1Co 1:1. Κλητὸς ἀπόστ. See on Rom 1:1. A polemical reference (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and many others, including Flatt, Rückert, Olshausen, Osiander), which would be foreign to the winning tone of the whole exordium, would have been quite otherwise expressed by one so decided as Paul (comp Gal 1:1).
διὰ θελ. Θεοῦ] That his position as an apostle called by Christ was brought about by the will of God, was a truth so vividly and firmly implanted in his consciousness, that he commonly includes an expression of it in the beginning of his Epistles. See 2Co 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1Ti 1:1; 2Ti 1:1. “Sua ipsius voluntate P. nunquam factus esset apostolus,” Bengel. Regarding διά, see on 1Co 1:9 and Gal 1:1.
καὶ Σωσθένης] Modern interpreters reckon him the amanuensis of the Epistle (see 1Co 16:21). But the mere amanuensis as such has no share in the Epistle itself, which must, however, be the case with one who holds a place in the introductory salutation. Since, moreover, in 1 and 2 Thess. we find two others besides Paul named with him in the superscription (who therefore could hardly both be mentioned as amanuenses), and even an indefinite number of “brethren” in the Epistle to the Galatians, whereas in that to the Romans the amanuensis-who is known from 1Co 16:22-does not appear as included in the superscription, we must rather suppose that Paul made his Epistle run not only in his own name, but also (although, of course, in a subordinate sense) in the name of Sosthenes, so that the Corinthians were to regard the letter of the apostle as at the same time a letter of Sosthenes, who thereby signified his desire to impress upon them the same doctrines, admonitions, etc. This presupposes that Paul had previously considered and discussed with this friend of his the contents of the letter to be issued. Comp on Php 1:1. Sosthenes himself accordingly appears as a teacher then present with the apostle and enjoying his confidence, but known to, and respected among, the Corinthians. There remains, indeed, the possibility that he may have also written the Epistle, but only in so far as we are in utter ignorance of who the amanuensis was at all. Had Timothy not already started on his journey (1Co 4:17, 1Co 16:10), he would have had a place along with, or instead of, Sosthenes in the salutation of the Epistle; comp 2Co 1:1.
Theodoret and most commentators, including Flatt, Billroth, Ewald, Maier, Hofmann, identify Sosthenes with the person so named in Act 18:17; but this is rightly denied by Michaelis, Pott, Rückert, and de Wette. See on Acts, l.c[80] Without due ground, Rückert concludes that he was a young man trained up by Paul-a view least of all to be deduced from the assumption that he was the amanuensis of the letter. The very absence of any definite information whatever as to Sosthenes shows how utterly arbitrary is the remark of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, and Estius, that it was a great proof of modesty in the apostle to name him along with himself.
ὁ ἀδελφός] denotes nothing more special than Christian brotherhood (so also 2Co 1:1; Col 1:1, al[81]), not fellowship in the office of teacher. The particulars of the position of Sosthenes were well known to the readers.
[80] .c. loco citato or laudato.
[81] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
1Co 1:2. Τῇ ἐκκλ. τ. Θεοῦ] Θεοῦ is genitive of the owner. Comp קְהַל יְהֹוָה, Num 16:3; Num 20:4. The expression is with Paul the standing theocratic designation of the Christian community, in which the theocratic idea of the Old Testament קהל presents itself as realized; it is the πλήρωσις of this קהל. Comp 1Co 10:32, 1Co 11:16; 1Co 11:22, 1Co 15:9; 2Co 1:1; Gal 1:13, al[84]
ἡγιασμ. ἐν Χ. Ἰ.] adds at once a distinctive definition of quality to τ. ἐκκλ. τ. Θεοῦ (see the critical remarks), and thereupon follows the local specification of τ. ἐκκλ. τ. Θεοῦ. “To the church of God, men sanctified in Christ Jesus, which is in Corinth.” How common it is to find a participle in the plural standing in an attributive relation to a collective singular, may he seen in Kühner, II. p. 43; Pflugk, a[85] Eur. Hec. 39. Τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορ., however, is purposely placed after ἡγιασμ. κ.τ.λ[86], because the thought is, that the church of God addressed does in itself and as such (not as Corinthian) consist of those sanctified in Christ. The ἁγιασμός is to be conceived as consecration to God in the Christian church (see above, τ. ἐκκλ. τ. θεοῦ). Comp on Rom 1:7. This belonging to God as His own has its causal ground not out of, but in Christ-namely, in His redemptive work, of which the Christians have become, and continue to be, partakers (perfect) by means of justifying faith (Eph 1:4 ff.; Heb 10:10). Comp Php 1:1. ἘΝ Χ. Ἰ. gives to the ἩΓΙΑΣΜ. its distinctively Christian character.
κλητοῖς ἁγίοις] added, in order to a properly exhaustive description of that experienced benefit of God’s grace of which the readers, as Christians, were assumed to be conscious; the new element introduced here lies in ΚΛΗΤΟῖς. The call to the Messianic kingdom (conceived as issued effectually, comp on Rom 8:28, and see Lamping, Pauli de praedestin. decreta, Leovard. 1858, p. 32 f.) is, according to the constant conception of the N. T. (Rom 1:6; Gal 1:6 not excepted), given by God (1Co 1:9, Rom 8:30; Rom 9:24, al[90]; Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 281) through the preachers of the gospel (Rom 10:14; 2Th 2:14); see Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 386 f.
σὺν πᾶσι Κ.Τ.Λ[91]] does not belong to κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, so that the readers were to be made sensible of the greatness of the fellowship in which they, as called saints, stood (Grotius, Bengel, Storr, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Billroth, Rückert, Olshausen, de Wette, Neander, Becker, Hofmann). But it belongs, as necessarily follows from 2Co 1:1, to the superscription as part of it (on σύν, comp Php 1:1); yet neither so as to mark the Epistle as a catholic one (Theodoret, Estius, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others; comp Schrader); nor so that Paul shall be held, while greeting the Corinthians, as greeting in spirit also the universal church (Osiander, comp Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Billroth, Heydenreich, and others); nor yet so that by the ἐπικαλ. τ. ὄν. τ. Κυρ. were meant the separatists, in contrast to those disposed to adhere to the church (Vitringa, Michaelis), or as if σὺν πᾶσι κ.τ.λ[95] were meant to comprehend all Corinthian Christians without distinction (Eichhorn, Einleit. III. 1, p. 110, Pott); but so that the sense is in substance just that expressed in 2Co 1:1 : σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἀχαΐᾳ. See below on ΑὐΤῶΝ ΤΕ ΚΑῚ ἩΜῶΝ. The Epistle is primarily addressed to the Christians in Corinth; not, however, to them merely, but at the same time also to the other Achaean Christians, and the latter are denoted by πᾶσι … ἡμῶν. A comma is to be put after ἉΓΊΟΙς.
ΤΟῖς ἘΠΙΚΑΛ. Τ. ὌΝ. Τ. ΚΥΡ.] confessional designation of the Christians, Rom 10:12 f.; Act 2:21. Respecting the N. T. idea of the invocation of Christ, which is not to be held as absolute, but as relative worship (of Him as the Mediator and Lord over all, but under God, Php 2:10 f.), see on Rom 10:12.
αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἠμῶν] is joined with ΤΟῦ ΚΥΡΊΟΥ by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Erasmus Schmid, Valckenaer, and others, including Billroth, Olshausen, Lücke (de invocat. Chr., Götting. 1843), Wieseler (Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt. p. 324), in such a way as to make it an epanorthosis or (see Wieseler) epexegesis of the foregoing ἡμῶν. But apart from the fact that this ἩΜῶΝ in the habitually used ΚΎΡΙΟς ἩΜῶΝ embraces all Christians, and consequently αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἡμῶν (ἡμῶν being referred to Paul and Sosthenes) would express something quite self-evident, and that, too, without any special significance of bearing,[96] the position of the words is decisive against this view, and in favour of attaching them to παντὶ τόπῳ, to which they necessarily belong as a more precise definition. Comp Vulg.: “In omni loco ipsorum et nostro.” If, namely, σὺν πᾶσι … ἡμῶν must denote the Achaean Christians out of Corinth (see above), then παντὶ τόπῳ requires a limitation to the geographical district which is intended. Now, this limitation is not already laid down by ἐν Κορίνθῳ (Lücke, Wieseler), since it was precisely in the superscription that the need of definiteness in designating the readers was obvious, but it is expressly given by αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἠμῶν, in such a way, namely, that αὐτῶν refers to the Corinthians, who, however, are indicated not by ὑμῶν, but by αὐτῶν, because from the point where the widening of the address (σὺν πᾶσι κ.τ.λ[98]) comes in, the Corinthians appear as third parties. Accordingly the Epistle is addressed: To the Corinthian Christians, and to all who, in every place that belongs to them (the Corinthians) and to us as well (Paul and Sosthenes), call upon the name of Christ. Every place in the province, namely, where Christians lived or a church existed (as e.g. in Cenchreæ, Rom 16:1), was a place which belonged to the Corinthians, a τόπος αὐτῶν, in so far as the church at Corinth was the mother-church of the Christian body in Achaia; but each such place belonged also to Paul (and Sosthenes), in so far as he was the founder and apostolic head of Christianity in Corinth and all Achaia. It is quite in accordance with the ingenious subtlety of the apostle to give the designation of the provincials in such a form, as to make his own authority felt over against the prerogative of those living in the capital (αὐτῶν). As in Rom 16:13 ΑὐΤΟῦ ΚΑῚ ἘΜΟῦ delicately expresses the community of love (comp also 1Co 16:18; Phm 1:11; Soph. El. 417 f.: πατρὸς τοῦ σοῦ τε κἀμοῦ), so here ΑὐΤῶΝ ΤΕ ΚΑῚ ἩΜῶΝ the community of right. The objection that the sense in which they belonged to the Corinthians was different from that in which they belonged to Paul and Sosthenes (de Wette), fails to appreciate the point of the words. The offence which Hofm. takes at the reading τε καί (as though it must be equivalent to ΕἼΤΕ) arises from a misunderstanding; it is the usual co-ordinating ΤΕ ΚΑΊ, which here has not even the appearance (Hartung, Partik. I. p. 100) of standing in place of εἴτε. Comp., on the contrary, Hartung, p. 101; Baeuml., Partik. p. 225. Observe, besides, that τε καί gives more rhetorical emphasis to the association of the two genitives than the simple ΚΑΊ; see Dissen, a[100] Dem. de cor. p. 165. Räbiger, krit. Unters. p. 62 f., has assented to our view.[101] Comp also Maier. Those who join ΣῪΝ ΠᾶΣΙ Κ.Τ.Λ[103] to κλητοῖς ἁγ. (see above) usually take αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἡμ. as an analysis of the idea παντί: in every place, where they and where we (Paul and Sosthenes) are, i.e. elsewhere and here in Ephesus. See Calovius, Rückert, de Wette, Osiander. But how meaningless this more precise explanation of παντί would be! In fact, it would be absurd; for, since the subject is all (πᾶσι κ.τ.λ[104]), in which the ἩΜΕῖς are thus already included, an analysis of it into ΑὐΤΟΊ (which the ΠΆΝΤΕς are surely already) and ἩΜΕῖς is utterly illogical. This applies also in opposition to Becker, by whom the ΤΌΠΟς ἩΜῶΝ is held to be Corinth, and to refer to the strangers who come to Corinth. Others have, following Ambrosiaster, referred αὐτῶν to the heathen lands, and ἡμῶν to Judaea (Erasmus, Semler, Bolten; similarly Schrader). Contrary to the text, as is also Wetstein’s opinion: “P. suum locum vocat, ubi ipse per praedicationem evangelii ecclesiam fundaverat. Tacite se atque Sosthenem … opponit peregrino falso doctori, qui in locum non suum irrepserat.” Others refer ἐν παντὶ … ἡμῶν to the different meeting-places of the parties (Vitringa, Mosheim, Eichhorn, Krause, Pott, Ewald), so that the ΤΌΠΟς ἩΜῶΝ would be the house of Justus (Act 18:7), or, generally, the place where the church had statedly assembled at first under Paul (Ewald); and the ΤΌΠ. ΑὐΤῶΝ the meeting-house of the Petrine party, perhaps the Jewish synagogue (Pott), or, in general, the other places of assembly of the new sections (Ewald). But the presupposition that the church was broken up into parties locally separated from each other (see, on the contrary, 1Co 14:23, 1Co 11:17 ff.) has not a single passage in the Epistle to justify it. Böttger, l.c[105] p. 25, holds, strangely, that αὐτῶν applies to the Corinthian Christians, and ἡμῶν to those of Lower Achaia (among whom Paul is supposed to have written; see Introd. § 3); and Ziegler, that αὐτῶν applies to those in Corinth, ἩΜῶΝ to those staying with Paul in Ephesus, Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus (1Co 16:17), and others. Hofmann propounds the peculiar view that ΚΑῚ ἩΜῶΝ betokens that Paul was at home, and felt himself to be so, wherever Christ was invoked. As if the reader would have been capable of deducing any such ubiquity of spiritual domicile from the simple pronoun, and that, too, in the very address of the Epistle, without the slightest hint from the connection.
[84] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[85] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[86] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[90] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[91] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[95] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[96] It is supposed to convey a polemical reference to the party-divisions. See Wieseler, l.c. This can only be the case if αὐτῶν applies to the Corinthians. But in fact, according to the view of Lücke and Wieseler (see below), it cannot do so, but must apply to the other Achaeans.
[98] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[100] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[101] Also Burger in his (popular) Auslegung, Erl. 1859, and Holtzmann, Judenthum u. Christenth. p. 749.
[103] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[104] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[105] .c. loco citato or laudato.
1Co 1:3. See on Rom 1:7.[106]
[106] See also the elaborate dissertation on the apost. benedictory greeting by Otto in the Jahrb. für D. Theol. 1867, p. 678 ff. The origin of that greeting, however, is hardly to be traced back, as the author holds, to the Aaronic blessing, Num 6:25 f. Otherwise it would always be tripartite, and, in particular, would not omit the characteristic ἔλεος. Now, the only Epistles in which it certainly occurs as tripartite, and with ἔλεος, are the (post-Pauline) ones, 1 and 2 Tim. and 2Jn 1:3; also Jud 1:2 (but with a peculiar variation). It was only at a later date that the Aaronic blessing passed over into Christian liturgic use (Constitt. ap. ii. 57. 13); but a free reminiscence of that blessing may already be contained in the greetings of those late Epistles.
1Co 1:4-5. Μου] as in Rom 1:8.
πάντοτε] always, to be measured not strictly by the literal import of the word, but by the fervour of his constant love. Comp 1Th 1:2 f.; 2Th 1:3.
ἘΠΊ] ground of the thanks, Php 1:5; Polyb. xviii. 26. 4; Valck. in loc[109] The grace of God, which had been bestowed on them, is described more precisely in 1Co 1:5 according to its effects.
ἐν Χ. Ἰ.] i.e. in your fellowship with Christ. By this is denoted the specifically Christian nature of the gift, in so far, namely, as it is not attained apart from Christ, but-otherwise it were a worldly gift-has in Christ, as the life-element of those who are its subjects, the distinctive sphere of its manifestation. Just in the same way 1Co 1:5.
ὅτι] that you, namely, etc., epexegesis of ἐπὶ τῇ χάρ. Κ.Τ.Λ[110]
ἐν παντί] without limitation: in all, in every point; comp 2Co 9:11; 1Ti 6:18; Eph 2:4; Jam 2:5. To this Paul forthwith, and again with ἐν (comp 2Co 6:4), adds the more precise definition chosen in reference to the state of things at Corinth: ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ κ. πάσῃ γνώσει: in all discourse and all knowledge-that is to say, so that no kind of Christian aptitude of speech, or of Christian intelligence, is wanting among you, but both-the former outwardly communicative aptitude, in virtue of which a man is δυνατὸς γνῶσιν ἐξειπεῖν (Clem. Cor. I. 48); and the latter, the inward endowment-are to be found with you richly in every form. This view, according to which λόγος is sermo, occurs in substance in the Greek commentators, in Calovius, Rückert, Neander, Hofmann, and many others, and is confirmed beyond a doubt by 2Co 8:7; 2Co 11:6. As to the different kinds of Christian utterance, comp 1Co 12:8. Λόγος is not therefore to be understood, with Billroth, de Wette, and Maier, of the doctrine preached to the Corinthians. Beza, Grotius, and others take λόγος to be specially the donum linguarum, and γνῶσις the donum prophetiae, which, however, is not conveyed either in the words themselves or in the connection, and is, moreover, at variance with the subordinate importance attached to the γλώσσαις λαλεῖν (chap. 14). Lastly, as to the running together of the two: ἐν πάσῃ γνώσει τοῦ λόγου (Schulz, Morus, Rosenmüller), the very repetition of the πάσῃ, and the difference in point of idea between the two words, should have dissuaded its supporters from such a view; for λόγ. and γνώσ. can as little be synonyms (Clericus, Pott) as דבר and דעת. Clement also, 1, praises the former condition of the church with respect to ΤῊΝ ΤΕΛΕΊΑΝ ΚΑῚ ἈΣΦΑΛῆ ΓΝῶΣΙΝ.
[109] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[110] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
1Co 1:6. Καθώς] According as, introduces the relation of that happy condition of things (ἐν παντὶ ἐπλουτίσθητε … γνώσει) to its cause. See on Joh 13:34; Joh 17:2; 1Co 5:7; Eph 1:4; Php 1:7; Mat 6:12.
τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χ.] characteristic designation of the Gospel, the publishers of which bear witness of Christ. Comp 2Ti 1:8; Act 1:8; Act 3:15, al[115]; 2Th 1:10; 1Pe 5:1. Comp ΜΑΡΤ. ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ, 1Co 2:1.
ἘΒΕΒΑΙΏΘΗ] is rendered by most: is confirmed[117] has been accredited (Mar 16:20; Rom 15:8; Heb 2:3, al[118]); comp also Rückert: “evinced as true by its effect on you;” and Ewald: “guaranteed among you by signs of the power of the Holy Spirit.” So too, in substance, Hofmann. It is more in keeping, however, with the logical relation of καθὼς Κ.Τ.Λ[120] to the foregoing, as well as with the βεβαιώσει of 1Co 1:8 (comp 2Co 1:21; Col 2:7), to explain it of the gospel becoming firmly established in their souls (by stedfast faith), so that the opposite is expressed by the Johannine τὸν λόγον οὐκ ἔχετε μένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν (Joh 5:38). Comp Billroth and de Wette.
ἐν ὑμῖν] in animis vestris.
[115] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[117] “Non de confirmatione externa verbi, quae fit per miracula, sed de confirmatione interna, quae fit per testimonium Sp. St.,” Calovius. Chrysostom understood it of both; Theodoret, Theophylact, and otters, of the miracles only.
[118] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[120] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
1Co 1:7. Result of τὸ μαρτ. τ. Χ. ἐβεβ. ἐν ὑμῖν, consequently parallel to ἐν παντὶ ἐπλουτ. ἐν αὐτᾷ. The negative expression μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν is conceived quite after the analogy of the positive πλουτίζ. ἐν (see on 1Co 1:5), so that ἐν denotes that, in which one is behind (defectively constituted). Hence: so that ye in no gift of grace are behind (i.e. less rich than other churches). Comp Plat. Pol. vi. p. 484 D: μηδʼ ἐν ἄλλῳ μηδενὶ μέρει ἀρετῆς ὑστηροῦντας. Sir 51:24. The sense would be different, if the words were μηδενὸς χαρίσματος (so that no gift of grace is lacking to you). See Rom 3:22; Luk 22:35; Joh 2:3. Ruhnk. a[124] Tim. p. 51. Lobeck, a[125] Phryn. p. 237; a[126] Soph. Aj. 782. Χάρισμα is here to be taken (with Calvin and others, including Rosenmüller, Pott, de Wette, Maier) in the wider sense of the spiritual blessings of Christianity generally, in so far as believers are made partakers of them by the divine grace through the πνεῦμα ἅγιον (Rom 1:11; 1Co 7:7); not, with most of the older expositors, as well as Billroth, Rückert, Olshausen, Hofmann, in the narrower sense of the extraordinary gifts (chap. 12 ff.). The proof of this is, first, that the immediately following ἀπεκδεχομ. κ.τ.λ[127] makes the ΜῊ ὙΣΤΕΡΕῖΣΘΑΙ ἘΝ ΜΗΔΕΝῚ ΧΑΡΊΣΜΑΤΙ appear as an ethical endowment; second, that the significant retrospective reference of the ἀνεγκλήτους in 1Co 1:8 does not suit the ΧΑΡΊΣΜΑΤΑ in the narrower sense, but does suit all the more strikingly the moral character of the Christian gifts of the Spirit in general. The form of expression in the singular here stands as little in the way of this view (in opposition to Hofmann) as at Rom 1:11, and is, in fact, necessitated by the negative form of the discourse. Rückert, indeed, objects: “that Paul could not at all mean here those purely moral blessings, seeing that the Corinthians did not possess them.” The apostle, however, is not speaking of every individual, but of the church taken as a whole (comp already Chrysostom and Theophylact); and, moreover, expresses himself with much caution in a negative way, so that he only needs to answer for the presence of a sufficienter praeditum esse to stand comparison with other churches.
ἀπεκδεχομ. Κ.Τ.Λ[129]] is a significant accompanying definition to what has gone before: as persons, who are not in any wise afraid of the revelation of Christ (1Pe 1:7; Col 3:3 f.) and wish it away, but who are waiting for it. This waiting and that afflux of grace stand in a mutual relation of action and reaction. Bengel says rightly: “Character Christiani veri vel falsi, revelationem Christi vel expectare vel horrere.” The fact that there were among the Corinthians deniers of the resurrection (and consequently of the Parousia in its full idea)-which, we may add, might naturally enough cause this hope to become all the more vividly prominent in the case of the rest-does not take away from the truth of the words, which hold good of the church a potiori. Just as little can they (contrary to the winning tone of the whole preamble) have it as their design to terrify with the thought of the day of judgment (Chrysostom), or to censure the doubters (Grotius, Rückert), or even to make ironical reference to the fancied perfection of the Corinthians (Mosheim). The participial clause, which needed neither ὡς nor the article, is not merely a temporal definition-consequently “for the time” of the waiting (Hofmann)-any more than at Tit 2:13; Rom 8:23; Jud 1:21.
ἀπεκδ.] denotes the persevering expectation. See on Rom 8:19; Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 150 ff. The word does not indicate the element of longing (de Wette). See Rom 8:25; 1Pe 3:20. For the subject-matter, comp Php 3:20; Tit 2:13; 2Ti 4:8; Luk 12:36.
[124] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[125] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[126] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[127] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[129] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
1Co 1:8. Ὅς] refers to Ἰησοῦ Χ., not, as Flatt, Pott, Billroth, Schrader, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann, with the majority of interpreters, assume, to the far-distant Θεός 1Co 1:4,-a view to which we are not compelled either by the Ἰησ. Χριστοῦ which follows (see below), or by 1Co 1:9, seeing that the working of the exalted Christ is in fact subordinated to the will of God (1Co 3:23, 1Co 11:3; Rom 8:34, al[131]). Comp Winer, p. 149 [E.T. 196]. The apostle, however, is so full of Christ, as he addresses himself to his Epistle, that throughout the preamble he names Him in almost every verse, sometimes even twice. Comp Rom 1:1-7.
καί] also, denotes that which corresponds to the ἀπεκδέχεσθαι κ.τ.λ[134], what Christ will do.
