Bible Commentaries
1 Corinthians 2

Verses 1-99

2:1-5. The False Wisdom (Continued)

So I came to you and preached, not a beautiful philosophy, but a crucified Christ. I was a feeble, timid speaker; and it was not my eloquence, but the power of God, that converted you.

1 And (in accordance with this principle of glory only in the Lord) when I first came to Corinth, Brothers, it was as quite an ordinary person (so far as any pre-eminence in speech or wisdom is concerned) that I proclaimed to you the testimony of God’s love for you. 2 For I did not care to know, still less to preach, anything whatever beyond Jesus Christ; and what I preached about Him was that He was crucified. 3 And, as I say, it was in weakness and timidity and painful nervousness that I paid my visit to you: 4 and my speech to you and my message to you were not conveyed in the persuasive words which earthly wisdom adopts. No, their cogency came from God’s Spirit and God’s power; 5 for God intended that your faith should rest on His power, and not on the wisdom of man.

1. κἀγώ. ‘And I, accordingly.’ The καί emphasizes the Apostle’s consistency with the principles and facts laid down in 1:8-31, especially in 27-31. His first preaching at Corinth eschewed the false σοφία, and conformed to the essential character of the Gospel. The negative side comes first (vv. 1, 2).

ἐλθών. At the time of his first visit (Acts 18:1 f.). We have an analogous reference, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, 1 Thessalonians 2:1.

ἀδελφοί. The rebuke latent in this reminder, and the affectionate memories of his first ministry to souls at Corinth (4:15), combine to explain this address (1:10, 26).

ἧλθον. The repetition, ἐλθὼν πρὸς ὑμᾶς … ἦλθον, instead of ἦλθον πρὸς ὑμᾶς, is not a case of broken construction, still less a Hebraism. It gives solemn clearness and directness to St Paul’s appeal to their beginnings as a Christian body.

καθʼ ὑπεροχήν. Most commentators connect the words with καταγγέλλων rather than ἦλθον. Compare κατὰ κράτος (Acts 19:20), καθʼ ὑπερβολήν (1 Corinthians 12:31). Elsewhere in N.T. ὑπεροχή occurs only 1 Timothy 2:2; cf. ὑπερέχειν, Romans 13:1 etc. ‘Preeminence’ is an exact equivalent.

λόγου ἢ σοφίας. See on 1:5, 17.

καταγγέλλων. The tense marks, not the purpose of the visit, for which the future would be suitable, but the way in which the visit was occupied. The aorists sum it up as a whole. Lightfoot suggests that�Acts 15:27) is commonly in the present participle, as meaning ‘to bear, rather than to deliver, tidings.’ But this does not always suit καταγγέλλειν in N.T.; see 11:26; Acts 4:2; Romans 1:8; Philippians 1:17; and�John 20:18, with�

μαρτύριον. ‘He spoke in plain and simple language, as became a witness’ (Lightfoot). Testimonium simpliciter dicendum est: nec eloquentia nec subtilitate ingenii opus est, quae testem suspectum potius reddit (Wetstein). Cf. 15:15; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Timothy 2:6; 2 Timothy 1:8. The first reference is decisive as to the meaning here.

τοῦ θεοῦ. genitivus objecti as in 1:6. The testimony is the message of God’s love to mankind declared in the saving work of Christ (Romans 5:8; John 3:16); it is therefore a μαρτύριον τ. Θεοῦ as well as a μαρτ. τ. Χριστοῦ. There is, of course, a withness from God (1 John 5:9), but the present connexion is with the Apostolic message about God and His Christ.

μαρτύριον (א3 B D E F G L P, Vulg. Sah. Aeth. Arm. AV. RV. marg.) is probably to be preferred to μυσγήριον (א* A C, Copt. RV.). WH. prefer the latter; but it may owe its origin to v. 7. On the other hand, μαρτ. may come from 1:6.

2. οὐ γὰρ ἔκρινα τι εἰδέναι. ‘Not only did I not speak of, but I had no thought for, anything else.’ Cf. Acts 18:5, συνείχετο τῷ λόγῳ, ‘he became engrossed in the word.’ For κρίνειν of a personal resolve see 7:37; Romans 14:13; 2 Corinthians 2:1. Does the οὐ connect directly with ἔκρινα or with τι εἰδέναι, as in AV., RV.? The latter is attractive on account of its incisiveness; ‘I deliberately refused to know anything.’ But it assumes that οὐκ ἔκρινα = ἔκρινα οὐ, on the familiar analogy of οὐ φημί. Apparently there is no authority for this use of οὐκ ἔκρινα: οὐκ εῶ, as Lightfoot points out, is not strictly analogous. Accordingly, we must preserve the connexion suitable to the order of the words; ‘I did not think fit to know anything.’ He did not regard it as his business to know more. Ellicott remarks that “the meaning is practically the same”: but we must not give to a satisfactory meaning the support of unsatisfactory grammar.

τι εἰδέναι. Not quite in the sense of ἐγνωκέναι τι (8:2), ‘to know something,’ as Evans here. In that case εἰ μή would mean ‘but only.’ But τι simply means ‘anything’ whatever.

Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. As in 1:1; contrast 1:23. In the Epistles of this date, Χριστός still designates primarily the Office; ‘Jesus, the Anointed One, and that (not as King in His glory, but)—crucified.’

καὶ τοῦτον ἐσταυρωμένον. The force of καὶ τοῦτον is definitely to specify the point on which, in preaching Jesus Christ, stres was laid (ὁ λόγος τ. σταυροῦ, 1:18), the effect being that of a climax. The Apostle regards the Person and Work of Jesus the Messiah as comprising in essence the whole Gospel, and the Crucifixion, which him involves the Resurrection, as the turning-point of any preaching of his work. This most vital point must not be forgotten when considering vv. 6 f. below.

τι εἰδέναι (B C P 17) is to be preferred to εἰδέναι τι (א A D2 F G L), D2 L ins. τοῦ before εἰδέναι τι.

3. κἀγώ. He now gives the positive side—in what fashion he did come (3-5). As in v. 1, the ἐγώ is emphatic; but here the emphasis is one of contrast. ‘Although I was the vehicle of God’s power (1:18, 2:4, 5), I not only eschewed all affectation of cleverness or grandiloquence, but I went to the opposite extreme of diffidence and nervous self-effacement. Others in my place might have been bolder, but I personally was as I say.’ Or else we may take v. 3 as beginning again at the same point as v. 1; as if the Apostle had been interrupted after dictating v. 2, and had then begun afresh. Lightfoot regards κἀγώ as simply an emphatic repetition, citing Juvenal 1:15, 16, Et nos ergo manum ferulae subduximus, et nos Consilium dedimus Sullae.

