聖書注解書

第2章

コリント第一 2:1. μαρτύριον] A C א* 小文字写本〔301〕シリア語〔302〕コプト語および一部の教父たち：ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ。グリースバッハとエヴァルトにより承認され、リュッケルトによっても採用。コリント第一 2:7から欄外に書かれた注釈。ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝがコリント第一 1:6から紛れ込んだとすれば、それを持つ証人たちはΤ. ΘΕΟῦの代わりにΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦと読むはずである。しかしこれはごくわずかな証人にのみ見られ、その一部はさらにΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝを持つ。——コリント第一 2:2. ΤῚ ΕἸΔΈΝΑΙ] エルゼビアはΤΟῦ ΕἸΔΈΝΑΙ ΤΙ。しかしΤΟῦは決定的な証人たちに欠ける。ΤΙが最初に置かれるべきことはB C 小文字写本〔303〕バシレイオス、キュリロス、イシドロス、クリソストム、ヒラリウス、ウィクトリヌス、アウグスティヌス、またD E（τὶ ἐν ὑμῖν εἰδέναιを持つ）によって確実とされる。ここでは外的証拠が決定しなければならない。——コリント第一 2:3. ΚΑῚ ἘΓΏ] ラハマンとリュッケルトはΚἈΓΏと読む。A B C א 小文字写本〔304〕オリゲン、バシレイオス他〔305〕とともに。コリント第一 2:1から取られた。——コリント第一 2:4. ΠΕΙΘΟῖςの後、エルゼビアはἈΝΘΡΩΠΊΝΗςを持つが、圧倒的な証拠に反する。コリント第一 2:5、コリント第一 2:13からの付加。ハイデンライヒ〔Heydenreich〕の根拠のないこの語の擁護に対する答えとして、ライヒェ、Comment. crit. I. p. 134を見よ。

πειθοῖςを変更する読み（ΠΕΙΘΟῖ: 1, 18*, 48, 他〔306〕オリゲン、エウセビオス他〔307〕。ΠΕΙΘΑΝΟῖς, マカリオス）およびΛΌΓΟΙςを省略する（F G, 74, 他〔308〕アフリカ語、ベルン写本、アンブロシアステルス、セドゥリウス）あるいは変更する（ΛΌΓΩΝ: シリア語〔309〕アルメニア語、オリゲン二度、および他の多く。ΛΌΓΟΝ）読みは、ΠΕΙΘΟῖςを理解することに失敗した古い手段であり、またἘΝ ΠΕΙΘΟ͂ ΣΟΦΊΑςの短い読みも同様に説明されなければならない。解釈的注釈およびライヒェ、p. 133を見よ。——コリント第一 2:7. ΘΕΟῦ ΣΟΦΊΑΝの語順（エルゼビアとマッテイは逆にする）は決定的に証明されており、コリント第一 2:10のἈΠΕΚΆΛ. Ὁ ΘΕΌςの語順も同様である。——コリント第一 2:9. 二番目のἍの代わりに、ラハマンとティッシェンドルフはὍΣΑを持つ。A B Cといくつかの教父たちとともに〔310〕。正しく。ἅは前からの機械的繰り返しである。——コリント第一 2:10. δέの代わりにティッシェンドルフはγάρと読む。B 小文字写本〔311〕コプト語、サイード語、クレメンスによってのみ支持される。

αὐτοῦ] はA B C א、コプト語、クレメンス、バシレイオス、キュリロスに欠ける。ラハマンとリュッケルトによって削除される。しかし続く独立したτὸ γὰρ πνεῦμαを考慮すると、αὐτοῦを省略するか、あるいはἁγίουを加える（ディディモスのように）方が、αὐτοῦを挿入するよりも自然であったであろう。——コリント第一 2:11. ἔγνωκενは、圧倒的な証拠に従い、グリースバッハにより承認され、ラハマン、ティッシェンドルフ、リュッケルトによって採用される。しかしエルゼビア、マッテイ、ショルツはοἶδενを持つ。前のοἶδενの機械的あるいは注釈的な繰り返し。ἔγνωκενを支持するには、F G、23および教父たちにおけるἔγνωの読みもある。——コリント第一 2:13. πνεύματος] エルゼビアはἁγίουを加えるが、決定的な反対証拠がある。不要で弱める限定。——コリント第一 2:15. ἀνακρ.の後のエルゼビアとショルツのμέν（ラハマン、ティッシェンドルフ、リュッケルトによって削除）はA C D* F G、17および多くの訳本〔312〕と教父たちに欠ける。後に続くδέから生じた。א*では節全体がホモイオテウトン（類語尾）によって省略されている。א**はμένを持つ。