ΒΕΒΑΙΏΣΕΙ] ΣΤΗΡΊΞΕΙ Rom 16:25; 1Th 3:13; 2Co 1:21. The future stands here not optatively (Pott), but as expressive of a confident hope in the gracious working of Christ.[135]
ἝΩς ΤΈΛΟΥς] applies not to the end of life (Calovius, Flatt, and others), but, as the foregoing τ. ἀποκάλ. Κ.Τ.Λ[136] and the following ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ κ.τ.λ[137] clearly show, to the end of the pre-Messianic period of the world’s history (the αἰὼν οὗτος, see on Mat 13:32), which is to be ushered in by the now nearly approaching (1Co 7:29, 1Co 15:51) Parousia. Comp 1Co 10:11; 2Co 1:13. It is the ΣΥΝΤΈΛΕΙΑ ΤΟῖ ΑἸῶΝΟς, Mat 13:39 f., Mat 24:3, Mat 28:20; comp Heb 9:26.
ἈΝΕΓΚΛΉΤΟΥς Κ.Τ.Λ[140]] result of the strengthening: so that ye shall be free from reproach in the day, etc. Comp 1Th 3:13. See respecting this proleptic usage generally, on Mat 12:13; Php 3:21, and Jacob, Quaest. epic. ii. 4, p. 136 ff. Stallb. a[142] Plat. Rep. p. 560 D.
τοῦ Κυρίον κ.τ.λ[143]] The repetition of the noun instead of the mere pronoun is common in the classics also (Ellendt, a[144] Arrian. Exp. Al. i. 55; Kühner, a[145] Xen. Mem. i. 6. 1), and elsewhere in the N. T. (Winer, l.c[146] and p. 136 [E. T. 180]). Here (as at 2Co 1:5; Eph 1:13; Col 1:13 f., al[147]) it has solemn emphasis. Comp 1Co 1:21.
It is to be noted, moreover, that the blamelessness in the day of Christ (comp Rom 8:33) is conditioned (2Ti 4:7) by perseverance in the faith (through which justification is appropriated), and consequently rests on the imputation of faith (Rom 4:4 f.); but is nevertheless, in virtue of the moral character and power of faith, as also in virtue of sanctification through the Spirit, of a thoroughly moral nature (Rom 6:1 ff; Rom 8:1 ff.), so that the ἈΝΈΓΚΛΗΤΟς at the Parousia appears not, indeed, as ἈΝΑΜΆΡΤΗΤΟς, but as ΚΑΙΝῊ ΚΤΊΣΙς ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ (2Co 5:17), who, being divinely restored (Eph 2:10; Col 3:10) and progressively sanctified (1Th 5:23), has worked out his own salvation (Php 2:12) in the consecration of the moral power of the new spiritual life (Rom 8:2 f.; Php 1:10 f.), and now receives the ΒΡΑΒΕῖΟΝ of his calling (Php 3:14), the ΣΤΈΦΑΝΟς of the ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ (2Ti 4:8), in the ΔΌΞΑ of everlasting life.
[131] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[134] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[135] Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and others, find in this expression an indirect censure; as a hint that they were σαλενόμενοι and ἐγκλήμασι νῦν ὑποκείμενοι. A view the more inappropriate, when we consider how natural and familiar to the apostle was the thought expressed with respect to all his churches.
[136] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[137] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[140] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[142] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[143] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[144] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[145] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[146] .c. loco citato or laudato.
[147] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
1Co 1:9. Ground of this confident hope. Comp 1Co 10:13; 1Th 5:24; 2Th 3:3; Php 1:6; Rom 11:29. Were the ΒΕΒΑΊΩΣΙς on the part of Christ (1Co 1:8) not to take place, the divine call to the ΚΟΙΝΩΝΊΑ ΤΟῦ ΥἹΟῦ ΑὐΤΟῦ would remain without effect, which would not be compatible with the faithfulness of God, from whom the call comes, and who, by His calling, gives pledge to us of eternal salvation (Rom 8:30).
Rückert finds in διʼ οὗ, because God Himself is the caller, a veritable misuse of the preposition; and others, as Beza and Rosenmüller, explain it without ceremony by ὙΦʼ ΟὟ, which D* F G in fact read. But Paul is thinking here in a popular way of the call as mediated through God. It is true, of course, that God is the causa principalis, but the mediating agency is also God’s, ἐξ οὗ καὶ διʼ οὗ τὰ πάντα (Rom 11:36); hence both modes of representation may occur, and ΔΙΆ may be used as well as ὙΠΌ, wherever the context does not make it of importance to have a definite designation of the primary cause as such. Comp Gal 1:1; Plat. Symp. p. 186 E, Pol. ii. p. 379 E. Fritzsche, a[152] Rom. I. p. 15; Bernhardy, p. 235 f.
The ΚΟΙΝΩΝΊΑ ΤΟῦ ΥἹΟῦ ΑὐΤΟῦ is the fellowship with the Son of God (genitive, as in 2Co 11:13; Php 2:1; 2Pe 1:4), i.e. the having part in the filial relation of Christ, which, however, is not to be understood of the temporal relation of sonship, Gal 3:26 f. (κοινωνίαν γὰρ υἱοῦ τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἐκάλεσε, Theodoret), nor of ethical fellowship (Grotius, Hofmann, and many others), but, in accordance with the idea of the ΚΑΛΕῖΝ which always refers to the Messianic kingdom, of fellowship of the glory of the Son of God in the eternal Messianic life,[153]-a fellowship which will be the glorious completion of the state of υἱοθεσία (Gal 4:7). It is the ΔΌΞΑ ΤῶΝ ΤΈΚΝΩΝ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ (Rom 8:21), when they shall be ΣΥΓΚΛΗΡΟΝΌΜΟΙ ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ, ΣΎΜΜΟΡΦΟΙ of His image, ΣΥΜΒΑΣΙΛΕΎΟΝΤΕς and ΣΥΝΔΟΞΑΣΘΈΝΤΕς, Rom 8:17; comp 1Co 1:23; 1Co 1:29; 2Th 2:14; Col 3:4; Php 3:20 f.; 1Co 15:48 f.; 2Ti 2:12.
[152] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[153] Comp. Weiss, biblische Theol. p. 310.
1Co 1:10. “Exhortation, however, lest ye miss this end of your calling, exhortation I give to you,” etc.
ἀδελφοί] winning and tender form of address, often introduced by Paul just at the point where he has a serious word to speak. 1Co 1:11; 1Co 7:29; 1Co 10:1; 1Co 14:20, al[155]
ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ὈΝΌΜΑΤΟς Κ.Τ.Λ[156]] by means of the name, etc., while I point you to the name of Christ, which, in truth, constitutes the one confession of all His disciples, and thereby set before you the motive to follow my exhortation. Comp Rom 12:1; Rom 15:30; 2Co 10:1; 2Th 3:12. Were the meaning ex mandato Christi (Heumann, Semler, Ernesti, and Rosenmüller), it would be expressed by ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ. (1Co 5:4; 2Th 3:6, al[158]).
ἵνα] design, and in this form of conception, contents of the παρακαλῶ, as in 1Co 16:12; 1Co 16:15; 2Co 8:6; 2Co 9:5; 2Th 2:17, and often in the Synoptic Gospels.
τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε] agreement of confessional utterance, as opposed to the party-confessions of faith, at variance with each other, 1Co 1:12. Luther renders it appropriately: “einerlei Rede führet.” The consensus animorum is only expressed in the sequel (ἦτε δὲ κατηρτισμ. κ.τ.λ[159]); in the first instance it is the outstanding manifestation of the evil that Paul has in view. This in opposition to Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, and many others, including Heydenreich and Billroth, who explain the phrase of this inward agreement, which Paul would have known well how to express by τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν (Rom 15:5; Php 2:2; 2Co 13:11), or in some similar correct way, and which, even in such passages as Thuc. v. 31. 5, Polyb. ii. 62, is not expressed, but presupposed. More expressive still is Polyb. v. 104. 1 : λέγειν ἓν καὶ ταὐτό, to speak one and the same thing.
καὶ μὴ ᾖ ἐν ὑμ. σχίσματα] the same thought in prohibitive form (comp Rom 12:14, al[161]), but designating the evil forbidden more generally, according to its category.
ἦτε δὲ Κ.Τ.Λ[162]] δέ, but rather, but on the contrary (see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 171; Klotz, a[163] Devar. p. 360; Baeuml. Partik. p. 95), introduces what ought to be the case instead of the forbidden καὶ μὴ κ.τ.λ[164]
ΚΑΤΗΡΤΙΣΜΈΝΟΙ] fully adjusted, established in the right frame (Vulg. perfecti; Theophyl. τέλειοι). Comp 2Co 13:11; Gal 6:1; Heb 13:11; 1Pe 5:10; Luk 6:40. When there are divisions in a society, the ΚΑΤΆΡΤΙΣΙς is wanting (2Co 13:9; comp ΚΑΤΑΡΤΙΣΜΌς, Eph 4:12); hence Greek writers also use ΚΑΤΑΡΤΊΖΕΙΝ in speaking of the establishment of right relations by the removal of disunion (as here), sedition, or the like, Herod. v. 28. 106; Dion. Hal. Antt. iii. 10. Whether any figurative reference, however, of κατηρτ. to the original sense of ΣΧΊΣΜΑΤΑ, fissurae, be intended (to make whole and good again what was broken or rent, comp Mat 4:21; Mar 1:19; Esdr. 1Co 4:12-13; 1Co 4:16; Herod. v. 106), as Bos, Elsner, Valckenaer, Pott, Heydenreich, and others think, and as Luther, Calvin (“apte cohaereatis”), and Beza (“coagmentati”) express by their renderings, may be doubted, because Paul does not more precisely and definitely indicate such a conception; while, on the other hand, it was exceedingly common to use ΣΧΊΣΜΑ absolutely, and without special thought of its original material reference (Mat 9:16), to denote dissidium (Joh 7:43; Joh 9:16; Joh 10:19; 1Co 11:18, and even 1Co 12:25).
ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ νοῒ Κ.Τ.Λ[168]] the sphere, in which they were to be κατηρτ. Comp Heb 13:21. Νοῦς and γνώμη differ as understanding and opinion. Through the fact, namely, that Christians in Corinth thought differently (νοῦς) on important matters, and in consequence of this difference of thinking, formed in a partisan spirit different opinions and judgments (γνώμη), and fought for these against each other, the τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν was wanting and σχίσματα prevailed. In opposition to this, the Corinthians were to agree together in Christian thinking[170] and judging; the right state of things was to establish itself among them in ὁμονοεῖν and ὉΜΟΓΝΩΜΟΝΕῖΝ (Thuc. ii. 97; Dem. 281. 21; Polyb. xxviii. 6. 2). In ἜΡΙΔΕς, 1Co 1:11, we have the manifestation of the opposite of both of these, of Christian sameness of thought and opinion. That sameness, therefore, does not preclude the friendly discussion of points of difference in thought and judgment, with a view to mutual better understanding and the promotion of harmony, but it doubtless does preclude party-differences and hostility. Ἀμφισβητοῦσι μὲν γὰρ καὶ διʼ εὔνοιαν οἱ φίλοι τοῖς φίλοις, ἐρίζουσι δὲ οἱ διαφοροί τε καὶ ἐχθροὶ ἀλλήλοις, Plat. Prot. p. 337 B. Many other interpreters take γνώμη as referring to the practical disposition (to love); whereas νοῦς denotes the theoretical understanding. See Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, who says: ὅταν γὰρ τὴν αὐτὴν πίστιν ἔχωμεν, μὴ συναπτώμεθα δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἀγάπην, τὰ μὲν αὐτὰ νοοῦμεν, διϊστάμεθα δὲ κατὰ τὴν γνώμην. But this separation between theory and practice is quite arbitrary; and ΓΝΏΜΗ never means in the N. T. “disposition,” but always (even in Rev 17:13; Rev 17:17) sententia, judicium. Comp the classical Τῆς ΑὐΤῆς ΓΝΏΜΗς ΕἾΝΑΙ, to have one and the same view, Thuc. i. 113, iii. 70. Eur. Hec. 127: ἐκ μιᾶς γνώμης, Dem. 147. 1 : ΔΙᾺ ΜΙᾶς ΓΝΏΜΗς ΓΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ, Isocr. Paneg. 38: τὴν αὐτὴν ἔξχειν γνώμην, Plat. Alc. 2, p. 139 A. The converse: ἐγένοντο δίχα αἱ γνώμαι, Herod. vi. 109.
[155] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[156] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[158] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[159] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[161] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[162] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[163] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[164] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[168] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[170] The sense of “disposition” is wrongly attributed to νοῦς (Rückert, Neander, Maier). This is not the case even in Rom 1:28; Rom 12:2; Eph 4:17; see in loc.
1Co 1:11. Motive for the foregoing exhortation.
ὑπὸ τῶν Χλόης] comp Rom 16:10; Winer, p. 179 [E. T. 238]. What persons belonging to Chloe are meant, was as well known to the readers as it is unknown to us. Grotius and Valckenaer understood “mortuae Chloes liberos;” others generally, “those of her household;” others, again, “slaves,” as undoubtedly such genitives are sometimes to be explained by δοῦλος (Schaef. a[173] Bos. Ell. p. 117 f.); comp Plat. Phaed. p. 60 A. Chloe herself is commonly held to be a Corinthian Christian, members of whose household had come to Ephesus. It seems, however, more in accordance with apostolic discretion to suppose (with Michaelis) that she was an Ephesian well known to the Corinthians, members of whose household had been in Corinth and returned thence.
The name (familiar as a surname of Demeter) occurs also elsewhere; Hor. Od. i. 23, iii. 9. 6; Long. Past. 7. We may add that Bengel remarks well on ἐδηλώθη (comp Col 1:8): “exemplum delationis bonae nec sine causâ celandae.” It was in fact the fulfilment of a duty of love.
[173] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
1Co 1:12. Now what I mean (by this ἔριδες ἐν ὑμῖν εἰσι) is this (which follows), that, etc. Regarding the explicative λέγω, common also in Greek writers, comp Gal 3:17; Rom 15:8. Calvin and Beza understand it, making ΤΟῦΤΟ retrospective: I say this, because, etc. But, not to speak of the less suitable meaning thus attained, τοῦτο in all parallel passages points invariably forward (Gal 3:17; Eph 4:17; 1Co 7:29; 1Co 15:50), except when, as in 1Co 7:35, Col 2:4, a clause expressive of design follows.
ἕκαστος] Each of you speaks in one of the forms following. Comp 1Co 14:26. Chrysostom says aptly: Οὐ ΓᾺΡ ΜΈΡΟς, ἈΛΛᾺ ΤῸ ΠᾶΝ ἘΠΕΝΈΜΕΤΟ Τῆς ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑς Ἡ ΦΘΟΡΆ.
Nothing is to be supplied with the genitive Παύλου Κ.Τ.Λ[178], for εἶναί τινος means to belong to any one, addictum esse. See Seidl. a[179] Eur. El. 1098; Ast. Lex. Plat. I. p. 621; Winer, p. 184 [E. T. 243 f.].
Κηφᾶ] The Jewish name (כֵּיפָא) is so usual with Paul (1Co 3:22, 1Co 9:5, 1Co 15:5, and see the critical remarks on Gal 1:18) that it is only in Gal 2:7-8 that we find Πέτρος employed by him; hence the less may we regard Κηφᾶ here as taken directly from the lips of the Jewish Petrine party (Estius).
The order of the four names is historical, following that in which the parties successively arose.
For a connected review of them and the relative literature, see Introd. § 1. The following remarks may be added from the exegetical standpoint: (1) The Χριστοῦ and 1Co 1:14 ff. invalidate at once the theory held by the Fathers (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others, see Räbiger, krit. Unters. p. 9) and many of the older commentators, including Michaelis, and based principally on 1Co 4:6, that the three first names were fictitious merely, and used in order to avoid bringing forward by name the real heads of the parties. (2) There can be no reduction of the number of the parties below four, although many attempts have been made to bring together not only the partisans of Paul and of Apollos (as having but a formal difference), but also the Petrine and the Christine parties (J. E. Chr. Schmidt, Bibl. f. Krit. u. Exeg. I. p. 91; Baur in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1831, 4, p. 61 ff., and in his Paulus, I. p. 291 ff., ed. 2; also Billroth, Lechler, and others); or else-which, however, is merely a drawing of them together in form-to reduce the four to two main parties, the apostolic and the Christine (Neander, Jaeger, and Schenkel); or, lastly, by exegetical expedients (Räbiger), either to get rid of the Christ-party altogether (see below), or at least to take them out of the list of parties by assuming that they were approved of by the apostle (Schott, with older interpreters). Paul, in fact, sets forth quite uniformly four definite diversities of confession standing in contrast, and then shows in 1Co 1:13 how sad and how preposterous this state of division was.
In the face of this manifest mode of reckoning and disposing of the parties by the apostle himself in this passage, several theories, respecting more particularly (3) the Christ-party, must be dismissed as untenable. Among these is (a) the view repeatedly brought forward from the days of Chrysostom:[180] “Mentionem eorum propterea fecit una cum illis, quod, cujusnam generis essent dissidia inter Cor. excitata, perspicue explicare non poterat, nisi ita, ut diceret, alios hunc, alios illum praeferre doctorem, aliis (recte quidem, 1Co 3:23) se Christi sectatores simpliciter appellantibus” (Schott, Isag. 233). With respect to this, it is to be observed that 1Co 3:23 implies not the justification of those λέγοντες· ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, but the truth of the idea,[181] from the abuse of which that fourth party arose which in the passage before us appears under a precisely similar condemnation to that of the other three. (b) The theory invented by Baur[182] in behalf of the antagonism between Paulinism and Petrinism (comp also Lechler, p. 386): that the same party called themselves both ΤΟῪς ΚΗΦᾶ, because Peter had the primacy among the apostles of the Jews, and also ΤΟῪς ΧΡΙΣΤΟῖ, because they held direct connection with Christ to be the main mark of true apostleship, and therefore counted Paul far behind the other apostles;[184] that the Christ-party, in fact, were the most thoroughgoing disciples of Peter (comp Billroth and Credner, Einl. sec. 132; also Reuss, and especially Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 25 f.). (c) The opinion of Becker, that the Christine party were Jewish-Christians, who had attached themselves to the followers of Peter that had come from a distance to Corinth, but, as having been converted by Paul and Apollos, had called themselves not after Peter, but after Christ. (d) Räbiger’s view, according to which the Christ-party is purely a creation of the exegetes, ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ being the utterance common to the three parties; so that all, indeed, professed allegiance to Christ, but the strife between them consisted in this, “that they made participation in Christ dependent on different teachers, each holding that they, inasmuch as they belonged to a particular teacher, had the real and true Christ,-a better Christ than the others.” This explanation, if we judge in accordance with the preceding elements in 1Co 1:12, is an exegetical impossibility. It has been already well said by Calovius: “Et illi, qui a Christo Christianos se dicebant, quatenus ab aliis sese per schisma separabant, illo nomine sibi solum appropriato, schismatis rei erant.” Since they are ranked, just as the others, under the category of the σχίσματα and ἔριδες (1Co 1:10-11), and their fault is set before them as before the others, 1Co 1:13, by μεμέρ. ὁ Χριστός, we cannot even characterize them, with Eichhorn, as neutrals.
To name Christ as their Head was so extremely natural for a party who, as contrasted with the others, wished to keep themselves free from all authority of human teachers (see Introd. § 1; also Rückert, Bleek, Einl., Hofm. 16 f.), that there is no need whatever for any attempt at a different explanation; such as Eichhorn’s imagination, that they rested upon the sayings of Jesus in the Protevangelium; or the view of Grotius, Witsius, Wetstein, and Ziegler, that they had heard Christ themselves,[186] or at least their founder had (if the former, how disproportionately small must their number needs have been! and if the latter, they would surely have named themselves after their founder, since Peter, too, was a personal disciple of Christ). Equally undeserving of acceptance is Storr’s view (Opusc. II. p. 252 ff.), adopted by Rosenmüller, Krause, Hug, Heydenreich, and Flatt (comp also Bertholdt, Einl. VI. p. 3319), that they had called themselves τοῦ Χριστοῦ, as followers of James the brother of Christ. This is an empty conjecture, not to be supported by 1Co 9:5, 1Co 15:9; and it has, besides, especially this against it, that the followers of the venerated James would have had no ground, as distinguished from the other parties, for not calling themselves οἱ τοῦ Ἰακώβου or οἱ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου, and that James also would have been mentioned with the rest in 1Co 3:22, as well as in Clem. 1 Cor. 47, if the Christ-party had not referred themselves directly to Christ.
This claim, moreover, of a direct relation to Christ as regards His exclusive authority, found its sufficient ground and justification in the general acquaintance with the doctrine and work of Christ, which was owing to the living presence of the gospel tidings in the churches. There is no evidence in the Epistles themselves of any other and peculiar connection with the Lord being laid claim to by the Christ-party. This holds especially of Schenkel’s view, that the Christ-party, consisting of Jewish-Christians from Asia Minor with theosophic training, had asserted a supernatural connection with Christ through visions and revelations, their spiritual condition consequently having its analogues at a later date in Cerinthus, Marcion, the Montanists, and the like; and that this party had its continuation in those who opposed the presbyters in Clement’s Epistle. Schenkel’s theory (defended also by Grimm in the Lit. Bl. zur allg. Kirchenzeit. 1851, No. 82) bases itself especially on the passages 1Co 9:1; 2Co 10:7; 2Co 12:1. To explain these, however, there is no need to suppose any allusion to theosophic opponents, or any reference to the Christ-party at all, since Paul-more especially if they had been a party standing in such (fanatical) antagonism in point of principle to himself-would have combated them directly and in detail, and that in the section of the Epistle which deals expressly with the party-divisions (down to 1Co 4:21).[188] And to connect them with the opponents of the presbyters in Clement is all the more arbitrary, because that writer, while finding a parallel to the factions which he blames in the parties of Paul, Apollos, and Peter, makes no reference whatsoever to the Christ-party,-a silence which is eloquent enough to make us hesitate in ascribing to them any such extreme and dangerous character as some have lately imputed to them, and to incline us rather to the view of their fundamental principle being one in itself sound, but perverted in its application by party-spirit. In addition to de Wette, Lutterbeck, and Maier, Goldhorn and Dähne agree in substance with Schenkel, seeking amidst differences in detail to prove the existence of Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy in the Christ-party; just as Kniewel (comp Grimm) regards them as forerunners of the Gnostics. According to Ewald, they are the adherents of some unknown teacher of Essene views, who, “founding, doubtless, on some special evangelic writing, and in accordance therewith exalting the example of Christ personally above all else, disapproved of marriage;” they were, in truth, the first Christian monks and Jesuits.[190] But it is very doubtful whether the rejection of marriage in chap. 7 should be traced precisely to the Christ-party; and, apart from this, there is not in the Epistles to the Corinthians a single vestige of the phenomena of Essene Christianity, or in particular of Essene asceticism, as at Rome and Colossae; while, on the other hand, the rejection of marriage does not appear among the Romans and Colossians who held Essene views. Comp on 1Co 7:1.
