성경 주석서

CHAPTER 1

1 Corinthians 1:1. κλητός] is wanting, indeed, in A D E, Clar. Germ. Cyr. (suspected by Mill and Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Rückert), but was easily overlooked by those to whom the fact was known and familiar, that Paul in the beginning of his Epistles almost invariably styles himself ἀπόστ. Ἰ. Χ. διὰ θελ. Θεοῦ without κλητός; see 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1. Comp also Galatians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:1; Titus 1:1; only in Romans 1:1 we find ΚΛΗΤΌς.

Instead of ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ, read, on preponderant evidence, with Lachm. and Tisch., ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ἸΗΣΟῦ.—1 Corinthians 1:2. Τῇ ΟὔΣῌ ἘΝ ΚΟΡ.] is placed by B D* E F G, It. after ἸΗΣΟῦ; so Lachm. and Tisch. No doubt rightly, since the common arrangement of the words is plainly open to the suspicion of transposition on grounds of grammar, whereas there is no reason why, if it stood so originally, it should have undergone alteration. The hypothesis of Fritzsche, de conformat. N. T. Lachm. 1841, p. 44, that ἡγιασμ. ἐν Χ. Ἰ. had been left out, and then reinserted in the wrong place, is an arbitrary one, considering the weight of evidence on Lachmann’s side, and seeing that the right place for the reinsertion would have been so unmistakeable.

ΤΕ ΚΑΊ] Lachm.: ΚΑΊ, according to B D G א. But how easily ΤΕ might be dropped without its being noticed!—1 Corinthians 1:14. Rückert has ΜΟΥ after ΘΕῷ, in accordance with A, 17, 57, al[67], and several vss[68] and Fathers. An addition from 1 Corinthians 1:4-15. ἐβάπτισα] A B C* א, min[69] and several vss[70] and Fathers have ἐβαπτίσθητε; so Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. Rightly; the immediate context in 1 Corinthians 1:14; 1 Corinthians 1:16 led to the introduction of the active at a very early date (Syr[71] Tert.).—1 Corinthians 1:20. τούτου after κόσμου is wanting in very important witnesses. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Rückert. A mechanical addition from the foregoing.—1 Corinthians 1:22. σημεῖον] σημεῖα, adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Rück. Tisch. Scholz, is so decisively attested by A B C D E F G א, min[72] and many vss[73] and Fathers, that we must regard the singular as introduced through the recollection of Matthew 12:38 f., 1 Corinthians 16:4, al[74] The reading ἐπιζήτουσιν in A points in the same direction. See the detailed justification of the plur. in Reiche, Commentar. crit. I. p. 121 ff.—1 Corinthians 1:23. ἔθνεσι] Elz.: Ἕλλησι, against decisive evidence. Noted on margin, and then adopted in accordance with what goes before and follows.—1 Corinthians 1:28. Before τὰ μὴ ὄντα Elz. has καί, against preponderant testimony. Suspected by Griesb.; deleted by Lachm. Scholz, Rück. and Tisch. Mechanical connection.—1 Corinthians 1:29. τοῦ Θεοῦ] So Griesb. and all later editors, following decisive evidence. Αὐτοῦ in Elz. is an over-hasty correction, due to a failure to recognise the design of the repetition of τ. Θεοῦ.—1 Corinthians 1:30. σοφία ἡμῖν] Approved by Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. Elz. and Scholz, however, have ἡμῖν σοφία. For the former order are A C D E א, min[75] Vulg. ms. It. Harl.** Or. Eus. al[76], further, B, which has σοφ. ἡμῶν, and F G, which have ἡ σοφία ἡμῖν. Ἡμῖν was put first, in order to join σοφία closely to ἀπὸ θεοῦ; while others marked the conception of the true wisdom by the article (F G).

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

[68] ss. vss. = versions.

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

[70] ss. vss. = versions.

[71] yr. Peschito Syriac

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

[73] ss. vss. = versions.

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 1:1. Κλητὸς ἀπόστ. See on Romans 1:1. A polemical reference (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and many others, including Flatt, Rückert, Olshausen, Osiander), which would be foreign to the winning tone of the whole exordium, would have been quite otherwise expressed by one so decided as Paul (comp Galatians 1:1).