τὰ πάντα] リュッケルトとティッシェンドルフも同様。ラハマンはτάを括弧に入れる。エルゼビアとショルツは単にπάνταを持つ。しかしτάはA C D 小文字写本〔313〕アイルランド写本、オリゲン、ニュッサのグレゴリオス、クリソストムによって証明される。πάνταは後に続くοὐδενόςに対応させるために男性を持ち込むことを目的とした古いテキスト修正である。それゆえディディモスとテオドレトはπάνταςを持つ。——コリント第一 2:16. Χριστοῦ] ラハマンはΚυρίουを持つ。B D* F G、テオフィラクトス、アンブロシアステルス、アウグスティヌス、セドゥリウスとともに。前のΚυρίουの機械的繰り返し。Κυρίουが本来の読みで注釈によって説明されたとすれば、その代わりはΧριστοῦではなくΘεοῦであったはずである。すべての欄外注釈者はイザヤ 40:13から前のΚυρίουが神を指すことを知っていたはずだからである。

[301] min. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing.（小文字写本）

[302] yr. Peschito Syriac（ペシッタ・シリア語訳）

[303] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing.（小文字写本）

[304] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing.（小文字写本）

[305] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.（他、および他の箇所、他の版）

[306] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.（他、および他の箇所、他の版）

[307] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.（他、および他の箇所、他の版）

[308] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.（他、および他の箇所、他の版）

[309] yr. Peschito Syriac（ペシッタ・シリア語訳）

[310] クレメンスもCor. I. 34においてὅσαを持つ。これが彼の引用から使徒の引用に持ち込まれた（ホフマン）のではない。写士たちの逆の手続きの方がむしろ自然と思われる。

[311] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing.（小文字写本）

[312] SS. vss. = versions.（訳本）

[313] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing.（小文字写本）

1 Corinthians 2:1. Κἀγώ] I too, as is the duty, in accordance with the previous explanation (1 Corinthians 1:17-31), of every preacher of the gospel. The construction is such, that καθʼ ὑπεροχὴν κ.τ.λ[314] belongs to ΚΑΤΑΓΓ., as indicating the mode adopted in the ΚΑΤΑΓΓΈΛΛΕΙΝ: I too, when I came to you, brethren, came proclaiming to you, not upon the footing of a pre-eminence of speech (eloquence) or wisdom (philosophy), the testimony of God. Against connecting the words it this way (which is done also by Castalio, Bengel, and others, Pott, Heydenreich, Schrader, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald), it is objected that ἐλθὼν ἦλθον gives an intolerable tautology. But this is of no weight (see the passages in Bernhardy, p. 475; Bornemann, a[315] Cyrop. v. 3. 2; Sauppe, a[316] Anab. iv. 2. 21 comp on Acts 7:34), and would, besides, apply to the construction ἮΛΘΟΝ Οὐ … ΣΟΦΊΑς, ΚΑΤΑΓΓΈΛΛΩΝ (Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, and others, including Flatt, Rückert, Hofmann); further, it is more natural and more in accordance with the sense to think in connection with ΚΑΘʼ ὙΠΕΡΟΧῊΝ Κ.Τ.Λ[318] of the manner of the preaching than of the manner of the coming. For that reason, too, ἦλθον is not placed after σοφίας. The preposition κατά, again, to express mode (Winer, p. 375 [E. T. 501]), is quite according to rule; comp καθʼ ὑπερβολήν, κατὰ κράτος, and the like.

As to ὑπεροχή, eminentia, comp 1 Timothy 2:2; Plat. Legg. iv. p. 711 D; Def. 416; Arist. Pol. iv. 9. 5. Also κακῶν ὑπεροχή, 2Ma 13:6.

καταγγέλλων] Paul might have used the future, but the present participle places the thing more vividly before us as already begun with the ἦλθον. So especially often ἀγγέλλων (Valck. a[321] Phoen. 1082); e.g. Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 29: ἐς τὰς Ἀθήνας ἔπλευσεν, ἀγγέλλουσα τὰ γεγονότα, Plat. Phaed. p. 116 C, and Stallbaum in loc[322] See, in general, Winer, p. 320 f. [E. T. 429 f.]; Dissen, a[323] Pindar. Ol. vii. 14.

