that a
slave should remain in a state of slavery, even when he can obtain
freedom. The point therefore is, to obtain from the el Kal and
the following yap an appropriate reference in accordance with our
view. But this presents itself in a very natural manner, if we
only give to the BovXo^ eK\r)dri^ the proper emphasis. According
to the meaning of the apostle, spiritual freedom is included in Ka-
XelaOai : from this idea he proceeds : " But if thou canst also
obtain bodily beside spiritual freedom, do it rather, for the slave
called in the Lord is by the Lord made free from all outward
FIRST CORINTHIANS VII. 25, 26. 127
power, therefore it is befitting also that he should be quite
free." Then the emphatic uTreXevdepo^ suits very well, as also -
the fjLoXXou ^pijo-at, which last, even with SovXeia supplied,
has still a great hardness. With respect to the other half of
ver. 22, namely the words ojiolw^ koX 6 ekevOepo^ kXrjOeU BovXo^
ia-TL XpicTTov, they in the first place express, that no one here
on earth can be otherwise than in a state of dependence ; and
they are insofar consolatory for servants — the most free are
also servants of Christ. But these words also contain a warning to
the free to preserve their freedom, not to become the servants of
men by dependence on human opinions — for to be a servant of
Christ is itself the true freedom ; every life spent out of his ser-
vice is in a measure like slavery. (If Kkrjai<^ is referred to the
outward vocation, and eKk'qOr) in ver. 20 to the inward calling, the
fi strikes us — it should be ev fj. But if the expression, iv ry
Kkrjaei fj iKXrjdr) is conceived as an idea, eKkiqBr] must be under-
stood of the outward vocation. This is certainly uncommon, ac-
cording to the usage of language in the New Testament, but not
unfitting ; it is far more completely in accordance with the Pauline
circle of ideas, that the almighty will of God is believed to condi-
tion the outward position of man, however apparently free he may
be to choose it. We therefore prefer this last conception to the
difficulty of supplying the ev. — In ver. 22, comp. on the notion of
true freedom, the remarks on John viii. 36. — The formula Ttyu?}?
rjyopda-drjre is found in vi. 20. — In ver. 24, the Trapa 06g5 is de-
rived from every human mode of conception of the relations ; the
most inward condition of the soul is of importance in the sight of
God, — by it slavery or freedom is first sanctified.).
Ver. 25, 26. These following verses contain advice for the un-
married. Under the existing difficult relations of the church,
the apostle, as he again assures us, considers it better that they
should not enter upon marriage. (Compare vii. 1.). At the
same time he again expressly observes, that he does not give
this as a command of the Lord (that is to say in order not to
impose a burden upon any one), but as his own opinion. Ne-
vertheless he makes his opinion (as in ver. 40) very striking
and worthy of consideration by adding : &>? rjkerjijbevo^ viro Kvpiov
iTLaro^ elvai. This inaTo^ elvai, which St Paul refers, not to
himself, but to the pity of God, cannot mean, as Billroth is of
128 FIRST CORINTHIANS VII. 27 — 31.
opinion, " to be a true servant of the Lord/' nor, as Augustine
thinks, " to be faithful in my vocation :" neither sense has any
direct reference to the context. It can only mean, as Flatt cor-
rectly remarks, " to be worthy of belief, i.e. of confidence." This
is peculiarly referred to in the mention of his yvco/Mt]. But he
was worthy of confidence, because he had the Spirit of God,
which judges correctly all circumstances, and this is alluded to in
ver. 40. But if the apostle here expresses thus generally the
thought, KoXov avOpcoTTw to outo)? elvai, it is at the same time
apart from the consideration of the persecutions, especially to
be^ remembered, that St Paul believed the return of the Lord
to be near at hand. The ivearcocra avajKr] are to him the
n^tljtsn "^^^H' ^^^^ which is connected the revelation of the king-
dom of God. (Comp. on x. 11.). But as this hope subsequently
receded, when he no longer believed himself to be " clothed
upon" (2 Cor. v.), but when he hoped to depart (Phil. i. 23 ;
2 Tim. iv. 6), his view of marriage must also have become mo-
dified. (In ver. 25 the expression nTap6evo<i refers, as it fre-
quently does, to both sexes, it is = dyafio^. Riickert is of opi-
nion that it only refers to virgins, but this is completely con-
tradicted By the BiBeo-ai yvvaiKL (ver. 27.). — In ver. 26, the ort
KoXov merely takes up tovto koXov again to strengthen the
thought. — On ev6aT(o<; compare remarks on iii. 22, and Rom. viii.
38. 'AvdyKT) refers not merely to the persecutions, but also to
the great events in nature expected at the last day [compare on
Matt. xxiv. 20, 21, 29], in short to the OxlyfreL^; of the last period
of time in the widest compass.)
Vers. 27, 28. In the clearest manner St Paul guards against
being misunderstood, to represent marriage as a sin (which was
probably taught in Corinth) ; but he openly declares that the un-
married would at that time lead an easier life, and his advice may
accordingly be considered as intended to save them from trouble.
(In verse 27 \ekvaat must not be referred to the death of the
wife ; it merely means " to be unmarried." — In verse 28, the ad-
dition of rfj aapKL transfers the whole consequences of marriage
to a lower sphere ; it prepares the way for want, anxiety, care, in
outward circumstances, but no ^Xt'^t? tm irvevjiaTi.)
Vers. 29 — 31. The apostle enforces this good advice in the
following verses by a detailed description of the state of mind
FIRST CORINTHIANS VII. 29—31. 129
which the character of the times required. The heart must not
be wholly given up to any earthly possession or afifection ; it must
rather always belong to God and the imperishable world, and a
love of the future state. Without doubt St Paul wrote these words
in expectation of a near approaching transformation of the cr;^^/>ta
Tou KooTfjbov TovTov, and the introduction of the alcov /jLeWo)v
with the ^aaiXela r. Q. If however this hope is not realized,
the meaning of these words is by no means destroyed. (Com-
pare the remarks on Matt. xxiv. 1). The whole development of
the church on earth is such as to lead to the continual expecta-
tion of the coming of Christ, and the state of mind of be-
lievers is to be such as is here described. The period of expec-
tation is only extended by the mercy of God (2 Pet. iii. 9.), but
its character is not altered. (In ver. 29 the explanation of the
words 6 Kaipo^ k. t. \. is not without difficuHy. With respect
first to the punctuation, the division after crvveaTaX^evo<;, when
iari must be supplied, is not suitable, because, according to this,
TO XoiTTov, which must then be taken adverbially, becomes some-
what laboured. The same objection applies to the division which
Lachmann proposes, placing eVrt before to Xolttov, besides which
this transposition has not critically sufficient authority. The
thought only becomes concise by placing the point, as Griesbach
and others do, after eVrt, and taking to Xolitov as subject, in
the sense " the [of this cycle still] rest is the heavy time." The
article before Kaipb^ thus acquires its full force, whilst it points
to the great period of suflfering before the Parousia known to all
Christians. With respect then to the explanation, we had the
word avaTeXXo), Acts v. 6, in the signification " to bury a dead
man." Here it is to be taken in the simplest meaning of the
word, " to contract." The participle therefore might signify,
" s/iortj of brief duration.'^ But the meaning, " anxious, heavy,"
must be considered more appropriate. There is no well-authen-
ticated passage to justify the use of avveaTaX^evo^ for " short/'
On the contrary, in the classics, ava-ToXr) means simply " anxiety,
contraction of the heart." [Cic. Qusest. Tusc. i. 37 ; Lsel. c. 13.].
In the same sense crvcrTeXXecrOai occurs in Ps. Ixxii. 13, accord-
ing to the translation of Symmachus.— -The ha is to be under-
stood TeXiicw^ : this want has the purpose, according to the in-,
tention of God, of freeing the soul from dependence on perishable
130 FIRST CORINTHIANS VII. 32 — 34.
things. — The words w? /xt) e%oi/T69 yvvaiKa^ are of course merely
to be understood inwardly, keeping the spirit so free in the love
of the creature as not to be impeded by this in the fulfilment
of the highest duty, the relation to the kingdom of God. —
A^er. 30. Not joy merely, but sorrow likewise is not to have domi-
nion over the servant of God ; in God's power he rules over all. —
Kar e ')(pvTe^ is emphatic, as in a subsequent passage k a T\a ')(p(o/jbe-
voL : the Kara is meant to indicate the false tendency of the spirit
abandoning itself altogether. — In ver. 31 o"%^/aa is fades ex-
terna ; the world itself does not perish at the dawning of the
kingdom of God, but only its form. Not until after the king-
dom of God follows the new heaven and the new earth. [Rev.
xxi. 1.]. What perishes in the world is the sinful ; compare
1 John ii. 8 and 17. — Lachmann very appropriately connects with
the preceding the 6e\w Si k. t. X., so that between the two sen-
tences lies this supplying thought, " You would therefore prepare
for yourselves much want if you should give yourselves up to the
perishable things of this world.")
Ver. 32 — 34. The following words are so strong, as in fact to in-
cline to the belief that the apostle gives an objective preference to
celibacy, as the (Roman) Catholic church maintains.^ But on this
very account, that the words are so strongly expressed, the de-
fenders of celibacy are themselves obliged to limit their meaning. If
the expression, 6 ^yafii^aa^ /mepLfjuva ra rou Koo-fjLov, 7rw9 apeaei rf)
jvvaLKL is intended to refer to marriage, this could be no sacra-
ment, it would directly destroy the idea of a life devoted to God.
The passage can therefore only be understood to mean that the
apostle is describing the ordinary state of things, from the influ-
ence of which even the believer is frequently not exempt ; but by
no means that a description of marriage, or of Christian marriage,
is here given. .(In ver. 32 fjuepipivav is used in a good sense " to
do zealously, to manage." — Semler thinks falsely here only of
deacons, as if ra rov icvplov were an allusion to their office. The
general tenor of the command plainly contradicts this view.—
There are various different readings and punctuations of ver. 34,
which are probably only occasioned by /jLe/jbipto-raL. This word
might be connected with the preceding one with the addition of
1 Compare the clever treatise by Papst on the theory of maniage, in the Journal for
Philosophy and Catholic Theology, in the fifteenth and earlier numbers. Cologne, 1835-
FIRST CORINTHIANS VII. 35—38. 131
Kal, so that the sense would be "and is divided ;" that is, serves
two masters, God and the world ; or it might be referred to the_
following, with the meaning, " there is a difference between a wife
and a virgin." This last usual conception of the passage may
deserve the preference. Lachmann however decides for the first,
and reads, koI t) <^vvr\ r; a'^a^io% kol rj irapOevo^ t] a'^a^o^y instead
of the usual reading, 77 fyvvr] kol rj irapOevo^' rj dyafio^,)
Ver. 35. St Paul again declares that his intention is not to lay-
down any law, but only to impart profitable advice, for the more
easy attachment to the Lord and honesty. On account of the
following da-^7]/jLov6Lv, the expression to evaxvi^'^^ ^^^ ^^^J ^®
understood in the sense of honesty, honeetas. But this appears
to stigmatize marriage as inhonestum. The difficulty might be
avoided, by referring rovro not merely to the last-mentioned ob-
ject, but to the contents of the whole chapter ; then to eva^T]-
fiov would refer to an honourable marriage, which was spoken of
in the beginning of the chapter, in contrast to the iropvela. But
in the first place ravra would in this case have been used, because
more than one object is treated of; again, the expression evirdpe-
Spov TO) fcvplo) refers too decidedly to what has. been just said ;
and lastly, there is here no conclusion, — the question concerning
unmarried persons is still continued. We must therefore say,
that, to be an dyafjuof; is not in itself an evcr^rnjLov, any more than
to be married is in itself an darxv/^ov, but only insofar as, under
the peculiar existing circumstances, the service of the Lord re-
quired this. Billroth understands ffpoxo^ to mean a snare, but
this does not agree with the verb iirt^oXkeiv. A snare, more-
over, would imply something secret, whereas everything here is
open ; it alludes only to something difficult. It is therefore better
conceived as = ^0709. — Instead of evirdpehpov the received text
reads evirpoaehpov, but the former reading, which Lachmann also
adopts, has the authority of the Codd. in its favour. It is the
neuter form of the adjective transferred to the substantive, and
the expression therefore carries the dative. It denotes " attach-
ment, fast adherence." — The aTre/jto-Tracrra)? only strengthens the
idea of the ev. It means, " without being drawn away by any
relation." This form is only found here in the New Testament )
Vers. 36 — 38. The reader will thus far have understood the
apostle's representation as relating in the question of marriage to
i2
132 FIRST CORINTHIANS VIT. 39, 40.
the decision of tlie persons themselves interested ; but St Paul, at
the conclusion of the enquiry, speaks of the father as deciding
the marriage of his daughter. This is perhaps not to be under-
stood as if the apostle by way of example wished to cite merely
a form, how a marriage is brought about or prevented ; but, after
the ancient mode of conception, he considers the question of mar-
riage as entirely placed in the hands of the father, or of his re-
presentative. We must confess that this state is a subordinate
one, and the free self-decision of the betrothed parties, recognized
by the parents, although rightly subjected to certain conditions,
appears to be more befitting a mature age ; but St Paul, in his
wisdom, does not convert the form, which was adapted to the
relations of that period, into a rule for all ages. (In ver. 36,
a(T)(7}fjLovetv is to be taken in an active sense ; " he who thinks
that he behaveth uncomely toward his daughter." The thought
is to be explained from the point of view of the Jewish Christians,
who regarded childlessness as the greatest earthly misfortune and
the greatest disgrace to the wife. — Ver. 37. Compare on eSpaio^
1 Cor. XV. 58, Col. i. 23. The apostle here refers to the steadfast
conviction, that it is better to remain unmarried. AiaKpivofievof;,
Rom. xiv. 23, forms the contrast. — In the words fxr) e^cop avdy-
K7]v, K. T. X. there appears to be an intimation that the father
may also be in a certain measure bound by the will of the daugh-
ter. But outward circumstances are undoubtedly first to be con-
sidered. The view entertained generally by the ancients, as still
at the present day in the East, recognized no independence of
the wife ; this first resulted from the Christian- Germanic civiliza-
tion. — In ver. 38, we need not suppose with Billroth, that Paul
intended first to oppose to the expression o ifcya/jul^wv KaXci)<;
TTOiel merely koX 6 firj iKyafxl^cov, but then corrected himself.
The principle expressed here lay in the whole connexion. But
Kpei(T(Tov TTOiel can only be referred to peculiar relations of the
time or certain persons. — For ya/jLt^co we find in Mark xii. 25, the
form yajjbL(TKco, as also .in Luke- xx. 34, i/cya/jbtaKco stands for
iKyajjLt^cOj which again occurs in Matt. xxiv. 38, Luke xvii. 27.)
V^ers. 39, 40. In the last place, touching the second marriage
of the woman,^ St Paul remarks, that in marrying a believer she
1 Tliero seems to be no doubt entertaiued respecting the second marriage of the man,
pi obtibiy because in the case of widowers a new marriage was generally of pressing ira-
FIRST CORINTHIANS YII. 39, 40. l33
need have no scruple ; but in the apostle's opinion, she had
better remain unmarried. The addition of the words Sokm Se
Kayo) iTvevfJua Qeou e^etv, to the expression Kara rrjv ifjurjv yvco-
fjbTjv, plainly indicates a contrast to those who, as it were, ap-
propriated to themselves the Spirit, which naturally calls to mind
the Christianer. Since however the observation stands at the
conclusion of the whole exposition, its allusion cannot be re-,
stricted to the last remark, but it must be considered as apply-
ing to the entire subject. In later times moreover a certain odium
was attached in the church to a second marriage, traces of which
occur as early as in 1 Tim. iii. 2, v. 9. Ministers of religion
therefore could not be Slyajnot. (Comp. Binghami Origg. vol. ii.
p. 153.). From the last- mentioned work indeed (vol. vi. p. 423 j,
we see that, under certain circumstances, digami were excluded
from the communion-table. (The whole passage has a detailed
parallel in Rom. vii. 1, sqq. From this passage also in some
Codd. pojjLwis added to BeSerat. — Billroth, following Calvin, is of
opinion, that by iv Kvplw more is intended than that the widow
should merely marry a believer, namely that she should make her
choice and enter upon the marriage in a truly Christian spirit.
But as w OeKeL precedes, ev Kvpio) can only first refer to the
person marrying. It is self-evident however that, if the faith of
the chosen person is investigated, there must also be faith, for
only belief recognizes belief. — In ver. 40 fxaKapccorepa cannot re-
fer to eternal blessedness, but to the avfx(f>6pov [ver. 35] of this
life, whilst the unmarried woman will be better off in the /cacpo^
(7UP€o-Ta\fievo<i [ver. 29] than the married woman.)
§ 8. CHRISTIAN LIBERTY.
(viii. 1 — xi. 1.)
In this large section the apostle treats of the use of meats
offered in sacrifice, participation in idolatrous festivities, and es-
portance, on account of the motherless children; therefore the question here is only
touching the woniun. The /xovov kv Kvpiw moreover must be regarded as referring also
to the man (2 Cor. vi. 14, 15.).
134 FIRST CORINTHIANS VIII. 1 — 3.
pecially of Christian liberty, and the manner of its exercise. ^ It
appears that several members of the Corinthian church had pro-
ceeded to such lengths as not only to eat meat which had bee»
offered in sacrifice to idols, but actually to take part in some sa-
crificial festivities held in the heathen temple itself (viii, 10.). It
is possible that some of the immediate followers of Paul, or of
Apollos, had fallen into this extreme, but it appears especially
to have been the Christianer, whose Gnostic prejudices (viii.
1 — 3), leading them to suppose themselves elevated above all sin,
rendered them thus perfectly regardless of the weaker brethren.
It was doubtless the Judaising followers of Peter, who received
from such proceedings just and great offence. The apostle hav-
ing first, in viii. 1 — 13, adverted to the general use of meats
that had been offered in sacrifice to idols, and directed at-
tention to the offence likely to arise to the weaker brother
by the exercise of false liberty therein, proceeds to expatiate
(ix. 1 — 27) upon th6 high degree of self-restraint with respect
to the liberty permitted him, which is exercised by the true
Christian on his brother's account, and then shows (x. 1 — 13) from
the sacred writings of the Old Testament, how severely God
punishes the misuse of liberty. He then returns to the circum-
stances of the Christian with respect to the heathen festivals, de-
claring that the believer cannot celebrate alike heathen and
Christian sacrifice. But in order to avoid introducing Jewish
formality into the church, he permits the use of meats offered to
idols, if purchased in the market, and likewise sanctions the par-
ticipation in repasts given by the heathen in their own dwellings,
and the free use of all meats served up on such occasions, provided
it was not expressly declared that such had formed part of an
idol sacrifice (x. 14 — xi. 1.). The apostle thus decides between the
claims of the party advocating freedom on such points, and also
on that which inculcated a stricter observance, with a high degree
of impartiality and wisdom.
Ver. 1 — 3. Verse 1 is evidently resumed in verse 4, so that the
subject occurring between may be considered parenthetical, and
it would be better to consider the parenthesis as beginning at the
1 The passage Rom. xiv. 15 bears so close an affinity to the one before us, that we
desire that the exposition thereof may be compared with that under present considera-
tion.
FIRST CORINTHIANS VIII. 1 — 3. 135
words oTt Trdvre^ yvcoaiv 6)(^ofi6v, instead of rj ^vcaai^, as many
others suppose. The words, with which the apostle commences
his discussion, and which are more fully carried out in ver. 4,
evidently convey an impression to the mind that they refer to
some' disclosures regarding the Corinthians ; there is accordingly
to be found in the otSafxev the assertion of their unimportance,
but also a slight reproof of their presumption. The words are
capable of being understood thus : " we know as well as you," &c.,
and received thus, the context 6tl iravre^i yvaxriv e^ofjuev agrees
well. It is impossible that this iravre^ can be understood to
apply to many or several individuals, or as Billroth thinks, only to
one party, viz. that indicated by the passage in connexion, but
it is rather all Christians as such who are included therein. To
this exposition the words of ver. 7, aXX' ovk ev irdacv rj fyvot)(rL<;
is apparently opposed ; for a certain defined knowledge is there
spoken of, for which reason the article is made use of, but here
knowledge in general, and therefore the words of ver. 1 must be
translated so as to express, " for all men have a certain degree
of knowledge,"^ that is to say every Christian must certainly know
that only one true God exists, from its having been laid down
as a fundamental doctrine in the Old Testament. In order to
repress immediately the over estimation of the 'yvwai^, to
which the Christians were so prone, the apostle contrasts it with
love, upon which the 13th chapter affords such a copious com-
mentary ; self-denying love has nothing dazzling in its character
to allure its followers, for which reason even the spiritually in-
clined Corinthians had not striven to acquire it themselves, as
they had knowledge and other gifts of the Spirit ; nevertheless love
is the most elevating divine element which exists in man's nature.
The further consideration of the nature of the yvMat^ is deferred
to xii. 8 ; the remark here is sufficient, that when separated and
distinct from love, as in this case understood, it indicates the
partial direction of the reflective faculties towards divine things,
whilst the characteristic of love is the perfect subservience of the
will. (Concerning the remarkable psychological appearance that
may present itself in the man in whom it is evident, comp. the
Comm. on xiii. 1, and sqq.). As long as knowledge is selfish, it
1 InBengel's Gnomon, it is correctly stated: ??o» uddU nrticuhnn, )inn inminum
concedens.
136 FIRST CORINTHIANS VIII. 1- 3.
likewise dwells with pride, but love expcands towards its neigh-
bour to edification,^ (presupposing of course that the knowledge
is a right knowledge), while the wisdom that is unaccompanied
by love, is often only apparerCt, attained by means of false paths,
through speculations, the motive for which may be blindness or
curiosity ; then is it naturally pernicious in the highest degree ;
but love, on the contrary, is from its very nature ever accompanied
by a knowledge often undeveloped it is true, but nevertheless
genuine, substantial ; knowledge may exist without love, but the
latter never entirely without the former. "The expression hoKel
elhevat tl sufficiently indicates wisdom which is only imaginary,
the purport of the form ovhev ejvcoKe /cadcb^ Bel yvSvat however is
rather uncertain. The vanity of knowledge might be thereby
signified, but in this case the sentence appears somewhat tauto-
logical. It would be better to refer the words to the erroneous
means by which the apparent wisdom is attained, and the anti-
thesis ovTOt)<; eypcoarat vtt avTov agrees with this arrangement,
as it intimates the way to obtain the true divine knowledge. God
is a <^ft)9 airpoaiTov : no created soul can by his own power penetrate
to him, or become possessed of his mysteries ; every attempt of
the kind is utterly vain. Nevertheless God can certainly manifest
himself in the soul of him who longs after the true wisdom, and so
passively create the true yvojcn^;. The knowledge of God there-
fore presupposes the being known of him, as Bengel observes in
the Gnomon, the cognitio activa presupposes a cognitio passiva ;
the soul will not vivify with life from above, until God has
drawn nigh. It cannot be doubted that, in expressing the con-
nexion of the soul with God, the image of a bride passed
through the apostle's mind, so that the yivcocrKetv = y*^'^ is
significant both of knowledge and union. Billroth is of this opinion
in the passages, xiii. 12, and Gal. iv. 9, which may likewise cor-
rectly bear this construction. Other expositions of the passage
by previous interpreters, defended by Usteri, and according
to which eyvcoarac signifies " he is lovingly acknowledged by
God, accepted as a child of God," are sanctioned neither by the
connexion, nor grammatically. Beza, Heidenreich, Pott, and
Flatt, would call yivcoaKeaOac " to be instructed," but this cannot
I Bengel is worthy of notice with respect to x. 23: scientia tantum dicil, omnia mihi
Hceiit, amor nddit, sed non omnia cedificant.
FIRST CORINTHIANS VIII. 4 — 6. 137
be philologically proved. (In ver. 2 the reading e^vdiKkvai instead
of elhkvai has only originated from the circumstance that it was -
deemed necessary to have a word in the text corresponding with
'yvwcTL^. Lachmann has however received the reading h^vwKivai.
This learned man reads for ovheirco ovSev eyvwKe only ovirca
hjvw. It is nevertheless difficult to perceive how the usual read-
ing should have arisen out of this, to which Grieshach justly gives
the preference, and which is defended by A.B.D.E.).
Vers. 4 — 6. After this parenthesis the thread of the discourse
is resumed from ver. 1, and the former and more general irepi
r(f)v elhaiXoOvTwv is better defined by the irepl Trj<; /SpMaeo)^. As
that which is universal is first held forth to view, it must be ge-
nerally acknowledged in all Christian minds that there is no etBco-
\ov in the world, no other god but one. (See Jerem. ii. 11 ;
1 Sam. xii. 21, ^^^ -^^ J But it is striking that this sentence
appears to be nullified by what immediately follows, by the ecTrep
elal XeyofievoL Qeoi and loairep elal Seol iroXKoi, with which the
expressive aXX tj/mv eh 0eo9 is connected. Paul cannot intend
to say that for believers there exists one God, but for unbelievers
many, when he had just before declared ovSev ecBcoXov iv koot/jlo).
It therefore follows that in x. 20, the sacrificial festivals are re-
presented as establishing a fellowship with dcemons, and this also
plainly shows, that in the apostle's opinion the idols were by no
means unproductive of evil. It has been attempted to remove
this difficulty by substituting Xeyovrac elvat Qeol for elal Xeyo-
fievoL Qeol : but besides being entirely ungrammatical, were these
words received, the (oairep elal in which Paul, with reference to
such passages as Ps. cxxxvi. 2, 3, acknowledges the truth, that
there are many gods and many lords, is decidedly opposed to it.
The Xeyofievoi certainly signifies that they are falsely so called,
and the iv ovpav& and eVt 7^9, which refer to the higher and
inferior orders of mythological deities (viz. the celestial deities
and their representative stars, likewise the strong ones of the
earth, deified heroes, and kings), form an antithesis with the ra
Travra (ver. 6), but their reality is not questioned ; they are, it
is true, no real gods, i. e. not uncreated, everlasting, self-exis-
tent beings ; they are created powers, creatures of the only true
God whom Christians honour, and whose power and mighty hand
created all things, including the gods and lords themselves men-
138 FIRST CORINTHIANS VIII. 4—6.
tioned, but they are not to be regarded as fabulous. Billroth's
interpretation of the passage cannot therefore be deemed perfectly
satisfactory ; for although he correctly acknowledges that the
apostle yiews the heathen gods in the light of daemons (see further
on X. 20), he does not solve the apparent contradiction between
ovBev €lBq)\ov iv Koafiw and elal Qeol ttoXXol, the difficulty being
increased by the tl ovv (fyrj/juc ; on elhwXov tl e'crrt ; of x. 19. But
this contradiction is perfectly removed, if we strictly distinguish be-
tween ecBcoXov and 06O9 or Kvpio^.^ The first expression indi-
cates the creations of fancy, as devised by the mythographers and
propagated among the people. The existence of such beings as
Jupiter, Mars, Venus, under recognised forms, and with certain
attributes and decided characteristics, was really not to be found
in rerum natura, but only in the human imagination, from whence
the representation was transferred to stone, brass, or wood.
Nevertheless these creations were founded upon a real potency
which excited the senses,^ and was prejudicial to the development
of a nobler life in man. This is signified by the apostle in the
passage coaTrep elcrl &eol woXXol. Paul thus fully expresses both
sides of this important position, it being necessary to confute the
reality of the mythological beings in order to set free the heathen
from their erroneous ideas ; but it was likewise as important to
prove that in the worship of idols the powers of sin were propi-
tiated, lest indiff'erence and erroneous ideas in connection with
the subject should be strengthened. — Ver. 6 demands a closer
investigation, Usteri and Billroth having already correctly dis-
cerned in it the element of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is evi-
dent that the eh ©eo? 6 TrarTjp, and eh Kvpio<; Tt^o-oO? Xpto-ro?,
form a parallel with the before-mentioned Qeol ttoXXol, Kvptou
TToXXoL, and the Qeoh iv ovpaim koX eirl ryyj<;. The heathen pos-
1 Nitzsch (Stud. Jahrg. 1828, Part iv. note) endeavours to reconcile the nppareut
contradiction by reading *' as hopeful helpers," and aXe^iVaKoi, they are nothing; but to
the help expected from idols there is positively no allusion.
2 Notwithstanding the abundant declarations in the Old Testament that idols are no-
thing (Is. xl. 19, xli. 6, xliv. 6, xlvi. 6; Jerem. ii. 11, 26, sqq., x. 8, sqq.), passages are
nevertheless to be found acknowledging their reality. See especially the remarkable
passage Deut. iv. 19, where it says, God has assigned certain stars to all nations as lead-
ing potencies, and also Deut. xxxii. 8 according to the LXX.— In the New Testament
the apostle's thought it best expressed in Acts xvii. 29, ovk 6<ptiXofXEv vofj.l'^Eiv XP^'^V
V ipyvpM f; Xj'Oo) x^pay/xaTi x/)^i;tj9 Kal kvQvfi.ri(rtw<i dvQpdairov, to Qiiov sJuai
iifioiov, which it will be perceived contains nothing from which we would infer that the
QeIov is nothing.
FIRST CORINTHIANS VIII. 7. 139
sessed but vague notions of the divine Being, and dominion which
is only realized in absolute perfection in God and Christ, to
whom the Father hath delivered all things. (1 Cor. xv. 25.).
The true God hath also alone the prerogative to create. The
inferior powers may certainly change that which is created, but
can produce nothing save in the power of God. The signi-
fication of the prepositions i^, Bid, ek, in such a connexion
has already been considered in the Comm. on Rom. xi. 36.
The Father is here represented as the origin and end of all
things ; in the ek the operation of the Holy Spirit is indicated
which conducts all to its source. It may excite attention that
it is here only styled 77 /u,eZ? ek avrov, while in Rom. xi. 36, ra
TTCLVTa is found ; but the difference is immaterial, for, if the church
be appointed to receive all men to herself, and a restorative prin-
ciple proceeds from her even towards the ktIctl^ (see on Rom. viii.
19, sqq.), then are believers immediately a community. At the
conclusion of the verse koI rj/xek Bl avrov is cited after the Bl
ov ra Trdvra, in the activity of the Son. It will be readily com-
prehended that transcribers might imagine that Be avrov would
be preferable, since the rj/jbeh was already subordinate to the
Trdvra. But this originates in pure misconception of the words,
for the Bl ov ra irdvra refers especially to the creation (see on
John i. 3), but Kal r)/jL€k Bl avrov to the new birth, which is
represented as a second creation. Some Codices of a later date
have also here made mention of the Holy Spirit and its attri-
butes, and according to this the shorter reading must be viewed
as the original one.
Ver. 7. This definite perception, however, (see on ver. 1) that
the authority of both form and power were involved in idol-
worship, was not yet imparted to all the individuals composing
the then existing church (which may be said to signify that,
under progressive development, this knowledge would extend it-
self universally) ; for which reason the weaker brethren were
to be considered, because, upon the principle that " whatsoever
is not of faith is sin," they would pollute their i;onsciences by a
proceeding which another might pursue without detriment. (See
on Rom. xiv. 23.). Very authentic Codices read crvvrjOela for
(TvveiBrjo-ei, and I might agree with Lachmann in preferring this
reading, since the use of the same word in two significations in
140 FIRST CORINTHIANS VIII. 8 — 11.
our sentence always presents a difficulty, if it did not create a
possibility that the avueiBrjat^i once expressed might be changed
into a word apparently more suitable.
Vers. 8, 9. As it has been stated that eating, or abstaining
from so doing, can possess no meaning as regards spiritual life,
or in relation to the Almighty, the exercise of Cliri.stian liberty
in such things must be connected with consideration towards the
weak. (In ver. 8 it would be very easy to substitute the more
usual avpLo-TTjGL for TrapLarrja-t, but for that very reason is the
latter preferable. Lachmann has accepted the reading irapa-
arrjaeu, IlapLaTrj^al rivd tlvl really signifies " I present some
person, e.g. to a prince," including of course the idea of recom-
mendation. — The context shows that Treptccreueii;, like varepeLVjie-
fers only to spiritual circumstances, to grow or to decline in the
new life. Probably these words have reference to some appear-
ances among the Corinthians intimating the wish to defend their
liberty. — In ver. 9 Lachmann has preferred aaOeveaiv to the ge-
neral reading daOevovaiv, but the adjective form is probably
chosen because it occurs in ver. 10.).
Vers. 10, 11. Paul intentionally selects a very conspicuous
misuse of Christian freedom, viz. participation in sacrificial fes-
tivals in the temple itself, in order to exhibit the evil conse-
quences which must arise from such proceedings ; and such cir-
cumstances must have really taken place, otherwise the argument
would lose its force. If in this passage it should appear that
Paul did not reprove such participation in itself, but only on
account of the consequences in regard to the weak, it will be
seen in x. 14, sqq., that the apostle declares such participa-
tion in and for itself entirely unlawful. (In ver. 10, elSco-
\6Lov is a sanctuary which would possess an image of its
deity, in contradistinction to lesser sanctuaries without images,
or simply sacred enclosures. To individual deities the forms
3aK')(eiop, X^pairelov are also applied. — The use of olicoho-
fxelv in this passage has, as Wetstein and Semler have already
correctly stated^ something ironical. The conscience of the
weak is strained to a higher pitch, not through the power of
the Holy Spirit but by human means, through respect for person-
alities ; for in the apposition rov e^ovra <yv(x)aLv exists the
signification, that the weak Christian brother, acknowledging
FIRST CORINTHIANS VIII. 12, 13~IX. 1. 141
the brother who claims liberty as more advanced than himself,
is thereby misled by imitating what he does. — In ver. 11 Lach-
mann reads aTroWvrac iv for airoXelraL eirl : but the future is
more applicable, signifying that not one isolated deed, such as
related, occasions the loss of salvation, though it may ultimately
be its consequence if the weak brother by perseverance in such
conduct gradually loses ground in his faith. [Compare the
parallel passage Rom. xiv. 15.]. Properly speaking, it is not
knowledge itself which exercises an injurious effect upon the
brother, but the wrong use of it ; but Paul chose the more ener-
getic expression in order to draw the Corinthians from their
over-estimation of worldly wisdom. — See Winer's Gr. p. 374
concerning the eVt used here. — The phrase hi ov Xpio-Tb<; ccTreOave
expresses the value which even the weakest soul possesses in
the sight of God. Aid seldom stands as found here; virep or
clvtHs more general. See on Matt. xx. 28 ; Rom. v. 15.).
Vers. 12, 13. Under such circumstances it is plainly the duty
of those in a higher position to act with reference to the weaker
brethren in order to avoid offence ; and in placing limits to their
freedom it is better that they restrain too much than too little.
This idea is also expressed by Paul in Rom. xiv. 21. (In ver.
12 TVTneiv is to be understood in the sense of " to wound." Sins
against the brethren are sins against Christ himself, because they
are his members. [See vi. 15.]. — The ov /jurj cpdyco Kpea eh tov
alwva of ver. 13 is a hyperbolical expression, intended for the
highest degree of self-denial in such things. It ought not there-
fore to be rendered by " for life," although, from the nature of
the thing, nothing more can be said. That there were in Co-
rinth, as in Rome [see on Rom. xiv. 1], persons who deemed
the eating of meat an especial sin, is not to be inferred from this
passage.)
Chap. ix. 1. In order to present to and at the same time to ani-
mate the Corinthians to a self-denial of freedom lawful in itself,
from Christian love, the apostle offers himself and his proceed-
ings as a pattern and example. We must nevertheless confess
that if this alone had been Paul's intention, first, the passage
might have been considerably curtailed, and next the subject
would have continued uninterruptedly (viii. 1) from this point,
instead of having much that was irrelevant interwoven with it.
142 FIRST CORINTHIANS IX. 1.
This can only be explained by perceiving that Paul, without
letting fall the principal theme to which he returns in x. 14,
takes occasion in describing his proceedings as an example for
all (xi. 1) to enter upon a defence of those points which had
been made objects of attack by the adverse parties in Corinth.
The conclusion which the apostle seems to have aimed at was, that
the liberal Christianer party asserted as a duty that they were
exempt from law. In this view they might have affirmed that
meat offered to idols might be eaten, perhaps even in the tem-
ple, in order to prove the nothingness of the idols. To this ex-
treme the apostle opposes the true liberty which upon necessary
occasions can refrain from the use of what in itself is permitted.
This liberty Paul claims for himself, and defends at the same
time his apostolic dignity, which the antagonist party appear to
have attacked, upon the ground that he had not dared to lay
claim, as the other apostles had done, to a subsistence from the
church. But as it is more likely that such imputations and sus-
picions circulated secretly than that they were openly spoken,
the apostle justifies himself only in an indirect manner. At the
time the second epistle was written his opponents had proceeded
to far greater lengths, and for this reason Paul opposes them in
it without disguise. (2 Cor. x.)
Ver. 1. The reading of the tewt. rec, according to which ovk
el/jbl airoaroko^ stands first, could only originate in the view that
Paul was passing to something perfectly diff'erent. The sen-
tence OVK eljjLi eXevOepo^, which connects itself immediately with
the preceding subject, comes first in order, as Griesbach and also
Lachmann have acknowledged. The meaning of the words would
then be this, " But should I, who observe such self-denying con-
duct, not be free ?" The glance at his opponents, who might
haye made such an observation, brings immediately to his mind
the chief idea, " Am I not a real apostle ? have I not seen
the Lord f and, in order to apply directly the refutation, he adds
what his enemies themselves could not deny, " Are ye not as it
were my work in the Lord ? have I not likewise founded the
church in Corinth?" It will be seen that by means of these
questions the representations had already acquired a more ge-
neral direction, which Paul could prosecute at his pleasure, leav-
ing him likewise at liberty to return to the subject upon which
FIRST CORINTHIANS IX. 2 — 6. » 143
he had already treated, the use of meat which had been offered
to idols. Concerning the ecopaKa 'Irjaovv Xpta-rov, Neander and
Billroth have long since made it clear that the subject can neither
be an acquaintance with Christ during his earthly sojourn, nor
simply knowledge of his doctrine, nor any other appearance of
Christ, but can decidedly only refer to the circumstance which
took place at Damascus (Acts ix. 1 ; 1 Cor. xv. 8), for this fact
alone stands in that direct connexion with the apostolic dignity
of Paul to which this sentence is to direct attention. But it is
highly probable that these words arose from the accusation of the
Corinthian antagonists that Paul was no real apostle, he had cer-
tainly not seen the Lord. In the mouth of his adversaries this
really meant that he had not sojourned three years with Christ as
the Twelve had, and of this Paul himself could offer no evidence,
even though he might (see on 2 Cor. v. 16) have seen Jesus again
and again ; but his vision of the glorified Redeemer richly com-
pensated for this deficiency.
Vers. 2, 3. In full consciousness of the divine power through
which he had laid the foundation of the Corinthian church, he
names the Corinthians themselves a seal, a solemn confirmation
of his apostolic office, yes, his written defence against all oppo-
nents. (The el dXkoi^ k, t. X. of ver. 2 is to be understood,
"If I am not esteemed such to others, am no apostle unto
others, I am nevertheless to you." See Winer's Gr. p. 453, con-
cerning the el ov. — For acfypayl^, see Bom. iv. 11. In ver. 3,
airoXoyla as well as avaKplveuv are borrowed from the language
of the law.).
Ver. 4 — 6. Three separate subjects now form the theme of the
apostle's consideration, and his intention is to make the prudent
use of the freedom which was his of right perceptible in them ;
first in the use of meats, next in reference to marriage, and lastly,
on the subject of his acceptance or non-acceptance of support from
the church. It is precisely on the latter point that he enlarges
most amply, because, as has been already stated, the adversaries
employed it in order to represent Paul as uncertain with reference
to his apostolic prerogative. The cpayetv kol irtelv certainly refers
back to chap, viii., so that the sense is, " Have I not surely also
the freedom which ye claim for yourselves r' at the same time
the contrary is also to be found expressed in it, " Am I not also
1 14 '" FIRST CORINTHIANS IX. 4 — 6.
at liberty to eat, if I will ?" Billroth however justly remarks,
that the general expression went much further, and referred not
only to the before-mentioned discussion concerning meats oifered
to idols, but especially to the Jewish laws relating to food. See
ix. 20.' — What gave occasion to the apostle then to mention mar-
riage ? The remonstrance is surely not without occasion, for
Paul quotes the example of the apostles. As Ki^^a? is parti-
cularly named, and mention is made of the brethren of the Lord,
including James of course, we might suppose the occasion to be
furnished by the followers of Peter. The Judaising Christians
had, as is shown by the Clementine homilies, and Epiphanius'
accountoftheEbionites(see Neander, Bk. i. p. 309), the idea, that
it was the duty of every one to marry ; we may therefore suppose
that the apostle had been reproached for his celibacy, and was de-
sirous of defending it'. On this supposition, the hypothesis of Storr,
who would consider the mention of our Lord's brethren as a proof
that the Christian followers of James were connected with those
of Peter, may demand attention. (On this, see the Introd. § 1.).
But in this case the words must run otherwise ! The ^rj ovk
€')(^ofiev e^ovaiav aZeK(^7}v yvvalKa irepidyeiv can only be translated,
" May I not likewise as the other apostles take with me a sister,
i. e. a Christian woman, as my wife ?" or, in other words, must
I then continue unmarried ? May I not be so from free choice ?
Even his liberty in this particular must have been contested ! It
was a sign of notions carried to excess as to the efficacy of celi-^
bacy, and perfectly consistent with the idea which seems, from
vii. 3 sqq., to have been current in Corinth, that marriage was
objectionable (1 Tim. iv. 3.). The possibility of a thing of
this sort must by no means be considered confined to the Gentile
Christians ; the mention of Peter and James points sufiiciently
clearly to the Jewish Christians, among whom ascetic principles
were not unusual, as Eom. xiv. 15 shows, and the example of the
Essenes and Therapeutics. (In ver. 5 XolttoI airoa-ToKoi is said
to intimate clearly that he, Paul, is himself also an apostle. —
Concerning ahek(^ol rov Kvplov, see the Comm. on Matt. xiii. 55.
As they are mentioned here distinct from the apostles, and no pas-
sage speaks of two kinds of brethren of our Lord [brothers really
such, and cousins], it is evident that none of them were among
the Twelve. [See on John vii. 5 ; Acts i. 14 ; 1 Cor. xv. 7.].
FIRST CORINTHIANS IX. 7, 8. 145
But as two of the cousins bore the same names as the brethren
of Jesus, quoted Matt. xiii. 55, it is most probable that the four
aBeXcpoL, the cousins of our Saviour, are sons of Cleopas and
Maria, the sister of Mary. See further the Introd. to the Epistle of
James. — Concerning the marriage of Peter the reader is referred
to the observations on Matt, viii. 14.^ — Ver. 6 shows that Bar-
nabas, in a similar manner to the apostle Paul, must have main-
tained himself by the labour of his hands, and have been attacked
upon the self-same grounds ; and from the notice which is here
taken of this early fellow-labourer of Paul, a fresh engagement
would appear to have taken place on the part of the apostle with
him. See the remarks on Acts xv, 39.— The form of expression,
rj jiovo^ iyo) koI 3apvd^a<^ ovk e')(oiJLev i^ovatav tov firj ipyd-
^earOat, is rather ironical, and means, labour is not commended to
us alone ! This refers to the fact that the antagonists had
asserted that he possessed no right to be maintained by the
church, not being a legitimate apostle. At another time they
reversed the accusation, and required that Paul should not dis-
tinguish himself by anything exclusive, but should allow himself
to receive support from the church community, as did all the
other teachers of the Gospel. [See ver. 15, and 2 Cor. xi. 7,
sqq.]. The apostle nevertheless on this head defends his indi-
vidual liberty, while he pressed it upon no one as law. In the
same degree he reserves to the teacher the right to demand a
subsistence if necessary.)
Vers. 7, 8. Paul in what follows discusses at length the right
of preachers of the Gospel to receive from the community a pro-
vision for their bodily wants, but states in ver. 12, and sqq. that
he has not judged it expedient to avail himself of this privilege,
disclaiming any inference affecting his apostolic calling as the
consequence of this forbearance. This proceeding of the apostle
has been already brought under notice in Acts xviii. 2, when,
upon the occasion of his residing in Corinth (to which the accu-
sations of his adversaries refer), he worked with Aquila and Pris-
cilla. To this passage we must accord some further degree of
1 It is remarkable that TertuUian {de Monog, c.8.) will not allow this passage to refer
to the wives of the apostles, but to women who accompanied them ministering unto
them of their substance, as our Lord is described to have been attended in Luke viii. 3.
This explanation has been adopted by the (Roman) Catholic Church in defence o
celibacy.
k
146 FIRST CORINTHIANS IX. 9--11.
notice, as (he pertinacity is remarkable with which Paul insists
upon carryings out his principle of maintaining himself by the
labour of his own hands. According to Acts xx. 33, sqq., at
first he might have felt some solicitude lest any should believe
that he availed himself of the preaching of the Gospel to enrich
himself; but, on the other hand, when this course was made the
precise subject of accusation against him as in Corinth, one might
think it had been better for the apostle simply to accept the sup-
port, as the other apostles had done. He must necessarily have
expended much time in labour which had been better employed
in his spiritual calling. It has been already well remarked on
Acts xviii. 2, that a self- exercise was aimed at in it; Paul
wished thereby to mortify the flesh ; it belonged to the vTrcoTria-
^€iv TO (Tco/jia that, according to ix. 27 he considered necessary
for himself. 2 Thess. iii. 6, sqq. is very instructive on this head.
Paul there warns his readers against idleness, and continues to
say that he has employed his hands in gaining his own livelihood
in order to give them an example. In the passage under con-
sideration this last point is not stated. — It is then proved from
soldiers, vine-dressers, and shepherds, who all live by their occupa-
tion, that the preacher of the Grospel also may and should live by
his calling. (In ver. 7 Lachmann has preferred the reading roi/
Kapirov to ifCTov Kapirov, and there appears internal evidence in
its favour, for. the ifc is very likely to be derived from the i/c rov
<ya\afCTo<i following, and would make both members agree. — In
ver. 8, Lachmann and Billroth have decided that only a comma
should stand after XdXco, and certainly the reading ov Xeyei, can -
not be the correct one. For this Griesbach has already substi-
tuted rj ovxh and ovx^ even might be omitted, as in ver. 10, for
firj governs the whole sentence. The law forms so far an oppo-
sition with Kara avOpcoTrov, as it includes the divine will.)
Ver. 9 — 11. It appears striking that to prove the acknow-
ledgment of the principle under consideration, so remote a pas-
sage as Deut. xxv. 4 should be quoted, as the apostle in ver. 13
refers to something admitting closer application. Paul seems
however intentionally to have chosen this proof in order to
afford more stress to his argument. The sense is this : if the
holy Scriptures adjudge even to the beast the requisite food in
return for his labour, how much more shall this be observed in
FIRST CORINTHIANS IX. 12 — 14. 147
relation to the human race. In the jxt] r&v ^owv /Jbiket tw &6a>
K. T. A,, by no means lies the idea that God does not provide
for the beasts ; but, as the hi r}/j,d<; iypdcfn) which follows shows,
it only asserts that the ordinances of the law relating to animals
have also a reference to man, and were written for his good, and
that consequently what is valid as regards animals admits of ap-
plication in increased potency to the human race. The passage
1 Tim. V. 18 is treated in the same manner. (In ver. 9 (pi/jLoco =
Krjfjboco, from (^ifio^, capistrum, to close the mouth with a muzzle.
As a trope it occurs in Matt. xxii. 12. — 'A\odco, properly to beat,
stamp, thence beat out the corn, i. e. thresh, which, as is well-
known, is performed in the East either by means of oxen or thresh-
ing-carts. — In ver. 10 the interpunctuation must be so restored, as
Lachmann supposes, that after QeS only one comma stands, conse-
quently the whole only forms one question. With 7rdvTco<; XeyeL,
7] ypacprj must be borne in mind as subject. — Concerning the her-
meneutic principle Bl r^ixd^ iypdcf)?] see the observations on Rom.
iv. 23. — Lachmann has decided in favour of the reading received
by Griesbach, in opposition to the tecct rec. of rt)? eXTr/So? avrov
fierexetv eV eXirlBL To plough and to thresh constitute a por-
tion of husbandry, and it is taken for granted the whole exercise
of activity in this direction has for impulse and likewise aim, the
hope of participating in the produce, this hope therefore may not
be deceived. The tov jxerex^tv belongs indifferently to both
parallel divisions of the verse. The spiritual activity of sowing
and reaping is paralleled, and in such a manner that it is again
argued a minori ad majus, " If we impart to you that which
is great, we may certainly lay claim to that which is of less value,
and especially we, through whom the faith has been planted
among you." The expression aapKUKd has here at all events the
signification " that which is necessary to the support of life,"
although with it is connected the accessory idea of the subordi-
nate The aXkoi naturally takes a retrospective glance at vers. 5,
6. — The 12th verse should properly commence with dWd : it then
goes on to say for what reason Paul does not lay claim to this his
acknowledged right.)
Vers. 12 — 14. To the observation, that he abstained from the
exercise of the right belonging to him, Paul adds that he wished
to give no offence to the Gospel of Christ. This can, in agreement
k 2
148 FIRST CORINTHIANS IX. 12 — 14.
with Acts XX. 33, sqq., only he understood that he did not wish
the Gospel to he regarded as a means of worldly gain. Yet un-
willing for a moment to sanction the supposition that this was
wrongly done hy the other teachers who made use of their lawful
claim on the community, he adduces in addition the parallel of
the priesthood of the Old Testament, as a proof that the accept-
ance of maintenance by the preachers of the Gospel was not un-
becoming, and observes that ^rjv iic rov evar/yeXlov was appointed
to his followers in the words of our Lord himself. (Matt. x. 10 ;
Luke X. 8.). It is quite apparent that the apostle speaks on this
subject so as to bear general application in all times, so that
there is nothing opposed to the Gospel in the payment of the
clergy (by the end of the second century appointed salaries and
fees appear [divisiones mensurnce Cypr. epist. 39. (34.) fratres
sportulantes Tert. apol. c. 39. Bingham origg. vol. ii. p. 261,
sqq.]) ; indeed the mention of lepd and of dvcnaarr/piov might be
employed in the defence of confessor's fees, which in recent
times appear almost generally offensive. However we must
certainly say, that if Paul was referring especially to the ob-
lations at the communion, an offering which from circumstances
very early became customary, he was supposing the condition
of the church to be such in which the spirit of love united both
rulers and congregation. But when this spirit is wanting,
and the gifts are bestowed reluctantly, then come they truly of
evil. (In ver. 12 the tt}? vficov €^ov(TLa<i is to be understood,
of the right in you, and not the right which ye possess. The
alteration in rjfKxtv, which Riickert himself approves, is quite
unnecessary. Besides this, we may perceive in the iravra
cTT&yofiev that the apostle, as might have been expected, found it
very difficult to carry out his principle, and indeed with his nu-
merous employments [2 Cor. xi. 28] it is difficult to imagine how
he could reduce it to practice at all. However, as he (at least in
Corinth) worked with his intimate friend Aquila, it is possible
that in the literal sense Paul did not earn his entire livelihood. —
Upon the ecrOletv €k rod lepov see Lev. vii. 7, 14 ; Deut. xviii. 1,
sqq. The priests received a portion of certain sacrifices. To eat
without the temple was styled, receiving subsistence from the
temple. — In ver. 13, Lachmann has preferred irapehpevovTe^ to
iTpo<^ehpevovre^ : the signification of both forms is the same.
FIRST CORINTHIANS IX. 15 — 17. 149
I
Hesychius explains it by cr^oXafeti^, to have leisure for some-
thing, i. e. to pursue some occupation, to labour at something.
In 3 Mace. iv. 15, the substantive irpoa-ehpia is found. — ^v/^t-
fiepl^ea-Oai is also only to be found in this passage ; it means " to
divide among themselves," so that the distributors themselves
obtain a portion. Thus in the Old Testament tlfe sacrifice was
divided between the altar and the priests ; the priests also ate
the shew-bread after it had been ofiered before the Lord, and in
the ancient church, according to the same principle, a portion of
the oblations fell to the priesthood.)
Vers. 15 — 17. Paul however, by this representation, by no
means desires that for the future his subsistence should be pro-
vided for him ; his own labour is to him a glory which he will not
suffer to be taken from him. The announcement of the Gospel,
he says, is a duty imposed on him, but the reward thereof was
conditional on the manner of this, the ready self-sacrificing ap-
plication to it. In this lies the expression of a high moral feel-
ing. Man can do whatever he perceives it is the will of God he
should perform, but with inward reluctance and contrary heart,
he has his reward accordingly. But he who in cheerful mind does
more than is needful, secures to himself an especial gain. The
following passage, which describes what he hoped for as a reward,
proves how remote the apostle's idea was from justification by
works, or desire of gain. It will therefore be easily understood
that the " doing more" than was necessary cannot be construed
that man is capable of opera supererogatoria. In the command
to love God above all things is of course comprehended the in-
junction to do all that we acknowledge to be God's will ifccov, not
aKcov. Yet a command may be perfectly or partially fulfilled ac-
cording to human acceptation of it, and it therefore follows that
an imperfect fulfilment in the sight of God is equivalent to an
omission altogether. In reading this passage, an impression
of exaggeration always remains. The koXov yap fMoc fjLoXKov
airoOavelv seems to be hyperbolical, for were this glorying in not
being chargeable so significant, Paul should never have accepted
the slightest assistance, which, according to Phil. iv. 15, 16, he
appears to have done ; and then the other apostles might justly
have followed the same course, for there is no foundation for
believing that Paul alone had such a dispensation. To this
150 FIRST CORINTHIANS IX. 18 — 23.
may be added, that true humility requires what is offered in
love to be accepted ; the reproof in this place seems directed
against self-justifying presumption. Something similar is found
in the history of Abraham, Gen. xiv. 22, 23. But all such
doubtsjand suppositions vanish if we consider that the Kavxni^^
fioVf which Paul so highly exalts, is not a glorying before men,
but in the sight of God : these words therefore only express the
apostle's sincere love to God, he would rather die than in the
slightest degree offend His eye. (In ver. 15, ovtco yevrjrat is an
indication of support from the community. In the sentence rj to
fcav')(rj/jbd /jlov Xva rt? Kevcoar) is somewhat in the nature of an ana-
coluthon. First it is probable an infinitive should follow, but in
the earnestness of discourse Paul continues with tm, in which may
be found the threat, I will not suffer that, &c. "Iva has evidently here,
as in the following verse, a feebler meaning. The reading received
by Lachmann, and sanctioned by Billroth, koKov <ydp /jlol fiaXkov
aTTodavelv, rj to Kav^Vf^^ f^ov ovSeU Kevcoaet, by no means re-
moves the difficulty, for something must necessarily be supplied
to Kavxn/^^ f^^^j ^s it were " to let myself be defamed." Further,
it has only B and D in its favour, and the original reading in D
was departed from. Seeing then that other Codd. differ again
in these words, this reading must decidedly yield to that in general
acceptation, — Ver. 16 refers to Christ's commission [see Acts
xxii, 21, xxvi. 16] in the dvdyKrj, signifying likewise a moral ne-
cessity. — Ver. 17 resumes the subject from the ydpin ver. 15, so
that ver. 16 takes the nature of a parenthesis. — Upon the
meaning of fiLadbv e%a), see further on ver. 23, and on olKovofila
what is written on iv. 1. The same is found in Col. i. 25. In
other respects olKovofxia signified the institution of salvation,
Ephes. i. 10, iii. 2, 9. — Upon the well-known construction of the
passive with the accusative consult Winer's Gram. p. 205.).
Vers. 18 — 23. Bich as Paul's epistles are in passages express-
ing the purest love, there is scarcely one in which the apostle's
sincerity of intention shines so pre-eminently as in this one. In
perfect amour desinteresse he claims for reward the permission
only to live in the hardest self-denial as a servant. He adapts
himself in self-forgetting love to the peculiarities of each, in order
to win them to their salvation. This incomparable passage pos-
sesses the beneficial properties of Rom. ix. 3 without the hyper-
FIRST CORINTHIANS IX. 18—23 151
bolic form in which the latter is expressed. It is easy to under-
stand how this proceeding of the apostle's, to be a Jew to the
Jew, &c. would be very difficult of application in lesser matters. ~
Its exercise required in fact entire sincerity of purpose, other-
wise it would be easy to exchange simply Adiaphora for impor-
tant objects, and to be betrayed into a false indulgence. It is
of course unnecessary to explain that the compliance which the
apostle here so earnestly recommends has no reference to positive
errors, but only concerns Adiaphora, According to the same
principle of freedom we see the Redeemer himself acting. In
the ^IovEaLoi<; co? ToL'8ato9, iva 'lovhaiov; repBijcrco, exists no con-
tradiction to the convention which Gal, ii. 9 treats of; for this
does not affirm that Paul would convert no Jew, the other
apostles no Gentile, but that they desired to settle the theatre of
their labours among Gentiles or Jews ; and even this was subse-
quently modified, since Peter visited Rome and John Ephesus.
(On ver. 18 consult Winer's Gram. p. 265, concerning the use
of the future with tW. — 'ASd7ravo<;, without reward, with refer-
ence to Christ's command. Matt x. 8. In the New Testament
it does not again occur. According to the before-mentioned
deduction of the apostle, the eh to fir} Kara^pw^^^^^ signifies
only that it would be an error in him, because the Spirit had re-
vealed this knowledge to him, but not in all preachers. — In ver. 19
€/c TTavToav must be considered masculine, independent of any one,
answerable only to Christ. The article before TrXelova^ points to
those called to salvation, appointed him of God. Rlickert erro-
neously takes it as synonymous with ifKeto-roL. In ver. 20 — 23
the distinction between the four classes there enumerated is not
easy. It would be best to regard the Jews and the dvofjuoi, i. e.
Gentiles, as the chief heads of opposition, and the ol vivo vo^iov
as a modification of the Gentile. It cannot be intended to say
of the dvojjuo<; that he acknowledged no other law, such an one
would have been designated aaePrj^, but merely that the
Mosaic ceremonial was unknown to him. But in order to avoid
any misunderstanding of this expression, Paul adds imtj cov
dvofjLOfi GeS, akX evvofjLo<; XpLcrrS [where Lachmann has substi-
tuted the genitive for the dative, which appears preferable to me,
because here dvo^io^ and evvojxo^ are used substantively] ; to be
loosed from the law of the Old Testament, is to be bound by the law
152 FIRST CORINTHIANS IX. 18 — 23.
of Christ. Now if, according the principle laid down by the aade-
veU, Gentiles are indicated who manifested a certain degree of
strictness in their lives, as in Rom. xiv. 1, sqq., such Christians are
described among the Gentiles ; the ol viro vofiov must be the same,
who, without being actually 'lovSalot, have nevertheless taken
upon themselves the yoke of the law, are consequently proselytes.
Between proselytes of the gate and those of right no distinc-
tion is here made. But Billroth thinks Jewish Christians cannot
here be meant, they having first to be gained over, and he con-
siders also that Kephrjaw might signify the passing from Judaizing
Christianity to that preached by Paul ; but in opposition to this
is the analogy in the three other passages and the adoaco in ver.
22. Paul means to say that to those scarcely admitted into the
pale of Christianity, he yielded in matters of secondary importance,
but after their conversion he naturally sought to render them in
all things consistent with their profession ; but of any connexion
with the principle of Judaism or heathenism not a word can be
inferred, as the epistle to the Galatians proves. — In ver. 22 the
article before Travra is certainly genuine, and refers to what pre-
cedes, " all this have I been to all ;" and iravra^i is evidently an
alteration of the genuine ttolvtco^ rtm?, i.e. out of every category,
to save some, which the power of Christ could certainly effect.
Paul does not contemplate gaining all, without exception,*but only
those ordained to everlasting life. — In ver. 23 the most critical
authorities decidedly prefer Trdvra to rovro. — The signification
of air/KOLVcovo'i avrov is not alone participation in the extension
of the Gospel, as Billroth thinks, but in all the blessings de-
clared. Paul would participate in the publication, if he preached
uKcov, but he includes within it an earnest self-denial, in his
course of proceeding, in order not to be an aSoArt/^o? [ver. 27.].
It is only by following this conception that the following gains
connexion with that which precedes. This by no means comes
into collision with the doctrine of justification by faith, for all
that Paul here enumerates are likewise fruits of faith. The
apostle simply contrasts a state of devotedness in self-denial, a
building with gold, silver, and precious stones, with the neg-
ligence of the indifferent ; and only to the former is the promise
made of perfect participation in the Gospel, i.e. the kingdom of
God. See on Matt. xxv. 1, sqq., 14, sqq.).
•FIRST CORINTHIANS IX. 24—27. 153
Vers. 24, 25. The apostle then recommends the exercise of
this principle. Every believer according to his position ought
to conduct himself with caution, not permitting to himself the
practice of every privilege conceded to him, without jfegard to
those entertaining different opinions, hut denying himself. This
endeavour is represented under the image of a race, from which
in the Scriptures, and especially in the early ages of Christianity,
so many comparisons were taken. It is however not only the
act of running in itself which forms the point of comparison,
but it is also the iyKpdreca, the numerous renunciations which
the champions undergo, in order to prepare themselves to win
the victory on the day of contest.^ In a similar manner the
Christian must crucify his flesh in the struggle for salvation, if he
hopes to win the crown. Referring to the passage iii. 15, we
cannot consider the fipa/Selov Xa/xfidveLV to imply salvation gene-
rally, for this, if no complete backsliding follow, is even possible
where wood, straw, and stubble have been built up ; but that it
intends the highest degree of bliss, conditional upon faith and
the step in sanctification. Therefore the r/je^oi^re? are the faith-
ful without exception, but the eh who receives the ^pajSelov
indicates the body of the true elect, not only those who can
be saved, with the loss of their whole building, but also they
who have externally and internally built with gold ; to these
therefore their works, because they are imperishable, shall fol-
low them. Rev. xiv. 13. (Bpa^elov or eiraOXov is the tech-
nical term for the crown decreed to the victor by the judges of
the combat. The etymol. magn. explains the expression: Bpa-
fielov Xejerao 6 irapa /SpajSevrcov 8fc8oyLtei^09 aT6(j)avo<; tw vlk&vtl.
It occurs again Phil. iii. 14. — Upon the d(f)0apTO(; aricpavo^i, 1
Pet. i. 3, V. 4, may be consulted.).
Ver. 26, 27. This salutary self-denial the apostle represents
in conclusion, as the reason (although it may not be considered
the only one) for the abandonment of his lawful claims in the par-
ticulars before mentioned. Besides the race, he now draws his
simile from personal contest, in order more strongly to excite the
idea of an adversary, which the first image did not present. He
mentions his body as this adversary. Of a false Askesis not a
1 See CElian. Var. Hist. iii. 30, x. 2. Horat. de Arte Poet. v. 142, sq.
2
154 FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 1 — 2. *
word is here said, that he himself blames (Phil. ii. 23), but he
desires to restrain the liberty of the flesh, and to admonish
the Corinthians in a right Christian mind, to crucify the flesh
with its afi'ections and lusts (Gal. v. 13 — 24.). We may also
unhesitatingly suppose, that Paul apprehended it would not be
entirely beneficial for him to abandon altogether his handicraft,
and live solely by his spiritual calling, though without in the
least degree proposing to make his proceeding in this particular
a rule for the conduct of others. This view shews an unusually
refined conscientiousness and strictness on his part, coupled with
the tenderest indulgence towards others. (Ver. 26, dSri\co<; = et?
ahrfkov, 2 Mace. vii. 34, uncertainly, without aim. 'Aepa hepeiv
is to be understood as a parallel to the ahrj\(b<i, " without real
antagonists, in imaginary contest ;" its other acceptation " to
make a false stroke," presupposes also an opponent.' — In ver. 27,
the readings uTroTrtafo) and vTroini^o) yield to the more usual.
The expression is borrowed from pugilists ['jTv/cT7)<i,pugil], " to
strike under the eye," means to hit hard, to render incapable of
continuing the combat. The BovXaycoyelv stands in opposition to
the false carnal liberty into which so many Corinthians were in
danger of falling. — The conjecture dWov^ receives the Kijpva-
0-6CV, as the herald's proclamation of the conqueror ; but then Paul
must leave the image of the combatants, in order to pass to that
of the herald. It is more probable that, now abandoning figura-
tive speech altogether, he mentions his calling with the usual ex-
pressions, and declares that he will not teach the way of salvation
to others, but himself remain behind as one deficient in divine
wisdom, who therefore in the day of judgement will be found in-
capable of standing the highest proof.).
Chap. X. 1 — 2. A representation of the dangerous consequences
which may arise from the misuse of Christian liberty, even in
those upon whom grace has been bestowed, very appositely fol-
lows the above description of his proceedings in Adiaphoris. The
apostle by no means contents himself with a dry exhortation on
the subject, but strengthens his argument by the addition of elo-
quent and animated examples drawn from sacred history. (See
ver. 6, sqq.). This passage, besides, is the first instance which
occurs in Paul's Epistles of that peculiar biblical conception of the
Old Testament which may be regarded as allied to allegorical in-
FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 1 — 2, 155
terpretatioii, and which has been usually considered in the authors
of the New Testament as invincible remains of their Judaism.
We shall advert to this subject in eoctenso in the Introduction to
the Epistle to the Hebrews/ and with reference to earlier writers,
content ourselves with the remark here, that the mode in which the
writers of the New Testament employ this interpretation, viz. as
foundation for the most important assertions, by no means sanc-
tions the assumption that such interpretation was simply to be
viewed as the customary one of that day, but we must rather
ascribe objective truth to this description of exposition. It was
ordained by God that not only the ceremonial prescribed in the
Old Testament for the worship of the Almighty, but also the nar-
ratives relating to the people of God, were to form types of a
higher spiritual condition, viz. the institution of Christianity, its
doctrine, and history. Thus in this passage the history of Israel
is typically received as referring to the sacramental rites of bap-
tism and the Lord's Supper, which contain like a holy vessel all
the blessings of the Gospel, and thus in this very passage lies in-
directly a powerful argument for these two sacraments.' — Ver. 1, 2
treat of the subject of baptism,- that is to say, ver. 2 contains
the apostolic interpretation of the facts related in ver. 1. The
passage through the Red Sea, and the cloudy and fiery pillar, are
the objects held up to our view. When it is said utto ti^v ve<f>ek7]v
rjcrav, as in ver. 2, i/3a7rTLcravTo ev ttj v€<f)e\rj, reference is made to
the relation in Exod. xiv. 19, 20, according to which the pillar of
cloud concealed the Israelites from the view of the Egyptians, sur-
rounding them as it were with a veil. In the vtto then lies the ex-
istence of a benevolent protecting power signified, and the typical
signs in this case are generally supposed to point to baptism.
But it is undeniable that the mention of the cloud and the sea in
ver. 2 is by no means casual, but on the contrary it presents the
most important allusions to baptism. Just as in John iii. 5, bap-
tism is represented as the new birth out of water and spirit, so
1 Eiu Wort iiber tiefern Schriftsinn. Koenigsberg 1842.— Die biblische Schriftaus-
legung. Hamburg, 1825.
2 Upon comparison of 1 Pet. iii. 21, it will be seen that the Flood is in a similar man-
ner received as a type of baptism. Perishing human nature is the old man, buried in
baptism (Rom. vi. 3, 4), Noah with his family the new-born creature, the new birth.
In the passage of the Red Sea, the Egyptians signify the death-doomed old man, while
Israel typifies the heir of God born to a new and spiritual life.
156 FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 3, 4.
here the cloud (symbol of the Divine Presence) is to be understood
as the type of the Spirit. Not that the apostle intended by any
means to assert that the passage through the Red Sea under the
conduct of the pillar of cloud exercised a similar power to that
possessed by baptism, the former was simply an image of the
latter. Yet this passage, as the actual means of release from
their former rulers, was introductory to the future relation of Is-
rael to Moses, the leader appointed to them by God ; hence the
additional phrase ek rov Mcovarjv, by which is signified the con-
nexion of the people with the economy of the Old Testament, re-
presented by Moses. It appears unnecessary to add that all
attempts to render the type more perfect by means of trifling
suppositions, such as, that drops from the clouds fell on the Is-
raelites, or that they were sprinkled by the sea, must be utterly
discarded. (Ver, 1 ov dekco vfxa^ ar^voelv — ovk afyvor^reov
of Rom. i. 13, xi. 25 ; 1 Thess. iv. 13, is a form whereby the
following thought gains great expression. — In ver. 2, ifBairrl-
cravTo is not to be considered strictly passive, but may be trans-
lated " they allowed themselves to be baptised." Lachmann
and Riickert have preferred i^aTrTiaOrjaav from external autho-
rity ; but the passive is without doubt only to be regarded as a
correction of the transcriber with a view to facility.)
Vers. 3, 4. In what follows relative to the Lord's Supper, the
interpretation of the manna (Exod. xvi. 15, which had already in
Ps. Ixxviii. 24, 25 ; Wisd. xvi. 20, 21 ; and John vi. been under-
stood typically), and of the water which miraculously sprung forth
from the rock (Exod. xvii. 6), is immediately supplied by the ad-
dition of TTvevfiaTLKov. The same epithet is also applied to the
origin of the water, to the rock, and immediately afterwards
Christ is indicated as the Rock. But we should greatly err if
our deduction from the expressions ^pwfjba, irb^ia irveviiaT lkov
was, that Paul had in view only a spiritual participation of the
Lord's Supper. The TrvevfjuartKov stands only in opposition to the
aapKLKov, in the same degree that the temporal manna and
water represented something higher, namely Jesus' glorified
flesh and blood, and insofar also is the Rock, Christ, as it
in one respect prefigures Him. As the water streamed from
the rock, so flow from Christ streams of living water (John vii.
38), He is the fcwr; for the entire human race (John vi.). A
FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 5, 6. 157
difficnlty is created only by the phrase aKoXovOova-r)^. Kab-
bins dreamed strangely enough of the rock really following (see
Wetstein on this passage) ; others considered that, because the
Israelites took water with them in pitchers, or because the mira-
cle was repeated (Num. xx. 10), the rock, as it were, moved with
them ; but these and similar conceptions need no refutation. Cal-
vin's view on the subject is more deserving of attention, and in
it Billroth agrees, that the rock here signifies the water which
streamed from the rock ; and inasmuch as water never failed the
Israelites in the wilderness, it may be said the rock followed
them. But in this construction it is overlooked, that it is cer-
tainly not said of the rock itself, but of the spiritual rock, i. e. of
the rock in a spiritual sense, that it followed the Israelites, and
it therefore appears to correspond better with the meaning of the
apostle, to receive itas signifying that the divine presence of Christ,
the Son of God, the bestower of all things, was ever present with
them, his blessing likewise accompanying them.
Ver. 5. These gifts of mercy all received without exception,
in this respect no individual Israelite had less than another ; as
one family they ate one food, and drank one drink. (Comp. vers.
3, 4. 7rdvT€(i TO avTO j^pSijxa, to avTo TroyLta, where the equality
of all in the enjoyment of God's blessings is expressed, certainly
with reference to the Lord's Supper, as described in ver. 17.)-
Nevertheless the greater number displeased God, he had delight
but in few, and their punishment deprived them of their inheri-
tance of the sight of the promised land ; so likewise the untrue
in the Israel of the New Testament will never see the kingdom
of God. (In Heb. iii. 17 this occurrence [Num. xxvi. 64, 65] is
treated exactly in this manner, only here the more expressive
fcarecTTpcodijaav stands for the milder eirecrov which occurs there.)
