FIRST EPISTLE TO THE
CORINTHIANS

PART SECOND.

APOSTOLIC RESPONSES AND CONCLUSIONS.

5:1-16:24.

I.

RESPONSE TO REPORT OF INCEST.

5:1-13.

      1 It is actually reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles, that one of you hath his father's wife. [i. e., his step-mother. She was probably a pagan, and hence is not rebuked. The offense of the Corinthians had been magnified in that they had let Paul find out their sin by public gossip. Though they had written to him seeking light on other matters (ch. 7:1), they had not even mentioned this deplorable wickedness. Such incest was of course condemned by the Jewish law (Lev. 18:8; Deut. 27:20). But even Corinth, moral cesspool that it was, would be scandalized by such a [71] crime, for it was condemned alike by Greeks and Romans. See the Oedipus of Sophocles, the Hippolytus of Euripides, and Cicero's Pro Cluentio, 5. As to such a case Cicero uses these words: "Oh, incredible wickedness, and--except in this woman's case--unheard in all experience!"] 2 And ye are puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that had done this deed might be taken away from among you. [Our last section shows in what manner they had been puffed up. Had they been mourning over their real sinfulness, instead of priding themselves in their philosophical knowledge, this offender would have been taken away by excommunication.] 3 For I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit, have already as though I were present judged him that hath so wrought this thing [The swiftness of Paul's judgment stands in sharp contrast with the tardiness and toleration of the Corinthians. The broken structure of this verse and the one which follows it, shows Paul's deep emotion. "The passage is, as it were, written with sobs."--Wordsworth], 4 in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. [The full assembly of the church was required, for the discipline was to be administered by the entire body. The marked way in which Paul assured them of his presence, and the peculiar punishment which he directs to be administered, have led many to believe that he promises to be present in some miraculous spiritual manner (Col. 2:5; comp. 2 Kings 5:26); so as to use his miraculous power to smite the offender with sickness, or some bodily infirmity, as the phrase "deliver . . . unto Satan" is taken to mean, Acts 5:1-11; 13:11; 1 Tim. 1:20, being cited to sustain this meaning. The argument is very flimsy, and is not sustained by the facts recorded in this case. The meaning is that Paul, having commanded the condemnation of the culprit, will be spiritually present to aid the church in that condemnation. The offender, being excluded from the kingdom of God, [72] is to be thrust back into the kingdom of Satan, that the sense of his loneliness, shame and lost condition may cause him to repent, and mortify or subdue his flesh, i. e., his lust, after which his spirit, being thus delivered, might be saved. The sequel of the case comports with this interpretation, and there is no hint that the man ever suffered any corporeal punishment. See 2 Cor. 2:5-8.] 6 Your glorying is not good. [Their glorying was sinful enough at best, but much more so when it was so inopportune.] Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7 Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: 8 wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. [Verses 6-8 form an enlargement of verse 2. The reference to the passover was probably suggested by the season of the year (ch. 16:8), and was very apropos. Leaven is a type of evil, illustrating the hidden constant way in which it spreads. To the Jew it was a symbol of the corruption of Egypt, and he was directed just before the passover to search for it diligently in every part of his house, and remove it (Ex. 12:15). But to the Christian Christ is a perpetual sacrifice, an ever-present paschal Lamb, demanding and enforcing constant vigilance and unceasing cleanliness. The individual must put away every sinful habit of the old life. The church must purge itself of all whose lives are sources of corruption.] 9 I wrote unto you in my epistle [see introduction] to have no company with fornicators; 10 not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of this world [In this earlier Epistle the apostle had directed that fornicators and other backsliders inside the church, should be treated as outcasts, since they were so regarded of God (Eph. 5:5; Gal. 5:19-21). But he had been misunderstood, and had been thought to say that fornicators, etc., outside the church were to be [73] wholly avoided; a very impractical precept, which could only be obeyed by migrating to another planet, since this world is steeped in sin--comp. John 17:15]: 11 but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater [Col. 3:5], or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat. [Have no interchange of hospitality which would imply brotherly recognition, lest the church should thereby not only be disgraced, but corrupted--1 Cor. 15:33.] 12 For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. [These facts showed that the apostle had referred to those within the church; the discipline of those without is exclusively in the hands of God.] Put away the wicked man from among yourselves. [A summary command as to him and other wicked men.]

II.

RESPONSE TO RUMORS OF LITIGATION, ETC.

6:1-20.

      1 Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? [1. Division, 2. Incest, 3. Litigation: such is the order of Paul's rebukes. With reckless audacity the Corinthians, by indulging in litigation and submitting their causes to pagan tribunals, were not only disobeying the Lord's command (Matt. 18:15-17), but were also committing treason against their present brotherhood and their future status as judges. It appears that even the Jews refused to sue each other before pagan tribunals--Josephus Ant. 14:10-17.] 2 Or know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world is judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more, things that [74] pertain to this life? [They were permitting themselves to be judged by those whom they were appointed to judge. To prove that the saints will participate with Christ in the final judgment, the following passages are often cited (Ps. 49:14; Dan. 7:22-27; Matt. 19:28; 20:23; Jude 6; Rev. 2:26; 3:21; 20:4). It is doubtful if any of these are applicable; the manner of our participation is nowhere explained. Barrow suggested that in the order of the judgments the saints would be justified first (Matt. 25:41), after which they would sit with Christ as assessors, or associate judges, in the condemnation of the wicked and the evil angels, and his view is pretty generally received. But it is more probable that the saints will only participate as mystically united with Christ the judge, just as, by mystical union, they are kings and priests, though in no sense exercising these offices literally. The church shall judge the world in Christ her head. But the point made by Paul is that those whom God honors by association in so important a judicature may well be entrusted to judge trivial matters; for the weightiest matter of earth is light compared with the questions of eternal destiny decided on that day.] 4 If then ye have to judge things pertaining to this life, do ye set them to judge who are of no account in the church? 5 I say this to move you to shame. [If called on as a church to judge any matter, would you choose its simpletons and numbskulls as judges? I ask this to make you ashamed, for ye do even more foolishly when you submit your cases to worldlings, who are even less competent judges.] What, cannot there be found among you one wise man who shall be able to decide between his brethren, 6 but brother goeth to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? [This question is a crushing rebuke to their vaunted pride as learned sages. The rebuke is intensified by the phrase "know ye not," which is used six times in this chapter, four times in the rest of his writing to the Corinthians, and only twice by him elsewhere--Rom. 6:16; 11:2; comp. Matt. 12:3.] 7 Nay, already [before ye even begin civil action] it is altogether a defect in you, that ye have lawsuits [more correctly, [75] matter worthy of litigation] one with another. [Here Paul emphasizes the ripened state of their criminality by condemning even its germinal stage as a defect.] Why not rather take wrong? why not rather be defrauded? 8 Nay, but ye yourselves do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. [Far from enduring wrong and obeying Christ (Matt. 5:40; 1 Pet. 2:22; comp. Prov. 20:22), they were actually perpetrating wrong upon their brethren. In view of this flagrant wickedness Paul proceeds to warn them of the results of wickedness, and of their professed repentance as to it.] 9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? [That glorious celestial kingdom of which the church is the earthly type.] Be not deceived [so as to think sin will not result in punishment--Gal. 6:7]: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [catamites], nor abusers of themselves with men [Rom. 1:26, 27], 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. [Paul here accords with James that faith without works is dead (Jas. 2:17). Our highest privileges may be abrogated by sin.] 11 And such were some of you [they had been true Corinthians]: but ye were washed [Acts 22:16; Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5 Heb. 10:22], but ye were sanctified [set apart to God's uses], but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ [counted righteous after the remission of your sins], and in the Spirit of our God. [The work being consummated by the Holy Spirit--Acts 2:38.] 12 All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient. [The abruptness here suggests that, in palliation of their undue laxity and toleration, they had in their letter (7:1) urged this rule; which they had doubtless learned from Paul (ch. 10:23; Gal. 5:23). Hence Paul takes up the rule to show that it does not avoid the disinheriting of which he has just spoken.] All things are lawful [literally, within my power] for me; but I will not be brought under the power of any. [They had erred in taking the rule as to things indifferent, such as [76] natural appetites, and so applying it as to make it cover not only sinful things, but even those grossly so, such as sensuous lusts (comp. 1 Pet. 2:16). The rule is properly applied by the apostle at ch. 8:8-10. He here refutes their ideas as to the rule by showing that their application of it would gender bondage, as excess of freedom invariably does.] 13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall bring to nought both it and them. But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body: 14 and God both raised the Lord, and will raise up us through his power. 15 Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? [parts of his body (ch. 12:27; Eph. 5:30); branches of the Vine--John 15:5] shall I then take away the members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot? God forbid. [Literally, let it never be; a phrase often used by Paul when indignantly rejecting a false conclusion.] 16 Or know ye not that he that is joined to a harlot is one body? [as if in Satanic marriage] for, The twain, saith he [Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31], shall become one flesh. 17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. [Having closest spiritual union with Christ--Gal. 2:20; 3:27; Col. 3:17.] 18 Flee fornication. [As Joseph did--Gen. 39:12.] Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. [Paul notes the mutual adaptation or correlation between the belly and food, but asserts that this correlation is transient, and will be demolished by death. A subservient correlation also exists between husband and wife, for they twain become one flesh, and the innocency of their union does not interfere with the relation of either to God, which is the body's supreme correlation. But there is no lawful correlation between the body of the Christian and that of the harlot, and such a correlation can not be subservient to the body's supreme correlation, but is repugnant to it. The correlation between the stomach and food is transient, ending at death; but that between the body and the Lord is made eternal by the [77] resurrection. Now, other sins, even drunkenness and gluttony, are sins without the body; i. e., sins against those parts of the body that shall not inhere to it in the future state (Rev. 7:16), and hence do not strike directly at that future state; but fornication joins the whole body in sinful union to a body of death, so that it becomes one flesh with the condemned harlot, thereby wholly severing itself from the mystical body of life in Christ, and thus it does strike directly at the body's future state.] 19 Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? [as the whole church is a temple (ch. 3:16; Rom. 14:8), so also the body of each individual Christian is likewise a temple] and ye are not your own; 20 for ye were bought with a price [sold to sin (1 Kings 21:20; Rom. 7:14), we have been redeemed by the blood of Christ--Acts 20:28; Rom. 6:16-22; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19; Rev. 5:9]: glorify God therefore in your body. [Since our bodies belong to God, they should be used to glorify him. The whole passage confutes the slander of those materialists who contend that Christianity depreciates the body.]

III.

RESPONSE AS TO MARRIAGE.

7:1-40.

      1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote [Hitherto Paul has written concerning things which he learned by common report; he now begins to reply to questions which they had asked him in their letter. As we come to the several answers we will state the probable form of the question, as an aid to interpretation. All of the apostle's answers, however, have reference to then existing conditions, which were very stringent and threatening. His advice is therefore to be wisely and conscientiously applied by modern Christians after weighing differences between present conditions and those which then existed. First question: Is marriage to be desired or avoided [78] by Christians? Paul answers]: It is good [advisable, proper] for a man not to touch [marry] a woman. 2 But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. [Paul does not discourage marriage, much less forbid it (1 Tim. 4:3; Heb. 13:4). Moreover, while he begins by counseling the Corinthians to abstain from it under their present conditions (verse 26), he tempers and practically countermands his counsel because of the prevalent licentiousness in Corinth, against which matrimony, being man's normal state, was a great safeguard.] 3 Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud [deprive] ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of commandment. [That his readers may understand his counsel, Paul discusses the marriage state, and shows that the reciprocal rights of the parties thereto forbid abstinence to either husband or wife, save in cases where one wishes to devote a season to prayer; but even here the abstinence must be by mutual consent, and the apostle does not enjoin it, but merely concedes or permits it at such times, because the higher duty of prayer may for a season suspend conjugal duty. But here again caution must be observed, lest too prolonged abstinence might work temptation to either party, especially the prayerless one.] 7 Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. [In contrast with the enforced indulgence of matrimony, Paul [79] sets up his own life of abstinence as preferable, but only to such as have with him a gift of absolute self-control. But all have not this gift, for God's gifts are infinitely various. He therefore advises the unmarried who have the gift of self-control to remain unmarried, but those lacking it should avoid unlawful lusts by marriage. In short, then, the single state is preferable in troublous times to such as have Paul's continence. Second question: Is marriage to be dissolved when one party believes, and the other does not? It is likely that this question was raised by the Judaizers, for while the original law given by Moses only forbade marriage with the seven Canaanitish nations (Deut. 7:1-3), yet the prophets and rulers so interpreted the law as to make it include Egyptians and Edomites (1 Kings 11:1, 2; Ez. 9:1, 2), and at last it came to be understood that Jews were forbidden to marry outside their own nation (Josephus Ant. VIII. 7:5; XI. 5:4; XI. 7:2; XI. 8:2; XII. 4:6), and the children of such marriages were regarded as illegitimate--Ez. 10:3.] 10 But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord [by his own lips--Matt. 5:31, 32; 19:3-12; Mark 10:12], That the wife depart not from her husband 11 (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife. 12 But to the rest [the further application of the law or principle] say I [as an inspired apostle], not the Lord [with his own lips]: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her. 13 And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife [The word "sanctified" is here used in the Jewish sense of being not unclean, and therefore not to be touched], and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother [her husband]: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. [Holy is contrasted with unclean, and means the same as "sanctified."] 15 Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the [80] sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace. 16 For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife? 17 Only, as the Lord hath distributed to each man, as God hath called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the churches. [Paul first answers generally that under no conditions are the husband and wife to separate (the single exception (Matt. 19:9) not being given, because not a point in controversy). This law, however, rests not on Paul's authority alone (which some of the Judaizers might question), but on that of the Lord himself, who plainly propounded it, repealing the ordinances of Moses which were contrary to it (see "Fourfold Gospel," p. 242). As an inspired apostle, Paul applies this law to the case of Christians united in wedlock with unbelievers, and declares that such should not separate on account of their faith; for the law of Christ so reverses that of Moses that the Christian sanctifies or removes the uncleanness of the unbelieving partner, and of the children. But such unequal marriages are not favored by God (2 Cor. 6:14), and therefore if the unbeliever be so intolerant as to refuse to live with a converted partner, then the partner is not under bondage to the unbeliever. But God calls the believer to a life of peace which forbids any such discordant acts as tend to induce or drive the unbeliever to dissolve the marriage, for by the exercise of Christian gentleness and forbearance the believer may convert and save the unbeliever (1 Pet. 3:1, 2). As a summary rule for all things of a smaller nature, the apostle says that each man must rest content to walk in the lot which God has apportioned to him, not making his new religion an excuse for unwarranted changes. As this rule applied to all churches, it worked no especial hardship to the Corinthians.] 18 Was any man called [converted] being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. [1 Macc. 1:15.] Hath any been called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the [81] commandments of God. [is, in this connection, everything.] 20 Let each man abide in that calling [trade or social condition] wherein he was called. 21 Wast thou called being a bondservant? care not for it: nay, even if ["nay, even if" should read "but if"] thou canst become free, use it [i. e., freedom] rather. 22 For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord's freedman: likewise he that was called being free, is Christ's bondservant. 23 Ye were bought with a price; become not bondservants of men. 24 Brethren, let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God. [i. e., abide with God in the calling wherein he was called. Taking up the rule of verse 17, Paul shows by way of illustration its application to other matters. Christianity does not require that Jews or Greeks change their nationality, for nationality has nought to do with salvation, which rests wholly on obedience to the law of Christ. Again, Christianity does not demand that a man change his vocation or calling, if honest and clean (comp. Luke 3:12-14). Taking up the extreme case of slavery, Paul counsels that a change is not to be feverishly sought. If, however, freedom can be obtained, it is to be preferred, and where master and slave are both Christians it should be bestowed, for the slave is exalted to be Christ's freedman (Luke 1:52), and the master is humbled in Christ to be a servant (Matt. 20:25-28). Acting under these principles, Paul asked Philemon to free Onesimus. The price which the Lord paid for his own when he gave his precious blood as their ransom, so far exceeds that paid for them as slaves that it nullifies slavery. Third question: Is celibacy or virginity preferable to marriage? Paul answers:] 25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be trustworthy. 26 I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is. 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek [82] not a wife. 28 But shouldest thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Yet such shall have tribulation in the flesh: and I would spare you. [the pains and sufferings which will arise by reason of your marriage ties.] 29 But this I say, brethren, the time is shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may be as though they had none; 30 and those that weep, as though they wept not; and those that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and those that buy, as though they possessed not; 31 and those that use the world, as not using it to the full: for the fashion of this world passeth away. [At the time of Paul's writing, a great social convulsion was expected. The persecutions under Nero and his successors, and the destruction of Jerusalem, were sufficient of themselves to form the burden of many an awe-inspiring prophecy, and such were no doubt plentiful. Because of the nearness of the impending crisis Paul counsels each one to stay as he is, and refrain from entangling himself with new ties and obligations; for the trials of the hour would require stoical fortitude of every disciple. He gives this advice and that which follows simply as a Christian, and not as an inspired apostle.] 32 But I would have you to be free from cares. He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and is divided. So also the woman that is unmarried and the virgin is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I say for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is seemly, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. [The less the Christian is entangled with social ties, the freer he is to perform the Lord's service. Those who have no desire to marry have larger liberty to do church work if they remain single. [83] But the apostle warns us not to turn his counsel into a snare by construing it as a prohibition of marriage. Paul saw no peculiar holiness in celibacy, for with him marriage was holy (1 Cor. 11:13; Eph. 5:25-32; comp. Rev. 4:4; 21:2). He merely states that unmarried people are less encumbered.] 36 But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them [such daughters] marry. 37 But he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power as touching his own will, and hath determined this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, shall do well. 38 So then both he that giveth his own virgin daughter in marriage doeth well; and he that giveth her not in marriage shall do better. [Marriages in the East were then, as now, arranged by the parents. If a parent saw fit to marry his daughter he had a perfect right to do so and was guilty of no sin, but if he heeded the apostle's warning as to the coming trials and kept his daughter free from alliances he acted more wisely. Fourth question: Should widows remarry? is answered thus:] 39 A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. [i. e., to a Christian.] 40 But she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment: and I think that I also have the spirit of God. [84]

IV.

FOURTH RESPONSE, CONCERNING
IDOLATROUS MEAT.

8:1-13.