τὸ μαρτύρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ] in substance not different from τ. μαρτ. τ. Χριστοῦ, 1 Corinthians 1:6; 2 Timothy 1:8. For the preachers of the gospel give testimony of God, as to what He has done, namely, in Christ for the salvation of men. Comp 1 Corinthians 15:15. In accordance with 1 Corinthians 1:6, the genitive is not, with Calvin, Bengel, Osiander, and Hofmann, to be taken subjectively, as in 1 John 5:9 f.

[314] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

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

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

[318] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 2:1-5. Application of the foregoing section (1 Corinthians 1:17-31) to the manner in which Paul had come forward as a teacher in Corinth.

1 Corinthians 2:2. For I did not resolve (did not set it before me as part of my undertaking) to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and that the crucified, i.e. to mix up other kinds of knowledge with the proclamation of Jesus Christ, etc.[325] Had Paul not disdained this and not put aside all other knowledge, his καταγγέλλειν would not have remained free from ὑπεροχὴ λόγου ἢ σοφίας. The ordinary reference of the negation to τι: I resolved to know nothing, etc., is in arbitrary opposition to the words (so, however, Pott, Flatt, Rückert, Osiander, Ewald). In ἔκρινα Calvin and Grotius find too much, since the text does not give it: magnum duxi; Hofmann again, too little, with Luther and others: I judged, was of opinion; for Paul could indeed discard and negative in his own case the undertaking to know something, but not the judgment that he did know something. His self-determination was, not to be directed to know, etc. Comp 1 Corinthians 7:37; 2 Corinthians 2:1; Romans 14:13; Κρῖναί τι καὶ προθέσθαι, Polyb. iii. 6. 7; Wis 8:9; 1Ma 11:33; 2Ma 6:14, al[327] He might have acted otherwise, had he proposed to himself to do so.

τὶ εἰδέναι] πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν τῆς ἔξωθεν εἴρηται σοφίας· οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον συλλογισμοὺς πλέκων, οὐδὲ σοφίσματα, οὐδʼ ἄλλο τι λέγων ὑμῖν, ἢ ὅτι ὁ Χριστὸς ἐσταυρώθη, Chrysostom. But the giving up of everything else is far more powerfully expressed by εἰδέναι (comp Arrian, Epict. ii. 1) than if Paul had said λέγειν or λαλεῖν. He was not disposed, when among the Corinthians, to be conscious of anything else but Christ. The notion of permission (Rückert), which might be conveyed in the relation of the infinitive to the verb (see Lobeck, a[329] Phryn. p. 753; Kühner, a[330] Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 1; Anab. v. 7. 34), would here only weaken the force of the statement. Were τοῦ εἰδέναι τι the correct reading (but see the critical remarks), the right rendering of the genitive would not be: so that (Billroth), but: I made no resolution, in order to know anything. Comp on Acts 27:1.

κ. τοῦτ. ἐσταυρ.] notwithstanding the offence therein implied for Jew and Gentile, 1 Corinthians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 1:23. Comp Galatians 6:14.

[325] Causaubon remarks well, that Ἰησ. x. refers to the person, and κ. τοῦτ. ἐσταυρ. to the officium, and “in his duobus totum versatur evangelium.” But the strong emphasis on the latter point arises from looking back to 1 Corinthians 1:17-24.

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 2:3-4. After the probative sentence, 1 Corinthians 2:2, Paul takes up again the connection of 1 Corinthians 2:1, and that with the simple καί: And I for my part (with others it may have been different!) fell into weakness and into much fear and trembling among you (πρὸς ὑμ.; see on John 1:1).

γίγνεσθαι ἐν, to fall into a state, etc. (and to be in it); so Thuc. i. 78. 1; Plato, Prot. p. 314 C; Dem. p. 179, ult. Comp Luke 22:44; 1Ma 1:27; 2Ma 7:9; Hist. Sus. 8. We might also join πρὸς ὑμᾶς to ἐγενόμην, not, indeed, in the way in which Hofmann interprets it, as if for ἐγενόμην there stood ἤμην (Mark 14:49), but in the sense: I arrived among you (2 John 1:12, and see generally, Fritzsche, Ind. ad Lucian. Dial. Deor. p. 85; Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 295, ed. 3); 1 Corinthians 2:4, however, shows that what is here spoken of is not again (1 Corinthians 2:1) the coming thither, but the state when there.

