Lectionary Calendar
Saturday, July 19th, 2025
the Week of Proper 10 / Ordinary 15
the Week of Proper 10 / Ordinary 15
video advertismenet
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
Attention!
Tired of seeing ads while studying? Now you can enjoy an "Ads Free" version of the site for as little as 10¢ a day and support a great cause!
Click here to learn more!
Click here to learn more!
Bible Commentaries
International Critical Commentary NT International Critical
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Driver, S.A., Plummer, A.A., Briggs, C.A. "Commentary on 1 Corinthians 3". International Critical Commentary NT. https://studylight.org/commentaries/eng/icc/1-corinthians-3.html. 1896-1924.
Driver, S.A., Plummer, A.A., Briggs, C.A. "Commentary on 1 Corinthians 3". International Critical Commentary NT. https://studylight.org/
Whole Bible (50)New Testament (18)Gospels Only (1)Individual Books (15)
Verses 1-99
3:1-4. In following to its application his contrast between the spiritual and the animal character, the Apostle is led back to his main subject, the ÏÏίÏμαÏα. These dissensions show which type of character predominates among his readers. The passage corresponds to 2:13 (see note there), and forms its negative counterpart, prepared for by the contrast (2:13-16) between the spiritual and the animal man.
Îá¼Î³Ï,�
á½¡Ï ÏÎ½ÎµÏ Î¼Î±Ïικοá¿Ï. Ideally, all Christians are ÏÎ½ÎµÏ Î¼Î±Ïικοί (12:3, 13; Galatians 4:3-7): but by no means all the Corinthians were such in fact.* Along with the heathen, they are in the category of ÏÏ Ïικοί or ÏαÏκικοί, but they are not on a level with the heathen. They are babes in character, but âbabes in Christâ; and, apart from the special matters for blame, there are many healthy features in their condition (1:4-9, 11:2).
á¼Î»Î»Ê¼ á½¡Ï ÏαÏκίνοιÏ. The word is chosen deliberately, and it expresses a shade of meaning different from ÏαÏκικÏÏ, placing the state of the Corinthians under a distinct aspect. The termination -Î¹Î½Î¿Ï denotes a material relation, while -Î¹ÎºÎ¿Ï denotes an ethical or dynamic relation, to the idea involved in the root. In 2 Corinthians 3:3 the tables are made of stone, the hearts are made of flesh (see note on�Galatians 2:20), but we are not to live καÏá½° ÏάÏκα (15:50; Romans 8:12; 2 Corinthians 10:2, 2 Corinthians 10:3). The state of the νήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï is not culpable in itself, but it becomes culpable if unduly prolonged (13:11, 14:20).
There are two other views respecting ÏαÏÎºÎ¯Î½Î¿Ï which may be mentioned, but seem to be alien to the sense. Meyer holds that the word means âwholly of flesh,â without any influence of the spirit (John 3:6). In the ÏαÏκικÏÏ, although the flesh still has the upper hand, yet there is some counteracting influence of the spirit. This view makes the state of the ÏαÏκικÏÏ an advance upon that of the ÏαÏκίνÏÏ, and is really an inversion of the true sense. Evans regards ÏαÏκικÏÏ as a term free from any reproach. It is âthe first moral state after conversion, in a figure borrowed from an infant, which to outward view is little more than a living lump of dimpled flesh, with few signs of intelligence.â This is an exaggeration of the true sense. Cf. Arist. Eth. Nic. III. ix. 2.
ÏαÏÎºÎ¯Î½Î¿Î¹Ï (× A B C* D* 17) is the original reading, of which ÏαÏκικοá¿Ï (D3 E F G L P) is obviously a correction.
2. γάλα á½Î¼á¾¶Ï á¼ÏÏÏιÏα, οὠÎÏῶμα. Cf. Hebrews 5:12, where ÏÏεÏεὰ ÏÏοÏή takes the place of βÏῶμα. The verb governs both substantives by a very natural zeugma: it takes a double accusative, and the passive has the accusative of the thing (12:13). The γάλα is described 2:2, the βÏῶμα, 2:6-13, and the distinction corresponds to the method necessarily adopted by every skilful teacher. The wise teacher proves himself to be such by his ability to impart, in the most elementary grade, what is really fundamental and educativeâwhat is simple, and yet gives insight into the full instruction that is to follow. The âmilk,â or á½ Ïá¿Ï�Hebrews 4:1), would be more practical than doctrinal (as 2:2), and would tell of âtemperance and righteousness and judgment to comeâ before communicating the foundation-truths as to the person and work of Christ. Christ Himself begins in this way; âThou knowest the commandmentsâ; âRepent ye, for the kingdom of God is at hand.â The metaphor was current among the Rabbis, and occurs in Philo (see Lightfootâs note). The aorist á¼ÏÏÏιÏα refers to a definite period, evidently that which began with the ἦλθον of 2:1, viz. the eighteen months of Acts 18:11.
οá½ÏÏ Î³á½°Ï á¼Î´ÏναÏθε. âFor ye had not yet the power.â The verb is used absolutely, as in 10:13.*. This use is not rare in LXX, and is found in Plato, Xenophon, etc. The tense indicates a process. This process was one of growth, but the growth was too slow.
D E F G L, Arm. Aeth. AV. insert καί before οὠβÏῶμα. ×A B C P, Vulg. Copt. RV. omit.
3.�2 Corinthians 1:9; Galatians 2:3). The impression made by this passage, especially when combined with vv. 6, 10, 2:1, and�
á½ÏÎ¿Ï Î³á½°Ï á¼Î½ á½Î¼á¿Î½. The adverb of place acquires the force of a conditional particle in classical authors as here: cf. Clem. Rom. Cor. 43. In Tudor English, âwhereâ is sometimes used for âwhereas.â But here the notion of place, corresponding to á¼Î½ á½Î¼á¿Î½, is not quite lost; âseeing that envy and strife find place among you.â Cf. á¼Î½Î¹ in Galatians 3:28.
ζá¿Î»Î¿Ï καὶ á¼ÏιÏ. Strife is the outward result of envious feeling: Galatians 5:20; Clem. Rom. Cor. 3. There is place in Christian ethics for honourable emulation (Galatians 4:18), but ζá¿Î»Î¿Ï without qualification, though ranked high by Aristotle* (Rhet. ii. 11), is placed by the Apostle among âworks of the flesh.â Lightfoot gives other instances of differences in estimation between heathen and Christian ethics.
οá½Î¾á½¶ ÏαÏκικοί á¼ÏÏε; See above on ÏαÏκινοι, and cf. 9:11; Romans 15:27. Here, as in 2 Corinthians 1:12, ÏαÏκικοί means âconformable to and governed by the flesh,â actuated by low motives, above which they ought by this time to have risen.
καÏá½° á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏον ÏεÏιÏαÏεá¿Ïε. âWalk on a merely human levelâ (15:32; Galatians 1:11, Galatians 1:3:15; Romans 3:5): contrast καÏá½° ÎεÏν (2 Corinthians 7:9-11; Romans 8:27). This level cannot be distinguished from that of the ÏÏ ÏÎ¹Îºá½¸Ï á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï (2:14). ΠεÏιÏαÏεá¿Î½, of manner of life, is frequent in Paul and 2 and 3 John, while other writers more often have�Galatians 2:14), ÏοÏεÏεÏθαι (Luke 1:6, Luke 8:14) and see 7:17. Cf. John 12:35.