      [The question which Paul here answers may be stated thus: "Have not Christians perfect liberty to eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols?" To this question the Corinthians seem to have added a line or two of argument, that they might obtain an affirmative answer, as appears by the apostle's reply.] 1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols: We know [ye say] that we all have knowledge. Knowledge [I reply] puffeth up, but love edifieth. [literally, buildeth up.] 2 If any man thinketh that he knoweth anything, he knoweth not yet as he ought to know [for humility precedes true knowledge]; 3 but if any man loveth God, the same [i. e., God] is known by him. [i. e., the lover of God (1 John 4:7). Before replying to the question, Paul deals with the argument which accompanied it, pointing out the fact that their boasted knowledge was confessedly without love, and being such it was puffing instead of building them up. But the man who loves God, knows God; and in the richness and fullness of that knowledge is able to deal with such questions as that which they ask. He now resumes answering their question.] 4 Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world [Isa. 44:9-20], and that there is no God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven [as celestial bodies, or as myths] or on earth [as idols]; as there are gods many [the Greek cities had pantheons and temples filled with them], and lords many [the Roman emperors, and even lesser dignitaries, demanded that divine honors be paid them]; 6 yet to us there is one God, the Father [contradicting the many], of whom are all things [whose creatorship undeifies all other beings, [85] reducing them to mere creatures], and we unto him [created as his peculiar treasure and possession, and hence exalted far above the idols which we once worshiped]; and one Lord [also contradicting the many], Jesus Christ, through whom are all things [as the Father's creative executive--John 1:3; Heb. 1:2], and we through him. [regenerated and reconciled to the Father.] 7 Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge [the apostle limits and corrects their statement found in verse 1]: but some, being used until now [being but recently converted from paganism] to the idol, eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But food will not commend us to God: neither, if we eat not, are we the worse; nor, if we eat, are we the better. [There is no inherent virtue either in eating or fasting.] 9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to the weak. 10 For if a man see thee who hast knowledge sitting at meat in an idol's temple [Literally, idoleum, or idol-house; a term coined by the Jews to avoid desecrating the word "temple" by applying it to seats of idolatry. The idol temples were frequently used as banqueting- houses; but for a Christian to feast in such a place was a reckless abuse of liberty], will not his conscience, if he is weak, be emboldened [literally, built up, as at verse 1--built up in evil, not in Christ] to eat things sacrificed to idols? [will he not eat as a worshiper, and not sinless as you do?] 11 For through thy knowledge he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died. [Paul here presents a new appeal, of unapproachable pathos and power. The world had never before heard any such reason why mercy should be shown to the weak.] 12 And thus, sinning against the brethren, and wounding their conscience when it is weak, ye sin against Christ. [who suffers with the very least of his servants (Matt. 18:6; 25:40, 45). Corinth was full of temples, and sacrifices were daily and abundant. Part of the meat of these sacrifices went to the priests, part was burnt on the altar, and part was returned to the worshiper. [86] The priests' and the worshiper's parts were frequently sold to the butchers, who in turn vended the same in the public markets. Such sacrificial meat was so plentiful, and was so indistinguishably mingled with other meats, that a Christian could hardly avoid using it unless he refrained from meat altogether. He could not attend any of the public banquets, nor dine with his pagan friends or relatives, without being almost sure to eat such meat. The Jews illustrated the difficulty, for wherever they lived they required a butcher of their own who certified the meat which he sold by affixing to it a leaden seal, on which was engraved the word kashar--"lawful." Under such circumstances the strong-minded made bold to eat such sacrificial meat, contending that the idol, being a nonentity, could in no way contaminate it. But there were others having less knowledge, and weaker consciences, who could not shake off the power of old habits, thoughts and associations, and who therefore could not free themselves from their former reverence for the idol, but looked upon it as really representing something--a false something, but still a reality. To such the sacrificial meat was part of a real sacrifice, and was contaminating. In answering, therefore, Paul states the correctness of the position that the idol, being nothing, does not contaminate meat sacrificed to it, and urges that the Christian's knowledge of God and relationship to him preclude all thought of reality in idols. But, nevertheless, because it is a cruel sin against Christ to wound those already weak in conscience, he pleads that the strong use forbearance, not privilege; love, not knowledge, lest they make the death of Christ of none effect as to such weaklings. The principle may be applied to many modern amusements and indulgences which the strong regard as harmless, but which they should rejoice to sacrifice rather than endanger weaker lives.] 13 Wherefore, if meat causeth my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I cause not my brother to stumble. [To the Corinthians Paul says "take heed" (v. 9); but for himself he proposes a sublime consecration and perpetual self-sacrifice. The apostle would not make the weak [87] brother a tyrant, as he is often disposed to become. He clearly defines him as being wrong, but pleads that his errors may be humored for mercy's sake.]

V.

FIFTH RESPONSE, AS TO HIS APOSTOLICITY

9:1-27

      [False or factional teachers coming to Corinth expected to be supported by the church according to the usual custom, but were hampered by the example of Paul, who had taken nothing for his services. To justify themselves and to discredit Paul, some of them appear to have gone so far as to deny Paul's appointment as an apostle, and to use his failure to demand wages as an evidence of their assertion. They argued that he knew he was not an apostle, and so forbore through shame to ask an apostle's pay. To settle this controversy, the Corinthians asked some such question as this: "Explain why, being an apostle, you did not take the wages due you as such." Paul begins his answer with four questions which show both surprise and indignation.] 1 Am I not free? [All free men were entitled to wages for work done. Only slaves worked without compensation. See verse 19.] Am I not an apostle? [and so more entitled to wages than an ordinary, less approved Christian teacher.] Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? [Apostles were to be witnesses of Jesus' resurrection (Acts 1:22; 2:32; 10:4), and so it was necessary that they should have seen the risen Christ. But Paul had seen more; on the way to Damascus, not only the risen, but the glorified, Christ had appeared to him. This was Paul's first proof of apostleship.] Are not ye my work in the Lord? [The presence of a church in Corinth, having in it Christians converted by Paul and living in the Lord, was the second proof of his apostleship. Such work could not be done by impostors--Matt. 7:15-20.] 2 If to others I am not an [88] apostle, yet at least I am to you; for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. [An argumentum ad hominem. Whatever Paul might be in the estimation of Judaizers and enemies, he must still be held as an apostle by those who owed their spiritual life to him, for if he were no apostle, they were no Christians, and vice versa. As the seal vouched for the genuineness and validity of the document to which it was attached, so these Corinthian converts by their existence vouched for Paul's apostleship.] 3 My defence to them that examine me is this. [This verse refers to what precedes it. It means that when called to defend his apostleship, Paul would point to the presence of a church of his established in Corinth as his answer. A similar answer had satisfied the other apostles (Gal. 2:6-10.) Thus having proved his apostleship, Paul proceeds to discuss the rights and privileges appurtenant to it.] 4 Have we no right to eat and to drink? [are we not entitled to be fed by the church?] 5 Have we no right to lead about [in our constant journeyings] a wife that is a believer [i. e., a lawful wife; it was unlawful to marry an unbeliever--2 Cor. 6:14-16], even as the rest of the apostles [this passage creates a fair presumption that at least the majority of the apostles were married], and the brethren of the Lord [For their names see Matt. 13:55. For their relation to Jesus, see "Fourfold Gospel," pp. 119, 224-226], and Cephas? [This apostle was married (Matt. 8:14); yet Catholics claim him as the first pope. If all these apostles were allowed maintenance for themselves and their wives, Paul had equal right to demand that the church support his wife had he chosen to marry.] 6 Or I only and Barnabas [Though not one of the twelve, he is called an apostle (Acts 14:14), for he was a messenger or apostle of the Holy Spirit, and of the church at Antioch (Acts 13:2,) and was associated with Paul (Gal. 2:9). His name was illustrious enough at Corinth to give countenance to Paul's course. If Barnabas and Paul wrought out their self-support to be nobly independent, did their voluntary sacrifice of rights abolish those rights, or prove that they never existed? This late reference to [89] Barnabas is interesting, for it shows that he was still at work and was still loved of Paul despite their disagreement concerning John Mark. Having thus proved his right to maintenance by the example of other church leaders, Paul now goes on to give an argument in six heads showing that the practice of these leaders was wholly lawful and proper. First argument: Wages for service is the rule in all employment; in proof of this, three instances are cited, the soldier, the vine-dresser, the shepherd], have we not a right to forbear working? 7 What soldier ever serveth at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [In the East, vine-dressers and shepherds are still thus paid in kind. Work without wages would foster rascality, and it is therefore an unhealthy principle to use in church matters. Second argument: The law of Moses allowed wages for work.] 8 Do I speak these things after the manner of men? or saith not the law also the same? [Paul asks these two questions to show that while he has appealed to human authority, he has also divine authority for the principle which he asserts.] 9 For it is written in the law of Moses [Deut. 25:4], Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. [Grain in the East has never been threshed by machinery. Though flails are used, it is usually threshed out by oxen. These are driven over it to tramp out the grain, and they sometimes draw a small sled or threshing instrument after them. The law forbade the muzzling of an ox thus employed, and in the East this law is still obeyed.] Is it for the oxen that God careth, 10 or saith he it assuredly for our sake? Yea, for our sake it was written: because he that ploweth ought to plow in hope, and he that thresheth, to thresh in hope of partaking. [Those fond of carping and caviling have attempted to use this passage to prove that Paul asserts that God does not care for animals. Such a view is abundantly contradicted by Scripture (Job 38:41; Ps. 147:9; Matt. 6:26; Luke 12:24). Paul's meaning is clear. In giving the law, God's proximate design was to care [90] for oxen, but his ultimate design was to enforce the principle that labor should not go unrewarded; that each workman might discharge his task in cheerful expectation that he would receive wages for his employment. Paul asserts that God does not legislate for oxen and forget men. It is an argument a minori ad magnus, such as Christ himself employed (Matt. 6:26-30.) Third argument: The law of exchange demands an equivalent for value received.] 11 If we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things? [What was earthly support in comparison with the riches of the gospel? If Paul had demanded his full carnal recompense, it would have been a meager compensation for blessings and benefits which can never be weighed in dollars and cents. Fourth argument: The concessions which you have made in supporting others having inferior claims debar you from thus denying apostolic claims.] 12 If others partake of this right over you, do not we yet more? Nevertheless we did not use this right; but we bear all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. [Since Paul had left Corinth, other teachers had been supported by the church, and this stopped them from denying Paul's right to support. The apostle had not used this right, for to do so would have hindered him in planting the church. It would retard the progress of any movement to demand salaries under it before demonstrating that it was either beneficent or necessary. To have demanded maintenance subsequently would have given Paul's enemies a chance to impugn his motives, and say that he labored for earthly gain. Fifth argument: Priests, whose office, like the apostolic, is purely sacred, are universally maintained by sharing in the sacrifices which they offer.] 13 Know ye not that they that minister about sacred things eat of the things of the temple [the offerings, etc.], and they that wait upon the altar have their portion with the altar? [Num. 18:8-13; Deut. 8:1. Sixth argument: Christ himself ordained that ministers should be supported by those whom they serve.] 14 Even so did the Lord ordain that they [91] that proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel. [Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7. This precept was all which Paul needed to urge. He no doubt elaborated this argument that the Corinthians might be fully convinced that he was perfectly aware of his rights at the time when he waived them. The apostle next sets forth more fully why he preferred to support himself rather than receive compensation from the churches.] 15 But I have used none of these things [i. e., these rights]: and I write not these things that it may be so done in my case [Paul had a right to receive wages for his labor, and this right was guaranteed both by the customs of the people and the law of Moses; he also had a right to some recompense as an equivalent for the blessings which he bestowed. Moreover, he had a right to receive as fair treatment as that bestowed upon others. Again, he had a right as a man engaged in sacred affairs to be paid by those who enjoyed his services, and lastly as a minister of Christ, the law of Christ, demanded that he be supported. Paul had urged none of these rights, nor did he now assert them that he might shame the Corinthians for their neglect or prepare them to change their conduct toward him when he visited them as he intended]; for it were good for me rather to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. [So far from desiring pay from the Corinthians, he preferred to die rather than receive it, for to do so would deprive him of the glory and joy of preaching the gospel without earthly reward. By denying himself wages, Paul obtained free access to all men, and could found new churches. He gloried in the salvation of souls and in the honoring of Christ.] 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of; for necessity is laid upon me; for woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel. 17 For if I do this of mine own will, I have a reward: but if not of mine own will, I have a stewardship intrusted to me. [He was commanded to preach the gospel. He could not glory therefore in doing it, for he did not do it of his own free will or choice (however cheerfully and willingly he might do it), but because it was a stewardship which he was [92] obliged to discharge (Luke 17:10). Had he been free to preach the gospel or not, he might have gloried in preaching it. But as it was, he had to seek glory elsewhere.] 18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel without charge, so as not to use to the full my right in the gospel. [He found his reward in the happiness of preaching the gospel without charge, and in the feeling that as a steward he had not used his privileges to the full, and so was far from abusing them. Paul so loved those whom Christ called that he counted it a privilege to be permitted to serve them gratuitously. But such a course is not without danger to the church--2 Cor. 12:13.] 19 For though I was free from all men [and therefore had a right to demand wages of them and ignore their prejudices], I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more. [Here was yet another joy which he found in preaching a free gospel. His spirit of self-sacrifice won the confidence of the people, and enabled him to make a larger number of converts. Though entitled to wages as a free man he preferred to work as a slave for nothing, accounting the additional disciples which he thus made as a more acceptable hire than his maintenance. Moreover, after the manner of a slave, he had adjusted himself to the prejudices and idiosyncrasies of each class which he served as far as he innocently could; that, by having a larger measure of their confidence and good-will, he might be able to win a larger number to Christ. He now describes this part of his service.] 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew [not a Jew, but like one], that I might gain Jews [Paul observed the Jewish distinction as to meat (ch. 8:13); and performed their rites as to vows (Acts 21:26); and honored their feasts (Acts 20:16); and classed himself among their Pharisees (Acts 23:6); and even had circumcision administered (Acts 16:3), where it did not interfere with the liberty of Gentiles (Gal. 2:3-5). All these were innocent concessions to and harmless compliances with the law. Though Paul was under no obligation to conform his conduct to the prejudices of others, he [93] waived his own predeliction in all matters that were indifferent; but his unbending, unyielding loyalty in all matters of principle was so well known that he does not deem it necessary to state that he never surrendered or sacrificed a single truth or right for any cause]; to them that are under the law [This expression includes proselytes as well as Jews. To these also Paul made harmless concessions], as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 to them that are without law [pagans and Gentiles--Rom. 2:12], as without law [Rom. 6:14. He did not seek to enforce the laws of Moses among the Gentiles, as did the Jews, and he refrained from insulting heathens in their beliefs (Acts 19:37), and dealt gently with their prejudices--Acts 17:30], not being without law to God [for the Gentiles themselves were not wholly without such law--Rom. 2:14, 15], but under law to Christ [Paul did not forget his obligations to the moral law, nor his duty to the will of Christ. Though behaving himself as a Jew in Jerusalem in things indifferent, he rebuked Peter openly for playing the Jew in Antioch in matters of principle (Gal. 2:11-21). Peter knew better--Acts 15:10], that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak [The preceding chapter is the best comment on this passage. Paul was uniformly self-sacrificing and patient with those who were overscrupulous]: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. [With untiring zeal for the salvation of souls, Paul accommodated himself to all the shapes and forms of character which he met, if he could do so without sin--ch. 10:33; 2 Tim. 2:10.] 23 And I do all things for the gospel's sake, that I may be a joint partaker thereof. [He made every sacrifice for the success of the gospel, that he might share with other successful apostles and evangelists in its triumphs and blessings (John 4:36). He recommends to others a like spirit of abstinence and sacrifice, and to illustrate the necessity and utility of such a course he draws some comparisons between those who run the Christian [94] race, and the athletes who competed for the prizes in the Grecian games. The Corinthians were familiar with the ways and customs of these athletes, for one of the great race-courses lay in the immediate vicinity of Corinth, and at this time it was the most noted in Greece, having even surpassed the Olympic in its popularity. It was held triennially. Parts of its stadium are still seen as one goes from Corinth to Athens.] 24 Know ye not that they that run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? [Phil. 3:12-14.] Even so run; that ye may attain. [In the Greek contests there was but one prize for each group of contestants, and that was awarded to the winner. But the Christian race is not competitive: each may win a prize, but he does so by contending with his own sinful nature. He must run faithfully, earnestly and continuously if he would win in the race against his lower self.] 25 And every man that striveth in the games exerciseth self-control in all things. [As Paul denied himself that the gospel might not be hindered, so each athlete, whether he intended to run, wrestle or fight, pursued a course of training and abstinence that was painful, protracted and severe, in order that no fatty tissues or depleted muscles might hinder him in his struggle for victory.] Now they do it to receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. [For this worthless, withering symbol of victory, men made measureless sacrifice. For the incomparably better and fadeless crown of eternal life, how cheerfully Christians should deny and discipline themselves--1 Pet. 5:4.] 26 I therefore [realizing the value of that for which I contend] so run, as not uncertainly [without doubt or hesitation. Paul felt sure of the course which led to the goal, and certain as to the reward which he would attain when the race was over--2 Tim. 1:12; 4: 8]; so fight I, as not beating the air [The allusion here is to the boxer who, in blind confusion, strikes wide of the mark, and misses his antagonist. For an instance of vain effort similarly expressed, see ch. 14:9; Virgil's Æneid 5:446]: 27 but I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage [The body, being, as it is [95] in part, the seat and organ of sin, has become the Biblical term to express our whole sinful nature (Rom. 8:13). Paul found in this old sinful man with its corrupt affections an ever-present antagonist. He ran no uncertain race with his body, realizing that God would give him the victory if he ran his best. He fought no uncertain fight with it, but so smote it as to bring it into subjection. By smiting he does not mean literal flagellation, self-torture or even fasting, but he means that he subdues his nature by denying its lusts (Col. 3:5), and that he employed his body in noble labor, with all self-denial and self-sacrifice, for the good of others--2 Cor. 6:4, 5; 11:23-33]: lest by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected. [The word translated "preached" means literally to "proclaim as a herald." It is the word used in the New Testament to describe the preaching of the gospel, and so the reader is at liberty to follow the English version, and drop the metaphor of which Paul has been making use. If he does this, then Paul tells him literally that even he had fears that he might fall from grace, and therefore daily worked out his own salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12.) But if "preached" be translated "acted or proclaimed as herald," then Paul conveys to us the same thought metaphorically. It was the duty of the herald to move up and down the lists and proclaim aloud the laws of the contests, the names of the contestants, victors, etc. These laws said in brief that no slave, thief, or man of bad morals, would be admitted as a contestant. Thus construed, Paul expresses a fear lest having laid down the gospel terms of salvation to others, he himself should be rejected for having failed to comply with the very rules which his own mouth had proclaimed (Luke 19:22; Rom. 2:1-3). While it was not customary for heralds to be contestants, such a thing was not impossible, for the emperor Nero once played both parts. He was combatant, victor, and herald to proclaim his own triumphs. The metaphors of Paul, like the parables of Jesus, caused the scenes of daily life to suggest great spiritual truths to those who beheld them. [96]

VI.