The three phrases, ἀσθ., φόβος, and τρόμος, depict the deep bashfulness with which Paul was in Corinth, through his humble sense of the disproportion between his own powers and the great enterprise to which his conscientiousness kept him bound. In facing it he felt himself very weak, and was in fear and trembling. As for want of natural strength of will and determination, of which Hofmann speaks, there were no signs of anything of the kind in Paul, even judging from his experience at Athens; and no such weakness betrays itself in Acts 18:4-11. The connection forbids us from thinking, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, and others, of the sufferings and persecutions (ἀσθ.), and of the apprehension of dangers, which he had to undergo in Corinth; for the text hints nothing of persecutions and dangers, and these would not necessarily furnish the motive for simplicity in preaching (1 Corinthians 2:1; 1 Corinthians 2:4 f.), nay, might even excite to the greater rhetorical exertion. The weakness, etc., was of a deep ethical nature, being based on the entire renunciation of human wisdom and strength (1 Corinthians 2:5). Other exegetes wrongly understand ἀσθενεία even of bodily weakness, either generally sickliness (Rückert), or more especially weakness in the chest and voice (Storr, comp Rosenmüller).

φόβος κ. τρόμος] always denote with Paul (comp also Psalm 2:11) the deeply vivid and keen apprehension of humility, lest it should be unable to meet the emergency concerned. See 2 Corinthians 7:15; Php 2:12; Ephesians 6:5.

ὁ λόγος μου κ. τ. κήρυγμά μου] are indeed emphatically separated from each other by the repetition of the μου; but it is an arbitrary distinction to make the former of the two refer to the form, the latter to the contents (Heydenreich), or the former to the privata, the latter to the publica institutio (so Rückert and the majority of commentators). The former is the more general expression, the latter the particular: my speech generally (comp 2 Corinthians 10:10), and especially my public preaching.

οὐκ ἐν πειθοῖς σοφ. λόγοις] sc[337] ἦν, non versabatur in, did not move in the element of persuasive words of wisdom, such words as are philosophically arranged and thereby fitted to persuade. Πειθός is found nowhere else in the whole range of extant Greek literature, πιθανός being the word in use (Xen. Cyr. vi. 4. 5; Thuc. iv. 21; Dem. 928. 14; Josephus, Antt. viii. 9; and the passages from Plato in Ast, Lex. III. p. 102. Meineke, Menand. p. 222). Πειθός, however, is formed from πείθω by correct analogy as φειδός from φείδομαι, etc. Comp Salmasius, de ling. Hellenist, p. 86; Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 136 f. It was in all likelihood an adjective belonging only to the colloquial language of common life. Kypke, indeed (Obss. II. p. 193), would find some trace of it in Plato, Gorg. p. 493 A; but what we have there is a play on the words τὸ πιθανόν and πίθος, a cask, which has no connection whatever with πειθός. Pasor and Schrader make πειθοῖς to be the dative plural of πειθώ, suada, and what follows to be in apposition to it: in persuasions, in words of wisdom. But the plural of πειθώ also has no existence; and how abrupt such an apposition would be, as well as wholly at variance with the parallel in 1 Corinthians 2:13! The following are simply conjectures (comp the critical remarks): Beza and Erasmus Schmid (after Eusebius), ἐν πειθοῖ σοφίας λόγων; Grotius, ἐν πιστοῖς κ.τ.λ[340]; Valckenaer, Klose, and Kühn (Commentat. a[341] 1 Cor. ii. 1–5, Lips. 1784), ἐν πιθανοῖς or ΠΕΙΘΑΝΟῖς Κ.Τ.Λ[342] (comp also Alberti, Schediasm. p. 105); Alberti, ἐν πειθοῦς (suadae) σ. λόγοις, or (so, too, Semler, Flatt, Rinck, Fritzsche in the Hall. Lit. Zeit. 1840, Nr. 100) ἐν πειθοῖ σοφίας (without λόγοις).

ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος κ. δυνάμεως] Without there being any necessity for explaining the two genitives by a ἓν διὰ δυοῖν as equivalent to πνεύματος δυνατοῦ (so still Pott, Flatt, Billroth, Olshausen, Maier, with older expositors), the meaning may, according to our interpretation of ἀπόδειξις and to our taking the genitives in an objective or subjective sense, be either: so that I evinced Spirit and power (so Vatablus and others, with Pott and Billroth); or: so that Spirit and power made themselves known through me (Calvin: “in Pauli ministerio … quasi nuda Dei manus se proferebat”); or: so that Spirit and power gave the proof (Rückert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, and Maier, following older commentators). The latter is most in keeping with the purposely-chosen expression ἀπόδειξις (found here only in the N. T.; Dem. 326. 4; Plato, Phaed. p. 77 C, Theaet. p. 162 E, and often; 3Ma 4:20), and with the significant relation to οὐκ ἐν πειθοῖς σ. λόγοις. Paul means the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:10 ff.) and the divine power communicating itself therein, 1 Corinthians 2:5 (Romans 1:16; 2 Corinthians 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 1:5), which wrought through his preaching upon the minds of men, persuading them of its truth,—the testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum.[344] At variance with the text is the view of several of the older expositors (following Origen, contra Celsum, i. p. 5), who refer πνεύματος to the oracles of the O. T., and δυνάμ. to the miracles of the apostle; as well as the view of Grotius, that the former applies to the prophecies, and the latter to the cures, by means of which Paul had given the ἀπόδειξις.

[337] c. scilicet.

[340] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

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

[342] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[344] Theophylact is right in supposing as regards πνεύματος: ἀῤῥήτῳ τινὶ τρόπῳ πίστιν ἐνεποίει τοῖς ἀκούουσι. He makes δυνάμεως, however, apply to the miracles, as does Theodoret also, who takes the two elements together, and explains the clause of the θαυματουργία τοῦ πνεύματος. So, too, in substance, Chrysostom, according to whom it is by πνεύματος that the miracles are made to appear as true miracles.

1 Corinthians 2:5. Aim of the divine leading, the organ of which the apostle knew himself to be, in what is set forth in 1 Corinthians 2:4 : in order that your faith (in Christ) may be based, have its causal ground (comp Bernhardy, p. 210), not on man’s wisdom, but on God’s power (which has brought conviction to you through my speech and preaching). That ἵνα introduces not his own (Hofmann), but the divine purpose, is clear from ἐν ἀποδείξει κ.τ.λ[346], in which Paul has stated how God had wrought through him. Comp ἽΝΑ in 1 Corinthians 1:31.

[346] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1 Corinthians 2:6. Wisdom, nevertheless (unphilosophical as my discourse among you was), we deliver among the perfect.

λαλοῦμεν] we speak it out, hold it not back. That the plural does not refer to Paul alone (so usually), but to the apostolic teachers in general, is clear from the καὶ ἐγώ in 1 Corinthians 3:1, which introduces the particular application of the plural statement here.

ἐν means nothing else than in, surrounded by, among, coram; λαλεῖν ἐν corresponds to the λαλεῖν with the dative in 1 Corinthians 3:1. We must therefore reject not only the rendering for the perfect (Flatt, with older expositors), which is in itself linguistically untenable (for even in such passages as those cited by Bernhardy, p. 212, the local force of ἐν should be retained), but also the explanation: according to the judgment of the perfect (Grotius, Tittmann, de Spir. Dei mysterior. div. interprete, Lips. 1814, in the Syn. N. T. p. 285), which would have to be referred, with Billroth, to the conception of among, since the corresponding usage of ἐν ἐμοί, ἐν σοί, in the sense, according to my or thy view, applies exclusively to these particular phrases (Bernhardy, p. 211).