Lastly, after this examination of the different views entertained regarding the Christ-party, the question whether they were Jewish (as commonly held) or Gentile Christians answers itself to this effect, that they were composed of both elements, as also were the adherents of Paul and of Apollos. For we have not the slightest ground for assuming that, when the division in the church arose upon matters turning on the respect due to individual men, it was either Jewish Christians alone, or Gentile Christians alone, who gave themselves to the idea of renouncing the acknowledgment of any human teacher, and seeking instead to be τοῦ Χριστοῦ. This holds good in particular against Neander, who makes the Christ-party to be Gentile Christians, of a certain philosophic culture and of rationalistic tendency, to whom Christ appeared as a second, perhaps greater, Socrates, but who could not bring themselves to accept the doctrine of Christ in the form given to it by the apostles, and sought rather by philosophic criticism, which they exercised also on the doctrine of the resurrection (chap. 15), to separate, possibly with the help of a collection of the sayings of the Lord, the pure teaching of Christ from the mass of received material. In how totally different a way must Paul have come forward against any such syncretistic rationalism! See, besides, in reply to this, Beyschlag, p. 220 ff. Altogether, there were but few men of philosophic training who had come over to Christianity at Corinth (1Co 1:26); and those who had at least a philosophic tendency found the food for which they sought with Apollos. And it is a groundless assumption to maintain that what Paul says against worldly wisdom (chap. 1Co 1:2) is spoken with a polemic reference to the Christ-party (this in opposition to Schenkel, Jaeger, Goldhorn, Dähne, Kniewel, and others); see, on the contrary, chap. 3 and 1Co 4:6. In like manner, too, it is arbitrary, and in any case unsafe to proceed, from the point at which Paul passes from discussing the state of division in the church to speak of other existing evils (from chap. 5 onwards), to apportion the latter among the several parties, and by this method, as well as by means of expressions and details from the second Epistle, to depict the character more especially of the Christ-party, whom Jaeger[192] makes in this manner to appear in the most damaging light, while Osiander[193] treats them prejudicially in another way, finding in them the originators of sectarian Ebionitism. Beyschlag, too, in his investigation, proceeds by the same uncertain path, putting together the characteristics of the Christ-party especially from the second Epistle. According to him they were Judaists, although free from Judaistic errors in doctrine, who depreciated the apostle Paul, but prided themselves on their Hebrew origin, their labours and sufferings for Christ, their more precise historical acquaintance with and information regarding Christ, whom they had known personally, as also on their visions and revelations of Him. In connection with this view, Beyschlag is forced to assume that it was only in the interval between the first and second Epistle that the Christ-party had developed such keen and personal antagonism to the apostle,-an assumption made also by Hilgenfeld. If, notwithstanding this development of hostility, they are to be taken as Judaists free from Judaistic anti-Pauline doctrine, we stand confronted by a complete anomaly in the history of the antagonism between the Judaistic and the Pauline currents in the apostolic church, so far as that is known to us from other quarters. And it seems the less possible to explain this anomaly by the supposition of a cunning reticence on the part of the persons in question, the more we see how bitter and passionate their opposition to Paul must have been, and the more we find it difficult-considering their cunning-to perceive why they should not have contented themselves with making common cause with the Petrine party, instead of forming a distinct faction of their own.
[178] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[179] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[180] He, however, holds that Paul added “ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ” καὶ οἴκοθεν (i.e. ἀφʼ ἐαυτοῦ, as Theophylact has it), βουλόμενον βαρύτερον τὸ ἔγκλημα ποιῆσαι καὶ δεῖξαι οὕτω καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς μέρος δοθέντα ἕν, εἰ καὶ μὴ οὕτως ἐποίουν τοῦτο ἐκεῖνοι. Comp. also Theodoret, who lays stress on the special wisdom of this procedure.
[181] The rightness of the confession: ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, considered in and by itself, explains also why Clement, 1 Cor. 47, mentions only the other three parties and not the Christ-party as well. He is speaking against the attachment to human party-leaders. He might indeed, in some way suitable to the connection of his exhortation, have brought in the Christine party (which he doubtless would have done, if they had been as bad as they have been made out to be of late), but there was no necessity for his doing so. Hence it is unwarrantable to infer (with Räbiger) the non-existence of a special Christine party from its non-mention. Origen also does not quote the ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ with the rest of the passage in one instance, although he does in another.
[182] See Beyschlag, p. 225 ff.-Hilgenfeld (see his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 241) calls Baur’s dissertation of 1831, “the ancestral stronghold of our whole criticism.” If so, it is a ruin, like so many other ancestral strongholds. It could not so much as stand firm against the simple words ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, into which Baur put a meaning as if Paul lad written: ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων Χριστοῦ. The confession ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ necessarily transcends all apostolic authority, and excludes it.
[184] Comp. Hilgenfeld, who holds that they were immediate disciples of Christ, who sought to establish the exclusive authority of the original apostles, denying to Paul he Χριστοῦ εἶναι. See also Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 165 f.
[186] This view is taken up again by Thiersch, d. Kirche im apost. Zeitalter, p. 143 ff. He regards the Christ-party as personal disciples of Christ, who had come to Corinth from Jerusalem and probably also from Rome, with Pharisaic views, proud of their Hebrew descent and of their having known Christ in the flesh, disputing the apostle ship of Paul, etc.
[188] The force of this argument is doubtless evaded by the assumption, that the leaders of the party had probably not developed their hurtful influence until after the arrival in Corinth of our first Epistle. But this is simply an unwarranted evasion.
[190] According to Ewald’s Gesch. d. apost. Zeit. p. 506 f., ed. 3, they readily allowed themselves to he carried away by the zeal for the law of their Pharisaic brethren, and became a support for their position. Those of the Christ-party with Pharisaic tendencies were joined, too, by some who boasted that they had once known Christ Himself familiarly, nay, that they had seen Him when risen from the dead, so that they laid claim to apostolic estimation.
[192] He depicts them as wealthy Jewish Christians, familiar with Greek science, who professed attachment to the spirit of Christianity alone, but concealed under this mask lawlessness and immorality, and were deniers of the resurrection.
[193] Originating, according to him, from the Petrine party, they had, while holding fast to the idea of Christ being the Supreme teacher, fallen into a one-sided way of considering only His appearance as a man on earth, and more especially His teaching, and of allowing the theocratic aspect of the Lord’s life and work to pass more out of sight.
1Co 1:13. Μεμέρισται ὁ Χριστός] affirmative (with Lachmann and Kniewel; so τινές as early as Theodoret), not interrogatory (as commonly taken), setting forth the tragical result of the aforesaid state of party-division, 1Co 1:12, and that with arresting emphasis from the absence of any connective particle: Christ is divided! i.e. in place of being whole and undivided, the One common Christ of all, He is broken up into different party-Christs! Such, that is to say, is the actual appearance of things when, of several parties mutually exclusive of one another, each seems to have its own separate Christ.[194] The reproach here conveyed suits the Christ-party also (against Räbiger), just as forming a party, but not them alone (Hofmann). The interrogatory rendering, common since Chrysostom: Is Christ divided? taken as a question of surprise, has nothing against it linguistically (see esp. Valckenaer, II. p. 71 f.), but it is liable to the objection that it is only with the following μή that the text gives us to recognise the beginning of the interrogative address. Had Paul intended μεμέρ. ὁ Χ. as a question, it would have been most natural for him in the flow of his discourse to carry on the same form of interrogation, and say: ἢ Παῦλος ἐστ. ὑπ. ὑμ. The text, I may add, gives no warrant for interpreting Χριστός of the corpus Chr. mysticum, i.e. the church (Estius, Olshausen, and others; τινές in Theodoret), or even of the doctrina Chr., which is not varia et multiplex (Grotius, Mosheim, Semler, Morus, Rosenmüller).
μὴ Παῦλος κ.τ.λ[195]] Paul surely was not, etc. From this point on to 1Co 1:16 the incongruous nature of the first party-confession of faith is specially exposed. Bengel aptly remarks: “Crux et baptismus nos Christo asserit; relata: redimere, se addicere.” The two questions correspond to the mutual connection between believing and being baptized.
ὑπέρ] on behalf of, in the sense of atonement.[196] Comp on Gal 1:4; Eph 5:2.
ΕἸς ΤῸ ὌΝΟΜΑ] in reference to the name, as the name of him who is to be henceforth the object of the faith and confession of the individual baptized. Comp on Mat 28:19 and Rom 6:3.
There was no need of a single word more regarding the first of these two questions; the answer to it was so self-evident. But as to the second, the apostle has some remarks to make, 1Co 1:14-16.
[194] The conception is not that Christ is broken up into parts or fragments, so that the one party should possess this, the other that, part (see Baur, de Wette, Rückert, Calvin, etc., with Chrysostom and Theophylact); for each party gave itself out as the possessor of the whole Christ, not simply of a part, He standing to it in the relation of its Lord and Head. To this conception corresponds, too, the ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, instead of which it would not have been necessary that it should run, ἐμοῦ ὁ Χριστός, as Hofmann objects.
[195] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[196] Lachm. reads περὶ ὑμῶν, instead of ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, following only B D*; too weakly attested, and deserving of rejection also on this ground, that Paul always uses ὑπέρ (even in 1Th 5:10) where the death of Christ is placed in relation to persons, for whom He died. Comp. on 1Co 15:3, which is the only certain passage in Paul’s writings where ὁπέρ (occurs with an abstract term. See also Wieseler on Gal 1:4.
1Co 1:14-15. God be thanked, that I baptized only a very few among you! Accordingly no room has been left for the reproach being brought against me, as it might otherwise have been, that I had baptized into my own name! “Providentia divina regnat saepe in rebus, quarum ratio postea cognoscitur” (Bengel). Rückert finds fault with the weakness of this proof, since it was surely the same thing whether Paul had baptized personally or through his assistants. But unjustly. For, since Paul was not generally in the habit of baptizing in person, had he himself baptized many in Corinth, this might undoubtedly have been made use of afterwards by perverse minds for the possible slander that there was a specialty in the case, that he had baptized with his own hand in Corinth, because he did it into his own name,-a purpose for which, of course, he could not have employed others. Hofmann suggests wrongly: they might have interpreted it, as though he had wished to place the persons concerned “in a peculiar relation” to himself. This imported indefiniteness is against the definite sense of the words. Just as he had said before, that it was not he who had been crucified for them in place of Christ, so he says further, that they had not been baptized into his name instead of the name of Christ. But the two points just show how wholly absurd the confession ἐγὼ μέν εἰμι Παύλου is, because it would have such absurd premisses.
Κρίσπον] See Act 18:8.
Γάϊον] See on Rom 16:23.
ἵνα μή] is never elsewhere, and is not here, to be taken as: so that not, but it denotes the design, arranged in the divine providential leading, of the οὐδένα ὑμ. ἐβάπτισα (comp 1Co 1:17; 2Co 1:9, al[200]).
[200] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
1Co 1:16. Another Corinthian family baptized by him occurs to his mind. He adds it conscientiously, and then cuts off any possibility of his being reproached with untruthful omission by λοιπὸν οὐκ οἶδα κ.τ.λ[201] Regarding Stephanas, we know nothing save from 1Co 16:15; 1Co 16:17.
Λοιπόν is the simple ceterum, otherwise, besides that. Comp 2Co 13:11; 1Th 4:1; frequent in Greek writers also after Polybius.
[201] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
1Co 1:17. Rapid and skilful transition (comp Rom 1:16) to this (οὐ γὰρ … εὐαγγ.),[204] and theme of the section (οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ … Χριστοῦ).
οὐ γὰρ κ.τ.λ[205]] In the assured consciousness that the design of his apostolic mission was teaching, Paul recognised that baptizing, as an external office and one that required no special gift, should as a rule be left to others, the apostolic ὑπηρέται (Act 13:5), in order to avoid, for his own part, being drawn away from following out that higher aim, which was his specific calling. A very needful and salutary division of duties, considering the multitude of those converted by him! Peter, too, acted in the same way (Act 10:48), and perhaps all the apostles. Nor was this contrary to Christ’s command in Mat 28:19, seeing that, according to it also (comp Luk 24:47; Mar 16:15), teaching was the main business of the apostolic office, while the baptismal command was equally fulfilled by baptism performed by means of others authorized by the apostles.[207]
οὐ … ἀλλʼ] is not here, any more than elsewhere, to be taken as equivalent to non tam … quam (Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Estius, Storr, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Pott, and others; comp also Fritzsche, a[209] Marc. p. 785), but absolutely (see Winer, p. 461 ff. [E. T. 621 ff.]; Klotz, a[210] Devar. p. 9 f.); and the absoluteness of the negation is not at all to be set down to the account of the strong rhetorical colouring (Rückert, comp Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 306 [E. T. 356]). To baptize was really not the purpose for which Christ sent Paul, but to preach (Act 9:15; Act 9:20; Act 22:15; Act 26:16-18); in saying which it is not implied that he was not authorized to administer baptism (εἰς μὲν γὰρ τὸ μεῖζον ἀπεστάλη, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ καὶ τὸ ἔλαττον ἐνεργεῖν οὐκ ἐκωλύθη, Theophylact), but sent in order to baptize he was not. Comp Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact.
ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΣΟΦΊᾼ ΛΌΓΟΥ] does not belong to ἈΠΈΣΤ. (Storr, Flatt), which would be an involved construction, but links itself closely to ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ, as telling in what element that does not take place. The negation is objective, attaching to the object (Kühner, II. § 714. 1; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 257 ff.), negativing actually the ἐν σοφίᾳ; hence not ΜΉ. That ΣΟΦΊΑ ΛΌΓΟΥ is not the same as ΛΌΓΟς ΣΌΦΟς, Λ. ΣΕΣΟΦΙΣΜΈΝΟς (Erasmus, Grotius, and many others, including Flatt and Pott), but emphasizes ΣΟΦΊΑ as the main conception, may be seen in Winer, p. 221 f. [E. T. 296 f.]: to preach without wisdom, of speech, without the discourse having a philosophic character,-as desired by the Hellenic taste. We are not to apply this, however, to the philosophic contents of the teaching (Storr, Rosenmüller, Flatt, and others), but to the form, which consists in the clothing of the doctrine in philosophic garb, in speculative skill, argumentative reasoning, illustration, elaboration of the matter, and the like, together with the effect which this, from the nature of the case, may have upon the doctrine itself. For it followed as a matter of course from Paul’s being sent by Christ, that he was not to preach a doctrine of this world’s wisdom (as did Plato, Aristotle, the Sophists, etc.); what he had to do was to deliver the substance of the εὐαγγελίζεσθαι-which is in truth given for all cases alike-without casting it in any philosophic mould; his speech was not to be ἐν σοφίᾳ, lest its substance should lose its essential character. This substance was the crucified Christ, about whom he had to preach, not in the style and mode of presentation used by the wisdom of this world,-not in such a way that his preaching would have been the setting forth of a Christian philosophy of religion. Even the dialectic element in Paul’s discourses widely differs from anything of this sort.
ἵνα μὴ κενωθῇ Κ.Τ.Λ[213]] aim of the εὐαγγ. οὐκ ἐν σοφ. λ.: in order that the cross of Christ might not be emptied (comp Rom 4:14) of its essence divinely effectual for salvation (Rom 1:16). The cross of Christ-that Christ was crucified (and thereby won salvation for us),-this fact alone was the pure main substance (“nucleus et medulla,” Calovius) of the apostolic preaching, and as such has the essential quality of proving itself in all believers the saving power of God, and of thereby, in the way of inward living experience, bringing to nought all human wisdom (1Co 1:18-19 ff.). Now, had the cross of Christ been preached ἐν σοφιᾳ λόγου, it would have been emptied of its divine and essential power to bless, since it would then have made common cause with man’s wisdom, and therefore, instead of overthrowing the latter, would have exalted it and made it come, totally alien in nature as it was, in place of itself. Bengel says well: “Sermo autem crucis nil heterogeneum admittit.”
With marked emphasis, ὁ σταυρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ is put last.
[204] Suggested naturally by what had been said in vv. 14, 16, and without any ironical side-glance at those who had prided themselves on their baptizers (Calovius); in particular, not levelled at boastings on this ground on the part of Jewish-Christians who had been baptized by Peter (Hofmann); nor yet against teachers “qui praetextu ceremoniae gloriolam venantur” (Calvin and Osiander). Such polemical references are dragged in without warrant in the text.
[205] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[207] According to Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 369, baptism was performed on the others by those three, who themselves had been first baptized by Paul, and who had become overseers. Against this view it may be at once urged, that if he had regarded the baptism of those three in that light, Stephanas would not have occurred to him only by way of afterthought. Besides, there must have been baptized converts there before a presbytery could be erected. Comp. Act 14:23.
[209] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[210] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[213] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
1Co 1:18. Establishment of the foregoing ἵνα μὴ … Χριστοῦ. Were, namely, the doctrine of the cross, although folly to the unbelieving, not a power of God to believers, it would be impossible to speak of a ἵνα μὴ κενωθῇ of its substance, the cross of Christ, as the aim of the εὐαγγ. οὐκ ἐν σ. λ.
The ἐστί with the dative expresses the actual relation in which the λόγος stands to both; it is for them in fact (not, as might be thought, simply in their judgment) the one and the other.
τοῖς ἀπολλυμ.] to those who are incurring (eternal) ἀπώλεια. Comp 2Co 2:15; 2Co 4:3; 2Th 2:10. The present participle[216] betokens either the certainty of the future destruction (Bernhardy, p. 371), or it brings the being lost before us as a development which is already taking place in them; just as τοῖς σωζομ., those who are being saved unto Messianic bliss. From 1Co 15:2, Rom 5:9-10; Rom 8:24, al[217], also Eph 2:5-8, the former mode of conceiving it seems to be the correct one; comp 1Co 2:6. Paul designates in this way the believers and unbelievers, ἈΠῸ ΤΟῦ ΤΈΛΟΥς ΤᾺς ΠΡΟΣΗΓΟΡΊΑς ΤΙΘΕΊς, Theodoret. He has certainly (Rückert) conceived of both classes as predestinated (1Co 1:24; Rom 8:29; Rom 9:11; Rom 9:19; Rom 9:22 f.; Eph 1:4 f.; 2Th 2:13, al[219]); but this point remains here out of view.
ΜΩΡΊΑ] This doctrine is to them (to their conscious experience) an absurdity (μωρία τε καὶ ἀλογία, Plat. Epin. p. 983 E; Dem. 397, pen.). Why? see 1Co 1:22. Comp 2Co 4:3. Billroth’s answer is un-Pauline.
ἩΜῖΝ] is not put last out of modesty (Billroth), but because the emphasis of the contrast lies on the idea of ΤΟῖς ΣΩΖΟΜ. Comp Eur. Phoeniss. 1738. Pors.: ἐλαύνειν τὸν γέροντα μʼ ἐκ πάτρας.
δύναμις Θεοῦ] Comp on Rom 1:16. That doctrine is to them (to their conscious experience) God’s power, inasmuch, that is to say, as God works mightily in them through the saving tidings of the Crucified. The contrast is stronger than if it were σοφία Θεοῦ, and is also logically correct; for ΔΎΝΑΜΙς ΘΕΟῦ necessarily presupposes the opposite of ΜΩΡΊΑ, because the power of God brings about enlightenment, repentance, sanctification, love, peace, hope, etc. Comp Ignat. a[224] Eph. 18, where it is said of the cross, that it is to us ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ Κ. ΖΩῊ ΑἸΏΝΙΟς.
[216] Bengel’s ingenious exposition: “qui evangelium audire coepit, nec ut perditus nec ut salvus habetur, sed est quasi in bivio, et nunc aut perit aut salvatur,” is wrecked on the word ἡμῖν, which the audire coepit does not suit.
[217] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[219] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[224] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
1Co 1:19. Establishment from Scripture of the foregoing τοῖς δὲ σωζομ. κ.τ.λ[225]: for were the word of the cross not God’s power for the σωζόμενοι, God could not say of it in the Scriptures: “I will destroy,” etc.
In the passage, Isa 29:14 (a free quotation from the LXX., the difference between which and the original Hebrew is unessential), Paul, in accordance with the typical significance attendant on the historical sense,[226] recognises a prediction of the powerful working of the doctrine of the cross as that through which God would bring to nought and do away with the wisdom of man, i.e. empty it of its estimation. The justification of this way of viewing it lay in the Messianic character of O. T. prophecy in general, by virtue of which the historical sense does not exhaust the design of the utterances, but leaves open higher references to the further development of the theocratic relations, and especially to the Messianic era, which references are to manifest themselves historically by the corresponding facts of later date, and so be recognised from the standpoint of their historical fulfilment. See more in detail, on Mat 1:22 f. Christ Himself confirms the Messianic reference of the prophetic utterance, Mat 15:8.
Regarding the distinction between σοφία and σύνεσις (intelligence), see on Col 1:9.
[225] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[226] According to which the reference is not generally to the final catastrophe of the present state of things in Israel before the dawn of the Messianic period (Hofmann), but, as the context shows, to the penal judgments under Sennacherib, in which the wisdom of the rulers and false prophets of Israel was to be confounded and left helpless.
1Co 1:20. What this passage of Scripture promises, has occurred: Where is a wise man, etc. The force of these triumphant questions (comp 1Co 15:55, and see on Rom 3:27) is: clean gone are all sages, scribes, and disputers of this world-period (they can no more hold their ground, no longer assert themselves, have, as it were, vanished); God has made the world’s wisdom to be manifest folly! As the passages, Isa 19:12; Isa 33:18, were perhaps before the apostle’s mind, the form of expression used rests probably on them. Comp Rom 3:27, where ἐξεκλείσθη is the answer to the ποῦ; according to classical usage, Valckenaer, a[229] Eur. Phoen. 1662. Ewald holds 1Co 1:20 to be a citation from a lost book; but we are not necessarily shut up to this conclusion by the γραμματεύς, although the term does not occur elsewhere in Paul’s writings, for this exclamation might easily have been suggested to him by the γραμματικοί, of Isa 33:18. The three substantives cannot well be taken as alluding to the synagogal phrases חכם ספר and דרשן (Lightfoot, Vitringa), since Paul was not writing to a purely Jewish-Christian community. Attempts to explain the distinction between them have been made in a variety of ways. But it is to be noted that in what immediately follows τὴν σοφίαν represents all the three ideas put together; that γραμματεύς, again, is always (excepting Act 19:35) used in the N. T. (even in Mat 13:52; Mat 23:34, where the idea is only raised to the Christian sphere) of scribes in the Jewish sense; that the συζητήτης) (Ignat. ad Eph. 18), which is not found in the Greek writers or in the LXX., is most surely interpreted disputant, in accordance with the use of συζητέω (Mar 8:11; Mar 9:14; Luk 24:15; Act 6:9; Act 9:29, al[230]) and ΣΥΖΉΤΗΣΙς (Act 15:2; Act 15:7; Act 28:29); and further, that disputing was especially in vogue among the Sophists (ΟἹ ΟἸΌΜΕΝΟΙ ΠΆΝΤʼ ΕἸΔΈΝΑΙ, Xen. Mem. i. 4. 1). And on these grounds we conclude that σοφός is to be taken of human wisdom in general, as then pursued on the Jewish side by the scribes, and on the Hellenic side by the sophistical disputers, so that, in this view, γραμμ. and ΣΥΖΗΤ. are subordinated to the general ΣΟΦΌς in respect to matters of Jewish and Hellenic pursuit. Many exegetes (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and others, including Storr, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Billroth) depart from the view now stated in this respect, that they would limit ΣΟΦΌς to the heathen philosophers,[231] which, however, is precluded by the σοφίαν embracing all the three elements (comp also 1Co 1:21). This holds at the same time against Rückert, who finds here only the three most outstanding features in the intellectual character of the Hellenes: cleverness, erudition, and argumentativeness. But 1Co 1:22 shows that Paul is not shutting out the Jewish element; just as his Jewish-Christian readers could see in γραμμ. nothing else than a name for the σοφοί of their people. Schrader, with older expositors (see below), understands by συζητ. an inquirer, and in a perfectly arbitrary way makes it refer partly to the pupils of the great training-schools of Alexandria, Athens, Jerusalem, etc.; partly to the disciples of the apostles and of Jesus Himself. But συζητ. could only denote a fellow-inquirer (comp συζητεῖν in Plat. Men. p. 90 B, Crat. p. 384 C; Diog. L. ii. 22), which would be without pertinence here; while, on the other hand, according to our view, the σύν finds its reference in the notion of disputare.