RENEWAL OF RESPONSE CONCERNING
IDOLATROUS MEAT.

10:1-11:1.

      [In chapter 8 Paul had answered the question of the Corinthians concerning idolatrous meat. In chapter 9 he answered their inquiries concerning his apostleship, and closed with a description of the self-denial which he exercised in order to secure his crown, and a statement that despite all his efforts there was a possibility of his becoming a castaway. Now, the necessity for self-control and the danger of apostasy were the two principal ideas involved in the discussion of eating idolatrous meat, and so the apostle's mind swings back to that subject, and he again treats of it, illustrating it by analogies drawn from the history of Israel.] 1 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant [see comment on 1 Thess. 4:13], that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea [Paul speaks of the fathers of the Jewish race as "our fathers," though addressing Gentiles. The patriarchs of Israel were the spiritual fathers of Gentile Christians (Gal. 3:7, 8, 29). Moreover, the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations were preparatory to Christianity, and so, in a certain sense, fathered it. The passage through the Red Sea by the Israelites was in many ways analogous to Christian baptism. 1. It stood at the beginning of a journey undertaken by a divine call, and which led from a life and kingdom of bondage to a land of promise, which should be a land of liberty and an everlasting possession. 2. Baptism is a burial (Rom. 6:4). With a wall of water on each side and a cloud over them, the Israelites were buried from the sight of the Egyptians, or any others who stood upon the shores of the sea. Relying on the statement at Ex. 14:19-21 that the cloud was between the Egyptians and [97] the Israelites, and hence behind the Israelites part of the night, zealous paidobaptists have argued that at no part of the night were the Israelites under the cloud, their purpose being to avoid the idea of a burial. But in their zeal they have contradicted Paul, who says "under the cloud," "in the cloud," and who elsewhere speaks of baptism as a burial. Paul's language here implies that the children of Israel were between the walls of water while the cloud was still in front of them, and so they were under it and in it as it passed to their rear. 3. Baptism is a resurrection (Rom. 6:5). "The two phrases, 'were under the cloud,' and 'passed through the sea,' seem to prefigure the double process of submersion and emersion in baptism" (Canon Cook). The baptism of the Red Sea was to Israel a death to Egypt, and a birth to a new covenant. 4. Baptism is the final seal of discipleship (Matt. 28:19; Gal. 3:27; chap. 1:13). The passage of the Red Sea led Israel to fully accept Moses as their master and leader under God--Ex. 14:31]; 3 and did all eat the same spiritual food; 4 and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. [As Israel had an experience answering to baptism, so it also enjoyed privileges similar to the two parts of the Lord's Supper; viz.: the manna (Ex. 16:13-22), which lasted throughout the wilderness journey (Josh. 5:12), and which answered to the loaf; and water from the rock, which was given at least twice (Ex. 17:5-7; Num. 20:7-13), and which answered to the wine. Some think that the manna and the water are called spiritual because they had a spiritual origin, being produced of God directly, and not by the ordinary means of nature; and others think that they are thus described because they were typical of Christ. But neither of these views is suited to the context, for Paul is here speaking of benefits enjoyed by the children of Israel which ministered to their spiritual strength, and which should have kept them from falling. But miraculous food is, of itself, no more strengthening to the spirit than ordinary food (John 6:26, 27, 49); and a type confers no benefit upon those who do [98] not understand it and are not conscious of it. The true idea is that the manna and the water were so miraculously and providentially supplied that the people could scarcely fail to see the presence and the goodness of God in them, and hence they were spiritual food and drink to the people because they would waken such thoughts, thanksgivings and aspirations as would give spiritual strength. Paul does not assert that the literal rock or the literal water followed the children of Israel on their journey, and hence there is no occasion for saying, as do Alford and others, that Paul even referred to, much less accepted, Jewish fables and traditions to that effect. The fact that water was twice supplied by Christ at different periods would be sufficient to suggest his continual presence (Ex. 33:14), and thus continually revive their thirsty souls. The Catholics assert that there are seven sacraments, but Paul knew only two ordinances. "The whole passage," says Alford, "is a standing testimony, incidentally, but most providentially, given by the great apostle to the importance of the Christian sacraments, as necessary to membership of Christ, and not mere signs or remembrances: and an inspired protest against those who, whether as individuals or sects, would lower their dignity, or deny their necessity." But Paul also guards against that other extreme which trusts to mere ordinances for salvation.] 5 Howbeit with most of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown [literally, strewn in heaps] in the wilderness. [In verse 24 of the preceding chapter Paul enforces the lesson of self-control by showing that though all run, yet but one receives the prize. This law, which the Greeks applied to a mere handful of racers, was applied of God with like rigor and stringency to the millions of Israel, a fact which Paul emphasizes by the repeated use of the word "all." Though all were under the cloud and all passed through the sea and all were baptized and all ate and drank of spiritual provision, yet only two, Caleb and Joshua, entered the promised land (Deut. 1:34-38; Num. 26:64, 65). What was true of racers and true of Israel may also be true of Christians if they fail to exercise [99] self-control.] 6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. [Having shown that the Israelites lost their inheritance despite the fact that they were prepared, sustained and strengthened by the same Christ and practically the same ordinances enjoyed by the Christian, Paul proceeds to show their perfectness as examples to the Corinthians in that they fell by the five sins, viz.: lust, idolatry, fornication, tempting Christ, murmuring, which were the besetting sins of the Corinthians--and of all succeeding generations. In the case of Israel the punishment was directly and visibly connected with the sin, that their history might be used to instruct future generations; for in this life punishment is not, as a rule, summarily and immediately meted out to sinners. In fact, if we judge by appearances only, we might sometimes even think that God rewarded crime and set a premium on sin. The Scripture records show that such appearances are deceptive, and that God's punishments are sure, though they may be long delayed. Israel lusted for what God withheld and murmured at what he provided (Num. 11:4, 33, 34). As Israel looked back with regret on the flesh and the fish, the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic which they had left behind in Egypt, so the Corinthians were disposed to go back into the old life and heap up to themselves philosophical teachers, attend idolatrous feasts, etc.] 7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. [Israel worshipped the golden calf, Moloch, Remphan, Baal-peor, etc. The "playing" which Paul refers to (Ex. 32:3-6, 19, 25) was familiar to the Corinthians, who had indulged in such licentious sportfulness in the worship of Bacchus and Venus. Dancing was the common accompaniment of idolatry (Horace 2:12-19). Eating at the feast of idols was the very privilege for which the Corinthians were contending.] 8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. [Num. 25:1-9. While Paul gives the number as twenty-three thousand, Moses gives it as [100] twenty-four. Alford and Kling think the discrepancy is due to a failure in Paul's memory, but why should the Spirit of God let him thus forget? Grotius says that a thousand were slain by Phinehas and his followers, and the rest were destroyed by the plague. Kitto varies this a little by saying that Paul gives the number that fell on one day, as his words show, while Moses gives the full number that perished on both days. But Bengel's solution is a sufficient one. The Hebrews habitually dealt in round numbers, so that a number between twenty-three and twenty-four thousand could be correctly stated by either figure. Moses gave the maximum and Paul the minimum. The sin mentioned was not only an ordinary accompaniment of idolatry, but often a consecrated part of it, as in the rites of Baal-peor among the Moabites and those of Venus among the Corinthians. Sins are gregarious.] 9 Neither let us make trial of the Lord, as some of them made trial, and perished by the serpents. [Num. 21:4-6. Compare John 3:14, 15. To "tempt" here means to try beyond all patience or endurance. Israel tempted God in the case referred to, by its spirit of unbelieving discontent. Compare also Ex. 17:2-7; Num. 14:22. As Israel became discontented under the hardships of the wilderness, so the Corinthians were liable to a like discontent because of the severe persecutions brought upon them by ungodly men. Chrysostom, Theodoret and Oecuminius think that Paul warns the Corinthians against tempting God by asking for signs. But this was not the besetting sin of the Greeks (ch. 1:22), nor is there any evidence that the Christians at Corinth were at all addicted to this sin. Besides, it is at variance with the analogy which Paul has cited. As a matter of fact, men tempt God by putting his fidelity, patience or power to unnecessary tests--Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; Heb. 3:9.] 10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them murmured, and perished by the destroyer. [Num. 14:2, 29; 16:41-49. The Israelites murmured against God by rebelling against and rejecting his servants; and the Corinthians were at this time murmuring against Paul, the servant of Christ. They were also liable to complain of their separation from the [101] pagan world, just as many to-day speak resentfully when the pulpit proclaims those Christian principles which are restrictive of worldly excesses. The angel of death is called the destroyer (Ex. 12:23; 2 Sam. 24:16). The Jews commonly called this angel Sammael. The "all" of grace and privilege, found in verses 1-4, stands in sad contrast to the "some of them" of deflection and apostasy found in verses 7-10. God showed mercy to all, but some disobeyed in one way and some in another until almost all had proved unworthy of his mercy.] 11 Now these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come. [The facts of the past become examples for the present, because God rules by unchanging principles (Rom. 15:4). The Christian dispensation is called "the ends of the ages" because it is the last and final dispensation (1 John 2:18; Heb. 9:26; Matt. 13:38, 39; 1 Pet. 4:7). The Christian is the heir of all the past, but none shall inherit after him.] 12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. [The weaknesses of saints in former days, notwithstanding their privileges, should warn us of our own frailty lest we presume to dally with temptation, and so fall. This verse is a stumbling-block to those who hold the doctrine "once in grace, always in grace." Whedon aptly says of the Israelites: "If they never truly stood, they never fell; and if they fell, they once stood. If their fault and ruin was in actually falling, then their salvation would have been in actually standing--standing just as they were." Their history does not show the mere possibility of apostasy, but demonstrates its actual reality, and the sad prevalence of it. But the apostle, well aware that so weighty and forceful an argument would breed a spirit of hopelessness and despair in the breasts of the Corinthians, now sets himself to show that the temptations so fatal to Israel need not prove similarly disastrous to them if they were not presumptuous, but looked to God to aid them in escaping such temptations.] 13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as man can bear: but God is [102] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation make also the way of escape, that ye may be able to endure it. [The temptations which befell the Corinthians were such as men had resisted and could resist. The temptations which had overcome some of the Israelites had been resisted by others of their number. The faithfulness of God who called them would give them strength for the journey which he required of them (2 Pet. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:3; 1 Thess. 5:23, 24). God shows his faithfulness by providing an opportunity of escape, and we must show our faithfulness by seizing the opportunity when it presents itself. As temptations vary, so the means of escape also vary. God permits temptation for our strengthening, not for our destruction.] 14 Wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. [As idolatry had proved the mother of sins in Israel, so had it also in Corinth. Paul, therefore, in exhorting his readers to flee from it, appeals to their own past experience. They were wise men in this respect, and could, out of an abundant personal knowledge, judge as to the wisdom of his counsel when he thus told them to shun all that pertained to it. Idolatry was so interwoven with lust, drunkenness, reveling, etc., that it practically included them, and it was not to be dallied with. If we go to the verge of what is allowable, we make it easy for Satan to draw us over the line into what is sinful.] 16 The cup of blessing which we bless [Not the cup which brings blessing (though it does that), but the cup over which blessing is spoken, the cup consecrated by benediction. Wine becomes a symbol of the blood of Christ by such a consecration, and even ordinary food is sanctified by prayer (1 Tim. 4:4, 5. Compare Matt. 26:26; Luke 9:16). But the plural "we" used in this paragraph shows that the blessing and breaking were not the acts of the minister exercising priestly functions, but were the acts of the whole congregation through the minister as their representative. Sacerdotal consecration of the elements is not found here nor anywhere else in the New Testament], is it not a communion [103] of [a participation in or common ownership of] the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? [See John 6:41-59.] 17 seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread. [Paul here points out the nature of the Lord's Supper, showing how it unites us with each other and with the Lord. We all partake of the loaf and thereby become qualitatively, as it were, a part of it, as it of us; and even thus we all become members of Christ's one body which it represents and Christ becomes part of us. Such is the unity of the church: Paul had no conception of a divided church. Though there may be more than one loaf at the communion, yet the bread is one in substance, and is one emblem.] 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: have not they that eat the sacrifices communion with the altar? [In Paul's eyes the church was the true Israel, and the Jews were Israel after the flesh. Part of the Jewish sacrifice was eaten by the worshiper as an act of worship (Deut. 12:18), and part was consumed upon the altar as a sacrifice to God; that is, as God's part. Thus the worshiper had communion with the altar, or, more accurately speaking, with God, who owned the altar; a portion of the meat of sacrifice entering his body and becoming part of him, and a portion of it typically entering and becoming part of the Lord. Having thus given two instances showing that sacrificial feasts establish a relationship between the worshiper and the object worshipped, Paul proceeds to make his application of them to idol feasts, and begins by anticipating an objection which the quick-witted Corinthians, seeing the drift of his argument, would begin at once to urge.] 19 What say I then? that a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? ["But, Paul," say the Corinthians, "your reasoning can not apply to feasts or sacrificial meat offered to idols; for you have already admitted (ch. 8:4) that an idol is a nonentity. By sacrifice a man may establish a communal relationship with God, for God is; but he can establish no such relationship with an idol, for an idol is not-it has no existence." The [104] understanding of the Corinthians with regard to idols was true, but it was not the whole truth, for there was some reality back of the idol.] 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have communion with demons. [It was true that the idol was nothing, but it represented a reality, and it was well established both among Jews and Greeks that that reality was a demon. Among Jews and Christians this word represented an evil spirit (Deut. 32:17; Lev. 17:7; 2 Chron. 11:15; Ps. 96:5; 106:37; Matt. 25:41; Rev. 9:20; Eph. 6:12). Among the Greeks the word had a broader significance. With them it meant a demi-god or minor deity--a being between God and men. One part of them were spirits of dead men, mainly dead kings or heroes who had been deified and honored with idols and worship. Another part were regarded as having a supernatural origin, and were like angels. These might be good or evil. Thus Socrates regarded himself as under the care and influence of a good demon. Thus at the core idolatry was demon-worship, and if the Christian who ate the Lord's Supper communed with the Lord, and the Jew who ate the sacrifice of the altar communed with the God of the altar; so the man, be he pagan or Christian, who partook of the idol sacrifice, communed with the demon who appropriated the worship offered to the idol.] 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons. [At the sacrificial feasts of the pagans the provisions and wine were both blessed in the name of the idol, and thereby consecrated to him. Part of the festal cup was poured out as a libation to the idol, after which the guests drank of the cup and thus had fellowship with the idol. See &Aelig;neid 8:273. Outwardly, Christians might partake of both feasts, but it was a moral impossibility for them to do so inwardly and spiritually. We can not be wicked and holy any more than we can be black and white at the same time. We may also note that there were tables in the temples of the idols on which feasts were prepared.] 22 Or do we [105] provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he? [God does not permit a division of his worship (Matt. 6:24). Any attempt to do this is said to arouse his jealousy, that passion which arises from wounded love (Isa. 54:5; Eph. 5:23-32; Ex. 20:5). Paul doubtless has in mind the passage at Deut. 32:17-26, which shows the necessity of obedience on the part of those not able to resist.] 23 All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify. [See comment on ch. 6:12.] 24 Let no man seek his own, but each his neighbor's good. [As to eating idolatrous meat and all similar questions of liberty, be more careful to think of the interests of others than to assert your own rights.] 25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake; 26 for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. [Ps. 24:1; 50:12. Meat sold in the public market might be bought and used by the Christian without stopping to make investigation or to consult his conscience, for when thus sold it was wholly disassociated from the rites of idolatrous sacrifice, and one so using it could not be suspected of doing so as an act of worship. Moreover, all meat was pure, since it had come from the Lord. Being part of the furniture of the earth, it was to be eaten without scruple--Rom. 14:14, 20; 1 Tim 4:4, 5; Acts 10:15.] 27 If one of them that believe not biddeth you to a feast, and ye are disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake. 28 But if any man say unto you, This hath been offered in sacrifice, eat not, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience' sake: 29 conscience, I say, not thine own, but the other's; for why is my liberty judged by another conscience? [Christianity did not forbid a man to retain his friendships among pagans, nor did it prohibit fellowship with them. If such a friend should ask a Christian to a meal in a private house and not to a sacrificial feast in an idol temple, the Christian need not trouble himself to ask whether the meat that was served was part of all idol sacrifice, for such [106] a dining was in no sense an act of worship. If, however, some scrupulous Christian or half-converted person should point out that the meat was idolatrous, then it was not to be eaten, for the sake of the man who regarded it as idolatrous. But so far as the real question of liberty was concerned, each man's liberty is finally judged by his own conscience and not by that of another. Liberty may be waived for the sake of another's conscience, but it is never thus surrendered. Paul's teaching, therefore, is that food is not tainted, and so it is always right to eat it as food, but all the rites of idolatry are tainted, and the Christian must do nothing which gives countenance to those rites, and for the sake of others he must abstain from seeming to countenance them even when his own conscience acquits him of so doing.] 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? [The conscience of another man does not make it wrong for me to do that which I am not only permitted to do by my own conscience, but which I even do in a spirit of prayerful thankfulness. Nor does my doing such a thing give him, or any other, a right to speak evil of me, for I do not have to change my conscience to suit the judgment of others. In theory Paul sided with the strong, but in sympathy he was one with the weak; yet he did not permit them to exercise a vexatious tyranny over him because of their scruples.] 31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to, the glory of God. [All eating should be with thanksgiving to God and should not dishonor God by injuring the consciences of weak men--comp. Col. 3:17; 1 Pet. 4:11.] 32 Give no occasion of stumbling [Mark 9:42], either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God: 33 even as I also please all men in all things [indifferent or permissible], not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved. XI. 1 Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ. [In all matters that were indifferent Paul pleased others, rather than himself (ch. 9:19, 22; Rom. 15:2). He did not needlessly trample upon the prejudices of any, whether [107] in the church or out, and he counseled the Corinthians to follow his example in this, as he himself followed the example of Christ in thus showing mercy and consideration--Rom:15:1-3.]