διὰ θελ. Θεοῦ] That his position as an apostle called by Christ was brought about by the will of God, was a truth so vividly and firmly implanted in his consciousness, that he commonly includes an expression of it in the beginning of his Epistles. See 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1. “Sua ipsius voluntate P. nunquam factus esset apostolus,” Bengel. Regarding διά, see on 1 Corinthians 1:9 and Galatians 1:1.

καὶ Σωσθένης] Modern interpreters reckon him the amanuensis of the Epistle (see 1 Corinthians 16:21). But the mere amanuensis as such has no share in the Epistle itself, which must, however, be the case with one who holds a place in the introductory salutation. Since, moreover, in 1 and 2 Thess. we find two others besides Paul named with him in the superscription (who therefore could hardly both be mentioned as amanuenses), and even an indefinite number of “brethren” in the Epistle to the Galatians, whereas in that to the Romans the amanuensis—who is known from 1 Corinthians 16:22—does not appear as included in the superscription, we must rather suppose that Paul made his Epistle run not only in his own name, but also (although, of course, in a subordinate sense) in the name of Sosthenes, so that the Corinthians were to regard the letter of the apostle as at the same time a letter of Sosthenes, who thereby signified his desire to impress upon them the same doctrines, admonitions, etc. This presupposes that Paul had previously considered and discussed with this friend of his the contents of the letter to be issued. Comp on Php 1:1. Sosthenes himself accordingly appears as a teacher then present with the apostle and enjoying his confidence, but known to, and respected among, the Corinthians. There remains, indeed, the possibility that he may have also written the Epistle, but only in so far as we are in utter ignorance of who the amanuensis was at all. Had Timothy not already started on his journey (1 Corinthians 4:17, 1 Corinthians 16:10), he would have had a place along with, or instead of, Sosthenes in the salutation of the Epistle; comp 2 Corinthians 1:1.

Theodoret and most commentators, including Flatt, Billroth, Ewald, Maier, Hofmann, identify Sosthenes with the person so named in Acts 18:17; but this is rightly denied by Michaelis, Pott, Rückert, and de Wette. See on Acts, l.c[80] Without due ground, Rückert concludes that he was a young man trained up by Paul—a view least of all to be deduced from the assumption that he was the amanuensis of the letter. The very absence of any definite information whatever as to Sosthenes shows how utterly arbitrary is the remark of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, and Estius, that it was a great proof of modesty in the apostle to name him along with himself.

ὁ ἀδελφός] denotes nothing more special than Christian brotherhood (so also 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1, al[81]), not fellowship in the office of teacher. The particulars of the position of Sosthenes were well known to the readers.

[80] .c. loco citato or laudato.

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

1 Corinthians 1:1-3. Apostolic address and greeting.

1 Corinthians 1:2. Τῇ ἐκκλ. τ. Θεοῦ] Θεοῦ is genitive of the owner. Comp קְהַל יְהֹוָה, Numbers 16:3; Numbers 20:4. The expression is with Paul the standing theocratic designation of the Christian community, in which the theocratic idea of the Old Testament קהל presents itself as realized; it is the πλήρωσις of this קהל. Comp 1 Corinthians 10:32, 1 Corinthians 11:16; 1 Corinthians 11:22, 1 Corinthians 15:9; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:13, al[84]

ἡγιασμ. ἐν Χ. Ἰ.] adds at once a distinctive definition of quality to τ. ἐκκλ. τ. Θεοῦ (see the critical remarks), and thereupon follows the local specification of τ. ἐκκλ. τ. Θεοῦ. “To the church of God, men sanctified in Christ Jesus, which is in Corinth.” How common it is to find a participle in the plural standing in an attributive relation to a collective singular, may he seen in Kühner, II. p. 43; Pflugk, a[85] Eur. Hec. 39. Τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορ., however, is purposely placed after ἡγιασμ. κ.τ.λ[86], because the thought is, that the church of God addressed does in itself and as such (not as Corinthian) consist of those sanctified in Christ. The ἁγιασμός is to be conceived as consecration to God in the Christian church (see above, τ. ἐκκλ. τ. θεοῦ). Comp on Romans 1:7. This belonging to God as His own has its causal ground not out of, but in Christ—namely, in His redemptive work, of which the Christians have become, and continue to be, partakers (perfect) by means of justifying faith (Ephesians 1:4 ff.; Hebrews 10:10). Comp Php 1:1. ἘΝ Χ. Ἰ. gives to the ἩΓΙΑΣΜ. its distinctively Christian character.