D* F G have ÏαÏκίνοι for ÏαÏκικοί. D E F G L, Syrr. AV. add καὶ διÏοÏÏαÏίαι after á¼ÏιÏ. × A B C P, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. RV. omit. See Iren. IV. xxxviii. 2.
4. á½ Ïαν Î³á½°Ï Î»ÎγῠÏιÏ. âFor whenever one saithâ: each such utterance is one more verification (γάÏ) of the indictment.â Cf. the construction in 15:27.
á¼Î»á½¼ μÎν ⦠á¼ÏεÏÎ¿Ï Î´Î. The μÎν and the δΠcorrespond logically, although not grammatically. St Paul mentions only himself and Apollos by name (cf. 4:6), because he can less invidiously use these names as the point of departure for the coming analysis of the conception of the Christian Pastorate (3:5-4:5).
οá½Îº á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏοί á¼ÏÏε; âAre ye not mere human creatures?â They did not rise above a purely human level. The expression is the negative equivalent of ÏαÏκικοί in the parallel clause,ânegative, because implying the lack, not only of spirituality, but even of manliness. The lack of spirituality is implied in the whole context, the lack of manliness in the word itself, which classical writers contrast with�Psalms 69:2 and Isaiah 2:9 for a similar contrast in Hebrew. The Corinthians were á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏοι in failing to rise to the higher range of motives; and they were ÏαÏκικοί in allowing themselves to be swayed by the lower range, a range which they ought (á¼Ïι γάÏ) to have left behind as a relic of heathenism (6:11, 12:2).
âIn all periods of great social activity, when society becomes observant of its own progress, there is a tendency to exalt the persons and means by which it progresses. Hence, in turn, kings, statesmen, parliaments, and then education, science, machinery and the press, have had their hero-worship. Here, at Corinth, was a new phase, âminister-worship.â No marvel, in an age when the mere political progress of the Race was felt to be inferior to the spiritual salvation of the Individual, and to the purification of the Society, that ministers, the particular organs by which this was carried on, should assume to menâs eyes peculiar importance, and the special gifts of Paul or Apollos be extravagantly honoured. No marvel either, that round the more prominent of these, partizans should gatherâ (F. W. Robertson). Origen says that, if the partizans of Paul or Apollos are mere á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏοι, then, if you are a partizan of some vastly inferior person, δá¿Î»Î¿Î½ á½Ïι οá½ÎºÎÏι οá½Î´á½² á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï Îµá¼¶,�
διʼ ὧν á¼ÏιÏÏεÏÏαÏε. Per quos, non in quos (Beng.). The aorist points back to the time of their conversion (cf. 15:2; Romans 13:11), but it sums up their whole career as Christians.
καὶ á¼ÎºÎ¬ÏÏῳ á½¡Ï á½ ÎÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï á¼Î´Ïκεν. As in 7:17; Romans 12:3. The construction is condensed for á¼ÎºÎ±ÏÏÎ¿Ï á½¡Ï á½ Î. á¼Î´Ïκεν αá½Ïá¿·. It may be understood either of the measure of faith given by the Lord to each believer, or of the measure of success granted by Him to each διάκονοÏ. Romans 12:3 favours the former, but perhaps á½ ÎÎµá½¸Ï Î·á½Î¾Î±Î½ÎµÎ½ favours the latter. We have á¼ÎºÎ±ÏÏÎ¿Ï five times in vv. 5-13. God deals separately with each individual soul: cf. 4:5, 7:17, 20, 24, 12:7, 11. And whatever success there is to receive a reward (v. 8) is really His; Deus coronat dona sua, non merita nostra (Augustine). It is clear from the frequent mention of ÎεÏÏ in what follows that á½ ÎÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï means God, and it seems to be in marked antithesis to διάκονοι.
We should read Ïί in both places (×* A B 17, Vulg. d e f g Aeth. RV.), rather than ÏÎ¯Ï (C D E F G L P, Syrr. Copt. Arm. AV.). D2 L, Syrr. Arm. Aeth. place Î Î±á¿¦Î»Î¿Ï first and á¼ÏÎ¿Î»Î»á¿¶Ï second, an obvious correction, to agree with vv. 4 and 6. D E F G L, Vulg. Arm. Copt. Omit á¼ÏÏιν after Ï.δÎ. D2; L P, Syrr. AV. insert�
6. á¼Î»á½¼ á¼ÏÏÏενÏα κ.Ï.λ. St Paul expands the previous statement. Faith, whether initial or progressive, is the work of God alone, although He uses men as His instruments. Note the significant change from aorists to imperfect. The aorists sum up, as wholes, the initial work of Paul (Acts 18:1-18) and the fostering ministry of Apollos (Acts 18:24): the imperfect indicates what was going on throughout; God was all along causing the increase (Acts 14:27, Acts 16:14).â Sine hoc incremento granum a primo sationis momento esset instar lapilli: ex incremento statim fides germinat (Beng.). See Chadwick, Pastoral Teaching, p. 183.
7. á¼ÏÏιν Ïί. âIs something,â est aliquid, Vulg. (cf. Acts 5:36; Galatians 2:6, Galatians 6:3); so Evans; quiddam, atque adeo, quia solus, omnia (Berng.). Or, á¼ÏÏίν Ïι, âis anythingâ (AV., RV.).
Nos mercenarii sumus, alienis ferramentis operamur, nihil debetur nobis, nisi merces laboris nostri, quia de accepto talento operamur (Primasius).
á¼Î»Î»Í ὠαá½Î¾Î¬Î½Ïν ÎεÏÏ. The strongly adversative�Galatians 6:15. To refer á¼ÏÏÏιÏεν and á½ ÏοÏίζÏν to Baptism, as some of the Fathers do, is to exhibit a strange misappreciation of the context. See Lightfootâs note. ÎεÏÏ is placed last with emphasis; âbut the giver of the increaseâGod.â
á¼Î½ εἰÏιν. Are in one category, as fellow-workers; consequently it is monstrous to set them against one another as rivals. As contrasted with God, they are all of one value, just nothing. But that does not mean that each, when compared with the other, is exactly equal in His sight. The other side of the truth is introduced with δÎ.
á¼ÎºÎ±ÏÏÎ¿Ï Î´Î. âYet each has his own responsibility and work, and each shall receive his proper reward.â The repeated ἴδιον marks the separate responsibility, correcting a possible misapprehension of the meaning of á¼Î½: congruens iteratio, antitheton ad âunumâ (Beng.). The latter point is drawn out more fully in vv. 10 f.
9. Îεοῦ γάÏ. The Î³Î¬Ï refers to the first half, not the second, of v. 8. The workers are in one category, because they are Îεοῦ ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏγοί. The verse contains the dominant thought of the whole passage, gathering up the gist of vv. 5-7. Hence the emphatic threefold Îεοῦ. The Gospel is the power of God (1:18), and those who are entrusted with it are to be thought of, not as rival members of a rhetorical profession, but as bearers of a divine message charged with divine power.
Îεοῦ ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏγοί. This remarkable expression occurs nowhere else: the nearest to it 2 Corinthians 6:1; the true text of 1 Thessalonians 3:2 is probably διάκονον, not ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏγÏν.* It is not quite clear what it means. Either, âfellow-workers with one another in Godâs serviceâ; or, âfellow-workers with God.â Evans decides for the former, because âthe logic of the sentence loudly demands it.â So also Heinrici and others. But although God does all, yet human instrumentality in a sense co-operates (á½ Ïα á¼ÏοίηÏεν á½ ÎÎµá½¸Ï Î¼ÎµÏʼ αá½Ïῶν, Acts 14:27), and St Paul admits this aspect of the matter in ἡ ÏάÏÎ¹Ï Ïοῦ Îεοῦ Ïὺν á¼Î¼Î¿Î¯, 15:10, and in ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏγοῦνÏεÏ, 2 Corinthians 6:1. This seems to turn the scale in favour of the more simple and natural translation, âfellow-workers with God.ââ Compare ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏγοÏÏ Î¼Î¿Ï á¼Î½ ΧÏιÏÏá¿· ἸηÏοῦ (Romans 16:3), which appears to show how St Paul would have expressed the former meaning, had he meant it.