VII.

SIXTH RESPONSE. CONCERNING HEAD
COSTUME.

11:2-16.

      [Paul has been discussing the disorderly conduct of individual Christians. He now proceeds to discuss more general disorders; i. e., those which took place in the meetings of the congregation, and in which the whole church participated. We may conceive him as answering the question, "Ought men to have their heads covered, or may women have their heads uncovered when they are prophesying in public?"] 2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you. [By "traditions" Paul means the precepts, ordinances and doctrines which he had taught them orally. The traditions of God, given through inspired men, are to be accepted without addition or alteration (ch. 15:3; 2 Thess. 2:15; Rev. 22:18), but the traditions of men should be weighed carefully, and summarily rejected if they conflict with the teaching of God (Matt. 15:1-9). Since Paul has already censured the Corinthians for departing from his teaching, and since, in the next breath, he points out further departures on their part from his teaching, it is evident that what he says here is a quotation taken from a part of their letter where they were expressing their loyalty to him. Having thus quoted their words in which they committed themselves to his teaching, he points out what the teaching really was, that they may make good their boast by obeying it.] 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ [108] is God. [Paul settles the humblest difficulties by appealing to the loftiest principles: thus he makes the headship of Christ over man the basis, or principle, on which he decides that the man has headship over the woman, and as we shall see further on, he makes the headship of the man over the woman the principle by which he determines the question as to whether men should worship with uncovered, and women with covered heads; for the uncovered head was the symbol of royalty and dominion, and the covered head of subjection and submission. The order in which he states the several headships is peculiar. We would expect him to begin with God and descend by the regular steps, thus: God, Christ, man, woman. But the order is thus: Christ, man; man, woman; God, Christ. Subtle distinctions are to be made with caution, but it is not improbable that Paul's order in this case is determined by the delicate nature of the subject which he handles. Dominion is fruitful of tyranny, and so it is well, before giving man dominion, to remind him that he also is a servant (Matt. 18:21-35; 5:7). Again, the arrangement makes the headship of the man over the woman parallel to the headship of God over Christ, and suggests that there should be between husband and wife a unity of will and purpose similar to that which exists between the Father and the Son. The unquestioned, immediate and absolute submission and concurrence of the Son leave no room for the exercise of authority on the part of the Father, and the infinite and unsearchable wisdom, love, benevolence and good-will on the part of the Father take from the Son every occasion of unwillingness or even hesitation. All Christian husbands and wives should mutually remember this parallel. Jesus the Incarnate, the Son of man and the Son of God, is subject to the Father, by reason of his humanity and his mediatorial kingdom (ch. 3:23; 15:24-28; John 14:28). As to the subjection of the Logos or the eternal Word to the Father we are not informed--comp. Phil. 2:6.] 4 Every man praying or prophesying [speaking by divine inspiration], having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. 5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her [109] head unveiled dishonoreth her head [Corinth was made up of Greeks, Romans and Jews, and all these three elements of her population were found in the church to which Paul wrote. The Jew and the Roman worshipped with covered, and the Greek with uncovered, head. Naturally a dispute would arise as to which custom was right. Moreover, as the women were beyond all doubt acquainted with the principle that there is neither male nor female in the spiritual realm (Gal. 3:28), they seem to have added to the confusion by taking sides in the controversy, so that some of them asserted the right to worship with uncovered heads after the fashion of the Greeks. Now, in the East in Paul's day, all women went into public assemblies with their heads veiled, and this peplum, or veil, was regarded as a badge of subordination, a sign that the woman was under the power of the man. Thus Chardin, the traveler, says that the women of Persia wear a veil in sign that they are "under subjection," a fact which Paul also asserts in this chapter. Now, the symbolic significance of a woman's head-dress became the determining factor in this dispute. For a man to worship with a covered head was an act of effeminacy, a disgrace to his head, and for a woman to worship with uncovered head was likewise disgraceful, for it would at once be looked upon as a bold assertion of unwarranted independence, a sign that she had laid aside her modesty and removed from her sphere. From this passage it is plain that it was not intended that Christianity should needlessly vary from the national customs of the day. For Christians to introduce needless innovations would be to add to the misconceptions which already subjected them to persecution. One who follows Christ will find himself conspicuously different from the world, without practicing any tricks of singularity]; or it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. 6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn [with shears] or shaven [with a razor], let her be veiled. [Paul does not command that unveiled women be shorn, but he demands it as a logical consistency, as a scornful reductio ad absurdum. For a [110] woman to want only to lay aside her veil was an open repudiation of the authority of her husband, and such a repudiation lowered her to the level of the courtesan, who, according to Elsner, showed her shamelessness by her shorn head, and likewise to the level of the adulteress, whose penalty, according to Wetstein and Meyer, was to have her head shaved. Paul, therefore, demands that those who voluntarily seek a low level, consent to wear all the signs and badges of that level that they may be shamed into rising above it. Having thus deduced a law from human custom, Paul now shows that the same law rests upon divine and creative relationships.] 7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God [Man has no created superior (Gen. 1:27; Ps. 8:6), and, in addition to the glory which is his by reason of the nature of his creation, his estate has been further dignified and glorified by the incarnation of the Son of God (Heb. 1:2, 3), so that, because of his fellowship with Christ, he may stand unveiled in the presence of the Father. Therefore, by covering his head while at worship, man symbolically forfeits his right to share in the glory of Christ, and thus dishonors himself. We are no longer slaves, but sons (Gal. 4:7). "We Christians," says Tertullian, "pray with outspread hands, as harmless; with uncovered heads, as unashamed; without a prompter, as from the heart"]: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: 9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man [Gen. 2:18, 21, 22]: 10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. [The argument here runs thus: The rule which I have given you rests upon symbolism--the symbol of the wife's subjection. But this symbolism is correct, for, as man proceeded from God, being fashioned as a minor representative of God, so also woman proceeded from man as a minor representative of man, and her minor state is apparent from the fact that she was created for the man, and not the man for her. Hence, women ought not to do away [111] with the veil while in places of worship, because of the symbolism; and they can not do away with the subordination which it symbolizes, because it rests on the unalterable facts of creation. To abandon this justifiable and well-established symbol of subordination would be a shock to the submissive and obedient spirit of the ministering angels (Isa. 6:2) who, though unseen, are always present with you in your places of worship" (Matt. 18:10-31; Ps. 138:1; 1 Tim. 5:21; ch. 4:9; Eccles. 5:6). Here we find Paul not only vindicating the religious truths of the Old Testament, but authenticating its historical facts as well.] 11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord ["In the Lord" means by divine appointment.] 12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God. [Lest any man should be inflated with pride by the statement in verse 7, fancying that there was some degree of proportion between the exaltation of God over man and of man over woman, Paul adds these words to show that men and women are mutually dependent, and hence nearly equals, but that God, as Creator, is exalted over all. The idea of proportion, therefore, is utterly misleading. To the two reasons already given for the covering of a woman's and the uncovering of a man's head, Paul adds two more.] 13 Judge ye in yourselves [he appealed to their own sense of propriety, as governed by the light of nature]: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. [Instinct should teach us that the head of a woman is more properly covered than that of a man, for nature grants it a greater abundance of hair. In Paul's time the hair of a man, unless he was under some vow, such as that of the Nazarite, was uniformly cut short. Long hair in a man betokened base and lewd effeminacy, and we find those who wore it ridiculed by Juvenile. Since nature gives a woman more covering than man, her will [112] should accord with nature, and vice versa. Masculine women and effeminate men are alike objectionable. Let each sex keep its place. And in point of attire it is still disgraceful for men and women to appear in public in each other's garments.] 16 But if any man seemeth to be [a mild way of saying, "if any man is"] contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. [Knowing the argumentative spirit of the Greeks, and being conscious that it was likely that some would even yet want to dispute the matter, despite his three reasons to the contrary, Paul takes it entirely out of the realm of discussion into that of precedent. The settled and established practice of the church had from the beginning followed the course outlined by Paul, which showed that other apostles besides himself had either established it by rule, or endorsed it in practice. In this appeal for uniformity Paul makes it clear that all churches should strive to make their practices uniform, not variant. Paul is here discussing how men and women should be attired when they take a leading part in public worship. He will speak later as to whether or not women should take any such part at all in public worship (ch. 14:34, 35; 1 Tim. 2:12). We to-day as males worship with uncovered heads in consequence of Paul's instruction; but not for his reasons. It is now an expression of reverence, which the Jew then expressed by taking off his sandals. "Holland," says Stanley, "is the only exception. In Dutch congregations, men uncover their heads during the psalmody only." In Western countries a woman's hat has never had any symbolism whatever. We see nothing in Paul's argument which requires us to make it symbolic. The problem in Western assemblies is how best to persuade women to take their hats off, not how to prevail upon them to keep them on. The principle, however, still holds good that the woman is subordinate to the man, and should not make any unseemly, immodest, vaunting display of an independence which she does not possess.] [113]

VIII.

SEVENTH RESPONSE. AS TO THE LORD'S
SUPPER.

11:17-34.

      17 But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better but for the worse. [Their church services, which were intended for their development, had become so corrupted that they tended to retard and to dwarf their natural growth. Farrar makes the words "this charge" refer back to verse 2; but it is more natural and easy to refer them to what he is about to say.] 18 For first of all [Paul was not careful as to his divisions, and so his "secondly" is not clearly stated. Olshausen, Ewald, Winer and others think it begins at verse 20, and thus the apostle first censures the factions, and next the evils which resulted from the factions. But as Paul includes both these in one rebuke, it is best with Meyer, Fausset and others to find the "secondly" beginning at ch. 12:1; so that the first rebuke is directed at their misbehavior at the love-feast and the Lord's Supper, and the second at their misapplication of the gifts of the Spirit], when ye come together in the church [i. e., in the congregation, for as yet they doubtless had no building (Acts 18:7), and in this latter sense the word is nowhere used in the New Testament], I hear that divisions exist among you; and I partly believe it. [Evidently the divisions rebuked in chapter 1 manifested themselves in the meetings of the congregation, and the Pauline, Petrine and other parties gathered in separate groups. Paul was distressed to hear this, and Alford interprets him thus: "I am unwilling to believe all I hear, but some I can not help believing."] 19 For there must be [Luke 17:1; Matt. 18:7; 10:11] also factions among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you. [A carnal spirit tends to division (ch. 3:1-4; 1 John 2:18, 19). The divisive spirit in the [114] perverse and carnal, manifests, by contrast, the loving, united spirit of the obedient and spiritual, which is approved. "Approved" is the cognate opposite of "rejected" found at ch. 9:27. The word "division" used in the verse above was a milder term than "factions" found here. The former represented parties separated by present or at least very recent dissensions, while the latter described matured separations and looked toward permanent organizations. If the former might be regarded as a war of secession, the latter would describe that condition when the war was practically ended, and the two parties were almost ready to establish themselves as separate, independent and rival governments. But factions did not thus mature in Paul's time, nor does Clement's epistle written forty years later indicate that they had matured in his time. No doubt, this epistle of Paul's had much to do in checking their development.] 20 When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's supper [The Lord's Supper is a spiritual feast. It is a feast of love, union and communion in and with Christ, and so can not be eaten by those who have already glutted themselves with hatred, factiousness and partyism]: 21 for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. [This verse is an indictment with three counts. There could be no communion supper when: 1. The parties did not eat at the same time, but some before and some after; 2. when each ate his own meal, instead of sharing in "the one bread" (ch. 10:17); 3. when some ate to the full and others ate nothing at all, because there was nothing left. It is likely that "drunken" indicates a state of partial intoxication. Grotius gives "drunken" the milder, and Meyer the stronger, sense. But the context suggests that one had more than was good for him, and the other less, and there is a subtle innuendo in the crossing of the terms, so that overdrinking stands in contrast to undereating, for overdrinking is greater debauchery than overeating.] 22 What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put [115] them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this I praise you not. [Litotes for "I condemn you." The context here makes it evident that the abuses of the Lord's Supper grew out of the Agapæ, or love-feast, which was associated with it. As the feast of the Passover immediately preceded the Lord's Supper, the early church thought it expedient to have a preliminary feast as a substitute for the Passover, thinking that the Lord's Supper would thus have its proper setting. They called this preliminary meal a "love-feast" (Greek, Agapai--Jude 12). This Agapæ was a club-feast; i. e., one to which each was supposed to contribute his share. But the factious spirit in Corinth caused the church to eat in different parties and at different times; and may have, to a large degree, caused each to selfishly eat what he himself had brought. Hence, the apostle declares that a feast so devoid of all spirit of communion might just as well be eaten at home. They were mere carnal feasts of appetite and not spiritual feasts of love. Paul does not, however, mention the Agapæ, for, being a human and not a sacred feast, it could not be profaned. But the things which were a disgrace to it became a profanation and a sin when they passed from it into the Lord's Supper. Paul shows his sense of astonishment at the unseemly conduct of the Corinthians by "lively succession of questions." His meaning may be paraphrased thus: "Private feasts should be eaten in your own private houses, or is it possible that you do not own any houses? Surely you do. Why, then, do you meet in a public assembly to eat your private meal? Is it because you despise the church of God, and wish to show your contempt for it by exposing the poverty of those who have no houses (nor anything else), making a parade of your wealth before them, and publishing the fact that you do not consider them fit to eat with you?" The evil spirit of which Paul speaks still exists; but it shows itself to-day by a parade of dress, and not of victuals. From the perverted feast of the Corinthians Paul now turns to show the nature of the true Lord's Supper.] 23 For I received of the Lord [Paul did not receive his knowledge as to the supper [116] from the apostles or other witnesses (comp. Gal. 1:11, 12). To be truly an apostle and witness (Acts 1:8), it was fitting that Paul should have his knowledge from the fountain source. For a comparison of Paul's account with the three others, and comments upon verses 23-26, see "Fourfold Gospel," p. 657] that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed [the solemn and affecting circumstances under which the supper was instituted, as well as the sacred nature of the ordinance itself, should have impressed upon the Corinthians how unbecoming it was to celebrate the memorial of it in a spirit of pride, revelry and disorder] took bread; 24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. [The Greek word for giving thanks is eucharistia, and from it many call the Lord's Supper the Eucharist. But the "Lord's supper" and the "Lord's table" (ch. 10:21) and the "communion" (ch. 10:16) are three Bible terms for it. Many ancient authorities read: "This is my body, which is broken for you" etc. Some regard this as a contradiction of John's assertion that no bone of him was broken (John 19:36). But the word differs from that used by John, which may be properly translated "crushed." "Broken" is involved in the phrase "he brake it," used here, and in the three other accounts of the supper, and hence they err who use the unbroken wafer.] 25 In like manner also the cup, after supper [Paul here inserts the entering wedge of reform. The Lord's Supper came after the Passover, and was no part of it; hence it was no part of the Agapæ which was substituted for the Passover. As therefore the Agapæ was fruitful of disorder, would it not be well to separate it from the communion? By the end of the first century it was so separated, and at last it was formally prohibited by the Council of Carthage. See Poole's synopsis on Matt. 26:26], saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. [Diatheke may be translated "testament" (Heb. 9:16), or "covenant." The latter is the meaning here, for [117] wills or testaments were not sealed with blood, as were covenants. The cup is the symbol of Christ's blood, which ratified the gospel covenant.] 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim [inwardly and outwardly] the Lord's death till he come. [Thus the supper looks forward, as well as backward. The constant observance of this feast through the centuries is one of the strongest of the external evidences of the truth of gospel history. By a chain of weekly links it will connect the first and second comings of our Lord; after which there will be no further need of symbols.] 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. [It is possible to partake of either emblem unworthily, and so be guilty as to both (Jas. 2:10). Though we may be unworthy, we may still eat worthily, i. e., in a prayerful, reverent, repentant spirit; but if we eat unworthily, we profane not only the symbols, but the Lord who is symbolized--comp. Heb. 10:29.] 28 But let a man prove [test] himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. [A Christian confronting the communion should first test his sincerity (2 Cor. 13:5), his state of heart (Matt. 5:22-24), etc., to see if he can eat in a submissive spirit, and in loving remembrance of his Lord.] 29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body. [The Corinthians were eating the supper in a spirit of levity, as though it were common food; not keeping in mind what it memorialized.] 30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep. ["Not a few" indicates a larger number than the preceding "many." It is generally accepted that Paul here refers to physical weakness, ill health and death, and that he asserts that these things came upon the Corinthians as a "judgment" for their abuse of the Lord's Supper (comp. John 5:14). But the word "sleep" indicates peaceful repose, rather than the violence of the death penalty; and suggests that the Corinthians were condemned to be spiritually unhealthy and sleepy--comp. Matt. 13:12-15.] [118] 31 But if we discerned ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. [If we examined and corrected ourselves, we would escape the correction of God; but, as it is, his judgments are visited upon us, so that we may not finally be condemned with the world (Ps. 94:12; Heb. 12:5-12). Verses 28 and 31 call for self-judgment, but there is no Biblical authority for the practice of those who take it upon themselves to judge as to the fitness of other professing Christians to commune (comp. Rom. 14:4). Moreover, these verses, in giving the true rule of practice, expose the departure of the Romish Church, which calls for no self-examination, but makes confession and priestly absolution the preparation for communion.] 33 Wherefore [if you wish to remedy matters], my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another. 34 If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment. [By waiting they would eat together, and eat of the same symbolic bread; by eating at home, and taking the edge off their appetites, they would not devour all, and so exclude others from the communion.] And the rest will I set in order whensoever I come. [The spiritual ill health of the church had delayed his coming, but when he arrived he would adjust any lesser irregularities which might need attention.]

IX.

EIGHTH RESPONSE. AS TO SPIRITUAL GIFTS.

12:1-31.