ἐν�2 Corinthians 11:29, 2 Corinthians 12:10. The sense is general, but may included his unimpressive presentce (2 Corinthians 10:10) and shyness in venturing unaccompanied into strange surroundings (cf. Acts 17:15, Acts 18:5), coupled with anxiety as to the tidings which Timothy and Silvanus might bring (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:13). There was also the thought of the appalling wickedness of Corinth, of his poor success at Athens, and of the deadly hostility of the Jews to the infant Church of Thessalonica (Acts 17:5, Acts 17:13). Possibly the malady which had led to his first preaching in Galatia (Galatians 4:13) was upon him once more. If this was epilepsy, or malarial fever (Ramsay), it might well be the recurrent trouble which he calls a ‘thorn for the flesh’ (2 Corinthians 12:7).

ἐν φόβῳ καὶ ἐν τρόμῳ πολλῷ. We have φόβος and τρόμος combined in 2 Corinthians 7:15; Philippians 2:12; Ephesians 6:5. The physical manifestation of distress is a climax. St Paul rarely broke new ground without companions, and to face new hearers required an effort for which he had to brace himself. But it was not the Gospel which he had to preach that made him tremble: he was ‘not ashamed’ of that (Romans 1:16). Nor was it fear of personal danger. It was rather “a trembling anxiety to perform a duty.” In Ephesians 6:5, slaves are told to obey their masters μετὰ φόβου κ.τρόμου, which means with that conscientious anxiety that is opposed to ὀφθαλμοδουλία (Conybeare and Howson).*, No other N.T. writer has this combination of φόβος and τρόμος. Some MSS. omit the second ἐν.

ἐγενόμην πρὸς ὑμᾶς. These words are probably to be taken together, exactly as in 16:10; ‘I was with you.’ The sense of becoming in the verb, and of movement in the preposition, is attenuated. ‘My visit to you was in weakness,’ preserves both the shade of meaning and the force of the tense. Cf. 2 John 1:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:7, 1 Thessalonians 1:10.

4. καὶ ὁ λόγος μον. See on 1:5, 17. Various explanations have been given of the difference between λόγος and κήρυγμα, and it is clear that to snake the former ‘private conversation,’ and the latter ‘public preaching,’ is not satisfactory. Nor is the one the delivery of the message and the other the substance of it: see on 1:21. More probably, ὁ λόγος looks back to 1:18, and means the Gospel which the Apostle preached, while κήρυγμα is the act of proclamation, viewed, not as a process (κήρυξις), but as a whole. Cf. 2 Timothy 4:17.

οὐκ ἐν πιθοῖς σοφίας λόγοις. The singular word πιθός or πειθός, which is found nowhere else, is the equivalent of the classical πιθανός. which Josephus (Ant. VIII. ix. I) uses of the plausible words of the lying prophet of 1Ki_13. The only exact parallel to πιθός or πειθός from πείθω is φιδός or φειδός form φείδομαι, and in both cases the spelling with a diphthong seems to be incorrect (WH. App. p. 153). The rarity of the word has produced confusion in the text. Some cursives and Latin witnesses support a reading which is found in Origen and in Eus. Praep. Evang. i. 3., ἐν πειθοῖ [ανθρωπίνης] σοφίας λόγων, in persuasione sapientiae [humanae] verbi, or sermones for sermonis; where πειθοῖ is the dat. of πειθώ. From this, ἐν πειθοῖ σοφίας has been conjectured as the original reading; but the evidence of א A B C D E L P for ἐν πιθοῖς or πειθοῖς is decisive;† and while σοφίας λόγοις almost certainly is genuine,�

The meaning is that the false σοφία, the cleverness of the rhetorician, which the Apostle is disclaiming and combating throughout this passage, was specially directed to the art of persuasion: cf. πιθανολογία (Colossians 2:4).

ἀποδείξει. Not elsewhere in N.T. It has two very different meanings: (1) ‘display’ or ‘showing off’ (cf. 4:9 and Luke 1:80), and (2) ‘demonstration’ in the sense of ‘stringent proof.’ The latter is the meaning here. Aristotle distinguishes it from συλλογισμός. The latter proves that a certain conclusion follows from given premises, which may or may not be true. In�

πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως. See on 1:18. The demonstration is that which is wrought by God’s power, especially His power to save man and give a new direction to his life. As it is all from God, why make a party-hero of the human instrument? Some Greek Fathers suppose that miracle-working power is meant, which is an idea remote from the context. Origen refers πνεύματος to the O.T. prophecies, and δυνάμεως to the N.T. miracles, thus approximating to the merely philosophic sense of�Galatians 5:16 and Philippians 2:1 with 2 Corinthians 13:13). See Ellicott ad loc. The genitives are either subjective, ‘demonstration proceeding from and wrought by the Spirit and power of God,’ or qualifying, ‘demonstration consisting in the spirit and power of God,’ as distinct from persuasion produced by mere cleverness. The sense of πνεύματος is well given by Theophylact:�1 Thessalonians 1:5 and 2:13; ‘our Gospel came not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit’; and ‘ye accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe.’ St Paul’s appeal is to the strong conviction and deep practical power of the Gospel. Not that strong conviction is incompatible with error: there is such a thing as ἐνέγεια πλάνης, causing men to believe what is false (2 Thessalonians 2:11); but the false σοφία engenders on depth of conviction. Lightfoot quotes Longinus, who describes St Paul as πρῶτον…προΐστάμενον δόγματος—meaning philosophic proof, whereas St Paul is asserting a proof different in kind. “It was moral, not verbal [nor scientific] demonstration at which he aimed.” This epistle is proof of that.

ἀνθρωπίνης (אcA C L P, Copt. AV.) before σοφίας is rejected by all editors.

5. ἵνα. This expresses, either the purpose of God, in so ordering the Apostle’s preaching (Theodoret), or that of the Apostle himself. The latter suits the ἔκρινα of v. 2; but the former best matches the thought of v. 4, and may be preferred (Meyer, Ellicott). The verse is co-ordinate with 1:31, but rises to a higher plane, for πίστις is more intimately Christian than the καύχησις of the O.T. quotation.