The τέλειοι (comp on Ephesians 4:13), who stand in contrast to the ΝΉΠΙΟΙ ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ, are those who have penetrated beyond the position of beginners in Christian saving knowledge to the higher sphere of thorough and comprehensive insight. The σοφία, which is delivered to these, is the Christian analogue to philosophy in the ordinary sense of the word, the higher religious wisdom of Christianity, the presentation of which (1 Corinthians 12:8) is not yet appropriate for the beginners in the faith (1 Corinthians 3:1-2). The form of this instruction was that of spiritual discourse (1 Corinthians 2:13) framed under the influence of the holy πνεῦμα, but independent of the teachings of philosophic rhetoric; and its matter was the future relations of the Messianic kingdom (1 Corinthians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 2:12) in their connection with the divine counsel of redemption and its fulfilment in Christ, the μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν (Matthew 13:11),—that, which no eye hath seen, etc. Comp Bab. Sanhedr. f. xcix. 1 : “Quod ad mundum futurum: oculus non vidit, O Deus, praeter te.” The definitions now given[350] respecting the σοφία Θεοῦ are the only ones that neither go beyond the text, nor are in the least degree arbitrary, while they comprehend also the doctrine of the κτίσις as regards its Messianic final destination, Romans 8,—that highest analogue to the philosophy of nature. It may be gathered, however, with certainty from 1 Corinthians 3:1-2, that we are not to think here of any disciplina arcani. With the main point in our view as a whole,—namely, that σοφία denotes that higher religious wisdom, and τέλειοι those already trained in Christian knowledge, grown up, as it were, to manhood,

Erasmus, Castalio, Estius, Bengel, Semler, Stolz, as well as Pott, Usteri, Schrader, Rückert, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Neander, Maier, Hofmann, accord. Chrysostom, however, Theophylact, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Rosenmüller, and others, including Tittmann, Flatt, Billroth, and Olshausen, understand by the τέλειοι the Christians generally, or the true Christians, to whom the apostle’s doctrine (σοφίαν λέγει τὸ κήρυγμα καὶ τὸν τρόπον τῆς σωτηρίας, τὸ διὰ σταυροῦ σωθῆναι, τελείους δὲ τοὺς πεπιστευκότας, Chrysostom), appeared as wisdom, not as folly. “Ea dicimus quae plena esse sapientiae judicabunt veri ac probi Christiani,” Grotius. But 1 Corinthians 3:2 is decisive against this view; for there γάλα denotes the instruction of beginners as distinguished from the σοφία (βρῶμα). Comp the appropriate remarks of Castalio on this passage.

σοφίαν δὲ οὐ τ. αἰῶν. τ.] wisdom, however, which does not belong to this age (δέ, as in Romans 3:22; Romans 9:30; Galatians 2:2; Php 2:8), which is not, like the Jewish and Hellenic philosophy, the product and intellectual property of the pre-Messianic age. Comp 1 Corinthians 1:20. Αἰῶνος τούτου σοφίαν ὀνομάζει τὴν ἔξω, ὡς πρόσκαιρον καὶ τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ συγκαταλυομένην, Theophylact.

οὐδέ] also (in particular) not.

τῶν ἀρχ. τ. αἰῶν τ.] These are the rulers generally (comp Acts 13:27), the dominant powers (proceres) of the pre-Messianic time among Jews and Gentiles. But to say that Paul’s meaning is that he does not teach politics (Grotius), is to limit his words in a way foreign to the connection; he affirms generally that the σοφία in question is a wisdom to which holders of temporal power are strangers. Comp 1 Corinthians 2:8. It is a mistake to explain the ἄρχ. τ. αἰῶν. τ. as referring either to influential philosophers and men of learning[355] (Theodoret, Theophylact, and others, including Pott; comp Neander: “the intellectual rulers of the ancient world”), or to the demons, connecting it with 2 Corinthians 4:4, John 12:31 (Marcion, Origen, some writers referred to by Chrysostom and Theophylact, also Ambrosiaster, Estius, Bertholdt), both of these interpretations being incompatible with the words, and forbidden by 1 Corinthians 2:8; or lastly, to the Jewish archontes alone (Cameron, Hammond, Vorstius, Lightfoot, Locke, Stolz, Rosenmüller), which is contrary to the general character of the expression, and not required by 1 Corinthians 2:8 (see on 1 Corinthians 2:8).

τῶν καταργ.] which are done away with, i.e. cease to subsist (1 Corinthians 1:28, 1 Corinthians 15:24; 2 Thessalonians 2:8; 2 Timothy 1:10; Hebrews 2:14), namely, when Christ returning establishes His kingdom. Comp Revelation 16-19. This reference is implied in the context by the emphatic repetition of ΤΟῦ ΑἸῶΝΟς ΤΟΎΤΟΥ. The expedient of explaining it into: “Whose power and influence are broken and brought to nought by the gospel,” Billroth (comp Flatt and Rückert), rationalizes the apostle’s conception, and does not even accord with history.

The present participle, as in 1 Corinthians 1:18. Comp 2 Corinthians 3:7.