Vers. 6. These events in the Old Testament form the subject
of an earnest exhortation from the apostle to his reader. He
regards the iirtdvixla as the origin of all evil, adducing individual
examples as he proceeds. As concerning the form ravra Se
TviroL rjfjLwv iyevrjOrjaav, it may literally be understood that the
examples quoted from the Old Testament were only warnings
intended for Christians, such instances of the manifest punishme»t
attending sin being capable of beneficial self-application. But
the explanation of the events recorded in ver. 1 — 4, argues a de-
158 FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 7 — 10.
cided parallel which the apostle wishes to draw, and this is con-
firmed in ver. 11, in which the idea is repeated, and where the
sentence et? ov? ra TiXrj rwv alcovcov Karrjvrrjaev only gains a re-
ference to the context by bringing it in juxtaposition with the
preceding ravra he iravra tvttol avve^aivov eKelvoL^. So that
the sense is : this all happened unto them as prefigurations in-
tended by God, having reference to those coming afterwards.
Paul viewed the types as tangible prophecies, real images of sub-
sequent occurrences, just as in the first germ or leaf formation of
a tree, the future blossom is represented and shadowed forth.
Besides this, in the et? to fxr) ehai, k. t. X. is comprehended
the idea that the intention of these prefigurations was also ethical ;
history should present a living mirror for present times, iypdcfyrj
TTjOo? vovOeaiav rjfiwv, ver. 11. Without this retrospective view
of the building, all type is rendered valueless. (See the remarks
on ix. 10.).
Vers. 7 — 10. Paul adduces from the history of Israel four
forms of sin, as manifestations of the one sinful basis ; the iiri-
OvfjbLa : idolatry, fornication, temptation, and murmuring against
the Lord. It admits of no doubt that the Corinthian com-
munity approached in some degree these forms of sin, even
if none had so deeply fallen as to have proceeded actually
to the commission of one or other of these sins. From the
mention of idolatry again in ver. 14, we may perceive how ne-
cessary Paul considered it to warn against relapse into sin. In a
city like Corinth, in which the worship of Venus so universally
prevailed, it was not to be supposed that a participation in the
sacrificial festivals of the temple itself could take place unpun-
ished. Undoubtedly also the grosser and more refined forms of
idolatry were to be distinguished, every turning away from the
Lord, to the creature, constituted idolatry. We must accordingly
say that the proceeding of the Corinthian Christians was a pure
7i6L^dp€Lv TOP Seov, a temptation to iropveia. The temptation
to 7077ufeti' is in short experienced by all who do not stand firm
in self-denial. To any special occasion of murmuring, such as the
unequal distribution of the gifts of grace (certainly not yet alluded
to), or the command to abstain from participation in meats offered
to idols, it is not my intention here to advert ; it is better to
leave to the expression its general signification. (Ver. 7 refers to
FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 11. 159
Exod. xxxii. 6. The words literally are mors applicable to
fleshly enjoyment than to idolatry, but they are spoken of the
Israelites upon occasion of their worship of the golden calf, and
describe properly the moral consequences of this lapse. — Ver. 8
refers to Num. xxv. 1, sqq., only in that passage, ver. 9, 24,000
is mentioned. The supposition that, in the smaller number men-
tioned by the apostle [see ver. 4], those put to death by the ex-
press command of Moses were not reckoned, appears unsupported.
Either Paul erred in the numbers, or the abbreviation etKoo-trp^
was falsely read by the transcriber. — Josephus (Arch. iv. 6) for
similar reasons only gives 14,000. — Ver. 9. The reading Oeov is
certainly false ; one might with some reason hesitate between
Kvpiov and Xpcarrov, for KvpLo<i may also indicate Christ, who, mani-
fested as God, is also acknowledged in the Old Testament effi-
cacious [1 Pet. i. 11 ; Heb. xi. 26.]. The apostle's words besides
refer to Num. xxi. 5, 6, wherein thus far an iKirecpd^eiv = pj^;]
T .
may be said to lie, as by their discontent they put God's long-suf-
fering to the proof. Such discontent, it is true, is not exactly
attributed to the Corinthians, but they nevertheless tempted
God in the same degree, when they, by their misuse of Christian
liberty, exposed themselves to unnecessary hazard. — Ver. 10 re-
fers to Num. xiv. 2, sqq., 36, sqq. It is true that the punishment
is not there represented as immediately following the murmuring,
but that God forgives the people at the entreaty of Moses [see ver.
20] ; immediately, however, the threat that all shall die in the
wilderness is added ; and in ver. 36, sqq., attention is especially
drawn to the fulfilment of this threat. The oXoOpevTrj^ [Exod.
xii. 23 = ri*^ntl?^) ^^ accordingly only mentioned as the fulfiller
of the divine intentions ; and it is by no means necessary to un-
derstand a bad angel thus employed, good angels likewise appear
as executors of the divine judgements.).
Ver. 11 The connection in this verse has already been adverted
to in ver. 6. (The reading tvitlkco';, preferred by Lachmann, is
nothing more than a correction of the more obscure tvttol), and
therefore it is only the sentence et? ov<; ra TeKrj twv aldovcov Karrjv-
T7](Tev which requires elucidation. In the principal passage con-
cerning the Parousia (Matt. xxiv. 1, sqq., to the Comm. upon
which the reader is referred), and frequently in the apostolic
epistles it is described as near at hand, consequently the aposto-
160 FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 12 — 15.
lie was considered the latter age (Gal. iv 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 20, iv. 7 ;
2 Pet. iii. 8 ; Heb. ix. 26 ; 1 Job. ii. 18.). This mode of expres-
sion leads us to infer that the apostle was not acquainted with the
precise period, and was not to know it (Acts i. 7), yet that he
earnestly desired the coming of our Lord. But the time of the
New with reference to the Old Testament, may be regarded
as the latter time (inasmuch as it was borne though hidden
within it), whose manifestation in the Parousia appears in some
degree conditional upon human faith (2 Pet. iii. 9) ; for which
reason, without any untruth, all the pious of all ages may repre-
sent the coming of the Lord as at hand, The history of the
world is a continual coming of the Lord, though an invisible one,
but in the end it shall be visible. (The expression ra reXr) tmv
alcovcov is only to be found here. Alcave^ = Q^^^'^v indicates
as well the greater epoch in which all history is fulfilled, as that
also in which created things themselves are developed. [Heb.
i. 2, xi. 3.]. The plural rekr) refers to the merging of isolated
epochs in and with one another, as well physically as in the
history of mankind. The expression stands accordingly == ttXt;-
pfojjba roov Katpwv, Ephes. i. 10. — Karavrdw, to attain unto, to
come, is frequently found in the language of Paul. See 1 Cor.
xiv. 36 ; Ephes. iv. 13 ; Phil. iii. 11.).
Vers. 12 — 15. The apostle then proceeds to say that the
circumstances of that period demand great watchfulness and
faith, for the reX/r] t&v aloovcov being the )-|'^\25?2n ^h^H (^®® ^*^
vii. 26, 29) with it, in which the hardest temptations of believers
are to be found. Hitherto no other than human temptations
had overtaken them {i.e. such as, founded on and arising out of
human circumstances, were from that cause easily overcome) ; God,
who had called them, was faithful, and in future also would only
allow them to fall into such circumstances of difficulty as was pro-
portioned to their strength ; but so much the more was it their
(the Corinthians) task not to prepare temptations for themselves,
and by gradually weakening their spiritual strength incapacitate
themselves for resistance in the day of trial. — They must there-
fore show themselves to be prudent, and avoid every approach to
idolatrous services which could only have sinful results, because
issuing in evil (ver. 20) powers. — This is evidently the con-
struction of this passage, which has been misunderstood by most
FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 16. 161
commentators, and even by Billroth. That is to say, he remarks
that 7retpao-/xo? in ver. 13 cannot imply suffering and disappoint-
ment, that it rather contains an allusion to the temptation to
participate in idolatrous sacrifices, or (should this construction be
deemed too narrow) to all the sins inclusively named in ver-
6 — 10. But temptations are certainly not sins ! The apostle
admonishes all unconditionally to keep from sin, but from temp-
tations none can secure himself, they occur to all without excep-
tion, and to be well armed with a view to their successful resis-
tance is the only course to be taken. To this shall the 6 hoK&v
eardvab, ^XeTrirco /Jbrj irecrrj animate, and the observation in ver. 13
inspire courage.^ Accordingly it is impossible that the meaning
refers to the temptations to which the Corinthians exposed them-
selves, for these were even the eKTreLpd^etv rov Kvptov which were
so expressly rebuked as sins, but rather to such temptations as
occurred to them without their own instrumentality. Whatso-
ever temptations of the kind they have hitherto experienced,
says Paul, have been moderate, so that they have been able to
conquer ; but should severer trials occur, God, who is faithful,
would not refuse his assistance ; he nevertheless requires ear-
nestness and watchfulness from believers. Opposed to the Tret-
paafio^i dv6p(£>iTLvo<^ there exists in the opinion of Paul a higher
and more dangerous (Gen. xxii. 1 ; Exod. xv. 25, xvi. 4, xx. 20 ;
Deut. xiii. 3), for which the Christian must reserve his weapons,
consequently not endanger them by entering into voluntary con-
flict. (In ver. 12 the words kardvai and TrtTrrew/, siantes, lapsi,
are borrowed from the language of combat. — Ver. 13. ina-To^i
faithful in his promises ; but the promise to defend believers in
their warfare is manifested in their calling. — TIoirjcreL is to be
combined with rr^v eK^aaiv ; he permits the exigency to arrive,
and provides the help for it. — In ver. 15 the Kplvare v/uL6l<i 6
(jyrjfiL refers certainly to what precedes, but more especially to
what follows, for Paul now returns to the principal question under
consideration, viz, idolatrous repasts.)
Ver. 16. The words which now follow concerning the Lord's
Supper (ver. 16, 17), and which are a continuation of ver. 3, 4,
teach nothing upon the subject of this sacrament. The apostle's
1 From this mode of expression in Scripture proceeded the names employed later in
the church, stantes, lapsi.
L
162 FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 16.
purpose is rather to obtain the admission of the questions in-
troduced with ovxh represented as internally allowed by the
faith of his readers ; and the object of the passage is, after point-
ing to the analogy of the Christian communion and the Jewish
sacrifice, to add, that even if idols have no existence, and an evil
power were not substantially inherent in the meats offered in sa-
crifice to idols, nevertheless participation in such things was
fellowship with the kingdom of darkness (ver. 20 — 22.). These
parallels are however hardly adapted to convey to us any impor-
tant elucidation of the dogma of the holy communion, for neither
in the sacrifices of the Jews, nor in those of the heathen, is it
possible to recognise such a connexion as that existing in the
Lord's Supper between the elements and Christ's body and blood.
Paul's argument can only thus be understood : " As it is acknow-
ledged that the receiving the holy communion is a means of fel-
lowship with Christ, and that the Jewish sacrifice establishes a
fellowship with the altar, and with him to whom the altar is de-
dicated, that is God, so likewise by means of their sacrifices do
the heathen form a fellowship with devils." The passage before
us contains nothing more as to the precise definition of the con-
nexion between Christ's body and blood and the bread and wine.
Only so far is clear, first that the Lord's Supper is not repre-
sented here as a sacrifice, as Boman Catholic interpreters main-
tain, but only as a sacrificial repast, as is clearly shown by the
parallel drawn of analogous usages among Jews and Gentiles ;
next, that the expressions Koivwvla rov at/jLaTo^; and tov a-co/jua-
T09 TOV XpiCTTov \)j HO moaus sanction Zwinglius' view of an
empty commemorative repast ; but grounds for the Catholic as
well as the Lutheran and Calvinistic doctrines might be found in
these words, did none other appear for the Lutheran ; at the
most it may be said that the expression apro? applied to the
consecrated bread (ver. 17) is in no degree favourable to the
theory of transubstantiation. Did no other fellowship with
Christ exist in the communion than a spiritual one,^ it would have
1 Of the Koiuoovia tov irvivfxaro^ tov HpicrroTi such passages as 1 John i. 3 are to be
understood. This must precede, in order that the more elevated degree of community
with the glorified corporeality of Christ may follow; without baptism, i.e. without being
born of the spirit, no communion !
FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 16. 163
been called kocvcoviu tov Xptarov, not tov atfiarof;, rov aco-
fiaTo<; TOV Xpco-Tov. (See xi. 27.)- But as the ascended
Christ is naturally the subject, his glorified flesh and blood iS
also spoken of; and this in the holy communion coming into a
certain relation with those admitted to its mysteries, consequently
effects a fellowship. This is evidently the fundamental idea in
our passage, which perfectly agrees with the declaration of our
Lord in John vi. (Billroth would receive Koivwvla as a partak-
ing, the participation, but it is impossible that the cup can
signify the action of partaking. It is also not the action
of communication, but the means whereby the fellowship is
effected. Cup and bread stand however for the repast ce-
lebrated with cup and bread.). In the contents of ver. 16 the
following sentence only demands consideration : r?)? evXoyla^ o
€v\oryovfjL€v. Wiuc which we drink should stand over against
dprov ov Kkcofiev. Honqpiov stands truly continens pro con-
tento for the wine in the cup, but t?}? evkoyia^ o euXoyovfjuev has
something striking; it seems not to correspond with the ov Kkoyjiev.
But the Kkav is even " vnth blessing to break and eat,'"^ as it is
mentioned in Matt. xxvi. 26, and evkoyelv is likewise "with
blessing to administer and drink," so that some degree of tau-
tology appears to exist in the phrase t^? evXoyia^i- The reading
€vxapLaTia^ does not remove this, for there is no important dif-
ference between this expression and evXoyla. (See xi. 24.). But
it vanishes if we do not accept irorrjpiov tt}? evXoyla^ in the pas-
sive sense, " cup, that is blessed," but the active, " cup, which
confers blessing, the cup of blessing." In these words the idea
is then expressed that in the church itself rests the positive
power of consecration by means of the Spirit of the Lord, and
that those receiving the consecrated elements are thereby ad-
vanced in inward life, and in fellowship with the Lord. The
officiating minister represents the active principle in the
church, the communicants the passive. For the evXoyetv or
€V')(apLa-Telv indicates not only the praise of God which is offered
1 It can require no further proof that the conception of the kKuv by which it should
stand metonymically, anj!ece<Zew8 /)ro conse7?<en<i, and received as synonymous with to
eat, cannot be maintained. The passage xi. 24 shows very plainly that the breaking
had a symbolic reference. It is therefore perfectly in order to retain this symbol when
celebrating this holy rite.
12
161 FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 17.
with the prayers in the Lord's supper, but has a reference to
bread and wine. EvXoyelvTrorTjptov, dprov describes the effect of
prayer^ whereby the elements cease to he common bread and
common wine,^ the attainment of the verbum ad elementum^ ut
fiat sacramentum. Yet this eifect may not be regarded as trans-
forming the substance, nor as remaining identified with the ele-
ments, as the [Roman] Catholic church erroneously supposes, but
as present at the moment of receiving.
Ver. 17. The notion of the Koivcovia is yet further explained,
that the fellowship with Christ produces likewise fellowship
among all those celebrating the sacred feast. All who constitute
the church (ol irdvre^) eat of one and the same bread (admi-
nistered with and through the body and blood of Christ), so the
common participation of the several elements (ol iroXkoi) be-
comes a higher unity, a crw//,a XpLarov in a comprehensive sense,
and thus the church itself may be called Christ (xii. 12.). This
thought is evidently based upon the fundamental idea that the
nature of the consecrated elements is communicated to the reci-
pients. These elements are here changed into the body and
blood of Christ, so that the saying (Ephes. v. 30), we are flesh of
his flesh and bone of his bone, is literally fulfilled. The holy com-
munion imparts to the body the a<f>dapcrla of Christ's body, that he
may be able to raise him up at the last day. (See my observations
in the Comm. on John vi. 39, 54, 58.). The ev^apto-rla in the sa-
crament is therefore the antithesis to the curse that was pronounced
upon the KTLat^ after the fall. But it is peculiar that in this place
the unity of the faithful is represented not only as orcb/jba, but as
dpTo^; also ; as the individual grains yield their separate existence
in order to form bread, and are absorbed in the unity of the cjyv-
pafia, so likewise the sinful laxity of the individual shall vanish
before the unity of the Spirit replenishing the church. In the
same manner as Christ calls himself the bread that came down
from heaven (John vi. 35), so is the church collectively the re-
presentation of Christ, the bread of life for the whole world. (Re-
1 Compare thereon the words of Justinus, M. 0pp. 93 pq., edit. Puris, printed in my
Mon. Hist. Eccl., P. IT., p. 107 sqq : Ei'xapia-rr'icravTO'; Sk -ror"; TrpoEaTwTOS xai 'cirtv<pi)-
fincravTo^ TTrti/Tos tov \aov, ol KaKoufxevoi Trap' fjfMLi/ SidKovoi Sif^oacriv eKaaTco Taiv
■wapovTcov /XETaXcr/SgiJ/ airn tov e v \a p i a Q i vt o ^ apTov kul olvov Koi vSaTOS, ko*
Tols ov irapovaiv airocftipova-i' kuI h Tpocpfj uvtr} KaXsT-rai tto/o' hfjuv ev\api(TTia. — Ou
yap (hi Koivdv aoTOV, oliSk koivov ttojulh TavraXaufirtvofXEV.
FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 18 — 20. 165
garding the grammatical connexion of ver. 17 with ver. 16, otl
cannot, as Riickert supposes, signify " because," this is de-
cidedly negatived by the yap following. But it is rather to be
taken in the meaning of " for," serving in connexion with. the
following yap, which again furnishes the argument for the first
portion of the verse, for the basis of ver. 16.).
Ver. 18. The following parallel of the Jewish sacrificial festi-
vals (see Lev. viii. 31 ; Deut. xii. 18, xvi. 11) removes any doubt
of the apostle's regarding the holy sacrament as a sacrificial ban-
quet, i. e. he considers it not only a commemoration of the sacri-
fice of Christ on the cross, but also as a symbolic representation
of the same (though not an actual repetition, see Heb. x. 14), and
an appropriation of its blessings. But as has been already ob-
served, this parallel must not be carried so far, that we suppose the
apostle to have ascribed a higher power to the flesh of the earlier
sacrifice ; the tertium comparationis is only the fcoLvcovla, which
in the Old Testament stood in relation to the altar. The dvaia-
arripiov however is used as a synecdoche, implying the entire in-
stitution of the Old Testament, and this by analogy for the God
operating in it ;^ but in the same degree as the Old Testament
dispensation is an inferior form of revelation to that of the New
Testament, the Kotvojvla also in the former is more outward.
(Concerning ^laparjX Kara crdpKa, antithesis to laparfK Kara
TTvevfia, see Rom, ii. 28, 29 ; Gal. vi. 16 ).
Ver. 19, 20. In order in the meantime to remove the appre-
hensions of his readers (who saw the tendency of the argument),
that the apostle participated in the opinions of many materialis-
tic Jews, respecting the reality of idols, and the evil power per-
vading the flesh of their sacrifices, Paul declares that these were
by no means his sentiments, there were no such idols, and the
idolatrous sacrifices were attended by no power. These words
clearly explain the passage, viii. 4, sqq., as we then observed. The
imaginary creations of gods had no existence, it is true, but heathen-
ism was nevertheless based upon an agency, against the influence of
which it behoved all to guard. From thence the warning against
taking part in the festivals held in the temple (viii. 10), although
the use of such meats in private circles (ver. 25, sqq.) was allowed by
1 Bengel strikingly and justly remarks on this passage: 7s cul offertiir, ea quae oJ_
ferunlur, altare, super quo offerunlur, commuriinnem liabent.
166 FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 19, 20.
the apostle in wise moderation, to discountenance the strict Jewish
spirit. Concerning the nature of the power governing the'^hea-
then world Paul here gives a closer definition ; he says the sacri-
fices of the Gentiles are off'ered to dcemons, and they thereby
efi*ected a fellowship with them. The attempt to vindicate the
meaning of the expression haifiovla to signify "false imaginary
gods," has been already justly rejected by Billroth. The ex-
pression is continually employed in the New Testament in the
sense of " evil spirits," irvevfjuara dfcdOapra, and to accept it in
the former meaning would be to destroy the significance of the
whole argument. As the heathen gods were always considered
in the light of daemons in the ancient church, a clear historical
conception of the passage can ascribe no other idea than this to
Paul ; and acknowledging the truth of the biblical doctrine rela-
tive to the kingdom of darkness, no doubt of their continual no-
thingness can exist. By means of sin man becomes a prey to
the evil powers, and their sway is unopposed in heathenism. The
worship of idols is one form in which sinful human nature exhi >
bits itself, the potency of evil consequently cannot be excluded
therefrom, nay, it must therein proclaim itself in an especial
manner, as it diverts the noblest aspirations of man into a wrong
direction, and invests crime itself with apparent sanctity. It
may not be imagined, as some Jews, and the unlearned among
the Christians were prone to do, that to every god a correspond-
ing daemon was appointed, — those gods were only creations of
fancy. It was the power of darkness entirely, and in its fullest
extent, and the natural faculties influenced by it (especially those
which were sexual), which constituted the governing principle of
heathenism and its worship. It would be difiicult for any one to
be present at the worship of Venus, so much in vogue in Corinth
especially, without feeling the dominion of sin in his heart ; his
presence at such rites is therefore called tempting the Lord.
(In ver. 20 the words SatfjuovLOf^ Ovei kol ov 0eS are found,
a quotation from Deut. xxxii. 17, according to the LXX. — In
Ps. xcvi. 5, following the same authority, and Baruch iv. 7, the
same idea occurs. — For the passages in the Fathers referring to
this subject,! consult Usteri's Paulin. Lehrbegr. p. 421, sqq.).
1 Justin Mar. employs daemons in conveying a representation of the supper in the
worship of Mithras : oTrsp koI iv roU rov M'idpa ixvcrrriplvi^ irapidooKav yiuscrdai fxi-
FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 21—26. 167
Vers. 21, 22. Such an intermixture of entirely dissimilar ele-
ments the apostle justly declares to be perfectly inadmissible,
upon which more will be said, 2 Cor. vi. 14, sqq. No man can serve^
two masters, if he adheres truly to one, he must despise the other !
It is not necessary to understand by the expressions Trorrjpcov
Bat/jbovlcov, Tpdire^a haifjuoviayv that Paul had some particular
heathen festival in mind, the service of Mithras for' example,
(Kreuzer's Symb. i. 728, sqq. iii. 364, sqq.). in which not only
the sacrifice was eaten, but also a cup passed around ; for it being
customary to drink on all such occasions, irorrjpiov and rpdire^a,
which by a figure stand here for /Spw/iia, together signify the re-
past. To sharpen the admonition, Paul alludes briefly to the jea-
lousy of the Lord, and his power to punish the disobedient. (In
ver. 22, the 7rapa^7]\6(o is probably chosen from Deut. xxxii. 21.
It indicates the jealousy of Jehovah on account of the deviation
of his people from hearty love towards him. It corresponds to
the Hebrew ^^^^ppf' ^^^ ^^ rendered Trapo^vveiv, Trapopji^eiv, by,
the LXX. — Regarding the use of the indicative in the direct
question, see Winer's Gr, p. 260. The irapa^rfKovfjiev may be
also understood as not signifying what shall happen, but what has
taken place, " or is it the meaning by our way of proceeding to
provoke the Lord V)
Vers. 23, 24. Paul then again proceeds to assert the principle
which he had already laid down in vi. 12, in order to apply it not
only in Adiaphoris to individual liberty, but with reference to the
brethren. It might appear exaggeration for the apostle to say (irj-
Set? TO eavTov ^tjtcltco, dWa to rov erepov {efcaaTO^; is only
added to facilitate the sense), but it should be dWa teal to tov .
iripov. But this principle ought certainly to be taken in its most
extensive signification, and we must say, were it generally carried
out, every one would be better cared for, than if each thought only
of himself. But so long as this is not the case, the exercise of a
pure love in earthly things can only bring disappointment, but in
heavenly he will in the Koa/no^ ovto? gain.
Vers. 25, 26. It was not unusual for portions of the beasts
offered in sacrifice to be exposed for public sale in the markets^
so that it was possible to purchase such meat. The Judaizing
fxtja-afjLEVoi oi Trovripol SaifMOvet, otl yap apros: Kal irorvptov vSaTos ridETai kv Tats
ToD fxvaofxivov teXetoIs fxn' iiriXoywv tivwv, f; eTri<TTaadt j) p.aQuv Suua<TQt.
168 FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 27, 28.
Christians took offence at this, but Paul counselled them to make
no difference, and for conscience sake not to enquire. Here fol-
lows a quotation from Ps. xxiv. 1, acknowledging the dependence
of all created things on Jehovah, but it is not his intention to
deny the disturbances among the KTLat<;, and to subvert the
biblical injunctions regarding food ; we must rather take it for
granted, both here and in the parallel passage 1 Tim. iv. 4, that
the apostle conceived all created things sanctified in Christ, as
Peter was given in a vision (Acts x. 11, sqq.) to understand.
This is further explained in my Comm. upon the Epist. Rom. p.
426. (Ver. 25. /juaKeWov belongs to the Latin words adopted
by the later Greeks ; the particular Greek expression is /cpewTrco-
\(,op» — 'AvaKpiveiv is here = e^erd^etv, avaTrvvOdveaOaLy as
Phavorin correctly asserts ; and the 8ta rr^v o-vvelSrjo-tv, like
that of ver. 27, refers to the individual conscience of him who buys
or is invited. — Lachmann reasonably omits the comma before and
after fjLTjBev dvaKplvovre^;, likewise in ver. 27 it belongs with
Bia TTjv (TvpeLBrjcrtv to eV^/ere.)
Ver. 27, 28. Then follows the counsel, that if believers are
invited as guests by the heathen, only to refrain from eating, if a
distinct declaration is made of the nature of the food served up.
Neander and Billroth have both decided that the words, iav Be
Ti9 v/jbLv etTrr) apply not to the host, but to some one among the
guests, whose scruples were aroused, and this supposition alone
gives significance to the explanation of Bia ttjv crvveLhrjcnv. Such
a remark could never have been made by a heathen, either in
mockery or designedly, to prove the Christian, therefore this view
is not practicable. But these words require some addition, hav-
ing been already twice applied in speaking of the conscience of
the claimant for liberty. The /jurivvaa^; must accordingly be dis-
tinguished from the interrogator, and might be presumed to re-
present the host, who alone would know for certainty, if the meat
placed before them had formed a portion of a sacrifice or not.
But to this the e'/ceZVo? presents a difficulty ; and as besides Slcl
is not repeated before o-vvelBrjatv, it seems better to refer them
both to the same person, for />t?7i/u« implies not so much the posi-
tive information, as the opportunity of becoming acquainted that
it was meat that had been sacrificed. The words el OeXere iropevea^
1 See pp. 387, 8, of the transiatioii, F. T. Lib.
FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 29 — 3L 169
Oai (ver. 27) indicate, as Pott correctly observes, that the apos-
tle considered it advisable to accept such invitations from heathen
acquaintance with the greatest caution, for heathen customs were
in use at all their festivals, and the Christian who took part in
them, ran the risk of denying his faith by his practice. Never-
theless the circumstances did not warrant a formal prohibition.
(Lachmann has preferred the reading lepoOvrovm ver. 28, and in-
deed it is more easy to account for the change of this expression
into the general elBcoXodvTov, than on the other hand the ad-
mitted form into the more unusual one. But the additional tov
yap Kvplov K. T. \. here is decidedly not genuine, and only bor-
rowed from ver. 26, from the preceding word avpelSrjacv being
the same ).
Ver. 29 — 31. In an interrogating form, and likewise in the first
person, the current idea is repeated, in order more vividly to pre-
sent it to the mind. "For why should I allow my liberty to be
judged of another man's conscience," meaning, " why should I, by
my exercise of freedom, afford a pretence to others for judging
me ?" " If I (the meat) partake with thanks to God (conse-
quently in a right mind), why am I evil spoken of, for partaking
of meat received with thanksgiving ? i, e. wherefore shall I give
occasion (in appearance) for evil to be spoken of me. Is it then
not better that I should have the necessary regard to the weak and
avoid all offence V Let all be done therefore to the glory of God.
Govern yourselves entirely according to circumstances. Be not
only heathen to the heathen (to which inclination urges you), but
be not ashamed to be Jewish to the Jew. (See ix. 20, sqq.) Pott
has attributed another and apparently easier construction to these
words, viz. as an objection proceeding from one of the liberal
party : " What have I to do with another's conscience ] and why
should I allow my liberty to be judged of them '? If I have eaten
with thanks, why should I be evil spoken of?" . But this expo-
sition of the verse, although the words are by no means incon-
sistent with it, is opposed by the subject of the foregoing one,
according to which even the conscience of the stranger is to be
respected, and also by ver. 31. It is only by adopting the above
explanation that the elVe ovv k. t. X. becomes connected. In refer-
ence to the irdvTa ek Bo^av Qeov Trotetre, we cannot truly weaken
the force of the Travra, as if it signified only something. In the
170 FIRST CORINTHIANS X. 32 —XI. 1.
Christian life things great and small should stand in harmonious
agreement ! However the ek Bo^av Oeov is not to be thought to
imply attention to every trifle. The inward living principle
must exhibit itself in things of every degree as the generator of a
pure life displaying itself in love towards all, manifesting the Sofa
©60V thereby in the most glorious manner. (In ver. 29, iXevBe-
pla^ may not, as Heidenreich supposes, be supplied to the %a/3tTfc
fierexco, but the verb stands rather for '* to taste meat," as the
vTrep ov 670) evxapt'O-rS) which follows plainly proves. The expres-
sion %af)t9 is in this passage the gratiarum actio in eating.) *
Ver. 32. — Chap. xi. 1. Then follows the admonition to accom-
modate themselves in Adiaphora charitably, not to one party
alone but to all without exception (according to the enumeration
ix. 20, sqq.) as he, the apostle, was accustomed to do in the whole
sphere of his labours. Nevertheless Paul will not be the pattern
by which they (the Corinthians) were to regulate their conduct,
and therefore he adds : I am a follower of Christ. I have not
devised my course of proceeding, but have learned it from the
holy prototype of mankind ! (The airpoaico'iro'^ of ver. 32 has
appeared in Actsxxiv. 16 ; it also occurs in Phil* i. 10. Hesy-
chius and Suidas explain it by daKavBakta-roq. But here it is em-
ployed actively the same as 6 Trpoa-Koirrjv fjur) StSou?.— The mention
of Jews and Gentiles with the church of God, which makes a dif-
ficulty with Billroth, is entirely unimpeachable if we glance at ix.
20, sqq., where Jews and Gentiles are also mentioned. Conside-
ration is to be had for them, in order if possible to win them to
the truth, as is expressly declared in ver. 33. [See on Rom. xv.
1.]. — The rule of their conduct is to be only the benefit of others
and not their own advantage. The Christian should rather be
prepared to purchase the former even at the expense of personal
self-denial and discomfort. The division of the chapters is evi-
dently not well arranged in this place. Ver. 1 of the 11th chap-
ter belongs essentially to the preceding deduction. Paul was un-
willing to afford his adversaries the most remote occasion to ac-
cuse him of pride, and he therefore, while holding forth his own
example, represents it as a following after the great example
which was offered to the whole human race.)
( 171 )
III.
PART THIRD.
(xi. 2— xiv. 40.)
9. THE SUITABLE APPAREL.
As we have already remarked in reviewing the contents of
these epistles in the Introduction, the second Part treated chiefly
of private circumstances, and now in the third the public assem-
blies, and occurrences in connexion with them, are brought under
consideration. In entering upon the subject the apostle com-
mences with externals, viz. the apparel and appearance suitable
to believers, and it seems probable that this was because he was
able to award praise in this particular, for in this respect the
better spirit appears to have influenced the Corinthian church,
and led them to observe the strict apostolic injunction (ver. 2.).
The argument which follows these is more by way of enforcing a
due observation of the customs enjoined, and reproving those who
had attempted innovation (ver. 16), but had not^succeeded in
carrying it out. The 6e\(o Be vfia^ elSivacl is not to be re-
garded as antithesis, but a corroboration of the^foregoing. This
is decidedly proved by the tovto Se ovk Jiraivo) of verses 17
and 22, but the apostle prefaces with this observation, because
it connects itself perfectly with the subject of chap. viii. — x. which
was likewise an abuse of liberty, prejudiciall^toTthej^morality of
the members of the church. This paragraph also shows, that the
irapahoaei^ referred not only to such important doctrines as the
holy communion (see ver. 23), but likewise to such lesser injunc-
tions as are here brought under consideration. The 2 Thess. ii. 15
proves that Paul included therein his verbal and written directions
172 FIRST CORINTHIANS XI. 3.
concerning Christian doctrine and living.i From the nature of
the thing, it was natural to suppose that an early attempt would
be made to collect such precepts, and as the rapid growth of the
church elicited new circumstances rendering new directions im-
perative, these collections increase and come down to us in this
form, without our being always able to discriminate between what
is really apostolic and the later additions. (The iravra might
create a difficulty, for vers. 17, 22, certainly show that Paul by
no means commends all, and that the Corinthians had not remem-
bered everything. It is best therefore to receive it = ttuvtco^,
which is quite reconcilable as it stands before in the same manner
as iravTw^s usually does. See Luke iv. 23 ; Acts xviii. 21, xxi.
22, xxviii. 4.).
Ver. 3. The apostle then leaves the subject of the connection
of husband and wife, and enters upon that referring to the veiling
of women, which was then agitated in Corinth. The preachers
of unlimited liberty might have attempted to remove this ancient
custom (Gen. xx. 16), but the firm principle of the followers of
Peter maintained it, which Paul justified. This custom pos-
sessed once a symbolical signification, the veil expressed the
authority of the husband over her, and the idea of the seclusion
and reserve becoming the woman ; it had likewise a moral aim,
for all unlawful excitement was avoided in the assemblies, and
the attention was withdrawn from the women. The apostle's
argument is not applicable to married women alone, but includes
the whole female sex as such : in a profound allegory he views
the women's long hair as a veil lent to her by nature herself
(ver. 15.). According to this he must intend that the young
women also should come to the assembly veiled. But under
all circumstances we must remember that, according to the re-
marks on chap, vii., we are not to regard this in the light
of a command, but as good counsel justified by the period,
and it would be unnecessarily precise to require that the re-
presentations here laid down by the apostle should be liter-
1 Neauder in his Church History (Kirchengeschichte), vol. i. part iii. p. 1106, sqq.,
and Krabbe upon the Apos. Constit. p. 50, appear unwilling to admit any written apos
tolic regulations. The pastoral letters are however evidently nothing more than small
collections of apostolic rules ; that besides these many of their directions were written
down during the life-time of the apostle, is certainly not improbable; our collection of
so-called apostolic institutions are without doubt of a much later origin.
2
FIRST CORINTHIANS XL 3. 173
ally followed in all ages. But although the German custom
concedes a freer position to the female sex than the eastern
Grreek allowed, the apostle's fundamental idea in this para-~
graph preserves a significance for all times. The Holy Scriptures
recognise nothing of the emancipation of women, and the noblest
adornment of the woman must ever remain a modest decency,
the expression of which must be a becoming dress. — That the op-
posite custom should ever have found currency in Corinth, viz.
the veiling of the men, appears to me very unlikely. The pas-
sages which appear rather to favour the supposition (ver. 4, 7),
are there only by way of antithesis ; had such a custom really
required to be formally attacked, it would have been brought
under more signal notice. The custom of the heathen to cover
themselves at sacrifices, and in the presence of the aruspices,^ may
indeed be appealed to, but it is thoroughly improbable that the
Christians should have transplanted anything of heathen rites
into ecclesiastical usage. There is likewise not a trace of this
to be found elsewhere, while the subject of the veiling of women
came under consideration at a later period, as the work of Ter-
tullian de virginihus velandis proves. It is more reasonable to
suppose that it was the well-known custom of the synagogue which
was implied, the covering the head with a cloth during the hours
of prayer. But as we said before, there is no sufficient founda-
tion for supposing that such a custom ever existed among men.
— The argument in ver. 3 has in addition something peculiar. The
comparison between the relation of Christ to the church is based
upon matrimony (Eph. v. 20, sqq.). But in spiritual marriage,
Christ is not alone the head of the man, but of the woman also,
without regard to distinction of sex. Yet is it here said, iravTo^
avBpo^ 7} /c€(f)a\r) 6 Xpicrro^. However that cannot be urged, for
in all such parallels discrepancies must exist. But wherefore
the addition Ke<^aXr] he Xptarov 6 Oeof; ? To the general con-
text it bears no reference ; it only completes the accessory idea
1 The unbridled customs of the age prove how necessary such severe regulations were
in the times we are speaking of. The Fathers of the Church, e. g. Clemens Alex.,
Cyprian, &c., were obliged to express their displeasure at certain Christian women, who
bathed with men without the decency of dress. (See Krabbe on the Apost, Constit.
Hamburg.* 1829, p. 125, sqq.).
2 Sei'vius in Virg. Aen. iii. 407, writes: Sciendum sacrificantes dm omnibug capita
velarc consuetos ob hoc, ne se inter religionem aliqnid vagis offerret obtutibitn.
174 FIRST CORINTHIANS XI. 4 — 9.
of the gradual adyancement, as in iii. 22. The remarks already
made on this passage, upon the question how far in such passages
a subordination of Christ to the Father may be traced, are like-
wise yalid here. (In the idea Ke^aXr}, according to the context,
dominion is especially expressed. As in the human organization,
the exercise of dominion oyer all the members proceeds from the
head ; so in the family, from the men ; in the church, from Christ ;
in the uniyerse, from God.).
Ver. 4, 5. The first yerse is only^er contrarium to elucidate the
meaning of the second, concerning which it really treats. In a spiri-
tual fashion, the apostle yiews the bearing of men and women as of
importance to their being. The man represents the goyerning
principle in mankind, the woman the ministering ; in the former,
therefore, the free open appearance was becoming ; to the latter,
the reseryed, symbolically expressed by the yeil. The expressions
TTpoo-evx^aOai and TTpo^Teveiv, refer howeyer, as xiy. 13, shows, to
the Charismata of tongues and prophesy. We learn from
this passage that this was also conferred upon women, though
at a later period the public eooercise of these gifts (see xiy.
34, and 1 Tim. ii. 12) was entirely prohibited by the apos-
tle. That this prohibition is not alluded to here is by no means
important. Calyin has justly replied apostolus unum impro-
hando alterum not prohat ; he desired here first to continue the
discussion already commenced. (In yer. 4 r/is to be supplied to
Kara Ke(f>a\ri^ e%ft)i/, some wearing and coyering for the head.
— Billroth with propriety recognises a double meaning in the
twofold KaraKT'yyvei rrjv K6<f>dki]v. It signifies first it disho-
noureth his head, i.e. the part of the body which declares disho-
nour, and next of the man that he dishonoureth Christ. Of the
woman that she dishonours her husband, by omitting the sign of
her subjection to him. — Shaying the woman's head was a punish-
ment for adultresses, the expression also bears application to
want of discipline and shamelessness.)
Vers. 6—9. The necessity for adherence to strict morality is
yet further enforced by the apostle from the relation of man to
woman, shown in the Mosaic account of the creation. The man
is God's eUcbv koI Bo^a, the woman only man's Sofa. This refers
back to Gen. . 27, where man is styled q^^^ and |-|^ot ^^ ^^^•
But Calyin has justly reminded us that this argument, and like-
FIRST CORINTHIANS XI. 10. 175
wise that arising out of the Ke^akr) in ver. 3, must be adopted
with the necessary restriction, and that the conclusion arrived at
by numerous schismatics is perfectly unsupported as to the man
alone being the image of God, and not the woman. In the pas-
sage of Grenesis alluded to (i. 27) dominion is declared to be the
chief characteristic of the divine image ; this was manifested more
in the man than in the woman, and only for that reason, and so far
Paul ascribes to him the image, and not to the woman. This
latter has a dependent position assigned to her, and all her fa-
culties should be applied to the one purpose of serving the man,
and elevating him in his higher and more important condition.
This is signified by the expression So^a avhpo^, wherewith the
apostle drops the parallel with the elKcov. In order to place the
subjection of the woman to man more clearly in view the apos-
tle borrows an argument from the 2d chapter of Genesis. The
fact that the woman was formed out of the rib of the man (ef
avhpoi) and was destined to be his helper (ha tov dvBpa e/c-
tIg-Bt)), is employed by Paul for this purpose. This sort of argu-
ment would appear singular in these days, but evidently only be-
cause we have not accustomed ourselves to read the Holy Scrip-
tures, especially the Old Testament, so literally. Paul however
proceeds upon the unrestricted divinity of the Old Testament,
and the more this is generally recognized the more shall we be
enabled to perceive the admissibility of such proofs. (In ver. 6,
^updcrOac is to be understood as the increased KelpaaOat.).
Ver. 10. This passage has received more trouble and labour
than its meaning appears to deserve. 'E^ovala is evidently
nothing more than an indication of the covering for the fe-
male head, and therefore of the veil, which is thus the sym-
bol of the man's power over the woman. ^ The conjectures
e^ov^lav, i^Lovcra are quite unnecessary and untenable.2 The
1 Hagenbach (Stud. 1828, pt. 2, p. 401, sqq.) would derive i^ov^ia from i^Eivai in
the sense of " descent, extraction."' But I.iicke (pt. 3, p. 568, sqq.) has lexico-
logically and exegetically proved tbis unsound. Liicke himself admits a hrachylogy
in the passage, viz. the omission of the definite genitive relation, which may be under-
stood in a twofold reference, first to the man as an exercise of the i^ovcria, and then
to the women and the object thereof.
2 The reading kl^iovara has certainly something in its favour, and is therefore put
forth by Junius, Valckenaer, and others. (See the Scholia of the latter, vol. ii. p. 279.).
176 FIRST CORINTHIANS XI. 10.
supposition that i^ovaia is precisely the name of a head-
dress, admits of no proof. The Hebrew ^^i-p, a large upper
garment, capable also of covering the head, is not derived
from HTl' *^ ^^^^^ ^"^ ^^^^ T^^» ^^ spread. In the middle ages
XT _ — T
imperium certainly signified a woman's head- dress (see Du Fresne
Glossar. Med. iEvi. s. v.) ; and others have desired to receive i^ov-
ala in an active sense, '* symbol of the protecting power of the
man over the woman," with a reference to Ps. Ix. 9, *it2)if^l t\'^'^'
guard of my head, i. e. protecting helmet. But this turn of the
expression by no means agrees with the context. The apostle is
engaged in proving, not that the man has to protect the woman,
but that the latter has to obey him. The difficulty in the phrase
Zlcl Tov^i djyekovi is much more important. The conjectures
aryiXT)^ (on account of the flock), ayekauov; (by reason of unedu-
cated men), dvBpa<;, o'x\ov<;, are collectively without authority ;
the Codd. give no variations, but the supposition that dyyeXoi,
intimates human messengers, suitors, or heathen spies, even mar-
ried men, or overseer of the church, requires no serious refutation.
The view of Heidenreich, that Sid tou? ayyekov^ is a formula ob-
secrandi, as per omnes sanctos, cannot be maintained, for the
New Testament acknowledges no invocation of angels. We may
certainly hesitate as to good or bad angels being here meant, and
it appears not unlikely that a reference exists to the narrative of
Gen. vi. 2, where it is stated that the sons of God (Elohim) found
the daughters of men fair, and united themselves to them. But
we cannot admit the reference in this place, because dyyekoi
never implies bad angels alone. In the iv. 9 we understand by ary-
yekoL^ all the higher orders of beings, good and bad together,
but the connection here does not sanction this supposition ; for if
it were proposed to express the temptation of man by means of
the sight of unveiled women, at the evil instigation of bad angels,
as Mosheim among others thinks, and also the sorrow experienced
by the good angels for sin, it must have been more precisely
stated. Good angels alone are therefore referred to. Theodo-
rete, and following him other expositors, have had the guardian
angels (Matt, xviii. 10) specially in mind, so that the sense were,
" in order to avoid afflicting your holy guardian angel by an im-
moral behaviour." But whether the angels mentioned in Matt.
FIRST CORINTHIANS XI. 11 — 16. 177
xviii. 10 (see Coinin. on this passage) are to be regarded as a dis-
tinct class, is too uncertain for us to venture to derive our expla-
nation therefrom ; we can then only in a general way think of all
the good angels. But on what grounds shall the women cover
themselves on their account ? Bengel replies, because (Is. vi. 2)
the angels veil themselves before the Almighty. But that would
prove too much, for by a similar reasoning he might conclude
that the men also should veil themselves before Christ, their Head.
We can only admit the general reference, on account of the joy,
which the angels have, in all that is holy and good (see Luke xv.
10) ; and as the subject has a particular reference to veiling in
the assemblies, we may entertain the idea that the angels, being
themselves likewise engaged in the praise of God the Father^
must be considered actively participating in the worship of God.i
Thus according to the LXX. Ps. cxxxviii. 1 says, Ivavrlov ayyt-
\(ov -^jraXd) crot, although ver. 2 shows the subject to be the hymns
in the temple.
Ver. 11, 12. In order however to furnish no pretence for
pride in man, Paul now brings forward the other side of the posi-
tion, that is to say, that by the command of God the man came
of woman, being born of her ; then again occurs the observation,
that all comes from God, men as well as women. (In ver. 11 the
ev Kvplay is to be understood, " According to the command and
appointment of the Lord." The teM. rec. has transposed the
phrase in ver. 11, but critical authority is so unanimously opposed
to the usual reading, that no doubt can prevail concerning its re
jection.).
Ver. 13 — 16. The apostle concludes, that every one must be
sensible of the propriety of women being covered, especially in
religious assemblies ; nature itself indicates this by the long hair
which she bestows upon the woman as a covering and veil. This
universal custom in all God's churches cannot therefore be de-
parted from, in accordance with the views of certain who were
contentious. In the latter remark (ver. 16), is as it were con-
tained the threat, " to whomsoever this is not agreeable, let him
withdraw from the church, the custom cannot be changed." (In
1 This has been already propounded by tlie F.-.thers of the church. See TertuU. de
Oral. c. 12. Grig. c. Cels. v. p. 233. Constit. Apost. viii. 4.
m
178 FIRST CORINTHIANS XI. 17~34.
ver. 14 the expression ?5 (jivo- o^ BMa/cet must not be overlooked,
for this mode of expression occurs but rarely in the holy Scriptures,
since nature is commonly conceived as bein^* in absolute dependence
upon God, and therefore, whenever it expresses purely physical
subjects, is styled God. Passages like these show that the pre-
sent prevalent practice of referring all to nature, is not in itself
objectionable, but the circumspection with which the name of
God is avoided is evidently the fruit of unbelief ; nature is con-
sidered without any relation to God. Ko/juaco is = comam alere,
to permit the hair to grow long. — In ver. 15, irepipoKaiov is really
a wide-flowing garment [Heb. i. 12], consequently veil. See Gen.
xxiv. Qb, xxxviii. 14. — In ver. 16, Hesychius explains (J)c\6v€lko<;
by fid^^cfMo^;, (plXepc^; ; it does not occur again in the New Testa-
ment. This concluding verse decidedly points to a certain party
in Corinth who wished to assert a greater degree of liberty. The
extremes to which this tendency gave occasion in later times, is
shown in church history, by the accounts of the antinomian sects
of the Karpokratians, &c.
§ 10. THE HOLY COMMUNION.
(xi. 17—34.)
Far more important is the second subject upon which the
apostle now enters, the conduct of the Corinthian Christians at
the holy communion. With reference to this, the example of the
better disposed appears either to have effected nothing, or they
themselves were carried away by party spirit. At all events the
apostle blames their conduct unconditionally, stigmatising it as
calculated to change the blessing upon the assembly into a curse.
(The rovTo irapayyikXcov of ver. 17 refers to the subject already
mentioned in ver. 16, and the maintaining a better principle of
order upon appearing in the assembly ; and with the commendation
contained in ver. 16, a degree of reproach is connected in what
follows. — The crvvepxeo-Oat alludes especially to the assembling
together, at which, according to the custom among early Chris-
tians, it was usual to celebrate the holy communion daily, and
also the love-feast. Billroth refers Kpelrrov and rJTrov to tlie
FIRST CORINTHIANS XI. 18, 19. 179
assembly itself, making the sense " tliese are not better, but
rather worse," but this is not favoured by the ek ro : it would be_
more correct to regard it as expressive of the ethical end of all con-
gregation, prejudiced by the unsanctified state ^of mind in which
the Corinthians were accustomed to meet together. In ver. 34, ek
Kpifjba avvep^eordai expresses this.).
Ver. 18, 19. Paul does not now enter at once upon the main
argument, but mentions first the dissensions among the Corin-
thians, by employing Trpcorozz/xei^, to which no Bevrepov Be succeeds,
the ovv of ver. 20 rather supplying its place. From this some-
what undivided form, we are by no means to conclude that Paul
proposed to treat first of the divisions, and afterwards of the
abuses in the Lord's Supper, or that he considered these same
errors as o-'^lafiara, but that he intended to expose the lelation
of these corruptions to existing dissensions (see on chap, i.), and
how the corrupt practices on occasion of celebrating the holy
communion which Paul bewails, arose from the want of unity in
the church (through the four aipeaec^), and further exhibited
themselves in the assembly by cr^iaiiaTa when the greatness of
their purpose in assembling together should rather have re-
strained any disposition to cavil. The sentence koI fiepo^ tc
TTiareva) is also to be thus explained. For it refers not to the
(r)(^L(TfjLaTa as such (the information concerning it being credited
entirely, and not in part, by Paul), but to its influence upon the
forms of the congregations. Concerning this latter point exag-
gerated reports might have arisen which the apostle perceived to
be such, but that they were not entirely without foundation Paul's
acquaintance with God's dealings enabled him to see. He con-
tinually passes his winnowing fan over a community, in order to
separate the impure from it, and make manifest the approved.
(In ver. 18 iKK\r]crla is not to be understood as the place of meet-
ing, but the congregation : '' If ye come together, so that ye
form an iKKXrjala, that faithful believers are present." That is
to say, smaller circles of persons closely connected might be
formed who would yet represent no real iKKXTjala. It would be
advisable to omit, with Lachmann, the comma after yap and €k-
Kkrjcrla, thus extending the current idea as far as virapxetv. — The
differen<fce between the GyiaixaTa and alpkaei'; in this place is
that the latter expression, as the stronger, contains the ground
m 2
180 FIRST CORINTHIANS XI. 20—22.
of the former, to which the kcli points. The alpkaei^ are also
the chief points of division mentioned in chap i., a consequence
whereof was that the parties held themselves separate, even at
the celebration of the holy supper, i.e. occasioned cr^to-yw-ara.
— Billroth correctly observes that here the Xva is to be under-
stood properly of the object : God's purpose in these very la-
mentable divisions is to discover those who are firm in the faith.
The good principle displays itself in moderation ; the bad in the
separation of the impure. 1 John ii. 19.).
Ver. 20 — 22. The apostle now proceeds to that which is the
real object of reproof. (In ver. 22 ovic iiraLvo) is to be received
only as Meiosis.) According to custom among the ancient Chris-
tians, the celebration of the love-feast was regularly connected
with that of the holy communion, so that the whole ceremony
formed a strict commemoration of our Lord's passover feast.
Together they were viewed as one operation, and called BecTTPoi/
KvptaKov} All believers, as members of a single God*s family,
ate and drank together earthly and divine food, in witness of
their inward unity for time and eternity. Each individual ac-
cording to his ability brought provision for this festival, which
was then consumed in common, and this custom continued to
exist down to the end of the fourth century, when, in consequence
of the congregations becoming so numerous, it was found neces-
sary to separate the love-feasts from the Lord's Supper. Now in
Corinth, where the spirit of love had lost considerable ground,
these festivals were so conducted that each partook only of what
he had provided, the rich enjoying fully while the poor lacked.
The Lord's Supper, the supper of love, thereby sank into an 'IZiov
helirvov, and was a proceeding without meaning or significance,
which each might have performed at home, and that which was
intended as a bond of union became of none effect and was dis-
honoured. However well calculated this account may be to dis-
turb the pleasing illusions we are prone to form concerning the
state of perfection existing in the ancient church, much may be
i Catholic interpreters desire to understand licre only tbe Agape without the Lord's
supper. This is decidedly an error ; the apostolic church never celebrated sin Agape
alone, without the holy communion. But at all events we may infer from what is stated
that the errors here re])roved found only partial acceptance in the dtlTrvov KvpiaKov,
which, when at a Bubsequent period separated from the I^ord's supper, formed the feasts
styled Agape.
FIRST CORINTHIANS XI. 23—25. 181
found to operate in tempering our judgement. First, the
proceedings of the Corinthians did not spring from disrespect
towards the sacred rite, and in no degree from covetousness or
a selfish appetite, but from the divisions among themselves,
which was the fundamental cause of the isolation of individuals.
Every one shared only with the members of their own party
without regard to the wants of the other. Such a course of pro-
ceeding, which would arise from attaching too great importance to
slight points of difference, was in no way incompatible with a na-
ture capable of more enlarged views, and it does not appear that
this fault as thus explained was general. Had each applied him-
self seriously to the duty of self-examination, he would not have
rated his brother's sin higher than his own, and this the apostle
endeavours earnestly to impress upon them in what follows. (In
ver, 20 the emphasis is to be laid on vfx&v, " when ye come to-
gether it is no true Lord's Supper that ye celebrate in so wrong
a manner. ' — Concerning eTrl to auro, consult Acts i. 15, ii. 1. —
AetTTPov KvpcaKov only occurs here. In the Acts of the Apostles
the expression used is Kkdai^ dprov [see Acts ii. 42], signifying
love-feast and Lord's Supper together. TertuUian employs also
the term convivium doininicum, convivium Dei [Ad Uxor. ii. 4,
8.] . But the name is not to be explained as Heidenreich supposes,
eoena in honorem domini instituta, but " feast, given by the Lord,
to which he invites believers.'' — In ver. 21 irpoXafxI^aveiv means
the consuming of the food supplied for themselves and those be-
longing to them, witliout sharing the same with their poorer breth-
ren. — In ver. 22 Heidenreich erroneously places the expression
i/CKXTjala Qeov in opposition to olKia, and concludes that it signi-
fies church buildings. But the acceptance of this view is for-
bidden by the Qeov, which is inapplicable to a building, and
moreover by the Kara^povelv and TTaTata')({)veiv iov<; fjurj e^ovra^ij
which are parallel. The circumstances of the apostolic church
were not yet of a nature that Christians could possess buildings
which were exclusively churches.)
Vers. 23 — 25. To this reproof on the part of the apostle fol-
lows a communication concerning the tradition relative to the ce-
lebration of the Lord's Supper, which by the y^p would appear
to be elicited by circumstances similar to those which had called
for the former; although it was not the Lord's Supper itself,
182 FIRST CORINTHIANS XI. 23—25.
but only the love -feasts preceding it, which had been profaned
by the Corinthians ; from this we may understand that Paul,
holding forth the exalted nature of this sacrament, and its inti-
mate and important connexion with the love-feast, desired to
make the Corinthians fully sensible of their guilt in introducing
their differences into the solemn rite. The passage from ver. 27
especially refers to this, ^aul brings before their view what the
Lord's Supper is, in order more strongly to impress upon them
the necessity for self-examination. That dogmatic errors in the
doctrine of the Lord's Supper were propagated is not expressly
stated, but, according to 1 Cor. xv. 12, it is extremely probable
that such were ready prepared to find entrance upon the slightest
deviation from the pure faith. If the resurrection of the body
were denied, the presence of the glorified body of our Lord was
easily made the subject of error. In order therefore to remove
all pretext for the adoption of these errors, the apostle furnishes
them textually with the entire doctrine which he had himself
already preached to them. — Concerning the Pauline form of
institution it has already been fully entered upon in Comm.
vol. ii. 440, sqq., third edit., to which the reader is referred.
In the life of the apostle (Exposition of the Epist. to the
Romans, p. 8) it has already been stated that we could not rea-
sonably conclude that every individual historical fact in the life
of the Lord had been immediately imparted to the apostle by
Christ, but with the holy communion it was an especial case.
The dogmatic principle contained therein was so closely bound
up with historical foundation that it was not possible to separate
the one from the other ; in this particular therefore an immediate
revelation from the Lord is correctly inferred. Exegetically the
airo Tov Kv p Lov csiiinot be otherwise received than with the anti-
thesis ovK air' av6p(t)7rcov, as expressly stated by Paul in Gal. i.
12. Accordingly we have here an authentic declaration of the
risen Saviour himself concerning his sacrament, and the church
has ever regarded this as the most important passage in the New
Testament respecting the holy communion. It has been alleged
in opposition to this, that airo only signifies the receiving through
an agent, and that consequently the apostle only here lays claim
to having received from the apostles as eye-Avitnesses. But then
Paul would stand upon a level with all other Christians who like-
FIRST CORINTHIANS XI. 26, 27. 183
wise received the sacrament from the apostles, while here some-
thing especial is attributed. It therefore follows that in the
New Testament it is not always strictly indispensable to ob^
serve the distinction between cltto and irapa, as is further shown
in the remarks upon Gral. i. 1. In fact it may be supposed
that Paul here employs oltto, because he desired to discriminate
between the personal appearance of our Lord (see Acts ix.) and
his revelation by means of his Spirit. The reading Trapa in some
of the Codd. is therefore only correction^
Ver. 26. Christ's own words are only contained in vers. 24, 25 ;
ver. 26 is added by Paul himself as an illustration of the et? rr]v
ifjbrjv avd/jivrjatv. The announcement of the Saviour's death shall
not only take place as often as the Lord's Supper is celebrated ;
but this celebration, and the announcement bound up in it, shall
continue until the second coming of the Lord, consequently
through the entire aicov ovro^^ until the supper of the Lamb in
Grod's kingdom. (Rev. xix. 9.). The idea of making known the^
death naturally includes, as (Ecumenius appositely remarks, the
remembrance contained therein, iraaav rrjv Scopeav koX iraaav rrfv
cj^LkavOpcoiTLav koI irda-av rrjv crcoTrjpiav, only that we may be
uncertain whether KaTayyiWere is to be received as indicative
or imperative. The yap, connecting verses 25 and 26, agrees
with both ; for ye certainly make known, would call to mind the
custom in the celebration of the communion, thanking God for
creation and also redemption through the death of Christ. But
Heidenreich has correctly observed that the phrase a^pt? ov €X6rj
must be taken imperatively, for it was impossible Paul should
say, ye do it until the coming of the Lord.
Ver. 27. Of the highest importance to the dogma of the Lord's
Supper are the words of exhortation from the apostle which here
follow. He says one may partake of the sacred feast az/af/o)?,
and thereby make himself worthy of punishment. The question
arises, what is to be understood by ava^Lca^ 1 In connexion with
the subject before us, the judging others instead of ourselves, and
imcharitableness towards others, is intended. This may be found
to include the idea admitting of universal and especial application
to all times and circumstances, the impenitent are unworthy
guests at the Lord's Supper, not from the sinfulness abstract-
edly, but the sinning without repenting, the hardy persistence
184 FIRST CORINTHIANS Xi. 27.
in sin. It is the more important to uphold this view, because
individuals of tender consciences feeling the operation of sin in
themselves, often deem themselves unworthy, and so refrain from
the strengthening influence to be derived from the holy sacrament.
It is the impenitent participation which constitutes evo'x^o^ tov
a(o/jLaTo<; koX tov ai\xaro<^ rov fcvplov. The expression €VO'yo<s;
(from ive^eoOai, adstrictus teneri) signifies reus^ to incur a
penalty, inrevdvvo^, as Hesychius explains it. It is usually con-
nected with Kpiai^ or OdvaTo<; (Matt. v. 21, sqq., xxvi. 66;
Mark iii. 29), here it is placed together with the object> to
which the guilt has reference. But it is obviously consistent
neither with the connexion or Pauls meaning to understand
the idea thus, " Whoever partakes unworthily of bread and
wine, is so wicked that he would have joined in condemning
Christ to death. " The thought of the apostle tends not to the
distant Saviour crucified on Golgotha, but considers him as pre-
sent in the last supper which he instituted, which he continued
as a memorial of himself. Therefore not only Xptarov is used,
but crcoyLtaTo? Kul cLfiaTO^ Xptarov, which would be irreconcileable
with the former acceptation. The sense is rather, " Whoever un-
worthily partakes of the bread and wine, is guilty of an offence
against the most Holy One." As the greatness of the offence is
determined by the elevation of the object against whom the deed
is directed, as likewise he who affronts a prince finds it more
difficult to excuse himself than he who mocks a beggar, or he
who robs a church, than the man who steals from a private house,
so is the unworthy receiving of the Lord's Supper the more hein-
ous, because the holiness of Christ present therein is so great.
Indeed we must say, that a mighty argument against Zwinglius'
views of the Lord's Supper lies in this passage ; the apostle treats
it as a high mystery, which bears within itself a power to bless
and likewise to destroy. Christ is present in the Lord's Supper
in his human nature, so that he who receives the elements unwor-
thily, is guilty of sin towards Christ himself The fact that the
consecrated elements are here denominated bread and wine, proves
sufficiently that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is
entirely unscriptural. But it is just as certain that concerning
the manner of Christ's presence in the holy communion, nothing
further can be drawn from this passage. That the Calvinistic
FIRST CORINTHIANS XI. 28 — 29. 185
acceptation of this doctrine must yield in the chief points to the
Lutheran can only he inferred by a strict analogy of the general
points of doctrine, especially as they refer to the person of Christ-
and to the relationship of the divine and human nature in him.
In that case we may here find a certain guide. — Ver. 27 is em-
ployed by the Eoman Catholics as a defence of the communio
sub una, because it says, o? av ia-Olrj top dprov tovtov, rj irivr) to
irorrjptov rod Kvplov. It is true that several good MSS. read Kal,
but without doubt rj is preferable to the more unusual form.
Wiaer (Gr. p. 413) has therefore with reason remarked that this
certainly permits us to suppose tha/t some may devoutly receive
the bread without the wine ; and in addition to this, if, according
to the Roman Catholic view, the cup ought never to be received,
the rj can in no manner apply. Paul in that case must have
written 09 av iaOtrj rov dprov tovtov.
Vers. 28, 29. To this the exhortation to serious self-examina-
tion before receiving the holy Sacrament naturally connects it-
self. The hoKifxd^eiv is, as may be readily comprehended, to be
considered in conjunction with the result of this exercise of self-
investigation and repentance. As perfectly conformable to this
passage confession was instituted by the church, and it were
much to be desired that the practice of real private confession
were still retained instead of a general admonition being substi-
tuted in its place. — At the same time the former idea is again
taken up here (ver. 29), and the form evo')(o<^ awpuaTO^ koX aX^xa-
To? Kvplov elucidated by firj Biafcplvajv to awfia tov Kvpiov. These
words however only confirm the view before taken of the gvo^o<;
K, T. X., for hiaKpiveiv signifies likewise in this place " to separate
as holy from unholy, consequently to treat the Lord's Supper as
if it were an ordinary matter, and as if he were not present."
The question then occurs, whether these words justify Luther's
supposition that the unbelieving do also receive the body of the
Lord?^ Had the great Reformer declared, with reference to this,
that those who received unworthily not only did not receive
1 The strict Liitlierans of the 16th cRiitiiry went so far as to assert : Nihilo plus rece-
pisse in prima coena Petrum qnam Jndam. Calvin, on the xi. 27, expresses himself
thus : Eyo hocaxioma teneo, neque mihi usquam excuti paliar, Christum nonpossea suo
spiritH divelU. Unde consiUuo, non recipi mortuitm eins coi-pus. neque disjuncttim a
spiritus siii virfufe. Jam qui viva fide etpoenitentia vacuus est, qimm nihil haheal spiritus
Christ i, ipsuni Christum quomodo reciperct 1 Sicuf ergo fateor, quosdam esse qui vere
186 FIRST CORINTI ANS XL. 28, 29.
the blessing, but thereby suffered positive evil consequences
(a Kplfia), this would have been perfectly compatible with
the sense. The words Kplfia eavro) iaOlei evidently bind the
curse to the action of unworthy participation. But that the
unbelieving communicant receives the body and blood of Christ in
itself is not sanctioned by the words ; we may suppose the perni-
cious effect of his unholy act to be, that the power of the body
and blood repels him. As he who sins against the Holy Ghost
does not receive the Spirit, but is rejected of it, so likewise the
unbelieving recipient of the Lord's Supper does not receive Christ,
but is rejected by Him. It is well to distinguish between the
unbelieving and the unworthy receiving of the Sacrament. Even
believers may receive the Sacrament unworthily, and this possibi-
lity is here stated by Paul ; inasmuch as the person so sinning is
still faithful, he can receive Christ ; insofar as he sins however
he can have no blessing, but a curse. But the thorough unbe-
liever, in whom no regeneration is found, can in no sense what-
ever be said to receive the body and blood of Christ, because the
faith is wanting which would enable him to do so. The degree
of offence in such a case depends upon the measure of conscious-
ness with which he, wanting faith, approached the table of the
Lord : he who drew near in voluntary ignorance will also be
judged according to this circumstance. Luther arrived at his
decision from the attempt to maintain the union of the greater
and lesser objects in the Sacrament, which also led him to sup-
pose that not only bread and wine, but also Christ's flesh and
blood, were received with the physical mouth, although not again
after a Capernaitish manner. But these extreme opinions were
not necessary to Luther's object : Christ's glorified flesh and
blood can only be received by regenerate man (without the bap-
tism of regeneration there is no Lord's Supper !), for such, the
Divine presence is in and with the elements ; the unregenerate,
on the contrary, has no faculty to appropriate the Divine pre-
sence to himself, and consequently receives only the external sym-
bols. Brenz says very appositely, although a good Lutheran
(Luther's works, vol. xvii. 2482), " The mouth of faith receives the
simul in ccena el lumen indigne Christum recipiani, quale* utnt multi infiiini, ila non
admitto, eos quifidem historicam tnntum sine vivo pcenitentice el Jidei sentu afferunt,
nliud quam sigiium recipere.
FIRST CORINTHIANS XI. 30 — 32. 187
body of Christ, the carnal mouth bread and wine." Because the
bread and wine are not changed, the physical mouth receives
them alone, the spiritual food being reserved for, and perceptible
only to the mouth of faith, or, yet more closely, the mouth of the
believing and inwardly renewed man, who already, though yet be-
low, bears within himself the germ of the glorified body.
Ver. 30 — 32. The condition of the Corinthian church, which in
many points of view appears to have been unsatisfactory, is clearly
attributed by Paul to their disrespect towards the holy commu-
nion. Only the strictest self-examination could save them
from the Divine judgement ; and if this were wanting, the
judgements of the Lord must take effect (as they had already
experienced) ; but in his mercy he would chastise the faith-
ful, in order to save them from condemnation with the world. — •
This passage is important, as more precisely fixing the sense of
the Kpijjba (ver. 29.). Without the subsequent advance of the
Kpiveadai (== TraiSeveadac) to the KaraKpiveaOai, we should have
already concluded in ver. 29 Kplfia to signify eternal condem-
nation. But the omission of the article intimates that it is not
the last judgement which is meant, but an admonishing reproof
calculated to impress the mind, and at the same time prove of
advantage to the faithful.^ The Corinthians had partaken of
Christ's flesh and blood unworthily, but they were not for that rea-
son eternally condemned,^ they had thereby materially prejudiced
their inward living, they were on the way to condemnation, from
which the Almighty sought to recover them by chastisement, the
apostle by reproof.^ The only difficulty in these verses is to deter-
1 Thus Wolf and Beiigel decide. The latter also correctly observes on this passage :
Kpifia, sine arlictilo, indicium aliquod, morhum, mortemve corporis, ut qui Domini cor-
pus non discernunt, suo corpore luant. Non dicit to KaruKpi/na, condemnationem. Never-
theless Billroth himself considers it refers to eternal condemnation.
2 The supposition that the unworthily participating in the Lord's Supper, in itself,
can lead to everlasting condemnation, or stand equal in guilt to sin committed against
the Holy Ghost, may prove hurtful, by deterring individuals from approaching the sacred
rite. The confession of Goethe is remarkable on this point. He was first led by this
fear to avoid both church and aliar. (See his works, last edit., vol. xxv.,p. 125.). The
ancient church possessed a far clearer view respecting the supper instituted by Divine
love !
3 The remarks of Eosenkranz (Encycl. p. 52.), mentioned by Billroth, in this place,
and which I shall likewise quote, are much to the point : "As the baptismal confession
requires the acknowledgment of sin, so likewise the celebration of the Lord's Supper
demands the knowledge of one's self It assists to the extreme in fortifying the will and
desire to lead a life agreeable to the same, because it immediately gives to the individunl
3
188 FIRST CORINTHIANS XI. 30~32.
mine, whether in ver. 30 the da6€V€L<; and dppwaroc, as well as the
KOLfjidadai, are of inward or outward application, or to be received
in both senses together. My own views incline to the latter belief;
the nature of the thing appears to forbid the supposition, that
only outward sufferings are intended without internal likewise.
The consequence of an act, such as the unworthy participation in
the holy Sacrament, must be, in the first place, a mental dis-
turbance. The only question therefore that could arise, is,
whether such inward detriment is not alone to be understood,
without any reference to outward suffering ? But the supposi-
tion of suffering endured by the Corinthians, being sent by the
Lord as a means of chastisement and profit to them, does not
allow the outward sufferings to be omitted. These, such as sick-
ness, &c., are rather the means in God's hand of awakening the
slumbering conscience to the condition of the inward life. This
passage may be regarded as parallel with v. 5, in which the apostle
commands the body of the sinner to be given over to Satan, in
order to save his soul in the day of the Lord. The expressions
(ver. 30) may consequently be regarded as a climax ; doOeveh
and dppcoa-Tot express the lesser and higher degree of laxity in
the inward life, and analogous physical sorrows, but Koc/jbdaOat,
the highest degree of inward deadness, indicating likewise the
physical death. According to 2 Cor. v,, it cannot be doubted,
that at the time the apostle wrote these epistles, he regarded the
second coining of the Lord as near at hand. Death, in a frame of
mind verging towards apostacy, consequently appeared to him to
preclude all participation in Christ's kingdom ; while this forfeit,
being the precise penalty inflicted by God, might in effect prove
the means of awakening fallen sinners for eternal life. (In
ver. 30, Btd tovto = because this has happened among you. —
'iKam, the custom of many, is found also in Luke vii. 11, 12,
viii. 32. — In ver. 31, the kavrov^ hieKplvofjuev is indulgently ex-
pressed. AiaKpivco appears to be selected with reference to ver.
29 ; as the Lord's Supper should be perfectly distinguished from
an ordinary repast, so likewise the unworthy guests at the same
the cousciousness, that tlie task he has to discharge is in itself (through Christ) already
effected, and that consequently the reality of a god'.y life, such as he desires to lead, is
not impossible. But he who lightly receives the holy communion without rejientance,
and without the desire to live conformably to the principle in tlie same, eats and drinks
to himself a condemnation.
2
3P
FIRST CORINTHIANS XI. 33, 34 — XII. 1 — XIV. 40. 189
should be distinct from the worthy, and out of this distinction a
voluntary separation followed.)
Ver. 33, 34. In conclusion, Paul recommends brotherly love,
and devout, respectful behaviour in celebrating the sacred rite.
Other points touching the right celebration of the holy Sacrament
appear to require mention, but as this might involve an explana-
tion of his own personal views on the subject, he promises to make
it the object of further communication upon his arrival among
them. (Ver. 33. 'EKSexeadac generally signifies in the New Tes-
tament " to wait," like aTre/cSexeo-Oai. The idea, " wait for one
another," would convey the erroneous impression, that some had
partaken earlier, before the others came. But it has here the
signification of " excipere convivio,^^ the sense being, share with
one another what ye have, that the feast may be a real festival of
love.)
§ 11. THE GIFT OF TONGUES.
(xii. 1 — xiv. 40.)