μὴ ᾖ ἐν σοφίᾳ�John 16:30). We often express the same idea by ‘depend on’ rather than by ‘rooted in’; ‘that your faith may not depend upon wisdom of men, but upon power of God.’ What depends upon a clever argument is at the mercy of a cleverer argument. Faith, which is at its root personal trust, springs from the vital contact of human personality with divine. Its affirmations are no mere abstract statements, but comprise the experience of personal deliverance; οἶδα γὰρ ὧ πεπίστευκα (2 Timothy 1:12). Here the negative statement is emphasized.

(II.) 2:6-3:4. The True Wisdom

2:6-13. The True Wisdom Described

To mature Christians we Apostles preach the Divine Wisdom, which God has revealed to us by His Spirit.

6 Not that as preachers of the Gospel we ignore wisdom. when we are among those whose faith is ripe, we impart it. But it is not a wisdom that is possessed by this age; no, nor yet by the leaders of this age, whose influence is destined soon to decline. 7 On the contrary, what we impart is the Wisdom of God, a mystery hitherto kept secret, which God ordained from before all time for our eternal salvation. 8 of this wisdom no one of the leaders of this age has ever acquired knowledge, for if any had done so, they would never have crucified the Lord whose essential attribute is glory. 9 But, so far from any of them knowing this wisdom, what stands written in Scripture is exactly true about them, Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which entered not into the heart of man,—whatsoever things God prepared for them that love Him. 10 But to us, who are preachers of His Gospel, God has unveiled these mysteries through the operation of His Spirit; for His Spirit can explore all things, even the deep mysteries of the Divine Nature and Will. 11 We can understand this a little from our own experience. What human being knows the inmost thoughts of a man, except the man’s own spirit within him? Just so no one has attained to knowledge of the inmost thoughts of God, except God’s own Spirit. 12 Yet what we received was not the spirit which animates and guides the non-Christian world, but its opposite, the Spirit which proceeds from God, given to us that we may appreciate the benefits lavished upon us by God. 13 And what He has revealed to us we teach, not in choice words taught by the rhetoric of the schools, but in words taught by the Spirit, matching spiritual truth with spiritual language.

6. Σοφίαν δὲ λαλοῦμεν. The germ of the following passage is in 1:24, 30: Christ crucified is to the κλητοί the wisdom of God. This is the guiding thought to be borne in mind in discussing St Paul’s conception of the true wisdom.* There are two points respecting λαλοῦμεν. Firstly, St Paul includes others with himself, not only his immediate fellow-workers, but the Apostolic body as a whole (15:11). Secondly, the verb means simply ‘utter’: it must not be pressed to denote a kind of utterance distinct from λόγος and κήρυγμα (v. 4), such as private conversation.

ἐν τοῖς τελείοις. It is just possible that there is here an allusion to the technical language of mystical initiation; but, if so, it is quite subordinate. By τέλειοι St Paul means the mature or full-grown Christians, as contrasted with νήπιοι (3:1).† The word is used again 14:20; Philippians 3:15; Ephesians 4:13. Those who had attained to the fulness of Christian experience would know that his teaching was really philosophy of the highest kind. The ἐν means, not merely ‘in the opinion of,’ but literally ‘among,’ in consessu; ‘in such a circle’ the Apostle utters true wisdom.

It is quite clear that St Paul distinguishes two classes of hearers, and that both of them are distinct from the�Galatians 3:2, Galatians 3:5; Romans 8:9, Romans 8:15, Romans 8:26). But practically, many Christians need to be treated as (ὡς, 3:1), and to all intents are, σάρκινοι, νήπιοι, ψυχικοί (v. 14), even σαρκικοί (3:3). The work of the Apostle has as its aim the raising of all such imperfect Christians to the normal and ideal standard; ἵνα παρυστήσωμεν πάντα ἄνθρω. πον τέλειον ἐν Χριστῷ (Colossians 1:28, where see Lightfoot). St Paul’s thought, therefore, seems to be radically different from that which is ascribed to Pythagoras, who is said to have divided his disciples into τέλειοι and νήπιοι. It is certainly different from that of the Gnostics, who erected a strong barrier between the initiated (τέλειοι) and the average Christians (ψυχικοί). There are clear traces of this Gnostic distinction between esoteric and exoteric Christians in the school of Alexandria (Eus. H.E. 5:11.), and a residual distinction survives in the ecclesiastical instinct of later times (Ritschl, Fides Implicita). The vital difference is this: St Paul, with all true teachers, recognizes the principle of gradations. He does not expect the beginner at once to equal the Christian of ripe experience; nor does he expect the Gospel to level all the innumerable diversities of mental and moral capacity (8:7, 12:12-27; Rom_14.). But, although gradations of classes among Christians must be allowed, there must be no differences of caste. The ‘wisdom’ is open to all; and all, in their several ways, are capable of it, and are to be trained to receive it. So far as the Church, in any region or in any age, is content to leave any class in permanent nonage, reserving spiritual understanding for any caste, learned, or official, or other,—so far the Apostolic charge has been left unfulfilled and the Apostolic ideal has been abandoned.

The δέ is explanatory and corrective; ‘Now by wisdom I mean, not,’ etc.

τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου. See on 1:20.

αὐδὲ τῶν�Acts 3:17); and if St Luke is responsible for the form in which this speech is reported, the words may be regarded as the earliest commentary on our passage. But Pilate also was a party to the crime: and ‘the rulers of this dispensation’ includes all, as well ecclesiastical as civil.

Some Fathers and early writers, from Marcion (Tert. Marc. v. 6) downwards, understand the ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου to mean demons: Cf. κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (Ephesians 6:12). Perhaps this idea exists already in Ignatius; ἔλαθεν τὸν ἄρχοντα [τ. αἰῶνος] τούτου … ὁ θάνατος τοῦ Κυρίου. See Thackeray, The Relation of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 156 f., 230 n. But this interpretation is wholly incompatible with v. 8, as also is the very perverse suggestion of Schmiedel that St Paul refers to Angels, whose rule over certain departments in God’s government of the world belongs only to this dispensation, and ceases with it (καταργουμένων), and who are unable to see into the mysteries of redemption (Galatians 3:19; 1 Peter 1:12). See Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 5.

τῶν καταργουμένων. See on 1:28. The force of the present tense is ‘axiomatic.’ These rulers and their function belong to the sphere of πρόσκαιρα (7:31; 2 Corinthians 4:18), and are destined to vanish in the dawn of the Kingdom of God. So far as the Kingdom is come, they are gone. Yet they have their place and function in relation to the world in which we have our present station and duties (7:20, 24, 31), until all ‘pass away into nothingness.’

7.�Romans 8:15; Philippians 4:17); ‘But what we do utter is,’ etc.