κλητοῖς ἁγίοις] added, in order to a properly exhaustive description of that experienced benefit of God’s grace of which the readers, as Christians, were assumed to be conscious; the new element introduced here lies in ΚΛΗΤΟῖς. The call to the Messianic kingdom (conceived as issued effectually, comp on Romans 8:28, and see Lamping, Pauli de praedestin. decreta, Leovard. 1858, p. 32 f.) is, according to the constant conception of the N. T. (Romans 1:6; Galatians 1:6 not excepted), given by God (1 Corinthians 1:9, Romans 8:30; Romans 9:24, al[90]; Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 281) through the preachers of the gospel (Romans 10:14; 2 Thessalonians 2:14); see Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 386 f.

σὺν πᾶσι Κ.Τ.Λ[91]] does not belong to κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, so that the readers were to be made sensible of the greatness of the fellowship in which they, as called saints, stood (Grotius, Bengel, Storr, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Billroth, Rückert, Olshausen, de Wette, Neander, Becker, Hofmann). But it belongs, as necessarily follows from 2 Corinthians 1:1, to the superscription as part of it (on σύν, comp Php 1:1); yet neither so as to mark the Epistle as a catholic one (Theodoret, Estius, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others; comp Schrader); nor so that Paul shall be held, while greeting the Corinthians, as greeting in spirit also the universal church (Osiander, comp Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Billroth, Heydenreich, and others); nor yet so that by the ἐπικαλ. τ. ὄν. τ. Κυρ. were meant the separatists, in contrast to those disposed to adhere to the church (Vitringa, Michaelis), or as if σὺν πᾶσι κ.τ.λ[95] were meant to comprehend all Corinthian Christians without distinction (Eichhorn, Einleit. III. 1, p. 110, Pott); but so that the sense is in substance just that expressed in 2 Corinthians 1:1 : σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἀχαΐᾳ. See below on ΑὐΤῶΝ ΤΕ ΚΑῚ ἩΜῶΝ. The Epistle is primarily addressed to the Christians in Corinth; not, however, to them merely, but at the same time also to the other Achaean Christians, and the latter are denoted by πᾶσι … ἡμῶν. A comma is to be put after ἉΓΊΟΙς.

ΤΟῖς ἘΠΙΚΑΛ. Τ. ὌΝ. Τ. ΚΥΡ.] confessional designation of the Christians, Romans 10:12 f.; Acts 2:21. Respecting the N. T. idea of the invocation of Christ, which is not to be held as absolute, but as relative worship (of Him as the Mediator and Lord over all, but under God, Php 2:10 f.), see on Romans 10:12.

αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἠμῶν] is joined with ΤΟῦ ΚΥΡΊΟΥ by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Erasmus Schmid, Valckenaer, and others, including Billroth, Olshausen, Lücke (de invocat. Chr., Götting. 1843), Wieseler (Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt. p. 324), in such a way as to make it an epanorthosis or (see Wieseler) epexegesis of the foregoing ἡμῶν. But apart from the fact that this ἩΜῶΝ in the habitually used ΚΎΡΙΟς ἩΜῶΝ embraces all Christians, and consequently αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἡμῶν (ἡμῶν being referred to Paul and Sosthenes) would express something quite self-evident, and that, too, without any special significance of bearing,[96] the position of the words is decisive against this view, and in favour of attaching them to παντὶ τόπῳ, to which they necessarily belong as a more precise definition. Comp Vulg.: “In omni loco ipsorum et nostro.” If, namely, σὺν πᾶσι … ἡμῶν must denote the Achaean Christians out of Corinth (see above), then παντὶ τόπῳ requires a limitation to the geographical district which is intended. Now, this limitation is not already laid down by ἐν Κορίνθῳ (Lücke, Wieseler), since it was precisely in the superscription that the need of definiteness in designating the readers was obvious, but it is expressly given by αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἠμῶν, in such a way, namely, that αὐτῶν refers to the Corinthians, who, however, are indicated not by ὑμῶν, but by αὐτῶν, because from the point where the widening of the address (σὺν πᾶσι κ.τ.λ[98]) comes in, the Corinthians appear as third parties. Accordingly the Epistle is addressed: To the Corinthian Christians, and to all who, in every place that belongs to them (the Corinthians) and to us as well (Paul and Sosthenes), call upon the name of Christ. Every place in the province, namely, where Christians lived or a church existed (as e.g. in Cenchreæ, Romans 16:1), was a place which belonged to the Corinthians, a τόπος αὐτῶν, in so far as the church at Corinth was the mother-church of the Christian body in Achaia; but each such place belonged also to Paul (and Sosthenes), in so far as he was the founder and apostolic head of Christianity in Corinth and all Achaia. It is quite in accordance with the ingenious subtlety of the apostle to give the designation of the provincials in such a form, as to make his own authority felt over against the prerogative of those living in the capital (αὐτῶν). As in Romans 16:13 ΑὐΤΟῦ ΚΑῚ ἘΜΟῦ delicately expresses the community of love (comp also 1 Corinthians 16:18; Philemon 1:11; Soph. El. 417 f.: πατρὸς τοῦ σοῦ τε κἀμοῦ), so here ΑὐΤῶΝ ΤΕ ΚΑῚ ἩΜῶΝ the community of right. The objection that the sense in which they belonged to the Corinthians was different from that in which they belonged to Paul and Sosthenes (de Wette), fails to appreciate the point of the words. The offence which Hofm. takes at the reading τε καί (as though it must be equivalent to ΕἼΤΕ) arises from a misunderstanding; it is the usual co-ordinating ΤΕ ΚΑΊ, which here has not even the appearance (Hartung, Partik. I. p. 100) of standing in place of εἴτε. Comp., on the contrary, Hartung, p. 101; Baeuml., Partik. p. 225. Observe, besides, that τε καί gives more rhetorical emphasis to the association of the two genitives than the simple ΚΑΊ; see Dissen, a[100] Dem. de cor. p. 165. Räbiger, krit. Unters. p. 62 f., has assented to our view.[101] Comp also Maier. Those who join ΣῪΝ ΠᾶΣΙ Κ.Τ.Λ[103] to κλητοῖς ἁγ. (see above) usually take αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἡμ. as an analysis of the idea παντί: in every place, where they and where we (Paul and Sosthenes) are, i.e. elsewhere and here in Ephesus. See Calovius, Rückert, de Wette, Osiander. But how meaningless this more precise explanation of παντί would be! In fact, it would be absurd; for, since the subject is all (πᾶσι κ.τ.λ[104]), in which the ἩΜΕῖς are thus already included, an analysis of it into ΑὐΤΟΊ (which the ΠΆΝΤΕς are surely already) and ἩΜΕῖς is utterly illogical. This applies also in opposition to Becker, by whom the ΤΌΠΟς ἩΜῶΝ is held to be Corinth, and to refer to the strangers who come to Corinth. Others have, following Ambrosiaster, referred αὐτῶν to the heathen lands, and ἡμῶν to Judaea (Erasmus, Semler, Bolten; similarly Schrader). Contrary to the text, as is also Wetstein’s opinion: “P. suum locum vocat, ubi ipse per praedicationem evangelii ecclesiam fundaverat. Tacite se atque Sosthenem … opponit peregrino falso doctori, qui in locum non suum irrepserat.” Others refer ἐν παντὶ … ἡμῶν to the different meeting-places of the parties (Vitringa, Mosheim, Eichhorn, Krause, Pott, Ewald), so that the ΤΌΠΟς ἩΜῶΝ would be the house of Justus (Acts 18:7), or, generally, the place where the church had statedly assembled at first under Paul (Ewald); and the ΤΌΠ. ΑὐΤῶΝ the meeting-house of the Petrine party, perhaps the Jewish synagogue (Pott), or, in general, the other places of assembly of the new sections (Ewald). But the presupposition that the church was broken up into parties locally separated from each other (see, on the contrary, 1 Corinthians 14:23, 1 Corinthians 11:17 ff.) has not a single passage in the Epistle to justify it. Böttger, l.c[105] p. 25, holds, strangely, that αὐτῶν applies to the Corinthian Christians, and ἡμῶν to those of Lower Achaia (among whom Paul is supposed to have written; see Introd. § 3); and Ziegler, that αὐτῶν applies to those in Corinth, ἩΜῶΝ to those staying with Paul in Ephesus, Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus (1 Corinthians 16:17), and others. Hofmann propounds the peculiar view that ΚΑῚ ἩΜῶΝ betokens that Paul was at home, and felt himself to be so, wherever Christ was invoked. As if the reader would have been capable of deducing any such ubiquity of spiritual domicile from the simple pronoun, and that, too, in the very address of the Epistle, without the slightest hint from the connection.