      [To avoid confusion in our classification of the subjects handled, we have called this section a response, but it is such as to information received, rather than as to questions asked. In the early church the Spirit of God, fulfilling the predictions of prophecy (Joel 2:28 ff.; Acts 2:17-21), and the promise of the Lord (Mark 16:17, 18; Acts 8:7), [119] beginning on the day of Pentecost, endowed certain members with miraculous gifts. These were needful in that day: 1. They aided the evangelists and missionaries to propagate the faith in new fields with greater speed. 2. They assured weak converts that God was indeed in that church for which they had abandoned their former religions. 3. They edified the church, and gave it that body of perfect revealed truth which has been preserved and made permanent in the New Testament. But as different gifts were bestowed on different individuals, some of them became a source of pride and envy. Some who had showy gifts made a boastful display of them, and thus vaunted themselves as superior to those who had powers of a less dazzling nature; and those who had the humbler gifts envied the more richly endowed. To correct all this, Paul wrote the three chapters which follow.] 1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 2 Ye know that when ye were Gentiles ye were led away unto those dumb idols, howsoever ye might be led. 3 Wherefore I make known unto you, that no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith, Jesus is anathema [devoted to destruction, hence accursed]; and no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit. [The previous idolatrous life of the Corinthians left them not only ignorant as to the ways of God's Spirit, but also tended to mislead them. Paul therefore begins their instruction with the elementary principles which concern inspiration and revelation; thus: 1. An idol reveals no truth; it is dumb. 2. Idols are many, but God is one. 3. The pretended revelations and oracles of idols or idol priests and other impostors, may be tested by what their authors say of Jesus, for they will speak evil of him. 4. The true prophets and revealers may also be so tested. They will assert the claims of Jesus, which no man is moved to do save by the Holy Spirit (1 John 4:2, 3; 2:22; 5:1). Treating these four points in their order, we need to note that: 1. Dumb idols were often made to speak by priests concealed in or behind them, who made use of speaking-tubes which led to the parted lips of the idol. Hence, converts from [120] paganism needed to be reminded that idols were indeed dumb, as a safeguard against such fraud. No spiritual truth came from the oracles of idols. 2. As each realm of nature had its god, idolaters were drawn about from shrine to shrine and temple to temple, seeking one blessing from one god to-day, and another blessing from another god to-morrow. Hence, saturated as they were with polytheism, diverse gifts were with them instinctively associated with diverse gods. But the diverse gifts of Christianity were not to be attributed to different deities, or even to different subordinate spiritual beings, such as angels, etc., for they were all from one God, as Paul affirms in this chapter, reasserting it ten times in the next ten verses by way of emphasis. 3. Elymas affords a picture of one pretending to speak oracles--a false prophet. 4. The conflict between Paul and Elymas shows the blasphemy of the false and the confession of the true prophet (Acts 13:6-12). The oracle of Delphi was near by, and contentions between idolatry and Christianity were, we may be sure, matters of daily occurrence in Corinth, and the ideas of new converts would be easily confused. The third verse shows that the test of a teacher is not his apostolic succession, but the soundness of his doctrine--comp. Gal. 1:8.] 4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all. [Though the gifts were the immediate impartation of the Spirit, yet it was a mistake to think that the Spirit acted as an independent deity in this giving. Hence Paul begins by showing that all the Godhead participated in the bestowal, and that each sustained his own relation to these miraculous manifestations. In relation to the Spirit, they were, as we have seen, gifts; in relation to Jesus, they were means whereby he ministered to the church (Eph. 4:11, 12; Rom. 12:6, 7; 1 Pet. 4:10, 11), and to the world through the church (Mark 16:20); in relation to the Father, they were workings, or manifestations of power, whereby he sanctioned the church and kingdom of Jesus as proceeding [121] from himself, approved by him, and part of his universal field of operation--John 8:28, 29; 14:10, 11.] 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal. [Each of the gifted ones had some power which manifested that the Spirit of God was with him, and this power was not given to him for his own profit, but for the good of the church and of the world.] 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit: 9 to another faith, in the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, in the one Spirit; 10 and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discernings of spirits: to another divers kinds of tongues; and to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 but all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as he will. [Paul here sets forth fully the diversity of the gifts, but checks any tendency to boastful comparison by showing that the gifts emanate from a common source, and are operated by a common will, and are bestowed according to the pleasure of the Spirit, and not because of any inferiority or superiority on the part of the recipients. The nine gifts spoken of may be described as follows: 1. The "word of wisdom" was the ability to reveal divine truth which was possessed by the apostles and partially by prophets. 2. The "word of knowledge" was the ability to teach the truth thus revealed. Paul emphasizes that the second gift was as much a work of the Spirit as the first. 3. Faith, in this connection, is more than that which comes by hearing. It is that energy of faith which carries with it divine power (Matt. 17:19, 20; ch. 13:2). 4. "Gifts of healing" was the power to supernaturally restore the sick (Acts 5:15, 16; Jas. 5:14, 15). This gift may have been separated from the one next named, because some had their miraculous power limited to this field. 5. "Workings of miracles" was larger than the one which preceded it, for it included acts of judgment as well as mercy. It was exercised by Paul in striking Elymas blind, and by Peter in the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira. Paul here names healing first, [122] possibly because those who are called upon to exercise God's mercy stand higher in his esteem than those who execute his judgment, for pagans and unbelievers have often been used by him to mete out punishment. But in verse 28 he reverses the order, for the greater includes the less. 6. The "gift of prophecy" enabled one to speak the truth under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit. In the Old Testament this gift was a very important one; but in the New, the "word of wisdom," which embraced all the larger scope of prophecy, seems to have been mainly confined to the apostles, and so we find New Testament prophets merely foretelling things of a temporary or personal nature, as in the case of Agabus (Acts 11:28; 21:9-11). 7. "Discernings of spirits" was the power to recognize the difference between the utterances of genuine inspiration and those of a demoniacal or an unaided human spirit. 8. There has been much dispute as to what is meant by "kinds of tongues." Some modern commentators have attempted to show that the gift of tongues mentioned in the Epistles was entirely different from the ability to speak foreign languages manifested on the day of Pentecost. The weakness of those who take this position is fully exposed by Hodge in loco. Speaking with tongues was not an incoherent, meaningless jargon uttered by the speaker in ecstatic rhapsody, nor was it "spiritual language unknown to man, uttered in ecstasy." The second chapter of the Book of Acts shows us clearly what it was, and the New Testament never explains it as being anything less or different. 9. "Interpretation of tongues" was the ability to interpret what was said by the one who spoke with tongues. The gifts of speaking and interpreting were sometimes given to the same person (14:13), and sometimes to different persons.] 12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. [Paul here strikes a fatal blow at that pride which animated those who held superior gifts. Can there be pride in one member of the body, as to the other members of which it is only an organic part? But all Christians, no matter how they differ in gifts, [123] are parts of the body of Christ. Jesus illustrated the organic unity between himself and the church under the figure of the vine and the branches; and the apostles, carrying the figure forward so as to include the unity existing between Christians, spoke of Christ as the head and the church as the body, or Christ as the building and the church as the stones. All organism supposes both unity and diversity.] 13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit. [Paul here proves the unity of the church by the method of its creation. One Spirit, acting through the apostles and all other evangelists and ministers (1 Thess. 1:5), had begotten people of different races and nationalities and conditions (John 3:5), and had caused them to be baptized into the one church, and had bestowed itself upon them after they had been thus baptized (Acts 2:38). Thus it had made them one organism. Paul speaks of the bestowal of the Spirit under the figure of the living water used by Jesus (John 7:37). As the spirit of a man keeps up the organic unity of the body, so the Spirit of God had vivified and organized the church.] 14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; it is not therefore not of the body. 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; it is not therefore not of the body. [This passage exposes the folly of those who were belittling themselves in the presence of their fellow-Christians. Being in the church, they were organically united to the entire church body. If they felt that their inferiority in gifts excluded them, they were not thereby excluded. Their false views and false assertions did not alter their true condition. Paul associates the members of action (foot and hand) and the members of sensation (eye and ear), and represents each as complaining against the other, because men are apt to be envious and to disparage themselves as to those who have superior gifts similar to their own. We are not envious of those whose gifts are dissimilar. It is the foot and not the eye that [124] envies the hand.] 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18 But now [(as things actually are)] hath God set the members each one of them in the body, even as it pleased him. 19 And if they were all one member, where were the body? 20 But now they are many members, but one body. [The necessity for diversity is here shown. If all the church were teachers, who could be taught? If all were healers, who could receive healing? If all were preachers, who could listen? The glory of an organism is its diversity, and the more diverse its functions, the higher it ranks in the scale of life.] 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee: or again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. [The interdependence of the members is here shown. If, as we have seen above, the humbly envious one felt as if he were not included in the church, the proudly superior member felt as if the humbler one should be excluded. Here we find the eye and hand associated contrary to the usage in verses 15 and 16. Those who are puffed up with some great gift do not see the need of any other gifts save their own. But they tolerate those who have their gift in less degree, for such form a background to show off their excellencies. We have seen vain singers who esteemed the preaching as of very little importance, and vice versa. Paul continues to discuss this interdependence.] 22 Nay, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be more feeble are necessary: 23 and those parts of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness; 24 whereas our comely parts have no need: but God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honor to that part which lacked; 25 that there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. 26 And whether one member suffereth, all the members suffer with it; or one member is honored, [125] all the members rejoice with it. 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof. [The hands and face have no need of adornment, but the rest of the body, being less comely, is made beautiful with clothing, so that a state of equilibrium is established, and the whole body is acceptable to the indwelling Spirit as its home. If any part of the body lacks in beauty, the attention of the whole body is drawn to it, and employed to better its condition. Moreover, the parts suffer or rejoice as a whole. Now, God intends that the church shall look upon itself as such an organic whole, and shall feel this lively concern for each of those who lack, feeling that the lack of one is the lack of all. "When a thorn," says Chrysostom, "enters the heel, the whole body feels and is concerned: the back bends, the fore part of the body contracts itself, the hands come forward and draw out the thorn, the head stoops, the eyes regard the affected member with intense gaze, When the head is crowned, the whole man feels honored, the mouth expresses and the eyes look gladness."] 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of hearings, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30 have all gifts of hearings? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? [Paul here completes his analogy by showing that the gifts bestowed upon individuals in the church are as diverse and variant as the faculties bestowed upon the various members of the body. As the apostle has named nine spiritual gifts, so he here names nine positions in the church. These may be defined thus: 1. The "apostles" were those who possessed plenary inspiration. They could at all times and on all subjects declare the will of God. 2. "Prophets" had occasional inspiration, which was then usually of a very limited nature. 3. "Teachers" were uninspired men that were gifted in teaching and explaining the historic truths of the gospel and the doctrinal truths which came through inspiration, for those having prophetic gifts did not always fully understand the import of [126] their own words (1 Pet. 1:11, 12). 4 and 5. Those who worked miracles and had the gift of healing have been spoken of above. 6. "Helps" means the same as helpers. In our land domestic and other helpers are often provincially called "help." It here refers to those who had a sympathetic nature or a generous spirit, etc. (Rom. 12:8). 7. "Governments." This refers to those possessing powers of leadership and organization, those having administrative ability, such as the elders. 8 and 9. "Divers kinds of tongues" and the power to interpret the same, have already been described. These appear to have been ranked first in importance by the Corinthians, because most showy, and they are here placed last by the apostles because they added but little to edification, and were of small practical value.] 31 But desire earnestly the greater gifts. [Though these powers were bestowed as gifts by the Spirit, yet they were not bestowed blindly. They were apt to be conferred upon those who strove to be worthy of them.] And moreover a most excellent way show I unto you. [This may mean that I show you a most excellent way to attain unto the best gifts; or, I show you a way of love to which all may attain, and which far exceeds any gift or position. This way of love will be fully described in the next chapter.]

      [This chapter has been admired by all ages, but, unfortunately, it has been practiced by none. In it Paul shows that love is superior to all extraordinary gifts, both by reason of its inherent excellency and its perpetuity. Also that it surpasses all other graces.] 1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. [The apostle first compares love with that gift of tongues in which the Corinthians took so much [127] pride. The comparison shows that speaking with tongues, even if it were exercised in an unexampled manner, is utter emptiness unless accompanied by love. The gift of tongues, even when it attained its highest conceivable development, is inferior to the language of angels; but even if one spoke with all the gifts of language human or divine, his word, if loveless, would be but a vainglorious noise, or sounds without soul or feeling; such as come from pounding on some brazen gong or basin, or from cymbals, which are the lowest, most monotonous, least expressive of all musical instruments. It is suggestive that Paul had doubtless heard the language of angels (2 Cor. 12:4). Corinthian brass was a mixture of gold and silver, and was famous for its resonance when made into trumpets, etc.] 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. [Love is next compared with the gifts of prophecy and miracle-working faith mentioned in the last chapter. The gift of prophecy manifested itself in two ways: 1. Ability to receive revelations of those counsels of God which were either not revealed at all, or else concealed in mystery (Matt. 13:11; Rom. 16:25; ch. 2:7; Eph 3:3, 9; Col. 1:26). 2. Ability to fully understand the revelations in all their bearings upon present and future life, former revelations, dispensations, etc. This latter Paul calls "knowledge." The phrase "I would not have you ignorant," so familiar in his writings, shows how frequently he used this knowledge to impart the full truth to others. The fate of those who exercised the gift of prophecy and miracles without love is described at Matt. 7:21-23. Balaam, Judas and Caiaphas may be taken as examples, and Satan himself is partially such. To say that one possessed of such gifts was "nothing"--a spiritual cipher--was a crushing blow to the pride and vanity of the Corinthians. We see that Paul agrees with James that faith which does not work in love is profitless--Jas. 2:26; comp. Gal. 5:6; 1 Thess. 1:3.] 3 And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it [128] profiteth me nothing. [Love is here contrasted with those works of charity and self-sacrifice which are included under the term "helps;" so that in his comparison Paul practically exhausts the whole catalogue of gifts described in the last chapter, and shows the entire supremacy of love over all of them. The word translated "bestow to feed," means to dole away in mouthfuls and suggests that though the giving was entire and exhaustive, yet the manner of giving was so parsimonious and grudging as to emphasize the lack of love. From giving goods Paul passes to that higher order of giving in which the body is presented as a sacrifice to God, either by martyrdom, or as a daily offering (Rom. 12:1; ch. 15:31; 2 Cor. 12:15; 11:29). It has been urged that Paul could not refer to martyrdom, for, though Christians were burned by fire in great numbers some ten years later, yet there is no account of any such form of martyrdom when Paul wrote. But the mere silence of history proves nothing; besides, the case of the three Hebrews is precedent enough (Dan. 3:23, 28; comp. Heb. 11:34). See also 2 Macc. 7. Willingness to fight and die for Christianity will not take the place of loving obedience to Christ. Having shown the supremacy of love when compared with miraculous gifts, Paul now enters upon a discussion of the intrinsic merits of love, thus preparing his hearers to grasp the superiority of love over the other two graces. He gives nine negative and six, or rather eight, positive qualities of love. All seventeen qualities will be found beautifully exemplified in the life of our Lord. The Corinthians were conspicuously lacking in the four which head Paul's catalogue, as will be shown by comparing them with ch. 6:7; 12:15, 21, 26; 4:6, 18, 19.] 4 Love suffereth long, and is kind [In this catalogue the first and last negative qualities are coupled with their corresponding positives, suggesting a like coupling throughout. Love suffers evil and confers blessing, and seeks to thus overcome evil with good--Rom. 12:21; Matt. 23:37; Luke 22:48, 50, 51]; love envieth not [Is not jealous of the gifts, goods or fortune of another, nor of his spiritual prosperity, as was Cain (Gen. 4:3-8). Love excludes this feeling; the parent does not envy the [129] child (Rev. 3:21). Moses was free from envy (Num. 11:26-29), and so also was John the Baptist--John 3:26-30]; love vaunteth not itself [does not parade itself--Matt. 6:1; Acts 8:9; Matt. 11:29; 12:19, 38, 39; 21:5], is not puffed up [is not inflated with pride or arrogance, because of wealth, knowledge, power, etc.--Acts 12:20-23; John 13:1-5], 5 doth not behave itself unseemly [Self-love betrays its lack of sympathy by vulgar indecorum, and cares not how offensive its conduct is towards others. Manners often give the measure of the man (Luke 7:44-47; 23:11; John 13:14, 15). Christians should manifest a courteous spirit--1 Pet. 3:8, 9; Luke 2:51, 52], seeketh not its own [Love is unselfish and disinterested, and is happy in the happiness of others (Rom. 12:10; 15:1-3; Phil. 2:4; Matt. 8:20; 20:28). Self-love is grasping and productive of evil--ch. 10:24-33; Luke 12:13-21], is not provoked [It does not lose its temper; is not easily roused to resentment. The same word is used for the "sharp contention" between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:39). Love curbs exasperation--Isa. 53:7; Matt. 26:62, 63; 1 Pet. 2:23; Heb. 12:3], taketh not account of evil [Is not suspicious of evil, is not careful to retain the memory of it, and does not keep a record of it for the purpose of returning it. It continues its blessing despite rebuffs--John 10:32]; 6 rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth [It does not rejoice in seeing sin committed nor in the downfall of those who are overcome by it (Rom. 1:32; 2 Thess. 2:12; comp. John 8:3-11), but is glad when truth puts down iniquity (2 John 4; Acts 11:23; Luke 10:17-21; comp. 2 Tim. 3:8). Possibly the verse also includes that malignant joy which many feel at the mishaps or misfortunes of others. It certainly condemns that false charity which compromises truth--Prov. 17:15; Gal. 1:9; 2:5, 11]; 7 beareth all things [it endures wrongs without complaint, and bears the adversities, troubles and vexations of life without murmuring (Matt. 17:24-27), and often without divulging its needy condition--ch. 9:12; Phil. 4:11, 12], believeth all things [It takes the kindest views of men's actions and circumstances. It sees things in their [130] brightest, not their darkest, colors; and, as far as it consistently can, puts the best construction on conduct--Prov. 10:12; 1 Pet. 4:8; Gen. 45:5; Luke 23:34], hopeth all things [though the object loved is confessedly sinful to-day, yet this supreme grace looks with eager, hopeful expectation for its repentance on the morrow--ch. 3:2, 3; Luke 13:6-9; 15:20; 20:9-13], endureth all things. [The word "hupomenoo," translated "endureth," is a military term, and means to sustain an assault; hence it has reference to heavier afflictions than those sustained by the "beareth" of verse 7. It refers to gross ill-treatment, violence and persecution, and such grievances as provoke resistance, strife, etc. (2 Tim. 2:10, 24; Heb. 10:32; 12:2; Matt. 5:39; comp. John 18:22, 23, with Acts 23:2-5). The enduring is not simply that dogged persistency which bears up despite adversity, it is an endurance which forgives offense (Luke 17:4). From love as it manifests itself in daily life Paul now rises to speak of love in its essence.] 8 Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; 10 but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known. [The superlative excellence of love is here shown in that it survives all things with which it may be compared, and reveals its close relation to God whose name is love (1 John 4:8), by its eternal, imperishable nature. Prophecies, tongues and knowledge-three supernatural gifts though they were--were mortals compared with the divine spirit of love. They were needful in developing the infant church, but as that institution passed onward toward maturity and perfection (Heb. 5:12-14; 6:1; Eph. 3:14-21; 4:11-16), they were outgrown and [131] discontinued, because from them had been developed the clear, steady light of the recorded Word, and the mature thoughtfulness and assurance of a well-instructed church. They were thrown aside, therefore, as the wheat stalk which has matured its grain; or, to use Paul's own figure, put away as the speech, feeling and judgment of childhood when they have produced their corresponding faculties in manhood. Though the triplet of child-faculties--speech, feeling, thought, do not form a close parallel with the triplet of gifts--tongues, prophecies, knowledge, yet they were alike in that to both, the child and the church, they seemed severally all-important. All Christians who mistakenly yearn for a renewal of these spiritual gifts, should note the clear import of these words of the apostle, which show that their presence in the church would be an evidence of immaturity and weakness, rather than of fully developed power and seasoned strength. But if the gifts have passed from the church as transient and ephemeral, shall not that which they have produced abide? Assuredly they shall, until that which is perfect is come; i. e., until the coming of Christ. Then prophecy shall be merged into fulfillment, and the dim light of revelation shall be broadened into the perfect day. We to-day see the reflection of truth, rather than the truth itself. It has come to us through the medium of minds which, though divinely illuminated, were yet finite, and it has modified itself, though essentially spiritual, so as to be clothed in earthly words; and it is grasped and comprehended by us through the use of our material brains. Thus, though perfect after its kind, and true as far as it goes, our present knowledge of heavenly things is perhaps as far from the full reality as is the child's conception of earthly things (John 3:12). And so our present knowledge may well merge, as will prophecy, into a higher order of perfection, wherein both the means of manifestation (2 Cor. 5:7) and of comprehension (1 John 3:2) will be wholly perfect. So, though at present we may indeed know God, yet our knowledge is more that received by description, than that which is received by direct, clear sight, and personal acquaintance; but hereafter we shall know God in some sense [132] as he knows us, and know the beings of the heavenly land as thoroughly as they now know us. Mirrors were then made of polished silver or brass, and were far more indistinct than our present glasses; so that to see a reflection in one of them was far less satisfactory than to see the reality.] 13 But now [in this present state] abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love. [If we give the phrase "but now" its other sense, as though the apostle said "But to sum things up, to give the net results," then we have him saying that faith, hope and love are eternal. While it is true that faith in the sense of trust and confidence, and hope in the sense of unclouded expectation, shall abide in heaven, yet, in their large, general meaning, faith shall be lost in sight, and hope in fruition (Rom. 8:24, 25). It therefore seems more consistent to understand the apostle as asserting that the three graces shall abide while the earth stands; in contrast with miraculous gifts, which, according to his own prophetic statement, have ceased. He does not explain the superior excellence of love when compared with faith and hope, but the points of superiority are not hard to find. 1. If all three are eternal, the other two shall be greatly diminished as graces by the Lord's coming, while love shall be infinitely enlarged. 2. Love is the basis of faith and hope, for we only fully believe in and hope for that which we love. 3. Faith and hope are human, but God himself is love. 4. Faith and hope can only properly work by love, and are worthless without it. But here the superiority is not so clear, for the three graces go hand in hand.