[350] Comp. Rückert, who, as respects the matter, is of opinion that it includes the higher views regarding the divine plan of the world in relation to the development of the kingdom of God, and especially to the providential government of the Jewish people; regarding the import of the divine ordinances and appointments before Christ, for example, of the law in reference to the highest end contemplated—the kingdom of God; regarding the way and manner in which the death and resurrection of Christ bear upon the salvation of the world; as well as regarding the changes yet in the womb of the future, and, in particular, the events which are linked with the second coming of the Lord. Similarly, and still more in detail, Estius. According to de Wette, portions of this wisdom are to be found in the Epistle to the Romans, in the discussions on justification, on the contrast between Christ and Adam, and on predestination; in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, in the indications there given as to the divine plan of redemption and the person of Christ; in our Epistle, chap. 15; views of the same kind in Hebrews 7-10, comp. 1 Corinthians 4:11 ff. Osiander makes this σοφία to consist in the deeper dogmatic development of the gospel as regards its historical foundations and its eternal consequences reaching on to the consummation of the kingdom of God. Comp. Ewald, p. 139, according to whom its contents turn upon the gospel as the centre and cardinal point of all divine-human history, and for that very reason touch all the problems both of history as a whole, and of the creation. Hofmann rightly includes also the final glory of believers.

[355] These are not even included (in opposition to Chrysostom and others, including Osiander), although the ἄρχοντες may have accepted their wisdom, played the part of patrons to them, etc.

1 Corinthians 2:6-16. Wisdom, however, we deliver among the perfect; but it is a higher wisdom revealed to us by the Spirit, which therefore only those filled with the Spirit, and not the sensuous, apprehend.

Paul having, in 1 Corinthians 1:17-31, justified the simple and non-philosophical method of proclaiming the gospel from the nature of its contents, and having now, in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5, applied this to himself and his own preaching among the Corinthians, there might be attributed to him the view that what the preachers of the gospel set forth was no σοφία at all,—a supposition which, in writing to the Corinthians above all, he could not safely leave uncontradicted. He now shows, accordingly, that among ripened Christians there is certainly a σοφία delivered, but not a philosophy in the common, worldly sense, etc.

1 Corinthians 2:7. Θεοῦ σοφίαν] God’s philosophy, of which God is the possessor, who has made it known to those who proclaim it, 1 Corinthians 2:10. This Θεοῦ is with great emphasis prefixed; the repetition of λαλοῦμεν, too, carries with it a certain solemnity, comp Romans 8:15; Php 4:17.

ἘΝ ΜΥΣΤΗΡΊῼ] does not belong to ΤῊΝ ἈΠΟΚΕΚΡ. (with which it was connected expressly as early as Theodoret; comp Grotius: “quae diu in arcano recondita fuit”), but to ΛΑΛΟῦΜΕΝ (Erasmus, Estius, Rückert, Schrader, de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann), not, however, in the sense: “secreto et apud pauciores” (Estius, Cornelius a Lapide), since there is no mention of a disciplina arcani (see on 1 Corinthians 2:6), but rather: by means of a secret, i.e. by our delivering what has been secret (a doctrine hidden from the human understanding, and revealed to us by God, see on Romans 11:25). To this is to be referred also the rendering of Rückert and Neander: as a mystery. Most interpreters, however, join ἐν μυστηρίῳ with ΣΟΦΊΑΝ, sc[362] οὖσαν: God’s secret wisdom (unknown but for revelation). So also Pott, Heydenreich, Billroth, Tittmann, Usteri, Ewald. But the article, although after the anarthrous σοφίαν not in itself absolutely necessary, would be omitted here at the expense of clearness. Paul would have expressed himself with ambiguity, while he might easily have avoided it by ΤῊΝ ἘΝ ΜΥΣΤΗΡΊῼ. On the other hand, if he joined ἘΝ ΜΥΣΤ. to ΛΑΛΟῦΜΕΝ, he could not, seeing that he wished to prefix λαλ. for the sake of emphasis, write otherwise.

ΤῊΝ ἈΠΟΚΕΚΡ.] as respects its nature, by virtue of which it not only had been hidden from all preceding generations, but remained unknown apart from divine revelation. Comp 1 Corinthians 2:9-10; Romans 16:25. The word, which in itself might be dispensed with, is added in order to introduce the following statement with completeness and solemnity.