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

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

[86] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

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

[91] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[95] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[96] It is supposed to convey a polemical reference to the party-divisions. See Wieseler, l.c. This can only be the case if αὐτῶν applies to the Corinthians. But in fact, according to the view of Lücke and Wieseler (see below), it cannot do so, but must apply to the other Achaeans.

[98] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

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

[101] Also Burger in his (popular) Auslegung, Erl. 1859, and Holtzmann, Judenthum u. Christenth. p. 749.

[103] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[104] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[105] .c. loco citato or laudato.

1 Corinthians 1:3. See on Romans 1:7.[106]

[106] See also the elaborate dissertation on the apost. benedictory greeting by Otto in the Jahrb. für D. Theol. 1867, p. 678 ff. The origin of that greeting, however, is hardly to be traced back, as the author holds, to the Aaronic blessing, Numbers 6:25 f. Otherwise it would always be tripartite, and, in particular, would not omit the characteristic ἔλεος. Now, the only Epistles in which it certainly occurs as tripartite, and with ἔλεος, are the (post-Pauline) ones, 1 and 2 Tim. and 2 John 1:3; also Judges 1:2 (but with a peculiar variation). It was only at a later date that the Aaronic blessing passed over into Christian liturgic use (Constitt. ap. ii. 57. 13); but a free reminiscence of that blessing may already be contained in the greetings of those late Epistles.

1 Corinthians 1:4-5. Μου] as in Romans 1:8.

πάντοτε] always, to be measured not strictly by the literal import of the word, but by the fervour of his constant love. Comp 1 Thessalonians 1:2 f.; 2 Thessalonians 1:3.

ἘΠΊ] ground of the thanks, Php 1:5; Polyb. xviii. 26. 4; Valck. in loc[109] The grace of God, which had been bestowed on them, is described more precisely in 1 Corinthians 1:5 according to its effects.

ἐν Χ. Ἰ.] i.e. in your fellowship with Christ. By this is denoted the specifically Christian nature of the gift, in so far, namely, as it is not attained apart from Christ, but—otherwise it were a worldly gift—has in Christ, as the life-element of those who are its subjects, the distinctive sphere of its manifestation. Just in the same way 1 Corinthians 1:5.

ὅτι] that you, namely, etc., epexegesis of ἐπὶ τῇ χάρ. Κ.Τ.Λ[110]