τοῦ αἰῶν. τούτου] attaches to all the three subjects: who belong to the pre-Messianic period of the world (“quod totum est extra sphaeram verbi crucis,” Bengel), and are not, like the Christians, set apart by God from the υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου to be members of the Messianic kingdom, in virtue whereof they already, ideally considered, belong to the coming αἰών. Comp 1Co 1:27; Gal 1:4; Col 1:13; Php 3:20; Rom 12:2. Luther and many others take τοῦ αἰῶν. τ. as referring simply to συζητ.; but wrongly, for it gives an essential characteristic of the first two subjects as well. Of those who think thus, some keep the true meaning of αἰὼν οὗτος (as Rückert and Billroth); others render: indagator rerum naturae, physical philosopher (Erasmus, Beza, Drusius, Cornelius a Lapide, Justiniani, Grotius, Clericus, and Valckenaer), which is quite contrary to the invariable sense of αἰὼν οὗτ.
ἐμώρανεν] emphatically put first: made foolish, i.e. from the context, not: He has made it into incapacity of knowledge (Hofmann), which would come in the end to the notion of callousness, but: He has shown it practically to be folly, “insaniens sapientia” (Hor. Od. i. 34. 2), σοφία ἄσοφος (Clem. Protr. V. p. 56 A), by bringing about, namely, the salvation of believers just through that which to the wise men of this world seemed foolishness, the preaching of the cross. See 1Co 1:21. The more foolish, therefore, this preaching is in their eyes and according to their judgment, the more they themselves are exhibited as fools (as μωρόσοφοι, Lucian, Alex. 40), and put to shame (1Co 1:27), since the κήρυγμα, held by them to be foolish, is that which brings salvation, not indeed to them, but to those who believe; ποία γὰρ σοφία, ὅταν τὸ κεφάλαιον τῶν ἀγαθῶν μὴ εὑρίσκῃ; Chrysostom. Comp Isa 44:25, where μωραίνων is to be taken in precisely the same way as here.
τοῦ κόσμου] i.e. of profane non-Christian humanity, the two halves of which are the Jews and the heathen 1Co 1:22-24.
[229] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[230] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[231] In consequence of this, συζητητής has been regarded as comprising the Jewish and heathen dialecticians. See especially Theodoret.
1Co 1:21. More detailed explanation as to this ἐμώρανεν ὁ Θεὸς κ.τ.λ[236], specifying the why in the protasis and the how in the apodosis: since (see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 259), that is to say, in the wisdom of God the world knew not God through wisdom, it pleased God to save believers through the foolishness of preaching. The wisdom of God was set before the eyes of the world, even of the heathen part of it, in the works of creation (Rom 1:19 f.; comp also Act 17:26 f., 1Co 16:15 ff.); to the Jews it was presented, besides, in the revelation of the O. T. In this His manifested wisdom Go might and should have been known by men; but they did not know Him therein (ἘΝ Τῇ ΣΟΦ. Τ. ΘΕΟῦ ΟὐΚ ἜΓΝΩ Ὁ ΚΌΣΜ. Τ. ΘΕΌΝ),-did not attain by the means which they employed, by their wisdom, namely (ΔΙᾺ Τῆς ΣΟΦΊΑς), to this knowledge; whereupon God adopted the plan of saving (in the Messianic sense) believe through the opposite of wisdom, namely, through the foolishness of the gospel.
ἘΝ Τῇ ΣΟΦΊᾼ Τ. ΘΕΟῦ] is put first emphatically. because the whole stress of the antithesis in both protasis and apodosis is meant to fall on the notions of wisdom and folly. By ἐν Paul marks out the sphere, in which the negative fact of the οὐκ ἔγνω (“in media luce,” Calvin) took place; ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ again is genitive subjecti, denoting, however, not the wisdom shown by God in Christ (Zachariae, Heydenreich, and Maier), nor Christ Himself even (Schrader and older expositors adduced by Estius), both of which would be quite unsuitable to the apodosis, but the wisdom of God manifested before Christianity in nature and Scripture.[238] Rückert is wrong in holding that ἐν τ. σοφ. τ. Θεοῦ is: “in virtue of the wisdom of God, i.e. under its guidance and arrangement, the world knew not God through its own wisdom.” Certainly Paul would not be made by this interpretation to say anything which would in itself be at variance with his view of the divine relationship to the matter; for with him the two factors of human action, the divine causality and the human self-determination, are so associated, that he may bring now the one and now the other into the foreground (comp on Romans 9); but against it may be urged, partly the position of the words ἐν … Θεοῦ, which on Rückert’s view would lose their weight and convey a thought here unessential, and partly the significant relation between the protasis and apodosis, according to which the measure taken by God (εὐδόκησεν κ.τ.λ[240]) appears as called forth by men’s lack of knowledge, and hence the οὐκ ἔγνω would in such a passage be most unsuitably referred to the appointment of God, so as to excuse what is declared in Rom 1:20 to be inexcusable.
οὐκ ἔγνω] Seeing that the Jews also are included, and that anything which would contradict Rom 1:19-21 is out of the question, this must apply to the true knowledge of God, which was not attained, and which, if the κόσμος had reached it, would have caused the preaching of the cross to appear other than foolishness; comp 1Co 2:14.
ΔΙᾺ Τῆς ΣΟΦ.] applies to the heathen world-wisdom and the Jewish school-wisdom, since it is the means of knowledge employed without result (observe that by the οὐκ the whole from ἔγνω to ΘΕΌΝ inclusive is negatived) by the κόσμος for the knowing God. The prepositional relation cannot differ from that of the correlative διὰ τ. μωρίας which follows. Hence Theophylact interprets wrongly: ΔΙᾺ Τῆς ἘΝ ΕὐΓΛΩΤΤΊᾼ ΘΕΩΡΟΥΜΈΝΗς ΣΟΦΊΑς ἘΜΠΟΔΙΖΌΜΕΝΟΙ. So, too, Billroth: “their own wisdom was the cause of their not knowing.”
ἐυδόκησεν ὁ Θ.] placuit Deo, He pleased, it was His will, as Rom 15:26; Gal 1:15; Col 1:19; 1Th 2:8. See Fritzsche, a[242] Rom. II. p. 370.
ΔΙᾺ Τῆς ΜΩΡΊΑς ΤΟῦ ΚΗΡΎΓΜ., i.e. by means of the foolishness which formed the substance of the preaching (of the gospel). That is the doctrine of the cross, 1Co 1:18, which, as compared with the wisdom employed by the κόσμος as a means of knowledge, is a foolish doctrine, but in the counsel and work of God the means of salvation, namely, for the πιστεύοντας, which word, as solving the riddle of the divinely applied ΜΩΡΊΑ, stands emphatically at the end. For to the conscious experience of believers that resultless wisdom of the world is now foolishness, and the foolishness of the κήρυγμα the divine saving wisdom.
Notice, in conclusion, how the whole verse is a compact and stately co-ordination and dovetailing of correlative clauses. Remark, in particular, the repetition of σοφία and ΘΕΌς, “quasi aliquod telum saepius perveniat in eandem partem corporis,” Auct. a[243] Herenn. iv. 28.
[236] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[238] Not simply in the natural revelation (Chrysostom, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and many others, including Hofmann). For ver. 22 proves that the Jews, too, are included with the rest in the notion of the κόσμος.
[240] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[242] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[243] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
1Co 1:22 f.[244] Protasis (ἘΠΕΙΔΉ) and apodosis (ἩΜΕῖς ΔΈ) parallel to the protasis and apodosis in 1Co 1:21 : since as well Jews desire a sign as Hellenes seek after wisdom, we, on the other hand, preach, etc. It is to be observed how exactly the several members of the sentence correspond to what was said in 1Co 1:21; for Ἰουδαῖοι κ. Ἕλληνες is just the notion of the ΚΌΣΜΟς broken up; ΣΗΜΕῖΑ ΑἸΤΟῦΣΙ and ΣΟΦΊΑΝ ΖΗΤ. is the practical manifestation of the ΟὐΚ ἜΓΝΩ … ΤῸΝ ΘΕΌΝ; and lastly, ἩΜΕῖς ΔῈ ΚΗΡΎΣΣΟΜΕΥ Κ.Τ.Λ[245] contains the actual way in which the εὐδόκησεν ὁ Θεός κ.τ.λ[246] was carried into effect. And to this carrying into effect belongs in substance ἸΟΥΔΑΊΟΙς ΜῈΝ ΣΚΆΝΔΑΛΟΝ Κ.Τ.Λ[247] down to σοφίαν, 1Co 1:24,-a consideration which disposes of the logical difficulty raised by Hofmann as to the causal relation of protasis and apodosis.
The correlation καὶ … καί includes not only the two subjects Ἰουδαῖοι and Ἕλληνες, but the two whole affirmations; as well the one thing, that the Jews demand a sign, as the other, that the Gentiles desire philosophy, takes place.
ἡμεῖς δέ] This δέ, on the contrary, on the other hand, is the common classical δέ of the apodosis (Act 11:17), which sets it in an antithetic relation corresponding to the protasis. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 184 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 92 f.; Bornem. Act. ap. I. p. 77. Examples of this usage after ἐπεί and ἐπειδή may be seen in Klotz, a[248] Devar. p. 371 f. The parallel relation, which the eye at once detects, between 1Co 1:21 and 1Co 1:22 (and in which a rhetorical emphasis is given by the repetition of the ἐπειδή used by Paul only in 1Co 14:16, 1Co 15:21; Php 2:26, besides this passage), is opposed not merely to Billroth and Maier’s interpretation, which makes ἐπειδὴ … ζητοῦσιν introduce a second protasis after εὐδόκ. ὁ Θεός, but also to Hofmann’s, that 1Co 1:22-24 are meant to explain the emphasis laid on τοὺς πιστεύοντας; as likewise to the view of Rückert and de Wette, that there is here added an explanation of the διὰ τῆς μωρίας κ.τ.λ[249], in connection with which Rückert arbitrarily imagines a ΜΈΝ supplied after ἸΟΥΔΑῖΟΙ.
ἸΟΥΔΑῖΟΙ and ἝΛΛΗΝΕς without the article, since the statement is regarding what such as are Jews, etc., are wont, as a rule, to desire.
σημεῖα] Their desire is, that He on whom they are to believe should manifest Himself by miraculous signs, which would demonstrate His Messiahship (Mat 16:4). They demand these, therefore, as a ground of faith; comp Joh 4:48. That we are not to understand here miracles of the apostles (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Bengel, and others) is clear, both from the nature of the antithesis, and from the consideration that, in point of fact, the apostles did actually perform σημεῖα (Rom 15:18 f.; 2Co 12:12). What the Jews desired in place of these were miraculous signs by which the crucified, but, according to the apostles’ teaching, risen and exalted, Jesus, should evince His being the Messiah, seeing that the miracles of His earthly life had for them lost all probative power through His crucifixion (Mat 27:41 f., 63 f.). Comp Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 123 f. To take, with Hofmann, the σημεῖα αἰτ. generally, as a universal Jewish characteristic, of the tendency to crave acts of power that should strike the senses and exclude the possibility of doubt, is less suitable to the definite reference of the context to Christ, in whom they were refusing to believe. Were the reading σημεῖον (see the critical remarks) to be adopted, we should have to understand it of some miracle specifically accrediting the Messiahship; not, with Schulz, Valckenaer, Eichhorn, and Pott, of the illustrious person of an earthly ruler. Any such personal reference would need to be suggested by the connection, as in Luk 2:34; but this is not at all the case in view of the parallel σοφίαν, nor is it so even by Χ. ἘΣΤΑΥΡ. in 1Co 1:23. See on the latter verse.
ΑἸΤΟῦΣΙ] is the demand actually uttered (that there be given); ζητοῦσι the seeking after and desiring, anquirere (correlative: εὑρίσκειν).
ΧΡΙΣΤῸΝ ἘΣΤΑΥΡ.] Christ as crucified (1Co 2:2; Gal 3:1), and therefore neither as one who exhibits miraculous signs, nor as the originator of a new philosophy, such, possibly, as Socrates or Pythagoras.
σκάνδαλον] in apposition to Χ. ἘΣΤΑΥΡ. As crucified, He is to them an occasion for unbelief and rejection. Gal 5:11. For His being put to a shameful death conflicts with the demand to have a Messiah glorified by miracles.
μωρίαν] because philosophy is what they desire as a guide to salvation; therefore to believe in Christ (not as one of the wise of this world, but) as crucified, is to them a folly, an absurdity; whereby, indeed, their own σοφία becomes ΜΩΡΊΑ ΠΑΡᾺ Τ. ΘΕῷ, 1Co 3:19.
[244] Ver. 22 f. is the programme of the history of the development of Christianity in its conflict with the perverse fundamental tendencies of the world’s sensualism and spiritualism; ver. 24, the programme of its triumph over both.
[245] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[246] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[247] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[248] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[249] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
1Co 1:24. Along with Χριστόν, which is triumphantly repeated, we are mentally to supply κηρύσσομεν: but to the called themselves … we preach Christ as God’s power and God’s wisdom-i.e. our preaching of Christ as crucified makes such an impression upon them,[252] that they come to know in their experience the manifestation and the whole work of Christ as that whereby God powerfully works out salvation and reveals His counsel full of wisdom; comp 1Co 1:30. Hofmann’s construction, making ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ to be in apposition to Χριστὸν ἐσταυρ., would be logically correct only on one of two suppositions: either if in 1Co 1:23 there stood merely ἐσταυρωμένον without Χριστόν (“a crucified one … who is to them Christ”); or if, in 1Co 1:24, some more precise definition, such as ὄντως or ἈΛΗΘῶς, were given along with ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ.
ΑὐΤΟῖς] is not the iis pointing back to τοὺς πιστεύοντας, so that ΤΟῖς ΚΛΗΤΟῖς would be in apposition to it (Hofmann); for in that case, notwithstanding the harsh and distant retrospective reference, αὐτοῖς would in fact be entirely superfluous; but the words ΑὐΤΟῖς ΔῈ ΤΟῖς ΚΛΗΤΟῖς-the ΑὐΤΟῖς being emphatically put first (2Co 11:14; Heb 9:23, al[254], and very often in Greek writers)-go together as closely connected, and mean simply: ipsis autem vocatis (Vulg.), to the called for their part, so far as they are concerned, so that αὐτοῖς denotes the called themselves (Herm. a[255] Viger. p. 733), in contrast to those round about them still remaining in unbelief (Ἰουδαίοις … μωρίαν). Instead of Τ. ΚΛΗΤΟῖς, we might have had ΤΟῖς ΠΙΣΤΕΎΟΥΣΙΝ (1Co 1:21); but how natural it was that the ΘΕΟῦ ΔΎΝΑΜΙΝ Κ.Τ.Λ[256], which was present to the apostle’s mind, should have led to his designating the subjects of his statement according to the divine qualification which applied to them. Comp 1Co 1:26. As to κλητός, see on 1Co 1:2.[258] That Paul did not write ἩΜῖΝ, is to be accounted for on the ground of its being unsuitable to the ΚΗΡΎΣΣ., which is to be here again understood; not, as Rückert thinks, because it seemed to him too hard to oppose ἩΜ. to ἸΟΥΔ. and ἜΘΝΕΣΙ.
ΘΕΟῦ ΔΎΝ. Κ. Θ. ΣΟΦ.] To all the κλητοί Christ is both. But the words are formally parallel to the two former demands in 1Co 1:22; hence δύναμιν is put first. Respecting σοφίαν, comp on 1Co 1:30.
[252] For the preaching is not twofold, but one and the same, only spoken of in its respective relations to the two opposite classes of men. Comp. 2Co 2:16. That is the crisis, which the gospel brings about, and its influence on the called is to make them free (Joh 8:33; Joh 8:36; Rom 6:22).
[254] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[255] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[256] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[258] Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 314 (ed. Paris. 1641): πάντων ἀνθρώπων κεκλημένων οἱ ὑπακοῦσαι βουληθέντες κλητοὶ ὠνομάσθησαν. These also are the σωζόμενοι, ver. 18; the opposite is the ἀπολλύμενοι.
1Co 1:25. Confirmation of the Θεοῦ δύν. κ. Θεοῦ σοφ. by a general proposition, the first half of which corresponds to the Θεοῦ σοφίαν, and the second to the Θεοῦ δύναμιν.
τὸ μωρὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ] the foolish thing which comes from God,[260] i.e. what God works and orders, and which appears to men absurd. Comp ΤῸ ΣΩΤΉΡΙΟΝ Τ. ΘΕΟῦ, Luk 2:30.
ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ] We are not to amplify this, with the majority of interpreters (including Beza, Grotius, Valckenaer, Zachariae, Flatt, Pott, Heydenreich, and de Wette), into ΤΟῦ ΣΟΦΟῦ ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡΏΠ., after a well-known abbreviated mode of comparison (see on Mat 5:20; Joh 5:36), which Estius rightly censures here as coactum (comp Winer, p. 230 [E. T. 307]), because we should have to supply with ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡ. not the last named attribute, but its opposite; the true rendering, in fact, is just the simple one: wiser than men; men possess less wisdom than is contained in the foolish thing of God.
τὸ ἀσθενὲς τοῦ Θεοῦ] whatever in God’s appointments is, to human estimation, powerless and resultless. The concrete instance which Paul has in view when employing the general terms ΤῸ ΜΩΡΌΝ and ΤῸ ἈΣΘΕΝῈς ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ, is the death of Christ on the cross, through which God has fulfilled the counsel of His eternal wisdom, wrought out with power the redemption of the world, laid the foundations of everlasting bliss, and overcome all powers antagonistic to Himself.
[260] This, according to the well-known use in Greek of the neuter with the genitive (Poppo, ad Thuc. VI. p. 168; Kühner, II. p. 122), might also be taken as abstract: the foolishness of God-the weakness of God. So τὸ μωρόν, Eur. Hipp. 966. But Paul had the concrete conception in his mind; otherwise he would most naturally have used the abstract μωρόα employed just before. The meaning of the concrete expression, however, is not: God Himself, in so far as He is foolish (Hofmann); passages such as 2Co 4:7, Rom 1:19; Rom 2:4; Rom 8:3, are no proof of this.-As to the different accentuations of μωρός and μῶρος, see Lipsius, grammat. Unters. p. 25; Göttling, Accentl. p. 304.
1Co 1:26. Confirmation of this general proposition from the experience of the readers. The element of proof lies in the contrast, 1Co 1:27 f. For if the matter were not as stated in 1Co 1:25, then God would not have chosen the foolish of the world to put to shame its wise ones. By so doing He has, indeed, set before your eyes the practical experimental proof, that the μωρὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ transcends men in wisdom. Otherwise He would have acted in the reverse way, and have sought out for Himself the wise of the world, in order, through their wisdom, to help that which now appears as the μωρὸν τ. Θεοῦ to victory over the foolishness of the world. This holds, too, as against de Wette, who (comp also Hofmann) makes ΓΆΡ refer to the whole series of thoughts, 1Co 1:19-25, notwithstanding that the expressions here used attach themselves so distinctly to 1Co 1:25.
ΒΛΈΠΕΤΕ] imperative. As such it has with logical correctness its hortatory emphasis;[264] but not so, if we take it as indicative (Valla, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Vatablus, Bengel, Rosenmüller, and Schrader).
τὴν κλῆσιν ὑμῶν] is not to be taken arbitrarily, with Beza, Estius, Mosheim, Semler, Rosenmüller, and Pott, pro concreto, for ὑμᾶς τοὺς κλητούς, but as: your calling (to salvation through the Messiah); see, what was the nature of it as regards the persons whom God, the caller, had chosen (1Co 1:27 ff.). Krause and Olshausen run counter to the specific Christian sense of the word, and even to the general linguistic usage (see on 1Co 7:20), when they make it mean, like the German word “Beruf” [calling], the vitae genus, the outward circumstances.
ὅτι] equivalent to ΕἸς ἘΚΕῖΝΟ, ὍΤΙ, in so far, namely, as. Plat. Prot. p. 330 E, Crat. p. 384 C, al[265] Joh 2:18; Joh 9:17; Joh 11:51; 2Co 1:18; 2Co 11:10; Mar 16:14; Fritzsche, a[266] Matth. p. 248 f.
Οὐ ΠΟΛΛΟῚ ΣΟΦΟῚ Κ. Σ.] that not many (among you) are wise in the eyes of men, etc. It is enough to supply the simple εἰσί, making Οὐ ΠΟΛΛ., i.e. but few, the subject, and σοφ. the predicate; and there is no need for introducing an ἘΚΛΉΘΗΣΑΝ (so commonly), according to which οὐ π. σ. together would be the subject. ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ, specifying the kind and manner of the ΣΟΦΊΑ, marks it out as purely human, and distinguishes it from the Christian wisdom which proceeds from the Holy Spirit. For σάρξ comprises the simply human element in man as opposed to the divine principle. Comp ΣΟΦΊΑ ΣΑΡΚΙΚΉ, 2Co 1:12; ΣΟΦΊΑ ΨΥΧΙΚΉ, Jam 3:15; and see on Rom 4:1; Joh 3:6. Estius aptly remarks: “Significari vult sapientiam, quae studio humano absque doctrina Spir. sancti potest acquiri.” In substance, the ΣΟΦΊΑ ΤΟῦ ΚΌΣΜΟΥ, 1Co 1:20, and the Σ. ΤΟῦ ΑἸῶΝΟς ΤΟΎΤΟΥ, 1Co 2:6, are the same.
ΔΥΝΑΤΟΊ] We are not to supply ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ here again; for that was essentially requisite only with ΣΟΦΟΊ, and Paul otherwise would have coupled it with the third word (comp 1Co 1:20). That mighty men of this world are meant, is self-evident.
εὐγενεῖς] of high descent. Comp Luk 19:12; frequent in the classics.
Rückert objects that Paul, instead of proving the phenomenon recorded in 1Co 1:26 to have proceeded from the divine wisdom, uses it as an argument for 1Co 1:25, and so reasons in a circle. But this is without foundation. For that the phenomenon in question was a work of the divine wisdom, was to the Christian consciousness (and Paul was, of course, writing to Christians, who looked at it in the same light with himself) a thing ascertained and settled, which could be employed therefore directly to establish 1Co 1:25 in conformity with experience.
[264] The γάρ is not against our taking it as imperative; Greek writers, too, use it with that mood, as e.g. Soph. Phil. 1043: ἄφετε γὰρ αὐτόν.
[265] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[266] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
1Co 1:27-28. Expanded (see τοῦ κόσμου and πᾶσα σάρξ, 1Co 1:29) statement of the opposite: No; the foolish things of the world were what God chose out for Himself, etc. The calling, 1Co 1:26, was in truth just the result and the proof of the election. Comp 1Th 1:4 f.; 2Th 2:13 f.; Rom 8:30; Rom 9:23 f.
ΤᾺ ΜΩΡᾺ ΤΟῦ ΚΌΣΜΟΥ] the foolish elements of the world (mankind), i.e. those to whom earthly wisdom was a quite foreign thing, so that they were the simple among men. Comp Mat 11:25. Many exegetes (including Theodoret, Luther, Grotius, Estius, Rosenmüller, Flatt, and Billroth) take the genitive as: according to the judgment of the world. Against this may he urged, partly, the very fact that when God chose to Himself the persons referred to, they too had not yet the higher wisdom, and consequently were not unwise merely in the eyes of the world; and partly, as deciding the point, the following ἀσθ. and ἈΓΕΝ., for they were, it is plain, really (and not merely in the eyes of the world) weak and of mean origin.
The neuters (comp on the plural, Gal 3:22) indicate the category generally, it being evident from the context that what is meant is the persons included under that category. See generally, Winer, p. 167 [E. T. 222], and the same usage among classical writers in Blomfield, a[273] Aesch. Pers. Gloss. 101.
ἽΝΑ Τ. Σ. ΚΑΤΑΙΣΧ.] design. The nothingness and worthlessness of their wisdom were, to their shame, to be brought practically to light (by God’s choosing not them, but the unwise, for honour), no matter whether they themselves were conscious of this putting of them to shame or not.