XI.

SPIRITUAL GIFTS CONCLUDED.

14:1-40.

      1 Follow after love; yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. [From the discussion of spiritual gifts Paul turned aside in the last chapter [133] to show that love is superior to all gifts. Having finished his digression, he now resumes the subject of gifts, and proceeds to show that the pursuit of love, as of supreme importance, does not exclude the desire of gifts, as of secondary importance. Having thus brought the subject of gifts again into discussion, he asserts that prophecy is superior to the gift of tongues, and proves his assertion by showing that it is the more useful in the edification of the church. Incidentally his argument shows that though the Spirit gave the gift of tongues to men, that men abused the gift; and so the Spirit, through Paul as its instrument, reproves and corrects this abuse. Prophecy, as here discussed, means preaching under divine guidance, and the gift of tongues was not a gift of the knowledge of, but of the use of, foreign languages. The one having it could declare God's will in a foreign tongue, and could sometimes even interpret what he had declared; but he could not use the language for business conversation, or any personal or worldly purpose.] 2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men edification, and exhortation, and consolation. 4 He that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. [The apostle here lays the groundwork of his argument. Prophecy is superior to the gift of exercising his spiritual gift (Rev. 1:10), might indeed speak the divine truths or mysteries of God; but, speaking them in a foreign language, he would be understood only by God and himself, and so would only edify, etc., himself. On the other hand, the prophet, declaring the same or kindred mysteries in the vernacular, would be understood by all present, and thus he would transform the mysteries into revelations, which would benefit the church, either edifying it, so as to enlighten its ignorance; or rousing its latent energies, so as to dispel its sluggishness; or comforting it, so as to remove its sorrows. In short, tongues might excite wonder (Acts 2:12), but preaching brought [134] forth fruit (Acts 2:36-42) and the Corinthian church had need to be more fruitful, since it was not eminent for its holiness or its works. Paul does not mean to say that no man living could understand the tongues, or that they were mere jargon. He means that no man present in the usual Corinthian assemblies understood them. Had speaking with tongues been mere hysterical "orgiastic" jargon, it certainly would not have bodied forth the mysteries of God, nor would it have edified the one speaking, nor could it have been interpreted by him or by others as Paul directs. Those who belittle the gift by construing it as a mere jargon approach dangerously near making Paul (and themselves likewise) criticize the Holy Spirit for giving such a senseless, abnormal gift. But those who read Paul correctly find that he is only censuring the abuse of the gift and not the nature of it. It was useful to the church while engaged in missionary work in foreign fields. But it became a source of vanity and vainglorious display when used by a church sitting idly at home. To the missionary it was a splendid addition to the gift of prophecy; but to the Corinthian preachers exhorting in their home church, it was a sad subtraction from that gift. The fruits of the Spirit in the Christian life are far enough from being "orgiastic"--Gal. 5:22.] 5 Now I would have you all speak with tongues, but rather that ye should prophesy: and greater [because more profitable] is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. 6 But now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching? [The gift of tongues had a subordinate use in the church of God, as an evidence of the presence of the Spirit of God. Moreover, it was a reserve of power, liable to be brought into active use at any time by the scattering of the church through persecution. For these reasons, and also to show that he writes in a spirit of generous good-will, Paul expresses a wish that all the churches in Corinth might be endowed with this gift. But, as [135] a more practical wish, he prefers that they shall be able to prophesy, since the church would not be edified by the use of the gift of tongues, unless the foreign language used was interpreted. If Paul came to them as a visitor or missionary, his profit to them would not lie in his speaking with tongues (even though he, a Jew, spake to them miraculously in their own Greek language); but it would lie in the subject-matter of his utterance, in the edification which he conveyed. Paul names the four ways in which men may be edified by the use of words, and all these four manners were as much at the command of prophecy as they were at that of the gift of tongues. Revelation is the unveiling of divine truth to a prophet, and prophecy is the impartation of that truth to others. Knowledge is the divine illumination of the mind as to the bearing and significance of a truth, and doctrine is the impartation to another of the truth thus grasped. These are all matters of sense, and not of sound only. But speaking with tongues in the presence of those not understanding the language spoken, is sound without sense, and fails to convey any prophecy, doctrine, etc. Paul goes on to show that sound without sense is not only profitless, but may even be baneful.] 7 Even things without life, giving a voice, whether pipe or harp, if they give not a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare himself for war? 9 So also ye, unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and no kind is without signification. 11 If then I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian [a foreigner--Acts 28:2], and he that speaketh will be a barbarian unto me. 12 So also ye, since ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may abound unto the edifying of the church. [If there be any place where sound without sense is apparently valuable, or profitable, argues Paul, it will be found in the [136] use of musical instruments. But even here there are laws of cadence, modulation, harmony, etc., which form a veritable grammar of tongue-language, which, when obeyed, give to music what we may call a tone-sense, analogous to the intellectual sense embodied in language. Hence one may play an instrument so as to make it meaningless, and if he does he makes it profitless. Moreover, some instruments, such as the trumpet, because of the fixed and established laws of tone, are used to convey a language as well defined and unmistakable as that of the voice. Thus certain notes on the trumpet command a charge, others the joining of battle, and yet others the retreat, etc. Now, if the trumpet or trumpeter fails to produce this tone-language intelligibly, the army is thrown into confusion. Spiritual guidance uttered in an unknown tongue was like a blare of the trumpet which gave no order. Both disappointed the expectation of the listener. Both spoke idly into the air, instead of profitably into the ear. There are many sounds in the world, but they only become voices when they convey some form of sense. Thus we speak properly enough of the "voice of the trumpet," when it is blown, but no one speaks of the voice of the boiler when it is being riveted. Sense, meaning, signification, are the very essence of voice--the qualities which distinguish it from mere sound. If you use your voice to speak a foreign, and hence a meaningless, language, you degrade it, so that to your hearer it becomes a mere profitless sound. This you should not do. Since you earnestly seek gifts, you should seek them for practical purposes; viz.: for the abundant edification of the church.] 13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is it then? [What is the conclusion of the argument?] I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. 16 Else if thou bless with the spirit, how shall he that filleth the place of the unlearned say the Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he knoweth [137] not what thou sayest? 17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. [The one who was so under the influence of the Spirit of God as to speak with tongues, produced words and sentences with little or no intellectual effort. His spirit, being in accord with the Spirit of God, uttered the exhortation or the prayer with his spirit rather than with his understanding. Therefore, taking the case of prayer as an example, Paul advises that the understanding be kept as active as the spirit, and that a man so control the flow of prayer as to pause from time to time that he might interpret it, thus making his understanding as fruitful as his spirit. If he does not do this, he prays with his tongue indeed, but his understanding bears no fruit in the congregation where he prays. For this reason the apostle made it his rule to pray with his spirit and interpret with his understanding, and to sing also in like manner. If the speaker did not do this, how could one who was not gifted to interpret say Amen to the petition offered, seeing that he knew not what it was? Thus, no matter how ably the gifted one might pray, the ungifted one would not be edified. Amen was then, as now, the word of ratification or assent to an expression of prayer or praise, of blessing or cursing (Deut. 27:15; Neh. 5:13; Rev. 5:14). Justin Martyr (Ap., c. 65, 67) describes the use of the Amen, after the prayer at the communion service. It is to that or some similar use that Paul refers. Doddridge justly says that this passage is decisive against the ridiculous practice of the church of Rome of praying and praising in Latin, which is not only a foreign, but a dead, tongue. Moreover, it shows that prayer is not a vicarious duty done for us by others. We must join in it.] 18 I thank God, I speak with tongues more than you all: 19 howbeit in the church [congregation] I had rather speak five words with my understanding [so as to be understood], that I might instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. [Paul was thankful for the gift of tongues because of its utility, but especially lest any should think that he disparaged the gift because he did not have it, and assigned it a subordinate place from envy. His [138] disparagement is most emphatic. "Rather half of ten of the edifying sort than a thousand times ten of the other," says Besser. "There is a lesson here," says Johnson, "to preachers who are so learned in their utterances that the people can not understand them."] 20 Brethren, be not children in mind: yet in malice be ye babes, but in mind be men. [The apostle here reiterates the thought at ch. 13:11. To desire showy and comparatively worthless gifts was to be like children, pleased with toys. But as Paul exhorted them to be wise as men, the words of the Lord seem to have flashed through his mind (Matt. 10:16) so that he parallels men with serpents and babes with doves. "Yet in malice be ye babes" is a parenthesis added by way of fullness. It has nothing to do with the line of argument, for there was no possible malice in the use of tongues.] 21 In the law it is written, By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people; and not even thus will they hear me, saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving: but prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe. [The Old Testament generally is often called the Law by New Testament writers (John 10:34; 12:34; Rom. 3:20). Therefore the reference here is not to the Pentateuch, but to Isa. 28:11, 12. There the prophet tells how Israel murmured at the quality of the teaching which God gave them, and states that as a consequence God would soon teach them by the tongue of foreigners; i. e., the Assyrians would lead them away captive and they should be instructed by the hardships of captivity. When the captivity came, the necessity to understand and speak a strange tongue was a sign that God was teaching them, and yet a sign which they did not heed. From this incident Paul apparently draws several conclusions. 1. It was no especial mark of divine favor to have teachers who spoke an unknown tongue. 2. Tongues were for unbelievers and prophecy for believers. 3. Tongues were a sign that God was teaching, but the teaching itself was better than the sign. 4. Tongues, unless understood, had [139] never been profitable; i. e., had not produced conversion. It must be remembered that Paul has in mind the abuse rather than the proper use of tongues. He illustrates his meaning by a hypothetical case.] 23 If therefore the whole church be assembled together and all speak with tongues, and there come in men unlearned [not having the gift to interpret tongues, and not being educated in foreign languages] or unbelieving [and hence having no faith in the works of the Spirit], will they not say [because of the queer and unintelligible sounds which ye are making] that ye are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one unbelieving or unlearned, he is reproved by all, he is judged [literally, cross-examined] by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are made manifest [being exposed by the cleaving sword of the Spirit--Heb. 4:12; Jas. 1:23, 24; comp. John 4:19, 29]; and so he will fall down on his face [The Oriental mode of showing deep emotion (Isa. 45:14; 1 Sam. 19:24). Here it indicates feelings of submission and self-abasement] and worship God, declaring that God is among you indeed. [Paul supposes the case of one who dropped into the meeting out of curiosity. If he heard many people speaking at once in an unknown tongue, he would regard the gathering as little better than bedlam (Acts 2:13), and the more he heard speaking at once, the worse it would be. Therefore the meeting would be to him void of blessing from God, and the sign without any signification, for he would hear his fellow-citizens addressing him in a foreign tongue, which was to him a mere jargon, instead of hearing foreigners address him in his own tongue, similar to the miracle at Pentecost. If, on the other hand, he heard all his fellow-citizens prophesying in his own tongue, he would be reproved by all, and the secrets of his heart would be laid bare as though he had been cross-examined by a skillful attorney. This would lead to his conversion, and so be of profit to him, and would make him a witness to the divine nature of the church, instead of one who looked upon it as a hive of fanatics. Prophetic preaching must have had great power to make men feel that they stood face [140] to face with God, for even the faithful preaching of our day lays bare the sinner's heart. He feels that sermons are aimed at him, and is often convinced that some one has been tattling to the preacher because the life is so fully exposed by his words. It should be observed that if truth is more potent than signs, much more is it more efficacious in revivals than mere excitement or pumped-up enthusiasm.] 26 What is it then, brethren? [See comment on verse 15.] When ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27 If any man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three, and that in turn; and let one interpret: 28 but if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29 And let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern. 30 But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence. 31 For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. [Since those who spoke with tongues were not understood, they could all speak at once without any loss. Thus confusion was fostered and encouraged, and those who came with other contributions to the service, such, as psalms, teachings, revelations, etc., were prevented from conferring any benefit upon the congregation. The apostle, therefore, orders the babel of tongues to be suppressed, that the congregation might be edified by these other contributions. Those who spoke with tongues were not to monopolize the meeting. In a large church like Corinth, where there would be plenty to take part in the exercises with psalms, teachings, interpretations of what had been said in tongues, etc., there was the opportunity for great variety. Hence Paul forbids more than three to speak with tongues in one exercise, and these must not speak all at once, but in turn, and they must pause and let some one gifted as interpreter [141] translate what they had said for the edification of the church. If there was no such interpreter present, then the man gifted with tongues must keep silence, and worship within himself for the edification and benefit of his own soul. Moreover, not more than three prophets must speak in a meeting, and the others present must give heed, especially those competent to discern between true and false prophecies (1 Thess. 5:20, 21; 1 John 4:1; ch. 14:37). If a fresh revelation was given to a prophet while another prophet was speaking, the one speaking was to give place and keep silence, for the reception of a second revelation at such time would indicate authoritatively that the first revelation had been sufficiently explained. Therefore, the one speaking must desist, lest two should speak at a time, which would defeat the ends of instruction and exhortation. To enforce this rule of silence the apostle asserts the truth that prophets can control their spirits while under the prophetic influence. This guarded against the possibility that any speaker should pretend to be so carried away by the prophetic influence as to be unable to stop. God does not so overcome and entrance men as to make them produce confusion and disorder, for he is the God of order and of peace. God has not changed, and hysteria and frenzy, though they may exist in his churches as they may have done in Corinth, are not from him, nor according to his will. Even in the church at Corinth, where men were endowed with the gifts of the Spirit, all disorders were abuses of the spiritual gift and without excuse.] As in all the churches of the saints, 34 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. [Gen. 3:16; Num. 30:3-12.] 35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. [This is usually regarded as a very difficult passage, but the difficulties are more seeming than real, if we regard it as a general rule. Paul gives two reasons why the women should keep silence: 1. The Old Testament law made her subject to her husband, [142] and hence not a teacher, but a pupil. 2. The customs of the age made it a shameful thing for a woman to speak in public. Of these, of course, the first is the weightier, and yet we find exceptions to the rule in both dispensations. There were several prophetesses who exercised their gifts in public (Ex. 15:20; Judg. 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Isa. 8:3; Neh. 6:14; Luke 1:41, 42; 2:36-38; Acts 21:9). Moreover, the fullness of prophetic endowment granted to the New Testament church was matter of prophecy (Acts 2:17), and Paul himself gives directions as to the attire of women when exercising the prophetic office in the church (ch. 11:5). Paul's rule, then, admits of exceptions. Some would do away with the rule entirely as obsolete on the ground that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28); but this is undoubtedly unwarranted, for while the gospel emancipated woman, it did not change her natural relation so as to make her the equal of man. The powers of woman have become so developed, and her privileges have been so extended in gospel lands, that it is no longer shameful for her to speak in public; but the failing of one reason is not the cessation of both. The Christian conscience has therefore interpreted Paul's rule rightly when it applies it generally, and admits of exceptions. The gift of prophecy no longer exists in the church, but, by the law of analogy, those women who have a marked ability, either for exhortation or instruction, are permitted to speak in the churches. Moreover, the apostle is speaking of the regular, formal meeting of the church; and it is doubtful if his law was ever intended to apply to informal gatherings such as prayer-meetings, etc. There is some weight to the comment that to understand the apostle we should know the ignorance, garrulity and degradation of Oriental women. Again, women are indeed subject to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; Col. 2:18; Tit. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1). The law is permanent, but the application of it may vary. If man universally gives the woman permission to speak, she is free from the law in this respect.] 36 What? [An exclamation of indignation] was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone? [Becoming [143] puffed up by the fullness of their spiritual gifts, the Corinthians were acting as if they were the parent church and only church. They were assuming the right to set precedent and dictate customs, when it was their duty to conform to the precedents and customs established before they came into existence. Their pretensions needed this indignant rebuke. Others were to be considered besides themselves, others who had sounded out the word which they had received--1 Thess. 1:8]. 37 If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. 38 But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant. [Since Paul's words were dictated by the Spirit of God, any one filled with that Spirit would be guided to recognize his words as of divine authority, for the Spirit would not say one thing to one man and another to another. But if any man was so incorrigibly obstinate as to refuse to be enlightened by what the Spirit spoke through the apostle, there was no further appeal to be made to him (Matt. 15:14; 1 Tim. 6:3-5). Paul's test is still of force. Whoso professes to be inspired, yet contradicts what the Spirit of God has already said in the New Testament, is self-convicted. These verses mark the division between Catholics and Protestants. The former say in effect that the Spirit-filled prophets at Corinth could modify, alter, and even deny what was spoken by the Spirit-filled Paul; for they hold that the pope can change the Scriptures to suit himself. But Protestants hold that a man shows himself to be led of the Spirit of God when he assents and conforms to that which has been spoken by men of undoubted inspiration.] 39 Wherefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 40 But let all things be done decently and in order. [Paul concludes with a recapitulation. The higher gift is to be sought and the lower gift is not to be prohibited. But as a caution against the abuse of the lower gift, he lays down that rule of order and decorum which the church has too often forgotten to her sorrow.] [144]

XII.