ἐν παντί] without limitation: in all, in every point; comp 2 Corinthians 9:11; 1 Timothy 6:18; Ephesians 2:4; Jam 2:5. To this Paul forthwith, and again with ἐν (comp 2 Corinthians 6:4), adds the more precise definition chosen in reference to the state of things at Corinth: ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ κ. πάσῃ γνώσει: in all discourse and all knowledge—that is to say, so that no kind of Christian aptitude of speech, or of Christian intelligence, is wanting among you, but both—the former outwardly communicative aptitude, in virtue of which a man is δυνατὸς γνῶσιν ἐξειπεῖν (Clem. Cor. I. 48); and the latter, the inward endowment—are to be found with you richly in every form. This view, according to which λόγος is sermo, occurs in substance in the Greek commentators, in Calovius, Rückert, Neander, Hofmann, and many others, and is confirmed beyond a doubt by 2 Corinthians 8:7; 2 Corinthians 11:6. As to the different kinds of Christian utterance, comp 1 Corinthians 12:8. Λόγος is not therefore to be understood, with Billroth, de Wette, and Maier, of the doctrine preached to the Corinthians. Beza, Grotius, and others take λόγος to be specially the donum linguarum, and γνῶσις the donum prophetiae, which, however, is not conveyed either in the words themselves or in the connection, and is, moreover, at variance with the subordinate importance attached to the γλώσσαις λαλεῖν (chap. 14). Lastly, as to the running together of the two: ἐν πάσῃ γνώσει τοῦ λόγου (Schulz, Morus, Rosenmüller), the very repetition of the πάσῃ, and the difference in point of idea between the two words, should have dissuaded its supporters from such a view; for λόγ. and γνώσ. can as little be synonyms (Clericus, Pott) as דבר and דעת. Clement also, 1, praises the former condition of the church with respect to ΤῊΝ ΤΕΛΕΊΑΝ ΚΑῚ ἈΣΦΑΛῆ ΓΝῶΣΙΝ.

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

[110] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1 Corinthians 1:4-9. Conciliatory preamble, by no means without real praise (Hofmann), assuredly not ironical (Semler, comp Mosheim), which would be unwise and wrong; and not addressed merely to the party of Paul and that of Apollos (Flatt), which is at variance with 1 Corinthians 1:2; but, as is alone in accordance with the character of Paul and with the words themselves, directed to the church as a whole under a persuasion of the truth of its contents,—bringing forward first of all with true affection what was laudable, so far as it existed, and lovingly leaving out of view for a time what was blameworthy, but withal soberly keeping within the bounds of truth and tracing all up to God.

1 Corinthians 1:6. Καθώς] According as, introduces the relation of that happy condition of things (ἐν παντὶ ἐπλουτίσθητε … γνώσει) to its cause. See on John 13:34; John 17:2; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Ephesians 1:4; Php 1:7; Matthew 6:12.

τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χ.] characteristic designation of the Gospel, the publishers of which bear witness of Christ. Comp 2 Timothy 1:8; Acts 1:8; Acts 3:15, al[115]; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Peter 5:1. Comp ΜΑΡΤ. ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ, 1 Corinthians 2:1.

ἘΒΕΒΑΙΏΘΗ] is rendered by most: is confirmed[117] has been accredited (Mark 16:20; Romans 15:8; Hebrews 2:3, al[118]); comp also Rückert: “evinced as true by its effect on you;” and Ewald: “guaranteed among you by signs of the power of the Holy Spirit.” So too, in substance, Hofmann. It is more in keeping, however, with the logical relation of καθὼς Κ.Τ.Λ[120] to the foregoing, as well as with the βεβαιώσει of 1 Corinthians 1:8 (comp 2 Corinthians 1:21; Colossians 2:7), to explain it of the gospel becoming firmly established in their souls (by stedfast faith), so that the opposite is expressed by the Johannine τὸν λόγον οὐκ ἔχετε μένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν (John 5:38). Comp Billroth and de Wette.

ἐν ὑμῖν] in animis vestris.

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

[117] “Non de confirmatione externa verbi, quae fit per miracula, sed de confirmatione interna, quae fit per testimonium Sp. St.,” Calovius. Chrysostom understood it of both; Theodoret, Theophylact, and otters, of the miracles only.

