Bibelkommentare

CHAPTER 3

1 Corinthians 3:1. καὶ ἐγώ] A B C D E F G א, min[437] Clem. Or. Chrys. Damasc. read κἀγώ, which Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Rückert, Tisch. have adopted, and justly, considering the decisive testimony in its favour.

σαρκικοῖς] Griesb. Lachm. Rückert, Tisch. read σαρκίνοις, with A B C* D* א, 67** 71, Clem. Or. Nyss. To be preferred on like grounds as in Romans 7:14. Here the interchange was especially aided by 1 Corinthians 3:3, where, according to the preponderance of evidence, σαρκικ. is the true reading; for the fact that D* F G, Or. Nyss. have σάρκιν. in 1 Corinthians 3:3 also, is simply to be set down as the result of mechanical repetition from 1 Corinthians 3:1, the difference in the sense not being recognised.[438]—1 Corinthians 3:2. οὐδέ] Elz. has οὔτε, in opposition to all the uncials and most Fathers. The former is necessary here (Fritzsche, a[439] Marc. p. 157), but had οὔτε very often substituted for it by the transcribers.

ἜΤΙ] is wanting in B; bracketed by Lachm. But how easily it might fall aside after ΟὐΔΈ through similarity in sound, or on the ground that it might be dispensed with when ΝῦΝ followed!—1 Corinthians 3:3. ΚΑῚ ΔΙΧΟΣΤΑΣΊΑΙ] omitted in A B C א, some min[440] and several vss[441] and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Rückert, and Tisch. Were it genuine, why should it have been left out? An addition by way of gloss (even in texts used by Irenaeus and Cyprian) from Galatians 5:20.—1 Corinthians 3:4. ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟΙ] adopted also by Lachm. Rückert, and Tisch., followed by Ewald, according to almost all the uncials and several vss[442] and Fathers. The Recept[443] ΣΑΡΚΙΚΟΊ, although still defended by Fritzsche and Reiche, is so decidedly condemned by the critical evidence (among the uncials they have only L and א**), that it must be regarded as derived from 1 Corinthians 3:3. ΟὐΧΊ, too, has flowed from the same source, instead of which, ΟὐΚ is to be restored, with Lachm. Rückert, and Tisch., in accordance with A B C א*, 17, Dam.—1 Corinthians 3:5. ΤΊς] Lachm. and Rückert read ΤΊ, with A B א, min[444] Vulg. It. Aeth. and Latin Fathers. The personal names very naturally suggested the masculine to transcribers.

The order Παῦλος … Ἀπολλώς (in Elz. and Scholz) arose from 1 Corinthians 3:4; compare 1 Corinthians 1:12.

Before ΔΙΆΚΟΝΟΙ, Elz. and Tisch. have ἈΛΛʼ Ἤ, which, however, from the decisive weight of testimony against it, must be regarded as an addition to denote the sense: nil nisi.—1 Corinthians 3:12. τοῦτον] is wanting in A B C* א*, Sahid. Ambr. Deleted by Lachm. and Rückert. The omission, however, was easily occasioned by Homoioteleuton, and was aided by the fact that the word could be dispensed with.—1 Corinthians 3:13. τὸ πῦρ] Lachm. Rückert, and Tisch. read τὸ πῦρ αὐτό, with A B C, min[445] Sahid. and several Fathers. Rightly; the αὐτό not being in any way essential was easily disregarded.—1 Corinthians 3:17. τοῦτον] Lachm. and Rückert have αὑτόν, which Griesb. too recommended, with A D E F G, min[446] Syr[447] Arr. Aeth. Arm. Syr. p[448] (on the margin) Vulg. and It. (illum), and Latin Fathers. But, after εἴ τις in the protasis, αὐτόν offered itself in the apodosis as the more common.—1 Corinthians 3:22. ἐστίν] has preponderant evidence against it. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Rückert, and Tisch. A repetition from 1 Corinthians 3:21.