θεοῦ σοφίαν. The Θεοῦ is very emphatic, as the context demands, and nearly every uncial has the words in this order. To read σοφίαν Θεοῦ (L) mars the sense.

ἐν μυστηριῳ. We may connect this with λαλοῦμεν, to characterize the manner of communication, as we say, ‘to speak in a whisper,’ or to characterize its effect—‘while declaring a mystery.’ Or we may connect with σοφίαν: and this is better, in spite of the absence of τήν before ἐν μυστηρίῳ (see Lightfoot on 1 Thessalonians 1:1). The ‘wisdom’ is ἐν μυστηρίῳ, because it has been for so long a secret, although now made known to all who can receive it, the ἅγιοι (Colossians 1:26) and κλητοί.

Assuming that μαρτύριον is the right reading in v. 1, we have here almost the earliest use of μυστήριον in N.T. (2 Thessalonians 2:7 is the earliest). See J.A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 234-240, for a full discussion of the use of the word in N.T., also Westcott, Ephesians, pp. 180-182.

τὴν�Ephesians 3:5; Colossians 1:26; Romans 16:25. The words are explanatory of ἐν μυστηρίῳ. The wisdom of God had been hidden even from prophets and saints (Luke 10:24), until the fulness of time: now it is made manifest. But it remains hidden from those who are not prepared to receive it; e.g. from Jews (2 Corinthians 3:14) and the�2 Corinthians 4:3-6). This contrast is followed up in vv. 8-16.

ἣν προώρισεν ὁ Θεός. To be taken directly with the words that follow, without supplying�Acts 4:28; Ephesians 3:11) for the salvation of men. It was no afterthought or change of plan, as Theodoret remarks, but was fore-ordained ἄνωθεν καὶ ἐξ�

εἰς δόξαν ἡμῶν. Our eternal glory, or complete salvation (2 Corinthians 4:17; Romans 8:18, Romans 8:21, etc.). From meaning ‘opinion,’ and hence ‘public repute,’ ‘praise,’ or ‘honour,’ δόξα acquires in many passages the peculiarly Biblical sense of ‘splendour,’ ‘brightness,’ ‘glory.’ This ‘glory’ is used sometimes of physical splendour, sometimes of special ‘excellence’ and ‘pre-eminency’; or again of ‘majesty,’ denoting the unique glory of God, the sum-total either of His incommunicable attributes, or of those which belong to Christ. In reference to Christ, the glory may be either that of His pre-incarnate existence in the Godhead, or of His exaltation through Death and Resurrection, at God’s right hand.

It is on this sense of the word that is based its eschatological sense, denoting the final state of the redeemed. Excepting Hebrews 2:10 and 1 Peter 5:1, this eschatological sense is almost peculiar to St Paul and is characteristic of him (15:43; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:14; Romans 5:2; Philippians 3:21, etc.). This state of the redeemed, closely corresponding to ‘the Kingdom of God,’ is called ‘the glory of God,’ because as God’s adopted sons they share in the glory of the exalted Christ, which consists in fellowship with God. This ‘glory’ maybe said to be enjoyed in this life in so far as we are partakers of the Spirit who is the ‘earnest’ �2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 1:5:5; Ephesians 1:14; cf. Romans 8:23). But the eschatological sense is primary and determinant in the class of passages to which the present text belongs, and this fact is of importance.

What is the wisdom of which the Apostle is speaking? Does he mean a special and esoteric doctrine reserved for a select body of the initiated (τέλειοι)? Or does he mean the Gospel, ‘the word of the Cross,’ as it is apprehended, not by babes in Christ, but by Christians of full growth? Some weighty considerations suggest the former view, which is adopted by Clement, Origen, Meyer, and others; especially the clear distinction made in 3:1, 2 between the γάλα and the βρῶμα, coupled with the right meaning of ἐν in v. 6. On the other hand, the frequent assertions (1:18, 24, 30) that Christ crucified is the Power and Wisdom of God, coupled with the fact that this Wisdom was ‘fore-ordained for our salvation’ (see also σῶσαι in 1:21), seem to demand the equation of the wisdom uttered by the Apostle with the μωρία τοῦ κηρύματος, and the equation of Θεοῦ σοφίαν in 2:7 with Θεοῦ σοφίαν in 1:24 (cf. 1:30). These considerations seem to be decisive. With Heinrici, Edwards, and others, we conclude that St Paul’s ‘wisdom’ is the Gospel, simply. With this Chrysostom agrees; σοφίαν λέγει τὸ κήρυγμα καὶ τὸν τρόπον τῆς σωτηρίας, τὸ διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ σωθῆναι· τελείοῦς δὲ τοῦς πεπιστευκότος.

But the γάλα and the βρῶμα of 3:2, and the distinction between τέλειοι and νήπιοι ἐν Χριστῷ, must be satisfied. The τέλειοι are able to follow the ‘unsearchable riches of Christ’ and ‘manifold wisdom of God’ (Ephesians 3:8, Ephesians 3:10) into regions of spiritual insight, and into questions of practical import, to which νήπιοι cannot at present rise. But they may rise, and with proper nurture and experience will rise. There is no bar to their progress.

The ‘wisdom of God,’ therefore, comprises primarily Christ and Him crucified; the preparation for Christ as regards Jew and Gentile; the great mystery of the call of the Gentiles and the apparent rejection of the Jews; the justification of man and the principles of the Christian life; and (the thought dominant in the immediate context) the consummation of Christ’s work in the δόξαἡμῶν. The Epistle to the Romans, which is an unfolding of the thought of 1 Corinthians 1:24-31, is St Paul’s completest utterance of this wisdom. It is βρῶμα, while our Epistle is occupied with things answering to γάλα, although we see how the latter naturally leads on into the range of deeper problems (13., 15). But there is no thought here, or in Romans, or anywhere in St Paul’s writings, of a disciplina arcani or body of esoteric doctrine. The βρῶμα is meant for all, and all are expected to grow into fitness for it (see Lightfoot on Colossians 1:26 f.); and the form of the Gospel (2:2) contains the whole of it in germ.

8. ἣν οὐδεὶς … ἔγνωκεν. The ἥν must refer to σοφίαν, ‘which wisdom none of the rulers of this world hath discerned.’

εἰ γάρ. Parenthetical confirmation of the previous statement. ‘Had they discerned, as they did not, they would not have crucified, as they did.’ It is manifest from this that the ἄρχοντες are neither demons nor angels, but the rulers who took part in crucifying the Christ.