The following section belongs unquestionalily to those in the
New Testament which are best calculated to convey a lively im-
pression of the most remarkable times in the history of the world,
viz. the early days of the disciples, and the period when wings of
the infant church were gradually extending over mankind, which
was marked by the most important appearances ever revealed.
The stream of life which, like a sacred living flame, was poured
on the first disciples of the Lord at Pentecost, extended itself
over the newly arisen churches, and awakened in all those who
yielded themselves to its influence a depth of purpose, a power of
action, a sentiment of heavenly joy hitherto unfelt by mankind,
and which only beamed all the clearer amid the dark shadows of
the heathen world which surrounded the apostolic churches. But
the spiritual gifts were manifested in the first instance, that is to
say, in their first striking potency, and in the contest with a pre-
vailing world of evil, in a miraculous manner (i. e. one contrary to
the laws of nature), and their further development by appearances
190 FIRST CORINTHIANS XII. 1 — XIV. 40.
which were inexplicable.^ The miraculous power of Christ ap-
peared extended to the whole church ! Down to the end of the
third century, and consequently until the period of the church's
dominion over heathenism, these miraculous gifts of the infant
church were continued, although gradually diminishing. (See
the passages of the K.V.V. referring thereto, with learned re-
search, in Dodwelli Dissert, in Iren. Oxonise, 1689, 2d trea-
tise.). Among the excitable Greeks, particularly in Corinth,
the spiritual gifts displayed themselves in the most forcible
manner. All forms and appearances under which they became
known seem to have been here prominent, and to have operated
with a powerful fermentation. As in the meantime the men upon
whom these gifts, sacred in themselves, descended, were not yet
perfectly sanctified, since in them the old man yet retained his
power, and many of them likewise permitted their human weak-
nesses to interfere with the exercise of the spiritual power which
filled them, it was possible that the employment of the gifts gave
occasion to numerous abuses. This happened especially with the
gift of the tongues, the striking and dazzling display of which led
the Corinthians to overrate its value, and the whole of the fol-
lowing observations arose from the existence of this error, which
the gpostle was determined to reprove. In order to make the
Corinthians aware of the right position of the gift of tongues,
with regard to the other phenomena, Paul takes a retrospect
of the gifts in general, with a view to prove from the analogy
of the various members of the corporeal organism that the
members of the spiritual organism also, although diftering among
themselves, must yet all serve the same end, and have their
origin in the selfsame spirit (xii. 1 — 31), stating that love must
be the ruler of all the other gifts, because by that their first real
value is obtained (xiii. 1 — 13) ; and he then finally proceeds
to enlarge upon the special application of the gifts of speech in
Christian assemblies (xiv. 1 — 40.) . However attractive the whole
section may be, it is nevertheless an extremely difficult one,
1 See among recent works on the subject, Die Geistesgaben tier ersten Cbristen,
insbesondere die sogenanrite Spracliengabe, by David Scbuiz, Breslau, 1836. In con-
nexion with it may be mentioned Baur's Neue Abb. iieber die Sprachengabe (Stud. 1838,
part 3), which contains a criticism on Schulz's work. Koester's work, Die Propbeten
des alten and neuen Testaments (Leipzig, ISSS^i, also deserves attention.
FIRST CORINTHIANS XII. 1 — 3. 191
and principally for this reason, that the Charismatic form of ope-
ration of the Holy Ghost ceased with the third century, and_
we have therefore now no means of taking a right view of the
apostolic condition. It cannot be surprising that we must
feel this regret, when we see that Chrysostom, who lived nearly
fifteen hundred years nearer to the apostolic age, expressed
himself in just the same manner, because he likewise could
gain no precise views as to the spiritual operation of the Charis-
mata. His 29th homily upon our Epistles begins with the words :
TOVTo airav to ')(wpiov a^oSpa earlv daa<ph, rrjv 8e aad<petav rj
T(ji}v TTpay/jLaTcov ouyvoid re kol eXXet'x/rt? Troiet, roov rore fjuev avfju-
^aivovToov, vvv Se ov <ytvoiJLevcov.
Vers. 1 — 3. The 12th chapter is so clearly a continuation of the
preceding one, that Paul observes, had he time before his appear-
ing among them to prolong his remarks upon the Lord's Supper,
he must nevertheless immediately explain himself concerning the
irvevfjuaTLKa, in order that his admonitions may act as an immediate
prohibition of the abuse. Billroth has with Heidenreich consi-
dered the irepl Be rcov irvevfiaTLKaw masculine, and received it in
the special signification " of those speaking with the tongues."
But the passages xiv. 1. 37 do not confirm this explanation of
the words : for in xii. 1, ra irvevfjuariKa sc. '^^^apla/jiaTa, as in
this place, is especially to be understood of the spiritual gifts,
and in xiv. 37 the irvevp^aTiKO'^ is every possessor of a Charisma,
not only the gift of tongues. Starting from the most general point
of view, Paul next reminds the Corinthians of their heathen condi-
tion, in which no quickening power could be conferred by their life-
less idols ; while all those who acknowledged Christ were conscious
of receiving a spiritual strength from him, whereby they were en-
abled to call Jesus their lord, that is to say, to pronounce in word
and truth the acknowledgment of the circumstances of their depen-
dence on him, and endowment by him. The universality of the
working of th« Holy Spirit in the church is thus established, with
which the following description of the variety of its operations per-
fectly agrees. This could only be objected to insofar as it might
be urged that a supernatural power was also evident in heathenism.
The worship of Bacchus and of Cybele inspired its followers, al-
though with an unholy spirit. But Bauer (work already quoted,
p. 649, note) remarks with reason, that it could not be replied
192 FIRST CORINTHIANS XII. 1 — 3.
to this, that Paul was not considering such isolated appear-
ances of Gentilism, but rather regarding it in its whole and
comprehensive working ; for in the oracles as well as other
orgiastic appearances, much existed that was analogous to the
gift of tongues. The emphasis is rather to be laid upon the
expression ecScoXa : the lifeless idols were contrasted with the
living, efficient Christ, who as the X0709 created the XaXelv ev
TTvevfian in the faithful. It is evident besides, that this expres-
sion does not strictly and singly apply to the gift of the <y\a)<r'
aac<i XaXelv, but to the active operation of the Spirit especially,
by which confession of faith is incited. (In ver. 2 some hesi-
tation may occur between the choice of the readings on and
0T6. Billroth decides for the latter, Lachmann has adopted
the former, placing however the ore near within brackets. I
prefer the on, because then the expression, '•' ye know that ye
were Gentiles," includes in it the presupposition of the Gentile
condition. The change into ore arose, in my opinion, from sup-
posing that Paul intended to say, " Ye know, that, as ye were
Gentiles," as in that case on ore is read together. Valckenaer
conjectures it should be on, ore edvrj r/re, rjre. — See concerning
avdOefia in ver. 3 on Rom. ix. 3, 1 Cor. xvi. 22. — Billroth cor-
rectly observes that Jesus is used and not Christ, in order to
mark more distinctly the historical individuality of the Redeemer.
— The two related sentences are by no means the same ; ovSeh
Xeyet, dvaOe/Jia ^Irjaovv and ovSel'^ Svvarat elirelv fcvpiov ^Irjaovv,
are not identical in meaning. The former sentence stands op-
posed to the Satanic evil spirit, the latter to the natural human
spirit. Even the unenlightened man may take pleasure in Jesus,
when the beam of divine light reaches his heart, and he can first
call him his Lord ; it is only the devilish impulse that is capable
of cursing Jesus. It is therefore probable that ev irvevfian Qeov
may indicate a more general working of the Spirit, ev Trveufian
dyL(p the specifically Christian ; so that the sense W7)uld be, " 'No
one, even he who only speaks in a general way in the Spirit of God,
can curse Jesus, but none also, except he in whom the holy Spirit
speaks, can call him Lord." — Lachmann has accepted the read-
ing according to which dvaOefia 'Ir}aov9, Kvpuo^; 'Irjaov^, are re-
garded as explanations ; but this has something so constrained,
that I am induced to prefer the more usual connexion.)
FIRST CORINTHIANS XII. 4 — 6. 193
Vers. 4 — 6. The unity of the divine Spirit present in all be-
lievers appears manifested under various forms as Statjoecret?, in
different individuals. But this by no means signifies that the
various gifts, freeing themselves from their source, incorporate
themselves as it were with the soul in which they are to appear ;
it rather supposes the division of the gifts (see Acts ii. 3), as the
lights in colours are divided by the prism. The unity of the
Spirit is thereby not annulled, but the same Spirit is only re-
fracted into various gifts, according to the capacity of the soul
with which it comes into contact. But when in the passage
under consideration the unity of the spiritual principle is indi>
cated by various expressions, Trvevjuia, Kvpto<;. 0eo9, it can cer-
tainly not arise from accident. The substantiality of the Divine
Being, the Spirit in itself, is the principle of unity, the condi-
tion of the Trinity, which manifests itself everywhere, but speaks
also in the gifts ; and thus the gifts are of the Father, of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost. But holding this view, it cannot be denied
thataZZ gifts are in an especial manner gifts of the Holy Grhost ;
and ver. 7, sqq. plainly show that Paul refers them all to the
Spirit. As however the Father and the Spirit is in Christ, so
also the Spirit is one with the Father and the Son, and cer-
tain gifts correspond equally with the Father or the Son. In
placing together the three divine persons, the Holy Ghost al-
ways appears as the manifestation of the inmost depths of the
Godhead, and therefore in this place the three positions may be
viewed as an anticlimax. The expression ')(^apt(T/j,aTa, which in
a more extended sense includes all gifts without exception Cxii.
31, xiv. 1), refers here to the spiritual gifts as enumerated, in
ver. 8, to the aocpla, yv(dai<;, irlcrn^. The hiaKOviai indicate the
more external ecclesiastical gifts of government and lending aid
to the necessitous (ver. 28) ; and finally, the ivep<yrjfjbaTa, those
gifts in which power was revealed, such as the healing disease
under all its various forms (ver. 9, 30.). The most general and
comprehensive class of gifts is quite correctly referred to the
Father and the omnipotence revealed in him ; the more limited
class, manifesting itself within the precincts of the Church, to the
Son, as the principle of compassionate love ; while the third and
smallest class, restricted to the circle of the enlightened members
in the church, is referred to the Holy Spirit as the principle of
n
11>4 FIRST CORINTHIANS XII. 7 — 11.
sanctification and knowledge. (1 Cor. ii. 10.). It would be in-
teresting to have the power of arranging the nine gifts which
follow, under one or other of these rubrics ; but in the Scripture,
as in nature, there is a kind of vast irregularity often apparent
amidst accuracy and order, and this is precisely the case here.^ Of
the second class there appears no especial forms mentioned until
ver. 28 ; the TrpocjyrjreLa belongs rather to the first than the last
division, and various other deviations occur. Just as little does the
account agree (ver. 28 — 30), with the corresponding passage in Isa.
xi. 2, sqq. ; a free course must be acknowledged in such passages.
Ver. 7 — 11. The main object of the enumeration of the single
Charismata which follows, as shown by the frequent repetition of
the irvevfia, is evidently to keep in view the identity of origin,
and destination of the same, notwithstanding any internal diver-
sity. The one and the same Spirit of God (ver. 11) works all
these (j)av€pco(T€L^ (ver. 7) to one end, and divides them as he will.
It is easily understood that this KaOco^ ^ovXerat (ver. 11 and
ver. 18) certainly refers to the personality of the Spirit, and is
not to be received of absolute free will, but of a conditional will,
which, according to the nature of man, is also from God. Ke-
generation does not absolutely create other qualities in men, it
predominates over them, sanctifying and glorifying those already
present. No individual however possessed the power of gaining
at any time, or appropriating to himself the Charismata, by exer-
cising them (as according to Acts viii. Simon Magnus intended) ;
it was only the will of the Spirit which conferred it ISia eKaaTcp,
i.e singulis singulatim. This does not infer however that the in-
dividual could possess but one single gift ; several were frequently
in operation in one subject, and the apostles each exercised the
greater part, if not all. All gifts are appointed 7rpo9 to o-u/a-
<f)epov (ver. 7) of the possessors of the gift and of the community,^
1 By the exchange of eVepos and aWos, nothing would be gained for the order of the
gifts, as Billroth has correctly observed. I^or if we should say that w ^liv, with both the
ETtpu) Si, mark the three principal rubrics, whilst the gifts subordinate to those were ex-
pressed by the dWw di, these three classes do not agree with those named in ver. 4—6.
The apostle binds himself to no rule in the recapitulation, save that he descends from the
higher to the lower.
2 Billroth here erroneously supposes ttioo's to signify secundum, according to measure,
which (see Winer's Gr. p. 343, d.) is not an impossible meaning, only that in this case
it is clearly intended to say, that the gifts were not to be trifled with, but to have a use,
for which reason -tt/oo's here signifies ad.
FIRST CORINTHIANS XII. 7 — 11. 195
single and collectively. — It has been already remarked that all
the gifts are not here enumerated, since ver. 28, sqq. serves as-a
continuation of the passage under consideration, the subject of
which commences with ver. 4 ; there exists however absolutely
no ground for supposing that there were other gifts besides those
mentioned in this chapter ; it is at the same time not unreason-
able to suppose that some of them might be under slight regula-
tion. Some degree of importance may also be attributed to the
fact that the first three gifts are not miraculous, while the suc-
ceeding are of miraculous order ; wisdom, knowledge, faith may
be always in a certain degree present in the church, but not the
gifts of healing and of tongues, &c. Certainly this distinction is
by no means unimportant, yet wisdom, knowledge, and faith, as
Charismata, must be distinguished from the analogous appear-
ances not being such which belong chiefly to the essence of
the Christian life, as we have taken occasion to observe in
the Commentary on ii. 6, 7. No Christian is without faith,
yet all do not possess the Charisma of faith, which is something
more than a simple increase of general belief, for then there
might also be Charismata of love, hope, and prayer. We cannot
therefore employ this distinction in classifying the Charismata,
for all without exception are miraculous and extraordinary in
their operation through the Holy Ghost. We are not speaking
of a wisdom or knowledge attained gradually by practice and
faith, but of a condition proceeding from higher illumination,
and must of ourselves perceive and allow that as Charismata,
wisdom, knowledge, and faith, are no longer existent in the
present church, but are only to be found in agreement with
their general idea, exhibiting themselves in some individuals
in a greater degree than in others ; but Charismatically, the
Holy Ghost has ceased to work in the church since the time
of the apostles ; all, even wisdom and knowledge, must now be
gained by gradual exercise, whilst in the apostolic times^ it was
1 Baur (Stud. Jahrg. 1838, part 3, p. 683) tbiuks this goes so far as to deny that the
Holy Spirit yet operates in the church. This is evidently an error. The assertion
that the revelation and inspiration of the apostles was not imparted to the whole church,
but was confided entirely to themselves, is as little justifiable as the supposition that
the Spirit no longer works by means of miraculous gifts in the established condition of
the church ; these gifts being only requisite to the foundation of the church would seem
to infer that the Holy Spirit had ceased to work therein ; it reveals itself now however in
n2
196 FIRST CORINTHIANS XII. 7 — 11.
an immediate consequence of divine operation in the soul. Just
as little can we discern between the spiritual powers in which
the enlightening property of the Holy Ghost manifested itself;
for, as we shall see, however the difference of reason, understand-
ing, the will, may be brought under discussion, it can furnish no
certain ground of decision in our inquiry, because other objects
than these powers must be considered in the Charismata. Without
doubt Neander (Apost. Zeitalt. vol. i. p. 174, sqq.) has written
most to the point on this subject ; and with a few exceptions, such
for example as his view regarding the gift of tongues, I cannot
withhold my agreement from what he has advanced. According
to this two principal classes of gifts are to be considered, the
first comprehending all those yerbally, the second those actively
manifested. But both classes may be subdivided into two other
divisions, according as the condition of mind of the possessor of
the gift is more or less passive, since what is divine manifests
itself directly without being wrought upon by any concurring
capacity for judging. The first form may be considered espe-
cially operating where early mental discipline had increased self-
knowledge and exercised reflection, and to have been found
among the more learned in the church, of whom, for example,
Apollos appears to have been one. A third might be added to
the two subdivisions of the gifts operating by speech, which pos-
another manner. It may be consequently asked if some Clmrismata may not now and
ever remain, as possessed by the apostolic church. This applies particularly to wisdom,
knowledge, spiritual discernment. But if we reflect upon the manner in which such
Charismata were displayed in the apostles and such members of the ancient church as
we may assume were possessed of these gifts, we must allow that, in this form also, the
Spirit reveals itself no longer. The story of Ananias and Saphira is an instance of the
gift of spiritually discerning (Acts v.) ; where shall we now find anything similar? The
Charismatic knowledge was likewise deeper, more intuitive, than is now even percepti-
ble in the most enlightened individual. The Spirit certainly is now, as then, in the
church, but it works in a different manner. Formerly the Holy Spirit operated as an
immediate, efficacious, suddenly inspiring power, but now it acts slowly, presupposing
the employment of all natural means of aid. These views concerning the Charismata were
early laid down by ourdogmatizers in opposition to the Catholic doctrine of the con-
tinuance of the miraculous gifts. (See Gerhard Loci Theol. vol. xii. p. 104, sqq,, ex edit.
Cottae.). And even the later Fathers confess that there was no more revelation of the
Holy Ghost's Charismatical manner of operation. (See the passage in Chrysostom
quoted at the commencement of this chapter). The passage Rom, xii. 6, sqq., may also
be consulted; one might there suppose that a Charisma not mentioned here was quoted
by the apostle, that of the irapaKkriai^. But according to the intention of the correct
reading, and the right explanation of the passage, it is not the fact. (See on this passage
the explanation in the new edition of my Comm. upon the Romans.)
FlRfciT CORINTHIANS Xil. 7 — 11. 197
sessed a criticising power, and which might therefore have espe-
cial reference to the understanding. By this arrangement the
two first mentioned \6yo^ a-ocj^la^ and X0709 'yvcaaeci)^ belong to
the first subdivision of the first class. Whilst wisdom signifies-
the practical, and knowledge the theoretical side in views we
have made our own of things divine and human, they have this
common quality that they do not proceed from an immediate out-
pouring of what is divine but rather from peaceful gradual study. 1
This especially applies to the yvcbai^ of ver. 28, which corresponds
with the BiSdo-KaXoi (^see also on Rom. xii. 7.). These call forth
by their operation not so much the new life, as they advance that
which has commenced. Therefore in ver. 28 and 29, and Ephes.
iv. 11, they stand with iroifieve^, in contrast to the apostles, pro-
phets, and evangelists. The X0709 which is added places both
Charismata in immediate connexion with the office of teacher,2
so that the airoaToXoL (ver. 28, 29) appear the real possessors
of the gift of o-o(f>{a, whilst the EcSdaKaXoc or irot^eve^ may be re-
garded as the holders of the Charisma of the 71/000-69. The Charismata
of the ao(f>la and yvoiai^ are however very distinct from the wis-
dom and knowledge which every true regenerate Christian attains,
not only in the degree of increase or security (for, according to
John xvii. 3, we must consider the knowledge of every believer
thoroughly certain), but rather in the perfected form in which they
appear. The believer acknowledges God and Christ, and has in
him all treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. ii. 3), but he
possesses this knowledge implicitly, not explicitly. The Charisma
of the yvMo-t<i (and so likewise of the ao(l>ia), moreover supposes
the development of matters of individual purport. It grants in a
supernatural way what the science of theology now offers by the
usual course of learning, both practically and theoretically, from
which the universal operation of the Holy Spirit is not excluded,
but must be presupposed. To admit a Charismatic operation of
the Spirit among the Theosophs, as is done by Jacob Boehme, is
for this reason doubtful ; since error and truth are usually too much
1 Concerning this reference may be made to Comm. on ii. 6,7.
2 In the passage of the Epistle to the Ephesians i. 17, in which mention is made of
the Charisma of ao^ia, irvtvfxa aocpia? is used, but this iruEvfia is not to be regarded as
identical with \6yoi, it only points out the Spirit as the principle of wisdom. Here it
is styled \070s aocpca^, a wisdom which is connected with the faculty of being com-
municated by words. In the same Ephes. i. 17, the Charisma of vpocpjireia is expressed
by the use of iruivfia airoKaXiixl/ecos.
198 FIRST CORINTHIANS XII. 7 — 11.
mixed in them for their knowledge to be considered the pure work-
ing of the Spirit. (See Comm. thereon on xiii. 9, sqq.) In the se-
cond subdivision of the first class of gifts (revealed through words)
stand the TrpocprjTeveiv and 7\c6crcrai9 \aXelv, of which further on 1
Cor. xiv. and Acts ii. In both the divine efficacy predominated over
the human, but so that the prophet's consciousness of facts which
might have reference to the circumstances and hearers, remained
undisturbed, while on the contrary, in those speaking with tongues
all worldly knowledge was subject to the consciousness of God, they
held as it were converse wath God. The 7rpo<p7}TeLa is therefore
the real gift of awakening the soul, the principal Charisma for
the arising church, while the hihacTKaXia, the gift of jv6oai<;, ap-
pears to be the chief Charisma for the church firmly established,
but ever increasing in itself. Finally, the third subdivision is
constituted by the criticising powers of the Siafcplaei^; Trvev/jLarayv
and of the ep/jbrjvela ryXwaawv. Concerning this latter Charisma,
and its connexion with the yevTj jXcoaaayPy more will be said on
1 Cor. xiv. The gift of discerning spirits does not simply refer to
the power of distinguishing between good and false prophets, but
also to the language of the prophets themselves, who were filled
with the Holy Ghost (see on xiv. 29, and 1 Thess. v. 19, 20.).
The second class contains gifts manifested by deeds, and to the
first subdivision belong those acts of government not named in
this place, but mentioned in ver. 28, the Kv^epvrjaei^ and avTiXi]-
^l^ez?. The former expression indicates the gift of church govern-
ment and administration, the latter the numerous duties compre-
hended in the office of deacon, viz. the care of the poor and sick.
(Concerning uvTikafji^dueadac in the signification of "to support, to
help," see Acts xx. 35.). But the second subdivision, in which again
the sense of the immediate presence of divine power prevailed,
contained the Idfiara and the evepyij/jiaTa SvvdfMecov, under which
latter expression were included, besides healing the sick, all those
in a special sense miraculous gifts mentioned in Mark xvi. 18,
Acts V. 1, sqq., xiii. 6, xxviii. 3, sqq. The apostle in this pas-
sage again names the TTicrri? as Charisma, whereby, as Neander
justly remarks, we are not to understand the general foundation
of a Christian life, for then we might also speak of a x^ptafia
Trj^ dyaTrrj^;, Trj<i iXTrlBo^,^ but that peculiar operation of what is
1 Tbe entire want of clearness in Baur's views concerning the nature of the Clinris-
FIRST CORINTHIANS XII. 12, 13. 199
divine on man, whereby the energy of the will is increased in no
ordinary degree.^ (See Matt. xvii. 20 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 2.). The irlcrri^
is consequently here only the more general, out of which the"
X'^p^<^y^ciTa lajjLCLTwv and the evepyij/juara Bwajjuecov are developed,
or in other words, both this Charismata are ^avepcoaei^; of the
wondrous power of faith. In conclusion, it is easy to understand
that one individual might enjoy at the same time several gifts,
and that the principal apostles especially possessed many Charis-
mata. However, according to their opportunity, sometimes one,
sometimes another, predominated with an apostle, thus John had
pre-eminently the gift of yuo^at^;, Paul that of TrpocprjTela and
ao(j)la.
Vers. 12, 13. But in order to render evident the perfect unity
of all these gifts, notwithstanding their internal difference, the
apostle in what follows exposes the perfect agreement of all the
members constituting the unity of the organismus. (See E,om.
xii. 5.). Their multitude is no impediment to their unity, on
the contrary the latter may be rather said to be constituted by
it. From the context it might be expected that the holders of
raatic operation of the Holy Spkit, is especially shown by his seriously considering
that Neander (work quoted, 685, note) agreed with him, while precisely the passages
quoted from tbe writings of this theologian argue for ray opinions, which are likewise
those of the Protestant church. Baur considers these were Charismata of faith, espe-
cially love and hope, and that it was only accidental that they, are not named. This
representation of the matter in question lias doubtless its foundation in Baur's opposi-
tion to the miracle as such ; therefore the gifts of healing are viewed by him among
other Charismata of love, or probably prayer, since Baur considers the prayer pronounced
over the sick as the principal thing. That this is a thoroughly inadmissible view, re-
quires no proof. Chap, xiii, clearly shows that love is no Charisma, it is contrasted
with all the other gfts ; but the whole passage is of such a nature that we must assume
Paul was enumerating the Charismata, for which reason they are regularly arrayed ac-
cording to certain rubrics (vers, 4 — 6,). All these gifts, as extraordinary forms of divine
operation, are to be strictly distinguished from the regular forms of the same; the latter
always and necessarily belong to every Christian, but the Charismata may altogether
be wanting without injury to the Christian character; for although no Christian can
positively be without wisdom or knowledge in comparison with the Gentile world, tbe
wisdom or knowledge he has is of a general character, and not a Charisma: in the for-
mer sense all Christians profess both, in the latter Cliarismatic acceptation only some.
For this reason alone could Paul say of the Charismata, w fxkv dlBoTai \6yos aocpiai,
aWo) Sk \6yo^ yvcoasws (ver. 8.). Concerning the difference between yi/ao-is as
Charisma, and as the general praedicate of every Christian, see the remarks ou 1 Cor.
xiii. 9-12.
1 Theodorete is of this opinion, and says : iriariv ivravQa uu ri]v Koivr}v tuvt-i^u
Xiytt, dW kKtivnVy irtpl i]<i fxird ^pax^a (l>r)<ii Kal idiv Ix^ iracrav tpjv iricniv, wotte
opr\ fiidiaravtiv (xiii. 2.).
200 FIRST CORINTHIANS XII. 12, 13.
the various Charismata should now be named, in order to point
out their manifold nature ; instead of this Paul mentions other
distinctions, Jews, Greeks, servants, free ; but probably this is
so far coherent as differences of nation or education may have
had an influence upon the capacity for receiving this or the
other gift. The Greeks appear to have had a particular sus-
ceptibility for the gift of tongues, the Romans for the practi-
cal gifts of the church, and the Jews for spiritual gifts. The
unity, which these gifts as members form, is however styled 6
XpLo-To^, or, ver. 27. o-oj/xa Xptarov, not only because Christ is
the head of the church, but also because his life and nature per-
vade it, because he has newly created it, through regeneration,
flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. (See on Eph. v. 30.).
This new creation out of Christ is pronounced in baptism, which
in its idea and original appearance was the Xompov TraXi^yeve-
ala^ itself. In this all old earthly distinctions were removed, and
mankind were refined to an elevated union through the Spirit.
The reading eh ev irvevfia is very embarrassing to this passage ;
Lachmann correctly reads ev irvevpua. The ek is introduced by
transcribers, who thought the second sentence must be made
parallel with the first, et? ev awfjua. But it is not the contrast
between acafxa and irvevfia which is here the subject ; acofjua sig-
nifies in this place only " organic unity," spiritual bodies. In
order to exalt tjiis conception of the spiritual nature of the
church, the Spirit is described as the element of the new-birth,
and the abiding principle of the same in all its members.^ (Con-
cerning the connexion of the irorL^w with the accusative, see iii.
2.). It is impossible to mistake an allusion in this passage to x.
1, sqq., so that we may say the eTroTtadrnMev applies to the Com-
munion. The reading irop^a for irvevpua would seem to make this
yet more evident, but must be rejected as a correction on the part
of the transcriber. The attempt to deduce anything relative to
the nature of the Sacrament from the irvevfjia is entirely useless.
Ruckert has brought forward the aorist eTroTiadrjfMev against the
reference to the Lord's Supper ; he considers the holy commu-
1 The aorist kiroTlaQriixtv may make us rather doubtful as to the correctness of this
acceptation, as the maintenance is not so definite as the new birth. But, as Billroth
has rightly remarked, Paul considers it so, because he desires to state the objects which
decide the Christian life as entirely of an objective nature.
FIRST CORINTHIANS XII. 14 — 26. 201
iiion was thenceforward always celebrated, and therefore the pre-
sent should be employed. But Paul understands the condition of
the church, as the body of Christ, perfectly accomplished, and for
that reason he has made use of the aorist.
Ver. 14 — 21. The apostle now expatiates at large upon the
image of the limbs, as in the fable of Menenius Agrippa (Liv. ii.
32.). As the so-styled faculties of the mind, agents of the intel-
lectual soul, form a whole, supporting, extending, and bearing
each other, so likewise in the great spiritual unity of the church
all the gifts should support each other, not contend. This
representation shows us that in Corinth the possessors over-
prized some gifts and undervalued others. The fourteenth chap-
ter acquaints us that they particularly exalted the value of the
gift of tongues, requiring that it alone should govern, and that it
should be exercised by all ; thence the turn in ver. 17, ei okov
TO (T(bfjba 6<^daX^6% irov rj aKorj ; The power to discern the va-
rious gifts is a necessary consequence of the subjection to God's
will ; he has so ordained it (ver. 18), therefore none can change
his decree. (In ver. 15, 16, the otl in otl ovk elfil xeip, ocpddX-
fjL6<;, is not an introduction to the direct subject, but must be
taken in the sense of " because." The freedom of the whole body
is likewise grounded upon the distinction of its members. The
form ov nrapa tovto ovk eariv Ik tov G-fofiaro^ has been errone-
ously considered interrogatory by Griesbach, from which the con-
trary sense arises. Lachmann has received it correctly without
interrogation. The meaning of the words is, he is not for that
reason not of the body, i.e. such an explanation does not prove
that he is no longer a member of the body, the human will is
powerless in opposition to God's will. The two negations destroy
one another. See Winer's Gr. p. 466.).
Vers. 22 — 26. The apostle continues the image of the human
body, but employing it to another purpose. That is to say, from
the general point of view, he distinguishes the several sorts of
members; first, such as appearing weak, are nevertheless necessary
to the whole organism, then those which are honoured (evaxv-
fiova), but which seeming less honourable (daxnP'Ova), human
vanity seeks to advance by ornament {e.g. earrings, bracelets,
&c.). But God in his wisdom has so ordained all in the human
organism, that the pleasure or pain of a portion aflfects the con-
202 FIRST CORINTHIANS XII. 27—30.
dition of the whole. This assertion has evidently strict reference
to circumstances in Corinth, where such a false and human esti-
mation of the gifts was entertained : the meaner to which God
had lent a lustre, for this very reason (ver. 24), e.g. the gifts
of tongues, were over-valued beyond measure for their brilliant
effects, while they despised important gifts (ver. 22) for their
plainness. The absurdity of such conduct must have been brought
before the Corinthians in a striking manner by the present re-
presentations.
Ver. 27 — 30. The application of the comparison now fol-
lows. The church of Christ is one body, filled by his Spirit ;
the individual believers, with their various gifts, are the members,
whose difference was yet to be ascertained, in order that all
should be employed together to the same end. The two accounts
of the gifts, as we have already taken occasion to observe on ver.
7, do not exactly agree. The avTiXrjylreL^ and Kvfiepvr}aeL<^ in the
first group are wanting in the second, and the Biep/juTjveveiv of
the second are wanting in the first. The terms which are here em-
ployed have already for the most part been explained in the Comm.
on ver. 7, sqq. I shall therefore only make a few remarks upon the
difference of apostle, prophet, and teacher. That besides the dif-
ference, a gradation is also here perceptible, is not only shewn by
the terms TrpooTov, Bevrepov, rplrov,^ but also by similar passages
in Rom. xii. 6, sqq.; Ephes. iv. 11, sqq. In the first passage
the apostles are not mentioned, but then the Abstracta come in
til© following order : TrpocJDTjrela, StaKovia, SiSaaKokia, irapdK\fr)(TL<^,
so that the TrpocprjTela stands before the hihaorKoXla. .But in
Ephes. iv. 11, the expressions stand thus : airoardXoL, TrpocprjraL,
€vayye\tG-Tdt, vrot/ieVe?, oihc'iGKaXoLy the BiSdaKaXoi again suc-
ceeding the prophets. According to the explanation given of
ver. 7, sqq., the BthdaKoXoi, as possessors of the Charisma of
yvwaL<;, ought rather to precede the prophets. But the 14th
chap, shows that the apostles affixed a very high value to the
gift of irpo(f)r)Teveiv : at first it is true only in relation to the
gift of tongues, but the nature of the apostolic church was such
that, considered in and for itself alone, the '7Tpo(f)r]TeveLv must be of
the greatest importance. It was the awakening power, necessary
1 The circumstances and order observed among the teachers of the apostoHc church,
«r« entered upon in the explanation of the pastoral epistles.
FIRST CORINTHIANS XII. 31. 203
to the extension of the infant church, and for that reason always
commanded especial respect. The hMaKoXoi were more adapted
for the church, when improving in faith and knowledge ; their -
office therefore first became significant when the church was con-
solidated, and its internal advance in science and life began. Con-
cerning the offices not here named, consult on Ephes. iv. 11 ; and
this reminds me, that in that passage the offices are not enume-
rated before the gifts. \ In the church the prophet was not a dis-
tinct office, but the apostles^ were at the same time prophets, al-
though every prophet was not necessarily an apostle ; the so-called
eyangelists were likewise travelling teachers, who preached where
as yet no church had arisen. The StBdaKoXoc however were pro-
properly both SiSdo-KovTe^ and KvpepvwvTe<=;, their official appella-
tion was TTpea^vTepuc or eVtcr/coTrot. Concerning this difference,
more will be said, when we take occasion to remark on the pastoral
epistles. The name for the Charisma of the gift of tongues which
occurs here, and likewise xii, 10, yivrj jkcoaadov, is rarely used; see
further the observations on 1 Cor. xiv. 10. (In ver. 27, the dif-
ficult 6K fjbipov^ is changed in some Codd. to ck /jl6\ov<; : the former
is decidedly the correct reading, because a change of /xeXou? can-
not be supposed. Luther translates the Ik fjuepov^; distributively,
"each according to his part;" but that might be expressed by KaTcu
fju'epo^. It would be more correct to render eK fiepov^, " according
to a part," i. e. no part is the whole, or can be considered as such.
— In ver. 28, ov<; fiev k. t. \. has something of an anacoluthon ;
01)9 Be should follow, which is wanting from the altered turn of con-
struction, rendered necessary by the TrpcoTov, Bevrepov.).
Ver. 31. The concluding verse has its commentary in xiv. 1.
The ')(api(TiiaTa ra KpeirTova cannot be, as Billroth supposes,
the fruits arising from love, but the higher gifts in contrast to
1 Rotbe (von der Kirche, vol. i,, p. 256) thinks that the subject here is by no means
of oflBces, but that is evidently assuming too much, for the apostolate was undoubtedly
an oftice, and no gift. But at all events it is certain that nothing can be gathered from
this passage or Ephes. iv. 11, 12, concerning the various ecclesiastical offices in the
apostolic church, as the subject treated of is the gifts.
2 The name apostle indicates liere only the twelve, so that we may plainly see from
their relation to the other classes of teachers, bow the twelve were regarded as possessing
an especial, and indeed the highest, rank among all the teachers of the church. The
body of the twelve apostles was only calculated for the earliest times in thechurch, it was
not to be continually supplied. We hear of no new apostle being elected on the death of
James the elder. (Acts iii. 1.)
204 FIRST CORINTHIANS Xlll. 1, 2.
those only attractive from their brilliancy, especially the 'rrpo(\>r)-
reuecv. However there is certainly a difficulty in this idea. The
principle laid down in what precedes is decidedly that every one
should be contented with the gifts imparted to him. The ^rfKovre
appears to negative this, because it presupposes discontent with
what one has. The difficulty is relieved by remembering that in
these spiritual gifts the higher degree could also exercise the
lesser in conjunction ; consequently he who strove to attain the
better gifts, did not despise those he already possessed ; he sought
only to advance in spirit, to grow in the new birth. Love to-
wards Grod would also imply the endeavour to obtain his good
gifts. But before the apostle lays down how the Trpocjyrjreveiv
ranks higher than the (yKooaaaL^ XaXelv (xiv. 1, sqq.), he draws
the attention of the reader to the nature of love as the power
which first gives an aim and direction to all gifts. As all the
members of the corporeal organism are held together and main-
tained according to their design by the general vivifying power,
so is love, which, according to its nature, is God itself (1 John iv.
16), the power which confers life and unity to the body of Christ,
nay, the principle of eternity in its temporal appearance. To
follow after this is therefore far more important than to seek
gifts, because without the latter all gifts are nothing. In conclu-
sion, the ^rjXome does not gainsay the above assertion of Paul
that the Spirit imparts the gifts as he will (ver. 11), for the striv-
ing after which Paul here counsels, is a wrestling in prayer with
God, the bestower of the gifts. {KaO^ virep^oXrjv ohov is to com-
bine viam eminentiorem, namely as the seeking after the gifts.
The connexion with the verb as proposed by Billroth is, it ap-
pears to me, not advisable, for the vTrep/Sokt] does not lie in the
indicating but in the 0809 : or we must connect it with en, as
Grotius intimates, in the sense of "yet to excess." It must
however be carefully enquired if the expression may be so con-
strued, for in the New Testament at least it is never so employed.
Ka6^ vTrepfioiXijp always precedes the substantive, rendering its
signification more forcible.)
Chap. xiii. 1, 2. The following triumphal song of pure lovei
1 Heathenism has not passed beyond the Ipws, and is unacquainted with the Christian
dydTTT). In the Old Testament it is only the strict dUtj which rules. Eros, even in the
purest noblest form, is the result of a defect, the desire for love, which the consciousness
FIRST CORINTHIANS XIII. 1, 2. 205
is doubly beautiful in the mouth of the apostle Paul. It is John
the evangelist whose theme is ever of love, while Paul may be
more regarded as the preacher of faith. This paragraph is an
evidence of his new nature ; in his old man Paul was quite un-
acquainted with the force of this love". His speech even changes
itself ; he exchanges its dialectic form for a simplicity, smoothness,
and transparent depth which approaches that of John. The aydirT}
here described is not simply feeling or perception, but a tendency
and direction of the inward personality, of the real self, towards
God and his will. The most exalted exhibitions of natural love,
such as that of the mother towards her infant and the child's love
towards its parent, are but weak reflections of the heavenly
love, which the consciousness of the redemption awakens in
the human heart. This lights up in the heart of the apostle a
flame of grateful love, unextinguishable even to the last sigh. This
love removes the sinful condition of isolation, substituting for it
in man unity with God and God with him. The love of God be-
comes his, for he lives no more, but Christ lives in him. (Gal.
ii. 20.) According to this notion of the a^dirr) it seems incredible
that any one could possess such gifts as Trpocfyt^reta, yv(oai,<;, Tricmfi,
without their being all in the highest degree of potency (iraaav
yvcba-tv, iraaav irlcmv.). If we should say that the apostle desired
to express something unimaginable, the sense being this, Even
supposing such a division of what is inseparable could possibly take
place, would man, having all the gifts, without love, be no-
thing 1 But this would not agree with idv, which always refers
to an objective possibility. (See Winer's Gr. p. 269.). We should
rather say, such a separation has in it something unnatural, yet
through the ruinous effect of sin in human nature, it may happen
that head and heart may so entirely disagree that the divine
power may be felt and acknowledged while the inward desire of
the heart towards God, and the wish to yield one's-self to him,
may have fallen off*. This sad, but too true possibility is repre-
sented by the apostle in the strongest colours, in order to place
the nature of love in its true light, which first imparts to all reli-
that we have not wbat is lovely gives birtb to. But the Christian aycLirt) is the positive
outpouring love, God himself dwelling in the believer, so that streams of living water
flow from him. (John iv. 14.) See concerning Plato's description of the Eros in the
Symposion, Fortlage's striking remarks in his Philosophical Meditations. (Heidel-
berg, 1835.).
206 FIRST CORINTHIANS XIII. 1, 2.
gious appearances truth and connexion with the highest aims
of mankind. In Matt. Tii. 21, sqq., the Redeemer shows that
even evil persons may be in possession of the gifts. Natural
talents or disposition may qualify many for more readily re-
ceiving such gifts than others ; but if this is unsupported by sin-
cerity of mind, even the gifts afford no security for the salvation
of the possessor. With reference to the form yXolxraat^ r&v av-
Opoiirwv Kot Twv dyyiXcov XdXelv, Billroth explains it as hyperbo-
lical. But if we reflect that the Jews admitted a language of
angels, that Paul himself in the angelic world (2 Cor. xii. 4) heard
unutterable words, it would be easier to suppose that by the
tongues of angels a higher degree of Charisma is meant, an espe-
cial <y€vo<; yXooaaooVi^ displaying itself in high ecstatic excitement
and the employment of entirely uncommon and elevated expres-
sions. At all events, we must admit that the expression does not
justify the supposition of an original language. The human
tongues could only be the various languages which prevailed
among men ; these must therefore, as it appears, have been intro-
duced into the Charisma, whether in discourses in foreign lan-
guages, as I suppose according to Acts ii., or in the use of glosses
from various languages, as Bleek thinks, and in which opinion Baur
(see work already quoted, p. 695, sqq.) now coincides. But if
Baur attaches so much weight to the article in this passage that
he considers an ideal conception of the yXcoa-aatf; XaXelv might
be expressed in it, leading to the mythic idea of one discourse in
various languages, on the contrary the form yXcoaaai^ Xa-
\€Lv, without the article, indicates only the employment of unusual
expressions in the ecstacy; there is nothing to justify this suppo-
sition. The article points out simply all human languages, in
contradistinction to the use of this or that one in particular, as
Riickert correctly explains. But Paul particularly intends to ex-
press an extreme in the gift of tongues, not in opposition to the
use of a gloss, but to that of a language real, not ideal. Still
less applicable is Weiseler's explanation of this passage. (See
Stud. 1838, Part iii. j; .734, note). He considers that yXcoa-
aat signifies glosses ; that to speak with glosses of men means
to interpret them at the same time ; but to speak with glosses of
angels means not to interpret them. This supposition, however, is
1 The various sorts of yXwVtrats \a\i7if are more fully entered upon in xiv. 15.
FIRST CORINTHIANS XIII. 3. 207
bound up with his whole theory, which will be further adverted to
in the Comm. on chap. xiv. At all events, it is undeniable^
that yXwacrac signifies languages, and not tongues, in the form in
question.. (The employment of the first person throughout the
whole section is only, as may be readily perceived, a form, used
in order to give to the whole idea the most comprehensive and
general application. Every reader ought so to think of himself
as one that could utter the words, and appropriate to himself the
idea. In ver. 1 the expressions ')(^a\Ko<^ VX^^' KVfjbjBaXov aka-
Xd^ov are highly descriptive. The speaking with tongues ex-
ercised vaingloriously might occasion as much disturbance as
would proceed from all sorts of sounding instruments. [See the
description in chap. xiv. especially in verses 7, sqq., and 23.].
This comparison alone speaks in the most decided manner against
Weiseler's theory, according to which the gift of tongues declared
itself in whispers. — XoXko^;, brass, signifies brazen instruments,
such as trumpets and drums. Kv/jl^oXov stands in 2 Sam. vi. 5
for Q*i^^^^^, a hollow basin, which being struck emitted a
loud noise. — In ver. 2. Flatt considers the fcal elBco ra fivarTJpia
Trdvra as indicating wisdom, so that five Charismata were named,
but it would be better to view it only as an exposition of the
<yvwcn<^. In conclusion, this passage shows that, in accordance
with the apostle's view, the jjLvarrjpLa are not things absolutely
not to be known, but such as could not be known by the natural
powers. — IlL(TTi<; is here, as in xii. 9, applied in a special sense,
the increased energy of the will which is proved by the addition
coare opTj fjueOio-rdvetv. See on this the Comm. on Matt. xvii.
20.).
Ver. 3. Labours of love so called, and self-denial of the most
difficult kind, if not sincerely flowing from love, are of no avail
towards salvation. The ovSev w<^ekovfiaL depicts the condition
of mind in Paul's thought when he mentioned this state. He
describes a self-righteous person, who desires to gain renown for
himself by his works and self-denyings ; but a blessing only ac-
companies that which springs from pure unselfish love. (Wwjxi-
^6Lv, sometimes to give a crumb, here to distribute, to give away
in crumbs.^ [See Isa. Iviii. 14 ; Ecclesiasticus xv. 3.]. — Lach-
1 This is very strikingly rendered by Meyer by bestowing, i.e. by gently bestowing
to distribute everything.
208 FIRST CORINTHIANS XIII. 4 — 8.
mann has substituted for tcavOrjaayfjLat the reading «au^7jo-6)/zat,
and certainly according to the sense it appears to deserve the
preference. But even on account of the difficulty, and the verbal
form, since KavOijo-cojJiat is conjunctive of the future [see Winer's
Gr. p. 72], Griesbach, Knapp, and Riickert prefer this read-
ing, and with reason. The permitting one's-self to be burned
is then another expression for the " submitting to the most acute
pains.")
Vers. 4 — 7. Paul now describes the characteristics of love in a
series of fifteen expressions. The two first indicate its nature in
general ; then succeeds a course of negative signs, whereby the con-
duct of the Corinthians is shown to be entirely at issue with real
love; and then certain positive characteristics follow, presenting a
true picture of the same. The subject is love in the abstract,
not the individual exercising it, because the former never pre-
sents itself in a perfectly developed form, even the best can only
be supposed to make some approach to its absolute nature. (Ver. 4.
The form ^pTyo-reueo-^at, irepTrepeveddai, occurs only in this place
in the New Testament. The latter word especially is seldom
used. It is doubtless derived from the Latin perperam sc. agere,
and certainly originally signified " to conduct themselves perverse-
ly," the manner of which is to be discovered from the context. In
this place, with (pva-Lovadai, it is = eTralpecrOaL, as Hesychins
explains it. Suidas expresses it by TrpoTrerelv, precipitate, to
proceed rashly. Cicero [ad Attic, i. 11] employs efjuTTepirepevea-OaL
= KoXaK€veaOac. — In ver. 5 the aa)(r}/jbov6tv seems to refer to
unbecoming freedom in dress, which the Corinthians were guilty
of See on xi. 3, sqq. — Aojl^eaOat rl KaKov, i^y^ ItTri' ^^ ^^^
T T — T
" to cherish resentment," fjuvnauKaKelv, to think incessantly of the
evil that some one has done. — In ver. 7 the areyec bears close
affinity to the virofievec, the former also signifying to bear, to
sufi'er. [See 1 Thess. iii. 1.]. It would perhaps be better to
accept it in its original signification of '' to cover, to conceal,"
the sin, that is to say, of the brother. — The two phrases iravra
TTicTTeveL, iXiTL^et, imply that love bears in itself, from its nature,
both hope and faith, but on the other side we cannot necessarily
say the same of hope or faith. For that reason, in ver. 13, we
find /jLel^cov 8e rovrwv r) ar^anrif].)
Ver. 8. A new property in which love displays itself as a KaO'
FIRST CORINTHIA.NS XIII. 9 — 12. 209
v7rep^o\r]v 686<: (xii. 31), is its imperishable nature. It continues
in all time and eternity, while even the best gifts cease. The sub-
ject of how far the Trpoc^ryreta and yvcoaL^ cease, is pursued by the
apostle from ver. 9, the gift of tongues is not further mentioned.
But it is evident that it would be difficult to state how these
could cease, when they themselves signify the spiritual origin, the
capacity for communicating the Spirit. The choice of the expres-
sion yKuxTa-ac in describing the Charisma evidently shows that Paul
was thinking of the human languages (xiii. 1), i.e. of the various
forms of speech employed among men, which commenced in sin,
and will cease with the same. These various languages must there-
fore in some manner have appeared in the yXooaaaif; \a\elv.
CE KTriTrro) = ^^^j, Joshua xxi. 45. xxiii. 14, implies to lose its
. — T
significance, to cease, to become powerless. — Concerning Karap-
^elv, see Luke xiii. 7 ; Kom. iii. 3, 31.)
Ver. 9 — 12. The assertion that the gifts of jrpocpTjreia and
7i/c3<7t9 shall cease, requires some further examination, for we might
have supposed, that like the objects to which they refer, they were
imperishable. Of the difference between these two gifts themselves,
the apostle takes no further notice ; as they are both gifts of
knowledge, and the irpocpijTela only takes the more inspired form,
while the yvcocrc^ appears in that of reflection, the argumentation
is equally applicable. The argument itself is this : here on earth
knowledge is only partial (e/c (lepovsi), but when a state of per-
fectness arrives, in which knowledge also possesses a character of
completeness, the former ceases. Two comparisons throw light on
the reasoning. First (ver. 11), the relation of childhood to manhood
is employed ; in the latter, the partial knowledge of the former
ceases, then (ver. 12) we have the imperfectly reflected image,
and the direct view face to face ; the former corresponding to
the fycv(t)crK€LV€K fiepov^, the latter to the iTrtytvaxTKetv KaOw'^ koI
iTreyvcoadrjv. Knowledge therefore according to the apostle
ceases, because here on earth it always continues imperfect and
partial ; we know Blcl Trtitxreft)?, not Sea etSou? = irpoacoirov ttoo?
TTpaxTcoTTov (2 Cor. V. 7.). Here it might be said, that love being
also imperfect on earth, we may just as well assume that it will
cease, as that the yvoxrc^. may. But the difference is this. The
love is certainly capable of being enhanced, but the love of
the faithful, even in its imperfectly developed form, is not a
o
210 * FIRST CORINTHIANS XIII. 9 — 12.
divided love, provided it is of the right kind ; it is no aydirij m
/Ltepou9, but the perfection of that love is in heaven, and from
thence it will descend upon earth (ver. 10), and the form is not
specifically different from that here. But the manner of discern-
ing will he entirely different ; the basis of the inward life of faith
will remain the same, in its increased development, but the view
will be reserved for the next world. The state here is not pre-
cisely the same there. Certainly there is much to be found which
appears to contradict this assertion, which renders this passage
one of the most difficult in the New Testament. At the same
time, if other interpretations are examined, it will appear that
believers are in them promised a ^yvayai'^, which must be more
than a simple jtvcoaKeiv eK fjuepov^. In John xvii. 3, the know-
ledge of God and Christ is directly called everlasting life, which
could not possibly be said of a. partial knowledge. In 1 John iv.
7, 8, we read, whoever loves, knows God, and whoso loveth not,
knows him not. Now as Paul represents love as unchangeable,
we must conclude that it is conditional on a knowledge of God,
not eK fjLepov^;. Further, John, in his first Epist. ii. 20, 27, ascribes
the knowledge of all things to those who have received the Spirit,
so that none can teach them ; and agreeing with this, we read in
1 Cor. ii. 10, " The Spirit searcheth the deep things of God,"
and this Spirit God has given to believers, revealing himself to
them by the same. In 1 Cor. viii. 3, Paul speaks likewise of a
knowledge of God as the true source of real love towards God,
and the knowledge of him which here (ver. 12) appears deferred
to the future. How is this to be reconciled with the express de-
claration Ik fjbepov^ ryi,vd)aK€iv in our passage 1 The attempt to
effect this has failed in two particulars. First, some whose bias
of mind made them interested in placing human knowledge at the
lowest possible point, maintain from this passage, that the decla-
rations laid down in the New Testament concerning the yv6ocn<;
entitle us to regard it as only an approximate knowledge, and not
a thorough real knowledge of its nature. The everlasting as such
can never be known by man ; he can at the utmost only comprehend
some of its workings, he can only understand the doctrine of God
and Christ, not the divine being itself. Others, on the contrary,
whose interest it was to advance human knowledge to the utmost,
place the chief importance on the former passages, and assert
FIRST CORINTHIANS XIIT. 9—12. 211
that the Bible enforces the necessity of an absolute knowledge of
God. It has been endeavoured by Billroth so to connect these
suppositions with the passage before us, that we may say, " This
representation is based upon the fact, partly that the knowledge
of the individual, as such, can only be of a partially limited nature,
and that he only extends it to the more perfect kind in propor-
tion as he presses into the kingdom of God, there yielding up
his own individuality ; and it is also in a degree founded upon
the truth, that this temporal life is not final, but that after the
same, the knowledge of the spirit will become more abundant and
deep." But these words are evidently concessions forced from
Billroth by the power of the text, for, according to his view, per-
fect knowledge in the individual in this world would be very
improperly styled a yivMo-Kecv ck iJL^pov<;, it being central and
comprehensive in its character. The truth lies in the mean be-
tween these two extremes. The sacred Scriptures make known
man's need of a true knowledge of God's nature. Regeneration
through Christ and the Spirit imparts to man this very know-
ledge, and by it alone he attains everlasting life. In the death
of the natural man, Christ, the source of life itself, is born again,
and with him, Christ in us, the believer gains the true eVA
yvcoai^; t. O , which can be no knowing in part, for he knows the
whole Christ, with him he knows all (1 John ii. 30), for in Christ
is all (Col. ii. 3.).
This knowledge however, although true and real (a yvcjo-if;
d\i]dt,vi]), is nevertheless one which rests upon the general ground
of faith, for this life we are told is not the time for beholding
(2 Cor. V. 7.). The veil is removed in the olcov /juiXKcov, and the
believer first beholds that which he has perceived here in faith.
The holy Scriptures know nothing of the supposition that the
yvwat^i here below does not diiFer from the eZSo? of the future.
But in truth universal Christian knowledge cannot be a ryiva)-
(TKeiv ifc fjL6pov<; : this is said only by the apostle of the Charisma of
the yvcba-t'i, which is so far distinguished from universal Christian
knowledge that, as mentioned in the remarks on xii. 7, sqq., the
former possesses the implicit special characteristics, the latter
the explicit. This implies an advancement, and for that reason
this developed form of knowledge is a Charisma, but this advance-
ment necessarily makes apparent the bounds of things human.
o2
212 FIRST CORINTHIANS XIII. 13.
What is special can only be known eV /juipov;. This gift, like
all the others, will consequently end, when the hiaipeaei^ irvev-
fiaro^ cease, and the powers of the Spirit can he imparted in full
perfection to mankind. As therefore the blind when his eyes
are opened regards the light and the world surrounding him, so
man, truly regenerate by the grace of Grod, beholds Him in all
his gloriousness ; but as the blind on the first actual view of the
world can neither comprehend all the individual circumstances
surrounding him, or the optical law which enables him to perceive
everything ; just as little can the believer understand heavenly
things, the objects of his present view, in all their special relations ;
even in the Charisma of knowledge it only amounts to a jtvcoaKetv
i/c fiepov^. (Ver. 9. Whether the orav eXOrj to riXeiov refers to
eternity or the kingdom of God, beginning with Christ's coming,
is essentially unimportant, for the latter is available for the arisen
and glorified as well as eternity for them ; the coverings of this
mortal life is shaken otF. — In ver. 11 v7]itio^ and avrjp are placed
in opposition, as in xiv. 20, Ephes. iv. 13. The climax XaXelv,
(jipovelv, Xoyl^eaOat, corresponds to the three gifts of tongues, to the
wpocj^rjreLa and yv&o-i^. — In ver. 12 the Bl iaoTrrpov is to be ex-
plained by the mental impression, because it is as if one looked
beyond through a glass. The phrase iv alvLyfjiaTi indicates only
the nature of the reflection; it is enigmatical, i.6. dark, undecided,
general. We must here keep in mind the imperfect mirrors of the
ancients. It is from the apostolic representation of seeing the
image through the glass, that doubtless Ruckert and likewise
Schoettgen, Eisner, and others, have explained the Bl iaoirrpov
to signify a window made of isinglass instead of a looking-
glass. — np6ao)7rov 7rpo9 Trpoacoirov is = q*i^q ^^ tT^S ^^"•
xxxii. 31 ; Num. xii. 8. — The form 67rL<yvco(T0fMaL KaO(b<; kol iire-
ryvcoaOrjv means particularly here, I shall as perfectly know,
as God knows me. But we must not overlook that the yivrn-
(TKeiv is always based upon the idea of penetration, as we have al-
ready remarked in viii. 3. It corresponds with John's phrase,
" He in us, and we in him." [John xvii. 21.]. Here God reigns in
us, but in the perfected world we shall also be entirely in him,
and then first behold him as he is [1 John iii. 2], whilst we here
see him only as he is in us.)
Ver. 13. Finally, the perishable Charismata, calculated only
FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 1. 213
for the earthly condition of the church, are represented as the
pillars of all Christian life, and among this love is again declared
the greatest, because (see ver. 7) it contains faith and hope, but
contrariwise these do not comprehend love within themselves, the
aydirr] is therefore placed last, so that the sentence has the ar-
rangement of a climax. When the intention to exalt love does
not predominate, Paul places hope last. (See Col. i. 4, 5 ; 1
Thess. i. 3). It will of course be perceived that Trtcrrt? is not any-
longer here employed in the special sense as a Charisma, but in the
more general sense. It has already been strikingly remarked by
Billroth how the three objects faith, hope, and love, should form the
antithesis with the Charismata, so that the fjuivei, stands opposed
to the eKiTLiTTei (ver. 8). But we are not to suppose with Riickert
that the vvvl refers to time (= apn as opposed to rore, ver. 12),
for Paul has certainly proved that love extends beyond time (ver.
8), but must rather accept it as a consecutive particle, so that the
succeeding ver. 13 concludes the whole discussion. The only
thing to object to in this supposition is, that faith and hope also
seem to cease, since the former is to behold and the latter to be
perfected. But Billroth correctly remarks that beholding and
perfecting do not so much remove faith and hope as fulfil them,
and entirely authenticate their object in the spiritual world.
Nevertheless they may both be so far concluded in an inferior
degree to love as the passive principle predominates in them ;
whilst God himself, the absolute power of love, powerfully and po-
sitively reveals himself in love. For this reason, the apostle
has already said in ver. 7, ^ wyaTrr] irdvTa Trto-revet, iravra i\-
TTL^ec, in order to signify that love is the root, contents, and fruit
of the whole.
Chap. xiv. 1. After this information respecting the order of
the gifts, the apostle resumes his discourse from the conclusion of
chap. 12, commending love before all things, but representing
the gifts as worthy objects of attainment,^ especially the Trpo-
1 The expression irvEVfiaTiKa not only indicates the tongues but all the spiritual
Charismata. But as the gift of tongues had given rise to more evil in Corinth than all
the other gifts, and had draivn down the whole of this remonstrance, Paul proceeds at
once, with esppcial reference to this gift, and had it principally in mind, although em-
ploying the more general expression. This explains the fiaWov, which must otherwise
be considered superlative.— Between BiMKttu and ^rjXoDj; we must observe this distinc-
214 FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 1.
(jyrjTcla, while the Corinthians had shown themselves more ready-
to appreciate the gifts of tongues. We must first proceed to
examine the nature of this Charisma, which only received brief
mention in xii. 7. sqq. In ancient language,^ those who were in-
spired by a deity to utter divine oracles were called fiavTu^ (from
fialveaOat, to be placed in a state of inspiration), while those
who explained or simplified the often unintelligible speech of
the Mantis was styled irpo^rirr)^ or virocfujT'i]^. The yXwa-aac^
XaXwv of the present passage, in whom the inspiration was mani-
fested, appear before us under precisely similar circumstances, the
hiepjjurjvevwv signifying likewise those who conveyed to others in
general and intelligible language the inspired but obscure ex-
pressions of the former. It appears from the Old Testament
that the ixavn^ and TTpo^r}T7]<^ were frequently united in the same
person. Although their perception was not so far advanced that
they themselves comprehended the full meaning of their oracular
enunciations (\ Pet. i. 10, 11) they were nevertheless far from
any Montanist senselessness. According to the whole aim of
the Old Testament, the prophetic capacity was especially directed
to the revelation of the future. Everything in the fundamental
institutions of the Old Testament, as well as the inward desire
for the better, tends to what was to come. In the New Testa-
ment, on the contrary, the other view must be received, it being
founded upon the actual enjoyment of the fulfilment of the pro-
mises. It is true the mention of the gift, with reference to the
future, occurs in Acts xi. 27, and also eminently in the Apoca-
lypse of John, but in no other place, it may rather be said to
retire before any other. In the New Testament the Trpocjyt]-
rela appears the spiritual gift, which is more particularly the
awakening power for the minds of unbelievers. Its charac-
teristic sign therefore was likewise inspiration, but, together
with the knowledge of God which was conferred, existed also
tion, admitted by Riickert, that the former signifies the personal activity of the will
included, the latter the entreaty by prayer.
1 See Bardili de notione voois irpoipt'irr}^ ex Platone, Gott. 1786. The principal
passage in Plato is to be found in the Timaeus p. 1074, ed. Ficin. Plato ascribed to the
prophets a capacity forjudging over the harangues of the /xai/Tis, for which reason the
Charisma of SiaKpiai^ irvEVfidTwv is in a certain degree allied to it. (See on xii. 10.).
He says therefore (see work above quoted) odtv Si] Kalro rwv irpocpriTwv yivo% iirl tois
iv^ioi^ fiavTiiai^ KpiTui tTrLKadiardvai v6f.w^.
FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. ].. 215
a perfect knowledge of the world and of self,i which enabled
them to speak with the necessary reference to circumstances
and existing matters ; this the yXcoa-craL'; XaXcov, in whom
self-knowledge was destroyed or at least much obscured, did
not possess. On the other side again, the Trpocj^rjrela was dis-
tinguished from the yvcoaL<; (see on xii. 7, sqq), inasmuch as
the latter was not so well calculated to call forth faith as to assist
its progress when awakened. Paul therefore appears in iii. 6 as
the possessor of the TrpocprjTelay and the 'yvwa-i^ as residing in
Apollos. The apostle correrctly assigns a lower position to the
yXaxraai'; XaXetv than to the 7rpo(j)7]T6V6Lv (and if he seems to rank
it before the <yv6oaL<i, it is to be accounted for by the then exist-
ing circumstances, which made those gifts which conduced to the
extension of the church more important than those which aided
the progress of the already believing), for the speaking with
tongues might operate very beneficially, but as soon as it came
to be over-estimated and exercised too frequently, it would be-
come prejudicial to the peace and order of a community. It was
precisely so in Corinth ! Many had spoken at the same time,
and thereby caused confusion without profit. They had despised
other gifts less dazzling in comparison with their gift of tongues,
and this with other abuses is now condemned by Paul. We
should certainly not err in considering the proceedings in the
Corinthian church similar in a degree to the proceedings in a
Methodist community, and earlier to the appearances among the
Montanists.^ Had this course been followed the church would
1 Chrysostora correctly affirms this on 1 Cor. xii. 2 : toDto to fidvTaco^ tdiov rd
l]^f<TTr}Kivat, TO avpzaQai locriTEp fiaivofxivov' 6 Sk ir pofpnT-i]^ ov^ ouxtos, dWa |U£Ta
Si.avoLa^ vr](povar]<i Kai crwfppovovar}^ KaTacFTacrtw^ Koi ei^ws a (f)diyy£Tai (ptjaiv
diravTa,
2 The Montanist Tertullian (De Anima, c. 9) speaks of a woman whose circumstances
betray at the least a great affinity with the yXoio-crais XaXeTu. I quote the passage be-
cause I consider it very instructive; to the understanding of the following relation we
must however bear in mind tliat among the strict sects of the Montanists women might
not speak in their assemblies, the woman therefore imparted her vision to the presbyter
Tertullian alone. His words are as follo%V8 : est hodie soror apnd nos, revelationum
cluirismata sortita, quas in ecclesia inter dominica sole nnia per ecstasin in spiritu pati-
tur conversatnr cum angelis, uUquando etiam cum domino, et videt et audit sacramenia
(i.e. appnra pv/iara 2 ( or. xii. 4) et quornndum corda dignoscit et mtdicinas deside'r-
nnlibus svbministrat. Jam vera prout scripturce leguntur, aut psalmi canuntur, ant
adlocutionet {TrapaK\ri(Tti<i) pro/eruntur, aut petitiones deleifantur, ita inde materim
visionibus submi)iistrantnr. Forte nescio quid de anima disserueramus, cum ea soror in
216 FIRST CORINTHIANS XlV. 1.
inevitably have been lost in fanaticism ; the wisdom of the
apostle was therefore directed to control undue individual and
partial feeling as a sure means of restoring the equilibrium of the
church. By taking the representation which follows upon this
ground all appears evident and free from obscurity. We must
certainly admit, as already observed on Acts ii.. that this passage
affords no grounds for ascribing a speech in a foreign language to
the y\a)(TaaL<; XaXecv. It is only in the relation of the miracle
at Pentecost that we find the account ; but this is so decided
that, if we will not suppose two kinde of gifts of tongues (a sup-
position negatived by the whole series of facts), or regard, as
does Baur, the whole relation in the Acts of the Apostles as a
mythic transformation of a general form of speech (see Baur's
work already quoted, p. 656, sqq.), we shall be compelled to ad-
mit the idea of a foreign tongue, at least at times, with the idea
of the Charisma. This was my opinion in the investigation of
the Acts of the Apostles, and I see not any present reason to
change it. The view that in the yXcoaaac^ XdXelv the use of ori-
ginal language was again introduced is extremely ingenious. I
have already compared it with my own opinions, but as can be
shown, the apostle's account does not justify this acceptation.
According to my own conviction, the following is stated : it
pleased God to convey in the gift of tongues an allusion to the re-
establishing unity of a common medium of speech, exercised in^the
harmonizing power of the Spirit. The new hypothesis of Wieseler
concerning the nature of the spiritual gifts is certainly laid down
with much ability (Stud. 1838, Part iii.), but it appears to me to
labour under an unconquerable difficulty. This learned man con-
siders that the yXcoo-aaL^ XaXcov had become quite internal, and
may only have moved the lips, speaking so softly that none were
able to understand him. The sighing of the Spirit (Bom viii.
26) is with him the <yX(oa<Tat<i XaXelv ! But in such a case every
one must have been his own interpreter, for another perceiving
spirifu esset. Post transacta solennia, dimissa plebe, quo usu solet nobis renuntiare
qiice vident—nam et diligeniissime digeruntur, ut eiiam probentiir— inter cetera, inquit,
ostensa est mihi anima eorporaliter, et spiritus videbatur, sed nan inanis et vacuce quali-
tatis, into quce etiam teneri repromitteret ; lenera et Incida et aerei colons et forma per
omnia humana. The condition here described undeniably bears close affinity to som-
nambulism.
FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 2—4. 217
nothing could have interpreted nothing. In Acts il. Wieseler
considers it implied that the speaking with tongues took place
before the entrance of the crowd, upon which succeeded the inter-~
pretation ; this was delivered in various languages, acquired by the
speakers in a natural manner. No proof can however be neces-
sary that such a dumb Charisma was not very probably a Xa-
\elv, or that Paul could compare it with trumpets and sounding in-
struments (xiii. 1) when it displayed itself in gentle whispers.
Schulz's idea of its exhibiting itself in loud cries of joy (see this
learned man's work already quoted on the gifts of grace) corres-
ponds far better in this respect to the description given of this
Charisma ; the character of lively excitement decidedly belongs
to it.
Vers. 2 — 4. The apostle begins his proof of the assertion that the
gift of the 7rpo<^r]TeCa stands higher than that of tongues, by show-
ing how the former edifies the church, since the prophet can ever
speak according to the necessities of the community or individual,
while the latter is only an enjoyment, or at the most a means of
advancement to those speaking with the tongues themselves (ver.
4, eavTov oLKoBofjuet), not to others. According to this represen-
tation, we cannot consider the ry\a)aG-ai<; XaXcov otherwise than as
subdued and overpowered by the operating power of God, so that
as it were he converses aloud with God (ro) Oew XaXel, ver, 2.).
This discourse must however be unintelligible to others (ovEeU
aKovet, ver. 2) ; and not because the speaker introduces into
it a provincial gloss (as Bleek thinks) but as Paul adds Trvev-
/jiaTL {i.e, ecstacy proceeding from the impulse of the Holy
Spirit, not, as Wieseler considers, simply inward inspiration
without outward expression), jjivaTripia XaXel. As Paul also
says of himself (2 Cor. xii. 4) that he was caught up into
heaven and heard there dpprjTa p'^fiara, those also speaking
with tongues received impressions from the upper world which
he uttered, as he received them without reference to esta-
blished media, and were therefore unintelligible. The ovSeU
cLKoveo evidently contains no allusion to employment of foreign
languages, for this must have implied an acquaintance with them
on the part of those so using them ; and to imagine that they were
uttered when no one was present who used the same, is highly
improbable. According to Wieseler (work already quoted, p. 719,
sqq.), the 01*8669 a/couet bears reference not to the understanding
218 FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 3 — 4.
but to the hearing ; those who spoke with the tongues, though
not altogether without uttering sound, spoke nevertheless so softly,
that none could hear them ; for this reason every one who exer-
cised the Charisma could only himself interpret it. But if none
could hear the ry\a)aaat<; \aX(ov, the Charisma was as good as un-
uttered, and we need only adduce against such a theory, the argu-
ments which have been advanced by the author himself (p. 719.).
If the sounds could be heard, then the word aKoveiv might be
received in the signification of " understand." According to our
acceptation of the passage, which seems alone to agree with the
words, the reflection might arise, that the appearance of the
Charisma at Pentecost was perfectly of another kind, without re-
ferring to the foreign tongues then brought into operation. That
is to say, that upon the occasion mentioned, the apostles did not
appear absorbed in themselves, and conversing only with God,
they spoke to those who hasted to resort to them ; these perfectly
understood the apostles, and were greatly astonished that they
heard them utter praises to God in the language of their own
nation. This may appear in some degree a contradiction ; it is
however easily solved, for Paul here mentions the case of a per-
son possessing only the 7Xa>(rcrat9 XaXelv as such, but the apostles
together with the same were in possession of the gift of interpre-
tation, and certainly of prophecy. Thus they might have rule
over the spirit (xiv. 32), and be in possession of knowledge (i/oO?) ;
they spoke with tongues, and interpreted and prophesied at the
same time. Wieseler likewise correctly comprehends the relation,
with the exception that he too strictly separates the speaking
with tongues and the interpretation, so that according to his
opinion the crowds that flocked to the apostles at Pentecost
only really received the interpretation, and they heard not
the tongues themselves. But as the apostles were also prophets,
both must be considered co-operating with and pervading each
other. (V^er. 2. The singular form yXooaarj XaXelv occurs
again in vers. 4, 13, 14, 27 ; eV yXcoaay is found in ver. 20,
and in ver. 26, yXcoacrav ex^LV. [The Bta tt}^ jXcocraT]'; of ver. 9
is not here to reckon, for yXwaaa signifies the tongue as a mem-
ber of the body.] This use of the singular, as also Schulz and
Wieseler rightly suppose, is immaterial, they stand indifferently
for one another. But Baur (see p. 627, sqq.) attaches importance
to the two forms of expression, and asserts that thesiugnhr form
FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 5, 6. 219
implies "to stammer indistinctly with the tongue," the plural form
" to speak with gloss." But whoever considers with some degree of
attention the remarks upon this chapter which follow, will find that
this distinction exists only in imagination. The two expressions
had possibly their origin in the fact that occasionally the use of
one foreign language occurred, and sometimes that of several.
The latter form would then be styled r^evrj yXcoaadov. — In ver.
3 the oUoBojjbTi is the common form, and TrapdKXrjcn^ and irapa-
fjbvOia the subordinate divisions, as Billroth, agreeing in this re-
spect with Heidenreich, remarks. In the irapa.Kk'qori^ we may
distinguish the animating form of edification, in the Trapa/juvdla
the comforting. The latter expression does not again occur in
the New Testament, — The eavrov oUoBofiet of ver. 4 does not
imply that he edifies himself through the idea of his converse
with God, but that this elevation to a more lofty and divine ele-
ment frees him more and more from dependence on the earth and
its possessions, and consequently advances his spiritual life. The
tendency of the yXcoao-at,^; \a\(bv to progress towards the higher
Charisma of the iTpo(\>7]Teveiv must ever be borne in mind.)