[437] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[438] Fritzsche, indeed (ad Rom. II. p. 46, and de conform. N. T. Lachm. p. 49), holds that the form σάρκινος in this passage, Romans 7:14, and Hebrews 7:16, is an offspring of the transcribers. But it was precisely the other form σαρκικός, so well known and familiar to them, which thrust itself upon the copyists for involuntary or even deliberate adoption. Reiche, in his Comment. crit. I. p. 138, has made the most elaborate defence of the Recepta, and attempted to weaken the force of the evidence on the other side. See the same author, too, on Hebrews 7:16. The most decisive argument from the external evidence against the Recepta is, that precisely the weightiest Codices A B C א, are equally unanimous in reading σάρκινος in ver. 1, and σαρκικοί in ver. 3; and we cannot at all see why the hand of an emendator should have inserted the more classical word only in ver. 1, while leaving the unclassic σαρκικοί in ver. 3. Besides, we have σαρκίναις in 2 Corinthians 3:3, entirely without any various reading σαρκικαῖς, from which we may conclude that the distinction in meaning between the two words was well known to the transcribers.

[439] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[440] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[441] ss. vss. = versions.

[442] ss. vss. = versions.

[443] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[444] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[445] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[446] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[447] yr. Peschito Syriac

[448] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.

1 Corinthians 3:1. Κἀγώ] I also. This also of comparison has its inner ground in the reproach alluded to, that he ought to have taught in a higher strain, and so ought to have delivered to the Corinthians that Θεοῦ σοφίαν spoken of in 1 Corinthians 3:6 f. Even as no other could have done this, so I also could not. There is no reason, therefore, for holding, with de Wette (comp Billroth), that καὶ ὑμῖν would have been a more stringent way of putting it.

ἀλλʼ ὡς σαρκίνοις] namely, had I to speak to you. See Kühner, II. p. 604. Krüger on Thuc. i. 142. 4, and on Xen. Anab. vii. 2. 28. This brevity of expression is zeugmatic. Σάρκινος (see the critical remarks) is: fleshy (2 Corinthians 3:3), not equivalent to σαρκικός, fleshly. See on Romans 7:14. Winer, p. 93 [E. T. 122], and Fritzsche, a[450] Rom. II. p. 46. Here, as in Rom. l.c[451] and Hebrews 7:16 (see Delitzsch in loc[452]), the expression is specially chosen in order to denote more strongly the unspiritual nature: as to fleshy persons, as to those who have as yet experienced so little of the influence of the Holy Spirit, that the σάρξ—i.e. the nature of the natural man, which is opposed since the fall to the Spirit of God, and which, as the seat of the sin-principle and of lust, gives rise to the incapacity to recognise the sway of the Divine Spirit (comp 1 Corinthians 2:14), and to follow the drawing of the νοῦς towards the divine will (Romans 7:18; Romans 7:25), by virtue of the Divine Spirit (see on Romans 4:1; Romans 6:19; Romans 7:14; Romans 8:5 ff.)—seemed to make up their whole being. They were still in too great a measure only “flesh born of the flesh” (John 3:6), and still lay too much, especially in an intellectual relation, under the ἀσθενεία τῆς σαρκός (Romans 6:19), although they might also be in part φυσιούμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτῶν (Colossians 2:18),—so that Paul, in order strongly to express their condition at that time, could call them fleshy. By σάρκινος, therefore, he indicates the unspiritual nature of the Corinthians,—i.e. a nature ruled by the limitations and impulses of the σάρξ, not yet changed by the Holy Spirit,—the nature which they still had when at the stage of their first noviciate in the Christian life. At a later date (see 1 Corinthians 3:3) they appear as still at least σαρκικοί (guiding themselves according to the σάρξ, and disobedient to the πνεῦμα); for although, in connection with continued Christian instruction, they had become more effectually partakers also of the influence of the Divine Spirit, nevertheless,—as their sectarian tendencies (see 1 Corinthians 3:3) gave proof,—they had not so followed this divine principle as to prevent the sensuous nature opposed to it (the σάρξ) from getting the upper hand with them in a moral and intellectual respect, so that they were consequently still κατὰ σάρκα and ἐν σαρκί (Romans 8:5; Romans 8:8), τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς φρονοῦντες (Romans 8:5), κατὰ σάρκα καυχώμενοι (2 Corinthians 11:18), ἐν σοφίᾳ σαρκικῇ (2 Corinthians 1:12), etc. It is therefore with true and delicate acumen that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 3:1 and 1 Corinthians 3:3 these two different expressions each in its proper place, upbraiding his readers, not indeed by the former, but certainly by the latter, with their unspiritual condition.[454] The ethical notions conveyed by the two terms are not the same, but of the same kind; hence ἔτι in 1 Corinthians 3:3 is logically correct (against the objection of de Wette and Reiche).