τὸν Κύριον τῆς δοξῆς. Cf. James 2:1; Ephesians 1:17; Acts 7:2; also Psalms 24:7; Hebrews 9:5. The genitive is qualifying, but the attributive force is strongly emphatic, bringing out the contrast between the indignity of the Cross (Hebrews 12:2) and the majesty of the Victim (Luke 22:69, Luke 23:43).*

9.�

ἐπὶ καρδίαν … οὑκ�Acts 7:23; Isaiah 65:17; Jeremiah 3:16, etc. ‘Heart’ in the Bible includes the mind, as here, Romans 1:21, Romans 10:6, etc.

ὅσα. In richness and scale they exceed sense and thought (John 14:2).

ἡτοίμασεν. Here only does St Paul use the verb of God. When it is so used, it refers to the blessings of final glory, with (Luke 2:31) or without (Matthew 20:23, Matthew 20:25:34; Mark 10:40; Hebrews 11:16) including present grace; or else to the miseries of final punishment (Matthew 25:41). See note on δόξα, v. 7. The analogy of N.T. language, and the dominant thought of the context here, compel us to find the primary reference in the consummation of final blessedness. See Aug. De catech. rud. 27; Const. Apost. VII. xxxii. 2; with Irenaeus, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. This does not exclude, but rather carries with it, the thought of ‘present insight into Divine things’ (Edwards). See on v. 10, and last note on v. 7.

τοῖς�Romans 8:28-30. Clement of Rome (Cor. 34), in quoting this passage, restores τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν from Isaiah 64:4 in place of τοῖς�

We ought possibly to read ὃσα ἡτοίμασεν with A B C, Clem-Rom. But ἅ ἡτοίμασεν is strongly supported (א D E F G L P, Clem-Alex. Orig. Polyc-Mart.). Vulg. has quae with d e f g r.

The much debated question of the source of St Paul’s quotation must be solved within the limits imposed by his use of καθὼς γέγραπται. See on 1:19 and 31. The Apostle unquestionably intends to quote Canonical Scripture. Either, then, he actually does so, or he unintentionally (Meyer) slips into a citation from some other source. The only passages of the O.T. which come into consideration are three from Isaiah. (1) 54:4,�Romans 15:21, a passage very slightly to the purpose. The first of these three passages is the one that is nearest to the present quotation. Its general sense is, ‘The only living God, who, from the beginning of the world, has proved Himself to be such by helping all who trust in His mercy, is Jehovah’; and it must be admitted that, although germane, it is not very close to St Paul’s meaning here. But we must remember that St Paul quotes with great freedom, often compounding different passages and altering words to suit his purpose. Consider the quotations in 1:19, 20, 31, and in Romans 9:27, Romans 9:29, and especially in Romans 9:33, Romans 9:10:6, Romans 9:8, Romans 9:15. Freedom of quotation is a vera causa; and if there are degrees of freedom, an extreme point will be found somewhere. With the possible exception of the doubtful case in Ephesians 5:14, it is probable that we reach an extreme point here. This view is confirmed by the fact that Clement of Rome, in the earliest extant quotation from our present passage, goes back to the LXX of Isaiah 64:4, which is evidence that he regarded that to be the source of St Paul’s quotation. At the very least, it proves that Clement felt that there was resemblance between 1 Corinthians 2:9 and Isaiah 64:4.

Of other solutions, the most popular has been that of Origen (in Matthew 27:9); in nullo regulari libro hoc positum invenitur, nisi in Secretis Eliae Prophetae. Origen was followed by others, but was warmly contradicted by Jerome (in Esai. lxiv. 4: see also Prol. in Gen. ix. and Ep. lvii. [ci.] 7), who nevertheless allows that the passage occurs not only in the Apocalypse of Elias, but also in the Ascension of Esaias. This, however, by no means proves that the Apostle quotes from either book; for the writers of those books may both of them be quoting from him. Indeed, it is fairly certain that this is true of the Apocalypse of Elias; unless we reject the testimony of Epiphanius (Haer. xlii.), who says that this Apocalypse also contains the passage in Ephesians 5:14, which (if St Paul quotes it without adaptation) is certainly from a Christian source. And there is no good reason for doubting the statement of Epiphanius. The Apocalypse of Elias, if it existed at all before St Paul’s time, would be sure to be edited by Christian copyists, who, as in the case of many other apocalyptic writings, inserted quotations from N.T. books, especially from passages like the present one. The Ascension of Esaias, as quoted by Epiphanius (67:3), was certainly Christianized, for it contained allusions to the Holy Trinity. It is probably identical with the Ascension and Vision of Isaiah, published by Laurence in an Ethiopic, and by Gieseler in a Latin, version. The latter (11:34) contains our passage, and was doubtless the one known to Jerome; the Ethiopic, though Christian, does not contain it. See Tisserant, Ascension d’Isaie, p. 211.

On the whole, therefore, we have decisive ground for regarding our passage as the source whence these Christian or Christianized apocrypha derived their quotation, and not vice versa. Still more strongly does this hold good of the paradox of “oversanguine liturgiologists” (Lightfoot), who would see in our passage a quotation from the Liturgy of St James, a document of the Gentile Church of Aelia far later than Hadrian, and full of quotations from the N.T.*

Resch, also over-sanguine, claims the passage for his collection of Agrapha, or lost Sayings of our Lord, but on no grounds which call for discussion here.

Without, therefore, denying that St Paul, like other N.T. writers, might quote a non-canonical book, we conclude with Clement of Rome and Jerome, that he meant to quote, and actually does quote—very freely and with reminiscence of 65:17—from Isaiah 64:4. He may, as Origen saw, be quoting from a lost Greek version which was textually nearer to our passage than the Septuagint is, but such an hypothesis is at best only a guess, and, in view of St Paul’s habitual freedom, it is not a very helpful guess.

The above view, which is substantially that of the majority of modern commentators, including Ellicott, Edwards, and Lightfoot (to whose note this discussion has special obligations) is rejected by Meyer-Heinr, Schmiedel, and some others, who think that St Paul, perhaps per incuriam, quotes one of the apocryphal writings referred to above. It has been shown already that this hypothesis is untenable. For further discussion, see Lightfoot, S. Clement of Rome, I. p. 390, and on Clem. Rom. Cor. 34; Resch, Agrapha, pp. 102, 154, 281; Thackeray, St Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 240 f. On the seemingly hostile reference of Hegesippus to this verse, see Lightfoot’s last note in loc.