Ver, 5, 6. In order however to give no occasion for apprehen-
sion to those among the Corinthians who attached especial value
to the gift of tongues, or to the supposition that he entirely con-
demned this Charisma, Paul states that he rejoiced truly over the
operation of the Spirit in this form among them, but that it would
be better if they could prophecy, then those speaking with
tongues could at the same time interpret, and the church thereby
receive edification, for by fyKxaaaau^ Xdkelv alone it could profit
nothing. This argument is connected with the idea that under
existing circumstances the first object to claim attention was the
extension of the church, bearing the doctrine of the cross to all
lands, and collecting within its limits all who were called. This
was admitted also by those who displayed the gift of tongues,
allowing besides that all personal profit derivable from such a
source must yield to the main consideration. (Billroth correctly
observes that in ver. 5 rt? does not require to be added to Biep ■
fjLTjvevrj, since Paul supposes the union of both these gifts in the
same individual. He who could interpret was a'ble to compre-
hend what was expressed by others in the ecstacy, and this came
very near the irpo^r)Tev(i)v. Nevertheless a difterence then re-
220 FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 5, 6.
mained, for the y\(ocraai<; XaKrnv, who had also the gift of inter-
pretation, was excited by strong inward contrarieties. On the
first display a clear sensible explanation followed, which might
truly inform but could not arouse. The addresses of the Trpo^T/-
revcov are however to be considered powerful outpourings of a
higher character, which had the rapid effect of lightning carrying
their hearers away in the stream of inspiration. But when Wiese-
ler (see as above, p. 721), proceeds so far as to say "that there
never had been an interpreter who had not himself previously
spoken in the tongue which he interpreted," that consequently
the gift of the ip/jbrjveveiv was never separated from the yXdoaaat^
XaXeiv, although it did not always present itself in connexion ;
such passages as ver. 26 — 28, in which the gift of prophecy ap-
pears perfectly independent, speak evidently to the contrary.
It stood in the same relation to the gift of tongues as
the gift of discerning to that of prophecy. My opinion cer-
tainly is that the two gifts were often united, and that it was
the desire of the apostles that, where possible, this should
always be the case, and the same likewise with the gift of pro-
phecy ; but in reality they often displayed themselves separately,
and from this circumstance arose the abuse ; had they been
always connected, no improper use of the gift of tongues could
have occurred. In ver. 6 is to be found the presupposition, as
Bleek and Rtickert correctly agree, that the speaking with
tongues was generally exercised in Corinth without interpreta-
tion. — El is, contrary to the rule, here connected with the con-
junction [see Winer's Gr. p. 270.]. It is however to be explained
by the pleonastic fusion of the two terms e/cro? el and firj. — In ver.
6 vvvi is again a consecutive particle. No stress is to be laid
upon the first person [eX6a)] ; it does not say, " even if I came,"
for then iyo) would have been used. — The four subjects named may
be analysed, as Neander and Billroth have remarked, into two
members standing parallel. The airoKoXv^L^ is the operating
cause of the TrpocjnjTela, the yvMai^; of the BiBay(7]. It would ap-
pear natural to mention the forms of the <y\(£>(j(7ai^ XaXelv, but
to this Charisma more useful gifts are opposed. The iav /jlt) does
not refer to the whole phrase iav eXOco k.t.\., only to the tl
vfjLa^i Q)(f)e\,ria(o. 'Eav or el fjurj stand indifferently for each other.
Matt. xii. 4 ; xxiv. 36 ; Gal. i. 7, ii- 16.)
FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 7 — 12. 221
Yeys. 7 — 9. The necessity for a f,lear intelligible exposition
is proved by Paul by a comparison taken from musical instruments;
for it is requisite if the music performed is to be understood, that
the necessary intervals {hiacrTokrj) between the tones should be
observed, this alone produces melody. Eichhorn erroneously
employs this passage, as we have taken occasion to observe on
Acts ii., in order to prove that those who spoke with the tongues
only stammered, not pronouncing articulate words. This is evi-
dently not the fact. The single tones of an instrument may indi-
vidually be regarded as true, but if the scale be not observed these
single tones form no melody, they are an aSr)\o<i (pcovrj (ver. 8) ;
so Paul intends to say that the sayings of the jXcoao-ao^i \a-
XovvT6<; are unintelligible, because they want connexion. Just as
inconsequently Wieseler (as above, p. 727) views the expression
d&rjXof;, fjurj ev(Tr)^o<i, as descriptive of tones softly uttered, while
all must agree that a very loud sound may be as unintelligible
as a soft one. (In ver, 7 it might be conjectured that oyLto)? or
6|U-o/ct)? might be employed for oyLtw?, but certainly the more diflB-
cult reading is the correct one. It is best explained by Billroth,
thus, that its u^e sanctions the apparently inapplicable compari-
son of instruments not having life, as if the words were ra d^jrvxai
Kalirep d'^v')(a, ojxw^ k. t. X. O/xo)? is so employed in Gal. iii. 15.
— The passage ix. 26 may be referred to, for an explanation of
eh aepa \a\€Lv).
Vers 10 — 12. Paul draws a second example from the u§e of
speech ; every discourse must have a thoroughly regular succes-
sion of tones (ovBev dcpcovov), otherwise it possesses no signifi-
cation (hvvafiiv), and the person who speaks is as one using a
foreign language {pdp^apo^). He therefore recommends the
Corinthians, zealous for the spiritual gifts, to strive after such as
could be understood by the church. It is highly probable that
the expression r^hr) (pcovwv (ver. 10) refers back to the descrip-
tion of the Charisma in xii. 28, yevr) jXcoo-acov. Neander makes
it relate to the forms of the \a\6iv, TTpoaev')(ea6ai, yjrdWeLv (see
remarks on Acts ii. 4 — 11), and undoubtedly these are understood
to be included. It is however possible that the name jevT] ^yXwaawv
refers to the form in which the Charisma appeared, really speaking
in foreign tongues, as at the feast of Pentecost, and according to
which few or many foreign languages might be brought into use.
222 FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 13, 14.
(See the remarks on xiii. 1.). (In ver. 10 et rv^ot is striking ; for
althongh, as shown in xv. 37, the form might stand for " as it were,
for example," it would not apply here. It would have been better
to apply it in this signification to ver. 7 when speaking of instru-
ments of music. I therefore agree with Billroth, who receives this
expression, like the Attic signification of tcro)?, as an ironical modest
form of a decided assertion in this sense : " numerous as languages
are, they have nevertheless their signification." — Bleek under-
stands ovBev, " every rational creature," but it is better to con-
nect its meaning to 761^0? (fycovwv. The dcfxDvo^; is then compre-
hensive, without clear decided utterance, — In ver. 12 TTvevfxara,
for which some Codd. incorrectly read TrvevfjiarL/cd, is employed to
express the operation of gifts of the Spirit which are similar.
The plural irvevfiara is to be considered substituted for ScaLpiaetf;
irvevfiaro^, and Billroth, as also more recently Wieseler, errone-
ously supposes it to refer alone to the gift of tongues which we
have already condemned. — I cannot agree with Bleek and Bill-
roth in their acceptation of the ha 7repLaaevr)Te : they do not sup-
ply the avTcov or iv avroh, but understand it, " that ye may
be abundant, i.e. amply contribute to edification./' But ver. 13
clearly shows that the apostle's meaning was, that they should
pray for the adding of other gifts, particularly those of interpre-
tation and prophecy, to the one they possessed. This seeking
to advance is indicated in the ^7]T€lt€, 'Iva Treptao-evrjre [the read-
ing 7rpo^7]T6vrjr€ facilitates the explanation, but from the con-
nexion is rightly supposed a correction], and is grounded upon a
general endeavour to possess the Charismata.)
Vers. 13, 14. Upon this foundation then the apostle proceeds
to exhort those speaking with tongues to pray for the gift of in-
terpretation, in order that their vov<; may be no longer unfruitful
{oLKapTTo^) and without effect. Throughout this argument the prin-
ciple must ever be remembered, though not expressly stated, that
it is always a subordinate condition of the roi)?, the faculty of
knowledge recorded in men, as regeneration always tends to cul-
tivate this power The acceptation of the TrpocrevxecrOa) iva
hiepijur^vevrj might be thus far objected to, as 7rpo(7€V)(^Ea6ai appears
in another meaning in ver. 14, 15. This has occasioned Billroth
and also Winer previously to explain the passage as signifying that
those speaking with tongues prayed, i.e. exercised his gift, with
FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 15. 223
the design immediately to interpret what he was saying. But
Bleek correctly calls to mind that Xva Btepfirjvevr] cannot be other-
wise understood than as comprehending the object of the prayer;
and it would likewise be impossible to adopt the erroneous sup-
position of Usteri that the irvevfjud fxov in ver. 14 signifies the
human mind, for the vov^ is only considered a property of the
human mind. (See my Opusc. Acad. p. 156, sq.). Bleek has
already correctly explained irvevfjud fxov == to irvevfia Qeov iv
ifioL In the inspired state of those speaking with tongues, it
was not the individual himself which spoke, but the higher power
through him. In conclusion, if Billroth again discovers here an
identity of the divine and human mind, we must again repeat
our dissent from his view. The human mind is certainly allied
to the divine, and the eye with which man discerns the beam of
divine light to the divine Spirit ; but identical it is not. (See
remarks on Rom. viii. 16.)
Ver. 15. In order to make his meaning altogether evident,
Paul declares that the gift of tongues may be employed, but the
understanding is to be included likewise. He consequently does
not desire the y\(0(TcraL<; XaXelv to be dispossessed, but that it
shall become more fruitful for the church and improving for indi-
vidual living, by a conscientious endeavour to obtain the gift of in-
terpretation, or, better still, that of prophecy. The dative ttvev-
/jbaTL and vol naturally indicate the operating cause of the irpo-
(7ev')(eG6aL and •^aXkeuv, the ecstatic inspiration and the active
power of the Spirit in knowledge. The rrpoaevx^arOaL and yjrdX-
\^tv appear to have been a different form in which the y\(0(raaL<;
XaXetz^ displayed itself, according to which the Charisma was uttered
sometimes in the form of prayer, sometimes in a poetic or musi-
cal fashion. In ver. 26, under the name yjraXfibv ex^uv^ the poetic
form is treated almost like a peculiar Charisma. Certainly these
various appearances might be employed to elucidate the expres-
sion ^evT] jXcoaaoov (xii. 10, 28), even without taking into con-
sideration the use of various languages. Nevertheless it does
not agree with the original language. But it might not be impro-
bable that the first Christian hymns, such as according to Pliny
(Epist. X. 96) were sung by the Christians in their meetings,
owed their origin to those persons who were endowed with that
form of the gift of tongues called -^aXfiov gx^cv. (The rt ovv
224 FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 16 — 19.
io-Ti, corresponds only to the Latin quid ? or quid jam ? " what
■will we then X what is really our meaning ?")
Ver. 16 — 19. Paul again returns to the idea in ver. 2, sqq.
that the gift of tongues cannot edify others. In its relation to
prayer he says the hearer cannot say, Amen (which according to
ancient custom was pronounced by the assembly),^ for he under-
stands not what is said. (There is no reason for Beza's deduction
that the word evXoyetv, for which afterwards ev^apLarelv is used,
contains any allusion to the Lord's Supper, for upon no occasion was
the Charisma of the gift of tongues exercised in this sacrament.)^
The apostle adds for the same reason, that he would rather speak
a few words, Sta tov vo6<;, i. e. in the manner of TrpocfirjTeLa, than
many with tongues, although all these gifts were at his command
more than at theirs. This assurance has something striking in
it. We might imagine that in proportion as knowledge increased,
the faculty for enthusiasm diminished, as least we must psycho-
logically admit this as a rule, the uniform distribution into
activity and passiveness displayed in Paul, might rarely be per-
ceptible. We are showm in 2 Cor. xii. that a state of ecstacy was
not unknown to him. (In ver. 16, the form 6 avaifkTjpwv tov
Toirov TOV IBccoTov is difficult ; it corresponds to the Hebrew
i^t2 D^^ D'^'M' ^<^^^^ alicujus implere. But wherefore this
circumlocution? Why does not Paul write at once o lBi(OT7)<i 1
Acts iv. 13 has the expression in the signification of " unlearned,"
but it is used here, as ver. 24 plainly shows, since the idiot is to
be distinguished from the unbeliever, in the signification of laity,
as opposed to the officiating priests. In classical speech, ISlcott)^
also formed the opposition to dp')(^cov or aTpaTyyo^i, the common
soldiers were called IhmTai. [See Epictet. c. 23. Xenophon de
rep. Lac. x. 4. Polyb. v. 60,], If we consider well the circum-
stances under which the speaking with tongues took place, it will
be evident for what reason Paul could not write 6 IBl(ot7j<;, but was
1 See my Mon. Hist. Ecd. Ant., vol. i.,p. 101, vol. ii., p. 168, for the passages in the
Fathers especially referring to this subject.
2 This is also approved by Bleek's observation, that from this passage it may be per-
ceived, that as yet no fixed liturgical prayers were in use. The prayer of those speaking
with tongues is by no means to be regarded as essentially belonging to God's service; it
came only as an addition to the established service conducted by the presbyter as ird-
pipyov.
FIRST CORmTHIANS XIV. 20 — 22. 225
obliged to employ so circuitous a form. It was perfectly possible
for any one, a layman, invested with no ecclesiastical office, to^
have the gift of speaking, and if he exercised this in the church,
he was for the moment the leader of the devotions, the liturgy.
All the members of the church, even the ministers, deacons, and
presbyters, stood for the time to those exercising the gift of
tongues in the condition of laymen, i.e. the receiving portion of
the community. But as they were not really in themselves the
laity, Paul employs to represent their position, the expression
suitable in the highest degree of 6 dvaifXrjpcov rov tottov rod
ISlcotov. Wieseler understood by IBuorij^; those who were not
furnished with the gift of tongues (see as above p. 711, note),
but that is not strictly correct. Those also who possessed this
gift would be an avaTrXrjpoov rov tottov rov ISuorov, even if he did
not exercise it, but another was displaying this power. In con-
clusion, this passage affords striking proof that the contradistinc-
tion of clerus and laity did not arise at a later period from a desire
of dominion on the part of the former, but that it was an original
and Christian distinction introduced by the apostles themselves
into the church. The names alone arose at a. later period, the
thing was from the very beginning. More will be said on this
subject when the pastoral epistles are brought under consideration.
Vers. 20 — 22. The apostle then considers the other point (see
on ver. 15), the furtherance of the individual spiritual life. He re-
commends his readers to grow in understanding, and to observe how
the gifts stand in relation to each other ; they must strive to at-
tain unto the higher gifts. The y\(oa(Tac<; XaXelv is a gift for
children in spirit, prophesy for men. The holy Scriptures, while
speaking of th^ gift of tongues, immediately intimate its subor-
dinate value ; the yXwaaac'^ XaXelv may certainly become a medium
to awaken unbelievers, a sign to direct them to the mightier
powers present in the church, but to the church itself, the be-
lieving, the TrpocjyrjTeia could only bring a true blessing. — This
passage is unquestionably one of the most difficult in the section,
and it is only after mature consideration that I have been able to
decide upon the signification here given." NeandeY has proffered
an entirely different explanation, in which Billroth coincides.
Bleek agrees with me in all important points. According to the
former interpretation, the dina-To^ which occurs in this passage
P
226 FIRST CORINTHIANS XTV 20 — 22.
(ver. 22) applies not to the unbelievers who may yet believe (m-
fidelis negative), but to the unbelieving who persevere as such
(infidelis privative.) It is employed in its first signification in
ver. 24. Then laying full stress upon the words of the quota-
tion ov8' ouTft)? ekaKovaovral /jlov, and accepting the et? ar]-
fiehv in the signification of " as a sign of correction," the whole
may be thus understood, " Be ye men in understanding ! God
himself has plainly intimated by his Word that the tongues
shall serve for a punishment to unbelievers ; the 7rpo(j)r]T€ia,
on the contrary, is appointed for believers." This view ap-
pears corroborated by the fact, that,' 1st, a reproof may be
observed to be retained in the quotation, though that is of
little importance, as Paul pays no regard to the connexion of
the whole passage ; and 2nd, that ver. 23 appears to agree
with it, because then the first impression which the Cha-
risma of y\(oa(TaL<; XdXelv excites upon unbelievers, is that of
offence. This however does not arise from the Charisma itself,
but from the misuse of it ; and besides, the disadvantages of this
explanation preponderate in an eminent degree. 1st, The change
in the meaning of the word aTnaTo^ has something constrained
in it, but should it occur it must necessarily be indicated by
something else, if the passage is to be intelligible. 2nd, If the
divine intention in the gift of tongues were of this nature, viz.
that it should prove a means of punishment for stiff-necked un-
believers, the apostle directly labours to counteract this intention
by the directions which he gives. He then must have said.
Speak diligently with the tongues, in order that the divine pur-
pose may be fulfilled ; as he says at the commencement of the
epistle, the doctrine of the cross shall be a o-KavSqXov, therefore
the nature of it may not be hidden. 3dly, There exists not a
trace that such an effect was produced by the tongues, and the
idea of a punishment-Charisma is especially untenable, all the
gifts of grace are subservient to blessing ! Lastly, the ovS' ovto<;
eUaKova-ovTai fiov, does not agree with this construction of the
words, i.e. " not once in that manner of speech do they hear me,"
for it means that this manner of speaking through foreign tongues
had something especially calculated to arouse attention, but that
it failed when the heart was dead to holy impressions. Thus all
seems to confirm our view ; the quotation alone is of limited appli-
FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 20—22. 227
cation, as in the other exposition, and even in our notion of the
contents of this passage, prophecy conserved something of a cor-
recting character, for according to Paul, Isreal appeared unbe-
lieving and incapable of receiving the operation of grace. In the
meantime we must consider, among other circumstances, that
the apostle had made so free an application of the passage Isa.
xxviii. 11, 12, that there would be no difficulty in understanding
a feature of the same in a more limited sense. Wieseler is per-
fectly right in supposing (p. 736, sqq.) that the apostle does not
intend to compare the gift of tongues with what is uttered by
Isaiah, but that Paul finds this Charisma itself described in the
prophetic pages. The independent manner in which in the quo-
tation he construes the Hebrew text into the Greek, shows this.
But this can only be found in the free typical interpretation of
the prophetic words so often employed by Paul. (In ver. 20 the
iraihia and rekeLOi refer to steps in the inward development.
[See thereon 1 Cor. iii. 12, 13, and 1 John ii. 13, sqq.] It may
be enquired why (\>pea[ and not vol is put. The expression
<t>p6V6<i indicates in scriptural language understanding, vov^ reason,
i.e. the capacity for discerning what is eternal. [See my Opusc.
Acad. p. 159.]. Here it is equivalent to intellectual develop-
ment, employing in a becoming manner the powers flowing from
the higher world, to the salvation of the whole. — In ver. 21 v6fM0<i
stands in an extended sense for the whole Old Testament. See John
x. 34. — Isa. xxviii. 11, 12 is certainly a rebuke against Israel and
Juda; but Paul does not employ the passage in this signification, as
we have shown already, but so that in the ovB^ outo)? ekaKovaoinal
fjLov only the inferior efficacy of the Charisma shall be indicated ;
speaking mth tongues cannot produce understanding, it can only
show the way to it, therefore the more perfect Charisma is to be
the object of attainment. The quotation besides is not only freely
handled as to its purport, but also its form. The LXX. read Bia
<l>av\La/jb6v ')(eiKe(DV, hta yXa}acrr}<i erepa^;, on Xakrja-ovai to) Xao)
T0UT6) — Ka\ ovK rj06\r](Tav aicoveiv. The manner in which Paul
states the words, reminds us of the appearance of the Charisma,
as it presented itself at the feast of Pentecost, Acts ii. 4, and
brings before us the idea *' tongues" but not " gloss." Paul would
hardly have chosen this expression if he had been unacquainted
with the employment of several languages in this form of Cha-
P2
228 FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 23.
risma. Wieseler fails egregiously here ; he overwhelms the sense
with his hypothesis, instead of allotting the words to modify his
views. — The form irepo^Xcoaao^ is very rare, the word is employed
= jSdp^apo^, one who speaks in a foreign language. It has been
erroneously supposed to be here neuter. Paul has therewith ex-
pressed the Hebrew pjrj^ '^^li^Sl " ^7 (people's) stammering
lips." It may be doubted whether it should stand masculine or
neuter, but the first appears preferable, so that avOpcDirot^ is to
be supplied. In ver. 22 the phrase rj TrpocpTjrela ov rot? clttI-
(TTOL^ is only apparently a contradiction of ver. 24, 25. It forms
the antithesis only to ek arj/jueiov. Believers need such no longer,
the source of salvation is already pointed out to them, for which
reason it is called al yXwcraai ov rot? Triarevovcnv, although the
gift of tongues, viewed with reference to itself, can never be con-
sidered an object of indifference to the faithful ; on the con-
trary it may be said of the 'TTpocprjrela, that it is not for the
aino-Toi, that is to say as aTj/jLelov, although considered in itself
it may prove advantageous even to them.)
Ver. 23. It is necessary, to the correct understanding of this
passage, that the emphasis be laid on Trai/re?. Paul intends to
say that the speaking with tongues itself, when it takes place in
regular form, cannot offend, but only its exercise by all at the
same time, and in a tumultuous manner. But this form of the
appearance (which was certainly the one it took at the first fes-
tival of Pentecost) is not absolutely to be reproved, and the
words ovK epovcriv ore fxalveaOe express no such censure. As
the persons under consideration are unbelievers, fialveaOai can
only mean " inspired by a God ;" without irpocjyrjrrj^ the utterance
of a fjbdvTi<i cannot be understood, for which reason it may be
truly said a degree of blame is to be found in the otl fjual-
veade, but of an entirely different kind to any hitherto imputed.
The words might namely be thus paraphrased as it were : " If
unbelievers enter in, they would say, we perceive certainly that
ye are inspired by a divinity, but, there being no prophet pre-
sent, we do not understand what the God says to us." Unde-
niably a quick excited manner of speaking is signified in the fial-
veadai : the expression by no means agrees with Wieseler's sup-
position that the individuals gifted with the tongues employed
scarcely perceptible sounds and tones, and his justification of the
FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 24, 25. 229
opinion (see work above quoted, p. 731) is in a high degree forced.
At Pentecost the manifestation could hardly be said to take
place in gentle whispers ; and had the gift of tongues shown it-"
self as Wieseler describes, the term chosen and applied to it
would have been ryXcocraaL^; Xeyetv, utterance being invariably
implied where \aXecv is employed. (See on Eom. iii. 19.). The
addition of Ihicarai rj dirLaroL can alone make us hesitate to accept
this explanation, for this makes it appear that the laity would
not so express themselves, although unbelievers had the power to
do so. We might here take refuge in the admission propounded
by so many expositors that ISlcottj^ stands here in a very diff'erent
sense to its meaning in ver. 26, and signifies only " unlearned.'*
But I consider this acceptation, by reason of the ij, perfectly un-
supported both here and in ver. 24 ; the question is not of learn-
ing, for any reference to foreign languages or gloss is entirely
relinquished. What connexion would be afforded by " unbelievers
or unlearned !" But I would by no means restrict the appli-
cation of the term idiots to those who themselves possessed no
Charisma, but include those laymen who were likewise beginners
in a Christian course, as yet unacquainted with the riches of its
manifestation, and who at a later period would have been called
Catechumens. What follows agrees best with this.
Ver. 24, 25. If all prophesy, no such ill consequences follow,
for something is communicated which is universally intelligible,
and by adapting the discourse to special circumstances the most
important moral consequences might ensue. This description is
taken from the life. The Gentiles might frequently, from simple
curiosity or an undefined feeling of longing, resort to the Chris-
tian assemblies. The inspired language they then heard sud-
denly made them acquainted with their inward necessities, their
sinfulness, and the necessity for redemption ; and, overwhelmed as
it were by the power of the Spirit, they sank down, confessing
that of a truth God was not only among the Christians but pre-
sent in them. This was beheld at the first Pentecost, when the
apostles (Acts ii.) revealed the yXcoa-aaL^ XaXetv, and likewise
the irpocpTjreveiv. From this relation we may plainly observe
that the 'irpo(\>7)Tev6iv bore the same reference to the 8td/cpL(rc<;
irvevfidrmv as interpretation to the gift of tongues ; both were
generally united. For the knowledge of the secrets of the heart
230 FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 26—28,
is in itself no manifestation of the irpoc^r^reveiv, but only the dis-
cerning of spirits bound up with it. (In John xvi. 8 the eke'y-
'Xei'V of the Spirit is especially brought to yiew. — Concerning the
indwelling of God in man see the observations on John xiv. 23 ;
and for fcpvTrrd see on iy. 5.).
Vers. 26 — 28. The special commands and directions arising
out of the preceding observations then follow. Whoever is in
possession of a gift may bring it into exercise in the assembly,
but only so as to conduce to the advantage of all. Two or three
alone were therefore to speak with the tongues. This must like-
wise be in succession, and so that an interpreter made their mean-
ing available for the meeting. If none were present possessing
this gift, then the yXooaa-at^ XaXoJv was to converse inwardly with
God without making known aloud the subject of his contempla-
tions. In this verse everything is clear, and we have only to re-
mark that the apostle acknowledged the capability of restraining
the impulse of the Spirit even in those who only possessed the
gift of tongues, and in whom the operation of the Spirit was least
developed, so that they could of themselves keep silence. They
therefore do not appear as perfectly involuntary instruments.
(In ver. 26 the 'yfraXfiov, SLSa')(^r}v k. t. X. e-x^eiv does not simply
mean to be in possession of one or other Charisma, but also to
foresee that the Charisma will even now display itself. We must
doubtless suppose that those who would speak announced it to
the presbyters of the assembly, and that these secured the neces-
sary observance of precedence in the speakers. The forms
^p'oX/iov, yXaxraav e')(eiv, do not therefore here imply to possess
the gift of poesy or of tongues, but to be aware that, in
consequence of being possessed of the gift, they had to de-
liver a song of praise, to o^ive utterance to the tongues.
In the series mentioned, dTroKaXvyjrcv e^^eiv signifies the tt/jo-
(j)7jT€La (see on ver. 6), consequently four gifts are enumerated,
and the 'y^aXfjbov e')(eiv indicates a special form of the gift
of tongues. Again, we must observe that no decided order ap-
pears in the mention of the gifts. — It has been already observed
on ver. 15, that it is not improbable something of a musical cha-
racter was connected with the poetic form of the Charisma ; it
may be conjectured that those speaking with tongues, delivered
their psalms with singing, or perhaps as recitative ; and therefore,
FiRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 29 — 31. 231
as the Charisma of fyvwcn^ (see on xii. 8), was represented in the
regulated course of the Christian life, by means of theology, so the
Charisma of speaking with tongues was made known in Christian
poetic art, and church singing. — The eKaaro^ does not exactly
signify that no Christian was without a Charisma, but, among
those having a Charisma, some have one, some another. — In ver.
27, Kara Bvo is to be understood " certainly two," i.e. in every
assembly two, and that these should speak successively, i. e. ava
^ipo^, and not at the same time. By this means the impression
of the jxalveorOat of the entire body was avoided, and the beneficial
operation remained which was subservient to the ry\(oaaai^ XaXelv
eh arjfiecov Tol<i dirtcrTOi^. The eh BL€p/jL7]veveT0) in ver. 27 is not
favourable to Wieseler's hypothesis. He thus explains the words
[see work already quoted, p. 720], " Let one, not several at a
time, interpret." But according to his own theory, this is a per-
fectly superfluous direction ; by his own showing, none could in-
terpret save the speaker having the gift of tongues. In order to
parry this meaning, he therefore interprets these words at plea-
sure, one should interpret after the other, as one after the other
speaks with the tongues. But the words evidently convey the
precept, that they should not speak with the tongues, unless one
at least was in the assembly who could interpret, — In ver. 28,
the eavT(b \aXelv koI @eo) corresponds with the eavrov oIko^
hofjuelv of ver. 4.).
Ver. 29 — 31. It was precisely the same with the gift of 7r/oo<jf>9^-
reia : here also they were not all to speak together, but in order,
that every one might contribute whatever was in his power to
the general edification. It will be naturally understood that in-
terpretation was not necessary to the prophets ; instead of this, it
was called ol oXXol hiaKpivercocrav. It has been already observed
in the general remarks upon ver. 1, that the gift of hidKpLcn<i
TrpevfjLaTwv gave occasion to perceive that the prophets were not
absolutely a pure medium of the divine Spirit ; their old and not
yet sanctified nature gave expression to much that had to be
distinguished (1 John i. 4.). It was only in the apostles that the
potency of the Spirit revealed itself with a power so mighty and
manifold, that error retreated before them, while in themselves
the one gift immediately supplied another, so that their revelations
were subjected to no further hidfcpiai^. We may very probably
232 FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 32, 33.
infer that with those who exercised the gift of tongues, the calm
and clear-sighted interpreter undertook also the Sta/cptort?. (In
ver. 29 the article in ol aWot admits a reference to other not
exactly active prophets, but not to all persons who were present.
Ver. 37 decidedly confirms this supposition.).
Ver. 32, 33. To prove immediately the practicability of these
directions, the apostle concludes by laying down the principle,
that according to God's will and command, the spirits of the pro-
phets are subject to the prophets, i.e. the prophets should not allow
themselves to be impelled as if free from the restraints of the Spirit
{(pepeaOat), but should rather conduct with regularity, and in per-
fect consciousness, the higher powers existing in them (dyeo-Oai).
(See thereon the remarks on Rom. viii. 14.). This is founded
upon the lawfulness resting in the divine Being (elpijvr] = rd^t^,
ver. 40), which excludes all disorder (aKaTaaTaa-Lo), and therefore
could not admit any thing of like nature in the exercise of the gifts.
This important principle places an effectual bar to all enthusiasm
and every fanatical attempt, and especially checks the attributing
any undue importance to somnambulism or other ecstatic condi-
tion which would be induced by the absence of self-consciousness.
All fanatics have ever asserted that the Spirit impels them, and
has commanded this or that. According to Paul's representation,
the Spirit (presupposing that it is holy) shall not only yield to an
examination of his claims, but the prophet who is filled with the
Spirit shall also not yield himself implicitly to the higher power,
hut he himself shall diy^ect it. But we may ask, according to
this principle is not the divine rendered subordinate to the hu-
man ? This is only apparently the case, for that which in the
prophet rules over the Spirit is in effect only the divine in another
form of revelation. In the highest powers the Spirit always re-
veals itself as individual knowledge ; the condition in which this is
subdued or appears disturbed must be gradually overpowered and
elevated into a clear perception. That the mighty powers gene-
rated by the Gospel should at the commencement intoxicate, as
it were, the infant church, and excite a crowd of beatific emo-
tions, was more than natural. It was especially thus with the sus-
ceptible Corinthians ; they were overpowered by the bounty and
goodness of God's house, and rejoiced as though they were al-
ready in the kingdom of God. But this marriage of love, this
FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 34 — 37. 233
happy commencement of Christ's operation in mankind, could and
dared not continue ; the prophets must be rulers over their spirits,
the great struggle after the knowledge of God must arise"
which was to pervade the church, and is still maintained in
it; in order that the Lord may not only be in us, but we also in
him.
Ver. 34, 35. The deviation of the Corinthians from the right
exercise of the Charismata was further shown in permitting wo-
men who were possessed of the gifts (for such alone can be in-
tended) to speak in public. This is reproved by the apostle,
appealing likewise to the word of God (Gen. iii. 16.). Women
were to be submissive to their husbands in all things, and to
learn, but not to teach. To what purpose, we may then ask,
were they endowed by God with the gifts, if they were prohibited
the exercise of them ] We read in Acts xxi. 9 that the four
daughters of Philip had the gift of iTpod>r)Teia. To this we an-
swer, they might apply these gifts to their own private edifica-
tion (xiv. 4), or employ them in the same manner to the advan-
tage of others, but not in public assemblies. (In ver. 34 XaXelv
is to teach, to instruct. See John vii. 46, xii. 48 ; Heb. i. 1. —
The iTTLTirpaiTTac bears reference to ecclesiastical statutes. See
xi. 16. — Lachmann has given the preference to the readings eVi-
Tpkirerai and vTroTaacriadwaav, which I should also recommend
did it not appear improbable that the more difficult and usual form
had arisen out of the more easy.)
Vers. 36, 37. The great stress which the apostle lays on this
precise point leads us to suppose that the Corinthians had proved
themselves especially stubborn in this particular. Probably some
women had possessed the gift of tongues in an eminent degree,
and their exercise of this power had been the source of much joy.
So much the more Paul feels called upon to remind them, that
they (the Corinthians) receiving the Word of God through the
agency of teachers, must conduct themselves in all things agree-
ably to the general custom of the Church and (what was certainly
in his mind, if not uttered) his apostolic commands. Those like-
wise who knew themselves to be possessors of spiritual gifts were
especially called upon for obedience in this particular, as his ad-
monition regarded not his yv(o/jL7], but a decided commandment of
the Lord. (See on this the Comm. on vii. 1.). He who chose to re-
main ignorant of such a command, thereby perilled his salvation.
234 FIRST CORINTHIANS XIV. 39—40.
—Billroth has justly observed, that this was said with reference to
the observance of the last point, that women were not to teach pub-
licly. Paul had certainly no communication from the Lord regarding
the other declarations concerning the employment of the Charis-
mata. For this reason the reading received by Lachmann oti
Tov Kvpiov ear IV evrokr) is preferable. The plural has been sub-
stituted by those transcribers who applied the principle in the
text to the whole contents of the chap. xiv. (Concerning Ka-
ravTao) see xi. 11. — If irvevixarLKo^ is here distinct from Trpo-
(jyijTrjf;, the former expression decidedly indicates not only the
ryXcoacrats \a\(ov (as Baur, p. 644, considers), but all forms of the
Charismata, the signification of the words being, " If any possess
the gift of prophecy, or any other gift of the Spirit." The pos-
session of any spiritual gift supposes in the possessor a certain
faculty for discerning the presence and operation of the Spirit in
others. — 'ETrijivcoaKetv has here the additional signification " to
acknowledge," which form of expression has something of indul-
gence, Paul intimating by it that the minds of the Corinthians
would not wilfully strive against God.)
Vers. 39, 40. With a retrospective glance at xiv. 1, xii. 31,
the apostle now concludes his copious dissertation by again urging
to diligent prayer (for only so can the ^rfkovv exhibit itself toge-
ther with the gifts of grace), for the gift of irpo^rda : he permits
alone the speaking with tongues, and commands, under all circum-
stances, the observance of decency (antithesis of the ala^^pov, that
women speak in the assembly, ver. 35) and order (in opposi-
tion to the irregular speaking all at once, ver. 27, sqq.). (The
reading in ver. 39 accepted by Lachmann /cal to XaXelv /jltj
Kco\v6T€ y\(i}a(TaL<; or eV yXcoaaac^i, can only be considered an
error of transcription in the Codd. In no single passage is yXcoa-
aat^i separated from Xakelv^ hiit iv y\(ooro-aL<i XaXetu never occurs
as the name of the Charisma [which would support Bleek's hypo-
thesis] ; for in ver. 19 iv ryXooaay is to be understood iv %a/3tcr-
/juaTL T(av yXoyaacov. — Baur (p. 640) concludes from the /jurf
K(oXv€T€, that there were persons in Corinth who desired the
suppression of the gift of tongues, in consequence of the abuses
that it produced. But this supposition is not sufficiently grounded ;
it appears more likely that Paul added the conclusion in this
form, in order to prevent future misunderstanding of his opinions,
or the idea that he would altogether banish the gift of tongues.)
( 235 )
IV.
PART FOUETH.
(xv. 1 — xvi. 24.)
§ 12. THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY.^
(XV. 1—58.)
This likewise very important section contains first (ver. 1 — 11)
the information, that the doctrine of Christ's resurrection, which,
as an historical fact, is perfectly ascertained, is a most essential
part of the system of Christian teaching. The importance of
this dogma of the resurrection for Christians especially is there
averred (ver. 12 — 24), and it is shown that our belief of our own
resurrection resting on that of Christ, any doubt of the one must
affect our faith in the other, as a natural consequence. Such
sceptics were to be found even in Corinth (ver. 12), and the
apostle warns others against their corruptions in the most em-
phatic manner (ver. 33, 34.). Paul then illustrates the life after
the resurrection (ver. 35 — 58) and the glorification of the mate-
rial, by showing its analogy to a growing grain of corn, proving
1 The doctrine of the resurrection of the body has recently been the subject of much
exegelic comment, in consequence of the investigation instituted concerning the escha-
tology and the doctrine of immortality in. particular. The principal works besides
Krabbe's well-known work on the subject, which may be compared with Man's Criti-
cism (in the joint theological work by Pelt. pt. 2), Weigel's Abhandlung ueberdieur-
christliche Unsterblichkeitslehre (Stud. 1836, pt. 3.4), Lange ueber die Auferstehung
des Fleisches (idem 1836, pt. 3), and Eine Kritik der Schriften von Weisse, Goeschel,
Fichte, by Jul. Mueller, which were called forth by Richter's writing " ueber die letzten
Dinge" (idem 1835, pt. 3.). The purely speculative writings, such as those recently ex-
nmined by Mueller and others, are not noticed.
8
236 FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 1—4.
that in the resurrection the perishable body became imperish-
able. This corporeal change would be experienced by all, even
those who were living at the Lord's second coming ; and death
would be finally conquered, and everlasting life brought to light
by this glorious transformation.
Vers. 1, 2. The first paragraph of this chapter shows us that
not only the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead (mentioned
in Heb. vi. 2 as one of the principles of Christianity), but that
also the fact of Jesus' resurrection was considered most impor-
tant in the course of instruction adopted in Christian antiquity.
As Christianity is essentially based upon history, and that not only
upon human but sacred history, on acts of the living God, which
as such are the fruition of the most elevated ideas, so it is ex-
pressly founded upon the fact of the resurrection as the great
keystone of our Lord's mission, of which the ascension was the
necessary consequence, (See Comm. on Matt, xxviii. 1 ; Acts
i. 11.). The apostles therefore first appear, not as teachers but
witnesses ; they deliver what they have experienced, or, like Paul,
received. The TrapaXafi/Sdvetv is here employed by Paul him-
self as in xi. 23, not as signifying a receiving from men, but from
the Lord himself. The apostle recommends his readers to hold
fast that which he has delivered to them, and not to allow them-
selves to err with respect to it. (In ver. 1, the 'ypcopi^co has from
the connexion the signification of " to call back to remembrance."
The evayyektov refers here particularly, as ver. 3, sqq. shows, to
the joyful message of the resurrection of the crucified Saviour by
which his great work was sealed. — 'EarrjKaTe has as usual a pre-
sent meaning. The apostle indulgently considers the Corin-
thians as yet maintaining the faith unshaken, though threatened
with danger ; the ei Karex^re [ver. 2] alludes to this hazard of
their salvation. The construction of the whole sentence is to be
explained by attraction, so that the words must regularly run
thus : yva^pb^co vfuv tlvl Xoyw [in which form of the doctrine] to
evayyekiov evrjyyeXLcrd/jLTjv. — The concluding phrase e/cro? el fjuy
K. T. \. refers only to the acol^eade. [See concerning the pleo-
nastic form eKTo^i el p.r) on xiv. 5.]. It will of course be supposed
that the KaTer^eiv is not to be understood only as preserving in
the memory, but holding fast in a living faith.)
Ver. 3, 4. This passage, in connexion with Eph. iv. 4 — 6,
3
FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 5—8. 237
Heb. vi. 1, sqq., 1 John iv. 2, constitutes the symbol of the
apostolic church. In the places quoted, the various doctrines re-
lative to the person of the Redeemer are assumed to be understood,
but here they are stated, and other doctrines are not especially
mentioned. The Trpwra, aynong which he names the following
subjects, are the de/juiXta or crroLx^la quoted in Heb. vi. 1, sqq.
The expression irpSyra does not consequently signify the origin
but the 2m/>or^an^ points of the Christian doctrine. Death, burial,
and resurrection, are the objects which, in accordance with his in-
tention, are held up to view by Paul ; burial is alone to be con-
sidered as the decided perfecting of death , this is not therefore
expressly said to be confirmed by the Scriptures, although Isa,
iii. 9, might be alleged in confirmation. Death and resurrection
are on the contrary necessarily correlative. Resurrection pre-
supposes death, death without resurrection following could not
warrant salvation, or any death be eU d(j)eaLv twv afiapTccov. (By
the addition Kara ra? ypa(j)d^, Paul intends to represent the
preaching of Christ's death and resurrection as the fulfilment of
all the prophesies of the Old Testament, so that the latter were
renounced if the resurrection were denied. With reference to the
death, he evidently had in mind such passages as Ps. xxii., Isa.
liii., and it is possible that, with reference to the resurrection,
typical prophecy, such as the history of Jonah [see on Matt. xii.
40, vi. 4], to which also Ps. xvi. 10, and Hosea vi. 1.2, might be
added, presented themselves.).
Ver. 5 — 8. Paul now mentions various relative occurrences, in
order to strengthen the reality of the fact. These have been in-
dividually considered and commented upon in the account of the
resurrection given in Matt, xxviii. 1, sqq., as well as the statement
which so decidedly speaks against any mythic view of the resur-
rection, that more than five hundred brethren were present, of
whom many were still living. Evangelical history makes us no
further acquainted with the circumstances under which James saw
the Lord. Without doubt it is the brother of our Lord who is
mentioned, subsequently Bishop of Jerusalem, and who, accord-
ing to John vii. 5, could not believe in Jesus. This reappearance
might have convinced him of Christ's divinity, for we find him
ever after (see on Acts i. 14) in the company of the apostles.
Concerning the reason that Paul includes the appearance vouch-
238 FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 9 — 12.
safed to himself with the before mentioned, see in Comm. vol.
ii. on Acts i. 9 — 11. — In ver. 8, eKrpco/jia = ^53, is unripe
fruit, untimely birth of eKTirpaxTKeiv} and the context shows
upon what ground the apostle so styles himself.)
Ver. 9, 10. The remembrance that the church is to be extended
by his labours accompanies the apostle throughout his life. He
expresses himself here as in Ephes. iii. 8 ; 1 Tim. i. 15. The
greatness of the divine mercy however kept pace with the great-
ness of his sins ; the enemy of Jesus was called to be his apostle,
and he, obeying the summons with faith, laboured more abundantly
than they all, or rather grace working through him. These re-
marks were necessary in this place to confute the antagonists of
his authority. It has been already observed (Exposition of Epist.
Bom. p. 7) that the extended activity of Paul was in a great mea-
sure due to the fact that the Jews were not included in his mis-
sion. The Twelve being especially appointed for them, their field
of labour was more circumscribed. That the words ovk ijco Be,
a\X rj %apfc<? rov ©eov, do not abrogate liberty needs no proof.
Augustine rather is perfectly right, when he remarks on this pas-
sage, Nee gratia Dei sola, nee ipse solus, sed gratia cum illo !
Ver. 11. Paul now proceeds to state expressly the perfect har-
mony subsisting between himself and the other apostles, in order
to prevent any occasion for supposing that in this respect there
existed a difference of doctrine between them ; this makes the ir-
regularities of false teachers the more apparent, and we may be-
sides conclude with certainty from this slight allusion, that the
opposition offered to Paul and his authority by parties in Corinth
had not assumed so decided a form when the first epistle was
written as when the second was sent, in which the apostle (chap,
xi. 12) expressed himself far more strongly.
Ver. 12. The errors of these persons are thus expressed: Xiyova-t
T«/69 ip xfjMv, on avdaraG-i^ veKpSiV ovk eanv. The rivh iv
vfjblv does not justify the acceptation of foreigners, who had only
for some time resided in Corinth ; it signifies members of the
church. But the words ort avdaraai^ veKpwv ovk ecrrtv cannot
1 Fritzsche, in his Diss, in Epist. ii. ad Corinth, p. 60, not., has well proved that
Schulthess is mistaken in supposing that the exTpw/ua should be translated " posthum-
ous, born in old age.
FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 12. 239
possibly mean that Jesus is not risen from the dead, for eK veKpwv
would then be employed, but that the general resurrection looked
for, will not take place. In the Introduction to the Epistle to
the Corinthians (§ 1) it has been already observed that we may not
regard those Epicureans, nor those formerly Sadducees, as promul-
gators of this view, for neither of these sects exercised a direct influ-
ence on the church. Billroth likewise remarks very appositely that
ver. 32 opposes this idea, for it states that the very defenders of
the view themselves abhorred such a principle, (fxiycofjiev koX irio)-
fiev K. T. X. It would therefore certainly be more correct to sup-
pose it was the Christianer who tolerated this opinion. (See In-
trod. to this Epistle, § 1.). These, imbued with a Gnostic,
spiritual bias, might easily take offence at the resurrection of the
body, in which a gross materialism appeared to them to exist. It
is possible that, like Hymenseus and Philetus, they imderstood
the dvdcrraaL<; spiritually. Of them it is said, 2 Tim. ii. 18, Xe-
yovTe<^ Tr}v dvcLG-Taaiv ijBr] yeyovivat, which without doubt signi-
fies that they regarded the spiritual quickening of the world,
effected through Christ, as the promised resurrection. Only we
might hesitate, and ask how, with such principles, these heretics
understood Christ's resurrection 1 The whole discussion shows
that they did not deny this, for Paul's argument is always this : if
there is no resurrection of the dead, then cannot Christ have
arisen. This conclusion is only intelligible when " which ye
acknowledge and would also not have denied" is supplied. We
must therefore unhesitatingly admit that the false teachers had not
yet developed their views as a perfect system ; they rather tended
towards a doketic conception of the whole life of Jesus, as dis-
played in their principles at a later period. But if they had early
and decidedly uttered such opinions, Paul would immediately have
resolutely opposed them and required their excommunication.
Billroth has expressed himself in a very remarkable manner upon
this passage. He asserts that the same apprehensions prevailed
in Corinth which had arisen in Thessalonica (1 Thess iv. 15,
sqq.). These believers feared that the faithful who died before
the coming of Christ would have no portion in the kingdom of
God, and the learned man quoted, thinks that individuals in
Corinth entertained the same opinion. But between the po-
sition of the Thessalonians and these Christians there existed
240 FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 13, 14.
a very important difference ; for the former, who were scarcely-
converted, and had only enjoyed for the space of a few weeks
the apostolic instruction, were in uncertainty concerning the
course of events in the establishing of God's kingdom.
They did not hesitate at the dogma of the resurrection, but
doubted if their dead were already risen to the kingdom of God ;
in a word, the difference between the first and second resurrec-
tion was unknown to them. But the Corinthian Christians, as
well as the two individuals named, Hymenseus and Philetus,
doubted the doctrine of the resurrection itself. They were well
acquainted with it, but held it to be a Jewish-materialist opinion,
and believed in a pure continuing of the spirit without material
covering, the employment of which in relation to the spirit ap-
pearedto them possibly as pollution. If Billroth's supposition were
correct, Paul would have expressed his idea very unsuitably, for the
main point of the whole dissertation ought to have been the re-
mark only incidentally mentioned by Paul, that the dead arise,
but the living shall be changed (ver. 51, 52), whilst the argument
in favour of the resurrection entirely appropriates the first place.
— If, in conclusion, Mueller (Stud. 1835, part iii., p. 748, note) and
Weizel (idem. 1836, part iv., p. 909) imagine that in the pas-
sages quoted from our chapter, they may infer that no difference
is made in the New Testament between avdcrraai^ veKpSyv and
eK v€Kpcov, they are clearly mistaken, for when dvdaTaat^ veKpcov
occurs (ver. 13, 21, 42) it relates generally to awakening from
death. The expression is consequently entirely according to my
definition ; but where the special reference is to Christ (ver. 12)
€/€ v6Kp(ov is correctly applied.
Vers. 13, 14. Paul then draws the most important deductions
from the conclusion that, if there be no resurrection, Christ cannot
be risen. These affect first the apostles, for then their preach-
ing could be nothing and their faith even vain. It is evident
that this argument only applies if the dvd(Tra(n,<; is understood as
transfiguration of the corporeal, and therefore an overcoming of
death, as already laid down on Matt, xxviii. 1. Had the apostle
only thought of a reanimation of the body or substantial change
in it, Jesus might be reanimated without proving anything for a
general resurrection, even as Lazarus was reanimated in an un-
usual manner, but only subsequently to die again. If on the
FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 15. 241
contrary the avao-raai^ is understood as a glorifying of tlie ma-
terial, the restoration of a a&iJba TTvevixariKov, and it should be
asserted to be absolutely impossible ; so naturally the resur-
rection of Jesus himself is denied, or can only be maintained
by an inconsequent application of the principle. Billroth is
therefore perfectly right when he draws attention to the necessity
of urging the conformity of Christ's substance with man's ; other-
wise it might be said, Christ can have an advantage beyond that
of all other men ; he may have arisen as a distinguishing sign, it
does not follow that others also must rise again. But his resur-
rection concerning even the true corporeal body, it is impossible
that this should be glorified and yet unchanged. (I prefer the
reading Trtcrrt? tj/jloov to the more usual vjjlmv. The latter might
easily have been adopted here from ver. 17. The tj/jloov throws
especial light on the context, showing us that, after amply
dilating on the evil consequences to the apostles arising from such
a doctrine, Paul proceeds to state its influence on the whole
church. See on ver. 17, 18.).
Ver. 15. A condition is now supposed highly derogatory to
the apostles, the mention of which is again introduced with Se
KaL The apostles would be false witnesses, having testified of
a fact, not willed by God, that it was his deed, if the assertion
of the antagonists were well grounded. The idea is carried out
in three positions. First, it states that the preaching of the
apostles, drawing its power chiefly from the announcement of the
resurrection, would be without effect, and their labour conse-
quently vain. Next, their personal belief would be void, if Christ
were not arisen. Lastly, they would be false witnesses, sinners,
if they testified to a fact which could not take place. We may
observe how the reading Tr/o-rt? v^ioyv (ver. 14) interrupts the
connexion. (The expression yjrevSojjLdpTupe^; rov ©eov is best
explained with Grotius by " witnesses who misemploy the name
of God as testimony ;" so that the Kara rov Qeov which follows
is exegetical. Billroth, on the contrary, considers the geni-
tive as gen. subj. " witnesses of God, who however are false wit-
nesses ;" but this interpretation appears to me to possess a degree
of severity. — The elirep dpa, "if it were otherwise, as ye assert,"
argues e concessis. When it is affirmed [see Winer's Gr. p. 416,
Billroth also agreeing] that dpa is employed in preference in
242 FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 16 — 20.
stating the demonstration arising from heterogeneous assertions,
I can by no means coincide. In this place dpa is certainly not
a conclusive particle, but an expression of astonishment, which
is the original signification of the word [see Hartung's Partikel-
lehre, vol. i. p. 422], so that the passage is to be understood,
" if it were otherwise, as ye wrongly suppose," &c.).
Vers. 16 — 18. Paul then passes to what is of general appli-
cation, and proves to his readers, that if there is no resurrec-
tion their own faith is as nothing, for neither they nor those
believers already dead could have forgiveness of sins. {'Airo-
Xiadai = iv dircoXela elvai stands parallel with the iv aTraprlai^
elvai.) As the forgiveness of sins appears closely linked to the
resurrection, and not to the death of Christ, it clearly establishes
the fact that both are necessary correlatives ; the resurrection
corresponds with death, vanquishing all by the resurrection, and
the death resembles the resurrection, inasmuch as by it death is
annulled. (See remarks on Rom. v. 25 ).
Vers. 19, 20. If therefore there were no resurrection, and con-
sequently no kingdom of God, no restoration of Paradise, the
Christians sacrificing everything in this life, in order to gain all
in the next, were certainly most worthy of compassion. But
Christ being security for our resurrection, the first-fruits only of
those who slept, the resurrection commenced with him. Billroth
justly remarks that airap^V r&v KCKotfjirj/jLevcov is not to be sup-
posed simple apposition to Christ, but as the prsedicate of the
whole sentence : Christ arises as first-fruits, i.e. in order to be
the first-fruits. This idea is striking, for it seems as if the
apostle might be answered : if the body is not raised, the spirit
of the men may yet continue to exist ; and to this it is indifferent
whether the life of the man has been one of stern self-denial,
or self-indulgence. But the apostle by no means recognises
the possibility of continuing to exist as a pure spirit without
bodily organs ; the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is as
unknown to the entire Bible, as the name ; and certainly truly,
because a personal perception in created beings is necessarily
counteracted by the limits of corporeality.i The modern doctrine
of immortality is not materially different from the supposition,
1 See Usteri's remarks in the Paul. Lehrbegr. p. 365, and the passage there quoted
from Athenagoras de Resurrect, c. 25.
FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 21, 22. 243
that the soul flows back, like a drop in the great sea of universal
life. The circumstance that, eyen according to the Bible view,
the soul must be considered self-subsisting in the interval between
death and resurrection, appears to contradict our opinion. But
first, the power of perception in this state, at least with many,
can only be regarded as a glimmering, for which reason the dead
are .called KeKOL/xrujuevot, without admitting an absolute want of
perception in them as the psychopannychites do ; secondly, it
must be supposed that a certain relation is always maintained
between the element of the body and the separated soul, intimate
in proportion to the sanctiiication of the organ which had invested
the soul on earth. (See further on this subject in my Opusc. TheoL
Diss, vii., p. 165, sqq.). Lastly, as Christ here is styled aTra/o;^^
Twv Ke/coifirj/jiivcov, so in Bev. i. 5, Col. i. 16, 6 TrpoororoKo^ t&v
veicp&v. Enoch and Elias likewise tasted not of death. (Gfen.
V. 24; 2 Kings ii. 11.). In the airap'^rj is not only contained
the idea of the first, the earliest, but also that of the most costly,
and as such dedicated to God.
Ver. 21, 22. In the same manner as in Bom. v. 12, sqq., (to
the explanation of which I beg to refer), only that there the re-
ference is pre-eminently to the spiritual life, Adam and Christ
are represented by the apostle as the hinge affecting the move-
ment of man's life. As Adam sinned not in himself alone, but
all in him, so in Christ's resurrection there is a resurrection of all.
To every one unprejudiced, it must be clear that the expression hi
avOpcoTTov, iv Ta> 'ASd/ju, indicates Adam not only as the beginner of
sin and its consequences, death, but as the origin,^ just as Christ
is the origin of life and its most elevated display the dvdaTaai<;.
The resurrection of the evil and the good is equally implied in the
TTCLVTe^ (see on John v. 29 ; Acts xxiv. 15.). Billroth thinks it
can only apply to the believers, as the others cannot be considered
iv XptcTTo), but Christ represents mankind, his power awakens
both good and evil ; for as human the former may be considered
in him, although they are immediately in judgement separated.
1 The present occurring in ver. 22 is worthy of remark, &.'rroQvri(TKov<ri. Commencing
with Adam, the process of decay was present in, and as it were advancing in the human
race, but with Christ began the principle of reanimation. But as however the reference
is hei-e pre-eminently to the resurrection of the body, the future ^ojoTrotijOnffovTat is em-
ployed.
32
244 FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 23.
Mueller also follows Billroth (Stud. 1835, pt. iii. p. 749) in re-
ceiving the ^o30iTotr]6r](TovTai as equivalent to the avdGTaat<; eh
^(OTjv. But ver. 23, sqq., which refers to the totality of the species,
seems to demand the application of the most extended sense to
the making alive. Those who defend the restoration might ap-
parently quote the Trayre? in favour of their views, hut how far
the paragraph justifies the doctrine, will he brought under con-
sideration in the Comm. on ver. 24 — 28.
Ver. 23. As according to the divine regulation everything de-
velops itself by degrees, so the new world of the arisen will be
gradually perfected ; Christ is the seed-corn of the same, and like-
wise the first early ripe fruit ; to himself succeed his own at his
second coming, afterwards at the end of the whole course of the
world, and the commencement of eternity, all the dead in the
graves shall arise. This passage is one of those from which we
may undeniably conclude that the New Testament acknowledged
and accepted the Jewish doctrine of the twofold resurrection, viz.
that of the righteous, and the general one. (See Bertholdt Christ.
Jud. p. 176, sqq., 203, sqq. : Eisenmenger entd. Judenth. vol. ii. p.
901, sqq.). This distinction has already been entered upon on Luke
xiv. 14 ; John v. 25, sqq. ; Acts xxiv. 15 ; the Apocalypse alone
fully developed the doctrine (xx. 5, sqq., xxi. 1, sqq.). Without
any foundation Billroth, following Usteri, declares that Paul's
doctrine deviates from that laid down in the Apocalypse ; the
Bevelation, treating the subject ex professo, is only more copious.
The circumstance that after the establishment of God's kingdom
Satan will be again unbound (Rev. xx. 7, sqq.), is truly not en-
tered upon by Paul, but nothing expressed by the apostle contra-
dicts the declaration. For the giving up of all dominion to the
Father, which is the subject of what follows, is to take place after
the coming of the kingdom of God, and consequently after Satan
is fully vanquished. Christ's dominion begins truly with his own
resurrection, and sitting at the right hand of God, but it appears
perfected with the Parousia, which is thenceforward the same with
the establishment of God's kingdom on earth (Acts i. 7.). If after
the elTa to TeXo9 the express mention of the general resurrection
of the good and bad does not occur, it is sufficiently accounted
for by the fact, that the apostle throughout the whole representa-
tion had ever the believers first in thought, for which reason we
FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 24—28. 245
shall find from ver. 40, sqq., only a description of the bodies of the
blessed, and not of those of the unhappy also, is given. But though
not expressly uttered, it is necessarily included in the idea. The
€f€acrTo<; iv tu> Ihlcp Tdyfiarc shows that Paul desired to describe the
gradual order of the resurrection, and as the eha to reXo? plainly
joins the eirecTa, the expression must inclusively signify the ge-
neral resurrection. This opinion is rejected by Weizel (see Avork
already quoted, p. 915.). But it is most certain that the resur-
rection of the godly men of the Old Testament with Christ is not
here mentioned, and therefore the views of those who apply Matt,
xxvii. 52, 53, only to apparitions of the dead find powerful sup-
port in our passage. This opinion has been particularly advanced
by Steudel.
Vers. 24 — 28. The apostle considers himself called upon to
define more closely the nature of this reXo^;, and to place it in
juxtaposition with Christ's ^aaCkela. The whole passage is the
more remarkable as it stands alone in the holy Scriptures, for even
the Apocalypse contains no such information as that conveyed
by Paul. Mention alone is made of the new heaven and the new
earth (Kev. xxi. 1, the establishment of the /cTtVt? has already
taken place in the Parousia ; see on Rom. viii. 19), without any
explanation of the relation of the Redeemer to this new condition
of things. But precisely because this information stands so iso-
lated, the difficulties contained in it are nearly incapable of solu-
tion. If we take into consideration first the description of the
l^acrCKeia of Christ, the prophecies of the Old Testament, Ps. ex.
1, viii. 7, lead the apostle to infer^ that Christ's dominion shall
\)Q universal. All enemies shall be placed under his feet, but
the last enemy^ subdued is death. This is effected by means of
the general resurrection, consequently Christ's kingdom extends
as far as this termination. Though the Father has subjected all
things to the Son, it is nevertheless manifest that he is to be ex-
cepted from the things placed under him ; he rather exalts the
Redeemer, in so far as he took man's nature on himself, Ps, ex. 1,
1 Concerning tlie mention of the Messiahship in Ps. ex. and Ps. viii. see farther on
Heb. i. 2. The 8th Psalm refers first especially to man, but inasmuch as the idea of
manhood was truly realized in the Messiah, certainly to him. (See Umbreit's Er-
klarung des achten Psalms in the Stud. 1838, part 3.).
2 The expression Eo-xaros kydpo's contains not only a reference to the period of the
victory but also to \,\\q greatness of its resistance. The overcoming death demands tlie
highest revelation of the ^wjj.
246 FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 24 — 28.
i. e. the Father reigns through the Son. It is evident that
in this description Paul makes no difference between the hidden
and revealed kingdom of Christ. (See Comm. on Matt. iii. 2.).
Although the evil has a predominating power over the good in
the alcov ovto^, nevertheless the kingdom of Christ is intimately
and truly present in the latter, and further daily displays it-
self In his Parousia the good will indeed in the alwv jmeWcov,
gain dominion over the wicked, but the evil is not absolutely
removed until the general resurrection totally destroys death.
This explanation appears favourable to a general restoration,
for the enemy is only truly vanquished when he is transformed
to a friend, the plus of power alone cannot be a reason for
Christ's victory, for that was his from the beginning. But
death is first really done away with when the ^coij has drawn
all things in its nature ; as long as the other death reigns over
a portion of creation (Rev. xxi. 8) it appears yet to maintain
its sway. This impression is considerably strengthened by the
further description of the nature of the T6X09 in ver. 24 and
28. It states in the first verse that the Son yields the do-
minion to the Father when he has destroyed all power (the
second orav is to be considered antecedent to the first, the
Karapr^elv Svvafjucv is still an act of his authority) ; or in other
words that he will destroy his own as well as all other domi-
nion, and give them over to the Father. (Concerning 0eo9 Kal
irarrip see on 2 Cor. i. 3.). It is evidently an assertion without
ground to maintain that the parallel expressions ap^^, e^ovaia,
Bvva/jLt<; indicate only the various classes of bad angels, or earthly
powers and governors ; the Trdaa which is added and even re-
peated may signify good and bad, or briefly all dominion without
exception, as the power of the Son is included in the removal.
God remains sole Lord, for, according to ver. 28, the Son him-
self is subject to him, in order that he may be ra iravra iv
iraaiv. How can we comprehend this idea ? In the destroying
all dominion is evidently included the removal of all distinction,
therefore the restoration of equality. That which human impru-
dence mischievously desires to realize in this sinful world, free-
dom and equality among men, the Spirit of the Lord effects in a
lawful manner. The possibility and necessity for dominion depends
only upon the fact that self-control, and the consciousness of
FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 24 — 28. 247
the highest aims, are wanting not only in the individual, but
in the whole race of man. Were self-government proportionate
in all beings, we might say that all dominion is destroyed ;
the ruling principle, the Spirit of God, is equal in all. The idea
would therefore be similar to the prophecy in the Old Testament,
which promises that the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the
earth as the waters cover the sea, that one shall no more enquire
of the other, because every one knows and observes his own
standard in all things. (Isa. xi. 9 ; Habak. iii. 14.). We must
accordingly regard the individuality as preserved in the removal
of the dominion, for we are not speaking of the swallowing up of
the individual in the sea of the universe. For even of the Son
himself is said Trapahovvai Tr)v ^aaiXelav, the viroraryijvai tm
Trarpi does not refer to the merging of the Son's personality in
the divine substance (as the Logos was from the beginning separ-
ate from the Father [John i. 1], so he also remains in eternity
separate from him), but these expressions rather indicate the
dignity of Christ as Messiah, into which he en^tered by becoming
man. It is only of Christ as the Messiah, as the way and medi-
ator, that it can be said that God has put all things under him,
i.e. that God has surrendered the kingdom to him, and when
through his instrumentality all is atoned for, that terminates his
rule, all are come to God, God is in all, the Redeemer is then only
the first-born among many brethren (Rom. viii. 29) ; or on the
other side, those sanctified through him, are become like unto
him (1 John iii. 2.). But the whole argumentation only applies
when all is included in the meaning. For if a portion of God's crea-
tures remained excluded from the restoration after God's image, of
necessity this portion would need government ; to which may be
added, that the Xva § 6 ©eo? ra Trdvra iv Trdatv cannot be textu-
ally interpreted otherwise than so, that in all created things God
appoints all, accordingly the evil God resisting human will, finds
no more room for exercise. For if we assign its full signification
to TO, mavra, but limit the ev Trdat to those sanctified through
Christ, it appears perfectly discretionary to assign the most com-
prehensive sense to passages such as Rom. xi. 36, e^ avroi) koI
hi avTov KOL 66? avTov ra Trdvra. It cannot therefore be denied,
that if the restoration is sanctioned in any passage, it is in
248 FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 29.
this.j However the defenders of this doctrine should not over-
look the fact, that neither here nor in any other passage of the
sacred Scriptures is the final leading back of all evil men, yea,
even demons and Satan himself, laid down as an open and de-
cided form of doctrine ; this circumstance is calculated to awaken
serious reflection as to the advisability of introducing such an
opinion or making it the subject of public instruction.
Ver. 29. After this digression the apostle returns to the
principal position, and argues first on the subject of the resurrec-
tion from the fiaTTTL^eadat virep tcop veKpoiv. This difiBcult ex-
pression is well known to have deeply engaged the attention of
exegetical writers, from which numerous explanations have arisen.
But before we proceed to examine the most important of these,
we shall attempt ourselves to elucidate the passage. It is evi-
dent that the connexion here is not so loose as Billroth, among
others, supposes. To the ^aTrrl^ea-dai, the Kivhweveiv of ver. 30
connects itself by means of the rt Kai, which is not to be ne-
glected. If we are not entitled exactly to attach the meaning of
*' the baptism of suffering" to the fiaTrri^eaOat, it is nevertheless
undeniable that with the idea of baptism is likewise intimated as
accessory all the sufferings which might affect the baptised. The
1 The most plausible argument against our explanation of the passage relative to the
restoration is this. The apostle treats in the whole chapter, of believers only and their
resurrection, as we have already observed on ver. 23 ; therefore the whole connexion
requires, that to the class restricted to " all believers, all who are in Christ," the irai/Tcs
X,tiooTrou]dvarovTaL (ver. 22), and the ev Trdan (ver. 28), should be also added. That
the evil arise, and what their possible fate may be, is not now entered upon by the apos-
tle, his doctrine in this respect must be ascertained from other examinations of the sub-
ject. (See on Kom. xi, 32.). Mueller likewise in the Stud. 1835, pt. iii. p. 749, has
given an explanation of Eom. viii. 11, and also Mau (Theolog. Mitarb. pt. ii. p. 104.').
Candour however compels us to confess that the first impression arising from the
apostolic representation is not favourable to these explanations, even omitting the fact
that the absolute removal of dominion and death appears to exclude the possibility of
continuing death's dominion over any portion of creation. The verses 23, sqq. are of
a nature to lead us to infer that the apostle comprehended all mankind in the view
taken, because he speaks of the end, consequently of the general resurrection of all.
Weizel (Stud. 1836, pt, iv. p. 909) is of my opinion. This opinion appears yet more to
commend itself to our consideration ivhen we reflect, thai Paul never openly speaks of
the resurrection of the wicked. However there certainly appear in the Holy Scriptures,
and doubtless from wise motives, apparently contradictory doctrines on this important
point ; and for this reason we should do well to leave them in the hieroglyphical uncer-
tainty in which they have been given to us. (Concerning Paul's description of the last
judgement, see further the observations on Rom. ii. 6 — 8.).
FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 29. 249
TL [loi TO 6(^eko<i of ver. 32 is however to be considered as an in-
terpretation of the TL TTOirja-ovacv (ver. 29), Siud 7roi,6lv= ^i^v is
T T ~
accordingly to be received in the sense of " to gain somewhat, to
acquire something, to attain." The construction would then
shape itself thus : for what then would they gain who (at a later
period) received baptism 1 (The answer implied is : they would
not only gain nothing, but would be, as stated in ver. 19, the
most miserable among mankind.) For what reason should
we ourselves, who have long taken upon us the profession of
Christians, tempt the dangers which hourly await us in that cha-
racter 1 To what purpose the daily strivings, if there were no
resurrection, and no eternal reward in Christ's kingdom 1 But
it must be evident that the explanation of ver. 29 is closely linked
with the verses preceding the 24th, and that the declaration con-
cerning the Te\o9 (ver. 24 — 28) appears only a digression. In
ver. 23 the ol tov XptaTov are represented as those participating
next in order to Christ in that resurrection of which he was the
first-fruits ; and this idea, taken in connexion with the eVet tI
TTOLTiaovaiv of ver 29, authorises the construction which follows :
" For were it not so, if believers were not to arise at Christ's
coming, what would those gain who had received baptism?"
Billroth's conception of iroielv appears to me entirely erroneous.
He translates : what will they do who permit themselves to be bap-
tised \ Answer : something very foolish. But for what purpose
employ the future thus X He says it may be explained, quid eos
facere apparebit, or quid ii facere invenientur ? But allow-
ing that it is capable of being so understood, although a difficulty
presents itself, such admission entirely destroys the connexion
with what precedes, and which we think is sufficiently evident.
There still remains that difficult form paTTTL^eoOai virep twv
veKpoiv to be explained, a passage hitherto received as if only
/SaTTTi^eaOat stood, of which the signification could not be mis-
taken. It is highly important that the article should stand here
{twv veKpwv) which is in the tea:t. rec. immediately repeated in
what follows, but in this passage avTcov is decidedly to be pre-
ferred. The use of the article does not imply dead persons with-
out distinction, but the allusion is to certain well-known dead.
The connexion with ver. 23 shows the reference to be to those de-
parted in the Lord. If we maintain this reference it thence au-
250 FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 29.
pears that vwep cannot here mean " instead," for the dead are
certainly already baptised, but that it signifies "for, to the
advantage of." But how far can the apostle declare that be-
lievers about to be added to the church were baptised for
the advantage of the dead ? Inasmuch as a certain number, a ttXt;-
pcofjLa of believers is required (see on Rom. xi. 12, 25) which must
be complete before the Parousia, and with it the resurrection,
can take place. Every one therefore who receives baptism be-
nefits thereby the body of believers, those already dead in the
Lord. This conception appears to me to explain the passage ;
all other expositions^ bear traces of weakness on important points.
Billroth has again quoted the explanation of the haptismus vica-
rius. Tertullian (adv. Marc. v. 10) mentions this as only a he-
retical custom, which is also confirmed by Epiphanius (Haer.
xxviii. c. 6) ; but it is incredible that so early as the apostolic
times a superstition of this nature, in which the living became as
it were proxy for the dead in baptism, should have existed, or
become so general, that the allusion to it should have been uni-
versally understood. But allowing this, what has given rise to
the supposition that Paul sanctions so rank a superstition ? An
authority for the ^aiTTi^ecrOai virep robv veicpcdv is undoubtedly
found in the passage, for it is evident that the foundation of the
whole question is tlie opinion that, if the dead arise, they gain
something by means of the jSaTTTL^ecrOat virep twv ve/cpwv. To
this may be added that, in such a view, the article must be
omitted before veKpwv. Billroth endeavours to explain it by sup-
posing that certain dead persons were intended, it might be rela-
tives or friends, in whose place the Paini^opLevoi suffered them-
selves to be baptised. But if this explanation fails, neither
baptising on the graves of martyrs (of which custom not a trace
existed in the apostolic ages^), nor the being baptised to the
confession of the resurrection, which cannot be literally expressed
1 Especially in the writings of Calov, Wolf, and Heumann on this subject; the
greater part of these however contradict themselves so fully as to require no other re-
futation.
2 The custom which undoubtedly existed in later times (Euseb. H. E. iv. 15. August,
de Civ. Dei xx. 9) of baptising upon the graves of the martyrs, may possibly have arisen
from a misunderstanding of the present passage.