[450] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[451] .c. loco citato or laudato.

[452] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[454] According to Hofmann,—who, for the rest, defines the two notions with substantial correctness,—the distinction between σάρκινος and σαρκικός answers to that between εἶναι ἐν σαρκί and κατὰ σάρκα, Romans 8:5; Romans 8:8. But the latter two phrases differ from each other, not in their real meaning, but only in the form of representation.—Holsten, too, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 397 f., has in substance hit the true distinction between σάρκινος and σαρκικός.

The difference between σαρκικός (also σάρκινος) and ψυχικός is simply this: ψυχικός is one who has not the Holy Spirit, and stands wholly outside of the sphere of His influence; whether it be that he has never yet received Him and is therefore still in the natural state without Christ (homo naturalis, as in 1 Corinthians 2:14), or that he has been forsaken again by the Spirit (as in Judges 1:19). Σαρκικός, on the other hand, may not merely be predicated of the ψυχικός, who is indeed necessarily σαρκικός, but also (comp Hofmann) of one who has, it is true, received the Holy Spirit and experiences His influence, but is not led by His enlightening and sanctifying efficacy in such a measure as to have overcome the power of sin (Galatians 5:17) which dwells in the σάρξ and sets itself against the Spirit; but, on the contrary, instead of being πνευματικός and, in consequence, living ἐν πνεύματι and being disposed κατὰ πνεῦμα, he is still ἐν σαρκί, and still thinks, judges, is minded and acts κατὰ σάρκα.[456] The ψυχικός is accordingly as such also σαρκικός, but every σαρκικός is not as such still or once more a ψυχικός, not yet having the Spirit, or having lost Him again. The expositors commonly do not enter upon any distinction between σάρκινος and σαρκικός, either (so the majority) reading σαρκικοῖς in 1 Corinthians 3:1 also, or (Rückert, Pott) arbitrarily giving out that the two words are alike in meaning. The distinction between them and ψυχικός also is passed over in utter silence by many (such as Rosenmüller, Flatt, Billroth), while others, in an arbitrary way, make σάρκινος and σαρκικ. sometimes to be milder than ψυχικός (Bengel, Rückert, holding that in σαρκ. there is more of the weakness, in ψυχ. more of the opposition to what is higher), sometimes to be stronger (Osiander; while Theophylact holds the former to be παρὰ φύσιν, the latter κατὰ φύσιν, and the pneumatic ὑπὲρ φύσιν), or sometimes, lastly, refer the latter to the lower intelligence, and the former to the lower moral condition as given up to the desires (Locke, Wolf, and others).