NINTH RESPONSE AS TO THE RESURRECTION.

15:1-58.

      [The response in this section also is rather to a condition of the church than to a question. In the eyes of the Greeks the body was the prison-house of the soul, and death was a release of the soul from its captivity. The resurrection of the body, therefore, was regarded by them as a calamity rather than as a blessing, and so contrary to all sound philosophy as to excite ridicule (Acts 17:32). While Paul was present in Corinth, his firm faith, full understanding, and clear teaching, had held the church firmly to the truth; but in his absence the church had grown forgetful of the precise nature of his teaching, and, attempting to harmonize the gospel doctrine of a resurrection with the theories of their own learned teachers, the Greek Christians of Corinth had many of them come to look upon the resurrection promised to Christians as a mere resurrection of the soul, and hence as one which, as to the dead, was already past (2 Tim. 2:18). They flatly denied the possibility of a bodily resurrection. The chapter before us is a restatement of the truth as opposed to this error, and a general discussion of the doctrine of a resurrection tending to remove all the erroneous views which the Greeks held with regard to it. This chapter has been read as an antidote to the pain of death at millions of funerals.] 1 Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, 2 by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain. [or without cause. In these two verses Paul reminds them of many important facts, as follows: that they had already heard the gospel, weighed, tested and received it, and that they now stood as a church organized under it, and that their hopes of salvation depended [145] upon their holding fast to it, unless they had believed inconsiderately, under the impulse of a mere fitful admiration. His correlative appeal to them to think more deeply and steadfastly will be found in the last verse of the chapter.] 3 For I delivered unto you first of all [as a matter of primary importance: see ch. 2:3, 4] that which also I received [and hence no device or invention of my own]: that Christ died for our sins [to atone for them--1 John 3:5; Gal. 1:4; 2 Cor. 5:15; Tit. 2:14] according to the scriptures [Isa. 53:5, 10; Dan. 9:26; Ps. 22:1-22; Zech. 12:10]; 4 and that he was buried [and this also was according to the Scriptures--Isa. 53:9]; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures [Ps. 16:10; Isa. 53:10; Hos. 6:2; Jonah 2:10. Here the apostle reminds the Corinthians that the message which he delivered to them was one which he had received by divine revelation; that it consisted of three pre-eminent facts, namely, the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord; that of these facts the two which were hard to believe, i. e., the first and the last, were made more easy of belief by having been predicted in the Scriptures, the latter with minuteness, even as to the day. The apostle does not waste time proving the death; it was witnessed by thousands, it had never been denied by friend or enemy, and it was not now called in question by the Corinthians. The third item was the one called in question, and, having first proved it by a witness before the fact (the Scriptures), the apostle proceeds to refresh their minds as to how fully it had been proved by witnesses after the fact (viz.: the apostles and others), thus making them again aware that the resurrection was a literal, historical, objective fact. A fact so important and so difficult of belief demanded a host of witnesses, but Paul had them to produce; this thing was not done in a corner--Acts 26:26]; 5 and that he appeared to Cephas [Luke 24:34]; then to the twelve [John 20:26-29. "The twelve" was an official name for the apostles, though there were but eleven of them at this time]; 6 then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain [among the [146] living] until now [and hence are producible as witnesses], but some are fallen asleep [Matt. 28:16]; 7 then he appeared to James [This was the one called "the brother of our Lord," and "James the just." Though Paul speaks of him as an apostle (Gal. 1:19), he was not one of the twelve. But he was prominent in that day as a chief elder at Jerusalem (Acts 15:13; 21:18; Gal. 2:9, 11). He was author of the Epistle which bears his name. The appearance here mentioned evidently converted James, for before the resurrection the brethren of our Lord did not believe on him--comp. John 12:3-5; Acts 1:14; 9:5]; then to all the apostles [Acts 1:3]; 8 and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also. [Acts 9:5; 22:14; 26:16. The abortive child is usually weak, puny and undersized. Paul speaks of himself as such a child in the brotherhood of the apostles, and does this without mock modesty (comp. 2 Cor. 12:11; Eph. 3:8). For comment on this catalogue of appearances, see "Fourfold Gospel," pp. 751, 753, 761, 764, 766. The other apostles had three years and a half filled with instruction, and so were fully developed in their office; while Paul became a disciple in an instant, and received his instructions briefly by revelation.] 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. [Comp. Acts 7:57; 8:1-3; 9:1; 1 Tim . 1:13; Gal. 1:13.] 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not found vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. [Gal. 2:8; Phil. 2:13; Col. 1:29.] 11 Whether then it be I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. [Paul recognizes the tardiness of his belief on the Lord and the lateness of his vision of him as an evidence of his unworthiness. Though this personal allusion appears on its face to be a digression from his argument, it really lends great force to it. There could be no higher honor known to men than to be chosen as a witness of the resurrection of Christ. For this reason it might be thought that Paul was zealous in [147] establishing the truth of the resurrection because of the honors which he enjoyed as a witness to that truth. But he reminds them that the circumstances under which he saw the Lord so emphasized his own unworthiness (he being then on his way to persecute the Christians at Damascus) that the memory of the event wakened in him a sense of humiliation rather than exaltation. In fact, he would be exalted rather than dishonored by their unbelief, for he could claim no reverence as a witness when his testimony necessarily involved a confession of his crimes. But having confessed his crime and consequent inferiority, and knowing that this admission would be most strictly construed by those who disparaged him and contended that he was not an apostle, he rehabilitates himself by showing that his own littleness had been made big by the abounding grace of God, so that he had labored more abundantly than any of the apostles. Moreover, those to whom Peter or Apollos were more acceptable, would gain nothing by their partiality and discrimination in respect to this matter, for all who had preached Christ to them had been a unit in proclaiming the resurrection. Christ had never been preached otherwise than as a risen one. Again, this preaching had resulted in their believing, which was the point he did not wish them to lose sight of. Having committed themselves to belief, they did wrong in thus becoming champions of unbelief; i. e., unbelief in the resurrection. It should be observed that in proving the resurrection Paul cites witnesses (1) who were living; (2) who were many of them commonly known by name; (3) who were too familiar with the form, face, voice, manner, life, etc., of Jesus to be deceived by a pretender, if any could have found motive for practicing such a deception. Having shown their folly in abandoning without evidence that which they had believed on competent testimony, the apostle turns to show the consequences of their act.] 12 Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised: 14 and if Christ hath not been raised, then is [148] our preaching vain, your faith also is vain. [The resurrection of Christ was the very heart of the gospel, the essence of gospel preaching. The Corinthians had not realized how serious a matter it was to admit the impossibility of any resurrection. By so doing they made the resurrection of Jesus a fiction, and if his resurrection was fictitious, then Christian preaching and Christian faith were both empty vanities. Verily the argument of the rationalists had proved too much, causing them to deny the very faith which they professed. The apostle goes on to develop this thought, in connection with another thought--the nature of the issue between the rationalists and Christ's ministers. It was not an issue of truth or mistake, but of truth or falsehood--a direct accusation that the apostles and their colleagues were liars--Acts 2:32; 4:33; 13:30.] 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised: 17 and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. [unjustified--Rom. 4:25.] 18 Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable. [2 Cor. 1:5-9; 11:23-32; 2 Tim. 3:12. If, as the rationalists affirmed, there was no such thing as a resurrection, then Christ was not raised from the dead, and if he was not raised, the apostles and others who witnessed as to his resurrection had borne false testimony as to God, accusing him of doing what he had never done. They were also false witnesses as to the Corinthians, having given them a vain faith as to forgiveness and eternal life, when in reality they were yet in their sins, and doomed to receive the wages of sin which is death. They were also false witnesses as to the dead, for, instead of falling asleep in Jesus, the dead had perished. Moreover, they and other witnesses who had done all this, were wholly without excuse; for they had made others miserable without any profit whatever to themselves. If there was no [149] resurrection and future reward for these witnesses, they must have testified falsely, hoping for some gain in this present life; but instead of such gain, these witnesses had drawn upon themselves from every quarter such storms of persecution as made their lives most pitiable--miserable enough to induce them to abandon so profitless a falsehood. The absolute self-sacrifice of such a life as Paul's can be explained only by admitting that he believed his own testimony, and truly hoped for a resurrection and blessings in the future state. At this point he ceases to be the persuasive logician, and speaks as the authoritative, inspired prophet. Against the vain and erroneous reasonings of men he places the infallible and unfailing revelations of the Spirit] 20 But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die [Gen. 3:1], so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order [literally, cohort, regiment, or military division]: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. [After clearly reaffirming his testimony to the resurrection of Christ, he goes on to show the comprehensive, all-inclusive nature of that resurrection. This he does by appeal to Scriptural figure and fact. On the morrow after the Sabbath of the passover a sheaf of barley (the earliest grain to ripen) was waved as firstfruits before the Lord (Lev. 23:9-14). The firstfruits had to be thus presented before the harvest could be begun, and its presentation was an earnest of the ingathering. Now on this very day after the Sabbath Christ was raised as the firstfruits from the dead, and became the earnest of the general resurrection. Moreover, that which was so clearly shown in the type was written with equal clearness in the history. If the justice of God caused the death of Adam to include in its scope the death of all, so the mercy of God had caused the resurrection of Christ to work the contrary effect of liberating all from the grave. But as the firstfruits preceded the harvest, so the raising of Christ preceded the resurrection of the race. But as the firstfruits was part of the [150] harvest, so the resurrection of Christ is a partial resurrection of all humanity. He must be the Omega as well as the Alpha of the resurrection, and must raise all in whom his Spirit dwells. Because Paul states that there shall be order in the resurrection, and because he names but two parties in the order--Christ and his disciples, commentators have been deceived into thinking that there will be a third order--the wicked. Thus they have the anomaly of firstfruits followed by two harvests. But this is contradicted by the entire trend of Scripture, which speaks of a resurrection, and not of resurrections; of a harvest (Matt. 13:36-43), and not harvests; and which describes the judgment day in terms which can not be reconciled with two separate resurrections (Matt. 25:31-46). The only apparent exception is the spiritual or figurative resurrection mentioned in the Apocalypse (Rev. 20:4-6). The truth is that in this chapter Paul is considering only the resurrection of the righteous, and takes no account of the resurrection of the wicked at all, for to have done so would have involved his readers in endless confusion. The context clearly shows this. There is but one resurrection day for humanity, and but one trumpet to summon them to arise and appear in one common hour of judgment.] 24 Then cometh the end [the apostle does not mean to say that this end comes immediately after the resurrection, but that it is next in order of great events, so far as humanity is concerned], when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. [Eph. 1:20-22; Matt. 28:18; 1 Pet. 3:22.] 26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. [2 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 2:14; Rev. 20:14.] 27 For [saith the Psalmist], He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection [Ps. 8:6; 110:1; 2:6-9], it is evident that he [the Father] is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did [151] subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all. [i. e., that God may have all headship of all creation; complete and absolute supremacy (Col. 3:11), so that "all things shall say, 'God is all things to me'" (Bengel). In verse 23 the apostle, while arguing the reasonableness of the resurrection, is led to mention its relation to the end of the world, but the resurrection presents its reasonableness in another form, being intimately associated with a higher, more transcendent climax than even the termination of this physical universe; for it is an essential preliminary to the culmination of Christ's mediatorial kingdom into the kingdom of the Father. This culmination can not take place until the mediatorial kingdom has attained ripened perfection through the subjugation of all things. But among the enemies to be thus subdued, death stands forth with marked prominence, and the weapon which subdues him is, and can be no other than, the resurrection. Hence the supreme glorification, or, as it were, the crowning of God as all in all, is predicated upon a resurrection as a condition precedent. The chain of Paul's logic is long, but it runs thus: no glorification until the mediatorial kingdom is turned over to God; no turning over of this kingdom until its work is complete; no completion of its work till all its enemies are destroyed; no destruction of all these enemies while death, a chief one, survives; no destruction of death save by the resurrection: therefore no full glorification of God without a resurrection. The logic would hold good for the doctrine of Universalism, were it not that there is a second death which is not looked upon as an enemy to the kingdom of God.] 29 Else [i. e., if it were otherwise--if baptism were not an all-important factor in God's plan] what shall they do that are baptized for [on account of, with reference to. For full discussion of this preposition see Canon Evans' additional note, Speaker's Commentary in loco] the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? [The word "baptized" is an imperfect participle, and denotes an act being continually performed. Paul's question, then, is this: If the resurrection is not part of God's plan--if affairs are otherwise, [152] and there is really no resurrection then what are converts to do, who, under the mistaken notion that there is a resurrection, are now constantly presenting themselves to be buried in baptism on account of the dead? If the dead are not raised, why then are these converts buried in baptism on their account, or with a view to them? Rom. 6:3-11 makes Paul's meaning in this passage very plain. The dead are a class of whom Christ is the head and firstfruits unto resurrection. By baptism we symbolically unite ourselves with that class, and so with Christ, and we do this because of the hope that we shall be raised with that class through the power of Christ (Rom. 6:5). But if the dead are not raised at all, then why should converts be united with them by a symbolic burial? why should they be baptized on their account, or with reference to them? If there is no resurrection, baptism, which symbolizes it, is meaningless. Commentators belonging to churches which have substituted sprinkling for baptism make sad havoc of this passage. Having lost sight of the symbolic meaning of baptism--that it is a union of the convert with the dead, and especially with the dead and buried Christ as their head and firstfruits unto life--they are at a loss how to interpret the apostle's words, and in despair assert that Christians were in the habit of being baptized vicariously for their friends who died without baptism. Long after Paul wrote, a similar misunderstanding of this passage led the followers both of Marcion and Cerenthus to practice such vicarious baptisms; but the practice grew out of Paul's words, instead of his words being called forth by the practice.] 30 why do we also stand in jeopardy every hour? 31 I protest by that glorying in [concerning] you, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. [Rom. 8:36.] 32 If after the manner of men [as a carnal man, having no future hope] I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it profit me? [The tense and words indicate that Paul had become a beast-fighter as a settled occupation. It is conceded that his language was figurative, and that he spoke of contending with beasts in human form (Tit. 1:12; 2 Tim. 4:17), rather than to the fighting of actual beasts [153] in the arena. Had Paul been thrown to the lions, Luke could hardly have failed to mention it when recording the events of Paul's ministry at Ephesus. Moreover, Paul's Roman citizenship shielded him from such a punishment. But he does not refer to the tumult in the theater (Acts 20:19), for it took place after this letter was written. But we may well believe that Paul was in daily danger in Ephesus--2 Cor. 1:8, 9.] If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. [This is an Epicurean maxim which had passed into a proverb. "If," says South, "men but persuade themselves that they shall die like beasts, they soon will live like beasts too." In the three verses above, Paul passes from the symbolic death of baptism to consider death literally. In the hope of a resurrection he was enduring daily a living death, his life being hourly in jeopardy. If it was idle folly in converts to be symbolically united with the dead, much more was it gross foolishness for the apostle to live thus continually on the verge of being literally, actually united with them. But the folly in both instances was made wisdom by the fact of a resurrection. Thus to the arguments already adduced Paul adds the additional one that Christianity, in its initial ordinance, and in its daily life-experience, is built upon the hope of a resurrection. Without this hope no sensible man could start to be a Christian, much less continue to live in accordance with his profession.] 33 Be not deceived: Evil companionships corrupt good morals. 34 Awake to soberness righteously, and sin not; for some have no knowledge of God: I speak this to move you to shame. [Do not be deceived by freethinkers and shun those who would corrupt the truth, for right doctrine and right practice stand or fall together. Shake off, therefore, this drunken fit, and keep from those sins in which it has tempted you to indulge. The sentence "Evil," etc., is a quotation taken from the Greek poet Menander. To show the full enormity of the teaching of the rationalists, Paul declares that it is a shame to the Corinthians to have such Christless Christians in the church--men who have so little knowledge of even the power of God as to deny his ability to bring to pass [154] so simple a matter as the resurrection. That God gives life is daily apparent; and to give it is infinitely more wonderful than to restore it.] 35 But some one will say, How are the dead raised? and with what manner of body do they come? 36 Thou foolish one, that which thou thyself sowest is not quickened except it die [comp. John 12:24]: 37 and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but a bare [naked] grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other kind; 38 but God giveth it a body even as it pleased him [guided by his sense of fitness and propriety], and to each seed a body of its own. [In this paragraph Paul answers the first question of verse 35. The Corinthians, like all materialists, made the resurrection a puzzling problem. They wondered how God could restore a body which returned to the dust, passed thence into vegetation, and thence into the bodies of animals and other men. Paul calls the man who thus puzzles himself a foolish one, because he denies that the all-powerful God can do with a human body that which he himself practically does annually with the bodies (grains) of wheat, etc., by merely availing himself of the common course of nature. When he sows a grain of wheat he does not expect it to come up a naked grain as he sowed it, but he knows that it will die, and in its death produce another body, consisting of stalk, blade, head and other grains similar to the one sown. He knows that though the body thus produced bear small outward resemblance to the single grain planted, yet it is the product of the grain's germinal life, and on examination can be absolutely demonstrated to be such. Moreover, by doing this same thing with corn, oats and other grain he finds that each produces a body of its own kind, adapted by the wisdom of God to its needs. With all this before him, how foolish in man to deny that God can cause the dead body to rise in a higher and nobler form, and that he can also cause each man to have a resurrected body true to his individuality, so that Smith shall no more rise in the likeness of Jones than corn come up after the similitude of oats. But the analogy taught by nature is true in another respect; i. e., the [155] body produced by the seed is greater and more excellent than the seed. Paul enlarges and applies this thought.] 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. [Here the apostle answers the second question of verse 35. If a man rises from the dead changed as the grain of wheat is changed, will he not have a different body, and so lose his identity? Will he not cease to be man? Paul gives a threefold answer to this question. He shows that there may be diversity, and yet a common ground of identity. There are diverse forms of flesh, yet all these forms are flesh; there may be different forms of bodies having different glories, yet are they all bodies; yea, even the glories may differ in luster and yet may have common identity as glory. Thus also is the resurrection of the dead. The flesh is changed, and yet it is in a sense flesh--humanity; there may be modifications in the form, and yet it will be the same body. There may be great changes in the glory, yet the glory will still be glory, and not essentially different. Thus man may still be man, and yet be vastly improved. In this part of the argument Paul is correcting a cardinal error in Greek thought. They stumbled at the doctrine of a resurrection, because they regarded the body as a clog to the soul; and so the body might indeed be, if God could form but one kind of body. But he can form celestial as well as terrestrial bodies, and spiritual bodies adapted to the needs of the spirit, which will not hinder it as does this earthly tabernacle which it now inhabits--bodies which will not only prove no disadvantage, but of infinite assistance, because answering every requirement. This truth is now further exemplified.] It is sown in corruption [Eccl. 12:7]; it is raised in incorruption [Luke 20:35, 36]: 43 it is sown [156] in dishonor [buried because it is repulsive and will become offensive--John 11:39]; it is raised in glory [Phil. 3:21]: it is sown in weakness [devoid of all ability]; it is raised in power [Rev. 3:21]: 44 it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. [This power of God to preserve identity in diversity works out glorious results for man. Our earthly body, when planted in death, will indeed bring forth after its kind, but God, in the fullness of his power and grace, shall cause it to lay aside its terrestrial glory, and assume the celestial. The nature of the change thus effected is illustrated by four contrasts, the corruption, dishonor, weakness and animal nature of the terrestrial body being laid aside for the incorruptible, glorious, powerful and spiritual body of the celestial world. If man owns a natural, or psychical, body, i. e., a body which is sustained and operated by his lower or soul-life, and suited to this world of death; so he also owns a spiritual body, suited to the desires, motions and operations of the spirit and eternal life; a body wherein the soul takes its proper position of subordination to the spirit, according to God's original plan and purpose when he created man in his image. Paul says "is," for such a body already exists, and is occupied by Christ our head--Rev. 1:18.] 45 So also it is written [Gen. 2:7], The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. [Here the two heads of humanity are contrasted. Adam was a quickening soul, and Christ a quickening spirit (comp. Gen. 2:7, and John 20:22. See also 2 Cor. 3:17; Rom. 8:2, 11; John 7:38, 39). But of these two heads the natural came first. We are Adam's by generation, and [157] Christ's by regeneration. The life principle of Adam is soul, and he was formed of the earth: the life principle of Christ is spiritual. He was in heaven (John 1:1) and from thence entered the world and became flesh (John 1:14; 3:13, 21; Phil. 2:6-8; John 1:1-3; Luke 1:35). Now, as the two heads differ, so do the two families, and each resembles its head; the earthly progeny of Adam having earthly natures, and the spiritual progeny of Christ having spiritual and heavenly natures. But in both families the earthly nature comes first, and the spiritual children wait for their manifestation, which is the very thing about which the apostle has been talking, for it comes when they are raised from the dead (Rom. 8:29; 1 John 3:2; Rom. 8:22, 23; 2 Cor. 5:1-10). Life is not retrogression, but ascension. Therefore he assures them that as they have borne the image of the earthly Adam, so also are they to bear the image of the heavenly Christ, both of whom have the bodies of men, yet bodies differing vastly in glory, power, etc., for one belongs to the earth, dies and returns to it, while the other belongs to the deathless heaven and forever abides there.] 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. [1 Pet. 1:4.] 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery [a secret not previously revealed]: We all shall not sleep [die], but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. [Man in his fleshly nature has no place in heaven, for corruption is antagonistic to incorruption, as light is to darkness. It is essential, therefore, that man must put off the corruption of Adam and the natural body of Adam, and assume the incorruptible, spiritual body of Christ, before he can enter upon his celestial inheritance. Those who are alive at Christ's coming shall not escape this necessary change. If the dead are changed by resurrection (verses 42, 43), the living shall [158] also be changed by transfiguration; but both shall be changed, and the change in each shall take place at the same moment; i. e., when the trumpet shall summon all to appear before God--1 Thess. 4:16.] 54 But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written [Isa. 25:8], Death is swallowed up in victory. [When the natural body shall be transformed into the spiritual, then shall be fulfilled that prophecy which describes death--the one who has swallowed up the human race, as being himself swallowed up in victory.] 55 O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? [This passage is quoted loosely from Hos. 13:14. Warned by the glow and glory of his argument, the apostle bursts forth in this strain of triumphant exultation, which has wakened a corresponding thrill in the heart of the Christian, and has been a solace and comfort to the church through all subsequent centuries.] 56 The sting of death is sin [Rom. 6:23]; and the power of sin is the law [Rom. 4:15; 7:10-12]: 57 but thanks be to God [Ps. 98:1], who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. [Death is here spoken of under the figure of a serpent. Sin is the bite or sting with which he slays men, and the power or poisonous strength of sin is found in the curse which the law pronounces upon the sinner. By the triple power of law, sin and death, the glory of man was brought to nought; but thanks are due to God, who restored glory to man through Jesus Christ. Christ gave man the victory over the law, for he nailed it to his cross (Col. 2:14); he gave him victory over sin, for he made atonement for sin (Heb. 7:27); and he gave him victory over death by his resurrection, which is the earnest of the general resurrection. Wonderful threefold victory!] 58 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not vain in the Lord. [Therefore, since you see that the dead are raised and made capable of enjoying heaven, do not again be moved from your belief in [159] these well-proven and established truths, and be careful to abound in the Lord's work, for no matter what your present sufferings and persecutions may be, the Lord will amply reward you in the resurrection, and your labor will not be in vain.]