3 This explanation is the prevalent one among the Catholic Fathers. They argue
from the practice of their times, accojding to which the persons to be baptised confessed
FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 29. 251
by imep rwv v6Kp(ov, or being baptised in the name of those already
dead, can lay claim to be recognized. The latter explanation
would indeed according to the meaning be most appropriate, if only
the form fiairri^ea-Oat virep instead of ek, or eV ovofiaTi, were gram-
matically supported, and the plural were not so at variance with the
article, as by the dead who are baptised, only Christ can be under-
stood. The explanation propounded by Superintendent Meyer
(in the Hannoeverschen Nachrichten von Brandis und Rupstein
Jahrg. 1834, pt. iv. pp. 179, sqq.), according to the views of
Abresch and others (see Poli Synopsis ad h. 1.), appears to me
very difficult of reception. According to this, acojudrayv or fieXoov
is to be supplied to veKpoov, and the meaning to be : what shall avail
this grave of water (viewing baptism according to Eom. vi. as the
image of death and resurrection) for your dead members, if there
be no reanimation to expect 1 But in opposition to this, the fact
seems to deserve attention, that in this view the veKpoi'wovld be-
come the ^aTTTL^ofjuevoo themselves, in which case the idea would
certainly be more intelligibly expressed, Calvin considers the re-
ference is to those who, being near to death, were desirous of
receiving baptism before their end ; non tantum baptizantur, he
says, qui adhuc victuros se putant, sed qui mortem habent ante
oculos. But it is not very clear how this thought is to be found
in virep rwv veKpcov. — .In conclusion, I will not deny that a certain
feeling of doubt remains in my own mind with reference to the pas-
sage I have adduced relative to the 'jfKrjpwp^a of the church. The
idea is one so remotely bearing on the subject, that Paul could not
justly assume it would be correctly understood by all his readers.
Now the whole passage conveys the impression that Paul was
treating of what he felt was thoroughly comprehended. I there-
fore, with a view to further the explanation, propose to admit the
following modification, viz. to receive virep = avrl in the signi-
fication of "instead, in place," which presents no difficulty. (See
remarks in Comm. on Matt. xx. 28.). The tenor of Paul's writing
as far as ver. 19 was to show how, amid the self-denyings and
persecutions which awaited the Christian in this world, he would
belief in the resurrection of the dead, before baptism, and apply it to the circumstances
of apostolic times. But in the most ancient periods belief in Christ alone was indis-
pensable to baptism, as passages from Justin Martyr prove. (^See my Monum. Hist.
Eccl.vol.ii. p. 167.).
2
252 FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 30, 31 .
be the most miserable of men, if there were no resurrection. This
view of the misery of the Christian in this world continues to form
the groundwork of the further argument. He endeavours to
prove that those persons who were haptisedin the place of those
members removed hy death from the church {virep rcov veKpwv),
would gain nothing thereby, if there were no resurrection for the
dead. And likewise the patient endurance of persecution by
those already Christians, having become so by baptism, would
profit them in no degree, if their reward was not to be found in
the resurrection. This view, it appears to me, commends itself
by its simplicity, and it is rather striking that it had not been
touched upon at an earlier period ; but we have only to suppose
that Paul considered, that as the ranks of the body of believers
were thinned by death, the deficiencies were supplied, and their
places filled by those newly baptised. What will these gain
thereby, Paul intends to say, or what will avail their being bap-
tised in the room of the dead, i. e. occupying the place of those
departed? if there should be no resurrection, there can exist for
neither the hope of reward, as an inducement to enter into the
conflicts which await the Christian. In this sense the koI is not
without signification in the sentence rl koI ^aTrri^ovrai, for what
reason do ye yet permit yourselves to be baptised ? is it not suf-
ficient that the dead have hoped in vain, why draw others into
error \ The rl kgI rj/jLeU kivBvv6vo/jl6v which follows in ver. 30
also connects itself thoroughly with this idea ; for, passing from
those who, after uselessly enduring sorrows and persecutions, have
died (supposing the hope of the resurrection to be proved a fal-
lacious one), Paul proceeds to mention the living members of the
church, who are foolishly sacrificing the certain for what is with-
out certainty. (Regarding the connexion of the phrases, Gries-
bach has connected the el oX&>? veicpol ovk iyclpovrai with what
precedes ; but with Lachmann I prefer connecting it with what
follows, as otherwise the phrase r/ kol, &c. seems inappro-
priate.)
Ver. 30, 31. The yfjueU indicates in the first place the apostle
himself, but in such a manner that all those belonging to the
church are represented as more or less in similar circumstances ;
the aTToOvTjcr/cco refers entirely to his individuality. (In ver. 31
aTToOvrjaKo) implies " to find oneself in danger of death." See
FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 32 — 34. 253
2 Cor. iv. 10, 11.— JVr;, though only occurring in the New Testa-
ment in this place, is very generally employed in the form of tak-_
ing an oath. — The reading rj/jterepav is evidently a change from
the more difficult v/jberepav, i.e. " by my glory, that I have in
you.").
Ver. 32 — 34. That the apostle was exposed to numerous
dangers in Ephesus, is shoVn hy Eom. xvi. 4, where it is said that
Priscilla and Aquila had offered themselves in his place. (See
also Acts XX. 19.). Nevertheless Oi^pioixa'xfiv must certainly
only be employed metaphorically, for Paul's privilege as a Koraan
citizen secured him from the arena. It is also improbable that
before Nero's persecution of the Christians, any were so ex-
posed on account of their faith. But the reference in the Kara
avdpwTTov is obviously to human and earthly affairs ; if these
were any spring of action, to what purpose the daily strife ? it
would be more prudent to enjoy the pleasures of life ! We may
observe that the apostle sets completely aside the possibility of a
pure spiritual existence; if there is no resurrection of the dead,
the destruction of the individual is unavoidable. Billroth cor-
rectly remarks on this passage, as we before noticed, that this by
no means implies a charge of epicurean principles against his an-
tagonists, on the contrary it supposes that they likewise enter-
tained a horror of such doctrines. The words are quoted strictly
from Isa. xxii. 13, according to the LXX. The two verses 33,
34 might easily be understood to contain Paul's counsel that the
better-disposed should entirely separate from the evil-minded ;
but this is not justified by the whole contents of the epistle ; and
even in the second epistle, so much more reproving in its tone,
nothing of the sort is to be found. I am therefore of Billroth's
opinion that the nvh, with whom they were advised to avoid as-
sociation, are not the persons mentioned in ver. 12, but possibly
foreign emissaries who laboured to introduce error into the church
in Corinth. We may however safely infer thus far, that Paul
desired by these strong expressions to signify what the result
might be, if the erring members of the Corinthian church failed
to return to the undefiled truth. (In ver. 33, concerning fxr)
irKavaaOe see vi. 9. — The quotation is, according to Jerome,
from Menander's Thais. On account of the iambic trimiters we
must read xpV^^\ which Lachmann has again inserted in the
254 FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 35 — 38.
text. — Only in ver. 34 does mvrj<^(o occur, tlie simpler form being
more frequently used in the New Testament. The compositum
alludes to the intoxicating nature of the evil influences already
at work. Ancalco^; here only defines the nature of this shame "in
a just and becoming manner." — The form ar^vwalav Oeov ex^iv
is not precisely the same as Oeov ov jvMvai, the latter is pure
negative, while in the former the a7z^a)cr/a itself becomes positive,
i.e. positive errors concerning God and divine things are con-
cealed in it.)
Vers. 35 — 38. It is plainly to be inferred from the fact of the
apostle now passing to the supposed inquiry into the nature of
the resurrection, and of the new body, that diff'erence of opinion
on the subject prevailed in Corinth. Although the d(f>p(ov is not
to be viewed as a decided characteristic of an individual or class
of persons, but may rather be regarded as a rhetorical form ; the
strict examination of the subject nevertheless sanctions the sup-
position that some (at least in Corinth) had given currency to opi-
nions that the same body was to arise which had been given to us
on earth. To the materialist Jewish Christian it was certainly
easy, especially when combating the inferences of Gnostically in-
clined Christians, to identify the body of the resurrection with
that of corruption, which was an error in no degree less than
that Gnostic tendency declaimed against by Paul from the
very first. The apostle seeks his proof in the image of the
grain of wheat (kokko^;) ; this, which is sown, i.e. entrusted to
the earth in order to be changed, is not identical with that
which springs forth (the crwyu-a ryevrjcro/jievov), but is only the
parent of that acj/jia, whose nature is permitted by God to be
after the nature of the grain of wheat. But this compari-
son does not appear to be entirely applicable, inasmuch as the
plant again produces as fruit the same wheat from which itself
was raised. Paul however has no intention of carrying his me-
taphor so far : he compares with the dead grain the fresh liv-
ing plant which springs into being from its decay, not the fruit.
His idea might also have included the blossom, in which the im-
pulse of the plant to exalt itself is most plainly manifested. The
formation of the fruit may be regarded as retrogression from the
highest point of perfection, because it involves in itself a return
to the first principle, and shows the conclusion of the entire course
FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 39 — 41. 255
to be at hand. (See concerning the tendency of nature to perfect
itself, which nevertheless sinks powerless back to its origin, the
remarks on Rom. viii. 19, sqq.) If Billroth understands in this
passage an allusion to the indwelling imperishableness of human
nature, it does not appear to me capable of this construction/ This
imperishableness must be the spirit essentially such, while the
apostle is treating of the capacity residing in the human organism
for producing a higher corporeality, by no means to be considered
without the Spirit, but which may nevertheless not be identified
with it. (In ver. 36 the reading acj^pwv employed by Lachmann
is doubtless preferable. The d(j)pov could only apply to the ques-
tion, which is by no means unreasonable, but only presupposes
the erroneous operation of the identity of the present with the
new body. — Ver. 37. The o airelpei^ — ov cnrelpei^ has been al-
ready correctly explained by Ileidenreich thus : quod seminas,
quodcunque id sit, non seminas cerjte plantamnascituram. — Con-
cerning el Tv^oi see remarks on xiv. 10.).
Ver. 39 — 41. Paul does not pursue the comparison to the end,
making it complete, but leaving the idea touched upon in ver.
38 that there are various kinds of seed, he passes to the variety
of formations existing in the universe. He first adverts to the
difference of substance of the adp^ in the various classes of crea-
tures (man being included here according to his animal nature.)
He then discriminates between heavenly and terrestrial organ-
i.sms and again among the heavenly bodies asserts that dif-
ferences exist in degree of glory. Calvin hns very judiciously
remarked that the tendency of the apostle's argument was not to
assert that, according to the degree of sanctification attained by
individual believers, the properties of their glorified bodies and
the degree of glorification they attained would be proportionate ;
he intended only to express the difference between the body of
the resurrection and this corruptible body. It may not however
1 Billrotb's views concerning this passage might not be considered inappropriate if
he had substituted •* glorification" for " resurrection" in that which follows. " Paul
does not admit the resurrection to begin with the natural death as modern views do (or
rather these may be said to deny the resurrection altogether, allowing only a pure spiri-
tual immortality), but with the admission of the man into the kingdom of Christ." As
soon as the spirit is subjected to the influence of Clirist's living the same works to the
glorification of the body (see on John vi.), but the resurrection i.e. the perfected glori-
fication, is still deferred until the end.
256 FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 42 — 44.
be altogether denied that the former idea is associated with the
apostolic observations. Were it not so, it had been sufficient to
draw attention to the specific differences between things heavenly
and those of earthly design. The division of these objects into
several denominations clearly shows the existence of an idea acces-
sory and subservient to the more prominent one. (Lange is also
rightly of this opinion, p. 703.), In conclusion, it may be stated
that (TOdfia (ver. 40) is not to be precisely understood of the body,
as if aco^a eTTiyetov corresponded to the acofia yfrvx^LKov (ver. 40),
and (Tojfia iiTovpdvLOV to the awixa TTvev/JLariKov, but awfjia has
rather here the more general signification *' unity composed of mem-
bers, organism." Ver. 41 shows that Paul especially reckoned the
stars among the heavenly organism ; nevertheless nothing con-
cerning the apostle's astronomical views can be concluded from
this circumstance ; in ver. 38 he has also styled the vegetable for-
mations aco/jbara.
Ver. 42 — 44. The application of the parable now follows, with
very evident reference to the image employed, the grain (ver. 36,
sqq.) ; since the aireiperai applies to the decay, iyeiperai to the
awakening, or springing up of plants. As there are many sorts
of organisms, so likewise has man a acb/jLa '^v')(iK6v as well as a
(Twfia TTvev/jLaTLKov. Man standing in an especial manner upon
the limits of two worlds, being equally allied to earth and heaven,
possesses likewise a twofold corporeality. The earthly body has
the predicate of all things earthly, the divine the attributes of the
heavenly. But it is doubtless an introduction of modern philo-
sophic views,^ to ascribe, as Billroth does, in this place the fol-
lowing idea to the apostle, viz. '• that the spiritual body is the
power of the Spirit, which is aware that its true immortality is to
1 Goescbel appears to understand the doctrine of the glorified body differently ;
see his writings on the proofs of the soul's immortality (Berlin, 1835), p. 253. It
sometimes seems as if the respected writer did not regard the higher corporea-
lity as glorification of the matter, but o)dy as a limitation of the personal attributes.
But how a limit can be imagined without a limiting power is not very clear, conse-
quently it must be considered as a self-limitation. But in what sense can this be styled
a body ? Mueller decidedly intended the same when he distinguishes the resurrection
of the body from that of the flesh, maintaining the former, but denying the latter. At
all events, the expression " resurrection, glorification of the flesh," is wanting. But it is
certainly accidental that John, in chap, vi., speaks of the eating Christ's flesh, that has
life in it. Flesh is the necessary substance of the body, the glorified body has glorified
spiritualized flesh for its substance. (See also Lange, Stud. 1836, P. 3, p. 695, sq.)
FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 42 — 44. i. ^^ ^^
V ...^ ''^,.
be found in its unity with God and Christ, that although Qoati*
nually renewed in mortality, it maintains itself therein as ihamor-
tal." The irvev^a cannot be identical with crwfjba Trvev/jbaTt-
Kov. The entire doctrine of a spiritualized, glorified, material
body is considered by Billroth unreal, as it must be necessarily
acknowledged exegetically such, which is implied by the apostle
in the expression crco^a irvev^ariKov : yet this learned man him-
self admits it, in regarding the apostle in the point under consi-
deration, as not yet freed from the difl^erences of spirit and matter.
To this representation we ascribe, according to the testimony of
revelation, not only a transient subjective truth, but a permanent
objective one. As without body, no soul, so without corporeality
no eternal happiness ; corporeality and the concomitant personal
qualities are the object of God's work. The unity of the person of
God in the process of creation is an eternity of personal powers
which have in the glorified body the limit, and wherein alone
they have a perception of the glorified nature of their basis. As
the spirit first earthwards clothes itself with the body, so after-
wards heaveniuard is the body glorified in the spirit. Regenera-
tion does not destroy the old man, but as the Spirit causes the
new to proceed from him as the parent, so the power of the Spirit
creates from the covering of the earthly body a spiritual one.
The natural body is the clothing which the unenlightened ^Jrv)(7j
effects for himself, thence cruj/jLa ^frvxi^Kov, the spiritual body, is
the garment in which the soul, having become celestial and glori-
fied through the Spirit of Christ, arrays itself The earthly and
celestial body are not identical, but not absolutely different ; the
elements of the former are employed in the formation of the latter,
the operation of Christ in believers gradually transforms the one
into the other. All waverings therefore in the spiritual life are hin-
drances and checks for the higher corporeality ; an idea calculated
to produce a becoming seriousness and truth in all things which con-
cern the body, as indifference in these matters may give occasion for
disregard of sinful offences against it. (In ver. 44, the reading el
ecTTfc (Tco/jia 'y^v)(LKov, ecTTi Koi aSiiJba Trveu/iaTCKov is certainly not
inapplicable [it conveys the idea that if the -^vxH possessed the
power to form for itself a corresponding organ, this must be the
case, and in an enhanced degree, with the 7rvev/jLa.~\. Nevertheless
the form generally in use appears to me preferable, for this sen-
258 FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 45—47.
tence, yer. 44, is nothing more than an exposition of ver. 42, ovto)
/cat 7) avda-raai^ rcov veKpwv. Erasmus, Mill, and Semler recom-
mend the entire omission of the passage, but this appears by no
means advisable ; it leads the way to what follows and cannot
therefore be omitted.)
Vers. 45 — 47. Paul still continues his subject, and traces
back the differences mentioned to a higher point, in which the
source of the two-fold corporeality is to be found. Adam and
Christ, (see on yer. 22), are again indicated as the origin from
whence the corruptible and incorruptible body of man proceeds ;
its influence governs the race, and appoints the most inward na-
ture of the individual. They are not men as the others are, but
the point originating the entire course of development, therefore
Christ is also styled 6 eV;^aT09 'ABdfM, as in Rom. v. 14 tutto?
Tov /uLiX\ovTo<i is applied to Adam ; but if Paul here refers to
the passage Gen. ii, 7, which the LXX. translate kuI iyevero 6
dv6po)7ro<; ek yjrvxn^ ^(baav, the foundation lies only in the ex-
pression (TM/jia y^rvxiicov (ver. 44.). No analogy for the second
half 6 ecr^aT09 'ABafjb ek Trvevfia ^coottolovv is to be found in the
Old Testament. We may therefore suppose, as the words of the
entire passage cannot be received as a quotation, that the apostle
himself added them as a period to his strain of argument ; for
although ovTco koI refers to the preceding sentence, yet it is im-
possible to conclude that in the contrast laid down between
Christ and Adam, Paul drew the incomprehensible character of
Christ from that which was understood of Adam. The circum-
stance of the passage quoted having no mention of the body,
shows above all how little the allusion to Gen. ii. 7 is to be
viewed as a corroborative and real citation. It is very probable
that Paul presupposed the knowledge of the body being formed
from the dust of the earth, as stated in Gen. ii. 7 ; this is sanc-
tioned by the 'xpiKos following in ver. 47 ; '^^rvxi'K-ov o-wfjua there-
fore is applied to a body formed of base material, animated by a
yfrvx^h The free use of the quotation shows the different sense
in which it stands in the former text and in the apostle's argu-
ment. That is to say, in the history of the creation the expres-
sion ^Irvxh ?wo-a = pf*»n tZ^Si ^y ^^ means implies something
inferior, an antithesis to the Tn^eOyLta, but it signifies there, that
the image formed out of dust became by the hand of God an
FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 45—47. 259
animated organism. When employed by the apostle Paul on the
contrary, '^v^v and -yjrvx^tKo^ possess a lower signification (see
the observations on ii. 14), standing parallel to the ')(oIk6^
(ver. 47), and indicating not the sinless creature proceeding from
the hand of his Creator, but the fallen being, betrayed into the
power of the <j)dopd. The employment of the biblical parallel is
accordingly only to be considered a slight expression of an en-
tirely independent train of thought arising from a passage of
Scripture. It has been asserted that by the quotation from
the Old Testament Paul appears to have had Adam in his
original condition in view, and not the fallen Adam. This
view has especially been adopted by Mau (Theol. Mitarb. pt. ii.,
p. 94, sqq„ p. 100), and an opinion founded thereon, that death
is not to be considered a consequence of sin, but a natural pro-
perty of the body ; only the manner of the death, and the descent
into Hades, is the consequence of sin. But though the author
labours to establish this view, employing principally this passage
for the purpose, I have not been able to convince myself that his
opinion is well-grounded. It is undoubted that Adam's body
likewise needed glorification ; but had he not sinned, he would
without 6dvaTo<; have proceeded on the way to be clothed upon.
(2 Cor. V. 1, sqq.) Death is ever the powerful struggle of soul and
body, with corruption and its horrors, not ordained such of God, but
following as the simple consequence of sin. Paul here makes no al-
lusion to the fall, but employs the Old Testament description of
Adam, without distinguishing between the time before and after
the fall ; nevertheless what precedes (especially the (l)6opd,\eY. 42),
as well as that which follows (ver. 48, 49), compels us to believe
that Paul had the fallen Adam in his mind. We might with per-
fect right observe silence respecting the fall, because there existed
the same necessity in Adam's body for glorification before that
event, as afterwards, in order to become a aw/jLa Trvev/jLartKov.
Upon this subject more will be found in Krabbe's striking con-
troversy with Neander (von der Suende, p. 191, sqq.), the latter
entertaining similar views to Mau (Pflanz. vol. ii., p. 519, sqq.). —
Fom the predicate of Christ irvevfjia ^coottoiovv, for which in ver.
47 6 Kvpco<; ef ovpavov stands as an explanation, it may be concluded
that the apostle does not consider the natural irvevfia in a condition
to form the o-co/xa irvevaajtKov, but only the divine spirit of God?
r 2
260 FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 48—50.
who took upon himself man's nature as Christ. For this cause
he is called the resurrection (John. xi. 25), and he only who be-
lieyeth in this hath life, and shall arise at the last day. (John
vi. 54.). The idea expressed in yer. 46 is, that the laws of de-
velopment require that the lower precede the higher, and con-
trary-wise that the higher follow the inferior, even as the human
birth must necessarily precede the new-birth or regeneration. (It
seems to me that Billroth discovers too many difficulties in ver.
47 ; the ef ovpavov corresponds entirely to the m yrj^; [an allusion to
Gen. ii. 6] with reference to the origin ; the ')(oik6<; appeared to pre-
sent to the apostle no suitable adjective form, he therefore employs
6 Kvpto<;, by which the ')(oIk6^ acquires an idea of ministering to.
The omission of 6 KvpLo<; certainly arose from the fact of the tran-
scriber seeing some difficulty in the use of it.)
Ver. 48 — 50. In order to establish the connexion of every man
with the two states mentioned, the writer remarks that the nature
of the one passes into that of the other ; in the first Adam by
the natural birth, in the second through the spiritual. Referring
to the history of the creation (Gen. i. 27), the expression
cIkcov is chosen to signify the relation of created beings to each
other. The natural birth imprints the image of the fallen
Adam in the soul (Gen. v. 3), the new birth (which is first truly
accomplished with the glorification of the body), the image of
Christ, by whose sacred influence the body is glorified. (See
on Rom. viii. 11 ; 2 Cor. iii. 18.). The reading (^opeawfxev includes
in the ideathat of admonition, which does not agree with scriptural
doctrine ; regeneration can never be attained by striving or even
faith itself; it is an act of positive grace, to the obtaining of which
admonition would be in vain employed. The apostle then, with
reference to the subject treated on in vers. 35, 36, concludes with
the assertion that this mortal corruptible body can have no part
in the kingdom of God, but only the incorruptible body of the
resurrection. In the romo Se (^ripbi a concession to the spiritua-
list and an opposition to the materialist opinions is to be seen.
(Concerning the formula aap^ kol alfjua see Comm. on Matt. xvi. 17,
xxvi. 26. It indicates earthly corporeality in its mortality and
sinfulness. It may not be argued from it that the immortal body
can have no crdp^ : a aw/Ma can never be considered without
a-cip^ [in the sense of spiritual restraint], as we have already
FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 51, 52. 261
seen. But the adp^ itself is likewise a aap^ Trvev/xariKr}^ as
Christ's body in the holy communion. — By the expression PaaCkela
&eov we are here to understand the kingdom of God upon earth,
the re-establishment of Paradise, which the Scriptures inform us
will undoubtedly attend the coming of our Lord. See the ob-
servations in the Comm. on Matt. iii. 2.).
Vers. 51, 52. Paul now enters upon the consideration of an-
other point, which Billroth has erroneously viewed as the main
subject of the argument. He explains the relation which the
living will bear to those already dead in the faith at the looked
for coming of Christ. It appears that many of the Corinthian
Christians entertained the idea that those still living at that event
would with earthly bodies have part in the kingdom of God. This
Paul declares to be an error, and teaches that these receive a
new body as well as those who are raised ; that is to say, they
are all changed upon Christ's appearance, and that suddenly.
An authentic interpretation of the f^yf words here given is formed
by the passages 2 Cor. v. 1 ; 1 Thess. iv. Paul terms this a
fW(TTi]ptov, while he even expresses the fact ; but that which may
be regarded as the mysterious in it is the how, not the fact. The
power of the Spirit, which at that dread moment will pour itself
upon the church like a life-bestowing de:/ (Isa. xxvi. 19), will
effect the bodily transformation in a mysterious manner. The
act of changing is called in 2 Cor. v. 2, to oltcrjTTjpcov to ef ovpa-
vov 67r€vSvcraa6ai, the farther consideration of which will then
occur. The apostle here chiefly dwells upon the suddenness with
which the bodily transformation will take place, and as Billroth
justly observes, for the purpose of removing any apprehension
from the minds of the Corinthians that some might arrive too late
to participate in God's kingdom upon earth. This dread might
display itself in a twofold form. It might be feared that the
living would find entrance before the dead, see 1 Thess. iv. 15,
or, on the other hand, that the latter should obtain precedence.
It is certain however that the idea of the change occurring sud-
denly does not vitiate the supposition of a gradual preparation of
1 How far removed Calvin was from denying the glorification of the body is proved by
liis remarks on this passage : Ccelerum carnem et sanguinem intellige, qua nunc conditione
sunt, caro enim nostra particeps erit gloriijs Dei, sed innovata et vivi/rcata a Chrisli
spiritu.
262 FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 51, 52.
the glorified body during the earthly course by the operation of
Christ. The suddenness only bears reference to the momenta-
neous bursting forth of the already perfected new body,^ as the
beautiful butterfly which is gradually perfected in the less attrac-
tive larya frees itself suddenly from the obstruction of its dark en-
velope and springs into light of the sun. — Paul likewise appoints
the time by the expression iv rfj eV^^ar^ o-akirLyyt. As seven
trumpets are mentioned in Rev. viii. the expression io-'x^drr] cannot
well imply, as Billroth thinks, "trumpet, sounding in the last day,"
but it may rather be understood of last-sounding trumpet. But
the expression is naturally only a figurative one, to describe the
awakening spiritual operation, which shall arouse mankind in
awe and trembling. (See on Matt. xxiv. 31.) Similar conster-
nations, excited by higher causes, pass from time to time through
mankind ; but those which occur at the period immediately pre-
ceding the last day will be of the most powerful nature, and
arouse the most secret things of the inward life. See further on
1 Thess. iv. 16, and Rev. viii. In the Old Testament the pro-
phetic and typical passages in Exod. xix. 16, Isa. xxvii. 13, Zach.
ix. 14, may be consulted. (With respect to the text in ver. 51,
many various readings occur, partly occasioned by the position of
the ov. This negation would appear more suitably placed before
irdvre^ than before fcocfn^Orjo-o/jLeda, for in the latter case the
words would really imply " none will die." Billroth has correctly
remarked upon this that the emphasis belongs to dWayrjcrofjLeda,
and the ov KOLfjujOTjaofieOa is only an accessory idea ; all it is
true will not die, but all will certainly be changed. The most
part of the deviations arise from the circumstance, that offence
was taken at the idea that not all should die, death being ap-
pointed to all men. [Heb. ix. 27.] In later times, as the expec-
tation of the near approach of Christ's coming diminished, the
idea must have certainly acquired importance. Lachtnann had
decided that the negation should be omitted, but the connexion
urgently requires it, because, as remarked, Paul defines the posi-
1 The idea of the sudden transformation indicates that no development is to be ex-
pected after death,but that every individual is called to publish the character of the course
he has hitherto followed on earth. Children will not arise as men, nor aged men retreat
to the period of youth, but every glorified body will represent clearly his degree of age,
with the exception of all that is perishable, so that all taken together may declare the en-
tire human race in its degrees and varieties with the most perfect clearness.
FIRST CORINTHIANS XV. 53—57. 263
tion of those alive at Christ's appearing ; these die not, but will be
changed. — The sentence craXirla-ei yap as far as aWayijao/jbeda,
that is suitably enclosed within brackets, throws yet more light
on the immediately preceding idea of the instantaneous transfor-
mation which takes place, and likewise upon tlie manner of the
resurrection. — Concerning the form craXirLo-ec, see Winer's Gr.
p. 80, it would be best to consider it impersonal : it will sound.
Without doubt Paul included himself also in the rjfieU, because
he hoped to live until the coming of Christ. See on 2 Cor. v. 2,
sqq., 1 Thess. iv. 17.)-
Vers. 53 — 54. Employing the image of a garment, the apostle
further describes the forming of the new body, finding in the
same the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy (xxv. 8), that death
shall be destroyed. It is very striking that the <p6apr6v and
Ovqrov are not described in this passage as destroyed, but only
as clothed upon. (See on 2 Cor. v. 2, sqq.). Doubtless Paul
intends by this to signify that the elements of the mortal body
are as it were absorbed, swallowed up by the omnipotence of the
glorifying Spirit. We cannot deny that the words KareiroOTj 6
Odvaro^ appear as in ver. 26 to favour the restoring. It evi-
dently not only implies that death has for ever lost its power
over some (the faithful), though retaining over others its might,
as the second death,^ but that it ceases everywhere, which can
only happen when the ^wrj accepts all in himself, and God is all
in all. (^070? is used here = iToo(\>riTela, according to the con-
text. — Nltco^ is a more recent form for vUr]. The Hebrew ^^S
is frequently so given by the LXX., even when that which is to
be represented as enduring or lasting is not precisely of a joyful
nature. [See Lam. v. 20; Amos viii. 7.]. Paul follows the
Hebrew text in the translation from Isa. xxv. 8.; the LXX.
read KaTeiriev 6 Odvajo^ la-yyaa-^, from which it is probable that
they followed another reading.)
Vers. 55 — 57. The apostle then employs a passage from Hosea
xiii. 14, in which the prophet rejoices triumphantly in the vic-
tory gained over death and his kingdom, and the consequent loss
1 The expression ddvaTOi ^ewTt/oos only occurs in the Apocalypse (ii. 11, xx. 14.).
In the latter passage the second death is represented as like a sea of fire, but the first
death appears in the Revelation to be destroyed together with Hades, being cast into the
sea of fire. The tenor of this entire representation can however only be satisfactorily
explained by taking it in conjunction with the series of Apocalyptic images in that book.
264 FIRST CORINTHIANS XVI. 1.
of his prey by the resurrection. The explanation in the Comm.
upon Rom. vii. 11, sqq., is likewise adapted for an interpretation
of the passage in which sin is represented as the sting of death,
and the power, i.e. the strength creating sin, the law ; the reader
is therefore referred to the Comm. In the prophetic connexion
KQVTpov signifies nothing but the bitter feeling, the sorrow of
death ; Paul however employs it as parallel with hvvafjut<^ in the
signification of calling forth the display of power. The slumber-
ing power of death awakens sin, and again that of sin, the law.
But Christ in his mercy destroys first the law (in the sense laid
down in the Comm. on Rom. vii. 24, sq. viii. 1), and then sin
and death itself. (In ver. 55, Lachmann reads Sdvare for aSty,
and the critical authorities are in fact strongly in its favour.
B.D.E.F.Gr. have it likewise. However as the Hebrew text reads
ahrj as well as the LXX., I myself prefer retaining the usual read-
ing. It is possible that the reading ddvare arose from an expo-
sition to be applied to the word aBrj.).
Ver. 58. In conclusion the apostle exhorts his readers, having
this certain hope of the resurrection, to continue stedfast in the
faith, and earnest in the work of preaching the gospel, knowing
that their labour would be well rewarded. This is the correct
construction of the ovk eart Kevo^ : the words do not signify that
preaching shall be successful, for many shall be converted, but
that the labour shall receive its reward in the resurrection. The
apostles were by no means insensible to the hope of future hap-
piness as a spur to their zeal. (EBpaco<i is also found in 1 Cor.
vii, 37. See also Coloss. i. 23. — 'AfjbeTaKlvr]To<; = /Se/Sato? is
only found in the New Testament in this single passage.).
§ 13. THE COLLECTION.
(xvi. 1—24.)
Vers. 1 — 4. The subject of the collections in money made by
Paul for the use of the Christians in Jerusalem and Palestine has
been mentioned already in Acts xi. 29, xxiv. 17 ; Rom. xv.
26, 27. But in this chapter, and likewise in the second Epistle
(chap. viii. ix.), the apostle enlarges so considerably upon the fact,
FIRST CORINTHIANS XVI. 3. 265
that his conduct in this particular requires further consideration.
It appears very striking that Paul, during the entire period of his
ministerial labours, was continually mindful of this collection,
and that too for the advantage of the Christians in Jerusalem.
In the Comm. on Acts iv. 32, sqq. it has been remarked that the
possessing all goods in common in the church at Jerusalem, was
probably the cause of its becoming impoverished, and rendered
these collections necessary. We however saw in the same pas-
sage that a community of goods, in the sense of providing a
living for all the members of the church out of funds common to
all, was not very probably established ; it would therefore be
only some individuals, acting from an excess of zeal upon the first
impulse of brotherly love, who would be so desitute. But this view
would not be sufiicient to explain Paul's collections. It is possible
that the apostle desired to express his piety towards the mother
church, and the acknowledgment of his dependence. As all Jews^
down to modern times paid half a shekel to the temple at
Jerusalem, and after its destruction continued the contribution
in order to meet the necessities of the Jews living there, Paul
probably considered himself also bound to express his gratitude
to the mother church by a similar collection in her behalf. This
explains how again, in Gal. ii. 10, the determination to support
the poor could be made the subject of a formal regulation among
the apostles. These collections may be considered the acknow-
ledgment of the connexion with the mother church. And besides,
as the apostle's rules brought him into a species of conflict with
the Jewish Christians, the apostle might the more zealously urge
these contributions in order to signify by deeds his personal in-
clination towards the mother church. Paul therefore recommends
the Corinthians, in order to collect without inconvenience to
themselves, to lay by something each Sunday ; he would then
appoint a deputy to receive the money, which should either be
transmitted to Jerusalem by the same means, or if necessary, he
would accompany it thither himself. (In ver. 1. \071a = crvX-
Xoyi] according to Suidas' collection. The mention of a collec-
tion in Galatia, leads to the supposition of another epistle, besides
the one we possess ; nothing is there said of a collection, yet
1 See Hayraaun on the marriage ceremonies of the Jews, in the Zeitschrift fiir Phil,
und Kaih. Thtol. Koeln. 1835, pt. 1, p. 42, sqq.
2
266 FIRST CORINTHIANS XVI. 5 — 12.
Paul might have introduced this personally to their notice, when
he was last among them. — In ver. 2 consult the Comm. on Matt,
xxyiii. 1, on /jula rwv aa^^drcou. Certainly it may not be infer-
red from this passage that collections took place among the con-
gregations on the Sabbath, for it was Paul's intention that each
should make a suitable contribution at home ; but it decidedly
proves that it was already the practice to distinguish the day of
our Lord's resurrection, to sanctify the day by the exercise of be-
nevolence, — EvoSouadat means properly to have a prosperous
journey, to be fortunate, in happy condition. To the o, tl dv,
etcaaro^ is to be added, " as far as the circumstances of each
sanction it. " In a similar connection, KaOco^ rjijiropeiTo t«9 is said
in Acts ix. 29, and kuOo iav exQ Tt9 in 2 Cor viii. 12. — In ver.
3, the epistles are ypafifiara avaraTLKa [2 Cor. iii. 1], the use of
which is ancient, since the nature of circumstances rendered it
necessary, although their peculiar form was assumed at a subse-
quent period, — In ver. 4 the iav rj d^tov refers to the amount of
the collection, with which the deputation who were to deliver it
over were to charge themselves, and have reference. See thereon
on 2 Cor. viii. 18, sqq.).
Ver. 5 — 9. The mention of his arrival in Corinth, affords an
opportunity to the apostle to explain himself concerning the ar-
rangements for his journey. We learn from 2 Cor. i. 15, that he
desired to go direct to Corinth (possibly through Asia and by
sea), and from thence to Macedonia ; but the desire to leave time
for his epistle to produce its effect may have caused him to pro-
ceed directly into Macedonia. In the meantime, he announces
his intention to his readers of becoming their guest for a consider-
able period, probably even for the winter. Until Pentecost, he
thinks that circumstances would justifty his remaining at Ephesus.
which leads us to conclude the epistle was written in the spring.
Concerning this, the Introduction may be consulted, § 2. (In
ver. 6 Tvxov, forte, see el rv^oi 1 Cor. xiv. 10. — In ver. 9,
Ovpa is figuratively employed for sphere of action. See 2 Cor.
ii. 12 ; Col. iv 3. The epithet ivepyrj^i arises from the image used.
— The antagonists require the presence of Paul, in order to be
kept in check.).
Ver. 10 — 12. Here follow some notices concerning Timothy
and Apollos. The former is commended to a good reception, and
FIRST CORINTHIANS XVI. 13—18. 267
of the latter it is observed, that he could not come at that time,
but would shortly yisit Corinth. (In ver. 10 the ^nfj rt? avrov
i^ovOevrjar), according to 1 Tim. iv. 12, is plainly connected with
Timothy's youth. — Ver. 11. According to Acts xix. 22, Erastus
was clearly among the brethren named, perhaps also others. — In
ver. 12, the brethren mentioned are probably the Corinthian de-
puties named in ver. 17.).
Vers. 13, 14. It may be supposed that Paul here thought to
conclude, but the exhortation which follows occurred to his mind,
and led to the special observations which follow. (Upon (7TrjK(o
see Rom. xiv. 4. — ' Avhpl^ecrOai, "to act as a man," is only found
in the New Testament in this passage, though frequently in the
LXX., and also in 1 Mace. ii. 64. — KparaiovaOai is used in the
signification of " to become strong," Luke i. 80, ii. 40.).
Ver. 15, 16. The apostle feels himself called upon to recom-
mend to his readers Stephanas, who had conveyed the epistle
from the Corinthians to Ephesus, and also had delivered Paul's
epistle at Corinth. Probably, as a man observing an impartial
course, he had drawn upon himself some bitterness from parties
in Corinth. (In Rom. xvi. 5, Epenetus is called the first fruits
of Achaia, though ^Aala^ is certainly the correct reading ; he
must then have belonged to Stephanas' oiKLa. — The era^av iav-
T0U9 ek hiaKovlav cannot refer to the administration of the office
of deacon [for which reason vTrordo-o-eadac does not convey the
impression of ecclesiastical subordination among the heads], to
which no one was self-appointed, but signifies such services out
of the common order as delivering the epistle might be considered.
These were of a nature to require acknowledgment, as the exer-
cise of them involved both trouble and neglect of business.)
Vers. 17, 18. Together with Stephanas, both Fortunatus and
Achaicus are here mentioned, the two latter appearing to belong
to the former as principal. Paul describes their presence as sup-
plying the deficiency occasioned by being absent from the Co-
rinthians, and claims from the latter gratitude towards them on
this head. (The aviiravcrav irvevfia v/jlcov is either to be under-
stood, they refreshed me so, as ye yourselves formerly ; or, by their
diligence towards me they have benefitted you. — In the iTnyi-
v(i>aK€Lv is implied the conduct arising from understanding, and
268 FIRST CORINTHIANS XVI. 19 — 24.
truly in a good sense corresponding to the Tifiav or ar^airav. 'Ettl-
ryi,va)(TK6tv is employed in a similar manner in 1 Thess. v. 12.).
Vers. 19, 20. Greetings now follow, including those of Aquila
and Priscilla, who had quitted Corinth for Ephesus. (Acts xviii.
18, sqq.). These zealous believers had also here a place of meet-
ing in their house. (Rom. xvi, 3.). The exhortation to greet one
another with a holy kiss, refers to the public assembly, in which the
epistle was read aloud. (See the Comm. on Rom. xvi. 16.). ^l\r)~
jjLa TYJ^ dydiTTjii occurs in the passage 1 Pet. v. 14.
Ver. 21, 22. As far as this place, Paul had dictated the sub-
ject (probably to Sosthenes, i. 1), but the apostle now appends a
salutation written with his own hand, as spurious letters were
already circulated as from him (2 Thess. ii. 2.). He selects for
this purpose an idea which is not carried further, and for which it
is not necessary to seek the connexion. I cannot yield to the
probability of Billroth's supposition that fiapdv dOd is only added
by Paul in order also to show his Syrian handwriting, and that
the words were afterwards transcribed by Greek transcribers with
Greek characters. The thought " the Lord comes !" /cvpco^ ep-
XeTac! is rather calculated to heighten the tenor of the preceding
warning : Be ye quickly converted, for the time of decision is near
at hand ! The Syriac form might be employed by the apostle
as more fluent. In the tJtco dvadep^a is expressed not only the
exclusion from the church, but also the delivering over to the ac-
tive power of the enemy without. (See on dvaOep^a Comm. 1
Cor. xii, 3.).
Vers. 23, 24. The usual form then concludes the writing, but
as the epistle contains many severe words, Paul hastens to assure
all without exception of his love, in order to prevent any personal
application of his strictures.
EXPOSITION
SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
( 271 )
EXPOSITION
SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
I.
PAET FIEST.
(i. 1— iii. 18.)
§ 1. THE CONSOLATION.
(i. 1-14.)
After the greeting (ver. 1, 2), the apostle proceeds to thank
God for the comfort with which he had refreshed hira in all his
sorrows and conflicts. The commencement of the epistle is espe-
cially directed to the hetter-intentioned among the Corinthians,
Paul declaring that on his part he glories in nothing so much as
preaching the word of God in its holy simplicity, without adding
aught (3—14.)
Vers. 1, 2. The greeting resembles that of the first epistle in
all important points, only instead of Sosthenes, Timothy is men-
tioned as the writer, who consequently must have already returned
from his mission to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10) when Paul
commenced his second epistle. According to ver. 1, the second
epistle being directed as a circular letter to all believers in Achaia,
it addresses the Athenians likewise (for according to the Roman
division Hellas and the Peloponnesus was included in Achaia),
though Corinth alone, as the principal city, is specially mentioned.
Vers. 3, 4. The epistle itself commences with a thanksgiving
to God for the consolation bestowed upon him (the apostle) in his
necessity, which inspires the desire to communicate the same
272 SECOND CORINTHIANS I. 5.
comfort to others who may be in similar affliction. Paul how-
ever does not represent this true comfort of a nature to be appro
priated at discretion, but rather as the operation of the Spirit,
which is the source of mercy and perfect consolation ; he exhorts
his readers to trust steadfastly in all difficulties to this living
God. (In ver. 3 evXoyrjTo^; = 1T^*1^) when employed to signify
the relation of the low to that which is high, is in the sense of
" to praise, to extol ;" when the circumstances are reversed, on the
contrary, " to bestow a blessing." — The expression 0eo9 ^Irjaov
XpLarov, which has already occurred in Rom. xv. 5 ; 1 Cor. xv.
24, calls to mind the expression, God of Abraham. [See on this
the observations in Comm. vol. i. Matt. xxii. 31, 32.]. God is
thereby indicated in the peculiar form of revelation, and understood
under those special circumstances which are revealed in Christ.
— The subsequent Trarrjp rwv uIktip/jlmv koX Oeo^ irapaKkifja-eoi^
corresponds to the ©eo? koI TraTrjp, ©eo? expressing the idea of
the origin, the source, just as in Ephes. i. 17, God is called 6
TTarrjp rr}^ E6^7j<;. Consolation is by no means to be regarded
here as the simple phrase of sympathy, but as an actual power of
the Spirit, issuing from God, and capable of henceforward leading
him who receives it to himself In Matt. x. 13, the same idea is
applied to peace ; all such subjective circumstances have their
foundation in the Spirit which God bestows upon his own.)
Ver, 5. According to the principle, such as he is, so likewise
are we also in this world (1 John iv. 17) ; the apostle places in
parallel the sufferings and consolation of believers, with the suf-
ferings and consolation, and even the gloriousness of Christ. The
TraOr/fiara rov XpiaTov are, as Billroth correctly asserts in cor-
roboration of Winer, the sorrows endured by Christ ; these re-
peat themselves in the believer, and likewise the comfort and the
glorification experienced by the Redeemer. Had the parallel
been completely carried out, it must have been said t) 7rapdfc\7)(7c<{
Tov Xpia-Tov ek rjfid^i. At the least it is signified in the Bta rod
Xpiarov that the Lord received the consolation he imparts to
others ; for to him may be applied in the highest sense that God
comforted him, ek to hvvaaOav tov<; avOptiiiTOV^ irapaKokelv iv
Traarj Oxlyjret, Heb. ii. 17, 18.). To attribute to the expression
iraOrjixara rov XpiaTov the signification of " sufferings for Christ
and his cause," will hardly occur to the mind of any one ; never-
SECOND CORINTHIANS I. 6, 7. 273
theless it would not be unreasonable to enquire (according to
such passages as Col. i. 24), whether Xpoaro^ may not here, as
in 1 Cor. xii. 12, signify all believers collectively, the church,
making the sense of the words " sufferings, which the church has
to endure." The idea is by no means unsuitable, although I
prefer the former explanation, as otherwise XptaTo^; must be taken
in two significations in the same sentence.
Vers. 6, 7. The inward spiritual fellowship, the KOivcovia, which
the apostle perceives to exist between himself and the Corin-
thians, does not permit him to refer his sufferings and his conso-
lation to himself as an isolated individual, but inclusively to all
believers. As however Paul desires to allow that which is con-
solatory to predominate, he does not say, When we suffer, suffer
ye also, but, it takes place for your comfort and your salvation,
i. e. as Billroth correctly explains, " Inasmuch as I suffer in the
service of the Gospel, through which ye receive consolation and sal-
vation." The participation of the Corinthians in the sufferings
is not denied by Paul, but he only desires to make it a secondary
feature, and therefore mentions it in the same sentence as, and
under the support of consolation, which therefore neutralizes it.
Billroth correctly observes that the words tt}? iv€pyovfjLevr}<; ^v
vTTOfjLOvf] Tcov avTcov 7ra6r]/jLaTcov, o)V Kal rj/juel^; iTa(T')(0fX6v do not
imply similar sufferings which the Corinthians were called upon
to bear at the same time with the apostle, but those sufferings
felt by Paul, and which all believers, according to their bond of
love with him, would feel as their own. The concluding words koL r;
eXTTt? — 7rapaK\i](T6(D<;, express as it were the principle upon which
the former deduction rests ; for which reason the phrase teal rj
iXirU Tj/jLcov jBe^aia virep v/ulcov is not to be in a parenthesis as
Fritzsche has thought, but the elS6r6<i which follows is rather to
be connected with i\7rU rjfjbwv in the manner of an anacoluthon.
(In ver. 6 several readings occur. The tecVt rec. has the sen-
tence T?}9 €V€pyov/jLevrj<; — Trdaxo/Jbev immediately annexed to aw-
TTjpla^, then follows the elVe irapaKokovpieda, while to the virep
T^9 vfjboiv 7rapaK\^]oreo}<; is again added Kal c-coTr}pla<;, as in the
first half. Several Codd., especially B.D.E.F.Gr.l., have more-
over the phrase koI rj iXirk — v/jlcov before the elVe irapaKaXov-
fieOa. This reading, backed certainly by weighty authorities,
is assented to by Lachraann ; he only objects to the second Kal
274 SECOND CORINTHIANS 1. 8.
(T(OTr)pia^ as doubtful. We may however suppose that a trans-
position by the transcriber may have early taken place, owing to
the repetition of the virep rrj'i irapaKXrjo-eco^i. We would with
Griesbach adopt this view, if Billroth's observation were correct,
that the subject does not sanction the annexation of the t^9
iv6pyovfjLevrj<; k. t. X. to the first phrase elVe OXc/SojiieOa. He thus
expresses himself: " How can it be said, if we bear sufferings, it
is sufficient for your comfort and salvation that ye likewise en-
dured theniT' But we cannot see wherefore this should not be
said. Is it not a general feeling that a comfort exists to those
who love in sharing the suffering likewise, and are not the sor-
rows laid upon us by'God profitable to the believer? Certainly
this idea exists in the words, and may be equally deduced from
the first and second part of the sentence. The contents undergo
no change from altering the position of the words ; both ideas of
consolation and suffering are indifferently found in the appo-
sition and in the antithesis of the elVe OXi^o/jieOa and the etre
irapaKaXov^eOa. With regard to Griesbach's opinion, it can only
be alleged against it that it does not appear desirable to sepa-
rate the elre irapa/caXovfjueOa from the elVe OXi^o^eOa by the long
intermediate sentence. But this may precisely have proceeded
from the change in transcription alluded to, and it does not in
the least outweigh the advantages of Lachmann's reading, for
which the authority of the Codd. can be alleged.)
Ver. 8. A closer description of the magnitude of the suffer-
ings spoken of by the apostle in the preceding verses now fol-
lows. It is most probable from the phrase iv ry ^Aaia that Paul
alludes to the persecution by Demetrius (Acts xix.), for to ima-
gine with Heumann and E-iickert that diseases which afllicted
the apostle are signified, is by no means justified by the expres-
sion TraOrjfiaTa rou XpLcrrov : Christ never suffered from sickness.
It may not be concluded from the ov Oekofiev vpu^ ayvodv that
the Corinthians were until this period unacquainted with the
apostle's sufferings ; it is not the sufferings themselves, but the
greatness of them, which is exposed to view. (For h'rrep Tf/9
^X/'x/recD? Lackmann reads irepi, which is supported by Billroth.
Certainly however he goes too far, when he believes that hircp can
on no account be employed in this passage. — The prepositions L^Trt-.o
and 7r6p/, it cannot be denied, occasionally stand for each other iu
' SECOxND CORINTHIANS I. 9 — 11. 275
the New Testameait, for which reason the same frequently occurs
in the Codd. [See Winer*s Gram. 4 edit. p. 389.].— The virep-
BupafjLLv is in no degree synonymous with Kad' viTep(Bo\r}v, it ra-
ther shows forth the subjective position of the sufferings, the
greatness of which is rendered objective by the KaO^ vTrepfBok'qv.
The virep hvyafjutv still further heightens the coare KaL — 'E^a-
TTopelaOai only again occurs in the New Testament in iv. 8 of the
present Epistle ; these passages prove that it is the heightening
of the uTropeladac.)
Vers. 9 — 11. The extent of the sufferings, which according to
the apostle's conviction could hope for no diminution, is conceived
by him in an ethical point of view. It had the effect of freeing
him from all self-confidence, and leading him to trust entirely to
God, who could not only deliver him from impending death, but
likewise restore those to life already become his prey. (The
form TO airofcpt/jLa rov Oavarov ev iavro) e^eiv can only be under-
stood of the sentence pronounced. Hesychius explains airoKpifjia
by fcaraKpLfjia, -v/tt^c^o?. Paul considers the Almighty as Lord of
life and death, uniting in himself the power of judgment and of
pronouncing the sentence, Billroth's supposition appears less
apposite, for he regards it as if the apostle had enquired of him-
self whether he could be preserved, to which he replies in the
negative.) The divine assistance upon which Paul relied for pre-
sent and future aid appears however in some degree connected
with human means (ver. 11) by the thanks returned for the sup-
port granted to the intercession of believers. However, according
to the meaning of the apostle, the crvvvirovpydv may not be so
strained as if God and the faithful were two parallel powers, for it
is rather God who by his Spirit inspires the intercession and lends
power to it. This help which comes to the suffering brother by
means of intercession must again how^ever bear evidence of the
blessing of the Koovcovla. The help is then a source of joy to all,
and awakens thanksgiving in the hearts of those for whom inter-
cession is made. (See iv. 15, which is entirely similar.) Ee-
garding the connexion of the text, we may be doubtful whether
ifc iroXkcov irpoacoTTcov is to be connected with ev-^apio-TrjOfj vnep
y)lj,wv, and if to et? rjfjbd^ ')(apiapba hia ttoWcov indicates the subject
of the thanks, as Billroth supposes, or if, according to Fritzsche,
Sta TToWcov ev')(api(7T7)6f] vTrep r/ficov should be connected, and
s 2
276 SECOND CORINTHIANS 1. 12—14.
e/c iroWoov irpoacoTrcov to ek rjfjba^ ^aptcr/xa considered the subject
of the thanks. We must especially regard the difference between
the prepositions ek and hia in forming our decision. It is evi-
dent that hici refers to the actual assistance vouchsafed to the in-
tercession, for Avhich reason it would be better to connect hia
TToWcjv with '^dpio-fia. According to the other arrangement, the
article must be placed before e'/c ttoWcou irpoacoTrcov, because then
all as far as 'xapio-fia would form one subject ; r^evofxevov may be
supplied to hia ttoXKwv. The €k on the contrary signifies the
breaking forth of the inward feelings into thanksgiving, and from
thence e/c ttoWwj/ Trpoo-coircov could be more correctly annexed to
€v'xapLaT7)6fi. But when Billroth attempts to construe TrpoaooTrcov
by oribus, so that it stands = to arofjuaTcov, so is it without
analogy ; it certainly only implies person. The Blu ttoWmv,
again may only be understood to refer to persons, not words
signifying proline, as Storr considers, because that would be a
contradiction of Christ's command. (Matt. vi. 7.)-
Ver. 12. The mention of his sufferings now ceases, and Paul
passes to himself and his position with regard to the Corinthians.
The fyap forms the change in the subject, so that the apostle
grounds his claim to the sympathy of the Corinthians upon his
sincerity, as if, And I am not unworthy of your intercession, had
been supplied. The aifkoTrj^ is placed in contrast to the whole
combination, and the elXiKpivela to those who were in trouble,
both being characteristics of the ao(j>La aapKiKrj. — The addition of
Qeoi) refers to both subjects, simplicity as well as sincerity, and
expresses the source of the same as existing in the operation of
God's grace, iv %aptTfc &eov, as it is styled in what follows. (See
ii. 17, where m ©eov stands parallel to the e^ elXcKpLvela^.)
This expression conveys the idea of simplicity and sincerity as
its effect, just as the opposite qualities accompanying the crocf)La
a-apKLKf). (Concerning human wisdom, i.e. the wisdom proceed-
ing from unsanctified human nature left to its own impulses, see
the remarks on 1 Cor. i. 17, ii. 1. — Griesbach has, in a very unne-
cessary manner, enclosed in brackets the sentence ovk iv cro(f)la
aapKCKy akX' iv %ttptTi ©eov : it needs no separation from the
context, as it belongs to and forms part of it.)
Vers. 13, 14. Paul asserts his simplicity and sincerity through-
out the scriptural connection in which he stands to the Corin-
SECOND CORINTHIANS I. 13, 14. 277
tliians. He thinks and writes nothing but that which they read
in his writings, or acknowledge as his opinion. The apostle
hopes they will always continue thus to know him (for divine
truths are as immutable as the element of their source), having
already in a degree learnt to acknowledge him. This cltto
fiepov^ cannot, without straining the sense, be explained to apply
to anything but the existing divisions in Corinth. Billroth's opi-
nion is entirely untenable, when he states that the expression
justifies the conclusion that Paul had now first the opportunity of
manifesting his love towards them. However the apostle does
not desire to pursue the subject of the dissensions further, but
presses upon their attention their mutual relation to each other,
as shall be made manifest in the day of the Lord, when all secrets
vshall be revealed ; one is the glory of the other, i.e. one has joy
in the salvation of the other without mixture of envy. (In ver.
13 the akX rj — 7] presents a difficulty. Fritzsche thinks [Diss.
i. p. 11, sqq.] the aXX rj should be separated, so that the words
might be understood : neque enim alia ad vos perscribimus,
quam aut ea — aut ea. But wherein should the antithesis of the
dvayLV(0(TK€iv and €7rLyt,va>a/c€LV consist ? It is evident that the
iiriyLvcoa-Keiv does not declare anything materially diff'erent from
dva<yivco<TK6iv, but simply in a degree confirms the special idea
" to draw from the writing," so that the meaning may be, or
what ye already know, i.e. through my epistle ; aXV i] can there-
fore only be received as belonging to the connexion, as in 1 Cor.
iii. 5. [See Emmerling on this passage.] — In ver. 14, I cannot
persuade myself of the correctness of the connexion between the
iTreyvMTe with the otl Kav^Vfia «:.tA. following, which is main-
tained by Billroth. First the ?7/xa9 by no means agrees with it,
and then the eV rfj rj/juepa fcvplov is especially inapplicable ; for
how can it be said that tlie Corinthians were already acquainted
with that which should be made manifest in the day of the
Lord ? It would be far more reasonable to consider ori, Kav^ni^^
K.r.X. as a separate sentence, whereby the conviction of Paul is
proved that the Corinthians in part rightly acknowledged that
apostle. This conviction justifies him in feeling secure [through
the illumination of the Spirit] that the church of Corinth was
truly a divine creation through his agency, and would remain his
for eternity.)
278 SECOND CORINTHIANS T. 15 — 17.
g 2. THE PLAN OF PAUL's JOURNEY.
(i. 15— ii. 17.)
The fact of the apostle's expressing himself so amply upon the
subject of his projected journey may be accounted for by his an-
tagonists having employed to his prejudice the changes he had
been called upon to make with regard to it. They had taken
advantage of this opportunity to charge him with fickleness, and
m order to refute this accusation he proceeds to explain the
grounds upon which he had made these alterations.
Vers. 15, 16. What Paul here states as his original intention
with reference to the journey to Corinth must have been written
in the epistle which is lost, for he expresses himself differently in
1 Cor. xvi. 5. The sentence ha BevTepav x^P^^ '^XV^^ might
appear to imply that Paul was now for the first time in Corinth ;
but it has been already remarked (Introd. § 2) that there exists
foundation for the supposition that the apostle was frequently
there. Accordingly this expression must be considered to refer
only to the visit to Macedonia, the journey thither, and return
from thence. (In ver. 15 TTeTrolOrjaL^, wliich only appears in the
New Testament in the writings of Paul, occurs frequently in this
epistle. It is closely allied to ir\7}po(^op[a, firm assurance, cer-
tain conviction .-^The reading x^P^^ ^^ certainly to be rejected.
Some however, e.g. Emmerling, receive x^P^^ ^^ ^^^^ signification
of x^p^i^, because it appears striking that the apostle should in-
dicate his visit to be a favour. But in Rom. i. 11 the apostle
declares himself in the same manner. It would have been false
modesty to dissemble his own consciousness of the power which
the Lord had invested him with. — Ver. 16. In the journey to
Judea, Jerusalem was the apostle's principal object of interest.
See Acts xix. 21, xxi. 10, 13.).
Ver. 17. This passage, which stands in strict connexion with
vers. 18 — 20, presents difficulties not unimportant. It is suscep-
tible of two explanations, both of which however appear con-
strained. If it be construed thus, " Have I taken this determina-
tion as it were lightly, after the manner of man, in order that
with me the yea, yea, may also be nay, nay V it really does ap-
SECOND CORINTHIANS I. 17. 279
pear that the yea became nay with the apostle, as he changed bis
conclusion, even if small weight is laid upon the repetition of the
vai and ov as in other places, e.g. Matt. v. 37, where the simple
expression is fully adequate. But if the words are understood
thus : " Did I act in some degree with lightness, or do I take my
resolutions in a carnal manner, in order that under all circum-
stances yea may remain yea and nay continue nay ?" it agrees so
far, as the apostle changed his intention and the yea became nay.
But greater difficulties arise, which I am surprised should escape
Billroth, who has declared himself decidedly in favour of this ex-
planation ; for then the two questions certainly do not stand
parallel, which agreeably to the apostle's purpose they should.
In the question, Have I acted in some degree with lightness \ is
signified the imputation of his opposers that he had conducted
himself with fickleness. According to this view there could be
no reference in the second question to the accusation made by
Paul's enemies, for none had charged him with stubbornness.
Should however this idea be involved in the words, it must
be expressed as follows : Have I, in concluding thus, acted
as it were lightly % Should I not rather then have determined
according to the flesh, if my purpose had only been to achieve
uiy own intention under all circumstances, that thereby nay
might alway continue nay, and yea, yea \ To this however
may be added, that the context does not perfectly agree with this
const¥uction. It is evidently wholly gratuitous to understand
the Xo7o<? r]^(av which follows solely of the publishing of the
Gospel ; it must signify the apostle's discourse. But if this be
the case, how can the vai koX ov of ver, 18 agree with the above-
mentioned conception of ver. 17 ? The difficulty can only be
solved by a third supposition, the kev of which is presented in vers.
19, 20 ; that is to say, the apostle employs in this passage vai
and ov in a very peculiar manner. The expressions are not marks
of affirmation and dissent, but of truth and falsehood, whilst ac-
cording to the use made of them it is possible for the affirmation
to be an error, and the answer in the negative a truth. For this
reason he denies the co-existence of the vai and ov in himself, as
in Christ all is simply yea, so likewise by his Spirit all is yea in
him. The words may accordingly be thus construed : " Or have
I conceived my determination in a carnal fashion, so that with
280 SECOND CORINTHIANS I. 18-20.
me yea is yea, and nay is likewise nay ? i.e. that truth and false-
hood are blended together, that I am wavering, without firmness V
The only thing which can be observed against this is that ha
must be taken in a weakened signification, which however is de-
cidedly admitted in several passages in the New Testament. The
advantage of this reception to the connexion with the context,
and the sense of the subsequent verse, is however so apparent,
that this circumstance cannot be considered. (For fiov\ev6/ji€vo^
good MS. read fiov\6fi6vo(!, which is adopted by Lachmann in the
text ; but it is probable that the ^ovk6iievo<^ has here been changed
on account of the repetition of ^ovXevofiai which follows. The
internal evidence which Lachmann adduces in defence of ^ov\6-
fjL6vo<; appears to me without weight. He considers the parti-
ciple of the present creates a difficulty, because no contempora-
neous exercise of the resolution and of the i\a(f)pta can take
place. But for what reason ? The bitter antagonists of Paul
certainly with the iXatppla proposed to accuse him of an insin-
cerity. — Billroth on the other hand is correct in his view of the
article placed before eXacjipia, considering it as indicating the
lightness of which his opponents accused him.)
Vers. 18 — 20. The unsubstantiality of this view regarding ver.
17, defended by Billroth, is especially established by the joining
of ver. 18 and the following verses. The apostle may imagine an
objection on the part of the Corinthians : if he in one matter can
have so changed his plan, he may likewise certainly change his
doctrine. To which Paul replies, he changes not his doctrine,
that is unchangeable. But what justifies this addition ? The
expression A-0709 rjfiojv may, as already observed, just as well
indicate the speech ; the sentence 6 iv v/ilv St' rjfjLwv Krjpv
X^^('^ is only a current observation that the Christ in whom all is
yea, is the same which he has preached to them ; the sentence
might be entirely omitted without the principal subject suffering
thereby. Nothing further relative to the preaching of the Gos-
pel occurs in the passage. Altliough Grotius makes the val
iv avTcp yeyovev of ver. 19 relate to preaching, and to the
confirming of the same by miracles, it is evidently an error
to do so ; for Christ himself is the subject to yiyove. Ac-
cording to our exposition of the meaning of ver. 17, the con-
nexion with the context forms itself in the following simple
SECOND CORINTHIANS I. 18 — 20. 281
manner. A negative reply must be presupposed to the ques-
tion in ver. 17, and then continue thus : " God is faithful, in
that (by his help) our preaching to you (as well in publishing the
Gospel, as every other respect), was not yea and nay. For the
true Christ was not yea and nay, but in him is only yea, and God
hath founded us upon Christ, and infused his Spirit into our hearts
(vers. 21, 22) ; we thence possess the same spiritual character as
Christ, in us is only yea, not yea and nay." If we, according to
this, view the Se of ver. 17 as not adversative, but the particle which
contains the connexion of the discourse, it need occasion no hesi-
tation, as it is well known to frequently occur thus in the language
of the New Testament. (See Winer's Gram. p. 414, sqq.) Ex-
ception may however be taken to the proffered signification of val
and ov : we will therefore examine more closely vers. 20 and 21
for if we except it in the sense laid down, we are also compelled
to apply the same to ver. 17, as the connexion of the whole de-
duction is adverse to a different signification of the words in that
passage. The usual explanation of the words Xpiaro^ ovk iyevero
val Kol ov, uWa val iv avrrp (yiyovev, is this, " Christ is ever as-
serted by us, our preaching of him remains always the same."
But the words speak certainly not of the preaching of Christ,
but of Christ himself, as is plainly proved by the sentence, " all
God's promises are in him yea," which according to the usual
explanation would be here thoroughly inapplicable. Our concep-
tion of the passage however agrees entirely with this. Christ as
the manifestation of God (roi) Geov vl6<; is therefore employed) is
the absolute Truth, merely the position, in him is the actual ful-
filment of all God's promises, the negation does not exist in him.
This absolute divine and positive principle of Truth is imparted
by God to his own people, through Christ in the Holy Spirit, so
that in them likewise the position only exists, and not as in the
natural man, the negation also. Paul thence argues that it would
be impossible for him to be wavering, in the manner of the world
(^fcara adpKo). In ver. 19 the sentence o iv v/jllv Sl y/j,MV Krjpv-
^^et? has probably a current reference to the false preaching of
the teachers of error ; their Christ was .no absolute position, be-
cause he was not in all respects the true one. — Concerning Syl-
vanus, see Acts xviii. 5, where he is called Silas, and 1 Pet.
V. 12. — In ver. 20 avrwv is to be supplied to the iv avrco to val.
282 SECOND CORINTHIANS 1. 21—24.
The sentence oaat — a/jurjv is not to form a parenthesis, as Gries-
bach supposes ; it connects itself strictly with the train of thought.
— As regards the reading of the last words of ver. 20, the general
one admits of clear explanation, nevertheless it appears with
Lachniann preferable to admit the koI iv avrcp to a}xi]v for the
following reasons. First, weighty authorities are in its favour,
especially A.B.C.F.Gr. and six other Codd. ; and secondly, a far
more free connexion is thereby gained for the concluding words,
Vers. 21, 22. Both verses, according to the preceding passage,
have for their object the communicating to the apostle whatever is
in the possession of Christ. We are not therefore to view the /3e-
^aiovv ek Xpiarov as an outward union, a simple reception into
the public community of the church, but as inferring an essential
union, an engrafting as it were in the Lord, so that his life is the
life of Paul and of all believers. As ^plo-a^; is distinguished from
a(f>par^LauiJL6vo^ and Soi*? dppaficova, the former would be best
understood to designate the call to the spiritual offices of priest
and prophet, as experienced in the fullest sense by the apostle.
The a^payl^etv (Rom. iv. 11 ; 1 Cor. xi. 2), and appa^cova
hovvat signify the operation of the Spirit which follows the call-
ing, whereby the creature is confirmed in the same, and receives
the Spirit as a pledge of happiness in everlasting life. (In ver.
21 the participles ^e^aiwv and 'yplaa^ are best connected adjec-
tively with 0eo?, supplying iarl before the 6 kol a(\>pa>yi(Tdi.L6vo^
r]fjLa<;. — An allusion to the name XpLcmavol possibly lies in the
'Xpiaa^, the anointed by the Spirit, the kingly priesthood. — Ver. 22
expresses in the Sol*? ev raU KapBlat^i tj/jlcov the idea of excitement,
connecting with it, at the same time, that of subsequent repose).
Ver. 23, 24. That which the apostle has hitherto mentioned
generally is now specially enforced. The change in the plan of
his journey was founded upon no fickleness, but was called forth
by his love ; he desired to be considerate towards the Corinthians,
to leave them time to collect themselves, and return from their
errors. The forbearance is further explained by him, as that a
repeated appearance in Corinth would seem urgent and vexatious,
and he desired not to have dominion over their faith, but only to
participate in their joy ; he therefore leaves them the opportunity
of finding the right way, for being themselves certainly in the
SECOND CORINTHIANS II. 1, 2. 283
faith, they could not be dealt with as unbelievers. (In ver. 23 eVt
rrjv €fir)v 'xjrvxvi^ may not be understood as if it were, I call
Grod and my soul as witness, meaning that both God and soul
should witness ; but, I call God as a witness against my soul,
i.e. my soul shall suffer if I am saying that which is untrue.
— The concluding sentence of yer. 24, rfj yap irlaTei earr}-
Kare, is received by Grotius as an explanation of ;^apa, "Ye may
hope for joy, for by faith ye stand ;" but as the mention of joy is
only incidental, it appears more suitable to connect it as stated
above with the more important ov)(^ otv Kvpievofjiev k. t. X.)
Chap. ii. 1, 2. On his own account also, Paul continues, he
had avoided coming again to Corinth, not wishing to appear as a
reprover, and thus to prepare sorrow for himself and others.
When the necessity for reproof was urgent, the consciousness
that a spiritual blessing might be thereby awakened was his sole
consolation. The idea contained in the Xvirri is especially to be
observed in this and the following verse. Hitherto this has been
erroneously considered entirely active, or entirely passive, as
arousing sorrow^ or experiencing it, but both these conditions are
found in it. The affectionate nature of the apostle, suffered very
sensibly when he was compelled to inflict sorrow. The contrasts
therefore of joy and sorrow prevail in the Xvirrj. The Xvtti] over
sin is the purest source of joy, as the joy which is entirely sinful,
and without the \v7rrj is the certain foundation of sorrow. This
leads the apostle to say he did not desire to introduce iv Xvirrf
again in Corinth. To understand this, on account of the Lva firj
\v7rr)p e^co of ver. 3 as simply passive, is clearly an error on the
part of Billroth, for el yap iyo) Xvttco vfjua^ immediately follows,
which refers to the h Xvirrj eXOelv of ver. 1. But to prepare sor-
row for another, is a pain to himself, thence eKptva i^avrat (dat.
comm), " I. have conceived it advantageous to myself" The con-
nexion between ver, 1 and 2 has something obscure in it, espe-
cially on account of the Kal t/? iariv 6 evcppalvoov fie, el fir) 6
Xvirov/JLevo^ ef ifiov ; the singular 6 Xvirovfievo^ does not refer to
any definite person, the excommunicated person for example who
is presently mentioned, but is occasioned by the preceding 6
ev^paivcov. Certainly the plural might have been employed on
both occasions, but the singular makes the text more concise and
sententious. " He only can cause me joy, who permits me {i. (?.
284 SECOND CORINTHIANS II. 3, 4.
as the servant of God) to occasion him sorrow. But how is this
connected with ver. 1 by means of et r^ap iyco Xvttco vfia<;\
Doubtless thus, Paul will for this reason not journey again iv
XvTrrj towards Corinth ; because he cannot foresee that circum-
stances there will prove the source of rejoicing to him, or that the
condition of those who were from his former reproof Xvirovjji.evoi,
would be productive of more satisfaction to him. The passage
thus contains an indirect recommendation to apply his reproofs
better to heart, for the Xvirovfjievo^ is really one who displays
genuine penitence, and real sorrow for his sin, and in whom
therefore one may really rejoice. Grotius finds the following mean-
ing in the words, " If I occasioned you sorrow, then should I have
no one in Corinth who would cause me to rejoice " But the el ^ir)
is decidedly against this, as by it the Xviroufievo^ is explained to
be the 6V(ppalv(ov. Riickert supposes an Aposiopesis, making a
new question to commence with the Kal rt^ icmv in the sense of,
"And yet who maketh me to rejoice, but those whom I have
caused to sorrow ?" But it is evident that the sentence forms a
whole. According to our explanation, the only objection which
presents itself is the present tense Xvttco : certainly the eXvirrjcra
is expected as antithesis to the irdXtv of ver. 1. But the present
form may proceed from the ftict of the effects of the sorrow being
regarded as permanent. (In ver. 1 the irdXiv alludes to another
stay of Paul in Corinth, in addition to the considerable one, dur-
ing which he laid the foundation of the church there. See the
Introd. § 2. — In ver. 2 koX t/?, in the signification of ecquis, quis
tandem, occurs also in Mark x. 26 ; Luke x. 29 ; John ix. 36.).
Ver. 3, 4. Paul desires by the present written exhortation to
effect an object not hitherto attained ; and in this view expresses
the earnest hope that the Corinthians would receive that which
was joyfulness to him, as a source of rejoicing to themselves. In
order powerfully to stimulate their love, he describes the frame of
mind in which he found himself at the time of writing to them.