The thrice-repeated ἐξελ. ὁ Θεός, beside the three contrasts of ΣΟΦΟΊ, ΔΥΝΑΤΟΊ, and ΕὐΓΕΝΕῖς (1Co 1:26), carries with it a triumphant emphasis.
ΤᾺ ΜῊ ὌΝΤΑ] The contrast to ΕὐΓΕΝΕῖς is brought out by three steps forming a climax. This third phrase is the strongest of all, and sums up powerfully the two foregoing ones by way of apposition (hence without ΚΑΊ): the non-existent, i.e. what was as utterly worth nothing as if it had not existed at all (Winer, p. 451 [E. T. 608]). Comp Eur. Hec. 284: ἦν πότʼ, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκ εἴμʼ ἔτι. Dem. 248. 25; Plat. Crit. p. 50 B; and Stallbaum thereon. The subjective negation μή is quite according to rule (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 296), since the participle with the article expresses a generic notion; and there is no need of importing the idea of an untrue although actual existence (Hofmann). We are not therefore to supply τι to ΤᾺ ὌΝΤΑ (as if ΜΗΔῈΝ ΕἾΝΑΙ had been used before), but to explain it: the existent, what through repute, fortune, etc., is regarded as that which is (κατʼ ἐξοχήν). Comp Pflugk, a[276] Hec. l.c[277]: “ipsum verbum εἶναι eam vim habet, ut significet in aliquo numero esse, rebus secundis florere.”
κατηργ.] Not ΚΑΤΑΙΣΧ. again, because the notions ΜῊ ΕἾΝΑΙ and ΕἾΝΑΙ required a stronger word to correspond to them; one which would convey the idea of bringing to nought (i.e. making worthless, Rom 3:31).
[273] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[276] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[277] .c. loco citato or laudato.
1Co 1:29. Final aim, to which is subordinated the mediate aim expressed by the thrice-repeated ἵνα κ.τ.λ[278]
ὅπως μὴ καυχ. πᾶσα σάρξ] Hebraistic way of saying: that no man may boast himself. Its explanation lies in the fact that the negation belongs to the verb, not to πᾶσα σ. (כָּל־בָּשָׂר): that every man may abstain from boasting himself. Comp Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Cor. II. p. 24 f. Regarding σάρξ as a designation of man in his weakness and imperfection as contrasted with God, see on Act 3:17.
ἘΝΏΠ. Τ. ΘΕΟῦ] Rom 3:20; Luk 16:15, al[280] No one is to come forth before God and boast, I am wise, etc.; on this account God has, by choosing the unwise, etc., brought to nought the wisdom and loftiness of men, so that the ground for the assertion of human excellences before God has been cut away.
[278] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[280] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
1Co 1:30 f. In contrast (δέ) to the ὅπως μὴ καυχ. π. σ. ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ, we have now the true relation to God and the true and right καυχᾶσθαι arising out of it: But truly it is God’s work, that ye are Christians and so partakers of the greatest divine blessings, that none of you should in any way boast himself save only in God. Comp Eph 2:8 f.
ἘΞ ΑὐΤΟῦ] has the principal emphasis: From no other than God is derived the fact that you are in Christ (as the element of your life). Ἐξ denotes the causal origination. Comp Eph 2:8 : ΟὐΚ ἘΞ ὙΜῶΝ, ΘΕΟῦ ΤῸ ΔῶΡΟΝ, also in profane writers: ἘΚ ΘΕῶΝ, ἘΚ ΔΙΌς (Valckenaer, a[283] Herod. ii. 13); and generally, Winer, p. 345 [E. T. 460]. While Hofmann here, too, as in 1Co 1:28, introduces into ΕἾΝΑΙ the notion of the true existence, which they have from God “in virtue of their being included in Christ,” others again, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, take ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὲ ὑμεῖς ἐστε by itself in such a way as to make it express sonship with God (comp Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 553), and regard ἐν as conveying the more precise definition of the mode whereby this sonship is attained: ΠΑῖΔΕς ΑὐΤΟῦ ἘΣΤΕ, ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ΤΟῦΤΟ ΓΕΝΌΜΕΝΟΙ, Chrysostom; comp Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Flatt, Billroth, Rückert, Ewald, and others. But wrongly; or the conception ἘΚ ΘΕΟῦ ΕἾΝΑΙ in the supposed sense is Johannine, but is not in accordance with the Pauline mode of expression (not even in Gal 4:4); and ΕἾΝΑΙ ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ was a conception so habitually in use (Rom 16:7; Rom 16:11; 2Co 5:17; Gal 1:22, al[286]), that it must have occurred of itself here also to the reader; besides, the ἈΠῸ ΘΕΟῦ which follows answers to the ἘΞ ΑὐΤΟῦ. This applies, too, against Osiander, who, after ἘΞ ΑὐΤΟῦ, mentally supplies ΓΕΓΕΝΗΜΈΝΟΙ: “being born of God, ye are members of Christ.”
ὙΜΕῖς] with emphasis: ye for your part, ye the chosen out of the world.
ὃς ἐγενήθη … ἀπολύτρωσις] brings home to the heart the high value of that God-derived ΕἾΝΑΙ ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ: who has become to us from God wisdom, righteousness and holiness, and redemption. Ἐγενήθη is simply a later (Doric) form for ἐγένετο (Thom. Mag. p. 189; Lobeck, a[287] Phryn. p. 108 f.), not, as Rückert makes it (comp Luther: “gemacht ist”), a true passive in sense; comp Act 4:4; Col 4:11; 1Th 2:14 (Eph 3:7, Lachm.). Christ became to us wisdom, etc., inasmuch as His manifestation and His whole saving work have procured for believers these blessings; namely, first of all,-what was of primary importance in the connection of 1Co 1:19 ff.,-wisdom, for to believers is revealed the counsel of God, in whom are all treasures of wisdom and knowledge (see 1Co 2:7 ff.; Col 2:3); righteousness, for by means of faith we are through the Lord’s atoning death constituted righteous before God (Rom 3:24 f., al[290]; see on Rom 1:17); holiness (see on Rom 6:19; Rom 6:22), for in those who are justified by faith Christ works continually by His Spirit the new holy life (Rom 8:1-11); redemption, for Christ has delivered believers, through His blood paid as their ransom (Rom 3:24; Rom 6:20; Rom 7:23), from the wrath of God, to which they were subject before the entrance of faith (see on Eph 1:7; Eph 2:3). The order in which these predicates stand is not illogical; for after the first intellectual benefit (σοφία) which we have received in Christ, marked out too from the rest by the position of the word, Paul brings forward the ethical blessedness of the Christian, and that in the first place positively as δικαιοσύνη and ἉΓΙΑΣΜΌς, but then also-as though in triumph that there was now nothing more to fear from God-negatively as ἀπολύτρωσις, in which is quenched all the wrath of God against former sin (instead of which with the Christian there are now righteousness and holiness). Hence in explaining ἀπολύτρ. we should not (with Chrysostom) abide by the general ἈΠΉΛΛΑΞΕΝ ἩΜᾶς ἈΠῸ ΠΆΝΤΩΝ ΤῶΝ ΚΑΚῶΝ, which is already contained in what goes before; nor again should we, with Grotius, Calovius, Rückert, Osiander, Neander, and others (comp also Schmid, bibl. Theol. II. p. 325; and Lipsius, Paulin. Rechtfertigungslehre, p. 8), make it the final redemption from death and all evils, such as is the object of ἐλπίς, the redemption perfecting itself beyond our earthly-life (Hofmann), or the definitive acquittal at the last judgment (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 327). In the passages alleged to support the interpretation in question, this sense is given solely by the accessory defining phrases-namely, in Eph 1:14 by τῆς περιποιήσεως, in Eph 4:30 by ἩΜΈΡΑΝ, and in Rom 8:23 by ΤΟῦ ΣΏΜΑΤΟς. Rückert (comp Neander) is further of opinion that ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ Κ.Τ.Λ[293] is merely explanatory of how far Christ is to us σοφία, namely, as δικαιοσύνη, ἁγιασμός, and ἀπολύτρ., and that these three refer to the three essential things in the Christian life, faith, love, and hope: the τέ binding together the last three words and separating them from the first. But (1) the τέ links closely together only δικαιοσ. and ἁγιασμ., and does not include ἀπολ.; much less does it separate the three last predicates from σοφία;[294] on the contrary, τε καί embraces δικ. and ἁγ., as it were, in one, so that then ἀπολύτρωσις comes to be added with the adjunctive καί as a separate element, and consequently there results the following division: (a) wisdom, (b) righteousness and holiness, and (c) redemption. See as to this use of τε καί … καί, Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 102; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 878 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 224 f. (2) Paul would, on this theory, have left his readers without the slightest hint of the subordinate relation of the three last predicates to the first, although he could so easily have indicated it by ὡς or a participle. (3) According to the correct interpretation, ἀπολύτρ. is not something yet future, but something which has already taken place in the death of Christ. Bos (Obs. Misc. p. 1 ff.), Alethius, Clericus, Nösselt (Opusc. II. p. 127 ff.), Valckenaer, and Krause interpret in a still more involved way, holding that only the words from ὅς to Θεοῦ apply to Christ, and these are to be put in a parenthesis; while δικαιοσύνη κ.τ.λ[295] are abstracta pro concretis (2Co 5:21), and belong to ὑμεῖς ἘΣΤΕ: “Ejus beneficio vos estis in Christo Jesu ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ Κ.Τ.Λ[296],” Valckenaer. How ambiguous and unsuitable would such a statement as ὃς ἐγεν. σοφία κ.τ.λ[297] be for a mere parenthetical notice!
ἈΠῸ ΘΕΟῦ] on God’s part, by God as the author of the fact. Comp Herod. vi. 125: ἈΠῸ ΔῈ ἈΛΚΜΑΊΩΝΟς … ἘΓΈΝΟΝΤΟ ΚΑῚ ΚΆΡΤΑ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΊ. See generally, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 194; Winer, p. 348 [E. T. 464]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 280 [E. T. 325]. That it belongs to ἐγενήθη, and not to ΣΟΦΊΑ, is proved by the ἩΜῖΝ which stands between. The latter, however, is not to be understood, with Rückert, as though it ran Ἡ ἩΜΕΤΈΡΑ ΣΟΦΊΑ (“what to the Hellene his ΣΟΦΊΑ is, or is merely assumed to be, namely, the ground of confidence,-that Christ is to us”), else Paul must have written: ὃς ἡμῖν ἐγενήθη ἡ σοφία with the article, and have placed ἩΜῖΝ first with the emphasis of contrast.
Observe further, that Paul has said ὙΜΕῖς with his eye still, as in 1Co 1:26, upon the church to which his readers belonged; but now, in adducing the blessings found in Christ, he extends the range of his view to all Christians; and hence, instead of the individualizing ὙΜΕῖς, we have the ἩΜῖΝ including himself and others.
[283] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[286] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[287] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[290] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[293] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[294] With σοφία the τέ has nothing whatever to do. Hofmann makes it serve as a link of connection to σοφία. In that case, Paul must have written: σοφία τε καὶ δικαιοσ. κ. ἁγ. κ. ἀπολ.
[295] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[296] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[297] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
1Co 1:31. The fact that God is the author of your connection with Christ, and thereby of the blessings you receive as Christians (1Co 1:30), should, according to the divine purpose (ἵνα), determine you to comply with that word of Scripture which calls for the true lowly καυχᾶσθαι: he that boasteth himself, let him boast himself in the Lord, praise his own privileges only as God’s work, boast himself only as the object of His grace.
That the Κύριος is not Christ (Rückert) but God, and not Christ and God (Hofmann), is proved by the emphatic ἐξ αὐτοῦ, 1Co 1:30, and ἐνώπ. τ. Θεοῦ, 1Co 1:29. Comp on 2Co 10:17.
The apostle quotes Jer 9:24, abbreviating quite freely, after the LXX. The construction, however, is anacoluthic; for Paul purposely retains the scriptural saying unaltered in its strong imperative form, and leaves it to the reader to supply the change from the imperative to the subjunctive, which the syntax, properly speaking, would require. Comp on Rom 15:3.
1. Paul, called to be an Apostle In this manner does Paul proceed, in almost all the introductions to his Epistles, with the view of procuring for his doctrine authority and favor. The former he secures to himself from the station that had been assigned to him by God, as being an Apostle of Christ sent by God; the latter by testifying his affection towards those to whom he writes. We believe much more readily the man whom we look upon as regarding us with affection, and as faithfully endeavoring to promote our welfare. In this salutation, therefore, he claims for himself authority, when he speaks of himself as an Apostle of Christ, and that, too, as called by God, that is, set apart by the will of God Now, two things are requisite in any one that would be listened to in the Church, and would occupy the place of a teacher; for he must be called by God to that office, and he must faithfully employ himself in the discharge of its duties. Paul here lays claim to both. For the name, Apostle, implies that the individual conscientiously acts the part of an ambassador for Christ (2. o 5:19), and proclaims the pure doctrine of the gospel. But as no one ought to assume this honor to himself, unless he be called to it, he adds, that he had not rashly intruded into it, but had been appointed (36) to it by God.
Let us learn, therefore, to take these two things together when we wish to ascertain what kind of persons we ought to esteem as ministers of Christ, — a call to the office, and faithfulness in the discharge of its duties. For as no man can lawfully assume the designation and rank of a minister, unless he be called, so it were not enough for any one to be called, if he does not also fulfill the duties of his office. For the Lord does not choose ministers that they may be dumb idols, or exercise tyranny under pretext of their calling, or make their own caprice their law; but at the same time marks out what kind of persons they ought to be, and binds them by his laws, and in fine chooses them for the ministry, or, in other words, that in the first place they may not be idle, and, secondly, that they may confine themselves within the limits of their office. Hence, as the apostleship depends on the calling, so the man who would be reckoned an apostle, must show himself to be really such: nay more, so must every one who demands that credit be given him, or that his doctrine be listened to. For since Paul rests on these arguments for establishing his authority, worse than impudent were the conduct of that man who would think to have any standing without such proofs.
It ought, however, to be observed, that it is not enough for any one to hold out to view the title to a call to the office, along with faithfulness in discharging its duties, if he does not in reality give proof of both. For it often happens that none boast more haughtily of their titles than those that are destitute of the reality; as of old the false prophets, with lofty disdain, boasted that they had been sent by the Lord. Nay, at the present day, what else do the Romanists make a noise about, but “ordination from God, and an inviolably sacred succession even from the Apostles themselves,” (37) while, after all, it appears that they are destitute of those things of which they vaunt? Here, therefore, it is not boasting that is required, but reality. Now, as the name is assumed by good and bad alike, we must come to the test, that we may ascertain who has a right to the name of Apostle, and who has not. As to Paul, God attested his calling by many revelations, and afterwards confirmed it by miracles. The faithfulness must be estimated by this, — whether or not he proclaimed the pure doctrine of Christ. As to the twofold call — that of God and that of the Church — see my Institutes. (38)
An Apostle Though this name, agreeably to its etymology, has a general signification, and is sometimes employed in a general sense, to denote any kind of ministers, (39) yet, as a peculiar designation, it is applicable to those that were set apart by the Lord’s appointment to publish the Gospel throughout the whole world. Now, it was of importance that Paul should be reckoned in that number, for two reasons, — first, because much more deference was paid to them than to other ministers of the gospel; and, secondly, because they alone, properly speaking, had authority to instruct all the Churches.
By the will of God While the Apostle is accustomed cheerfully to acknowledge himself indebted to God for whatever he has of good, he does so more especially in reference to his apostleship, that he may free himself from all appearance of presumption. And assuredly as a call to salvation is of grace, so also a call to the office of apostle is of grace, as Christ teaches in these words:
“Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,”
(Joh 15:16.)
Paul, however, at the same time indirectly intimates, that all who attempt to undermine his apostleship, or in any way oppose it, contend against an appointment of God. For Paul here makes no useless boast of honorary titles, but designedly vindicates his apostleship from malicious aspersions. For as his authority must have been sufficiently established in the view of the Corinthians, it would have been superfluous to make particular mention of “the will of God,” had not wicked men attempted by indirect means to undermine that honorable rank which had been divinely assigned him.
And Sosthenes our brother This is that Sosthenes who was ruler of the Jewish synagogue that was at Corinth, of whom Luke makes mention in Act 18:17. His name is added for this reason, that the Corinthians, knowing his ardor and steadfastness in the gospel, could not but hold him in deserved esteem, and hence it is still more to his honor to be made mention of now as Paul’s brother, than formerly as ruler of the synagogue
(36) “Constitue, ordonne, et establi;” — “Appointed, ordained, and established.”
(37) “Et aujour d’huy, qu’est ce qu’entonnent a plene bouche les Romanisques, sinon cen gros mots, Ordination de Dieu, La sainte et sacree succession depuis le temps mesme des Apostres;” — “And at the present day, what do the Romanists sound forth with open mouth, but those grand terms, Ordination from God, — The holy and sacred succession from the very times of the Apostles.”
(38) Institutes, volume 3.
(39) Αποστολος, (an apostle) derived from αποστελλειν, (to send forth,) signifies literally a messenger. The term is employed by classical writer to denote the commander of an expedition, or a delegate, or ambassador. (See Herodotus, v. 38.) In the New Testament it is in various instances employed in a general sense to denote a messenger. (See Luk 11:49; Joh 13:16; Phi 2:25.) In one instance it is applied to Christ himself, (Heb 3:1.) Most frequently, however, it is applied to those extraordinary messengers who were (to use the words of Leigh in his Critics Sacra) Christ’s “legates a latere,” from his side. — Ed
2. To the Church of God which is at Corinth. It may perhaps appear strange that he should give the name of a Church of God to a multitude of persons that were infested with so many distempers, that Satan might be said to reign among them rather than God. Certain it is, that he did not mean to flatter the Corinthians, for he speaks under the direction of the Spirit of God, who is not accustomed to flatter. But (40) among so many pollutions, what appearance of a Church is any longer presented? I answer, the Lord having said to him, “Fear not: I have much people in this place” (Act 18:9;) keeping this promise in mind, he conferred upon a godly few so much honor as to recognize them as a Church amidst a vast multitude of ungodly persons. Farther, notwithstanding that many vices had crept in, and various corruptions both of doctrine and manners, there were, nevertheless, certain tokens still remaining of a true Church. This is a passage that ought to be carefully observed, that we may not require that the Church, while in this world, should be free from every wrinkle and stain, or forthwith pronounce unworthy of such a title every society in which everything is not as we would wish it. For it is a dangerous temptation to think that there is no Church at all where perfect purity is not to be seen. For the man that is prepossessed with this notion, must necessarily in the end withdraw from all others, and look upon himself as the only saint in the world, or set up a peculiar sect in company with a few hypocrites.
What ground, then, had Paul for recognizing a Church at Corinth? It was this: that he saw among them the doctrine of the gospel, baptism, the Lord’s Supper — tokens by which a Church ought to be judged of. For although some had begun to have doubts as to the resurrection, the error not having spread over the entire body, the name of the Church and its reality are not thereby affected. Some faults had crept in among them in the administration of the Supper, discipline and propriety of conduct had very much declined: despising the simplicity of the gospel, they had given themselves up to show and pomp; and in consequence of the ambition of their ministers, they were split into various parties. Notwithstanding of this, however, inasmuch as they retained fundamental doctrine: as the one God was adored among them, and was invoked in the name of Christ: as they placed their dependence for salvation upon Christ, and, had a ministry not altogether corrupted: there was, on these accounts, a Church still existing among them. Accordingly, wherever the worship of God is preserved uninfringed, and that fundamental doctrine, of which I have spoken, remains, we must without hesitation conclude that in that case a Church exists.
Sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints He makes mention of the blessings with which God had adorned them, as if by way of upbraiding them, at least in the event of their showing no gratitude in return. For what could be more base than to reject an Apostle through whose instrumentality they had been set apart as God’s peculiar portion. Meanwhile, by these two epithets, he points out what sort of persons ought to be reckoned among the true members of the Church, and who they are that belong of right to her communion. For if you do not by holiness of life show yourself to be a Christian, you may indeed be in the Church, and pass undetected, (41) but of it you cannot be. Hence all must be sanctified in Christ who would be reckoned among the people of God. Now the term sanctification denotes separation This takes place in us when we are regenerated by the Spirit to newness of life, that we may serve God and not the world. For while by nature we are unholy, the Spirit consecrates us to God. As, however, this is effected when we are engrafted into the body of Christ, apart from whom there is nothing but pollution, and as it is also by Christ, and not from any other source that the Spirit is conferred, it is with good reason that he says that we are sanctified in Christ, inasmuch as it is by Him that we cleave to God, and in Him become new creatures.
What immediately follows — called to be saints — I understand to mean: As ye have been called unto holiness. It may, however, be taken in two senses. Either we may understand Paul to say, that the ground of sanctification is the call of God, inasmuch as God has chosen them; meaning, that this depends on his grace, not on the excellence of men; or we may understand him to mean, that, it accords with our profession that we be holy, this being the design of the doctrine of the gospel. The former interpretation appears to suit better with the context, but it is of no great consequence in which way you understand it, as there is an entire agreement between the two following positions — that our holiness flows from the fountain of divine election, and that it, is the end of our calling.
We must, therefore, carefully maintain, that it is not through our own efforts that we are holy, but by the call of God, because He alone sanctifies those who were by nature unclean. And certainly it appears to me probable, that, when Paul has pointed out as it were with his finger the fountain of holiness thrown wide open, he mounts up a step higher, to the good pleasure of God, in which also Christ’s mission to us originated. As, however, we are called by the gospel to harmlessness of life (Phi 2:15,) it is necessary that this be accomplished in us in reality, in order that our calling may be effectual. It will, however, be objected, that, there were not many such among the Corinthians. I answer, that the weak are not excluded from this number; for here God only begins his work in us, and by little and little carries it forward gradually and by successive steps. I answer farther, that Paul designedly looks rather to the grace of God in them than to their own defects, that he may put them to shame for their negligence, if they do not act a suitable part.
With all that call. This, too, is an epithet common to all the pious; for as it is one chief exercise of faith to call upon the name of God, so it is also by this duty chiefly that believers are to be estimated. Observe, also, that he says that Christ is called upon by believers, and this affords a proof of his divinity — invocation being one of the first expressions of Divine homage. Hence invocation here by synecdoche (42) (κατὰ συνεκδοχήν) denotes the entire profession of faith in Christ, as in many passages of Scripture it is taken generally for the whole of Divine worship. Some explain it as denoting mere profession, but this appears to be meager, and at variance with its usual acceptation in Scripture. The little words nostri (ours) and sui (theirs) I have put in the genitive, understanding them as referring to Christ, while others, understanding them as referring to place, render them in the ablative. In doing so I have followed Chrysostom. This will, perhaps, appear harsh, as the expression in every place is introduced in the middle, but in Paul’s Greek style there is nothing of harshness in this construction. My reason for preferring this rendering to that of the Vulgate is, that if you understand it as referring to place, the additional clause will be not merely superfluous, but inappropriate. For what place would Paul call his own? Judea they understand him to mean; but on what ground? And then, what place could he refer to as inhabited by others? “All other places of the world” (say they;) but this, too, does not suit well. On the other hand, the meaning that I have given it suits most admirably; for, after making mention of all that in every place call upon the name of Christ our Lord, he adds, both theirs and ours, manifestly for the purpose of showing that Christ is the one common Lord, without distinction, of all that call upon him, whether they be Jews or Gentiles.