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

[120] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1 Corinthians 1:7. Result of τὸ μαρτ. τ. Χ. ἐβεβ. ἐν ὑμῖν, consequently parallel to ἐν παντὶ ἐπλουτ. ἐν αὐτᾷ. The negative expression μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν is conceived quite after the analogy of the positive πλουτίζ. ἐν (see on 1 Corinthians 1:5), so that ἐν denotes that, in which one is behind (defectively constituted). Hence: so that ye in no gift of grace are behind (i.e. less rich than other churches). Comp Plat. Pol. vi. p. 484 D: μηδʼ ἐν ἄλλῳ μηδενὶ μέρει ἀρετῆς ὑστηροῦντας. Sir 51:24. The sense would be different, if the words were μηδενὸς χαρίσματος (so that no gift of grace is lacking to you). See Romans 3:22; Luke 22:35; John 2:3. Ruhnk. a[124] Tim. p. 51. Lobeck, a[125] Phryn. p. 237; a[126] Soph. Aj. 782. Χάρισμα is here to be taken (with Calvin and others, including Rosenmüller, Pott, de Wette, Maier) in the wider sense of the spiritual blessings of Christianity generally, in so far as believers are made partakers of them by the divine grace through the πνεῦμα ἅγιον (Romans 1:11; 1 Corinthians 7:7); not, with most of the older expositors, as well as Billroth, Rückert, Olshausen, Hofmann, in the narrower sense of the extraordinary gifts (chap. 12 ff.). The proof of this is, first, that the immediately following ἀπεκδεχομ. κ.τ.λ[127] makes the ΜῊ ὙΣΤΕΡΕῖΣΘΑΙ ἘΝ ΜΗΔΕΝῚ ΧΑΡΊΣΜΑΤΙ appear as an ethical endowment; second, that the significant retrospective reference of the ἀνεγκλήτους in 1 Corinthians 1:8 does not suit the ΧΑΡΊΣΜΑΤΑ in the narrower sense, but does suit all the more strikingly the moral character of the Christian gifts of the Spirit in general. The form of expression in the singular here stands as little in the way of this view (in opposition to Hofmann) as at Romans 1:11, and is, in fact, necessitated by the negative form of the discourse. Rückert, indeed, objects: “that Paul could not at all mean here those purely moral blessings, seeing that the Corinthians did not possess them.” The apostle, however, is not speaking of every individual, but of the church taken as a whole (comp already Chrysostom and Theophylact); and, moreover, expresses himself with much caution in a negative way, so that he only needs to answer for the presence of a sufficienter praeditum esse to stand comparison with other churches.

ἀπεκδεχομ. Κ.Τ.Λ[129]] is a significant accompanying definition to what has gone before: as persons, who are not in any wise afraid of the revelation of Christ (1 Peter 1:7; Colossians 3:3 f.) and wish it away, but who are waiting for it. This waiting and that afflux of grace stand in a mutual relation of action and reaction. Bengel says rightly: “Character Christiani veri vel falsi, revelationem Christi vel expectare vel horrere.” The fact that there were among the Corinthians deniers of the resurrection (and consequently of the Parousia in its full idea)—which, we may add, might naturally enough cause this hope to become all the more vividly prominent in the case of the rest—does not take away from the truth of the words, which hold good of the church a potiori. Just as little can they (contrary to the winning tone of the whole preamble) have it as their design to terrify with the thought of the day of judgment (Chrysostom), or to censure the doubters (Grotius, Rückert), or even to make ironical reference to the fancied perfection of the Corinthians (Mosheim). The participial clause, which needed neither ὡς nor the article, is not merely a temporal definition—consequently “for the time” of the waiting (Hofmann)—any more than at Titus 2:13; Romans 8:23; Judges 1:21.

ἀπεκδ.] denotes the persevering expectation. See on Romans 8:19; Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 150 ff. The word does not indicate the element of longing (de Wette). See Romans 8:25; 1 Peter 3:20. For the subject-matter, comp Php 3:20; Titus 2:13; 2 Timothy 4:8; Luke 12:36.