ὡς νηπίοις ἐν Χριστῷ] statement justifying the foregoing ὡς σαρκ. by setting forth the character of their Christian condition as it had been at that time to which οὐκ ἠδυνήθην κ.τ.λ[457] looks back. The phrase denotes those who, in their relation to Christ (in Christianity), are still children under age, i.e. mere beginners. The opposite is τέλειοι ἐν Χ., Colossians 1:28. See, regarding the analogous use in Rabbinical writers of תינוקות (sugentes), Schoettgen in loc[458]; Wetstein on 1 Peter 2:2; Lightfoot, Hor. p. 162; and for that of קטנים, Wetstein on Matthew 10:42. Before baptism a man is yet without connection with Christ, but through baptism he enters into this fellowship, and is now, in the first instance, a νήπιος ἐν Χριστῷ, i.e. an infans as yet in relation to Christianity, who as such receives the elementary instruction suitable for him (the γάλα of 1 Corinthians 3:2). The εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, on the other hand, which leads on to baptism, is preparatory, giving rise to faith, and forming the medium through which their calling takes place; and accordingly it has not yet to do with νήπιοι ἐν Χριστῷ. The inference is a mistaken one, therefore (on the part of Rückert), that Paul has in mind here a second residence in Corinth not recorded in the Acts. His readers could not understand this passage, any more than 1 Corinthians 2:1, otherwise than of the apostle’s first arrival, of the time, consequently, in which he founded the Corinthian church, when he instructed those who gave ear to his ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ in the elements of Christianity.

By ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ is expressed the specific field to which the notion of ΝΗΠΙΌΤΗς is confined; viewed apart from Christ, he, who as a new convert is yet a νήπιος, may be an adult, or an old man, Comp on Colossians 1:28.

[456] Ewald says truly, that the strict distinction between spiritual and fleshly came in first with Christianity itself. But so, too, the sharply-defined notion of the ψυχικός could only be brought out by the contrast of Christianity, because it is the opposite of the πνευματικός, and cannot therefore occupy a middle place between two former notions.

[457] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[458] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

1 Corinthians 3:1-4. Application of the foregoing section (1 Corinthians 2:6-16) to the Apostle’s relation to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 3:2. Keeping to the same figure (comp Hebrews 5:12; Philo, de agric. p. 301), he designates as γάλα: τὴν εἰσαγωγικὴν καὶ ἁπλουστέραν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διδασκαλίαν (Basil. Hom. I. p. 403, ed. Paris. 1638), see Hebrews 5:12; Hebrews 6:1 f., and as βρῶμα: the further and higher instruction, the σοφία, which, as distinguished from the γνῶσιν τὴν ἐκ κατηχήσεως (Clemens Alexandrinus), is taught among the τέλειοι (1 Corinthians 6:6 ff.). Comp Suicer, Thes. I. p. 721, 717. Wetstein in loc[462]

As regards the zeugma (comp Homer, Il. viii. 546; Odyssey, xx. 312; Hesiod. Theog. 640), see Bremi, a[464] Lys. Exc. III. p. 437 f.; Winer, p. 578 [E. T. 777]; Kühner, a[465] Xen. Anab. iv. 5. 8; also Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 179, ed. 3.

ἐδύνασθε] Ye were not yet strong and vigorous. What weakness is meant, the context shows: in the figure, that of the body; in its application, that of the mind and spirit. Comp regarding this absolute use of δύναμαι, δυνατός κ.τ.λ[467] (which makes any supplementing of it by ἘΣΘΊΕΙΝ ΒΡῶΜΑ and the like quite superfluous), Dem. 484, 25, 1187, 8; Aesch. p. 40. 39; Plato, Men. p. 77 B, Prot. p. 326 C; Xen. Anab. iv. 5. 11, vii. 6. 37; 1Ma 5:41; Schaefer, a[468] Bos. Ell. p. 267 ff.

ἈΛΛʼ ΟὐΔῈ ἜΤΙ ΝῦΝ ΔΎΝ.] ἈΛΛʼ ΟὐΔΈ, yea, not even. See Fritzsche, a[469] Marc. p. 157. Herm. a[470] Eurip. Suppl. 121, Add. 975. That Paul, notwithstanding of this remark, does give a section of the higher wisdom in chap. 15, is to be explained from the apologetic destination of that chapter (1 Corinthians 15:12), which did not allow him to treat the subject in an elementary style. There is no self-contradiction here, but an exception demanded by the circumstances. For the profound development of the doctrine of the resurrection in chap. 15 belonged really to the βρῶμα (comp 1 Corinthians 2:9), and rises high above that elementary teaching concerning the resurrection, with which every Jew was acquainted, and which Paul himself so often gave without thereby speaking ἘΝ ΤΕΛΕΊΟΙς, whence also it is rightly placed in Hebrews 6:1 among the first rudiments of Christian doctrine.