In every place This Paul has added, contrary to his usual manner; for in his other Epistles he makes mention in the salutation of those only for whom they are designed. He seems, however, to have had it in view to anticipate the slanders of wicked men, that they might not have it to allege that, in addressing the Corinthians, he assumed a confident air, and claimed for himself an authority that he would not venture to assert in writing to other Churches. For we shall see by and by, that he was unjustly loaded with this reproach, too, as though he were preparing little nests (43) for himself, with the view of shunning the light, or were withdrawing himself in a clandestine way from the rest of the Apostles. It appears, then, that expressly for the purpose of refuting this falsehood, he places himself in a commanding position, from which he may be heard afar off.
(40) “Mais (dira quelqu’un;) “ — “But (some one will say.)”
(41) “Tu te pourras bien entretenir en l’Eglise tellement quellement estant mesle parmi les autres;” — “You may quite well have a standing in the Church in some sort of way, being mixed up among others.”
(42) Synedoche, a figure of speech, by which part is taken for the whole. — Ed.
(43) “Nids et cachettes;” — “Nests and lurking-holes.”
3. Grace be to you and peace For an exposition of this prayer, let my readers consult the beginning of my Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Rom 1:7;) for I do not willingly burden my readers with repetitions.
4. I give thanks to my God. Having in the salutation secured for himself authority from the station assigned him, he now endeavors to procure favor for his doctrine, by expressing his affection for them. In this way he soothes their minds beforehand, that they may listen patiently to his reproofs. (45) He persuades them of his affection for them by the following tokens — his discovering as much joy in the benefits bestowed upon them, as if they had been conferred upon himself; and his declaring that he entertains a favorable opinion of them, and has good hopes of them as to the future. Farther, he qualifies his congratulations in such a way as to give them no occasion to be puffed up, as he traces up to God all the benefits that they possessed, that the entire praise may redound to him, inasmuch as they are the fruits of his grace. It is as though he had said — “I congratulate you indeed, but it is in such a way as to ascribe the praise to God.” His meaning, when he calls God his God, I have explained in my Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans (Rom 1:8.) As Paul was not prepared to flatter the Corinthians, so neither has he commended them on false grounds. For although all were not worthy of such commendations, and though they corrupted many excellent gifts of God by ambition, yet the gifts themselves it became him not to despise, because they were, in themselves, deserving of commendation. Farther, as the gifts of the Spirit are conferred for the edification of all, it is with good reason that he enumerates them as gifts common to the whole Church. (46) But let us see what he commends in them.
For the grace, etc. This is a general term, for it comprehends blessings of every kind that they had obtained through means of the gospel. For the term grace denotes here not the favor of God, but by metonymy (47) (μετωνυμικῶς), the gifts that he bestows upon men gratuitously. He immediately proceeds to specify particular instances, when he says that they are enriched in all things, and specifies what those all things are — the doctrine and word of God. For in these riches it becomes Christians to abound; and they ought also to be esteemed by us the more, and regarded by us as so much the more valuable, in proportion as they are ordinarily slighted. The phrase in ipso (in him)I have preferred to retain, rather than render it per ipsum (by him,) because it has in my opinion more expressiveness and force. For we are enriched in Christ, inasmuch as we are members of his body, and are engrafted into him: nay more, being made one with him, he makes us share with him in everything that he has received from the Father.
(45) The same view of Paul’s design here is given by Theodoret: “Μέλλων κατηγορεῖν προθεραπεύει την ἀκοὴν ὥστε δεκτὴν γενέσθαι τὴν ιατρείαν;” — “As he is about to censure them, he soothes beforehand the organ of hearing, that the remedy to be applied may be the more favorably received. ” — Ed
(46) “Que chacun ha en son endroit;” — “Which every one has severally.”
(47) A figure of speech, by which one term is put for another — the cause for the effect, the effect for the cause, etc. — Ed.
6. Even as the testimony, etc. Erasmus gives a different rendering, to this effect, “that by these things the testimony of Christ was confirmed in them;” that is, by knowledge and by the word. The words, however, convey another meaning, and if they are not wrested, the meaning is easy — that God has sealed the truth of his gospel among the Corinthians, for the purpose of confirming it. Now, this might be done in two ways, either by miracles, or by the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. Chrysostom seems to understand it of miracles, but I take it in a larger sense; and, first of all, it is certain, that the gospel is properly confirmed in our experience by faith, because it is only when we receive it by faith that we “set to our seal that God is true” (Joh 3:33.) And though I admit that miracles ought to have weight for the confirmation of it, yet we must go higher in search of the origin, namely this, that the Spirit of God is the earnest and seal. Accordingly, I explain these words in this manner — that the Corinthians excelled in knowledge, inasmuch as God had from the beginning given efficacy to his gospel among them, and that not in one way merely, but had done so both by the internal influence of the Spirit, and by excellence and variety of gifts, by miracles, and by all other helps. He calls the gospel the testimony of Christ, or respecting Christ, because the entire sum of it tends to discover Christ to us,
“In whom all the treasures of knowledge are hid” (Col 2:3.)
If any one prefers to take it in an active sense, on the ground that Christ is the primary author of the gospel, so that the Apostles were nothing but secondary or inferior witnesses, I shall not much oppose it. I feel better satisfied, however, with the former exposition. It is true that a little afterwards (1. o 2:1) the testimony of God must, beyond all controversy, be taken in an active sense, as a passive signification would not be at all suitable. Here, however, the case is different, and, what is more, that passage strengthens my view, as he immediately subjoins what it is (48) — to know nothing but Christ. (1. o 2:2.)
(48) “Quel est ce tesmoignage;” — “What this testimony is.”
7. So that ye come behind in no gift ̔Υστερεισθαι means to be in want of what you would otherwise stand in need of. (49) He means, therefore, that the Corinthians abound in all the gifts of God, so as not to be in want of anything, as if he had said, “The Lord has not merely honored you with the light of the gospel, but has eminently endowed you with all those graces that may be of service to the saints for helping them forward in the way of salvation.” For he gives the name of gifts (χαρίσματα) to those spiritual graces that are, as it were, means of salvation to the saints. But it is objected, on the other hand, that the saints are never in such abundance as not to feel in want of graces to some extent, so that they must always of necessity be “hungering and thirsting ” (Mat 5:6.) For where is the man that does not come far short of perfection? I answer, “As they are sufficiently endowed with needful gifts, and are never in such destitution but that the Lord seasonably relieves their need; Paul on this ground ascribes to them such wealth.” For the same reason he adds: waiting for the manifestation, meaning, that he does not ascribe to them such abundance as to leave nothing to be desired; but merely as much as will suffice, until they shall have arrived at perfection. The participle waiting I understand in this sense, “In the meantime while you are waiting.” Thus the meaning will be, “So that ye are in want of no gift in the meantime while you are waiting for the day of perfected revelation, by which Christ our wisdom (1. o 1:30) will be fully manifested.”
(49) The word is used in this sense in the following passages: Luk 15:14; 2. o 11:9; Phi 4:12; and Heb 11:37. The proper meaning is — to come too late for a thing, and so miss of it. Xenophon uses it in this sense. Αβροκόμας ὑστερησε τὢς μάχης : — “Abrocomas came too late for the battle.” The word occurs in the same sense in Hebews 4:1. and Hebews 12:15. — Ed
8. Who will also confirm you. The relative here refers not to Christ, but to God, though the word God is the remoter antecedent. For the Apostle is going on with his congratulation, and as he has told them previously what he thought of them, so he now lets them know what hope he has of them as to the future, and this partly for the purpose of assuring them still farther of his affection for them, and partly that he may exhort them by his own example to cherish the same hope. It is as if he had said — Though the expectation of a salvation to come keeps you still in suspense, you ought nevertheless to feel assured that the Lord will never forsake you, but will on the contrary increase what he has begun in you, that when that day comes on which
“we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ,”
(2. o 5:10,)
we may be found there blameless.
Blameless In his Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians (Eph 1:4, and Col 1:22) he teaches that this is the end of our calling — that we may appear pure and unreproachable in the presence of Christ. It is, however, to be observed, that this glorious purity is not in the first instance perfected in us; nay, rather, it goes well with us if we are every day making progress in penitence, and are being purged from the sins (2. e 1:9) that expose us to the displeasure of God, until at length we put off, along with the mortal body, all the offscourings of sin. Of the day of the Lord we shall have occasion to speak when we come to the fourth chapter.
9. God is faithful When the Scripture speaks of God as faithful the meaning in many cases is, that in God there is steadfastness and evenness of tenor, so that what he begins he prosecutes to the end, (50) as Paul himself says elsewhere, that the calling of God is without repentance (Rom 11:29.) Hence, in my opinion, the meaning of this passage is, that God is steadfast in what he purposes. This being the case, he consequently does not make sport as to his calling, but will unceasingly take care of his work. (51) From God’s past benefits we ought always to hope well as to the future. Paul, however, has something higher in view, for he argues that the Corinthians cannot be cast off, having been once called by the Lord into Christ’s fellowship. To apprehend fully, however, the force of this argument, let us observe first of all, that every one ought to regard his calling as a token of his election. Farther, although one cannot judge with the same certainty as to another’s election, yet we must always in the judgment of charity conclude that all that are called are called to salvation; I mean efficaciously and fruitfully. Paul, however, directed his discourse to those in whom the word of the Lord had taken root, and in whom some fruits of it had been produced.
Should any one object that many who have once received the word afterwards fall away, I answer that the Spirit alone is to every one a faithful and sure witness of his election, upon which perseverance depends. This, however, did not stand in the way of Paul’s being persuaded, in the judgment of charity, that the calling of the Corinthians would prove firm and immovable, as being persons in whom he saw the tokens of God’s fatherly benevolence. These things, however, do not by any means tend to beget carnal security, to divest us of which the Scriptures frequently remind us of our weakness, but simply to confirm our confidence in the Lord. Now this was needful, in order that their minds might not be disheartened on discovering so many faults, as he comes afterwards to present before their view. The sum of all this may be stated thus, — that it is the part of Christian candor to hope well of all who have entered on the right way of salvation, and are still persevering in that course, notwithstanding that they are at the same time still beset with really distempers. Every one of us, too, from the time of his being illuminated (Heb 10:32) by the Spirit of God in the knowledge of Christ, ought to conclude with certainty from this that he has been adopted by the Lord to an inheritance of eternal life. For effectual calling ought to be to believers an evidence of divine adoption; yet in the meantime we must all walk with fear and trembling (Phi 2:12.) On this point I shall touch again to some extent when we come to the tenth chapter.
Into the fellowship. Instead of this rendering Erasmus translates it into partnership The old interpreter renders it society I have preferred, however, to render it fellowship, as bringing out better the force of the Greek word κοινωνιας (52) For this is the design of the gospel, that Christ may become ours, and that we may be engrafted into his body. Now when the Father gives him to us in possession, he also communicates himself to us in him; and hence arises a participation in every benefit. Paul’s argument, then, is this — “Since you have, by means of the gospel which you have received by faith, been called into the fellowship of Christ, you have no reason to dread the danger of death, (53) having been made partakers of him (Heb 3:14) who rose a conqueror over death.” In fine, when the Christian looks to himself he finds only occasion for trembling, or rather for despair; but having been called into the fellowship of Christ, he ought, in so far as assurance of salvation is concerned, to think of himself no otherwise than as a member of Christ, so as to reckon all Christ’s benefits his own. Thus he will obtain an unwavering hope of final perseverance, (as it is called,) if he reckons himself a member of him who is beyond all hazard of falling away.
(50) Calvin probably refers to the following (among other) passagess: — 1. h 5:24; 2. h 3:3; Heb 10:23.
(51) “La vocation done qu’il fait d’un chacun des siens, n’est point un jeu, et en les appellant il ne se mocque point, ainsi il entretiendra et pour suyura son ceuvre perpetuellement;” — “The calling, therefore, that he makes of each of his own, is not mere play; and in calling them he does not make sport, but will unceasingly maintain and prosecute his work.”
(52) Calvin in his Institutes, (volume 2,) after speaking of Christ’s being represented by Paul as “offered to us in the gospel with all the abundance of heavenly blessings, with all his merits, all his righteousness, wisdom, and grace, without exception,” remarks — “And what is meant by the fellowship κοινωνια of Christ, which, according to the same apostle (1. o 1:9) is offered to us in the gospel, all believers know.” — Ed
(53) “La mort et perdition;” — “Death and perdition.”
10. Now I beseech you, brethren Hitherto he has handled the Corinthians mildly, because he knew that they were much too sensitive. Now, however, after preparing their minds for receiving correction, acting the part of a good and skillful surgeon, who soothes the wound when about to apply a painful remedy, he begins to handle them with more severity. Even here, however, as we shall still farther see, he uses great moderation. The sum is this: “It is my hope that the Lord has not in vain conferred upon you so many gifts, so as not to have it in view to bring you to salvation, but you ought at the same time to take heed lest graces so distinguished be polluted by your vices. See, then, that you be agreed among yourselves; and it is not without good reason that I call for agreement among yourselves, for I have been informed that you are in a state of disagreement, amounting even to hostility, and that there are parties and contentions raging among you, by which true unity of faith is torn asunder.” As, however, they might not perhaps be sufficiently aroused by mere exhortation, he uses earnest entreaty, for he adjures them, by the name of Christ, that, as they loved him, they should aim at promoting harmony.
That ye all speak the same thing In exhorting them to harmony, he employs three different forms of expression: for, in the first place, he requires such agreement among them that all shall have one voice; secondly, he takes away the evil by which unity is broken and torn asunder; and, thirdly, he unfolds the nature of true harmony, which is, that they be agreed among themselves in mind and will. What he has placed second is first in order, — that we beware of strifes. For from this a second thing will naturally follow, — that we be in harmony; and then at length a third thing will follow, which is here mentioned first, — that we all speak, as it were, with one mouth; a thing exceedingly desirable as a fruit of Christian harmony. Let us then observe, that nothing is more inconsistent on the part of Christians than to be at variance among themselves, for it is the main article of our religion that we be in harmony among ourselves; and farther, on such agreement the safety of the Church rests and is dependent.
But let us see what he requires as to Christian unity. If any one is desirous of nice distinctions — he would have them first of all joined together in one mind;secondly, in one judgment; and, thirdly, he would have them declare in words that agreement. As, however, my rendering differs somewhat from that of Erasmus, I would, in passing, call my readers to observe, that Paul here makes use of a participle, which denotes things that are fitly and suitably joined together (56) For the verb καταρτιζεσθαι itself (from which the participle κατηρτισμένος comes) properly signifies, to be fitted and adjusted, just as the members of the human body are connected together by a most admirable symmetry. (57)
For sententia (judgment) Paul has γνώμην : but I understand it here as denoting the will, so that there is a complete division of the soul, and the first clause refers to faith, the second to love. Then only will there be Christian unity among us, when there is not merely a good agreement as to doctrine, but we are also in harmony in our affections and dispositions, and are thus in all respects of one mind. Thus Luke bears witness to believers in the primitive Church, (Act 2:46,) that they had “one heart and one soul.” And without doubt this will be found wherever the Spirit of Christ reigns. When, however, he exhorts them to speak the same thing, he intimates still more fully from the effect, how complete the agreement ought to be — so that no diversity may appear even in words. It is difficult, indeed, of attainment, but still it is necessary among Christians, from whom there is required not merely one faith, but also one confession.
(56) “Et assembles l’une h l’autre;” — “And associated with each other.”
(57) The verb καταρτιζω properly signifies, to repair, or refit, or restore to its original condition what has been disarranged or broken; and in this sense it is applied to the repairing of nets, ships, walls, etc. (See Mat 4:21; Mar 1:19.) We might with perfect propriety understand the Apostle as alluding here to the repairing of a ship that has been broken or damaged, and as intimating that a Church, when shattered by divisions, is (so to speak) not sea-worthy, and must be carefully repaired, before she can be fit for purposes of commerce, by conveying to the nations of the earth the “true riches.” The allusion, however, most probably is, as Calvin thinks, to the members of the human body, which are so admirably adjusted to each other. It deserves to be noticed, that Paul makes use of a derivative from the same verb (κατάρτισις) in 2. o 13:9, on which Beza observes, “that the Apostle’s meaning is, that whereas the members of the Church were all (as it were) dislocated and out of joint, they should now again be joined together in love, and they should endeavor to make perfect what was amiss amongst them either in faith or manners.” — Ed
11. It has been declared. As general observations have usually little effect, he intimates, that what he had said was more particularly applicable to them. The application, therefore, is designed with the view of leading the Corinthians to perceive, that it was not without good reason that Paul had made mention of harmony. For he shows that they had not merely turned aside from a holy unity, (58) but had even fallen into contentions, which are worse (59) than jarrings of sentiment. And that he may not be charged with believing too readily what was said, (60) as though he lightly lent his ear to false accusations, he speaks with commendation of his informants, who must have been in the highest esteem, as he did not hesitate to adduce them as competent witnesses against an entire Church. It is not indeed altogether certain, whether Chloe is the name of a place or of a woman, but to me it appears more probable that it is the name of a woman. (61) I am of opinion, therefore, that it was a well-regulated household that acquainted Paul with the distempered condition of the Corinthian Church, being desirous that it might be remedied by him. The idea entertained by many, in accordance with Chrysostom’s view, that he refrained from mentioning names, lest he should bring odium upon them, appears to me to be absurd. For he does not say that some of the household had reported this to him, but, on the contrary, makes mention of them all, and there is no doubt that they would willingly have allowed their names to be made use of. Farther, that he might not exasperate their minds by undue severity, he has modified the reproof by an engaging form of address; not as though he would make light of the distemper, but with the view of bringing them to a more teachable spirit, for perceiving the severity of the malady.
(58) “La sancte union qui doit estre entre les Chrestiens;” — “That holy unity which ought to be among Christians.”
(59) “Bien plus dangereuses;” — “Much more dangerous.”
(60) It is remarked by Beza that the verb here employed, δηλοω, (to declare,)has a stronger signification than σημαινω (to intimate,) just as there is a difference of meaning between the Latin words declarare (to declare) and significare (to intimate,) an example of which is furnished in a letter of Cicero to Lucretius, “tibi non significandum solum, sed etiam declarandum arbitror, nihil mihi esse potuisse tuis literis gratius;” “I think it ought to be not merely intimated to you but declared, that nothing could be more agreeable to me than your letters.” The emphatic word εδηλωθν (it has been declared,) appears to have been made use of by the Apostle to convey more fully to the mind of the Corhlthians, that he had not hastily given heed to a mere report. — Ed
(61) Some have thought that by τῶς Χλόης,(those of Chloe,) the Apostle means persons who were in a flourishing condition in religion; from χλόη, green herbage, (Herodotus, 4:34, Euripides, Hipp. 1124.) One writer supposes Paul to mean seniores, (elders,) deriving the word χλόη from כלח, old age. These conjectures, however, are manifestly more ingenious than solid. It is certain that the name Χλόν (Chloe,) was frequent among the Greeks as the name of a female. It is most natural to understand by των Χλονς those of Chloe, as equivalent to των Χλονς σοικειως — those of the household of Chloe. — Ed
12. I say then, etc. Some think there is here an instance of μιμησις,imitation, as if Paul were here repeating their expressions. Now, although the manuscripts differ as to the particle ὅτι, I am of opinion that it is the conjunction (because) rather than the relative (which), so that there is simply an explanation of the preceding statement in this sense. “My reason for saying that there are contentions among you is, because every one of you glories in the name of some individual.” It will, however, be objected, that in these words there is no appearance as yet of contention. My answer is, that where there are jarrings in religion, it cannot but be that men’s minds will soon afterwards burst forth in open strife. For as nothing is more effectual for uniting us, and there is nothing that tends more to draw our minds together, and keep them in a state of peace, than agreement in religion, so, on the other hand, if any disagreement has arisen as to matters of this nature, the effect necessarily is, that men’s minds are straightway stirred up for combat, and in no other department are there more fierce contendings. (62) Hence it is with good reason that Paul brings it forward as a sufficient evidence of contention, that the Corinthians were infested with sects and parties.
I am of Paul He makes mention here of Christ’s faithful servants — Apollos, who had been his successor at Corinth, and Peter himself too, and then adds himself to their number, that he may appear to plead not so much his own cause as that of Christ. In any other point of view it is not likely that there were any parties that espoused the separate interests of ministers joined together by a sacred agreement. (63) He has, however, as he afterwards mentions, transferred to himself and Apollos what was applicable to others; and this he has done, in order that they might more candidly consider the thing itself, viewing it apart from respect of persons. It will, however, be replied, that he makes mention here even of those who professed that they were of Christ Was this, too, worthy of blame? I answer, that in this way he shows more fully what unseemly consequences result from those depraved affections, when we give ourselves up to men, as in that case Christ must be acknowledged merely in part, and the pious have no alternative left them, but to separate themselves from others, if they would not renounce Christ.
As, however, this passage is wrested in various ways, we must endeavor to ascertain more minutely what Paul intends here. His object is, to maintain Christ’s exclusive authority in the Church, so that we may all exercise dependence upon him, that he alone may be recognized among us as Lord and Master, and that the name of no individual be set in opposition to his. Those, therefore, that draw away disciples after them (Act 20:30,) with the view of splitting the Church into parties, he condemns as most destructive enemies of our faith. Thus then he does not, suffer men to have such pre-eminence in the Church as to usurp Christ’s supremacy. He does not allow them to be held in such honor as to derogate even in the slightest degree from Christ’s dignity. There is, it is true, a certain degree of honor that is due to Christ’s ministers, and they are also themselves masters in their own place, but this exception must always be kept in view, that Christ must have without any infringement what belongs to him — that he shall nevertheless be the sole Master, and looked upon as such. Hence the aim of good ministers is this, that they may all in common serve Christ, and claim for him exclusively power, authority, and glory — fight under his banner — obey him alone, and bring others in subjection to his sway. If any one is influenced by ambition, that man gathers disciples, not to Christ, but to himself. This then is the fountain of all evils — this the most hurtful of all plagues — this the deadly poison of all Churches, when ministers seek their own interests rather than those of Christ. In short, the unity of the Church consists more especially in this one thing — that we all depend upon Christ alone, and that men thus occupy an inferior place, so as not to detract in any degree from his pre-eminence.
(62) “Et n’y a en chose quelconque debars si grans ni tant a craindre que sent ceux-la;” — “And in no department are there disputes so great, or so much to be dreaded as those:”
(63) “Autrement veu que ces trois estoyent d’un sainct accord ensemble en leur ministere, il n’est point vray-semblable, qu’il y eust aucunes partialitez entre les Corinthiens pour se glorifier en l’un plustost qu’en l’autre;” — “Otherwise, seeing that those three were united in their ministry by a sacred agreement, it is not likely that there were any parties among the Corinthians that were prepared to glory in one of them rather than in another.”
13. Is Christ divided? This intolerable evil was consequent upon the divisions that prevailed among the Corinthians: for Christ alone must reign in the Church. And as the object of the gospel is, that we be reconciled to God through him, it is necessary, in the first place, that we should all be bound together in him. As, however, only a very few of the Corinthians, who were in a sounder condition than the others, (64) retained Christ as their Master, (while all made it their boast that they were Christians,) Christ was by this means torn asunder. For we must be one body, if we would be kept together under him as our head. If, on the other hand, we are split asunder into different bodies, we start aside from him also. Hence to glory in his name amidst strifes and parties is to tear him in pieces: which indeed is impossible, for never will he depart from unity and concord, because “He cannot deny himself” (2. i 2:13.) Paul, therefore, by setting before them this absurdity, designs to lead the Corinthians to perceive that they are estranged from Christ, inasmuch as they are divided, for then only does he reign in us, when we have him as the bond of an inviolably sacred unity.
Was Paul crucified for you? By two powerful considerations, he shows how base a thing (65) it is to rob Christ of the honor of being the sole Head of the Church — the sole Teacher — the sole Master; or to draw away from him any part of that honor, with the view of transferring it to men. The first is, that we have been redeemed by Christ on this footing, that we are not our own masters. This very argument Paul makes use of in his Epistle to the Romans (Rom 14:9,) when he says,
“For this end Christ died and rose again, that he might be Lord both of the living and the dead.”