XIII.

CONCERNING THE COLLECTION, PERSONAL MATTERS,
SALUTATIONS AND BENEDICTION.

16:1-24.

      [The fraternal communism of the Jerusalem church (Acts 2:44, 45; 4:36, 37; 5:1), together with the political troubles, famines (Acts 11:28-30) and persecutions (Acts 8:1-4), all tended to impoverish the church in Judæa. To relieve this poverty and to bring about a more cordial feeling between Jews and Gentiles, Paul had set about gathering an offering in the Gentile churches for the brethren in Judæa. The church at Corinth had consented to make such offering, but had been hindered by their factions, or some other cause, from so doing. In this chapter Paul requests them to begin taking this offering at once. He also speaks of the reasons why he had postponed his visit, tells them when they may expect him, and treats of some other lesser matters.] 1 Now concerning the collection for the saints [Christians], as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. [Very probably he had ordered, or arranged for, this collection on the journey mentioned at Acts 16:6, and he probably collected it on that mentioned at Acts 18:23. "Paul," says Bengel, "holds up as an example to the Corinthians the Galatians, to the Macedonians the Corinthians (2 Cor. 9:2), and to the Romans the Macedonians and Corinthians (Rom. 15:26): great is the force of example." For other references to this collection, see Acts 11:29, 30; 24:17; 2 Cor. 8:1, 2.] 2 Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I [160] come. [The word "thesaurizoon," translated "in store," means, literally, "put into the treasury;" and the phrase "par' heauto," translated "by him," may be taken as the neuter reflexive pronoun, and may be rendered with equal correctness "by itself." Macknight thus renders these two words, and this rendering is to be preferred. If each man had laid by in his own house, all these scattered collections would have had to be gathered after Paul's arrival, which was the very thing that he forbade. Again, had the collection been of such a private nature, it would have been gathered normally at the end instead of at the beginning of the week. But the first day of the week was evidently set apart for public worship (John 20:19-26; Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10), and this offering was part of the service. It was put in the public treasury of the church, but kept by itself as a separate fund. The translation of the Revised Version is unfortunate, as it obscures the idea of the weekly service of the church. According to Paul's method of collecting, each rendered a weekly account of his stewardship, and gave more and felt it less than if he had attempted to donate it all at one time. Paul had promised to take such offerings (Gal. 2:10). As a Christian he tries to relieve that distress which, as a persecutor, he had aided to inflict (Acts 26:6-10). He wished each one, rich or poor, to contribute to the offering, and he wanted the whole matter disposed of and out of the way when he came, that he might turn attention to more important matters.] 3 And when I arrive, whomsoever ye shall approve, them will I send with letters to carry your bounty unto Jerusalem: 4 and if it be meet for me to go also, they shall go with me. [Paul does not ask to be made custodian of the offering. He directs the church to appoint its own messengers to carry it, thus raising himself above all suspicion of misappropriation, and giving the church a new incentive to make a liberal offering, for it would afford the church a new joy and profit to have in its membership those who had been to Jerusalem and seen the apostles. Paul, as an apostle, and as one personally acquainted with the Jerusalem church, promises to [161] give the bearers of the fund letters of introduction and commendation to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem; and, should the greatness of the collection and the dignity of the occasion require it, he agrees to accompany the bounty himself. The collection proved large enough to justify this, and Paul accompanied the delegates. For the names of those who left Greece with Paul, see Acts 20:4.] 5 But I will come unto you, when I shall have passed through Macedonia; for I [purpose to] pass through Macedonia; 6 but with you it may be that I shall abide, or even winter, that ye may set me forward on my journey whithersoever I go. 7 For I do not wish to see you now by the way [merely as I pass through]; for I hope to tarry a while with you, if the Lord permit. [Jas. 4:15; Acts 18:21; Heb. 6:3; ch. 4:19.] 8 But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost; 9 for a great door [the common metaphor expressing opportunity--Acts 14:27; 2 Cor. 2:12; Col. 4:3; Rev. 3:8; Hos. 2:15] and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many adversaries. [For this success and the adversaries which it aroused see Acts 19:1-20. For the riot which it afterwards stirred up see Acts 19:23-41. From this paragraph it appears that it had been Paul's plan to visit Corinth, going thither from Ephesus by direct course across the Ægean Sea; and after a brief sojourn there to pass up into Macedonia, and visit Corinth again on the return. This plan he evidently communicated to the Corinthians in that first epistle which is lost (ch. 5:9). But the evil reports which came to him concerning the conduct of the Corinthian church caused him to change his purpose, and delay his visit, that they might have time to repent, and so escape the severe correction which he would otherwise have felt constrained to administer to them (2 Cor. 1:23; 2:1). Moreover, he reversed his route; coming by Macedonia (Acts 19:21, 22), and intending to depart by sea (Acts 20:3). To help bring about a state of repentance, he sent Timothy as a forerunner (ch. 4:16-21), and sent him by way of Macedonia (Acts 19:22). He now writes that he has thus altered his plans, and that he is coming through [162] Macedonia, and that he will not pay them two cursory visits, but will make them one long one, and probably stay all winter. However, he will not begin this journey until after Pentecost, for the work in Ephesus has become so fruitful as to demand at present all his attention. Paul carried out his plan as here outlined (2 Cor. 2:13; 8:1; 9:2, 4; 12:14; 13:1; Acts 20:3-6). He suggests their forwarding him on his journey, thus showing his confidence in them, that they would give him this customary proof of affection (Rom. 15:24; Acts 15:3; 17:15; Tit. 3:13); but intimates, by using "whithersoever," that his course beyond them is uncertain. We find later that he was compelled to change his plan--Acts 20:3.] 10 Now if Timothy come, see that he be with you without fear; for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do [ch. 14:17]: 11 let no man therefore despise him [1 Tim. 4:12]. But set him forward on his journey in peace, that he may come unto me: for I expect him with the brethren. [Timothy, as we have seen, went the long route by way of Macedonia, no doubt visiting the churches as he journeyed. Soon after his departure the messengers from Corinth arrived, bringing the letter from that church, and Paul sends this answer to it by Titus. Now, Titus was evidently despatched by the short route across the sea, with instructions to return by way of Macedonia. Therefore Paul uses "if," for he supposes that Titus may reach Corinth, discharge his errand, start through Macedonia, and there intercept Timothy so as to prevent his ever reaching Corinth. And this very thing seems to have happened, for Titus and Timothy, returning, evidently met Paul at Philippi, where he wrote his second Corinthian letter (2 Cor. 1:1); yet only Titus is spoken of as having brought any report of the condition of affairs at Corinth (2 Cor. 7:6, 7). The Corinthians, therefore, had no chance to show their love for Paul by their welcome of Timothy. Paul's words with regard to him remind us that he was at that time a young man and liable to be intimidated by the factious, arrogant spirit of the Corinthians. Timothy seems to have been of a diffident and sensitive nature (1 Tim. 5:21-23; 2 Tim. 1:6-8). Paul warns them that any [163] unkindness shown to this young man will soon be reported him, for he expects Timothy to return with Titus, Erastus and those with them--Acts 19:22; 2 Cor. 12:17, 18; 8:18, 23.] 12 But as touching Apollos the brother, I besought him much to come unto you with the brethren [with Titus, etc.]: and it was not at all his will to come now; but he will come when he shall have opportunity [Apollos first comes to our notice at Ephesus (Acts 18:24-28) whence he went to Corinth just before Paul came to Ephesus (Acts 19:1). From Corinth Apollos returned to and was now at Ephesus. The old Latin commentators say that he left Corinth on account of the violence of the factions, and now declined to return because of them, but it is not likely that they knew anything more about the facts than we do. Jerome tells us that after the factious spirit subsided, Apollos returned to Corinth, and became bishop or elder of the church; but he gives us no authority for his statement. Paul's words are important, because they show that neither he nor Apollos gave any countenance or encouragement to the factions. Paul has no fear that Apollos will do wrong intentionally, yet Apollos fears that he may do wrong by his presence unintentionally. It did not seem to Apollos that it was a fit season for him to show himself in Corinth.] 13 Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. 14 Let all that ye do be done in love. [In these brief, nervous phrases, Paul sums up the burden of his entire Epistle. The Corinthians were to be wakeful and not asleep (ch. 11:30; 15:33). They were to be steadfast, manly and strong (ch. 15:2, 58); they were to do all things in love (chs. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 14), not show their lack of love in bringing lawsuits, wrangling about marriage, eating things sacrificed to idols, behaving selfishly at the Lord's Supper, and vaunting themselves on account of their gifts.] 15 Now I beseech you, brethren (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia [i. e., my first converts in Greece--ch. 1:16], and that they have set themselves to minister unto the saints), 16 that ye also be in subjection unto [164] such, and to every one that helpeth in the work and laboreth. [The apostle asks the Corinthians to be subject to their truly religious teachers, and picks out the family of Stephanas as a sample. This family was the first converted, and, consequently, probably the best instructed in the church.] 17 And I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they supplied. 18 For they refreshed my spirit and yours: acknowledge ye therefore them that are such. [These were the messengers which bore the Corinthian letter to Paul. Of them we know nothing more. What Paul says of them here was probably written to keep the Corinthians from showing resentment toward them for having told him the sad condition of the church. The thought seems to be that they refreshed the apostle by partially filling the void caused by the absence of the Corinthians, and they caused Paul to refresh the church at Corinth both by receiving personal messages from him, and causing him to write the letter. He asks that they be received as a refreshment from him, just as he had received them as such from them.] 19 The churches of Asia salute you. [These were the churches in the Roman province of Asia, of which Ephesus was the capital. Seven churches of this province are mentioned in the opening chapters of the Book of Revelation. They were in the western coast lands of Asia Minor.] Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. [This devoted couple had been with Paul in Corinth, and were now in Ephesus (Acts 18:1, 2, 18, 26). Soon after we find them in Rome (Rom. 16:3), where they also had, as here, a church in their house (Rom. 16:5). It was yet a day of small congregations, worshipping in private houses--Rom. 16:4, 15; Col. 4:15, Philem. 2.] 20 All the brethren [in Ephesus] salute you. Salute one another with a holy kiss. [See commentary on Thessalonians, page 27. "He rightly enjoins the kiss of peace upon those who were in danger of being rent to pieces by schisms."--Grotius.] 21 The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand. [All of Paul's letters save Galatians appear [165] to have been written by an amanuensis (Gal. 6:11). Inspired Scripture was too important to be wanting in authenticity, or to be subjected to suspicion as forgery.] 22 If any man loveth not the Lord, let him be anathema. Maranatha. [Literally, "Let him be devoted to destruction. O Lord, come!" They were the words with which the Jews began their greatest excommunication. Here Paul pronounces a curse against the man who, professing to be a Christian, had really no love for Christ. Though the church can not always detect and punish such, yet the Lord at his coming will find them out. This, therefore, is Paul's appeal to the Lord to do this thing, and he writes the words with his own hand to show how seriously he meant them. For use of the word "anathema," see 1 Cor. 12:3; Acts 23:14; Rom. 9:3; Gal. 1:8, 9.] 23 The grace [the reverse of the anathema] of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you. 24 My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen. [The apostle closes with this thought, lest any should misconstrue his letter. Though it contained severe rebukes, it was dictated by love, and not by hatred.] [166]