[462] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[464] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[465] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[467] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[468] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[469] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[470] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

1 Corinthians 3:3. Σαρκικοί] see on 1 Corinthians 3:1.

ὅπου] equivalent seemingly to quandoquidem (see Vigerus, ed. Herm. 431); but the conditioning state of things is locally conceived. Comp Hebrews 9:16; Hebrews 10:18; 4Ma 2:14; 4Ma 6:34; 4Ma 14:11; Plato, Tim. p. 86 E; the passages from Xenophon cited by Sturz. III. p. 307; Herod. i. 68; Thuc. viii. 27. 2, viii. 96. 1; Isocrates, Paneg. 186.

ζῆλος] Jealousy.

κατὰ ἄνθρ.] after the fashion of men. Comp on Romans 3:5; often, too, in classical writers, e.g. κατʼ ἄνθρ. φρονεῖν (Soph. Aj. 747, 764). The contrast here is to the mode of life conformed to the Divine Spirit; hence not different from κατὰ σάρκα in Romans 8:4.

Respecting the relation to each other of the three words ΖῆΛ., ἜΡ., ΔΙΧΟΣΤ., see Theophylact: ΠΑΤῊΡ ΓᾺΡ Ὁ ΖῆΛΟς Τῆς ἜΡΙΔΟς, ΑὝΤΗ ΔῈ ΤᾺς ΔΙΧΟΣΤΑΣΊΑς ΓΕΝΝᾷ.

On ΑὐΧΊ comp Bengel: “nam Spiritus non fert studium partium human-arum.” On the contrary, ζῆλος Κ.Τ.Λ[475] are ranked expressly among the ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, Galatians 5:20.

[475] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1 Corinthians 3:4. Γάρ] explanatory by exhibiting the state of contention in concreto.

ἄνθρ.] with a pregnant emphasis: are ye not men? i.e. according to the context: are ye not persons, who are absorbed in the unspiritual natural ways of men—in whose thoughts and strivings the divine element of life is awanting? Comp Xen. Anab. vi. 1, 26: ἄνθρωπός εἰμι (I am a weak, fallible man). What determines the shade of meaning in such cases is lot anything in the word itself, but the connection. Comp 1 Peter 4:2. The specific reference here has its basis in the preceding κατὰ ἄνθρωπον περιπατεῖτε, hence there is no ground for rejecting the reading ἄνθρωποι, with Fritzsche (de conform. N. T. Lachm. p. 48), as a lectio insulsa (comp also Reiche), or for misinterpreting it, with Hofmann, into “that they are surely men at all events and nothing less.” This latter rendering brings in the idea, quite foreign to this passage, of the dignity of man, and that in such a way as if the interrogative apodosis were adversative (ἀλλʼ οὐκ or οὐ μέντοι).

It may be added that Paul names only the two parties: ἐγὼ … Παύλου and ἐγὼ Ἀπολλώ, not giving an imperfect enumeration for the sake of the μετασχηματισμός which follows (1 Corinthians 4:6—so, arbitrarily, de Wette and others), but because in this section of the Epistle he has to do just with the antagonism of the Apollos-party to himself and to those who, against his will, called themselves after him; hence also he makes the μετασχηματισμός, in 1 Corinthians 4:6, with reference to himself and Apollos alone.

ἐγὼ μέν] This μέν does not stand in a logical relation to the following δέ. An inexactitude arising from the lively way in which thought follows thought, just as in classical writers too, from a like reason, there is often a want of exactly adjusted correspondence between μέν and δέ (Breitenbach, a[479] Xen. Hier. i. 9; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 168 f.).