Îεοῦ γεÏÏγιον, Îεοῦ οἰκοδομή. The one metaphor has been employed in vv. 6-8, the other is to be developed in vv. 10 f. St Paul uses three metaphors to express the respective relations of himself and of other teachers to the Corinthian Church. He is planter (6), founder (10), and father (4:15). Apollos and the rest are waterers, after-builders, and tutors. The metaphor of building is a favourite one with the Apostle. On the different meanings of οἰκοδομή, which correspond fairly closely to the different meanings of âbuildingâ, see J.A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 70, 164: it occurs often in the Pauline Epistles, especially in the sense of âedification,â a sense which Lightfoot traces to the Apostleâs metaphor of the building of the Church. Here it is fairly certain that γεÏÏγιον does not mean the âtilled landâ (RV. marg.), but the âhusbandryâ (AV., RV.) or âtillageâ (AV. marg.) that results in tilled land, and that therefore οἰκοδομή does not mean the edifice, but the building-process which results in an edifice. The word γεÏÏγιον is rather frequent in Proverbs; elsewhere in LXX it is rare, and it is found nowhere else in N.T. In the Greek addition to what is said about the ant (Proverbs 6:7) we are told that it is without its knowing anything of tillage (á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½á¿³ γεÏÏγίον μὴ á½ÏάÏÏονÏοÏ) that it provides its food in summer. Again, in the Greek addition to the aphorisms on a foolish man (Proverbs 9:12), we are told that he wanders from the tracks of his own husbandry (ÏÎ¿á¿¦Ï á¼Î¾Î¿Î½Î±Ï Ïοῦ ἰδίον γεÏÏγίον ÏεÏλάνηÏαι) In Ecclus. 27:6 it is said that the âcultivation of a treeâ (γεÏÏγιον ζÏλον) is shown by its fruit. The meaning here, therefore, is that the Corinthians exhibit Godâs operations in spiritual husbandry and spiritual architecture; Dei agricultura estis, Dei aedificatio estis (Vulg.).* It is chiefly in 1 and 2 Cor., Rom., and Eph. that the metaphor of building is found. See also Acts 9:31, Acts 9:20:32; Jude 1:20; 1 Peter 2:5, with Hortâs note on the last passage. In Jeremiah 18:9, Jeremiah 24:6, and Ezekiel 34:9, Ezekiel 34:10 we have the metaphors of building and planting combined.
3:10-15. The Builders
I have laid the only possible foundation. Let those who build on it remember that their work will be severely tested at the Last Day.
10 As to the grace which God gave me to found Churches, I have, with the aims of an expert master-builder, laid a foundation for the edifice; it is for some one else to build upon it. But, whoever he may be, let him be careful as to the materials with which he builds thereon. 11 For, as regards the foundation, there is no room for question: no one can lay any other beside the one which is already laid, which of course is Jesus Christ. 12 But those who build upon this foundation may use either good or bad material; they may use gold, silver, and sumptuous stones, or they may use wood, hay, and straw. But each builderâs good or bad work is certain to be made manifest in the end. For the Day of Judgment will disclose it, because that Day is revealed in fire; and the fire is the thing that will assuredly test each builderâs work and will show of what character it Isaiah 14:0 If any manâs workâthe superstructure which he has erectedâshall stand the ordeal, he will receive a reward. 15 If any manâs work shall be burnt to the ground, he will lose it, though he himself shall be saved from destruction, but like one who has passed through fire.
St Paul follows up the building-metaphor, first (v. 10) distinguishing his part from that of others, and then (11-15) dwelling on the responsibility of those who build after him.
10. ÎαÏá½° Ïὴν ÏάÏιν κ.Ï.λ. The necessary prelude to a reference to his own distinctive work (cf. 7:25). The âgraceâ is not that of Apostleship in general, but that specially granted to St Paul, which led him to the particular work of founding new Churches, and not building on another manâs foundation (Romans 15:19, Romans 15:20).
á½¡Ï ÏοÏὸÏ�Isaiah 3:3, and ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï is frequent of the skilled workmen who erected and adorned the Tabernacle (Exodus 35:10, Exodus 35:25, Exodus 36:1, Exodus 35:4, Exodus 35:8). It means peritus. Aristotle (Eth. Nic. VI. vii. 1) says that the first notion of ÏοÏία is, that, when applied to each particular art, it is skill; Phidias is a skilled sculptor.* See Lightfoot ad loc. á¼ÏÏιÏÎκÏÏν occurs nowhere else in N.T.
θεμÎλιον á¼Î¸Î·ÎºÎ±. The aorist, like á¼ÏÏÏενÏα (v. 6), refers to the time of his visit (ἦλθον, ii. 1): θεμÎλιον is an adjective (sc. λίθον), but becomes a neuter substantive in late Greek. In the plural we may have either gender; οἱ θεμÎλιοι (Hebrews 11:10, Revelation 21:14, Revelation 21:19), or Ïá½° θεμÎλια (Acts 16:26 and often in LXX). No architect can build without some foundation, and no expert will build without a sure foundation. Cf. Ephesians 2:20.
á¼Î»Î»Î¿Ï δÎ. The reference is not specially to Apollos: âThe superstructure I leave to others.â But they all must build, according to the rule that follows, thoughtfully, not according to individual caprice.
Ïá¿¶Ï á¼Ïοικοδομεá¿. Refers specially, although not exclusively, to the choice of materials (vv. 12, 13). The edifice, throughout, is the Church, not the fabric of doctrine; but á¼Ïοἰοδομεá¿Î½ refers to the teachingâboth form and substanceâwhich forms the Church, or rather forms the character of its members (Galatians 4:19).
á¼Î¸Î·ÎºÎ± (×* A B C* 17) is to be preferred to Ïá¼Î¸ÎµÎ¹ÎºÎ± (×3 C3 D E) or Ïεθηκα (L P). D omits the second δÎ. There is no need to conjecture á¼ÏοικοδÏμῠfor the second á¼Ïοικοδομεῠ(all MSS). In 7:32 the balance of evidence is strongly in favour of Ïá¿¶Ï�
11. θεμÎλιον γάÏ. A cautionary premiss to v. 12, which continues the thought of the previous clause: âLet each man look to it how he builds upon this foundation, because, although (I grant, nay, I insist) none can lay any foundation ÏαÏá½° Ïὸν κείμενον, yet the superstructure is a matter of separate and grave responsibility.â ÎεμÎλιον stands first for emphasis. There can be but one fundamental Gospel (Galatians 1:6, Galatians 1:7), the foundation lies there, and the site is already occupied. By whom is the foundation laid? Obviously (v. 10), by St Paul, when he preached Christ at Corinth (2:2). This is the historical reference of the words; but behind the laying of the stone at Corinth, or wherever else the Church may be founded, there is the eternal laying of the foundation-stone by God, the âonly wiseâ architect of the Church. See Evans.
Compare the use of κειμÎνη of the city that is already there, and ÏιθÎαÏιν of the lamp which has to be placed (Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:15).