The Fathers (and among the moderns, Emmerling) have cor-
rectly referred the eypayjra avro tovto to the epistle before us ;
but Billroth maintains its application to the earlier epistle, which
renders the whole passage perfectly unintelligible. If it appears
inconceivable that he can suppose the following to be the correct
inference from the words, viz. " that Paul's object in this epistle
SECOND CORINTHIANS II. 5. 285
is not the amendment of the Corinthians, but to address those
already improved in grace." The words which precede certainly
evince a desire on the part of the apostle that the present epistle
may conduce to the improvement of the Corinthians, and this de-
sire is yet more evident in the second part of the writing,
lltickert likewise applies the sentence to the second epistle, al-
though he finds the tovto avro an obstacle, and will therefore re-
ceive this expression in the signification of " even for that cause,"
but this is thoroughly incompatible with the Greek construction.
(In ver. 4 consult Luke xxi. 25 concerning a-vvo-^rj. The afflic-
tion here described does not proceed from any outward necessity,
but simply from the grief experienced by the apostle at being
compelled to adopt such a style of writing. The ov^ "va Xvttt}-
drjre appears a contradiction of ver. 2, where it says that only the
XuTTovfievo^ were to hira a source of rejoicing. But here Paul
employs the sorrow in an outward sense, and in ver. 2 it is not
tlie end but the means to an end.)
Ver. 5. After the apostle has thus cast a glance at the future,
and taken due precaution to avoid many subjects of uneasiness
upon his next arrival at Corinth, he turns to the past. If any
have awakened grief, he has not caused it to him (Paul) but to
all, and from this place to ver. 11 it is further impressed upon
them that the love he has shown towards them they are now
called upon to exercise towards this sinner. It is only in this
manner that we can obtain a free and clear connexion with the
foregoing passage. Ver. 4 plainly appears to be an additional
sentence describing the circumstances under which the apostle
wrote ; the el Si rt? XeXvirrj/cev is therefore immediately connected
with the iW /JLT) iX6(bv Xvirrjv e^oj (ver. 3.). " The intention
of this epistle is so to dispose your minds that I may have joy in
you ; but should any one have caused you grief, let me not be re-
garded, but have a view to yourselves." A stop is not therefore
to be introduced between vers. 4 and 5, as Griesbach supposes,
but one verse closely follows the other in the manner correctly
printed by Lachmann. Billroth's declaration of the connexion is
erroneously conceived, but this is necessarily a consequence of his
incorrect understanding of the eypa^^jra vfuv (ver. 3.). He con-
siders that ver. 5 stands connected with ver. 4 in the manner fol-
lowinsr. Paul states in ver. 4 that he had written in much
286
affliction ; but in order that he may not appear to be directing
fresh reproofs to the sinner formerly addressed, he adds he had
not troubled him. But how could the apostle justly assert this ?
The description in 1 Cor. v. 1, sqq., decidedly proves that this oc-
currence had greatly affected Paul. The words ovk i/jie \e\v-
irrjKev can only be conceived true by supposing that the apostle
thereby intended indirectly to condemn the wrong position of
some of the Corinthians to the above-mentioned sinner. Several
among them might possibly (the impenitent, for example, or those
who avoided all occasion of trouble to themselves), have compas-
sionated the apostle for the affliction caused him by the same un-
fortunate person ; therefore, in order to direct their thoughts to
themselves, he says he was not then treating of its reference to
himself but to them. It will of course be supposed that the
apostle neither wished to deny or conceal the personal suffering
produced by the circumstance ; he only desired to make them per-
ceive that it was unnecessary to occupy themselves with him, and
had only to look to their own sorrow. But as this sorrow was by
no means either deep-seated or general (as it would have been
had their spirit of unity been truly awakened), Paul adds with
delicate irony, utto /Ltepou?, tW ^rj iiri^apw. For according to
him the highest praise he could have awarded would be to say,
that he had troubled all without exception, and yet no complaint
proceeded from the Corinthians ; but as he could not assert this,
he ingeniously turns the phrase thus : he has not troubled me^ but
partly you, in order not to burthen all with this grief Accord-
ing to this acceptation of the words, we prefer with Mosheim the
interpretation aX\! diro ftepou?, 7va /jurj iiriPapco Trdvra^;, vfid^i.
But if rravra^ vjnd^ must be connected, then not avrov but only
ijud<i requires to be supplied to eiri8ap(b. According to the usual
explanation the passage is expressed quite differently. They
translate : he has not only grieved me, but also you. To agree
with this, the tW imtj iTn^apoo must be understood to include a
commendation ; in order to avoid reproving all with their indif-
ference. But there exist no just grounds for the interpolation of
a fiovov, Paul absolutely negatives of himself that which he asserts
of the Corinthians. (Fritzsche [Diss. i. p. 16, sqq.] receives diro
fjuepov^ in the sense of non admodum, which comes tolerably near
the meaning given, as the apostle likewise intends to reprove the
SECOND CORINTHIANS II. 6— 9. 2 87
feeble grief of the Corinthians ;^ nevertheless the reference to irdv-
Ta<^ vfjid^ is too strict to allow us to depart from the first meaning,
especially as in ver. 6 the vtto rSyv ifKeiovwv is only another ex-
pression for aiTo fjLepov^.)
Vers. 6, 7. The apostle then proceeds without further irony ;
nevertheless if the necessary severity against the immoral of-
fender be' not exercised by all, but only by the greater number
(the majority truly standing as the whole community), it is amply
sufficient ; and it becomes the sincerely penitent to practise that
indulgence towards the individual, of which he knows himself
to stand in great need. Rtickert's supposition that the punish-
ment of excommunication mentioned by the apostle had by no
means been employed by the Corinthians, but could only be
considered as a severe reproof (eVtrt/x/a should stand = eVtr/-
fiTjat,^) must be rejected as thoroughly untenable. (In ver. 6 Ua-
vov must be received substantively " it is a sufficiency." See
Winer's Gr. p. 331. Ktihner's Gr. Pt. ii. p. 457.— In ver. 7 the
infinitive must be inferred from the presumptory form of ver. 6,
if it be not altogether necessary to supply eVrw. In the Kara-
TToOfj the idea is possibly expressed that, urged by despair, the
XvTTT] might hurry into the world and there fall a prey to its
prince [ver. 11.]).
Vers. 8, 9. The apostle then adds an express command to re-
ceive again the excommunicated person, supposing they would show
the same obedience to this precept, as they had already done to
the one (contained in the first epistle, chap, v.) requiring his ex-
clusion. The form of this command Paul tempers by explaining
himself historically as to the tendency of the epistle. It need not
be stated that the meaning is not, that this was the sole inten-
tion of writing, for it contains much besides on various subjects.
The command for the excommunication also may not be regarded
as simply a trial of obedience, the main object was the salvation
of the church and of the individual. The assertion of these points
has for its object the exhibiting the reproof as forbearing. In
conclusion, this passage places fully before us the plenitude of the
apostolic power ; the apostle retains and forgives sins, as taught
1 Fritzsclie certainly only regards 'Iva /nij liri^apio as an explanation of diro fxipov^ :
bat in what manner this idea may accord with the meaning of ctTrd fxipovi as laid down,
or correspond with the whole connexion of the passage, is not perceptible.
288 SECOND CORINTHIANS II. 12 — 13.
by the spirit. (In ver. 8, Kvpooa-at dydiTTjv has not only the usual
signification " to show lore," but " to confirm love," that is to
say, by reception into the communion of the church. The ex-
pression does not occur again in the New Testament. Emmerling
compares Q^^pHj which the LXX. in Gen. xxiii. 20 render
KVpOVV.).
Ver. 10. 11. If a section is to be formed, it is certainly in this
place, not however to include ver. 12 or ver. 14, as Griesbach
thinks, for the connexion of idea is very apparent in both pas-
sages. But Paul here passes at once from the special circum-
stance of the reinstatement of the incestuous person to the idea
of general forgiveness. The words m 8e to ^aptfecr^e, and ec tl
Ke^dpLafiai, do not allude to any decided Factum ; the extremely
vague TL forbids this, and indeed the manner in which mention is
made of the ')(api^eadai will not sanction their application to
sin. These words must be considered to bear decided reference
to the prevailing dissensions in Corinth. In these disputes all
parties were in error, and must equally abandon their false
notions ; and Paul therefore commences by proclaiming his own
unanimity of feeling towards the Corinthians, and that from a
sentiment of love. Where the spirit of dispute is not vanquished
by love, Satan is gratified, and seeks to ruin souls. From what
has already been laid down, it will be evident that the ha firj
7r\€ov€/cT7]0M/jbev vTTo Tov aaTavd does not contain a reference to
the above-mentioned sinner alone, although it undoubtedly in-
cludes him ; it expresses generally the danger of yielding an en-
trance to feelings of hatred. (In ver. 9, the ^e may certainly be
explained thus, " As I expect perfect obedience from you in this
matter, so am I likewise ready on my part to agree with you in
conferring forgiveness on any." — Ver. 10. The ecTt fcexapLo-fiat is
an expression of humility : " If I perchance have anything to for-
give." The reception of the icejadpiapiaL in a passive significa-
tion, as defended by Etlckert, thus, *' For to me also much has
been forgiven, especially my offence in persecuting the church,"
is textually allowable ; it nevertheless has the el tl KexdpccrfMat
against it, which will admit of the medial interpretation only, for
that he was forgiven could certainly not be a subject of doubt. —
TheeV TTpocrcoTrcp XpcaTov represents the indulgence and readiness
expressed by Paul, as sanctified and pure ; they are such as may
SECOND CORINTHIANS II. 12 — 16. 289
be displayed in the sight of the Lord, and can therefore have no
admixture of a carnal nature. — Ver. 11 shows how decidedly aad
really dangerous Paul considered the betrayer and enemy of man
in his sphere of activity. See Ephes. vi. 12.).
Ver. 12, 13. The joining these verses with the mention already
made of the journey, is so little adapted to the sense, that we
cannot understand the reason it is done. Passing by the fact,
that we must return to i. 16, nothing further concerning the
journey is learned from these verses ; plans only, and not actual
journeys, were discussed in i. 16, and in i. 23, and ii. 1, simply
Paul's design not to visit Corinth. It would be far more to the
purpose, to see in these verses a declaration of Paul's great love
towards the Corinthians, forming thereby a commentary on the Bt
vfjba<^. At all events the he of ver. 12 must then be again re-
ceived in the signification of " furthermore." (See Comm. on i.
18.). The sentence 6upa<i /jlol dv6a)yfiiv7j<; iv Kvpiw thus obtain
significance ; for these good expectations might have detained
him in the place in which he then was, but his love to the Corin-
thians was so great, that he hastened on towards Macedonia, in
order to receive intelligence from them through Titus, as early as
possible. It appears however very striking that the apostle, in
order to obtain early information from Corinth, should neglect a
favourable opportunity of publishing the Gospel. It would seem
as if he had yielded too readily to human impulse, and abandoned
that which was of high importance for an object of less moment.
But the expression tcS irvevfiarl fiov proves that this was not the
case ; it was not purely human impulse that caused him to leave
Troas so hastily, but the consciousness that very important mat-
ters aff'ecting God's kingdom in Corinth were coming under notice
at this time, and that he should be thereby justified in leaving
his present promising position for a time, in order to receive an
accurate report of them. (In ver. 13 the a7roTafa//,€i/o9 avroh
refers to those inhabitants of Troas who were inclined to receive
tlie Gospel.)
Ver. 14 — 16. Nevertheless, continues the apostle, even in this
restless struggle, on account of the Corinthian church, God always
gave us the victory. Truly this victory displayed itself in the
person of the Lord himself (Luke ii. 34), and likewise in his
faithful servants not only in the attractive, but also by means of
t
290 SECOND CORINTHIANS II 17.
the repelling power. Altliougli the apostle does not expressly
apply this to the circumstances of the Corinthians, it is yet evi-
dent that he intended to signify that this likewise might be said
of them, especially as he also alludes to the divisions in Corinth,
in ver. 17. His preaching was to the humble-minded and pure
a blessing, but a curse to his antagonists. By means of a two-
fold image, this idea is farther expressed, by triumph and sacri-
fice. God prepared for him, decreed him as it were, like a con-
quering emperor, the triumph, but in Christ ; i. e. inasmuch as
the apostle himself was in Christ, and likewise in and for the
things which are of Christ. In the second image the creature
appears passive, he gives himself to God as a well-pleasing sacri-
fice, but the savour of this sacrifice is permitted by God to be
manifest everywhere, to good and bad indiff'erently. The question
here presents itself, how far the apostle is speaking of the oa^rj
TTj^ 7z/a)c7.6ft)9 XpL(TTOv, of tlic cvco^la Xpcarov ? Doubtless inas-
much as it is not Paul's own life which renders the sacrifice well-
pleasing to God, but Christ's life in him, and the yvcoai^ is espe-
cially here held forth to view, because the idea of the sacrifice is in
the first place employed with reference to Paul's labours in preach-
ing the Gospel, while he also applies it to his internal and external
conflicts at another period of time. The sweet savour's relation
to the sacrifice is exposed, according to the biblical expression,
rrin^^S nn'»!3 n*^*^. (^^® ^^^' ^- ^ — 17;Num. xv. 7.). The sweet
savour is as it were the manifestation, the utterance of the dumb
sacrifice. The savour of life shed abroad by the apostle appeared
as a mighty power, attracting to itself as to a magnet all things
possessing afiinity, but repelling antagonistic qualities. The croj-
TTjpla and aTrcoXeta are the terminations of one as of the other,
of life and of death. Paul by no means intends to designate two
unalterable classes of mankind by the expression eV rot? aco^o-
/jbevot<; teal iv rol^ airoWv/jLevoL^;, but only to describe the result
produced by the one operation of the Gospel or the other. The
eff*ect itself is by no means dependent on God's constraining
power, but on the devoting himself to the Gospel, a state within
the power of every individual.
Ver. 17. The words Kal Trpo? ravra ri? lKav6<^ ; must be espe-
cially considered with regard to the context. The idea " who is
thereunto worthy" (to exercise such operation), might asiniii. 5
SECOND CORINTHIANS II. 17. 291
be applied to man without God ; and indeed in what follows we
are made aware that it is only speaking /rowi God through Christ
that qualifies, and not the power of the individual, be it ever so
great. But this is not the chief idea in the present passage, the
intention of the apostle is rather to abate the arrogance of his
Corinthian antagonists. These also laid claim to apostolic pre-
rogative (see chap. xi. 12), for which reason the apostle asserts
that only the sincere mind, the condition of elXi/cptvela, c6n-
stituted the capacity for such a position. The Kairrfkeveiv ==
SoXovv of iv. 4, indicates the antithesis, or confounding things
divine with those merely human, as reproved in 1 Cor. i. 2. But
if the state of sincerity implies the negative human side, the con-
cluding words of the chapter and the verse must describe the
positive divine side. Unless the passage be in a degree pleonastic,
a reference must exist here, as in Kom. xi. 36, and other places,
to the circumstances of the Trinity. It is easy to explain i/c of
the Father, and iv of Christ ; the former indicates the origin of
the exalted life which filled the apostle, the latter the life as the
enduring element of the same ; but it is unusual to regard Kare-
vcoTTwv or fcarivavTi (preferred by Lachmann) as of the Spirit.
According to this representation the Holy Spirit is considered as
the divine element which hovers as it were over the church, be-
fore whose eyes and under whose sacred egis the latter extends
itself. In conclusion, it will be readily understood that the rov
must be erased after /carevcoTnov : Lachmann has already correctly
omitted it. (The expression ol iroWol with the article refers to
well-known personal qualities. In iii. 1 TLvk stands for ttoWoI
as a proof that it is not to be pressed. — The doubled fo)9 e« is not
to be explained by the Caph veritatis, but it describes the nature of
the preachingas adaptedto the views and judgement of the hearers:
we speak so, that they must confess that we speak from God, and
as enlightened by God. It also does not mean that they are
really not enlightened, but their enlightenment is viewed and re-
presented by the standard of others. — -The repetition of aWa
only marks more strongly the antithesis.)
t2
292 SECOND CORINTHIANS IIT.*1 .
§ 3. THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE,
(iii. 1—18.)
After the apostle has stated that from his position towards
the Corinthians, he required neither from himself or others any
commendation to them, they themselves being his living epistles,
he proceeds to declare that this tirm conviction did not rest on a
consciousness of his own power, but of the gloriousness of his
office, which he brilliantly illustrates by a parallel with the minis-
tration of the Old Covenant.
Ver. 1. Although, as we have already observed on i. 1, the
first part of our epistle is specially addressed to the well-inten-
tioned, a reference nevertheless frequently occurs to his adver-
saries and their manifestations. It is precisely so in this place ;
he knew that his antagonists had charged him with self-commen-
dation, and therefore he now enquires if he desired again with
self-sufficiency to commend himself. Besides this the apostle, by
a side remark, exposes the weakness of his haughty opponents.
These had, from a sense of their deficiency in divine authority,
sought to assist themselves by letters of recommendation to the
Corinthians, and from the latter to other churches. But Paul was
superior to such proceedings, and in bold speech he compares his
divine labours in his sphere of action with these artifices, (I
prefer the reading el /jlt], accepted by Griesbach and Lachmann ;
in the first place, the critical authorities in its favour are not
slight, and then, although it appears rather more difficult, it ap-
plies better to the sense. In the second question the intention is
obscure, for in the main point it is only a repetition of the subject
of the first. Doubtless with the el jurj the connexion shapes it-
self thus : Do we then again begin to commend ourselves ? In no-
wise ; else should we as others employ commendatory letters to or
from you, and for such we have no occasion, &c. — Paul's Corin-
thian antagonists might have brought with them letters of recom-
mendation from Peter, James, and perhaps even John, and
pleaded the authority of these apostles. But certainly these
apostles could not agree with their views, but were rather de-
ceived by them concerning the nature of their proceedings. [See
SECOND CORINTHIANS 111. 2, 3. 203
Comm. on xi. 13, sqq.]. The position of tlie cliurcli with regard
to the various sorts of sectarian connexions existing within her,
might have early inculcated the necessity for ypdfjLfiara avara-
TLKa, but it is unnecessary to state that in this passage such for-
mal letters of credence are not intended.)
Vers. 2, 3. The apostle explains the dependence of the Co-
rinthians upon himself in a bold metaphor ; he required no com-
mendatory letter to them, they being his living epistle to the
world, an impressive document of his apostolic calling, addressed
to the whole world. He who could establish a church of God in
a city like Corinth must bear within himself the Spirit of the
living God, from whose body streams of living water flow. The
image is simple and intelligible, for if in ver. 2 the Corinthians
are styled an epistle of Paul, and in ver. 3 an epistle of Christ,
which he presents to the world, the latter verse is only a closer
definition of the former ; and the apostle desires to make it appa-
rent, that his labours have been perfected not in his own, but in
Christ's power. In the description of the spiritual nature of this
epistle, the a,postle draws a parallel between it and the Old Tes-
tament, which is hereafter more fully carried out. The latter was
likewise an epistle of God to the world, but engraven by the
finger of God on tables of stone, while the former epistle is writ-
ten on the tables of the heart. Because this was evidently so
among the Corinthians, this epistle was published, and as it were
read by all the world. The only difficulty in the passage is
caused by the sentence in ver. 2, iyyeypa/xfjievr) iv rah Kap^iai^
rjfjLwv. If we lay aside the reference to i. 19 in the plural, and say
that Paul spoke inclusively of his fellow-labourers, Timothy
and Sylvanus,^ the jj/jlwv nevertheless remains striking. We ex-
pect vficav, as the Corinthians collectively formed a living letter,
the individuals composed as it were the words of the same. A
few Codd. it is true read vfjLwv, but this change has evidently
been made on account of the difficulty, and may not be received
as correct. It is Emmerling's opinion that litterce nobis in-
scriptce only means so far as " dwelling in us, as it were, so that
we bear it about with us everywhere." But this does not remove
I That KapSiuL can be employed plurally, like (nrXuyxi^a, as Billroth thinks, I much
doubt. The JjusTs employed alone by Paul cannot under any Cinuimstances be accom .
panied by KapSlai, we must therefore suppose that Paul spoke in several names.
294 - SECOND CORINTHIANS III. 2, 3.
the chief difficulty, the real existence of the Corinthian church is
the letter read by the world, not the subjective remembrance of
their existence in the apostle. Fritszche (Diss. 1. p. 19, sqq.)
thinks that the apostle first principally refers to the Corinthians
themselves, and afterwards to the epistle, to which he compares
them : that the i'^^e^pafjufjuevr) /c.r.X. comes under the former
head, making the sense : conscius mihi sum, vos mihi commen-
dationi esse. It seems to me that it may be necessary to adopt
a modification of the reference, only it may be requisite to point
out the means by which this would be obtained ; probably
through the parallel of the apostolic office with the office of the
Old Testament, which was floating in the apostle's mind. The
high priest was the visible representative of the latter, who,
among other rich symbolic ornaments, bore on his breast the in-
signia of his office, composed of twelve precious stones, upon
which were engraven the names of the children of Israel. He
wore this on his breast when he entered the holy temple, as a re-
membrance before the Lord continually (Exod. xxviii. 15, sqq.).
The stone tables here mentioned are, according to this, not the
tables of the law, but these precious stones engraven with the
names of the children of Israel. This emblematic regulation is
received by Paul in a spiritual sense, and applied to the relation
of himself and other teachers of the Gospel, towards their spi-
ritual children ; they bear their names engraven in their hearts,
and bring them continually before God in prayer. There can be
no doubt that the idea was passing through the apostle's mind
that the bond between those become regenerate, and the teacher
whose preaching produced the new-birth, was in no case simply
an outward one, but that an essential inward connexion took
place between them. The regenerate are linked to the heart of
their spiritual father by means of a spiritual bond ; precisely as
Christ is in us, and we in Christ, so should believers also exist
in one another. Under this view the Corinthians were actually
in two respects an epistle ; first, by being engraven on the heart
of the apostle, and secondly, inasmuch as they from this source
of their life had gained an outward existence likewise.^ In
1 The idea that the power of faith and divine love, the inward emotions of the heart,
; f xpressed in preaching, and the sigh and prayer of the contrite sinner, displays itself
SECOND CORINTHIANS III. 4 — 6. 295
conclusion, o-apKtvo^ has in this passage, as the antithesis to
XiOivo^, only the signification of " living," without reference to the
idea of weakness or sinfulness which is otherwise found in the
Vers. 4 — 6. After Paul has declared the steadfastness of his
faith, resting upon God, he again impressively states that his
connexion with the Corinthians is indestructible, and that he does
not ascribe to himself the fitness for the exercise of such powers,
but imputes all to God, who has endowed the exalted office
which he fills with extraordinary power. In ver. 5 the apostle
strongly exposes the unfitness of the natural man (for what he
here says of himself is applicable to mankind generally) to work
the works of God. The Xo^idaaQai stands in opposition to the
ip'yd^ecrOai : if the man cannot even think that which is good,
how much less shall he have the power to do it ? (It is not ne-
cessary to supply a7a^oi^tothe rt: the apostle considers the evil
as the fjLT} 6v.) The Kal at the commencement of ver. 6 refers to
this doing, " God gave us not only good thoughts, but made us
also capable, as ministers of the new covenant, of putting them
in practice." The acj)' eavrwv and ef eavTMv are in no degree
pleonastic, but the e'f rather more closely determines the cltto.
That is to say, in a certain sense the foundation of the Corin-
thian church proceeded from Paul, but the groundwork of the
necessary power for this work was not his own. This proceeded
not from him, but was shed abroad from God through the apostle.
— The apostle now explicitly contrasts the new covenant with
the old, but as in the TTvevjxa the new, so in the 'ypdfxfjba the old
is signified, and the following parallel between the two shows
that Paul had the followers of Peter especially in view. (Con-
cerning the antithesis between ypd/ub/na and irvevjxa see the obser-
vations on Rom. vii. 6.). The letter corresponds to the body,
also in the outward and visible existence, is beautifully and significantly exhibited by
Albert Knapp on the 87th Psalm. (Christoterpe 1835, p. 348, 49.)
God effects all— what the spirit aspires to
Is by him consummated,
And all sighs, that are like seed
Scattered 'mongst regions of dark heathenfolk,
Will one day wave in ears of gold.
The heartfelt supplication— in eternity
Receives its answer through the Lord.
296 SECOND CORINTHIANS III. 4 — 6.
which the Spirit forms to himself, and which he fills. The Spirit
never appears here below without form ; the Spirit of the New
Testament therefore has also created for itself a form in the
visible church and its institutions. But the Spirit rules with so
predominant a sway in Christianity that it may be called the
Spirit upon the same grounds as the Old Testament is styled the
letter, on account of the prevailing dominion of form. In a
short significant expression Paul defines the diff*erence of the
two economies : to ypd/jufjia airoKTeivet, to irvevjJLa ^woTroiel. As
according to the connexion the l^ayoiroLeiv refers to the imparting
a higher life by means of the Gospel, to the power of creating
men again in the new birth, it might be supposed that the airo-
KTeiveiv was only to be received negatively : " the Old Testament
can communicate no life." This view might appear the more
correct as the context would reject the notion of attaching cen-
sure to the Old Testament, but is calculated to represent it as
the stepping-stone to revelation. But the expressions hiaKovia
Tov OavcLTov (ver. 7), and tt}? KaTaKplaew^i (ver. 9) prove that
the apostle maintains the positive idea of the airoicTelvetv. It is
clear from Eom. vii. 9, sqq. that Paul attributed to the law
a power to kill, to condemn, and to impose a curse, for it required
absolute holiness and the fulfilment of all commandments,^ But
by the power of grace this condemnation and this death became
the source of life and forgiveness to the penitent. Without the
^ew Testament, as a necessary extension of the Old, this charac-
teristic of the economy of the Old Testament would truly be an
imperfection ; but with it, it becomes necessary for the instruc-
tion of man. (See on Galat. iii. 24.). It was when the Old
Testament was still maintained to be of this preparatory cha-
racter, after the economy of the Spirit had manifested itself (as
was done by the false teachers in Corinth, at least by Peter's
party, with reference to whom these parallels appear to have been
delineated), it was then that positive error and the abuse of the
law commenced, which was opposed so strongly by Paul in the
epistle to the Galatians. But to receive the Gospel without the
law which should prepare for its acceptation is again the error of
1 Fritzscho accepts this idea in too restricted and outward a sense when he says witli
respect to it: Mosis niunus fuit diaKovia daudrov, quo n tarn Ule legem tiilU, quce pluririia
supplicla snuciret. ( Diss. i. p. 27.)
SECOND CORINTHIANS III. 7 — 9. 297
Antinomianism. The apostle is not here speaking of the law as
it was of importance in the economy of the New Testament,
but of the law as applicable to outward institutions, in which
view it is perishable. (See on ver. 11.). In order to signify this
the apostle makes use of the expression hiaKovia. For although
the law is not destroyed under the new covenant, there neverthe-
less no longer exists any hiaKovla toO v6/jlov or Oavdrov, the
SiaKovla Tov Trvevfxaro^; includes the law within itself. (Concern-
ing the connexion of the concluding words by means of yap
with that which precedes, Fritzsche and Riickert have cor-
rectly observed that this conjunction does not refer itself to the
principal phrase iKavwaev k. t. X., but only to the preceding an-
tithesis of rypdfji/jLa and Trvevfia, for the purpose of making it
clearer, so that the meaning is, ^rt? hiaOrjKr} rypd/jbfjiaTO<; diro-
Kreivei, Trvevjjbaro^ ^(ooTTotel.)
Vers. 7 — 9. The apostle further carries out his spirited pa-
rallel, proceeding from the minor to the superior particulars
composing it. If the ministration of death and condemna-
tion were already so glorious, how much greater must be the
glory of the Spirit and of righteousness ! The antithesis of the
condemnation defines more strictly the idea of the BiKatoavvij.
As the former was the announcement of rejection, the latter con-
veyed the tidings of righteousness, which as a divine proclamation
may be concluded of active efiicacy, producing righteousness.
Strictly speaking, life should have been employed in opposition to
death ; but the Spirit is considered as the life-creating principle,
according to the words which occur previously, 7rvevp,a ^cooTroiet.
The idea of the Odvaro^ is also to be defined in the same way
from the ypdfi/JLa dirotcrelvei which precedes. The ivrervTrcofjuivrj
iv Xi6oL^ only incidentally refers to the hiaKovla : its more avowed
reference is to the Decalogue inscribed upon the table of the law.
The iv \l6oL^ is consequently not the same as the eV irXa^l \c-
dlvai<^ of ver. 3. But inasmuch as this forms the quintessence of
the whole law, upon which the office itself rests, and in the appli-
cation of which its existence consists, the apostle likewise applies
that which concerns the Decalogue to the office itself. The
greatest peculiarity however in this passage is the typical appli-
cation of an historical subject. According to Exod. xxiv. 12,
sqq., xxxiv. 1, sqq., Deut. x. 1, the countenance of Moses, when
298 SECOND CORINTHIANS III. 10, 11.
he descended from Sinai was so bright, through the reflected
glory emanating from the presence of the Lord with whom he had
spoken, that the Israelites could not endure to behold his coun-
tenance. Regarding Moses as the representative of the law, the
apostle considers this brightness of his face as the definition of
the glory resting on the economy of the old coyenant. As in the
latter all was outward, so likewise was the brightness external,
transitory, continually passing away : in the new covenant, on the
contrary, all was of internal signification, the gloriousness
was of a concealed character, but infinitely greater and more
enduring. Such passages as 1 Cor. x., Gal. iv., prove that
this application of an occurrence related in the Old Testa-
ment is in no respect to be regarded as an ingenious play upon
words, but is based upon the fact that in the apostle's fundamen-
tal views of the Old Testament, and its history, it was ever con-
sidered as a type or precursor of the New Testament. In the
12th and following verses the comparison takes another direction ;
but had the apostle desired to continue the comprehensive pa-
rallel already entered upon, there still remained abundant ma-
terials for it. He might have illustrated the difibrence between
the two economies from the circumstance, that the Israelites
were not even in a condition to behold the transient glory of
Moses' countenance, while the believer in the New Testament may
himself become the recipient of an infinitely more glorious and
mighty spirit. (In ver. 7, Fritzsche has correctly observed, in
opposition to Emmerling, that the rrjv Karapjov/jiivrjv refers to
T7)v ho^av, understanding thereby the gradually vanishing light
imparted to Moses' countenance, after his interview with Jeho-
vah ; whilst Emmerling, on account of ver. 11, refers it to ra
ypdjubfiara, with which it is incidentally connected, thus making the
reference to the economy of the Old Testament to declare that it
is of a transitory nature. Decidedly this type may contain such
an allusion, but in ver. 7 the reference is to the type itself, and
not its signification.)
Ver. 10, 11. In order yet further to enhance the idea, the
apostle declares that in presence of the greater gloriousness, that
which was less has ceased to exist ; for if the perishable institu-
tion had already passed through its period of glory, that which
was imperishable must continually endure in (increasing) glori-
SECOND CORINTHIANS III. 12. 13. 293
ousness. (See on ver. 18.). In rer. 10 the only doubt is excited
by the ev tovtw tm ixepet and its meaning. I prefer, with Beza
and Billroth, the connection with heho^aarai, so that then evexev
TTj^ virep^aXkovar]^ Bo^r)^; is added epexegetically. Compared
with heathenism, the Old Testament certainly possesses glory ;
but according to the view here held before us, its gloriousness is
no longer glorious, being overpowered by the preponderating
light of the New Testament ; the moon reigns pre-eminent in the
presence of the stars, yet her light is as nothing compared with
that of the sun. Fritzsche understands it differently ; he trans-
lates it, quod collustratum fuit hac parte, i.e. so that it was
bright and glorious, through Moses' shining countenance. But
in this view, which is nevertheless reasonable in itself, the
chief position of this verse, viz. that the gloriousness of the Old
Testament retreats so entirely before the glory of the New Testa-
ment that it ceases to exist, is not made sufficiently prominent.
Concerning the to Karapyov/jievov and to jxevov of ver. 11, it is cer-
tainly correct, that from ver. 7 the subject under consideration is
the ministration of the letter and of the Spirit, not of the law
and the Gospel, nevertheless the former shares the character of
the latter, and vice versa. Not only the ministration of the law,
but the law itself, regarded as an institution, was considered on
the decline when Paul wrote ; therefore KaTapyovjjLevov, the pre-
sent is used. Billroth has correctly observed that hia B6^7]<; and
iv Bo^rf are not to be considered entirely parallel ; the former in-
dicates that which is transitory, the latter, the enduring. Ver.
11, with its yap, must be understood as a repetition of the proof
for the vTrep/SdWovaa Bo^a : if it is conceived to refer to the pre-
ceding verse, ttoWm fxaXkov does not agree with it.
Vers. 12, 13. The apostle, returning again to the subject of
ver. 4, expresses his determination to labour afresh in the
strength of God's power, and the exalted nature of the office con-
ferred upon him by God, and this likewise in antithetical parallel
with Moses ; the latter veiled his countenance, but the ministers
of the New Testament labour with uncovered face (ver. 18.).
Fritzsche is certainly right when he views in the iTidei kcl-
Xvfi/jLa a reference to the mystery which the priesthood possessed
in the Lord, and in the Holy of Holies, with which we may con-
trast the open proceedings of the ministers of the new covenant.
800 SECOND CORINTHIANS ]IT. 12 — 13.
Tlie correct meaning of the ek to re\o9 rov Karapyov/juevov is
perfectly reconcileable with this. These words can be no other-
wise understood than of the passing away of the brightness from
Moses' countenance ; this brightness is called to Karapyovfievov,
and the fact of its vanishing to Te\o<;. The meaning of the
words is then this : " Moses covered his countenance with a veil,
in order that the children of Israel might not behold the end of
that which is abolished ;" i.e. abandoning the employment of
typical language, that they might not perceive that they belonged
to an economy about to cease. This reception is not contradicted
by our accepting to Karapyovfievov in another sense in ver. 11,
viz. as there referring to the institution of the law, and not to
i\\Q gloriousness, for in the apostolic description they are both
represented as abrogated together. Only when the type stands
clear, as in ver. 13, the expression must be admitted in its actual
sense ; but when as in ver. 11 the explanation of the type is
brought forward, the inward sense must exercise sway. Yet be-
cause Christ is called the end of the law (Rom. x. 4), it has been
thought that Christ was here intended, which is however perfectly
unjustifiable, for how could Paul say that Moses covered his
countenance in order that the Israelites should not behold Christ ?
From this the question naturally arises, do the words in Exod.
xxxiv. 33 contain such a reference ? According to the relation
in that passage the object in covering the face would appear to
be of an entirely different kind, viz. to render it possible for them
to look upon Moses; and not to conceal from the Israelites the
vanishing of the glory. History may not however be transformed,
in order to aid the typical explanation of its signification ; it must
be taken precisely as it stands. We have ever maintained this
as a fundamental principle, nevertheless a certain degree of free-
dom to be granted in the use of history is also sanctioned in the
type. That which is not expressly related, or intended to be
apparent as the object of a definite proceeding, may be modified
to a certain extent when adopted in the sense of a type. These
observations are applicable to the present passage. The apostle
was able to allude to the veiling of Moses' countenance in the
manner he has done, because the Old Testament does not ex-
pressly state that the reason for the wearing of the veil was, that
the Israelites were unable to bear the brightness of his face ; this
2
SECOND CORINTHIANS IIT. 14, 15. 301
intention in such a proceeding is only inferred from the context.
Besides this, another inference may be drawn from the action
described, and this bears relation to the weakness of the Israelites ;
they were not able to bear the view of the truth. On this
foundation the apostle proceeds with the typical application of
the passage.
Vers. 14, 15. The type is now in some degree modified. Hi-
therto Moses has been the early type of the economy of the Old
Testament, but now the book itself, whose sense cannot be under-
stood by the children of Israel, is consituted the type. (In ver. 15
Moiio-779, i.e. the books of Moses, stands by synecdoche for the
entire Old Testament) ; and while in ver. 14 the veil appears
to be on the Old Testament itself, it is called in ver. 15 KaXv/jb/jua
iirl T7]v Kaphlav avrwv KetTat. However these are freedoms in
the employment of the type, which do not suit the nature of the
comparison ; this might appear to have arisen from the subject
of ver. 13 being only the veiling in order that the Israelites
should not observe the disappearance of the brightness, while
want of power to understand the Scriptures is immediately after-
wards introduced. But, as already signified, these are only appa-
rently incongruous. The Israelites were from their weakness
incapable of witnessing the disappearance of the brightness, not
being able to discriminate between essence and form ; their in-
capacity in this particular forbade their comprehending how the
nature of the Old Testament could continue to exist in the Gos-
pel, even if the appearance of the former as an especial institu-
tion were removed by the fulfilment of the latter in Christ In-
asmuch as this weakness and blindness was of a guilty nature,
the apostle pronounces thereon the reproving eTrodpcjoOr] ra vorj-
juLara avrobv. (See on Rom. xi. 25.). But how does the apostle
introduce the condition of the Israelites, for his description of them
does not appear to be relevant to the strain of his argument ?
It must here be enquired how the dWd before the iircopcoOT] is to
be understood. It cannot form, as it would seem, the antithesis to
the Kol ov of ver. 13, if that is expressed by Paul in ver. 18 ;
thus ver. 14 — 17 forms a digression distinguished by Grriesbacb
by being placed within a parenthesis. Billroth translates it,
" but therefore also were their minds blinded !" But the " there-
fore" does not stand in the text, and may not be added, for the
302 SECOND CORINTHIANS JIT. 16, 17.
condition of the Israelites described in ver. 14, 15 is the same as
that represented in ver. 13 ; it is only by means of the dxpi', eo)?
T^9 a-rjfiepov, stated to be one which still continues. We must
therefore receive ver. 14 as the antithesis to Kai ov, and in the
following manner : " We conduct ourselves freely and openly,
hiding neither ourselves nor our works, but this candour has no
effect upon the Jews, their senses are blinded." In ver. 18 the
antithesis is resumed, but in such a manner that the connection
with ver. 17 is perfect ; the brackets including vers. 14, 15, 16,
17 are therefore to be erased. The assertion of the blindness of
the Israelites is so strong in this passage, because the principal
objection of the entire Judaizing party to Paul was that he seemed
to take from them the glory of the Old Testament.^ It is probable
that he bore them especially in mind in the words which occur in
ii. 17, iii. 1, and after the parallel of the two economies the re-
ference to Jews and Jewish Christians naturally arises. These
passages indirectly contain the exhortation to free themselves
perfectly from the veiled Moses, and to behold the countenance
of the unveiled Christ, whose glory is reflected from his faithful
followers. (Ver. 14 is the only passage of the New Testament in
which the iraXaia Siadij/cr) precisely indicates the writings of the
Old Testament. — The general reading /jlj} dva/caXvirrofjievov o,
rt is decidedly to be preferred to the one received by Griesbach
and Lachmann, who read on. The meaning of the words is,
" The veil is not uncovered, i.e. cannot be uncovered [by human
means, 2 Pet. i. 20], because it can only be removed in Christ."
— The '^vLKa of ver. 15 does not again occur in the New Testa-
ment, the interrogative form TrrjvUa is never found.).
Vers. 16, 17. If the removal of the veil is here made depen-
dent upon the turning of the heart to the Lord, while in ver. 14
it is said iv Xpia-rw /carapyelTai, it involves no contradiction, for
Christ first manifests himself to mankind as the living Saviour in
the conversion. It is only when internal light is bestowed that
man can discern Christ also in the Scripture. But how does ver.
17 connect itself? If we receive to irvevfjua as the indication of
the substance of the Son, as in John iv. 24, or if we admit with
1 Lakemacher (Obs*. Sacr. iii. 2) thinks he here discovers an illusion to the Jewish
custom of veiling the headvphen the Holy Scriptures were read. (See Jahn's Altherth.
vol. iii. p. 439.) But this is decidedly excluded by the reference to the fact of Moses
veiling himself.
SECOND CORINTHIANS III. 18. 303
Usteri (Lehrbegr. p. 335) the Son and the Spirit are identical,
still the connexion is not clear. To the circumstances of the
Trinity there is absolutely no reference ; but, as Calvin and Beza
have correctly remarked, the apostle casts a retrospective glance to
ver. 6, in which he has contrasted the letter with the Spirit. He
concludes his argument by saying, " The Lord is even that Spirit
of which we have already spoken." The Be especially is not to be
taken, as Fritzsche and others have done, in the same sense as
yap, for it continues the passage and the argument. But a de-
gree of objection might be urged against this view, inasmuch as
we might suppose that Christ was not the Spirit, f 6. the spiritual
institution, the economy of the Spirit itself, but that he had only
founded it. But according to the apostolic declaration Christ
himself is all, he fills the church with himself, it is therefore
Christ himself. (1 Cor. xii. 12.) The apostle can therefore im-
mediately continue : ov Be to irvevfia Kvplov, for the New Tes-
tament is only called irvevfia because it is the sphere in which
the Spirit of the Lord works. In the Old Testament a divine
Spirit was certainly also efficacious, but it was after. Jesus'
glorification that the Holy Ghost in a specific sense so called
first manifested itself. (John vii. 39.). The apostle mentions
the iXevOepla as the eff"ect of the Spirit of Christ, because these
form the antithesis to the weakness of Israel, which hindered
them from beholding unveiled the glory of God as displayed in
the brightness of Moses. Such weakness is bondage, a fettering
the spiritual life with the flesh, and this is removed by the Gospel.
Ver. 18. Paul in conclusion presents to himself and all be-
lievers a description of this liberty effected by the Spirit of
the Lord. This freedom eftected by the Lord (airo /cvplov)
manifests itself by imparting its gloriousness to the believers,
who behold as with open face, and in whom he is reflected
as in a glass. In Christianity all became like Moses ; with each
regenerate creature the Lord speaks, as a man with his friend,
and this glorious state increases in itself until the believer is
changed into the image of Christ. — This explanation of the pas-
sage agrees in the strictest particular with the connexion, the Karo-
irTpi^eaOaL alone forms a difficulty. This expression elsewhere
occurs only in the signification of " to reflect oneself, to be-
hold oneself in a mirror," or to see something in a glass ; and if
304 SECOND CORINTHIANS III. 18.
this acceptation is retained, the idea loses much in perspicuity.
The fjiera/jLopcfiovfieda plainly proves that the apostle considers
the Christians as those in whom the glory of the Lord is dis-
played ; for from the continual operation of the same, they are
described as gradually becoming transformed into the image of
Christ. It is therefore impossible that Paul should previously
say that they behold the glory as not from themselves, but truly
only in a glass. KaroTrrpl^ecrOat is rather here employed^ in the
sense of to reflect as from a mirror, i.e. to beam forth, to reflect
back the glory," so that the parallel with Moses again presents
itself; only whilst the latter veiled his countenance, and the
brightness thereof speedily vanished (ver. 13.), Christians walk
with uncovered faces, for their glory steadily increases, they are
conducted from one degree of glory to another (airo Sof?;? et?
ho^av), and changed into the image of Christ. The fjuerafiop^ov-
aOai doubtless implies not only the inward glorification, but also
the glorification of the body, concerning which Paul immediately
proceeds to explain himself further (from iv 7.). See also Phil,
iii. 20. (The accusative ttjv avrrjv eUova is best explained with
Fritzsche from the notion of emotion, comprehended in the fzera-
fiop^ovaOai, which is frequently connected simply with the accusa-
tive, and without any preposition. See Kuehner's Gr. vol. ii., p.
204. — The avrrjv refers to the preceding ^o^av Kvplov : the glory
of the Lord, which beams forth from the faithful, becomes the
image of Christ in them. — Uvev/iarof; is, according to ver. 17, to
be understood in apposition to KvpLov, "The Lord's, whose Spirit
it is," but not as if the Spirit were added to the Lord, the
Lord's Spirit, i. e. Christ. A third supposition supported by Bill-
roth, and according to which irvevfjiaro^ is considered dependent
on Kvplov, is for this reason inadmissible ; the expression, " Lord
of the Spirit" never occurs. But if we connect irvevfjuaTo^ with
Kvptov. in the manner proposed, we may not with J^iickert sup-
pose Kvpco^ TTvevfia an idea, as do the church Fathers, ©eo?
\6yo<^, to bind ; but irvevfia is here, according to ver. 17, the
antithesis of ypdfjL/jia.)
1 Winer (6r. p. 232) receives the expression in the sense of sibi iniueri ; " to behold
oneself in the glory of the Lord, as in a looking glass," ic. for one's satisfaction and -
strengthening. But this is certainly inapplicable; the beholding must be considered of
an inward character, as in the mirror of the soul ; in which ease, according to its na-
ture, it represents a reflecting back of the Lord's image.
( 305 )
II.
SECOND PART.
(iv.l— ix. 15.)
§ 4. THE CONFLICT.
(iv. 1—18.)
In the first verses the apostle condenses into few words the sub-
jects touched upon in the preceding chapters, and introduces him-
self as the minister appointed by God, whose labours should not
fail, and to whose preaching the blind alone could remain indif-
ferent (1- — 6.). He contrasts the gloriousness of the intention of
his calling, with the weakness of external things, in a comprehen-
sive parallel, from which he proves that the trials and struggles of
his earthly life in no degree remove his efficacy, but that they are
subsidiary to the great end of perfecting himself and the church
(7-18.).
Ver. 1, 2. The conviction that his oflice proceeds from Grod's
grace alone, and not from his own worthiness, enables Paul to
assure them that no difiiculties have had power to weary him,
(this indirectly attacks the state of affairs in Corinth), and that
he has never employed unworthy means or deceit in order to sup-
port his authority, but that in the power of truth it commended
itself to men in the sight of God. This idea takes a retrospective
glance at iii. 1, ii. 17, in which the mixture of divine truth with
human wisdom by the opponents of Paul was reproved. The irav
ovpryld (see 1 Cor. iii. 19) is to be understood of this same im-
purity of sentiment which disfigures divine truth itself. It refers
as little to moral offences (as Kypke, Krebs, &c. erroneously suppose,
seeing in it an allusion to the vice prevalent in Corinth) as the
u
306 SECOND COr.INTHIANS IV. 3, 4.
KpvTTTa tt)? alayyvr}'; : both expressions signify the crafty mode of
proceeding which characterised the antagonists of Paul, and which
could not bear the light. (In ver. 1 consult, concerning KaOco^,
Winer's Gr. p. 418. — In ver. 2 direTrofjiai, implying to deny one-
self something, ?. e. to avoid something or to renounce it, only
occurs in the New Testament in this passage. — The expression
Kpvirra tt}? alaxvv7}<; indicates secrets which bear in themselves
marks of shame : secrets may however be supposed to exist
which do not necessarily bear this character. The expres-
sion 7rpo9 iraaav (TvveihTjo-iv avOpcoircov marks the opposition
of the divine nature to the human in its most extended sense.
The purity and openness of the former must be alike evident to
friends and enemies.)
Vers. 3, 4. To a winning of all to the Gospel, although pro-
fessed by the apostle, he does not attach an unconditional hope,
and for this reason, the hearts of so many persons were brought
under the influence of Satan, and thereby became airoWvixevoi,
that to these light itself must appear darkness, because they
maintained their darkness to be light. The expressions (pcoTio--
/Lto9 evayyeXlov and Sofa XpLcrrov contain also an allusion to the
image employed in chap. iii. relative to the veiling of Moses.
Instead of withdrawing the veil from their hearts (iii. 15) and
permitting Christ's light to shine through them, they draw it yet
closer, thereby obscuring for ever the source of their bliss. But
when to Christ eiKODv tov Geov is added, not only the Gospel in
all its glory shall be brought to light, but the opposition to Satan
to the 0609 TOV al&vo^ rovrov must become heightened. The
devil is a defaced image of God ; Christ, the God of the atcov
jjbeXkwv, the pure unclouded image of the Father. As however
throughout the universe all the manifestations of the principle of
good preserve an unity and connexion with each other, so like-
wise do the evil, and Satan is the centre from which all sinful
development emanates, the origin of each wicked human deed.
His predominance however presupposes a turning away from God
on the side of the man, and an inclination towards evil. It is
not necessary to view the ainaTOL as an absolute prolepsis, with
Fritzsche and also Billroth, as if Paul considered the aTnaria
the consequence of the blindness, and immediately connected this
latter result with the power which called it forth ; but Paul rather
, SECOND CORINTHIANS IV. 5, 6. 307
conceives mankind through the divine omniscience, as chosen or
not chosen. (The iv oh — airicjTUiv of ver. 4 is a kind of Hebrew
construction. It is entirely erroneous to understand the ev oU as
indicating the aTnaroL to be individuals among the airoWviievoL^; :
both are identical. The iv oh indicates the operation of the
devil to be of an inward spiritual nature. — The name 0eo9,
T. a. T. only occurs here in the New Testament.^ The devil
is more frequently styled ap^f^iv, r. a. r. ; John xii. 31, xiv.
30, xvi. 11. The Rabbins also have the name " God of
this world." [See Schottgen Hor. Hebr. i. 688.].— The eh to
jjbrj is selected according to the satanic intention. The readings
here are very various. Instead of the simplex form, some Codd.
read KaravydaaL, others 8 avydcrai : the text. rec. interpolates an
avToh, which certainly ought to be supplied, but does not belong
to the text. Receiving the MS. as authority, the reading of avyd-
aai rov, already accepted by Griesbach and supported by Lach-
mann, is to be maintained. The conclusion of the verse rov
dopdrov is likewise certainly a gloss out of Col. i. 15, concerning
which the Comm. on the expression iiKcov r. O. may be consulted.
— ^ft)Tfccr//,o9, which again immediately occurs in ver. 6, has been
chosen by Paul, and not </>ai?, because the latter signifies the ray
of light, and the former the action of the same, for which aiiyT] is
also employed.)
V^ers. 5, 6. If the observation that he preached not himself
occurred in any other connexion, we might suppose that Paul
thereby intended to caution his followers against too strict a de-
pendance on his person. But the context, as well as the expres-
sion 'Irjaovv KvpLov, in antithesis with the eavrov^ BovXov^, shows
that the apostle rather designfed a polemic against the followers
of Peter and the Christianer ; that he considers himself only as a
weak, subordinate creature, whilst in Christ the Lord of all ap-
peared manifest. He alone therefore could be the object of the
preaching to the world. It appears to me unnecessary to include
ver. 5 in a parenthesis, as Lachmann has done, making ver. 6
succeed immediately to ver. 4 ; the ort of ver. 6 rather refers to
^ The expression assumes a somewhat ironical tone ; instead of the true God the
world has chosen for its God that which is the most perfect contrast to all that is divine.
Schottgen (on this passage) has quoted the words : Deus primus est Deus vivus, sedDeus
secimdus is Sammael, out of Jalkut Rubeni.
u 2
308 SECOND CORINTHIANS IV. 5 — 6.
the preceding idea in this manner ; " We preach not ourselves,
but Christ, for if we appear to be the speakers, it is nevertheless
Christ who works by us, and who inwardly enlightens us, in order
that we again should enlighten others." This idea is expressed
by Paul by means of a parallel of the creation and regeneration ;
as God (according to Gen. i. 1) called light to shine forth out of
the darkness of the physical world, so he likewise permits spiritual
light to beam forth out of natural darkness, in those who are born
again ; thus they appear as lights of the world (Eph. v. 8.). Em-
merling erroneously understands eV aKorov; " after the darkness
he created the light ;" eV has rather its real signification, " out or
forth from the darkness." (See Winer's Gr. p. 351.) In the
second hemistich of the verse, the penetrating of the light into
the 7r/)o? (f)(ort(T/ji6v is expressed, the words bearing this transla-
tion, " The God who said, light shall shine forth out of the dark-
ness, shines also in our hearts (on the first conversion), thereby
making the inward darkness light, and enabling us to shed light,
i.e. to the enlightenment of others." The idea of the peace re-
sulting from the light dwelling in the heart, and the motion of
the penetrating light, is connected in the expression eXa^i/rey iv
Kap^Lat<^. The jucoaL<; t7J9 B6^7]<i rov Oeov is not to be considered
as the apostle's own knowledge, but that which he calls forth in
others, by means of the light emanating from him. The con-
nexion of the iv Trpo^coTTO) I. Xp. alone can make us doubtful.
Fritzsche and Billroth would connect it with the irpos; (pconafjiop :
but it is not correct to do so, for this reason, not iv but aTTo must
then stand, because the outpouring operation of the light is de-
scribed in the Trpo? (fxoTcafjuov. I therefore give the preference to
the connexion with the So^a r. ©. In this view the repetition of
the article r?}? before iv 7r/309a)7rft) is justifiable, but not absolutely
indispensable. (In ver. 6 I prefer with Lachmann the future
XdfMylrei, instead of the usual reading Xd/jbylrai, so that God may
be deemed speaking. The Codd. A.B.D. support this reading,
according to which the construction of the sentence ap])ears much
clearer, — The 09 before eXa/jLyjrev presents a difficulty. In some
MSS. it is certainly omitted, and in others 0UT09 stands for it,
but that may only have been substituted in order to render it
easier ; the difficult reading is unquestionably the original one ;
either iarl must be supplied to the premises, as Fritzsche and
SECOND CORINTHIANS IV. 7—10.
others suppose, or the 09 must be taken for ovto<;
Biickert. The latter appears to deserve the preference.)
Vers. 7 — 10. Paul appends to the preceding representation a
description of the outward weakness in which the glory of the in-
ternal life was displayed in his person. The intention of this
contrast is to show that all is to be ascribed to God, and not to
men, as he has already stated in iii. 5. For throughout the
apostle's sorrows and necessities, and the same may be said of
all belieyers, the protecting power of Grod displayed itself ; they
were intended only to humiliate him, to divest him of all trust
in his own strength, but were neither allowed to corrupt or de-
stroy the object of them. The life of the Redeemer himself is
here a type for those who believe in him ; they bear about his
dying with them, in order that his life may be manifest in them.
It may be inquired how the aKevr] oarpuKiva of this beautiful
passage is to be understood. We might imagine that the ex-
pression referred to the whole man, making the sense, " we pos-
sess the everlasting, the divine, in the weak and sinful form of
that which is human." But the following passages prove (iv. 10,
11, 16, V. 1) that the first and prominent idea of the apostle
bore reference to the body, by means of which all the sorrows of
this life are conveyed to the inward man, because it is the bond
connecting him to the ktIctl^} The form of speech also agrees
best with this view, for atcevo^; = ^1^3 is called the body, as the
vessel containing the soul (1 Thess. iv. 4 ; 1 Sam. xxi. 6), but
the expression is never employed for the whole man. The
oarpaKivov refers to the '-jq^ of Gen. ii. 7, for which in v. 1 iirl-
T X
7eto9 stands. By adopting this supposition it becomes perfectly
intelligible how Paul, in ver. 10 should pass over to the crco/xa,
and contrast the glorified body which the living power of Christ
will evoke in believers (see Comm. on John vi. 40) with the
frail and sinful one belonging to this temporal life. (In ver. 7
virep/SoXr) T^9 Bvvd/ji6co<i may be correctly understood as Hendia-
dyoin. — The e^airopeladai of ver. 8 has already appeared in i. 8. —
' EyKctraXeiTreadat properly means to be overcome in the course or
race, so as to be left behind -/ it agrees well with SccoKeadai. —
1 Artimedorus (Oneirocr. vi. 25) employs the same expression : 6 ddvaro^ fxii/ yap
ttKOTcos icrrJixaLi'E rfi yvi/aiKi, to tluai iv 6(TTpaKivu> CKtvti.
2 See Herodotus viii. 00: oi di yt iyKUTu\anrufxti/0L ov aTti^yavovvTai.
310 SECOND CORINTHIANS IV. 11, 12.
The KaTapdWea-Oai, "to be cast down," is borrowed from the
terras of wrestling, consequently the image of a conflict passed
again before the apostle's imagination. — In ver. 10 the v6icpa}<Ti<i
indicates the gradual death. Paul yiews the whole term of
Christ's abode on earth as a continual dying, the accomplishment
of which was the death on the cross. But the genitive 'Irjcrov
may certainly not be received as = Bia ^Irjaovv, for Jesus is here
regarded as a type, but the real type itself, consequently Christ
essentially bears within himself the dying and rising again in
man's nature. Upon the opinion that Christ represents the former
also, see my Comm. on Rom. viii. 3.)
Ver. 11. This verse throws some further light upon the strik-
ing idea of the iravToje iTepL<f>€peiv veKpcacnv. That eh OdvaTov
irapaBtSofjLeOa Bca 'Irjaovv stands here, affords no just grounds for
explaining the genitive of ver. 10 by Bid, for the typical parallel
now ceases. Emmerling moreover is of opinion that here, as in
ver. 10, the tva is to be understood iK^aniccib^, but errone-
ously. Paul understands his dangers, and circumstances of suf-
fering which threatened his life teleologically, and signifies
that it was God's intention in permitting them to render them
conducive to the perfecting of man. This presupposes that
Paul regarded the glorification of the body as taking its rise on
earth, and accomplishing itself gradually, and does not in the
least contradict the opinion, that the nature of this new body,
fashioned in secret, will first manifest itself at the coming of
Christ and in the act of the resurrection. (The ev rfj Ovjjrfi
aapKL of yer. 11 proves that the expression adp^ TrvevfManKi] wa,s
not contrary to the apostle [see on 1 Cor. xv. 44], for the mani-
festation of Christ's life in the mortal body is nothing else than
the glorifying of the body.)
Ver. 12. The apostle now passes from himself and the effect
of his sufferings to his readers. He, the living creature, is also
the gradually dying servant of the Lord. They being dead will
be made living" by his means, just as Christ died and by his death
brought life to the whole world. Paul however by no means de-
sires to attribute to himself an effect equivalent with Christ ; it
is rather Christ who works in him. We must also observe that
too much stress is not to be laid upon the chief point of this pas-
sage ; for strictly speaking we must admit that believers, made
SECOND CORINTHIANS IV. 13 — 15. 311
living by the apostle's preaching, must also participate in Christ's
death in order to live again with him.- -In a total and scarcely
conceivable misunderstanding of these words Riickert refers them
to mortal life and death, and thinks that certain maladies are
alluded to from which the apostle and Corinthians had suffered,
but which had now yielded to an improved state of health.
Vers. 13, 14. Mosheim has quite incorrectly understood the
connexion between this verse and the preceding. He thinks that
Paul gives occasion for a possible misunderstanding of the words
6 BdvaTO^ iv rjfjblv ivepyelraL, as if the apostle had no expectation
of a resurrection. But that he did expect this is plainly shown
by Paul, vers. 10, 11. The connexion is rather this: Paul de-
sires to express the opinion that his lowly suffering course of life
may prove a source of life to the Corinthians, not only conjectu-
lally, but as a lively conviction imparted from above. He there-
fore st^'les his faith irvevfjua tyj^ iriaTew^ (in Ephes. i. 17, irvevfjua
<70(/)ta9 stands for the same), and describes it in the words taken
from the Old Testament, Ps. cxvi. 10 (from the connexion with
which the Aorists are derived), as praying him to declare and to
acknowledge that it is accompanied by the joyful certainty that he
will achieve a perfect triumph for himself and others. This is
indicated by the resurrection and the participation in God's
kingdom which stands connected with it. (In ver. 14 Lachmann
reads avv 'Irjaov, which certainly possesses very weighty authori-
ties in its favour ; but the (tvu appears to have been only introduced
into the text from the auv vfuv which follows. — The irapa-
arrjaei, according to v. 10, is to be understood to signify, " He will
present us, together with you, before the judgement-seat of Christ
as perfected creatures of God.")
Ver. 15. The apostle in addition expresses the opinion that all
things in and by him were for them {i.e. first for the Corinthians,
then for all his disciples), in order that their thanksgiving might
redound to the glory of God, and be abundant for the grace be-
stowed upon them through the intercession of mercy. The pas-
sage is entirely analogous with i. 11 ; the connexion of the hua
T(ov ifKetovcov is also here uncertain, but the joining it with Tre-
piaaevcrri is unquestionably to be preferred, because otherwise
hta T. TT. would be placed before irXeovdoraaa. In the present
passage it would be better to consider ireptaarevarj transitive ;
312 SECOND CORINTHIANS IV. 16 — 18.
then the meaning would be, as we have already stated, that the
abundance of the grace vouchsafed* to much prayer renders the
thanksgiving also abundant, i.e. excites to inward thanksgiving.
Ver. 16 — 18. The apostle in conclusion expresses with refer-
ence to ver. 1 his readiness to continue to labour without faint-
ing in his apostolic calling; because believers, who looked beyond
the temporal and evident to that which was eternal and not seen,
would thereby gain everlasting life. The idea in vers. 10, 11, is
again repeated here,^only instead of the crcbfjia, the e^co avdpwiro^
is employed, and instead of the dying, the stronger ha(\)deipe-
crOai (perishing) is made use of. (Concerning e^o) and eaco avOpw-
iros, see the observations on Rom. vii. 22.). The glorified cor-
poreality is likewise to be supposed existing with the inward
man, therefore the avaKaivovaOai forms the just antithesis with
BiacftdelpeadaL, which would not offer if this state of glorification
were excluded ; itis similar to jthe before-mentioned ^(orj'Irjaov (j)a-
vepovrai iv aapKi dviiTf) (ver. 11.). The expression is based
upon a reference to the new birth, the result of which is de-
scribed by KaivT] KTiai^i Katvo^ avOpcairo^. (Compare Kom. xii.
2; Col. iii. 10; Tit. iii. 5.) The gradual ripening of the new
man is plainly declared in the r]^epa koX rjf^epa (= q-Jji*) Q'^^), But
Billroth errs when he refers the fir) ^Xeiroixeva in ver. 18 to the
glorified body, because this in v. 1 is called alcovia : his view is
therefore unsanctioned, for in ver. 18 a general description of
faith is given, corresponding with that in Heb. xi. 1. The anti-
thesis of things visible and invisible here, is only the general one
of things real and ideal. (In ver. 16, the second dWd is to be
received in the signification of " nevertheless," as in 2 Cor. xiii.
4 ; Col. ii. 5. [See Winer's Gr. p. 421.].— In ver. 17, the to
TrapavrUa eXa(j>p6p is to be understood as " the present lightness
of our aflliction," i. e. our temporal, and as such always light suf-
fering. — Paul accumulates expressions in order to describe the
gloriousness ; to the usual Kad' vTrep/SoXrjv [i .8], he adds ek virep-
^oXrjv, and in the alcoviov ^dpo<; he forms the antithesis with the
TrapavrUa e\a(\>p6v^ In the phrase ra /SXeTrofjueva irpoaKaipa of
ver. 18, the visible does not signify alone the physical visible
world, but it rather stands as a synecdoche for all the attributes
of mortality, even when not perceptible to the eye, such as fame,
honour, &c.)
SECOND CORINTHIANS Y. 1. 313
§ 5. THE GLORIFICATION. _
(V. 1—21.)
After Paul has more fully declared his hope in the forthcom-
ing glorification of the body, in which mortality will be swallowed
up in life, he further states that the knowledge that all will be
discovered before the judgement-seat of Christ, produces a holy
fear in him, which impels him to exercise the office entrusted to
himrfis in the sight of God, and without employing any unworthy
means to further it. The love of Christ constrains him to
preach, for since the Lord died for all, all should likewise live to
him ; casting behind the old man, he therefore cries aloud as in
Christ's stead : Be ye reconciled with God !
Ver. 1. The connexion of idea between v. 1 and iv. 18, is very
striking in its relation to modern knowledge, insofar as the lat-
ter is unsupported by Christianity. It appears as if we could
look forward to eternity, without having faith in the resurrection
of the body. But, as we were already reminded in the Comm. on
1 Cor. 15, tlie apostle in no respect recognizes the idea of a pure
spiritual extension of life into eternity ; without corporeality there
can be no everlasting happiness, or eternity for the creature. But
even conceding the scriptural doctrine of the glorification of the
body, our passage still retains its obscurity. For we can well un-
derstand how the eVtVeto? = eV 77}? may be opposed to the e/c
&6ov^ {i. e. not only abs Deo data, but = irvevfiaTLKr}), and
alcovtos (inasfar as the glorified body is destined for everlasting
life) ; but it is incomprehensible how Paul can style the glorified
body a')(eipoTroi7}TO^, seeing that even the earthly is not made
with hands, or how it can be asserted that it is ev roh ovpapol^,
as the clothing upon (ver. 2) must be considered a preparation
1 We have likewise no auihorit)' for understamling the Ik Qtov only synonyraous
with sK or dia QiXiTina-ro^ Otov : but as God according to his natxire is a Spirit, all
things spiritual have their beginning in his nature. Verse 18 is unquestionably to be
understood thus, and it can be received in no other sense in the present passage. It
then follows that not only the Spirit, but also the higher corporeality', proceeds from
God; ani this by no means agrees with the doctrine of the creatioil^ut of nothing,
which asserts that the material was of a nature absolutely dift'erent from God, and [no-
duced alone by his will.
314 SECOND CORINTHIANS V. 2—4.
taking place upon earth. The first difiiculty is solved by sup-
posing that a parallel subsisted in the apostle's mind between
the earthly tabernacle made by man, transitory even in its sacred-
ness, and the perfect tabernacle not made by human hands, i.e. the
spiritual building of the New Testament. The former corresponds
with the earthly perishable body, thence oiKia tov aK7]vov^, i.e.
cTKTjvcoBr)^, the latter with the new glorified body, which is only so
far styled a')(eLpo'Troir}To^, as ')(^eLpo7roirjTov may be added to aK^vou^.
The expression iv rot? ovpavoh is not to be received as implying
that the new body was preserved as it were in heaven, and from
thence descended to man, but Paul anticipates the idea of the
clothing upon, and thinks of the believer as clothed with the new
body in heaven, so that the words are to be understood: with
divine natures alone can we exist in heaven, for with earthly
bodies it is not possible. As well as Ik 0eov, we may likewise say
the new body is eV ovpavwv, as in ver. 2, because the transform-
ing power is divine, and manifests itself from heaven. Another
difiiculty which has been imagined in the iav KaraXvOf], e^o-
fiev (the present is employed with a future signification because
the perfect conviction is expressed that it will be so), from sup-
posing that it compelled us to admit that the apostle was speak-
ing of a physical body received by man immediately after death,
and which he retained until the resurrection of the body, I can-
not admit to be such.^ For edv does not assert that the possession
of a new body takes place hnmediately the old one is dissolved,
but only states in general terms that the latter must take place
as a necessary condition of the former. The apostle also con-
siders the reception of the new glorified body near at hand (see
on 1 Thess. iv. 15), and that he himself would certainly receive
it before death.
Vers. 2 — 4. This hope is clearly evident in the following verses,
1 See Flatt on tliis passage, and ScLneckenburger's Beitr. zur Einl. ins Neiie Tes.
(Stuttgart, 1836) p. 1-^4, sqq., in whicli the views concerning a physical body are iaid
down. Menken ( Versuch eiuer Anleitung, &c., Fraiikf. 1805, p. 61, sqq. 190) believes
that here on earth man possesses a more refined body besides the earthly one, a view
•not corroborated by the holy Scriptures, any more than Lange's supposition that the
soul, according to the place of iis abode, forms a finer body for itself (see p. 701, pqq.).
tlie man is never absolutely base. For were this the case, the dead could never be
called TTvtvi.i.a'^ri, as in 1 Pet. iii. 18, Heb. xii. 23. See further concerning the supposi-
tion of a physical body, proos' work, Der unverwesliche Leib als Organ dcs Geistts und
Sitz der ;ieelonhiorungen. iieideibug, 1837.
SECOND CORINTHIANS V. 2 — 4. 315
in which Paul describes the existence in this mortal body as
similar to the longing of the /cricrt? after deliverance. (See on
Rom. viii. 19, sqq.)- The burden of the existence which is only
after the flesh, makes the spirit groan for a more eleyated condi-
tion, and this is indicated by the expression eTrevSvaaaOac, which
is further described in the tW KarairoOfj to Ovtjtov virb rrjfi
?a)?79. (See iv. 10, 11 ; 1 Cor. xv. 54.). If the ecf)' S ov Oekojxev
eKBvaaaOat did not also stand in the text, we might suppose that
it was only the act of the resurrection of the body which was
principally indicated. But this sentence unquestionably refers
back to the opinion touched upon in 1 Cor. xv. 51, which is au-
thentically interpreted as it were in this passage. Paul regards
it as an especial happiness not to taste death, not to be obliged
to put off {eKhvaaaOai) this body, but to be glorified living, like
Elias, drawing the heavenly body over the present mortal body
like a garment, but naturally in such a manner that the mortal
body is absorbed in the nature of the spiritual body. — In this
otherwise clear and simple passage the ei'ye koX iv^vadfievoi, ov
yufivol evpedrjao/xeOa is however unintelligible. Whether we read
with Lachmann and Billroth elirep, or el'ye with Griesbach, a slight
modification of the idea only appears. Certainly in the etirep (if
nothing else) a more impressive presentation of the condition is
contained, but this is precisely the reason it may have been sub-
stituted for the milder form el^e,^ Tthat is to say, if the idea is not
received only as a presupposition.) The difficulty lies in the ov
yvfivoi, which further defines the ivSvadfjbevot. The Codd. D.F.G.
have indeed the reading iKhvcrd^evoi, and Reiche (Gottinger Os-
ter-Programm, of 1836) declares himself in its favour. But
critical authorities at once decide for ivBvadfjievoi, which reading
has also been inserted by Lachmann in the text ; the supposition
may therefore arise that a desire existed to avoid the difficulty
in the ivBvadfjievoL, and this led to the substitution of one letter
for another. Now if we maintain the ivhvadfievoi to be the
genuine reading, we must next enquire if this expression is to
be accepted literally or metaphorically V Usteri defends its accep-
tation in the first sense, Billroth in the second ; according to the
1 See Hartung's Parti kellehre, pt. i. p. 343, 406. Hermann, ad Viger. pag. 834,
2 b'latt has given another .explanation of the passage ; this however fails in every
particular, and ^^T therefore only incidentally mention it. He translates it, " Althouj^h
316 SECOND CORINTHIANS V. 2 — 4.
former the meaning is, " If we also are clothed with the garment of
righteousness, not appearing in the presence of God destitute of
the same," while the latter asserts its signification to be, " If we
shall be found clothed with the body, and not without a body."
Unquestionably Usteri's view is the only correct one,i for even if
ivBeBv/jbivoL is not necessary, as Usteri thinks it would be if Bill-
roth's explanation were adopted, the Kal is nevertheless not per-
fectly reconcileable with Billroth's idea. The fact that the iirev-
BvaacrOai, implies that the body is not yet put off, is incontro-
vertible ; for the fcal yap k. t. X. (ver. 2) is connected with the
eav KaraXvOfj (ver. 1) as a heightening of the idea, thus, " For
we know, when our mortal tabernacle is dissolved {i.e. when we
die), that we have a heavenly building ; we therefore groan in
this body, earnestly desiring the clothing upon with the hea-
venly." It would consequently be perfectly pleonastic if ver. 3
asserted, " that is to say, not being already dead," for when
death has taken place, there can exist no more question of eirev-
hvaaaOai. It only remains to enquire if Billroth's remarks
against the scriptural explanation of yu/jiv6<;, and to which Reiche
yields assent, may be disproved. He first observes, that euBv-
craaOai must be understood in the same image in which ijcSuaa-
adai is afterwards employed. But the Kai and the ov yv/ni/oL which
is added, sufiiciently shows that the apostle is passing over to
another image ; the words may therefore be understood, " It be-
ing supposed beforehand that we in another sense shall not be
found naked, but well clothed." Billroth's second observation
states, that we find in this passage no authority for mentioning
the difference between the righteous and the unrighteous. But
as in ver. 10 this is openly stated, it certainly borders upon the
mention of this difference ; otherwise there would have been room
to suppose, that it was perfectly sufficient to be yet living at the
we, if only clotbed with it (not clothed upon) shall not be found without a body, i.e.
will then be in no worse position tlian they who are changed." But the " only" and
likewise the " nlthough" are not found in the text. It is also a false not'on that the
apostle regarded the being changed (I Cor. xv. 53) us something evil; it is rather set
forth as an advantage, as great as being clothed, and of becoming clothed upon,
1 This is asserted of the main point, for in other particulars Usteri has likewise
failed to arrive at a just conclusion, as the following will show. (See Paul. Lehrbegr.
p. 359 and 391, sq., in the fourth edition.) In tiie chief points, Chrysostom lias given
the same explanation.