These two verses (9, 10) give a far higher idea of the future revelation than is found in Jewish apocalyptic writings, which deal rather with marvels than with the unveiling of spiritual truth. See Hastings, DB. iv. pp. 186, 187; Schürer, J.P., II. iii. pp. 129-132; Ency. Bib. i:210.

10. ἡμῖν γάρ. Reason why we can utter things hidden from eye, ear, and mind of man: ‘Because to us God, through the Spirit, unveiled them,’ or, ‘For to us they were revealed by God through the Spirit.’ The ἡμῖν follows hard upon and interprets τοῖς�Ephesians 1:14, Ephesians 1:17; 2 Corinthians 1:22.

If δέ be read instead of γάρ, we must either adopt the awkward construction of ἃ ὀφθλμός κ.τ.λ. advocated by Evans and rejected above, or else, with Ellicott, make δέ introduce a second and supplementary contrast (co-ordinate with, but more general than, that introduced by�

ἀπεκάλυψεν. The aorist points to a definite time when the revelation took place, viz. to the entry of the Gospel into the world.* Compare the aorists in Colossians 1:26; Ephesians 3:5.

τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα. Explanatory of διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος. The σωζόμενοι and the�

ἐραυνᾷ. The Alexandrian form of ἐρευνᾷ (T.R.). The word does not here mean ‘searcheth in order to know,’ any more than it means this when it is said that God searches the heart of man (Romans 8:27; Revelation 2:23; Psalms 139:1). It expresses “the activity of divine knowledge” (Edwards); or rather, it expresses the activity of the Spirit in throwing His light upon the deep things of God, for those in whom He dwells. Scrutatur omnia, non quia nescit, ut inveniat, sed quia nihil relinquit quod nesciat (Atto). For the form see Gregory, Prolegomena to Tisch., p. 81.

τὰ βάφη. Cf. Ὠ βάθος πλούτου καὶ σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως Θεοῦ (Romans 11:33), and contrast τὰ βαθέα τοῦ Σατανᾶ, ὡς λέγουσιν (Revelation 2:24).*

ἡμῖν γάρ (B and several cursives, Sah. Copt., Clem-Alex. Bas.) seems to be preferable to ἡμῖν δέ (א A C D E F G L P, Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth., Orig.), but the external evidence for the latter is very strong. Certainly�

11. τίς γὰρ οἶδεν�Proverbs 20:27, φῶς Κυρίου πνοὴ�Jeremiah 17:9, Jeremiah 17:10. The question does not mean that nothing about God can be known; it means that what is known is known through His Spirit (v. 10).

τὰ τοῦ�

ταὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ�2 Corinthians 7:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:23, in the purely psychological sense, to denote an element in the natural constitution of every human being. This sense, if we carefully separate all passages where it may stand for the spirit of man as touched by the Spirit of God, is not very frequent in Paul. See below on v. 14 for the relation of πνεῦμα to ψυχή.

οὕτως καὶ κ.τ.λ. It is here that the whole weight of the statement lies.

ἔγνωκεν. This seems to be purposely substituted for the weaker and more general οἶδεν. For the contrast between the two see 2 Corinthians 5:16; 1 John 2:29. “The ἔγνωκεν seems to place τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ a degree more out of reach than οἶδεν does τὰ τοῦ�Romans 8:26, Romans 8:27 is for the Personality, of the Holy Spirit.

εἰ μή. ‘But only,’ as in Galatians 1:7, and (probably) 1:19; cf. 2:16.

τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. St Paul does not add τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ. which would have suggested a closer analogy between the relation of man’s spirit to man and that of God’s Spirit to God than the argument requires, and than the Apostle would hold to exist.

A 17, Ath. Cyr-Alex. omit�

12. ήμεῖς δέ. See on ἠμῖν in v. 10: ‘we Christians.’ οὐ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κόμου …�Romans 8:15. What does St Paul mean by ‘the spirit of the world’?

(1) Meyer, Evans, Edwards, and others understand it of Satan, or the spirit of Satan, the κόσμος being “a system of organized evil, with its own principles and its own laws” (Evans): see Ephesians 2:2, Ephesians 2:6:11; John 12:31; 1 John 4:3, 1 John 4:5:19; and possibly 2 Corinthians 4:4. But this goes beyond the requirements of the passage: indeed, it seems to go beyond the analogy of N.T. language, in which κόσμος has not per se a bad sense. Nor is ‘the wisdom of the world’ Satanical. It is human, not divine; but it is evil only in so far as ‘the flesh’ is sinful: i.e. it is not inherently evil, but only when ruled by sin, instead of being subjected to the Spirit. See Gifford’s discussion of the subject in his Comm. on Romans, viii. 15.

(2) Heinrici, Lightfoot, and others understand of the temper of the world, “the spirit of human wisdom, of the world as alienated from God”: non sumus instituli sapientia mundi (Est.). On this view it is practically identical with the�Romans 8:6, Romans 8:7: indeed, it may be said to be identical with it in substance, though not in aspect. In both places in this verse, therefore, πνεῦμα would be impersonal, and almost attributive, as in Romans 8:15; but there the absence of the article makes a difference. Compare the πνεῦμα ἕτερον ὃ αὐκ ἐλάβετε in 2 Corinthians 11:4. On the whole, this second explanation of ‘the spirit of the world’ seems to be the better.

ἐλάβομεν. Like�

τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. The gift rather than the Person of the Spirit, although here, as not infrequently in Paul, the distinction between the Personal Spirit of God (v. 11), dwelling in man (Romans 8:11), and the spirit (in the sense of the higher element of man’s nature), inhabited and quickened by the Holy Spirit, is subtle and difficult to fix with accuracy. The Person is in the gift, and the activity of the recipient is the work of the Divine Indweller.