á½Ï á¼ÏÏιν ἸηÏÎ¿á¿¦Ï Î§ÏιÏÏÏÏ. Both name and title are in place, and neither of them alone would have seemed quite satisfying: see on 2:2. He is the foundation of all Christian life, faith, and hope.* In Ephesians 2:20 He is the chief corner-stone,�Acts 4:11. It is only by admitting some inconsistency of language that the truth can be at all adequately expressed. There is inconsistency even if we leave Ephesians 2:20 out of account. He has just said that he laid the foundation in a skilful way. Now he says that it was lying there ready for him, and that no other foundation is possible. Each statement, in its own proper sense, is true; and we need both in order to get near to the truth. As in Galatians 1:8, ÏαÏά means âbesides,â not âcontrary to,â âat variance with.â
ἹηÏÎ¿á¿¦Ï Î§ÏιÏÏÏÏ (× A B L P Sah. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) rather than ΧÏιÏÏÏÏ á¼¸Î·ÏÎ¿á¿¦Ï (C3 D E, Vulg.). Several cursives have ἹηÏÎ¿á¿¦Ï á½ Î§Ï.
12. εἰ δΠÏÎ¹Ï Îº.Ï.λ. The various kinds of superstructure represent various degrees of inferiority in the ministry of the âafter-builders,â i.e. according as they make, or fail to make, a lasting contribution to the structure. With regard to the whole passage, three things are to be noted.
(1) The metaphor is not to be pressed too rigidly by seeking to identify each term with some detail in the building. This Grotius does in the following way: proponit ergo nobis domum cujus parietes sunt ex marmore, columnae partim ex auro partim ex argento, trabes ex ligno, fastigium vero ex stramine et culmo; all which is very frigid.* The materials are enumerated with a rapid and vivid asyndeton, which drives each point sharply and firmly home.
(2) The âwood, hay, stubbleâ do not represent teaching that is intentionally disloyal or false (αá½Ïá½¸Ï Î´á½² ÏÏθήÏεÏαι), but such as is merely inferior.
(3) The imagery alternates between the suggestion of teaching as moulding persons, and the suggestion of persons as moulded by teaching (Evans), so that it is irrelevant to ask whether the materials enumerated are to be understood of the fruits of doctrine, such as different moral qualities (Theodoret), or of worthy and unworthy Christians. The two meanings run into one another, for the qualities must be exhibited in the lives of persons. We have a similar combination of two lines of thought in the interpretation of the parable of the Sower. There the seed is said to be sown, and the soil is said to be sown, and in the interpretation these two meanings are mingled. Yet the interpretation is clear enough.
ÏÏÏ Ïίον,�Acts 3:6, Acts 20:33). But this is not a fixed rule. See Matthew 23:16 and Genesis 2:11.
Î»Î¯Î¸Î¿Ï Ï ÏÎ¹Î¼Î¯Î¿Ï Ï. Either âcostly stones,â such as marble or granite, suitable for building, or âprecious stones,â suitable for ornamentation. Isaiah 54:11, Isaiah 54:12 and Revelation 21:18, Revelation 21:19, combined with the immediate context (âgold and silverâ), point to the latter meaning. It is internal decoration that is indicated.
ÏÏÏÏον, καλάμην. Either of these might mean straw or dried grass for mixing with clay, as in Exodus 5:12, καλάμην Îµá¼°Ï á¼ÏÏ Ïα, âstubble instead of strawâ; and either might mean material for thatching. Romu leoque recens horrebat regia culmo (Virg. Aen. viii. 654). Lutherâs contemptuous expression respecting the Epistle of St James as a âstrawy epistleâ was made in allusion to this passage. Nowhere else in N.T. does καλάμη occur.
After á¼Ïá½¶ Ï. θεμÎλιον, × 3 C 3 D E L P,; Vulg. AV. add ÏοῦÏον. ×* A B C* Sah. Aeth. RV. omit. We ought probably to read ÏÏÏ Ïίον (× B) and�
á¼ Î³á½°Ï á¼ ÌμÎÏα δηλÏÏει. âThe Dayâ (as in 1 Thessalonians 5:4; Romans 13:12; Hebrews 10:25), without the addition of ÎÏ ÏÎ¯Î¿Ï (1 Thessalonians 5:2) or of κÏίÏεÏÏ (Matthew 12:36) or of á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½Î· (2 Thessalonians 1:10; 2 Timothy 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:18, 2 Timothy 1:4:8), means the Day of Judgment. This is clear from 4:3, 5, ubi ex intervallo, ut solet, clarius loquitur (Beng.). The expression âDay of the Lordâ comes from the O.T. (Isaiah 2:12; Jeremiah 46:10; Ezekiel 7:10, etc.), and erhaps its original meaning was simply a definite period of time. But with this was often associated the idea of day as opposed to night: âthe Dayâ would be a time of light, when what had hitherto been hidden or unknown would be revealed. So here. And here the fire which illuminates is also a fire which burns, and thus tests the solidity of that which it touches. What is sound survives, what is worthless is consumed.
á¼Î½ ÏÏ Ïὶ�2 Thessalonians 1:7, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, 2 Thessalonians 1:2:8; Daniel 7:9f.; Malachi 4:1). This is a common use of the present tense, to indicate that a coming event is so certain that it may be spoken of as already here. The predicted revelation is sure to take place. See on�Luke 17:30, Lightfoot on 1 Thessalonians 5:2, and Hort on 1 Peter 1:7, 1 Peter 1:13.
St Paul is not intending to describe the details of Christâs Second Coming, but is figuratively stating, what he states without figure in 4:5, that at that crisis the real worth of each manâs work will be searchingly tested. This test he figures as the fire of the Second Advent, wrapping the whole building round, and reducing all its worthless material to ashes. The fire, therefore, is regarded more as a testing than as an illuminating agent, as tentatio tribulationis (August. Enchir. 68), which by its destructive power makes manifest the enduring power of all that it touches. There is no thought in the passage of a penal, or disciplinary, or purgative purpose; nor again is there the remotest reference to the state of the soul between death and judgment. Hic locus ignem purgatorium non modo non fovet sed plane extinguit, nam in novissimo demum die ignis probabit. ⦠Ergo ignis purgatorius non praecedit (Beng.). The á¼Î½ suggests that fire is the element in which the revelation takes place. At the Parousia Christ is to appear á¼Î½ ÏÏ Ïá½¶ ÏλογÏÏ (2 Thessalonians 1:8) or á¼Î½ Ïλογὶ ÏÏ ÏÏÏ (Isaiah 66:15). In the Apocalypse of Baruch (48:39) we have, âA fire will consume their thoughts, and in flame will the meditations of their reins be tried; for the Judge will come and will not tarry.â But elsewhere in that book (44:15, 59:2, etc.) the fire is to consume the wicked, a thought of which there is no trace here. There are no wicked, but only unskilful builders; all build, although some build unwisely, upon Christ.
καὶ á¼ÎºÎ¬ÏÏÎ¿Ï . Still under the á½ Ïι. It is better to regard Ïὸ á¼Ïγον as the acc. governed by δοκιμάÏει, with αá½ÏÏ as pleonastic, than as the nom. to á¼ÏÏιν. A pleonastic pronoun is found with good authority in Matthew 9:27; Luke 17:7; and elsewhere; but the readings are sometimes uncertain. To take αá½ÏÏ with ÏῦÏ, âthe fire itself,â has not much point. In all three verses (13, 14, 15), Ïὸ á¼Ïγον refers, not to a manâs personal character, good or bad, but simply to his work as a builder (12).