ἫΝ ΠΡΟΏΡ. Ὁ ΘΕῸς Κ.Τ.Λ[364]] There is no ground here for supplying (with the majority of expositors, including Pott and Heydenreich) ἀποκαλύπτειν, γνωρίσαι, or the like, or (with Olshausen) a dative of the person; or yet for assuming, as do Billroth and Rückert, that Paul meant by ἥν the object of the wisdom, the salvation obtained through Christ. For προώρ. has its complete and logically correct reference in εἰς δόξαν ἡμ. (comp Ephesians 1:5), so that the thought is: “to which wisdom God has, before the beginning of the ages of this world (in eternity), given the predestination that by it we should attain to glory.” This εἰς δόξ. ἡμ. corresponds significantly to the τῶν καταργ. of 1 Corinthians 2:6, and denotes the Messianic glory of the Christians which is to begin with the Parousia (Romans 8:17; Romans 8:29 f.; 1 Thessalonians 2:12). That wisdom of God is destined in the eternal divine plan of salvation not to become (Hofmann) this glory, but to establish and to realize it. This destination it attains in virtue of the faith of the subjects (1 Corinthians 1:21); but the reference to the spiritual glorification on earth is not even to be assumed as included with the other (in opposition to de Wette, Osiander, Neander, and many older expositors), as also the correlative τῆς δόξης in 1 Corinthians 2:8 applies purely to the heavenly glory. Bengel says well: “olim revelandam, tum cum principes mundi destruentur.” It reveals itself then as the wisdom that makes blessed, having attained in the δόξα of believers the end designed for it by God before the beginning of the world.

[362] c. scilicet.

[364] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1 Corinthians 2:8. Ἥν] Parallel with the preceding ἥν, and referring to Θεοῦ σοφίαν (Calvin, Grotius, and most commentators, including Flatt, Rückert, de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann), not to δόξ. ἡμῶν (Tertullian, contra Marc. v. 6, Camerarius, Pott, Billroth, Maier); for the essential point in the whole context is the non-recognition of that wisdom.[366]

εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν κ.τ.λ[367]] parenthetical proof from fact for what has been just asserted; for the ἀλλά in 1 Corinthians 2:9 refers to ἫΝ ΟὐΔΕῚς … ἜΓΝΩΚΕΝ. The crucifixion of Christ, seeing that it was effected by Jewish and heathen rulers together, is here considered as the act of the ἄρχ. τ. αἰῶν. collectively.

τὸν Κύριον τῆς δόξης] Christ is the Lord, and, inasmuch as His qualitative characteristic condition is that of the divine glory in heaven, from which He came and to which He has returned (John 17:5; Luke 24:26; Php 3:20 f.; Colossians 3:1-4, al[368]), the Lord of glory. Comp Jam 2:1. In a precisely analogous way God is called, in Ephesians 1:17, Ὁ ΠΑΤῊΡ Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς. Comp Acts 7:2; Psalm 24:7; Hebrews 9:5. In all these passages the expression of the adjectival notion by the genitive has rhetorical emphasis. Comp Hermann, a[372] Viger. p. 887. This designation of Christ, however, is purposely chosen by way of antithesis to ἐσταύρωσαν; for Ὁ ΣΤΑΥΡῸς ἈΔΟΞΊΑς ΕἾΝΑΙ ΔΟΚΕῖ, Chrysostom. Had the ἌΡΧΟΝΤΕς known that ΣΟΦΊΑ ΘΕΟῦ, then they would also have known Christ as what He is, the ΚΎΡΙΟς Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς, and would have received and honoured instead of shamefully crucifying Him. But what was to them wisdom was simply nothing more than selfish worldly prudence and spiritual foolishness; in accordance with it Annas and Caiaphas, Pilate and Herod, acted. Comp., generally, Luke 23:34; Acts 3:17.

[366] The simple uniform continuation of the discourse by ἥν has a solemn emphasis here, as in Acts 4:10, and especially often in the Epistle to the Ephesians. All the less reason is there for taking it, with Hofmann, as equivalent in this verse to ταύτην (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 243 [E. T. 282]), and as introducing a new principal sentence. The asyndetic similar co-ordination of several relative clauses is, from Homer onward (see Ameis on the Odyss. xxiii. 299, append.), a very common usage in the classics also.

[367] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

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

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