[479] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

1 Corinthians 3:5. Οὖν] Now, igitur, introduces the question as an inference from the state of party-division just referred to, so that the latter is seen to be the presupposition on which the question proceeds. See Klotz, a[480] Devar. p. 719: “Such being the state of things, I am forced to propound the question,” etc. Rückert thinks that Paul makes his readers ask: But now, if Paul and Apollos are not our heads, what are they then? Paul, however, is in the habit of indicating counter-questions expressly as such (1 Corinthians 15:35; Romans 9:19, al[481]).

τί] more significant than τίς; comp 1 Corinthians 3:7. The question is, what, as respects their position, are they? Comp Plato, Rep. p. 332 E, 341 D.

διάκονοι] They are servants, and therefore not fitted and destined to be heads of parties; ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ δεσπότης, ἡμεῖς ἐκείνου δοῦλοι, Theodoret.

διʼ ὧν] “per quos, non in quos,” Bengel. Comp John 1:7. They are but causae ministeriales in the hand of God.

ἐπιστεύσ.] as in 1 Corinthians 15:2; 1 Corinthians 15:11; Romans 13:11.[485]

καί] and that. καὶ … ἔδωκεν is not to be joined with 1 Corinthians 3:6 (Mosheim, Markland, a[486] Lys. XII. p. 560 f.), seeing that in 1 Corinthians 3:7 no regard is paid to this καὶ … ἔδωκεν.

ἑκάστῳ ὡς] the emphasis is on ἑκάστ., as in 1 Corinthians 7:17 and Romans 12:3.

ὁ Κύριος] correlative to the διάκονοι, is here God, not Christ (Theophylact; also Rückert, who appeals to Ephesians 4:7; Ephesians 4:11], as what follows—in particular 1 Corinthians 3:9-10—proves. Comp 2 Corinthians 6:4.

As respects the ἀλλʼ ἤ of the Textus receptus: nisi (which makes the question continue to the end of the verse; comp Sir 22:12), see on Luke 12:51; 2 Corinthians 1:13.

[480] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[481] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[485] Ye have become believers, which is to be understood here in a relative sense, both as respected the beginning and the furtherance of faith. See ver. 6. The becoming a believer comprehends different stages of development. Comp. John 2:11; John 11:15[486] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

1 Corinthians 3:5-15. Discussion of the position occupied by the two teachers: The two have no independent merit whatsoever (1 Corinthians 3:5-7); each will receive his reward according to his own work (1 Corinthians 3:8-9); and, more especially, a definitive recompense in the future, according to the quality of his work, awaits the teacher who carries on the building upon the foundation already laid (1 Corinthians 3:10-15). The aim this discussion is stated in 1 Corinthians 4:6.

1 Corinthians 3:6-7. Statement of the difference in the διακονία of the two, and of the success of the ministry of both as dependent upon God, so that no one at all had any independent standing, but only God. Therewith Paul proceeds to point out the impropriety of the party-relation which men had taken up towards the two teachers.

ἐφύτευσα κ.τ.λ[489]] We are not to suppose the object left indefinite (de Wette); on the contrary, it emerges out of διʼ ὧν ἐπιστεύσατε, 1 Corinthians 3:5, namely: the faith of the Corinthian community. This is conceived of as a tree (comp Plato, Phaedr. p. 276 E) which was planted by Paul, inasmuch as he first brought the Corinthians to believe and founded the church; but watered[491] by Apollos, inasmuch as he had subsequently exerted himself in the way of confirming and developing the faith of the church, and for the increase of its numbers; and lastly, blessed with growth by God, inasmuch as it was under His influence (τῆς γὰρ αὐτοῦ χάριτος τὸ κατόρθωμα, Theodoret) that the work of both had success and prospered. This making it to grow is the effect of grace, without which the “granum a primo sationis momento esset instar lapilli,” Bengel. Comp Acts 16:14; Acts 14:27; 1 Corinthians 15:10.

ἐστί τι] may be taken to mean: is anything of importance, anything worth speaking of (Acts 5:36; Galatians 2:6; Galatians 6:3. Plato, Phaedr. p. 242 E, Gorg. p. 472 A, Symp. p. 173 B; Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 12). It is more in accordance, however, with the decided tone of hostility to all human estimation which marks the whole context to take τι in quite a general sense (comp 1 Corinthians 10:19), so that of both in and by themselves (in comparison with God) it is said: they are nothing.