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

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

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

[127] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[129] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1 Corinthians 1:8. Ὅς] refers to Ἰησοῦ Χ., not, as Flatt, Pott, Billroth, Schrader, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann, with the majority of interpreters, assume, to the far-distant Θεός 1 Corinthians 1:4,—a view to which we are not compelled either by the Ἰησ. Χριστοῦ which follows (see below), or by 1 Corinthians 1:9, seeing that the working of the exalted Christ is in fact subordinated to the will of God (1 Corinthians 3:23, 1 Corinthians 11:3; Romans 8:34, al[131]). Comp Winer, p. 149 [E.T. 196]. The apostle, however, is so full of Christ, as he addresses himself to his Epistle, that throughout the preamble he names Him in almost every verse, sometimes even twice. Comp Romans 1:1-7.

καί] also, denotes that which corresponds to the ἀπεκδέχεσθαι κ.τ.λ[134], what Christ will do.

ΒΕΒΑΙΏΣΕΙ] ΣΤΗΡΊΞΕΙ Romans 16:25; 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 2 Corinthians 1:21. The future stands here not optatively (Pott), but as expressive of a confident hope in the gracious working of Christ.[135]

ἝΩς ΤΈΛΟΥς] applies not to the end of life (Calovius, Flatt, and others), but, as the foregoing τ. ἀποκάλ. Κ.Τ.Λ[136] and the following ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ κ.τ.λ[137] clearly show, to the end of the pre-Messianic period of the world’s history (the αἰὼν οὗτος, see on Matthew 13:32), which is to be ushered in by the now nearly approaching (1 Corinthians 7:29, 1 Corinthians 15:51) Parousia. Comp 1 Corinthians 10:11; 2 Corinthians 1:13. It is the ΣΥΝΤΈΛΕΙΑ ΤΟῖ ΑἸῶΝΟς, Matthew 13:39 f., Matthew 24:3, Matthew 28:20; comp Hebrews 9:26.

ἈΝΕΓΚΛΉΤΟΥς Κ.Τ.Λ[140]] result of the strengthening: so that ye shall be free from reproach in the day, etc. Comp 1 Thessalonians 3:13. See respecting this proleptic usage generally, on Matthew 12:13; Php 3:21, and Jacob, Quaest. epic. ii. 4, p. 136 ff. Stallb. a[142] Plat. Rep. p. 560 D.

τοῦ Κυρίον κ.τ.λ[143]] The repetition of the noun instead of the mere pronoun is common in the classics also (Ellendt, a[144] Arrian. Exp. Al. i. 55; Kühner, a[145] Xen. Mem. i. 6. 1), and elsewhere in the N. T. (Winer, l.c[146] and p. 136 [E. T. 180]). Here (as at 2 Corinthians 1:5; Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:13 f., al[147]) it has solemn emphasis. Comp 1 Corinthians 1:21.

It is to be noted, moreover, that the blamelessness in the day of Christ (comp Romans 8:33) is conditioned (2 Timothy 4:7) by perseverance in the faith (through which justification is appropriated), and consequently rests on the imputation of faith (Romans 4:4 f.); but is nevertheless, in virtue of the moral character and power of faith, as also in virtue of sanctification through the Spirit, of a thoroughly moral nature (Romans 6:1 ff; Romans 8:1 ff.), so that the ἈΝΈΓΚΛΗΤΟς at the Parousia appears not, indeed, as ἈΝΑΜΆΡΤΗΤΟς, but as ΚΑΙΝῊ ΚΤΊΣΙς ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ (2 Corinthians 5:17), who, being divinely restored (Ephesians 2:10; Colossians 3:10) and progressively sanctified (1 Thessalonians 5:23), has worked out his own salvation (Php 2:12) in the consecration of the moral power of the new spiritual life (Romans 8:2 f.; Php 1:10 f.), and now receives the ΒΡΑΒΕῖΟΝ of his calling (Php 3:14), the ΣΤΈΦΑΝΟς of the ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ (2 Timothy 4:8), in the ΔΌΞΑ of everlasting life.

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

[134] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[135] Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and others, find in this expression an indirect censure; as a hint that they were σαλενόμενοι and ἐγκλήμασι νῦν ὑποκείμενοι. A view the more inappropriate, when we consider how natural and familiar to the apostle was the thought expressed with respect to all his churches.

[136] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[137] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[140] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

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

[143] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

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

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

[146] .c. loco citato or laudato.

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