× D E L, Vulg. Sah. Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit αá½ÏÏ, but we ought probably to read it with A B C P 17 and other cursives.
14. μενεá¿. It is doubtful, and not very important, whether we should accent this word as a future, to agree with καÏακαήÏεÏαι and other verbs which are future, or μÎνει, as a present, which harmonizes better with the idea of permanence: cf. μÎνει in 13:13.
μιÏθÏν. Compare v. 8 and Matthew 20:8: in 9:17, 18 the reference is quite different. The nature of the reward is not stated, but it is certainly not eternal salvation, which may be won by those whose work perishes (v. 15). Something corresponding to the âten citiesâ and âfive citiesâ in the parable may be meant; opportunities of higher service.
15. καÏακαήÏεÏαι. This later form is found as a v.l. (AL) in 2 Peter 3:10, where it is probably a correction of the puzzling εá½ÏεθήÏεÏαι (× B K P). In Revelation 18:8 the more classical καÏÎ±ÎºÎ±Ï Î¸Î®ÏεÏαι is found. The burning of Corinth by Mummius may have suggested this metaphor.
ζημιÏθήÏεÏαι. It does not much matter whether we regard this as indefinite, âHe shall suffer lossâ (AV., RV.), detrimentum patietur (Vulg.), damnum faciet (Beza), or understand Ïὸν μιÏθÏν from v. 14, âHe shall be mulcted of the expected reward.â In Exodus 21:22 we have á¼Ïιζήμιον ζημιÏθήÏεÏαι. The αá½ÏÏÏ is in favour of the latter.
αá½Ïá½¸Ï Î´á½² ÏÏθήÏεÏαι. The αá½ÏÏÏ is in contrast to the μιÏθÏÏ: the reward will be lost, but the worker himself will be saved. If ζημιÏθήÏεÏαι is regarded as indefinite, then αá½ÏÏÏ may be in contrast to the á¼Ïγον: the manâs bad work will perish, but that does not involve his perdition. The ÏÏθήÏεÏαι can hardly refer to anything else than eternal salvation, which he has not forfeited by his bad workmanship: he has built on the true foundation. Salvation is not the μιÏθÏÏ, and so it may be gained when all μιÏθÏÏ is lost. But it may also be lost as well as the μιÏθÏÏ. The Apostle does not mean that every teacher who takes Christ as the basis of his teaching will necessarily be saved: his meaning is that a very faulty teacher may be saved, and âwill be saved, if at all, so as through fire.â See Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xxi. 21, 26.
οá½ÏÏÏ Î´á½² á½¡Ï Î´Î¹á½° ÏÏ ÏÏÏ. âBut only as one passing through fire is savedâ: a quasi-proverbial expression, indicative of a narrow escape from a great peril, as âa firebrand pluckt out of the fireâ (Amos 4:11; Zechariah 3:2). It is used here with special reference to the fire which tests the whole work (v. 13). The διά is local rather than instrumental. The fire is so rapid in its effects that the workman has to rush through it to reach safety: cf. διʼá½Î´Î±ÏÎ¿Ï (1 Peter 3:20), and διήλθομεν διὰ ÏÏ Ïá½¸Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ á½Î´Î±ÏÎ¿Ï (Psalms 66:12). To explain ÏÏθήÏεÏαι διὰ ÏÏ ÏÏÏ as meaning âshall be kept alive in the midst of hell-fireâ is untenable translation and monstrous exegesis. Such a sense is quite inadmissible for ÏÏθήÏεÏαι and incompatible with οá½ÏÏÏ á½¡Ï. Moreover, the fire in v. 13 is the fire alluded to, and that fire cannot be Gehenna. Atto of Vercelli thinks that this passage is one of the âthings hard to be understoodâ alluded to in 2 Peter 3:16. Augustine (Enchir. 68) says that the Christian who âcares for the things of the Lordâ (7:32) is the man who builds with âgold, silver, and precious stones,â while he who âcares for the things of the world, how he may please his wifeâ (7:33), builds with âwood, hay, stubble.â
3:16-17. The Temple
St Paul now passes away from the builders to the Temple. The section is linked with vv. 10-15 both by the opening words, which imply some connexion, and by the word ναÏÏ, which is doubtless suggested by the âbuildingâ of vv. 9 f. (cf. Ephesians 2:20-22). On the other hand, it is quite certain that there is a change of subject: αá½Ïá½¸Ï ÏÏθήÏεÏαι (v. 15) and ÏθεÏεῠÏοῦÏον á½ ÎεÏÏ are contradictory propositions, and they cannot be made to apply to the same person, for ÏθείÏειν cannot be attenuated to an equivalent for ζημιοῦν (v. 15).
The subject of the ÏÏίÏμαÏα still occupies the Apostleâs mind, and he seems to be thinking of their ultimate tendency. By giving rein to the flesh (v. 3) they tend to banish the Holy Spirit, and so to destroy the Temple constituted by His presence.
16. Îá½Îº οἴδαÏε; Frequent in this Epistle, and twice in Romans; also James 4:4. As in 5:6, 6:16, 19, the question implies a rebuke. The Corinthians are so carnal that they have never grasped, or have failed to retain, so fundamental a doctrine as that of the indwelling of the Spirit.*
Î½Î±á½¸Ï Îεοῦ á¼ÏÏε. Not âa temple of God,â but âGodâs Temple.â There is but one Temple, embodied equally truly in the whole Church, in the local Church, and in the individual Christian; the local Church is meant here. As a metaphor for the Divine indwelling, the ναÏÏ, which contained the Holy of Holies, is more suitable than ἱεÏÏν, which included the whole of the sacred enclosure (6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21). To converts from heathenism the ναÏÏ might suggest the cella in which the image of the god was placed. It is one of the paradoxes of the Christian Church that there is only one Î½Î±á½¸Ï Îεοῦ and yet each Christian is a ναÏÏ: simul omnes unum templum et singula templa sumus, quia non est Deus in omnibus quam in singulis major (Herv.). ÎαÏÏ is from ναίειν, âto dwell.â
καὶ Ïὸ Ïνεῦμα. The καί is epexegetic. Both Gentile and Jew might speak of their Î½Î±á½¸Ï Îεοῦ, but, while the pagan temple was inhabited by an image of a god, and the Jewish by a symbol of the Divine Presence (Shekinah), the Christian temple is inhabited by the Spirit of God Himself.
á¼Î½ á½Î¼á¿Î½ οἰκεá¿. âIn you hath His dwelling-place.â In Luke 11:51 we have οἶκοÏ, where, in the parallel passage in Matthew 23:35, we have ναÏÏ. ΤÏÏε οá½Î½ μάλιÏÏα á¼ÏÏμεθα Î½Î±á½¸Ï Îεοῦ, á¼á½°Î½ ÏÏÏηÏÎ¹ÎºÎ¿á½ºÏ á¼Î±Ï ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ ÎºÎ±ÏαÏÎºÎµÏ Î¬ÏÏμεν Ïοῦ ΠνεÏμαÏÎ¿Ï ÏÎ¿Ï Í Îεοῦ (Orig.).
It is not easy to decide between á¼Î½ á½Î¼á¿Î½ οἰκεῠ(B P 17) and οἰκεῠá¼Î½ á½Î¼á¿Î½ (× A C D E F G L, Vulg.). The former is more forcible, placing the âpermanent dwellingâ last, with emphasis.