ἵνα εἰδῶμεν. This is the result to which vv. 10-12 lead up. The words reproduce, under a different aspect, the thought in ἠμῖν�

διδακτοῖς�John 6:45, διδακτοὶ Θεοῦ, and in Matthew 25:34, εὐλογημένοι τοῦ πατρός. In class. Grk. the construction is found only in poets; κείνης διδακτά (Soph. Elect. 343), διδακταῖς�

διδακτοῖς πνεύματος. See on v. 4, where, as here and 1 Thessalonians 1:5, πνεῦμα has no article. The Apostle is not claiming verbal inspiration; but verba rem sequuntur (Wetstein). Cf. Luke 21:15; Jeremiah 1:9. Sapientia est scaturigo sermonum (Beng.). Bentley, Kuenen, etc. conjecture ἐν�

πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συνκρίνοντες. Two questions arise here, on the answer to which the interpretation of the words depends,—the gender of πνευματικοῖς, and the meaning of συνκρίνειν. The latter is used by St Paul only here and 2 Corinthians 10:12, where it means ‘to compare.’ This is a late use, frequent from Aristotle onwards, but out of place here, although adopted in both AV. and RV. text. Its classical meaning is ‘to join fitly,’ ‘compound,’ ‘combine’ (RV. marg.). In the LXX it has the meaning ‘to interpret,’ but only in the case of dreams (Genesis 40:8, Genesis 40:16, Genesis 40:22, Genesis 41:12, Genesis 40:15; Judges 7:15; Daniel 5:12, Daniel 5:7:15, Daniel 5:16). We have, therefore, the following possibilities to consider:—

(1). Taking πνευματικοῖς as neuter;—either,

(α) Combining spiritual things (the words) with spiritual things (the subject matter); or,

(β) Interpreting (explaining) spiritual things by spiritual things.

This (β) may be understood in a variety of ways—

Interpreting O.T. types by N.T. doctrines.

Interpreting spiritual truths by spiritual language.

Interpreting spiritual truths by spiritual faculties.

Of these three, the first is very improbable; the third is substantially the explanation adopted by Luther; und richten geistliche Sachen geistlich.

(2). Taking πνευματικοῖς as masculine;—either,

(γ) Suiting (matching) spiritual matter to spiritual hearers; or,

(δ) Interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual hearers.

In favour of taking πνευματικοῖς as neuter may be urged the superior epigrammatic point of keeping the same gender for both terms, and the naturalness of πνευματικοῖς being brought into close relation with the συν- in συνκρίνοντες. These considerations are of weight, and the resultant sense is good and relevant, whether we adopt (α) or the third form of (β). As Theodore of Mopsuestia puts it, διὰ τῶν τοῦ πνεύματος�

14. ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος. This is in sharpest contrast to πνευματικοῖς (v. 13), for ψυχικός means ‘animal’ (animalis homo, Vulg.) in the etymological sense, and nearly so in the ordinary sense: see 15:44, 46; James 3:15; Jude 1:19 (ψυχικοὶ πνεῦμα οὐκ ἔχοντες).* The term is not necessarily based upon a supposed ‘trichotomous’ psychology, as inferred by Apollinaris and others from τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ ψεχὴ καὶ τὸ σῶμα in Thess. 5:23 (see Lightfoot’s note). It is based rather upon the conception of ψυχή as the mere correlative of organic life. Aristotle defines it as πρώτη ἐντελέχεια σώματος φυσικοῦ ὁργανικοῦ. In man, this comprises πνεῦμα in the merely psychological sense (note on v. 2), but not necessarily in the sense referred to above (note on v. 12). See, however, 5:5; Philippians 1:27; Ephesians 6:17; Colossians 3:23; 1 Peter 4:6. In Luke 1:46, ψυχή and πνεῦμα seem to be synonymous. The ψυχή ranges with νοῦς (Romans 7:23, 35; Colossians 2:18), in one sense contrasted with σάρξ, but like σάρξ in its inability to rise to practical godliness, unless aided by the πνεῦμα. We may say that ψυχή is the ‘energy’ or correlative of σάρξ.

Although, therefore, ψυχή is not used in N.T. in a bad sense, to distinguish the animal from the spiritual principle in the human soul, yet ψυχικός is used of a man whose motives do not rise above the level of merely human needs and aspirations. The ψυχικός is the ‘unrenewed’ man, the ‘natural’ man (AV., RV.), as distinct from the man who is actuated by the Spirit. The word is thus practically another name for the σαρκικός (3:1, 3). See J. A. F. Gregg on Wisd. 9:15.

οὐ δέχεται. Not ‘is incapable of receiving,’ but ‘does not accept,’ i.e. he rejects, refuses. Δέχεσθαι = ‘to accept,’ ‘to take willingly’ (2 Corinthians 8:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:6, etc.).

ὅτι πνευματικῶς�Acts 17:11 of the liberal-minded Beroeans, who sifted the Scriptures, to get at the truth: Dan. Sus. 13, 48, 51.

15. ὁ δὲ πνευματικός. The man in whom πνεῦμα has its rightful predominance, which it gains by being informed by, and united with, the Spirit of God, and in no other way. Man as man is a spiritual being, but only some men are actually spiritual; just as man is a rational being, but only some men are actually rational. Natural capacity and actual realization are not the same thing.

ἀνακρίνει μὲν πάντα. ‘He judges of everything’ ‘sifts every thing,’1 Thessalonians 5:21; Philippians 1:10; contrast Romans 2:18. The whole Epistle exemplifies this principle in St Paul’s person (7:25, 8:1, 10:14, 11:1, etc.). Aristotle, in defining virtue, comes back to the judgment formed by the mature character: ὡς ἂν ὁ φρόνιμος ὁρίσειεν (Eth. Nic. 11. 6:15). ‘Judgeth’ (AV., RV.) does not quite give the meaning of what is expressed here: ‘examines’ is nearer to it.

αὐτὸς δὲ ὑπʼ οὐδενὸς�1 John 4:1). It does not mean that the spiritual man is above criticism (4:3, 4, 14:32; Romans 14:4). St Paul is not asserting the principle of Protagoras, that the individual judgment is for each man the criterion of truth; πάντων μέτρον ἄνθρωπος, τῶν μὲν ὄντων ὡς ἑστί τῶν δὲ μὴ ὄντοων ὡς οὐκ ἐστί. He is asserting, with Bishop Butler, the supremacy of conscience, and the right and duty of personal judgment. But it is the spiritual man who has this vantageground. The text has been perverted in more than one direction; on the one hand, as an excuse for the licence of persons whose conduct has stamped them as unspiritual, e.g. the Anabaptists of Münster; on the other, as a ground for the irresponsibility of ecclesiastical despotism in the mediæval Papacy, e.g. by Boniface viii. in the Bull Unam sanctam, and by Cornelius à Lapide on this passage. The principle laid down by St Paul gives no support to either anarchy or tyranny; it is the very basis of lawful authority, both civil and religious; all the more so, because it supplies the principle of authority with the necessary corrective.

ἀνακρίνεται. ‘Is judged of,’ ‘subjected to examination.’ See on 4:3, 4, 5, 9:3, 10:25, 27; also on Luke 23:14. Ἀνάκρισις (Acts 25:26) was a legal term at Athens for a preliminary investigation, preparatory to the actual κρίσις, which for St Paul would have its analogue in ‘the day’ (4:5). Lightfoot gives examples of the way in which the Apostle delights to accumulate compounds of κρίνω (4:3, 6:1-6, 11:29-32; 2 Corinthians 10:12; Romans 2:1). By playing on words he sometimes illuminates great truths or important personal experiences.