SECOND CORINTHIANS V. 5. 317
Parousia of Christ, in order to attain the clothing upon ; this
error is refuted by Paul in ver. 3, in wliich he makes it evident
that in order to participate in the blessing, and not to taste
death, a standing in grace at the time of Christ's coming was a
necessary condition. In the third remark Billroth is correct in
opposition to Usteri, but this concerns only an incidental point of
his explanation. The latter incorrectly receives iyhvadjievoL not
as identical with ov <yvfjLvol, but so as to include a reference to
the OLKTjTijptov ef ovpavov (ver. 2.). But this has precisely the
evil effect deprecated by Billroth, viz. that the distinction be-
tween evhvaaaOai and eiTevhvaaaOaL is entirely lost. Without
entering more fully into it, Usteri's view conveys a meaning alto-
gether unsupported. He translates, " otherwise even after we
are clothed, we shall be found naked." But how is it conceivable
that after the clothing with the glorified body has taken place,
any one shall be found naked \ He who is naked, i.e. without
the garment of righteousness, the new nature, cannot according
to the nature of things, be clothed upon. The ov 'yviivoi is
therefore only an epexegesis to the synonym evSvcrd/jbevoL, i.e.
clothed, and is applied to those who have put on (the garment of
righteousness.) (In ver. 2 the iv tovto) = to the i(j> S of ver. 4,
cannot be received in the signification of Ttt^^^D' ^^^ according
to ver. 4 GKrivei is rather to be supplied. On the contrary the
6</)' w of ver, 4 is decidedly the conjunction, and not the relative
with tlie preposition [see on Rom. v. 12], and is best explained
by the Hebrew "y^jS^^^.' Gren. xxxix. 23, Ps. x. 6, and not by the
classic form as = eirl tovtm (ocrre. In those passages of the
New Testament in which it occurs, it would be best expressed
by " because.")
Ver. 5. In order to strengthen this hope Paul continues that
Grod, who had prepared this heavenly clothing, together with the
mortal body, had also bestowed his Spirit upon them in this life
as a witness. (In the Karepyd^eaOat regeneration is understood
as a new creation, referring to iv. 6. — The glorification of the
body, as the perfection of man, is the especial idea in the etV
avTo TOVTO. [See Comm. on Rom. viii. 23.] — The kuI is best
omitted as Lachmann recommends, the 6 Bov<; k. t. \. can then
be justly understood as in apposition to ©eo?. — Whether dppajScov
318 SECOND CORINTHIANS V. 6 — 10.
is translated earnest money, or pledge, is quite immaterial, for
either would correspond with the idea ; the signification is, " The
gift of the Holy Spirit, which God has bestowed upon us on
earth, is the pledge for our attainment of the object in the
future.")
Vers. 6 — 9. The apostle then states the conclusion, that under
all these circumstances, he will ever have confidence, striving only
to please the Lord, whether in one place or another. The words
TTavTore 6appovvre<^ (f)L\oTi/jLov/jbe6a k. t. X. form the principal
idea. A large parenthesis is however introduced containing the
accessory idea, in which Paul glances at the crremfeti^ of ver. 2,
and then connects the whole with the principal sentence, by the
words KCLi elBore^ — /cvplov. The Kal has moreover from the na-
ture of the thought the somewhat exclusive, almost adversative
signification of the dappelv : " Since we well know that while on
earth we are as it were in a foreign land, in comparison with our
true home, which is with the Lord." But the parenthesis has
been erroneously restricted to ver. 7, and even by Billroth, be-
lieving that Oappovpuev in ver. 8 takes up the 6appovvT6<; of ver.
6, but on the contrary 6vSoKovp,ev is the principal verb. Lach-
mann has properly extended the parenthesis to vers. 6 and
7, whereby the real sense of the passage becomes evident. That
is to say, it describes the subordinate nature of the irepiiraTelv
BtaTrtaTecof;, with which necessarily the iTTLirodelv (ver. 2) is given,
but even to this condition the Oappelv is added, without how-
ever denying that the being with the Lord, the TrepLiraTelv Bta
etBov^;, is to be preferred. (See Phil. i. 23.). In addition the
Bia here expresses the temper that should pervade as it were the
life of man. (See Winer's Gr. p. 362.). Num. xii. 8 may be
compared as an interesting parallel to the antithesis of faith and
sight here mentioned. It is there said : ^^-^ p|^ -^^l il'T^n^' which
the LXX translate ev etSei koI ovk 8l' alviy/jbdrcov.
Ver. 10. Concerning the subject of this verse see Comm. on
Rom. ii. 6, xiv. 10. The apparent contradiction with 1 Cor. vi.
2, 3, John iii. 18, is simply explained thus, that the holy are so
far not to be judged, as Christ only knows them in their righteous-
ness. The apostle therefore only makes use of the expression Sel
rjfjua^ ^avep(od7)vaL. The ra hia rov acofjuaro^; scil. '7Tpa')(6evTa^
1 Bengel erroneously supplies »co/ui$ojU£i;a, although he in other respects correctly in-
SECOND CORINTHIANS V. 11 — 15, 319
plainly refers back to the glorification of the body, and we may
therefore in the same sense as the apostle supply ev rm acofiarL to
the KOfilarjrai, which would concede an influence upon the future
body to offences against morality.
Vers. 11. 12. The apostle was now able to return to the justi-
fication of his conduct in his apostolic office. He declares that
this must reveal itself to the hearts of men as perfectly true, and
that for this reason he needed no self-commendation (iii. 1) to-
wards them ; it being only necessary to declare his labours, in
order to induce the Corinthians to free themselves from those who
panegyrised themselves. Billroth's supposition relative to this
passage, who thinks that, according to Gral. i. 10, TrelOofiev (ver.
11) implies treacherous persuasion, is deserving consideration,
though the connection by no means sanctions it. It is however
clear that Paul chose the expression with a view to the accusa-
tions of his antagonists, for the Se in the following sentence cor-
roborates this. The sense might then be this : " As our oppo-
nents say, we treacherously persuade men, but our sincerity is
manifest before God." The acj)op/jLr) Kav'^rjfMaro<; virep rjfiwv is to
be understood thus : Paul desires, by this account of his pro-
ceedings, to convince the Corinthians of his sincerity, that they
may be able to glory in him as their teacher and defend him
against the false teachers. Their falsehood is expressed by the
antithesis iv irpoacoirfp, ov Kaphla. Paul boasts himself KapBla,
for God is his glory, as will be presently expressed.
Vers. 13 — 15. Love alone has been the impelling power to his
conduct, Paul continues ; and it was manifest to all that he was
not eager to appropriate praise to himself either in a moderate or
immoderate degree, but that either God (whom he especially de-
sired to honour by his works) or his brethren was ever in his view.
The antithesis etVe i^eari^fiev, elre aco(j}pov ovp,ev, has been correctly
understood by Billroth. The different proceeding of the apostle
is not here the subject under consideration, for we cannot per-
ceive how it could be introduced by him in this place, but the
various judgements passed upon his proceeding by the parties
in Corinth. However these may be judged, Paul wishes to say,
under no circumstances does he seek his own ; and should they
terprets tlie apostolic idea, homo cum corpure bene vel male agit, cum corpore mercedem
capU.
320 SECOND CORINTHIANS V. 13 — 15,
regard any praise bestowed as immoderate, he desires it may he
given to God and not to himself; if, on the contrary, they deem
the praise moderate, he wishes therein to consider the weaker
brethren. Love is with him the element which destroys self.
Therefore the love of Christ (i.e. not love towards Christ, but
that which he bears within himself, and imparts to others) is the
distinction of all those belonging to him ; for this reason he died
for all, therefore all (who accept him) must likewise die for him,
i.e. yielding up their substantiality, they live no longer for them-
selves, but for Christ. — The only difficulty herein is created by
the fact (without taking into consideration the reflections intro-
duced into the Comm. on Bom. v. 12 upon the idea of the Sa-
viour taking the atonement upon himself) that ver. 14 decidedly
says apa ol 7rdvT€<; a7ri6avov, which makes the death of all ap-
pear the necessary consequence of the death of the substitute for
all ; whilst in ver. 15 the aireOavev, ha k. t. \. represents the
death of all as an act depending upon their own pleasure, as one
may believe. The difficulty may however be thus explained :
without the death of Christ, absolutely none would be in a con-
dition to destroy the principle of self, for that is only possible
by yielding to and self-appropriating the love thereby so abun-
dantly manifested ; but the man may always hinder by his re-
sistance the power of Christ, which " kills and at the same time
makes alive, from perfecting his work in him. From this ob-
structing resistance the 15th verse is intended to withhold the
Corinthians. Before Christ's death it was a subject of reproof to
no man that he lived to himself, but after Christ's death it was a
crime in all those to whom the word of the cross had come. In
this manner a strict connexion is visible with ver. 16. (In the
e^6o-T7]fjb6v excess and exaggeration are represented as the expres-
sion of an eKaraai^ or fiavia. — Chrysostom admirably elucidates
the avve')(6i of ver. 14 by r] ar^anrr] ovk dcpLrjcnv r](Tv^d\^eiv- fie.
See Acts xviii. 5. — The el is wanting in B.C.D.E.F.G., and
is justly omitted by Lachmann ; it is only introduced to join the
dpa more easily, and also probably in order to remove the appa-
rent pleonasm with ver. 15. But the hypothetical conception of
a substitution is perfectly untenable ; the idea contains not the
slightest reference to it, but only to Christ, who could alone be a
substitute for the whole human race as the second Adam. The
SECOND CORINTHIANS V. 16, 17. 321
vTrep plainly stands here ^az^rt, for only upon this supposition
does the apa k,t.\. acquire significance. See Comm. on Matt.
XX. 28.)
Vers. 16, 17. Under this point of view Paul adds, he beholds
all believers ; he regards the old man in them as dead in Christ,
i.e. this supposes of course that they conduct themselves as though
truly renewed, and he therefore has no occasion to employ any
worldly considerations in his intercourse with them as the false
teachers do (ver. 12.) The ovheva (ver, 16) is not to be received
absolutely, of every man without exception, it is explained in
ver. 17 by the ev Xpcarw. The Kara adp/ca (ver, 16) corre-
sponds with the ap'xala (ver. 17) as Kara nrvevfjua is to be supplied
for Kaivd. The entire passage is based upon the parallel between
the new birth and a new creation ; therefore the KaLvo<; avOpwiro^
is here also styled Kaivrj KTiai<^ = ;-|t2)"Tn Jl'^lS,' ^^ *^® Jewish
T T V V : •
proselytes were already denominated. (See Comm. on John
iii. 3 ; Gal. vi. 15 ; Ephes. iv. 24.) Besides, the to. dp'^ata
iraprfkOev k.tX. contains an allusion tolsa. xliii. 18, 19, a passage
which is evidently considered in Rev. x?:i. 5. In the passage quoted
from the prophet the subject certainly relates to the entire sub-
version of the condition of the world, and to the foundation of the
kingdom of God thereon, but it is equally applicable to indivi-
dual events as to the circumstances collectively. To this clear
view the el Se koX ejvcoKa/jLev Kara adpKa Xpiarov, dWa vvv ov-
Ken ycvcoa-KOfjbev alone presents a difficulty. But if we do not
permit the mind to be disturbed by the various significations of
our passage, the following very simple meaning of the words is
apparent : " I no longer know any man after the flesh, not even
Christ himself, of whom it might be supposed that what con-
cerned men could not be applied to him." The words conse-
quently represent the ovheva as taken in the most extended
sense. Even in Christ a transition took place analogous to that
which happened to man in regeneration ; in the resurrection his
life Kara adpKa passed over into a life Kara Trvev/jia, and in this
Paul desires to say he alone knows Christ. The el Be koX eyvco-
/cajjuev might also imply that Paul had already seen the Lord^
while staying in Jerusalem before his conversion ; but this suppo-
1 See the general Introduction to the Epistles of Paul, § i. p. 6, note 3.
322 ^ SECOND CORINTHIANS V. 16, 17.
sition possesses not the slightest ground for support. By taking
a retrospective glance at the iv irpw^oaiTw Kavxo)fievov^ of ver. 12,
the words may be easily understood to contain a gentle antithesis
against those who prided themselves upon their personal inter-
course with the Redeemer while on earth, employing this circum-
stance in opposition to Paul ;^ but this reference is certainly only
incidental, and obtains no further consideration in what follows.
But in opposition to our simple exposition of the passage it may
be alleged that Paul generally and especially brings prominently
forward in the immediately following verses, the suffering and
dying Christ ; how then can he say here : vvv ovKen fytvcoa-KOfiev
avTQv ; but the vvv in ver. 16 contrasts the condition of the conver-
sion with the earlier unconverted state. Paul was consequently
after his conversion with Christ Kara adpKafi.e. in his sufferings.
This view is especially held forth by Baur in his article IJber die
Christusparthei in the Tiib. Zeitschr. 1831, pt. iv. p. 95. But if
the apostle speaks of the humiliation of Christ, he decidedly men-
tions it as passed, representing death as vanquished in the resur-
rection ; he can therefore with perfect justness assert, even attri-
buting due importance to the sufferings of Christ, " I now know
Christ only as the glorified Christ." This objection therefore
cannot materially affect the correctness of our supposition, the
more so as every other explanation of the passage has something
forced in it. This appears to me especially to apply to Baur's
elucidation of the passage before us, which makes the ytvcoar/cecv
Karao-dpKa XpLarov to refer to the Jewish reception of the idea
of a Messiah, so that adp^ indicates the national, or that which
is governed by the people's prejudices. But then it would be
necessary that the article should be used : 6 Kara adpKa XptaTo^
can only indicate the Jewish reception of the idea of the Messiah.
The consequence of entertaining this view would likewise be to
weaken the personal to a simply abstract meaning, under which
Baur asserts that ovSev might likewise stand for ovheva, but I can
see nothing which would justify such a proceeding. The con-
1 The subject here is by no means referable to a relationship with the Redeemer, al-
though Storr seeks in this passage to gain support for his hypotliesis that the Christianer
were the brethren of the Lord. The only inference to be drawn from the idea contained
in this passage is, that if any one imputed so high a value to conversing only with Christ,
the temporal relationship would be yet more highly rated. (See concerning this
lutrod. i 1.)
SECOND CORINTHIANS V. 18, 19. 323
nexion rather requires that the stress should precisely be laid
upon the personal capacity, for in ver. 14 the apostle declares
that the love of Christ constrained him to judge every person, not
according to his exterior, but according to his position relative to
Christ. He here employs adp^ not as signifying sin, but external
things in opposition to internal. We must also observe that the
idea of an acrOeveia cleaves to externals, and this is expressly
ascribed to Christ by Paul (xiii. 4.).
Ver. 18. This new birth is however God's work alone. He
has reconciled himself with men through Christ, and given to
them the ministry of reconciliation, i.e. the economy whereby the
more elevated poAvers of living, acquired by Christ's operation in
men, are extended in a regular manner over the whole race (see
on iii. 9.). Billroth's opinion that i7//,a9 refers first to all men,
and then rjiilv only to Paul or the teachers, is nullified by the cir-
cumstance that the htatcovla tt}? Ka7a\\aji]<; was certainly not for
the teachers alone, but for all. It is true that the one bears it-
self actively towards it, and the other passively, though inasmuch
as the reconciliation was not an occurrence which happened only
once, but is continually going on, so likewise in this respect are
the teachers passive, for they also require reconciliation and its
proclamation. Viewed as objective, the reconciliation is to be
regarded as accomplished once for all, therefore it is called KaraX-
\d^avTO<;.
Ver. 19. This verse confirms and strengthens the idea, by again
repeating the subject of ver. 18. (The pleonastic co? on, is found
again in 2 Cor. xi. 21. Winer's Gr. p. 548.^). It was not neces-
sary here to uphold the divine nature of Christ, therefore ^v kutoX-
XdacroDv is to be understooda = KaTTjXka^e, so that here the
employment of the prseterite signifies the reconciliation to be
complete, as by the use of Oefjuevo^ the ministry of reconcilia-
tion which in the form of its utterance is understood as X0709 t?)?
KaTaXKayPjf;, is represented as perfectly established. The opera-
In the profane Greek authors ws otl never occurs, except in the connexion ws oVt
fidXixTTa. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 853.
The argument employed by Kuckert in opposition to this is unimportant. He first
says the paraphrase with fju is not general with Paul : it is certainly not often employed
by him, but nevertheless occurs in Gal. i. 23. Next that the imperfect is not applicable
here, but in f/v the aorist is included as well as the imperfect. And lastly, that Ka-raX-
Xdacrwu then requires to be connected with riv; but John i. 9 proves that this is by no
means necessary.
«72
324 SECOND CORINTHIANS V. 19.
tion of forgiveness of sin is on the contrary received in the fir)
Xoyi^o/ievof; ra irapaTrrcofMara, as abiding, advancing through the
entire history of mankind. It is however hardly necessary to
state that with this negative side the positive one of the Xo7i-
^eaOat hiKaiocrvvrjv must be considered connected. (See in the
Comm. upon the Ej^istle to the Romans, p. 146, 1st edition.)
For that man can only truly believe in the forgiveness of sin in
whom the new-birth has taken place. The subject of the KardX-
Xayi] and its intention has already been amply treated upon in
the Comm. upon the Epistle to the Romans. The present pas-
sage is the one which above all others sanctions the view that
men will be reconciled solely because reconciliation originated
with God. But justice and mercy are considered attributes of
the divine nature, and also the satisfaction rendered to the Fa-
ther by the Son, i.e. the love fulfilling the demands of justice.^
This view requires the idea of sacrifice which appears in ver. 21,
and presupposes a reconciliation with God, even if the expression
of it does not occur in the text. (See the remarks on John iii.
16.). It is only under this point of view that it can be conceived
how the reconciliation may be considered an act for the annuncia-
tion of which a ministry with a new economy should be founded.
If the reconciliation solely took place on the side of man, it could
only be preached that a manifestation of God's love would ensue
which would render possible the reconciliation of the subject ;
but the church has ever taught that the reconciliation was
really effected upon Golgotha, and its preaching can in this
form alone obtain a power to comfort and at the same time
work the necessary change in the individual. (A slight ana-
coluthon cannot be denied to exist in the participle Oefxevo^ :
it depends on the eOero corresponding to the ^v KaraXkdaacDV :
the participle awakens the idea, as if the insertion of the
words relating to the reconciliation were parallel with the fiy
XoyL^ofjbevoi; avTOL<; ra TTapaTrTco/jLara. It is therefore conceiv-
able that interpreters should imagine the words Kal Oifxevo^ iv
1 The Geos ev XpioTTcp is besides to be connected in our passage : God in Christ, i.e.
who was in Christ, reconciled the world with himself, not as it were thus : God recon-
ciled the world through Christ with himself. In the first acceptation we are reminded
of this passage in John xiv. 9, " He who hath seen me hath seen the Father." The Son
is uot God together with the Father, but the manifestation of the one sole God, of the
pure co-existent beam of original light.
SECOND CORINTHIANS V. 20, 21. 325
r^fuv K, T. \. to signify " he hath remoyed our sins" [Xoyov
TiOivai = rationem inire]. But this interpretation can require
no special refutation.)
Vers. 20, 21. The preaching of the Gospel in Christ's place,^
the entreating men to be reconciled to God, i.e. to accept the re-
conciliation which has already taken place, is decidedly the exer-
cise of the ministration instituted by God.^ For on God's part
all is effected, and it is only requisite on the side of man that he
accept the gift of God, and, putting away sin, permit the righteous-
ness of God to be bestowed on him. In conclusion, it must be
evident that the d/jbaprla indicates a condition ; BtKacoavvrj ©eov
also implies the state of righteousness (the signification " decla-
ration of righteousness" is thoroughly inapplicable) which the
true KaTaWajT], and the regeneration connected therewith, calls
forth. But inasmuch as this condition is a derivable ,3 growing
state, nay even one which may be again lost, and which must
ever be drawn fresh from the original source of life, it is not on
the condition itself that salvation is connected, but on the power
which creates it, Le. the objective Christ and his work subjective
to faith. (See upon this subject the copious observations in the
Comm. on Bom. iii, 21.). The t6v d/jLaprlav /jlt} jvovTa d/jLaprlav
iTTOLTjae is peculiar to our passage. Gal. iii. 13 is similar ; ^yevo-
fievo^ vTrep v/xcov Kardpa. The iiroLTjae exposes more strongly the
side of the divine design, which as may be supposed does not
imply constraint, but is entirely in concert with the will of the
Son. It is also the same in Eom. viii. 3. — The opinion that
dfiapTia here stands for sacrifice for sin, = Jlb^t^n ^^ DII?t^' -'^^^•
T X — T T
vi. 23, Num. viii. 8, occasions some hesitation, as we must then
admit that dfiapria has two significations. The opinion that
1 It is true that virkp might here also be understood as '' in behalf of the things which
are of Christ ;" but the idea of the ambassador, as well as the sentence tos tov Qeov ira-
puKoXouvTo^ di hiJ^^v, forbid us to receive the idea of substituting.
2 This was available not only in reference to preaching to heathens who are yet to be
converted, but also for Christians, who, although such, required not only the frequent
renewal of repentance, but also of the assurance of reconciliation. Without this an-
nouncement of the atonement for the world, preaching would possess no specific Chris-
tian character. It is hardly necessary to remind our readers that it was not sufficient
to plant, but it was requisite to water and likewise to continue to cultivate on right soil ;
and from consideration towards the necessities of the cliurch in this respeftt, preaching
naturally included many other objects applicable to the purpose.
3 Therefore h aWw, which is not to be understood the same as 3i' avrov, but may be
explained by " in case, and so far as we live in his fellowship."
326 SECOND CORINTHIANS VI. 1 — 3.
ajiapTia stands for the concrete dfiapTcoiko^ must be rejected, for
it is altogether inadmissible to suppose that God has made the
sanctified to be sinners. It would be more simple regarding E-om.
yiii. 3, analogically to retain the signification "sins." God
made him who had in no degree an inclination to sin (to say
nothing of the fact that he had never committed it) to be sin,
i.e. according to his design, to represent sin. He then, in agree-
ment with his real unity with sinful man, regarded him as surety
and sacrifice for sin for the whole race, in order in his person to
condemn sin for ever. (See on Rom. viii. 3; 1 Pet. i. 24.).
§ 6. THE ADMONITION.
(yi. l_vii. 1.)
As the servant of God the apostle admonishes the Corinthians
not to receive grace in vain, that his ministry may not thereby
be blamed. He approves himself likewise in all things a servant
of God, because, although overtaken by all kinds of earthly afflic-
tions, he is nevertheless faithful, and asserts himself victorious
over every opposition (vi. 1 — 10.). He also expressly warns
them against communion with the powers of darkness, requiring
them to avoid even the appearance of it, and to keep themselves
free from all pollution, as belonging to God's people (vi. 11 —
vii. 1.).
Vers. 1 — 3. Paul does not assume a position above the Corin-
thians, but condescendingly desires to become a fellow-worker
with them, and so to admonish them as they ought to admonish
themselves. Unquestionably the apostle here considers the pos-
sibility of the grace received by the individual being again lost.
The dangerous error of predestination which asserts that grace
cannot be lost, is unknown to Scripture, and experience confirms
the falsehood of it ; as then the conversion of many who at a later
period again became apostates must, according to the views of
predestianism, be attributable only to a voluntas signi. The
apostle felt himself compelled to employ this admonition in order
to avoid giving occasion to the accusation that he fulfilled his
ministry in a sluggish and indifi'erent manner, as if he had re-
SECOND CORINTHIANS VI. 4 — 10. 327
spect unto men. The quotation from Isa. xlix. 8, with which he
supports his admonition, and wiiich he correctly cites according
the LXX., describes the day of grace in which all the promises
are to be fulfilled ; the mention of it is intended to awaken reci-
procal love in believers, and at the same time invite them to
make true use of a period so full of blessing. It is likewise in-
tended to remind them that a difficult hour of temptation may
arrive, in which they may not be able to stand, should they not
have diligently employed the day of salvation. (The quotation
closely follows the LXX. — Aeicro^; has occurred already, Luke
iv. 24, Acts X. 35; evirpoa-EeKTO';, Rom. xv. 16. — In ver. 3, Trpoa- ^
Koinfj = (TKavSaXov.)
Vers. 4 — 10. Paul then enters upon a full description of his
apostolic labours, which must recommend him as a servant of
God (v. 12.). Three divisions are evident in the entire passage ;
the first relates to external afl[lictions (as far as iv vqarelat^) ; in
the next occur expressions of spiritual advantages and virtues (as
far as ev hwdfiei Seov) ; and then antitheses succeed, in which
all the outward afflictions, together with the virtues, are enumer-
ated, and the latter represented as utterly vanquishing the former.
Here however without elaboration no certain foundation can be
given for the order pursued with regard to the various particulars ;
special and general circumstances alternate, without any per-
ceptible reason ; the apostolic discourse presses onward without
order, like a mighty stream. In 2 Cor. xi. 23, sqq., an entirely
similar passage again occurs. In the present passage it is very
striking that all the outward things claim mention in the first
place ; it might have been expected from the context that the
spiritual advantages would have obtained mention first, for, in the
exercise of the apostolic office these must first be brought under
notice. But Paul appears desirous of introducing a climax in his
relation ; he proceeds from what is outward to things inward,
from conflict to victory. (Concerning arevoxfopta see iv. 8 ; aKa-
Tao-raaia is found in 1 Cor. xiv. 33, in the signification of " con-
fusion," in which sense it also occurs in 2 Cor. xii. 20 ; it here
signifies " disturbed, uncertain life." — In ver. 6 the eV irvevfiaTL
a'ylcp arrests attention on account of the generality of the expres-
sion, for all the preceding virtues are only possible through the
Holy Grhost. For this reason Bengel, Baumgarten, and others.
328 SECOND CORINTHIANS VI. 11 — 13.
understand it of the Charismata ; but it is not very clear in what
manner mention can be here made of these, as it was possible
for these gifts to be connected with an unlawful striving. It
would be better to consider the expression general, but so that
the following subjects may be understood subordinate to the same.)
The antitheses from ver. 8 — 10 are in strict rhetorical connexion,
and most ingeniously carried out. According to the figure of the
combatant (Rom. vi. 13, xiii. 12 ; Eph. vi. 10, sqq.), Paul repre-
sents himself armed with the weapons of righteousness, wielding
not only weapons of offence (oTfKa Sefm), but also weapons of
defence (apoo-repa, (jyvXaKT^pia, d/iivvT')]pLa.y With these he
presses forward triumphantly through the most varied circum-
stances. (The Bid is to be understood here " by" ; the preposi-
tion carries on the figure upon which he entered, although im-
perfectly, by means of the expression oirXa hLKaioavvT]<;.) In
what follows Paul places the apparent views of his antagonists
concerning him, introducing it with 0)9, in contrast with his own
true character, so evident to the eye of faith. Emmerling like-
wise takes this view of it, but Billroth errs in referring the cos to
both the members, thus making the application to the opponents*
views, not particular, but only signified in the connexion with
the whole. The Kal each time repeated, to which in ver. 9 Ihov
is added, and which may always be supplied, entirely refutes this
supposition. Among the antitheses ayvoov/jbevot is striking. This
expression does not imply " mistaken," but " unknown," though
how this could be made a ground of accusation it is not easy to com-
prehend. Probably it refers to the assertion of his enemies that
he was merely an insignificant teacher in the church ; and that
Peter, John, and James were of more importance. To this Paul
replies, by pointing to the acquaintance with him by means of his
extended labours, which had made him well known. — In Xvirov/nevoc,
TTTW'Xpi, outward troubles and afflictions are contrasted with that
joy and inward abundance which can be imparted, without in any
degree impairing itself. (Concerning the iravra Kare'xeiv, see
Comm. on 1 Cor. iii. 22.)
Ver. 11 — 13. This public statement by the apostle, which
may be construed by his enemies as blindness on his part, he de-
l Beugel observes : per arma offinnsivu guumjfuretnus, per dcjensiva quum laborumus.
SECOND CORINTHIANS VI. 14, 15. 329
sires to have reciprocated on the side of the Corinthians by a simi-
lar proceeding ; the reward he alone seeks is, love for love. But
with this request the reproach is likewise connected, that they are
yet reserved and narrow-minded. (In ver. 11 crTo/xa avew^e,
KapSia ireTrXdrvvrai,, does not imply conversation generally, but
frank confidential intercourse, as Billroth correctly maintains in
opposition to Fritzsche. — In ver. 12 the apostle contrasts the
ifKarvveaOai with the aTevo')((op6LaOai,, but modifies the idea in a
degree. Instead of saying, I am not reserved towards you, he
says, Ye are not straitened in us, i. e. I receive you with more
heartfelt love. To regard the arevoxcopelade as imperative, which
is suggested by Heumann, Morus, and Schleusner, is uncondi-
tionally forbidden by the ov. — The accusative ttjv avrrjv clvti-
fjLLadlav of ver. 13, may be explained with Fritzsche, that with-
out ellipsis it is connected with ifKarvvOrjTe, and signifies to he
avTO, 6 eGTLV avTL/jLLa6ia.)
Ver, 14, 15. The admonition with which Paul commences in
vi. 1, is now resumed and continued, for by their obedience there-
unto the Corinthians are to display the sincerity of their love,
But what urged the apostle to take up the general idea in ver. 1.
not to receive the grace of God in vain, and to apply it with an
especial view to prevent every fellowship with imbelievers ?
And besides this, connecting the exhortation immediately with the
ifkarvvOr^re koI v/juel^, makes it appear that the intention of the
remonstrance which follows was, that this mind was to be demon-
strated by the separation recommended. But the Christians were
already separated from the Gentiles, therefore the exhortation
which follows could only be intended to advise them to remain
distinct, and to beware of backsliding. Of relapsing into idola-
try, it is by no means the apostle's intention to speak, and that
which follows contains no allusion to this possibility. Yet if we
take into consideration that individual members of the Corinthian
church had themselves participated in sacrificial festivals in the
heathen temples (1 Cor. viii. 10), it may be safely asserted that
there existed at least some ground for dreading a relapse into
Gentilism ; nevertheless the mention of etScoXa in ver. 16 is not
to be taken in its real sense, because the antithesis of this, the
temple of God, is only employed as a trope. It appears most
probable to me, that the reason Paul so decidedly and dis-
330 SECOND CORINTHIANS VI. 14, 15.
tinctly asserts the necessity of an absolute separation from
unbelievers, was in order to signify the danger incurred by
Paul's antagonists (v. 12), if they continued in their present
course. The apostle intentionally alludes to it in an indirect
manner, because he still hoped for a favourable issue, and did not
desire to proceed to extremities with his enemies. By adopting
this view all that precedes gains strict connexion with the subject
which follows. In addition, it will of course be evident that
according to the declaration of Paul in 1 Cor. v. 10, the fellow-
ship here forbidden does not apply to every act of association or
living together, but to labouring together for an end. Now of
labouring with the Gentiles, no party in Corinth had thought,
and the heathen tone which continued to prevail in that city after
the first epistle, could not certainly have given occasion to so
emphatic a diatribe, whilst undoubtedly the enmity of Paul's
adversaries had arisen to so great a height as to render it doubt-
ful whether it would be possible to labour with them for any
length of time, i.e. to acknowledge them as members of that
church for whose destruction they toiled. This was to be indi-
rectly brought before their minds, and for that reason Paul ex-
presses the necessity of avoiding all communion with them in the
strongest terms. If the adversaries were not already aTnaToi,
cr/coT09, children of the devil, they were decidedly on the way to
become such. The contrasts of light, righteousness, &c., which
indicate the well-affected, are not to be regarded either as exag-
geration, or that which the Corinthians were some day to be-
come, but rather as the true expression of the Christian principle.
The regenerate man in whom Christ dwells, is also sinful and
weak in the old man, nevertheless his true self {Icli), which is
alone beheld of God, is holy and perfect, for it is the Christ in
him. The Catholic view of a gradual purification of the new man
in no degree corresponds with the declaration of the Holy Scrip-
tures. See Comm, on vii. 1. (In ver. 14 krepo^v^/elv which
occurs is a very rare word, the signification of which is not so diffi-
cult as the etymology. By some it has been derived from ^1^709
in the signification of " a balance," according to which erepo-^
^vyelv must mean " to influence or bias the balance." But it is
undoubtedly better to derive the word from the signification
" yoke," and for this reason erepo^vyelv means with various ani-
SECOND CORINTHIANS VI. 16 — 18. — VII. 1. 331
mals, e.g. oxen and horses yoked together, i.e. working with
various powers towards one end, — In ver. 15 BeXidp is un-
questionably the correct reading. It is = ^^^^5' ^^^ "^ P^^®
error of transcription, though possibly a provincialism, in which
examples are not wanting of the frequent exchange of X with p.
Bekidp fe also found in the Testament, xii.^a^r. in Grdbii spicil.
i. 159. — In ver. 16 o-vyKardOeai^i, approbation, consenting unto,
only occurs in this passage throughout the New Testament. See
Cicer. Qusest. Acad. iv. 2.)
Vers. 16 — 18. Paul might consider the image of the tempfe
rather unintelligible to a community formed of Gentile elements ;
he therefore explains it by quoting from Lev. xxvi. 11, and
then proceeds to strengthen his renewed warning against any
closer connexion with dissimilar elements by passages from
Isa. lii, 11, Jerem. xxxi. 33, xxxii. 38. The application of the
first quotation proves, how real the apostle desired the image em-
ployed should be regarded, for the indwelling of God in man is the
object he therein particularly holds forth to view. (See Comm. on
iii. 17, vi. 19.). In the ivoiKelv, i/jLTrepLTraretv, nothing may there-
fore be restricted ; the latter expression corresponds to the fiiueiv
employed by John, and stands parallel with the dyecv of Kom.
viii. 11. In the citation from Is. lii. 11, no allusion is to be dis-
covered to the Mosaic law which declared those unclean who
touched a dead body and other objects pronounced unclean. The
apostle understands and employs it typically to inward things.
The quotation at the conclusion of the chapter contains the pro-
mises of grace which shall follow the faithful observance of this
admonition, and which are concentrated in those who come under
the acceptation of children. (IlavTOKpdTcop, except in this pas-
sage, only occurs in the Apocalypse, but there frequently. The
LXX. render *»^^ and p-i^^^ "i *» by the same.)
Chap. vii. 1. To prove the possession and thankful acceptance
of such promises which must assuredly awaken gratitude, Paul
again repeats his exhortation that they should preserve them-
selves free from every stain, and in (childlike) fear of God (see on
Rom. viii. 15) perfect themselves in holiness (already commenced.)
(Concerning the idea of the dycoavvr) see Comm. on 1 Cor. i. 30.)
According to the connexion of the whole (as already observed in
Comm. on 1 Cor. i., and iii. 15), Paul is not desirous of representing
332 SECOND CORINTHIANS VII. 2—4.
aap^ KoX TTvev/jLa, i.e. the entire man, inward as well as out-
ward, as unclean and requiring purification ; for vi. 14, 15, de-
scribes the same objects here addressed as light and righteousness
itself, consequently, such as have already received through
faith in Christ, forgiveness of their sins, and participation in the
merits of Christ. But the sense of the words only bears refer-
ence to keeping themselves free from all contamination, and to
the further growth of the pure new man (1 John iii. 9) already
in them, which would have the effect of repressing more and more
the death (and not the state of purity) which devolves to the
condition of the old man. But according to appearances, this
process of the growth of the new, and dying of the old man, takes
the form of a being purified, because the same individual bears
within himself the new as likewise the old man. The passages
1 Cor V. 7, 2 Tim. ii. 20, 21, are to be understood in a similar
manner.
§ 7. GODLY SORROW.
(vii. 2—16.)
Turning from the more objective position and bearing of the
preceding section, to the concrete circumstances lying before us,
Paul first describes his apprehension concerning the manner in
which the Corinthians might have received his epistle, in which
respect however Titus had comforted him (vii. 2 — 7) ; he then
shows how the godly sorrow of a true repentance is ever the
source of inextinguishable joy, for which reason he had been com-
forted even by their mourning, because it was not a sorrow of the
world, working death (vii. 8 — 16.).
Ver. 2 — 4. This section compared with chaps, x. and xi. proves
quite clearly that Paul certainly addressed the entire epistle to
the yet outwardly undivided church, but that in the first nine
chapters he had internally the well-affected more in view, whilst
in the succeeding chapters the adversaries were especially ad-
dressed. Yet passages suoh as vi. 14, sqq. distinctly prove that
a reference to his antagonists existed even in the earlier chap-
ters; for without admitting such a supposition, the immediate and
animated transition from vii. 1 to 2, and the declarations x^PV~
aare r)/jLd<i, ovSiva rjBiK7](Ta/jL€v k.t.\. would be difficult to explain.
SECOND CORINTHIANS VII. 5 — 7. 333
How could Paul immediately give utterance to the thought "we
have wronged no man," after exhorting them to " cleanse them-
selves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit," if the latter injunc-
tion possessed none other than a strictly general and moral re-
ference ? On the contrary such a transition is easily to be
accounted for, if we admit that it enjoined the necessary and
continual separation from the antagonists, in case they persevered
in adhering to their worldly judgement. (To the ycdprjaare r^fia^,
the ifXarvv6r]Te of vi. 13 may be suitably compared. Love is
represented as a qualification for adoption. In the expressions
which follow, Paul takes into consideration the, to a certain ex-
tent, abominable accusations of the opponents. [See particularly
concerning the ifKeoveKrelv, viii. 19, 20, xii. 14, 16.] We are
not to consider the reference to any distinct individual, the in-
cestuous person for example. — The irpoeiprjKa refers to vi. 12. —
The plural iv rah Kaphlai^i is again striking, but it refers to Paul
and those of like opinions, to Titus especially [ver. 5, sqq.]. The
€t9 TO avvaiToOavelv and crv^fjv is only circumscribed by the
irdvTore, so that the meaning is " for ever, and under all circum-
stances." — In ver. 4, irapprja'ia is not " frankness," but " bold
joyful hope." 'TTrepirepicro-evco occurs again in Kom. v. 20.)
Vers. 5 — 7. In contrast to his present joy the apostle nar-
rates his trials in Macedonia, before Titus brought his intelli-
gence from Corinth, which added yet more to his outward sorrows ;
nevertheless through him he received comfort also from God.
The expression 97 aap^ tj/jloov here indicates the nature of men,
not inasmuch as it is evil, but only as it is weak, Paul intends
to signify that his vov^ was without care, because he was fully
acquainted with the truth, but that nevertheless the human
element within him, was powerfully troubled for his beloved Co-
rinthians. (It would be better to supply rjpbeOa to iv iravrl
6XiP6/jL6voL, it is not necessary to suppose an anacoluthon.) In
this tribulation the God of all comfort consoled him (see i. 3, 4)
through Titus. He describes himself and his friends, as Taireivoi,
inasmuch as they acknowledged themselves to be in a state of
true spiritual necessity, and because they were not governed by
w^orldly considerations, but cared for the things of God's king-
dom. The iv rfj irapovala of ver. 7 must be protected from mis-
apprehension ; not only the coming of Titus rejoiced the apostle,
334 SECOND CORINTHIANS VII. 8—9.
but also the intelligence which he brought from Corinth, viz. that
his epistle to the church there, had made a worthy impression.
(Concerning iTriTroOr^o-L^ of ver. 7 see the passage v. 2. — '0Bvpfi6<i
indicates the affliction caused by the unfortunate state of affairs
in Corinth, ^rjXo^; the zeal to fulfil Paul's commands; the vTrep
i/jbov refers to all three subjects. — In the jxdXkov 'xapr}va(} the joy
is compared with the sorrow at first experienced, " I now rejoice
more than I had sorrowed at an earlier period.")
Vers. 8, 9. How extremely doubtful Paul had felt concerning
the result of his letter, is proved by the el koX iiereixeKo^r^v : he
had' consequently regretted, if only for a moment, that he had
written so strongly ; but he no longer entertained the feeling,
he rejoiced truly over the sorrow which his epistle had awakened
in the Corinthians, not that the sorrow itself had proved the
source of satisfaction to him, but the repentance which was con-
nected with it ; the godly sorrow which he had been instrumental
in producing, had proved to them of the nature of a blessing. —
In this simple construction of the passage the only doubt which
can arise is relative to the meaning of the ^XeTrco yap k. t. \. Bill-
roth takes it in the signification of " for I reflect, take into con-
sideration," because it otherwise contains too inapposite a remark.
But the el koI 7rpo9 wpav does not agree with this explanation,
which renders subordinate the moment of the XvTreiv, which the
/SXeTTO) yap is intended prominently to express. If on the con-
trary we receive the pXeirw yap as representing the above eXt;-
in](Ta v/jLd<;, not as a supposition, but as a fact experienced, in the
sense of: for I perceive according to Titus' report, &c. the el
Kal TTpo'; copav thereby gains a perfect sense and connexion. It
then expresses the tender love of the apostle, who even when the
sorrow he inflicts is salutary, abridges the period of suffering as
far as possible, in order that godly joy may again shine forth from
the affliction. Thus understood, the idea can in nowise be con-
sidered subordinate. (In ver. 9 tm ev fjurjSevl ^r^fjLKoOyjTe is Li-
totes for ha ev Travrl irepiaaevrjTe, " in order that in every rela-
tion, through joy and sorrow, I may bring you a blessing." But,
as Billroth correctly observes, the ha is decidedly to be under-
stood TeXcK(b<;, for Paul sees a divine injunction therein.)
1 Baumgarten considers that the ioa-Tt fit fxaXKov x'"-P^^^'- ought to be connected
with the words which follow ; but this would be singularly inappropriate.
SECOND CORINTHIANS VII. 10, 12. 335
Ver. 10. The address which has been of particular application,
now extends itself to a more general one. Paul distinguishes a
twofold Xvirrj, the Kara Geov, and the rov Koa^ov. Both expres-
sions contain something more than a reference, the generality of
the subject of the expression must be borne in mind. The /cara
Qeov signifies not only the divine pleasure, but also the relation
to God ; and in the roij koct/jlov the dominion of the same in the
world, and again its relation to the world, are implied. The sor-
row of the world, which only deplores sin on account of its un-
pleasant consequences, has no spirit of life in it ; it rather de-
stroys the life which may exist, by precipitating the sinner into
a state of despair. Godly sorrow on the contrary, is the source
of everlasting life, for it effects a fierdvoLa ek acorrjplav. It
might be supposed, that the Xvirr] was the fjueTavoia itself, but the
latter already possess faith, the former is the purely negative
side of the sorrow, whose subject is not the consequence of sin,
but sin itself. (Billroth thinks dfierajjLeXTjro^; should be connected
with (TcoTTjplai but the epithet could not be applied to the idea of
salvation, it does not require to be explained, that salvation is
never to be repented of; but it would be perfectly correct to
join it to fxerdvocav, for in a worldly point of view it is possible
for man to lament that he must surrender himself to a strict re-
pentance, instead of a cheerful enjoyment of life.)
Vers. 11, 12. The apostle exhibits the operation of godly sor-
row in the conduct of the Corinthians, with reference to a concrete
circumstance, viz. in their proceedings towards the incestuous
member of their church (1 Cor. v.). His exhortation had had
the effect of arousing in them a mighty zeal, and this was the
principal object of his epistle. The mention of their proceedings
with regard to the immoral person alluded to is only adduced as
an example, and he in no respect enters upon the important
questions which agitated the Corinthian community. But the
apostle desired to avoid direct mention of the divisions, in order
not to diminish the possibility of reconciling them. It is besides
very evident that the expression ov/c €ypa^fra etveKev rov dhiKri-
aavTo^ is not to be urged ; as if it were, that Paul had not had
the sinner himself in his consideration. He only intends to say
that he desired above all things, to profit by this circumstance to
arouse the whole church from its state of slumber, and that this
336 SECOND CORINTHIANS Til. 11, 12.
salutary movement might also affect the sinner to his own advan-
tage, was naturally included in the apostle's wish. It has been sup-
posed, that the dStKrjOel^ implied the apostle himself, or the church ;
but this cannot be adopted, because Paul intends expressly to
state that his view was not directed to the fact itself ; it there-
fore follows, that the reference, can in no degree apply to the
church, on whose behalf, he declares himself in the concluding
words of the verse to have written. But had he represented him-
self alone as the injured party, this would have implied a reproach
towards the church, who might thereby have felt wounded ; but
the context does not justify us in attributing* to the apostle any
intention of blaming the Corinthians, it is certainly his aim rather
to commend them. It is evidently forced in a high degree to re-
ceive the eiveKev rov dBi,K7]devT0<i as neuter (to dZiKr)6ev ==* to
dBl/cTj/jua), with Heinsius and Billroth, for it is more reasonable to
refer it to the father, who, by the conduct of his wife and her step-
son, was the really injured party. That we are unacquainted whe-
ther he were still living, forms no ground of objection to this ex-
planation, as no moment speaks to the contrary. (In ver. 11 the re-
iterated dWd is again intensive, in the signification of hno. The
single expressions contain as it were the description of the feel-
ing of the Corinthians, elicited by the apostolic appeal, with re-
ference to the offender, and expressed in the manner of a climax.
According to this, the drrrokojia cannot well imply exculpation
through the fact of punishment, as Billroth maintains, for the
expressions which succeed bear reference to this, but it indicates
the excuses offered for their negligence, in that they had not
punished the offenders at an earlier period. — ■'AyavaKTrjac'; [which
does not again occur in the New Testament] refers to the ex-
hibition of moral feeling on the subject of the offence, (f)6^o^ to
God, as the avenger of the wicked persons whom they had to-
lerated through false clemency. 'ETrcTToOrja-L^ and pJXo? express
the sentiments against the apostle himself, and eKhUT^ai^ the re-
sult proceeding from the objects enumerated. — In ver, 12 the
reading v^oiv rrjv vTrep rjfiMV is unquestionably to be preferred in
agreement with Lachmann's opinion The whole connexion proves
that it was undoubtedly the Corinthians' zeal, and not Paul's zeal
which was intended, and besides it is easy to account for the ex-
istence of another reading. It appeared more natural that the
SECOND CORINTHIANS VII. 13 — 16. 337
apostle sliould say, I write in order to prove my zeal to yau,.^Ka!n,
in order to display your zeal. Nevertheless the critical autho4,t %a*^*
ties in favour of this reading are of consequence, which has occa-
sioned Griesbach to hesitate between the two.)
Vers. 13, 14. This result of his writing was sufficient to comfort
the apostle (retrospective reference to ver. 7), but to the comfort
was added the rejoicing over the joy of Titus, who had found
everything confirmed which Paul had told him concerning the Co-
rinthians. — In ver. 13 Billroth and Lachmann have already proved
the correct reading to be eVt Be ry irapaKkrjaei vjjiSiv irepiaaore
pft)? fjLoXXov K. T. \. ; we can only hesitate between the choice of
viJLwv or rjjjboiv. I prefer vfjucdv, because it might be inferred from
the first person irapaKeKkrjiieda that Paul would further enlarge
upon his consolation. But Paul's comfort was also that of the
Corinthians, they themselves being the origin of it. (Consult
Winer's Gr. upon irepLa-o-oTepco'; fidWov, p. 221.). Ver. 14 ex-
plains for what cause Titus' joy had so much rejoiced the apostle,
viz., that his predictions had been proved correct. Billroth incor-
rectly concludes irdvra to signify all that Paul had imparted to Titus
concerning the Corinthians. The text contains not the slightest
allusion to this. It rather signifies everything, without excep-
tion, published by Paul in Corinth ; and the whole sentence is in-
tended to contrast him as the faithful preacher of the truth, and
whose confidence would not be put to shame by the better por-
tion of the Corinthian church, with the calumnies of the adver-
saries. (The reading in ver. 14 of ?; Kav^V^^^ v/jlcov iirl Tltov,
accepted by Lachmann, is not deserving of recommendation.
The aXX co? — ovtco^ kul refers to the above KeKav^rjfiai, it must
therefore mean Kavxw^^ vp^oov : for fcav)(r](TL^ v/jloov cannot well be
said, ns the Corinthians had permitted themselves to be deceived.
The substitution of these pronouns for each other in the Codd. is
so frequent, that their authority can be but slight with reference
to them.).
Vers. 15, 16. The humble obedience of the Corinthians is re-
presented, as that which above all things, especially rejoiced
Titus ; not though as if they feared the man in the apostle, but
God, who proved himself eff'ectual through him. The apostle
therefore justly grounds the joyful hope, that all he desires to
effect among them will prosper, upon this desirable frame of mind.
2/
338 SECOND CORINTHIANS VIII. 1 — 4.
§ 8. THE COLLECTION,
(viii. 1 — ix. 15.)
The following copious dissertation concerning the collection
made by the apostle for the Christians (see Comm. on 1 Cor. xvi,
1), is an energetic exhortation to liberality ; but whilst Paul
urges this, he does not neglect to secure himself against the pro-
bable calumnies of his adversaries, who appear to have been bold
enough to endeavour to cast suspicion on the integrity of the
apostle. (See viii. 20.). He therefore commands that several
brethren selected by the church, should take charge of the money,
and thus effectually put an end to any calumny on the subject.
Ver. 1 — 4. The apostle commences, by exhibiting the con-
duct of the Christians in Macedonia, as an example to the Corin-
thians : they having proved themselves bountiful in a high de-
gree, under very unfavourable circumstances, and entreated the
acceptance of a contribution far beyond their circumstances.
(In ver. 1 Be is only to be considered as carrying on the subject.
— Xdpi<; indicates the liberality of the Macedonians, inasfar as
impelled by Divine grace. — In ver. 2 the mention of the trials of
afflictioUj endured by the Macedonians, only occurs in order
thereby to mark more strongly their bountiful spirit. Despite
their sufferings, they abounded in joy, at having received through
the Gospel, the heavenly treasure prized so highly by them, and
this joy urged them to impart freely of their outward goods.
Instead however of continuing Kal iv Kara j3d6ovs in(o-)(ela
rj ireptcraeia k. t. X., the apostle boldly describes the poverty
co-ordinate with the joy, representing both together, as the
subject giving occasion to the abundant gift. — It is very pos-
sible that yji7]GTOT'r\To^ has here been changed for difKorriTo^,
for according to the general signification, aTrXoTT^ro? may ap-
pear inapplicable. But this expression may be used with re-
ference to genuine true liberality and benevolence, as es-
pecially appears from ix. 11, 13. The passage Eom. xii. 8 is not
to be enumerated also. But in Josephus. Arch. vii. 13, 4 [and
1 See concerning the persecutions of tlie Christians in Macedonia, Acts xvi. 20, sqq.,
xvii. 5; 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. li.
SECOND CORINTHIANS VIII. 5 — 7. 339
likewise Tacitus Hist. iii. 86 simplicitas], it is employed in a simi-
lar sense, also in Isa. xxxiii. 23, Job xi. 13, by the Greek trans-
lators. — The avdaipero^ of ver.^S only occurs again in viii. 17
throughout the New Testament. Hesychius explains it by eKov-
<TLO<^ : from ver. 5 ehoiKav is to be supplied. — In ver. 4, he^aaOai
r)/jLd<; must be erased from the text as a manifest gloss.)
Vers. 5 — 7. Paul employed the unexpected and voluntary sa-
crifice on the part of the Macedonians, as an argument to animate
Titus, intending thereby that he should arouse the Corinthians
to a like contribution, in order that they might not in any respect
fall short of their brethren, (In ver. 5, iiroiovv is to be added to
KoX ov KaO(b<i rfKnTLaafjiev. — The eavTOV<^ eBcoKav rw Kvpiw is not to
be understood as of a spiritual yielding up, as if the meaning
were, they first gave themselves internally and wholly to the Lord,
and then as a consequence of this commendable frame of mind,
offered to the necessitous brethren of their possessions ; but the
giving here signified, is the bestowing everything, and retaining
nothing for themselves. If the former were the correct sense of
the words, a reference would certainly be made to it in that which
follows, and this is by no means the fact. The. apostle rather
takes for granted, that the entire yielding up everything to the
Lord is understood throughout ; and that the gifts offered to the
Lord, were delivered over to him even to the apostle, is ascribed
by Paul to the Almighty's intention and will, as he desired to
make them observe that the idea had not originated with himself.
— In ver. 6 the irpoevrjp^aTO refers to a former abode of Titus in
Corinth, when he might also have endeavoured to further the pre-
sent object. Lachmann has preferred the reading ivTJp^aro. — In
ver. 7 aXXa is again to be taken in the sense of imo, and ver. 7
is to be closely connected with ver. 6, so that the iva in ver. 7
corresponds with the ha in ver. 6. " Paul requires nothing op-
pressive from the Corinthians, he only affords them an opportu-
nity of appropriating to themselves another spiritual blessing."
Billroth, who has entirely overlooked this, completely errs with
regard to the meaning of ver. 7. — Concerning Tricrrt?, X0709,
yvcbai^;, see Comm. on 1 Cor. xii. 8. — Lachmann reads rfj ef '^fitSv
6v vfjbLV for rfj ef vfioov ev rjjjulv ayaTry. But the usual reading is pre-
ferable, because Paul is enumerating the privileges of the Co-
y2
340 SECOND CORINTHIANS VIII. 8—11.
rinthians, consequently the a^airt) i^ avrcbv must be likewise
mentioned.)
Vers. 8, 9. As in 1 Cor. vii. Paul here also distinguishes be-
tween iiTLTa'yrf and yvco/jir), he does not desire to command but to
advise, and to test the sincerity of the love professed by his beloved
Corinthians ; the experiencing Christ's mercy naturally tends to
enlarge the heart, and incline the individual to bestow likewise
upon others ; therefore this grace must be wanting among the Co-
rinthians, if they prove themselves deficient in the particulars
named. Ver. 9, as well as Phil. ii. 6, belong to those passages
in which Paul plainly brings to their remembrance the humilia-
tion of Christ. The ifKova-to^ mv expresses the eternal existence
of the Son in the glory of the Father, and in the iiTTOD'xeva-e
is expressed the voluntary renunciation of the same, out of com-
passion to the misery of mankind. It is entirely wrong to un-
derstand Christ here as a type, though this view is adopted by
Billroth and Usteri, making the sense : as Christ, by becom-
ing poor, made others rich, so do ye likewise. The meaning is
rather, " As Christ, by becoming poor, made you rich, ye can thus
bestow of your abundance upon others, for to this end were ye
placed in this condition." The only objection which may be
urged against this acceptation, is, that Christ has rendered man-
kind spiritually rich, while the bestowing here recommended re-
gards outward things. But as the actual giving presupposes the
intention to give as the inward motive, which without it could
never take place, although the outward possessions as the mefins
might exist, it appears to present no obstacle to our idea. But
on the contrary a considerable difficulty seems to arise, if Christ
is here only considered as a type ; for the ytvoocrfceTe yap appeals
to the Christian knowledge of the Corinthians, presupposing
among them that experience of the grace of Christ which makes
rich ; but its purport is not that they should imitate him, but
only that the feeling of their inability to do so should stimulate
them to those proofs of grateful love which display themselves in
good works, approving themselves thereby, not unfruitful par-
takers of those riches, bestowed through Christ, and not through
any merit of their own.
Ver. 10, 11. Paul however does not counsel thus with a view to
SECOND CORINTHIANS VIII. 12 — 15. 341
his own advantage, but to that of the Corinthians, who require
to be led on to the perfection of the work commenced, in order
(as stated in ver. 7) to gain this further blessing. For the cor-
rect understanding of tliis passage, it is necessary to remark, in
the first place, that according to 1 Cor. xvi. 2, the contributions
to the collection were to take place weekly, and were not to be
made only once ; Paul may therefore require that the iTrtreXiaat
should succeed the TroLTjo-ao. Then with respect to the circum-
stance of the BeXeiv following the TroLrjaai, the expression r/ irpo-
OvfjLLa Tov dekeLv (ver. 11), has already explained what was in-
tended, as Winer and Billroth correctly observe, viz. the inten-
tion and desire to be well- pleasing to God, which accompanies
the performance. Paul consequently will say : it shall not only
be done outwardly, but as ye have already begun, it must be
given in the right intention, in fact it must be persevered in
unto the end. (The airo irepvcn of ver. 10 occurs again in ix. 2.
The expression signifies really, in years past by, also " previous."
Xenophon [Hist. iii. 2. 6] has only irepvai. — The etc tov e^^eti/ is
to be understood, as shown by what follows, " according to the
possession.")
Ver. 12 — 15. The relation of the measure of liberality to the
whole amount of possession, is further illustrated in the verses
which follow. As generosity consisted not in the largeness of
the gift, but in its relative value to the wealth, so it was like-
wise necessary, that liberality should not be restricted to one side
alone, but among Christ's members, as one body knit together
in the fellowship of love, the giver should receive again, and the
receiver be prepared to bestow where necessary ; in this manner
a true community of goods was produced, which it would be folly
to strive to attain in any other manner. Love creates freedom
and equality without revolution, a spiritual community of goods.
(See on Acts ii. 44.). Paul very ingeniously applies the passage
from Exod. xvi. 18, which represents that in collecting the manna,
every Israelite found himself upon the same footing. In God s
kingdom likewise, none have too much, and none too little, al-
though according to their various necessities they have not all
the like quantity. (In ver. 12, it is preferable to connect evTrpo^i-
Se/cTo? to rh to than irpodviiia. — In ver. 13, yivrjrai is to be
supplied to Lva. This verse shows iBesides, that the distress suffered
342 SECOND CORINTHIANS VIII. 16—21.
by the Christians in Palestine was only of a temporary nature,
the removal of which was to be looked for. — In ver. 15 the quo-
tation from the LXX. is made from memory ; it runs thus in the
original : ovk eirXeovaae 6 to ttoXv, koi 6 to iXaTTov ovfc rfkaT-
TovTjcre,)
Vers. 16, 17. The apostle then passes from himself to Titus,
who was appointed to conduct the collection, representing him to
be as earnestly solicitous for the welfare of the Corinthians, as he
himself had hitherto been ; his zeal rendered any exhortation
from Paul unnecessary, for it urged him voluntarily to undertake
the journey. — Billroth's reception of the passage is erroneous, for
he thinks Paul intended to compare the zeal of Titus with that
of the Corinthians themselves ; but the sentence virep v/xcov con-
tradicts this. The aorist i^rjXOe, and likewise those in the fol-
lowing verses, are besides best understood as implying that Paul
wrote as one who had received an epistle, for unquestionably
Titus himself had delivered this to him in Corinth,
Vers. 18 — 21. In order therefore to remove the slightest occa-
sion for malicious accusations, Paul had caused several brethren
to be selected, together with Titus, who were to receive, and
afterwards deliver over, the bountiful collections which were the
object of Paul's exhortation ; his wisdom led him not only to act
in a manner free from all suspicion, but also to avoid even the
appearance of it in the eyes of men. This passage is likewise a
remarkable proof of the shameless audacity of some among the
apostle's adversaries ; he is not speaking of possibilities, but the
precautionary measures taken by Paul prove, that they had really
ventured to cast a doubt upon his integrity. — The description in
ver. 18 might certainly apply to several, but probably Luke is
meant, who is mentioned in the subscription as the person ap-
pointed to deliver the epistle, and whose relation of the Acts of
the Apostles xx. 1, sqq. (a passage which belongs to the time of
the drawing up of the second epistle to the Corinthians), ceases
to be in the first person, which implies that he had left the apos-
tle. It will be naturally understood that the expression ^jreLpoTovrj-
6eh in ver. 19 does not signify here the description of ordination
which it does in Acts xiv. 23 ; .it rather shows that the church in
Macedonia had displayed some degree of activity, with regard to
the choice of the deputies who were to accompany Titus ; Paul had
SECOND CORINTHIANS VIII. 22— 34.— IX. 1—4. 343
proposed, and the church had accepted them. — ^vveKBTjfios rjfjLCJv
refers to the projected journey to Jerusalem, " as our companion."—
— The TTpo? irpodvjjLiav rjfjbwv is elliptical, it must be consequently
understood as, " a declaration of my willingness." In ver. 20,
(TTeWf-aOav is employed in the signification of " to withdraw
onesself, to avoid." It again occurs in 2 Thess. iii. 6. — Con-
cerning fjico/jbeto-Oac see vi. 3. — 'Ahporrj^ = ifkovro^, ireptaaeia.
Vers. 22 — 24. After again making allusion to an estimable
brother and companion, all these messengers in conclusion, as his
partners and fellow-labourers, are impressively commended to a
favourable reception from the Corinthians. — Who the brother is,
of whom mention is here made, cannot be determined with any
degree of certainty ; probably however one of the individuals
named 'in Acts xx. 4. Paul appears to have included him in the
deputation on account of his great confidence towards the Corin-
thians, i. e. by reason of his ability to arrange something among
them. (In ver. 23 the sentence is not regularly formed ; it ought
to have been, elre Ttro?, or elre virep aSe\<f>wv. We can with
Chrysostom supply an aKovorai rt fiovXeaOe to the virep. —
'AttocttoXol is here, with reference to ver. 19, to be received in
the more extended sense of " subordinates." — In ver. 24 Lach-
mann reads iv^ecKvvfjbevoc instead of ivBel^aaOe, which is certainly
preferable to the more difficult reading. — In the ek irpoacoTrov
the tendency of this eVSetft? is signified, ^ in order that it may
come before the face of the church, and they may perceive, that
I have not so praised you without cause.")
Chap. ix. 1, 2. It has been already observed in the Introduc-
tion that no interval takes place between chapters viii. and ix.,
as those commentators have supposed who divide the present
Epistle into two parts ; but in effect the discussion concerning the
collection still goes on. After some information concerning the
persons who were appointed to convey the money, Paul returns
to the subject of the collection itself, intimating in a delicate
manner, that it was unnecessary to write more upon that head, as
they had ever shown themselves forward in the matter, and he
therefore only recommends them to gather the various contributions
together as soon as possible. — (Ver. 2. Concerning the diru irepvat
see viii. 10. — Lachmann omits the e^ before v/jlmv, but the usual
reading is undoubtedly to be preferred. The zeal is considered
344 SECOND CORINTHIANS IX. 3, 4.
as something proceeding forth, and issuing from the Corinthians,
and really of a communicable nature.)
Vers. 3, 4. The sending beforehand of the brethren, according
to the declaration of the apostle, appears to have been contrived
as the means to secure their fame to the Corinthians, for the Ma-
cedonians who accompanied Paul at a later period would not find
them unprepared. Something facetious is clearly to be found in
the KaTaiaxwOMfjuev r^jieU wa ^r) XeycofMev uyLcet?, by which the
apostle wishes to stimulate the Corinthians to an interest in his
undertaking ; from the nature of the thing it was not desirable,
to employ serious command, in urging the display of a charity
which should be voluntary. Therefore the ingenious declaration
before us, was well adapted to prepossess the Corinthians in favour
of the thing, since it represented them as disposed towards the
collection, and then adds, that two brethren should be sent before-
hand, in order that the fame of their promptitude in responding
to the call made in behalf of their poor brethren, should not suffer
in the estimation of the Macedonians who were to follow. Riickert
takes occasion from this passage to reproach the apostle with be-
haviour at once insincere, and unpsedagogic. In 2 Cor. viii. 2
Paul had represented to the Corinthians that the Macedonians
abounded in liberality, and here he declares that the readiness of
the Corinthians, had stimulated the Macedonians, to an exhibition
of zeal. But as whole churches, and even entire provinces are the
subject of remark, it would seem possible for the apostle to be
completely consistent ; Paul might hold forth the liberality of the
well-intentioned Macedonians, as an example to the Corinthians,
and at the same time produce an effect upon the less benevo-
lently disposed Macedonians, by the description of the kind feel-
ing existing among the better Corinthian Christians. (In ver. 3
the eV Tw jjuepei tovtm corresponds to the iv rfj vTrocrrdaei ravTy
of ver. 4, exactly as in xi. 17. The viroaraa L<i must therefore be
received in the sense of "being, thing," which, although it does
not occur in this meaning in any other passage of the New Tes-
tament, is nevertheless sanctioned by the origin of the word.
The word implying " conviction, evidence." which is employed in
Heb. iii. 14, xi. 1, is derived from an original signifying " being,
essentiality," because the true evidence of an object, includes
within it, its being, according to its degree of potency. The gloss
SECOND CORINTHIANS IX. 5 — 11. 345
tt}? Kav')(i]a€co^ is unquestionably interpolated in this verse out
of xi. 17 of the epistle under consideration.)
Vers. 5 — 7. The brethren sent before (viii. 18, sqq.) were to
close the collections, so that on the apostle's arrival the whole
should be perfectly ready ; all who were inclined to do so, might
therefore still richly contribute, but they were at the same time
advised to give cheerfully. (In ver. 5 the collection is styled ev-
\oyia, inasmuch as* it proceeds from benevolent and charitable
minds ; ifXeove^la insofar as obtained with difficulty, and when
alloyed by a covetous spirit. — In ver. 6 kreov is to be supplied
with rovTo he. — The eV evXoyiai^ is so contrasted with the (f>eL-
8ofMevo}<;, that it must be understood " in the manner of a bless-
ing," i.e. abundantly. Precisely as in 1 Cor. ix. 10 eV iXTriSi
refers to hope. — In ver. 7 TrpoatpelaOai, to propose to oneself,
to be willing to do something.)
Ver. 8, 9. According to Ps. cxii. 9, God is represented as the
rewarder, who ever extends the necessary means to the benevolent,
that under all circumstances, they may have the power to exercise
good works of all kinds. (The quotation strictly follows the LXX. —
The icrKopinae refers to the metaphor of the anrelpeLv commenced
in ver. 6, and which is continued in ver. 10. — The fjuevei ek rov
aloiva is, according to ver. 8, to be received comprehensively, viz.
"he continues always, and abounds richly in all good works.")
Ver. 10, 11. The image of the sower is especially employed
with reference to benevolence. The Almighty who provides seed
for the sower, and bread for food, will also minister that which
is necessary for the growth of the spiritual seed of love, causing
it to increase as the fruits of righteousness, in order that ye may
be rich in all bountifulness to the glory and thanksgiving of God,
through us, by whom ye have been so encouraged. In this me-
taphorical language, the seed intimates the possession of outward
wealth, but certainly in conjunction with the charitable disposi-
tion to employ it to good purposes ; and the fruits are the indivi-
dual acts of charity, proceeding out of these elements. As Christ
declared, my meat is to do the will of my Father, works of charity
are made to appear in this passage as the meat of believers. In
the iv TravTL ifkovTi^ofievoi this hope is represented as realized ;
it stands for eh to ifkovri^eodai uyua?. (In ver. 10 it is un-
necessary to seek a distinction between eTri'^opTj'yelv and x^PV
546 SECOND CORINTHIANS IX. 12 — 15.
7641^; both expressions occur only in the New Testament, in the
epistles of Paul and Peter. — The futures '^(^oprjyjjaeL, TrXijOvvel
are to be preferred to the optative ; they imply the certain hope
which renders any further petition unnecessary. — The form yevrjfia
instead of yivvrj/jua is only found in this passage, in the language
of the New Testament, KapTro^ is more commonly employed
for it.)
Ver. 12 — 15. Connecting it with the thanksgiving to God
which their charity had called forth, the apostle further declares
that this awakening to God's praise and glory, and especially to
intercession, are to be included among the good efforts of the col-
lection. The virtues of believers are not to be exercised solely
for themselves, or for the sake of the salutary example they may
prove to others, for fundamentally, the glory of God is the prin-
cipal object, they being all his work. The apostle himself there-
fore pours forth God's praise (ver. 15.) (In ver. 12, either of the
two expressions, BtaKovla or Xeirovpyla, had been sufficient ;
nevertheless the employment of both in conjunction is by no means
pleonastic, since the SoaKovla brings forward the application of
the relief, and the Xeirovpyla more especially the collection from
the benevolent. — In ver. 13 the hiaKovla is to be regarded as the
test of the intention. The ho^d^ovTe<i refers to those from whom
the thanksgiving to God proceed. He alludes to the viroTayrj
and the airXorr]^, i.e. to the obedience and the benevolence aroused
through the instrumentality of the apostle. — >In ver. 14, the koI
avTcbv BerjaeL virep v/jlcov is no longer to be considered dependent
on the tTTi in ver. 13, but is to be connected with Sia iroWwv
€u%apt<rTfcwz^ Tw ©ew, rendering ver. 13. of the nature of a paren-
thesis, and more closely explaining the thanksgiving to God, as
well as the intercession by the iTrtTrodovvrcov k. t. \. — The
aveKhirjyrjTo^ of ver. 15 only occurs throughout the New Testa-
ment in this passage ; a form somewhat similar is found, Rom.
xi. 33.)
( 347 )
III.
PART THIRD.
(x. l~xiii. 13.)
§ 9. FALSE APOSTLES.
(X. 1—18.)
Until now, Paul has addressed himself pre-eminently to the
better-intentioned in the Corinthian Church, but from the 10th
chap, he directs himself against his adversaries (see Introd. § 3),
without however making a perfect separation into two distinct
classes. Those persons opposed to the apostle had sought to lower
his dignity, and weaken his authority, by describing him as weak
in personal influence, although courageous and full of self-commen-
dation in his letters. To this representation Paul opposes the de-
claration, that they would find him to be personally, precisely
such as his letters promised ; but with respect to the glorying, he
boasted not of himself, but of God, who had appointed him to so
extensive a sphere of action (1 — 18.)
Ver. 1,2. The apostle, in order to remove the accusation, that
when present he was weak and submissive, although he appeared
courageous when absent, commences by beseeching his readers not
to render it imperative, that upon appearing among them, he
should as boldly assume his apostolic authority as he had done in
writing to them. The inference from this is naturally, that evil
would arise to them, and they might feel disposed to resent it, if
348 SECOND CORINTHIANS X. 4 — 6.
he were compelled to rebuke them.^ That he entreats them to
this by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, evidently implies
that he desires to act in the name of his Master, and would will-
ingly exercise gentleness instead of severity. The words 09
Kara k.t.X. are certainly to be understood with the restriction,
" as my adversaries accuse me." In ver. 2 the heofjuai takes up
again the irapaKaXw, and connects with it the object of the re-
quest in the words to /x?) TTapcov Oapprjo-ai rfj TreTrot^^Jcret. The
form of the entreaty however naturally confers upon the /jurj
Trapcbv OapprjaaL the signification of, " that I may not find it ne-
cessary to appear bold when present, or, that ye may not compel
me to appear so." But in order to produce the greater impres-
sion, Paul represents this severity which was to accompany his
appearance, as not alone possible, but as already determined
upon, with regard to certain persons. Assuming the standard of
his opponents, Paul is only ironical when he signifies his appear-
ing thus as a ToXpurjaat. It was even that which these men pre-
sumed to reprove in him, the Kara adpKa irepiiraTelv, i.e. the be-
ing actuated by human views, the fear of man and the desire to
please the world, which was so conspicuous and worthy of blame
in themselves. (In ver. 2 7Te7rolOr)(TL<; is forbearingly used ; it
indicates severe, serious reproof, as Oappeiv does, " to reprove
fearlessly.")
Yer. 4 — 6. In order more forcibly to illustrate this view, Paul
further asserts that, although he might walk after the flesh and
in weakness, he nevertheless warred not with the weapons be-
longing to the flesh, but with those which were divine and sufift-
ciently mighty to overcome everything contrary to God, and to
bring all into obedience. — The apostle here passes from the idea
of what is sinful in adp^, which is most prominent in ver. 2, to
that of weakness, and describes himself as the champion of God,
as not only defending himself, but attacking the strongholds
{oxupcop^ara) of the wicked. (The Kara ©eov should be con-
trasted with the Kara crdpfca, but instead of this the idea of what
is powerful is immediately held forth to view, and by means of
the TO) ©€o) attributed to God. I cannot receive the dative with
Billroth as " for God," but must consider it " through God," i.e.