17. εἴ ÏÎ¹Ï â¦ÏθείÏει ⦠ÏθεÏεá¿. The AV. greatly mars the effect by translating the verb first âdefileâ and then âdestroy.â The same verb is purposely used to show the just working of the lex talionis in this case: one destruction is requited by another destruction. The destroyers of the Temple are those who banish the Spirit, an issue to which the dissensions were at least tending. Here the reference is to unchristian faction, which destroyed, by dividing, the unity of the Church: a building shattered into separate parts is a ruin. In 6:19 the thought is of uncleanness in the strict sense. But all sin is a defiling of the Temple and is destructive of its consecrated state.* We have a similar play on words to express a similar resemblance between sin and its punishment in Romans 1:28; ÎºÎ±Î¸á½¼Ï Î¿á½Îº á¼Î´Î¿ÎºÎ¯Î¼Î±Ïαν Ïὸν Îεὸν á¼Ïειν á¼Î½ á¼ÏιγνÏÏει, ÏαÏÎδÏκεν αá½ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ á½ ÎÎµá½¸Ï Îµá¼°Ï�Revelation 11:18; διαÏθεá¿Ïαι ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ Î´Î¹Î±ÏθείÏονÏÎ±Ï Ïὴν γá¿Î½. Neither ÏθείÏειν nor διαÏθείÏειν are commonly used of Godâs judgments, for which the more usual verb is�Revelation 11:18 ÏθείÏειν or διαÏθείÏειν is preferred, because of its double meaning, âcorruptâ and âdestroy.â The sinner destroys by corrupting what is holy and good, and for this God destroys him. We have ÏθείÏειν in the sense of corrupt, 15:33; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 19:2.
ÏθεÏεῠÏοῦÏον á½ ÎεÏÏ. The Vulgate, like the AV., ignores the telling repetition of the same verb: si quis autem templum Dei violaverit, disperdet illum Deus. Tertullian (Adv. Marc. v. 6) preserves it: si templum Dei quis vitiaverit, vitiabitur, utique a Deo templi; and more literally (De Pudic. 16, 18) vitiabit illum Deus. But neither ÏθεÏεῠhere, nor á½Î»ÎµÎ¸ÏÎ¿Ï in 1 Thessalonians 5:3, nor á½Î»ÎµÎ¸Ïον αἰÏνιον in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, must be pressed to mean annihilation (see on v. 5). Nor, on the other hand, must it be watered down to mean mere physical punishment (cf. 11:30). The exact meaning is nowhere revealed in Scripture; but terrible ruin and eternal loss of some kind seems to be meant. See Beetâs careful examination of these and kindred words, The Last Things, pp. 122 f.
ἠγιÏÏ á¼ÏÏιν. It is âholy,â and therefore not to be tampered with without grave danger. Both the Tabernacle and the Temple are frequently called ἠγιοÏ, and in the instinct of archaic religion in the O.T. the idea of danger was included in that of âholiness.â See Gray on Numbers 4:5, Numbers 4:15, Numbers 4:19, Numbers 4:20, and Kirkpatrick on 1 Samuel 6:20 and 2 Samuel 6:7; and cf. Leviticus 10:6, Leviticus 10:16:2, Leviticus 10:13.
οἵÏινÎÏ á¼ÏÏε á½Î¼Îµá¿Ï. It has been doubted whether ναÏÏ or á¼ Î³Î¹Î¿Ï is the antecedent of οἵÏινεÏ, but the former is probably right: âwhich temple ye areâ (AV., RV.).* The relative is attracted into the plural of á½Î¼Îµá¿Ï. Edwards quotes, Ïὸν οá½ÏανÏν, οá½Ï δὴ ÏÏÎ»Î¿Ï Ï ÎºÎ±Î»Î¿á¿¦Ïιν (Plato, Crat. 405). The meaning seems to be, âThe temple of God is holy; ye are the temple of God; therefore ye must guard against what violates your consecration.â As distinct from the simple relative, οἵÏÎ¹Î½ÎµÏ commonly carries with it the idea of category, of belonging to a class; âand this is what ye are,â âand such are yeâ: cf. Galatians 5:19, where the construction is parallel.
ΦθεÏεῠ(× A B C, d e f g Vulg.) rather than ÏθείÏει (D E F G L P,; Am.) where the difference between Greek and Latin in bilingual MSS. is remarkable: see on v.2. ÏοῦÏον (× B C L P) rather than αá½ÏÏν (A D E F G).
3:18-4:5. Warning Against a More âHumanâ Estimate
Of the Pastoral Office
Let no one profane Godâs Temple by taking on himself to set up party teachers in it. Regard us teachers as simply Christâs stewards.
18 I am not raising baseless alarms; the danger of a false estimate of oneself is grave. It may easily happen that a man imagines that he is wise in his intercourse with you, with the wisdom of the non-Christian world. Let him become simple enough to accept Christ crucified, which is the way to become really wise. 19 For this worldâs wisdom is foolishness in Godâs sight, as it stands written in Scripture, Who taketh the wise in their own craftiness; 20 and in another passage, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise that they are vain. 21 If this is so, it is quite wrong for any one to plume himself on the men whom he sets up as leaders. For yours is no party-heritage; it is universal. 22 Paul, Apollos, Kephas, the world, life, death, whatever is, and whatever is to be, all of it belongs to you; 25 but youâyou belong to no human leader; you belong to Christ, and Christ to God. Between you and God there is no human leader.
4. 1 The right way of regarding Apollos, myself, and other teachers, is that we are officers under Christ, commissioned to dispense the truths which His Father has revealed to us in Him, just as stewards dispense their mastersâ goods. 2 Here, furthermore, you must notice that all stewards are required to prove their fidelity. 3 But, as regards myself, it is a matter of small moment that my fidelity should be scrutinized and judged by you or by any human court. Yet that does not mean that I constitute myself as my own Judges 4:0 My judgments on myself would be inconclusive. For it may be the case that I have no consciousness of wrong-doing, and yet that this does not prove that I am guiltless. My conscience may be at fault. The only competent judge of my fidelity is the Lord Christ. 5 That being so, cease to anticipate His decision with your own premature judgments. Wait for the Coming of the Judge. It is He who will both illumine the facts that are now hidden in darkness, and also make manifest the real motives of human conduct: and then whatever praise is due will come to each faithful steward direct from God. That will be absolutely final.
The Apostle sums up his âcaseâ against the ÏÏίÏμαÏα, combining the results of his exposure of the false âwisdom,â with its correlative conceit, and of his exposition of the Pastoral Office (18-23). He concludes by a warning against their readiness to form judgments, from a mundane standpoint, upon those whose function makes them amenable only to the judgment of the Day of the Lord.
18. ÎÎ·Î´Îµá½¶Ï á¼Î±Ï Ïὸν á¼Î¾Î±ÏαÏάÏÏ. A solemn rebuke, similar to that of μὴ ÏλανᾶÏθε in 6:9, 15:33, and Galatians 6:7, and even more emphatic than that which is implied in οá½Îº οἴδαÏε (v. 16). He intimates that the danger of sacrilege and of its heavy penalty (vv. 16, 17) is not so remote as some of the Corinthians may think. Shallow conceit may lead to disloyal tampering with the people of Christ. That there is a sacrilegious tendency in faction is illustrated by Galatians 5:7-12, Galatians 5:6:12, Galatians 5:13; 2 Corinthians 11:3, 2 Corinthians 11:4, 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, 2 Corinthians 11:20; and the situation alluded to in Galatians may have been in the Apostleâs mind when he wrote the words that are before usâwords which have a double connexion, viz. with vv. 16, 17, and with the following section. St Paul is fond of compounds with á¼Îº: 5:7, 13, 6:14, 15:34.