ἀλλʼ ὁ αὐξ. Θεός] sc[494] τὰ πάντα ἐστι (1 Corinthians 15:28; Colossians 3:11), which, according to the apostle’s intention, is to be drawn from what has been already said. An abbreviated form of the contrast, with which comp 1 Corinthians 7:19, and see generally Kühner, II. p. 604; Stallbaum, a[496] Rep. p. 366 D, 561 B. Theophylact says well: διδάξας, ὅτι Θεῷ δεῖ μόνῳ προσέχειν, καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἀνατιθέναι πάντα τὰ συμβαίνοντα ἀγαθά.

[489] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[491] Augustine, Ep. 48, and several of the Fathers make ἐπότισεν refer in a totally inappropriate way to baptism.

[494] c. scilicet.

[496] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

1 Corinthians 3:8-9. The planter, on the other hand, and the waterer are one: each of them, however (and here we pass on to the new point of the recompense of the teachers), will receive his own reward, etc.

ἕν εἰσιν] the one is not something other than the other, generically as respects a relation defined in the text (1 Corinthians 11:5; John 10:30; John 17:11; John 17:21), here: in so far as both are of one and the same official character, namely, as workers in the service of God. Theodoret: κατὰ τὴν ὑπουργίαν.

ἕκαστος δὲ κ.τ.λ[497]] ΠΡῸς ΓᾺΡ ΤῸ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ἜΡΓΟΝ ΠΑΡΑΒΑΛΛΌΜΕΝΟΙ ἝΝ ΕἸΣΙΝ· ἘΠΕῚ ΠΌΝΩΝ ἝΝΕΚΕΝ (i.e. in respect of the pains and labour expended) οὐκ εἰσὶν, ἀλλὰ ἕκαστος Κ.Τ.Λ[498], Chrysostom.

ἴδιον] both times with emphasis. Bengel puts it happily: “congruens iteratio; antitheton ad unum.” The λήψεται, however, refers to the recompense at the last judgment, 1 Corinthians 3:13 ff.—1 Corinthians 3:9 gives now the proof, not for both halves of 1 Corinthians 3:8, of which the first has been already disposed of in the preceding statement (in opposition to Hofmann), but for the new thought ἕκαστος … κόπον introduced by δέ. The emphasis of proof lies wholly on the word thrice put foremost, Θεοῦ. For since it is God whose helpers we are (“eximium elogium ministerii,” Calvin), God whose tillage-field, God whose building ye are: therefore it cannot be otherwise than that that ἕκαστος … κόπον must hold good, and none lack his reward according to his labour (“secundum laborem, non propter laborem,” Calovius).

Θεοῦ συνεργοί] for we, your teachers, labour with God, the supreme Lord and Fosterer of the church, at one work, which is simply the furtherance of the church. The explanation: workers who work with each other for God’s cause (Estius by way of suggestion, Bengel, Flatt, Heydenreich, Olshausen), is linguistically erroneous (see 1 Thessalonians 3:2; Romans 16:3; Romans 16:9; Romans 16:21; Php 2:25; Php 4:3; 2 Corinthians 1:24; 2Ma 14:5; Plato, Def. p. 414 A; Dem. 68. 27, 884. 2; Plut. Per. 31; Bernhardy, p. 171; Kühner, II. p. 172), and fails to appreciate that lofty conception of a δοῦλος Θεοῦ.

Θεοῦ γεώργ. and Θεοῦ οἰκ. set before us the Corinthian church, in so far as it is the object of the ministerial service of Christian teachers, under the twofold image of a field for tillage (γεώργ., Strabo, xiv. p. 671; Theag. in Schol. on Pind. Nem. iii. 21; Proverbs 24:30; Proverbs 31:16), which belongs to God and is cultivated, and as a building belonging to God (Ephesians 2:21), which is being carried up to completion.

[497] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[498] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.