To him, therefore, let us live and die, because we are always his. Also in this same Epistle (1. o 7:23,)
“Ye are bought with a price: be not ye the servants of men.”
As the Corinthians, therefore, had been purchased with the blood of Christ, they in a manner renounced the benefit of redemption, when they attached themselves to other leaders. Here is a doctrine that is deserving of special notice — that we are not at liberty to put ourselves under bondage to men, (66) because we are the Lord’s heritage. Here, therefore, he accuses the Corinthians of the basest ingratitude, in estranging themselves from that Leader, by whose blood they had been redeemed, however they might have done so unwittingly.
Farther, this passage militates against the wicked contrivance of Papists, by which they attempt to bolster up their system of indulgences. For it is from the blood of Christ and the martyrs (67) that they make up that imaginary treasure of the Church, which they tell us is dealt out by means of indulgences. Thus they pretend that the martyrs by their death merited something for us in the sight of God, that we may seek help from this source for obtaining the pardon of our sins. They will deny, indeed, that they are on that account our redeemers; but nothing is more manifest than that the one thing follows from the other. The question is as to the reconciling of sinners to God; the question is as to the obtaining of forgiveness; the question is as to the appeasing of the Lord’s anger; the question is as to redemption from our iniquities. This they boast is accomplished partly by the blood of Christ, and partly by that of the martyrs. They make, therefore, the martyrs partners with Christ in procuring our salvation. Here, however, Paul in strong terms denies that any one but Christ has been crucified for us. The martyrs, it is true, died for our benefit, but (as Leo (68) observes) it was to furnish an example of perseverance, not to procure for us the gift of righteousness.
Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Here we have a second argument, which is taken from the profession of baptism; for we enlist ourselves under the banners of him in whose name we are baptized. We are, accordingly, bound (69) to Christ, in whose name our baptism is celebrated. Hence it follows that the Corinthians are chargeable with perfidy and apostasy, if they place themselves under subjection to men. Observe here that the nature of baptism resembles a contract (70) of mutual obligation; for as the Lord by that symbol receives us into his household, and introduces us among his people, so we pledge our fidelity to him, that we will never afterwards have any other spiritual Lord. Hence as it is on God’s part a covenant of grace that he contracts with us, in which he promises forgiveness of sins and a new life, so on our part it is an oath of spiritual warfare, in which we promise perpetual subjection to him. The former department Paul does not here touch upon, because the subject did not admit of it; but in treating of baptism it ought not to be omitted. Nor does Paul charge the Corinthians with apostasy simply on the ground of their forsaking Christ and betaking themselves to men; but he declares that if they do not adhere to Christ alone — that very thing would make them covenant-breakers.
It is asked, what it is to be baptized in the name of Christ? I answer that by this expression it is not simply intimated that baptism is founded on the authority of Christ, but depends also on his influence, and does in a manner consist in it; and, in fine, that the whole effect of it depends on this — that the name of Christ is therein invoked. It is asked farther, why it is that Paul says that the Corinthians were baptized in the name of Christ, while Christ himself commanded (Mat 28:19) the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I answer, that in baptism the first thing to be considered is, that God the Father, by planting us in his Church in unmerited goodness, receives us by adoption into the number of his sons. Secondly, as we cannot have any connection with him except by means of reconciliation, we have need of Christ to restore us to the Father’s favor by his blood. Thirdly, as we are by baptism consecrated to God, we need also the interposition of the Holy Spirit, whose office it is to make us new creatures. Nay farther, our being washed in the blood of Christ is peculiarly his work; but as we do not obtain the mercy of the Father, or the grace of the Spirit, otherwise than through Christ alone, it is on good grounds that we speak of him as the peculiar object in view in baptism, and more particularly inscribe his name upon baptism. At the same time this does not by any means exclude the name of the Father and of the Spirit; for when we wish to sum up in short compass the efficacy of baptism, we make mention of Christ alone; but when we are disposed to speak with greater minuteness, the name of the Father and that of the Spirit require to be expressly introduced.
(64) “Mieux avisez que les autres;” — “Better advised than the others.”
(65) “Combien c’est vne chose insupportable;” — “How insufferable a thing it is.”
(66) “Addicere nos hominibus in servitutem “ — “de nous assuiettir aux hommes en seruitude;” — “To give ourselves up to men, so as to be in bondage to them.” Calvin very probably had in his eye the celebrated sentiment of Horace, (Epistle 1 50:14,) “Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri;” — “Bound to swear allegiance to no master,” while enforcing the sentiment by a powerful consideration, to which the heathen poet was an entire stranger. — Ed.
(67) “Du sang de Christ, et des martyrs tous ensemble;” — “From the blood of Christ, and of all the martyrs together.”
(68) Leo, ad Palaestinos, Epistle 81. The passage alluded to above is quoted at large in the Institutes. (Volume 2.) “Although the death of many saints was precious in the sight of the Lord, (Psa 116:15,) yet no innocent man’s slaughter was the propitiation of the world. The just received crowns, did not give them; and the fortitude of believers produced examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness; for their deaths were for themselves; and none by his final end paid the debt of another, except Christ our Lord, in whom alone all are crucified, all dead, buried, and raised up.” Leo, from whose writings this admirable passage is extracted, was a Roman bishop, who flourished in the fifth century, and was one of the most distinguished men of his age. He was a most zealous defender of the doctrines of grace, in opposition to Pelagianism and other heresies. — Ed.
(69) “Obligez par serment;” — “Bound by oath.”
(70) “Syngrapha (the term employed by Calvin) was a contract or bond, formally entered into between two parties, signed and sealed by both, and a copy given to each.” Cic. Verr. 1:36. Dio. 48:37. It is derived from a Greek term συγγραφὴ (a legal instrument or obligation.) Herodotus 1:48; and Demosthenes 268:13. Π. στεφ. — Ed
14. I thank my God. In these words he reproves very sharply the perversity of the Corinthians, which made it necessary for him to avoid, in a manner, a thing so sacred and honorable as that of the administration of baptism. Paul, indeed, would have acted with propriety, and in accordance with the nature of his office, though he had baptized ever so many. He rejoices, however, that it had happened otherwise, and acknowledges it as having been so ordered, in the providence of God, that they might not take occasion from that to glory in him, or that he might not bear any resemblance to those ambitious men who endeavored in this way to catch followers. But what if he had baptized many? There would have been no harm in it, but (as I have said) there is couched under this a heavy reproach against the Corinthians and their false apostles, inasmuch as a servant of the Lord found occasion to rejoice that he had refrained from a work, otherwise good and commendable, lest it should become an occasion of harm to them.
17. For Christ sent me not. He anticipates an objection that might, perhaps, be brought against him — that he had not discharged his duty, inasmuch as Christ commands his Apostles to baptize as well as teach. Accordingly he replies, that this was not the principal department of his office, for the duty of teaching had been principally enjoined upon him as that to which he should apply himself. For when Christ says to the Apostles, (Mat 28:19, Mar 16:15,) Go, preach and baptize, he connects baptism with teaching simply as an addition or appendage, so that teaching always holds the first place.
Two things, however, must be noticed here. The first is, that the Apostle does not here absolutely deny that he had a command to baptize, for this is applicable to all the Apostles: Go and baptize; and he would have acted rashly in baptizing even one, had he not been furnished with authority, but simply points out what was the chief thing in his calling. The second thing is, that he does not by any means detract here, as some think, from the dignity or utility of the sacrament. For the question here is, not as to the efficacy of baptism, and Paul does not institute this comparison with the view of detracting in any degree from that; but because it was given to few to teach, while many could baptize; and farther, as many could be taught at the same time, while baptism could only be administered to individuals successively, one by one, Paul, who excelled in the gift of teaching, applied himself to the work that was more especially needful for him, and left to others what they could more conveniently accomplish. Nay farther, if the reader considers minutely all the circumstances of the case, he will see that there is irony (71) tacitly conveyed here, dexterously contrived for making those feel acutely, who, under color of administering a ceremony, endeavor to catch a little glory at the expense of another’s labor. Paul’s labors in building up that Church had been incredible. There had come after him certain effeminate masters, who had drawn over followers to their party by the sprinkling of water; (72) Paul, then, giving up to them the title of honor, declares himself contented with having had the burden. (73)
Not with wisdom of words There is here an instance of anticipation, by which a twofold objection is refuted. For these pretended teachers might reply that it was ludicrous to hear Paul, who was not endowed with eloquence, making it his boast that the department of teaching had been assigned to him. Hence he says, by way of concession, that he had not been formed to be an orator, (74) to set himself off by elegance of speech: but a minister of the Spirit, that he might, by plain and homely speech, bring to nothing the wisdom of the world. Now, lest any one should object that he hunted after glory by his preaching, as much as others did by baptism, he briefly replies, that as the method of teaching that he pursued was the farthest removed from show, and breathed nothing of ambition, it could give no ground of suspicion on that head. Hence, too, if I mistake not, it may readily be inferred what was the chief ground of the controversy that Paul had with the wicked and unfaithful ministers of the Corinthians. It was that, being puffed up with ambition, that they might secure for themselves the admiration of the people, they recommended themselves to them by a show of words and mask of human wisdom.
From this main evil two others necessarily followed — that by these disguises (so to speak) the simplicity of the gospel was disfigured, and Christ was, as it were, clothed in a new and foreign garb, so that the pure and unadulterated knowledge of him was not to be found. Farther, as men’s minds were turned aside to neatness and elegance of expression, to ingenious speculations, and to an empty show of superior sublimity of doctrine, the efficacy of the Spirit vanished, and nothing remained but the dead letter. The majesty of God, as it shines forth in the gospel, was not to be seen, but mere disguise and useless show. Paul, accordingly, with the view of exposing these corruptions of the gospel, makes a transition here to the manner of his preaching. This he declares to be right and proper, while at the same time it was diametrically opposed to the ambitious ostentation of those men. (75) It is as though he had said — “I am well aware how much your fastidious teachers delight themselves in their high-sounding phrases. As for myself, I do not simply confess that my preaching has been conducted in a rude, coarse, and unpolished style, but I even glory in it. For it was right that it should be so, and this was the method that was divinely prescribed to me. ” By the wisdom of words, he does not mean λογοδαιδαλία, (76) which is mere empty talk, but true eloquence, which consists in skillful contrivance of subjects, ingenious arrangement, and elegance of expression. He declares that he had nothing of this: nay more, that it was neither suitable to his preaching nor advantageous.
Lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect As he had so often previously presented the name of Christ in contrast with the arrogant wisdom of the flesh, so now, with the view of bringing down thereby all its pride and loftiness, he brings forward to view the cross of Christ. For all the wisdom of believers is comprehended in the cross of Christ, and what more contemptible than a cross? Whoever, therefore, would desire to be truly wise in God’s account, must of necessity stoop to this abasement of the cross, and this will not be accomplished otherwise than by his first of all renouncing his own judgment and all the wisdom of the world. Paul, however, shows here not merely what sort of persons Christ’s disciples ought to be, and what path of learning they ought to pursue, but also what is the method of teaching in Christ’s school. “The cross of Christ (says he) would have been made of none effect, if my preaching had been adorned with eloquence and show.” The cross of Christ he has put here for the benefit of redemption, which must be sought from Christ crucified. Now the doctrine of the gospel which calls us to this, should savor of the nature of the Cross, so as to be despised and contemptible, rather than glorious, in the eyes of the world. The meaning, therefore, is, that if Paul had made use of philosophical acuteness and studied address in the presence of the Corinthians, the efficacy of the cross of Christ, in which the salvation of men consists, would have been buried, because it cannot come to us in that way.
Here two questions are proposed: first, whether Paul here condemns in every respect the wisdom of words, as opposed to Christ; and secondly, whether he means that eloquence and the doctrine of the gospel are invariably opposed, so they cannot agree together, and that the preaching of the gospel is vitiated, if the slightest tincture of eloquence (77) is made use of for adorning it. To the first of these I answer — that it were quite unreasonable to suppose, that Paul would utterly condemn those arts which, it is manifest, are excellent gifts of God, and which serve as instruments, as it were, to assist men in the accomplishment of important purposes. As for those arts, then, that have nothing of superstition, but contain solid learning, (78) and are founded on just principles, as they are useful and suited to the common transactions of human life, so there can be no doubt that they have come forth from the Holy Spirit; and the advantage which is derived and experienced from them, ought to be ascribed exclusively to God. What Paul says here, therefore, ought not to be taken as throwing any disparagement upon the arts, as if they were unfavorable to piety.
The second question is somewhat more difficult, for he says, that the cross of Christ is made of none effect if there be any admixture of the wisdom of words I answer, that we must consider who they are that Paul here addresses. The ears of the Corinthians were tickled with a silly fondness for high sounding style. (79) Hence they needed more than others to be brought back to the abasement of the cross, that they might learn to embrace Christ as he is, unadorned, and the gospel in its simplicity, without any false ornament. I acknowledge, at the same time, that this sentiment in some respects holds invariably, that the cross of Christ is made of none effect, not merely by the wisdom of the world, but also by elegance of address. For the preaching of Christ crucified is simple and unadorned, and hence it ought not to be obscured by false ornaments of speech. It is the prerogative of the gospel to bring down the wisdom of the world in such a way that, stripped of our own understanding, we show ourselves to be simply docile, and do not think or even desire to know anything, but what the Lord himself teaches. As to the wisdom of the flesh, we shall have occasion to consider more at large ere long, in what respects it is opposed to Christ. As to eloquence, I shall advert to it here in a few words, in so far as the passage calls for.
We see that God from the beginning ordered matters so, that, the gospel should be administered in simplicity, without any aid from eloquence. Could not he who fashions the tongues of men for eloquence, be himself eloquent if he chose to be so? While he could be so, he did not choose to be so. Why it was that he did not choose this, I find two reasons more particularly. The first is, that in a plain and unpolished manner of address, the majesty of the truth might shine forth more conspicuously, and the simple efficacy of his Spirit, without external aids, might make its way into the hearts of men. The second is, that he might more effectually try our obedience and docility, and train us at the same time to true humility. For the Lord admits none into his school but little children. (80) Hence those alone are capable of heavenly wisdom who, contenting themselves with the preaching of the cross, however contemptible it may be in appearance, feel no desire whatever to have Christ under a mask. Hence the doctrine of the gospel required to be regulated with this view, that believers should be drawn off from all pride and haughtiness.
But what if any one should at the present day, by discoursing with some degree of elegance, adorn the doctrine of the gospel by eloquence? Would he deserve to be on that account rejected, as though he either polluted it or obscured Christ’s glory. I answer in the first place, that eloquence is not at all at variance with the simplicity of the gospel, when it does not merely not disdain to give way to it, and be in subjection to it, but also yields service to it, as a handmaid to her mistress. For as Augustine says, “He who gave Peter a fisherman, gave also Cyprian an orator.” By this he means, that both are from God, notwithstanding that the one, who is much the superior of the other as to dignity, is utterly devoid of gracefulness of speech; while the other, who sits at his feet, is distinguished by the fame of his eloquence. That eloquence, therefore, is neither to be condemned nor despised, which has no tendency to lead Christians to be taken up with an outward glitter of words, or intoxicate them with empty delight, or tickle their ears with its tinkling sound, or cover over the cross of Christ with its empty show as with a veil; (81) but, on the contrary, tends to call us back to the native simplicity of the gospel, tends to exalt the simple preaching of the cross by voluntarily abasing itself, and, in fine, acts the part of a herald (82) to procure a hearing for those fishermen and illiterate persons, who have nothing to recommend them but the energy of the Spirit.
I answer secondly, that the Spirit of God, also, has an eloquence of his own, but of such a nature as to shine forth with a native luster peculiar to itself, or rather (as they say) intrinsic, more than with any adventitious ornaments. Such is the eloquence that the Prophets have, more particularly Isaiah, David, and Solomon. Moses, too, has a sprinkling of it. Nay farther, even in the writings of the Apostles, though they are more unpolished, there are notwithstanding some sparks of it occasionally emitted. Hence the eloquence that is suited to the Spirit of God is of such a nature that it does not swell with empty show, or spend itself in empty sound, but is solid and efficacious, and has more of substance than elegance.
(71) “Ironie, c’est a dire, mocquerie;” — “Irony, that is to say, mockery.”
(72) “Seulement en les arrousant d’eau: c’est a dire, baptizant;” — “Simply by sprinkling them with water, that is to say, baptizing.”
(73) “Toute la charge et la pesanteur du fardeau;” — “The whole charge and weight of the burden.”
(74) “Vn Rhetoricien ou harangueur;” — “A Rhetorician, or declaimer.”
(76) The term λογοδαιδαλία properly denotes speech ingeniously contrived. It is compounded of λογος (speech) and Δαιδαλος (Daedalus,) an ingenious artist of Athens, celebrated for his skill in statuary and architecture. Hence everything that was skilfully contrived was called Daedalean. See Lucr. 4. 555, and 5. 235; Virg. G. 4. 179; and Aen. 7. 282. — Ed
(77) “Eloquence et rhetorique;” — “Eloquence and rhetoric.”
(78) “Vne bonne erudition, et scauoir solide;” — “Good learning, and solid wisdom.”
(79) “Les Corinthiens auoyent les oreilles chatouilleuses, et estoyent transportez d’vn fol appetit d’auoir des gens qui eussent vn beau parler;” — “The Corinthians had itching ears, (2. i 4:3,) and were carried away with a silly eagerness to have persons that had a good manner of address.”
(80) “Les humbles;” — “The humble.”
(81) “Ni a offusquer de sa pompe la croix de Christ, comme qui mettroit vne nuee au denant;” — “Nor to darken the cross of Christ with its empty show, as if one were drawing a cloud over it.”
(82) “Brief, a seruir comme de trompette;” — “In short, to serve as a trumpet.”
18. For the preaching of the cross, etc. In this first clause a concession is made. For as it might very readily be objected, that the gospel is commonly held in contempt, if it be presented in so bare and abject a form, Paul of his own accord concedes this, but when he adds, that it is so in the estimation of them that perish, he intimates that no regard must be paid to their judgment. For who would choose to despise the gospel at the expense of perishing? This statement, therefore, must be understood in this way: “Howeverthe preaching of the cross, as having nothing of human wisdom to recommend it to esteem, is reckoned foolishness by them that perish; in our view, notwithstanding, the wisdom of God clearly shines forth in it.” He indirectly reproves, however, the perverted judgment of the Corinthians, who, while they were, through seduction of words, too easily allured by ambitious teachers, regarded with disdain an Apostle who was endowed with the power of God for their salvation, and that simply because he devoted himself to the preaching of Christ. In what way the preaching of the cross is the power of God unto salvation, we have explained in commenting upon Rom 1:16
19. For it is written, etc. He shows still farther, from the testimony of Isaiah, how unreasonable a thing it is that the truth of the gospel should be regarded with prejudice on the ground that the wise of this world hold it in contempt, not to say derision. For it is evident from the words of the Prophet, that their opinion is regarded as nothing in the account of God. The passage is taken from Isa 29:14, where the Lord threatens that he will avenge himself upon the hypocrisy of the people by this kind of punishment, that wisdom will perish from the wise, etc. Now the application of this to the subject in hand is this: “It is nothing new or unusual for men to form utterly absurd judgments, who appear in other respects to be distinguished for wisdom. For in this manner the Lord has been wont to punish the arrogance of those who, depending on their own judgment, think to be leaders to themselves and others. In this manner did He, among the Israelitish people of old, destroy the wisdom of those who were the leaders of the people. If this happened among a people, whose wisdom the other nations had occasion to admire, what will become of others?”
It is proper, however, to compare the words of the Prophet with those of Paul, and to examine the whole matter still more closely. The Prophet, indeed, makes use of neuter verbs when he says, Wisdom will perish and prudence will vanish, while Paul turns them into the active form, by making them have a reference to God. They are, however, perfectly the same in meaning. For this is a great prodigy which God declares he will exhibit, so that all will be filled with astonishment. Wisdom, therefore, perishes, but it is by the Lord’s destroying it: wisdom vanishes, but it is by the Lord’s covering it over and effacing it. As to the second term αθετεῖν, (which Erasmus renders reject,) as it is ambiguous, and is sometimes taken to mean efface, or expunge, or obliterate, I prefer to understand it in this sense here, so as to correspond with the Prophet’s word vanish, or be hid. At the same time, there is another reason that has weighed more with me, (83) — that the word reject was not in accordance with the subject, as will appear ere long. Let us see, then, as to the meaning.
The Prophet’s meaning, without doubt, is precisely this, that they would no longer have governors that would rule well, because the Lord will deprive them of sound judgment and intelligence. For as he elsewhere threatens to send blindness upon the whole nation (Isa 6:10,) so here, upon the leaders; which is just as though he were plucking the eyes out of the body. However this may be, a great difficulty arises from the circumstance, that the term wisdom or prudence was taken by Isaiah in a good sense, while Paul quotes it for an opposite purpose, as though the wisdom of men were condemned by God, as being perverted, and their prudence set aside as being mere vanity. I confess that it is commonly expounded in this way; but as it is certain that the oracles of the Holy Spirit are not perverted by the Apostles to meanings foreign to their real design, I choose rather to depart from the common opinion of interpreters than to charge Paul with falsehood. In other respects, too, the natural meaning of the Prophet’s words accords not ill with Paul’s intention; for if even the wisest become fools, when the Lord takes away a right spirit, what confidence is to be placed in the wisdom of men? Farther, as it is God’s usual way of punishing, to strike blind those who, following implicitly their own judgment, are wise in their own esteem, it is not to be wondered if carnal men, when they rise up against God, with the view of subjecting His eternal truth to their rashness, are turned into fools, and become vain in their imaginations. We now see with what appropriateness Paul makes use of this testimony. Isaiah declares that the vengeance of God upon all those that served God with their own inventions would be, that wisdom would vanish from their wise men. Paul, with the view of proving that the wisdom of this world is vain and worthless, when it exalts itself against God, adduces this testimony from Isaiah.
(83) “Combien que j’aye vne raison encore plus valable, qui m’a induit a changer ceste translation;” — “At the same time, I have a still more forcible reason, which has induced me to alter this translation.”
20. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? This expression of triumph is added for the purpose of illustrating the Prophet’s testimony. Paul has not taken this sentiment from Isaiah, as is commonly thought, but speaks in his own person. For the passage which they point to (Isa 33:18) has nothing corresponding to the subject in hand, or nearly approaching to it. For in that passage, while he promises to the Jews deliverance from the yoke of Sennacherib, that he may magnify the more this great blessing from God, he shows how miserable is the condition of those that are oppressed by the tyranny of foreigners. He says, that they are in a constant fever of anxiety, from thinking themselves beset with scribes or questors, treasurers, and counters of towers. Nay more, he says, that the Jews were involved in such difficulties, that they were stirred up to gratitude by the very remembrance of them. (84) It is a mistake, therefore, to suppose that this sentence is taken from the Prophet. (85) The term world, ought not to be taken in connection with the last term merely, but also with the other two. Now, by the wise of this world, he means those who do not derive their wisdom from illumination by the Spirit through means of the word of God, but, endowed with mere worldly sagacity, rest on the assurance which it affords.
It is generally agreed, that by the term scribes is meant teachers. For as ספר, saphar, among the Hebrews, means to relate or recount, and the noun derived from it, ספר, sepher, , is used by them to signify a book or volume, they employ the term סופרימ, sopherim, to denote learned men, and those that are conversant with books; and, for the same reason, too, sopher regis is often used to denote a chancellor or secretary The Greeks, following the etymology of the Hebrew term, have translated it γραμματεις,scribes (86) He appropriately gives the name of investigators (87) to those that show off their acuteness by starting difficult points and involved questions. Thus in a general way he brings to nothing man’s entire intellect, so as to give it no standing in the kingdom of God. Nor is it without good reason that he inveighs so vehemently against the wisdom of men, for it is impossible to express how difficult a thing it is to eradicate from men’s minds a misdirected confidence in the flesh, that they may not claim for themselves more than is reasonable. Now there is more than ought to be, if, depending even in the slightest degree upon their own wisdom, they venture of themselves to form a judgment.