εἴ ÏÎ¹Ï Î´Î¿ÎºÎµá¿ ÏοÏá½¸Ï Îµá¼·Î½Î±Î¹. Not, âseemeth to be wiseâ (AV.), videtur sapiens esse (Vulg.); but, âthinketh that he is wiseâ (RV.), sibi videtur esse sapiens (Beza). He considers himself an acute man of the world, quite able to decide for himself whether Paul, or Apollos, or Kephas is the right person to follow in matters of religion. We have the same use of δοκεῠin 8:2, 10:12, 15:37. Excepting James 1:26, εἴ ÏÎ¹Ï Î´Î¿ÎºÎµá¿ is peculiar to Paul; and there the AV. makes the same mistake as here, in translating âseemâ instead of âthink.â Here á¼Î¾Î±ÏαÏάÏÏ, and there�James 1:26. It is perhaps not accidental that the Apostle says εἴ ÏÎ¹Ï â¦ á¼Î½ á½Î¼á¿Î½, and not εἴ ÏÎ¹Ï á½Î¼á¿¶Î½. The warning suggests that the self-styled ÏοÏÏÏ is among them, but not that he is one of themselves: the wrong-headed teacher has come from elsewhere.
á¼Î½ á½Î¼á¿Î½ á¼Î½ Ïá¿· αἰῶνι ÏοÏÏῳ. We might put a comma after á¼Î½ á½Î¼á¿Î½, for the two expressions are in contrast; âin your circle,â which has the heavenly wisdom and ought to be quite different from what is âin this worldâ and has only mundane wisdom. The latter is out of place in a Christian society (1:20, 22, 2:6, 8). Epictetus (Enchir. 18) warns us against thinking ourselves wise when others think us to such; μηδὲν βοÏÎ»Î¿Ï Î´Î¿ÎºÎµá¿Î½ á¼ÏίÏÏαÏθαι· κá¾Î½ δÏξá¿Ï ÏιÏιν εἷναί ÏιÏ,�
ἵνα γÎνηÏαι ÏοÏÏÏ. So as to be brought âunto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, unto full knowledge of the mystery of God, even Christâ (Colossians 2:3).*
19. He explains the paradox of the last verse by stating the principle already established, 1:21, 2:6.
ÏαÏá½° Ïá¿· Îεῷ. âBefore Godâ as judge; Romans 2:13, Romans 2:12:16; Acts 26:8. Although μÏÏÏÏ is common in N.T. and LXX, μÏÏία occurs, in N.T., only in these three chapters; and, in LXX, only in Ecclus. 20:31, 41:15.
ὠδÏαÏÏÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï Îº.Ï.λ. From Job 5:13; a quotation independent of the LXX, and perhaps somewhat nearer to the original Hebrew. Job is quoted rarely in N.T., and chiefly by St Paul; and both here and in Romans 11:35, and in no other quotation, he varies considerably from the LXX. Like á½ Ïοιῶν in Hebrews 1:7, ὠδÏαÏÏÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï here is left without any verb. It expresses the strong grasp or âgripâ which God has upon the slippery cleverness of the wicked: cf. Ecclus. 26:7, where it is said of an evil wife, ὠκÏαÏῶν αá½Ïá¿Ï á½¡Ï á½ Î´ÏαÏÏÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï ÏκοÏÏÎ¯Î¿Ï : and Ecclus. 34(31):2), the man who has his mind upon dreams is á½¡Ï Î´ÏαÏÏÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï ÎºÎ¹á¾¶Ï. The words in Psalms 2:12 which are mistranslated âKiss the Sonâ are rendered in the LXX, δÏάξαÏθε ÏαιδείαÏ, âLay hold on instruction.â The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T., and in the LXX of Job 5:13 we have ὠκαÏαλαμβάνÏν.
ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï Ïγίᾳ. âVersatile cleverness,â âreadiness for anythingâ in order to gain oneâs own ends. âCraftiness,â like astutia (Vulg.), emphasizes the cunning which ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï Ïγία often implies. The LXX has á¼Î½ ÏÏονήÏει, a word which commonly has a good meaning, while ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï Ïγία almost always has a bad one, although not always in the LXX, e.g. Proverbs 1:4, Proverbs 8:5. The adjective ÏανοῦÏÎ³Î¿Ï is more often used in a better sense, and in the LXX is used with ÏÏÏÎ½Î¹Î¼Î¿Ï to translate the same Hebrew word. Perhaps âclevernessâ would be better here than âcraftinessâ (AV., RV.). See notes on Luke 20:23; Ephesians 4:14.
20. ÎÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï Î³Î¹Î½ÏÏκει. From Psalms 94:11, and another instance (1:20) of St Paulâs freedom in quoting: the LXX, following the Hebrew, has�
διαλογιÏμοÏÏ. In the LXX the word is used of the thoughts of God (Psalms 40:6, Psalms 92:5). When used of men, the word often, but not always, has a bad sense, as here, especially of questioning or opposing the ways of God (Psalms 56:5; Luke 5:22, Luke 5:6:8; Romans 1:21; James 2:4).
21. á½¥ÏÏε Î¼Î·Î´Îµá½¶Ï ÎºÎ±Ï ÏάÏθÏ. Conclusion from vv. 18-20. The connexion presupposes an affinity between conceit in oneâs own wisdom and a readiness to make over much of a human leader. The latter implies much confidence in oneâs own estimate of the leader. Consequently, the spirit of party has in it a subtle element of shallow arrogance. We have á½¥ÏÏε, âso then,â with an imperative, 4:5, 10:12, 11:33, 14:39, 15:58. Outside this argumentative and practical Epistle the combination is not very common; very rare, except in Paul. It seems to involve an abrupt change from the oratio obliqua into the oratio recta. It marks the transition from explanation to exhortation.
á¼Î½ï¿½2 Thessalonians 1:4), but not in that as any credit to the leaders themselves. All partizan laudation is wrong.
ÏάνÏα Î³á½°Ï á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ á¼ÏÏίν. âYou say, I belong to Paul, or, I belong to Apollos. So far from that being true, it is Paul and Apollos who belong to you, for all things belong to you.â Instead of contenting himself with saying âWe are yours,â he asserts that and a very great deal more; not merely ÏάνÏεÏ, âall servants of God,â but ÏάνÏα, âall Godâs creatures,â belong to them. Yet his aim is, not merely to proclaim how wide their heritage is, but to show them that they have got the facts by the wrong end. They want to make him a chieftain; he is really their servant. The Church is not the property of Apostles; Apostles are ministers of the Church. Quia omnia vestra sunt, nolite in singulis gloriari; nolite speciales vobis magistros defendere, quoniam omnibus utimini (Atto). Omnia propter sanctos creata sunt, tanquam nihil habentes et omnia possidentes (Primasius).
The thought is profound and far-reaching. The believer in God through Christ is a member of Christ and shares in His universal lordship, all things being subservient to the Kingdom of God, and therefore to his eternal welfare (7:31; Romans 8:28; John 16:33; 1 John 5:4, 1 John 5:5), as means to an end. The Christian loses this birthright by treating the world or its interests as ends in themselves, i.e. by becoming enslaved to persons (7:23; 2 Corinthians 11:20) or things (6:12; Philippians 3:19). Without God, we should be the sport of circumstances, and âthe worldâ would crush us, if not in âlife,â at least in âdeath.â As it is, all these things alike âare ours.â We meet them as members of Christ, rooted in Godâs love (Romans 8:37). The Corinthians, by boasting in men, were forgetting, and thereby imperilling, their prerogative in Christ. There is perhaps a touch of Stoic language in these verses; see on 4:8. Origen points out that the Greeks had a saying, ΠάνÏα Ïοῦ ÏοÏοῦ á¼ÏÏίν, but St Paul was the first to say, ΠάνÏα Ïοῦ á¼Î³Î¯Î¿Ï á¼ÏÏίν.