1 At tlie conclusion of the Epistle (xiii. 2, iii. 10) this idea is again laid down.
«3
SECOND CORINTHIANS X. 4 — 6. 349
according to his will and judgement, in which Winer agrees. See
Gr. p. 193).- What he desires to express by the term strong-
holds is further shown by yer. 5. He mentions the Xoyia/nov^;
Koi irav ijyfrcofia iiraLpofjievov Kara tt}? yvcaaeo)? rod 0€ov as to be
subdued and brought into subjection to the obedience of Christ,
upon which occasion the ttuv vorjfia is employed in the same
sense as he before uses the Xoytafiov^. The condition ii^ which
such high proud XoycafMol or vorjixara prevail, is called TrapaKorj,
and is opposed to the viraKorj, which Paul desires to call forth.
If we should now inquire what the apostle intended to indicate
by these expressions, it is undoubtedly apparent, according to ver.
7, that he proposed especially to reproye the seeming wisdom of
the Christianer party, who took occasion to haughtily exalt them-
selves in opposition to the true knowledge of Christ promulgated
by the apostle, and claimed for themselves the prerogatives of
true Christians. The theoretical and practical elements may not
be separated in this view, for both necessarily pervade it ; theo-
retical blindness can never remain free from practical conse-
quences. The general deduction from this passage is, that it
asserts the incompetency of human wisdom to pass sentence in
matters of faith ; but we must also agree that it is capable of
being applied to the adversaries of Paul, whose pride and especial
blindness of heart exalted themselves against the knowledge of
Christ ; it may not however be denied that the apostle's first and
chief idea regarded a fiilse gnosis (such as is described in 1 Cor.
i. 3) which resisted the true knowledge, and laid claim to recep-
tion as the real and genuine Christianity. It is evidently the
design of the apostle (see Comm. on 1. Cor. 1—3) to demon-
strate, that the cause of the substitution of false for true Chris-
tian knowledge was to be discovered in the fact, that, instead
of seeking the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit which can ex~
plore the depths of the divine Being, man trusted to his own
wisdom. The present passage therefore can only be correctly
understood, when we allow that it proves Paul considered learn-
ing incapable of producing the truths of the Gospel out of its own
resources, but that these truths were in effect promoted by the
obedience unto faith, which did not permit itself to be drawn
aside from the simplicity of Christ (xi. 3) by any subtilty what-
ever. If on the other hand the contents of this passage are to
350 SECOND CORINTHIANS X. 6.
be extended so as to signify that wisdom is also incapable of re:
ceiving and inwardly understanding the truths offered, this
view is decidedly contradicted by the frequent assertion of the
apostle, that mankind are not wanting in the organ necessary to
receive and perceive the divine things revealed to him by the
Spirit (see Comm. on Rom. i. 19) ; he is simply not to desire to
become his own oracle, to be his own God. (The orav ifkr^paydfj
vjbLwv rj vTruKoi] of ver. 6 is very striking ; that is to say, it ap-
pears from it, that when the obedience of all is perfected, there
would remain no more disobedient to punish. But Paul only de-
sires thereby to express the necessity of a separation of the ele-
ments still existing in Corinth, so that the sense really is : "I
am prepared to punish (viz. by excommunication) all who shall
continue disobedient at the period that obedience shall have per-
fected itself in you, who form the true church.")
Ver. 7. From this point the apostle addresses his opponents
in a more direct manner, and in the el' rz? ireiroidev eavT& Xpc-
(TTov elvau alludes above all to the Christianer, who laid especial
claim for themselves to the XpiGTov ehai, while on the other
hand Paul no less strongly vindicates his own right. Baur how-
ever (Tubing. Zeitsch. 1831, pt. iv., p. 99) correctly denies that
the present passage bears reference to the Christianer alone. It
would appear that the apostle was maintaining his authority
against his antagonists, who boasted of a more intimate connexion
with Jesus and his immediate disciples. We must therefore con-
clude that Paul intended to include all his adversaries in the re-
proof directed against the Christianer, their pride leading them
to the assumption that they alone were the true Christians.
This characteristic appeared most strongly in those usually
styled ol rod XpLorrov, therefore the apostle bore them especially
in mind when dictating his polemic, and employed an expression
which must bring them to remembrance. — The harmony of this
passage has been rendered uncommonly difficult by translating ra
Kara 7rp6<;(07rov fiXeTrere, as, " Do ye look on things after the out-
ward appearance ?" Billroth has already, following Ambrosius'
view, received the words correctly as implying, '' Behold now what
is so clearly evident," so that /^XeTrereis imperative. This agrees
perfectly with what follows, containing an appeal to the simple
sense of the Corinthians, that it was right he (the apostle) should
SECOND CORINTHIANS X. 8—11. 351
be considered a servant of Christ, and that his labours should
gradually stamp him such. (At the conclusion of the verse the
word Xpiarov is wanting in so many authorised Codd. that it has
been expunged by all the best critics.)
Ver. 8. Paul considers his relation to Christ as even closer
than the apostolical authority which bestows upon him a spiri-
tual power. If he have boasted somewhat of this authority, he is
by no means ashamed of it, for it is in order to their edification
and not to their injury. This requires the addition of the idea,
" But the boasting of the adversaries is productive of your de-
struction." (An anticipation of the idea exists in the construc-
tion, since eh oIkoBo/jltjv koI ovk eh KaOaipeacv vficbv is immedi-
ately connected with Kavxw^/^^h whilst according to the sense it
should hay^ been ovk ala^vvOriaoixai, iyiveTO yap, k. t. X. — The
idv re jap Kal Treptaaorepov n Kav^i^o-wfiaL only implies, " If
I have somewhat abundantly boasted myself," and not, " If I
would yet more abundantly boast myself.")
Vers. 9 — 11. To unite ver. 9 to ver. 8 in the manner pro-
posed by Billroth and Lachmann, appears to me entirely unau-
thorised. Ver. 11 evidently contains a refutation of the asser-
tions relative to the object of his epistles, such assertions being
in ver. 10 attributed to his adversaries. The sense in which
Billroth receives ver. 9 in connexion with ver. 8 is in the highest
degree constrained ; it is thus, " I say this to you (that I have
received the authority unto your edification), in order that it may
not appear that I have desired to terrify you by my letters."
But decidedly this impression would not be affected by the course
adopted, the contents of ver. 11 can only fully remove an idea of
this nature ; Paul intends to say, What I state in my letters I
am prepared to confirm when present, the severity in my letters
is the principle of my entire nature. (In ver. 9 the connecting
the o)? av with the infinitive, instead of the optative, creates a diffi-
culty. Billroth supposes an ellipse by way of diminishing the
objections to the connexion of verses 8 and 9. Bretschneider
rejects the reading of quasi for wadv, we must therefore suppose
with Winer [Gr. p. 285] that it is irregularly employed for w?
av 6K(l)ofiolfjLL — In ver. 10 Lachmann reads (fyaal for <J)7](tI, which
must certainly be considered a correction with a view to render
the text easier. The singular is not to be understood of any
352 SECOND CORINTHIANS X. 12.
precise individual^ but must be considered impersonal. See
Winer's Gr. p. 339. — Whether the words r] Trapovala rov acofjLaTo^
aaOevri^ may include a reference to any weakness of bodily con-
stitution is a question ; but it is nevertheless by no means im-
probable that the weakness which in the present and following
chapters of the epistle, is mentioned by the apostle as antithesis
to the mighty power of God speaking by him, may be considered
also to bear a corporeal reference.)
Ver. 12. The first words of this verse are based upon the idea
which immediately precedes. " Such people might imagine of
us, that being present, we should appear like unto our letters,
for I have not been able to persuade myself to be like unto those
who commend themselves, i.e. I will not praise myself, as my
adversaries do, nevertheless they may be assured that when pre-
sent, I shall not prove forbearing. (^EyKplvat and avyKplvai are
certainly not synonymous, although according to the connexion,
very closely allied ; the former signifies " to reckon in a number,"
the latter " to place together, or compare with some one." —
Tokfiav has, as in E/om. v. 7, 1 Cor. vi. 1, the signification
of sustinere, " to be able to prevail upon oneself.") But the
remaining part of the verse is uncommonly difficult, and has
claimed much particular consideration from annotators. Fritzsche
has made some very acute observations on the passage (Diss. ii.
pag. 33, sqq.), in which Billroth coincides. Nevertheless I have
not been able to convince myself of the correctness of the explana-
tion sanctioned by these learned men, and Emmerling's views
on the same subject have appeared to me to deserve the prefer-
ence,^ of which Fritzsche himself says: "Emmerlingius eo me
deduxit, ut judicio meo in hoc difficili loco psene diffiderem." The
view taken by Fritzsche and Billroth is this ; they erase the
words ov avviovaiV /^/zet? he, and connect ver. 12 with ver. 13 in
the following manner : " But inasmuch as we measure ourselves
by ourselves {i. e. our value by the measure of our real perform-
ances, and not by the standard of imaginary ones, as others do,)
and compare ourselves with ourselves, we by no means boast our-
selves without a measure, for it is according to the measure
which God himself has given unto us." This is however doubt-
1 See the third Excursis of Emmerliug's Commeutary.
SECOND CORINTHIANS X. 12. 353
fill, because the erasure of the ov avviovaiv' r]fiel^ he is declared
to be an act of necessity, it being impossible otherwise to explain"
the usual reading in a satisfactory manner. It is true Fritzsche
has adduced evidence to prove that the interpolation of the words
in question was in some degree probable, if we could think that
they were wanting in the original text. But the critical autho-
rities so certainly furnish these words, that even Lachmann has
not ventured to omit them. It is only D.F.G which leaves out
the four words ; some of less weight furnish only the words ov
crvviovaLv. It is perfectly evident that this omission is only to
be explained by its internal difficulty, for who could have inserted
them in the text if they were originally wanting ? Reiche also
correctly makes the same observation in the Programm already
quoted upon 2 £^or. v. 3. In that case the simple meaning of
ver. 12, in its connexion with ver. 13, is apparent, but a new
difficulty arises by the fusion of the two verses. For it is
not very clear, if so intimate a connexion takes place between
the verses, how the apostle should arrive at the fierpov rov
Kuvovo^, which God had distributed to him, and to which not
any allusion had been made in the foregoing passage. The
contrast in which ver. 13 is placed with ver. 12, by means of
the ?7/xet9 8e, extremely facilitates the inference that a new-
subject is about to be touched upon. The only question there-
fore is, whether the usual text is capable of a satisfactory
elucidation. As already observed, Emraerling's explanation of
the sense of the passage seems to present a correct meaning ; he
considers the ov avvtovaiv as a participle, belonging to kavrol^^
and which the apostle applies to himself as from the adversaries,
so that Paul presents himself in opposition to his opponents in
the words aWa avrol k. t. X., in the following manner : " We can-
not prevail upon ourselves to compare with those who commend
themselves, but we rather measure ourselves entirely by our-
selves (i. e. as may be gathered from ver. 18, by that which the
Lord hath conferred upon us, by Christ's will in us), and compare
ourselves in the like manner, that we may be unwise according to
the opinion of the antagonists, not that we are really so, we do
not boast without measure, but," &c., &;c. The »7/^ei9 Be thus agrees
perfectly ; it forms no antithesis with aWa /cat k. t. \., but with
the judgement of the antagonists of Paul, which is contained in
z
354 SECOND CORINTHIANS X. 13 — 16.
the ov avvLovG-iv. Billroth's remark, that we cannot perceive for
what reason Paul should here consider himself unwise in the
opinion of his adversaries, is incomprehensible. Emmerling has
already appealed to chap. xi. 12, in which the same occurs ; and
when Billroth remarks upon this, that Paul then does it inasmuch
as he praises himself, but in the present passage he directly states
that he will not boast without measure, that commentator appears
to have overlooked the fact that the apostle is here representing
the accusations of his adversaries as ridiculous and contradictory
in themselves. One consideration only remains, viz. that the
article is required before ov avviovo-iv : but as eavTol<^ precedes,
Tot? might easily have been omitted by the transcribers, the more
so, as misunderstanding the difficult passage, they may not have
taken crvviovo-iv for the participle. Under any circumstance, this
is a far more lenient proceeding than expunging the words ov
avvLovaLV r}/jL6l<; Se, and moreover ^deserves the preference from
considerably facilitating the understanding of what follows.
Ver. 13 — 16. By a very peculiar turn the apostle passes over
in an unexpected manner to a subject altogether new, for which
reason it is advisable to maintain the separation of ver. 13 from
ver. 12 by means of the ^/^eZ? 8e, and not to obliterate it. Paul had
hitherto only guarded himself from the general accusations of his
adversaries, by assuming a high tone throughout his epistles, but
he now comes to a special point, of which the slightest notice had
not yet occurred in either of the epistles, asserting that he had
not intruded himself into a field of labour not his own, but that
Corinth, and not Corinth alone, but all the territory surrounding
that city, had been appointed him by God as the province which he
was to fill with the tidings of the Gospel. From the expression
fierpelv (ver. 12) with which in ver. 13 the ek ra afjLerpa is con-
nected, Paul passes over, so as to contract the general idea
of the measuring, into the more special one of the limits assigned
to the appointed sphere of activity. We may here inquire, what
can have given occasion to the apostle to enter upon this point
precisely in this place? If Baur rather strongly expresses
his opinion in respect to this question, that the adversaries of
Paul appear to have regarded themselves as the real founders of
the apostolic church (see work already quoted, p. 101), it must
not be forgotten that the assertions of the parties alluded to, accord-
SECOND CORINTHIANS X. 13 — 16. 355
ing to which they vindicated their claim to authority in Corinth,
must have been well known to the apostle. This claim would-
only have been made with some show of justice if they themselves
had been engaged in the work in Corinth before the apostle ; for
according to the agreement mentioned in Galat. ii. y, Paul had,
in obedience to the divine will (Acts xxii. 21) received the Gen-
tile world as his appointed sphere of labour. We therefore can-
not perceive for what reason his adversaries should upbraid him
for preaching the Gospel in Corinth; although if, at the time Paul
first appeared there, they were already engaged in the work,
they might assume to themselves the right of doing so. But as
Christians were already to be found in Rome when Paul appeared
there in person, and notwithstanding the rule laid down for him
(Rom. XV. 20) he nevertheless preached there, the same thing
might also have occurred in Corinth, no apostle having hitherto
appeared there ; and moreover, the persons labouring in that
city were by no means orthodox teachers, but rather sought their
own honour than that of God. To which of the parties these
persons adhered, who were actively labouring in Corinth before
the apostle, cannot be discovered from the text before us. (In
ver. 13 fiirpov tov Kavovo^ is not pleonastic ; the /cavcov is rather
the measure, the scale, whilst /juirpov is the deduction from it.
The /juerpov which follows might certainly be omitted, but it is
again employed in order to represent the icpLKeaOac dxpt kuI
vficbv in a heightened degree, as something ordained and com-
manded by God. — In ver. 14 the virepe/CTelvco is significant —
it is found throughout the New Testament only in this passage,
" to extend beyond the appointed limits." — The co? /at) iffyiKvov-
fxevoi is to be understood " who should not have come," especially
according to the view and assertion of the antagonists. — In ver.
15 the iv vixlv is to be connected with what precedes, as Calvin
has already correctly stated, although it is perfectly easy to un-
derstand in what way the v^jumv may be considered to furnish
occasion for joining it to /jbeyaXvvOrjvac. The principal aim of the
apostle was to prove that his mission extended far beyond
Corinth, and that he consequently only awaited the perfecting of
their faith, in order to proceed further, and bear the Gospel to
others. — In ver. 16 ra virepeKeiva sc. ^leprj, regions beyond, lands
z2
356 SECOND CORINTHIANS XT. 1.
on the other side of the sea, viz. Italy and the more remote Spain.
See on Rom. xv.)
Vers. 17, 18. The apostle now concludes his subject with the
utterance of the fundamental idea of the entire discourse, that
all glory is the Lord's (because all power and all blessing are his),
for which reason he alone can commend men, i.e. can approve
him to the hearts of his brethren in the truth. (Concerning ver.
17 see the Comm. on the parallel passage, 1 Cor. i. 31.)
§ 10. THE TRUE APOSTLES.
(xi. 1—33.)
In order to lead those Corinthians who were in danger of per-
mitting themselves to be drawn aside from the pure Gospel by
deceivers, to a clearer perception of the distinction between true
and false apostles, Paul is compelled to remind them of his dis-
interestedness, his sufferings and conflicts ; whilst those who
falsely represented themselves as preacliers of righteousness,
sought only their own profit, and exacted gifts from the church ;
he at the same time taking occasion to observe, that he regarded
himself in no degree inferior in those points of prerogative which
they claimed for themselves.
Ver. 1, Taking into consideration that which immediately pre-
cedes (ver. 17), the acfypoavvT] whereby the apostle describes the
information concerning himself, can only be taken in the sense
of the opponents. The whole passage hereby acquires an ironical
tinge, and a tendency towards reproach. Paul considers his
readers as entering into the views of his antagonists, and thus
entreats them to permit him to continue yet a little in his fool-
ishness. A comparison with the adversaries in the sense put
forth by Baur (see work already quoted, p. 101), viz. " ye endure
them, bear therefore with me," cannot be acknowledged, as Bill-
roth justly remarks, for this reason, because in that case kol
i/jbov would have been employed by the apostle in order more
strongly to indicate its personal application. (Concerning ocfieXov
see 1 Cor. iv. 8. The reading of the text. rec. '^veixeaOe is de-
cidedly to yield to the uvei^eGOe : on the contrary, the dative rfi
d(f)poovvrj presents considerable difficulty in regard to the con-
SECOND CORINTHIANS XL 2 — 4. 357
struction, and it is possible that with Rlickert, sanctioned by
B.D.E., the usual reading tl tt}*? a<ppoavvr]^ is to be preferred.)
Vers. 2, 3. Paul alleges his sincerity of purpose with regard to
their welfare as the ground upon which he claims their forbear-
ance ; he desires to keep them free from every corruption, al-
though he apprehends that they may have already permitted
themselves to be led astray from the simplicity which is in Christ.
In describing this state of purity, the apostle employs an image
drawn from the state of marriage, but in a peculiar manner. Hie
seems in it to consider himself in the position of one who selects
the bride, and presents her with all honour to the bridegroom.
It is only thus that the apfio^ecrdaL gains a strict connexion, it is
in the sense of " to suit," as employed by the LXX. in Prov. xix.
14 ; Trapaa-TrjaaL may however be referred to the Parousia as the
marriage festival of the Lamb. Billroth correctly assumes this
to be the intention of the passage. The hi avhpl likewise sig-
nifies that she can be no other man's without adultery. In this,
the evil influences are reproved (ver. 4) to which the Corinthians
had yielded' themselves. Paul describes this as cj^OaprjvaL ra
vorj/jLUTa airb Trj<i aTrXoTi^ro? ek X-piarov, This aTrXoTr]^; corres-
ponds to the before-mentioned a<yv6ri^^ : it demonstrates the cen-
tralization of the internal impulse to one point, the person of
Christ, just as every thought of the bride is devoted to the object
of her regard. The antithesis exists in the Siyjrvxici, which ac-
cording to 1 Cor. i. 3 may here be regarded as the false Gnosis
(ver. 6) ; for this had even seduced the Corinthians from that
simple faith which Paul had inculcated. This sin is likened by
the apostle to the fall of Eve, who was betrayed through the sub-
tilty of the serpent. We are perfectly justified in concluding
from this mention of the Fall, that Paul spoke of it as the history
of an actual occurrence ; but nothing further can be learnt from
the manner in which he declares it, or from this brief allusion to
the circumstance. The previous image of the pure virgin led him
to the mention of Eve ; under other circumstances he would have
employed Adam, as in Rom. v. 12, sqq.
Ver. 4. The apostle justifies his extreme anxiety for the Co-
rinthians by declaring that he considered them so little grounded
in the faith, that it would be easy to draw them over to another
form of belief were they tempted. The only correct expla-
358 SECOND CORINTHIANS XI. 5, 6.
nation of this verse is decidedly the one in which the o ipxofMe-
vo^ is made to signify the false teachers especially (the article
being only used because the false teacher is considered concrete.
See Winer's Gr. p. 101.). Any c?eci<:?e6? personal quality is not to
be supposed. The expressions 'IrjaovvaWov, irveufia erepov, ev-
ajyeXcov erepov, imply only heretical interpretations of scriptural
truth. Paul does not intend to say, Ye may be gained over to
another entirely different form of religion, but only, Ye may per-
mit the correct faith which I have delivered unto you to become
deformed by the admixture of false doctrine, through the instru-
mentality of unsound teachers. Paul addresses the Galatians in
a similar manner. (See Gal. i. 9.). Christianity, disfigured in
its fundamental doctrines, is decidedly no longer Christianity, and
for this reason Paul exclaims to the Galatians, " Ye have lost
Christ !" It does not however appear that it had yet proceeded to
such lengths in Corinth. At the conclusion of the verse I prefer
the reading ave^eaOe, with Billroth and Lachmann. Paul then
more decidedly expresses the opinion, "If the deceiver comes, ye
permit him at best to please you ;" dv could certainly not well
be omitted with dviix'^ade or rjvelx^ade.).
Vers. 5, 6. The connexion is restored in the following manner :
If the deceiver comes, y^ receive him well, and ye afford already
a hearing to the false apostles. Now to these stand I in no de-
gree inferior ; but granting that I might be deficient in the words
of worldly wisdom (1 Cor. ii. 13) nevertheless I am not so in
true knowledge. Yet, pursues the apostle correcting himself, I
have been ever manifest before you in all things ; ye are ac-
quainted with my entire proceedings, wherefore should I again
display them before you ? Lachmann and Billroth have pre-
ferred the reading (pavepcoaavre^;, which must he referred to the
yvdi(TL(; which Paul has pronounced against them. But the pas-
sive form appears to me unquestionably to be deserving of pre-
ference, for by its use alone an easy and unconstrained connexion
is secured with the succeeding words. Paul then describes him-
self not in his position as teacher, but in his outward relation to
the church (ver. 6.). The iv iraa-i cannot be referred to the
person on account of the et? vjjba^ which follows, but only to the
thing, therefore the ev iravTi is best supposed to relate to the
time. In conclusion, it is plainly to be seen that in the el Be
SECOND CORINTHIANS XI. 7 — 12. BSO
Kal lSi(OT7}^ TO) Xoyo), an accusation on the part of the virepXiav
airoa-ToXoi and their adherents is implied, which undeniably re-^
lates to a more learned education. But Peter, James, and John
are not included in this expression (as might be inferred from
Gal. ii. 9, where they are styled ol Sofcovvre^; o-tvXoi elvac) ; it is
rather clearly proved from ver. 13 that the above expression is
intended to designate the false teachers themselves. (The form
virepXiav is only to be again found in Eustathius. The apostle
in the animation of his description frequently employs accumulated
compound words, which he likewise often connects by the repeti-
tion of virep.)
Vers. 7 — 9. Pursuing his strain of irony, the apostle reminds
the Corinthians of the strictness with which he had observed his
intention of accepting nothing from any one, in aid of his worldly
maintenance, and enquires " whether in this respect he had
committed any offence." The apostle besides states of himself
that he had received contributions from other churches, especially
from Macedonia (probably identical with that mentioned in Phil,
iv. 15, 16), which explains the assertions in 1 Cor. ix. 15, sqq.
But he was justified in absolutely rejecting the acceptance of
anything offered on the part of the Corinthians, because their
feeling was not sufficiently plain and sincere in the matter. His
antagonists among them would have put a far worse construction
upon his acceptance, than they were able to attribute to his re-
fusal. (In ver. 7 the ha vfiel^ vyjrwdrjre is to be understood only
as antithesis to the iavXrjaa: they were considered exalted,
and treated nobly, because they were in no degree burthened ;
the expression is also in a slight degree ironical. — The second
/cal of ver. 8 is to be understood emphatically, " although suffer-
ing want." — KaravapKao/jbai geneYa]]y mea.ns to " chill." The ac-
tive form only occurs in the New Testament, and in this Epistle.
[See xii. 13, 14.] The LXX. more frequently employs the sim-
plex. It has in this passage the signification of " to burden, to
charge," to chill as it were, or weary some one.)
Vers. 10 — 12. The present passage undeniably proves how
very important this matter was regarded by the apostle. (See
Comm. on 1 Cor. ix. 6, sqq.) He protests that none shall rob
him of this boast, i.e. he will absolutely accept nothing from
them, not from any feeling of hatred or scorn, but from love, for
360 SECOND CORINTHIANS XI. 10 — 12.
the sake of those adversaries whom he desires to render con-
scious of their own untrue and insincere conduct. (In ver. 10 the
sentence eanv a>J]Qeia XpLarov ev e/jLol is to be understood as
the form of oath, " as truly as the truth of Christ is in me," i.e. as
truly as I am a Christian ! — ^paTTco signifies first " to stop up."
[Rom. iii. 19], and likewise " to deprive of, to defame." The use
of €fc9 €fii for e/jiol is striking. It is to be explained from the
idea of the hostile party, which is implied in the (ppayrjcreTaL. —
Concerning KXlfjua, see Eom. xv. 23. — In ver. 11, Biart scil. rovro
\ey(o.- — The koX Trotrjcro) intimates the steadfastness of the deter-
mination, as the KoX TT^prjaco does of ver. 9. — In ver. 12 the ha
ev (p Kav)((SiVTai k.t.X. is not free from difficulty. It may be in-
quired if this iva is to be regarded co ordinate with the one
which previously occurs, or dependent on the a(f)op/jirip ? The first
does not appear probable, because had Paul intended an antithesis
between iKKcyjrcD and fcavx^oovTai, he would have more strongly
marked it by adding iyco and avroL The twv OeXovTcov a<pop-
firjv naturally leads to the conclusion that what follows is to de-
scribe more closely the manner of the a(^opixrj. But even admit-
ting the supposition that the second ha is co-ordinate with the first,
this does not secure a satisfactory meaning to the idea [we must
then conclude that a negation is to be proved], as ver. 20 deci-
dedly shows that they were not able to boast themselves of
baving exerted the same forbearance which Paul had exhibited. i
The words alone agree when they express the simple wishes
of the antagonists. To these it was in a high degree oflfen-
s ve that Paul should persist in a steadfastness of purpose
which made them asiiamed ; they wished therefore to divert him
from his resolution in order that he might have no advantage
over them, but be found in all respects the same as they were.
The ev CO Kavxiovrat is however so to be understood, that they
declare the receiving of money to be a right, a subject of boast-
ing, and an apostolic prerogative, as is plainly to be inferred from
1 Cor. ix. 7, sqq. The entire passage has therefore an ironical
*tiuge, in this manner, " However strongly ye may oppose me,
1 Billroth translates : *' In order that upon the subject upon which they especially
boust themselves (accepting no money), they may be found {o)ily) like unto myself."
But here it is entirely forgotten that, according to ver. 20, they not only accepted money,
but proved themselves higlily exacting towards the church; we can also perceive no
authority for the inttrpolation of the only.
SECOND CORINTHIANS XL 13 — 18. 361
ye would gladly embrace an opportunity of permitting me to par-
ticipate in your boasting, and compel me to accept of a subsis-_
tence at the hands of the church ; but this would only be for the
purpose of concealing your own shame, and depriving me of my
just fame, therefore ye shall not succeed in your desire !")
Ver. 13 — 15. Paul now unsparingly removes the mask, and
presents these persons in their true light as false apostles, prov-
ing themselves servants of Satan, and, like their master, ever
conducting themselves with hypocrisy. A just punishment was
therefore awaiting them ! It is very evident that these can be
none other than the virepXlav clttogtoXol of ver. 5, and it is
equally impossible that the genuine apostles can be signified in
tliat passage. But it is perfectly possible that these hypocrites
(whose sect is not further denned) may have appealed to the
authority of the true apostles, precisely as the erring teacher
did who is mentioned in Gal. ii. 12. The expressions more-
over are very strong, and bring to mind the r^ewTq^jLara ix'^h-
vwv which our Saviour applied to the Pharisees (Matt, xxiii.
33;. Had they been members of the Corinthian church, Paul
would undoubtedly have commanded their excommunication ; but
we can only regard them as intruding usurpers, who had created
a party to themselves in Qorinih, and from whose evil influence
Paul sought to free those who had joined them. — Whether the
apostle, by the expression 6 aaraud^ fX€Ta(T')(r]fjiaTl^6Tai ek djye-
\uv (J)cot6<;, intended to allude to a decided fact, the history
of the temptation, for example, is not to be discovered with cer-
tainty. However it is highly probable that the auTo§ yap signi-
fies it to be a subject well known to the reader.
Vers. 16 — 18. After Paul had thus openly and clearly ex-
pressed his opinion concerning the false teachers, he returns to
himself and his position, resuming the idea with which he enters
upon ver. 1. These men had brought him into the disagreeable,
though unavoidable position, which compelled him to enter upon
tlie subject of his rights and privileges. But while doing this,
he judged it necessary to take steps to prevent their regarding
it as right in itself, and worthy of approval ; he therefore de-
scribes it as an ov icara Kvpiov. aXka Kara ryv ddp/ca, to which he
was impelled by the conduct of the adversaries, in order to free
them (the Corinthians) from their injurious influence. In
362 SECOND CORINTHIANS XI. 19—21.
ver. 10 the apostle plays with the idea a<f>po}v. In the first
place, he prays th^m not to consider him such because he boasts
himself (folly being imputed to those who really do it from
pride), nevertheless if they were not willing to be obedient unto
him, they were at liberty to regard him even as dSpoov like
other high-minded persons, if it would be thereby permitted him
to boast himself in some degree. The latter words are ironical,
and convey a reproach that they had suffered the false apostles
so to exalt themselves. (In ver. 16 an inversion is to be per-
ceived with the Kav : it should properly be Se^aade fie, kolv w?
a(ppova.' — In ver. 17, the co? iv dcppoavvj] proves, that the apostle
does not intend to assert that he really speaks foolishly, but that
his discourse may present such an appearance. In ver. 18, he
speaks more fully of the occasion of his assuming so apparently
an offensive line of conduct. — Concerning the expression iv ravrrf
viroardaeL ttj^ Kav')(r)a6(o^, see the remarks on ix. 4. It is also
here best understood as " object, thing." — In ver. 18 the Kara
TTjv adpKa is not only referable to national descent, as employed
in ver. 22, but to all external privileges, and also such as are
enumerated in ver. 23, sqq. The only unusual circumstance is the
presence of the article, yet this is by no means incorrect ; the
antithesis is Kara to irvevpba, to which in this passage Kara Kvptov
stands parallel, and for which Kara rov Kvpiov might also be
employed.)
Vers. 19, 20. Paul now advances the irony of the discourse,
and styles the Corinthians (fypovifioi, who willingly tolerated the
a(j)pove^ : to this is appended a description of the insincerity
of the false apostles drawn in the strongest colours. Desire of
dominion and covetousness are the prominent vices which the
apostle holds forth for observation. As to the particular party to
which these false teachers belonged, we can arrive at no decided
opinion from the present passage ; the faults which are the sub-
ject of reproof are of a purely moral nature, and such as might be
supposed to exist among persons of every denomination. (In
ver. 20, according to xii. 16, u/za? is to be supplied to \a^-
l3dv€L : " if any one take entire possession of you.")
Ver. 21. This endurance of unworthy treatment from the
heterodox teachers is blamed by Paul, who informs the ob-
jects of it that it sanctions the insinuation, that he had proved
SECOND CORINTHIANS XI. 22. 363
himself weak (i.e. not possessed of such privileges as the for-
mer dared to assume to themselves), whilst he nevertheless-
could exhibit as well-founded a claim as any other could pre-
tend to. The Kara drifiLav Xiyco k.t.X. has doubtless been
well explained by Billroth. It is usually understood of Paul
himself in the sense of " I confess to my shame that I have
proved myself too weak towards such usurpations." But then ttjoo?
cLTL/jLiav would have been employed, and besides under this view
the ft)? appears entirely pleonastic. The reference is rather to
the Corinthians, " I say this to your shame." The w? then re-
presents that which succeeds as the opinion of the Corinthians
concerning Paul. The enumeration of all his privileges which
follows is employed as a refutation of this opinion, and this he
styles a ToXfiav, in opposition to the above-mentioned aaSevelv.
Ver. 22. The principal prerogative claimed by Paul, and of
which he was enabled to boast as well as his adversaries, was
that he belonged to God's people ; not only that he was a wor-
shiper of the true God (for the proselytes in this respect were
equal), but that being born an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham,
he was included in the blessings promised to that people. Bill-
roth erroneously makes no distinction between the three syno-
nyms, but 'lo-paijXlrai evidently further defines the expression
efipaloL, and the latter again the airepfjua 'A^padfi, in which the
idea of being an inheritor of the promise is especially manifested.
— Impartiality here compels us to admit that Baur's hypothesis
appears greatly supported by this passage. We have no intima-
tion that Paul here solely attacks the followers of Peter, as seemed
to us the case in iii. 4, sqq., but it rather appears that the Chris-
tianer at least are also included, and nevertheless he permits his
opponents to appeal generally to their Jewish extraction, which
according to our own hypothesis concerning the Christianer would
not be available for them. (See Introd. § 1.). Nevertheless the
far more important obstacle arises in connexion with Baur's view,
that the contents of the entire first epistle cannot agree with the
Jewish character of the Christianer. If we also suppose that the
references to false Gnosis may apply to such Judaizing false
teachers as (like those opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians)
concerned themselves with theosophist speculations (this cha-
racteristic is not specifically observed in them by Baur), there
364 SECOND CORINTHIANS XI. 23—27.
nevertheless does not occur in the relation a single trace of the
fact, that Judaists had been seduced into that state of false
liberty, which the apostle reproves throughout the greater portion
of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, but which we may rather
take for granted could only be found among Gentile Christians.
And as the Christianer alone are not signified in x. 7, but all the
antagonists generally are condemned, and in addition, individual
parties in Corinth are not distinguished throughout the represen-
tation in chap. x. — xii., I am therefore persuaded that Paul's rea-
son for especially alluding in this place to the Jewish descent to
which the followers of Peter particularly appealed, was, to mark
the application to that party, for among the Christianer nothing
was to be found which intimated a regard for hereditary privi-
leges. Christianer and followers of Peter had pursued the con-
troversy against the person of Paul in concert; consequently the
apostle might defend himself against them in the same manner,
but making a passing allusion by which only one party could
be affected.
Vers. 23 — 27. In a long series of descriptions such as occur
in vi. 4, sqq. the apostle then enumerates the suff'erings and ne-
cessities endured in his apostolic calling, which by their number
and variety bear witness to the magnitude of his labours. It is
not without an object that Paul exposes in v. 24 and 2Q, the
treatment he had experienced from the Jews, for he doubtless
thereby intended to impress upon them, that in the kingdom of
Christ to be of Jewish descent was not so especial a subject of
glorying. This passage proves, besides, how little we really
know of the life of the apostle, for the Acts of the Apostles con-
veys but little information concerning all these perils. SSe con-
cerning this subject Clemens Romanus (Epist. ad. Cor. i, 5) where
a similar recapitulation may be found. (In ver. 23 the irapa-
(ppovwv XaXw is doubtless stronger than the eV a^poavvrj Xeyco
of ver. 21. I cannot however attribute to the expression the
meaning that Billroth does, who thinks it signifies : '• I speak
foolishly, for I glory in the sufferings which it is my duty to take
upon myself;" for it rather appears to me that the Trapacj)pova)p
XaXd) is only said according to the standard of the antagonists,
*' Ye will regard my boasting as inconsistent with common sense."
— The conjecture of inrepixco is not wrong, nevertheless the
SECOND CORINTHIANS XI. 28—33. 365
more difficult form vwep iycb is to be preferred. 'Tttc/o is here
employed adverbially, and is the only example of the sort occtir-—
ring in the New Testament. [See Winer's Gr. p. 399.]. — The
forty stripes mentioned in ver. 24 are according to Deut. xxv. 3.
Josephus relates that they were accustomed to remit one [Arch,
iv. 8.] — Of the beating with rods and stoning, examples are to
be found in Acts xvi. 22, xiv. 19. Until the present passage
no instance of shipwreck occurs. — In ver. 25 the vvxOriiJi-epov iv
Tft) pv6^ TreTTOLTjKa doubtless implies the buffeting on the waves
after the wreck of the vessel. — Uotelv applied to time, frequently
occurs in the Acts of the Apostles. [See Acts xv. 33, xviii. 23,
XX. 3.])
'Vers. 28 — 33. Among these extraordinary vicissitudes and
perils Paul includes the existing cares and labours of his
charge, so that if he desired to boast himself he would undoubt-
edly glory in his weakness, which necessarily led him to trust
in God's power for the furtherance of his important labours,
and must ever be the mainspring of his efforts. (See xii. 9.)
The apostle in conclusion appeals to God for the truth of his ac-
count, and mentions in addition, the first danger he was called
upon to encounter in his apostolic course. (In ver. 28 ra irape-
KTo<i ,scil. yev6/jL6va, " the things which yet occur." Lachmann has
erased the comma after Trape/cro?, according to which the rj eiri-
avcTTacn^ fiov, " the daily assaults of men upon me," must be re-
ceived as subject. But this connexion must yield to that de-
fended by Griesbach, according to which the comma is retained
after irapcKTo^. The things which yet occur must evidently be
regarded as of a different nature to those hitherto described, and
he only mentions two, the iTnava-Taa-t'; and the fjuepcfjiva, out of
many other sources of discomfort. — Billroth gives an entirely mis-
taken explanation of ver. 29 : " Who is weak, that I do not con-
descend to his weakness [viz. in order to avoid giving him offence],
who suffers an offence, that I do not thereby feel myself offended,
and burn to free him from the offence, and to reprove him who
furnishes occasion of displeasure." The whole context decidedly
contains nothing which can be construed to refer to condescending
to the weakness of others. Emmerling takes a more correct View
of this passage, when he makes dadevelv, aKavSaXL^eadac, irvpov-
crOai refer to the before-mentioned sufferings. A slight diffi-
8
366 SECOND CORINTHIANS XII. 1—21.
culty is alone created by aKavBaXi^eaOai, but every endurance
is, in a moral sense, a temptation, and may as such give offence.
The sense is then this, " Who suffers, if I do not suffer ] who is
tempted, if I do not burn in the fire of temptation 1 i. e. I suf-
fer more than all others ; but of this I am so little ashamed,
that I glory in it, as I must needs glory." In ver. 31 the adjura-
tion is best conceived to relate to all that precedes ; the circum-
stance which occurred at Damascus is only afterwards mentioned
as the first persecution which Paul had to endure [see Acts ix.
24.]. — Billroth has admirably explained the tautology in ver. 32,
iv AafJbaaKcb i<f>povp6L rrjv AaiiaorKrjvwv iroXiv by regarding the ev
Jayu^ao-ATft) as elliptical; so that the meaning is, likewise in Damascus
I suffered the same ; — the Ethnarch guarded the city of the people
of Damascus, &c. Yet the question may arise if ev Aa/xaaKO)
may not signify the territory of Damascus. — Concerning the oc-
currence itself, more may be seen in the explanation given on
Acts ix. 24. What is here attributed to the Ethnarch himself
[7ndaaLfjL6 dekcov] is there said of the Jews, whom the former de-
sired to please. Josephus relates the wars of king Aretas [Ant.
xviii. 7], during which it is probable the occupation of the city of
Damascus by his troops occurred. The title iOvapxn^ probably
implies here a military commander, the Commandant of Damas-
cus. It likewise indicates the civil authorities. See 1 Mace,
xiv. 47, XV. 1. — In ver. 33 KaL is to be considered adversative,
*' But I was let down in a basket through a window, by the
wall").
§ 11. THE VISION.
(xii. 1—21.)
The endurance of outward suffering which has been related,
can only be subject of boasting to the apostle in an indirect
manner, that is to say, inasfar as it is a powerful witness for the
magnitude of his labours. But Paul now adduces as direct proof
of the grace of God which was with him, the mighty visions and
revelations which he had received. In order however that he may
not exalt himself from this cause, he declares that God had ap-
SECOND CORINTHIANS XII. 2 — 4. 367
pointed him particular personal suffering ; therefore it was better
that he should glory in his weakness, for God proves more mighty-
in the weak. The apostle then concludes by declaring himself to
be no less an apostle than those arrogant usurpers ; God had
authenticated him as a true apostle in Corinth, and the sincerest
love towards the church there filled his heart, which naturally led
him to wish that upon his approaching arrival among them he
should discover the undoubted signs of a suitable frame of mind.
Ver. 1. Commencing with an admonition against boasting, the
apostle passes to that witness which a man can never bear to
himself, but by which the Lord rather boasts and commends
those who are his own (x. 18), viz. to visions and revelations.
It is however necessary to distinguish the expressions, so that
in the oTTTao-la the communication from on high may be con-
sidered principally if not entirely addressed to the sight, con-
sequently that something is imparted by means of an image,
as in the Acts x. The aTroKokxr^if; on the contrary is an un-
figurative communication of the divine Spirit to the human. The
two forms may be united, nay are usually found together, yet
always in such a manner that one or other of these conditions
predominate. The circumstance which the apostle details in
the following verses appear from the contents of ver. 4 to bear
somewhat the form of an airoKoXv^L'^. (Although Fritzsche and
Billroth decide in favour of the Kav')(ao-6aL he, it is nevertheless a
reading which does not claim to be commended, because it has
only the Codex D. in its favour, and even this hesitates between Se
and Set, whilst the Kav')(a(T6aL hel is authorized by B. E. F. G.
However the following ov crvjjLcpepov fiev, ekevaoiiai he koI eh,
K.r.X. is so evidently a correction with the object of rendering
the sense easier, that I feel myself compelled to yield the pre-
ference to the usual reading Kau')(^aaOaL 8?;. The glorying in him-
self is brought into antithesis with the glorying that proceeds from
God.)
Ver. 2 — 4. It is universally admitted that it is only owing to
a form of representation, that Paul does not openly declare him-
self the person adverted to as the object of the grace about to be
described, and this is abundantly and incontestibly proved by ver.
7, sqq It likewise requires no farther argument in order to
prove that the circumstance under consideration is not identical
368 SECOND CORINTHIANS XII. 4.
with the appearance vouchsafed to the apostle when journeying
towards Damascus. In the latter, Christ's appearing to him was
for the purpose of humbling the apostle, and convincing him of
his sinfulness, whilst the former was intended to reward his
fidelity and strengthen his faith. The fourteen years likewise
which the apostle states to have elapsed since the occurrence,
would not chronologically agree.^ (See the Chronological Table
at the conclusion of the Introd. to the Exposition of the Acts of
the Apostles.) We may therefore only more closely examine the
incident related, without being in a position to elicit anything
further concerning the place or circumstances in which it took
place. We must first observe the remarkable fact, that Paul
twice circumstantially asserts, that whether he was in the body
or out of the body he knew not. This, taken in conjunction
with the dpird^eaOac, implies that his witness concerned himself,
and it may be understood that by means of a sudden exercise of
power he found himself transported to another region or sphere
of existence. (See Acts viii. 39 ; 1 Thess. iv. 12 ; Rev. xii. 5.).
These points of information clearly characterise the proceeding
as an eWrao-t?, to which the observations made on Acts x. 9 may
be applied. The apostle's earthly perceptions were depressed or
in abeyance throughout, and his divine perception powerfully
enhanced through the co-operation of the Spirit.^ It may also
have really happened in this occurrence that a temporary aban-
donment of the body by the soul took place, as among witches. ^
1 The proceeding referred to unquestionably occurred alraost immediately subse-
quent to the conversion of Paul. Had it been of more recent occurrence, he would
doubtless have referred to it as such. It also does not appear probable to me (see the
observations thereon which follow), that at a more advanced period of life Paul was
visited by similar revelations.
2 Such a proceeding with reference to the apostle Paul was so much the more strik-
ing, as according to 1 Cor. xiv. self-knowledge was very strongly developed in him, and
he could therefore expressly exercise the gift of irpotptiTEueiv. It is very probable that
at a later period of his life the apostle was less subject to such trances. According to
the principle that the prophet should have dominion over the spirit, it is certain that a
coudition which bordered on loss of consciousness, could but rarely occur among the
perfect.
3 The (in a psychological sense) highly remarkable proceedings against witches
have yet to be fundamentally examined. The Count von Lamberg has recently (Niirn-
berg, 1835) published a very interesting communication concerning the proceedings in
Bamberg. From the perfect agreement of all the witnesses in these proceedings we
have no choice left us, but to regard such exhibitions as epidemic creations of the imagi-
nation (the great number of which presents a difficulty, there being in Bamberg alone
.SECOND CORINTHIANS XII. 4. 369
and also as it would appear we must admit with somnambulists.
But this contains the evil and dangerous fact, that the apostle-
through the interposition of the divine Spirit attained to the high
degree of favour conferred upon the blessed by the act of death.
Newt, Paul states the place to which he was snatched away.
That there existed any difference between the third heaven and
Paradise (as Irenseus, Clemens A., Origen, Jerome, and also
Bengel, maintain), is incapable of proof; both the expressions
possibly indicate the same thing, that is to say, the most exalted
region of light, the immediate presence of God. For although
the Omnipresence of God makes him near to every one of us, on
the other hand all created beings cannot be said to be equally
near to him. AVe have likewise no ground for supposing that
the representation of several heavens is to be attributed to
Jewish superstition, for the same allusion occurs again in the
New Testament (see Eph. iv. 10.). The rabbinical view of
seven heavens certainly derives no confirmation from the New
Testament (see Eisenmenger's Entd. Judenth. vol. i. p. 460), but
the distinction of an upper and an inferior Paradise (same work,
vol. ii. p. 296, sq., 318 ; see also the remarks on Luke xvi. 24)
is not unsupported, but rather entirely corresponds with biblical
doctrine. The latter represents that which is called Abraham's
bosom in Luke xvi., while the former is synonymous with the
heavenly temple (Heb. vi. 19, ix. 11 ; Bev. iii. 12, vi. 9) or the
throne, the right hand of God. Lastly, Paul signifies what oc-
curred to him in Paradise. In that paradisiacal sea of light he
received wonderful impressions, which he describes as rendered
perceptive to him through the medium of hearing. He commu-
nicates nothing further concerning them, because as a human
being he felt himself incapable of adequately doing it. Harmo-
nious, pure spiritual intuition, can never receive expression through
the language of man, which receives and communicates in part
only. It is not to be considered that any command was issued
not to communicate what he received, for the ovk i^ovdvOpcoircp
between 1624 and 1630, 785 processes against witcbes), or to consider tbat tbe defendauts
believed themselves to have committed the sins under the influence of the spirit {i.e. in
an ecstacy). The unholy ever seeks to assume the form of that which is sacred; the
appearances among tbe former, therefore, notwithstanding their differences, may have
been employed as analogy for the latter.
2 a
370 SECOND CORINTHIANS XII. 5, 6.
XdkrjcraL forbids the supposition. These words are not to be
translated *' it may not be said to a man," for Paul was a man,
and it was nevertheless said to him ; but " a man has not the
power to express it." — It has been already signified in the Intro-
duction (§ 1) in what manner Baur employs these communica-
tions in favour of his hypothesis concerning the Christianer . (See
work quoted, p. 105.). His opinion is, that Paul intended
throughout to confute the views of his antagonists, who attri-
buted an unseeming value to the fact of having personally known
Christ ; in opposition to this he therefore desires to make it evi-
dent that even on the path of a purely inward experience the
Gospel may be propagated. Now the learned man referred to
by no means holds that the occurrence here narrated is identical
with that which is the subject of Acts ix., and whereby the
apostle gained access to Christ and his church, and nevertheless
he asserts his conviction, that by this account of a transporting into
the invisible world Paul intended to oppose a more spiritual view
to the Jewish materialist opinions. In addition to the arguments
to the contrary which we have already brought under the notice
of the reader (Introd. § 1), this opinion appears to me especially
untenable, because with such an end in view it would have proved
greatly to the interest of the apostle to relate an occasion on
which he had seen the Lord himself, or to call attention to the
circumstance that he had beheld Christ in all his glory. But
this does not occur, neither is there the slightest allusion to the
reference of the relation to the adversaries, but the question ra-
ther appears to regard boasting ; so that, according to the con-
text, it is solely to be supposed, that the apostle narrates the
present circumstance, in order to afford a proof that the grace of
God is with him, and also to legitimate his claim to be a true
apostle by mentioning the extraordinary gifts of grace conferred
upon him.
Vers. 5, 6. Proceeding as if speaking of a stranger, and yet
perfectly identifying himself with the individual who experienced
what is stated, the apostle continues with reference to ver. 1, " he
would only glory in his infirmities (as enumerated in chap, xi.)
and not of himself, i e. his privileges, but would only glory in
others. Were he however desirous of doing it he had well-
founded pretensions, for he stated what was true, but he never*
SECOND CORINTHIANS XIl. 7. 371
theless forbore, because he did not desire that any should esteem
him more highly than he should be proved to merit." — The turn
which Billroth gives to ver. 5 is entirely incorrect : " I will only
glory in myself, insofar as I am not myself, not this Paul, but
live in Christ." As to any distinction between his old and new
man it is absolutely not brought under discussion in this passage;
the vTTep Tov toloutov Kav^^a-ofiao applies solely to the fact that
Paul had described the vision as occurring to another. — The ovk
eaofiat a(f)po}v of ver. 6 appears to form a contradiction to xi. 1,
21, 23, xii. 11. But Emmerling has already correctly shown
that the glorying is ironically described in those passages as
d(j)poavv7], in the meaning of his adversaries ; here on the con-
trary the boasting of his opponents is reproved : " They glory
in externals in a foolish manner ; 1 could boast myself in a right
manner of important things if I were so minded." (It would ap-
pear that in the rj aicovet re i^ ifiov of ver. 6 a twofold meaning is
perceptible ; that is to say, the apostle possibly intended to
write et tl uKovei in addition to the y) aKovei, but nevertheless
drew both together in one phrase.— Lachmann's punctuation of
this verse is entirely peculiar. From iav yap Oekrjcrco — ef ifiov
he includes all within brackets, and the koX rp vTrep/SoXr) tmv
dTTOKaXvyjrecov is connected with dadeveiaL^ [yLtou being omitted].
Whether he may have been impelled to the choice of this con-
nexion by critical reasons I am ignorant, but it decidedly does
not facilitate the comprehending of the passage.)
Ver. 7. The apostle now drops the form of description hitherto
employed, by which he had represented the revelation as being
made to another, and continues to say that the God who had so
highly exalted him by this extraordinary grace had also deeply
humbled him, for the purpose of preventing his exalting himself
too highly. Any more particular information relative to the aKo-
Xoyfr rfi aapKL, or wherein it consisted, is not to be inferred. It
may only be said that it is impossible that the sufferings connected
with his apostolic labours in general can be solely alluded to, for
these were detailed fully in chap, xi., and the thorn in the flesh must
1 This view, which Fritzsche again defends, derives some degree of confirmation
from ver. 10, and from the assertion of dvvafii^ fxov iv aadivsia teXsTtui in ver. 9 ; but
the distinct reference to the revelation contained in the a-KoXoxj/, appears nevertheless to
render the grounds for its acceptance insufficient.
372 SECOND CORINTHIANS XII. 8 — 10.
have special reference to the revelation already related. We are
also as little justified in supposing it implies some spiritual temp-
tation, because ry aapKi is employed in describing it. It is most
likely that it indicates some kind of heavy, depressing, hodily suffer-
ing, ■which may besides have exhibited itself in powerful paroxysms,
as expressed in the K6Ka<f>L^eo-6ai. As in the Old Testament Job's
corporeal sufferings were occasioned by Satan, so Paul likewise
attributes his thorn in the flesh to the author of all evil, although
the Lord Grod was able in the case of his own people to turn the
enemy's assaults to the advantage of their soul. It must however
be admitted, that we nowhere else discover a trace of the apostle's
having suffered from sickness of any kind ; and even when Paul
recounts all his sufferings and trials, sickness is not enumerated
with them. From this source we may be inclined to suppose
that the expression signifies a temptation to sin, and that from
the addition of ttj aapKi it was not displayed in a spiritual, but
rather a carnal form. (^fcoXoyjr, a stake, from whence g-koXottl^co,
to impale. See the LXX. in Num. xxxiii. 55 ; Ezek. xxviii. 24;
Hos. ii. 6. — In dyyeXo^; aardv Fritzsche is unquestionably perfectly
right in understanding aarav as genitive ; it is in opposition to
(TxoXoyjr, the suffering itself is in a trope styled an angel of Sa-
tan, because it is sent to him from Satan, through the instrumen-
tality of one of his demons. If Satan himself had been in-
tended, the article would not have been wanting. KdXacj^L^co =
vTroTTcd^co, 1 Cor. ix. 27, is the figurative expression for " to treat
rudely, dishonourably." It is possible that the suffering which
Paul alludes to, had the effect of entirely incapacitating him for
a time from his work, and this condition (to which was probably
conjoined a sense of inward direliction) is what the apostle styles
a Ko\a(j)L^€a6aL — The second cva jjlt) virepalpco/uLaL is certainly
wanting in the best critical authorities ; but the omission of the
words is as easy to be accounted for as it would be difiicult to
assign a reason for the addition of them, if they were not genuine.
It therefore appears advisable to retain them in the text.)
Vers. 8 — 10. His human feeling led the apostle to entreat to be
freed from this affliction ; but the answer to this was, that it was
precisely necessary to his perfecting ; that the strength of self-
dependence must be destroyed, in order that God may be able to
work in the man ; he must therefore repress any feeling foreign
SECOND CORINTHIANS XII. 11, 12. 373
to that which would lead him to confess, that grace was sufficient
for him. For this cause, continued Paul, he gloried most willingly
in his weakness, for repeated experience had corroborated the
fact, that when he was weak in himself he was strong in the Lord.
In the Old Testament it is frequently analogically said that God
dwells with those who are broken and humble of heart ; but is
far from the haughty. — The present passage is by no means
to be understood to apply to the apostle alone, nor are we to
conclude that the sentence 97 Svvafil^; fiov iv aadeveia reXel-
rai} only concerned the same individual ; it is on the contrary to
be received as a general truth, specially applied to the apostle
upon this occasion, in order to cause him to review his past expe-
rience. The natural power of man cannot exist near the divine
power of God, therefore should the inward life flourish, self-de-
pendence, the natural life, must decay as a natural consequence ;
the passive must prevail, when God's power is to be actively exer-
cised. See Comm. on Matt. x. 39. (In ver. 8 there is no autho-
rity for receiving rpt? to signify an uncertain number. — Calvin^s ex-
planation of the apKel aot rj %a/3i9 /jlov in ver. 9, which Billroth has
adopted, is perfectly unsanctioned. Both consider that %a/3t9
should not signify the grace of God, but metonymically the help
of God. But this is precisely what Paul entreated for, and which
was refused him. The sense is rather as follows : " Be steadfast
in the knowledge of my gracious intention ; even if thou perceivest
nothing of the feeling of grace, for my strength, in its efficacy,
perfects the weakening of the natural life." The eTrtafcrjvoco is
very expressive, an allusion to the Shechinah is evident [see on
John i. 14], because every believer should be a copy of his Lord,
Christ, so that Father, Son, and Spirit, can make their abode in
him, inhabit him as a temple [see the Comm. on John xiv. 24.])
Vers. 11, 12. Returning to the earlier subject, Paul remarks
in an ironical manner (see on xii. 6), that he had permitted
himself to be misled, and like the false teachers to boast him-
self foolishly ; that it was not actually necessary, for they (the
Corinthians) themselves ought to have undertaken his commenda-
tion, being well aware that he was in no degree less than the
haughty apostles ; God had gradually authenticated him as an
1 I prefer with Lachmann the reading nXtlTai to the more usual TtXttovrai : the
former is sanctioned by A.B.D.F.G.
374 SECOND CORINTHIANS XII. 13 — 15.
apostle unto them. (In ver. 12 the ixh is to be explained by
^e, as Billroth correctly remarks, " but ye also can relate no-
thing else of me." — ^y^eia is first employed in an extended
sense, comprehending in it all and every sign of legitimacy ; then
in the more special meaning of one kind of the same. [See the
obseryations on Matt. viii. 1]. — The iv Trday vTrofiovy is not al-
together easy. It cannot be doubted that it is to be connected with
fcarecpydaOr], and not with that which follows ; nevertheless for what
cause does Paul expressly state in this place that his signs have
been wrought in all patience 1 It appears to me probable that
this involves a reproach to the Corinthians, who, notwithstanding
such signs, have nevertheless shown themselves undecided as to the
reception of Paul's apostolic authority. In this aspect of affairs
Paul intends to say, he had kindled his light among them, and
patiently awaited the result, secure of the final victory. This
passage likewise clearly enables us to perceive that the apostle
considered the gift of working miracles and wonders was as in-
dispensable a requisite of an apostle, as it had been to the pro-
phets of the Old Testament.)
Vers. 13 — 15. Paul demands of the Corinthians, with reproving
irony, in what respect they were inferior to any other church ?
Only as far as he had not proved burdensome to them, but had
entirely maintained himself without their aid, and this wrong
they must certainly forgive him. Indeed he intended to conduct
himself in the same manner upon the next occasion of visiting
them, which was approaching, for he sought not their goods and
possessions, but themselves ; he would rather lay up for them as
his beloved children, nay offer all for them, even his life, although
their love for him was in no degree equal to his for them. It is
very evident throughout this masterly passage, wherein the deepest
feeling is displayed in a spiritual application, for what cause the
apostle deemed it so important to reject decidedly all offers of sup-
port. His adversaries sought their own advantage, and at least
improved their position by means of the gifts which they re-
ceived ; Paul's own practice was entirely the reverse of this,
whereby he naturally aroused the hatred of those worldly-minded
persons, because his life tacitly reproved their proceedings. (In
ver. 13, Billroth correctly assigns to virep the meaning of " lower,
in that respect," which is the same as infra. — In ver. 14 it was
2
SECOND CORINTHIANS XII. 16—18. 375
earlier the custom to connect the rplrov with eTolfio)^ e^o), and not
with eXOelv. But it has been already observed in the Introduc-
tion [§ 2], that in this passage, and likewise in xiii. 1, it is an
actual third coming which is signified, and not alone a third de-
cision on the subject. For it would evidently be very unneces-
sary to state how frequently the determination had been arrived
at, whilst the rplrov can very suitably bear a reference to the pre-
sence itself ; as it consists perfectly with the whole strain of argu-
mentation that Paul should declare, that what he had already
twice done, he was prepared to repeat upon his third appearance
among them. — In ver. 15 the transition to another idea in the
hairavav is only imaginary. The drjaavpi^etv certainly implies to
collect treasure, hairavav to give up the possession, to spend.
The yielding up of his powers for the advantage of believers, is
at the same time spiritual profit for them. Paul proceeds yet
further in the eKBaTravrjOTjaojiMat, in which is signified the sacrifice
of life itself. It is by no means to be regarded as a parallel pas-
sage with Rom. ix. 3.)
Vers. 16 — 18. Paul draws attention again to the abominable
accusations disseminated by the shameless antagonists, among
which he alludes especially to the charge of catching the Corin-
thians with guile, i.e. according to the connexion, of having ap-
propriated to himself money received from them, which leads him
to ask, by whom had he been enabled to make a gain of them ?
How Titus and the brethren who accompanied him had conducted
themselves, was well known to themselves ! (The 16th verse is
to be understood as an observation of the Corinthians : " Ye con-
fess that I have not burthened you, nevertheless ye say, [i.e. the
opponents, and all who allowed themselves to be persuaded by
them] I have caught you with guile." — In ver. 17 is to be sup-
plied, " I, myself, have certainly never received money from you,
have I, as it were, defrauded you by means of a messenger?"
The fjiy TLva o)v — hi avrov stands for /jurj Sea Ttvo<; i/celvcov, ov<;.
— With regard to ver. 18, Billroth correctly observes that the
allusion here cannot be to the journey of Titus, which is men-
tioned in viii. 16, as this had not yet taken place [possibly Titus
himself delivered this epistle], but is rather to the earlier resi-
dence of this apostolic assistant in Corinth, which is adverted to
in viii. 6. Upon this occasion Titus had only prepared the way
376 SECOND CORINTHIANS XJI. 19 — 21.
for a collection, receiving no money himself ; the fjbrjre eTrXeoveK-
T7]crev vfia^ is accordingly to be understood as, " had he therefore
the power to defraud you V Was he not animated by the same
spirit of disinterestedness as myself? Have we not walked to-
gether in the same steps [as followers of Christ] \)
Vers .19 — 21. In conclusion, Paul again remarks that he speaks
not all this to his own commendation, but entirely to their edi-
fication ; for he feared that upon his approaching coming among
them, they might not be found in a frame of mind such as he
could desire, this would cause him to appear severe and not tender
towards them. (See on 1 Cor. iv. 21.) This possibility he de-
sired effectually to remove, for he was equally unwilling to be
again humbled by the position of affairs among them, or that his
abiding among them should be productive of sorrow to the Corin-
thians ; all therefore who were conscious of guilt were to repent !
— In the present passage the ttoXlv (ver. 21), as already remarked
in the Introduction, § 2 refers to Paul's residence in Corinth at
a period distinct from the first presence in that city, when he laid
the foundation of the church ; upon that occasion he had experi-
enced no cause for humiliation, for his preaching had been attended
with unusual success. (In ver. 19, it seems to me more forcible to
consider the iroKiv hoKelre /c.t.\. as a question than as explana-
tory. — The general text punctuates after XaXovfieVf but it would
be better to unite it with rdSe iravra k.t.\. to a sentence. —
It may not be alleged against the reading rdSe, that oSe never
occurs elsewhere in Paul's writings, for that can only be consi-
dered accidental.— A recapitulation similar to that in ver. 20 is
also found in Gal. v. 20, in which e/oet?, ^r/Xoi, Oufiol, ipiOetai suc-
ceed each other. See also Eom. i. 29, sqq. A recapitulation
must not be too strictly investigated, an accumulation of expres-
sion proceeds from copious oratory. In Rom. i. 30 KaraXaXla
and ^\ndvpLa^6<i are found together, but reversed in order. —
— ^vaiwai,^ is only found here in the New Testament. — Ver.
21 is not to be understood as if the apostle considered that
all the sins named had been actually perpetrated by the Corin-
thian Christians, for all who could have been thus guilty, would
have been immediately excluded by Paul from fellowship with the
church ; the emphasis is rather to be laid upon the Trporj/jLaprr]-
k6t6<;. He had observed that many of the Corinthian Christians
SECOND CORINTHIANS XIII. 1, 2. 377
did not sufficiently and deeply enough abhor their earlier heathen
abominations, retaining an indifFerence and laxity of principle iir
matters relative to the sexes, which even permitted them to take
a part in the festivals held in idol temples ; therefore he wished
to inspire them with a feeling of sincere repentance, and to find
it evinced by their conduct when he presented himself in Co-
rinth).
§ 12. THE CONCLUSION.
(xiii. 1—13.)
Paul concludes his epistle with a very impressive admonition
to the Corinthians not to compel him (the apostle) to exercise his
apostolic power, but to examine themselves strictly relative to
their inward condition, and to give due heed to his warnings,
whilst, in the belief and hope that none will neglect these, he be-
stows the Christian blessing upon all without exception.
Vers. 1 — 2. Without adding ero^to)? e%cw, as in xii. 14, Paul
precisely here asserts that he came to them for the third time,
according to which it cannot be denied without constraining the
sense that Paul had already been twice among the Corinthians.
Referring to Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15, he adduces being present
several times among them, as a witness on his behalf for the truth
of his exhortations, and an argument for the exaction of obe-
dience as a duty on their part. For that purpose he repeats
being absent (and in writing), that which when present (and with
the lips) he had declared to those who had sinned, and to all
others, viz. that upon his next appearance among them he would
not spare. It is consequently evident that upon his second resi-
dence in Corinth he had acted with indulgence towards them, and
this had led to the allegation of weakness, made by the adver-
saries. See Comm. on x. i. (In ver. 1 the aTaOrjaerat pyfia is
copied from the Hebrew ^^^tj D^D"^- — ^^ ^^^ receive the view that
T T ' T
Paul had already been twice in Corinth when he wrote this
epistle, the words of ver. 2. which Griesbach places in parenthesis,
&)? TTapcbv TO hevrepov koL clttcov vvv are easy of comprehension ;
the irapibv to hevrepov refers to rrrpoelpyKa, the dircov vvv to ttoo-
26
378 SECOND CORINTHIANS XIII. 3—5.
\eyco. — Concerning the TrporjfMapTrjKOTe^ see xii. 21. The others
were it is true not so guilty, nevertheless they also needed re-
pentance for having yielded a species of consent to evil influences,)
Vers. 3 — 5. As they required a proof that Christ was in him,
they were also to examine themselves, and thereby discover whe-
ther they stood in the faith. If they were not entirely reprobate,
they would find Christ to be in them, and as such they would be
enabled to acknowledge the power of God in the weakness of the
apostle, for they had undoubtedly received their faith from him.
— This idea decidedly lies in the words of the apostle, although
not perceptible at the first view. The introductory sentence
commencing with eTrel, to which the eavrov^ ireipd^ere of ver. 5
forms the conclusion, is by no means to be understood, as, " for if
ye desire to prove, prove yourselves rather than me," for this
does not agree with the declaration of Paul, in ver. 5, that Christ
is also in them except they be entirely reprobate ; he conse-
quently hopes they may find Christ in themselves. According to
this, the meaning of these words can alonfi be, that they (the Co-
rinthians) should argue from that which they found in themselves,
upon that which was in the apostle, and in such a manner as ac-
knowledged the apostle to be the source of their own life. The
latter is implied by the sentence 09 eh v/jLd<; ovk aaOevel, dWa Svva-
ret iv vfuv in ver. 3, which brings forward the powerful spiritual in-
fluence of the apostle in Corinth, and attributed by Paul to the
Christ in him. These words would therefore be better omitted in
the parenthesis, and only ver. 4 included therein. The same may
likewise he observed of the words in ver. 5, 7) ovk — icmv, which
are not to compose a parenthesis, but to be connected with the el
fjLYjTL dhoKifjiol ecrre in such a manner as to render perceptible an
appeal on the part of Paul to the Christian knowledge of the
Corinthians as follows : "Ye will, it is to be hoped, acknowledge
that Christ is in you, except ye be entirely reprobates V — With
regard to the intermediate sentence, Paul there compares him-
self, as he does in Rom. vi. 4, 5, with Christ, both in his weak-
ness and his strength, to whom also in conformity to his human
nature an daOeveia is ascribed. It is unnecessary to explain that
this includes nothing sinful, but only the susceptibility for suf-
fering of his nature is to be understood. This is also the only
passage in which an dcrdeveia is expressly attributed to Christ,
SECOND CORINTHIANS XIII. 6, 7. 379
Ver. 6, 7. The greatest advantage was hoped for by the
apostle from the examination recommended, viz. the perfect and
clear perception of himself which would follow ; he therefore en-
treats the Lord to direct aright the hearts of the Corinthians ; he
(Paul) desired only their welfare, and not his own honour ; he
would willingly rather appear unfit, if they would only do that
which was honest. — Throughout this passage, which is not alto-
gether easy, it must be borne in mind that Kokov and KaKov
TTOLYjcrat do not solely relate to moral or immoral conduct, for
these are in no degree brought under consideration, but they refer
to the proper relation to him, the apostle, and to the word of
truth which he had preached to the Corinthians. But inasmuch
as the moral life is conditionary, it is also certainly included in
the reference, though always as the consequence of faith or un-
belief. The apostle in ver. 6 says he hopes the Corinthians may
not find him d^oKL/juo^, i.e. they would find apostolic authority for
his severity ; and again in ver. 7 he proceeds to state, that he de-
sires that God may permit them to do that which is honest, in
order that he may appear as dSoKifio^;. This is undoubtedly a
difficult passage. It might be supposed that we should read Hva
ov^ for ov^ ha, but then the ^Atet? he &>? dSoKt/iot, Mfiev which suc-
ceeds would be tautological. The passage is thus conceived by
Billroth, he again supplies the evxo^iai to the ovx, making the
sense, " I desire not that we approve ourselves capable, ie. severe."
But in this construction some scruple is occasioned by the fact that
ev')(pfiat standing near to each other are construed in a twofold man-
ner first with the infinitive, and then with ha, under which latter
form it does not again occur. The ou;^ ha can only be understood,
" I desire this, not with the view that but." The difficulty
is much more easily solved by supposing, that Paul desired that
his prayer itself should be regarded as a proof of his hoKLfir].
This might be done by him, inasmuch as the fxr) KaKov Trotrjaai,
which is the same as the following ro icakov Trotrjcrat, is precisely
what Paul requires of tlie Corinthians; and therefore if the prayer
that God would work this in them were fulfilled, it might be re-
garded as the effect of his powerful intercession. The latter in-
ference is however altogether rejected by Paul ; he desired their
advantage only, and that any connected with himself as an indi-
vidual should be subservient to his greater object.
380 SECOND CORINTHIANS XIII. 8—13.
Vers. 8, 9. That which follows agrees extremely well with the
view just mentioned, for the apostle represents his power as bene-
ficial, and not of a malevolent or injurious nature ; if they (the
Corinthians) prove strong in the truth, he is content to be weak,
for that was even the object of his prayer, their perfecting, not
his own exaltation. In the orav r]/jL€L<; daOevMfxev k.tX. Paul
evidently bore in mind a parallel with ver. 4 ; as Christ's weak-
ness, the breathing out of the abundance of his life, conferred a
higher power upon the world, so likewise Paul would be content
to be weak, and breathe out his life, if his children in the Spirit
are only strong. (See Coram, on iv. 12.)
Ver. 10. As the aim of this communication Paul in conclusion
states his hope, that upon his approaching appearance in Corinth
he may be called upon to employ his apostolic authority solely to
edification and not to destruction (x. 4. 8 ) {'ATrorofico^ is found
in Tit. i. 13, Wisd. v. 23, in the signification of " sharp, severe."
In Wisd. vi. 6, KplaL^; airorofio^ means a sharp sentence.)
Vers. 11, 12. In the concluding words the apostle repeats the
exhortations rendered especially necessary by the splitting of the
Corinthian church into parties, employing for this reason the epi-
thet of God. The fact of recommending them all to greet one
another with a holy kiss proves that he continued to hope for the
re -establishment of unity among them.
Ver. 13. The apostle concludes his epistle with a peculiar in-
vocation of blessing. The or^aTTy] is ascribed to the Father as
the source from whence the grace of the Lord Christ pours forth
as a stream, producing brotherly communion among believers in
the Holy Spirit. That the Son obtains first mention is ex-
plained by the fact that the divine nature was first revealed to
man in Christ ; the Son also first guides him to the Father, and
finally perfects man's life in the communion of the Holy Ghost.
FINIS.
X
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
LIBRARY
UNIVEESITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBEARY,
BERKELEY
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE
STAMPED BELOW
Rooks not returned on time are subject to a fine of
50c per^vo^ume Ifter the third day ^^/^^^ JsTo?"?
to $1 00 Der volume after the sixth day. _ Books not m
deiand mS be renewed if appUcation is made before
expiration of loan period.
^
flB 12 1932
JUN 8 1943
'i^ MAR 8 i^
\ SApr-SSLS..
^QyjJ 1965 8 3
REC'D
OCT 31 '65-3 PM
LOAN DEPT.
>'C 40967
3S ^'^•5'
ere
.*. ^
.4
SC^O'I
'■ - — -^ '•-•. f -. V