א* omits the whole of this verse. A C D* F G omit μέν after�

16. τίς γὰρ ἔγνω. Proof of what has just been claimed for the πνεμυατικός: he has direct converse with a source of light which is not to be superseded by any merely external norm. The quotation (τίς … αὐτόν) is from the LXX of Isaiah 40:13, adapted by the omission of the middle clause, καὶ τίς αὐτοῦ σύνβουλος ἐγένετο; This clause is retained in Romans 11:34, while ὃς συνβιβάσει αὐτόν is omitted. The aorist (ἔγνω) belongs to the quotation, and must not be pressed as having any special force here; ‘hath known’ (AV., RV.). On the other hand, the immediate transition from νοῦν Κυρίου to νοῦν Χριστοῦ as equivalent is full of deep significance. Cf. Wisd. 9:13; Ecclus. 1:6; Job 36:22, Job 36:23, Job 36:26; and see on Romans 10:12, Romans 10:13.

νοῦν Κυρίου. The νοῦν (LXX) corresponds to the Hebrew for πνεῦμα in the original. In God, νοῦς and πνεῦμα are identical (see, as to man, on v. 14), but not in aspect, νοῦς being suitable to denote the Divine knowledge or counsel, πνεῦμα the Divine action, either in creation or in grace.

ὃς συνβιβάσει αὐτόν. The relative refers to σύνβουλος in Isaiah 40:13. As St Paul omits the clause containing σύνβουλος, the ὅς is left without any proper construction. But it finds a kind of antecedent in τίς; ‘Who hath known … that he should instruct’ (RV.). Συνβιβάχειν occurs several times in N.T. in its classical meanings of ‘join together,’ ‘conclude,’ ‘prove’; but in Biblical Greek, though not in classical, it has also the meaning of ‘instruct.’ Thus in Acts 19:33, where the true reading (א A B E) seems to be συνεβίβασαν Ἀλέξανδρον, Alexander is ‘primed’ with a defence of the Jews, for which he cannot get a hearing. This meaning of ‘instruct’ is frequent in LXX. In class. Grk. we should have ἐνβιβάζειν.

ἡμεῖς δὲ νοῦν Χριστοῦ ἔχομεν. We have this by the agency of the Spirit of God; and the mind of the Spirit of God is known to the Searcher of hearts (Romans 8:27). The mind of Christ is the correlative of His Spirit, which is the Spirit of God (Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6), and this mind belongs to those who are His by virtue of their vital union with Him (Galatians 2:20, Galatians 2:21, Galatians 2:3:27; Philippians 1:8; Romans 13:14). The thought is that of v. 12 in another form: see also 7:40; and 2 Corinthians 13:3, τοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ λαλοῦντος Χριστοῦ. The emphatic ἡμεῖς (see on 1:18, 23, 30, 2:10, 12) serves to associate all πνευματικοί with the Apostle, and also all his readers, so far as they are, as they ought to be, among οἱ σωζόμενοι (1:18).

We ought probably to prefer Χριστοῦ (א A C D3 E L P, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm., Orig.) to Κυριον (B D* F G, Aug. Ambrst.). Χριστοῦ would be likely to be altered to conform with the previous Κυρίου.









אԠא (Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T.

B B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS.

D D (Sixth century.) Codex Clarmontanus; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. 14:13 διο͂ ὁ λαλῶν-22 σημεῖον ἐστίν is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subsequent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected the MS. (See Gregory, Prolegomena , pp. 418-422).

E E (Ninth century). At Petrograd. A copy of D, and unimportant

F F (Late ninth century). Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau); now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G in any case, secondary to G, from which it very rarely varies (see Gregory, p. 429).

G G (Late ninth century). Codex Boernerianus; at Dresden. Interlined with the Latin (in minluscules). Lacks 1 Corinthians 3:8-16, 1 Corinthians 6:7-14 (F).

L L (Ninth century). Codex Angelicus; At Rome.

P P (Ninth century). Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. Lacks 7:15 ὑμᾶς ὁ θεός-17 περιπάτει: 12:23 τοῦ σώματος-13:5 οὐ λογί-: 14:23 τὸ λαλεῖν μή. A good type of text in St Paul’s Epistles.

A A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the British Museum.

C C (Fifth century). The Codex Ephraem, a Palimpsest; now at Paris. Lacks 7:18 ἐν�Act_13. Ninth century.) At Paris (Nat. Gr. 14). See Westcott and Hort., Introd. §§ 211, 212.

* ,Three times in Acts (18:9, 28:11, 27:24) St Paul receives encouragement from the Lord. There was something in his temperament which needed this. In Corinth the vision assured him that his work was approved and would sncceed. He not only might work, he must do so (9:16.)

† It is remarkable that the word has not been adopted by ecclesiastical writers.

* In papyri,�

* Crux servorum supplicium. Eo Dominum gloriae affecerunt (Beng.). “The levity of philosophers in rejecting the cross was only surpassed by the stupidity of politicians in inflicting it” (Findlay). The placing of τ.κ.τ. δόξης between οὐκ ἄν and the verb throws emphasis on the words; ‘they would never have crucified the Lord of Glory’ cf, Hebrews 4:8, Hebrews 8:7 (Abbot, Johannine Gr., 2566).

d d The Latin text of D

e e The Latin text of E

f f The Latin text of F

g g The Latin text of G

r r (Sixth century.) The Freisingen MS., now at Munich. The two last named contain fragments only.

* Lightfoot, S. Clement of Rome I. pp. 389 f., II. pp. 106 f.; Hammond, liturgies Eastern and western, p. x. Neither Origen nor Jerome know of any liturgical source.

* Is it true that “revelation is distinguished from oridinary spiritual influences by its suddenness”? May there not be a gradual unveitling? Revelation implies that, without special aid from God, the truth in question would not have been discovered. Human ability and research would not have sufficed.

* Clem. Rom. (Cor. 40) has προδήλων οὖν ἡμῖν ὄντων τούτων, και ἐγκεκυφότες εἰς τὰ βάθη τῆς θείας γνώσεως.

* Cf. Juvenal (xv. 147f.), Mundi Principio indulsit communis conditor illis Tantum animas, nobis animum quoque. See Chadwick, Pastoral Teaching, p. 153.