22. εἴÏε ⦠εἴÏε ⦠εἴÏε. The enumeration, rising in a climax, is characteristic of St Paul (Romans 8:38): the ÏάνÏα is first expanded and then repeated. We might have expected a third triplet, past, present, and future; but the past is not ours in the sense in which the present and future are. We had no part in shaping it, and cannot change it. In the first triplet, he places himself, first, i.e. at the bottom of the climax.
εἴÏε κÏÏμοÏ. The transition from Kephas to the κÏÏÎ¼Î¿Ï is, as Bengel remarks, rather repentinus saltus, and made, he thinks, with a touch of impatience, lest the enumeration should become too extended. But perhaps alliteration has something to do with it. This Bengel spoils, by substituting âPeterâ for âKephas.â The âworldâ is here used in a neutral sense, without ethical significance, the world we live in, the physical universe.
εἲÏε ζÏá½´ εἴÏε θάναÏοÏ. If κÏÏÎ¼Î¿Ï is the physical universe, it is probable that ζÏή and θάναÏÎ¿Ï mean physical life and death. They sum up all that man instinctively clings to or instinctively dreads. From life and death in this general sense we pass easily to á¼Î½ÎµÏÏá¿¶Ïα. It is by life in the world that eternal life can be won, and death is the portal to eternal life. In Romans 8:38 death is mentioned before life, and á¼Î½ÎµÏÏá¿¶Ïα and μÎλλονÏα do not close the series.
εἴÏε á¼Î½ÎµÏÏá¿¶Ïα εἴÏε μÎλλονÏα. These also ought probably to be confined in meaning to the things of this life. They include the whole of existing circumstances and all that lies before us to the moment of death. All these things âare yours,â i.e. work together for your good. It is possible that μÎλλονÏα includes the life beyond the grave; but the series, as a whole, reads more consistently, if each member of it is regarded as referring to human experience in this world.
For á½Î¼á¿¶Î½, á½Î¼Îµá¿Ï, B and one or two cursives read ἡμῶν, ἡμεá¿Ï. After á½Î¼á¿¶Î½, D2 E L, f g Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm. add á¼ÏÏίν.
23. á½Î¼Îµá¿Ï δὲ ΧÏιÏÏοῦ. These words complete the rebuke of those who said that they belonged to Paul, etc. They belonged to no one but Christ, and they all alike belonged to Him. While all things were theirs, they were not their own (6:20, 7:23), and none of them had any greater share in Christ than the rest (1:13). Christians, with all their immense privileges, are not the ultimate owners of anything. There is only one real Owner, God. On the analogy between ΧÏιÏÏοῦ here and ÎαίÏαÏÎ¿Ï = âbelonging to the Emperorâ in papyri see Deissmann, Light from the Anc. East, p. 382. Cf. 15:23; Galatians 3:29, Galatians 5:24.
ΧÏιÏÏá½¸Ï Î´á½² Îεοῦ. Not quite the same in meaning as Luke 9:20, Luke 9:23:35; Acts 3:18; Revelation 12:10. In all those passages we have ὠΧÏιÏÏá½¸Ï Ïοῦ Îεοῦ or αá½Ïοῦ. Here ΧÏιÏÏÏÏ is more of a proper name. The thought of the Christianâs lordship over the world has all its meaning in that of his being a son of God through Christ (Romans 8:16, Romans 8:17). This passage is one of the few in which St Paul expresses his conception of the relation of Christ to God (see on 2:16). Christ, although á¼Î½ μοÏθῠÎεοῦ á½ÏάÏÏÏν (Philippians 2:6, where see Lightfoot and Vincent), is so derivatively (Colossians 1:15, where see Lightfoot and Abbott): His glory in His risen and exalted state is given by God (Philippians 2:9; cf. Romans 6:10), and in the end is to be merged in God (see on 15:28). Theodoret says here, οá½Ï á½¡Ï ÎºÏίÏμα Îεοῦ,�
* Cf. γενÏμεθα ÏÎ½ÎµÏ Î¼Î±Ïικοί, γενÏμεθα Î½Î±á½¸Ï ÏÎÎ»ÎµÎ¹Î¿Ï Ïá¿· Ïεῷ (Ep. of Barn. iv. 11), a possible reminiscence of this and v. 16.
×Ô × (Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T.
A A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the British Museum.
B B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS.
C C (Fifth century). The Codex Ephraem, a Palimpsest; now at Paris. Lacks 7:18 á¼Î½ï¿½
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 á½Î¼á¾¶Ï ὠθεÏÏ-17 ÏεÏιÏάÏει: 12:23 Ïοῦ ÏÏμαÏοÏ-13:5 οὠλογί-: 14:23 Ïὸ λαλεá¿Î½ μή. A good type of text in St Paulâs Epistles.
* Irenaeus (IV. xxxviii. 2) has οá½Î´á½² Î³á½°Ï á¼ Î´ÏναÏθε βαÏÏάζειν(from John 16:12), and his translator has nondum enim poteratis escam percipere.
* He contrasts it with envy, which is always bad and springs from a mean character; whereas the man who is moved by emulation is conscious of being capable of higher things. Wetstein distinguishes thus; ζá¿Î»Î¿Ï cogitatione, á¼ÏÎ¹Ï uerbis, διÏοÏÏαÏÎ¯Î±Ï opere.
â Abbott renders, âIn the very moment of sayingâ; by uttering a partycry he stamps himself as carnal; so also in 14:26 (Johan. Gr. 2534). There is here nothing inconsistent with 1:5-7. There he thanks God for the gifts with which He had enriched the Corinthians. Here he blames them for the poor results.
17 17. (Ev. 33, Acts 13:0. Ninth century.) At Paris (Nat. Gr. 14). See Westcott and Hort., Introd. §§ 211, 212.
* âThere is no evidence that at this time διακονία or διακονεá¿Î½ had an exclusively official senseâ (Westcott on Ephesians 4:12); cf. Hebrews 6:10.
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
â Latin and English Versions ignore the change of tense; and the difference between human activities, which come and go, and divine action, which goes on for ever, is lost.
* In LXX ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏγÏÏ is very rare; 2 Mac. 8:7, 14:5, of favourable opportunities.
â Dei enim sumus adjutores (Vulg.); Etenim Dei sumus administri (Beza); Denn wir sind Gottes Mitarbeiter (Luth.). In such constructions, ÏÏ Î½Î±Î¹ÏμάλÏÏÏÏ Î¼Î¿Ï , ÏÏÎ½Î´Î¿Ï Î»Î¿Î¹ αá½Ïοῦ, ÏÏ Î½ÎÎºÎ´Î·Î¼Î¿Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½, the ÏÏ Î½-commonly refers to the person in the genitive : but see 9:23
* Augustine (De cat. rud. 21) rightly omits the first estis.
* This use of ÏοÏÏÏ is more common in poets than in prose writers. When ÏοÏÏÏ became usual of philosophical wisdom, δεινÏÏ took its place in the sense of skilful. Herodotus (v. xxiii. 3) uses both words of the clever and shrewd Histiaeus. Plato (Politicus 259) defines the