Hath not God made foolish, etc By wisdom here he means everything that man can comprehend either by the natural powers of his understanding, or as deriving aid from practice, from learning, or from a knowledge of the arts. For he contrasts the wisdom of the world with the wisdom of the Spirit. Hence, whatever knowledge a man may come to have without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, is included in the expression, the wisdom of this world This he says God has utterlymade foolish, that is, He has convicted it of folly. This you may understand to be effected in two ways; for whatever a man knows and understands, is mere vanity, if it is not grounded in true wisdom; and it is in no degree better fitted for the apprehension of spiritual doctrine than the eye of a blind man is for discriminating colors. We must carefully notice these two things — that a knowledge of all the sciences is mere smoke, where the heavenly science of Christ is wanting; and man, with all his acuteness, is as stupid for obtaining of himself a knowledge of the mysteries of God, as an ass is unqualified for understanding musical harmonies. For in this way he reproves the destructive pride of those who glory in the wisdom of the world so as to despise Christ, and the entire doctrine of salvation, thinking themselves happy when they are taken up with creatures; and he beats down the arrogance of those who, trusting to their own understanding, attempt to scale heaven itself.
There is also a solution furnished at the same time to the question, how it happens that Paul in this way throws down upon the ground every kind of knowledge that is apart from Christ, and tramples, as it were, under foot what is manifestly one of the chief gifts of God in this world. For what is more noble than man’s reason, in which man excels the other animals? How richly deserving of honor are the liberal sciences, which polish man, so as to give him the dignity of true humanity! Besides this, what distinguished and choice fruits they produce! Who would not extol with the highest commendations civil prudence (88) (not to speak of other things,) by which governments, principalities, and kingdoms are maintained? A solution of this question, I say, is opened up to view from the circumstance, that Paul does not expressly condemn either man’s natural perspicacity, or wisdom acquired from practice and experience, or cultivation of mind attained by learning; but declares that all this is of no avail for acquiring spiritual wisdom. And, certainly, it is madness for any one, confiding either in his own acuteness, or the assistance of learning, to attempt to fly up to heaven, or, in other words, to judge of the secret mysteries of the kingdom of God, (89) or to break through (Exo 19:21) to a discovery of them, for they are hid from human view. Let us, then, take notice, that we must restrict to the specialities of the case in hand what Paul here teaches respecting the vanity of the wisdom of this world — that it rests in the mere elements of the world, and does not reach to heaven. In other respects, too, it holds true, that without Christ sciences in every department are vain, and that the man who knows not God is vain, though he should be conversant with every branch of learning. Nay more, we may affirm this, too, with truth, that these choice gifts of God — expertness of mind, acuteness of judgment, liberal sciences, and acquaintance with languages, are in a manner profaned in every instance in which they fall to the lot of wicked men.
(84) The passage referred to in Isaiah is happily rendered by Lowth:-Thine heart shall reflect on the past terror: Where is now the accomptant ?where the weigher of tribute ?where is he that numbered the towers ? The last of these expressions Lowth explains to mean, “the commander of the enemy’s forces, who surveyed the fortifications of the city, and took an account of the height, strength, and situation of the walls and towers, that he might know where to make the assault with the greatest advantage.” — Ed.
(85) “The words of Paul, 1. o 1:20, ποῦ σοφός; ποῦ γραμματεύς; ποῦ συζητητὴς κ.τ.λ., are not, as some have imagined, a quotation of the words of this verse,” (Isa 33:18;) “the only points of agreement between them being merely the occurrence of γραμματεὺς, and the repetition of the interrogative τοῦ. It is not impossible, however, that the structure of the one passage may have suggested the other. ” — Henderson on Isaiah. — Ed
(86) The Hebrew phrase referred to occurs in 2. g 12:10 ספר המלך (the king’s scribe.) It is rendered by the Septuagint, ὁ γραμματεύς τοῦ βασιλέως The corresponding Greek term, γραμματεις is employed by the classical writers to denote a clerk or secretary, (Demosth. 269.19.) The γραμματεις (notaries) “had the custody of the laws and the public records, which it was their business to write, and to repeat to the people and senate when so required. ” — Potter ’s Grecian Antiquities, volume 1. — Ed
(87) Calvin, here has manifestly in his eye the original meaning of συζητητης, which is derived from συν and ζητεω (to inquire together,) and comes very naturally to mean one that indulges in arguments or disputes. The term was applied to the subtle Sophists, or disputants in the Greek academies. — Ed
(88) “La prudence civile, c’est a dire la science des lois;” — “Civil prudence, that is to say, the science of laws.”
(89) See Institutes, volume 1. — Ed.
21. For since the world knew not. The right order of things was assuredly this, that man, contemplating the wisdom of God in his works, by the light of the understanding furnished him by nature, might arrive at an acquaintance with him. As, however, this order of things has been reversed through man’s depravity, God designs in the first place to make us see ourselves to be fools, before he makes us wise unto salvation, (2. i 3:15;) and secondly, as a token of his wisdom, he presents to us what has some appearance of folly. This inversion of the order of things the ingratitude of mankind deserved. By the wisdom of God he means the workmanship of the whole world, which is an illustrious token and clear manifestation of his wisdom: God therefore presents before us in his creatures a bright mirror of his admirable wisdom, so that every one that looks upon the world, and the other works of God, must of necessity break forth in admiration of him, if he has a single spark of sound judgment. If men were guided to a right knowledge of God by the contemplation of his works, they would know God in the exercise of wisdom, or by a natural and proper method of acquiring wisdom; but as the whole world gained nothing in point of instruction from the circumstance, that God had exhibited his wisdom in his creatures, he then resorted to another method for instructing men. (90) Thus it must be reckoned as our own fault, that we do not attain a saving acquaintance with God, before we have been emptied of our own understanding.
He makes a concession when he calls the gospelthe foolishness of preaching, having that appearance in the view of those foolish sages (μωροσόφοις) who, intoxicated with false confidence, (91) fear not to subject God’s sacred truth to their senseless criticism. And indeed in another point of view nothing is more absurd in the view, of human reason than to hear that God has become mortal — that life has been subjected to death — that righteousness has been veiled under the appearance of sin — and that the source of blessing has been made subject to the curse, that by this means men might be redeemed from death, and become partakers of a blessed immortality — that they might obtain life — that, sin being destroyed, righteousness might reign — and that death and the curse might be swallowed up. We know, nevertheless, in the meantime, that the gospel is the hidden wisdom, (1. o 2:7,) which in its height surmounts the heavens, and at which angels themselves stand amazed. Here we have a most beautiful passage, from which we may see how great is the blindness of the human mind, which in the midst of light discerns nothing. For it is true, that this world is like a theater, in which the Lord presents to us a clear manifestation of his glory, and yet, notwithstanding that we have such a spectacle placed before our eyes, we are stone-blind, not because the manifestation is furnished obscurely, but because we are alienated in mind, (Col 1:21,)and for this matter we lack not merely inclination but ability. For notwithstanding that God shows himself openly, it is only with the eye of faith that we can behold him, save only that we receive a slight perception of his divinity, sufficient to render us inexcusable.
Accordingly, when Paul here declares that God is not known through means of his creatures, you must understand him to mean that a pure knowledge of him is not attained. For that none may have any pretext for ignorance, mankind make proficiency in the universal school of nature; so far as to be affected with some perception of deity, but what God is, they know not, nay more, they straightway become vain in their imaginations, (Rom 1:21.) Thus the light shineth in darkness, (Joh 1:5.) It follows, then, that mankind do not err thus far through mere ignorance, so as not to be chargeable with contempt, negligence, and ingratitude. Thus it holds good, that all
have known God, and yet have not glorified him,
(Rom 1:21,)
and that, on the other hand, no one under the guidance of mere nature ever made such proficiency as to know God. Should any one bring forward the philosophers as exceptions, I answer, that in them more especially there is presented a signal token of this our weakness. For there will not be found one of them, that has not from that first principle of knowledge, which I have mentioned, straightway turned aside into wandering (92) and erroneous speculations, and for the most part they betray a silliness worse than that of old wives. When he says, that those are saved that believe, this corresponds with the foregoing statement — that the gospel isthe power of God unto salvation Farther, by contrasting believers, whose number is small, with a blind and senseless world, he teaches us that we err if we stumble at the smallness of their number, inasmuch as they have been divinely set apart to salvation.
(90) The reader will find the same train of thought as above in the Institutes, volume 1. — Ed.
(91) “Et outrecuidance;” — “And presumption.”
(92) “Extrauagantes;” — “Extravagant.”
22. For the Jews require a sign This is explanatory of the preceding statement — showing in what respects the preaching of the gospel is accounted foolishness At the same time he does not simply explain, but even goes a step farther, by saying that the Jews do not merely despise the gospel, but even abhor it. “The Jews,” says he, “desire through means of miracles to have before their eyes an evidence of divine power: the Greeks are fond of what tends to gratify human intellect by the applause of acuteness. We,on the other hand, preach Christ crucified, wherein there appears at first view nothing but weakness and folly. He is, therefore, a stumblingblock to the Jews, when they see him as it were forsaken by God. To the Greeks it appears like a fable, to be told of such a method of redemption.” By the term Greeks here, in my opinion, he does not mean simply Gentiles, but has in view those who had the polish of the liberal sciences, or were distinguished by superior intelligence. At the same time by synecdoche, all the others come in like manner to be included. Between Jews and Greeks, however, he draws this distinction, that the former, striking against Christ by an unreasonable zeal for the law, raged against the gospel with unbounded fury, as hypocrites are wont to do, when contending for their superstitions; while the Greeks, on the other hand, puffed up with pride, regarded him with contempt as insipid.
When he ascribes it to the Jews as a fault, that they are eagerly desirous of signs, it is not on the ground of its being wrong in itself to demand signs, but he exposes their baseness in the following respects: — that by an incessant demand for miracles, they in a manner sought to bind God to their laws — that, in accordance with the dullness of their apprehension, they sought as it were to feel him out (93) in manifest miracles — that they were taken up with the miracles themselves, and looked upon them with amazement — and, in fine, that no miracles satisfied them, but instead of this, they every day gaped incessantly for new ones. Hezekiah is not reproved for having of his own accord allowed himself to be confirmed by a sign, (2. g 19:29, and 2. g 20:8,) nor even Gideon for asking a two-fold sign, (Jud 6:37.) Nay, instead of this, Ahaz is condemned for refusing a sign that the Prophet had offered him, (Isa 7:12.) What fault, then, was there on the part of the Jews in asking miracles? It lay in this, that they did not ask them for a good end, set no bounds to their desire, and did not make a right use of them. For while faith ought to be helped by miracles, their only concern was, how long they might persevere in their unbelief. While it is unlawful to prescribe laws to God, they wantoned with inordinate desire. While miracles should conduct us to an acquaintance with Christ, and the spiritual grace of God, they served as a hindrance in their way. On this account, too, Christ upbraids them, (Mar 8:12.)
A perverse generation seeketh after a sign.
For there were no bounds to their curiosity and inordinate desire, and for all that they had so often obtained miracles, no advantage appeared to arise from them.
(93) There can be no doubt that Calvin refers here to an expression made use of by Paul in his discourse to the Athenians, Act 17:27 Εἰ ἄρα γε ψηλαφήσειαν αὐτὸν καὶ εὔροιεν (if haply they mayfeel him out and find him.) The allusion is to a blind man feeling his way The same word is employed by Plato, (Phoed. footnote 47, edit. Forster.) ̔Ο δε μοι φαινονται ψηλαφῶντες οἱ πολλοι ὣσπερ εν σκοτει, (In this respect the many seem to me to be feeling their way as it were in the dark.) — Ed
24. Both Greeks and Jews He shows by this contrast, that the fact that Christ was so unfavorably received, was not owing to any fault on his part, nor to the natural disposition of mankind generally, but arose from the depravity of those who were not enlightened by God, inasmuch as the elect of God, whether Jews or Gentiles, are not hindered by any stumblingblock from coming to Christ, that they may find in him a sure salvation. He contrasts power with the stumblingblock, that was occasioned by abasement, and wisdom he contrasts with folly The sum, then, is this: — “I am aware that nothing except signs has effect upon the obstinacy of the Jews, and that nothing soothes down the haughtiness of the Greeks, except an empty show of wisdom. We ought, however, to make no account of this; because, however our Christ in connection with the abasement of his cross is a stumblingblock to the Jews, and is derided by the Greeks, he is, notwithstanding, to all the elect, of whatever nation they may be, at once the power of God unto salvation for surmounting these stumblingblocks, and the wisdom of God for throwing off that mask.” (94)
(94) “Pour oster et faire esvanoir ceste vaine apparence, et masque de sagesse;” — “For taking away and causing to vanish, that empty show and mask of wisdom.”
25. For the foolishness of God While the Lord deals with us in such a way as to seem to act foolishly, because he does not exhibit his wisdom, what appears foolishness surpasses in wisdom all the ingenuity of men. Farther, while God appears to act with weakness, in consequence of his concealing his power, that weakness, as it is reckoned, is stronger than any power of men. We must, however, always keep it in view, that there is a concession, as I have noticed a little ago. For no one can but perceive, that in strict propriety neither foolishness nor weakness can be ascribed to God, but it was necessary, by such ironical expressions, to beat down the mad presumption of the flesh, which does not scruple to rob God of all his glory.
26. Behold your calling. As the mood of the Greek verb (βλέπετε) is doubtful, and the indicative suits the context equally as well as the imperative, I leave it to the reader’s choice which of them he may prefer. The meaning is manifestly the same in either case, for supposing it to be the indicative (ye see,) he would in that case summon them as witnesses — as of a thing that is manifest, and call them forward as it were to a thing that is present. On the other hand, understanding it in the imperative, he stirs them up, as it were, from their drowsiness to a consideration of the matter itself. The term calling may be taken in a collective sense to mean the multitude of those that are called — in this sense: “Ye see what description of persons they are among you that the Lord has called.” I am, however, rather inclined to think, that he points out the manner of their calling, and it is a most forcible argument, because it follows from this, that, if they despise the abasement of the cross, they in a manner make void their calling, in which God had acted in such a manner, as to take away all merit from human wisdom, and power, and glory. Hence he tacitly accuses them of ingratitude, because, forgetful alike of God’s grace and of themselves, they regard the gospel of Christ with disdain.
Two things, however, must be observed here — that he was desirous from the example of the Corinthians to confirm the truth of what he had said: and farther, that he designed to admonish them, that they must be entirely divested of pride, if they duly considered the order of things that the Lord had observed in their calling. To put to shame, says he, the wise and noble, and to bring to naught things that are Both expressions are appropriate, for fortitude and wisdom vanish when they are put to shame, but what has an existence requires to be brought to naught By the choosing of the poor, and the foolish, and the ignoble, he means, that God has preferred them before the great, and the wise, and the noble. For it would not have sufficed, for beating down the arrogance of the flesh, if God had placed them all upon a level. Hence, those who appeared to excel he put in the background, in order that he might thoroughly abase them. That man, however, were an arrant fool, who would infer from this, that God has in this manner abased the glory of the flesh, in order that the great and noble might be shut out from the hope of salvation. There are some foolish persons that make this a pretext for not merely triumphing over the great, as if God had cast them off, but even despising them as far beneath them. Let us, however, bear in mind, that this is said to the Corinthians, who, though they had no great distinction in the world, were nevertheless, even without any occasion, puffed up. God, therefore, by confounding the mighty, and the wise, and the great, does not design to elate with pride the weak, the illiterate, and the abject, but brings down all of them together to one level. Let those, therefore, that are contemptible in the eyes of the world, think thus with themselves: “What modesty is called for on our part, when even those that have high honor in the view of the world have nothing left them?” (98) If the effulgence of the sun is obscured, what must become of the stars? If the light of the stars is extinguished, what must become of opaque objects?” The design of these observations is, that those who have been called by the Lord, while of no estimation in the view of the world, may not abuse these words of Paul by pluming their crests, but, on the contrary, keeping in mind the exhortation —
Thou standest by faith, be not high-minded, but fear,
(Rom 11:20,)
may walk thoughtfully in the sight of God with fear and humility.
Paul, however, does not say here, that there are none of the noble and mighty that have been called by God, but that there are few He states the design of this — that the Lord might bring down the glory of the flesh, by preferring the contemptible before the great. God himself, however, by the mouth of David, exhorts kings to embrace Christ, (99) (Psa 2:12,) and by the mouth of Paul, too, he declares, that he will have all men to be saved, and that his Christ is offered alike to small and great, alike to kings and their subjects, (1. i 2:1.) He has himself furnished a token of this. Shepherds, in the first place, are called to Christ: then afterwards come philosophers: illiterate and despised fishermen hold the highest rank of honor; yet into their school there are received in process of time kings and their counselors, senators and orators.
(98) “Dieu ne permet de presumer d’eux mesmes;” — “God does not allow them to have confidence in themselves.”
(99) “A faire hommage a Christ;” — “To do homage to Christ.”
28. Things that are not He makes use of similar terms in Rom 4:17, but in a different sense. For in that passage, when describing the universal call of the pious, he says, that we are nothing previously to our being called, which must be understood as referring to reality in the sight of God, however we may appear to be something in the eyes of men. Here, the nothingness (οὐδενεια) of which he speaks must be viewed as referring to the opinion of men, as is manifest from the corresponding clause, in which he says that this is done in order that the things that are may be brought to naught For there is nothing except in appearance, because in reality we are all nothing. Things that are, therefore, you must explain to mean things that appear, so that this passage corresponds with such statements as these: —
He raiseth up the poor out of the dunghill, (Psa 113:7.)
He raiseth up them that are cast down, (Psa 146:8,)
and the like. Hence we may clearly see how great is the folly of those who imagine that there is in mankind some degree of merit or worthiness, which would hold a place antecedent to God’s choice.
29. That no flesh should glory Though the term flesh here, and in many passages of Scripture, denotes all mankind, yet in this passage it carries with it a particular idea; for the Spirit, by speaking of mankind in terms of contempt, beats down their pride, as in Isa 31:3 — The Egyptian is flesh and not spirit It is a sentiment that is worthy to be kept in remembrance — that there is nothing left us in which we may justly glory. With this view he adds the expression in God’s presence For in the presence of the world many delight themselves for the moment in a false glorying, which, however, quickly vanishes like smoke. At the same time, by this expression all mankind are put to silence when they come into the presence of God; as Habakkuk says —
Let all flesh keep silence before God, (Hab 2:20.)
Let every thing, therefore, that is at all deserving of praise, be recognized as proceeding from God.
30. Of him are ye. Lest they should think that any of those things that he had said were inapplicable to them, he now shows the application of those things to them, inasmuch as they are not otherwise than of God For the words ye are are emphatic, as though he had said — “You have your beginning from God, who calleth those things which are not, ” (Rom 4:17,) passing by those things that appear to be; and your subsistence is founded upon Christ, and thus you have no occasion to be proud. Nor is it of creation merely that he speaks, but of that spiritual existence, into which we are born again by the grace of God.
Who of God is made unto us As there are many to be found who, while not avowedly inclined to draw back from God, do nevertheless seek something apart from Christ, as if he alone did not contain all things (100) in himself, he reckons up in passing what and how great are the treasures with which Christ is furnished, and in such a way as to intimate at the same time what is the manner of subsistence in Christ. For when he calls Christ our righteousness, a corresponding idea must be understood — that in us there is nothing but sin; and so as to the other terms. Now he ascribes here to Christ four commendatory titles, that include his entire excellence, and every benefit that we receive from him.
In the first place, he says that he is made unto us wisdom, by which he means, that we obtain in him an absolute perfection of wisdom, inasmuch as the Father has fully revealed himself to us in him, that we may not desire to know any thing besides him. There is a similar passage in Col 2:3 —
In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
Of this we shall have occasion to speak afterwards when we come to the next chapter.
Secondly, he says that he is made unto us righteousness, by which he means that we are on his account acceptable to God, inasmuch as he expiated our sins by his death, and his obedience is imputed to us for righteousness. For as the righteousness of faith consists in remission of sins and a gracious acceptance, we obtain both through Christ.
Thirdly, he calls him our sanctification, by which he means, that we who are otherwise unholy by nature, are by his Spirit renewed unto holiness, that we may serve God. From this, also, we infer, that we cannot be justified freely through faith alone without at the same time living holily. For these fruits of grace are connected together, as it were, by an indissoluble tie, (101) so that he who attempts to sever them does in a manner tear Christ in pieces. Let therefore the man who seeks to be justified through Christ, by God’s unmerited goodness, consider that this cannot be attained without his taking him at the same time for sanctification, or, in other words, being renewed to innocence and purity of life. Those, however, that slander us, as if by preaching a free justification through faith we called men off from good works, are amply refuted from this passage, which intimates that faith apprehends in Christ regeneration equally with forgiveness of sins.
Observe, on the other hand, that these two offices of Christ are conjoined in such a manner as to be, notwithstanding, distinguished from each other. What, therefore, Paul here expressly distinguishes, it is not allowable mistakenly to confound.
Fourthly, he teaches us that he is given to us for redemption, by which he means, that through his goodness we are delivered at once from all bondage to sin, and from all the misery that flows from it. Thus redemption is the first gift of Christ that is begun in us, and the last that is completed. For the commencement of salvation consists in our being drawn out of the labyrinth of sin and death; yet in the meantime, until the final day of the resurrection, we groan with desire for redemption, (as we read in Rom 8:23.) If it is asked in what way Christ is given to us for redemption, I answer — “Because he made himself a ransom.”
In fine, of all the blessings that are here enumerated we must seek in Christ not the half, or merely a part, but the entire completion. For Paul does not say that he has been given to us by way of filling up, or eking out righteousness, holiness, wisdom, and redemption, but assigns to him exclusively the entire accomplishment of the whole. Now as you will scarcely meet with another passage of Scripture that more distinctly marks out all the offices of Christ, you may also understand from it very clearly the nature and efficacy of faith. For as Christ is the proper object of faith, every one that knows what are the benefits that Christ confers upon us is at the same time taught to understand what faith is.
(101) The reader will find the same train of thought as above in the Institutes, volume 2. — Ed.
31. He that glorieth let him glory in the Lord Mark the end that God has in view in bestowing all things upon us in Christ — that we may not claim any merit to ourselves, but may give him all the praise. For God does not despoil with the view of leaving us bare, but forthwith clothes us with his glory — yet on this condition, that whenever we would glory we must go out of ourselves. In short, man, brought to nothing in his own estimation, and acknowledging that there is nothing good anywhere but in God alone, must renounce all desire for his own glory, and with all his might aspire and aim at the glory of God exclusively. This is also more clearly apparent from the context in the writings of the Prophet, from whom Paul has borrowed this testimony; for in that passage the Lord, after stripping all mankind of glory in respect of strength, wisdom, and riches, commands us to glory only in knowing him, (Jer 9:23.) Now he would have us know him in such a way as to know that it is he that exercises judgment, righteousness, and mercy For this knowledge produces in us at once confidence in him and fear of him. If therefore a man has his mind regulated in such a manner that, claiming no merit to himself, he desires that God alone be exalted; if he rests with satisfaction on his grace, and places his entire happiness in his fatherly love, and, in fine, is satisfied with God alone, that man truly “glories in the Lord.” I say truly, for even hypocrites on false grounds glory in him, as Paul declares, (Rom 2:17,) when being either puffed up with his gifts, or elated with a base confidence in the flesh, or abusing his word, they nevertheless take his name upon them.
